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.
FULL HOUSE THIS WEEK ALL RASHI RULES ILLUSTRATED
Verse(s)
Dt21-07a
discussing
the prayers by the elders of the Jewish
community asking God to forgive the Jewish
community for the unknown murder they found
states
And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen.
Rashi clarifies the underlined words
seen
by referencing verse(s)
Lv19-16
discussing
the prohibition of abstaining from helping
someone attacked
which states
....nor shall you stand against the blood of your neighbor; I am the Lord.
Hence the Rashi comment:
The phrase we did not see in Dt21-07
references the prohibition of not standing
by the blood of your neighbor in Lv19-16.
In other words the elders are stating that they did
not abstain from helping the murdered victim, for
example, by providing hospitality, lodging and escort
as (s)he passed through their town.
Text of Target verse
Dt21-07a
|
Text of Reference Verse
Lv19-16
|
And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen.
|
....nor shall you stand against the blood of your neighbor; I am the Lord.
|
Rashi comments:
The phrase we did not see in Dt21-07
references the prohibition of not standing
by the blood of your neighbor in Lv19-16.
In other words the elders are stating that they did
not abstain from helping the murdered victim, for
example, by providing hospitality, lodging and escort
as (s)he passed through their town.
|
Advanced Rashi:
But there are two clauses in this verse. The verse states
And they shall answer and say,
- Our hands have not shed this blood
- nor have our eyes seen.
I believe Rashi explains the 1st clause as being in apposition
to the 2nd clause. In other words Rashi would read the entire verse
as follows.
- And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood - [in other words,]
- nor have our eyes seen [we have not stood by and avoided
providing hospitality, escort, and lodging].
In other words Rashi sees the statement we haven't killed him
as meaning we aren't partially responsible for his murder because
we avoided providing hospitality - in fact we provide hospitality and
lodging to people who pass thru our town.
Rashis literal statement is as follows: Did anyone accuse
the elders of murder; why then are they denying it. Rather it means
that they didn't cause his murder by neglecting hospitality and lodging.
We have taken this Rashi and explained it as follows:
- Rashi 1st explains the 2nd clause - we did not see him
- Rashi explains this clause by implicitly referring to the prohibition
of standing by the blood of ones neighbor
- Rashi presumably understands the 1st clause as explaining the 2nd
clause - we did not kill this person by avoiding seeing his needs.
When Rashi uses, what we may losely call, the hononym method, Rashi
does not explain new meaning but rather shows an underlying unity in disparate
meanings. Rashi will frequently do this by showing an underlying unity in
the varied meanings of a Biblical root.
In my article
Peshat and Derash found on the world wide web at
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rashi.pdf.
I advocate enriching the Rashi explanation
using a technique of parallel nifty translations in modern English. Today's examples
show this.
The Hebrew root Yud-Resh-Dalet means both
to fall and to conquer. The relation of these
two meanings should be clear. When you beat a person up
they typically fall to the ground. Similarly when you defeat
or destroy a city its buildings typically are felled to the gound.
We apply the above to verse Dt20-20a.
If we translated Yud-Resh-Dalet as meaning fall then we would translate
the verse as follows:
Only the trees which you know are not trees for food, you shall destroy and cut them down; and you shall build siege works against the city that makes war with you, until it has fallen.
Already the Davka translation of this verse which I frequently use
in this email list translates the Hebrew root Yud-Resh-Dalet as meaning
subdue.
Only the trees which you know are not trees for food, you shall destroy and cut them down; and you shall build siege works against the city that makes war with you, until it is subdued.
Conquered could be an alternate translation,
Two familiar functions of grammar in all
languages are pronoun reference and
plurality.
With this in mind let us examine the pronouns and references
in Dt21-07:08
And they shall answer and say,
- Our hands have not shed this blood,
- nor have our eyes seen it.
- Be merciful, O Lord, to your people Israel, whom you have redeemed,
- and lay not innocent blood to your people of Israel?s charge.
- And the blood shall be forgiven them.
Note the subtle use of pronouns.
- In bullets 1,2 the Jews are speaking so the pronoun our is used.
- But then in bullets 3,4, instead of using the pronoun us, the
reference your nation Israel is used. This is a standard literary
technique - reference by name vs. pronoun - and is used in situations where a lack of familiarity is to be emphasized. Here because we are asking God for a favor the non-pronoun form is used. (Interestingly in French there are two pronouns - one for familiarity and one for formality).
- Bullet #5 uses the pronoun them. There are two ways to interpret this.
