A DATABASE-LITERARY APPROACH TO RASHI
By Russell Jay Hendel; ( c ) RashiYomi; Mar-2002
NOTE TO ACADEMIC SCHOLARS: You are welcome to read the whole article. However I especially draw your attention to Sections 3 & 7 which I believe are new academically. Section 3 contains an abstract Database formulation of the concept of Rarity while section 7 contains a logical approach to the Rabbi Ishmael rules. I believe this is new.	

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to describe the goals, methods, problems and results of the Rashi Database Project*1. In this introduction we provide background both on Rashi and the literature explaining Rashi.

Rashi*2, an acronym for Rabbi Solomon Bar Isaac, was an 11th century Jewish‑French Rabbi, exegete, grammarian, and legal authority. Rashi wrote commentaries to most of the Bible and Talmud. His commentaries are distinguished by their great clarity, brevity and comprehensiveness. Rashi would frequently summarize, in a few words, entire Talmudic Midrashic chapters on Biblical verses. Rashis commentary is still important today and has influenced scholars in numerous disciplines including such diverse fields as theology, grammar, and old French.

Rashis commentary on the Pentateuch (printed 1475) was the first dated Hebrew book published. The original printed Bible  text by Daniel Bomberg in 1517 also included Rashi's commentary. Rashis commentary is traditionally printed as footnotes to the Biblical text. The Biblical phrase Rashi is commenting on is usually boldfaced while Rashis comments are written in Rashi script, a variant of ordinary Hebrew script.

Rashi left us 7800 comments on the 6000 verses of the Torah -- the first five books of the Old Testament‑‑Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Rashis comments perform a variety of tasks. The Rashi database divides Rashis tasks into 6 traditional but broad literary categories. They are listed in table 1:

CATEGORY	
DESCRIPTION	

Dictionary	
Rashi lists the multiple meanings of Biblical words and roots; Rashi also lists nuances of synonyms and points out usage of idiomatic phrases	

Grammar	
Rashi presents rules of verb conjugation,  sentence formation and other grammatical functions	

Cross Reference	
Rashi contrasts Biblical verses that cross reference each other and comments on differences	

Style	
Rashi identified specific sentence and paragraph forms as requiring broad, literal or restrictive interpretations of the text	

Poetry	
Rashi frequently interpreted repetitive poetic passages as sketching major components of a central theme	

Formatting techniques	
Many Rashi comments can be understood by identifying certain sentence and paragraph forms as being identical in function to bolding, footnotes, paragraphing, bulleting and other modern formatting techniques.	

Table 1: The function of Rashi comments can be classified into 6 traditional but broad literary categories. Further details, definitions, examples  and elaboration will  be found in the individual  sections devoted to each technique.

There are over 200 commentaries on Rashi. These commentaries seek to uncover both the principles and sources that motivated Rashis comments. Among the more famous classical commentaries are the Sifsay Chachamim*3 , the Gur Aryeh*4, the Mizrachi*5, and the Chizkuni*6. Several modern English words also seek to explain Rashis methodology. Some recent examples include the works of Dr. Leibowitz*7 and Rabbi Boncheck*8. Because of the many commentaries on Rashi there are also Rashi Encyclopedias, such as the Shaar Aaron, that aim to list the rich variety of approaches to each Rashi comment.*9 Finally, we point out, that since Rashi frequently summarized whole Midrashic or Talmudic passages in a few words, therefore, significant Rashi  insight may be obtained from authors whose primary goal was not to explain Rashi, but rather, who sought to provide rational foundations for Talmudic-Midrashic exegesis. The most famous example is the commentary of the Malbim*10. Other  modern examples come from Dr. Zornberg*11 and  the Lubavitcher Rebbe.12

To appreciate the goals of the Rashi database we first present a grade-school analogy:*13 A teacher might explain the difference between principle and principal as follows:
The principal is your pal; while a principle is non-human
An appropriate explanation of this teachers comment would be:
The spelling of the last 3 letters of principal is not the cause of its meaning but rather a mnemonic. Indeed it is not a universal rule to infer the meaning of a word from its last 3 letters. Rather the proof of meaning is usage; usage can be inferred from database queries of sentences using the words principal or principle. It is the comparison of these lists that both exhibits and proves the difference in usage  between principal and principle

This analogy facilitates understanding 2 viewpoints on Rashi. It is universally agreed that Rashi sometimes expresses his comments in the form of catchy puns and coincidences (like the principal-pal analogy presented above). Some scholars believe that Rashi was simply stating  inspirational ideas and pegging them on the Biblical text. Another school of thought, however, posits that many, possibly all, of Rashis comments can be defended with sound grammatical rules. In fact one primary task of several of the 200 Rashi commentaries is precisely to provide such grammatical defenses. The further contributions of the Rashi Database Project to this school of thought are to
* Develop a database methodology to support grammatical defenses of Rashis: That is, a good Rashi defense should be supportable by a list of comparable examples

* Develop criteria for these justification lists.  That is, a Rashi explanation, supported by a list of comparable examples, should  focus on a reasonable literary cause of meaning. The 6 broad literary areas presented in table 1 are examples of reasonable literary causes. Lists defending Rashi should come from these 6 broad areas.

* Develop a database design that facilitates access. That is, the database should be capable of quickly responding to Rashi inquiries with different levels of depth.

* Justify, possibly by analogy with other languages, the intuitiveness and spontaneity of any explanation. That is, ideally, a Rashi comment should be the immediate intuitive response of a native speaker.*13
An outline of the rest of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we show from internal Rashi contradictions that some Rashis should be perceived as mnemonical requiring reinterpretation. In section 3 we present some basics of database theory. The remaining 6 sections describe each of the major rules listed in table 1.

SECTION 2: RASHI COMMENTS THAT REQUIRE REINTERPRETATION

In this section we continue the grade school analogy of the last section. In particular, we present 4 examples of Rashi comments where a reasonable justification of the Rashi comment is radically different from Rashis actual statement. The variety of examples presented will clarify to what extent modification of Rashi text is necessary.

Example 1: Gn32-05a:*14
First some background: The patriarch Jacob had lived 20 years in Charan, the home of Laban, had married 2 wives, had a dozen children, and amassed considerable wealth. On his return to his father he hears how his brother Esauv is approaching him with an army of 400 soldiers. Jacob sends a message to Esauv
Gn32‑05a Tell Esauv that I (Jacob) have stayed over*15 with Laban 
Rashi:*16 This Biblical text teaches us that Jacob observed the entire Torah. This is derived from the Hebrew word, Garti, spelled Gimel-Aleph-Resh-Tauv, which means stayed over. Indeed, using Gematria -- the assigning of numerical values to  letters (e.g. in English a is assigned 1,b-2, c-3, j-10,k-20, etc.) we see that the sum of the values of the Hebrew letters of Garti equals 613, the number of Biblical commandments*17. This numerical coincidence proves that Jacob observed all Biblical commandments.

Clearly, Rashi is mnemonical. It is not a universal rule to infer hidden nuances from the sums of numerical values of letters. A more satisfying explanation was provided by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchick*18:
There are two phrases in Hebrew (or English) indicating living  in a place: Residing (in Hebrew Yud-Shin-Beth) and staying over(in Hebrew Gimel-Vuv-Resh). If a well established person  like Jacob uses the phrase staying over vs. Residing we infer that Jacob felt uncomfortable, undoubtedly because he adhered to the Abrahamitic ideology of monotheism, honesty and kindness while Laban was a scoundrel. Thus the nuances of  staying over vs residing justify an inference that Jacob stayed committed to his values (and hence felt uncomfortable).

Example 2: The infinitive form can also be interpreted as a gerund phrase
Recall that Hebrew Grammar is based on 3 letter roots. Every 3 letter root is assigned a meaning. The 3 letter roots can be conjugated in various grammatical forms each one having some variation on the basic root  meaning.*19

The infinitive form in Hebrew is characterized by an O sound (as in the word whole): *20  For example, the Hebrew root Zayin‑Chaph‑Resh means remember. The Hebrew  word ZoChor is the infinitive of  remember and means to remember. Other examples of infinitives are Shomor (To watch) or Nothon(To give),

Applying this infinitive interpretation to Ex20-08 we obtain the following translation
To remember the Sabbath to Sanctify it.
This is a sentence fragment and ungrammatical. To avoid this difficulty some grammarians argue that the infinitive- o-form can mean either the infinitive or a command. Ex20-08 would then be interpreted:
Remember the Sabbath to Sanctify it.
Rashi however, along with some other Mediaeval grammarians,  interprets the infinitive-o-form  as a gerund phrase. He would interpret Ex20-08a as:
Be involved in remembering  the Sabbath in order to Sanctify it.
(Rashis point is that both the infinitive and gerund phrase denote activity over a wide range of time.)

Although, Rashi uses this infinitive-o-form principle about a dozen times throughout his commentary, he does not always completely and explicitly state the principle. Rather, there are 5 levels by which Rashi presents this rule. These 5 levels are compactly exhibited in Table 2.

Note the differing degrees of explicitness in these 5 Rashis. At level 4 Rashi only presents cross references (or examples) while at levels 2 and 5 Rashi only presents verse reinterpretation. Level 3 is characterized by grammatical sloppiness -- Rashi calls the gerund phrase the present tense. Had this been the only Rashi I had read I would not understand what Rashi really intended. It is only in level 1 that Rashi is complete, accurate,  exhaustive and professional. Rashi identifies the grammatical form as gerund*21, cites similar examples and reinterprets the verse. By contrasting level 1 with the other 4 levels we become aware of the need, based on Rashi’s text, that it may be necessary to reinterpret Rashi in light of  lists of similar examples.

Level	Verses	Biblical Text (in Bold) and Rashi Text beneath it	What is explicit in Rashi	
1	Ex20‑08a	Be involved in remembering the Sabbath
Rashi: Zachor should be interpreted as a gerund phrase like Eating and drinking(Isa 22) or walking and crying(2Sam 3). Thus Ex20-08a should be interpreted as Be involved in Remembering the Sabbath. That is, if you see a good dish then purchase it for the Sabbath	Rashi explicitly presents
*Grammatical function
*Biblical examples
*Verse reinterpretation	
2	Ex13-03a
(Dt15-10a)	Be involved in remembering the Exodus
Rashi: This verse teaches us that we should remember the exodus every day*22	Rashi only presents
*Verse reinterpretation	
3	Dt01-15c
(Dt27-01a
Nu25-17a)	Be involved in listening to judicial cases *23
Rashi: This (infinitive-o-form) denotes the grammatical present. Another example might be Zachor(Ex20-08a)	Rashi presents
* A cross reference
* A sloppy grammatical formulation	
4	Dt31-26a
(Nu06-23a)	Be involved in taking this Book of the Law*24
Rashi: This is an infinitive-o-form like Zachor(Ex20-08a), Shamor, Haloch	Rashi simply  presents
* Cross references	
5	Dt16-01a	Be involved in Watching the Springtime; Make Passover
Rashi: Watch the seasons before Passover. If Spring comes out late then intercalculate the year with an extra month*25	Rashi simply presents
* the consequences of verse reinterpretation	
Table 2: The 5 levels by which Rashi indicates that the infinitive-o-form can mean a gerund phrase.*26 In each row, the Biblical text of the  bolded verse citation in column 2 is presented on the first line  in column 3. For convenience this Biblical text is interpreted with a gerund phrase. The Rashi comment on the Biblical text is listed beneath the Biblical text. Column 4 attempts to sketch the wide difference in details in these 5 levels of Rashi. Note, that the Rashi comments on the other non-bold Rashi citations in parenthesis in column 2 are similar, in level of detail, to the  main bold  Rashi citation.
 
