Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume 4 Number 5
Produced Nov, 10 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v1z24-22
(Omitted last week from v1a24-22, v4n3).The 2 bracelets
Eliezer gave Rivkah symbolize PAIREDNESS-BOTH parties
contribute to the marriage. Rashi tells this abstract
concept by giving a good example-the 10 commandments
(both God(1st 5) & Man(2nd 5) benefit
v1s23-3
If Rashi has a lesson to teach on say a dozen verses he
usually only comments once or twice. He might comment on
a) The 1st occurence or b) the most non-obvious
occurence or c) an occurence which has other lessons
with it.
v1b26-8
In 7 verses TzChK clearly means MOCKERY (a slave teasing
a woman(1-39-17,14), making fun of a prisoner(Ju16-25) ,
mock wars (2Sa2-14)). In 3 the meaning is INTENSE
ACTIVITY(intimacy(1-26-8), a children's brawl(1-21-9),
dancing wildly before God(2Sa6-21))
v6-4-5
To ease writing when ONE extra example is added to an
already existing posting with many other examples we
will simply repeat the whole posting with the following
message up front: [NEW][Added to v#-#-# in v#n#--the
basic idea is....][END OF NEW]
v2$22-25
The double verb eg HIT HIT THE CITY BY SWORD means a)
HIT IT not once but many times till destroyed and b) HIT
IT not only by sword BUT EVEN BY FIRE. Similarly we HAVE
SEEN SEEN God with you means a) seen him with you many
times b) even with your parents
v1q25-6
v1z14-14 (Volume 1 Number 23)incorrectly lists
PILAGSHIM(1-24-6)as SPELLED deficiently.Briefly it is
the MEANING of the plural PILAGSHIM (meaning many
concubines) that is deficient (since there was one
concubine, Hagar). A later posting will explain
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1z24-22
My apologies for an omission last week.
I explained the 3 symbolic Rashis on Eliezers gifts as follows
PRESENT ABSTRACT APPROACH GOOD EXAMPLE
======================== ==================== ============
>an earing worth a BEKAH Small things (bekah) Bekah temple
are important in tax
a relationship
>10 unit bracelet Believes in God The 10
who manifests plagues
Himself thru
sequences of 10--
eg the 10 generations
till the flood; the
10 things by which
the world was
created; the 10
plagues
>2 Bracelets A good marriage must The 10
show appreciation commandments
and contributions Both God
of both parties (1st 5) and
the jews
(last 5
commandments
benefit from
the 10
commandments)
In other words EACH principle is represented by a good
example. I call this method of
>presenting principles by a good example
the method of archetypical representation.
I however neglected last week to explain how the 10 commandments
were a good example of
>each party benefiting/contributing to a relationship
I consequently added the paragraphs below marked [new].
[New]
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.
[End of new]
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.
[New]
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.
[End of new]
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.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
To: rjhendel@juno.com
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:38:59 EST
Subject: Re: RASHI-IS-SIMPLE digest 37
Thanks!
Believe it or not, I actually anticipated that
you would use the workbook
method here, so you must be rubbing off on me : - )
[MODERATOR:HMM...THAT IS THE
GOAL OF EVERY EMAIL GROUP]
The reason I wasn't satisfied was that some of
the 'vayashkem' instances you list occur *before*
the one of the Akeidah upon which Rashi comments.
If you are a teacher doing
a workbook you would think to illustrate
the principle at the first instance
it occurs and then we can generalize
from that. In fact, I can make the
question even stronger - as you wrote,
there are subtle distinctions that can
be drawn between the different occurances
of 'vayashkem'. Given only the
Rashi on the akeidah isn't it conceivable
to distinguish and say that Avraham
would not have shown zeal at banishing
Yishmael from his house and it is
precisely for that reason that Rashi
offers no comment there? IOW, for the
workbook to work you should tell me
the biggest chiddush first (e.g. the
banishing of Yishmael case) from which
I can infer the smaller chiddushim
(e.g. the akeidah which was purely a
mitzva act). You can apply the question
using other examples.
In any case, what do you think?
-Good Shabbos!
[MODERATOR: Chaiim your FOCUS is proper. Namely
>>Given that Rashi has a lesson to
>>teach, WHERE will he teach it.
Furthermore your suggested answers
>>He should teach it on
>>the 1st possible verse
or
>>He should teach it in
>>the most non-obvious case
are indeed valid approaches.
An 3rd valid approach (besides the above two
which I just listed is)
>>He should teach it in
>>the case where the most lessons exist
In this particular case v1-22-3 mentions
>Abraham getting up in the morning
and
>Abraham (personally) harnessing his donkey
This contrasts with v4-22-21
>Bilam got up in the morning (to curse the Jews)
and
>Bilam (personally) harnessed his donkey
Thus Abraham and Bilam BOTH got up early and harnessed
their donkeys personally themselves.
