|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath SheLaCh Volume 16, Number 16 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables Is accessible at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1616.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Jun 16th, 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 Nu15-25a discussing the communal sin offering for negligent idolatrous worship states And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the people of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance; and they have brought their offering, a sacrifice made by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their ignorance; Rashi clarifies the underlined words offering...sin offering by referencing verse(s) Nu15-24, also discussing the communal sin offering for negligent idolatrous worship which states Then it shall be, if anything is committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bull for an up offering, for a sweet savor to the Lord, with its meal offering, and its drink offering, according to the prescribed ordinance, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering. Hence the Rashi comment: The offering and sin offering mentioned in Nu15-25 refer to the ox up offering and goat sin offering mentioned in Nu15-24.
Advanced Rashi: Note especially that Nu15-24 refers to the up offering while Nu15-25 simply refers to the offering. Frequently when using the reference method subtle nuances like the above emerge.
Rashi would sometimes derive the meaning of a word from the meaning of its underlying Biblical root. In applying this method Rashi would use all available grammatical methods to study the meanings of related roots. The next paragraph presents one such rule. There are 1900 Biblical roots. Of these 1900 roots about half involve X-Vav-Y X-Y-Y X-Y-Hey pairs. These roots (with one root letter weak) often, but not always, have related meanings. Consequently, very often, but not always. one can infer the meaning of a X-Y-Y root from the related X-Y-Hey or X-Vav-Y root. Rashi believed in two grammatical systems. He believed in the traditional tri-literial (3-letter) root methods used to conjugate verbs and taught in all elementary schools. Besides the conjugational root system Rashi also believed in a semantic root system. This is a separate system that enables derivation of root meaning from other roots.
Rashi's comment follows from the above: Tauv-Caph-Lamed-Tauv:Techeleth means sky-blue, a resemblance of the end of the day. Here the Tauv indicates resemblance while Caph-Lamed means end, completion.
I have brought these controversies to show how an underlying Rashi method, meaning of a root and prefix letter, while shedding light on a word can still allow for controversies and differences of opinion. Advanced Rashi: We have ignored the double Tauv of Techeleth, which has both a prefix and suffix tauv. Perhaps some advanced study can shed more light on the above.
Two familiar functions of grammar in all languages are pronoun reference and plurality. To appreciate the Rashi comment note the shifting plural and singular in verses Nu14-22:25
Thus, this grammatical point uncovers contradictory indications - the sin is simultaneously plural and singular. Rashi resolves this contradiction using the methods of the Rashi contradiction rule. Rashi's basic approach is that We are talking about a sin offering for one commandment that is akin to all commandments: that is, the sin of idolatry.
The Rashi studied here can be explained using 5 Rashi rules. By viewing the Rashi's from many perspectives we obtain a more wholistic view. In the grammatical rule we have shown that the Bible refers to the sin-offering described in Nu14-23:26 as both a violation of one sin and all sins. Here we pursue this contradiction by a different method. Instead of examining the contradictory text of this one sin offering we align this text with the texts of other sin offerings. The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Nu14-23, Lv04-02 Both verses/verselets discuss sin offerings - offerings brought for inadvertent sins. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that The sin offering discussed in Nu14-23 is brought for one sin that is simultaneously all sins. We interpret this as the sin of idolatry, since the idolatry sin violates the fundamental tenet of faith and is akin to denial of the whole Torah. Here we use the two aspects method of resolving contradictions since the numerical aspect of idolatry is a singular sin while its impact is the totality of sins.
Advanced Rashi: In the above table we aligned the sin offering mentioned in Numbers with one sin offering mentioned in Leviticus. Actually there are many sin offerings mentioned in Leviticus and they all use almost identical language and speak about one sin that is being done (Cf. Lv04-02, Lv04-13, Lv04-22, Lv04-27 which show that sin offerings are always formulated in terms of one sin.)
