Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.Htm
Vol 1 Number 12
Produced Feb 15, 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v2-20-8--Remembering Sabbath is accomlished by designating FOR SHBTH
v2-21-12--Learn 4 laws from comparing 2-21-12 and 3-23-17
v2-22-12--3 Watchers; 2 types of accidents; 2 types of liabilities
v2-22-13--3 watchers; 2 types of accidents; 2 types of liabilities
v2-22-9---3 watchers; 2 types of accidents; 2 types of liabilities
v2-15-6---Repetition style is used for emphasis
v2Q20-19--Posting from Chaiim Brown
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2-20-8 Remembering the Sabbath will be done by designating
------ things "For the Sabbath"
v5-5-12 Watching the Sabbath will be done by designating
things "For the Shabbath"
v5a16-1 The WATCHING of the SpringTime
shall enable the observance
of the Passover to God (because God took you out of Egypt
during Spring)
v5-27-1 ...THE WATCHING of these commandments ...
.. {shall be accomplished by} ..
your making big stones...and writing on them....
RASHI TEXT:
----------
REMEMBERING is a GERUND. (It is not a COMMAND=REMEMBER).
Thus the two parts of the Biblical sentence are connected
as follows:
a) The REMEMBERING of the Sabbath
will be accomplished by
b) Sanctifying (i.e. designating) things for it.
Rashi also emphasizes the LIST method--whenever several verses
deal with the same topic they must be read simultanteously.
Thus the following two verses must be read simultaneously:
a) 2-20-8 REMEMBERING the Sabbath will be done by ...
b) 5-5-12 WATCHING the Sabbath will be done by...
This means that the REMEMBERING/WATCHING of the Sabbath will
be done by designating things for it...} A list of such
verse pairs is presented in {LIST1}.
RASHI on 5-16-1:
WATCHING is a Gerund & denotes general watching at all times
The calendar is watched and an extra month is made if
necessary so that Passover should come out in Spring.
RASHI on 5-27-1:
WATCHING is LIKE a PRESENT TENSE (i.e. a GERUND)
The infinitive can be translated as a GERUND
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
---ZaChOR has the INFINITIVE FORM.
---Rashi introduces a new principle. He explains
that the INFINITIVE form also denotes GERUNDS.
By the word GERUND I mean the ING form of the word. The best
example Isa22-13...And behold thre is partying....
the KILLING OF OX and the SLAUGHTERING OF SEEP
---Thus any verse with an infinitive can be translated as a GERUND
---Rashi gives a list to illustrate this {LIST2}.
--The present verse should therefore be translated as
The Remembering/Watching of the Sabbath will be accomplished
by sanctifying (i.e. designating) things for it.
*Rashi also explicitly advocates the LIST method: The SIMULTANEOUS
reading of several verses dealing with the same topic. {LIST1}
contains a list of such verses.
Finally we note that the RaDDaCK takes ZACHOR as a COMMAND not
a GERUND. Rashi however is consistent in interpreting each
INFINITIVE as a Gerund.
Some examples are
The REMEMBERING of the Sabbath should be accomplished by
designating objects as "For the Sabbath"
The WATCHING of Springtime should be for the purpose of
intercalculating the calendar if necessary so that
Passover is celebrated in the Spring
The WATCHING of the commandments should be accomplished by
setting up stones on the side of the Jordan.
Rashi is consistent in this method and mentions similar ideas
in several verses. Having gone over the main ideas we now list
some supplemental material in other Rashis.
RASHI ON 5-16-1 says that
The GERUND form (Ending in ING) denotes ACTIVITY outside of TIME
and consequently denotes a WATCHING of SPRING all year round. This
WATCHING of the Spring is ACCOMPLISHED by making the year a leap
year and enables commemoration of Passover in the Spring (when God
actually took us out of Egypt).
The Rashi on 5-27-1 is clear and needs no further comment.
RASHI'S FORM
------------
Rashi as is his usual custom prefers teaching, not by abstract
grammar but rather by catchy stories. He mentions the famous
agaddah that God said WATCHING and REMEMBERING simultaneously.
