Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume 4 Number 15
Produced Dec, 14 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v4z7-1
Rabbi Sheinfeld improves our previous explanation of
v4a7-1. COMPLETION can be denoted by a) ON THE DAY (on
the day you do such and such you will
die(1-2-16,2-10-28). b) WHEN (WHEN Abraham finished God
left 1-18-33). ON THE DAY denotes URGENCY/HASTE
v1z37-15
Sara Wetstein asks why Rashi says ISH=ANGEL on 1st
occurence of ISH vs on 2nd occurence.
v6g12-18
Dan Feldman asks difference between me & Dr Boncheck
v1q14-13
Question from Barbara : It doesn't make sense that OG=ELIEZER
v6a12-18
Question from Vayodha: What is Rashi Database
v1z37-24
Chaya Brurya asks question about 1-37-24
v6b12-18
J Loike asks about usage of NA
v4q12-13
J Loike asks about Oonkelos on 4-12-13
v1b29-27
a) When speaking about a master (God or human) we use
the ROYAL WE. b) ROYAL WE is used because masters
consult with subordinates c) Only when speaking about
God as master do we use the ROYAL WE (not by other names
of Gods). In 1-21-7 Plural=many children
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: v4z7-1
Rabbi Sheinfeld
Aryeh@World-net.nt
Dec 4, 1999
[Note: I had a very pleasant Shabbath in San Antonio 12/4/99
Rabbi Sheinfeld, the Rabbinic leader of the community asked me
to give a Rashi Shiur. I gave a shiur on 4-7-1 summarizing what
I had said in volume 2 number 10, v4a7-1.]
The gist of what I said is that Rashi infers that
>The day that the Mishkan was erected was
>as joyous a day as a wedding day
from the 3-fold use of the word OTHO in 4-7-1---
In v4a7-1 I have shown that
>OTHO = ONLY IT
vs
>SUFFIX O = IT
with many examples (This principle was first stated by the
Malbim). Hence we should translate 4-7-1 as
>And he annointed ONLY IT and he sanctified ONLY IT
The emphasis
>ONLY IT
indicates exclusiveness and reminds us of the
exclusiveness that happens on
a wedding day.
However Rabbi Sheinfeld pointed out that Rashi did not say
that. Rashi seemed to derive it from the word KLOTH. True
it is a mistake to think that Rashi thought the word KLOTH
is spelled deficiently (so as to look like CLH) but if the
drash was from OTHO then Rashi should have said so.
Rabbi Sheinfeld then brought 1-18-33
>God left WHEN he finished speaking to Abraham
Thus Rabbi Scheinberg suggested there is a difference
between
>WHEN
and
>ON THE DAY
This in turn suggested to me the idea that
>ON THE DAY vs WHEN
denotes
>URGENCY
An emphasis on URGENCY would fit in nicely with
the idea of a wedding day. To clinch the matter
however we must produce a list.
{LIST1} shows a much more complicated story.
It turns our there are at least 4 ways to denote
completion of an event. We can say
>ON THE DAY THAT
which usually denotes urgency such as in 2-10-28, 1-3-5
>ON THE DAY YOU DO THIS you will die
By contrast the term
>WHEN
denotes non urgency (it can wait) such as in 1-18-33
>WHEN God finished speaking to Abraham He left
God in fact was interested in Abraham's prayers to save
Sedom and was not interested in leaving.
But
>WHEN
can also denote URGENCY as in 1-28-10
>WHEN Jacob saw her he rushed to her & kissed her
Finally the word
>BEFORE (TRM)
can also denote
>urgency and immediacy
as in 1-24-15
>Before he finished praying Rivkah came out
Thus WHEN can denote both urgency and non urgency. Nevertheless
Rabbi Scheinberg's point has merit when combined with my original
observations about OTHO. The whole explanation would be as follows
This verse 4-7-1 uses the styles
>He sanctified ONLY IT (OTHO)
denoting
>Exclusiveness
and
>ON THE DAY they finished they sanctified it
denoting
>urgency and immediacy.
