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

*2 Our CLIMAX Page illustrating the important Biblical principle
   of CLIMAX has been redone. For example Dt19-11 CLIMACTICALLY
   describes how murder takes place in 4 stages(Rashi Dt19-11a)
   - HATRED
   - STALKING, SPYING
   - CONFRONTATION
   - BLOWS & MURDER
   Read other examples of this at
   http://www.RashiYomi.Com/climax.htm

*3 Briefly
   - the TOP GRINDSTONE is used with an UP-DOWN GALLOPY
     motion like a RIDER of a horse(it is called the RIDER)

   - The BOTTOM GRINDSTONES purpose is to provide SPACE on
     which the top grindstone may grind (it is called SPACE)

   We also bring in a Rare Radack-Rashi controversy:

*4 The torah prohibits MEN from wearing WOMEN GARMENTS and WoMEN
   from wearing MALE-UTENSILS(eg weapons). The reason for the
   law is to prevent disguising and mingling that could lead
   to sexual sin. By analogy the Torah also prohibits WOMEN from
   wearing MALE-GARMENTS and MEN from wearing FEMALE UTENSILS
   (Jewelry) This Rashi uses the method of ALIGNMENT

*5 We continue the RASHI-RAMBAM-GOLDEN SERIES. This series
   is dedicated to showing how Rashi and Rambam complement
   each other as a commentary on Chumash. We further show
   how sometimes Rashi is more detailed while sometime
   Rambam is more detailed. Todays posting shows how Rashi
   and Rambam derive 4 laws about the prohibitions of men
   and women disguising themselves in garments of the
   opposite gender in order to facilitate sexual sin Further
   details on this law are also presented.

*9 Also see the following URL for Rashi texts in English
   ---------------------------------------------------
   http://aish.com/literacy/reference/
   Search_the_Chumash_with_Rashi_-_in_English.asp
   ---------------------------------------------------

*1 Every grindstone has a TOP and BOTTOM grindstone. The TOP
   grindstone is called the RIDER (R-K-V, the Hebrew root whose
   meaning is to RIDE). When you use the TOP GRINSTONE you
   use it in a GALLOPY TOP-DOWN motion.

*2 SURFING vs RIDING denotes a non-smooth motion with
   fast and slow periods and general bumpiness. We might
   say that RIDING is to RIDING A GRINDSTONE as SURFING
   THE WEB is to READING A BOOK. One is smooth and one is bumpy.

*3 The Hebrew root T-F can denote either
   --pounding a drum
   --pounding ones heart in mourning

*1 This verse lists prohibitions on BOTH men and women

*2 This phrase is identical. What follows are PROHIBITIONS

*3 In prohibiting male-female-item interchanges the
   Torah prohibits
   ---COMPLETE opposite-gender items like GARMENTS
   ---PARTIAL opposite-gender items like TRINKETS

*4 In prohibiting male-female-item interchanges the
   Torah prohibits
   --- GARMENTS
   --- UTENSILS (e.g. Trinkets, Weapons, etc)*12

*10 The above ALIGNMENT leaves out many interesting items
    such as the different orders
    ------------------------------------------------
    A women should not let male garments BE ON HER
    A mean should not DRESS female garments
    ------------------------------------------------
    Notice how in one phrase the verse ends with the
    verb while in the other phrase the verb is in
    the middle of the verse

*11 In other words we are separating the derivations on
    this verse into two parts: One derivation comes from
    the ALIGNMENT of the two parshas while the other derivation
    comes from the PROCESS of generalization because a REASON
    was given to the law (which requires GENERALIZING the law
    to all cases to which the reason applies)

*12 My approach is that the prohibition of
    --women wearing weaponry is derived from the
      EXPLICIT BIBLICAL PHRASE,
      ------------------------------------------
      Women should not wear MALE UTENSILS
      ------------------------------------------

    --men wearing jewelry is ALSO derived from the
      EXPLICIT BIBLICAL PHRASE, MALE-UTENSILS
      Indeed, the principle of GENERALIZATION requires
      us to prohibit
      --FEMALE DRESSES on men (explicitly said) & vice versa
      --MALE TRINKETS on women(explicitly said) & vice versa

    That is, it is the process of ANALOGY which requires that
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Just as FEMALES cannot wear MALE-UTENSILS (eg Weapons) so too
    MEN cannot wear FEMALE-UTENSILS (i.e. jewelry)
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    In applying this generalization we are requiring
    transferring items from each verse half (So DRESSES are
    prohibited to men and SIMILARLY SUITS are prohibited to
    WOMEN; WEAPONS (MALE UTENSILS) are prohibited to women
    and SIMILARLY JEWELRY (Female utensils) are prohibited to
    MEN.))

