The 10 RashiYomi Rules
Their presence in Rashis on Parshat MishPaTim
Volume 12, Number 7
Rashi is Simple - Volume 35 Number 7

Used in the weekly Rashi-is-Simple and the Daily Rashi.
Visit the RashiYomi website: http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
(c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President,
Feb 19th, 2009

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.

    1. RASHI METHOD: REFERENCES
    BRIEF EXPLANATION: Commentary on a verse is provided thru a cross-reference to another verse. The cross references can either provide
    • (1a) further details,
    • (1b) confirm citations, or
    • (1c) clarify word meaning.
    This examples applies to Rashis Ex21-13e
    URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1207.htm
    Brief Summary: A negligent murderer is given a place of refuge to flee (Ex21-13e): a) 6 refuge cities in Israel and b) the Levite camp/cities in the wilderness and Israel (Nu35-06:07)

Verse Ex21-12:13 discussing refuge cities for the negligent murderer states He who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall be surely put to death. But if a man not ambush, but G-d cause it to come to hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee. Rashi notes that the underlined words, I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee references verses Nu35-06:07 discussing the refuge cities that existed in Israel and the Wilderness. Hence the Rashi comment The 6 refuge cities for negligent murderes were only set aside when the Jews came to Israel (Nu35-10:11). However both in Israel and in the wilderness the negligent murderer could also flee to the cities allocated to the Levites, since the Levite cities were also refuge cities for the negligent murderer (Nu35-06:07). Hence the statement that God set a place of refuge for the negligent murderer Ex21-13e refers, during their wilderness stay, to the Levite cities, but not to the 6 refuge cities which only existed in Israel.

Text of Target Verse Ex21-12:13e Text of Reference Verse Nu35-06:07,10:11
He who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall be surely put to death. But if a man lie not in wait, but G-d cause it to come to hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee. And the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be six cities of refuge, which you shall appoint for the man slayer that he may flee there; and to them you shall add forty two cities. So all the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be forty eight cities; both them and their open grounds....Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them; When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, Then you shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the man slayer who kills any person unawares may flee there.
Rashi comments: The 6 refuge cities for negligent murderes were only set aside when the Jews came to Israel (Nu35-10:11). However both in Israel and in the wilderness the negligent murderer could also flee to the cities allocated to the Levites, since the Levite cities were also refuge cities for the negligent murderer (Nu35-06:07). Hence the statement that God set a place of refuge for the negligent murderer Ex21-13e refers, during their wilderness stay, to the Levite cities, but not to the 6 refuge cities which only existed in Israel.

      2. RASHI METHOD: WORD MEANING
      BRIEF EXPLANATION: The meaning of words can be explained either by
      • (2a) translating an idiom, a group of words whose collective meaning transcends the meaning of its individual component words,
      • (2b) explaining the nuances and commonality of synonyms-homographs,
      • (2c) describing the usages of connective words like also,because,if-then, when,
      • (2d) indicating how grammatical conjugation can change word meaning
      • (2e) changing word meaning using the figures of speech common to all languages such as irony and oxymorons.
      This examples applies to Rashis Ex23-08c
      URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1207.htm
      Brief Summary: SLF doesn't mean to MAKE CROOKED but rather means to BURDEN

    Today's meaning example uses three Rashi meaning methods:
  • We use the root-meaning deriving the meaning of a word from the meaning of its underlying Biblical root;
  • We use the metonomy / synechdoche method which derives meaning from related items; for example honey refers to anything sweet and give me a hand refers to lending help. We have frequently singled out what we have called the triple FFF rule of metonomy: Form, Function , and Feel. This rule states that words can be named by form: e.g. the pentagon is a building with a pentagonal form; Furnction: e.g. the United Nations is a building whose function is to unite nations of the world; or Feel: e.g. a hardship feels like something hard, not soft;
  • We use the synonym method which focuses not only on the meaning of a word but also on its nuances.

