Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
Volume 2 Number 2
Produced Apr. 26 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v0426 HIGHLIGHTS:ALIGNMENT||web||Rules||EYE for an EyE||CBrowns q
v3b24-2 PURE oil differs from PURE gold. It was made a certain way
v3a24-21 ALIGNING verses shows the simplicity of many Rashis.
v3-24-20 EYE FOR AN EYE-is monetary . NTN L=give, NTN B=Responsible
v3b21-1 (CBrown) The Bible has FIVE ways of designating PRIESTS.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
v0426 Highlights
* TO GET THE MOST OUT OF THIS ISSUE ONLY READ THE
* VERSE
* RASHI TEXT
* BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION
TO READ A SPECIFIC SECTION
Use your FIND menu (e.g. FIND VERSE takes you to next verse
ALTERNATIVELY TO GO TO THE NEXT POSTING
Use FIND #*#*#*#--this takes you to the next posting
* REWRITING WEB--Recall the first few issues of Rashi Is Simple
were a bit choppy and long. I am rewriting them to conform to
the style that the readers helped me develop in later issues.
When completed all of volume 1 will be downloadable. From week
to week I will let you know which volumes are being redone.
This week you can reread Volume 1 Number 1 (v1n1) which is now
rewritten on the web site. It is about 25% shorter. Check it out.
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/h1n1.htm
* We have about 2-3% of all Rashis to date. We have basically used
7 types of rules:
* Meaning is determined by ROOT+PREPOSITION not just by root
EXAMPLE: NTN L=give to; NTN B= Responsibile
* Two words might have ALMOST SIMILAR meaning but different
nuances: EXAMPLE: DBR=To cite; AMR = To say
* ALIGNING similar parshas very often shows commanality and
differences: e.g. Line up all crimes with death penalty
HIS BLOOD IS ON HIM only occurs by Parshas with stoning
* Very often Rashi is NOT derived from the verse he is
commenting on but from ANOTHER VERSE. Thus the the fact
that only a GARMENTED PRIEST serves in the temple is
learned from an explicit verse not from the phraseology
of how priests are referred to
* Very often Rashis are derived from OVERALL STRUCTURE
EXAMPLE: SPIRIT OF GOD always refers to prophecy. This
forces us to interpret Gen 1 as referring to prophecy
* Rashi can often give rules of Grammar, Meaning, style
* Rashi can often just give Moral lessons derived from a
verse without the verse being troublesome
* Starting with Volume 2 we will call this section HIGHLIGHTS. Its
goal is to alert readers to important DRASHS if they don't have
time to read everything
* In this issue we illustrate the powerful ALIGNMENT method for
verses by which many Rashis can be made simple (V3a24-21)
* In this issue we have the famous EYE FOR AN EYE midrash. We
explain BOTH Rashis and Rambams approach and why each of these
Rishonim chose different approaches (V3-24-20)
* Chaiim Brown's question from a month ago is finally being
answered COMPLETELY today. Chaiim wanted to know why Rashi
interpreted the SAME phrase about Priests in DIFFERENT ways.
Roughly speaking the answer is that the Rashis were all learned
not from THESE verses but FROM OTHER VERSES. There are 5 ways
of talking about PRIESTS in the Bible and there are 4 types
of Priests--Rashi simply lined up specific ways with specific
priests (v23b21-1). Yasher Coach Chaiim.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3b24-2
v3b24-2 Clear Olive Oil
RASHI TEXT:
v3b24-2
(Menacoth 86a: Mishnah) The oil for the Menorah (vs the
oil for the Minchah offerings) must be made from the olives
on top of the olive tree (They receive the most sunlight).
After gathering this oil in a basket they are manually pressed
and the oil that oozes out is the 1st oil.
Later the already pressed olives are placed in a vat and
squeezed with a beam (to get more oil). This is the 2nd oil.
Note that since a beam is used although we get more oil we
also get some dregs of olives.
They are then ground and pressed again and this gives the
3rd oil. Note that since grounding is involved there are more
dregs in the 3rd oil then the 2nd oil.
