*1 The connotations of GADISH in these verses are BIG BUNDLES

*2 The connotations of GADISH in these verses are SMALL
BUNDLES--e.g. the bundles eaten by starving people or
rations for one day or the small token we bring to God
when we first harvest.

Consistent with this nuance is the idea that the law
that forgotten sheaves are left for the poor only
applies to small bundles that are forgotten, not to
big bundles (Rashi Dt24-19a)

*1 Ex13-20 Jews journeyed from Succoth after Exodus
Ex12-27 Exodus: Jews go from Raamsayth to Succoth
Nu33-05 Exodus, Then Raamsayth, THen Succoth
The point is that Nu33-05 makes it clear that
there were 3 places
- Exodus FROM Egypt
- TO Raamsayth
- TO Succoth.
Ex13-20 only mentions 2 of the places
Ex12-27 makes it sound like they left EGYPT, ie
they left RAAMSAYTH.
It is in fact common for places to have multiple
names. So Nu33-05 illumines that there were 3
distinct places

*2 Also see Ex30-11:16 which prohibits DIRECTLY
counting people. Instead, we must count the
COINS of each person and from this infer
the total count.

*3 Nu17-05 further illumines by calling it a MEMORIAL
Thus we have SYMBOL MEMORIAL BANNER.
Since NAYS means BANNER it refers to anything
that ATTRACTS attention such as SYMBOLS or
MIRACLES

*4 In this example the Hebrew word TaMid can mean
either CONTINUAL or CONTINUOUS depending on context.

*5 Rashi extends the meaning of GIFT TO THE DEAD to
all BURIAL RELATED MATTERS such as provision of
shrouds and the coffin

*6 Rashi notes that Gn15-17 speaks about
---------------------------------------------------
The FIRE PILLAR that TRANSITED thru the cut animals
---------------------------------------------------
Since FIRE is symbolic of PROPHETIC ENCOUNTER we infer
that GOD symbolically TRANSITED the cut animals to
affirm the CONVENANT He made with Abraham

*7 In the case of sale of estate the inheritance "leaves
the family." To STAND the inheritance is to INHERIT
the property so that the property STANDS (that is,
remains) in the family. [In passing Rashi seems to
derive certain laws from the word TOGETHER...when
brothers live TOGETHER...however I believe that all
the derivations come from the nuances of STAND)

*10 Rashi also on this verse cites 5-6 verses to show
that the Hebrew root Nun-Vuv-Aleph means to RATTLE
However the phrase RATTLE THE VOW still needs
clarification which is done by comparing it to
Nu30-09--RATTLE VOW and ANNUL it. Since the major
part of the derivation is from the OTHER VERSE
we omit this supplemental list of verses.

*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

*8 Since Ex23-19b, Ex34-26b speaks about
- See God on Festivals three times a year
- Don't cook the meat of a kid in milk of mother
therefore we extend the prohibition of COOKING to
EATING since on the festivals one eats the
FESTIVE offerings

Since Dt14-21c states that one should
sell non-Kosher meat (of birds) to non-Jews
therefore, since the context is one of non-Jews
we extend the prohibition to
- not BENEFITING from milk and meat
- not even cooking milk and NON-KOSHER meat

Finally Rashi makes an additional linguistic point
- The word KID is a GENERAL word (like in English)
- which can refer to an ANIMAL, BIRD or BEAST kid.

The word KID occurs 10 times in the Bible
- 7 times it occurs as KID OF GOATS
- in the 3 verses prohibiting milk and meat it
simply says KID.

Rashi states
---------------------------------------
Since it usually says KID OF GOATS therefore
KID by itself could refer to KID of any
animal
---------------------------------------

I would view this as a supportive proof. The real
point is that KID refers to a YOUNGSTER and hence
(as in English) can mean the YOUNGSTER of animals
birds or beasts.

