Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume 3 Number 4
Produced Aug, 03 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v5b19-18 There are only 9 sets of verses mentioning WITNESS
v5-13-15 3 Verses mention principles of CROSS EXAMINIATION
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: v5b19-18
v5b19-18 [Moderator: The previous two verses state as
follows: When A WITNESS arises against a person then
the TWO WITNESSES stand..and the Judges investigate..]
And behold the WITNESS is a FALSE WITNESS
[Moderator: note the constant shift between singuar
and plural]
v4d5-13 ..and there is no witness against her
[Moderator: The text is talking about a woman suspected
of adultery]
v2b21-12 [Moderator: We are talking about a watched
object. The watcher claims it was eaten by a wild
beast]
If it was eaten by a wild beast let him bring A WITNESS
v5b19-15 One witness will not arise against a person
for any iniquity or sin that he sin
RASHI TEXT:
v5b19-18 The Biblical word A WITNESS means TWO WITNESSES
v4d5-13 If the adulterous women had EVEN ONE WITNESS
that said she had been defiled (ie committed adultery)
then she would not go thru the suspected wife ceremony
v2b21-12 The Biblical phrase LET HIM BRING A WITNESS
means he should bring TWO WITNESSES that a wild beast
devoured it and he will be free
v5b19-15 The verse says ONE WITNESS WILL NOT ARISE ..
FOR ANY INIQUITY...This is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE in
the whole Torah. ONE witness can not be used for
conviction in sins (but can be used to administer
oaths: if the person denies owing and one witness
comes the accused can be forced to take an oath).
Thus the word WITNESS in the TORAH means TWO
WITNESSES unless the verse explicitly says ONE
WITNESS
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
This is an excellent Rashi illustrating both WHAT TO DO and
WHAT NOT TO DO when learning Rashi. We approach Rashi thru
4 levels.
THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL:
At the elementary level we read 5-19-16:18 and explicitly see
that in verse 16 the word WITNESS is in the singular, in
verse 17 it is in the plural (2 witnesses) while in verse
18 it is in the Singular (See the citation above). Thus
the Torah explicitly IDENTIFIES the term WITNESS with
2 witnesses.
We can embellish the elementary level in two ways.
We can observe that the 5-19-16:18 has the form GENERAL-
PARTICULAR-GENERAL (WITNESS--2 witnesses-WITNESS) implying
that the word WITNESS means two (or more) witnesses.
We can also observe that certain nouns are intrinsically
collective and are always used in the singular. Thus
AYSEV (The word for GRASS refers to a meadow of grass (many
grasses) but is always singular).
THE INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
At the intermediate level we can note supporting verses to
this thesis. There are two types of supporting verses.
Indeed the Torah in 3 places explicitly says
that judicial process should take place not by one witness
but rather by 3 witnesses (5-17-6 and 5-19-15 and 4-35-30)
Furthermore the Torah in two places (5-17-6 and 5-19-15)
uses the phrase ONE WITNESS (implying that WITNESS could
mean TWO and hence we need the extra adjective ONE in
ONE WITNESS (normally ONE is not needed with the singular).
We in fact have the explicit Rashi (coming from the Talmud
in Sotah) that WITNESS means TWO WITNESSES unless the
adjective ONE is used (ONE WITNESS) (v5b19-15)
THE ADVANCED LEVEL
At the advanced level we use Talmudic methods. Thus Rashi
on 4-5-13 ("There was no witness against the adulterous
women") comments "Even one witness" which seems to
contradict everything just stated.
Similarly on 2-22-12 Rashi states that two witnesses
are needed to exempt a watcher if he claims an accident
The Sifsay Chachamim asks about the efficacy of one witness.
In both these verses there is significant discussion.
THE PROFOUND LEVEL
However the basic approach of this list is TO BEGIN THE
STUDY OF RASHI WITH THE LIST.
{LIST1} lists all verses where WITNESSES are mentioned in
the five books of Moses. Similar verses are counted as
one occurence.
Shockingly there are only 9 verses in the Bible where
witnesses are mentioned!!!!
Let us review them. One set (of 3 verses) says that crimes
are adjudicated by 2 witnesses not 1. The three verses
are (5-17-6 and 5-19-15 and 4-35-30). Two of these deal
with murder convictions and the remaining one deal with
matters of INIQUITY/SIN. Before learning from this let
us look at the other 8 sets of verses.
