Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
Volume 2 Number 17
Produced Jun, 23 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v4d22-5 Alignment of 4-22-5 vs 4-22-11 shows 10 differences
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
NEW! NEW! NEW!
The web site has a Word Processing (WP or WORD) Appearance
Check out Volume 2 number 17 to see it.
Let me know if you like it and I will continue it
NEW! NEW! NEW!
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4d22-5
v4d22-5 Behold..Behold (this nation covers the earth)
v4f22-5 and it is near me in military formation
v4a22-6 Perhaps I will be able to warning-shot them
v4a22-11 ...Intensely curse them
v4b22-11 ...and banish them
RASHI TEXT:
v4d22-5 'Behold..Behold'--the 2 "BEHOLDS" indicate the REASON
for the request: BEHOLD they left Egypt AND BEHOLD
they sit opposite me
v4f22-5 'and it is near me in military formation'--the deficient
spelling of MMLI indicates that it is a VERB form (meaning
destroy/cutting) and not a PREPOSITION form (meaning NEAR
me); because the preposition form is always spelled full
{LIST2}
v4a22-6 Perhaps I will be able to warning-shot them...The VERB
NCH when used with the preposition B indicates not so
much a military victory but a warning shot {LIST3}
v4a22-11 KVH and ARH both mean to curse...but KVH is a more intense
curse{LIST4}
v4b22-11 It says BANISH THEM FROM THE LAND in 4-22-6 while in
4-22-11 it says BANISH THEM. Balak only wanted them
removed from being a threat; Bilam wanted them removed
alltogether (removed from existence).
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
This a very beautiful Rashi showing the power of WORKBOOK methods&
the ALIGNMENT method in double parshas. Balaks request to Bilam
4-22-5:6 and its repetition 4-22-11 are compactly presented
below in {LIST1}. We carefully go over how to construct such lists
since they are a powerful tool in understanding many Rashis.
If you read down say the 1st column then you see verses 4-22-5:6-
"Behold a nation left Egypt, behold, it covers the earth..."
Similarly the 2nd column presents 4-22-11.
If you read across each row then you clearly see the contrasts
between each verse. For example: The 1st row shows that
both verses begin with the word BEHOLD (Hence there is no
problem). By contrast the 2nd row shows that in 4-22-5 it says
"A" nation left Egypt" while in 4-22-11 it says "THE" nation that
left Egypt".
Hence there is a *1 in the footnote colum of Row 2. Footnote *1
explains why one verse uses 'A' while the other verse uses 'THE'
In a similar manner if you go thru all rows you find 10
differences between the 2 verses and each of these are explained
in the footnotes.
Five of these 10 explanations occur in Rashi (and are so credited
in the footnotes). The other 5 explanations are inferred from the
first 5 given by Rashi by using the THEMES Rashi presents.
Let me give a simple example. The 3rd row shows that 4-22-5 has
an extra word BEHOLD which does not occur in 4-22-11. Rashi
explains (4d22-5) that the word BEHOLD explains WHY Balak wanted
the Jews cursed--he wanted them cursed because "BEHOLD THEY ARE
NEARBY ME IN POTENTIAL MILITARY FORMATION".
In other words Balak acted POLITICALLY--he was concerned with his
(perceived) safety. By contrast, Bilam acted EMOTIONALLY--he
hated the Jews because they were Jews (not for anything they had
done).
Bilam who hated the Jews summarizes the
request by stating: "The Jews left Egypt--Go destroy them". Balak
who was only politically concerned says "The Jews left Egypt and
BEHOLD they are near me AND HENCE they must be stopped". Thus
Rashi is Simple---Balak gives a reason for what he wants while
Bilam doesn't.
We have called this reason that Rashi gives on this difference the
REASON theme. It may be found in the 4th column with footnotes
1,2,3,4,8. Each of the differences connected with these footnotes
indicates SOME REASON by BALAK: "They are near me; Therefore
destroy them; they are more powerful than me;".
Rashi also gives a DESTRUCTION THEME: Bilam hated the Jews and
wanted them destroyed while Balak just wanted them OUT OF THERE.
This explains the stronger curse words used by Bilam(*6) as well
as Bilams' desire for a war vs Balaks' desire to simply fire a
warning shot(FOOTNOTE *9).
Finally I have added a LANGUAGE THEME(not brought by Rashi).
Balak used words like PLEASE(*5) and acknowledged that the
Jews were a NATION (*7); while Bilam who hated the Jews and
was a vulgar evil person, did not use PLEASE and referred
to the Jews as "THEM" rather than a nation.
In summary, the alignment method, which presents 2 chapters, their
differences and the themes by which they are explained is a
powerful method in understanding Rashi.
{LIST1} {Alignment of 4-22-5:6 vs 4-22-11. 10 differences are found}
BALAK BILAM
4-22-5:6 4-22-11 FOOTNOTE THEME
=================== ========================== ======== ========
Behold Behold
A nation left Egypt The nation that left Egypt *1 Reason
Behold (it) *2 Reason
covers the earth covers the earth
..in military formation *3 Reason
And therefore *4 Reason
Now Now
Please *5 Language
Go Go
curse intensely curse *6 Destroy
for me for me
this nation them *7 Language
Because they are *8 Reason
more powerful than me
Perhaps I'll be able Perhaps I'll be able
to warning-shot to fight *9 Destroy
them & them &
banish them from here banish them *10 Destroy
FOOTNOTES
*1 Bilam acted EMOTIONALLY: So he wanted to destry THE nation
By contrast Balak acted POLITICALLY--he was concerned
because "A" nation left (he didn't care which one). This
is further supported by *2 and *3--Balak gave reasons for
what he wanted while Bilam simply wanted to destroy them
because they were Jews.
*2 Bilam acted EMOTIONALLY: They are Jews and hence must be
destroyed. Balak acted POLITICALLY--he had to give REASONS
why he wanted them destroyed. Hence the double BEHOLD BEHOLD
"I don't want them destroyed because they left Egypt but
rather because they are nearby me in military formation"(Rashi)
[Note: This first Rashi properly belongs on the words BEHOLD
BEHOLD--our texts seem to place this Rashi on the words A NATION
LEFT EGYPT]
*3 True they might be camping but they are in a potential
military formation; I am simply concerned about my
safety. Balak acted POLITICALLY and gave reasons.(Rashi)
*4 BILAM acted EMOTIONALLY:"Since THAT NATION (the Jews)
left Egypt they must be destroyed."
By contrast BALAK acted POLITICALLY--------------hence
he adds a reason for his desires "And therefore (Since they are
in potential military formation) go and curse them"
*5 BALAK was acting from political reasons and not out of hatred.
Hence you see polite language (PLEASE go and curse them). BILAM
by contrast was acting out of hatred and was an evil person;
hence we hear no polite language by him.
*6 Balak acted POLITICALLY--he simply wanted the threat away from
him---hence he used a lighter form of curse. BILAM acted out
of hatred and hence wanted a stronger form of curse--he wanted
to destroy them(Rashi)
*7 Balak acted non emotionally---hence he could psychologically
admit that the Jews were a NATION. BILAM, by contrast, acted
out of hatred--he couldn't bring himself to admit that the
Jews were a nation; hence he called the Jews THEM (vs Balak's
THIS NATION). (Note the modern parallel with the initial lack
of recognition of Israeli statehood)
*8 Balak acted POLITICALLY--hence he had to give a reason for
everything ("They are stronger than me"). Bilam acted
EMOTIONALLY---they should be destroyed because they are Jews,
not because they are doing anything
*9 Balak acted POLITICALLY--he just wanted to fire a warning shot
so that the Jews should leave. Bilam acted EMOTIONALLY--he
wanted the Jews destroyed.(Rashi)
*10 Balak acted POLITICALLY--he just wanted the Jews banished
from here (literally, from the "land"). Bilam acted emotionally
and wanted the Jews banished (from existence).(Rashi)
Notice how this last point of Rashi is not a superficial point
on the comparison BANISHED vs BANISHED FROM THE EARTH but
rather is based on the WHOLE SEQUENCE of COMPARISONS that
show that Bilam acted out of hatred while Balak acted
politically.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
We have indicated that Rashi used the WORKBOOK Method here.
We have frequently used this term on other Rashis. Let us
therefore precisely explain what the term WORKBOOK method
means.
We have seen in {LIST1} that there are 10 differences between
the Parshas. Of these 10 differences, 5 are governed by the
REASON theme---that is, Balak had a REASON (political paranoia)
for wanting to get rid of the Jews while Bilam simply wanted
them destroyed out of hatred.
The five differences with the REASON theme occur at footnotes
1,2,3,4 and 8. However Rashi only comments on them at footnotes
2 and 3. Rashi leaves the application of the REASON theme in
footnotes 1,4,8 to the student.
This is what the WORKBOOK method means. The teacher (Rashi)
spells out one or two examples clearly and then allows
several more examples (3 more in our case) as exercises for
the student. Thus Rashi functions as a WORKBOOK where model
problems are done in full and the student is asked to complete
the rest.
