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 Nu19-15a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n25.htm; Brief Summary: ALL OPEN UNSEALED VESSELS - Rashi: CLAY VESSELS, because clay vessels only receive ritual impurity from air space contact inside (Lv11-32:33)

Verse Nu19-15a, discussing which objects receive ritual impurity from a dead corpse, states ...And every open utensil, which is not sealed, is unclean. Rashi clarifies the underlined words open utensil which is not sealed by referencing verse(s) Nu11-32:33, discussing how dead animals cause ritual impurity to utensils which states And upon whatever any of them, when they are dead, falls, it shall be unclean; whether it is any utensil of wood, or garment, or skin, or sack, whatever utensil it is, where any work is done, it must be put in water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; so it shall be cleansed. And every earthen utensil, in which any of them falls in it, whatever is inside shall be unclean; and you shall break it. Hence the Rashi comment: Other utensils receive ritual impurity by touch (falling). Earthenware vessels receive ritual impurity by corpse contact with their inside air-space. Hence when the verse speaks about an open utensil which is not sealed as receiving ritual impurity it must be referring to an eartherware vessel, since this is the only vessel where sealing would protect it.

Advanced Rashi: A careful examination of the verses Lv11-32:33 requires the alignment method: Lv11-32 speaks about a dead animal corpse falling on a utensil; here touch results in ritual impurity. By contrast verse Lv11-33 speaking about an eartheware vessel describes the transmission of ritual impurity as achieved through contact with its inside that is, its air space. Rashi then concludes that vessel seals would only be relevant to an earthenware vessel.

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 study a Rashi based on a simple grammatical rule: agreement in plurality. That is, a plural subject must refer not to one person but to several people.

Verse Nu21-27b discussing the reaction to the defeat of Moab states Wherefore the riddle-makers say: Come ye to Heshbon! let the city of Sihon be built and established! The subject of the sentence, riddle-makers, is plural. In fact in the Biblical Hebrew the verb of the sentence is also plural. The plural subject and predicate, according to the rules of grammar must refer to a plurality of people. Hence the paraphrased Rashi comment: Bilam was not the only riddle-maker. Bilam, was not a permanant prophet, but rather an interpreter (Nu22-05) Bilam however aspired to become a prophet. He did this by practicing riddle-making since God spoke to the prophets in riddle-like phrases (Nu12-05.) Apparently Bilam belonged to a school of such riddle-makers. In fact we find an explicit verse Nu24-05...the oration of Bilam, his son [student] was Beor Although Bilam's father was also named Beor (See Nu22-05) Bilam apparently affectionately named his star pupil after his father. It is extremely reasonable to assume that Bilam founded a school of riddle makers who sought by practicing riddles to know the knowledge of heavens and prophecy (Nu24-16)

To be fair Rashi only says The plural, riddle-speakers, refers to Bilam and Beor. However what I attempted to do above, although speculative and conjectural, does have a basis.
• I first point out that Bilam was not a prophet.
• I then conjecture that he used riddle-styles to attempt to know God.
• Finally I suggest that he founded a school of riddle-speakers since people who attempt to learn things usually gather in schools of people to conduct their research.
• Based on the above I then suggest that the strange construction, Bilam, his son was Beor probably refers to his star pupil whom he named after his father.
All these are reasonable assumptions which enrich our understanding of Rashi - it also shows that Rashi was insulting Bilam - Bilam was rather pathetic - he prepared for prophecy by studying childish riddles and thought he knew the wisdom of God.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Nu19-09a Both verses/verselets discuss where the ashes of the red-heiffer are deposited. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: Biblically the ashes were placed in two places: a) Outside the Temple camp for purposes of purification by lay Israelites, b) inside the Temple for purposes of commemoration. Furthermore, Rabbinically, for practical purposes, for the priests, there was a third deposit of the ashes in the Temple for purposes of purification of the High priests in their procedures.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Nu19-09a	And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up outside the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept as a watched commemorative for the congregation of the people of Israel for a water of sprinkling; it is a purification offering	Biblically the ashes were placed in two places: 1) Outside the Temple camp for purposes of purification by lay Israelites, 3) inside the Temple for purposes of commemoration. Furthermore, Rabbinically, for practical purposes, for the priests,2) there was a third deposit of the ashes in the Temple for purposes of purification of the High priests in their procedures.
Nu19-09a	And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up outside the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept as a watched commemorative for the congregation of the people of Israel for a water of sprinkling; it is a purification offering

Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally says There are three deposits of the Temple ashes. However, upon review of the Rashi methodology and the cited Biblical text, we have rephrased Rashi to indicate There are three deposits of the Temple ashes. Two of these three methods are Biblically indicated while the third is a Rabbinical provision for convenience purposes. As frequently indicated in this email list, supplementation of Rashi with comments based on the cited Biblical text and Rashi's methods enriches the Rashi experience.

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 Nu19-04a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n25.htm Brief Summary: Brief Summary: The priest stands a) OUTSIDE the Temple camp but b) FACING the Temple gate.

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about the positioning of the priest during the Red-Heiffer ceremony. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says he shall be outside the temple camp while the other verse says he shall face the Temple gate. Which is it? Does the priest perform the red-heiffer ceremony by the Temple gate or outside the camp? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Aspects Method method: The Priest is bodily outside the Temple camp and from that outside position faces the Temple gate.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
The Priest is outside the Temple camp.	Nu19-03	And you shall give it to Eleazar the priest, that he may bring it forth outside the camp, and one shall slay it before his face
The priest shall face the Temple gate.	Nu19-04	And Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and sprinkle of its blood directly facing the Tent of Meeting seven timesolds; for it is your reward for your service in the Tent of Meeting.
Resolution:	2 Aspects	The Priest is bodily outside the Temple camp and from that outside position faces the Temple

Advanced Rashi: The reader may object to referring to the above two verses as a contradiction. We have pointed out many times that many examples of the contradiction rule would be better named as the method of complementary verses. We use the name contradiction since that is the name given by the Rabbi Ishmael rules. Furthermore, the reader should bear in mind that before the reader is aware of the resolution the verses typically do appear contradictory.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a example form. In other words an example of a law is stated rather than the full general rule. The reader's task is to generalize the example. The idea that all Biblical laws should be perceived as examples (unless otherwise indicated) is explicitly stated by Rashi (Pesachim 6.). This is a rule of style since the rule requires that a text be perceived as an example rather than interpreted literally. The Rabbi Ishmael style rules govern the interpretation of style.

Verse Nu20-08a discussing God's granting the Jewish request for water states Take the rod, and gather the assembly together, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their cattles drink. The Rabbi Ishmael example rule requires generalization of this passage. In this case we simply generalize from (a) the Jews in the wilderness, (b) their cattle and (c) their need of water to (a) all Jews, (b) their property, and the property's needs: God brings the needs of Jewish property to the Jews.

Advanced Rashi: A simple search engine query shows about 200 Rashis that use the style From this text we learn.... Almost all these Rashis illustrate the Rabbi Ishmael generalization rule. In past years in this email newsletter we have seen illustrated the following Rashis: Bilam took two associates on the journey. Rashi: From this text we learn that a distinguished person should always take two associates. or Moses prayed for the nation. Rashi: From this text we learn that one should pray for somebody who insulted him (the Jews had insulted Moses) if the person apologizes.

On any of these 200 Rashis it is always possible to probe deeper and show further support for the Rashi statement. For example, in this Rashi we can cite a parallel passage where Jews seek water, Ex17-01:07. There although the Jews ask for ...water for us and our cattle the text of the passage where God grants the request only mentions ....water will go out and the nation will drink. Using the alignment method we can see that both passages invovle a request for water for the Jews and their cattle but God's responses are different in the two passages: In one the nation is mentioned while in the other the nation and their cattle. This emphasis indicated by the alignment also justifies that God specifically cares about Jewish property besides caring about Jewish lives. However even with the alignment we need the generalization rule to generalize this passage to all Jews and all property (not just cattle).

We ask the following database query: Who in the Bible died by the word of God. 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: Moses and Aaron died by the word of God. This refers to death by a prophetic experience so that the soul immediately joins with God without undergoing the pains of death. It seems reasonable that Miryam, whom the Bible identifies as a prophet, also died the same way. However the Bible did not explicitly say by the mouth of God when discussing her death, for reasons of Modesty. The list below presents the results of the database query and shows examples

This Rashi discusses space capacity and hence we classified it as a Spreadsheet-diagram method. To properly understand this Rashi we cite Rambam, Laws of Sales, Chapter 21, laws 6/7. Rambam explains that every person when standing occupies a square that is roughly 6 x 7 handbreadths, say 24 x 28 inches. To make things simple let us round up symmetrically and say that every person can comfortably stand in a 30 x 30 (2.5' x 2.5') square. We can now explain the space capacity of the rock.

• Every person requires a 2.5' x 2.5' square in which to stand comfortably.
• 600,000 males can stand in a 775 person x 775 person square.
• So 600,000 males can stand in a square whose sides are 775 x 2.5' = 3.5 tenths of an American mile.
• In more familiar terms the American mile is roughly 20 small city blocks.
• So 600,000 males can stand in a 7 small-city-block x 7 small-city-block square.

It is reasonable that the rock from which the water came was about 7 small-city-block squares (This is not very big). Thus the whole nation assembled facing the rock!

The inauguration of President Barak Obama in 2008 illustrates this since there were over a million people facing the podium on which the President was sworn in and spoke, similar to the half million people standing before the rock and Moses.

Advanced Rashi: But there is a deep punchy insight from all of this. If people are so densely packed in 7 x 7 city blocks then the slightest uninvited movements could easily crush people. But no one was crushed. So God's request to speak formally and politely takes on a double meaning. The nation trusted Moses. They came out to witness the miracle of the water from the rock. When Moses insulted them and called them rebellious he ran the risk of some rabble rousers inciting the mob leading to crushed deaths. That of course didn't happen. But Moses had taken risks of leadership which could endanger lives and God wouldn't allow that to be repeated. The person who led the Jews into Israel had to be mindful of the vulnerabilities of the nation. This gives new insight both to both Moses' sin and God's punishment of Moses.

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 Nu19-22k URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w22n10.htm Brief Summary: CEDAR = High Society person; HYSSOP = low-life; WOOL-dyed-WORM-red = the wormy poor working for the people (WOOL=SHEEP). Awareness of all types facilitates PURITY.

Both the ceremonies removing ritual impurity from the
• Lepor: The slanderer
• Contact with dead:
require a procedure involving
• Cedars: [Rashi: High society people]
• Hyssop: [Rashi: low society people]
• Wool: [Rashi: Wool = lamb = ordinary people who use ...]
• Dyed worm-blood Red: [Rashi: ... wormy low life laborers]
The symbolic meaning of these items - indicated in the accompanying Rashi comments above - and the applicability of this symbolic interpretation to removal of ritual impurity, seems to be the following:

To remove the impurity of slander one must expose oneself to the full spectrum of personality types - the low/worm life to high society; those that use lower social structures and those that don't. This allows one to become aware how each personality type has a set of skills and a place in life. Each is needed for the achievmnt of communal goals. Without these people society would not function. Similarly for the removal of the ritual impurity due to death one must be aware of the equality of death on all personality types; such an awareness facilitates seeing death as independent of personality type - indeed since all people die we cannot perceive death as due to any particular life style or actions. That is, no particular social status facilitates avoidance, or a propensity to, death.

Advanced Rashi: There is more that can be said on the above but as usual we suffice with the bear minimum. Note especially that Rashi advanced two explanations. It is our custom in this email group to assume that Rashi's second interpretation is the correct one and that the first explanation was rejected. In fact the first explanation was only a numerical association of the three of the three objects - cedar, hyssop, worm-blood-dyed wool - and the three thousand that died because of the sin of the golden calf. Such an association while sometimes justified in symbolic interpretations must be rejected in favor of an intrinsic interpretation such as we have given above.