While not disputing that this necessarily happened nevertheless
I must emphasize that Rashi was emphasizing use of LIST METHODS.
For example when he mentions juxtaposing DONT SLEEP WITH YOUR
BROTHERS WIFE (3-18-16) with HER BROTHER IN LAW SHALL MARRY HER
5-25-5), Rashi wasn't referring to the fact that these two verses
were said together but rather to the fact that they MUST BE STUDIED
as a SIMULTANEOUS LIST.
LISTS:
-----
{LIST1} {Of several verses dealing with the same topic
---- Rashi advocates reading these verses simultaneously
so that the information in each one is preserved in
the final bottom line and so that no contradicitions
arise. Note, that this is done in modern texts by using
footnotes and cross-referencing--typological techniques
that were not used by the Bible.}
VERSES TEXT
------ ----
2-8-20 REMEMBERING the Sabbath will be accomplished..
5-4-12 WATCHING the Sabbath will be accomplished..
2-31-14 Those who DESECRATE her (Sabbath) will die
4-27-9 And on the Sabbath day OFFER 2 lambs...
5-25-5 Her YVM(BROTHER-IN-LAW) shall marry her....
3-18-16 The nakedness of your BROTHERS WIFE don't uncover
{LIST2} {Of INFINITIVES translated as GERUNDS}
VERSE GERUND TEXT
----- ------ ----
2Sam3-15 WALKING And her husband walked with her, WALKING
2Sam3-15 CRYING and CRYING...
Isa22-13 KILLING And behold there is partying: The
Isa22-13 SLAUGHTERING KILLING of ox and the SLAUGHTERING of
Isa22-13 EATING sheep, the EATING of meat and the DRINKING
Isa22-13 DRINKING of wine-{the mentality of...} EATING and
Isa22-13 EATING DRINKING because tomorrow we die anyway.
Isa22-13 DRINKING
5-16-1 WATCHING The WATCHING of the Spring shall enable
the passover to happen in the Springtime
5-27-1 WATCHING* The WATCHING(Commemoration) of the
commandments shall be...by the building
of stones....and writing the laws on them
Isa42-24 WALKING ..They didn't want the WALKING in my ways**
Isa3-16 WALKING WALKING and TIPTOEING is their gate***
1-12-9 WALKING And Abraham journeyed, WALKING and
JOURNEYING southward
Jer2-2 WALKING While WALKING,call out to the Jerusalemites
"Thus says God...I remember your walking
after me in a desert..."****
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* Rashi EXPLICITLY identifies the INFINITIVE on this verse as
"LIKE THE PRESENT" (i.e. a GERUND).
**Isa42-24 can EITHER be translated with INFINITIVE or GERUND
INFINITIVE: They did not want TO WALK in my ways
GERUND: They did not want the WALKING in my ways
***Perhaps a better translation would be "They walked by
WALKING and TIPTOEING" (i.e. They walked in a WALKING-TIPTOEING
GATE)
**** Note that the Radack here dismisses the verbal form as a
COMMAND or INFINITIVE. I suppose the ultimate question in all these
translations is HOW natural is the use of the Gerund...I tried
to pick verses where the gerund seems natural...in this verse
Jer2-2 I think there is a symbolic pun...."While walking call out."
....In other words Jeremiah's WALKING is SYMBOLIC of the Jews
WALKING in the desert...that is why he was commanded to give this
Divine utterance WHILE WALKING (normally Divine utterances were
given while standing,in an atmosphere of more respect)--I picked
this example to show the possible richness in using Gerunds and
how they might shed additional light on meaning
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
5-27-1....Rashi explicitly gives the GERUND RULE HERE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
This Sifsay Chachamim brings down the Gmarrah (Baytzah 16a).
Hillel and Shammai had differing customs: Shammai would find a
good animal on Sunday and say "For the Sabbath". Then if he found
a better animal on Monday he would eat the first one and make
the Monday animal "for the sabbath". Hillel on the other hand
said "Bless be God day by day".
Rashi SEEMS to decide like Shammai (Designate objects for the
Sabbath) even though the law is like Hillel. This raises a problem
(the problem was raised by the Ramban).
We offer 4 solutions:
1) Hillel and Shammai only disagree about DESIGNATION of FOOD
for Sabbath. But they ALL AGREE on DESIGNATION of OBJECTS for
Sabbath (e.g. a Good tablecloth). So Rashi here is talking
about OBJECTS not Food (RAM)
2) Sifsay Chachamim suggests that Hillel agreed with Shammai
that the law is this way with food
3) Rashi on BTZH(16) holds that Hillel and Shammai
do NOT disagree that FOOD and OBJECTS
should be SANCTIFIED (ie. designated) FOR SABBATH.
Rather they disagree about what happens if e.g. on Monday you
find a BETTER FOOD than the one you found on Sunday. Hillel
was of the opinion that you fulfilled your obligation while
Shammai was of the opinion that you have to redesignate the
Monday object for Sabbath.
Following the grammatical derivation of the verse (GERUND=TIMELESS
verb) I would say that explanation 3 makes sense....you sanctify
FOOD or OBJECT whenever you find it (but you don't have to keep
on redesignating new objects).
Rashi seems to indicate in BTZH that Hillel e.g. waited till
the end of the week and was confident he would find a good
food for the Sabbath
4) The Rambam (by omission) does NOT decide either like Hillel or
Shammai (The Gemarrah refers to Hillel's action as a CHARACTER
TRAIT and therefore Rambam did not view this as a legal argument.
Thus the Rambam would hold like Position 3---you SHOULD designate
things for the Sabbath and it is up to you whether you designate
them on Sunday or Friday and whether you redesignate if finding
a better one.
RULE CLASSIFICATION: GRAMMAR
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2a21-12 He that hits a person and he dies shall be
------ sentenced to death
v2b21-12
RASHI TEXT:
----------
Rashi contrasts 2-12-12 and 3-23-17 which both DEAL
with the same topic but have minor differences in language.
These minor differences lead to many laws.
This Rashi is long and therefore the text is contained in the
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION section.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
We would strongly recommend that students take a pencil
and paper and clearly delineate the verses with their
contrasts when studying them (This helps tremendously
in understanding the verses).
The form we use consists of
* a linear comparison of the two verses/parshaas
* an identification of all DIFFERENCES between them
* An identification of all LEARNED laws
Upon comparison of the two verses we find 4 differences {LIST1}.
TEXT OF TEXT OF
2-21-12 3-23-17 DIFFERENCE
------- ------- ----------
A man (a)
He who hits that hits
a man any human soul (b),(b')
and that person dies (c)
shall be given a death sentence shall be given a ...
The method of reading this list should be clear.
Thus if we read down a column we get each verse. As an example
the left hand column reads down as follows:
>He who hits a man and that person dies...<(2-21-12)
On the other hand by reading across each row we can clearly see
differences between the verses. For example
-Both verses end with "Shall be given a death sentence" so there
is no difference between the vereses here
-The conjunctive phrase "and that person then dies" is present
in 2-21-12 but not in 3-23-17---this represents a DIFFERENCE
between the verses (which we arbitrarily label as difference c)
-2-21-12 speaks about hitting a MAN while 3-23-17 speaks about
hitting ANY HUMAN SOUL (Thus the two verses describe the victim
differently---we refer to these as differences b and b').
Rashi now learns the following 4 laws from these juxtaposed verses:
a) No death penalty for murder by minors
b) Death penalty for killing women/children
b')No death penalty for abortions
c) Death penalty only if blow was lethal
These laws are learned as follows: {LIST2}
THIS LAW IS LEARNED
DIFFERENCE LAW LEARNED FROM THIS NUANCE
--------- ----------- --------------------
(a) No death penalty for A MAN but not a MINOR
minors
(b) Death penalty for Any human soul
killing women/children
(b') No death penalty for A man/human soul(not fetus)
abortions
(c) Death penalty only hits..AND he dies
if the blow was lethal
(No death penalty for
death from non lethal
blows)
RASHI'S FORM
------------
Rashi "pegs" the laws to the "double verse juxtaposition".
This "double verse method" is a powerful one.
NOTE: Rashi is NOT learning the laws from "Extra words".
