APPENDIX II

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. THE WORKS OF RASHI

A critical revision of Rashi's works remains to be made. They were used to such an extent, and, up to the time when printing gave definiteness to existing diversities, so many copies were made, that some of the works were preserved in bad shape, others were lost, and others again received successive additions.

1. BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES. - They cover nearly all the twenty - four books of the Bible.

Job. - "On Job the manuscripts are divided into series, according to whether or not they break off at xl. 28 of the text. The one Series gives Rashi's commentary to the end; the other, on the ground that Rashi's death prevented him from finishing his work, completes the commentary with that of another rabbi, R. Jacob Nazir" (Arsene Darmesteter). Geiger attributes this Supplementary commentary, which exists in several versions, to Samuel ben Meir; others attribute it to Joseph Kara. Some regard it as a compilation; others, again, assert that the entire commentary was not written by Rashi.

Ezra and Nehemiah.- Some authors deny that Rashi composed commentaries on Ezra and Nehemiah.

Chronicles. - It is certain that the commentary on Chronicles, which does not occur in the good manuscripts, and which was published for the first time at Naples in 1487, is not to be ascribed to Rashi. This was observed by so early a writer as Azulal, and it has been clearly demonstrated by Weiss (Kerem Hemed, v., 232 et seq.). It seems that Rashi did not comment upon Chronicles at all (In spite of Zunz and Weiss). Concerning the author of the printed commentary there is doubt. According to Zunz (Zur Geschichte und Literatur, p.73), it must have been composed at Narbonne about 1130-1140 by the disciples of Saadla (?).

2. TALMUDIC COMMENTARIES. - Rashi did not comment on the treatises lacking a Gemara, namely, Eduyot, Middot (the commentary upon which was written by Shemaiah), and Tamid (in the commentary on which Rashi is cited). It is calculated that, in all, Rashi commented on thirty treatises (compare Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, s. v., Weiss, and below, section B, 2).

Pesahim. - The commentary on Pesahim from 99b on is the work of Rashbam.

Taanit. - So early a writer as Emden denied to Rashi the authorship of the commentary on Taanit; and his conclusions are borne out by the style. There was a commentary on Taanit cited by the Tossafot, which forms the basis of the present commentary; and this may have belonged to the school of Rashi.

Moed Katan. - The commentary on Moed Katan is attributed by Reifmann to Gershom (Monatsschrift, III). According to B. Zomber (Rashi's Commentary on Nedarim and Moed Katan, Berlin, 1867), who shows that Gershom's commentary is different, the extant commentary is a first trial of Rashi's and was later recast by him. This would explain the differences between the commentary under consideration and the one joined to the En Jacob and to Rif, which is more complete and might be the true commentary by Rashi. These conclusions have been attacked by Rabbinowicz (Dikduke Soferim, II), who accepts Reifmann's thesis. Zomber replied in the Moreh Derek, Lyck, 1870; and Rabbinowicz in turn replied in the Moreh ha-Moreh, Munich, 1871. To sum up, both sides agree in saying that the basis of the present commentary was modified by Rashi or by some one else. According to I. H. Weiss various versions of Rashi's Commentary were current. The most incomplete is the present one. That accompanying Rif is more complete, though also not without faults.

Nedarim. - The commentary on Nedarim, from 22b to 25b, may contain a fragment by R. Gershom. Nor, to judge from the style, does the remainder seem to belong to Rashi. Good writers do not cite it. Reifmann attributes it to Isaiah da Trani, Zomber to the disciples of Rashi.

Nazir. - Several critics deny to Rashi the authorship of the commentary on Nazir. Although there are no strong reasons for so doing, the doubt exists; for differences are pointed out between this and the other commentaries. P. Chajes holds that Rashi's disciples are responsible for the commentaries on Nedarim and Taanit.

Zebahim. - The commentary on Zebahim is corrupt and has undergone interpolations; but there are no strong reasons why it should not be ascribed to Rashi.

Baba Batra. - Rashbam completed his grandfather's commentary on Baba Batra from 29a on, or, rather, later writers supplemented Rashi's commentary with that of his grandson. This supplement is to be found at the Bodlelan in a more abridged and, without doubt, in a more authentic form.

Makkot. - The commentary on Makkot, from 19b on, was composed by Judah ben Nathan (see note in the editions). It seems that a commentary on the whole by Rashi was known to Yomtob ben Abraham.