The 1st oil has almost no dregs since the olives are only
minimally squeezed and the oil that comes out has no solid
matter attached. Thus
CLEAR OLIVE OIL = 1st batch of oil
[COMMENTS: Rashi did not CITE the Gmarrah but only REFERRED
to it. For clarity I cited it. Furthermore there is another
opinion in the Mishnah of Rabbi Yehuda--he also believes
there are 3 oils but uses different criteria for pressing
them. The idea of avoiding dregs however is the same]
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
Rashi has a subtle point here which might be overlooked at the
first reading. Many adjectives in the Bible are RELATIVE not
ABSOLUTE.
For example the Menorah most be made from PURE gold
but as far as I know there is no definition of purity. Similarly
the High Priest was suppose to be BIGGER than his fellow priests
(e.g. bigger in wisdom..) but there is no numerical definition
of bigness. Similarly the leprous spots are recognized by their
INTENSE whiteness. But the law is explicit that INTENSE WHITENESS
refers to something that is WHITER than an AVERAGE PERSON.
Even important moral norms like DO THE UPRIGHT AND GOOD do not
have quantifiable definitions of what is good.See {LIST1}
But in this verse when it says PURE olive oil the PURITY is not
a RELATIVE attribute but an ABSOLUTE attribute. That is the
PURITY is DEFINED by specific procedures. In other words the
Bible is not telling you that among Olive oils you should take
the CLEAREST oil---rather it is telling you to take the 1ST pressed
oil that comes out of the basket and not use the 2nd and 3rd pressed
oil.
Thus Rashi is more than simple.Rashi Is Profound.This is one of the
few adjectives where clarification is needed and therefore we have
a Rashi on this verse but not on most of the others.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Lists of Adjectives occuring in Biblical Laws}
ADJECTIVE VERSE LAW ABSOLUTE/RELATIVE
========= ===== === =================
PURE 2-25-39 Menorah from Pure Gold Relative *1
BIG 3-21-10 High priest must be big*2 Relative *1
INTENSE (White) 3-13-4 To be classified as *3 Relative *1
leprous skin must be
intense white
GOOD 5-6-18 Do what is good Relative *1
CLEAR 3-24-2 Only use CLEAR OIL for
the Menorah Absolute *1
FOOTNOTES:
=========
*1 By RELATIVE I mean that there is no DEFINITION of PURE, BIG
INTENSE or GOOD. Rather e.g. you look at most skins and see
what is WHITEST. Similarly you look at most golds and determine
what is PUREST. By contrast for the olive oil the term CLEAR
is defined. You take the 1st Basket of oil.
*2 ie. the High Priest should surpass (big) his fellow priests
in wisdom etc. But there is no DEFINITION of HOW MUCH he
should surpass his fellow priests.
*3 The verse simply says "It is white". The sister verse in
4-12-10 says "White as snow". The lawbooks (e.g. Rambam, Leprosy
Chapter 1) points out that on a Black skinned person even
ordinary white looks snow white (because of the contrast) while
on a fair skinned person even snow would look ordinary. The
law therefore says that you compare the leprous spot NOT TO THE
OTHER SKIN OF THE PERSON WHO HAS IT but rather to skin of an
average person. But this means that the definition is relative
not absolute.
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
WORD MEANINGS || RELATIVE vs ABSOLUTE ADJECTIVES
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3a24-21 ..he who smites an animal will pay for it
RASHI TEXT:
v3a24-21
He who smites an animal--he wounds but does not kill the animal
By contrast the verse above 3-24-18 "He who smites the
soul of an animal.."refers not to wounding but killing the animal.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
We can understand this Rashi best by using what I call the
ALIGNMENT method: That is, we take the verses in question
and line them up. This clarifies in an instant what is
common and what is different and enables us to quickly
and efficiently understand many Rashis at once.
{LIST1} {The ALIGNMENT method applied to 3-24-18 vs 3-24-21}
3-24-18 3-24-21 COMMENTS*1
======= ======= ========
He who smites He who smites
the soul of So v18 = killing the animal
But v24 = wounding the animal
an animal an animal
must pay for it must pay for it
FOOTNOTES
*1 Note how all phrases are identical except that 3-24-18 has
the extra "the soul of" while 3-24-21 does not. To use this
table you first read each verse vertically downward. You then
read row by row to see commanility and differences.
