Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume 4 Number 3
Produced Nov, 03 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v6-4-3
With Volume 4, we introduce. a) The Gold Rambam series
continued twice a volume, b) the controversies of Ramban
& Rashi, twice a week, with special emphasis on how they
did NOT disagree, c) discussions of the pshat in
symbolism d) Questions for students.
v1r22-3
Question by CBrown on the verse GETTING UP IN THE
MORNING. This was discussed in a previous Post
(v3n15)(v1a22-3) GETTING UP IN THE MORNING denotes
either a) ANXIOUSNESS or b) after a prophetic dream or
c) miscellaneous cases
v1a25-3
The children of DDAN were a) Gypsies (Walking by
FOOT=ASHR), b) Caravan tribes (LTSH=SPREAD OUT), c)&
nations (LOOM=NATION). Rashi, Ramban, Oonkloos and
Sifsay Chachamim all agree. Oonkelos doesn't believe any
one person was named GYPSIES(Rashi disagrees
v1a24-22
3 Marriage guidelines: a) Emphasize the LITTLE besides
the big(the nose ring had small value), b) awareness of
God (Who reveals Himself thru the medium of '10'), c)
Awareness/appreciation of each member of the
marriage(symbolized by TWO bracelets).
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: v6-4-3
Starting with volume 4 we will introduce 5 new items
a) The Golden Rambam series will continue twice a volume
(About once every month and a half). This series shows
how entire chapters of Rambams are detailed in Rashi
b) The Rashi-Ramban controversies will be discussed
hopefully at least every digest. There will be special
emphasis on how Rashi and Ramban did NOT disagree.
c) We will start dealing with the delightful, engaging
topic of PSHAT IN SYMBOLISM.
d) We shall also periodically supplement issues with large
amounts of TRANSLATION RASHIS or GRAMMAR RASHIS in an
effort to show Rashis methods.
e) Finally we will replace the SQL section at the end of
digests with QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS--these questions will
focus on how to make LISTS. I have personally used these
techniques with students ranging from 7-15 years old with
great success. These questions for students will take the
form of HOMEWORK PROBLEMS which will be interspersed with
the explanations.
With regard to our statement that
>Rashi and Ramban did not disagree
we should mention the famous statement of Chazal that Shamai and
Hillel never disagreed (except 3 times). It was only when their
students did not study enough that many controversies arose.
Using our concept of LISTS we would say that when students only
used PARTIAL LISTS to justify conclusions they started disagreeing
However when TOTAL lists are looked at there is rarely disagreement.
Similarly by using lists we can instantly see that Rashi and
Ramban rarely disagreed. The details of this will be shown in
the various postings which we hope to publish twice a week
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1r22-3
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Cc: rjhendel@juno.com, Yzkd@aol.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:08:36 EDT
Subject: A Rashi question
Rashi comments on 'VaYashkem Avraham baboker'
for the akeidah that this
demonstrated zerizus. Rashi's kashe seems
to be the unusual need to record
Avraham rising in the morning. The identical
phrase 'vayashkem' appears twice
earlier in the parsha(20:8, 21:14) and
Rashi offers no comment - why? (esp.
difficult as the second occurance in
in conjunction with the girush of
Yishmael and Rashi could have said there
that there is zerizus in being
mekayem the divrei Navi of Sarah).
Rashi's comment (18:8) that Avraham did
not serve the bread Sarah baked
because she became a niddah is fascinating -
b'shlama Avraham perhaps he only
ate chullin b'taharah, but he wouldn't
even feed the bread to who he
perceived to be idol worshipping nomads!
-Good week,
-Chaim
[Moderator: Chaiim, the answer to your question may be
found in Volume 3 Number 15, Posting v1a22-3. IN that posting
I review ALL people who get up early. It turns out that after
reviewing the texts we see 3 classes of people
---People ANXIOUS to do something (eg Abraham anxious to do
a mitzvah or Bilam anxious to curse the Jews)
---The morning after a prophetic dream
---3 extra examples which are dealt with individually in Rashis
and Midrashim.
Please refer to the posting for further details]
(The above question and answer also appeared (with different
wording in the email group Avodah within the past few days)
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1a25-3
======
v1a25-3 And DDAN's children were ASHURIM, LTUSHIM,...
v1b25-3 LTUSHIM & Leumim
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v1a25-3 ASHURIM refers to the head of a nation. And
I CANNOT RECONCILE OONKELOOS INTERPRETATION WITH THE
BIBLICAL TEXT (Oonkeloos explains that ASHURIM means
CAMPS (GYPSIES...people who go on foot would
be the best English translation, Moderator)
v1b25-3 LTUSHIM These are people who live in a spread
out manner without any centralizaion.
