This is very cool. I will need a little time to chew on this but it’s looking very good.
If needed I will try to rearrange this in to a form compliant with my concept and repost it. My hope is that this can faithfully represent the logic and reasoning behind the interpretation without distorting it.
BTW am I using the correct nomenclature with “Parasha Mishpatim?”
A parasha is equivalent to a lection or pericope in the lectionary. Mishpatim is the name of the particular parasha being commented on. The site I took the argument from is “What’s Bothering Rashi?” – a site that provides an example of Rashi’s reasoning each week from his commentary on the reading for the week.
The method making the distinction between drash and p’shat meanings is a fourfold method known as pardes. I chose this as an example for two reasons:
1. pardes resembles quadriga and so has a certain familiarity
2. I didn’t have an example of the Talmudic reasoning at my fingertips.
The reason /method labeled “use literary method to determine if “the sun fall on him” is …” actually needs to have the allegorical meaning element split out as a separate element: input Hebrew text –> method determine if it has allegorical meaning –> output Philo’s allegorical meaning. Then the NRSV translation should not go through the shortened method but should go into the reason / method labeled “use literary clues to determine … spatial or temporal” I suspect I’ll continue to tweak the model for several days.
My apologies. As well as pardes, I should also point people to questions of parashanut http://www.kolel.org/torahstory/module3/page3.html which gives the step that makes Rashi concentrate on the seemingly extraneous “on him”.
I want to process this diagram so as to make it compliant with my concept. However, my hands are kind of full. I probably won’t get it done until the weekend.
I like this example because it is a “real world” example of a kind of interpretation and it is from an are which I am not that well versed.
This is very cool. I will need a little time to chew on this but it’s looking very good.
If needed I will try to rearrange this in to a form compliant with my concept and repost it. My hope is that this can faithfully represent the logic and reasoning behind the interpretation without distorting it.
BTW am I using the correct nomenclature with “Parasha Mishpatim?”
A parasha is equivalent to a lection or pericope in the lectionary. Mishpatim is the name of the particular parasha being commented on. The site I took the argument from is “What’s Bothering Rashi?” – a site that provides an example of Rashi’s reasoning each week from his commentary on the reading for the week.
The method making the distinction between drash and p’shat meanings is a fourfold method known as pardes. I chose this as an example for two reasons:
1. pardes resembles quadriga and so has a certain familiarity
2. I didn’t have an example of the Talmudic reasoning at my fingertips.
The reason /method labeled “use literary method to determine if “the sun fall on him” is …” actually needs to have the allegorical meaning element split out as a separate element: input Hebrew text –> method determine if it has allegorical meaning –> output Philo’s allegorical meaning. Then the NRSV translation should not go through the shortened method but should go into the reason / method labeled “use literary clues to determine … spatial or temporal” I suspect I’ll continue to tweak the model for several days.
My apologies. As well as pardes, I should also point people to questions of parashanut http://www.kolel.org/torahstory/module3/page3.html which gives the step that makes Rashi concentrate on the seemingly extraneous “on him”.
I want to process this diagram so as to make it compliant with my concept. However, my hands are kind of full. I probably won’t get it done until the weekend.
I like this example because it is a “real world” example of a kind of interpretation and it is from an are which I am not that well versed.