Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
Http://www.Shamash.Org/Rashi/
Volume 2 Number 19
Produced Jun, 28 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v4q19-22 Question from Chaiim Brown:Who was R Mosheh Hadarshan
v4b17-25 OTH = SYMBOL = MEMORIAL
v2-22-17 RULE: All Biblical examples must be generalized(BINYAN AV)!
v4b5-12 Double noun indicates extension-Rashi picked a good example
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
***************************
*** READING TIPS ***
***************************
IF YOU ARE IN A HURRY WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:
* VERSE:
* RASHI TEXT:
* BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
"HOW DO I FIND QUICKLY A SPECIFIC SECTION?"
ANSWER: Use your FIND menu
For example: FIND VERSE:
takes you to the beginning of the next section.
Similarly
FIND NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
takes you to the brief explanation of Rashi.
"IS THERE AN EASY WAY TO GO TO EACH VERSE AND POSTING?"
Yes. Use your FIND menu.
"FIND #*#*#*#" takes you to the next posting
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
To: rjhendel@juno.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:00:23 EDT
Subject: P' Chukat
Who was R' Moshe haDarshan and why,
after explaining the 'pshat' fully, does
Rashi feel compelled to introduce his
Midrashic comments on the Parah Adumah?
[Moderator: I don't know the history of who various people were.
Perhaps someone on the list who knows these things better wants to
comment.
But Rav Moshe Hadarshan occurs several times in Rashi (e.g. in
Naso at the gifts of the Nesiim).
His commentary is very important. To fully explain it we must
give a short synopsis of Rav Hirsch's beautiful essay on symbolism
which we will do in the near future.
Thanks for the excellent question]
-Chaim
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4b17-25
v4b17-25 For a Watch for a sign to rebellious people
RASHI TEXT:
v4b17-25
For a Memorial that I have chosen Aaron
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
Rashi is simply giving the translation of the word OTH.Alternatively
Rashi is explaining the double INDIRECT OBJECT (For a watch For a
Sign (OTH).
Rashi explains that the word SIGN/SYMBOL means a memorial or a
commemorative. Rav Hirsch in his essay,Groundlines for Jewish
Symbolism translates or explains the word symbol as follows:
>>A Symbol is an
>>--object or
>>--act
>>whose purpose is to remind
>>the user of other
>>--acts,
>>--events or
>>--objects.
Thus the Shabbath is an act of rest on every 7th day. It REMINDS
me of the fact that God rested on the 7th day.
Similarly Tefillin is an object worn on the head. It REMINDS me
that God took me out of Egypt.
Similarly circumcision is a specific act that REMINDS us of the
convenant with Abraham.
These are the only 3 perpetual commandments that are symbolic{LIST1}
In the rest of the essay Rav Hirsch deals with HOW the symbol
reminds one of memory: Normally there is some symbolic link
associating the symbol with the symbolized. But this need not
concern us now.
The sprouted staff of Aaron was a prophetic proof that God chose
Aaron and not the other tribes. Thus that staff could become
a SYMBOL to future generations of the whole Korach incident.
Furthermore by remembering the Korach incident people would be
cautious against starting up with the priesthood.
Thus the whole verse reads as follows:
>>..take Aarons staff and return it ..as a symbol (reminding one
>> of the Korach rebellion) and as a guard for rebellious people
>> so that their complaints against me will end and they will
>> not die.
In other words, the staff symbolizes the rebellion and the
memory of the rebellion in turn guards us against further
rebellion against priests.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
By comparing 2-13-9 and 2-13-15 we see that Rashi actually
derived his translation---SYMBOL=MEMORIAL---from its
explicit parallelism in 2-13-9.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Commandments with the word OTH=SIGN/SYMBOL. The
word symbol denotes an act/object that REMINDS one
of other objects, events. These are the only 3
perpetual commandments that are explicitly called
OTH=SYMBOL in the Bible (Rav Hirsch)}
VERSE COMMANDMENT REMINDS US OF
========= =========== ==========================
2-31-13 Shabbath God created the word *1
1-17-11 Milah Convenant (God-Abraham)
2-13-9 *2 Tefillin Salavation from Egypt
FOOTNOTES
*1 Actually 2-31-13 says that the Sabbath is a symbol that God
sanctifies us. But then in 2-19-8:11 this sanctification is
linked to Gods creation of the world in 6 days and his resting
on the 7th.
