Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.htm
Volume 1 Number 23
Produced Apr 12 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v0412 Administrivia--Dr Boncheck's website on Rashi; New Web Site
v3-13-29 Rashis famous workbook method. Encourage Parshah overview
v3-13-49 YRK=Green.YRKRK=Very Green.Rashi/IbnEzra agree!
v3a13-2 Rishonim don't always disagree. How to read Rishon disputes
v2q31-13 Question on meaning of Ach from Dr Avigdor Boncheck
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
v0412 Administrivia
* Welcome Back - I hope you all had a happy Pesach
* **** NEW ON THE WEB SITE ****
The WEB SITE has a new look---The 150 principles are classified
into half a dozen major categories which are placed up front.
These categories are the following:
Rules dealing with DETAILED NUANCES OF HEBREW WORDS
Rules dealing with OVERALL STRUCTURE of the BIBLICAL TEXT
Rules dealing with generally accepted principles of GRAMMAR
Rules presenting TRANSLATIONS of WORDS
Miscellaneous rules
The Correct URL for the web site is
http://www.shamash.org/Rashi/Index.Htm
There are times when the last "/Index.Htm" is not needed but it
is better to play it safe and put it in.
Also at Dr Boncheck's suggestion I have indicated the CURRENT
issue up front with search indications of how to find it
This is useful for people who just wish to read the website
and want to review only new additions.
* After writing my summary of current authors last week I got
emails about several omissions.
SHAAR AHARON - A 16 volume set written by Roth(I never heard of it
Dr Avigdor Boncheck mentioned his web site at
http://www.ShemaYisrael.Com
There are about 20 commentaries on Chumash there
* Dr Boncheck although not part of this list has graciously
made some comments to me which I am reprinting below with
a response. The discussion helps elucidate methodology.
Please read this posting (it is the last on this digest)
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3-13-29 .....when they have an ailment in..head
------
RASHI TEXT:
----------
* The text (begins a new paragraph) to differentiate "skin ailments"
from "head ailments"--since "skin ailments" receive TOOMAH status
with WHITE hair while "head ailments" receive TOOMAH status with
BLONDE HAIR.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* This is an excellent Rashi to illustrate the WORKBOOK APPROACH
that---we have continuously suggested in this list---that Rashi
uses.
The WORKBOOK APPROACH posits that Rashi just gives ONE SIMPLE
EXAMPLE of a list and expects the reader to thoroughly research
the WHOLE LIST.
How so? If we look thru the list of PARAGRAPHS in this chapter we
find the following:
Skin ailments
Ailments on the whole skin
Scab ailments (Scab from a wound)
Scab ailments (Scab from a heat wound)
Head/Beard ailments
Non Tamay ailments
Bald Head ailments
Clothing ailments
So the natural question is WHAT causes TOOMAH to EACH ONE.
As a simple example we find that BEARD ailments receive
toomah from BLONDE/GOLDEN HAIR(3-13-32) while SKIN ailments
receive toomah from WHITE HAIR (3-13-3).
There are other simple examples: "Skin ailments" are investigated
for TWO weeks while "burn ailmens" are only investigated for
ONE week.
Thus Rashi is in effect saying: Review the list of 8 paragraphs
and find how the criteria for TOOMAH in each element differs.
A good first attempt at this is presented in {LIST1}.
Similarly it would be the proper procedure for any Chumash
teacher at any grade level to begin the classes in this Parshah
by the suggestion that the students compile their own list of
what causes TOOMAH.
Such a preparation enhances appreciation of Rashi. For only
after reviewing the broad outline can students appreciate the
details.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
------------------------
* As commented above Rashi ONLY gives one example of differences
in TOOMAH---BEARDS are TAMAY thru BLONDE hair while SKIN is TAMAY
thru WHITE hair. Rashi obviously wanted students to research the
obvious distinctions in all paragraphs in the chapter.
