#*#*#*#*# (C) 2001, RashiYomi Inc. Dr Hendel President #*#*#*#*#
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Rashi is Simple Version 2.0 |
| (C) RashiYomi Inc., Dr Hendel President |
| http://www.RashiYomi.Com |
| PERMISSION to reprint WITH this header if NOT for profit |
------------------------------------------------------------
VERSE: Gn03-01c
RASHIS COVERED: Gn03-01c Gn43-20a Gn43-34b Ex21-19a
=========================== Gn03-01c ========================
SUCCINCT SUMMARY
----------------
Rashi sometimes employs the STYLE methods of Rabbi Ishmael.
Here a verse is interpreted either BROADLY or RESTRICTIVELY
depending on INTERNAL CUES.
EXAMPLE Ex21-19a
----------------
The Biblical text states
-If a stricken person gets up and walks ON HIS CANE then
-the striker can no longer be tried for a death penalty.
(Rashi and Rambam Murder chapter 4) That is if the
stricken person REGAINS HIS HEALTH and then dies then
the original striker will not get a death penalty for the
blows. Here, ON HIS CANE means REGAINS HIS HEALTH. That
is, ON HIS CANE is interpreted BROADLY as an EXAMPLE of
any REGAINING OF HEALTH (not being bedridden).
The Rambam proves this using the following logic
- Even dying people can walk ON THEIR CANE. Hence
- the only reasonable interpretation of this verse
- is that it refers to REGAINING OF HEALTH
EXAMPLE Gn03-01c
----------------
Gn03-01c And the snake said: EVEN IF GOD said dont eat
from the tree.
The Radack (in his book Roots) cleverly
points out that no one begins a conversation with the
word EVEN. Concludes the RADACK:
- Hence we must assume that this statement of the
- snake was the CONCLUDING statement of the conversation.
- The word EVEN justifies FILLING IN the conversation
- that happened prior. Most probably the snake told
- them how God hated man and they should eat from the tree.
Here we interpret the phrase DONT EAT FROM THE TREE
broadly as referring to a whole set of statements
designed to undermine Gods authority. The Radacks novelty
lies in applying the Rabbi Ishmael rule of BROAD interpretation
to NARRATIVE as well as to LEGAL texts. The Radacks proof comes
from the word EVEN which should not begin a conversation.
EXAMPLE Gn43-20a
----------------
The Biblical text states
- Joseph had goose-pimples for his brother and cried
Rashi interprets this text broadly---there were emotionally
triggering events that caused Joseph to cry. Rashi gives
good examples of what these events might be: For example,
Binyamin might have told Joseph how he named his 10 children
over his missing brother. (OR Binyamin might have just told
Joseph how he missed his brother...the important point is
that we regard Rashi as giving a good example of the basic
idea in the Biblical text).
EXAMPLE Gn43-34b
----------------
The Biblical text states
-Joseph gave Binyamin 5 times the presents he gave others
Previous Biblical verses show Joseph acting friendly
towards Binyamin and the brothers (eg He invited them to
his house to eat--he blessed Binyamin). Rashi uses this
context to interpret the text broadly and give good
examples of this friendliness. E.G. If all members of
Josephs family gave Binyamin a present then he would
have received 5 presents(Joseph, Wife, 2 children and
Binyamins original present)
More will be said below on this GOOD-EXAMPLE-METHOD
especially in the longer footnotes
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
---------------
To Anonymous for bringing up this
intriguing Rashi. The above Radack and Rambam are not
well known but shed light on Biblical interpretation.
