[Avodah] peshuto shel mikra

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:39:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>> I have a theory that I only spot-checked and could use MUCH more work.
>> I think Rashi's "peshat" includes anything that explains a grammatical
>> anomaly.

> Yes, exactly....
> See the booklet "Klalei Rashi", https://www.hebrewbooks.org/30463 , based on
> the LR's hundreds of explanations on various comments by Rashi, analyzing
> each one to explain why he wrote it exactly as he did.

Barukh shekivanti!

But it's still beyond what the Rashbam would have called peshat.

This side-bar started with RJFShachter writing:
> According to Lubavitchers.  Not according to his grandson.  Read
> Rashbam on Genesis 37:2...

BTW, here are links to RJFS's favorite two Rashbam's mentioned
in that post, both in Bereishis (in order of his preferences):

49:16, "Dan yadin amo": https://www.sefaria.org/Rashbam_on_Genesis.49.16.1
37:2, "eileh toledos Yaaqov": https://www.sefaria.org/Rashbam_on_Genesis.37.2.1

Given the theme, I would also look at the Rashbam on "vayhi erev vayhi
voqer" in 1:3: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashbam_on_Genesis.1.5.3

And his explainer to his approach in contrast to the derashos used to
determine halakhah the beginning of Mishpatim:
https://www.sefaria.org/Rashbam_on_Exodus.21.1.1
R Eliyhu Munk's translation:
   Everyone endowed with intelligence should know that it is not my
   purpose to explain halachic rulings as part of my commentary, something
   I have mentioned already in my commentary at the beginning of Parshat
   Vayeshev. I explained there that many such rulings are hinted at by
   variant spellings in the text, missing words or extraneous words. Many
   of these have been covered in the commentary on the Torah by my
   grandfather Rashi of blessed memory. I have set myself the task of only
   explaining the plain meaning of the text as it is before us. When I
   explain legislation I do so within the context of its contribution to
   civilised behaviour, [derekh eretz]. My explanations notwithstanding,
   when they conflict with the halachic rulings, the latter are supreme.

Notice he is talking about halakhah in particular.

This is in contrast to IE, who prefers a peshat that is consistent with
derashah (including but not limited to those that impact the din). It is
one thing not to be a source, it's another for the two to be at odds. See
the end of the IE's introduction.
    Heaven forbid that we join with the Tzeduqim who say that the Chazals'
    interpretation contradicts Scripture. Rather all their words are
    emes, and H' Elokim is emes, and will lead his servant along the
    path of truth.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha