Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
VISIT the RASHI DATABASE archives AT
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Surfing the Talmudic Seas
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 2000
Volume 5 Number 22
Produced Apr, 07 2000
WARNING: USE FIX WIDTH FONTS (eg COURIER (NEW) 10)
Verses/Topics Discussed in This Issue with quicky explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------
v6-4-7
We will have references to Passover and some summaries
in next 2 weeks. Last 4 issues of Volume 5 bring in a
dozen Rambans and 2 Rambam-Rashis. We show 3 ways Rashi
and Ramban disagree
v3b12-2
The word for birth in Hebrew is CONCEIVE AND GIVE BIRTH.
In two verses the Bible uses the word SEED--this is
interpreted as SEED-CONCEIVE---conceive like a plant.
Either (a) fetus was stillborn or (b) pregnanacy was
smooth like a plant shooting forth
v3b13-3
Leprosy whitness must appear deep under skin not
superficial For example sunburns usually are skin deep
while tans can be superficial. Rashi answers Ramban on
etymology of SAYTH by assuming that SAYTH means
CLOUD-WHITE (SAYTH from NSA means cloud)
v3b14-4
Rashi says that birds which flutter wings alot atone on
lepor who chats alot. (This reading (using FLUTTERING of
WINGS vs CHATTERING OF BIRDS) resolves Ramban's problem
v3-14-9
There are TWO midrashim in the verse: a) GENERAL: Shave
all body PARTICULAR: Shave head, beard, eyebrows c)
GENERAL: Shave whole body===> This teaches that we shave
hair on spots that is VISIBLE and DENSE. But the word
ALL brings back excluded cases
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
RASHI IS SIMPLE
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
RASHI-IS-SIMPLE RULES...Complete set with examples ON BOTTOM
EMAIL: RJHendel@Juno.Com,rashi-is-simple@shamash.org,
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v6-4-7
======
1) PASSOVER
-----------
Several people have asked me Passover questions. I will try
and post their questions. But in the meantime I intend giving
references to many Passover Rashis as well as summarize some
of them
2) Rashi-Ramban
---------------
We have 4 issues left in volume 5. So I am making up the
dozen Rambans I had been missing (We did many postings on
Rabbi Ishmael)
3) Rashi-Rambam
----------------
The 2 Golden series Rashi Rambam will also be included
inthese 4 issues
4) Ramban-Rashi dialoges
-------------------------
In this issue we can see 3 ways Rashi and Ramban dialog
3a) Ramban may just CLARIFY rashi
3b) Ramban may not disagree but raise an UNANSWERED QUESTION on Rshi
3c1) Ramban may point out omissions in Rashi(eg Rashi cited half)
3c2) Similarly Ramban may ocassionally overlook methods in Rashi
These 3 methods seems to cover many Rashi Ramban controversies
They are present in todays digest.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3-12-2b
======
v3b12-2 When a women SEED and Give Birth
v4c5-28 And she shall be pure AND GIVE BIRTH LIKE A PLANT
[Moderator: The text is speaking about a women suspected
of adultery. The Bible proscribes a procedure called the
BITTER WATER CEREMONY wherin she is made to drink BITTER
WATER. If she is guilty (of adultery) she dies. But if
she is not guilty then she is blessed (See Rashi below)]
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v3b12-2 'When a woman SEED and Give Birth'
The Biblical phrase
>When a woman SEED
indicates that EVEN if she gave birth to
a destroyed foetus (that looks like SEED)
nevertheless she still is ritually impure
as if she gave birth to a full child
v4c5-28 '..she shall be pure give BIRTH LIKE A PLANT'
[Moderator: Literally "..she shall SEED SEED"
We have chosen the more palatable translation
"..shall give BIRTH LIKE A PLANT"]
The Biblical phrase
>She shall be PURE
means 'from the bitter waters'
The Biblical phrase
>She shall give BIRTH LIKE A PLANT
means she will have an easy pregnancy
The double verb
>She shall be PLANT(Give birth) LIKE A PLANT
means that her offspring will resemble her (will
not have marred skin etc)
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
A traditional Biblical phrase to describe birth is
>When she CONCEIVES and GIVES BIRTH
However only twice in the Bible do we find the verb form of the
Hebrew word
>ZRA
which means
>for a plant seed to take root
referring to humans.
