|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshat VaAyRaH Vol 8, # 13 - Adapted from Rashi-is-Simple Visit the RashiYomi website: http://www.Rashiyomi.com/ (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Jan - 3, - 2008 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 Ex08-28a discussing that Pharoh hardened his heart states And Pharaoh also hardened his heart this time, neither would he let the people go. Rashi clarifies the underlined words also hardened his heart this time by referencing verse Ex08-24 which states And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that you may sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness; only you shall not go very far away; entreat for me. Hence the Rashi comment: Even though Pharoh promised to let them go (Ex08-24) he did not fulfill his promise (EX08-28)
Advanced Rashi: Rashi's point can be made clearer if we note that at both the second and fourth plague we find both a) a promise by Pharoh to let the Jews go Ex08-04,Ex08-24 coupled with b) a refusal Ex08-11,Ex08-28. By contrast at the 1st,3rd, and 6th plague we find no such promise (We only find a verse stating Pharoh's heart was hardened). So the word also in Ex08-28 And Pharaoh also hardened his heart this time refers to a similarity of relationship between the 4th and 2nd plague where there was both a prior promise of freedom and reneging on that promise. The word also is a special connective word which can be used to indicate similar relationships.
Students of Rashi must bear in mind that Rashi could sometimes use universal principles applicable in all languages. This particularly applies to the meaning methods.
Hence Rashi translates alot as also meaning enough since alot is a good example (Synechdoche) of enough. As shown by the underlined words, Rashi uses this translation in the following verse Ex09-28a : Entreat HaShem, as there are enough of these mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer.'
When using the grammar method Rashi will instruct students in Hebrew grammar similar to the instruction found in modern day textbooks. A classical part of all Hebrew grammar courses are the rules for conjugation of verbs. All verb roots may be conjugated in 7 dimensions: a) passivity (active-passive) b) modality(will-should), c) person (I, you, he), d) plurality, e) tense (past-future-infinitive), f) gender, g) object, h) connective preposition. A standard quick good summary for conjugation is the appendix of the Ibn Shoshan dictionary. Hebrew roots are considered three-letter objects. The midieval nomenclature for these three letters are Pay, Ayin, Lamed while the current notation is 1,2,3. For example a Biblical root whose first letter is Yud would be called in midieval terminology a Pay Yud root while in modern terminology it would be called Yud-2-3 root. Both terminologies indicate that the first letter of the root is Yud. The conjugation rules for Yud-2-3 roots differ from the conjugation rules for ordinary roots. Table 2 of Ibn Shoshan gives the conjugation rules of these roots over the four dimensions of activity, tense, gender, person. Young Yeshiva students are frequently taught (or forced to memorize) these tables. Studying these tables immediately yields the Rashi comment: The Yud changes to a Vav in the passive, causative, and passive-causative (Nifal, hifil, hofal) modes. The Yud however remains in the Qal, Piel, Pual, and Hithpael modes. Advanced Rashi: The above is a paraphrase of Rashi. Rashi actually only literally says that: The Yud changes to a Vav when the mode is passive. But as shown above this is only partially true. For example the Yud does not change to a Vav in the Pual - Passive-intense mode. Similarly the Yud changes to a Vav in the active-causative mode. We conclude that the Rashi comment is only a rough approximation and not 100% accurate. I conjecture that Rashi used such rough approximations as a pedagogic technique. Rashi taught the basic rule which experienced teachers would then amplify on. The above analysis is very useful to those who think that the best approach to Rashi is to be literal and defend every minutae of Rashi. Such an approach does not always yield true results. To recap: Rashi said that Yud changes to Vav in passive situations but as seen this is only true in two out of the three passive tenses. Rashi expected the teacher and student to fill in the missing details. Such an approach to Rashi is mature, deep and enriching. It sees Rashi as blazing a path while leaving it to others to smooth the path and pave it so it is smooth.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verselets in Ex06-02a Both verselets discuss God communicating with Moses The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that God both cited Moses (gave him a citation/ticket for having doubts) and spoke to Moses (Comforting him on the future). ...For example God promised Israel to all three Patriarchs. (a) In contrast to Moses' statement of doubt, although the Patriarchs didn't get Israel they never complained. In this sense God gave Moses a citation for doubting him. (b) On the other hand the reminder of the promise to give the Jews Israel was a comforting statement to Moses who saw the suffering of his people.
Advanced Rashi: We have used her the synonym distinction that Daleth-Beth-Resh means cite while Aleph-Mem-Resh means speak. Such a distinction is consistent with the Talmudic adage that Daleth-Beth-Resh or citation has a connotation of harshness.
The table below presents presents two contradictory verse sets. Both verse sets speak about the social importance of three tribes (Reuben, Shimon, Levi) The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse set says Reuben, Shimon and Levi are cursed and bad people while the other verse states These tribes can produce great people like Moses. Which is it? Are the tribes cursed or blessed. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Aspects method: The tribes were cursed but the individuals in each tribe were not cursed. Although the Tribes were cursed, did produce evil people and were severely punished, nevertheless each individual tribe member could ascend to whatever heights they wished to.
Sermonic Points: This Rashi could be greatly developed. The curse Jacob placed on Reuben, Shimon and Levi was not theoretical, it was actual. Reuben produced the infamous Datan and Aviram who organized a rebellion against Moses, Shimon produced Zimri who slept in public with a Moabite and brought a plauge killing 24000 people on the Jewish nation, while Levi produced the infamous Korach who headed the rebellion against Moses. What could be more frightening and definite - a Patriarch with decree power of curse and hard evidence that the curse materialized! And yet the tribe of Levi produced Moses one of the greatest people in human history. From a conceptual point of view: The curse does not imply that each member of the tribe must be missing something. For Moses achieved greatness and perfection. So did Elijah. Rather the curse was on the aggregate entity of the tribe and not on any individual. This emphasis on the potential of the individual is important and fundamental in Judaism. This Rashi is continued in rule #6, style.
Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Theme-Development-Theme form. In other words a broad general idea is stated first followed by the development of this broad general theme in specific details. The paragraph-like unit is then closed with a repetition of the broad theme. The Theme-Detail-Theme form creates a unified paragraph. The detailed section of this paragraph is therefore seen as an extension of the general theme sentences. Today's example illustrates this as shown immediately below.
Rashi comments on the above theme-detail-theme structure as follows: We have seen above in rule #5, contradiction that the three tribes whose genealogy is given - Reuben, Shimon, Levi - are cursed tribes who produced evil people. Such a context enables us to understand Moses protest indicated by the underlined words ...who am I of uncircumcised lips that I should speak to Pharoh... And it is exactly in such a cursed setting that it is befitting that the redeemer of the Jewish people should come. For the whole essence of Egypt was structure and the curse of gods from which no-one could escape. And lo and behold Levi produced Elijah and Moses. Well does the verse state This is the Moses and Aaron that God told to take the Jews out of Egypt. For by God picking a person from a cursed tribe who was a stutterer who had all the cards stacked against him and nevertheless became one of the greatest people in human history, by such a selection, God erased the whole foundation of Egypt which was that the class status of cursed people cannot change.
The climax principle asserts that a sequence of similar phrases should be interpreted climactically even if the words and grammatical constructs used do not directly suggest this. That is the fact of the sequence justifies reading into the Biblical text a climactic interpretation even if no other textual source justifies it. For this reason we consider the climax method a distinct and separate method.
Sermonic points: Rashi emphasizes that national sins have a hierarchy of responsibility. Both the a) leaders b) advisors and c) people are responsible since they all participate. However the primary responsibility lies on the leaders with a secondary and tertiary responsibility on the advisors and people. This contradicts one popular view that the people are totally exempt from punishment. Although they did not take the lead they are still responsible.
We ask the following database query: When does the Bible call God, Shadai. The reader is encouraged to perform the query using a standard Biblical Konnkordance or search engine. This database query yields the list below. The list justifies the following Rashi inference: The name of God, SHADAI refers to those situations where God used immediate and great force. The list below presents the results of the database query and shows examples.
We should clarify the nature of the above list. Dinah was raped and immediately the city was destroyed. Naomi left Israel in order not to help people in famine and was immediately socially disgraced. Bilam suggested promiscuity and the Jews were immediately punished. Bilam himself was immediately punished in a war declared on him. Moses wanted immediate deliverance. God patiently explained to him that God showed immediacy to the Patriarchs. However to Moses God was showing development. God redeemed the Jews in 10 plagues during which time Pharoh had an opportunity to rebel even further. Thus the redemption from Egypt was not a manifestation of God showing immediacy but rather a manifestation of God showing slow development.
Verse Ex09-24aa discussing the 7th of the 10 plagues that God brought on Egypt, the plauge of hail, states So there was hail, and fire flashing up amidst the hail, very grievous, such as had not been in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. Rashi commenting on the underlined words hail, and fire states Miracle of miracles: After all, hail is frozen water and water and fire don't usually coexist. But for this miracle the hail and fire coexisted.Clearly the source of Rashi's method is not textual but real world values. That is Rashi knows about the double miracle, not because of Hebrew grammar or other Biblical texts, but rather, because of his knowledge of the real world where fire and water do not usually coexist. The essence of the Fill In method is commenting on the Biblical text based on logic and knowledge of the real world.
Conclusion
This week's parshah contains no examples of the Symbolism method. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||