*1 The intent here is that if an animal is slaughtered according
   to ritual law and found to be diseased (e.g. it has a
   punctured lung) then that animal is NON-KOSHER EVEN if the
   slaughtering was done properly.

   Although the verse says dont eat ANY SICK FIELD ANIMALS the
   actual law applies to ANY ANIMAL that is SICK (The Torah
   simply chose FIELD animals because that is the usual way
   animals get sick)

*10 The following references may prove useful
    The following sources deal with the prohibitions of
    male-female-item interchanges. The Bible prohibits
    MEN and WOMEN from wearing CLOTHING of the opposite
    gender. The issue is which items and activities
    are prohibited? The Law prohibits 3-4 types of items
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    REFERENCE           WHICH PROHIBITIONS DOES IT CONTAIN
    ------------------- -------------------------------------
    Sifrah/Sifray       Jewelry, hair plucking, shave armpits
    Nazir 59            Jewelry, hair plucking, shave armpits
    Makkoth 20          Prohibition of hair plucking
    Rambam Idol 12:9-10 Jewelry, hair plucking, shave armpits
    ---------------------------------------------------------


    The following controversies will be touched upon. The
    issue is whether the given item is included in the
    prohibition of male-female-garment interchanges
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    ITEM               Rambam       Raavad  Rashi
    ----------------   ------------ ------- -----------------
    Shave armpits      Rabbinically         Biblically
    Plucking 1 hair    Prohibited   No
    ---------------------------------------------------------


*11 Rashi-is-Simple on this verse. He states
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    The Torah explicitly gives a reason for the prohibition:
    Women shouldnt wear mens garments and vice versa BECAUSE
    it is an ABOMINATION. Hence, concludes Rashi the prohibition
    applies to ALL SITUATIONS WHERE GARMENT EXCHANGE COULD
    LEAD TO SIN, FOR EXAMPLE, if a woman dresses up in military
    uniform, disguises herself and mingles with men by sitting
    among women: Such a mingling in disguise would facilitate sin
    Similarly it is prohibited for a man to shave armpits.
    (We will explain why these examples facilitate sin below)
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Rashi does NOT go into ALL details of the law; like the
    prohibition of wearing Jewelry, Weapons, or plucking
    white hairs from black hairs. Rashi instead focuses on
    the main prohibition
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ANY GENDER-ITEM INTERCHANGE THAT COULD LEAD TO SIN
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    We however can easily derive the 4 main sub-prohibitions
    listed in the Talmud Sifray and Rambam (See footnote #10)

    First however let me focus on the main prohibition. From
    the Sifrah-Talmudic phrase
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    People shouldnt wear clothes of the opposite gender lest
    they mingle with that gender and this lead to sin
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    some people erroneously think that the Bible prohibits
    DISGUISES (e.g. a woman FULLY dressed in military uniform;
    this allows the woman to disguise herself and mingle with
    men)

    My opinion however is that MINGLING WITH MEN is only an
    EXAMPLE of what might happen, not an actual requirement.
    The Bible prohibits SEXUAL PROVOCATION. So e.g. if a woman
    is dressed in a military helmet she is PROVOKING men to say
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    TAKE IT OFF. WHY ARE YOU DRESSED LIKE A MAN. YOU SHOULD
    LOOK LIKE A WOMEN
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Such provocation (under the right circumstances) could
    (EASILY) lead to sin.

    In a nutshell, the Torah prohibits POTENTIAL SEXUAL
    PROVOCATION (not DISGUISE). Also notice that the
    prohibition is on POTENTIAL sexual provocation. A
    women wearing a mans garment need not MINGLE WITH MEN
    to violate the law. It is enough that there is the
    potential to sin. Let us now review the
    4 main categories of prohibition in light of this.


    CATEGORY 1
    ----------
    The Torah prohibits MEN wearing DRESSES or WOMEN
    wearing UNIQUELY MALE GARMENTS. This could lead
    both to DISGUISE or SEXUAL PROVOCATION. This
    prohibition is agreed on by all Rishonim. It is
    also explicitly stated in the Biblical text.


