*1 Rashi adds an important subrule on the TERMINAL HEY rule
--------------------------------------------------------
When you have a compound word BEER SHEVA, then the
terminal Hey is placed on the FIRST word of the pair.
That is
- CORRECT: BeerAH Shava
- INCORRECT: Beer ShavAH
--------------------------------------------------------
Such adding of subrules is characteristic of Rashi.

*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
-----------------------------------------------------

*2 So the Biblical text
--------------------
he CENSUSED them
--------------------
refers to the ACT of census.

The Biblical text
----------------------
CENSUSES OF GOD TO MOSES
----------------------
would refer to the CENSUS categories, Age 30-50, that
God ordered Moses.

*1 Supported  by Dt17-06:07 which states
--------------------------------------
..first the witnesses execute...then the people execute
--------------------------------------

*2 See http://www.Rashiyomi.com/lv05-02a.htm for a full
discussion of the three Rashi methods connected with
this verse.

*3 e.g. If PART of meat fell outside temple (and is thereby
impure) then you can still eat the part of the meat
that remained inside the temple (even though the two
parts are connected)

*4 The text of Lv13-32:45 is as follows
----------------------------------------------------
If on his baldness there is pinkish affiction then
leprosy is sprouting in his baldness; the priest
reviews and confirms the pinkish affliction in his
baldness just like skin leprosy...[then] this person
is leprousand is ritually impure; the priest shall
DECLARE DECLARE him impure and the lepor with the
affliction: his garments shall be rent and his head
left wild....
-----------------------------------------------------

The words DECLARE DECLARE encourage a BROAD
interpretation of this chapter: The requirements of
declaration, garment renting and head left wild apply
not only to the subject of the chapter---a bald person
with leprosy---but apply to ANY lepor

*5 Rashi actually brings down THREE consequences of
the broad interpretation emanating from the repeated
word
------------------------------------------------------
The word AMEN signifies acceptance of an oath of curse
- ACCEPTANCE whether she committed adultery from
the suspected person OR from any other person

- ACCEPTANCE whether she cheated while married or
whether she cheated while (BiblicallY) engaged

- ACCEPTANCE of both the OATH (I didnt commit adultery)
as well as the consequent CURSE (May I be punished
if I did commit adultery)
------------------------------------------------------

From these three distinct interpretations we infer
that the basic idea of Rashi is that
-----------------------------------
The repetition indicates ACCEPTANCE
IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES
-----------------------------------

*6 An alternative approach not based on repetition
reviews all references to MOAB in Nu22-10:21. They
are referred to as
- Moabs princes
- Balaks servants
- Them
- people
If in Nu22-21 it refers to them as MOAB PRINCES
-----------------------------
Bilam went with Moabs princes
-----------------------------
The emphasis seems to be that he went with them
and the Moabite philosophy (He agreed with them)

*7 Several points should be made on this unusual repetition
- the repetition is not a repetition of a word or phrase
within one verse but rather a repetition in separate
verses
- the repetition does not suggest an emphasis in a word
or phrase but rather an emphasis in a juxtaposition--
two juxtaposed events are seen as causing or enabling
each other
-- Aaron's death
-- the war by Arad
The repeating sets of verses are
- Nu20-22:29, Nu21-01 and
- Nu33-38:40 states*11

*10 Rashi citing the Talmud asks
------------------------------------------------
But if the law applies to HUNTED or DOMISTICATED
(non-hunted) animals why does the bible use the
phrase HUNT alltogether? ANSWER: The Bible speaks
about a TYPICAL SITUATION: One normally should not
eat meat except on special occassions and after
significant work like a hunt
------------------------------------------------

*11 It is instructive to compare our explanation with
Rashi's wording. Rashi states on the verse
----------------------------------------------
And king of Arad HEARD when Jews came to SPY-ROAD
----------------------------------------------

Rashi states on Nu21-01a
-------------------------------------------
What did he HEAR? He heard that Aaron died
-------------------------------------------

This of course is rediculous. The verse
explicitly states
----------------------------------------
He HEARD that the Jews came
----------------------------------------

But Rashi HIMSELF clarifies his position
on Nu33-40a Rashi states
---------------------------------------
The set of verses relating a) Aarons death
and b) the declaration of war by Arad, is
repeated to emphasize that one caused the
other*12
---------------------------------------

Thus we see that Rashi HIMSELF contradicts his
early play on words WHAT DID HE HEAR? HE HEARD
OF AARONS DEATH. Such play on words is typical
in Rashi---Rashi lived before the printing
press-- by phrasing homilies in turns of
word plays he facilitated memorization
and retention in students.

*12 Rashi provides a possible explanation as to why
Aaron's death would encourage Arad to declare war

Rashi conjectures that Aaron, as High Priest,
was a spiritual force not only for the Jews but
for surrounding nations.When he died Arad decided
the Jews would lack their spiritual backup and
decided it was time to declare war.

*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

*12
Note the following repetition
-Lv25-15b buy from colleagues by NUMBER YEARS SINCE JUBILEE
-Lv25-15b sell -------------- by NUMBER YEARS OF PRODUCE

Without the REPETITION I would simply state (as Rashi does)
-----------------------------------------------------------
So eg if your field produces an average yield of $1000 a
year then in year 0 of the Jubilee it would be worth 50,000
because the buyer would expect $1000 x 50 years=50,000;
by contrast in year 40 of the Jubilee it would be worth
10,000 because the buyer only expect $1000 x 10 years=10,000
In other words the
VALUE OF THE FIELD = YIELD PER YEAR x NUMBER OF YEARS
If however a person sold the field for $50,000 in year 40
he would be overcharging for the field and violating a
Biblical law
-----------------------------------------------------------

It is important to emphasize that, as Rashi states
----------------------------------------------------
Whatever other meaning we derive (from the repetition),
these OTHER MEANINGS, are BESIDES the simple meaning
of the text
----------------------------------------------------

Without the REPETITION I would look at the PLURAL WORD
YEARS in the verse and simply state
---------------------------------------------------
Most sales are for YEARS (vs 1 year). Hence the
law is stated using typical examples. However the
law applies EQUALLY whether you sold the field for
one YEAR or many YEARS.
---------------------------------------------------
Here I used the Rashi rule of GENERALIZATION--which
requires that verses are seen as stating laws using
typical examples.

However we dont use the rule of GENERALIZATION when
the verse has some limitation.

Thus using the Rashi rule of REPETITION we see that
- the REPETITION requires EMPHASIS
- the EMPHASIS requires RESTRICTIVE meaning
I therefore infer that
--------------------------------------------------
A sale of land requires a minimum of 2 years.
We infer this from the REPEATED word, YEARS
which indicates AT LEAST TWO YEARS
--------------------------------------------------

To recap:
- It would be a mistake to think that Rashi
arbitrarily picked on the word YEARS and
required all sales to be two years
- Indeed in many cases Biblical laws are
stated using typical examples and generalized
to other cases
- However SINCE there is a REPETITION in the
verse therefore I am justified and required
to interpret the verse literally---a sale
must be for at least YEARS (that is 2 years)


The above is a peachy example of Rashi...it shows
that pickiness and restrictive meaning is only
one tool available to the Biblical student--this
tool may ONLY be used when required. In this
verse it is the repetition that requires it--
without the repetition I would not have come
to this conclusion.

This is fundamental to understanding Talmudic homiletics

*13 You can vow to PROHIBIT a PROHIBITION on something NEUTRAL
but you cannot vow to prohibit an OBLIGATION (Such as
a vow to abstain from the Passover offering which you
are obligated to eat)

*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