*1
As the above SPREADSHEET shows, Terach lives 60 years
after Abraham left. It would appear that Abraham left
his old father to establish his own life. This would be
perojative to Abraham!

Hence the Bible reverses the sequence order and indicates
Terachs death BEFORE Abrahams leaving.  The basic point
is that Abraham founded monotheism (or its spread) and
could not do this in the house of an idolater--hence he
HAD to leave. *10

*10 Rashi dresses up this point with several sermonic points
that we need not go into. The main focus is that Abraham
had to leave to start his own life but the Bible did not
want to insinuate that Abraham was disrespectful to his
father.

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

*3 Lv17-11:14 emphasizes
--------------------------------------------------
The BLOOD IS (That is symbolizes) THE SOUL
--------------------------------------------------
Hence I would have thought that only
GUSHING OFFERING BLOOD that comes from SLAUGHTER is
prohibited since it symbolizes the LIFE FORCE.
The various other verses emphasize
that NON GUSHING or NON OFFERING blood also
are prohibited.

*4 The verses speak about AVOIDING THE TEMPTATION OF
EATING BLOOD while eating PERSONAL MEALS--presumably
- this refers to BLOOD STILL IN THE ORGANS
- BLOOD THAT IS DRAINED
Even though this is NON GUSHING blood and doesnt
strongly symbolize the SOUL it is still prohibited

*5 REPETITION can indicate INTENSITY of OBLIGATION
Typically this is done by coupling
- a DO commandment with
- a DONT commandment
Hence a person who violates these laws violates both
- a DO and
- a DONT

*1 Supported  by Dt17-06:07 which states
--------------------------------------
..first the witnesses execute...then the people execute
--------------------------------------

*2 See http://www.Rashiyomi.com/lv05-02a.htm for a full
discussion of the three Rashi methods connected with
this verse.

*3 e.g. If PART of meat fell outside temple (and is thereby
impure) then you can still eat the part of the meat
that remained inside the temple (even though the two
parts are connected)

*4 The text of Lv13-32:45 is as follows
----------------------------------------------------
If on his baldness there is pinkish affiction then
leprosy is sprouting in his baldness; the priest
reviews and confirms the pinkish affliction in his
baldness just like skin leprosy...[then] this person
is leprousand is ritually impure; the priest shall
DECLARE DECLARE him impure and the lepor with the
affliction: his garments shall be rent and his head
left wild....
-----------------------------------------------------

The words DECLARE DECLARE encourage a BROAD
interpretation of this chapter: The requirements of
declaration, garment renting and head left wild apply
not only to the subject of the chapter---a bald person
with leprosy---but apply to ANY lepor

*5 Rashi actually brings down THREE consequences of
the broad interpretation emanating from the repeated
word
------------------------------------------------------
The word AMEN signifies acceptance of an oath of curse
- ACCEPTANCE whether she committed adultery from
the suspected person OR from any other person

- ACCEPTANCE whether she cheated while married or
whether she cheated while (BiblicallY) engaged

- ACCEPTANCE of both the OATH (I didnt commit adultery)
as well as the consequent CURSE (May I be punished
if I did commit adultery)
------------------------------------------------------

From these three distinct interpretations we infer
that the basic idea of Rashi is that
-----------------------------------
The repetition indicates ACCEPTANCE
IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES
-----------------------------------

*6 An alternative approach not based on repetition
reviews all references to MOAB in Nu22-10:21. They
are referred to as
- Moabs princes
- Balaks servants
- Them
- people
If in Nu22-21 it refers to them as MOAB PRINCES
-----------------------------
Bilam went with Moabs princes
-----------------------------
The emphasis seems to be that he went with them
and the Moabite philosophy (He agreed with them)

*7 Several points should be made on this unusual repetition
- the repetition is not a repetition of a word or phrase
within one verse but rather a repetition in separate
verses

- the repetition does not suggest an emphasis in a word
or phrase but rather an emphasis in a juxtaposition--
two juxtaposed events are seen as causing or enabling
each other
-- Aaron's death
-- the war by Arad

The repeating sets of verses are
- Nu20-22:29, Nu21-01 and
- Nu33-38:40 states*11

*8 Since Ex23-19b, Ex34-26b speaks about
- See God on Festivals three times a year
- Don't cook the meat of a kid in milk of mother
therefore we extend the prohibition of COOKING to
EATING since on the festivals one eats the
FESTIVE offerings
Since Dt14-21c states that one should
sell non-Kosher meat (of birds) to non-Jews
therefore, since the context is one of non-Jews
we extend the prohibition to
- not BENEFITING from milk and meat
- not even cooking milk and NON-KOSHER meat

Finally Rashi makes an additional linguistic point
- The word KID is a GENERAL word (like in English)
- which can refer to an ANIMAL, BIRD or BEAST kid.

