1. RASHI METHOD: REFERENCES BRIEF EXPLANATION: Commentary on a verse is provided thru a cross-reference to another verse. The cross references can either provide (1a) further details, (1b) confirm citations, or (1c) clarify word meaning. This examples applies to Rashis Dt25-18d URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n4.htm Brief Summary: The statement that 'YOU WERE THIRSTY and exhausted' cross references the DROUGHT mentioned at Ex17-03

Verse Dt25-18 states that the Amalyk attacked the Jews who were thirsty and exhausted Rashi clarifies that this cross reference alludes to Ex17-03, which discusses the drought prior to the Amalayk attack.

Text of Target Verse Dt25-17:18	Text of Reference Verse Ex17-03
Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast drought stricken and weary; and he feared not G-d.	And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said: 'Wherefore hast thou brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?'
Rashi comments: The underlined phrase though was drought stricken in Dt18-01 references the underlined phrase thirsted there for water in Nu18-20

Rashi, and later Rabbi Hirsch, introduced a principle that a prefix Alpeh in a root indicates a personal aspect, a focus on the self. Here are some simple examples
• Kuph-Resh means to dig; Aleph-Kuph-Resh means a farmer; a personal profession of digging.
• Shin-Mem means desolation; Aleph-Shin-Mem means guilt; a desolation of the personality or self.
• Hay-Beth means interaction; Aleph-Hay-Beth means love; a personal interaction - an interaction of the self;
• Caph-Lamed means to consume; Aleph-Caph-Lamed means to eat; a consumption for the self;
• Zayin-Nun means weapons; Aleph-Zayin-Nun means personal-weapons; for example, a weapon belt worn in war.

Verse Dt23-15b discussing the prohibition of having bathroom remains exposed in the army camp states For HaShem thy G-d
• walketh in the midst of thy camp,
• to deliver thee, and
• to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that
• He see no unseemly thing in thee, and
• turn away from thee.

Rashi's comment is remarkably simple: The subject of each of the sentences in the verse is God (i.e. God walketh in thy midst; God delivereth thee; God should not see anything unseemly for then God would turn back from thee).

Advanced Rashi: Rashi's comment is almost obvious. To gain some insight into why he made the comment we should note the shift of subject in the middle of the verse: Thy camp shall be holy. It would be natural to follow such a phrase as follows: Thy camp shall be hold and no unseemly thing should be seen in your camp. In other words it would be natural to use the passive should be seen. Rashi therefore alerts us that the active is used and God is still the subject: He shall not see anything unseemly and then He will turn back from you.

In general I have advanced the idea that Rashi was primarily not a commentator but rather a Masorite whose job was to preserve the Biblical text. Anytime a reasonable alternative existed to the actual Biblical text the Masorites alerted readers to the actual Biblical text. Rashi's greatness was that he used Midrash to perform this mundane task of Masoritism.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verselets in Dt24-08. Both verselets discuss the obligation to watch leprosy when it breaks out The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that There are two separate requirements of watching.
• One must watch the consequences of the Leprosy laws - such as, being shut-in, sacrifices, etc.
• One must watch the leprosy itself: that is, one is prohibited from surgically removing it.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Dt24-08	Watch the plague of leprosy,	Watch the leprosy plague itself - it is prohibited to surgically remove it
Dt24-08	In order that you should watch and do	Watch/do the consequences of Leprosy: a) stay shut-in when you should be shut-in; b) bring sacrifices when you must be purified.

The table below presents presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about a person double crossed on monetary payment The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says the aggrieved will pray against his employer while the other verse states the aggrieved may pray against his employer Which is it? Is he suppose to pray against the employer or is it up to him?

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
Don't antagonize the worker lest he pray against the employer	Dt24-14:15b	You shall not withold wages a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is of your brothers, or of your strangers who are in your land inside your gates; At his day you shall give him his hire, nor shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and he sets his heart upon it; lest he cry to the Lord against you and it should be sin to you.
He will pray against the employer	Dt15-09a	Beware that there be not a thought in your wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of monetary-release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your poor brother, and you loan him nothing; for he will cry to the Lord against you, and it will be a sin to you.
Resolution:	Broad-literal	The worker has the option of a) He will pray to God and is promised that he will be answered or b) He may pray or not pray. In other words he has permission to pray if he wants and is promised that he will be answered if the does.