Example 3: The Hebrew word Ki (Kaph Yud) has 7 meanings
Rashi on Gn18-15a, cites a Talmudic statement that the Hebrew word Ki has 4 meanings. But then on Gn24-33a Rashi expands one of these meanings so that Ki has  6 meanings. If we include Gn29-15a which uses the word HaKi we obtain 7 usages! Thus the Talmudic-Rashi statement that Ki has (only) 4 meanings must be reinterpreted in light of the lists of actual usage. *27
Example 4: Does seek God refer to prayer or to prophecy
We close with a controversial example of Rashi reinterpretation. Recall that Rivkah, who was pregnant with the twins, Esauv and Isaac, had a difficult pregnancy. Gn25-22 relates that Rivkah went to seek God. The Rashi database presents about 10 other verses with the phrase seek God.*28 In some of these verses seek God clearly refers to prayer; in others, seek God clearly refers to seeking prophetic advice; finally in others, seek God clearly refers to both Prophecy and Prayer. Thus a reasonable interpretation of Gn25-22 is that Rivkah prayed for guidance and then went to seek prophetic advice.

In turns out that Rashi tersely says that Seek God means seeking prophetic advice. Ramban, another Biblical commentator, cites Rashi, disagrees with him and states that seek God refers to prayer. There are two ways of viewing this Rashi-Ramban dialogue: They might disagree: Perhaps Rashi had a reason for not interpreting seek God as prayer. Another possibility is that Rashi was simply being terse and Ramban was supplementing Rashis explanation with an additional nuance The point to make here is that because of our commitment to Rashi reinterpretation we have no way of ascertaining Rashis real intention. From the point of view of databases we commit ourselves to presenting all supporting verses and letting the user/reader decide what Rashi, Ramban (and the verse!) really mean.

SECTION 3: A DATABASE FORMULATION OF RARITY

In this section we demonstrate how database theory can fruitfully facilitate Rashi study. More specifically we rigorously formulate the concept of rarity which is one dominant motivation in Rashi comments. This rarity concept has also been exploited pedagogically: A standard recommended approach to understanding a Rashi comment is to ask What is Rashis question? or What is bothering Rashi?29

Database theory is a technical subject. Therefore, to facilitate the presentation we use  an approach that is precise but intuitive. We also couple all theory with actual examples. Surprisingly, there do exist  some good non‑technical accounts of database theory. 30

Database theory rests on 3 basic concepts: the table, the database, and the database operations
* We may precisely but heuristically think of a table as collection of rows, columns and headers
* We may then perceive a database as a collection of tables, possibly with common headers
* A database operation is simply a method for obtaining a new derived table from the database
The fundamental goal of database theory is to facilitate the creation of these new tables. The standard  computer language used in all modern database theories is called SQL. The power of SQL is that with only a few dozen keywords all complex database operations can be described in a few lines! SQL is an intuitive language -- its statements are made in English and have obvious meanings. 

Without using SQL we will illustrate its powerful concepts by showing a database approach to the definition of rarity:  Rarity is a relative term‑‑‑something is rare in some domain of discourse. For purposes of illustration we select the domain of  Biblical commandments: It is well known that the Bible contains Commandments which the Jewish people are obligated to perform. One can find lists of commandments ‑‑ traditionally many scholars have enumerated 613 commandments. 31 These 613 commandments have been traditionally divided up into the negative commandments (like Don=t Kill, Don=t Steal) and the positive commandments (like Give Charity).

Starting with 2 given tables -- the Bible table and the commandment table -- we can derive, using database operations, 3 more tables. The 5th terminal table will list all examples of rarity in Biblical commandments and will correspond to several dozen Rashis! Furthermore these same 5 table-forms can be used to define rarity in any other domain of discourse. 

STEP 1: In step 1 we present the Bible table. Typical entries might look like table 3:
Key	Book	Chapter	Verse	Word #	Text	
Ex20-13-01	Exodus	20	13	1	Don’t	
Ex20-13-02	Exodus	20	13	2	Murder	
Table 3: The Bible table. The interpretation should be obvious. Exodus, Chapter 20, Verse 13 contains the words  Don’t Murder

STEP 2: In step 2 we present the Commandment table. Typical entries might look like table 4:
Key	Do or Don’t	Commandment number	
Ex20-13	Don’t	# 289	
Table 4: The commandment table: The table states that the 289th negative commandment occurs in Ex20-13.

STEP 3: In step 3 we present the joined32 Bible-commandment table. Table 5 exhibits an excerpt:
Key	Book	Chapter	Verse	Word #	Text	Do or Don’t	Commandment Number	
Ex20-13-01	Exodus	20	13	1	Don’t	Don’t	# 289	
Ex20-13-02	Exodus	20	13	2	Murder	Don’t	# 289	
Table 5: Database theory allows us to join32 two tables with a common column header. Thus  table 5 exhibits a join of tables 3 and 4. The interpretation of this table should be clear: The word Murder in Ex20-13-02 is a Biblical text that occurs in negative commandment # 289. (The detail of how SQL joins tables need not concern us here; we are primarily  interested in the concept. The footnotes provide details).

STEP 4: Step 4 presents the statistical summary table33 excerpts of which are exhibited in table  6: 
Biblical text	Frequency: The number of distinct commandments in which this word occurs	
Murder	1	
Fear (God)	5	
Don’t	365	
Table 6: SQL allows the extraction of statistical summaries from tables.33 The interpretation of the above table should be clear: The word murder only occurs in 1 commandment (The prohibition of murder); the word Don’t occurs in all 365 negative commandments. Surprisingly the word Fear (or the phrase and fear the Lord) only occurs in 5 commandments! Intuitively Fear is a rare Biblical word in commandments. Again, it is the concept that is of interest. Technical SQL statements may be found in footnotes

STEP 5: In step 5 we create the rarity table. Heuristically, a word like Don=t, that occurs in every negative commandment, is not rare; Rashi would have no need to comment on it. Similarly the rare word murder which occurs in only one Biblical commandment, is a non-surprising rarity (since every commandment will have words unique to that commandment). Again, Rashi need not comment. But a phrase like And Fear God, that occurs in only 5 of the 613 commandments is a significant rare concept; Rashi does comment on each of the 5 verse-commandments that contain the construction ..do such and such and fear the Lord.34  

Technically step 5 can be implemented by defining rarity as any frequency within two arbitrary bounds(say between 4 and 50 occurrences).35 Other examples of Rashi comments on Biblical-Commandment rarity are: 
( I) Only a  half dozen commandments mention reward for performance 36; (ii) Only a dozen or so commandments explicitly identify that commandment as a commemoration of the Egyptian exodus 37.

As indicated earlier in this section, the above 5 step process also defines rarity in other domains. Thus  in the grammatical domain, Rashi will typically only explain rare grammatical conjugations 38. In the semantic domain (i.e. the thesaurus) Rashi will comment on rare synonyms occurring in verses 39.

In summary, the above use of database theory presents a formal automated procedure for generating verses where Rashi would comment. However, an examination of the several dozen examples footnoted above shows  that only sometimes would Rashi actually explain a commonality to the rarity -- for example, Rashi does point out a common theme to the 5 commandments which state fear God; 40 but Rashi does not mention common themes to the dozen commandments explicitly mentioning commemoration of the Exodus; he rather uses a cliche: I, God, took you out of Egypt on condition that you observe this commandment (Note that this comment of Rashi  would apply to any commandment and does not explain why only these 2 dozen commandments mention the commemoration of the exodus).

This absence of explanations in Rashi suggests a possible new perspective on his function as a commentator:

Rashi was a Masorete, not a commentator; his primary goal was to preserve texts by pointing out Biblical rarities and similarities which might easily get lost in transcription. Explanation of the rarities was only a secondary goal of Rashi: Some rarities were explained while others were only linked to punchy cliches which facilitated avoidance of textual error. It would take us to far afield to critically examine how Rashi commented on every rarity. Therefore, in the remainder of this paper we suffice with showing Rashis methodology by presenting the taxonomy of literary criteria for the 6 broad literary areas on which Rashi commented41.

SECTION 4: THE DICTIONARY GOAL

In the remaining 6 sections of the paper we review in greater detail each of the broad Rashi goals listed in Table 1. We also indicate the design features of the Rashi database which facilitate study of these goals. We begin in this section with the simplest Rashi goal: The Dictionary goal -- Rashi comments frequently perform the function of a dictionary: They
* 	list multiple meanings of the same root
* 	alert the reader to synonyms
* 	explain idiomatic phrases
* 	alert the reader to unknown  nuances of roots
In this section we present 4 examples that illustrate these functions. Our goal in presentation of these examples is not to be exhaustive but rather to introduce the reader to both the successes, difficulties and open research possible in this area. We also further illustrate the concepts introduced in sections 2 & 3.

Example 1: Rashi defines phrases as well as words: For example, the Biblical phrase on the face of  occurs several dozen times in the Torah and simply means on. However, this phrase occurs in connection with people in only about half a dozen verses. Rashi comments on 4 of these verses that  on the face of a person means during the lifetime of the person.42 

We showed in section 2 that Rashi comments may require modification. In this case we must supplement Rashi=s explanation that on the face of means during the lifetime with the added condition that on the face of when used in connection with a person means during the lifetime.

We argued in section 3 that a primary goal of Rashi was to report on rarity. In this instance, Rashi was reporting a usage that occurs only 10% of the time.

The Rashi database makes Rashis accessible by verse.  The url http://www.RashiYomi.Com/nu03-04a.htm  lists the 4 verses containing the phrase on the face of on which Rashi comments. (One can also look up verses by the weekly Parshah on the main page, http://www.RashiYomi.Com.)

Example 2: Rashi lists multiple meanings of words: A famous Talmudic passage states that the Hebrew word KI, spelled Kaph Yud, has 4 meanings.As indicated in Section 2 this Rashi comment requires reinterpretation because of other Rashi comments which expand some of these 4 meanings.

In fact, KI  has 6-7 meanings -- if, when, because, that, perhaps, rather, and an interrogative form As indicated in section 3 a primary goal of Rashi was the observation of rarity. In the case of KI, one of the seven meanings -- perhaps -- occurs very rarely.

The main dictionary page of the Rashi database is located at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/words.htm One can find the word KI there. Each of the seven meanings is listed with an illustrative Biblical text and verse citation. These seven meanings hyperlink to other postings where the reader can review lists of Biblical verses illustrating each particular meaning.  For example there are at least 9 Rashis that  explain KI as meaning Rather. The lists sometimes consist exclusively of verses that Rashi has commented on while at other times they consists of Biblical verses illustrating a meaning even if Rashi did not comment on that verse.

A further resource on the Rashi website is the Rashi calendar located at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/calendar.htm.  The calendar is hyperlinked to daily Rashi postings  which review concepts by rule. For example, the Rashis on KI were presented in a two week series in February of 2001. The terminal posting of this series presents a grand summary of about 3 dozen Rashi=s commenting on KI. This grand summary may be found at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ki-11.htm. Each of the daily postings(except the grand summary) list hyperlinks to the Rashi-is-Simple newsletter which besides presenting Rashis  on KI also discuss subtle points at length. The Rashi is Simple newsletter is archived at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ris.htm

In summary the Rashi database reflects a 3-level design: That is, readers are provided  3 levels of exposure to a concept: The words page lists basic meanings with illustrations; the Rashi calendar summary page presents lists of verses illustrating each particular meaning; finally the Rashi-is-Simple newsletters goes into greater depth on each verse, by discussing subtlety and points of controversy43.

EXAMPLE 3: The word ALL has 5 usages: About 1% of all Rashis  deal with the nuances of the word ALL. Rashi never explicitly identifies the distinct usages of ALL. A review of  6 dozen Rashis seems to suggest 5 basic meanings. For example, ALL can mean all subgroups, whole and any part. These  usages can be found on the word page while the 70 Rashis can be found on the individual postings in the ki series which is hyperlinked by the Rashi calendar; each individual posting in the ki series lists the urls of volumes of the Rashi is Simple newsletter which contain more elaborate discussion. Note, that in this case the database research resulted in a list of meanings for the word all  not explicitly presented by Rashi himself. 

Example 4: ACH seems to mean usually: 44 This final example illustrates open problems. The Hebrew word ACH, Aleph-Kaph is traditionally translated as only. But, for example, the consequent (English) translation of Ex31-13, Only observe the Sabbath, is grammatically unsound. The talmudic observation on this verse, Only observe the Sabbath implies  exceptions when one needn=t observe the Sabbath, would also not follow. Hendel suggested that a more appropriate translation of ACH is usually. Ex31-13 would then be translated as Usually observe the Sabbath. The word usually implies exceptions, which would be consistent with the Talmudic translation. 44

However this usage must be justified by a review of all verses containing ACH. There are 42 occurrences of ACH in the Torah. Rashi only comments on about 2 dozen. The word usually works nicely in several cases. Other verses require a meaning of most of (Note that Usually means most of the time). Even with these two translations (usually and most of) there are still verses which have rarer usages of ACH  (such as frequently).  

This leaves a variety of open semantic, statistical and philosophical questions: (a) How many examples are needed to justify a translation? (b) what are the semantic criteria for assessing that frequently, most of, and usually(most of the time) are similar nuances? ( c) Should Talmudic exegesis be considered in seeking simple meaning? (d) Although the translation usually does not seem to work in all cases it nevertheless seems better (that is, it fits more verses) than only. Does  this justify replacing the translation of only with usually?

SECTION 5: THE GRAMMATICAL GOAL

The theory of Biblical Hebrew grammar is well developed; many books -- both technical and non-technical, in both English and Hebrew, for both layman and scholars, both popular and serious  -- have been written. 45 Theoretically every verb conjugation and every noun form could potentially receive a Rashi comment describing it. 

However, as indicated in section 3, it is fruitful to think of Rashi as a Masorite, a person whose primary goal was to preserve the accuracy of the Biblical text. It would then follow that Rashi would be more likely to comment on grammatical issues in texts where the reader could easily error. The Rashi database presents 5 major grammatical areas on which Rashi comments. These 5 areas are characterized by either rarity, similarity or potential confusion 46 

The Rashi website also presents a 3 fold design to Rashis on grammar:
* 	The grammar page lists the 5 major categories with examples, verse illustrations & citations
*	Each example hyperlinks to the Daily Rashi postings and contains lists of comparable examples
*	The Daily Postings lists links to the Rashi-is-Simple archives with detailed discussions
The grammar page is physically located at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/grammar.htm. The daily Rashi grammar series can be found at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/calendar.htm and is hyperlinked to the daily postings between October and December of 2001. We now present the 5 categories.

CATEGORY 1: RARITY: We present 4 examples of grammatical rarity:
EXAMPLE 1a: Mutli-verse sentences 47: Most Biblical verses form complete sentences. About 0.2% of Biblical verses are multi-verse sentences -- 2 verses form one sentence. Gn01-29:30 is an example: 
And God said: I give to you(the humans) -- all vegetation and fruit-- for you will it be for food: and (also) to the animals, birds, and insects -- all vegetation will be for food
Technically this complex sentence structure can be understood by using the principle of opposition: The bold phrase  to the animals, birds, and insects is in opposition to the word you. Thus equivalently the sentence could read
And God said: I give to you, the animals, birds and insects all vegetation and fruits for food

EXAMPLE 1b: VERB CONJUGATION: Hebrew verbs are grammatically represented by triliteral roots which undergo conjugation rules. A handful of conjugation charts could explain 70% to 90% of the cases. Rashi will  frequently comment on the rarer conjugation rules. For example:(a) Rashi comments on roots with 2 weak  letters48; (b)Rashi comments on the special conjugation rules for the hitpael mode when the first root letter is a sibilant49

EXAMPLE 1c: THE INTERROGATIVE RULE: A declarative sentence in Hebrew, is made into an interrogative sentence by prefixing the Hebrew letter Hey to the first word of the sentence and using a chataf-patach pronunciation.  This rule works for most cases. Rashi comments on rare forms of the  interrogative rule50; -- such as when the first sentence letter is a guttural; similarly Rashi indicates rare exceptions to the interrogative rule.

EXAMPLE 1d: RARE SUBJECT-PREDICATE AGREEMENT: Usually subject and predicate will agree in plurality. Rashi used the following rule for the rare cases where plural subjects occur with singular predicates: The singular predicate indicates that the plurality or group did the activity as a unified body. Perhaps the most famous examples of this is Ex19-02: And the Jews(plural) camped(singular) near Mount Sinai (To receive the Torah). Rashi explains: The Jews did not receive  the Torah as a tribal confederation but rather as a unified harmonious nation under one leadership.51

Many reviewers of Rashi comments perceive such explanations as inspirational. By contrast, the goal of the Rashi database is to justify, with lists of comparable examples, the soundness of each Rashi comment. The inspirational tone of the Rashi explanation would then be intrinsic to the verse and not something that Rashi contributed. In this instance we defend the grammatical soundness of Rashi=s comment by exhibiting other situations where Rashi=s rare subject-predicate rule works:51

CATEGORY 2: RARE PREPOSITIONAL MEANINGS: All grammarians agree that most Hebrew connectives have multiple meanings.52 Listings of these multiple meanings may be found in classical grammar texts. For example the Hebrew word AL, Ayin-Lamed, means on. Rashi however lists several rare meanings: on, with, in, to, near, after. 53 Similar lists exist for other common Hebrew connectives.

CATEGORY 3: SIMILAR CONJUGATIONS: Like rarity, similarity, also has the potential for marring the accuracy of Biblical texts. Consequently Rashi will point out similar forms. Perhaps the simplest example is the fact that the Hebrew words for coming(present) and came(past) are both spelled with the same consonants and syllables: Beth-Aleph-Hey with the Beth and Aleph receiving the Komatz pronunciation.54 They differ in the placement of accent. When the accent is on the last syllable the word means coming while if the accent is on the first syllable the word means came (ba-ah vs ba-ah with bold indicating accent). Many such similarity pairs exist. 

CATEGORY 4: ELLIPSIS and SENTENCE REARRANGEMENT: Rashi does not hesitate to use simple logic to override purely formal application of rules which lead to irrational interpretations. For example the literal reading of Ex02-05 would be The daughter of Pharoh went down to bathe on the Nile, making it sound as if she bathed in the nude. Rashi suggests perceiving the sentence as having a dangling sentence complement; upon rearrangement the verse sounds more reasonable: The daughter of Pharoh went down to(near) the Nile to bathe. Similarly Rashi, on Gn29-02:03 violates the rule that a pronoun refers to a recent antecedent. Rashi prefers an elliptical antecedent since it makes the sentence sound right: There were 3 flocks by the well; all flocks gathered there and then they removed the stone from the well to water the flocks.. The pronoun they does not refer to the flocks; that is, the flocks did not water themselves! Rather the antecedent of they is the shepards (Who have not yet been mentioned!). Rashi presents many more examples of rearrangement and pronoun antecedents. None of these interpretations are novel or unique to Rashi -- most other commentators would agree with them. But they illustrate that Rashi was keen to note possible misunderstandings and preserve text.55

CATEGORY 5: Multiple Form-Meaning Agreement: 
As indicated above, Rashi commented on similarity since it could lead to confusion and textual error. This is particularly true where 2 grammatical forms have 1 meaning, or 1 grammatical form has 2 meanings or 2 grammatical forms have 2 similar meanings. Frequently one of the forms or meanings is also rare(another justification for a Rashi comment). Here are some examples:

EXAMPLE 5a: ONE-FORM TO MANY-MEANINGS: In section 3 we have reviewed in detail Rashi=s approach to the infinitive form which can function in 2 ways: as an  infinitive or a gerund phrase.  

EXAMPLE 5b: MANY-FORMS TO ONE-MEANING: The 3rd person, masculine, singular, past in the active mode can be designated by prefixing the root with the Hebrew overturning vav and the letter yud(e.g. VaYishma).  However if the terminal root letter is a hey then the terminal hey can be dropped(e.g. VaYiben not VaYivNeh).56 

EXAMPLE 5c: MANY TO MANY:   Rashi held that the two traditional Biblical methods of denoting the past have different meanings(though superficially some authorities treat them as having one meaning) The future tense with overturning vav refers to the past while the actual past tense, according to Rashi, refers to the pastperfect.57

SECTION 6: CROSS-REFERENCING

A great many Rashis have as their focus cross-referencing.  Cross-referencing is a  source of Biblical meaning that is independent of the other rules we have reviewed -- meaning and grammar. The  cross-referencing principle is often overlooked; many Rashi comments -- whose defense seems to require elaborate grammatical arguments or obscure nuances of meaning, -- can be made simple, punchy  and elegant by using a nifty cross-reference.