Despite the Talmud's explicit statement that WITNESS means
TWO WITNESSES unless it says ONE WITNESS we find 4 verses
where WITNESS means ONE WITNESS even without the ONE!!!!
Two sets of verses clearly use WITNESS to mean ONE WITNESS
in non judicial matters (The treaty of Laban
and Jacob in 1-31-44:52 and the witness of the torah against
the Jewish people if they sin (5-31-19:26)).
There is also a verse (in the Decalogues) saying not to be
a FALSE WITNESS (Clearly this is prohibited EVEN if there
is only one person!!!!)(2-20-16).
Similarly the requirement of bringing a sacrifice if a
person witheld witness clearly applies EVEN if there is
only one person (3-5-1).
As these 4 examples show the word WITNESS can mean ONE
WITNESS (even if the word ONE is not there).
The picture is now becoming clearer. The word WITNESS ***can**
mean ONE WITNESS if it is not used in a judicial setting (such
as an allegorical witness or a requirement of sacrifice).
Now we can return to the set of 3 verses where it says that
one witness cannot convict but 2 can--two of these verses
speak about murder convictions and the third speaks about
matters of sin/iniquity. We combine these 3 verses with the
4 examples we just gave of WITNESS meaning one witness. We
also combine them with 5-19-16:18 which alternates between
WITNESS and TWO WITNESSES.
We conclude that in all MONETARY/CRIMINAL matters the term
WITNESS means TWO WITNESSES but in other matters (whether
it says ONE or not) WITNESS can mean ONE WITNESS. In
particular a witness can be used to force a person to an
oath that he does not owe money but cannot force him to
pay. This is the Rashi on 5-19-15.
We have left 3 sets of verses where the word WITNESS is
used in MONETARY/CRIMINAL matters and therefore must
refer to 2 witnesses. The 3 verses are
2-22-12---Proof of accident for a watcher requires 2 witnesses
2-23-1---It is prohibited to be a second witness with an
evil person (even if he is testifying truly)(Witnesses 10:1)
4-5-13---a woman requires 2 witnesses(who claim she sinned)to
prohibit her to her husband
But Rashi says on 4-5-13 that even one witness suffices!!
But this is no longer a problem. Because Rashi couldn't have
possibly believed that two witnesses are not necessary after
he said so explicitly on two verses. The principle he stated
WITNESS = 2 WITNESSES applies to only 3 verses. How then could
Rashi ignore it here.
The simplest explanation can be found in Rambam Sotah 1:9
and Sanhedrin 24:1. Here is the rule
--2 witnesses ALWAYS accomplish conviction
--1 witness MAY accomplish conviction if that 1 witness is believed
So IF the husband believed this 1 witness that his wife sinned then
she is prohibited to him. He must divorce her. Similarly if a judge
believed one witness he can extract money based on it. If however
the judge or husband did not believe the one witness then he need
not follow it. But two witnesses must always be followed. So when
Rashi says "Even one witness (can invalidate a women to her
husband)" he is talking about a witness whom the husband believes.
Otherwise two witnesses are necessary (Rashi was explaining why
the torah went out of its way to use the single term WITNESS to
refer to TWO WITNESSES)
I believe the above approach is the simplest way of handling all
these Rashis and Gemarrahs.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
We hilight 4 items
--The Rashi on 4-5-13 has to be understood like the Rambam that
one witness is effective if believed. This shows an underlying
unity among Rishonim(Particularly Rashi and rambam) and is healthy.
--The Talmudic dictum WITNESS means TWO unless it says ONE is
clearly not accurate. The proper statement is WITNESS means
TWO in Judicial matters (whether or not it says one).
Prohibitions of bad witnesses apply even to one person.
Such a deeper understanding of talmudic language comes from
a careful study of supporting lists.
--Note how there are only 9 sets of verses with witnesses. It is
always important to see how large a class of verses we are dealing
with. This can help shed light.
