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 Lv13-43a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n14.htm Brief Summary: LIKE THE APPEARANCE OF SKIN LEPROSY (Lv13-43) refers to the symptoms of skin leprosy mentioned in Lv13-02

Verse Lv13-43a discussing the appearance of certain head leprosies states Then the priest shall look upon it; and, behold, if the swelling of the sore is white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the appearance of skin leprosy Rashi clarifies the underlined word as the appearance of skin leprosy by referencing verse Lv13-02 which states When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a swelling, a scab, or bright spot, and it is on the skin of his flesh like the disease of leprosy; then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his sons the priests; Hence the Rashi comment: The reference to appearance like skin leprosy in Lv13-43a refers to the skin leprosy symptoms mentioned in the chapter on skin leprosy beginning with Lv13-02.

Text of Target verse Lv13-43a	Text of Reference Verse Lv13-02
Then the priest shall look upon it; and, behold, if the swelling of the sore is white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the appearance of skin leprosy	When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a swelling, a scab, or bright spot, and it is on the skin of his flesh like the disease of leprosy; then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his sons the priests
Rashi comments: The reference to appearance like skin leprosy in Lv13-43a refers to the skin leprosy symptoms mentioned in the chapter on skin leprosy beginning with Lv13-02.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi can be better appreciated by examining competing references.
• Verse Lv13-02 begins the chapter on skin leprosy
• Verse Lv13-08 begins the chapters on burn leprosy
• Verse Lv13-29 begins the chapter on non-bald-head leprosy
Each of these leprosies - skin, burn, head - has different examination periods and different leprosy signs. Hence the more detailed Rashi comment on verse Lv13-43a: Skin leprosy has a) 4 shades of white and b) a waiting period of 2 weeks before declaring a final status as a definite lepor. By contrast burn leprosy has a 1 week waiting period while b) non-bald-head leprosy does not have 4 shades that initiate the investigation. This alternate approach to Rashi uses the database method and will be revisited in rule #8 below.

When Rashi uses the synonym method he does not explain the meaning of a word but rather the distinction between two similar words both of whose meanings we already know.

Today Rashi examines two Hebrew words which can both refer to immersion in water:
• Tet-Beth-Lamed literally means to immerse,
• Kuph-Beth-Samech can mean to immerse and can also refer to cleansing by immersion.

We cite two verses where the nuances of cleaning overshadow the nuance of immersion:
• Verse Gn49-11 states Binding his foal to the vine, and his ass?s colt to the choice vine; he cleans his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes;
• Verse Lv15-16 states And if any man?s semen goes out from him, then he shall immerse all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the evening.
Clearly in the first verse the emphasis is on cleaning by immersion. In the second verse, while the word clearly should mean immersion - dipping in a Mikveh body of water - I think there are some nuances that any remaining debris should be cleansed. In fact Jewish law requires showering prior to going to Mivkeh for immersion to remove items clinging to ones body which might prevent full immersion in water. This requirement is hinted at in the use of the word Kuph-Beth-Samech which while meaning immersion also means to clean.

We can invoke another literary rule, FFF, to explain how the word for washing comes to mean to immerse. The FFF rule states that words can be named by Form, Feel and Function. For example the Pentagon is named by its form while the United Nations is named by its function. Similarly hardship is named by its feeling. Applying the triple FFF principle we find that the word for washing can refer to the form of the washing, which is a simple immersion.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi on this verse shows advanced methods. Rashi skillfully takes the Aramaic translation of the word Kuph-Beth-Samech and shows how in some verses the aramaic translation renders this word as immerse while in other verses the aramaic translation renders this word as clean. We however, have chosen a different route. We examined actual verses to show how the two nuances - cleaning and immersion - can blend with each other.

Most people are aware that Hebrew verbs come from three-letter roots. Each root is conjugated in the 7 dimensions of person, gender,plurality, tense, activity, modality, and direct-object. For example the root Shin Mem Resh means to watch. The conjugations Shin-Mem-Resh-Tauv-Yud and Nun-Shin-Mem-Resh-Nun-Vav mean I watched and we were watched respectively.

The rules for Hebrew grammar are carefully described in many modern books and are well known. Rashi will sometimes comment when a verse is using a rare conjugation of an odd grammatical form.

When presenting grammatical Rashis my favorite reference is the appendix in volume 5 of the Ibn Shoshan dictionary. This very short appendix lists most conjugations.

Verse Lv13-55a states And the priest shall look, after that the afflicted spot is washed; and, behold, if the plague have not changed its colour, and the plague be not spread, it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether the bareness be within or without. The underlined phrase corresponds to the translation of the Hebrew word Hoo-Ka-BaYS which Rashi identifies as the passive infinitive mode of the root Kuph-Beth-Samech. This conjugation is extremely rare. Modern grammarians consider this to be an abnormal reflexive or passive causative. Rashi's approach - the passive infinitive - is at least as defensible as the positions of modern scholars. Furthermore Rashi's classification as passive infinitive is fully consistent with all English translations. It is therefore the grammatical form that is most consistent with the data.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verselets in Lv12-04d Both verselets discuss the prohibition of a woman who had just given birth from dealing with holy objects The alignment justifies the Rashi assertions that Coming to holy grounds is prohibited to a woman who gave birth; touching (e.g. Eating) holy objects is prohibited to a woman who gave birth.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Lv12-04	And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying for thirty three days; she shall touch no consecrated thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.	There are two prohibitions: She can't come to holy grounds She can't touch (e.g. by eating) holy objects
Lv12-04	And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying for thirty three days; she shall touch no consecrated thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.	There are two prohibitions: She can't come to holy grounds She can't touch (e.g. by eating) holy objects

Advanced Rashi: We have interpolated the aligned text with an example: Both coming and touching, e.g. by eating are prohibited. This interpolation is not explicitly mentioned in Rashi. However Rashi explicitly refers to to the Tractate Yevamoth where this is mentioned.