Also note how nothing is really bothering Rashi here. He is just
encouraging the student to learn more.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
----------------------------------------------------------
* {LIST1} {Differences between criteria for TOOMAH in ailments}**
AILMENT BEGINNING NUMBER TAMAY AILMENT
VERSE OF WEEKS IF HAIR COLORING
INVESTIGATED BECOMES
------- --------- ------------ ----- ---------
Skin 3-13-1 2 White White
Whole skin 3-13-13 NA NA White
Scab(wound) 3-13-18 1 White White
Scab(burn) 3-13-24 1 White White
Beard/Head 3-13-29 2 Gold Bald
Non Tamay 3-13-38 NA NA White
Bald Head 3-13-40 Like Skin Like Skin(*)
Clothing 3-13-48 2 NA Red/Green
FOOTNOTES:
=========
** I deliberately made the list short (only to fit the computer
screen). Here are some obvious further issues which could be
placed in the list:
-Signs of TAHARAH (e.g. Black hair by a Beard ailment)
-TOOMAH thru "spreading"
-TOOMAH thru "live flesh enclosures"
* Interestingly, in this paragraph the requirements of 2 weeks
and colors is made by the textual method of cross reference.
As indicated the purpose of this list is not to come to final
conclusions but rather to provide background for learning Rashi.
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
*
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
*
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
--------------------------------------------------------------
* OVERALL STRUCTURE | PARAGRAPHS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3a13-49 ..and the ailment has color YRKRK or ADMDM
------ v3b13-49
RASHI TEXT:
----------
* YRK = Green. YRKRK = The GreenEST possible green. Similarly
ADM = Red. ADMDM = The RedEST possible red.
In other words the doubling of root letters (ADM vs ADMDM) is
to show INTENSITY of color.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* I am using this innocent looking Rashi to illustrate the proper
method of studying Rishonim. For very often Rishonim do NOT disagree
It only appears that they disagree.
On face value Rashi Is Simple. After all we have a strange word
here and Rashi supplies the meaning. He does so by relating it to
known roots and implicitly asserting that doubling of root letters
denotes intensity. In fact, Rashi simply follows the Sifra and the
accepted halacha. Nothing could be simpler.
But the IBN EZRA while acknowledging the possibility that DOUBLING
ROOT LETTERS ***may*** denote INTENSITY nevertheless also suggests
the possibility that DOUBLING ROOT LETTERS denotes WEAKNESS. Thus
ADM = RED but ADMDM, according to IBN EZRA could denote a pink or
maroon type color (a "weak red") while according to Rashi ADMDM
would denote an INTENSE red (e.g. cherry or strawberry red).
It would thus appear that Ibn Ezra not only disagrees with Rashi
but with our Mesorah. Indeed, many people claim that the Ibn Ezra
frequently did not agree with the Mesorah and emphasized Peshat.
It would further appear that we cannot claim the Ibn Ezra agreed
with Rashi without distorting the Ibn Ezra's text!!
But this is not so!
First, Ibn Ezra in his introduction to his commentary explicitly
says that the words of chazal were Peshat and founded on grammar!
But more importantly is the sister Ibn Ezra on Ps-45-3. There the
Ibn Ezra gives {LIST1} which shows that sometimes DOUBLING ROOT
LETTERS HAS TO MEAN INTENSITY. {LIST1} also gives examples where
DOUBLING ROOT LETTERS might mean WEAKENING.
The Ibn Ezra gives a clear principle:
DOUBLING the 1st two root letters = INTENSITY
DOUBLING the last two root letters = WEAKNESS
So for example YFH= PRETTY. YFYFTHA = VERY PREETY (since the
first 2 letters of YFH--YF--were doubled).
Although the Ibn Ezra only gives (besides our verse) 4 examples
we can easily give many other examples of DOUBLING {LIST2}.
In summary we do not have a CONTROVERSY of Rishonim here.
We rather have a CONTROVERSY of lists. Ibn Ezra was simply
presenting the Biblical evidence for Chazal's principle and forcing
people to admit that sometimes DOUBLING ROOT LETTERS = INTENSITY.
The principle he found did not justify the Mesorah. But instead of
saying the Mesorah was wrong he simply noted that there were
various opinions-- "Those who say"--and attempted to refute certain
schools according to the principles he found.
In a nutshell the Ibn Ezra was simply doing his homework and
reviewing lists. We should regard his commentary as a QUESTION not
as a disagreement. The proof of this lies in three things: a) his
use of "there are those who say", b) his use of lists and c) his
refutation of those who say that "ROOT DOUBLING can NEVER mean
intensity" by abstracting meaningful patterns from his lists.
What about Rashi and Chazal? we all know that Rashi Is Simple.
