4

Over and over again, Rashi on Chumash points out that a hey at the end of the word means the same as a lamed at the beginning. He doesn't just clarify that that is the usage, he states the rule itself many many times. (In Bereishis alone, 14:10, 15:23, 28:2, 32:4, 33:27, 46:1, and more...)

Why does he restate this rule so much? After the first time, if he just wanted to point out that this is the situation in each case, he could do it in one word e.g.

: מרתה . למרה

Why the repetition?

limos
  • 656
  • 3
  • 6
  • 1
    Rashi also repeats two or three times in his commentary "Why is פרת referred to as "הנהר הגדול נהר פרת"? Because it's next to Israel..." (e.g. in P' Bereishis, Devarim) – b a Nov 08 '12 at 01:12

2 Answers2

1

As far as I can tell, there is no pasuk 15:23, or a 33:27.

  • In 14:2, Rashi does not only discuss the ה and the end of הרה, but distinguishes it from other close words such as ההרה, in a rather nuanced manner.

  • In 28:2, there are two items which use this form, פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם and בֵּיתָה בְתוּאֵל. And it is strange because of the vowel change in פַּדֶּנָה over Padan, and because these are two word places, with the first word taking the heh.

  • In 32:4, I got nothing. Perhaps the follow-up of שְׂדֵה אֱדוֹם? Perhaps because it is the beginning of a new parasha, so he is focusing more on every bit of the pasuk? Perhaps because in the next perek, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַרְצָה, has a slightly different connotation?

  • In 46:1, the nikkud on בְּאֵרָה שָּׁבַע is fairly strange, because of pausal form.

josh waxman
  • 20,700
  • 44
  • 86
  • 1
    +1 for a good approach, I'm not sure about the details though. 14:2 is the first time he mentions it, so I would expect a full treatment there - there's no kasha on 14:2. And it could well be there's a chiddush every time, but he doesn't spell out the chiddush - he has almost the same lashon every time. He could still just put the equivalent lamed form and leave it at that - we don't seem to be any better off for him repeating the rule. We should check how many times it occurs and he doesn't spell it out - which would fit your approach that he only repeats it when there's a chiddush – limos Nov 08 '12 at 08:37
0

Rashi was written for the skill level of a child. Perhaps he does not assume people will learn it in order.

Ariel
  • 5,159
  • 14
  • 29
  • How do you know that was his intention? – Double AA Nov 07 '12 at 23:04
  • @DoubleAA I don't, that's why I said "perhaps". When I read reference texts I appreciate when the author repeats things - since I in fact, don't aways read things in order, especially when I am looking up a specific thing. – Ariel Nov 07 '12 at 23:19
  • 1
    No, you said "perhaps" to the end. I ask how you know your first sentence is accurate. – Double AA Nov 07 '12 at 23:20
  • @DoubleAA Oh. The Lubavitcher Rebbe says this all the time, that Rashi writes for a 5 year old. – Ariel Nov 07 '12 at 23:22
  • 1
    Do you know how he knew that was Rashi's intention? (And you should probably include that information in your answer.) – Double AA Nov 07 '12 at 23:24
  • @Ariel Though the Lubavitcher Rebbe also says that Rashi assumes the student to be learning Chumash in order – Michoel Nov 07 '12 at 23:39
  • @DoubleAA I guess from Pirkey Avos "Ben Chamesh Lamikra" – Michoel Nov 07 '12 at 23:40
  • 1
    @Michoel That same argument can prove that any commentary is meant for 5 year olds. – Double AA Nov 07 '12 at 23:47
  • @DoubleAA The sefer כללי רש"י details the Lubavitcher Rebbe's approach to learning Rashi. In Chapter 3 he explains the idea that Rashi is geared to the level of a "ben chomesh l'mikra"; since the Torah is written in a style that is understood to a five year old, and Rashi's objective is explain the simple meaning of the Torah (see Rashi Breishis 3:8 for example), it follows his commentary is written for someone on such a level. – Michoel Nov 08 '12 at 03:16
  • 1
    @Michoel (Of course, see Rashbam Breishis 37:2 for example as well. Note also that the Rashi you cite already says he's going for pshat AND basic agadata. related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/6103/759) Thank you for sourcing the OP's claim. Consider [edit]ing it into the post? – Double AA Nov 08 '12 at 03:24
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I don't think that that would be a good source for the OP as this answer is not consistent with the Lubavitcher Rebbe's approach to Rashi; he learns (as explained in Klallei Rashi Chapter 7) that Rashi assumes the learner is studying in order. Regarding the end of that Rashi about agada, see Alex's comment here. – Michoel Nov 08 '12 at 04:10
  • @Michoel ...and see my response thereof. IAE I see your point now about the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Ariel, do you have a different source for your assertions? – Double AA Nov 08 '12 at 04:43
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I do not - I mainly wanted to throw an idea out there since there were no other answers. It elicited some nice discussion in the comments, so I'm happy with it. – Ariel Nov 08 '12 at 04:53
  • 1
    Possibly this is true, but there are many grammatical rules and none of them stand out to me as much as this one in the number of repetitions. (I could be wrong on this.) And surely it would be enough for a 5-year old to just have the meaning of the word, not the whole rule every time - as I suggested in the question – limos Nov 08 '12 at 08:29