Gn31-41a, presenting Jacob's complaints against his employer, Laban, states Thus have I been twenty years in your house; I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your cattle; and you have changed my wages ten times. Rashi provides further details to the underlined words you have changed my wages 10 times by cross referencing an other verse

Sermonic points: Here, our Patriarch Jacob teaches us the how of faith with a bad employer. One must have faith in God that any bad deals the Jew is forced into God will undo. Furthermore God communicates to people in dreams providing emotional support and necessary psychological strengthening and guidance.

One of Rashi's 10 major methods is the word meaning method. One word meaning sub-method is the metonomy sub-method. All languages have means by which words obtain new meanings. Some popular word meaning methods, common to all languages, are
• metonomy-naming by something related: e.g. America defeated Iraq really means the American people defeated the Iraqui people.
• Synechdoche-naming a whole by a part: e.g. give me your hand in marriage (But of course the whole person enters the marriage)
• Synechdoche-naming by a good example of a class: e.g. the word honey refers to anything sweet
• naming by Form - e.g. the Pentagon
• naming by Function- e.g. the United Nations
• naming by Feel-e.g. hardship
• naming by exaggeration-e.g. Break-fast, sky-scraper

In todays Parshah we have the following example of Rashi explaining word meaning using literary techniques:
• Gn31-26a states And Laban said to Jacob, What have you done, that you have stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword? Rashi explains: The underlined phrase sword-captives really means war-captives.

Rashi's explanation is similar to the etymology of the word Bath-room. Not all bathrooms have baths! But a good example (Synechdoche) of a bathroom is a room with a bath as well as toilet facilities. Similarly a good example of war-captives are sword-captives. However the swords are not necessary!

Sermonic points: Some people think they are with it if they interpret the Bible literally and restrictively. As can be seen from the simple examples of bathroom and sword-captives this is not a proper approach. It is intrinsic to language to use approximations and metaphors. A simple word like bathroom proves this. Consequently when the serious student studies the Bible they must blend both literary and analytic techniques. The Talmud also follows this approach.

Everyone is familiar with the rules of root conjugation presented by Hebrew grammar. For example the root Shin-Mem-Resh means to watch. But
• Shin-Mem-Resh-Tauv-Yud means I had watched, while
• Yud-Shin-Mem-Resh means He will watch.
Here the conjugation rules determine tense (future-past) and person (I vs he).

Today Rashi presents a non-standard conjugation rule--a Biblical root can change meaning based on the object used with the verb. For example, the root Gimel-Nun-Beth means to steal:
• When used with an inanimate object Gimel-Nun-Beth means to steal as in Gn31-19 which states And Laban went to shear his sheep; and Rachel stole her father?s idols
• When used with the object, heart (to steal someone's heart) Gimel-Nun-Beth means to deceive as in Gn31-20 which states And Jacob deceived Laban the Aramean, in that he did not tell him that he fled.
• When used with a person object (e.g. stole so and so) Gimel-Nun-Beth can mean either to deceive or to kidnap as in
  • Gn31-27 which states Why did you flee away steathily, and deceive me; and did not tell me, that I might have sent you away with mirth, and with songs, with tambourine, and with harp?
  • Ex21-16 which states And he who kidnaps a man, and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Sermonic Points: We all know that Laban was a cruel person; he withheld Jacob's wife from him on his wedding night and continuously changed his wages. But God doesn't punish him while in pursuit of Jacob; rather God simply warns him not to threaten or do favors to Jacob. Why?

Jacob had one minor sin; he had a right to flee Laban but shouldn't have deceived him. Laban had a right to know why Jacob was leaving. Paradoxically God protected this right of Laban by not punishing him and allowing him to overtake Jacob. We see here the importance of the ethical norm of non-deceipt.

We also see an irony here! 20 years earlier Laban deceived Jacob by switching wives on him on his wedding night. Now twenty years later Laban yells at Jacob why did you deceive me not realizing that Jacob's behavior is a mirror image of his own behavior.

Note the alignment of the underlined words in the following verses
• Verse Gn31-17 discussing the travels of Jacob states Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;
• Verse Gn36-06 discussing the travels of Esauv states and Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his wealth, which he had got in the land of Canaan; and went to another country, away from his brother Jacob.

