Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1998
Volume 01 Number 06
Produced Jan 3, 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v-mlowz1 Mark Lowitz: Order of Rashis; Article; Bais Tefila
v-ans-02 Any order(Try for principles);Article;Shamash consortium
V2-1-5 Joseph *REALLY WAS* in Egypt(He remained the same;
WAS=EMPHASIS)
v2-1-1 These are the names of the Jews..
Repetition indicates fondness
v1-46-2 Jacob Jacob...Repetition Denotes Fondness
v1-48-8 See = Prophecy (Jacob saw Josephs (bad)progeny;
was hesitate to bless
V1-48-9 My children that God gave me in THIS unGodly place;
(BZH=Bad place)
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
From: mlowitz@pcc.lucent.com
To: rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
Subject: RE: RASHI-IS-SIMPLE v1.n4
I recently started getting your email on Rashi and
have a couple questions:
What order do you plan to study rashi (ie. Parsha ha'shavua, ...)?
How can I get a copy of your article in Tradition, Winter 1980?
What is the email group "Bais Tefilla?
Thanks,
Mark Lowitz
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
v-ans-2
Answers to Mark's 3 questions are as follows.
ORDER OF RASHI PRESENTATION:
-----------------------------
We are not following any order--
I plan to cover all 8000 Rashis and to
give a taxanomy of rules so that people may master principles.
IF YOU HAVE A FAVORITE RASHI THAT YOU THINK CAN"T BE EXPLAINED THEN
SEND IT IN.
The Parashat Hashavua was just a convenience.
ARTICLE
=======
This list is big so I can't automatically promise to send everybody.
*But I will try and pick examples everyweek which illustrate
principles in my article
My article gave
===================SUMMARY=OF=ARTICLE============================
||* 2 MIDRASHIC RULES---new translations; new grammar |
||* 1 METHOD OF PROOF---List with exception; list with correlate|
||* 4 FORMS TO RASHI--total, deficient, supportive, irrelevant |
||* 7 FALLACIES--Normal-abnormal; general-details; tone-logic; |
|| archetype-examples, effect-cause,partial-total |
|| primary-seconday |
==================================================================
My article occured in
TRADITION: VOl 18: Number 4 Winter 1980; pp 327-343
If you really want it email me BUT BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOUR POSTAL
ADDRESS.
I probably can meet the first 100 requests out of my own pocket(bli
neder).
BAIS TEFILA
============
The first few issues of Rashi-is-Simple
was sent from DREXEL University
We are now part of the Shamash Consortium. Its url is
http://www.shamash.org/
If you click on LISTS you will get to see
all shamash lists
a brief description
be allowed to subscribe
Additionally SHAMASH has SEARCH engines (So if you type in Russell
Hendel you will probably get to see most of the
postings I have written)
Bais Tefila is a list on Shamash.
It existed between April 1998 and June 1998.
You may find old issues archived there just as old issues of
rashi-is-simple are archived there.
Eventually (end of month?) I plan to have a WEB PAGE put up that
will contain everything plus much more.
Hope this answers your questions. PLease feel free to send questions
on Rashi
Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi-Is-Simple
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2-1-5 ..and Joseph WAS in Egypt
------
RASHI TEXT: It was the same person:
----- Joseph the shepard boy and Joseph the King
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARATIVE EXPlANATION:
---------------------------------------
In English a sentence must always have a verb-if necessay, an
intansitive verb such as "IS" or "WAS". However in Hebrew this
is optional: Thus e.g. the sentence "BALL RED" in Hebrew is
grammatically correct (without the verb) and means the BALL IS RED
In general when the verb TO BE is used in Hebrew it denotes EMPHASIS
--something established. So in this verse it doesn't just say that
Joseph (was) in Egypt but emphasizes that "Joseph WAS in Egypt"
The totality of Joseph
---his simplicity,
---his shepard like style,
---his belief in dreams
all of it was there in Egypt.
What is being emphasized is clear; that
--the attempted murder by his brothers
--the attempted seduction by his masters wife
--the years of separation
--the offers of honor
all this did not change his personality.
The same shepard boy Joseph was still there.
RASHI'S FORM
------------
Rashi, as is his custom, does not
quote a grammatical principle. Rather
he states a witty contrast---
"He is the Joseph who was a shepard;
He is the Joseph who was viceroy."
