*1 Radack notes that this could equally be
translated as IN THE BURIAL PLOT WHICH I DUG

*1 And indeed the next few verses (Ecc02-04:09)
list EVERY type of pleasure (houses, vineyards,
gardens,orchards, spas, servants, wealth,
money, treasures..)

*2 This emphasis on EVERYTHING is made explicit
in the next verse (Ecc02-14)

*3 Rashi actually states/interprets UNDER THE SUN
-----------------------------------
The sun stopped for Moses the way
it stopped for Joshua
-----------------------------------

But the simple meaning of the text is that
MOSES WAS WORLD KNOWN.

Rashi simply gives a good example of how Joshua,
Moses student, was WORLD KNOWN.

*1 The Jews passed thru 3 lands (among others) on their way
to Israel

*2 Note the contrast: We should be careful with Esauv(2b)
and not incite them AT ALL (2c) while with Moav we are
told not to incite them TO WAR(2c).

In fact Rashi cites Nu22-03 showing that Moav was afraid
of the Jews. Rashi suggests (Consistent with 2c) that
the Jews plundered the Moabites (but did not engage
in full fledged war).*10

Rashi suggests a possible reason for the differential
treatment: The Moabites were steeped in Lewdness and
therefore God didnt protect them

*10 See Dt02-06 BUY WATER FROM ESAUV IN CASH. Thus the
Bible emphasizes that EVEN water should not be taken
from the Esauvites. There is no such verse by the
Moabites--hinting that perhaps the Jews plundered
the Moabite land (Without engaging in full fledged
war)

*11 Dt02-09 states I HAVE GIVEN Ar TO MOAB
Rashi states that AR is the name of a Metropolis

Rashi was undoubtedly motivated by the technique of OTHER
VERSES since Dt02-18 explicitly states that AR was a
border city of Moab.

But we can go deeper. AR comes from the root A-R, TO AROUSE
So perhaps their border city was called AROUSAL because
of the pleasures there - people travelled to the border
for their vacations.

It would then be logical that God did not protect a people
like this.

Further support can be found in Nu24 showing how Moab
used prostitutes to get the Jews to sin which incurred
Gods wrath and led to the death of several 1000.

Amusingly Rashi says none of the above. Instead Rashi
cites Gn19-31:38
----------------------------------------------
Lots 2 daughters committed incest with their
father and had children. One daughter was
open about it and called her childs name
MOAB which literally translated means FROM-DAD
The other daughter was more discrete and simply
called her child MY NATION

Thus we see that MOAB (FROM-DAD) was a brazen
nation and hence punished.
-----------------------------------------------

We get tremendous insights here into how Rashi
comments. Rashi is not an academic writing
professional papers. He does not cite several
examples(as we have done---we cited the act
of war of Moab and the name of their border
city AROUSAL)

By contrast Rashi might just cite something
punchy and to the point--Moab means FROM-DAD
showing the way they are.

The point here is that Rashi did not believe
that this -- the name of FROM-DAD -- was the
WHOE reason. Rather Rashi simply cites
something punchy that will be remembered.

*1 I have left it out some phrases to make
the reading a bit smoother - the reader
should review the actual text and make
sure that this multi-verse interpretation
is basically sound

*2 Rashis adds the caveat that
---------------------------------------
Dont act poor and helpless to them
Act Rich and self sufficient
Give them the money generously
It makes you look good
---------------------------------------

Rashis basic point though, is the multi-verse
nature.

*1 Lv21-18 says
- BLemished priests dont serve BECAUSE blemished
- priests dont serve

Mal01-08 amplifies this
- Would you give a blemished animal to your governor?
- Would he like it? Would he grant your favor?

*2 More details are as follows
------------------------------------------------------------
- Jo13-03 tells us that AVIM were a PHILISTIN nation
- Jo13-10 tells us that God would conquer it for the Jews
- Gn26-18 Tells us that Abraham made a treaty with Avimelech
- Gn20-02 clarifies that Avimelech was King of Pelistim
-------------------------------------------------------------

Hence the Rashi that Joshua could not directly conquer the
AVIM because of the treaty with the Philistines. So God
sent the CAFTORIM to conquer the AVIM and then it was
legal to conquer the land and give it to the Jews.

