Rashi-Is-Simple Mailing List
(C) Dr Russell Jay Hendel, 1999
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
Volume 4 Number 13
Produced Dec, 08 1999
Topics Discussed in This Issue
------------------------------
v1-37-15
& A *MAN* FOUND HIM...& THE *MAN* ASKED HIM.A pronoun
should have been used rather than the double noun MAN
MAN. Double nouns are interpreted to indicate some
OTHER meaning: 1st man=man;2nd man=Angel. Rashi-ramban &
Hendel-Boncheck differences discussed
v1a4-1
VAV+FUTURE = PAST = (eg) HE GAVE. PAST = PAST
PERFECT=)eg_HE HAD ALREADY GIVEN. The PAST PERFECT
allows rearrangement of verses so as to indicate causal
links eg"a)Adam-Eve intimate,c) Snake story b) Eve HAD
BEEN pregnant" shows that sex motivated snake
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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: v1-37-15
======
v1-37-15 And a MAN found him wandering in the field
And the PERSON asked him 'What do you want?'
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v1-37-15 the MAN mentioned is GAVRIEL
As it says (Dan9-21)
>The MAN Gavriel
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
I bring this verse because it is brought in the introduction
of Dr Boncheck's book, WHAT IS BOTHERING RASHI, on Shemos. Dr
Boncheck uses this verse to illustrate the difference in
approaches between Rashi and Ramban.
While Dr Boncheck's analysis of Rashi vs Rambam is basically
correct in this particular case nevertheless his analysis of
Rashi uses the WHAT IS BOTHERING RASHI approach. The LIST
APPROACH used in this email list based on concise
grammatical lists gives an alternative handle on why
Rashi says what he does. Furthermore the proper explanation of
Rashi greatly enriches Dr Boncheck's correct observations
about the difference in style between the Rashi and Ramban.
In reviewing the verse
>And a MAN found him...and the MAN asked
we see that the word MAN is repeated without using a pronoun.
This violates a basic principle of grammar which is eg
observed in all languages and at all grade levels. So for
example if a HIGH SCHOOL student submitted a composition in
which the student repeated nouns without using pronouns then
the student would be reprimanded by the teacher.
The basic method of dealing with REPEATED NOUNS is to assume
that the 2nd noun refers to ANOTHER MEANING
of the noun. Frequently this OTHER MEANING denotes an
EXPANSION of the normal meaning of the concept. This idea that
>REPETITION denotes an OTHER MEANING
has been used by us several times in the past to justify both
SIMPLE midrashim as well as to justify some very EXOTIC
midrashim. By bringing all these examples together in one list
this RULE OF REPETITION gains cogency. Let us give some SIMPLE
and ESOTERIC examples.
SIMPLE EXAMPLES
---------------
The repetition of
>HOUSE
in 3-27-14:15
>sanctify HOUSE...redeem HOUSE
extends the normal meaning of HOUSE to refer to POSSESSIONs.
(That is the laws apply both to empty houses as well as houses
with possessions).
The repetition of
>MAN
in 3-18-6
>A MAN MAN shall not come near to having illicit sex
extends the CONTEXTUAL meaning of
>Jewish MEN are prohibited (cf 1-18-2)
to
> All men (non jewish also) are prohibited
The repetition of
>BLOOD
in 3-1-5
>bring near the BLOOD...throw the BLOOD
extends the contextual meaning that
>the properly collected blood of a sacrifice is thrown
to
>ANY blood (whether collected or spilled) is thrown
The repetition of
>HIT
in 5-13-16
>HIT HIT the city by sword
extends the meaning of HITTING the city to non-sword hittings
(if eg swords are not available)
The repetition of
>BROTHER
in 1-45-3:4
>And Joseph said to his brothers....
>And Joseph said to his brothers....
extends the meaning of BROTHER to BOTH physical brotherhood
as well as the emotional bonds of brotherhood (So Rashi says
that Joseph reminded his brothers that eg he was circumcised
and abstained from illicit sexual relations and that even though
he was in Egypt he nevertheless was their SPIRITUAL brother).
