Talk:Rashi

Mother's name

Rashi's mother's name is most likely Leah, which was the name of the widowed vintner who lived in Troyes in the mid-11th century and wrote a responsa to the Bet Din protesting taxes on her vineyard. It is highly unlikely that there was more than one Jewish widow winemaker in Troyes at this time, and we know Rashi's mother was one. -- Esparkhu 05:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Rashi's mother's name was Miriam. -- Mapark 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So how do you know she was a winemaker? -- Zsero 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rashi's father died when he was a child, and he was thus raised by his widowed mother. The family business was winemaking (a Respona in Tshuvot Rashi mentions him repairing wine vats during Chol Moed - something only the winemaker himself would be allowed to do), and since he was away in the Rhineland studying while his mother supported him, she must have been a vintner as well. At the least she ran the wine business and hired others to do the actually wine making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapark (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

People made wine for their own consumption. There's no evidence that the family made wine for a living. -- Zsero (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Medieval responsa show clearly that most Jews bought wine from a very small number of Jewish vintners rather than make it themselves. Mr. Gruber aside, every other Rashi scholar agrees that Rashi was a vintner. Certainly he did not earn his living as a rabbi.

Haym Soloveitchik writes (I don't know the source or have it in front of me) that Rashi was as likely an egg salesman as a vintner. Gruber is in good company. Avi-Gil Chaitovsky (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

needs a disambiguation page for rashi are also the hindoo equivalent of zodiac signs, mentioned on the hindoo calendar page

Rashi script

There needs to be a conversion Pic from hebrew letters to Rashi letters.

Note re above comment: There is a very good 'Conversion Pic' from hebrew letters to Rashi script at the following web page:

http://www.schechter.org/sager/links/fifth/Rashi/RashiScript.html

In the table presented on that page, the Hebrew letter is always the left side and the equivalent Rashi script is the right side, for each pair.

Commentaries on Rashi`s commentary

--69.114.174.131 23:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)You should make an article on the commentaries on Rashi,on both of Rashi`s commentaries, written by many torah scholars from the tosafits to modern day scholars.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Rashi! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism!!!

I reverted this page to a prior edit because of the worst kind of vandalism. Here is a selection of what was done to this page on 19:28, 24 August 2006 by an anonymous person from the I.p. address User:68.157.134.176.

The restatement of the defamatory remarks herein is further defamation. I believe that these quotations amount to graffiti, and, therefore, should be deleted immediately.--Lance6968 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You totally misundstood the basis for me posting the remarks! Did you honestly think I posted them as graffiti? Anyway, I have put in a request for this page to be protected from anonymous users. However, the administrators told me that the vandalism is not consistent enough to protect the page. So they told me to just keep on reverting the damage (which is a bunch of B.S.). (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 20:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Anachronistic Image

The image shows Rashi reading a book. However, when he was alive, there were no books. Rashi read parchment scrolls.Lestrade 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Torah scrolls, probably, but the codex is a late antique invention. —Charles P._(Mirv) 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking both you editors! :) The thing that strikes me in the picture is that Rashi is writing. A model we editors could copy. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RASHI and the Development of the French Language

This article should contain RASHI's contribution to the development of the French language. --Lance6968 00:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What contribution would that be? Zsero 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rashi picture

Although I think the picture is very nice, it is a copyright violation. The picture's supposed source states: "No part of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission." A proper (scholarly) source needs to be found, which gives the name of the artists who drew it and when the work was first created. --Ghostexorcist 10:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows who drew it, or when. It's old. Who came up with the iconic picture of Jesus that everybody recognises? Someone hundreds of years ago, whose name has been lost. The picture is certainly not copyright by the web site that Chesdovi took it from. A blanket copyright statement does not cover public domain material that they included. Zsero 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The following comes from Wikipedia's "10 things you did not know about images ...

3 – "Failure to provide a source (who made it) and license (how it can be used) will result in the image being deleted, possibly as soon as 48 hours. You must provide this information for all images uploaded. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You must provide this information for all images you upload, with no exceptions, or the images will be deleted."

4 – "Do not go to the nearest website and grab an image of a person/place/building. It is extremely likely that image is both copyrighted and fails our non-free content policy, which states that a non-free image may be used only when it cannot be replaced."

