Hannukah / Mercy Anniversary

Jewish History as viewed through the lenses of prophetic mussar

Did the French expel Jewish people from France and if so why? Orthodox Revisionist History – An Utter Abomination of Avoda Zarah

In 1242, under King Louis IX (Saint Louis), thousands of Jewish Talmudic manuscripts were burned in a public bonfire. This was part of a broader campaign to suppress the Talmud, which had been condemned by Church authorities as heretical. The burning of the Talmud in France was a symbolic act meant to eradicate the perceived “blasphemous” teachings that diverged from Catholic orthodoxy. The king and Church saw the Talmud as promoting ideas contrary to Christianity, leading to this mass destruction. This incident deeply impacted Jewish scholarship in France, particularly the Talmudic traditions.

In 1306, King Philip IV of France, under pressure from both economic and religious factors, expelled the Jewish population from his kingdom. This was not the first expulsion—there had been earlier instances of persecution and forced conversions—but 1306 marked a significant blow to the Jewish community. The expulsion was driven by economic envy and a desire to seize Jewish assets, as well as the growing influence of religious anti-Semitism. The Jews were forced to leave, and their expulsion contributed to a broader pattern of Jewish displacement across Europe during the medieval period.

This destroyed the French Talmudic school of Common Law and as a direct consequence caused the Rambam (assimilated Spanish rabbis embracement of Roman statute law and ancient Greek logic philosophy to cause the Jewish people to forget the lights of Hanukkah! Jews today across the world, but especially in Israel, do not study either the T’NaCH as prophetic mussar common law – the scholarship of Aggada and Midrashim – nor halachic common law which defines how the Gemarah learns the Mishna!)

The loss of Jewish life and scholarship during these periods had profound implications. The destruction of Talmudic manuscripts in 1242, followed by the expulsion in 1306, devastated the Jewish intellectual center in France, which had been a key part of the Talmudic tradition for Ashkenazi Jewry. But the impact of its destruction also directly undermined both the common law sh’itta of learning of both Sephardi Rif and Ashkenazi Rosh. The son of the Rosh embraced the assimilated Spanish schools of Roman statute law and Greek logic.

The loss of French Talmudic texts, alongside the destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common-law masoret, in conjunction with the upheaval expulsion of all French Jewry, played a significant part in shifting Jewish intellectual life and pushing Jewish communities into other parts of Europe. For example, its not known, due to this “shoah”, if the French rabbis supported Rabbeinu Yonah’s נידוי which condemned the Rambam as a heretic. However the rapid spread of the Rambam Civil War from Spain to France, followed by Britain in 1290, strongly suggests that a majority of the Baali Tosafot favored the נידוי ban placed upon the Rambam.

Judicial common law day and night different from Roman Senate statute law. The warp/weft loom of Talmudic scholarship weaves aggadic prophetic mussar into halachic ritual mitzvot. A day/night difference than Greek/Roman legal traditions which organizes law into specific categories – something like eggs sold today by the dozen divided into two rows – where each and every egg in the crate qualifies as a different legal subject.

The contrast of Order between the common law B’hag, Rif, Rosh, and Baali Tosafot from the statute law Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch codes – as obvious as the nose on the face of a man. Another example: the difference between the Rashi common law sh’itta of p’shat on the Chumash contrasted by his Ibn Ezra like sh’itta of p’shat on the Talmud. Herein explains the common law Baali Tosafot criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud.

The distinction between common law and statute law is fundamental to understanding the structure and methodology of Jewish legal scholarship compared to that of Greek and Roman traditions. In the Jewish tradition, particularly in the Talmudic system, law is not static or codified into rigid categories. Instead, it is a living system that compares Case/Din law to similar precedent Case/Din law – applicable across the board to both T’NaCH prophetic mussar/Aggada and Talmudic משנה תורה re-interpretations of the language of the Mishna based upon halachic legal precedents.

Greek/Roman statute law, as exemplified in the assimilated halachic codifications made by the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkah Aruch. This latter separate school of Talmudic scholarship focuses and prioritizes Religious ritual halachic practices. It totally divorces both the Gemara from its purpose of serving as the commentary to the Common law Mishna; and likewise divorces Aggadic prophetic mussar from halachic ritual halacha.

