|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath VaYishLaCh Volume 17, Number 13 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables will be accessible, on Sunday, at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1713.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Dec 9, 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(s) Gn32-04:06 discussing the gifts Jacob sent to appease Esauv states And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother to the land of Seir, the country of Edom. And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall you speak to my lord Esau; Your servant Jacob said thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now; And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and women servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favor in your sight. Rashi clarifies the underlined words oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and women servants...I have sent... that I may find favor in your sight. by referencing verse(s) Gn27-28:29 which states Therefore God give you of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine; Let people serve you, and nations bow down to you; be lord over your brothers, and let your mother’s sons bow down to you; cursed be every one who curses you, and blessed be he who blesses you. Hence the Rashi comment: Esauv was angry because Jacob stole the blessings from Isaac (Gn27-41). Jacob therefore sent him gifts showing his assets had nothing to do with Isaac's blessings. Isaac promised him dew of heaven,... fat of earth...lord over your brothers... while Jacob had oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and women servants which were none of these. Hence what Jacob had did not come from the blessings and therefore his brother Esauv had no cause for anger.
Advanced Rashi: Interestingly Rashi does not comment on Jacob's statement that he possesses servants. However we have extended Rashi's idea of comparing Isaac's blessing with Jacob's gifts to the comparison of Isaac's blessing of master over your brother to the verse citation of having servants. This too shows that Esauv had no cause for anger - Jacob did not need to rule over Esauv since he had his own servants.
The FFF principle is a special case of the literary techniques of synechdoche-metonomy. These literary principles, universal to all languages, state that items can be named by related items, by parts of those items, or by good examples of those items. For example honey refers to anything sweet since honey is a good example of something sweet. Similarly hot refers to matters of love since the two are related. Todays Rashi can best be understood by applying these principles. Verse Gn34-14 discussing the requirement of circumcision for marriage states and said unto them: 'We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a cold thing unto us. The Hebrew word Cheth-Resh-Pay-Hey is usually translated as a disgrace. However the same Hebrew root means Winter. Consequently I have chosen to translate the word in Gn34-14 as meaning cold. Here I use the universal and powerful metonomy principle which asserts that passion can be named heat and disgrace/embarassment can be named cold. Similar idioms exist in English.
Verse Gn32-06a discussing Jacob's assets states And I have cattle and..., and men-servants and maid-servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favour in thy sight.' Rashi comments: Cattle is a collective noun. Although there are many cattle in each heard we use the singular cattle. By contract, men-servants is plural. To further clarify this Rashi I use the simple technique of reviewing the identical grammatical concepts in other languages. Such commonality sheds credibility on Rashi. I simply googled collective noun and found the website http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/collectivenoun.htm. It is not a profound website but you can find everything there. The website gives many examples of collective nouns: army, faculty, family, jury, school, class, team, society... Each of these items is a collective noun: That is, it is a single entity like an army which consists of many members. therefore these collective nouns can take singular or plural. The following golden rule of collective nouns is given on the above website: Here is the key: Imagine a flock of pigeons pecking at birdseed on the ground. Suddenly, a cat races out of the bushes. What do the pigeons do? They fly off as a unit in an attempt to escape the predator, wheeling through the sky in the sa People often behave in the same manner, doing one thing in unison with the other members of their group. When these people are part of a collective noun, that noun becomes singular. As a result, you must use singular verbs and pronouns with Sermonic Points: Armys throughout the Bible sometimes have their attacks described in the singular or plural. The Malbim explains that a singular verb connotes unified activity while a plural verb connotes lack of un Torah: and he [the Jews] encamped by the mountain. Rashi comments: The encamped as one unit with a common goal and feeling. Such Rashis and Malbims are very often perceived as homiletic. The typical cynical comment is: Nice idea and good for a sermon but you don't have to believe it. This is simply not true. The rule is common to both English and Hebrew. It is a rule of gramamr not a flimsy afterthought of sermonics. If such an interpretaion is OK for an English class then should we as Jews be inferior? A chilling Talmudic tale relates that students asked their Rabbi for a deathbed blessing. He responded May you fear God the way you fear public opinion. They retorted: Is that all you can bless us with? To which he responde
The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Gn36-02a, Gn26-34 Both verses/verselets discuss the wife Esauv took whose father is Aylon. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: Since both mentioned wives come from the same father we assume it was one person with two names. The names indicate not necessarily original names but also nicknames - things she was known for. The names literally mean perfume and trinket - in light of the explicit statement in Gn26-35 that Esauv's wives caused anguish to Isaac and Rebecca, we assume that the perfume, trinkets refer to sexually provocative dress around the house which annoyed the in-laws. This is further confirmed by the women's nation - the Hittites - one of the 7 idolatrous nations which dwelled in Israel and were conquered by God for Jewish possession of the land.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally (1) only explains the name perfume; he does not explain the name trinket; (2) Rashi does not mention sexually provocative dress but rather idolatrous rites. But as we have explained many times in this email news-letter, Rashi will very often assume that the reader understands the obvious comments on a verse and then Rashi will supplement these obvious comments with additional comments. Here I think it obvious that trinket and perfume go hand in hand. Rashi only had to comment on one and the other was understood. Similarly we have explained many times in our list that idolatry was frequently connected with sexual rites to female priests. Rashi is not exhausting his commentary with reference to idolatrous rites - rather Rashi is supplementing the very obvious sexually provocative nature of loud perfume - trinkets with the point that these were most probably used in idolatrous rites. We feel this supplemental approach to Rashi is the proper way to approach the verse.
