*1 The Bible says PLACE MEZUZOTH ON THE Dorposts OF HOUSE
- So DOORPOSTS means on BOTH doorposts
- But DORPOSTS means its OK to place on just one

Similarly we need only take ONE LULAV branch

Similarly only the MALE sea monster was created

In each case the GROUP need not be FULL

*2 The Bible says that the rainbow was placed as a sign
for all GENERATIONS
- GENERATIONS implies ALL generations
- GENRATIONS implies for MOST not ALL Generations
Because some were righteous and did not need a rainbow
to promise them they wouldnt be destroyed

*3 The Bible tells Adam and eve YU CONQUER THE EARTH
YU is spelled deficiently (not YOU) to indicate
that BOTH of them need not participate---it suffices
if one of them (the male) goes out and earns bread

*4 The TABLTS of stone functioned as a GROUP...you
only needed one...(Because each one was a replica
of the other*10)


*5 The PRINCS brought as a GROUP not as EACH INDIVIDUAL
This contrasted with the behavior of the nation
mentioned in Ex35-05---each person brought by
himself.*11

*10 The other possibility is that part of the 10
commandments were written on one tablet and part
on the other. The moral implication of the two
tablets being copies of each other is that we
should repeatedly review our learning.

*11 Rashi brings further support for the idea that
the princes did not bring as individuals but
as a group.
- They waited till the end to bring
- They acted like elected officials (who think
that the masses are incapable of doing their
job and the officials have to come at the
end and make up what was not done)

*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

*5 See Lv08-16:21 for Moses acting as a Priest. During
this brief period Moses used the Temple Basin.

*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 Many examples in this list come from previous
list in the metonomy series (LIST871a,
LIST871b, LIST871c)

*2 See LIST871e for 6 Rashis mentioning this HAND=DOMAIN
theme

*3 See LIST871f for verses where NSA means GIFT

*4 Rashi citing the Midrash Rabbah states
-------------------------------------
Your violence is something you VIOLATED
from Esauv (You are killing like Esauv)
-------------------------------------

But I see no reason to see this Midrash
as the PRIMARY simple meaning of the
verse. The PRIMARY meaning of the verse
is that Shimon and Levi were criminals
The Midrash is simply adding a pun to this
observation.

*5 See LIST871g for some examples

*6 This is a common metonomy that occurs in English
(eg America-Americans etc).

Rashi is cute here: He EXPLAINS the metonomy
----------------------------------------------
When the soldiers die at sea their loved ones
back in Egypt also suffer and in effect are
smitten by God
----------------------------------------------
Rashi does not contradict the metonomy--he
simply shows why it is convenient to identify
the LAND and PEOPLE.

*7 The night was traditionally divided into three
times of Guard duty. The GUARD DUTY near dawn
was called the MORNING WATCH (Cf Ju07-19 for
confirmation that there was a BEGINNING WATCH, MIDDLE
WATCH and DAWN WATCH)

*8 The phrases SEEK GOD, SEEK IN GOD, occur in several
verses and denote SEEKING ADVICE OF GOD. Compare for
example (1S09-09, 1K22-08 or even 2K01-03 (Seeking
advice of idolatrous gods). For alternate meanings
see note *10.

*10 On Gn25-22e there is a delightful Ramban Rashi controversy
Ramban points out that SEEK GOD can mean PRAYER. Rashi
holds it means PROPHETIC ADVICE. I brought about a dozen
verses which clearly show that
- SEEK GOD can and does refer to PRAYER
- SEEK GOD can and does refer to PROPHETIC ADVICE
- SEEK GOD can and does refer to BOTH Prayer/Prophecy
Hence I regard Ramban not as disagreeing with Rashi but
rather as complementing him. For further details see
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/gn25-22d.htm

*11 Clearly the Hebrew YeeChad comes from the root CHAD
which means SHARP. Rashi brings two opinions
- It means HE SHARPED (Mirthed at a SHARP WORD)
- It means HE TWINGED (Upset at PAINFUL news)

But Radack brings STRONG support that CHAD means
mirth. Indeed, in other verses, CHAD does mean
MIRTH (As in eg Neh08-10 or P021-07).

This controversy between Rashi and Radack
can be resolved Grammatically. The grammatical
form of VaYeeChad (Chirik, Patach) could come from
either
- INTENSE MODE of 1-2-Hey roots(Cheth-Daleth-Hey) or
- PASSIVE MODE of 1-2-2 roots(Cheth-Daleth-Daleth)

In the intense mode CHAD means MIRTH(Radack)

But in the PASSIVE MODE it would correspond to
RECEIVING (PASSIVE!) a SHARP twinge at hearing
bad news.

Hence the controversy is on the root and mode
of the word.

This explanation makes both viewpoints respectable
since Rashi would concede that CHEDVAH which
definitely comes from Cheth-Daleth-Hey means
MIRTH; Rashi could still maintain that Yee-Chad
means TWINGED since it comes from a different root

Rashi also points out that the translation
TWINGED would show that despite Jethros
happiness he still felt sorry for the Egyptians
thus showing the conflict between his past(non-jew)
and future (friend of Jews)

*12 The literal text of Rashi seems to violate grammar
----------------------------------------------------
The Biblical text states the BEAUTY OF THE TURBANS--
-- that part of the turban that gives beauty to
them--the TURBANS THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL
-----------------------------------------------------

Rashi seems to violate grammar by reversing the
NOUN and ADJECTIVE (BEAUTY OF TURBANS vs THE TURBANS
THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL).

But in reality Rashi interprets the BEAUTY OF THE
TURBANS to mean THAT PART OF THE TURBAN which gives
it lustre and makes it known as a TURBAN THAT IS
BEAUTIFUL. After all, all turbans are wrapped around
head...but only BEAUTIFUL TURBANS can be multiply
wrapped. Thus Rashi identifies THE BEAUTY OF THE
TURBANS with the end of the turban that is rounded
around the head.