*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

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

*1 Ex31-15b further points out that all holidays which are
referred to as >SABBATH of SABBATH< (Ex31-15, Lv23-32)
have prohibitions of both WORK and EATING. By contrast
all holidays which are only called >SABBATH< (Lv23-23
and Lv23-39) only have a prohibition of Work but not
a prohibition of COOKING. This is fully discussed at
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h6n12.htm)


*2 This is fully discussed in http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h1n23.htm
Ibn Ezra seems to disagree and state that GReenReen means a
light green (which would contradict this list). But as I
show in that posting, Ibn Ezra retracted what he said in his
commentary on Ps45-03. In fact Ibn Ezra simply points out
that he was testing the consistency of this rule against all
doubled roots. To make a long story short we reviewed all
roots & found possible problems with only 2 verses, Ps38-11
and Songs6-1. However we can properly translate these verses
Ps38-11 would be translated as >My heart FLUTTERS (intense
back and forth motion)<; Similarly Songs6-1 would be
translated as >Dont avoid me simply because I am very
SUNBURNED (an intense form of DAWN-COLOR)

*3 Many of the examples in this list are CONSTRUCTS
e.g. The HOLY of HOLIES. Future additions to this
list will emphasize examples similar to Lv01-08d

*4 So the repeated word MAN must refer to the narrow meaning
of the Hebrew ISH which means A DISTINGUISHED man such
as an Angel or Judge.

*5 In legal terminology the repetition creates ESSENTIALITY
- The wood is on the altar; and MUST be on the altar
- Blood on ear; oil on ear; and the blood MUST come first

*6 In other words the priest can defile himself to a sister
who is REALLY NOT MARRIED (not married and still CLOSE
to her brother the Priest)--thus the priest can defile
himself to a SINGLE and ENGAGED sister but not to a
MARRIED sister

*7 If you review Lv22-17:25 you will find 3-5 repetitions
of the concept that BLEMISHED ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE
OFFERED (or PLACED ON FIRE) TO GOD. Therefore the
REPETITION applies to ANY PART OF THE OFFERING
PROCEDURE. The main parts of the OFFERING PROCEDURE are
- DEDICATION of the animal
- SLAUGHTER of animal
- RECEIPT of animal blood
- OFFERING ON FIRE of organs*10

*8 In other words only is he is REALLY BLEMISHED = STILL
BLEMISHED (But if he recovered from the Blemish then
the law does not apply and he can offer offerings)


*9 The verse states
----------------------------------------------------
If blood falls on a GARMENT, then wash in the temple
THAT ON WHICH IT FELL
----------------------------------------------------

The capped words indicate a quasi repetition. This
repetition creates emphasis. ONLY the part of the
garment on which the blood is sprinkled need be
washed.

*10 An important point about learning Rashi should be
emphasized. Many Rashi commentators play NUMBER GAMES
- they count FOUR repetitions of DONT OFFER
- they then note FOUR applications of emphasis in Rashi
(to a) Dedication b) Slaughter c) receipt of blood
d) offering

However our approach in this list has always been
conceptual. The REPETITION denotes EMPHASIS. The
EMPHASIS in turn simply includes ALL CASES--ALL PARTS
OF THE PROCEDURE. We think this a mature and satisfying
approach to Rashi.

*11 The whole verselet A STRANGER CANNOT EAT TERUMAH is
repeated.   The simple way of taking it is that
- ONLY strangers are restricted from eating TERUMAH
- ALL other PRIESTS (EVEN SUCh AND SUCH) may eat TERUMAH
The details of the EVEN SUCH AND SUCH are not
necessarily explicitly mentioned and must be guessed
at by those knowledgeable of Jewish law.

