Verse Ex06-03:04b, discussing God's promise to the Patriarchs to give them Israel states And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name The Lord was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojourning, in which they sojourned. . Rashi confirms this cross-reference by citing verse Gn17-07:08 which discusses God's promise to Abraham to give his descendants Israel And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you, and to your seed after you. And I will give to you, and to your seed after you, the land where you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Sermonic and Advanced Points: Although it is slightly cliche-ish, the Bible reminds us that over and above the suffering and fighting for the land of Israel, our claim to it is also based on a Biblical Prophecy.

Verse Ex07-19b lists three underlined synonyms which refer to bodys of water. Rashi's commentary, which explains the nuanced differences between them, is incorporated into the translation we cite: And the Lord spoke to Moses, Say to Aaron, Take your rod, and stretch out your hand upon the waters of Egypt,
• upon their rivers,
• upon their canals,
• and upon their ponds,
and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in utensils of wood, and in utensils of stone.

Sermonic points: I have not seen a reason, either in Rashi or other commentaries, for this specificity . Perhaps an obvious point is that God punished
• The rivers which represented God's natural blessing to Egypt--the rivers enabled crop growth
• The canals which represented man's blessings and hard work to cultivate crop
• The ponds which represented water sources which could only be used for drinking water.
Perhaps then the point is that God destroyed
• drinking water
• farming irrigation attempts by man
• and field water for crops.

Today we review some well known rules of root conjugation. All lanaguages distinguish between
• the verb form: e.g. he acted stubbornly, vs.
• the adjective form: e.g. he is stubborn.
Very roughly
• The verb form connotes possibly transient activity: e.g. He acts stubbornly now but usually is flexible while
• the adjective form connotes an intrinsic attribute: e.g. He is a stubborn.

Using this distinction we can hear the nuances in the following two verses wherein we have incorporated the Rashi comments in the translation:
• Verse Ex08-11 states But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he acted stubbornly, and listened not to them; as the Lord had said.
• Verse Ex07-14a states And the Lord said to Moses, Pharaoh is stubborn, he refuses to let the people go.

Sermonic points: The sermonic points associated above translations are well known and recited by all Jews at every Passover seder
• At first Pharoh had free will--he therefore had to act stubbornly to refuse letting the Jews go
• But after enough warning God punished Pharoh with the famous hardening of the heart.
From this point onward Pharoh's stubbornness was intrinsice. The Rambam explains that the greatness of the punishment of deprivation of free will since repentance could no longer be achieved.

Todays example illustrates uses three methods: alignment, database, and symbolism. We will refer to this example below. Rashi's basic idea is to align the verses describing the 10 plagues by asking the following four questions:
• Which plague was it?
• What is the sequence number, from 1-10, of this plague?
• Who brought the plague?
• The plague is coming from where or on what?
For example verse Ex07-19a shows that Aaron brought the 1st plague, the plague of blood by waiving his rod over the water: And the Lord spoke to Moses, Say to Aaron, Take your rod, and stretch out your hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in utensils of wood, and in utensils of stone. We will summarize this verse with one record in the table below:
• Aaron Blood Water 1st
The other records in the table can be constructed in a similar manner. Notice that since we are asking properties of half a dozen verses we are basically performing a database query.

--------------------------------------------------
  VERSE    WHO   Which Plague From where  Plague #
-------    ----- ------------ ----------- --------
- Ex07-19a AARON Blood        water       (#-1)
- Ex08-01  AARON Frog         water       (#-2)
- Ex08-12a AARON Lice         dust        (#-3)
-------    ----- ------------ ----------- --------
- Ex09-10  MOSES Boil         heaven      (#-6)
- Ex09-23  MOSES Hail         heaven      (#-7)
- Ex10-12  MOSES Locust       heaven      (#-8)
- Ex10-22  MOSES Darkness     heaven      (#-9)
--------------------------------------------------

The following notes clarify the above table:
• Moses brought plagues that came from heaven.
• Aaron brought plagues that came from water,dust.
• The remaining plagues -#4,5,10- were brought solely by God (I have not seen a commentary explain why plagues #4 and #5 were brought by God and not by Moses and Aaron)
Rashi following the Talmud offers an explanation why Moses could not bring plagues from water and dust:
• Moses' life was saved because his mother placed him, as a 3 month infant, in a reed basket down the waters of the Nile where he was found by the royal palace princess.
• Since Moses was saved by the waters of the Nile it isn't fair that he should cause punishments--such as waters turning into blood -- on these waters
• Similarly since Moses was saved by the reed basket on the dust of the Nile it isn't fair that he should bring punishments on the dust.
• Consequently, Aaron, not Moses, brought the three plagues on the water and dust.

Sermonic points:To fully understand this Rashi we have to employ the symbolism method. The allegorical technique used is personification, the symbolizing of the human sphere by other spheres. In the above example we pretend as if the water and dust had feelings. We then turn around and are sensitive to these feelings--it would be wrong, says Rashi, for Moses to double-cross the waters which saved him by turning them to blood. In effect we are worried that the water's feelings will be hurt and therefore God ordered Aaron, not Moses, to bring the water-related plagues. The symbolic implication, of course, is that if we are sensitive to the feelings of even water, then we should never double-cross our fellow human beings.

