Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List (C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999 Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/ Volume 2 Number 19 Produced Jun, 28 1999 Topics Discussed in This Issue ------------------------------ v4q19-22 Question from Chaiim Brown:Who was R Mosheh Hadarshan v4b17-25 OTH = SYMBOL = MEMORIAL v2-22-17 RULE: All Biblical examples must be generalized(BINYAN AV)! v4b5-12 Double noun indicates extension-Rashi picked a good example #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* From: C1A1Brown@aol.com To: rjhendel@juno.com Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:00:23 EDT Subject: P' Chukat Who was R' Moshe haDarshan and why, after explaining the 'pshat' fully, does Rashi feel compelled to introduce his Midrashic comments on the Parah Adumah? [Moderator: I don't know the history of who various people were. Perhaps someone on the list who knows these things better wants to comment. But Rav Moshe Hadarshan occurs several times in Rashi (e.g. in Naso at the gifts of the Nesiim). His commentary is very important. To fully explain it we must give a short synopsis of Rav Hirsch's beautiful essay on symbolism which we will do in the near future. Thanks for the excellent question] -Chaim #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* VERSE: v4b17-25 v4b17-25 For a Watch for a sign to rebellious people RASHI TEXT: v4b17-25 For a Memorial that I have chosen Aaron BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION: Rashi is simply giving the translation of the word OTH.Alternatively Rashi is explaining the double INDIRECT OBJECT (For a watch For a Sign (OTH). Rashi explains that the word SIGN/SYMBOL means a memorial or a commemorative. Rav Hirsch in his essay,Groundlines for Jewish Symbolism translates or explains the word symbol as follows: >>A Symbol is an >>--object or >>--act >>whose purpose is to remind >>the user of other >>--acts, >>--events or >>--objects. Thus the Shabbath is an act of rest on every 7th day. It REMINDS me of the fact that God rested on the 7th day. Similarly Tefillin is an object worn on the head. It REMINDS me that God took me out of Egypt. Similarly circumcision is a specific act that REMINDS us of the convenant with Abraham. These are the only 3 perpetual commandments that are symbolic{LIST1} In the rest of the essay Rav Hirsch deals with HOW the symbol reminds one of memory: Normally there is some symbolic link associating the symbol with the symbolized. But this need not concern us now. The sprouted staff of Aaron was a prophetic proof that God chose Aaron and not the other tribes. Thus that staff could become a SYMBOL to future generations of the whole Korach incident. Furthermore by remembering the Korach incident people would be cautious against starting up with the priesthood. Thus the whole verse reads as follows: >>..take Aarons staff and return it ..as a symbol (reminding one >> of the Korach rebellion) and as a guard for rebellious people >> so that their complaints against me will end and they will >> not die. In other words, the staff symbolizes the rebellion and the memory of the rebellion in turn guards us against further rebellion against priests. COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM: By comparing 2-13-9 and 2-13-15 we see that Rashi actually derived his translation---SYMBOL=MEMORIAL---from its explicit parallelism in 2-13-9. LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}: {LIST1} {Commandments with the word OTH=SIGN/SYMBOL. The word symbol denotes an act/object that REMINDS one of other objects, events. These are the only 3 perpetual commandments that are explicitly called OTH=SYMBOL in the Bible (Rav Hirsch)} VERSE COMMANDMENT REMINDS US OF ========= =========== ========================== 2-31-13 Shabbath God created the word *1 1-17-11 Milah Convenant (God-Abraham) 2-13-9 *2 Tefillin Salavation from Egypt FOOTNOTES *1 Actually 2-31-13 says that the Sabbath is a symbol that God sanctifies us. But then in 2-19-8:11 this sanctification is linked to Gods creation of the world in 6 days and his resting on the 7th. * 2 Note that this verse EXPLICITLY places SYMBOL and MEMORIAL in parallel. Thus Rashi obtained his translation from this verse. CROSS REFERENCES: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Grundlinien Einer Judischen Symbolik----Groundlines for a Jewish Symbolism (reprinted in Rav Hirsch's collected works, available from Feldheim in English) RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}: WORD MEANINGS #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* VERSE: V2-22-17 V2-22-17 A (female) witch, you should not let live v2a21-28 & When an Ox gores a man... RASHI TEXT: v2-22-17 Both male and female witches are included---but the Torah spoke about female witches since they are more common v2a21-28 The laws of damages apply equally to both an Ox and other animals; the Torah spoke about Oxes because they are the animals that usually damage BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION: There are two approaches to explain these Rashis: APPROACH #1: The 13 principles of Biblical style enunciated by Rabbi Ishmael require that (except for sexual prohibitions) ALL examples be generalized! By contrast, if the Torah wants to restrict a domain of law to a specific area it will use a GENERAL-SPECIFIC form--so for example 3-1-2 states that sacrifices come "From the ANIMALS from OX and SHEEP" and therefore among animals ONLY OX and SHEEP may be used. But if the Torah had said to bring Sacrifices from OX and SHEEP then it would be legitimate to say: "We can bring sacrifices from any animal---the Torah chose Ox and Sheep because they are the usual animals that are sacrificed". {LIST1} brings a small collection of examples of verses that are generalized in law. Thus 2-21-28 speaks about an OX goring but the laws of damage apply to any animal goring. Similarly 2-22-17 speaks about a death sentence for a female witch but the law applies to any witch(male or female). These two examples are brought down by Rashi. Some further examples are as follows: 2-22-1 says that if you find a thief digging into your house and kill him you are not liable for murder (since the presumption is that the thief would kill you had you not killed him). The same law applies when you find a thief in any place in the house (eg a roof, not just in a dugged tunnel). The Torah only chose the dug tunnel because that is the usual way thiefs rob (Rambam Thefts 9:8). Rav Hirsch in his commentary brings the following beautiful example: Every husband is obligated to provide his wife with food, shelter, clothing and marital visits. The Torah however does not state this on all wives but only states this on female minor slaves that were married during their period of work (2-21-7:11). The law is then generalized to all wives (slave or free). This principle we have stated--that all examples in the Torah must be generalized--does not apply if the Torah explicitly limited the law to some case by use of words like ONLY, THIS. The last two examples in {LIST1} show this. For example we're obligated to sit in Succoth on the holiday called Succoth in Tishray. By right we should generalize this and sit in Succoth on EVERY holiday (such as Passover). After all the Succah simply commemorates that God protects us and this theme, of God protecting us, should exist on every holiday. However the reason we don't sit in Succoth on Passover is because the Torah explicitly says: ON THIS 7th MONTH (TISHRAY) YOU SHOULD SIT IN THE SUCCOTH (3-23-34). The word THIS indicates that the SUCCAH-SUCCOTH law only applies in the 7th month and may not be generalized (The restriction of the law based on the word LIST is brought down in the Sifrah) Similarly it is well known that intentional murder is punished by death and accidental murder is punished by exile to one of the 48 refuge cities. Again, this example should be generalized so that ANY capital crime is punished by exile if done by accident. So for example a child who accidentally wounded his father (a capital crime if done intentionally) should be exiled. Here too the attempted generalization is thwarted by the repeated expression HE is a murderer (& exiled) (But no one else is) (Sifray 4-35:15,17,18) (Interestingly the Rambam brings the non applicability of the exile law to people who wound their parents in his code--Murder 7:15--see the KeSeF MishNeh--The fact that the Rambam brings down this non applicability is further supportive proof that generalization of examples is the NORM in Biblical exegesis) APPROACH #2: The above approach---to learn the capital nature of witch laws, whether to men or women--is sound and is solidly backed by a list. Nevertheless, there is another approach to learning the applicability of the death penalty to both men and women in 2-22-17. For there is a famous talmudic passage (Baba Kama 15) that derives that ALL Biblical laws (unless specified otherwise) apply to BOTH men and women {LIST2}. Indeed 3-20-27 EXPLICITLY says IF A MAN OR A WOMAN HAVE AN OV