Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
VISIT the RASHI DATABASE archives AT
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 2000
Volume 4 Number 21
Produced Jan, 07 2000
WARNING: USE FIX WIDTH FONTS (eg COURIER (NEW) 10)
Verses/Topics Discussed in This Issue with quicky explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------
v2q3-5
Dr Loike asks why Rashi omitted an example
v6b12-30
Chaya Chait asks about 1) the 24 jewelry sources, 2) Why
we can't interpret the deficient RV to mean MAJORITY +
DISPUTE vs Rashis approach HEAD OF COURT+DISPUTE 3)
Rashis approach to names
v2a3-5
NSHAL means DETACHING/FALLING OFF ie a)2 things are
attached, b)they get detached, c)something falls. Good
examples are 5-28-40 Your olives will FALL off the tree
(before harvest), 5-19-5the ax-head FALLS off the ax
while chopping. 2-3-5=SLIPPERS SLIP OF
v5b19-5
Verse controversy is on its CHATTINESS--'When a person
goes into a forest, ...chops wood,..the ax-head slips
off'. View 1) The torah is normally conversational--View
2) the forest was mentioed to introduce exile for death
by 2ndary causes
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
GOALS: To grammatically defend all 8000 Rashis on Chumash.
METHOD:Every Rashi will be defended with a LIST of comparable cases
INTENDED AUDIENCE: Laymen, Academicians, Rabbis, Yeshiva students
COMMENTS,QUESTIONS: EMail to address below; (minor edits may occur)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:Always given unless 'anonymous' is explicitly asked
(UN)SUBSCRIBE: Email to above with keyword "(UN)subscribe"
JOURNAL REFERECE: Pshat & Drash, TRADITION, Win 1980, R Hendel
NOTATION: eg v2b1-8 refers to Ex(Book 2) Chap 1 Verse 8 Rashi b(#2)
SPECIALS:...on Rambam,Ramban,Symbolism,Pedagogy,Daily Questions
EMAIL: RJHendel@Juno.Com,rashi-is-simple@shamash.org,
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Name: Dr John Loike
Email: jdl5@columbia.edu
Date: Jan 1, 2000
VERSE: v2q3-5
On the verse
>Remove(SHAL) your shoe
Rashi gives two comparable uses of the Hebrew verb SHAL
>5-19-5 and the ax-head LOOSEN (SHAL) from the Ax-rod
>5-28-40 ..your olives will LOOSEN (SHAL)from the tree
Why did Rashi ignore
5-7-1,22 ..and these nations (occupying Israel) will be
REMOVED from before you.
John
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
From: Chaya Chait
To: rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
Subject: Re: RASHI-IS-SIMPLE digest 91
I am curious--what are the 24 types of bridal ornaments?
[ANSWER: They are listed in Isi3:18-23; MODERATOR]
2c23-2 ..and don't answer a dispute by following
a majority opinion not grounded in logic
RASHI: The word "DISPUTE" in Hebrew (RIV)
is spelled deficiently ("RV") and can
therefore be read as RAV--in other words--
"and don't answer (disagree) with the
RAV=Head of court".
Could the pronounciation be "rov", as in majority? Don't argue with the
majority?
[ANSWER: I interpret your question as follows--
>You are interpreting the deficiently spelled word RV by
>PRINCIPLE:Deficient spelling = 2 words in one
>You then apply this principle to the RV and interpret
>RIV = dispute OR RIV= RAV=Head of court
>But you can EQUALLY apply this principle to RV and interpret
>RIV=Dispute OR RV = Majority
>Why do you prefer one interpretation over the other
>The answer is as follows: I prefer the first interpretation
>since it teaches something NEW; I do not prefer the 2nd
>interpretation since it teaches me something I ALREADY KNEW
>The reason I already KNEW it was because the first half of
>the verse explicitly says
>Don't follow the majority
>Hence there is no need to interpret the 2nd half as a
>repetition of the 1st half and I prefer Rashi's approach
>which teaches something new.
]
I would be very interested in finding out how Rashi interpreted
various Hebrew names. Specifically the names of Aviva, Yocheved,
Asher, Reuven, Ari, Chaya & Brurya. Is there such a source? I
only know of Rabbi Bleich's book on Jewish names (Aronson pblsg)
& Kaganoff's Jewish names book. I want to discover Rashi's take
on nomenclature.
