Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/
Volume 1 Number 22
Prodcued Mar, 28 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
**** SECOND SPECIAL PASSOVER ISSUE ***
**** HAPPY HOLIDAYS ***
**** RASHI IS SIMPLE WILL RESUME AFTER PASSOVER ****
v0328 - Administrivia
v1-15-13 The famous "400 years in Egypt?" question
v5b26-5 From an Aramaen did my father become a loser ..
v1z45-14 How do I know which is the Pshat and which is the Drash
v3z6-2 Rashi,Rmbn, Mlbm, Chizkuni, This list...How to deal with them
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
v0328 Administrivia
* The first two postings deal with Seder topics. Be sure and
read them and share them with your family. Invite them to browse
our website.
* I answer Chaiim Brown's question at the end..I also deal with
the relationship of this list to other commentators on Rashi
* A few weeks ago someone asked me about the Rashi on "And he cried
on his neck" which Rashi interprets to refer to the destroyed
temples!
Although I answered that question it is still not clear WHICH IS
THE PESHAT and WHICH IS THE DERASH and HOW TO YOU TELL THE
DIFFERENCE. This posting (v1z45-2) is important for those who
are interested in such things.
Number 21 and 22 will be on the web site tonight. But over Passover
I am updating the website to refer to all Rashis explained to date
(including cross referenced Rashis that don't have a separate
posting...we have between 100 to 200 Rashis to date).
Again: Happy Holidays
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: V1a15-13 Your descendants will be non citizens 400 years
------ v1b15-13 Your descendants will be non citizens 400 years
v2b12-40 Your descendants will be non citizens 400 years
RASHI TEXT:
----------
* The 400 years start from Yitzchak's birth and end with Egypt.
(See {LIST1} for a numerical account})
You cannot say that the Jews were in Egypt 400 years since
this is contradicted by the numbers {LIST2}.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* This is the most famous of Hagaddah questions...why say 400
years if they were only in Egypt for 200 years?!!?
There are 3 simple answers to this question:
ANSWER 1: The verse mentions 3 things:
-------- * non citizenship
* slavery
* torture
It is the non citizenship that lasted 400 years. The slavery
and torture only lasted 200 years (and only in Egypt).
But this is not the full answer (For we still have the question:
How do I know that it was the non citizenship that was for 400
years?)
ANSWER 2: It doesn't say they will be NON CITIZENS in EGYPT
-------- but rather its says they will be NON CITIZENS IN A FOREIGN
LAND. Thus this implies MANY FOREIGN LANDS. Indeed as {LIST3}
(brought by Rashi) shows the Jews suffered and were foreigners in
several lands besides Egypt.
But this too is not the full answer. For we have not PROVEN that
the 400 years must start from Isaac. Rather we have shown that
the suggestion that 400 years start from Isaac is CONSISTENT with
the text IN A FOREIGN LAND. Thus we have shown SUPPORTIVE
CONSISTENCY but not PROOF.
ANSWER 3: We have already explained in v2-1-5 the Malbims discovery
--------- brought down as principle 600 in his Morning Star that
the verb, to be, in Hebrew denotes emphasis.
So Rashi is simple: Your descendants WILL BE Foreigners denotes
emphasis---so they were foreigners in several lands.
Let me illustrate this.
If I say "So and so becomes a Nazir (HOO NAZIR)" without using the
Hebrew verb to be, then it simply means that he becomes a Nazir.
But if I say "So and so IS thereby a Nazir (HOO YIHEYEH NAZIR)" and
use the Hebrew verb, to be, then this Hebrew verb, to be, denotes
EMPHASIS. It is as if I said "He will REALY be a Nazir".
In this particular case the law states that if a person vows to
be a Nazir without specifying for how long then he remains a Nazir
30 days (Because of the verb to be denotes emphasis which
denotes a recognizable time period (and thruout Jewish law a basic
unit of time periods is 30 days (e.g. if I rent an apartment without
a lease then I have it for 30 days)). {LIST4} below taken from
v2-1-5 reviews several examples of this treatment of YIHIYEH.
So Rashi is simple: IF the verse just said "TAGUR ZARACHAH..--Your
descendants will live in a foreign land" then it would just refer
to ONE foreign land. IF however the verse says "GR YIHIYEH ZRACHAH..
Your descendants will REALLY be foreigners" then it denotes emphasis
and intensity. It means that they will be foreigners in several lands
as {LIST3} brought down in Rashi shows.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
------------------------
* Just a word on the part of Rashi which says
It says a FOREIGN land and not EGYPT teaching that
they were FOREIGNERS in many lands.
We have shown above that this (saying FOREIGN vs EGYPT) does
not PROVE it was not Egypt alone, it rather is SUPPORTIVE
CONSISTENCY for it (In other words it is consistent with the
interpretation: 400 = From Isaac thru Egypt)
We might call this a HINT (as in SIMPLE, HINT, ANALYSIS,
FOUNDATIONAL (PRDS)).
True this HINT does not prove. But as we have shown above this
hint is ASSOCIATED with a simple proof.
In general HINTS in Midrash always act as supportive for a main
line of argument that proves the point (like icing to a cake or
gravy to meat). So when you see the gravy saucer placed on the
table you ask for the meat. When you see the midrashic hint be
sure to ask for the main course---a proof that what is being
hinted at is simple.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
----------------------------------------------------------
* {LIST1} {Numerical account of the 400 years in Egypt}
ITEM TIME CUMULATIVE TIME
---- ---- ---------------
Isaac,at birth of Jacob 60 60
Jacob, at Egypt 130 190
Egyptian Enslavement 210 400
{LIST2} {WHY CAN'T YOU SAY IT WAS 400 YEARS IN EGYPT ALONE}
PERSON TOTAL YEARS CUMULATIVE VERSE
----- ----------- ---------- -----
KEHATH 133 133 2-6-16
AMRAM 137 270 2-6-20
MOSES &Pharoh 80 350 2-7-7
NOTE:
-----
Rashi notes that the 350 is an OVERESTIMATE since Kehath and Amram's
life overlap as wellas Moses and Amram's life overlap (We are not
told when they gave birth). But the overestimate is sufficient to
prove that we don't have 400 in Egypt alone.
{LIST3} {Places where Jews were foreigners}
PERSON PLACE VERSE SHOWING THEY WERE A FOREIGNER THERE
------ ------- -----------------------------------------
Avram Phlistim 1-21-34
Avram Chevron 1-23-4
Isaac Chevron 1-35-27
Yaakov Egypt 1-47-4
Yaakov Charan 1-32-5
Yaakov Cham Ps 105-3
Isaac Grar 1-26
{LIST4} {LIST showing that the verb to be denotes EMPHASIS}
VERSE TEXT WHY EMPHASIZED
----- ---- --------------
4-6-5 He WILL BE holy Non specificed Neziruth can't be transient
but must have some type of emphasis and
demonstration of committment (The usual
period for demonstration is 30 days)
3-2-1 it WILL BE wheat The emphasis shows that other types of
flour invalidate it
3-2-5 it WILL BE Matzoh The emphasis shows that if one left
out the Matzoh attribute then it invalidates
the offering
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
* v1-15-13 really contains two rashis but we have treated it as one
2-40-12 has almost the same Rashi (2 Rashis)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
* Malbim, Principle 600, The Morning Star
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
--------------------------------------------------------------
* SPECIAL WORDS | HAYAH
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v5b26-5 From an Aramaen, my father became a loser
------ he then went down to Egypt with very few people ..
and there also he was Mistreated.
RASHI TEXT:
----------
* We mention God's grace to us: Laban tried to destroy everything
when he pursued Jacob (Chapter 1-31)
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
* It APPEARS that Rashi is translating the Hebrew word OVAID as
destroy. But this is absurd. Destroy would require the causative
mode (Hifil) of OVAID. No...Rashi couldn't have believed this.
We should also mention that a popular translation of this verse is
My father was a wandering Aramaen.... This by the way violates
the Biblical cantillations and we are assured that there are "two
approaches"--- people like Rashi always follow the Biblical
cantillations while other commentators don't feel obligated to.
