Rabbi Ishmael Example Method:#21 of 36
###########################################################
# 10 YEAR Ayelet DAILY-RASHI-YOMI CYCLE #
# Aug 30, 2000 #
# Rashis 240-240 Of 7800 (3.0%) #
# #
# Reprinted with permission from Rashi-is-Simple, #
# (c) 1999-Present, Dr. Hendel #
# http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ #
# #
#Permission to reprint with this header but not for profit#
# #
# WARNING: READ with COURIER 10 (Fixed width) FONTS #
###########################################################
REFERENCE:
----------
Todays unit is extracted from Rashi is SImple volume 7
Number 11. To see the whole issue visit
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h7n11.htm
We interrupt (or supplement) our unit on CLIMAX to
indicate the difference in approach between say Dr
Leibowitz and Dr Hendel. It turns out this is a fundamental
difference in methodology. Here are the details. We use
yesterdays posting for an example
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
VERSE: Dt18-01c
RABBI ISHMAEL-DR-HENDEL vs DR-LEIBOWITZ-DR-BONCHECK
---------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
----------
There are a variety of works on Rashi including those by
--Dr Nechama Leibowitz--Who emphasizes "Rashis problem"
--Dr Avigdor Boncheck---What is Bothering Rashi
--Dr Hendel-------------Who emphasizes style and database queries
We present here a clear, succinct example that crystalizes the
precise difference in approach between Rabbi-Ishmael-Dr-Hendel
vs Dr-Leibowitz-Dr-Boncheck.
VERSES We use the following verses: Dt18-01:02
------
The priests-levites shall not have portion-inheritance in Israel
The Fires of God and His Inheritance they shall eat
They will have no inheritance among his brothers
God is His Inheritance as He has told him."
DR. LEIBOWITZ-DR. BONCHECKS APPROACH
------------------------------------
Dr Leibowitz and Dr Boncheck focus on the fact that
Rashi has a problem: Something is Bothering Rashi:
Here is how I think their methods would apply to Dt18-01:02
QUESTIONS
---------
1)Why does it say"Priests will have fires AND inheritance of God
2)Why does it repeat TWICE "They will have no inheritance"
ANSWERS
-------
1) FIRES of GOD=Sacrifices ::: Inheritance of God=Tithes
Thus 2 phrases were used to indicate 2 types of Objects.
2) TWO inheritances are prohibited: The inheritance of
Israel proper---and the inheritance of the transjordan
by the Gad and Reuben tribes (therefore it says TWICE
"no inheritance" to prohibit "Two inheritances")
RABBI ISHMAEL---DR HENDELS APPROACH
-----------------------------------
Rabbi Ishmael and Dr Hendel focus on the fact that
a) The Torah uses a conversational approach--
it is therefore wrong to be picky on wording.
b) However the Torah uses specific styles to indicate
that examples should or should not be generalized.
Here is an example on Dt18-01:02
STYLE: The Torah uses a GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL style
------
GENERAL: Priests should have no inheritance
DETAILS: Priests have fires of God
GENERAL: Priests should have no inheritance
RULE: The GENERAL-DETAIL-GENERAL style requires generalizing
---- the DETAILS to **all similar** items
APPLICATION
-----------
SINCE Dt18-01:02 has a "general-detail-general" style,
HENCE we are required to **generalize** the details.
THEREFORE the Priests are entitled to **anything** that
is similar to **fires of God**
But the priests are prohibited from **anything**
that resembles the contrasting **conquest of Israel**
Thus Rabbi Ishmael and hence Rashi,-is-Simple!! Rashi is not
being picky on words. He is rather responding to a particular
style that requires generalization. It is the STYLE, not the
repeated words, that causes the generalizations. True, Rashi
confirms his generalization by referring to a cross referenced
chapter (Nu18) but the emphasis is on the style not the
repeated words.
REALLY? CAN YOU PROVE YOUR METHOD IS PREFERRED?
----------------------------------------------
The perceptive reader will respond "But we still have the
question 'Why did the Torah repeat twice NO INHERITANCE?
Why did the Torah repeat FIRE OF GOD and INHERITANCE? Doesn't
this show that the Leibowitz-Boncheck method has some validity?
NO!
For Rabbi Ishmael insists that "The Torah spoke in
a conversational human style". We have already given a list
of 9 Rashis where extra Biblical specificity is dismissed
as irrelevant by Jewish Law: eg
IF an OX gores an animal RASHI: If ANY ANIMAL causes damage
Don't MUZZLE an OX while threshing RASHI: ANY animal
Dont SHEAR 1stborn SHEEP WOOL or WORK with 1stborn OXEN
RASHI: And similarly don't use OX LEATHER or WORK with SHEEP
In short the essence of the Rabbi-Ishmael-Dr-Hendel approach
is the emphasis on style vs problems and example-generalization
vs questions
USE OF DATABASE QUERIES TO EMPHASIZE STYLE
------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTE: In a similar manner if Rashi says something
on every occurence of a word then he probably wasn't
bothered by anything---he rather was responding to
either a rule of style or rule of translation. It
is for this reason that we have emphasized STYLE throughout
our explanations.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#