Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume 4 Number 10
Produced Nov, 26 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v6q11-24
Question on meaning of Brisker methodology;
Justification of using lists; learning logic to help
understand gmarrah/rashi
v6q11-23
Questions from Dr Loike; why does Rashi ask things 3
times; the 9 verses where Rashi says I don't
know;Rashi-Oonkeloos controversy on 1-25-22
v1q4-1
Question on use of PAST PERFECT in Rashi
v1r22-3
Question on etymology of NAAR (It comes from
NAAR(Shake)=NA RUACH (Wandering in the wind)
v1a36-24
Repeated actions use a ONE ONE style (eg 1 crub on this
side; 1 crub on this sideone childs name is gershom; one
childs name is eliezer-eg
2-25-19;2-25-33;2-17-12;2-18-3:4;2-26-19). 2-25-12 (2
rings on 1st side;2 rings on 2nd side) has same meaning
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: "malloy"
To:
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:25:43 +0200
Subject: Rashi
Can you explain:
1)How do you define brisker methadology and
how do you apply it to understanding Rashi?
[ANSWER: By BRISKER METHODOLOGY I refer to the
CONCEPTUAL characterization/CLARIFICATION of issues.
This usually means SUMMARIZING a controversy or
SUMMARIZING a distinction using a small set of
conceptual keywords.
Let me give an example from the last 2 Rashi Is Simples
(Volume 4 Number 8 and Volume 4 Number 9). Rashi speaks
about the verse where Jacob said
>if God will be with me I will build a house of God
Ramban comments and says
>How can the Patriarch Jacob be accused of
>saying ***if*** God will be with me
>Doesn't that imply that Jacob had doubts.
>But God promised this to him. How then
>can he have doubts!!!
>My (Ramban) opinion is that the verse
>should be interpreted WHEN GOD WILL BE
>WITH ME THEN I WILL BUILD A HOUSE OF GOD
The above disagreement took 8 lines.
The Brisker approach would SUMMARIZE this disagreement
using a few conceptual keywords. According to the
Ramban
>Rashi held IM = IF
>Ramban held IM = WHEN
The above two lines are much more succinct and clarify
the SOURCE of disagreement. Thus Rashi translates
>IF God will be with me then I will build a house
while Ramban translates
>WHEN God will be with me then I will build a hosue
THe Brisker method always existed and was used by Chazal, Rishonim
and acharonim. However this approach was highlighted by
Rabbi Chaiim Brisker who tried to fight the WORDDY approach
to dealing with Talmudic controversy. By emphasizing summaries
using conceptual keywords Rab Chaiim helped elucidate the
underlying kernel of the controversies. These elucidations
greatly advanced the understanding of halacha MODERATOR]
2)What exactely do you mean by comparing psukkim
to form a list and does this method have a basis
in mesora?
[ANSWER: Yes. It does have a basis in Mesorah.
First let me give an example. Returning to
the Ramban's formulation of the controversy
of Rashi and Ramban
>Rashi holds IM = IF
>Ramban holds IM = WHEN
we can refute the Rambans formulation by showing
that Rashi agrees that
>IM = WHEN
Indeed Rashi himself explicitly interprets 4 verses
>IM = IF
For example the verse
>IM you build an altar for me (2-2-24)
must be translated as
>WHEN you build an altar for me
How do I know that IM should be translated as WHEN?
Because an explicit verse says
>You must build an altar (5-15-8).
Thus the term
>LIST OF VERSES
simply means a collection of verses WHICH HAVE
IN COMMON some item. In this case the 4 verses
>2-22-24, 2-20-22, 3-2-14, 4-36-4
all have in common that
>they use the hebrew word IM
>This word must be translated as WHEN
>and cannot be translated as IF
Such a collection of verses PROVES that Rashi
also believed that
>IM = WHEN
just as the Ramban.
Is there a basis for this type of use of LISTS in Mesorah
Certainly. All Rishonim (Radack, Rav Yonah etc) used LISTS
to justify their grammar works. In fact recent Grammar
works like Mordechai Breuers BOOK ON CANTILLATIONS has
a LIST of verses after each rule (The Radack wrote his
grammar book that way also).