So Rashi Is Simple. The phrase "the soul of" occurs in v18 but
not in v24 and therefore v18 is talking about killing the animal
while v24 is talking about wounding the animal. The ALIGNMENT
method is a very powerful method and simplifies many Rashis.
I warmly recommend its use.
Notice that it is not the extra word that enables the distinction
Rather it is the blatant discrepancy between the alignments.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {The ALIGNMENT method applied to 3-24-18 vs 3-24-21}
3-24-18 3-24-21 COMMENTS
======= ======= ========
He who smites He who smites
the soul of So v18 = killing the animal
But v24 = wounding the animal
an animal an animal
must pay for it must pay for it
FOOTNOTES
*1
Note how all phrases are identical except that 3-24-18 has
the extra "the soul of" while 3-24-21 does not. To use this
table you first read each verse vertically downward. You then
read row by row to see commanility and differences.
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
DOUBLE PARSHAS || ALIGNMENTS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3-24-20
v3-24-20 ..as a person gives a blemish in his friend so will
be given responsibility to him (to pay)
v2-21-24 ...An Eye for an Eye
RASHI TEXT:
v3-24-20
"So will be given responsibility to him"In other words the damager
must pay the monetary amount of the blemish
v2-21-24
"An eye for an eye..."--This does not mean that you take the
damagers eye out but rather you fine him. For details see
the explanations in Baba Kama 84.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
This of course is the most famous of all Biblical Derashs. Does
the phrase "an eye for an eye" mean literally take out the eye of
the damager or does it mean fine him moeny?
Note there are two verses which both say the same thing. There
are at least 3 approaches here: Rashi thinks it more appropriate to
derive the MONETARY vs LITERAL interpretation from v3-24-20.
Maimonidees in his great code (Torts 1:5) derives it from v2-21-24.
The talmud in Baba Kama 84 gives numerous derivations. There is no
disagreement on the law or its derivation--there are rather
different approaches to what is simplest. I shall try and explain
why different authorities chose different drashs below.
First let us explain Rashi. We have explained numerous times that
based on the Malbim the unit of meaning in Hebrew is not the 3
letter root but rather the combination of the 3 letter root and its
connecting preposition. Using this principle we see in {LIST1} that
a) NTN L (to) means to GIVE A GIFT
b) NTN B (in) means to GIVE RESPONSIBILITY, or GIVE
ACCESS or GIVE RIGHTS to.
So IF it said "..as a person gives a blemish to
his friend so shall it be given TO him" then it would mean
literally that if he took out his friends eye then you should take
his eye out.
But the verse does not say GIVE TO: Rather it says "..as a person
gives a blemish to his friend so shall it be GIVEN responsibility
ON him." In other words the damager has the responsibility of
paying back the losses to the damagee. So indeed, Rashi Is Simple
and straightforward.
Furthermore since v3-24-20 refers to money and not literally, so
to v2-21-24 refers to money and not literally. This is the technique
of OTHER VERSES---we learn the meaning of the Exodus verse from
the meaning of the Leviticus verse and we learn the meaning of
the Leviticus verse from the explicit use of NTN B meaning
responsibility.
The Rambam derives the meaning of v2-21-24:25 by examing the phrase
a WOUND FOR A WOUND. Using the technique of OTHER VERSES we see
explicitly in 2-21-18:19 that if " a person wounds his friend with
a stone or fist....then "he will only pay his disability and
medical". By juxtaposing these two verses:
>>a) WOUND FOR A WOUND and
>>b) ONLY PAY DISABILITY AND MEDICAL
we see that they must be interpreted monetarily.
The Rambam concludes that just as the FOR in WOUND FOR A WOUND
is monetary so too the FORS in the other 6 phrases (AN EYE FOR
AN EYE..etc) must also (by the principle of parallel style) be
monetary.
Why did Rashi and Rambam prefer their respective methods of
showing the simplicity of the verses. Undoubtedly because as we
have already seen Rashi likes to make a derash as punchy and
memorable as possible. The Leviticus verse very simply says
>>As you give a blemish so shall the responsibility be placed
on him<<
On the other hand the Rambam's derash is based on a detailed
analysis of the TYPES OF DAMAGES (Torts, Pain, Embarassment...).