The emphasis on
>urgency and immediacy
is reminiscent of the wedding day.
Yasher Coach Rabbi Sheinfeld. Also...I would like to encourage
other readers to post questions and suggestions that
SUPPLEMENT what we already have. This would enable us to enrich
our web site by adding further defenses to Rashi that supplement
the defenses in this email list. As just noted Rabbi Sheinbergs
defense is more consistent with Rashi's text.
{LIST1} {3 methods to denote SEQUENCE. They are
>WHEN A is finished do B
>ON THE DAY A is finished do B
>BEFORE A is completed do B
Some of these styles denote urgency while others
are ambiguous. For details see the LIST}
VERSE METHOD TEXT
======= ======= ==================================================
1-3-5 DAY*1 a ON THE DAY you eat you will die
1-21-8 DAY*1 a Abraham made a party on the day Isaac was weaned
2-6-28 DAY*1 a On the day God spoke to Moses and Aaron
2-10-28 DAY*1 a On the day you see me you will die
3-7-17 DAY*1 a On the day you offer it he will eat it
1-18-33 WHEN*2 b God left WHEN he finished speaking to Abraham
1-12-11 WHEN*2 b WHEN he came near to Egypt he said I know you
1-27-40 WHEN*2 b WHEN he goes down you will throw off his yoke
1-30-25 WHEN*2 b WHEN RCHL gave birth to Joseph Jacob asked leave
1-24-15 BEFORE c Before he finished Rivkah went out
1-27-30 WHEN*3 d WHEN Isaac finished blessing Jacob Esauv came in
1-24-22 WHEN*3 d WHEN the camels finished drinking he gave her presents
1-24-52 WHEN*3 d WHEN he heard this he bowed in thanks to God
1-29-10 When*3 d WHEN Jacob saw her he rushed to her & kissed her
FOOTNOTES
*1 In all these verses we have a sense of urgency. Eg
>On the day you eat you will immediately die
Abraham was so happy that on the day of birth he made a party
*2 All these verses denote NON URGENCY eg
>WHEN Abraham finished God left
God was not anxious to leave immediately. He wanted to
hear prayers to save Sedom. Similarly eg
>WHEN Rchl gave birth to Joseph Jacob took leave
It did not necessarily happen that day...but around that
time.
*3 Even though these verses use
>WHEN
Nevertheless they denote urgency. This is clear eg
>WHEN Jacob saw her he rushed to her and kissed her.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1z37-15
From: Sara L Wetstein
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:50:16 -0500
Subject: 1-37-15, volume 4 number 13
hi there.
i just went thru the rashi is simple
sheet for parshas vayeshev, and i
have a question.
in your explanation you say that each
mention of "ish" refers to a
different person, specifically that
the first mention of "ish" refers to
a regular man, and the second refers
to the malach. however, rashi's
comment on the pasuk is on the first
occurance of "ish" and explains
that one to be the malach.
??
gut shabbos,
sara lea wetstein
ANSWER:
Yasher Coach Sarah...excellent point.
Let me succinctly answer.
* There are 2 ISH in the verse
* Therefore one of them must mean ANGEL
* While the other means PERSON
* BUT WHICH IS WHICH
* Well one person FOUND Joseph
* While the other person was asked directions
So Rashi is SImple...you don't ask an angel directions
but rather an angel is someone who helps you find himself
Thus the 2nd ISH is a man while the first is an Angle.
Yasher Coach Sarah...excellent point.
I encourage all readers to follow suit and ask questions
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v6g12-18
From: "4 gzntr8"
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 19:41:23 EST
Subject: Q / advice
>>>>
I bring this verse because it is brought in the introduction
of Dr Boncheck's book, WHAT IS BOTHERING RASHI, on Shemos. Dr
Boncheck uses this verse to illustrate the difference in
approaches between Rashi and Ramban.
<<<<<<<<
I had seen this book often mentioned on Ohrent,
and I gather, you highly
recommend this book? How does this book match
/ differ from your list in
trems of content / approach?
