align-37


 ###########################################################
#       10 YEAR Ayelet DAILY-RASHI-YOMI CYCLE             #
#                 September 5, 2001                       #
#          Rashis 931-932 Of 7800 (12.0%)                 #
#                                                         #
#           VISIT THE RASHI YOMI ARCHIVES                 #
#           -----------------------------                 #
#       http://www.RashiYomi.Com/calendar.htm             #
#                                                         #
#    Reprinted with permission from Rashi-is-Simple,      #
#  (c) 1999-2001, RashiYomi Inc., Dr Hendel President     #
#Permission to reprint with this header but not for profit#
#                                                         #
#    WARNING: READ with COURIER 10 (Fixed width) FONTS    #
#                                                         #
###########################################################
    =============  HOT ITEMS ================================
   NEW & IMPROVED                             FREE DOWNLOADS
              http://www.RashiYomi.Com/download.htm

   ENGLISH RASHI:       http://www.mnemotrix.com/metsudah
   THE WHITE PAPERS:    http://www.RashiYomi.Com/white.htm
   =========================================================

 GOALS
=====
This module studies the ALIGNMENT method in Rashi. In this
method 2 different verses are found to be ALMOST the same.
The verses are lined up and the minor differences between
them function as footnotes illuminating the text.


TODAYS UNIT
===========
In todays module we align 2 verse halves dealing with
the prohibition of wearing clothing of members of
the opposite gender. We also get a rare glimpse at
a methodological Rashi-Rambam controversy.

REFERENCE:
=========
Todays unit comes from the following posting

http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h11n11.htm


#*#*#*# (C) RashiYomi Inc., 2001, Dr. Hendel, President #*#*#*#*#


PROHIBITION OF WEARING OPPOSITE GENDER APPAREIL
 

EXAMPLE 84: Dt22-05a Men shouldnt wear women clothes
EXAMPLE 85: Dt22-05b Women shouldnt wear men clothes

BACKGROUND
----------
Dt22 prohibits men and women from wearing appareil of the
opposite gender.

THE TEXT
--------
The verse has 2 halves. One half prohibits men from wearing
womens clothing; the other half prohibits women from wearing
mens clothing.

THE RASHI
---------
Aligning the verses we find that men are prohibited from wearing
WOMENS clothing while women are prohibited from wearing MALE
UTENSILS. Hence men cant wear jewelry nor women weapons.

THE LIST
--------
Here is the list. To facilitate alignment we have omitted
all differences of order (which of course is an interesting
topic in its own right). We briefly comment on the Rashi
Rambam Raavad controversy.

VERSE PHRASE1 PHRASE2 PHRASE3 PHRASE4

Dt22-05 A woman should not have on a male utensil
Dt22-05 A man should not dress a female garment
Differs *1 *2 *3 *4

COMMENTS

*1 This verse presents prohibitions on BOTH men and women

*2 This phrase is identical. What follows are PROHIBITIONS

*3 In prohibiting male-female-item interchanges the
   Torah prohibits
   ---COMPLETE opposite-gender items like things DRESSED
   ---PARTIAL opposite-gender items like things PLACED ON YOU

*4 In prohibiting male-female-item interchanges the
   Torah prohibits
   --- GARMENTS
   --- UTENSILS (e.g. Trinkets, Weapons, etc)*10 *11

----------------------------------------------------------------
   THESE FOOTNOTES ARE LONGER &MAY BE SKIPPED ON A FIRST READING
   THEY DISCUSS THE RASHI RAMBAM RAAVAD CONTROVERSIES IN LIGHT
   OF THE VERSE

*10 Notice how the Torah ONLY prohibited
   - men wearing womens clothing &
   - women wearing male weapons
   How do we learn Vice Versa: That
   - women cant wear mens clothing
   - men cant wear jewelry

   The answer comes from the end of the verse which gives a
   reason for the prohibition
   -----------------------------------
   FOR IT IS AN ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD
   -----------------------------------

   Thus (as Rashi says)
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   any dress interchange which can lead to sin is prohibited
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   Hence men wearning Jewelry and women wearing mens clothing
   are prohibited.

   Rambam further clarifies (and complements Rashi)
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   only clothing which are UNIQUE to that gender in that
   country are prohibited
   ---------------------------------------------------------

   Now for 2 controversies. First the Rashi Rambam controversy
   -Rambam views this verse as an EXAMPLE-GENERAL style
    --EXAMPLE: men shouldnt wear womens clothing
    --GENERAL: because it is an abomination
    Hence Rambam only generalizes to things like the example
    (See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example7.htm for other
    instances of the EXAMPLE-GENERAL rule)

   -Rashi however focuses on the word BECAUSE (BECAUSE IT IS
    AN ABOMINATION). This makes the verse MORE than an
    EXAMPLE-GENERAL style. It justifies FURTHER generalization

    Hence Rashi prohibits Biblically shaving armpits and
    sex organs (even though these are not visible like
    jewelry) while Rambam prohibits this Rabbinically
    (because it is not visible)

   Next we present the Rambam-Raavad controversy on plucking
   one grey hair from among black hairs. Rambam and Raavad
   seem to disagree. But I suggest that they agree PROVIDED
   the act is VISIBLE (like Jewelry)