Rashi(Lv22-13b) applies the EVEN SUCH AND SUCH (Lv22-13b)
to a Priest whose relative just died and prior
to burial. EVEN THOUGH a BEFORE-BURIAL PRIEST MAY NOT EAT
SACRIFICIAL ITEMS nevertheless he MAY EAT TERUMAH

*12
Note the following repetition
-Lv25-15b buy from colleagues by NUMBER YEARS SINCE JUBILEE
-Lv25-15b sell -------------- by NUMBER YEARS OF PRODUCE

Without the REPETITION I would simply state (as Rashi does)
-----------------------------------------------------------
So eg if your field produces an average yield of $1000 a
year then in year 0 of the Jubilee it would be worth 50,000
because the buyer would expect $1000 x 50 years=50,000;
by contrast in year 40 of the Jubilee it would be worth
10,000 because the buyer only expect $1000 x 10 years=10,000
In other words the
VALUE OF THE FIELD = YIELD PER YEAR x NUMBER OF YEARS
If however a person sold the field for $50,000 in year 40
he would be overcharging for the field and violating a
Biblical law
-----------------------------------------------------------

It is important to emphasize that, as Rashi states
----------------------------------------------------
Whatever other meaning we derive (from the repetition),
these OTHER MEANINGS, are BESIDES the simple meaning
of the text
----------------------------------------------------

Without the REPETITION I would look at the PLURAL WORD
YEARS in the verse and simply state
---------------------------------------------------
Most sales are for YEARS (vs 1 year). Hence the
law is stated using typical examples. However the
law applies EQUALLY whether you sold the field for
one YEAR or many YEARS.
---------------------------------------------------
Here I used the Rashi rule of GENERALIZATION--which
requires that verses are seen as stating laws using
typical examples.

However we dont use the rule of GENERALIZATION when
the verse has some limitation.

Thus using the Rashi rule of REPETITION we see that
- the REPETITION requires EMPHASIS
- the EMPHASIS requires RESTRICTIVE meaning
I therefore infer that
--------------------------------------------------
A sale of land requires a minimum of 2 years.
We infer this from the REPEATED word, YEARS
which indicates AT LEAST TWO YEARS
--------------------------------------------------

To recap:
- It would be a mistake to think that Rashi
arbitrarily picked on the word YEARS and
required all sales to be two years
- Indeed in many cases Biblical laws are
stated using typical examples and generalized
to other cases
- However SINCE there is a REPETITION in the
verse therefore I am justified and required
to interpret the verse literally---a sale
must be for at least YEARS (that is 2 years)


The above is a peachy example of Rashi...it shows
that pickiness and restrictive meaning is only
one tool available to the Biblical student--this
tool may ONLY be used when required. In this
verse it is the repetition that requires it--
without the repetition I would not have come
to this conclusion.

This is fundamental to understanding Talmudic homiletics

*13 You can vow to PROHIBIT a PROHIBITION on something NEUTRAL
but you cannot vow to prohibit an OBLIGATION (Such as
a vow to abstain from the Passover offering which you
are obligated to eat)

*14 Gn09-14b and Gn09-14a are really one Rashi. But this
email list is based on the Davka edition of Rashi,
version 3.0.6. Since there are two boldface words
on Gn09-14 we count them as two Rashis.

Note there is a slight problem with
- interpreting CLOUD A CLOUD=storm without light
- and the verse statement--RAINBOW will be seen

So Rashi adds as follows
-----------------------------------------------
When God PLANS to bring a fierce storm
He will see the rainbow and not go all the way
-----------------------------------------------

*15 The emphasis in the REPETITION
-------------------------
And the servant took
- 10 CAMELs
- from his master's CAMELS
-------------------------

This emphasis enables Rashi to infer
that the CAMELS were SPECIAL.But Rashi
does not know HOW they were special.
Rather he infers the SPECIALNESS of the
animals by going to an OTHER VERSE
Gn24-32 states
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[When] the servant came into the
house [then] he UNMUZZLED the camels
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hence the Rashi comment
----------------------------
The servant took his MASTER'S
CAMELS which were known for
their religiousity of being
muzzled and not being allowed
to graze in the fields of others
----------------------------

*1
In both cases the attribute (full of hair, heel) was there.
Yet in one case EVERYONE gave the child the nickname while
in the other case only the Patriarch saw the significance
that the younger brother would Tag on the heels.

