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 23
Produced Apr, 09 2000
WARNING: USE FIX WIDTH FONTS (eg COURIER (NEW) 10)
Verses/Topics Discussed in This Issue with quicky explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------
v3b5-2
Meaning can be communicated by extra contrasting phrases
in apposition to the rest of the sentence:a) He
forgot--he was impure b) God gives to ADAM all
trees,grass,fruit---AND TO THE ANIMALS (also he gave
these), c) My sword will eat FLESH--HEADS OF ENEMY
v3a18-7
3-18-7 says don't uncover nakedness of father. 3-18-8
says nakedness of father=HIS WIFE.Hence NAKEDNESS OF
MAN=NAKEDNESS OF WIFE.The 3 prohibitions in 3-18-7:8 are
listed climactically:a)adultery b) incest but not
adulterous,c)not incest or adulteress
v3b16-8
The Torah says to send the HE-GOAT to AZAZL. The Torah
explicitly identifies AZAZL as a a) DESERT b) JAGGED
PLACE (3-16-22). AZAZL=AZ(to a hard place) AZL (the he
goat drifts off) Hence Rashi says it was a precipitous
mountain place.Rmbn supplements Rashi
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: v3b5-2
======
v3b5-2 a person who becomes ritually impure to an animal
and HE FORGETS and he is impure
v3c5-2 and is GUILTY
v3e5-3 a person who becomes ritually impure to a man
and HE FORGETS and he (then) knows
v3f5-3 and is GUILTY
v1-1-29 Behold I (God) give you(Adam) all
>grass
>trees
>fruit
to eat. And to the animals (also) I give the grass
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v3b5-2 HE FORGETS means HE FORGETS he was impure
v3c5-2 HE IS GUILTY means while he is impure he enters the
temple (which is prohibited while impure) or he
eats temple food (which is prohibited while impure)
v3b5-2 HE FORGETS means HE FORGETS he was impure
v3c5-2 HE IS GUILTY means while he is impure he enters the
temple (which is prohibited while impure) or he
eats temple food (which is prohibited while impure)
v1-1-29 The verses should be read in apposition.
>Behold I(God) Give you (Adam)
>grass
>trees
>fruit
>for food.
>[and I also give ]
>to the animals
>grass
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
Rashi uses a simple stylistic principle known as APPOSITION.
EXAMPLE 1
---------
Lets give some simple examples: 5-32-42 states
>my sword with eat flesh
This could mean
>he would stab some enemies
>he would kill some enemies
To clarify the meaning of the sentence an EXTRA PHRASE is added
at the end
>my sword will eat flesh...FROM THE HEADS OF MY ENEMY
The extra phrase FROM THE HEADS OF MY ENEMY is in APPOSITION to
FLESH and clarifies it. The sword is cutting off enemy heads.Of
course it could have just stated "My sword will cut heads.." but
sometimes it is poetically effective to state the sentence
ambiguously and then add on the phrase.
EXAMPLE 2
---------
1-1-29 states
>I(GOD) give YOU(Adam) grass, trees, fruits
1-1-30 says
>and to the ANIMALS grass
This sounds peculiar until we understand that 1-1-30 is in
apposition
>I give YOU grass trees fruits-(and I give) TO ANIMALS(also)
--------------------------------------------------------
| QUESTION 1: |
| ========== |
| Can you find other verses where there are dangling |
| phrases. How would you find such verses? What tools |
| would you use? See {LIST1} below for a partial answer|
--------------------------------------------------------
This suggests reading the verses in 3-5 with apposition
>he became impure
>he FORGOT----------HE IS IMPURE
>he became guilty (of doing something while impure)
So Rashi is Simple
>the phrase "HE FORGOT" refers to "FORGETTING HIS IMPURITY"
>the phrase BECAME GUILTY refers
to doing something while impure
(Rashi gives two examples of doing something while impure
a) Going into the temple
b) eating temple (holy) objects)
These Rashis are clarified further by the
>sifsay chachamim
>ramban
Corresponding to Rashis first statement
>he FORGOT = HE FORGOT HIS IMPURITY
the Sifsay chachamim explains that the laws of 3-5 do not apply
if he REMEMBERED HIS IMPURITY but eg thought that the meat he
was eating was ordinary meat and not temple meat. In other
words the sacrifices in 3-5 only refer to cases where it was
the IMPURITY that was forgotten not the SANCTITY of the object
And this emphasis is clearly seen in the verse which states
>he forgot--he was impure
Similarly the Ramban points out that the word GUILTY refers
to some act which is prohibited while impure (like entering the
temple or eating holy food). The Ramban points out that forgetting
you are impure or even being impure(for a lay person) is not a sin
or an act of guilt.