   - So if you only had one grey hair in your head then plucking
     it would be Biblically prohibited even according to Raavad

   - If you had many grey hairs on your head and plucked one
     then it would only be Rabbinically prohibited even
     according to Rambam since it is not recognizable

*11 Finally we mention the reason for the prohibition.
   The Sifray-Sifrah and talmud state
   --------------------------------------------------------
   garment interchange is prohibited lest you mingle with
   members of the opposite sex leading to sin
   --------------------------------------------------------

   This makes it sound like DISGUISE is prohibited. But we
   have seen that even wearing MALE UTENSILS (like weapons)
   is prohibited. Hence I suggest that PROVOCATION is
   what is prohibited. Any dress unique to the opposite
   gender (like a man wearing jewelry) which could PROVOKE
   ------------------------------------------
   TAKE IT OFF; WHY DONT YOU LOOK LIKE A MAN
   ------------------------------------------
   is prohibited


#*#*#*# (C) RashiYomi Inc., 2001, Dr. Hendel, President #*#*#*#*#

PROHIBITION OF WEARING OPPOSITE GENDER APPAREIL
EXAMPLE 84: Dt22-05a Men shouldnt wear women clothes EXAMPLE 85: Dt22-05b Women shouldnt wear men clothes BACKGROUND ---------- Dt22 prohibits men and women from wearing appareil of the opposite gender. THE TEXT -------- The verse has 2 halves. One half prohibits men from wearing womens clothing; the other half prohibits women from wearing mens clothing. THE RASHI --------- Aligning the verses we find that men are prohibited from wearing WOMENS clothing while women are prohibited from wearing MALE UTENSILS. Hence men cant wear jewelry nor women weapons. THE LIST -------- Here is the list. To facilitate alignment we have omitted all differences of order (which of course is an interesting topic in its own right). We briefly comment on the Rashi Rambam Raavad controversy.
VERSE	PHRASE1	PHRASE2	PHRASE3	PHRASE4
Dt22-05	A woman	should not	have on	a male utensil
Dt22-05	A man	should not	dress	a female garment
Differs	*1	*2	*3	*4

COMMENTS
1 This verse presents prohibitions on BOTH men and women 2 This phrase is identical. What follows are PROHIBITIONS 3 In prohibiting male-female-item interchanges the Torah prohibits ---COMPLETE opposite-gender items like things DRESSED ---PARTIAL opposite-gender items like things PLACED ON YOU 4 In prohibiting male-female-item interchanges the Torah prohibits --- GARMENTS --- UTENSILS (e.g. Trinkets, Weapons, etc)10 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- THESE FOOTNOTES ARE LONGER &MAY BE SKIPPED ON A FIRST READING THEY DISCUSS THE RASHI RAMBAM RAAVAD CONTROVERSIES IN LIGHT OF THE VERSE 10 Notice how the Torah ONLY prohibited - men wearing womens clothing & - women wearing male weapons How do we learn Vice Versa: That - women cant wear mens clothing - men cant wear jewelry The answer comes from the end of the verse which gives a reason for the prohibition ----------------------------------- FOR IT IS AN ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD ----------------------------------- Thus (as Rashi says) --------------------------------------------------------- any dress interchange which can lead to sin is prohibited --------------------------------------------------------- Hence men wearning Jewelry and women wearing mens clothing are prohibited. Rambam further clarifies (and complements Rashi) --------------------------------------------------------- only clothing which are UNIQUE to that gender in that country are prohibited --------------------------------------------------------- Now for 2 controversies. First the Rashi Rambam controversy -Rambam views this verse as an EXAMPLE-GENERAL style --EXAMPLE: men shouldnt wear womens clothing --GENERAL: because it is an abomination Hence Rambam only generalizes to things like the example (See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example7.htm for other instances of the EXAMPLE-GENERAL rule) -Rashi however focuses on the word BECAUSE (BECAUSE IT IS AN ABOMINATION). This makes the verse MORE than an EXAMPLE-GENERAL style. It justifies FURTHER generalization Hence Rashi prohibits Biblically shaving armpits and sex organs (even though these are not visible like jewelry) while Rambam prohibits this Rabbinically (because it is not visible) Next we present the Rambam-Raavad controversy on plucking one grey hair from among black hairs. Rambam and Raavad seem to disagree. But I suggest that they agree PROVIDED the act is VISIBLE (like Jewelry) - So if you only had one grey hair in your head then plucking it would be Biblically prohibited even according to Raavad - If you had many grey hairs on your head and plucked one then it would only be Rabbinically prohibited even according to Rambam since it is not recognizable 11 Finally we mention the reason for the prohibition. The Sifray-Sifrah and talmud state -------------------------------------------------------- garment interchange is prohibited lest you mingle with members of the opposite sex leading to sin -------------------------------------------------------- This makes it sound like DISGUISE is prohibited. But we have seen that even wearing MALE UTENSILS (like weapons) is prohibited. Hence I suggest that PROVOCATION is what is prohibited. Any dress unique to the opposite gender (like a man wearing jewelry) which could PROVOKE ------------------------------------------ TAKE IT OFF; WHY DONT YOU LOOK LIKE A MAN ------------------------------------------ is prohibited