*1 Hence the fire did not burn their clothes
The idea that the FIRES mentioned in Dt05
or Ex20 was the FIRE OF PROPHECY vs REAL
FIRE is supported by many verses and
themes (Dt05-21). There are other Biblical
supports for this idea but this will suffice
for now.*10

*2 Also echoed in Rashi Lv07-07b (OFFERING PRIEST
means PRIESTS WHO COULD OFFER)

*3 Thus the request to kill the Jews is seen as a WISH
(BROAD interpretation)not as something real

*4 That Bilam didnt know what his donkey knew is
interpreted literally. That he claimed to know
Gods thoughts is considered a LIE(Broad, non-
literal interpretation).

*10 It does not detract from the greatness of the
miracle of revelation that the FIRE means FIRE
OF PROPHECY.

For Judaism does not view Gods greatness in His
ability to make a mountain smoke with Fire.

Rather Judaism views Gods greatness in His
ability to make people burn with Spiritual Prophecy

*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 Rashi seems to derive this textually. Rashi states
------------------------------------------------
Nu26-59 states
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...Yocheven who was BORN to Levi IN EGYPT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Her BIRTH was IN EGYPT but her PREGNANCY
was outside of Egypt
------------------------------------------------

However there is no textual basis for making this
emphasis The phrase
----------------------------------------------
who was born to Levi in Egypt
-----------------------------------------------
does not connote that her pregnancy was
outside of Egypt.

Therefore we find it preferable to state that
Rashi's derivation is purely from logic. That
is the only way to resolve the CONTRADICTION
is to assume someone did NOT COME with Jacob
but was in Egypt anyway because they were born
outside of Egypt. Then a search of the Bible
reveals only one possible candidate for this
person: Yocheved.

*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

*2 Verse Ex14-19 states
--------------------------------------------
[The Jews had just exited Egypt; Egypt
regretted letting them free and pursued
them. The following text relates the pursuit]
And the Angel of God, which went in FRONT
of the Jewish camp, journeyed and went in
BACK of them;[Similarly] the pillar of
fire went from in front to the back
--------------------------------------------

Rashi explains with an analogy:
-----------------------------------------
A person and his father were walking in
the forest. Suddenly they hear wild animals
in back of them pursuing them. The father,
who had been leading his son in front now
goes in back so that the wild animals
should bump into him first, not his son
-----------------------------------------

In other words, Rashi sees Ex14-19
as providing a FURTHER DETAIL to the concept
of GOD CARED FOR YOU LIKE A FATHER. God had
fought for the Jews who were helpless like
children.

*3 Rashi does not cite Nu32-05:08 but instead explains
-------------------------------------------
God wanted sinners dead lest they influence
their children into rebelling against God
-------------------------------------------

*4 That is: Don't learn idolatry for purposes of practicing
it. But it is permissable to learn idolatry for purposes
of instructing people on what not to do and on the horrors
of particular idolatries.*11

*5 You can SUPPLEMENT Rashi with ADDITIONAL reasons
- Rashi emphasizes that because Jacob was fleeing he
had no money
- I would add that perhaps Jacob was saying
-----------------------------------------
Look I stole blessings from Esauv So my
mother, your sister, things I should intern
by you to learn how to do such things since
this is the way you operate
-----------------------------------------

---------------------  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.

*11 Rashi's literal language is
---------------------------------------------------
DON'T LEARN TO DO, but you can LEARN TO TEACH
---------------------------------------------------

This statement is short, punchy and to the point.
Furthermore the literal text of Dt18-09a is
DON'T LEARN TO DO.

Thus it appears that Rashi made his inference
from the EXTRA phrase TO DO (DONT LEARN TO DO
vs DONT LEARN).

However the approach of this list is to explain
Rashi inferences in terms of broad laws such as
OTHER VERSES. In this list we shy away from
inferences from 'extra phrases.' Since Dt12-30
clearly prohibits LEARNING/INQUIRING FOR PURPOSES
OF PRACTICE we prefer this OTHER VERSE explanation

Consequently, this Rashi is one of those PEACHES
that illustrate our different approach to Rashi
explanations.

