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 25
Produced Apr, 19 2000
WARNING: USE FIX WIDTH FONTS (eg COURIER (NEW) 10)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ THE GOLDEN ^^
^^ Rambam Rashi Series ^^
^^ Gold series #6 ^^
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
*****************************************************
* HAPPY PASSOVER HAPPY PASSOVER *
* RASHI IS SIMPLE *
* WILL RESUME *
* April 30th *
* The following issue is a bit technical *
* Please see our last issue for the Passover Special*
*****************************************************
Verses/Topics Discussed in This Issue with quicky explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------
v2b18-21
Rashi uses the principle of climax to derive meaning:
Judges should be a) Wealthy(SKILLED (CHAYIL))b) God
Fearing c) Business men--who write notes of credit
(TRUSTED/TRUTHFUL) d) Who waive their rights in
lawsuits--(Do NOT PURSUE their own wealth).
v5c1-13
In 5-1-13 a) CHACHAM = Wise=Lots of Knowledge b)
NVON=Intelligent--capacity for inference/deduction c)
YDIM SVTAYCHEM=Familiar to your tribes. The etymology of
CHACHAM = WiSE = What (MH) a PALATE(CHCH). A list of
roots ending in MEM is brought.
v5b1-13
The plural word for MAN, ANSHIM, always denotes
Righteous people. Thus a) JUDGES should be righteous
(5-1-13); b,c) Soldiers for Amalek, Midyan should be
Righteous to withstand temptation (2-17-9, 4-31-3) d)
The spies were initially righteous (4-13-3).
v5b1-15
Compare v5-1-13 with v5-1-15. Moses asked for 4
attributes but only got back 3 (Rashi also brings in
2-18-21 which has an extra 3 characteristics that were
not mentioned. Rashi-Rambam Golden Series #6--Chapter 2 Sanhedrin.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: v2b18-21
======
v2b18-21 pick skilled-men
God-fearing men
v2c18-21 truthful men
v2d18-21 people who hate pursuit of wealth
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v2b18-21 SKILLED MEN= Wealthy Men
v2c18-21 TRUTHFUL MEN = Bankers who loan on trust
v2d18-21 HATE PURSUIT OF WEALTH=they try and avoid lawsuits
for their own money
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
The translation given by Rashi
>SKILLED MEN = WEALTHY MEN
does not follow
>the Konkordance
>the meanings listed in the dictionary of roots
>the sentence context
Why then does Rashi give this translation? What principles does
he follow?
Rashi follows the principle of
>CLIMAX
This principle states that when
>a verse contains 4 or more parallel phrases then those
>phrases should be interpreted using the principle of
>increasing CLIMAX
As we review the 4 phrases in 2-18-21 certain phrases seem to
have non specific meaning
>skilled men
>men who do not pursue wealth
While certain other phrases seem to have clear meaning like
>God Fearing
Rambam also in chapter 2 of Sandhedrin states
>"God Fearing" according to its plain meaning
The phrase that occurs AFTER God fearing is
>truthful
Now by ITSELF truthful would simply mean
>Men who tell the truth in business
But this would violate the principle of CLIMAX. It just
said that these people were
>GOD FEARING
It doesn't make sense to say AFTER that that they
>tell the truth.
Rashi therefore REINTERPRETS
>truthful
using the principle of climax.
Very often in the business world transactions are based on
>notes of credit
from people who are trusted. For example if you wished to
purchase lumber or sweaters or cars you don't necessarily walk
around with the cash. Rather you purchase it with a note of
credit backed by someone who is respected and then when you
consumate your deal you pay the person. Hence, Rashi is Simple--
the people who issue these notes of credit are people whose word
is respected..they are
>men of truth
Besides being God fearing (they don't earn dishonestly) they are
also truthful (There word can be trusted for credit).
We can now go back and interpret the first phrase in v2-18-21
>skilled men
The translation
>SKILLED
comes from a rashi on 1-47-6 in volume 1 number 4. As a simple
example Prv31-10 would be translated
>who will find a skilled wife?
Here too, the Hebrew word CHYL is translated as
>SKILLED
The best way to translate this is to borrow a concept from US
Government jobs. US Government jobs are based on
>knowledge, skills and ability (KSAs)
This motto
>knowledge, skills and ability
originated as a reaction against the practices of the last
century when jobs were based on
>WHO you know
rather than on
>WHAT you know
In a similar way the people Moses selected for Judges had to be
>competent, skilled people who could earn their own living
Additionally, they
>were God fearing and
>had a good name that could be used for credit.
Now, and only now, after climatically developing the first 3 parts
of the verse
>skilled
>God fearing
>good creditors
can we get specific with the last term
>they do not pursue wealth
Clearly we cannot interpret this to mean that they don't pursue
wealth since people who are SKILLED, GOD FEARING and issue notes
of CREDIT obviously are wealthy. But again Rashi is Simple,
following the Talmud in Baba Bathra 58
>they don't pursue their wealth in lawsuits
So eg if their is a closing of a house they aren't petty on a
hundred dollars here and there but rather they do not pursue
their wealth in lawsuits. (Clearly such a personality attribute
of not being petty in lawsuits can only happen AFTER you are
rich, God fearing, and respected---otherwise you can't afford
to let people step over you).
To summarize we have translated this verse based on the principle
of
>CLIMAX
In using the principle of CLIMAX we have
>started from the phrases whose meaning is clearest
We may summarize Rashi by stating that
>it is preferable that Judges be prominent, wealthy
>God fearing Business men
since then they will have a knowledge of the business world
(Interestingly the Rambam consistently leaves out a requirement
of wealth for Prophecy as well as for Judgeship as can be seen by
comparing Rambam Foundations of Torah 7:1 with the Talmudic text
on which it is based)
It is interesting that the Rambam Sanhedrin Chapter 2:7 deliberately
violates the principle of climax. The Rambam reorders the phrases!!!
>skilled men = know how to avoid temptations
>God fearing
>hate pursuit of wealth=even on their own money
>Pursue truth = Love truth for its own sake
But how could the Rambam do this? How could he transcribe the
verse?
