Rashi - Maurice Liber

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 Good writers do not cite it.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.