<I>Chronicles</I>. - It is certain that the commentary on <I>Chronicles</I>, which does not occur in the good manuscripts, and which was published for the first time at Naples in 1487, is not to be ascribed to Rashi. This was observed by so early a writer as Azulal, and it has been clearly demonstrated by Weiss (<I>Kerem Hemed</I>, v., 232 <I>et seq</I>.). It seems that Rashi did not comment upon <I>Chronicles</I> at all (In spite of Zunz and Weiss). Concerning the author of the printed commentary there is doubt. According to Zunz <I>(Zur Geschichte und Literatur</I>, p.73), it must have been composed at Narbonne about 1130-1140 by the disciples of Saadla (?). 2. TALMUDIC COMMENTARIES. - Rashi did not comment on the treatises lacking a Gemara, namely, <I>Eduyot, Middot</I> (the commentary upon which was written by Shemaiah), and <I>Tamid</I> (in the commentary on which Rashi is cited). It is calculated that, in all, Rashi commented on thirty treatises (compare Azulai, <I>Shem ha-Gedolim</I>, s. v., Weiss, and below, section B, 2). <I>Pesahim</I>. - The commentary on Pesahim from 99b on is the work of Rashbam. <I>Taanit</I>. - So early a writer as Emden denied to Rashi the authorship of the commentary on <I>Taanit</I>; and his conclusions are borne out by the style. There was a commentary on <I>Taanit</I> cited by the Tossafot, which forms the basis of the present commentary; and this may have belonged to the school of Rashi. <I>Moed Katan<I>. - The commentary on <I>Moed Katan</I> is attributed by Reifmann to Gershom (<I>Monatsschrift</I>, III). According to B. Zomber (Rashi's Commentary on <I>Nedarim</I> and <I>Moed Katan</I>, Berlin, 1867), who shows that Gershom's commentary is different, the extant commentary is a first trial of Rashi's and was later recast by him. This would explain the differences between the commentary under consideration and the one joined to the <I>En Jacob</I> and to Rif, which is more complete and might be the true commentary by Rashi. These conclusions have been attacked by Rabbinowicz (<I>Dikduke Soferim</I>, II), who accepts Reifmann's thesis. Zomber replied in the <I>Moreh Derek</I>, Lyck, 1870; and Rabbinowicz in turn replied in the <I>Moreh ha-Moreh</I>, Munich, 1871. To sum up, both sides agree in saying that the basis of the present commentary was modified by Rashi or by some one else. According to I. H. Weiss various versions of Rashi's Commentary were current. The most incomplete is the present one. That accompanying Rif is more complete, though also not without faults.