--Finally note how the generalization of Rashi on 5-19-15 takes
on more meaning when we couple it with the various verses where
WITNESS can mean ONE WITNESS (in a non judicial setting) as well
as the explicit identification of WITNESS and TWO WITNESSES in
in 5-19-16:18.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Of places where the word WITNESS occurs}
DOES TEXT DOES
USE SINGLE WITNESS
OR PLURAL MEAN 1
VERSE TEXT FOR WITNESS OR 2
========== ====================== =========== ==========
1-31-44:53 God and Monuments are
witnesses to treaty
between Laban and Jacob Single Single
2-20-16 *1 Don't be a false witness Single Single
2-22-12 Prove that a watched
animal was killed by
an accident Single Double*4
2-23-1 Don't join with
a wicked person
for testimony Single Double
3-5-1 Sacrifice if you
withold witness single Single
4-5-13 There was no witness
for the women suspected
of adultery Single Double*4
5-17-6 *3 Two/three witnesses
are needed for
conviction not 1 Single Single*2
5-19-16:18 False witnesses Single/double Double
5-31-19:26 Torah acts as a witness
against the Jewish
people if they sin Single Single
FOOTNOTES
*1 2-20-16 has the same content as 5-5-17
*2 It says explicitly ONE WITNESS
*3 The same theme is echoed in 5-19-15 and 4-35-30
*4 There are 2 verses where it speaks about one witness but
we interpret it as two witnesses. This interpretation is
based on 5-19-16:18 which explicitly identifies the single
word WITNESS with TWO WITNESSES. This is expounded above
in the text
However in each of these two cases (Detailed below) the
rule is as follows: Two witnesses establish the matter; also
one witness establishes the matter if that witness is
believed. Here are the details.
Two witnesses (that she committed adultery) make her prohibited
to her husband and cancel the suspected-wife-ceremony (Since she
is not suspected..we are sure). By contrast one witness MAY
prohibit her and cancel the ceremony PROVIDED the husband
believes that witness (Rambam Sotah 1:9). It seems to me that
this simple way of taking the verse is agreed to by both
Rambam and Rashi and this would eliminate all questions on
Rashi (Why did Rashi say "Even one witness" when the accepted
principle is we need two? The answer is "One witness if he
believes him; 2 witnesses even if he doesn't believe him."
To say otherwise would make Rashi go against many Gmarrahs and
Posookim).
Similarly the Rambam explicitly says in Sanhedrin Chapter 24:1
that originally Jewish law allowed the Judge to decide a case
based on one witness if the judge believed that witness.
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
DOUBLE PARSHAHS
SQL {Database query comments for those who know Database theory}:
SELECT verse FROM Bible WHERE verse "witness"
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v5-13-15
v5-13-15 [Moderator: We are talking about a city accused
of defecting to idolatry. The judges must decide
the case]
And you shall INVESTIGATE and shall SEEK and ASK
WELL...
v5-17-4 [Moderator: We are talking about people accused
of worshiping idols. The judges must decide the
case]
..And you shall INVESTIGATE WELL and indeed
the WITNESS' STATEMENT IS WELL FOUNDED
v5a19-18 [Moderator: We are talking about false witnesses
The judges must decide the case]
...And the judges will INVESTIGATE WELL
RASHI TEXT:
v5-13-15 From this verse we learn that judges ask 7
questions on WHEN the crime took place
[Moderator:(i)What hour was the crime committed
(ii) what weekday, (iii) what day of the month, (iv)what
month, (iv) what year, (v) which year in the 7-year cycle &
(vii) which 7 year cycle in the 50 year cycle]
How do I know that the Judges ask all these 7 questions?
5-13-15 mentions 3 concepts (SEEK, INVESTIGATE and WELL).
We also have similar concepts in 5-17-4 (INVESTIGATE, WELL)
and 5-19-19 (INVESTIGATE WELL). The word WELL in these
verses establishes a LINK and we apply 7 questions.
[Moderator: I will explain Rashi's logic below]
The word ASK in 5-13-15 ("And you shall ASK WELL")
does not apply to cross examination on the crime
(WHEN, WHAT, and WHERE did it happen) but rather
to the EXTRA SUPERFICIAL EXAMINATIONS
of witnesses [Moderator: both witnesses are asked about say
the color of the defendants socks and if they contradict
each other their testimony is invalid)
v5-17-4 The Biblical phrase "The THING is FOUNDED" means
the WITNESS' STATEMENT IS FOUNDED
v5a19-18 The judges cross examine the false witnesses with
a set of INVESTIGATIVE and SEEKING questions.
