Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume Number
Produced Oct, 11 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v1b4-22
Genealogy is normally PATERNAL.SIBLING GENEALOGY
indicates a special caring (big brother or big sister)
eg (a) Shimon/ Levi are brothers of Dinah because they
fought for her (1-34), (b)Brother-sister relationships
helped in marriages in 3 verses(1-4-22)
v1z4-9
HAY=QUESTION:(a)Ordinary case: HAY + CHATAF PATACH
(1-4-9).(b)Before a guttural: HAY+ PATACH (4-32-6);
(c)Before a shva: HAY+PATACH+ DAGESH (4-13-20).(d)Before
a shva + [libial or yud] :HAY + PATACH(1-18-17)(1-29-5).
Query emphasis is also discussed.
v1z1-1
New list illuminates Rashis 1st approach to 1-1-1: 'In
the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth the
earth was formless...'. List shows that a non infinitive
verb can occur in a construct phrase.The 2nd approach
was previously explained (v1b1-1)
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1b4-22
v1b4-22 The sister of Tuval Kayin was Naamah
RASHI TEXT:
v4-22-3 Naamah was Noach's wife
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
---Genealogy in the Bible is normally PARENT centered.
Several examples of this are the genealogies in say 1Chr1:10
---Biblical USAGE only speaks of people as "sisters" when
the "Brothers" have behaved like BIG BROTHERS and
tried to help their "sisters" (or vice versa).
We give a few examples.
--Example 1: Shimon and Levi are called Dinah's brothers because
they waged war for her (and acted as big brothers)(1-34)
--Example 2: Cazbi is called the sister of Midyan since she
prostituted for them (Acting as big sister) and helped bring
the downfall of the Jews (4-25-18)
--Example 3: Elisheva, Machlath, and Naamah are mentioned as
the sisters of Nachson, Nevayoth, and Tuval Kayin apparently
because they had a good sibling relationship which formed the
basis for relating to peers of the opposite sex.
In fact, similarity of husband and brother-in-law is one good
test (though not the only one) that a marriage will be good
since there is consequently a basis for a purely human
relationship in the marriage based on past experience. It
is for this reason that Rashi mentions either
>marriage or the
>compatability of husbands and brother-in-laws
on these 3 verses.
From a logical point of view, since Noach built an ark and
since Tuval Kayin was 'father of all builders' it made sense
that Noach and Naamah (Tuval Kayin sister) was a good match.
Indeed, she could empathize with all the frustrations and
joys of the construction business and help Noach throughout
life.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
Rashi mentions that Naamah married Noach. From the LIST point
of view we would more modestly say that Noach and Tuval-Kayin
were a "good match". Rashi could picturesquely describe this
good match by saying they actually were married.
From the point of view of this email list, the important thing
to emphasize is that there is a RULE
>brother-sister genealogies indicate caring
>brother-in-law==husband relations indicate a good marriage
and that this rule is not sporadic but can be backed by a
list.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {Of people genealogically called "sisters".Genealogy
is PARENT FOCUSED in the Bible. Sibling genealogy is
only mentioned when there is some special caring
sibling act of brother for sister (or vice versa)}
VERSE SISTER BROTHER ACT OF BROTHER FOR SISTER
======= ======= ============= =========================
1-34-25 Dinah Simon-Levi Waged war for her(1-34)
4-25-18 Cazbi Midian-Nation She prostituted for them*1,2
2-6-23 Elisva Nachson He "married her" to Aaron
1-28-9 Machlth Nevayoth He "married her" to Esauv
1-4-22 Naamah Tuval-Kayin He "married her" to Noach*3
1-25-20 Rivkah Laban Helped her recognize criminals*4
4-26-59 Miriam Moses-Aaron The both petitioned for her(4-12)
FOOTNOTES
*1 Only the first 3 cases are mentioned by the Mechiltah
Nevertheless, when Rashi uses a principle, unless that principle
can be universally applied it has no validity. It would take too
long to go over every case (in this issue) but I did want to bring
them down and show the general idea. To make the list short I only
brought down Biblical examples. Note how CD ROMS would NOT help
us here since the list uses many keywords: SISTER OF, THEIR SISTER,
BROTHERS etc.
