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.

The FFF submethod states that words can be named by Form, Feel, and Function.
• Some examples of naming words by Form include (a) the leg of a chair, (b) the handle of a pot, (c) the branch of a family tree, (d) surfing the net or (e) brainstorming Some of these examples illustrate naming objects by form while other examples illustrate naming activities by form.
• A good punchy example distinguishing naming by form vs. function is pentagon-UN. The pentagon is named after the shape and form of the building while the United Nations is named after the function and purpose of the building. Although both these buildings have as a purpose world peace they are named differently.
• Examples of naming by feel/substance are glasses, hardship, ironing-board, plaster etc.

The FFF principle is a special case of the literary techniques of synechdoche-metonomy. These literary principles, universal to all languages, state that items can be named by related items, by parts of those items, or by good examples of those items. For example honey refers to anything sweet since honey is a good example of something sweet. Similarly hot refers to matters of love since the two are related. Todays Rashi can best be understood by applying these principles.

Biblical verse Lv13-55e refers to garments that are described in Hebrew as Kuph-Resh-Cheth-Tauv or Gimel-Beth-Cheth-Tauv. The corresponding roots Kuph-Resh-Cheth and Gimel-Beth-Cheth mean bald and humpy respectively. By using the triple FFF, Form,Function, Feel principle we can understand that a bald garment would refer to a worn out garment which has lost all its fuzz while by contrast humpy garment would refer to a new (woolen) garment which by nature would have lots of protrusions of strands of wools resembling small humps. Such a naming of garments is similar to the English naming of color by fruits with that color: e.g. an orange dress. Here we name things by Form, that is the external characteristics such as color or the appearance or lack of protrusions.

Advanced Rashi: There are two Rashis (Lv13-55e, Lv13-55f) commenting on the meaning of the Hebrew terms Kuph-Resh-Cheth-Tauv and Gimel-Beth-Cheth-Tauv. The first Rashi simply says Translated as indicated by the Targum. The second Rashi goes into more details including exegetical comparisons to other leprous items. We believe our explanation above consistent with the first Rashi referencing the Aramaic translation since Aramaic also used such literary terms. We will explain the other Rashi on these meanings in another future digest.

Today, students of the Bible learn grammar from Biblical Hebrew grammar textbooks. These textbooks organize material by topics. Grammatical topics include a) verb mood and conjugation, b) plurality and gender agreement, c) pronoun reference, d) subject-verb-object sequencing, e) sentence structure and type, f) the possessive and g) connective words, and many other topics.

However in Rashi's time gramamr was just beginning. There were no official grammatical textbooks and tables. One of Rashi's functions was to teach grammar. Rashi did not write a grammar textbook but instead left grammatical explanations appended to each verse.

In today's example Rashi explains rules about gender. In English nouns do not have gender. We rather use the non-gender word, it. By contrast in Hebrew, nouns have gender. Instead of using the word it Hebrew will use the words he, she to refer to nouns.

Rashi explains that The Hebrew word for leprosy is feminine while the Hebrew word for wound is masculine. Based on the examples listed below I would amend this Rashi text as follows: The Hebrew word for leprosy is feminine while the Hebrew word for wound is also masculine. Note that consistent with this textual emendation of Rashi we in fact have many words in Hebrew which are bi-genderal, masculine and feminine. Examples are presented in the next paragraph.

To appreciate Rashi we need to review the verses in the Chapter and check that the pronoun she is exclusively coupled with Leprosy while both pronouns she,he are coupled with wound.

• Some verses with leprosy coupled with a feminine pronoun are Lv13-08,11,25.
• Some verses with wound coupled with a masculine pronoun are Lv13-03,5,13,17.
• Some verses with wound coupled with a feminine pronoun are Lv13-06, Lv13-09.

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: How are the various types of ritual impurities caused? 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: Most types of ritual impurity are caused by world events such as death and sexual discharges. However leprous ritual impurity in addition to a world event - e.g. the white skin patches with white hair - also requires a declaration of a priest to create the ritually impure state. That is a white patch with white hair is in and of itself not ritually impure until a priest declares it ritually impure. This contrast - leprous vs other ritual impurities - is textually indicated by a phrase peculiar to leprosy, ....and the priest shall declare it impure... a phrase which occurs with no other ritual impurity, implying that priestly declaration is a prerequisite for creation of the ritually impure status. The list below presents the results of the database query.