Parashat Tetzaveh lists the garments that the kohen gadol wears: These are the vestments they are to make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a fringed tunic, a headdress and a sash (Exodus 28:4). What exactly was the ephod? Rashi (ad loc.) writes as follows:

I have heard no tradition nor have I found in the Boraitha any description of its shape, but my own mind tells me (ve-libi omer li) that it was tied on behind him; its breadth was the same as the breadth of a man’s back like a kind of apron which is called pourceint in Old French, which ladies of rank tie on when they ride on horseback. Such, as mentioned, was the way in which the lower part was made, as it is said (2Samuel VI: 14): “And David was girded with a linen ephod”- this informs us that the ephod was something tied on the body. It is, however, not possible to say that it consisted of a girdle only, because it is said (Lev. VIII:7): “And he put the ephod upon him,” and afterwards it is stated, “And he girded him with the heshev of the ephod,” and this (word heshev) Onkelos translated as “the girdle of the ephod.” This, therefore, informs us that the heshev is the girdle and the ephod is the name of the ornamental garment itself. Furthermore, it is not possible to assert that it was on account of the two shoulder-straps that it was called ephod (i.e., that the term ephod applies to these two straps and the girdle to which they were attached), for it is said (Exodus XXVIII: 27): “The two shoulder pieces of the ephod” –this tells us that the ephod is a separate name, the shoulder-pieces a separate name and the girdle a separate name (i.e., each one of these is the name of a separate article.) Consequently, I say that it is called ephod in reference to the apron-like garment which hung down, and that it was so called because they bedecked him (ophedo) and ornamented him with it, as it is said (Leviticus VIII:7): “And he bedecked him with it.” The heshev was the girdle which was on the upper portion of it (the ephod), and the shoulder pieces were attached to it. Furthermore, my own mind (ve-od omer li libi) tells me that there is evidence that it was a kind of garment, for R. Jonathan ben Uzziel translates (2 Samuel VI: 14): “And David was girded with a linen ephod” by “a linen kardot” and exactly similarly does he translates me‘ilim (robes) by kardotim in the story of Tamar, Absalom’s sister (2 Samuel XIII: 18) “For which such robes (me ‘ilim) were the kings daughters that were virgins appareled.” (Since R. Jonathan ben Uzziel translates both ephod and me‘il with the term b>kardot, it is evident that the former was a garment of some kind just as we know the me‘il to have been.) {Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary, translated into English and annotated by Rev. M. Rosenbaum and Dr. A. M. Silbermann, in collaboration with A. Blashki and L. Joseph: Exodus (New York, 1965), p. 152.}

What does Rashi mean when he says, “libi omer li?”

Over twenty years ago I heard Ha-Rav Avraham Gershon Zaks, zatzal (1930-1989), a grandson of the Chofetz Chaim, present the following explanation. Rav Gershon refused to believe that these words imply that Rashi was relying on his own intuition. He consequently interpreted the phrase in accordance with an idea developed by the Brisker Rav, Ha-Rav Yitzhak Ze’ev (R. Velvel) Soloveitchik, zatzal (d. 1959).   R. Velvel took the verse in Proverbs (3:8): Bind them about your throat; Write them on the tablet of your mind (literally, heart), and utilized it to interpret the verse in Deuteronomy (6:7), in the Parashah of Qeriat Shema that mentions the obligation of parents to teach their children Torah: ve-shinantam. Now, according to Hazal, the obligation to learn (and teach others) Torah entails the obligation to learn both Torah She- Bi-Ktav (the written Torah) and Torah She-Be‘al Peh (the oral Torah).  Torah She-Ba‘al Peh was ideally meant to be memorized. If it would be memorized, it would indeed be written on the tablet of a persons’ heart. Hence, one could, would, and should find the answer to any conundrum by checking the Torah she-ba’al peh that would be inscribed on his heart. (An obligation, if you will, to attempt to photographically memorize all of shas! According to this idea, the memory feats (e.g., forwards and backwards) of the famed Gaon of Vilna were not just tricks, but expressions of the complete halakhic fulfillment of the obligation of ve-shi-nantam! They were the result of his photographically memorizing the entire Torah.) That, R. Gershon concluded, is what Rashi meant when he writes libi omer li. He was referring to the fact that he had verified what he was about to write with the Torah she-be’al peh that was inscribed in his heart.

Of course, if one does not interpret Rashi in this matter, one will conclude that Rashi indeed utilized his own intuition to explain the term ephod. But it was not a haphazard guess, but the result of the combination of his singular mastery of a massive storehouse of knowledge, his judicious powers of interpretation and analysis, and his careful weighing of the evidence in reaching conclusions. And we must add to this- the influence of his rabbeim. Rashi had three primary rabbeim, R. Ya‘aqov ben R. Yaqar (of Magentza =Mainz, Germany), Rav Yitzhak Ha-Levi (of Vermaiza=Worms, Germany), and R. Yitzhak ben Rav Yehudah (or Magentza=Mainz.) (On these figures, see Avraham Grossman, Hachmei Ashkenaz Ha-Rishonim [The Early Sages of Ashkenaz (900-1096) – Jerusalem, 1981]. For Rashi himself, see Grossman, Hakhmei Tzarefat Ha-Rishonim [The Early Sages of France- Jerusalem, 1995], pp. 121-253; idem, Rashi: R. Shelomoh Yitzhaki [Jerusalem, 2006], and idem, Emunot ve-De‘ot be-Olamo shel Rashi [Alon Shevut, 2008].) Even after R. Ya‘aqov ben Rav Yaqar, his primary teacher, had passed away, Rashi still based decisions upon what he had previously absorbed from him.

Interestingly, we find several examples of Rashi’s use of the phrase ve-libi omer li (or variations thereof) in his teshuvot as well. (See Teshuvot Rashi, ed. Israel Elfenbein [New York, 1943],  p. xl). One of them concerns Rashi’s position in a major dispute (circa 1070 C. E.) which was referred to as plugat ha-ray’ah. Rashi took the lenient view, in opposition to his teacher R. Yitzhak Ha-Levi and the rabbinic elite of Germany at the time. Rashi based his position on the view of his primary teacher, R. Ya‘aqov ben Rav Yaqar, who had died already. His language in this matter seems to be remarkably similar to what we find in his biblical commentary concerning the ephod. In Teshuvot Rashi, #59 (ed. Elfenbein, p. 57) we find the following striking passage:

I can hang (my opinion) on a big tree, R. Ya‘aqov ben R. Yaqar. And even though I have not heard from his mouth (the law concerning) this matter, nonetheless my mind (literally, my heart) and my reasoning and my understanding all came from him (literally, from his mouth). (Ve- af ki lo sham‘ati mi-piv davar zeh, mi-kol maqom, libi ve-sevarati v-havanati mi-piv yatzau.)

Rashi here reveals that in his role as a poseq, just as in his role as a biblical commentator, he was not merely a human tape recorder. He was able to confidently arrive at his own decisions, in the face of opposition by figures older than he, by using his own powers of reasoning. But his confidence was the result of years of training, and included the absorption of the methodology of his own revered teacher.