Today we present a peach of a grammatical Rashi. It is the type of Rashi that appears far-fetched and made up, totally devoid of logic. And yet, it has a simple flowing punchy explanation accessible to even a 5 year old using the simple idea of the plural-singular rules.

Let us carefully examine Nu13-21:24, discussing the spy's journey of Israel, with a careful attention to the plurality of the subjects of the verses.
• So they went up,
• and they searched the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, as men come to Hamath.
• And they ascended by the south,
• and he came to Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the sons of Anak, were. Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.
• And they came to the brook of Eshkol,
• and they cut down from there a branch with one cluster of grapes,
• and they bore it between two on a pole; and
• they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.

Who could not notice the bold-underlined word he which stands in stark contrast to the other subjects that are plural. The Rashi conclusion is obvious Only one of the 12 spies visited Chevron How could anyone see this as anything other than the simple meaning of the text?! The only remaining thing to clear is who this one person was and why he alone came to Chevron.

So Rashi puts on his thinking cap. Using the other verse method Rashi cites Dt01-36 which explicitly states ...except for Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see Israel, and to him will I give the land that he has trodden upon, and to his children, because he has wholly followed the Lord. Yet an other verse clarifies this even further: Ju01-20 states And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses said; .... And so, Rashi cheerfully continues, it is obvious that Caleb was the lone spy who came to Chevron since the verses indicate that he had come there and received it as an inheritance.

But we still have to ask why. If the job of the spies is to check out Israel for Jewish conquest why did Caleb journey off to Chevron. No problem says Rashi: Recall that Chevron is the burial place of the Patriarchs. We all know that one visits burial places in order to pray and strengthen one's personality. And we don't have to look far to find out what Caleb needed strengthening about...he had to disagree with the slander of the other spies. So the reasonable approach is that he came to Chevron to pray for the strength not to join the other spies in slandering Israel.

Clear, punchy, logical and reasonable. This is an ideal way to approach all Rashis!

Note the underlined differences in the alignment of the following two paragraphs.
• Nu15-24:27 states
  • And if any soul sins through ignorance, then he shall bring a female goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement...
  • But the soul who does anything presumptuously, whether he is born in the land, or a stranger, that person blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
• Lv04-27:32 states
  • And if any one of the common people sins through ignorance, when he does something against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, which he has sinned, comes to his knowledge; then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned. And he shall ...
  • And if he brings a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.

Rashi literally simply says as follows
• Lv04 which speaks about general sin allows either
  • a female lamb without blemish, or
  • a kid of the goats, a female without blemish,
• Nu15 which speaks about blasphemous sin(e.g. idolatry) allows only
  • a female goat of the first year

In this case Rashi uses the alignment to expose two cases.

Note the contradiction indicated by the underlined phrases in the following two verses which discuss descecration of the Sabbath.
• Nu15-32:34a And while the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man who gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. And they put him in custody, because it was not clarified what should be done to him.
• Ex31-14 You shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy to you; every one who defiles it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work in it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

We see the contradiction. How can Nu15-32 say that the penalty for Sabbath descecration is unknown if Ex31-14 explicitly says that the penalty is death?

Rashi resolves this contradiction by using a broad-literal interpretation of the underlined phrase it was not clarified what should be done to him. Rashi points out that the next verse Nu15-35 states And the Lord said to Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.

Thus
• The general idea of what should be done with him was known--he was liable to a death penalty.
• But the particular details of which death penalty was not yet clarified. The purpose of Nu15-35 is to clarify that the death penalty for Sabbath descecration is death by stoning.

Note the General-specific-General style of Nu09-17:20 indicated by the underlined words: And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said to them, Go up this way southward, and go up into the mountain;
• And see the land, what it is; and the people who live in it, whether they are strong or weak, few or many;
• And what the land is that they live in, whether it is good or bad;
• and what cities they are that they live in, whether in tents, or in fortresses;
• And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is a tree in it, or not. And be you of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.

The underlined words--Land,cities,Land-- show a General-Specific-General style. The Rabbi Ishmael Style rules require interpreting such a paragraph broadly---the General clauses are interpreted so as to reflect concepts similar to the specific clauses.