The answer I would suggest is that
>Rashi explained the Biblical text according to its meaning
>Rambam explained the text based on the Talmud
The Rambams job was NOT to explain Chumash. Rather his job was
to record all the talmudic laws connected with these phrases--even
if some of them did not jibe with the simple meaning of the text
based on climax. We will see below in v5b1-15 that Rashi covers
most of the laws that the Rambam covered. The basic difference is
that Rambam was summarizing talmudic discussions while Rashi was
explaining Chumash
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
PHRASE IN MEANING BASED ON
V2-18-22 PRINCIPLE OF CLIMAX
=========== ===================
Skilled men Earn their living based on ability not politics
God fearing WEALTH that is DESERVED (not thru crime)
Truthful DESERVED WEALTH that is RESPECTED(Good creditors)
Hate Pursuit Does not defend their own wealth thru lawsuits
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
Volume 1 Number 4 v1-47-6 CHAYIL=TRAINED
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
CLIMAX
CLIMAX
CLIMAX
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v5c1-13
======
v5c1-13 Select men that are WISE..
v5d1-13 ..and INTELLIGENT
v5z1-13 ..and FAMILIAR TO YOUR TRIBES
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v5d1-13 "WISE" means "WEALTHY IN KNOWLEDGE"
[Moderator: There is alot of controversy on this
Rashi. See the COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM SECTION]
v5e1-13 "INTELLIGENT"
Rashi explains the difference between
>WISE
>INTELLIGENT
You can make an analogy with money exchangers. A
>WISE PERSON = A RICH MONEY EXCHANGER
He has many currencies available. If you come to
exchange he will probably have what you want. BUT
if he doesn't have that particular currency he will
not be able to help you.
But an
>INTELLIGENCE = A MONEY EXCHANGER WITH CONTACTS
The INTELLIGENT person is not wealthy. But if you bring
him a currency he doesn't have, he goes and finds that
currency.
[Moderator: Rashi does not make explicit the analogy but
it is straightforward
>WISDOM = HAS A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE
>INTELLIGENCE=ABEL TO DEDUCE KNEW FACTS
In other words it is the classic distinction between
>KNOWLEDGE
>UNDERSTANDING/INFERENCE
I have chosen the words WISDOM-INTELLIGENCE]
v5z1-13 "FAMILIAR TO YOUR TRIBES"--So that he is
'known on the street'--people recognize him as a
respectable person]
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
Rashi is explaining the meanings of words. Rashi explains that
>WISDOM = Has alot of knowledge--knows alot
>INTELLIGENCE = can infer knew facts from old ones
There are many other ways to express this distinction
>Knowledge vs Inference
>Wise vs Understanding
We are not particular as to which pair of words is used.
The etymology of the Hebrew word
>NVON
is clear and staightforward. It comes from the Hebrew root
>B-Y-N
which means to
>UNDERSTAND/ DEDUCE
Hence Rashi is Simple
>NVON = Intelligence/Understanding/Deduce/Inference
The etymology of the Hebew root
>ChKM = What (M) a Palate (ChK)
and denotes someone filled with knowledge who has
>knowledge on the tip of his tongue OR
>
>Truth murmured by his PALATE (Prov8-7) OR
>His Tongue speaking thru his PALATE(Job33-2)
>
(In other words while the voice forms sounds it is the
palate that gives articulations and shape to these sounds)
As we have just seen the etymology
>ChKM = What (M) a Palate
is consistent with Biblical verses (Prov8-7, Job33-2) that
use Palate to denote wisdom. We have left to justify the
etymology that the
>meaning of a 3 letter root ending in MM is
>
>XY(MM) = What (MH) XY
>
>CKM = What (MH) a CK (Palate)
This is based on the so called 2 letter theory which we now explain
and prove in this instance.
Rashi believed like everyone else that grammar is based on 3 letter
roots. However Rashi ALSO believed that meaning is based on 2 letter
and 1 letter roots. By the term
>2 letter root
Rashi means any 3 letter root one of whose letters is WEAK(either an
Aleph, Hay, Vav, Yud, Doubled etc). Similarly by the term
>1 letter root
Rashi means any 3 letter root, 2 of whose letters are weak. We can
now succinctly state Rashis belief in the 2 letter theory
>The conjugation of every 3 letter root is determined by
>the rules of grammar found in grammar books
>
>The meaning of every 3 letter root is determined by
>the 2 and 1 letter roots of which it is composed
>In the case of words ending in MM we use the 1 letter
>root MH (as in WHAT a palate)
>
>The proof of this theory can be accomplished by examining
>lists of Biblical roots, their usages and meanings.
(Rashi first expounded this theory in Job38-28 where he explained
>Dew Droplet(AGEL) = a thing (ALEPH) that is ROUND (GL)
so that the meaning of the 3 letter root
>AGL = Dew droplet
comes from
>GLL = round
>ALEPH = thing
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch has fully defended and expanded Rashis
theory that
>ALEPH = thing).
We finish by showing many examples of 3 letter roots ending in MM
that have etymologies similar to CHKM.
EXAMPLES
---------
>NAKED (ARM) = What (MH) Skin (OR)
>RAINY LAND (GShM) = What (Mh) Clodds(GSh)
>SILOUETTE (TzLM) = What (Mh) a Shadow (TzL)
>BUNDLED (GLM) = What (Mh) Rolled up(GLL)
>WISE (ChKM) = What (Mh) a Palate (ChK)
For a full list see {LIST1} below which also discusses exceptions.
We have already in Volume 5 Number 3, v2a18-11 shows that
the Hebrew word
>KNOW = BE FAMILIAR / BE LIKE FAMILY
EXAMPLE 1
---------
Thus the proverbial
>Adam KNEW his wife (1-4-1)
means
>Adam was FAMILIAR with his wife
>Adam behaved like FAMILY with his wife
EXAMPLE 2
---------
Similarly the phrase in Ps88-9 means
>Those familiar with me have separated from me
EXAMPLE 3
---------
Similarly In v5c1-13 we have the phrase
>FAMILIAR to your TRIBES
In addition to explaining the Hebrew term YDA Rashi also
explains the COMPOUND phrase
>FAMILIAR to your TRIBES
From Rashis explanation we can see that FAMILIAR is a valid
interpretation
>(Rashi)If this person came to me (Moses) dressed in a suit
>I still would not know him. But he has grown up with
>you and you all recognize and know him.
Thus the compound phrase
>FAMILIAR to your TRIBES
means more than FAMILIAR--it means that the person
>GREW UP in the TRIBE and is known to everybody.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
There are at least 3 other translation of Rashi on v5c1-13 "WISE"
#1)STANDARD TRANSLATION
-----------------------
>WISE MEN = DESIRABLE MEN (KSF = Desire)
#2)RABBI AKIVA EGER
-------------------
>WISE MEN = BASHFUL MEN
#3) RVVH (HEIDENHEIM)
---------------------
According to Heidenheim the standard translation
>WISE MEN = DESIRABLE MEN
belongs on the previous Rashi
>MEN = RIGHTEOUS (& DESIRABLE MEN)
I have suggested a 4th explanation
#4)HENDEL (Me)
---------------
>WISE MEN = WEALTHY MEN (KSF = WEALTHY)
I justify this translation by the relationship with the next Rashi
where Rashi compares
>WISE MEN **like** WEALTHY MONEY EXCHANGERS
>INTELLIGENT MEN **like** MONEY EXCHANGERS WITH CONTACTS
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {3 letter roots ending in MM whose etymologies are
>XY MM = What (MH) XY
For example
>ARM (Naked) = What (MH) Skin (OR)
Exceptions are discussed in the footnotes *1
The roots were obtained from Radacks book of ROOTS.
As indicated in the text when dealing with words with
lots of meanings it is preferable to use a defense
based on etymology rather than verse usage}
MEANING OF MEANING OF
3 LETTER ROOT = WHAT LAST 2 LETTERS
============= ==== ==============
NAKED (ARM) = What (MH) Skin (OR)
RAINY LAND (GShM)= What (Mh) Clodds(GSh)
SILOUETTE (TzLM) = What (Mh) a Shadow (TzL)
BUNDLED (GLM) = What (Mh) Rolled up(GLL)
WISE (ChKM) = What (Mh) a Palate (ChK)
POWERFUL(ATzM) = What (Mh) a stick (AyTz)
LADDER (SLM) = What (Mh) a mountain road(mslah*2)
DESTROY(CLM) = What (Mh) Destruction* (CLH)*5
PARCHED (TzNM) = How (Mh) Thorny (Tznh)*3
WIDOW (ALM) = How (Mh) Cursed (ALH)
VINEYARD(CRM) = How (Mh) Plowed (CRR *4)
FOOTNOTES
=========
*1 We have explained that
>XY M = What XY
However there are other 1 letter meanings to M--besides
>M= MH = WHAT... (Alot)
>M = MN = REMOVED FROM
Hence we have the etymologies
>Perfume (BSM) = Removed from (MN) Embarassment (BSH)
>South (DRM) = Removed from (MN) Habitation(DiRah)
>Youth (ALM) = Removed from (MN) being on top (AL)
*2 There is a bit of poetic lisence here
>mountain road=Ladder
This is normal in etymologies. Actually the verb SLL
means to "GO UP" against obstacles whether thru a mountain
or otherwise.
*3 The point being that something PARCHED is rough to the touch
(thorny-like)
*4 Vineyards are traditionally more plowed than other farm lands
*5 Both CLH and CLM mean to destroy
{LIST2} {Verses where
>TO KNOW
means
>To be a RELATIVE / FAMILY / CLOSE ASSOCIATE
Notice that we have included the verses meaning
>Biblical knowing of husband and wife
We translate
>so and so KNEW his wife
as
>so and so RELATIVED his wife
>so and so behaved like a relative with his wife}
VERSE TEXT
===== ====
Ruth2-1 And Naomi had a FAMILY member named Boaz
Ps55-14 And you are my teacher, like FAMILY
Ps88-9 My FAMILY has separated themselves from me
Job19-24 My relatives have stopped coming;my FAMILY has forgotten me
2R10-11 Yayhu killed Achav's house, his priests and FAMILY
1-4-1 And Adam had FAMILY RELATIONS with his wife
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
Volume 5 Number 3, v2a18-11 Shows that KNOW=FAMILIAR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
SYNONYMS
SYNONYMS
NEW MEANINGS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v5b1-13
======
v5b1-13 Pick MEN who are wise, intelligent ..
v2d17-9 pick MEN for the war (With Amalek)
v4c31-3 pick MEN for the war (with Midyan)
v4b13-3 all these (spies) were MEN
RASHI TEXT:
===========
[Moderator: I am combining several Rashis into one
since they all say the same thing. The differences
between the phraseologies in Rashi will be discussed
in the COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM SECTION]
v5b1-13 The word
>MEN = RIGHTEOUS MEN
v2d17-9 The word
>MEN = RIGHTEOUS MEN
v4c31-3 The word
>MEN = RIGHTEOUS MEN
v4b13-3 The word
>MEN = RIGHTEOUS MEN
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
A variety of words are used to describe people that are selected
for certain purposes. Let us review some examples(Summarized
in {LIST2})
-------------------------------------------------
| QUESTION 2: |
| =========== |
| Can you find different Biblical phrases that |
| describe |
| >picking people for a war |
| How would you go about finding such phrases? |
| What tools would you use? A partial answer |
| is contained in {LIST2} below? |
-------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 1
---------
A variety of verses (Jer41-16, 1Sam18-5, 1K9-22) speak about
>the WARRIORS, the WAR-MEN (ANSHAY MILCHAMAH)
EXAMPLE 2
---------
Perhaps this is clearest in 5-2-16
>And when the sinful WAR-MEN died
EXAMPLE 3
---------
Several verses Jud20-44 Neh 11-6 use the phrase
>TRAINED-MEN (ANSHAY CHAYIL)
EXAMPLE 4
---------
Jud7-6:8 speaks about the
> the 300 man (Singular) that were picked for a war effort
EXAMPLE 5
---------
Finally 4-32-20:21 speaks about the
>the SELECTEES for war (no use of the word PERSON/MAN)
EXAMPLE 6
---------
There are 4 cases {LIST1} where selectees for war are referred to as
>MEN (Plural) (ANASHIM) (With no qualifier (like WAR-MEN))
To find the meaning of
>MEN (without qualification like WAR-MEN)
we go to 4-13-2:3
>Pick men to spy on Israel, one man per tribe
>and Moses sent them (to spy on Israel)
>
>THEY WERE ALL MEN
The phrase
>they are all "MEN"
has the same meaning here as in English--the word "MEN" does
not refer to their gender but rather to their being distinguished.
So Rashi is simple and explicitly states
>the word "MEN" (vs war-men, trained-men, "man" etc)
always refers to
>Righteous men
Rashi then consistently applies this principle throughout Chumash
Rashi actually compactly presents {LIST1} of all examples where
>MEN = RIGHTEOUS
in his commentary on v4c31-3. This completes our explanation of
Rashi. Several additional comments are made in the COMMENTS ON
RASHIS FORM section.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
We make 3 comments
#1) 3 different Styles in Rashi--Principle--Database--Satire
=============================================================
Note the different phraseologies in the different Rashis
>RASHI PRESENTS THE PRINCIPLE
-----------------------------
>On v4b13-3 Rashi says
>The word MEN **always** means righteous
>RASHI PRESENTS THE DATABASE
----------------------------
>On v4c31-3 Rashi cites the {LIST1} of all
>verses where Rashi comments that MEN=RIGHTEOUS
>RASHI USES SATIRE
------------------
>On v5b1-13 Rashi is satirical--
>What do you mean 'pick MEN'--Did it enter your
>mind that WOMEN could be judges? Rather 'MEN'
>means Righteous men
One can further explain WHY Rashi chose various verses for various
approaches. For example in 4-13-3 it says
>and Moses sent them as spies; THEY WERE ALL "MEN"
As is clear from the CAPPED word this verse is the best place to
state that
>they were all "MEN" = "RIGHTEOUS MEN"
Further comments could be made but this will suffice for now.
#2) Why the men selected for war had to be righteous
=====================================================
In passing Rashi gives a 2nd explanation on v2d17-9. Rashi says
>the men had to be righteous in order to know how to
>withstand the witchcraft (ie advances) of
>Amaleki women since this was a standard war technique
This added (spicy) detail needs no extra comment. (The use of
female soldiers to losen up the enemy in a war was also used
by Midiam in its war effort (see 4-25-18; 4-31-15:17 )
#3) Further comments on why men selected for war were righteous
===============================================================
Rashi explicitly states on v2d17-9 that the men had to be able
to withstand the advances of Amaleki women.
We can make simliar comments about the other war/spy efforts.
For example based on 4-25-18 and 4-31-15:17, the men in the
Midianite war also had to be able to withstand advances.
Similarly the spies (4-13-3) had to be able to withstand
the fear of the Canaanites.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {The 4 Rashis where
>MEN = RIGHTEOUS
Rashi himself produced this list at v4c31-3}
VERSE PHRASE MEN picked for Rashi
======= ====== =============== ==================================
v5b1-13 MEN Judges Have to be righteous
v2d17-9 MEN War with Amalek Righteous; can withstand females
v4c31-3 MEN War with Midyan Righteous; Can withstand females
v4b13-3 MEN Spies Righteous; will support conquest*1
FOOTNOTES
=========
*1 IN other words their righteousness will help them not be afraid
of the power of canaan. The spies were expected to support the
belief that God could help them overpower the Canaanites who
were a powerful nation.
{LIST2} {Alternative phrases to describe
>selectees for a war/spy process
Note the rich variety of phrases including phrases
not involving the word "man/people". Only 1 of these
6 phrases denotes RIGHTEOUS MEN. This list could not
be made with a CD-ROM but had to be made by knowing
the Bible.}
VERSE DESCRIPTION OF SELECTEES FOR WAR
========= =================================
Jer41-16 WAR-MEN
1Sam18-5 War-men
1K9-22 War-men
5-2-16 War-men*
Jud20-44 Trained-men
Neh11-6 Trained-men
Jud7-6:8 Man (Singular)
4-32-20:21 Selectees
v5b1-13 MEN
v2d17-9 MEN
v4c31-3 MEN
v4b13-3 MEN*
FOOTNOTES
=========
*1 Explicitly described as sinful
*2 From the phrase "They were all 'MEN'" we infer that
>MEN = RIGHTEOUS MEN
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
SYNONYMS
SYNONYMS
SYNONYMS
SYNONYMS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v5b1-15
======
v5b1-15 And I took ...WISE and WELL KNOW PEOPLE
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v5b1-15 If we compare 5-1-13 with 5-1-15 we have
{LIST4} {Comparison of
>WHAT Moses ASKED for in Judges (5-1-13,2-18-21)
>What was GIVEN to him (5-1-15) *1}
Count 5-1-13 & 2-18-21 5-1-15
===== ================ ===========
1 GOD FEARING God Fearing
2 WISE WISE
3 INTELLIGENT *1
4 WELL KNOWN WELL KNOWN
5 Wealthy
1 (God Fearing)
6 Men of Credit
7 They waive law suits
FOOTNOTES
=========
*1 As can be seen Moses requested 7 attributes from Judges
But the people only gave Judges that had 3 attributes
The language of the Midrash Rabbah is cited by Rashi
It appears to me that from this contrast of verses Rambam
and Rashi derived that Judges
>SHOULD PREFERABLY HAVE the 7 attributes
>but NEED NOT have them
(That is if the judge did not have the 7 attributes he
is still a valid judge)
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
{LIST5} {Chapter 2 of Courts, Rambam. Each law is listed with
the verses form which it is derived as well as whether
Rashi or Rambam cited it. Rashi and Rambam are
equal in citation of verses in this chapter. The use
of verse derivations solves numerous contradictions and
ambiguities in the Rambam!}
Verse Is Is
From Verse Verse
Which Cited Cited
Paragraph By By
Par Text of Paragraph Note Is Inferred Rambam Rashi
=== ================================== ==== =========== ====== =====
1 Sandhedrin should have people who
a)are men
b)are wise
c)are intelligent *1 5-1-13 Yes Yes
Sandhedrin should have people who
a) are non converts
b) are non illegitimate *2
2 In a Sandhedrin its better to have
a) Priests, Levites *3 5-17-8:9 Yes No
b) If not, Israelites are OK
3 Sandhedrinees should have children
a) Not castratees *2
b) Not very old people
c) People who never had children
4 For a Sanhedrin
a) Kings are inadmissable *4 2c23-2 No Yes
b) HIgh Priests are admissable
5 a)Davidic kings can judge nation
b)Davidic kings can be sued
c) Israelite kings can't judge *4 NA
d) Israelite kings cant be sued
6 Sanhedrinees should be
a) Tall
b) Mature looking
c) Good looking *2
d) Skilled speakers
e) Know most languages
7 People on courts of 3 should have *5a 2-18-21 Yes Yes
a) WISDOM 5-1-13
b) Humility
c) Fear
d) Hate money
e) Love of truth
f) Loved by fellow man
g) Have a good name
f1) A good eye
f2) A humble spirit
f3) Good company
f4) Pleasant in business
h) Men of Valiancy
h1) Govern their temptations
h2) They have no gossip on them
h3) They try and save people *5b
h4) humble
d1) Don't pursue lawsuits
d2) Don't pursue wealth
e1) Love truth for its own sake
e2) Hate theft
e3) Avoid all corruption
8) They would seek qualified people *6
Make them judges in their city
From their they go to Jerusalem
They work their way up till..
They reach the Great Sanhedrin
9) a)Converts invalidate a court of 3 *2 4-35-25 No No
b)Illegitimates do not invalidate 2-23-2 Yes Yes
A one eyed blind person
c) invalidates a court of 23
d) doesn't invalidate a court of 3
A 2-eye person always invalidates
10) a) Courts should have 3
b) One may judge if expert *7 2-23-2 Yes Yes
c) 2 may never judge 5-17-8
11) One may judge if *7 2-23-2 Yes Yes
a) they are community experts 5-17-8
b) they received permission
c)It is still better to have 3
12) A LAYMAN may judge FOR HIMSELF *7 2-23-2 Yes Yes
a) If the law was correct and 5-17-8
b) He has the power
c) Even if he could go to court
His judgement then stands if
a) the defendant accepted him
b) the case was tried correctly
13) Its preferable to have MORE *7 2-23-2 Yes Yes
a) A court of 10 better than 11 5-17-8
Have as many as possible
14) Don't sit down on a bench UNTIL *8 5-16-20 No Yes
You know who is sitting with you 3-19-15
2-23-1
FOOTNOTES
---------
*1 Rambam as is his usual custom goes into the
>specific consequences of the law
The statement that
>they have to be knowledgeable
means they have to know all laws
>astronomy for calendars
>idolatry for idolatry cases
*2 We now explain the following laws. On a Sanhedrin there should be
PARAGRAPH 1: No converts
No illegitimate
PARAGRAPH 3: No OLD/No Children/Castratees
PARAGRAPH 6: Sanhedrinees should be tall, good looking
PARAGRAPH 9: No converts on a court of 3
Illegitimates don't invalidate a court of 3
One eyed blind don't invalidate a court of 3
One eyed blind invalidates a court of 23
Two eyed blind invalid on all courts
No Converts on a court of 3
Chap 12:11 Yes Converts on a court of 3!(Contradicts preceding
Witnesses16:6Following can't judge
2 Judges who like/dislike
Converts
Following can't judge in a court of 23
Person without children
illegitimate
Castratees
One eyed blind
The Talmud SEEMS to say (and the Rambam quotes it) that
>Judges should be free of blemish like Priests!!!
Actually we will give a slightly different derivation
which avoids some of the contradictions.
2a) Even a person who takes the law into his own hands is valid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rambam explicitly says this in Paragraph 12 (See footnote
*7 for a derivation) We IMMEDIATELY infer that ANYONE who
judged monetary law is valid (for how could any court of 3 be
inferior to a person who takes the law in his own hand)!!
2b) Nevertheless to BEGIN with one shouldn't judge for himself
--------------------------------------------------------------
In other words I am making the classical distinction between
>what one should do (Don't take law into ones hand)
>What happens if you went and did it (If you did take
the law into ones own hands is it valid though you
shouldn't do this to begin with)
2c) Just as you shouldn't take law into ones own hand you also
should not go to a court with converts (but illegitimates
are ok) BUT if you did go to converts the law is valid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The reason for this distinction is presented in footnote *7
The sole reason for having a court of 3 (instead of 1) is
to ENABLE THE POSSIBILITY OF DISAGREEMENT AND MAJORITY RULE
(2 and 1 person courts can't have majorities).
Being a convert is something visible (since for part of ones
life one was not Jewish). Therefore the possibility of
mature disagreement and majority rule is not fully possible
Indeed people will tend to blame the disagreement on his
being a convert. People might say
>well of course he disagrees...he was once a non
>jew and this is the way non-jews judge things
Hence one should not allow a court with a convert but if
one did allow it it is valid (since even a 1-person court
is valid)
By contrast people will not blame illegitimacy since the
illegitimate did not come from another CULTURE but
rather came from an UNHOLY UNION. The disagreements of the
illegitimate cannot be blamed on HOW HE WAS BROUGHT UP
since he was brought up in a Jewish environment
2d) Courts of 3 should preferably be tall good looking people
---------------------------------------------------------
Again the reason for the law is to encourage MANY OPINIONS
and MAJORITY RULE. If one Judge is deformed or ugly looking
people are a bit less likely to respect him--or else they
say that he tries to show off to compensate for his bad
looks.
