The goal of this Weekly Rashi Digest is to use the weekly Torah portion to expose students at all levels to the ten major methods of commentary used by Rashi. It is hoped that continual weekly exposure to these ten major methods will enable students of all levels to acquire a familiarity and facility with the major exegetical methods.

Verses Lv06-13:14c describing the Priest Minchah offering states This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto HaShem in the day when he is anointed: the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half thereof in the evening. On a griddle it shall be made with oil; when it is soaked, thou shalt bring it in; a broken meal-offering shall you offer it for a sweet savour unto HaShem. Rashi explains the underlined word, broken by referencing another verse, Lv02-05:06 which describes the fried meal offering: And if thy offering be a frypan meal-offering, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil. Thou shalt break it in pieces, and pour oil thereon; it is a meal-offering. Hence the Rashi comment on Lv06-14c The priest meal offering was broken in the same manner as the frypan meal offering.

Verse Lv06-02b states Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the burnt-offering: it is the up offering which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. The word Torah in this verse has 2 specific meanings
• It can mean the Bible, the book of the Torah
• It can mean guiding axiomatic principles

We shall explore the consequences of this in a moment. But first we give the etymology of Torah. Torah comes from the Hebrew Biblical root, Hey Resh Hey. which means to become pregnant. The translation of Torah as meaning guiding axiomatic principles is similar to the English idiom, embryonic idea which also uses pregnancy as a metaphor for axiomatic idea. That is, we see the analogy, embryo:pregnant::embryonic idea:principles.

Rashi interprets guiding axiomatic principles to refer to broad sweeping principles that apply universally to all areas of the sacrifices being spoken about. Hence the Rashi comment: As can be seen by the underlined words in the above cited verse, all up offerings may have their organs on the firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning.

To recap: Rashi infers that the specific remarks in Lv06-02 apply to all up offerings from the emphasizing word, Torah which means axiomatic principles which implies that the cited laws apply universally.

We can also understand why the Bible is called the Torah since all its principles are really axiomatic motifs that guide us throughout life.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi makes further comments on this verse: This teaches that an invalid offering whose invalidity was not noticed till the organs were placed on the altar should remain there. It appears that this Rashi comment comes from the word Torah which means axiomatic principles. But this is not the case. We shall present an alternate derivation of this further Rashi comment in rule 7, Formmating below.

For the moment we note an important concept about learning Rashi: Rashi may frequently combine two separate Rashi comments in one Rashi with each Rashi comment having a separate derivation. This can be very confusing for the reader.

A beautiful rule of grammar discovered by the great Malbim is that there are two words for it in Hebrew
• Aleph Tauv Vav (Otho) means only it and connotes limitation
• A terminal suffix vav means it
The examples below illustrate usage and connotation of Aleph Tauv Vav

• Verse Lv01-06b states And he shall flay the burnt-offering, and cut only it into its pieces. Rashi: The priest only cuts the offering but does not cut the cuts since the verse explicitly says cut only it
• Verse Lv02-06a states Thou shalt break only it in pieces, and pour oil thereon; it is a meal-offering. Rashi: The priest only breakes the matzoh offering but does not further break the broken pieces again since the verse explicitly says break only it
• Verse Lv20-05b discussing the punishment of a person who worshipped idols states then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut only him off, and all that go astray after him, to go astray after Molech, from among their people. Rashi: Although God places His Face against the person and his family nevertheless God only cuts him off, but not his family, since the verse explicitly says I will only cut him off.

We can slightly generalize the Malbim's principle as follows: Any extra pronoun, or, full-word pronoun, when a suffix suffices, indicates emphasis and can be translated using the word only.

We can apply this principle to verse Lv06-02: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the up-offering: It is the up-offering which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. Any good high school student will recognize the underlined pronoun it as unnecessary (You just stated the noun why introduce a pronoun immediately after it). The verse reads quite smoothly, perhaps smoother, without the word it: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the up-offering, which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby.

Applying our principle that unnecessary pronouns should be translated with the word only we would translate Lv06-02 as follows: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the Torah of the up-offering: Only It is the up-offering which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby.

In our article Biblical Formatting located on the world wide web at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/biblicalformatting.pdf, we have explained that such verses should be seen as indicating unspecified emphasis. That is, the word only certainly creates emphasis. But we don't know what is being emphasized, that is, the emphasis is non-specific. Note that while the interpretation of the verse as indicating unspecified emphasis is the simple intended meaning of the verse, the application of this unspecified emphasis to something particular is exegetical and must be derived. The Talmudic Rabbis traditionally interpret an unspecified emphasis as the worst case. Hence the Rashi comment: If bestiality has been committed with the animal then even if it was inadvertently placed on the altar it must be taken down since only it - that is, only a proper up offering may be offered on the altar. Here Rashi interprets only it to refer back to the up offerings which have been done according to all requirements in the text.

Advanced Rashi: There is a big literature on whether Rashi indicates the simple meaning of the text, intrinsic to it, or whether the Rashi comments are ways of pegging oral laws on to the text. Our position is that very often Rashi comments are reasonable interpretations of unpsecified emphasis. The unspecified emphasis is real and intrinsic to the text but its application to specific contexts is not in the text but a reasonable approach to the unspecified emphasis.

Thus here the Bible is talking about an up offering. The Bible then says only this up offering is offered on the altar fire all night. The Talmudic Rabbis interpret the unspecified emphasis of the underlined word only as referring to only up offerings done according to proper procedure. The Rabbis then delimit only the worst possible case where the animal committed bestiality. Such an animal cannot go up on the altar nor remain there if it inadvertently already went up.