The table below presents presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about The relationship of two people name Zibeon and Anah. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, [They were both sons of the same person implying they were brothers;] while the other verse states And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah--this is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father. Which is it? Was Anah the son of Zibeon or his brother? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Aspects method (and some simple adult humor). Zibeon was the older brother. He had an affair with his mother and the child was Anah. Hence he was the father of Anah. However since he and Anah had a common mother he was also his brother.
Sermonic Points: Although Rashi resolved this through some simple adult humor there are nevertheless serious implications. For just as Anah was illegitimate he went out and experimented with creating wild-mules (animals from two species). The resulting animals were known for their wildness. Here Rashi explores the consequences of illegitimacy. It encourages wild experimentation without regard to the possible wild consequences of this experimentation. By contrast, normal people will think first about consequences.
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.
Here is the main point of Rashi: If the verse simply said change clothes I would not interpret it as referring to separation from idolatry. Perhaps the verse simply meant that nice clothes should be put on to visit a house of God. However, the context of the paragraph, speaking about removal of idolatry, justifies the reinterpretation of change clothes as referring to idolatry. On a deeper level we can see the two interpretations - a) separation from idolatry and b) preparing for a house of God - as the same. For indeed, a common purpose of idolatry was physical arousal sometimes with idol-related woman. Idolatrous dress was therefore designed for arousal. For example the exposes Gilyonim (from Gimel Lamed Hey) were idolatrous dresses perforated with holes (to effect arousal). So Jacob's request to remove the idolatrous dresses is identical with a request for more formal attire consistent with visiting the presence of God. We can also extend Rashi's comment They had just acquired idols from the booty of the conquest of Schem, which explains why Jacob was admonishing his household to remove idolas. It therefore stands to reason that ...they also acquired garment booty from the conquest ... undoubtedly the booty had idolatrous dress such as the exposes and people, innocently thought, they might keep these for intimate occasions (but not in public!). Therefore Jacob's request to remove all assocaitions with idolatrous booty foreshadows the similar commands by God in Deuteronomy to totally dis-associate from idolatry.
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. When a modern author wishes to deemphasize a concept they will strike it out. When the Biblical author wishes to deemphasize a concept He places dots over it. The dots in the Biblical version, or the strikeout in the modern version, indicate deemphasis.
Advanced Rashi: Each of the above Rashis might look homiletic by itself. However the list of Rashis creates an aura of credibility that we would otherwise not be able to achieve. The list of examples is thus an important vehicle for understanding and explaining difficult Rashis. Rashi actually gives a more detailed technical explanation. Rashi distinguishes between cases when the number of dots on the word is more than the number of letters. However the above set of explanations is straightforward and does not require such technicalities.
We ask the following database query: When our brother-sister genealogies used? 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 inference that Most genealogies are parental. Brother-sister sibling genealogies indicate a special relationship such as protection or assistance in marriage. The list below presents the results of the database query and provides examples.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi at various points adds further details. For example on Ex06-23 Rashi states A person who wants to marry a woman should see if he is compatable with her brother since sisters resemble brothers closely. Our main goal here is to show the database aspect of these Rashis. These Rashis do not appear that strong. In the last two examples we have explicit textual references to the brothers protection of the sister. Of the remaining three cases, two involve an explicit mention of marriage while one simply reports the brother sister relationship. Thus the Rashi-midrashic suggestion that the brothers helped marry the sisters is seen as a reasonable generalization of the verses but certainly not explicitly indicated. This type of logic is a characteristic flavor of the database method. The strength of the derivation is based on the aggregate totality of examples most of which show the marriage-protection aspect underlying the database examples. The serious student of Rashi should carefully study the above examples and convince themselves that the Rashi-midrash approach was the most reasonable.