* 2 Note that this verse EXPLICITLY places SYMBOL and MEMORIAL
in parallel. Thus Rashi obtained his translation from this verse.
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Grundlinien Einer Judischen Symbolik----Groundlines for
a Jewish Symbolism (reprinted in Rav Hirsch's collected
works, available from Feldheim in English)
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
WORD MEANINGS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: V2-22-17
V2-22-17 A (female) witch, you should not let live
v2a21-28 & When an Ox gores a man...
RASHI TEXT:
v2-22-17 Both male and female witches are included---but
the Torah spoke about female witches since they
are more common
v2a21-28 The laws of damages apply equally to both an
Ox and other animals; the Torah spoke about Oxes
because they are the animals that usually damage
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
There are two approaches to explain these Rashis:
APPROACH #1: The 13 principles of Biblical style enunciated by Rabbi
Ishmael require that (except for sexual prohibitions) ALL examples
be generalized! By contrast, if the Torah wants to restrict a domain
of law to a specific area it will use a GENERAL-SPECIFIC form--so
for example 3-1-2 states that sacrifices come "From the ANIMALS from
OX and SHEEP" and therefore among animals ONLY OX and SHEEP may be
used.
But if the Torah had said to bring Sacrifices from OX and SHEEP then
it would be legitimate to say: "We can bring sacrifices from any
animal---the Torah chose Ox and Sheep because they are the usual
animals that are sacrificed".
{LIST1} brings a small collection of examples of verses that are
generalized in law. Thus 2-21-28 speaks about an OX goring but
the laws of damage apply to any animal goring. Similarly 2-22-17
speaks about a death sentence for a female witch but the law applies
to any witch(male or female). These two examples are brought down
by Rashi.
Some further examples are as follows: 2-22-1 says that if you
find a thief digging into your house and kill him you are not
liable for murder (since the presumption is that the thief would
kill you had you not killed him). The same law applies when you
find a thief in any place in the house (eg a roof, not just in a
dugged tunnel). The Torah only chose the dug tunnel because that
is the usual way thiefs rob (Rambam Thefts 9:8).
Rav Hirsch in his commentary brings the following beautiful example:
Every husband is obligated to provide his wife with food, shelter,
clothing and marital visits. The Torah however does not state this
on all wives but only states this on female minor slaves that
were married during their period of work (2-21-7:11). The law is
then generalized to all wives (slave or free).
This principle we have stated--that all examples in the Torah must
be generalized--does not apply if the Torah explicitly limited the
law to some case by use of words like ONLY, THIS. The last two
examples in {LIST1} show this.
For example we're obligated to sit in Succoth on the holiday called
Succoth in Tishray. By right we should generalize this and sit in
Succoth on EVERY holiday (such as Passover). After all the Succah
simply commemorates that God protects us and this theme, of God
protecting us, should exist on every holiday.
However the reason we don't sit in Succoth on Passover is because
the Torah explicitly says: ON THIS 7th MONTH (TISHRAY) YOU SHOULD
SIT IN THE SUCCOTH (3-23-34). The word THIS indicates that the
SUCCAH-SUCCOTH law only applies in the 7th month and may not be
generalized (The restriction of the law based on the word LIST
is brought down in the Sifrah)
Similarly it is well known that intentional murder is punished by
death and accidental murder is punished by exile to one of the 48
refuge cities. Again, this example should be generalized so that
ANY capital crime is punished by exile if done by accident. So
for example a child who accidentally wounded his father (a capital
crime if done intentionally) should be exiled. Here too the
attempted generalization is thwarted by the repeated expression HE
is a murderer (& exiled) (But no one else is) (Sifray 4-35:15,17,18)
(Interestingly the Rambam brings the non applicability of the exile
law to people who wound their parents in his code--Murder 7:15--see
the KeSeF MishNeh--The fact that the Rambam brings down this non
applicability is further supportive proof that generalization of
examples is the NORM in Biblical exegesis)
APPROACH #2: The above approach---to learn the capital nature of
witch laws, whether to men or women--is sound and is solidly
backed by a list. Nevertheless, there is another approach to
learning the applicability of the death penalty to both men and
women in 2-22-17. For there is a famous talmudic passage (Baba
Kama 15) that derives that ALL Biblical laws (unless specified
otherwise) apply to BOTH men and women {LIST2}.