Fortunately the Ibn Ezra left us a list of ONLY TWO ITEMS where it
appears that ROOT DOUBLING denotes weakness. If we can answer his
questions we will have justified the Mesorah since (as the Ibn
Ezra himself points out) we very often have to take ROOT DOUBLING
as INTENSITY.
Well Ps-38-11 says "My heart is SChRChR". Now SChR means to go
back and forth (like selling merchandise in the market place).
So "My heart is SChrChr" would mean "My heart is fluttering"
since SChRChR would mean an INTENSE GOING BACK AND FORTH which
in the case of the heart would mean fluttering.
Rashi on Ps-38-11 interprets "heart" as "emotions" and interprets
SChRChR as "engulfed" (or overwhelmed). According to Rashi (RDK
seems to take it that way also) SChR would mean "GOING AROUND"
(Again like the merchandise in a market place). A person who
is suffering would have his "head going in circles" to use an
English metaphor.
Either way Chazal Is Simple---SChRChr is an INTENSE GOING AROUND
or an INTENSE BACK AND FORTH MOTION.
But the really difficult verse occurs in Songs-1-6: "Don't
look at me because I am SChRChReTH because the sun burned me"
It appears as if the Ibn Ezra has a case. SCHR = BLACK. But
SCHRCHRETH appears to mean TAN--a WEAKENED black. Thus in this
case the DOUBLING OF THE ROOT WOULD MEAN WEAKENING.
But I would say that SChrChReth would mean SUN BURNED. Because
SChR=Beginning Dawn (when the sky is blue) and SChRChReTH =
INTENSE DAWN = Ending Dawn (when the sky is red). So SChRChRETH
would mean SUNBURNED (All Red like the sky before sunrise).
Indeed this makes sense....if she was tanned why should she ask
people not to look at her...tans are considered signs of beauty.
But as the second part of the verse shows "For the sun has
burned me" it is clear that "Don't look at me" is because "I am
sunburn red". Thus we see that Chazal is simple.
In summary as {LIST1} and {LIST2} show in the overwhelming number of
cases ROOT DOUBLING means INTENSITY. There were two unfortunate
exceptions and they can be explained also thus justifying the rule.
I have explained this at length and in detail to show the proper
method of interpreting Controversies of Rishonim. For the Rishonim
do not exist by themselves. They and Chazal stand on Lists. And once
one studies these lists we very often find no controversy. In this
case the Ibn Ezra was only asking a question and he even went out
of his way to partially defend chazal by forcing people to admit
that root doubling sometimes MUST mean INTENSITY. INDEED WE SEE THE
EVOLUTION OF THE IBN EZRAS THINKING BY COMPARING HIS COMMENTARY ON
THE TORAH AND ON PSALMS!!! Whoever understands this will gain much
in his or her learning.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
------------------------
*
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
----------------------------------------------------------
* {LIST1} {LIST of root doublings from Ibn Ezra Ps 45-3}
ROOT MEANING MEANING WHEN ROOT LETTERS WHICH TWO
ARE DOUBLED ROOT LETTERS
ARE DOUBLED
---- ------- ------------------------- ------------
SChR Beginning Dawn Ending Dawn (reddish)* 2,3
(dark blue)
SChR Motion about Total revolving 2,3
SGH Grow Wild intense growth 1,2
YFH Pretty Very Pretty 1,2
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* As indicated the Ibn Ezra takes SChR = Black and SChRChReTH =
TAN, a weakened black.
{LIST2} {FURTHER LIST of root doublings}
ROOT MEANING VERSE MEANING WHEN ROOT LETTERS WHICH TWO
ARE DOUBLED ROOT LETTERS
ARE DOUBLED
---- ------- ----- ------------------------- ------------
TLL Lump Song5-11 Braided hair (many lumps!) 1,2
CDD Sparks Is54-12 Sparkling stone (like a sun) 1,2
COL Measure 1-16-12 Subsidize, Support 1,3
CRH Dig 2S6-14 Dance* 1,2
TzNH Cold 2-16-33 Thermos (Preserves cold)**
FOOTNOTES:
==========
* Note that it is the MOTIONS of Dancing that are INTENSE forms
of the MOTIONS of digging. Digging and Dancing of course have
nothing to do with each other. One of the challenging things in
research on meaning is how a whole assortment of principles may
coalesce on a single word.
