*1 Isa07-19 speaks about NAHALLOL trees. Although some
   scholars think this comes from root N-H-L, Radacks father
   argues that this comes from the root Hay-Lamed-Lamed
   which can refer to trees

*2 Rashi notes that, Oonkelos, the Aramaic translation,
   translates Nun-Hay-Lamed as CARRYING A BURDEN. But
   Rashi dissents and points out that this is an Aramaic
   nuance. The Hebrew nuance is one of Guidance

*1 An equivalant way of formulating Rashis point is as follows:
   ------------------------------------------------------------
   The verse uses an elliptical present tense and should read
   This is NOW 2 years: The famine in the land
   In other words 2 years had elapsed from the beginning of the
   famine

*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 God, in Gn46-04 promises to
   - be with Jacob as he goes from Canaan to Egypt
   - raise Jacob from Egypt to Canaan
   But we find that Jacob died in Egypt and never went back
   up to Canaan? An OTHER VERSE (Gn50-13) clarifies HOW
   GOD HELPED JACOB TO BACK FROM EGYPT TO CANAAN. God helped
   bring Jacob back to Canaan FOR HIS BURIAL!!

*1 Note that
   -- Prayers,Blessings for future actions were to Abe & Isaac
   -- Treaties & thanksgiving without future action were to Isaac
   This position however has some difficulties. See footnote *10.

*10 If we look more carefully this is a bit conjectural
    There seem to be two counterexamples to which we can
    SUGGEST solutions

    - Gn31-53 describes a treaty between Jacob and Laban in
    which Jacob pledges not to hurt Labans daughters (his
    wives). This appears to be focused on the future.

    But actually this is focused on the past since Jacob did
    not want to have anything to do with Laban.  There was
    no real request on Jacobs part.

    A further thing to note in Gn31-53 is that
    -- Laban mentioned the God of Abraham and Nachor
    -- Jacob responded with an oath to the God of Isaac
    Thus Rashis point that
    ----------------------------------------------------
    If he was going to swear by one Patriarch he should
    preferably do it by his father, not his grandfather
    ----------------------------------------------------
    appears to have strong support in Gn31-53


    - Gn31-42 speaks about God saving Jacobs wages, a
    past event. But if we think about it, Jacob was still
    worried that laban would steal his wages and/or wives.
    This is explicitly stated in the verses (Gn31-31)
    Thus Jacob used strong Language (Abraham and Isaac)
    to scare Laban against taking anything.

*1  Strictly speaking there are Kal occurences which have an
    element of conquest such as Dt01-21, Dt02-24,or Dt02-31

*10 There are some slight connections between these meanings:
    - TO OUST means TO MAKE SOMEONE ELSE POOR (Causative)
    - The DECEASED becomes OUSTED & IMPOVERISHED from his estate
    which is INHERITED by the inheritors.
   But we will not dwell on these connections as they are not
   needed to understand the lists below. We present 2 lists

*1 Rashi makes 3 points: (Dt28-42a, Dt28-42b, Dt28-42c)
   -- A POOR tree is a tree without fruit (Dt28-42a)
   -- Y-R-Sh means POOR because it is in PIEL
   -- The following alternate MODES have alternate meanings

   (See Ibn Shoshan, Table 5, Silent Yud-2-3 verbs)
      -----------------------------------------
      Hebrew         Mode    Meaning
      -----------------------------------------
   -- Yee-Rash       Kal     Inherit
   -- YeYah-Raysh*10 Piel    Become poor
   -- Yo-rish        Hifil   oust
      -----------------------------------------

*2 Rashi makes explicit here that in the HIFIL Y-R-Sh
   does not mean CONQUER but rather TO OUST.

*3 Rashi points out that
   -- HIFIL of Y-R-Sh is YO-RISH and means TO OUST
   -- KAL of Y-R-Sh is   YE-RASH and means TO INHERIT
   Thus the two conjugations are similar and hence
   Rashi commented. See the article and URL below for
   examples where Rashi comments on SIMILAR conjugations

   http://www.Rashiyomi.Com/rules-01.htm
   http://www.RashiYomi.Com/grammar.htm

*10 To be technical Ibn Shoshan lists
    ---------------------------
    YeYaSayr - with a Patach
    ---------------------------

    We however have given
    -------------------------
    YeYahSayr - with a Kamatz
    -------------------------

    The reason for this is that
    -- the first root letter is the weak letter YUD
    -- the second root letter is a guttural     CHETH

    Thus Y-R-Sh is an example of a root with two weak
    letters. As we have pointed out Rashi comments on
    Rare verb conjugations. See
    http://www.RashiYomi.Com/rules-01.htm
    http://www.RashiYomi.Com/grammar.htm

    This can be further proven using Alfred Silbermans
    Grammatical Form Konkordance.

    - Form 1055.14 lists about 3 dozen Piel,single,future
      3rd person verbs that use a PATACH (and have no
      guttural letter for a 2nd root letter) Some examples
      are Gn49-27, Lv11-25, Ex30-10, Ex23-08, Ex21-34)

    - By contrast Forms 1393-19:21 list about a dozen
      Piel Single future 3rd person verbs that use a
      Kamatz (and have a guttural letter for a 2nd root
      letter). Some examples are
      Gn28-03, Nu24-03, Ex11-01, Ex22-16, Ps05-07