Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.Htm
VOL 01 NUMBER 10
PRODUCED Jan 31, 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v-0131-Website updated weekly; Bigger issue; Other opinions;Private
v2c15-20--TF=a percussion instrument; Something you "beat on"(TF)
v2b15-20--Sibling genealogy indicates CARING/DEFENSIVE behavior
v2-6-23---Sibling genealogy indicates CARING/DEFENSIVE behavior
v2-14-10--KRV+HIFIL=Forced himself to come near(eg galloped more..)
v2b20-15--"See" the thunder = Prophetically see thunder....
v1b1-1-B=For;RAYSHIT=Choicest;For Choicest things...world was made
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
v-0131
Administrivia
* The last issue was short on Chidushim because I was making
software for the website. Hence this issue is a bit bigger.
* The website will be updated weekly.
Also, you can now click on VERSES as well as ISSUES on the web
site. The URL for the web site is now in the header.
* I realize some people may just want the website version with
the one line summaries and the principles with other verses to
look at. Let me know your thoughts.
* Starting with this issue I will try to bring more often
Controversies among the rishonim or other opinions in Midrash
Rabbah and show why Rashi chose what he did
* Those who wish to post without having their names posted can
simply tell me that their email to me is private. Please continue
to post or ask me about your favorite Rashi.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2c15-20 ...and Miriam took the drum-cymbal and...
------
RASHI TEXT: "drum-cymbal"---a musical instrument
----------
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
First consider a word like OVERCOAT. An
OVERCOAT is an example of a GARMENT. But
the ETYMOLOGY of OVERCOAT refers not to its class---the GARMENT
---but rather to the particular nature of the OVERCOAT---the
OVERCOAT is a COAT that you PLACE OVER your other garments-hence
it is an OVERCOAT=OVER COAT.
In general whenever we have a word then
--to understand the MEANING we must know its CLASS (e.g. garment)
--but to know its PARTICULAR meaning (in that class)...
we use its DERIVATION (OVERCOAT=COAT OVER other garments)
So again, to use our example, if I wanted to understand OVERCOAT
--I need to know it is a GARMENT (the class)
--I need to know it is that type of COAT that is worn
OVER other garments (The derivation)
Other examples of GENERAL CLASSES vs PARTICULARS may be found in
{LIST1}. Thus BREAKFAST is the *MEAL* which *BREAKS your FAST*.
A SPORTSWAGON is the *CAR* with a *SPORTY* look. A SAILBOAT is
a *BOAT* that goes by *SAILS*.
Now let us go to Rashi.
a) Rashi often only gives the general category
b) The particular member is given by the DERIVATION of the word
As an example if we made a Rashi on BREAKFAST it would read
>BREAKFAST: (Rashi) A meal
>We would then supplement this as the meal that breaks your fast
So too here: Rashi simply says "A TYPE OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENT"
However since the name of the musical instrument means to "Beat"
we assume that it is a PERCUSSION instrument (either a drum, cymbal
or some combination) {LIST2} provides all occurences of TF in TNACH
RASHI'S FORM: Our suggestion that Rashi gives the general class
------------and we have to supplement it with particulars is
consistent with our often repeated theme that Rashi used workbook
methods---he gave some of the answers and let the reader do the
rest.
We have brought this Rashi here since it clearly shows that Rashi
DELIBERATELY left out the particular meaning (since Rashi obviously
knew WHICH type of instrument the TF was..since it is a very common
word)--therefore he was in effect asking us to do further research.
A second reason for Rashi omitting the particular case was so that
simple people could walk away and remember what they learn (studies
have shown that when you give simple people too much detail they
don't remember anything).
[NOTE: We have not committed ourself to DRUM vs CYMBALS--in fact
there might have been instruments that combined aspects of both.]