QUESTION
--------

Russell,
Many of your Rashi explanations come from the super-
commenaries on Rashi. It would certainly enhance
your list if you cited them. Why are they absent.

Avi Shoub

ANSWER
------
Avi

Here is a very brief answer.

First it would take twice as long to review every Rashi
commentary in preparing these digests. We are explaining
all Rashis as part of a 10 year cycle. Hopefully in the
2nd 10 years we can concentrate on those explanations of
mine that are good and start citing the Rashi commentaries.

Particular mention should be made of the writings of the
Lubavitcher Rebbe who did extensive work on Rashi. These
writings should be cited also

But on a deeper level my goal in this list is not to
just explain Rashi. My goal is to develop skill
competencies.

Here is a simple example: Rashi states that Reuven
did not sleep with his fathers concubine (even though
the Bible says he did). Many people explain this
Rashi as follows: IF REuven had done such a horrible
sin then there would be more development of it
in the Bible.

I however explain this Rashi by citing an other
verse (Gn49) which explicitly states YOU
REUVEN PLAYED WITH YOUR FATHERS BEDS.

Now this verse is clear and transparent. But it escapes
many people because they havent developed their OTHER
VERSE SKILL COMPETENCY.

Thus in each Rashi I try and emphasize some Rashi principle

A list of all Rashi principles may be found at

THE BRIEF 6 PG PAPER-http://www.RashiYomi.com/rules-01.htm
THE COMPLETE LIST OF 30 principles-http://www.RashiYomi.com/workbook.htm

(In passing Avi wrote back to me and told me that these
references were helpful. He suggested I list them in every
digest which I will do)

QUESTION
--------

Russell,

I have a Rashi question.
When Rashi has a comment on the Torah that
is different than his comment on the Gemara,
what does that mean?? how do we
intrepret that?


For instance, Rashi when commenting
on the insertion of the two
inverted Nuns 2 parha's ago, Rashi uses
Tosafot's explanation in Gemara Shabbas of
the separation of 2 bad events to Israel,
Israelites left Sinai like children
leaving school.  Yet in Gemara Shabbas
Rashi uses a different explanation for
the leaving from Sinai;  the exact Rashi
comment in Shabbos escapes me at the
moment.

I had an explanation that:  the Pashat
is the comment in the Torah and
the Gemara Shabbos Rashi comment is not Pashat.

I would love to know your ideas
and expertise on the subject.


Glenn Porcelain

ANSWER
------
Glenn

Here is a very brief answer.

RULE- When there is a LIST of MANY EXPLANATIONS Rashi
will sometimes just cite the 1st or 2nd. This does not
mean that Rashi believes this to be the best explanation
Rather it was Rashis way of telling the Teacher to
review with the student ALL OTHER EXPLANATIONS on this
subject.

In other words it is as if Rashi really said:
- THere are many explanations listed in our primary sources
- They begin with the following explanation
- Please review all of these with your students

I have given proof of this elsewhere so let me cite two
examples.

EXAMPLE 1 REFERENCE http://www.RashiYomi.com/ex32-13a.htm
---------------------------------------------------------
A chapter in Midrash Rabbah lists about 10 explanations
on the efficacy of mentioning the merit of the Patriarchs
in prayer. Rashi did not cite the punchiest explanation--
rather Rashi cited the opening paragraphs. He apparently
INTENDED that the teacher cover the other explanations

EXAMPLE 2 REFERENCE http://www.RashiYomi.com/gn47-02a.htm
--------- See Footnote #6 on Nu05-12a
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bible (Nu05-12a) states A MAN MAN when he suspects
his wife. The Midrash Rabbah presents about half a dozen
explanations for the repeated word. Rashi however only
cites the 1st (even though it is a bit fanciful). Again
it seems reasonable that Rashi was trying to get teachers
to review the whole list of explanations.