But this also is absurd. AVAYD never means WANDERING. Indeed AVD
in the past ALWAYS means LOSS or DESTRUCTION and NEVER means
WANDERING. We have never heard that a Biblical root should have
one meaning in the past and a different meaning in the future.
(In passing the PIEL mode of AVD seems to mean destruction.)
Rather the best translation of the PRESENT TENSE of AVD would be
OVAYD = A LOSER
OVAYD would correspond to a person who is jobless or has no food.
{LIST1} below proves this. The list reviews all present tenses of
AVD as well as the one verse that appears an exception.
So we see that Rashi Is Simple: The verse says that
My father (a patriarch) lost his job and became
a loser from a mere Aramaen." It would be like an American
complaining about reverse discrimination--e.g. a woman comes on
board and they let him go: So he might say
A woman! & the great me is a loser (jobless)
Similarly our verse says
An Aramaen! (&) our father the patriarch became a loser
Alternatively we could translate the verse with an elliptical
MEM (From) which frequently happens in Biblical verses:
(From) an Aramaen was my father a loser..
(Strictly speaking I should bring a list justifying ellipsis of
prepositions but this will not be done now).
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
------------------------
* Rashi as I have said several times will usually prefer a pun or
exaggerated example of an explanation to a theoretical discussion.
Indeed, by 1-41-31 Laban deprived Jacob of a job 10 times but
Jacob always managed to get another job. So saying that Laban
made Jacob jobless is not that strong a statement.
Therefore Rashi picked the strongest example of Laban making Jacob
a loser: After he left he pursued Jacob and wanted to take away
everything (1-31).
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
----------------------------------------------------------
* {LIST1} {Of present tenses of AVD = LOSS. In all of them, except
one, OVAID means LOSER, JOBLESS or FOODLESS}
VERSE# TRANSLATION OF OVAID AS "LOSER" OR "JOBLESS" OR "FOODLESS"
----- ----------------------------------------------------------
PS119-176 I have wandered: Like a HUNGRY sheep (without food) seek
me out
Job4-11 A Loser lion without food ###
Job29-13 The blessings of a jobless person (whom I have helped)
come true with me ###
Job31-19 Did I ever see a loser (jobless person) without clothing
(and not help him)? ###
Ecc7-19 I have seen Righteous people lose their job because of
their righteousness while wicked people maintain their job
Isa27-13 ...and the losers will come from Assyria
Prv31-6 Give Beer to the jobless ###
Ez34-4 You did not seek the jobless (to give them jobs) ###
Jer50-6 Loser sheep were my nation
1S9-20 The donkeys that are lost to you ##
NOTES:
------
# This list is exhaustive (Present tense OVAID). We however leave
out Ps31-13 "I was like a permanantly loss utensil".
## OVAID in this verse means LOST and does not mean a LOSER.
However this verse is the only one with the connecting preposition
LAMED--the donkeys lost LACH (TO YOU). The other verses have
OVAID without this preposition.
### The astute reader will ask "Are you showing that LOSER or
JOBLESS" is a CONSISTENT translation with these verses or are
you claiming that it is a NECESSARY translation? Indeed, maybe
OVAID means DESTROYED her? Why are you so convinced that it
means LOSER, JOBLESS or FOODLESS?
The answer lies in the PRINCIPLE OF PROGRESSION. All these
verses occur among a SET OF VERSES with a similar theme.
To translate OVAID as DESTROYED would violate the PROGRESSION
of the verses. For example Job4-11 speaks about BROKEN TEETH
and then JOBLESSNESS and then DISBANDING AS A GROUP--this is
a progression of "being in bad times". To retranslate OVAID
as JOBLESS would violate the natural PROGRESSION of the verses.