The idea of using LISTS to prove things is known in science
as INDUCTION. It turns out that the use of lists to prove
a point is one of the 13 heurmunetical rules handed down
to Moses at Sinai and summarized (in our prayer books) under
the 13 rules of Rabbi Ishmael. It is known as the rule of
>Generalizations from several verses (a list)
I hope this helps MODERATOR]
3)Since you were zocher to learn under the Rov
I would like to hear your opinion on wheather
studying logic(univercity-secular) would assist a
student in his understanding of gemorrah.
[ANSWER: There is a rich debate among learning
psychologists whether taking logic courses "helps"
students. The basic answer is 'not necessarily' since
a student may learn how to formally manipulate logical
problems WITHOUT applying it to the rest of his life.
My approach would be therefore to advocate taking
formal logic courses and then consistently applying
it to the Gemarrahs you learn.
I also have found modularized computer courses
helpful in learning Gemarrah. Again, one must
take these skills and consistently apply them
to ones Gemarrah
Many Gemarrahs in fact rely on formal logic.
Most people are unaware the George Boole the
father of formal logic and modern computers
actually used Lev 11 in his famous book
THE LAWS OF THOUGHT in which he introduced
Boolean Algebra. MODERATOR]
Sincerely,
J D
Respectfully
Russell Jay Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
From: "John D. Loike"
To: The logical derivation of Rashis on Chumash
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:38:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: RASHI-IS-SIMPLE digest 78
I have several questions that beg to
be addressed via your list method.
1. How many times does Rashi provide three reasons
for a question as he
does in this week's parsha and why?
[ANSWER:I don't know about 3 times but there are many
Rashis with two times. The GENERAL rule of thumb is
that
>The first explanation explains the VERSE by itself
>The 2nd explanation explains the VERSE in a LIST
(There are other strategms but this is the basic one)
My best example occurs in v3c19-14 in v2n5. The FEAR GOD in
>Don't take interest, fear God
can be explaind by
>Fear God and don't follow your monetary lusts (In
>other words FEAR GOD is mentioned because people
>tend to violate commandments prohibiting getting
>money.
But when we look at the LIST of all (5) commandments where it
says to FEAR GOD
>Stand up before the elderly FEAR GOD
>Don't place a stumbling block before the blind FEAR GOD
>Don't overwork your slave FEAR God
>Don't INSULT your friend FEAR GOD etc
we see that the underlying theme of FEAR GOD is
>Don't avoid mitzvoth that can't be noticed by people
>because I God will notice them eg
>Don't put a stumbling block before the blind
>(he can't see it); don't insult your friend (and claim
>it was constructive criticism); don't not stand before
>the elderly (and claim you didn't see him); don't give
>money to a non jew to lend on interest to jews
Even though in all these cases no PERSON can detect you,
nevertheless I God can detect you. It is for this reason it says
FEAR GOD.
2. How many times and why does Rashi emphasize
that he does not know why a particular phrase
is used or what it teaches as he does in this week's parsha.
[ANSWER: Excellent Question. Here is the list of 9 verses
where Rashi says He doesn't know
{LIST1} {LIST of verses where Rashi says he doens't know *1}
VERSE TEXT WHAT IS NOT KNOWN
======== ============================= ===========================
v1a28-5 The mother of Jacob and Esauv What does this teach us
v1a35-14 from the place where He spoke What does this teach us
v1d43-11 He took candy (BTNIM) What this word means
v1a24-13 And Moses and Joshua went up Why is Joshua mentioned
v2a25-21 Place the tables in the ark Why is it repeated(2-25-15)
v3a8-11 And he sprinkled the blood Where was this commanded
v3a13-4 No deep appearance What the phrase means
v3b27-3 all evaluations (ERCH) How does ERCH=Evaluation
v4-21-11 ..by the DESOLATE PASS Why its name is DESOLATE
FOOTNOTES
*1 There are other times when Rashi says
>I don't know
for example on v4-26-13 Rashi says
>I don't know what this family refers to
But it appears to mean that eg he doesn't know where else the
family is mentioned. However in the above 9 verses Rashi is
actually expressing ignorance of some aspect of interpretation.
My hunch is that Rashi says HE DOESN'T KNOW when
>There is a LIST to justify the question
>But no LIST to justify the answer
So for example Rashi has a list to justify that
>EE means DESOLATE (v4-21-11)
But he doesn't have a list to justify that some type of
DESOLATION happened there.
