*1 Rashi points out 3 equally possible meanings
- Youngest son (Son born while father  was ELDERLY)
- Wisest son (ELDER=WISDOM)
- Son who resembles father (despite old age he still
looks like son)

*2 This is an example of a DOUBLE METONOMY
Blood is ASSOCIATED with life and COVER is
associated with denial. Hence COVER-BLOOD=conceal-murder

*3 NOON is the midpoint between EVE and DAWN. Hence
NOON is the BETWEEN THE EVES.

*4 The context is the proposed marriage of 15 year old
Rivkah to Isaac from another country. The offer had
been made by the servant of Abraham to Rivkahs family

The Biblical text states: Let us(her parents)
ASK HER MOUTH

This is the ONLY time in the Bible that this
phrase occurs(The verb ASK occurs frequently).
Apparently this phrase means
- Lets DISCUSS or LETS GET AN OPINION*10
Such an interpretation is appropriate for a marriage
decision

*10 Hence the Rashi on Gn24-57b: The Biblical text
states that Rivkah responded: I WILL GO.

But Rashi, surprisingly states: I WILL GO WHETHER
YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

Why did Rashi read such an emphasis into the simple
question and answer
------------------------------------------
PARENTS: Rivkah, Will you go with this man
RIVKAH: I will go.
------------------------------------------

The answer is that the Bible says
------------------------------------------
PARENTS: We will DISCUSS THE MATTER with her;
get her opinion
PARENTS: Rivkah, Will you go with this man
RIVKAH: I will go.
------------------------------------------

Thus the context shows that Rivkah was not
INTERESTED IN A DISCUSSION--she had already
made up her mind

*1 Certain ages are explicitly said in the verses
Note how verse Gn24-59 links to Gn25-20; so it too is
explicitly said

*2 This is the one event (Akaydah=sacrifice of Isaac)
where the age is not explicitly given.

Rashi at Gn22-23a points out that the topic sentence
of Gn22-20:24 is RIVKAHS birth. In other words the
3 Biblical paragraphs
- Akaydah
- Rivkahs birth and news of it
- Sarahs death
Form a sequence

From this sequence we see that the following 3 events
- the Akaydah
- news of Rivkahs birth
- Rivkahs birth
happened between
- Sarah age 90(birth of Isaac)
- Sarah age 127 (Death of Sarah)
See footnote #3 and #4 for further details

See LIST060A for the CONSECUTIVE PARAGRAPH PRINCIPLE
and its application to these paragraphs

*3 See LIST005J -- The Biblical expression
-- AFTER THESE THINGS
denotes Sequence: AFTER A WHILE*10

Further support for this AFTER-A-WHILE
interpretation may be found
in the fact that the Bible uses the past perfect:
The Bible says:
-- After the akaydah Abraham heard that Milkah
-- HAD ALREADY GIVEN birth to Bethuayl
-- Bethuayl HAD ALREADY given birth to Rivkah

This translation:HAD-ALREADY-GIVEN-BIRTH (Past perfect)
comes from the grammatical principle that
- past tense is translated as past perfect--HAD ALREADY
- future tense + Overturning VAV is translated as PAST
See LIST703g

*4 See footnotes #2 and #3. We know the Akaydah happened
some time between Sarah age 90 and Sarah age 127. We
also know that Rivkah had ALREADY been born at the Akaydah

Here is one REASONABLE approach
- Rivkah was 5 at The Akaydah. She was already known
as a charitable girl. Hence it was obvious (based
on family considerations) that she could marry Isaac

- Rivkah was 12 when Sarah died (Isaac 37). It wouldnt
be proper to marry a 12 year old as soon as she reaches
adulthood. Hence Isaac waited 3 years till she had
seen the world a bit (37+3=40; 12+3=15).

- Backtracking we see that the Akaydah probably happened
when Isaac was 30. The Akaydah symbolized for Isaac
the same as circumcision for Abraham...it symbolized
self-restraint---thus Isaac prepared for his marriage
to Rivkah for 7 years (The same as Jacob)*11

*5 Isaac was 40 (Rivkah 15) when they married. He was 60
(She 35) when she gave birth. Why the 20 year delay?

The standard text of Rashi reads as follows
--------------------------------------------
10 years from Rivkah 3 to 13
10 years during which husbands can wait for children
--------------------------------------------

After that he had to divorce her or get a new wife
to have children.

