*1 Also Rashi Dt11-25b. It seems reasonable that
- P-Ch-D comes from Poh-Chad - SHARP and would refer to
e.g. getting GOOSE PIMPLES (Sharpnesses in skin) from
fear

- MoRaH comes from Y-R-A = vision = LONG TERM
apprehension over the future.*10


*2 - YOREH seems to comes from HRH to make pregnant. It
would look at the rain as ENABLING the seeds to grow

- MALKOSH seesm to come from LKSH - TO THE HARD(KSH)
GRAIN and would refer to a final softening rain
before the produce. See LIST910i *11


*3 It is hard to absolutely prove that
- A-V-H means FANTASIZE vs
- Ch-M-D means DESIRE ACQUISITION

The verses show that
- A-V-H is an act of the HEART while
- Ch-M-D is focused on ACQUIRING OBJECTS
See LIST955h for further details
(Also see Rashi Gn27-15a Gn03-06c Gn03-06d)

*4 On Dt19-16a Rashi gives an example of REMOVED/FABRICATED
Testimony--when eg witnesses testify to a murder in NY
and other witnesses come stating that the 1st witnesses
were with them in Chicago at the time of witnessing--thus
the murder testimony is totally removed from the real word

*5 Undoubtedly there is probably a subtle difference between
ANIH/SFINH but it is not possible to determine this from
verses. An interesting statistical note is the following
- SFINH occurs ONCE in the  Bible
- ANIH occurs 3 dozen times in the Bible
- But in Biblical times the frequencies were reversed
Hence, Rashi, in explaining the more frequently occurring
ANIH was responding to the rarity of this word IN HIS TIME

*6 - GRASS can refer to MANY or SINGULAR grass
- MEADOW only refers to a WHOLE MEADOW of GRASS


*7 TWK verses Beth (CENTRALLY IN vs IN)
explains several Rashis:
Nu17-21a Gn02-09b Ex24-1a Lv24-10c
Gn01-06b Nu35-34a See LIST955j

*8 Hence
- Ex28-28c TIGHTEN the AYFOD garment
- P031-21  Save me from GANGS(people TIGHTELY together)
- Is40-04  God will smooth the TIGHT mountains
(Rashi explains that TIGHT MOUNTAINS are mountains
close together with deep georges between them)*12

*10 The reader need NOT believe the above etymologies
For frequently Rashi explains synonyms without
reference to etymologies and even without reference
to verses. However some of the above etymologies seem
reasonable and may enrich our appreciation of the
synonyms.


*11 Rashi gives another etymology from the Aramaic.
However in this list we advocate the 2nd explanation
of Rashi over the 1st. Furthermore in this
particular case the 2nd explanation comes internally
from Hebrew while the 1st Rashi explanation INFERS
usage from Aramaic but does not EXPLAIN it.


*12 Rashi translates RKS as UNITE.
I have examined the verses and think the nuances
of TIGHTEN-which is a particular form of tightening
is more precise

Rashi and my analysis apparently override the
RADACK who translates (from context) RKS as meaning
HIGH. Compare
- RAISE the AYFOD (By tightening it)
- Save me from HAUGHTY people
- God will smooth the HIGH mountains


*13 Rashi brings several distinctions on the nuances
between VOWS vs DONATIONS

- VOWS are PERSONAL (eg I will bring...)
- DONATIONS are OBJECT oriented
(eg This material is to Tmpl)

- VOWS come for OFFERINGS
- DONATIONS come for TEMPLE repairs

- VOWS come for personal EXPIATION
- DONATIONS do not come personal EXPIATION

Rashi in fact notes that the word FOR EXPIATION
(Resh-Tzade-Hey) does occur in Lv22-23. However
this is just an accident. The main Rashi point comes
from the VOW:DONATION difference---in English also
- VOW has personal connotation (I undertake..) while
- DONATION has object connotation (this item goes to..)

*1 Rashi, Lv26-17h points out that the phrase
-------------
PLACE MY FACE
-------------
means
--------------
FULL ATTENTION
--------------
whether
- for good, to reward
- for bad, to punish.

*2 NOTE: The Hebrew word HEAD can mean both
- BEGINNING
- TOP
However in this verse
- the HEAD OF THE CLIFF contrasts with
- the VALLEY in MOAB
Hence HEAD means TOP

*3 A MOUTH LOTTERY refers to a lottery where you stick your
hand in and select an item WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE
ITEMS (In an open-box lottery you can see what you are
picking even though you see backs of cards. In a MOUTH
LOTTERY the box is covered except for a small MOUTH).
The MOUTH LOTTERY is more secure and fairer.
Hence the Rashi

The name MOUTH LOTTERY is because the box has only
a small mouth preventing you from seeing what is
inside.
---------------------------------------------------
MOUTH LOTTERY means that the LOTTERY speaks and says
this belongs to so and so
---------------------------------------------------

Of course, Rashi did not believe that LOTTERIES speak.
Rather Rashi refers to the SECURITY and FAIRNESS of
the lottery. In other words
- MOUTH LOTTERY refers to a small MOUTH on LOTTERY box
(not to a physical voice on the box)
- Since the MOUTH LOTTERY is secure it is AS IF it
screams and points to a correct fair choice

*4 Rashi is NOT explaining the meaning of the INDIVIDUAL WORDS
- GOOD
- PROPER
Indeed, GOOD can mean SOCIALLY GOOD also (See Gn26-29)
Therefore we have interpreted this Rashi as an example
of the IDIOM method.

