“The plain sense of the text is the basis on which rests the whole interpretation.”
(Commentary on Genesis 3:8)

“Rashi does not explain the Torah: the Torah is explained through Rashi.”
Later judgment of his disciples, which underlines their role almost oracular within the judaism of the middle ages.

1) Identity and time

Rashi was born and died in Troyes (Champagne), he studied in Worms and Mainz, and to 1070 he founded a yeshiva in Troyes. It is the jewish commentator medieval is the most influential on the Torah and the Talmud: set the standard reading “line by line” up to the present structure of the printed page of the Talmud. Died July 13, 1105.

Historical context. His life takes place in the Latin christianity of the ELEVENTH century, with growing tensions and, towards the end of his life, the trauma of the Cross; his school was the origin of the movement of the tosafistas (including their grandchildren Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam).

2) Corpus of works

• Commentary to the Torah and other books of the Tanakh. It is biblical exegesis, jewish most-read of the story; it has been the subject of constant debate about its exact nature.
• Commentary to the Babylonian Talmud. Model of clarity and pedagogical; summarizes language, defines terms, resolves fixtures textual and guide the continuous reading.
• Responsa and materials halájicos minors. Preserved in part in the traditions of their school. (Synthesis of general studies).

“The Torah speaks in the language of men.”
(Commentary on Exodus 15:3)

3) Method of exegesis: peshat with use calibrated midrash

Rashi declares repeatedly that searches for the peshuto shel miqrá (“the plain sense of the text”) and, at the same time, incorporates the midrash when clarifies the passage or suggested readings received. The expression peshuto shel miqrá appears close to two hundred times in his commentary of the bible, though he never defines it systematically, and the current research discusses its exact scope.

In the Talmud, its approach privileges the peshat in front of the pilpul and in fact “pashut gemará” it can mean just study with Rashi, without Tosafot. This frame is inserted in the array medieval PaRDeS (peshat, remez, derash, sod).

4) Features technical and pedagogical

• Glosses in romance (la azim). Introduces equivalent French for difficult terms, a teaching resource key in context francorrománico. (See synthesis in literacy studies).
• Economy and precision. His style lapidary explains why your comment was “stuck” to the text and became inseparable from his study.

“Every word in the Torah is full of meaning; none is superfluous.”
(Introduction to the commentary on Genesis)

5) Reception and influence

• Tosafistas and grandchildren. Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam disagreed with Rashi in multiple locations (e.g., the order of the parashiyot in tefillin), signal of a tradition in criticism to live within their own school.
• Canonization of de facto. His commentary on the Torah acquired status as quasi-canonical (without canonization formal) and generated a vast literature of supercomentarios, especially in the Low Middle Ages, ashkenazi.

6) Doctrine and selected positions

Rashi is not a philosopher systematic; his theology is inferred from notes exegetical. In general, avoid digressions speculative, adheres to the “plain sense” and only introduces derash when it brings clarity or preserves traditions plants. The discussion of modern debate, even if their formulations on the transcendent implied or not commitments “corporealistas”; the readings are found.

“The Holy one, blessed be he, wants man to understand His word.”
It is not only exegesis, is devotion: to know the divine word is to engage Your mind.

7) Rashi and the Kabbalah: an assessment from the perspective kabbalist”

Basic fact. Rashi lived before the rise of the Cabal classic (XIII–XIV centuries; Zóhar and developments hispanic-provençal). Therefore, it was not a kabbalist in the historical sense-technical term.

Did you have contact with esoteric tradition?

• Consensus wise: The accepted view for decades argued that Rashi did not try to mystical themes substantively.
• Nuances recent: Ephraim Kanarfogel has shown regions (e.g., in Job 28), where Rashi seems to understand of esoteric literature (earlyHejalot/Merkavá) or uses formulations that support reading mystical; however, this does not convert your project exegetical in kabbalistic. It is, in the best of cases, awareness and ocasionalidad, not a program.
• Attributions traditional post: Authors such as the Jidá attributed to Rashi knowledge kabbalistic and some commentators/teachers jasídicos reread to Rashi in key sod. They are readings later and devotionals, valuable for the reception, but no evidence an agenda kabbalistic original.

How to read the cabalists and the mystical tradition:

1. Ramban (Nachmanides), a central figure of the Cabal, discusses and cites Rashi frequently: it adopts its peshat when I served, but exceeds it by entering sod. (Picture in skilled manual).
2. Supercomentarios late-medieval converted to Rashi text-base that new flows —including the mystic— “live” with their own keys.
3. Readings jasídicas modern (e.g., the “super-exegesis” of the Lubavitcher Rebbe) show how, from a hermeneutic spiritual, Rashi can “contain” layers of remez and sodalthough his self-definition is peshat.

Conclusion kabbalistic. If looking to “the perspective of the kabbalistic system of the character,” the thesis more solid is:

• Rashi build the floor of the peshat with such effectiveness that the Cabal later was able to built up without destroying it;
• there are indications (not a diary) of consciousness esoteric;
• his legacy no it is mystical in origin, but it is fully compatible with readings mystical further that they take it as text-base.

“There is No before or after in the Torah.”
(Commentary on Exodus 31:18)

8) Input key

• Standardization of the peshat in the Bible, and clarity methodical in Talmud.
• Bridge pedagogical between rabbinic tradition, and readers of his time (glosses in romance, economy exegetical).
• Transmitting node to Tosafot and medieval exegesis later, including the supercomentarios and the hermeneutic kabbalistic.

“Who understand the plain sense of the Torah opens the door to the mystery of the soul.”
It reflects the view that peshat it is the portal of the sod, not its opposite.

Conclusion

• Rashi was not a kabbalist in the historical sense; your project is peshat-centered.
• Yes there are passages and rereadings later that enable a perspective kabbalist about him.
• Your influence is structural: without Rashi, or the page of the Talmud or biblical exegesis medieval (including the kabbalistic) would be what they are.

“The study without humility, turn off the flame of wisdom.”
Teaching derived from his style: precision without pride, scholarship, with reverence.

“The lyrics are containers; the intent is the spirit which animates them.”
Claims that the text is not an end, but a channel for the divine energy.