All three of these famous assimilated statute law halachic codes universally fail to connect Gemarah halachic rulings to its primary Mishna which that Gemarah comments upon. Furthermore, the assimilated statute law halachic codes fail to distinguish the fundamental difference between the legal authority of Tannaim vs. Amoraim scholarship.

The statutory approach tends to be more focused on codification, simplification, and organizing law into neat and defined categories. While it has its advantages in terms of consistency and clarity, it can miss the nuance and moral depth that the Jewish common law system brings to the table.

The Rambam approach within Jewish tradition. His Mishneh Torah is a codification of Jewish law that organizes it into distinct sections, with the aim of creating a comprehensive and easily accessible legal code. The Rambam’s legal work is systematic, removing much of the dialectical discourse that characterizes the Talmudic tradition. While his Mishneh Torah remains one of the most influential legal works in Jewish history, its approach contrasts sharply with that of the earlier common law scholars, who preferred a more integrated and flexible approach to Jewish law.

Rashi p’shat on the Chumash radically different from Rashi p’shat on the Talmud. The former makes an aggadic/midrash דרוש comparison to other T’NaCH and Talmudic Primary sources. While the Rashi p’shat on the Talmud sometimes duplicates the common law sh’itta employed by Rabbeinu Tam’s common law — going off the dof of Gemara to bring a precedent from some other Gemara source — most of the Rashi p’shat on the Talmud limits its comments to literal explanation, something like a dictionary of Gemarah terms.

When Rashi offers p’shat on the Chumash, his interpretations often go beyond the literal meaning of the text. Rashi frequently employs aggadic and midrashic comparisons, drawing from other parts of the T’NaCH (Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim) as well as earlier Talmudic sources. This is not a purely literal explanation of words but a moral, theological, and contextual exploration of the verses.

For example, when interpreting seemingly simple narrative passages in the Torah, Rashi will often connect them to aggadic teachings found in other parts of the Torah or in midrashim. In this way, Rashi’s approach on the Chumash reveals a holistic understanding of the text, integrating legal, ethical, and mystical dimensions.

This aggadic/midrashic framework invites readers to see the text as a living document that resonates with deeper moral and spiritual meanings, not merely as a legal code or a collection of events. Rashi engagement with the prophetic mussar which underpins the Torah’s teachings, helping to highlight ethical lessons, divine intentions, and human failings within the narrative.

In contrast to a purely legal or technical reading, Rashi’s midrashic commentaries emphasize the idea that every verse carries a message beyond its apparent meaning. For instance, he might interpret a verse not just as a description of an event but as a moral lesson that relates to broader Jewish thought and values.

The Aggadic Connection to Halacha, which the statutory halachic codes totally remove and divorce halacha therefrom. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash often establishes connections to halachic principles and practices derived from the text. These interpretations align the ethical and legal aspects of Torah together, blending aggadic storytelling with halachic precision. Rashi’s p’shat, not merely a dictionary explanation; rather, it situates the verse within the larger Jewish tradition, inviting the reader to reflect on both its legal and moral implications.

Rashi’s P’shat on the Talmud: A More Legalistic, Literal Approach
Limited to a Dictionary of Gemara Terms: When it comes to Rashi’s p’shat on the Talmud, his approach, markedly different from the one he employs with the Chumash. Here, Rashi tends to focus primarily on literal explanations of terms, difficult words, and concepts in the Talmud. His commentary often functions more as a dictionary of sorts, offering definitions of technical terms or clarifying the meaning of words in the context of the Gemara.

For instance, in the Talmud, where the meaning of a word or phrase might be ambiguous, Rashi provides a direct, straightforward definition. This crucial understanding flow of the Talmudic dialogue, where technical language can sometimes obscure the underlying arguments or halachic principles.

The Limited Aggadic or Midrashic Input: Unlike his approach to the Chumash, Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud does not engage deeply with aggadic or midrashic material. While his work on the Torah includes extensive use of midrashim common law precedents to explain the deeper ethical or theological implications of the verses, his approach to the Talmud remains more focused on legal clarity. Rashi does bring in occasional aggadic material, but it is typically more subdued and terse in comparison to his Chumash commentary.