*2
It is not difficult to fill in the details. Presumably
as the children grew up Esauv was the DONE/ACCOMPLISHED
person. He would always pave the way. And then as so
often happens the younger brother would come and tag
along on the heels of the older brother's success.
Isaac because he was a patriarch saw this as
archetypical of the national relationship of the Jews and
Esauvites. Hence Isaac alone chose to name him by this
attribute because he as Patriarch and prophet saw this
to be the future relationship of the two nations(Other
people did not so see it). This contrast is also present
in the blessings in Gn27.

*1  Rashi not only connects 2 paragraphs. He also connects
all Biblical paragraphs in this chapter. See
footnote *10 for further details


*2 Dt28 gives a long list of curses if the Jews violate
the commandments.

Dt29-12 says "You are all STANDING before God today" In
other words despite the curses for disobediance you are
still here before God(The implication being that no
matter how angry God gets he will not destroy you)

A further support for this theme can come from the
General-particular-General form

Dt28    GENERAL:    Curses for disobediance
Dt29-12 PARTICULAR: You are standing here before God
Dt29-19 GENERAL:    Curses for disobediance

Thus the General-Particular-General form shows that Gods
curses still allow us to "Stand before him"--in other
words they are educative curses not punitive.


*3 In other words (always) "Observe the Sabbaths"
DESPITE a request to the contrary "By your parents"

This can happen if eg your parents ask you to
desecrate the Sabbath.  You must observe the
Sabbath even if your parents request to
the contrary.

And this can be generalized to all Torah laws(that
they take precedence over your parents request)


*4 Wear Tzitzith DESPITE the fact that they may have Shaatnez
Wool and linen together (In the priestly garments made of
Linen the Tzitzith were made of wool--thus the commandment
of Tzitzith OVERRIDES the prohibtion of wearing wool and
linen)

*5 More specifically Rashi (Dt10-12a) states
---------------------------------------------
Despite the 5 rebellions that the Jews did
against God, nevertheless, God still loves
the Jews. In fact Dt10-12 states that all
the Jews need do to earn this love is to
revere God
---------------------------------------------

*6 Rashis point is that Jacob did not ask Esauv
----------------------------
Past me and leave me behind
----------------------------

Rather Jacob suggested contrast
------------------------------------------------
- I must go at a gentle pace
- you go at a normal pace
------------------------------------------------

A logical consequence of this contrast is that
Esauv would pass Jacob and leave him behind.


*7 The full Biblical text shows two rounds of dialogs
between Moses and Joseph
The Biblical text states as follows
----------------------------------------------------
Gn42-09    1     JOE:      You are Spies
Gn42-10:11 1     BROHTERS: NO(Contrast)--We are simple people
Gn42-12    2     JOE:      NO(Contrast) you are spies
Gn42-13    2     BROTHERS: We are 12 sons;we came for food
----------------------------------------------------

*8 Gn47-25b and Gn47-25a both deal with the contrast of offer
vs Thank you.

*9 Rashi makes a point of the contrast
----------------------------------------
Even though he was going to die after the war
nevertheless he was eager to perform the war
--------------------------------------------

*10

On a superficial level Rashi seems to be connecting 2
verses.

Avoid idolatry DESPITE your being a slave to a non jew
(who encourages its violation). Do not think "I will
worship idols now and when I am free I will go
back to believing in God"

On a profound level Rashi sees a unifying theme to this
whole chapter. The chapter encourages observing the
shimitah laws which encourage abstaining from agriculture
once every 7 years so that people can devote themselves
to God and study. If one violates these laws he is
progressively punished. Here is the sequence of
punishments

{LIST} {Paragraphs in BEHAR}
-------------------------------------------------------
VERSE        LAW
------------ ------------------------------------------
Lv25-01:12   Observe the 7 and 50 year Land sabbaticals
Lv25-13:24   If not you will have to sell your MOVABLES
Lv25-25:28   If not you will have to sell your LAND
Lv25-29:34   If not you will have to sell your HOUSE
Lv25-35:38   If not you will have to           LOAN
Lv25-39:46   If not you will have to become a  SLAVE
Lv25-47:54   If not you'll become a  NONJEWISH SLAVE
Lv26-01:03   If not you'll be tempted to    IDOLATRY
---------------------------------------------------------


Thus Rashi does not merely teach juxtaposition of verses
but he also teaches juxtaposition of ALL paragraphs in
the chapter.

*11

Rashi comments
------------------------------------------------------
The verse CLEARLY contrasts HUNTER vs SIMPLE and
FIELDS vs TENTS. Thus the SITTING IN TENTS spoken
about here is not e.g. the tents of hunters but
rather the tents of scholars (or charity givers)
------------------------------------------------------

I have added the explanatory words [or charity givers]
to show that Rashi's point is one of CONTRAST not
one of IDENTIFICATION. Rashi literally says
-------------------------------------
TENTS refers to the tents of Shaym
alluded to in the verse Gn09-27
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
God will give beauty to Yefeth
and Yefeth will dwell in the TENTS OF SHAYM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------------------------

Presumably these are tents of either scholars
or tents of charity givers. Rashi's main
point is not the identification of WHOSE
tents Jacob dwells in but rather the
TYPES of tents that Jacob dwells in--
charity or learning tents vs hunter tents.

*1 Actual there are 3 paragraphs as follows
- Gn22-01:19  Akaydah
- Gn22-20:24  Birth of Rivkah
- Gn23-01:--  Death of Sarah

Rashi points out that the TOPIC SENTENCE of Gn22-20:24
is the birth of Rivkah. Rashi also points out that
the 3 paragraphs form a TEMPORAL SEQUENCE
For further details see LIST690B

*2 The paragraph contains 7 examples illustrating the theme
ABSTENTION INCREASES PRODUCTIVITY
-------------------- EXAMPLES ----------------------------
-1- Abstain 4 years from new fruit--increase fruit yield
-2- Abstain from blood=life source--increase nutrition
-3- Abstain from divining --        increase prediction
-4- Separate animal/human --        increase animality/human
-5- Abstain from early sex--        increase sexual awarenss
-6- Abstain from Sabbath work --    incresae productivity
-7- Abstain from seancing     --    Increase knowledge
----------------------------------------------------------

*3 Actual prohibition is cooking CHILD OF LAMB(or other
Kosher animals) in MILK OF MOTHER. Rashis actual
language is
--------------------------------------------
If you cook kid in milk of mother (violate
the sanctity of womb) I will destroy the
wheat germ in the womb of the wheat with strong
winds
--------------------------------------------
Rashi is simply giving poetic expression to the
unifying theme of CARING IN KASHRUTH in the chapters.

*4
Rashi's point here is that GOD TOLD HER might
mean she is a prophet. However IN THE CONTEXT
of the paragraph, SHE WENT TO SEEK AND WAS TOLD
clearly indicates that the telling was by
messenger, the person she asked.

What we call the PARAGRAPH method is none other
than the RABBI ISHMAEL, CONTEXT method. We
interpret the verse based on CONTEXT.

*1 Rashi actually says
----------------------------------------------------------
If he couldnt get it from HUNT he would get it by STEALING
----------------------------------------------------------

Rashi here uses the technique of EXAGGERATION. Actually
the word BRING is like the English TAKE-OUT. Esauv, if
he couldnt find hunt would BRING the food (Either buy it
or possibly steal it).

The real point of Rashi is the BULLET contrast
- EITHER hunt OR Bring

There is also a philosophical point to Rashi
Rashi emphasizes that while Esauv did
respect his father he did not in general
wish to be moral. The important thing was
to make father feel comfortable. However you
could bend the rules if necessary.

*1 See Lv26-03. Thus Lv26-03:06 explicitly states that
when we observe, God will remove wild animals. Dt08-02
by contrast, explains that conquest of Israel will
happen slowly FOR IF IT HAPPEEND QUICKLY WILD ANIMALS
WOULD COME (because the Jews moral nature was not
yet  perfected and the protection of Lv26-03:06
does not yet apply) *11

*2 COARSE flour was used in cooking to wash the pot
sides to clear it from rust producing agents and
rotted food particles.

*3 I should mention the Brilliant Malbim who points
out to a repeated object denoting emphasis
-----------------------------------------
She opened it and saw HIM -- a CHILD
-----------------------------------------
Thus the child had a certain regality *12


*4 This distinction is explicitly mentioned in Ex01-10
Pharoh was concerned that the Jewish minority would
align with an Egyptian enemy. Hence he killed the
males. *13

*5 See Lv08-16:21 for Moses acting as a Priest. During
this brief period Moses used the Temple Basin.

*6 First we note that MONUMENTS (MCBA) were made of
1 stone. Compare the following verses
- Gn31-45 Jacob took the STONE and made MONUMENT
- Gn28-18 Jacob took the STONE and made Monument

Next we note that God found the MONUMENT that
Jacob made (and declared to be a house of God),
God found this altar pleasing.
-----------------------------------------------
- Gn31-13 I am the God of Beth El where you made
a monument --[I am with you] Therefore leave
this place
-----------------------------------------------

Finally we compare the following 4 contradictory
verses
------------------------------------------------
Ex20-21:22 You can make altars of EARTH, STONES
Dt27-05    Make altar of stones when coming to Israel
Dt16-22a   Don't make MONUMENT
Dt16-22b   Don't make MONUMENT, hated by God
Gn28-18    Jacob took the stone and made a MONUMENT
------------------------------------------------

In this discussion we treat ALTARS and MONUMENTS
the same. The contradictory verses can be resolved
as follows
- ONE-STONE altars/monuments are
- - prohibited to us and hated by God
- - permitted  to Patriarches and liked by God
- MANY STONE altars/Monuments are permitted*14

*10 Rashis point is strengthened by the abrupt change
of subject
-----------------------------------------------
Nu04-04 This is the job of the KEHATHITES
Nu04-05 The PRIESTS come and cover the articles
...
Nu04-15 ..and AFTERWARDS the KEHATHITES come
-----------------------------------------------

If one just reads Nu04-04 and Nu04-05 by themselves
it appears as if the PRIESTS mentioned in Nu04-05
refer back to the KEHATHITES mentioned in Nu04-04

*11 Interesting Rashi cites a verse in Job rather
than the  explicit Lv26-03:06. Rashi also does
not explicitly mention that he is using the rule
of resolving 2 contradictory cases.
But that IS what Rashi does. It seems rather
straightforward to introduce Lv26-03:06. Rashi
probably  expected the reader to know this verse
since it comes in the great REBUKE---Rashi complements
this verses with complementary verses in Job

*12 Rashis actual language is that
------------------------------------
She saw Gods presence with him
------------------------------------

I have tempered this a bit as follows
---------------------------
She saw the childs regality
---------------------------

I think Rashis point is to explain why
she risked her life to save a Jewish child
This child was different--he had a certain
regality...why not raise him as an Egyptian
He would fit in well with the Royal house

*13 Rashi actually says
------------------------------------------
Pharohs astrologers said that the Jews
have just had a male savior born.
Pharoh therefore decreed the death of
the male Jews
------------------------------------------

However the REAL driving force of Rashi
is the contradictory verses and the
resolution from an explicit verse.

Rashi avails himself of OTHER VERSES
which show that Pharoh always consulted
with his astrologers (eg Ex08-12:15).