    Before explaining the meaning we wish to we clarify Rashi/Rav Hirsch's position on two-letter roots. We have clarified numerous times that Rashi and Rav Hirsch believed that
  • Grammatical roots are triliteral and are conjugated according to rules found in Grammar textbooks
  • Rashi and Rav Hirsch additionally believed that just as Hebrew words have an underlying three letter root so too Hebrew roots have underlying two letter roots, which determine not their conjugation but their meaning.
  • Here is an alternative way to look at this.
    • 2 letter roots determine root meaning
    • 3 letter roots determine verb conjugation.

With this background we translate Ex23-08 as follows: And you shall take no bribe; for the bribe blinds the wise, and burdens the words of the righteous. Here we have translated the Biblical root Samech-Lamed-Pay as meaning burden. We derive this meaning from the underlying two-letter root, Samech-Lamed which means moving up a hill or inclined surface. The list below shows that a terminal pay indicates application of metonomy, meaning related to the meaning of the other two letters. It follows that Samech-Lamed-Pay is something with the same feel (metonomy) as an incline or hill. Hence we have translated Samech-Lamed-Pay as meaning burden. The idea seems to be that if a judge takes bribes he will not outright distort justice but will make it burdensome to achieve (in the hope of helping the briber). The Bible prohibited bribes because the resulting burdensome atmosphere is poisonous to the legal system.

This list illustrates the idea that a terminal pay indicates a meaning reasonably related to the meaning of the other two letters.
Hebrew Biblical Root Meaning Meaning of First two root letters Metonomyc relation between 1st 2 letters and whole root
Aleph-Shin-Pay Trash Fire A trashpile has the same form as the remains of something burnt
Gimel-Resh-Pay clumped, fist drag The form or physical attributes of something dragged (e.g. snow removal) would be that it is clumped (A fist is simply a clumped hand)
Dalet-Lamed-Pay Drip Pull a pail from a pit; growth of a branch The form of a dripping motion resembles slow growth of a branch or the pulling of a pail from a pit - the pail gets pulled drop by drop; the branch grows drop by drop
Samech-Lamed-Pay Burden move up an incline or hill the emotional feel of moving up an incline or hill is burdensomeness; the act can be accomplished but with burden.

      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 examples applies to Rashis Ex21-15b
      URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1207.htm
      Brief Summary: A person who delivers a non-fatal blow to EITHER his father or mother receives a death penalty.

The bulk of traditional Biblical Hebrew grammar deals with the conjugation of verbs and nouns. However Biblical Hebrew grammar also deals with other issues such as a) pronoun reference, b) gender/ plurality agreement, c) adjectives /adverbs / determiners, d) compound nouns/ verbs/ sentences, e) possessives, and f) use of connective words.

Today Rashi deals with the connective Biblical word, Vav. In Biblical Hebrew Vav can be translated as meaning any logical connective such as and, or, but, if, then,...

    To fully understand this Rashi we cite a beautiful Malbim explaining the use of the Hebrew Vav. Malbim suggests three principles:
  • In a simple command Vav means and; For example, Take on the first day of Succoth an ethrog, and lulav, and myrtles and willows (Lv23-40.)
  • In a simple prohibition vav means or; for example, don't abuse [either] a widow or an orphan (Ex22-21)
  • In a conditional statement there is a controversy between Rabbi Oshia and Rabbi Yonathan whether Vav means and or or. Malbim ingeniously cites two dozen Talmudic passages where this controversy occurs. Rashi translates in accordance with the opinion that it means or. For example Rashi translates Ex21-15 as follows: [if] you smite [either] your father or your mother [then] you receive a death penalty.

    4. RASHI METHOD: ALIGNMENT
    BRIEF EXPLANATION: Aligning two almost identically worded verselets can suggest
    • (4a) 2 cases of the same incident or law
    • (4b) emphasis on the nuances of a case
    • (4c) use of broad vs literal usage of words
    This examples applies to Rashis Ex21-15a
    URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1207.htm
    Brief Summary: 1)Fatal blows to a parent/non-parent results in a death penalty. 2)Non fatal blows to a non-parent result in monetary penalty 3)Non fatal blows to a parent result in a death penalty

    The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Ex21-15a, Ex21-12, Lv24-17, Lv24-19 Both verses/verselets discuss blows to people. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that:
    • Fatal blows to a parent/non-parent results in a death penalty.
    • Non fatal blows to a non-parent result in monetary penalty
    • Non fatal blows to a parent result in a death penalty

Verse Text of Verse Rashi comment
Ex21-12, Lv24-17
  • Lv24-17 And he who kills any man shall surely be put to death.
  • Lv24-19And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him;
  • Ex21-12 He who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall be surely put to death.
  • Ex21-15 And he who strikes his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death
  • Fatal blows to a parent/non-parent results in a death penalty.
  • Non fatal blows to a non-parent result in monetary penalty
  • Non fatal blows to a parent result in a death penalty
Ex21-15, Lv24-19
  • Lv24-17 And he who kills any man shall surely be put to death.
  • Lv24-19And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him;
  • Ex21-12 He who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall be surely put to death.
  • Ex21-15 And he who strikes his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death

Advanced Rashi: This Rashi is a particularly good example of the alignment method. Notice in the four verses the difference in the underlined passages: kills, dies, strikes, blemish... Also notice the difference in the punishment clauses: put to death, so shall be done to him, put to death, put to death. A common improper formulation of Talmudic exegesis is The Talmudic Rabbis focused on the exact meaning and nuance of each word, particularly extra words. We have not used this rule. We believe the proper approach is that The Talmudic Rabbis focused on blatant differences in aligned similar verses. These blatant differences in otherwise similar verses indicate intended differences in legal consequence. Such a view is more palatable and leads to a more reasonable understanding of Talmudic exegesis.

      5. RASHI METHOD: CONTRADICTION
      BRIEF EXPLANATION:Rashi resolves contradictory verses using 3 methods.
      • (5a) Resolution using two aspects of the same event
      • (5b) Resolution using two stages of the same process
      • (5c) Resolution using broad-literal interpretation.
      This example applies to Rashis Ex21-04a
      URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1207.htm
      Brief Summary: If a master gives his slave a [non jewish] woman, the slave goes free but but the woman and her children belong to the master.

The table below presents two contradictory verses / verselets. Both verses speak about female slaves. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says the woman goes out after 6 years while the other verse states the woman belongs to her master We see the contradiction---which is it? Do women remain slaves or do they go free at six? Rashi simply resolves this contradiction using the 2 aspects method: Jewish female slaves go free at 6 years; however, non-Jewish female slaves remain with their master.

Summary Verse / Source Text of verse / Source
Both male/female Jewish slaves are freed at 6 years Dt15-12 And if your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, and serves you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
The [non Jewish] female slave remains with her master Ex21-04a If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Resolution: 2 Aspects Jewish female slaves go free at 6 years Non-Jewish female slaves remain with their master.

Advanced Rashi: The literal language of Rashi shows more clearly the underlying logic: When the verse says If his master give him a wife it could refer to either a non-Jewish or Jewish woman. Since however the verse continues He goes free but the woman remains with the master and another verse explicitly states that ....Jewish female slaves...go free in the seventh year I therefore conclude that the verse must be speaking about a non-Jewish wife that the master gives him. In other words Rashi does not emphasize contradiction but rather describes the derivation as selection between competing alternatives. This alternative viewpoint helps us understand the contradiction Rashi rule.

    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 Ex22-21a
    URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1207.htm
    Brief Summary: EXAMPLE: Don't abuse a WIDOW or ORPHAN. GENERAL: Don't abuse any PERSON.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a example form. In other words an example of a law is stated rather than the full general rule. The reader's task is to generalize the example. The idea that all Biblical laws should be perceived as examples (unless otherwise indicated) is explicitly stated by Rashi (Pesachim 6.). This is a rule of style since the rule requires that a text be perceived as an example rather than interpreted literally. The Rabbi Ishmael style rules govern the interpretation of style.