In passing THIS LIST WELCOMES QUESTIONS THAT CAN'T BE ANSWERED
Anyone who has such questions please forward them--they will be
posted (with supporting lists to make the question stronger).
Eventually we will answer them.
3. What forces Rashi to deviate from Onkelus on
the meaning of the word Va
Itrotzatzu. Onkelus translates "to push"
while Rashi tries to incorportate
the word Ratz (to run).
[ANSWER: Actually OONKELOS and RADACK translate
>RTZZT = TO DESTROY
because the two foetuses were fighting.
The RDK lists the two meanings of RTZZT as
a) To run
b) to destroy
c) to desire ? (RTZH)
The Great Genesis Midrash (63:6) lists the following explanations
1) The RAN to DESTROY each other (Emphasis on DESTROY)
2) When they passed houses of worship they desired to go out
(NOTE: GR uses MPRKS not RATZ like Rashi. I would translate this
as DESIRE and then assume that Chazal associated RTZZT---RTZH)
3) They MADE PERMISSABLE THE COMMANDS OF EACH OTHER
(NOTE: I don't presently understand the relation to DRSH)
So now the question is why did Rashi ignore
>Explanation #1)--they tried to DESTROY each other
and choose
>Explanation #2) They DESIRED to go out to Houses of Worship
My own hunch is that this has something to do with the HITPAEL
(YTHROTZZU) MODERATOR]
Keep it up.
John
[ANSWER: No No! You keep it up. We need more good questions]
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
From: ROGLAND@rullet.LeidenUniv.nl
To: rjhendel@juno.com
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:03:50 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Rashis on Prophetic Perfect
Dear Dr. Hendel,
I was wondering if you knew of any passages where Rashi discusses
the so-called "prophetic perfect"? I have found comments on the
subject in Qimchi and Ibn Ezra, but so far haven't found anything
by Rashi (though I haven't made an extensive search by any means).
Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Max Rogland
--------------------------------------------------------
M. Rogland - Dept. of Near Eastern Studies - Section
of Hebrew, Aramaic and Ugaritic - Leiden University -
POB 9515 - NL-2300 RA - Tel. +31-(0)71.527.2985 - Fax
+31-(0)71.527.2939 - Email: Rogland@rullet.LeidenUniv.nl
--------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER: I am not always that familiar with current terms. By
>PROPHETIC PERFECT
I assume you mean the
>PAST PERFECT (QL vs VYQTL)
I give 3 verses below where Rashi comments on this. I haven't
yet posted this because my criteria for posting is to have
5 members to a list.
If this is NOT what you meant kindly give me a (Biblical
example) and I will send you whatever lists I have. Note
that the Rashi on v1a4-1 is explicit while the other Rashis
are interpretive.
ALso note that the reason that it is easier to find things in
Ibn Ezra and Radack then Rashi is because of Rashis methods
of pedagogy---
>RDK, IBN EZRA, Modern methods support rules with LISTS
>Rashi gives ONE COMMENTARY on EACH case of the rule
So if a grammatical rule had 10 cases you might only find 10
Rashis scattered thruout Tnach even though there are several
100 cases.
{LIST1} {Examples of Past Perfect that Rashi comments on}
VERSE TEXT POINT OF PAST PERFECT
======== ============================ ==============================
v1a4-1 And Adam HAD KNOWN his wife Kayins birth was in Eden
v1a21-1 And God HAD REMEMBERED Sarah Sarahs birth before Avimelech
v1a12-36 &God HAD GIVEN GRACE to Jews Jews loaned twice from Egypt*1
FOOTNOTES
*1 In other words the Jews had ALREADY eg asked for pots and pans
to cook. Then when Moses asked them to loan again the Jews went
back to their masters and eg said "We misplaced those pots can
we have other pots" In this way the Jews obtained several pots.
Rashi infers this from the PAST PERFECT (HAD LOANED) coupled
with the statement that the Jews had LOANED OUT EGYPT (the
problem being that you don't exhaust assets from one loan).
Rashi states his conclusions with the phrase
>There masters gave them one after the other and said GO
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
From: "4 gzntr8"
To: rjhendel@juno.com
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:51:49 EST
Subject: Na'ar
Russel:
Just got a chance to catch up on
some slightly old email. Saw your
analysis / response on Na'ar in
a recent chevruta digest. Thanks.
I had forgotten Lena'er means to shake.
