|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshath TeZaVeH Volume 17, Number 25 This weeks Weekly Rashi with Hebrew/English source tables will be accessible, on Sunday, at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1725.htm (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Mar 2 2012 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 Lv10-01:03 discussing the death of Aaron's sons for drunken sacrifice offerings states And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire in it, and put incense on it, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, This [death] corresponds to what God said: I will be sanctified in them that are near to me, and before all the people I will be honored. And Aaron held his peace. Rashi notes that the underlined words, sanctified, near, people, honored references verses Ex29-43c discussing the honor and holiness of God in the Temple. Hence the Rashi comment The verse (talking about the Temple and the daily offerings) states And I will designate that place as a meeting place with the Jewish nation and I will be sanctified with my honor. The underlined references to Jewish nation, sanctification and honor echo and cross reference the similar words people, sanctification, honor and near in verse Lv10-01:03.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi's literal comment is Don't read the Biblical textual word I will be sanctified in my Honor but rather read it as I will be sanctified by my Honorees. Rashi of course was not advocating misreading the authorized Masoretic text but rather was making a pun. This pun is not necessary in order to understand the cross references of the verse.
When Rashi uses, what we may losely call, the hononym method, Rashi does not explain new meaning but rather shows an underlying unity in disparate meanings. Rashi will frequently do this by showing an underlying unity in the varied meanings of a Biblical root. In my article Peshat and Derash found on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rashi.pdf. I advocate enriching the Rashi explanation using a technique of parallel nifty translations in modern English. Today's examples show this.
Applying the above translation to Ex28-30b discussing the priestly garments we obtain And you shall put in the breastplate of judgment, the Light and Innocence [garment appendages that inspire prophetic visions] ; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before the Lord; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually.
In each case we reject a literal interpretation and instead stick to the basic idea that the Urim, the Light garment, inspired prophecy. We believe such an approach the best.
Most people are aware that Hebrew verbs come from three-letter roots. Each root is conjugated in the 8 dimensions of person, gender,plurality, tense, activity, modality, direct-object, and prepositional connective. 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. Verse Ex29-01a discussing the consecration offering of the Priests states And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me in the priest's office: take one young bullock and two rams without blemish. Rashi translates the Biblical word Lamed-Kuph-Ceth as coming from the Biblical root Lamed-Kuph-Ceth which means to take. We have conveniently embedded the Rashi translation in the translation of the verse. The closet conjugation rule governing this Biblical word may be found by using table(s) 1 in the Ibn Shoshan dictionary for the Command mode Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally states We find two command forms for verbs whose first letter is Lamed: The two forms are Lamed-Kuph-Ceth and Kuph-Ceth. Both forms are a command conjugation meaning take. So Rashi is simply pointing out that there are two conjugations to the command form of Lamed-2-3 roots. Although this fact can be looked up in modern grammar books, such books were not present in Rashi's time. In fact even many modern grammar books will only give one form and not mention alternate forms.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Ex27-20b, Ex29-40. Both verses/verselets discuss oil production. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: 1) The oil production method for the Candellabrah was a special quality oil, pure, without dregs, specially suited for lighting; 2) The oil production method for the offerings did not have to be of such a high quality and could come from beaten oil. We infer this from the contrast of phrases beaten oil vs. oil, beaten for light.
Advanced Rashi: This Rashi is continued in Rules #1,3,4,9. Rule #9 gives details on the production methods - certain methods produce special lighting oil while other production methods do not produce such oil.
The table below presents two contradictory verses/verselets. Both verses/verselets speak about the Tzitz, the metal plate with holy to God on it. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse/verselet says It shall be on his forehead while the other verse/verselet says It shall always be on his forehead. We see the contradiction: Which is it? Was the Tzitz always worn or was it just worn when serving in the Temple (This is also a contradiction between the verse and logic since physically the priest could not wear this continually, as e.g. he sometimes had to go to the bathroom.) Rashi simply resolves this using the broad-literal method: a) It shall physically be on his foreheadduring the Temple service and atone on ritual impurity which contanimated the sacrifices; b) It shall mentally be on his mind at all times. By having God's holiness on his mind he effects atonement for offerings offered in ritual impurity.
Advanced Rashi: We approach this Rashi in rule #6 below from the point of view of the style rule. We note here that Rashi cites a controversy in Yuma 7a on whether the physical presence of the Tzizt on his forehead is necessary to achieve atonement. However a careful reading of the Talmud shows that having the Tzitz on his mind is a requirement according to both sides of the controversy. This makes sense: Ritual impurity attacks holiness; by continually thinking of the phrase, Holy to God, written on the Tzitz, the Priest counteracts the effects of the ritual impurity and achieves atonement. Note how we resolved the contradiction: We used the principle that a repeated word can acquire a non-standard meaning. So the first statement it will be on his forehead is literal while the second statement it will be on his forehead continually is metaphoric - it will be on his mind at all times. Since we used a metaphoric interpretation to resolve the contradiction we classify this as a broad-literal method.
