Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.Htm
Volume 01 Number 13
Produced Feb 21, 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
Administrivia 2-21-99 13 Principles of Rabbi Ismael;Web site;digest
vq-BBrns-Question From Bill Bernstein (Why bring Temple in 1-45-14)
v2b23-14 -- Rashi learns who Chur was from another verse(Ch1-2-19)
v2z20-8 -- Comments from my Chumash class on INFINITIVE=GERUND
v2b25-22 -- Biblical style frequently uses REPEATED clauses
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
va2-21-9
VOL 1 NUMBER 12--BIG
--------------------
* Last weeks posting was very big (50K). If anyone didn't receive
it let me know (I will send it in parts).
WEB SITE UPDATES
-----------------
* I have developed new software which allows me to update the web
site weekly. So todays issue will be on the web site by the end of
the week.
DIGESTS--OLD POSTINGS
----------------------
You can get most of what you want on the web site.
You can download OLD issues.
You can look up INDIVIDUAL verses.
You can look over many verses with similar principles(I frequently
change the principles on the web site after more thorough analysis)
13 PRINCIPLES OF RABBI ISHMAEL
------------------------------
v2b25-22 has a brief introduction to the 13 principles of Rabbi
Ishmael (with the usual lists). I believe even advanced Rabbis will
find this interesting
MASORETIC COMMENTS
------------------
v2b25-22 is infamous because it APPEARS that Rashis Torah text and
ours differ. This is preposterous. For a simple but thorough defense
read this verse below.
FEW VERSES THIS WEEK
--------------------
Because of the richness of topics covered this week.Rabbi Ishmael,
the Masorah, Talmudic agaddah only 2 new verses have been added.
Nevertheless I highly recommend reading everything since the
material is important. We will go back to the more normal lengths
of postings next week.
ARCHIVES
--------
You can also download old issues from the Shamash archives.
Vol 1 Numbers 5,10,12 are not there. This will be corrected
in the near future. For the while you can always
download from the web site.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1q45-14 And Joseph wept on...
------
From: bbernst@edge.net (Bill Bernstein)
To: rjhendel@juno.com
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:17:35 -0600
A friend of mine here asked a question on Rashi:
in the story of Yoseph and his brothers, when they recognize
each other Yoseph begins weeping. Rashi (I haven't seen this
inside) says he is weeping for the churban Beis HaMikdosh. My
firend's question is why would Rashi not go with the
obviou pshat at that point and interject something like this?
[Moderator--as usual questions will be answered next week.
This gives other readers the opportunity of trying out the
list method to get an answer.
By the way, this is EXACTLY the type of question that people should
be asking (Do NOT be afraid that I will not have an answer)
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2b23-14 ...Aharon and Chur are with you
------
RASHI TEXT:
----------
Chur was the son of Calev(Ch1-2-19) (& Miryam(SoTah-11b-12a))
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
Rashi does NOT explain the text here..he
rather ADDS information from another verse:
(Namely Chur was Kalev's son).
Rashi also brings down a Midrash
from the Talmud that Miryam was Kalev's mother (apparently
Rashi did not necessarily believe this Midrash since Rashi directly
contradicts the Midrash as will be shown in the COMMENTS ON RASHIS
FORM section. We also supply the strongest possible defense of the
Gemarrah in the COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM section).
The important thing to emphasize here is that Rashi is NOT
explaining the text but bringing in supplementary material
The main point in Rashi is that Chur is Calevs son. The discussion
of who his mother was is left to the LIST section since it is highly
technical and controversial {LIST1}
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM
-------------------------
*Why do I say that Rashi did not believe the Midrash that AZVH=MRYM,
a midrash on 1C-2-18 (presented below in {LIST1}}
*Because Rashi HIMSELF contradicts the Talmuds explanation by his
OWN explanation on 1C-2-18--he doesn't say that AZUVAH was Miryam
and was the same as EPHRATH--he rather says that AZUVAH **did die*,
that she died during childbirth (a reasonable assumption for those
days), and that her husband named her daughter after her--hence
the text says "AZVH HIS WIFE" because she was named after his wife.