Rashi as a matter of style avoids distinctions in explanations
since they are technical and contradict his criteria of
punchiness. The Rambam on the other hand in Chapter 1 of Torts
is talking about these details. The opening paragraph says there
are 5 categories of torts--damage, pain.... So the Rambam is
precisely interested in a derivation that focuses on this detail
since it reinforces the theme of his chapter.
The Rambam rightly leaves out the many other derivations presented
in Baba Kama 84. For example RSBI advances the argument that if
a one eyed person took out one eye of a two eyed person then it
would be unfair to take out the one eye of the one eyed person
because then he would become totally blind. The Rambam leaves
this argument out since it is a logical argument and not an internal
literary argument. Furthermore RSBI's argument could be extended to
money: If a poor person takes out the eye of a rich person and you
fine the poor person he may become legally poor or bankrupt.
Obviously such arguments are legally invalid since it is beyond
the ken of the court to take into account all consequences of its
decisions. Thus the Rambam rightly takes the LITERARY ARGUMENTS
from Baba Kama involving OTHER VERSES.
In conclusion we cite Torts 1:6: "Even though the above shows
that the monetary interpretation is the simple meaning of the
text nevertheless it is important to emphasize that this indeed
was the law the Moses received and the way all courts from the
time of Moses and Joshua practiced."
This is a theme we have frequently emphasized. All our lists do
is demonstrate WHAT THE ORIGINAL USAGE IS. The fact that Rashi
is simple simply means that this is the simple usage and meaning
of the text. Nevetheless it is a fulfillment of Talmud torah
to justify simple meanings with lists and derivations.
Finally I mention a question that a Rashi student (from Michlallah)
once asked me: "Granted Rashi Is Simple...but why couldn't the
style of the Chumash been simpler? Why couldn't it just say
'Money for an eye, Money for a tooth..'? Wouldn't that have been
clearer"
I answered her as follows: There are 3 cases of damages:
-a) If I break your vase then I pay in MONEY;
-b) If I break(kill) your soul then I pay with my LIFE;
-c) How about if I cut off your finger?
Is that like breaking a utensil so I should pay with money or since
it is part of your body is it like taking your life so I should
pay with my finger?
I concluded: "The law is that if I cut off your finger that I ONLY
pay money. Nevertheless, the finger is part of your body. The Bible
didn't let me get away with thinking that damage to an organ is
like damage to a utensil. Your body is more than a utensil..it
is part of you. Therefore to avoid misunderstanding the Bible used
language of AN EYE FOR AN EYE rather than MONEY for an EYE to
emphasize that even though I only pay money I really deserve to have
my eye taken out. Thus the law is "pay money" and the language is
take out his eye to emphasize both aspects.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {List of verses showing NTN TO=give while
NTN B = give responsibility or give rights to *1}
VERSE PREPOSITION MEANING
===== =========== =======
1-24-53 TO Eliezer GAVE presents TO her brothers
1-25-6 TO Abraham GAVE presents TO the concubines
1-45-22 TO He GAVE TO his brothers clothing
1-15-3 TO You have not GIVEN TO ME children
4-27-9 TO Then GIVE his inheritance to his BROTHERS
1-39-4 IN*2 My master GAVE me RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
to run his household
1S24-11 IN See how God has GIVEN ME ACCESS to you
(in other words I could have killed you)
Ps 41-3 IN Don't GIVE his enemies RIGHTS over him
Jo10-32 IN God GAVE ACCESS to Lacish to the Jews *2
1-9-2 IN I have GIVEN you ACCESS/RIGHTS over all
things on the earth *3
FOOTNOTES:
=========
*1 There are certain other rare forms whose meanings are hard to
ascertain because of the small number of verses. For example
GIVE TO (EL) as in Eccl 8-16; Jer 37-18 (=Deliver?)
GIVE WITH 1-3-12 or
GIVE ON Jer 12-8--(this seems to mean to PLACE(e.g. 4-4-6)
GIVE ETH (Jer 37 4)
*2 GIVE IN can simply mean PLACE IN as in 4-16-7 (Place in them
fire). However this is only when the indirect object is
either the name of place or some type of receptacle.
