Timeline for Is Rashi really pshat?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19, 2021 at 12:24 | comment | added | josh waxman | Are you Lubavitch (based on your linking elsewhere to Chabad Tanach, question regarding Rambam and Moshiach, and the "chos vishalom")? Not exactly that (though I wouldn't necessarily entirely discount it). But if so, I don't know that discussion and clarification would be productive, more than what I've already written in my answer and my linked blogpost. | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 9:08 | comment | added | B''H Bi'ezras -- Boruch Hashem | So I'm confused, do you know more about Rashi than the Rebbe? If so can you specify what you know that he doesn't? Is it being proposed that he didn't know the end of Rashi's comment (chos vishalom)? If not, what? | |
| Jun 17, 2013 at 12:28 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @Alex the first words in that rashi (מדרשי אגדה) clarify he's talking about midrishei agadda like breishit rabba, not just non legal sayings so your diyuk in the word aggadata is invalid in context. Rashi then says he's only going to bring the non-'fantastical' elements of midrash in addition to or in conjunction with the pshat. See also the Rei"m to Shemot 22:8 who also seems to understand Rashi that way. | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 21:32 | comment | added | Alex | I'm not sure that the end of Rashi's statement is really relevant here, though. Aggadah is a genre of Torah study (the non-legal portion); it can cover any of the four approaches to Torah (peshat, remez, derush, or sod). For example, when the Gemara (Berachos 3b) discusses the meaning of התיכונה in Judg. 7:19, it is using a peshat approach, but this is part of aggadah (and hence is included in Ein Yaakov). So Rashi can say that he's resorting to aggadah too, without that compromising his aim at peshat. | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 13:27 | history | answered | josh waxman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |