QUESTION
--------
Russell,

You translate Ex12-03a as follows
--------------------------------------
Be involved in remembering the exodus
--------------------------------------
This implies that we should remember the
exodus EVERY day (Since REMEMBERING vs
REMEMBER) implies continually over time.

However a simpler proof is brought by the
Hagaddah: Dt16-03 states explicitly
---------------------------------
In order that you remember the exodus
from Egypt ALL the days of your life
------------------------------------
The word ALL implies that you must
remember the Exodus EVERY day.

Anonymous member of Shomrey Emunah Rashi Group

ANSWER
------
Perhaps then Dt16-03 is HOW Rashi infers
that the infinitive means EVERY DAY.

We use the Rabbi Ishmael Rules
-------------------------------------
Any class (of verses, grammar..)
one of which is different--
its difference does not apply only to it--
but rather applies to the whole class
-------------------------------------

So here we have the class of all
INFINITIVES (AH-OH punctuation)

In one of them (REMEMBER THE EXODUS)
we are EXPLICITLY told that we must
remember the exodus every day.

According to Rabbi Ishmael--this
difference--that the remembering
applies every day, does not just
apply to the Exodus--

But rather applies to every infinitive
That is the INFINITIVE form can also
indicate GENERAL ONGOING ACTIVITY
---------------------------
Be involved in rememberING
(Continually) the Exodus
---------------------------

Russell Hendel;http://www.RashiYomi.Com

*1 eg To FIRE a furnace

*2 Ex16-20b

*3 Ex19-12a

*1 Nu04-13b

*1 Nu04-13b

*1 There are several instances of STEPS in Ez40
which deals with the construction of the
Temple

*2 This could be a SONG OF FANTASIES or
a SONG OF STEPS (Because the Levites
said them on the Temple steps).

I think FANTASY SONGS is a better title
For example one of these FANTASY SONGS
dreams of the return to Israel(something
that didnt happen for 2000 years)

*1 We see all 3 aspects of Jethro here EG
- Jethro was a kind person and gave Moses
job (To shepard his flock)
- A father in law should held a son in
law get a job
- Moses work involved raising sheep which
might be offered to pagan deities. Thus
we see the conflicts that Moses had to
live under. Perhaps this provides
background for him coming to the
Mountain of God to seek his roots

*2   Here we see Jethro as Person and in law
since these episodes involve separation
and uniting with family

*3   In my opinion the Torah here teaches
etiquette. A father in law SHOULD try
and lighten his son in laws workload
(So as to help out the marriage). Once
the advice is received the father in
law should gently go home and not
push it too much.

*4   Jethro acts as a person here. For his
priesthood forbade him from praising
God. Similarly his in-law-ness does
not require him to give up his religion
But Jethro (the person!) was sincerely
impressed by God.

*10 I realize there is a whole literature and
ranging controversy between Ibn Ezra
Ramban and Rashi on this verse. Some
scholars therefore try and be exact with
Rashis words: Rashi states: JETHRO HEARD
ABOUT THE EXODUS AND AMALEK

So Rashi left out the Miracle of the manna

But the approach of this email group is
to use a multiple portfolio approach: We
deal with both
- the literal wording of Rashi
- the underlying idea governing Rashi
The combination of these 2 ideas can lead
to VILNA-GAON type emendations.

In this case since the underlying idea
of Rashi is to use the CONSECUTIVE
PARSHAH method it is reasonable that
we should amend Rashi as follows
-JETHRO HEARD ABOUT [FROM] THE EXODUS
-[TO] AMALEK
Thus Rashi would no be averse to
including the Manna miracle among
the others.

I think this a good examle of the
difference in our approach. By
emphasizing rules and ideas we
are entitled to one word
emendations that enrich Rashi

Something to think about

*1 Ex13-17 says Jews were afraid of war. So God wouldnt have
armed them. Therefore we interpret verse >An ARMFUL
of JEWS LEFT Egypt< even though this interpretation
of ARMED (as ARMFUL) is nonstandard.

