An idiom is a collection of words which means more than the sum of the meanings of each of the phrases' individual words. Verse Dt16-09a discussing the requirements to count 7 weeks from Passover to Shavuoth states Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee; from the time the sickle is on the sheaf [harvest] shalt thou begin to number seven weeks. . Rashi explains: The phrase(s) the sickle is on the sheaf is an idiom meaning harvest. As can be seen from the underlined words the Rashi comment is compactly and explicitly combined in the Biblical text.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi goes a step further and states The omer coincides with the beginning of the harvest. Rashi learns this from the explicit association in Lv23-10:11. In fact we could have approached this whole Rashi using an alignment of the Lv and Dt chapters both of which deal with the Passover-Omer-Shavuoth sequence. However, it was also important to emphasize that Rashi was identifying a Biblical idiom which is why we classified this Rashi as we did.

Most people are aware of three tenses - past, present, and future. But Hebrew and English really have 14 tenses. The sentence I walk to synagogue daily indicates what grammarians call the habitual present. The intent of the statement is not to tell something that happened, that is happening, or that will happen. The intent is to tell my habits. I have a habit of walking to the synagogue. But I may not walk every day. Another example might be the sentence When thirsty one drinks water. Again this indicates a grammatical conditional habitual present. The emphasis is on how you quench your thirst - with water. The emphasis is not on what you are actually doing - drinking water.

In Hebrew the same grammatical form or conjugation may indicate two meanings. In particular the future conjugation, indicated by prefixing a root with the letter tauv can indicate either a future activity or a habitual activity. Let us see how this applies to Dt15-19:20.

If we interpret this verse as a future activity then we would translate All the firstling males that come of your herd and of your flock you shall sanctify to the Lord your God; you shall do no work with the firstling of your bulls, nor shear the firstling of your sheep. You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place which the Lord shall choose, you and your household. In other words, you yourself must eat the firstborn in Jerusalem. However since the future conjugation in Hebrew can also have a meaning of habitual present we can translate the verses as follows: All the firstling males that come of your herd and of your flock you shall sanctify to the Lord your God; you shall do no work with the firstling of your bulls, nor shear the firstling of your sheep. One eats it before the Lord your God year by year in the place which the Lord shall choose, you and your household. In other words When the firstborn is eaten it is eaten in Jerusalem. Like other habitual presents the emphasis is on the how of the habit rather then on who should do the activity in the future.

As we shall see below in rule 5 the firstborn is a priestly gift which is eaten by the Priests. So the owner does not eat it! Rather the Priest eats it. For this reason Rashi translates the verse One eats the firstborn in Jerusalem.

This Rashi is continued in rule #5, contradiction below.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Dt15-03a Both verses/verselets discuss maintaining loans. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: It is prohibited to maintain a loan on a fellow Jew in the 7th year (The loan amount must be waived). The Bible explicitly states that one must take extra precautions to avoid maintaining a loan against a Jew (Dt15-09). Consequently, it is a positive commandment to maintain loans against non-Jews so that sufficient income will be maintained facilitating waiving the few outstanding loans against Jews.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Dt15-03a	a) The NON JEW: Keep his loan debts in the 7th year b) Your BROTHER (Fellow Jew): Waive his debt in the 7th year.	It is prohibited to maintain a loan on a fellow Jew in the 7th year (The loan amount must be waived). The Bible explicitly states that one must take extra precautions to avoid maintaining a loan against a Jew (Dt15-09). Consequently, it is a positive commandment to maintain loans against non-Jews so that sufficient income will be maintained facilitating waiving the few outstanding loans against Jews.
Dt15-03	a) The non Jew.: Keep his loan debts in the 7th year b) Your Brother (Fellow Jew): Waive his debt in the 7th year.

Advanced Rashi: This Rashi was brought to my attention by one of the Rabbinical members of the Rashi newsletter in Chicago. He made several interesting comments which are worth noting. First, there is a controversy among the Rishonim whether the sentence The Non Jew: Maintain the loan; Your Brother: don't maintain it (waive it) indicates a permission or requirement. Allow me to explain this. The phrase maintain the loan (to a Non Jew) by itself would be interpreted as a command. However when this phrase occurs contrastively For a Non Jew: Maintain... For a brother (Jew) do not maintain the phrase indicates not a requirement/ command but rather a permission. That is throughout the Bible and in ordinary literature the contrastive phrase is heard as meaning For a non Jew: It is permissable to maintain while for a Jew it is prohibited to maintain. So the statement of those Rishonim that the phrase here indicates a requirement appears at first glance, peculiar. If the contrastive style indicates permission why are we calling this a requirement and command.