More specifically they suggest applying the Rabbi Ishmael
style rule of BROAD interpretation to NARRATIVE text as
well as to ORDERS in LEGAL text
============================================================
ITEM DETAIL
======================== ===================================
RASHI RULE CLASS: STYLE
RASHI SUBRULE CLASS BROAD
RASHI WORKBOOK PRINCIPLE #23
SEE BELOW LIST401a
A List of Verses Interpreted Broadly(Generalization)
============================================================
=================== LIST401a ===============================
The following verses are all interpreted
broadly. eg Ex21-26 says PAY DISABILITY
FOR BEDRIDDEN (torts). This is generalized
to ANY disability(BEDRIDDEN or NOT)
============================================================
VERSE TEXT OF VERSE GENERALIZATION
======== ================== ================================
Ex21-19a Walk on Cane Regain his health
Nu05-13g She wasnt GRABBED wasnt RAPED
Ex21-18b Tort on BEDRIDDEN DISABILITY
Ex21-26a Free if TOOTH fell VISIBLE ORGAN
Ex21-28a Tort if OX gores ANIMAL
Ex21-17a Death:FEMALE witch FEMALE or MALE
Ex22-30b FIELD animal trayf WOUNDED animal
Ex22-21a dont hurt ORPHANS ANGUISHED person
Dt22-23a FIELD rape HIDDEN place
Dt23-11a NOCTURNAL emission EMISSION
Dt13-07f temps you PRIVATLY PRIVATE|PUBLIC
Dt25-04a Dont muzzle an OX ANIMAL
------- ----------------- ---------------
Dt22-02a Return lost items People you know personally*1
Ex21-25a Pay for eye,burn.. Pay for each damage type*2
------- ----------------- ----------------
Gn03-01c Dont eat from tree God hates you/prevents growth*3
Gn43-20a Cried for brother Binyamin said he missed Josph*3
Gn43-34b Gave Ben 5-fold Josephs whole family gave*3
NOTES
-----
*1 This is a generalization from two verses, as follows
-Ex23-04 Return the lost article of your PERSONAL ENEMY
-Dt22-01:03 Return the lost article of your PERSONAL FRIEND
So you return ANY article whether of your PERSONAL
ENEMY or your PERSONAL FRIEND--as you long as you
know the person PERSONALLY. The law however exempts
you from returning the article to a known thief (a
non PERSONAL enemy) who might be guessing the lost
objects signs*10
*2 Ex21-24 lists 4 types of ORGAN damage:Eye,tooth,arm,leg
Ex21-25 lists 3 types of PAIN damage:burn,cut,inflammation
Hence we infer that in paying damage you pay for
EACH type of damage *11
*3 In these examples the principle of BROAD INTERPRETATION
is applied to NARRATIVE vs LEGAL text. Thus DONT MUZZLE
AN OX WHILE THRESHING is a LEGAL ORDER. We generalize
and prohibit muzzling any WORK ANIMAL.
Similarly
- THE SNAKE SAID GOD PROHIBITED EATING FROM THE TREE
is a narrative text that is generalized to mean that
GOD HATES YOU AND DOESNT LET YOU EAT.
For proof of applicability of the GENERALIZED RULE
to Narrative see footnote *12
For a critical examination of Rashis and the GOOD-EXAMPLE
method see footnote *13
--------------------- LONGER FOOTNOTES ----------------
*10 Several points should be made here
FIRST POINT:
- Ex23-04 uses the word YOUR ENEMY
- Dt22-01:03 uses the word BROTHER 5 times
So the real generalization is from YOUR ENEMY & BROTHER
So everyone FROM your enemy TO your brother gets
articles returned. This would exclude people you
dont really know who might be guessing signs.
Jewish law goes into the subtlety of someone whom
you dont know either as your BROTHER or ENEMY.
2nd POINT: We mention Rashis literal language
------------------------------------------
The verse says return the object AFTER YOUR BROTHER ASKS.
But no would return it before they are asked for it
So read the verse as follows; Return the objects
until you ASK ABOUT YOUR BROTHER--investigate him
-------------------------------------------
Thus it appears that Rashi is deriving the law
from a pun. (ASK ABOUT YOUR BROTHER vs YOUR
BROTHER ASKS) But the truth of the matter is that
Rashi is deriving the law from the generalization
and contrast of verses. Rashi as is his usual custom
expresses this technical derivation in a PUNchy
PUNny manner (so students will remember it).
