*1 This is a generalization from two verses, as follows
-Ex23-04 Return the lost article of your PERSONAL ENEMY
-Dt22-01:03 Return the lost article of your PERSONAL FRIEND

So you return ANY article whether of your PERSONAL
ENEMY or your PERSONAL FRIEND--as you long as you
know the person PERSONALLY. The law however exempts
you from returning the article to a known thief (a
non PERSONAL enemy) who might be guessing the lost
objects signs*10

*2 Ex21-24 lists 4 types of ORGAN damage:Eye,tooth,arm,leg
Ex21-25 lists 3 types of PAIN damage:burn,cut,inflammation
Hence we infer that in paying damage you pay for
EACH type of damage *11

*3 In these examples the principle of BROAD INTERPRETATION
is applied to NARRATIVE vs LEGAL text. Thus DONT MUZZLE
AN OX WHILE THRESHING is a LEGAL ORDER. We generalize
and prohibit muzzling any WORK ANIMAL.
Similarly
- THE SNAKE SAID GOD PROHIBITED EATING FROM THE TREE
is a narrative text that is generalized to mean that
GOD HATES YOU AND DOESNT LET YOU EAT.
For proof of applicability of the GENERALIZED RULE
to Narrative see footnote *12
For a critical examination of Rashis and the GOOD-EXAMPLE
method see footnote *13

*4 Rashi explains that EYE by itself subsumes organs
organically born with the person while TOOTH by
itself implies REPLACABLE organs (like the teeth
of small children). By mentioning both EYE and TOOTH
we include all IRREPLACABLE VISIBLE organs.

*5 The idea is that
- nocturnal emissions are frequent in an army
situation because of the stress there*15
- nocturnal emissions are a common source of
ritual impurity.
But this Biblical law prohibiting a nocturnal emitter
from entering the Temple/Levite camp applies
- EVEN for impurities caused by other causes
- EVEN for impure states outside an army situation

*6 The law that you can't have more than 40 lashes
applies whether there was a "dispute" or not.
However it is typical for DISPUTERS to end up
in court*17

*7 This example is unique in this list in that the
law--that you cant marry a former wife after another
marriage--could not be stated without "the 2nd
husband divorcing here" Nevertheless Rashi is
justified in seeing this as a typical pattern.

*10 Several points should be made here
FIRST POINT:
- Ex23-04 uses the word YOUR ENEMY
- Dt22-01:03 uses the word BROTHER 5 times
So the real generalization is from YOUR ENEMY & BROTHER
So everyone FROM your enemy TO your brother gets
articles returned. This would exclude people you
dont really know who might be guessing signs.
Jewish law goes into the subtlety of someone whom
you dont know either as your BROTHER or ENEMY.
2nd POINT: We mention Rashis literal language

------------------------------------------
The verse says return the object AFTER YOUR BROTHER ASKS.
But no would return it before they are asked for it
So read the verse as follows; Return the objects
until you ASK ABOUT YOUR BROTHER--investigate him
-------------------------------------------

Thus it appears that Rashi is deriving the law
from a pun. (ASK ABOUT YOUR BROTHER vs YOUR
BROTHER ASKS) But the truth of the matter is that
Rashi is deriving the law from the generalization
and contrast of verses. Rashi as is his usual custom
expresses this technical derivation in a PUNchy
PUNny manner (so students will remember it).
3rd POINT

The main point in Rashi is that the two verses
have to be generalized. The details of how
this generalization takes place are subject to
Talmudic discussion. In this case the Talmud
and Rashi take an obvious approach of excluding
people (thiefs) who we would not expect the law
to cater to. But the main thrust of Rashi is
the generalization from two verses--the details
must be inferred.

*11 Already Rashi points out that CUTS involve both
PAIN and ORGAN damage (removal of skin).
One cannot derive the 5 categories of damage
from this verse (The other 3 categories,
disability, medical and embarassment are each
inferred from separate verses

*12 The Radack boldly asserts
- The statement EVEN IF GOD SAID DONT EAT FROM TREE
was the CONCLUDING statement of a long conversation.
We are justified in filling it in.

Radack justifies this approach because of the word
EVEN which always occurs in the middle of a conversation

Similarly Radack gives Jo02-24 as an example
-BECAUSE God gave you this land
Radack again notes that no one begins a conversation
with the word BECAUSE. Therefore we are justified--
in fact, forced--to fill in the conversation.

For details on HOW or WITH WHAT the conversation is
to be filled see footnote *13

*13 In this footnote we explain how Rashi filled in
missing conversation. We first explain the GOOD-EXAMPLE
method. For the original source see
http://www.RashiYomi.com/rashi.pdf

The GOOD-EXAMPLE method posits that a Rashi or Midrashic
text is not giving the WHOLE interpretation of a verse
but just one GOOD EXAMPLE. Hence the reader (or other
Exegetes) are justified in giving other good examples.

Here is the original example from my article
-Song of Songs Midrash Rabbah Chapter 4 Verse 1

- Text of verse
---------------------------------------
Wow--you-re beautiful--you-re beautiful
---------------------------------------

- Midrash: You-re beautiful in Man-Man laws; Your beautiful
in God-Man laws

- COMMENT: The Midrash is NOT exhausting the meaning
of the text in this one comment. Obviously the
Biblical text--you-re beautiful you-re beautiful--
connotes INTENSE admiration of beauty. The Midrash
gives but ONE GOOD EXAMPLE of this INTENSE admiration
The reader is free to give other examples.

