*1  Note the two bullets with footnote #1
----------------------------------------------------
touches someone unclean to the dead
touches a man that he is unclean to, any uncleanliness
----------------------------------------------------

The BULLETED status of the list encourages a perception
of distinctness. So Rashi suggests
- unclean to dead = a man who had CONTACT with the dead
- man he is unclean to=an actual dead man

This inference is not based on logic or pickiness
in phrases. Rather, it is based on the bulleted
structure which encourages an atmosphere of distinctness

Furthermore since the last bullet uses the word ANY
----------------------------------------------------
touches a man that he is unclean to ANY uncleanliness
-----------------------------------------------------
The word ANY justifies including all unclean human
states whether they are mentioned in this list or not
See LIST005n for a discussion of the nuances of ALL

*2  Note the two bullets with footnote marker #2
-----------------------------------------------
Or he touches ANY RODENT THAT HE IS UNCLEAN TO
Or touches a man THAT HE IS UNCLEAN TO,ANY UNCLEAN
-----------------------------------------------

The precise Rashi argument is as follows
- For the word ANY
----------------------------------------
ANY RODENT THAT HE IS UNCLEAN TO
----------------------------------------
Rashi infers that he is unclean whether
he touches the WHOLE DEAD RODENT or a
PART of that rodent.

The word ANY can refer to PARTS. See LIST005
below for verse examples where ANY refers
to parts.

- Notice how both verselets use the phrase
---------------------
THAT HE IS UNCLEAN TO
---------------------
Rashi argues that this extra parallelism
justifies transferring elliptically the
word ANY to the other bullets.

That is the priest is prohibited
from eating TERUMAH whether he contacted
the WHOLE of an impure source or PART
of one)

*1 Rashi gives examples: "CRAWLING ON BELLY" could refer to
a SNAKE. "ALL WHO CRAWL ON BELLY" refers to SNAILS
Thus the ALL includes even insects

*2 Rashi gives examples: "WALKING ON CLAWS" refers to the
scoprion---"ALL WHO WALK ON CLAWS" refers to the BEETLES

*3 Rashi further FURTHER supports this with the alignment
(The Torah is speaking about a plague of BITING SNAKES
God told Moses to make a copper snake and those that look
at it would live) Consider the alignment of the following
verses

---------------------------------------------------------------
Nu21-08 And ANYONE Bitten            will  SEE      it & live
Nu21-09 And ANYONE Bitten by a snake would STARE at it & live
*1            *2
---------------------------------------------------------------

Thus if a SNAKE bit them they had to STARE at it to live
But if a  DOG   bit them they could just see it and live

Finally, Rashi in the name of the Talmud explains why "looking"
at a copper snake should cure---it symbolically referred to
looking upwards and praying


*4 That is the adults should TRAIN minors not to eat blood

*5 This Rashi, besides being derived from the word ALL is further
supported by an alignment of introductory verses

---------------------------------------------
Lv15-01 speak to     the              Jews
Lv12-02 Speak to     the              Jews
Lv19-02 Speak to ALL the community of Jews
*a         *b
---------------------------------------------

Thus there is an emphasis that the whole community should
hear (even children)


*6 Again Rashi is supported by an alignment

-----------------------------------------------------
Dt34-08 the       children    of Israel mourned Moses
Nu20-29 the whole house       of Israel Mourned Aaron
*a    *b
-----------------------------------------------------

The term HOUSE of ISRAEL is more
directed to women and children


*7 ALL people (even judges who heard testimony) must stone
the blasphemer

*8 ALL people cried at hearing the spies story (Even the
leaders)

*9 Thru the GENERAL PARTICULAR GENERAL principle we learn
that only dense-visible hair (like eyebrows) has to
be shaved. This is learned by generalizing the examples
in the verse ("head", "beard", "eyebrows")

Thru the word "ALL" we learn that even non-dense or
non-visible hair (like armpit hair or outer-arm-hair)
should be shaved.