For the root LTSH means SPREAD OUT like the ROOT
NTSH (1Sam30-16).
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
In explaining the above verses we have 3 goals
--To explain the simple pshat in the verse based on LISTS
--To show that Rashi, Ramban, Oonkloos all agreed with this Pshat
--To explain certain language in Ramban in Rashi which seems
to indicate dissent
--GOAL 1:Explanation of the simple Pshat based on lists
--------------------------------------------------------
First, we note that Biblical names come from Biblical roots
which have meanings in and of themselves. The Bible explicitly
identifies people with these meanings--for example ChVH is the
present tense of the root CHYH which means TO LIVE and the Bible
(1-3-20) explicitly says that CHVA was called this because she
was the mother of all LIVING beings. Similarly the Bible (1-29-34)
explicitly says that LEVI, which comes from the Hebrew root, LVH,
to JOIN, was named because his mother expected this new son to help
her JOIN to her husband. {LIST1} presents a few more examples and
HomeWork-1 invites readers to enlarge this list based on other
Biblical examples.
As can be seen from {LIST1} sometimes the names refer to
PERSONAL INCIDENTS (PRTZ jumped out of his mothers womb), sometimes
they refer to HOPES (LEVI was a hope for Leah to join with her
husband), sometimes it refers to POLITICAL INCIDENTS of the day (PLG
referred to the SPLITTING UP of the world in his time). See {LIST2}
for a summary of these modes.
Next, Chazal used the method of GENERALIZATION FROM SEVERAL TEXTS,
which is one of the methods of textual interpretation used by Rabbi
Ishmael. Chazal decided based on {LIST1} to interpret EVERY name in
the Bible as denoting some type of MEANING. They decided this
because of the numerous times that the Bible explicitly connects
names with meanings.
As a simple example the name
>ZMRN (1-25-2)
clearly comes form the Hebrew root
>ZMR--to sing.
Needless to say there is controversy on HOW singing was related to
the person. The Genesis Rabbah (61:5) cited by the Ramban, suggests
that ZMRN could mean
>PROFESSIONAL singers
or it could mean
>worshipping idols thru singing.
In other words the SINGING could denote either
>A personal profession
or
>A belief in God.
Having established that all names denote meaning it is natural
to ask what the meanings of ASHURIM, LTUSHIM are.To do this we
follow the general pattern of {LIST1} and find the roots of these
words. ASHURIM comes from
>ASHUR
while LETUSHIM comes from
>LTSH
We determine the meaning of Biblical roots not by midrashic rules
but rather by the meaning of LISTS of comparable verses where these
roots occur.
The root
>LTSH
occurs exactly 5 times in TNACH and as can be seen from {LIST3}
means
>POLISHING
In fact it always refers to
>WIDE BROAD SPREAD OUT MOTIONS
Thus it can refer to
>POLISHING
but can also refer to
>SCANNING, LOOKING SOMEONE OVER (Job 16-9)
since the eye scans and spreads out its focus all over the target
victim.
(Alternatively Job16-9 would mean to
>GLARE at a person
the word GLARE being derived as an attribute of a POLISHED surface.
Such an approach would derive the meaning of Job16-9 from
>The FUNCTION of POLISHING = To Produce a shiny glaring surface
This would be an equally acceptable alternative to my explanation
>Job16-9 = Broad sweeping polish-like motions
which derives the meaning of Job16-9 from the FORM OF POLISHING
(broad motion sweeps). This other explanation of Job16-9---My
enemy GLARES at me---was suggested by Dr Klein in my Shomray Emunah
Rashi class).
Hence the LTUSHIM would refer to a person who founded a people
that
>lived in a spread out non centralized fashion.
In fact many of the Arabs/Bedouins still live this way till today.
To use the Biblical terminology we may call the Arabs the
>SPREAD OUT people.
Similarly although the Hebrew root ASHR has many meanings
nevertheless the Hebrew Noun ASHURAH occurs exactly 9 (other)
times in Tnach, and, as shown in {LIST4} means
>SIMPLE FOOTSTEPS
Consequently it symbolically means
>STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS
Hence, the ASHURIM would be a person who founded a people
>Who walked GENTLY in SIMPLE FOOTSTEPS
I believe the best English Translation would be
>Gypsies.
Again, many Arabs(Bedouins) today live like Gypsies (ASHURIM) or in
SpreadOut tents (LTSHIM). In fact part of the 5 tenets of
the Islamic religion is the pilgrimage to Mecca which involves
a Gypsi like nomadic life.