------------------------------------------------------
| QUESTION 1: |
| =========== |
| Can you show that the Hebrew verb |
| >ZRA |
| which means |
| >TO SEED |
| only refers to HUMAN SEED=HUMAN CHILDREN twice? |
| How would you show this? What tools would you use? |
| {LIST1} below gives some examples. |
------------------------------------------------------
For example the following births all are described with
the verbs
>CONCEIVE and give BIRTH
>
>1-29-32 Leahs birth or Reuven
>1-29-33 Leahs birth of Shimon
>1-29-34 Leahs birth of Levi
>1-29-35 Leahs birth of Judah
>1-30-5 Rachel's birth of Bilhah
More examples are presented in {LIST1}.
As mentioned there are two verses where the word SEED is used to
denote CONCEIVE
>3-12-2 When a woman SEEDS and GIVES BIRTH
>4-5-28 ..and she shall become pure and SEED a SEED
Rashi treats these strange uses of
>SEED=CONCEIVE
by
>extending the meaning of CONCEIVE using nuances of SEED;
>in other words Rashi translates SEED as SEED-CONCEIVES
Thus Rashi interprets 3-12-2
>When a woman SEED-CONCEIVES..she becomes ritually impure
to mean that even
>if she gives birth to a still birth (that looks like seed)
>she still becomes impure
Similarly Rashi interprets 4-5-28 which has been talking about a
women whose husband incorrectly suspected her of adultery and who
has been having a difficult marriage
>she shall SEED-CONCEIVE=
>CONCEIVE like a PLANT=
>she will have a smooth pregnancy.
The important thing in both these interpretations is not the DETAILS
of HOW Rashi interprets these verses but rather the GENERAL idea
that the CONCEPTION/BIRTH is LIKE that of a plant.
The Ramban on 3-12-2 comments on Rashis assertion that
>even if she gave birth to a stillbirth that looks like
>seed nevertheless she is still ritually impure as if
>she gave birth to a regular child
by pointing out that
>if the woman gives birth to a still birth THAT ONCE
>HAD HUMAN FORM but is not deformed she is ritually impure
>
>But if the woman gives birth to a still birth that
>never had human form and is now deformed like seed she
>is not ritually impure (from childbirth).
Conceptually the Ramban is pointing out that we always need the
presence of both verbs (activities) mentioned in the verse
>give birth
>seed (conceive)
In other words the two conditions are ANDed not ORed---if the
stillbirth BOTH looks like SEED and was once HUMAN there is
impurity but if it ONLY LOOKS LIKE SEED and was never human
then the child is not human.
I brought this Ramban because CHAVEL--the English translation of
Ramban---points out in a footnote that
>the RAMBAN was not
>DISAGREEING
>with RASHI but rather was
>CLARIFYING
>him.
This is a position we have often taken in this email group. Thus
it is refreshing to see other scholars that deal with the Ramban
Rashi dialogue to take this dialogue as sometimes indicating
CLARIFICATION vs DISAGREEMENT.
Chaya Chait of my Shomray Emunah Rashi class pointed out some
techical forms of stillbirth--
>an ENCEPHALY refers to a child that has a human form
>except that it never had a head
>
>By contrast a HYDATIFORM MOLE refers to a stillbirth
>that never had human form but does have some
>differentiation (hair, skin, blood etc)
Thus a HYDATIFORM MOLE would not render a woman ritually impure
We were unsure how according to the Ramban an ENCEPHALY would
affect a mother.
Further comments on Rashi on 4-5-28 are brought in the COMMENTS
ON RASHIS FORM section.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
We have left to explain Rashis comments on 4-5-28 that
>the Biblical phrase
>she shall SEED SEED
>means that
>she will give birth to WELL FORMED CHILDREN
>without birth defects
We can simply explain this by noting the difference between
>VERBS
>NOUNS
A
>VERB
denotes
>the PROCESS of doing something
while a
>NOUN
denotes
>an already existing object designated for an activity
EXAMPLE 1
---------
Thus the Biblical phrase
>if he BEDS(verb) on a BED(noun) ...he is impure
implies that he must BOTH
>perform the activity of BEDDING (Sleeping)
as well as perform this activity on
>an Actual BED
In other words if eg he slept on a window pain then he is
not impure because EVEN though he did the ACTIVITY of
sleeping he did not do this activity on a BED--AN OBJECT
designated for sleeping.
EXAMPLE 2
---------
Similarly the Biblical phrase
>if he RIDES on a RIDING OBJECT..he is impure
implies that he must BOTH
>perform the ACT of riding
>on an OBJECT designated for solely for riding
But if he just rides on a matress(which is normally used
for sleeping) then he is not unclean.