Thus the two items--GENERAL-PARTICULAR-GENERAL and ALL
teach us that ALL is shaved except NOSE-HAIR


*10 Neither foreigners nor Jewish Apostates can bring offerings

*11 Thus eg God smote the Firstborn of Egyptians and also the
firstborn of other nations who were visiting Egypt


*12 This was incorrectly translated in a previous posting

*13 Rashi points out the subtlety in this: People normally act
macho--they would say "If I had been there to hear Moses I
would have answered him". Therefore it says ALL Israel..
Moses made sure "EVERYBODY" was there so that no one
should claim that "I would have answered Moses".

*14 This law is beneficial--if the sacrifice touched other
meat then ONLY THE PLACE WHERE IT TOUCHED has to be cut off
(Only PART of it is holy)

Rashi further learns that TOUCHING does not confer holiness
unless there was ABSORPTION of the meat flavor (According
to Malbim this is learned from order of words--this will
be discussed in another posting)

*15 So you spill the blood out of the cup--then you vigorously
shake it and spill the leftover droplets (hence ALL the blood
is spilt)

*16 So eg if the dead organ fell into the cup then anything
in the AIRSPACE of the cup becomes ritually impure EVEN
if it is not touching the cup but eg suspended

In legal terminology we say that (BEING) INSIDE is a
VEHICLE for TRANSMISSION of impurity in earthenware cups

*17 I would logically think that Bzalel couldn't do things that
God told Moses but Moses forgot to tell Bzalel.

Rashi brings a possible example--In Ex25 Moses orders the
temple utensils to be built first and then the Tabernacle

But in Ex36 and Ex37 Bzalel builds the Tabernacle first
and then the temple.

Logically Bzalel knew that you build the house first and
then fill it with utensils

*18 Nu14-29 states that the adult males over 20 who listened to
the spies slander of Israel died. However they had all
died by the time they came to Tzin---hence the WHOLE
community came (because they didn't bury anyone in the
previous place)

*19 Nu18-09 lists 3 types of sacrifices that priests get.
It does not list peace offerings. HEnce I need the word
ALL to include it. This is further indicated in Lv06
and Lv07-23.

*20 It says Lv17-11 that the reason blood is prohibited is
because it is used to atone on the altar

Hence it is logical to conclude that only sacrificial
blood is forbidden but ordinary blood that can't be
offered is permissable. Therefore the verse says ALL BLOOD
to include this other blood.

*21,*22 It explicitly says (Lv22--21:22) that blemished priests
may not offer sacrifices (But may eat them).

Hence the word "ALL" includes even blemished priests--
since they can't offer sacrifices I might think they
DO inherit Israel--I might also think that they do
not join the Priestly rotations (which offer and eat
the sacrifices).

Therefore the word ALL is used. They

do join the priestly rotations,
do not inherit Israeli land,
do not offer sacrifices
do eat them

*23 There are 3 opinions of what the word ALL includes.
The best literary approach is to use Lv07-07
The sin offering is like the guilt offering
(Since both sin and guilt offerings deal with matters
of sin) Thus the word "ALL sin offerings" includes
even guilt all offerings.

We used this Rashi to show Rashis literary style.
See above


*24 Recall that most sacrifices are HOLY and cannot be eaten
even if they are Kosher. Further recall that the Lepor
was atoned by having a Kosher bird sent away and another
one offered (Lv14-04:07). I might think that this
sent-away-Lepor bird is like any other sacrificial object
and prohibited from eating. Therefore Dt14-11 says
ALL Kosher birds... may be eaten--even the Kosher lepor
bird.



*25  The first passover offering has one lamb PER family(Ex12-03)
Hence I might think that future passover offerings are
PER family. Therefore when Ex12-16 says "The WHOLE community
must offer it" it means EVERY individual

*26 Added Dec 27, 2001. This verse discusses how Pharoh
decreed death on all children.

The Bible explicitly says that Egypt was run by
magicians and stargazers (Ex07-11, Ex08-15). It
therefore seems reasonable that they told Pharoh that
they were told my magic that a savior was born to the Jews
Since Pharoh didnt know if the savior was Egyptian or Jewish
Pharoh ordered ALL children -- EVEN Egyptian children --
killed by drowning.