[ANSWER: All right I will try and gather all the Rashis on NAMES
and WORDS and mention OVERALL principles. I don't know when I
will get around to it (Maybe this issue]
Chaya Brurya
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2a3-5
======
v2a3-5 ..slip (SHAL) your shoes from your feet
v5-7-1 ..these nations will slip out (SHAL)before you
v5-28-40 ..the olives will slip-off(SHAL)from trees
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v2a3-5 SHAL = Remove your foot from your shoe
[Moderator: Rashi cites 2 supporting verses. These
will be discussed below {LIST1}]
v5-7-1 SHAL=deserting and flinging
v5-28-40 SHAL = "slip off" (Fruit rotting off a tree)
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
The Hebrew root
>NShL
pccurs only 7 times in the Bible---furthermore, after combining
identical occurences we count only 5 times. Rashis goal is to
>analytically characterize the precise meaning of NSHL
These verses are compactly exhibited in {LIST1}.
Rashi explains the meaning of NShL using the method of
>CLEAREST FIRST---HARDER SECOND
That is, of the 5 cases mentioned in {LIST1} Rashi takes those
verses where NSHL has the clearest meaning--we call this the
>CLEAREST FIRST method
After explaining these verses Rashi can then test the consistency
of his suggested explanation with the harder examples. Hence we
call the entire method the
>CLEAREST FIRST--HARDER SECOND.
Let us now apply this method
v5-28-40 says that we won't have oil because
>your olives will (SHAL) slip off the tree.
v5-19-5 describes an accidental murder from an ax hitting a tree
>and the ax-head (SHAL) slipped/fell off
Thus the underlying meaning of NSHAL is clear. It involves
(a) two objects bound together(eg olives-olive-tree,ax-head)
(b) detachment/separation of the two objects
(c) a falling away of the detached object
Thus
>the attached olive, detaches and falls down
>the attached ax-head, detaches and falls
A picturesque confirmation can be obtained from the cognate root SLH
>SLH=Placenta
>The attached placenta detaches and falls out.
RDK also brings as an example of NSHL
>Job27-8--and his soul will slip away
(RDK's opinion is that the SHL in this verse belongs to the
root NSHL though it might also belong to SHLH the root of
PLACENTA.)
We now explain the other verses
>v5-7-1--the nations ATTACHED to their land (Israel) will
>become detached and fall away before you (cf the similar
>statement in Jos2-9,11 "The people of the land will MELT
>AWAY before you")
Similarly 2-3-5 means
>let your ATTACHED shoe, slip off
(So God told Moses
>'Don't come further; step back & let your shoes slip off')
(Note how I might have thought there was an element of conquest
or intentional throwing, if I had read these two verses first--ie
I might have thought that the verses mean (Cf the Stone Chumash)
>REMOVE your shoe
>God will THRUST out the nations
>The ax will SPLINTER off some flying wood which kills
But since we read the OLIVE and AX-HEAD verse first we are certain
that we are dealing with a verb meaning SLIPPING OFF.This is Rashi's
CLEAREST-FIRST||HARDER-SECOND method.)
As RDK points out 3 of the 4 occurences we just examined are
INTRANSITIVE (that is the objects SLIP off--the olive SLIPS off the
tree, the ax-head slips off the ax, the slipper slips off the foot)
The other occurence is transitive (God causes the nations to slip
out of the land) Although it is TRANSITIVE it stills refers to God
causing a SLIPPING OFF of the nations from their land as happened
with the Gibonites and Girgashi. It does not refer to God conquering
the nations. However The 5th occurence of the verb NSHAL is
in the PIEL
>2King16-6 RTzin harassed (NSHAL) the Jews from AYLATH
This PIEL use of NSHAL unlike the other usages has an element
of force In other words, RTzin CAUSED the Jews to be detached
from their neighborhood and fall away (This is lighter than EXILE).
This is similar to what happens to some Jewish neighborhoods in
America today; the Jews are attached to their neighborhood and are
subject to harassment which detaches them from their neighborhood
and lets them fall away. The reason the PIEL is used here is because
RTZIN actively did things to separate them from the land.