*5 These five examples show various idiomatic meanings of
the INFINITIVE of the verb TO SAY: TO SAY can mean
- TO SAY BACK: Request for response
- TO SAY OVER: To Transmit
- TO SAY OVER AND OVER: Rumor
See LIST955m for a separate summary

*6 Thus in Dt18-01
-------------------------------------
The PRIEST-LEVITES shall not inherit
from the conquest of Israel
-------------------------------------
the phrase PRIEST-LEVITES means
PRIESTS OR LEVITES.

Another occurrence of this phrase
occurs in Dt17-18.

In Dt17-09a Rashi does state
------------------------------------
The PRIESTS who are no longer Levites
------------------------------------

But I understand this to mean
------------------------------------
PRIESTS by itself means PRIESTS but
not Levites while LEVITES by itself
could mean LEVITES but not Priests--
PRIEST LEVITES means PRIESTS OR LEVITES*10
-------------------------------------

*7 Besides the fact that this sounds OK (WENT BY JOURNEYS=
STAYED BY SAME HOTELS) the verse gives support
---------------------------------------------
HE WENT BY HIS JOURNEYS...UNTIL HE RETURNED
TO HIS ORIGINAL PLACE WHERE HE BUILT AN ALTAR
---------------------------------------------

*8 In other words if
- the King slept with Sarah and then
- returned her to Abraham
perhaps he "had enough of her" and just "wanted to play."

But if he gives her a monetary gift then
- it is recognized that a miracle happened and his return
- is an apology for taking her.
- Hence the money prevents people EYEING Sarah(looking at
her as a 'rejected woman.'
This is covered in two Rashi (Gn20-16a Gn20-16b) which
are better understood as one Rashi.

*10 Dt17-09 states
---------------------------------------
[If you have a legal question then]
ask the PRIEST-LEVITES, the Judges of
the day
---------------------------------------

The law PREFERS that the great Sanhedrin
court in Jerusalem consist of PRIESTS.
Levites are a second choice (and Israelite
scholars are a third choice).

So it appears that Rashi's comment
--------------------------------------
Priests but not Levites
--------------------------------------
is literal.

But in Dt18-01 the prohibition of inheriting
conquested Israelie land applies to EITHER
Priests OR Levites.

Similarly I would interprtet Dt17-09 to mean
that EITHER Priests or Levites should preferably
be on the Great Sanhedrin. That is the Biblical
law.

But Rabbinically---since Priests are more
involved with the Temple there is a preference
for Priests to be elected to the great court
vs. Levites. This preference however is rooted
in logic not in the verse. The IDIOM, PRIEST-LEVITES
means PRIESTS or LEVITES as shown.

*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.

*9 The causality of these verses reinforce each other
- Gn13-14 EXPLICITLY states that God promised Abe
Israel AFTER Lot separated from him

- Gn13-07 states that Abe and Lot faught WHILE
the Canaanites were still in the land.

So Rashi simply puts the two verses together
- Lot felt HE COULD USE ISRAEL land even though the
CANAANITES still owned it. Lot felt this way because
the land was promised to Abraham eventually. By contrast
Abraham refused to use the land UNTIL it was actually
given to him.

*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 Nu16-32 and Nu16-33 together imply that KORACH AND ALL FOLLOWING
HIM DIED ALIVE BY FIRE AND EARTHQUAKE This contradicts Nu26-11
that the sons of Korach did not die

Note that Psalms 45-49 were written by the SONS OF KORACH
showing that they repented

*2 In other words if one of the high priests sons is
qualified for the position he is chosen. If not
a non-descendant (who is qualified) is taken.

Lv16-32c presents this SON-MERIT rule for priests
Dt17-20c generalizes this SON-MERIT rule for Kings.

This interpretation of the text is further
clarified by the ALIGNMENT method.*11

Some further technicalities are noted in note *12

*3 Rashi Ex11-09a

*4 Rashi Ex11-04a Ex10-29

*5 Dt20-10 explicitly requires a request for peace
The resolution of this contradiction is brought in the
Rashi at Nu21-22a


*6 The repeated Biblical phrase HE SAW...BY HIM, HE SAW...HE RAN
strengthens this interpretation by stages.