LISTS:
-----
{LIST1}
{Of Words whose derivation indicate PARTICULARITY
The Examples in this list are based on the following rules:
* The MEANING of words requires KNOWLEDGE of their CLASS
* The DERIVATION of words refers to their PARTICULARITY
* FULL UNDERSTANDING requires knowledge of CLASS+PARTICULARITY
* Proper procedure when 1st seeing the word is to indicate CLASS
* Further study of nuances is needed for full understanding}
WORD CLASS DERIVATION
======== ===== ===========
OVERCOAT COATS The coat that is worn OVER others
BREAKFAST MEAL The meal that BREAKS your FAST*
SPORTSWAGON CAR A car with a SPORTY look
SAILBOAT BOAT The boat that goes by its SAILS
REVOLVER GUN Has REVOLVING cylinder for bullets
SUPERMARKET STORE a SUPER store with MANY buys**
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* This etymology is famous--the BREAKFAST breaks the fast of the
previous night.
**That is, the SUPERMARKET in contrast to groceries and local
stores has a SUPER variety of buys
{LIST2} {Of uses of TF in TNACH #}
VERSE WITH TF TRANSLATION
------------- -----------
Nahum 2-8 ..& her servents..murmer..beating their hearts
Ps68-26 ## .singers..dancers..in the midst of beating damsels
FOOTNOTES:
==========
# There are no other verbal forms of TF---
## It appears that a more proper translation of Ps68-26 is "drumming
damsels"
CROSS REFERENCES: Vol 1 Number 9 -- V2-16-33
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
RULE CLASSIFICATION: WORD MEANINGS
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2b15-20 ...Miriam, the sister of Aaron
------
RASHI TEXT:
----------
She is called "sister of Aaron" because he acted like a
big brother & interceded for her(Num 12)when she had leprosy
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* Genealogy in the Bible is normally PARENT centered.
* Biblical USAGE only speaks of people as "sisters" when
the "Brothers" have behaved like BIG BROTHERS and
tried to help their "sisters" (or vice versa).
* In this case we see that in Nu 12 that Aaron (even though
he too had sinned) petitioned for Miriams welfare.
RASHI'S FORM
------------
a) Note that although Rashi cites the Mechilta Rashi does NOT
cite the 3 examples of the Mechilta. Rashi as we noted many times
does not usually use a scholarly detailed style but rather a terse
mnemonical style.
b) Rashi gives 2 explanations. It is my general custom to ASSUME
that Rashi was fully satisfied with the 2nd interpretation. I
understand that many scholars attach significance to both.
I welcome any comments on my omissions.
Let me defend Rashi's first explanation: According to a well known
tradition when Pharoh ordered males drowned, Amram separated from
his wife. Miriam his daughter criticized him and he "remarried her"
So "Miriam and Aaron" were Amram's children from the "1st" marriage
Moses was the child from the "2nd" remarriage.
Hence--Miriam was "more" Aaron's sister (same marriage) than
Moses!!
This of course is "cute"--however the reason for my not including
it on this email list is because this email list is devoted to
the defense of Rashi/Midrash through lists. It is not possible
through the use of LISTS to derive a whole story or remarriage.
{I am NOT saying that Amram did not remarry--I am simply saying
that the fact that he remarried cannot be derived from lists!)
It is my opinion that when Rashi brought two explanations down,
the 1st one cannot be defended though lists but the 2nd one can.
LISTS:
------
{LIST1} {Of people called "sisters". Normally, genealogy in the
Bible is paternal. Genealogy is sibling focused when
CARING/SACRIFICIAL behavior has transpired between the
siblings (The brothers/sisters helped each other out or
helped marry each other or defend each other)}
VERSE SISTER BROTHER CARING ACT OF BROTHER FOR SISTER
----- ------ ------- --------------------------------
2-15-20 Miriam Aaron Petitioned for her(Num 12)*
1-34-25 Dinah Simon-Levi Waged war for her(Gen 35)*
4-25-18 Cazbi Midian-Nation She prostituted for them* #
2-6-23 Elisva Nachson He "married her" to Aaron
1-28-9 Machlth Nevayoth He "married her" to Esauv
1-4-22 Naamah Tuval-Kayin He "married her" to Noach**
1-25-20 Rivkah Laban Helped her recognize criminals***
4-26-59 Miriam Moses-Aaron The both petitioned for her(Num12)
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* Only the first 3 cases are mentioned by the Mechiltah
Nevertheless, when Rashi uses a principle, unless that principle
can be universally applied it has no validity. It would take too
long to go over every case (in this issue) but I did want to bring
them down and show the general idea. To make the list short I only
brought down Biblical examples. Note how CD ROMS would NOT help
us here since the list uses many keywords: SISTER OF, THEIR SISTER,
BROTHERS etc.
