Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume 4 Number 11
Produced Dec, 01 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v1a20-11
RAK means AT THE VERY LEAST, it does not mean ONLY: eg
(1-30-11) AT THE VERY LEAST there is no fear of God here
(and probably there are worse things); (1-14-13) AT THE
VERY LEAST don't return my son there (and hopefully
other descendants shouldn't go)...
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: v1a20-11
======
v1a20-11 AT THE VERY LEAST (RK) there is no fear of God here
v1a14-13 And the survivor came and told Abraham(about Lot's capture
v1b24-8 AT THE VERY LEAST(RK) don't return my son there
v1b41-40 AT THE VERY LEAST I(PHaroh) will surpass you in the throne
v2c21-19 AT THE VERY LEAST(RK) pay his disability and medical
v4-20-19 AT THE VERY LEAST(RK) there will be no damages
v5-4-9 AT THE VERY LEAST(RK) watch yourself don't forget
v5-10-14 To God belongs the heavens
v5a12-23 AT THE VERY LEAST(RK)strengthen against eating blood
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v1a20-11
At least there is no fear of God in this place
Indeed you made overtures towards my wife when
I came -- asking about her whereabouts
v1a14-13
When it says "THE SURVIVOR CAME AND TOLD ABRAHAM"
the survivor refers to OG who survived from the REFAIM
Another Midrash states that OG survived the flood, and
he did Abraham a favor so he could work for him and
marry Sarah (when Abraham dies)
v1b24-8
In the phrase "AT THE VERY LEAST don't return my son there"-
AT THE VERY LEAST is a limitation--my son will not
return there but my grandson, Jacob will return
v1b41-40
'AT THE VERY LEAST THE THRONE WILL BE HIGHER THAN YOU'
...that they will call me king
v2c21-19
The verse says to pay DISABILITY and MEDICAL
Disability is eg if you cut off his hand;then you have
prevented him from being a GARDEN WATCHMAN and hence
have to compensate him for the lost income. This is
over and above compensation for actual damages which
is covered in another verse...'An eye for an eye..'
v4-20-19
We will not damage you in anyway
v5-4-9
If you learn the laws you will be known as a wise nation
while if you don't learn the laws you will be known as
fools
v5-10-14
God owns the whole universe (5-10-14) AND NEVERTHELESS
AT THE VERY LEAST he chose your fathers from the rest
of the world
v5a12-23
Rabbi Yehuda says the Jews were involved in eating blood
Hence the verse says
>Strengthen yourselves against eating blood
By contrast, Rabbi Shimon by Azai says that it is easy
to abstain from eating blood and a fortiori one should
try and strengthen oneself against other commandments
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
The above 9 verses all have the word
>RAK
in them. Conventionally, this is translated as
>RAK = ONLY
But as can be seen from the 3 dozen verses with RAK, a better
translation is
>RAK = AT THE VERY LEAST
Some verses where the translation, AT THE VERY LEAST is preferred
over the translation, ONLY are exhibited in {LIST1}. Some simple
examples are
>(1-19-8) At THE VERY LEAST(RK) don't rape these men
In other words
>AT THE VERY LEAST don't rape my male guests
and if possible
>Don't rape my daughters either
On the other hand if we translate RK as ONLY then the verse reads
>ONLY my guests don't rape
which would imply that he didn't mind if his daughters were raped,
an absurdity. Further examples are presented in {LIST1} and in
the remainder of the text.
We now explain the 9 verses and show how the preferable interpretation
is
>RK = AT LEAST
The verse v1a20-11
------------------
The theme of the fear of killing husbands/relatives
to take their wife is common in Biblical literature.
Thus we find
>Abrahams wife was taken from him (1-12-10:20)
>Yaakov's daughter was raped (1-34)
>The town made 'inquiries' about Isaac's wife(1-26-6:12)
{LIST2} gives a set of examples with details.
In three of these examples the fear of being killed led
people to identify their wives as sisters to avoid being murdered
(1-26-7, 1-12-12:13, 1-20-11). Of these 3 cases 1-26-7 is the
clearest of how to RECOGNIZE a bad social situation
>The town was INQUIRING about my wife
I assume this to mean eg that she was invited to participate in
various activities (errand-dates) presumably in the hope that an
opportunity would arise to go further.
In 1-20-11 Isaac describes his perception of a town where his
wife was constantly invited out on errand-dates
>At the very least (RK) there is no fear of God here
The phrase
>At the very least
means that
>if they make inquiries (errand-dates) they are at
>least lax about fearing God
and FURTHERMORE
>they might actually be planning eg to have an
>accidental affair with her, kill me and marry her
This is consistent with our interpretation of
>RK = At the very least
In other words
>a) There is certainly lack of fear of God here
>b) and possibly there is more.
