Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume 3 Number 5
Produced Aug. 06 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v4q5-13 Refutation from Shraga Roth on v4d5-13
v5z11-25 Dialog with Principle on using Rashi Is Simple for Chinuch
v4r5-13 2 questions from Chaiim Brown on v4d5-13
v4y5-13 'AYN' means NOT THIS but SOMETHING ELSE(Ans to Roth/Brown)
v5z13-15 LOGIC vs GZAYRAH SHAVAH; Answer to CBrown
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: v4q5-13
From: rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
To: Undisclosed-recipients:;
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:54:18 -0400 (EST)
Subject: RASHI-IS-SIMPLE: Moderated Message
From: Paul Rothbart
To: rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
Subject: Re: RASHI-IS-SIMPLE digest 54
I believe your explanation of Rashi in Bamidbar 5:13 that one
witness is believed is only talking about a case where the
husband believes the witness, is mistaken. Rashi says (in
the next Rashi) that the posuk is talking about a case where
there were two witnesses for the "setirah" THis is therefore
not comarable to the Rambam in Sotah 1:9 which is speaking about
a case where there was only one witness for "setirah", but rather
to the Rambam in 1:14 where one witness is believed after setirah.
THere the Rambam does not give the requirement of the husban
having to believe him. The reason why this is different from most
cases of "ervah" that require two witnesses is because there is
raglayim ledavar that the woman did something wrong.
Shraga
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v5z11-25
The following email was part of an exchange I recently had
with a principle involved in Chinuch. I thought I might share
it with the group to find out who else is interested in such
CHINUCH matters.
If people like the attached note then I can easily add 1-3
simple questions after each posting (This would simply be
another SECTION---I would title it GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS
FOR STUDENTS).
A person answering this set of questions has gained competence
in the following skills:
---Using a Konkordance or CD Rom
---Checking secondary sources like Rashi to verify a pattern
---learning to iron out small kinks in good patterns.
Excerpts from the email follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EMAIL TO HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPLE<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Regarding your request for curriculum for High School students
based on my Rashi website Here is a model lesson based on a recent
Rashi posting. (Volume 3 Number 3)
Kindly review it and see if it is to your liking
Regards Russell
KINDLY ANSWER THE FOLLOWING MODEL QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1) How often does the chumash cite itself
(ie how often does God command something and
say "As I, God, have commanded"
QUESTION 2) For each verse whiere God cites himself go and find
the verse referred to
MODEL EXAMPLE: Gn 12:4 says that ABRAM JOURNEYED
AS GOD COMMANDED HIM THIS REFERS BACK TO GEN12:3
where GOD COMMANDED "GO FORTH FROM YOUR LAND..."
QUESTION 3) IN FINDING THESE CROSS REFERENCES ARE
THERE ANY REINTERPRETATIONS OR OTHER
DIFFICULTIES YOU ENCOUNTER. EXPLAIN and JUSTIFY
ANSWERS: Answers may be found in v5e11-25
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4r5-13
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
To: rjhendel@juno.com
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:51:11 EDT
Subject: digest 54
>>>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.<<<
I don't think this is a question on Rashi. Rashi does read the
pasuk as referring to 2 witnesses - 'aid ain bah' =there aren't
2 witnesses who have seen the adulterous act, only one witness.
The chiddush of the Torah is that although there are not two
witnesses the women is nonetheless deemed a sotah bec. she
was already warned (kinuy). See Sifsei Chachamim
>>>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).<<<
HOwever, only these 7 must they answer and cannot say we don't
know - see mishnayot in Ch. 5 of Sanhedrin. The gemara Rashi
is quoting is used to derive the need for precisely 7 questions,
not just a general need for precise questions.
>>>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)<<<
The latter case is merely an asmachta. The case of learning out
derisha and chakira is a din d'oraysa. See Tos. in Sukkah 31a
d.h. vR"Y all GZ"Sh are from Sinai and Rashi even extends it to
other middot.