The primary aim of Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud, to facilitate understanding of the legal arguments and case law found in the Gemara. He often clarifies how specific cases or concepts apply within the Talmudic context, providing explanations of terminology or legal principles without delving into the broader spiritual or ethical teachings that characterize his work on the Chumash.

Rabbeinu Tam’s Common Law Sh’itta vs. Rashi’s simplified p’shat focus: The common law methodology in Talmudic scholarship, especially as practiced by the Rabbeinu Tam, chief among the Baali Tosafot, much more dialectical and intertextual. It involves bringing precedents and cases from other parts of the Talmud to bear on the current discussion. Similar to the case law approach in Jewish law, where legal precedents inform new rulings.

Rabbeinu Tam, in particular, known for his common law approach, often bringing a case from another Gemara to help elucidate or resolve a Talmudic dilemma. This type of intertextual comparison a more dynamic and context-driven style, than Rashi’s typically literal commentary.

Rashi, on the other hand, rarely engages in this type of legal precedent comparison in his Talmudic commentary. He’s more concerned with the clear understanding of terms and concepts within the specific Talmudic passage at hand. This reflects Rashi’s simpler approach in dealing with the legal issues of the Talmud—focusing on explanation and clarification rather than comparison and synthesis of legal principles from other places in the Talmud.

Jews today have forgotten about Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic as the key explanation of the Oral Torah, as codified in the warp/weft – aggada\halacha of the Talmud!! Think about this when you light the lights of Hanukkah!

Simply 7 with Karen Rostoker-Gruber & giveaway: DON’T INVITE A BEAR INSIDE FOR HANUKKAH 

Jewish History as viewed through the lenses of prophetic mussar

Did the French expel Jewish people from France and if so why? Orthodox Revisionist History – An Utter Abomination of Avoda Zarah

In 1242, under King Louis IX (Saint Louis), thousands of Jewish Talmudic manuscripts were burned in a public bonfire. This was part of a broader campaign to suppress the Talmud, which had been condemned by Church authorities as heretical. The burning of the Talmud in France was a symbolic act meant to eradicate the perceived “blasphemous” teachings that diverged from Catholic orthodoxy. The king and Church saw the Talmud as promoting ideas contrary to Christianity, leading to this mass destruction. This incident deeply impacted Jewish scholarship in France, particularly the Talmudic traditions.

In 1306, King Philip IV of France, under pressure from both economic and religious factors, expelled the Jewish population from his kingdom. This was not the first expulsion—there had been earlier instances of persecution and forced conversions—but 1306 marked a significant blow to the Jewish community. The expulsion was driven by economic envy and a desire to seize Jewish assets, as well as the growing influence of religious anti-Semitism. The Jews were forced to leave, and their expulsion contributed to a broader pattern of Jewish displacement across Europe during the medieval period.

This destroyed the French Talmudic school of Common Law and as a direct consequence caused the Rambam (assimilated Spanish rabbis embracement of Roman statute law and ancient Greek logic philosophy to cause the Jewish people to forget the lights of Hanukkah! Jews today across the world, but especially in Israel, do not study either the T’NaCH as prophetic mussar common law – the scholarship of Aggada and Midrashim – nor halachic common law which defines how the Gemarah learns the Mishna!)

The loss of Jewish life and scholarship during these periods had profound implications. The destruction of Talmudic manuscripts in 1242, followed by the expulsion in 1306, devastated the Jewish intellectual center in France, which had been a key part of the Talmudic tradition for Ashkenazi Jewry. But the impact of its destruction also directly undermined both the common law sh’itta of learning of both Sephardi Rif and Ashkenazi Rosh. The son of the Rosh embraced the assimilated Spanish schools of Roman statute law and Greek logic.

The loss of French Talmudic texts, alongside the destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common-law masoret, in conjunction with the upheaval expulsion of all French Jewry, played a significant part in shifting Jewish intellectual life and pushing Jewish communities into other parts of Europe. For example, its not known, due to this “shoah”, if the French rabbis supported Rabbeinu Yonah’s נידוי which condemned the Rambam as a heretic. However the rapid spread of the Rambam Civil War from Spain to France, followed by Britain in 1290, strongly suggests that a majority of the Baali Tosafot favored the נידוי ban placed upon the Rambam.

