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 Lv15-31b URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n15.htm Brief Summary: The CUT-OFF punishment for ritually impurifying Temple related items (Lv22-03,Lv19-20) means DEATH (Lv15-31b)

Verse Lv15-31b discussing the punishment of ritually impurifing the Temple states Thus shall you separate the people of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they impurify my Temple that is among them. Rashi clarifies the underlined words die, when they impurify my Temple by referencing verses Lv22-03, Nu19-20 which states Say to them, Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations, who goes to the holy things, which the people of Israel hallow to the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence; I am the Lord.... . But the man who shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he has impurified the Temple of the Lord; the water of sprinkling has not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean. Hence the Rashi comment: The cut off punishment for impurifying the Temple / holy objects, mentioned in Lv22-03,Nu19-20, means a death penalty (at the hands of heaven) as clarified in Lv15-31b.

Text of Target verse Lv22-03, Nu19-20	Text of Reference Verse Lv13-51b
Say to them, Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations, who goes to the holy things, which the people of Israel hallow to the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence; I am the Lord.... . But the man who shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he has impurified the Temple of the Lord; the water of sprinkling has not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.	Thus shall you separate the people of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they impurify my Temple that is among them.
Rashi comments: The cut off punishment for impurifying the Temple / holy objects, mentioned in Lv22-03,Nu19-20, means a death penalty (at the hands of heaven) as clarified in Lv15-31b.

Advanced Rashi: A sort of cute twist happens here. Rashi comments on verse Lv15-31b which explicitly mentions death. Rashi cross-references verses Lv22-03, Nu19-20 which only mention cut-off. But the role of target and reference verse should be reversed. That is Rashi should really comment on verses Lv22-03, Nu19-20 that the unknown word cut-off is illuminated by verse Lv15-31b which explains cut-off as death. In other words this is one of those rare Rashi situations where the Rashi comment would be better placed on the verse referenced rather than on the current verse.

When Rashi uses the synonym method he does not explain the meaning of a word but rather the distinction between two similar words both of whose meanings we already know.

Today Rashi examines the Hebrew root Cheth-Lamed-Tzade. It is interesting how both Rashi and Radack approach the meaning of this root. They state: Language indicating removal. If you read the Rashi-Radack comment properly they are not saying it means removal but rather that it is language indicating removal. Neither Rashi nor Radack go further.

The Rashi/Radacak are explicitly incomplete. They indicate the general direction of meaning without explaining the exact meaning. I regard these Rashi comments, not as authoratative declarations of Biblical meaning, but rather as a sort of homework assignment, to review the usages of the root and find the exact nuances.

Reviewing several verses using the word Cheth-Lamed-Tzade, or, reviewing the list of Biblical meanings, provided by the Radack who also lists sample verses, we find that cheth-lamed-tzade can mean
• removal of shoes
• removal of stones from a house
• removal of captives from captivity
• ----------------------------------
• removal of breasts (from under the garments) for purposes of nursing
• removal of a sword from its sheath.

Performing the homework assignment given by Rashi we see that Cheth-Lamed-Tzade means
• removal against a physical resistance (shoes, house stones, captives)
• removal that is typically not socially acceptable (breasts, swords).
The basic idea seems to be removal of something that is meant to stay in place.

Advanced Rashi: We advocate enriching the Rashi experience with short terse punchy translations capturing the Rashi comment. In this case I would translate cheth-lamed-tzade as meaning yank. Hence we would translate verse Lv14-40a as Then the priest shall command that they yank the house-stones in which the disease is, and they shall throw them into an unclean place outside the city;

The grammar method seeks to apply and teach Hebrew grammar. One goal of grammar is to present the various rules of plural-singular. Lv14-12 states And the priest shall take one male lamb, and bring it near for a guilt offering, with the pint [literally log] of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord.

Rashi commenting on the Biblical phrase and wave them states [Them refers to]
• the lamb and
• pint of oil.

Rashi is terse and enigmatic. To fully understand Rashi we must read the full Sifrah which he cites. We in fact cite the Sifrah using the simple grammatical explanation offered by the great 19th century commentator Malbim: Note the contrasts of
• the singular it, and bring it near
• the plural them, and wave them
• the singular wave offering, for a waive offering.
Proper grammar, as taught say in high school and introductory college courses would require, for purposes of clarify, a consistent use of singular and plural. The verse should read as follows: And the priest shall take one male lamb with the pint of oil and bring them near for a guilt offering and wave them for a wave offerings before the Lord.