Please see also: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Number one on this page might be of some use to you, but I can suggest another route. Someone from Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve can possibly make a vector drawing of the portrait. It would be free of any copyright problems, but I fear they may not do anything with it since the image's source info is very weak. But for an example, one of my articles went FA and was on the Main Page. The image I used at the lead was permissible, but FA articles should only have free content as lead photos. They took another image from the page (note the old guy in blue) and created a new photo. Someone did the body, but I did the face. Most Jpeg drawings become graining and spotted when enlarged, but the best thing about vector is that you can increase or decrease the size of something without sacrificing resolution. For an example, see my main user page. The image has been blown up from its much smaller original size and it still looks good. --Ghostexorcist 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not non-free content included under fair use or some other exception. It is free content. It's PD-old and PD-art. The uploader included his source; if you want the artist's name you will never get it, because it's not known. And it's not needed. Consider the case of trad songs - sometimes songs are erronously attributed to "trad" when they're in fact still under copyright, but there are thousands of songs that are genuinely trad, and no amount of demanding will get you the author's name, but nobody would claim that they could not be reproduced on WP for that reason. WP:Common Sense -- Zsero 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No one knows who the artist is or when it was made. Therefore, it is not PD-old or PD-art. It could have been drawn 50 years ago or even less. You don't know. Every picture has to have a proof of where it came from originally. Some random website is not a credible source. Even the original uploader has no idea when the picture was made. --Ghostexorcist 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

no footnotes

The lack of references (apart from the generalized list at the bottom) severely detracts from this article. The legend, for example, is very nice, but where is it taken from?--Gilabrand 07:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a mistake under the picture of the old Rashi text. I studied the Talmud and read and speak Hebrew very well. You can see with a magnifying glass how different the text is between Rashi's and the rest.

This is the way it should read:

An early printing of the Talmud(Ta'anit 9b); Rashi's commentary covers most of the left column starting with the large word, continouing for seven lines at the bottom of the right column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matania GINOSAR (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. What you say doesn't even make any sense - Hebrew is written right to left, so how could it start in the left column and continue into the right column?

In any case, it's simply not so. Rashi's commentary starts at the bottom of the right column with lo mimeimei oceanos, and continues for three lines in the left column, from batchila. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Movie Reference

In the movie "Lucky Number Slevin", there is a character with the same name, played by the actor, Ben Kingsley. 76.171.208.137 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 2008-06-30 T02:34 Z-7

NPoV

This page has an extreme bias; this bias exists not so much in the information presented as in the phrasing. Someone who is politically (and religiously I suppose) neutral on this topic needs to go through this article with a fine tooth comb and squash the bias. Some more references would be nice as well. Right now the article is a little lacking in that area. Gopher65_talk 00:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you pointed out specific areas of the article that need work. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire article, from top to bottom. The tone of the article is similar to what I'd expect from, say, an Apple fanboi writing about the iPhone. Every sentence has intrinsic bias in the way it is constructed. As I said, it isn't so much the information in the article, it is the way that information is phrased. Gopher65_talk 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV or not, do you really expect the articles on Albert Einstein and Adolf Hitler to read with the same tone? -- Zsero (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

... yes, of course I do. Wikipedia is not an editorial, it is a repository of neutral facts. It is up to the reader to interpret those facts; it is not up to the writers to slant an article with tone. It is entirely possible to write an article on Einstein or Hitler without letting admiration or hatred show through. Remember: facts, not editorial. Leave the editorializing for the _useless "professionals" at Faux Fox News and CNN. Gopher65_talk 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Legends section

I take exception to the deletion of material which is sourced and referenced. Everybody knows the legend of Rashi's pregnant mother squeezing herself into the wall, and the "evidence" is there to prove it. Rashi's ancestry as a 33rd-generation descendant of Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar is also widely discussed. Jewish children grow up with these legends, but they don't merit a place in Wikipedia? Anyone reading this article for a research project would be interested in this (deleted) information:

On his father Yitzhak's side, Rashi has been claimed to be a 33rd-generation descendant of Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar, who was a fourth-generation descendant of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, who was reputedly descended from the royal house of King David. In his voluminous writings, Rashi himself made no such claim at all. The major early rabbinical source about his ancestry, Responsum No. 29 by Rabbi Solomon Luria, makes no such claim either.

