Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/
Volume 2 Number 15
Produced Jun, 16 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
vq4-5-12 Question on the phrase A MAN A MAN
v4-18-5 NOT ANYMORE--refers back to a previous instance
v4z3-1 Correction of a phrase used in previous issues
v4z12-1 Comments and thank yous on V2n14
v4-17-20 SHKK means to GRADUALLY calm down
v4a18-9 The word ALL requires including more examples
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
***************************
*** READING TIPS ***
***************************
IF YOU ARE IN A HURRY WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:
* VERSE:
* RASHI TEXT:
* BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
"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: v4q5-12
v4q5-12 ..A Man A Man when he suspects his wife
From: Eric Simon
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:29:39 -0400
To: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu
Subject: Rashi, and "ish ish"
Shalom,
I was a subscriber to Rashi-is-simple,
but, to tell you the truth, it was
not so simple for me -- a bit over my head
(I consider myself just a bit past "newcomer").
[MODERATOR: I recommend to newcomers to only read
--the Biblical text
--the rashi text
--the beginning of the brief but complete narrative explanation
Newcomers can read the lists later on]
In any event, I was wondering if you might
know something about a question
I had concerning the recent parsha's.
In Naso, when discussing the Sota, Torah says,
if any man . . . , and the
Hebrew is "ish ish" (5:12). I've seen three
reasons why "ish" is repeated
(including one by Rashi).
The next week, however, at the beginning of
the discussion of Pesach Sheni,
we read that "if any man [was unclean . . .
and unable to . . . ]", and the
Hebrew, again, is "ish ish." (9:10)
But Rashi doesn' make any comment on
the repetition of the word here.
[Moderator: For a newcomer you are quite Advanced!!!
You are asking the question in the right way: You
are doing two correct things:
--you are looking at all verses with ISH ISH
--you are asking if Rashi is CONSISTENT in explaining them]
Might you have any insight into
the significance of "ish ish"
[Moderator: No I don't now. It is a very difficult Rashi
since Rashi is never Midrashic. But it is my job and I
will try and have a good answer in a week or two]
Thanks,
[Moderator: No no--thank you for the excellent question]
Eric
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------+
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4-18-5
v4-18-5 and there will not be anger ANYMORE at the Jews
RASHI TEXT:
v4-18-5
Not be anger ANYMORE, the way there already was:(cf 4-17-11)
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
Rashi is using the technique of confirming items from OTHER VERSES
It says here " & I will not be ANGRY anymore" and in 4-17-11
it says "..the Anger of God has begun". Thus Rashi is Simple, he
is using what we have called elsewhere the most basic type of
learning technique---the method of cross reference (v5a26-5,v5b26-5)
The above is the most elementary method of taking Rashi. A more
advanced method of taking Rashi is to note the adverb ANYMORE--
I will not be angry ANYMORE at the Jewish people.
Rashi in fact is citing a Sifray which gives a list {LIST1} of
verses with ANYMORE--for example 1-9-11 says that
There will not be a flood ANYMORE on the earth---the ANYMORE
clearly refers to 1-6-17 (& further) where the flood is mentioned.
We have brought this Rashi to emphasize that certain levels of
sophisticated Talmudic research can be done by ANYBODY. Anybody
can form a list of verses that contain a given word and similarly
anybody can seek cross references to incidents mentioned in verses.
Yet this is the basic type of research done by the Sifray and Talmud
It is Rashis like this that emphasize the universality of Talmud
Torah capability by all people.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Of verses with the word ANYMORE in them. The Sifray
produces this list of 4 verses. The basic thesis of
the Sifray is that "This will not happen ANYMORE"
is used when the incident already happened in the
past}
VERSE TEXT DID THIS HAPPEN IN THE PAST
===== ==== ===========================
1-9-11 no floods ANYMORE 1-6-17 There will be a flood
4-18-5 no anger ANYMORE 4-17-11 Gods anger on nation
4-18-22 The Israelites will The Korach rebellion (4-16)
not come near to is an example of Levites
the temple ANYMORE trying to be priests and
and die dieing
3-17-7 no outside sacrifices It is reasonable to assume
ANYMORE that this is the way they
sacrificed in the past *1
FOOTNOTES
*1 Of the 4 examples the
---top 2 have precedents in verses
---the 3rd one has a precedent of a similar nature
(Levites dieing from trying to be priests vs
israelites dieing from trying to be Levites)
---the last example there is no verse to show that
the activity happened before hand
This is typical when learning a principle. We prove/document
the principle in 80% of the cases and then learn new nuances
in the other 20% of the cases.
