On Nov 20, 2007 10:03 AM, SBA <<a href="mailto:sba@sba2.com">sba@sba2.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
From: "Richard Wolpoe" < ><br>Rashi at times uses Gematriyas.. countless Times that the Ba'al Hatuirm uses<br>a Gematriya where Rashi does not use one.<br> 1. Is it fair to conclude that if Rashi wanted to, he WOULD have used
<br> the same Gematriya as the Tur? Or<br> 2. Is Rashi's silence on a given Gmeatirya say nothing in particular?<br> 3. Is Rashi [or any parshan] always giving THE DEFINITIVE exhaustive<br> peshat? Or<br> 4. Is the Peirush simply selecting one of several valid options w/o
<br> necessarily rejecting other possible explanations?<br>>>><br><br>#4. (and I suppose #1 as well.)<br><font color="#888888"><br>SBA<br></font></blockquote><div>Follow up:<br><br>See Rashi's use of Tanach itself [what I term the Concordance technnique] to define ufasachti in Shemos 12 [in 2 places as either chamalti or dilagti] and in Parshas Eikev Rashi uses Targum to define Ekev [halaf]
<br><br>Given the concordance Technique is used by Rashi himself elsewhere<br><ol><li>Would Rashi himself object to using this concordance technique to define Ekev? </li><li>And even if he DID object in this, would it still be a valid method of parshanus?--
<br></li></ol></div></div>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>Please Visit: <br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>