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

*1 Rashi is citing a controversy in Sanhedrin between Rabbis
 Eliezer and Yehoshua. The actual verse states that
 --------------------------------
  & the nation sat in SHITTIM
 --------------------------------
 One view is tha SHITTIM is simply the name of a place
 The 2nd view is that SHITTIM comes from the root STH which
 means FOLLY.This would denote PLAYING AROUND and being FOOLISH
 Being PLAYFUL (not necessarily with members of the opposite
 gender) is STAGE #1 in the progression towards sin.

 I follow my usual view that Rashi frequently cited the FIRST
 of several opinions expecting that the teacher would fill in
 the other views. Thus Rashi was not necessarily ruling out
 the 2nd view (that SHITTIM was more than the name of a place--
 it in facts denotes how the people were behaving (amongst
 themselves)--they were being playful and foolish.

 I can even go a step further and suggest that the Talmudic
 views complement each other! SHITTIM was the name of this
 place because of its scenic beauty; people came there to
 GET AWAY and be playful. Accordingly I have translated this
 place as PLAYVILLE.

 If the reader dissents to what I have done then my
 interpretation of Rashi (as a sequence of stages towards sin)
 would still hold with 4 stages instead of 5.

 I again emphasize that the PLAYFUL stage may denote
 PLAYFULLNESS amongst oneselves without yet necessarily
 involving women.


*2 The verse literally says
   --------------------------------------------------
   the nation BEGAN to PROSTITUE with Midianite women
   --------------------------------------------------

   I interpret the phrase BEGAN TO PROSTITUTE as
   SOCIALIZED(since a SOCIALIZATION in an atmosphere of
   PLAYFULLNESS can be termed the BEGINNING OF PROSTITUTION)

   Rashi says on this verse
   ----------------------------------------------------
   The Midianites were acting under the advice of Bilam
   ----------------------------------------------------

   On a simple level I can say that Rashi was simply
   using the technique of OTHER VERSES. Indeed it explicitly
   says in Nu31-16a
   -------------------------------------------------------
   These women were against the Jews in the Peor incident
   (the language used in Nu24-03 of our chapter); TO CAUSE
   THE JEWS TO DESCECRATE GOD ON THE ADVICE OF BILAM
   -------------------------------------------------------

   Also see url http://www.RashiYomi.Com/dt17-04a.htm
   for a justification of translating the Hebrew DVAR as
   ADVICE.

   The above certainly justifies this Rashi. However on
   a deeper level recall that Bilam was an (evil) prophet.
   Hence he was trained in how to accomplish items that
   encouraged initial resistance.

   It follows that Rashis comment that BILAM ADVISED THIS
   pointed to the WHOLE SEQUENCE of stages that led to
   DEFECTION. That is Bilam advised them
   ---------------------------------------------------
   --wait till the Jews are playful
   --only then begin with socialization
   --then invite them to religious parties
   --wait till the Jews partake in them
   --Then when they are weak you can get them to defect
   ---------------------------------------------------
   In other words Bilam did more than advise prostitution
   He advised HOW TO EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT this
   prostitution.

*3 The Talmud (Sanhedrin) gives a play of words here.
   The root of TO CALL, KARAH, is related to the Hebrew
   KRI, denoting a nocturnal emission. So the Talmud
   suggests that the verse be translated as THE WOMEN
   AROUSED THEM TO COME TO THEIR PARTIES. One opinion
   is they went around naked.

   Without being so graphic I would more simply suggest
   that an environment of JEWISH-PLAYFULLNESS and
   SOCIALIAZATION with Midianites led naturally to
   INVITATIONS. In this environment, the invitations
   seemed innocuous and natural.

*4 Consistent with our idea of stages we need NOT assume
   that the Jews ate at the religious parties. Rather
   an environment of PLAYFULLNESS, SOCIALIZATION and
   INVITATION could naturally lead to heightened arousal
   which the Midianite women could detect by the natural
   side-effect of extra eating.

   Thus we would interpret AND THE NATION ATE to mean
   --either THE NATION AT (KOSHER FOODS) at their parties
   --or THE PEOPLE STARTED EATING EXTRA(because of arousal)

*5 Recall the previous 4 stages
   ---------------------------------------
   --playfullness (amongst oneselves)
   --socialization
   --invitations (without necessarily acceptance)
   --(excessive) eating (from being aroused)
   ---------------------------------------

   Rashi now explains the final stage. When a man
   already shows signs of arousal (Excessive eating) he
   might initiate relations with the women. In such a state
   he is weak. Thus if a woman takes out an idol and says
   SURE BUT BOW FIRST TO MY gOD then the man who normally
   wouldnt do such a thing might do it out of weakness
   (thinking that all he really wants is an affair)

   To summarize: Rashis comment here is based on the
   principle of STAGES. Other examples of Rashis based
   on stages leading to CLIMAX may be found at url
   http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example9.htm

*6 This Rashi is an example of a Rashi where there was
   no PROBLEM; nothing was BOTHERING Rashi. Furthermore
   it would be a mistake to interpret Rashi as trying
   to use the verse as a springboard for ethical lessons.

   Rather Rashi was responding to the SIMPLE MEANING OF
   THE SEQUENCE OF STAGES IN THE TEXT. Thus this is
   a Rashi based on THE STYLE rather than THE PROBLEM
   The Rashi should be perceived as the INTENDED SIMPLE
   MEANING OF THE TEXT TAKEN AS A WHOLE

   As such this Rashi is a good example of Dr Hendel
   meeting Dr Boncheck (A clash between the Philosophy
   that Rashi is Simple vs What is Bothering Rashi)

*1 As can be seen in footnote #2, THIRST was emphasized in
   Exodus. Apparently in Exodus the drought had reached
   the stage where they were parched while in Numbers they
   simply lost a water source.

   Hence it is reasonable that in Exodus they were worried
   especially about their children.

*2 As can be seen THIRST was emphasized more in
   Exodus. Apparently in Exodus the drought had reached
   the stage where they were parched while in Numbers they
   simply lost a water source.

   For a further justification that the Jews just lost a
   water source in Numbers see URL
   http://www.RashiYomi.Com/nu20-01b.htm which derives
   this crucial fact from a juxtaposition of paragraphs

*3 Recall the basic distinction from footnote #2 that
   THIRST is mentioned in Exodus but not in Numbers. We
   infer that in Exodus there was actual drought and urgency
   By contrast in Numbers there was merely loss of a water
   source; there was not yet drought. Hence the situation
   was less urgent.

   Consequently the remedy to the two situations was different.
   In Exodus God, if necessary,would use force to give water
   Moses was instructed to STRIKE the rock so that FROM it
   would COME water (even though the water did not normally
   come from this rock--ie. it was not a spring)

   By contrast, in Numbers God was going to provide an
   alternative water source. Hence Moses was instructed to
   speak to the Rock so that it would GIVE its NATURAL
   WATERS. I would simply suggest that this rock (in Numbers)
   had a hollow in it from which water periodically sprung
   forth (when there was a source below). Hence the verse
   in Numbers states the Rock will GIVE ITS WATER since there
   was a natural spring below.

*4 Recall from footnote #2 above that THIRST was emphasized
   in Exodus but not in Numbers. It follows that the drought
   was more dire in Exodus. Hence in Exodus the people
   were immediately allowed to drink. By contrast in Numbers
   where there was not yet THIRST we have a more leisurely
   pace. Moses was first allowed to WATER the flock.

*5 Recall from Footnote #2 that THIRST was mentioned in
   Exodus showing a more urgent situation. By
   contrast in Numbers they simply lost their water
   source but they were not yet in a state of THIRST.

   Hence in Exodus the emphasis was on preventing dehydration;
   it was the people and children  (footnote #1) that had
   to receive water.

   But in Numbers this urgency was absent. HENCE CONCLUDES
   RASHI, if BOTH the water needs of the nation and its
   flock are mentioned in Numbers it shows that God
   cared not only about the people but about their wealth
   also.

   Indeed, if God did not care about Jewish wealth, then
   God could WAIT till the animals die and only then save
   the people. Precisely by giving them water immediately
   God showed concern for both the people and their
   possessions.

*1 In Nu25-03 it says God was ANGRY. In the next 8 verses
   it states
   ------------------------------------------------
   ---that the Judges killed the idolaters
   ---Pinchas killed a Tribal prince
   ---there was plague of 24000
   ------------------------------------------------
   Thus it is ambiguous what Gods anger refers to. Using
   the rule of IMMEDIATE ANTECEDENT it seems that the anger
   refers to the HANGING that is immediately mentioned after
   the statement of Gods anger.

   Hence Rashi does two things
   -- he explains that the anger refers to the plague
   -- he explains that the killing of the Judges was not
      a special sign of anger but normal judicial process
      (See footnote #3 where verses are brought to show
      that hanging is a normal punishment for idolaters)

*2 The verse says TAKE THE LEADERS AND HANG THEM. Using
   the concept of IMMEDIATE ANTECEDENT it appears that the
   the leaders were to be hung. Rashi explains that the
   THEM refers to the idol-worshippers. Rashi then explains
   that the leaders were taken TO JUDGE the others.


*3 The word THEM could refer either to the leaders (TAKE THE
   LEADERS AND HANG THEM) or it could refer to the Jews
   who worshipping idols. Since the IMMEDIATE ANTECEDENT
   is the leaders Rashi needs to FILL-IN and clarify

   Rashi also brings in GRAMMAR and OTHER VERSES (In
   my opinion this Rashi should be broken up into two Rashis)

   The comments on Grammar will be brought in the next list.

   Rashi points out that the punishment of HANGING is the
   normal judicial punishment for idolatry. In fact the
   Bible explicitly identifies the punishment of idolatry
   with STONING & HANGING.

   The punishment of STONING for idolatry is explicitly
   mentioned in Dt17-02:07.

   The punishment of HANGING is explicitly mentioned
   in Dt21-22b for those WHO DESPISE God. In url
   http://www.rashiYomi.Com/dt21-22b.htm we infer using
   the Rabbi Ishmael rules that this applies to Idolaters
   and blasphemers.

*1 There is a difference between Rashis examples and Moshes
   examples. Rashi gives the same ROOT but with a different
   time (FUTURE vs COMMAND) and with a SUFFIX.

   The examples I gleaned from Moshes Grammatical-Form
   Kornkordance are without suffix. The roots all have
   weak first and last letters. There are 4 such examples
   If we add examples using FUTURE and PAST we get only
   8 examples in all of the Bible.

*2 Moshe also brings Lv04-23. However I have omitted this
   since the natural interpretation of this verse is REFLEXIVE
   not CAUSATIVE. In fact Malbim explains Lv04-23 as a hybrid
   of 3 MODES. Moshe also footnotes this special case.

*3 Recall that Resh is sometimes classified as guttural
   and sometimes as non-guttural. In this verse it is
   treated as guttural (Moshe makes a similar note in
   his Konkordance).

*1 There is a difference between Rashis examples and Moshes
   examples. Rashi gives the same ROOT but with a different
   time (FUTURE vs COMMAND) and with a SUFFIX.

   The examples I gleaned from Moshes Grammatical-Form
   Kornkordance are without suffix. The roots all have
   weak first and last letters. There are 4 such examples
   If we add examples using FUTURE and PAST we get only
   8 examples in all of the Bible.

*2 Moshe also brings Lv04-23. However I have omitted this
   since the natural interpretation of this verse is REFLEXIVE
   not CAUSATIVE. In fact Malbim explains Lv04-23 as a hybrid
   of 3 MODES. Moshe also footnotes this special case.

*3 Recall that Resh is sometimes classified as guttural
   and sometimes as non-guttural. In this verse it is
   treated as guttural (Moshe makes a similar note in
   his Konkordance).