The Calendar page has a Daily Rashi series on cross-reference which was posted in November of 2000. The main summary page may be physically found at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/other-20.htm. The importance of commenting on cross-references becomes obvious, in light of the position, developed in section 2, that Rashi was a Masorite, whose goal was to preserve the text. Indeed, if two different texts are repeating a theme with different phraseologies then there is potential for textual error and hence Rashi comments. 

It is convenient to divide the Rashis on cross-references into 3 categories:
*	Citations
*	Cross references that enrich meaning by providing extra details
*	Cross references that contradict each other 58
We now present examples of each of these.

EXAMPLE 1a: CITATIONS: Dt26-18:19 states
And God has made you the talk of the world this day: 
* That you will be his precious nation as He has stated to you, (provided you watch all his commandments);
* That you will be a leader over all nations which he made -- a leader (known for) praise, good name and accomplishment;
* That you will be a holy nation to God as He has stated to you
The two bold phrases as He has stated to you indicate citation. Rashi cross references Ex19-05:06
And now, if you will harken to my voice and watch my commandments, then you will be for me more precious than all the nations for I own the whole world. And you will be for me a distinguished kingdom and a holy nation
The italicized words precious and holy nation in Ex19-05:06 justify the citation in Dt26-18:19. By cross referencing the verses Rashi justifies the Biblical citation in Dt26-18:1: as He has stated to you. 

EXAMPLE 1b: Citations need not use the explicit phrase as He has stated. For example Lv14-13a states
slaughter the guilt offering where the elevation offering is slaughtered
The bold phrase where the elevation offering is slaughtered cross references  Lv01-11 which identifies that place:
slaughter the elevation offering in the northern part of the altar

EXAMPLE 2: CROSS-REFERENCES THAT ENRICH MEANING:The most famous example of the cross-referencing technique occurs at Dt26-05:08. As is well known, this passage is the basis for a major component of the Passover Haggadah.59 In fact, this entire Passover Haggadah section is structured as a collection of cross-references to each phrase in Dt26-05:08. We suffice with one example
He (Jacob) went down to Egypt with only a few people
RASHI: The bold phrase few people cross references Gn46-27
the total people coming with Jacob to Egypt was 70
Thus Gn46-27 enriches our understanding of the phrase few people in Dt26-05 by clarifying how many were involved:70.60

EXAMPLE 3: CROSS REFERENCING vs GRAMMAR: Recall that Lv01 discusses the details of the sacrificial procedure for the burnt offering: Lv01-05 states
And he shall slaughter the ox before God
RASHI: Any person can slaughter, even a non priest.
A traditional way to defend the derivation of this law, cited by Rashi, is to grammatically compare the sentence-subjects in the surrounding Biblical verses:

He 		shall lean his hands on the sacrifice before God
He 		shall slaughter the ox before God
The priests	will gather in a vessel the blood
And they	will sprinkle the blood on the altar
He		shall strip the sacrifice animal
He		shall cut the sacrifice animal into pieces
The priests	will kindle a fire on the altar
They		will place wood on the altar
They		will arrange the cut pieces on the wood on the fire on the altar

The changing subjects in this Biblical paragraph immediately strike the eye. One obvious comment is that the priests must do certain procedures--like the gathering of blood, the sprinkling of blood, the kindling of the fire etc-- while the offerer of the sacrifice may do the other procedures -- like the leaning of hands and the slaughter.

Such an approach, focusing on the lack of parallel subjects, is cumbersome and leaves unanswered questions (For example: The above argument would justify allowing the sacrifice owner to cut the  sacrifice into pieces). A more satisfying approach is obtained by using the method of cross referencing: 2Chr30-17 explicitly states
For many people in the congregation were not pure; so the Levites were responsible for the  slaughter of the Passover sacrifices for anyone who was not pure but wanted to dedicate the sacrifice to God.
Hence, levites(non-priests) may slaughter..61

EXAMPLE 4: CONTRADICTORY VERSES: It seems strange to modern ears, but contradiction is a Biblical style that is used as a vehicle for the communication of details. Rabbi Ishmaels list of 13 Biblical exegetical principles, very bluntly includes the method of contradictory verses
Similarly, the Bible may be expounded by citing 2 contradictory verses. The resolution of this contradiction, usually with the support of a 3rd verse, leads to a more detailed understanding of the Biblical text. 62 

An entire series of Rashis resolving contradictory verses was presented in the daily Rashi series in  May of 2000. A terse summary may be found at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ri-14.htm. We illustrate with one example:
Recall that the Levites assisted the priests in maintaining the temple.2 verses present age regulations on Levite work:
Nu08-24 This pertains to the Levites: From 25 years (and upward) they will serve in Temple work
Nu04-002:03 Appoint the Kehatites from the Levites --according to their families and households -- from 30 years (and upwards) till 50, those who come to serve, to perform work in the Meeting Tent: This is the appointment...
The two bolded phrases -- From 25 years (and upward) and from 30 years (and upwards) -- are potentially contradictory.

There are a variety of ways to resolve this contradiction. For example, we might assume that ordinary Levites started at 25 while the Kehatites, who served in the Holy of Holies (Nu04-04), started at 30. However, Rashi, following the Talmud, chose to resolve this contradiction by emphasizing the nuances in the contrasting italicized words  in the two verses -- serve vs perform work: Actual performance started at 30, while training (indicated by the word serve) started at 25. 

For purposes of database classification an important point to emphasize is that the driving force of the above derivation is not the nuances of the word serve: Rather the driving force is the contradictory verses -- the nuances of the word serve are at best only supportive of the explanation; indeed, logic alone could suggest the distinction between training/apprenticeship and actual work. A second important point to emphasize is that a primary concern of the database is the identification of Rashis methodology -- in this case the method of cross references: It is however not of concern to the database why Rashis application of this methodology, e.g.,focused on training vs servce,instead of Kehatites vs Levites. 63

SECTION 7: THE RABBI ISHMAEL STYLE RULES

To the best of my knowledge the material in this section is completely new. We therefore first provide adequate background. The 13 principles of Rabbi Ishmael were introduced in section 6. As mentioned there they are cited in every standard prayer book. The opening statement of Rabbi Ishmaels Baraitha boldly states: There are 13 principles by which the Torah is expounded.

This statement suggests, that every Talmudic law cites a verse, and then applies one of the Rabbi Ishmael rules from which it is derived. But statistically, Rabbi Ishmaels rules do not occur that frequently in the Talmud. Furthermore, those scholars who have defended Talmudic exegesis, such as Malbim, have also not used Rabbi Ishmaels rules ‑‑ rather they attempt to justify talmudic exegesis with new grammatical rules.64 In other words, it does not appear that Rabbi Ishmaels rules are the method by which the Bible is expounded. A more precise reformulation of their function is therefore needed.  

In this paper we develop the position that Rabbi Ishmaels rules govern style. More specifically, Rabbi Ishmaels rules govern whether verses are interpreted broadly, literally or restrictively.65 We immediately clarify these theoretical ideas with an example.

Example 1: Dt24-05a: Dont muzzle an Ox while it is threshing. Rashi, following the Talmud in explaining this law, performs 3 generalizations -- each italicized word in the verse is generalized:
*	The law applies to any animal, not just an ox
*	The law applies while the animal is doing its standard work activity (not just threshing)
*	The law applies do any type of interference with eating (not just muzzling).
Thus, in summary, Rashi translates Dt24-05 as follows: Dont interfere with any animal who wants to eat while doing its work.

We first note that the previous 3  rules we have discussed in sections 4 thru 6 of this paper are not adequate to explain this Talmudic interpretation: For the dictionary meaning of every word in this verse is clear; the grammar of the verse is perfect and cross-references do not justify changing the meaning of all 3 words 66. Rather the justification for changing the meaning of the verse is a new rule: the rule of style. In this case the Rabbi Ishmael style rule requires a broad interpretation.

We next present the formal criteria that identify this broad style. A Talmudic Rashi provides a clear statement of one component of this style rule:67 Every simple Biblical sentence should be generalized. 68 Thus Dt25-04, Dont muzzle an ox during its threshing, is a simple sentence and hence must be generalized. Some other examples of Biblical laws that are generalized are that tort laws apply not just  to damages from oxen but to damages from any animal(Ex22-35:36). Similarly the right of self defense  against people breaking in applies to any type of break‑in not just to cellar break‑ins(Ex22-01). Table 7 summarizes the 3 style rules69,  the criteria for identifying them, and the consequent interpretations.

For lack of a better term the Rashi database calls this the example method. The name arises from the fact that e.g. the verse Dont muzzle an ox while threshing is seen, not as the whole law, but rather as an example of the whole law (and hence must be generalized). The example3 page of the Rashi database -- http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example3.htm --contains a list of Rashis that totally generalize Biblical verses because of the style requirements. Examples for all 3 style rules may be found in the example series which occurs on pages example1.htm thru example9.htm.

It is important to emphasize that the style rules usually elicit the type of delicate obscure debate for which the Talmud is (in)famous. For example, there may be differing opinions on the characterization of similarity.  Despite these debates it is important to emphasize that there is agreement on the approach to the verses interpretation thru the use of style rules. 

Style class	
Text of the Biblical Verse 	
Style rule	
Interpretation requirement	
Verse-Rashi	

General Example	
- If a women desecrates her marriage
- And commits adultery	
Literal	
The law only applies to the literal example(Suspicion of adultery) 71	
Nu05-12a	

Example General 70	
- You shall buy cattle,sheep,wine,beer
- Anything you desire	
Restrictive	
 The law is partially generalized to similar items(organic edibles) 72	
Dt14-26a	

Simple 67	
Don=t muzzle an ox while threshing	
Broad	
Totally generalize the verse	
Dt25-04a	
TABLE 7: This table presents 3 styles, how to recognize them, and how to interpret sentences written in those styles.  For example, the middle row of the table discusses the example-general  style class. This is illustrated by the verse Dt14-26a. The text of this verse speaks about buying cattle, sheep, wine and beer or anything you desire. The verse clause anything you desire is general while the verse clause buy cattle, sheep, wine,beer is a specific example. The style rule for this style class is restrictive. The interpretation requirement is that we partially, but not fully generalize the verse to similar items. To clarify this, note  that a totally literal interpretation would mean we can only buy the 4 items mentioned. A total generalization would allow us to buy any food. The partial generalization allows us to buy only items that are similar to the 4 examples listed: that is, items that are organic  edibles whose source of nourishment comes from the earth -- this excludes fish (who derive their nourishment from the sea), water (Which is not organic), and salt (which is not a primary edible).73

One final point to note is that Rashi, and the commentators on Rashi, frequently defend Talmudic derivations by focusing on obscure nuances of words and phrases when an alternate approach, appealing to style rules, would fully clarify the text. Here is an example

Example 2: Dt18-01:02 is written in a (General)-Example-General 70 style:
GENERAL: The Levite-Priests will not have a portion or inheritance with the Jewish people
EXAMPLE: They shall eat (From) the (altar) fires of God
GENERAL: and (from) His inheritance. He shall have no inheritance among his brothers: God is his inheritance
The Talmud infers 3 laws from this verse:
*	The Levite-priests do not divide booty in optional military battles
*	The Levite-priests do not divide booty in required military battles(ie the conquest of Israel)
*	The Levite-priests do not divide with the 2.5 tribes who inherited the Transjordan (Nu34-14:15)

Our approach to the Talmudic derivation of these laws from the Biblical text focuses on the Example-General style which requires extending the Biblical law from the example given -- the sacrifices on the altar fire -- to all similar examples such as the priestly gifts and tithes (not all of which were necessarily offered on the altar). We could supplement this style observation by using the method of cross references: Dt09-08:09 adds that the purpose of the Levites was to stand before God; this is consistent with their receiving sacrifices and holy gifts. It would then immediately follow that the Levite-Priests do not divide booty in any war(even a religious war).