EXAMPLE 3
---------
Similarly the Biblical phrase
>he shall return the THEFT he THEFTED
implies that he must only return things that are BOTH
>stolen OBJECTS
>underwent the ACTIVITY of being STOLEN
But if he inherited a stolen object from his father which
he sold e need not return it (Since he did not go perform
the ACTIVITY of stealing)
Other examples are given below in {LIST2}. Using these
examples we can explain Rashi on 4-5-28
>she shall SEED SEED
to mean that she shall BOTH
>go thru the PROCESS of birth
>give birth to an OBJECT with the FORM of a child
But eg she would not give birth to a child who was DEFORMED
but came from a WHOLE LIMBED mother since even though the
mother went thru the PROCESS of BIRTH the CHILD does not
resemble the mother (that is does not have the FORM of
a child)
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {The Bible usually indicates birth by the phrase
>..conceive and give birth
A number of women are indicated below where this
phrase is used. Twice however the word for
>SEED (PLANT)
is used instead of
>conceive.
These two anomalies are explained by Rashi above*2}
WOMAN VERSE PHRASE CHILD BORN
========== ========= ======================= ==========
Eve 1-4-1 Conceive and give birth Kain
Hagar 1-16-11 Conceive and give birth Yishmael
Matriarchs 1-29-33*1 Conceive and give birth Jews
Yocheved 2-2-2 Conceive and give birth Moses
Suspected 4-5-28 she shall seed seed
A Woman 3-12-2 seed and give birth
FOOTNOTES
---------
*1 Similarly 1-29-34:35 and several verses in 1-30-5:7...
*2 Note that the NOUN, SEED is frequently used to designate
the offspring of BOTH plants and humans. However the
verb TO SEED only refers to human conception TWICE.
{LIST2} {Examples of VERB-NOUNS. These laws require BOTH
>doing an activity (Verb)
>using an object(noun) with an appropriate form
For example the Biblical phrase
>if he BEDS a BED he is impure
means that to become impure he must BOTH
>SLEEP (the activity)
>in a BED (an object designated for sleeping)
But if eg he sleeps on a window pain he is not impure
since even though he did the activity of sleeping he
did it on an object that was not designated for sleeping}
VERSE VERB-NOUN THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY IF....
====== ================ ===========================================
3-15-4 BED ON A BED If he slept on a window pain(its not a bed)
3-15-9 RIDE ON A RIDER If he rode on a matress(not made for riding
3-5-23 THEFT he THEFTED If he inherited the theft(he didn't steal)
3-5-23 EMBEZZEL he EMBZL If he inherited it the embezzelment
4-5-28 SEED SEED If the child is deformed(not like parent)
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
DOUBLE PARSHAS | ALIGNMENT
DOUBLE PARSHAS | ALIGNMENT
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3b13-3
======
v3b13-3 & the appearance of the leprosy is DEEPER than the skin
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v3b13-3 Every leprous appearance of white must appear "deep"
the way a sunburn appears deeper than a suntan
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
This innocent looking Rashi is quite deep. I am indebted to
Irwin Nosenchuck of my Lower Merion Rashi class from Philadelphia
for offering me the following excellent explanation--
The traditional way of taking Rashi is that although the leprous
spot should NOT be deeper than the surrounding skin nevertheless
it should APPEAR deeper. As an analogy classical halacha cited
by both Rambam and Rashi compares this to viewing sunlight against
a background of shade:
>"The sunlit portion appears DEEPER than the shadey portion
But everyone whom I have spoken to does not concur. Noone I know
considers a SUNLIT portion deeper than the SHADED portion. Thus
the interpretation of this law remains an enigma
Irwin suggested that the law refers to whether the leprousy appears
only skin deep vs penetrating several layers of skin. For example a
>light sun tan
appears to affect the color of the skin but does not penetrate the
rest of the body. By contrast
>a degree 2 or 3 sunburn
is clearly seen as penetrating the skin into the body. In other
words the whiteness of the leprosy must appear to be an "affliction"
(NGA) that affects the whole body. I believe this to be a
satisfactory explanation of Rashi.
Irwins idea is well documented medically in that there are skin
afflictions that affect the skin only while there are skin
afflictions that penetrate thru the skin. In terms of our Rashi
rules, Rashi is here letting the word DEEP acquire NEW MEANING--
a DEEP wound vs a SUPERFICIAL wound. Rashi communicates this
new meaning by using an analogy.