Other comments may be found in {LIST1} and in the COMMENTS ON
RASHIS FORM SECTION. These include comments on
>Rashis method of pedagogy
>The legal controversy on the accidental murder 5-19
>a possible 8th verse with Nashal
>comments of RDK, RASHBAM, IBN EZRA on (in)transitivity
--------------------------------------------
/ STOP! STOP! \
| The remainder of this section is technical! |
| On a FIRST reading you may wish to scroll to |
| the next section which begins with the word |
| VERSE: You can scroll quickly by using the |
| FIND feature in the main menu of your browser|
| or word processor (FIND "VERSE:"). More |
| ambitious readers (or on a 2nd reading) are |
| encouraged to continue for many more |
\ interesting details and lists. /
----------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
We make 4 comments
1) Rashi as pedagogist
----------------------
We see Rashis genious at pedagogy.Rashi took the verses where
the meaning was clear (without controversy)
>the olive will SLIP off the tree
>the ax-head will SLIP off the ax
Quite remarkably RDK in his book ROOTS uses the EXACT same
two examples to illustrate the intransitive meaning.
Having established that meaning Rashi goes on to interpret
the other verses that way. I have already cited Joshua2-9,11
>and the inhabitants will MELT away before you
>The Givonim (who surrendered steathily)
>The Gershuni, who fled to Africa
which show that 5-7-1 should be interpreted
>and God will cause these nations to SLIP away from you
Thus we see the
>CLEARER-FIRST--HARDER SECOND
method of Rashi in action clarifying the verses.
2) The use of NSHAL in 5-19-5--Does it mean to splinter?
---------------------------------------------------------
RASHBAM and Ibn Ezra have comments on 5-19-5 which are picked up
by Malbim. We have a simpler way of taking this verse which is
consistent with Rashi and RDK. See below in {LIST1} and in the
posting v5b19-5.
3) The famous burning bush story--Moses was asked to step back!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally we understand the burning bush story as
>God tells Moses NOT to come further
>He (Moses) must remove his shoes
>Moses voluntarily covers his face
We however have added an extra nuance
>God tells Moses NOT to come further AND
>God requests that Moses step backwards till his shoes slip off
>Moses then voluntarily covers his face (but this is not totally
his idea but rather an extension of God asking him to step
backwards)
The idea that Moses was asked to
>Remove his foot from his shoe (step backwards till it slips off)
is new and adds further insights into the story.
4) The inadequacy of English Translations
-----------------------------------------
Finally we mention that the Stone Chumash translates the verb NSHAL
which occurs 4 times in Tnach in 4 different ways!!!
>REMOVE your shoes
>the olives will DROP
>the ax head will FALL
>God will THRUST the nations away from the land
We have interpreted them all to mean
>SLIP
We have frequently emphasized the superiority of a good Hebrew
translation over inconsistent English translations.
{LIST2} compactly summarizes this.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {All verses with the root NSHL *1}
VERSE TEXT TRANSITIVE? NOTES TENSE
======= =============================== ============ ===== =====
5-28-40 Your olives will fall from tree InTransitive *2 Kal
5-19-5 The ax-head falls from ax InTransitive *2 Kal
5-7-1 Nations will fall from land Transitive *3 Kal
2-3-5 Let your shoes slip off Transitive *4 Kal
2K16-6 RTzin harrased them from Aylath Transitive *5 Piel
FOOTNOTES
*1 RDK and Mendekorn suggest that Job27-8 may belong in this list.
I have already given the example, PLACENTA from the root SLH
which fits into this pattern (The PLACENTA falls from the woman
the way the OLIVE falls from the tree).
*2a BOTH Rashi/RDK agree that the first two verses are INTRANSITIVE
*2b A great deal of confusion has arisen on this verse. Let me
briefly summarize the best way of taking it. The verse says
>and he came with his friend into the forest to cut wood
>and his hand slipped in the cutting the tree with the ax
>and the ax-head SLIPPED from the..
Note the wordiness here. Our approach suggests that all sides
in Makkoth agree on two items:
Everyone in MAKOTH 7 agrees on translating
>the ax-head SLIPPED from the ...
But the controversy is whether we interpret it as
>the ax-head slipped from the tree (on rebounding)
or
>the ax-head slipped from the ax
Similarly everyone agrees with the principle that a noun
mentioned twice refers to something else. Hence once side reads
>Go into a forest to cut TREES
>and the ax-head falls from its TREE (ie its handle)
While the other side reads
>Go into a forest to cut TREES
>and the ax-head slips off because it rebounds from a
TREE(ie a splintering action)
So according to our position both sides agree on these 2
things and the controversy lies elsewhere.