OR YIDONI (A FORM OF WITCHCRAFT) THEN THEY WILL DIE BY STONING The Biblical phrase MAN OR WOMAN also occurs in 4-5-6 regarding the obligation to bring a sacrifice to atone on sins and in 2-21-28:29 regarding the responsibility of owners of animals to pay a fine if their animals kill a human. Furthermore 2-21-1 speaks about the commandments that are placed before THEM, the THEM referring to the Men and women who received the decalogue (2-19-3). The Talmud now generalizes these 4 examples and says that both men and women are affected in all Biblical situations whether with regard to spiritual atonement (4-5-6), protection of life (2-21-28:29), punishment (3-20-27) or civil laws (2-21:22). Indeed, the Talmud points out that these verses negate the possibility of applying certain laws to men only, simply because they have more commandments. By selecting verses from each area the Torah clearly indicates its intent to generalize all Biblical laws to both men and women. COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM: Rashi on 2-22-17 generalizes (female) witch to male witch. However Rashi on Sanhedrin 57-58 learns the applicability of death sentence to male witches from the explicit MAN OR WOMAN (3-20-27). The fact that Rashi vacilates between these two approaches seems to prove that they are both equally valid. Indeed, one approach focuses the generalization on the crime while the other approach focuses the generalization on the sinner (male or female). I point out that Rambam and Rashi use different verses 2-21-28 and 2-21-35 to learn that tort laws apply to all animals. Again the theme seems to be that ALL Biblical examples are generalizable---different commentators will pick different examples. Finally I should mention that I have occasionally seen alternate approaches to some of the other verses in {LIST1}. For example, 2-22-1 is generalized so that if a thief is caught in ANY part of the house (not just in a tunnel he dug) he may be killed (in self defense). The Meciltah learns this from the ORDER of the Biblical sentence. The INDIRECT OBJECT---VERB order (If in the Tunnel the thief is found) versus the usual VERB--INDIRECT OBJECT order indicates that the example should be generalized. We however will not discuss this further now since the other examples in {LIST1} prove our point. LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}: {LIST1} {List of Biblical laws which are GENERALIZED from the specific Biblical examples brought down. In each verse a law is stated as applying to a specific example but Jewish law generalizes this specific example so that it applies to all examples. This is one of the 13 principles of Rabbi Ishamel--the principle of Generalization} VERSE TEXT GENERALIZATION ========= ====================== =========================== 2-22-17 Female witch dies Any witch dies 2-21-28 Pay for ox damages Any animal damages 2-22-1 Thief caught in tunnel Thief caught in roof/garden 2-21-7:11 Female slave's rights Wifes rights 3-23-24 Succah on Sccth Succah on Passover *1 4-35 Accident murder exiles Accidental wound parents*2 FOOTNOTES *1 In other words if 3-23-24 had not said ON THIS 7th MONTH SIT IN THE SUCCAH then I would have required sitting in the succah on all holidays (like Passover) since it commemorates God taking us out of Egypt *2 Rambam 7:15--Without the repeated statement HE IS A MURDERER it would have been legitimate to generalize and apply the exile- for-accident laws to any capital crime (like wounding ones parents) {LIST2} {List of verses that explicitly apply to BOTH men and women Note how the verses cover all Biblical areas--civil, spiritual, punishment and protection of property/life. The talmud generalizes these 4 examples to infer that all laws apply equally to men/women (unless specified otherwise} VERSE ATTRIBUTE SUBJECT ========== ================== ============================ 3-20-27 Death Penalty Death Penalty for witchcraft 4-5-6 Spiritual needs Atonement offerings on theft 2-21-28:29 Protection of life Pay for animal killing human 2-21-1 Civil Law *1 Chapter on Civil-tort laws FOOTNOTES: *1 In the first 3 verses the Bible says MAN OR WOMAN. In the last verse (2-21-1) the Bible says "These are the laws that you should place before THEM"--the THEM refers to the people receiving the decalog which in 2-19-3 refers both to the MEN (Children of Israel) and the WOMEN (House of Israel)--it is also clear that men/women heard the decalogue since the laws apply to both sexes and it explicitly says THE WHOLE NATION heard it (2-20-15--emphasis