|
Their presence in Rashis on Parshat MeTzoRaH Volume 9, Number 11 Used in the monthly Rashi-is-Simple and the Daily Rashi. Visit the RashiYomi website: http://www.Rashiyomi.com/ (c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel, President, Apr - 10, - 2008 The goal of this Weekly Rashi Digest is to use the weekly Torah portion to expose students at all levels to the ten major methods of commentary used by Rashi. It is hoped that continual weekly exposure to these ten major methods will enable students of all levels to acquire a familiarity and facility with the major exegetical methods.
Verse Lv15-31b discussing the punishment of ritually impurifing the Temple states Thus shall you separate the people of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they impurify my Temple that is among them. Rashi clarifies the underlined words die, when they impurify my Temple by referencing verses Lv22-03, Nu19-20 which states Say to them, Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations, who goes to the holy things, which the people of Israel hallow to the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence; I am the Lord.... . But the man who shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he has impurified the Temple of the Lord; the water of sprinkling has not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean. Hence the Rashi comment: The cut off punishment for impurifying the Temple / holy objects, mentioned in Lv22-03,Nu19-20, means a death penalty (at the hands of heaven) as clarified in Lv15-31b.
Advanced Rashi: A sort of cute twist happens here. Rashi comments on verse Lv15-31b which explicitly mentions death. Rashi cross-references verses Lv22-03, Nu19-20 which only mention cut-off. But the role of target and reference verse should be reversed. That is Rashi should really comment on verses Lv22-03, Nu19-20 that the unknown word cut-off is illuminated by verse Lv15-31b which explains cut-off as death. In other words this is one of those rare Rashi situations where the Rashi comment would be better placed on the verse referenced rather than on the current verse.
When Rashi uses the synonym method he does not explain the meaning of a word but rather the distinction between two similar words both of whose meanings we already know. Today Rashi examines the Hebrew root Cheth-Lamed-Tzade. It is interesting how both Rashi and Radack approach the meaning of this root. They state: Language indicating removal. If you read the Rashi-Radack comment properly they are not saying it means removal but rather that it is language indicating removal. Neither Rashi nor Radack go further. The Rashi/Radacak are explicitly incomplete. They indicate the general direction of meaning without explaining the exact meaning. I regard these Rashi comments, not as authoratative declarations of Biblical meaning, but rather as a sort of homework assignment, to review the usages of the root and find the exact nuances.
Advanced Rashi: We advocate enriching the Rashi experience with short terse punchy translations capturing the Rashi comment. In this case I would translate cheth-lamed-tzade as meaning yank. Hence we would translate verse Lv14-40a as Then the priest shall command that they yank the house-stones in which the disease is, and they shall throw them into an unclean place outside the city;
Note: I am re-reviewing last weeks Rashi which is similar in flavor to this weeks Rashi. This Rashi may be a bit technical for some students not familiar with Hebrew and I advise the such students to skip immediately to rule #4, Alignment. Most people are aware that Hebrew verbs come from three-letter roots. Each root is conjugated in the 7 dimensions of person, gender,plurality, tense, activity, modality, and direct-object. For example the root Shin Mem Resh means to watch. The conjugations Shin-Mem-Resh-Tauv-Yud and Nun-Shin-Mem-Resh-Nun-Vav mean I watched and we were watched respectively. The rules for Hebrew grammar are carefully described in many modern books and are well known. Rashi will sometimes comment when a verse is using a rare conjugation of an odd grammatical form. When presenting grammatical Rashis my favorite reference is the appendix in volume 5 of the Ibn Shoshan dictionary. This very short appendix lists most conjugations.
Based on the above Rashi translates Lv14-43b as follows (the underlined words follow the above grammatical points:) And if the disease comes again, and break out in the house, after he has yanked away the stones, after he has cornered the house, and after it was plastered; Advanced Rashi: My text of Rashi seems to say that HiQCoT is passive. But this does not make sense and is not consistent with any known form. It is not even consistent with the opinion brought down by the Radack that the root of HiQCoT is Kuph-Tzade-Ayin. Consequently I believe this to be a printing error. I believe Rashi only commented on HiToACH, XiLeC but that a later scribe inserted the word HiQCoT. The scribe errored because Rashi brought as an example HayASoth which resembles HiQCoT in that it begins with a hey. Such scribal transcription errors occur from time to time in Rashi. Rashi's main point was contrasting the active form of XiLeTZ - to yank - with the passive form of HiToACH - to be plastered.
The table below presents an aligned extract of verselets in Lv14-06 Both verselets discuss the lepor-sacrifice procedures done with the cedar, hyssop, worm-died-wool and live bird. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertions that There are two takings: The priest a) takes the bird and b) takes the cedar-hyssop-worm-died-wool; but there is one one dipping: The priest dips the entire bird-cedar-hyssop-worm-died-wool package together.
Advanced Rashi: But how do you do two takings and one dipping? Rashi explains further: You tie the cedar-hyssop-worm-died-wool (one bundle) and then take that bundle and the bird (Because of the two bundles there are two takings). You then dip them together.
Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Theme-Development-Theme form. In other words a broad general idea is stated first followed by the development of this broad general theme in specific details. The paragraph-like unit is then closed with a repetition of the broad theme. The Theme-Detail-Theme form creates a unified paragraph. The detailed section of this paragraph is therefore seen as an extension of the general theme sentences. Today's example illustrates this as shown immediately below.