Thus the Ramban on this verse acts as a commentary on Rashi (much
like the Sifsay chachamim). See the COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM SECTION
for some further comments on the controversy between Rabbi Ishmael
and Rabbi Akivah on this verse brought down both by Ramban and MLBM
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
We make two comments
#1) Rashi contrasts 1-1-28:29 with 1-9-3.
-----------------------------------------
We have already seen in 1-1-29 that Rashi explains that Adam
and the animals were only allowed vegetables (not meat). Rashi
then contrasts 1-28-29 with 1-9-3 (after the flood) when Adam
was allowed meat
#2) Controversy of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael
------------------------------------------------
There are two verses
>he forgot -- he was impure
>he forgot -- and he knew (found out)
Rashi as is his usual custom simply deals with ONE aspect of
the Midrash (which is the contrasting phrases). Rashi does
NOT deal with the TWONESS of the verses since there was technical
controversy and the text is not clearer one way or the other.
To explain the basic controversy we introduce
the idea of INITIAL vs TERMINAL knowledge. Thus
>I could know I was impure--INITIAL KNOWLEDGE
>then I forgot and ate holy things while impure
>then I found out--TERMINAL knowledge
OR
>I could eat while impure (perhaps I never knew I was impure
>then I found out -TERMINAL knowledge but not initial
The issue then is when do I bring the sacrifice mentioned in 3-5.
We can now explain the controversy on the TWO verses of "HE FORGOT"
Rabbi Akiva says that the 2 contrasts teach
>'he forgot-he was impure' (but not 'forgot holiness')
>'he forgot-he knew' (he found out at end but not at beginning
Rabbi Ishmael holds that the 2 verses teach
>he forgot-he was impure (terminal knowledge only)
>he forgot-he knew (ANY forgetting--even forgetting holiness
This is compactly summarized in {LIST2} and reproduced here. As
indicated Rashi simply did not comment on the twoness since it was
not clear how to handle it. In this case Ramban was SUPPLEMENTING
Rashi by pointing out further midrashim which Rashi omitted.
{LIST2} {Controversy on interpreting the reason for TWO verses
stating HE FORGOT. Rabbi Akiva holds that only forgetting
impurity requires a sacrifice but not forgetting holiness.
Rabbi Ishmael holds that forgetting anything requires
a sacrifice but you don't need INITIAL knowledge of the
impurity}
BIBLICAL TEXT(3-5-2:3) Rabbi Akiva Rabbi Ishmael
======================= ================== ===============
he forgot-he way impure forgot impure forgot impure
he forgot-he knew initial/terminal forgot holiness
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {A collection of verses where a phrase is added on
at the end to clarify the initial sentence (this is
called apposition since the phrase is OPPOSITE the
initial sentence). Very often these extra phrases
add new meaning while sometimes they are for emphasis
and simply use repetition. Such repeated phrases
usually (though not exclusively) appear in poetic
literature and often appear as 'peculiar verses' to
readers who are not used to it. Although one source
for these verses is Biblical knowledge there are
various secondary sources like Rashi on 2-15-6}
VERSE TEXT
===== ====
Ps92-10 FOR BEHOLD YOUR ENEMIES, God, FOR BEHOLD YOUR ENEMIES die
Ps94-3 UNTIL WHEN WILL THE WICKED, God,UNTIL WHEN WILL THE
WICKED Rejoice
Ps93-3 THE RIVERS LIFT, God, THE RIVERS LIFT their voice
Hos2-23 On that day, I WILL FURROW, says God, I WILL FURROW heaven*1
5-32-42 My arrows will get drunk with BLOOD..the BLOOD..of captives
Isa63-7 The GRACES of GOD will I remember, the PRAISES of GOD*2
Ps147-9 He gives to the ANIMALS food, to the ..RAVENS that call*2
5-32-42 My sword will eat FLESH...the HEADS of..the enemy*2
1-1-28 God gives to ADAM grass,tree,fruit AND TO THE ANIMALS(Also)
FOOTNOTES:
*1 A cute explanation (my own)--2 other (more traditional)
explanations are---I will ANSWER the heaven (Because the
drought will look like a question from heaven for rainwater
(RDQ))----I will DESIRE the heaven (Rav Yonah cited by
the Radack). I have interpreted it in the sense of FURROWS
and PLOUGHING of heaven (to get water) since it ties in
with the follow up statement (I WILL FURROW THE EARTH)
where it does make sense.
