Weekyly Rashi Digest - Volume 5 #7 Feb - 15, - 2007

The 10 RashiYomi Rules
Their presence in Rashis on Parshat MiShPaTiM
Vol 5 #7 - Adapted from Rashi-is-Simple
Visit the RashiYomi website: http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
(c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Feb - 15, - 2007

The goal of this Weekly Rashi Digest is to use the weekly Torah portion to expose students at all levels to the ten major methods of commentary used by Rashi. It is hoped that continual weekly exposure to these ten major methods will enable students of all levels to acquire a familiarity and facility with the major exegetical methods.

Verse Ex24-12b discussing how God requested Moses come up to him states And HaShem said unto Moses: 'Come up to Me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.' The underlined words Come up to Me into the mount echo a reference to the verse where it shows that Moses went up on the mountain for 40 days to receive the Torah. Dt09-09:11 states When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which HaShem made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights; ... And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that HaShem gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant. Hence we see that Moses ascended the mountain to be with God 40 days and 40 nights to receive the Torah.

Sermonic points: Throughout the Bible 40 is symbolic of embryonic birth since the foetus takes 40 days to begin differentiation. Hence the reference in Deuteronomy paints the receipt of the Torah law as an embryonic event making us into a nation of renewed people.

Rashi employs the methods of idioms. An idiom is a group of words whose meaning transcends the meanings of the individual units. Most people think of the dictionary as listing meanings of individual words. However a dictionary should also list the meanings of idioms, groups of words.

Verse Ex21-20:21 should be translated as follows And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding if he survives for 24 hours he shall not be punished; for he is his money.

Advanced Rashi: The above verses states that there is a death penalty for killing one's slave provided the slave dies within 24 hours. The actual Biblical verse does not use the term 24 hours. Rather it uses the literal term day or days. Rashi identifies this as an idiom: The Biblical day or days is an idiom meaning 24 hours. The etymology of the idiom is a uniform period that corresponds to a day but can span two days.

3. RASHI METHOD: GRAMMAR
BRIEF EXPLANATION: Rashi explains verses using grammar principles, that is, rules which relate reproducable word form to word meaning. Grammatical rules neatly fall into 3 categories (a) the rules governing conjugation of individual words,Biblical roots, (b) the rules governing collections of words,clauses, sentences (c) miscellaneous grammatical, or form-meaning, rules. This example applies to Rashis Ex21-30b
URL Reference:http://www.Rashiyomi.com/ex21-30b.htm

In English a pronoun should refer to the nearest antecedent. However in Hebrew it is equally likely that a pronoun refer to either the nearest antecedent or the most logical antecedent. English readers sometimes find this rule peculiar since they are use to the English way of looking at things. The following example presents a Talmudic controversy with both approaches.

Verses Ex21-28:30 state And if an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. .... If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

The four pronouns have been underlined. The two possible antecedents, the owner of the ox and the man or woman killed have been bolded. We present the two Talmudic interpretations of this passage which reflect the two pronoun rules: nearest antecedent vs. most logical.

The closest antecedent interpretation: If there be laid on owner of the ox a ransom, then theh owner of the ox shall give for the redemption of the ox owner's life whatsoever is laid upon the ox owner.
The most logical interpretation or the closest antecedent: If there be laid on owner of the ox a ransom, then theh owner of the ox shall give for the redemption of man's or woman's killed life whatsoever is laid upon the ox owner.

Advanced Rashi: Notice how the second interpretation uses both pronoun rules: closest antecedent and most logical. Also notice how we have not resolved the Talmudic controversy. This is typical: Our goal in this email list is to state broad Rashi principles by means of which every Talmudic opinion and Rashi can be understood. We have accomplished this. There may be higher principles by means of which this controversy can be resolved.

Note that the controversy has the following simple interpretation: Suppose an ox of a baron worth $1,000,000 kills a pauper worth $10,000. Does the Baron pay his worth, $1,000,000, or the pauper's worth, $10,000, to redeem himself from a death penalty. There are strong arguments either way. After all he is saving his own soul so let him pay his own worth. Alternatively, his sin is killing a pauper so let him pay the pauper's worth.

alignment

Ex21-28:32

And if an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. ....
But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning hath been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
Whether it have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
If the ox gore a bondman or a bondwoman, he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

aligned

Ransom for an adult/minor killed by an ox is assessed or judged by the worth of the person killed (e.g. more Ransom is paid if you kill an adult vs. a minor) Ransom for a slave killed by an ox is fixed at 30 shekels independent of whether the slave was male, female, adult or minor.

Advanced Rashi: Note the punchiness of the Rashi. We call this the 2 Case submethod of the alignment method. The formatting design we have used greatly clarifies it. This formatting design was presented in our recent article Biblical Formatting which may be found on the world wide web at Biblical Formatting.

contradiction

Verse Ex21-05:06 discussing the slave who does not wish to go free states But if the servant shall plainly say: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto G-d, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
But Verse Lv25-10 discussing slaves states And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

We see the contradiction: Which is it: Does a slave who refused to go free work forever? If so does he go free on the Jubilee?

contradiction

broad-literal

The phrase the slave works forever means the slave works a long time while
the phrase all go free at Jubilee is interpreted as is.

Advanced Rashi: This is perhaps the most famous of all the Biblical contradictions. The method of resolution is a classic application of the broad-literal method. Notice that without the contradiction I would not think of translation forever as meaning a long time. The contradiction is the driving force behind this translation.

