*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

*1 That is a REAL HUNT (HUNT A HUNT) and eg not buying
meat if he couldnt immediately find it in the hunt.

*2 THere are two Rashi comments (Nu35-34a, Nu35-34b)
- From the repetition DWELL DWELL Rashi infers that
God always DWELLS among the Jews
- Rashi then explains the verse
-----------------------------------------------
Since I always DWELL among the Jews do not cover
up murder so that I am not forced to dwell in
impurity
-----------------------------------------------

*1 These phrases are the same

*2 - Moses requested participation till CONQUEST
- Gadites volunteered participation till SETTLEMENT
(That is the Gadites loaned troops to the Israelites
till they both CONQUERED the land and also ASSIGNED
SETTLEMENTS for the conquered land to each tribe)

Hence the Rashi comment
-----------------------------------------------
Moses said
- - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - -
that which you promise keep
- - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - -
referring to the extra volunteer of
the Gadites (SETTLEMENT vs CONQUEST)
-----------------------------------------------

In passing AFTER the Gadites had volunteered
- Moses pointed out minimum requirements (Till CONQUEST)
- Moses then said but more (till SETTLEMENT) is preferred

*1 Based on the PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE Rashi emphasizes
------------------------------------------
Witnesses must make certain the act of murder
was WILLFUL vs NEGLIGENT. Additional witness
requirements--such as warning--is also to ensure
no momentary lapse of willfulness
------------------------------------------

*2 Notice the double prohibition of MONETARY SUBSTITUTION
for punishment in Nu35-30:31 and Nu35-32. Rashi
infers from this structure that monetary substitution
is prohibited both
- for WILLFUL murder
- for NEGLIGENT murder (you cannot pay an exhorbitant
sum and escape the refuge cities)

*1 Novach Conquered the city and named HER(LA) after himself
However this naming was TRANSIENT not permanant

*2 SAMSON told HER(LA, DELILAH) that if his hair was
cut he would lose his strength. It appeared he told her
everything. But of course he didn't tell his great
hatred of the Phillistines which in the end resulted in
massive death.

*3 The Zacharian passage symbolically speaks about creating
a house in exile for the Jews. This of course was temporary
as the Babylonian exile only lasted 70 years.

*4 Recall that Ruth crept into Boaz's bedroom and when he
found her there unannounced, requested that he marry her.
The Bible wishes to emphasize that this was her idea
not his and he did not lead her on. But Boaz did invite
Ruth to his lunch table--it could appear that he had a 1st
lunch date which put ideas in her mind. The Bible uses
the weak word LA (He call HER (LA) to lunch).

I would suggest that he didn't call just her (a lunch date)
He had just gotten back from a trip and invited all poor
present to lunch. Hence the invitation was weak in the
sense that it was not personal and focused on her.

Rashi did not agree with the principle of Rabbi Moses
the exegete. However he could certainly have defended
the verses as well as we did. Perhaps the reason Rashi
dissented is because he found no secondary sources with
the above Midrashim. For example my idea that Boaz
invited everyone to lunch is not found in any Midrash
Therefore Rashi did not want to accept a principle
whose consequences could not be verified independently
from secondary sources.

*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