EXOTIC EXAMPLES
---------------
On several occasions we have used this principle that
>REPETITION indicates ANOTHER MEANING
to explain some extremely bizarre midrashim which however
become simple once we use this principle.
The repetition of
>PLACE
in 1-28-11
>He ... by the PLACE...
>he took from the stones of the PLACE
is used to interpret the two
>PLACES
differently. One means
>PLACE
while the other means
>GOD (Who is called PLACE (eg Ex3-12)
So the verse is interpreted as
>He prayed (PGA) to GOD & took of the stones of the PLACE
The repetition of
>The Hebrew word BGD
in 1-39-11
>And she grabbed him by the BGD..and he left the BGD
in used to interpret the two
>BGDs
differently. One means
>BGD = Betrayal
while the other means
>BGD = Cloth
So the verse is interpreted as
>And she grabbed him while he BETRAYED(BGD) God (and thought
>of sinning with her) but then Joseph left his GARMENT(BGD)
>in her hand and fled
There are 2 opinions brought down by Rashi and this explains one
of them.
The repetition of
>The Hebrew word MAN
in 4-5-12
>A MAN MAN when his wife sins
is used to interpret the two
>MANs
differently. One means
>MAN
while the other means
>GOD (who is ANOTHER TYPE OF MAN (cf 2-15-3).
Thus the verse means
>A MAN-- and/or GOD--when the wife sins and double
>crosses him
In other words the adulterous woman double crosses both
GOD and MAN.
Note in all these Midrashim that the only thing in common is that
>REPETITION = ANOTHER MEANING OF THE WORD
There indeed (as the reader already noticed) is no concensus on
>WHICH OTHER MEANING
is intended. Indeed, because of this we frequently do not have
concensus and instead have controversy on WHAT THE OTHER MEANING
is. Nevertheless the reader after reviewing the above examples
can appreciate that we do have a consistently applied rule.
Returning to our verses, 1-37-15 the repetition of
>MAN
in our verse
>A MAN found him wandering, ..the MAN asked 'What do you want'
suggests two different meanings to MAN. The first MAN was a
>human
who probably explained that he got lost while the 2nd man was
>the ArchAngel Gavriel (Dan9-21)
who asked him (I assume in a dream)
>'What do you want'
The Angel then told him where the brothers were.
The interested reader who wishes to pursue this further may
examine
>{LIST1},simple examples of repetition of nouns
>{LIST3}, simple examples of repetition of verbs
>{LIST2}, examples of MAN MAN in verses.
The CROSS-REFERENCE section below gives prior volumes and
postings that discuss REPETITION and these may be found
on the Rashi website at http://www.shamash.org/rashi/.
Dr Boncheck, as mentioned earlier, uses the WHAT IS BOTHERING
RASHI approach---he assumes Rashi is bothered by the fact that
a Biblical verse discusses something trivial and inconsequential.
By contrast, this email list emphasizes universal principles of
grammar that can be backed by LISTS.
We can now review Dr Boncheck's view on Rashi vs Ramban. Dr
Boncheck's views become even stronger in light of the above
explanation.
For Rashi is simply telling us that Gavriel greeted Joseph and
told him where the brothers are. Rashis derivation is logical
and grammatical without reference to moral concepts. The Ramban
pursued the PHILOSOPHICAL/MORAL import of this grammatical fact---
it shows the nature of Divine providence in fulfilling the dreams
that Joseph would one day rule over his brothers. In this way
Ramban complements Rashi.
Notice how our grammatical approach to Rashi makes the schism
between Rashi and Ramban much sharper---for Rashi is PURELY
grammatical while the RAMBAN is philosophical. By contrast
in Dr Boncheck's approach Rashi was bothered by the trivia
in the verse---in a certain sense then Rashi was using
philosophic concepts also. We could further elaborate on
the differences between Dr Boncheck and myself but I think
the above suffices for now.
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
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.
