Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
VISIT the RASHI DATABASE archives AT
http://www.RashiYom.com/
Surfing the Talmudic Seas
(C) RashiYomi Incorporated, 2000
Written by Dr Russell Jay Hendel
Volume 8 Number 5
Produced Nov 10, 2000
WARNING: USE FIX WIDTH FONTS (eg COURIER (NEW) 10)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ THE GOLDEN ^^
^^ Rambam Rashi Series ^^
^^ Gold series #8a ^^
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Verses/Topics Discussed in This Issue with quicky explanations
v9-e-15a
THE GOLDEN RAMBAM RASHI SERIES--- WELCOME BACK
==============================================
What happened to the Golden Series? The dynamic duo,
Rambam and Rashi are back with a big splash--with
our new emphasis on Rabbi Ishmael and his rules of
style.
Gn17-11a -- POSTING ON GRAMMAR CORRECTED & REVISED
==================================================
There was an error in last weeks posting. It has been
fully corrected using the new Konkordance of Grammatical
forms recently compiled and publised by Al Silberman
Rashis covered in this issue
----------------------------
VERSE RULE BRIEF EXPLANATION
===== ==== =================
Ex21-28a EXAMPLE3 Torah say >if OX<;Law says >If ANIMAL<
Ex21-29a NEW MEANINGS 'Yesterday & 3 days ago'=It is our habit
Ex21-29b GRAMMAR Rashi reviews classical grammar
Ex21-29c EXAMPLE7 Verse has DETAIL(gore)-GENERAL(kill)form
Ex21-29d OTHER VERSE OTHER VERSE(Nu35-21) reveals meaning
Ex21-30a SPECIAL WORDS >IF< can mean >WHEN<
Ex21-30b GRAMMAR Pronouns can refer to ANY antecedent
Ex21-31a example8 Laws are stated in CLIMACTIC fashion
Ex21-31b example8 Laws are stated in CLIMACTIC fashion
Ex21-32a example8 Laws are stated in CLIMACTIC fashion
--------------------------------------------------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
RASHI IS SIMPLE
GOALS: To grammatically defend all 8000 Rashis on Chumash.
METHOD:Rashis are defended with LISTS of comparable cases
INTENDED AUDIENCE: Laymen, Academicians, Yeshiva world
COMMENTS,QUESTIONS: EMail to address below
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:If you want to ask anonymously please ask
(UN)SUBSCRIBE: Email to addresses below with "(UN)subscribe"
JOURNAL REFERECE: Pshat & Drash,TRADITION, Win 1980,R Hendel
NOTATION: eg Gn01-02a refers to Rashi "a" on Genesis 1:2
SPECIALS:...on Parshah,Rambam,Ramban,Pedagogy,Symbolism
RASHI-IS-SIMPLE RULES Complete set of rules on bottom
EMAIL: RJHendel@Juno.Com, rashi-is-simple@shamash.org,
WEB: http://www.RashiYomi.Com/
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: Gn17-11a
RASHIS COVERED: Gn17-11a Gn17-23b Gn17-24a
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:Immediately after I published Volume 8 Number 4,I
noticed an error which I corrected when I posted this digest on
the web. The redone posting will be reposted in Volume 8 Number 5
In correcting this posting I was aided by LISTS in the book
SEFER AMAYLIM BATORAH, by Al Silberman(As well as my own)
RULE
====
Rashi here simply reviews basic Hebrew Grammar. It is
well known that in Hebrew
---words come from 3 letter roots
---each root can be conjugated to indicate PERSON, TIME,...
---for example >ShMRTI< means >I watched<;
>ShMRTA< means >YOU WATCHED<
>ShMR< means >HE WATCHED<
---One can purchase books that give conjugation tables for the
various types of verbs.
---A very good 12 page summary of all grammar rules can be
found in the back of the >EVEN-SHOSHAN HEBREW< dictionary
Other popular books are eg 201 Ways to Conjugate Verbs
COMMENT: Rather amusingly we see the >SUPERIORITY< of Rashi over
modern scholars. Modern scholars sometimes erroneously accuse
Rashi of being a two-letter radicalist(believing that roots have
2 letters). Modern scholars believe all roots have 3 letters.