*2 Note that in these examples the APPOSITION uses DIFFERENT
words (FLESH, HEADS) while in the other examples the APPOSITION
uses the SAME word (eg BEHOLD...BEHOLD).
{LIST2} {Controversy on interpreting the reason for TWO verses
stating HE FORGOT. Rabbi Akiva holds that only forgetting
impurity requires a sacrifice but not forgetting holiness.
Rabbi Ishmael holds that forgetting anything requires
a sacrifice but you don't need INITIAL knowledge of the
impurity}
BIBLICAL TEXT(3-5-2:3) Rabbi Akiva Rabbi Ishmael
======================= ================== ===============
he forgot-he was impure forgot impure forgot impure
he forgot-he knew initial/terminal forgot holiness
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
Volume 3 Number 18, v5a32-42--verses in apposition
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
OVERALL STRUCTURE
OVERALL STRUCTURE
OVERALL STRUCTURE
OVERALL STRUCTURE
OVERALL STRUCTURE
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3a18-7
======
v3a18-7 the nakedness of your FATHER
v3b18-7 or the nakedness of your MOTHER do not uncover
She is your mother, do not uncover her nakedness
v3a18-8 the nakedness of your FATHER'S WIFE do not uncover
it is the NAKEDNESS OF YOUR FATHER
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v3a18-7 When the Bible says
>don't uncover the nakedness of your father
does it prohibit
>homosexual relationship with your father
>or
>relationship with your father's wife?
The answer is that it prohibits
>relationship with your father's wife.
We learn that
>nakedness of your father=father's wife
from two other verses
>3-18-8 Don't lie..father's wife; it is your fathers nakedness
>3-20-11 He who sleeps with your fathers wife=fathers nakedness
must die....
Thus these two verses identify
>father = father's nakedness
v3b18-7 'the nakedness of your MOTHER do not uncover'
EVEN if she is not currently married to your father
v3c18-7 'the nakedness of your FATHER'S WIFE do not uncover'
EVEN after your father's death
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
The text says
>don't uncover the nakedness of your father
Rashi interprets
>nakedness of your father = of your father's wife
The justification of this happens on 3 levels
LEVEL 1
-------
The justification comes from OTHER VERSES where the Torah
explicitly identifies
>nakedness of father = nakedness of father's wife
Two such verses are
>3-18-8 Don't lie..father's wife; it is your fathers nakedness
>3-20-11 He who sleeps with your fathers wife=fathers nakedness
must die....
LEVEL 2
-------
The Torah explicitly identifies
>nakedness of a man = nakedness of the mans wife
For example in 3-18-14 we have
>do not uncover the nakedness of your fathers brother
>don't come near his wife, she is your aunt
LEVEL 3
-------
We can examine the {LIST1} of all verses in 3-18.
------------------------------------------------------
| QUESTION 1: |
| =========== |
| Can you make a list of verses in 3-18? Can you |
| show the lingual difference between |
| >forbidden relations with a woman |
| >forbidden relations with a man |
| How would you make such a list? What tools would |
| you use? {LIST1} below provides an answer. |
------------------------------------------------------
As is easily seen
>forbidden relations with a WOMAN
are indicated with the phrase
>do not uncover the NAKEDNESS of so and so (eg 3-18-9:10:11)
By contrast
>forbidden relations with a MAN or ANIMAL
is not indicated with the phrase NAKEDNESS but rather by the phrase
>SLEEPING with a MAN/ANIMAL
Consequently if the Torah says
>do NOT UNCOVER THE NAKEDNESS OF YOUR FATHER
it must be referring to
>a woman, your fathers wife
Having established that
>fathers nakedness = adultery with fathers wife
Rashi then goes on to using the principle of CLIMAX to interpret
the 3 prohibitions in 3-18-7:8
>father's wife = an instance of ADULTERY
>mother (even if not currently married to father)
=INCEST but NOT ADULTERY
>father's wife (even after father's death)
=NOT INCEST and NOT ADULTERY
(In other words the Torah's first prohibition (father's wife) is
an instance of ADULTERY--someones wife---the most basic prohibition
and the one mentioned in the decalogue. After that the Torah
prohibits ones mother, an instance of incest but not necessarily
adultery (the point being that 'adultery' is more 'natural' whereas
people are not normally lustful on their mother). Finally the Torah
prohibits relations like a father's wife after the father dies EVEN
if there is no adultery and no incest (because the father died).Thus
the Torah used the principle of Climax. This is compactly summarized
below in {LIST2}
All this is clear and simple. In fact the above interpretation is
the first interpretation listed in the Talmud Sanhedrin 54a.
