*1 Ex13-17 says Jews were afraid of war. So God wouldnt have
armed them. Therefore we interpret verse >An ARMFUL
of JEWS LEFT Egypt< even though this interpretation
of ARMED (as ARMFUL) is nonstandard.

*2 Previous verse explicitly says >And Esauv THOUGHT TO HIMSELF<
Hence we interpret >And Rivkah was told< as >Rivkah was told
thru prophecy<

*3 Ex32-17:18 explicitly says that Moses >heard not WAR CRIES
and not MOURNING CRIES but TORTURE CRIES< from which we
infer that someone was murdered.

*4 Gn49-04 explicitly says >For you PLAYED with your fathers
BEDS< It is the PLURAL BEDS that gives rise to the
reinterpretation that Reuven ruffled his fathers bedspreads
so as to prevent his from living with his fathers maid(and
insulting Leah who was a full fledged wife).

There are still problems with Gn35-22 but the driving force
behind Rashi is the EXPLICIT OTHER VERSE

*5 The point here is that the Hebrew >Tauv-Vauv-Coph< can
equally mean >INSIDE< or >BETWEEN< Thus the verse could
either mean >Bells INSIDE the POMEGRANATES< or
>BELLS BETWEEN THE POMEGRANATES<.

But the very next verse says >A Bell **AND** POMEGRANATE
a bell AND pomegranate< showing that they were one BESIDE
the other (so that the pomegranate fruits were between
the bells).

A further proof is repeating KEYWORD >SURROUNDING<. This
keyword gives a bullet like effect showing that all
items were SURROUNDING the garment hem (and none were
inside others).
---make pomegranates      SURROUNDING the hem
---make bells             SURROUNDING
---BELLS and POMEGRANATES SURROUNDING

This seems to decide the Rashi-Ramban controversy in favor
of Rashi. Further details were given in the main posting.

*6 The point is that Ex02-11:13 presents two fights
Each one sheds light on the other. Thus the OTHER VERSE
here is the OTHER FIGHT

We use the principle of CLIMAX to analyze the first fight
---Moses went out to study JEWISH SUFFERING
---Moses saw an Egyptian beating a Jew
---He saw this side and that side
---& Realized that the egyptian was not behaving like a mensch
---so he killed him

So we see that Moses first >felt the Egyptian out<. Moses
realized thru spiritual insight that the person was a
tramp. This helped Moses realize who was right and wrong
and led to Moses killing the Egyptian.

The next day he also went out and
---he also saw a fight
---he also investigated sides: >Why do you hit each other<
---The person answered  >Who made you a judge--are
you going to feel me out to kill me the way you killed the
Egyptian<

Thus the driving force behind Rashi are the two stories that
shed light on each other.

(In the main posting we show that the phrase >And he SAW THAT
he wasnt a mensch< follows Biblical style. If you are looking
to see if anybody is around and dont find anybody you would
say >He saw AND BEHOLD no one was there<. However when
something is noticed spontaneously (as thru intuition) the
style is >SAW THAT<.(This principle is justified thru 2
dozen Biblical examples)

So the fact that >SAW THAT< is used vs >SAW, BEHOLD< shows
that Moses spontaneously noticed something >There was no
MAN there< . We translated this as >he wasnt a mensch<
Rashi suggests a further nuance-->No good descendants would
come out of him<

Either way the point is that Moses realized that the Egyptian
was wrong and had to be killed.

For further details see the main posting. In that posting
we discuss the Rashi Ramban controversy and show that Ramban
disagreed with Commentators on Rashi not on Rashi himself.

*7 Thus although Ex04-20 states that Moses DID TAKE his
wife with him back to Egypt, nevertheless, Ex18-02a
makes it clear that Jethro brought her back to Moses
from Midyan. Thus apparently there was a separation

Rashi dresses this separation up in the obvious
manner--Aaron probably made a comment to Moses:
- We have enough slaves-are you bringing your
- wife into this situation also? This could
- lead Moses to bring her back