In conclusion, we have met Goal 1 and demonstrated that the simple
meaning of the text was that the sons of DDAN were GYPSIES and
SPREAD-OUT-TENT people.
--GOAL 2: Rashi, Ramban, and OOnkelos all agree on the above
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oonkloos clearly states that
>The children of DDAN became gypsies, spread-out...
The Ramban clearly defends Oonkloos by citing verses (such as
those in {LIST4}) where ASHUR means SIMPLE FOOTSTEPS.
Although the Ramban defends
>LTSH = Spread out
by arguing that
>Lamed = Nun
and hence
>LTSH = NTSH
nevertheless it is absurd to say that the Ramban believed that
>you can ALWAYS substitute a NUN for a LAMED
Rather the Ramban believed that
>LTSH = Spread out
from its usage and then FURTHER justified it by noting the good
rule of thumb that
>Lamed = Nun, in many cases.
At any rate, whether the Ramban learned the meaning of LTSH from
>usage
or from
>Lamed=Nun, interchange
the results are the same---The Ramban believed that
>LTSHUMIM are spread out people
Rashi also clearly defends
>LTUSHIM = spread out people
Furthermore even if some texts of Rashi do not have the
>prefix aleph argument
that Rashi presents he certainly believed it since Rashi
was the first to advocate that
>A prefix Aleph denotes a THING
So eg
>BN = to build; &
>ABN(Brick) = Something (Aleph) you build with (BNH)
We have presented this view of Rashi many times, which was
later beautifully developed by Rabbi Hirsch, ({LIST5}).
Hence
>ASHUR (Straightforward) = A thing(Aleph) that forms a line(SHUR)
This is further backed up by {LIST4} which Rashi undoubtedly knew
(A student in my Shomray Emunah Rashi class, Dr Klein suggested
that Rashi
>Explained LTSH=NTSH,
since the LAMED=NUN interchange is rare and LTSH only occurs
5 times in the Bible. However Rashi did not have to interpret
>ASHRAY = Simple Steps
since ASHUR and AShR occur several dozen times in the Bible. This
approach would be consistent with the WORKBOOK METHODS by which
Rashi indicates a basic idea, does the hard examples, and lets
the easy ones left to the students).
We conclude that there are strong arguments that Rashi, Ramban,
and Oonkelos all gave support to the view that
>ASHURIM = the people of simple steps = Gypsies
>LTUSHIM = the people who were spread out.
Thus Goal 2 has been met.
--GOAL 3: To explain dissenting language in Rashi, Ramban
---------------------------------------------------------
But you will say, "How can you Say that Rashi believes
ASHUR=Gypsies; Does not Rashi explicitly say
> I (Rashi) cannot reconcile Oonkelos with the Biblical text
Doesn't that mean that Rashi rejected Oonklos' interpretation?
No.
It doesn't mean anything of the sort. True Rashi said
> I (Rashi) cannot reconcile Oonkelos with the Biblical text
and that does imply that
> Rashi rejected something in Oonkeloos
but it certainly doesn't mean that Rashi rejected the simple pshat
born out by {LIST4} and {LIST5} that ASHUR means Gypsi. Indeed
Rashi himself supports {LIST3} which is identical with Oonkelos
interpretation of LTSH=SPREAD OUT---so how could he disagree?)
In fact Rashi rejected something else. For if you compare the
Aramaic translation of the verses in {LIST6} you will see that
Oonkelos added something in his translation of 1-25-3
>and the children of ddan BECAME gypsies, spread-outers...
It is this extra word
>BECAME (Lamed in Hebrew)
which is what bothered Rashi. In other words according to Rashi,
Oonkelos should have said
>and the children of ddan were named 'Gypsies', 'SpreadOut"..
By using the word BECAME...
> and the children of ddan BECAME Gypsies
Oonkelos seems to be saying that the words
>'Gypsies' and 'Spread-outers' (ASHURIM, LETUSHIM)
are not the proper names of people but ADJECTIVES describing
attributes of children.
It is this which bothers Rashi. For in the totality of Genesis we
never find Names being used as attributes; rather names are always
taken as proper names which have meanings. So why here is Oonkeloos
deviating from this established pattern and saying that in 1-14-22
the Hebrew words do not refer to names but rather to attributes!?!?!
This is exactly what Rashi says
>I cannot reconcile Oonkelos' use of 'BECAME GYPSIES'--
>implying that the words denote attributes--with the
>Biblical text.