Verse Gn34-07a discussing the rape of Dinah, who wandered into a third world neighborhood, states And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought a vile deed in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing is not done. Rashi comments on the underlined phrase which thing is not done. Rashi explains You might argue contributory fault of the rape victim. After all, she should have known better than to go into a third world neighborhood (even if she was socializing with the girls). The Bible therefore emphasizes that although roughing people up and macho behavior is to be expected when you go to a third world neighborhood, rape is not to be expected. Even third world nations know the seriousness of Rape and have their own cultural methods, which usually involve heavy bonding in groups, to prevent people from going overboard. So Schem was the real rapist Advanced Rashi: Someone asked me a few weeks ago if I deal with Rashi contradictions. We have such a Rashi contradiction in Gn34 since at Gn34-01 Rashi, commenting on the unusual genealogical phrase, Dinah the daughter of Leah states, Leah was frequently forward with her husband and set a bad role model for Dinah, who was forward with men. This led to her rape. But on Gn34-07 Rashi states that Schem was the rapist. Which is it? Did Leah cause the rape by showing Dinah how to be forward or was Schem solely responsibile for the rape. Or, perhaps Rashi is implying that Schem and Leah both contributed to the rape. Before answering this contradiction I note that many non-Rashi scholars have vehemently attacked this Rashi, the lastest example, being the book The Red Tent. It would behoove those who comment on Rashi to at least inquire as to what he is saying. He couldn't have meant that Leah was the rapist since he goes out of his way to blaim Schem and remove any defense. It appears to me that we can understand Rashi if we distinguish between blaim and guilt. Leah is not to be blaimed for Dinah's rape. She did not contribute to it. Indeed, Leah was Dinah's mother. Rather Leah, upon hearing of the rape, felt guilty that perhaps her forward behavior with Jacob sent an incorrect signal to her daughter that such behavior is always appropriate. She felt guilty that she never taught her the dangers of being forward with men So at Gn34-01 Rashi is explaining the natural feeling of guilt coming from a role model of female forwardness. The reader might ask How can you be blameless and feel guilty? The answer is that guilt is an emotion not a moral judgement. The symptoms of blameless guilt are thoughts such as the following: Maybe I should have spoke to her more about men? Maybe I should have been more discrete around the house. Maybe I could have done something and this wouldn't have happened. Blaim however is correctly pla on the rapist and Rashi goes out of his way to blaim him despite the fact that she walked into his turf - even criminals have boundaries and borders. Furthermore it is important for Rashi to comment on Leah's guilt since in all generations Jewish mothers do feel guilty when something happens to their daughters and they need appropriate role-models to identify with.
Verse Gn28-12a presenting the dream Jacob had states And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. We interpret this simply as meaning that there are two manifestations of God. In Temples and Halls of Study man ascends to God while in profane places God descends to man. Jacob had erroneouslly thought that God may only be found in situations of ascent. His dream taught him that God can be found in situations of descent also. This ascent-descent theme manifests itself in a variety of domains including immanence-transcendence, scholar approaches to God (through learning) vs. Chasidic approaches to God (through living a simple daily life), Holy approaches to God vs profane approaches to God. Rashi literally says The angels of Israel were ascending to heaven while the angels of non-Israel lands came down to escort Jacob on his trip to Laban (who was not holy. We have chosen to interpret this Rashi as using a good example of the holy-profane dichotomy presented in the last paragraph. Israel-non-Israel is simply one good example of Holy approaches to God vs non-Holy approaches to God. Rashi did not intend to exhaust the meaning of the verse in this particular holy-non-holy approach but rather intended to illustate the underlying meaning with a good example. The botton line is as follows: In rule #9, spreadsheets we see there is a 14 year gap between Jacob's departure from Beer Sheva and his arrival in Charan. Jacob camps in the middle of nowhere but sees God in a dream and concludes that God is here even though he didn't expect it. In rule 10 - symbolism we see that Jacob learns that God manifests himself in two ways: 1) In Temples and Houses of Study man ascends to God; 2) In camping grounds and profane places God descends to man to help him out. This second manifestation of God surprises Jacob who hadn't been aware of it. Jacob's former life was the simple tent dwelling life, the life of prayer-study relationship to God Gn25-27 - Jacob erroneously thought God was only found there. But Jacob now finds God in the profane. Jacob sees God manifesting in two ways - man ascends to God in Temples and houses of study but God descends to help man in the profane.
Conclusion
This week's parshah contains examples of all Rashi methods. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||