Advanced Rashi: If you look carefully at the verse above you will see that the word all is bolded. The word all always requires generalization. Hence the additional Rashi comment: The actual law requires shaving the arm and armpit hair. In other words all hair is shaven except the nose-hair which is neither visible nor dense. This derivation is quite complex. My contribution is to see the derivation as emanating from two Rashi methods: The theme-detail-theme method and the special word- all method. Sermonic Points: There is a symbolic meaning to the shaving of hair given by Rabbbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Based on several required shaving procedures Rav Hirsch points out that a shaven person looks female. Recall that the lepor is a slanderer. One way of curing the lepor is to urge a feminine trait of responsiveness - let them learn to listen to the person they are dealing with instead of trying to manage them. Such a listening attitude is one step in curing slander.
The format rule includes all grammatical aspects of paragraph structure. We review below the paragraph structure of Lv15.
The Rashi comment is simple, straightforward and based directly on the bulleted structure: The chapter enumerates 4 methods of communication with ritual uncleanness for a person with excessive discharge: his bed, his touch, his spit, his riding. Notice how the ride and bed sections have sub-bullets while the touch and spit section to not have sub-bullets. We see all 4 methods of communication make the communicated person ritually unclean. However we additionally see that lieing / riding have the power to make a person touching the bed unclean. In other words the bed becomes a primary transfer (Father) of ritual uncleanness while the the touching only creates recipiency of ritual uncleanness but not the ability to transfer. Summary: Whether you get spit at or touched or lied on by the person with discharge you become ritually unclean. However a person spitted on or touched cannot further transfer his ritual uncleanness to a 3rd person. By contrast the bed on which the person with discharge sleeps does have the capacity to transfer ritual uncleanness to a 3rd party. This distinction between touching and beds is conveyed by the sub-bullet structure. Although we have been somewhat technical in this Rashi it is noteworthy that the Rashi comment is solely derived through analysis of structure. The Rashi comment is not derived through word meaning or grammar.
Here is a brief summary of the Rashi logic: The Torah when using the phrase This is the law of such and such may either continue this introductory phrase, or, immediately begin discussion of the topic. However if the Biblical Author wishes to emphasize that the topic discussion begins immediately afterwards then He uses the bold phrase, shall be: This shall be the law of such and such. For this reason we have interpreted the subsequent phrase in verse Lv14-02 as starting a new discussion: By day will his purification be (That is: You cannot perform the lepor purification ceremony by night.) Advanced Rashi: The astute reader may notice that sometimes the phrase This is the law of such and such begins a Biblical discussion while at other times it concludes and summarizes a Biblical discussion. A further refined analysis would include this parameter in the discussion. However to make the discussion simple we ignored this interesting attribute. The ambitious reader is invited to expand the above table. The Bible uses the phrase This is the law of such and such 15 times throughout the Torah.
Rashi uses the straightforward Non-verse logic rule. If you didn't do step #3 above - emptying the house - then after step #4 - the examination and declaration of the house as unclean - all the contents of the house become impure, as indicated in step #5. It follows that the reason for step #3, is, as the Bible explicitly indicates by the underlined phrase, that all that is in the house be not made unclean. In other words even though leprosy comes for the sin of slander nevertheless the Torah had pity on the monetary assets of the slanderer and saved them. Advanced Rashi: Rashi uses more advanced techniques to show that when the Torah wished to prevent declaring the house contents impure the emphasis was not on ordinary utensils - which if made ritually impure can be re-purified by immersion in a Mikveh body of water - but on clay utensils which once becoming impure must be destroyed (There is no way to re-purify them - see verse Lv11-33.) Hence we conclude that the Torah went out of its way to salvage the nearly worthless clay utensils of a slanderer. Again, we emphasize that Rashi made his derivation through logic: The emphasis in the Non-Verse rule is on derivation thru logic, spreadsheets or diagrams. In the example reviewed above, Rashi shows how the absence of step #3 would lead to loss of money and hence the inclusion of step #3 must therefore be to save the petty cash associated with clay utensils.
The Bible views leprosy as a punishment for slander. This association is explicitly indicated by the Biblical juxtaposition of the requirement to observe the leprosy laws with the requirement to remember what God did to Miriam who slandered Moses (See verses Dt24-08:09). It immediately follows that the leprosy purification procedure is a symbolic exhortation on how to avoid slander.
The message to the Lepor, the slanderer, is clear. You, the slanderer, must change your attitude. You must realize that the world has a spectrum of people from the low to the high. You can't criticize the low person because that is the way (s)he is suppose to be. You also can't criticize the high person because that is the way (s)he is suppose to be. You must learn to accept every person as being who they are. By conveying this message to the slanderer we remove one aspect of improper attitude which encourages their habit. Advanced Rashi: The astute reader may have noticed the repetition of the high-low theme in the two pairs: cedar-hyssop, and sheep-worm. we have not dealt with this. We invite the reader to try his own symbolic lenses. One helpful hint advanced by the master of symbolism, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, is that the cedar and hyssop belong to the plant sphere while the sheep and worm belong to the animal sphere. Here too we have a spectrum. The plant symbolizes a vegatative life of earning a living, eating and reproducing. By contrast the animal symbolizes a social mover. This too is part of the re-education of the slanderer: (S)he must learn to respect both those people who are simple as well as those people who move society.
Conclusion
This week's parshah contains examples of all Rashi methods. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||