*2 In other words (See 4-31-16 for an explicit statement)--she,
as part of a war effort, deliberately seduced strategic people
so that God should be angry with the Jewish people. Note how
in this case she acted as "big sister" for her nation.
*3 The preceding 3 examples were NOT brought down by the
Mechiltah. Nevertheless they fit into the general pattern.
Note how Rashi explicitly mentions marriage in 2-6-23,1-4-22,&
1-28-9. Rashi's statement that Tuval-Kayin married Naamah to
Noach is a) is consistent with the other members of ths list
and b) it would seem logical that Noach who built an ark needed
the "father of utensils"--Tuval Kayin--Naamahs brother.
*4 See Rashi here. There are numerous references to the fact
that Rivkah learned how to recognize "criminal behavior" in
her fathers-brothers house and this helped her marriage to Isaac.
Again, we will go into this in a future issue
CROSS REFERENCES:
v2z16-15 Note the above list corrects the omission
v2b16-15 of the explicit Rashi on v4c22-3.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
USAGE
SQL {Database query comments for those who know Database theory}:
SELECT Verses FROM Bible WHERE
Verses.Meaning.Genealogy=True
SORT by Verses.Meaning.Genealogy.GenealogicalRelation
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1z4-9
v1z4-9 Am I my brothers keeper?
v1d18-25 Will the world's ruler not do justice?
v1b16-13 Even here(in the wilderness)I see God?
v1a18-17 Will I hide from Abraham what I'm doing?
v1-41-38 Can a person like Joseph be found?
v1a29-15 Because you're my brother you wont get paid?
v1-27-38 Didn't you leave me a blessing?
RASHI TEXT:
v1z4-9 Rashi points out that a question is being asked
v1d18-25 Rashi points out that a question is being asked
v1b16-13Rashi points out that a question is being asked
v1a18-17 Rashi points out that a question is being asked
v1-41-38 Rashi points out that a question is being asked
v1a29-15 Rashi points out that a question is being asked
v1-27-38 Rashi points out that a question is being asked
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
This completes and corrects the
>RULES FOR THE INTERROGATIVE HAY begun last week
We have amassed about a dozen Rashis. It turns out that
for every case there is exactly one Rashi. This is all
illustrated in {LIST1}; The rules are summarized in {LIST2}.
We briefly go over them. Suppose you want to ask a question.
CASE 1: In the ordinary typical case--
------- >Place a HAY before the word with a chataf patach
>EXAMPLE: Ha SHOMAY Achi (1-4-9)
CASE 2a,c: The question beguns with a guttural letter.
--------- >Then place a HAY before the word with a patach.
>EXAMPLE: HA ACAYCHEM (4-32-6)
CASE 2b: The question beguns with CHeth+Kamatz.
------- >Then place a HAY before the word with a SEGOL.
>EXAMPLE: He ChaZaK (4-13-18)
CASE 3a: The question begins with a letter with a Shva
------- >Then place a HAY before the word, with a PATACH,
>with a Dagesh Chazak in the following word.
>EXAMPLE: HA-ShMayNah (4-18-20)
CASE 3b: The question begins with a libial letter with a Shva
------- >Then place a HAY before the word, with a PATACH,
and leave the libial word withOUT a Dagesh
>EXAMPLE: HA MCaSeh (1-18-17), HVRaCah (1-27-38)
CASE 3c: The question begins with a YUD with a shva
------- > Then place a HAY before the word with a patach.
>EXAMPLE: HA YeDaTeM (1-29-5)
Further insights may be found in the COMMENTS ON RASHIS
FORM SECTION.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
We make 3 points.
RASHI, THE KING OF DATABASES
----------------------------
It is remarkable to see Rashis exquisite pedagogic ability. If
you go to libraries you find stuffy books with many
examples on the interrogative HAY but not all cases.
But Rashi with a few deft strokes covered all cases;
exactly one Rashi for each case. Genius, Detail and Elegance
all combined into one. For further details on this
>one rashi per rule
see the footnotes to {LIST2} and {LIST3}.
THE EMPHASIS IN A QUESTION
--------------------------
There are 4 Rashis left where Rashi was not illustrating
cases of the Rule for the interrogative HAY. Why then did
Rashi enumarate these cases. {LIST3} provides an answer.
We first introduce the idea of QUESTION EMPHASIS.
Every question has an emphasis. For example the question
>Is it TO THE STORE you drove this afternoon?
really means did you go to the
>STORE, or THE MOVIES or A VISIT
Or, to put it still another way, the above question is
equivalent to the question of
>WHERE did you go today
By contrast if the emphasis was on the last half of the
question then it would be read as follows
>Is it to the store you drove THIS AFTERNOON
This really means did you go to the store
>this AFTERNOON, or this MORNING or this EVENING
Or to put it still another way the above question is
equivalent to the question of
>WHEN did you go to the store.
Thus we see that every question has an EMPHASIS which indicates
WHAT IS BEING asked. Normally in Hebrew, the EMPHASIS is on the
first word of the question; when however the EMPHASIS is on the
last half of the verse Rashi will make a comment TO INFORM us
that the emphasis is on the last half of the verse. This is
how the Sifsay Chachamim brilliantly explains the two Rashis
where the emphasis is on the second half of the verse.
Thus in 1-18-25 we have Abraham asking
>Will the Ruler of the world NOT DO JUSTICE
The emphasis is on the last half of the verse. Abraham
was not asking
>Shouldn't someone else be doing injustice
but rather he was asking
>Is it INJUSTICE that you will do.
3) TWO REMAINING RASHIS REQUIRE MISCELLANEOUS CLASSIFICATION
------------------------------------------------------------
*2 There are two other Rashis where Rashi explains
>HAY = QUESTION
even though
>He is not illustrating any case of the Rule
and even though
>the emphasis is on the first half of the verse.
In v1-41-38, Pharoh asks
>Is there found a person like Joseph.
Rashi explains this question by pointing out that the passive
mood
>Is there found
should more accurately be translated as an active voice
>If we tried to find such a person would we.
It is this translation of the passive to active that requires
illumination by Rashi.
Similarly in v1b16-13 Hagar asks
>Is is here also (in the wilderness) that I see God
Rashi's goal is to explain the word ALSO. Rashi points out
that HAGAR besides seeing this Angel saw the 3 angels that
visited Abraham in 1-18. Rashi notes that although Manoach
thought he would die from seeing one Angel (Jud13-22)
nevertheless Hagar did not show any special emotions at seeing
angels as apparently that was quite common in Abrahams house.
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
{LIST1} {List of the 3 main methods of indicating a question
The list of cases is presented in {LIST2}}
WORD CASE NOTE Rashi? VERSE
============ ==== ==== ====== ======
HA ACHAYCHEM 2a *1 Rashi 4-32-6
HA CHIYITHEM 2a *1 4-31-15
HA HAYMIR 2a *1 Jer2-11
HA AL AYLEH 2a *1 Is57-6
HE CHAZAK 2b *1 4-13-18
Ha RAFEH 2c *1 4-13-18
Ha YESH 1 *1 4-13-20
Ha MIN 1 *1 Rashi 1-3-11
Ha SHOMAYR 1 *1 Rashi 1-4-9
HA-BEMACHANIM 3a *1 4-13-19
HA-SMAYNAH 3a *1 4-13-20
HA MAT 3b *1 4-13-18
HA MAT 3b *1 1-30-15
HA MCASEH 3b *1 Rashi 1-18-17
HA CZONAH 3b *1 1-34-31
HA VSOD 3b *1 Job15-8
HA AMINON 2-3 *1 2S13-20
HA YDATEM 3c *1 1-29-5
FOOTNOTES
*1 We use the following notation
HA = HAY + PATACH
Ha = HAY + CHATAF PATACH
HE = HAY + SEGOL
HA-= HAY + DAGESH IN FOLLOWING WORD
{LIST2} {LIST of cases for the INTERROGATIVE HAY}
DESCRIPTION RULE EXAMPLE VERSE CASE
=============== ===================== =========== ====== ====
Ordinary Case HAY + CHATAF PATACH Ha Shomayr 1-4-9 1*1
Before Guttural Hay + PATACH HA ACHAYCHM 4-32-6 2a*1
Before CH+Kmtz Hay + Segol HE CHAZAK 4-13-18 2b
Before Resh Hay + Chataf Patach Ha Rafeh 4-13-18 2c
Before Shva Hay + PATACH + DAGESH HA-Smaynah 4-13-20 3a*1
Bef Shva+BGDKFT Hay + Patach HA MCASEH 1-18-17 3b*1
Bef Shva+BGDKFT Hey + Patach HA VRACAH*3 1-27-38 3b*1
Before Shva+Yud Hey + Patach HA YDATEM 1-29-5 3c
FOOTNOTES
*1 These verses have Rashis. There is no Rashi on 4-13-20 but Rashi
brings this example on v1-27-38. Note Rashis Database mind--he
brings exactly one Rashi for each case (The 2 Rashis for case 3b
are explained in footnote 2). Case 2b has no Rashi since the use
of segol is consistent with the rules for indicative HAY. A similar
comment can be made about the absence of a Rashi for case 3c.