The table below presents presents two contradictory verses/verselets. Both verses/verselets talk about God's attributes on dealing with sinners. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse/verselet says God cleans sins while the other verse says God doesn't clean sins. Which is it? Does God clean sins or not? Rashi simply resolves this using the two aspects method: God cleans sins when people repent. But if people don't repent and the children continue their parents behavior God doesn't clean sins but visits the sins on both parents and children.
Advanced Rashi: Note especially how this Rashi can give rise to a flowing translation of the verse. In the above table our suggested flowing translation is indicated by the bracketed words. I believe that the form X not X as in cleans doesn't clean should be interpreted as a Biblical idiomatic style requiring the above-indicated bracketed expressions.
The format rule requires inferences from formatting items such as bold, italics, underline, and bullets. The format rule also requires inferences from paragraph structure and sequence. Today's example illustrates this. Verses Nu14-22:26, Nu14-27:31 form a sequence of two consecutive paragraphs discussing offerings. The main discussion of offerings occurs in Lv. The specific purpose of these sin offerings mentiohed in Numbers is not explicitly indicated there. However we have derived above in rules #3 and #4 that the Bible, in Nu14-22:26, is speaking about an idolatry sin offering which is not discussed elsewhere in the Bible. Hence the elegant but punchy Rashi: Just as the first paragraph discussing communal offerings is discussing the idolatry offering, so too the 2nd paragraph discussing individual offerings, is discussing idolatry offerings. Advanced Rashi: The technical rule used here is inference from consecutive paragraphs. This rule is used throughout the Talmud. Certain Talmudic Rabbis believed that the consecutive paragraph rule only applied in Genesis - Numbers but did not apply to Deuteronomy. We have further classified the consecutive paragraph rule under the formatting rule.
We ask the following database queries: (1) How does the Bible describe sins as attacking God? (2) Can any commandments be said to be personally delivered by God (instead of Moses)? The reader is encouraged to perform the queries using a standard Biblical Konnkordance or search engine. These database queries yield the list below. The list justifies the following Rashi inference: (1) Of all commandments only idolatry/blasphemy is categorized as despising Gods word. (2) Of all commandments only the prohibition of idolatry/blasphemy can be categorized as given personally by God. The 2 lists below presents the results of the database query and show examples
As can be seen the normal rankout for violation of a serious commandment is descecrating God's name. The rankout despising God's word is only used by Idolatry / Blasphemy.
In the Decalogue table the inferences are based on whether God is referred to in the first vs 3rd person. I and my indicate a direct communication from God while as God commanded or he indicate something spoken by Moses in the name of God. We infer from this that God personally delivered the commmandment prohibiting idolatry while the other commandments were given by Moses in the name of God. Advanced Rashi: This example is a peach of a Rashi aptly illustrating the database method. Without the database method Rashi appears to be picky on words: The verse says For he despised God's word. And indeed we find that only the commandment prohibiting idolatry was personally spoken by God vs. Moses Such an approach to Rashi based on minutae is neither appealing nor convincing. However the database method exposes a certain broadness to the Rashi. The phrase despising God's word is rare. The usual term to indicate violation of a serious commandment is descecrating God's name. This database observation allows us to focus on the uniqueness in the phrase despising God's word. Similarly the database study of the Decalogue clearly shows a difference between the 1st two commandments which were said in first person and the other commandments which were said in third person. Thus the database queries expose certain minutae as reflective of broader categories: There is emphasis on God's word since that phrase is never used and there is even more emphasis on God vs. Moses. This broader emphasis provided by the database queries allows us to fullly appreciate the Rashi comments as emanating from clearly intended nuances vs. picky minutae.
Verse Nu13-17 describing Moses instructions to the spies states: And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them: 'Get you up here into the South, and go up to the Mount; Verse Nu13-21 describing the actual journey of the spies states they went up, and spied out the land from the TZin desert unto Rehob, at the entrance to Hamath. Rashi comments:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||