*1
Here the KEYWORD, AGAINST, acts as a bullet. Rashi comments
-----------------------------------------------------------
God criticizes them on two accounts
- Moses is my servant--he works for Me. Therefore you
shouldn-t be criticizing his behavior

- Moses on his own account is a humble person. Therefore
you shouldn-t be accusing him of arrogant behavior
-----------------------------------------------------------

*1 Unlike other cases of ritual impurity the Lepor is
- ostracized from all his friends
- must declare himself impure and separate himself
Hence he is like someone dead (that is like a dead body
he is REPULSIVE)*10

---------------------  LONGER FOOTNOTES ---------------------
*10 Rashi gives an alternate argument
-----------------------------------------------------
Both the LEPOR and DEAD transmit a status of ritual
impurity to a person who merely walks into the same
room with them
-----------------------------------------------------

However we would summarize this Rashi argument as follows
---------------------------------------------------------
Both the LEPOR and DEAD are considered REPULSIVE. Hence
- merely being in the same room with them confers impurity
- People AVOID both the LEPOR and DEAD BODY
---------------------------------------------------------

Such an approach to Rashi is deeper and more satisfying
and sheds light on the analogy.

*1 - ordinary Prophets receive prophetic instruction in
the form of dream riddles which are then interpreted
by the prophet*10

- Moses prophecy was straightforward without riddles

*10 Opening up the prophetic books we see numerous
communications to prophets thru dream riddles
such as the BOILING POT and ALMOND vision in
Jeremiah 1.

*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


*2 e.g. The father is a non jew from outside Israel
He marries a Canaanite women in Israel
By law when Israel is conquered she must be killed
But the son follows the father, is not considered Canaanite,
need not be killed and can be used as a slave byus.

*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

*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