Rashi therefore can make inferences from the alternate uses of singular and plural
• The singular wave offering vs plural wave offerings shows that there is one waive offering
• the plural them, shows that this singular wave offering is done to both objects, the lamb and oil-pint So we do not waive the oil separately and the lamb separately as we would then have two wave offerings.
• the singular bring it near shows that a separate treatment for the lamb and oil-pint is possible. If you inadvertently waived only one of the two objects (oil,lamb) then bring it near (either the oil or lamb whichever was forgotten) and waive it separately.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verselets in Lv14-06 Both verselets discuss the lepor-sacrifice procedures done with the cedar, hyssop, worm-died-wool and live bird. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertions that There are two takings: The priest a) takes the bird and b) takes the cedar-hyssop-worm-died-wool; but there is one one dipping: The priest dips the entire bird-cedar-hyssop-worm-died-wool package together.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Lv14-06	the living bird: the priest shall take it, with the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop,	The underlined verb take in the middle of the sentence separates the objects taken into two distinct groups: (Group #1) The living bird and (Group #2) the cedar, scarlet and the hyssop. This implies that there are essentially two groups taken.
Lv14-06	and the priest shall dip them and the living bird in....	Unlike the previous sentence where the objects of take are separated into two distinct groups, in this sentence, the verb dip applies to the entire group - the living bird and the cedar-hyssop-worm-died-wool. So the priest does one dipping of the entire package of bird-cedar-hyssop-worm-died-wool.

Advanced Rashi: But how do you do two takings and one dipping? Rashi explains further: You tie the cedar-hyssop-worm-died-wool (one bundle) and then take that bundle and the bird (Because of the two bundles there are two takings). You then dip them together.

The table below presents presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about house-leprosy The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says God placed a leprous spot in the house while the other verse says it looks to me leprous Which is it? Is it a leprous spot or does it just look like a leprous spot. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Stages method: The declaration of the Priest is required to effect leprous status. Therefore proper etiquette is that the house owner should request inspection without declaration: It appears to me to be leprous. This is stage #1. The actual declaration of the priest, stage #2, is when the spot becomes definitely leprous.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
There is leprosy in the house	Lv13-34	When you come to the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the disease of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
It seems to me there is leprosy in the house.	Lv14-35	And he who owns the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seems to me there is a disease in the house;
Resolution:	2 Aspects:	The declaration of the Priest is required to effect leprous status. Therefore proper etiquette is that the house owner should request inspection without declaration: It appears to me to be leprous. This is stage #1. The actual declaration of the priest, stage #2, is when the spot becomes definitely leprous.

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.

Biblical verse Lv14-09 discussing the purification procedure of the lepor is written in a Theme-Detailed-Theme style. This verse states But it shall be on the seventh day,
• Theme: that he shall shave all his hair off
• Detail:
  • his head and
  • his beard
  • and his eyebrows,
• Theme: all his hair he shall shave off; and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

Hence the Rashi comment: Beard, head, eyebrows have hair that is dense and visible. So only dense, visible here is shaven. This excludes
• arm-hair, which is visible but not dense,
• armpit-hair, which is not visible but dense
• nose-hair, which is not visible and not dense.

Advanced Rashi: If you look carefully at the verse above you will see that the word all is bolded. The word all always requires generalization. Hence the additional Rashi comment: The actual law requires shaving the arm and armpit hair. In other words all hair is shaven except the nose-hair which is neither visible nor dense.

This derivation is as follows:
• (1st) We apply the style rule which excludes nose-hear with neither of the two attributes of visible and dense;
• (2nd) If nothing further was indicated in the verse we would also exclude arm-hair and armpit-hair which have only one of the two attributes, visibility and denseness;
• (3rd) Then we apply the generalization rule which says that the word all includes more cases. So we include arm and armpit hair which have only one of the attributes but retain the exclusion of the nose-hair which has neither of the two attributes.

Thus my contribution is to see the derivation as emanating from two Rashi methods: The theme-detail-theme method and the special word- all method.

Advanced Rashi: There is a symbolic meaning to the shaving of hair given by Rabbbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Based on several required shaving procedures Rav Hirsch points out that a shaven person looks female. Recall that the lepor is a slanderer. One way of curing the lepor is to urge a feminine trait of responsiveness - let them learn to listen to the person they are dealing with instead of trying to manage them. Such a listening attitude is one step in curing slander.

The format rule includes all grammatical aspects of paragraph structure. We review below the paragraph structure of Lv15.

And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, When any man has a discharge out of his flesh, because of his discharge he is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in his discharge; whether his flesh runs with his discharge, or his flesh is stopped from his discharge, it is his uncleanness.
1. Every bed, on which he, who has the discharge, lies, is unclean; and everything, on which he sits, shall be unclean.
   • And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
   • And he who sits on any thing on which he, who has the discharge, sat, shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
2. And he who touches the flesh of him who has the discharge shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
3. And if he who has the discharge spits upon him who is clean; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
4. And whatever saddle he, who has the discharge, rides upon, shall be unclean.
   • And whoever touches any thing that was under him shall be unclean until the evening; and he who carries any of those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.