By contrast the interpretation
>RK = Only
does not make sense here. For it would translate the verse as
>ONLY there is no fear of God here
which would imply that he was not worried about anything further
such as being murdered to get his wife (which in fact is not true;
he indeed was worried about something further as is indicated
explicitly by 1-20-11).
The Verse v1a14-13
------------------
The basic ideas brought forth by Rashi here are that
>The SURVIVOR of the war was OG
>That OG also survived the FLOOD
>That OG did Abraham a favor so that he could work
for him until Abraham died and then OG would marry
Sarah
We can stronly prove that the SURVIVOR was OG. We give
plausible arguments that OG survived the FLOOD and that
OG had intentions on Sarah.
The verses supporting this are as follows
>1-14-5 explicitly says that the RFAIIM were conquered
But
>5-3-11 explicitly says that OG survived the RFAIIM
We now couple the above two verses with
>1-14-12 says that the SURVIVOR came to tell Abraham
>about the war (and the capture of his nephew, Lot)
We conclude that the SURVIVOR mentioned in 1-14-12 is OG.
Chazal further note that 5-3-11 states that
>5-3-11 Og AT THE VERY LEAST survived from the RFAIIM
The phrase AT THE VERY LEAST indicated that OG survived
from other calamities and one plausible suggestion is that
OG survived from the FLOOD. In fact this is supported by
>1-6-14 The NEFILLIM..the Sons of Judges came to
>human girls and their offspring were the great warriors
Chazal in fact note that (NFL=TO FALL, RPH = To weaken) and hence
>NEFILLIM = cause others to fall/weaken = REFAIIM
So we have that
>OG At least survived the RFAIIM war
>Probably survived the flood
>Probably belonged to the NEFILLIM who "took girls"
Based on the above Chazal conjecture that
>OG did Abraham the favor (of telling about LOTS conquest)
in order to work for him. He was hoping that Abraham would
eventually die and then he (OG) could marry Sarah. Thus Chazal
conjecture that
>OG = Eliezer
(Also note that from 1-14-14 it appears that Abraham possibly
hired OG and his trainees to help recapture Lot (the other
possibility is that the military trainees were Abraham's own)
Note however Rashis language
>According to the simple meaning SURVIVOR = OG
>...
>According to the BRASHIT RABBAH however OG=ELIEZER
In general Rashi only cites sources when
>there are strong arguments for the sources
>But you cannot prove it 100%
I would refer to such Midrashim as
>Plausible
Thus
>PLAUSIBLE
is
>less strong than the SIMPLE MEANING
but
>stronger than pure HOMILY
(See v2b23-14 in v1n13 for another example where Rashi indicates
unsurety by citing a source. In that example Rashi actually
contradicted himself(in other verses) indicating he didn't fully
accept the interpretation).
The verse v1b24-8
------------------
Using our guiding principle that
>RK = at the very least
we would translate v1b24-8 as
>..at the very least don't return my son there
So Rashi is simple. Abraham said
>I don't want ANY of my descendants to go back there
>But at the very least don't return my son there
This is different than the translation
>..only my son don't return there
which would have the CONNOTATIONS that Abraham didn't mind if
other descendants were returned there. The alternative translation
suggested by us
>..at the very least don't return my son there
has the CONNOTATION that Abraham DID mind if other descendants were
returned there but at the very least he did not want Isaac to return
there. Indeed, Abraham knew that
> his descendants would be sojourners in foreign lands(1-15-13)
Perhaps that is why he didn't ask outright that NO descendant should
return there but instead asked that
>AT THE VERY LEAST don't return my son there
The verse v1b41-40
------------------
Recall Egypt was in an emergency situation
>There are 7 years of destructive famine on Egypt(1-41-30)
To remedy this situation Jospeh was given extraordinary powers
>You(Joseph) will be in charge of my house (1-41-40)
Indeed,Joseph was given extraordinary power over the Egyptian people
>The Egyptian country will be fed by your decree (1-41-40)
This power was not fictitious. Joseph actually "bought" all of Egypt
>And Joseph bought all of Egypt to Pharoh (1-47-20)
Indeed Joseph was given the symbolic acknowledgements of royalty
>And Pharoh gave Joseph his Ring (1-41-42)
>And he dressed Joseph in royalty (1-41-42)
>He was given power over all of Egypt (1-41-43)
In summary for all practical purposes he looked like the king. So
Rashi Is Simple
>..at the very least people will CALL me(Pharoh) king
In other words,
>...I would like all my power back after the famine
>but at the very least people will still call me king
The above argument is summarized in {LIST3}
The verse v2c21-19
------------------
There are other places where payment for damages are mentioned
in the Torah. Thus we have
>$50 payment ...because he tortured her (raped her)(5-22-29)
>A person is responsible according to how much he damaged(3-24-20)
(This translation is justified in v2n2, v3-24-20)
>he shall pay disability and medical ((2-21-19)
We can interpret all these payments SEPARATELY or ADDITIVELY.
To illustrate how they would be interpreted SEPARATELY we could
>Pay ONLY $50 for a rape (5-22-28:29)
>Pay ONLY damages for eg poking out an eye (3-24-19:20)
>Pay ONLY disability and medical for fist fights (2-21-18:19)
In other words we could perceive the 3 payment verses as dealing with
3 separate situations; with EITHER
> rape/torture (5-22-28:29)
> permanant organ damage (3-24-19:20)
> recoverable injury (2-21-18:19)
and we could then suppose that each situation gets a separate type
of payment.
OR..we could interpret the verses ADDITIVELY
>Pay $50 for rape or ANY TORTURE
>Add on payments for permanant organ damages (3-24-19:20)
>Add on payments of medical and disability(2-21-18:19)
So Rashi is Simple. Since the verse (2-21-18:19) explicitly says
>At the very least pay (in a fist fight) for medical/disability
we conclude from the phrase
>AT THE VERY LEAST
that we use an ADDITIVE interpretation. That is we
>pay at least for MEDICAL and DISABILITY
and then we additionally
>pay for any permanant organ damage (not always present)
and then we additionally
>pay for excessive pain/torture.
This ADDITIVE interpretation is in fact brought down in Jewish
Law in both Chapters 1:1-9 and 2:1-7 of Rambam, Laws of Torts.
The verse v4-20-19
-------------------
First the Jews request Edom to
>go thru your land & not drink anything(4-20-17)
Edom however
>refuses the Jews entry and threatens war(4-20-18)
The Jews then weaken their position they concede that
>We might drink but we will pay for it(4-20-19)
However to bolster their argument the Jews request
>to go via mountainous paths
For if they go by mountainous paths, they argue
>at THE VERY LEAST (RK) there will be no damages
(The phrase
>AT THE VERY LEAST
was a diplomatic way of acknowledging Edoms concerns that
600,000 people going thru his country might cause damage.
The Jews conceded that,no roads or fields will be damaged and the
worst that could happen is that some water will be diminished
which they offered to pay for).
The translation of
>AYN DVR
as
>NO MAJOR DAMAGES
is consistent with our translation of DVR in v2n8, v5c13-1
where we showed that
>DVR = A Major incident (Prophecy, court case, proclomation)
Here we would translate
>There will be no major court case (damages)
The proof that
>DVR can equal COURT CASE
comes from Verse V2-22-8
>Unto the judge will their dispute come
Note also that the usual translation of
>AYN DVR = NO THING
is inconsistent here since the Jews already conceded that they
might drink some water and pay for it. But they point out that
there would not be any major court case (damages to property).
The verse v5-4-9
----------------
This verse is part of a GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL chapter.
It should be read as follows
>THE GENERAL STAGE
-------------------
>Look I personally taught you laws (5-4-5). Observe them
>& at THE VERY LEAST you'll be known as a WISE nation(5-4-6)
>THE PARTICULAR STAGE
---------------------
>For indeed we are a great nation;God always answers us(5-4-7)
>& among nations our laws are known as highly equitable(5-4-8)
>THE GENERAL STAGE
------------------
>At THE VERY LEAST be careful to remember the revelation(5-4-9
The 2 AT THE VERY LEASTs in the above verses have clear meaning.
For the PARTICULAR STAGE describes the Jewish people as
> a nation that is always heard by God
> a nation known for its highly equitable laws
But we have not always achieved this high goal. Therefore the
beginning and ending GENERAL verses emphasize
>AT THE VERY LEAST remember the revelation and laws
For then
>AT THE VERY LEAST you will be known as a LEARNED PEOPLE
Hopefully the other mentioned things
>having God always hear us
>being known for our highly equitable laws
will follow from this learning.
However the interpretation
>RK = ONLY
does not make sense here. For it is not the case that Jews
>should ONLY be known as a learned people
since it explicitly says that they should be known
>as a people that God always hears; has equitable laws...