The use of such witty contrasts helps us retain the point.
[COMMENT: Note that on 4-6-5 Rashi uses the popular gematria form
to make his derivation----YHIYEH = 30----but as we have explained
numerous times gematria is simply a method of remembering texts---
the real method of learning comes from
he WILL BE holy = Emphasis = Sufficient duration to
show seriousness of intent
It turns out that a standard minimal duration in many areas of law
is 30 days and by coincidence 30 is the gematria of YHYH.
LISTS
-----
{LIST1} {Of verses with the verb TO BE--Courtesy of Malbim
In all these verses 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
FOOTNOTES:
=========
# Malbim brings this principle down in his MORNING STAR--principle
600. THere he gives about a dozen examples (since some of them have
controversy on WHAT is being emphasized I left them out).
Malbim explains that the EMPHASIS in the Leviticus verses is an
emphasis of ESSENTIALITY--without the attribute that is mentioned in
the verse with the verb TO BE the procedure is invalid
We however have taken a broader interpretation and allow
any type of emphasis (For example: by the Nazerite, the emphasis
indicated by the verb TO BE denotes that Nazaretism should have
sufficient DURATION which in many matters is 30 days
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Malbim; Morning Star; Principle 600
----------------
[COMMENT: As already noted thruout Leviticus
TO BE denotes ESSENTIALITY (ICUVA in halachic lingo).
But in order to include Midrashim in other
books TO BE should be translated as EMPHASIS]
RULE CLASSIFICATION: SPECIAL WORDS
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: V1-48-9 My children that God gave me
------ in THIS (unGodly) place
RASHI TEXT: Joseph showed him his marriage contract
---------- (it was a proper marriage)
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
There are two words for THIS PLACE in Hebrew:
POH is the usual word for THIS PLACE while BAZEH denotes this
place with a perjorative connotation (i.e This horrible place)
For a justification of this see {LIST1} which lists all occurences
of BZH in the Bible.
Joseph said:
>>These are my children which GOD gave me in THIS (Bad) PLACE<<
The Midrash is then learned from the Juxtaposition of
GOD and THIS (BAD) PLACE.
On the one hand EGYPT was THIS (bad) PLACE...
On the other hand the children were GIVEN BY GOD
So Joseph emphasized that despite the fact that the place (Egypt)
was unGodly and bad nevertheless his children were
GIVEN TO ME BY GOD
Rashi's main point is that Joseph claimed his marriage was Kosher
Rashi's expression of this main point is further explained in
the COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM section.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM
------------------------
In v1-43-9 all Rashi is proving from the text is that JOSEPH
claimed to have had a KOSHER marriage.
The details of HOW Joseph proved that his marriage was Kosher,
canNOT be proved from the text. For example, Joseph MAY have
showed his wifes marriage contract to his father; or he may
have showed the engagement ring. We cannot (from the text) prove
what happened. Each person can guess what a KOSHER marriage
meant in those times. In fact, bear in mind that according to
some opinions KETUBAH is Rabbinic so that it would be unlikely
according to these opinions that Joseph showed his father his
Ketubah.
Very often the text or Rashi can only prove a GENERAL Proposition.
To aid in memory Rashi gives SPECIFIC DETAILS.
But there is no proof of these DETAILS. Rather there is only proof
of the GENERAL PROPOSITION;the DETAILS are logical consequences
according to what each person believes (That is why there can be
controversy--the controversy is on DETAILS but not on the
GENERAL IDEA)
This GENERAL-DETAIL principle is very
important in understanding Rashi..
since Rashi very often is NOT trying to
prove details but trying to prove General principles.
In other words, if a person complains on any Rashi "But Rashi did
not prove this" what probably happened is that Rashi **did**
prove a general proposition, then guessed at the details and
the reader is talking about those details, not about the general
proposition.
Therefore every student of Rashi should learn the skill of
separating out the "General" principle Rashi is defending
vs the "Details" that he is guessing at.
LIST:
-----
{LIST1} {The dozen verses with "BAZEH"%.As noted above BZH denotes
this place with a perojative connotation: It denotes
a place that is derogatory; unGodly; profane; or ordinary}
VERSE SUBJECT OF VERSE WHY "THIS PLACE" IS DEROGATORY
======= ====================== ================================
1-38-21 Looking for prostitute Shepard hangout #; Prostitutes
1-48-9 Joseph's marriage He married In Egypt
2-24-14 By the revelation The Camp was "outside of the Mount"
(where God revealed himself)
4-22-19 By Bilam-Balak #### Bamoth Baal--an idol worship
Jud18-3 Idolatrous camp Moses' descendant was
a priest for idols
1S1-26 Chana She appeared drunk
1S16-8 Jesses other children It explicitly says
"I(God) despise him"
Ecc7-8 Take this and that Take both"even if any
one does NOT succeed"
1S14-34 Slaughter during war## It wasn't a typical knife but an
'on the spot' knife(minimal length)
1S9-11 By a well Shepard hangout #
2S11-12 With the slaves Slave hangout ###
FOOTNOTES:
==========
% We have brought ALL verses with BaZeh.
The translation of "BAZEH = UnGodly place" is
clearer in some verses than others.
The reader should carefully study the verses and come to his/her own
opinion about the exact nuances of the word. As usual if someone has
a better translation this will be welcome.
# We take note of 1-38-21,1S9-11 which were SHEPARD HANGOUTS
(E.g. See end of Chapter 8 of Rambam,
Laws of Monetary Damages where he points out how these people do
not live in society and have "bad habits").
## 1S14-34 refers to war-time
### 2S11-12 refers to being with slaves(see the rest of the chapter)
#### 4-22-19 and throughout refers to idolatrous places
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
The fallacy of GENERAL vs DETAILS which we explained in the
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM section cam
from my article, "Peshat & Derash: Tradition, Winter 1980"
I should cite the fallacy of GENERAL vs DETAILS.
RULE CLASSIFICATION: SYNONYMS
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v2-1-1 And these are the names of the Jewish People
------ v1-46-2 ..& God said...JACOB JACOB
RASHI TEXT: (V2-1-1) The Bible counts them a 2nd time because
---------- of how dear they were
(V1-46-2) The repetition denotes endearment
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
Sometimes names are repeated (e.g. JACOB JACOB)and sometimes they
are stated just once(e.g. KAYIN). There is nothing peculiar,
or bothering Rashi about either of these two styles.
However Rashi points out that
repetition usually denotes endearment
while single mention denotes
a business-like relationship.
So the repetition in these two verses is a style denoting
endearment. To support this point Rashi cites a list of
verses showing Israel's endearment.
Rashi gives a LIST of verses proving Israel's endearment.
We have given a LIST of people whose names were repeated.
See {LIST1}.
RASHI'S FORM
------------
LISTS:
------
{LIST1} {Of names/attributes that were repeated twice. When God
spoke to people He sometimes called their name twice.
Most often however he called their name once #. Rashi
explains this as a matter of style--repetition denotes
endearment $}
NAME: VERSE WHERE THEY WERE REPEATED TWICE #
---- -------------------------------------
Abraham 1-22-11
Jacob 1-46-2
Moses 2-3-4
Shmuel Sam-3-10
You're beautiful Songs-4-1 ##
Names of the Jews 2-1-1 and 1-48-8 *
FOOTNOTES:
=========
* The identical phrase "And these are the names of the Jews" is used
in both 2-1-1 and 1-48-8. By contrast the repetition of the names of
Noach (in 1-5-32 and 1-10-1) use different phrases
# It is hard to appreciate the list until we add the fact that the
other people that God spoke to (Isaac, Aharan, Joshua...) do not
have ANY verses where there is a repetition.
## Note how Songs-4-1 deals with attributes vs names
$ In my article, PESHAT and DERASH I point out that
--if 2 people sat before you and one referred to his date ONCE while
--the other referred TWICE
we would assume that the person who did it twice had more positive
feelings for their date.
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
As promised I will try and give Rashis
showing fundamental principles
in my article. We learn two principles
here: We learn about the FORM in which Rashi proves
his ideas; we also learn certain FALLACIES that should be avoided.
The FORM by which Rashi proves his point can be by style and by tone
Many things are proved by logic and some by tone.