on WHOLE). CROSS REFERENCES: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Rambam Torts 1:1---The Rambam uses 2-21-35 vs 2-21-28 v2b25-22 RabbiIshmael RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}: RabbiIshmael #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* VERSE: v4b5-12 v4b5-12 A man, A man when his wife goes astray v4a17-28 Whoever comes near, whoever comes near ..will die RASHI TEXT: v4b5-12 "A man, A man"-- The word man occurs twice because she betrays 2 people--her husband and God (who is called a "man" of war (2-15-3). v4a17-28--"Whoever comes near, whoever comes near"--- All of us can come into the courtyard; if someone then pushed his friend who went into the temple itself then that person would die BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION: The bottom line is as follows: Any repetition of nouns is peculiar (since at the very least a pronoun could have been used). A classical method of treating repeated nouns is to assume the second noun is different than the first noun and to give the two nouns together a broader (vs a restrictive) interpretation. For example 3-23-32 says that you observe Yom Kippur from "Eve to Eve". So the Midrashic comment (brought in the Sifrah) is that "Eve" by itself would denote EVENING (after sunset) while "Eve to Eve" with repetition is interpreted more liberally: Even during sunset.{LIST1} The phrase "A MAN A MAN" occurs about half a dozen times in halachic sections of Chumash {LIST2}. Using the above method we would say that a MAN by itself would just denote a MAN while A MAN A MAN is interpreted more liberally. For example it might denote a hermophordite (half man half woman) or two people that did something TOGETHER. Similarly the phrase "ALL THAT COME NEAR" would denote someone that just walked up and came near to the temple while the double phrase ALL THAT COME NEAR ALL THAT COME NEAR would denote any type of coming near (say by being pushed in a crowd--something not completely intentional but nevertheless avoidable). Notice that all we have said so far is that the repetition denotes SOME TYPE of more general interpretation. We have not yet committed outselves to any particular type of more general interpretation. As we shall see in the other examples of a MAN A MAN there is no concensus on a method of interpretation. Consequently Rashi picked a good nifty example that illustrates the general idea & left it at that. In other words Rashi does not want you walking away from these verses with a specific interpretation but rather Rashi wants you walking away from these verses with the principle that repetition connotes a more general interpretation. To make sure you remember this idea Rashi picked a good example. The interested reader can stop here. Those however who wish to can examine the rich confusion in the talmudic and midrashic treatments of the half a dozen times that A MAN A MAN occurs and see Rashis' genius in leaving out any commentary on the other verses and picking the example he did on this verse. For convenience I have placed these observations in the COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM section. Finally I recall to the reader the principle of STAGES which states that every Midrash happens in two stages (v1n14 v1a32-15): The GENERAL STAGE where the idea is set forth (for example the idea that "man" is interpreted liberally) and the DETAIL stage where the idea is concretized to fit the verse. Using this concept we can reformulate our approach as follows: All agree on the GENERAL idea that 4-5-12 indicates more liberal interpretation. However there is so much controversy on the DETAIL stage that Rashi thought it better not to commit himself to any particular interpretation. COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM: Let us go thru the other verses where "A MAN A MAN" occurs: 3-17-8 A MAN A MAN that offers a sacrifice outside the temple The talmud (Zevachim 108) takes this to refer to the case where 2 people held the animal and offered it (So it wasn't a man that did it but 2 people together). Sounds ok--but by contrast the identical phrase in 3-17-3 is not interpreted that way. In fact... 3-17-3 A MAN a A MAN that slaughters a sacrifice outside the temple If 2 people held the knife and slaughtered it they are not liable while if 2 people held the organ and offered it they are liable. Thus the exact same phrase is NOT interpreted the same way. No wonder then Rashi made no commentary on 3-17-8. The Talmud on Zevachim 66 says that A MAN A MAN includes all people (women, bisexual etc). But the Tosafoth on that page wryly points out that the Talmud itself derives that women and men are equal in terms of prohibition from other verses in Baba Kama 15. True, Tosafoth answers this refutation by suggesting that --blanket texts apply to men/women (Baba Kama 15) --texts with A MAN apply only to men --texts with A MAN A MAN apply to men/women. But that tosafoth is refuted by the fact that the talmud itself does not interpret A MAN A MAN in 3-17-8 and 3-18-6 that way but uses it for other extensions. Furthermore 3-17-3 could simply have said "If anyone slaughters (without giving a subject)". Thus I think this tosafoth must be viewed as an attempt to interpret rather than as an actual account of interpretation. Even if one does not want to consider the Tosafoth refuted we can still see why Rashi did not comment on 3-17-3--- because the Talmud in Baba Kama gives a more straightforward proof that men and women are equal. In passing I mention a possible defense of the Tosafoth: 3-17-3,8,10,13 all have the phrase A MAN A MAN. The first 3 verses speak about a person from THE HOUSE of Israel while 3-17-13 speaks about a person from the SONS OF ISRAEL. But 3-17-13 is speaking about hunting (you have to cover the blood after slaughtering an animal). Hunting is usually done by men (and hence the SONS OF ISRAEL vs the HOUSE OF ISRAEL). So I might legitimately think that these laws only apply to men. Therefore the repetition A MAN A MAN enlarges the scope of the law to refer to women. Such a midrash (brought down in Torah Shlaymah) would fit in nicely with the Tosafoth. But it does seem to go against the Talmudic derivation (Baba Kama 15) of equality of sexes. So while a defense of Tosafoth is possible we must still clarify what EXTRA verses are needed to include male/female besides those brought down in Baba Kama. 3-18-6 Again the phrase A MAN A MAN FROM THE JEWISH PEOPLE (Speaking about adultery) here is taken to refer to Jews and Non Jews (So A MAN FROM THE JEWS usually denotes Jewish men while A MAN A MAN denotes both Jews and non Jews. (Talmud Sanhedrin 57-58) Although this is accepted halachah it is certainly a strange midrash to derive applicability to non jews from the repetition of A MAN A MAN (indeed this is one of the few mitzvoth where non jews are brought in!). Again we can see why Rashi left out a midrash so bizarre. 4-5-12 A MAN A MAN when his wife commits adultery. Quite amusingly here the Talmud (Sotah 27) derives that the repetition of A MAN A MAN means that the suspected wife laws of 4-5 apply to ALL men (even eg men in prison or marriages with deaf people etc). I say "amusingly" because even though such a midrash is sound and logical it is NOT the halacha. Again we can appreciate why Rashi left out a midrash which is not accepted halachah. The above list of verses and the attempted Midrashs are summarized in {LIST2}. I inadvertently left out 4-9-10. Two things are clear: --repetition suggests a more liberal interpretation --there is no consensus on what this repetition teaches us So Rashi Is Simple. He simply taught the general idea and left out any details. We have completed the first of our tasks--we have shown why Rashi hardly ever commented on A MAN A MAN. We must now complete the 2nd task:Why did he chose the Midrash he did (After all it looks quite exotic---couldn't he have picked something simpler). Upon reviewing the rich literature on this verse I have found that it covers 4 broad areas: The legal, the social, the theological, and the racial--in other words extensions of the word/concept MAN can occur in any of these areas. LEGAL--As just indicated the Talmud Sotah 27 says that A MAN A MAN includes men that we would not think the law applies to such as those in prison (who are not in a position to be jealous about their wife) or deafmutes etc... SOCIAL--The Midrash says a MAN a MAN applies to all TYPES of men: Whether the man is normally picky on his wife or whether the man is normally easygoing on his wife. In fact one Midrash derives proper manners from this repetition: Normally you should overlook things your wife does (like accidentally break things etc); but you should be possesive if you see her doing unseemly things. RACIAL--Another midrash says that a MAN A MAN applies to all genealogies---whether it be a priest, levite or israelite. But this is so obvious we don't need a verse. THEOLOGICAL--We have enunciated the basic principle above that we treat the two repeated nouns as having (slightly) different meanings. So Rashi Is