Perhaps, though doubtful, it does
have embedded in it the word "er" to
wake up from slumber / sleep. Although
this is not a direct Hebrew source,
but it seems interesting to note the
close relationship between the words "
na'ar" to shake" and "er" to wake up,
as we hear the phrase, "
shake out those cobwebs" used when one awakens.
Hmmmm ....
Dan
[MODERATOR: This list is devoted to Chumash and Rashi
but questions on etymology are always welcome. Basically
Dan's questions is that
>TO SHAKE= NAR = AYR = TO WAKE UP
the idea being similar to the English phrase
>WAKE UP = TO SHAKE OUT THE COWEBS
Actually, certain 3 letter roots have their etymology from
>the LAST TWO LETTERS
while others have it from
>the FIRST TWO LETTERS
Symbolically both of these are admissable
> XYZ = X + YZ
> XYZ = XY + Z
The rules governing this breakup of 3 letter roots are complex
and as mentioned this email group is not the place for them
In the case at hand we have
> NAYR = NA + R
> NAYR (To shake) = NA (Wandering in) R (Space)
From this basic meaning of TO SHAKE we derive the meanings
> NAYR = To wake up (To shake off the cowebs)
> NAR = Apprenticeship = Period when you shake off the dust
> NAR = Teenage years = Period when you shake off the dust
The above suggested relationship between NAR=TO SHAKE & NAR=TEENAGE
was more fully developed in the posting that this was a response to
(v1b18-7, v4n2)
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1a36-24
======
v1-36-24 and these are the children of TZVON [AND] AYAH and ANAH
v3b7-16 And on the next day [AND] the leftovers will be eaten
v2a12-29 At midnight [AND] God smote all firstborn
v1a17-9 I (God) will protect you [IF] you observe circumcision
v3a1-10 If you offer an OLAH from cattle.... [OR] IF From sheep
v2c25-12 2 rings on one side; and 2 rings on the 2nd side
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v1a36-24 The word AND
>And these are his children [AND] Ayah and Anah
is superfluous (ie read the verse
without it). There are many such SUPERFLUOUS
AND in Scripture
v3b7-16 The word AND
>And on the next [AND] the remainder will be eaten
is superfluous (ie read the verse without it)
There are many such superfluous AND in the
Scripture
v2a12-29 The word AND
>And at midnight AND God smote the firstborn
denotes GOD AND HIS COURT. Because the AND
denotes addition as if it had said SO AND SO
and SO AND SO
v1a17-9 This clause [VAV] adds to the previous clause
So the whole treaty consists of two parts--
--I, God, will watch over you
--You will observe my treaty of circumcision
v3a1-10 This paragraph [VAV] adds to the previous
paragraph. Why then have the break of two
paragraphs alltogether? To give Moses the
opportunity of studying the differences
between the two parshas.
v2c25-12 >Two rings on one side and 2 rings on the 2nd side
The text is telling you where the 4 rings are
This clause [VAV] is extra and its explanantion
is like the first clause and the way you explain
the whole sentence is
>two OF the 4 rings were on one side
>and 2 of the 4 rings were on the other side
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
The actual text says
>and these are TZIVONS children [AND] AYAH and ANAH
Rashi is Simple...he tells you that to understand the sentence
simply ignore the word [AND]
>And these are TZIVONS children AYAH and ANAH
In fact Rashi lays down a general principle that
>There are many superfluous ANDs in Tnach
To prove this Rashi gives several other examples which are
compactly exhibited in {LIST1} eg
>& on the next day [AND] the leftovers will be eaten
which should be read as
>& on the next day the leftovers will be eaten(3-7-16)
Some further examples are
>How long with [AND] the temple be given to trampling(Dan8-13)
>You have put into a coma [AND] the chariot and horse(Ps76-7)
Each of these sentences should be read without the AND
Rashi further elaborates in Dan8-13 that
>It is common in everyday speech
>for some people [eg politicians?] to place lots of extra
>ANDS [I suppose the reason is for emphasis]
Finally I discuss the Midrash-Pshat issue. Many people might
EXPECT an extra VAV to be the subject of a NEW RULE of GRAMMAR
In other words we might expect some type of MIDRASH. Rashi simply
takes the SIMPLE way out and says that these extra VAVS are
superfluous.
