*1 Some commentators believe this Rashi comment  comes
from the word NO MORE
-----------------------------------------
there will be NO MORE anger on Temple
-----------------------------------------

Hence the comment
--------------------
NO MORE implies there already was
times when God got angry
--------------------

However my position is that OTHER VERSES justify
a Rashi commment even if there is no verbal
hint towards this OTHER VERSE in the original verse

*2 Some commentators argue that Rashi dwelt on the phrase
---------------------------------
Levites...to serve SERVICE OF GOD
---------------------------------

Hence the comment
-------------------------------
SERVICE of GOD not SERVICE of MAN
Levites could not do personal service for Priests
They could only help out in Temple.
-------------------------------

However I see no need to dwell on words and phrases
The OTHER VERSE Nu08-14:19 makes it clear that
the Levites REPLACE the FIRST BORN. Just as the
FIRST BORN serve God so too the Levites serve God.
I believe the OTHER VERSES has sufficient force
to justify this conclusion without focus on words
and phrases. However the words SERVICE OF GOD
do offer FURTHER SUPPORTIVE evidence for this Rashi.

This explains Rashi Nu18-06a

*3 Nu18-01:08
* calls PRIEST TEMPLE SERVICE a GIFT
* declares Gods anger on violations of this gift

Lv22-14:18 similarly
* discusses other temple gifts (Sacrifices, holy items)
* declares penalties for violations of this gift

Thus we call the TEMPLE SERVICE a GIFT because it
has the characteristics of OTHER GIFTS. In fact the
rest of Nu18 discusses the other TEMPLE gifts.

An alternate derivation could focus on the double
language I WILL GIFT SERVICE GIFT (GIFT ...GIFT).
The GIFT GIFT repetition creates an emphasis...
the word GIFT is literal...the service itself is
a GIFT.

This supports Rashi Nu18-07a

*4 The requirement to prevent strangers from coming near
is mentioned in Rashis Nu18-01c Nu18-01e Nu18-04a Nu18-02b

*5 Also see Ju20-07:08. The relationship between EPHOD
(Mentioned in 1S30-07:08) and URIM mentioned in Nu27-21
is clarified in Ex28-06:30 which shows that the URIM
were attached to the BREASTPLATE which were attached to
the EPHOD*10

*10 The Talmud clarifies further. The KING would ask
the priest for Divine consent to military operations.
The priest would receive communication from God thru
the URIM which contained the names of the 12 tribes
written in GEMS. The letters of the answer to the
inquiry would light up indicating the answer to the
priest.

The above cited verses explicitly show that
- Divine consent was sought in military operations
- The consent was sought FROM the priest THRU the EPHOD
- The EPHOD used the URIM attached to it.

*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
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 The word CONGREGATION by itself does not mean LEGISLATURE
However the BULLET context creates a CONTRASTIVE EMPHASIS
between NATION and CONGREGATION. Because of the BULLET
context it is legitimate to extract nuances from these two terms
- NATION is the PEOPLE
- CONGREGATION is the LEGISLATURE (NATION ORGANIZATION)

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

*3 Recall that Pharoh ordered all male babys murdered.
Moses was not murdered when born but was kept
in hiding for 3 months. His mother put him in a box
floating on the Nile. When Pharoh's daughter found the
box Miryam, Moses sister, approached Pharoh's daughter
to ask if she wanted help from a Midwife.

If Miryam was a nobody this would have aroused suspicion
Why was she mysteriously appearing to offer help after
the baby was found.

Therefore Miryam was probably a professional midwife.
She could offer help without suspicion. Similarly
Yocheved must have been a midwife...she made her
living thru nursing and delivering so no body
would suspect her of being the mother.

This proof is not iron clad---but rather the
identification of Miryam and Yocheved as
midwives alleviates some of the "coincidences"
that happen in the story.

*4 The Egyptian magicians tried to bring
the LICE out FROM ELSEWHERE (So that
they could take credit for it) but could
not do so

*5
There is an old controversy whether
WITCHCRAFT is real or not. I have solved
this problem in an unpublished article

- WITCHCRAFT does NOT affect the real world
Hence in some sense it is NOT REAL

- WITCHCRAFT takes effect by using HALLUCINATIONS

It causes the recipient to SENSE THINGS that
are not there. For example a WITCH may make
a person believe that he sees FLYING ELEPHANTS

- - The witch has NOT PRODUCED flying elephants
- - But the witch HAS PRODUCED AN HALLUCINATION

In this sense witchcraft is PSYCHOLOGICALLY REAL.

Using this distinction we can understand why
the Egypitan WITCHES (= HALLUCINATION CREATORS)
were able to CREATE FROGS but not LICE.

FROGS are big and it is easy to make people
hallucinate them. LICE is minute. Rashi
explains that it is difficult to make
people HALLUCINATE minute objects...for this
reason the Egyptian witches could not produce
the lice. (And hence they had to recognize
Moses as a prophet vs a WITCH)

*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