Indeed 3-20-27 EXPLICITLY says IF A MAN OR A WOMAN HAVE AN OV
OR YIDONI (A FORM OF WITCHCRAFT) THEN THEY WILL DIE BY STONING
The Biblical phrase MAN OR WOMAN also occurs in 4-5-6 regarding
the obligation to bring a sacrifice to atone on sins and in
2-21-28:29 regarding the responsibility of owners of animals
to pay a fine if their animals kill a human. Furthermore 2-21-1
speaks about the commandments that are placed before THEM, the
THEM referring to the Men and women who received the decalogue
(2-19-3).
The Talmud now generalizes these 4 examples and says that both
men and women are affected in all Biblical situations whether
with regard to spiritual atonement (4-5-6), protection of
life (2-21-28:29), punishment (3-20-27) or civil laws (2-21:22).
Indeed, the Talmud points out that these verses negate the
possibility of applying certain laws to men only, simply because
they have more commandments. By selecting verses from each area
the Torah clearly indicates its intent to generalize all Biblical
laws to both men and women.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
Rashi on 2-22-17 generalizes (female) witch to male witch. However
Rashi on Sanhedrin 57-58 learns the applicability of death sentence
to male witches from the explicit MAN OR WOMAN (3-20-27). The fact
that Rashi vacilates between these two approaches seems to prove
that they are both equally valid. Indeed, one approach focuses the
generalization on the crime while the other approach focuses the
generalization on the sinner (male or female).
I point out that Rambam and Rashi use different verses
2-21-28 and 2-21-35 to learn that tort laws apply to all animals.
Again the theme seems to be that ALL Biblical examples are
generalizable---different commentators will pick different
examples.
Finally I should mention that I have occasionally seen alternate
approaches to some of the other verses in {LIST1}. For example,
2-22-1 is generalized so that if a thief is caught in ANY part
of the house (not just in a tunnel he dug) he may be killed (in
self defense). The Meciltah learns this from the ORDER of the
Biblical sentence. The INDIRECT OBJECT---VERB order (If in the
Tunnel the thief is found) versus the usual VERB--INDIRECT OBJECT
order indicates that the example should be generalized. We
however will not discuss this further now since the other examples
in {LIST1} prove our point.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {List of Biblical laws which are GENERALIZED from the
specific Biblical examples brought down. In each verse
a law is stated as applying to a specific example but
Jewish law generalizes this specific example so that it
applies to all examples. This is one of the 13 principles
of Rabbi Ishamel--the principle of Generalization}
VERSE TEXT GENERALIZATION
========= ====================== ===========================
2-22-17 Female witch dies Any witch dies
2-21-28 Pay for ox damages Any animal damages
2-22-1 Thief caught in tunnel Thief caught in roof/garden
2-21-7:11 Female slave's rights Wifes rights
3-23-24 Succah on Sccth Succah on Passover *1
4-35 Accident murder exiles Accidental wound parents*2
FOOTNOTES
*1 In other words if 3-23-24 had not said ON THIS 7th MONTH SIT
IN THE SUCCAH then I would have required sitting in the succah on
all holidays (like Passover) since it commemorates God taking us
out of Egypt
*2 Rambam 7:15--Without the repeated statement HE IS A MURDERER
it would have been legitimate to generalize and apply the exile-
for-accident laws to any capital crime (like wounding ones parents)
{LIST2} {List of verses that explicitly apply to BOTH men and women
Note how the verses cover all Biblical areas--civil,
spiritual, punishment and protection of property/life. The
talmud generalizes these 4 examples to infer that all laws
apply equally to men/women (unless specified otherwise}
VERSE ATTRIBUTE SUBJECT
========== ================== ============================
3-20-27 Death Penalty Death Penalty for witchcraft
4-5-6 Spiritual needs Atonement offerings on theft
2-21-28:29 Protection of life Pay for animal killing human
2-21-1 Civil Law *1 Chapter on Civil-tort laws
FOOTNOTES:
*1 In the first 3 verses the Bible says MAN OR WOMAN. In the
last verse (2-21-1) the Bible says "These are the laws that
you should place before THEM"--the THEM refers to the people
receiving the decalog which in 2-19-3 refers both to the MEN
(Children of Israel) and the WOMEN (House of Israel)--it is
also clear that men/women heard the decalogue since the laws
apply to both sexes and it explicitly says THE WHOLE NATION
heard it (2-20-15--emphasis on WHOLE).
