Rashi Part 11

For a long time previous to the events just recorded, Ras.h.i.+ and the Tossafists - the two words summing up the whole intellectual movement of the Jews of France - had brought to all Judaism the reputation of the academies of Champagne and of Ile-de-France.

"He brew literature in France," wrote E. Carmoly, "exercised upon the Jewish world the same influence that French literature exercised upon European civilization in general. Everywhere the Biblical and Talmudic works of Troyes, Rameru, Dampierre, and Paris became the common guides of the synagogues." Ras.h.i.+'s commentaries, in especial, spread rapidly and were widely copied, sometimes enlarged by additions, sometimes mutilated and truncated. It is for this reason that certain commentaries of his no longer exist, or exist in incomplete form.

In view of the fact that at the beginning of the thirteenth century relations between remote countries and Christendom were rare, and that the Christian and the Mohammedan worlds had scarcely begun to open up to each other and come into contact, it is readily understood why Ras.h.i.+ was not known in Arabic countries in his life-time, or even immediately after his death, and why he exercised no influence upon Maimonides, who died exactly a hundred years after him. In the Orient there are no signs of his influence until the end of the twelfth century. In 1192, barely eighty years after Ras.h.i.+'s death, an exilarch had one of his commentaries copied; and at the beginning of the thirteenth century we find the commentator Samuel ben Nissim, of Aleppo, making a citation from Ras.h.i.+.

But it is naturally in the regions nearest to France that Ras.h.i.+'s influence made itself most felt. The profound Talmudist, Zerahiah ha-Levi, who lived at Lunel (1125-1186), rather frequently cites "R. Solomon the Frenchman," and contents himself with merely referring to Ras.h.i.+'s commentary without quoting in full, a fact which shows that the work was widely spread in the Provence. A number of years later, about 1245, Meir, son of Simon of Narbonne, wrote in his apologetic work, "The Holy War": "The commentaries are understood by all readers, for the least as well as the most important things are perfectly explained in them.

Since their appearance, there is not a rabbi who has studied without using them." I have already referred to the testimony of Menahem ben Zerah;[144] to his may be added that of another Provencal, Estori Parhi, who left France in 1306 to visit Spain, and wrote an interesting book of Halakah and of recollections of his travels. About 1320, David d'Estella, philosopher and poet, wrote: "It is from France that G.o.d has sent us a bright light for all Israel in the person of R. Solomon ben Isaac." Ras.h.i.+ was also cited in terms of praise by the brilliant commentator and philosopher Menahem ben Solomon Meiri, of Perpignan (1249-1306), and by the casuist and theologian Jacob de Bagnols (about 1357- 1361), grandson of David d'Estella.

From the Provence, Ras.h.i.+'s renown spread on the one side to Italy, and on the other to Spain. His Biblical commentary was used by Benjamin ben Abraham Anaw (about 1240), of Rome, whose brother Zedekiah was the author of the Halakic and ritual collection s.h.i.+bbole ha-Leket (The Gleaned Sheaves), a work written in the second half of the thirteenth century, which owes much to Ras.h.i.+ and his successors. The celebrated scholar and poet Immanuel ben Solomon Romi (about 1265-1330) seems to have known Ras.h.i.+, one of whose Biblical explanations he cites for the purpose of refuting it. The influence of the French commentator is more apparent in the works of the Italian philosopher and commentator Solomon Yedidiah (about 1285-1330) and the commentator Isaiah da Trani (end of the thirteenth century).

Ras.h.i.+'s influence was more fruitful of results in Spain, where intellectual activity was by far more developed than in Italy.

His renown soon crossed the Pyrenees, and, curiously enough, the Spanish exegetes, disciples of the Hayyoudjes and the Ibn-Djanahs availed themselves of his Biblical commentary, despite its inferiority from a scientific point of view. They did not fail, it is true, occasionally to dispute it. This was the case with Abraham Ibn Ezra, who possibly came to know Ras.h.i.+'s works during his sojourn in France, and combated Ras.h.i.+'s grammatical explanations without sparing him his wonted sharp-edged witticisms. To Abraham Ibn Ezra has been attributed the following poem in Ras.h.i.+'s honor, without doubt wrongfully so, although Abraham Ibn Ezra never recoiled from contradictions.