CROSS REFERENCES:
v5a26-5
v5b26-5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
SPECIAL WORDS | OTHER VERSES
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4z3-1
From: Curt Weinstein
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:05:44 -0400
To: rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
Subject: v4a3-1
[Moderator: It would be helpful to give some background.
4-3-1 says that "These are Moses children" and then
lists not Moses but Aaron's children!! Rashi resolves this anomaly
by suggesting that "Whoever teaches children Torah, it is as if
they gave birth to them".
In v4a3-1 I point out that Rashi did not learn this principle
(that teachers are like parents) from this verse but rather learned
it from a general principle of language that genealogical closeness
denotes closeness in general (e.g. the suburbs are called the DAUGHTERS
of the city (Because the suburbs are CLOSE to the city). I conclude
by suggesting that Rashi applied this principle to this verse and
concluded that Moses taught Aaron's sons and hence was like a father
to them
I summarize this whole posting by stating "The Midrash is not CAUSED
by the verse but effected by it"--now to Curt's question]
re:
"Again: The Midrash is not CAUSED
by the verse but EFFECTED by it."
Shalom and Shalom, to the best of my poor English I find:
To effect is to cause.
To be affected by something is to be influenced by it.
You wanted the word AFFECTED, right?
Shalom, laiib
[Moderator: Curt is correct. The above sentence is sloppy.
My apologies.
The principle is stated more accurately above in the posting:
>>In other words it is not the verse that CAUSES/ENABLES our
>>knowledge of this principle (that DESCENDANTS=STUDENTS); rather it
>>is our knowledge of this principle which EFFECTS the interpretation
>>of the verse
I guess to be fare to Curt the above is quite wordy also. So let me
try it this way.
The verse has a PROBLEM: Aaron's children come from Moses
This PROBLEM has an EXPLANATION: Moses taught these children
and a teacher is like a parent
There is a PRINCIPLE here: The teacher is like the parent.
Now that we have defined the PROBLEM, the EXPLANATION and
the PRINCIPLE we can state our position clearly and lucidly.
People usually learn Rashi as follows:
>>The explanation of **this** verses' problem CAUSES
>>the general PRINCIPLE.
In other words since in this verse we must interpret
Moses=Teacher = Parent to explain why Moses is stated
as having Aaron's children, therefore, we can know
IN GENERAL that any teacher is like a parent. Thus
the verses' problems' explanation CAUSES the principle.
What I am suggesting is that this is incorrect. The PRINCIPLE
was not learned from the verse. The Principle was learned from
a long list of examples showing that genealogical closeness can
refer to any closeness (so suburbs are the daughters of the city
and wisdom is the sister of the soul etc..). Thus the proper
formulation is that
>>The principle CAUSES the explanation of the verse.
We must first learn the principle (That teachers are like parents)
and then apply it to this verse to explain it.
To summarize all the above in nifty catchy language we would say:
>>The explanation of the verse problem does not cause the general
>>principle but rather the general principle causes the explanation
>>of the verses problem.
This reversal of verse and principle helps explain other Rashis also
See the above posting for further details.
Thanks, Curt, for pointing this out]
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4z12-1 And Aaron and Miryam on Moses...
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
To: rjhendel@juno.com
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:18:44 EDT
Subject: Numbers 12:1
A few points: I missed the repetition of
Kushit that you refer to; very solid
point. The discussion of form rounded
things out well here where Rashi is
verbose and the reader is left to wonder
what he is trying to accomplish.
[Moderator: That is my job--to (attempt) to find the blatantly
obvious grammatical items that are really driving Rashi to
say what he does. Finding the obvious can be very hard]
Also, I liked dealing with the parsha
as a whole rather than the individual
Rashi - I suggest doing it more often.