However in this example it is Rashi who asserts that all roots
have 3 letters while Mendelkorn, a modern scholar, erroneously
believes in the 2 letter theory(he acknowledges only 1 3 letter
root whose forms he twists)
EXAMPLE
=======
{LIST}
(Rashi)There are >TWO< Hebrew roots meaning to circumcise.
- >Nun-Mem-Lamed<
- >Mem-Vuv-Lamed<
According to Rashi both these roots have the same
meaning. A list of similar pairs of roots with the
same meaning occurs in footnote 1.
By looking at >THE 3rd GRAMMAR TEMPLATE< (pg 1961) and the
6th GRAMMAR TEMPLATE (pg 1964) in the Hebrew IBN SHOSHAN
we easily see the justification for the following forms
===========================================================
VERSE TYPE OF CONJUGATION GRAMMATICAL FORM
======== ============================ ================
Gn17-11a PAST-MALE-PLURAL-ACTIVE is >NeMaLTeM<*2
Gn17-24a INFINITIVE-PASSIVE is >HiMooL<
Gn17-23b PAST-MALE-SINGULAR-ACTIVE is >VaYoMaL<*3
NOTES:
======
*1 We present here a table of pairs of Hebrew roots where
the first root begins with a NUN while the second
root has a second letter of VUV (NUN-X-Y vs X-Vuv-Y).
We show how these roots are related in meaning thus
giving credibility to Rashi
In this table the Nun-root and the Vuv-root mean the
same thing
============================================================
N-ROOT MEANING VUV-ROOT MEANING
====== ======= ======== ===================
N-A-R Curse N-V-R Curse
N-M-L Circumcise M-V-L Circumcise
N-S-Ch Fall back S-V-Ch Fall Back*a
N-Sh-L Falling off Sh-L-H Falling off
In this table the Nun-root and the Vuv-root mean almost
the same thing (The meanings are SIMILAR but not exactly
the same)
============================================================
N-ROOT MEANING VUV-ROOT MEANING
====== ======= ======== ===================
N-Z-D Cooked item Z-V-D To Boil
N-K-M Revenge K-V-M*b Stand up for oneself
N-Sh-F Soft winds S-V-F Glide
N-Sh-K Kiss Sh-K-K Passion
NOTES
=====
*a RDK points out that this is only one of the meanings
He also points out that there might be other interpretations
*b The root >K-V-M< can mean >STAND UP FOR ONSELF< and hence
>CORRESPONDS< but does not exactly mean the same thing
as Revenge. In a similar manner >Nun-Mem-Lamed< and
>Mem-Vuv-Lamed< may have similar but not exactly the same
meaning. Rashi however simply points out that they are related
*2 Rashi explains that this form looks like >MALTEM< without
the >NUN<. This would correspond to the grammatical form
on page 1964 for the root >Ayin-Vuv-Nun<. Thus Rashi
explicitly notes that the roots >Ayin-Vuv-Nun< and
>Nun-Mem-Lamed<.
*3 This form is NOT in the Ibn Shoshan dictionary. It can be
found in the book Sefer Amaylim Batorah (Author
ASilber@aol.com) in chart 4996#5. Al brings a list of 12
roots of which we present the first 5
=========================================================
VERSE ROOT FORM
===== ==== ====
Nu11-31 G-V-Z VaYoGoZ
Gn20-01 G-V-R VaYoGoR
Gn17-23 M-V-L VaYoMoL
Gn11-28 M-V-Th VaYoMoS
Isa6-06 Ayin-V-Ph VaYoOoF
Apparently this form only occurs with the prefix VUV that
reverses past and future(and hence is not in Ibn Shoshan)
COMMENT: Again reviewing Mendelkorn, Root, Mem-Vuv-Lamed we
see that Mendelkorn twists many root forms from their normal
usage. By contrast, Rashi simply acknowledges that there are
two roots.
RULE USED: GRAMMAR
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v9-e-15a
This is in response to several questions from readers on
What happened to the Golden series?
For those who are not aware this is part #8 in our Golden
Rashi Rambam series. This series is dedicated to reviewing how
two Titans of Judaism approached the same verses with different
organizational styles. Sometimes Rambam was more logical but
sometimes Rashi was more logical. Sometimes Rashi is more
terse but sometimes Rambam is more terse.
In this and the next issue we study Chapter 10 of Damages
In this chapter Rashi is more explanatory than Rambam.