Thus Rashi is simply dressing up the
contradiction. The real point of Rashi
is the contradiction and the distinction
between the people(hated all) and the King.
(concerned about security)

*14 Rashi does not give a reason why 1-stone altars
are prohibited but many-stone are ok. I would
suggest that 1-stone altars are so to speak
BLEMISHED altars-altars made on the rush.
Throughout the offering literature blemished items
are considered poor taste. The patriarchs however
were busy converting people frequently. Hence,they
made altars on the go (one stone altars) and this
was liked by God.

*1 Ex31-15b further points out that all holidays which are
referred to as >SABBATH of SABBATH< (Ex31-15, Lv23-32)
have prohibitions of both WORK and EATING. By contrast
all holidays which are only called >SABBATH< (Lv23-23
and Lv23-39) only have a prohibition of Work but not
a prohibition of COOKING. This is fully discussed at
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h6n12.htm)


*2 This is fully discussed in http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h1n23.htm
Ibn Ezra seems to disagree and state that GReenReen means a
light green (which would contradict this list). But as I
show in that posting, Ibn Ezra retracted what he said in his
commentary on Ps45-03. In fact Ibn Ezra simply points out
that he was testing the consistency of this rule against all
doubled roots. To make a long story short we reviewed all
roots & found possible problems with only 2 verses, Ps38-11
and Songs6-1. However we can properly translate these verses
Ps38-11 would be translated as >My heart FLUTTERS (intense
back and forth motion)<; Similarly Songs6-1 would be
translated as >Dont avoid me simply because I am very
SUNBURNED (an intense form of DAWN-COLOR)

*3 Many of the examples in this list are CONSTRUCTS
e.g. The HOLY of HOLIES. Future additions to this
list will emphasize examples similar to Lv01-08d

*4 So the repeated word MAN must refer to the narrow meaning
of the Hebrew ISH which means A DISTINGUISHED man such
as an Angel or Judge.

*5 In legal terminology the repetition creates ESSENTIALITY
- The wood is on the altar; and MUST be on the altar
- Blood on ear; oil on ear; and the blood MUST come first

*6 In other words the priest can defile himself to a sister
who is REALLY NOT MARRIED (not married and still CLOSE
to her brother the Priest)--thus the priest can defile
himself to a SINGLE and ENGAGED sister but not to a
MARRIED sister

*7 If you review Lv22-17:25 you will find 3-5 repetitions
of the concept that BLEMISHED ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE
OFFERED (or PLACED ON FIRE) TO GOD. Therefore the
REPETITION applies to ANY PART OF THE OFFERING
PROCEDURE. The main parts of the OFFERING PROCEDURE are
- DEDICATION of the animal
- SLAUGHTER of animal
- RECEIPT of animal blood
- OFFERING ON FIRE of organs*10

*8 In other words only is he is REALLY BLEMISHED = STILL
BLEMISHED (But if he recovered from the Blemish then
the law does not apply and he can offer offerings)


*9 The verse states
----------------------------------------------------
If blood falls on a GARMENT, then wash in the temple
THAT ON WHICH IT FELL
----------------------------------------------------

The capped words indicate a quasi repetition. This
repetition creates emphasis. ONLY the part of the
garment on which the blood is sprinkled need be
washed.

*10 An important point about learning Rashi should be
emphasized. Many Rashi commentators play NUMBER GAMES
- they count FOUR repetitions of DONT OFFER
- they then note FOUR applications of emphasis in Rashi
(to a) Dedication b) Slaughter c) receipt of blood
d) offering

However our approach in this list has always been
conceptual. The REPETITION denotes EMPHASIS. The
EMPHASIS in turn simply includes ALL CASES--ALL PARTS
OF THE PROCEDURE. We think this a mature and satisfying
approach to Rashi.