Case 2c is of course not a separate case but absorbed in case 2a--we
brought it for purposes of completeness since "R" is sometimes
classified as a guttural and sometimes not. In summary Rashi
carefully placed exactly one Rashi for each case of the Rule. The
4 "extra" Rashis which point out the interrogative HAY are
explained in {LIST3}.
*2 Compare Job15-8, HVSOD, with "V" not "B" (according to Aleppo).
Rashi brought two examples for case 3b--one was to show the
punctuation on the HAY and the other to show the punctuation on
the B.
{LIST3} {The brilliancy of the Sifsay Chachamim. Rashi as we
have seen explains that HAY can mean a QUESTION and
does so with exactly ONE RASHI for EACH CASE of the
question rule. This is powerfully exhibited in {LIST2}
and shows Rashi's Database mind. But there are 4 Rashis
left over where Rashi explains the HAY=QUESTION. The
Sifsay Chachamim shows that 2 of these Rashis have the
emphasis of the question in the SECOND HALF of the verse
and therefore Rashi had to point out what the question
is. See footnote *1 for further elaboration. Footnote
*2 explains the remaining 2 Rashis}
WHERE IS
QUESTION
VERSE TEXT OF QUESTION IN VERSE
======== =============================================== ========
v1z4-9 Is it FROM THE FORBIDDEN TREE you ate 1st half
v1-34-31 Is it LIKE A PROSTITUTE that she be treated? 1st half
v1-27-38 Are there NO BLESSINGS left for me? 1st half
v1a29-15 Since you're my brother you'd WORK FOR NOTHING? 2nd half
v1d18-25 Will the Ruler of the world NOT DO JUSTICE? 2nd half
FOOTNOTES
*1 Every question has an emphasis. For example the question
>Is it TO THE STORE you drove this afternoon?
really means did you go to the
>STORE, or THE MOVIES or A VISIT
Or, to put it still another way, the above question is
equivalent to the question of
>WHERE did you go today
By contrast if the emphasis was on the last half of the
question then it would be read as follows
>Is it to the store you drove THIS AFTERNOON
This really means did you go to the store
>this AFTERNOON, or this MORNING or this EVENING
Or to put it still another way the above question is
equivalent ot the question of
>WHEN did you go to the store.
Thus we see that every question has an EMPHASIS which indicates
WHAT IS BEING asked. Normally in Hebrew, the EMPHASIS is on the
first word of the question; when however the EMPHASIS is on the
last half of the verse Rashi will make a comment TO INFORM us
that the emphasis is on the last half of the verse. This is
how the Sifsay Chachamim brilliantly explains the two Rashis
where the emphasis is on the second half of the verse.
*2 There are two other Rashis where Rashi explains
>HAY = QUESTION
even though
>He is not illustrating any case of the Rule
and even though
>the emphasis is on the first half of the verse.
In v1-41-38, Pharoh asks
>Is there found a person like Joseph.
Rashi explains this question by pointing out that the passive
mood
>Is there found
should more accurately be translated as an active voice
>If we tried to find such a person would we.
It is this translation of the passive to active that requires
illumination by Rashi.
