Introduction
In Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 3:8, it states: ‘I have come only to explain the plain meaning of scripture (p’shuto shel mikra).’ This early comment in Genesis, among many other similar statements, is understood by some supercommentaries to serve as a fundamental guiding principle for Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. There are three general views pertaining to the nature of Rashi’s commentary: a. some argue that Rashi is not at all a commentary committed to p’shat, since it primarily cites midrash. This is the view of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1009-1167) and found in the introduction to Sefer ha-Zikaron commentary on the Torah.[1] This is the view of Avraham Grossman and Daniel Sperber, who both follow the view that Rashi is not a ‘pashtan.’ A second view is R. Elijah Mizrachi, who maintains that Rashi is close to p’shat.[2] A third view is Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe (1902-1994), that Rashi is committed to p’shat, and when citing midrash, it is selective, and, in many cases, rewords the midrashic text to be consistent with ‘p’shat.’ We will explore this principle through the variants of Rashi’s comment on Genesis 3:8, as found in the numerous manuscripts of Rashi at Oxford’s Bodleian Library and other libraries that house manuscripts of Rashi.
Genesis 3:8
The basis for the idea that Rashi is committed to the interpretation of p’shat in his commentary is from his comment on Genesis 3:8. The verse states: ‘They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day; and the Human and his wife hid from G-d among the trees of the garden.’
Midrash: Sound, Essence of the Divine, trees, man
Midrash Rabba (19:7-8) presents four interpretations: 1. Rabbi Ḥalfon said: We have heard that walking about [hi-lukh] is [an expression] used regarding sound. 2. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: ‘me-halekh’ is not written here, but rather: ‘mit-halekh,’ [which connotes] leaping up and ascending. The essence of the Divine Presence had been in the lower world, but when Adam the first man sinned the Divine Presence removed itself up to the first firmament. 3. They heard the voice of the trees saying: ‘This is the thief who deceived his Creator.’ 4. The voice is referring to the angels and ‘going’ refers to man: They heard the voice of the angels saying: ‘The L-rd G-d is going to those in the garden (to punish them).’ Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Yitzḥak, Rabbi Levi said: [The angels said:] ‘Is the one in the garden to die [met]?’According to this interpretation, ‘mit-halekh’ is interpreted as two words: Is he going to die [met], that man walking [‘holekh’] in the garden?
Medieval: man, voice, revelation
The medieval commentators also dispute the meaning of the verse: 1. Spanish grammarian, R. Jonah ibn Janah, says that ‘walking’ refers to man and is to be interpreted as follows: And they heard the voice of G-d as man was walking in the garden. Likewise, R. Jonah ibn Ganach writes that the meaning of the verse is: and man was walking in the garden toward the cool of the day. The sense of the verse thus being that while man was walking in the garden, he heard the voice of G-d. R. Abraham ibn Ezra, as Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed, writes that the verse employs the term: ‘holekh’ (walking) when referring to a voice, as found in Jeremiah (46:22): ‘The sound thereof shall go (yelekh) like the serpent’s,’ and Exodus (19:19): ‘And when the voice of the horn waxed (holekh) louder and louder.’ Nachmanides argues that it denotes revelation or departure of revelation: the sense of ‘walking in the garden of Eden’ is similar to that of the verses: ‘And I will walk among you’ (Leviticus 26:12); ‘And the Eternal went as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham’ (Genesis 18:33);’ ‘I will go and return to My place’ (Hosea 5:15). All these verses indicate a revelation of the Divine Presence in that place or the departure from the place wherein He was revealed.
Rashi
Rashi presents two comments on the verse in the printed edition:
‘And they heard:’ There are many Midrashic explanations and our teachers have already collected them in their appropriate places in Genesis Rabbah and in other Midrashim. I, however, am only concerned with the plain sense of Scripture and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them.
In a second comment, Rashi writes:
‘And they heard:’ What did they hear? They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden.
Rashi’s view is, similar to the first opinion found in the midrash, and Ibn Ezra and Maimonides, that: ‘mit-halekh’ (walking) refers, not to G-d, but the sound of G-d.
Ambiguities in Rashi’s comment
There are a number of ambiguities in Rashi:
1. Is Rashi stating there are two methods of interpretation in his commentary: a. p’shat and b. ‘such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them,’ or a single method: p’shat, and that the Agadoth citedare also in the category of p’shat?
2. Assuming Rashi discusses two methods, as a in 1 above, is Rashi’s second comment: ‘and they heard: What did they hear? They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden,’ following p’shat or ‘Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them?’
3. Is the principle ‘I have come only to explain p’shat and such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them’ local to the particular verse or a principle for the whole commentary?