Rashi comments: The order is reversed:
• By Jacob the men(sons) precede the women
• By Esauv the women(wives) precede the men

Sermonic point: Rashi does not further explain why this different order occurs. However we can explain the difference using the concept of gender-role-models. As children grow up it is important that they witness many examples of gender-role-models. A lack of proper role models can be one contributing factor of marital problems. Here Jacob teaches that males must lead while Esauv ignores this gender role model. It is not surprising that Esauv is known for his violence a trait associated with poor marriages.

The reason for the gender role model, males lead is because of the physiological difference between the genders--the responses of one gender may be involuntarily induced while the responses of the other gender are based on performance. Hence it is preferable to give the lead to the gender which must perform.

Rabbi Friedman in his best selling book Doesn't anyone blush Anymore makes the point that the 20th century is the first period in which confusion on gender identity has created so many poor relations. This point of Rabbi Friedman is echoed in the above and similar Rashis which emphasize the importance of creating appropriate gender role models.

Note the theme-detail-theme structure of the following Biblical paragraph, Gn25-31:34 which states And Jacob said, Sell me this day your birthright.
• Theme: And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point of death; and what profit shall this birthright do to me?
• Detail: And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he swore to him; and he sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink,
• Theme: and rose up, and went his way; thus Esau despised his birthright.

We have explained the Theme-detail-Theme style in our article Biblical Formatting which will appear in the Jewish Bible Quarterly in Dec 2006. The Theme-detail-Theme style creates a paragraph structure and consequently all items in the detail section of the paragraph more broadly reflect the theme section.

Hence the Rashis on the above paragraph: The Firstborn originally functioned as priests; shortly after the receipt of the Torah the priests took over their function. But the priesthood requires abstention and abstention was contrary to Esauv's life of eating, and drinking. Thus Esauv's current life contradicted the life required for the Priesthood/FirstBorn. So Esauv acknowledged that he didn't really want the priesthood.

To emphasize how the style rule is used we consider the interpretation of the detail section with and without the paragraph rule:
• Without the paragraph rule the verse is simply stating that Jacob fed Esauv and Esauv ate and drank.
• However with the paragraph rule the verse is stating that Esauv's eating and drinking is a detail and example of his not wanting the priesthood and firstbornship. The eating and drinking contradict the priesthood lifestyle which requires abstention.

Sermonic Points: Rashi teaches us basic politics. Jacob could have said: Look the Priesthood will be given to me and not to you; why don't you just cooperate and willfully give it to me; that way it looks better for you. This is an argument based on power and authority. Instead the Bible approaches this as an argument based on lifestyle. Jacob's lifestyle belonged with the Priesthood; Esauv's lifestyle did not. It is always best to approach appointments based on merit instead of authority.

A modern author who wishes to indicate special emphasis to each item in a list uses bullets to indicate this emphasis. By bulleting the reader is asked to dwell for a moment on each list item and listen to its nuances. In my article Biblical Formatting to appear in the Jewish Bible Quarterly I have explained that when the Biblical Author wishes to indicate special emphasis on each member of a list, repeated keywords are used. The repeated keywords should be interpreted as the equivalent of a bulleted format. The following example illustrates this.

Verse Gn27-25a, discussing the request by Isaac, of his son Esauv, to bring prepared food to him, so that he may bless him, states And Rebekah heard when Isaac spoke to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field
• to hunt a hunt, and
• to bring it.
The repeated underlined keyword to creates a bullet like effect as shown in the above formatting. The bullet like effect creates a special emphasis on each item in the bulleted list---hunt,bring. Rashi will now explain the specifics of the special emphasis.

Rashi explains that Isaac wanted Esauv to hunt for food and then he would give Esauv a blessing. Esauv went out to hunt. But even an experienced hunter like Esauv sometimes returns empty handed. Esauv wanted his father's blessings---if he couldn't find a hunt he would bring the food, by buying or stealing. Hence Rashi explains the bulleted list, hunt,bring as referring to hunting, buying-stealing. In making this explanation Rashi is not commenting on the extra words hunt,bring but rather Rashi is commenting on the bulleted list which contains a contrastive emphasis: hunt, buy-steal .

Advanced Rashi: Rashi's literal comment is ...By hunt and if not by bringing in by theft. We however have explained above more broadly that Bring means buy-steal. Our explanation is based soley on the bulleted structure---the complement of hunt is buying-stealing.