    CATEGORY 2
    ----------
    The Torah prohibits either gender from wearing
    small TRINKET-LIKE OBJECTS (e.g. women wearing
    weapons or men wearing jewelry). This is universally
    agreed upon by all Rishonim. This could lead to
    SEXUAL PROVOCATION (take it off; look like a man/woman)
    The prohibition is derived thru the process of
    GENERALIZATION from the explicit Biblical phrase
    WOMEN SHOULDNT WEAR MALE UTENSILS (eg weapons).
    Hence by generalization women shouldnt wear JEWELRY

    CATEGORY 3
    ----------
    It is prohibited for men to pluck white hairs from
    black hairs as this is an effiminate activity.
    This is agreed to by all Rishonim. The prohibition
    is derived by GENERALIZATION. Just as WEAPONS &
    JEWELRY are prohibited (small but noticable items)
    so too ANY NOTICABLE ITEM that could lead to sexual
    provocation is prohibited (e.g. a woman could provoke a
    man plucking white hairs: WHY ARE YOU ACTING SO YOUNG)

    There however is a controversy between Rambam and Raavad
    on whether plucking one hair is prohibited. The dispute
    (See KESEF MISHNAH) has to do with noticability.

    I would suggest that Rambam/Raavad are in agreement. Indeed
    Raavad would admit that if a person had only ONE WHITE hair
    on their head then taking it out would be a Biblical
    prohibition since the plucking WOULD be noticed. In terms
    of our criteria the man could be teased about his behavior
    and PROVOKED SEXUALLY.

    I would also suggest that Rambam would admit that if a
    person had a majority of white hairs then plucking some
    white hairs near black hairs would be permissable since
    no one would notice.

    Hence there is no disagreement. Any noticable plucking
    of hair that could lead to sexual provocation is
    prohibited.

    CATEGORY 4
    ----------
    Rashi and Rambam have a controversy (dating back to
    to the Talmud) on whether shaving armpits is Biblically
    or Rabbinically prohibited.

    I would suggest that the controvesy between them is
    on whether a Biblical reason can be additive or restrictive

    The Torah after telling us that men and women cannot wear
    clothes of the opposite gender tells us the reason
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    BECAUSE (THIS INTERCHANGE OF GARMENTS) IS DISGUSTING
    (that is, could lead to or facilitate sin)
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    According to Rashi ANYTHING that is disgusting should
    be prohibited. Not just SMALL NOTICABLE ITEMS (like weapons
    and trinkets) but even SHAVING ARMPITS (which is not
    visible) should be prohibited. Again, if people got
    undressed the shaven armpits could be a source of
    sexual provocation (Why dont you behave like a man).

    According to Rambam the verse was speaking about
    SMALL NOTICABLE ITEMS (Like garments and trinkets).
    The REASON for the prohibition cannot ADD on new
    prohibitions (like shaven armpits which are not VISIBLE).
    Hence the Rambam holds this Rabbinic in nature.


*12 Verse Dt24-06c says
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Dont take as security (thru court) the top and bottom
    grindstone BECAUSE YOU ARE TAKING A LIFE-SUPPORT ITEM
    AS SECURITY
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    The reason, BECAUSE YOU ARE TAKING A LIFE SUPPORT ITEM
    AS SECURITY, shows HOW the law should be generalized.
    The law should be generalized to prohibit taking any
    LIFE-SUPPORT ITEM.

    On the translation of the Hebrew root N-P-Sh as
    LIFE SUPPORT ITEM see Volume 11 Number 10 or
    either of the following two URLS
    http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h11n6.htm
    http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gn09-04a.htm

    We show there that N-P-Sh has 6 meanings one of which
    is LIFE-RELATED. Some examples might be Dt24-15a WORKERS
    RISK THEIR SOUL which means WORKERS RISK THEIR LIFE or
    LOVE GOD WITH ALL YOUR SOUL which means LOVE GOD WITH ALL
    YOUR LIFE (even martyrdom). See the reference for further
    examples.

    So too here: The Dt24-06 should be translated as
    DONT TAKE GRINDING STONES FOR SECURITY FOR YOU
    TAKE AS SECURITY ITEMS, THAT AFFECT LIFE