At any rate we set forth below the various progressions and let
the reader decide for himself/herself
{LIST2} {Use of the PRINCIPLE of PROGRESSION to justify that
OVAID means LOSS}
VERSE PROGRESSION OF VERSES
------- -------------------------
Job4-11 There teeth are taken out
They are jobless
They disband as a group
Job29-13 I have saved
* a screaming poor person (Most urgent)
* an orphan without help (next urgent)
* the jobless (next urgent)
* & I make happy the hearts of widows(least urgent
Job31-19 I gave
* to the poor what they asked (least urgent)
* to the widows what they desired (next urgent)
* shared bread with the orphan (more urgent)
* clothes to the jobless (more urgent)
* clothing to the very poor
Prv 31,6 Give
* Beer to the jobless (not so urgent)
* wine to people who are really bitter (more urgent
Ez34-4 You have not given help to the
* aching (least urgent)
* sick (next urgent)
* broken boned (more urgent)
* the continually shoved around (more urgent?)
* the jobless (most urgent)
NOTE: The verses end " And you have by force
enslaved them with hard work" (So OVAID could
not mean DESTROYED here (because you couldn't
use them afterwards))
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
*
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
*
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
--------------------------------------------------------------
* UNIFIED MEANING | ELLIPSIS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1z45-14 And he fainted concerning the backbones of Benjamin
----- his brother and cried & Benjamin cried concerning his
(Joseph's) backbone
RASHI:
------
Concerning the backbones of Benjamin--the temples destroyed on
his property in Israel
Concerning the backbone of Joesph--the temple destroyed on
his property.
QUESTION
--------
I recently met with the head of information technology at Shamash.
While discussing my explanation of this Rashi he asked "You consider
that the simple meaning of the text?".
Since his question showed confusion in my explanation I thought
I might review it with an emphasis on WHICH PARTS of my explanation
are SIMPLE and WHICH PARTS aren't. Similarly I should review
why Rashi who deals with simplicity chose to add blatantly non
simple ideas in his commentary!! I hope this review clarifies some
of the goals of this list. This in fact was the question raised by
Bill Bernstein which as I said I am now reviewing.
REVIEW
--------
I recently explained this Rashi due to a question by a friend of
Bill Bernstein. The crux of the explanation was the observation
that examination of Biblical lists with the verb CRY shows that
CRY has 3 meanings depending on the connecting preposition:
CRY with "Lamed" = Cry at the sight of
CRY with "AL=ON" = Cry concerning
CRY with "Eth " = Cry on death of (Mourning)
(For complete details check
HTTP://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/V1-45-14.Htm)
Thus the verse reads
And he (Benjamin) cried concerning Joseph's backbone
I then suggested that a good example of "Joseph's backbone"
was his standing up to PotiPhera (So the verse means that the
2 brothers reunited and caught up on stories and Benjamin cried
when he heard how Joseph, for standing up to Potiphera, spent
13 years in jail).
I further explained that Rashi viewed
"cried concerning his backbone"
as
"cried concerning his holiness"
as
"cried concerning the temples destroyed in his property"
since Joseph probably merited to have temples in his property
because of a display of holiness when he was young.
WHAT IS SIMPLE & WHAT IS HOMILETIC
----------------------------------
My goal in v1-45-14 was to explain the RASHI.
My goal here is to explain WHAT IS SIMPLE and WHAT IS HOMILETIC.
To accomplish this I give 5 possible translations of the 2nd half
of this sentence
TRANSLATION 1: Benjamin cried on his (Joseph's) neck
--------------
We must classify this translation as WRONG. "CRY ON" never
means (as in English) to CRY on someones shoulder. Instead
CRY ON in the Bible ALWAYS means CRY CONCERNING
TRANSLATION 2: Benjamin cried CONCERNING his (Joseph's) neck
--------------
We must classify this translation as WRONG. Why? Because there was
no reason for Benjamin to cry CONCERNING JOSEPH'S neck.
TRANSLATION 3: Benjamin cried CONCERNING his (Joseph's) backbone
--------------
In other words the 2 brothers reunited, exchanged stories on what
they had done during the years of separation--when Joseph related
how he spent 13 years in jail because he stood up to Potiphera,
Benjamin wept concerning this display of backbone.