** See our Rashi is Simple archives on v2-16-33: A thermos
is a doubly insulated can that preserves cold (hence the doubling
of TzN). In light of the principle we mention here we would say
that TzNH just means cold while TzNTzNeTH means INTENSELY PRESERVING
COLD since most cold things go away.
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
*
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
*
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
--------------------------------------------------------------
* WORD MEANINGS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3a13-2 ..if he has an ailment SETH or SAPACHATH or BAHERETH
------ v3b13-2 ..or a BAHERETH
RASHI TEXT:
----------
* SETH, SAPACHATH, BAHERETH--these are names of skin ailments..each
one being whiter than the other.
BAHERETH (means very white) like "...a sparkling ray in the sky..."
(Job 37-21).
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* I have brought this Rashi to show the proper approach and balance
between textual and halachic interpretation when there is a dispute
in the Talmud on which Rashi **appears** to take sides.
On the surface Rashi Is Simple...he explains the 3 odd words in
the verse as different forms of ailments each with its own shade of
white. Rashi then gives as an example the etymology of BAHERETH.
But there is in fact a controversy in the Gemarrah on which ailments
are eligible for TOOMAH. The Malbim goes into great detail citing
both the Yerushalmi and Bavli. Suffice it to say according to Rabbi
Akiva there are 3 possible white skin patches that are eligible for
toomah: a) ordinary white, b) Bright white, c) dazzling white.
But according to Chachamim there are 4 possible white patches: a)
pale, non dazzling white (like an egg white), b) high white (but
not dazzling) (like sheep fleece white), c) dazzling but not intense
white (like marble white), d) dazzling, intense white (like snow
white). (By "dazzle" I refer to that type of intensity that exists
in pure snow or polished marble but not in egg or sheep whites...I
believe color scientists explain it by the degree to which light
rays are diffused or reflected).
Now for the hard part. The Rambam in his laws of white ailments
decides like the Chachamim while Rashi here decides like Rabbi Akiva
Doesn't this mean that Rambam and Rashi disagree?
No! For the Rambam decided like the Chachamim because of the
principle that in controversies between Rabbi Akivah and Chamchamim
the law is decided like Chachamim (because of the Biblical verse
that obligates following the majority). Rashi also believes that in
controversies one should follow the majority. Hence it must be the
case that Rashi and Rambam agree on the halacha.
But in his commentary on the Chumash Rashis job is to explain the
transparent meaning of the text. The text lists 3 items. Thus the
simple meaning is that there are only 3 shades of white not 4.
Presumably Rambam would also agree that that is the simple meaning
of the text.
Thus in summary Rashi and Rambam would agree on halacha because
law is decided by the majority. Rashi did not mention this because
he was writing a Biblical commentary and not a halachic commentary.
On other other hand the simple pshat of a list of three is that
there are 3 shades of white not 4 and presumably Rambam would agree
with this.
Our basic thesis is therefore that Rashi and Rambam agree on law
and Biblical meaning. But Rashi was writing a Biblical commentary
and hence is more biased towards meaning while Rambam was writing
a legal work and hence is more biased towards law.
A possible support to this lies in the meanings of SETH and
SAPACHATH which Rashi omits. Rashi gives the meaning of BAHERETH
as SPARKLING because BOTH Rabbi Akiva and the CHACHAMIM agree on
it.
However Rashi totally omits all explanations of SETH and SAPACHATH
because there is controversy on their meaning.
Let us first explain the Chachamim's position mentioned in sifrah
According to the sifrah SETH comes from the root NSA = HIGH.
So SETH would equal a HIGH WHITE (like sheep fleece).SAPACHATH comes
from the root SFCH = TO ADD ON SOMETHING SECONDARY and refers to
SECONDARY AILMENTS.
To use the talmudic idioms, the SECOND TO SNOW WHITE
is SHEEP WHITE while the SECOND TO MARBLE WHITE is EGG
WHITE (Both SNOW and SHEEP FLEECE are intense white---
Snow however has "dazzle" so marble is considered "secondary".
Similarly both MARBLE and EGG WHITE are lower intensity whites.
But MARBLE has dazzle so EGG is considered secondary.
According to the chachamim position the verse would read:
...A high intensity white (like sheep fleece) or its secondary
white (like egg white) or a sparkling white (like snow white).
The chachamim then say "Just as sheep white can have a secondary
so can snow white have a secondary white (Perhaps the use of OOH
for OR instead of the traditional VAV helps this).
