Hundreds of supercommentaries have been composed on Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. Those who wrote commentaries include leading rabbinic personalities, such as Rabbi Israel Isserlein (author of Trumat Hadeshen), R. Ovadiah Bertinoro, R. Elijah Mizrahi, the Maharal of Prague, his brother, Rabbi Hayyim ben R. Betzalel, R. Mordchai Jaffe (the Levush) and others. The supercommentaries indicate Rashi’s sources, explain difficult passages and occupy themselves with problems, such as why did Rashi quote this teaching of the Talmudic sages relating to the Pasuk and not another? why does Rashi at times, offer two explanations? why does Rashi explain this word or expression differently in different places?
Supercommentaries continue to be written. Several have appeared in our time. One of them is Pinhas Doron’s Be’ur Setumot BeRashi, which volumes on Bereshit, Shemot, Vayikra and BaMidbar appeared in 1985, 1989 and 1990 respectively. The volume on Devarim came off the press several months ago.
In the new volume are reprinted the rabbinical approbations which appeared in earlier volumes, including one by the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, praising Be’ur Setumot BeRashi as a book meant for Bnai Torah to deepen their understanding of Rashi, especially of difficult passages.
In the introductions to the first three volumes, Doron lists rules and guidelines for the proper understanding of Rashi, which he discerned while working on his book. In the new volume additional rules and guidelines are listed.
Doron is a very erudite scholar. He has delved into Rashi’s sources and has consulted early editions of the commentary. Though, naturally he made use of and often refers to other supercommentaries, his is, substantially a very original work. It is an important addition to the literature on Rashi.
Following is a small excerpt from the book.
In Parashat Hakhel (Devarim 31:12), Rashi comments on the basis of Hagigah 3a. The men come in order to study, the women — to listen. For what purpose come the little ones? That a reward be given to those who bring them.
Doron askes: If the little ones do not learn and do not listen to the reading of the Torah, why should those who bring them be rewarded?
The simple answer is G-d “Desired to make Israel worthy, for this reason he gave them the Torah and many commandments” (Makkot 3:16) i.e. G-d commanded us to bring the children though they do not gain anything by their presence, because by doing so we carry out His commandment and are rewarded.
One can also explain continues Doron, that though the little ones do not understand the words of the Torah, the latter makes an impression on their soul preparing them for the study, as is related of the mother of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananya, who used to bring her infant son to the synagogue in order that his ears “might become accustomed to Divrei Torah” (Jerusalem Talmud, Yevamot, chapter 1).
The volume, which like the one on Bamidbar, was published by Sepher Hermon Press, is written in a precise Hebrew style and includes fine indices of subjects and sources.
We conclude with some minor observations:
In his comments on Velo Tehanem (Devarim 7:22) Rashi quotes two interpretations of our sages: Lo Titen Lahem Hen (You shall not ascribe to them grace) and lo Titen Lahem Haniyah Ba’aretz (You shall not grant them an encapment in the land).
Doron observes: In the Talmud (avoda Zara 20a) we find still another interpretation: Lo Titen Lahem Matnot Hinam (You shall not give them a free gift). Why doesn’t Rashi cite it?
He explains that this is the view of Rabbi Meir (read Rabbi Yehuda) and is not shared by all the other Tannaim. Moreover, Doron argues, this view is difficult to reconcile with the plain meaning of the text. If we are bidden to uproot the seven Canaanite nations, need we be told not to give them any free gifts?
The latter argument is based on a slight misconception. The entire verse Devarim 7:2 relates to the seven nations but the last words “Lo Tehanem” speak of all idol serving people (see Tosafot, Avoda Zara 20a). Hence only Doron’s first explanations – which as indicated by him has already been stated in Bakarat’s Sefer HaZikaron – is valid.
Rashi comments on Snir (Devarim n 3:9) “It means snow in German and in the language of Canaan.”
Doron quotes Abraham Berliner, who cites. A. E. Harkavy and other scholars, according to whom Rashi means by the language of Canaan” to the language of the Slavs. If he had seen it as well as other studies on that subject, he would have learned that Rashi is not the only medieval Jewish scholar who called the language of the Slavs – “the language of Canaan.” During the Middle Ages various nations acquired their bondmen from the pagan Slavs of Eastern Europe (for this reason the bondmen came to be called “slaves”) Noah cursed Canaan to be a slave to his brethren.(Bereishit 9:25-27). The Jews, seemingly, identified the Slavs — because of their supply of bondmen– as descendants of Canaan (See Rashi on Bereshit 9:27 and my reference in Sinai vol. 56 to a remark by S. D. Luzzato).
The Jewish Press, Friday, July 22, 1994, page 52