Judicial common law day and night different from Roman Senate statute law. The warp/weft loom of Talmudic scholarship weaves aggadic prophetic mussar into halachic ritual mitzvot. A day/night difference than Greek/Roman legal traditions which organizes law into specific categories – something like eggs sold today by the dozen divided into two rows – where each and every egg in the crate qualifies as a different legal subject.

The contrast of Order between the common law B’hag, Rif, Rosh, and Baali Tosafot from the statute law Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch codes – as obvious as the nose on the face of a man. Another example: the difference between the Rashi common law sh’itta of p’shat on the Chumash contrasted by his Ibn Ezra like sh’itta of p’shat on the Talmud. Herein explains the common law Baali Tosafot criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud.

The distinction between common law and statute law is fundamental to understanding the structure and methodology of Jewish legal scholarship compared to that of Greek and Roman traditions. In the Jewish tradition, particularly in the Talmudic system, law is not static or codified into rigid categories. Instead, it is a living system that compares Case/Din law to similar precedent Case/Din law – applicable across the board to both T’NaCH prophetic mussar/Aggada and Talmudic משנה תורה re-interpretations of the language of the Mishna based upon halachic legal precedents.

Greek/Roman statute law, as exemplified in the assimilated halachic codifications made by the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkah Aruch. This latter separate school of Talmudic scholarship focuses and prioritizes Religious ritual halachic practices. It totally divorces both the Gemara from its purpose of serving as the commentary to the Common law Mishna; and likewise divorces Aggadic prophetic mussar from halachic ritual halacha.

All three of these famous assimilated statute law halachic codes universally fail to connect Gemarah halachic rulings to its primary Mishna which that Gemarah comments upon. Furthermore, the assimilated statute law halachic codes fail to distinguish the fundamental difference between the legal authority of Tannaim vs. Amoraim scholarship.

The statutory approach tends to be more focused on codification, simplification, and organizing law into neat and defined categories. While it has its advantages in terms of consistency and clarity, it can miss the nuance and moral depth that the Jewish common law system brings to the table.

The Rambam approach within Jewish tradition. His Mishneh Torah is a codification of Jewish law that organizes it into distinct sections, with the aim of creating a comprehensive and easily accessible legal code. The Rambam’s legal work is systematic, removing much of the dialectical discourse that characterizes the Talmudic tradition. While his Mishneh Torah remains one of the most influential legal works in Jewish history, its approach contrasts sharply with that of the earlier common law scholars, who preferred a more integrated and flexible approach to Jewish law.

Rashi p’shat on the Chumash radically different from Rashi p’shat on the Talmud. The former makes an aggadic/midrash דרוש comparison to other T’NaCH and Talmudic Primary sources. While the Rashi p’shat on the Talmud sometimes duplicates the common law sh’itta employed by Rabbeinu Tam’s common law — going off the dof of Gemara to bring a precedent from some other Gemara source — most of the Rashi p’shat on the Talmud limits its comments to literal explanation, something like a dictionary of Gemarah terms.

When Rashi offers p’shat on the Chumash, his interpretations often go beyond the literal meaning of the text. Rashi frequently employs aggadic and midrashic comparisons, drawing from other parts of the T’NaCH (Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim) as well as earlier Talmudic sources. This is not a purely literal explanation of words but a moral, theological, and contextual exploration of the verses.

For example, when interpreting seemingly simple narrative passages in the Torah, Rashi will often connect them to aggadic teachings found in other parts of the Torah or in midrashim. In this way, Rashi’s approach on the Chumash reveals a holistic understanding of the text, integrating legal, ethical, and mystical dimensions.

This aggadic/midrashic framework invites readers to see the text as a living document that resonates with deeper moral and spiritual meanings, not merely as a legal code or a collection of events. Rashi engagement with the prophetic mussar which underpins the Torah’s teachings, helping to highlight ethical lessons, divine intentions, and human failings within the narrative.

In contrast to a purely legal or technical reading, Rashi’s midrashic commentaries emphasize the idea that every verse carries a message beyond its apparent meaning. For instance, he might interpret a verse not just as a description of an event but as a moral lesson that relates to broader Jewish thought and values.

