|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshat VaYiQRaH Volume 9, Number 8 Used in the monthly Rashi-is-Simple and the Daily Rashi. Visit the RashiYomi website: http://www.Rashiyomi.com/ (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Mar - 13, - 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 Lv01-17a discussing the tearing of the up bird offering states And he [the priest] shall rip it [the bird] by the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder; and the priest shall offer it... Rashi clarifies the underlined word rip by referencing verse Ju14-06 which states And the spirit of the Lord camJe mightily upon him [Samson], and he ripped the lion like the rip of a kid and he had nothing in his hand; but he told not his father or his mother what he had done. Hence the Rashi comment: The Hebrew root Shin-Samech-Ayin has a general meaning of tear. Its specific nuances are a energetic deliberate ripping. Here Rashi uses other verses to clarify the meaning and nuances of a word. We could have also classified this Rashi as using the synonym method.
Rashi's point was the meaning of a word. We have already incorporated Rashi's translation of the Hebrew word as meaning rip in the actual verse. Such translations show the effect of the Rashi comment.
Rashi would sometimes derive the meaning of a word from the meaning of its underlying Biblical root. In applying this method Rashi would use all available grammatical methods to study the meanings of related roots. The next paragraph presents one such rule. There are 1900 Biblical roots. Of these 1900 roots about half involve X-Vav-Y X-Y-Y X-Y-Hey pairs. These roots (with one root letter weak) often, but not always, have related meanings. Consequently, very often, but not always. one can infer the meaning of a X-Y-Y root from the related X-Y-Hey or X-Vav-Y root. Let us apply these principles: Throughout the Bible the Temple offerings are referred to as being Nun-Yud-Chet-Vav-Chet to God. The root of the Hebrew word used is Nun-Chet-Chet, which has the form XYY (the second and third root letter are identical). The root Nun-Vav-Chet means rest. The root Nun-Chet-Chet, according to Rashi means pleasing / satisfying. Both rest and pleasing / satisfying connote a state where no further motion is required. The word rest is more physical (no further physical motion is anticipated) while the word pleasing / satisfaction is emotional (that is an emotional state where no further action is required). Note that pleasing / satisfaction differ from attractiveness which does connote a need of further motion towards the attractive object. Based on the above we would translate the many verses using Nun-Yud-Chet-Vav-Chet as meaning an offering pleasing and satisfying to God.
Advanced Rashi:The careful reader may have noticed in bullet #2, that we jumped ahead and made the priest subject for the grabbing a handful even though the change of subject to priest does not explicitly occur till the next verselet. It appears as if Rashi was inferring that the pronoun he refers back to the end of the last sentence son's of Aaron the priest. Actually however Rashi had a deeper reason. Verses Lv06-07:08 explicitly state that the priest performs the grabbing of the handful. The proper way to articulate this observation is that Rashi supplemented the grammar method with the reference method to arrive at the above analysis. There are other subtle points in the above switches. For example priest switches to Aaron and priests. There are subtle laws on who may eat the offerings. As a general principle the Head Priest may always partake. Similarly the group of priests serving in the Temple that week could partake of the offerings offered by their members. There are many more laws but our purpose today was to show how change of grammatical subject indicates change of the main person acting.
This Rashi requires the use of three Rashi methods. We recommend that the reader first read method #4, alignment, then read method #7, format and finally read method #5, contradiction. The Rashi will become clear if the rules are read in this order. The table below presents an aligned extract of verses in Lv03-02, Lv03-08, Lv03-13 Both verses discuss the sprinkling of blood The alignment justifies the Rashi assertions that The Bible emphasizes sprinkle...its blood
This Rashi requires the use of three Rashi methods. We recommend that the reader first read method #4, alignment, then read method #7, format and finally read method #5, contradiction. The Rashi will become clear if the rules are read in this order. The table below presents presents two contradictory sets of verses. Both verse sets talk about sprinkling blood. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse set says sprinkle any blood, even if mixed with blood of other sacrifices while the other verse says ... sprinkle only its blood; the sacrifice is invalid if its blood was mixed with blood of other sacrifices. Which is it? If blood of one sacrifice was mixed with blood of another sacrifice is the first sacrifice valid to not? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 aspects method: If the blood was mixed up with the blood of another valid sacrifice then the blood may be thrown and the initial sacrifice is valid. But if the blood was mixed up with the blood of another invalid sacrifice then the blood may not be offered and the first sacrifice is also invalid (and must be re-offered with another animal).
Advanced Rashi: The reader who has carefully read rules #4,7,5 may feel uneasy. Rule #4 focused on the alignment, blood...its blood ..its blood. Then in rule #7 we are told that the alignment which focuses on the repeated its blood indicates unspecified emphasis connoting only its blood. We are similarly told that the repeated blood...blood in Lv01-05 connotes any blood. These inferences are based on connotation not explicit words. Then in rule #5 we resolve this contradiction of connotation by using a distinction,that is not explicitly given, between mixture with valid vs. invalid sacrifices. This type of Rashi interpretation which is based almost exclusively on hints is common in Leviticus. The reader who is used to seeing more direct Rashi inferences may understandably feel a bit uneasy. The full defense of the naturality of these Rashi comes from a full fledged database of the repetition of all sacrifices in Lv01 thru Lv08. These eight chapters of repetitions create all sorts of patterns which naturally resolve themselves in the ways indicated. In this email newsletter we can only glimpse each Rashi separately and that is why the Rashi comment may appear less punchy then other Rashis. The reader who studies all the Leviticus Rashis will eventually become aware of their naturality but this takes time and cultivation.