Ramban notes this fact and then points out that there are several
other interpretations listed in Sanhedrin. Ramban then gives his
own interpretation.As a simple example of these other interpreations
the accepted law is that a man who accidentally sleeps with his
father is liable to 2 sin offerings--one for accidental
homosexuality and one for accidental incest--the point being
that the verse
>do not uncover the nakedness of ones father
is taken
>literally, to refer to the nakedness of ones father
>not (as we have shown above) to refer to the
>nakedness of ones father's wife.
So Ramban's question on Rashi is WHY he avoids these other
interpretations(eg fathers nakedness = homosexuality) which are
accepted as law?
The simplest answer to the Ramban is to suggest that Rashi was
citing the
>BEGINNING of a long Talmudic passage
>and did not cite the WHOLE passage
We have seen other examples of this. For example in posting v2a32-13
in Volume 1 Number 17 Rashi was shown to cite the beginning of a
whole chapter in Shmoth Rabbah without citing the WHOLE chapter.
So too Rashi cited the beginning of the Talmudic page without citing
the whole page. Based on this answer we see that Ramban was not
disagreeing with Rashi but rather CLARIFYING him.
It is easy to see that rashi AGREES with these other interpretations
For example as {LIST1} shows there are only two prohibitions in
3-18 where the prohibtion is formulated in terms of male language
>male language=don't uncover nakedness of man
vs
>female language=dont uncover mans wife nakedness
True Rashi shows that the primary nuance of
>don't sleep with a man = don't sleep with his wife
but the fact still remains that male language is only used in
2 cases. It therefore seems reasonableness to interpret (as indeed
the Talmud does)
>nakedness of man=his nakedness OR his wife's
Finally Ramban makes some comments of his own--for example Ramban
suggests that the simple meaning of 3-18-7 is
>the nakedness of your father=the nakedness of your mother
>do not uncover SINCE she is your mother do not uncover it
In other words the phrase
>nakedness of your father, nakedness of your mother
does not (as Rashi takes it) refer to 2 prohibitions
>your fathers wife vs your mother
but rather refers to 1 prohibition (incest with ones mother).
The simplest way of reconciling the Ramban and Rashi is to suggest
that
>Ramban shows the meaning of 3-18-7 as a verse BY ITSELF.
>BY ITSELF 3-18-7--"Nakedness of father/mother--mother"
>only prohibits incest with ones mother
>
>Rashi however shows the meaning of 3-18-7 IN CONTEXT.
>CONTEXT requires using the principle of CLIMAX which
>perceives the 3 verses as increasing in severity
>3-18-7 Fathers wife=adultery (no incest)
>3-18-7 Mother =incest no adultery
>3-18-8 Fathers wife after death=no incest no adltry
We frequently have shown how the principle of CLIMAX is the
driving force that forces new interpretations. Again we refer to
{LIST2}
The Talmud brings in a number of other issues such as whether
you can infer sexual prohibtions not explicitly stated in
a verse but inferred by a generalization. This is a technical
legal point and while it does affect the law it does not affect
the simple and legal meaning of the text which was Rashis goal.
In terms of our Rashi-Ramban series the Rashi-Ramban dialogue
on this verse is an example where
>Ramban gave the meaning of the verse ITSELF
>Rashi gave the meaning of verse in CONTEXT
>
>Furthermore Rashi only gave the BEGINNING of the talmud
>Ramban SUPPLEMENTED Rashi with the parts he omitted
>As we showed above Rashi believed in the parts he omitted
Such a view on the Rashi-Ramban dialogue portraying them as
complementing and supplementing each other is superior to saying
that they disagreed.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
We note in passing that scholars like LIVNI (and several Jewish
authorities) very often create a schism between
>simple meaning
>talmudic laws
But as can be seen in this example (and many others) this
distinction is specious! As {LIST1} shows the phrase
>don't uncover nakedness of ones FATHER
is peculiar. You don't have to be "talmudic" do understand that
it should say "nakedness of ones fathers wife". There are only
2 verses that use this male language. The simplest way out is
to interpret these verses as
>nakedness of ones father=his nakedness OR his wifes
Hence we have Rashis interpretation
>nakedness of father = his fathers wife
and we ALSO have the Talmudic interpretation
>nakedness of father=homosexual prohibition
(so that sleeping with ones father carries 2 prohibitions).
The above is a simple straightforward interpretation that does not
require a schism between simple meaning and Talmudic law
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {The sexual prohibitions in 3-18. For each verse
we list the verse, WHO IS PROHIBITED, whether the
phrase NAKEDNESS (do not uncover nakedness) is
mentioned and whether the prohibition is phrased
by using male language (eg do not uncover the
nakedness of your father (vs your fathers wife)}
VERSE WHO IS PROHIBITED MALE LANGUAGE NAKEDNESS?
======= ===================== =============== ===========
3-18-7 Fathers wife, Mother*1 Father Nakedness*1
3-18-8 Fathers wife Nakedness
3-18-9 Sister Nakedness
3-18-10 Granddaughter Nakedness
3-18-11 Half sister Nakedness
3-18-12 Aunt (by Father) Nakedness
3-18-13 Aunt (by mother) Nakedness
3-18-14 Aunt (Fathers brother) Fathers brother Nakedness*1
3-18-15 daughter in law Nakedness
3-18-16 Sister in law Nakedness
3-18-17 Mother-daughter Nakedness
3-18-18 women-sister Nakedness
3-18-20 Adultery *2
3-18-22 Homosexuality *3
FOOTNOTES
---------
*1 The verse 3-18-14 continues
>nakedness of your fathers brother--your aunt
So we infer that the phrase
>nakedness of a man = nakedness of his wife
It follows in 3-18-7 that
>nakedness of ones father=nakedness of his wife
Rashi gives other proofs such as 3-20-11
>fathers wife ..... nakedness of his father
which also shows
>nakedness of father = nakedness of wife
For a further proof see footnote *3
As can be seen from {LIST1}, only 2 items on this list
>father
>father's brother
use male language (that is "don't sleep with your father" vs
"dont sleep with your father's wife") The Talmud Sanhedrin
derives from this that homosexual relationship with these
males is a violation of TWO prohibitions.
*2 I don't know why the prohibition of adultery does not use
the language of NAKEDNESS (Which is used by all other female
prohibitions)
*3 As can be seen prohibitions of relationship with a man is
phrased in terms of
>sleeping
while prohibitions of relationship with a woman is phrased
in terms of
>uncovering nakedness
This gives further support to the assertion that
>3-18-7 don't uncover nakedness of father=father's wife
We further suggest that
>nakedness of a man=his nakedness OR his wifes nakedness
So 3-18-7
>dont uncover nakedness of father
Includes BOTH
>father
>his wife
{LIST2} {Climactic development of 3-18-7:8. The prohibitions
increase in severity. The first prohibition is the
most obvious (a case of adultery). The Torah then
prohibits EVEN cases which are not adultery (the women
is not married)}
VERSE CASE ADULTERY? INCEST?
====== ================================= =========== ===========
3-18-7 Father wife Adultery
3-18-7 Mother not married to father No adultery Incest
3-18-8 Father's wife after fathers death No adultery No incest*1
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
OTHER VERSES
CLIMAX
CLIMAX
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3b16-8
======
v3b16-8 And he shall send the he goat to AZAZEL
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v3b16-8 The Hebrew word
>AZAZEL
refers to a
>mountain
>that is HARD
>JAGGED &
>HIGH
as it says 3-16-22
>and the he-goat shall bear all its sins
>to a CUTTING land
>and he shall send the he-goat
>to the WILDERNESS
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
In the description of the DAY-OF-ATONEMENT service in the Bible
it is mentioned that the High Priest sends the he-goat to
>AZAZEL.