We go over each of the verses in this digest. In the next
digest we will summarize with a paragraph by paragraph
recount of Rambam Monetary Damages Chapter 10
This chapter of Rambam particularly emphasizes use of Rabbi
Ishmaels methods in the corresponding Rashis. Those who
are serious about Halcahic-Midrash should pay special
attention to it.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Ex21-28a
RULE: (Rashi Pesachim 6a)
====
If the Bible states a law and uses an example then unless
otherwise indicated, that example must be generalized. So
the law will apply to many more cases.
SIMPLE EXAMPLE
==============
Ex21-28a says
>When an OX kills someone the OX is stoned<
But Rashis says
>When any ANIMAL kills someone the ANIMAL is stoned<
CROSS REFERENCE IN RAMBAM:
=========================
Monetary Damages 10:2
{LIST} We present about 9 verses where the Torah limits the
verse to a PARTICULAR example but Rashi generalizes it
to ANY example
EXAMPLES
--------
(1) Ex21-28a When an OX gores..then pay damages
RASHI: The law applies when ANY animal gores
The Bible used 'OX' since that was a typical animal owned
(2) Ex21-17a A FEMALE witch should not be allowed to live
RASHI: The law applies to ANY witch--male or female
The Bible used 'FEMALE' witch since most witches were
women
(3) Ex22-21a If you hurt an ORPHAN or WIDOW I(God)will punish you
RASHI: God will punish you if you cause anguish to ANY person
The Torah used 'ORPHAN/WIDOW' since these people are usually
picked on.
(4) Ex22-30b A DISEASED ANIMAL in a FIELD should not be eaten
RASHI: ALL DISEASED ANIMALS should not be eaten. The
Torah used 'diseased animals in a FIELD' because that
is typically where they are typically found
(5) Dt22-23a '..& he found her IN THE CITY & raped her...'
RASHI:The laws of rape apply even if he raped her in the
HOUSE. The Torah used 'in the CITY' because that is where
rapes typically happen
(6) Dt23-11a 'A man who is Not Pure from a NOCTURNAL emission'
RASHI: These laws apply to ANYONE who has an emission.
The Torah used 'NOCTURNAL emission' because that is the
typical time they occur.
(7) Dt13-07f When someone seduces you IN PRIVATE to worship idols
RASHI: These laws apply even if the seduction was in public
The Torah used 'IN PRIVATE' because that is the normal way
seduction takes place (steathily)
(8) Dt15-19b Don't WORK with 1stborn of OX,
Don't SHEAR 1stborn SHEEP
RASHI:It is also prohibited to WORK with the 1stborn of SHEEP
or to SHEAR the hide of an OX. But the Torah used 'WORK..OX'
and 'SHEAR..SHEEP' because this is the typical usage.
(9) Dt25-04a Don't muzzle an OX while it works
RASHI: It is prohibited to muzzle ANY ANIMAL while it works
The Torah used 'OX' because this is the typical animal owned
---------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The following additional references may be too wordy
However they frequently contain additional information & lists
The hyperlinks only work on the main website
Volume 7 Number 14
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Ex21-29a
RULE:
====
The expression >Yesterday and 3 days ago< is an idiom
which means >It is a habit<, >It is NORMAL<,
something we are used to
SIMPLE EXAMPLE:
==============
An owner must pay FULL DAMAGE if an animal stepped and broke
something. But an owner only pays HALF DAMAGE if the animal
GORED someone. The reason the owner pays HALF DAMAGE is
because GORING is abnormal for an OX--the owner could not
reasonably expect it and therefore he pays HALF DAMAGE
However if the OX >HABITUALLY< Gored then the owner must pay
FULL DAMAGE. An ox achieves the status of >HABITUALLY< doing
something if the OX Gores on 3 days.
This is derived from Ex21-29a which says that If the ox gored
>YESTERDAY AND 3 days AGO< then the owner must pay ransom.
As the {LIST} below shows the phrase >YESTERDAY and 3 DAYS AGO<
refers to >anything habitual<. This link between the phrase
>YESTERDAY and 3 DAYS AGO< and >anything habitual< shows that
you establish a habit by doing something 3 times
CROSS REFERENCE IN RAMBAM: Monetary Damage 6:1;Murder 6:10
--LAW: An Ox that Gored 3 days is considered habitual to Gore
--LAW: A person who didn't speak to someone 3 days is
considered habitual to hate that person.