*27 In this part of the list ALL means ALL SUBGROUPS

*28 In this part of the list ALL means EVEN BORDERLINE CASES
So eg THE WHOLE NATION REBELS includes EVEN THE LEADERS
(Since you wouldnt expect the leaders to rebel)

*29 In this part of the list ALL means WITHOUT EXCEPTION
(Everybody)

*30 In this part of the list ALL means ALL PARTS (eg
even ORGANS)


*31 In this part of the list ALL refers EVEN to items
you dont EXPECT (Hence this part of the list is
MIDRASHIC in flavor).  For example BEZALEL did ALL
GOD COMMANDED MOSES...the word ALL refers EVEN to
items that Moses forgot (Since you wouldnt think
that Bezalel followed forgotten orders)

*32 From the word ALL/ANY we infer ANY PART OF IT. Rashi
then cites the law on HOW SMALL (obviously a speck
of skin would not cause impurity). The law of HOW
SMALL like all laws of measurements are oral traditions
handed down to Moses at Sinai (And hence are not
derived from the text).

*1 INFERENCE #1: HOLY=TERUMAH
--------------------------
Revu all items with #1 in the above list. The Bible
describes WHAT can/cannot be eaten using 7 terms
- holies
- holies
- holy terumah
- fathers bread
- holies
- Terumah
- holies.
Reviewing this list we easily arrive at Rashi-s inference
---------------------------------------------------------
The HOLY items referenced in this chapter refer to the
TERUMAH gifts that Israelites give to Priests for food
---------------------------------------------------------	

*2  INFERENCE #2: Bought souls,property=SLAVES
------------------------------------------
Revu all itmes with #2 in the above LIST. The Bible
describes 4 types of people associated with priests and
indicates whether they may or may not eat Terumah. The
4 types are
- priest tenants*2
- workers*2
- Bought Souls PROPERTY*2
- Born in house*2

The phrase BOUGHT SOULS, PROPERTY is the giveaway. It tells
us that we are talking about SLAVES. This suggests the idea
of searching the Bible for phrases or types of slaves and
comparing to the above list. We arrive at the following
suggested correspondences
-----------------------------------------------------
- NON JEWISH SLAVES  - BOUGHT, PROPERTY (Ex21-21) (Lv22-11a)
- CHILDREN OF HOUSE  - CHILDREN OF SLAVES (Lv25-45)(Lv22-11b)
- SLAVES FOR 7 YEARS - WORKERS (Cf Lv25-40) (Rashi:Lv22-10b)
- Slaves for 50 years- PRIEST RESIDENT (Rashi:Lv22-10b)
-----------------------------------------------------

Let us be clear about the inference. We are NOT saying that
-----------------------------------------------------
the phrase RESIDENT PRIEST intrinsically MEANS 50 year slaves
-----------------------------------------------------
In fact the phrase RESIDENT PRIEST does not occur again in
the Bible. There is no reason to think it means 50 year slave.
Rather the inference is from the PARALLEL STRUCTURE
----------------------------------------------------------
- Since there are 4 phrases used in the chapter
- and since 2-3 of them clearly refer to slaves
- - for example PROPERTY BOUGHT(=non-Jewish slave)
- - or, those BORN IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD(=children of slaves)
- - and possibly (WORKER, a term the Bible uses for 7 year slaves)
- therefore, we are justified, based on Parallel structure
- to identify the 4th phrase with the 4th type of slave
- It is for this reason that we identify PRIEST RESIDENT
- with a Hebrew slave who stays with his master for 50 years
-----------------------------------------------------------
Such an inference based on PARALLEL Structure
is not as punchy as a LANGUAGE inference but is a
legitimate methods of justification.

The student who understands the above logic will have
a very clear and rich understaning of many Rashis.

*3   INFERENCE #3: stranger = NON PRIEST
-----------------------------------
Revu all phrases marked with #3. These verses discuss
who may or may not eat Terumah. We see the contrast of
- male priests
- strangers
- priest daughters married to a stranger
- a man
The Rashi inference is now clear
-------------------------------
STRANGER refers to a non-priest
-------------------------------
Note that without the CONTEXT and PARALLEL structure
I might think that STRANGER e.g. refers to a non-jew.
However the context clearly indicates that we are
talking about a non-priest vs a priest.

*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 Thus "whoever see the humiliating Adulterous wife rite"
will be so shocked that he will abstain from wine

Similarly "Judah advised his brothers to sell Joseph"
and so when they regretted it they blaimed him and he
had to "separate from them."