Kol Tuv,
-Chaim
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4y5-13
v4y5-13 ...And there is NO witness IN HER
[Moderator the verse is speaking about a husband who
was suspicious that his wife cheated on him but he
has no proof]
v1-5-24 And Chanoch was NO MORE because God took him
v1-37-24 ..and the pit was empty, water was NOT IN IT
[Moderator: The reference is to the pit into which
Joseph was thrown by his brothers]
v3-13-31 ...and black hairs are NOT IN IT
[Moderator: The reference is to a so called
LEPROUS BALD SPOT. It has a status of UNCLEAN. If
however it had had BLACK hairs it would not achieve
the status]
v4-35-27 There is no blood IN HIM
[Moderator: The verse is speaking about a murder thru
negligence; the negligent murderer is exiled to a
refuge city. If he (willfully) goes out and is killed
by the nearest of kin of the deceased then the nearest
of kin HAS NO BLOOD IN HIM (is not liable to a death
penalty)]
RASHI TEXT:
v4y5-13 The verse says "AND THERE IS NO WITNESS.."
So we conclude that if there was even ONE witness
that says she had an affair, then she would be
ineligible for the suspicious-wife-ceremony
v1-5-24 Chanoch was a righteous person but was
weak and could have returned to the deeds of his
generation. Therefore God hastened his death
before his years were up. This is why the verse
uses the term HE WAS NO MORE by Chanoch but does
not use this term by any other person because
God took him prior to his time.
v1-37-24 It says the PIT WAS EMPTY. Couldn't I
therefore infer that it had no water? But the
second sentence is rhetorical---It had no water
but it had scorpions and snakes
(Furthermore the word TAKE can mean DEATH) As it
says "Behold I take the beauty of your eyes (your wife)
from you"(Ez-24-16)
v3-13-31 But if it had had black hairs it would be
TAHOR because black hairs are a sign of TAHOR in
BALD SPOTS (cf 3-13-37)(Cf Rambam, Leprosy 8:8)
v4-35-27 The killing of a negligent murderer is
like the killing of a dead person So there is
no death penalty
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
[As Shraga Roth and Chaiim Brown pointed out my explanation of
4d5-13 in v3n4 was incorrect. (See v4q5-13 and v4r5-13).
I would like to therefore clarify the correct explanation.
Before reviewing 4d5-13 we will present some simple grammar.
My comments on my errors will be presented afterwards in the
COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM section]
There are two words for negation in Hebrew: LO and AYN.
There are well documented GRAMMATICAL differences between
the uses of these words. I would like to supplement these
GRAMMATICAL differences with a SEMANTIC difference--
--AYN denotes a NEGATION but ALLOWS SIMILAR ITEMS
For example, (1-37-24) Jacobs sons threw Joseph
into a pit with NO WATER---but it did have SCORPIONS
and SNAKES.
For example, (3-13-31)if a bald spot had NO BLACK HAIR NOW
it would be ritually impure; but if the bald spot
HAD PREVIOUSLY had BLACK HAIR it would be pure
For example,(4-35-27) if someone killed a murderer-thru-negligence
then he has NO BLOOD (does not get a death penalty); but
it is nevertheless prohibited (Rambam Murder 5:10)
For example (1-5-24) Chanoch did NOT DIE but was taken by God;
although he did not die of old age he nevertheless did live
thru middle age
For example a women suspected of adultery who had no witnesses
against her could be tested by the water. But if she had one
witness she could not be tested.
{LIST1} summarizes these examples. The footnotes show further
examples (not covered by Rashi who was using workbook methods..
he gave us some examples and let us fill in the rest).
For example: (1-30-1) Rachel who was barren asks for boys
and if NOT I am dead (If NOT A BOY but A GIRL then she
wouldn't be considered dead.)There are many similar examples.
The reader is invited to try.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
We make 5 points
Point 1: Rashi used workbook methods. There are about 6 dozen
occurences of AYN in the Torah. Rashi explained about half a
dozen and let the reader fill in the rest
Point 2: 1-37-24 has 3 equally valid derivations. They
are as follows--
--EXTRA SENTENCE method: "The pit was empty" and "It had no water"
So Rashi Is Simple; the 2nd sentence must be rhetorical...it had
not water but it did have snakes
--RabbiIshmael method: The GENERAL statement is 'the pit was empty'
The PARTICULAR statement is 'it had no water'. According to Rabbi
Ishmael a GENERAL-PARTICULAR statement is exhausted with the
PARTICULAR statement's meaning. It is only water that it did not
have but it had other things like snakes
--SYNONYM method(AYN vs LO): AYN always denotes that only that
thing was negated but something similar was allowed
Point 3: People very often get turned off by Talmudic hair
picking. In this particular example we are suggesting that
AYN specifically invites comments of the form "Water NO but
SNAKES yes"--in other words there are certain words which
invite such distinctions but otherwise you cannot arbitrarily
use such methods.
Point 4: I should clarify my errors from last time. I correctly
cited Sotah 1:9 that if the husband believed one witness about
his wife going into seclusion (after having warned her) then
he had to divorce her. I cited Sanhedrin 24:1---judges who
believe one witness can decide that way (if they are highly
trained judges). In fact I could have cited Marriage 24:17
that a husband must divorce his wife if someone he believes
says his wife had an affair.
But this is besides the point. As Shraga Roth correctly points
out the main topic of the verse is the "suspicioun of adultery"
Thus my bringing in laws about believing one witness is irrelevant
The suspected-wife-ritual guarantees removal of doubt. It
requires 3 things
---a WARNING by the husband not to be alone with a certain man
---a WITNESSING of SECLUSION of her with that man
---lack of EVIDENCE of ADULTERY by the woman.
A woman with these 3 characteristics has a state of SUSPICION.
The suspected-wife-ritual (4-5) removes this suspicion.
Note that if we know for certain that she committed adultery
then we do not perform the suspected-wife-ritual (because its
goal is to remove doubt and we have no doubt...we know she
did it).
According to our verse EVIDENCE of ADULTERY is conferred by
one witness. Shraga suggests that one witness is effective
here because the women is suspicious to begin with (since
she secluded herself with a man AFTER being warned by her
husband).
I would however observe that there are 3 cases where one
witness is effective {LIST2}
---the unknown-murder-ritual (5-21)
---the suspected-wife-ritual (4-5)
---the sin offering (3-4-23 or 3-4-28)
Clearly what they have in common is RITUAL ATONEMENT.
Thus I would simply say that CONVICTION requires TESTIMONY (2
WITNESSES) while ATONEMENT requires KNOWLEDGE (1 witness).
Point 5: Recalling our discussion in v5b19-18 we note that
we established that the term WITNESS intrinsically means
TWO WITNESSES (Chaiim points this out in the name of the
Sifsay Chachamim and I also saw it in the Malbim).
So the verse reads "It a WITNESS not be in her" which means
It WiTNESSES not be in her. We then apply the rule about
'AYN' NOT to infer that WITNESSES are not there but one
witness may be there.
This may sound complicated but that is because we don't
have a Biblical ear. If we did we would hear WITNESS as
meaning TWO WITNESSES. And we would hear the word AYN
as meaning 'NOT THIS BUT SOMETHING SIMILAR'
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Verses showing that AYN indicates NEGATION but allows
similar items to be there *3}
VERSE WHAT IS SIMILAR THING
WITH NOT THERE THAT MAY BE THERE
NOT(AYN)
========== ==================== ==========================
1-5-24 Normal death Sudden death *1
1-37-24 *2 Water in pit Snakes and scorpions in pit
3-13-31 Black hair there now Black hair HAD been there
4-35-27 No death penalty But Prohibition exists
4-5-13 No Witnesses One witness exists
*3 There are about 6 dozen occurences of AYN in the Torah.
We should really go thru all 6 dozen and explain them. We
suffice with observing that e.g.
--(1-30-1) Rachel(who was barren) asks for Boys "and if NOT I am
dead---we can infer that she would settle for girls
--1-41-8 There was NO one to explain Pharoh's dream; as Rashi
points out people EXPLAINED but did not EXPLAIN THE DREAM (ie
they gave explanations that they thought Pharoh wanted to hear)
We have previously explained this using an alternative method
(v1c41-8, v1n3)
FOOTNOTES
*1 I believe the reference is to DEATH BY KISS referring to
a death that happens suddenly (the soul is "kissed by God" and
leaves the body). This is in contrast to an ordinary person
who dies thru a process of old age and gradual death
*2 There are 3 derivations of this Midrash
---from the word AYN (Water is not there but snakes are there)
---from the 2 sentences("Pit empty" "No water is there")
---from the RabbiIshmael rule of GENERAL-PARTICULAR(EMPTY-NO WATER)
{LIST2} {Of procedures where one witness is valid. As can be seen
they all involve atonement. It is suggested that
atonement requires KNOWLEDGE (1 witness) while convictions
of monetary and criminal liability requires TESTIMONY(2
witnesses}
Item Verse Theme
==== ===== =====
the unknown-murder-ritual 5-21 Atonement for murder
the suspected-wife-ritual 4-5 Atonement for suspicion
the sin offering 3-4-23,28 Atonement for sin
CROSS REFERENCES:
v4d5-13 Posting on suspected woman
v4q5-13 question showing error in my explanation
v4r5-13 question showing error in my explanation
v1c41-8 Alternative approach
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
SYNONYMS
SQL {Database query comments for those who know Database theory}:
SELECT verse FROM Bible WHERE
Is NotNull SELECT word FROM verse WHERE word.root = 'AYN'
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v5z13-15
This is a response to one of Chaiim Brown's two questions.