{LIST}
Verses where the phrase >YESTERDAY and 3 DAYS AGO< means
habitual. Many of these verses refer to the habitual
relationship between 2 people. As such the interpretation
>NORMAL< relationship is better
=================================================================
VERSE WHAT WAS HABITUAL--TEXT of VERSE
========= =======================================================
1S19-7 Saul and David reestablish their NORMAL relationship
Ruth2-11 Judaism was not her(Ruths) NORMAL religion
1Sam10-11 Those who had NORMAL relationship with Saul were amazed
2King13-5 They lived NORMALLY on their land(without harassment)
Gn31-02 Laban did not behave NORMALLY with Jacob anymore
Ex05-07 They still have to produce their NORMAL production
Jos20-05 He doesn't NORMALLY hate him
Ex21-29a An OX that NORMALLY Gores
RULE USED: NEW MEANINGS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Ex21-29b
OVERVIEW:
========
There are many popular books on Hebrew. In Hebrew all verbs
have 3 letter roots. These roots are in turn CONJUGATED to
indicate such things as PERSON, PLURALITY, GENDER, TIME etc
Here are some simple examples
-->Shin-Mem-Resh< means >TO WATCH<
-->Shin-Mem-Resh-TAUV-YUD< means >I watched<
-->Shin-Mem-Resh-TAUV< means >You watched<
-->ALEPH-Shin-Mem-Resh< means >I will watch<
There are popular books on the Hebrew conjugations. One
such book is for example >201 ways to Conjugate Hebrew verbs<
Another popular reference is the index to the Ibn-Shoshan
Hebrew dictionary
RULE
====
If one looks up in Ibn-Shoshan dictionary in the 6th Table
of verb conjugations (Those whose 2nd letter is >VUV<) then
one easily sees that the PASSIVE-CAUSATIVE TENSE (Someone did
this to someone else), 3rd Person, Past, Male is conjugated
as
>Hey+VUV(Kubutz)+X+Z
where the X and Z are the 1st and 3rd letters of the root.
Thus
>Ayin-Vuv-Dalet<
is conjugated as
>Hey-Vuv-Ayin-Dalet<
WHY EMPHASIZE THE OBVIOUS
=========================
But if this is known why does Rashi emphasize it? Rashi does
not usually give verb conjugations--why is Ex21-29b different
IT IS A RARE FORM
=================
I used the Grammatical-Form-Konkordance recently released
by Al Silberman. Looking up Form 1729 we find the following
list of ALL verbs in this form
{LIST} Verbs which exhibit Past-3rd-person-singular-male
conjugation in the passive-causative tense
ROOT VERSE PASSIVE-CAUSATIVE MEANING
==== ======== =========================
Yud-Caph-Cheth Job33-19 And he was rebuked (by someone else)
Yud-Resh-Dalet Nu10-17 And it was taken down(by someone else)
Caph-Vuv-Nun Isa16-05 And it will be founded(by grace)
Ayin-Vuv-Dalet Ex21-29 And it was warned (by someone else)
SUMMARY
=======
Thus we see Rashis genious---the verb form is extremely rare.
Hence he had to comment on it. This is further amplified by
the fact that the verb Yud-Ayin-Dalet normally means >TO TESTIFY<
while in some verses it means >TO WARN< (Which is similar but
not identical to >TESTIFY). Thus between the rare form and
the abnormal meaning the student could easily get confused.
Hence the Rashi (The following list from Radack shows that
Ayin-Vuv-Dalet can mean WARN versus testify)
{LIST} Verses where Ayin-Vuv-Dalet means to WARN
================================================
VERSE MEANING
===== =======
Gn43-03 The person WARNED us not to come without Benjamin*1
Jer6-10 Who can I WARN
Dt04-26 I have WARNED you with punishment from heaven/earth*2
Is55-04 I have made him a WARNING to the nations
Ex21-29 And they will WARN him (about his OX)
NOTES
=====
*1 This verse was cited by Rashi as well as Radack
*2 Some commentaries interpret this as >I have made
heaven and earth WITNESSES against you<
RULE USED: GRAMMAR
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Ex21-29c
RULE
====
If the Bible gives an EXAMPLE of a law then the example
must be generalized
But if the Bible first gives an EXAMPLE and then
gives the GENERAL RULE---in other words, if the Bible uses an
EXAMPLE-GENERAL method, then the example must be interpreted
broadly; hence the law applys to this example AND TO SIMILAR
EXAMPLES(Rashi Pesachim 6a)
EXAMPLE
=======
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ex21-28 If an ox >GORES< a person & he dies (then kill the ox)
Ex21-29 If an ox >KILLS< a person (then kill the ox)
*1
--------------------------------------------------------------
This has an EXAMPLE-GENERAL form. We have
-EXAMPLE-- the ox GORES a person
-GENERAL-- the ox KILLS a person
In other words >GORING< is an >EXAMPLE< of how a person
would >KILL< someone. Since this example (GORING) is mentioned
BEFORE mention of the GENERAL category therefore we interpret
the category broadly---the animal is stoned, not only, if it
killed a person by GORING, but also if it killed the person
by ANY OTHER METHOD.
