|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath Shemini Volume 16, Number 5 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables Is accessible at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1605.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Mar 24th, 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 Lv10-12c discussing Moses order to Aaron's sons to eat the leftover Minchah offering states And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons, who were left, Take the Minchah offering that remains of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar; for it is most holy; Rashi clarifies the underlined word Minchah by referencing verse Lv09-01:04 which states And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called... and he said take ..and a Minchah offering mixed with oil; for today the Lord will appear to you. Hence the Rashi comment: The leftover Minchah offering that Moses ordered Aaron's sons to consume refers to the Minchah offering of the Consecration offerings which were offered on the 8th day of the consecration and described in detail in chapter Lv09.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi gives a second reference: Minchah besides referring to the Minchah offering of the consecration offering also refers to the Minchah offerings of the princes who offered their gifts, mentioned in Nu07, Nu08 during the consecration ceremony. Our basic goal in this email newsletter is to expose the reader to the idea of Rashi following basic rules such as the reference method. When applying the basic rules Rashi might have several applications, some with subtleties. Thus in this case Rashi points out elsewhere that ten distinct events happened on the 8th day of the consecration ceremony; two of these ten events involved Minchah offerings. Since an analysis of this point - that there are 10 events - would require use of the advanced database method we suffice with the reference to the consecrtation offerings mentioned in the previous Biblical chapter, Lv09.
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 Lv10-16d embeds the Rashi translation AMR means discuss. And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, for purposes of discussion.: Hence the Rashi on this verse: The Biblical phrase He was angry...for purposes of discussion means that when he reprimanded them it was simultaneously a potential reprimand but also a request for clarification and discussion on the matter. Advanced Rashi: Using our proposed translations the enigmatic Talmudic adage AMR has a soft tone while DBR has a harsher tone would be pithily translated as Discussion has a soft tone [since it allows response] while cite / say have a harsher tone [since the communication is more one sided without allowing a response]. This interpretation illustrates the maxim in my article Peshat and Derash alluded to above that a punchy crisp translation is a powerful vehicle to naturally explain many midrashim.
Most people are aware that Hebrew verbs come from three-letter roots. Each root is conjugated in the 7 dimensions of person, gender,plurality, tense, activity, modality, and direct-object. For example the root Shin Mem Resh means to watch. The conjugations Shin-Mem-Resh-Tauv-Yud and Nun-Shin-Mem-Resh-Nun-Vav mean I watched and we were watched respectively. The rules for Hebrew grammar are carefully described in many modern books and are well known. Rashi will sometimes comment when a verse is using a rare conjugation of an odd grammatical form. When presenting grammatical Rashis my favorite reference is the appendix in volume 5 of the Ibn Shoshan dictionary. This very short appendix lists most conjugations. A simple recurring gramatical problem is a description of the distinct meanings of a Biblical root in the different grammatical modes. Today we study the Hebrew root Mem-Tzade-Aleph. In the active mode (Qal) this root means to find. However, in the causative mode (Hifil) this root means to present. The explanation of the connection between find-present is simple: To present something is to cause that person to find it. Advanced Rashi: A punchy way of learning some Rashis is to embed the Rashi comment in the translation of the verse. Verse Lv09-12a states And he slew the burnt offering; and the sons of Aaron presented to him the blood, which he sprinkled around upon the altar. The underlined word presented neatly embeds the Rashi comment in the translation of the verse.
The table below presents presents two contradictory sets of verses. Both verse sets talk about the death of Aaron's two sons who offered an improper sacrifice. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse set says a fire devoured them while the other verse says They were carried away in their clothing. Which is it? Were they consumed by fire - if so their clothing should have been burned. Or did they die some other way which would explain why their clothing was not burned. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 aspects method: The two sons of Aaron died by a prophetic fire vision. The fire vision overwhelmed them with guilt and this caused their death. Consequently their clothing was not consumed.
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 generalizes the detail clause - sin, elevation, peace offering - as illustrative of the general clause, - blessing, - and as connected causally to the following paragraph dealing with prophetic visions. Rashi states: The blessing was that the offerings should facilitate a prophetic vision. We believe this comment evident and consistent with the Rabbi Ishmael style guidelines.
Advanced Rashi: Recall that the Patriarch Jacob blessed his children with animal symbols. Combining the above Rashi with the Patriarch Jacob's blessing we see that the Jews present at the consecration of the Desert-Temple achieved the Patriarchal blessing of a prophetic fire-animal vision. This is a very high and lofty blessing. This is also the opinion of the Talmudic sages who state that Even the bondmaids received prophetic visions similar to those of Ezekiel, that is the Jews of the Desert-Temple received prophetic fire animal visions like those of Ezekiel.
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. Note the emphasized underlined word water in the following verses, Lv11-09:12 discussing the kashruth of fish: These shall you eat of all that are in the waters; whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, those shall you eat. ...And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, .... they shall be an abomination to you; .... What ever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you. The repeated underlined word waters creates an unspecified emphasis similar to the emphasis indicated by a modern author by use of underlines. Hence the Rashi comment: If the fish never had any fins/scales it is not kosher; but if it had fins/scales at least in the water (but lost them when captured on dry land) then they are kosher. As usual, the point Rashi is making may seem obvious until we articulate it using Talmudic analytic methods: The driving force of permission is not the actual fins/scales but rather the fact that this species of fish is known for fins/scales. The actual fins and scales do not have to be present.
We ask the following database query: What remedies does the Torah list for ritual impurity. 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: Most ritual impurities have remedies. However an earthen-clay vessel that becomes impure has no remedy and must be destroyed. The list below presents the results of the database query.
Verses Lv09-01:04 discussing the requirements of offerings at the consecration of the Temple states And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called .... And he said ...., Take a young calf for a ... offering, a.... and a meal offering mixed with oil; for today the Lord will appear to you. As can be seen the verses causally connect the bringing of offerings with the prophetic appearance of God to the people. Rashi emphasizes this causal relationship: ...therefore [because God is appearing to you] you must bring these offerings. The simplest approach to Rashi is a symbolic interpretation: The image of an animal consumed in flames on the altar symbolically triggers a prophetic vision of God. That is the offerings are symbolic procedures which facilitate prophetic visions. For a more detailed description of the offerings as symbolic procedures see my article on sybmolism mentioned above and located on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/gen-1.htm . In passing we point out in this article that the Jewish aspiration to rebuild the Temple and offer sacrifices is in reality a Jewish aspiration to the renewal of prophecy. Advanced Rashi: We have only discussed the general idea of the offerings being symbolic procedures. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch goes into detail on each offering and shows how it prepares us psychologically and spiritually for prophetic encounter with God.
Conclusion
This week's parshah does not contain examples of the Non-Verse method. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||