The reason for this controversy has nothing to do with the
>meaning of NSHAL, or
>the way NSHAL is written (a refuted suggestion in Talmud)
Rather the controversy emanates from the wordiness of the verse
One position is that
>the torah spoke in human terms (so it describes coming into
>the forest and chopping wood) and the ax-head falling off
>the ax
The other position is that
>every word of the torah has legal implication--so
>we are describing hitting the tree with an ax and then
>having the ax-head fall off, not the ax-handle, but from
>rebounding with the tree.
According to this approach the Torah deliberately mentioned
the forest to inject the idea of SECONDARY FORCE/CAUSE (the
force of rebound from the tree)
The practical issue is how an accidental murder from a SECONDARY
CAUSE is treated. EG If I dance in my room, and the dance
loosens a chadalier downstairs, which falls and kills a crawling
baby--then clearly I am only a SECONDARY CAUSE of death (and
eg I would not even go into exile---the death is too removed
from my actions to make me need the atonement of exile).
This interpretation (an issue of SECONDARY CAUSE) is in fact
the conclusion of the Gmarrah. It has nothing to do with
reading of texts,the meaning of NSHAL, or the transitivity
of NASHAL. It is also consistent with the wording of Rambam
in Murder 6(last paragraph). If the controversy is on anything
textual it is on the wordiness of the text and whether the
Torah is speaking in human terms or not (that is, whether
the tree being cut is relevant legally or just an incidental
comment).
Since many people believe that
>EVERY WORD OF THE TORAH MUST BE 'INTERPRETED'
allow me to point out that this principle does not apply to
this verse. The accepted halacha is that if the ax-head fell
from the tree then you DON'T go into exile. In other words,
the verse **IS** wordy--the Torah did speak in a conversational
style--you do NOT infer laws from every phrase.
(With regard to Rashi's comment that a
>splinter of wood killed somebody
I would asssume that Rashi interprets this as
>the ax-head falls off as a rebound to hitting a
>splinter of wood (literally 'the ax-head falls
>off FROM (Because) of a splinter of wood
This would explain the 2nd TREE in the verse to refer
to a splinter and would thus explain why the word
tree occurs twice. Furthermore Rashi would supplement
Rambam's understanding of the halacha..
>Whether a person died from a flying splinter or
>a flying ax-head it is a secondary force and he
>does NOT go into exile).
Further details may be found in v5b19-5
For completeness of coverage let us mention that the
Rashbam has a totally different way of taking this verse
>The AX cuts (SHL) a piece of wood
But this--interpreting
>NSHL=CUT
is inconsistent with 5-28-40 ('the olives will drop').
(Rashbam gets out of this by positing that this verb
which occurs 5 times in Tnach has 2 meanings!..Needless
to say Rashi's way of approaching the subject is 'simpler').
*3a 5-7-22 is identical
*3b RDK takes this as transitive (God will cause the
nations to slip out of their land. However despite
the transitivity the verb NASHAL does not mean
TO CONQUER THEM.
We have 3 proofs to this---
>The similar verses Josh2-9,11
>all the inhabitants will MELT away before you
>
>Statistically of the 7 nations we only conquered 5
>One made peace with us ("they melted away from their land")
>One fled to Africa
>Thus the verses could be describing these two nations
*4a Josh5-15 is idenical
*4b Cf the English
>SLIPPERS--shoes that SLIP ON/OFF
*5 As can be seen
>With force = Piel
>without force= KAL
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
To Dr Loike for asking why Rashi only selected the
two verses--olive falling, ax-head falling--in 2-3-5.
In formulating my answer I arrived at the
>CLEARER-FIRST, HARDER-SECOND
method of Rashi.
Harry Rashbaum of my Shomray emunah class gave the
interpretation to the Rashi on 2-3-5
>remove YOUR foot from your shoe
Dr. Howard Klein supplemented my explanation of why Rashi
brought only the olive and ax example by pointing out
that
>the olive an ax are INANIMATE
>the other verses deal with PEOPLE
So Rashi wanted to start a base for the meaning with
inanimate objects and from there to move to usages
of the verb with people. Dr Klein's point supplements
my point---for indeed precisely because the two examples
deal with inanimate objects, therefore you can infer the
real meaning of the verb. When the verb refers to people
other metaphoric considerations may come in.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
UNIFIED MEANING
UNIFIED MEANING
UNIFIED MEANING
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v5b19-5 ..and the ax-head falls off the ax..