Besides the REASON theme there are two other themes--the LANGUAGE
and DESTRUCTION theme. For the DESTRUCTION theme Rashi gives
all 3 examples in full (Footnotes 6,9,10). For the LANGUAGE
theme Rashi gives no examples (Footnotes 5,7).
Thus the Rashi as a whole would correspond to a Grammar or Math
textbook with 3 levels. At the ELEMENTARY level (DESTRUCTION
theme) Rashi would work out all 3 examples and leave none for
the student. At the INTERMEDIATE level (REASON theme) Rashi
gives 2 examples and lets the student derive 3 him/herself.
At the advanced level (LANGUAGE theme) Rashi gives no model
examples and lets the student derive all themselves.
There is much more we could say on using workbooks. For example
Rashi treated the LANGUAGE theme at the advanced level (no
model examples) because the LANGUAGE theme is a matter of TONE.
It is very subtle that Balak said PLEASE but BILAM left out the
word PLEASE or that Balak recognized Jewish NATIONHOOD but Bilam
referred to the nation as THEM. When points are so subtle it
does not help to give model examples--either the student can
figure these points out themselves or not.
The above comments will suffice for now. Other comments on
Rashis form may be found in the footnotes to the lists below
(For example why did Rashi base meaning on full/deficient
spelling, something he never does; why did Rashi give 2
explanations for NCH-BO and why did we ignore the 1st one).
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Alignment of 4-22-5:6 vs 4-22-11. 10 differences are found}
BALAK BILAM
4-22-5:6 4-22-11 FOOTNOTE THEME
=================== ========================== ======== =======
Behold Behold
A nation left Egypt The nation that left Egypt *1 Reason
Behold (it) *2 Reason
covers the earth covers the earth
..in military formation *3 Reason
And therefore *4 Reason
Now Now
Please *5 Language
Go Go
curse intensely curse *6 Destroy
for me for me
this nation them *7 Language
Because they are *8 Reason
more powerful than me
Perhaps I'll be able Perhaps I'll be able
to warning-shot to fight *9 Destroy
them & them &
banish them from here banish them *10 Destroy
FOOTNOTES:
*1 Bilam acted EMOTIONALLY: So he wanted to destry THE nation
By contrast Balak acted POLITICALLY--he was concerned
because "A" nation left (he didn't care which one). This
is further supported by *2 and *3--Balak gave reasons for
what he wanted while Bilam simply wanted to destroy them
because they were Jews.
*2 Bilam acted EMOTIONALLY: They are Jews and hence must be
destroyed. Balak acted POLITICALLY--he had to give REASONS
why he wanted them destroyed. Hence the double BEHOLD BEHOLD
"I don't want them destroyed because they left Egypt but
rather because they are nearby me in military formation"(Rashi)
*3 True they might be camping but they are in a potential
military formation; I am simply concerned about my
safety. Balak acted POLITICALLY and gave reasons.(Rashi)
*4 BILAM acted EMOTIONALLY:So since THAT NATION (the Jews)
left Egypt they must be destroyed.
By contrast BALAK acted POLITICALLY--------------hence
he adds the words "And therefore (Since they are in
potential military formation) go and curse them"
*5 BALAK was acting from political reasons and not out of hatred.
Hence you see polite language (PLEASE go and curse them). BILAM
by contrast was acting out of hatred and was an evil person;
hence we hear no polite language by him.
*6 Balak acted POLITICALLY--he simply wanted the threat away from
him---hence he used a lighter form of curse. BILAM acted out
of hatred and hence wanted a stronger form of curse--he wanted
to destroy them(Rashi)
*7 Balak acted non emotionally---hence he could psychologically
admit that the Jews were a NATION. BILAM, by contrast, acted
out of hatred--he couldn't bring himself to admit that the
Jews were a nation; hence he called the Jews THEM (vs Balak's
THIS NATION). (Note the modern parallel with the initial lack
of recognition of Israeli statehood)
*8 Balak acted POLITICALLY--hence he had to give a reason for
everything ("They are stronger than me"). Bilam acted
EMOTIONALLY---they should be destroyed because they are Jews,
not because they are doing anything
*9 Balak acted POLITICALLY--he just wanted to fire a warning shot
so that the Jews should leave. Bilam acated EMOTIONALLY--he
wanted the Jews destroyed.(Rashi)
*10 Balak acted POLITICALLY--he just wanted the Jews banished
from here (literally, from the "land"). Bilam acted emotionally
and wanted the Jews banished (from existence).(Rashi)
Notice how this last point of Rashi is not a superficial point
on the comparison BANISHED vs BANISHED FROM THE EARTH but
rather is based on the WHOLE SEQUENCE of COMPARISONS that
show that Bilam acted out of hatred while Balak acted
politically.