But we don't know what AZAZEL means. We can however infer
the meaning of AZAZEL from its description in Biblical verses.
In 3-16-22 we have that
>the he-goat is SENT
>it is sent to the DESERT
>it is sent to a CUTTING LAND
Rashi adds that
>AZAZEL
is
>a HARD LAND
>a MOUNTAIN
It would appear to me that Rashi equated
>CUTTING LAND = JAGGED MOUNTAIN
Rashi does not indicate how he inferred that
>AZAZEL is HARD
(So eg AZAZEL could not be a
>JUNGLE MARSH
which is also
>CUTTING
>WILDERNESS
>AWAY FROM CIVILAZATION)
Ramban comes and fills in this GAP in Rashi. In other words
Ramban explains HOW Rashi new all these things. Thus in this
particular verse
>RAMBAN IS ACTING AS A commentary ON RASHI
Ramban accomplishes this goal by citing the TORATH COHANIM which
cites the same verse, 3-16-22, as Rashi. The Ramban further adds
to Rashi by citing the
>etymology of AZAZEL
Ramban states
>AZAZEL comes from the word
>AZ=HARD
>with a doubling of letters.
This fills in the missing gap of how Rashi knew that
>AZAZEL was hard.
I would like to add one minor comment to Ramban's derivation.
If we go thru the LIST/DATABASE of Hebrew words we will not find
any cases where a
>2 letter root like AZ
>becomes a bigger word
>with BOTH a
>doubling of root letters
>and insertion of an aleph (A-Z-A-Z-L)
My own opinion is that the ETYMOLOGY of
>AZAZEL
is
>AZAZEL = AZ AZL = DRIFTING OFF (azl) to a HARD(AZ) place
(So (the he-goat) drifts off (AZL) to a hard (AZ) place)
This etymology is consistent with the etymologies of other 4/5
letter roots. For example the etymology of
>MMZR (illegetimate) = the BLEMISH(MM) of coming from a STRANGER(ZR)
-----------------------------------------------------
| QUESTION 1: |
| =========== |
| Can you show that 4 and 5 letter words can have |
| their meaning obtained by breaking them up into |
| a 2 and 3 letter word (like |
| >AZAZL(desert) = AZ (to hard place) AZL(drifts))|
| How would you make such a list? What tools would |
| you use? An answer is provided below in {LIST1} |
-----------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {A partial list of 4 letter roots and the
derivation of their meanings as a combination of
two 2-letter roots. This {LIST} was compiled by
using the list of ROOTS in RDKS book of Biblical ROOTS.
The LIST is partial. Readers are invited to submit
other examples}
4 LETTER ROOT MEANING 1st 2 LETTERS LAST 2 LETTERS
============= ============ ============= =================
MMZR*1 Illegitimate Blemished (From a)Stranger
ARAL Angel Lion (of) God
BLAD Except Without (BLi) Others
BRZL Iron Strong (BRi) Branch (ZLZL)
ZLAF Fright Worthless (and) Fatigued*3
SRAF Branches A Pot (ie nest) (for) Birds *2
FOOTNOTES:
==========
*1 There are two approaches to 4 letter roots. Sometimes we try and
see them as 2 two letter roots and sometimes we try and see them as
a 3 letter root with an extra letter. Thus ASTR is explained in the
Talmud as ASR. Rav Hirsch stuck to the 3 letter approach even in
obvious cases--thus he takes MMZR from MZR a rare word in Job.
*2 Note the poetic lisence in e.g.
SRAF = BIRD(AF) POT (SiR)= Something for Bird nests
This type of small poetic lisence is common in etymologies and makes
their study difficult
*3 Note the finer nuances in some translations. For example ZLAF
occurs rarely in TNACH and its meaning is inferred from its context.
The RDQ in his book of ROOTS says its meaning is
SOME TYPE OF FRIGHT....this could go well with
the verse cited by RDK: "fright has overtaken me"
But perhaps a "better" translation is
feeling worthless and tired So that the verse with
ZLAF would mean "worthlessness & faigue has overtaken me"
Then again perhaps there is no way to see which translation
is better
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
Volume 1 Number 3, v1-41-45 for the list of etymologies
of 3 and 5 letter words
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
WORD MEANINGS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*