======
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v5b19-5 Some of our Rabbis explain that the ax-head
>falls off the ax-tree (ie ax-handle)
while other Rabbis maintain that the ax-head
>falls off from rebounding with a splinter
>of wood that it knocks off
>[Moderator: This is explained below]
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
v5b19-5 is talking about an accidental murder. A person comes into
the forest, chops a tree and someone is killed. There are at least
3 possibilities how this accident could have happened
>the ax head falls off the ax handle while the chopper is
swinging back and forth
>the ax head falls off the ax-handle upon rebounding from
a tree
>when the ax rebounds from the tree a splinter falls
>off and that flying splinter kills someone
Before explaining the controversy let us observe that all parties
agree that
>NSHAL means to SLIP off (it does NOT mean to cut off
a splinter...while there are authorities who interpret
this way (eg the Rashbam) nevertheless our interpretation
does not require it--according to us NSHAL means to SLIP
off---(see all occurences of the verb in v2a3-5)
>The two words TREE in the verse mean TWO different things
Before proceeding recall that a REPEATED NOUN (without using
a pronoun) requires interpreting both NOUNS differently.
{LIST1} below gives some examples which we have used in
several postings. Thus in this verse one side interprets
>and you come into a forest to cut TREES
>and the ax-head falls off the ax-TREE (ie the ax-handle)
>(The handle of the ax is called 'tree' since it is made
>of wood).
By contrast the other side interprets
>and you come into a forest to cut TREES
>and the ax slips out (of the cutting grove in the tree)
>because of rebounding from hitting a SPLINTER (a tree)
Thus both sides agree on the meaning of NSHAL and on the
meanings of the words Tree. However
in our approach the controversy in the Gmarrah is on the
>WORDINESS OF THE VERSE
Indeed the Torah speaks about
>coming into a forest, chopping wood etc
Why all the chit-chat? Why not come out and say that someone
died because an ax-head falls off? In fact we have two approaches
on Biblical wordiness
>One approach posits that the Torah speaks in human terms
>Thus the Torah speaks about an OX goring (but the law
>applies to any animal). The Torah speaks about finding
>a thief digging a tunnel into your house (you can kill
>him) but the law applies to a thief found coming into
>your house in ANY manner (tunnel or not). {LIST2} provides
some examples.
>According to this approach (which is accepted as halachah)
>the Torah simply spoke in a normal manner (come into the
>forest to cut wood, an ax-head falls off...that person
>goes into exile).
>According to the other approach, however, the Torah was
>deliberately wordy to bring in secondary forces. The
>Torah deliberately mentioned the forest and rebounding
>ax to emphasize the case of 'other forces'.
>According to this opinion if the ax-head fell off,
>not because of my swinging arm but because of rebounding
>from a tree, then it wasn't MY swinging that caused the
>accidental death but rather my swinging PLUS the rebound
>force. In such a case my swinging is too far removed to be
>the cause of death & I would NOT go into exile.(This is
>the law (Rambam Murder 6, last paragraph)--if I
>accidentally kill because my swinging arms accidentally
>detached the ax-head then I **do** go into exile; but
>if I accidentally kill because the ax-head fell off
>from rebounding from a tree then I **do** not go into
exile.
>This is one side in the Gmarrah. What does the other
>side say?
>They say that normally when you hit the tree the ax
>sinks in the cutting grove. However if you accidentally
>dislodged a splinter the ax would slip out of the groove
>because of the rebound force from the splinter. This
>splinter may go and kill someone. In such a case, according
>to this opinion, we DO go into exile. By contrast if the
>ax-head fell off the ax-handle because of my swinging
>force then I would not go into exile (according to this
>opinion) since it is negligence (I should have tightened
>my ax).
To summarize one side holds that
>the Torah is NORMALLY conversational
>the verse says that the ax head SLIPS off the ax-handle
>Only in such a case do I go into exile (it was an accident)
>But if the ax head fell off from rebounding with a tree
>then there is no exile because this is too far removed
According to the other side
>every phrase in the Torah has legal meaning
>the verse says the ax-head SLIPS off because of rebounding
from dislodging a splinter.
>In such a case I go into exile
Thus the real controversy is whether the Torah spoke in
conversational terms.
