Ideas and Model Lessons in Learning Rashi-#13
Copyright RashiYomi Inc 2004
Adapted From Rashi-is-Simple
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/
Written by Dr. Russell Jay Hendel;
A: REVIEW
This is the 13-th in a 30 part series on the Methods that are useful for teaching Rashi. Parts 1 - 12 may be accessed on the Rashi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/wbook.htm in the workbook series. Part 1 contains useful information on our notation and methods - to best understand this chapter the reader should be familiar with our conventions.
B: THE ALIGNMENT METHODS
Chapter 11 began a three part subseries reviewing the 3 Rashi methods using alignment. In Chapter 11 we showed how alignment could be used to infer meaning. In chapter 12 we laid down the basic theory showing how alignment can be used to infer either nuances or multiple cases. Finally, in this chapter, we give a dozen examples showing the spectrum and flavor of the two alignment methods. A student carefully studying the examples in this chapter will acquire a competency and a feel for applying the alignment methods.
C: ALIGNMENT / 2 CASES
We first present 5 cases where the alignments clearly show two cases. For maximal benefit the student should a) first read each verse by reading down each column and then b) read across each row in order to review commonalities and differences in the aligned verses.
D: EXAMPLE 1--Dt22-04a vs Ex23-05
============================================
Ex23-05 Dt22-04 Differs
========== ============ =======
When you Don-t #1
see an see an
animal animal
... ...
burdened falling #2
.... ...
& close eyes #1
help him lift animal #2
==========================================
Rashi explains difference #2:
- Verse Ex23-05 discusses the obligation to unload a burdened animal
- Verse Dt22-04 discusses the obligation to reload a fallen animal
Rashi, typically, does not explain all differences. Rashi expects the student to fill in the more obvious cases. In this case difference #1 can be easily explained:
- Verse Ex23-05 lists a positive commandment (A Do---do help)
- Verse Dt22-04 lists a negative commandment (A Don-t---don't close your eyes)
In fact Dt22-04 lists both a positive and negative commandments. This aspect of the alignment is brought down in the Legal Code of Maimonidees.
E: EXAMPLE 2--Gn49-08c vs Gn27-29
==========================================
Gn49-08c Gn27-29 Differs
========== ============ =======
Jacob Isaac Context
blesses blesses Context
Judah Jacob Context
Your Your
father-s mother-s #1
children children
will bow will bow
to you to you
==========================================
Rashi explains the difference:
- Isaac had one wife--hence he blessed Jacob that his mother-s children (brothers) should bow to him
- Jacob had four wives--hence he blessed Judah that his father-s children (brothers from all four wives) should bow to him
F: EXAMPLE 3--Ex21-16a vs Dt24-07
==========================================
Ex21-16a Dt24-07 Differs
========== ============ =======
someone ..a man #1
stealing stealing
a man a soul #2
... ...
is is
punished punished
... ...
==========================================
To understand the differences recall that in Hebrew, words have genders. Hence the word man could either mean a man vs a woman or, it could mean a person. Hence Rashi explains the differences as follows
- the kidnapping laws apply equally to men and women [Difference #1]
- the kidnapping laws apply whether the person stolen was a man or woman [Difference #2]
Note that more can be inferred--for example Difference #2 implies that the kidnapping penalty applies whether the kidnapped person is male, female, adult or minor.
G: HOMEWORK---EXAMPLES 4 and 5
Homework #1:
- Align Ex21-12 and Lv24-17a.
- Make inferences from the aligned differences
- Confirm your inferences from Rashi
Note that the inferences of example 4 and example 3 are the same (Biblical laws apply equally to men and women).
Homework #2: Align Lv24-21a and Lv24-18, make inferences from the aligned differences and confirm your inferences from Rashi.
H: ALIGNMENT / NUANCES
We now begin the presentation of 5 examples of alignment where the inferences are made from nuances. To facilitate understanding we start with alignments where the nuances are nuances of discretion. In other words, the nuances on which Rashi makes his inferences are the same types of nuances that polite people use when indicating things discretely.
I: EXAMPLE 6: Dt01-13 vs Dt01-15b
==========================================
Dt01-13 Dt01-15b Differs
========== ============ =======
Moses asks Moses reports Context
for on the Context
candidates candidates Context
for Judges for Judges Context
bring me you brought
righteous righteous
wise wise
analytic #1
respected respected
men men
==========================================
Rashi explains the one difference as a discretion:
- Moses asked for 4 characteristics in Judges: righteous, wise, respected and analytic
- However Moses only received candidates with 3 of these 4 characteristics: righteous, wise, respected
Moses did not find analytic people, and hence the word analytic is absent in Dt01-15b.