Thus the correct interpretation is
>AT THE VERY LEAST you will be known as a learned people
As a final support note the many (other) verses in this chapter that
emphasize learning such as
>Observe the laws I teach you in order that you live(5-4-1)
>See I teach you statues and laws (5-4-5)
>..they will say the Jews are a wise nation(5-4-6)
>Don't forget what you learned at the revelation(5-4-9)
>God instructed me to teach you laws and statues (5-4-14)
The careful review of the above verses will show that the chapter
not only emphasizes
>The convenant
but also emphasizes
>Learning the law.
The above mentioned theme that
>emphasis on learning the revealed law
is the basic prerequisite
>for obtaining all other benefits
is a basic theme in Judaism.
The verse v5-10-14
------------------
The two verses v5-10-13:14 are translated as
>EVEN THOUGH God created the whole universe, nevertheless
>AT THE VERY LEAST God loved your fathers and chose you
The translation
>RK = AT THE VERY LEAST
implies that
>God would like other nations to be chosen by him
Indeed the Messianic prophecies explicitly state
>at that time all nations will call upon God(Tzp3-9)
Furthermore God has done favors to other nations eg
>And to the Arabs..I bless him & will multiply..(1-17-20)
Thus the proper translation is
>AT THE VERY LEAST God loved your fathers(&hopefully others)
not
>God ONLY loved your fathers
The verse v5a12-23
------------------
The verse says
>AT THE VERY LEAST strengthen yourself against eating blood
Rashi ingeniously gives two interpretations--one INTENSIVE and
one EXTENSIVE.
THE INTENSIVE INTERPRETATION
----------------------------
At the very least STRENGTHEN yourself against eating blood and if
possible actually abstain (Because Rabbi Yehuda felt that the
Jews were involved in blood eating!)
THE EXTENSIVE INTERPRETATION
----------------------------
At the very least STRENGTHEN yourself against eating blood (which
is easy to abstain from) and if possible strengthen yourself
against doing other sins(Because Rabbi Shimon didn't agree with
Rabbi Yehuda and felt that the Jews could easily abstain from blood)
This INTENSIVE vs EXTENSIVE approach to interpreting
>RAK = AT THE VERY LEAST
applies to other RAKS on our list. For example the following
are INTENSIVE
>AT LEAST they don't fear God (and maybe will kill me
to get my wife) (1-20-11)
>AT LEAST they will call me King (and maybe other
royal functions will be given to me)(1-41-40)
The following are EXTENSIVE examples
>AT LEAST pay medical (& maybe other damage types)(2-21-19)
>AT LEAST don't return my son there (& no one else)(1-24-8)
This extensive/intensive classification follows throughout the Bible
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Verses where it is better to translate
>RK = AT THE VERY LEAST
vs
>RK = ONLY
Further details are presented in the footnotes}
VERSE AT LEAST AND IF POSSIBLE...
======= ========================= ==================
1-19-8 don't rape these men don't rape anyone else *1
2-8-25 stop making fun of God listen to him
Isa4-1 Call us by your name*2 make us business partners help us
1K22-16 Tell us God's truth Tell us God's advice
1-24-8 Don't return my son there My other descendants shouldn't go
FOOTNOTES
*1 The difference between AT LEAST and ONLY is that
>AT LEAST do such and such
implies that
>IF POSSIBLE do more than such and such
even though
>it is not expected you do more than such and such
By contrast
>ONLY do such and such
means
>You do NOT want such and such done
Hence
>AT LEAST don't rape these men
Implies
>Don't rape them
and also
>If possible don't rape my daughters
even though
>it is expected you will rape my daughters(1-19-8)
By contrast the translation
>ONLY these men don't rape
implies
>I don't care if you rape my daughters
which is clearly absurd.
*2 The full verse Isa4-1 describing the exile says that women say
>We will eat our bread
>we will dress our clothes
>but AT LEAST let your name(a man's name) be on us
>so we are not humiliated
Again
>They AT LEAST want a man's name be on us
And
>They don't expect anything else from the man(food...)
But they hope
>that perhaps the man will help them in some way
By contrast
>ONLY have a man's name on us
would mean that besides
>not expecting food and clothing (Isa4-1)
they also
>don't care for extra things like food/clothing
Clearly the AT LEAST interpretation is preferred.
{LIST2} {Chapters in the Bible illustrating the theme of
killing husbands/relatives for get their wives}
VERSE PERSON EVENTS RELATED TO FEMALE RELATIVES SISTER?*1
========== ======== ================================== =======
1-12-10:20 Abraham WifeYes
1-26-12:Yes
1-20-11 Isaac Fear of being murdered to get wife Yes
1-34*2 Yaakov His daughter Dina was raped YES
1-3 *3 Adam Snake wants Adam to die; get Eve No
*4 Abraham Eliezer worked for him to get wife No
FOOTNOTES
*1 The meaning of this header
>SISTER?
is
>Did they call their wives their sister to avoid being killed
*2 The "tricking them to avoid being murdered" in the other
verses is calling a wife a sister. In this verse the
Tricking them to avoid being murdered is agreeing to let
the rapist marry her (1-35-13:17). Note how 1-34-30 explicitly
indicates the FEAR OF BEING MURDERED (to get Dina)
*3 This of course is more conjectural. Let us clearly state
the assumptions underlying it.
