Conundrums of the Commentary
Rashi’s Commentary evokes a number of challenges and perplexities, beginning with the fact that it has experienced more textual vicissitudes than any other medieval Jewish work. In addition, the character and aims of the Commentary remain elusive. The most striking feature of Rashi’s exegesis is its mixture of “contextual” meaning (peshuṭo shel miqra) and classical midrashic expositions, which have a much more exegetically fanciful and theologically free character. The problem lies in the relationship between the elements. Rashi’s use of midrash may be what has most endeared the Commentary to its diverse audiences for over close to a millennium. The element of midrash also meant that the ever more classic Commentary imparted a Jewish vision whose overall thrust was often clear—but using an elusive and allusive medium whose constituents remained pliably open to interpretation, and sometimes begged for it.