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 atone for the iniquity of offerings, as illustrative of the general clause, have holy to God on one's mind continually, and states: The iniquity of the offerings atones by having holy to God on ones mind continuously. But what can holy thoughts atone for? It can only atone for sins which cause impure thoughts - that is, for offering offerings in a state of ritual impurity. Normally the ritual impurity would cause impure thoughts. However, the holy to God thought atones by bringing in holy thoughts and counteracting the tendency to have impure thoughts.. Advanced Rashi: We approached this Rashi in rule #5 above from the point of view of the contradiction rule; this justifies translating the phrase and the Tzitz will be on his mind. We note here that Rashi cites a controversy in Yuma 7a on whether the physical presence of the Tzizt on his forehead is necessary to achieve atonement. However a careful reading of the Talmud shows that having the Tzitz on his mind is a requirement of both sides of the controversy. This makes sense: Ritual impurity attacks holiness; by continually thinking of the phrase, Holy to God, written on the Tzitz, the Priest counteracts the effects of the ritual impurity and achieves atonement.
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 indicated bullets by using repeating keywords. That is, if a modern author wanted to get a point across using bullets - a list of similar but contrastive items - then the Biblical Author would use repeating keywords. Today's verse illustrates this principle. Bullets whether indicated through modern notation or through the Biblical method of repeating keywords always indicate contrastive emphasis - that is, each bullet is presumed to be a distinct item contrasted to the other items on the list. Very often the bullets are also used to indicate that the entire list is exhaustive of some spectrum.
Advanced Rashi: We should clarify that certain sacrifices the Priests have a right to eat while others they do not eat at all. Similarly the owners participate in the eating of certain sacrifices but not others.
Verse Ex29-12c discussing the blood procedures during the sacrifices states And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger; and thou shalt pour out all the remaining blood at the base of the altar. To understand the Rashi on this verse we first cite Rav Hirsch's comments on Nu28-06 which discusses the daily offerings and states It is a continual burnt offering, produced at Mount Sinai for a sweet savor, a sacrifice made by fire to the Lord. Rav Hirsch notes that the daily offerings were not produced at Mount Sinai but offered on the altar. Therefore, concludes, Rav Hirsch, The altar resembled a mountain in appearance starting with a wide base and having a small top. The diagram below depicts this. Rav Hirsch further explains The altar resembled Mount Sinai since the sacrifices inspired prophecy and Mount Sinai was the original national prophetic revelantion. Therefore the altar resembled Mount Sinai so as to symbolically confirm prophetic capability of the people.
' ----- ALTAR TOP ' ----------- ' ----------------- ' ---------------------- ALTAR BASE The actual dimensions and height of each component are mostly given through tradition and cannot be inferred from textual sources. The height of the altar base was minimal, 1 cubit. Rashi explains that There was an indentation on top of the altar base; the indentation served as a receptacle for the blood poured to the foundation. The diagram below depicts this.
' ------------ ' | | Altar base ' | | Each side had an indentation. ' | | Blood could be poured in ' | | This indentation. ' ------------- Since this Rashi clarifies diagrams we classify it as a NonVerse, Diagramatic method.
The symbolism of the sacrifices: a) the intention by the Biblical Author to perceive the sacrifices symbolically b) the methods by which the sacrifices are interpreted as well as c) the resulting interpretation of the sacrifices is presented by Rav Hirscsh in his monumental essay, Groundlines for Jewish Symbolism, and summarized in my paper on symbolism mentioned above. Consequently, for reasons of space I will simply present the symbolic interpretation below. Those interested in the associated literary and logical arguments should read the above references.
Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally actually says The ox was brought to atone for the golden calf. Some Rashi commentators see this as sort of a pun: The parent ox atones for the sin with the child calf. However Rashi never explicitly states that his comment is based on a pun. This is only an interpretation!!! I have supplied a different interpretation of Rashi based on deep, underlhing, universal symbolic methods which are rooted in the function of the items involved. The function of a ram is leadership. The function of an ox is continous routine productive behavior. Here is a simple example of continuous routine productive behavior: If I was miserly and wanted to become more charitable I should not be advised to give a traumatic sudden $1000 donation to a charity. I would rather be advised to start giving small donations every week or month. Over a year I might give in total a $1000 but I would acquire the habit of being charitable by the continuous daily productive behaviors. This example is actually mentioned by Rambam in his commentary on the tractate Avoth. It immediately follows that the requirement of continuous routine productive behavior contradicts the traumatic approach such as happened in the making of the idol, the golden calf. As can be seen my interpretation accepts Rashi fully - the ox does atone for the sin of the calf. But I don't interpret this atonement as due to a superficial pun. Rather I interpret it as due to a different psychological approach to permanant behavioral change: Permanant behavioral change comes from routine continuous behavior, not from traumatic non-routine behavior. Furthermore by interpreting the ox functionally I use a universal principle of symbolic association which applies uniformly throughout the Bible.
Conclusion
This week's parshah does contains examples of all Rashi methods. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||