# In other words (See 4-31-16 for an explicit statement)--she,
as part of a war effort, deliberately seduced strategic people
so that God should be angry with the Jewish people. Note how
in this case she acted as "big sister" for her nation.
** The preceding 3 examples were NOT brought down by the
Mechiltah. Nevertheless they fit into the general pattern.
Note how Rashi explicitly mentions marriage in 2-6-23 and
1-28-9. Although Rashi does not explicitly say that Tuval-Kayin
married Naamah to Noach it a) is consistent with the other members
of ths list and b) it would seem logical that Noach who built an
ark needed the "father of utensils"--Tuval Kayin--Naamahs brother.
We will go into this in a future issue.
*** See Rashi here. There are numerous references to the fact
that Rivkah learned how to recognize "criminal behavior" in
her fathers-brothers house and this helped her marriage to Isaac.
Again, we will go into this in a future issue
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
Torah Shlaymah brings down the above "remarriage" insight
RULE CLASSIFICATION: STYLE
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2-6-23 ...& Aaron married Elisheva the sister of Nachshon
------
RASHI TEXT:
----------
From here we learn that the suitability of a potential wife
can be inferred from the pesonality, suitability and how you
get along with her brother.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
Genealogy in the Bible is PARENT centered.
When genealogy is sibling centered it
indicates that the brother and sister engaged in some
CARING/DEFENSIVE actions for the other. {LIST1} presents
several such sibling centered genealogies.
Aaron wanted to marry Elisheva. Therefore it behoved him to study
Elisheva's relationship with her brother since they had had some
type of CARING/DEFENSIVE relationship with each other. In other
words, her brother was the male that she had had the closest
relationship with so far and therefore could be used to assess
how future relationships with other mails (husbands) would go.
The sibling centered genealogy of the verse---"Elisheva, the
sister of Nachshon"--suggests some CARING/DEFENSIVE behavior
between Nachshon and Elisheva. However, there are TWO APPROACHES
to interpret this (and the other 2 cases
where sibling geneanology is connected with marriage)
APPROACH 1
We can assume like the first 3 cases on the list....Aaron-Miryam
Cazbi-Midyan, Dinah-Shimon-Levi---that some type of defensive or
caring behavior had transpired between Elisheva and Nachshon during
their life (though we don't know what it was)
Hence, Nachshon could serve as a model for a "relationship with a
male" so that if Aaron wanted to marry Elisheva he could study
how she related to Nachshon.
NOTE how this interpretation ASSUMES that Nachshon and Elisheva
had interacted on some level. NOTE also that this interpretation
restricts Rashis statement "From here we learn that a potential
marriage partner should study the brother in law" ONLY to those
cases where the brother and sister interacted. However according
to this interpretation it would be wrong to apply this principle
to a brother-sister relationship where no caring/defensive
behavior had taken place.
APPROACH 2
We could assume that this verse is different than the other
broher-sister verses. We could assume that the caring/defensive
behavior of the brother is the very helping in the act of
marriage itself. According to this interpretation Rashis
statement "From here we learn that a potential marriage partner
should study the brother in law" would apply in every case.
I mention both methods of interpretation since some people are
literalists and ASSUME that they must interpret Rashi literally
and apply his principle to every case.
However the proper method of studying Rashi is to first study
the Biblical lists involved and then to interpret Rashi in light
of these lists. For it is the Bible that is primary and Rashi
that is secondary. We are only justified in interpreting Rashi
literally if the lists we use to prepare study of Rashi justify
it. And similarly if these lists do not justify such a literal
interpretation then either we have made an error in the
construction of the list(certainly a possibility one should think
of) or we *should* interpret Rashi non literally.
Thus in this case since the list asserts that BROTHER-SISTER
genealogy suggests CARING/DEFENSIVE behavior we should interpret
this verse to mean that Nachshon showed some CARING/DEFENSIVE
behavior for his sister. Hence Nachshon was a male with whom
Elisheva had a relationship. Hence it was appropriate to study
this model by a potential husband. This applies to other marriages.
However if the brother and sister never showed a caring/defensive
relationship then one would not apply this principle of Rashi.