The Rashi comment is simple, straightforward and based directly on the bulleted structure: The chapter enumerates 4 methods of communication with ritual uncleanness for a person with excessive discharge: his bed, his touch, his spit, his riding. Notice how the ride and bed sections have sub-bullets while the touch and spit section to not have sub-bullets. We see all 4 methods of communication make the communicated person ritually unclean. However we additionally see that lieing / riding have the power to make a person touching the bed unclean. In other words the bed becomes a primary transfer (Father) of ritual uncleanness while the the touching only creates recipiency of ritual uncleanness but not the ability to transfer.

Summary: Whether you get spit at or touched or lied on by the person with discharge you become ritually unclean. However a person spitted on or touched cannot further transfer his ritual uncleanness to a 3rd person. By contrast the bed on which the person with discharge sleeps does have the capacity to transfer ritual uncleanness to a 3rd party. This distinction between touching and beds is conveyed by the sub-bullet structure.

Although we have been somewhat technical in this Rashi it is noteworthy that the Rashi comment is solely derived through analysis of structure. The Rashi comment is not derived through word meaning or grammar.

We ask the following database query: What phrases are used to indicate the presence of leprosy? 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: The standard introductory phrase describing leprosy presence uses the language template when a person/garment has a leprous plague. However the house plague section is introduced with the unusual When you arrive in the land and I(God) give a house plague. The emphasis in houses on God personally giving the plague is not to emphasize punishment since leprosy on the person or clothes is more serious. Rather, the emphasis in God delivering house plagues is because the required removal of all house contents sets aside time for the revu of house contents, which revu might result in the discovery of hidden treasures, a reasoanble expectation because the prior Canaanite inhabitants probably hid their valuables in the house walls in the hope that they would return and re-acquire them. The list below presents the results of the database query.

9. RASHI METHOD: NonVerse BRIEF EXPLANATION: The common denominator of the 3 submethods of the NonVerse method is that inferences are made from non textual material. The 3 submethods are as follows: Spreadsheet: Rashi makes inferences of a numerical nature that can be summarized in a traditional spreadsheet Geometric: Rashi clarifies a Biblical text using descriptions of geometric diagrams Fill-ins: Rashi supplies either real-world background material or indicates real-world inferences from a verse. The emphasis here is on the real-world, non-textual nature of the material. This examples applies to Rashis Lv14-36b URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1410.htm Brief Summary: The owner removes utensils from his house prior to the priestly inspection in order to avoid the utensils declared impure. This law shows God cared about petty monetary ownership of even sinners.

Verse Lv15-25 discussing the ritual impurity of houses states And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest goes in to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house. Notice how the meaning of the verse and the justifying reason are clear - the house utensils are cleared from the house prior to the priestly inspection since otherwise they would be declared ritually impure and unusable. The question remains why? What non-verse values and goals does the underlying law reflect. Rashi explains: The effect of this law is that household utensils are spared from being declared ritually impure which would render them unusable to the owner. We infer that the Torah values not only life but even the property of Jews; even petty monetary ownership of even sinful Jews.

Because this Rashi introduces values - God's regard for petty monetary ownership - to explain a verse, we have classified it as using a non-verse method.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi continues. ...But if certain utensils were declared impure then an immersion ceremony could purify them making them usable. It follows that the purpose of the law is to protect clay earthenware utensils that have no purification process. I could go further and add:The law also protects the owner against the inconvenience of having to wait a day or two to use his utensils (after a proper ritual immersion). Such Rashis sometimes turn people off as being too technical. The approach of this email list is that Rashi is not exhausting the meaning of the midrash but rather clarifying/illustrating it!!! Rashi never denied that the simple meaning of the text is that the Bible showed care for Jewish property rights. However Rashi clarifies that the application of this idea applies primarily to clay utensils whose purification would require destruction. By viewing the Rashi as illustrative and clarifying vs. as identifying and exhaustive of total meaning we obtain a richer Rashi experience.

10. RASHI METHOD: SYMBOLISM BRIEF EXPLANATION: Rashi provides symbolic interpretations of words, verses, and chapters. Rashi can symbolically interpret either (10a) entire Biblical chapters such as the gifts of the princes, Nu-07 (10b) individual items, verses and words The rules governing symbolism and symbolic interpretation are presented in detail on my website. This examples applies to Rashis Lv14-04c Lv14-04d URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1410.htm Brief Summary: Leprosy = punishment for BIRD like chatter: Atonement: See spectrum of of human personality from the CEDAR=mighty to HYSSOP=lower classes.

Biblical chapter Lv13 discusses the ritual impurity of leprosy. The atonement procedure for this ritual impurity is discussed in Biblical Chapter Lv14.