SUCCINCT SUMMARY
----------------
In this posting Rashi teaches us Grammar.
The 3 words in the verse are
- Ox
- Red
- Complete

Should  we read this as a
----COMPLETE AND RED OX
Or Should we read this as
----COMPLETELY RED OX
That is, does RED modify OX or COMPLETE (Is
it an adjective or adverb).

Rashi discovered a simple rule:
- COMPLETE AND RED OX has the word AND to indicate a LIST
- COMPLETELY - RED OX does not have the word AND

So the rule is use AND when listing multiple
properties but leave the AND out when listing
properties of properties *10

2 Grammatical forms are presented:
- multiple properties (ADJ) (uses the word AND)
- properties of properties (ADV-ADJ)(doesnt use AND)
Our list approach differs from the conventional EXTRA
WORD APPROACH

SUCCINCT SUMMARY
----------------
Recall during the Golden Calf incident God wanted to
destroy the Jewish people but Moses stopped the
destruction thru his prayer.

By ALIGNING Ex32-09 and Dt09-13 we see an extra word
- And God said to Moses -------: This nation is really stubborn
- And God said to me TO RESPOND: This nation is really stubborn

Thus we EXPLICITLY see that God ASKED Moses to
pray (ie RESPOND) for the Jewish people so that
they should not be destroyed. Rashi following
the Talmud finds several supportive hints to this
explicit idea.

The context is the golden-calf sin--God had
wanted to destroy the Jewish people.
We align two verses where God sees the
Jews as Stubborn. The minor difference between
these verses shows God wanted Moses to pray for
the Jews. Other supportive texts are presented

SUCCINCT SUMMARY
----------------
Although most sacrificial procedures were done
by priests, nevertheless, from 2Ch30-17 we infer
that the slaughtering of the animal can be done by
a non-priest.

Nu19-03 states (concerning the Red Heiffer) that
the animal should be SLAUGHTERED IN THE PRESENCE
OF ELAZAR  THE PRIEST.

Ordinarily I would simply state that the Bible
is using a TYPICAL  EXAMPLE and that we need not
literally require that slaughter be done before
the priest.(The typical example method is a
legitimate Biblical method of exegesis)

However  by aligning half a dozen verses talking
about slaughtering in sacrifices we find that this
phrase -- slaughter it IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
PRIEST -- is peculiar. We therefore conclude that
the red heiffer must be slaughtered in the presence
of the officiating priest.

Alignment of verses discussing slaughter of
sacrifices. From the alignment we infer that
the red-heiffer must be slaughtered in the presence
of the Officiating Priest.

SUCCINCT SUMMARY
----------------
One of Rashis 6 major goals is to explain meaning
the same way a dictionary explains meaning.

In this posting Rashi explains the meaning of the
Hebrew word Lamed-Vuv---LOO. Rashi explains that
it is sort of an interjection expressing a WISH
-- IF ONLY SUCH AND SUCH WOULD HAVE HAPPENED (That
would be better then what is presently happening).
The word occurs very rarely(and hence Rashi
explains it)

The list of all verses with the Hebrew word Lamed-Vuv--LOO
which means IF  ONLY THIS COULD HAVE BEEN. In the footnotes we
show how the WISHED FOR item is better than what actually happened

SUCCINCT SUMMARY
----------------
One of Rashis 6 main goals is to explain grammar.
In this posting Rashi explains the difference
between a STATE and ACTION form.
- The OH-AH (Cholam-patach) form indicates ACTION
--if only we had died WHEN THE OTHERS HAD DIED
- THe AH (Patach) form indicates a STATE
--if onlywe had died in the PLAGUE of  the others

There doesnt seem to be much difference between
IN THE PLAGUE and WHEN THEY DIED. But by examining
the list below we see a consistent rule.

List of verses with the Hebrew letter BETH followed
by a 3 letter root. There are 2 cases
-- VERB FORM: If the 3 letter root is punctuated with
cholam-patach then the letter BETH means WHEN
and the whole phrase means WHEN    SUCH AND SUCH
AN ACTIVITY HAPPENED

-- NOUN FORM: If the  3 letter root ends with a PATACH
then the letter BETH means DURING and the whole
phrase means DURING THE .....