4. Is Rashi commenting that the word: ‘mit-ha-lekh’ (going) refers to G-d or the voice?
Manuscripts – single interpretation – p’shat
I would like to argue that the various ways of understanding Rashi’s comment are reflected in the variants of this text among eight manuscripts of Rashi, held at the Bodleian Library and other libraries. The variants in comment are as follows:
1. ‘u’sh’mu’o’
In the following five Oxford manuscripts: CCCMS165, MS. Opp. 34 (1201-1225), MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396), MS. Michael 384 (1399), MS. Opp. 35 (1408), after: ‘I, however, am only concerned with the plain sense of Scripture and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture,’ it states: ‘u’sh’mu’o’ (and its plain meaning). The phrase: ‘u’sh’mu’o’ is not found in the printed edition.
In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), it has the word ‘p’shu’to’ (its plain meaning), instead of ‘u’sh’mu’o,’ signifying their similar meaning.
In a single 15th century Oxford manuscript: MS. Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425), the word ‘u’sh’mu’o’ is omitted, and instead the text is closest to the printed edition: ‘and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them.’
This, however, does not change the intent of Rashi’s comment, suggesting Rashi’s preference for a non-literal interpretation of the text, since, on the contrary, this manuscript omits completely the second half of the comment: ‘and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture,’ implying that Rashi is only concerned with p’shat.
Use of u’sh’mu’o
The use of this word may be found in the Mechilta DeRabbi Yishmael (Tractate Pischa 17):
‘Between your eyes:’ on top of the head. You say on top of the head, but perhaps (the intent is) literally (k-sh’mu’o), ‘between your eyes?’ It is, therefore, written (Deuteronomy 14:1) ‘Sons are you to the L–rd your G–d. You shall not gash yourselves, and you shall not make a bald spot between your eyes for the dead.’ Just as there, the top of the head is meant, so, here.
The phrase can be found also in Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 10:2; 29b): ‘Mine is Manasse (Psalm 60:7), its plain meaning (k’sh’mu’o),’ i.e. referring plainly to Manasse, king of Judah. In both cases, the meaning of ‘k’sh’mu’o’ is: ‘its literal meaning,’ which is the same as p’shat (plain meaning).
2. 'k’mash’ma’o’ / ‘mas’hma’o’ / ‘u’mas’hma’o’
A further variant in the manuscripts, compared to the printed edition, is the word: ‘k’mash’ma’o.’ This appears in manuscripts at the beginning of the second half of the comment: ‘And they heard:’ What did they hear? They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden.’ Instead of the second repeated cited word from the verse: ‘And they heard,’ followed by the question in the opening of the comment: ‘What did they hear?’ it states: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its plain meaning). This is then followed by the comment: ‘They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden.’ The word ‘k’mash’ma’o’ can be found in the following Oxford manuscripts: CCCMS 165, MS Opp. 34 (1201-1225), MS. Opp. 14 (1340), MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396) (‘mas’hma’o’), MS. Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425) (‘u’mas’hma’o’). Only in a single manuscript, MS. Opp. 35 (1408), it states, like the printed edition, a repeat of the opening: ‘And they heard,’ without the question: ‘what did they hear?’
The inclusion of the word: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its literal meaning) is the same as ‘u’sh’mu’o’ (and its plain meaning), further implying that the intent of the comment of Rashi in interpreting the verse: ‘And they heard the voice of G-d going in the garden’ according to its plain meaning.
There are variants, however, how the word: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ is found amongst the manuscripts: in most of the manuscripts, it states: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its plain meaning),but in MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396) it states: ‘mas’hma’o’ (without the prefix ‘kaf’),and in MS. Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425) it states: ‘u’mas’hma’o’ (with a prefix vav).[3]
Use of the word
The use of the word: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ can be find in Rashi’s commentary in conjunction with the term p’shat in Genesis 8:7:
Until the waters were dried up: The real sense of the verse is what it plainly implies (p’shu’to k’mash’ma’o) (until the waters of the Flood were dried up); but the Midrashic explanation (Genesis Rabbah 33:5) is: The raven went to and fro in the world being kept in readiness for another errand during the time when the rain was withheld and the waters dried up in the days of Elijah, as it is said, (1 Kings 17:6) “And the ravens brought him bread and flesh”.
Printed edition – two levels of interpretation
In the printed edition, both phrases: ‘u’sh’mu’o’(its plain meaning)and‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its plain meaning) are omitted. Instead of ‘u’sh’mu’o’(its plain meaning) the word ‘davar’ is added, referencing the verse in I Proverbs 25:11: ‘Like golden apples in silver showpieces, is a phrase well turned (da-var da-vur al of-nov).’ In all the manuscripts, only the last two words appear: ‘da-vur al of-nov.’ In the printed edition, the additional word: ‘davar’ (speech) is added at the beginning. The literal meaning of the sentence, as explained by Rashi on Proverbs, is: ‘a word spoken with proper basis.’
In place of ‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its plain meaning), the printed version of Rashi’s comment inserts a new opening of a comment. It repeats the citation of the word from the verse: ‘and they heard’ (va-yish-me-u), and comments: ‘They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden.’
Summary
The implication of the analysis of the textual history of Rashi’s comment on Genesis 3:8, comparing the manuscripts and published edition, appears to reflect the question whether this comment indicates two levels of interpretation: p’shat and midrash or just p’shat. In the manuscripts, the emphasis appears to be a singular level of interpretation: the plain meaning of the text, as there is no difference in meaning between p’shat, and ‘sh’mu’o,’ despite the latter being juxtaposed to second half of the comment relating to Aggadah. In the printed edition, with the omission of the repeat of the concept of p’shat (u’sh’mu’o), two distinct concepts of interpretation become apparent: p’shat and ‘such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them’ that is not regarded as (the same level of) p’shat as the first.
Omission of second method completely
The view reflected in the manuscripts that omits a second method of interpretation - Aggadah, distinct from p’shat, is most reflected in MS Opp. 14 (1340), where it repeats the phrase: ‘up’shu-to’ (and its plain meaning) after the phrase: ‘such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture,’ and MS. Canon. Or. 35 that omits all-together the phrase: ‘such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them’ all-together. This manuscript, in fact, combines both methods into one: while in most versions it uses the term ‘ha-me-ya-she-vet’ (explains) in the second method when stating: ‘and such Agadoth that explain (‘ha-me-ya-she-vet’) the words of Scripture,’ and ‘le-fa-resh’ (to explain) in the first methid, when stating: ‘I have come only to explain - ‘le-fa-resh’ - the plain meaning of scripture,’ MS. Canon. Or. 35 omits the second method: ‘and such Agadoth that explain (‘ha-me-ya-she-vet’) the words of Scripture, and, instead, uses the word: ‘le-ya-shev’ (to explain) in the first method: ‘I have come only to explain – ‘le-ya-shev’ - the plain meaning of scripture.’ This further illustrates the desire of the manuscript versions not see a distinction between p’shat and non-p’shat pertaining to the statement: ‘and such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture.’
3. Walking - she-ha-ya’
The above evolution of the text of Rashi from a singular concept of p’shat to a two-level concept of p’shat explains a third variant in the manuscripts. This relates to Rashi’s insertion of the word: ‘she-ha-yah’ (that was), to assist with the understanding of the precise meaning of verse. The verse states: ‘They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day.’ Rashi, in the printed edition, adds: ‘she-ha-ya’ (that was) between ‘the sound of G-d’ and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech). The difficulty in the meaning fo the text is: does ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech) relate to ‘G-d’ – the word juxtaposed to the word: ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), or the ‘sound’ (kol) – the earlier word? The most literal meaning is the former, relating to ‘G-d,’ since, firstly, ‘sound’ does not ‘walk’ in a garden, in the literal sense; it may be heard in the garden. On the other hand, G-d is omnipresent. For this reason, the midrash interprets in its first explanation that ‘walking’ refers to the ‘sound’ (kol). This, however, by definition is an opinion that appears in the midrash. As Rashi is making a distinction between midrash and p’shat, it would seem to be rejecting this interpretation, as well as other more far-fetched midrashic interpretations, in favour of the p’shat: it refers literally to G-d, who was walking in the garden. To clarify this point in the printed edition, Rashi inserts the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) between the words: ‘the sound of G-d’ (kol Ha-shem Elo-kim) and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), identifying G-d as the subject that was (she-haya) ‘walking’ in the garden (as opposed to the sound).
This understanding of Rashi is the view of R. Judah Loew (d. 1609). The reason he gives for this interpretation is that the verb: ‘mit-halech,’ in the reflexive form, denotes one who is doing something of one’s own volition. If it would refer to the ‘kol’ (sound), it would have stated: ‘yelech,’ as in Exodus (19:19): ‘The blare of the horn went (‘yelech’) louder and louder.’ To clarify this, Rashi adds: ‘she-haya’ (who was), identifying G-d as the subject that was ‘walking’ in the garden.
A second interpretation of Rashi is by R. David HaLevi Segal (1586–1667), in his commentary Divre Dovid, who argues the complete opposite: Rashi intends, with the additional word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) that it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ in the garden, as the midrash argues in the first interpretation: ‘We have heard that walking about [hilukh] is [an expression] used regarding sound.’
While the word ‘she-hayah’ (that was) can, in theory, apply to either: the words immediately juxtaposed (Ha-shem Elo-kim – G-d), or the earlier word: ‘kol’ (sound), the latter is less p’shat and more midrashic, as indicated from the fact that this view is in fact cited in the midrash. The former is more the plain meaning of the text, as the words are juxtaposed.
The two interpretations of how to understand Rashi’s intention in his comment explaining what it was that was ‘walking in the garden’ – ‘G-d’ or the ‘voice’ - are reflected in the variants in the manuscripts pertaining to the exact place the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) is inserted in Rashi’s comment: In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), ‘she-haya’ (that was) is found, as in the printed version, between ‘G-d’ and ‘walking,’ suggesting the possibility it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ (travelling) in the garden, as per the view of R. David HaLevi Segal. They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day
In other manuscripts, however, it makes it abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is to interpret the verse that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. In CCCMS165, it states: ‘they heard the sound of the Holy one, blessed be He, that (she-hayah) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden.’ The double expression: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ before and after ‘she-hayah’ (who was) makes abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. Rashi MS Munich 5, Leiden 1, BL 26917 also follows this wording. Similarly, in MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), it states: ‘they heard the sound’ and then writes: ‘she-hayah’ (that) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden. Even though it states ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ just once, unlike CCCMS165, the placing of the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that) before the words: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He,’ makes clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden.
Reflecting the ambiguity in the intention of Rashi, MS. Canon. Or. 81 and MS Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425), omits the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) all-together; MS. Michael 384 (1399) goes further and omits, not only the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was), but the whole (second) comment on the verse: ‘and they heard the sound of G-d walking in the garden at the breezy time of day. Similarly, MS. Opp. 35 (1408) omits ‘in the garden’ (be-gan), writing only: ‘they heard the voice, the Holy one, blessed be He, was (ha-yah) walking (mit-ha-lech) at the breezy time of day.’ This suggests ‘walking’ refers to the sound that was heard at a specific time of day – ‘the breezy time of day’ (l’ru-ach ha-yom), but not saying anything about ‘G-d’ or the ’sound’ in reference to going in the garden. In this regard, the manuscript may be suggesting, as per the interpretation of R. Jonah ibn Janah and R. Jonah ibn Ganach, mentioned above, that it is referring to the ‘man’ who is ‘in the garden’ whom ‘hears the sound of G-d at the breezy time of day,’ avoiding the above dispute.
It would seem that the two ways to understand Rashi’s interpretation of ‘the voice of G-d going in the garden’ – midrashic, referring to the ‘voice,’ or literal, referring to ‘G-d,’ as proposed by R. Judah Loew and R. David Segal are reflected in our opening question: is Rashi on Genesis 3:8 exclusively p’shat, as it appears from the many of the manuscripts, as explaind earlier, or embraces midrash, albeit only when they explain the words of Scripture.
Conclusion
The principle that Rashi is ‘only coming to explain the plain meaning of scripture’ (p’shat) is understood in more than one way: encompassing his whole commentary or local to the particular verse. We argued that the manuscripts and textual history of this comment of Rashi on Genesis 3:8 reveals an ambiguity regarding the intension of Rashi in this comment. The majority of the manuscripts by including the word: ‘u’shmu’o’ (and its literal meaning) appears to not make a distinction between p’shat and midrash: they are both intended to be p’shat. The printed version, with the omission of the word: ‘u’shmu’o’ (and its literal meaning) clarifies that Rashi intends to communicate two methods of interpretation in his commentary: p’shat and ‘Aggadah ha-me-ya-shevet’ (explains) that is not p’shat (to the same degree) as the first method. This ambiguity has led to other variants in this comment, providing differing views on the meaning of the verse in Genesis 3:8 regarding what it was that was heard walking in the garden, and the intention of the insertion of the clarifying word ‘she-haya’ (it was) in Rashi’s commentary. The textual history, as reflected in the manuscripts, however, gives us insight into Rashi’s mind when he first wrote the commentary: accepting Genesis 3:8 as a principle for his whole commentary, it was intended to be in fact a work focused exclusively on p’shat.
[1] Oxford MS. Opp. 218.
[2] See: https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashi-on-the-torah-what-kind-of-commentary-is-it.
[3] See Mishnah Kiddushin 3:4: ‘Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, it might have meant (b’mash’ma) that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan.’ Also, Bechorot 9:1: ‘the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, all animals that are included in the term flock are (mash-ma) one species.’ According to this, there may be differences in the use of this word amongst the manuscripts: When employed without the prefix ‘kaf,’ it means: ‘its meaning,’ not necessarily ‘plain meaning.’ This is found in Rashi on Leviticus 11:10: ‘The prolific creatures (she-retz): Everywhere this word denotes (mash-ma’o) a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground.’ With the prefix ‘kaf’ (‘k’mash’ma’o’), as found in MS. Canon. 81, combined with the mention of the intention to follow p’shat, as in MS. Canon. Or. 35, it seems clear that the intention of the use of the word is plain meaning.