We consider this the SIMPLE MEANING of the TEXT. Why? Because
lists show that
a) CRY ON *always* means CRY CONCERNING in the Bible
b) NECK frequently means BACKBONE or STANDING UP FOR BELIEFS
TRANSLATION 4: Ben cried CONCERNING Joe's standing up to PotiPhera
--------------
We do not consider this the SIMPLE MEANING of the text but rather
a GOOD EXAMPLE of the simple meaning.
To what may the matter be compared? To a person who says "I went to
the grocery store." You could then "translate" this as "I went to
the grocery store by car." This translation of "going by car" is NOT
what the original sentence means--it is NOT the simple meaning. But
it IS a GOOD EXAMPLE (Because you usually go to store by car so that
e.g. you can take grocery's home in the trunk).
This technique of illustrating the meaning of a sentence by giving
a GOOD EXAMPLE is a standard literary method.
TRANSLATION 5: Benjamin cried CONCERNING the temples destroyed in
------------- Joseph's property
Of course this is not the SIMPLE MEANING of the text.
It also is not a GOOD EXAMPLE of the simple meaning of the text.
Rather this is a PICTURESQUE (but ABSURD) example of the simple
meaning of the text. Why?
Because the simple meaning of the text is that Benjamin cried
concerning Joseph's backbone. A good sound example of this is his
standing up to PotiPhera. An (absurb) illustration of this is the
temples on Josephs property --- the temple is an illustration since
it represents holiness which somewhat illustrates backbone. It is
absurd because the temple was something in the future and the verse
talks about Benjamin crying on what Joseph had ALREADY gone thru.
It is picturesque because a temple is a picturesque thing.
SUMMARY
-------
Thus this verse has
*2 WRONG explanations(Cried on shoulder,cried concerning his neck)
*1 SIMPLE EXPLANATION (Cried concerning his backbone)
*1 EXAMPLE OF THIS SIMPLE EXPLANATION
(Cried over the Potiphera incident)
*1 PICTURESQUE ABSURD EXAMPLE OF THIS SIMPLE EXPLANATION
{Cried over the destruction of a future temple in Joseph's property
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT "SIMPLE" vs "HOMILETIC"
-----------------------------------------------------
We can now answer the obvious question: Rashi brought down a
homiletic explanation and Hendel brought down a homiletic
explanation. Why should I chose Hendel's explanation over Rashis.
The answer is Simple: Neither Hendel nor Rashi brought down anything
homiletic.
Without Rashi I would have perhaps thought the verse meant that
Benjamin cried on Joseph's shoulder. But this is a wrong explanation
not justified by any Biblical precedent.
Hendel's explanation accomplishes something new by showing that the
verse DOES HAVE A SIMPLE EXPLANATION---namely, that "Benjamin
cried concerning Joseph's backbone".
Why then doesn't Rashi simple say this? Because Rashi's goals were
never to produce an abstract grammatically sound explanation. His
goals were MEMORABILITY...people should remember the meaning. And
to accomplish this MEMORABILITY Rashi would always use puns and
picturesque explanations. Rashi had a firm principle that
MEMORABILITY should take precedence over ABSTRACT THEORY.
Let me be blunt: Two months from now few people will remember my
LISTS on the root "CRY". But everyone will remember even 5 years
from now that Rashi said "Benjamin cried over the temples that were
destroyed in Joseph's property". Why will they remember it? Because
it is something absurd (That he cried on a future event) and memory
experts will tell you that that is one of the techniques for
not forgetting..."use exaggerated and absurd associations".
And once you remember Rashi's explanation you will also remember
that the Pshat is that Benjamin cried over Joseph's backbone and
Rashi simply picked a very good illustration of this that would
stick in people's minds.
I hope this clarifies our approach to Rashi in this list.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
--------------------------------------------------------------
* GENERAL
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v3z6-2 COMMAND Aaron and his sons ...
------
COMMENT: We will answer here Chaiim Browns Question as well as
------- discuss the relationship between our list and other
commentators on Rashi (like Ramban, Mizrachi..etc).
RASHI TEXT:
----------
* COMMAND indicates an
a) urging to do the action now and for all generations
b) (Rav Shimon's opinion) Actions involving monetary loss
NOTE: Strictly speaking (b) is parenthetical in some versions of Rashi
But nevertheless it definitely occurs in the Sifrah and so is brought
down here.
