*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
Note that the two clauses in Lv01-03 CONTRAST
- the first clause uses the pronoun IT
- the 2nd clause uses the pronoun ONLY it
Thus there is a simultaneous requirement of
emphasis and non-emphasis.

Here is a plausable way to implement these two
requirements
- If the animals of Abe and Bob got mixed up
then we still make the offering even though
we dont know who is the true owner
- If however a kosher offering was mixed with
a non-kosher offering (e.g. the animal had a
blemish) then you can't offer either animal
because ONLY the Kosher offering can be offered

*2
My opinion is that
Rashi used the OTHER VERSE
method to infer the emphasis.
- We have seen in LIST705b
that offerings have to be
slaugthered with proper intent
That is you must slaughter them for
the sake of an offering.
- So the current verses tell us that this
proper intent is a NECESSARY REQUIREMENT:
Without it the offering is invalid. So if
you slaughtered animals for the sake of
food you cant offer them.

*3 Notice the emphasis
----------------------------
Give it TO the priest--[ONLY]TO him
----------------------------

There are several ways to articulate this emphasis
- the noun and pronoun are both there (Redundancy)
TO THE PRIEST--TO HIM
- a whole WORD TO HIM (LO) was used vs. a prefix
LETTER (TO the priest)

In identifying the PARTICULARS of the emphasis (the verse
only indicates emphasis but does not tell us how to
interpret it) we use Lv22-03:06 which states that impure
people may not eat from the offerings (Rashi adds here that
the emphasis applies even if the purity procedure is 90%
done (eg he immersed in water)--still the priest cannot
eat till totally pure

*10 We see here an interesting blend of Biblical exegesis
and Talmudic Hermeunetics
- Biblically the extra word simply gives EMPHASIS--
ONLY THIS OFFERING//ONLY THE PRIEST
- The PARTICULARS of the emphasis are not given
- We can infer the PARTICULARS of the emphasis
either  from OTHER VERSES or logic.

In this verse the PARTICULARS are as follows
-----------------------------------------------
- ONLY THIS OFFERING can be offered on the altar
-----------------------------------------------
Rashi excludes e.g. animals
with whom bestiality has been performed
since this is a serious blemish which would invalidate
the animal BEFORE the offering procedure started
Therefore if some priests STARTED the offering
procedure with such an animal they may NOT continue.

Again Rashi's example is derived THRU logic and
a consideration of alternative exclusions.Rashis
point is NOT intrinsic to the verse. All the verse
tells us is NON SPECIFIC emphasis--ONLY THIS UP
OFFERING--without telling us which one. This is
an important point in understanding these Rashis.

*1 Nu15-24:27 explicitly identifies the sin requiring the
sin offering as BLASPHEMY which includes BLASPHEMY
and IDOLATRY*10

*2 Hence the Rashi comment
- for Idolatry ONLY a FEMALE GOAT can be brought
- for other capital sins EITHER a GOAT or LAMB
can be offered

*10 Technically there is no death penalty for verbal crimes
Hence BLASPHEMY itself is not punished with death by court

*1 Each holiday had various offerings commanded.
These offerings were BESIDES and in ADDITION
to the DAILY OFFERING.

*2 Hence the Rashi on Lv23-12a
----------------------------------------
Offer a lamb on the day you bring the omer
BESIDES the daily offering
----------------------------------------

Rashi was inspired to this idea by the
ALIGNED verses which show this BESIDES
clause to be the general trend.

This explanation of Rashi is due to
the SifThai Chachamim commentary on
Rashi.

*1 The phrase in Lv23-13
-------------
ITS LIBATION
-------------
refers and cross references to
------------------------
the ACCOMPANYING Minchah
------------------------
in Nu15-04:05.

*2 The OMER FLOUR amount is doubled (2 Tenths vs 1 tenth)

*3 Even though the Flour is doubled, the WINE amount is
the same --- 1 FOURTH (of a liquid measure call HIN)

*4 Even though the oil is unspecified by the OMER
offering in Lv23-13 the OIL amount is the same

*10 Every offering had an accompanying libation offering
that went along with it. The accompanying libation offerings
are discussed in Nu15. The accompanying libation offering
consisted of FLOUR, OIL and WINE.