Rather he is learning the laws from MINOR DIFFERENCES IN THE
JUXTAPOSED LIST. It is important to emphasize that it is the
LISTING of the 2 verses that enables and gives strength to
the derash and laws learnt.
Again we would strongly recommend that students take a pencil
and paper and clearly delineate the verses with their
contrasts when studying them (This helps tremendously
in understanding the verses).
The form used above consists of
* a linear comparison of the two verses/parshaas
* an identification of all DIFFERENCES between them
* An identification of all LEARNED laws
I believe that such a form gives greatest clarity.
LIST:
-----
{LIST1} {Of the two verses: 2-21-12 and 3-23-17. The method
of reading this verse is contained in the footnote #}
The laws inferred from differences (a)-(c) are presented
in {LIST2}}
TEXT OF TEXT OF
2-21-12 3-23-17 DIFFERENCE
------- ------- ----------
A man (a)
He who hits that hits
a man any human soul (b),(b')
and that person dies (c)
shall be given a death sentence shall be given a ...
FOOTNOTE:
=========
# The method of reading this list should be clear.
Thus if we read down a column we get each verse. As an example
the left hand column reads down as follows:
>He who hits a man and that person dies...<(2-21-12)
On the other hand by reading across each row we can clearly see
differences between the verses. For example
-Both verses end with "Shall be given a death sentence" so there
is no difference between the vereses here
-The conjunctive phrase "and that person then dies" is present
in 2-21-12 but not in 3-23-17---this represents a DIFFERENCE
between the verses (which we arbitrarily label as difference c)
-2-21-12 speaks about hitting a MAN while 3-23-17 speaks about
hitting ANY HUMAN SOUL (Thus the two verses describe the victim
differently---we refer to these as differences b and b').
{LIST2} {The laws learned from the differences (a)-(c) between
the two verses mentioned in {LIST1}}
THIS LAW IS LEARNED
DIFFERENCE LAW LEARNED FROM THIS NUANCE
--------- ----------- --------------------
(a) No death penalty for A MAN but not a MINOR
minors
(b) Death penalty for Any human soul
killing women/children
(b') No death penalty for A man/human soul(not fetus)
abortions
(c) Death penalty only hits..AND he dies
if the blow was lethal
(No death penalty for
death from non lethal
blows)
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
2-20-8 explicitly mentions the use of LISTS in studying
double verses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
RULE CLASSIFICATION: DOUBLE PARSHAS | TWO
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2-22-9 When a person gives to his friend...to watch
v2c22-12 ..for the Killed animal he will not pay
v2a22-13 ..When a person borrows from his friend
RASHI TEXT:
-----------
The Rashi text cross references other chapters. Therefore
we have deviated from our usual custom of citing Rashi
and included everything in the BRIEF BUT COMPLETE
NARRATIVE ACCOUNT.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
There are 3 paragraphs in the Bible dealing with people
who are WATCHING someone elses property.{LIST1}
-The first paragraph deals with a person who watches
the possession of a friend for FREE
This chapter begins at 2-22-6
-The next paragraph deals with a person who watches for PAY
This chapter begins at 2-22-9
-The last paragraph deals with a person who BORROWS
This chapter begins at 2-22-13
The basic laws {LIST2} corresponding
to this hierarchy are that:
-A FREE watcher is NOT LIABLE on theft (or death) of
the watched object
-A BORROWER is LIABLE on everything
-A PAID watcher is LIABLE on theft & NOT LIABLE on ACCIDENTS
Rashi further amplifies the difference between an
accident and negligence by considering the case of a
paid watcher watching someone elses animal which gets
killed by another animal:
If the killer animal was a lion or leapord the watcher
needn't pay (because death could not have been prevented);
by contrast if the killer animal was a cat the
watcher does pay (because he was negligent and could have
prevented it)
We conclude with some comments about the actual derivation.
For the above laws are NOT ALL explicitly mentioned in the text.
A certain degree of logic must be used.
LOGIC is a characteristic tool of Monetary,Civil, and
sacrificial laws. Logic is not used in e.g. marital laws.
The major contribution of logic is to take the Biblical examples
(Theft 2-22-6 and death 2-22-9) as teaching us that it is the
DEGREE OF NEGLIGENCE that determines if the watcher is liable.