6. RASHI METHOD: STYLE
Rashi examines how rules of style influences inferences between general and detail statements in paragraphs. Example: Every solo example stated by the Bible must be broadly generalized; Theme-Detail: A general principle followed by an example is interpreted restrictively---the general theme statement only applies in the case of the example; Theme-Detail-Theme: A Theme-Detail-Theme unit is interpreted as a paragraph. Consequently the details of the paragraph are generalized so that they are seen as illustrative of the theme. This examples applies to Rashis Ex21-28a
URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/dt25-04a.htm

Biblical verses Ex21-28 discussing damages by one's ox states And if an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. Rashi perceives this Biblical law as an example of a more general theme: The given Bibilical law applies whether the damage was done by an ox or any other animal. Here Rashi uses the generalization method. We have made explicit the idea that the generalization method is implemented by perceiving the Biblical laws as examples rather than literal.

Advanced Rashi: This Rashi is echoed in the opening paragraph of Rambam's great law code, Chapter 1 of the laws of Monetary Damage. The fact that both Rashi and Rambam make the same comment shows that the generalization method is not an option of commentary but rather an obligation of commentary. Each reader of the texts is obligated to generalize these laws. Interestingly Rambam is explicit about the Rashi method: Although the Biblical text is specific to the damages of an ox the law equally applies to any animal; the text simply spoke about typical cases of damage. Here Rambam explains why the Bible used the generalization method: The focusing on typical cases facilitates memory.

In my paper, just published, Biblical Formatting, I suggest that just as a modern author will use repeated keywords to indicate a bullet effect, so will the Biblical Author use repeated keywords to indicate a bullet effect. In other words the Biblical reader perceived repeated keywords the same way the modern reader perceives bullets. In both cases the bullets indicate to the reader an unspecified contrastive emphasis between the bullet items.

There is an important implication to this that is often overlooked. The unspecified emphasis implied by bullets as used by a modern author is perceived as the intended meaning of the text - it is not exegetical, though, since the emphasis is unspecified it is semi-conjectural. In a similar manner the unspecified emphasis implied by repeated keywords should be perceived as the intended meaning of the text - not as homiletic fancy.

Let us apply this bullets - repeated keywords analogy to verses Ex21-18:25 which discusses categories of damages: And if men contend, and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keep his bed; if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit; only he
shall pay for disability,
and shall provide medical payment ....
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
wound for a wound an inflammation for an inflammation
A burn for a burn

Note the repeating keyword for which creates a bullet effect. Note further the list of possible damages. The format bullet and paragraph rules require that we see these list items as spanning a spectrum of damage types. Using this basic idea and approach it is easy to see the tort categories involved:

And if men contend, and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keep his bed; if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit; only he [disability] shall pay for disability, [medical] and shall provide medical payment .... [damage] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [medical,disability,embarassment] wound for a wound an inflammation for an inflammation [pain,by itself] A burn for a burn

Advanced Rashi: The Rambam, Laws of Damager and Injurer, Chapters 1 and 2, lists further verses illustrating damage types. In aggregate there are five damage types, all listed above. In Chapter 2 Rambam points out that these damage types are independent and additive: In other words
if a single act has 2 or 3 of the damage types then you pay for each damage type;[Example: an inflammation may only be temporary and consequently only require medical, pain and embarassment payments]
if the single act has all five damage types, then you pay for all damage types; [Example: Cutting of an arm requires payment for all five categories: damage, pain, medical, embarassment, disability]
if the single act has only one of the five damage types then you pay only one damage type; [Example: burning finger nails only requires payment for pain]

The Rambam gives many examples illustrating these basic principles. In Talmudic lingo the five damage types are not a package deal--all or nothing--they are not requirements for each other---rather each one may contribute to the entire payment with or without the presence of other damages.

In summary: All these principles are inferred from the careful listing of examples in the Biblical verses and this inference is based on the format principle.

Today we ask the query How many Biblical chapters discuss slavery? The query uncovers 3 Biblical chapters with the indicated reasons for slavery.

Ex21-01:06 discusses acquiring slaves If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Lv25-39:43 discusses slavery arising from poverty: And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant.
Dt15-12:18 discusses a slave sold on the open market If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

From these verses Rashi identifies two types of slaves

Ex22-02 identifies the possibility of selling people into slavery if they have insufficient funds to pay off a theft If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him--he shall make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Lv25-39 identifies the possibility of a person selling himself when in poverty And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant.
- Poverty slavery is discussed in Lv25-39:43
- Theft slavery is discussed in Ex21-01:06 and Dt15-12:18
Sermonic points Many Americans find the Biblical passages on slavery distasteful. They ignore the fact that Biblical slavery addresses slavery or lack of sufficient funds on the part of a thief. America has done an outstanding job in eliminating most forms of poverty. Thru an ingenious set of bankruptcy laws, loans, jobs and reallocations, most forms of poverty have been eliminated. Hence the reasons for slavery are gone and slavery would not be implemented in America. Anyone however, familiar with the way poor people are treated in countries where poverty exists would understand how slavery is paradoxically a means of redeeming a poor person from poverty. The most biting statement about the harshness of poverty is the Talmudic observation that Job was never poor for poverty outweighs all the sufferings of Job.
Conclusion

This week's parshah does not contain examples of the spreadsheet and symbolism method. This concludes this weeks edition. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples.