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 Gn30-37a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1316.htm Brief Summary: (Gn30-37a) Jacob took rods of moist POPLAR. The meaning of this verse can be clarified by REFERENCING (Hosea 4:13) They sacrifice...under oaks and POPLARS.

Verse Gn30-37a discussing the techniques Jacob used to proliferate sheep states And Jacob took him rods of moist poplar, and of the almond and of the plane-tree; and peeled white streaks in them, making the white appear which was in the rods. Rashi notes that the underlined words, poplar references verses Ho04-13 discussing the excessive worship of idols by the Jews. Hence the Rashi comment The statement rods of moist poplar in Gn30-37a is clarified by the reference Ho04-13 which speaks about the worship of idols under oaks, poplars and terebinths. Since the first and last enumerated in this list are trees we infer that poplars are a tree. (Today we can identify them as the poplar tree).

Text of Target Verse Gn30-37a	Text of Reference Verse Ho04-13
And Jacob took him rods of moist poplar, and of the almond and of the plane-tree; and peeled white streaks in them, making the white appear which was in the rods.	They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and terebinths, because their shadow is good; therefore your daughters shall commit harlotry, and your brides shall commit adultery
Rashi comments: The statement rods of moist poplar in Gn30-37a is clarified by the reference Ho04-13 which speaks about the worship of idols under oaks, poplars and terebinths. Since the first and last enumerated in this list are trees we infer that poplars are a tree. (Today we can identify them as the poplar tree).

When Rashi uses, what we may losely call, the hononym method, Rashi does not explain new meaning but rather shows an underlying unity in disparate meanings. Rashi will frequently do this by showing an underlying unity in the varied meanings of a Biblical root.

Today Hebrew grammar is well understood and there are many books on it. Rashi, however, lived before the age of grammar books. A major Rashi method is therefore the teaching of basic grammar.

Many students belittle this aspect of Rashi. They erroneously think that because of modern methods we know more. However Rashi will frequently focus on rare grammatical points not covered in conventional textbooks.

There are many classical aspects to grammar whether in Hebrew or other languages. They include
• The rules for conjugating verbs. These rules govern how you differentiate person, plurality, tense, mode, gender, mood, and designation of the objects and indirect objects of the verb. For example how do you conjugate, in any language, I sang, we will sing, we wish to sing, she sang it.
• Rules of agreement. For example agreement of subject and verb, of noun and adjective; whether agreement in gender or plurality.
• Rules of Pronoun reference.
• Rules of word sequence. This is a beautiful topic which is not always covered in classical grammatical textbooks.

Today we discuss some aspects of the conjugations. In all languages there are several present tenses.
• Simple present: I am going to the store.
• Habitual Present: I go to the store every day for work.
• Informational/Conditional Present: If I need food I go to the store.
Although all three of these sentences are present their meaning as well as their conjugation, indicated by the underlined words, differ. For example the simple present indicates activity actually being done now. By contrast, the habitual present indicates intended activity in the past, present and future. As can be seen from the underlined words the conjugations used to indicate the differents presents can differ.

Verse Gn29-08b discussing when the shepards in Beer Sheva watered their flocks states And they said: 'We cannot, until all the flocks be gathered together, and they roll the stone from the well's mouth; then we water the sheep and then return the stone to its place on the mouth of the well.' The underlined words until....be gathered ....roll indicate a conditional present. The words until ...be gathered indicates a future action and is conjugated in the text with a future conjugation. The word roll indicates action that habitually happens daily. Like any habitual action it refers to the past, present and future. Because the conditional trigger of this action is the future gathering of all the flocks the conjugation of this habitual present is indicated via a past conjugation and a prefix vav, which always indicates the future in Biblical Hebrew.

Advanced Rashi: Two further points should be made: First the meaning of the verse is clear We habitually gather every day, roll the stone, water the flock and return the stone. There are a variety of ways that Hebrew could conjugate the verbs to indicate this meaning. The actual method chosen is irrelevant. The important thing is some set of conjugations is selected to indicate the habitual present. Rashi's point then is The verese's meaning is a habitual present. Don't pay too much attention to the conjugations used (that is don't read things into them) since the habitual present intrinsically refers to past, present and future. It is simply the custom of Biblical Hebrew to indicate the habitual present using these conjugations. In actuality as can be seen from other verses, Biblical Hebrew allows several conjugations to indicate the habitual present.

Secondly: We should cite Rashi's literal text: ...This (roll) is translated by the aramaic translation as ... since it is future. However as I showed above the sentence until flocks are gathered, and then roll the stone, water the flock and return the stone is a habitual present. Thus I interpret Rashi's comment to mean This (roll) is translated by the aramaic as a future conjugation (the Hebrew uses a past conjugation with a prefix vav) since the actual text is spoken in the habitual present which equally refers to the past present and future.

In summary: Each language has its own conjugational methods of dealing with a conditional or habitual present. In todays verse we have seen the past conjugation with a prefix vav. However, there are other Biblical verses where other conjugations are used. The actual conjugations used are not that important; what is important is to understand the verses as a habitual present.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Gn31-38 Gn31-39. Both verses/verselets discuss the protection Jacob gave Laban while sheparding his flocks. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that:
Jacob protected Labans flocks by preventing disasters in four areas:
• Natural: e.g. Miscarriage of animals
• Personal: e.g. Personal consumption of animals
• Animal: e.g. wolf/lion attacks
• People: e.g. Thefts.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Gn31-38:39	These twenty years have I been with thee; Natural: thy ewes and thy she-goats have not cast their young, Personal: and the rams of thy flocks have I not eaten. Animal: That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bore the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, People: whether stolen by day or stolen by night.	Jacob protected Labans flocks by preventing disasters in four areas: Natural: e.g. Miscarriage of animals Personal: e.g. Personal consumption of animals Animal: e.g. wolf/lion attacks People: e.g. Thefts.
Gn31-38:39	These twenty years have I been with thee; Natural: thy ewes and thy she-goats have not cast their young, Personal: and the rams of thy flocks have I not eaten. Animal: That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bore the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, People: whether stolen by day or stolen by night.

Advanced Rashi: This Rashi could have also been classified under the Format-Bullet/Paragraph method. The analysis would have been the same. The Rashi text emphasizes that the verse I have not brought torn animals to you refers to wolf/lion attacks. Rashi infers this either from the alignment or from paragraph structures which suggests a distinctness to each paragraph phrase. Hence Rashi does not see torn as miscarriage or personal consumption but sees it as something new, animal damage. We have assisted in understanding the Rashi by formatting the two verses has having 4 stanzas.

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about Jacob's wedding night The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve you seven years for Rachel your younger daughter. ...And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in to her. while the other verse states And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah; and he said to Laban, What is this that you have done to me? did not I serve with you for Rachel? why then have you deceived me? We see the contradiction---Was Jacob double crossed by day or night? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Aspects method: Jacob wanted Rachel. Rachel knew how Jacob liked to be flirted with. She shared his flirting preferences with Leah. When Jacob married Leah he thought he was marrying someone who understood his physical needs. But in the morning Leah resumed to her old self and it was only then that Jacob understood he was double-crossed.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
Jacob was double crossed (Leah vs Rachel) by evening.	Gn29-18,23	And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve you seven years for Rachel your younger daughter. ... And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in to her.
Jacob only found out in the morning that he was double crossed	Gn29-25	And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah; and he said to Laban, What is this that you have done to me? did not I serve with you for Rachel? why then have you deceived me?
Resolution:	2 Aspects	Jacob wanted Rachel. Rachel knew how Jacob liked to be flirted with. She shared his flirting preferences with Leah. When Jacob married Leah he thought he was marrying someone who understood his physical needs. But in the morning Leah resumed to her old self and it was only then that Jacob understood he was doubl e-crossed.

Advanced Rashi: This is a beautiful example of refutation of a flippant reading of Rashi. Rashi literally says: Rachel did not want her sister Leah to be embarassed. Jacob had personal signs with Rachel since he expected to be double-crossed. But Rachel gave these signs to Leah. Notice that Rashi already leaves out the more explicit statements, found in some midrashim, that Rachel hid under the marital bed so that Jacob should think he was relating to Rachel.

From a conceptual point of view I am interpreting the Rashi comment Rachel gave Leah the personal signs she and Jacob had agreed on to mean that Rachel shared highly personal preferences of Jacob in flirting. I would similarly interpret the phrase found in other midrashim Rachel hid under the bed to mean Rachel shared personal flirting signs with Leah.

From a content point of view I don't see any religious value in interpreting this Midrash literally. Does it enhance our admiration of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs that they swapped identities in marital bedrooms? Surely not. For this reason I think the straightforward social interpretation I have given is superior.

Men and women view physical relations differently. Men are more biological while women are more personal. Men are more likely to select a spouse based on physical items like flirting. At early stages of their life this is important to them(or more important then it should be). Women sometimes belittle this need of men and play games with men. It doesn't have to be as extreme as the Rachel-Leah case. If people think that two people belong together they may give instruction to each other on how to flirt with specific men to facilitate marriage. As is clear from the Jacob-Rachel-Leah story such attempts, however noble their intention, do not always work. Rather the social area requires special emphasis on equality of sensitivity in all areas.

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, Gn28-13:16 which states
• General: And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac;
  • Detail: the land on which you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed;
  • Detail: And your seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south;
  • Detail: and in you and in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
  • Detail: And, behold, I am with you, and will watch you in all places where you go,
  • Detail: and will bring you back to this land;
• General: for I will not leave you, until I have done that about which I have spoken to you.

Hence the Rashis on the above paragraph: The opening and closing theme are God standing by Jacob and not deserting him. This theme is developed by the five details which in turn are perceived as illustrative not exhaustive. As a consequence of the paragraph structure we connect the theme with its details: I God am standing by you and will not desert you until you return and have Israel, and you fill the land and all nations are blessed in you.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally says I God am standing over you to watch you. But I would argue that watching you is only one of the five items promised Jacob. Therefore I enlarged Rashi's comment to include all other four items. God was telling Jacob that he would watch him until all 5 promises were met.

The Formatting rule includes the methods of writing consecutive paragraph or sentences. Just as a paragraph is a collection of sentences unified by a topic sentence and developed by supporting sentences, so too, a chapter very often has a theme that is developed by a skillfully sequenced set of paragraphs. Rashi knew of 3 methods of writing consecutive paragraphs
• Cause-effect: The second paragraph is the effect of the first paragraph. The first paragraph is the cause of the second paragraph.
• Contrast: The two paragraphs illustrate contrasting sides of a theem.
• Unified theme: The two or more paragraphs illustrate a common theme. For example a common theme may be illustrated by a sequence of paragraphs each of which exemplifies and illustrates the theme idea.
The above three principles indicate methods for paragraph development into chapters as well as method for sentence development into paragraphs.

We formerly classified paragraph and chapter development under the grammar rule. However we think it more proper to devote the grammar rule to the relation between meaning and form, for example how verb conjugational forms indicates meaning. As indicated above the formatting rule governs use of sequence to indicate climax and paragraph sequencing.

Rashi on Gn31-03a explains the sequence in two paragraphs/sentences indicating a cause-effect relationship.
• Gn31-03a And HaShem said unto Jacob: 'Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred;
• Gn31-03a and I will be with thee.'

Advanced Rashi: Rashi has two points:
• The statement I God will be with you is the effect of Jacob going home and leaving Laban. That is Rashi interprets 1) Return to your homeland and leave Laban and 2) I God will then be with you [to re-enter a continual prophetic relationship.]
• Rashi in effect negates a reverse sentence with reverse causality: e.g. (1) I God will be with you [to protect you] and as a consequence (2) you can return to your father's house. Instead
In other words Rashi inteprets I God will be with you as referring to continual prophetic relationship vs. protection. Rashi does this by studying the cause-effect relationship in the verse.

We ask the following database query: On whom is the phrase God of so and so 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 following Rashi inference: The phrase God of so and so is typically used after the death of so and so. It is not typically used during people's lifetimes since they might (sexually sin) and lose their righteous status. However 1) Isaac had never had a concubine and 2) his eyes had dimmed (he no longer eye-flirted). Hence since the possibility of sin was minimal the phrase God of Isaac is used during his lifetime (Actually, the phrase used is The Fear of Isaac.) The list below presents the results of the database query and provides examples.

Verse	Said by	To	God of Whom	Dead/Alive
2C34-03a	Biblical author	Yoshiyahu	God of David	Dead
2C21-12	Elijah	Yehoram	God of David	Dead
Ex03-06	God	Moses	God of Abraham	Dead
Is02-03	Isiah	Nations	God of Jacob	Dead
--------------	-----------	-----------	-----------	-----------
Gn28-13	God	Jacob	God of Isaac	Alive
----------	-------	-------	-------	-------
2C32-17	Sacheriv	Jews	God of Chizkiyahu	Alive
Gn09-26	Noah	Cham	God of Shaym	Alive
Gn24-12	Eliezer	God	God of Abraham	Alive

Advanced Rashi: As is our custom with database Rashis we have enriched the Rashi comment with further detail. The above database shows that God and righteous people never use the phrase God of X during X's lifetime. However as the last 3 examples show non-Jews do not adhere to this rule (Probably because they are not worried about sin). This is a novelty not found in Rashi.

Prior to examining todays verse we make some light descriptive comments on the non-verse method.
• When Rashi gathers a collection of verses and infers from numerical computations we say Rashi uses the Spreadsheet method.
• When Rashi clarifies a verse with a geometric diagram we say he is using the geometric or diagrammatic method.
• The spreadsheet and diagram method are examples of the category of non-verse methods - that is clarifications of the verse by knowledge domains outside the verses - outside domains like spreadsheets and geometry.
• So if Rashi clarifies the verse with archaeological finds we are also using the non-verse method.
• Finally We also say the non-verse method is used when Rashi fills-in background with plausible real-world events. Since these fill-ins are not derived from the Biblical text but rather are derived from the real-world we consider them analogous to the use of diagrams and computational spreadsheets.
The common denominator of
• Numerical spreadsheets
• Geometric diagrams
• plausible real world fill-ins and backgrounds
• archaeological finds
is inference from non-verse material. Todays example particularly illustrates this.

Verse Gn31-15 discussing Jacob's plan to desert his father-in-law states Are we not counted by him as strangers? for he has sold us, and has quite devoured also our money Rashi explains the underlined phrase for he has sold us, by filling in with real-world background: In most marriages the father of the bride provides a monetary dowry to help get the couple started. But in Jacob's marriage the exact opposite happened: Jacob had to pay his father-in-law, by working for him for 7 years. Hence the Biblical phrase he sold us.

To recap, Rashi comments on the verse by
• bringing in the custom of the father of the bride giving a dowry to his future son-in-law
• contrasting the gift of the father-in-law to the son-in-law with the purchase requirement of 7 years of labor to obtain Rachel.
Because this comment uses real-world vs non-textual material we say the spreadsheet method is being used.

Advanced Rashi:This Rashi is also an example of application of archaeological methods. Numerous fragments uncovered from ancient times shows a certain balance in dealing with monetary manners:
• Inheritance went to the males while dowrys went to the females.
Note that this is a strong example of equal but different. Indeed if the woman would both inherit and receive a dowry her inherited money would most likely be given to her husband which would means that the women are getting double. (If women had no dowry they would be less attractive as marriage partners). This duality - inheritance /dowry - is further complicated by two more facts.
• The dowry was given during the lifetime of the parents (and hence more certain) while the inheritance was only given at death.
• Finally the inheritance was a legal claim (it could be recovered in court if denied) while the dowry was a strong custom which however was not subject to court review.
So Laban, crook par excellence, shows his real metal by denying his daughters the dowry they deserved - it was against all social custom but was not recoverable in court. This archaeological background enhances the appreciation of the comments of the daughters We are non-family...we are getting nothing monetary from our father We have no economic incentive to stay. As already indicated algebraic, geometric and archaelogical driven Rashis are classified as non-verse.