|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath VaYishLach Volume 15, Number 12 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables Is accessible at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1512.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, November 18 th, 2010 Visit the Rashi website http://www.Rashiyomi.com 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. Although I frequently use my own English translations of biblical verses and Rashi comments, the Hebrew and English translations in the source tables are derived from online parshah files at chabad.org who in turn acknowledges the Judaica Press Complete Tanach, copyright by Judaica Press.
Verse Gn32-08 discussing Jacob's fear of being smitten by Esau states Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed; and he divided the people who were with him, and the flocks, and herds, and the camels, in two bands; Rashi notes The underlined word, afraid, references verse Gn32-12 which explicitly states Jacob was worried about Esauv smiting him.
We continue this example in Rule #4 below.
Rashi frequently explained 4 and 5 letter roots by breaking them up in two 2-letter roots. For example the Hebrew root Mamzer, Mem-Mem-Zayin-Resh which means illegitimate reflects the etymology of Moom Zare, Mem-Mem Zayin-Resh which means blemished by a stranger. Todays example also illustrates this principle. One of Esauv's descendents is called MagDeeAyl, Mem-Gimel-Daleth-Aleph-Lamed which when broken up into a two and three letter root would have the meaning of Mem-Gimel-Daleth Aleph-Lamed which means the choicest of the gods. Rashi comments This is [like] Rome [with its pantheon of Gods]. Advanced Rashi: This paragraph has evoked alot of resistance from the Bible critics who defensively attack any Biblical paragraph with fulfilled prophecy content. However Rashi did not view this paragraph as primarily historical. Rather Rashi interpreted the paragraph as follows: One of Esauv's descendants was Magdeeayl who specialized in gathering people who specialized in idolatrous gods with great power. By leading a collection of such people Magdeeayl had enormous power. This is the simple meaning of the text. However Rashi then shows the relevance of the Biblical text to modern times in Rashi's era: Rome, which specialized in a pantheon of gods, each with its own method of rulership and power, is an example of the Magdeeayl's influence. In other words Rashi was not identifying Magdeeayl with Rome but rather identifying Magdeeayl with a world approach of which Rome was a recent current example in Rashi's time.
Today anyone wanting to learn Hebrew can take a course and learn Biblical Hebrew grammar. But in Rashi's time Grammar was just beginning. One of Rashi's major tasks was to teach basic Hebrew Grammar the same way we find in modern Hebrew textbooks. Modern Hebrew Grammar deals with such issues as conjugation of verbs, indication of possessive pronouns, gender etc. Today's example illustrates this.
Thus Rashi here teaches the grammatical rules governing answering questions: A sequence of answers following a sequence of questions should be parallel: That is the first answer responds to the first question, the second answer responds to the second question, etc. This parallel rule is depicted above in the numbered lists. Advanced Rashi: We have presented this Rashi as grammatical. But most people see this Rashi as indicating etiquette: It is proper etiquette to answer questions sequentially, rather than in a random order. The reason for the grammatical and etiquette rule are the same. It is less burdensome on the listener if you use the same order of inquiry in your answers. Both grammar and etiquette are equally interested in minimizing listener confusion.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verselets in Gn32-08a Both verselets discuss the fear Jacob had. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that There were apparently two fears. We have seen in rule #1 above that the word fear refers to fear of being killed, explicitly mentioned with that langauge in Gn32-12. Rashi therefore assumes that distressed refers to a complimentary fear which Rashi suggests is the fear of having to kill.
Advanced Rashi: A similar fear - of having to kill - is seen by Abraham who was afraid after a military conquest over an alliance. Since he was afraid after victory we assume he was concerned about the life he took (Rashi: Gn15-01a). However since this fear of his is not explicitly mentioned we sufficed with use of the alignment principle to justify the current Rashi.
The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about Hadad.rule The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the people of Israel while the other verse states And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Avith. We see the contradiction--- If Hadad was King of Edom why was he fighting in a Moabite field? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Aspects method: Moab and Edom were allies. Midyan was an enemy of Moab. When Midyan attacked Moab, Edom, Moab's ally came to his aid.