A star hath arisen on the horizon of France and s.h.i.+neth afar.

Peaceful it came, with all its cortege, from Sinai and Zion.

.... The blind he enlightens, the thirsty delights with his honey-comb, He whom men call Parshandata, the Torah's clear interpreter.

All doubts he solves, whose books are Israel's joy, Who pierceth stout walls, and layeth bare the law's mysterious sense.

For him the crown is destined, to him belongeth royal homage.

When one sees with what severity and injustice Abraham Ibn Ezra treats the French commentator, one may well doubt whether this enthusiastic eulogy sprang from his pen, capricious though we know him to have been. "The Talmud," he said, "has declared that the Peshat must never lose its rights. But following generations gave the first place to Derash, as Ras.h.i.+ did, who pursued this method in commenting upon the entire Bible, though he believed he was using Peshat. In his works there is not one rational explanation out of a thousand." As I have said, Ras.h.i.+ and Ibn Ezra were not fas.h.i.+oned to understand each other.[145] The commentaries of David Kimhi[146] contain no such sharp criticisms. By birth Kimhi was a Provencal, by literary tradition a Spaniard. He often turned Ras.h.i.+'s Biblical commentaries to good account for himself. Sometimes he did not mention Ras.h.i.+ by name, sometimes he referred to him openly.

A pompous eulogy of Ras.h.i.+ was written by Moses ben Nahman, or Nahmanides,[147] in the introduction to his commentary on the Pentateuch; and the body of the work shows that he constantly drew his inspiration from Ras.h.i.+ and ever had Ras.h.i.+ before his eyes. At the same time he also opposes Ras.h.i.+, either because the free ways of the French rabbi shocked him, or because the Frenchman's naive rationalism gave offense to his mysticism. In fact, it is known that Nahmanides is one of the first representatives of Kabbalistic exegesis, and his example contributed not a little toward bringing it into credit. Even the author of the Zohar - that Bible of the Kabbalah, which under cover of false authority exercised so lasting an influence upon Judaism - whether or not he was Moses of Leon (about 1250-1305) used for his exegesis the commentary of Ras.h.i.+, without, of course, mentioning it by name, and sometimes he even reproduced it word for word. The Kabbalist exegete Bahya or Behaia ben Asher, of Saragossa, in his commentary on the Pentateuch (1291) cites Ras.h.i.+ as one of the princ.i.p.al representatives of Peshat - behold how far we have gotten from Ibn Ezra, and how Ras.h.i.+ is cleared of unjust contempt.

Although Nahmanides was wrongly held to have been the disciple of Judab Sir Leon, it was he who introduced into Spain the works and the method of French Talmudists, whom he possibly came to know through his masters. Thus the Spanish Talmudists, though they boasted such great leaders as Alfasi and Maimonides, nevertheless accepted also the heritage of the French academies. Ras.h.i.+'s influence is perceptible and acknowledged in the numerous Talmudic writings of Solomon ben Adret,[148] and it is clearly manifest in the commentary on Alfasi by Nissim Gerundi (about 1350), who copies Ras.h.i.+ literally, at the same time developing his thought, not infrequently over-elaborating it. He also refutes Ras.h.i.+ at times, but his refutation is often wrong. The man, however, who best represents the fusion of Spanish and French Talmudism was a.s.suredly Asher hen Jehiel,[149] who, a native of the banks of the Rhine, implanted in Spain the spirit of French Judaism, and in his abridgment of the Talmud united Spanish tradition, whose princ.i.p.al representative was Alfasi, with Franco-German tradition, whose uncontested leader was Ras.h.i.+.