The FORM of Rashi also suggests that this interpretation of
Rashi is correct.
RASHI'S FORM
------------
Note how Rashi says: "From here we learn....." rather than
just saying the principle outright.
It therefore seems reasonable that this principle---potential
husbands should study a brother-in-law---is not the primary
thing learned from the verse. Rather, the primary thing learned
from the verse is that Nachshon and Elisheva showed a caring/
defensive relationship to each other. And AS A CONSEQUENCE
Nachshon was a good model to study a potential marriage.
LISTS:
------
{LIST1} {Of people called "sisters". Normally, genealogy in the
Bible is paternal. Genealogy is sibling focused when
CARING/SACRIFICIAL behavior has transpired between the
siblings (The brothers/sisters helped each other out or
helped marry each other or defend each other)}
VERSE SISTER BROTHER CARING ACT OF BROTHER FOR SISTER
----- ------ ------- --------------------------------
2-15-20 Miriam Aaron Petitioned for her(Num 12)*
1-34-25 Dinah Simon-Levi Waged war for her(Gen 35)*
4-25-18 Cazbi Midian-Nation She prostituted for them* #
2-6-23 Elisva Nachson He "married her" to Aaron
1-28-9 Machlth Nevayoth He "married her" to Esauv
1-4-22 Naamah Tuval-Kayin He "married her" to Noach**
1-25-20 Rivkah Laban Helped her recognize criminals***
4-26-59 Miriam Moses-Aaron The both petitioned for her(Num12)
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* Only the first 3 cases are mentioned by the Mechiltah
Nevertheless, when Rashi uses a principle, unless that principle
can be universally applied it has no validity. It would take too
long to go over every case (in this issue) but I did want to bring
them down and show the general idea. To make the list short I only
brought down Biblical examples. Note how CD ROMS would NOT help
us here since the list uses many keywords: SISTER OF, THEIR SISTER,
BROTHERS etc.
# In other words (See 4-31-16 for an explicit statement)--she,
as part of a war effort, deliberately seduced strategic people
so that God should be angry with the Jewish people. Note how
in this case she acted as "big sister" for her nation.
** The preceding 3 examples were NOT brought down by the
Mechiltah. Nevertheless they fit into the general pattern.
Note how Rashi explicitly mentions marriage in 2-6-23 and
1-28-9. Although Rashi does not explicitly say that Tuval-Kayin
married Naamah to Noach it a) is consistent with the other members
of ths list and b) it would seem logical that Noach who built an
ark needed the "father of utensils"--Tuval Kayin--Naamahs brother.
We will go into this in a future issue.
*** See Rashi here. There are numerous references to the fact
that Rivkah learned how to recognize "criminal behavior" in
her fathers-brothers house and this helped her marriage to Isaac.
Again, we will go into this in a future issue
CROSS REFERENCES: v2b15-20
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
RULE CLASSIFICATION: STYLE
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2-14-10 And Pharoh rushed to reach the Jews
------
RASHI TEXT:
-----------
KRV in the Hifil = He pushed himself & rushed to get close
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
Rashi explains that the root KRV
--in the KAL mode = got close / near
--in the HIFIL mode = pushed himself (rushed) to get close/nearer
So in this verse Pharoh e.g. galloped faster or urged his troops on
(I guess the point is that it shows Pharoh's wickedness. Even
though he couldn't overtake the Jews with a normal pace and
he had a way "out"--he deliberately tried to overtake despite
the fact that he saw God's hand)
We now discuss the 3 way controversy between Rashi, Ibn Ezra
and the Zohar/Midrash Rabbah on the meaning of KRV in the hifil:
--Rashi holds that it means to PUSH ONESELF to do something
--Ibn Ezra holds that it means to bring SOMETHING else nearer
--the Zohar holds that it means to come CLOSER TO GOD.
These 3 opinions are reviewed in {LIST1} against the background
of several verses.
As can be seen Rashi's explanation--push oneself to come close--
is the only explanation that fits all cases.
Note Rashi's metiulousness. He only chose that
explanation that fit ALL cases and avoided other explanations
available to him such as those in the Midrash Rabbah/Zohar.
The astute reader may ask: "Isn't **force himself to come close**
a **reflexive** action? Isn't the Hitpael tense used for reflexive?