However on 2-12-29
>And at Midnight [AND] God smote all firstborn
Rashi does hint at a possible NEW RULE OF GRAMMAR
>The extra VAV[AND] indicates something EXTRA
>Every place it says AND GOD (vs GOD) it
>Denotes GOD WITH A FULL COURT
In other words Rashi is saying that it could have simply said
>And at Midnight [ ] God smote all firstborn
without the word AND. Therefore when it says AND it sort of means
>And at Midnight [His Court AND] God smote all firstborn
Why doesn't Rashi always use this rule that
>And EXTRA VAV = SOMETHING EXTRA?
I conjecture that he didn't always use it because Rashi only
brought rules that could be defended by LISTS. In fact there
are indeed 100
>AND GOD
in Tnach. But most if not all of them occur at the beginning
of a sentence and these sentences usually begin with a VAV.
The peculiar thing about this sentence is that GOD is in the
middle of a sentence and the [AND] is not needed
>And at Midnight [AND] God smote all firstborn
We now go on to clarify a matter of great confusion which
has led many people to think that Rashi's Torah differed from
our Torah in a few letters. We will clarify this below. For
the moment let us clearly and succinctly state the principle
>The word VAV in Rashi can denote EITHER
>the Hebrew LETTER VAV
>the word AND (Which is what VAV means)
>a CLAUSE/PARAGRAPH
To explain the last item note that CLAUSES and PARAGRAPHS usually
begin with a VAV and hence the appropriate word for CLAUSE and
PARAGRAPH is VAV. Some examples are reviewed in {LIST2}
We now give 6 examples
EXAMPLE 1
---------
Thus in 1-17 God says
>Here is my convenant: I will protect you
The next sentence says
>And you observe circumcision
There are two ways two interpret this
>The convenant equals: I will protect you
>And a separate command is to observe circumcision
Or
>The convenant equals: I'll protect you
>PROVIDED you observe circumcision
In other words the issue is whether BOTH CLAUSES
>Gods protection
>the observance of Milah
are the convenant or whether only the FIRST CLAUSE
>Gods protection
is the convenant. Rashi explains that the convenant
does consist of both CLAUSES. Thus Rashi says
>This second clause adds to the previous clause
Rashi of course learns this from the letter VAV which
connects them. The letter VAV does not have to be
translated as AND..it can be translated as any logical
connective. So I would translate the whole paragraph as
>I will protect you [VAV=IF/PROVIDED] you circumcise
EXAMPLE 2
---------
Another example occurs in 1-28-20:22. The whole set of verses
should read
>WHEN God watches me, gives me food, brings me home
>[THEN=VAV] I will build an altar for him
Rashi expresses this by says that
>This clause [VAV] is the conclusion from the previous clauses
Again Rashi translates the
>VAV as THEN
EXAMPLE 3
---------
1-49-29:30 reads
>Don't bury me in Egypt
>[Because = vav] I am dying like my fathers
>[Rather] carry me from Egypt
>and bury me with my fathers
Note the translations of
>VAV as BECAUSE and RATHER
Rashi simply notes that the CLAUSE [VAV]
>I am dying like my fathers
is connected to the previous clause
>Don't bury me in Egypt because I am dying like my fathers
(Rashi explains that the Hebrew terms used
>LYING WITH MY FATHER
denotes DYING and never BURIAL. See v1n5, v1-47-30)
EXAMPLE 4
---------
In 3-1 Rashi notes that the laws applying to the 1st paragraph,
the burnt offering from oxen, are the same and identical to
the laws applying to the 2nd paragraph, the sheep offering.
Rashi learns this from
the explicit unifying header statement 3-1-2
>If you offer a sacrifice FROM OXEN OR SHEEP
By contrast, BIRD offerings are treated differently.
Since the OX and SHEEP offerings are the same all laws could be
placed in one paragraph!! Why does it need two paragraphs?
Rashi answers that the slightly different phrases in the 2
chapters enables us to infer the various laws (In other words
it is a matter of Biblical style to
>State things in 2 verses or 2 chapters and
>infer laws from the minor differences in phrases
Again Rashi expresses this using the
>VAV= CLAUSE/PARAGRAPH
idea. He states that
>But this paragraph [VAV] is superfluous (all laws
>could have been placed in one paragraph.) The reason
>why 2 paragraphs were used is to allow inferences
>from the minor phraseology in them.