Secondly, my Rabbinic host pointed out that there are differences in Rashi manuscripts on what Rashi says. In fact some Rashi manuscripts leave out the Rashi comment on this verse alltogether. As an example the Davka CD I use does not have any Rashi comments on this verse.

Based on the above two comments it would appear that the text and analysis of this Rashi would require a critical examination of manuscripts. However a fundamental belief of this Rashi newsletter is that all Rashi problems can be solved by rules and universally applied methods. Suppose a repeated rule justifies a certain reading of the text? Suppose further that no other rule justifies an alternative reading? Wouldn't we be justified in upholding the corresponding version of the Rashi comment even if no supporting manuscript exists?

I explained to my host (This was Fall 2007) that the great Biblical exegetical master, Malbim, explains, that A contrastive style always indicates permission unless there is some extra Biblical emphasis in which case the contrastive style indicates requirement vs. prohibition. The Malbim does not state his principle here. He rather states it on Lv02-11:12. He also discusses it in his compendium of rules, The Morning Star, where he brings several examples.

Applying this principle of the Malbim to the Rashi at hand I would argue as follows:
• Dt15-09 explicitly states Watch out lest you harbor an evil thought as follows: 'The 7th year is near, the year of loan-annulment' and therefore you will have a miserly view on your brother the poor.
• So the Bible explicitly requires us to do whatever is possible to avoid harboring these natural evil thoughts to abstain from loaning in the 7th year.
• But then not waiving loans to non-Jews becomes a positive requirement since the added influx of funds facilitates loaning Jews since more money is available.
• By contrast if I waived loans to non Jews and then a Jew came for a loan I might hesitate not anticipating the added budget needed.

For the above reasons I have cited the Rashi and interpreted it the way I have done. I am cognizant that many people including Rabbis consider themselves enlightened and accept the need to critically examine manuscripts. I therefore offer the above analysis as a complementary approach to dealing with issues of textual veracity.

Praise be Him who chose them and their learning!

5. RASHI METHOD: CONTRADICTION BRIEF EXPLANATION:Rashi resolves contradictory verses using 3 methods. (5a) Resolution using two aspects of the same event (5b) Resolution using two stages of the same process (5c) Resolution using broad-literal interpretation. This examples applies to Rashis Dt15-20a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w34n8.htm Brief Summary: Firstborn animals are gifts to the priest. Hence we translate ONE EATS THE FIRSTBORN IN JERUSALEM.

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about the eating of firstborn. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says firstborn animals are priestly gifts while the other verse says you (the Israelite) should eat the firstborn. Which is it? Are firstborn animals gifts to the priest or do they belong to the Israelite. Rashi simply resolves this using the broad-literal. method: The future conjugation typically refers to future activity: If we translated this verse using the future it would read. You should eat the firstborn in Jerusalem. However the future conjugation can also refer to habitual present activity: If we translate the verse using the habitual present it reads: One eats the firstborn in Jerusalem. Because of the fact that these are priestly gifts we translate the verse as the habitual present.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
The first born animals are priestly gifts	Nu18-08:15	And the Lord spoke to Aaron, Behold, I also have given you ... to you have I given them by an ordinance forever. ... Every thing that opens the womb in all flesh, .... whether it is of men or beasts, shall be yours; .....
One eats the firstborn before God	Dt15-19:20	All the firstling males that come of your herd and of your flock you shall sanctify to the Lord your God; ... One eats it [the firstborn] before the Lord your God year by year in the place which the Lord shall choose, you and your household.
Resolution:	Broad-Literal	The future conjugation typically refers to future activity: If we translated this verse using the future it would read. You should eat the firstborn in Jerusalem. However the future conjugation can also refer to habitual present activity: If we translate the verse using the habitual present it reads: One eats the firstborn in Jerusalem. Because of the fact that these are priestly gifts we translate the verse as the habitual present

Advanced Rashi: Rashi makes a futher contradiction resolution based on whether the firstborn animal was blemished or not. An unblemished animal must be eaten by the Priest and the resolution of the contradiction - you shall eat it in Jerusalem - is to translate the verse as a habitual present - one eats it in Jerusalem. The rules governing blemished firstborn are also brought down by Rashi. This would require bringing in other verses dealing with blemished amimals which we will do in future years.

