The goal of this Weekly Rashi Digest is to use the weekly Torah portion to expose students at all levels to the ten major methods of commentary used by Rashi. It is hoped that continual weekly exposure to these ten major methods will enable students of all levels to acquire a familiarity and facility with the major exegetical methods.

Nu33-17:18a states And they [The Jews] departed from Burial-Desire, and camped in Hazeroth. And they departed from Hazeroth, and camped in HotCoal.

Rashi uses Other Verses to identify the underlined cities on their journeys; the names of these underlined cities can indicate the reason or event for the name of that city.
• Burial Desire was named after the desiring nation who were punished with death for wanting excessive food. This is clearly stated in Nu11-33:34 And while the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was chewed, the anger of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord struck the people with a very great plague. And he called the name of that place Burial-Desire; because there they buried the people who had the desire.
• Hazeroth is not named after a particular event but the Bible clearly identifies that Miryam was punished with Leprosy for slandering Moses in that spot. This is indicated in the sequence of verses Nu11-34:35, Nu12-01,10,15:16 And he called the name of that place Burial-Desire; because there they buried the people who had the Desire. And the people journeyed from Burial Desire to Hazeroth; and abode at Hazeroth. And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses ....behold, Miriam had become leprous.... And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days; and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again. And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and camped in the Paran desert.
• The place HotCoal is not mentioned in the Bible again.

However
• Nu35-17:18 clearly indicates the sequence
  • Burial-desire,
  • Hazeroth,
  • HotCoal
  while
• Nu11,Nu12,Nu13 clearly indicates
  • the desiring nation punished in Burial Desire,
  • Miriam punished for slander in Hazeroth,
  • the Jews punished for slander in Paran desert This is mentioned in several verses Nu13-01:02,32,Nu15-22:23: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Send men, that they may spy the land of Canaan, .... And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had spied to the people of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to spy, is a land that eats up its inhabitants;... Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not listened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers,.....

Based on these two lists of 3 other verses Rashi decides that Paran Desert is called HotCoal. Since we already know that the Jews were guilty of accepting the slander of the spies Rashi concludes HotCoal is the same as Paran Desert the place where the Jews accepted the slander of the spies. It is called HotCoal because of the heated words spoken against God.

The reader may have noticed that Rashi did more than cite Other verses. Rashi also lined up the 3 cities in one verse with the 3 incidents mentioned in an other verse. Such side by side lineups are characteristic of spreadsheets. Therefore a more accurate classification of this Rashi is a combination of the other verse and spreadsheet methods.

For a variety of reasons we bring another spreadsheet example below in rule #9.

We have slightly changed Rashi's literal language. Rashi literally says The place is called HotCoal because of the slander spoken there as it says in P120-03:04 What shall be given to you? What shall be done to you, O false tongue? Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals

Rashi appears to be making a superficial pun on the association of coals with false tongue and the slander of the spies. We however have generalized this Rashi thought. All languages associate slander with Hot talk. Instead of stating this general idea Rashi cited a specific verse which makes a specific pun--false-tongue----hot coal. Therefore by generalizing this specific verse we are enriching and adding understanding to Rashi, since it is clear that Rashi was referring to a general phenomena and not to something specific.

One of Rashi's 10 major methods is the word meaning method. One word meaning sub-method is the idiom sub-method. An idiom is a phrase, a collection of words, which together have a meaning which transcends the sum of the meanings of its component words.

Nu35-02 states And they shall have the cities to live in; and their outskirts shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts.

The Hebrew word corresponding to the underlined word, Mem Gimel Resh Shin means a place where you let out. Rashi identifies this phrase as an idiom meaning outskirts.

We have indicated that the best way to present an idiom Rashi is to actually insert the translation in the verse itself. We have therefore used the word outskirts in the translation we have presented above.

In addition to explaining the meaning of outskirts Rashi also adds other comments about the nature of the outskirts:City ordinances prohibited using outskirts for vineyards and small farm work. This additional Rashi comment did not come from the word meaning method but rather was derived from the contradiction method. We will cover it below in rule #5.