Verse Ex22-21a discussing the prohibition and punishment of abusing widows and orphans states don't abuse a widow or orphan If you dare abuse him..... and I will also blow up, kill you by sword, and make your wives widows and your children orphans. The Rabbi Ishmael example rule requires generalization of this passage. In this case we simply generalize from widow or orphan to any person don't abuse a person If you dare abuse him..... and I will also blow up, kill you by sword, and make your wives widows and your children orphans.

Advanced Rashi: This verse is an interesting refutation of the idea that the Bible must be interpreted by being picky on each word. If that were so one could argue God only punishes a country with terrorism that leaves widows and orphans when the people abuse widows and orphans because that is all the verse says. But there is no such punishment when you abuse a non-widow or non-orphan. The Rabbi Ishmael style rules in general and the generalization approach to Biblical interpretation in particular, state otherwise. Rashi explains The Bible only mentioned the abuse of orphans and widows since such abuse is common since widows and orphans are typically helpless. However, the law and punishment applies to any person. In other words abuse of people when tolerated by a society is punished by a terrorism which leaves widows and children.

    7. RASHI METHOD: FORMATTING
    BRIEF EXPLANATION:Inferences from Biblical formatting: --bold,italics, and paragraph structure.
    • Use of repetition to indicate formatting effects: bold,italics,...;
    • use of repeated keywords to indicate a bullet effect;
    • rules governing use and interpretation of climactic sequence;
    • rules governing paragraph development and discourse
    This example applies to Rashis Ex21-33a Ex21-33b
    URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1207.htm
    Brief Summary: Damages are paid whether you a) OPEN (dig or remove a cover from) a pit or b) DIG (Deeper) a pit.

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(s) Ex21-33 discussing the obligation to pay damages caused by a pit states
    • When a person opens a pit, or
    • When a person digs a pit.... [Then] the pit owner must pay.....
    The repeated underlined phrase when creates a bullet effect. The bullet effect in turn creates an emphasis on the distinctness of all enumerated items. Rashi interprets the distinctness as follows A person is liable for payment on pit damage whether
    • he opens the pit (that is, removes the cover of a covered pit), or
    • he digs the pit.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi asks a crushing question on the above interpretation: But if removing a cover from a pit causes liability then digging a pit certainly causes liability. We can reformulate this crushing Rashi comment as follows: The word opening a pit could equally refer to removing the cover of a covered pit or to digging/creating a pit. Both removing a cover and digging a pit are examples of opening a pit.

The remedy Rashi gives to this problem derives its driving force from the bullet structure. Bullets indicate distinction and unspecified emphasis. That is the verse by using a bullet structure is indicating that there are two ways to incur liability on pit damage. We aren't told explicitly what those two ways are but we do know that they are described as opening and digging a pit. As just seen, in the last paragraph, the obvious approach -that opening and digging refer to removing covers vs. digging - does not work out since opening could equally refer to removing a cover or digging.

    Rashi therefore offers a second attempt at understanding the distinctness of the bullets: A person is liable for damages from a pit whether the person
    • initiates the pit damage by opening the pit - that is, removing the cover or digging, as well as by
    • extending the pit damage by digging the pit deeper.
    Both these methods - (1) removing covers/digging which initiates pit damage and (2) extending the pit by digging deeper - require monetary liability.

We again emphasize that the driving force behind the Rashi derivation is not some vague Talmudic pilpul but rather the bulleted structure indicated by the repeating keyword, when. This bulleted structure requires an interpretation of and indicates an unspecified emphasis and distinctness in each bulleted item.

      9. RASHI METHOD: NonVerse
      BRIEF EXPLANATION: The common denominator of the 3 submethods of the NonVerse method is that inferences are made from non textual material. The 3 submethods are as follows:
      • Spreadsheet: Rashi makes inferences of a numerical nature that can be summarized in a traditional spreadsheet
      • Geometric: Rashi clarifies a Biblical text using descriptions of geometric diagrams
      • Fill-ins: Rashi supplies either real-world background material or indicates real-world inferences from a verse. The emphasis here is on the real-world, non-textual nature of the material.
      This examples applies to Rashis Ex24-04b Ex19-01a Ex19-03a Ex19-08a Ex19-09c Ex19-11b Ex19-15a
      URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1207.htm
      Brief Summary: a) Jews arrive at Sinai on 1st b) Moses receives instruction on 2nd; c) transmits message on 3rd; d) transmits reply on 4th; e)waits 3 days. Torah given on 6th or 7th.