Appreciate the time and answer.
Happy Chanukah to you and family, Russell,
Dan
ANSWER:
There are basic differences. The simplest
one is Dr Boncheck is Dr Boncheck and I am me
So for example I believe that Rashi and Ramban
agree most of the time while Dr Boncheck thinks
there is controversy.
A second difference is that I am running an email
group while Dr Boncheck has a book. It is much
easier to correct things on an email group. In fact
two postings today (v4z7-1_and v1z37-15 are corrections
modifications to earlier postings I made).
A 3rd difference is that Dr Boncheck's books cost
money while all my downloads are free
Other differences can be inferred by reading our
respective works. I emphasize LISTS while Dr
Boncheck emphasizes QUESTION and ANSWER.
Dr Boncheck and I exchanged emails a while back
He suggested I was more interested in Midrash
Halachah while he was more interested in ordinary
text.
By the way..the rest of the readership is free to
drop comments on this
Happy Chanukah Dan and Thanks for the question
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1a14-13
From: Ruski
To: Russell J Hendel
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:16:13 -0800
Subject: Re: How on Earth did Chazal know that OG=Eliezer
Ok, I was finally with you and understanding your thoughts - after
hanging in there for what, a year?,
and i'm finally getting somewhere
with this Rashi is Simple.
Then you pop this???????????? No way! Og =Eliezer???????
I thought Eliezer was a good guy, a guy I could
trust?????????? Oh no. This is terrible.
Why doesn't the Torah just
call him Og, if that's who he is?
Why does this guy have to be the same
guy as that one, etc.? Aren;t there
enough people in the those days to
go around? Why these mystery guests???
I'm not kidding. This has messed up my brain.
I mean, I'm more
perplexed/confused/shocked/spellbound
than I can imagine.
> >OG = Eliezer
And i'm only halfway through!
Hopefully I can finish it tomorrow night.
Good Shabbos,
Barbara
ANSWER:
Barbara thank you for your question.
FIRST: RASHI DID NOT FULLY BELIEVE THAT OG=ELIEZER
==================================================
In my posting on OG v4n11 I emphasized that
Rashi was simply make a Midrash as plausible as
possible. He was not defending it as truth.
Rashi CLEARLY indicates that he does not fully
believe the Midrash by CITING THE MIDRASHIC SOURCE
(When something can be fully defended gramatically
then Rashi cites it anonymously)
SECOND: WE ONLY DEFENDED THAT OG SURVIVED THE FLOOD
===================================================
Recall we learn this from the EXPLICIT verse 5-3-11
that
>OG survived at the very least the RFAIM...
This implies that
>He is the SURVIVOR(1-14-13) in the Refaim war
>He survived something else (the flood)
In fact 1-6-4 speaks about the
>NEFILIM
and both NEFILIM and REFAIM are similar in meaning
>NEFILIM=Make people FALL=Make people WEAK=REFAIM
So ***ALL**** we know is that OG survived the REFAIM
and FLOOD.
We did NOT prove anything else
THIRD: 2 OPINIONS ON OG
=======================
The Pirkay DRabbi Eliezer brings two opinions on Eliezer. One
that
>He was OG
and the other
>He was a present that Nimrod gave Abraham when Abraham
>came out of the burning furnace alive.
So if he was OG he was a BAD GUY but if he was a present from
NIMROD he was a good guy. As just indicated this is a serious
opinion brought down in Pirkay DRabbi Eliezer
FOURTH: KILLING MEN FOR WIVES IS FREQUENT BIBLICAL THEME
--------------------------------------------------------
Although Rashi did not fully believe that ELIEZER was OG
nevertheless he wished to defend this opinion as much as
possible.
We created a LIST to show that many people were worried about
being killed in order to get their wives. This includes the
snakes attempt to kill Adam to get Eve, the Patriarchs concern
about being murdered to get Sarah, Rivkah and the Jacobs fear
of extermination to get Dinah.