In my Shomray Emunah Rashi class I reformulated the above as follows
>Oonkelos in this verse held that ASHURIM were ONLY adjectives
>Rashi and Ramban held that ASHURIM were BOTH proper names
as well as adjectives
It is this which bothered Rashi---this is the ONLY time in the
Bible where Oonkelos held that a name is not a name but ONLY an
adjective (vs a name and adjective).
Hence there is no disagreement between Rashi and Ramban. It would
emerge that Ramban is simply CLARIFYING THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
RASHI and OONKELOS. Ramban is explaining that Rashi believed
the proper names to be proper names and adjectives while Oonkelos
believed the names to be adjectives only.
We make two more points which revolve around arguments that
the Ramban and Sifsay Chachamim brought.
The Ramban pointed out that the word HAYAH is peculiar in 1-25-3.
Normally children are indicated by a colon; eg
>And the children of Midyan: AyPhah, Ayfer...
But in 1-25-3 it says
>And the children of DDan WERE 'ASHURIM'....
The extra word WERE is peculiar. However as {LIST6} shows it
does happen. The Ramban makes no indication that he would interpret
all members of {LIST6} as ATTRIBUTES vs PROPER NAMES. Furthermore
as already indicated Oonkelos does not interpret any of the other
members of {LIST6} as adjectives.
In my opinion, the reason for the word WERE in 1-25-3 is because
the Hebrew verb TO BE always denotes EMPHASIS ({LIST7}). As we
have already pointed out the Arabs TILL TODAY live as Gypsies and
nomads. Thus the word WERE...
> children of DDAN WERE Ashurim,...
denotes an emphasis that these children KEPT THEIR ATTRIBUTES in
their descendants till today.
Finally, the Sifsay Chachamim suggests that the PLURAL is
problematic (Why not call the children ASHUR, LTSH? Why use
the plural ASHURIM, LTSHIM). However Plural Names do occur.
{LIST8} presents the 9 plural names in 1-10-13:14.
This completes our analysis. A summary is as follows
--***************************SUMMARY********************************
--Biblical names always refer to people but have meaning also
--the meaning could refer to personal or political incidents
--the meanings of ASHUR=Gypsies, and LTSH=Spread out tribes is clear
--thus these names refer to NAMES OF PEOPLE as well as ATTRIBUTES
--Plural ending names do occur in the Bible
--the verb TO BE denotes people who preserved their attributes
--Onkelos seems to interpret 1-25-3 as NON proper nouns(attributes)
--Onkelos holds that 1-25-3 gives ATTRIBUTES ONLY but NOT NAMES
--It is this--adjective only approach--that Rashi finds peculiar.
--Consequently Rashi, Ramban and Onkelos agree on the meanings.
--***************************SUMMARY********************************
In my Shomray Emunah Rashi class two students succeeded in defending
Oonkelos (and answering Rashis question).
First, Mr Rashbaum pointed out that the other examples in {LIST6}
are 'different'. In the other examples the verb TO BE is not
directly connected with the childrens names eg
>And she gave birth to...x,y,z...these are (HYH)the children of..
This is vastly different than
>And the children of DDAN were x,y,z...
I turned to Mr Rashbaum and answered him
>But that proves my point. All you have succeeded in doing
>is giving a distinction that ALLOWS Oonkelos to make
>his translation. Rashis point was not that it was
>impossible to make...Rashis point was that there is
>no reason to interpret these children's name different
>than other children. In other words Rashi didn't ask
>for the grammatical technicalities that allowed Oonkelos
>to interpret the names he rather wanted to know
>WHAT WAS BOTHERING OONKELOS and this hasn't been answered
A second student Dr Klein then pointed out the following
In 1-25-6 it explicitly says
>And Abraham gave these children presents and LET THEM GO
Dr Klein suggested that Oonkelos was linking 1-25-6 with 1-25-3
So verse 1-25-3 is simply the affirmation that
>the children of DDAN were gypsies, caravans and bedouins
which was consistent with Abraham
>letting them go (1-25-6)
I believe that this is a good solid novelty that successfully
answers Rashis question about what was bothering Oonkelos.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
Note how 8 lists were required to address all the concerns
in the Ramban Rashi controversy.
This use of many lists is characteristic of convtroversy
among Rishonim.
In order to fully understand both sides one must carefully
study many precedents to fully ascertain the real issues
in contrast to the superficial issues.
For example: It certainly looks like Rashi disagrees with
Oonkelos. But UNLESS you study lists you think Rashi is
disagreeing about the interpretation of ASHUR and LTSH.