*1 There is a subtlety in this Rashi. Verse Ex23-24 states
------------------------------------------------
- Dont bow to THEIR(the nation's) gods
- Dont worship THEM (the gods)
- Rather demolish THEM (who?The nations?or their gods?)
- break THEIR (the nation's) monument altars
------------------------------------------------
Rashi's point is indicated in the parenthetical comments
The DEMOLISH command refers to DEMOLISH the IDOLS
not DEMOLISH the NATIONS!

*2 Actually Ex24-01:02 states
----------------------------------------
the rest of you bow from afar
and Moses alone will go up without the nation
----------------------------------------

This almost totally parallels Ex20-18 which states
----------------------------------------
The nation stood afar and Moses approached
the dark cloud where God was
----------------------------------------

*3 Rashi ALSO mentions the ORDINANCES of Shabbath, Noachides
and Honoring ones parents. The MAIN driving force
behind Rashi in interpreting Ex24-03 is the OTHER
VERSE method. The OTHER VERSE method could also refer to
Ex16-28:29 which mentions the Sabbath. I simply chose the
MAIN OTHER VERSE Ex15-25 that also mentions ORDINANCES.

*4 (Rashi)HUNT and AMBUSH are simply two good examples of
PREMEDITATION. The Torah distinguishes the treatment
of a PREMEDITATED murder from a NEGLIGENT murder.

*5 Sifsay Chachamim cracks a joke on Ex29-29
--------------------------------------------
to ANNOINT (by oil) IN THEM (= the clothes)
--------------------------------------------
Lv21-10 makes it clear that the OIL is poured on the
PRIESTS HEAD. But, the WEARING of HIGH PRIEST CLOTHES is
also a requirement for the HIGH PRIEST induction.

Rashi further explains
-----------------------------------------------
Annointing is RELATED to SOCIETAL APPOINTMENT
and hence ANNOINT IN THE CLOTHES could easily
be a pun--POUR OIL ON HEAD and GET APPOINTED
by wearing the High Priest clothes
-----------------------------------------------

*6 Lv07 states that the owners of Peace offerings
eat the peace offerings. However Lv07-34 states
that THE PRIEST RECEIVES THE WAIVED BREAST and
THE RAISED SHOULDER.

This illuminates the phrase in Ex29-28
------------------------------------------
It is a statute FOR the priests FROM the Jews
-------------------------------------------
That is, although the Jewish owners eat their
sacrifice nevertheless part of it goes to the
priests.

Ex29-28 mentions that the GIFT IS A RAISING
But Lv07-34 states that BOTH
- the WAIVED BREAST
- the RAISED SHOULDER
are priestly gifts.
Hence the RAISING in Ex29-28 refers to both
the BREAST/SHOULDER.

*7 Lv05-16 and Lv05-18 have almost identical words
Hence we can use the ALIGNMENT WORD MEANING method
also. However the OTHER VERSE method suffices here.

*8 Both Ex39-30:31 and Ex28-36:37 speak about
-----------------------------------------
The Tzitz is held
by Azure threads;
these Azure threads fold over the Turban
------------------------------------------

*9 Hence the Rashi
----------------------------------------
The princes brought their gifts IN THE SAME ORDER
as their encampment order [We infer this because
these two orders of the 12 tribes are identical
leading us to infer that one was copied from the other]

*10 Rashi brings further OTHER VERSES
- Lv07-34 tells us that Priests eat BREASTS of all
Peace offerings
- Lv07-07:11 tells us that Priests eat REMAINS of
all Minchah offerings
Rashi further explains why a law which is known
GENERALLY (Priests consume BREASTS and MINCHAH) has
to be repeated for the CONSECRATION OFFERINGS.
------------------------------------------------
Since the CONSECRATION OFFERINGS were ONE TIME
communal offerings with several differences from
other offerings of the same type therefore
the Bible had to explicitly reiterate that
procedures traditionally done to these offerings
were also done to the CONSECRATION OFFERINGS
despite their unusual nature
------------------------------------------------

*11 Rashi also mentions the MINCHAH offering of
Nachshon (Nu07-13) which was also brought on
the same day as the consecration offerings when
the temple was erected (Nu07-01). The details of
how we know that the CONSECRATION offerings happened
on the same day as the PRINCE OFFERINGS (Nu07)
is discussed on http://www.Rashiyomi.com/lv09-01a.htm

*12 We simply one verse for convenience. There are
at least 3 Biblical chapters discussing festival
offerings
- Lv23
- Dt16
- Nu28

*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