*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

*6 The Jews were prohibited from taking Esauv's property,
the Mountains of Seir UNTIL the FOOT Day which is a
nickname for the Messianic era. This prophecy is consistent
with Dt19-08 *11


*7 We are of the opinion that Rashi did not mean to
EXHAUST the meaning of DESPICABLE with AETHEISTIC
Other verses with DESPICABLE may shed further light.

*8 This is a NEGATIVE example of the OTHER VERSE principle.
We find no OTHER VERSE with mention of Ashers
prolificness in having children

*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.

*11 Rashi gives another possible reading of Dt02-05
------------------------------------------------
Don't take ANYTHING from Esau EVEN the small amount
of land in the STOMPING OF THE FOOT
------------------------------------------------

This seems to be a preferable reading to Rashi's
2nd interpretation
-------------------------------------------
Dont take from Esauv UNTIL the DAY OF STOMPING
OF THE FOOT (The MESSIANIC ERA)
-------------------------------------------

However the Hebrew connective word AYIN-DALET
NEVER means EVEN and ALWAYS means UNTIL. Furthermore
Rashi's 2nd interpretation is supported by other
OTHER VERSES such as Dt19-08. In other words despite
the fact that this interpretation is PROPHETIC it is more
consistent with OTHER VERSES and Biblical language

*1 NoChoM (Kamatz Kamatz) means to LEAD THEM
NoChaM (Kamatz Patach) means to LEAD

The final MeM indicates the direct object
(LEAD THEM) with the Kamatz Kamatz
punctuation

*2 HoMoM (Kamatz Kamatz) means to CRUSH THEM
HoMaM (Kamatz Patach) means to CRUSH

The final MeM indicates the direct object
(CRUSH THEM) with the Kamatz Kamatz
punctuation

*3 oShoN (Kamatz Kamatz) is SMOKE (A noun)
oSHaN (Kamatz Patach) is TO SMOKE(Verb)


*4 YoMooSH means IT MOVE (Active tense)
YoMeeSH means SOMEONE MOVES IT(Causative tense)

My favorite reference for root conjugations
is the Appendix of the Ibn Shoshan Dictionary
Table 6 presents the conjugation of the
1-vuv-3 roots which illustrates the contrast
between YoMooSH and YoMeeSH

*5 PaCHaZ means FIZ(Noun)
PoCHaZ means TO FIZ(Verb)

The verse describes Reuvens personality as
FIZZING like water, denoting his impetuousness
in acting out of zeal without thinking of
consquences or implication. Hence he lost the
birthright

*6 Active, Past,Singular,3rd person for Nun-2-3
verbs is No-Ve-Lah

Active, FUTURE, PLURAL, 1st person for 1-2-2
roots No-Ve-Lah--the added terminal HEY
indicates INTENT vs DEFINITIVENESS*10

Here the superior translation is
-------------------------------------------
Let us confuse their language
-------------------------------------------

*7 - Ye-Ra-SHAH (Accent on last syllable) means
I WISH THAT YOU *WILL* INHERIT

- Ye-RA-shah (Accent on first syllable) means
I AM PLEASED TO *ORDER* YOU TO INHERIT*11

*10 Radack seems to think Na-Ve-Lah is Passive
Rashi uses the rule that INTENT vs DEFINITE
is indicated by a TERMINAL HEY at the end of
the word. Thus
- NaVoL=we WILL confuse their language
- NaVLH=we INTEND to confuse their language

*11
In passing we have from time to time indicated
that Rashi's primary goal was not a commentator
but a Masorite, someone whose task is to preserve
the Biblical text. Rashi perceived commentary not
as an end but rather as a means to preserve the
Biblical text. The Rashi at Dt33-23c is one of
those rare instances where Rashi makes this explicit
------------------------------------------------
This point about the relationship between the
command and accent-on-last may be found in the
Great Mesorah list of commands with accents on the
last syllable
-------------------------------------------------

*1 Cf However Lv15-08a Spit ON Him = Actually spit on him
The rule seems to be that SPIT ON HIM is literal
whereas SPIT ON FACE (use of FACE vs FULL PERSON) means
SPIT TOWARDS HIM

*2 eg If I am angry and mentally curse or if I
am angry and start ranting and raving without
however fully articulating everything on my mind
-- in these two cases I may have sworn IN MY MIND
but I have not sworn WITH MY LIPS (Explicitly)