Why does Rashi interpret the Hifil as reflexive
(even if it fits all cases)?"
The answer to this is a fundamental principle of grammar that is
not widely know. However it is mentioned by the RDQ in Michlol:
>If a root has several meanings then it is legitimate for the
>language to (arbitrarily) assign different meanings to different
>grammatical modes. In other words the grammatical modes act as
>PLACE HOLDERS. The standard interpretations of these modes
> HIFIL=Causative, HITPAEL=Reflexive etc are just approximations
> and don't always hold.
LISTS:
------
{LIST1} {Of verses with KRV in the Hifil. The tables layout
is explained in the footnotes #}
VERSE RASHI IBN EZRA MIDRASH RABBAH
----- ----- -------- --------------
2-14-10 pushed himself brought his army near brought the Jews
to get closer@ to the Jews $ close to God (by
causing them to
pray) %
1-12-11 forced himself ? ?
to come close
to Egypt (since
he had to leave
Israel because
of the famine)@
3-1-2* forced himself brought his sacrifice brought himself
to come close animal close to God $ close to God thru
to God thru the sacrifice %
a sacrifice@
5-1-17 a litigant@ a litigant a litigant
brings a brings a brings a
judicial case judicial case judicial case
before a judge before a judge $ before a judge %
FOOTNOTES:
=========
#) The interpretation of the table should be clear. We bring 3
commentators and show how each one interpreted KRV in the hifil.
Thus on 2-14-10 Rashi says it means "Pharoh pushed himself to
get closer to the Jews (e.g. by galloping faster)". Ibn Ezra
says KRV in Hifil means "not only did he come near but he brought
his army near. The Midrash Rabbah and Zohar say "Since Pharoh
came near the Jews were worried and started praying to God...so
Pharoh brought the Jews closer to God).
?) I don't have any satisfactory intepretation of 1-12-11
according to Ibn Ezra and the Midrash Rabbah.
(As usual comments are welcome)
$) Ibn Ezra interprets
KRV+Hifil = Bring something else close
So Ibn Ezra interprets "brought his army near" and "brings a
judicial case near" and "brings his animal for sacrifice near".
%) Midrash Rabbah (and Zohar) interprets
KRV+Hifil = Come close to God
So Midrash Rabbah interprets "Pharoh caused the Jews to pray" and
e.g. when there is a sacrifice "The e.g. sinner causes himself
to come close to God". Similarly Midrash Rabbah would interpret
5-1-17 as coming closer to God since according to Jewish law God's
presence is in every courtroom.
*) 3-1-2 is just one verse--however there are about 150-200 verses
where KRV in the Hifil is used with sacrifices. Since these are all
the same from a subject matter point of view we have listed them as
one case.
Note the importance of this from a statistical point of view. In
defending an interpretation PERCENTAGES can be an important defense
argument. In this case the proper perspective is that there are
only 4 cases of Hifil in the Bible. It would be improper to state
that there are 205 cases since that would be misleading.
@ Rashi interprets: KRV+Hifil = He forced himself to come close
e.g. He galloped faster or emotionally forced
himself to come to Egypt (since he didn't want
to leave Israel)
Rashi would probably interpret 5-1-17 as "although the
2 litigants are fighting and they want to settle the matter
themselves they decide (ie. force themselves) to go to court
(the point being that people usually don't like to go to court)"
CROSS REFERENCES: Midrash Rabbah 21:5
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
RULE CLASSIFICATION: ROOT+PREPOSITION
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2b20-15 ..and they (the Jews) saw the thunder..
-----
RASHI TEXT:
----------
They "saw" (thru prophecy) that which is normally "heard"
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* The PRIMARY meaning of "see" is to see
* A SECONDARY meaning is "prophetically see"
* We cannot arbitrarily use a SECONDARY meaning vs a PRIMARY
* However we should use a SECONDARY meaning if the PRIMARY can't
be used
* In this verse it says "They saw the thunder"--since thunder is
normally heard we are justified in interpreting
they "saw" the thunder = they "prophetically visioned"
the thunder....