However Rashi was commenting from two sources: The bullet source emphasizes something other than hunting which could refer to buying-stealing. However a knowledge of Esauv's personality as indicated in Gn25-27 a skilful hunter, a man of the field suggests that Esauv preferred a good battle--theft--to a tranquil commercial act. In other words Rashi's comments emanate from two sources: the bullets and Esauv's personality.

The above analysis seems to me the proper way to approach this Rashi. We first see Rashi as commenting on the bullets which indicates hunting,buying,stealing. We then see Rashi as commenting on Esauv's personality: the man of hunting and fields.

Sermonic points: Rashi illustrates for us the classical religious hypocrisy: Blessings were important for Esauv; but he didn't mind stealing to obtain them. Such bifurcated hypocritical values---pursue the religious but ignore the ethical, happen from time to time in all religious communities. It is important for people making requests, such as Isaac, to properly word them so that at least the preference for ethical behavior is indicated.

The weekly Torah reading of Toledoth starts out with a statement of genealogy. Many Torah portions start out with a statement of genealogy and dive immediately into the genealogy statement. Some portions however have interruptions of the statement of genealogy. Rashi treats any such interruption as material related to the people involved.

First we present some examples of ordinary, no-interruption genealogy.
• Gn10-01:02, Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and to them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
• Gn11-10, These are the generations of Shem; Shem was a hundred years old, and fathered Arphaxad two years after the flood;
• Gn25-12:13, Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham?s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah?s maidservant, bore to Abraham; And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations; the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,

Next we present examples of genealogy with interruption. Each underlined interruption is accompanied by the Rashi text interpreting the interruption as related to the people spoken about.
• Nu03-01 These are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day that the Lord spoke with Moses in Mount Sinai. And these are the names of the sons of Aaron; Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. Rashi: The genealogy only lists Aaron's children. However Moses is mentioned because he taught them the Torah of God that was given on the day that the Lord spoke with Moses in Mount Sinai. From this we infer that the teacher of a child is considered like a father who gave birth to them.
• Gn06-09:10 These are the generations of Noah; Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah fathered three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Rashi: A person's first child is himself. A person must raise himself the same way he raises his children. We infer this from the above text that declares a listing of the generations of Noah and then continues not with Noah's children but with a description of Noah himself Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations,
• Gn25-19 And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham?s son; Abraham fathered Isaac; .... ... ... Esau. ... Jacob.... Rashi: The repetition that Abraham fathered Isaac emphasizes that Abraham was the true father. The alternate view, that Sarah became pregnant from the various kings that abducted her, is refuted and rejected by the repeated emphasis inside the genealogy chapter that Abraham was the father.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi goes further: Isaac resembled Abraham; this proved that Abraham was the real father. Rashi does not derive this from the text. All Rashi derives from the text is an emphasis that Abraham is the real father. However Rashi then uses the spreadsheet method to give a reasonable,plausible explanation of why people would suspect that Abraham was not the father and how people knew that Abraham was the real father. Rashi mentions all the abductions that Sarah went through as a reason why people would suspect that Abraham was not the real father. Rashi also mentions the face-resemblance of Isaac and Abraham as a reasonable method that would prove that Abraham is the real father.

We believe the above approach, separating the Rashi inferences into those derived from the text and those derived from logic greatly enhances the plausibility of the Rashi.

When Rashi gathers a collection of verses and makes inferences from numerical computations we say Rashi uses the Spreadsheet method. The Table below shows it reasonable that Rivkah was 15 years old when she married Isaac. After reviewing the table we will explain its rows line by line.

================== LIST690b ==========================
List of verses on Rivkahs age when she married Isaac
======================================================
ID VERSE    Isaac Rivkah Event at that age of Isaac
== ======== ===== ====== =============================
A  Gn17-17  0            Sarah is 90 when Isaac born  
   ------   ----  -----  -----------------------------
B1 Gn22-01  25-30 0-5    Isaacs age at time of Akaydah 
B2 Gn22-20a 25-30 0-5    Bethuayl had been born
B3 Gn22-23a 25-30 0-5    Rivkah had already been born
   ------   ----  -----  -----------------------------
C  Gn23-01  37    12     Sarah 127 at time of death   
D  Gn25-20a 40    15     Isaac Marries Rivkah  
E  Gn25-26d 60    35     Pray for children;Twin births
======================================================

