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

*2 ABE CHASID asked that the Rashis be organized by Parshah.
   This is in contrast to the clumsy pulldown which shows
   all 1600 Rashis currently in the database. Accordingly I
   have a spreadsheet with all Parshas--simply
   click on a Parshah and see all the Rashis in that Parshah

*3 This posting reviews the fundamental issue of the difference
   between Peshat and Derash, between Simple and Homiletic.
   We explain basic and fundamental ideas; we also show how
   BOTH the simple and homiletic meanings are Simple and true!
   This posting is a must for all serious students of Rashi.

*1 The use of bullets separates this sentence into 2 clauses.
   The first clause indicates Elazars responsibility to see
   that these daily items were offered even when the Jews
   were Journeying.

*2 The use of bullets separates this sentence into 2 clauses.
   The second clause, refers to Elazars appointment
   over the Kehatites whose job was to carry the Utensils of
   the Holies when moving.

   Notice how the BULLET effect encourages us to interpret
   each clause separately and distinctly.

*1 Notice how Nu03-32 (level 2b2) seems to be out of place
   here. The paragraphs are telling us the job responsibilities
   of each of the Levite tribes.

   It doesnt make (stylistic) sense to include a verse that
   Elazar was appointed over all Levites in the MIDDLE of
   an enumeration of Levite responsibilites.

   Therefore the STRUCTURE of the chapter suggests that
   this verse be reinterpreted. It seems natural to combine
   Nu03-32 (level 2b2) with Nu03-27:31 (level 2b1) .

   Thus all together Nu03-27:32 states that THE KEHATITES
   UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ELAZAR WORKED ON CARRYING THE
   TEMPLE UTENSILS.

   In other words the verse ELAZAR WAS THE PRINCE OF THE
   LEVITES is reinterpreted to mean ELAZAR WAS THE PRINCE
   OF THAT BRANCH OF THE LEVITES JUST DISCUSSED, THE KEHATITES

   This reinterpretation is SUGGESTED (But not yet proved)
   by both the structure of the paragraphs as well as the
   parallel structure of level 3 which lists LEVITE-PRIEST
   liasons in general and the KEHATITE-ELAZAR connection.

   We will examine other confirming proofs in
   another LIST immediately following.

The following is a precise argument for why we reinterpret
some verses. The defense precedes in self contained steps.

In step 1 we use a Rashi which focuses on what Rabbi Ishmael
called the GENERAL-PARTICULAR form. For a full discussion
of this form see http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example5.htm

STEP 1
------
Nu04-27a GENERAL:    Gayrshon appointed under Priests
Nu04-28a PARTICULAR: Gayrshon worked under Ithamar

Following Rabbi Ishamel we interpret this GENERAL-PARTICULAR pair
as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From all priests ONLY Ithamar will be appointed over Gayrshon
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Rashi explicitly states in the 2 Rashis Nu04-27a and Nu04-28a
that only the priest Ithamar was appointed over Gayrshon.
This follows the rules governing interpretation of the
GENERAL-PARTICULAR form.


STEP 2
------
Nu04-05:15 GENERAL:    Priests come to help Kehat
Nu04-16    PARTICULAR: Elazar helps on Mishkan

We interpret these vereses to mean that only Elazar helps
on those parts of Mishkan that Kehat is appointed over.

Note: We transfer the Rashi from Nu04-27:28 which deals
with a GENERAL-PARTICULAR structure to Nu04 which has
a similar (though not identical) GENERAL-PARTICULAR
structure.

While Rashi does not explicitly state the GENERAL-PARTICULAR
structure he does state that
--------------------------------------------------------
Nu04-16a Elazar was appointed over the Kehatites
Nu04-16c Elazar was not appointed over all Levites since
         we see from Nu04-28 and Nu04-33 that Ithamar
         was appointed over Gayrshon and Merari.
---------------------------------------------------------

To understand Rashi note that from the verses
it is still possible that Elazar was appointed over
BOTH the Gayrshonites, Merrarites and Kehatites while
Ithamar was only appointed over the Gayrshonites and
Merarites.