EXAMPLE 5
---------
In v2-25-12 it speaks about the 4 rings of one of the Temple
utensils. It says
>place two rings on one side and
>place two rings on the second side
But as {LIST3} shows everyplace we have repeated actions we
do not use the language
>one, second
but rather we use the language
>one one
Thus for example we have
>2-25-19 1 Crub on 1 side; 1 Crub on the 1 side
>2-25-33 3 buds on 1 shaft; 3 buds on the 1 shaft
>2-17-12 on this side 1; and on this side 1;
>2-18-3:4 The name of 1 Grshom; and the name of 1 Eliezer
>2-26-19 2 sockets on 1 side; and 2 sockets on 1 side
Thus the Bible always uses the language
>1 here and 1 here
It is only in v2-25-12 that we have the language
>2 rings on the 1st side; 2 rings on the 2nd side
Rashi simply explains that there is no extra hidden meaning
here. He states
>this clause[VAV]
>2 rings on the 2nd side
>should be interpreted to mean
>2 of the 4 rings on 1 side and 2 of the 4 on the 1 side
Again Rashi uses the word VAV to denote clause.
In conclusion the letter VAV can denote
>either the word AND
>or the letter VAV
>or the word CLAUSE
The statement
>Extra VAV
can therefore mean
>Extra word AND
or it can mean
>Extra CLAUSE
Thus there is no problem in understanding 1-25-22
>And I will meet with you there (by the Cruvim)
>And I will speak to you by the Cruvim
>all matters which I command the Jewish people
Rashi states that
>This VAV is superfluous
by which he refers not to an EXTRA LETTER (since there is no VAV)
but rather by which he refers to the CLAUSE
>all matters which I command the Jewish people
In other words the verse can be read
>And I will meet with you there
>And I will speak to you there by the Ceruvim
There is no need for the extra clause
>I will speak to you the commandments for the Jews
In v1n13, v2c25-22 I have already explained that Rashi here is
using the principle of GENERAL-PARTICULAR. The clause
>I Will speak to you
is GENERAL. While the clause
>I Will tell you the commandments for the Jews
is PARTICULAR. So according to the Rabbi Ishmael rules
we interpret this to mean
>I will speak to you there ONLY commandments for the Jews
This interpretation that
>God only spoke to Moses commandments for the Jews
is confirmed by the Rashi on 5-2-16:17 which says exactly that
(That Moses only received prophecies for the sake of the Jews but
not personal prophecies).
As indicated I brought this down to show that Rashi statement of
>an superfluous VAV
does not mean he had an extra VAV in his Torah but rather Rashi
refers to
>the superfluous clause
which I have explained using the principle of GENERAL-PARTICULAR
and the Rashi in 5-2-16:17
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
We hilight 4 points
1) Rashis on prophets illuminates Rashis on Bible
--------------------------------------------------
Notice how the Rashi on Dan8-13 supplements the other Rashis
on Chumash with the observation that many people speak that way
Such supplementation from prophetic Rashi to Biblical Rashi
happens frequently.
2) Rashi never gave midrashim; only rules backable by LISTS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Note how Rashi chose to intepret the superfluous AND
>As superfluous (read the sentence without it)
rather then
>As midrashic (Extra Vav denotes extra people)
As I indicated the basic thesis of this list is that
Rashi ONLY defended Midrashim if they could be backed by
LISTS. Otherwise he regarded them as homiletic.
But this Midrash
>AND GOD = GOD AND HIS COURT
is borderline...it is not clear if there is a list since there
are 100 examples of AND GOD. Therefore Rashi thought to mention
it but not to develop it further.
3) Rashi can use the same identical phrase with 2 meanings
----------------------------------------------------------
Thus
>This VAV is extra
can mean
>This letter VAV (the word AND) is extra
or
>This CLAUSE is extra.
4) Superiority of LIST method over PURE CONCEPTUAL METHOD
---------------------------------------------------------
In v1n13 I also defended that
>VAV = CLAUSE
but did so with complex abstruse semantic arguments.
By contrast, here I explain this principle using {LIST2}.