The Aggadic Connection to Halacha, which the statutory halachic codes totally remove and divorce halacha therefrom. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash often establishes connections to halachic principles and practices derived from the text. These interpretations align the ethical and legal aspects of Torah together, blending aggadic storytelling with halachic precision. Rashi’s p’shat, not merely a dictionary explanation; rather, it situates the verse within the larger Jewish tradition, inviting the reader to reflect on both its legal and moral implications.

Rashi’s P’shat on the Talmud: A More Legalistic, Literal Approach
Limited to a Dictionary of Gemara Terms: When it comes to Rashi’s p’shat on the Talmud, his approach, markedly different from the one he employs with the Chumash. Here, Rashi tends to focus primarily on literal explanations of terms, difficult words, and concepts in the Talmud. His commentary often functions more as a dictionary of sorts, offering definitions of technical terms or clarifying the meaning of words in the context of the Gemara.

For instance, in the Talmud, where the meaning of a word or phrase might be ambiguous, Rashi provides a direct, straightforward definition. This crucial understanding flow of the Talmudic dialogue, where technical language can sometimes obscure the underlying arguments or halachic principles.

The Limited Aggadic or Midrashic Input: Unlike his approach to the Chumash, Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud does not engage deeply with aggadic or midrashic material. While his work on the Torah includes extensive use of midrashim common law precedents to explain the deeper ethical or theological implications of the verses, his approach to the Talmud remains more focused on legal clarity. Rashi does bring in occasional aggadic material, but it is typically more subdued and terse in comparison to his Chumash commentary.

The primary aim of Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud, to facilitate understanding of the legal arguments and case law found in the Gemara. He often clarifies how specific cases or concepts apply within the Talmudic context, providing explanations of terminology or legal principles without delving into the broader spiritual or ethical teachings that characterize his work on the Chumash.

Rabbeinu Tam’s Common Law Sh’itta vs. Rashi’s simplified p’shat focus: The common law methodology in Talmudic scholarship, especially as practiced by the Rabbeinu Tam, chief among the Baali Tosafot, much more dialectical and intertextual. It involves bringing precedents and cases from other parts of the Talmud to bear on the current discussion. Similar to the case law approach in Jewish law, where legal precedents inform new rulings.

Rabbeinu Tam, in particular, known for his common law approach, often bringing a case from another Gemara to help elucidate or resolve a Talmudic dilemma. This type of intertextual comparison a more dynamic and context-driven style, than Rashi’s typically literal commentary.

Rashi, on the other hand, rarely engages in this type of legal precedent comparison in his Talmudic commentary. He’s more concerned with the clear understanding of terms and concepts within the specific Talmudic passage at hand. This reflects Rashi’s simpler approach in dealing with the legal issues of the Talmud—focusing on explanation and clarification rather than comparison and synthesis of legal principles from other places in the Talmud.

Jews today have forgotten about Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic as the key explanation of the Oral Torah, as codified in the warp/weft – aggada\halacha of the Talmud!! Think about this when you light the lights of Hanukkah!

Festival of Lights, or: Refractions

Jewish History as viewed through the lenses of prophetic mussar

Did the French expel Jewish people from France and if so why? Orthodox Revisionist History – An Utter Abomination of Avoda Zarah

In 1242, under King Louis IX (Saint Louis), thousands of Jewish Talmudic manuscripts were burned in a public bonfire. This was part of a broader campaign to suppress the Talmud, which had been condemned by Church authorities as heretical. The burning of the Talmud in France was a symbolic act meant to eradicate the perceived “blasphemous” teachings that diverged from Catholic orthodoxy. The king and Church saw the Talmud as promoting ideas contrary to Christianity, leading to this mass destruction. This incident deeply impacted Jewish scholarship in France, particularly the Talmudic traditions.

In 1306, King Philip IV of France, under pressure from both economic and religious factors, expelled the Jewish population from his kingdom. This was not the first expulsion—there had been earlier instances of persecution and forced conversions—but 1306 marked a significant blow to the Jewish community. The expulsion was driven by economic envy and a desire to seize Jewish assets, as well as the growing influence of religious anti-Semitism. The Jews were forced to leave, and their expulsion contributed to a broader pattern of Jewish displacement across Europe during the medieval period.