Several legends surrounding Rashi's birth have passed into Jewish folklore. Two of the most famous stories concern his conception and birth:

Rashi's parents were childless for many years. One day, his father, a poor vintner, found a valuable gem (some versions say a pearl). A bishop (or mighty lord) wished to acquire this jewel for decorating the church (or his vestments), however rather than have this jewel be used for such a purpose, Yitzhak threw it into the Seine. When he arrived home, a man was waiting for him. "You threw the gemstone into the water so it wouldn't be used for idolatry," the man told him. "Now your wife will have a son who will illuminate the world with his Torah." This harbinger was none other than the Prophet Elijah; the following year, Yitzhak and his wife were blessed with a son.

Another legend relates that Yitzhak decided to move temporarily to the city of Worms, Germany. He and his wife lived in the Jewish quarter and attended the small synagogue there, awaiting the birth of their child. One day, as Yitzhak's wife was walking down the narrow alley, two large carriages came charging through the alley. There was no room to escape; she turned to the wall and pressed herself against it. According to legend, the wall softened and accommodated her pregnant form. The carriages rushed by and she was unscathed. To this day, an indentation in the size, height and shape of a woman's pregnant belly in the wall of the Rashi Shul is shown to visitors to the city.

Yoninah (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; in the absence of evidence WP should not present these stories as factual, but identified as legends they certainly belong in the article, just as do significant legends about other classical figures such as Archimedes, Alexander, and King Canute. -- Zsero (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose adding the following:

His fame has made him the subject of many legends. According to tradition, Rashi's father carried his religious zeal so far that he cast into the sea a gem that was much coveted by non-Jewish priests, whereupon he heard a mysterious voice which foretold him the birth of a noble son “who would illuminate the world with his Torah knowledge”. Legend states also that his mother, imperiled by two large carriages in one of the narrow streets of Worms during her pregnancy, pressed against a wall, which opened to receive her. This miraculous niche is still shown in the wall of the Rashi Shul.

Chesdovi (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the legends can be abbreviated and not told in such a storytelling fashion. But I do think that each deserves a paragraph of its own. I've gone ahead and reinserted my suggestion in the article; please feel free to edit it. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Descendants

The claim that almost all Ashkenazim are descended from Rashi is not based on actual historical research, so much as on mathematical models showing that almost every Ashkenazi alive today is descended from almost every Ashkenazi of Rashi's day who had grandchildren. That some Sefardim are also descended from Rashi should be no surprise at all, but the recently added blog post doesn't tell us anything about the importance of these particular desecendants. So I've removed both claims. -- Zsero (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this decision. Yoninah (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it very significant as in the genealogy world, almost everyone treis to trace their lineage through Rashi if they only can. Rashi came from Rabbi Gamliel who comes from king David. I've come across so many people who want to trace themselves to King David, and this claim that close to 80% of Ashkenazim come from Rashi would mean a lot to those seeking their ancestry. As far as the source to this, I hadn't paid attention that it was only a blog post, since you were not disputing the source but rather the significance, however if Berel Wien actually did write this, then that would be a good source and I think it should be in the article. Shlomke (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can do is restate my objection above: as far as I can tell this claim, whether Wein said it or not, is not based on any actual historical research, but on a mathematical projection. As such it is meaningless. You want to be descended from Rashi, because of his alleged descent from Dovid? Be my guest; but you may just as well make the claim to Davidic descent directly, since under the same theory almost all Jews alive today — and a good many non-Jews — are descended from Dovid. Now if there were actual evidence for the claim, i.e. someone had shown not only that >80% of Ashkenazim ought to be descended from Rashi but that they actually are, that would be significant and should be in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If Berel Wein has actually stated this, even as a mathamatical projection, it would deserve to be in the article stated as such: a mathematical projection. However since the blog poster has not posted a source from Wein about this, this argument is futile. Shlomke (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Even if we had clear proof that Wein said this, I would still object because it's not a statement about Rashi but about every 11th-century French Jew who had descendants. Perhaps it would belong in History of the Jews in France, but not here. -- Zsero (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think if someone showed that 50% of the English claimed descent from King Alfred it would deserve a novelty mentioning on an encyclopedia page? Does naming children after Alexander the Great deserve mention on his page? If not a Rashi page where? Because it illustrates his importance to Ashkenazi culture, rather than the accuracy of the claim. Why color this with accusations about King David? Take Rashi as he is, and his people's love for him, a cognition as physical reality. And anecdotaly it seems true because I have encountered many religious Jews (some who do not look so) who either name their daughters Miriam and say it is after the daughter of Rashi or claim descent from him. This cultural phenomena likely deserves a very brief mentioning. Oceanyam (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Religious belief"