Similarly "Sarah died" from the shock that "Abraham
offered Isaac."

*2 In other words because the snake saw Adam and Eve naked
therefore he became Jealous and wanted Adam killed so
he could marry Eve.

ALthough this sounds a bit wild there is strong supporting
evidence. Gn04-01 uses the past perfect form
And Adam HAD BEEN FAMILIAR with his wife & they had
a child"
So the sequence of chapters is
Adam was lonely
God makes Eve
Adam and Eve are naked
------------------------"Snake tempts Eve"
Adam has a child with Eve
Thus the sequence of chapters (Naked--->child) is
clearly interrupted by the Snake story.

*3 As explained above Rashi sees these two views as
complementary
- First they drank wine and got drunk
- While drunk they thought it permissable to offer
sacrifices which should not be offered
Hence they died for both crimes

*4 Rashi explains the Causal connection
- when the masses see that God EVEN kills the righteous
for sins
- then they are aware how they must also observe
Gods commandments
- This leads to more honor for God

*5 So GOOD NEWS facilitates/causes SMOOTH TRAVEL(Rashi)

*6 The full sequence of chapters is as follows
--------------------------------------------
- Gn31 God orders Jacob to return to his fathers house
- Gn32 But Jacob is afraid of Being with Brother Esauv
- Gn33 Jacob journeys instead to Succoth
- Gn34 Dinah gets raped
- Gn35 God tells Jacob to return to BethEl
-------------------------------------------

Rashi notes that
-----------------------------
If Jacob had IMMEDIATELY fulfilled the order
of Travelling to his fathers house he
wouldnt have stayed in Succoth and his
Daughter would not have gotten raped.
------------------------------

Thus Rashi sees a CAUSAL connection
between the chapters. Dinah was raped
because Jacob did not IMMEDIATELY fulfill
the prophetic order.

Note Rashi expresses the same theme
-------------------------------------------------
Because he delayed doing the prophecy immediately
therefore he was punished that certain bad
occurrences happened to him
-------------------------------------------------

Rashi expresses this same theme on Gn35-22a
where we find that Reuven inteferred with his
fathers marital life.

*7 Rashi can be better understood with the EXPORT-IMPORT LAW
of logic. The EXPORT-IMPORT law states that
----------------------------------------------------
IF [it rains] then if [I go out] THEN [I will get wet]
----------------------------------------------------

has the same meaning as
----------------------------------------------------
IF [it rains] and [I go out] THEN [I will get wet]
----------------------------------------------------

In other words Rashi identifies the two sentence forms
- IF p THEN IF q THEN r
- IF p & q THEN r
This identification of NESTED CONDITIONALS with a
CONJUNCTIVE HYPOTHESIS is called the EXPORT-IMPORT law.

The actual Biblical text reads
---------------------------------------------
The cattle is young
AND they will be pushed one day
AND they will die
---------------------------------------------

Rashi simply points out (Using EXPORT-IMPORT) that
we can interpret this as either
---------------------------------------------
[IF] The cattle is young
AND they will be pushed one day
THEN they will die
---------------------------------------------
or
---------------------------------------------
IF The cattle is young
IF they will be pushed one day
THEN they will die
---------------------------------------------

The above two translations use the well known Biblical
principle that the Hebrew letter VAV can refer to
any connective.

*10 Rashi also states
--------------------------------------------------
The HEAVY DRIVING (that God made the Egyptians do
by removing chariot wheel) was a punishment for
their making HEAVY their hearts
--------------------------------------------------

I would strengthen these associations
--------------------------------------------------
The HEAVY DRIVING is a punishment for the HEAVY
work that the Egyptians placed on the Jews
--------------------------------------------------

These comments of Rashi or me also indicate
-- HEAVY DRIVING causes/facilitated
-- Egyptians seeing that God was fighting for them

Indeed: We know that one of the way God fights
is to punish people according to what they have done
(See Rashi on Ex18-11- Jethro said: Now I know that
God is the true God because He returns to people
what they have done)

Hence this particular punishment (making the
Egyptians drive heavy vs killing them) showed
the Egyptians (CAUSED them to be aware) that
God was fighting.

