A Very Very Problematic Rashi

Paging Natan and his indefatigable sidekick, Eric Lawee

We have recently received an important education regarding the status of Rashi’s commentary in Jewish tradition. Just a couple of weeks ago, our favorite person had a post where he described how Rashi was viewed as “very problematic” for quoting Medrashim. In particular, he cited his buddy Eric Lawee, who wrote a whole paper about the salacious Rashi which quotes the Gemara in Yevamos that Adam had relations with the animals before finding satisfaction with Chava. Quite scandalous, you might say. Apparently, the Catholic clergy agreed and used this as an excuse to burn the Talmud. And about 14 years ago, Natan wrote his magnum opus “Was Rashi a Corporealist?” bringing copious and irrefutable evidence that according to Rashi, God is actually a gigantic person composed of ethereal substance, with an enormous nose. Obviously pretty problematic by our standards.

All of these issues stem from the fact that apparently, Rashi was a “literalist”, which (according to Eric and Natan) means two things. 1. Rashi takes everything literally (with some notable exceptions that Rashi himself spells out), including even unbelievable Medrashim. Due to the ancient mindset of believing anything no matter what, plus Rashi having no secular education and no exposure to rationalism, he was infinitely credulous. 2. Therefore, we should also take everything Rashi himself says absolutely literally.

Obviously, this can lead to very problematic results, like the two mentioned above, Adam having relations with the animals and God possessing a body.

But upon review of Parshas Eikev (sorry, I started this a few weeks ago but left it on the back burner), I discovered a Rashi that was so unbelievably problematic, it makes the previous two examples look like child’s play. The Torah states (Devarim 10:20):

אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא אֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ׃

You must revere יהוה: only your God shall you worship, to [God] shall you cling, and by God’s name shall you swear.

Now this is obviously very troublesome, for how is it possible to actually “cling” to God? Ibn Ezra, the consummate rationalist, explains

ובו תדבק. בלב:

You shall cling- with your heart

He understands that the Torah is using figurative language and means that our hearts should be “close to God”.

Not so Rashi, the literalist:

את ה' אלהיך תירא. וְתַעֲבֹד לוֹ וְתִדְבַּק בּוֹ, וּלְאַחַר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בְךָ כָּל הַמִּדּוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אָז בִּשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ:

את ה׳ אלוהיך תירא THOU SHALT FEAR THE LORD THY GOD, and serve Him and cling to Him; and after you possess all these qualities, then you may swear by His Name (cf. Rashi on 6:13 and Note thereon).

He translates “cling” completely literally, that a person should physically attach himself to God. We already know from Natan’s thesis that Rashi’s position is that God has a body, so Rashi must mean to physically attach oneself to the God-body. But as Natan explains, God’s body is made out of an ethereal substance, and the difficulty returns, how is it possibly for a body of flesh-and-blood to “stick” to something ethereal?

Rashi instructs us to commit suicide

The solution to this lies in an EXTREMELY problematic Rashi on the previous verse. The verse states (Devarim 10:16):

וּמַלְתֶּם אֵת עָרְלַת לְבַבְכֶם וְעָרְפְּכֶם לֹא תַקְשׁוּ עוֹד׃

You shall circumcise the foreskin of your hearts and stiffen your necks no more.

As expected, the rationalist Ibn Ezra interprets:

ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם. להתרחק מהתאוות העבות והכבדות כערל' גם יתכן להיות פירושו לטהר הלב עד שיבין האמת:

CIRCUMCISE THEREFORE THE FORESKIN OF YOUR HEART. The reference is to separation from lusts, which are as gross and leaden as a foreskin. It is also possible that it refers to cleansing the heart until one understands the truth.

But to our great surprise and chagrin, Rashi translates it completely literally!

ערלת לבבכם: אֹטֶם לְבַבְכֶם וְכִסּוּיוֹ [YE SHALL CIRCUMCISE] THE FORESKIN OF YOUR HEART — the closure and cover that is on your hearts,

Rashi is explaining that we should perform open-heart surgery on ourselves, which will inevitably be fatal, especially given the ancient conditions when Rashi wrote this comment! He is essentially instructing us to commit suicide!

However, as unpleasant as this prospect is, it neatly solves the above problem of how to cling to God. For if God is made out of an ethereal substance, so is the human soul (which emerges after death), and one ethereal substance can bond with another. It also solves the problem of organ donation, which we discussed.

I realize that this is deeply troubling for chareidim who are brought up with the idea that everything from the Rishonim was written with Ruach Hakodesh, is eminently true and reasonable, and is consistent with modern chareidi hashkafa (which doesn’t demand this sacrifice), but intellectual honesty demands that we state the truth about Rashi’s position on the matter. Does this mean that as a practical matter, you should go out and commit suicide right now? Not at all. Rashi was part of a thoroughly anti-rationalist tradition, one that has been all but lost with the dominance of Maimonidean thought that has left a deep impression on even the “mystical” chareidi community. Modern-day halachists would certainly not recommend following this shitah of Rashi. He could say it, we cannot.

Addendum: More devious Artscroll censorship

Unfortunately, the revisionist Artscroll subverts and whitewashes this Rashi to make it consistent with modern chareidi sensibilities. In the footnote to this Rashi, it states:

ערלה is often used for “foreskin”, but here it is used in its most basic sense “blockage, barrier.” The verse refers to man’s drive to do evil, which blocks his heart from being directed toward God.

A hutzpah and a shondah. If that isn’t hutzpah, I don’t know what is.