Our GOAL here is to answer Chaiim Browns question last week.
Because his question deals with fundamental issues of Biblical
explanation we go into great detail and summarize our previous
posting so that everything should be clear. But 1st we offer the
following summary of this explanation.
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL EXEGESIS
-------------------------------------------
a) We start Biblical commentary NOT by reading the commentaries
b) But rather we start/prepare by reviewing Biblical Lists
c) The commentaries are then read in light of these lists
d) We assume that these great commentaries were aware of the lists
e) If there are two opinions we can take them at fact value as
DIFFERING opinions ONLY if the lists allow 2 different meanings
f) Otherwise the two opinions must be taken not as alternate
OPINIONS but rather as alternate FORMULATIONS of the same concept
EXAMPLE: BRIEF SUMMARY OF ANSWER TO CHAIIM BROWN
-------------------------------------------------
As an example of the application of these principles we see that
the Biblical lists on COMMAND deal with either TERRITORIAL
COMMANDMENTS of INHERITANCE or TERRITORIAL COMMANDMENTS involving
DENIAL OF ACCESS TO TERRITORY or HIGHLY PERSONAL MATTERS.
The first opinion in the Sifra formulates this as
matters that start now and for all generations while
another FORMULATION by Rabbi Shimon SUPPLEMENTS this 1st explanation
with "..OR matters of monetary loss". And just as the two opinions
in the Sifra were both saying the same thing because the lists
of verses with "command" support it so too were Rashi and Ramban
saying the same thing. There was never any difference of OPINION
but rather a difference of FORMULATION.
MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION WITH REVIEW OF PREVIOUS POSTING
---------------------------------------------------------
* In v3a6-2 (http://www.shamash.org/Rashi/v3a6-2.htm) we have
explained this Rashi as follows:
Examination of Biblical lists shows that NON MILITARY USES OF
COMMAND OCCUR by
a) deathbed orders (e.g. wills for division of ESTATES)
b) PERSONAL orders during ones lifetime (e.g. an order
on whom a person should marry)
We might summarize these two meanings by saying they both involve
CONTINUATION of the ORDERER'S ESTATE & LIFESTYLE
since orders on estates and whom to marry are done to "preserve
and continue family tradition during and after life"
Further examination of Biblical lists shows that there are about
8 Biblical commandments which begin with COMMAND (most Biblical
commandments begin with SAY TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL). These
8 Biblical commandments divide naturally into two categories:
a) Commandments involving TERRITORIES
e.g. division of Israel, Levite Cities,Leper Camps
b) Commandments involving DAILY TEMPLE activities such
as the daily offerings and lightings. Since the
temple procedures were suppose to teach us how
the totality of our lives should be lived we may
regard this as PERSONAL TEMPLE COMMANDMENTS
We immediately see the correspondence between the use of COMMAND
for ESTATES and the BIBLICAL USE OF COMMAND for TERRITORIAL
commandments.
Similarly we immediately see the correspondence between the use of
COMMAND for HIGHLY PERSONAL matters and the Biblical use of COMMAND
for TEMPLE PERSONAL COMMANDMENTS.
Notice our method...we have NOT YET even mentioned Rashi. We have
rather PREPARED ourselves, thru the examination of Biblical lists,
to read Rashi and the Sifra. How so?
When Rashi and the Sifra state: COMMANDS THAT URGE YOU TO START
NOW AND CONTINUE FOR GENERATIONS--we immediately identify the
key element here as
NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS =
CONTINUATION of TRADITION
This refers to both TERRITORIAL COMMANDMENTS--MATTERS OF INHERITANCE
which start now and continue forever as well as HIGHLY PERSONAL
MATTERS which also denote CONTINUATION of TRADITION.
The Sifra (and some Rashi texts) add what appears to be a 2nd
opinion:
Rav Shimon Says: Matters of Monetary Loss
But this couldn't be a 2nd opinion. Why? Because both Rashi,
the Sifra and Rav Shimon all knew the Biblical lists in v3a6-2 and
there is no ambiguity in these lists.
