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.

Gn14-01:05 contains a cross reference to other verses within itself as the underlined words show:
• And it came to pass in the days of
  • Amraphel king of Shinar,
  • Arioch king of Ellasar,
  • Kedorlaomer king of Elam, and
  • Tidal king of nations;
• That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboim, and the king of Belah, which is Zoar. All these joined forces together in the valley of Siddim, which is the Sea of Salt. Twelve years they served Kedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
• And in the fourteenth year came Kedorlaomer, and the kings who were with him, and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-Karnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh-Kiriatayim,

The spontaneous Rashi comment on the underlined words should be clear: The phrase Kedorlaomer and the kings who were with him refers back to the bulleted underlined alliance of four kings mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.

Here the essence of the Rashi comment was simply to identify the cross reference to other verses.

One of Rashi's 10 major commentary methods is the word meaning method. Here Rashi functions like a dictionary providing meanings of words. Rashi had 10 submethods of word meaning one of which allowed usage of literary methods common to all languages.

The metonomy principle is one such method common to all languages. Metonomy allows naming an item by a related item. For example the statement Israel is defeating Lebanon really means that The people residing in Israel are defeating the people residing in Lebanon. In fact an even more precise statement is that The people residing in Israel are defeating the people belonging to terrorist organizations operating out of Lebanon. Here we have identified location --Israel and people--Israelites. Some purists don't expect metonomy in the Bible because the Bible is Divine and metonomy is vague and ambiguous. But metonomy is a powerful word meaning method that is frequently used.

Common examples of metonomy include
• naming sexual passion and anger heat Gn30-38d
• naming concealing murder covering blood Gn37-26b;
• naming Temple coins holy coins Ex30-13c
• naming a person with numerous assets heavy Gn13-02
• naming the arm the hand Gn24-18a
• naming the nations of the word, one end of heaven to the other end of heaven Dt04-32b
• naming the household, the inhabitants of the house, the house Gn12-17b

The complete discussion of the Rashi interpretation of the last member of the above list, Gn12-17b, will take place in the next rule #3 since Gn12-17b uses both the word meaning and grammar method.

Apposition refers to sentences where certain sentence units are broken up and separated. Such sentences can initially appear confusing. Gn12-17 provides an example.

The literal translation of Gn12-17b is And the Lord plagued Pharaoh with great plagues and his house because of Sarai Abram’s wife.

Rashi elegantly perceives the two underline phrases as being in Apposition. This means that the sentence could be clearer if these two underlined phrases were joined. Hence Rashi translates the verse as follows: And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife. In fact the English Davka translation of the Bible which I am currently using in my weekly Rashi translates the verse exactly as above using Rashi's translation.

Rashi goes one step further: As we have seen above in Rule #2 the location house metonymically refers to the inhabitants of the house,the household. Hence a superior translation of the verse would be: And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his household with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife.

Advanced explanatory comments: We have just explained how to provide clarity to a sentence using apposition. But we have not yet explained why the Bible uses apposition. Why not write the sentence clearly to begin with?

The basic answer is that apposition is one means of providing emphasis. In the above example the Torah wants to emphasize, not that Pharoh and his household were punished, but rather that Pharoh was punished. Pharoh ran things; his household did what he told them. To achieve this emphasis on Pharoh the Bible uses apposition to separate Pharoh from his house. Reading the apposed sentence gives the reader a first impression that it was Pharoh who was punished. The punishment of Pharoh's household is an afterthought.

Note the alignment of the underlined words in the following verses both of which discuss the punishment that befell kings who took Sarah as a wife.
• Verses Gn12-15:19, discussing the taking of Sarah in Egypt, state
  • Attempted Marriage: The princes of Pharaoh also saw her [Sarah], and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken to Pharaoh’s palace. ...
  • Punishment: And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife. ...
  • Pharoh banishes Abraham: And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him [Abraham]; and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.
• Verses Gn20-02:18, discussing the taking of Sarah in Gerar, state
  • Attempted Marriage: And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister; and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. ....
  • Punishment: For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.
  • Avimelech rewards Abraham:And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and women servants, and gave them to Abraham, and returned to him Sarah his wife. And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before you; live where it pleases you.

Note the contrast indicated by the underlined headers
• Pharoh banished Abraham after being punished
• Avimelech rewarded Abraham after being punished

Hence the obvious Rashi comment: Pharoh, King of Egypt, who banished Abraham treated Abraham worse then Avimelech, King of Gerar, who rewarded him. This is consistent with the Biblical description of Egypt as a place of lewdness, witchcraft and licentiousness. We see here in this early Biblical story about Egypt that adultery was something Avimelech felt guilty about but Pharoh did not feel guilty about.

Rashi further cites specific Biblical verses, such as Ezekiel 23, to support his thesis that Egypt was a place of lewdness.

Sermonic comments: Rashi here teaches us an important principle about reward and punishment. Punishment by itself does not guarantee full compliance. True, Pharoh abstained from Abraham's wife, but he then expelled Abraham out of the country. On the other hand Avimelech repented. It is important to live among people who value punishment as something sent by God and who are willing to change.