*10
As can be seen from the verse references this
narrative unit is broken into two halves. The
break is spent discussing the reuniting of
Joseph and his brothers. The break passage
begins Gn42-01:02
--------------------------------------
Jacob told his sons to go down to Egypt
to buy food because of the famine
--------------------------------------

The break passage ends with the fulfillment
of Joseph's dreams--Gn47-11:12
-------------------------------------------------
Joseph gives his family a city
and supports his family
------------------------------------------------

Hence the straightforward
Rashi comment:
----------------------------------------------
Gn47-13 continues the famine discussed
in Gn41-53:57.
----------------------------------------------

In this case Rashi's comment
is a pure formatting comment.

*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.

*11 See LIST854c for further examples where LEFT OR RIGHT
means a LITTLE bit. Rashi's actual language is
---------------------------------------------------
If you dont consent to the marriage then I will either
- go to the RIGHT (RASHI: The Ishmaelites)
- or the LEFT (RASHI: Lot-ites)
---------------------------------------------------

But in light of the examples in LIST854c this
Rashi should not be taken literally! Rather
Rashi should be interpreted broadly
----------------------------------------
My master prohibited marriages to Canaanites
So if you dont consent to the marriage
I will go to OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF ABRAHAM
- such as ISHMAEL his son
- or LOT his nephew
-----------------------------------------

There is temptation to interpret
-LEFT=LOT=weakness=(He committed incest with daughters)
-RIGHT=STRENGTH=Ishmael

However this SPECIFIC and FOCUSED interpretation of
LEFT and RIGHT is unsupported by the many other
examples in LIST854c below.

Notice this use of LISTS. We are only justified in
reading into Rashi what can be obtained from LISTS
We are not justified in reading extra!

Finally for those into Talmudic flavor note that
- all the other verses speak about LEFT/RIGHT
- Gn24-49 speaks about LEFT OR RIGHT (Hebrew Aleph-Vav)
Perhaps then the ALEPH VAV gives extra emphasis
But 2S02-19 shows that LEFT/RIGHT and LEFT OR RIGHT
both mean the same thing---A LITTLE BIT

*12 See LIST854m

*13 Notice the terminal hey on the Hebrew word
Aleph-Mem-Vav-Tauv-Hey--indicating the
JUSSIVE mode (mode of hope). Thus the
word is translated IF ONLY I COULD DIE

Hence the proper way of interpreting
this phrase is, similar to the English
idiom, IF ONLY I COULD DIE (How happy I
am)

Rashi SUPPLEMENTS the explanation of
this idiom by explaining it
------------------------------------
If I died now I would be comforted
knowing I saw you
------------------------------------

Rashi cites the Targum. However the
Targum's explanation should be seen
as secondary to the primary
explanation of the Rashi as an
idiomatic expression with a given
meaning (in other words you don't have
to explain idioms to understand them--
the idiom means what it does because
of usage)

*14 Rashi gives a second explanation
---------------------------------
If only I could die THIS TIME
---------------------------------

Rashi states
---------------------------------
I thought I would die in both this
world and the next---but now I see
I at most lost this world but not
the next since your dreams have
become prophecies and indications
that I am destined to the next world
---------------------------------

Rashi's second explanation does
not CONTRADICT or REPLACE the
first explanation.

Rather Rashi's two explanations
address TWO ISSUES in the verse
-------------------------------
The Hebrew word Aleph-Mem-Vav-
Tauv-Hey means IF ONLY I
COULD DIE which is an idiom
indicating HAPPYNESS
-------------------------------

However the Bible modified
the idiom
-------------------------
IF ONLY I COULD DIE
-------------------------
by adding the word THIS TIME

----------------------------
IF ONLY I COULD DIE THIS TIME
-----------------------------

Rashi sees this modification
of the idiom as indicating
a subtle nuance
--------------------------
I will only die THIS time
that is ONCE but not twice
--------------------------
alluding to the fact that
Jacob thought he would go
to hell for misleading
Joseph but now he sees he
at most lost this world but
is destined to the next world

*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