The above approach, based on style, can be profitably compared to the approach of classical commentators some of whom enumerate the number of phrases in the Biblical text -- (I) fires of God (ii) His inheritance (iii) God is his inheritance (iv) no inheritance with Israel (v) no inheritance with  their brothers. The repetition of phrases creates extra emphasis and in true Talmudic fashion each repetition adds or detracts one more item: (I) sacrifices (ii) tithes (iii) no booty in conquest of Israel (iv) no booty in optional wars (v) no booty with the Transjordan inheritance. In summary I believe that the approach thru style is more reasonable than the classical approach and provides greater depth of understanding.

SECTION 8: THE POETRY GOAL

A standard technique used in the poetry of  all languages is the method of repetition ‑‑ that is, a theme is repeated, possibly in different words. Biblical examples are plentiful ‑‑ for example, the 1st verse in Psalms, Ps01‑01 reads
Prosperous is the person who
*	 did not walk in the council of the wicked
*	 in the path of sinners did not stand
*	 in the company of mockers did not sit.
The repetition of the theme , avoiding bad people,  is repeated 3 times. The purpose of poetic repetition is to evoke multiple images and nuances thus reinforcing the main concept.

O=Connor 74 has recently published an exhaustive theory, with complete details, on Hebrew verse structure. While O=Connor=s thesis seems to have been basically accepted 75 nevertheless it is basically syntactic; it only deals with form. O=Connor=s thesis is consistent with the 4 broad goals that we have outlined in sections 4 thru 7 of this paper. In other words, neither grammar, the dictionary, cross references or even Rabbi Ishmael=s style rules require reinterpretation of repetitive poetic passages.

It logically follows that if Rashi, following the Talmudic sages, decides to reinterpret or add nuances to these passages then these reinterpretations must come from a new rule. Anyone who accepts this new rule will accept the new interpretation; conversely, those who feel this rule is unwarranted  will reject the interpretations and classify the Talmudic interpretations as homily.

Example 1: Dt19-11a: We illustrate the new rule with Rashi=s comments on Dt19‑11a:
*	When a man hates another person
*	and ambushes him
*	and confronts him
*	and hits him lethally
then he will receive a death penalty.

Note, the quasi-poetic repetition of murder which is developed over 4 phrases in this verse:  hate, ambush confront, hit lethally. Indeed, as Rashi explicitly points out, the verse could have simply said: If a mans lethally hits another person then he will receive the death penalty.

Commenting on the repetition Rashi states that the Bible uses the repetition as a vehicle to describe the psychological development of the murderer personality which takes place in 4 stages::
* 	 First there is only hatred between 2 people;
*	At stage 2 there is ambushing, spying, stalking and excessive preoccupation 76
*	This excessive preoccupation with the other person eventually leads to confrontations
*	and the confrontations eventually lead to lethal blows

We have called the rule Rashi used: The principle of climax. The principle of climax states that:
* The Biblical Author intended passages with 3 or more repetitions to be interpreted climactically
* This requirement of climactic reinterpretation holds even if the individual words don=t warrant it 
* This climactic interpretation depicts psychological development of complex personality traits 77

The above is the strong formulation of the climax rule. A weaker form of the climax rule does not require that the repeated phrases illustrate climactic development. Rather passages with 3 or more repetitions should be interpreted so as to exhaust the components of a complex personality trait. This requirement of reinterpretation holds even if the individual words don=t warrant it. 

Since, both formulations of the climax rule are independent of grammar, meaning , cross reference and even style, consequently, many analysts have argued that the rules of climax are not valid exegetical rules but rather homiletic. To illustrate the strength of this position we present an example.

Example 2: Dt20-03: Exhorting the nation before a war the priest states:
* 	Don=t be soft-hearted
*	Don=t be afraid
*	Don=t be anxious
*	Don=t brake
Rashi identifies each of bold words with a specific military act. Rashi explicitly states that this verse  depicts the components of war. Table 8 presents the 4 bolded verse phrases, Rashi=s 4 interpretations, and the component of military skill that Rashi=s interpretation corresponds to. As can be seen Rashi=s 4 interpretations correspond to the 4 major skills needed for a military campaign. What is crucial for  our analysis is that a review of the Biblical Concordance confirms that the 4 bolded Biblical words do not have nuances biased towards the military areas mentioned. It follows that a person who believes that literary interpretation is only a function of meaning, grammar, style and cross reference must reject Rashi=s interpretation as homiletic. 

Biblical Text Dt20-03	
Rashi=s comments	
Military Area	

soft hearted	
the horses	
Transportation	

afraid	
shields	
Resources(defenses-weapons)	

anxious	
horns	
communication	

brake	
battle cries	
morale	
Table 8: Column 1 presents the text of  Dt20-03. Column 2 presents Rashi=s comments on each of the 4 Biblical phrases. Column 3 represents the military skill corresponding to each Rashi comment. For example, horns are used for communication. The principle of weak climax asserts that the verse should be interpreted so as to depict the 4 major areas of a successful military campaign (Transportation, resources, communication and morale). But for example there is no reason  to connect the bolded Biblical word, soft hearted, with horses or any aspect of transportation. As such this rule appears homiletic to a person who requires that meaning be based on words, grammar and style. 

While the principles of climax follow known, and even predictable rules, nevertheless it is not as intuitive as the other rules. We close this section with one more example that simultaneously shows the details of the climax method as well as its arbitrariness:

Example 3: Dt32-15a: The Bible describes 3 stages in the climactic development of irreversible obesity. Rashi suffices with applying the principle of climax to obesity. However the Sifrah on which Rashi=s comments are based, symbolically applies this sequence to the degeneration of the Judaic kingdom. This is compactly portrayed in Table 9:

Dt32-15 Text	
Development of Obesity	
Development Of Idolatry	
During Reign of ..	
Reference	

Oiled	
Fatty in food	
Idolatrous resource 79	
Achaz	
2 King 16	

Thick	
Fatty in person	
Idolatry in personal religious life also 80	
Menasheh	
2 King 21	

Covered	
Disease covered 78	
punishment covered 81	
Yehoyakim	
2 King 23-34	
Table 9: Column 1 presents the 3 words in Dt32-15. This text is cited in O=Connor and Holiday 74 75; nothing further is done by them with the text. Column 2 shows how Rashi uses these words to describe 3 stages towards irreversible obesity. Column 3 creates an analogy between Obesity and Idolatry-the 3 stages are the same: Resource, Personal, Diseased. Columns 4 and 5 contains references to the Kings introducing these idolatrous institutions.

SECTION 9: FORMATTING: 

Modern 20th century manuscripts --  whether they are professional books or friendly letters -- typically use modern formatting for emphasis. Such techniques as bold, italic, underline, bullets, paragraphs, footnotes all facilitate and enhance communication. Furthermore, a nuance inferred from a bold or bullet is considered the intended communication of the author. The Bible had a variety of methods which were the equivalents of these modern techniques. Consequently many Rashis will become intuitive and punchy once they are translated into modern formatting language. The concept that formatting could facilitate understanding of Rashi and Talmudic comments was first made explicit by Hirsch 82 in his commentary on the Bible. The use of formatting to explain Rashi comments is therefore relatively new -- it has not been explored extensively by other writers; it has also not been used that much in the Rashi database. In this section we present examples from 4 formatting areas. Our goal is to impart the flavor of using this technique by showing the types of explanations it can provide.

Example 1: Bold: The Bible implements Bold by repeating words. Here are 2 examples:
Example 1a: Ex12-09c Do not Cook Cook it in water
Rashi:  Cooking in water is the usual way of cooking; but cooking in any type of liquid is also prohibited
We explain this Rashi by suggesting that the repeated word, Cook Cook, is perceived by Rashi the same way a bold word is perceived by a modern reader: That is, we would format  this sentence as:
Do not Cook it in water. 
The bold implies that the emphasis is on the cooking, not on the water: The prohibition is on any type of cooking whether in water -- the usual method of cooking -- or otherwise.

Example 1b:Gn39-11b She grabbed him by his garment; so he left his garment in her hand and fled.
Note how the underlined word garment is repeated instead of being replaced by a pronoun (That is, the text could have more smoothly read as follows: She grabbed him by his garment; so he left it with her and fled.) Rashi perceived the repeated garment as a bolded word. That is, he formatted the verse as follows:
She grabbed him by the garment; so he left it and fled. 
The emphasis conferred on the word garment by the bold could easily conjure, to most adults, the possibility of  a (sexually) stained garment. Hence, Rashi simply states: 
There is one opinion that he initially intended to sin(but changed his mind at the last minute)!
Further examples of use of repeated words occurs at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/doubl-14.htm

Example 2: BULLETS: Modern formatting uses bullets to emphasize distinctness of items. The Bible implements the bullet format by skillfully using repeated keywords.
  Ex03-11a: Who am I (Moses) that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should take the Jews out of Egypt. 
Rashi perceives the repeated keyword that the same way a modern reader would perceive bulleting. In other words, Rashi would format this text as follows:
Who am I that 
* 	I should go to Pharaoh
* 	I should take the Jews out of Egypt
Rashi interprets these bullets as emphasizing that there were
*	Difficulties with Pharoh: 		 Pharaoh is a difficult king to negotiate with; 
*	Difficulties with the Jews:		 The Jews are rebellious and may not be capable of living free. 
In summary, the double emphasis (on Pharaoh and Jews) comes from the bulleted structure which is Biblically indicated by the repeating keyword that. While, the Rashi database does not yet have sufficient examples to warrant a bullet page, other examples may be found at /nu04-16b.htm, /dt30-15a.htm and /ex18-01d.htm.

Example 3: Paragraphs: Modern typography indicates a paragraph unit by surrounding it with white space. The author, by using the paragraph format, indicates that all paragraph-sentences are connected. It is the paragraph, not the sentence, that is the basic unit of thought in a written work.. The Bible has several methods to indicate paragraphs: We present one example.