I brought this Rashi principally to show how to deal with the
Ramban who disagrees with Rashi. But if you look carefully at
Ramban he disagrees with Rashi BECAUSE one of the names of
the leprous spots is
>SAYTH = A RAISING
Since one of the LEPROUS spots means
>RAISING
how can Rashi claim that all LEPROUS white spots APPEAR DEEP.
Ramban even amusingly notes that "APPEARS DEEP" is never
mentioned with SAYTH so maybe SAYTH does not have to appear
deep (only other white spots appear deep)
Although Ramban spends a long time discussing sources nevertheless
it is easy to see that his primary objection is that the name
of one of the leprous spots
>SAYTH
means
>RAISING
It would appear from the Rambans style that if this objection
was answered he would NOT disagree with Rashi.
So I would suggest that the Hebrew word for leprosy
>SAYTH
which comes from the root
>NSA
really comes from
>CLOUD (NSIIM)
and consequently
>SAYTH = CLOUD WHITE.
This is a common way of naming colors (by using an object with
that color). Other examples might come from metals
>gold (metal and color)
>silver
>Copper
So too we have
>CLOUD = CLOUD WHITE
According to the Malbims way of explaining the 4 colors of
white we have
>BAHERETH = SNOW WHITE = BRILLIANT BRIGHT WHITE
>SAYTH = WOOL WHITE=CLOUD WHITE=NON BRILLIANT BUT BRIGHT
>BAHERETH2= MARBLE = BRILLIANT NOT BRIGHT
>SAYTH2 = EGG-SHELL = NON BRILLIANT NOT BRIGHT
So I am conjecturing that CLOUD WHITE and WOOL WHITE are the same.
------------------------------------------------------
| QUESTION 1: |
| =========== |
| Can you show that |
| >COLORS |
| are named by |
| >OBJECTS with those colors? |
| How would you create such a list? What tools would |
| you use? Such a list could not be made with a CD |
| ROM. See {LIST1} below for an answer. |
------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
An analytic way of taking this Rashi-Ramban controversy would
be that
>RAMBAN uses the principle of UNIFIED MEANING
>Every word from the root NSA means RAISED and
>hence SAYTH also means RAISED
>
>RASHI however used the principle of NAMING BY FORM
>As {LIST1} shows many colors are named by FORM--
>that is by objects with that color. Furthermore
>this is naming does not contradict the principle
>of UNIFIED MEANING (A UNIFIED MEANING could explain
90% of the meanings of a verb while 10% could be
due to associations like those of color)
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Colors named by objects with those colors. You cannot
make this list with a CD ROM but rather must use your
mind. The following list comes from Aaron Bitman, Chaya
Chait and Harry Rashbaum from my Baltimore Shomray
Emunah class. (The list is quite colorful)}
COLOR OBJECT OTHER COLORS NAMED BY THIS OBJECT CLASS
======= ======= =======================================
Orange Fruit Lemon, Rose, silk
Emerald Stone Jade, oynx
Green Grass*1
Gold Metal Silver, Copper, brass
White Cloud
FOOTNOTES
---------
*1 Reference is to the Hebrew word YRK which means the color green
(actually yellow green) as well as verdure (Cf the English VERDANT
from verdure)
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
I am indebted to Irwin for his excellent explanation.
(Irwin supplied the idea of DEEP=SKIN DEEP. The explanation
of the analogy in terms of SUNBURN vs SUNTAN is mine)
I am also indebted to my Baltimore Shomray Emunah class
for providing {LIST1}.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
NEW MEANINGS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3b14-4
======
v3b14-4 And he (the lepor) shall take (for atonement)
two pure birds
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v3b14-4 He shall take
>PURE BIRDS
but not
>IMPURE (NON KOSHER) BIRDS
It is well known (5-24-8:9) that Leprosy is a
punishment brought by God because of the sin
of slander.
Therefore the atonement for leprosy is thru birds
For the
>chattering of the slanderer
is atoned for by
>birds who chatter
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
This is one of those Rashis where Rashi was
>not bothered by anything
>there was no problem
>there wasn't even something stylistic to comment on
Rather Rashi goes beyond the text and gives moral reasons
for certain commandments and procedures.
I however brought this Rashi down because of the controversy
of the Ramban. Ramban correctly points out that not all birds
chatter. Ramban then tries to make sense of Rashis
>birds that chatter atone on a slanderous lepor who chatters
Ramban spends a long time including talking about the difference
between OOF and TZIPOR and a variety of other issues.
But it is clear that Ramban ONLY disagrees with Rashi because
>rashi says that birds that atone on the lepor chatter
>but not all birds chatter.
