The Commentary of on Isaiah and the Jewish-Christian Debate*

Avraham Grossman

Scholars have long debated whether it is possible to trace the escalat- ing Jewish-Christian debate in Rashi’s biblical exegesis. In the past, many scholars posited a select number of scriptural loci that revealed an indirect polemical engagement with Christological scholarship.1 Recently, there has been increased attention to the centrality of Jewish- Christian polemics in Rashi’s Torah commentary, specifically in his comments on the Latter Prophets and Writings (Ketuvim).2 The shift in the academic approach stems mainly from the discovery of pre- ferred versions, in extant manuscripts, of Rashi’s biblical commentary. Bearing the hand of the Christian censors, the printed editions are free of any derisive comments about Christianity, and thus they obscure the full picture.3 Current research maintains that the polemical debate is intrinsic to Rashi’s exegetical approach to the Bible, leaving numer- ous impressions far beyond those identified until now. I maintain this opinion in my own research. The rare instances where Rashi explicitly acknowledged his polemi- cal engagement with Christological scholarship occur in reference to Jesus and his disciples. Such comments are mostly found in his exegesis of Daniel, although the polemical references are concealed. The polemical references become overt only through knowledge of Rashi’s style, and the fact that he chose scriptural interpretations that did not employ the simplest sense (pshat). A survey of his comments

* The article was translated from Hebrew by Dana Fishkin. 1 yitzhak Baer was of the exceptional opinion that Rashi paid much attention to the Jewish-Christian debate and that it informed his biblical commentary. 2 There is an extensive bibliography on this subject that will not be cited here. Much of the relevant studies can be found in my book, A. Grossman, The Early Sages of France (Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 457–506. 3 for a detailed treatment of Christian censorship in the 16th century and its effects on Jewish printed books, see Amnon-Raz-Krakotzkin, Censorship, Editing and the Text, Catholic Censorship and Hebrew Literature in the Sixteenth Century (Jerusalem, 2005). 48 avraham grossman

­juxtaposed against the original midrashic sources and the use of the aforementioned preferred extant versions reveal this polemical layer.4 It is not surprising that Rashi engaged Christological scholarship in much of his Torah commentary. In his gloss, Rashi assumed three important tasks: 1) the interpretation of Bible and in order to impart Torah to the public. This enabled to learn Torah locally, despite being distant from the established Babylonian (yeshivot) acad- emies; 2) the mediation of feuds that developed in the Jewish commu- nities of France and Germany due to conflicting cultural and economic interests caused by recently migrated peoples; 3) the protection of Judaism from Christian propaganda, which, increasingly, had an influ- ential power on both Christian society and the Jews. The sources have preserved testimony of such propaganda and they provide examples of Jews who apostatized their faith at that time. Henceforth, I will focus on the debate with Christological scholar- ship implicit in Rashi’s commentary on Isaiah. The Jewish-Christian debate occupies an important place in this book, as evidenced by the preferred extant manuscript editions of Rashi’s words that are based on uncensored manuscripts rather than on printed editions of his com- mentary that include many corrections by Christian censors.5 The debate is embodied by four central topics: 1) The prophecy in chapters 11–12, known as the “shoot of Jesse;” 2) The prophecies to the world’s nations in chapters 17–27; Rashi interpreted the prophecies concerning the nations defeated by Sancherib as referring to ’s exiled state under centuries of Christian dominion; 3) The prophecies

4 There has been a recent exploration of the effects of religious polemics on Rashi’s commentaries on Song of Songs, Job, Psalms, and Proverbs that is based on the extant manuscript versions of Rashi’s commentaries. For Song of Songs, see Sarah Kamin, “Rashi’s Commentary on the Song of Songs and Jewish-Christian Polemic,” in idem, Jews and Christians Interpret the Bible (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 31–61; Robert Chazan, “Rashi’s Commentary on the Book of Daniel,” Rashi et la culture juive en France du Nord au moyen âge, ed. G. Dahan, G. Nahon, and E. Nicolas (Paris, 1997), pp. 111–21; For Psalms, see G.G. Gevaryahu, “Nusḥa’ot Rashi le-Tehilim ve-Hazenzurah,”̣ Meḥqarim be-Miqra u-Bemaḥshevet Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 248–261; Avraham Grossman, “Perush Rashi le-Tehilim ve-Hapulmus ha-Yehudi Nozri,”̣ Sefer ha-Yovel le-Professor Moshe Ahrend (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 59–74; For Proverbs, see idem, “Nusaḥ Perush Rashi la-Nakh ve-Hapulmus ha-Yehudi Nozri,”̣ Sinai 137 (2006), pp. 32–58. 5 i. Maarsen, Parshandatha: The Commentary of Rashi on the Prophets and Hagio- graphs, Part II: Isajah (Jerusalem, 1933); Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer,’ ed. Menachem Cohen (Jerusalem, 1996). All subsequent citations from Rashi’s gloss on Isaiah are found in these two works.