Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.Htm
Volume 2 Number 10
Produced May, 28 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v0527 - Hilights--Pshat and Halach || Rashi and the Mesorah
v4b7-1 The project manager gets credit even if all he did is oversee
v4a7-1 OTHO= Only him; Ordinary pronouns are by suffix
v4a6-23 Bless the Jews by SAYING TO them(A personal ongoing dialog)
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
v0527
This issue has several comments on Rashi vs the Masoretic text.
We show that Rashi and the Masoretic text always agree
We also make comments on how the simple meaning of the text
interacts with halachah.
***************************
*** READING TIPS ***
***************************
DO YOU JUST WANT TO BROWSE MAIN IDEAS QUICKLY & go back later?
THEN WE RECOMMEND READING ONLY THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS
* VERSE:
* RASHI TEXT:
* BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
BUT "HOW DO I FIND QUICKLY A SPECIFIC SECTION?"
ANSWER: Use your FIND menu
For example: FIND VERSE:
takes you to the beginning of the next section.
Similarly
FIND NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
takes you to the brief explanation of Rashi.
IS THERE AN EASY WAY TO GO TO EACH VERSE AND POSTING?
Yes. Use your FIND menu.
"FIND #*#*#*#" takes you to the next posting
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4b7-1
v4b7-1 ..when Moses completed the Tabernacle
RASHI TEXT:
v4b7-1
But many others worked on the Tabernacle (e.g. Bezalel...)
Why then is its completion attributed to Moses
Because he thoroughly devoted himself to it
Similarly we find that the Temple was ascribed to King David
even though his son built it---again because he thoroughly
devoted himself to it.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
Rashi is Simple and needs no further comment.
Rashi cites {LIST1} of people who built the temple
Rashi then shows that "Moses built the temple" means he was the
primary mover to build it.
Rashi justifies this principle "The instigator takes credit for
the whole act" by citing another example {LIST2}.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {People who built the tabernacle}
PERSON VERSE
====== =====
Bezalel 2-36-2
Ahaliav 2-36-2
Craftsmen 2-36-2
{LIST2} {People who received credit for an activity even though
they didn't do it...but they did push it and kept every
one on track}
PERSON ACTIVITY WHERE THEY ARE GIVEN CREDIT VERSE
====== ======== =========================== =====
Moses Build tabernacle When Moses finished building 4-7-1
David Build temple Remember,God,Davids suffering Ps-132
(to build a temple)
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
MORAL REASONS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4a7-1
v4a7-1 .. & when Moses completed the Temple..He sanctified it
RASHI TEXT:
[Moderator: There are two ways to designate an object in Hebrew:
a) With a suffix: e.g. I ate it = AKaLTiHu(suffix of ACaLTi="Hu")
b) With the word OTHO: e.g I ate it=AKaLTi OTHO
b') AKalTI OTHO should be translated "I Ate ONLY it"
a') AKaLTiHu should be translated "I ate it"
b") We therefore name the OTHO form as DEFICIENT
since ONLY it was eaten
a") The suffix form is named FULL because more things could
have been eaten]
RASHI: The DEFICIENT (OTHO) form is used for "He sanctified it"
implying "He sanctified ONLY it" ---thus the temple day was like
a wedding day )Because the women belongs only to that man.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
We have numerous times explained that OTHO means ONLY IT, while
the suffix form does not contain the nuance of ONLY. {LIST1}
provides some examples.
Note the 4 verbs in this verse:
a) He annointed ONLY it (the temple)
b) He sanctified ONLY it (The temple) and its utensils
c) He annointed them (No ONLY form)
d) He sanctified ONLY them.
As can be seen there is an emphasis that ONLY the temple and
its utensils were sanctified.
And the simple meaning is that until that time they could offer
sacrifices on Bamoth--altars outside the temple--- and now the
Bamoth were prohibited...so ONLY the temple was sanctified but
the Bamoth were no longer holy (Cf e.g. 3-16 and 2-12)
Rather than give a long boring lecture on sacrifices inside and
outside the temple Rashi uses a witty metaphor: When a woman
gets married her husband "Sanctifies her" which legally means
that she is separated from everyone else and permitted only
to him. (The metaphor goes further...the ornaments of a bride
are called her "utensils" --and we see in this verse that
the temple also had "utensils" which were sanctified.) In
fact if we want to carry the metaphor to its exteme we see
from the Song of Songs that the God-Israel relationship is
compared to the relationship of two lovers with the temple
their bed!!
So indeed, Rashi Is Simple. Of course every reader can take
the metaphor as much or as little as he wishes.
The basic idea is simple: The temple represented a
turning point when ONLY it was sanctified and all other
means of offering sacrifices were prohibited. Rashi
simply expresses this with a witty metaphor.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
Two points on form: First,
As we just showed the words FULL and DEFICIENT do
not refer to SPELLING FULLNESS or SPELLING DEFICIENCY
but rather to MEANING FULLNESS or MEANING DEFICIENCY.
This is an extremely important principle in defending **APPARENT**
contradictions between Rashi and the Mesorah. It is very important
to emphasize that Rashi's version of the Torah and our version
coincided. Further examples will be given in this issue.
2nd:VERB+OTHO means do the activity ONLY to that person...hence
the OTHO form is called DEFICIENT because there is limitation
By contrast VERB+SUFFIX means do the activity to that person..
But there is no implication that others can't participate
Hence the SUFFIX form is called FULL because there is
no limitation (Perhaps others were involved)
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Of OThO = EMPHASIS = Only it *1}
VERSE TEXT APPLICATION
===== ======================= =================================
3-1-6 ..cut ONLY it to pieces Law: You cut the animal;
You may not recut its pieces
3-1-17 ..tear ONLY it Law: You tear the bird offering;
But not animal offerings
3-2-6 ..tear ONLY it to pieces Law: Tear it to many pieces *2
You may not make it crumbs
3-2-12 ..offer ONLY it Law: You offer this offering
But not if it was delayed
3-3-5 ..offer ONLY it Law: Offer it if properly prepared
But not if it was invalidated
FOOTNOTES:
*1 VERB + O = Do the action (verb) to IT (=suffix of O)
VERB + OThO = Do the action (verb) to ONLY IT
The precise delineation of what
ONLY means is individual to each verse.
This concept of OTho=ONLY is used 100s of times in Tnach Midrash]
{LIST2}gives an overview of WHAT can be delimited by the OTHO=ONLY
*2 Thus PThThO = tear it to pieces (3-2-6). PThTho = tear ONLY it to
pieces---you are to tear it but not its pieces to pieces-you aren't
allowed to tear it to crumbs.
{LIST2} {A review of what OTHO=ONLY delimites in {LIST1}}
VERSE ONLY EXCLUDES
===== ====================================
3-1-6 it but not its pieces
3-1-17 it but not another type of offering
3-2-6 it but not its pieces
3-2-12 it but not an improperly prepared one (wrong time)
3-3-5 it but not an improperly prepared one (wrong place)
CROSS REFERENCES:
* Volume 1 NUmber 4 (v1-46-27)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
* v4-7-1 was discussed a while back on the email group BaisTefillah
At the time I offered several defenses of Rashi which were refuted.
In particular the defense that KLOTH is somehow the wrong form is
a good hunch but easily refuted by lists (This comment is made in
parenthesis...it is not in the original Rashi and was put in there
by some commentary...as indicated it is not correct).
Although the present defense given above is simple it took a long
time and a lot of work to get to it. This is typical in the study
of Rashi.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
PRONOUNS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4a6-23
v4a6-23 ..how you should bless the Jews: by saying to them
v4b6-23
v4c6-23
v4b13-2
RASHI TEXT:
v4a6-23
AMOR: (Not "Say to them" but) by SAYING to them:
SAYING is the INFINITIVE not the COMMAND form
v4b6-23
Say TO THEM: (Don't just cite the words but rather) explain
the blessing and make it personal TO THEM so that they believe it
v4c6-23
SAYING TO THEM: The full (infinitive) form is used not the
deficient (command) form. The infinitive ("Saying" vs "say")
denotes an ongoing process---make sure the listeners know that
you "mean" the blessing and that it was said sincerely.
v4b13-2
You can send spies IF YOU WANT (It is not a COMMAND but PERMISSION
I (God) already promised them the land will be good but
nevertheless they want to scout it out. Because of this sin(of
doubting my word) I will give them spies (if they want) so they
will have room to sin (if they want).