*10 Here is a simple numerical example
Assume 3 people in Egypt
- Bob
- Dan and David Brothers

Assume
- Bob has 1 child
- Dan has 1 child
- David has 2 children

So GENERATION1(GEN1) has 3 units (Bob,Dan David)
And GEN2 has 4 units (1+1+2)

We now have 3 stages

STAGE 1
-------
Each GEN2 person gets same number of units (Say 2 units)
So Bobs child --2 units
-- Dans child --2 units
-- Davids-------4 units to 2 children

STAGE 2
-------
Now the units are coalesced at the family (GEN1) level
- Bob has 2 units(Since he has one child with 2 units)
- Dan-David has 6 units (Dans child 2 units and Davids 4)

STAGE 3
-------
- Bob gives his 2 units back to his child
- Dan-David give there 6 units equally to children so
-- Dans child receives 3 units
-- Davids 2 children receive 1.5 units each (Total of 3)

Here is a time map

--------------------------------------------------------------
EGYPT(GEN1)    CHILDREN   STAGE1      STAGE2       STAGE3
-------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ------------
Bob            1 child    2/8         2/8          2/8 @child
Dan-brother    1 child    2/8         6/8 brothers 3/8 @child
David-brother  2 child    4/8         6/8 Brothers 3/8 @2 child
---------------------------------------------------------------

Although this may seem complicated it fulfills the 2 verses
- The actual exodus people from Egypt inherit
- The descendants determine inheritance

*11 We align Lv21-10 Lv16-32 as follows

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The priest --------------- ...annointed ...trained replace father
The priest who is advanced ...annointed ...trained --------------
*a         *b              *c           *d         *b
-----------------------------------------------------------------

As the double #b clearly shows there are two criteria
- priest is advanced (bigger than his brothers)
- priest replaces father

These conflicting criteria are resolved using
the RabbiIshmael method of 2 STAGES
- if the son is qualified pick him
- if not pick a qualified non-descendant

*12 Interestingly heridatary appointment is mentioned by
- Slaves (Lv25-41)
- Kings (Dt17-20)
- Priests (Dt18-05)
- Levites (1C23-13)

The Bible EXPLICITLY advances a LINEAGE-MERIT duality
for priests (As shown above by the alignment presented
in footnote #11).

We generalize this to Kings (Rashi Dt17-20c).

We do not apply this to slaves since merit is not involved

We also do not generalize this to Levites since
the Bible explicitly states that they replace the
first-born and hence merit is no longer relevant
(A qualified 1st born could NOT function as a
Levite because the Bible states explicitly that
they were replaced (See eg Nu03-40:43)

*13 There are 4 texts involved as follows
----------------------------------------
Gn37-27 states idea of sale to ARabs
Gn37-28 states Midianites passed but Joe sold to Arabas
Gn37-36 states Midianites sold Joe to Potifar
Gn39-01 states Arabs sold Joe to Potifar
-----------------------------------------

Rashi (Gn37-28a Gn38-28b) resolves these contradictions by
assuming 4 stages of sale:
- Brothers to Arabs (Gn37-27)
- Arabs to Midianites (Hinted at in Gn37-28)
- Midianites to ARabs (resolving Gn37-36, Gn39-01)
- Arabs to Egypt (Gn39-01)

*14 Gn50-10a. Rashi cites an Agaddah from the Talmud. We explain this
Talmudic agaddah here. However we preface our explanation with
the explanation given above
- Recall that Joseph saved the world from famine
- Granaries dried up and GREW THORNS except for Josephs
- Joseph gave food to these people and saved their lives
- One granary that dried up was called the THORNED GRANARY
- The people gave respect to Jacob since it was his belief
- in Josephs dreams which gave Joseph his greatness

The Talmudic Agaddah states
-----------------------------------------------------------
All the kings came and took off their crowns and hung them
on Josephs coffin
-----------------------------------------------------------

We interpret this to mean
---------------------------------------
The kings TOOK OFF THEIR HATS TO JOSEPH
---------------------------------------
This is a familiar English idiom.


The Agaddah states
----------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs and canaanites came to wage war with Josephs
brothers but could not because of Jacobs merit
----------------------------------------------------------

We need not interpret this literally. Very often Agaddah
uses the technique of EXAGGERATION. Recall that
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs two sons destroyed an entire Canaanite city;
Also recall that their attempt to murder Joseph led to
selling him to Arabs who brought him to Egypt

There were natural ill feelings.

However when the Arabs and Canaanites saw the greatness
of Jacob---that because he believed in the dream of the
bratty immature Joseph, who was a teenage tattletale and
hung out with rif-rafs, and then had a severe prison term
-- because Jacob believed in the dream, Joseph, despite
his past, grew to greatness and saved the world--

-- When the Arabs and Canaanites saw the greatness of
Jacobian prophecy, they TOOK OFF THEIR HATS TO HIM..since
they realized there was something higher in life..something
that could redeem them from their own low life to a
higher life
----------------------------------------------------------

In summary the Agaddah uses exaggeration -- WANTED TO DECLARE
WAR -- to indicate ill feelings. The Agaddah used metaphor--
TOOK OFF THEIR HATS--to indicate respect. All this is based
on the fact that Jacobs belief in Josephs dreams made him
what he became.

*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.

*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