{LIST2} {MOL can mean the PREPOSITION "OPPOSITE OF" or
it can mean the VERB "TO CUT/DESTROY". FULL (*2) spelling
is used ONLY with the PREPOSITION *1}
VERSE MEANING SPELLING TEXT
===== ======= ======== ============================
2-18-19 OPPOSITE FULL *2 You be opposite us for God
3-5-8 OPPOSITE *3 FULL *2 Head, a little opposite neck
2S5-23 OPPOSITE *3 FULL *2 A little opposite the trees
P118-10 CUT *4 -- *5 I will cut them for God
5-30-6 CUT *4 DEFECTIVE God will cut your heart
Jos5-4 CUT *4 DEFECTIVE Joshua circumcized
FOOTNOTES:
*1 Let us assume for a moment that ML in this verse means
to destroy. Let us, using this assumption, explain the rest
of the verse.
The "M" (from) in M MLi is similar to the "M" in 2-12-4:
"If the house is to small FROM being a whole lamb"
Similarly here the verse would mean "And the Jews are
sitting FROM a cutting of me". In other words in 2-12-4
there are too few people to have a whole lamb while in
our verse it means they are ABOUT to cut me (that is
they are sitting in military formation).
The possesive (i) in MMLi is similar to the possesive
in many verses (e.g. Ps27-4). Thus SHIVTI in Ps27-4 means
MY SITTING. MMLi in this verse would mean MY BEING CUT
Thus the whole verse phrase would mean
"And the Jews are sitting in a position (just a little bit
away) FROM cutting ME off"
A proper treatment of this would require many more lists
but we suffice with the above for now. (As an example of
what else has to be justified, the possesive is used for
the passive tense here (my BEING cut off) while in Ps27-4
it is a possessive active tense (my sitting).
Similarly the above list shows "FROM OPPOSITE" (MMOL) is
used to denote an OPPOSITENESS that is just a LITTLE BIT
AWAY (M=FROM). Again we suffice with the above list for now.
*2 The term FULL means that the Hebrew word is spelled with a VAV
MM-VV-LL (so the word is "filled with a vav"). The term
DEFECTIVE means the word is spelled without the VAV (MM-LL).
There are only 32 occurences of MOL in TNACH. 30 of them are
spelled FULL. By contrast the VERB form is frequently
spelled defectively. Since 4-22-5 has a defective spelling we
conclude it must be a verb and not a preposition.
(One of the MOLs is spelled with an Aleph (Neh12-38)).
*3 These verses have a MEM (FROM OPPOSITE=MMOL) which means a little
bit (FROM) away
*4 This is the standard translation of this verse and is consistent
with the rest of the Psalm. However one could translate the verse
as OPPOSE (I will OPPOSE them in the name of God). Similarly
one could translate e.g. 5-30-6 as "God will oppose your heart"
At any rate MOL=CUT means not so much to cut up/destroy but to
SCRAPE and REMOVE unwanted parts. Thus in circumcision we don't
cut the organ off we scrape it. Similarly the CUTTING OF THE
HEART in 5-30-6 means that God will scrape off the roughage.
Finally it should be pointed out that the root MLL definitely
means to CUT/SCRAPE and is used to denote the withering of
plants (e.g Job18-16, Ps90-6 etc).
In summary the best translation for the verb is to SCRAPE
OFF. (The translation I WILL OPPOSE THEM is bad because ML
means to circumcise which is definitely a cutting off). Using
this translation Balak was afraid the Jews would have border
attacks (for food, water) and scrape off his nation.
Alternatively he was simply afraid of the infringement on space
(as in Prv6-13----MLL = RUB (SCRAPING MOTION)). The reason
we have translated it MOL as CUT/DESTROY is because the English
word SCRAPE applies to surfaces and not to nations. So we
translated the word as CUT and left the full details to the
footnote.
*5 This word is spelled with a YUD--the issue of placing a VAV
does not come up. Hence we have left it blank.
{LIST3} {The Root NCH + the Preposition B means Warning Shot.
