|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshat BeHa'aLoTheChaH Volume 10, Number 5 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, June 12th, 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 Nu10-02f discussing the commandment to make trumpets states Make two trumpets of silver; make them hard; you may use them for calling the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. Rashi clarifies the underlined words hard by referencing verse(s) Ex25-36, discussing the construction of the Temple Candellabrah, which states Their bulbs and their branches shall be made from it; it shall all be one hard work of pure gold. Hence the Rashi comment: A hard work means sculptored vs. soldered That is all parts of the work are From it; the entire work forms one hard piece.
This example uses two Rashi methods, the alignment method and the meaning method. The special word method deals with the few dozen special words that exist in all languages. Familiar examples are also, when, that, because, only, this,.... Rashi's job, when he comments on a special connective words, is to list the varied nuances and usages of the word. The most famous example is the Hebrew word Kaph Yud which can mean because, that, when, perhaps, rather, if. Sometimes Rashi explicitly gives all meanings of a connective word as happens with Kaph Yud while at other times Rashi does not give all meanings at once. In such a case the student must gather all the meanings together from various places. Today we deal with the special connective word this, Zayin-Aleph-Tauv. The word this always indicates an unspecified emphasis. This unspecified emphasis will clarify the application of the alignment discussed immediately below. The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Nu08-24a, Lv21-17 Both verses/verselets discuss requirements of people - priests, levites - serving in the Temple. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that One verse says that blemished priests may not serve. One verse says that young/old levites may not serve. There are 3 approaches to interpreting this alignment. Approach 1 - Shared: Both priests and levites are prohibited from serving if they are either blemished or young/old. Approach 2 - Additive: Priests may not serve if blemished. Levites may not serve if blemished or young/old. Approach 3 - Contrastive: Priests may not serve if blemished. Levites may not serve if young/old. The true approach: The true approach is given by the special connective word, this, introducing the Levite law. In other words This law only applies to the Levites but not to the priests. Hence the alignment is interpreted contrastively - blemishes only invalidate Priests while age only invalidates Levites.
Advanced Rashi: Special note should be made of the possible three approaches to interpreting the alignment. Indeed we do find alignments whose interpretation uses the shared approach, the additive approach or the contrastive approach. There is no reason, a priori, to chose one over the other. A position of this email group is that interpretations are not politically motivated but rather grammatically motivated. That is the Bible indicated through special words, phrases and styles which approach should be emphasized. In this case the introductory word this is what applies to the Levites emphasizes a contrastive approach - this law only applies to the Levites, not to the Priests. We believe that this observation is one of the most important contributions of this email newsletter.
Verse Nu11-15b discussing Moses' prayer to die rather than see the punishment of the Jewish people states And if Thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in Thy sight; and let me not look upon my wretchedness.' Rashi points out that logically the verse should read And if Thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in Thy sight; and let me not look upon their wretchedness.' Rashi explains: Considerations of politeness and etiquette justify grammatical changes that avoid confrontation. Here by changing the underlined word their to my Moses avoids mentioning the horrible catastrophe about to befall the Jewish people. There are in fact 18 politeness-grammatical changes in the Bible. These politeness-grammatical changes are grammatical usages common to all languages and all cultures. These politeness-grammatical changes are in the original biblical text and, as indicated, are common to all languages.
This example uses two Rashi methods, the alignment method and the meaning method. The special word method deals with the few dozen special words that exist in all languages. Familiar examples are also, when, that, because, only, this,.... Rashi's job, when he comments on a special connective words, is to list the varied nuances and usages of the word. The most famous example is the Hebrew word Kaph Yud which can mean because, that, when, perhaps, rather, if. Sometimes Rashi explicitly gives all meanings of a connective word as happens with Kaph Yud while at other times Rashi does not give all meanings at once. In such a case the student must gather all the meanings together from various places. Today we deal with the special connective word this, Zayin-Aleph-Tauv. The word this always indicates an unspecified emphasis. This unspecified emphasis will clarify the application of the alignment discussed immediately below. The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Nu08-24a, Lv21-17 Both verses/verselets discuss requirements of people - priests, levites - serving in the Temple. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that One verse says that blemished priests may not serve. One verse says that young/old levites may not serve. There are 3 approaches to interpreting this alignment. Approach 1 - Shared: Both priests and levites are prohibited from serving if they are either blemished or young/old. Approach 2 - Additive: Priests may not serve if blemished. Levites may not serve if blemished or young/old. Approach 3 - Contrastive: Priests may not serve if blemished. Levites may not serve if young/old. The true approach: The true approach is given by the special connective word, this, introducing the Levite law. In other words This law only applies to the Levites but not to the priests. Hence the alignment is interpreted contrastively - blemishes only invalidate Priests while age only invalidates Levites.
Advanced Rashi: Special note should be made of the possible three approaches to interpreting the alignment. Indeed we do find alignments whose interpretation uses the shared approach, the additive approach or the contrastive approach. There is no reason, a priori, to chose one over the other. A position of this email group is that interpretations are not politically motivated but rather grammatically motivated. That is the Bible indicated through special words, phrases and styles which approach should be emphasized. In this case the introductory word this is what applies to the Levites emphasizes a contrastive approach - this law only applies to the Levites, not to the Priests. We believe that this observation is one of the most important contributions of this email newsletter.
The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about the journeys and campings of the Jews The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says by the word of God the Jews camped while the other verse says when they rested Moses said 'Please return God to the myriads thousands of Jews.' Which is it? Were journeys determined by God or Moses. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 stages method method: God ordered a camping. Moses would then gather the people and pray 'Please return God to the myriads thousands of Jews.' The prayer would trigger off prophetic visions of Gods cloud camping with the Jews and the Jews would then camp.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi actually simply mentions God ordered the camping and the cloud of God's honor then appeared like a pillar. Moses prayed and then the cloud of Gods glory spread over the camp. We however have not disagreed with Rashi but added to Rashi. We posited that a simple Divine order would not cause the whole camp to stop. Rather Moses would have to communicate to them that a camping was ordered. Presumably at such a public pronouncement Moses prayed (as explicitly indicated in the Bible). The people then all knew there was a camping and camped. Undoubtedly Moses prayer and the communal gathering of so many thousands of people triggered off visions of the cloud of God's honor spreading over the whole camp. We can summarize this as follows. The driving force of the Rashi is the two contradictory verses which must be resolved in two stages. Thus we know that a combination of God's order followed by Moses' praying caused the camping. I have given a plausible social account of these two stages. Rashi adds an important additional point to my reasonable social account (The point of confirmation by dreams and visions). In reviewing my interpretation or Rashi's it is important to emphasize that the focal point is the contradictory verses and their resolution in 2 stages.
Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Theme-Development form. In other words a broad general idea is stated first, followed by the development of this broad general theme in specific details. The Theme-Detail form creates a unified paragraph and consequently the law only applies to the enumerated details, but not to other cases. Today's example illustrates this.
When a modern author wishes to deemphasize a concept they will strike it out. When the Biblical author wishes to deemphasize a concept He places dots over it. The dots in the Biblical version, or the strikeout in the modern version, indicate deemphasis.
Today we ask the database query: How long were Moses' prayers? The query uncovers 9 examples. An examination of these examples justifies the Rashi assertion that Moses did not want people saying that he was spending alot of time in prayer over a relative. The table below presents results of the query along with illustrations of Rashi's comment.
Our current editions of Rashi have an additional reason enclosed in parenthesis: People shouldn't say he prays long for his sister but not for us. This reason however is inconsistent with the above set of examples since e.g. Moses did pray long for the nation(sometimes) and also prayed long for himself. We conclude that this parenthetical remark is not true Rashi. Based on the set of examples Rashi's comment on Moses' neglect of family members seems most accurate. Notice how in this case we can identify the true Rashi text by examining, not Rashi manuscripts, but biblical verses and Rashi's underlying reasons.
9. RASHI METHOD:
SPREADSHEETS
BRIEF EXPLANATION: The common denominator of the 3 submethods of the Spreadsheet method is that inferences are made from non textual material. The 3 submethods are as follows: URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n22.htm Brief Summary: If her father embarassed her she would not show face for 7 days. How much more so if I God embarass her. Verse Nu12-14a discussing God's punishment of Miriam by leprosy states And the Lord said to Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again. Rashi comments: We could equally argue that If her father embarassed her she would be embarassed 7 days; hence if God embarasses her she should be shut out from the camp 14 days. But we suffice with the analogy hence, when God embarasses her she should be shut out from the camp 7 days. In other words, the driving force of the verse's logic is analogy- father:7 days:: God:7 days. The Bible does not however use a fortiori arguments to intensify (14 vs 7). In this case Rashi is commenting on the logical inference in the verse. Hence we classify this as a logical non-verse method similar to the numerical spreadsheet methods and the diagramatic geometric methods. We should also point out that very often the validity and content of Biblical exegetical methods are derived from verses. Here the method of application of the a-fortiori argument is derived from a Biblical verse. Thus these rules were not oral traditions from Sinai but rather actual derivations from the Biblical text (and consequently have Sinaitic force and authority.)
The example below combines two Rashi methods: The symbolism method and the database method.
The table below presents the 3 commandments as well as their symbolic interpretation. We also include a non-commandment example of leaning. It follows that this Rashi combines the database and symbolism methods.
Sermonic points: The idea of symbolically affirming a serious moment such as transfer of responsibility occurs in many cultures with many diverse symbols. All cultures recognize the need to symbolically affirm serious moments and values. The symbolism here identifes support in the physical realm with moral support in the social realm. It is a symbol based on function.
Conclusion
This week's parshah contains examples of all Rashi methods. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||