------------------------------------------------
| STOP! STOP! |
| The remainder of this section is technical! |
| On a FIRST reading you may wish to scroll to |
| the next section which begins with the word |
| VERSE: You can scroll quickly by using the |
| FIND feature in the main menu of your browser|
| or word processor (FIND "VERSE:"). More |
| ambitious readers (or on a 2nd reading) are |
| encouraged to continue for many more |
| interesting details and lists. |
------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
Note that Rashi ADDS to the Rambam. For Rashi's position
is simply that
>whether the ax-head falls off from a rebound
>or a splinter falls off from the ax
In both cases I am free from exile(The flying splinter case
ADDS to what is in the Rambam).
Why didn't Rambam mention this? Because Rambam was just explaining
the law. The sharp contrast
>did he die from the ax-head falling off its OWN tree(handle
>did he die from the ax-head rebounding off ANOTHER tree
Thus the Rambam following the Mishnah clearly identifies the issue
as to how many objects were involved.
But Rashi's primary job was not to clarify the LAW but to clarify
the VERSE. The verse speaks about the ax
>slipping off(NSHL) because of a (flying) splinter (=TREE)
Rashi's job is to show how both sides use a dual meaning of the
word tree (This has relevance to eg Rebbes question in the gmarrah
but we will not further go into this now).
Finally note that the halachah is that we go into exile if the
ax-head fell of the ax but we do not go into exile if the ax-head
rebounding from the tree. IN OTHER WORDS THE TORAH IS CONVERSATIONAL
We have no right to INSIST on learning from every Biblical phrase.
Some are just there as good examples.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Of Repeated nouns in the same verse (Courtesy of Malbim)*1}
THE NOUN REFERS APPLICATION
TO TWO OBJECTS OF THIS
VERSE REPEATED NOUN THAT ARE SIMILAR PRINCIPLE
(Is in Caps) THESE 2 OBJECTS ARE OF TWO OBJECTS *2
----- ------------- ------- -----------
3-1-5 Offer BLOOD Blood in vessel Even spilled blood
Throw BLOOD Blood spilled on floor can be thrown
on altar (not just
blood properly
collected)
3-27-14 Sanctify HOUSE House=House These sanctify/
3-27-15 Redeem his HOUSE House=Possesions redeems laws apply
Either to a house
or a house with
possessions
3-23-32 On EVE of 9th Eve = After Sunset Don't eat on the
From the EVE Eve = During Sunset day prior to Yom
Kippur right up
to sunset. Rather
start the fast
prior to sunset
FOOTNOTES:
* 1
See Chapter 15 of Malbims beautiful Morning Star for a long list of
verses with double nouns--Morning Star occurs at beginning of his
commentary on Leviticus.
* 2
Nouns are never repeated if you can use a pronoun or suffix. There
are a variety of methods of treating double nouns. One of them being
that each noun refers to a DIFFERENT item (as shown in the list
below). In general repetition denotes EMPHASIS. The emphasis can
be by limitation or even by extension. For example, BLOOD BLOOD
denotes ANY blood even if it was spilled out of the temple vessel
HOUSE HOUSE denotes ANY aspect of the house (including its contents).
{LIST2} {List of Biblical laws which are GENERALIZED from the
specific Biblical examples brought down. In each verse
a law is stated as applying to a specific example but
Jewish law generalizes this specific example so that it
applies to all examples. This is one of the 13 principles
of Rabbi Ishamel--the principle of Generalization}
VERSE TEXT GENERALIZATION
========= ====================== ===========================
2-22-17 Female witch dies Any witch dies
2-21-28 Pay for ox damages Any animal damages
2-22-1 Thief caught in tunnel Thief caught in roof/garden
2-21-7:11 Female slave's rights Wifes rights
3-23-24 Succah on Sccth Succah on Passover *1
4-35 Accident murder exiles Accidental wound parents*2
FOOTNOTES
*1 In other words if 3-23-24 had not said ON THIS 7th MONTH SIT
IN THE SUCCAH then I would have required sitting in the succah on
all holidays (like Passover) since it commemorates God taking us
out of Egypt
*2 Rambam 7:15--Without the repeated statement HE IS A MURDERER
it would have been legitimate to generalize and apply the exile-
for-accident laws to any capital crime (like wounding ones parents)
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
v2a3-5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
RabbiIshmael
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*