|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath BeShaLaCh Volume 15, Number 20 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables Is accessible at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1520.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, January 13 th, 2011 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 Ex14-02b discussing God's order to return to the Mouth of Freedom states Speak to the people of Israel, that they return and encamp by The Mouth of Freedom, between Migdol and the sea, opposite Baal-Zephon; before it shall you encamp by the sea. Rashi clarifies the underlined words return to the Mouth of Freedom by referencing verse Ex12-37,Ex01-11 which states Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Mouth-of-Death and Raamses.... And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, who were men, beside children. Hence the Rashi comment: The Jews worked in the twin cities of Raamses and Mouth of Death. They departed Egypt from Raamses (Ex12-37) but God told them to return to The Mouth of Freedom. A very reasonable logical inference is that Mouth of Freedom was the way the joyous slaves renamed Mouth of Death when they left the Raamses - Mouth-of-Death area.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi only mentions the renaming of Mouth of Freedom. Rashi further explains that there were two great rocks with a hole between them - and hence the whole setup looked like a mouth, which explains the name. By analogy I further explained that the Hebrew PiThom means Mouth (Pi) of Death (Tamm,) analogous to Pi HaChiroth meaning Mouth (Pi) of Freedom (HaChiRoth). I think the two stones formed a natural boundary. Slaves who tried to escape were killed and hence the name Mouth of Death. When the Jews were freed they renamed it Mouth of Freedom. Such a reading of Rashi based on underlying reasons enriches our understanding and appreciation of Rashi.
When Rashi uses the synonym method he does not explain the meaning of a word but rather the distinction between two similar words both of whose meanings we already know.
In our article Peshat and Derash: A New Intuitive and Logical Approach, which can be found on the world-wide-web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rashi.pdf we have advocated punchy translations of Biblical verses as a means of presenting Rashi comments. The following translation of verse Ex17-02a embeds the Rashi translation Nisayon challenge / doubt Therefore the people complained to Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said to them, Why do you fight with me? why do you challenge/doubt God?
In this example Rashi points out Moses (incorrectly) complained that the people were not asking God to meet needs under unusual circumstances but rather the people were doubting God by asking for water in the wilderness. We have identified the source of this Rashi as linguistic: Nisayon means challenge/doubt; it does not, like Nisah mean test,show performance. Note also that this Rashi can be defended grammatically. A terminal nun indicates extra intensity: So if NSh means test then NShyon would mean challenge/doubt.
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 we deal with the Biblical rules governing pronoun antecedent. Biblical Hebrew has a unique approach to antecedents. In English pronouns refer to the last mentioned noun. In Hebrew pronouns refer to the most reasonable of the last few mentioned nouns.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verses in Ex14-02b, 1S15-01:03 Both verses discuss. war on Amalayk. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that Just as God ordered Saul to completely DESTROY Amalayk so too God ordered Joshua to WEAKEN Amalayk - that is, destroy the warriors but give the weaklings a chance to repent.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi does not explain difference #2, why Joshua was ordered to only weaken Amalayk while Saul was ordered to destroy all. A very reasonable explanation is that God first extended mercy to the Amalaykians - he allowed the weaklings among them claim that they were helpless and acting under orders. When they did not repent God ordered their total destruction. Sermonic Points: It is tempting to apply the above logic to the current Israeli-terrorist situation. It is the policy of this email newsletter not to engage in political discussions. However I point out that Rashi emphasizes that all was done by prophetic order. Indeed Jewish law requires wars to be accompanied by both an act of parliament and prophetic orders. It might be argued that each case is individual. In any event all that can be inferred from the Amalayk case is that God can approach a military situation with both mercy and strict justice. We cannot infer the waiting period between mercy and strict justice - rather we can only infer the general form and characteristics.
The table below presents two contradictory verses / verselets. Both verses speak about violations of God's will. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says the people violated the Sabbath while the other verse states that God asked why you [Moses and the people] violate God's will. We see the contradiction---which is it? Did only the people violate God's will or did Moses violate God's will also. Rashi simply resolves this contradiction using the 2 aspects method: The people violated the observance of the Sabbath; But we infer from Ex16-22:23 that Moses was tardy in the teaching of Sabbath laws. Hence God castigates both of them: Why have you [Moses in teaching and the people in observance] violated God's will.
Advanced Rashi: This is an important source in teaching the great value in education as a means of preventing sin.
Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Detail-Theme form. In other words a detailed specific law is stated first followed by a thematic restatement of a broad general nature. Today's example illustrates this as shown below.
Rashi sees the detail clause 7th day as describing attributes/examples of the general clause, day of Rest, Sabbath Rashi states: Any day of rest, which like the 7th day is an official holy day for God contains a prohibition of gathering Manna. The list of holy days may be found in Lv23, and includes a) Sabbath, b) Festivals, c) New Year, d) Yom Kippur.
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 indicates bold, italics, underline by using repetition. In other words if a modern author wanted to emphasize a word they would either underline, bold or italicize it. However when the Biblical author wishes to emphasize a word He repeats it. The effect - whether thru repetition or using underline - is the same. It is only the means of conveying this emphasis that is different. Verse Ex16-25a discussing the double portion of Manna that came down on the Sabbath states And Moses said: 'Eat that to-day; for to-day is a sabbath unto HaShem; to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Rashi comments on the three-fold repetition of today: The repeated emphasis of the underlined word today creates an unspecified emphasis: This unspecified emphasis can be captured by inserting the words only,all: The verse states a) Only today you don't have to go out to get Manna but tomorrow the manna will resume; b) all of today you shouldn't go out (whether morning or evening).
We ask the following database query: Does the Torah and Jewish leaders reinforce moral values through symbolic reminders. 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 Torah and Jewish leaders reinforce moral values through symbolic reminders-hence Moses RAISED HIS HANDS [in prayer] during the war The list below presents the results of the database query.
Verse Ex16-31a states the manna was like a coriander seed. As can be seen from the picture cited below coriander seeds are flake-shaped and a brownish-beige in color. The diagrams below clarify the shape and color of the coriander seed. When the verse continues and calls the manna, white we have a basis for the 2 aspects resolution of the contradiction discussed in rule #5 above, that the verse compares the manna to the non-white coriander but nevertheless says that the manna was white. Rashi explains that the manna resembled the coriander in its flake-shape but did not resemble it in its color. There are many pictures of coriander seeds on the world wide web. We are not saying one is better than the other but the following url seems rather good. http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/PFO2685.php. Since Rashi clarified the shape and color of the coriander seed we classify this Rashi as non-verse.
Verse Ex17-12c discussing Moses' prayers for t he Jewish people during the war with Amalayk states But MosesÆ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. The rules of symbolism, listed in the above article, require symbolic interpretation when a verse description is anomolous. Here Moses supporting his hand with a stone versus a pillow is anomolous. The rules of symbolism, listed in the above article, state that when symbolic interpretation is required, we interpret items by function, form, linguistic association, and Biblical assocaition. In this case Rashi uses the form of resting on a stone: Resting on a stone is painful. Moses abstained from resting on a pillow to symbolically affirm that he empathized with the suffering of the Jewish people. This empathy was a source of strength to them and encouraged their fighting. Even though Moses was an angel and did not need war he emphasized his empathy with the plight of the Jewish people.
Conclusion
This week's parshah contains examples of all methods. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||