We all know that Shavuoth happens on the 6th of Sivan and that the Torah was either received on Shavuoth itself or on the 7th of Sivan. (Rav Hirsch explains that if the Torah was received on Shavuoth then Shavuoth celebrates the receipt of the Torah. However if the Torah was received on the 7th of Sivan then Shavuoth celebrates our preparation and being ready for receipt of the Torah - that is, the preparation to receive the Torah would be considered the primary thing to celebrate).

The Table below presents the verses that support the calculation that the Torah was received on the 6th or 7th of Sivan.

Justifying Verse Event Date of Occurrence Rational
Ex19-01a Jews arrive at Sinai 1st Day of Sivan Verse explicitly says: On 1st of 3rd month they arrived at Sinai.
Ex19-03a Moses receives his 1st prophetic orders from God to nation (That if they observe the law God will make them a precious nation) 2nd Day of Sivan Reasonable assumption that each event was done on a new day giving time to prepare responses.
Ex19-03a Moses delivers his 1st prophetic orders from God to nation 2nd Day of Sivan Part of dialogue of 2nd day.
Ex19-07:08 The Nation accepts God's offer 2nd day of Sivan Part of dialogue of 2nd day.
Ex19-08 Moses presents response of nation(acceptance) to God's offer 3rd day of Sivan Reasonable assumption that each event was done on a new day giving time to prepare responses.
Ex19-09 God relates 2nd prophetic message (That God will speak to Moses prophetically before the whole nation) 3rd day of Sivan Part of dialogue of 3rd day.
Ex19-09c Moses relates to God the nations second response that they will accept God's order provided that they personally hear God (cf. Ex19-08 vs Ex24-07 we'll do vs. we'll do what we hear) 4th day of Sivan Reasonable assumption that each event was done on a new day giving time to prepare responses.
Ex19-10:11b God gives 3rd prophetic order - nation must prepare (by separating from women) so that they can prophetically receive the decalogue on the 3rd day 4th day of Sivan (Preparation on 4th and 5th to receive Torah on 6th) Part of dialogue of 4th day.
Ex24 Nation offers sacrifices in preparation for receipt of Torah; prophetic visions happen Day 5 of Sivan Ex24-01 states that God had told Moses to prepare for ascent to receive Bible (So this, Ex24, happened prior to revelation). Ex24-04 speaks about getting up in morning so this happened the next day on 5th.
Ex19-15b Nation receives Torah (Prophetic revelation of decalogue) Day 6 or 7 of Sivan God asked for preparation for the 3rd day (Ex19-11). Moses asked for a triplet of days of preparation (Ex19-15). This could mean to be prepared for the 3rd day (6th Sivan), or, it could mean to prepare 3 days (day 4,5,6) so that the Torah was received on the 7th.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi points out that Ex24, the sacrifices prior to the receipt of the Torah happened on the 5th of Sivan while the Decalogue itself is stated in a prior chapter Ex20. Rashi concludes that Textual Biblical sequence does not necessarily indicate temporal sequence. It is important to supplement this Rashi comment with the grammatical observation that in Biblical Hebrew, the past, as indicated by a future conjugation preceded by a vav, indicates the simple past, while the past, as indicated by the past conjugation, indicates the past perfect (Which in English is indicated with the participle had.) Hence Ex24-01, stated in a chapter that occurs after the chapter with the description of the revealed law, states, And God had told Moses to come up for revelation... The use of the past perfect, had told gives grammatical support to the temporal precedence of Ex24 to the revelation mentioned in Ex20, Ex21, Ex22, Ex23. This simple but convincing grammatical proof for the dictum Textual Biblical sequence does not indicate temporal sequence seems to be an innovation of mine not mentioned by other Biblical commentators.

Conclusion

This week's parshah contains no examples of of the database and symbolism all Rashi methods. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com and http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule.htm for further details and examples.