This destroyed the French Talmudic school of Common Law and as a direct consequence caused the Rambam (assimilated Spanish rabbis embracement of Roman statute law and ancient Greek logic philosophy to cause the Jewish people to forget the lights of Hanukkah! Jews today across the world, but especially in Israel, do not study either the T’NaCH as prophetic mussar common law – the scholarship of Aggada and Midrashim – nor halachic common law which defines how the Gemarah learns the Mishna!)

The loss of Jewish life and scholarship during these periods had profound implications. The destruction of Talmudic manuscripts in 1242, followed by the expulsion in 1306, devastated the Jewish intellectual center in France, which had been a key part of the Talmudic tradition for Ashkenazi Jewry. But the impact of its destruction also directly undermined both the common law sh’itta of learning of both Sephardi Rif and Ashkenazi Rosh. The son of the Rosh embraced the assimilated Spanish schools of Roman statute law and Greek logic.

The loss of French Talmudic texts, alongside the destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common-law masoret, in conjunction with the upheaval expulsion of all French Jewry, played a significant part in shifting Jewish intellectual life and pushing Jewish communities into other parts of Europe. For example, its not known, due to this “shoah”, if the French rabbis supported Rabbeinu Yonah’s נידוי which condemned the Rambam as a heretic. However the rapid spread of the Rambam Civil War from Spain to France, followed by Britain in 1290, strongly suggests that a majority of the Baali Tosafot favored the נידוי ban placed upon the Rambam.

Judicial common law day and night different from Roman Senate statute law. The warp/weft loom of Talmudic scholarship weaves aggadic prophetic mussar into halachic ritual mitzvot. A day/night difference than Greek/Roman legal traditions which organizes law into specific categories – something like eggs sold today by the dozen divided into two rows – where each and every egg in the crate qualifies as a different legal subject.

The contrast of Order between the common law B’hag, Rif, Rosh, and Baali Tosafot from the statute law Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch codes – as obvious as the nose on the face of a man. Another example: the difference between the Rashi common law sh’itta of p’shat on the Chumash contrasted by his Ibn Ezra like sh’itta of p’shat on the Talmud. Herein explains the common law Baali Tosafot criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud.

The distinction between common law and statute law is fundamental to understanding the structure and methodology of Jewish legal scholarship compared to that of Greek and Roman traditions. In the Jewish tradition, particularly in the Talmudic system, law is not static or codified into rigid categories. Instead, it is a living system that compares Case/Din law to similar precedent Case/Din law – applicable across the board to both T’NaCH prophetic mussar/Aggada and Talmudic משנה תורה re-interpretations of the language of the Mishna based upon halachic legal precedents.

Greek/Roman statute law, as exemplified in the assimilated halachic codifications made by the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkah Aruch. This latter separate school of Talmudic scholarship focuses and prioritizes Religious ritual halachic practices. It totally divorces both the Gemara from its purpose of serving as the commentary to the Common law Mishna; and likewise divorces Aggadic prophetic mussar from halachic ritual halacha.

All three of these famous assimilated statute law halachic codes universally fail to connect Gemarah halachic rulings to its primary Mishna which that Gemarah comments upon. Furthermore, the assimilated statute law halachic codes fail to distinguish the fundamental difference between the legal authority of Tannaim vs. Amoraim scholarship.

The statutory approach tends to be more focused on codification, simplification, and organizing law into neat and defined categories. While it has its advantages in terms of consistency and clarity, it can miss the nuance and moral depth that the Jewish common law system brings to the table.

The Rambam approach within Jewish tradition. His Mishneh Torah is a codification of Jewish law that organizes it into distinct sections, with the aim of creating a comprehensive and easily accessible legal code. The Rambam’s legal work is systematic, removing much of the dialectical discourse that characterizes the Talmudic tradition. While his Mishneh Torah remains one of the most influential legal works in Jewish history, its approach contrasts sharply with that of the earlier common law scholars, who preferred a more integrated and flexible approach to Jewish law.

Rashi p’shat on the Chumash radically different from Rashi p’shat on the Talmud. The former makes an aggadic/midrash דרוש comparison to other T’NaCH and Talmudic Primary sources. While the Rashi p’shat on the Talmud sometimes duplicates the common law sh’itta employed by Rabbeinu Tam’s common law — going off the dof of Gemara to bring a precedent from some other Gemara source — most of the Rashi p’shat on the Talmud limits its comments to literal explanation, something like a dictionary of Gemarah terms.

