#######################################################
#       12 YEAR Ayelet DAILY-RASHI-YOMI CYCLE         #
#                    Mar 17, 2007                     #
#                    YEAR 8 of 12                     #
#                                                     #
#           VISIT THE RASHI YOMI ARCHIVES             #
#           -----------------------------             #
#         HOME   http://www.RashiYomi.Com             #
# WEEKLY RASHI   http://www.RashiYomi.Com/rule.htm    #
#  DAILY RASHI   http://www.RashiYomi.Com/calendar.htm#
#                                                     #
#  Reprinted with permission from WEEKLY RASHI,       #
#  (c) 1999-2007, RashiYomi Inc., Dr Hendel President #
#   Permission to reprint with this header PROVIDED   #
#          it is not printed for profit               #
#                                                     #
#######################################################


#*#*# (C) RashiYomi Inc. 2007, Dr. Hendel, President #*#*#
    3. RASHI METHOD: GRAMMAR
    BRIEF EXPLANATION: Rashi explains verses using grammar principles, that is, rules which relate reproducable word form to word meaning. Grammatical rules neatly fall into 3 categories
    • (a) the rules governing conjugation of individual words,Biblical roots,
    • (b) the rules governing collections of words,clauses, sentences
    • (c) miscellaneous grammatical, or form-meaning, rules.
    This example applies to Rashis Ex21-30b
    URL Reference:http://www.Rashiyomi.com/ex21-30b.htm

In English a pronoun should refer to the nearest antecedent. However in Hebrew it is equally likely that a pronoun refer to either the nearest antecedent or the most logical antecedent. English readers sometimes find this rule peculiar since they are use to the English way of looking at things. The following example presents a Talmudic controversy with both approaches.

Verses Ex21-28:30 state And if an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. .... If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

The four pronouns have been underlined. The two possible antecedents, the owner of the ox and the man or woman killed have been bolded. We present the two Talmudic interpretations of this passage which reflect the two pronoun rules: nearest antecedent vs. most logical.

  • The closest antecedent interpretation: If there be laid on owner of the ox a ransom, then theh owner of the ox shall give for the redemption of the ox owner's life whatsoever is laid upon the ox owner.
  • The most logical interpretation or the closest antecedent: If there be laid on owner of the ox a ransom, then theh owner of the ox shall give for the redemption of man's or woman's killed life whatsoever is laid upon the ox owner.

Advanced Rashi: Notice how the second interpretation uses both pronoun rules: closest antecedent and most logical. Also notice how we have not resolved the Talmudic controversy. This is typical: Our goal in this email list is to state broad Rashi principles by means of which every Talmudic opinion and Rashi can be understood. We have accomplished this. There may be higher principles by means of which this controversy can be resolved.

Note that the controversy has the following simple interpretation: Suppose an ox of a baron worth $1,000,000 kills a pauper worth $10,000. Does the Baron pay his worth, $1,000,000, or the pauper's worth, $10,000, to redeem himself from a death penalty. There are strong arguments either way. After all he is saving his own soul so let him pay his own worth. Alternatively, his sin is killing a pauper so let him pay the pauper's worth.


#*#*#*# (C) RashiYomi Inc., 2007, Dr. Hendel, President #*#*#*#*#