I now suggest the etymologies of SETH and SAPACHATH according to
Rabbi Akivah. This has never been given. First we would have
to suggest a new meaning to SETH not even given by the Radack:
It appears that SETH can mean "APPEARANCE". {LIST1} below gives
support for this. Then SETH by itself would mean "AN APPEARANCE
WHITE" and would denote a very low white. On the other hand
SAPACHATH would come from YASAPH--to add on-- and would denote
a SATURATED white where as much white had been added on as
possible (Color scientists actually use the word SATURATED in
their discussion of attributes of color).
We thus see Rashis brilliance. For it is one thing to communicate
ideas in a few words (something Rashi was so good at). It is quite
another thing to communicate with silence. In this verse by OMITTING
commentary on SETH and SAPACHATH but keeping the SIFRAH on BAHERETH
Rashi indicated that he was not taking sides but showing how the
Bible had a natural meaning. The halachic process that decided
against this natural meaning focuses on majority rule and has nothing
to do with simple meaning.
Again I apologize for the length but I hope this posting shows the
proper method for understanding different approaches to rishonim.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
------------------------
*
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
----------------------------------------------------------
* {LIST1} {List justifying that NSA can mean APPEARANCE}
VERSE TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION
----- ----------------------
Job13-1 Would not his appearance frighten you?
Job31-23 And from even God's appearance you cannot endure
Ps62-5 But because you expect "mirror image" behavior (ie
you expect others to treat you like you would treat
them) therefore you try and destroy me*
3-13-10 And there is a "white appearance" in the skin
FOOTNOTES:
=========
* This interpretation comes from Rashi. Note that we are implicitly
assuming that APPEARANCE = MIRROR IMAGE. Note that this list is
rather small. In other words the controversy between Rabbi Akiva
and the Chachamim cannot be settled by us by appealing to lists.
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
*
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
* Malbim on this verse gives an excellent legal analysis
RDK on NSA gives some of the verses occuring in {LIST1}
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
--------------------------------------------------------------
* WORD MEANINGS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2q31-13 Question on meaning of Ach
-----
From: "Bonchek Family"
To: "Russell J Hendel"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:57:39 +0300
Subject: Re: Rashi on "ach"- continued
From: "Bonchek Family"
To:
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 21:08:11 +0300
Dear Russell,
I haven't completely figured out how to see the new editions of your =
interesting work, but I saw recently the q on rashi in Shemos 31:13. The =
answer to the ramban's claim against rashi is that "ach" limits the =
ensuing phrase in a drash interpretation. But "ach" limits the previous =
phrase (as in this verse) on a common-sense p'shat level interpretation. =
Rashi differntiates between these two types of interpreataions of the =
word "ach" Bamidbar 31:22. there you will see how he relales to p'shat =
use of "ach" and then drash use "ach."
Avigdor Bonchek
Dear Russell,
Saw your response about Rashi and ach. But you say rashi couldn't have
believed that 'it limited the previous statement" BUT RASHI SAYS EXACTLY
THAT on his comment in Shemos 31:13. In different places ach is taken to
limit the previous phrase and in other places it is taken to limit to next
phrase. So i don't see how "a majority of cases" makes a difference. The
difference as I understand it is that when ach is used as drash it limits
the next phrase, when it's used in the normal common-sense way it limits the
previous phrase. Regarding the Rashi comment in Numbers 31:22. there he
says "the rabbis said" which would seem to be a drash interpretation,. Ach
es hazahav comes to exclude the rust , not on a p'shat basis.
Avigdor B.
MY RESPONSE
-----------
Just to review I posited that
ACH = MOST OF or
ACH = USUALLY (most of the time)
I then, in V1N16 reviewed the 42 times ACH occurs in the Bible and
showed how USUALLY works in about a 1/3 of them and MOST works in
about 1/6 of them. In fact we have
2-31-13 Usually observe the Shabbath
COMMENTARY: Usually?!?!? When don't you?
Answer: When you offer Sabbath Sacrifices in the temple
1-7-23 ...and MOST of NOACH remained in the ark
COMMENTARY: Most of Noach remained but not all of
him (Because he fed the animals continuously
and once he came late to the lion who smote him
on his thigh...so that part of the thigh did not
remain in the ark!!?!?!
