#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
  -----------------------------------------------------------
  |      Rashi is Simple Version 2.0                         |
  |      (C) Dr Hendel, Summer 2000                          |
  |       http://www.RashiYomi.Com                           |
  | PERMISSION to reprint WITH this header if NOT for profit |
  ------------------------------------------------------------


VERSE: EXAMPLE1

RASHIS COVERED: Dt19-11a Dt20-03c Dt20-03d Dt20-03e Dt20-03f
                Dt20-03g Lv17-13b Nu05-12d Dt25-04a Lv01-02c
                Dt18-03b


BACKGROUND EXAMPLE
------------------
Dt25-04a Dont muzzle an OX while threshing:
RASHI: Dont muzzle ANY ANIMAL
Notice how Rashi GENERALIZED the EXAMPLE. Dt25-04 said
dont muzzle an OX while Rashi said dont muzzle any animal


By contrast consider the following Rashi:
Lv01-02c Offer(sacrifice) ANIMALS--Offer OXEN SHEEP(LIVESTOCK)
RASHI: You can **ONLY** offer OXEN and SHEEP(LIVESTOCK)
Notice how Rashi treats the EXAMPLE LITERALLY. You can only
offer animal sacrifices from CATTLE and LIVESTOCK--you can
not offer sacrifices from eg beasts


Dt18-03b These are the laws for those who offer sacrifices
         Whether from Oxen(CATTLE) or Sheep(LIVESTOCK)
RASHI: So these laws only apply to OXEN and SHEEP not to
       beasts and birds
Again Rashi treats the EXAMPLES LITERALLY.


WHY THE DISPARITY? Why in one verse do we generalize oxen to ANY
animal and interpret it "Dont muzzle ANY animal", while in the
other verse we restrict the law to ONLY CATTLE and interpret it
that ONLY CATTLE can be offered but not others?



OVERVIEW OF ANSWER
------------------
The answer is that there are different Biblical STYLES. These
Biblical STYLES govern HOW examples should be interpreted.
This module deals with the rules governing the interpretation
of Biblical EXAMPLES. To present a further illustration suppose
the Torah said "Eat apple pies?" How could this be interpretd?
We present 3 methods of interpreting this EXAMPLE.

We could interpret "Eat apple pies" LITERALLY:
--We could say "Eat apple pies" means **ONLY** eat apple pies

We could interpret "Eat apple pies" BROADLY & GENERALIZE:
--We could say "Eat apple pies" means eat ANYTHING TASTY

We could interpret "Eat apple pies" A LITTLE BROADLY:
--We could say "Eat apple pies" means eat FRUIT pies
In such a case we GENERALIZE A LITTLE BIT BUT NOT FULLY.

The above 3 interpretations show a broad spectrum for
interpreting Examples. In fact in this digest we present
3 specific Biblical styles which govern how examples
should be interpreted. Here are the styles.


                -GRAND SUMMARY PART 1-


           -IN METHOD 1 WE FULLY GENERALIZE-


RULE: If a Biblical example is stated BY ITSELF then we
must **fully generalize** (See Rashi Pesachim 6). About
a dozen examples are presented below from Rashi.

Thus if the Bible said "Eat APPLE pies" then we would
conclude "Eat any FOOD TREAT". A Biblical example occurs
in Dt25-04: "Dont muzzle an OX" is reinterpreted to mean
Dont muzzle ANY ANIMAL.


    -IN METHOD 2 WE TREAT LITERALLY-WE DONT GENERALIZE-


RULE: (Also in Rashi Pesachim 6) But if the Bible states
the rule twice--first GENERALLY and then with the EXAMPLE--
then the example is interpreted LITERALLY. We call this
the GENERAL-EXAMPLE or GENERAL-DETAIL or GENERAL-PARTICULAR
style. Here are some examples.


Thus if the Bible had said "Eat PIES-Eat APPLE Pies" then we
would conclude ONLY eat apple pies. We conclude this because
the Bible says this sentence twice
        Eat PIES (GENERALLY)
        Eat APPLE PIES (DETAILS).
The rule is that the GENERAL-DETAIL style necessitates literal
interpretation. A Biblical example would be Lv01-02c
        Offer (sacrifices) ANIMAL (GENERALLY)
        Offer CATTLE & LIVESTOCK  (EXAMPLES)
So the law is that we can offer (from animals) only cattle
and Livestock. We call this method 2b below.