So Rashi is Simple...His point is IF OF = ELIEZER then he
probably came to Abraham because he wanted Sarah. He offered
Abraham military help in exchange for which Abraham hired him
Again...Rashi is simply defending the plausibility of one
Midrashic opinion...he wasn't advocating it.
Barbara, I hope this answers your questions.
As to the question itself...I would invite other readers to
give such questions Indeed a primary purpose of this email list
is to distinguish between
>What is simple in Rashi
>What is conjectural
>What has alternative opinions
>What can be defended
>How should it be reasonably interpreted.
It is precisely questions like Barbaras that help us appreciate
the differnce between truth and conjecture. Yasher Coach Barbara.
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v6a12-18
From: Russell J Hendel
To: vayodha-k@worldmet.att.net
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:36:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Rashi databse?
[MODERATOR: ANSWERS BELOW IN CAPS]
Vayodha
Answers to your questions are below in CAPS
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:03:47 -0500 "v"
writes:
> i'm not sure I understand -- : "Rashi Database"...
>
> is this database something currently in the process of being created
> through the list? has it already been created?
IT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CREATED. IT IS 10% COMPLETE (10%
OF ALL RASHIS ARE ON IT)
>
> If it's already partially or wholly created, is it partially or
> wholly available online?
YES
>
> how/where can i access/get it?
...IF YOU GO TO THE RASHI WEBSITE ONLINE AT
http://www.shamash.org/rashi YOU CAN HIT THE DOWNLOAD
BUTTON AND RETRIEVE VOLUMES 1 and 2. THESE ARE SELF
EXPLODING FILES THAT GIVE YOU
---ALL 25 ISSUES IN VOLUMES 1 and 25 ISSUES IN VOLUME 2
---AN EXCEL 5.0 SPREADSHEET WITH THE DATABASE
VOLUME 3 WILL BE READY AT THE END OF DECEMBER
AND VOLUME 4 WILL BE READY AT THE END OF JANUARY
>
> thank you
>
>
YOUR WELCOME...THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS ALSO CONTAINED
AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR WEEKLY DIGESTS
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1z37-24
From: Chaya Chait
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 11:05:24 -0800
Subject: Re: This week's parsha re: the pit
Question: could not the pit have been a
remnant of water-containing body
such as a dried-out well/cistern?
I suspect it was possibly a canyon.
The brothers had to "cast" Yosef in i.e.,
using a LOT of effort. Like
the Grand Canyon, it was waterless and
had snakes and scorpions occupying
it. I can well imagiine the struggle
Yosef put up to avoid the fate of
going to those depths, hence the effort on
behalf of his brothers. What
does Rashi say about this?
Chaya Brurya
Chag urim v'sameach
ANSWER:
Chaya Brurya this was discussed in v1-37-24
in volume 3 number 5. You can read this by
going on your web browser to
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
and browsing down the page till you find Gen 37 24
The gist of what I said is that
>AYN
in the Bible while meaning
>NOT
always denotes
>EXCEPTIONS.
So the verse is interpreted
>And the pit was empty--no water but wilderness scorpions
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v6b12-18
FROM: jdl5@columbia.edu
Date: Dec 1999
Subject: REGARDING Volume 4 Number 14
[MODERATOR: Answers in CAPS]
Very interesting. However, even Rashi acknowledges
that NA can also mean
now or immediately etc..
WHERE DOES RASHI ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NA can mean NOW
I AM UNAWARE
Furthermore, in almost every instance onkelus
translates NA as K'ON or "now" So my question remains.
what is the real
meaning of the word NA.
AGAIN...THE FUNDAMENTAL THESIS IS THAT
>NA=REQUEST FOR UNEXPECTED
We then show 4 ways this can happen
DO YOU HAVE ANY COUNTEREXAMPLES
Note that there are only several instances where
Rashi strongly suggests that a word is uniquely
translated and that
everytime it should have similar meanings.
Na is one example and HVA is
another and we know that HVA also means
to simply give as "give me bread"
Yet Rashi seems to ignore that meaning.