Horaiot. - The commentary on Horaiot was not written by Rashi (Reifmann, Ha-Maggid xxi. 47-49).

Meilah. - It is more certain that the commentary on Meilah was not written by Rashi. Numerous errors and additions have been pointed out. According to a manuscript of Halberstamm it would belong to Judah ben Nathan.

Keritot and Bekorot. - The commentary on Keritot is not Rashi's, and that on Bekorot, after 57b, according to Bezalel Ashkenazi, is also not Rashi's.

3. PIRKE ABOT. - The commentary on the Pirke Abot, printed for the first time at Mentone In 1560, was cited by Simon ben Zemah Duran (d. 1444) as being by Rashi. But Jacob Emden (d. 1776) denies Rashi's authorship, and justly so. One manuscript attributes the commentary to Isaiah da Trani, another to Kimhi. Though the numerous copies present differences, it is not impossible that they are derived from a common source, which might be Rashi's commentary; for despite some diffuseness in certain passages, the present commentary is in his style. The Italian laazim may have been made by Italian copyists.

4. BERESHIT RABRAH. - The commentary on Bereshit Rabbah. According to A. Epstein (Magazin of Berliner, xiv. Ha-Hoker I), this commentary, incorrectly printed (the first time at Venice, 1568), is composed of two different commentaries. The basis of the first is the commentary of Kalonymos ben Sabbatai, of Rome; the second is anonymous and of later date. A third commentary exists in manuscript, and is possibly of the school of Rashi.

Mention should be made of a commentary on the Thirtytwo Rules by R. Jose ha-Gelili, attributed to Rashi and published in the Yeshurun of Kobak.

5. RESPONSA. - The Responsa of Rashi have not becn gathered together into one collection. Some Responsa mixed with some of his decisions occur in the compilations already cited and in the following Halakic compilations: Eben ha-Ezer by Eliezer ben Nathan (Prague, 1670), Or Zarua by Isaac ben Moses of Vienna (I-II. Zhitomir, 1862; III-V, Jerusalem, 1887), Shibbole ha-Leket by Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw (Wilna, 1887, ed. Buber), Mordecai, by Mordecal ben Hillel (printed together with Rif), Responsa by Meir of Rothenberg (Cremona, 1557; Prague, 1608; Lemberg, 1860; Berlin, 1891-92; Budapest, 1896), etc. (see below, section B, and Buber, Introd. to Sefer ha-Orah, pp.152 et seq.)

6. In rabbinical literature we find quotations from Responsa collections bearing upon special points in Talmudic law, such as ablutions, the making and the use of Tefillin, the Zizit, the order of the Parashiot, the blessing of the priests, the ceremony of the Passover eve, the slaughter of animals, the case of diseased animals, impurity in women, etc.

7. These collections have penetrated in part into the SEFER HA- PARDES, the MAHZOR VITRY, and the other compilations mentioned in chap. IX. Upon this point see chap. IX and articles by A. Epstein and S. Poznanski published in the Monatsschrift, xli.

8. THE LITURGICAL POEMS by Rashi, some of which are printed in the collections of Selihot of the German ritual, are enumerated by Zunz in Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, Berlin, 1865, pp.252-4.

Three books have been wrongly attributed to Rashi: a medical
work, Sefer ha-Refuah; a grammatical work, Leshon
Limmudim, actually composed by Solomon ben Abba Mari of
Lunel; and an entirely fanciful production called Sefer ha-
Parnes (incorrect for Sefer ha-Pardes).

B. THE EDITIONS OF RASHI's WORKS

1. THE BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 1. - According to A. Darmesteter "twenty different editions have been counted of Rashi's commentary, complete or partial, without the Hebrew text. As for the editions containing the Bible together with Rashi's commentary, their number amounts to seventeen complete editions and 155 partial editions, of the latter of which 114 are for the Pentateuch alone." The list of these editions is to be found in Furst, Bibliotheca judaica (Leipsic, 1849, 2d vol. 1851), II, pp.78 et seq.; Steinschneider, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Bodleian Library (Berlin, 1852-1860), col. 2340-57; Ben Jakob, Ozar ha-Sefarim (Wilna, 1887), pp.629 et seq. The first two works enumerate also the super- commentaries on Rashi.

