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 Dt25-18d URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n4.htm Brief Summary: The statement that 'YOU WERE THIRSTY and exhausted' cross references the DROUGHT mentioned at Ex17-03

Verse Dt25-18 states that the Amalyk attacked the Jews who were thirsty and exhausted Rashi clarifies that this cross reference alludes to Ex17-03, which discusses the drought prior to the Amalayk attack.

Text of Target Verse Dt25-17:18	Text of Reference Verse Ex17-03
Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast drought stricken and weary; and he feared not G-d.	And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said: 'Wherefore hast thou brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?'
Rashi comments: The underlined phrase though was drought stricken in Dt18-01 references the underlined phrase thirsted there for water in Nu18-20

Todays Rashi rule could be classified as either the grammar or meaning method.

Although most conjugation rules refer to the conjugation of verbs, there are also conjugation rules for transfroming nouns into verbs. We list several common methods for transforming nouns into verbs:
• create the noun: e.g. to flower
• remove the noun: e.g. to dust; cf. Nu04-13a, to ash the altar.
• use the noun: e.g. to hammer
• the verb(activity) done to this noun: e.g. Dt21-04b: neck the calf, in other words kill it with a blow to the neck

We can apply the above Rashi rule to verse Nu25-18b which states How he [Amalayk] met you by the way, and tailed you, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God. Here we have followed our practice in this email list of embedding the Rashi comment in the translation of the verse. The Rashi comment focues on transforming the noun tail into the verb to tail which means to perform terrorist like actions, to snip at the tail end of the people.

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 use two rules, one from meaning and one from grammar.
• The synechdoche rule says we name items by good examples of them. So honey can refer to anything sweet and father can refer to any good caring leader.
• The verb-noun principle states that a noun (a thing) can be transformed into a verb meaning making the thing. For example, to flower converts the noun plant into the verb meaning to make plants, to build takes the noun building and converts it into the verb meaning to make buildings.

Using these rules we explain verse Dt22-21c which discusses the death penalty for a adultery. In describing the execution the Bible declares ....for she has done a vile thing in Israel to prostitute her father's house. Rashi explains the awkward sounding phrase to prostitute her father's house as meaning to prostitute while in her father's house.

In explaining this Rashi we make use of the two principles mentioned above.
• The Hebrew word Nun-Beth-Lamed-Hey, Nevalah means dead carcass
• However the dead carcass is a Good example of something vile and disgusting. This uses the synechdoche principle which names things by good examples. So honey can mean sweet and dead carcass can mean vile.
• But then isn't prostitution another good example of something vile? So the word prostitute can also mean vile.
• Next we use the verb-noun principle: to plant converts the noun plant into the verb meaning to make plants, to build takes the noun building and converts it into the verb meaning to make buildings, and so to prostitute takes the noun prostitute which we just saw means something vile and converts it into the verb meaning to make vile.
• But the verb to make vile takes a direct object. Hence the verse says to prostitute her father's house which we translate to make vile her father's house.
• So the whole verse together has a delicious double pun on the vileness of adultery. The entire verse would mean ...she is stoned....because she has done something vile [literally, a dead carcass] in Israel to vile [literally, to prostitute] her father's house.

Good puns have overtones, flavors and scents which enrich, beautify and deliver punchy points. Here the Bible attacks the sympathies we may have towards adulterous sinners.
• We tend to see adultery as an act of passion. We imagine lovers and tempting beautiful bodies, and so the Bible deliberately uses the word dead carcass as a pun describing the bodies of the adulterers.
• We tend to see adultery as a sin between consenting adults and so the Bible reminds us that the woman viles her father's house indicating that the adultery has implications and ramifications for those who brought up the woman - she is not doing something private but rather publicly affecting other peoople.

Advanced Rashi: We tend to look at the Bible as a legal book of laws and exhortations. We forget that the Bible is capable of irony, puns, inuendos - paintings with words and connotations. I hope the above example shows the potential richness in any Biblical verse. The above example also shows how Biblical grammar when properly used is not technical but romantic, poetic and full of nuances.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Dt24-05b. Both verses/verselets discuss the exemption rights of a groom during the first year of marriage. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: The groom is exempt from both army service and national service. (National service (like in Israel)is a substitute communal service done by people who don't serve in the army). This double exemption is indicated in the verse by the aligned phrases: he won't go out in the army and he won't go out for any other matter. By contrast the person who just built a house is exempt from army service but not national service. (Because the Bible just exempts him from being in the army).

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Dt24-05b	When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, neither shall he do national service; rather he shall be free for his house one year, and shall cheer his wife whom he hath taken.	The groom is exempt from both army service and national service. (National service (like in Israel)is a substitute communal service done by people who don't serve in the army). This double exemption is indicated in the verse by the aligned phrases: he won't go out in the army and he won't go out for any other matter. By contrast the person who just built a house is exempt from army service but not national service. (Because the Bible just exempts him from being in the army).
Dt24-05b	When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, neither shall he do national service; rather he shall be free for his house one year, and shall cheer his wife whom he hath taken.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi also mentions that the four exemptions in Biblical paragraph, Dt20-01:09, - the person who just built a house, or just got engaged, or just planted a vineyard, or who is a coward - these four exemptions are only from the army and hence by aligned comparison with Dt24-05b, the person just married, these 4 exemptions can be made to do national service.

