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 Lv23-05b describing the Passover holiday states In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at dusk, is HaShem'S Passover. Rashi explains the name of the holiday, Passover by citing an other verse Ex12-12:13 which describes what God did on Passover: For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am HaShem. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. Hence the Rashi comment: The Passover holiday is so-named because God Pass-ed over the Jewish houses when killing the first born of Egypt.

Advanced Rashi: Interestingly, English has preserved this Passover - Pass-over distinction. The idea of explaining Rashi by similar connections in English was advocated in my article Peshat and Derah: A New Analytic Intuitive Approach

Students of Rashi must bear in mind that Rashi could sometimes use universal principles applicable in all languages. This particularly applies to the meaning methods.

The synechdoche principle basically says that any language can use a good example to name an entire category. For example, in English,
• the word honey can mean anything sweet.
• Similarly bread can refer to any food.
• Man can refer to any person (male of female)
• day can refer to the entire 24 hour period
• heart can refer to the entire person as in e.g., (Ps 43)My heart yearns for you, God which really means My entire person yearns for you God

Applying this principle to Lv21-21 which presents the prohibition of Priests making offerings, no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of HaShem made by fire; he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his G-d. we would translate as follows no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of HaShem made by fire; he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the food / offerings of his G-d.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi actually uses two principles here:
• Synechdoche: The word Bread can refer to any food. Hence bread of God is translated as food of God.
• Symbolism: The phrase food of God refers to offered items that are consumed like food to trigger prophetic visions and the descent of Godly energy.
Here Food and fire consumed offerings have a common form and function: They both involve
• the destruction / consummation of items and
• they both involve renewed energy (Food provides physical energy while the offerings provide spiritual energy).

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.
• Verse Lv23-03 discussing the lighting of the Candellabrah for the entire night states Before the Ark-veil of the testimony, in the Temple, shall Aaron arrange wholly it [to burn] from evening to morning before HaShem continually; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations. Rashi: It is arranged once to burn from evening to morning. But it would be improper to place enough oil for half the night and then come back and refill. It must all be arranged.

Note that in the first few examples the Hebrew word Aleph Tauv Vav is translated only it and indicates Do the action to the object but not to its physical parts. In the last example we have translated the Hebrew word Aleph Tauv Vav as meaning wholly it;the verse indicates Do the action (filling oil for lighting) for the entire time period, the entire night, but not for parts of it.

Biblical verse
• Lv19-27, discussing the prohibition of adult Jewish males from shaving the sides of their beards, states ... neither shalt thou destroy the corners of thy beards.
• Verse Lv21-05, discussing an almost identical prohibition on priests, of shaving beard sides, states ... neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard,

The alignment focuses on both
• destruction
• shaving of the beard sides.

Hence the Rashi comment:
• It is prohibited to use a razor to destroy the beard sides since a razor is both destructive and shaves.
• However it is not Biblically prohibited to remove beard sides with chemicals or scissors since although these items shave they are not destructive. (E.g. You don't use a scissors for destructive purposes).

Advanced Rashi: This email list generally does not discuss questions of Jewish law. However the above discussion points to the basis of deciding whether electric shavors may be used for shaving. The sole issue is whether the shavers are destructive (use a razor-like cutting) or non-destructive (use a scissor-like cutting).

Note the contradiction in the following two verses, discussing the requirement to bring offerings on the Passover Festival:
• Verse Lv23-08 states
  • And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto HaShem ....
• Verse Nu28-27 states
  • but ye shall bring an offering made by fire, an elevation-offering unto HaShem:
  • • two young bullocks,
    • one ram,
    • seven he-lambs of the first year.

We see the contradiction, indicated by the presence of an extra bullet in the second citation providing a list of animals to be brought. Which is it? Is there an obligation of bringing 2 oxen, 1 ram and 7 lambs, or is the obligation to simply bring [any] offering?

Rashi resolves this contradiction using the broad-literal method:
• You must bring an offering under all circumstances
• If possible it is preferred to bring 2 oxen, 1 ram, and 7 lambs.
In other words
• the 2-oxen verse indicates the preferred obligation.
• The Leviticus verse indicates the if-you-don't have obligation.
So if e.g. you only have 7 lambs and 1 ram but no oxen then you bring the 7 lambs and 1 ram without the oxen.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally says as follows: The 7 lambs, 1 ram and 2 oxen are independent requirements. If you don't have all you bring whatever you do have. What I have added to Rashi is the derivation of this exegesis from the contradiction method. Precisely because one verse gives details - bring 2 oxen, 1 ram, 7 lambs - and the other verse gives generality - bring - therefore, I infer that the details are obligatory and the general bring applies when all species are not there.

The astute reader should note the added word, elevation offering in the alignment of the above two verses: bring an offering of fire unto Hashem vs. bring an offering of fire, an elevation offering, unto Hashem. I know of no Rashi or Midrashic analysis explaining this alignment anomaly. Typically, when studying Rashi the use of proper methodology exposes other similar stylistic requirements requiring exegesis.

In my article Biblical Formatting I have indicated that the Biblical Author will use a theme-detail-theme style to indicate a paragraph the same way a modern author will use indentation and a line of white space to indicate a paragraph. The fact that several sentence form one paragraph generally indicates exegesis: The diverse sentences are perceived as indicating one central theme; they are not interpreted exclusively.