II. Latin Translations. - Besides numerous partial translations, also listed in the works of Furst and Steinschneider, a complete translation exists by J. F. Breithaupt, Gotha, 1710 (Pentateuch) and 1713-1714 (Prophets and Hagiographa) in quarto.

III. German Translations. - L. Haymann, R. Solomon Iarchi. Ausfuhrlicher Commentar uber den Pentateuch. 1st vol., Genesis, Bonn, 1883, in German characters and without the Hebrew text. Leopold Dukes, Rashi zum Pentateuch, Prague, 1833-1838, in Hebrew characters and with the Hebrew text opposite. J. Dessaner, a translation into Judaeo-German with a vowelled text, Budapest, 1863. Some fragmentary translations into Judaeo-German had appeared before, by Broesch, in 1560, etc.

2. THE TALMUDIC COMMENTARIES. - All the editions of the Talmud contain Rashi's commentary. Up to the present time forty-five complete editions of the Talmud have been counted.

3. RESPONSA. - Some Responsa addressed to the rabbis of Auxerre were published by A. Geiger, Melo Hofnaim, Berlin, 1840. Twenty-eight Responsa were edited by B. Goldberg, Hofes Matmonim, Berlin, 1845, thirty by J. Muller, Reponses faites par de celebres rabbins francais et lorrains des xie et xiie siecles, Vienna, 1881. Some isolated Responsa were published in the collection of Responsa of Judah ben Asher (50a, 52b), Berlin, 1846, in the Ozar Nehmad II, 174, in Bet-Talmud II, pp.296 and 341, at the end of the study on Rashi cited below in section C, etc.

4. THE SEFER HA-PARDES was printed at Constantinople in 1802 according to a defective copy. The editor Intercalated fragments of the Sefer ha-Orah, which he took from an often illegible manuscript.

THE MAHEOR VITRY, the existence of which was revealed by Luzzatto, was published according to a defective manuscript of the British Museum, under the auspices of the literary Society Mekize Nirdamim, by S. Hurwitz, Berlin, 1890-1893, 8.

C. CRITICAL WORKS OF REFERENCE

Book I. Chap. 1. - On the situation of the Jews In France in general, the following works may be read with profit: Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, Berlin, 1845. Gudemann, Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden in Frankreich und Deutschland, Vienna, 1880, 8 (Hebrew translation by Frledberg under the title Ha-Torah weha- Hayim, ed. Achiassaf, Warsaw, 1896).

Berliner, Aus dem Leben der deutschen Juden im
Mittelalter, Berlin, 1900.

Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Jewish
Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1896. Concerning
Gershom ben Judah, see Gross, Gallia judaica, Paris,
1897, pp.299 et seq.

Chap. II-IV.-Works in general. Besides the accounts of Rashi in the works of the historians of the Jewish people and literature (especially Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, Leipsic, 1861, vol. vi; English translation published by the Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1895, vols. iii and iv; Hebrew translation by L. Rabbinovitch, Warsaw, 1894, vol. iv), there are two most important studies of Rashi:

1. Zunz, Salomon ben Isaac, genannt Rascht, in Zunz's Zeitschrift fur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1823, pp.277-384. Additions by Zunz himself in the preface to Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, and in the catalogue of the library at Leipsic, by Berliner in the Monatsschrift xi and xii, by Klein, ibid. xi. One appreciates the originality of this study all the more if one reads in the Histoire litteraire de la France, xvi., the passage in which are collected all the legends retailed concerning Rashi in the world of Christian scholars at the time when Zunz wrote.

Zunz's essay was translated into Hebrew and enriched with notes by Samson Bloch, Vita R. Salomon Isaki, Lemberg 1840, 8. Second edition by Hirschenthal, Warsaw, 1862. The essay was abridged by Samuel Cahen in the Journal de l'Institute historique, I, and plagiarized by the Abbe Etienne Georges, Le rabbin Salomon Raschi (sic) in the Annuaire administratif … du departement de l'Aube, 1868. Compare Clement-Mullet, Documents pour servir a l'histoire du rabbin Salomon fils de Isaac in the Memoires de la Societe d'Agriculture … de l'Aube, xix.

2. I. H. Weiss, R. Salomon bar Isaac (in Hebrew), in the Bet Talmud II, 1881-82, Nos. 2-10 (cf. iii. 81). Off- print under the title Biographien judischer Gelehrten, 2nd leaflet, Vienna, 1882.