It follows if we answer this question of the Ramban then he
would withdraw his disagreement.
But we can interpret
>CHATTER
as referring to the
>fluttering of birds wings
something which all birds do. So Rashi would read
>let birds who continously flutter atone on a lepor
>who continuously talks.
The use of
>CHATTER
to denote
>fluttering of wings
would use the etymological
>principle of FORM
because BOTH chatter and the fluttering of wings are continuous
activities that generate a commotion. Some other examples of
etymologies based on form might be
>surfing the net (From surfing the sea)
>LOUD dress (like a LOUD noise)
To clarify this principle let us look at the last example
>LOUD DRESS vs LOUD NOISE.
LOUDNESS denotes EXCESSIVE stimulation in the AUDITORY SPHERE.
LOUD DRESS denotes EXCESSIVE stimulation in the VISUAL SPHERE.
Thus we might loosely say that the word is named by FORM. See
{LIST1} below for further examples.
In summary the Ramban's primary driving force for his disagreement
was the QUESTION on Rashi(which he didn't think could be answered)
Once this question is answered it doesn't appear that Ramban wishes
to disagree with Rashi.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
Rashi opens by stating
>PURE birds but not IMPURE birds
This needs no comment and is tautological. For the use of
>PURE, IMPURE
to denote KOSHER, NON KOSHER see eg 1-7 or 3-11.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Etymologies involving transference of FORM to
other spheres (Thus a
>LOUD dress
and a
>LOUD noise
both indicate
>ALOT of stimulation to some sense.
This list cannot be compiled by CD Roms. One must
use ones knowledge of meaning. This list is used
to answer the Ramban's question on Rashi which
in turn generated his disagreement. We suggest
above that the Ramban would not disagree with Rashi
if the question was answered. We suggested that an
adequate answer was that Rashi meant
>let birds that flap-flap alot atone on
>slanderors who chat-chat alot}
USAGE-1 USAGE-2 COMMON FORM
=============== =============== ==================================
LOUD NOISE LOUD DRESS alot of stimulation
SURF NET SURF SEA Slow bumpy journey
BrainSTORM STORM A huge amount of Ideas/Droplets
SIMMER on stove Heart SIMMERS*1 Give energy to idea/food till ripe
CHATTER FLUTTER Periodic rythmic noisy motion
FOOTNOTES
---------
*1 See Ps45-1
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
MORAL REASONS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3-14-9
======
v3-14-9 and he shall SHAVE ALL HIS HAIR
his head, beard and eyebrows
and ALL HIS HAIR SHALL BE SHAVED
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v3-14-9 This verse has a GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL form
>GENERAL: SHAVE ALL HAIR
>PARTICULAR: head, beard, eyebrows
>GENERAL: ALL HAIR SHAVE
Consequently we interpret the law as applying to
all items that are like head, beard and eyebrows
This means all body hair that is
>visible
>dense
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
This law is an ocean of confusion. We have controversy all over
the place. There is Rashi, Ramban, Ramban, Raavad--all say something
different. Furthermore, in interpreting Rashi we have different
interpretations from Ramban, Malbim, Sifsay chachamim RAAM
To save time I shall simply state the simple interpretation
and then comment on controversies below.
First let me explain the principle of GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL.
EXAMPLE 1--GENERALIZATION
--------------------------
This has been explained in v2b25-22, v1n13{LIST1} The basic idea
comes from a Rashi in Pesachim 6 that all laws SHOULD be
generalized.So if 2-21-35 says that if an OX gores then you pay
damages...then a person is liable for the damage FROM ANY ANIMAL
(Ox or otherwise).In other words you generalize the word OX to
include any animal
EXAMPLE 2--GENERAL PARTICULAR
-----------------------------
Since all examples must be generalized it follows that if the Torah
wanted to be SPECIFIC about an example it must restrict them by
giving the general category. So when it says 3-1-2 that "if you
bring sacrifices from ANIMALS then bring CATTLE or SHEEP" it uses
a
>GENERAL: animal
>PARTICULAR: Cattle Sheep
form. This form is used to indicate that AMONG ANIMALS ONLY Cattle and
sheep can be used for sacrifices (but you cannot generalize to others)
EXAMPLE 3: GENERAL PARTICULAR GENERAL
-------------------------------------
But if I want to use an example,
>not to be specific (only this example)
>not to be fully generalized
then I use a GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL form to indicate that
although the example is generalized it is only generalized to
examples like the PARTICULAR CASE. So if the Torah says
>GENERAL: Shave ALL HAIR
>PARTICULAR: Shave head, eyebrows, beard
>GENERAL: Shave all hair
then the person is obligated to shave everything that is
>like head, eyebrows and beard
Rashi explains that the hair on the head, eyebrows and beard
has the attributes of being
>visible hair
>dense hair.