- We could interpret this as use of a distant pronoun - them vs. us. If so this would be a continuation of the prayer of the priests. It would be a request may the blood be atoned for them which means may the blood be atoned for us.
- Or, the prayer could have stopped in bullet 4, and now the Bible is assuring them, that the prayer-affirmation of responsibility is sufficient to effect atonement.
Now we can cite the Rashi paraphrased.
The prayer of the elders and priests is presented in bullets #1-4. The Bible then assures us in bullet #5 that the prayer suffices to effect atonement. This seems very reasonable. After all the sole possible sin of the city is that they did not provide hospitality to a stranger passing through the city. Their affirmation that they consider lack of hospitality akin to murder suffices to atone for any possible negligence.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets
in
Dt18-12, Lv18-29
Both verses/verselets
discuss
the loathesomeness of pagan practices.
The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that:
Even one of the listed loathesome acts is fully loathesome.
One need not do many of them before one is classified as
loathesome.
Verse
|
Text of Verse
|
Rashi comment
|
Dt18-12a
|
For all that do these things
are an abomination to the Lord;
and because of these abominations
the Lord your God drives them out from before you.
|
Even one of the listed loathesome acts is fully loathesome.
One need not do many of them before one is classified as
loathesome. It is loathesome whether you do (all) these things
or (one) from these things.
|
Lv18-29
|
For whoever shall do
from any of these abominations,
the souls who commit them
shall be cut off from among their people.
|
The table below presents
two contradictory verses.
Both verses talk about
treatment of a conquered nation.
The underlined words highlight the contradiction.
One verse says
kill all males,
while the other verse says
take captive women and children.
Which is it?
Are male children taken captive or killed?
Rashi simply resolves this using the
2 aspects
method:
Adult males are killed. But all children
are taken captive, whether male or female.
Summary
|
Verse / Source
|
Text of verse / Source
|
All adult males are killed
|
Dt20-13
|
And when the Lord your God has delivered it into your hands,
you shall strike all its
males with the edge of the sword;
|
All children are taken captive, whether male or female.
|
Dt20-14
|
But the women, and children, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, all the plunder from it,
shall you take for yourself;
and you shall eat the plunder of your enemies,
which the Lord your God has given you.
|
Resolution:
|
2 Aspects
|
Adult males are killed. But all children
are taken captive, whether male or female.
|
Advanced Rashi: The resolution here was logical.
Rashi could have said Kill all males whether adult or children and
only take the female children captive. Why did Rashi chose one resolution
over the other? I think the driving force behind this is the argument that
adult males are used in military defense and therefore the adult males must
be killed. There is no reason to kill the male children.
Consequently this Rashi is interesting in that common sense and
attribution of reasons to the verse directives are used to resolve the contradiction.
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.
Verse Dt17-08 discussing when you should seek guidance
from the great court in Jerusalem states
- General:If there arises a matter too hard for you in judgment,
- Detail: between blood and blood,
- Detail: between plea and plea,
- Detail: and between plague and plague,
- General: being matters of controversy inside your gates;
then shall you arise, and get to the place which the Lord your God shall choose;
The General-Detail-General rule requires perceiving
the entire paragraph as a unit. Hence all the detail
phrases are seen as exemplifying the general phrases which
deal with controversies whose solution is unknown. The examples given are
- whether a leprosy plague is ritually pure or not
- whether blood discharges are ritually pure or not
- whether civil issues result in payment or not.
In other words, each of the detail clauses is interpreted as referring
to some yes-no issue - yes, it is ritually pure, vs. no, it is not
ritually pure; yes, you are liable money, vs. no, you are not liable money.
The emphasis here is that you don't go to Jerusalem because of a general philosophic
inquiry - a desire to learn court casee - but only for a specific yes-no issue.
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 indicated bullets
by using repeating keywords.
That is, if a modern
author wanted to get a point across using bullets -
a list of similar but contrastive items -
then the Biblical
Author would use repeating keywords.
Today's verse illustrates this principle.
Verse
Dt18-03c
discussing
the requirement to give priestly gifts when offering a sacrifice states
And this shall be the priest?s due
- from the people,
- from those who offer a sacrifice,
whether it is ox or sheep; and they shall
give to the priest the shoulder,
and the two cheeks, and the stomach.