[Moderator: Actually there are 3 possible styles:
--If the point is grammatical it's best to deal with only THAT verse
--If the lesson is learned from CONTEXT or CLIMAX it is best
to deal with the whole parshah
--If the point of Rashi is some phrase which only happens 3-6
times in the Torah then the best way to deal with it is to
cite those 3-6 times]
I don't think you dealt with (unless I missed it)
the issue of why the text
mentions isha kushit asher LAKACH -
implying marraige, when the topic is
divorce. Also, why does ther Torah not
name Tzipporah if she is the woman
referred to?
[Moderator: These are excellent questions but they are questions
on the Biblical text not questions on Rashi. For Rashi only
dealt with those Biblical questions whose answers could be justified
by lists (There are very few exceptions to this principle). But
obviously there are many interesting points of style in the Bible
which give rise to true nuances but nevertheless cannot be backed
up by lists.
Dr Aviva Zornberg in particular in her excellent book on Genesis
deals with alot of these nuances. She insightfully deals with them
by simultaneously citing many mideval Jewish sources and also by
drawing on her rich knowledge of literature.
I hope she writes books on Exodus thru Deuteronomy. I am sure when
she writes on Numbers she will have plenty to say about Nu 12 one
of the most influential chapters in the whole Bible (All laws of
slander, one of Judaisms worst sins are in this chapter). The
reference to Tzipporah neither by name nor status (not "divorced"
but "had married") is certainly a legitimate question but it
is not the type of question Rashi dealt with since he only
dealt with questions that could be answered by lists. The above
thoughts are crucial in understanding Rashi.
Let us now see what Chaiim has to say]
My thoughts were as follows: there is no
point to knowing the color of
Moshe's wife, be she black, white or orange.
The Torah would not waste words
(twice!) on the unnecessary detail of
Moshe's wife being black or from the
land of Kush as it is irrelavnt to
Miryam's criticism. What the Torah is
doing is justifying Miryam's criticism
(same idea as your context point).
Miryam said, "Why seperate from your wife,
after all she is beautiful (and a
point my wife added: Acc. To R' Akiva in
the end of Gittin the parsha of
divorce in the Torah is a case where a man
decides to take a more beautiful
wife), and you did obligate yourself to her
by marraige (hence the emphasis
on LAKACH rather than on the divorce).
This will also answer the third question
I raised - if Rashi is correct that
the woman here is Tzipporah why not
refer to her by name. Answer:The Torah is
not out merely to identify the event
or the woman, but to echo the tenor of
Miryam's criticism - the emphasis
on beauty (Kushit) and marital obligation
(lakach) which Moshe has
abandoned are crucial, the name is secondary.
I have some more questions for shlach, and will write later B'LN.
[Moderator: We look forward to them; Yasher Coach on your questions]
-Chaim B.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4-17-20
v4-17-20 And I will calm (ShKK) the complaints of the Jews
RASHI TEXT:
v4-17-20
ShKK has the same meaning as in 1-8-1 "& the(flood) waters calmed"
or as in Es2-1 " & the kings anger (on Vashti) calmed"
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
As any dictionary will tell you, ShKK means to CALM.
Thus RDQ in his book ROOTS explicitly says "ShKK means to CALM"
But there are many other roots that mean to CALM down---for example,
NChA (rest), ShKT (calm), and ShKK (calm) {LIST1}. It enriches the
understanding of the Bible if we can find the nuances associated
with each particular verb.
There are three approaches to this phenomenon of several verbs with
a common meaning.
The first approach is that of the RDQ who
will frequently NOT seek further nuances. Thus on ShKK he says
it has a meaning of CALMING (NCh). As far as RDQ is concerned
many of these similar-meaning verbs are interchangeable.
The second approach is that of the MALBIM. MALBIM actually published
an obscure book on verbs with the same meaning. Throughout his
commentary--particularly his commentary on Isiah, Jeremiah and Ez,
the so called later prophers--MalBim seeks to emphasize that every
verb has its own unique meaning.
Unfortunately Malbim is a bit wordy--he very often does not bring
complete lists to justify his conjectures. His wordy conjectural
style(even though frequently right and even brilliant) may turn
people off.
The 3rd approach is that of Rashi. If we call the RDQs approach
NEGATIVE (there are NO nuance differences between verbs with
similar meanings) and if we call Malbims approach PHILOSOPHICAL
(Malbim tries to philosophically characterize each verbs meaning)
then we will call Rashis approach SIMPLE. He gives
several cleverly chosen examples which clearly illustrate
the nuances of the verb but he does not philosophically explain
them. This enables Rashi to be simple..he can use only a few words
and frequently completely accomplish his goal.
