*1 An alignment*10 sheds further light on this
   -----------------------------------------------------
   Gn37-30 Reuven said: Joseph ISNT AROUND
   Gn42-13 The brothers said: Joseph ISNT AROUND
   Gn42-36 And Jacob said: Joseph ISNT AROUND
   Gn44-20 Joseph DIED
   -----------------------------------------------------
   This alignment motivates Rashis comment that Judah
   exaggerated when he said JOSEPH DIED.

*2 We present a grammatical defense to Rashi.*11
   ---------------------------------------------------
   Gn44-29 And if you ALSO take Benjamin from me(Jacob)
   then there will be an accident
   ---------------------------------------------------
   The word ALSO has 3 meanings*12; at its simplest level
   ALSO refers to other items. So the verse means that
   - Joseph was mugged while on a TRIP (Gn37-12:36)
   - Rachel died while on a TRIP (Gn35-18)
   Hence Jacob was worried that BENJAMIN would also come
   to an accident while on a TRIP. *13

*3 Rashi doesnt explicitly state this but as is our custom
   in this list we provide additional Biblical support for
   Rashi (We call this the WORKBOOK method).

   Jacob calls Rachel HIS WIFE even though he had other
   wives. The exaggeration sets a stage for portraying how
   Benjamins incarceration could lead to Jacobs death thru
   a heart attack on hearing the Benjamin was lost.

*4 See footnote #1. In Gn44-40a Judah says JOSEPH DIED
   while now he cites Jacob as saying AND I STILL HAVENT
   FOUND HIM. This exaggeration portrays Jacob as a
   bitter person who refused to accept death. *15
   (This point is also not made explicit by Rashi but
   fits into the overall pattern of this chapter and
   his comments).

*5 Gn37-35 Jacob says I WILL GO DOWN TO HELL OVER MY SON
   By citing this exaggeration of Jacob Judah heightens
   the pity and prepares the stage for making reasonable
   that Benjamin will die if taken.

   Rashi further makes it reasonable that one more death
   will kill Jacob(After all he survived the other 2).
   Rashi explains that as long as Benjamin was alive he
   had a link to his past. With Benjamins death he would
   lose everything.

*6 Not everyone dies when losing a child. Judah had to
   build up a case. Here is the climactic sequence
   - I have MY SPECIAL WIFE - Rachel
   - She died on a trip
   - Joseph her son died on a trip
   - I expect Benjamin to did on a trip also
   - I will have no memory left of her--no children etc
   - I will then drop dead and go to Hell
   The purpose of this exaggeration was to build up a case
   to induce Joseph to have pity and let Benjamin go

*10 I am indebted to Dr Avivah Zornberg for hinting to the
   above alignment. In passing her 2 books contain much
   insights into nuances of the verses that are often
   overlooked.

*11 My Teacher, The Rav, Rabbi Joseph Baer Soloveitchick said
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   In studying Rashi it is always good to avoid the stormy
   waters of philosophy and seek refuge in the placid lakes
   of grammar
   ---------------------------------------------------------

*12 See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gam-9.htm

*13 The word ALSO is the driving force in Rashi. Rashi
    however expresses himself in a FANCIFUL manner
    ------------------------------------------------
    Death (Satan) prosecutes when people are in danger
    ------------------------------------------------
    Rashis real point was that Judah was showing how
    Benjamins other family members met a similar fate

    In other words we combine Gn44-22a and Gn44-29a
    -----------------------------------------------
    Benjamins Mother and brother died on a trip.
    Since trips are dangerous and there is a family
    history we are worried he would die on this trip
    -----------------------------------------------

*14 About a year ago someone at Shomrey Emunah asked me why
   the HE in the verse refers to Benjamin (vs Jacob)
   -------------------------------------------------------
   Gn44-22 BENJAMIN cannot leave his FATHER: If HE left
   HE would die
   -------------------------------------------------------

   There are two answers:
   - the word HE in HE LEFT refers to Benjamin
   - Hence the word HE in HE WOULD DIE refers to Benjamin

   Also the principle of Climax requires us to interpret the
   verses climactically:
   -- Gn44-22 talks about the death of Benjamin
   -- Gn44-31a talks about the death of Jacob

*15 Judah was indirectly also explaining the statement
    of the brothers Gn42-13 that JOSEPH COULDNT BE FOUND
    The brothers were simply being respectful to their
    father who couldnt accept death.

*1 The parallelism in the verse helps justify this translation
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   And I (Pharoh) will give you THE BEST of Egypt
   and --------------- you-ll eat THE FAT of the land
   -----------------------------------------------------------

   The alignment suggests that FAT(CHAYLEV) can metaphorically
   refer to the BEST

*2 The above 4 meanings are basic and agreed to by all
   commentators. Two other possible meanings to CHAYLEV are
   connected to Dt32-14j *11 and Ez27-18 *12.See the footnotes

*10 We know this word refers to some type of perfume but we
    dont know which one. We have a tradition that it was a bad
    smelling perfume.

