Q&A: Is Rashi Necessarily the Correct Interpretation?
Is Rashi Necessarily the Correct Interpretation?
Question
Hi, Rabbi.
I saw some people who really disparage Rashi and disagree with his interpretations, and when I asked why, they answered that he was a plain-sense commentator, and they brought me an example from Maimonides, who hints at Rashi in his introduction to the chapter Helek:
"The first group—and it is the majority of those I have seen, whose writings I have seen, and what I have heard about them—take them according to their literal sense, and do not hold that they contain any hidden interpretation whatsoever….
And this group is poor in understanding; one should grieve over their foolishness, because they honor and exalt the sages according to their own thinking, while in fact they lower them to the utmost degree of lowness—and they do not understand this. By the life of the blessed God, this group destroys the splendor of the Torah and darkens its brilliance, and turns the Torah of God into the opposite of what was intended by it!
And most of what these preachers do is explain and make known to the masses what they themselves do not know. Would that, since they neither knew nor understood, they would keep silent!"
Does it really make sense that Maimonides was referring here to Rashi?
Answer
It really does not seem to me that he is referring to Rashi, and that is also not the content of what he is saying. He is not at all arguing against plain-sense interpretations, but against clinging to the literal meaning even where it makes no sense. On the contrary, Maimonides writes in the second root that the correct interpretation of a verse is only the plain-sense interpretation. The others are midrash, and are not interpretations of the verse but expansions on it. Sticking to the plain sense is a great virtue—just not when doing so is unreasonable.
So who do you think Maimonides meant? He talks about a large group that follows this approach. One of the proofs for the correctness of Rashi's interpretation is that it was broadly accepted by the public. If so, that is also proof that Maimonides' words were directed at Rashi.
From what I understood, Rashi turned midrash into peshat, the plain sense.
For example, if I ask a religious third-grade boy how old Rebecca was when she met Eliezer, Abraham's servant, at the well—supposedly the child should answer with the plain meaning. And then I'll discover that he'll give me a bizarre answer. What's his source? Rashi didn't make a distinction between midrash and peshat—at least according to their claim.