The Rambam explicitly says (Paragraph 7)
>We are NOT PARTICULAR about Good Looks for a court of 3
Thus the difference between the requirements of
>no convert
>no illegitimate
>Good looks
is that
>we don't SEEK Good looking judges (but if
>2 equal candidates come we PREFER the Good
>looking one)
>we DO seek no illegitimates...but once a
>3 person court is formed and has a history
>we do not break them up
>we DO seek no converts and if a court has
>been operating and found to contain
>converts than we break it up
>But in all 3 cases the judgements of the
>court if rendered are accepted (since
>indeed even taking the law into ones own
>hand is legitimate)
Again the fact that the Rambam believes this is
inferred from his explicit statements
>we are not particular about GOOD LOOKS(Par 7)
>taking the law into ones own hand is ok(Par 12)
>converts may judge monetary cases(12:11)
>a court with converts is blemished (2:9)
2e) We ARE PARTICULAR about these things in a court of 23
We dissolve courts which have
>castratees
>one eyed people
------------------------------------------------------
A court of 23 deals with CAPITAL cases. CAPITAL cases
besides having the 3-person-court requirement of
>varied opinions and majority
also has a requirement of
>and the court shall save him (Nu 35:25)
In other words there is a requirement in Jewish law
that courts TRY AND SAVE A PERSON from a death penalty
So Rambam (11:1) lists numerous laws showing how a
court tries and saves a person. For example
>you open arguments with SAVE HIM
>you require a 1-person majority to acquit
and a 2-person majority to convict
Hence a CASTRATEE who is not as merciful as most people
should NOT be on the court (and if he is it invalidates
the court because the SAVE HIM requirement is absent).
Similarly a one-eyed person does not have depth vision
and if he is on the court cannot offer DEPTH VISION
DEFENSES (A favorite among lawyers and on TV shows)
to SAVE THE DEFENDANT. Again the SAVE HIM requirement
is absent and hence the court is dissolved and the
judgement not accurate.
But if someone is not good looking, then the court
is not dissolved but its judgements are valid since
both the requirements
>majority rule-many opinions
>save him
have been fulfilled. The only minor problem is that
people make fun of Bad looking people so we prefer
to SEEK OUT TO BEGIN WITH only good looking judges.
(This last point of mine differs from many other
commentators but appears the simplest way out
of the many contradictions. According to this
>a 1-eyed person invalidates the court
>a bad looking person does not invalidate
But you should seek out both to begin with
We have been lengthy here because of the great
controversy and contradictions as well as the numerous
talmudic derivations. I believe my approach is tenable
and solves many problems.
Note how the use of verses removes ambiguity
in the Rambam. Thus to study the Rambam you need not only
a Gmarrah but also a Tnach. In this case the Tnach actually
gives rise to Briskian type concepts (eg a court should
possess "majority capacity" and "SAVE HIM" capacity)
*3 The Sifray on 5-17-8:9 derives the law that
>It is preferable to have priests
>but it is not necessary
from the structure of 5-17-8:9 which
is a GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL structure
>GENERAL: You will go to GODS PLACE
>PARTICULAR: To the Priests Levites
>GENERAL:To the JUDGE of that day
Thus it is preferable to have Priests/Levites
But the law is we only need have items that
>RESEMBLE the particular case
So it is sufficient if we have
>People of proper family
The Rambam actually cites 4-11-16
>and they shall stand their WITH YOU
We have already explained based on the Malbim
that there are two ways to say
>WITH YOU
in Hebrew. The two methods are
>IMACH = an EQUAL WITH YOU
>ITACH = a SUBORDINATE WITH YOU
This was explained in volume 3 number 13 in v2c22-24
See {LIST1} below for a recap of this principle
Since the Biblical phrase here is
>IMACH = the sandhedrinees were EQUALLY WITH YOU
we infer that they should resemble Moses.
Nevertheless this does not tell us HOW they should resemble
Moses. It is for this reason that I brought down 5-17-8:9
The Rambam probably thought that 5-17-8:9 is obvious since
it explicitly mentions
>PRIESTS LEVITES
and therefore he brought down the extra verse 4-11-16.
*4 As we showed in Volume 4 Number 16, v2c23-2
the deficiently spelled verse reads
>don't answer back the leader
From which we get this law. The statements
that
>a High Priest may be on Sandhedrin
as well as the statements in the next paragraph
>don't try Israelite kings (because they
might use force to get their ways)
were rabbinic laws based on some bitter experiences
*5a This was analyzed in v2b18-21. We showed there that
>RAMBAM cited all Talmudic drashs
>RASHI gave the simple meaning of the text
The text of the Mishneh Torah shows that Rambam keeps on adding
attributes and is not his usual concise self. By
contrast Rashi enumerates exactly the 7 attributes
listed in the Biblical text. These 7 attributes
encompass most of the Rambam's attributes.
The 7 attributes according to Rashi are
>1)Wealthy
>2)God fearing
>3)Trusted (issue notes of credit)
>4)Waive lawsuits
>
>2)Righteous people (Same as God fearing)
>5)Wise
>6)Intelligent/Understanding
>7)Familiar to your tribes
(So I am conjecturing that according to Rashi the phrases
>Righteous (5-1-13) = God fearing (2-18-21)
This would give exactly 7 attributes between 5-1-13 and
2-18-21 (Which is how many the Devarim Rabbah counts)
Rashi was following the Midrash Rabbah
>Whoever does not have the 7 attributes listed
>in these 2 verses should not be a judge
from which we infer there are 7 attributes)
Notice how Rashi requires that judges be
>prominent God fearing wealthy business men
This makes sense since business people respect a judge who
"knows what goes on in the business world"
Rambam disagrees. He says that Judges should
>hate pursuit of wealth
So the Rambam disagrees with Rashis requirement of wealth
The Rambam in not requiring WEALTH is consistent! Indeed
the Rambam also left out WEALTH in Chapter 7:1 of the laws of
Foundation of Torah. The Talmud Nedarim 35 says that God
only prohesies someone who is
>wise
>conquers his passions
>WEALTHY
But the Rambam leaves out the wealthy requirement (according
to the Ksf Mishnah the Rambam simply requires that the person
>be happy with his lot)
Thus the Rambam consistently leaves out wealth--as already
explained the requirement of wealth is good for a judge since
people respect more someone who "was there." Perhaps therefore
the Rambam requires
>WEALTH which was achieved WITHOUT PURSUING IT
It is then no wonder that they couldn't find wealthy judges.
In passing, Rebbe (The author of the Mishnah was such a person)
*5b In summary Rambam disagrees with Rashi concerning the
requirement of wealth. Rambam also SEEMS to disagree
with Rashi by requiring that Judges resemble Moses
>judges should be humble like Moses (4-12-3)
>judges should get up to save people like Moses(2-2-17)
How can we explain these ADDITIONS of the Rambam
But Rambam takes note of what we have explained that these 7
requirements are
>preferred attributes
>but not essential attributes
(you can have judges without them) We have already seen that
Rashi derived this non-necessary attribute from the contrast of
>5-1-13 "..only have judges with 7 attributes"
>5-1-15 "..the people brought judges with 3 attributes"
So the focus of these laws is not to list REQUIREMENTS but
rather to list EXTRA NICE THINGS
The Rambam therefore based on 4-11-16 lists EXTRA NICE THINGS
>all other characteristics of judges such as those of Moses
Rashi admits this law implicitly since Rashi explicitly says
that it was OK for judges not to have all 7 attributes.
Rambam simply concretizes the non essentiality by giving
extra Mosaic type attributes
>humility (4-12-3 And Moses was very humble)
>the desire to get up and fight for people such as
the way Moses fought to save Jethro's daughters by the
well 2-2-17.
We could say more but I believe this summarizes most of what
is needed here. Note how the use of verses removes ambiguity
in the Rambam. Thus to study the Rambam you need not only
a Gmarrah but also a Tnach.
*6 Clearly this is only
>historical information
*7 There are many laws here and their derivations
seem to be complicated. Let us therefore
enumerate them simply.
a) IF there is a conflict in the court go after the majority
---------------------------------------------------------
This law is derived from 2-23-2 ("Follow the majority")
This law IS NOT mentioned in Chapter 2
Rather this law is mentioned by Rambam in Chapter 8
Rashi does not mention this law explicitly but implicitly
(Rather Rashi interprets 2-23-2 that you should not follow
a majority if they are deliberately deviating from the law)
b) But you only need to go to court if you don't know the law
----------------------------------------------------------
If would appear to me that this law is derived from
>5-17-8 When you don't know a law go up to the ..courts
Neither Rambam nor Rashi give this Scriptural verse
In fact they do not give any scriptural support
It further appears to me that from this law (that you
only need a court to
>CLARIFY the law
not to
>PRONOUNCE the law)
that we may infer that
c) A person who took the (correct) law into his own hands is OK
------------------------------------------------------------
For the person was not obligated to go to court except to
CLARIFY the law and it was clear to him. If it turns out
that the law was correct there need not be any retraction
So this is derived from 5-17-8 (and again neither the Rambam
Rashi or the Gmarrah derive this law from ANY verse)
Similarly we can derive from 5-17-8 that
d) A single person (expert) is allowed to judge
---------------------------------------------
For the sole purpose of a court is to CLARIFY the law not
to pronounce it.
As I have already said I would derive this law from
>5-17-8 When you don't know a law ..go up to the courts..
A further derivation could be derived from the explicit
precedent
>2-18-13 Moses Judged the nation from morning to evening
I was therefore surprised when Rambam derives this law
from
>3-19-15 Judge your colleague with righteousness!!
Rambam observes that the singular is used
>JUDGED
and therefore we infer
>that ONE person can Judge
But this is a surprising derivation since a singular
verb is very often used for a plural subject so you
really can't derive anything from this verse.
Furthermore EVEN if you could derive something from
this verse there is a set of 4 laws
>1 expert can judge
>taking the law into your own hands is OK
>a court of 11 is preferable to a court of 10
>it is better to have 3 than 1
and they are ALL neatly derived from the 2 verses
>judge by the majority
>(only) Go to court when you have a doubt
Thus I am totally bewildered as to why the Rambam
selected this other verse (As already indicated
2-23-2 is not mentioned by Rambam till Chapter 8)
e) It is better to have a court of 11 then 10
f) It is better to have a court of 3 than 1 (expert)
--------------------------------------------------
This is obviously derived from
>2-23-2 Follow the majority
Although the main import of 2-23-2 is
>follow the majority when there is conflict
>Rabbinically it was interpreted to mean
>CREATE MAJORITIES
>HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE
Again neither Rambam nor Rashi give an explicit verse
for this law
g) It is prohibited to have a court of 2
-------------------------------------
Note how a court of 1 is permitted but 2 isnt and 3 is
This is clearly a Rabbinic implementation of
>follow the majority (And 2 can never have a majority)
The Rambam always uses the word
>SOFRIM
to denote Rabbinic IMPLEMENTATIONS of Biblical law (in
contrast to fences to Biblical laws)
In summary I think it clear that these 4 paragraphs in Rambam
are derived from
>2-23-2 follow the majority
>5-17-8 Only go to court when you have a doubt
But neither Rambam, Rashi nor the Gmarrah
derives these laws.
*8 The requirement of
>knowing who you sit with
is obviously a derivative of the following laws
>5-16-20 Righteousness Righteousness pursue
RASHI: Pick a "nice" court
>3-19-15 Judge your colleague with righteousness
>2-23-1 Don't put your hand with a wicked person
Of these 3 verses 5-16-20 seems the most likely candidate
Interestingly Rashi DOES bring the verse but Rambam does
not.
(The Rambam in Testimony 17 and 10 refers 2-23-1 to joining
a false witness (even if he is telling the truth and
even if just to stand with the false witness to scare the
person into admitting the truth---Rashi also applies this
to witnesses. So perhaps the law should be derived from here)
(Similarly Rambam applies 3-19-15 to the requirement of
haveing at least 3 (not 1) on a court. He certainly does
not apply it to
>knowing who your colleagues are)
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Summary of laws learned from WITH(IM) vs ACCOMPANY(ETH)
For full discussion see the text above. The footnotes
fill in relevant sources and comments. Several verses
are brought where the principle applies but is not
brought down by Rashi. This is explained in the
COMMENTS ON RASHIS FORM section}
VERSE PRONOUN LAW learned from WITH/ACCOMPANY
======== ================== =======================================
v2-22-24 WITH the poor Be empathic to his poverty *1
v1-39-10 be WITH her SHARE with her in hell *2
v5-14-27 inheritance WITH*3 Levite inheritance SUBORDINATE on others
v3-25-41 WITH his children Children and slave SHARE from master *4
v5-22-4 Lift WITH him *5 Lift up animal only if owner helps also
v3-19-13 worker SUBORDINATE Only if hirer pays *6
v5-15-16 Slave WITH you Slave and master SHARE food,housing *7
v4-22 Bilam/Moab Many verses with WITH/ACCOMPANY *8
FOOTNOTES
=========
*1 eg The Midrash Rabbah story of purchasing 2 cuts of meat..
one for the poor and one for oneself (Showing empathy with
the poor)
*2 Joseph would be WITH Potiperah not ACCOMPANY her. I think
the reference is to killing her husband and marrying him and
becoming her equal
*3 eg Levite gifts depend on people giving to him. Levite
cities gave asylum to accidental murderers (sometimes rent-free)
*4 So the SLAVE and CHILD are WITH each other (both get from
master). If the CHILD received from the SLAVE then the CHILD
would ACCOMPANY the slave
*5 If the owner helps then you and owner are WITH each other
in lifting. If the owner sits on the side and says 'You lift--
it is your mitzvah' then the owner is subordinate and there
is no obligation.
*6 If the hirer and worker agree to a 3rd party payment
then hirer and worker are WITH each other(and there
is no Biblical violation in delaying payment). It is
only when the worker directly pays the hirer that the
worker is SUBORDINATE/DEPENDENT/ACCOMPANYING hirer.
*7 The slave is WITH the master. He must get the same
type of food, housing, drink, clothing.
*8 See {LIST3}
{LIST2} {Expressions denoting physical intimacy. In Biblical
Hebrew the verb used is ShCV and the pronouns used
are IM (Sleep With) or ETH (Sleep of-e.g by rape)
(In modern Hebrew I believe they use
YSHN as well as ScCV). The phrase SLEEP BESIDES
only occurs once and is therefore translated as to
lie together without full intimacy.}
VERSE PRONOUN ACT DESCRIBED
======= ======= =============
5-27-22 WITH Adultery
5-27-21 WITH Besitality
5-27-20 WITH Incest*1
1-34-7 OF Rape*2
3-20-11 OF Incest*1
3-20-13 OF Homosexuality
1-39-10 BY Share a bed without intimacy
FOOTNOTES
*1 Incest can have EITHER the SLEEP WITH or SLEEP OF form
By contrast...
*2 Rape ONLY has the SLEEP OF form. It would be an interesting
question to find out the rules governing pronoun usage.
{LIST3} {List of verses dealing with Bilam going to Moab. The
sequence which at first glance looks contradictory is
explained by emphasizing the pronouns WITH YOU/ACCOMPANY YOU
VERSE TEXT COMMENT ON WITH/ACCOMPANY
======= ========================== ===============================
4-22-12 Don't go WITH the Moabites eg Give advice to destroy jews
4-22-20 You can accompany them eg for money if they hire you*1
4-22-22 Bilam went WITH them not for hire but to give advice
4-22-34 Bilam apologizes for going WITH vs ACCOMPANYING
4-22-35 You can go WITH THEM but ONLY say what you are told*2
FOOTNOTES
=========
*1 Rashi
*2 The difference between v4-22-20 and v4-22-35 is that in 4-22-20
---Bilam was told to accompany them ie as a consultant who
transmitted Gods words
---but ONLY say what God commaned
In 4-33-35
---Bilam was told to go WITH them (ie eager to see the destruction
of the Jews)
---but ONLY say what God commanded.
In both verses Bilam was only allowed to say what God commaned.
But in 4-22-20 he was told not to hate them. Bilam apologized
to God in 4-22-34 for violating the prophetic order and then
God allowed him to go with his present emotional state but only
say what God had commanded.
Many of these comments are supported by Rashis and Midrashs--we
will fully study them in a later digest.
{LIST4} {Comparison of
>WHAT Moses ASKED for in Judges (5-1-13,2-18-21)
>What was GIVEN to him (5-1-15) *1}
Count 5-1-13 & 2-18-21 5-1-15
===== ================ ===========
1 GOD FEARING God Fearing
2 WISE WISE
3 INTELLIGENT *1
4 WELL KNOWN WELL KNOWN
5 Wealthy
1 (God Fearing)
6 Men of Credit
7 They waive law suits
FOOTNOTES
=========
*1 As can be seen Moses requested 7 attributes from Judges
But the people only gave Judges that had 3 attributes
The language of the Midrash Rabbah is cited by Rashi
It appears to me that from this contrast of verses Rambam
derived that Judges
>SHOULD PREFERABLY HAVE the 7 attributes
>but NEED NOT have them
(That is if the judge did not have the 7 attributes he
is still a valid judge)
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
Volume 4 Number 16 v2c23-2
Volume 3 Number 13 v2c22-24 Difference between IMCh/ITCh
Volume 5 Number 25 v5b1-13 The 7 attributes of judges
Volume 5 Number 25 v5c1-13 The 7 attributes of Judges
Volume 5 Number 25 v2b18-21 The 7 attributes of judges
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
DOUBLE PARSHAS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
THE 2 DOZEN RASHI-IS-SIMPLE RASHI RULES
=======================================
May be found at http://www.shamash.org/rashi/rules300.htm
Omitted this week because of length of digest
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*