Since that time Talmudic activity, the creative force of which seems to have been exhausted, has been undergoing a change of character. Asher ben Jehiel, or, as he has been called, Rosh, terminated an important period of rabbinical literature, the period of the Rishonim. We have seen how during this period Ras.h.i.+'s reputation, at first confined within the limits of his native province, extended little by little, until it spread over the surrounding countries, like the tree of which Daniel speaks, "whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much" (Dan. iv. 20-21).

CHAPTER XII

FROM THE EXPULSION OF THE JEWS FROM FRANCE TO THE PRESENT TIME

It might be supposed that the Jews of France, chased from their fatherland, and so deprived of their schools, would have disappeared entirely from the scene of literary history, and that the intellectual works brought into being by their activity in the domains of Biblical exegesis and Talmudic jurisprudence would have been lost forever. Such was by no means the case. It has been made clear that the French school exerted influence outside of France from the twelfth to the fourteenth century, and we shall now see how the Jews of France, saving their literary treasures in the midst of the disturbances, carried their literature to foreign countries, to Piedmont and to Germany.

When the Jews of Germany were expelled in turn, Poland became the centre [center sic] of Judaism, and the literary tradition was thus maintained without interruption up to the present time. It is an unique example of continuity. The vitality of Judaism gained strength in the misfortunes that successively a.s.sailed it,

Per d.a.m.na, per caedes, ab Ipso Ducit opes auimumque ferro.

A large number of Jews exiled from France established themselves in the north of Italy, where they formed distinct communities faithful to the ancient traditions. Thus they propagated the works of the French rabbis. Ras.h.i.+'s commentaries and the ritual collections following his teachings were widely copied there, and of course, truncated and mutilated. They served both as the text-books of students and as the breviaries, so to speak, of scholars.

They also imposed themselves, as we have seen, upon the Spanish rabbis, who freely recognized the superiority of the Jews of France and Germany in regard to Talmudic schools. Isaac ben Sh.e.s.h.et[150] said, "From France goes forth the Law, and the word of G.o.d from Germany." Ras.h.i.+'s influence is apparent in the Talmudic writings of this rabbi, as well as in the works, both Talmudic and exegetic in character, of his successor Simon ben Zemah Duran,[151] and in the purely exegetic works of the celebrated Isaac Abrabanel (1437-1509), who salutes in Ras.h.i.+ "a father in the province of the Talmud." It was in the fifteenth century that some of the supercommentaries were made to Ras.h.i.+'s commentary on the Pentateuch. The most celebrated-and justly celebrated-is that of Elijah ben Abraham Mizrahi, a Hebrew scholar, mathematician, and philosopher, who lived in Turkey.

His commentary, says Wogue, "is a master-piece of logic, keen- wittedness, and Talmudic learning."

However, as if the creative force of the Jews had been exhausted by a prolific period lasting several centuries, Ras.h.i.+'s commentaries were not productive of original works in a similar style. Accepted everywhere, they became the law everywhere, but they did not stimulate to fresh effort. Scholars followed him, as the poet said, in adoring his footsteps from afar.

For if his works had spent their impulse, his personality, on the other hand, became more and more popular. Legends sprang up ascribing to him the attributes of a saint and universal scholar, almost a magician.[152] He was venerated as the father of rabbinical literature. In certain German communities, he, together with a few other rabbis, is mentioned in the prayer recited in commemoration of the dead, and his name is followed by the formula, "who enlightened the eyes of the Captivity by his commentaries." Ras.h.i.+'s commentaries not only exercised profound influence upon the literary movement of the Jews, but also wove a strain into the destinies of the Jews of France and Germany.

During this entire period of terror, the true middle ages of the Jews, for whom the horrors of the First Crusade, like a "disastrous twilight," did not draw to an end until the bright dawn of the French Revolution, the thing that sustained and animated them, that enabled them to bear pillage and exploitation, martyrdom and exile, was their unremitting study of the Bible and the Talmud. And how could they have become so pa.s.sionately devoted to the reading of the two books, if Ras.h.i.+ had not given them the key, if he had not thus converted the books into a safeguard for the Jews, a lamp in the midst of darkness, a bright hope against alien persecutions?

Ras.h.i.+'s prestige then became so great that the princ.i.p.al Jewish communities claimed him as their own,[153] and high-standing families alleged that they were connected with him. It is known that the celebrated mystic Eleazar of Worms (1160-1230) is a descendant of his. A certain Solomon Simhah, of Troyes, in 1297 wrote a casuistic, ethical work in which he claims to belong to the fourth generation descended from Ras.h.i.+ beginning with Ras.h.i.+'s sons-in-law. The family of the French rabbi may be traced down to the thirteenth century. At that time mention is made of a Samuel ben Jacob, of Troyes, who lived in the south of France.

And it is also from Ras.h.i.+ that the family Luria, or Loria, pretends to be descended, although the t.i.tles for its claim are not incontestably authentic. The name of Loria comes, not, as has been said, from the river Loire, but from a little city of Italy, and the family itself may have originated in Alsace. Its head, Solomon, son of Samuel Spira (about 1375), traced his connection with Ras.h.i.+ through his mother, a daughter of Mattathias Treves, one of the last French rabbis. The daughter of Solomon, Miriam (this name seems to have been frequent in Ras.h.i.+'s family), was, it appears, a scholar. It is certain that the family has produced ill.u.s.trious offspring, among them Yosselmann of Rosheim (about 1554), the famous rabbi and defender of the Jews of the Empire; Elijah Loanz (about 1564-1616), wandering rabbi, Kabbalist, and commentator; Solomon Luria[154]

(died in 1573 at Lublin), likewise a Kabbalist and Talmudist, but of the highest rank, on account of his bold thinking and sense of logic, who renewed the study of the Tossafists; and Jehiel Heilprin (about 1725), descended from Luria through his mother, author of a valuable and learned Jewish chronicle followed by an index of rabbis. He declared he had seen a genealogical table on which Ras.h.i.+'s name appeared establis.h.i.+ng his descent from so remote an ancestor as Johanan ha-Sandlar and including Ras.h.i.+ in the steps.[155] This family, which was divided into two branches, the Heilprins and the Lurias, still counts among its members renowned scholars and estimable merchants.

As if the numberless copies of his commentaries had not sufficed to spread Ras.h.i.+'s popularity, the discovery of printing lent its aid in giving it the widest possible vogue. The commentary on the Pentateuch is the first Hebrew work of which the date of printing is known. The edition was published at Reggio at the beginning of 1475 by the printer Abraham ben Garton. Zunz reckoned that up to 1818 there were seventeen editions in which the commentary appeared alone, and one hundred and sixty in which it accompanied the text. Some modifications were introduced into the commentary either because of the severity of the censors or because of the prudence of the editors. Among the books that the Inquisition confiscated in 1753 in a small city of Italy, there were twenty-one Pentateuchs with Ras.h.i.+'s commentary.

All the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud are accompanied by Ras.h.i.+'s commentaries in the inner column and by the Tossafot in the outer column.

Ras.h.i.+'s authority gained in weight more and more, and he became representative in ordinary, as it were, of Talmudic exegesis.

This fact is made evident by a merely superficial survey of the work Bet Yosef (House of Joseph), which is, one may say, an index to rabbinical literature. Ras.h.i.+ is mentioned here on every page. He is the official commentator of the Talmudic text.

The author of the Bet Yosef, the learned Talmudist and Kabbalist Joseph ben Ephraim Karo (born 1448, died at Safed, Palestine, at 87 years of age), places Ras.h.i.+'s Biblical commentary on the same plane as the Aramaic translation of the Bible. He recommends that it be read on the Sabbath, at the same time as the Pentateuch and the Targum. Luria goes even further.