Theft shows negligence since it could have been prevented if
the object was watched while death does not show negligence
since it couldn't have been prevented. {LIST3}
This immediately explains why a PAID watcher is EXEMPT if the
watched object dies (2-22-9:10) but LIABLE if the object
is stolen 2-22-11, laws explicitly stated in the text 2-22
We then infer that since an UNPAID watcher is EXEMPT **even**
on theft 2-22-7) he is certainly exempt on death. This explains
why theft but not death is mentioned by an UNPAID watcher.
Similarly DEATH but not THEFT is mentioned by a BORROWER. So
we infer that a borrower is liable EVEN on death (2-22-13)
and certainly on theft {LIST4}.
Logic is also used to differentiate 2-22-6 vs 2-22-9 (One deals
with a free watcher while one deals with a paid watcher(Even though
this is not explicitly stated in the text).
RASHI'S FORM
------------
Rashi on 2-22-12 is not his usual terse self but actually gives the
full explanation. "THE" is just a hint and this is learned from
the 3 chapters and their cases which show that DEGREE OF NEGLIGENCE
is the important determinant.
I again emphasize that although most students can follow these
Rashis without pencil and paper nevertheless those who wish to
properly learn Rashi should take out a pencil and paper and make
the appropriate comparisons. This will greatly enhance the Rashi
study and increase comprehension.
LISTS:
------
{LIST1} {Of the 3 chapters in 2-22}
TYPE OF
VERSE* HAPPENING RESULT VERSE WATCHER
----- --------- ------ ----- -------
2-22-6 Theft Oath;No Payment 2-22-7 Free
2-22-9 Death Oath;No Payment 2-22-10 Paid
2-22-9 Theft Payment 2-22-11 Paid
2-22-13 Death Payment 2-22-13 Borrower
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* By VERSE I mean the BEGINNING verse of the chapter
The 4th column refers to the verse where the RESULT (Column 3)
is mentioned. As can be seen there are 3 chapters
2-22-6 thru 2-22-8
2-22-9 thru 2-22-12
2-22-13 thru 2-22-14
{LIST2} {Of HAPPENINGS/RESULTS}
HAPPENING WATCHER RESULT# VERSE
--------- ------- ------ -----
Theft Free Oath,NoPayment 2-22-7
Theft Paid Payment 2-22-11
Theft Borrower Payment 2-22-13*#
Death Free Oath,NoPayment 2-22-8**#
Death Paid Oath,NoPayment 2-22-10
Death Borrower Payment 2-22-13
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* Theft is not EXPLICITLY mentioned by the Borrower. However
since the Borrower is liable EVEN on theft he certainly
is liable on death. Note that thruout we assume a hierarchy:
Theft = Lowest "accident"; it could have been prevented
Death = Higher "accident"; no way to prevent
In other words the "accidents" are classified by the degree of
negligence involved of the watcher--theft has some negligence
since it could have been prevented while death has no negligence
Having said this we see that
The Torah itself (and Jewish law also) classifies armed robbery,
wild animal attacks etc as similar to death (because they couldn't
have been prevented--the so called "negligence theme"). On the
other hand with wild animal attacks if they could have been
prevented they are classifed like theft (2-21-12 Rashi))
** Death is not explicitly mentioned by the Free watcher. But
since he is free (with oath) even for theft (which has some
negligence) he certainly is free for Death. This also seems to
be the content of 2-22-8 a somewhat cryptic verse.
# Note (in the last two footnotes) how logic strongly enters the
interpretation. This is characteristic of Monetary and Tort law.
{LIST3} {Of happenings classified by NEGLIGENCE}
HAPPENING DEGREE OF NEGLIGENCE WHO IS LIABLE
--------- -------------------- -------------
Theft Yes (could have been prevented) Paid, Borrower
Death No Borrower
{LIST4} {Of WHAT is mentioned WHERE}
WATCHER THEFT DEATH
------- ----- -----
Free* Yes No **
Paid Yes Yes
Borrower No Yes
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* The meaning of this list should be clear. Thus THEFT is
mentioned in the chapter of the Free watcher (2-22-6thru2-22-8)
but DEATH is not mentioned.
** The above list shows that LOGIC must be used to classify death
as a less negligent action then theft.
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
RULE CLASSIFICATION: DOUBLE PARSHAS | SEVERAL
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2b15-6 Your RIGHT HAND, God, is in splendor because of
------ its stregth, your RIGHT HAND smashes the enemy
RASHI TEXT:
----------
Sometimes for emphasis a sentence component is repeated. This
repetition (Your RIGHT HAND, God, Your RIGHT HAND smashed the enemy
is a matter of style and occurs frequently.
The repetition style also allows interpolation of additional
phrases (Your RIGHT HAND, God--which is splendid in strength--your
RIGHT HAND smashed the enemy).
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
The verse says: Your RIGHT HAND, God--which is splendid in strength
--your RIGHT HAND smashed the enemy.
Rashi simply adds that this repetition is a characteristic style
used for emphasis and gives a list of similar verses.
In other words it could have said:
>>> "Your right hand, God, which
>>> is splendid in strength smashed the enemy."
Instead it uses a repetition style:
>>> "Your right hand, O God, is splendid in strength
>>> Your right hand, will smash the enemy"
Rashis main contribution here is {LIST1} which contains many
verses with repeated words used for emphasis. Such a list
can be created with modern CD roms if you used ADVANCED SQL.
RASHI'S FORM
------------
Chaiim Brown (who raised this verse) asked why there were two
explanations in Rashi (equivalantly, he asked how this list or I
deal with the 2 explanations). Here is a brief summary of what I
suggest:
* Rashi believes that the 2nd opinion he mentions is the REAL
meaning (in other words the repeated phrase is simply a matter of
style)
* Partial proof that Rashi believes the 2nd opinion is important
comes from the fact that Rashi gives a full list to support his
style explanation
* Rashi however is cognizant that he has NOT explained WHY this
repetition STYLE is used.
* Rashi therefore lists some CONJECTURES (That is the 1st
explanation given in Rashi is a conjecture of WHY the
repetition style is used...thus e.g. he
suggests that God did two things with his right hand:
Saved the Jews and smashed the enemy while most people
would have used one hand for saving and the other hand for smashing
* However Rashi only considers these CONJECTURES---how do I know?
Because if they were rules then they would have to apply TO EVERY
case of REPETITION STYLE. In fact there are no UNIFORM midrashim
for every REPETITION STYLE. Consequently Rashi did not believe
or perceive the 1st explanation as a RULE but rather as a
conjecture
* But why then did Rashi bring the conjecture if it wasn't a rule!?
Because it is important to emphasize the need for further research
and to come up with a rule. Rashi's provisio however is that the
new rule should apply to ALL REPETITION VERSES.
--Thus in summary:
----The verse should be explained as a REPETITION STYLE
----It is important to do further research:"When is this style used"
----Existing explanations in midrasim are only conjectures BECAUSE
they do not apply to all cases
----The criteria for acceptance of a new rule is that it applies to
all (or most) cases.
A student who understands this approach will gain deep understanding
of Rashi since he will be able to distinguish between rules that
apply to all cases and rules that only apply to some cases. This
student will be able to successfully distinguish between true Rashi
rules and Rashi conjectures.
LISTS:
-----
{LIST1} {Verses with repeated words for emphasis. See {LIST2} for
further analysis. These verses exemplify the following
rule:
It is a legitimate act of style, for purposes of emphasis,
to take any part of a sentence and repeat it with extra
phrases inserted.}
VERSE TEXT
----- ----
Ps92-10 FOR BEHOLD YOUR ENEMIES, God, FOR BEHOLD YOUR ENEMIES die
Ps94-3 UNTIL WHEN WILL THE WICKED, God,UNTIL WHEN WILL THE
WICKED Rejoice
Ps93-3 THE RIVERS LIFT, God, THE RIVERS LIFT their voice
Hos2-23 On that day, I WILL FURROW, says God, I WILL FURROW heaven*
Jud5-12 AWAKE AWAKE Deborah, AWAKE AWAKE speak a song
P136-20 And He gave their land AS AN INHERITANCE..AN INHERITANCE
to Israel his nation
1-46-2 And God said JACOB JACOB**
2-1-1 And these are the genealogies of the Jews***
FOOTNOTES:
=========
* A cute explanation (my own)--2 other (more traditional)
explanations are---I will ANSWER the heaven (Because the
drought will look like a question from heaven for rainwater
(RDQ))----I will DESIRE the heaven (Rav Yonah cited by
the Radack). I have interpreted it in the sense of FURROWS
and PLOUGHING of heaven (to get water) since it ties in
with the follow up statement (I WILL FURROW THE EARTH)
where it does make sense.