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
In previous issues we have discussed the fact that the INFINITIVE
(AMOR) should not be translated as a COMMAND ("Say" to them") but
rather as a GERUND--"Bless them BY SAYING to them". The difference
between SAY and SAYING is that SAYING denotes an ONGOING ACTIVITY
over time. See {LIST1}.
Rashi, on 5-27-1 explicitly states that the infinitive can
function as a gerund(Rashi uses the old French for "gerund").
Let us just review one good, popular example: v2-20-8.
"Observe" the Sabbath could mean to e.g. take things out of
your pockets on Friday night (watch out against sin). By contrast
"The observing of the Shabbath shall be for sanctifying it" means
that you run around during the week thinking eg. "Oh..that is a
good bottle of wine for Shabbath-let me purchase it". In other
words, "OBSERVING" denotes a CONTINUOUS ONGOING activity.
So too here: If it had just said "SAY" to them,
it would mean that they should cite the words. But since it says
"BLESS THEM BY SAYING to them" the implication is that there
should be an ONGOING ACTIVITY of blessing---not just a recitation
of words but the blessers should try and convince the people that
God will really bless them and it is not lip service.
This nuance of ONGOING ACTIVITY and MAKE IT PERSONAL is further
supported by the words TO THEM. Again we have already explained
{LIST2} that a verb with the word TO THEM/FOR ME denotes that
the activity denoted by the verb was PERSONAL (taylored "for them"
Thus as a simple example: v4-13-2 is not a COMMAND by God to
Moses to send Spies to scout Israel but rather is AN OFFER
that if the people really want it Moses CAN SEND them. Hence it
says "Send FOR YOURSELF spies" vs "Send SPIES"--as just indicated
the best translation of "Send for YOURSELF" would be "SEND IF YOU
WANT TO".
Let us now summarize the 3 Rashis on this verse (v4-6-23)
a) Rashi points out that it uses the INFINITIVE(SAYING vs SAY)
b) Rashi points out that it uses the PERSONAL form (TO THEM)
Rashi says three things about these blessings
1) Don't just cite it---appear to understand it (SAYING)
2) Don't just mumble words--say it with sincerity (SAYING)
3) Don't just say it-- but keep on talking about it till the
listeners believe you that they will be blessed (TO THEM)
So Rashi Is Simple---he took the abstract ideas of the INFINITIVE
and PERSONAL VERB FORM (TO YOU) and translated them into concrete
specific actions.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
This Rashi is a treasure house of "how to Rashi"
1st: Rashi calls the INFINITIVE the FULL Form.
Now most people think that FULL refers to SPELLING (because
AMOR is spelled FULL with a VAV). But almost every INFINITIVE
GERUND is spelled with a VAV. Simply review the spellings of
items in {LIST1}.
I have translated FULL using the following logic:
The COMMAND form of the verb denotes something done at a point
in time. The GERUND form of the verb denotes something done
OVER A PERIOD of time.
So Rashi Is Simple. The GERUND FORM is FULL (over a whole period)
while the COMMAND FORM is DEFICIENT (only at a point in time).
In other words FULL here refers to MEANING FULLNESS not SPELLING
FULLNESS. We shall see other examples of this use of FULLNESS later
in this issue.
2nd: Note the contrast between the REAL reason of Rashi and the
STATED reason.
The REAL reasons of RASHI are twofold:
a) The GERUND vs the COMMAND form and
b) the PERSONAL VERBAL FORM (For them).
Notice how these reasons are abstract and grammatical.
The STATED reasons of RASHI emphasize EXAMPLES of these
abstract principles:
a) Don't mumble words but say them with understanding;
b) Don't just say words---say it sincerely
c) Don't just say it--but talk about it till they believe you
Rashi is using his famous workbook methods here: He is simply
giving examples of the abstract principles. He is also thereby
encouraging other people to give their own principles.
3rd: We have so far only dealt with the meaning of the text.
Besides this meaning there are HALACHAS involved. The Sifray
learns the following 3 halachas: {LIST3}
VERSE HOW WE LEARNED IT HALACHA
===== ================= =======
TO THEM PERSONAL Priests FACE the congregation
(ie they do not FACE God and
have their back to the
congregation)
TO THEM PERSONAL Say it out loud (not say it
silently)
SAYING ONGOING ACTIVITY Chazan says the words and the
priest repeats it
It would appear to me that many of these laws can be inferred by
precedent. For example in 1R8-55 we have that
"& Solomon stood and blessed ...IN A VERY LOUD VOICE"
proving that that it must be stated out loud.