Notice the contradiction indicated by the underlined words in the following verse:
• Verse Gn11-31 states And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife; and they travelled with them from Ur of the Chaldeans, to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran, and lived there.
• Verse Gn12-02 states And the Lord had said to Abram, travel
  • from your country, and
  • from your family, and
  • from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you;

We see the contradiction: Which is it? Had Abraham already traveled from his homeland to Canaan or was God commanding him now to travel.

Rashi resolves this contradiction using the two-aspects method of resolution:
• God's primary goal was that Abraham should leave idolatry so that he could grow and preach monotheism
• The first step--leaving his idolatrous country--had already been accomplished
• However Abraham still lived with his father who was idolatrous. Hence God renewed the command to travel away from all aspects of his homeland including his family and father.

Sermonic points: The Torah here teaches us modern concepts about self-growth and assertion of individuality: A person who wishes to blaze his own path must completely leave all assocaitions with his past so that he can develop in an environment without hindrances.

Each verse in the Torah can be interpreted either broadly or restrictively. The Torah uses different paragraphs styles to indicate its intention on which mode of interpretation should be used. When the Torah uses a General-Detail or Theme-Development style it requires a restrictive interpretation.

Verse Gn12-01 has a General-Detail style as shown: And the Lord had said to Abram, travel
• General: from your country, and
• Detail: from your family, and
• Detail: from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you;

The Rashi comments indicate that because of the general-detail style the verse is interpreted restrictively. It is not enough to physically leave your country and homeland but you must totally separate from all people related to your homeland including your father.

In summary Rashi uses the general-detail style to indicate that the requirement that Abraham travel from his country,homeland was total---Abraham had to desert his country and everything related to it including his family.

Verse Gn14-07 discussing the war by Abraham to save his nephew, states And they returned, and came to Ein-Mishpat, which is Kadesh, and struck the Fields of Amalek, and also the Amorites, who lived in Hazezon-Tamar.

Rashi astutely observes that the underlined word Amalek refers to a descendant of Abraham's grandson, Esauv, mentioned in Gn36-12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek; these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife. Rashi comments: Verse Gn14-07 refers to the Field of Amalek who wasn't going to be born for several decades. Thus we have here an example of the Torah naming something by a future event.

Such a Rashi appears peculiar. However the peculiarity can be removed by viewing many similar examples where the Torah names something by the future. The inquiry for such a list of examples in the whole Bible is called a database inquiry since database theory discusses how such lists can be created. The table below taken from http://www.Rashiyomi.com/gn07-02a.htm exhibits several cases where the Bible names something by a future event.

=================================================================
VERSE    NAMED/DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE EVENT           FUTURE EVENT
======== =========================================== ============
Gn01-14e MOON designated for holidays                Ex12-02*1
Gn02-03a SABBATH                                     Ex16-23*2
Gn02-14c Rivers surrounded KUSH & ASSHUR             Gn10-07:11*3
Gn10-25a His name was SPLIT because world SPLIT UP   Gn11-01:09*4
Gn14-07a KADESH,Place where people are judged        Nu20-12*5
Ex03-01b MOUNTAIN OF GOD(Mount Sinai)                Ex19-18*6

NOTES
-----
*1 God designated the Moon for holidays even though holidays were
   not proclaimed till Ex12

*2 God calls the 7th day the Sabbath, at creation, even though the double
   manna blessing and the prohibition of work on Sabbath, doesnt happen till Ex16

*3 The rivers surrounded the countries of KUSH and ASSHUR.
   But these countries weren't so named for another 1000 years
   (See Gn10-07:11 where the people founding these countries were
   born)

*4 See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gn10-25a.htm which
   discusses how the grammar of the verses indicates that
   SPLIT was named by what happened at the end of his life*10

*5 Moses and Aaron were judged at this place several 100
   years later. (Rashi cites Oonkelos who suggests that
   it was not necessary to cite the prophecy of future
   judgement since it is reasonable that this was a place
   of courts where people came for judgement cases)

*6 It says that Moses came to the mountain of God even though
   the 10 commandments and the revelation of God on this
   mountain did not happen for several years.

-------------------- LONGER FOOTNOTES ---------------------------

*10 Roughly speaking the text says as follows
    ---------------------------------------------------
    His name was SPLIT because the world was split up(eg Gn11-09)
    But his brother had ALREADY HAD children who lived in the
    EAST (home of the tower of Babel which caused the split up)
    ---------------------------------------------------

    The past perfect(HAD ALREADY HAD) suggests that the
    SPLITTING up happened after the tower of Babel (In other
    words SPLIT was named by what happened at the end of his
    life) See the url cited above for more details.
=================================================================

We use the term spreadsheet method to indicate Rashis that explain algebraic, numerical or diagramatic-geometric relationships.

Verse Gn13-03b,discussing Abraham's travles after he was expelled from Egypt states And Abraham went on his journeys from the South to Beth-El, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth-El and Hai;

Rashi simply clarifies the geography: Beth-El is in Israel while Egypt is South of Israel. Abraham had just been expelled from Egypt. Hence when the verse states that he journeyed from the south to Beth-El it means that he journeyed from Egypt to Beth-El in Israel.

As can be seen Rashi's sole goal was to diagramatically clarify some geography.

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