Verse Nu32-42a states And Nobah went and conquered Kenath, and its villages, and called her Nobah, after his own name. In our citation of translation we have used the HTML strikeout feature. In the actual Biblical text the word her which is normally pronounced in Hebrew Lahh is instead pronounced La without the emphasized aspiration of the terminal h sound. The Hebrew grammarians call this a weaker hey; we have notationally indicated this weakness by using strikeout which is not present in the actual Biblical text. The sole purpose of this is to approximate the weakness of pronunciation.

Rashi comments on this weakness/strikeout by citing the comments of Rabbi Moses the exegete: The weaker/strikeout form of her is used to emphasize that the conquest was weak. Although he conquered it the conquest was transient and did not permanantly remain in his hands.

In our discussion of Rashi we have always emphasized that Rashi rules most be reproducable, that is, applicable and transferrable to other situations. Rashi challenges the transferability of this rule by citing two other verses where the rule does not seem to apply. We present these two other verses below. Before proceeding we emphasize that the word her occurs 230 times in the Bible. The Strikeout/weak form occurs 4 times. To fully test the principle of Rabbi Moses the exegete we cite all 3 other verses (Rashi only cited 2 of these 3--we shall see why).

• Ju16-17:18 relates how Delilah found out Samson's source of strength. She used this knowledge to double cross him. That he told her all his heart, and said to her, There has not come a razor upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb; if I am shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man. And when Delilah saw that he had told her all his heart, she sent and called for the lords of the Philistines, saying, Come up this once, for he has told me all his heart. Then the lords of the Philistines came up to her, and brought money in their hand. Notice that the suggested explanation of Rabbi Moses the exegete---that a weak her indicates a certain weakness and deficiency in the underlying activity mentioned in the sentence--- notice that this explanation works perfectly here. Indeed, Samson had not told her everything. Samson had only told her the source of his strength. Samson did not tell her his great hatred for the Phillistines which resulted in the death of several thousand people later on. Since the suggested explanation of Rabbi Moses the exegete worked it was not necessary for Rashi to cite this verse because Rashi was only concered for cases where the explanation did not work
• Za05-11 speaking symbolically about the Babylonian exile states: And he said to me, To build her a house in the land of Shinar; and when this is prepared, they will set it down there upon its base. Since the Babylonian exile only lasted 70 years it is clear why the word her is written in weak/striken form: The house of exile was not permanant. We believe that Rabbi Moses the exegete's suggested rule works in this verse.
• Ru02-14 states And at the mealtime Boaz said to her Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your morsel in the vinegar. And she sat beside the reapers; and he passed to her parched grain, and she ate, and was satisfied, and left. To explain the weak/striken form of her recall that Ruth later crept unannounced into Boaz's bedroom and when he awoke unexpectedly finding a woman in his bedroom she requested he marry her. In dealing with this story it is important to emphasize that Boaz did not provoke Ruth in any way. He never asked her out or participated. It would therefore seem reasonable that his luncheon date mentioned in Ru02-14 was not personal. For example he might have invited all present to partake. Although his goals were to invite Ruth he didn't specifically ask her out but invited everybody. Consequently the striken/weak out indicates extra modesty on Boaz's part.

We have gone thru all 4 verses to show that the principle of Rabbi Moses the exegete--that a stricken/weak her indicates some deficiency in the activity discussed in the sentence--this principle consistently works in all verses.

Why then did Rashi demur to this principle? My opinion is that he dissented because Rashi did not have any secondary source to back up Rabbi Moses' contention that Boaz behaved modestly and this is indicated by the stricken/weak. Although Rashi used methods in producing Rashi comments he almost invariably has further support from secondary sources which support he did not have in this situation.

Finally, I have several times indicated that Rashi, in my opinion, was not primarily a Biblical commentator but rather a Masorite---his goal was to preserve the anomalies in the Biblical text. He achieved this goal by citing literary exegesis on these anomalies. The present example-- a grammatical phenomenon that happens 4 out of 230 times--is an excellent example of how Rashi through his commentary preserved the Biblical text. It also shows the care that must be exercised in provided a Biblical comment--we must be certain that all principles are transferrable to all similar situations.

