*1 There are about 6 dozen Rashis on AYIN-LAMED. We shall
spend about 10 issues presenting all these Rashis.
This list will then grow over the next 10 issues

In this issue we present examples where AYIN LAMED
means NEAR*10

*10 Both ON and NEAR have a nuance of PROXIMITY

However ON also has a NUANCE of TEMPORAL ORDER

In the list below the word AYIN LAMED means NEAR
withOUT any nuance of ORDER (eg HIS BORDER was NEAR
TZIDON).

The word NEAR can be both SPATIAL and TEMPORAL
(eg see the LIST below---if a woman sees blood
ON/NEAR her period (here the word ON refers to the
day after))

*1 AYL PARAN is the name of a place

*2 Nu13-29 literally says
-------------------------------------
Amalek sat ON THE HAND of the Jordan
-------------------------------------

Rashi does two things
- Rashi translates ON as NEAR (AYIN LAMED)
- Rashi translates HAND of JORDAN RIVER as
TRIBUTARY of JORDAN RIVER (Since tributaries
look like a hand)
Hence the whole verse is translated
-------------------------------------------
Amalek sat NEAR the TRIBUTARY of the Jordan
-------------------------------------------

*3 ie She sees a blood flow one day after her period

*4 NEAR your hand means the UPPER ARM
That is Tefillin are placed on the UPPER ARM

For further details see *10

*10 The Talmud, Menacoth 37 asks how we choose between the
two interpretations of the verse
-------------------------------------------------------
- Place the Tefillin ON your HAND
- Place the Tefillin NEAR your HAND (on the upper arm)
-------------------------------------------------------

The Talmud uses the Technique of OTHER VERSES. There are
3 verses regarding Tefillin
--------------------------------------------------------
Ex13-09 The tefillin will be as a PERSONAL sign on your arm
Dt06-06 These words shall be ON/NEAR your heart
Dt06-08 Tie them as a sign ON/NEAR your hand
--------------------------------------------------------

The gist of the 3 verses is that the Tefillin should be
- on/near your hand
- on/near your heart
- personal

The most logical resolution of these 3 verses is that
the tefillin should be placed on the upper arm towards
the heart. In this way they are
- NEAR your hand
- NEAR your heart
- PERSONAL (The symbol is in a non-visible place)

For the translation of Ex13-09 as PERSONAL see eg
http://www.RashiYomi.com/ex20-21b.htm

QUESTION
--------
Dr. Hendel,

I just finished an advanced English grammar course
that was based on the work of the structural linguists.
I think there was some transformational grammar
thrown in, too. It seemed like their approach would
be especially useful to anyone learning  English as
a second language.

Since I am learning Hebrew, it occurred to me that
the same approach might work well for Hebrew as
a second language. I asked around for something along
these lines, and someone suggested
Rashi's Grammar might be what I am looking for.
Neither Amazon nor Eisenbrauns has the title
Rashi's Grammar.  Can you offer any assistance?

To your knowledge is there such a book by Rashi,
and if so do you know where I might get a copy?
Unfortunately, the person who made the original
suggestion is not available to me, or I would
ask him.

Thanks for any help you can provide.
And happy new year

tx
/d

ANSWER
------

David

Here is a very brief answer to your historically
complicated question.

Where did structural and transformational grammar
come from?

Well...in the early 60s or 70s it was proven that
all known algorithms could be implemented in any
programming language that had 3 types of statements.

Additionally during this period Chomsky published
his very deep works on structural grammar.

The excitement was immense (and false). The hope
was that we could
- program a computer with known grammar
- supply a dictionary
and then we could get computers to speak. Hence
many grants were devoted to this project and
work on structural grammar grew.

The fallacy in such an approach is that it looks
on the dictionary as something static--as something
there, rather than as something evolving.

We now know that grammar is the easy part of language
while dictionary is the hard part. Anyway, from that
period we have a wealth of data and papers on grammar
and structure. For the first time in human history
grammar was placed on an almost algebraic basis.

It has taken about 3 decades for these ideas to filter
into the educational arena. Hence the course you took.
These ideas are still new but I expect more and more
of them to infiltrate and supplement our traditional
grammar.

You are correct that such an approach would help any
person....in any language..provided they can deal
with structural grammars.

So much for the history. As for Rashis grammar--
there are many learned papers on Rashis grammar...
I try not to quote them since I am simply interested
in the list approach (vs an approach that compares
Rashis approach to other grammarians).

I dont recall any books on Rashis grammar or even
say on Ibn Ezra or Radacks grammar (Though of course
you can purchase the ORIGINAL Ibn Ezra or the ORIGINAL
Radack). Modern Grammar books use their own theories
which they think are better pedagogically (and sometimes
ignore simpler explanations of Rishonim).

However Rashi does LEND himself to a structural
grammatical approach. Even his approach to conventional
grammar is structural--. Thus I have explained many
times that Rashi believed that while 3 letter roots
are used for grammatical conjugation, nevertheless,
all 3 letter roots derive their meaning from 2 letter
roots (This can be expressed elegantly using structural
grammar).

I hope this partially answers your question.

Russell Hendel;http://www.RashiYomi.Com