*3 Contrast Ex20-03a OTHER GODS=GODS OF OTHER PEOPLE
vs Ex21-02a JEWISH SLAVE = SLAVE AND JEWISH

Technically the possessive --OF-- can mean
- OWNED BY (eg OTHER GODS = gODS of OTHERS)
- PROPERTY (eg JEWISH SLAVE=SLAVE who is JEWISH)
- ASSOCIATED WITH (eg BELT OF GARMENT=Belt USED
with Garment)

Note Rashi proves the JEWISH SLAVE=SLAVE WHO
IS JEWISH by citing an other verse Dt15-12 *11

*4 Rashis real point here ('What is bothering Rashi') is
that the METONOMY rule requires that CLEAR OIL could
either mean
- literally clear oil
- oil producing a clear flame
Rashi advises us that here it is literal
Rashi also cites the Talmud Menachoth which
outlines the production process


*5 So
- VALUE = FEE
- YOUR-VALUE = FEE SCHEDULE(Fixed amount for each
gender and age group)*13

*10 The difference between this list; LIST871m and
the sister list, LIST871d, of IDIOMS BY METONOMY
is that
- LIST871d lists new phrases that have entered
the language as idioms--for example, HOLY COINS
refers to COINS USED/RELATED TO THE HOLY TEMPLE

- LIST871m lists one time usages of metonomy--
for example SHEEP WITH WHITE refers to
SHEEP WITH WHITE PATCHES.

The difference is that HOLY COINS always refer
to TEMPLE-RELATED coins while WHITE does not
always refer to WHITE PATCHES---in other words
it is a one time use of the RELATED MEANING rule.

The metonomy of most of the examples in this list
can be inferred from context.

*11 It is important to emphasize that SHEEP do NOT get
aroused from merely seeing something patched (which
reminds them of sheep of the opposite gender).

Rather JACOB FIXED the STICKS IN THE WATER.

The water in the troughs was FLOWING water. Hence the
reflection of the sticks in the water gave the appearance
of MOVING / PULSATING ITEMS WITH PATCHES.

It is these MOVING / PULSATING items with patches
that aroused the female sheep since the pulsating
bobbing sticks resembled aroused males. Once the females
became aroused the males mated them.

So Jacobs trick was to mimic LIVE MALE PATCHED SHEEP
by using water reflections of PATCHED STICKS.

*12 The Hebrew word A-Chu-Zah by itself can refer to
a plot of land (without any additional words):
------------------------------------------------------
Cf Gn47-11 Gave them a PLOT
Cf Lv25-46 These slaves shall be a PLOT for inheritance
Cf Nu27-04 Give us please a PLOT among our brothers
------------------------------------------------------

*13 Rashi admits that
-----------------------------------------------------
I don't understand (know of a precedent) for the
peculiar grammatical construction: YOUR-VALUE
-----------------------------------------------------

Rashi was NOT stating that he did not know what
YOUR-VALUE vs VALUE means. In fact he says explicitly
-------------------------------------------------
the value was fixed for each gender and age group
-------------------------------------------------

Rather what Rashi did not know was a precedent
for the peculiar grammatical form: YOUR-VALUE

*14 As usual in this list we have brought Rashi's SECOND
explanation (Whenever there are two explanations in
Rashi, we reject the first as wrong and accept the
second as right). I am told that the Lubavitcher Rebbe
may he rest in peace held a different view: There are
problems with each explanation and Rashi therefore brought
both.

We have very slightly modified Rashi to make his
comment consistent with Biblical Hebrew. Rashi actually states
--------------------------------------------------
Judge even minor cases like LANDLORD vs TENANT
--------------------------------------------------

We have modified this as follows
-----------------------------------------------
Judge even minor cases like LANDLORD vs
FARMER-TENANT
-----------------------------------------------

PEOPLE and their PLACES often have same names
(e.g. AMERICA-AMERICAN) The FARMER TENANT is
the person ASSOCIATED with
the GRANARY which in Hebrew is Gimel Resh. It
is for this reason that we have slightly amended
Rashi.

The literal Rashi, TENANT would not make sense
linguistically since Gimel-Resh refers to an ALIEN
not to a TENANT. On the other hand, Gimel-Resh
as meaning GRANARY is common in the Bible.

*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