The table below presents presents two contradictory sets of verses. Both verse sets talk about washing leprous garments. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse set says wash that which has the afflicted spot while the other verse says after washing the afflicted spot. Which is it? Do you only wash the leprous afflicted spot itself; or do you wash that which has the afflicted spot implying more of the garment? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 aspects method:
• You certainly wash the leprous afflicted spot itself.
• You also wash the immediately surrounding parts of the leprous afflicted spot.
• But you don't wash the entire garment.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
You wash more than the afflicted spot	Lv13-54b	Then the priest shall command them to wash that which has the afflicted spot, and he shall shut it up seven days more;
Only, or mainly, wash the afflicted spot.	Lv13-55	And the priest shall look on the ... afflicted spot, after it was washed ...;
Resolution:	2 Aspects:	You certainly wash the leprous afflicted spot itself, because it says after washing the afflicted spot, You also wash the immediately surrounding parts of the leprous afflicted spot, because it says wash...that which has the afflicted spot implying more than the affliction itself But you don't wash the entire garment, because it says wash the afflicted spot.

Advanced Rashi: Here is another way to view this Rashi: Two verses state wash the afflicted spot and wash that which has the afflicted spot. The verse wash the afflicted spot implies only the afflicted spot. The verse wash that which has the afflicted spot implies washing more than the afflicted spot. The two verses together are harmonized by washing the afflicted spot and its immediately surrounding parts but not more.

Sometimes a contrastive paragraph structure will prevent literal interpretations of words. This simple observation was made by the great 19th century commentary Malbim. We apply it to verses Lv13-04:05
• If the bright spot is white in the skin of his flesh, and it looks not deeper than the skin, and the hair on it has not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him who has the disease for seven days;
• And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the disease appears to have stayed in place, and the disease has not spread over the skin; then the priest shall shut him up seven days more;

A typical Malbim type comment which fully explains the Rashi is as follows: The contrast of the underlined phrases: shut him up 7 days vs. see him on the 7th day implies that shut him up need not be taken literally but rather contrastively: The priest who initially examined him now and who is instructed to examine him in 7 days is prohibited from examining him till then. That is, the phrase shut him up 7 days, because of the contrast, means, don't see him again till day 7.

Advanced Rashi: The astute reader might point out that there is an obligation of shutting up the lepor. In fact there is an explicit Biblical verse, Lv13-46 which says All the days when the disease shall be in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall his habitation be.

I believe the proper persepctive is as follows: The obligation to shut up a leper is derived from the explicit verse, Lv13-46; not from Lv13-04. The contrastive phrases in Lv13-04:05 - shut him up 7 vs. see him on the 7th only requires that the priest not reexamine him till the end of the 7 day period. This is in fact the normal way to interpret contrastive verses. By coincidence the literal meaning of the phrase used, shut him up, corresponds to the explicitly indicated Biblical obligation mentioned in Lv13-46. However the verses Lv13-04:05 by themselves, and without other verses, would only require that the priest not reexamine the person for 7 days.They would not require, by themselves, a literal shutting in of the lepor.

We ask the following database query: What types of leprosy are there; a) how many weeks do we wait before declaring a final lepor status; b) how many shades justify an initial declaration with a subsequent wait. 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-Midrashic inference:
• Skin leprosy requires 2 weeks of waiting and is initiated thru 4 shades of white
• Burn leprosy requires 1 week of waiting and is initiated thru 4 shades
• (Non bald) Head leprosy requires 2 weeks of waiting and is initiated thru a 1 shade of baldness
The list below presents the results of the database query.

Notes to the table:
• *1: Certain symptoms cause an initial declaration of leprosy. For example if a person has a snow-white patch of adequate size on his skin he receives an initial declaration. The initial declaration causes the person to be shut up for a waiting period. At the end of the waiting period the person is declared pure or final.
• *2: Just as there are signs for an initial declaration so too there are signs for a final declaration. For example if the initial snow-white patch enlarged after the waiting period the person enters a final lepor status. The final lepor status differs from the initial lepor status in that a sacrificial procedure is needed to purify him or her.
• *3: There are two types of head leprosy; those for a completely bald head and those for a head with hair. If the head has hair then a bald spot of adequate size creates an initial declaration.

We now return to the Rashi on Lv13-43a: The verse speaks about leprosy on a completely bald head. It speaks about an appearance like the appearance of skin leprosy. Rashi using the above table states: In other words the initial declaration is accomplished thru 4 shades of white and the waiting period is 2 weeks. Here Rashi used the criteria for skin leprosy and bypassed the criteria for other types of leprosy since the verse explicitly required a resemblance to skin leprosy.