The opportunity to have such a contrast led Rashi to
comment on these two incidents and not earlier ones--
his point is punchier this way because of the double
contrast.
In passing there is a conceptual aspect to this---normally
we think of
>Getting up early in the morning = ZRIZUS (energetic)
Thus BEING ENERGETIC is a positive trait by which we serve God.
Thus these two Rashis show that
>BEING ENERGETIC
can equally be used for GOOD (Abraham doing the Akaydah) or
for EVIL (Bilam cursing the Jews).
I hope this sheds light on this subtle but interesting
topic.
Yasher Coach Chayiim. Keep up the good questions]
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1b26-8
======
v1b26-8 ..And he (Avimelech) saw Isaac PLAYING with his wife
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v1b26-8 ..He saw them playing = having intimacy
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
To place this in context we note that the Hebrew root used is
>TzChK = PLAYING
It is obvious that
>a husband and wife playing
refers to marital intimacy (like in English).
However, to fully understand Rashi we must review the verses
with TzChK. This was done in v1-21-9, v4n4. Recall that
>TzChK occurs only 15 times in Tnach
>TzChK in PIel only occurs 7 times
>ShChK occurs only 50 times in Tnach
>ShChK in Piel only occurs 17 times
>Ignoring metaphoric use TzChk & ShChK occur 10 times!!
These 10 occurences are exhibited in {LIST1}.
Most of these 10 occurences have a meaning of
>MOCKERY
Thus we have a
>SLAVE TEASING A WOMAN (1-39-17,14)
>Making fun of a prisoner (Jul16-25)
>A Brawl in which someone was tortured(2-32-6)
>Making fun of somebody (1-19-14)
>mock wars (2Sa2-14)
Consequently, upon seeing the above examples, it becomes natural
to suggest that
>TzChK/ShChK = MOCKING
The trouble with this approach is that there are 3 verses where
the translation
>TzChK = MOCKING
does not seem to work.
> A husband and wife were playing (1-21-9)
> Two children were having a brawl(1-26-8)
> Dancing before God to celebrate (2Sa6-21)
In these 3 verses
>TzChK/ShChK = Wild intense activity (not mocking)
The above 2 sets of verses lead to two opposing opinions on the
meaning of TzChK. In Talmudic times these two opinions are given
by Rabbi Akiva and RSBI in the Tosefta to Sotah, 6:3. In Rishonim
times they are presented by Rashi and Ramban.
Ramban, based on the last 3 verses holds that
>TzChK = Intense physical activity (intimacy, child brawls..
While Rashi holds, based on the first 7 verses that
>TzChK = MOCKERY (making fun of someone).
Rashi would have to take his position and make it consistent
with the above 3 verses. That is he must posit that
Rashi hods that
> Ishmael wasn't playing but making FUN of Isaac
> David was dancing wildly but making FUN of Gods enemies
> Isaac was not intimate but TEASING Rivkah.
Thus the controversy between Rashi and Ramban would be that Rashi
>believes that the unity of 7 verses should override
>the meaning of 3 verses
while the Ramban holds that it is preferable
>to have 2 possible meanings--
>MOCKERY or INTENSE ACTIVITY
Rashi indeed does translate 1-21-9 as
>Ishmael was teasing/mocking Isaac
while Ramban simply translates it as
>the two children were having a brawl
>(intense physical activity)
The problem however arises on 1-21-9. Rashi should translate
the verse as
>Isaac was (sexually) teasing Rivkah
But he doesn't. Instead he translates the verse as
>Isaac was intimate (vigorous activity) with Rivkah
So the question becomes
>How could Rashi contradict himself. If he believes
>,as Ramban, that TzChK can mean non perjorative
>physical activity then why translate 1-26-8
>perjoratively---why not simply say they were two
>children having a brawl.
To answer this we suggest that Rashi himself (and similarly
Rabbi Akivah) did not fully believe that
>TzChK = Mockery
Indeed Rashi himself was aware that he was overriding the
meaning of 3 verses for the sake of 7---certainly not something
overwhelmingly logical.
Thus Rashi's position was that
> the meaning of TzChK was intrinsically ambiguous
On the one hand
> maybe it means INTENSE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
On the other hand
> maybe it means MOCKERY
It is not Rashi and Ramban (or Rabbi AKiva and RSBI) that argue...
It is not two people that argue but the two lists above that
argue. One list of verses clearly suggests TZCHK = MOCKERY while
another set of verses clearly suggests TZCHK=INTENSE ACTIVITY.