CROSS REFERENCES:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Rambam Torts 1:1---The Rambam uses 2-21-35 vs 2-21-28
v2b25-22 RabbiIshmael
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
RabbiIshmael
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v4b5-12
v4b5-12 A man, A man when his wife goes astray
v4a17-28 Whoever comes near, whoever comes near ..will die
RASHI TEXT:
v4b5-12 "A man, A man"-- The word man occurs twice because
she betrays 2 people--her husband and God (who is called
a "man" of war (2-15-3).
v4a17-28--"Whoever comes near, whoever comes near"---
All of us can come into the courtyard; if someone then
pushed his friend who went into the temple itself then
that person would die
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
The bottom line is as follows: Any repetition of nouns is peculiar
(since at the very least a pronoun could have been used). A
classical method of treating repeated nouns is to assume the second
noun is different than the first noun and to give the two nouns
together a broader (vs a restrictive) interpretation. For example
3-23-32 says that you observe Yom Kippur from "Eve to Eve". So the
Midrashic comment (brought in the Sifrah) is that "Eve" by itself
would denote EVENING (after sunset) while "Eve to Eve" with
repetition is interpreted more liberally: Even during sunset.{LIST1}
The phrase "A MAN A MAN" occurs about half a dozen times in halachic
sections of Chumash {LIST2}. Using the above method we would say
that a MAN by itself would just denote a MAN while A MAN A MAN is
interpreted more liberally. For example it might denote a
hermophordite (half man half woman) or two people that did something
TOGETHER. Similarly the phrase "ALL THAT COME NEAR" would denote
someone that just walked up and came near to the temple while the
double phrase ALL THAT COME NEAR ALL THAT COME NEAR would denote
any type of coming near (say by being pushed in a crowd--something
not completely intentional but nevertheless avoidable).
Notice that all we have said so far is that the repetition denotes
SOME TYPE of more general interpretation. We have not yet committed
outselves to any particular type of more general interpretation. As
we shall see in the other examples of a MAN A MAN there is no
concensus on a method of interpretation. Consequently Rashi picked
a good nifty example that illustrates the general idea & left
it at that.
In other words Rashi does not want you walking away from these
verses with a specific interpretation but rather Rashi wants you
walking away from these verses with the principle that repetition
connotes a more general interpretation. To make sure you remember
this idea Rashi picked a good example.
The interested reader can stop here. Those however who wish to
can examine the rich confusion in the talmudic and midrashic
treatments of the half a dozen times that A MAN A MAN occurs
and see Rashis' genius in leaving out any commentary on the
other verses and picking the example he did on this verse.
For convenience I have placed these observations in the COMMENTS
ON RASHIS FORM section.
Finally I recall to the reader the principle of STAGES which
states that every Midrash happens in two stages (v1n14 v1a32-15):
The GENERAL STAGE where the idea is set forth (for example the
idea that "man" is interpreted liberally) and the DETAIL stage
where the idea is concretized to fit the verse. Using this concept
we can reformulate our approach as follows: All agree on the GENERAL
idea that 4-5-12 indicates more liberal interpretation.
However there is so much controversy on the DETAIL stage that Rashi
thought it better not to commit himself to any particular
interpretation.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
Let us go thru the other verses where "A MAN A MAN" occurs:
3-17-8 A MAN A MAN that offers a sacrifice outside the temple
The talmud (Zevachim 108) takes this to refer to the
case where 2 people held the animal and offered it (So
it wasn't a man that did it but 2 people together).
Sounds ok--but by contrast the identical phrase
in 3-17-3 is not interpreted that way. In fact...
3-17-3 A MAN a A MAN that slaughters a sacrifice outside the temple
If 2 people held the knife and slaughtered it they are not
liable while if 2 people held the organ and offered it
they are liable. Thus the exact same phrase is NOT
interpreted the same way. No wonder then Rashi made no
commentary on 3-17-8.
The Talmud on Zevachim 66 says that A MAN A MAN includes
all people (women, bisexual etc). But the Tosafoth on that
page wryly points out that the Talmud itself derives that
women and men are equal in terms of prohibition from other
verses in Baba Kama 15. True, Tosafoth answers this
refutation by suggesting that
--blanket texts apply to men/women (Baba Kama 15)
--texts with A MAN apply only to men
--texts with A MAN A MAN apply to men/women.