This of course is rediculous. Rashi is really disagreeing
about Oonkelos making Proper names into adjectives. Our
discovery of the cause of disagreement comes from the
extensive use of lists.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {People in the Bible whose names have intrinsic meaning.
{LIST2} further indicates how the possible relation
between the person and the name}
NAME ROOT MEANING VERSE TEXT
======= ===== ======== ======= =================================
KYN KNH ACQUIRE 1-4-1 I have ACQUIRED a son
ChVA ChYH LIVE 1-3-20 Mother of all LIFE
PLG PLG SPLIT 1-10-25 The world SPLIT up in his time
BerShVA ShVA SWEAR 1-22-31 The SWORE (to have peace) there
Shmon ShMA Heard 1-29-33 God HEARD how hated I was
Levi LVH Join 1-29-34 This time my husband will JOIN me
PRTz PRTz JumpOut 1-38-29 You JUMPED OUT of the womb
{LIST2} {Methods by which Biblical names relate to the person.
Three primary methods are indicated *1. These names
are further elaborated in {LIST1}}
NAME ROOT MEANING RELATION TO PERSON WHY HE WAS NAMED THIS WAY
==== ==== ======= ================== =========================
PRTz PRTz Jumpout Personal Incident Jumped out of womb
Levi LVH Join Aspiration My husband should JOIN me
PLG PLG Split Political Incident World split up in his time
FOOTNOTE
*1 Of course the real art of interpreting names is to see BOTH
a personal incident as well as an aspiration (eg Abraham the
IVRI because he
>lived on the OTHER SIDE of the river (EVR NHR)
>differed from the world spiritually (the other side) (EVR)
{LIST3} {All Biblical occurences of LTSH. The meaning of
LTSH = TO POLISH and hence a derived meaning would be
any motion that makes broard sweeps like polishing}
VERSE MEANING TEXT
======= ======= ======================================
1-4-22 POLISH Polishing all ..utensils
1S13-20 POLISH Polishing their ploughshares
Ps7-13 POLISH Polishing their swords
Job16-9 SCAN My enemy will SCAN me with his eyes *1
Ps52-4 POLISH A polished razor
FOOTNOTES
*1 The motions of the SCANNING eye resemble the hand motions of
polishing. Words very often acquire new meanings based on
resemblance in motion. A good English translation of the verse
would be that
>My enemy LOOKS ME OVER
which has a connotation of wide sweeps of the body.
In my Shomray Emunah Rashi class Dr Klein suggested an
alternative explanation of Job16-9. The verse means
>My enemy GLARES at me
The word GLARE comes from LTSH since a POLISHED OBJECT is
shiny and glaring.
Note that this different approach of Howark Klein from myself
is the difference of emphasizing FORM vs FUNCTION. I translated
Job16-9 by emphasizing the FORM of polishing--broad spread
out sweeping motions, while Howard emphasized the FUNCTION of
polishing---to make a GLARING surface.
{LIST4} {The 9 (other) occurences of ASHUR = Simple Footsteps.
The underlying meaning of ASHUR is
STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS. In the 9 verses presented ASHUR
could equally mean FOOTSTEPS or STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS}
VERSE TEXT
======= ======================================================
Ps44-19 Our STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS was lost from Your Ways, God
Prv14-15 The Cunning will understand the STRAIGHTFORWARD way
Ps17-5 May I find STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS in Your Circles, God
Ps40-3 He made firm my STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS
Ps73-2 When I had doubts I almost lost my STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS
Job23-11 In His(God's) STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS do I put my path
Ps37-31 He believes.. his STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS will not falter
Job31-7 Did my STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS ever deviate from the propriety
Ps17-11 Out STRAIGHTFORWARD path was suddenly surrounded
{LIST5} {Of Hebrew roots where ALEPH means THING.
Thus the Hebrew root
>EGEL = DROPLET
can be seen as an ALEPH and an extra 2 letters
>EGEL= ALEPH + GLL
Since
>ALEPH = thing
>GLL = round
We get that
>EGEL (Droplet) =ALEPH (A thing) that is GLL(ROUND)
Further examples are given thruout Rav Hirsch's commentary.
Rav Hirsch further developed this principle. I collected
all places Rav Hirsch uses it in an unpublished manuscript
called the Sacred Letters. About 2 years ago I also
explained using this principle on all 40 Hebrew roots ending
in ALEPH}
ROOT MEANING 2LTR MEANING ROOT ALEPH 2 LETTER ROOT
==== ======= ==== ======= ======= ========= =======================
AVN STONE BNH BUILD STONE The THING that you BUILD with
AGL DROPLET GLL ROUND DROPLET A THING that is ROUND *1
ADM RED DM BLOOD RED A THING that is BLOOD colored*2
AFR DUST PRR CRUSHED DUST*3 A THING that is CRUSHED
AVD LOST BD ISOLATED LOST A THING that is ISOLATED
FOOTNOTES
*1 This famous Rashi on Job38-28 is the source for the idea
that
>ALEPH=THING
which Rav Hirsch Generalized and so beautifully applied in
his commentary.
*2 This etymology also applies to RUBY (A Red thing)
*3 Perhaps DUST PARTICLE would be better than DuST
{LIST6} {Verses where the birth of children is accompanied
with the verb TO BE ('And these WERE the children of...')
As can easily be seen you canNOT hold that in all these
verses the verb WERE indicates an attribute vs a proper
noun. Rather the verb WERE indicates emphasis (as shown
in {LIST7}. In other words these particular people
RETAINED their attributed TILL TODAY. Thus the Arabs
are STILL Gypsies and Nomads; similarly the world still
has the 3-fold political structure inherent in Noach's
children---The Godly(SHEM), the Cultured (YPHETH), and the
Hot Ones (CHAM)).
VERSE TEXT
===== ====
1-36-14 And these WERE the children of Ahalivamah
1-36-22 And the children of Lotan WERE..
1-24-32 And the children of Ddan WERE
1-36-13 ..These WERE the children of Bathmath
1-9-18 And these WERE the children of Noach
{LIST7} {The verb to BE denotes emphasis. This principle
has been used in numerous postings eg v4a18-19
v2-1-5, v2b12-40, v1b15-13, v1a15-13
It was Malbim who advanced the idea that TO BE denotes
emphasis. In all these verses the verb TO BE denotes
EMPHASIS *1}
VERSE TEXT WHY EMPHASIZED
===== =============== ==========================================
4-6-5 He WILL BE holy Non specificed Neziruth can't be transient
but must have some type of emphasis and
demonstration of committment (The usual
period for demonstration is 30 days)
3-2-1 it WILL BE wheat The emphasis shows that other types of
flour invalidate it
3-2-5 it WILL BE Matzoh The emphasis shows that if one left out
the Matzoh attribute then it invalidates
the offering
FOOTNOTES
*1 Malbim brings this principle down in his MORNING STAR--principle
600. THere he gives about a dozen examples (since some of them have
controversy on WHAT is being emphasized I left them out).
Malbim explains that the EMPHASIS in the Leviticus verses is an
emphasis of ESSENTIALITY--without the attribute that is mentioned in
the verse with the verb TO BE the procedure is invalid
We however have taken a broader interpretation and allow
any type of emphasis (For example: by the Nazerite, the emphasis
indicated by the verb TO BE denotes that Nazaretism should have
sufficient DURATION which in many matters is 30 days
{LIST8} {Examples showing that Plural Ending names are normal
in the Bible. This refutes a claim made by the sifsay
Chachamim that it is the Plural ending nature of
ASHURIM and LTUSHIM that drove Rashi to reject the
meaning ASHUR=GYPSY, LTUSH= SpreadOut. In fact Rashi
accepts this interpretation}
VERSE NAME
===== ====
1-10-13 LudIM
1-10-13 AnamIM
1-10-13 LehavIM
1-10-13 NafhtuchIM
1-10-14 PathRusIM
1-10-14 CathluchIM
1-10-14 PlishtIM
1-10-14 CaftorIM
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
v4n1, v1a21-33 -- Prefix Aleph = Thing
v4a18-19 The verb HYH (TO BE) denotes emphasis
v2-1-5 The verb HYH (TO BE) denotes emphasis
v2b12-40 The verb HYH (TO BE) denotes emphasis
v1b15-13 The verb HYH (TO BE) denotes emphasis
v1a15-13 The verb HYH (TO BE) denotes emphasis
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
WORD MEANINGS
WORD MEANINGS
QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS:
======================
Homework 1: Find all Biblical names whose reasons are explicitly
----------- given in the Bible
Homework 5: Can you find more Hebrew roots where ALEPH=Thing
---------- Rav Hirsch extended Rashis
>ALEPH = THING
to
>ALEPH = PERSON or THING
Can you LIST Hebrew roots which are explained by this.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1a24-22
======
v1a24-22 And he (Eliezer) took a nose ring (weighing 1 BEKAH
v1b24-22 and two bracelets on her hand
v1c24-22 weighing 10 units
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v1a24-22 The BEKAH is symbolic of the half shekel (which
weighed a Bekah (2-30-11)
v1b24-22 The TWO bracelets are symbolic of the 10
commandments which were given on TWO tablets
of stone
v1c24-22 The weight of 10 is symbolic of the 10 plagues
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
Rashi employs symbolic methods in 1-24-22. Sometimes
symbolic methods are UNIVERSALLY accepted. Sometimes
however symbolic methods appear as HOMILETIC and fanciful.
In this particular case Rashi explicitly says
>we have (only) A HINT (RMZ) to the symbolized
A second argument (that the symbols aren't that strong in
this verse) comes from the fact that these symbols can NOT
be backed by a LIST. Finally a 3rd argument against viewing
these symbols as homiletic is that Rashi only explains 3 of
the 4 items in the verse (he does not explain why Eliezer
gave her EARINGS/NOSERINGS.) Hence we must view these symbols
as POSSIBLITIES but not as THE SIMPLE MEANING.
Why then did Rashi bring these 3 symbols seeing that he
himself called them
>A HINT
and they cannot be backed by LISTS (And Rashi only gives
the simple meaning in verses and never gives hints).
The answer is that Rashi never gave homiletic interpretations
as long as there was SOME simple meaning. But in this verse
the LISTS don't allow any other meaning. Furthermore the
chapter is obviously talking about marriage and it is easy
to connect the 4 items to 3 basic principles of marriage.
Therefore Rashi thought it worthwhile to MENTION the symbolic
interpretation but to identify it as a HINT.
We now present the 3 basic principles of marriage that Eliezer
symbolized in his gifts to Rivka. As we present them we will
present the proofs for the symbolism in LISTS which however
contain many counterexamples. As already metioned the fact
that 3 good principles of marriage can be connected to these
gifts itself partially supports the symbolism.
A good marriage should have the following three things.
--Appreciation of the 'little things' in a relationship
--Awareness of BOTH the physical and spiritual in the world
--Approaching life as a couple (Awareness of how EACH helps)
--#1 Appreciation of the 'little things' in a relationship
----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham was a millionaire (1-13-2). So Rivkah could expect
big gifts. But for a marriage to be successful there must
also be appreciation of the mundane day to day things.
This appreciation of the 'small' as well as the big is
indicated by the worth of the nose ring--a Bekah--the
equivalant of nickels and dimes. Currency
in the Bible is usually indicated in SHEKELs. The BEKAH
indicating small change only occurs twice in the Bible--here
and in the commandment to donate a BEKAH to the temple(2-30-11)
There also the emphasis is that EVERY JEW can make a donation
even if the donation is 'small'--you don't have to be a
millionairre to serve God.
Thus it is not so much that the BEKAH weight of the nose ring
given to Rivkah reminds us of the BEKAH weight of the temple
donation but rather BOTH Bekahs emphasize that relationship
(between man and woman or God and Israel) can be achieved in
little things.
As commented BEKAH only occurs twice in the Bible so we do not
have a strong LIST. ALso it would be cumbersome to give a
woman an earing that was much heavier than a BEKAH. Therefore
this symbolic interpretation is only a HINT.
--#2: Awareness of Both the PHysical and Spiritual
--------------------------------------------------
No women wants a man who only thinks of the world physically.
There must be SOMETHING ELSE in the persons' life.
If the women is Jewish that SOMETHING ELSE is God. If the
women is non-Jewish that SOMETHING ELSE is culture and
beauty.
God is symbolized by the number 10 since a variety of
Divine phenomena happen using a sequence of 10, such
as the creation of the world, the judgement of the flood,
the emergence of Abraham etc. {LIST2} contains a good
list showing that momentous events are done by God
using the number 10.
Again it is not so much that the 10 plagues used the
number 10 as the fact that the 10 plagues were another
good example of GOD SYMBOLIZED BY 10.
However as {LIST1} shows there are commandments where the
number 10 occurs (such as the various tithe commandments)
where the number 10 has nothing to do with
>Manifestation by God in a sequence of 10
Thus {LIST2} allows us to SUGGEST that the number 10 symbolizes
>God appearing in a sequence of 10
but we cannot PROVE it since 10 is sometimes used for other
matters.
--#3: Appreciation life as a couple (Awareness of how each helps)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
King Solomon said
>Better are 2 than one; since if one falls the 2nd
>will pick him up (but if one falls by himself there
>is noone to pick him up) (Eccl4-9).