Sermonic Points: The sermonic points on this Rashi are obvious. Divine punishment in this world for abuse of workers is a fundamental Biblical principle and should be emphasized more.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a example form. In other words an example of a law is stated rather than the full general rule. The reader's task is to generalize the example. The idea that all Biblical laws should be perceived as examples (unless otherwise indicated) is explicitly stated by Rashi (Pesachim 6.). This is a rule of style since the rule requires that a text be perceived as an example rather than interpreted literally. The Rabbi Ishmael style rules govern the interpretation of style.

Verse Dt24-10:13 states When thou dost lend thy neighbour any manner of loan, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. Thou shalt stand without, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring forth the pledge without unto thee. And if he be a poor man, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge; thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless thee; and it shall be righteousness unto thee before HaShem thy G-d. Rashi interprets the underlined phrase thou shalt not sleep with his pledge; as a typical example. The Torah states a) Don't sleep in his pledge but b) return it to him so he can sleep in it. Hence there is also a prohibition of simply keeping the pledge in your house even if you don't sleep in it since you have deprived the lender of the right to sleep in his pledge. In other words: Rashi perceives the underlined phrase thou shalt not sleep with his pledge; as a good typical example of witholding the pledge from the lender. Rashi concludes that all witholdings of a pledge are Biblically prohibited.

We ask the following database query: How many commandments mention a reward of long life for performing them. The reader is encouraged to perform the query using a standard Biblical Konnkordance or search engine. This database query yields the list below. The list justifies the following Rashi inference: 7 commandments mention the reward of a long life. These commandments cover the entire spectrum of commandments
• Thus there are easy commandments (like letting the mother bird escape when capturing its young),
• commandments whose violation is disgusting (like eating blood),
• communal commandments (like have good justice), etc.
Because these commandments cover the entire spectrum therefore we infer that all commandments if observed will provide a reward of long life. The list below presents the results of the database query.

Notice how the commandments above span the entire spectrum
• General commandments
• Easy commandments
• Commandments that would be done anyway
• Communal commandments
• Commandments peculiar to Royal house
• Commandments without action
Hence the Rashi comment: Observance of any commandment leads to reward. We infer this using the Style rule of generalization from several verses.

When Rashi explains a complicated algebraic computation we say that Rashi is using the spreadsheet method. Spreadsheet Rashis have a more complicated flavor than other Rashis because of their algebraic technical nature.

Verse Dt21-17a lays down the requirements for promogeniture: But he shall acknowledge the firstborn son of ...., by giving him a double portion of all that he has; ... Rashi explains: For example if a person's estate has $1,000,000 and he has 3 children then we do as follows: We create a fictitious son so that the person now has 4 children, the 3 actual ones and the fictitious one. Each son inherits one fourth of the estate $250,000. The eldest son inherits both his share of $250,000 and the $250,000 of the fictitious son. Consequently the first born inherits $500,000 while the other 2 actual children inherit $250,000 each. It follows that the aggregate share of the firstborn, $500,000, is twice the $250,000 inherited by each non firstborn.

I have augmented Rashi's explanation with the examples used by the Rambam in Chapter 2 of Inheritances. The reader may wonder why the Rambam made obscure so simple a law. Why not simply let the variable x denote the unknown amount inherited by the non first born son. We see that each real son inherits x while the firstborn inherits 2x. Thus the firstborn inherits twice the amount of each non firstborn. Furthermore the sum of all the inheritances must exhaust the estate giving rise to the equation x + x + 2x = $1,000,000 which easily solves for x = $250,000 and 2x = $500,000.

The above algebraic approach is simpler for the general case. However Rambam gives a complicated example of a 3 child family where one of the non first born sons had an unnatural birth and is not counted for the share of the firstborn son, but does inherit. The interested reader can look up the Rambam's example in his great code.

We also brought the two approaches to illustrate how spreadsheet Rashis can be approached in a variety of manners.