Notice how the {LIST} approah employed here is much easier
to follow than the semantic approach used in v1n13. Thruought
this email list we have defended the idea that Rashi (and
other matters) can be simplified using LISTS.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Of verses where the letter VAV denoting the word AND
is extra--that is, the verse can easily be understood
if we leave out the word AND}
VERSE TEXT OF VERSE WITH SUPERFLOUS "AND"
======== =========================================================
v1-36-24 and these are the children of TZVON [AND] AYAH and ANAH
Dan8-13 How long will...[AND] the temple be given to trampling *1
Ps76-7 You have put into a coma [AND] the chariot and horse*2
v3b7-16 And on the next day [AND] the leftovers will be eaten
v2a12-29 At midnight [AND] God smote all firstborn *3
FOOTNOTES
*1 Rashi points out on this verse that
>It is a normal style of emphasis to add extra ANDS
even in ordinary speech.
*2 The Ibn Ezra translates this
>You have put THEM into a coma WITH THEIR chariots & horses
In other words the Ibn Ezra interprets the terminal MEM as a suffix
Without entering into the grammatical subtleties, we would simply
say then that there is ONE LESS example on our LIST. But our basic
point is still supported by the rest of the LIST
*3 I have treated this like the other VAVS as a superfluous VAV
In other words the verse reads well without the VV
>And at midnight [ ] God smote all firstborn
vs
>And at midnight AND God smote all firstborn
Nevertheless Rashi advances an insight into why the EXTRA AND form
is used here
>AND GOD = God AND the entirely heavenly court
> GOD = God by himself
Despite the appeal of this there is no real list to back it up. For
although
>AND GOD
occurs 100 times in Tnach most of them are at the beginning of a
verse (And the AND is needed). The odd thing about v2a12-29 is
that the AND God is NOT needed since it occurs in the MIDDLE of
a sentence
>And at midnight AND God smote all firstborn
There are ALMOST NO OTHER verses like this and therefore it is
hard to justify the difference between AND GOD vs GOD with a LIST.
We have frequently defended that Rashi only teaches that which
can be defended by LISTS.
{LIST2} {Of verses where Rashi refers to a (subordinate) clauses
using the letter VAV. In each of these verses Rashi
speaks about the connectivity of CLAUSES using the language
>This VAV (=clause)
A nifty way of interpreting these verses is to interpret
VAV(normally meaning AND) as meaning IF, BECAUSE, THEN, OR
etc}
VERSE TEXT OF VERSE(S) WITH SEVERAL "CLAUSES=VAV"
======== ===========================================================
v1a17-9 I (God) will protect you [IF] you observe circumcision
v1a47-30 Don't bury me in Egypt [BECAUSE] I am dying like my fathers
v1a28-22 WHEN God protects me....[THEN] I will sacrifice to him
v2c25-22 I'll speak to you there [ ] Commandments for the people *1
v3a1-10 If you offer a burnt offering from cattle [OR] ...sheep
v2a25-12 2 rings on one side; and 2 rings on the 2nd side
FOOTNOTES
*1 There is NO VAV in this verse. It is the famous verse where
Rashi refers to the CLAUSE as AND and many commentators think he
is referring to a missing letter. This confusion among commentators
comes from not understanding our fundamental thesis that either
>VAV = the Letter VAV meaning AND
>VAV = A (Subordinate) Sentence clause
{LIST3} {Text of verses with several repeated items. The
normal language is
>one is done this way and one is done this way
In 2-25-12 the language differs
>the 1st is done this way and the 2nd this way
Rashi therefore explains that despite the different
phraseology it means the same}
VERSE TEXT OF VERSE(S) WITH SEVERAL REPEATED ITEMS
======== ====================== ==========================
2-25-19 1 Crub on 1 side; 1 Crub on the 1 side
2-25-33 3 buds on 1 shaft; 3 buds on the 1 shaft
2-17-12 on this side 1; and on this side 1;
2-18-3:4 The name of 1 Grshom; and the name of 1 Eliezer
2-26-19 2 sockets on 1 side; and 2 sockets on 1 side
2-25-12 2 Rings on 1 side; 2 Rings on the 2nd side*1
FOOTNOTES
*1 Note how 2-25-12 is the only verse where repeated actions
are denoted using a language of 1st-2nd vs ONE-ONE
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
v2c25-22, v1n13 (Discussion of "Extra VV"; VV= CLAUSE)
v1-47-30, v1n5 (Does LYING WITH FATHERS=Death or Burial)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
SPECIAL WORDS
MORAL REASONS/LESSONS
USAGE
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*