[Moderator: The 7 questions on WHEN it happened that I just
mentioned, 1 question on WHERE it happened, and at least
2 questions on WHAT happened (e.g. He desecrated the
Sabbath and he did so by lighting a fire, See Rambam,
Witnesses, Chapter 1:4-5 and chapter 2:1]
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
First let us recap the law. If two witnesses come to court and
say that Kayn murdered Abel then Kayn is not put to death till
the witness' statement is corraborated.
This corraboration is done thru a process of cross examination.
In English and British law the cross examination is done by
a state appointed lawyer called the District Attorney. But in
Jewish law the cross examination is done by the Judges themselves.
There are rules for conducting cross examination. The judges ask
the following set of questions which group into TWO CLASSES.
The first CLASS is called the INVESTIGATIVE cross examinations
and has 4 parts
--WHEN did it happen (What hour, weekday, day of month, month, year,
which year in the 7 year cycle and which 7 year cycle in
the 50 year cycle)
--WHERE did it happen
--WHAT happened (e.g. He killed someone)
--HOW did he do it (e.g. he shot him, stabbed him, pushed him...)
The next CLASS of questions we may loosely call the CONSISTENCY
checks
---Judges are free to ask any question about the scene of the crime
such as what color socks was the killer wearing, how bright it was,
etc.
If either of the witnesses did NOT KNOW the answer to any of the
INVESTIGATIVE questions (WHEN, WHERE, WHAT, HOW) then their
testimony was invalid. However if the witnesses did not know the
answer to the CONSISTENCY questions there testimony might still be
valid.
If however the 2 witnesses contradicted each other on any question
(whether INVESTIGATIVE or CONSISTENCY) then their testimony was
invalid.
Furthermore each witness was cross examined by th judges separately
not in the presence of the other so that neither witness knew what
the other had said.
Sources for the above are Rambam, Witnesses 1:4-2:2 and 17:2)
Now that we know the law we must ask HOW did Rashi learn it from
the Biblical text. In answering this question we 1st point out that
the Rabbis treated commercial law more laxly. Sale and loan
contracts could only be nullified by lack of CONSISTENCY CHECKS
If the witnesses forgot the exact place or time the
testimony was not invalid. The Rabbis enacted this leniency
to facilitate loan making (no one would want to loan if witnesses
had to undergo such a rigorous test) (Witnesses 3:1).
Thus we have a contrast. If we make witness law to strict no one
will want to do commerce (because proof of transaction is very
hard). On the other hand if we make witness law too lax then we
encourage false witnesses to come forth and convict innocent
people.
Now we can ask our question again in a reformulated manner.
How does Rashi learn that we follow a STRICT approach in
the cross examination of witnesses in capital offenses
(many questions)
We cannot answer this question by logic. Rather we seek what the
Torah itself says. {LIST1} reviews all cases where the Torah asks
for cross examination. In all of them the torah says INVESTIGATE
WELL. The word WELL clearly requests a STRONG CROSS EXAMINATION.
So Rashi is Simple: The Torah explicitly ASKS that witness law
be strict!
Hence we ask them as MANY questions about WHEN the crime
happened (what hour, day, month etc). It would appear to me
based on the above derivation that we similarly ask them many
questions on WHERE it happened (what COuntry, what city, what
county, what street,). It would also appear to me that we
ask the witnesses many question on HOW it happened (did he
stab him? with a knife? a knife made of what? a knife of
what length?). It would appear to me that if in a murder
case the witnesses could not answer such basic questions
of HOW the murder was committed then their testimony would
be invalid (I off hand do not have an explicit source for ths)
{LIST1} has further support for this simple approach. For the TONE
of the verses is clear: For there is not one common word to the
three verses (WELL) but rather 3 common words--INVESTIGATE WELL
...& INDEED the testimony is true. This last common phrase
AND INDEED THE WITNESS' STATEMENT IS WELL FOUNDED
shows a sort of shocked response by the judges (Like the
English motto 'Innocent until proven guilty', the judges expect
the witnesses not to contradict each other and are surprised
to see their testimony stand). The INDEED in "AND INDEED THE
WITNESS' STATEMENT IS WELL FOUNDED " denotes a sort of surprise.
Other supportive tone elements may be found in the footnotes to
{LIST1}.
From a formal point of view I have not strictly followed
Rashi who learns from a LINKED WORD (The word "INVESTIGATE WELL"
occurs in all 3 verses causing what is called a LINK). Instead I
have used the RabbiIshmael method of LEARNING BY GENERALIZING
SEVERAL VERSES (BINYAN AV).