3rd POINT
The main point in Rashi is that the two verses
have to be generalized. The details of how
this generalization takes place are subject to
Talmudic discussion. In this case the Talmud
and Rashi take an obvious approach of excluding
people (thiefs) who we would not expect the law
to cater to. But the main thrust of Rashi is
the generalization from two verses--the details
must be inferred.
*11 Already Rashi points out that CUTS involve both
PAIN and ORGAN damage (removal of skin).
One cannot derive the 5 categories of damage
from this verse (The other 3 categories,
disability, medical and embarassment are each
inferred from separate verses
*12 The Radack boldly asserts
- The statement EVEN IF GOD SAID DONT EAT FROM TREE
was the CONCLUDING statement of a long conversation.
We are justified in filling it in.
Radack justifies this approach because of the word
EVEN which always occurs in the middle of a conversation
Similarly Radack gives Jo02-24 as an example
-BECAUSE God gave you this land
Radack again notes that no one begins a conversation
with the word BECAUSE. Therefore we are justified--
in fact, forced--to fill in the conversation.
For details on HOW or WITH WHAT the conversation is
to be filled see footnote *13
*13 In this footnote we explain how Rashi filled in
missing conversation. We first explain the GOOD-EXAMPLE
method. For the original source see
http://www.RashiYomi.com/rashi.pdf
The GOOD-EXAMPLE method posits that a Rashi or Midrashic
text is not giving the WHOLE interpretation of a verse
but just one GOOD EXAMPLE. Hence the reader (or other
Exegetes) are justified in giving other good examples.
Here is the original example from my article
-Song of Songs Midrash Rabbah Chapter 4 Verse 1
- Text of verse: Wow--you-re beautiful--you-re beautiful
- Midrash: You-re beautiful in Man-Man laws; Your beautiful
in God-Man laws
- COMMENT: The Midrash is NOT exhausting the meaning
of the text in this one comment. Obviously the
Biblical text--you-re beautiful you-re beautiful--
connotes INTENSE admiration of beauty. The Midrash
gives but ONE GOOD EXAMPLE of this INTENSE admiration
The reader is free to give other examples.
Enough--let us examine how Rashi uses this principle
- Gn03-01
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that the
snake was trying to get them to sin (EVEN IF GOD
TOLD YOU NOT TO EAT). Rashi suggests that the snake
saw Eve eating from the other trees; Radack suggests
that Eve told the snake the prohibition of eating
from tree of knowledge. The snake says--but you can
eat from some trees..maybe you are wrong in what
God commanded (the ARE-YOU-SURE argument) Thus Rashi
uses this text as a springboard for discussing
how people get other people to sin.
- Gn43-20a
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that Joseph
cried over meeting Binyamin. Rashi gives GOOD EXAMPLES
of what could have happened -- Maybe Binyamin mentioned
how he named all his children over his missing brother.
Another good example (not given by Rashi!) is that
Binyamin could simply mention that his older brother
was the brother that was missing--and Binyamin missed
him alot
- Gn43-34b
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that after Josephs
harshness to the brothers he acted friendly to Binyamin.
He invited him to his house, dined with him and blessed him
So when the Torah says he gave him a 5-FOLD portion Rashi
gives a good example of how this could have happened--
maybe Josephs whole family each gave Binyamin a present
Note that in Gn45-22 it says that Binyamin got a 5-fold
amount of clothes. But Rashi does not explain this
5-fold amount!!!! Hence we are justified in seeing Rashis
explanation of the 5-fold amount in Gn43-34b as a GOOD
EXAMPLE not a general principle.
To what can this be compared: If I give someone 18 dollars
at a wedding. Wouldnt it be wrong to interpret the amount
as due to the fact that eg the wedding happened on 18th
street. In fact 18 dollars is a normal amount to give
at weddings. Similarly with Joseph...there are many 5-folds
-- Rashi only interprets only one of them...so he was
only giving a good example
============================================================
---------------------------------------------------
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 20 Number 11
#*#*#*#*# (C) 2001, RashiYomi Inc. Dr Hendel President #*#*#*#*#
Volume 20 Number 11