6. RASHI METHOD: STYLE Rashi examines how rules of style influences inferences between general and detail statements in paragraphs. Example: Every solo example stated by the Bible must be broadly generalized; Theme-Detail: A general principle followed by an example is interpreted restrictively---the general theme statement only applies in the case of the example; Theme-Detail-Theme: A Theme-Detail-Theme unit is interpreted as a paragraph. Consequently the details of the paragraph are generalized so that they are seen as illustrative of the theme. This examples applies to Rashis Dt14-26a,b,c URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w7n15.htm Brief Summary: a) GENERAL: Buy what you want. b) DETAIL: Steak, lambchops, wine, bear. c) GENERAL: What you want. Rashi: Meat, fruit juices/wine, milk, honey.

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.

Verse Dt14-26 discussing what second tithe money can redeem states
• General: And you shall bestow that money for all your soul desires
• Detail:
  • for oxen, or
  • for sheep, or
  • for wine, or
  • for strong drink
• General: for all your soul desires

Because the General-Theme-General style is perceived as a paragraph, therefore, we take the Detail phrase as a development of the general phrase. The logical conclusion would be You can buy meats and plant derived drinks.

Quite startingly the Rambam, Second Tithes, 7:1-3, states that honey, milk and eggs are also OK. The Rambam's logic is that You can buy items that grow from land-based food (cattle, sheep) as well as items derived from land-based-food animals (wine but also honey, milk and eggs). True, the Rambam categorizes and defends the law! But wouldn't it be more logical to simply state meats and plant-based drinks.

Problems like this arise frequently in interpretation of the General Theme General law. At the 20th MidWest Jewish Studies Conference I suggested that two style rules are operating here: The Rabbi Ishmael Style rules as well as the Broad-Restriction style rules. The broad-restriction style rules in this verse focus on the word all which broadens the appicability of the verse. In the Talmud the Rabbi Ishmael rules are frequently contrasted with the broad-restriction rules as two approaches to Biblical exegesis. However on our Rashi list we classify the broad-restrictive rule, emanating from an analysis of the adverb all, as an inference based on the special word rule, which is a subrule of either the meaning or grammar rule. The Rishonim according to the approach I am suggesting here combine the two rules in their legal decisions.

Here is how the two rules combine:
• The verse mentions examples of what you can redeem: cattle and penned animals.
• However since the theme-detail-theme style is used I am required to generalize these examples.
• If the verse did not use the word all I would simply generalize the detail clause restrictively and only allow animal meats but not honey, milk and eggs since these last three items are animal-derived.
• But the word all broadens! Consequently in addition to animal meats we allow animal derived products such as honey, milk and eggs.
• However we still prohibit water, salt and spices which are neither animal nor animal-derived.
• The subtlety in this derivation is that both restriction and broadening are used. Animals and cattle are broadened to include derived products like milk, eggs, and honey but are also restrictively interpreted so as to prohibit water, salt and spices which have nothing to do with animals.

This idea of combining the Talmud's broad restriction rule with the Rabbi Ishmael Style rules, or, using the language of this email newsletter, rules #2/3 special word meaning with rule #6,Style, this combination, seems to solve many problems in the Rabbi Ishmael style exegesii. The interested (or skeptical) reader should, when studying a Rabbi Ishmael rule, study the verse to see if the word all is mentioned and if so I would strongly expect that the the style generalizations are not as restrictive as they normally would be.

8. RASHI METHOD: DATABASES BRIEF EXPLANATION:Rashi makes inferences from Database queries. The precise definition of database query has been identified in modern times with the 8 operations of Sequential Query Language (SQL). This example applies to Rashis Dt16-20b URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w34n8.htm Brief Summary: 7 commandments have a reward of long life (Covers all: don't eat blood (Would do it anyway), honor bird parent(easy)...

Today we ask the database query: Which commandments mention a reward of long life or becoming well off for performing them? The query uncovers half a dozen major examples. An examination of these examples justifies the Rashi assertion that 7 commandments mention the reward of a long life or becoming well. 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 table below presents results of the query along with illustrations of Rashi's comment.

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. Note the interesting fact that although we have classified this as the database method it could equally be classified as coming from the Style rule of generalization from several verses.

Verse Dt14-06 discussing the requirements of Kosher animals states And every beast that
• parts the hoof, and
• has the hoof cloven into two,
and chews the cud among the beasts, that you shall eat Rashi clarifies: There are two requirements:
• The hoof must be split and
• there must be two toes.
The pictures below clarify. Since this Rashi is clarified by pictures we consider it the use of the diagram method.

--------------------
'                  |
' -----------------|   Split hoof with one toe covering (not valid for Kashruth)
'                  |
'-------------------


--------------------
'                  |
' ------------------   Split hoof with two toe  coverings (valid for Kashruth)
'                  |
'-------------------