REFERENCE: Further examples may be found at
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example7.htm.
Most of these examples use the GENERAL-DETAIL-GENERAL
form which also requires BROAD interpretation.
RULE USED: Rabbi Ishmaels Rules of Examples
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Ex21-29d
RULE
====
The word >IF< can mean >WHEN< (ie it can denote something
obligatory)
EXAMPLE
=======
Ex21-29d states that if an Ox kills a person then the
owner of the ox must be put to death (because of his
negligence in watching the ox). However if ransom is
placed on the owner then he can avoid the death penalty.
Ex21-29d says >IF< ransom be placed on him
The laws interprets >WHEN< ransom is placed on him
In other words the courts FORCE THE PERSON TO PAY THE RANSOM
(Cf Rambam Monetary Damages 10:4)
Rambam does not derive this in his great commentary. However
Rashi does derive this law. Rashi points out that it explicitly
says in an other verse
-Nu35-21 >If one person murders another then
the hitter is executed; (ONLY) HE IS A MURDERER<
Note the EXTRA SENTENCE >HE IS A MURDERER< (In this
email list we do not study >EXTRA WORDS< by themselves
but we do emphasize >EXTRA SENTENCES<)
Rashi derives the >OBLIGATION< to give ransom
from the extra sentence in Nu35-21 which discusses giving a
murderer a death penalty: >There shall be a death penalty to
the hitter; (ONLY) HE IS A MURDERER< The capped words >(ONLY)
HE IS A MURDERER< create an emphasis: >(ONLY) HE IS A
MURDERER< but not someone else (like someone whos Ox, which he
should have watched, Gored and killed someone).
REFERENCES: For a list of difficult Rashis that are easily
solved using the technique of OTHER VERSES visit
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ov.htm
RULE USED: OTHER VERSES
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Ex21-30a
RULE: The Word >IF< can sometimes mean >WHEN<.
=====
EXAMPLES
========
{LIST}
Please find below the 7 verses where >IF< means >WHEN<. We also
bring the supporting verses that proves that >IF< must mean
>WHEN<.As an example: Ex20-22 says >IF you build an altar<.
However since Dt27-06 >obligates< us to build an altar this
changes the translation of Ex20-22 to >WHEN you build an alter<.
================================================================
VERSE Text of Verse(IF means WHEN) Supporting Verse
========== =========================== =================
Ex20-22a WHEN you build an altar Dt27-06
Ex22-24a WHEN you lend money Dt15-08
Lv02-14a WHEN you bring First fruit Lv23-10
Nu36-04a WHEN the Yovel comes*1 Lv25-08:12
Gn28-20a WHEN God be with me Gn28-15
Dt21-14aWHEN you hate her let her go*2
Ex21-30aWHEN ransom is placed on him
NOTES
=====
*1 Actually Rashi states >Since the Bible literally says >IF the
Jubilee comes< we infer that the Jubilee would eventually cease
from Israel. But implicit in this Rashi is the fact that the
verse means >WHEN the Jubilee comes then such and such will
happen<
*2 This is Rashi..If you rape a foreign woman in war and take her
into your house you will ULTIMATELY despise her and throw her
out. Hence the verse should read >WHEN< you let her go vs >IF<
you let her go. See below for further amplification
For further details and an exciting discussion on why Rashi
cited 7 verses while the Mechiltah cited only 3 please see
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h7n24.htm
RULE USED: SPECIAL WORDS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Ex21-30b
>If the person (who owns the ox who killed a person) has
ransom placed on him then he shall give the REDEMPTION
OF HIS SOUL<
RASHI: Who does the word >HIS< in >redemption of HIS soul<
refer to? This is the question of Pronoun antecedent. There
are two possibilities in this verse
--If the owner has ransom placed on him then He(the owner)
shall give the REDEMPTION OF HIS(The owners) SOUL
--If the owner has ransom placed on him then He shall
give the REDEMPTION OF HIS SOUL(ie the SOUL of the
person who was murdered).