Simple--if you want to teach a principle you exaggerate it---the first A MAN refers to the husband; the 2nd A MAN refers to GOD (who is called a man as in Ex 15-3). In summary Rashi was concerned that when you walk away from the verse you should carry the flavor of the principle; so he picked an exaggerated example of that principle (MAN #1 = husband, MAN #2= God) so that people could understand that the repetition denotes an extension. Using this principle the student can then go on and understand other midrashim as well as halachic attempts to infer from the repetition. We have frequently seen that Rashi will pick gematrias or exaggerations to make a principle more memorable. v1z45-14 is a good example of this. LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}: {LIST1} {Of Repeated nouns in the same verse (Courtesy of Malbim)*1} THE NOUN REFERS APPLICATION TO TWO OBJECTS OF THIS VERSE REPEATED NOUN THAT ARE SIMILAR PRINCIPLE (Is in Caps) THESE 2 OBJECTS ARE OF TWO OBJECTS *2 ----- ------------- ------- ----------- 3-1-5 Offer BLOOD Blood in vessel Even spilled blood Throw BLOOD Blood spilled on floor can be thrown on altar (not just blood properly collected) 3-27-14 Sanctify HOUSE House=House These sanctify/ 3-27-15 Redeem his HOUSE House=Possesions redeems laws apply Either to a house or a house with possessions 3-23-32 On EVE of 9th Eve = After Sunset Don't eat on the From the EVE Eve = During Sunset day prior to Yom Kippur right up to sunset. Rather start the fast prior to sunset FOOTNOTES: * 1 See Chapter 15 of Malbims beautiful Morning Star for a long list of verses with double nouns--Morning Star occurs at beginning of his commentary on Leviticus. * 2 Nouns are never repeated if you can use a pronoun or suffix. There are a variety of methods of treating double nouns. One of them being that each noun refers to a DIFFERENT item (as shown in the list below). In general repetition denotes EMPHASIS. The emphasis can be by limitation or even by extension. For example, BLOOD BLOOD denotes ANY blood even if it was spilled out of the temple vessel HOUSE HOUSE denotes ANY aspect of the house (including its contents). {LIST2} {Of verses with A MAN A MAN. All attempts see the repetition as denoting a more liberal interpretation. However the details of this liberalness have no concensus. Thus Rashi simply teaches us the general idea of liberal interpretation but leaves out any mention of details} VERSE A MAN A MAN means? SOURCE SUBJECT OF VERSE ====== ==================== ============ ========================== 3-17-8 2 men do it together Zevachim 108 Offerings outside temple 3-17-3 bisexual people Zevachim 66 Slaughter outside temple*1 3-18-6 Non Jews Sanhedrin 57 Incestuous relationships 4-5-12 Even men in prison Sotah 27 Suspect wife ceremony *2 FOOTNOTES: *1 Note that even though 3-17-3 and 3-17-8 sound alike nevertheless 3-17-8 by law applies even if two men together offered up the animal while 3-17-3 by law does NOT apply if two men offered up the anaimal together. The attempt to apply 3-17-3 to women is seen as weak since the general equivalence of men and women is learned from more explicit verses in Baba Kama 15 *2 This is NOT the halachah. If the wife of a prison inmate is behaving improperly the court does NOT have the right to make her go thru the suspect-wife ceremony. The most reasonable interpretation of 4-5-12 applies to varied social types... the woman must go thru the ceremony whether her husband is the possesive type or easy going type. 4-5-12 A MAN A MAN when his wife commits adultery. Quite amusingly here the Talmud (Sotah 27) derives that the repetition of A MAN A MAN means that the suspected wife laws of 4-5 apply to ALL men (even eg men in prison or marriages with deaf people etc). I say "amusingly" because even though such a midrash is sound and logical it is NOT the halacha. Again we can appreciate why Rashi left out a midrash which is not accepted halachah. CROSS REFERENCES: v1-39-11 Treatment of the REPETITION principle v1a32-15 Principle of stages v1z45-14 Example of how Rashi exaggerates principles v3a13-49 Note that doubling of ROOT letters denotes INTENSITY while doubling of WORDS or PHRASES denotes a MORE LIBERAL interpretation. Indeed the DOUBLE ROOTS usually denote a more INTENSE form than the LAMED HEY roots. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: To Eric Simon for raising this most interesting question in v2n15. RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}: DOUBLE NOUNS #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*