*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

*1 The exact textual alignment here is as follows
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ex21-09b If the owner of the girl DESIGNATES her for his son
Ex21-10a If he(the son) takes another (wife (Rashi Ex21-10a))
-------------------------------------------------------------

The parenthetical expressions are Rashi-s interpretation
and are derived from the alignment since the two verses
define a context of talking about womens rights EVEN for
a slave-girl and EVEN if the 2nd wife is not a slave*10

*2 Rashi (Ex21-09a) infers from the alignment that
DESERVED-FOR-GIRLS refers to FOOD-CLOTHING-SEX

Rashi (Ex21-10b) identifies (-because of the alignment-)
the SHE in Ex21-10a as referring to the SlaveGirl.
However the real intent of Ex21-10 is ANY SHE (that is,
his 2nd wife OR EVEN his 1st wife-- the slave girl) are
each entitled to FOOD, CLOTHING and SEX.

*10 This brilliant approach to Rashi -- that Rashi is
emphasizing a wives rights EVEN in extreme cases
-- another wife, a slave --- was developed by Rav
Hirsch who suggested that the Torah TYPICALLY showed
rights by giving EXTREME CASES (So all wives have rights
EVEN if they are slaves etc).

*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

*4 Rashi explains that EYE by itself subsumes organs
organically born with the person while TOOTH by
itself implies REPLACABLE organs (like the teeth
of small children). By mentioning both EYE and TOOTH
we include all IRREPLACABLE VISIBLE organs.

*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

*1 There are more requirements here in order
for the master to receive no penalty
for murdering his slave. The master
- had to intend to only hit the slave
- the blow had to be with a non-lethal object
- the slave survived 24 hours etc.
We however summarized this succinctly for
purposes of this list.

*2 Rashi points out that the reference must be
to a non-jewish slave (Since Jewish slaves
dont have the status of Property and have
rights of ownership (They can be paid for
damages)

*1 There are more requirements here. The master
- had to intend to only hit the slave
- the blow had to be with a non-lethal object
- the slave survived 24 hours etc.
We however summarized this succinctly for
purposes of this list.

*2 Rashi points out that the reference must be
to a non-jewish slave (Since Jewish slaves
dont have the status of Property and have
rights of ownership (They can be paid for
damages)