*10 Rashi provides a UNIFIED treatment of the two roots
Pay-Lamed-Aleph and Pay-Lamed-Hey. See a previous
posting in http://www.Rashiyomi.com/h11n18.htm

More interesting are the 3 words Rashi uses to explain
the roots P-L-A vs P-L-H. He translates them as
- COVERED   (CSH) --- eg Gn18-14
- SEPARATED (BADAL) -- eg Dt28-59a Ex09-04a Ex11-07a Ex34-10b
- TAKEN OUT (PRASH) -- eg Dt30-11a Lv22-21a Lv27-02a Nu06-02a

But, you ask, how do you know that Rashi meant the SAME
thing with these THREE different translations?

Good Question.

I know because Rashi says so EXPLICITLY at Dt17-08a.
Also Rashi connects BDL and PRSH on Ex08-18a.
By reviewing these dozen Rashis we see one concept
with 3 nuances rather than 3 different translations!!

This is profound but fundamental to learning Rashi

*1 Both RADACK and Rashi use the word SEPARATE. However
the translation DISTINGUISHED fits better; it is not
any SEPARATION but rather a SEPARATENESS of being BETTER
and DISTINGUISHED*10

*2  Lamentations 1,9 states ISRAEL WENT DOWN IN PELEH
-- RADACK translates: It was a DISTINGUISED downfall
-- RASHI translates: Israel went down to an UNKNOWN
place (i.e. they went down to the DEEP)

*10 RADACK brings in the Hebrew word NIFLAOTH usually
translated as MIRACLES. A better translation is
DISTINGUISHED SALVATIONS.

*1 WORKBOOK rule #17 overlaps with WORKBOOK rule
#4. Both items deal with CONTRADICTIONS

*1 See Lv26-03. Thus Lv26-03:06 explicitly states that
when we observe, God will remove wild animals. Dt08-02
by contrast, explains that conquest of Israel will
happen slowly FOR IF IT HAPPEEND QUICKLY WILD ANIMALS
WOULD COME (because the Jews moral nature was not
yet  perfected and the protection of Lv26-03:06
does not yet apply) *11

*2 COARSE flour was used in cooking to wash the pot
sides to clear it from rust producing agents and
rotted food particles.

*3 I should mention the Brilliant Malbim who points
out to a repeated object denoting emphasis
-----------------------------------------
She opened it and saw HIM -- a CHILD
-----------------------------------------
Thus the child had a certain regality *12


*4 This distinction is explicitly mentioned in Ex01-10
Pharoh was concerned that the Jewish minority would
align with an Egyptian enemy. Hence he killed the
males. *13

*10 Rashis point is strengthened by the abrupt change
of subject
-----------------------------------------------
Nu04-04 This is the job of the KEHATHITES
Nu04-05 The PRIESTS come and cover the articles
...
Nu04-15 ..and AFTERWARDS the KEHATHITES come
-----------------------------------------------

If one just reads Nu04-04 and Nu04-05 by themselves
it appears as if the PRIESTS mentioned in Nu04-05
refer back to the KEHATHITES mentioned in Nu04-04

*11 Interesting Rashi cites a verse in Job rather
than the  explicit Lv26-03:06. Rashi also does
not explicitly mention that he is using the rule
of resolving 2 contradictory cases.
But that IS what Rashi does. It seems rather
straightforward to introduce Lv26-03:06. Rashi
probably  expected the reader to know this verse
since it comes in the great REBUKE---Rashi complements
this verses with complementary verses in Job

*12 Rashis actual language is that
------------------------------------
She saw Gods presence with him
------------------------------------

I have tempered this a bit as follows
---------------------------
She saw the childs regality
---------------------------

I think Rashis point is to explain why
she risked her life to save a Jewish child
This child was different--he had a certain
regality...why not raise him as an Egyptian
He would fit in well with the Royal house

*13 Rashi actually says
------------------------------------------
Pharohs astrologers said that the Jews
have just had a male savior born.
Pharoh therefore decreed the death of
the male Jews
------------------------------------------

However the REAL driving force of Rashi
is the contradictory verses and the
resolution from an explicit verse.

Rashi avails himself of OTHER VERSES
which show that Pharoh always consulted
with his astrologers (eg Ex08-12:15).

Thus Rashi is simply dressing up the
contradiction. The real point of Rashi
is the contradiction and the distinction
between the people(hated all) and the King.
(concerned about security)

*1 Hence the fire did not burn their clothes
The idea that the FIRES mentioned in Dt05
or Ex20 was the FIRE OF PROPHECY vs REAL
FIRE is supported by many verses and
themes (Dt05-21). There are other Biblical
supports for this idea but this will suffice
for now.*10

*10 It does not detract from the greatness of the
miracle of revelation that the FIRE means FIRE
OF PROPHECY.

For Judaism does not view Gods greatness in His
ability to make a mountain smoke with Fire.

Rather Judaism views Gods greatness in His
ability to make people burn with Spiritual Prophecy