Obviously these two amounts (the >Worth< of the owner vs
the worth of the deceased) may differ.
There is an interesting sidepoint to this controversy---
There seem to be 2 approaches to interpreting the
pronouns antecedent
THE GRAMMATICAL APPROACH
========================
--logically the antecedent of a pronoun is the last
mentioned noun which in this case is the owner
Please review the verse
>If ransom be placed on HIM(The owner) then HE(The owner)
shall give the redemption of HIS(The owners) soul<
This is a simple GRAMMATICAL APPROACH
THE LOGICAL-CONTEXT APPROACH
============================
--But if we look at the verses meaning we see that the
>PURPOSE< of giving the ransom is to atone for what
his ox did. Since his OX killed a person therefore
to atone for the murder the owner must pay the
ransom of the deceased.
Furthermore in Ex21-32 we are told that the Ransom
for killing a slave is 30 units of currency(independent)
of what the slave was really worth. This seems to
suggest that the ransom goes by the deceased (not by
the owner) Another way of putting this is to state
that the CONTEXT of the paragraph dictates that
we are talking about the VALUE of the deceased not
the value of the owner.
Thus the controversy on the antecedent of the pronoun
is a controversy on a GRAMMATICAL vs a
LOGICAL-CONTEXT approach
Rashi in fact brings 2 opinions in the Talmud (One going each
way). The Rambam by contrast only brings down the final
law (Monetary damages 11:1)
We have frequently in this email list emphasized that CONTEXT
can take precedence over other rules of meaning (Such as
grammatical rules of antecedents)
RULE USED: GRAMMAR
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Ex21-31a
RULE:
=====
Verses are sometimes stated in a CLIMACTIC fashion. This
CLIMACTIC fashion can in turn shed light on the meaning
of the individual verses. To put it another way although
the individual verses may have many meanings nevertheless
the CLIMACTIC development of the paragraph can indicate
a preference for certain meanings.
EXAMPLE
=======
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ex21-29 You pay ransom for an ox killing a MAN or WOMAN
Ex21-31 You DO THE SAME for an ox killing a CHILD(Boy or girl)
Ex21-32 You PAY 30 flat for an ox killing a SLAVE(male-female)
*1 *2
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
-----
*1 We see a difference in law:
--Adults and children are ransomed with their WORTH
--slaves are ransomed with a FLAT AMOUNT
*2 We see a climactic development. These 3 verses speak about
--ADULTS, who are full fledged Jews and
who are obligated in all commandments
--CHILDREN, who are not obligated in all commandments
but who will one day grow up to be obligated
--NONJEWISH SLAVES who are not obligated in all commandments
and who will not necessarily grow up to be obligated
Thus the ADULTS and CHILDREN pay their personal worth
The SLAVES pay a FLAT FEE
COMMENTS
========
One can legitimately ask >What was learned from the CLIMACTIC
DEVELOPMENT<. We basically learn 2 things
--We learn that the phrase >if the ox gore children then THE
SAME LAW APPLIES<--this phrase >THE SAME LAW<, refers to
the fact that evaluation of ransom is by the persons
worth. We learn this because CHILDREN are LIKE ADULTS
in that they will one day be obligated in all commandments.