Ascribing to Rashi "Orthodox Judaism" is rather fanciful. In the 12th century, there were no such distinctions. One might, by that point, identify as an Ashkenazi Jew, a Sephardic Jew, or some other cultural distinction, but there was not enough cohesion among the Jewish communities in Europe for Judaism-wide movements to develop. It was at least another 500 years before anything identified as Reform Judaism showed up, so that before Reform Judaism, there really was no "Orthodox Judaism." It was just Judaism. It's debatable whether Orthodox Judaism holds a unique claim to be orthodox in that it follows a tradition of halakhic method and customs that was universal in all the diaspora before the modern age. Christianity has any number of competing sects and schools of thought which claim to be the original Christianity exactly as handed down by Jesus to the Apostles; So too does Judaism have one sect which claims to be THE Judaism as it always was (and I've heard Conservative rabbis persuasively argue that Orthodox halakhah is in part reactionary to the excesses of the Reform movement).

Needless to say, if the Jews of 3000 years ago walked into a frum shul today, they would likely be confused (and vice versa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaletiger (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism is the Judaism that Rashi practised; it wasn't called that, for one thing because modern English didn't exist, but it was the same religion. Rashi would be totally comfortable in a modern frum shul, and any frum person from today would be totally comfortable in Rashi's shul. 3000 years ago is a different story, because you're going back before the Knesset Hagedolah, and even before Shlomo Hamelech and his decrees. But by 1800 years ago Judaism was pretty much what it is now; the differences are trivial, a matter of minhagim and takanot, not core halacha. Even a Jew from 2100 years ago, once he had recovered from the shock of learning about the churban, would not be surprised by much that he found in a modern shul. What your Conservative rabbi claimed is nonsense; 99.99% of modern halacha based exclusively on sources before there ever was a Reform. The only reaction in halacha to Reform are a handful of local takkanot in one community or another. -- Zsero (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Orthodox Judaism with all Judaism pre-Haskalah. While there are many similarities, no union of Orthodox rabbis existed to compare notes. "Orthodox Judaism" as such came into being after Reform was created, and all forms of Judaism basically differ in their approach to dealing with the possibility of fully engaging with the modern Gentile world, a possibility which to Rashi would have been merely an academic point.

Both Orthodox and Conservative rabbis have had to address questions of how halakhah apply to situations and circumstances that did not exist when the Sages were expounding upon the Torah. To say that the Orthodox rabbis do not consider the practices of the Reform and the decisions of the Conservative rabbis in making their own legal decisions is naive. The Orthodox would like everyone else to believe that theirs is the "correct Judaism"; that because the Conservative have innovated in certain areas the Orthodox find unacceptable, that the Conservative are something other than "real" Judaism. In reality, I think many Orthodox have built fences around the fences around the fences built around Torah, out of a fear that any engagement with the secular world will lead to assimilation.

At any rate, labeling Rashi an "O"rthodox Jew is like labeling the Magna Carta an American document. It's a needlessly divisive way of sidelining lesser Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.234.239 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Twaddle. "Orthodox" is simply a name that Reform mockingly applied to the old classic Judaism, and that stuck. It's simply the Judaism that continued after the various modern sects broke away; it is identical to Rashi's Judaism. Name a single law that has changed in response to C or R. Rashi was what in Modern English is called an orthodox rabbi; in his day Modern English didn't exist, that's all. If the truth bothers you, that's your problem. -- Zsero (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was unnecessarily rude. Your defense that "modern English didn't exist" is ridiculous. The concept of orthodoxy has existed since the ancient Greeks. Rashi was in France, not England, but you don't think that French or Yiddish or Aramaic or Hebrew didn't have a word they could have used for "Orthodox," if it had been intended that they separate themselves out as correct Jews, do you?