Some other Biblical examples are
    Nu05-12d If a woman DESCECRATES her marriage (GENERAL)
             If she COMMITS ADULTERY             (DETAIL)
             then we perform the following ceremony

So the law is that we perform the ceremony if she descecrated
her marriage by committing adultery (but not eg if she
descecrated her marriage by eg insulting her husband in public.
It is only adultery that necessitates the ceremony) We call
this method 2a below (The difference between 2a and 2b is that
in method 2a the GENERAL CATEGORY is vague to begin with--
for example the word DESCECRATES does not have specific meaning
By tying this VAGUE GENERAL word, DESCECRATES to the specific
example ADULTERY we arrive at meaning)


Sometimes the EXAMPLE doesn't erase the GENERAL category but
rather ADDS A REQUIREMENT. Thus Lv17-13b states
         You must cover up spilled blood of
         a slaughtered animal-------------------GENERAL
         that can be eaten----------------------DETAIL
So you only cover up spilled blood when slaughtering
a KOSHER animal (that 'can be eaten') but not when
slaughtering a non-kosher animal. We call this method 2c below.




         ---IN METHOD 3 WE PARTIALLY GENERALIZE---


RULE: If the Bible uses one of the following styles then
we interpret the example by partially generalizing:If the
Bible states the example twice or three times & Either
--It states the EXAMPLES first and then GENERALLY
--It states GENERALLY first, EXAMPLES second, and GENERALLY 3rd
--It states several examples but the CONTEXT shows it speaking
  about one topic.
In all these cases we SOMEWHAT GENERALIZE the EXAMPLES.(The
talmud learns the EXAMPLE-GENERAL style from Nu06-03:04 in
Nazir 34b).

Furthermore because we are only SOMEWHAT GENERALIZING there
frequently arises controversy in interpreting the examples.
In fact very often interpretations look forced. Nevertheless
the student can be certain a specific method of interpretation
is being applied. Here are some Biblical examples.

Ex25-31 says Make a CANDELLABRAH (GENERAL)
           it should be GOLD and SCULPTURED(not soldered)(DETAIL
             The CANDELLABRAH should be made (GENERAL)
Because of the GENERAL-EXAMPLE-GENERAL style we somewhat
generalize the example--it is allowed to make a candellabrah
from any metal (not just gold). We call this method 3a below.


In method 3b we dont have a DETAIL and GENERAL category. We
rather have a COLLECTION of EXAMPLES which we interpret using
the UNIFYING context so that the examples span the spectrum
of all COMPONENTS of this UNIFYING context.


For example Dt20-03 says that in a war
    Do not be SOFT HEARTED
    Do not be AFRAID
    Do not be ANXIOUS
    Do not be STUNNED
Rashi interprets these 4 items as follows
    Do not be afraid of enemy TRANSPORTATION capacity (Horses)
    Do not be afraid of enemy MILITARY RESOURCES      (Shields)
    Do not be afraid of enemy COMMUNICATION           (Horns)
    Do not be afraid of enemy MORALE                  (Battlecry
But why does Rashi interpret eg SOFT HEARTED as "HORSES" and
AFRAID as "from SHIELDS" etc? The answer is he doesn't. Rather
Rashi is using the UNIFYING CONTEXT, which is FEAR IN WAR
and listing ALL COMPONENTS of fear in war. The 4 things people
are afraid of are TRANSPORTATION capacity, MILITARY RESOURCES,
COMMUNICATIONS, & MORALE.

Thus it wasn't the dictionary or grammar that forced the
interpretation but rather CONTEXT. The reader can easily see
how legitimate alternate interpretations could exist. The reader
can also see how Rashis explanation is not forced. What we have
provided is the underlying principle which allows Rashi to use
such a method of interpretation here.


In method 3c we also use CONTEXT except that the examples
show a TEMPORAL PROGRESSION TOWARDS a cLIMAX. Thus the
interpretation is clearer than in 3b. The simplest Biblical
illustration is Dt19-11a
        When you HATE a person
        and you STALK/SPY him
        and you CONFRONT him
        and then LETHALLY HIT Him
Rashi points out how these are 4 stages that lead to murder.
First you HATE him, then you SPY on him. This leads to
confrontation and then murder. Method 3c always has a 'moral
ring' to it. If you want to stop a murder then eg you should
not spy on people you hate.


This completes our overview of the 3 methods of interpreting
examples. We next present a succinct summary. This is followed by
over 100 Rashis on this fascinating topic.
---------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The following additional references may be too wordy
However they frequently contain additional information & lists
The hyperlinks only work on the main website

Volume 7 Number 14


#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*