*1 Nu31-16 cross references Nu25-01:09 which clearly mentions
both these sins (e.g. Nu25-02)

*2 It would appear from this Husband-wife example(adultery)
that M-A-L refers to a violation of any DEEP PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIP (Such as acts of adultery to man, or
idolatry/intermarriage to God)

*3 This verse is the ONLY example where M-A-L does not seem
to refer to VIOLATION of the GOD-MAN relationship or to
violation of ther marital relationship.For Lv05-21a
speaks about a person who denies money owed, It is therefore
reasonable to interpret M-A-L in this verse as apptlying to
a FALSE OATH (Which is a violation of the God-man
relationship)*10 *11

*10 Rashi citing the Midrash brings additional support: Other
monetary crimes (such as armed robbery, torts, etc) can
involve witnesses and evidence. However the monetary
crimes spoken about in this verse -- keeping lost articles,
witholding wages.... -- are crimes withOUT wintesses
and evidence. Hence the false oath is a violation of
the God-man relationship.

*11 I mention in passing a brilliant Tanakh lecture by
Rabbi Reinman (The author of the book 1 PEOPLE TWO WORLDS,
containing a dialog with a Reform Rabbi).

Rabbi Reinman spoke about the assertion of Radak that
RECHAVAM worshipped idols. Radak derives this from
use of the word M-A-L in 2C12-01:05.

Rabbi Reinman cited various Talmudic passages showing that
Naamah, Rechavams wife was righteous. Rabbi Rineman
then cited 2C12-13:14 to interpret MAL as not
preparing their hearts properly.

However the Radak has a strong case AS SHOWN BY
THE ABOVE LIST. Based on 2C12 which mentions
RECHAVAM REIGNED OVER JERUSALEM THE CITY WHICH
GOD CHOSE TO DWELL IN, I would take a midway
position between RADAK and the TALMUD.

I would suggest that the Jewish sin was restoration
of the private altars (There is precedent for this
in the above list). Hence we immediately see

-Restoration of the private altars is a TEMPLE
violation and would hence justify the term M-A-L

-If all Naamah did was make sure that the Jews
did not worship idols but instead worshipped
private altars then she was indeed Righteous

-Radak would be justified in classifying
RESTORATION OF PRIVATE ALTARS with IDOLATRY
since the sins are similar (But certainly
not identical in severity).

At any rate Rabbi Reinman encouraged detailed
study of Tanakh with Talmud and Rishonim which
of course is warmly welcomed. What we have
added on this email group is advocation of
use of lists.

*1 Clearly the last 3(or 4) Rows have REQUIREMENTS for
bringing the offering (eg Only when a person SINS
or only when he is especially THANKFUL on something.)

By contrast the first 2 (or 3) rows do not have
REQUIREMENTS--hence they must be VOLUNTARY offerings

*2 We exhibit the 5 types of offerings

*3 Both SIN and GUILT offerings require an act of sin
before they are brought. They differ in the type of
sin that causes them.

*1 Ex25-08a (See Epsteins translation of Rashi who presents
a similar list)

*2 Ex16-23a

*3 PLACE is in SPACE;
DAY is in TIME.
MEM can equally mean a PLACE of
something or a TIME of something.

*4 Lv01-16a

*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

*5 FIND-GRACE can equally mean I WISH YOU WELL or
YOU WERE WISHED WELL. Rashi points out that GRACE
by itself has this same connotation (Without the
full phrase FIND GRACE). See LIST854g for further
details

*6 Tzade-Lamed-Ayin means SIDE (and hence can refer
to the RIBS). Thus Ex30-04 speaks about the SIDE
OF SIDES--that is the CORNER.

*7 Actually the idiom consists of two parts
- SQUEEZE the blood
- use of the passive (Blood is SQUEEZED)
Hence the idea that the slaughtered animal is
pushed against the altar wall until the blood
oozes forth.

*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 So
- Yonah-birds could ONLY be offered from YOUNG birds
- Tor-Birds could ONLY be offered from ADULT birds

*2 CHILDREN applies to YONAH birds. (Hence by implication
ADULTS applies to TOR birds)*10

*10 Malbim brilliantly points out that the exegesis
is cemeted by the observation that although TOR and
YONAH birds are mentioned several dozen times in the
Torah, nevertheless, CHILDREN is only associated with
YONAH and TOR never has anything associated with it.

It is precisely because this is ALWAYS true that we
have the right to make this exegetical inference