Other works on Rashi are: M. H. Friedlaender, Raschi, in Judisches Litteraturblatt, xvii. M. Grunwald, Raschi's Leben und Wirken, ibid. x.

Concerning the date of Rashi's death, see Luzzatto, in the Orient, vii. 418.

Book II. Chap. V. - Concerning the laazim see A. Darmesteter in the Romania I.(1882), and various other essays reprinted in the Reliques scientifiques, Paris, 1890, vol. i. The deciphering of the laazim by Berliner in his edition of the commentary on the Pentateuch is defective, and that of Landau in his edition of the Talmud (Prague, 1829; 2d ed., 1839) is still more inadequate. A. Darmesteter's essay on the laazim of all the Biblical commentaries will soon appear.

Chap. VI. - On Moses ha-Darshan there is a monograph by A.
Epstein, Vienna 1891; and on Menahem ben Helbo one by S.
Poznanski, Warsaw, 1904.

Concerning the Biblical commentaries see:
A. Geiger, Nite Naamanim, oder Sammlung aus alten
schatzbaren Manuscripten, Berlin, 1847.

Parshandata, die Nordfranzosische Ezegetenschule,
Leipsic, 1855.

Antoine Levy, Die Exegese bei den franzosischen Juden vom
10 bis 14 Jahrhundert (translated from the French),
Leipsic, 1873.

Nehemiah Kronberg, Raschi als Exeget … , Halle
[1882]. In Winter und Wunsehe, Die judische Litteratur,
ii, Berlin, 1897, Die Bibelexegese, by W. Bacher.

Chap. VII. - See especially the above mentioned essay of Weiss,
and by the same author, Dor Dor we-Dorschaw, Zur Geschichte
der judischen Tradition, Vienna, iv, 1887.

In Winter und Wunsche ibid. ii, Die Halacha in
Italien, Frankreich und Deutschland, by A. Kaminka.

Chap. VIII. - A. Berliner, Zur Charakteristik Raschi's in Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an D. Kaufmann (published also separately), Breslau, 1900.

Chap. IX.-Weiss, ibid.; Epstein in the
Monatsschrift, xli.

Chap. X. - Zunz, Die Synagogale Poesie, Berlin, 1855.
Clement-Mullet, Poesies ou Selichot attribuees a
Raschi, in the Memoires de la Societe academique de
l'Aube, xx; published by itself, Troyes, 1856.

Book III. Chaps. XI-XII. - The history of Rashi's influence forms part of the general history of later rabbinical literature. Mention, therefore, may be made of the following works, besides the history of Graetz, the works of Geiger and of A. Levy, and the references in Winter und Wunsche, II:

Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur.

Renan [and Neubauer], Les rabbins francais (Histoire
litteraire de la France), Paris, 1877.

L. Wogue, Histoire de la Bible et de l'exegese biblique,
Paris, 1881.

I.H. Weiss, Dor Dor we-Dorshaw, iv and V.

Gross, Gallia judaica, Paris, 1897, passim.

Berliner, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Raschi-Commentare,
Berlin, 1903.

It is impossible to enumerate all the monographs and all the magazine articles. Concerning Samuel b. Meir, see Rosin, R. Samuel ben Meir als Schrifterklarer, Breslau, 1880; concerning Jacob Tam, see Weiss, Rabbenu Tam, in the Bet Talmud, iii; concerning Jacob b. Simson, see Epstein in the Revue des etudes juives, xxxv, pp.240 et seq.; concerning Shemaiah, see A. Epstein in the Monatsschrift, xli, pp.257, 296, 564; concerning Simson b. Abraham, see H. Gross in the Revue des etudes juives, vii and viii; concerning Judah Sir Leon, see Gross in Berliner's Magazin, iv and V.

The influence of Rashi upon Nicholas de Lyra and Luthcr is the subject of an essay by Siegfried in Archiv fur wissenschaftliche Erforsehung des Alten Testaments, i and ii. For Nicholas de Lyra alone, see Neumann in the Revue des etudes juives, xxvi and xxvii.

Concerning Rashi's descendants, see Epstein, Mishpahat
Luria et Kohen-Zedek in Ha-Goren, i, Appendix.