Paragraphs can be indicated by a Topic-Development-Topic (TDT) form: Ex02-11a provides an example:
The child(Moses) grew. 
He was brought to her(Pharaohs daughter). He became like her son. She called him Moses because he was drawn from the water. During these many years 
Moses grew and went out to his brothers & saw their suffering
Note the repeated bolded sentence: Moses grew. This sentence is the Topic sentence of the paragraph. The other sentences of the paragraph are sandwiched between this repeated topic sentence. These other sentences develop the topic sentence. Hence we may speak about a Topic-Development-Topic (TDT) form. 

The TDT form identifies the group of sentences as forming one paragraph and hence, focusing on one topic idea. Rashi states 
Moses grew physically and socially. He was a leader in Pharoh=s house. 
Rashi derives these details -- physical and social growth -- from the overall paragraph structure: The paragraph explicitly develops the topic sentence of Moses growing with such details as He became like her son thereby indicating that the growth was, not just physical, but, the also the social growth of a royal household member. 83

Example 4:  Footnotes: Modern formatting uses footnotes to add minute details when these details would otherwise obscure and confuse the main idea of the text. The Bible implements the footnote format by repeating a verse and changing only 1 or 2 words. The resulting contrast then suggests the footnote idea. The Rashi database calls this the alignment method since the footnote nuances may be uncovered by aligning similar verses. This comparison and contrast of similar Biblical passages is a fundamental Rashi technique that produces many inferences. A series of postings on alignment covering 2% of all Rashi=s was presented in August and September of 2001 on the calendar page of the Rashi Database. A rather terse summary can be found at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/align-58.htm. Four types of verse-alignment were discovered. One example is presented in table 10:

VERSE	
Phrase #1		
Phrase #2	
Phrase #3	

Ex20-03	
Don=t			
possess		
the gods of others	

Ex20-04	
Don=t		
make		
idols	
Table 10: The alignment of Ex20-03 and Ex20-04. The verses may be read horizontally across each row: Thus e.g. Ex20-03 states Don=t possess the gods of others. Both verses prohibit idolatry. The columns align parallel phrases showing minute differences. For example Ex20-03 prohibits possession of idols while Ex20-04 prohibits creation of idols. Thus the alignment emphasizes the distinct nuances of both possession and creation implying that there are 2 idolatry prohibitions: Possession and manufacturing. Note that without the alignment I would not be justified in inferring these nuances; I could have simply assumed that idolatry is prohibited without further detail.

The construction of such contrast tables greatly facilitates understanding alignment. Modern formatting would probably express the above with footnotes. The main text would simply say that owning idols is prohibited. A footnote would then clarify that both owning and manufacture is prohibited. The prohibition is independent of whether the manufactured idol is sold or the owned idol was manufactured by someone else. 

The purpose of the footnote is to keep the details from the main text so as to smoothen reading. The footnote then provides further logical detail for those who wish it. By analogy, the cursory Biblical reader reviews Ex20-03:04 and sees them as a repetition while the advanced reader extracts the nuances implied by the differences. Note that footnotes are considered intended communication of the author. In a similar manner the use of alignment must be considered an intentional technique by the Biblical Author to communicate to us. 

SECTION 10: SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS

In the preceding sections we have outlined 6 broad methods of Rashi explanation. Each of these methods could be fruitfully formulated by database theory. 

Three of the methods -- meaning,  grammar, and cross-referencing  -- already have known defined database formulations and are well understood.  The future plan for these 3 methods is therefore completion of the 3 level database design. It is intended to complete the main dictionary, grammar and cross-referencing pages each of which will hyperlink to supporting lists which in turn will hyperlink to more detailed discussions on difficult verses.

The style rules however are new (at least to database theory). While there are databases of meaning and grammatical form -- including entries both within and outside the Bible -- there are no electronic databases of style. I could not for example find a database which lists all styles used by Shakespeare and query the database for all Shakespearian examples of a specific style. By contrast, I could, for example, electronically query for all examples of say verb-subject-object sentences in the Bible. Thus while grammatical databases exist, style databases are in their infancy. Thus a major goal of the Rashi Database is to provide a prototype for a style database.

We have already indicated the extreme difficulties with the Rashi poetry methods: Many scholars would posit that interpretation must intrinsically emanate from meaning, grammar, cross-reference and style. Any other method must be regarded as a homiletic imposition on the text. Nevertheless, the gathering of all climax interpretations should be done.

The formatting rule of section 9 illustrates  the difference between a sound explanation vs an intuitive explanation. For example we have not just posited a rule that a repeated Biblical word like Cook Cook indicates emphasis. We have also asserted the intuitive plausibility of such a rule by comparing it to a modern method of indicating emphasis (Bolding).  A major goal of the Rashi database is to continue the suggestion of Hendel 13 that all Rashis should not only be logically sound but also intuitive. Towards this end we seek the creation of a formatting database supporting the intuitive plausibility of Rashis.

REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES

1.  The Rashi Database is physically located on a website whose url is http://www.RashiYomi.Com/	

2.  Some standard references on Rashi are
    -  Pearl, Chaim.  Rashi. London: Halban, Weidenfel and Nicolson, 1988	
     - Shereshevsky, Esra. Rashi. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1982	
    - Rashi in Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing Company. Volume 13. Roth & Wigoder Chief Editors	

3. Printed in  Mikraot Gedoloth(In Hebrew) Bible and Commentaries. Edited by Aharon Samet. The Hamaor Institute & the Orot Hateshuva Institute PO 3648 Jerusalem. 1990	

4.  A commentary on Rashi=s Pentateuch Commentary written by the Maharal of Prague, 1526-1609	

5.  A commentary on Rashi written by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, chief Rabbi of the Ottoman Empire (1450-1526). His commentary is significant because he answered Nachmanidee=s criticisms of Rashi. See e.g. Mizrachi, Eliyahu  in Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing Company. Volume 12. Roth & Wigoder Chief Editors	

6.  Printed in Mikraot Gedoloth(In Hebrew) Bible and Commentaries. Edited by Aharon Samet. The Hamaor Institute & the Orot Hateshuva Institute PO 3648 Jerusalem. 1990	

7.  Leibowitz, Nechama. Studies in the Torah. Volumes 1-5. Translated by Aryeh Newman. 4th Edition, World Zionist Organization.1980-1981	

8.  Boncheck, Avigdor. Whats Bothering Rashi. Volumes 1-5. New York. Feldheim. 1997-Present	

9.  Shaar Aharon(in Hebrew) Volumes 1-16. Aharon Isiah Roter Editor. 5 Shelah Bnay Brak. 1960-1975	

10.  Malbim: Commentary on the Torah. Translated by Zvi Faier. Jerusalem: M.P.Press 1982	

11.
-Zornberg, Avivah Gottlieb. Genesis: The Beginnings of Desire: Fairfeld NJ: The Jewish Publication Society1995.  
-Zornberg, Avivah Gottlieb. Exodus. The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus: Fairfeld NY: The Jewish Publication Society: 2001 

12. Menachem M. Schneerson. Studies in Rashi: The Third Party (Translated by Yitschak M. Kagan). Kehath Publication Society. 2001. 

13.  Hendel, Russell. Peshat And Derash: A New Intuitive and Analytic Approach. Tradition 18.4 pp 327-342. 1980
-  (Pg 331 contains the Principal-Pal Grade school analogy mentioned in Section-1). 
-(Hendel states that besides being grammatically sound, Rashi comments can also be portrayed as intuitive and spontaneous; the effortless immediate response of a native speaker upon hearing a Biblical  verse. Hendel proposed doing this by using comparable analogies in other languages. )

 14.  Throughout this paper we will use a 7-8 character notation for Biblical and Rashi texts: Thus  Gn32-05 refers to the book of Genesis, Chapter 32 verse 5; Gn32-05a refers to the 1st Rashi (Rashi a) on this verse.  

There are significant differences in the enumeration of Rashis on verses. We have mostly used the enumeration  presented in the electronic Rashi text in the Davka Corporations Judaic Classics Library, Version IId, by David Kantrowitz. Institute for Computers in Jewish Life and Davka Corporation(www.Davka.Com) 1991-1998 (See footnotes 16 & 60 for a discussion of Rashi translations and variant texts).	

15.  It is well known that semantic mappings between languages is never perfect and frequently miss certain nuances. The intent of this particular translation is to distinguish between the concept of citizen-residence vs. the concept of sojourner- alien-staying-over.  

16. This translation is my own. Throughout this manuscript, literal Rashi translations are interposed with background and clarifying material. Where appropriate I used the classical English translations of Rashi such as:
-Dr. Silberman. Chumash and Rashi. NY: Feldheim Publishers. 1934.
Some good web English translations of Rashi are
-http://www.mnemotrix.com/metsudah/
-http://aish.com/literacy/reference/ Search_the_Chumash_with_Rashi_-_in_English.asp

17.  The Bible contains numerous obligations, or commandments, which the Jews are obligated to perform. Some examples are the commandments prohibiting murder or obligating one to give charity. Many scholars have enumerated these commandments -- the classical approach assumes 613 commandments. One standard listing of them may be found in The Mishneh Torah -- Volume 1: Book of Commandments. Maimonides.  Mosad Harav Kook. 1958

18.  This comment of Rabbi Soloveitchick was taken from a set of Bible-and-Rashi lectures delivered weekly at the Maimonides High School in Brookline Massachusetts between 1968 and 1971(which the author attended) It was later pointed out to me that this comment of the Rav was based upon a similar comment in the Chizkuni commentary on Rashi.

19.  There are many classical, scholarly and layman accounts of Hebrew Grammar. E.g.	
-  Christo H.J. Van Der Merwe, Naude, Jackie A and Kroeze, Jan H. Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1999	
- Bornemann, Robert. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 1998	
-  Seow, C.L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1987	
- I also mention the Appendix to the Ibn Shoshan Dictionary, Malon Chadash (In Hebrew), Volume 5. Jerusalem: Kiryat      Sefer: 1962. This appendix summarizes in about 20 pages most verb and noun conjugations	
- Finally I point out that by grammar I include the rules governing sentence style.(Many of these rules are common to many language. An (old) classic  reference might be Hendricks, William O. Grammars of style and styles of grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. NY: Elsevier Publishing Company. 1976)

20.  There will not be much transliteration in this Paper. I have by and large translated words as they sound. Where necessary I have given a phonetical example in English to clarify my intention.	

21.  Recall that Rashi text has consonants but no vowels. Also recall that other grammarians disputed that there was a gerund form. Hence when Rashi calls this infinitive-o-form  pay-Ayin-vuv-Lamed he could be referring to either the participle form(Paool) or the gerund form(Paol). In fact the translation we have adopted -- be involved in remembering the Sabbath -- uses both a participle and a gerund phrase. 

However, the important point to remember is that the goal of this section is to show different levels of detail in Rashi. It is clear that Ex20-0-8a is the only one of these dozen Rashis on the gerund form where an explicit comment is made on grammatical form. The issue of grammatical form is not even addressed in the other Rashis on gerund form. Thus independent of how Pay-ayin-vuv-lamed is translated, the language of Rashi still supports our basic thesis that Rashi was sometimes detailed, sometimes cross referencing, sometimes just translating and sometimes sloppy.	

22. We have suggested translating the infinitive-o-form as a gerund phrase: Be involved in remembering the exodus. This translation is consistent with Rashis comment, Remember the Exodus every day. In other words, since the gerund indicates ongoing activity Rashi was justified in translating the verse as requiring daily remembering. Thus while Rashi gives a translation of the verse he does not make explicit that the translation comes from a gerund phrase.   	

23.  We have translated the infinitive-o-form as a gerund phrase: Be involved in listening to Judicial conflict. On Ex20-08a (Be involved in listening to the Sabbath) Rashi identifies specific behaviors that are consequences of this translation (Eg Rashi advises to continually, during the week, buy special foods for the Sabbath). Rashi does not give any such advice on Dt01-15c. It is not even clear that the different translation implies specific activities.  One possible application of being involved in listening is the law that a capital case cannot be finished the day it starts: The Judges must continuously debate the case thru the night and only in the morning can a verdict be rendered. See The Mishneh Torah -- Volume 17 : Laws of Courts Chapter 12, Paragraph 3. Maimonides.  Mosad Harav Kook. 1962
 
24.  See footnotes #22 & #23.  In contrast to Dt01-15c where we suggested an interpretation of the gerund phrase as requiring consequent behavior neither Rashi nor myself provides such an interpretation for Dt31-26a.	

25.  See footnotes #22 & #23. We would translate this verse as Be involved in watching the springtime (so as) to make Passover. This translation is consistent with the Rashi comment that we continuously monitor the calendar so that if Passover would come out early we make the year a leap year so that Passover will come out in the Spring. In other words, the gerund watching implies continual activity.

26.  A query view(that is, a list) of verses where Rashi comments on the infinitive-o-form may be found at url http://www.RashiYomi.Com/inf-3.htm.  As indicated in section 1, a primary goal of the Rashi database is to provide lists of such examples. Another goal is to make translations intuitive and spontaneous. In this case, we accomplished this by translating the infinitive-o-form as e.g. be involved in remembering.  Such a translation would facilitate perceiving  the Rashi comment, Remember every day, as spontaneous and immediate.

27.  http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ki-11.htm contains a list of several dozen Rashis on the word ki.

28.  http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gn25-22d.htm contains a list of verses using the phrase seek God

29.  This is the approach used by Dr Nehama Leibowitz and Rabbi Avigdor Boncheck. See footnotes #7 & #8.

At times, this approach of seeking Rashis problem, is not useful: See the examples in sections 6,7,9 which deal with the techniques of cross-referencing, style and formatting  Furthermore, stating that Rashi has a problem does not help the student identify the possible problem classes that Rashi was reviewing. Thus the Database-theory-approach  supplements the problem approach to Rashi by providing more details.

30. - Date, C.J. An Introduction to Database Systems, 7th Edition. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley 2000	
- Date, C.J. A guide to the SQL standard: A user's guide to the standard relational language SQL. 2nd edition. Reading Massachusetts: Addison Wesley. 1989	

31.  See footnote #17

32.  The SQL statement for the join is as follows:	
Create table JoinedBibleCommandment As Select Bible.*, Commandment.* From Bible Left Join Commandment On Bible.Key=Commandment.Key;	

Footnotes 32-35 present the SQL statements for the 5 tables. 
- These technical statements can be fully appreciated by those who know database theory
- However lay readers may also benefit from perceiving how a few lines of code generates so many Rashi concerns
-An advanced SQL user could combine all 5 steps into 1. The breakdown into 5 steps facilitates exposition
-We only use SQL to define rarity. Similar SQL statements could define similarity & confusion but this is not pursued in this paper.

33.  We actually have 2 tasks to do: Beside taking a summary we must first eliminate duplicates. The need for this arises if certain Biblical words occur several times in the same commandment. We perceive these as duplicates and would like to count such entries only once.

 The SQL for taking distinct items is as follows	
Create table DistinctJoinedBibleCommandment as Select Distinct text, DoOrDont, Commandment# from JoinedBibleCommandment;	

The SQL for creating the summary table in step 4 is then as follows:	
Create table Summary as Select Text, Count(Text) as Frequency from DistinctJoinedBibleCommandment order by Frequency;	  

34.  http://www.rashiyomi.com/fear-3.htm lists the 5 verses containing the phrase Fear the Lord

35.  We omitted the display of this table in the manuscript (because no electronic database for the Commandments was available; hence the SQL  could not be physically executed). However the main point of this section was the idea of using SQL to define rarity and that has been accomplished. The completed Rashis database will have an electronic commandment table.

The SQL statement for extracting a summary with frequencies between 5 and 50 is presented below.
 Select * from Summary where Frequency between 5 and 50;	

36.  http://www.Rashiyomi.com/reward-4.htm, lists the half-dozen commandments that explicitly mention reward.

37.  http://www.RashiYomi.Com/egypt-5.htm lists the dozen or so commandments which explicitly mention the exodus from Egypt.

38.  For several examples see  http://www.RashiYomi.Com/grammar-12.htm , http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ex05-23a.htm or http://www.rashiyomi.com/gn44-16a.htm. Section 5 of this manuscript discusses grammar in detail.

39.  A discussion of issues and examples (without necessary reaching any final conclusion) may be found at http://www.rashiyomi.com/nu14-36a.htm	

40. These 5 prohibitions have in common that it is difficult to get caught violating them since the avoidance of the prohibition intrinsically depends on intention.  For example the Biblical prohibition of Teasing (Lv25-17) is dependent on intention since violators can always claim they were giving constructive criticism. (By contrast the prohibition of say, theft is objective). Thus fear of man would not motivate observance of these 5 prohibitions since man can=t catch violators. However God who knows mans intentions can catch violators. Hence the phrase Fear the Lord is mentioned in these 5 prohibitions

Such detailed comments are normally found in the Rashi-is-Simple newsletter series (Which is discussed in section 4). See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h2n5.htm for the above discussion and further details.

41.  We may summarize sections 1-3 as follows:
- The Rashi database in general does 4 things with every Rashi
---- it may reinterpret the Rashi
----it classifies the Rashi as belonging to one of 6 broad classes
---- it may define certain concepts like rarity using database theory
---- it exhibits lists of comparable examples to the Rashi rule used
- However in the rest of the paper we only present the lists of comparable examples for each of the 6 areas. We do not present, in each instance, the database definitions nor do we fully discuss the reasons for reinterpretation.  A fuller development of this topic, discussing reinterpretation and database definitions will be presented when the database project is completed.

42.  http://www.RashiYomi.Com/nu03-04a.htm presents 4 verses using the phrase on the face of.(Rashi does not comment on the occurrence of this phrase at Dt21-16)

43.  Some further background and a summary may be helpful

 As pointed out in the manuscript the net effect is that the website provides 3 levels of exposure: 
( I) Words page:  A list of Hebrew words and their meanings; 
(ii) Daily Rashi: a collection of lists of similar examples supporting the contended meanings of words and 
(iii)Rashi is Simple newsletter:  extensive discussion on the assumptions that went into the verse translations.

- The words page is located at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/words.htm. It contains half a dozen columns listing Hebrew words, their meanings and sample verses illustrating these meanings. Presently however it contains only a few dozen entries. The words page hyperlinks to the daily Rashi postings. These daily Rashi postings are also hyperlinked from the  calendar page.

- The Calendar page is located at http://www.Rashiyomi.Com/calendar.htm. It hyperlinks each date in the calendar to a two-to-three page Daily posting dealing with 2 to 3 Rashis. These postings are sent out privately and also posted on the email newsletter Chevruta hosted by Shamash,(www.shamash.org), hosted by Hebrew Union College, Brookline Massachusetts.  The Daily Rashi postings contain lists of verses, roots, and usages supporting each Rashi comment. 

- The daily Rashi postings, are in turn a synopsis of lengthier digests that are published twice weekly on the Rashi-is-Simple newsletter also hosted by Shamash  The Rashi is simple newsletter, besides verse lists, also has extensive discussions of subtleties.

At the time of writing this manuscript the Daily Rashi series has covered 26% of all Rashis while the Daily Rashi series has covered 14% of all Rashis. As we complete all Rashis we intend to update the dictionary page. Other modifications will also take place consistent with the proposed 3 level design. For example only urls (not actual hyperlinks) are listed on the Daily Postings. We intend to supplement these urls with hyperlinks.

44.  See Hendel, R J. Peshat and Derash. Tradition. Volume 18.4 pg 328-329.  Winter 1980.

http://www.Rashiyomi.com/ach-6.htm presents a list of Rashis on the word ach.
- Note that some Rashi commentaries suggest that the Talmud=s inference that there are exceptions to observing the Sabbath does not come from the nuances of the word ach. Rather it comes from the peculiar proximity of Sabbath Law observance amidst a discussion of the Temple
- Some authorities dispute that the exceptions of Sabbath observance are consistent with the exceptions denoted by the word usually.

See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h1n16.htm in the Rashi-is-Simple newsletter series for a complete discussion (NOTE: The early issues of Rashi is Simple used a verbose style and peculiar verse notation. We intend to eventually rewrite these issues).

45.  See footnote 19 for a list of references	

46.  See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/grammar.htm (As already pointed out, it is possible to define similarity and confusion using database theory. Rarity was defined using database theory in section 3.)	

47.  See http://www.Rashiyomi.Com/dt02-16a.htm for a list of examples

48.  See footnote 38 for a list of examples.

49.  See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gn44-16a.htm for an example.

50.  See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gramr-2.htm for a list of examples.	

51.  See http://www.Rashiyomi.com/gn14-14c.htm for a list of examples. (The urls & hyperlinks listed at the bottom provide a more detailed discussion) Some examples of verse pairs(using a singular-plural vs a plural-plural form are Judge9-34 (military), Gn14-14:15(military) Lv23-15 vs Lv25-08(court counting vs nation counting))	

52.  See Radack, Book Of Roots(In Hebrew). Entries for prepositions like EL, AL, ETH BO each have half a dozen meanings.

53. These 6 meanings are listed on the words page (http://www.RashiYomi.Com/words.htm) which hyperlinks to the AL page (http://www.RashiYomi.Com/al-5.htm) Some examples are Ex12-09e (AL means with), Lv03-05a,Nu06-20b (AL means after), Gn49-13b (AL means near),  Ex26-46c(AL means to), Gn19-17a(AL means in) 

54.  http://www.RashiYomi.com/gramr-4.htm lists 3 examples: Gn46-26a, Gn18-20b, Gn15-17e

55. http://www.RashiYomi.Com/miss-6.htm lists Rashis discussing ellipsis or pronoun antecedents. 
      http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gn41-57a.htm lists Rashis suggesting sentence rearrangement
 	
56.  http://www.RashiYomi.Com/gramr-8.htm lists several examples (e.g.   gn07-23a and gn24-65a)	

57.  http://www.rashiyomi.com/gramr-1.htm lists possible examples: e.g. Gn04-01a, Gn24-01a. Also possibly Gn21-01a(?), Ex12-36a(?)

58.  While I initially divided these Rashis into 6 groups, I presently believe that it suffices to consider the 3 types of cross-referencing listed.

Also note that I initially studied contradictory Rashis separately: http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ri-14.htm lists several dozen Rashis illustrating the technique of contradictory verses.  As indicated earlier in footnote #43, the Rashi Database is an ongoing project which is presently 25% completed. The final database will combine contradictory verse examples  as a subset of the cross-referencing examples.

59. Kitov, Eliyahu. Hagadah Shel Pesah: The Heritage Haggadah: With Laws customs traditions and
commentary for the Seder Night. ,( Translated from the Hebrew by
Gershon Robinson). Jerusalem, NY Feldheim: 1999	

60.  http://www.RashiYomi.com/other-1.htm lists several similar examples.

We now use the cross-referencing principle to illustrate an approach to variant Rashi texts:
-First observe that 4 Rashis state that Chur was the son of Miriam and Kalev (Ex24-14c, Ex32-05c, Ex17-10b, Ex35-30a) 
-Rashi derives this fact from a cross-reference to 1Chron02:18 which states that Kalev gave birth ...to Azuvah his wife
-This peculiar statement gave birth to his wife elicits at least 5 attempts at resolution by various commentators

-Rashi on Chumash follows the Talmudic interpretation that Azuvah refers to Miriam who was deserted (Azuvah) because of her leprosy(Nu12). Since Kalev lovingly cared for her until reentry into the community it is considered as if he gave birth to her. Since Chur is Kalev=s son and Azuvah=Miriam is his wife it follows that Chur was son of Miriam and Kalev
-But Rashi on Chronicles gives a much simpler explanation: Kalev=s wife died on the operating table at birth. To commemorate her, Kalev named his daughter after his wife. So according to the Chronicle Rashi Chur was Kalev=s son but not Miriam=s son. Thus there seems to be a contradiction between Rashi on Chronicles vs. Rashi on Chumash.

We could e.g. follow Encyclopedia Judaica(footnote #2) and state that it is not clear that the Rashi we have on Chronicles is authentic. But at a deeper level it is immaterial to the Rashi Database whether Rashi on Chronicles is authentic. All the Rashi Database cares about is that
- The 4 Rashis on Chumash use the method of cross-reference 
- Depending on the meaning of the cross-referenced verse we might know Chur=s father or both his parents
In other words the Rashi Database is primarily interested in classification and logic. This attitude towards variant Rashi texts permeates this paper. It follows that the discovery of variant Rashi texts would not change the methods of this paper.

61. See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/other-7.htm for this example. Both these approaches are cited by Malbim in his commentary of Leviticus Chapter 1 (See footnote 10 for the Malbim reference).  A detailed discussion, including a pedagogic discussions of various levels of exposure may be found at http://www.RashiYomi.Com/h1n24.htm
 	
62.  Rabbi Ishmael lived in Talmudic times. He formulated a list of 13 exegetical rules by which the Torah is expounded. The full text of these exegetical rules, with clarifying examples is cited from the Sifrah in The Artscroll Siddur: The complete Artscroll edition(Nusach Ashkenaz) of the Siddur Kol Yaakov. In The Artscroll Mesorah Series.NY: The Rabbinical Council of America 1984, 1987, 1990. pg 48 (Also see footnote #64)

63.  This distinction between a complete explanation of a Rashi comment vs a broad classification of Rashis methodology will facilitate understanding the difference between the goals of the Rashi Database vs the goals of other Rashi scholars -- either secular or traditional -- many of whom focus on the details of Rashis content and explanation.

64. See e.g. the Ayelet Hashachar, The introduction of Malbim=s commentary on Leviticus(See footnote 10 for the Malbim reference), presents 613 rules which Malbim used to justify the Biblical exegesis in the Sifrah. Most of these rules deal e.g. with nuances of synonyms, conjugation rules, or rules of sentence formation (e.g. syntax order). Thus Malbim explained Biblical exegesis without using the Rabbi Ishmael rules.

65.  There were several competing lists of exegetical rules such as the 7 rules  of Hillel or the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer.  See the entry Hermeneutics in The Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 8 (page 366). Jerusalem, Israel: Keter Publishing House. Roth and Wigoder editors.

 According to the Encyclopedia Judaica there is no Greek influence on these lists of Exegetical rules. Nevertheless even a cursory reading of say Aristotle=s On Rhetoric (Translated by George A Kennedy), NY: Oxford University Press, 1991, shows similarity between Aristotle=s and Rabbi Ishmael=s influences. The basic difference between Aristotle and Rabbi Ishmael is as follows: 

Rabbi Ishmael assumes the Biblical Author deliberately used certain styles to indicate broad, literal or similar translations (By contrast Aristotle was concerned with inferences based on logic and style that can be inferred from any text without making assumptions on the author). Furthermore Aristotle was concerned with specific detailed inferences while by contrast Rabbi Ishmael was concerned with statements of style (Broad vs literal) rather than detailed content

66. There is no purely semantic way to justify all  3 generalizations in this verse. (However, a close reading of the Sifrah Sifray and Mechiltah shows that there are some  attempts to show that the word ox is a generic word that can refer to any animal, the same way that bread(in Hebrew) can refer to any food.)

67. Rashi on the  Talmud, Tractate Pesachim Folio 6  	

68. We have paraphrased Rashi to facilitate the flow of text. Table 7 depicts more accurately what Rashi states. The literal Rashi text is every Biblical statement should be generalized unless that statement uses a general-example or an example-general style (Which would require literal or only partially broad interpretations)
 	
69.   We have presented 3 style rules in this manuscript -- literal, broad and partially broad. This does not necessarily contradict Rabbi Ishmael=s 13 rules or Hillels 7 rules: Rather the 3 rules are meant as a classification system: That is, we are suggesting that all exegetical rules -- whether the 7 of Hillel, the 13 of Rabbi Ishmael, or the 32 or Rabbi Eliezer -- either require a literal interpretation, a broad interpretation or a similar interpretation. See footnote 70 for further clarification.

70.  Rabbi Ishmael distinguishes between a general-example-general style such as is found in Dt18-01 and an example-general style such as found in Dt15-14b. However in both cases there is a requirement of partial generalization. Hence we have grouped these two forms together. http://www.RashiYomi.com/example7.htm presents Rashi comments using this form

71.  In other words the Bible (Nu05) states that if a husband suspects his wife of adultery (and there are witnesses to seclusion with men against his publicly stated wishes) then the woman is subject to the adulterous-wife-ceremony described in Nu05. Under ordinary circumstances I might generalize  this to suspicion of  any improper behavior: That is, I would assume that if a woman was suspected of fooling around with other men(but not going all the way) then she may be subjected to the Suspicious wife ceremony.  However, because of the general-specific form in Nu12-05 I interpret the Biblical text literally: Only suspicions of adultery warrant the adulterous wife ceremony.

72.  We again emphasize that the Rashi Database is primarily concerned with classification, not with the details of the law. The Biblical exegesis on Dt14-26 is classified as a general-example-general form which requires a partially broad interpretation. It is not of concern to us in this manuscript to explain the details of this partially broad interpretation.

Such discussion of details however is supplementally carried out in the Rashi-is-Simple newsletter. See http://www.RashiYomi.com/h7n1.htm or  http://www.RashiYomi.Com/dt14-26a.htm for a detailed discussion. The Talmud views the 4 examples mentioned in Dt14-26 -- ox, sheep, wine and beer -- as edibles, which are mainstays of the meal that derive their primary nourishment from the ground. However any other partial generalization would not contradict our thesis that Rashi focuses on the general-example style which requires a partially broad interpretation.

73.  I find the concept mainstays of the meal useful in formulating this (This concept is not explicitly used in Talmudic discussions). Clearly we must distinguish between examples like steak, lambchops, wine and beer vs. water, salt, spice and tea. The former may be called mainstays of the meal while the latter may be called peripherals.
  	
74.   O'Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure  Winona Lake, In. : Eisenbrauns, 1980; reissued 1997	

75 Holladay. Hebrew Verse structure revisited(I). Journal Of Biblical Literature. Volume 18 pp 19-31. 1999
     Holladay. Hebrew Verse structure revisited (II). Journal Of Biblical Literature. Volume 18 pp 401-433. 1999

76.  Technically speaking the  Biblical word ARaV (Aleph-Resh-Beth) means to Ambush. 	I have reinterpreted this word to refer to any type of spying-stalking activity even if there is no immediate intent of ambush-attack. Such a modest reinterpretation is consistent with Rashi who perceives the verse as describing 4 stages leading to murder(So there is no harm in separating the spying and ambushing). Such reinterpretation is common when applying the climax principle. Such reinterpretation does not require a justification from the nuances of the word; rather the climax principle itself justifies the reinterpretation.

For other examples of the climax principle see http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example9.htm and http://www.RashiYomi.Com/example8.htm

77. Crimes like murder and apostasy are complex crimes which usually develop over time but are rarely immediate. The climax principle then shows how it happens; that is, it presents a reasonable development of these crimes over several stages.

78. The climax principle is independent of meaning. In other words
- the Biblical word oiled could equally refer to fatty foods or fatty people
- the Biblical word think could equally refer to fatty foods or fatty people
- the Bible word covered is more likely to refer to covered with fat vs covered with disease.
Hence, the driving force for the interpretation of this verse in 3 stages -- fatness in foods, fatness in the person, disease covered -- is not from meaning but rather from the principle of climax itself. It is for this reason (since the climax rule is not rooted in the meaning of the words) that many people would classify these interpretations as homily.	
  	
79. Achaz introduced idolatrous resources which would be analogous to fatty resources/foods. However Achaz did not desecrate the temple itself (which would be analogous to fatness in the person)
   	
80. Menasheh introduced idolatry in the temple. This would be analogous to assimilation of fatty food into ones person. That is, the idolatry resource introduced by Achaz now became internalized into the religion.  	

81. Yehoyakims kingdom was invaded by foreign powers; this is analogous to a disease covered fatty person.

82. Samson Raphael Hirsch. The Pentateuch (volumes 1-7), Translated by Isaac Levy. 2nd Edition. Gateshead, England. Judaica Press 1982  See the commentary to Exodus Chapter 21 Verse 2

83. This example may be found at http://www.rashiyomi.com/ex02-11a.htm. While there is not yet a paragraph page on the Rashi website, other examples of Rashis that can be interpreted as focusing on Biblical paragraphs occur at /gn12-10a.htm, /gn28-10a.htm, /gn48-20b.htm, /gn17-09a.htm, /gn17-07a.htm. A possibly elaborate or controversial example may found at /gn06-22a.htm