I believe the above approach to Rashi, interpretation of unspecified emphasis, makes Rashis very palatable.

The following two verses both discuss the fistful procedure of the meal offerings:
• Verse Lv06-08b states And he shall take up therefrom
  • with his handful,
  • of the fine flour of the meal-offering,
  • and of the oil thereof, a
  • nd all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering,
  • and shall make the memorial-part thereof smoke upon the altar
  for a sweet savour unto HaShem.
• But verse Lv02-02 states And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests;
  • and he shall take thereout his full handful
  • of the fine flour thereof,
  • and of the oil thereof,
  • together with all the frankincense thereof;
  • and the priest shall make the memorial-part thereof smoke upon the altar,
  an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto HaShem.

Notice the distinct underlined words - with, full - in each passage. From these words Rashi learns:
• With his hand emphasizes that he should use his own hand to scoop it up but not a special utensil.
• full handful emphasizes that the scoopful should not overfill or underfill his hand.

Advanced Rashi: We make two inferences from the alignment. The inference from the word his is found in the Rashi comments on Lv06. The inference from the word full is found in the Rashi comments on Lv02.

Note the contradiction in the following verse discussing who eats a sin offering:
• Verse Lv06-19a states The priest offering it for cleansing sin shall eat it; in a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.
• But verse Lv06-22b states Every male priest may eat thereof; it is most holy.

We see the contradiction, indicated by the underlined words. Which is it? Is the sin-offering eaten by any male priest or is it only eaten by the priest offering it.?

Rashi resolves this contradiction using the broad-literal meaning method. Any male priest who could have offered the sin offering may eat it. Here Rashi interprets
• Every male priests literally to mean any male priests
• The priest offering it broadly to mean the priest who could offer it

Sermonic points: Although the Bible frequently emphasizes the values of individuality, here the Bible emphasizes team work: It is the priestly team, not an individual, who offers the sin-offering. It just so happens on any particular day that some particular priest is offering the sin offering. But the whole unit gets to eat it because the priests function as a team.

Biblical verse Lv07-26a is written in a General-Detail style as follows:
• General: And ye shall eat no manner of blood,
• [only if] it be
  • of fowl or
  • of beast,
  in any of your dwellings.

We have embedded the interpretation of the general-detail construction in the translation of the above verse:
• Only blood of fowl and beasts may not be eaten;
• but this prohibition does not apply to fish blood.

Sermonic ideas: The Midrash explains the prohibition using concepts of biological complexity and similarity:
• The blood of fowl and beasts which resemble humans is prohibited;
• The blood of fish which are biologically less similar to humans is not prohibited
In other words the primary prohibition is consumption of human blood. This prohibition then transfers to those animal classes that resemble humans more closely.

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.

With this in mind let us revisit verse Lv06-02b which we studied above in rules #2,#3. Command Aaron and his sons, saying: These are the general principles of the UP-offering: ... an UP offering on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. Rashi comments on the repeated underlined words: The repeated underlined words create emphasis: It is always an up offering in all circumstances. The Talmud provides specificity to this emphasis by focusing on a case where the offering was invalid - for example it had a blemish - it should not have been brought. Nevertheless if it was already brought onto the altar fire then we let it remain there because it is always an up offering.

Advanced Rashi: As we have presented this Rashi it looks quite reasonable. However the Rashi can become confusing because of conflicting and different Rashi rules on the verse. We review the Rashis on this verse discussed in rules #2,3,7:
• In rule 2 we saw that the word principles broadly extends the law to all cases All up offerings may have their organs on the altar fire all night
• In Rule 3 we saw that the redundant pronoun it which we have interpreted only it is restrictive--only proper up offerings can continue to remain on the altar fire; but not e.g. if bestiality has been committed.
• In rule 7 we see that the the repetition up offering up offering is emphatic that it is still called an up offering (even if it shouldn't have come up, e.g. because of a blemish!).

The advanced student of Rashi can now appreciate the problem with reading this verse. Any one of the above 3 points reads smoothly by itself. But when the verse simultaneously has the restrictive only it and the broadening up offering up offering indicators the student can easily become confused. It begins to look arbitrary when the Talmud restricts in one area and broadens in another.

Actually however we can redeem the intuitiveness of the Rashis by exploiting our idea of unspecified emphasis. We agree to interpret it as only it and to interpret up offering up offering as a bolded word. The verse then reads as follows Command Aaron and his sons, saying: These are principles [of all] up-offerings - [in all circumstances, even if they shouldn't have gone up, say, because of a blemish] only them, [that is, only those that have been properly offered but not e.g. an animal that committed bestiality, even if it was placed on the altar]; they are placed on the altar fire the whole night till morning

The serious student of Rashi should carefully study the above verse with its interpolated Rashi comments. As I indicated above each Rashi comment stands by itself. To see all the Rashi comments simultaneously one has to combine the verse phrases in the right way. One also has to stay on one's Rashi toes. There are three different principles involved: word meaning, grammar, repetition. Only by fully grasping all the intricacies of the verse can one really appreciate it. Finally I have endeavored to capture all the Rashi comments in one punchy translation a technique I advocated in my article Peshat and Derash

Today we ask the database query: What drives the Biblical Author to use the phrase They did as commanded? The simple answer is that They did as commanded usually emphasizes compliance when we expected otherwise. The very small database selection below presents some examples.

Sermonic points: The Torah hear teaches us manners - if someone is usually rebellious and behaves in an exemplary manner on certain occasions then they should be praised.

This week's parshah contains no examples of the spreadsheet and symbolism methods. This concludes this weeks edition. Visit the RashiYomi website at http://www.Rashiyomi.com for further details and examples.