>Snake was a person
Indeed, animals are used to describe people throughout the Bible
such as eg in 1-49 or Isa-11.
>Snake wanted Adam to sin; then die; he would get Eve
Rashi infers this from the use of the past perfect in 1-4-1
>And Adam HAD ALREADY KNOWN his wife
Rashi reviews the sequence of chapters
>1-2-21:Adam marries Eve
>1-2-25 They were naked (ie involved in intimacy)
>1-3-1:2Snakes plot to kill Adam
>1-4-1 Resumption of 1-2-25(naked;children;Kayin)
In other words, 1-4-1 (the intimacy and birth of Kayin should
have been listed right after 1-2-25 (the verse of nakedness)).
The interruption and insertion of 1-3-1:24 is to indicate that
their involvement in intimacy also led to the snake coveting
Eve (and planning to Kill Adam by having Eve have Adam eat
the forbidden fruit).
*4 Another conjecture. The verses backing this up are as
follows
>1-14-5 explicitly says that the RFAIIM were conquered
But
>5-3-11 explicitly says that OG survived the RFAIIM
We now couple the above two verses with
>1-14-12 says that the SURVIVOR came to tell Abraham
>about the war (and the capture of his nephew, Lot)
We conjecture that the SURVIVOR mentioned in 1-14-12 is OG.
Chazal further note that 5-3-11 states that
>5-3-11 Og AT THE VERY LEAST survived from the RFAIIM
The phrase AT THE VERY LEAST indicated that OG survived
from other calamities and one plausible suggestion is that
OG survived from the FLOOD. In fact this is supported by
>1-6-14 The NEFILLIM..the Sons of Judges came to
>human girls and their offspring were the great warriors
Chazal in fact note that (NFL(=TO FALL), RPH( = To weaken))& hence
>NEFILLIM = cause others to fall/weaken = REFAIIM
So we have that OG
>At least survived the RFAIIM war
>Probably survived the flood
>Probably belonged to the NEFILLIM who "took girls"
Based on the above Chazal conjecture that
>OG did Abraham the favor (of telling about LOTS conquest)
in order to work for him. He was hoping that Abraham would
eventually die and then he (OG) could marry Sarah. Thus Chazal
conjecture that
>OG = Eliezer
Note that to hold this interpretation you would have to assume
that Abraham hired OG when he came to tell him about Lots capture
(and changed his name to Eliezer). In fact 1-14-14 refers to the
trainees of Abraham whom as we said were probably OGs trainees
which he brought with him thinking Abraham would hire him.
The careful reader might complain as follows
>You promised us to show all Rashis are PSHAT
>But this Rashi even if it is plausible is conjecture
True...The reader is free to believe ONLY the first 4
examples on the list of people who feared being murdered
to get their wives. BUT once the principle is established
we are allowed to ADD other plausible examples to the list.
At any rate the above are the most plausible arguments that
can be used for the Chazalian claim that
>OG=Eliezer
Also note that RASHI distinguishes between
>The simple meaning that OG=THE SURVIVOR
and
>The MIDRASHIC meaning that OG=ELIEZER
In general Rashi only cites sources when
>there are strong arguments for the sources
>But you cannot prove it 100%
I would refer to such Midrashim as
>Plausible
Thus
>PLAUSIBLE
is
>less strong than the SIMPLE MEANING
but
>stronger than pure HOMILY
{LIST3} {Of verses showing that Joseph looked like the king. This
background--that Joseph looked like the king--explains
Pharoh's request
>at the very least they will still call me king}
VERSE POWERS OF JOSEPH
======= ================================================
1-41-40 Joseph ran Pharoh's house
1-41-40 Joseph was in charge of food allocation in Egypt
1-47-20 Joseph bought all Egyptian real estate
1-41-42 Joseph had the royal ring
1-41-42 Joseph had the royal clothes
1-41-43 Joseph was given control over Egypt
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
v5c13-1 in v2n8 (DVR = Major incident)
v2b23-14 in v1n13(Rashi expresses doubt by citing sources)
v3-24-20 in v2n2 (NTN B = Is responsible for)
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
SPECIAL WORDS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*