*1 Professional version has professionally made tables, use of
   bold, shading as well as inside-outside technology
   Professional version will be available SUNDAY

*1 1Ch2-18:19 mentions explicitly that Chur was Kalevs son.
   1Ch2-18:19 also speaks about a man marrying somebody who
   gave birth to his wife! Rashi in Chronicles suggests the
   reasonable interpretation that the mother died on the
   operating table and the father named his new daughter
   after his deceased wife (Hence his wife gave birth >to
   his wife< since she had the same name).

   Chazal give a more homiletic interpretation that Kalev
   was married to Miryam who was considered dead since she
   was leprous. Since Kalev nursed her back to health and
   stayed with her he is considered as if he >RENEWED HER
   LIFE< and gave birth to her.

   Since Rashi on Chronicles contradicts Rashi on Chumash
   I assume he didnt fully accept the Midrash that Miryam
   was Churs mother. Nevertheless Rashi cited it to show
   the broad spectrum of interpretation (Rashi will sometimes
   cite one explanation and let teachers pave thru the other
   explanations). On the Chronicle verse there are 5
   alternative explanations.

   Be that as it may everyone agrees that the driving force
   behind Rashi is the OTHER VERSE.

*2 As mentioned earlier this type of example is the basis
   of the Passover Hagaddah. Cross referencing is the most
   basic type of research but nevertheless can be done by
   everybody. Such research would enable a proliferation of
   Torah scholars.

*3 The Malbim cites Ex32-27:28. Rashi cites Ex20-03. So Levi
   both listened to Gods will not to worship idols as well
   as to Moses order to kill relatives.

*4 This example properly belongs in te Rabbi Ishmael series
   on contradictory verses. In this case we resolve the
   two contradictory verses using the method of MODALITY.

   It is INITIALLY required to offer OXEN, LAMBS and GOATS
   as described in Nu28-19. However if you say only had
   OXEN then you shouldn't say >Since I cant bring all of
   them together I will not bring any of them<. Rather
   you should follow the law in Lv23-08 that says >OFFER
   TO THE FIRE< (In other words >OFFER WHATEVER YOU CAN<)

*5 The point here is that Dt07-23:24 is stated in a CLIMACTIC
   manner:
   --God will give you the >NATIONS<
   --God will give you their >KINGS<
   --You will erase their >NATIONAL NAME<
   --There will be >NO SURVIVORS<
   (The principle of CLIMAX demands that the last phrase be
   interpreted to refer to SURVIVORS even though it literally
   only says >No man will stand before you< which could have
   many meanings)

   Once we learn that >no man will stand before you< refers
   to >survivors< (because of the principle of CLIMAX) we
   then transfer that translation to Dt11-25a.

*6 Thus the Korach rebellion gives details on HOW ANGRY God
   would get if the Levites or Priests had their jobs inteferred
   with

*7 THe exact same phrase >Because Abraham obeyed my voiceI will sanctify myself with WEIGHT< while
   Lv10-03 says >I will sanctify myself with those CLOSE to me<
   The 2 verses and the incident that happened---that Aaron the
   High Priests sons died because they did something improper
   shows that God rules by Justice without favoritism to close
   ones. This makes people appreciate Gods honor and weight and
   respect him more

*9 -From 1C07-14 we see that MACHIR the father of GILAD came
    from MENASHEH.
   -From 1C02-21:23 we see that YAIR came from MACHIR.
   -From 1C02-21:23 we see that the Menasheh genealogies end
    at YAIR.

   Hence, Rashi concludes, YAIR had no children. So it is
   logical that he named the cities he conquered as CHAVOTH
   YAIR, after his own name, to serve as a rememberance
   after he dies.

   Thus we see that Rashi derived the extra details that
   Yair had no children from AN OTHER VERSE

*1 Rashi treats the word OTH(SYMBOL) like MEMORIAL.