Note the alignment of the underlined words in the following verses
• Verse Nu20-21 discussing willful murder states And if he stabbed him
  • in hatred,
  • or hurled something at him while lying in hunt, that he died;
  • Or if in enmity he hits him with his hand, so that he dies; he who hit him shall surely be put to death, for he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall slay the murderer when he meets him.
• Verse Nu35-22:23 discussing negligent murder states But if he stabbed him
  • suddenly without enmity, or
  • hurled upon him anything without hunt;
  • Or with any stone, whereby a man may die, without seeing him, and cast upon him, that he died, and he was not his enemy, nor sought his harm;

The underlined words-- enmity, enemy,harm,hunt,hatred--create a general atmosphere of malicious intentionality. Consequently we have the Rashi comment: killing with hunt means premeditated killing such as killing in ambush. Here Rashi interpreted the verse to be consistent with the other aligned words.

Note the technicality that Rashi cites the aramaic translation. It consequently appears that Rashi is using the word meaning method. However this is not so! The Hebrew word used---Tzade Daleth Yud Hey--always means hunt in the rest of the Bible. What motivated Rashi, or to go a step further, what motivated the Aramaic translation, was the alignment which suggests that despite the picturesque flavor of the word hunt all that is meant is premeditation.

Nu35 discusses the cities given to the Levites. Notice the contradiction indicated by the underlined phrases in the following verses, both speaking about the city Outskirts.
• Nu35-02:04 states Command the people of Israel, that they give to the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to live in; and you shall also give to the Levites outskirts around the cities.
  • And they shall have the cities to live in;
  • and their outskirts shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts.
  • And the Outskirts around the cities, that you shall give to the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits around.
• But the very next verse Nu35-05 states
  • And you shall measure from outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits, and the city shall be in the midst. This shall be to them the open ground of the cities.

We see the contradiction indicated by the underlined words: Which is it? Are the outskirts 1000 cubits or 2000 cubits?

Rashi resolves this contradiction using the 2 aspects method. The 2 aspects of the outskirts is explicitly indicated in the above verses.
• The first thousand cubits of the outskirts are for their cattle, and their herds, and for all their beasts.
• Cubits 1000-2000 of the outskirts were therefore for any other matters. Rashi suggests For vineyards and small farms. Rashi also emphasizes But vineyars and small farms were prohibited in the first 1000 cubits.

Verse Nu30-04 states If a woman also vows a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by a bond,
• while being in her father’s house
• while a teenager;

This verse has a General-Detail style as shown by the bulleted structure. The Rabbi Ishmael Style Guidelines interpret a General-Detail verse as speaking literally / restrictively only about the details.

Hence the Rashi comment The laws at Nu30-04 apply specifically to a
• Beginning teenager--age 12-12.5: Such a person is both in her father's house and a teenager
• Minors--children under 12 are not governed by these laws as they are not teenagers
• Mature teenagers--children over 12.5 are also not governed by these laws since they are no longer in their father's house

Rashi's treatment of the general-detail style is illuminating. The classical explanation of the general-detail style is that it indicates a literal/restrictive interpretation of the details--the laws only apply if the person is really and only a teenager with no other attributes, such as mature, applicable. Rashi in this verse goes a step further and indicates that the restrictive interpretation is due to the fact that both the general and detail attributes must simultaneously apply. This teenager must be both in her father's house and a teenager. Hence we exclude the minor who is not yet a teenager and the mature teenager who is technically no longer in her father's house.

• Rashi's interpretation, both the general and detail clause apply and the
• traditional interpretation the detail is interpreted literally and restrictively have a great deal of overlap and shed light on each other.

We make some light comments on several items
• Rashi indicates that the laws of Nu30-04 do not apply to minors or mature teenagers. Needless to say other oath laws (different from those at Nu30-04) do apply.
• The ages 12 and 12.5 are legal definitions of beginning teenager and mature teenager. They are not derived from the verse but rather Sinaitically defined.
• We have translated the Biblical word to mean teenager. Several other translations are possible such as young person or apprentice The above analysis would be the same with any such translation
• Rashi additionally brings down some Rabbinic enactments related to the verse:The Rabbis ordained that when an 11 year old makes a vow she is reviewed: If she understands that she made an oath to God we encourage her to keep her oath or seek annulment while if she doesn't yet have this understanding we ignore the oath (no annulment is necessary.)

Perhaps a summary would clarify further: Verse Nu30-04 speaks about oaths of (a) a girl in her father's house (b) who is a teenager. The laws at Nu30-04 only apply if the girl is both under her father's jurisdiction and is also a teenager--in other words if the girl is a beginning teenager. Alternatively the laws only apply if the girl only has the attribute teenager and no further attributes such as mature teenager (literal/restrictive interpretation).