4-31-22 Most of the utensils shall thereby become tahor
COMMENTARY: "most of the utensils" -- the "most"
excludes the "rust on the utensil" which can
be rubbed off
To summarize Dr Bonchek's question "Rashi does not say that
on 2-31-13...he talks about the fact that you can't build the
temple on Sabbath..thus the ACH limits the meaning of the
PREVIOUS paragraphs (Build the temple but not on Sabbath)."
Also on 4-31-22 Dr Boncheck notes that "Dr Hendel's commentary
is in fact what Rashi lists as DRASH..it is not the Pshat".
I have 3 approaches to answer these questions. I list them in order
of depth.
APPROACH 1: "We both have problems. I give up Rashis text and you
give up a powerful unified approach. Why is your method
preferable?"
APPROACH 2: I would ask two questions:
Do we read the text first or do we prepare with
lists first? Is Rashis text a summary of REASONS
or MNEMONICS?
APPROACH 3: Finally I would ask: But what do you think
ACH means? What could it mean? What does it
mean in the other 41 cases? How e.g. could it mean
or function like usually in 12 of them but mean
something totally unprecedented here?
APPROACH 1:
==========
A student in my Chumash class at Lower Merion Synagogue in fact
asked the same question. I responded to her as follows:
Look...I offer a very simple but deep principle by which
to explain all Rashis...ACH = USUALLY...this works in many
cases and involves only one assumption.
As payment so to speak for this offer I ask that we twist
Rashi's text a little bit
You on the other hand keep Rashi's text (A superiority over
my method.) But look at what you lose.
Sometimes Rashi will use ACH to limit PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS
while sometimes Rashi will use ACH to limit the COMING
sentence. You have no way of knowing how Rashi will
translate.
So there is a symmetry between us: I lose some of Rashi's
text while you also lose something...the capacity for
a simple unified approach to all ACHS.
What have you really accomplished with your approach?
I think this is an important answer. The issue is not whether we
should take Rashi's text as is!! The issue is whether it is
preferable to twist Rashi's text to achieve a unified approach that
works in all cases and is consistent with Biblical lists.
Incidentally, in passing, I noted in v1n16 that there were two
issues before Rashi
* what does the word USUALLY limit
* why is a sequence of 7 paragraphs on building the mishkan
interrupted with a paragraph on observing the shabbath.
The answer to the second question is that the mishkan cannot be
built on the sabbath (Rashi learns this from the paragraph sequence
not from ach). From ACH Rashi would have to learn that you usually
observe the shabbath (but not when you offer the shabbath offerings)
APPROACH 2:
===========
I posit there are two differences between Dr Bonchek's and Dr
Hendel's approach.
Dr Boncheck does NOT come to Rashi with a preconceived notion
(Based on HIS analysis) of what ACH should mean. He also takes
the text at face value. So when Rashi says ACH limits the
previous paragraph he believes it.
Thus Dr Boncheck's view is quite simple and defensible.
Dr Hendel on the other hand PREPARES FOR READING Rashi by reviewing
all 42 ACHS in the BIble. In a significant number of them ACH
means or functions as USUALLY.
Note...we haven't yet even read Rashi. We have only prepared for
Rashi.
Furthermore Dr Hendel believes many Rashi texts do not supply
REASONS but MNEMONICS. In other words Rashi assumed you prepared
and simply confirmed what you derived and gave a clever memory
device to remember the rule.
Before defending these assumptions let us see how this works.
We review all 42 examples of ACH and decide it means usually.
We then and only then learn Rashi. Unfortunately Rashi does
not say this. Instead he speaks about the juxtaposition of
paragraphs---the mishkan should be built but not at the expense
of Shabbath.
Rashi was faced with a subtle law: Sometimes Shabbath overrides
the Mishkan (when building it) and sometimes the Mishkan overrides
the Shabbath (when offering Temple sacrifices). Rashis' problem
was a problem of FORM: How do you say a complicated set of
distinctions simply and elegantly so that everyone will remember
Rashi does this as follows:
1st) "Even though you build the Mishkan, Shabbath takes precedence"
(He derives this from the sequence of 7 paragraphs...6 on mishkan
and one on Shabbath)
2nd) "USUALLY Delimits"---delimit Shabbath from Temple service"
(Note how I had to twist "WORK OF THE MISHKAN" which normally means
building and interpret it as SACRIFICES. Someone asked me..."Do you
have precedent for that?" The answer is "No I don't". They continued
Then how can you justify it?
