*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.

*15
Rashi literally states
---------------------------------------------------
Laban gave Leah to Jacob for the wedding night.
But Jacob and Rachel had personal signs and Rachel
gave these to Leah. So Jacob only fully became aware
at morning that Leah was really Leah
---------------------------------------------------

This Rashi has been interpreted to mean that
- Jacob and Rachel had little contact during the 7 years!
- Jacob had no memory of the women he was in love with!
- Jacob needed special signs to remind him who he was with
- Jacob did not know who he was with on his wedding night!
Remarkable: Even the lowest rif-rafs know who they are
with on a wedding night.

I think a more palatable approach to this Rashi is the
following:
------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally men are in interested in physical
characteristics while women are interested in the person.
The Bible EXPLICITLY states that Jacob loved Rachel
because of her figure and good looks (No mention of
personality!). As is well known men and women can flirt
with each other by glances and smiles. Rachel quickly
found out what Jacob liked and taught Leah how to flirt
with him. Laban told Jacob at the BEGINNING of the 7
years that he couldn't marry the younger daughter
before the older daughter. Jacob was at first relunctant
But when Leah started flirting with him the way he
liked he decided to marry Leah. However after the
wedding night Leah 'had what she wanted' and had no
reason to placate Jacob. She started acting herself.
It was only at this point that Jacob realized he was
double-crossed and not getting the physical flirtations
he wanted from a wife. Laban simply reminded him of
the deal they had made SEVEN YEARS AGO but offered
him Rachel also
-------------------------------------------------------

The above approach to Rashi makes 'sense.' It also
has RELEVANCE. It is well known that INCIDENTS OF THE
PATRIARCHS mirror EXPECTATIONS TO THE CHILDREN. No
Jew really worries about being double crossed in whom
he marries. But it is relevant to religious men to
be aware that women play such games with them--Rachels
will frequently help fellow women like Leah to catch
men. Women think it silly that men are interested in
physical attributes and not in personality. So this
incident as interpreted above has extreme relevance
to us.

*16 There is a Rashi on Gn41-45a stating that
-----------------------------------------
Joseph placed earth of the city in the
storehouses of each city to help preserve
the food
-----------------------------------------

Rashi did not derive this from the Biblical
text at Gn41-45a. Rather Rashi derived this
from the resolution of the CONTRADICTION
between Gn41-54 and Gn41-55

*1 There are two approaches to 4 letter roots. Sometimes we
try and see them as 2 two letter roots and sometimes we try
and see them as a 3 letter root with an extra letter. Thus
ASTR is explained in the Talmud as ASR. Rav Hirsch stuck to
the 3 letter approach even in obvious cases--thus he takes
MMZR from MZR a rare word in Job.

Similarly Rashi cites a controversy on AVRAYCH:
-- A double 2 letter approach would yield:
AVRAYCH=Gentle(Rc) Father(Av)
-- A 3 letter approach would yield:
AVRAYCH=Kneel (Brch) to me (Aleph)


*2 Note the poetic lisence in e.g.
SRAF =  BIRD(AF) POT (SiR)= Something for Bird nests
This type of small poetic lisence is common in etymologies
and makes their study difficult

*3  Note the finer nuances in some translations. For example ZLAF
occurs rarely in TNACH and its meaning is inferred from its
context. The RDQ in his book of ROOTS says its meaning is SOME
TYPE OF FRIGHT....this could go well with the verse cited by
RDK: "fright has overtaken me"

But perhaps a BETTER translation is
feeling worthless and tired So that the verse with
ZLAF would mean WORTHLESSNESS & FATIGUE HAS OVERTAKEN ME
Then again perhaps there is no way to see which translation
is better

*4 Rashi Gn41-43b

*5 Rashi Gn41-45

*6 Rashi Gn49-12a

*7 The following may help:
- PRCh means to FLY; in connection with fish it could
refer to swimming throughout the water

- SN can mean THORNBUSH or BRANCHES (Songs07-09). I
therefore suggest it means SHRUB like.

So SN-PR would refer to SHRUB-LIKE(SN) protrusions by
which a fish FLYES (PR) - SNPR.

*8 Rashi Nu13-16a

*9 The reference is to a bird with a DOUBLE CROP. Since DU in
ARAMAIC means TWO it appears that Rashi is saying
-------------------------------------------------
DuChiFath = Double(DU) Handle(Caph)=Double CRop
-------------------------------------------------

However we think it preferable that Rashi used Hebrew roots
to explain Hebrew words(Provided simple exaplanations exist)
Hence we read Rashi as saying
--------------------------------------
DuChiFath = ENOUGH (Dai) Handles(CAPH)
--------------------------------------

Thus the word does not DIRECTLY mean DOUBLE CROP. Rather
the essential meaning of the word is ENOUGH HANDLES. The
method by which this particular bird implements this
ENOUGHNESS is thru use of the DOUBLE CROP.

*10 Rashi Gn02-14a Chid-Kel are the SHARP-LIGHT cold river
rapids.

*11 (In fact there is species of flies in Africa that
stings people to death...they start by blinding
them (so that they cant see where to go))

*12 The word CRML can equally refer to
- a ripe pod of barley (Lv02-14f)
- a meadow in full bloom (Is32-15)

This double meaning is consistent with the meanings of
Caph-Resh (KR) presented in LIST813d. Caph-Resh can
equally refer to a
- a FERTILE VALLEY
- anything with a PLUMP Shape(Like a budded barley stalk)

*13
Cheth-Resh-Tet-Mem means
the BURNT and UNCLEAN--that is, the DEAD.

The Egyptian Magicians are called XRTM
because they aroused their imaginations
by dwelling in graveyards and morgues.

*1 Rashi's point is that in the other verses
---------------------------------------------
Beth-Lamed-Ayin-Daleth-Yud means either
EXCEPT FOR SUCH AND SUCH or
BESIDES SUCH AND SUCH
---------------------------------------------

However in Gn41-16a the word has a slightly different meaning
-----------------------------------------------------------
God will answer Pharoh's request WITHOUT ME
-----------------------------------------------------------

In the other verses the word Beth-Lamed-Ayin-Daleth-Yud
is attached to some other word; by contrast in Gn41-16
Beth-Lamed-Ayin-Daleth-Yud functions as a stand-alone word
Hence in the other verses it means EXCEPT FOR SO & SO
while in Gn41-16a it means WITHOUT ME

*2 Rashi's comment on Beth-Lamed-Ayin-Daleth-Yud in Gn41-44b
is a secondary point.

The main point of Rashi on Gn41-44b may be found in posting
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/gn41-44a.htm

*1
The Bible uses the word TELL for the events
of the NEXT seven years. By contrast, the Bible
uses the word SHOW for the events of years 8-14.
The reason for this is clear: TELL has a connotation
of something known and immediate while SHOW has
a connotation of something in the future.

*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
Rashi gives a clarifying example to the verse GOD FORGIVES HER
--------------------------------------------------------------
- the women vowed to become a nazarite
- the husband annuled her vow
- but the husband did not tell her about the annulment
- the women then violated her vow
-
- In such a case God forgives the women (despite her
intending to commit a sin) because of the unknown
annulment of her husband
-
- We conclude that sin is an attribute of ACTION,not INTENT
--------------------------------------------------------------

*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