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 interprets the general-detail-general form as indicating an entire paragraph; consequently the detail section is not seen as exclusive but rather as good examples of the general theme, that is, the details should be understood as examples of a more general theme to anything similar. Hence the Rashi comment:The theft guilt offering is brought on any monetary denial under oath. The five enumerated biblical examples should be perceived as covering the gamut of possible monetary crimes.
As indicated above these five examples are seen as spanning the gamut of crimes of monetary denial. The above analysis is helpful in showing how the five examples span all monetary matters.
This Rashi requires the use of three Rashi methods. We recommend that the reader first read method #4, alignment, then read method #7, format and finally read method #5, contradiction. The Rashi will become clear if the rules are read in this order. We have explained in our article Biblical Formatting located on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/biblicalformatting.pdf, that the Biblical Author indicates bold, italics, underline by using repetition. In other words if a modern author wanted to emphasize a word they would either underline, bold or italicize it. However when the Biblical author wishes to emphasize a word He repeats it. The effect - whether thru repetition or using underline - is the same. It is only the means of conveying this emphasis that is different. In applying this repetition rule we often employ a principle of the Malbim which states If after using a noun the Bible repeats the noun instead of using a pronoun then this repetition is treated like other repetitions indicating unspecified emphasis.
Following the repetition principle above we regard these repeated words as indicating unspecified emphasis similar to a modern underline or bold. The unspecified emphasis can be clarified using traditional words connoting emphasis. Our choice of traditional words connoting emphasis is based on context. We can translate the Lv03-8,13 verses as ...he shall sprinkle only its blood ... Such an emphasis indicates that only its blood can be sprinkled. However if the blood of the offering got mixed up with bloods of other offerings then we don't offer it. We can translate the Lv01-05 verse as ...he shall sprinkle any blood ... Such an emphasis indicates the blood is sprinkled even if it was mingled with other blood. The astute reader may have noticed that we have used contradictory connotations of emphasis. We had a reason for doing this. An emphasis on ...its blood... would appear to be restrictive - only its blood. By contract an emphasis on ...the blood... would be expansive- any blood. We have arrived at a paradoxical situation. We have interpreted the unspecified emphasii in the two sets of verses in a contradictory manner. Furthermore this contradiction was not explicit but rather only vaguely hinted at by the unspecified emphasii. Consequently to complete this example we will need to pursue it in the contradiction example. The reader is now invited to complete this Rashi by reading rule #5 contradiction.
We ask the following database query: Were the sacrifices obligatory or voluntary? When reading a Biblical passage what keywords indicate this? 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-Midrashic inference: Those sacrifices introduced by specific events - when such and such happens...- are obligatory; those sacrifices introduced generally - when you offer..are voluntary. The list below presents the results of the database query.
Verse Lv01-05f discussing the throwing of blood during the offering procedures states And he shall kill the bullock before HaShem; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and throw the blood around against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting. Rashi applies the diagram method to explain the mechanics of throwing around. By way of background we note that words like around can connote continuosly or discretely around. Many other words have this continuous - discrete ambiguity. For example the word always can mean continuously, all the time or can mean e.g. every day, (discretely always). Rashi following the Sifra points out that throw would be inconsistent with a continuous around: You can't throw continously around. Hence Rashi diagramatically interprets throws around as follows: He throws on two opposite diagonals so that the blood covers all 4 sides satisfying the requirement of around. Here, Rashi's primary goal is to clarify the diagramatics of throwing around.
Verse Lv02-13a discussing the requirement of salting (rest) offerings states And every meal-offering of thine shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy G-d to be lacking from thy meal-offering; with all thy offerings thou shalt offer salt. Rav Hirsch (in Nu) explains the symbolism of salt:After reviewing many biblical verses we see that salt is used to indicate destruction. But salt is also used to preserve meat from decay. How can the same item be used for both perservation and destruction? Rather salt maintains the status quo. If a land is destroyed then salting it preserves this destruction preventing further growth. If meat is about to decay then salting it prevents the decay. Thus salt symbolizes steadfastness. Using this symbolism we can understand the symbolic requirement of salting offerings: Whatever lessons are taught by the offerings must not be transient one day lessons in the Temple but permanantly preserved eternally. Advanced Rashi:But Rashi does not say this. Rather Rashi crytpically says: Water and salt made a deal at creation. Water is used on the Succah festival while salting is done to sacrifices. But we can now explain this cryptic Rashi. If salt is the symbol of preservation then water is the symbol of growth. Growth and change belong on the Succah festival when the water ceremony was performed. The Succah symbolizes non-citizenship. Every non-citizenship situation is one we should grow from. But the offerings symbolize acceptance of God's law. God's law is not something we grow out of; rather it is something eternal which should always be preserved. It is a climactic state where satisfaction and happiness abound; it is not a temporary transition state to something better for there is nothing better.
Conclusion
This week's parshah does contains examples of all Rashi methods. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||