Thus Rashi on this verse cites 1-8-1---"and the flood waters calmed
down". Clearly this refers to a GRADUAL calming down.
Similarly Es2-1 refers to the Kings anger calming down after he
killed his wife---again this was a gradual calming down--they didn't
have a married couples fight that you get over the next morning but
rather he killed her---it would take him some time to calm down.
By contrast a verb like ShKT means ABSOLUTE CALMING down, not
GRADUAL calming down. As an example the common phrase in Judges
And the land was CALM (ShKT) 40 years refers to an ABSOLUTE
CALMNESS not a GRADUAL PROCESS of CALMING.
Thus the basic idea of Rashi is that ShKK means to GRADUALLY
CALM DOWN. This nuance of GRADUALLY calming down is consistent
with the great anger that God had (4-17-11) as well as the
severe punishment (live burial thru earthquake) that God gave.
Those who wish to, may add further ethical insights from this
(e.g. they shouldn't have attacked Moses integrity (4-16-15)
{LIST2} gives the five times that the root ShKK occurs in the
Bible. It also presents some examples of other verbs meaning
to CALM or rest. The difficult verse Jer5-26 is discussed in
the footnotes.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
As already commented Rashi chooses to explain differences in
nuances between similar meaning verbs by giving examples
rather than abstract principles.
In passing we note that the idea of teaching by examples rather
than by principles has been tried in computer science and in
database theory. Several studies have shown that it is as
effective to teach by examples as it is to teach by principles.
Thus Rashi's methods are consistent with modern pedagogy.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Of Verbs meaning to CALM DOWN}
VERB ROOT
=========
N Ch
Sh K T
Sh K K
{LIST2} {Of all occurences of ShKK,with sporadic examples of other
verbs meaning to CALM DOWN. Emphasis is made on the fact
that ShKK refers to GRADuAL CALMING down while other verbs
mean ABSOLUTE CALMING down. NOte ShKK only occurs 5 times
in the entire Bible}
VERB VERSE TEXT GRADUAL/ABSOLUTE
==== ===== ==== ================
ShKK 1-8-1 Flood waters calmed down Gradual calming
ShKK Es2-1 Kings anger calmed down Gradual *1
ShKK Es7-10 Kings anger calmed down Not clear
ShKK 4-17-20 Gods anger calmed down Gradual *2
ShKK Jer5-26 Traps at rest spots of birds*3 Gradual *3
ShKT Jud3-11 The land was peaceful 40 years Absolute *4
ShKT Jd18-27 ..to a secure calm country Absolute *5
N Ch Is14-7 the land was rested and calm Absolute
N Ch Ps23-2 on restful waters I lie Absolute *6
FOOTNOTES:
=========
*1 They didn't have an ordinary fight but rather he killed her
Hence it would take some time to calm down
*2 As already indicated, 4-17-11 shows that God was very angry
Hence it would take some time to calm down.
*3 A very challenging verse. It is not clear whether ShKK is
adjectival, or an infinitive or even a transitive verb. Many
commentators translate it as "like resting a trap". I however
follow the RDQ in root ShOOR "..like a person ambushing that
seeks out where the Birds rest momentarily on their trips and
lays the traps there"--so too these criminals ambush people...
they study them to see when they are calming down and nab them
then (when they are weakest).
If this is a correct interpretation then it would correspond to
flying birds that "REST/CALM DOWN" which would denote a gradual
process till they recuperate and fly again (This would be an
ideal time to trap them since they are fatigued). At any rate
the idea of GRADUAL resting seems to be here.
*4 Clearly the intent is not that the land gradually calmed down
over 40 years but rather that it was calm
*5 Note how both verbs (NCH and SHKT) both occur in this verse
*6 Again the implication is not that the waters are calming
down gradually but rather that the waters are rested.
In general NCh means to rest.
Also note that NChH means to gently move---but since this is a
motion verb we did not bring it here.
