*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.

*13 Several points on Rashi
- Rashi literally says
--------------------------------
Moses translated the Torah in 70 languages
--------------------------------
This might mean the 70 languages of the world
(Arab, French, Chinese etc)

We however have translated 70 LANGUAGES to also mean
70 LITERARY TECHNIQUES. For example in expounding
the text Moses could point out ALIGNED VERSES,
or CONTRADiCTORY VERSES, or REPEATED WORDS...
Each of these is a TECHNIQUE of TRANSLATION similar
to what we do in this Rashi list. Our motivation
for such a re-translation of Rashi is the fact
that Rashi is commenting on the repeated phrase
EXPLAINED EXPLANATION

- the verse also states EXPLAINED GOOD EXPLANATIONS
The word GOOD gives extra emphasis. The
simplest approach is that Rashi explained BOTH
the REPETITION and the word GOOD: Moses did both
- he translated the Torah into other languages
- he expounded the Torah based on techniques.

*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.


*8 In other words he
- 1st affirmed a vow of his wife
- then annuled it (which he had no right to)
- If she now sins (Because she was mislead into thinking
the vow is annuled)
- then HE bears the sin/punishment
In other words BECAUSE he misled her he must pay for
the sin.

*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 Perhaps Moses refers to his own leadership from Egypt
- Jews went down as 70
- They increased to 600,000
- A Factor of 10,0000

*2 Perhaps Moses blessing is as follows
------------------------------------------
As I multipled you by a factor of 10,000
so may Joshua my student multiply you
by a factor of 1000
------------------------------------------

*3 According the Rabbi Ishmael style rules we generalize
the DETAIL clause to situations similar to the
GENERAL clause. The idea then is

---------------------------------------------------
God made a GENERAL promise: Jews will be as numerous
as the stars

I, Moses, fulfilled a DETAIL of this promise--you
started in Egypt as 70 and are now 600,000 (a factor
of 10,000. I bless you that my student Joshua should
multiply you another 1,000.

But in each generation other people will arise.
Each one, like me, will help fulfill the
GENERAL promise of making Jew as numerous as
the STARS.
---------------------------------------------------

In other words Moses saw himself as ONE DETAIL of
the GENERAL PROMISE. The Rabbi Ishmael rules require
GENERALIZATION of the DETAIL clause: Other leaders
will similarly increase you like me.

*1 Cf However Lv15-08a Spit ON Him = Actually spit on him
The rule seems to be that SPIT ON HIM is literal
whereas SPIT ON FACE (use of FACE vs FULL PERSON) means
SPIT TOWARDS HIM

*2 eg If I am angry and mentally curse or if I
am angry and start ranting and raving without
however fully articulating everything on my mind
-- in these two cases I may have sworn IN MY MIND
but I have not sworn WITH MY LIPS (Explicitly)

*3 Contrast Ex20-03a OTHER GODS=GODS OF OTHER PEOPLE
vs Ex21-02a JEWISH SLAVE = SLAVE AND JEWISH

Technically the possessive --OF-- can mean
- OWNED BY (eg OTHER GODS = gODS of OTHERS)
- PROPERTY (eg JEWISH SLAVE=SLAVE who is JEWISH)
- ASSOCIATED WITH (eg BELT OF GARMENT=Belt USED
with Garment)

Note Rashi proves the JEWISH SLAVE=SLAVE WHO
IS JEWISH by citing an other verse Dt15-12 *11

*4 Rashis real point here ('What is bothering Rashi') is
that the METONOMY rule requires that CLEAR OIL could
either mean
- literally clear oil
- oil producing a clear flame
Rashi advises us that here it is literal
Rashi also cites the Talmud Menachoth which
outlines the production process


*5 So
- VALUE = FEE
- YOUR-VALUE = FEE SCHEDULE(Fixed amount for each
gender and age group)*13

*10 The difference between this list; LIST871m and
the sister list, LIST871d, of IDIOMS BY METONOMY
is that
- LIST871d lists new phrases that have entered
the language as idioms--for example, HOLY COINS
refers to COINS USED/RELATED TO THE HOLY TEMPLE

- LIST871m lists one time usages of metonomy--
for example SHEEP WITH WHITE refers to
SHEEP WITH WHITE PATCHES.

The difference is that HOLY COINS always refer
to TEMPLE-RELATED coins while WHITE does not
always refer to WHITE PATCHES---in other words
it is a one time use of the RELATED MEANING rule.

The metonomy of most of the examples in this list
can be inferred from context.

*11 It is important to emphasize that SHEEP do NOT get
aroused from merely seeing something patched (which
reminds them of sheep of the opposite gender).

Rather JACOB FIXED the STICKS IN THE WATER.

The water in the troughs was FLOWING water. Hence the
reflection of the sticks in the water gave the appearance
of MOVING / PULSATING ITEMS WITH PATCHES.

It is these MOVING / PULSATING items with patches
that aroused the female sheep since the pulsating
bobbing sticks resembled aroused males. Once the females
became aroused the males mated them.

So Jacobs trick was to mimic LIVE MALE PATCHED SHEEP
by using water reflections of PATCHED STICKS.

*12 The Hebrew word A-Chu-Zah by itself can refer to
a plot of land (without any additional words):
------------------------------------------------------
Cf Gn47-11 Gave them a PLOT
Cf Lv25-46 These slaves shall be a PLOT for inheritance
Cf Nu27-04 Give us please a PLOT among our brothers
------------------------------------------------------

*13 Rashi admits that
-----------------------------------------------------
I don't understand (know of a precedent) for the
peculiar grammatical construction: YOUR-VALUE
-----------------------------------------------------

Rashi was NOT stating that he did not know what
YOUR-VALUE vs VALUE means. In fact he says explicitly
-------------------------------------------------
the value was fixed for each gender and age group
-------------------------------------------------

Rather what Rashi did not know was a precedent
for the peculiar grammatical form: YOUR-VALUE

*14 As usual in this list we have brought Rashi's SECOND
explanation (Whenever there are two explanations in
Rashi, we reject the first as wrong and accept the
second as right). I am told that the Lubavitcher Rebbe
may he rest in peace held a different view: There are
problems with each explanation and Rashi therefore brought
both.

We have very slightly modified Rashi to make his
comment consistent with Biblical Hebrew. Rashi actually states
--------------------------------------------------
Judge even minor cases like LANDLORD vs TENANT
--------------------------------------------------

We have modified this as follows
-----------------------------------------------
Judge even minor cases like LANDLORD vs
FARMER-TENANT
-----------------------------------------------

PEOPLE and their PLACES often have same names
(e.g. AMERICA-AMERICAN) The FARMER TENANT is
the person ASSOCIATED with
the GRANARY which in Hebrew is Gimel Resh. It
is for this reason that we have slightly amended
Rashi.

The literal Rashi, TENANT would not make sense
linguistically since Gimel-Resh refers to an ALIEN
not to a TENANT. On the other hand, Gimel-Resh
as meaning GRANARY is common in the Bible.

*1 So the famous phrase
------------------------------------------
A LAND flowing with milk and sweet juices
------------------------------------------

really means
------------------------------------------
A LAND WHOSE INHABITANTS (Goats for milk
and Fruit trees for sweet juices) flows
with milk and honey
------------------------------------------

*2 Rashi brings support for his contention that
LAMB can SYNECDOCHICALLY mean any docile
young creature (the same way BREAD means FOOD etc)
See Dt14-04 -- A GOAT-LAMB

*3 See LIST817b*10 for examples. For the while we
point out that because of the snakes characteristic
motion (JUMPING out at a prey),the phrase TO SNAKE
came to mean TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS (Just as in
the English Metaphor).

Hence the Rabbis interpret the prohibition of
SNAKING as a prohibition of JUMPING TO
CONCLUSIONS (eg a Snake crossed my path
hence I will have bad luck)

*4 For other Rashis dealing with the HONEY-SWEET
equation see Lv02-11a Ex34-26a Ex16-31b Ex13-05c
Note how Rashi differs in his explanations.
Rashi states both
- HONEY refers to ANY SWEET FRUIT
- HONEY refers to FRUIT JUICE OF the TAMAR fruit

*5 Rashi on this verse explicitly states
-----------------------------------
The Bible uses the tecnique
of EXAGGERATION/HYPERBOLE
-----------------------------------

*10 LIST817b may be found at
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/h19n5.htm

*1 All 3 verses discuss difficult cases brought to Moses

*2 All 3 verses use the word BROUGHT

*3 All 3 verses discuss cases brought to Moses

*4 Jethro did not discuss how difficult cases are decided

*5 Moses
- in Dt01-17e states I WILL HEAR/DECIDE cases
- but in Nu09-08 Moses admits final decision came from God

Hence Rashi comment
-------------------------------------------------
Conspicuous absence of mention of God in Dt01-17e
shows Moses ego; But in fact there 4-5 Biblical
cases where Moses had to go to God to get answer*10
--------------------------------------------------

*10 Rashi brings another case: The Zelafhchad case
However as I show above the alignment is punchier
using the Passover case since the word HEARS
occurs in it (as in Dt01-17e)

Rashi actually phrases the ALIGNMENT in terms of
punishment (...BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF MENTION OF
GOD MOSES FORGOT LAW IN OTHER CASES)

My opinion is that this is just a literary style
...the ALIGNMENT contrast shows a momentary lapse
of EGO, not an actual sin or disrespect to God.

*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