RASHI'S FORM
------------
Rashi's form seems to answer why he rejected the RDQ's
interpretation of RAH as GENERAL AWARENESS (They were AWARE of
the thunder)
Quite simply the preceding two chapters makes it clear that
the Jews at Sinai underwent a prophetic experience. Furthermore
2-20-19 explicitly says: "..you have seen that from
HEAVEN (=Prophecy) I have spoken to you".
Thus IN CONTEXT Rashi's explanation is preferred to the RDQs.
Both RDQ and RASHI are forced not to interpret RAH as see.
RDQs point of view is to take the interpretation AWARE.
Rashi's point of view is to make the interpretation consistent
with the context---one of PROPHECY
LISTS:
-----
{LIST1} {Of Meanings of the root RAH--courtesy of RDQ *
Some further grouping of these general categories
takes place in {LIST2}}
VERSE MEANING TEXT
----- ------- ----
3-13-29 To see Priest will see the TZRAAS
Ecc1-16 Learned-Aware-experienced My heart learned much wisdom
1-42-1 Aware ..became aware of food in ..
1-37-14 Find out Find out how they're doing
3-20-17 Sex See his nakedness
Is17-7 Pray/thank-Look for help His eyes will go towards God
Ecc12-3 Eyes The eyes will become dim
2R14-8 War Let us "war"(confront)
Es2-9 Proper-Fitting The proper accompaniment
Isa28-7 Prophecy They erred in the prophet
Dan8-16 Prophetic Vision Explain the vision to him
2-38-8 Mirror With the mirrors of ..
3-1-16 Dung ..remove the dung
5-14-14 A bird A bird
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* This list is NOT meant to be definitive or complete but we have
intended to cover MOST of the meanings according to MOST people.
(This is in general our method). Just to note some of the possible
alternatives in interpretation
--1-42-1 Rashi takes it as PROPHECY; RDQ takes it as AWARE
--Is38-11 RDQ takes it as AWARE; Rav Saadia Gaon as PRAYER-THANX
--2-20-18 Rashi takes it as PROPHECY; RDQ takes it as AWARE
Because of the great plasticity of a verb like SEE it is possible
to give many explanations on any individual verse.
{LIST2} {Regrouping of the dozen or so meanings of RAH
mentioned in {LIST1} into similar categories}
CLASS OF MEANING EXAMPLES
---------------- --------
SEE See,aware,experience,find out,eye,mirror
SPECIAL "SIGHTS" * Sex, War, Prophecy-vision, "Fitting"
DUNG #
FOOTNOTES:
=========
# My opinion is that DUNG comes from a truncated 4 letter root:
DUNG = An Island of "mush" = RR-IY ===> RAY
In other words RR=Puss, Mush etc. RR-IY would be an island
of mush, a fitting explanation for Dung.
Phonetically, RRIY would then have contracted to RAY an RAH
* RE: The "special sights"--the interpretation should be clear
--WAR - SEE FACE TO FACE on the battlefield
--SEX - SEE NAKEDNESS
--PROPHECY - become aware of a PROPHETIC VISION
--FITTING PROPER - a "good" sight
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
There are many places where SEE=PROPHECY (according to Rashi)
We are going to explain all of them eventually. Some have
already been explained. We take note of some: 1-42-1 and 1-49-8
(the last verse was already explained in a previous issue, also
using the concept of internal contradictions)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
This verse was originally raised by Levi Enter.
In addition to answering Levi's question I wanted to emphasize
the difference between the purpose of this list and other avenues
of learning.
The purpose of this list is simply to justify with adequate lists
each Rashi and emphasize methods of learning that will enhance
Rashi.
Thus on this verse the only thing that is important to us is
the list of meanings of RAH which justifies interpreting SEE as
PROPHETICALLY SEE.
Needless to say some people may derive all types of ethical lessons
or dwell on the great miracles that the Jews "saw that which is
usually heard". It is for this reason that I printed Levi's
posting in its entirety. This list neither supports nor shuns such
postings. However we strongly believe that it is a significant
contribution to be able to justify each Rashi with a list.
RULE CLASSIFICATION: UNIFIED MEANING
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1b1-1 For the sake of the choicest God created the world
------
RASHI TEXT: B=For the sake of; RAYSHIT=The choicest
----------
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* Ordinarily B means B=In; RAYSHIT means RAYSHIT=Beginning of
* However
* --------B can also means B=FOR
* --------RAYSHIT can also mean, RAYSHIT=Choicest.