 Following Rav Hirsch I define a SYMBOL as
 ------------------------------------------------------
 An object or activity whose goal is to remind one
 of others objects or activities.
 ------------------------------------------------------
 See my Genesis 1 paper for a full discussion of
 symbols: http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gen-1.htm

 The difference between MEMORIAL and SYMBOL seems to
 be subtle. Since Rashi does not discuss it we do
 not discuss it either (Perhaps a MEMORIAL is
 a PERIODICALLY REPEATING SYMBOL)

 The methodology in the LIST above is MEANING BASED ON
 CONTEXT. An alternate approach based on Rashis
 delightful application of Rashis 2-letter semantic
 theory is presented afterwards

*2 Recall that MEMORIAL denotes a PERMANANT REMINDER OF
   NON-IMMEDIATE EVENTS while AZCARAH denotes a REMINDER
   OF IMMEDIATE EVENTS.

   In each case ZIKARON reminds of something non-immediate
   or else reminds with a sense of PERMANANCE. So we have
   in the above LIST that
   --PASSOVER did not just remind the Egyptian jews of
     the Exodus that just happened to them (an IMMEDIATE
     SYMBOL) - Rather the PASSOVER is a REMINDER for
     ALL GENERATIONS (Hence Rashi says on ZIKARON: For
     all generations).
   --The Tefillin are WRITTEN DOWN -- they commemorate
     the distant exodus. The writing down gives
     permanance to the symbol
   --The priestly garments had a Priestly breastplate
     with the names of all the tribes. This breastplate
     does not only remind (God) of the present and
     immediate tribes. In fact this breastplate
     reminds (God) of the tribes themselves(See
     Rashi) whose merit and good deeds protect
     the current tribes (Thus I would imagine
     that each Tribe ancestor had particular good
     deeds that protected their tribe -- Thus
     Reuven saved Joseph from murder, Shimon saved
     his sister from Rape, Levi also saved his
     sister from Rape, Judah also saved Joseph
     from murder etc).
   --Rashi explains that the Shofar is a MEMORIAL.
     It reminds us of the Ram in the binding of
     Isaac. Just as Isaac was about to die and
     was saved at the last moment so throughout
     history, the Shofar is symbolic of our being
     saved at the last minute through a Divine
     intervention.

*3 Recall that MEMORIAL denotes a PERMANANT REMINDER OF
   NON-IMMEDIATE EVENTS while AZCARAH denotes a REMINDER
   OF IMMEDIATE EVENTS.

   The word AZCARAH in these verses denotes a
   a REMINDER of an IMMEDIATE event. I would assume
   this an example of the Rabbi Ishmael rule of
   learning the meaning of a word by specificity
   in one verse: For Lv02-02g explicitly explains
   that the Priest dips his hand into the 2
   gallons of flour mingled with oil and offers
   that handful on the altar. Thus the HANDFUL
   becomes a REMINDER of the Minchah which is
   IMMEDIATELY being dealt with.

   We can then transfer this meaning to Nu05
   and Lv24 to infer that handfuls are also
   offered to God.(In Lv24 there was a
   handful of incense placed on the weekly
   showbreads. Since the Bible prohibits
   offering bread it makes sense that this
   INCENSE REMINDER would serve as a REMINDER
   on the altar the same way that the HANDFUL
   serves as a reminder)

   For a discussion of this Rabbi Ishmael method
   that justifies transference of specificity of
   meaning to other verses see
   http://www.RashiYomi.Com/lv09-07d.htm

*4 Recall from the surrounding Biblical chapter that
   each of the tribes submitted a branch overnight
   but only Aarons branch sprouted, thus symbolically
   confirming that God had chosen Aaron to be the
   High Priest. These branches then became a SYMBOL--
   objects that REMINDED one of ANOTHER EVENT -- of
   the prophetic proof that God selected Aaron over
   the other priests.

   Notice that the symbol not only reminded people
   of what had IMMEDIATELY JUST HAPPENED - NAMELY
   that Aaron was selected HIGH PRIEST. The SYMBOL
   was ALSO to remind the Jews FOR ALL GENERATIONS
   of this Priestly selection. Hence it is a SYMBOL
   not a MEMORIAL.

*1 Rashi believed that verbs were conjugated according to the
   rules governing 3-letter roots. However Rashi SUPPLEMENTED
   this belief with a 2-letter root theory which posits that
   the meaning of grammatical ROOTS can be derived from
   a breakdown of their 3 letters.