Rashi was a Jew. We can all agree on that. Any other suppositions are based on your own arrogance and modern internecine squabbles instigated by "O"rthodox bullies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.234.239 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orthodoxy is the original Judaism, from which other sects such as Xians, Karaites, Reform, etc. separated. There is no orthodox "movement"; anyone who still follows Judaism as it was before Reform is automatically orthodox. Orthodox didn't give themselves that name; the Reform invented it for those who didn't join them. Rashi was not part of any breakaway sect. There's nothing about orthodoxy today, in any of its various forms, that he'd have much of a problem with; but if he were to land at HUC or JTS he'd quickly find that it was not Judaism as he knew it. Therefore, in Modern English, he was orthodox; it's what the word means. There is nothing either rude or bullying about that fact. -- Zsero (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the unsigned contributor is passionately defending a point because s/he read it in a Reform or Conservative pamphlet? Here are the facts: what we call Orthodox Judaism is the set of halakhot received from Mount Sinai, both the Written Torah and the Oral Law (the Talmud). Along with the Torah, God also gave the Sages the power to enact additional laws and "fences" to maintain the sanctity of the Torah laws and to interpret the laws as they apply to new situations, such as brain death and using electricity on Shabbat. The entire set of halakhot was handed down from generation to generation until today, and the people who follow this Torah miSinai (Torah from Sinai) are who we are calling Orthodox Jews.

The minhagim came later as Jews moved into exile after the destruction of the Second Temple. You can look in the Shulchan Aruch to see the difference between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews. Everyone keeps the same halakhot from Sinai, but the different communities have additional practices. For example, Ashkenazim eat potatoes on Pesach while Sephardim eat rice. Everyone follows the Torah command to eat matzah. No one eats chametz!

The Haskalah was the brainchild of the Reform movement, which wanted to shirk off halakhot and mitzvot. You have your facts wrong: it was Conservative Judaism, not Orthodox Judaism, that came into being after Reform was invented, as a response to the excesses of the Reform movement and as an attempt to "conserve" some of the flavor of Torah Judaism.

There is no such thing as a "lesser" Jew, just a less knowledgeable Jew. Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would Rashi be classed as Haredi? I am wondering if I should merge Category:Haredi rabbis in Israel & Category:Israeli Orthodox rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  "Haredi" is a very slippery term. 100 years ago it was synonymous with "orthodox". Since the 1970s or so it has evolved a new meaning, which is widely understood but is hard to define with any precision. I'd hesitate to use the term of anyone before 1950, and certainly before 1900. -- Zsero (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In Israel they use the term "ultra-orthodox" which really to me seems to have no meaning, I mean if the laws are rigorously derived then there's nothing stricter than orthodox. But the real issue has to with sex (as do a lot of things in life) did Rashi's daughters wear Tifillin? I don't suppose anyone knows for sure but certainly no orthodox woman would wear tefillin nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.140.157 (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

New category?

Category:Descendants of Rashi? Thoughts. Chesdovi (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ha-Kadosh suffix

Rashi is commonly called "ha-Kadosh". [1], plus many more sources. Please re-add cat. Chesdovi (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See also grave marker section which reads: "reads: …many Rishonim are buried here, among them Rabbi Shlomo, known as Rashi the Holy, may his merit protect us." Search also GB in Hebrew. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral?