Thus Rashi does not believe that AZVH was Miryam but rather a wife
that died during childbirth! Hence he directly contradicts the
Midrash of the talmud on this verse.
* That Rashi did not necessarily believe this Midrash is also
hinted at by RASHIS FORM:
Notice how Rashi EXPLICITLY cites the source SOTAH here.This is
the rule:
--If Rashi believes something is PSHAT he will NOT cite a
source. Rather he will just explain the text. For the
explanation is UNIVERSAL and independent of source.
--If Rashi does not FULLY believe a Midrash he will CITE
it (as if to say..this is so and so's opinion).Nevertheless
these Midrashim sometimes do have STRONG SUPPORTIVE
arguments and it is worthwhile to study them.
* We have emphasized the above since the goal of this list is to
show that all Rashis are Simple. However we only do so when Rashi
is explaining the text. If Rashi himself does not necessarily
believe a Midrash there is no need for us to defend it and it
does not contradict the goal of this list (which is to defend ALL
Rashis)
Way over 99% of Rashis explain the text itself and these are
always defended. With this in mind however let us go to the
Gemarrah (That Azuvah is Miryam)
* How strongly can this Gemarrah be defended?
The strongest defense comes from the Maharshah which I now briefly
summarize.
-----SUMMARY OF DEFENSE OF THE GMARRAH-------
* We've seen in {LIST1} that since 1C-2-18 says that Kalev gave
birth to AZUVAH his wife, the Talmud says that she was called
AZUVAH because during her leprosy Miriam was ABANDONED (AZV)
and KALEV nevertheless remarried her so that it is accounted as
if he gave birth to her (This explanation is about as reasonable
as the other 4 explanations in {LIST1}--but you can not prove
it is the ONLY explanation)
* In 1C-2-19 it says CALEV married EPHRATH. Miryam is identified
with EPHRATH, who would then be CHURs mother. But how do we
defend that MIRYAM = EPHRATH.
To defend that MIRYAM=EPHRATH the Maharshah suggests that EPHRAS
is used for one of 3 purposes:
(a) someone from the PLACE of Ephrayim (1s-1-1)
(b) someone from the TRIBE of Ephrayim or
(c) someone DISTINGUISHED).
The Gemarrah concludes that since MIRIAM was distinguished (she
was a prophet) therefore she is called Ephrath. The Gmarrh
also suggests that King David descended from her and Kalev and
therefore many Judeans were called EPHRAS (e.g. Ruth 1,1).
The Maharashah himself, however, points out the weakness in the
last argument: King David did NOT descend from the Kalev side of
Judah but rather from the RAM side of Judah{LIST2}
Maharshah then offers a 2nd defense of the Talmud by suggesting
that a Man from the RAM side of Judah married a woman from the
the CALEV side of Judah. Hence, David would come from both
RAM on the fathers side and from KALEV and MIRYAM on the mothers
side.
But this means that people were called EPHRATH because a maternal
ancestor was from EPHRATH=MIRYAM. (This is extremely weak since
we NEVER use maternal ancestry ANYPLACE in Judaism).
Another weakness in this whole line of reasoning is that
if EPHRATH = DISTINGUISHED then we can directly take verses like
Ruth1-1 or Sam1-17-12 as EPHRATH=DISTINGUISHED (So we would say that
MACHLON and CILYON who were leaders were distinguished (no need
to resort to their maternal ancestry from MIRYAM)--similarly we can
say that DAVID was the son of YISHAI who was a DISTINGUISHED person
in his city (no need to resort to their maternal ancestry)
In other words, if we use the concept of EPHRATH=DISTINGUISHED to
explain MIRYAMS name we can use that SAME CONCEPT to DIRECTLY
explain other occurences of EPHRATH (without resorting to a
distant maternal ancestry)
* In conclusion,this argument is seen to be weak. Before summarizing
allow me to add 2 other supportive pieces of evidence that Kalev
married Miryam:
--We see that he resisted the spies like Joshua.
Since Joshua directly serviced Moses (who had great
influence on him) it is reasonable that Kalev was
also saved because of such a direct influence(e.g. he
was a brother in law)
--From this verse v2-23-14 we see Moses left Aahron and
Chur--apprarently Chur was a relative like Aahron (and
personally learned with Moses)--so they suppose that
Chur was his nephew.
* IN SUMMARY: There are 4 supportive arguments for the idea
that Chur descended from MIRYAM. After reviewing these and the
problems associated with them the reader can appreciate
why Rashi did not feel that this Midrash is a NECESSARY PSHAT
in the text.
- The difficult verse 1c2-18-1, which says that
Calev gave birth "to Azuvah his wife". We would say he
called his daughter his wife because it is as if
he gave birth to her because everyone abandoned her
(But, we have 4 other explanations {LIST1}--including
a different one from Rashi himself)
- Calevs 2nd wife is called Ephrath because she
is distinguished (and so is probably Miryam)
(The talmud also connects this with other verses and
claimed royalty descended from her--but as we have seen
that would be on the maternal side only)
--Joshua and Kalev were saved from the Spies because
of Moses influence (So Kalev must have been a relative)
--Aahron and Chur (2-23-14) apparently were both relatives
LISTS:
-----
{LIST1} {The five explanations of 1Ch-2-18:
Ch1-2-18 states as follows:
And Calev Ben Cheztron gave birth
to Azuvah his wife and
Yerioth
And these are the names of her sons:
Yaysher
Shovav
Ardon
The obvious PROBLEM is "How could he give birth to his wife!?!?"
There are five proposed explanations:}
COMMENTATOR IDEA TRANSLATION
----------- ---- -----------
Rashi Azuvah was his daughter Gave birth to his
NAMED after his wife daughters Azuvah
(She died during pregnancy) (named after his)
wife and Yerioth;
And these were her
sons...
RadaQ "ETH=TO" can mean "FROM"* Calev gave birth
FROM his wives
Azuvah and..
RalBag "Eth=TO" can mean FROM* Calev gave birth
Yerioth was his daughter. FROM his wife Azvh
to Yerioth his
daughter..and these
are her(Azvh's)sons
Ralbag "Eth=TO" can mean FROM* Calev gave birth
Azuvah was his WIFE FROM his wife Azvh
Yerioth was a CONCUBINE (and from his
concubine Yerioth)
And these are the
names of his sons
Talmud Azuvah was indeed his wife Whoever marries for
Sotha Azuvah=Abandoned refers to the sake of heaven
11b-12a the fact that she was homely it is considered as
looking. So Calev did not if he "gave birth"
marry her for beauty ** to his wife(because
he renews her
spirits)
FOOTNOTES:
==========
*The thesis that ETH can mean FROM has, of course, to be defended
RDQ gives numerous examples in his grammar books (MICHLOL,ROOTS)
2-9-29 (when I leave FROM (ETH) the city), is a good example.
** The Gemarrah goes a step further and says that AZUVAH is
identical with EPHRATH, Calevs 2nd wife 1C-2-19. They claim
she was Miryam--she had leprosy--making her abandoned (hence
the name AZUVAH=Abandoned)--he then remarried her after she
got cured and called her EPHRATH.
{LIST2} {Of descendants of Judah}
VERSE DESCENDANT #
----- ----------
1c-2-4 PERETZ
1c-2-5 CHETZRON
1c-2-9 YERACHMEAL RAM KLUVAY
1c-2-15 David*
1c-2-19 Chur**
FOOTNOTES:
==========
# We have used the following convention. A person on say row 10
is a descendant of EITHER the person on row 9 immediately
above him or else OR else a descendant of the one person
on row 9. For example Chetzron (row 2)
is the son of Peretz (row 1) who is the son of Judah.
Further examples are given below.
* Actually David is several descendants down from RAM and they
are listed in 1c-2-15 thru 1c-2-19. The important point to
emphasize here is that the DAVIDIC dynasty came from RAM not
from KLUVAY.
** Note that Chur came from KLUVAY the son of CHETZRON.
But 4-13-6 talks about KALEV the son of YEFUNEH.
It is reasonable to IDENTIFY these two since
--KALEV and KLUVAY sound alike
--we find NO reference to a YEFUNEH descending from
Judah in Chronicles
After we make this identification it then becomes reasonable
to say that he was called YEFUNEH from the root PNH=TURN ASIDE,
since he TURNED aside from the majority of the spies (who
didn't think we could conquer Canaan)
Notice the SEQUENCE in the above derivation. We ONLY explain
YEFUNEH **after** we see it as an extra made up name. It is
this which prompts the derash.
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
RULE CLASSIFICATION: OTHER VERSES | EXTERNALS
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2z20-8 Addendum on INFINITIVE = GERUNDS
-----
*Recall that last week (Vol 1 Num 12) I showed that Rashi held that
an INFINITIVE can be translated as the GERUND. For example
Verse Translation
----- -----------
2S 3,16 And he went after her, WALKING & CRYING
Isa 22,13 The KILLING of OXEN..SLAUGHTERING of sheep
The EATING OF meat..the DRINKING of wine
* Rashi explicitly states INFINITIVE=GERUND on 5-27-1
* We applied the above idea of INFINITIVE=GERUND to 5-16-1,2-20-8.
The underlying idea in translating these verses is to do two things:
--translate the INFINITIVE as a GERUND
--add the (eliptic) "FOR THE PURPOSE OF" or "SHALL BE BY"
* Thus we translated 2-20-8
REMEMBERING (of) the Shabbath (Shall be accomplished) by
sanctifying designating things for it.
In this translation the "L"=Lamed denotes PURPOSE.
In my CHUMASH SHIUR at the LOWER MERION SYNAGOGUE the following
additional points were raised which further clarified this.
* REMEMBERING (vs the command "remember") has a NUANCE of
independence of time---(doing it always)
* We have 4 possible ways of IMPLEMENTING this "doing it always"
--SHAMMAI: Continually designate food for Sabbath EVERY DAY
If you find a better one tomorrow eat the previous selection
--HILLEL: Depend on God and say look for something good say on
Friday (Betzah 16)
--SAY "GOOD SHABBOS" FRIDAY EVENING: (Rambam Sabbath, 29:1)
Note: That this fulfills your Biblical obligation\
* Before stating the 4th method proposed by Chazal we note
problems with each of the above methods:
--SHAMMAI: It is "overkill"--if adopted you would have to
always think of Shabbath
--HILLEL: It is "underkill"--there might be some weeks
where things don't work out and you have nothing
--SAYING "GOOD SHABBOS": True, this does fulfill your
Biblical obligation but there is no element of
"independent of time"
* So Chazal proposed a 4th method of fulfilling "REMEMBERING"
which is both
--independent of time
--not overkill
--won't allow accidents.
They proposed that you have an OBLIGATION to REMEMBER SHABBATH
over some important element of the meal (WINE or CHALLAH). Thus
you MUST think during the week "Do I have wine/challah for Shabbath
On the other hand you needn't think of this every day or even
every week. It suffices that you thought about it and have wine
on stock.
Thus we have elements of DOING IT ALWAYS without an overburdening
on the community.
* The following halachic points emerge from this analysis:
--It would explain why the Rambam did NOT codify the Shammai-Hillel
controversy in his great code (The Rambam interpreted
the WINE OBLIGATION as superceding the controversy)
--It would explain the term DIVRAY SOFRIM. For a "fence to the law"
(e.g. not eating milk and meat because you might cook it)
is called a DERABANAN (rabbinical commandment)
But in this case Chazal did not make a fence but instead
instituted REQUIRED GUIDELINES for fulfilling the Biblical
obligation. (I once heard from a Talmud lecturer at one of
the Yeshivas in Philadelphia that DIVRAY SOFRIM is sort of
higher than DERABANAN but lower than DEORAITHA).
--It would explain that Chazal were indifferent to Kiddush on
wine or challah (because the main mitzvah is to REMEMBER
which can be accomplished by ANY important part of the
meal)
--Chazal of course still leave open FURTHER fulfillment of the
REMEMBERING (e.g. Choice meats)
* The following point was made on 5-16-1:
REMEMBERING the Springtime (will allow) making a Passover
to God, Your Lord, because (it was) in Spring that
God took you out of Egypt.
Following Rashi we interpreted REMEMBERING as referring to
adding a month to the calendar when necessary. But then the
question arises as to how this is INDEPENDENT OF TIME since
intercalculation of the calendar normally happens in Adar.
To answer this I suggested that since all of Israel came up to
Jerusalem enormous preparations were necessary. Thus e.g. if
winter was coming out early the Sanhedrin could "see" that the
calendar would PROBABLY be intercalculated and the "6 month
in advance warning" would e.g. help hotel owners and highway
police make appropriate preparations (6 months is a normal
amount of preparation time for such a big amount of travellers)
* Finally on 5-27-1 someone pointed out that the OLD FRENCH
word that Rashi quotes looks like our English GERUND.
(I do not know enough about old French to be certain of this)
* I add in passing an answer to Chaiim Browns' question:"If Rashi
uses workbook methods why does he sometimes give the more complete
explanation on a later verse?"
We can see this with the INFINITIVE=GERUND verses. The relevant
Rashis are
VERSE WHAT IS SAID
----- ------------
2-20-8 Mitzvah of Kiddush to Remember Shabbath
5-15-1 WatchING the sprintime=Intercalculation of
calendar
5-27-1 INFINITIVE = GERUND (WATCHING)
So Chaiim would ask here "Why didn't Rashi simply say that
INFINITIVE = GERUND on the 1st verse (2-20-8)? Isn't it
confusing to leave it to the last verse (5-27-1)?"
The answer here is simple: Rashi had SOMETHING else to say on
the other verses and did not want to add TWO PRINCIPLES in one
Rashi. So on 2-20-8 he mentions Kiddush and on 5-15-1
he mentions fixing up the calendar. However on 5-27-1 he had
nothing else to say so he EXPLICITLY adds that INFINITIVE=GERUND.
Note Rashi's brilliance!! He had SIMULTANEOUSLY before his mind
all occurences of INFINITIVE = GERUND and picked the verse with
the LEAST TO SAY in which he explicitly put this (There are
letters of the musical composer Mozart where he states that he
had the ENTIRE SYMPHONY before him in his mind before he sat
down to write it---this AWARENESS of TOTALITY occurs in all
fields and is characteristic of genius)
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2b25-22 And I will say...Everything that I will say
------
RASHI TEXT:
----------
The last clause is superfluous (I will say..everything I
will say). And there are many similar "superfluous clauses
like this in Tnach"
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
The sentence says
>>And I will meet with you there
>>And SPEAK with you....
>>everything I COMMAND you to THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
Rashi simply notes that the use of a repeated clause
"SPEAK with you ..everything I COMMAND to you"
is normal in the Bible. We will further see this below.
Rashi does NOT explain why this extra clause is put in. However the
second clause adds the capped phrase (Speak ..what I COMMAND YOU
to the JEWISH PEOPLE).
This immediately reminds one of the Rashi on 5-2-16 and 5-2-17
where Rashi points out that high level prophecy by Moses
was only reserved for the SAKE of the JEWISH PEOPLE
It would seem logical that Rashi is saying the same here:
>>I will meet with you and
>>speak to you (prophetically)
>>everything I will command you to the Jewish people
In other words, God only spoke to him at this place on matters
that were relevant to the Jewish people.
We make two further comments on Rashi.
Rashi actually refers to the repeated "VAV". I have interpreted
VAV to mean "CLAUSE". So Rashi's "REPEATED VAV" refers to
the REPEATED CLAUSE ("I will ***SPEAK***...all that I will **COMMAND
For a full defense of this see the COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM
Finally the whole method of dealing with multi-clause sentences
touches on the so called principles of Rabbi Ishmael which can be
perceived as dealing with multi clause sentences. Since this
is a highly technical topic we have place this all in the LIST
section. Nevertheless because of the importance of this topic
I urge everybody to read it and to review {LIST1} which has
many interesting examples (including this verse).
RASHI'S FORM
------------
I note in passing that the greatest confusion has arisen on this
innocent Rashi WHICH APPEARS to suggest that Rashi had a different
text (Because the Rashi says "This VAV is extra") I have correctly
interpreted VAV as "CLAUSE".
It is preposterous to read into this
Rashi that he had a different text(with an extra vav)
The only serious letter difference(s) in Biblical texts that
I know of are the ALEPH-HAY of DACAH 5-23-2 (and
possibly one of the VAYHI-VAYHIUs in the early genealogies
of Genesis)--all other differences in texts deal with the NOTATION
for Teamim (such as hyphens etc).
Indeed it is highly disrespectful
to the integrity of the Masters of Transmission (Baalay Hamsorah)
to say that they made all these errors. In fact many people are
unaware that the Masters of Transmission had developed SPECIFIC
information transmission tools that eliminate all errors (Many of
these tools are used today in modern transmissions). Our belief
in the Divinity of the Bible also requires belief in the CAPACITY
of proper transmittal of that Bible without errors.
I will therefore try and clearly explain Rashi's language
so that there is no misunderstanding
First let me introduce the difference between CONCEPTUAL vs WORD
relationship. Consider the verse 1S1-20: "..And she called his
name SAMUEL (GOD HEARD) because he was ASKED from God (ShILTIV)"
It is the ***CONCEPT*** of HEARING that is RELATED to the
***CONCEPT*** of ASKING. Thus the name SAMUEL (GOD HEARD)
is ***CONCEPTUALLY*** related to ShAL (ASKED FROM GOD).
On the other hand just suppose Chana had named him
>>ShAULEL (ASKED FROM GOD)
instead of
>>ShMUEL (GOD HEARD).
Then the logic would have been different. 1S1-20 would have read
And she called him ShAULEL (ASK FROM GOD) because he was
ASKED FROM GOD (ShILTIV)." Then in this case it is the ***WORD***
ShAUL(ASKED) that is related to the ***WORD*** SHILTIV (ASKED).Thus
in this case the name SHAULEL (ASKED FROM GOD) is ***WORD-WISE***
RELATED to the SHAL(ASKED)
Let us summarize this with another perspective: Suppose you are
Chana and you want to name your child after the fact that you
ASKED THE CHILD FROM GOD (SHILTIV). Then
--if you want to make the name WORD-WISE related you would call
the child SHAUL (ASKED), while
--if you want to make the name CONCEPTUALLY related you would
call the child SHMUEL (GOD HEARD).
One more example of this WORD vs CONCEPTUAL approach is needed before
we explain Rashi.
Suppose we look at the sentence:
>>It is raining AND I took my umbrella.
We refer to the word "AND" as a CONJUNCTION.
We refer to the subsentence "It is raining" as a CONJUNCT.
Similarly we call the subsentence "I took my umbrella" a CONJUNCT.
Notice how the word CONJUNCTION refers to the WORD "AND" itself
while the word CONJUNCT refers to the CONCEPT of "AND"--that
is CONJUNCT refers to the subsentences that "AND" conjuncts.
Let us now go to Rashi. Rashi speaks about the VAV in the sentence.
Certainly one approach would be a WORD WISE approach which would
then interpret VAV as the LETTER VAV.
But an equally valid approach would be a CONCEPTUAL approach. In
such a case VAV would refer to the CONCEPT of VAV--it would refer
to the CONJUNCTS of the sentence. Just as in English CONJUNCT
can refer either to the WORD "AND" or the SUBSENTENCES which are
CONJUNCTED so too in Hebrew, VAV can either refer to the LETTER
VAV or to the SUBSENTENCES which are conjuncted.
Now we understand Rashi. Rashi's whole problem was the extra
CLAUSE in the sentence "And I will speak to you ..that which
I COMMAND you". Hence when Rashi speaks about the EXTRA "VAV"
in the sentence he is not speaking about an extra LETTER
(a word wise approach) but rather he is speaking about an
extra CLAUSE (a conceptual aproach).
I believe this completes the explanation of this Rashi.
LISTS:
-----
{LIST1} {The 13 principles of Rabbi Ishmael
There is so much confusion with these principles that I thought
I would give some guidelines. People don't realize that these
principles are NATURAL WAYS OF WRITING IDEAS and are done in all
languages.
There are 4 basic ideas (in other words I am only dealing with
4 of the 13 rules but it will be clear that the other rules
all follow). The examples and details clearly show all principles
involved.
This will only be a short summary to a very broad topic. For
further details on any one example see Rashi--talmudic references
are invariablly given. My intent has been to show how the Bible
uses SIMILAR SENTENCE PARTS to convey nuances of GENERALIZATION
and SPECIFICITY. As we go thru the Bible we will develop more
and more these rules till the reader has a firm grasp of them.}
VERSE* SIMILAR PARTS-- LAW APPLIES TO RULE
VERSE TEXT FORM
------ ------------- -------------- ----
2-21-35When an OX gores Any ANIMAL ANALOGY &
3-1-2 From ANIMALS ONLY to General
..Cattle,Sheep Cattle, sheep Details #
2-22-8 On any negligence Movable objects General
.ox,donkey,sheep,dress with worth Detail
On any matter of loss (Not to land,documents) General !,@
5-14-26Buy ANYTHING you desire Products of products General
..ox,sheep,wine,beer.. earth that are edible Detail
ANYTHING you desire (Not to fish,water,salt)General
5-22-1$Ox,Sheep,donkey,dress Has signs and owners Detail
Any loss article Even small signs(donkey General !,%
saddle). You have to
return even minor things
(like sheep sheerings)
2-25-22I will speak to you Only prophecies related GENERAL
.. to the Jewish people
what I command to Jews were given there DETAIL
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* The meaning of this list should be clear. For example
take the first row. Opening 2-22-8 we see a verse that has
3 parts:
On any matter of NEGLIGENCE (This is GENERAL)
..on an ox, on a donkey. (This is DETAILS)
On any matter of loss (This is GENERAL)
If you look at Rashi (who of course is citing the Braytha or the
Talmud) you will find that the law does NOT apply to EVERYTHING
and it also does NOT apply ONLY to the 4 cases mentioned. Rather it
applies to anything **LIKE** the 4 cases: (Movable objects with
intrinsic value--so the law does not apply to real estate which
is not movable or to documents which PROVE value but do not have
value themselves.
Thus the 4 columns have
a) the verse REFERENCE (2-22-8),
b) the verse CITATION (On any matter...),
d) The verse FORM (General detail General)
c) The LAWS derived from the verse.
This list is explained further below
$$ Actually 5-22-1 thru 5-22-3
& ANALOGY: The general rule is that anything said in Tnach SHOULD
*******be generalized (in monetary and civil law). So even though
2-21-35 says WHEN AN OX GORES it is legitimate (Rambam Monetary
Torts 1:1) to say that the law applies to ANY ANIMAL that Gores:
The Torah only picked OX because it is the USUAL CASE.
The principle used is ANALOGY (BINYAN AV). (The idea of teaching
by USUAL CASES or by EXAMPLES (instead of principles) is heavily
used in computer science. Several studies have shown that it is
more or less equally effective to teach by example or principle
as to teach by abstract theory.
BUT...if I have the right to GENERALIZE every example then HOW
can the Torah say that something APPLIES ONLY to certain cases.
# GENERAL-DETAIL: See 3-1-2: If you offer
************** An ANIMAL
Ox,sheep
If it said "If you offer Ox, Sheep" I would have the right to
generalize it. By using the GENERAL DETAIL form(ANIMAL--OX SHEEP)
I am in effect saying FROM THE ANIMALS ***ONLY*** take OX or SHEEP.
Thus GENERAL-DETAIL form is used to denote SPECIFICITY while the
general form is used to GENERALIZE.
! DETAIL-GENERAL and GENERAL-DETAIL-GENERAL:
***************************************** Now suppose you want
SOME GENERALIZATION but not too much of it. This usually applies
when you are giving several example. There are two approaches
to generalization:
---Takes things that resemble ALL the examples
---Take things tat resemble ANY of the example
@ GENERAL DETAIL GENERAL: You use this rule when you want the LAW
********************** to apply to situations that RESEMBLE ALL
the examples. Thus in 2-22-8 there are 4 examples. The common
denominator of the 4 examples are that they are movable objects
with intrinsic value. Thus we exclude from the applicability of
the law real estate (which is not movable) or documents(which
don't have worth themselves).
The technical details of how to generalize always come from
deep Talmudic discussions. Rashis approach is just to summarize
Thus when we say Rashi is Simple we mean we can read the verse
and be aware of the FINAL analysis. But the actual analysis may
be complex, may involve several working hypothesis and may
involve many talmudic pages.
% DETAIL-GENERAL: You use this rule when you want the LAW to apply
**************to situations that RESEMBLE ANY of the examples.
The classic example is 5-22-1 (actually 5-22-1 thru 5-22-3).
For a lively "literary" discussion see Rambam, Theft and Loss
Chap 14 Paragraphs 1 etc.Notice how the characteristics of
EACH example are used (you don't have to resemble ALL of them
but rather ANY of them).
Thus you only have to return a lost article if
* it resembles a Dress (is recognizable and has an owner
but e.g. you don't have to return identically manufactured
items that cannot be distinguished one from the other)
* you have to return even minor items like the fleece
of sheep
* you have to return by incidental signs (like the
saddle of the donkey)
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
Gilyon Hashas--Shabbath 55b contains A list of rashis etc
that SEEM to contradict our mesorah...as shown above there
is no conflict...my own opinion is that this GILYON HASHAS
is a POTENTIAL LIST WITHOUT A FINAL CONCLUSION
They simply listed ALL POSSIBLE contradictions without concluding
if there were easy answers or not. As indicated above it is a
grave insult to our Mesorah and our beliefs to say that Rishonim
or Acharonim believed that our texts were damaged and frequently
in error.
The analysis I gave above between WORD WISE and CONCEPTUAL
approachs shows that the texts were all in order,
and no problems existed.
See Rashis on the various verses cited...people have inserted
cross references to talmudic citations where the analysis of these
verses is presented.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
A (heated) version of these Mesorah problems occured on the
email group BaisTefila thru several issues. The approach I
suggested there is the same as the approach I suggested here:
Avoid problems using NAME-CONCEPT distinctions.
RULE CLASSIFICATION: RabbiIshmael
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Send SUBMISSIONS/responses/contributions to
rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
All past issues, individual verses and principles may be found on
the web site at url: Http://www.shamash.org/Rashi/Index.Htm
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 Quartuplate
-- By Volume and Number
-- By Verse
-- By Grammatical Rule
-- By quicky explanation
* 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
Volume 1 Number 13
Produced Feb 21, 1999
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*