The specific clause in this case deals with whether the cities are in tents or in fortresses.This defines the theme of defense . Rashi now ties the other inquiries listed in the above list as tied to issues of defense

Consequently Rashi interprets the phrase And see the land, what it is; and the people who live in it, whether they are strong or weak, few or many; as follows: If they are strong they dwell in non-fortified cities and rely on their strength; if they are weak they dwell in fortified cities which they rely on for their defense.

Similarly Rashi interprets And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is a tree in it, or not, symbolically: A tree symbolizes a regal spiritual person whose merit defends the city. Here again Rashi ties Moses inquiries to matters of defense. It is important to emphasize that Rashi is not trying to be homiletic by using symbolism--tree-spiritual--rather Rashi is sticking to the theme of defense.

Rashi does not further fully elaborate on this defense theme. But it is not hard to extrapolate. The inquiry And what the land is that they live in, whether it is good or bad; is interpreted by Rashi to refer to natural resources. We can easily connect this to defense issues: A barren land does not need to be defended while a land rich in natural resources does need to be defended with fortresses.

Similarly the inquiry And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, is easily tied to defense issues:If the land is fat--produces a good yield--then it needs to be defended with fortresses while if the land is thin it does not have to be so defended.

The table below summarizes the Biblical text and the application of the theme--defense--to these issues. Note that a Rashi based on style is not as punchy and clear as a Rashi based on grammar or meaning. However these Rashis do follow rules and have a certain flavor to them which the student must master. The review of all verses as indicated in the Table below should give greater appreciation to Rashi.

Note the structure of the following Biblical paragraph:
• Intro section: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, When you come into the land of your habitations, which I give to you, And will make an offering by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savor to the Lord, of the herd, or of the flock;
• Lamb section: Then shall he who offers his offering to the Lord bring a meal offering of a tenth measure of flour mixed with the fourth part of an hin of oil. And the fourth part of a hin of wine for a drink offering shall you prepare with the burnt offering or sacrifice, for one lamb.
• Ram section: Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two tenth measures of flour mixed with the third part of a hin of oil. And for a drink offering you shall offer the third part of a hin of wine, for a sweet savor to the Lord.
• Bull section: And when you prepare a bull for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice in performing a vow, or peace offerings to the Lord; Then shall he bring with a bull a meal offering of three tenth measures of flour mixed with half a hin of oil. And you shall bring for a drink offering half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor to the Lord.
• Summary section: Thus shall it be done for one bull, or for one ram, or for a lamb, or a kid. According to the number that you shall prepare, so shall you do to every one according to their number.

Rashi states: The entire sub-section ending with the underlined phrase for one lamb. deals with the libations of lamb offerings. The entire sub-section beginning with the underlined phrase Or for a ram, deals with the libations of the ram offering.

Rashi's comment is simple but to the point. Rashi's comment deals with the overall structure of the Biblical paragraph-- hence we classify this Rashi as a format method since Rashi communicates to the student how the Biblical paragraph should be divided up. In explaining this Rashi we have in fact visually formatted the Biblical paragraph as a bulleted list. In my article Biblical Formatting to appear later this year in the Jewish Bible Quarterly I argue that a wide class of Rashis can be understood as formatting Rashis. A nifty approach to the comprehension of such Rashis is to skillfully use visual formatting of the Biblical text to communicate Rashi's point.

Nu15-35:36a states And the Lord said to Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Rashi, following the Talmud, comments on the underlined phrase: From the underlined phrase brought him outside the camp, we infer that the execution chamber (place of stoning) was distant from the court house.

The Talmud uses this inference to enhance the judicial process: Why was the execution chamber distant from the court house? So that judges could accompany the convicted to hear last minute defenses. If the convicted uttered such a defense while moving from the court house to the execution chamber he was brought back to court for a trial addendum.

We have classified this as a use of the Spreadsheet method because Rashi states a derived inference from the text: The Biblical text itself is fully understood. There are no problems with the text. However we can infer certain extra items from the Biblical text which don't per se make it more understood. Such inferences are classified as spreadsheet methods since like spreadsheets they are derived extra items to the meaning of the verse.