*1 I promised to send HTML versions to several dozen of you
   I first have to make an email list. I will also unsubscribe
   you from Rashi is Simple so you get one email digest. This
   will be done THIS Sunday. In the meantime you can read the
   HTML version on the web: http://www.Rashiyomi.Com/h12n21.htm

*2 We suggest that a
   - sentence written in a GENERAL-EXAMPLE style
   - and also uses the phraseology FROM...TO
   should be GENERALIZED, not interpreted LITERALLY.

   Full details are presented in the posting. To the best of my
   knowledge this rule is new and not mentioned by any acharonim.

*1 Radack simply says that
   -----------------------------------------
   The word ANSWER doesnt necessarily imply
   that a person is 2nd in speech
   -----------------------------------------
   Hence I have interpreted Job3-2 as
   ---------------------------------------------------
   JOB RESPONDED(commented) TO HIS TERRIBLE SITUATION
   ---------------------------------------------------

   Many of the other meanings are also more closely translated
   as RESPONDING TO A SITUATION (rather than RESPONDING
   to a verbal request)

*2 As Rashi says
   ------------------------------------------------------------
   Moses/Miriam stated SONG VERSES to the men/women
   and they repeated (in other words they used a
   REFRAIN format of song which was initiated by Moses/Miriam)
   ------------------------------------------------------------

*3 Many of these usages are interpreted as TORTURED.
   The line between TORTURED and HUMILITATED is thin.
   Since our goal is to present a unified meaning I
   have translated these verses as HUMILIATED.

*4 Radack doesnt bring it separately but INAH can also
   mean RAPE (an act distinguished by its HUMILIATION)*11
   I suppose Radack doesnt consider Hebrew to have a
   separate word for Rape. Rather, Hebrew says
   THE WOMEN WAS HUMILIATED and we understand this to
   mean RAPE.

*5 HUMBLE is praiseworthy. HUMILIATED is derogatory

*6 Testimony is a RESPONSE to a COURT SUPENA.

*10 Rashi on interprets Dt26-05a as
    --------------------------------
    You will SAY LOUDLY before God
    --------------------------------
    Radack interprets similarly.
    In other words both Rashi and Radack have a nuance of
    ANH as RAISING ONES VOICE.

    I however interpret these verses as meaning either
    - to RESPOND to a situation
    - to REFRAIN

    Thus in JOB3-2 Job was not just raising his voice,
    but rather Job was RESPONDING/COMMENTING on his horrible
    situation of losing his family.

    Similarly in Dt26-05, the person bringing firstfruit is
    not legally required to RAISE HIS VOICE but rather he
    is required to REFRAIN (say the known phrases) the
    verses of thanksgiving contained in Dt26-05 (These verses
    were stated every year by every person bringing first
    fruit and hence can legitimately be called a refrain)

*11 The word ONAH -- refers to marital relations
    and would refer to a married womens RESPONSIVENESS.

    Technically, the root of RESPONSIVENESS is Ayin-Vuv-Nun
    while the root of RAPE is Ayin-Nun-Hay.

    Compare the English RESPONSIVENESS for Martial Relations
    vs the English MADE HER ANSWER TO ME for Rape.

    It would seem logical that Ayin-Vuv-Nun is a less intense
    form of the ANSWER theme then the Ayin-Nun-hey form.

*12 There are a variety of verses here which Radack interprets
    in the classical Talmudic nuance of MATTER. Thus e.g.
    Ecc2-23 would mean that THIS PERSONS MATTERS PROVOKE ANGER

    However this is too general a translation. Radack cites
    Rav Yonah, a contemporary grammarian, who translates
    all these verses and several others as referring to
    GODS DIVINE PROVIDENCE OVER MAN (that is how God
    RESPONDS to the human situation).