In other words based on the prinicple of GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL
I would not have to shave
>hand, thigh hair-----visible but not as dense as head/beard
>armpit,genital hair--not visible but dense
>nose hair--------not visible not dense
At this point Rashi stops. However the Sifrah points out that
>BESIDES learning from the GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL
form we can also learn from the word
>ALL
which occurs twice in the verse---
>Shave **ALL** his hair
>head, beard, eyebrows
>**ALL** his hair will be shaved.
The word
>ALL
is a
>SPECIAL WORD
meaning
>no exceptions.
Thus the sifra uses the word
>ALL
to include
>hand, thigh hair-----visible but not dense (like head/beard)
>armpit,genital hair--not visible but dense
(In other words the word ALL is used to include all hair that has
>one of the attributes of DENSE, VISIBLE
However nose-hair which has Neither attribute is not included).
In summary, the laws are inferred from two aspects of the verse
>the General particular form
>the word ALL
Once this is realized all flows naturally. See {LIST2}
for a compact summary.
Further comments on the great controversies surrounding this
law are made in the comments on Rashis form section
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
Let me try and clarify some of the confusion with 4 comments
#1) Two Sources---GENERAL PARTICULAR GENERAL & ALL
---------------------------------------------------
The learning from two sources
>GENERAL PARTICULAR GENERAL
>ALL
is EXPLICITLY stated in the Torath Cohanim
#2) Ramban doesn't disagree with Rashi
--------------------------------------
Ramban points out that Rashi only cites the
>GENERAL PARTICULAR GENERAL
principle but not the
>ALL
principle. Ramban also points out that
>GENERAL PARTICULAR GENERAL is learned by Rabbi Ishmael
>ALL is learned by Rabbi Akiva
This is true. There are two ways to take this. We could simply
say that Rashi agrees with the accepted halachah but only cites
ONE MIDRASH and not the Midrash on ALL (Rashi sometimes does
such things). The Ramban is only clarifying Rashi.
We could also say that Ramban overlooked the ALL prinicple
and therefore injected further controversies into this law.
The reader is free to read the Ramban and form his own opinion.
In either event Ramban helps us become aware of the missing
Torath Cohanim in Rashi
#3) The Acharonim
------------------
The Malbim, Sifsay Chachamim, Raam all inject extra distinctions
into the above discussion. Thus malbim discusses
>back of hand hair---visible to all
>genital hair--visible WITH undressing
>armpit hair---visible WITH LIFTING your hand
The Sifsay Chachamim and Raam do similar things. They then use
these distinctions to reconcile Rashi, Gmarrah and Torath Cohanim
We think the method we suggested above is simpler and explains all
laws and derivations. The reader can judge for themselves
#4) The Raavad
---------------
The Raavad looks totally incomprehensible. For he says that the
reason for excluding nose hair is not, as the Rambam says
>because it is not visible
but rather
>because not all people have nose hair!?!?!?!
But this is not true!! Nose hair is functionally necessary to
filter dust during breathing. All healthy people have it. It
is only when people are undersupplied with protein that the hair
would not grow!? Thus Raavads opinion is against medical reality
It is also against all the midrashim!?!?!? Perhaps someone out
there can explain it.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {The 13 principles of Rabbi Ishmael
There are 4 basic ideas (in other words I am only dealing with
4 of the 13 rules but it will be clear that the other rules
all follow). The examples and details clearly show all principles
involved.