Enough--let us examine how Rashi uses this principle

- Gn03-01
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that the
snake was trying to get them to sin (EVEN IF GOD
TOLD YOU NOT TO EAT). Rashi suggests that the snake
saw Eve eating from the other trees; Radack suggests
that Eve told the snake the prohibition of eating
from tree of knowledge. The snake says--but you can
eat from some trees..maybe you are wrong in what
God commanded (the ARE-YOU-SURE argument) Thus Rashi
uses this text as a springboard for discussing
how people get other people to sin.
- Gn43-20a
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that Joseph
cried over meeting Binyamin. Rashi gives GOOD EXAMPLES
of what could have happened -- Maybe Binyamin mentioned
how he named all his children over his missing brother.
Another good example (not given by Rashi!) is that
Binyamin could simply mention that his older brother
was the brother that was missing--and Binyamin missed
him alot

- Gn43-34b
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that after Josephs
harshness to the brothers he acted friendly to Binyamin.
He invited him to his house, dined with him and blessed him
So when the Torah says he gave him a 5-FOLD portion Rashi
gives a good example of how this could have happened--
maybe Josephs whole family each gave Binyamin a present
Note that in Gn45-22 it says that Binyamin got a 5-fold
amount of clothes. But Rashi does not explain this
5-fold amount!!!! Hence we are justified in seeing Rashis
explanation of the 5-fold amount in Gn43-34b as a GOOD
EXAMPLE not a general principle.
To what can this be compared: If I give someone 18 dollars
at a wedding. Wouldnt it be wrong to interpret the amount
as due to the fact that eg the wedding happened on 18th
street. In fact 18 dollars is a normal amount to give
at weddings. Similarly with Joseph...there are many 5-folds
-- Rashi only interprets only one of them...so he was
only giving a good example

*14 Rashi introduces a new principle on the TYPICAL EXAMPLE
style: Rashi had already explained that

- the Torah indicates laws by REQUIRED GENERALIZATIONS
that flow from Torah-indicated TYPICAL EXAMPLES

- Rashi now further explains these TYPICAL EXAMPLES
give PREFERRED PRACTICE.

For example
- Bible: If you sell TO YOUR COLLEAGUE

Rashi: Preferred practice in commerce is to sell
to fellow Jews

- Bible: If when you are POOR you sell your land plot

Rashi: Preferred practice in commerce is not
to sell personal property till you are poor

I would therefore think that this method applies
to all examples in the above list. As a typical
example Dt22-23a which speaks about a RAPE IN THE FIELD
indicates preferred practice of rapists (They hang
out in fields where no one is around)

*15 The literal verse is
---------------------------------
Learn Gods law when
- you sit in your HOUSE
- you walk on the ROAD
- you SLEEP
- you AWAKE
---------------------------------
Generalizing the 4 CAPPED examples (HOUSE, ROAD, SLEEP,
AWAKE) I would say simply:
------------------------------------
Learn in ALL FACETS of your life
------------------------------------
This would establish a Biblical requirement of learning
no matter what your circumstances. This is consistent
with Rambam, Laws of Learning 1:8
-----------------------------------------
ALL are obligated to learn--whether you
are old, young, infirmed, ....
-----------------------------------------
This paragraph in Rambam is therefore seen as a simple
translation of the Biblical verse.
However this Biblical verse BESIDES BEING SEEN AS THE
SOURCE FOR THE OBLIGATION TO LEARN is also seen as the
SOURCE for the RECITAL of the SHMA prayer.
The SHMA prayer need only be said TWICE daily(Morning
and EVENING). Rashi seems to be speaking about the
Shma when he says
-------------------------------------------------
SAY SHMA WHEN YOU SLEEP--even if you take a midday
nap? (Would you be obligated to say shma when you
get up)? No! Because the verse says WHEN YOU SIT
AND WALK--the verse speaks about the normal facets
of human life.
-------------------------------------------------
The matter is further complicated by the strange
fact that RECITAL OF SHMA is considered a fulfillment
of LEARNING.

I would therefore say that Rashi (following the Talmud)
is using the method of OTHER VERSES. Jo01-08 contains
the statement LEARN DAY AND NIGHT.

Combining Jo01-08 with Dt06-07 I would say

- one is MINIMALLY obligated to LEARN ONCE A DAY AND NIGHT
This is derived from Joshua and is the reason we are
required to say SHMA twice (in morning and evening)

- one is obligated to learn in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES of
life such as TRIPS, SICKNESS etc (In other words
one cannot put off ones learning to a later date)

This law corresponds to the paragraph cited from
the Rambam above.

Finally, there is room for further analysis here
since the requirement of SHMA has additional
elements besides LEARNING. I believe the above
Rambam laws and the use of two verses Jo01-08
and Dt06-07 shed considerable light on these
complex laws.

*16 Rashi's literal language is that
--------------------------------------
Satan incites in times of danger
--------------------------------------

I think we can all relate to the idea that
--------------------------------
Sexual fantasies are a common
response to dangerous situations
--------------------------------

*17 Rashi cites the DISPUTE of Lot-Abraham which ended
in separation as an example (Gn13)