Verse Nu35-34b states And you shall not defile the land which you shall inhabit, in which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the people of Israel.

Note the repeated use of the phrase Dwell in Israel. We have explained several times that when a modern author wishes to indicate emphasis (s)he would use bold,italics, or underline. The presence of a bolded, italicized or underlined word indicates an unspecified emphasis.The Biblical Author(s) did not use bold, italisis and underline but instead used repetition. In other words a repeated Biblical word or phrase has the same effect as a bolded word in an ordinary text--it indicates emphasis. The effect is the same; it is only the method of indicating this effect that is different.

Rashi comments on the repeated/bolded phrase dwell in Israel: I,God, do dwell among the Jews even when they commit murders. Consequently, it is important that all murder laws be observed to atone for the sin so that my Presence is not stained with the impurity of the sin of murder.

Verse Nu36-02:04 states And they said, The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the people of Israel; and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters. And if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the people of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be given to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received; so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the jubilee of the people of Israel shall be, then shall their inheritance be given to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received; so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. These verses expose a loophole in the inheritance law by which a tribe could lose its property. Because of this loophole they asked Moses for special guidance.

Rashi clarifies by use of a spreadsheet how the loophole mentioned in the underlined passage could happen, that is, how a tribe could lose tribal property. The spreadsheet is immediately presented below.

==================================================
PERSON               RELATIONSHIP         TRIBE
===================  ===================  ========
Tzlafchad            Property Owner       Menasheh
Machlah              Tzlafchad's daughter Menasheh
Machlah's husband                         Reuben
Machlah's child                           Reuben
-------------------  -------------------  --------
Tzlafchad dies
Machlah inherits                          Menasheh
-------------------  -------------------  --------
Machlah couple dies
Child inherits                            Reuben
-------------------  -------------------  --------
==================================================

In simple terms if the girl from tribe X married a man from tribe Y then the male child belongs to child Y. If the girl's father dies, and then the girl and her husband (in that order), then the child from child Y inherits the property from tribe X.

Rashi's sole goal in this verse was to illuminate how something mentioned in the verse--- transference of property out of the tribe-- could happen. Rashi illuminates this how using the equivalent of a spreadsheet type device in which chronological events are sequentially listed on a sheet. For this reason we have classified this Rashi as using Spreadsheets.

Verse Nu35-25a states And the congregation shall deliver the negligent murderer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, where he had fled; and he shall live there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil.

Rashi comments on the connection between the underlined phrase connecting the death of the high priest to the release of the negligent murderer from the prison city of refuge:A primary task of the Priest is to atone for inadvertency. For example a person who negligently descecrates the Sabbath receives atonement by bringing a sin offering and attending to the procedures performed by the priest. If the priests had done their job perfectly there would be no negligent murders. Consequently when the High Priest dies ( as a punishment for lack of prevention of negligence) the negligent murderer goes free.

We think the above Rashi perfectly clear. We further add that the general rules governing sybolism may be found in my article Genesis 1 speaks about the creation of Prophecy not the Creation of the world which can be found on the world wide web at http://www.RashiYomi.com/gen-1.htm .
• In that article we have explained that there is an obligation to interpret a commandment as symbolic when the Bible relates two items that are superficially unrelated. A typical example occurs in our salute to a flag. A flag by itself is an item totally unrelated to the country we live in. Therefore our salute to the flag is seen as a symbolic gesture affirming our affiliation to our country.
• We have also explained in the above article that when we are obligated to interpret a commandment symbolically we do so by using the function, form, linguistic expressions of the item. Hence in the example today we interpret the Priest in terms of his function -- to prevent negligence.

We should explain why the death of the priest releases the prisoner. Prior to the death of the priest the blood-avenger blaimed the murder on the murderer's negligence. The blood-avenger may wish to avenge the murder by killing the murderer. However when the High Priest dies a message is sent to the blood avenger: Perhaps the murder is not the murderer's fault. Perhaps it is the priest's fault. If the priests had been more diligent in their prevention of negligence then the murder would not have happened.Since you are not certain whether the negligent murder was the fault of the priest or the murderer you shouldn't want to kill the murderer.

This week's parshah contains no examples of the database, method. This concludes this weeks edition. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples.