Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
VISIT the RASHI DATABASE archives AT
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 2000
Volume 5 Number 7
Produced Feb, 11 2000
WARNING: USE FIX WIDTH FONTS (eg COURIER (NEW) 10)
Verses/Topics Discussed in This Issue with quicky explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------
v2-24-1
a) PAST = VAV + FUTURE (eg V YDBR)= He spoke. b) PAST
PERFECT=GRAMMATICAL PAST (eg AMR) = He HAD spoken. On
2-24-1 it says GOD HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO MOSES..This
shows that the following chapter had ALREADY been
spoken(cf 1-37-36,1-4-1,1-25-34...)
v2b25-18
MIKSHAH = SCULPTORED vs SOLDERED. This is learned from
the verses in 2-25 which explicitly say that the Menorah
should be HAMMERED OUT FROM THE MENORAH.= BE SCULPTORED.
It is normal to name by exaggeration eg BREAK FAST, FILL
the form:SCULPTORE=HARD
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
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
EMAIL: RJHendel@Juno.Com,rashi-is-simple@shamash.org,
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2-24-1
======
v2-24-1 And God had already said to Moses go up to God
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v2-24-1 This chapter (2-24) was stated before the 10
commandments (2-19:20). In fact this chapter
was stated on the 4th of the Sivan.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
Recall the basic principle of grammar that there are 2 types of
past-
>there is the ORDINARY PAST---for example
>he ATE food
>he FILLED out his tax return
>he LEARNED at shiur this morning
>and there is the PAST PERFECT---for example
>he HAD EATEN FOOD
>he HAD FILLED out his tax return
>he HAD LEARNED at shiur this morning
In Biblical Hebrew you
>indicate the ORDINARY PAST by using a VAV+FUTURE TENSE--e.g
>and God SPOKE (V YDBR) to Moses
>and God CREATED (V YVRAH) man
>and Jacob ASKED (V YSHAL) his name
>indicate the PAST PERFECT by using the PAST TENSE---e.g
>and Adam HAD ALREADY KNOWN his wife (1-4-1)
>and the Medanim HAD SOLD him to Egypt
>and Jacob HAD ALREADY given him food
--------------------------------------------------------
|QUESTION 1: |
|=========== |
|Can you make a list of verses where the PAST PERFECT |
|is used? Of verses where Rashi comments on the fact |
|that the verse should be translated that such & such |
|had already happened? What tools could you use? |
|{LIST1} below gives a partial answer? |
--------------------------------------------------------
{LIST1} below shows several examples where Rashi reverses
the natural chronological order of chapters because it uses
the past perfect and says that such and such had happened.
Perhaps the best example is the non-rashi verse 1-37-36.
>after discussing the attempted murder of Joseph
>by his brothers and after deciding instead to
>sell him to the MDANIM merchants the Torah relates
>how the brothers covered up his disappearance.
>The Torah then resumes the thread of sale & states
>
>And the MDANIM HAD SOLD him to Egypt
Some other examples are
>And Adam had already known his wife with Child(1-4-1)
>And God had already remembered Sarah with child(1-21-1)
>Jacob had already given Esauv food(1-25-34)
So Rashi Is Simple. Following the above rule we translate 2-24-1 as
>And God HAD ALREADY told Moses to come up the mount
In other words, the command to come up given in 2-24-1 happened
BEFORE the giving of the Torah which occupies chapter 2-20:23.
This simple grammatical explanation seems to have been overlooked
by Ramban, Sifsay Chachamim and Ibn Ezra. Since they were unaware
of the grammatical defense of Rashi they thought Rashi was engaged
in a philosophical point and this led to a long multi-page comment
by Ramban. However on closer scrutiny, having been exposed to
Rashi's argument we now see that it is the Ramban and Ibn Ezra's
position that are difficult to maintain. 2-24-1 is no different
than 1-37-36 and clearly indicates an order reversal.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
Note that we have left open the question of whether the views
of the Ramban and Ibn Ezra can be defended. In this particular
instance they seem to have overlooked a grammatical rule.
I invite readers to post possible explanations. It is precisely
verses like 2-24-1 which have led me to emphasize the study of
Rashi over say Ramban and Ibn Ezra.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Of Verses with the PAST PERFECT (HAD DONE) in them.