Thus the PAIR emphasizes a PLURALITY of resources. Similarly
for example the fact that we must bring not ONE but TWO daily
offerings (2-29-38) means that we don't just
>Serve God (which would be one offering)
but we
>Serve God in both the BRIGHT and DARK sides of our life
>both when we are propspering (BRIGHT) as well as when
>we are suffering (DARK); in other words we approach God
>thru a PAIRED APPROACH of DAY-NIGHT (DARK-BRIGHT HAPPY-
>DESPAIR).
It would follow that TWO BRACELETS would mean that the marriage
is intrinsically seen as TWO PEOPLE--each one contributes to
the marriage as a whole.
Rashi does not give this abstract principle. Rather he
skillfully selects a good example of two parties working
together where the contributions of EACH party is emphasized.
In fact the 10 commandments represents the 'marriage' of
God and the Israelite community. The first 5 commandments
represents Gods aspect of the relationship (fidelity to one
God, commeration of the Sabbath to remember God etc) while
the 2nd 5 commandments represents the Jews aspect of the
relationship (no murder, theft, coveting etc). Each party
gets something out of agreement to the 10 commandments (God
gets loyalty to him while we get a civil society). So Rashi
picked this good example--the 10 commandments--to illustrate
that any two party relationship (like a husband wife) should
have appreciation of contributions from both parties.
But again we have no LIST to back this up (There aren't that
many Commandments with two). Furthermore it is not always
clear what TWO symbolizes (eg the TWO Keruvim). Finally we
are only justified in interpreting symbolically if we have
no other interpretation. But in this case the TWO BRACELETS
could simply emphasize symmetry which is an important
attribute of a women's (physical) beauty (simple physical
beauty is also an important component of a marriage).
As already commented Rashi does not explain the symbolism in
Eliezer giving her EARINGS (vs some other trinkets).
In summary there is nothing definitive that can be forced
out of this verse. Nevertheless one possible reasonable
interpretation of the 3 gifts is that they symbolized
3 important items in a marriage
---emphasis on the little things
---awareness of a God beyond the physical world
---awareness of 'the couple' and not just the individual
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
As commented Rashi explicitly says
>HINT
because the symbolism here cannot be defended by a strong
LIST.
Several times we interpreted Rashi above as
>GIVING a GOOD EXAMPLE
Thus we said that 10 symbolized
>God manifesting Himself in a sequence of 10
There are many examples of this (10 generations to the Flood,
the 10 acts of creation of the world etc). Rashi chose
>the 10 plagues God brought on Egypt.
But Rashi only perceived the 10 plagues as a GOOD GOOD EXAMPLE.
In other words Rashis real point is that 10 symbolizes
>any appearance of God in a sequence of 10
and to illustrate that Rashi chose a good example, namely
>the exodus from Egypt
We call such a presentation by good examples
>The method of archetypical representation
since an archetype is picked rather than the abstract principle.
Similarly instead of saying that a BEKAH represents
>the little currency and the little things in life
Rashi cites
>the BEKAH temple tax
which also symbolizes
>that every person counts towards the temple
Here too archetypical representation is used.
Finally instead of saying that
>a good marriage should have appreciation of both parties
Rashi cites
>the ten commandments
which shows that
>Both parties---God (1st 5 commandments) &
>the Israelites (last 5 commandments)
>benefit from the God-Israelite relationship
Again the method of archetypical representation is used.
The method of
>archetypical representation
is nothing more than
>teaching by examples (vs abstract principles)
a method which is accepted by pedagogists today. It also
corresponds to the method of
>BINYAN AV---teaching by examples to be generalized
which is one of the 13 methods of Rabbi Ishmael by which the
Torah is understood.
This is an important principle and can lend richness to many
Rashis.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Verses incidents and commandments with the number 10}
INCIDENT ITEM OF 10 VERSE
======== ========== =====
Creation of world 10 "Let there be"*1 1-1:2
The Flood 10 generations till Noach 1-5
Emergence of Jews 10 generations till Abraham 1-11
Exodus from Egypt 10 Plagues 2-1:20
Temple evaluations Female, 5-20 = $10 3-27-5
Redemptions Every 10th animal is holy 3-27-32
Tithes 1/10 of produce goes to Levite 4-18-21
FOOTNOTES
*1 There is a famous opinion (Tractate Avoth 5) that the
world was created thru Gods saying 10 times
>Let there be
However this view has great difficulty (since there are only
9 times!!!). There are many opinions. A simple approach
is to say that the world was created thru
>10 acts of creation
These are
>The first verse (Creation of the world)
>The 8 items created in 1-1
>The creation of woman
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
SYMBOLISM
SYMBOLISM
SYMBOLISM
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*