I have read hundreds of Rashbam’s insights into verses and know him well as a peshat, (literal) commentator, one of the earliest in the Ashkenazic world. He lived in northern France, in the 12th century, and was a grandson of Rashi. I have also long been aware of his comments at Genesis 37:2: Rashi admitted to him that, “If only he (Rashi) had the time, he would need to revise his commentaries based on the insights into the plain meaning that arise anew, every day.”
But what I did not know, until recent years, were Rashbam’s comments on Genesis 1:1: “All the words of the Sages and their derashot are correct and true.” By “derashot” here, he means interpretations based on traditional hermeneutic rules. How could Rashbam make such a statement? A main purpose of his Torah commentary is disagreeing with many of these interpretations!
The widespread answer given is that Rashbam believed that a verse was entitled to have two different meanings: a plain sense meaning and a “derash” meaning. See, e.g., Ephraim Kanarfogel, “The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz,” (2013), page 31: “In the medieval Jewish mindset in general … peshat, derash, remez (and, perhaps, even sod) were equally valid ways of ascertaining and presenting the truths of the Torah, given the possibility of multiple interpretations and exegesis inherent within the Torah itself … Thus, Rashbam and others could engage in ‘enlightened’ peshat and other critical forms of biblical interpretation while maintaining their roles as leading Tosafists and talmudists …” This is part of a section called, “Multiple Truths and Interpretations.” So in the mind of Rashbam, “peshat” was one category of interpretation and “derash” was another, both equally valid.
(Rashbam admitted that for purposes of Halacha, we have to follow the traditional interpretations of our Sages: “Halacha uproots Scripture.” See his comments at the beginning of Exodus, chapter 21. See also Amnon Bazak, “To This Very Day,” pages 389-90. The last word in this paragraph of Rashbam is probably “mikra,” not “mishnah.” See Torat Chayyim edition, number 2. So, of course, Rashbam wore tefillin—despite his interpretation of Exodus 13:9—on a plain sense level, as only a metaphoric instruction.) But why should the text of the Torah be subject to two such completely different interpretations, peshat and derash?
A little more insight would be helpful. Mordechai Cohen, a professor of Bible at the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Yeshiva University, has provided some insight in his “The Rule of Peshat (2020),” pages 152-65.
Admittedly, the Talmud states that it is heretical to believe that Moses wrote even one verse of the Torah “on his own,” (see Sanhedrin 99a.) Yet, Cohen points out (page 160) that in two passages, Rashbam describes Moses as the author of a portion of the Pentateuch and responsible for its literary arrangement. The two passages are at Genesis 1:1-1 and 37:2. Regarding the former, Cohen writes: “It would seem that, according to Rashbam, Moses, rather than God, was the one who decided to include the creation story in the Bible … ” (Rashbam wrote: “Kol haparsha hazot shel melechet shishah yamim hikdimah Moshe Rabbeinu lefaresh lecha mah sheamar HaKadosh (Baruch Hu) beshaat matan torah: ‘zachor et’ … Moses included it to provide background for what was to be stated as the reason for the Sabbath commandment in the book of Exodus. See similarly at 37:2: “Vechol zeh haya tzarich Moshe Rabbeinu lichtov … And Moshe had to write all of this…”)
Cohen then quotes the scholar, Eleazar Touitou, for the view that Rashbam maintains that the words that God communicated were limited to its main legal sections, whereas the narratives of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, as well as the entire book of Deuteronomy, were formulated by Moses. The scholar, Eran Viezel, goes further and argues that Rashbam ascribed to Moses a role in the formulation of the legal sections as well.
Cohen does not want to go as far as these scholars and wants to keep Rashbam consistent with the statement at Sanhedrin 99a. He suggests that what Rashbam meant at 1:1 was that Moses rearranged material (without adding words). So, according to Rashbam, it would seem that there are two different types of material in the Torah: material authored by God and material authored (or at least rearranged) by Moses.
Once we understand that Rashbam has two different ideas with respect to the authorship of the Torah text, we can better appreciate why he has two different methodologies. When a passage was authored by God, it deserves the “midrash” approach. Cohen explains that “the midrash operates by focusing on the special features of the language of Scripture—its anomalies and redundancies—which ‘hint’ at deeper messages, the aggadot, derashot and halachot. This interpretive operation treats the sacred text as a God-given finished product, to be investigated deeply through the midrashic hermeneutical rules … ”
When a passage was “authored” by Moses, it deserves the plain sense approach. In this approach, Rashbam “seeks to understand how the Pentateuch was compiled by Moses, who committed God’s communications to writing and arranged them with a particular design in mind. To discover Moses’ intentions, Rashbam explores the style and structure of the text (rather than delving beneath its surface) within its historical context and by considering the literary conventions that can explain its seeming anomalies and redundancies.”
Cohen writes further (page 164): “The theory advanced here is that Rashbam maintained a dualistic approach to interpreting the Pentateuch and that this allowed him the freedom to investigate Moses’ intentions in shaping the text … Scripture is indeed a divine work that must be analyzed midrashically for its hidden meanings; but the rabbis acknowledged (in the maxim: ‘ein mikra yotzei miyadei peshuto’) that the Bible also is subject to peshat interpretation, as one would interpret a human document. And this interpretation—as conceived by Rashbam—is aligned with the intention of the human author who served as the conduit for recording God’s word.”
Of course, the problem with Cohen’s approach is that—if Cohen were correct—Rashbam should limit his “peshat” approach to only certain sections of the Torah. Yet, there is no such limitation. But Cohen (page 163) finds it significant that “the two central passages of Rashbam’s commentary that speak of Moses’ authorship of Genesis … also contain his apologies for interpreting peshuta shel mikra, notwithstanding the authority of midrash.”
———
Of course, one can alternatively explain Rashbam’s motivation to write a plain sense commentary as follows: “The Sages derived halachot and derashot from peshat problems in the text, such as extra words or sentences or unusual expressions. Chazal viewed these ‘aberrations’ as concealing information revealed by derash. Thus, to appreciate Chazal’s midrashic interpretations, it is imperative first to understand the peshat.” See Yonatan Kolatch, “Masters of the Word,” volume II (2007), page 97.
But it seems obvious that when Rashbam is offering peshat interpretations, he is not just offering them for the purpose of contrasting them with the controlling derash interpretations.
———
P.S. Regarding the Book of Lamentations, Rashbam disagrees with the Talmud’s attribution of it to Jeremiah. He views the author as an anonymous witness to the destruction of the Temple and suffering of Israel. See Cohen, page 156. In recent times, a commentary by Rashbam on much of Psalms has come to light. Rashbam believes that at least some material dated to the time of Ezra. See Cohen, page 163, and see also Rashbam’s comments to 106:3, 120:1 and 123:1 (on the alhatorah.org site).
Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. There is a great podcast on Rashbam by Professor Martin Lockshin at seforimchatter.buzzsprout.com.
