*10 The explanation of the list should be clear
- The first column gives the NUMBER of the RASHI RULE used
All Rashi rules may be found with examples at
http://wwww.Rashiyomi.com/workbook.htm

- The second column gives the LIST ID (eg LIST210z) which
contains many examples of a particular Rashi technique and
includes the example presented in the third column

- The third column gives a lightning summary of the Rashi
with particular emphasis on the Rashi rule used.

*1 Rashi only mentions Lots HOSPITALITY. However it is proper to
review ALL cases of LOT in the Bible. Other verses show that
Lot was a JUDGE and fought HOMOSEXUALITY.

*2 The exact verse states
--------------------------------------------
Lot was sitting in the gate when the 2 men came;
AND LOT GOT UP FOR THEM WHEN HE SAW THEM
and INVITED THEM TO HIS HOUSE
--------------------------------------------

Rashi goes a step further. Rashi notes the contrast between
say Lots committment of INCEST vs his HOSPITALITY.

Rashi therefore conjectures that Lot learned HOSPITALITY
from Abraham.

The main point of Rashi is the database query. The conjecture
that Lot learned hospitality from Abraham is secondary

*1 Contrast Dt01-22a with Dt05-20
------------------------------------------
Dt05-20  Your ELDERS approached me(Moses)
Dt01-22a YOU-------- approached me
------------------------------------------

This alignment clearly shows the nuances of the
social order style

*2 The implications here is that the KIDS=TEENAGERS instigated
the attempted homosexual rape and the adults tagged along
without protest.*10

*10 Rashi wryly notes that when the angels punished them
he punished the KIDS 1st and ADULTS 2nd.

*1 So the verse should be read with all the CAPPED words
brought together. For example Gn14-23a is UNDERSTOOD as
-----------------------------------------------------
If I take ANYTHING---FROM THREAD TO SHOELACE-from you
-----------------------------------------------------

*1 There are two approaches to 4 letter roots. Sometimes we
try and see them as 2 two letter roots and sometimes we try
and see them as a 3 letter root with an extra letter. Thus
ASTR is explained in the Talmud as ASR. Rav Hirsch stuck to
the 3 letter approach even in obvious cases--thus he takes
MMZR from MZR a rare word in Job.

Similarly Rashi cites a controversy on AVRAYCH:
-- A double 2 letter approach would yield:
AVRAYCH=Gentle(Rc) Father(Av)
-- A 3 letter approach would yield:
AVRAYCH=Kneel (Brch) to me (Aleph)


*2 Note the poetic lisence in e.g.
SRAF =  BIRD(AF) POT (SiR)= Something for Bird nests
This type of small poetic lisence is common in etymologies
and makes their study difficult

*3  Note the finer nuances in some translations. For example ZLAF
occurs rarely in TNACH and its meaning is inferred from its
context. The RDQ in his book of ROOTS says its meaning is SOME
TYPE OF FRIGHT....this could go well with the verse cited by
RDK: "fright has overtaken me"

But perhaps a BETTER translation is
feeling worthless and tired So that the verse with
ZLAF would mean WORTHLESSNESS & FATIGUE HAS OVERTAKEN ME
Then again perhaps there is no way to see which translation
is better

*4 Rashi Gn41-43b

*5 Rashi Gn41-45

*6 Rashi Gn49-12a

*7 The following may help:
- PRCh means to FLY; in connection with fish it could
refer to swimming throughout the water

- SN can mean THORNBUSH or BRANCHES (Songs07-09). I
therefore suggest it means SHRUB like.

So SN-PR would refer to SHRUB-LIKE(SN) protrusions by
which a fish FLYES (PR) - SNPR.

*8 Rashi Nu13-16a

*9 The reference is to a bird with a DOUBLE CROP. Since DU in
ARAMAIC means TWO it appears that Rashi is saying
-------------------------------------------------
DuChiFath = Double(DU) Handle(Caph)=Double CRop
-------------------------------------------------

However we think it preferable that Rashi used Hebrew roots
to explain Hebrew words(Provided simple exaplanations exist)
Hence we read Rashi as saying
--------------------------------------
DuChiFath = ENOUGH (Dai) Handles(CAPH)
--------------------------------------

Thus the word does not DIRECTLY mean DOUBLE CROP. Rather
the essential meaning of the word is ENOUGH HANDLES. The
method by which this particular bird implements this
ENOUGHNESS is thru use of the DOUBLE CROP.

*10 Rashi Gn02-14a Chid-Kel are the SHARP-LIGHT cold river
rapids.

*11 (In fact there is species of flies in Africa that
stings people to death...they start by blinding
them (so that they cant see where to go))

*1 One verse speaks ab out Abraham while the other speaks
about Lot.


*2 Rashi noting the reversed order conjectures that
because of the evil hostile nature of Sedom towards
strangers that Lot did not want the guests washing
immediately (Inn 1st, wash 2nd). That way if he got
caught doing hospitality he could say THEY JUST CAME

*1 See LIST703g and Rashi Gn19-09b and Gn19-11a.

Rashi makes his inferences based on
- the contrast of DOOR vs ENTRANCE
- use of the past perfect (HAD ALREADY BLINDED)*10

*10 As shown in LIST703g in Hebrew
- The PAST PERFECT is indicated by the PAST tense, while
- The CURRENT PERFECT is indicated by the FUTURE TENSE with
a preceding VAV

Hence HKW = THEY had already smitten THEM
WI$LKW = THEY brought him INTO THE HOUSE

*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)

*8 See LIST313t and Rashi Gn19-09b and Gn19-11a. Rashi
interprets the text Gn19-06:11 as follows

We now read the verses Gn19-06:11 as follows
------------------------------------------------------------
- Lot left the house to dissuade the Sedomites from rape
- Lot closed the door of the house
- The crowd did not listen---they tried to break in
- The Angels brought Lot into the house
- While bringing Lot in some people entered the ENTRANCE
- But Angels (re)closed the [DOOR]
- Because the angels [HAD ALREADY BLINDED] the Sedomites in
the doors [ENTRANCE]
------------------------------------------------------------
Rashi makes his inferences based on
- the contrast of DOOR vs ENTRANCE
- use of the past perfect (HAD ALREADY BLINDED