Similarly in v1b16-13 Hagar asks
>Is is here also (in the wilderness) that I see God
Rashi's goal is to explain the word ALSO. Rashi points out
that HAGAR besides seeing this Angel saw the 3 angels that
visited Abraham in 1-18. Rashi notes that although Manoach
thought he would die from seeing one Angel (Jud13-22)
nevertheless Hagar did not show any special emotions at seeing
angels as apparently that was quite common in Abrahams house.
CROSS REFERENCES:
v1b3-11
v4-32-6
v1c4-9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
SQL {Database query comments for those who know Database theory}:
SELECT Verse.Phrase FROM Bible WHERE
Verse.Phrase.Meaning.Question = True and
Verse.Phrase.Beginning = 'Hay'
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1z1-1
BACKGROUND
----------
Some background. Mark Lucent had originally had asked me (some time
ago) to explain v1-1-1. I did so in v1b1-1 and in fact {LIST2}
comes from that posting. However I mistakingly attacked Rashis
first explanation as unfounded. The reason I did so was because
Rashi seemed to translate the verse as
>In the beginning of God creating heaven and earth the
>earth was formless
Since the infinitive
>creating
is not used in Gen1-1 but rather the past test
>he created
I thought this explanation unsound.
THE NEW LIST
------------
Professor Niccacci on a recent issue of the email group
Hebraisticum provided {LIST1} which shows that it is normal
in Hebrew to use non-infinitives in construct phrases.
Accordingly the following suggested translation by Rashi
is feasable
>In the beginning of God creating heaven and earth
>the earth was formless and without...
I should emphasize that I didn't defend this interpretation
because I have strong evidence that the 2nd explanation of
Rashi is correct. I now review the 2nd explanation and
comment on why I think it is better.
THE SYMBOLIC APPROACH
---------------------
{LIST2} shows that construct words can take on new derived
meanings. For example
>ACHARIT
means
>the end of
but acquires the new meaning
>Wages
since
>Wages are the END OF THE WORK DAY
Other examples are provided in {LIST2} which comes from v1b1-1
Let us now turn to what Gen1:1-5 means. First
RASHIT = "**the** first" = the Choicest (Cf Nu24:20)
2nd,
B = because of (for the sake of )
3rd,I would argue that Gen1 in general is talking about the creation
of prophecy (not the creation of the physical world--what happened
6000 years ago was that Adam became the 1st prophet--there are many
supportive proofs for this the 2 clearest being(a)the fact that a
man named NACASH (snake) was running around and speaking to Chava
(so Adam wasn't the first man but rather the first prophet---snakes
typically symbolize the more earthly aspects of man), (b) phrases
like "Spirit of God"(gen1:2) always refer to Prophecy (and never
to strong winds)). As a consequence of this suggestion that Gen 1
is talking about the necessary skills and component needed to
create prophecy.
Using the above 3 ideas we would translate 1-1-3 as follows
>Because of the choicest capacities in man God created the spiritual
>and physical words. But the physical world was formless & confusing
>with darkness facing emotions and the preprophetic capacity of man
>was only hovering over his emotions. And God said let there be the
>light/fire of prophecies and it was so. ...
FURTHER NEEDED JUSTIFICATIONS
-----------------------------
The above only touches the surface of translation. I would have to
supplement it with "justification" for interpreting the words
>heaven, earth, water, light etc
as referring to
>EMOTIONAL qualities(spiritual,physical,emotions, prophecy)
rather than physical entities. The simplest approach would be to
use the same approach used to translate other symbolic chapters in
the Bible. Such justifications are in fact being written up in an
article of mine on 1-1 which will be presented shortly; appropriate
postings will be made on Rashi Is Simple.
