#*#*#*#*# (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: Gn29-03c
RASHIS COVERED: Ex18-15a Gn18-19b Gn24-45a Gn29-03b Ex18-15a
Ex18-22a Ex33-07b Ex33-08a Ex33-09a Ex33-11a
Ex33-11c Dt02-12A Gn29-03a Gn29-03b Gn29-03c
================== THE SUBJUNCTIVE ==============================
VERY BRIEF SUMMARY
------------------
Consider the tense of the verb SEE in the following sentences
--- Upon SEEING a red light, you stop.
--- When you WILL SEE a red light, you stop.
The verb SEE in these sentences is said to be in the SUBJUNCTIVE
MOOD. Although one sentence seems to be in the FUTURE(If you WILL
SEE) it is nevertheless, not talking about ONE event that will
happen sometime in the future, but rather is describing the
consequences ANY TIME this event happens. Hence Rashi interprets
Gn29-03 as the SUBJUNCTIVE-WHEN they gathered the flocks, then
they opened the well, watered the flocks,& closed the well
THE RULE
---------
One of Rashis 6 main tasks is to explain GRAMMAR the same
way modern dictionaries explain grammar. In this posting
Rashi explains the SUBJUNCTIVE rule:
Accordingly,
IF
-- we deal with a COMPOUND sentence
-- describing attributes of an ONGOING or REPEATED activity
THEN
-- we translate this sentence either
------using the SUBJUNCTIVE (WOULD) or
------using a GERUND(Word ending in ING denoting ONGOINGness)
-- & we use either the past or future grammatical form.
THE LIST
--------
The list below contains about a dozen compound sentences
where past or future tenses seem out of place. Rashi translates
these as either the SUBJUNCTIVE or GERUND *10 The first two
rows are new (The previous rows are from
http://www.RashiYomi.com/h12n4.htm)
======== ========================================================
VERSE TEXT OF VERSE WITH FUTURE/PAST TRANSLATED AS GERUND
======== ========================================================
Gn29-03 When they gathered they WOULD*3 open the well,
Gn29-03 and water the flock and then they WOULD*4 close*3 well
Gn18-19b I explain Sedoms destruction to enable COMMANDINGcharity
Gn24-45a Before my COMPLETING the prayer for her, Rivkah came
Job1-4 Job offered sacrifices SAYING, Maybe my childen sinned
Job1-5 The above procedure WOULD always BE DONE by Job
Gn29-03b until sufficient shepards gather for ROLLING the stone
Ex18-15a Upon COMING to me I advise them of Gods ways *14
Ex18-22a Select reps,JUDGING the people;you try the hard cases*11
Ex33-07b Moses WOULD pitch tent outside camp for people to come*1
Ex33-08a When Moses WOULD go out, people WOULD stand for him
Ex33-09a God WOULD speak to Moses face to face like friends*12
Ex33-11a After God WOULD speak with Moses
Ex33-11c Moses WOULD return to the camp*13
Dt02-12A Esauv WILL BE INVOLVED IN THEIR CONQUEST*2
NOTES
-----
*1 The next 5 elements in the list form one whole section,
Ex33-07:11. Rashi points out use of the subjunctive in
several of the verbs.
*2 Rashi points out that there wasnt just one war where
Esauv won this territory. Like many conquests the
war lasted over a period and was probably still ongoing
at the time of the Bible. Hence instead of saying
ESAUV INHERITS IT (PRESENT TENSE) the Bible says
ESAUV (WILL) INHERIT it ((FUTURE for PRESENT) since
the PRESENT activity of INHERITANCE is continuing into
the future. Thus this example illustrats not the
SUBJUNCTIVE but rather ONGOING activity.
*3 --------OPENING THE WELL
is denoted by the Biblical phrase of
--------ROLLING the (covering) stone (for the well);
--------CLOSING THE WELL
is denoted by the Biblical phrase of
--------RETURNING the stone
*4 Rashi is making a comment here about the beginning and ending
of a compound IF statements. Here is Gn29-03
- WHEN they gathered all the flocks
- THEN they WOULD
---- OPEN the well
---- WATER the flock
-----and CLOSE the WELL
--------------------- LONGER FOOTNOTES -------------------------
*10 Rashis actual language is that
-----------------------------------------------
These PAST/FUTURE verbs denote a PRESENT tense
-----------------------------------------------
But that is because Rashi had no words for SUBJUNCTIVE
or ONGOING activity. So Rashi used the word PRESENT to
indicate SUBJUNCTIVE or ONGOINGness.
*11 Rashis actual language is:
--------------------
THIS IS A COMMAND
--------------------
This seems to be an error since the verse is translated
as FUTURE(not COMMAND)
-----------------------
THEY WILL ALWAYS JUDGE
-----------------------
Alternatively the verse can be translated as SUBJUNCTIVE
-----------------------------------------
They WOULD JUDGE the nation continuously
leaving you the hard cases
-----------------------------------------
*12 Rashi makes 2 points here. First Rashi explains that
the text is SUBJUNCTIVE (God WOULD speak to Moses)
Rashi also explains 2 forms of the root to SPEAK
- SPEAK WITH means a Dialogue between 2 people
- SPEAK OF means only 1 person does the speaking TO the other
In this posting we focus on the SUBJUNCTIVE.
In a future posting we will focus on the two USAGES of SPEAK
*13 Rashi cites a Midrash which SEEMS to interpret the verse
literally as future
-------------------------------------------
God told Moses: Go back to the camp and pray
for the Jews. Indeed, we are both angry over
construction of the golden calf. If we both
remain angry then who will pray for them.
Therefore YOU go back and pray for them
-------------------------------------------
But neither Rashi nor the Midrash could possibly have
meant to interpret this verse as FUTURE vs SUBJUNCTIVE
Indeed the whole section, Ex33-07:11 is written in
the SUBJUNCTIVE as the above LIST shows. Furthemore as
the above LIST shows this is normal Biblical style.
The crucial point is that the Midrash is NOT
commenting on the verb form! Rather the Midrash is
SUPPLYING A REASON: Why, after talking with God,
would Moses always return to the camp.
The Midrash notes so to speak that Moses was angel and human.
If Moses would stay, as Angel--so to speak on Gods side--then
the Jewish people would be left without advocate. Therefore,
Moses would always RETURN TO CAMP--to the HUMAN aspect of
him. This would enable Moses to pray for
the Jewish people who needed his support.
In summary Rashi presents two ideas
-- a GRAMMATICAL idea: The verse uses the SUBJUNCTIVE
It should be translated as GOD WOULD SPEAK TO MOSES
-- a MORAL motif: Moses staying with God was always
temporary to enable him to go back to the people
and pray for them.
*14 Note that many other verbs in this section are also
subjunctive. Rashi frequently used workbook methdods:
That is, he commented on one example and let the reader
fill in the rest. We could translate Ex18-22:24 as follows
----------------------------------------------------------
Now, you WILL see/select from the nation good people
-so that YOU WOULD appoint them as judges over the nation
-so that they WOULD Judge the nation continuously,
-the big cases they WOULD bring to you
-and they WOULD Judge all minor cases
-If you WILL do this and
-God WOULD COMMAND you
-then you WOULD be able to withstand the burden
-and the entire nation WOULD ARRIVE safely at its destination.
-------------------------------------------------------------
================================================================
RASHI RULE USED: GRAMMARr
---------------------------------------------------
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 16 Number 1
#*#*#*#*# (C) 2001, RashiYomi Inc. Dr Hendel President #*#*#*#*#
Volume 16 Number 1