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 Lv02-01c URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1407.htm Brief Summary: Lv02-01c speaking about BEST FLOUR is illuminated by Ex29-02 which clarifies BEST **WHEAT** FLOUR

Verse Lv02-01c discussing the bringing of best (flour) for Minchah offerings states And when any will offer a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of the best flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense on it; Rashi clarifies the underlined word best flour by referencing verse Ex29-02 which states And unleavened bread, and cakes unleavened mingled with oil, and wafers unleavened anointed with oil; of the best wheat flour shall you make them. Hence the Rashi comment: The word best flour occurs a few dozen times in the Bible. But in only one verse, Ex29-02, does the text clarify best wheat flour. Hence we infer that generally, best flour means best wheat flour.

Text of Target verse Lv02-01c	Text of Reference Verse Ex29-02
And when any will offer a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of the best flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense on it;	And unleavened bread, and cakes unleavened mingled with oil, and wafers unleavened anointed with oil; of the best wheat flour shall you make them.
Rashi comments: The word best flour occurs a few dozen times in the Bible. But in only one verse, Ex29-02, does the text clarify best wheat flour. Hence we infer that generally, best flour means best wheat flour.

Advanced Rashi: We have clarified several times in this email newsletter that Rashi, in clarifying meaning, is using one of the Rabbi Ishmael rules: Whenever you have a general term(for example, the word best flour), but you have one special case(for example, the phrase best wheat flour,) then that special case (wheat) sheds light on all cases (So all best flour is best wheat flour.)

Rashi would sometimes derive the meaning of a word from the meaning of its underlying Biblical root. In applying this method Rashi would use all available grammatical methods to study the meanings of related roots. The next paragraph presents one such rule.

In Hebrew, one indicates a feminine form by appending a suffix hey. Several masculine-feminine pairs are presented below:
• Tzedek means justice while Tzedakah, the feminine form, means charity.
• Aysh means fire while Isheh, the feminine form, means fuel. [Hence the frequently occuring phrase in the sacrificial procedures, describing sacrifices as bread, fuel, a pleasant scent, for the sake of God]
• Barar means to select while Barah, the feminine form, means something healthy and plump, the type of object that you prefer to select.
• Chom means hot while Chamah, the femine form, refers to the sun.
• KaLaL means complete while KaLaH, the feminine form, means both utensils and a bride, that which enables completion.

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.

We should emphasize that the great 19th century commentator, Malbim, introduced the powerful grammatical observation that the same root can change meaning solely based on the prepositional connectives used with it. From time to time we present intriguing examples illustrating this rule.

Today Rashi distinguishes two forms that differ by one vowel. Rashi frequently used this pedagogic technique - teaching grammar by forms that differ in one vowel - to facilitate the student focusing on minutae.

Suppose we have a Hebrew 3 letter verb: X-Y-Z. Then the active form of that verb in third person, singular, past is conjugated with a Kamatz-Patach, X(Kamatz)-Y(Patach)-Z. For example, Ashan means he smoked, and similarly, Asham means he was guilty. However a Kamatz-Kamatz punctuation would indicate a noun, not a verb. For example, Ashon, means smoke and similarly Ashom means a guilt offering. These two examples are actual Rashi comments which may be found in the Rashis at Ex19-18a and Lv05-19a respectively.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Lv01-14b Both verses/verselets discuss the types of birds that may be offered as offerings. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: Here, in this verse, as well as throughout the rest of the Bible, we always find children associated with Pigeons. Similarly we always find turtledoves associated with lack of reference to children. Hence we conclude that a) When bringing turtledoves only adults can be brought as bird offerings while b) When bringing pigeons only teenage/younger pigeons can be brought as a bird offerings.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Lv01-14b	And if the elevation sacrifice for his offering to the Lord is of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of child pigeons.	Here, in this verse, as well as throughout the rest of the Bible, we always find children associated with Pigeons. Similarly we always find turtledoves associated with lack of reference to children. Hence we conclude that a) When bringing turtledoves only adults can be brought as bird offerings while b) When bringing pigeons only teenage/younger pigeons can be brought as a bird offerings.
Lv01-14b	And if the elevation sacrifice for his offering to the Lord is of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of child pigeons.

Advanced Rashi: We have defended this Rashi using the alignment method. However we could have also defended it using the format method since the repeated keyword of in Lv01-14 which states ...he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or of pigeons, creates a bullet like structure emphasizing the distinctness of each enumerated item: a) turtledoves and b) child pigeons.

Similarly we could have defended this Rashi using the database method since a database review of all verses referring to turtledoves and pigeons always associates the adjective child with pigeons, not with turtledoves.

The table below presents presents two contradictory sets of verses. Both verse sets talk about offerings for sin. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse set says bring a guilt offering if you sinned without being sure while the other verse says bring a sin offering if you are sure you sinned. Which is it? If you weren't sure whether you sinned and then became sure: Do you bring a guilt offering or sin offering. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 stages method: When a person thinks that perhaps he has sinned inadvertently - for example, forbidden and permissable food are before him, he ate one, and doesn't know which one he ate - he brings the guilt offering for doubtful sin. If he afterwards finds out that he definitely sinned - for example, he is able to verify that he ate the prohibited food - he then brings a sin offering.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
If you don't know (for certain) if you have sinned, then bring a guilt offering.	Lv05-17:18b	And if a soul sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he knew it not, yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish from the flock, according to the valuation, for a guilt offering, to the priest; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance where he erred and knew it not, and it shall be forgiven him.
If you know for certain (that you have sinned) then bring a sin offering	Lv04-27:28	And if any one of the common people sins through ignorance, when he does something against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, which he has sinned, comes to his knowledge; then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned.
Resolution:	2 Stages:	When a person thinks that perhaps he has sinned inadvertently - for example, forbidden and permissable food are before him, he ate one, and doesn't know which one he ate - he brings the guilt offering for doubtful sin. If he afterwards finds out that he definitely sinned - for example, he is able to verify that he ate the prohibited food - he then brings a sin offering.

Advanced Rashi: Several supplementary points should be made about this Rashi.
• From the repetition he doesn't know in Lv05-17,Lv05-18 Rashi infers that ignorance is an essential prerequisite for the guilt offering - in other words, if the ignorance is cancelled, then the expiation of the guilt offering is cancelled and he must bring the sin offering. Here Rashi uses the formatting method where this rule could have also been presented.
• We could have also approached this Rashi using the alignment method: Here we would contrast the verses if he did not know...he brings a guilt offering with if he knew...he brings a sin offering.
• The use of the contradiction method here is a bit arbitrary. The two verses if he doesn't know then he brings a guilt offering while if he does know he brings a sin offering don't really contradict each other; rather they complement each other. There is only one aspect of contradiction - namely the case where he initially didn't know and then later found out. For this reason I have classified the resolution of this contradiction as the two stage method.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Theme-Development form. In other words a broad general idea is stated first followed by the development of this broad general theme in specific details. The Theme-Detail form creates a unified paragraph. Today's example illustrates this as shown below.

Verse Lv02-04a discussing the offering of oven-baked rest offerings states
• General: And if you bring a sacrifice of a rest offering baked in the oven
• Detail:
  • it shall be [either] unleavened bread loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, or
  • unleavened wafers anointed with oil.

Advanced Rashi: In other words, in classical general-detail guidance Rashi is stating If you bring an oven-baked rest offering then you can only bring either wafer or loaf offerings. We should add that in addition to the derivation based on style Rashi derives technical laws on the difference between wafer and loaf offerings by aligning the two halves of the detail clause. For example, as can be seen in the above citation, loaves are mixed with oil while wafers are anointed with oil. More can be said but our basic goal here was to clarify the Rashi use of the style method.

We ask the following database query: What Minchah procedures (rest-offering procedures) are offered and who (owner/priest) must/may do 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-Midrashic inference: 1) All procedures until taking the handful may be done by the owner. This includes, mixing with oil, placing the frankincense and bringing to the Priest. 2) From the handful procedure to the end only Priests may officiate. This includes taking the handful, bringing it to the altar, offering oil-flour on altar, offering frankincense on altar. The list below presents the results of the database query.

The list below has an unusual construction: The left hand column mentions all procedures of the Minchah offering. The other 4 columns list 4 textual passages dealing with Minchah. The table itself reflects which procedures are mentioned in which textual passages. Taking the table as a whole shows how Rashi following the Talmud inferred the laws of Minchah.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi states The requirement of priest starts with the lifting of the fistful procedure. But a review of the above table shows that the requirement of priest starts with the bringing of the Minchah to the altar corner. Why did Rashi deviate from the implications of the above list?

The above table answers this. The bringing to the altar corner is not mentioned in the Lv02-01:03 passage. In that passage the requirement of Priest is first mentioned in the taking of the fistful procedure. Hence the Rashi comment The requirement of priest starts with the taking the fistful procedure is not a statement about legal requirements but rather a statement about the textual listing of the word priest among all procedures. In the Lv02-01:03 text the word Priest first occurs in the the taking of fistful procedure. However to infer the correct legal requirements we have to not only review this passage but all passages discussing Minchah. When we do that we find that the legal requirement of priest begins with bringing the Minchah to the altar corner.

Verse Lv01-05f discussing the throwing of blood during the offering procedures states And he shall kill the bullock before HaShem; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and throw the blood around against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.

Rashi applies the diagram method to explain the mechanics of throwing around. By way of background we note that words like around can connote continuosly or discretely around. Many other words have this continuous - discrete ambiguity. For example the word always can mean continuously, all the time or can mean e.g. every day, (discretely always).

Rashi following the Sifra points out that throw would be inconsistent with a continuous around: You can't throw continously around. Hence Rashi diagramatically interprets throws around as follows: He throws on two opposite diagonals so that the blood covers all 4 sides satisfying the requirement of around. Here, Rashi's primary goal is to clarify the diagramatics of throwing around.

Verse Lv02-13a discussing the requirement of salting (rest) offerings states And every meal-offering of thine shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy G-d to be lacking from thy meal-offering; with all thy offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Rav Hirsch (in Nu) explains the symbolism of salt: After reviewing many biblical verses we see that salt is used to indicate destruction. But salt is also used to preserve meat from decay. How can the same item be used for both perservation and destruction? The answer is we interpret salt as maintaining the status quo. If a land is destroyed then salting it preserves this destruction preventing further growth. If meat is about to decay then salting it prevents the decay. Thus salt symbolizes steadfastness.

Using this symbolism we can understand the symbolic requirement of salting offerings: Whatever lessons are taught by the offerings must not be transient one day lessons in the Temple but permanantly preserved eternally.

Advanced Rashi: But Rashi does not say this. Rather Rashi crytpically says: Water and salt made a deal at creation. Water is used on the Succah festival while salting is done to sacrifices.

But we can now explain this cryptic Rashi. If salt is the symbol of preservation then water is the symbol of growth. Growth and change belong on the Succah festival when the water ceremony was performed. The Succah symbolizes non-citizenship. Every non-citizenship situation is one we should grow from. But the offerings symbolize acceptance of God's law. God's law is not something we grow out of; rather it is something eternal which should always be preserved. It is a climactic state where satisfaction and happiness abound; it is not a temporary transition state to something better, for there is nothing better!