We now explain each row.
• Row A cites verse Gn17-17 that Sarah was 90 when Isaac was born.
• Rows B1-B3 mention 2 events that happened more or less at the same time between the birth of Isaac and the death of Sarah.
  • The Akaydah, the offering of Isaac
  • Rivkah had already been born to Bethuayl
  No verse indicates the age of Isaac and Rivkah at the time of the Akaydah. We are free to guess. In the table above we assume Isaac was 30 and Rivkah was 5. An alternate computation is presented below.
• Row C cites verse Gn23-01 that Sarah was 127 when she died. Using spreadsheet methods we infer that Isaac was 37 at the time of Sarah's death since Sarah was 90 when Isaac was born. We also can infer that Rivkah was 12 at the time of Sarah's death (using the Isaac=30 and Rivkah=5 assumption)
• Row D cites verse Gn25-20 which states that
  • Isaac was 40 when he married.
  • We know he was 37 when his mother died.
  • We conclude that he married 3 years after his mother's death
  • Hence Rivkah married 3 years after Sarah's death and was 15 according to our assumptions that Isaac was 30 and Rivkah was 5 at the time of the Akaydah.
• Row E cites verse Gn25-26 which states that Isaac was 60 when he had his 2 children. Since he was 40 when he got married we infer that 20 years had elapsed. It follows that Rivkah was 35.

An alternate spreadsheet is presented below. Here we assume that Isaac was 37 at the time of the Akaydah and Sarah died immediately from the shock of hearing that her son was offered. We also assume that Rivkah had just reached adulthood and was 12.

================== LIST690b ==========================
List of verses on Rivkahs age when she married Isaac
======================================================
ID VERSE    Isaac Rivkah Event at that age of Isaac
== ======== ===== ====== =============================
A  Gn17-17  0            Sarah is 90 when Isaac born  
   ------   ----  -----  -----------------------------
B1 Gn22-01  37    12     Isaacs age at time of Akaydah  
B3 Gn22-23a 37    12     Rivkah had already been born
   ------   ----  -----  -----------------------------
C  Gn23-01  37    12     Sarah 127 at time of death   
D  Gn25-20a 40    15     Isaac Marries Rivkah  
E  Gn25-26d 60    35     Pray for children;Twin births
======================================================

Advanced Rashi: There are many more spreadsheet computations possible. The reader is free to assume that Isaac was any age between 0 and 37 at the time of the Akaydah and is free to assume any age for Rivkah. By playing with the spreadsheet the serious reader will learn to distinguish between what is textually given and what is inferred.

Rashi literally says Isaac did not marry Rivkah immediately but waited until she was ready for intimacy 3 years. Some interpret the underlined passage literally. There is a Talmudic dictum that relations with a female child under 3 is not considered a male-female relationship. Hence Isaac married Rivkah at 3 and did not consumate the marriage till she was 12.

But I suggest that waited until she was ready for intimacy 3 years means waited 3 years after puberty. In other words at puberty she is first ready for intimacy and he waited 3 years during which she is ready of intimacy. The purpose of the 3 year wait was to allow Rivkah experience in contacts with men. According to this, Rivkah married at 15.

We now explore another nicety in Rashi interpretation. Rashi on Gn25-26d states Rivkah married at 3; Isaac waited 10 years till she was capable of birth at 13; he then waited 10 years for children since under Jewish law if a couple does not have children in 10 years they must get divorced and try with others. The Rashi commentators insert the reference to the Talmud, Tractate YeVaMoth 64a

There are several problems with this Rashi. First, Rivkah was capable of birth at 12, not 13. So there is an extra year not accounted for.

More serious is the fact that the Talmud which Rashi is alleged to cite does not say any of this. On the contrary the Talmud states that both Isaac and Rivkah were barren and hence the 10 year rule did not apply (They needn't get divorced).

Since Rashi contradicts the Talmud I would prefer to amend Rashi to be consistent with the Talmud. I would explain There is a 20 year gap between the marriage at age 40 and the birth of twins at age 60. Since both Isaac and Rivkah were barren I would say that Isaac prayed for 10 years and was cured of his barrenness. Rivkah then prayed 10 years and was cured of her barrenness.

Sermonic points: I would particularly focus on the Rashi comment He waited for her until she was capable of relations for 3 years which we have interpreted to mean that he waited 3 years of puberty to age 15. This is a statement about marriage suitability. Judaism does not allow serious relations, full or partial intimacy,prior to marriage. However men and women should have sufficient verbal contact with members of the opposite gender so as to be able to function and be aware of what is normal and what is not normal.