4

Rashi chose a form of Medieval Hebrew to write his commentaries, which facilitates the life of many students, as the Aramaic content in his writing is very low compared to the Gemara or contemporary liturgical poems. In the introduction of Mishneh Torah Rambam discusses the issue that Jews of his age were not excelling in Aramaic (see paragraphs 36, 40, 41), which might have been Rashi's concern too.

Did Rashi write about his motivations for choosing Hebrew in a similar way?

  • 1
    Almost all the Rishonim wrote their pirushim in lashon hakodesh. The Rambam's Pirush Mishnayos was one of the few Rishonic commentaries that required translation. Why do you ask on Rashi specifically, and what exactly is the question? – chortkov2 Jul 18 at 8:41
  • 1
    @chortkov2 Rashi is among the first Rishonim, so others might have just followed him. The question is written explicitly: Was Rashi concerned with the bad Aramaic knowledge of his contemporaries? Did he have other motivations with the lashon hakodesh? – Kazi bácsi Jul 18 at 9:05
  • 2
    Pretty much everyone wrote in Hebrew, or in the vernacular. Rashi has no reason to write in Aramaic, which was not spoken locally. I cannot think of any commentary written in Aramaic. – simyou Jul 18 at 10:01
  • 1
    @simyou Using your logic, he could have written in French as Chazal were writing in Aramaic and Rambam has works in Arabic. But he didn't, even though in many cases he used French words that were better understood in his environment. – Kazi bácsi Jul 18 at 10:05
  • 1
    Right, I was only addressing "why not French". – Al Berko Jul 18 at 10:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .