Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.Htm
Volume 1 Number 18
Prodcued Mar, 16 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v-0316 Administrivia--INCREASE IN READER POSTINGS...Keep it up
v2z32-13 CBrown. Questions on style. Principle of STAGES.
v2z19-27 NHendel. How much of Rashi do we have to accept
v2-35-3 No fire on Shabbath.Typical example or typical exception
v2z31-13 How can we distort Rashis use of words?
v1z42-7 Question on REPETITION means ENDEARMENT
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
v-0316 Administrivia
Almost this whole issue is devoted to questions from the readers.
For those who are new, since the list began I have been encouraging
questions from the readers. Questions can be
to explain a difficult
to disagree with a conclusion I have made, or
to ask questions based on other authorities on Rashi
We encourage all such questions and invite more. These questions
help
to correct omissions
to clarify explanations, and
to modify subtle positions.
Thus one person seeks clarification on pedagogic methods I have
claimed in Rashi; another person wants to know why I think it is
OK to slightly distort Rashi's use of words; still another person
had a strong question on a simple meaning in Rashi and the answer
sheds light on how much of Rashi we have to accept.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2Z32-15 Remember to Abraham Isaac and Jacob
-----
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
To: rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
[Background from Moderator: I explained v2-32-13 "Remember to Abraham
Isaac and Jacob..." that
A) THERE IS NO PROBLEM (The Verse is perfectly normal)
B) Rashi wished not to EXPLAIN MEANING but to ENHANCE NUANCE
APPRECIATION I gave as an analogy a husband bringing a bouquet of
roses to his wife. We all understand the MEANING of what he did.
But the NUANCES of what he did can be enhanced by citing
"midrash" type linkages---e.g. "He brought her 10 roses because
it is their 10th anniversary"
C) Rashi cited a Midrash Rabbah with 10 Paragraphs...HE CITED THE 1st
He thereby encouraged us to review the rest and come up with our
own explanations
D) But Rashi couldn't have possibly believed this Midrash.Indeed the
Midrash says that Moses said: "Abraham passed 10 tests; the Jews
sinned the 10 commandments...let us make it even and forgive them
Rashi couldn't have believed this since (a)You don't ask clemency
because someone will sin again and (b) they hadn't sinned all
10 sins. (So I suggest that Rashi simply took the first Braithah
as indicative of the nuance appreciation approach of the midrash
and encouraged us to do similarly (speculate on how "merit of our
fathers" helps us in prayers)
With this background let us look at Chaiim Browns' 4 questions. I have
labeled them with headers to make it easier to follow
A) NO PROBLEM:
=============
>Re: problem with the pasuk - research this further! You are right -
>at first glance there is no problem, but Mizrachi and Gur Arye address
>this - take a look.
>Anyway, look at the gur arye, sifsei chachamim,
>who deal with these issues.
ANSWER:
=======
For brevity I shall deal with only ONE ALLEGED PROBLEM in the verse
raised by Sifsay Chachamim in the name of RAM (Footnote CETH in
Sifsay Chachamim).
Recall that it is the policy of this email list that a question
only has validity IF IT CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO LISTS.
So we translate the RAAMs question into a list.
VERSE TEXT PLACE OF SERVANTS
----- ---- -----------------
2-32-13 Remember the PATRIARCHS,YOUR SERVANTS Last mentioned
5-9-27 Remember YOUR SERVANTS, the PATRIARCHS First mentioned
The RAAM regards it as peculiar (or as a problem) that "Your
servants" is mentioned FIRST in DT while LAST in EXODUS.
But from a list point of view his question would only be valid
if SERVANTS were ALWAYS mentioned first and in one place they
were mentioned last. In fact we only have two verses here and
the order is reversed. I conclude that there is NO STYLISTIC
rule governing where to place servants and hence there is no
problem in the verse.
In fact a beautiful obscure midrash gives a LIST of such verse
pairs where order is reversed. The Midrash claims that order
reversal in pairs of verses PROVES EQUALITY OF THE ITEMS (since
none is more important). Here is the Midrash's list
VERSE1 VERSE2 ITEMS MENTIONED ORDER REVERSED
------ ------ --------------- ---------------
1-1-1 1-2-4 Heaven, Earth Neither is more important
2-32-13 3-26-42 Abraham,Isaac,Jacob Neither is more important
4-35-11 4-27-1 Tzlafchad's 5 daughters Neither was more important
In other words, the Midrash, is clear, that you CANNOT ask
questions about order if several orders are used in several
verses.
C: RASHI CITED THE 1st MIDRASH..HE ENCOURAGED US TO DO SIMILARLY
=================================================================
>Also, re: workbook. You reduce Rashi to writing a faulty
>explanation to further our thinking - surely you as a teacher
>should be aware that providing a faulty model is not the best means
>to teach, esp. when your teaching is geared for the youngest
>students - rashi wrote for the beginning chumash student, as the
>Lubavitcher Rebbe frequently emphasized in his treatment of Rashi.
ANSWER
======
Before answering Chaiim I have to correct a faulty oversight.
I stated that Rashi only brought down the first Braitha...actually
after reading Chaiim's question I realized he brought down the
FIRST TWO BRAITHAS---10 tests vs 10 sins and {Abraham,Isaac,Jacob}
vs {Fire,Sword,Exile} (Thus the patriarchs went thru all forms of
death and could atone for what happened to us.
Now let me deal with Chaiim's question. First, I agree that Rashi
was writing for the beginning Chumash student (as well as the
advanced) as the Lubavitcher Rebbe frequently emphasized.
I however disagree with Chaiim's statement
"Surely you as a teacher should be aware the providing
a faulty model is not the best means to teach"
It depends---if you are teaching logic and technique then faulty
models are certainly poor pedagogic technique.
But if YOU ARE SOLICITING STUDENT SOLUTIONS TO A PROBLEM THEN
WHAT RASHI DID IS PERFECT----YOU GIVE ONE VERY GOOD SOLUTION AND
ONE VERY POOR SOLUTION
By so doing you encourage everyone in the class...you in effect
say..here..no one can be as poor as this midrash (10 tests vs
the 10 sins in the wilderness (or vs the 10 commandments)...after
all who would ask for clemency because they argue the sins will
continue or are serious!!!!) So all students are encouraged to
guess at a solution.
Similarly you give a very good solution to encourage high standards
among the better students (Why the 3 patriarches...because they
endured 3 forms of death---hence they should be mentioned for
atonement).
In fact I have frequently taught "solicitation" classes where
students opinions are solicited...and UNLESS you do what Rashi
did---to present a typical GOOD and BAD opinion you will never
get anything.
Why? Because a dominating emotion in the classroom is "fear
of embarassment before ones peers" It is for this reason that
students are very relunctant to "give their own opinion". The
only way to cure this is to confront the students with a poor
solution and say "Here..even something as poor as this will
be accepted".
By the way...this is an email list...I encourage other people
especially teachers to TELL US HOW THEY GET STUDENTS TO
SOLICIT
One final point on Chaiim's question on me. It isn't a question
on me it is a question nor even on Rashi..it is a question on
the Midrash Rabbah. Let me put it this way..if YOU were organizing
the Midrash Rabbah and had 2 braithas
* 10 tests of ABRAHAM vs 10 commandments
* 3 patriarchs vs 3 modes of death
which would you put first and which would you put last.
Obviously you would put the "3 patriarchs--3 modes of death"
first and the others last. So WHY did the Midrash reverse the
order.
Again the answer is that the Midrash was not, like the Mishnah,
trying to give us a FINAL opinion, but rather it was trying
to encourage us to learn ourselves.
D: RASHI DIDN"T BELIEVE THIS MIDRASH--10 sins vs 10 tests
============================================================
>As for the problem that this is the first sin, Rashi
>simply means that even WERE they to sin 10 times they should be
>forgiven...etc. - of course they hadn't yet actually done so. Also,
>the text of Rashi seems to say that the number is not the focus,
>but the means of punishment is - i.e. if they are chayav seriefah
>let the merit of yitzchak and the akeidah save them, etc.
-CB
----__ListProc__NextPart__921426772--
ANSWER:
-------
Again let me first correct omissions.
I already corrected my statement "Rashi simply picked the 1st
Midrash to mention the Patriarchs in order to encourage other
students to follow suit" by "Rashi simply picked the 1st 2
Midrashim to mention the Patriarchs in oder to encourage other
students to follow suit".
Secondly I seem to recall the Midrash Rabbah stating
"Let the 10 tests of Abraham atone for their 10 sins"
Actually Rashi says
"Let the 10 tests of Abraham atone for violating the
10 commandments"
One approach is to "check the source" and see
what is said.
But my point of view is that it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant
if the Midrash mentioned the 10 wilderness sins and Rashi
changed it or if both the Midrash and Rashi mention the 10
commandments.
Either way, Rashi could not have believed what he said.
You don't plead clemency for a criminal who violated one felony
by stating "Forgive him for violating the 10 serious felonies".
Furthermore the Jews had not violated all 10 commandments (e.g.
Shabbath, False oaths...).
Furthermore the midrash only explains why Abraham is mentioned not
why the other Patriarchs are mentioned.
So the point is that the Midrash simply made a "loose faulty
association" to so to speak warm up our midrashic associational
muscles so that we could appreciate nuances in the text.
Again think of the husband who brought home some roses. We all
know the MEANING of what he did. When we come to appreciate
NUANCES the real goal is to make as many associations as possible.
Some will be more focused and some will be less focused. As long
as we don't believe that this is the primary intention of the
rose giving husband this adds to our appreciation.
Furthermore Chaiims point that "even if they had violated all
10 commandments please forgive them" is "far out"...you don't
plead for clemency for a criminal because he is expected to do
more. Indeed!...from the constant mention of the requirement of
Shabbath observance before and after it appears that Moses was
trying to give them merit (because they had violated idolatry
one of the 10 commandments so let them observe Shabbath which
they had not violated.) Oh..of course you can say "They violated
the 10 commandments means they violated SOME of the 10 commandments
But then when we mention Abraham who DID past all 10 tests the
association is not perfect.
Our point then is that this Braitha is very weak. And yet it is
mentioned first. Our suggestion is so that the student should not
be turned off and try associations on his own.
SUMMARY:
=======
1) There is no problem; nothing stylistically peculiar in the verse
2) Rashi is NOT giving MEANING but enabling APPRECIATION of NUANCES
3) A good workbook method WHEN SOLICITING opinions from students
is to present one VERY GOOD and one VERY BAD opinion...this
removes fear of embarassment and encourages all students to talk
4) Rashi and the Midrash Rabbah could NOT possibly have believed
this 1st midrash...there are too many holes....only one
patriarch is mentioned---clemency is asked because of sins not
committed and because of sins seriousness...This lends credence
to the idea that Rashi was encouraging workbook methods
Some good stimulating...give and take...we need more...please send
in your questions. (As usual corrections on omissions are always
welcome)
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2z19-27 And he (Jethro) went (for himself) home
-----
Question from Neal Hendel
BACkGROUND
==========
In my discussion on this verse and several others I have pointed
out that
VERB = Activity
VERB+FOR HIMSELF= Personal Activity
Several examples were also given on v2a25-2:
TALK CHAT
SPY SCOUT
PERSONAl BUSINESS TRIP
DONATION TAX
So the verse by using WENT FOR HIMSELF (vs WENT) indicates that the
journey was for personal reasons. Hence Rashi says "He went to
convert his family and friends".
QUESTION:
========
My brother, the Honorable Neal Hendel asked (last week) "But we
see in Numbers that Yethro did not want to go on with Moses--
it could be argued that he didn't end up converting his
household or it could even be argued that he didn't want to
convert them. Why did Rashi pick THIS EXPRESSION (he wanted
to convert his household) of the PERSONALNESS of HE WENT FOR?
ANSWER:
=======
The answer lies in a deep principle on how to read Rashi.
Rashi should always be read using the principle of stages(v1a32-15)
Recall from v1a32-15 how the verse mentions that Jacob sent the
animals in certain male-female ratios.
The MALE FEMALE RATIOS implied that ANIMAL MARITAL FREQUENCY WAS
A FUNCTION OF ACCESS and WORKLOAD. This in turn suggested that
HUMAN MARITAL FREQUENCY WAS A FUNCTION OF ACCESS and WORKLOAD.
BUT we canNOT learn human marital frequency ratios from animal
marital frequency ratios. They rather have to be learned by
logic.
Thus we have here the basic idea of stages. The GENERAL IDEA
of MARITAL FREQUENCY=ACCESS+WORKLOAD is learned from the verse
The PARTICULAR DETAILS of HOW OFTEN is not learned from the
verse but is an APPLICATION of this principle. Nevertheless
when stating the principle in his commentary Rashi will not
only state the general idea but will ALSO STATE the details.
That is why the principle of stages is needed to understand
Rashi---it is necessary to separate WHAT CAN BE LEARNED
FROM THE VERSE to WHAT IS LEARNED BY LOGIC and INFERENCE.
This principle will help students in many of the problems
they encounter with Rashi.
Let us apply it to my brothers problem on v2a19-27:
The principle of stages says we can learn the GENERAL IDEA
that VERB+FOR ME means that the activity was done personally.
Hence I am certain that v2a19-27 states that Jethro went home
for PERSONAL REASONS.
The PARTICULAR DETAIL phase of the principle of STAGES however
states that we do NOT know for what personal reasons. Neither
Rashi, me nor my brother knows. As an example if we look at
2-25-2 we see "Take for me a terumah donation"...and Rashi does
NOT explain the difference between "Take for me" and "take" (We
suggested that it was the difference between a donation a gift
and a tax). Rashi simply states that its a "personal" gift
So what does Rashi do when he is
certain of the General idea---he went for personal reasons
uncertain of the particular details--what personal reasons
Rashi frequently will take the best guess and put it in the verse.
He might express this as a gematria or witty association. This does
not mean that Rashi believes this to be Peshat or Derash or Remez..
He simply believes that it is ONE GOOD GUESS that shows how to
apply the general principle to the verse. Indeed, we see how Yethro
was impressed by God's smiting the Egyptians and how he was elated.
It makes sense that he wanted to share this with his family back
home.
So...you can say like Rashi that he was so excited that he went
and coverted his family
Or you can say that he attempted to convert his family but they
didn't want to
Or my brother might say that he went home and preached about the
greatness and justice of the Jewish God without necessarily
converting anybody.
All these explanations do the same thing...they accept the GENERAL
PRINCIPLE that something personal happened but they differ on the
details.
And do not ask me on the above explanation "But then you have
explained away Rashi". For I have not explained away all of
Rashi. Rather I have explained away the PARTICULAR DETAILS but
I have insisted that we MUST ACCEPT THE GENERAL IDEA that Jethro
went for something personal....this acceptance of the general
with flexible awareness of the details is the true art of
understanding Rashi.
Let me give one more example: Consider Bernstein's friends question
on 1-44-14 "And he fell on the shoulders of Benjamin his brother
and wept and Benjamin cried concerning his (stories) of backbone"
Rashi at the GENERAL STAGE observes that CRIED ON always means
CRIED CONCERNING in the Bible. Furthermore NECK frequently means
BACKBONE. So the GENERAL STAGE insists that the verse is saying
that Benjamin cried because of JOSEPH'S STORIES OF BACKBONE.
We don't know what those stories are (PARTICULAR STAGE). One
reasonable guess might be Joseph's resisting Potiperah.
Rashi chose a more poetic expression of this: "Benjamin cried
because of the Temple built on Joseph's property".
Suffice it to say that I am not replacing my derash with Rashi's
derash or vise versa. Rather I am arguing that
* We must believe the general stage that Benjamin cried
because of Joseph's backbone
*We do not know what this backbone is ...perhaps it was
the story of Potiperah...perhaps it was the temples
that will be built one day on his property.
We will not go into so much detail in the future. But this should
suffice to illustrate how to apply this important principle.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The principle of stages was first mentioned, in
the name of Rashi, in my article, Peshat and Derash, Tradition
Winter 1980. (Readers who want copies should email me)
Finally, the Rashi on 2-35-3(in this issue) is an excellent
example of how skillful use of the principle of stages
does not require committment to details
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2-35-3 Don't light a fire ..on the Shabbath
------
RASHI TEXT:
----------
* Some of Chazal say this (fire) prohibition was singled out
to make it (only) a negative prohibition while others say it
was singled out to show how to count distinct Shabbath
prohibitions
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* There is nothing peculiar about this verse
since it is the style of the Torah to give specific examples
when mentioning abstract principles. So here we have that
verse 2 prohibits any shabbath work
verse 3 gives an example (no fires)
In fact as {LIST1} shows the Torah frequently appends
examples to abstract principles either inside or at the end
of a prohibition. Thus the Torah chapter of Torts mentions
a goring ox as an example and the Torah chapter on return
of loss articles mentions sheep, donkeys, garments as
examples and finally the Torah chapter on administering
lashes, closes, just like our chapter on Shabbath prohibitions,
with a typical example---don't muzzle an ox when you thresh.
Thus using the principle of STAGES we could say that the GENERAL
idea that DON"T LIGHT A FIRE is an EXAMPLE of DON"T WORK ON
SHABBATH is clear and agreed to by everyone.
However there is controversy on the PARTICULAR DETAILS of this
general idea: How is DON"T LIGHT A FIRE an example..or what type
of EXAMPLE is it or HOW should verse 2 "NO WORK ON SHABBATH"
and verse 3 "NO FIRE" be connected.
One opinion is that they are connected as TYPICAL EXAMPLES.
This would follow the other examples in {LIST1}. The typical
example is analyzed to shed light on the law...thus you ONLY
return a loss article if it resembles the TYPICAL EXAMPLE
of a garment (something recognizable with owners) and you ONLY
administer lashes if it resembles the TYPICAL EXAMPLE of "DONT
MUZZLE AN OX" (a specific prohibition involving a physical
(vs a verbal or mental) act).
So too here you PUNISH SHABBATH
VIOLATORS if they have done something like LIGHT A FIRE (any
COMPONENT of general BUILDING...so we learn that if you built
a house and one person carried supplies, and one person lit
a fire, and one person wrote signs on the wood...than each
person is punished even though they didn't do the whole act
of building).
An alternative opinion is that DONT LIGHT A FIRE and OBSERVE
the SHABBATH are connected as EXTREME EXAMPLES. {LIST2} gives
a few examples of this----we learn the concept of marital
obligation from the laws of a female slave (EVEN a female slave
has such rights). We learn the concept of BURIAL IN ONE DAY
from the laws of EXECUTED PRINCIPLES (EVEN an executed criminal
has to be buried within one day).
So too here: Don't do work on Shabbath---EVEN lighting a fire.
(Thus we infer from the "EVEN" lighting a fire, that fire
lighting is an extreme example (and e.g. is only punishable
by lashes while the other examples are punishable by death).
This Rashi is a beautiful example of the principle of Stages
(See below on COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM)
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
------------------------
* This Rashi is a beautiful example of the principle of Stages
For Rashi does NOT just give the halachah. His job is to explain
the Chumash not to give fixed halachas.
So what he does is very ingenious. He shows how there is
AGREEMENT on the GENERAL IDEA that NO FIRE is an EXAMPLE
of the NO SHABBATH WORK and then cites 2 opinions as to the
details of this example. It could mean
NO SHABBATH WORK For Example, No Fire
or
NO ShABBATH WORK Even, abstaining from fire lighting
By giving the controversy (even though the law is clear)
Rashi achieves his goal of conveying the flavor of agreement on
a general principle but disagreement on particular details.
So the student walks away from the verse with an understanding
that ALL you can really take from this verse is that NO FIRE
is SOME TYPE of example of NO SHABBATH WORK.
In passing we take note of the so called 13 principles of
Rabbi Ishamel which we showed on 2-25-22 to be stylistic
principles of giving examples and principles.
We don't know if NO FIRE LIGHTING is an example that should
be GENERALIZED (BINYAN AV) or an EXTREME EXAMPLE denoting
an exception (something that "went out from the general
principle"). I mention this because although the 13 principles
are important nevertheless the student really needs many other
subprinciples to apply them correctly.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
----------------------------------------------------------
* {LIST1} {Examples of Torah chapters with examples}
BEGINNING VERSE TOPIC EXAMPLES HOW EXAMPLES USED
--------------- ----- -------- -----------------
2-21-35 Damage Ox damages You are liable for damages
from ANY ANIMAL
2-22-9 Rentals Death,robbery A renter does not have to
pay on a total accident
that he had no control over
(like death, robbery)
2-22-8 Court ox,donkey,sheep Oaths in court are
administered on any movable
object(not land) that has
intrinsic value(not
documents)
5-22-1 Lost ox,sheep,cloth You must return any object
that resembles ox, sheep
clothing--the object has
recognizable signs and an
owner
5-25-1 Lashes No ox muzzling You get lashed for any
violation of a specific
prohibition involving
a physical act*
NOTES:
------
* Note how in 5-25-1 the EXAMPLE verse is appended to the end
of the chapter just like in our Shabbath situation
{LIST2} {List of torah paragraphs with EXTREME examples}
BEGINNING VERSE TOPIC EXTREME EXAMPLE MENTIONED
--------------- ----- -------------------------
5-21-22 Death Even a convicted criminal who is executed
has the right to be buried on the same
day
2-21-7 Slaves Even a slave girl has the RIGHT to basic
marital items (food, clothing, housing,
and periodic intimacy)
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
* v2-25-22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
*
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
--------------------------------------------------------------
* RabbiIshmael
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2z31-13 Usually observe the Shabbath
-----
[BACKGROUND: On 2-31-13 I explained that
ACH=USUALLY
SO e.g. Usually observe the shabbath ...but you can desecrate it
for the communal offerings
Usually you will have atonement
on the 10th of the month ...but not if you haven't
repented
Usually you will be happy on
Yom Tov ...but not on the 1st night
when you are not yet fully
in the mood
So the enigmatic Rashi on 2-31-13
"USUALLY: To limit Shabbath from the work of the Mishkan"
which COULD be misinterpreted to mean
"To limit--that work on the building of the Mishkan
is not done on Shabbath"
is instead translated
"To limit=give an exception to Shabbath observance
from the work done in the Mishkan (the communal
offering"
Before continuing notice how the translation
USUALLY = AcH
is consistent with translating Rashi
USUALLY OBSERVE ShABBATH --but not for communal offerings.
So far so good. One of my students in the Lower Merion Synagogue
asked however
"But Rashi never refers to communal offerings as
'work of the mishkan'...instead Rashi refers to
offerings as 'AVODAH'...doesn't this anomaly in
Rashi's form cast doubt on your interpretation.
ANSWER:
======
The question is a good one because it shows the difference between
the approach of this email group and the approach of modern
scholarship.
Notice how the above question on Rashi looks at the LIST IN RASHI
OF REFERENCES TO SACRIFICES.
So it uses the LIST method. But the LIST is the LIST IN RASHI. This
is the approach (and mistake) of modern scholarship. For they view
Rashi as a person in his own right who arbitrarily took those
interpretations he wanted.
The approach of this list is to study ONLY LISTS ON CHUMASH. Rashi
was but echoing the Peshat in the Chumash. Those who wish to can
in fact look up the 42 cases of ACH cited last week and see that
indeed in about 33% of them ACH=USUALLY is a clear translation.
So Rashi HAD to deal with this.
Now you can see our dilemna. EITHER we
* say Rashi interprets ACH in a manner totally
contradictory to all other occurences of ACH
or
*say Rashi interprets ACH=USUALLY but we interpret
Rashi's form (mishkan work=sacrifices) in a way
totally contradictory to Rashi's usage elsewhere.
In short I have to chose between
* a problem in Rashis style
or
* a problem in the Chumash's style.
Now you can see why we chose to preserve the meaning of the
Chumash and to simply perhaps shrug our shoulders at Rashi's
strange style. Let me put it this way...suppose we went along
with the modern scholars and made Rashi's style consistent.
What would we have accomplished....almost all occurences of
ACH in the BIBLE have to do with the concept of "MOST OF"
(USUALLY = MOST OF THE TIME, for example). How can we
interpret Rashi against all other occurences!!
But we don't stop here...Rashi's style can be defended too.
Recall that Rashi, as we have frequently shown, always prefers
to use puns and associations vs abstract statements of principles
This makes the Rashi more memorable.
So we suggest that Rashi is punning here..First Rashi observes
that the Mishkan chapters are juxtaposed to the requirement
of Shabbath observance and therefore BUILDING the mishkan does
not take precedence over the Shabbath. On the other hand
USUALLY OBSERVE The shabbath implies that sometimes Shabbath
is overridden. So rashi expresses this duality as a pun:
TEMPLE WORK does not supercede the sabbath (when building)
The sabbath is excepted for TEMPLE WORK (communal offerings
The pun makes the contradictory position easier to remember!!
At any rate the main crux of our argument is that we prefer having
a problem with rashi's style then with the chumash's style.
I hope this clarifies our approach in many cases
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1Q42-7 And Joseph Recognized his brothers...
-----
This question was raised by Michael Hamm, not a member of Rashi-Is
-Simple. He raised it on the email group BAIS-MEDRASH (http://www.
Torah.Org/) in connection with my response to the following
problem:
QUESTION (Raised on Bais Medrash):
----------------------------------
Why does it say the same almost identical thing twice:
1-42-7 And Joseph saw his brothers and recognized them
1-42-8 And Joseph recognized his brothers
ANSWER:
=======
In answering this question I cited the rashis on
2-1-1
1-46-2
which both deal with repetition. Rashi there rejects the idea that
we have to learn something special from each repeated item. He
rather suggests that "REPETITION DENOTES ENDEARMENT"
So too here...applying this principle to 1-42-7 and 1-42-8 suggests
that Joseph really loved his brothers and was touched to see them.
It is NOT necessary to go any further and e.g. see special nuances
to each particular mention.
QUESTION OF MICHAEL HAMM:
========================
Michael suggests that my list only deals with acts repeated by
God and does not deal with acts recorded twice.
Before answering this question I should pause to note that this
is exactly the virtue of having lists: The lists enables us to
focus on the meanings of principles enunciated by Rashi, Midrashim
etc. Using the list we can test every suggested hypothesis and
see if it meets the lists stiff criteria. By using lists in this
manner we enhance our learning and appreciation of truth.
ANSWER TO MICHAEL(We also answer other possible questions)
=================
2-1-1 is not an act of God but a record of the NAMES OF THE JEWISH
tribes. It is a repetition of the NAMES mentioned in
1-46. Thus we have here a repetition NOT IN THE SAME
VERSE and a RECORD
Song4-1 (Wow you are beautiful Wow you are beautiful) is a
repetition of a phrase (not an act)
1-46-2 (And God Said Jacob Jacob) is a repetition of an ACT OF GOD
in the same verse.
In fact as I write this I recall the explicit verse 1-41-32
And the dream was REPEATED to Pharoh because
this interpretation is CERTAIN from God and God is
eager to implement it.
Thus we see that REPETITION denotes endearment, eagerness etc.
COMMENT ON METHODOLOGY:
======================
Notice how I answered the question....I went thru the lists
and examined each verse for the properties mentioned by Michael:
(Act vs Record). I also when I made the list inquired whether
the repetitions was a repetition of words (1-46-2) of phrases
(Songs 4-1) or of whole paragraphs(2-1-1).
The skillful use of lists to generate and moderate intelligent
discussion is one of the skills that advanced students of
Chumash and Talmud must pick up.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
COMMUNICATIONS
--------------
Send via email SUBMISSIONS/responses/contributions to
rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
If you want your communication published anonomously (without
mentioning your name) simply say so (and your wishes will be
respected). All other submissions (whether thru Shamash or ANY
of my email addresses are made with the understanding that
they can be published as is or with editing)
NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS
----------------------
e.g. v5b2-1 means as follows:
The "v" means verse
The "5" means Deuteronomy--the 5th book
The "2" means The 2nd chapter
The "1" means The 1st verse
The "b" means The second rashi on that
verse ("we rounded mount
Seir)
Similarly v5-2-1 would mean Dt 2:1 and probably refer to all
Rashis. (These conventions start with issue 14---beforehand
the notation is similar and will be updated retroactively
in the future)
Asterisks (*,#) in a list usually refer to footnotes that follow it
Parenthesis with the word List and a number--[LIST3] refers to
LISTS in the LIST section of each posting.
THE WEB SITE
------------
To review all past issues as well as to see all principles go to the
web site HTTP://WWW.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.Htm. You can download all
past issues from this website.
THE ARCHIVES
------------
Alternatively 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#
Issues 5,10,12 are not located here but can be retrieved from the
web site.
SUBSCRIBE & UNSUBSCRIBE
-----------------------
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
OUR GOALS
---------
RASHI-IS-SIMPLE
* will provide logical explanations to all 8,000 Rashis on Chumash.
* the preferred vehicle of explanation is thru list of verses and exceptions
* These postings will be archived in Shamash in Quartuplet
-- By Volume and Number
-- By Verse
-- By Grammatical Rule
-- By quicky explanation
* Rashi-Is-Simple should prove useful to
layman, scholars, rabbis, educators, and students
* Although this list is orthodox we welcome all logical
--explanations
--contributions
--modifications
--questions
--problems
provided they are defended with adequate examples.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
----------------------
For further information on the character of this list
* read your welcome note from Shamash
* read PESHAT and DERASH: TRADITION, Winter 1980 by Russell Hendel
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*