The reasons for the PAST PERFECT are given in the
3rd column and further elaborated in the footnotes
Note that there is no known way to make a list like this
using a CD ROM or Konkordance. You rather have to know
the text and grammar.}
VERSE TEXT WITH PAST PERFECT WHY PAST PERFECT
======= ========================================== =================
1-1-2 The earth HAD ALREADY been astonishing Previous worlds*1
1-1-5 God HAD ALREADY called the darkness NIGHT Previous worlds*1
1-4-1 Adam HAD ALREADY (sexually) known his wife Causal link*2
1-21-1 God HAD ALREADY remembered Sarah Causal link*2
1-25-34 Jacob HAD ALREADY given Esauv food No blackmail*3
2-12-36 God HAD ALREADY given grace to the Jews Loaned twice*4
1-37-36 And the MDANIM HAD ALREADY sold Joseph*5 Reversal of order
2-24-1 And God HAD ALREADY told Moses to come up Reversal of order
FOOTNOTES
*1 The Genesis Rabbah Chapter 3, Braiitha 7 states
>God had created many worlds before this one
>He however destroyed them and it is only
>this world that pleased him.
The Midrash Rabbah learns this from various sources
but the PAST PERFECT verbs brought here are the main
source. (For example the Midrash also learns this from
the phrase
>1-1-31 & God saw all he had made and
>BEHOLD it was good
which has the connotation of
>BEHOLD it was good this time but not the
>previous times
While this is supportive it is not conclusive. The
main argument is from the PAST PERFECT verbs as
indicated above
Although the TEXT of the Genesis Rabbah 3:7 does not
seem to indicate that the creation of previous worlds
is derived from the PAST PERFECT nevertheless I found
an explicit statement of this connection between the
PAST PERFECT and the creation of previous worlds in
the Soncino Translation of the Zohar, 16a.
*2 Rashi suggests that the PAST PERFECT (HAD DONE) allows
>rearranging the sequence of chapters
thereby indicating
>causal links.
For example the natural sequence
>1-2-26:28 Intimacy
>1-4-1 Pregnancy/birth
>1-3 Snake gets Eve to sin/expulsion from Paradise
is changed to
>1-2-26:28 Intimacy
>1-3 Snake gets Eve to sin/expulsion from Paradise
>1-4-1 Pregnancy birth
The changed sequence suggests a
>CAUSAL LINK
between
>INTIMACY & SIN OF SNAKE
In other words, because Adam and Eve were cohabiting before
everybody the snake (a nickname for a slimy person) desired
her and plotted to kill Adam (by having Eve give him the
forbidden food) whereby he could marry her. Although this
appears speculative it is bolstered by the use of the PAST
PERFECT which allows a rearrangement of order.
Similarly the sequence
>1-18:19 The 3 angels
>1-18 prophecy that Sarah will give birth
>1-19 Destrucion of Sedom/Saving of Lot
>1-21-1 Sarah gave birth
>1-20 Abduction of Sarah
>1-20-14:18 Sarah saved; Abraham prays for Avimelech
is reversed to
>1-18:19 The 3 angels
>1-18 prophecy that Sarah will give birth
>1-19 Destrucion of Sedom/Saving of Lot
>1-20 Abduction of Sarah
>1-20-14:18 Sarah saved; Abraham prays for Avimelech
>1-21-1 Sarah gave birth
The changed sequence suggests a
>CAUSAL LINK
between
>Abraham praying that Avimelech should give birth
>Abraham-Sarah having a child
Chazal in fact say
>Whoever prays for his friend
>gets answered first (if he needs the same thing)
*3 1-25-29:34 describes Esauv coming home hungry and asking
Jacob for food who in turn asks Esauv to sell him the birthright.
The verses (without proper translation) appear to say that Jacob
only gave the weary Esauv food AFTER he sold his birthright. In
other words he blackmailed him into selling his birthright.
However with the proper translation the verses says
>Esauv asked for food
>Jacob asked for the birthright
>Jacob HAD ALREADY given food to Esauv.
Thus there was no blackmail. It is curious that some major
midrashim do not mention this (I in fact learned the
interpretation of this verse from my 8-th grade Chumash
Teacher, Rabbi Nathan Belitsky who taught us at an early
age that there were grammatical methods to refute slander
on Biblical characters).
*4 In other words we read the verses that
>1-12-34 the Jews exodused form Egypt
>1-12-35 they loaned silver/gold vessels
>1-12-36 they HAD ALREADY been loaning vessels
I would imagine the simple interpretation is that eg
>as slaves they loaned utensils
>they acted like they lost them
>"I lost what you gave me; can you spare me another"
>and because God HAD ALREADY given them grace
>they ended up loaning more vessels
*5 This simple but elegant example was provided by Harry
Rashbaum in my Shomray Emunah Rashi class
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
v1a4-1 Volume 4 Number 13--this principle was first
presented in that issue
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
Soncino Translation of Zohar, 16a (Uses PAST PERFECT)
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
GRAMMAR
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2b25-18
======
v2b25-18 & Make 2 Golden Crubim--SCULPTORED
v2c25-18 SCULPTORED
v4b8-4 and make a menorah, SCULPTORED
v4e10-2 and make trumpets, SCULPTORED
v2z25-31 and make a menorah, SCULPTORED
RASHI TEXT:
===========
[Moderator: All the Rashis say almost the same thing.
Hence we have mingled them together.]
v2b25-18
SCULPTORED-from one piece--by hammering one piece of
gold and thinning out various components till you get
shafts, arms, flowers etc. Rashi also gives French
words and Aramaic (Biblical and later) translations
v2c25-18 "SCULPTORED"
SCULPTORED-from one piece--by hammering one piece of
gold and thinning out various components till you get
shafts, arms, flowers etc. Rashi also gives French
words and Aramaic (Biblical and later) translations
v4b8-4 "and make a menorah, SCULPTORED"
SCULPTORED-from one piece--by hammering one piece of
gold and thinning out various components till you get
shafts, arms, flowers etc. Rashi also gives French
words and Aramaic (Biblical and later) translations
v4e10-2 "and make trumpets, SCULPTORED"
SCULPTORED-from one piece--by hammering one piece of
gold and thinning out various components till you get
shafts, arms, flowers etc. Rashi also gives French
words and Aramaic (Biblical and later) translations
v2z25-31 "and make a menorah, SCULPTORED"
SCULPTORED-from one piece--by hammering one piece of
gold and thinning out various components till you get
shafts, arms, flowers etc. Rashi also gives French
words and Aramaic (Biblical and later) translations
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
Rashi gives the meaning of the Hebrew word
>MIKSHAH
which in English means
>SCULPTORED
Rashi explains that there are two ways of making a candellabrah
or trumpet
>you can SOLDER the various components together
OR
>you can SCULPTOR IT from one piece
There main proof that
>The Hebrew word MIKSHAH = HARD
comes from the context of a Biblical chapter 2-25
We have as follows
VERSE STATEMENT ON HOW MENORAH IS MADE
----- --------------------------------
2-25-31 MIKSHAH
2-25-31 all its parts come from it
2-25-37 all its parts come from it, MIKSHAH
This proves that
>MIKSHAH = SCULPTORED
A further supportive proof comes from the nature of semantic
transformations. We have two methods of creating a utensil
>Soldering
>Sculpturing
The rule of semantics is that you have the right to
>name each method by exaggerating a property of it.
Let me give some examples
Of the 3 meals of the day you call the first
>breakfast, acting like you FASTED all night.
For although this is an exaggeration it still identifies the meal.
Similarly among all the early wordprocessors you call WordPerfect
>perfect, acting as if it produces perfect documents
Similarly among all forms on your desk the filled out form
>looks like you spilled a bottle of ink and FILLEd the form
Similarly we name an escalator by the fact that it exaggerates the
>escalation of your pace
Similarly a bullet (in a word document) both looks like a bullet and
>catches your attention like a gun shot.
In all these examples a word is named by an exaggerated property.
These examples are compactly summarized in {LIST1}. We conclude
that we can distinguish between
>SCULPTORING vs SOLDERING
by seeing
>SOLDERING
as a sort of
>FLEXIBLE use of pieces
and seeing
>SCULPTORING
as a
>means of reshaping a HARD piece of metal.
As already indicated this etymology is a supportive proof and comes
after the main proof which comes from the context of the verses in
2-25.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {>Words (eg breakfast) that
>name one member (eg 1st meal(1st column))
>of a class (eg all Meals (2nd column))
>by exaggerating some property
(eg You fast all night)(3rd column) *1}
WORD FROM... THIS ONE HAS THE PROPERTY THAT...
=========== ===================== ==================================
breakfast Among all meals You fast all night
filled Among all forms You fill the form with spilled ink
bullet Among all punctuation Like a gunshot it gets attention
escalator Among all walking You escalate your pace
wordperfect Among wordprocessors You make perfect documents
FOOTNOTES
---------
*1 The list is used as supportive proof that
>SCULPTORING vs SOLDERING
is named after the fact that the SCULPTORER deals with a
>HARD PIECE of metal
(vs the solderer who has a more flexible job since he puts
together various pieces)
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
WORD MEANINGS
WORD MEANINGS
WORD MEANINGS
WORD MEANINGS
WORD MEANINGS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*