The refutation of this possibility is accomplished by
the GENERAL-PARTICULAR form in Nu04-27:28. The rules
governing the GENERAL-PARTICULAR form assure us that
-----------------------------------------------------
of all the priests (GENERAL) only Ithamar(PARTICULAR)
was appointed over the Gayrshonites
-----------------------------------------------------
That is the GENERAL-PARTICULAR form is always interpreted
to mean that ONLY THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS are allowed
Hence Elazar could not have been appointed over the
Gayrshonites. Therefore we must reinterpret Nu04-01:20
to mean that Elazar (not all Priests) helped the Kehatites.


STEP 3
------
The actual verses state
------------------------------------------------------------
Nu03-27:31 Kehatites appointed over Mishkan Utensils
Nu03-32    Elazar is Prince of Levites appointed over temple
------------------------------------------------------------

IF I hadnt seen the other verses cited above then I would
interpret these verses as follows

Nu03-32a The prince of the Levites was Elazar
---------------------------------
RASHI: Appointed over all of them
---------------------------------


Nu03-32b Appointed over the temple
---------------------------------------------------
RASHI: He is responsible for all appointments
---------------------------------------------------

However because I have seen the other verses I interpret
ELAZAR PRINCE OF LEVITES to refer not to all Levites
but rather to the Kehatites which had been discussed
in the immediately previous verses. Similarly because
I know (from the immediately preceding verse Nu03-31)
that the Kehatites were not appointed over the whole
Mishkan, but rather over the Mishkan utensils like the
Menorah and Shulchan, therefore I reinterpret Nu03-32
to refer only to the Mishkan utensils and not to the
ENTIRE Mishkan

But why doesnt Rashi simply say this? Why does Rashi say
that Elazar was APPOINTED OVER ALL OF THEM which seems
to include all Levites, an interpretation which we know
not to be true since it contradicts the GENERAL-PARTICULAR
form on Nu04-27:28, which says that of all Priests only
Ithamar is to help the Gayrshonites?

In my opinion this is the difference between SIMPLE MEANING
and HOMILETIC meaning (PESHAT & DRASH). For SIMPLE MEANING
refers to the MEANING OF THE VERSE WHEN VIEWED BY ITSELF.
By itself the verse says that Elazar is appointed over
ALL Levites and over ALL temple utensils.

By HOMILETIC MEANING we refer to the MEANING OF THE VERSE
IN CONTEXT. In the context of nearby chapters and verses
we must reinterpret Nu03-32 to mean that Elazar was
not the prince of ALL LEVITES but rather of the LEVITES
BEING DISCUSSED---the Kehatites; furthermore in light of
Nu03-31 we cannot say that Elazar was appointed over the
WHOLE temple; rather we must say that he was appointed over
those parts of the temple being discussed and listed in
Nu03-31 (i.e. the temple utensils).

Notice how both the HOMILETIC and SIMPLE meaning are TRUE.
A true student of the Bible must learn both of them. The
Homiletic meaning is true because it reads a verse in context

OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE IS WHY THE HOMILETIC MEANING IS CALLED
HOMILETIC. IT IS NOT CALLED HOMILETIC BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE.
ON THE CONTRARY THE HOMILETIC MEANING IS TRUE. FURTHERMORE IT
IS NOT CALLED HOMILETIC BECAUSE IT IS NOT SIMPLY DERIVED. ON
THE CONTRARY THE HOMILETIC MEANING IS SIMPLY DERIVED. RATHER
THE HOMILETIC MEANING IS CALLED HOMILETIC BECAUSE IT IS A
MEANING DERIVED FROM CONTEXT WHILE BY CONTRAST THE SIMPLE
MEANING REVIEWS THE MEANING OF A PHRASE OR VERSE BY ITSELF.

This is a basic principle in learning Rashi and Tenach. Rashi
on Nu03-31 was telling us the simple meaning of verse when
viewed by itself EVEN THOUGH Rashi knew there were other verses
which suggested reinterpretation. By doing this Rashi emphasized
what each verse meant by itself and hence helped us
appreciate that it was the simultaniety of verses that confers
a demand for reinterpretation.