The Root NCH + the Preposition ETH means to Destroy}
VERSE TEXT PURPOSE OF HIT PREP
======== ============================= ===================== ====
4-33-4 God hit IN them all firstborn Let my people go IN
1Sa6-19 God hit IN BaisShemesh 70 Honor the Aron IN
2Ch13-17 Aviyah hit IN them many Desist from war*1 IN
2Ch28-5 Aram hit IN the Jews To get them as slaves IN*2
4-22-6 Maybe I can hit IN them Move from near me*3 IN
Jos13-21 That Moses hit them Military conquest ETH
1Sa13-3 Jonathan hit Plishtim Military conquest ETH
1Sa22-19 Hit Nov by the sword Military conquest ETH
FOOTNOTES:
*1 This goal (of getting them to back off vs a goal of destruction)
is clear from the text 2Ch13-4:19
*2 This goal (to get them as slaves) is explicitly stated in the
verse
*3 This is Rashis 2nd explanation(Let me just diminish their numbers
somewhat).Rashi cites Mishnaic language;though as the above list
shows the nuances are Biblical also. It would appear to me that
Balak knew that the Jews were a blessed nation and could not be
destroyed by a curse--therefore he only asked to diminish them
as a warning shot so they wouldn't sit next to him (Because he
was concerned that they would conquer him the way they conquered
Egypt).
I have left to explain Rashi's first explanation. The sifsay
chachamim thinks it is because of singular ("Perhaps I can" )
vs plural ("We will hit them"). This is a valid problem and was
discussed in v2b19-2: If the nation acts as a whole under unified
leadership we use the SINGULAR to discuss the nation--if the
nation acts in factions we use the PLURAL.
In this particular case Balak (as King) was concerned that the
Jews were sitting next to him. They had a potential military
formation. Hence he wanted them out of there. However his nation
was divided-some people considered the Jews a threat while others
did not (Such a division on perception of intention is normal).
Hence Balak says "I and (those factions of) my nation
(that are with me) will fight". The emphasis in Rashi in I AND MY
NATION is that "I am not alone and have backup".
While the above point is true nevertheless the political factions
of Balak had little relevance to his request. The main point in
his request is that Balak only wanted to fire a warning shot and
remove them, he didn't want to destroy them. This explains why
Rashi gave his 2nd explanation. (But as indicated, the 1st
explanation corresponds to a grammatical point and is true).
{LIST4} {KVV is a stronger form of curse than ARH
KVV means to totally destroy;
ARH means to wound/hurt but not necessarily destroy
This is born out by the list below *1}
VERSE ROOT TEXT FOOTNOTES
======== ==== ======================================= =========
1-9-25 ARH Curse be Canaan..he will be a slave *2
1-49-7 ARH Curse be the anger of Shimon/Levi *3
1-3-17 ARH Cursed be the ground *4
Jos9-23 ARH Now you are cursed..you'll be slaves *2
Job3-8 KVV May the day of my birth be cursed *5
Job5-3 KVV The secure wicked..suddenly gets cursed *6
Prv11-26 KVV Cursed be the depriver of the boorish *7
FOOTNOTES:
*1 The ultimate test of the meaning of 2 similar words is from the
list of verses where they occur, not from their etymologies. Thus
although Rashi cites the etymology, that is simply to make the
point more memorable.
As can be seen from the list of verses ARH means to wound/hurt.
KVV only occurs in 4 sets of verses--this makes it difficult to
form a precise opinion. Inferences from small numbers of verses
is a common problem in Biblical exegesis.
We have tried to remedy this problem by comments in the
footnotes.
The bottom line is that ARH **can** be used to denote wounding/
hurting. It is never used in a context where you **must**
interpret it as destruction. By contrast, KVV seems to mean
destruction in 2 out of the 3 verses cited (Since the followup
verses seem to so indicate).
*2 The verse emphasizes he will be a slave (no destruction intended)
*3 The verse emphasizes that "they will be dispersed in Israel"
No destruction intended
*4 Obviously the earth was not destroyed
*5 As is clear from Job3-2:7 the intent was to totally destroy
the day of birth ("May the day of birth be destroyed,dark..)
*6 As is clear from Job5-4:5 the intent of Jo5-3 is that the
person will be cursed=die (Verses 4,5 speak about what will
happen to his possessions and children--hence we assume he
is gone).
*7 An ambiguous verse--We have followed Rashi's approach that
the word BR refers to a boorish PERSON. Other interpretaions
apply it to the PRODUCE. This verse has no follow up. Hence
we cannot conclude whether the word curse here means to
destroy or wound (But since there are only 4 sets of verses
with KVV we brought it down for purposes of completeness).
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
To my sister Amy (Chana) Hendel Bassan for asking me the
question while in High School.
The above explanation of these verses appeared in a different
format in the email group Bais Tefillah Digest 127.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
DOUBLE PARSHAS
USAGE
ROOT+PREPOSITION
SYNONYMS
DOUBLE PARSHAS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*