Similarly the prayer of 1R8-22:53 is RESPONSIVELY modeled after
the Biblical situations requiring a temple/priests: Thus Solomon
lists 8-31 (Sin offerings on false oaths (cf 3-5) or going to
war (cf 5-20) etc. Hence the idea of RESPONSIVENESS or ongoing
activity.
Similarly 3-9-22 explicitly mentions that Aaron "lifted his
hands TOWARDS the nation to bless them".
And my own personal opinion is that the true Biblical requirement
is to do as Rashi suggested: That each Priest after reciting the
priestly blessing should mingle with the congregation and find
out their needs and convince them that God will really bless them
But the laws listed above are MINIMAL Biblical obligations. For
example, the dialogue between the Chazan and Priest is the minimal
fulfillment of "SAYING" vs "SAY". Similarly "OUT LOUD" and "FACING
THEM" is the minimal fulfillment of "TO THEM".
And this matter that we have just discussed..the interaction
between Pshat and Law is the deepest level a Talmudic student
can come to. For at this level the student understands the reasons
for each law and their extent.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {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 he 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*1 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*2
Isa3-16 WALKING WALKING and TIPTOEING is their gate*3
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..."*4
FOOTNOTES:
*1 Rashi EXPLICITLY identifies the INFINITIVE on this verse as
"LIKE THE PRESENT" (i.e. a GERUND--Rashi uses the old french)
*2 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
*3 Perhaps a better translation would be "They walked by
WALKING and TIPTOEING" (i.e. They walked in a WALKING-TIPTOEING
GATE)
*4 Note that the Radack disagrees with Rashi and considers this
verbal form a COMMAND not 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
{LIST2} {Of verbs with FOR ME.On all the above verses Rashi says
the EXACT SAME THING "FOR YOURSELF=personally"}
VERSE TRANSLATION
======= ===============================
2-19-27 He went FOR HIMSELF to his land
2-25-2 ...and take FOR ME Terumah
2-25-8 ...and make FOR ME a Temple
4-13-2 ...send FOR YOURSELF spies...
{LIST3} {Relationship between the simple meaning of the text as
indicated by Rashi and laws in the priestly blessing}
VERSE HOW WE LEARNED IT HALACHA *4
===== ================= =======
TO THEM PERSONAL Priests FACE the congregation
(ie they do not FACE God and
have their back to the
congregation) *3
TO THEM PERSONAL Say it out loud (not say it
silently) *1
SAYING ONGOING ACTIVITY Chazan says the words and the
priest repeats it *2
FOOTNOTES:
*1 It would appear to me that many of these laws can be inferred by
precedent. For example in 1R8-55 we have that
"& SOlomon stood and blessed ...IN A VERY LOUD VOICE"
proving that that it must be stated out loud.
*2 Similarly the prayer of 1R8-22:53 is RESPONSIVELY modeled after
the Biblical situations requiring a temple/priests: Thus Solomon
lists 8-31 (Sin offerings on false oaths (cf 3-5) or going to
war (cf 5-20) etc. Hence the idea of RESPONSIVENESS or ongoing
activity.
*3 Similarly 3-9-22 explicitly mentions that Aaron "lifted his
hands TOWARDS the nation to bless them".
*4 And my own personal opinion is that the true Biblical requirement
is to do as Rashi suggested: That each Priest after reciting the
priestly blessing should mingle with the congregation and find
out their needs and convince them that God will really bless them
But the laws listed above are MINIMAL Biblical obligations. For
example, the dialogue between the Chazan and Priest is the minimal
fulfillment of "SAYING" vs "SAY". Similarly "OUT LOUD" and "FACING
THEM" is the minimal fulfillment of "TO THEM".
And this matter that we have just discussed..the interaction
between Pshat and Law is the deepest level a Talmudic student
can come to. For at this level the student understands the reasons
for each law and their extent.
CROSS REFERENCES:
volume 1 number 12 (Discussion of the infinitive)
volume 1 number 11 (v2-18-27) (Discussion of FOR/TO THEM)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
USAGE | INFINITIVE
USAGE | FOR THEM
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*