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
UNIFIED MEANING
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4a18-9
v4a18-9 This is yours from the time of offerinng on the fire
v4b18-9 all their sacrifices
v4c18-9 to all their minchas, to all their sin offerings
v4d18-9 to all their guilt offerings
with which they pay homage to me
RASHI TEXT:
v4a18-9 FROM = FROM the TIME of (not the FROM the PLACE of)
v4b18-9 e.g. Priests eat from the peace offering sacrficies
v4c18-9 they also eat from minchas, sin offerings (as stated)
v4d18-9 "ALL their guilt offerings" includes the "sojourn theft"
offering which the priests eat from
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
Rashi is straightforward here. We 1st give the simple meaning
of Rashi. Then, in the COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM section we give
some non straightforward ways of taking Rashi which avoid the
great confusion that one of these Rashis has caused.
v4a18-9 words like FROM, IN ..can refer to either TIME or SPACE
and this is true in all languages. A simple example
might be 4-1-2:3 "Count the Jews FROM 20 years and above"
vs 1-49-20 "Fat bread comes FROM Asher's (land)". {LIST1}
gives a simple list.
Thus Rashi Is Simple. The word FROM her is TEMPORAL not
SPATIAL. The verse means:
"And these are the gifts that the priests can eat FROM
THE TIME of sacrificial fire (ie. from after the time
of offering)."
In passing the Sifsay Chachamim emphasizes the nuance
that the priests can eat AFTER the sacrifices are
offered on the fire. However I would supplement this
with the more basic and simpler observation that
FROM can be TEMPORAL as well as SPATIAL
v4b18-9 "The priests have gifts from ALL SACRIFICES." Rashi states
v4c18-9 "like the Peace offerings". Actually all Rashi did is
make a list (From 3-6:7) of all things eaten by the
priests {LIST2}. As can be explicitly seen Priests eat
from Minchas (3-6-9), sin offerings (3-6-22), guilt
offerings (3-7-6) and peace offerings (3-7-16).
Now all the items listed in 3-6:7---
sin, guilt, minchah offerings are listed here,
in 4-18-9 EXCEPT for Peace offerings; so Rashi is Simple;
he says that the generic term ALL SACRIFICES refers
to PEACE OFFERINGS.
In other words Rashi is learning the meaning of the
list of sarifices here in 4-18-9 from the similar list
of sacrifices in 3-6:7 (reproduced in {LIST2}).
I would further emphasize that Rashi learns the
Peace offerings from the word ALL.
"These are the gifts to the priests..ALL sacrifices.."
The word ALL includes many TYPES of sin, minchah and
guilt offerings and also includes SACRIFICE TYPES
not yet mentioned like PEACE OFFERINGS.
v4d18-9 This last point ---that ALL includes many types of
sacrifices-- explains the last Rashi. Saying that
the priest gets gifts from ALL GUILT OFFERINGS
includes many TYPES of Guilt offerings where the
eating of priests is not explicitly mentioned---
one such example is the GUILT OFFERING FOR THEFT
FROM A CONVERT WITHOUT HEIRS.
This is the simplest way of taking Rashi. Rashi
could appear to derive lessons from the word
"YahShiVU" which is peculiar here. For an explanation
of this word and comments on Rashi Methodology
see the COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM section.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
We now explain the phrase RETURNED TO ME.
"All guilt offerings returned to me"
After explaining it I will give general comments
so the reader will know how to interpret all Rashis
dependent on WORD LINKAGES.
The RDQ is very clear (along with Ralbag) that SHOV can mean
not only RETURN but also can mean PAYING HOMAGE, TAX or GRATUITY
Some simple examples are presented in {LIST3}: e.g. 2R3-4..
And he payed homage with 120000 animals.. or 1Sam6-4 "With What
guilt gift should we pay homage to them" or Ps72-10 "The Tarshish
kingdom will give a minchah homage to God".
The RADAQ says explicitly in his book ROOTS
And the use of the verb ShOV with the MINCHAH offering
is because the giver expresses GRATITUDE and brings
HOMAGE for the good that God gave him
And the use of the verb ShOV with the ASHAM offering
is because the giver is like a debtor that returns
his debt.
We have chosen the English word HOMAGE or GRATUITY to express
this idea of expression of gratitude. Ralbag (on 2R3-4) also
connects ShOV with the more specific idea of a TAX.
All we are saying is that ShOV definitely does NOT mean RETURN
in these verses--whether it means TAX, HOMAGE, GRATUITY or
something else should be decided after careful review. My
own opinion is that HOMAGE is the best term since it overlaps
somewhat with both TAX and GRATUITY
The verse 4-18-9 now reads
These are the gifts that belong to the priests
-all sacrifices, minchas, sin offerings and
guilt offerings with which I am payed homage
The phrase WITH WHICH I AM PAYED HOMAGE refers back to ALL
sacrifices (guilt, minchah etc). Thus the sentence reads
smoothly.
It is unnecessary to say that the phrase
'With which I am payed homage' refers ONLY to the Guilt
offerings--it is also unnecessary to learn the inclusion
of the guilt offering from the rare word SHOV).
As commented earlier we learn that the guilt offering of the
convert theft is included in the priestly gifts from the word
ALL---"these are their gifts...ALL guilt offerings..."The word
ALL is all inclusive.
If the Talmud had listed a Sinaitic Tradition of a GEZAYRAH SHAVAH
then this tradition would refer to the rare terms HOMAGE occuring in
both 4-5-8 and 4-18-9. The actual reading of both sentences
however would remain smooth.
We could even go back and interpret 4-5-8 to mean homage also:
The homage this person brings with the guilt offering
to God, shall be deposited with the priest
To summarize the above approach:
--The word ShOV means HOMAGE.
--The sentence reads smoothly--all sacrifices with which you
pay me homage
--We learn to include the convert theft offering in the priestly
gifts from the word all (these are their gifts..ALL
sacrifices with which you pay me homage")
--Alternatively **IF** we had an explicit Sinaitic tradition
mentioned in the Talmud we could also learn to include the
guilt offering of the convert theft from the linkage between
4-5-8 and 4-18-9 which both use the rare term HOMAGE. However
even in this case both Biblical sentences would be translated
smoothly.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Words like FROM,IN.. can be TEMPORAL or SPATIAL
This is true in all languages}
WORD VERSE SPATIAL/TEMPORAL TEXT
==== ===== ================ =======
From 1-49-20 Spatial Fat bread FROM Asher's land
From 4-1-2:3 Temporal Count Jews FROM 20 years of age
In Job3-2 Temporal cursed the day IN which I was born
In Ps132-13 Spatial Gods choice was IN Zion
After 1-32-19 Spatial All who walked AFTER the herds
After 5-21-13 Temporal AFTER her mourning, marry her
{LIST2} {Of sacrifices that Priests can eat from}
Note that priests can eat from all types of
sacrifices except the so called BURNT offerings}
SACRIFICE VERSE STATING THAT MENTION OF THIS SACRIFICE
PRIESTS EAT FROM IN 4-18-9 which lists
THIS OFFERING sacrifices that priests eat
========= ================== ===========================
Minchah 3-6-9 Mentioned
Sin 3-6-22 Mentioned
Guilt 3-7-6 Mentioned
Peace 3-7-16 Not mentioned *1
Burnt They do not eat Not mentioned *1
FOOTNOTES:
*1 Hence since 3-7-16 mentions that priests eat peace
offerings Rashi includes it in 4-18-9. By contrast BURNT
OFFERINGS which priests do NOT eat from (as indicated by
3-6:7) are not included in 4-18-9.
{LIST3} {ShOV can mean HOMAGE as well as RETURN *1}
VERSE TEXT
===== ====
2R3-4 & he payed homage with 120000 animals
1Sam6-4 With what guilt gift should we pay homage to God
Ps72-10 Tarshis will give a Minchah homage to God
Ps116-12 How should I pay homage to God
1Sam6-8 The golden vessels that you have given homage
FOOTNOTES
*1 In none of these verses can we interpret ShOV as RETURN.
The clearest example is 1Sam6-8--the Golden vessels were not
being RETURNED (since they weren't taken). Rather they were
being given HOMAGE.
For alternate comments see the commentaries. In particular
Ralbag on 2R3-4 mentions the translation of TAX. RDQ in
his book roots mentions the possibility that ShOV refers to
PERIODIC gifts---but as can be seen from the above list which
itself comes from RDQ, HOMAGE is a superior translation.(Again
1Sam6-8 was not periodic but a one time gift..thus the translation
HOMAGE seems best).
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
USAGE
OTHER VERSES
OTHER VERSES
SPECIAL WORDS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*