Rashi on 5-13-15-AND YOU SHALL CROSS EXAMINE WELL-states that
we infer from this verse that the cross examination must include 7
questions on the TIME-PLACE of the crime: Namely,
--What hour of the day
--What day of the week
--What day of the month
--What month
--What year in the 7 year cylce
--Which "seven year unit" in the 50 year cycle
--what place
First let me point out that my list of 7 in v5-13-15 v3n4 was
wrong (I left out the question on place and added the question
what year (which is identical with "what year in the 7 year cycle))
My apologies. The source for the above is Rambam, Witnesses 1:4
Next, let us list two possible derivations of the above law.
The first explanation is given by Rashi who follows the Talmud
Rashi following the Talmud claims that the law is based on a
GEZAYRAH SHAVAH (WORD LINK). That is, there are 3 verses in the
Bible where it uses the phrase AND YOU WILL CROSS EXAMINE WELL &
BEHOLD (it is true testimony). Counting the words denoting cross
examination in these verses we find 7--so we refer them to the
7 questions listed above (See Volume 3 Number 4, v5-13-15)--there
are actually 8 words and it is rather a lengthy story).
The other approach to derivation is suggested by me.
The word WELL in the Biblical phrase CROSS EXAMINE THEM WELL
suggests a non-superficial cross examination.Furthermore as I showed
last time the word AND BEHOLD (..CROSS EXAMINE THEM WELL & BEHOLD
(it is true)) shows that the Judges must be surprised at the verdict
Finally from a technical point of view since the 3 verses where this
phrase occurs span the whole gamut of possible legal cases:
--a city that worships idols
--a person that worships idols
--a person that bears false witness in any matter
we are justified in using the logical inference method known as
MULTI VERSE GENERALIZATION (BINYAN AV). The GENERALIZAION simply
says that all court cases must have an INTENSE and not a SUPERFICIAL
cross examination.
In summary there are two suggested approaches to the laws of cross
examination: One approach says the 7-set-of-time-place-questions
are derived from a WORD LINK while the other approach says it is
derived from a process of GENERALIZATION.
I would now like to probe deeper into this argument. First let me
defend Chaiim's position (which is the position of Rashi, Gemarrah
etc). Then I will look at the one question I asked Chaiim which he
answered (and which I can weakly refute). Finally I will present
my own arguments.
Chaiim's arguments are simple: The method of WORD LINKs is accepted
by everyone to be SINAITICALLY TRANSMITTED. That is to say even
though this email list believes that all midrash is logical and
even though we have defended midrashim by purely logical means
nevertheless everyone (including myself) acknowleges that WORD LINKS
are an exception to the rule. A WORD LINK to be effective must be
transmitted. The simplest and most famous example is 5-24-1 WHEN
A MAN **TAKES** A WIFE. Based on a word link with 1-23-13 **TAKE**
THE FIELD we learn that the act of TAKING (ie legally ACQUIRING)
a wife is identical with the act of TAKING (ie legally ACQUIRING)
a field--so they both can be ACQUIRED/TAKEN by MONEY or DOCUMENT.
This gives rise to our custom of performing wedding ceremonies
by giving a ring (an object of monetary value). In conclusion
Chaiim's argument is simple and clean.
I tried to suggest that although WORD LINKS are Sinaitic
nevertheless the term is sometimes used to denote items other
than those handed down to Moses. For example a WORD LINK is used
to show that a MINYAN must be 10 people even though the
requirement of MINYAN is rabbinic. This proves that the term
WORD LINK doesn't always refer to Sinaitically transmitted laws.
Chaiim in term responded that although people agree that WORD LINK
in reference to Minyan is a borrowed term nevertheless that
couldn't apply to our situation since Tosafoth says that the
7-question-cross-examination is Biblical.
I could answer Chaiim by saying that indeed it is Biblical but
that its Biblicality comes from GENERALIZATION and not from
WORD LINK. That is, I could claim that the verse EXPLICITLY
says that YOU SHALL CROSS EXAMINE WELL TILL YOU ARE SURPISED
that the testimony is true. Why do we need a word link???!???
