#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: Gn47-27a
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
===============
In this posting we answer EITHAN SPIEGELS question of last issue
>Why does the Torah use 2 phoneticizations of >RAAYMSAYTH<--were
they 2 different places<
RULE
====
The Torah will frequently state verses using a >GENERAL-DETAIL<
or >THEME-PARTICULARS approach.< This creates an emphasis that
>ONLY< the details apply and no generalization of the verse
should take place.
For example if the verse (Lv01-02) says >Offer cattle & grazing
animals to God< then I would be justified in perceiving cattles
and grazing animals as only examples--I would be justified in
>GENERALIZING< the verse and asserting that many types of animals,
not just cattles and grazing animals, can be offered. However by
using the >GENERAL-DETAIL< style the Torah emphasizes that >ONLY<
cattle and grazing animals can be offered--no other animals may
be offered. *1
REFERENCES
==========
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example5.htm
NOTES
=====
*1 In the references I show that
--based on Rashi (Pesachim 6a), it is normal in
Biblical style to >GENERALIZE< all examples
--Hence, the >GENERAL-PARTICULAR< style is used when you
dont want a >GENERALIZATION< and wish to emphasize ONLY
THESE
EXAMPLE
========
Gn47-27a ....the Jews dwelt >IN EGYPT IN GOSHEN<.
This uses a >GENERAL< (EGYPT) >PARTICULAR< (GOSHEN) style
and emphasizes that the Jews >ONLY< stayed in Goshen. They
did not mingle with the rest of Egypt
COMMENT
=======
I think the emphasis in Rashi is a praise of the Jews. Even
though they were in Egypt they did not assimilate into
Egyptian culture. Perhaps this verse and Rashi is the Biblical
source for the Talmudic dictum that >The Jews in Egypt did not
change their language, dress or their naming conventions<--the
reason they did not do so is because they had their own
neigborhood.
COMMENT
=======
The Ibn Ezra on Gn47-01 also emphasizes that the Torah uses a
>GENERAL-DETAIL< style. Thus we have a confirmation from the
Ibn Ezra for our general way of taking the >GENERAL-DETAIL<
style.
The Ibn Ezra on Gn47-01 also discusses the fact that the
Egyptian name >RAAMSAYTH< occurs with 2 different
phoneticizations in the Bible, >RAAMSAYTH< & >RAMESAYTH<.
Ibn Ezra suggests that perhaps these were 2 different places
and hence they had two different phoneticizations.
But we have already answered this last week in the posting
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ex01-11e.htm and
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h8n23.htm
There we discussed the Rashi-MichatShai controversy on this
very same topic.
The points we raised there remain valid for the Ibn Ezra
--The Jews >ENTERED< & >DEPARTED< Egypt at >RAAMSAYTH<
--If the Jews also >STAYED< in Egypt in >RAMESAYTH< then
it was probably the same place
--In fact the name >RAAMSAYTH< was changed to >RAMESAYTH<
on the occasion of changing the land from a sheep
grazing land to an industrial complex (Rashi Ex01-11)
--This minor change of names is consistent with other
Biblical examples of name changing
--Since Ibn Ezra and Minchat Shai state their opinions
as >PERHAPS they were two places< while Rashi states
>they were CERTAINLY the same place< and since Rashi
gives cogent arguments and LISTS to back up his
opinion and answers all objections, therefore we
are justified in deciding the controversy like Rashi.
RASHI RULE USED: EXAMPLE5
---------------------------------------------------
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 9 Number 1
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Volume 9 Number 1