NO RASHI DOES NOT IGNORE IT...HE DISAGREES WITH IT
HE POSITS THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE
>HAVA = PREPARE
Another time where Rashi provides at
least three explanations for a word
occurs in this parsha on the word in
chapt 42 where Yaakov tells his son (I
think) AL TITR'u which is a very strange
word in that context of going down
to Egypt to buy Grain.
Think about it.
I HAVE EXPLAINED THESE "MULTIPLE MEANINGS" USING
THE PRINCIPLE
>PREPOSITION + ROOT
THUS
>RAH IN HITHPAEL does not equal RAH IN KAL
IT IS THE DIFFERENT
>MODES
>PREPOSITIONS
THAT GIVE RISE TO DIFFERENT MEANINGS. A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
IS
>BACHA ETH = MOURN
>BACHA EL = CRY ABOUT
>BACHA L = BE SHOCKED
Finally, what is the source of Chuppah in the bible?
IT IS IN NACH NOT IN CHUMASH SO I DON'T KNOW IF I WILL
EVER GET TO IT
Keep up the good work.
KEEP UP THE GOOD QUESTIONS
By the way. Look at how Onkelus changes the
translation of SHIVCHA (of
Yaakov) to maid servant = before marriage
to PILEGESH after Yaakov takes
them as wives and back again to maid
servant after Rachel dies and Yaakov
no longer has children with them.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4q12-13
FROM: jdl5@columbia.edu
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:58:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: REGARDING POSTING ON NA
Very Interesting - Now look at how Onkelus
translates NA especially in
reference to the two times it is used
in the section of praying for
Miriam's health from Tzara'at.
JOHN
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1b29-27
======
v1b29-27 complete the wedding and WE will give you Leah
v1b20-13 When God made(PLURAL) me wander
v1c21-7 Sarah has nursed CHILDREN (Plural)
v1-11-7 Let US Go Down
v1b1-26 Let US make man
v1b35-7 There God(s) revealed himself
RASHI TEXT:
===========
[MODERATOR: Rashis are abbreviated; other material may
be found below in text]
v1b29-27 The PLURAL WE is used because LABAN was MASTER
v1b20-13 The PLURAL WE is used; TAAH = TO WANDER
v1c21-7 Sarah nursed her children & others (hence PLURAL)
v1-11-7 Let US Go Down--God took counsel with his court
v1b1-26 Let US make man--God took counsel with his court
v1b35-7 PLURAL WE is used by expressions of MASTERHOOD
but is not used by other names of God
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
Rashi is Simple and explicit.
>When speaking about a master or lord you can use
>the grammatical plural even though there is one person
>This is usually called the ROYAL WE
Rashi gives plenty of examples
>The master(s) of the land spoke harshly
>The master(s) of Joseph took him
>God(s) revealed himself
These examples are compactly exhibited in {LIST1}
But why then doesn't Rashi CONSISTENTLY use this principle?
We have two notable exceptions. By 1-21-7 we are told
>Sarah nursed CHILDREN (not HER CHILD)
and Rashi says
>She nursed her own and other children
Why doesn't Rashi say that this is the royal we? Why in
one place does Rashi interpret the plural as plural while
in another place he interprets the plural as a royal we.
On 1-11-7 and 1-1-26 the Torah says
>Let US (refering to God) do such and such
Rashi explains the US as refering
>To God and His Great heavenly court
Again why doesn't Rashi interpet this as the Royal WE?
The exciting drama here is how different Rashi's throw us bits
and pieces of the whole rule till everything becomes coherent.
On 1-29-27 Rashi cross references 1-11-7 and 1-1-26. He doesn't
explain using
>WE = heavenly court
but explains
>WE = ROYAL WE
In other words Rashi makes it clear that the primary explanation is
>WE = ROYAL WE
Rashi then explains why MASTERS use a ROYAL WE--
>All leaders consult with immediate subordinates--hence the WE
A final piece of the rule is revealed in 1-35-7
>Only words denoting God as MASTER use plural
>We never find PLURAL in other names of God
In summary
>Any word denoting a MASTER (God or human) uses a ROYAL WE
>The ROYAL WE corresponds to the fact that masters consult
>No other words use the ROYAL WE (Even if they mean God).