*9

Dt24-19 states
-------------------------------------------
When you harvest a
harvest in your FIELD
and you forget a bundle in the FIELD
then do not return to take it;
leave it for the sojourner, orphan and widow
...
--------------------------------------------

Rashi comments on the repeated word FIELD
-------------------------------------------
The law of leaving forgotten items for the poor
applies to any item left in the FIELD
- whether you forget a harvested bundle
- or you forget to harvest a standing attached grain
In each case you must leave the forgotten item for the poor
--------------------------------------------

*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 The literal text of Rashi on the above verses states
----------------------------------------------------
The person violates BOTH a negative prohibition and
a positive prohibition
----------------------------------------------------

We present two alternative methods for interpreting
this. In one case the positive commandment refers
to the verse ONLY EAT KOSHER BIRDS while in the
other case the positive commandment refers to
the obligation to sell to non Jews.*10
Notice how the concluding GENERAL THEME sentence
states ...BUT SELL THEM TO NON-JEWS. Hence Rashi comments
-----------------------------------------------------
If a Jew eats a non Kosher bird BESIDES violating
the prohibition of eating non-Kosher birds he also
violates the positive commandment of selling to
a Non-Jew
------------------------------------------------------

An alternative approach to Rashi is the following
------------------------------------------------
Both the introductory and terminal GENERAL THEME
sentences have both a (a) positive commandment
(only eat Kosher birds) and a (b) negative
commandment (don't eat non Kosher birds). Hence
a person who eats non-Kosher birds violates
both a positive and negative commandment
------------------------------------------------

*10 For reasons of space we have abbreviated the actual
verse
---------------------------------------------
either
-give it to a Non Jew observing the
Noachide laws or
-sell it to foreigners
---------------------------------------------

to the shorter form

---------------
sell to non-Jew
---------------

The main point is on the structure.

*1 This is a generalization from two verses, as follows
-Ex23-04 Return the lost article of your PERSONAL ENEMY
-Dt22-01:03 Return the lost article of your PERSONAL FRIEND

So you return ANY article whether of your PERSONAL
ENEMY or your PERSONAL FRIEND--as you long as you
know the person PERSONALLY. The law however exempts
you from returning the article to a known thief (a
non PERSONAL enemy) who might be guessing the lost
objects signs*10

*2 Ex21-24 lists 4 types of ORGAN damage:Eye,tooth,arm,leg
Ex21-25 lists 3 types of PAIN damage:burn,cut,inflammation
Hence we infer that in paying damage you pay for
EACH type of damage *11

*3 In these examples the principle of BROAD INTERPRETATION
is applied to NARRATIVE vs LEGAL text. Thus DONT MUZZLE
AN OX WHILE THRESHING is a LEGAL ORDER. We generalize
and prohibit muzzling any WORK ANIMAL.
Similarly
- THE SNAKE SAID GOD PROHIBITED EATING FROM THE TREE
is a narrative text that is generalized to mean that
GOD HATES YOU AND DOESNT LET YOU EAT.
For proof of applicability of the GENERALIZED RULE
to Narrative see footnote *12
For a critical examination of Rashis and the GOOD-EXAMPLE
method see footnote *13

*4 Rashi explains that EYE by itself subsumes organs
organically born with the person while TOOTH by
itself implies REPLACABLE organs (like the teeth
of small children). By mentioning both EYE and TOOTH
we include all IRREPLACABLE VISIBLE organs.

*5 The idea is that
- nocturnal emissions are frequent in an army
situation because of the stress there*15
- nocturnal emissions are a common source of
ritual impurity.
But this Biblical law prohibiting a nocturnal emitter
from entering the Temple/Levite camp applies
- EVEN for impurities caused by other causes
- EVEN for impure states outside an army situation

*6 The law that you can't have more than 40 lashes
applies whether there was a "dispute" or not.
However it is typical for DISPUTERS to end up
in court*17

*7 This example is unique in this list in that the
law--that you cant marry a former wife after another
marriage--could not be stated without "the 2nd
husband divorcing here" Nevertheless Rashi is
justified in seeing this as a typical pattern.