*11 The whole verselet A STRANGER CANNOT EAT TERUMAH is
repeated.   The simple way of taking it is that
- ONLY strangers are restricted from eating TERUMAH
- ALL other PRIESTS (EVEN SUCh AND SUCH) may eat TERUMAH
The details of the EVEN SUCH AND SUCH are not
necessarily explicitly mentioned and must be guessed
at by those knowledgeable of Jewish law.

Rashi(Lv22-13b) applies the EVEN SUCH AND SUCH (Lv22-13b)
to a Priest whose relative just died and prior
to burial. EVEN THOUGH a BEFORE-BURIAL PRIEST MAY NOT EAT
SACRIFICIAL ITEMS nevertheless he MAY EAT TERUMAH

*12
Note the following repetition
-Lv25-15b buy from colleagues by NUMBER YEARS SINCE JUBILEE
-Lv25-15b sell -------------- by NUMBER YEARS OF PRODUCE

Without the REPETITION I would simply state (as Rashi does)
-----------------------------------------------------------
So eg if your field produces an average yield of $1000 a
year then in year 0 of the Jubilee it would be worth 50,000
because the buyer would expect $1000 x 50 years=50,000;
by contrast in year 40 of the Jubilee it would be worth
10,000 because the buyer only expect $1000 x 10 years=10,000
In other words the
VALUE OF THE FIELD = YIELD PER YEAR x NUMBER OF YEARS
If however a person sold the field for $50,000 in year 40
he would be overcharging for the field and violating a
Biblical law
-----------------------------------------------------------

It is important to emphasize that, as Rashi states
----------------------------------------------------
Whatever other meaning we derive (from the repetition),
these OTHER MEANINGS, are BESIDES the simple meaning
of the text
----------------------------------------------------

Without the REPETITION I would look at the PLURAL WORD
YEARS in the verse and simply state
---------------------------------------------------
Most sales are for YEARS (vs 1 year). Hence the
law is stated using typical examples. However the
law applies EQUALLY whether you sold the field for
one YEAR or many YEARS.
---------------------------------------------------
Here I used the Rashi rule of GENERALIZATION--which
requires that verses are seen as stating laws using
typical examples.

However we dont use the rule of GENERALIZATION when
the verse has some limitation.

Thus using the Rashi rule of REPETITION we see that
- the REPETITION requires EMPHASIS
- the EMPHASIS requires RESTRICTIVE meaning
I therefore infer that
--------------------------------------------------
A sale of land requires a minimum of 2 years.
We infer this from the REPEATED word, YEARS
which indicates AT LEAST TWO YEARS
--------------------------------------------------

To recap:
- It would be a mistake to think that Rashi
arbitrarily picked on the word YEARS and
required all sales to be two years
- Indeed in many cases Biblical laws are
stated using typical examples and generalized
to other cases
- However SINCE there is a REPETITION in the
verse therefore I am justified and required
to interpret the verse literally---a sale
must be for at least YEARS (that is 2 years)


The above is a peachy example of Rashi...it shows
that pickiness and restrictive meaning is only
one tool available to the Biblical student--this
tool may ONLY be used when required. In this
verse it is the repetition that requires it--
without the repetition I would not have come
to this conclusion.

This is fundamental to understanding Talmudic homiletics

*13 You can vow to PROHIBIT a PROHIBITION on something NEUTRAL
but you cannot vow to prohibit an OBLIGATION (Such as
a vow to abstain from the Passover offering which you
are obligated to eat)

*14 Gn09-14b and Gn09-14a are really one Rashi. But this
email list is based on the Davka edition of Rashi,
version 3.0.6. Since there are two boldface words
on Gn09-14 we count them as two Rashis.

Note there is a slight problem with
- interpreting CLOUD A CLOUD=storm without light
- and the verse statement--RAINBOW will be seen

So Rashi adds as follows
-----------------------------------------------
When God PLANS to bring a fierce storm
He will see the rainbow and not go all the way
-----------------------------------------------

*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