<I>Nedarim</I>. - The commentary on <I>Nedarim</I>, from 22b to 25b, may contain a fragment by R. Gershom. Nor, to judge from the style, does the remainder seem to belong to Rashi. Good writers do not cite it. Reifmann attributes it to Isaiah da Trani, Zomber to the disciples of Rashi. <I>Nazir</I>. - Several critics deny to Rashi the authorship of the commentary on <I>Nazir</I>. Although there are no strong reasons for so doing, the doubt exists; for differences are pointed out between this and the other commentaries. P. Chajes holds that Rashi's disciples are responsible for the commentaries on <I>Nedarim</I> and <I>Taanit</I>. <I>Zebahim</I>. - The commentary on <I>Zebahim</I> is corrupt and has undergone interpolations; but there are no strong reasons why it should not be ascribed to Rashi. <I>Baba Batra</I>. - Rashbam completed his grandfather's commentary on <I>Baba Batra</I> from 29a on, or, rather, later writers supplemented Rashi's commentary with that of his grandson. This supplement is to be found at the Bodlelan in a more abridged and, without doubt, in a more authentic form. <I>Makkot</I>. - The commentary on <I>Makkot</I>, from 19b on, was composed by Judah ben Nathan (see note in the editions). It seems that a commentary on the whole by Rashi was known to Yomtob ben Abraham. <I>Horaiot</I>. - The commentary on <I>Horaiot</I> was not written by Rashi (Reifmann, <I>Ha-Maggid</I> xxi. 47-49). <I>Meilah</I>. - It is more certain that the commentary on <I>Meilah</I> was not written by Rashi. Numerous errors and additions have been pointed out. According to a manuscript of Halberstamm it would belong to Judah ben Nathan. <I>Keritot</I> and <I>Bekorot</I>. - The commentary on <I>Keritot</I> is not Rashi's, and that on <I>Bekorot</I>, after 57b, according to Bezalel Ashkenazi, is also not Rashi's. 3. PIRKE ABOT. - The commentary on the <I>Pirke Abot<I>, printed for the first time at Mentone In 1560, was cited by Simon ben Zemah Duran (d. 1444) as being by Rashi. But Jacob Emden (d. 1776) denies Rashi's authorship, and justly so. One manuscript attributes the commentary to Isaiah da Trani, another to Kimhi. Though the numerous copies present differences, it is not impossible that they are derived from a common source, which might be Rashi's commentary; for despite some diffuseness in certain passages, the present commentary is in his style. The Italian <I>laazim</I> may have been made by Italian copyists.