It is simply a matter of tone that you
don't feel burdened or urgent when you are with someone you love and
may refer to them twice. (If you don't believe
that is true in American culture at least grant (via the texts
mentioned above) that it is true in Jewish culture---the texts
clearly support it)
The FALLACY we learn to avoid is to **always** ask
What is bothering Rashi. Equivalantly we should not try to prove
that "The source of Rashi is because extra words are used".
Rashi need not be bothered by anything. Sometimes he is explaining
a matter of style. >>Repeat once for ordinary usage but
repeat twice to denote endearment<<
As is our custom we will always point
out when computers could not have
solved or aided in a problem. In this case
we weren't searching for a word
but for repeated words
(and not necessarily consecutive repeated words)
Finally we mention the beautiful midrash
brought down by the Minchat
Shai that explains, why of the 4 people
who have their names repeated
3 of them have a PAUSE mark between them
while Moses doesn't. But we will not pursue this further since we
have confined ourselves to Rashi's on this list.
RULE CLASSIFICATION: STYLE | REPETITION
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1a48-8 And Jacob saw the children of Joseph &
------ v1b48-8 said: Who are these
v1c48-19 ..and he also will be great
RASHI TEXT:
-----------
Saw = prophetically saw that there would be evil people
coming out of Joseph and therefore he couldn't bless Joseph
(v1-48-19) Joshua will come out of him who will do great
miracles and teach Torah to Israel.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
----------------------------------------
To see normally means to see. But as {LIST1}
below shows, there are so many contradictions in this Parshah if we
interpret "see" physically that we MUST interpret "To see = To
Prophetically see". First let us list some examples of the
contradictions that arise if we take "to see" to mean
physically see:
a) 1-48-10 says Jacob couldn't see while in 1-48-19 Jacob could see
well enough to switch hands in blessings Joseph's children
b) 1-48-5, 1-48-8 and 1-48-9 state that Jacob was interested
in Josephs children (1-48-5), but didn't know about them(1-48-9)
but he did finally see them (1-48-11)
c) On the one hand Jacob couldn't see or recognize Josephs children
(1-48-10, 1-48-8) while on the other hand Jacob could see well
enough to switch the children and insisted that he knew more about
them than Joseph (1-48-14, 1-48-17, 1-48-19)
SEE in general in the Bible can also mean PROPHETICALLY SEE. We
should have a list for this but this is not the main point here.
Nevertheless we give some details. In SAMUEL we are told that
PROPHETS are call SEE-ERS. Also there are sporadic verses where
TO SEE = TO PROPHECY even though we did not expect it (e.g. 1-42-1).
Accordingly we interpret SEE in this chapter to mean prophetically
see.
This prophetic interpretation creates further problems
which then must be solved. After resolving these contradictions
we obtain the following running summary of this chapter.
(1-48-5) Jacob promises that Josephs 2 present children will have
tribe status. (1-48-7) Jacob mentions how he made other preparations
for the exile by burying Rachel outside of the other
partiarchs/matriarchs so that people could pray by her grave.
(1-48-8) Jacob prepares to bless Joseph's two children that they
should be able to continue Joseph's tradition of helping the Jewish
people by living among Gentiles. But suddenly he becomes aware that
some descendants will fail. He thus hesitates to bless them.
(1-48-9) Joseph protests by showing his father "this"---the marriage
contract showing that even his present marriage was completely
Jewish in all its details. Joseph's point was that people can
succeed WITHOUT COMPROMISE----and since he did it he wants a
blessing so those of his descendants that want to can succeed. He
points out how his descendants will do good
(1-48-10) But Jacob had seen too many troubles in his life--
he saw his sons try and murder Joseph...Jacob had become
risk-averse. He couldn't be emphatic with Joseph's desire to
live among Gentiles and succeed. He had lost his ability to
propehtically see the good that comes out of such risks.
Nevertheless Joseph persisted and brought his children to them.
(1-48-11) Jacob acknowledges that he once thought Joseph dead & his
children murdrerers & he regains his prophetic ability to see good
coming out of Joseph's children.
(1-48-12 thru 1-48-19) Jacob then proceeds to prepare to bless them.
He had regained his prophetic ability and clearly states that he
Knows thru prophecy that the younger child will do better in history
{LIST2} succinctly shows where assumptions of prophecy
were made throughout the chapter.
RASHI'S FORM
------------
* As is usual Rashi avoids philosophical generalizations and gives
nifty stories that would stick in memory:
* Prophecy is mentioned explicitly in Rashi in 1-48-8 and 1-48-19.
Rashi again uses Workbook methods and assumes the reader will fill
in the details.
* Rashi's explicit mention of Yaravam and others in 1-48-8 is not
necessary but just a way of highlighting his concerns. All that is
necessary to understand the verse is to understand that Jacob knew
that evil descendants would come out of Joseph and that the
Josephine way (of helping Jews thru living with Goyim) would
sometimes not work out.
But what better way of illustrating this then to Pick
* YARAVAM who lived in Egypt for a while
* AchAv who married a gentile wife
THese are the exact things that Joseph did and they didn't work out
for these people. Joseph's answer however is that it will work out
for some and the community needs it and they need all the blessings
they can get.
Paradoxically we overlook the successes.
* Joshua sent spies to the house of a prostitue
(whom he later married!!!)
Rashi cites Jacob as mentioning Joshua in 1-48-19.
As I said--I don't deny that Jacob knew these things but strict
interpretation of the verses does not require them. The verses deal
with "general awarenesses" that good and bad could come out of the
Josephine way.
LISTS:
-----
{LIST1} {Of the contradictions that would arise in 1-48 if
we interpreted "TO SEE" as physical sight vs prophetic
sight ^}
VERSE TEXT CONTRADICTS WAY TO AVOID
----- ---- ----------- ------------
1-48-5 2 children=tribes 1-48-8 %
1-48-8 Who are these children 1-48-5 % See = Thru Prophecy
1-48-9 They are my children 1-48-8 %
1-48-11 God showed me descendnt 1-48-8 % See = Thru prophecy
1-48-10 Jacob couldn't see 1-48-19 #,$ See = Thru prophecy
1-48-19 Jacob switched hands 1-48-10 #,$
1-48-19 Younger will be greater 1-48-8 $ See = Thru prophecy
FOOTNOTES:
==========
#) 1-48-10 says Jacob couldn't see while in 1-48-19 Jacob could see
well enough to switch hands in blessings Joseph's children
%) 1-48-5, 1-48-8 and 1-48-9 state that Jacob was interested
in Josephs children (1-48-5), but didn't know about them(1-48-9)
but he did finally see them (1-48-11)
$) On the one hand Jacob couldn't see or recognize Josephs children
(1-48-10, 1-48-8) while on the other hand Jacob could see well
enough to switch the children and insisted that he knew more about
them than Joseph (1-48-14,1-48-17, 1-48-19)
^)Perhaps the reader will only accept SOME of these contradictions.
It doesn't affect the problem...as long as one contradiction remains
we have something to resolve. The best way to resolve these
contradictions is to interpret SEE in the prophetic sense.
{LIST2} {Of places in 1-48 where "see" is interpreted prophetically}
VERSE IS ASSUMPTION OF PROPHECY NEEDED
-------------- --------------------------------
1-48-5 Not necessary
1-48-7 Not necessary
1-48-8 See = PROPHECY
1-48-9 No--deals with present children
1-48-10 Eyes = PROPHECY *
1-48-11 God showed me your progeny # = Thru PROPHECY
1-48-12 Not necessary
1-48-13 Not necessary
1-48-14 ShiKaiL = Behaved wisely = PROPHECY
1-48-17 NO; See = Physical Sight
1-48-19 Knew thru PROPHECY
1-48-21 Clear statement of PROPHECY
FOOTNOTES:
=========
* 1-48-10 is not usually taken prophetically...but would fit in
nicely with the other themes
# We should also mention the occurrence of "ALSO" in 1-48-11.
>>God ALSO showed me your progeny<<
As we will show in the future ALSO always denotes something extra...
so there is a clear reference here to all future generations and not
just the present children
CROSS REFERENCES:
----------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
----------------
RULE CLASSIFICATION: UNIFIED MEANING | INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS
--------------------
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Send SUBMISSIONS/responses/contributions to
rashi-is-simple@shamash.org
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 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 Shamash 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
Volume 1 Number 6
Produced Jan 3, 1999
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*