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 Lv01-17a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n12.htm Brief Summary: Lv01-17 speaks about RIPPING the bird. Cf. Ju14-06 ...LIKE RIP OF A LION

Verse Lv01-17a discussing the tearing of the up bird offering states And he [the priest] shall rip it [the bird] by the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder; and the priest shall offer it... Rashi clarifies the underlined word rip by referencing verse Ju14-06 which states And the spirit of the Lord camJe mightily upon him [Samson], and he ripped the lion like the rip of a kid and he had nothing in his hand; but he told not his father or his mother what he had done. Hence the Rashi comment: The Hebrew root Shin-Samech-Ayin has a general meaning of tear. Its specific nuances are a energetic deliberate ripping. Here Rashi uses other verses to clarify the meaning and nuances of a word. We could have also classified this Rashi as using the synonym method.

Text of Target verse Lv01-17a	Text of Reference Verse Ju14-06
And he [the priest] shall rip it [the bird] by the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder; and the priest shall offer it...	And the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him [Samson], and he ripped the lion like the rip of a kid and he had nothing in his hand; but he told not his father or his mother what he had done.
Rashi comments: The Hebrew root Shin-Samech-Ayin has a general meaning of tear. Its specific nuances are a energetic deliberate ripping.

Rashi's point was the meaning of a word. We have already incorporated Rashi's translation of the Hebrew word as meaning rip in the actual verse. Such translations show the effect of the Rashi comment.

Rashi would sometimes derive the meaning of a word from the meaning of its underlying Biblical root. In applying this method Rashi would use all available grammatical methods to study the meanings of related roots. The next paragraph presents one such rule.

There are 1900 Biblical roots. Of these 1900 roots about half involve X-Vav-Y X-Y-Y X-Y-Hey pairs. These roots (with one root letter weak) often, but not always, have related meanings. Consequently, very often, but not always. one can infer the meaning of a X-Y-Y root from the related X-Y-Hey or X-Vav-Y root.

Let us apply these principles: Throughout the Bible the Temple offerings are referred to as being Nun-Yud-Chet-Vav-Chet to God. The root of the Hebrew word used is Nun-Chet-Chet, which has the form XYY (the second and third root letter are identical). The root Nun-Vav-Chet means rest. The root Nun-Chet-Chet, according to Rashi means pleasing / satisfying.

Both rest and pleasing / satisfying connote a state where no further motion is required. The word rest is more physical (no further physical motion is anticipated) while the word pleasing / satisfaction is emotional (that is an emotional state where no further action is required). Note that pleasing / satisfaction differ from attractiveness which does connote a need of further motion towards the attractive object.

Based on the above we would translate the many verses using Nun-Yud-Chet-Vav-Chet as meaning an offering pleasing and satisfying to God.

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 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 pronoun usage. The basic rule of pronouns is that After a noun is stated a 1st time, in subsequents referents to that noun, pronouns are used. The great Malbim showed that throughout Leviticus repeated nouns are interpreted exegetically to indicate some type of emphasis, typically through a broader application of the noun reference.

With this background we cite Lv03-06 discussing the bringing of the Elevation offering: If his offering is a elevation sacrifice of the herd, then let him offer a male ... without blemish; he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the Tent of Meeting before the Lord. ... And he shall flay the elevation offering, and cut it into his pieces. The underlined phrase the elevation offering repeated the noun instead of using a pronoun it, which we see is used later on in the verse. For example, the verse could have said ...And he shall flay it and cut it into her pieces. Rashi as understood by the Malbim explains The repeated the elevation offering broadens the applicability of the cited law - just flaying the elevation offering discussed in this chapter- to any elevation offering. That is all elevation offerings, not just the particular elevation offering discussed in this Biblical chapter, Lv01, require the flaying procedure.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Lv01-14b Both verses/verselets discuss the types of birds that may be offered as offerings. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: Here, in this verse, as well as throughout the rest of the Bible, we always find children associated with Pigeons. Similarly we always find turtledoves associated with lack of reference to children. Hence we conclude that a) When bringing turtledoves only adults can be brought as bird offerings while b) When bringing pigeons only teenage/younger pigeons can be brought as a bird offerings.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Lv01-14b	And if the elevation sacrifice for his offering to the Lord is of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of child pigeons.	Here, in this verse, as well as throughout the rest of the Bible, we always find children associated with Pigeons. Similarly we always find turtledoves associated with lack of reference to children. Hence we conclude that a) When bringing turtledoves only adults can be brought as bird offerings while b) When bringing pigeons only teenage/younger pigeons can be brought as a bird offerings.
Lv01-14b	And if the elevation sacrifice for his offering to the Lord is of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of child pigeons.

Advanced Rashi: We have defended this Rashi using the alignment method. However we could have also defended it using the format method since the repeated keyword of in Lv01-14 which states ...he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or of pigeons, creates a bullet like structure emphasizing the distinctness of each enumerated item: a) turtledoves and b) child pigeons.

Similarly we could have defended this Rashi using the database method since a database review of all verses referring to turtledoves and pigeons always associates the adjective child with pigeons, not with turtledoves.

The table below presents presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about the Altar fire. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says fire perpetually remains on the altar while the other verse says the priests place fire on the altar. Which is it? Was the altar fire perpetual or was it supplied by Priests. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 aspects method: There were two sources for the altar fire. (1) The altar fire was perpetual and consequently only additional wood was needed. (2) The priests, in addition to bringing wood, also brought fire.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
The fire on the altar was perpetual	Lv06-06	The fire shall burn perpetually upon the altar; it shall not be put out.
The priests supplied fire to the altar	Lv01-07	And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire
Resolution:	2 Aspects:	There were two sources for the altar fire. (1) The altar fire was perpetual and consequently only additional wood was needed. (2) The priests, in addition to bringing wood, also brought fire.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally says The fire came from heaven [from above] and also from the priests. This does not contradict our approach that the fire was perpetually on the altar. The altar is a Temple object and Temple ownership is frequently referred to as Heaven Ownership or Higher Ownership. Although Rashi does not explicitly mention the verse about perpetual fire we feel that this is the source for the Rashi comment.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Theme-Development form. In other words a broad general idea is stated first followed by the development of this broad general theme in specific details. The Theme-Detail form creates a unified paragraph. Today's example illustrates this as shown below.

Verse Lv02-04a discussing the offering of oven-baked rest offerings states
• General: And if you bring a sacrifice of a rest offering baked in the oven
• Detail:
  • it shall be [either] unleavened bread loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, or
  • unleavened wafers anointed with oil.

Advanced Rashi: In other words, in classical general-detail guidance Rashi is stating If you bring an oven-baked rest offering then you can only bring either wafer or loaf offerings. We should add that in addition to the derivation based on style Rashi derives technical laws on the difference between wafer and loaf offerings by aligning the two halves of the detail clause. For example, as can be seen in the above citation, loaves are mixed with oil while wafers are anointed with oil. More can be said but our basic goal here was to clarify the Rashi use of the style method.

We ask the following database query: What Minchah procedures (rest-offering procedures) are offered and who (owner/priest) must/may do them. 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: 1) All procedures until taking the handful may be done by the owner. This includes, mixing with oil, placing the frankincense and bringing to the Priest. 2) From the handful procedure to the end only Priests may officiate. This includes taking the handful, bringing it to the altar, offering oil-flour on altar, offering frankincense on altar. The list below presents the results of the database query.

The list below has an unusual construction: The left hand column mentions all procedures of the Minchah offering. The other 4 columns list 4 textual passages dealing with Minchah. The table itself reflects which procedures are mentioned in which textual passages. Taking the table as a whole shows how Rashi following the Talmud inferred the laws of Minchah.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi states The requirement of priest starts with the lifting of the fistful procedure. But a review of the above table shows that the requirement of priest starts with the bringing of the Minchah to the altar corner. Why did Rashi deviate from the implications of the above list?

The above table answers this. The bringing to the altar corner is not mentioned in the Lv02-01:03 passage. In that passage the requirement of Priest is first mentioned in the taking of the fistful procedure. Hence the Rashi comment The requirement of priest starts with the taking the fistful procedure is not a statement about legal requirements but rather a statement about the textual listing of the word priest among all procedures. In the Lv02-01:03 text the word Priest first occurs in the the taking of fistful procedure. However to infer the correct legal requirements we have to not only review this passage but all passages discussing Minchah. When we do that we find that the legal requirement of priest begins with bringing the Minchah to the altar corner.

Verse Lv01-05f discussing the throwing of blood during the offering procedures states And he shall kill the bullock before HaShem; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and throw the blood around against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.

Rashi applies the diagram method to explain the mechanics of throwing around. By way of background we note that words like around can connote continuosly or discretely around. Many other words have this continuous - discrete ambiguity. For example the word always can mean continuously, all the time or can mean e.g. every day, (discretely always).

Rashi following the Sifra points out that throw would be inconsistent with a continuous around: You can't throw continously around. Hence Rashi diagramatically interprets throws around as follows: He throws on two opposite diagonals so that the blood covers all 4 sides satisfying the requirement of around. Here, Rashi's primary goal is to clarify the diagramatics of throwing around.

Verse Lv02-13a discussing the requirement of salting (rest) offerings states And every meal-offering of thine shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy G-d to be lacking from thy meal-offering; with all thy offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Rav Hirsch (in Nu) explains the symbolism of salt:After reviewing many biblical verses we see that salt is used to indicate destruction. But salt is also used to preserve meat from decay. How can the same item be used for both perservation and destruction? Rather salt maintains the status quo. If a land is destroyed then salting it preserves this destruction preventing further growth. If meat is about to decay then salting it prevents the decay. Thus salt symbolizes steadfastness.

Using this symbolism we can understand the symbolic requirement of salting offerings: Whatever lessons are taught by the offerings must not be transient one day lessons in the Temple but permanantly preserved eternally.

Advanced Rashi:But Rashi does not say this. Rather Rashi crytpically says: Water and salt made a deal at creation. Water is used on the Succah festival while salting is done to sacrifices.

But we can now explain this cryptic Rashi. If salt is the symbol of preservation then water is the symbol of growth. Growth and change belong on the Succah festival when the water ceremony was performed. The Succah symbolizes non-citizenship. Every non-citizenship situation is one we should grow from. But the offerings symbolize acceptance of God's law. God's law is not something we grow out of; rather it is something eternal which should always be preserved. It is a climactic state where satisfaction and happiness abound; it is not a temporary transition state to something better for there is nothing better.