*1 The word PLEASE connotes a FRIENDLY atmosphere
When Joseph finally revealed himself he was friendly*10
Prior to that he had been harsh on the brothers

*2 Different orders

*3 Orders to different people

*10 Rashi goes into detail on this friendliness
----------------------------------------------
He showed his brothers that he was circumcised
----------------------------------------------

It sounds as if Rashi is saying that
-------------------------------------------------------
He pulled down his trousers and showed his circumcision
-------------------------------------------------------

Such an interpretation could even be supported by
--------------------------------
Gn45-01 Remove all staff from me
--------------------------------
So Joseph wanted the privacy so he could undress.

But it is rediculous to assert that Joseph undressed
in his office.

Rather I would interpret the word SHOW in Rashi not
as LITERALLY DISPLAYED but rather as DEMONSTRATED.
I would interpret CIRCUMCISED to mean RELIGIOUS

Hence the Rashi text
---------------------------------------------
He SHOWED his brothers that he was CIRCUMCISED
----------------------------------------------
really means
--------------------------------------------------------
He ASSERTED to this brothers that he was still RELIGIOUS
--------------------------------------------------------

Further support for this interpretation can be
found in the text
---------------------------------
Gn45-03 I am Joseph your brother
---------------------------------
In other words I am still religious

How do we take this Rashi? More will be said
about this in Posting Gn03-01c but now we note
that we interpret this Rashi as a GOOD EXAMPLE
OF JOSEPHS FRIENDLINESS. In other words
- The simple meaning of the text is that JOSEPH
ACTED FRIENDLY--we infer this from the ALIGNMENT
which shows that the word PLEASE is used here

- Rashi gives a GOOD EXAMPLE of how this
FRIENDLINESS could have manifested itself.
Joseph could have started discussing the
family values and asserted he maintained them.

Finally the Biblical text REMOVE ALL STAFF FROM ME
is consistent with this interpretation--since
PRIVACY is frequently associated with PERSONAL TALK

*1 The same in both verses (The phrase carries
over elliptically)

*2 (Rashi)Just as EGYPT refers to the Egyptian people
not to the Egyptian land so too the HOUSE OF PHAROH
refers to the people of his household not to the
physical house

*3 The same in both verses

*1 This is a generalization from two verses, as follows

-Ex23-04 Return the lost article of your PERSONAL ENEMY
-Dt22-01:03 Return the lost article of your PERSONAL FRIEND

So you return ANY article whether of your PERSONAL
ENEMY or your PERSONAL FRIEND--as you long as you
know the person PERSONALLY. The law however exempts
you from returning the article to a known thief (a
non PERSONAL enemy) who might be guessing the lost
objects signs*10

*2 Ex21-24 lists 4 types of ORGAN damage:Eye,tooth,arm,leg
Ex21-25 lists 3 types of PAIN damage:burn,cut,inflammation
Hence we infer that in paying damage you pay for
EACH type of damage *11

*3 In these examples the principle of BROAD INTERPRETATION
is applied to NARRATIVE vs LEGAL text. Thus DONT MUZZLE
AN OX WHILE THRESHING is a LEGAL ORDER. We generalize
and prohibit muzzling any WORK ANIMAL.

Similarly
- THE SNAKE SAID GOD PROHIBITED EATING FROM THE TREE
is a narrative text that is generalized to mean that
GOD HATES YOU AND DOESNT LET YOU EAT.

For proof of applicability of the GENERALIZED RULE
to Narrative see footnote *12

For a critical examination of Rashis and the GOOD-EXAMPLE
method see footnote *13

*10 Several points should be made here
FIRST POINT:
- Ex23-04 uses the word YOUR ENEMY
- Dt22-01:03 uses the word BROTHER 5 times
So the real generalization is from YOUR ENEMY & BROTHER

So everyone FROM your enemy TO your brother gets
articles returned. This would exclude people you
dont really know who might be guessing signs.

Jewish law goes into the subtlety of someone whom
you dont know either as your BROTHER or ENEMY.

