Is Shadal a mainstream commentary?

Question

Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzatto) wrote, among many other things, a commentary to the Torah.

I do not know very much about the style and approach of his commentary, but strangely, I've actually never heard of him until fairly recently. I've never seen anything written by him on the shelves of any of the yeshivos I've studied at nor at any of the shuls I've attended. I've never heard a Rabbi or Rav ever mention him in a shiur or drasha. But from the very little I have read from his commentary recently, it seems like there's nothing wrong with it; in fact, it's quite good in my opinion.

So my question is: What is the general approach of Shadal in his commentary and is it or is it not a mainstream commentary? (By that I mean: will the average yeshiva student know what I'm talking about if I mention it? And why?)

Answer 1

Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzatto is a pashtan and grammarian. He is not a rationalist, though sometimes his conclusions are the same as the rationalist meforshim. But, if he thought that the best peshat in a pasuk was that magic was real, for example, he would endorse it as such.

He dislikes and criticizes derash, when intended seriously as historical and literal meaning of the pasuk. He dislikes and criticizes the 'philosophical derash' of Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, and Rambam, as well.

He will consider dikduk, nikkud and trup, though he does not consider nikkud and trup to be dispositive. (If you want to see the intersection of trup and peshat, he is an excellent source.) He also will cite and consider the opinions of non-Jewish Biblical scholars, and of historical documents, and of the Peshitta. While he suggested some limited emendations of the Biblical text, this was not on Torah, only in Nach. And he criticized his contemporaries for suggesting emendations of the Biblical text, because he thought that they were idiots and ignoramuses who were not applying the methodology correctly.

He is certainly not 'mainstream' in the yeshiva world, for a variety of reasons. Open criticism of the Zohar and kabbalah in general is certainly one component of it. (I would note that people don't reject the Chasam Sofer for asserting that the Zohar is a forgery, even though the Chasam Sofer's father presumably believed in the authenticity of the Zohar.) Mental association of Shadal with maskilim also contributes to it, as well as his focus on peshat over derash, would also help.

But the Rav cited him on one occasion. And Nechama Leibovitch cited him, I think. There is an idea, put forth by the Rambam, of שמע האמת ממי שאמרה. So even if he is not 'mainstream', if his ideas are good, I think we should consider them.

Answer 2

While we certainly are all going to disagree on which works should be given how much weight, there are a wide variety of Rabbanim whose works or teachings have gained wide acceptance in the observant community. Additionally, while a particular work may not have received popular recognition, or was unable to maintain a high profile with the passage of time, its influence may be felt indirectly by its influence on and reference by more widely acknowledged works.

Insofar as Jewish law (and perhaps to a lesser extent ideology) takes into consideration the weight of a Rabbi's authority in addition to a more sterile evaluation of the strength of his argument, it would seem that a work which does not enjoy either the primary or secondary recognition mentioned above must fend for itself. It, whether classic or contemporary, may make good arguments but it must be evaluated on its own without providing "what to rely on".

Conversely, while a work being widely accepted (and/or influential on generally accepted leaders of klal Yisrael) doesn't mean that its positions are certified correct or practices it endorses are unimpeachable, a great deal of deference is given, we generally try to understand it as compatible as possible with other similarly authoritative works, and we are reluctant to outright reject its positions just because we don't fully "understand" where it is coming from: it IS what to rely on.

I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment of the specific case you mention. Nor do I think that a sources familiarity to the average yeshiva student is a good indication of whether or not they are mainstream. But in general I think that how mainstream a work is can be judged somewhat fairly by whether not you (can) encounter it while learning reliable Torah sources.

Answer 3

Shadal is not a main commentary.

The only people who will know the name are people who have found reference to him on the internet, or people who studied Judaic texts in Universities.

I believe the main reason for this, is because his father was into gematria, while he wrote very negatively against the Zohar.

To make this more explicite. I believe it is the fact that he went against his father, as well as going against the Zohar that makes him not mainstream. There are plenty of accepted commentaries that write against the Zohar, but those people tend to come from communities and families which have their own "messorah" to do so.