CHILDREN are dissimilar to SLAVES
In other words the phrase >THE SAME LAW APPLIES< is
ambiguous and COULD refer to many things. However because
the BEGINNING and END of the paragraph deal with ransom
therefore we assume the middle deals with ransom also
--We similarly learn that the ambiguous phrase >if the ox
gores a SLAVE< refers to a non-jewish slave(not a jewish
slave). We learn this because a JEWISH SLAVE is a full
fledged Jewish adult (and hence if he was gored the owner
would have to pay as ransom his full value). I conclude
that the word >SLAVE< in this verse refers to the type
of >SLAVE< this is inferior to an ADULT and CHILD--hence
it refers to a NON JEWISH SLAVE
Again we emphasize that the meaning of the ambiguous phrases
--SLAVE
--SAME LAW
comes not from the meaning of WORDS but rather from CONTEXT
REFERENCE: For other examples of Rashis from CLIMACTIC
development visit url http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example8.htm
Interestingly some people are surprised how whole laws can
be derived from a CLIMACTIC DEVELOPMENT on verses whose
individual meaning is ambiguous. For another example in
this Biblical portion see Ex21-06:14 which deal
with the 3 types of people who acquire someone elses
property and have to watch it (Someone who watches without
pay; a paid guard; and a renter) Although NOTHING in the
text indicates what the middle chapter is talking about
a paid guard nevertheless the CLIMAX indicates it is talking
about a paid guard. See the above URL for other examples
RULE USED: The example rules of Rabbi Ishmael
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THE 2 DOZEN RASHI-IS-SIMPLE RASHI RULES
=======================================
I: RASHI gives MEANING
======================
A: NEW MEANINGS--(eg)"on the face of"=during the lifetime
Volume 2 Number 9, http://www.rashiyomi.Com/Nu04-04a.htm
B: SPECIAL WORDS--(eg)ACH=USUALLY;USUALLY observe shabbath!
Rashi Yomi Summaries,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Ach-6.htm
C: SYNONYMS--(eg)AMR=to speak; DBR=to cite or to quote;
Volume 2 Number 1, http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Lv20-02a.htm
D: WORD MEANINGS-Thermos(TzNTzNTh)=doubly(TZN TZN) Cold(TZN)
Volume 1 Number 9,23,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Ex31-15a.htm
E: UNIFIED MEANINGS-PAAM=Repeated action:To Ring,Hammer,Step
Volume 1 Number 3,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Gn41-08a.htm
II: RASHI teaches GRAMMAR/STYLE
===============================
F: CLASSICAL GRAMMAR--(eg)QUESTION = HEY+CHATAF PATACH
Volume 3 Number 22,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Gn04-09z.htm
G: USAGE(NEW GRAMMAR)--(eg)INFINITIVE="be involved in";
Volume 5 Number 24,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Ex13-03a.htm
H: ROOT+PREPOSITION--(eg)ChZK B="to hold";ChZK M="overpower"
Volume 1 Number 7,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Ex04-04a.htm
I: THE SENTENCE--2 verses can make 1 sentence-eg Dt02-16:17
Volume 3 Number 7,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Dt19-06a.htm
J: STYLE--REPETITION denotes Endearment;eg 'Jacob Jacob'
Volume 1 Number 12,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Gn46-02a.htm
K: DOUBLE NOUNS--(eg)"GIVE GIVE";if not CHARITY then LOAN
Double Noun page, http://www.RashiYomi.Com/DN.htm
L: PRONOUNS-(eg)IMCHAH=with you; ITCHAH=Accompanying you;
Volume 3 Number 13,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Ex22-24c.htm
III: OVERALL TEXTUAL STRUCTURE
==============================
M: OTHER VERSES--Aaron SAW(Ex32-05)...the brawl(Ex32-18)
OTHER VERSE page, http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ov.htm
N: EXTRA SENTENCES-eg[GIVE HIM][WHAT HE NEEDS](Not if rich)
Volume 2 Number 20,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Dt15-08c.htm
O: DOUBLE PARSHAS-'he WILL pray'-'he WON'T pray';So Optional
Volume 3 Number 12,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Dt24-14a.htm
P: CLIMAX-(eg Dt19-11)(a)Hate, (b)spy, (c)confront,(d)Murder
Climax Page, http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Climax.htm
Q: OVERALL STRUCTURE-growing nails=despisement(from context)
Volume 3 Number 8,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Dt21-11a.htm
R: SPREADSHEETS-What is the marriage loophole in inheritance
Volume 2 Number 23,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Nu36-03a.htm
IV: BEYOND THE TEXT
===================
S: MORAL LESSONS/REASONS-God explains BEFORE punishing;
Volume 2 Number 12,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Nu12-09a.htm
T: RabbiIshmael-(eg)"When an OX gores";(Or ANY animal gores)
Volume 4 Number 21,http://www.RashiYomi.Com/Dt25-04a.htm
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*