The word KID occurs 10 times in the Bible
- 7 times it occurs as KID OF GOATS
- in the 3 verses prohibiting milk and meat it
simply says KID.

Rashi states
---------------------------------------
Since it usually says KID OF GOATS therefore
KID by itself could refer to KID of any
animal
---------------------------------------

I would view this as a supportive proof. The real
point is that KID refers to a YOUNGSTER and hence
(as in English) can mean the YOUNGSTER of animals
birds or beasts.

*9
Dt24-19 states
-------------------------------------------
When you harvest a
harvest in your FIELD
and you forget a bundle in the FIELD
then do not return to take it;
leave it for the sojourner, orphan and widow
...
--------------------------------------------

Rashi comments on the repeated word FIELD
-------------------------------------------
The law of leaving forgotten items for the poor
applies to any item left in the FIELD
- whether you forget a harvested bundle
- or you forget to harvest a standing attached grain
In each case you must leave the forgotten item for the poor
--------------------------------------------

*10 Rashi citing the Talmud asks
------------------------------------------------
But if the law applies to HUNTED or DOMISTICATED
(non-hunted) animals why does the bible use the
phrase HUNT alltogether? ANSWER: The Bible speaks
about a TYPICAL SITUATION: One normally should not
eat meat except on special occassions and after
significant work like a hunt
------------------------------------------------

*11 It is instructive to compare our explanation with
Rashi's wording. Rashi states on the verse
----------------------------------------------
And king of Arad HEARD when Jews came to SPY-ROAD
----------------------------------------------

Rashi states on Nu21-01a
-------------------------------------------
What did he HEAR? He heard that Aaron died
-------------------------------------------

This of course is rediculous. The verse
explicitly states
----------------------------------------
He HEARD that the Jews came
----------------------------------------

But Rashi HIMSELF clarifies his position
on Nu33-40a Rashi states
---------------------------------------
The set of verses relating a) Aarons death
and b) the declaration of war by Arad, is
repeated to emphasize that one caused the
other*12
---------------------------------------

Thus we see that Rashi HIMSELF contradicts his
early play on words WHAT DID HE HEAR? HE HEARD
OF AARONS DEATH. Such play on words is typical
in Rashi---Rashi lived before the printing
press-- by phrasing homilies in turns of
word plays he facilitated memorization
and retention in students.

*12 Rashi provides a possible explanation as to why
Aaron's death would encourage Arad to declare war
Rashi conjectures that Aaron, as High Priest,
was a spiritual force not only for the Jews but
for surrounding nations.When he died Arad decided
the Jews would lack their spiritual backup and
decided it was time to declare war.

*13 Several points on Rashi
- Rashi literally says
--------------------------------
Moses translated the Torah in 70 languages
--------------------------------
This might mean the 70 languages of the world
(Arab, French, Chinese etc)

We however have translated 70 LANGUAGES to also mean
70 LITERARY TECHNIQUES. For example in expounding
the text Moses could point out ALIGNED VERSES,
or CONTRADiCTORY VERSES, or REPEATED WORDS...
Each of these is a TECHNIQUE of TRANSLATION similar
to what we do in this Rashi list. Our motivation
for such a re-translation of Rashi is the fact
that Rashi is commenting on the repeated phrase
EXPLAINED EXPLANATION

- the verse also states EXPLAINED GOOD EXPLANATIONS
The word GOOD gives extra emphasis. The
simplest approach is that Rashi explained BOTH
the REPETITION and the word GOOD: Moses did both
- he translated the Torah into other languages
- he expounded the Torah based on techniques.

*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

*6 This is the simple meaning of the text. Rashi
SUPPLEMENTS the simple meaning by showing dual
nuances to the word SHADE
- SHADE-WIFE knew how to make a man feel on top
and important by sitting in the shade and letting
him be dominant.

In other words
- my explanation of SHADE as referring to
provocative garments that SHADE the right parts
of a womens body so as to tease men on is the simple
meaning of the text obvious to most men

- Rashi's explanation of SHADE as SITTING IN THE
SHADE and making the man feeling important is a true
SUPPORTIVE comment that SUPPLEMENTS the more basic
explanation.

The interpretation of Rashi as SUPPLEMENTATIVE
vs EXCLUSIVE is a useful way of making Rashis
more appealing.

*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