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 Gn32-06a Gn32-06d URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w34n22.htm; Brief Summary: To appease Esauv, Jacob sent him OXEN and DONKEYS which were items not in Isaacs blessings (He was accused of stealing Isaac's blessings)

Verse(s) Gn32-04:06 discussing the gifts Jacob sent to appease Esauv states And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother to the land of Seir, the country of Edom. And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall you speak to my lord Esau; Your servant Jacob said thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now; And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and women servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favor in your sight. Rashi clarifies the underlined words oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and women servants...I have sent... that I may find favor in your sight. by referencing verse(s) Gn27-28:29 which states Therefore God give you of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine; Let people serve you, and nations bow down to you; be lord over your brothers, and let your mother’s sons bow down to you; cursed be every one who curses you, and blessed be he who blesses you. Hence the Rashi comment: Esauv was angry because Jacob stole the blessings from Isaac (Gn27-41). Jacob therefore sent him gifts showing his assets had nothing to do with Isaac's blessings. Isaac promised him dew of heaven,... fat of earth...lord over your brothers... while Jacob had oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and women servants which were none of these. Hence what Jacob had did not come from the blessings and therefore his brother Esauv had no cause for anger.

Text of Target verse Gn32-04:06	Text of Reference Verse Gn27-28:29
And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother to the land of Seir, the country of Edom. And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall you speak to my lord Esau; Your servant Jacob said thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now; And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and women servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favor in your sight.	Therefore God give you of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine; Let people serve you, and nations bow down to you; be lord over your brothers, and let your mother’s sons bow down to you; cursed be every one who curses you, and blessed be he who blesses you.
Rashi comments: Esauv was angry because Jacob stole the blessings from Isaac (Gn27-41). Jacob therefore sent him gifts showing his assets had nothing to do with Isaac's blessings. Isaac promised him dew of heaven,... fat of earth...lord over your brothers... while Jacob had oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and women servants which were none of these. Hence what Jacob had did not come from the blessings and therefore his brother Esauv had no cause for anger.

Advanced Rashi: Interestingly Rashi does not comment on Jacob's statement that he possesses servants. However we have extended Rashi's idea of comparing Isaac's blessing with Jacob's gifts to the comparison of Isaac's blessing of master over your brother to the verse citation of having servants. This too shows that Esauv had no cause for anger - Jacob did not need to rule over Esauv since he had his own servants.

Rashi frequently explained 4 and 5 letter roots by breaking them up in two 2-letter roots. For example the Hebrew root Mamzer, Mem-Mem-Zayin-Resh which means illegitimate reflects the etymology of Moom Zare, Mem-Mem Zayin-Resh which means blemished by a stranger. Todays example also illustrates this principle.

One of Esauv's descendents is called MagDeeAyl, Mem-Gimel-Daleth-Aleph-Lamed which when broken up into a two and three letter root would have the meaning of Mem-Gimel-Daleth Aleph-Lamed which means the choicest of the gods. Rashi comments This is [like] Rome [with its pantheon of Gods].

Advanced Rashi: This paragraph has evoked alot of resistance from the Bible critics who defensively attack any Biblical paragraph with fulfilled prophecy content. However Rashi did not view this paragraph as primarily historical. Rather Rashi interpreted the paragraph as follows: One of Esauv's descendants was Magdeeayl who specialized in gathering people who specialized in idolatrous gods with great power. By leading a collection of such people Magdeeayl had enormous power. This is the simple meaning of the text. However Rashi then shows the relevance of the Biblical text to modern times in Rashi's era: Rome, which specialized in a pantheon of gods, each with its own method of rulership and power, is an example of the Magdeeayl's influence.

In other words Rashi was not identifying Magdeeayl with Rome but rather identifying Magdeeayl with a world approach of which Rome was a recent current example in Rashi's time.

Most people are aware that Hebrew verbs come from three-letter roots. Each root is conjugated in the 8 dimensions of person, gender,plurality, tense, activity, modality, direct-object, and prepositional connective. 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 Gn34-22a discussing the treaty the Schemites and Jews wanted to make with each other states Only through the following will the men consent to live with us, when we consent to circumcising all males as they are circumcised. Rashi translates the Biblical word Beth-Hey-Mem-Vav-Lamed as coming from the Biblical root Mem-Vav-Lamed which means to circumcise . We have conveniently embedded the Rashi translation in the translation of the verse. The conjugation rule governing this Biblical word may be found by using table(s) 6 in the Ibn Shoshan dictionary for the passive mode (Nifal).

Advanced Rashi: Note that we have translated the Hebrew using the English circumcising connoting an activity not confined to one point in time. In fact the Biblical Hebrew form used is the generic verb form (or the infinitive form) and unlike the past, present and future doesn't refer to activities in specific periods of time but rather to general activities which can take place at many points in time (Since the verse refers to all males, past and future as participating in the circumcision requirement).

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Gn36-02a, Gn26-34 Both verses/verselets discuss the wife Esauv took whose father is Aylon. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: Since both mentioned wives come from the same father we assume it was one person with two names. The names indicate not necessarily original names but also nicknames - things she was known for. The names literally mean perfume and trinket - in light of the explicit statement in Gn26-35 that Esauv's wives caused anguish to Isaac and Rebecca, we assume that the perfume, trinkets refer to sexually provocative dress around the house which annoyed the in-laws. This is further confirmed by the women's nation - the Hittites - one of the 7 idolatrous nations which dwelled in Israel and were conquered by God for Jewish possession of the land.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Gn36-02	Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah [trinket] the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite,	Since both mentioned wives come from the same father we assume it was one person with two names. The names indicate not necessarily original names but also nicknames - things she was known for. The names literally mean perfume and trinket - in light of the explicit statement in Gn26-35 that Esauv's wives caused anguish to Isaac and Rebecca, we assume that the perfume, trinkets refer to sexually provocative dress around the house which annoyed the in-laws. This is further confirmed by the women's nation - the Hittites - one of the 7 idolatrous nations which dwelled in Israel and were conquered by God for Jewish possession of the land.
Gn26-34:35	And Esau was forty years old when he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath [perfume] the daughter of Elon the Hittite; And they made life bitter for Isaac and for Rebekah

Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally (1) only explains the name perfume; he does not explain the name trinket; (2) Rashi does not mention sexually provocative dress but rather idolatrous rites.

But as we have explained many times in this email news-letter, Rashi will very often assume that the reader understands the obvious comments on a verse and then Rashi will supplement these obvious comments with additional comments. Here I think it obvious that trinket and perfume go hand in hand. Rashi only had to comment on one and the other was understood. Similarly we have explained many times in our list that idolatry was frequently connected with sexual rites to female priests. Rashi is not exhausting his commentary with reference to idolatrous rites - rather Rashi is supplementing the very obvious sexually provocative nature of loud perfume - trinkets with the point that these were most probably used in idolatrous rites.

We feel this supplemental approach to Rashi is the proper way to approach the verse.

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about Hadad.rule The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the people of Israel while the other verse states And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Avith. We see the contradiction--- If Hadad was King of Edom why was he fighting in a Moabite field? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Aspects method: Moab and Edom were allies. Midyan was an enemy of Moab. When Midyan attacked Moab, Edom, Moab's ally came to his aid.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
Hadad was king of Edom	Gn36-31	And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the people of Israel
Hadad defeated Midyan in Moabite fields	Gn36-31	And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Avith.
Resolution:	2 Aspects	Moab and Edom were allies. Midyan was an enemy of Moab. When Midyan attacked Moab, Edom, Moab's ally came to his aid.

Advanced Rashi: One can legitimately ask, How did Rashi know Edom and Moab were allies or that Moab and Midyan were enemies? This is one interesting attribute of the contradiction method - the contradiction itself intrinsically justifies making reasonable assumptions to resolve the contradiction. Hence Rashi reasonably assumes that if Midyan was conquered in a Moabite field then they - Moab and Midyan - must have been enemies. Similarly Rashi reasonably assumes that if Edom was in the Moabite field they - Moab and Edom - must have been allies.

Rashi uses this verse to explain another contradiction. We just established that Moab and Midyan were allies. But in Nu22-04 Moab asks Midyan for help! Rashi explains: Although they - Moab and Midyan - were enemies, their common hatred of the Jews overrode their own hatred of each other.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Theme-Development-Theme form. In other words a broad general idea is stated first followed by the development of this broad general theme in specific details. The paragraph-like unit is then closed with a repetition of the broad theme. The Theme-Detail-Theme form creates a unified paragraph. The detailed section of this paragraph is therefore seen as an extension of the general theme sentences. Today's example illustrates this as shown immediately below.

Note the theme-detail-theme structure of the following Biblical paragraph, Gn35-01:03 which states
• General Theme: And God said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Beth-El, and live there; and make there an altar to God, who appeared to you when you fled from the face of Esau your brother.
• Developmental Details Then Jacob said to his household, and to all who were with him,
  • Put away the strange gods that are among you,
  • and be clean, and
  • change your garments;
• General Theme And let us arise, and go up to Beth-El; and I will make there an altar to God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.

Here is the main point of Rashi: If the verse simply said change clothes I would not interpret it as referring to separation from idolatry. Perhaps the verse simply meant that nice clothes should be put on to visit a house of God. However, the context of the paragraph, speaking about removal of idolatry, justifies the reinterpretation of change clothes as referring to idolatry.

On a deeper level we can see the two interpretations - a) separation from idolatry and b) preparing for a house of God - as the same. For indeed, a common purpose of idolatry was physical arousal sometimes with idol-related woman. Idolatrous dress was therefore designed for arousal. For example the exposes Gilyonim (from Gimel Lamed Hey) were idolatrous dresses perforated with holes (to effect arousal). So Jacob's request to remove the idolatrous dresses is identical with a request for more formal attire consistent with visiting the presence of God.

We can also extend Rashi's comment They had just acquired idols from the booty of the conquest of Schem, which explains why Jacob was admonishing his household to remove idolas. It therefore stands to reason that ...they also acquired garment booty from the conquest ... undoubtedly the booty had idolatrous dress such as the exposes and people, innocently thought, they might keep these for intimate occasions (but not in public!). Therefore Jacob's request to remove all assocaitions with idolatrous booty foreshadows the similar commands by God in Deuteronomy to totally dis-associate from idolatry.

When a modern author wishes to deemphasize a concept they will strike it out. When the Biblical author wishes to deemphasize a concept He places dots over it. The dots in the Biblical version, or the strikeout in the modern version, indicate deemphasis.

There are 6 examples of dotting or strikeout in the Bible. They are presented in the list below along with the accompanying Rashi interpretation. In each case Rashi interprets the verse as if the word was Stricken out.
• Nu03-39a: All that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of HaShem, by their families, all the males from a month old and upward, were twenty and two thousand. Rashi: Aaron was stricken from the census--that is he wasn't counted since he was a Levite.
• Gn33-04b: And Esau ran to meet him [Jacob], and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they wept. Rashi: The kiss should be stricken from the record! It wasn't a real (i.e. sincere) kiss since Esau really hated Jacob. Rashi offers an alternative explanation: The kiss should be stricken from the record since it was the only sincere kiss. All other kisses were insincere.
• Dt29-29a: The secret things [sins] belong unto HaShem our G-d; but the things [sins] that are revealed belong [are visited] unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Rashi: Revealed should be stricken. Revealed sins weren't always visited upon the community; they weren't visited upon the community till after the conquest of Israel in the time of Joshua.
• Gn37-12a: And his brethren went to shepard their father's flock in Shechem. Rashi: The word shepard should be stricken out since they didn't really go to shepard sheep; rather they went to escape their father who favored Joseph.
• Nu09-10a: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If any man of you or of your generations shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto HaShem; Rashi: The requirement far off should be stricken. One need not be absolutely far away - but far away enough not to be able to come to Jerusalem.
• Gn18-09: And they said to him: 'Where is Sarah thy wife?' And he said: 'Behold, in the tent.' Rashi: The phrase to him should be stricken. They said it generally, not just to him. When they met Abraham they said to him where is your spouse. Similarly when they met Sarah they said where is your spouse. And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Rashi:
• Gn19-33c And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Rashi: The phrase nor when she arose is dotted indicating a strikeout: Lot really did know when she arose and even so did not avoid a recurrence on the 2nd night with his second daughter. [How can Rashi say he did know if the verse explicitly say he didn't know? Probably Rashi meant that e.g. he had a visual sexual dream about the affair so he really suspected it].

We ask the following database query: When our brother-sister genealogies used? 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 inference that Most genealogies are parental. Brother-sister sibling genealogies indicate a special relationship such as protection or assistance in marriage. The list below presents the results of the database query and provides examples.

Verse	Brother Sister	Suggested Reason	Textual Support
Gn04-22	Tuval-Kayin and Naamah	Tuval-Kayin, a tool provider, undoubtedly assisted Noach in the ark construction. Noach then married Naamah, Tuval-Kayin's sister.	None
Gn28-09	Nevayoth and Machalath	Nevayoth helped arrange marriage of Esauv and Machalath	The verse mentions the marriage of Esauv to Machalath, the sister of Nevayoth
Ex06-23	Nachshon and Elisheva	Nachshon resembled Aharon whom Elisheva married	The verse mentions the marriage of Aharon to Elisheva the sister of Nachshon
------	------	------	------
Ex16-20	Aharon and Miryam	Aharon interceded to protect Miryam when she was punished with Leprosy (Nu12-10:12)	Nu12-10:12 explicitly mentions Aharon interceding on behalf of Miryam
Gn34-25	Shimon and Levi, Dinah's brothers	They fought to protect Dinah	Gn34-25 explicitly mentions that Shimon and Levi declared war on an entire city where Dina's rape took place.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi at various points adds further details. For example on Ex06-23 Rashi states A person who wants to marry a woman should see if he is compatable with her brother since sisters resemble brothers closely. Our main goal here is to show the database aspect of these Rashis.

These Rashis do not appear that strong. In the last two examples we have explicit textual references to the brothers protection of the sister. Of the remaining three cases, two involve an explicit mention of marriage while one simply reports the brother sister relationship.

Thus the Rashi-midrashic suggestion that the brothers helped marry the sisters is seen as a reasonable generalization of the verses but certainly not explicitly indicated. This type of logic is a characteristic flavor of the database method. The strength of the derivation is based on the aggregate totality of examples most of which show the marriage-protection aspect underlying the database examples.

The serious student of Rashi should carefully study the above examples and convince themselves that the Rashi-midrash approach was the most reasonable.

The NonVerse method includes all methods of understanding the Bible that are not internal. Internal methods include grammar, meaning, alignment, database queries, symbolism and formatting techniques. The Non-Verse methods include diagramatic methods, spreadsheet methods and other non-verse methods. One classic non-verse method is the use of other, or distant, near-eastern languages to clarify the meaning of Biblical texts. This in fact is a primary method used by both religious and secular scholars. As we have shown in this newsletter, very often, meaning can also be inferred by a variety of other methods. A closely related non-verse method is when specialized knowledge is brought in to clarify a verse. Today's example illustrates this.

Verse Gn33-13c discussing Jacob's response to Esauv's offer to travel with Jacob states ....the flock and oxen are raising young - and if they are pushed one day then the flock will die. Rashi does two things: First Rashi clarifies If the flock and oxen are pushed one day to travel in a rush [then they will die]. The second thing Rashi does is a bit more subtle. The Biblical Hebrew root used Daleth-Pay-Kuph literally means to knock. However based on verse context Rashi, using the literary technique of metonomy - translation by related meaning - translates Daleth-Pay-Kuph as meaning pushed

In summary Rashi brings to clarify the verse translation specialized facts from a field of knowledge outside that of the Bible - in fact,specialized facts from raising farm animals. Rashi uses this knowledge both to clarify verse cause-effect (if the flock are pushed then they will die) and word meaning (Dalet-Pay-Kuph means pushed)> For this reason we classify this Rashi as non-verse.