*10  In this footnote we justify emending the Rashi text

First let us cite an authority: Radakc explicitly states
-------------------------------------------
I dont know why anyone should translate
Aleph-Lamed-Yud as IF IT WERENT FOR
-------------------------------------------

Radacks point is well taken. For of the 4 dozen or so verses with
the word Aleph-Lamed-Yud, only one of them makes sense if this
word is translated as IF IT WERENT FOR

And Radack is right---you dont change the meaning of a word
because of one example.

Now let us examine Rashi who in our version states
-------------------------------------------------
Aleph-Lamed-Yud can means IF IT WERENT FOR
Thus Rashi translates Nu22-33a as
- IF IT WERENT FOR THE FACT THAT THE DONKEY TURNED
- I WOULD HAVE KILLED YOU AND SPARED HER
-------------------------------------------------

The Sifsay Chachamim explains that you cant translate the verse
as MAYBE THE DONKEY DIDNT TURN because indeed the DONKEY DID TURN

However RADACK cleverly answers that by comparing the prepositions
- the DONKEY TURNED (from the road) ___TOWARDS___ ME
- IF the DONKEY TURNED ----------------FROM______ ME (Then I would kill)

Thus the verse clearly distinguishes between TURNING TOWARDS ME vs
TURNING FROM ME.

Thus Radack is right...the only way to interpret the sentence
is IF THEN. It is not possible to interpret the sentence
IF IT WERENT FOR THE DONKEY TURNING ... since the first TURNING
is TOWARDS the angel while the 2nd turning is FROM the angel

Thus we see that Rashi SHOULD be saying
--------------------------------------
Aleph Lamed yud can mean IF as well as MAYBE
--------------------------------------

This one word textual emendation of Rashi is rooted in
- the Radacks comments
- the usage of Aleph-Lamed-Yud
- Radacks refutation of the Sifsay Chachamim

*1 God wasnt angry with Moses-rather He had to PUSH his position that
a prophetically given punishment cannot be rescinded thru prayer.
This would make an impression on the Jews who would then take
Divine punishment seriously Thus indeed, as the verse says,
GOD PUSHED HIS POSITION ON MOSES FOR THE SAKE OF THE JEWS

*2 If one reads Ps78 carefully one sees that
- God PUSHED his position of being able to provide BOTH food and water
- So God gave the Jews Manna and quails
- The Jews had so much food that they overate and got sick
- Thus Gods pushing his position of Providence let to the Jews
being sick (a manifestation of his anger)

*1 Outline persons FORM

*2 But no power

*1 The point: It must be perceived as the SIMPLE MEANING
of the text that by calling Moses a female we indicate
some feminine attribute (Such as weakness) (Presumably
other attributes may apply but Rashi does not go
into them)

*10 The idea that the story in Nu22-21:35 was a vision
(and not something real) was made by Rambam. The
idea is easy to defend since we have talking donkeys
(and donkeys only talk in dreams)

*11 Compare the repeated use of 7 in the dreams of pharoh
Or the repeated use of 3 in the dreams of Pharohs
servants (See Gn41-01:36 or Gn40-01:23)

*1 Abraham was known for paving a path (like an angel
with a sword) Abraham waged wars. Similarly of the
3 holidays Passover is known for its military
aspects (Pharoh was defeated)

*2 Vineyards have THORNS and GRAPES(WINE) -- that is
they can be EVIL or GOOD like the Patriarch Isaac
who had the Evil Esauv and the righteous Jacob

Similarly we have the holiday of Pentecost
when the Torah with the paths of GOOD and EVIL
were received

*3 Jacob was continuously double-crossed by his boss
This is symbolized by the Succah a dwelling with
a plant roof. Or it is symbolized by the tight
place the angel was in.

QUESTION
--------
There was prior discussion in previous issues on such
Biblical homilies as the assertion that OG King of Bashan
was 100 feet tall. One discussant, Batya Maydad asserted
that such tales TURN PEOPLE OFF and it is better not to
teach them. She argued for using the BARKAI method which
emphasizes SIMPLE meaning and leaving homilies till later
In my response below I strongly dissent and offer an
alternative

ANSWER
------
The following posting appeared in Mail Jewish, July 10 2003

Batya (v40n2) writes about teaching that Og was 100 feet tall

>If you want to "captivate" a child's mind, please respect his/her
>intelligence.  Otherwise the Bible will join "The Three Bears," Hans
>Cristian Anderson and other fairy tales.  In Israel the Barkai teaching
>method is gaining support.  Children are first taught pshat and find it
>fascinating, and this fascination lasts a life-time.  Medrashim and
>meforshim are added gradually and later to help explain what is unclear.

I partially agree with Batya. You definitely turn people off if
you tell them fairy tales.

But you EQUALLY turn people off if you act like words have no nuances
and these nuances arent an INTRINSIC part of the SIMPLE MEANING of
the Biblical text. And to take Batyas theme--children love it if
you treat them like adults and act like the Bible is whispering
nuances to them.

Why dont I suffice with one outrageous example (which I taught to
a 7 year old as Pshat!!!!). Rashi (Gn01-21a) states on the Biblical
verse -- GOD CREATED THE BIG ANIMALS -- that BIG ANIMALS refers to the
LEVIATHAN which will be consumed by the righteous in the next world

To show this Rashi consistent with the simple meaning,
I turned to my 7 year old and asked him to make a list of words
that denote Gods Creating in Genesis 1. He cheerfully did this--
the list had such words as LET THERE BE, (GOD) MADE, GOD CREATED.

I asked him if he noticed anything peculiar. He immediately pointed
to the word CREATED which occured only twice in Gn01--for the creation
of man and for the creation of the BIG ANIMALS!! I then explained to
him that because the Bible used the word CREATE it implied something
spiritual and important (and he smiled and nodded).(See the url
below on the Rashi website for more details)

My point? There are TWO aspects to the simple meaning of Gn01-21:
(a) TANINIM means BIG ANIMALS, not Leviathan (b) CREATE has a nuance
of something very important (as DEFINED by the context of usage in
Gn01). A person who calls (a) simple meaning but ignores (b) is
being inconsistent!!!

I stimulated this childs mind--he became aware that you cant just look
at words but you must look at context---the context may hint at something
that is not explicit.

And lets face it, isnt it part of the joy of life when a) listening
to a political leader speak b) when watching a movie or TV show when
c) discussing some friends divorce or sickness---isnt it part of the
joy of conversation to "hear the nuances" as if they were said.

So no, I cant fully agree with Batya or the Barkai method: Midrash is
not something for the unclear; it is not something that comes
afterward; it is an intrinsic part of the text and life and to deprive
a child of these nuances is no different than feeding him fairytales.

I realize this is a strong position but I do feel strongly about it.
I think Batya has hit a nerve that has not yet been dicsussed on
mail jewish--not just the THEORIES of Pshat(Simple meaning) and
Derash (Homily) but the EMOTIONAL EFFECTS of the Pshat and Derash
on people (does it turn them on or off).

So I would like to see a long thread where we discuss not only
theories but reality also.

Respectfully
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/dt07-07b.htm