When Rashi offers p’shat on the Chumash, his interpretations often go beyond the literal meaning of the text. Rashi frequently employs aggadic and midrashic comparisons, drawing from other parts of the T’NaCH (Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim) as well as earlier Talmudic sources. This is not a purely literal explanation of words but a moral, theological, and contextual exploration of the verses.

For example, when interpreting seemingly simple narrative passages in the Torah, Rashi will often connect them to aggadic teachings found in other parts of the Torah or in midrashim. In this way, Rashi’s approach on the Chumash reveals a holistic understanding of the text, integrating legal, ethical, and mystical dimensions.

This aggadic/midrashic framework invites readers to see the text as a living document that resonates with deeper moral and spiritual meanings, not merely as a legal code or a collection of events. Rashi engagement with the prophetic mussar which underpins the Torah’s teachings, helping to highlight ethical lessons, divine intentions, and human failings within the narrative.

In contrast to a purely legal or technical reading, Rashi’s midrashic commentaries emphasize the idea that every verse carries a message beyond its apparent meaning. For instance, he might interpret a verse not just as a description of an event but as a moral lesson that relates to broader Jewish thought and values.

The Aggadic Connection to Halacha, which the statutory halachic codes totally remove and divorce halacha therefrom. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash often establishes connections to halachic principles and practices derived from the text. These interpretations align the ethical and legal aspects of Torah together, blending aggadic storytelling with halachic precision. Rashi’s p’shat, not merely a dictionary explanation; rather, it situates the verse within the larger Jewish tradition, inviting the reader to reflect on both its legal and moral implications.

Rashi’s P’shat on the Talmud: A More Legalistic, Literal Approach
Limited to a Dictionary of Gemara Terms: When it comes to Rashi’s p’shat on the Talmud, his approach, markedly different from the one he employs with the Chumash. Here, Rashi tends to focus primarily on literal explanations of terms, difficult words, and concepts in the Talmud. His commentary often functions more as a dictionary of sorts, offering definitions of technical terms or clarifying the meaning of words in the context of the Gemara.

For instance, in the Talmud, where the meaning of a word or phrase might be ambiguous, Rashi provides a direct, straightforward definition. This crucial understanding flow of the Talmudic dialogue, where technical language can sometimes obscure the underlying arguments or halachic principles.

The Limited Aggadic or Midrashic Input: Unlike his approach to the Chumash, Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud does not engage deeply with aggadic or midrashic material. While his work on the Torah includes extensive use of midrashim common law precedents to explain the deeper ethical or theological implications of the verses, his approach to the Talmud remains more focused on legal clarity. Rashi does bring in occasional aggadic material, but it is typically more subdued and terse in comparison to his Chumash commentary.

The primary aim of Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud, to facilitate understanding of the legal arguments and case law found in the Gemara. He often clarifies how specific cases or concepts apply within the Talmudic context, providing explanations of terminology or legal principles without delving into the broader spiritual or ethical teachings that characterize his work on the Chumash.

Rabbeinu Tam’s Common Law Sh’itta vs. Rashi’s simplified p’shat focus: The common law methodology in Talmudic scholarship, especially as practiced by the Rabbeinu Tam, chief among the Baali Tosafot, much more dialectical and intertextual. It involves bringing precedents and cases from other parts of the Talmud to bear on the current discussion. Similar to the case law approach in Jewish law, where legal precedents inform new rulings.

Rabbeinu Tam, in particular, known for his common law approach, often bringing a case from another Gemara to help elucidate or resolve a Talmudic dilemma. This type of intertextual comparison a more dynamic and context-driven style, than Rashi’s typically literal commentary.

Rashi, on the other hand, rarely engages in this type of legal precedent comparison in his Talmudic commentary. He’s more concerned with the clear understanding of terms and concepts within the specific Talmudic passage at hand. This reflects Rashi’s simpler approach in dealing with the legal issues of the Talmud—focusing on explanation and clarification rather than comparison and synthesis of legal principles from other places in the Talmud.

Jews today have forgotten about Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic as the key explanation of the Oral Torah, as codified in the warp/weft – aggada\halacha of the Talmud!! Think about this when you light the lights of Hanukkah!