According to him, when the Targum and Ras.h.i.+ cannot be read at the same time, preference should be given to Ras.h.i.+, since he is more easily understood, and renders the text more intelligible.

Ras.h.i.+'s commentary, therefore, entered into the religious life of the Jews. It is chiefly the commentaries on the Five Books of Moses and the Five Megillot, the Scriptural books forming part of the synagogue liturgy, that were widely circulated in print and were made the basis of super-commentaries. The best of these are the super-commentary of Simon Ashken.a.z.i, a writer of the seventeenth century, born in Frankfort and died at Jerusalem, and the clear, ingenious super-commentary of Sabbatai ben Joseph Ba.s.s, printer and bibliographer, born in 1641, died at Krotoszyn in 1718.

The other representatives of the French school of exegetes have fallen into oblivion. Ras.h.i.+ alone survived, and what saved him, I greatly fear, were the Halakic and Haggadic elements pervading his commentary. An editor who ventured to undertake the publication (in 1705) of the commentary on the Pentateuch by Samuel ben Meir,[156] complains in the preface that his contemporaries found in it nothing worth occupying their time.

Ras.h.i.+'s commentary was better adapted to the average intellects and to the Talmudic culture of its readers.

Ras.h.i.+'s Talmudic commentary, also, was more generally studied than other commentaries, and gave a more stimulating impulse to rabbinical literature. Teachers and masters racked their brains to discover in it unexpected difficulties, for the sake of solving them in the most ingenious fas.h.i.+on. This produced the kind of literature known as Hiddus.h.i.+m, Novellae, and Dikdukim, subtleties. A rabbi, for example, would set himself the task of counting the exact number of times the expression "that is to say" occurs in the commentary on the first three Talmudic treatises. Jacob ben Joshua Falk (died 1648), who believed Ras.h.i.+ had appeared to him in a dream, attempted in his "Defense of Solomon" to clear the master of all attacks made upon him. Solomon Luria and Samuel Edels (about 1555-1631), or, as is said in the schools, the Maharshal and the Maharsha, explain the difficult pa.s.sages of Ras.h.i.+'s Talmudic commentary, sometimes by dint of subtlety, sometimes by happy corrections. Still more meritorious are the efforts of Joel Sirkes (died in 1640 at Cracow), who often skilfully altered Ras.h.i.+'s text for the better.

By a curious turn in affairs it was the Christians who in the province of exegesis took up the legacy bequeathed by Ras.h.i.+.

While grammar and exegesis by reason of neglect remained stafionary among the Jews, the humanists cultivated them eagerly.

Taste for the cla.s.sical languages had aroused a lively interest in Hebrew and a desire to know the Scriptures in the original.

The Reformation completed what the Renaissauce had begun, and the Protestants placed the Hebrew Bible above the Vulgate. Ras.h.i.+, it is true, did not gain immediately from this renewal of Biblical studies; greater inspiration was derived from the more methodical and more scientific Spaniards. But his eclipse was only momentary. Richard Simon, who gave so vigorous an impulse to Biblical studies in France, and who, if Bossuet had not forestalled him, would possibly have originated a scientific method of exegesis, profited by the commentaries of the man he called major et praestantior theologus. All the Christians with pretensions to Hebrew scholars.h.i.+p, who endeavored to understand the Bible in the original, studied Ras.h.i.+, not only because he helped them to grasp the meaning of the text, but also because in their eyes he was the official rabbinical authority.

He was quoted, abridged, and plagiarized - a clear sign of popularity. Soon the need arose to render him accessible to all theologians, and he was translated into the academic language, that is, into Latin. Partial translations appeared in great number between 1556 and 1710. Finally, J. F. Breithaupt made a complete translation, for which he had recourse to various ma.n.u.scripts. His work is marked by clear intelligence and great industry. This translation as well as the commentary of Nicholas de Lyra might still be consulted with profit by an editor of Ras.h.i.+.