I am not disputing the LINKED WORD method. I am merely
showing that the LINKED WORD **also** points to a GENERALIZATION
The idea that a given tradition can be learned BY MANY METHODS
was explicitly legitimized by Rambam in Torts, Chapter 1:3-8
where he gives many supports for the interpretation of AN EYE
FOR AN EYE (Even though as the Rambam points out the law is known
by tradition).
To complete this inference based on GENERALIZATION note that
the 3 verses in question run the gamut of cases from cases
involving INDIVIDUALS to cases involving WHOLE COMMUNITIES or
from cases involving severe crimes (like idolatry) to cases
involving any crime (the false witness crime of 5-19-18 could be
anything).
Thus the 3 verses have in common that witnesses come forth
and the judges are asked to cross examine WELL and with many
questions.
More comments will be made in the COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM
section.
Finally when the verse says AND INDEED THE THING IS CORRECT
Rashi says that THING=THE TESTIMONY (For Rashi is commenting
on the word DVR). We have already had a lengthy posting on
DVR in which we showed that DVR referred not to ordinary
speech but to special speech like prophecy, judicial matters,
proclomations etc. So the word DVR here refers to the
testimony and Rashi is consistent with all the other usages
of DVR (See v5c13-1 in v2n8). See {LIST2} and {LIST3}
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
We make three comments on Rashis form
First throughout this email list we have opposed derivations based
on letter and superficial word counts. In this case it appears
that Rashi is counting as follows: There are 3 key words in
5-13-15 (INVESTIGATE, SEEK, WELL), 2 key words in 5-17-4
(INVESTIGATE WELL) and 2 key words in 5-19-4(INVESTIGATE
WELL). Hence 3+2+2=7 and you learn that 7 questions must
be asked!!!
Now obviously such word counts are EXCELLENT memory aids.
They also lighten the heart (it is rather cute!).
But it is important never to overlook the simple meaning of
the text. It is also important not to accuse Rashi of
overlooking the simple meaning of the text.
The way we have taken it is simple--the words INVESTIGATE
WELL are repeated in every instance of Biblical cross
examination and therefore we are justified in using a strict
cross examination approach This strictness simply manifests
itself not by asking one question (WHEN did it happen) but by
asking many questions (WHAT HOUR, WHAT WEEKDAY, WHAT DAY OF
MONTH etc). This is the simple meaning of the text and it
was obvious that Rashi was aware of it.
In a nutshell we must distinguish between the CONTENT of Rashi
and the FORM of Rashi. Clearly Rashi emphasizes the common
concept of INVESTIGATE WELL. However he phrases this in a punny
form.
Proof that Rashi could not have seriuosly believed this COUNT GAME
that the witnesses are asked 7 questions comes from the fact that
they are asked many more then 7 questions (WHAT place, HOW it
took place etc).
Second we should make some comments about WORD LINKS. My own
opinion is that the term WORD LINK (GEZAYRAH SHAVAH) has many
meanings. It could refer to a sinaitic tradition. But it
apparently refers to any derivation based on a common word.
For example the commandment to require 10 people for davening
is rabbinic. Nevertheless the number 10 is based on a WORD LINK
(clearly there could not be a sinaitic word link to a rabbinic
commandment)
My own opinion is that GENERALIZATIONS (BINYAN AV) which
additionally have common words to all verses are termed WORD LINKS
even though there root is the GENERALIZATON(BINYAN AV)
This is only an idea and we suffice with its statement for now.
The reader who strongly disagrees with the above should nevertheless
benefit from this posting by noting that halachah requires a strict
cross examination vs a weak one and this is supported by the common
word WELL.
Third we note that Rashi notes ONE COMMON word to all 3 verses
(LINK) But in fact there are 3 common words:
INVESTIGATE WELL...& INDEED (The witnesses are true)
This is Rashi's famous workbook methods---he gives one common
word and lets the reader work out the other two.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
* {LIST1} {Alignment of the 3 verses in the Torah where cross
examination is discussed. These are the only verses
where cross examination is mentioned. The footnotes
document the commonality of all 3 verses as well as
the differences. The common words INVESTIGATE WELL
is used to justify taking a STRICT APPROACH to
cross examination requiring many questions on
WHEN, WHERE...}
5-13-15 5-17-4 5-19-18 Note
======= ====== ==================== ====
& you'll investigate & you'll investigate & you'll investigate *1
& you shall seek *2
& you shall ask *2
well well well *1
and indeed and indeed and indeed *1
it is true it is true *3
the testimony is the testimony is *3
well founded well founded *3
this abonimation this abonimation *3
has happened has happened *3
in your midst in Israel *4
they are false
witnesses
FOOTNOTES
*1 Note the COMMON phrases to all 3 cases
YOU'LL INVESTIGATE WELL & INDEED
Thus the Torah explicitly emphasizes that the investigation must be
WELL (Strict). So we don't ask one question (WHEN did this happen)
but rather we ask MANY questions (Which day, month etc).
