*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.

*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 The traditional English translation is OPEN
-----------------------
OPEN your bread to the poor
-----------------------
But as can be seen, the translation
-----------------------
SPLIT your bread to the poor
-----------------------
is superior.[You cut bread by knicking it with a knife
and splitting it]*10

*2 A SPLIT HOOF is a hoof with an indentation in the middle
(like the TREAD of car tires). This indentation makes
the hoof appear like a split. Such tread facilitates
movement (Which is why car tires have them)

*1 The Overall structure of the verse is
--------------------------------------
IF case 1 or case 2 THEN Redeem tithe
--------------------------------------

You REDEEM tithe by
- buying it
- taking the money to Jerusalem
- using the money to buy food
- which is eaten in Jerusalem

*2 Rashis contribution (Dt14-24a) is to identify
the verse
----------------------------------
if God blesses you
----------------------------------
to really mean
----------------------------------
God blesses you, you have ALOT,
and cant carry to Jerusalem
----------------------------------
In other words Rashi sees this as a second case
for not bringing to Jerusalem (Either you cant
go because the road is big OR because you have
too much to carry)

*1 The standard Midrashim do not explain the reason for
the two verbs. I would assume quite simply it means
- don't PLACE=CREATE a baldness
- if you were partially BALD, don't BALD further

*2 Both verses prohibit creating a baldness

*3 Combining the two verses I infer that the prohibition
of placing a baldness is
- whether the baldness is between the eyes
- or whether the baldness is any place on the head
See footnote *10 for further details

*4 Dt14-01 explains WHY a person could want to BALD
a BALDNESS--as a sign of mourning. Thus Dt14-01
sheds light on Lv21 (While the MOURNING is not
explicitly mentioned in Lv21-05 nevertheless the
surrounding verses Lv21-01:04 address
mourning issues)

*10 One obvious question raised by the Sifrah is
--------------------------------------------
Perhaps the two verses should be interpreted
to refer to two cases
- Israelites cant bald on the forehead between
the eyes
- Priests cant bald at all (any place on the head)
--------------------------------------------

I would answer this using the Rabbi Ishmael rules
------------------------------------------------
If you are dealing with some situation (such
as the prohibition of baldness) and a verse
elsewhere changes something (baldness on head
vs baldness on eyes) then that change does not
only apply to itself (ie to Israelites) but
rather applies to all (to both priests and
Israelites) unless there is further indication
(from some other verse cue) that the verse
is meant to indicate a second case
-------------------------------------------------

*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