They are
always preceded by the word or words to be explained.
It is evident, then, that Rashi's works do not bear witness to
great originality, or, better, to great creative force. Rashi
lacks elevation in his point of view, breadth of outlook, and
largeness of conception. He possessed neither literary taste nor
esthetic sense. He was satisfied to throw light upon an
obscurity, to fill up a lacuna, to justify an apparent
imperfection, to explain a peculiarity of style, or to reconcile
contradictions. He never tried to call attention to the beauties
of the text or to give a higher idea of the original; he never
succeeded in bringing into relief the humanity of a law, or the
universal bearing of an event.
Rashi failed also to regard a thing in its entirety. He did not
write prefaces to his works setting forth the contents of the
book and the method to be pursued.[51] In the body of the
commentaries, he hardly ever dwells on a subject at length, but
contents himself with a brief explanation. In short, his horizon
was limited and he lacked perspective. It is to be regretted that
he did not know the philosophic works of Saadia, who would have
opened up new worlds to him, and would have enlarged the circle
of his ideas. If he had read only the Biblical commentaries of
the great Gaon, he would have learned from him how to grasp a
text in its entirety and give a general idea of a work.
Pages:
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113