So Tosafoth is pointing out that the list of cross examination
questions is Biblical!! Indeed that is true. My point is
simply that just as the rabbinic idea of minyan was pegged on
to a "cute" word link so too the Biblical idea of 7-question-
cross-examination was pegged on to a "cute" word Link. I could
also point out that WORD LINKS usually are simply two verses
with a LINKED WORD. They don't involve COUNTING GAMES (such
as occurs in the count of 7 (which is really 8!!).
BUt the above answer is not strong. How then do I really answer
Chaiim? I suggest an approach based on NAFKAH MINAH (exploring
for a practical difference). What is the practical difference,
if any, between Chaiim's approach that it is so to speak a
Sinaitic decree that we ask 7 cross examiniation questions
and my approach that the requirement to ask 7 questions is
based on the explicit repeated Biblical request to cross
examine well?
One practical difference is whether the number of essential
cross examination questions can change from those 7. Let me
give an example. Suppose two people come to court and claim
that they saw a murder in Manhattan tonight. I could ask
--What hour did you see the murder (e.g. At 11 PM)
--What day of the month(eg 5th)
--What day of the week (Thursday)
--What month (August)
--What year (1999)
--What street (eg 65th street)
--What avenue (eg 5th avenue)
--What borough (Manhattan)
--What city (NY)
--What state (NY)
--What country (USA)
Note that I suggest asking 5 questions on WHEN and 6 on WHERE.
I have NOT yet claimed this is the law. Rather I have claimed
that ***IF*** the derivation of the cross examination law is
based on logic vs word-link then it would follow that the
cross examination question set could have more or less than
7 questions. In other words I am suggesting that the practical
difference on whether Chaiim (WORD LINK) or me (GENERALIZATION)
is correct involves whether the essential cross
examination set can involve more or less than 7 questions.
Now that I have formulated a practical difference between
the WORD LINK approach and the LOGICAL-GENERALIZATION approach
let me try and defend the law that I just suggested in the NY
murder case.
There is an obscure law in the laws of witnesses that just as
the mentally unbalanced may not act as witnesses so too people
who are excessively simple (relative to national norms) may
not testify. The Rambams exact language (Testimony 9:10) is that
>The excessively simple who do not recognize contradictions
>and who don't understand the content of things the way other
>people do and similarly the people who are rattled or babble
>in their thinking or are fixated excessively--all these
>people are classified as mentally unbalanced (and hence
>cannot testify). And this matter is according to how the
>Judge sees fit because it is impossible to gives written rules
>for estimating such things.
We now understand the 7-cross-examination questions. A person
who says that a murder happened tonight is a witness
But if he doesn't know the standard conventions of time and
place the way other people do then his testimony should be
invalid. So, if a person says a murder happened
toight but CANNOT answer what the date was or what year it
is or what month then that person is like a mentally unbalanced
person and is unfit for testimony. This is clear from the above
citation from the Rabmam.
Returning to the language of our verse we would say tha
the person could not be CROSS EXAMINED WELL.
But it immediately follows that when business is done in 7 and 50
year cycles then we ask for which year among the 7 and which 7
year cycle in the 50 year cycle is involved. For a person who
cannot answer this question does not have knowledge "like other
people". On the other hand today when people don't normally talk
about the 7 year cycle it would appear to me that we do not
ask 6 questions on time but only 5 (hour, weekday, month, day,
year).
In other words I am positing that the underlying criterion for
cross examination is seeing whether the witness has normal
national cognitive patterns. In the times of the Talmud there
were 6 temporal criteria needed while today only 5 are needed.
Also, it would strongly appear to me that as part of the essential
cross examination questions we ask details about WHERE the crime
happened.
For a person who knows that a crime happened in Manahattan but does
not know that manhattan is in Ny or that NY is in NY or that NY is
in the US, such a person has the same characteristics as a person
who does not know the basic units of time...the person is
excessively simple and is not acceptable as a witness.
To summarize, if Chaiim's position is right then Chaiim would
accept a witness who knew the murder happened in Manhattan and did
not that Manhattan is in NY. On the other hand I would not
accept such a person as a witness since he is excessively simple
Similarly Chaiim would ask 6 questions of WHEN DID IT HAPPEN today
while I would ask 5.
I believe the above discussion greatly clarifies many important
points on how to do Midrash. I would invite other people who wish
to continue this thread to do so.
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*