{LIST3} {List of verses that have double verbs (courtesy of
the Babelonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 31). Each verse
has some word repeated twice--one of the verbs is
an infinitive and the other is the normal form
of the verb. This list gives the lesson derived
from each: The infinitive means ongoing activity
and means it should be done even 100 times; the
double verb is interpreted like all double nouns
--the second verb is different than the 1st and
denotes that the activity of the verb is done
EVEN in other circumstances (See {LIST3} for the
treatment of double nouns)}
VERSE TOPIC DOUBLE
WORD INFINITIVE DOUBLE VERB
====== ============= ====== ========== ========================
5-22-1 Lost articles return 100 times without owner knowledge
5-22-7 Take birds*1 let-go 100 times even not for food *1
3-19-17 Rebuke sinner rebuke 100 times even a student to Rabbi
2-23-5 Help unload*2 unload 100 times even if owner can't help
5-22-4 Help reload*2 reload 100 times even if owner can't help
4-25-21 Death penalty die 100 times*3 even with other deaths*3
5-13-16 Hit city hit Long war*3 even with other deaths*3
5-24-13 Security return 100 times even if court sanctioned
2-22-25 Security return 100 times even if court sanctioned
5-15-8 Charity open up100 times even if from other cities
5-15-10 Charity give 100 times even if from other cities
5-15-14 Slave freeing Give Alot *4 even if you didn't profit
FOOTNOTES:
*1 This refers to finding birds in a nest. If you want the young
birds (for food) then you must let the mother bird go (and even
if she returns) you must repeatedly let her go. From the double
verb the talmud learns that this LETTING-GO law applies even
if you took it not for food but rather say for a sacrifice (I might
not think the mother has to be let go since she could be used for
a sacrifice also).
*2 The Biblical law requires that if you see a fellow Jews with
a loaded donkey then you must help him unload the donkey (to rest
it) and then you must also help him reload the donkey when he
wants to go back on his journey (So there are two obligations:
Loading and Unloading).
*3 There is no Talmudic derivation on the infinitive of placing
to death. But of my own accord I extended the "100 times" theme
to the death penalty---e.g. if you performed the execution and
he still didn't die you would have to perform the execution again
(till he dies)
*4 The Talmud notes that certain opinions did not hold this as
law. That is, if you lost money from the slave (during his work
by you) then you are NOT obligated to give him. This opinion
would hold by NONE of the laws in this list--they hold the
double verb form to be a Hebrew Idiom with no special meaning.
Nevertheless Rashi was faced with a problem. We use most of the
laws on this list. How then do the people who hold that the
infinitive and double verb have special meaning deal with these
verses. Rashi actually answers this question on the sister verse
to 5-15-14, which is 5-15-8.
It says there to GIVE GIVE to the the poor and then repeats
GIVE GIVE (HAAVAYT) his needs. Now the verse continues that you
only give him WHAT HE NEEDS (So if he doesn't need anything you
need not give him). Rashi therefore interprets the double-verb
to mean GIVE HIM ANY WAY YOU CAN... If you can't give him charity
then give him a loan (as e.g. a rich man who isn't eligible for
charity--he should be given a loan). This Rashi on 5-15-8 can
be applied to 5-15-14. According to those opinions that you only
give gifts to a slave when he leaves PROVIDED you didn't lose money
then you would still be obligated to give him a loan (so he can
start off in life).
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
v2n20, v2a22-25 Discussion of REPEATED VERBS in verses
v2n19, v4a17-28 Discussion of repetition
v2n19, v4b5-12 Discussion of MAN MAN in verses
v1n4, v1-45-3 Repeated "BROTHER" emphasizes BROTHERHOOD
v1n2, v1-39-11 BGD=BETRAYAL, BGD= CLOTHING
v1n1, v1b28-11 PLACE=GOD, PLACE = PLACE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
DOUBLE NOUNS
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 1999 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VERSE: v1a4-1
======
v1a4-1 And Adam HAD KNOWN his wife
v1a3-1 And the snake was DECEITFUL
v1a21-1 And God HAD REMEMBERED Sarah
v2-12-36 And God HAD GIVEN GRACE to the Jews
RASHI TEXT:
===========
v1a4-1 "And Adam had known his wife" implies that
She had ALREADY gave birth to Kayin
v1a3-1 The temporal sequence of stories is
>Adam and eve were naked
>They had relations and Eve gave birth to Kayin
>God made them clothing
>Snake tried to entice them to sin
But the Bibles order is
>Adam and Eve were naked
>Snake wanted them to sin
>God made them clothes
>And they HAD HAD relations;Eve bore Kayin
The order is reversed to emphasize that the snake
wanted Adam to sin so that he could die, and the
snake could get Eve. This desire of the snake
happened when the snake saw Adam
and Eve were having intimacy (were naked) in front
of everybody (which made the snake desire her)
v1a21-1 ..The sequence of verses states
>Abraham prayed for Avimelech
>Avimelech's household was cured
>And Sarah HAD ALREADY become pregnant
The past perfect (HAD ALREADY ) is used to show
CAUSALITY....Sarah HAD BECOME pregnant because
Abraham prayed that Avimelech's household be
cured and become pregnant. We learn from this that
>Whoever prays for his friend gets
>answered on himself first
v2-12-36 'And God HAD ALREADY given the Jews grace'
In other words eg the Jewish slaves were
already trusted and had been loaned various
clothing and objects. And when Moses ordered
them to loan some more they went to their
masters, made believe they had lost the
originals and their masters loaned them
a second time. In this way they loaned out
Egypt.
BRIEF BUT COMPLETE NARRATIVE EXPLANATION:
=========================================
Rashi simply teaches us a basic point about grammar.
If we want to say
>HE GAVE HIM FOOD
then we would use the
>OVERTURNING VAV FORM
which joins a VAV to the future form of the verb
>VAYITEN
endowing it with a PAST meaning of GAVE HIM FOOD
By contrast, if we use the PAST FORM OF THE VERB
>NATHAN
the meaning is
>HE HAD (ALREADY) GIVEN HIM FOOD
In other words
>PAST = VAYITEN = GAVE
>PAST PERFECT = NATHAN = HAD GIVEN
Having explained what the PAST PERFECT means we discuss
why it is used. We give 4 possible reasons.
THE PAST PERFECT DENOTES PRIOR ACTIVITY
---------------------------------------
The repeated use of the past perfect in 1-1
>God created the heaven and earth but...
>the earth HAD ALREADY BEEN VOID...
>God HAD ALREADY called the darkness NIGHT
...
suggests (Genesis Rabbah Chapter 3, Braiitha 7) that
>God had created many worlds before this one
>He however destroyed them and it is only
>this world that pleased him.
Altough the Midrash Rabbah learns this from various sources
the PAST PERFECT verbs brought here are the main
source.
Although the TEXT of the Genesis Rabbah 3:7 does not
seem to indicate that the creation of previous worlds
is derived from the PAST PERFECT nevertheless I found
an explicit statement of this connection between the
PAST PERFECT and the creation of previous worlds in
the Soncino Translation of the Zohar, 16a.
THE PAST PERFECT PREVENTS CAUSAL CONNECTION
--------------------------------------------
*3 1-25-29:34 describes
>Esauv coming home hungry and
>asking Jacob for food
>Jacob in turn asks Esauv to sell him the birthright.
>Jacob gave him food
The verses (without proper translation) appear to say that Jacob
only gave the weary Esauv food AFTER he sold his birthright. In
other words he blackmailed him into selling his birthright.
However with the proper translation the verses says
>Esauv asked for food
>Jacob asked for the birthright
>Jacob HAD ALREADY given food to Esauv.
Thus there was no blackmail. It is curious that some major
midrashim do not mention this (I in fact learned the
interpretation of this verse from my 8-th grade Chumash
Teacher, Rabbi Nathan Belitsky who taught us at an early
age that there were grammatical methods to refute slander
on Biblical characters). It is brought in various non
mainstream midrashim.
PAST PERFECT ALLOWS INDICATING CAUSALITY
---------------------------------------------------------
Rashi suggests that the PAST PERFECT (HAD DONE) allows
>rearranging the sequence of chapters
thereby indicating
>causal links.