That "neutral" doubt box is original research and should be removed quickly, in my view. It was done by someone who wrote biographies of Jews on Wiki eg Joel Sternfeld and purposely leaves out all of their Jewish art works and never mention that they are Jewish. The editor also has absolutely not one single iota of knowledge who Rashi was (the undoubtedly greatest, post Amorah, Jewish leader of all time, top 3 according to everyone). The reason it is original research is that no text criticizes RASHI, that I can find. Can you find one? Therefor a very positive article is eminently appropriate!!!! Obviously, he is not a controversial figure, to an antiSemite all Jews are controversial. AntiSemitism today has been replaced by antiReligious so called Haredi, and anti"Zionist" scapegoating (the 7 million Jews alive in Israel ), RASHI is being branded with the original research broad "religious" brush, of today, therefor bad. Publish an anti-Rashi book if you want (there are none) do not soap box your ignorance on Wiki please, it is original research, in my view.Jhgtnlrs dnbtojn (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Also since Wiki is an Encyclopedia of the people an article about the greatest "religious" Jew ever should be written in the style that religious Jews write. As long as the grammar is on par. Just as an article about a Sikh leader should be written in an English speaking Sikh style, an article about the best Jew should be written in a style that contemporary religious Jews write, so that the reader can get a taste of religious Judaism. Why does every article on Wiki have to be written in the style of a couple of bully editors? In fact some articles are written in a British English style, some are in Australian English style, including phrasing. Religious Jews have a unique style of speech and literature today (study Artscroll), though heavily criticized by secular Jews, you may be in denial, but that is the case. Also Religious Jews tend to be much much much and another much poorer and less educated than non-religious Jews (the poorest county in America is Kiryas Joel of all Americans for example), and the articles should represent that deviance. Why should antiReligious activists angrily destroy that diversity, from a minority among a minority? Trust me Christian articles are written in a Christian or Catholic style when referring to the medeival Christian Saints.Jhgtnlrs dnbtojn (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jhgtnlrs dnbtojn's analysis. I took a look at the article and found some peacock phrasing that wasn't there when I last looked at this article, and which might have led someone to tag the article. I removed the non-neutral descriptions and removed the tag. The article could use more referencing to back up its statements and show non-Jews that Rashi really is as great as they say. Yoninah (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous - Jarchi

(Different question, since I don't know how to start a different category) How about ambiguous too? I'm no scholar, but I ran across a commentary that told what Jarchi said about the "angel" that visited Hagar (Ishmael's mom), so I got nosy and wanted to find out who Jarchi was. That landed me to this wiki entry, but it never answered my question. If John Gill can say he got his info from Jarchi a couple of hundred years ago, then how did Jarchi stop being Jarchi? Simply telling me his other names doesn't clarify why he had so many names.

Honestly, it sounds like you're rewriting history to make a point. That may not be what's happening, but that's how a nonscholar like me is taking it. How about less ambiguous, so people researching who Jarchi is can figure out why he stopped being called that in the last couple of hundred years? The upside is a more thorough article. 98.115.150.131 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Other names he has been known by historically are at Rashi#Name. I have now also added a disambiguation to the top of the Jarchi article, which is about a village of that name in Iran.--Pharos (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Living Descendents

I have found a living descendent of Rashi. His name is Jeffrey Mark Paull. Here is the URL where I found out about him: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/finding-your-roots/blog/noble-heritage-history-legacy-polonsky-paull-family-america/.

Anonymous173.57.37.138 (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a great many people claiming descent from Rashi (usually via the Luria family), as discussed at length in many works of rabbinical genealogy, so Mr. Paull's case is hardly worth mentioning. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit - Public Domain and CC-BY Hebrew & English Texts

Sefaria has a full 80 different texts written by Rashi (counting each book of Tanach, Talmud, Teshuvot Rashi and Issur veHeter leRashi.), some of them in multiple languages.

Probably most relevant to the English speaking world is the text for two complete English translations of Rashi on Torah - the Silbermann edition, which is Public domain, and the Metsudah edition, which was release with a CC-BY license. It also has the vowelized Hebrew from the Silbermann edition.

I believe that a link to this would fall under section 2 of WP:ELYES.

I have a COI (I work for Sefaria), and have discussed it on WikiProject:Judaism. Other similar edit requests have been approved.

Here are the links to the text of his Torah commentaries - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Given that there's a bunch of other works available as well, perhaps the link should be to his author page? Rashi. I'm not sure which is best.

LevEliezer (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Declined I don't see a specific request for what is proposed to be either removed or added to the article. Please consider the following as an example for how to submit future requests:

Proposed Changes

Current text	Replace with
In 2008, the Prime Minister remarked that she would not leave office.	The Prime Minister left office in 2008.
The Prime Minister was in office until 2010.	(delete)
(blank space)	The Prime Minister resigned during her press conference.

Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Following up on the above, I'd like to reopen the request. The details as above remain the same, here's a tighter presentation of the change:

Proposed Changes

Add to External Links
Public Domain Hebrew and CC-BY English of [Rashi on Torah]

LevEliezer (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050720031234/http://www.rashi900.com/more.asp to http://www.rashi900.com/more.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)