Since the Christians did not devote themselves to the Talmud as much as to the Bible, they made but little use of the Talmudic commentaries of the French rabbi. Nevertheless John Buxtorf the Elder, who calls Ras.h.i.+ consummatissimus ille theologiae judaicae doctor, frequently appeals to his authority in the "Hebrew and Chaldaic Lexicon." Other names might be mentioned besides Buxtorf's.

Nor did Ras.h.i.+ fail to receive the supreme honor of being censored by the Church. Under St. Louis autos-da-fe were made of his works, and later the Inquisition pursued them with its rigorous measures. They were prohibited in Spain and burnt in Italy. The ecclesiastical censors eliminated or corrected whatever seemed to them an attempt upon the dignity of religion.

At the present time many French ecclesiastics know Ras.h.i.+ only for his alleged blasphemies against Christianity.

While the Catholics and Protestants who possessed Hebrew learning applied themselves to the study of Ras.h.i.+, among the Jews

"he was always revered, always admired, even as an exegete, but he was admired to so high a degree that no one thought of continuing his work and of deepening the furrow he had so vigorously opened. It seemed as though his commentary had raised the Pillars of Hercules of Biblical knowledge and as though with him exegesis had said its last word. During this period the grammatical and rational study of the word of G.o.d fell Into more and more neglect, and its real meaning became Increasingly obscured. The place of a serious and sincere exegesis was taken by frivolous combinations, subtle comparisons, and mystical interpretations carried out according to preconceived notions and based on the slightest accident of form in the text. Ras.h.i.+ had many admirers, but few successors."[157]

Isaiah Horwitz (1570-1630), whose ritual and ethical collection is still very popular in Eastern Europe, compares Ras.h.i.+'s commentaries to the revelation on Sinai. "In every one of his phrases," he says, "marvellous [marvelous sic] things are concealed, for he wrote under Divine inspiration." His son Sabbatai Sheftel is even more striking in his expressions; he says, "I know by tradition that whoever finds a defect in Ras.h.i.+, has a defect in his own brain." It was related that when Ras.h.i.+ was worried by some difficult question, he shut himself up in a room, where G.o.d appeared to throw light upon his doubts. The apparition came to him when he was plunged in profound sleep, and he did not return to his waking senses until some one brought him an article from the wall of his room. Thus a superst.i.tious, sterile respect replaced the intelligent and productive admiration of the earlier centuries.

To revive the scientific spirit and the rational study of the Scriptures, a Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) was needed. With the year 1780, when his translation of the Pentateuch and his commentary upon it appeared, the renaissance of Jewish learning commenced; even the study of the Talmud, regenerated by the critical spirit of the time, was resumed. Mendelssohn himself drew largely upon Ras.h.i.+'s commentary, correcting the text when it seemed corrupt, trying to decipher the French laazim, and paying attention to the essential meaning of Ras.h.i.+'s explanations, either for the sake of completing or defending them, or for the sake of refuting them in the name of taste and good sense. His collaborators and disciples, the Biurists,-as they are called, after Biur, the general t.i.tle of their works- desirous of reconciling the natural meaning of the text with the traditional interpretations, often turned to good account the views of the French commentator. These writings, which renewed the rational study of Hebrew and the taste for a sound exegesis, worthily crown the work begun by the rabbi of the eleventh century. At this day the Perush of Ras.h.i.+ and the Biur of Mendelssohn are the favorite commentaries of orthodox Jews.

Since Mendelssohn the glorious tradition of learning has not been interrupted again, and Ras.h.i.+'s work continues to be bound up with the destinies of Jewish literature. The nineteenth century will make a place for itself in the annals of this literature; for the love of Jewish learning has inspired numerous scholars, and the renown of most of them is connected with Ras.h.i.+. Zunz (1794- 1886) became known in 1823 through his essay on Ras.h.i.+, a model of critical skill and learning, despite inevitable mistakes and omissions. Geiger 158 won a name for himself by his studies on the French exegetic school. Heidenheim[159] wrote a work distinguished for subtlety, to defend the explanations of Ras.h.i.+ from the grammatical point of view. Samuel David Luzzatto (1800- 1865), with his usual brilliancy, made a warm defense of Ras.h.i.+; and, finally, I. H. Weiss[160] dedicated to him a study dealing with certain definite points in Ras.h.i.+'s life and work. When Luzzatto took up the defense of Ras.h.i.+ with ardor, it was to place him over against Abraham Ibn Ezra, who, in Luzzatto's opinion, was too highly exalted. The considerable progress made by exegesis and philology rendered many scholars aware of the defectiveness of Ras.h.i.+'s Biblical commentaries; while Ibn Ezra was more pleasing to them on account of his scientific intellect and his daring. But the French commentator lost nothing of his authority in the eyes of the conservative students of Hebrew, who continued to see in him an indispensable help. This influence of Ras.h.i.+'s contains mixed elements of good and evil. In some measure he created the fortune of Midras.h.i.+c exegesis, and he is in a slight degree responsible for the relative stagnation of Biblical as compared with Talmudic studies in Eastern Europe.

In Talmudic literature, on the contrary, Ras.h.i.+'s authority is uncontested, in fact, cannot be contested. Its stimulating impulse is not yet exhausted. While the Talmudists of the old school saw in him the official, consecrated guide, the Rapoports,[161] the Weisses, the Frankels,[162] all who cultivated the scientific and historic study of the Talmud, lay stress upon the excellence of his method and the sureness of his information. About twelve years ago, an editor wanted to publish the entire Talmud in one volume. He obtained the authorization of the rabbis only upon condition that he printed Ras.h.i.+'s commentary along with the text.

Thus Ras.h.i.+'s reputation has not diminished in the course of eight centuries. On the first of August, 1905, it was exactly eight hundred years that the eminent scholar died at Troyes. As is proper, the event was marked by a commemoration of a literary and scientific character. Articles on Ras.h.i.+ appeared in the Jewish journals and reviews. Such authorities as Dr. Berliner, Mr. W.

Bacher, and others, sketched his portrait and published appreciations of his works. Dr. Berliner, moreover, issued a new edition of Ras.h.i.+'s Pentateuch Commentary in honor of the anniversary, and, as was mentioned above, Mr. S. Buber celebrated the occasion by inaugurating the publication of the hitherto unedited works of Ras.h.i.+, beginning with the Sefer ha-Orah.

CONCLUSION

The beautiful unity of his life and the n.o.ble simplicity of his nature make Ras.h.i.+'s personality one of the most sympathetic in Jewish history. The writings he left are of various kinds and possess various interests for us. His Decisions and Responsa acquaint us with his personal traits, and with the character of his contemporaries; his religious poems betray the profound faith of his soul, and his sensitiveness to the woes of his brethren.

But above all Ras.h.i.+ was a commentator. He carved himself a niche from which he has not been removed, and though his work as a commentator has been copied, it will doubtless remain impossible of absolute imitation. Ras.h.i.+, then, is a commentator, though as such he cannot aspire to the glory of masters like Maimonides and Jehudah ha-Levi. But the task he set himself was to comment upon the Bible and the Talmud, the two living sources that feed the great stream of Judaism, and he fulfilled the task in a masterly fas.h.i.+on and conclusively. Moreover he touched upon nearly all branches of Jewish literature, grammar, exegesis, history, and archaeology. In short his commentaries became inseparable from the texts they explain. For, if in some respects his work despite all this may seem of secondary importance and inferior in creative force to the writings of a Saadia or a Maimonides, it gains enormously in value by the discussion and comment it evoked and the influence it exercised.

Ras.h.i.+, one may say, is one of the fathers of rabbinical literature, which he stamped with the impress of his clear, orderly intellect. Of him it could be written: "With him began a new era for Judaism, the era of science united to profound piety."