Hence
>The plural by Sarah indicates she nursed many children
>We can't use the ROYAL WE here since a NURSE is not a MASTER
Hence
>The plural by Laban/Joseph denotes the ROYAL WE(they were masters
Hence
>The plural by GOD denotes the ROYAL WE
Hence Rashi is simple
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
We make 4 comments on Rashis form
1) Rashi explains that the root TAAH = TO WANDER
------------------------------------------------
It does not mean to err but rather to wander from ones
home. This is clearly seen eg in Job38-41
>The animals wander without food
They are not necessarily lost just seeking away from home
A set of examples is presented in {LIST2}
2) A full grammatical principle can be scattered over many Rashis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thus our rule has 3 parts and it is scattered over many Rashis.
>ROYAL WE applies to a single person if master (1-29-27, 1-20-13)
>ROYAL WE=MASTER explains Plural by God (1-29-27)
>ROYAL WE=MASTER applies to humans as well as God (1-20-13)
>ROYAL WE as applied to God only applies to God as Master(1-35-27)
>ROYAL WE indicates consultation with subordinates(1-11-7,1-1-26)
These five Rashis combine to make a 3-part rule
>ROYAL WE applies to single person (or God) who is master
>ROYAL WE is used because Masters consult subordinates
>ROYAL WE is never used in non-master situations
3) The LIST method enables appreciation of subtle nuances of Rashi
------------------------------------------------------------------
Note how Rashi interpreted
>Plural = Many children (by Sarah)
>Plural = Royal we (on other verses)
4) Response to heretics
-----------------------
Although Rashi clearly stated the rule of the ROYAL WE he didn't
prove that this is the only method to use. Maybe the
>WE
refers to a plural ownership?
Rashi therefore supplements his discussion of meaning with the
observation that
>plurality of verbs change a great deal
Thus we have
>1-1-25 And God made (singular) the animals
>1-1-26 Let us(PLURAL) make man
>1-1-27 And God made(singular) man
>1-1-28 And God blessed(singular) them
It is this sudden change from singular to plural that makes
us sure that the WE is the ROYAL WE.
Rashi notes the ironic fact that the
>philosophical implication of grammar that
>Royal we implies that masters consult with subordinates
takes precedence over the possible capacity
>to learn heresy from the plural (there are many Gods)
Rashi explains that this is so since consulting with subordinates
(even if you make the final decision) is a sign of humility and
it is very important to teach humility. (There is also historical
significance to this but the above suffices for now)
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Verses where single MASTERS are referred to by the plural
The suggested explanation is that
>WE = ROYAL WE
Because masters consult with subordinates before
doing actions. By contrast v1c21-7 is interpreted literally
as a plural since no MASTERSHIP is in the verse}
VERSE TEXT
======== ===============================================
v1b29-27 And WE(Laban) will give you Leah
v1b20-13 When God made me (plural) wander
v1-39-20 And the master(s) of Joseph took him
v1-42-30 The master(s) of the land spoke harshly with us
v1-11-7 Let Us Go Down
v1b1-26 Let US Make Man
v1b35-7 God(s) revealed Himself
v1c21-7 Sarah nursed many children *1
FOOTNOTES
*1 This is the only verse where MASTERSHIP is not an issue
Hence Rashi interprets the PLURAL in this verse literally
>She nursed many children (her own and others)
By contrast the in other verses the plural is interpreted as
>THE ROYAL WE
{LIST2} {Verses showing that TAAH does not just mean LOST but
LOST AWAY FROM HOME---WANDERING}
VERSE TEXT
========= ==============================================
1-29-27 When God made me wander
1-21-14 She walked and wandered in the wilderness
Ps119-176 I have wandered; seek me out like a lost sheep
Job38-41 Wander without food
2-23-4 When you see your friend's animals wandering
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
USAGE
USAGE
GRAMMAR
USAGE
USAGE
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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*