    These verses are all very abstract and it would take
    us too far afield to analyze all of them here. Suffice
    it to say that the bottom line is that these verse are
    difficult but the best translation seems to be PROVIDENCE---
    Gods RESPONSE to the human situation

    To recap Ecc2-23 speaks about how GODS PROVIDENCE AND
    RESPONSE TO THE HUMAN SITUATION MAKES PEOPLE ANGRY & MAD

*1 These phrases are the same

*2 Rashi gives two reasons/nuances for explicit mention of the
   MAIDS AND the CAPTIVES. Apparently these TWO nuances come
   from the TWO versions in the ALIGNED text
   - the maids on the mill used the slaves to aid in their work
   - prison mates typically jeer and tease people

   Thus peoples firstborn were punished whether they
   participated in usage of the Jews for slavery or whether
   they just teased them*10

*10 For those into textual analysis here are the details
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Ex12-29d Rashi gives the following reasons for mentioning
             that God would punish the 1stborn of prisoners
             (a) They were happy the Jews were suffering
             (b) They would not acknowledge that God had punished
                 the Egyptians for the Jews (They would say that
                 God punished the Egyptians for themselves)
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Ex11-05a Rashi gives the following reasons for mentioning
             that God would punish the 1stborn of PRISONERS
             (b) The would not acknowledge that God had
             punished the Egyptians for the Jews (They would
             say that God punished the Egyptians for themselves)
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    NOTE especially that on Ex12-05a Rashi explains why God
    punished the CAPTIVE PRISONERS which are mentioned in
    Ex12-29 (Ex12-05 mentioned the 1stborn of maids.

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Ex11-05b Rashi gives the following reasons for mentioning
             that GOd would punish the 1stborn of maids
             (a) They were happy the Jews were suffering
             (c) They would exploit the Jewish slaves
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    After reading these 3 Rashis the reader will understand my
    approach of combining all 3 reasons together and seeing
    Rashi as inferring them from the aligned texts.

*1 The full text of the verse is as follows
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   I could kill you and your nation now. But I LET YOU LIVE
   ...IN ORDER TO SHOW YOU MY MIGHT AND IN ORDER THAT YOU
   TELL HUMAN CIVILIZATION
   -----------------------------------------------------------

*1 Pharohs advisors acknowledged God but were silenced
   or overridden by Pharoh (Ex08-15). Hence the only
   person who would be saved FOR PURPOSES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
   was Pharoh himself.(Rashi: Ex12-29c)

*2 Hence the Rashi (Ex12-29b) that even FIRST BORN OF ANOTHER
   NATION were punished. Indeed, the punishment was not just
   for slave ownership (Which would apply ONLY to the Egyptians)
   Rather the punishment applied to anyone who ABUSED or TEASED
   the Jews (and hence applied to other nations).*12

*3 The Egyptians worshipped gods. Thus the gist of the verse
   is that besides PUNISHING those who enslaved or teased
   the Jews God was also destroying the Egyptian religion
   (killing their animal gods). Rashi points out that this is
   typical when God punishes a nation (God also destroys their
   religion) (Rashi Ex11-05c)

*10 For the use of ALL to indicate generalization see
    http://www.RashiYomi.Com/all-18.htm

*11 The Rashi is Simple email group has posited that there
    are 3 classes of Biblical style rules
    -- simple verses are interpreted BROADLY(GENERALIZED)
    -- a verse in GENERAL-EXAMPLE style is read LITERALLY
       (ONLY the example)
    -- a verse in EXAMPLE-GENERAL style is PARITALLY
       GENERALIZED

    Now Ex12-29 is in GENERAL EXAMPLE style
    ---------------------------------------------
    -GENERAL: GOd will smite ALL firstborn
    -EXAMPLE: From the 1st born of PHRAOH
    -EXAMPLE: To the 1stborn of the prisoners
    -EXAMPLE: And all 1st born of animals
    ---------------------------------------------

    A general example verse is usually interpreted LITERALLY--
    ONLY the first born of PHaroh, maids, prisoners and animals
    were punished.

    However this GENERAL-EXAMPLE verse uses a special FROM-TO
    style:
    -----------------------------------------------
    ALL first born FROM Pharohs children TO prisoner 1stborn
    -----------------------------------------------

    Thus it would appear to me (even though I dont have sources)
    that a GENERAL-EXAMPLE verse that also uses a FROM-TO style
    is interpreted BROADLY--ALL FIRSTBORN. This is a novelty
    in the Rabbi Ishmael rules which I have not seen elsewhere

    For references on Rabbi ishmael see
    http://www.RashiYomi.com/ishmael.htm

    For a free download see
    http://www.RashiYomi.Com/download.htm

    For Rashis that totally generalize verses see
    http://www.Rashiyomi.com/example3.htm

*12 Notice how we blend the generalization of the word ALL
 (ALL SLAVES) and the natural GENERALIZATION of the verse
 EXAMPLES: ALL firstborn were punished as long as they
 had some type of slave abuse AND HENCE even 1stborn of
 other nations who were residing in Egypt