It is these lists that compete. We don't have enough examples
to settle the matter. To put it another way the meaning of
TzChK is INTRINSICALLY AMBIGUOUS. And if Rashi holds that, we
must assume that Ramban, Rabbi Akiva, and RSBI all agreed that
the meaning is ambiguous.
Rashi expresses this INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY not by citing two
opinions but rather by sometimes defending one meaning and
sometimes defending another meaning. Thus on 1-21-9 Rashi
shows how it is easy to suggest that TzChK=MOCK while on
1-26-8 Rashi says it means intense physical activity.
We shall have other ocassions to show this principle that
>Rashi explains intrinsic doubt, not necesarily
>by presenting both sides but rather by sometimes
>presenting one opinion and sometimes another.
Perhaps v2b23-14 in v1n13 is a good example. In Shmoth
Rashi says that Chur was Miryam's son while in Chronicles
he reverses this position. The truth of the matter is
that there is no strong evidence one way or another.
In conclusion we re mention the Rashi Ramban controversy
on TzChK. Last week we suggested that the controversy has
its roots in a lack of evidence. However this week I am
suggesting that there never was a controversy. Rather both
Rashi, Ramban, Rabbi Akivah and RSBI all agreed that the
list of verses was ambiguous.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
I am indebted to Professor Halbertal for pointing out that
Rebbe was the first person to use controversy in a legal code.
When Rebbe wrote the Mishnah he included the various controversies
that were present. The reason he did this was to strengthen respect
for the majority opinion. Indeed the majority held their opinion
EVEN THOUGH they were aware of minority opinions.
An alternative way of conceptualizing this is to perceive
controversy not as an attribute of CONTENT but rather as an
attribute of STYLE. In other words the controversy of the
Mishnah does not indicate disagreement but rather indicates
that the majority opinion was accepted DESPITE the minority
opinion. Thus controversy is a method of style to
indicate that the controversy was resolved in favor of the
majority.
In a similar manner I am asserting here that Rashi used
contradiction as a STYLE versus a CONTENT. Contradiction,
saying two different things on the same verse, is a STYLE
to indicate intrinsic ambiguity.
This is a very clever pedagogic style. For the reader for
example reads 1-21-9 and perhaps think it is the most logical
thing in the world that Ishmael was teasing Isaac. Similarly
the reader reads 1-26-8 and thinks it logical that Isaac
and Rivkah were intimate. The reader then realizes that
these two logical positions actually contradict each other
(since they give different meanings to the root TzChK) and
therefore the meaning of the root is ambiguous.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Verses with TzChK/ShChK in the Piel*1. As can be
seen there are only 10 verses (another half dozen
or so have metaphoric meaning). Of these 10, 7
have a meaning of mockery. In the remaining 3
Rashi interprets them as MOCK/TEASE. But the
Ramban would say we have another meaning of
INTENSE LAUGHTER}
VERSE ROOT MEANS TEXT
======= ===== ===== ==============================================
1-39-17 TzChk Sex This slave came to TEASE with me(Potiphera)
1-39-14 TzChK Sex You brought a slave to TEASE with us?
Ju16-25 ShChK Mock Call SAMSON and let him be a MOCKERY before us
Ju16-25 TzChK Mock And Samson was a MOCKERY before them
1-19-14 TzChK Mock He looked like he was MOCKING them
2Sa2-14 ShChK Brawl Let the soldiers PLAY A WAR GAME *2
2-32-6 TzChK Brawl And they (at the Golden calf) made a BRAWL*3
1-21-9 TzChK Brawl Ishmael and Isaac were playing*4
1-26-8 TzChK Sex Isaac and his wife were PLAYING (sexually)*4
2Sa6-21 ShChK Brawl And I will DANCE WILDLY before God*4
FOOTNOTES
*1 For convenience we treat the PIEL tense but the KAl tense
seems to also mean mocking. For example
> Those younger than me MOCKED AT ME (Job30-1)
> Why did Sarah MOCK at the statement she'd have a child(1-18-13)
> The laughed (MOCKED) at her downfall (Thr1-7)
To be fair this Hebrew root can also mean a
>LAUGHTER because of INCREDULITY
such as
>When we are redeemed we will LAUGH (Ps126-2)
However
>LAUGHING at INCREDULITY
and
>MOCKING
are two sides of the same coin (They both refer to
>a strong emotional indication of doubt
It is simply that
>MOCKING is a pejorative laughter
while
>INCREDULITY is a laudatory behavior
Also there seems to be little difference of meaning based on
prepositions. Thus
>LAUGH IN ME (sexual teasing) (1-39-17)
>LAUGHT ON ME (mocking)(Job30-1)
seem to be more or less similar usages.