With this in mind let us review verses Lv21-18:21 which is written in a theme-detail-theme style as shown below. The verse-paragraph discusses the prohibition of a blemished priest serving in the Temple.
• Theme: For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach:
• Details:
  • a blind man,
  • or a lame,
  • or nose-crushed,
  • or limb asymmetry,
  • or a man that is broken-footed,
  • or broken-handed,
  • or long-eyelashed,
  • or eye-marred,
  • or that hath his eye overspread,
  • or is scabbed,
  • or scurvy,
  • or hath his stones crushed;
• General: no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of HaShem made by fire; he hath a blemish in him; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his G-d.

The Rashi comment follows the above theme-detail-theme structure:
• No blemished priest may serve
• for example, blind, broken-limbed, lame
• or any blemish.
Rashi's basic idea is to infer that any and all blemishes invalidate a Priest from serving. Here because the diverse Biblical verses form one paragraph Rashi is justified in seeing the paragraph,
• Not as listing an exclusive list of separate blemishes so that only those blemishes would invalidate a priest from serving in the Temple
• but rather, as listing a general theme, (along with accompanying examples,) of prohibiting priests with any blemish from serving.
In other words the paragraph structure encourages the reader to see the paragraph examples, not as exclusive, but as examples of the general-theme statements that no blemished-priest may serve.

Advanced Rashi: Notice how Rashi simply generalizes: Any blemish. Those who are familiar with the theme-detail-theme method know that typically, Rashi will give Criteria of generalization. In this particular case he doesn't. However a beautiful and masterful analysis provided by the Sifrah and Malbim delineate categories of blemish and provide the necessary analysis. The categories of blemish are:
• Organ blemishes: Such as lame, blind, broken-armed
• Whole-person blemishes: Such as discolored skin, dwarfs, giants
• Non-visible blemishes in function: Such as drunk, imbeciles
• Blemishes of the past: such as cesarian birth
The examples in the verse-paragraph above only prohibit organ blemishes. The final law is that A priest may not serve if he has permanant organ-blemishes, whole-person blemishes, or non-visible blemishes in function but may serve if he has past-blemishes. In making this derivation the Sifrah and Malbim were encouraged by both logic and textual nuances. As a simple example of textual nuances supporting the above distinctions, note that verse above explicitly states the priest may not serve if a blemish is in him, thereby emphasizing that only actual present blemishes invalidate the priest, not blemishes of the past.

Sermonic points: There are some obvious sermonic points here.
• A person is judged by his present not by his past
• A person is judged both by what is visible and by non-visible limitations in his capacity.

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 read verse Lv21-05, which discusses the prohibition of making cuts in ones flesh, an ancient idolatrous practice. They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard, nor cut any cuttings in their flesh. The emphasis cut...cutting motivates the Rashi comment: The usual implementation of this idolatrous practice is to cut up one's hands or legs. I might therefore think that one cut is permissable (or at least not Biblically prohibited). Therefore the Bible emphasizes do not cut a cut, even one. Further illumination is provided in the advanced Rashi section.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi actually cites two rules- the format rule and the alignment rule. Rashi aligns
• Lv23-05 nor cut any cuttings in their flesh.
• with Lv19-28 nor place any soul-cuts upon you: I am HaShem.

Note the aligned contrast between cutting cuts vs. placing cuts. Hence the Rashi comment: There is a prohibition of placing a set of cuts on you (which is the usual way this idolatrous practice is used) as well as cutting individual cuts. Furthermore if you placed a set of 40 cuts on your arm (slashed your arm)you have not violated one prohibition - don't place a cut - but rather violated 40 prohibitions - don't cut a cut.

If one carefully examines the structure of this Rashi, Rashi is noting two stylistic indicators, each one with its own exegetical inference:
• From the repetition, don't cut any cuts Rashi infers that even making one cut is prohibited
• From the alignment, don't place|cut cuts Rashi infers that when you place a group of several dozen cuts on yourself you have not violated one prohibition but rather have violated a group of violations (one violation per cut).

I believe the above is exemplary of how superficially excessive exegesis can be understood compactly and simply as emanating from diverse principles.

One final point: Note, in the aligned verses above, the aligned words flesh / soul. Rashi does not comment on this aligned difference though obviously it is important. In general after performing an alignment one should not be disappointed if one understands only some of the aligned items from the Rashis on the verse. Other exegesis may however be present in the Talmud, Sifra or other Midrashic books.

Today we ask the database query: When is leaning used in Biblical commandments / procedures? The query uncovers 3 examples of commandments with leaning. An examination of these 3 examples shows that leaning symbolically indicates transfer of responsibility.
• Physically the leaner is now supported by the object he leans on.
• This symbolically affirms that the leaner is now supported morally by the object he leans on - that is, there has been transfer of responsibility.

The table below presents the 3 commandments as well as their symbolic interpretation. We also include a non-commandment example of leaning. It follows that this Rashi combines the database and symbolism methods.

Sermonic points: The idea of symbolically affirming a serious moment such as transfer of responsibility occurs in many cultures with many diverse symbols. All cultures recognize the need to symbolically affirm serious moments and values. The symbolism here identifes support in the physical realm with moral support in the social realm. It is a symbol based on function.

We have explained the symbolic meaning of leaning in rule #8, databases, above, and encourage our readers to review it again at this time.

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