We interpret the situation as follows
------------------------------------------
Isaac waited till Rivkah was 35
35 years is the midpoint of a 70 year life
After that he would have to seek children elsewhere
------------------------------------------
See footnote *13 for a discussion and proofs

*10 A literal reading of the Rashis at Gn25-20a
and Gn23-02c seems to say that
- the Akaydah happened when Isaac was 37
- Sarah died because Abraham offered Isaac
- Thus the following 3 happened at the same time
-- Akaydah
-- birth of Rivkah
-- Sarahs death

But this literal reading is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED
by the Rashi principle that
- AFTER THESE THINGS denotes SEQUENCE AFTER A WHILE
See LIST005j for a review of relevant verses

It is also directly contradicted by use of the PAST
PERFECT (HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN) See LIST703g

*11 The above is all reasonable. However if the reader doesnt
like this approach then I invite the reader to take
the 5 facts I have enumerated
- Sarah 90 when Isaac was born
- Akaydah happened between Isaac 0 and Isaac 37
- Sarah 127 (Isaac 37) at age of death
- Rivkah already born at Akaydah
- Isaac married rivkah at 40
The reader may then make their own spreadsheet
and use principles and or Midrashim to make it
reasonable.

For my claim that the Akaydah taught self-restraint
see http://www.Rashiyomi.com/akaydah.htm

*12 We note some language in Rashi consistent with
our interpretation
--------------------------------------------
During THAT PERIOD (the Akaydah) Rivkah was born
--------------------------------------------
There is an emphasis that Rivkah was born during
the PERIOD OF THE AKAYDAH, not at that exact time

Similarly Rashi states
-----------------------------------------------
Isaac waited 3 years after she was capable of childbirth
-----------------------------------------------
That is he waited from 12 to 15.

However this has been misread as
-----------------------------------------------
Isaac waited till she was 3 years old: Capable of relations
-----------------------------------------------
This harps on the fact that relations with a 3 year
old is considered male-female-relations.

However it is clearly absurd to assume that Isaac
married Rivkah at 3

*13 There are several ways to contradict the actual
text of Rashi

* Rivkah could NOT have been 3 at marriage or born
at the Akaydah since the Bible explicitly says
that Rivkah had ALREADY BEEN BORN at the Akaydah
and Abraham was told the NEWS, AWHILE after the
Akaydah (see LIST703g and LIST060a for details)

* Rashi is based on the Talmud in Yevamoth 64
But the Talmud does NOT say what Rashi says!!!

* The Talmud explicitly states that both Isaac
and Rivkah were barren (Alternatively Isaac
was in Israel and the 10 year rule to marry
elsewhere for children doesnt apply there)

So the most reasonable assumption is that
Rashi cited the 35-YEAR-RULE (A Man should
marry someone else for children if his wife
has not given birth by 35). However a later
scribe seeing a requirement to marry someone
else for children confused this with the
10 YEAR RULE mentioned above.

In summary: Rashi is based on Yevamoth and the
Talmud directly contradicts what Rashi says here
In fact the whole point of the Talmud is that
we can NOT infer the 10 year rule from Isaac
and Rivkah. Hence I think the above textual
emendation reasonable(Though we do not have
further sources to back it up).

Readers who are still dissatisfied should review
the Talmud Yevamoth 64 and try and come up
with their own explanation.

*1  Many people are familiar with the concept of the
FORMULA PLUG IN. That is a problem is solved by a
formula which you plug into.

But some problems intrinsically cannot (initally)
be solved by a formula. Instead you have to
formulate the problem algebraically and solve;only
then do you have the formula.

In other words these problems are solved by
the EQUATION vs the FORMULA

Thus the statement that the eldest gets double
suggests the following model.

- Suppose the are B brothers
- Suppose 1 of them is eldest
- The Fathers total assets are T (Total)

- Let A be the amount each brother inherits
We have no formula for A

- Then each of the B-1 brothers obtains A
- The eldest obtains double, 2A.
- Together this exhausts the Fathers estate, T

Hence we have (B-1)A + 2A = (B+1)A = T

This gives rise to the formula  A = T / (B+1)

An example is a father with 100,000 and 4 children
- T=100,000
- B=4
- So each child take T/(B+1) = 100000/5 = 20,000
- Eldest takes 2*20000=40000
- Other 3 take 20000
- Total distribution =3*20000+40000=100000

See Rambam Inheritance Chapter 2

*1 Actual there are 3 paragraphs as follows
- Gn22-01:19  Akaydah
- Gn22-20:24  Birth of Rivkah
- Gn23-01:--  Death of Sarah

Rashi points out that the TOPIC SENTENCE of Gn22-20:24
is the birth of Rivkah. Rashi also points out that
the 3 paragraphs form a TEMPORAL SEQUENCE
For further details see LIST690B

*1 Rashi further distinguishes between
- AFTER (Aleph-Cheth-Resh) which means IMMEDIATELY AFTER and
- AFTER (Aleph-Cheth-Resh-yud) which means EVENTUALLY

For example:
- IMMEDIATELY after Xerxes killed his wife, the process for
chosing a new wife began.