This Rashi still appears a little bit stretched. However we can make Rashi palatable by reviewing other Rashi also using the personification technique
• Rashi on verse Ex20-23b states If the Torah prohibited going up the Temple ramp with steps because of uncovering of nakedness and consequent embarassment to the steps how much more so should we be careful not to encover our nakedness before our fellow human beings and be sensitive to their needs for modesty.
• Rashi on Lv20-15 states If the Torah killed an animal which sinned with a person how much more so that people who hurt people will be punished. If the Torah ordered the total destruction of idolatrous trees how much more so does God order the destruction of people who sin and corrupt society;
• Rashi on Nu20-12b states If Moses had listened to God and spoken to the stone to give forth its waters then people would have inferred how even inanimate stones obey God's will; how much more so should people obey God's will.
There are many more such Rashis. In each of them a moral lesson is inferred from the symbolic personification of inanimate (or animal) objects.

One question remains: Certainly The above ideas in Rashi are nice and moving--but are they the simple meaning of the text? Does it appear that the Author intends us to perceive the text as Rashi indicated?

The answer to this question is Yes. We can demonstrate this intention of the text's Author by reviewing the Rashi methods used: By aligning the database of plague verses we infer that there is a deliberate pattern in the choice of Moses and Aaron. To then justify the pattern we have a right to use symbolic personification methods since this is a recurrent Biblical method by which to communicate moral norms. We then brought lists to justify each of these inferences.

The serious student of Rashi should carefully study both lists that we provided above. Such a study will show that while the above Rashis can't be proven they nevertheless have a certain naturality.

Note the contradiction in the following verses.
• Verse Ex09-03 discussing the plague of pestilence which killed the Egyptian animals states Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon your cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep; there shall be a very grievous plague. ;
• Verse Ex09-09 discussing the plague of boils which made the Egyptian animals sick with boils states And it shall become fine dust in all the land of Egypt, and boils shall break out with sores upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt. ;
• Verse Ex09-19 discussing the plague of hail which killed the Egyptian animals states Send therefore now, and gather your cattle, and all that you have in the field; for upon every man and beast which shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die. ;
• Verse Ex14-07 discussing the pursuit by the Egypitan army of the Jews states And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. .

We see the contradiction: If the Egyptian animals were killed in the plague of pestilence then how were there animals left
• to get boils in the plague of boils,
• to die in the plague of hail and
• to pursue the Jews.

Rashi resolves this using the two aspects method of resolution.
• The plague of pestilence killed the animals in the field
• The animals in the house were not killed but received boils in the plague of pestilence, died in the plague of hail if they were not housed and were used to pursue the Jews after they left. This resolution is of course implied by the underlined words in the above Biblical citations which explicitly mentions in the field ...not in the house. Rashi's contribution here is to place literal emphasis on the words--only the field animals died in the plague of pestilence, but not the house animals---thus resolving the contradiction.

Sermonic Points: Rashi mentions the following sermonic point: You see what ingrates the Egyptians were! Initially those who were God fearing had their animals saved and yet when the Jews left they double-crossed God by using the animals he saved to pursue the Jews.

Biblical verses Ex06-10:30 form a Biblical paragraph with a theme-detail-theme structure:
• Theme: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Go, speak to Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the people of Israel go out of his land. And Moses spoke before the Lord, saying, Behold, the people of Israel have not listened to me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?
• Details: And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and gave them a charge to the people of Israel, and to Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt. These are the chiefs of their fathers? houses; The sons of Reuben... And the sons of Simeon; ... And these are the names of the sons of Levi ... ... And Amram took Jochebed his father?s sister to wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses; These are Aaron and Moses, to whom the Lord said, Bring out the people of Israel from the land of Egypt by their hosts. ....
• Theme: And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt, That the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, I am the Lord; speak to Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I say to you. And Moses said before the Lord, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh listen to me?

Rashi simply points out the obvious Theme-detail-Theme structure: Notice how this paragraph opens with Moses protesting I have uncircumcised lips and closes with the identical phrase. The middle part of the paragraph discusses the genealogy of Moses and Aaron. And since Moses was a descendant of Levi the paragraph lists the genealogy of Reuven and Shimon first.

Again: Rashi's sole point is that the verses form a cohesive paragraph which more or less states Moses who didn't want the job of redeemer because of his uncircumcised lips was a descendant of the 3rd of Jacob's sons. Interestingly Rashi suffices with the observation of the paragraph structure and does not further indicate comments on the paragraph.

Sermonic points: Perhaps Moses' genealogical descent from the 3rd of Jacob's sons (vs a descendant of the eldest or the royal Judah) shows how in form, genealogically Moses was a nobody. Similarly his stuttering, his uncircumcised lips shows an unfit form. Nevertheless God chose him. Thus there is a clear message that God choses by ability not by form. This theme is echoed in several other places in the Bible. It blatantly contradicts the view that Biblical Judaism is a class-based religion; rather it is a merit based religion. Such a perspective encourages each Jewish person to strive for their maximum potential since they are judged by merit not form.

We have presented the Rashi symbolic method of personification in method #4 above, alignment. The interested reader should reread that example now.