|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath VaAyRaH Volume 15, Number 18 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables Is accessible at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1518.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, December 31 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 Ex08-28a discussing that Pharoh hardened his heart states And Pharaoh also hardened his heart this time, neither would he let the people go. Rashi clarifies the underlined words also hardened his heart this time by referencing verse Ex08-24 which states And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that you may sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness; only you shall not go very far away; entreat for me. Hence the Rashi comment: Even though Pharoh promised to let them go (Ex08-24) he did not fulfill his promise (EX08-28)
Advanced Rashi: Rashi's point can be made clearer if we note that at both the second and fourth plague we find both a) a promise by Pharoh to let the Jews go Ex08-04,Ex08-24 coupled with b) a refusal Ex08-11,Ex08-28. By contrast at the 1st,3rd, and 6th plague we find no such promise (We only find a verse stating Pharoh's heart was hardened). So the word also in Ex08-28 And Pharaoh also hardened his heart this time refers to a similarity of relationship between the 4th and 2nd plague where there was both a prior promise of freedom and reneging on that promise. The word also is a special connective word which can be used to indicate similar relationships.
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 Hebrew word MithLaQaChath uses the interactive mode (Hitpael) applied to the root lamed-quph-cheth, which means to take. The form of taking is motion from my hand to afar and back to myself. The Hebrew word MithLaQaChath is conjugated in the hitpael mode which connotes interactivity. But then mithlaqachath, an interactive motion resembling taking would neatly correspond to the motion of an expanding fire lunging forward, but then being quenced in one place and pulling back to another place, expanding, and then when hit by water/hail pulling back again. In my article Peshat and Derash located on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rashi.pdf I suggest that an important part of biblical commentary is finding punchy nifty English translations that capture all nuances of a Hebrew word. I have used the English word pulsating to capture the nuances of a motion of a fire in a rainstorm. Pulsating beautifully describes a fire expanding, being forced to pull back on being hit by hail/water, then expanding, then being hit by hail, then pulling back. In short an interactive motion of grabbing and taking in! Advanced Rashi: We could have also classified this Rashi as using the grammar method.
Today, students of the Bible learn grammar from Biblical Hebrew grammar textbooks. These textbooks organize material by topics. Grammatical topics include a) verb mood and conjugation, b) plurality agreement, c) pronoun reference, d) subject-verb-object sequencing, e) sentence structure and type and many other topics. However in Rashi's time gramamr was just beginning. There were no official grammatical textbooks and tables. One of Rashi's functions was to teach grammar. Rashi did not write a grammar textbook but instead left grammatical explanations appended to each verse. In today's example Rashi explains rules governing the types of sentences. A recent book on Biblical Hebrew pointed out that a nifty way to teach Biblical grammar is to first study comparable gramamtical structures in English. Following this theme, in English there are three main sentence types: a) declarative sentences, b)commands and c) interrogative sentences. An interrogative sentence is indicated by a punctuation of a question mark at the end of the sentence. In Biblical Hebrew there are two main methods to indicate an interrogative sentence: 1st) One can append an interrogative hey to the beginning of the sentence. 2nd) One can, based on context, chose to interpret the sentence as interrogative. It emerges that Biblical Hebrew resembles English in one of its methods of indicating the interrogative - by using a punctuation sign (question mark or prefix hey in English and Hebrew respectively) and Biblical Hebrew innovates an additional method - interrogation based on context and interpretation - not resembling anything in English. Applying this method to the translation of Ex08-22b we have the following translation And Moses said, It is not proper to do so; because our sacrificing to God is an abomination to the Egyptians; Indeed, if we sacrifice to God, which is abominable to the Egyptians, will they not stone us? Here Rashi avoids the declarative translation - they will not stone us and uses an interrogative translation - will they not stone us. The preference for the interrogative translation over the declarative translation is not dictated by punctuational means - a question mark or prefix hey - but rather is an interpretation choice which makes the meaning of the verse clearest.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verselets in Ex06-02a Both verselets discuss God communicating with Moses The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that God both cited Moses (gave him a citation/ticket for having doubts) and spoke to Moses (Comforting him on the future). ...For example God promised Israel to all three Patriarchs. (a) In contrast to Moses' statement of doubt, although the Patriarchs didn't get Israel they never complained. In this sense God gave Moses a citation for doubting him. (b) On the other hand the reminder of the promise to give the Jews Israel was a comforting statement to Moses who saw the suffering of his people.
Advanced Rashi: We have used her the synonym distinction that Daleth-Beth-Resh means cite while Aleph-Mem-Resh means speak. Such a distinction is consistent with the Talmudic adage that Daleth-Beth-Resh or citation has a connotation of harshness.
The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about Pharoh's refusal to let the Jewish people go. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says God hardened Pharoh's emotions [so he wouldn't let the people go] while the other verse states Pharoh strengthened his resolve [so he wouldn't let the people go] We see the contradiction---which is it? Did God or Pharoh stop the Jews from leaving. Rashi simply resolves this contradiction using the 2 stages method: During the 1st few plagues Pharoh strengthened his resolve not to let the people go. In the later plagues God hardened Pharoh's emotions so that he wouldn't let the people go.
Advanced Rashi: This Rashi is well known. We make an additional point: This Rashi is commonly interpreted as meaning During the first five plagues Pharoh hardened his own heart while in the last five plagues God hardened his heart. But this is not true! Thus in the 6th plague it says Ex09-12 God hardened Pharoh's heart while in the 7th plague it says Ex09-34 Pharoh hardened his heart. In the 8th and 9th plague however it says that God hardened Pharoh's heart (Ex10-20, Ex10-27.). So this popular approach to this Rashi is basically correct but needs some modification. I have not seen any commentaries that discuss the anomaly of Pharoh hardening his own heart during the 7th plague.
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.
Rashi sees the detail clause the genealogies of Moses and Aaron as describing attributes of the general clause, Moses and Aaron were picked to free the Jews. Rashi states: The 3 tribes listed in the genealogies - Reuben, Shimon, and Levi - were the three tribes cursed by Jacob. In fact Shimon and Levi took the law into their own hands (e.g. the destruction of a city where their sister was raped) and were the instigators in selling Joseph to Egypt. They sold Joseph because they did not believe his dreams had prophetic content. Therefore the Bible emphasizes The Moses and Aaron that God asked to save the Jews were descendants of Levy who denied prophecy and caused the whole Egyptian exile!
The climax principle asserts that a sequence of similar phrases should be interpreted climactically even if the words and grammatical constructs used do not directly suggest this. That is the fact of the sequence justifies reading into the Biblical text a climactic interpretation even if no other textual source justifies it. For this reason we consider the climax method a distinct and separate method.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi emphasizes that national sins have a hierarchy of responsibility. Both the a) leaders b) advisors and c) people are responsible since they all participate. However the primary responsibility lies on the leaders with a secondary and tertiary responsibility on the people. We have named this Rashi method, the climax rule. Modern scholars call the same rule, parallelism. Kugel in his book on Biblical parallelism, points out that a proper approach to parallel phrases is not repetition but added meaning in the repeated phrase, for example, climax.
We ask the following database query: What are the characteristics of the 10 plagues? 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 following Rashi inference: The 10 plagues were delivered in military formation. The 10 plagues punished Pharoh by sea(plagues #1,4), by land (plagues #2,5), and by air (plagues #7,8). The 10 plagues punished Pharoh for making the the Jews go through the three stages of non-citizenship mentioned at Gn15-13 in the Convenant of cuts. Pharoh was punished for making the Jews feel like non-citizens (#1,4,7), like slaves (#2,5,8) and for inflicting pain (#3,6,9). The list below presents the results of the database query.
Just to clarify the use of the table we illustrate with the first plague, blood. Recall that Moses was sent to free the Jews from Egypt. In his dialogue with Pharoh, Moses, at the order of God, brought 10 plagues on Egypt. The plague of blood consisted of turning the Nile river into blood. Thus this plague attacked Egypt by sea. Furthermore the message in this plague was You do not even own your own Nile...if I,God, want I will turn it into blood. So the plague of blood is the intersection of the two parameters sea and non-citizenship.
Acknoweldgement: Rashi Ex08-17b introduced the idea of the plagues being in military formation. Rav Hirsch further developed this idea and corresponded the three sets of plagues to the three stages of non-citizenship mentioned in the convenant of cuts at Gn15-13. I introduced the idea that the Pain plagues were not by sea,land and air while the non citizenship and slavery plagues were by sea,land and air. Praise be Him who chose them and their learning.
Verse Ex08-14a discussing the plague of frogs, states And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly; they shall go up and come into your house, and into your bed chamber, and upon your bed, and into the house of your servants, and upon your people, and into your ovens, and into your kneading troughs; Rashi comments on the underlined phrase go up by explaining it geometrically or diagrammatically: The frogs came from the river to the land. Hence the Biblical text describes the frogs as going up. Advanced Rashi: Since the driving force of the Rashi explanation is a diagramatic clarification we classify this Rashi as non-verse.
Conclusion
This week's special issue contains mp examples of the Rashi symbolism method. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||