The answer again lies in the fact that WITHOUT RASHI I HAVE TWO
PROBLEMS AND THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO SOLVE BOTH OF THEM (Don't
build Mishkan on Shabbath but do offer sacrifices on Sabbath).
Since this is partially consistent with Rashi's words I twist them
I attribute Rashi's use of words to his desire to make something
mnemonical:
No 'temple work' on Shabbath but do delimit shabbath
from 'temple work' (You can offer sacrifices)"
Note the elegant and memorable chiastic form! Be that as it may
the real emphasis in approach 2 is that we must PREPARE BEFORE
READING RASHI
APPROACH 3:
==========
This is the deepest approach. I would have to ask
What does ACH Mean?..."What could it mean?"
What about the list of 42 occurrences in V1n16. About 1/3 are
never explained by Rashi or any midrash. How many of the others
do you believe? Does ACH = USUALLY work in the others (E.g.
USUALLY on the 10th of Tishray you will have atonement----
USUALLY you will have atonement..but not if you did not repent)
I invite every reader to go over the list and check off how many
cases he/she believes.
If you believe ACH=USUALLY in 70 or 80% of the cases can we just
twist ACH into a new concept that never existed before on 2-31-13
Finally let me make a few comments on Rashis form. Let me give
at least one example of where you HAVE to twist Rashi's form!!!
5-16-14 says "You shall usually be happy"
Rashi in his commentary says "USUALLY indicates ADDING the last
day of Yom Tov"
But USUALLY never means adding!!! Rather there is a controversy
in the Gemarrah whether USUALLY excludes the 1st or last day
of Yom Tov. The halacha is it excludes the 1st day. "USUALLY
except for the 1st day."
But Rashi doesn't say that. He instead says that USUALLY increases
the last day. The only way to understand this is to use an
intermediate step: USUALLY LIMITS the 1st day but not the last
day so the last day is increased!! Twisted? Yes! But it is there
and there is no way out of it.
I believe the above clarifies some of the issues on how to approach
Rashi.I hope this helps. I invite more discussion. If you had to
summarize my approach I would say as follows:
Always prepare before reading Rashi. Do not let his form take
precedence over clear Biblical lists. If something appears strange
examine what percentage of cases you believe in it"
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
COMMUNICATIONS
--------------
Send via email SUBMISSIONS/responses/contributions to
rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
If you want your communication published anonomously (without
mentioning your name) simply say so (and your wishes will be
respected). All other submissions (whether thru Shamash or ANY
of my email addresses are made with the understanding that
they can be published as is or with editing)
NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS
----------------------
e.g. v5b2-1 means as follows:
The "v" means verse
The "5" means Deuteronomy--the 5th book
The "2" means The 2nd chapter
The "1" means The 1st verse
The "b" means The second rashi on that
verse ("we rounded mount
Seir)
Similarly v5-2-1 would mean Dt 2:1 and probably refer to all
Rashis. (These conventions start with issue 14---beforehand
the notation is similar and will be updated retroactively
in the future)
Asterisks (*,#) in a list usually refer to footnotes that follow it
Parenthesis with the word List and a number--[LIST3] refers to
LISTS in the LIST section of each posting.
THE WEB SITE
------------
To review all past issues as well as to see all principles go to the
web site HTTP://WWW.Shamash.Org/Rashi/Index.Htm. You can download all
past issues from this website.
THE ARCHIVES
------------
Alternatively 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#
Issues 5,10,12 are not located here but can be retrieved from the
web site.
SUBSCRIBE & UNSUBSCRIBE
-----------------------
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
OUR GOALS
---------
RASHI-IS-SIMPLE
* will provide logical explanations to all 8,000 Rashis on Chumash.
* the preferred vehicle of explanation is thru list of verses and exceptions
* These postings will be archived in Shamash in Quartuplet
-- By Volume and Number
-- By Verse
-- By Grammatical Rule
-- By quicky explanation
* Rashi-Is-Simple should prove useful to
layman, scholars, rabbis, educators, and students
* Although this list is orthodox we welcome all logical
--explanations
--contributions
--modifications
--questions
--problems
provided they are defended with adequate examples.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
----------------------
For further information on the character of this list
* read your welcome note from Shamash
* read PESHAT and DERASH: TRADITION, Winter 1980 by Russell Hendel
End of Rashi-Is-Simple Digest
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*