Presumably, then, Rashi
revised a treatise according to the needs of the occasion, as,
for instance, when it came under his eyes in the course of
instruction. However that may be, the work that we now possess
is a mixture of the first and the last recension, though we
cannot always tell which is the later and which the earlier.
Another fact explains the difference I have pointed out between
the Biblical and the Talmudic commentaries. For the Biblical
commentaries there had been no precedent, and if they possess the
merit of originality, they also illustrate the errors of a man
who tries his powers in a field of work devoid of all tradition.
For the Talmudic commentaries, on the contrary, models were not
lacking. The example of Gershom was sufficiently notable to evoke
imitation, though his work was not so complete as to discourage
it. We must not forget Rashi's predecessors because he eclipsed
them. This would be contrary to his intentions, since he
frequently cites them, rendering value in return for value
received. In fact, he knew well how to use their works to
advantage. He submitted them to a judicial and minute
examination, collecting all the material he needed furnished by
the Geonim as well as by his immediate masters. It would be as
inexact to assert that he only made a
resume of their
works as to say that he worked along entirely original lines and
relied solely upon his own resources.
Pages:
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166