*2 Previous verse explicitly says >And Esauv THOUGHT TO HIMSELF<
Hence we interpret >And Rivkah was told< as >Rivkah was told
thru prophecy<

*3 Ex32-17:18 explicitly says that Moses >heard not WAR CRIES
and not MOURNING CRIES but TORTURE CRIES< from which we
infer that someone was murdered.

*4 Gn49-04 explicitly says >For you PLAYED with your fathers
BEDS< It is the PLURAL BEDS that gives rise to the
reinterpretation that Reuven ruffled his fathers bedspreads
so as to prevent his from living with his fathers maid(and
insulting Leah who was a full fledged wife).

There are still problems with Gn35-22 but the driving force
behind Rashi is the EXPLICIT OTHER VERSE

*5 The point here is that the Hebrew >Tauv-Vauv-Coph< can
equally mean >INSIDE< or >BETWEEN< Thus the verse could
either mean >Bells INSIDE the POMEGRANATES< or
>BELLS BETWEEN THE POMEGRANATES<.

But the very next verse says >A Bell **AND** POMEGRANATE
a bell AND pomegranate< showing that they were one BESIDE
the other (so that the pomegranate fruits were between
the bells).

A further proof is repeating KEYWORD >SURROUNDING<. This
keyword gives a bullet like effect showing that all
items were SURROUNDING the garment hem (and none were
inside others).
---make pomegranates      SURROUNDING the hem
---make bells             SURROUNDING
---BELLS and POMEGRANATES SURROUNDING

This seems to decide the Rashi-Ramban controversy in favor
of Rashi. Further details were given in the main posting.

*6 The point is that Ex02-11:13 presents two fights
Each one sheds light on the other. Thus the OTHER VERSE
here is the OTHER FIGHT

We use the principle of CLIMAX to analyze the first fight
---Moses went out to study JEWISH SUFFERING
---Moses saw an Egyptian beating a Jew
---He saw this side and that side
---& Realized that the egyptian was not behaving like a mensch
---so he killed him

So we see that Moses first >felt the Egyptian out<. Moses
realized thru spiritual insight that the person was a
tramp. This helped Moses realize who was right and wrong
and led to Moses killing the Egyptian.

The next day he also went out and
---he also saw a fight
---he also investigated sides: >Why do you hit each other<
---The person answered  >Who made you a judge--are
you going to feel me out to kill me the way you killed the
Egyptian<

Thus the driving force behind Rashi are the two stories that
shed light on each other.

(In the main posting we show that the phrase >And he SAW THAT
he wasnt a mensch< follows Biblical style. If you are looking
to see if anybody is around and dont find anybody you would
say >He saw AND BEHOLD no one was there<. However when
something is noticed spontaneously (as thru intuition) the
style is >SAW THAT<.(This principle is justified thru 2
dozen Biblical examples)

So the fact that >SAW THAT< is used vs >SAW, BEHOLD< shows
that Moses spontaneously noticed something >There was no
MAN there< . We translated this as >he wasnt a mensch<
Rashi suggests a further nuance-->No good descendants would
come out of him<

Either way the point is that Moses realized that the Egyptian
was wrong and had to be killed.

For further details see the main posting. In that posting
we discuss the Rashi Ramban controversy and show that Ramban
disagreed with Commentators on Rashi not on Rashi himself.

*7 Thus although Ex04-20 states that Moses DID TAKE his
wife with him back to Egypt, nevertheless, Ex18-02a
makes it clear that Jethro brought her back to Moses
from Midyan. Thus apparently there was a separation

Rashi dresses this separation up in the obvious
manner--Aaron probably made a comment to Moses:
- We have enough slaves-are you bringing your
- wife into this situation also? This could
- lead Moses to bring her back

*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 voice is
used in both Gn22-18 and Gn26-05. Hence it is natural
to link them and say that they refer to each other.

*8 Ex29-43 says >I 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