This will only be a short summary to a very broad topic. For
further details on any one example see Rashi--talmudic references
are invariablly given. My intent has been to show how the Bible
uses SIMILAR SENTENCE PARTS to convey nuances of GENERALIZATION
and SPECIFICITY. As we go thru the Bible we will develop more
and more these rules till the reader has a firm grasp of them.}
VERSE*1 SIMILAR PARTS-- LAW APPLIES TO RULE
VERSE TEXT FORM
======= =============== ====================== ============
2-21-35When an OX gores Any ANIMAL ANALOGY *2
3-1-2 From ANIMALS ONLY to General
..Cattle,Sheep Cattle, sheep Details *3
2-22-8 On any negligence Movable objects General
.ox,donkey,sheep,dress with worth Detail
On any matter of loss (Not to land,documents) General*4,5
5-14-26Buy ANYTHING you desire Products of products General
..ox,sheep,wine,beer.. earth that are edible Detail
ANYTHING you desire (Not to fish,water,salt)General
5-22-1 Ox,Sheep,donkey,dress Has signs and owners Detail
*7 Any loss article Even small signs(donkey General *4,6
saddle). You have to
return even minor things
(like sheep sheerings)
2-25-22I will speak to you Only prophecies related GENERAL
.. to the Jewish people
what I command to Jews were given there DETAIL
FOOTNOTES:
==========
*1 The meaning of this list should be clear. For example
take the first row. Opening 2-22-8 we see a verse that has
3 parts:
On any matter of NEGLIGENCE (This is GENERAL)
..on an ox, on a donkey. (This is DETAILS)
On any matter of loss (This is GENERAL)
If you look at Rashi (who of course is citing the Braytha or the
Talmud) you will find that the law does NOT apply to EVERYTHING
and it also does NOT apply ONLY to the 4 cases mentioned. Rather it
applies to anything **LIKE** the 4 cases: (Movable objects with
intrinsic value--so the law does not apply to real estate which
is not movable or to documents which PROVE value but do not have
value themselves.
Thus the 4 columns have
a) the verse REFERENCE (2-22-8),
b) the verse CITATION (On any matter...),
d) The verse FORM (General detail General)
c) The LAWS derived from the verse.
This list is explained further below
*2 ANALOGY: The general rule is that anything said in Tnach SHOULD
*******be generalized (in monetary and civil law). So even though
2-21-35 says WHEN AN OX GORES it is legitimate (Rambam Monetary
Torts 1:1) to say that the law applies to ANY ANIMAL that Gores:
The Torah only picked OX because it is the USUAL CASE.
The principle used is ANALOGY (BINYAN AV). (The idea of teaching
by USUAL CASES or by EXAMPLES (instead of principles) is heavily
used in computer science. Several studies have shown that it is
more or less equally effective to teach by example or principle
as to teach by abstract theory.
BUT...if I have the right to GENERALIZE every example then HOW
can the Torah say that something APPLIES ONLY to certain cases.
*3 GENERAL-DETAIL: See 3-1-2: If you offer
************** An ANIMAL
Ox,sheep
If it said "If you offer Ox, Sheep" I would have the right to
generalize it. By using the GENERAL DETAIL form(ANIMAL--OX SHEEP)
I am in effect saying FROM THE ANIMALS ***ONLY*** take OX or SHEEP.
Thus GENERAL-DETAIL form is used to denote SPECIFICITY while the
general form is used to GENERALIZE.
*4 DETAIL-GENERAL and GENERAL-DETAIL-GENERAL:
***************************************** Now suppose you want
SOME GENERALIZATION but not too much of it. This usually applies
when you are giving several example. There are two approaches
to generalization:
---Takes things that resemble ALL the examples
---Take things that resemble ANY of the example
*5 GENERAL DETAIL GENERAL: You use this rule when you want the LAW
********************** to apply to situations that RESEMBLE ALL
the examples. Thus in 2-22-8 there are 4 examples. The common
denominator of the 4 examples are that they are movable objects
with intrinsic value. Thus we exclude from the applicability of
the law real estate (which is not movable) or documents(which
don't have worth themselves).
The technical details of how to generalize always come from
deep Talmudic discussions. Rashis approach is just to summarize
Thus when we say Rashi is Simple we mean we can read the verse
and be aware of the FINAL analysis. But the actual analysis may
be complex, may involve several working hypothesis and may
involve many talmudic pages.
*6 DETAIL-GENERAL: You use this rule when you want the LAW to apply
**************to situations that RESEMBLE ANY of the examples.
The classic example is 5-22-1 (actually 5-22-1 thru 5-22-3).
For a lively "literary" discussion see Rambam, Theft and Loss
Chap 14 Paragraphs 1 etc.Notice how the characteristics of
EACH example are used (you don't have to resemble ALL of them
but rather ANY of them).
Thus you only have to return a lost article if
* it resembles a Dress (is recognizable and has an owner
but e.g. you don't have to return identically manufactured
items that cannot be distinguished one from the other)
* you have to return even minor items like the fleece
of sheep
* you have to return by incidental signs (like the
saddle of the donkey)
*7 Actually 5-22-1 thru 5-22-3
{LIST2} {Summary of what must be shaved and where it is learned
from.The accepted law (according to everyone) is that
the body must be completely shaved except for the nose.
