*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.

*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
--------------------------------------------------------------

*1 The same

*2 The same

*3 Rashi
-------------------------------------------
Gn24-29:30 clearly indicates that he ran
WHEN he saw the bracelets and nose rings,
that is, when he saw money!
So we can transfer this reason to Gn29-13
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laban ran to Jacob BECAUSE he wanted money
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Further details may be found in footnote *10

*10
By ALIGNING the above two passage Rashi infers that
- Laban didnt run because a relative had come to town
- Laban did run because he expected monetary gifts
Rashi makes this inference BECAUSE of the ALIGNMENT
and in fact explicitly states that the reason for
his inference is an ALIGNMENT.

Rashi uses the technique of EXAGGERATION
- Laban HUGGED Jacob: Rashi: Looking for gold on him
- Laban KISSED Jacob: Rashi: Looking for gold in him mouth

We can EQUALLY state
-------------------------------------------
He hugged and kissed him to get on his
good side and get him to stay over---
he was certain that gifts would follow
-------------------------------------------

Notice how the UNDERSTANDING of Rashi as
being driven by an ALIGNMENT leads to
alternative interpretations of the verse
which are fully consistent with his and
perhaps more palatable.

*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 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