Amos6-6 is the best example: "From the choicest of
oils will he be annointed". {LIST2} gives all meanings of
the root ROSH.
(Note that RAYSHIT canNOT mean BEGINNING OF in 1-1-1
since there is no phrase completion--"Beginning of something".
Thus we are forced to interpret it as CHOICEST.)
* Thus the verse means that even though there is much evil in the
world nevertheless
BECAUSE OF THE CHOICEST THINGS IN THE WORLD GOD CREATED IT
I think the emphasis in the verse is that even though there is
much evil in the world nevertheless God created it FOR the sake of
the CHOICEST things in the world (like Torah, the Jews etc).
* It is my opinion that Rashi does not commit himself to WHICH
CHOICEST is involved--indeed he gives several examples--Torah,
Israel...all of which could be referred to.
* To complete our analysis we should discuss how
Contructs take on the meanings of objects
By construct I mean any phrase that ends in "of";
examples are "Head of", "First of" etc.
In Hebrew these construct phrases can take on new meaning
The rule here is that
A CONSTRUCT can change to a NOUN and indicate
a WELL KNOWN or CONSPICUOUS example of that CONSTRUCT state
For example "Head of" can mean "Top". Similarly, "First of"
can mean "April", the first of the months. We call such
transformations SEMANTIC rules. They are as important
as grammatical rules....grammatical rules deal with how
LETTERS change to indicate attributes of a verb (e.g.
Past, me, you, he..) SEMANTIC rules deal with how MEANINGS
can change their function. {LIST1} gives a list of
such constructs and how they change meaning.
RASHI'S FORM
------------
Note that several features of Rashi have been bypassed by me.
*Rashi mentions several political ideas (That God owns
the world and therefore can give Israel to the Jews)
However the primary purpose of this email list is
grammatical-semantical not political. Therefore unless political
statements are necessary for the understanding of Rashi we will
not mention them. Needless to say these statements of Rashi are
certainly very relevant.
*Rashi mentions other explanations ("In the beginning
of God creating heaven and earth when the earth was
formless...then God said Let there be light").
However there is NO list which would justify translating a 3RD
PERSON PAST MASCULINE SINGULAR CONJUGATION as an INFINITIVE (which
is what this translation requires). (There are no other examples
of such transferences---if readers out there know of any kindly
submit)
Therefore I have avoided this other translation.
As to the argument "Why then did Rashi bring it"---my own opinion
is that whenever Rashi brings two interpretations then the 2nd one
is "true" --i.e. can be strongly defended by lists, while the 1st
one usually cannot be defended by lists. Since the purpose of this
email list is to provide lists by which to understand Rashi we will
in general skip these first explanations. (However anyone who has
defenses for them may bring them).
LISTS:
-----
{LIST1} {Of Contructs that take on the meanings of objects
By construct I mean any phrase that ends in "of";
examples are "Head of", "First of" etc.
In Hebrew these construct phrases can take on new meaning
The rule here is that
A CONSTRUCT can change to a NOUN and indicate
a WELL KNOWN or CONSPICUOUS example of that CONSTRUCT state
For example "Head of" can mean "Top". Similarly, "First of"
can mean "April", the first of the months. We call such
transformations SEMANTIC rules. They are as important
as grammatical rules....grammatical rules deal with how
LETTERS change to indicate attributes of a verb (e.g.
Past, me, you, he..) SEMANTIC rules deal with how MEANINGS
can change their function.}
VERSE WORD CONSTRUCT MEANING NEW MEANING
----- ---- ----------------- -----------
Prv23-18 AChRiT End of Reward*
2S15-32 ROSH Head of Top (or Head)
Ez29-17 RISHON First of First month-(April)
Is43-18 RISHON First Our "first years" together
Job18-16 TChAT Instead of/Replace Bottom
Is30-33 ETHMOOL Yesterday** Monday**
1Sa17-30 MOOL Opposite of Place***
FOOTNOTES:
=========
* "End of= Reward" because you get the reward at the end (RDQ)
* ROSH can mean
HEAD OF (E.g. HEAD of a nation, HEAD of a tribe) or
MOUNTAIN TOP, HUMAN HEAD
** This of course is controversial for two reasons...therefore
if the reader does not agree they can delete this row... In
general whenever we present a list we assume several of the
entries might be controversial..however if after their
deletion there are several members left on the list then we
have accomplished our goal. For our goal was not to PROVE
EACH member on the list...rather our goal was to PROVE the
underlying commanility or difference of the list.
