|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath KeDoShiM Volume 16, Number 9 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables Is accessible at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1609.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, April 28th, 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 Lv20-25a discussing the need for the Jewish people to become holy by separating themselves from ritually impure animals states Ye shall therefore separate between the pure beast and the impure, and between the pure fowl and the impure; and ye shall not make your souls detestable by beast, or by fowl, or by any thing wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have set apart for you to hold ritually impure. Rashi notes that the underlined words, impure references verses Lv11-04 discussing non-Kosher animals - that is, animals prohibited to be eaten. Hence the Rashi comment Verse Lv20-25 requiring separation from the ritually impure animals and birds cites and refers to Lv11-04 (or generally all of chapter Lv11) discussing the non-Kosher animals - animals forbidden to be eaten - which the Bible explicitly calls impure.
When Rashi uses the synonym method he does not explain the meaning of a word but rather the distinction or commonality between several similar words both of whose meanings we already know. Verse Lv19-15a states Ye shall not be red-taped in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. We have translated the Hebrew word, Ayin-Vav-Lamed, as meaning red-taped. The root in question means burden. A burdensome judicial process, is a red-taped judicial process - a judicial process where you are burdensome (but not necessarily unjust) to the parties seeking judicial guidance.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi actually is more crafty. He skillfully cites several verses, each verse with a pair of these four synonyms linked, thereby showing that the explicitly perjorative connotations of some of these words are transferred to the lighter words. We however have sufficed with showing Rashi's basic approach of classifying the given word in a larger class of synonyms all of which refer to something bad.
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 topic of single-plural. Verse Lv18-29 concluding a long chapter prohibiting forbidden sexual relations, states For he who does any of the abominations - the people doing them, they will be cut of from their nation. Note the gentle but forceful change from singular to plural, emphasized by the underlined words - he, they, their. Rashi comments: By using the plural the Bible emphasizes that both males and females are liable. Advanced Rashi: There is a subtlety to this Rashi. The previous chapter dealt with sexual sins. The various laws are introduced with a man a man shall not come close to exposing nakedness...whoever sleeps with his sister..... Thus I might think that only the man (who initiates sexual sin) is punished with cutoff. The Bible therefore emphasizes that the people doing these things, they will be cut off. This is further emphasized in e.g. Lv20-10 both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verses in Lv19-05 Lv01-04 Both verses discuss offering a sacrifice in order to regain good will with God. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertions that Besides attaining good will with God the actual sacrifice procedure must be done with good will - that is with intention. Hence a priest who mechanically offers without concentration has invalidated the sacrifice.
Advanced Rashi: The alignment here is an alignment of grammatical mode: One verse uses the passive while the other verse uses the active. Rashi presents two explanations since there are two aspects of the word to comment on: First Rashi explains the passive use of good will - that it indicates regaining of good will from God; second Rashi explains the active use of good will, connoting active attention. Interestingly Rashi calls the first explanation - regaining God's good will - as the the simple meaning of the text. Actually both explanations are the simple meaning of the text since they are standard ways of interpreting passive and active. However Rashi typically refers to explanations of words as the simple meaning of the text, and refers to other simple meanings (such as grammar) as an emphasis on nuances (Midrasho).
The table below presents presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about paying laborers/employees in a timely manner. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says pay him by morning while the other verse says pay him by sunset. Which is it? Is the requirement to pay by morning or evening. Rashi simply resolves this using both the 2 aspects method: If a worker completes his services at night then you have from morning to evening (12 hours) to obtain money to pay him. On the other hand if a worker completes his services by day you have from sunset to dawn to obtain money to pay him. In each case the Torah gave the employer time - half a 24 hour period - to obtain money to pay the employee.
Advanced Rashi: Rabbi Dr Isidore Twersky, the Talner Rebbe, pointed out in his doctoral thesis that we tend to use cliches on Rishonim which upon closer examination are not universal. For example Rabbi Twersky points out that we typically think of the Rambam as a rationalist and the Raavad as a more spiritual emotional person. Rabbi Twersky in his doctoral thesis, shows examples to the contrary, when Raavad was the rationalist and Rambam was the mystic. Following this thought I observe that we tend to think of Rashi as terse and Rambam as more comprehensive. However in discussion of worker rights we find the reverse. Rambam is terse, simply citing the law; while Rashi goes out of his way to explain the law as indicated in the underlined passages above.
Many readers are familiar with the 13 exegetical principles of Rabbi Ishmael which occur in the daily prayer books in the morning prayer. In this email newsletter I have called these rules the style rules. It is important to clarify what the Rabbi Ishmael rules focus on. After all they are distinct from rules of meaning grammar and alignment. What are they? We have explained in our article Biblical Formatting located on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/biblicalformatting.pdf that the Rabbi Ishmael style rules are rules governing the interpretation of examples. In other words if the Biblical text gives a specific example, as a law or narrative, does the Author intend that the law or narrative exhaust its meaning in that particular example, or, does the Author intend the example as a mere example which should be understood by the reader as a paradigmatic example which should be generalized. Here is a good example. Dt25-04 states don't muzzle an ox while threshing. The Rabbi Ishmael generalization rule requires that we do not see this example as exhaustive of the law but rather as requiring generalization. Hence Jewish law interprets this to mean Don't muzzle any animal while it is doing its typical work. Actually the law prohibits not only muzzling but any type of inteference with the animal eating. In this particular case we used the generalization style. Sometimes however we use the restrictive style and interpret the example as exhaustive of the law-- the example is all the law says. Verse Lv19-14b states a prohibition: Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy G-d: I am HaShem. Rashi employs the generalization method on this verse: Just as you may not put a stumbling block before a physically blind person so too you may not give bad advice to an innocent person since the bad advice could cause the person to stumble in the path he has chosen.
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 Lv20-04a discussing the idolatrous rite of Molech where a person temporarily burns his children to prepare them for adult life where people frequently get temporarily burned, states And if the people of the land do at overlook-overlook their eyes from that man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and put him not to death; Rashi comments on the repeated underlined phrase: overlook-overlook: If they overlook in any manner however small. To fully capture the intent of Rashi I would therefore translate the prefix letter Beth in the verse as meaning cause rather then when (The prefix beth can equally mean cause and when.) The verse would then read And if the people of the land do at overlook [in any degree however small] their eyes from that man, [thereby] causing him to giveth of his seed unto Molech, and put him not to death; then I ... We can understand Rashi's comment more fully as follows: If courts overlook minor crimes (instead of punishing people for them), then people don't take seriously temporary overlookings of the law. In such a situation a person would not think it that serious if he temporarily (for a moment) burned his son thus symbolically affirming that adults get burned in life and this is part of life. However the emotional trauma to the child - who was burned unnecessary - is an idolatrous rite and is a serious crime since the child has been irreparably emotionally damaged.
We ask the following database query: Do the Torah laws 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 for example, an animal involved in bestiality is executed symbolically affirming the moral horror of the crime. The list below presents the results of the database query.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi does not explain why brimstone wood is so called. I would imagine that the texture and color of the wood is similar to brimstone. Even more startling is Rashi's assertion that The brimstone wood symbolically reminded the viewers of Noah's ark of the coming punishment by brimstone!?! But we do not find an explicit verse that the generation of the flood was punished by brimstone. However we do find brimstone used as a general punishment for a variety of sinful nations including Sedom and Amorah (Gn19-24), the exiled Jews (Dt29-22), Edom (Is30-33), and Gog and Magog (Ez38-22). Rashi therefore felt justified in generalizing these occurrences to include the punishment of the generation of the flood even if not explicitly mentioned.
Verse Lv19-33a generally prohibits teasing - no person should tease his colleague. The Hebrew root for teasing, Aleph-Nun-Hey, Anah, means to cause, and would connote a relationship where a person obtains actions by force rather than by sharing.
As indicated in Rule #8, Databases the Torah and Jewish leaders frequently reinforced needed values during specific situations using symbolism. We repeat here the database inquiry of half a dozen cases where this happens. In particular, an animal involved in bestiality is stoned to symbolically affirm the horror of the crime.
Conclusion
This week's parshah contains examples of all Rashi method. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com and http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule.htm for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||