We have explained in our article Biblical Formatting located on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/biblicalformatting.pdf, that the Biblical Author indicates bold, italics, underline by using repetition. In other words if a modern author wanted to emphasize a word they would either underline, bold or italicize it. However when the Biblical author wishes to emphasize a word He repeats it. The effect - whether thru repetition or using underline - is the same. It is only the means of conveying this emphasis that is different.

Notice the repeated underlined word in the following verse, Lv01-05e: And he shall kill the bull before the Lord; and the priests, the sons of Aaron, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood around upon the altar that is by the door of the Tent of Meeting. As indicated we interpret this repetition as indicating an unspecified emphasis. In modern notation we would translate this sentence with an underline: And he shall kill the bull before the Lord; and the priests, the sons of Aaron, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle it around upon the altar that is by the door of the Tent of Meeting. A modern reader would see the underline in this sentence the same way that a Biblical reader sees the repetition: as indicating an unspecified emphasis. Rashi translates this unspecified emphasis as indicating that any blood may be used including blood mixed with blood of other (Kosher) sacrifices.

Advanced Rashi: The Rashi derivation here is almost identical to the derivation in rule 3 above, Grammar. There the derivation was based on the pronoun rule: A repeated noun that avoids a pronoun should be interpreted as indicating emphasis, for example, a broad interpretation. Such a derivation from pronoun usage could also be inferred from use of the repeated noun since repetition also indicates emphasis, for example a broad interpretation. In both cases we have interpreted the Biblical text broadly whether because of the pronoun or repeated noun: (1) Flay this elevation offering and similarly flay all elevation offerings; (2) bring to the altar and sprinkle blood, in whatever condition the blood is, including bloods of different offerings that were accidentally mixed together.

The Rashi text includes two midrashim. The second Midrash focuses on another text about blood that uses restrictive language. This is typical in Leviticus: Two almost identical verses will use two opposite methods: One method requires broad interpretation while the other method requires restrictive interpretation. Rashi's approach to such exegetical pairs is to interpret broadly but not too broadly allowing obvious exclusions. So for example on this verse Rashi generalizes that the blood of the particular elevation offering is sprinkled, even if it mixed with the blood of other sacrifices going on concurrently but not if it mixed with blood from sacrifices on the other altar the golder altar. A full explanation of this aspect of Rashi would take us too far afield and consequently we leave it to another issue. For this issue we suffice with showing that repeated nouns or not using pronouns implies some sort of emphasis, for example, a textual interpretation to broader categories. The extent of this broadness will be discussed elsewhere.

Finally we should clarify the law Rashi's derivation speaks about: If you were offering two elevation offerings and their blood accidentally got mixed up then you can sprinkle the mixed blood and the offerer's vows for bringing an elevation offering has been fulfilled - the offerer does not have to bring another elevation offerings. However if the blood was mixed with water or blood of invalid sacrifices or blood of sacrifices on other altars then the offering is invalid. The offerer must bring another offering to replace this one.