*10 Several points should be made here
FIRST POINT:
- Ex23-04 uses the word YOUR ENEMY
- Dt22-01:03 uses the word BROTHER 5 times
So the real generalization is from YOUR ENEMY & BROTHER
So everyone FROM your enemy TO your brother gets
articles returned. This would exclude people you
dont really know who might be guessing signs.
Jewish law goes into the subtlety of someone whom
you dont know either as your BROTHER or ENEMY.
2nd POINT: We mention Rashis literal language

------------------------------------------
The verse says return the object AFTER YOUR BROTHER ASKS.
But no would return it before they are asked for it
So read the verse as follows; Return the objects
until you ASK ABOUT YOUR BROTHER--investigate him
-------------------------------------------

Thus it appears that Rashi is deriving the law
from a pun. (ASK ABOUT YOUR BROTHER vs YOUR
BROTHER ASKS) But the truth of the matter is that
Rashi is deriving the law from the generalization
and contrast of verses. Rashi as is his usual custom
expresses this technical derivation in a PUNchy
PUNny manner (so students will remember it).
3rd POINT

The main point in Rashi is that the two verses
have to be generalized. The details of how
this generalization takes place are subject to
Talmudic discussion. In this case the Talmud
and Rashi take an obvious approach of excluding
people (thiefs) who we would not expect the law
to cater to. But the main thrust of Rashi is
the generalization from two verses--the details
must be inferred.

*11 Already Rashi points out that CUTS involve both
PAIN and ORGAN damage (removal of skin).
One cannot derive the 5 categories of damage
from this verse (The other 3 categories,
disability, medical and embarassment are each
inferred from separate verses

*12 The Radack boldly asserts
- The statement EVEN IF GOD SAID DONT EAT FROM TREE
was the CONCLUDING statement of a long conversation.
We are justified in filling it in.

Radack justifies this approach because of the word
EVEN which always occurs in the middle of a conversation

Similarly Radack gives Jo02-24 as an example
-BECAUSE God gave you this land
Radack again notes that no one begins a conversation
with the word BECAUSE. Therefore we are justified--
in fact, forced--to fill in the conversation.

For details on HOW or WITH WHAT the conversation is
to be filled see footnote *13

*13 In this footnote we explain how Rashi filled in
missing conversation. We first explain the GOOD-EXAMPLE
method. For the original source see
http://www.RashiYomi.com/rashi.pdf

The GOOD-EXAMPLE method posits that a Rashi or Midrashic
text is not giving the WHOLE interpretation of a verse
but just one GOOD EXAMPLE. Hence the reader (or other
Exegetes) are justified in giving other good examples.

Here is the original example from my article
-Song of Songs Midrash Rabbah Chapter 4 Verse 1

- Text of verse
---------------------------------------
Wow--you-re beautiful--you-re beautiful
---------------------------------------

- Midrash: You-re beautiful in Man-Man laws; Your beautiful
in God-Man laws

- COMMENT: The Midrash is NOT exhausting the meaning
of the text in this one comment. Obviously the
Biblical text--you-re beautiful you-re beautiful--
connotes INTENSE admiration of beauty. The Midrash
gives but ONE GOOD EXAMPLE of this INTENSE admiration
The reader is free to give other examples.

Enough--let us examine how Rashi uses this principle

- Gn03-01
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that the
snake was trying to get them to sin (EVEN IF GOD
TOLD YOU NOT TO EAT). Rashi suggests that the snake
saw Eve eating from the other trees; Radack suggests
that Eve told the snake the prohibition of eating
from tree of knowledge. The snake says--but you can
eat from some trees..maybe you are wrong in what
God commanded (the ARE-YOU-SURE argument) Thus Rashi
uses this text as a springboard for discussing
how people get other people to sin.
- Gn43-20a
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that Joseph
cried over meeting Binyamin. Rashi gives GOOD EXAMPLES
of what could have happened -- Maybe Binyamin mentioned
how he named all his children over his missing brother.
Another good example (not given by Rashi!) is that
Binyamin could simply mention that his older brother
was the brother that was missing--and Binyamin missed
him alot