Therefore we take Rav Shimon's statement not as an alternate OPINION
but rather as an alternate FORMULATION. Also, we take his statement
not as an ALTERNATE statement but rather as a SUPPLEMENTARY
statement. How so?
Rav Shimon observed that the non military, non Biblical commandment
uses of COMMAND can apply both to deathbed orders of estates (which
of course continue for all generations) as well as to territorial
orders having nothing to do with inheritance. For example, 1-12-20
states that Pharoh COMMANDED concerning Abraham and Sarah that they
should be expelled from Egypt (For lying about their marital status).
This was not an estate order that would apply to all generations!!!
But it was, to use Rashi's language, a CONTINUATION ORDER...Pharoh
was preserving his national security by ordering the expulsion.
Rav Shimon simply gave an alternate formulation: "Don't", Rav Shimon
says, "..call this a TERRITORIAL ORDER...rather call it a MONETARY
ORDER". In other words, Rav Shimon was simply being more precise:
Leave INHERITANCE (from now and all generations) out of it.
(To be even more precise it is not strictly speaking MONETARY LOSS
but rather a DENIAL OF ACCESS TO PROPERTY (which of course can be
translated as "monetary loss"--and if the reader doesn't like this
and reformulates it some other way then she/he is acknowledging that
the REAL ISSUE here is what the lists say and everyone's comments
are simply ATTEMPTS at PRECISE FORMULATION).
Both Rashi, Rav Shimon and the 1st opinion in the Sifra
would agree that COMMAND is only used in matters of continuation.
And just as Rav Shimon added "Monetary matters" to Rashis theme
of "continuation" so too have I added "Personal matters"--note that
in Rashiian Hebrew there is no good word for "Personal" while
English does have such a word. It is not that I "knew" something
that Rashi didn't know but rather that I had access to a language
which allowed me further formulation.
Again in summary:
a) We start Biblical commentary NOT by reading the commentaries
b) But rather we start/prepare by reviewing Biblical Lists
c) The commentaries are then read in light of the lists
d) We assume that these great commentaries were aware of the lists
e) If there are two opinions we can take them at fact value as
DIFFERING opinions ONLY if the lists allow it
f) Otherwise the two opinions must be taken as alternate
formulations of the same concept
Thus Rav Shimon and the 1st opinion in the Sifra (and myself) were
simply trying to find the BEST formulation of the underlying concept
in these lists. Whoever understands this will have a deep
understanding and basic methodology by which to approach Rashi.
OTHER COMMENTATORS
-------------------
It is for the above reason that I spend the bulk of time in this
email list on matters of Biblical lists--for they are the key
to proper understanding.
Nevertheless if by chance I arrive at an explanation of another
commentator please feel free to post it---we wish to make all
proper acknowledgements. However it would take twice the time of
preparation for me to research every major Rashi commentator.
For those interested in other commentators on Rashi I recommend
in order of comlexity:
1) Sifsay Chachamim--printed in many chumashim
2) Ramban, Chizkuni, Mizrachi
3) Malbim and the Rashi writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
Also a variety of modern works like those of Leibowitz, Zornberg
and Boncheck are very good introductions to basic Rashi technique,
will enhance skill competencies and are warmly recommended.
However except for the Malbim none of the above really give
EXHAUSTIVE lists which is the key to both Biblical and Rashi
understanding.
Finally I should mention that I had an email correspondence once
with Boncheck on our respective goals: Boncheck suggested that
he is more interested in simple meanings while I seem to be
more interested in the simple meanings in Halachic Midrash.
Boncheck also expressed skepticism whether I could justify 100%
of all halachic Midrash.
In response I would say that if the reader BEFORE reading my list
thought that only 1% of halachic Midrash could be justified while
AFTER reading my list thought 5% could be justified then I will
be very very happy. (And if that reader asks me questions on my
explanations of the other 95% then perhaps I can convince him
or her that 10% of all Halachic Midarsh make sense).
I hope the above clarifies the goals of this list.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
--------------------------------------------------------------
* GENERAL
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*