#*#*#*# (C) 2000-2006, RashiYomi Inc. Dr Hendel President #*#*#*#
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Rashi is Simple Version 2.0 |
| (C) RashiYomi Inc., Dr Hendel President,2006 |
| http://www.RashiYomi.Com |
| PERMISSION to reprint WITH this header if NOT for profit |
------------------------------------------------------------
VERSE: Lv06-02b
RASHIS COVERED: Lv06-02b Lv07-08a
============================ Lv06-02b ===========================
SUCCINCT SUMMARY
----------------
One of Rashis 10 main tasks is to explain
GRAMMAR the same way modern Hebrew books
explain GRAMMAR. We call this the Rashi GRAMMAR rule.
Rashi had three broad sub-rules in explaining GRAMMAR
(1) A major component of Hebrew GRAMMAR are the rules
governing conjugations of VERBS, or HEBREW ROOTS.
There are 7 grammatical modes with half a dozen
parameters: tense, person, gender, plurality,
connective words...
(2) Another component of GRAMMAR deals with
PREFIXES-SUFFIXES and other letters, or small words,
that indicate changes in meanings.This PREFIX-SUFFIX
subrule includes the rules governing the rules of
plural, gender, pronouns etc. We are still making
discoveries of PREFIX-SUFFIX rules today.
(3) Finally a more advanced part of GRAMMAR deals
with the rules of entire SENTENCES. The SENTENCE
rules includes the rules governing sentence order,
apposition, and compound sentences
Today we deal with the following rule
governing PRONOUN EMPHASIS.
- A single letter suffix/prefix pronoun
does not indicate emphasis
- a full-word pronoun does indicate
unspecified emphasis. It should be translated
as ONLY IT.
- This rule especially holds when the pronoun
is redundant (The verse reads fine without it)
In such a case the pronoun connotes unspecified
emphasis.
Example 1: Lv06-02b
-------------------
Lv06-02 states as follows
----------------------------
These are the GUIDELINES of
the UP offering...ONLY IT is
the UP offering that is offered
on the altar fire...
-----------------------------
The Hebrew pronoun IT is unnecessary
(The verse could have said
-----------------------------
These are the guidelines of the
UP OFFERING that is offered on
the altar fire
-----------------------------
)
The pronoun IT creates UNSPECIFIED emphasis.
Some type of INVALID UP offering is excluded
from being placed on the altar (Even if
the priests erroneously began to offer it)
Rashi following the Talmud picks the worst case
Someone committed bestiality with the animal so
it should not have been offered. If the Priests
began to offer it then we arent allow to continue
and place it on the altar.
NOTE: Rashi's explanation is NOT intrinsic to the
verse. Rashi's explanation is based on Talmudic
logic. But the verse does say something...it says
ONLY IT..this connotes an UNSPECIFIED emphasis and
is the simple meaning of the verse.
EXAMPLE 2: Lv07-08a
-------------------
Lv07-08 states
--------------------------
The SKIN of the UP offering
shall belong TO the priest
offering it ONLY TO HIM will it be
---------------------------
Note the unnecesary redundant pronoun(The verse could have said
----------------------------------------
shall belong to the priest offering it
----------------------------------------
The extra pronoun ONLY TO HIM WILL IT BE creates UNSPECIFIED
emphasis. Rashi uses it to exclude impure priests (We know
from Lv22-03:06 that impure priests may not eat from the
offerings...Rashi here teaches that even if most of the
impurity is removed (eg he immersed in water) he still
cannot eat from the offering.)
Here Rashi makes the inference of particular emphasis from
OTHER VERSES.
LIST706a below summarizes this rule.
=================================================================
ITEM DETAIL
======================== ========================================
RASHI RULE CLASS: GRAMMARr
RASHI SUBRULE CLASS PRONOUNS
RASHI WORKBOOK PRINCIPLE #9
SEE BELOW LIST706a
List of verses with OTHO/HU meaning ONLY IT
=================================================================
======================= LIST706a ================================
List of verses with OTHO/HU meaning ONLY IT
==================================================================
VERSE TEXT OF VERSE INTERPRETATION OF EMPHASIS
======== =========================== =============================
Lv01-03c Offer it as a 1 year male*1 Even if 2 animals were mixed
Lv01-03c Bring ONLY IT to the temple But not if animals were mixed
-------- --------------------------- -----------------------------
Lv01-09a IT is an UP offering Intent is necessary*2
Lv05-09b IT is a SIN offering Intent is necessary*2
Lv05-12a IT is a SIN offering Intent is necessary*2
-------- --------------------------- -----------------------------
Lv06-02c ONLY IT is an UP offering but not BESTIALITY animals*10
Lv07-08a Give To the PRIEST-ONLY HIM but not ritually impure *3
NOTES
-----
*1
Note that the two clauses in Lv01-03 CONTRAST
- the first clause uses the pronoun IT
- the 2nd clause uses the pronoun ONLY it
Thus there is a simultaneous requirement of
emphasis and non-emphasis.
Here is a plausable way to implement these two
requirements
- If the animals of Abe and Bob got mixed up
then we still make the offering even though
we dont know who is the true owner
- If however a kosher offering was mixed with
a non-kosher offering (e.g. the animal had a
blemish) then you can't offer either animal
because ONLY the Kosher offering can be offered
*2
My opinion is that
Rashi used the OTHER VERSE
method to infer the emphasis.
- We have seen in LIST705b
that offerings have to be
slaugthered with proper intent
That is you must slaughter them for
the sake of an offering.
- So the current verses tell us that this
proper intent is a NECESSARY REQUIREMENT:
Without it the offering is invalid. So if
you slaughtered animals for the sake of
food you cant offer them.
*3 Notice the emphasis
----------------------------
Give it TO the priest--[ONLY]TO him
----------------------------
There are several ways to articulate this emphasis
- the noun and pronoun are both there (Redundancy)
TO THE PRIEST--TO HIM
- a whole WORD TO HIM (LO) was used vs. a prefix
LETTER (TO the priest)
In identifying the PARTICULARS of the emphasis (the verse
only indicates emphasis but does not tell us how to
interpret it) we use Lv22-03:06 which states that impure
people may not eat from the offerings (Rashi adds here that
the emphasis applies even if the purity procedure is 90%
done (eg he immersed in water)--still the priest cannot
eat till totally pure
------------------------ LONGER FOOTNOTES -----------------
*10 We see here an interesting blend of Biblical exegesis
and Talmudic Hermeunetics
- Biblically the extra word simply gives EMPHASIS--
ONLY THIS OFFERING//ONLY THE PRIEST
- The PARTICULARS of the emphasis are not given
- We can infer the PARTICULARS of the emphasis
either from OTHER VERSES or logic.
In this verse the PARTICULARS are as follows
-----------------------------------------------
- ONLY THIS OFFERING can be offered on the altar
-----------------------------------------------
Rashi excludes e.g. animals
with whom bestiality has been performed
since this is a serious blemish which would invalidate
the animal BEFORE the offering procedure started
Therefore if some priests STARTED the offering
procedure with such an animal they may NOT continue.
Again Rashi's example is derived THRU logic and
a consideration of alternative exclusions.Rashis
point is NOT intrinsic to the verse. All the verse
tells us is NON SPECIFIC emphasis--ONLY THIS UP
OFFERING--without telling us which one. This is
an important point in understanding these Rashis.
==================================================================
---------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The following additional references may be too wordy
However they frequently contain additional information & lists
The hyperlinks only work on the main website
Volume 29 Number 14
#*#*#*# (C) 2000-2006, RashiYomi Inc. Dr Hendel President #*#*#*#
Volume 29 Number 14