Rashi On The TorahEdit

Rashi on the Torah, the commentary of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi) on the Five Books of Moses, stands as one of the most influential and enduring works in Jewish biblical exegesis. Commissioned by generations of readers eager to understand the plain sense of the text, it also serves as a bridge to the wider interpretive tradition, drawing upon Midrash and Talmud to illuminate language, structure, and meaning. The commentary accompanies the biblical text in many traditional editions, making Rashi’s explanations the first stop for study in countless Jewish communities around the world. His approach helped shape a durable method of Bible study that remains central to both religious life and scholarly inquiry. Rashi is often introduced to students as the primary guide to the biblical text, and his influence extends into the practice of later scholars such as the Tosafot and many later medieval and modern commentators. The work is commonly studied together with Chumash and the broader canon of biblical interpretation, including discussions about the relationship between peshat (the plain meaning) and derash (homiletic or Midrashic interpretation). Pentateuch readers around the globe regularly encounter Rashi’s glosses on every verse.

Overview

Rashi’s Torah glosses are typically concise, aimed at clarifying the immediate meaning of the verse and resolving apparent ambiguities in the Hebrew text. He often begins with the literal meaning and then adds explanations grounded in the linguistic features of Biblical Hebrew, the structure of the verse, and the historical-cultural context of the text. In many entries, he cites or alludes to Midrash and Talmud reasoning, and he frequently consults the Targum Onkelos as a linguistic guide to sense and nuance. This blend—grammatical insight, textual unity, and rabbinic sources—created a practical toolkit for readers who sought not merely to translate, but to inhabit the biblical narrative as a living document with legal and moral implications. The standard Hebrew edition of the Bible presents the scriptural text in the center with Rashi’s comments on the side, a layout that helped anchor a common mode of study across diverse communities. Talmud and Midrash literature thus become accessible not as distant scholastic sources but as clarifying companions to the Torah’s language.

Method and sources

Core aim: establish the plain meaning (peshat) while integrating relevant rabbinic material when it sheds light on the text.
Primary tools: close attention to grammar, vocabulary, and syntax; awareness of how the sequence of verses conveys meaning; use of Targum Onkelos as a linguistic and interpretive clue.
Sources cited or implied: Midrash collections and Talmud discussions that bear on a given verse, especially those that illuminate terms or phrases that might be otherwise opaque.
Relationship to peshat and derash: Rashi is often described as prioritizing the plain sense but not shying away from homiletic or legal implications drawn from the rabbinic tradition; this has led to a view of his method as a bridge between linguistic clarity and traditional interpretation.
Ketiv vs. kere readings: in places where the written text (ketiv) and what is read aloud (kere) differ, Rashi may note the discrepancy and explain the preferred sense, a pattern that has become a familiar feature of his exegesis. ketiv is a common point of reference in discussions of biblical text-critical ideas within traditional exegesis.
Influence on later exegesis: the concise, source-rich style of Rashi on the Torah provided a model that later medieval commentators either followed or consciously engaged with, including the Tosafot and later scholars such as Ibn Ezra and Ramban.

Influence and reception

Rashi’s Torah commentary has occupied a central place in Jewish study for nearly a millennium. In traditional communities, it functions as the accessible entry point to biblical interpretation, after which readers may explore more expansive analyses in later commentaries. The work helped standardize a way of reading the text that acknowledges both linguistic detail and the broader rabbinic tradition, making it indispensable in schools, study halls, and homes. Because Rashi’s approach blends grammatical explanation with references to rabbinic sources, it has encouraged a continuous dialogue between the biblical text and the evolving body of Midrash and Talmud literature. The impact extends beyond Ashkenazi centers; his method and phrasing circulated widely, influencing diverse schools of thought and remaining a touchstone for discussion about how to read and apply the Torah’s verses in daily life. The relationship between Rashi and other foundational voices, such as Rashbam (his grandson) and later commentaries, helped shape a coherent tradition of biblical interpretation that persists in modern editions of the Chumash and in contemporary scholarship. See also the broader history of biblical exegesis and the way medieval exegesis engages with the text’s language and law.

Controversies and debates

Midrash within a legal-technical text: traditionalists emphasize that Rashi’s integration of rabbinic material serves to illuminate the text’s meaning and its practical implications for interpretation and practice. Critics from later analytic or critical schools sometimes argue that this blend can blur the line between the plain sense and homiletic expansion. From a traditional perspective, however, the rabbinic materials are understood as an essential part of the interpretive tradition that preserves the text’s living authority.
Source analysis and historical context: modern readers occasionally challenge the reliability or dating of the sources Rashi cites, or question whether his citations reflect a direct chain of transmission or a retrospective synthesis. Proponents of traditional exegesis respond that Rashi’s method reflects a living, collaborative tradition in which earlier rabbinic voices are harmonized with linguistic and contextual clues to reveal the Torah’s intended meaning.
peshat vs derash balance: debates continue about how strictly to separate the plain meaning from homiletic interpretation. Supporters of Rashi’s approach argue that his method intentionally preserves a balance, showing how the text’s plain readings often gain moral and legal significance when read in light of rabbinic interpretation. Critics sometimes prefer a stricter separation, advocating for later, more systematized philology or form-critical methods. In the traditional framework, the balance is viewed as a strength that reflects the text’s layered nature.
Editorial and textual tradition: discussions persist about how Rashi’s commentary was transmitted, edited, and printed over the centuries. The standard format found on many editions of the Tanakh reflects a long editorial history in which Rashi’s glosses were stabilized as a canonical companion to the biblical text. Scholars who study the manuscript tradition emphasize the ways in which copies and printings shaped the received text and commentary, while traditional readers emphasize the continuity of Rashi’s voice across generations.

Texts and editions

Rashi’s Torah commentary is preserved in multiple editions and manuscripts, typically presented as a running gloss on the biblical text. The format—verses with brief, pointed notes—facilitates rapid reference for study and liturgical use, and it complements other medieval exegeses that readers encounter in parallel, such as Ibn Ezra and Ramban. The work’s enduring popularity is reflected in its inclusion in almost all modern editions of the Bible, and in its influence on educational practices, synagogue study, and personal devotional reading. Readers often encounter Rashi alongside other canonical commentaries, and the conversation among these sources is central to many traditions of biblical interpretation that connect language, law, and ethics. The scholarly and devotional worlds continue to cite Rashi as a foundational voice in understanding how the Torah’s verses speak to readers across time and place. Midrash and Talmud are frequently consulted to place Rashi’s explanations in a wider rabbinic context.