We have classified this Rashi as an alignment. But it can also be classified as an instance of the formatting rule. Here we would simply focus on the repeating keyword will not go out. The repeating keyword is treated like a bulleted list and creates an unspecified emphasis that two exemptions are mentioned. It is then easy to fill in that one exemption is army service while the other exemption would be other service which we would immediately recognize as national service.

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 Dt21-07a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1305.htm Brief Summary: 1)No one knows who killed this person 2)The elders say...we didn't kill this person RASHI We didn't accidentally kill him by abstaining from hospitality which led to a road mugging.

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about the killer of a dead person found in the field. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says it is not known who killed him while the other verse says we [the elders of the city] didn't kill him Which is it? Is the murder unknown or did the elders kill him? Rashi simply resolves this using the Broad-Literal method method: 1) The killer is unknown 2) We also (besides not directly killing the person) didn't indirectly kill him by abstaining from hospitality leading to the murdered wandering the roads and getting killed

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
Sanctify the firstborn	Dt21-01	If one is found slain in the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess, lying in the field, and it is not known who has slain him;
We (the elders) didn't kill him	Dt21-07a	And they [the elders] shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it
Resolution:	Broad-Literal	1) The killer is unknown 2) We also (besides not directly killing the person) didn't indirectly kill him by abstaining from hospitality leading to the murdered wandering the roads and getting killed

Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally says Did anyone think that the elders killed him that the verse should say We have not killed him? I have added to Rashi (who based the contradiction on logic) by finding a verse which supports the contradiction since it explicitly says it is not known who killed him.

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 Dt24-16a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1306.htm Brief Summary: Each person shall die based on his own record of sin (Independent of behavior of children and parents). So a) Parents shall not be EXECUTED for children's CRIMES and also b) Parents shall not be CONVICTED account of children's TESTIMONIES.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Example-General form. In other words several particular examples are stated followed by a general theme. The Detail-Theme form creates a unified paragraph and consequently the examples are interpreted broadly as illustrating multiple aspects of the general theme. Today's example illustrates this as shown below.

Verses Dt24-16a discussing the requirement that people die for their own sins states
• Detail:
  • Parents shall not die account of children and
  • Children shall not die account of parents
• Detail: every person shall die because of his own sins.
The detail clause states parents shall not die account of children and could mean parents shall not die account of the sins/crimes of their children. For example, if the family is a criminal family it is still prohibited to kill the parent for the crimes of their children (to make an example of them) The General clause provides an all exclusive principle and requires that the detail clause should be interpreted broadly: The statement parents shall not die account of their children means the restrictive parents shall be be executed account of their childrens sins and also means more broadly parents shall be be convicted account of their childrens testimonies. It is important to emphasize what Rashi is and is not saying. Rashi is not saying that the simple meaning of parents shall not die account of their children is parents shall be be convicted account of their childrens testimonies. Rather Rashi is saying that because there is a terminal general clause we should see the example clauses as illustrating all examples of this general clause. The driving force of this broad interpretation is the paragraph structure which teaches us that the example clause is not the only example of the theme but rather one of many examples of the theme. Hence the paragraph as a whole even though it doesn't explicitly say so teaches us that parents aren't executed for children's sins and parents aren't convicted by children's testimonies.

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 Dt24-19d 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.

When Rashi explains a complicated algebraic computation we say that Rashi is using the spreadsheet method. Spreadsheet Rashis have a more complicated flavor than other Rashis because of their algebraic technical nature.

Verse Dt21-17a lays down the requirements for promogeniture: But he shall acknowledge the firstborn son of ...., by giving him a double portion of all that he has; ... Rashi explains: For example if a person's estate has $1,000,000 and he has 3 children then we do as follows: We create a fictitious son so that the person now has 4 children, the 3 actual ones and the fictitious one. Each son inherits one fourth of the estate $250,000. The eldest son inherits both his share of $250,000 and the $250,000 of the fictitious son. Consequently the first born inherits $500,000 while the other 2 actual children inherit $250,000 each. It follows that the aggregate share of the firstborn, $500,000, is twice the $250,000 inherited by each non firstborn.

I have augmented Rashi's explanation with the examples used by the Rambam in Chapter 2 of Inheritances. The reader may wonder why the Rambam made obscure so simple a law. Why not simply let the variable x denote the unknown amount inherited by the non first born son. We see that each real son inherits x while the firstborn inherits 2x. Thus the firstborn inherits twice the amount of each non firstborn. Furthermore the sum of all the inheritances must exhaust the estate giving rise to the equation x + x + 2x = $1,000,000 which easily solves for x = $250,000 and 2x = $500,000.

The above algebraic approach is simpler for the general case. However Rambam gives a complicated example of a 3 child family where one of the non first born sons had an unnatural birth and is not counted for the share of the firstborn son, but does inherit. The interested reader can look up the Rambam's example in his great code.

We also brought the two approaches to illustrate how spreadsheet Rashis can be approached in a variety of manners.