2nd POINT: We mention Rashis literal language
------------------------------------------
The verse says return the object AFTER YOUR BROTHER ASKS.
But no would return it before they are asked for it

So read the verse as follows; Return the objects
until you ASK ABOUT YOUR BROTHER--investigate him
-------------------------------------------

Thus it appears that Rashi is deriving the law
from a pun. (ASK ABOUT YOUR BROTHER vs YOUR
BROTHER ASKS) But the truth of the matter is that
Rashi is deriving the law from the generalization
and contrast of verses. Rashi as is his usual custom
expresses this technical derivation in a PUNchy
PUNny manner (so students will remember it).

3rd POINT
The main point in Rashi is that the two verses
have to be generalized. The details of how
this generalization takes place are subject to
Talmudic discussion. In this case the Talmud
and Rashi take an obvious approach of excluding
people (thiefs) who we would not expect the law
to cater to. But the main thrust of Rashi is
the generalization from two verses--the details
must be inferred.

*11 Already Rashi points out that CUTS involve both
PAIN and ORGAN damage (removal of skin).

One cannot derive the 5 categories of damage
from this verse (The other 3 categories,
disability, medical and embarassment are each
inferred from separate verses

*12 The Radack boldly asserts
- The statement EVEN IF GOD SAID DONT EAT FROM TREE
was the CONCLUDING statement of a long conversation.
We are justified in filling it in.

Radack justifies this approach because of the word
EVEN which always occurs in the middle of a conversation

Similarly Radack gives Jo02-24 as an example
-BECAUSE God gave you this land
Radack again notes that no one begins a conversation
with the word BECAUSE. Therefore we are justified--
in fact, forced--to fill in the conversation.

For details on HOW or WITH WHAT the conversation is
to be filled see footnote *13

*13 In this footnote we explain how Rashi filled in
missing conversation. We first explain the GOOD-EXAMPLE
method. For the original source see
http://www.RashiYomi.com/rashi.pdf

The GOOD-EXAMPLE method posits that a Rashi or Midrashic
text is not giving the WHOLE interpretation of a verse
but just one GOOD EXAMPLE. Hence the reader (or other
Exegetes) are justified in giving other good examples.
Here is the original example from my article

-Song of Songs Midrash Rabbah Chapter 4 Verse 1
- Text of verse: Wow--you-re beautiful--you-re beautiful
- Midrash: You-re beautiful in Man-Man laws; Your beautiful
in God-Man laws
- COMMENT: The Midrash is NOT exhausting the meaning
of the text in this one comment. Obviously the
Biblical text--you-re beautiful you-re beautiful--
connotes INTENSE admiration of beauty. The Midrash
gives but ONE GOOD EXAMPLE of this INTENSE admiration
The reader is free to give other examples.

Enough--let us examine how Rashi uses this principle

- Gn03-01
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that the
snake was trying to get them to sin (EVEN IF GOD
TOLD YOU NOT TO EAT). Rashi suggests that the snake
saw Eve eating from the other trees; Radack suggests
that Eve told the snake the prohibition of eating
from tree of knowledge. The snake says--but you can
eat from some trees..maybe you are wrong in what
God commanded (the ARE-YOU-SURE argument) Thus Rashi
uses this text as a springboard for discussing
how people get other people to sin.

- Gn43-20a
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that Joseph
cried over meeting Binyamin. Rashi gives GOOD EXAMPLES
of what could have happened -- Maybe Binyamin mentioned
how he named all his children over his missing brother.
Another good example (not given by Rashi!) is that
Binyamin could simply mention that his older brother
was the brother that was missing--and Binyamin missed
him alot

- Gn43-34b
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that after Josephs
harshness to the brothers he acted friendly to Binyamin.
He invited him to his house, dined with him and blessed him
So when the Torah says he gave him a 5-FOLD portion Rashi
gives a good example of how this could have happened--
maybe Josephs whole family each gave Binyamin a present

Note that in Gn45-22 it says that Binyamin got a 5-fold
amount of clothes. But Rashi does not explain this
5-fold amount!!!! Hence we are justified in seeing Rashis
explanation of the 5-fold amount in Gn43-34b as a GOOD
EXAMPLE not a general principle.

To what can this be compared: If I give someone 18 dollars
at a wedding. Wouldnt it be wrong to interpret the amount
as due to the fact that eg the wedding happened on 18th
street. In fact 18 dollars is a normal amount to give
at weddings. Similarly with Joseph...there are many 5-folds
-- Rashi only interprets only one of them...so he was
only giving a good example