FULL-DEFICIENT:3 methods:#8 of 12
###########################################################
# 10 YEAR Ayelet DAILY-RASHI-YOMI CYCLE #
# May 25, 2000 #
# Rashis 62-63 Of 7800 (0.8%) #
# #
# Reprinted with permission from Rashi-is-Simple, #
# (c) 1999-Present, Dr. Hendel #
# http://www.shamash.org/rashi #
# #
#Permission to reprint with this header but not for profit#
# #
# WARNING: READ with COURIER 10 (Fixed width) FONTS #
###########################################################
In this series we will review all Rashis on
>FULL &
>DEFICIENT SPELLINGS
A person completing this module will be able him or herself
to naturally produce the same interpretations as Rashi and
Chazal. We 1st illustrate the meaning of these terms using
simple English examples. There are two methods
METHOD 1
--------
The word
>SLEEP
can be spelled
>SLE P (deficiently spelled without the extra e)
>SLEEP (fully spelled with all e's)
In METHOD 1 if a verse said
>He tried to get some SLE P
the proper midrashic response would be
>He tried to get a good night SLE P
but
>did not succeed.
The argument would be
>Since the word SLE P is spelled deficiently
>we learn that the sleep itself was deficient.
In other words in METHOD 1 we transfer the
>deficiency in the SPELLING (SLE P)
to a
>deficiency in the OBJECT or ACTIVITY spoken about
>(Can't sleep)
METHOD 2
--------
The word
>KITE
can be spelled
>KIT (Deficiently--it is missing (deficient)
1 letter e)
or
>KITE (Fully--with the E)
In METHOD 2 we interpret the deficiently spelled word as a
pun. We actually give the sentence a double meaning. Thus
if a sentence said
>The father bought his son a KIT to fly in the park
Then since KITE is spelled KIT, we would midrashically
interpret this to mean
>The father bought his son a KITE
>The father also bought his son a KITten!
Rashis position is that this interpretation of FULL vs
DEFICIENT is a grammatical rule and is part of the
intended meaning of the sentence.
In this unit we review a nuance of
>DEFICIENCY in SPELLING = DEFICIENCY in PERSON or ACT
We have already seen that eg
>A person whose name is spelled deficiently=a bad person
In this issue we will see that
>Deficiency in spelling = deficiency in number/plurality
That is the deficiency can be that
>NOT ALL
participated. Let us look at the examples.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
We now bring 7 examples where a
>DEFICIENCY in SPELLING = DEFICIENCY in PLURALITY
So if we are talking about an ACT then
>The deficiency means = Not ALL did it
If we are talking about an OBJECT with many attributes then
>the deficiency means = not ALL attributes were present
EXAMPLE: Gn09-12a (Brought in previous issues)
-------------------
>Gn09-12a
>I placed my rainbow as a sign for GENERATONS that
>I will not destroy the earth
>RASHI: >The Hebrew word
>GENERATIONS
>Is spelled
>DEFICIENTLY (GeneratONS vs GeneratIONS)
>Indeed, not ALL generations needed the Rainbow sign
>For some generations (like those in the time of
>King Chizkiyahu) were thoroughly righteous & hence
>did not need a sign. For this reason the word
>generations is spelled DEFICIENTLY.
EXAMPLE: Gn01-28a (Brought in previous issues)
---------
>Gn01-28a >And God said to them (Adam an EVE)
>be fruitful
>and multiply
>and fill the earth
>and CONQUR it
>RASHI: >The Hebrew word
>CONQUR
>is spelled
>DEFICIENTLY (CONQUR vs CONQUER)
>Indeed not all of them (Adam and Eve) were asked
>to conquer the world. Only some of them(only Adam)
>was required to conquer the world.
>
>And just as only ADAM was REQUIRED to conquer
>the world, so too the other activities in the
>Verse (like being fruitful) were only REQUIRED
>of Adam. This makes logical sense since only
>a person who can conquer the world and support
>children should be REQUIRED to produce them.
>Those who are not required to conquer the world
>are also not required to be FRUITFUL.
EXAMPLE 15: Lv23-40c
----------
>Lv23-40c >And you will take (on Succoth)..
>Palm (Lulav) LEAVS
>Thick branchlets (Myrtles)
>and willow-brooks(Aravoth)
>RASHI: >The Hebrew word
>LEAVS
>is spelled
>DEFICIENTLY (LEAVS vs LEAVES)
>This shows that you do NOT have to take
>Many Lulav Branches
>It is sufficient to take
>One Branch with many leaves
>For this reason the word LEAVS is spelled
>DEFICIENTLY (since the there is no requirement
>of MANY branches).
(The distinction between
>Many Lulav branches
vs
>1 lulav branch with Many Leaves)
was brought by the Sifsay Chachamim). Note how the Rashi
corresponds to the law that we take
>1 Lulav
>many hadasim
>many aravoth
EXAMPLE 16: Dt06-09a
---------
>Dt06-09a >And you will write these words (The Biblical
>Chapters that are enclosed in the Mezuzah) on
>the DORPOSTS of your house ...
>RASHI: >The Hebrew word
>DORPOSTS
>is written
>DEFICIENTLY (DORPOSTS vs DOORPOSTS)
>This deficiency in spelling indicates a
>deficiency in plurality. For a normal door
>with 2 DOORPOSTS only requires 1 Mezuzah on
>1 of the doorposts (ie it does not require
>2 mezuzahs, 1 for each doorpost).
EXAMPLE 17,18: Ex31-05e, Dt09-10a
------------
>Dt09-10a >The 2 TABLTS of Stone (the 10 commandments)
>Ex31-05e >The 2 TABLTS of Stone (the 10 commandments)
>RASHI: >The Hebrew word
>TABLTS
>is spelled
>DEFICIENTLY (TABLTS vs TABLETS)
>The deficiency in spelling indicates a deficiency
>in plurality. For there was no real need for 2
>tablets for the 10 commandments (with 5 on each
>side as is popularly depicted).
>
>Rather, 1 tablet sufficed (no need for 2)
>That is ALL TEN COMMANDMENTS were written on
>EACH Tablet (ie they were copies of each other)
Note that our interpretation of Rashi may appear novel.
At first glance Rashi is only saying that each tablet
looked the same(but maybe they had different words on
it). But when you look at the other examples in this list
of 7 examples of DEFICIENCY IN PLURALITY then you will see
that in each case the deficiency indicates that they weren't
ALL Needed. Thus
>you don't need Mezuzoth on BOTH doorposts
>you don't need 2 Lulav branches
>you don't need rainbow signs in EACH generation
>not all sexes (men, women)have to CONQUER the world
>not all reptiles were created
Hence to fit into the list we should interpret Rashi as
>you don't need 2 tablets (because they were copies of
each other).
In fact the Midrash explicitly brings down an opinion that
both tablets had all 10 commandments on them (not the usual
5-5 split we are accustomed to seeing).
The idea that
>deficiency in spelling = deficiency in plurality
was first introduced by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch who
used it to explain the rather difficult Talmudic passage
that
>A Succah does not need 4 walls
because
>the word SUCAH is spelled deficiently (in Lv23-42)
(this indicates either a
>deficiency in the sucah = not all 4 walls
or
>a deficiency in plurality = not all 4 walls).
There are other Talmudic passages that can be treated in a
similar elegant and grammatical manner.
----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*