#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: Gn29-02a


RASHIS EXPLAINED: Gn29-02a Gn41-13a Gn39-14a Gn48-01a Gn48-02a
                  Gn39-04a Gn04-15a Gn13-06a



RULE:
=====
Most sentences have at a minimum
--an ACTIVITY (the verb) and
some COMPLEMENT to that activity such as
--a SUBJECT (who did it),
--INDIRECT OBJECT (Where it was done),
--OBJECT (To what was it done).

a) Sometimes however a sentence is MISSING some part.
b) Or equivalantly, a pronoun is used whose reference is absurd

In such cases it is logic not grammar that dictates how the
sentence is read


EXAMPLES
========
1) Gn41-13a

   RASHI: The verse: >And there was there a Hebrew slave who
   interpreted our dreams; and as HE interpreted the dreams
   so did they occur; HE returned me to my job; but HE
   hanged the other person<. This sounds as if JOSEPH
   returned him to his job and as if JOSEPH hanged the
   other person he interpreted for.

   The phrase is missing a SUBJECT and should read
   >And there was a Hebrew slave who interpreted our dreams;
   as HE interpreted the dreams so did they occur; **PHAROH**
   returned me to my job but PHAROH hanged the other
   person<

As we have exlained often, Rashi may make the same comment
on several different verses but only FULLY explain himself in
one verse. On this verse Rashi explains as follows

---------------------------------------------------------------
The traditional method of identifying the SUBJECT of a
sentence (WHO did the activity) is to use the last mentioned
person. So for example if the verse says >As HE(=Joseph)
interpreted so it happens; and HE returned me< then the
grammatically proper way to interpret this verse would be
to suggest that JOSEPH returned them

But there is a second alternative method for interpreting
Biblical verses and that is to use the OBVIOUS SUBJECT, the
person CAPABLE of doing the activities. Thus if it says
that >HE RETURNED ME TO MY JOB but HE HUNG THE OTHER PERSON<
then it must be referring to PHAROH who was in charge and
capable of doing such things.
----------------------------------------------------------------

(Also see Rashi on Gn01-01b for a statement about missing
sentence parts)Let us now review other examples of missing
subjects


2) Gn29-02a

  RASHI: The phrase Gn29-02a >there were 3 flocks by the well
  because from that well THEY watered the flocks< makes it sound
  as if the flocks watered themselves!

  Actually the sentence is MISSING a SUBJECT and should read
  >There was a well with 3 flocks ..since from that well
  THE **SHEPARDS** WATERED THE FLOCKS<


3) Gn39-14a

   RASHI: The phrase Gn39-12:14 >And she grabbed him by his
   clothes (to seduce him) but he fled and when she saw he
   fled she told her staff SEE THAT HE BROUGHT US A SLAVE
   THAT PLAYS WITH US< makes it sound as if JOSEPH brought
   himself to this household.

   Actually the sentence is MISSING A SUBJECT and should read
   >And she grabbed him by his clothes but he fled and when
   she saw him fled she told her staff SEE HOW **MY HUSBAND**
   BROUGHT US A SLAVE THAT PLAYS WITH US<


4) Gn48-01a

   RASHI: Gn48-01 and the surrounding verses state:
   >and Jacob said SWEAR TO ME and Joseph
   swore and JACOB bowed to him. After these events HE said
   YOUR FATHER IS SICK<; It sounds as if Jacob told
   Joseph he was sick.

   But the sentence is simply missing a subject and should
   read >After these events SOMEONE FROM JOSEPHS STAFF
   said YOUR FATHER IS SICK<

   In this verse Rashi also cites a second opinion which in
   this case is reasonable

   >There is an alternative interpretation: It is reasonable
   that Josephs children use to visit Grandpa Jacob(in Goshen)
   In fact it is reasonable that Grandpa Jacob did home
   schooling for his grandchildren. Then when Jacob became
   sick he could have sent his grandchild to tell Joseph that
   he was sick. Thus the original interpretation AND JACOB
   TOLD JOSEPH HE WAS SICK STANDS<

   In summary, pronouns, usually refer to the
   last mentioned person. But if the resulting interpretation
   is absurd then we should identify the subject based on
   capability. In the last example both methods are reasonable
   Here is another example like this




5) Gn48-02a

   (This example is similar to example 4)

   RASHI: The phrase >And after these things HE said to Joseph
   YOUR FATHER IS SICK. & HE TOLD JACOB your son Joseph is
   coming< makes it sound as if JOSEPH announced his own coming

   Although Rashi does not explicitly state so, this is a
   reasonable interpretation (Since it is the nature of people
   who visit to announce their coming)

   Rashi points out that an interpretation based on a missing
   subject is also reasonable >And **SOMEONE IN JOSEPHS STAFF**
   announced that he was coming<




The above examples review missing SUBJECTS. We now review
other types of missing sentence parts.


6) Gn39-04a

   RASHI: The phrase >And the Egyptian liked Joseph and...
   he appointed him on his household and EVERYTHING HE
   HAD he placed under him<

   The sentence is MISSING the word >THAT<
   The phrase should read >he appointed him on his household
   and EVERYTHING THAT HE HAD he placed under him<




7) Gn04-15a

   BACKGROUND
   ----------
   God had just banished Kayin from Gan Eden for murdering his
   brother. Kayin protests that he will be vulnerable. God says

   >INDEED IF ANYONE KILLS YOU... : (But) You will be given 7
   generations till I avenge your murder of your brother
   and kill you<

   RASHI: The capped words >INDEED IF ANYONE KILLS YOU...<
   is an incomplete sentence. It follows the patterns of
   macho people who use tough language without being
   specific (Eg >I Swear if you dare do such and such<)


   Rashi brings similar macho verses such as 2Sam5-8
   >IF anyone touches the Yevusi...<

   These unfinished sentences evoke fear in the ears of
   the hearer who complete the sentence with the thing
   they fear the most.


8) Gn13-06a

   RASHI: The phrase >AND THE LAND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR
   BOTH OF THEM< makes it sound like they had too many
   people and there werent enough apartments.

   The phrase is missing a word and should read
   >AND THE **PASTURE** OF THE LAND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR
   THEM<

   (Rashi presents a grammatical argument for the above.
   The word SUFFICIENT is masculine which would link to
   PASTURE which is masculine but not to LAND which is
   feminine).


This completes all(but one) example of MISSING SENTENCE
PARTS in Rashi, in Genesis. We will review examples from
the other books in future issues


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: To my sister who thinks I am spending too much
time with abstractions. She put me on an email list for
funny sentences and words (Like >Why do you DRIVE on a PARKway
but PART in a DRIVEWAY<.) I therefore wrote this posting to show
that many Rashis can be learned this way.


RASHI 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 12


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