*1 The two two verses where BEAR SIN means SIN use
indirect pronouns--BEAR ON THEMSELVES, BEAR SIN ON HIM-
as shown.

*1 Ex31-15b further points out that all holidays which are
referred to as >SABBATH of SABBATH< (Ex31-15, Lv23-32)
have prohibitions of both WORK and EATING. By contrast
all holidays which are only called >SABBATH< (Lv23-23
and Lv23-39) only have a prohibition of Work but not
a prohibition of COOKING. This is fully discussed at
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h6n12.htm)


*2 This is fully discussed in http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h1n23.htm
Ibn Ezra seems to disagree and state that GReenReen means a
light green (which would contradict this list). But as I
show in that posting, Ibn Ezra retracted what he said in his
commentary on Ps45-03. In fact Ibn Ezra simply points out
that he was testing the consistency of this rule against all
doubled roots. To make a long story short we reviewed all
roots & found possible problems with only 2 verses, Ps38-11
and Songs6-1. However we can properly translate these verses
Ps38-11 would be translated as >My heart FLUTTERS (intense
back and forth motion)<; Similarly Songs6-1 would be
translated as >Dont avoid me simply because I am very
SUNBURNED (an intense form of DAWN-COLOR)

*3 Many of the examples in this list are CONSTRUCTS
e.g. The HOLY of HOLIES. Future additions to this
list will emphasize examples similar to Lv01-08d

*4 So the repeated word MAN must refer to the narrow meaning
of the Hebrew ISH which means A DISTINGUISHED man such
as an Angel or Judge.

*5 In legal terminology the repetition creates ESSENTIALITY
- The wood is on the altar; and MUST be on the altar
- Blood on ear; oil on ear; and the blood MUST come first

*6 In other words the priest can defile himself to a sister
who is REALLY NOT MARRIED (not married and still CLOSE
to her brother the Priest)--thus the priest can defile
himself to a SINGLE and ENGAGED sister but not to a
MARRIED sister

*7 If you review Lv22-17:25 you will find 3-5 repetitions
of the concept that BLEMISHED ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE
OFFERED (or PLACED ON FIRE) TO GOD. Therefore the
REPETITION applies to ANY PART OF THE OFFERING
PROCEDURE. The main parts of the OFFERING PROCEDURE are
- DEDICATION of the animal
- SLAUGHTER of animal
- RECEIPT of animal blood
- OFFERING ON FIRE of organs*10

*8 In other words only is he is REALLY BLEMISHED = STILL
BLEMISHED (But if he recovered from the Blemish then
the law does not apply and he can offer offerings)


*9 The verse states
----------------------------------------------------
If blood falls on a GARMENT, then wash in the temple
THAT ON WHICH IT FELL
----------------------------------------------------

The capped words indicate a quasi repetition. This
repetition creates emphasis. ONLY the part of the
garment on which the blood is sprinkled need be
washed.

*10 An important point about learning Rashi should be
emphasized. Many Rashi commentators play NUMBER GAMES
- they count FOUR repetitions of DONT OFFER
- they then note FOUR applications of emphasis in Rashi
(to a) Dedication b) Slaughter c) receipt of blood
d) offering

However our approach in this list has always been
conceptual. The REPETITION denotes EMPHASIS. The
EMPHASIS in turn simply includes ALL CASES--ALL PARTS
OF THE PROCEDURE. We think this a mature and satisfying
approach to Rashi.

*11 The whole verselet A STRANGER CANNOT EAT TERUMAH is
repeated.   The simple way of taking it is that
- ONLY strangers are restricted from eating TERUMAH
- ALL other PRIESTS (EVEN SUCh AND SUCH) may eat TERUMAH
The details of the EVEN SUCH AND SUCH are not
necessarily explicitly mentioned and must be guessed
at by those knowledgeable of Jewish law.

Rashi(Lv22-13b) applies the EVEN SUCH AND SUCH (Lv22-13b)
to a Priest whose relative just died and prior
to burial. EVEN THOUGH a BEFORE-BURIAL PRIEST MAY NOT EAT
SACRIFICIAL ITEMS nevertheless he MAY EAT TERUMAH

*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.

All lists may be found at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/lists.htm