Also note the word INDEED...denoting surprise. This corresponds
to the English motto "Innocent until proven guilty"--the
judges have to ask many questions--they have to expect that the
witnesses will crack--and they must be surprised --INDEED--when
they find out that the testimony is well founded!
Note the utter simplicity of Rashi in his approach to this verse.
It is the common words that demand a strict interpretation.
*2 The phrases YOU SHALL SEEK and ASK do not occur in all three.
Traditionally the BIBLICAL word ASK denotes CONSISTENCY CHECKS--
we ask the witnesses many superficial items (color of socks etc)
in the hope of obtaining a contradiction.
It is easy to guess why ASK is only mentioned by the IDOLATROUS
CITY. This is a very severe crime. The Torah wanted us to be sure
not to execute the city until we thoroughly cross examined.
*3 I do not know of a good reason why the idolatry verses have
this extra phrase AND IT IS TRUE THE TESTIMONY IS WELL FOUNDED
Perhaps this is a hint to the law that capital cases should be
treated with extra cross examination and not done hastily.
*4 It is easy to see why IN YOUR MIDST vs IN ISRAEL is used.
Turning a whole city astray is a crime against humanity (IN YOUR
MIDST) while the prohibition of idolatry is unfortunately
something that only Jews would really get upset about (and use
a death penalty).
* {LIST2} {List of meanings of DBR with Biblical examples.
According to Rashi DBR means INSIGHTFUL SPEECH}
MEANING VERSE TEXT
======= ===== ====
PROPHECY 1-15-4 & behold a prophecy came to him
DISPUTE 2-22-8 ..to the judge the dispute comes
ADVICE 4-31-16 ..these women followed Bilams advice
DAILY NEEDS 2-16-4 ..Manna was taken by daily needs
PROCLAIM *1 5-15-2 ..This is the proclomation of Shmtah
ANYthing 5-23-15 ..& God will not see ANY sexual
thing in you and withdraw from you
FOOTNOTES:
*1 There is no good Biblical verse where DBR= PROCLAIM
{LIST3} {List of Biblical verses illustrating the 6 meanings of
DBR presented in {LIST2}. For each meaning we cite verses
where it OBVIOUSLY has this meaning as well as verses where
the Sifrah or Rashi holds this meaning. Such an approach
gives credibility to Rashi}
MEANING Rashi/Obvious VERSE TEXT
======= ============= ===== ====
Prophecy Obvious 1-15-1 ..a prophecy of God came to
Prophecy Rashi 1-12-17 ..Sarah's prophecies smote..
Pharoh
DISPUTE Obvious *1 2-22-8 ..the dispute..to the Judges
ADVICE Obvious 2S14-22 ..You followed my advice
ADVICE Rashi 4-31-16 Women seduced Jews based
on Bilams advice
DAILY NEEDS Obvious/Rashi 2-16-4 Gather daily needs of Manna
PROCLAIM *2 SIFRAH 5-15-2 This is when you proclaim
Shmth
ANYTHING Obvious 5-23-15 & God wont see in you
any sexual thing & withdraw
FOOTNOTES:
==========
*1 Rashi never uses this meaning (Perhaps because it is obvious)
*2 Rashi does not cite this meaning though the sifrah cites it
3 times. I conjecture that Rashi did not cite the sifrah
because there are no other Biblical precedents for it
(i.e. you could not produce a LIST for it)
CROSS REFERENCES:
v5a17-14 in v2n8 (where Rashi discusses DVR and shows it
means special speech (like prophecy, judicial, etc).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
RabbiIshmael
UNIFIED MEANING
RabbiIshmael
SQL {Database query comments for those who know Database theory}:
SELECT verses FROM Bible WHERE verse.content cross-examination
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*