Rashi commenting on the repeated underlined words, from, which
creates a bullet effect giving separate and distinct emphasis to
each bullet itemsstates
Priestly gifts must come from an offerer who is also from the people - that is from a lay person but
not a priest. So a lay person offering a sacrifice does give priestly gifts while
a priest offering a sacrifice does not give priestly gifts. The driving force
for this derivation comes from the two bullets which emphasize that the person,
in order to be required to give the gifts, must both offer sacrifices and be
from the people (that is the lay people).
Today we ask the database query:
Which commandments mention a reward of
long life or becoming well off for performing them?
The query uncovers
half a dozen major
examples.
An examination of these
examples justifies the Rashi assertion that
7 commandments mention the reward of a long life or becoming well. These
commandments cover the entire spectrum of commandments
- Thus there are easy commandments (like letting the mother
bird escape when capturing its young),
- commandments whose
violation is disgusting (like eating blood),
- communal commandments
(like have good justice), etc.
Because these commandments
cover the entire spectrum therefore we infer that all commandments
if observed will provide a reward of long life.
The table below presents results of the query
along with illustrations of Rashi's comment.
Verse
| Verse Content
| Comments on commandment
|
Dt11-21a
| That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.
| General Observance of commandments
|
Dt24-19d
| When you cut down your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go again to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the orphan, and for the widow; that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
| Leaving forgotten sheaves to indigent (No further action required)
|
Dt12-25b
| You shall not eat it; that it may go well with you, and with your children after you, when you shall do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.
| Prohibition of eating blood (But blood is disgusting and most people would abstain anyway)
|
Dt22-07a
| But you shall let the mother go, and take the young to you; that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.
| Letting mother bird free when capturing young (An easy commandment)
|
Ex20-12a
| Honor your father and your mother; that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God gives you.
| Honoring parents (Easy commandment; all can do it)
|
Dt16-20b
| Justice, only justice shall you pursue, that you may live, and inherit the land which the Lord your God gives you.
| Communal justice
|
Dt17-20b
| That his heart be not lifted up above his brothers, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left; to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
| Requirements of King
|
Notice how the commandments above span the entire spectrum
- General commandments
- Easy commandments
- Commandments that would be done anyway
- Communal commandments
- Commandments peculiar to Royal house
- Commandments without action
Hence the Rashi comment: Observance of any commandment
leads to reward. Note the interesting fact that although we have
classified this as the database method it could equally
be classified as coming from the Style rule of
generalization from several verses.
Dt21-01:02 discussing the ceremony when an unknown murder
is found states
If a corpse is found slain in the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess, lying in the field, and it is not known who has slain him;
Then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure to the cities which are around him who is slain;
Rashi makes the obvious comment that Measurement requires a
to and from. The verse only gives the to part of the
measurement. The from part of the request is from the
corpse's body.
Advanced Rashi: Rambam gives more detail (Laws of Murder Chapter 9).
If say the corpse is decapitated - the head and body are separated - then you measure from the nose.
My opinion is that Rambam gave the details of the laws. By contrast, Rashi
spoke more to the exegesis of the text. The verses mention corpse and
therefore the missing to refers to the corpse with which the
verses introduces. The reason Rashi did not go into further detail is because this further detail - nose of the corpse - cannot be derived from the verses being studied.
Verse Dt18-03d,e describing the gifts given to the
Priests by the Jews states
And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest - the shoulder, and
- the cheeks, and
- the stomach.
Rashi symbolically interprets this gift as
affirming the original act of zealotry by Pinchas which
earned him eternal Priesthood. Recall that Pinchas
speared a couple having relations openly in public and thereby
assuaged God's anger at the promiscuity with the Moabite women.
There is a psychological point here: Pinchas killed them
because he saw the act as premeditated and malicious, not as
an act of passion. The reason he saw the act as premeditated is
because, as a priest, he was aware of how things develop. Zimri
should have stopped the relationship as it developed. The gifts
given to the priest symbolize the development of sin:
- The shoulder [exposure]
- the cheeks [liquid secretions]
- the maw [relations]
Advanced Rashi: Rashi does not literally
say what we have said. He corresponds cheek with
mouth and prayer and corresponds hand with
thrusting the sword. However we feel that Rashi
was simply being discrete here. He did not want to explicitly
speak about such things. He left it to the reader to infer it.
Also Rashi wanted to explain that besides the description
of the development of sin the priestly gifts also symbolized the act of zealotry which
came about through prayer and using a sword.
This week's parshah contains examples of all methods.
This concludes this weeks edition.
Visit the RashiYomi website at
http://www.Rashiyomi.com
for further details and examples.
|