- Gn43-34b
The MAIN POINT OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT is that after Josephs
harshness to the brothers he acted friendly to Binyamin.
He invited him to his house, dined with him and blessed him
So when the Torah says he gave him a 5-FOLD portion Rashi
gives a good example of how this could have happened--
maybe Josephs whole family each gave Binyamin a present
Note that in Gn45-22 it says that Binyamin got a 5-fold
amount of clothes. But Rashi does not explain this
5-fold amount!!!! Hence we are justified in seeing Rashis
explanation of the 5-fold amount in Gn43-34b as a GOOD
EXAMPLE not a general principle.
To what can this be compared: If I give someone 18 dollars
at a wedding. Wouldnt it be wrong to interpret the amount
as due to the fact that eg the wedding happened on 18th
street. In fact 18 dollars is a normal amount to give
at weddings. Similarly with Joseph...there are many 5-folds
-- Rashi only interprets only one of them...so he was
only giving a good example

*14 Rashi introduces a new principle on the TYPICAL EXAMPLE
style: Rashi had already explained that

- the Torah indicates laws by REQUIRED GENERALIZATIONS
that flow from Torah-indicated TYPICAL EXAMPLES

- Rashi now further explains these TYPICAL EXAMPLES
give PREFERRED PRACTICE.

For example
- Bible: If you sell TO YOUR COLLEAGUE

Rashi: Preferred practice in commerce is to sell
to fellow Jews

- Bible: If when you are POOR you sell your land plot

Rashi: Preferred practice in commerce is not
to sell personal property till you are poor

I would therefore think that this method applies
to all examples in the above list. As a typical
example Dt22-23a which speaks about a RAPE IN THE FIELD
indicates preferred practice of rapists (They hang
out in fields where no one is around)

*15 The literal verse is
---------------------------------
Learn Gods law when
- you sit in your HOUSE
- you walk on the ROAD
- you SLEEP
- you AWAKE
---------------------------------
Generalizing the 4 CAPPED examples (HOUSE, ROAD, SLEEP,
AWAKE) I would say simply:
------------------------------------
Learn in ALL FACETS of your life
------------------------------------
This would establish a Biblical requirement of learning
no matter what your circumstances. This is consistent
with Rambam, Laws of Learning 1:8
-----------------------------------------
ALL are obligated to learn--whether you
are old, young, infirmed, ....
-----------------------------------------
This paragraph in Rambam is therefore seen as a simple
translation of the Biblical verse.
However this Biblical verse BESIDES BEING SEEN AS THE
SOURCE FOR THE OBLIGATION TO LEARN is also seen as the
SOURCE for the RECITAL of the SHMA prayer.
The SHMA prayer need only be said TWICE daily(Morning
and EVENING). Rashi seems to be speaking about the
Shma when he says
-------------------------------------------------
SAY SHMA WHEN YOU SLEEP--even if you take a midday
nap? (Would you be obligated to say shma when you
get up)? No! Because the verse says WHEN YOU SIT
AND WALK--the verse speaks about the normal facets
of human life.
-------------------------------------------------
The matter is further complicated by the strange
fact that RECITAL OF SHMA is considered a fulfillment
of LEARNING.

I would therefore say that Rashi (following the Talmud)
is using the method of OTHER VERSES. Jo01-08 contains
the statement LEARN DAY AND NIGHT.

Combining Jo01-08 with Dt06-07 I would say

- one is MINIMALLY obligated to LEARN ONCE A DAY AND NIGHT
This is derived from Joshua and is the reason we are
required to say SHMA twice (in morning and evening)

- one is obligated to learn in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES of
life such as TRIPS, SICKNESS etc (In other words
one cannot put off ones learning to a later date)

This law corresponds to the paragraph cited from
the Rambam above.

Finally, there is room for further analysis here
since the requirement of SHMA has additional
elements besides LEARNING. I believe the above
Rambam laws and the use of two verses Jo01-08
and Dt06-07 shed considerable light on these
complex laws.

*16 Rashi's literal language is that
--------------------------------------
Satan incites in times of danger
--------------------------------------

I think we can all relate to the idea that
--------------------------------
Sexual fantasies are a common
response to dangerous situations
--------------------------------

*17 Rashi cites the DISPUTE of Lot-Abraham which ended
in separation as an example (Gn13)

*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://www.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