*3 Note the nuances here--It doesn't say that GOD GAVE TO Israel
Lacish. It simply says they conquered them...they acquired RIGHTS
or ACCESS over them. Similarly it doesn't say that we have the
Earth as a gift..but rather we have control over it.
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
ROOT+PREPOSITION
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3b21-1
v3b21-1 ..tell the Priests, the sons of Aaron
v3c21-1
v3d1-5 the sons of Aaron the Priests
v3a1-8 the sons of Aaron the Priests
v3b1-7
RASHI TEXT:
[Moderator: Certain terms must be understood before reading Rashi
BLEMISHED: A Priest with a physical defect-e.g. missing a finger
-such a person MAY NOT serve in the temple
-but MAY eat temple sacrifices that other priests eat
-His descendants ARE PRIESTS
DESECRATED: A priest born of a relation forbidden to priests:
For example: His father was a priest and his mother a divorcee
-such a priest MAY NOT serve in the temple
-MAY NOT eat temple sacrifices
-His descendants are not PRIESTS
In other words the CHaLLaL is like a Non priest. See {LIST1}]
v3b21-1
RASHI: "tell the PRIESTS, the sons of Aaron"--so these laws do
not apply to a DESECRATED (who is not a priest!)
v3c21-1
RASHI: "tell the PRIESTS, the sons of Aaron"--so these laws do
not apply to a DESECRATED (who is not a priest!)
v3c21-1
RASHI: "tell the priests, the SONS OF AARON"--so these laws do
apply to BLEMISHEDs.
v3d1-5
RASHI:Sons of Aaron the Priest-only GARMENTED priests may sacrifice
v3a1-8
RASHI:Sons of Aaron the Priest-only UNBLEMISED priests may scrifice
v3b1-7
RASHI:Sons of Aaron the Priest-only UNBLEMISED priests may scrifice
COMMENT: The obvious question (Raised about a month ago by Chaiim
Brown) is how do we simply account for the numerous but different
derivations of all these Rashis.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
We all know for example that the word DAY in English could refer
either to the whole 24 hour period or to the lit part of the day.
So the meaning of DAY in the two sentences "My DAYtime phone
number is..." vs "I will be on vacation for 7 DAYS and my new phone
number is.." both have clear but different meanings. One meaning of
day is general (24 hour period) while one is specific(lit part only)
Many Rashis skillfully explain whether the meaning of a word is
narrow or general. In the case at hand there are only 5 phrases
in the Bible that can refer to priest {LIST2} and Rashi indicates
the specific meaning of them on each spot: Thus the phrases
--SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST and
--SONS OF AARON THE PRIESTS
always refer to GARMENTED PRIESTS.
THe phrase
--PRIESTS THE SONS OF AARON always means
BLEMISHED but not DESECRATED priests.
Thus Rashi Is Simple. He is simply giving us the specific
meaning of each of these phrases. (The other two phrases THE
PRIEST and THE PRIESTS have a meaning based on context).
But, you will ask "How did Rashi know which phrases refer to
what?." This too is simple. For Rashi derived the meanings
from OTHER VERSES which explicitly state priestly requirements.
Thus 3-21-18 explicitly says that BLEMISHED PRIESTS may not do
temple service. Similarly 2-29-9:29:30 explicitly say that only
GARMENTED PRIESTS may do temple work. Similarly 3-21-22 explicitly
says that BLEMISED Priests may eat Terumah.
3-22-4:6 explicitly says that TAMAY priests (who have
had contact with the dead) may not eat Holy things. Finally 3-21-15
explicitly says that the marriage by a priest to a prohibited
relation "desecrates" his descendants eternally (to use the talmudic
phrase "A DESECRATED is like a NON PRIEST".) This list of explicit
verses is summarized in {LIST3}
So Rashi is simple: The phrases referring to priests used by
the sacrifices MUST refer to GARMENTED UNBLEMISHED priests
because there are other verses which explicitly tell us this.
This immediately explains the Rashis on 3-1-5,3-1-7 and 3-1-8
all of which use the same construct:"Son(s) of Aaron the Priest(s)"
On the other hand since the phraseology referring to Priests
in 3-21-1 is different we assume it refers to a different
class of priests. Most logically since Terumah cannot be eaten
by Tamay people who have come in contact with a dead body
(explicitly said in another verse) but can be
eaten by BLEMISHED priests the verse must be prohibiting
BLEMISHED priests from becoming Tamay also.
