*1 Laws like theft, torts, slaves etc govern human-human
interaction

*2 Rashis point is that some Passover laws are INTRINSIC
to the animal while other laws deal with the
RELATIONSHIP with other PASSOVER ITEMS
-- Passover offerings must be a YEAR, UNBLEMISHED
(These are intrinsic laws)
-- Passover offerings are eaten WITH Matzoh and
bitter herbs (These are laws governing
relationships)

*3 Literally HOW DOES THIS RUNNER RUN/BEHAVE (In other
words How does he RELATE to other people) Here the
root SPT does not refer to JUSTICE but rather
SOCIAL INTERACTION

*4 Here ChK does not mean LAW but to STAMP (Because
the Judge stamps laws). Also because ENGRAVING
and STAMPING in stone makes something INTRINSIC
to the stone

*5 Here ChK does not refer to laws but rather daily
needs or to use our lingo OUR INTRINSIC NEEDS
(How much bread do we really need)

*6 Sexual excesses (eg marrying ones sister) does
not intefer (immediately) with our social
relationships. Rather over a period of time
they corrupt our soul. These laws are intrinsic
to our spiritual nature

*7 Cf these two verses which both refer to the rights
of priests to receive items from the nation
(Dt18-03 Gn47-22). In one case the law is
- RELATIONAL-- the person offers a sacrifice
but must remember the priest who takes certain organs

In the other case the law is
- INTRINSIC--Egyptian priests received a 20% stipend
This stipend was independent of any relation with
the people

*10 Traditionally Chok has been translated as NON-RATIONAL
while SPHT is translated as social laws which are
rational.

Such a translation contradicts the verses above
eg GIVE ME MY IRRATIONAL BREAD (vs INTRINSIC DAILY
BREAD) or PHAROH GAVE THE PRIESTS AN IRRATIONAL
(vs an INTRINSIC)20% TAX.

Similarly 2K01-07 WhAT IS THE manner OF THE PERSON
RUNNING UP TO YOU does not refer to a rational
social manner (since the person might have a rude
manner)--rather the word SFHT refers to how things
relate.

So bottom line: Chok means INTRINSIC LAWS -- LAWS
governing the intrinsic being. Rashi on Nu19-02
talks about these laws as being the source of
ridicule by the nations of the world--but this
is not because they are irrational--rather it
is because it is traditionally hard to see
the needs of an INTRINSIC law (eg What would
be so terrible if a brother and sister on an
island married each other--how is their
inner soul harmed---but the law is not irrational
just something very deeply needed)

*1 Machlah, Noah, Chaglah, Milkah, Tirzah (Nu26-33, Nu27-01
Nu36-11 and Jos17-3). The letters M N C M T refer to
their first initials

*2 Moses is always first since he surpassed Aaron in prophecy
Cf Lv11-01 Lv13-01 Lv14-33 Lv15-01 Nu04-01 Nu04-17

*3 Rashi of course is not just referring to verb order(DO WATCH)
but to VERB-NOUN linkage (DO Justice|Spiritual Laws
WATCH Spiritual|Justice law). By interchanging order
and verb-noun linkage we conclude that all activities
DO/WATCH must apply to all commandment classes JUSTICE
and SPIRITUAL laws.

See http://www.Rashiyomi.com/nu03-07a.htm for a full
discussion on how WATCH technically means PROFESSIONAL
STANDARDS FOR COMMANDMENTS

Note the subtlety in Rashi--Rashi is NOT just juxtaposing
2 verses---Rather Rashi is juxtaposing MANY verses with
DO|WATCH and JUSTICE|SPIRITUAL laws...the overall
conclusion is that order changes in MANY verses and hence
all the ACTS and COMMANDMENTS classes are equal. Such
an approach to Rashi (Looking at MANY VERSES vs TWO)
enriches our Rashi appreciation

*1 So there are times when you dont watch ALL commandments--
namely when your life is in danger

*2 The Bible is giving atmosphere and background. It never
happens that someone threatens your life if you dont
observe. Rather first there is decay and corruption
in society(Social laws are not observed). Then people
start making fun of those RELIGIOUS people--this leads
to threats and the possibility of martyrdom

*3 There is an emphasis that DOING the commandments should
not contradict life..so if your life is in danger you
should rather violate the commandments

*4 God usually sanctifies us with his commandments...people
look at the Jews and admire them for their inner
spiritual strength. But there are times when non-jews
dont admire us and we are asked to die for the
commandments. In such a case it is preferable to
violate the commandments.*10

*10 Beautiful and elegant. But Rashi does not say this!!!!!

Rather Rashi cites the Sifray that if a person does
not do the commandments in this world then (s)he
ends up doing them in the next world.

My own thoughts are as follows
- Clearly Rashi did not ignore the almost explicit
implications of the aligned verses

- Clearly Rashi and the Sifray did not ignore or
disagree with the laws that we dont incur martyrdom
but rather violate the laws if threatened

- How then do we interpret Rashi and the Sifray.
Simple! Rashi and Sifray are ADDING to the known
law---they tell us if we violate the commandments
and are killed then we will end up observing
these commandments in the next world.

Thus we see Rashi and SUPPLEMENTING the text--we
are not contradicting Rashi rather we are making
him consistent with the Biblical verses and seeing
added nuances.*11

*11 In passing I should mention the well known fact
that there are 3 exceptions when we must incur
martyrdom rather than violate the laws: They
are a) Murder b) incest c) idolatry. That is
if threatened to commit adultery or die then mem
must die