If we had to distinguish between the KAL and PIEL we would say
(based on the above lists) that the
>KAL denotes a VERBAL/LAUGHING MOCKERY/INCREDULITY
>PIEL denotes ACTIONS OF MOCKERY (dancing, war games, sex..)
The only possible exception to this suggested rule
>KAL = verbal mocking
>PIEL = action mocking
is 1-19-14 (And Lot appeared to be teasing them when he said
the city would be destroyed). But here too we can possibly
say that
>he appeared to be starting a fight when he said
>get out of the city because God is destroying it
*2 Perhaps have a BRAWL is a better translation
*3 It is clear from 2-32-18 that someone was tortured and hence
the TzChK/ShChK is perjorative
*4 The controversy between Ramban and Rashi happens principally
on these 3 verses. Rashi argues that we should extend the meaning
of mocking to these verses so that
>David mocked at Gods enemies
>Isaac and Rivkah were sexually teasing each other
>Ishmael and Isaac were Brawling with each other
Ramban could cogently argue that it is not necessary to force
3 verses to change their meaning because of 7. Hence we can
interpret these 3 verses as is
>David was dancing wildly (no mocking)
>Isaac and Rivkah were sexually playing (no teasing)
>Ishamel and Isaac were playing (like any two children)
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
v1-21-9, in v4n4 The meaning of TzChK is in doubt
v2b23-14, in v1n13 Rashi has doubts about who chur was
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
UNIFIED MEANING
QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS:
=======================
Review all verses with the Hebrew root TzChK or ShChK. Enumerate
those where the
>the meaning CLEARLY means MOCKERY (perojative)
>the meaning MAY mean MOCKERY
>the meaning seems to be INTENSE PLAYING (nothing perojative)
>the meaning is METAPHORIC and no conclusion can be drawn
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v6-4-5
To ease writing in the future, if we have to add one new example
>(eg another verse with a DEFICIENT SPELLING)
to an ALREADY existing posting
>(eg a former posting of 15 examples with DEFICIENT SPELLINGS)
then we will simply
> repeat the old posting
> place at the beginning of the repeated posting the
following message
[NEW] [Added to v#-#-# in v#n#]
[ VERSE so and so; RASHI so and so;
[The basic idea developed there that... applies to
this situation is as follows.....]
[END OF NEW][The reader may skip the rest of this posting
if (s)he recognizes the material. Those wishing to review
may however read it]
> The reader can either
>>skip the rest of the posting if they remember it
>>or reread it for review
> the modified posting will have one of the following
symbols--!,@,#,$,%,^,&,*,(,),_,+---- in its name
to afford easy recognizability. Thus eg if the original
posting was
v1c2-3
Then the new posting will be
v1$2-3
> The rest of the old posting will remain the same
except that appropriate lists will be modified with
new footnotes numbered 0, -1, -2 -3 etc.
Such a procedure will allow us to keep track of minor omissions
and review tables while at the same time giving readers the option
of rereading material they may have read already once
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2$22-25
[NEW][Added to V2a22-25 in v2n20]
v1a22-17 For I will bless you bless you
v1b22-17 and will increase, increase you children
v1a26-28 We have seen, seen the God is with you
v1-26-13 and he walked walked in growth
$RASHI:
======
v1a22-17 I will bless you and bless your children
v1b22-17 I will increase you and increase your children
v1a26-28 We have seen God with you and God with your father
v1-26-13 he grew in Gold; he grew in possession of manure
[Rashi cites the proverb that
>the manure of the patriarchs is worth more than
>the gold of kings]
$BRIEF EXPLANATION
We have seen in v2a22-25 in v2n20 that when double
verbs are used then
>the INFINITIVE means ONGOING activity
>The double verb means EVEN in unexpected cases
This is because in general a double verb or double noun
creates an emphasis on the verb or noun even in other cases
The simplest example of this is the verse v5-13-15
>hit hit the city by sword
So the infinitive means
>HIT it not once but many times till it is destroyed
And the double verb means
>HIT it even by fire if you don't have a sword
To recap, the basic idea is to
>do the verb many times
>and EVEN in circumstances you wouldn't expect
There are many examples of this and they are all presented
in {LIST1} which comes from the Babylonian Talmud. To this
list we now add the above 4 verses
>>I will bless, bless you
>>I will increase, increase you
>>We have seen we have seen God is with you
So the double verbs here mean
>bless/increase/seen God with you MANY times
>bless/increase/seen God not only with you
BUT EVEN with your parents/siblings.
As to 1-26-13, HE WALKED WALKED IN GROWTH it means
>he grew MANY MANY times
>he grew not only in Gold but even in MANURE and
other things usually not worth much.
[END OF NEW]
[Those who remember this posting may skip the rest of the
posting. Those who wish to review may reread it]
v2a22-25 If you take a security security deposit..
v5-13-15 hit hit this city
v5a15-10 Give Give to the poor
v5b15-8 Give Give
v5c15-8 Give him What he needs
RASHI TEXT:
v5a15-10 GIVE GIVE..even 100 times (according to
what the poor person needs)
v2a22-25 SECURITY (ChaBaL) (vs MShKoN=Security) refers to a
security deposit that is taken AFTER the time of the loan
as for example when the lender requests payment and the
borrower can't pay and offers a security at the time of
request.
The double SECURITY SECURITY means that you give him back
his security each evening even 100 times. Why? Because God
gives you back your soul every night; so too you should give
back hit deposit every day/night.
v5-13-15 HIT HIT this city: You are suppose to kill
the inhabitants by sword. But if you lack a sword you can
use any other means of death.
v5b15-8 If you can't GIVE him then LOAN him
v5c15-8 Give him what he needs (but not if he is rich)
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
The Bible frequently uses a double-verb form--eg not just GIVE
but GIVE GIVE (NATHON TTAYN). In these double verb forms one
of the verbs is usually an INFINITIVE while the other is an
ordinary verb. The Talmud gives a list {LIST1} of about a dozen
double verb verses.
Thus there are 3 questions to ask:
---Why the infinitive
---Why the double verb
---What is the reason for the laws inferred from the double verb.
But we have already dealt with all these topics.
The INFINITIVE {LIST2} denotes ONGOING ACTIVITY independent of time.
Hence in all these verses it would denote ONGOING activity which is
done again and again (Such as giving charity to the same poor person
again and again--even 100 times).
The DOUBLE NOUN theme has been dealt with several times {LIST3}. In
this case it is a double verb. The SECOND noun is normally taken to
refer to SOME OTHER noun--something we hadn't thought of. So in
these verses the double verb refers to some other aspect of the
underlying activity of the verb. For example, if PUT HIM TO DEATH
means put him to death by the SWORD then PUT HIM TO DEATH PUT HIM
TO DEATH means to put him to death by ANY death penalty.
{LIST1} compactly summarizes the application of these two themes
to the dozen examples of double verbs brought down in the Talmud
Finally, we have left to deal with the question of WHY. If I gave
money to a poor person (a shnorer) and he didn't have enough
intelligence to use the money profitably and make himself a business
why do I have to keep on giving him money every day he comes?
Rashi answers this by giving a MORAL REASON. After all, God puts up
with us and returns our soul to us every morning after we sleep and
this is so even though many people do not deserve it. So too we
should give charity as often as necessary.
This is the main explanation of Rashi and the ordinary reader may
stop here. The more interested reader can read why of the dozen
verses Rashi only commented on 3 or 4 and why on these particular
3 or 4. This occurs in the COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM section.
Furthermore we have two items left to explain:
---How does Rashi know that ChBAL refers to securities taken AFTER
the time of loan while AVOT and MShCON refer to securities taken
AT the time of loan
---How do we deal with the alternative talmudic opinions that not
everything on {LIST1} should be explained since according to
this opinion the DOUBLE VERB is a Biblical idiom and has no
special meaning. Doesn't this BIBLICAL IDIOM approach ("The Bible
speaks using "human phrases"") contradict the whole thesis of this
list?
The answers are straightforward. Rashi compared the sentence
structure of 5-24-10:13 vs 2-22-24:26. In one case it says
IF you loan ...IF you take a security deposit; in the other
case it says IF you loan do not go into the house to take..
The double IF denotes two acts: First I gave the loan and then
when I asked for repayment I took a security. The single IF
by contrast does not emphasize when the deposit was taken.
The main support comes however comes from the meanings of the
root CHVL {LIST4}. The meanings have a connotation of development
over time.For example BIRTHPANGS are not pains you get at conception
or during pregnancy but come later on at birth. Similarly
Songs 2:15 doesn't mean any type of destruction but rather
a destruction over time...for the wolves don't immediately
destroy the vineyard...rather they destroy the vineyard
by eating and eating eating over a period of time. These
meanings all come from ROPE which is something you pull
up bit by bit over time. We apply this OVER TIME concept
to the SECURITY and therefore ChVL would mean a SECURITY
taken OVER a period of time....That is it is taken after
the time of loan (say when the borrower is asked for the
money and can't return it). Further details are presented
in the footnotes to {LIST4}.
Let us now deal with the more serious problem of the fact that
there SEEMS to be a Talmudic opinion that the Torah speaks in
human phraseology (which would contradict the whole idea of this
list).
But the answer to this is straightforward. There was a minority
talmudic opinion like that; according to that opinion no
items on {LIST1} should be interpreted. A few of these non
interpretations filter down to us as actual law.
But this opinion is clearly a minority opinion. Indeed, most of
the laws that come from Biblical literary analysis are held as
laws today. Furthermore Rashi dealt with the problem that if
we do hold that ALL double verbs have special meanings then how
do we interpret those verses where the talmud rejects the meaning
because of human phraseology.
Rashi dealt with this problem as follows: Both in 5-15-8 and
5-15-14 it refers to GIVING charity (to poor or slaves). The
double verb is interpreted to mean ANY type of giving (even if
the slave didn't give you a profit and even if the poor person
is rich).
The minority opinion rejects these laws. However the minority
opinion does not reject the whole list!! So Rashi interprets
5-15-8 (not brought down in the Talmud by {LIST1}) to mean
ANY TYPE OF GIVING--IF NOT THRU CHARITY THEN THRU LOANS.
This Rashi on 5-15-8 would also apply to 5-15-14 according to
those opinions that you don't give gifts to a slave from whom
you did not earn a profit.
Furthermore, Rashi brings down the phrase GIVE HIM WHAT HE NEEDS
to learn from this phrase-WHAT HE NEEDS-that you don't give charity
to a rich person. So it is this phrase WHAT HE NEEDS that negates
learning from GIVE GIVE that we must give charity even to a rich
person. But that doesn't mean we don't learn anything from the
phrase. It simply means we learn something else--namely GIVE
CHARITY or GIVE A LOAN.
In summary: All double verbs according to all opinions teach
something. The classical example would be 5-15-8 or 5-15-14.
According to one opinion it means GIVE to the slave whether
you earned a profit or not while according to the other opinion
it means GIVE or LOAN. Tosafoth also agrees with this (Tosafoth
considers there to be two verses where we don't learn anything
because the verse negates the possibility of learning a double
meaning---one of these two verses is 5-15-8/5-15-14 where the
phrase ALL HIS NEEDS negate learning GIVE TO HIM WHETHER RICH
OR POOR---but our way of interpreting Rashi answers this
question of Tosafoth in a more satisfactory way--at any rate
Tosafoth explicitly agrees that in 99% of the cases double verbs
teach us something).
The above is an important principle since it encourages us to
research and interpret all Biblical phrases.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
As we have indicated several times Rashi had a database mind. He
had before him all midrashim and all verses with double verbs.
He had 3 lessons to teach and he carefully selected the 3 best
verses to teach them.
He chose 5-13-16 HIT HIT to learn HIT BY WHATEVER MEANS---since
this is the classical approach to DOUBLE NOUNS (the 2nd one means
something different than the first). He chose this verse since
the infinitive does not have a blatant meaning here (you can't say
HIT even 100 times). So there is only one lesson to learn.
He chose 5-15-8 GIVE GIVE even a 100 times since of all commandments
CHARITY is the most pleasant one to repeatedly perform (In other
words if Rashi had eg said RETURN LOSS ARTICLES 100 times there
might be some resistance...people feel more comfortable giving
charity 100 times).
There is a further point here: The GIVE GIVE verse is the one
verse where the concept of EVEN 100 TIMES is not only quantitative
but qualitative. For you must give even 100 times to the same
poor person. You must also give even to 100s of TYPES of poor
people--your poor relative, your cities poor, your countries poor,
fellow Jews in other countries that are poor etc.
He chose 2-22-25 to teach moral lessons (God gives us back
our soul each night hence you should give back a borrowers
items each day/night) since they both involve a periodic
returning in time (eg Telling us to give charity 100 times
is only partially analogous with God returning our souls...
Telling us to give back nightclothes/dayclothes is more
analogous with God returning our soul).
Finally as indicated Rashi explained 5-15-8 to deal with the
minority talmudic opinion that certain double verbs should
not be interpreted. So Rashi shows that even according to
these opinions they should be interpreted (but in a different
way)
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {List of verses that have double verbs (courtesy of
the Babelonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 31). Each verse
has some word repeated twice--one of the verbs is
an infinitive and the other is the normal form
of the verb. This list gives the lesson derived
from each: The infinitive means ongoing activity
and means it should be done even 100 times; the
double verb is interpreted like all double nouns
--the second verb is different than the 1st and
denotes that the activity of the verb is done
EVEN in other circumstances (See {LIST3} for the
treatment of double nouns)}
VERSE TOPIC DOUBLE
WORD INFINITIVE DOUBLE VERB
====== ============= ====== ========== ========================
5-22-1 Lost articles return 100 times without owner knowledge
5-22-7 Take birds*1 let-go 100 times even not for food *1
3-19-17 Rebuke sinner rebuke 100 times even a student to Rabbi
2-23-5 Help unload*2 unload 100 times even if owner can't help
5-22-4 Help reload*2 reload 100 times even if owner can't help
4-25-21 Death penalty die 100 times*3 even with other deaths*3
5-13-16 Hit city hit Long war*3 even with other deaths*3
5-24-13 Security return 100 times even if court sanctioned
2-22-25 Security return 100 times even if court sanctioned
5-15-8 Charity open up100 times even if from other cities
5-15-10 Charity give 100 times even if from other cities
5-15-14 Slave freeing Give Alot *4 even if you didn't profit
1-22-17 Blessing Bless Alot *0 even your descendants
1-22-17 Blessing Incrse Alot *0 even your descendants
1-26-28 God with you seen Alot *0 even with your ancesters
1-26-13 Growth walk Alot *-1 even in manure
FOOTNOTES:
*0 In other words the verses could simply mean that God will
bless/increase Abraham. The double verb means that EACH of
his descendants is similarly blessed These last 4 examples
are not cited in the Talmud
*-1 Ordinary Growth is eg in wealth, Gold etc. The double
verb means that he grew even in mundane manners like manure.
This example is not cited in the Talmud.
*1 This refers to finding birds in a nest. If you want the young
birds (for food) then you must let the mother bird go (and even
if she returns) you must repeatedly let her go. From the double
verb the talmud learns that this LETTING-GO law applies even
if you took it not for food but rather say for a sacrifice (I might
not think the mother has to be let go since she could be used for
a sacrifice also).
*2 The Biblical law requires that if you see a fellow Jews with
a loaded donkey then you must help him unload the donkey (to rest
it) and then you must also help him reload the donkey when he
wants to go back on his journey (So there are two obligations:
Loading and Unloading).
*3 There is no Talmudic derivation on the infinitive of placing
to death. But of my own accord I extended the "100 times" theme
to the death penalty---e.g. if you performed the execution and
he still didn't die you would have to perform the execution again
(till he dies)
*4 The Talmud notes that certain opinions did not hold this as
law. That is, if you lost money from the slave (during his work
by you) then you are NOT obligated to give him. This opinion
would hold by NONE of the laws in this list--they hold the
double verb form to be a Hebrew Idiom with no special meaning.
Nevertheless Rashi was faced with a problem. We use most of the
laws on this list. How then do the people who hold that the
infinitive and double verb have special meaning deal with these
verses. Rashi actually answers this question on the sister verse
to 5-15-14, which is 5-15-8.
It says there to GIVE GIVE to the the poor and then repeats
GIVE GIVE (HAAVAYT) his needs. Now the verse continues that you
only give him WHAT HE NEEDS (So if he doesn't need anything you
need not give him). Rashi therefore interprets the double-verb
to mean GIVE HIM ANY WAY YOU CAN... If you can't give him charity
then give him a loan (as e.g. a rich man who isn't eligible for
charity--he should be given a loan). This Rashi on 5-15-8 can
be applied to 5-15-14. According to those opinions that you only
give gifts to a slave when he leaves PROVIDED you didn't lose money
then you would still be obligated to give him a loan (so he can
start off in life).
{LIST2} {Of INFINITIVES translated as GERUNDS}
VERSE GERUND TEXT
----- ------ ----
2Sam3-15 WALKING And her husband walked with her, WALKING
2Sam3-15 CRYING and CRYING...
Isa22-13 KILLING And he behold there is partying: The
Isa22-13 SLAUGHTERING KILLING of ox and the SLAUGHTERING of
Isa22-13 EATING sheep, the EATING of meat and the DRINKING
Isa22-13 DRINKING of wine-{the mentality of...} EATING and
Isa22-13 EATING DRINKING because tomorrow we die anyway.
Isa22-13 DRINKING
5-16-1 WATCHING The WATCHING of the Spring shall enable
the passover to happen in the Springtime
5-27-1 WATCHING* The WATCHING(Commemoration) of the
commandments shall be...by the building
of stones....and writing the laws on them
Isa42-24 WALKING ..They didn't want the WALKING in my ways**
Isa3-16 WALKING WALKING and TIPTOEING is their gate***
1-12-9 WALKING And Abraham journeyed, WALKING and
JOURNEYING southward
Jer2-2 WALKING While WALKING,call out to the Jerusalemites
"Thus says God...I remember your walking
after me in a desert..."****
FOOTNOTES:
* Rashi EXPLICITLY identifies the INFINITIVE on this verse as
"LIKE THE PRESENT" (i.e. a GERUND--Rashi uses the old french)
**Isa42-24 can EITHER be translated with INFINITIVE or GERUND
INFINITIVE: They did not want TO WALK in my ways
GERUND: They did not want the WALKING in my ways
***Perhaps a better translation would be "They walked by
WALKING and TIPTOEING" (i.e. They walked in a WALKING-TIPTOEING
GATE)
**** Note that the Radack here dismisses the verbal form as a
COMMAND or INFINITIVE. I suppose the ultimate question in all these
translations is HOW natural is the use of the Gerund...I tried
to pick verses where the gerund seems natural...in this verse
Jer2-2 I think there is a symbolic pun...."While walking call out."
....In other words Jeremiah's WALKING is SYMBOLIC of the Jews
WALKING in the desert...that is why he was commanded to give this
Divine utterance WHILE WALKING (normally Divine utterances were
given while standing,in an atmosphere of more respect)--I picked
this example to show the possible richness in using Gerunds and
how they might shed additional light on meaning
{LIST3} {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).
{LIST4} {The list of meanings of root ChVL courtesy of RDQ. All
meanings have a connotation of development over time.
For example BIRTHPANGS are not pains you get at conception
or during pregnancy but come later on at birth. Similarly
Songs 2:15 doesn't mean any type of destruction but rather
a destruction over time...for the wolves don't immediately
destroy the vineyard...rather they destroy the vineyard
by eating and eating eating over a period of time. These
meanings all come from ROPE which is something you pull
up bit by bit over time. We apply this OVER TIME concept
to the SECURITY and therefore ChVL would mean a SECURITY
taken OVER a period of time....That is it is taken after
the time of loan (say when the borrower is asked for the
money and can't return it). Further details are presented
in the footnotes *1}
MEANING VERSE TEXT FOOTNOTE
======== ========== ======================== ========
Security 2-22-25 If you take a security
Destory Songs 2:15 DESTROY (vineyards) *2
Pains Hos13-13 BirthPangs *3
Portion 5-3-4 60 cities the ARGOV portion *4
Plot Prv24-6 Thru plotting make a war *5
Group 1S10-10 A Group of Prophets to him *6
FOOTNOTES:
*1 As mentioned above the contrast of 2-22-24:26 vs 5-24-10:13
shows that the double if (IF you loan..IF you take a security)
could refer to 2 points in time (First you loan and then you
take the security)
*2 The connotation is that they don't destroy the vineyards
immediately. But over time as they eat more and more the
vineyards cannot replenish at that pace and get destroyed
*3 Obviously conception and pregnancy are not painful. Birth
pangs come after a period of time.
*4 The RDQ interprets this to mean ROPE. But about 80% of the
verses refer to actual portions. The RDQ lumps the following
meanings together: ROPE, PORTION (Because it is measured
with a rope), SEA CAPTAIN (Because he uses ropes on his boat)
At any rate the fundamental meaning of rope would denote
pulling something up bit by bit---the dimension of time. This
is particularly true on a sailboat
*5 Plotting denotes mental activity that develops bit by bit
We have some similar terms in English---WEAVE a tale, STRINGS
attached etc
*6 A Group is an informal group---their relationship develops
over time---there is nothing formal but they begin to borrow
and share with each other (In a formal agreement both parties
know what they can take immediately)
CROSS REFERENCES:
v1n1 v1n2 v1n4 v1n19 All deal with DOUBLE NOUNS
v2n10 v1n12 deal with INFINITIVES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
We amusingly acknowledge the STONE translation of the Chumash
These double verbs are translated in 3 ways!!!!
--some are not translated at all
--some are translated as SURELY (You shall SUREY do such & such)
--in one case it is translated correctly as REPEATEDLY (even
100 times)
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
INFINITIVE
MORAL REASONS
DOUBLE NOUN
DOUBLE NOUN
UNIFIED MEANING
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1q25-6
In v1z1-14 (Volume 3 Number 23) we listed
> 1-25-6
as a verse where
> the Hebrew word PILAGSHIM
was spelled deficiently.
But in fact this is an error. PILAGSHIM is spelled FULLY
with 2 yuds!!
Thus we have to reinterpret the Rashi which
>Explains why the word PILAGSHIM is spelled deficiently.
This will be done in a future posting. Very briefly however
Rashis statement that
>PILAGSHIM is deficient
does NOT mean
>PILAGSHIM is SPELLED deficiently (Because it is in
>fact spelled fully).
Rather the statement that
>PILAGSHIM is deficient
means that
>the plural word concubineS refers to ONE concubine, Hagar
In other words it is the MEANING of the PLURAL PILAGSHIM that is
deficient since the PLURAL PILAGSHIM refers to ONE PILEGESH.
This idea however requires more elaboration and will be developed
at a later date.
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*