J: EXAMPLE 7: Ex13-19b vs Gn50-25
==========================================
Gn50-25 Ex13-19b Differs
========== ============ =======
Joseph Joseph
swore had sworn #1
the Jews the Jews
God will God will
redeem you redeem you
Bring up Bring up
my bones my bones
with you #2
==========================================
Rashi explains difference #2 as a discretion
- When the Jews are redeemed you should
- - - bring up my coffin [literally, my bones]
- - - bring up your coffin
In other words the extra words bring up my coffin with you discretely suggests that their coffins should also be brought up.
Rashi does not explain difference #1 as it is obvious and can be filled in by the student:
- Gn50-25 was the actual oath that Joseph administered on his death bed
- Ex13-19b was a statement of that oath a hundred years later when the Jews actually left Egypt.
K: EXAMPLE 7: Nu23-17a vs Nu23-06
==========================================
Nu23-06 Nu23-17a Differs
========== ============ =======
Bilam Bilam
returned came #1
to Balak; to Balak;
He He
and and
all #2
his staff his staff
were were
waiting waiting
==========================================
Rashi explains the absence of the word all [Difference #2] in Nu23-17a:
- Nu23-06 discusses the first attempt by Bilam to curse the Jews; Balak was excited and thought that Bilam could accomplish this task. Therefore, Balak and all his staff were waiting.
- Nu23-17a But God did not acquiesce to Bilams attempt to curse the Jewish people. So Bilam tried a second time to curse the Jewish people. This time, although Balak was waiting, only some of his staff were waiting with him. The rest of Bilam-s staff had given up; they did not believe God would allow the Jewish people to be cursed. Hence the word all is missing in the verse, Nu23-17a, discussing the second attempt.
Using this explanation of Rashi we can explain difference #1:
- Bilam was excited on the first attempt and hence he eagerly returned to Balak
- Bilam became aware that he might fail in cursing the Jewish people; hence he did not eagerly return to Balak the second time.
Here we contrast the words return vs come: return has a connotation of eagerness or comfortableness with where you are going; by contrast come has a connotation of possibly something new.
This explanation of difference #1 is subtle. We see how Rashi, in his commentary, selected difference #2, which is clearer. This is typical of Rashi.
L: HOMEWORK: EXAMPLE 8: Gn27-19 vs Gn27-32
Homework #3:
- Align Gn27-19 and Gn27-32.
- Make inferences from the aligned differences
- Confirm your inferences from the Rashis at Gn27-22a and Gn27-19c.
This Rashi illustrates a point of discretion that all children know:
- when asking for something use please
- use polite words.
K: EXAMPLE 9: Ex20-07a vs Lv19-12
==========================================
Ex20-07a Lv19-12 Differs
========== ============ =======
don-t don-t
bear swear #1
the name by my
of God name #2
for nought falsely #3
==========================================
Rashi only explains difference #3: The distinction between for nought vs. falsely can be nicely illustrated by the following two examples: I swear this tree is a stone is a false oath, while I swear this tree is a tree is a for-nought oath. We again emphasize that Rashi is not being picky on the nuances of the phrase for-nought by itself but rather is commenting on the contrast of for-nought vs. falsely in two otherwise almost identical verses.
L: EXAMPLE 9 -- continued
It is typical of Rashi to sometimes explain only one of many differences. Rashi thereby motivates the student to do further research. In this example the student can do further research by studying the Mechiltah, Sifra, Sifray and Talmud on the above two verses. We lightly indicate the reason for the other two differences: [Difference #2]The contrast of the name of God vs. by my name indicates that the false oath prohibition applies not only to the Tetragrammaton but to other unique names of God such as Kayl, Shaddai, Elohim (Deity, Lord, Almighty). [Difference #3] Similarly the contrast of don't swear vs. don't bear implies that both oaths in formal languages as well as swearing in a recognized dialect slang are equally prohibited (It doesn't matter whether you say I hereby swear that... ....or I s'ere that....).
M: EXAMPLE 10 -- Lv14-17 vs Lv14-28a
This last example again illustrates how the nuances that Rashi emphasizes do not emanate from pickiness but rather from minor differences in otherwise almost identical aligned verses. These minor differences function in the Bible the same way footnotes function in modern prose. In other words an aligned difference would be written today as a footnote to the text:
==========================================
Lv14-17 Lv14-28a Differs
========== ============ =======
sprinkle sprinkle
the oil the oil
on the on the
place of - - - - #1
blood blood
of the of the
sacrifice sacrifice
==========================================
Rashi commenting on the extra phrase place of in Lv14-17 states Ideally the oil should be placed directly on the blood, but if the blood, e.g. has evaporated, then one still places the oil on the place where the blood was, but has since evaporated.