But that tosafoth is refuted by the fact that the talmud
itself does not interpret A MAN A MAN in 3-17-8 and
3-18-6 that way but uses it for other extensions.
Furthermore 3-17-3 could simply have said "If anyone
slaughters (without giving a subject)". Thus I think this
tosafoth must be viewed as an attempt to interpret rather
than as an actual account of interpretation.
Even if one does not want to consider the Tosafoth refuted
we can still see why Rashi did not comment on 3-17-3---
because the Talmud in Baba Kama gives a more straightforward
proof that men and women are equal.
In passing I mention a possible defense of the Tosafoth:
3-17-3,8,10,13 all have the phrase A MAN A MAN. The first
3 verses speak about a person from THE HOUSE of Israel
while 3-17-13 speaks about a person from the SONS
OF ISRAEL. But 3-17-13 is speaking about hunting (you have
to cover the blood after slaughtering an animal). Hunting
is usually done by men (and hence the SONS OF ISRAEL vs
the HOUSE OF ISRAEL). So I might legitimately think that
these laws only apply to men. Therefore the repetition
A MAN A MAN enlarges the scope of the law to refer to women.
Such a midrash (brought down in Torah Shlaymah) would
fit in nicely with the Tosafoth. But it does seem to go
against the Talmudic derivation (Baba Kama 15) of equality
of sexes. So while a defense of Tosafoth is possible we
must still clarify what EXTRA verses are needed to include
male/female besides those brought down in Baba Kama.
3-18-6 Again the phrase A MAN A MAN FROM THE JEWISH PEOPLE
(Speaking about adultery) here is taken to refer to Jews
and Non Jews (So A MAN FROM THE JEWS usually denotes
Jewish men while A MAN A MAN denotes both Jews and non
Jews. (Talmud Sanhedrin 57-58)
Although this is accepted halachah it is certainly a strange
midrash to derive applicability to non jews from the
repetition of A MAN A MAN (indeed this is one of the few
mitzvoth where non jews are brought in!). Again we can see
why Rashi left out a midrash so bizarre.
4-5-12 A MAN A MAN when his wife commits adultery.
Quite amusingly here the Talmud (Sotah 27) derives that
the repetition of A MAN A MAN means that the suspected wife
laws of 4-5 apply to ALL men (even eg men in prison or
marriages with deaf people etc). I say "amusingly" because
even though such a midrash is sound and logical it is NOT
the halacha. Again we can appreciate why Rashi left out
a midrash which is not accepted halachah.
The above list of verses and the attempted Midrashs are summarized
in {LIST2}. I inadvertently left out 4-9-10. Two things are clear:
--repetition suggests a more liberal interpretation
--there is no consensus on what this repetition teaches us
So Rashi Is Simple. He simply taught the general idea and left out
any details.
We have completed the first of our tasks--we have shown why Rashi
hardly ever commented on A MAN A MAN. We must now complete the 2nd
task:Why did he chose the Midrash he did (After all it looks quite
exotic---couldn't he have picked something simpler).
Upon reviewing the rich literature on this verse I have found that
it covers 4 broad areas: The legal, the social, the theological,
and the racial--in other words extensions of the word/concept MAN
can occur in any of these areas.
LEGAL--As just indicated the Talmud Sotah 27 says that A MAN A MAN
includes men that we would not think the law applies to
such as those in prison (who are not in a position to be
jealous about their wife) or deafmutes etc...
SOCIAL--The Midrash says a MAN a MAN applies to all TYPES of men:
Whether the man is normally picky on his wife or whether
the man is normally easygoing on his wife. In fact one
Midrash derives proper manners from this repetition:
Normally you should overlook things your wife does (like
accidentally break things etc); but you should be possesive
if you see her doing unseemly things.
RACIAL--Another midrash says that a MAN A MAN applies to all
genealogies---whether it be a priest, levite or israelite.
But this is so obvious we don't need a verse.
THEOLOGICAL--We have enunciated the basic principle above that
we treat the two repeated nouns as having (slightly)
different meanings.
So Rashi Is Simple--if you want to teach a principle you
exaggerate it---the first A MAN refers to the husband;
the 2nd A MAN refers to GOD (who is called a man as in
Ex 15-3).
In summary Rashi was concerned that when you walk away from the
verse you should carry the flavor of the principle; so he picked an
exaggerated example of that principle (MAN #1 = husband, MAN #2=
God) so that people could understand that the repetition denotes
an extension.
Using this principle the student can then go on and understand
other midrashim as well as halachic attempts to infer from the
repetition.
We have frequently seen that Rashi will pick gematrias or
exaggerations to make a principle more memorable. v1z45-14
is a good example of this.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Of Repeated nouns in the same verse (Courtesy of Malbim)*1}
THE NOUN REFERS APPLICATION
TO TWO OBJECTS OF THIS
VERSE REPEATED NOUN THAT ARE SIMILAR PRINCIPLE
(Is in Caps) THESE 2 OBJECTS ARE OF TWO OBJECTS *2
----- ------------- ------- -----------
3-1-5 Offer BLOOD Blood in vessel Even spilled blood
Throw BLOOD Blood spilled on floor can be thrown
on altar (not just
blood properly
collected)
3-27-14 Sanctify HOUSE House=House These sanctify/
3-27-15 Redeem his HOUSE House=Possesions redeems laws apply
Either to a house
or a house with
possessions
3-23-32 On EVE of 9th Eve = After Sunset Don't eat on the
From the EVE Eve = During Sunset day prior to Yom
Kippur right up
to sunset. Rather
start the fast
prior to sunset
FOOTNOTES:
* 1
See Chapter 15 of Malbims beautiful Morning Star for a long list of
verses with double nouns--Morning Star occurs at beginning of his
commentary on Leviticus.
* 2
Nouns are never repeated if you can use a pronoun or suffix. There
are a variety of methods of treating double nouns. One of them being
that each noun refers to a DIFFERENT item (as shown in the list
below). In general repetition denotes EMPHASIS. The emphasis can
be by limitation or even by extension. For example, BLOOD BLOOD
denotes ANY blood even if it was spilled out of the temple vessel
HOUSE HOUSE denotes ANY aspect of the house (including its contents).
{LIST2} {Of verses with A MAN A MAN. All attempts see the repetition
as denoting a more liberal interpretation. However the
details of this liberalness have no concensus. Thus Rashi
simply teaches us the general idea of liberal interpretation
but leaves out any mention of details}
VERSE A MAN A MAN means? SOURCE SUBJECT OF VERSE
====== ==================== ============ ==========================
3-17-8 2 men do it together Zevachim 108 Offerings outside temple
3-17-3 bisexual people Zevachim 66 Slaughter outside temple*1
3-18-6 Non Jews Sanhedrin 57 Incestuous relationships
4-5-12 Even men in prison Sotah 27 Suspect wife ceremony *2
FOOTNOTES:
*1 Note that even though 3-17-3 and 3-17-8 sound alike nevertheless
3-17-8 by law applies even if two men together offered up the
animal while 3-17-3 by law does NOT apply if two men offered
up the anaimal together. The attempt to apply 3-17-3 to
women is seen as weak since the general equivalence of men and
women is learned from more explicit verses in Baba Kama 15
*2 This is NOT the halachah. If the wife of a prison inmate is
behaving improperly the court does NOT have the right to make
her go thru the suspect-wife ceremony. The most reasonable
interpretation of 4-5-12 applies to varied social types...
the woman must go thru the ceremony whether her husband is
the possesive type or easy going type.
4-5-12 A MAN A MAN when his wife commits adultery.
Quite amusingly here the Talmud (Sotah 27) derives that
the repetition of A MAN A MAN means that the suspected wife
laws of 4-5 apply to ALL men (even eg men in prison or
marriages with deaf people etc). I say "amusingly" because
even though such a midrash is sound and logical it is NOT
the halacha. Again we can appreciate why Rashi left out
a midrash which is not accepted halachah.
CROSS REFERENCES:
v1-39-11 Treatment of the REPETITION principle
v1a32-15 Principle of stages
v1z45-14 Example of how Rashi exaggerates principles
v3a13-49 Note that doubling of ROOT letters denotes
INTENSITY while doubling of WORDS or PHRASES
denotes a MORE LIBERAL interpretation. Indeed
the DOUBLE ROOTS usually denote a more INTENSE
form than the LAMED HEY roots.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
To Eric Simon for raising this most interesting question
in v2n15.
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
DOUBLE NOUNS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*