|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath Tzav Volume 16, Number 4 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables Is accessible at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1604.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Mar 17th, 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 Lv08-28a discussing the offering of sacrifices during the consecration offering states And Moses took them from off their hands, and offered them on the altar upon the burnt-offering; they were a consecration-offering for a sweet savour; it was an offering made by fire unto HaShem. Rashi notes that the underlined words, Moses...offered them on the altar references verses Ex30-19, Ex30-41 discussing the requirements of Priests to wash hands and legs in the Lavere as a prerequisite to offering. Hence the Rashi comment Normally only Priests were required to bathe hands and legs in the lavere prior to Temple Service (Ex30-19). However as indicated in Lv08-28a Moses functioned as a Priest during the Temple Consecration ceremony (Because there were no other Priests as they were being consecrated). This corresponds to verse Ex30-41 which explicitly states that Moses washed hands and legs in the Lavere - just like the Priests - during the Consecration of the Temple.
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 Gn47-25c:26 embeds the Rashi translation Chabbash means bandaging or a bandage type motion. And Moses brought the sons of Aaron, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and bandaged the turbans upon them; as the Lord commanded Moses.
Note that many translators simply say that Chabash is a form of tieing. By using the synonym method we obtain a greater acuity of translation: Technically, it is a tieing motion but it really is simply a strengthening of an already cohesive whole (such as wounded skin). Such improvements of clarity of translation are frequent when using the synonym method.
We can slightly generalize the Malbim's principle as follows: Any extra pronoun, or, full-word pronoun, when a suffix suffices, indicates emphasis and can be translated using the word only. We next apply this principle to verse Lv06-02: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the elevation-offering: It is the elevation-offering which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. The underlined pronoun it, stated immediately after the noun it modifies is clearly redundant. The verse reads quite smoothly, perhaps smoother, without the word it: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the up-offering, which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. Applying our principle that unnecessary pronouns should be translated with the word only we therefore translate Lv06-02 as follows: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the up-offering: Only it is the elevation-offering which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. We have justified translating otho as meaning only it. Our next job will be to interpret the phrase only it. In our article Biblical Formatting located on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/biblicalformatting.pdf, we have explained that such verses should be seen as indicating unspecified emphasis. That is, the word only creates emphasis; but we don't know what is being emphasized; therefore the emphasis is non-specific. The Talmudic Rabbis traditionally interpret an unspecified emphasis as the worst case. Hence the Rashi comment: If bestiality has been committed with the animal then even if it was inadvertently placed on the altar it must be taken down since only it - that is, only a proper elevation offering may be offered on the altar. Advanced Rashi: Notice that the translation only it naturally indicates unspecified emphasis but doesn't inform us how the emphasis should be implemented. Our position is that very often Rashi comments are reasonable interpretations of unspecified emphasis. The existence of the unspecified emphasis is real and intrinsic to the text but its application to specific contexts is not in the text; rather it is a reasonable approach to the unspecified emphasis. I believe the above approach to Rashi, interpretation of unspecified emphasis, makes Rashis very palatable. This verse is examined in rules #2,#3,#7 in this issue. It is best to read them simultaneously before the rest of the digest.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Lv02-11:12,Lv06-07:10. Both verses/verselets discuss the prohibition of leaven in the sacrificial procedures. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: Leaven is prohibited both in altar consumption and in priestly consumption.
The table below presents presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about the consumption of sin offerings. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says all priests will eat it while the other verse says the priest who offers it will eat it Which is it? Did all priests eat the sin offering, or did only the priest offering the sin offering it. Rashi simply resolves this using the broad-literal method: All priests ate the sin offering provided the priests consuming the sacrifice were qualified to offer the sin offering (That is, they were potential offerers.) In other words, invalid priests could not consume the sin offering.
Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Theme-Development form. In other words a broad general idea is stated first followed by the development of this broad general theme in specific details. The Theme-Detail form creates a unified paragraph. Today's example illustrates this as shown below.
This is a classic general-detail or theme-development form. According to the Rabbi Ishmael style guidelines we interpret the verse as follows: The applicability of the general clause is restricted to the detail clause. In other words the prohibition of eating blood mentioned in the general clause only applies to the blood of birds and beasts. Consequently there is no Biblical prohibition of consuming fish blood.
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. With this in mind let us revisit verse Lv06-02b which we can also study using rules #2,#3. Command Aaron and his sons, saying: These are the general principles of the elevation-offering: ... an elevation offering on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. Rashi comments on the repeated underlined words: The repeated underlined words create emphasis: It is always an elevation offering in all circumstances. The Talmud provides specificity to this emphasis by focusing on a case where the offering was invalid - for example it had a blemish - it should not have been brought. Nevertheless if it was already brought onto the altar fire then we let it remain there because it is always an elevation offering.
The advanced student of Rashi can now appreciate the problem with reading this verse. Any one of the above 3 points reads smoothly by itself. But when the verse simultaneously has the restrictive only it and the broadening elevation offering elevation offering indicators the student can easily become confused. It begins to look arbitrary when the Talmud restricts in one area and broadens in another. Actually however we can redeem the intuitiveness of the Rashis by exploiting our idea of unspecified emphasis. We agree to interpret it as only it and to interpret elevation offering elevation offering as a bolded word. The verse then reads as follows Command Aaron and his sons, saying: These are motifs [of all] elevation-offerings - [in all circumstances, even if they shouldn't have gone up, say, because of a blemish] only them, [that is, only those that have been properly offered but not e.g. an animal that committed bestiality, even if it was placed on the altar]; they are placed on the altar fire the whole night till morning The serious student of Rashi should carefully study the above verse with its interpolated Rashi comments. As I indicated above each Rashi comment stands by itself. To see all the Rashi comments simultaneously one has to combine the verse phrases in the right way. One also has to stay on one's Rashi toes. There are three different principles involved: word meaning, grammar, repetition. Only by fully grasping all the intricacies of the verse can one really appreciate it. Finally I have endeavored to capture all the Rashi comments in one punchy translation a technique I advocated in my article Peshat and Derash
We ask the following database query: When does the Biblical author use the phrase they did as commanded. 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-Midrashic inference: If a person or nation is typically rebellious then the Bible will go out of its way to emphasize when they are compliant. The Bible indicates this by using the phrase they did as commanded. On the other hand if a person or nation is always compliant there is no news in stating that they are compliant! The list below presents the results of the database query.
Rashi gives the chronology of events culminating in the consecration of the Temple. This chronology is compactly presented in the Table below.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi is coalescing the two chapters Ex40 and Lv08, Lv09. Justification for this coalescing can be further supported by comparing verses. As a simple example Lv08-06:13 corresponds to Ex40-12:15 - they both talk about the dressing, annointing, and consecration of the Priests.
Conclusion
This week's parshah contains no examples of the symbolism Rashi method. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com and http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule.htm for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||