Finally DESECRATED PRIESTS are not prohibited from e.g.
going to their near relatives funerals since they are not
considered PRIESTS (again a concept explicitly stated).
Note the simplicity and elegance of the above derivations.
It is of utmost important to emphasize that Rashi did not derive
the laws from an internal analysis of the phrases but rather
derived the meaning of the phrases form the laws which were
explicitly stated in other verses. It is only in this way that
we really appreciate that Rashi Is Simple.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
We have many times emphasized that Rashi will not go into
technical analysis on a verse but prefer to use even Gematrias
since they are punchy and easily remembered.
The simple derivations of the Rashis we are studying is by using
the technique of EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN OTHER VERSES. Rashi is
in his commentary sometimes uses other (valid) principles since
they are more easily memorizable.
We know in reference to 3-1 that TWO EXPLICIT VERSES
tell us that only a GARMENTED PRIEST may serve and a BLEMISHED
priest may not serve at the altar. So Rashi is really simple---
the phrase used to denote priests in 3-1 must therefore refer
to BOTH garmented and umblemished priests...AND..this is derived
from the other verses. Rashi however separated the inferences on
the two verses for purposes of memorability.
So it may look peculiar that on two different verses with the
same phrase (3-1-5 and 3-1-8) Rashis says two different things.
But Rashi was only noting that which is easy to memorize.
3-1-8 comes after 3-1-7 and Rashi uses the same explanation there
while on 3-1-5 he uses KLLAL and PRAT.
Thus Rashi uses valid principles to enhance memorability--the rules
of KLLAL and PRAT (3-1-5) and PRAT AND KLLAL (3-21-1). We have
already explained on v3b1-7 that in the phrase which occurs there
which occured once in Tnach that Rashi interpreted PRIEST as
an adjective--PRIESTLY, IN HIS GARMENTS--based on 2-29-9. Finally
note that he uses a similar --PRIEST=ADJECTIVE--approach on
3-1-8 the very next verse.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {The 4 types of PRIESTS and what they can (not) do}
PROHIBITED FROM EAT
TYPE OF ATTEND SACRIFICES SERVE AT
PRIEST FUNERALS OR TERUMAH ALTAR
=========== ======== ========== ========
DESECRATED No No No
BLEMISHED YES*1 YES No
UNBLEMISHED YES YES No
GARMENTED YES YES YES
FOOTNOTES
*1 The table has the YESES descending in a TRIANGULAR format.
Such TRIANGULAR formats enable superior understanding of
similar concepts.
{LIST2} {THE 5 PHRASES BY WHICH PRIESTS ARE REFERRED TO IN BIBLE}
PHRASE SAMPLE VERSE HOW OFTEN DOES IT OCCUR
====== ============ =======================
PRIEST 3-6-16 Many
PRIESTS 3-6-22 Several
PRIESTS SON OF AARON 3-21-1 ONCE
SONS OF AARON,PRIESTS 3-1-5 Several
SONS OF AARON the PRIEST 3-1-7 ONCE
{LIST3} {VERSES WHICH EXPLICITLY TELL WHAT PRIESTS MAY/MAY NOT DO}
VERSE CLASS OF PRIESTS MAY/NOT DO WHAT
============ ==================== ======= =================
3-21-18 BLEMISHED PRIESTS may not Do temple service.
2-29-9:29:30 GARMENTED PRIESTS may Do temple work
3-21-22 BLEMISED Priests may Eat Sacrifices
3-22-4:6 TAMAY priests*1 may not Eat Sacrifices
3-21-15 DESECRATED PRIESTS*2 may not Give Birth to
priests *3
FOOTNOTES
*1 TAMAY = Contact with the dead--e.g. going to a funeral parlor
*2 DESECRATED PRIESTS = The descendant of a priest and a relation
prohibited on a priest (like a priest and a divorcee)
*3 Of course, the TAMAY priest can give Birth to children. But
they do not have PRIESTLY status.
CROSS REFERENCES:
v3b1-7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
To Chaiim Brown for asking the profound question which generated
all this analysis.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
OTHER VERSES || DOUBLE PARSHAHS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*