The two issues of controversy here are
---It is only Rashi who takes ETHMOOL as a noun meaning Monday
Ibn Ezra, RDQ takes it to mean yesterday
---Strictly speaking YESTERDAY is not a CONSTRUCT word...
However its meaning resembles a CONSTRUCT so closely
(The day before ... TODAY) that we included it.
---Incidentally Rashi explains YESTERDAY-DAY=MONDAY by
MONDAY = The first day that has a YESTERDAY(Sunday doesn't)
*** In other words David was standing in a crowd. First he spoke
to one person and then he spoke opposite to another person.
Each person in the crowd is called "another" "opposite"
..something/someone else opposite to talk to
Note that
in the BOOK of ROOTS MOL is translated as PLACE
in the commentary on Sam MOL is translated as PERSON
But it amounts to the same thing. In the crowd each person/place
was another potential thing to be opposite of.
$ The reader may consider many of these homiletic...the point
is that the language INSISTS that these transformations do take
place and it is therefore our DUTY to understand the mechanism
by which they take place and to apply them in new situations.
I have tried to gather several examples which illustrate the
complexity and richness of this topic. Perhaps readers will have
better formulations of the phenomena (Please submit).
{LIST2} {Of meanings of the ROOT ROSH}
VERSE MEANING TEXT
----- ------- ----
3-1-8 Head Take the head (of the sacrifice)
2S15-32 Top ..David came to the top of the mountain
5-29-9 Leaders# ..You are all standing..your leaders..
Amos6-6 Choicest .from the choicest of oils will be anointed
1-2-10 Tributaries ..the river divided into 4 tributaries
3-5-24 Pricipal## ..and he shall pay the principal (+1/5th)..
Ez-40-1 NewYear ..In the New Year on the tenth
4-2-9 First they will travel first
Is43-18 "Our 1st years" Don't remind me of our first years
1-10-10 Beginning of### The beginning of his reign was in
FOOTNOTES:
=========
# RDQ suggests that LEADERS could either mean
--HEADS of the nation
--choicest of the nation
## Since he is paying PRINCIPAL and FINE the PRINCIPAL is seen as
the HEAD payment (RDQ)
### RDQ notes that several verses with BEGINNING might mean
CHOICEST (E.g. 4-24-20 1Sam-15-21 in the name of Rav Yonah)
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: To Marc Luwitz for asking the question
----------------
RULE CLASSIFICATION: SEMANTICS
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Send SUBMISSIONS/responses/contributions to
rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
Those who do not want their names posted simply indicate PRIVATE.
If their is no indication I will feel free to post with name.
To get PAST ISSUES goto http://www.shamash.org/listarchives/rashi-is-simple/
To retrieve a specific past issue email to listproc@shamash.org and type
in the body of the message: get rashi-is-simple rashi-is-simple.v#.n#
To visit the web site goto Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.Htm
To UNSUBSCRIBE send mail to listproc@shamash.org and type in the body
of the message: unsubscribe rashi-is-simple email-address.
To SUBSCRIBE send email to listproc@shamash.org, and type in the body
of the message: subscribe rashi-is-simple email-address FName LName
RASHI-IS-SIMPLE
* will provide logical explanations to all 10,000 Rashis on Chumash.
* the preferred vehicle of explanation is thru list of verses and exceptions
* These postings will be archived in the Shamash website in Triplicate
-- By Volume and Number
-- By Verse
-- By Grammatical Rule
* Rashi-Is-Simple should prove useful to layman, scholars, rabbis, educators
* Although this list is orthodox we welcome all logical
--explanations
--contributions
--modifications
--questions
--problems
provided they are defended with adequate examples.
For further information on the character of this list
* read your welcome note from Shamash
* read PESHAT and DERASH: TRADITION, Winter 1980
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
VOL 01 NUMBER 10
PRODUCED Jan 31, 1999
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*