- EVENTUALLY after Jacob had instructed Joseph that he
must be buried in Israel, not Egypt, Jacob became
terminally ill*10

*10 Remarkably the above table gives ALL Biblical examples!
There are only 11 (8 with Aleph-Cheth-Resh and 3
with Aleph-Cheth-Resh-yud).The Table is deliberately
terse--MOST of the examples however should be clear
The more interested reader should check the examples
and see how they fit the given principle

*1 The Genesis Rabbah Chapter 3, Braiitha 7 states
>God had created many worlds before this one
>He however destroyed them and it is only
>this world that pleased him.
The Midrash Rabbah learns this from various sources
but the PAST PERFECT verbs brought here are the main
source. (For example the Midrash also learns this from
the phrase
>1-1-31 & God saw all he had made and
>BEHOLD it was good
which has the connotation of
>BEHOLD it was good this time but not the
>previous times
While this is supportive it is not conclusive. The
main argument is from the PAST PERFECT verbs as
indicated above

Although the TEXT of the Genesis Rabbah 3:7 does not
seem to indicate that the creation of previous worlds
is derived from the PAST PERFECT nevertheless I found
an explicit statement of this connection between the
PAST PERFECT and the creation of previous worlds in
the Soncino Translation of the Zohar, 16a.


*2 Rashi suggests that the PAST PERFECT (HAD DONE) allows
>rearranging the sequence of chapters
thereby indicating
>causal links.
For example the natural sequence
>1-2-26:28 Intimacy
>1-4-1 Pregnancy/birth
>1-3 Snake gets Eve to sin/expulsion from Paradise
is changed to
>1-2-26:28 Intimacy
>1-3 Snake gets Eve to sin/expulsion from Paradise
>1-4-1 Pregnancy birth


The changed sequence suggests a
>CAUSAL LINK
between
>INTIMACY & SIN OF SNAKE
In other words, because Adam and Eve were cohabiting before
everybody the snake (a nickname for a slimy person) desired
her and plotted to kill Adam (by having Eve give him the
forbidden food) whereby he could marry her. Although this
appears speculative it is bolstered by the use of the PAST
PERFECT which allows a rearrangement of order.

Similarly the sequence

>1-18:19 The 3 angels
>1-18 prophecy that Sarah will give birth
>1-19 Destrucion of Sedom/Saving of Lot
>1-21-1 Sarah gave birth
>1-20 Abduction of Sarah
>1-20-14:18 Sarah saved; Abraham prays for Avimelech

is reversed to

>1-18:19 The 3 angels
>1-18 prophecy that Sarah will give birth
>1-19 Destrucion of Sedom/Saving of Lot
>1-20 Abduction of Sarah
>1-20-14:18 Sarah saved; Abraham prays for Avimelech
>1-21-1 Sarah gave birth

The changed sequence suggests a
>CAUSAL LINK
between
>Abraham praying that Avimelech should give birth
>Abraham-Sarah having a child

Chazal in fact say
>Whoever prays for his friend
>gets answered first (if he needs the same thing)


*3 1-25-29:34 describes Esauv coming home hungry and asking
Jacob for food who in turn asks Esauv to sell him the birthright.
The verses (without proper translation) appear to say that Jacob
only gave the weary Esauv food AFTER he sold his birthright. In
other words he blackmailed him into selling his birthright.

However with the proper translation the verses says
>Esauv asked for food
>Jacob asked for the birthright
>Jacob HAD ALREADY given food to Esauv.

Thus there was no blackmail. It is curious that some major
midrashim do not mention this (I in fact learned the
interpretation of this verse from my 8-th grade Chumash
Teacher, Rabbi Nathan Belitsky who taught us at an early
age that there were grammatical methods to refute slander
on Biblical characters).


*4 In other words we read the verses that
>1-12-34 the Jews exodused form Egypt
>1-12-35 they loaned silver/gold vessels
>1-12-36 they HAD ALREADY been loaning vessels

I would imagine the simple interpretation is that eg
>as slaves they loaned utensils
>they acted like they lost them
>"I lost what you gave me; can you spare me another"
>and because God HAD ALREADY given them grace
>they ended up loaning more vessels


*5 This simple but elegant example was provided by Harry
Rashbaum in my Shomray Emunah Rashi class


*6 See LIST690b for a discussion

*7 To indicate the ordinary past the Bible uses
- the Hebrew letter VAV followed by
- the future tense
All examples in the above list use the pure past which
according to Rashi means HAD ALREADY (PAST PERFECT)