** Rashi does not bring this example here. However it IS an
example of REPETITION style and Rashi DOES say on 1-46-2
explicitly that REPETITION is used to denote ENDEARMENT
*** The repetition here is in the content: 2-1-1 thru 2-1-7
is a repetition of the genealogies mentioned in 1-46-8 thru
1-46-27
Notice how the ITEM REPEATED varies.
{LIST2} {Further study of {LIST1}---this gives a list of WHAT
WAS repeated from LIST1}
VERSE WHAT IS REPEATED
----- ----------------
Ps136-20 The Indirect Object (As an inheritance)
Hos2-23 The Verb (I will answer or desire or furrow)
1-46-2 The Object (Note: There is no separator here)
2-1-1 The Chapter content
Ps92-10 The Whole sentence (except one word)
Jud5-12 Multiple repetitions
CROSS REFERENCES: v2-1-1 (For another example of REPETITION STYLE)
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
To Chaiim Brown for raising the question.
RULE CLASSIFICATION: STYLE
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2q20-19
-----
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject: Re: RASHI-IS-SIMPLE
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:01:08 -0500 (EST)
P' Yisro: Contrast the Rashi in (20:19)
'ki min hashamayim' with the Rashi
(19:20 - I figure you would appreciate
the numerical twist : - ) "vayered' -
both psukim at first glance present
identical difficulties, yet Rashi
addresses the SECOND occurance with *two*
explanations ('davar acher...'), but
records only one explanation for the first occurance.
The reason I stress the
order is in anticipation of your using
the 'workbook' principle - logically,
you first present the full example and only
afterwards rely on the student to
figure it out - here Rashi gives us both
full explanations only the second
time around and presents one the first time. Why?
I haven't pondered it much but the approach
I would take is to seek some
secondary difficulty in the latter pasuk
that is not found in the former that
would necessitate a second explanation.
However, I have a different hunch
(which might open a new field of inquiry
on the list). We do not have a
critical edition of Rashi, but instead
have a collection of manuscripts that
vary due to the many scribal additions and
emandations that occurred through
the ages. Perhaps a search of variant ed.
of Rashi might reveal that the
second explanation was added by a later
student or scribe and is not in all
Rashi editions. Food for thought...
-Chaim
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Send SUBMISSIONS/responses/contributions to
rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
To get PAST ISSUES goto http://www.shamash.org/listarchives/rashi-is-simple/
To retrieve a specific past issue email to listproc@shamash.org and type
in the body of the message: get rashi-is-simple rashi-is-simple.v#.n#
To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to listproc@shamash.org and type in the body
of the message: unsubscribe rashi-is-simple email-address.
To SUBSCRIBE send email to listproc@shamash.org, and type in the body
of the message: subscribe rashi-is-simple email-address FName LName
RASHI-IS-SIMPLE
* will provide logical explanations to all 10,000 Rashis on Chumash.
* the preferred vehicle of explanation is thru list of verses and exceptions
* These postings will be archived in Shamash in Triplicate
-- By Volume and Number
-- By Verse
-- By Grammatical Rule
* Rashi-Is-Simple should prove useful to layman, scholars, rabbis, educators
* Although this list is orthodox we welcome all logical
--explanations
--contributions
--modifications
--questions
--problems
provided they are defended with adequate examples.
For further information on the character of this list
* read your welcome note from Shamash
* read PESHAT and DERASH: TRADITION, Winter 1980
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
Vol 1 Number 12
Produced Feb 15, 1999
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*