#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
  -----------------------------------------------------------
  |      Rashi is Simple Version 2.0                         |
  |      (C) Dr Hendel, Summer 2000                          |
  |       http://www.RashiYomi.Com                           |
  | PERMISSION to reprint WITH this header if NOT for profit |
  ------------------------------------------------------------


VERSE: Ex21-30b

>If the person (who owns the ox who killed a person) has
 ransom placed on him then he shall give the REDEMPTION
 OF HIS SOUL<


RASHI: Who does the word >HIS< in >redemption of HIS soul<
refer to? This is the question of Pronoun antecedent. There
are two possibilities in this verse

--If the owner has ransom placed on him then He(the owner)
  shall give the REDEMPTION OF HIS(The owners) SOUL

--If the owner has ransom placed on him then He shall
  give the REDEMPTION OF HIS SOUL(ie the SOUL of the
  person who was murdered).

Obviously these two amounts (the >Worth< of the owner vs
the worth of the deceased) may differ.

There is an interesting sidepoint to this controversy---
There seem to be 2 approaches to interpreting the
pronouns antecedent

THE GRAMMATICAL APPROACH
========================
--logically the antecedent of a pronoun is the last
  mentioned noun which in this case is the owner
  Please review the verse

  >If ransom be placed on HIM(The owner) then HE(The owner)
  shall give the redemption of HIS(The owners) soul<

  This is a simple GRAMMATICAL APPROACH


THE LOGICAL-CONTEXT APPROACH
============================
--But if we look at the verses meaning we see that the
  >PURPOSE< of giving the ransom is to atone for what
  his ox did. Since his OX killed a person therefore
  to atone for the murder the owner must pay the
  ransom of the deceased.

  Furthermore in Ex21-32 we are told that the Ransom
  for killing a slave is 30 units of currency(independent)
  of what the slave was really worth. This seems to
  suggest that the ransom goes by the deceased (not by
  the owner) Another way of putting this is to state
  that the CONTEXT of the paragraph dictates that
  we are talking about the VALUE of the deceased not
  the value of the owner.


Thus the controversy on the antecedent of the pronoun
is a controversy on a GRAMMATICAL vs a
LOGICAL-CONTEXT approach


Rashi in fact brings 2 opinions in the Talmud (One going each
way). The Rambam by contrast only brings down the final
law (Monetary damages 11:1)

We have frequently in this email list emphasized that CONTEXT
can take precedence over other rules of meaning (Such as
grammatical rules of antecedents)


RULE USED: GRAMMAR
---------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The following additional references may be too wordy
However they frequently contain additional information & lists
The hyperlinks only work on the main website

Volume 8 Number 5


#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*