Advanced Rashi: One can legitimately ask, How did Rashi know Edom and Moab were allies or that Moab and Midyan were enemies? This is one interesting attribute of the contradiction method - the contradiction itself intrinsically justifies making reasonable assumptions to resolve the contradiction. Hence Rashi reasonably assumes that if Midyan was conquered in a Moabite field then they - Moab and Midyan - must have been enemies. Similarly Rashi reasonably assumes that if Edom was in the Moabite field they - Moab and Edom - must have been allies. Rashi uses this verse to explain another contradiction. We just established that Moab and Midyan were allies. But in Nu22-04 Moab asks Midyan for help! Rashi explains: Although they - Moab and Midyan - were enemies, their common hatred of the Jews overrode their own hatred of each other.
We consider this Rashi an excellent example of the style method: We again emphasize that the paragraph details and theme are each understood. Rashi's sole contribution is to show the connection between details and theme, that is, to show the paragraph unity. Advanced Rashi: Interestingly, the Talmud says that any time Rabbi Judah the prince, the Author of the Mishnah legal code, had to appear before the Roman Emporer, he first studied this Biblical passage, Gn32 as this chapter contains the secrets for successful political interactions with foreign diplomats.
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.
We ask the following database query: When our brother-sister genealogies used? 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 inference that Most genealogies are parental. Brother-sister sibling genealogies indicate a special relationship such as protection or assistance in marriage. The list below presents the results of the database query and provides examples.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi at various points adds further details. For example on Ex06-23 Rashi states A person who wants to marry a woman should see if he is compatable with her brother since sisters resemble brothers closely. Our main goal here is to show the database aspect of these Rashis. These Rashis do not appear that strong. In the last two examples we have explicit textual references to the brothers protection of the sister. Of the remaining three cases, two involve an explicit mention of marriage while one simply reports the brother sister relationship. Thus the Rashi-midrashic suggestion that the brothers helped marry the sisters is seen as a reasonable generalization of the verses but certainly not explicitly indicated. This type of logic is a characteristic flavor of the database method. The strength of the derivation is based on the aggregate totality of examples most of which show the marriage-protection aspect underlying the database examples. The serious student of Rashi should carefully study the above examples and convince themselves that the Rashi-midrash approach was the most reasonable.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi uses the above spreadsheet to show the 14 year gap between year 63 of Jacob's life and year 77 of Jacob's life. Jacob left his father's house at age 63 but didn't arrive at Laban's house till 77. Apparently Jacob spent 14 years doing something different, spiritual endeavors. We aren't sure which endeavors. Rashi gives a good example, study. However the verses justify asserting any spiritual endeavor.
Verse Gn28-12a presenting the dream Jacob had states And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. We interpret this simply as meaning that there are two manifestations of God. In Temples and Halls of Study man ascends to God while in profane places God descends to man. Jacob had erroneouslly thought that God may only be found in situations of ascent. His dream taught him that God can be found in situations of descent also. This ascent-descent theme manifests itself in a variety of domains including immanence-transcendence, scholar approaches to God (through learning) vs. Chasidic approaches to God (through living a simple daily life), Holy approaches to God vs profane approaches to God. Rashi literally says The angels of Israel were ascending to heaven while the angels of non-Israel lands came down to escort Jacob on his trip to Laban (who was not holy. We have chosen to interpret this Rashi as using a good example of the holy-profane dichotomy presented in the last paragraph. Israel-non-Israel is simply one good example of Holy approaches to God vs non-Holy approaches to God. Rashi did not intend to exhaust the meaning of the verse in this particular holy-non-holy approach but rather intended to illustate the underlying meaning with a good example. The botton line is as follows: In rule #9, spreadsheets we see there is a 14 year gap between Jacob's departure from Beer Sheva and his arrival in Charan. Jacob camps in the middle of nowhere but sees God in a dream and concludes that God is here even though he didn't expect it. In rule 10 - symbolism we see that Jacob learns that God manifests himself in two ways: 1) In Temples and Houses of Study man ascends to God; 2) In camping grounds and profane places God descends to man to help him out. This second manifestation of God surprises Jacob who hadn't been aware of it. Jacob's former life was the simple tent dwelling life, the life of prayer-study relationship to God Gn25-27 - Jacob erroneously thought God was only found there. But Jacob now finds God in the profane. Jacob sees God manifesting in two ways - man ascends to God in Temples and houses of study but God descends to help man in the profane.
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||