    I would conjecture that perhaps it had a waxy glossed
    appearance so it LOOKED LIKE fat. There are some scholarly
    works on what this perfume may be but I have not reviewed
    them yet.

*11 Dt32-14j The verse says
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    God gave you the CREAM of CATTLE, and the FATTEST OF SHEEP
    .... and the BEST OF KIDNEY WHEAT; with BLOODY GRAPES
    giving rise to beer
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Both RADACK and RASHI agree that KIDNEY WHEAT refers
    to the SHAPE of WHEAT (GERM). The wheat Kernel has a
    football like shape (narrow, elongated and thick in
    the middle).

    RADACK therefore interprets the word CHLAV as meaning the
    BEST OF KIDNEY WHEAT.

    Rashi however CONTINUES the LOOK-ALIKE analogy. In other
    words Rashi interprets
    - Wheat that look like KIDNEYS
    - Wheat Kernels that are covered the way FAT covers the
      Kidneys

    Thus Rashi introduces the idea of SOMETHING that LOOKS
    like FAT COVERING.

    However I think it more reasonable to say that Rashi
    complements Radack.

    In other words both Rashi and Radack would interpret
    the Biblical phrase as meaning THE BEST OF KIDNEY WHEAT
    Rashi simply points out that good wheat is covered the
    same way Kidneys are covered with fat. Thus
    the meaning of the word is dependent BOTH on APPEARANCE
    (looks like a fat covering) and ATTRIBUTE (BEST).

    These are both normal methods of naming concepts. For
    a list of how concepts are named see
    http://www.RashiYomi.Com/naming-8.htm

    (Technically the Hebrew CLAYOTH refers to
    the ADRENAL glands that sit on the Kidneys. But both
    the Kidneys and Adrenals have the same shape).


*12 Ex27-18 speaks about the CHELBON WINE. We have 3
    suggested meanings for this phrase
    - the BEST OF WINE (Menachem cited by Rashi)
    - Wine of the place named CHELBON (Radack on Ez)
    - COOKED wine (Radack in Roots citing YONATHAN)

    In light of the above I think the best approach is
    that CHELBON WINE means THE BEST WINE -- probably
    referring to AGED WINE

    The terminal NUN would indicate MUCHNESS and hence
    could refer to the AGING of wine. See the following
    reference for a LIST of words where NUN refers to
    muchness: http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gn02-11a.htm
    It would be consistent with this to say that CHELBON
    is the name of a place where wine was made.

*1 In this verse it is the Hebrew word >IM< which means >THAT<
   However we follow Rashi in making a LIST of a >GROUP< of
   Hebrew words--->KI<, >IM<----each of which can mean
   >IF< >THAT< >WHEN<  etc.

*2 This is an answer to Dr Sunness question on this Rashi.
   Dr Sunness had asked what this Rashi was saying
   Rashi was simply explaining that >KI< means >THAT<, not
   >BECAUSE<.  Rashi also notes that the Aramaic translation
   of this verse is in error since the verse does not say
   >And the whole congregation saw BECAUSE?!?!? Aaron died<
   (Rashi further elaborates on other suggested translations &
   shows the error in translating them that way)

   Note the terseness by which we analyze this Rashi. This
   is because we have a LIST of all Rashis on this verse
   to back up the meanings we give. Such a list facilitates
   the explanation of any one example.

*3 I think this is the best way to interpret this verse, based
   on Rashi:
                >What does God ask of you?<
   This is interpreted rhetorically--does God ask nothing?
   The verse then continues
                >Rather (God asks) that you fear him<

   This is consistent with the Talmudic statement that
   >God does everything for man except for enabling man to fear
   Him which man must do himself<

*4 These verses appear as anomalies in this list. There are
   two difficulties with its inclusion. First of all the Hebrew
   work >IM< is used, not the Hebrew word >KI<. But we have
   already explained that we follow Rashi in the construction
   of this LIST and present >GROUPS< of words---KI, IM---each
   of which can mean >IF<, >WHEN< etc

   A more serious problem is including a verse with the
   word >UNTIL< in a LIST of verses with  >THATUNTIL<

   * I travelled northward UNTIL New York
   * I travelled UNTIL I ran out of Gas
   * I travelled UNTIL the exhaustion of the Gas.

   In English all 3 of these sentences use the word >UNTIL<

   In Hebrew the first and last sentence would use the Hebrew
   word >AD< which means >UNTIL<

   However the second sentence would include the abstract pronoun
   >THAT< in order to introduce the subordinate sentence. Thus
   the Hebrew translation of the 2nd sentence above would read

   * I travelled UNTIL THAT I ran out of Gas.

   This sounds strange to an English speaking person but is
   perfectly normal in Hebrew. Thus the rule is
   * Use UNTIL with a single sentence or with an infinitive
   * Use UNTIL THAT with a subordinate sentence. This rule
   is justified by the LIST in the footnotes
   which also contains statistics

*5 Added Dec 13, 2001