HOW THE 2nd EXPLANATION HELPS US ACHIEVE PROPHECY
-------------------------------------------------
Rashi translates BRASHIT as
>Because of the choicest qualities did God create prophecy
But what are these choicest qualities. It turns out that
Rashi presents examples of RASHIT=CHOICEST on 1-1-1 that are
helpful to achieving prophecy For example
>the TORAH is choicest; So LEARNING is a prerequisite to prophecy
>ISRAEL is choicest; So helping the COMMUNITY is a prerequisite
to prophecy
>The FIRST FRUITS are choicest; so dedicating the best of
your possessions to God is a prerequisite to prophecy (Cf Gen4)
WHY THE 2nd EXPLANATION IS PREFERRED
------------------------------------
As to why I think the 2nd explanation is preferred-this was
explained in Volume 1 Number 25 on v1-1-4. The phrase
>SPIRIT OF GOD (1-1-2)
**always** refers to prophecy and never eg to strong winds. This
forces us to interpret all of 1-1 as referring to prophecy which
is consistent with explanation 2. (To be fair to Professor Niccacci,
he could still use his construct explanation
>In the beginning of God creating the HEavenly and physical
>the physical earth was dark, formless and mucky with the
>preprophetic spirit only hovering over the water.
>And God said, let there be the lights/fires of prophecy
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
----------------
I have had many discussions with emissaries of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
some of whom subscribe to Rashi Is Simple. They have explained to me
that the Rebbes position is that when Rashi used 2 explanations that
he believed each to be insufficient in its own right which is why he
presented both. I still maintain that it is the second explanation
that is preferred. However the Rebbe has done much to further
understanding of Rashi and it is important to defend his views as
must as possible.
THE LISTS
----------
{LIST1} {Alvierro Niccacci's list of constructs with non infinitive
verbs--appropriate corrections have been made *1}
VERSE MEANING VERB CONJUGATION
========== ================================ ==== ===========
2-6-28 On the day God spoke to Moses DBR Single-Past-Masc
1Sam25-15 the days we journeyed with them HLC Plural-Past
Jer6-15*2 at the time I judge them they'll PKD Single-Past-Suffix
Psa81-6 I heard a language I didn't know YDA Single-Past
1-1-1 In the beginning of God creating BRA Single-Past-Masc
FOOTNOTES
=========
*1 2-4-13 was deleted and seems to be a typographical error. Ps65-5
was deleted because the infinitive is used. The original list was
presented as a set of verses by Professor Niccacci in a recent
email issue of the email group Hebraisticum.
*2 Jer8-12 is similar to Jer6-15
LIST2: {Of Contruct words that take on new meanings}
-----
VERSE WORD CONSTRUCT MEANING NEW MEANING
----- ---- ----------------- -----------
Prv23-18 AChRiT End of Reward*1
2S15-32 ROSH Head of Top (or Head)*4
Ez29-17 RISHON First of First month-(April)
Is43-18 RISHON First Our "first years" together
Job18-16 TChAT Instead of/Replace Bottom
Is30-33 ETHMOOL Yesterday** Monday*2
1Sa17-30 MOOL Opposite of Place*3
FOOTNOTES:
==========
*1 "End of= Reward" because you get the reward at the end (RDQ)
*4 ROSH can mean
HEAD OF (E.g. HEAD of a nation, HEAD of a tribe) or
MOUNTAIN TOP, HUMAN HEAD
*2 This of course is controversial for two reasons...therefore
if the reader does not agree they can delete this row... In
general whenever we present a list we assume several of the
entries might be controversial..however if after their
deletion there are several members left on the list then we
have accomplished our goal. For our goal was not to PROVE
EACH member on the list...rather our goal was to PROVE the
underlying commanility or difference of the list.
The two issues of controversy here are
---It is only Rashi who takes ETHMOOL as a noun meaning Monday
Ibn Ezra, RDQ take it to mean yesterday
---Strictly speaking YESTERDAY is not a CONSTRUCT word...
However its meaning resembles a CONSTRUCT so closely
(The day before ... TODAY) that we included it.
---Incidentally Rashi explains YESTERDAY-DAY=MONDAY by
MONDAY = The first day that has a YESTERDAY(Sunday doesn't)
*3 In other words David was standing in a crowd. First he spoke
to one person and then he spoke opposite to another person.
Each person in the crowd is called "another" "opposite"
..something/someone else opposite to talk to
Note that in
the BOOK of ROOTS MOL is translated as PLACE
the commentary on Sam MOL is translated as PERSON
But it amounts to the same thing. In the crowd each person/place
was another potential thing to be opposite of.
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*