Rashi on Chumash: Pshat or Not?

In the comments section of my Pshat vs. Drash post, I was asked a question about Rashi and the place of pshat in his Chumash commentary. I responded there, but I decided that this topic deserves its own post. 

Rashi on Chumash: Pshat or Not?

There appears to be a widespread belief that Rashi comes to explain the pshat, whole pshat, and nothing but the pshat. "Chumash with Rashi" is used interchangeably with "pshat of Chumash." The question is: Does Rashi come to explain the pshat alone, or does Rashi's commentary include non-pshat explanations as well?

Thankfully, Rashi wrote his "mission statement" in his commentary on Bereishis 3:8:

There are many Aggadic midrashim and our Rabbis have already organized them in their proper order in Bereishis Rabbah and in other midrashim. But I have come only to give the pshat of Scripture and the aggadah which "settles" the words of Scripture in a manner which fits them.

As you can see, Rashi doesn't simply say "I have come only to give the pshat of Scripture," but continues, "and the aggadah which 'settles' the words of Scripture in a manner which fits them." Unfortunately, this additional phrase lends itself to several different readings. In the Vayikra volume of What's Bothering Rashi? Rabbi Avigdor Bonchek spells out the three different ways to understand Rashi's statement:

Rashi is saying, in effect, that his purpose is to explain the Torah according to pshat, but that he will also turn to mirdashim if they can be seen to accord with the words of the text. It is this second half of his comment that interests us here. He clearly says that he will use midrash in his commentary. Are his comments which are based on midrash also to be considered pshat interpretation? This is an open question. There are three main views on this question. We will list them without entering into the debate in depth.

(1) One view is that all midrashim in Rashi's commentary are in the service of pshat. All of Rashi's comments, midrashim and others, are thus considered to be pshat.

(2) Another opinion is that many, perhaps most, midrashim cited by Rashi, while not literally pshat, are nevertheless grounded in the words of the verse. In these cases the text has certain "irregularities," anomalies or nuances that raise questions which need to be explained. The midrashic interpretation serves to give meaning to these "irregularities." But this does not necessarily mean that such interpretations are pshat. Perhaps they fall somewhere between pure pshat and outright drash. This view would seem to be closest to what Rashi says above when he adds: "Aggados that explain the words of the Scriptures in a manner that fits in with them."

(3) One last view is that Rashi may cite a midrash for its educational/moral/religious lesson without it necessarily being in any way part and parcel of a pshat interpretation; it may not even have any "anchor" in the words of the Torah (as do those in #2 above).

Rabbi Bonchek goes on to say: "My personal view is that the vast majority of Rashi's comments follow #2 above, though some may fall into category #3." I agree with Rabbi Bonchek: most of Rashi's use of midrash is not intended to elucidate the pshat, but is cited in order to find meaning in textual anomalies. While I certainly do not consider myself as an authority on Rashi, Rabbi Bonchek's opinion accords with my own experience learning Rashi. 

Rabbi Bonchek adds:

One other point should be made. The term pshat itself is not a clearly defined concept. It would seem that Rashi's view of pshat differs from that of the Rashbam, Joseph Bechor Shor, or the Ramban, to name a few of the classical commentators. These Rishonim view pshat in a way similar to the way we ordinarily do, i.e., interpretations based on grammar, syntax, and context. While Rashi's view of pshat is highly influenced by the Sages' view, over context. 

I do not consider myself qualified to weigh in on this issue, but it seems important to keep in mind. Perhaps this sheds light on the Rashbam's statement about the difference between his commentary and that of his grandfather, which can be found in his commentary on Bereishis 37:2:

Let those who love reason know and understand that which our Rabbis taught us (Shabbos 63a) that “a verse never departs from its pshat.” It is true that the Torah’s essential goal is to teach us and to convey knowledge of the rules of conduct and laws which are contained in the hints within the pshat, through superfluous wording, through the thirty two principles of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, or the thirteen principles of Rabbi Ishmael. And, due to their piety, the earliest scholars were inclined toward the drashos, which are the essence, and as a result they never became attuned to the profundities of the pshat of Scripture … As it says “I was eighteen years old and I had studied the entire Talmud yet I had never realized that ‘a verse never departs from its pshat.’”

Similarly Rabbi Shlomo (Rashi), my mother’s father, who illumined the eyes of all the Diaspora, who wrote commentaries on the Torah, Prophets, and the Writings, set his heart to explain the pshat of the Scriptures. However, I, Shmuel, the son of his son-in-law, Meir, may the memory of the righteous be a blessing, argued with him and in front of him, and he admitted to me that if he had the time he would have written new commentaries based on the interpretations of the pshat of Scripture that are newly thought of each day.

Anyone who has learned the Rashbam on Chumash can plainly see that his standards of "pshat" differ drastically from that his grandfather. Rashbam barely utilizes midrash (if even at all), and frequently disagrees with what Rashi considers to be the "pshat." As Rabbi Bonchek pointed out, it is quite possible that the two Rishonim had different concepts and standards for what they considered to be "pshat." 

As for the Rashbam's statement that Rashi "set his heart to explain the pshat of the Scriptures," which seems to endorse Interpretation #1 of Rashi's mission statement (i.e. that all of his commentary comes to explain the pshat) - I'm not bothered by this. It is definitely true that the main goal of Rashi's commentary was to explain the pshat, and I don't think that the Rashbam's characterization of his grandfather's commentary compels us to think otherwise.

That's my position on the matter. If you come across any of the baalei Mesorah who discuss this, I would be very interested to see what they say - especially if they are other Rishonim.