*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.

*14 Rashi actually phrases this a bit differently
----------------------------------------------
If you obey the old laws you will also begin
to obey the new laws
----------------------------------------------

We have paraphrased Rashi to be consistent with
other examples of repetition
---------------------------------------------
if you OBEY---ALL Laws whether old or new
---------------------------------------------

Rashi introduces an additional concept here: CAUSALITY
Whenever a repetition occurs emphasizing IN ALL CASES
the idea is that if you focus on ANY case you will
ultimately come to fulfill all cases.

*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.

*9 The exact verse text is
--------------------------------------------------
You will have to remove the old grain for the new
--------------------------------------------------
This means
---------------------
You will have plenty
---------------------

In other words removal of the OLD for the NEW
is simply something RELATED to PLENTY. The main
theme is plenty.

Similarly the Biblical text
------------------------------------------------------
The threshing season will bump into the harvest season
------------------------------------------------------
means
--------------------
you will have plenty
--------------------
Again the fact that we are STILL threshing when the
harvest comes is something RELATED to having plenty.
The main point is that there is PLENTY.

*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 AFTERNOON-LIGHT-OIL is an example of DOUBLE METONOMY
See LIST871c for other examples.

*1 That is God told Moses TO SAY...so that the people
should SAY BACK that they accept the commandments

*2 In these dialogues TO SAY means that either the
person praying or God wants a response
- So God threatened to destroy the Jewish people
because of the Golden calf...he told this to
Moses TO SAY...so that Moses should pray for mercy

- Moses prayed for mercy TO SAY...and insisted
that God respond to him

*3 Ex32-10 is identical to Dt09-13 except that
Dt09-13 has one extra word TO SAY. Hence we
infer that God told Moses about the punishment
in order that Moses SHOULD SAY BACK AND REQUEST
mercy

*4 Rashi here explains how to interpret a NESTED
or ITERATED infinitive
--------------------------------------------
God asks people
- TO OBSERVE the commandments
- FOR THE purpose of bettering themselves
--------------------------------------------

*1 Rashi Dt11-02b
--------------
The verse creates a contrast
- You DID see
- your children DID NOT see

*2 The multi-verse sentence creates a contrat
- your children did NOT see
- you DID see

Because of the large amount of material in
the intervening verses it is easy to lose
site of the overall structure. Hence the
need for Rashi to comment.

*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 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

*9 Here is the structure of the Dt10-01:10
-----------------------------------------------
Dt10-01:05 God told me to make 2nd tablets-
I did so and placed them in Ark

(Dt10-06:09 We journeyed; Aaron died;
Levites separated for God)

Dt10-10 I HAD STAYED in mount 40 days
-----------------------------------------------

Rashi:
-------
Dt10-10, I HAD STAYED IN MOUNT, refers to
BEGINNING/OPENING of chapter Dt10-01:05 when God told
me to make second tablets.

*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