For example the natural sequence
>1-2-26:28 Intimacy
>1-4-1 Pregnancy/birth
>1-3 Snake gets Eve to sin/expulsion from Paradise
is changed to
>1-2-26:28 Intimacy
>1-3 Snake gets Eve to sin/expulsion from Paradise
>1-4-1 Pregnancy birth
The changed sequence suggests a
>CAUSAL LINK
between
>INTIMACY & SIN OF SNAKE
In other words, because Adam and Eve were cohabiting before
everybody, the snake (a nickname for a slimy person {LIST2}) desired
her and plotted to kill Adam (by having Eve give him the
forbidden food) whereby he could marry her. Although this
appears speculative it is bolstered by the use of the PAST
PERFECT which allows a rearrangement of order and LINKS Adam
and Eves nakedness to what the snake tried to do)
The interpretation of the word SNAKE as a person who is
slimy is justified in {LIST2} which shows that ANIMALS
symbolize PERSONALITY types. Recall that the snake spoke
thus indicating that he was human.
Similarly the sequence
>1-18:19 The 3 angels
>1-18 prophecy that Sarah will give birth
>1-19 Destrucion of Sedom/Saving of Lot
>1-21-1 Sarah gave birth
>1-20 Abduction of Sarah
>1-20-14:18 Sarah saved; Abraham prays for Avimelech
is reversed to
>1-18:19 The 3 angels
>1-18 prophecy that Sarah will give birth
>1-19 Destrucion of Sedom/Saving of Lot
>1-20 Abduction of Sarah
>1-20-14:18 Sarah saved; Abraham prays for Avimelech
>1-21-1 Sarah gave birth
The changed sequence suggests a
>CAUSAL LINK
between
>Abraham praying that Avimelech should give birth
>Abraham-Sarah having a child
Chazal in fact say
>Whoever prays for his friend
>gets answered first (if he needs the same thing)
PAST PERFECT INDICATES REPEATED ACTIVITY
----------------------------------------
In other words we read the verses that
>1-12-34 the Jews exodused form Egypt
>1-12-35 they loaned silver/gold vessels
>1-12-36 they HAD ALREADY been loaning vessels
That is, there were multiple loanings endowing the Jews
with multiple vessels.
I would imagine the simple interpretation is that eg
>as slaves they loaned utensils
>they acted like they lost them
>"I lost what you gave me; can you spare me another"
>and because God HAD ALREADY given them grace
>they ended up loaning more vessels
COMMENTS ON RASHI'S FORM:
=========================
LISTS {For ADVANCED students and for those with more time}:
===========================================================
{LIST1} {Of Verses with the PAST PERFECT (HAD DONE) in them.
The reasons for the PAST PERFECT are given in the
3rd column and further elaborated in the footnotes}
VERSE TEXT WITH PAST PERFECT WHY PAST PERFECT
======= ========================================== =================
1-1-2 The earth HAD ALREADY been astonishing Previous worlds*1
1-1-5 God HAD ALREADY called the darkness NIGHT Previous worlds*1
1-4-1 Adam HAD ALREADY (sexually) known his wife Causal link*2
1-21-1 God HAD ALREADY remembered Sarah Causal link*2
1-25-34 Jacob HAD ALREADY given Esauv food No blackmail*3
2-12-36 God HAD ALREADY given grace to the Jews Loaned twice*4
FOOTNOTES
*1 The Genesis Rabbah Chapter 3, Braiitha 7 states
>God had created many worlds before this one
>He however destroyed them and it is only
>this world that pleased him.
The Midrash Rabbah learns this from various sources
but the PAST PERFECT verbs brought here are the main
source. (For example the Midrash also learns this from
the phrase
>1-1-31 & God saw all he had made and
>BEHOLD it was good
which has the connotation of
>BEHOLD it was good this time but not the
>previous times
While this is supportive it is not conclusive. The
main argument is from the PAST PERFECT verbs as
indicated above
Although the TEXT of the Genesis Rabbah 3:7 does not
seem to indicate that the creation of previous worlds
is derived from the PAST PERFECT nevertheless I found
an explicit statement of this connection between the
PAST PERFECT and the creation of previous worlds in
the Soncino Translation of the Zohar, 16a.
*2 Rashi suggests that the PAST PERFECT (HAD DONE) allows
>rearranging the sequence of chapters
thereby indicating
>causal links.
For example the natural sequence
>1-2-26:28 Intimacy
>1-4-1 Pregnancy/birth
>1-3 Snake gets Eve to sin/expulsion from Paradise
is changed to
>1-2-26:28 Intimacy
>1-3 Snake gets Eve to sin/expulsion from Paradise
>1-4-1 Pregnancy birth
The changed sequence suggests a
>CAUSAL LINK
between
>INTIMACY & SIN OF SNAKE
In other words, because Adam and Eve were cohabiting before
everybody the snake (a nickname for a slimy person) desired
her and plotted to kill Adam (by having Eve give him the
forbidden food) whereby he could marry her. Although this
appears speculative it is bolstered by the use of the PAST
PERFECT which allows a rearrangement of order.
Similarly the sequence
>1-18:19 The 3 angels
>1-18 prophecy that Sarah will give birth
>1-19 Destrucion of Sedom/Saving of Lot
>1-21-1 Sarah gave birth
>1-20 Abduction of Sarah
>1-20-14:18 Sarah saved; Abraham prays for Avimelech
is reversed to
>1-18:19 The 3 angels
>1-18 prophecy that Sarah will give birth
>1-19 Destrucion of Sedom/Saving of Lot
>1-20 Abduction of Sarah
>1-20-14:18 Sarah saved; Abraham prays for Avimelech
>1-21-1 Sarah gave birth
The changed sequence suggests a
>CAUSAL LINK
between
>Abraham praying that Avimelech should give birth
>Abraham-Sarah having a child
Chazal in fact say
>Whoever prays for his friend
>gets answered first (if he needs the same thing)
*3 1-25-29:34 describes Esauv coming home hungry and asking
Jacob for food who in turn asks Esauv to sell him the birthright.
The verses (without proper translation) appear to say that Jacob
only gave the weary Esauv food AFTER he sold his birthright. In
other words he blackmailed him into selling his birthright.
However with the proper translation the verses says
>Esauv asked for food
>Jacob asked for the birthright
>Jacob HAD ALREADY given food to Esauv.
Thus there was no blackmail. It is curious that some major
midrashim do not mention this (I in fact learned the
interpretation of this verse from my 8-th grade Chumash
Teacher, Rabbi Nathan Belitsky who taught us at an early
age that there were grammatical methods to refute slander
on Biblical characters).
*4 In other words we read the verses that
>1-12-34 the Jews exodused form Egypt
>1-12-35 they loaned silver/gold vessels
>1-12-36 they HAD ALREADY been loaning vessels
I would imagine the simple interpretation is that eg
>as slaves they loaned utensils
>they acted like they lost them
>"I lost what you gave me; can you spare me another"
>and because God HAD ALREADY given them grace
>they ended up loaning more vessels
{LIST2} {Animals represent PERSONALITY TYPES. It is legitimate
to see a verse speaking about animals with human
characteristics and simply assume that those animals
represent personality types}
VERSE TEXT ANIMAL SYMBOLIZES
======= =========================== ======= ==========
1-49-9 Judah is a lion LION Judah
1-49-14 Yissachar is a donkey DONKEY Yissachar
1-49-21 Naftali is a gazelle GAZELLE Naftali
Ps79-13 We are your nation/sheep SHEEP Jews
Isa11-6 Wolves will live with sheep WOLVES Aggressive nations*1
1-3-1 The snake was deceitful SNAKE Slimy personality*1
FOOTNOTES
*1 Note how the surrounding verses suggest that we are talking
about humans. Thus eg
>Isa11-5 speaks about human peace and justice
Hence
>Isa11-6 The wolve will lie with the sheep
must be speaking about people
Similarly
>1-3-1 mentions that the snake spoke....
So we are justified in interpreting the snake as a slimy person.
CROSS REFERENCES:
=================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
=================
Soncino Translation of Zohar, 16a (Uses PAST PERFECT)
RULE CLASSIFICATION {See the web site for comparable examples}:
===============================================================
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
GRAMMAR
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (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 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*