yḥsṿ shl rshv״m vfyrṿshṿ lshyr hshyrym ʾl fyrṿshṿ shl rsh״y / Rashbam's Relationship to Rashi in His Commentary on Song of Songs
יחסו של רשב״ם בפירושו לשיר השירים אל פירושו של רש״י / Rashbam's Relationship to Rashi in His Commentary on Song of Songs
In contrast to the wide-ranging disparities between the commentaries of Rashi and Rashbam on the Pentateuch, there is much common ground in their exegeses of the Song of Songs, notwithstanding several important points of divergence. Scholars have generally tended to stress the dissimilarities betwee...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | Hebrew |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
HUC
2015
|
| In: |
Hebrew Union College annual
Year: 2013, Volume: 84/85, Pages: צה-קיד |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In contrast to the wide-ranging disparities between the commentaries of Rashi and Rashbam on the Pentateuch, there is much common ground in their exegeses of the Song of Songs, notwithstanding several important points of divergence. Scholars have generally tended to stress the dissimilarities between the commentaries while downplaying their affinities, most likely out of neglect of the allegorical layer of Rashbam's exegesis. That said, both commentators regard the book's primary objective as depicting the allegorical relationship between God and the people Israel. In this article I have demonstrated points of similarity between the two commentators, hitherto overlooked by scholarly research. Rashbam posits his allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs in forty-two places, which he indicates by consistently opening with the heading “an allegory for” (דמיון). In each of these places, the allegorical interpretation draws on Rashi's commentary and builds upon it, yet is generally more condensed and less detailed. The differences between Rashbam and Rashi are best defined as methodological. Rashbam's commentary is much more highly structured than Rashi's. Despite Rashi's avowal to explicate both exegetical strata in all matters, he does not always interpret the book's literal stratum. Rashbam, by contrast, is systematic and maintains the twofold exegesis throughout. The aforesaid would have us conclude that Rashbam's exegesis was crafted mainly as an improved and enhanced commentary on Rashi's exegesis. If this is true, then perhaps Rashbam's failure to acknowledge Rashi's commentary, in agreement or in disputation, is understandable. His commentary was designed as a renewed application of Rashi's exegesis. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual
|