|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshat VaYayShev Volume 13, Number 18 Rashi is Simple - Volume 36 Number 18 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, Dec 10th 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.
Verse Gn37-35a discussing who consoled Jacob during his bereavement states And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down to Sheol to my son, mourning. Thus his father wept for him. Rashi notes that the underlined words, daughters references verses Gn38-02 discussing Judah's marriage to a Canaanite woman. Hence the Rashi comment (Gn37-25) His daughters arose to console him during his bereavement, references verse Gn38-02, Judah married the daughter of a Canaanite woman. So the word daughters in Gn37-25 refers to Jacob's daughter-in-laws. And indeed it is common in all languages to refer to daughter-in-laws as daughters.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi also brings a second opinion. Based on an assortment of verses one can prove that Shimon married his sister Dinah. One can then generalize and argue that each of the 12 tribes married a sister. So the word daughters refers to actual daughters of Jacob which however are not mentioned in the Bible. According to this second interpretation cited by Rashi, each of the 12 children of Jacob married a sister (just as Shimon married Dinah). According to this second opinion Judah never married a Canaanite. Hence this second opinion interprets Gn38-02 as meaning that Judah married the daughter of a merchant since the word Canaanite (when not a proper noun) refers to a merchant. This second opinion is also cited by Rashi Gn38-02a. At root of the two interpretations is a discussion of how the Jewish people were formed. One opinion holds they came from Canaanites who repented. While another opinion is that they couldn't have come from Canaanites (Because they were irreversibly corrupted). Instead God had to create a miracle and each brother married a sister.
The FFF principle is a special case of the literary techniques of synechdoche-metonomy. These literary principles, universal to all languages, state that items can be named by related items, by parts of those items, or by good examples of those items. For example honey refers to anything sweet since honey is a good example of something sweet. Similarly hot refers to matters of love since the two are related. Todays Rashi can best be understood by applying these principles. The following etymology is due to Rabbi Hirsch: The Hebrew root Shin/sin-Cheth-Teth means to slaughter. Slaughter has the form of a cutting motion which releases a red liquid from the slaughtered being who then dies. But then squeezing a grape till its red liquid oozes from it into a wine vat has the same form as slaughter. Hence the Hebrew root Sachat etymologically comes from the Hebrew root Shachat. One means slaughter of animals and one means squeezing of grapes.
Today Hebrew grammar is well understood and there are many books on it. Rashi, however, lived before the age of grammar books. A major Rashi method is therefore the teaching of basic grammar. Many students belittle this aspect of Rashi. They erroneously think that because of modern methods we know more. However Rashi will frequently focus on rare grammatical points not covered in conventional textbooks.
Today Rashi gives an example of the construct rule. First we explain the construct in English. In English we indicate the construct by placing the word of after a noun. So the difference between The pen is red vs. The pen of John is red is that pen of indicates possession. This indication of possession is accomplished by using the construct form which in turn is indicated by using the word of. In Hebrew the construct form is indicated by a different conjugation of the word. For example Kutoneth is the Hebrew word referring to the noun, coat. Ketoneth is the construct form indicating possession, coat of Joseph. Because both forms occur in the same verse Rashi felt obligated to clarify their difference in meaning.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Gn37-10a, Gn37-09. Both verses/verselets discuss Joseph's telling his dreams to his family. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: (1st) Joseph told the dream, but only to his brothers. Joseph thought the dream was good, that he could help people. But his brothers hated him. Joseph sensed something wrong. So (2nd) Joseph then told the dream to both his father and brothers. Joseph hoped his father would intervene and defend him.But his father also criticized him. We see here the beginning of the 22 year riff between Joseph and his family.
The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about the sale of Joseph. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says let us sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites....they sold him to the Ishmaelites while the other verse states And Midianite merchants passed by and they sold Joseph to them. We see the contradiction---was Joseph sold to the Ishmaelites or Midianites. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Stages method: (a) The brothers intended to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. (b) But then Midianite merchants passed by and they pulled Joseph out of the pit [and sold him to the Midianites.] And then (c) the Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi explains the point in the multiple sales. This teaches that Joseph was sold many times. I would add It also shows Joseph's helplessness. Even if they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, they couldn't assure he would remain with them. Joseph, once he became a slave, was an object with a value. Anyone passing by with a better money offer could buy him out. Finally we could add It shows the greatness of the miracle. No one person or act caused Joseph to end up in Egypt. Rather he ended up in Egypt after multiple sales as an act of God.
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 Gn38-25b discussing Tamar's execution for committing incest with her father-in-law states When she was brought out [to be burnt], she sent to her father-in-law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child; and she said, please Discern, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. [Rashi: But she did not outright state, These are yours; you are the father.] The Rabbi Ishmael example rule requires generalization of this passage. In this case we simply generalize from Tamar to all people: any person should prefer to be burnt alive rather than publicly embarass someone. Advanced Rashi: There is a legal aspect to Rashi's point. After all why not argue that Danger to life (being burnt) overrides all Biblical commandments including the Biblical obligation not to embarass someone? I think therefore, that Rashi's point is that embarassing someone is so confrontational that it would not necessarily accomplish anything (e.g. people do not admit they are wrong under the duress of embarassment). In other words Rashi's point is real-world vs. legal: If you want to accomplish something in a situation with embarassment you shouldn't be confrontational. Even if your life is in danger, embarassment is such a powerful emotion that discretion and respect are the only methods to accomplish your goals.
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.
With regard to the last example, Chronicles is giving a political history and hence someone like David is more important (politically) than say Abraham and Moses (Who were more important prophetically).
Recall that Judah had visited a prostitute and gave her a deposit for payment. Judah sent friends to find the woman and pay her back but she could not be found. Finally in verse Gn38-23 Judah resigns and says And Judah said, Let her keep it, lest we be shamed; behold, I sent this kid, and you have not found her. Rashi explains the underlined words, lest we be shamed, by reminding us of normal real-world social norms. If we continue investigating her whereabouts it will become public that I visited a prostitute and that will lead to my personal disgrace (since people tend to keep such things discrete). It is therefore better to forego the monetary and convenience loss of the items deposited then to risk such disgrace. Such uses of social logic - conflicts between monetary and social needs - are common in business and political decisions. Since Rashi uses real-world norms to explain the text we classify this Rashi as an example of the non-verse method.
We all know that the three baskets in the chief baker dream corresponded to three days to execution. In the table below we interpret other aspects of the baker's dream. For example the holed baskets symbolize an exposed body (after beheading). This aspect of the symbolic interpretation of the baker's dream is often overlooked! We could summarize the table as follows: I saw [that in] three days my basket [body] is holed [exposed / vulnerable]. And even though the] topmost [goal] basket [of my being was providing ] all types of royal food, professional baker standards, to Pharoh, [nevertheless] the birds were eating them [my flesh] from the basket [my body] on [upon] my head [after my beheading].
Advanced Rashi: The above table uses the so called linear translation method. This method was introduced (or popularized) by Rabbi Dr. Benjamin Sharfman in his Linear Translation of the Bible and Rashi. Rabbi Sharfman's linear translation is still very popular among those who are beginners in learning Rashi. Rabbi Sharfman was in fact Rabbi of my synaggoue when I was young and I spent many enjoyable Shabbath afternoons listening to his very lucid explanations of Rashi.
Conclusion
This week's special issue contains no examples of the grammar, alignment, style, format Rashi methods. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||