We suggest above that this is learned from two sources--
the principles of Rabbi Ishmael and the word ALL}
Hair Hair Why Rabbi Ishmael All
Organ Dense Visible Prohibited Excludes this? Excludes
======= ======= ======== ========== ====================== ========
head dense visible In verse
beard dense visible In verse
eyebrow dense visible In verse
hand NO visible Excluded Rabbi Ishmael ALL
thigh NO visible Excluded Rabbi Ishmael ALL
armpit dense no Excluded Rabbi Ishmael ALL
genital dense no Excluded Rabbi Ishmael ALL
nose NO NO NO NO
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
v2b25-22, v1n13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
RabbiIshmael
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
THE 2 DOZEN RASHI-IS-SIMPLE RASHI RULES
=======================================
I: RASHI gives MEANING
======================
A: WORD MEANINGS--(eg)"on the face of"=during the lifetime
(v2n6,v4-3-4), http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v4-3-4.htm
B: SPECIAL WORDS--(eg)ACH=USUALLY;USUALLY observe shabbath!
(v2n6, v4-1-49),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v4-1-49.htm
C: SYNONYMS--(eg)YShV=RESIDE; GARTI='INNED'--temporary say
(v1n1, v1-32-5), http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v1-32-5.htm
D: UNIFIED MEANING--(eg)Tz Ch K = (a) laugh, OR (b) mock
(v4n4, v1-21-9), http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v1-21-9.htm
E: NEW MEANINGS--(eg)HEAD-MOUTH of garment = HEM of Garment
(v5n10,v2a28-32),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v2a28-32.htm
II: RASHI teaches GRAMMAR/STYLE
===============================
F: CLASSICAL GRAMMAR--(eg)HEY+CHATAF PATACH=QUESTION
(v2n24,v1b3-11),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v1b3-11.htm
G: USAGE(NEW GRAMMAR)--(eg)INFINITIVE=GERUND;WATCHING laws;
(v2n10,v4-32-6),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v4-32-6.htm
H: ROOT+PREPOSITION--(eg) BCH AL=cries about,BCH ETH=mourn
(v1n14,v1a45-14),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v1a45-14.htm
I: SEMANTIC RULES--(eg) WAGES="ENDoF"="END oF Work Day';
(v1n10,v1b1-1),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v1b1-1.htm
J: STYLE--(eg)REPETITION denotes Endearment;'Abraham,Abraham
(v1n6,v2-1-1),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v2-1-1.htm
K: DOUBLE NOUNS--(eg)HIT HIT by sword ('even without sword')
(v2n20,v2a22-25),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v2a22-25.htm
L: PRONOUNS--(eg) sanctify OTHO = sanctify ONLY IT;
(v2n10,v4a7-1),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v4a7-1.htm
III: OVERALL TEXTUAL STRUCTURE
==============================
M: OTHER VERSES--(eg)STONE(3-25-13)=BALANCE STONES(3-19-36)
(v3n9,v5b25-13),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v5b25-13.htm
N: EXTRA SENTENCES--(eg)he'll dress his measurement=TAYLORED
(v1n20,v3a6-3),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v3a6-3.htm
O: DOUBLE PARSHAS-'he WILL pray'-'he WON'T pray';So Optional
(v3n12,v5a24-14),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v5a24-14.htm
P: CLIMAX-(eg 5-19-11)(a)Hate, (b)spy, (c)confront,(d)Murder
(v3n9,v5-19-11),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v5-19-11.htm
Q: OVERALL STRUCTURE-growing nails=despisement(from context)
(v3n8,v5-21-12),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v5-21-12.htm
IV: IMPLICATIONS & DERIVATIONS
==============================
R: STAGES-learn HUMAN marital frequency from ANIMAL ratios
(v1n14,v1a32-15),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v1a32-15.htm
S: MORAL LESSONS/REASONS-God spoke before punishment;we too
(v2n12,v4-12-9),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v4-12-9.htm
T: RabbiIshmael-(eg)When an OX gores; OR ANY animal gores;
(v2n19,v2-22-17),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v2-22-17.htm
V: OVERALL
=================
U: SYMBOLISM-'WASHING his clothes in wine'=PLENTY of wine;
(v4n18,v1a49-11),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v1a49-11.htm
V: PICTURES--(eg) The TZITZ was like a HELMET over a turban
(v5n12,v2-40-35),http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v2-40-35.htm
W: TABLES/SPREADSHEETS---To appear
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*