1. RASHI METHOD: REFERENCES BRIEF EXPLANATION: Commentary on a verse is provided thru a cross-reference to another verse. The cross references can either provide (1a) further details, (1b) confirm citations, or (1c) clarify word meaning. This examples applies to Rashis Nu22-08a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1420.htm; Brief Summary: Nu22-08a mentions that Bilam prophesied at NIGHT. This REFERENCES Nu12-06:07 ....Your prophets....I speak to them in a DREAM....not so is Moses....Mouth to Mouth ... Clear Visions....

Verse Nu22-08a discussing Bilam's desire to wait overnight for communication from God states And he said unto them: 'Lodge here this night, and I will bring you back the word that God may speak unto me'; and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam. Rashi clarifies the underlined words this night....the word that God may speak by referencing verse(s) Nu12-06:08 which states And he said, Hear now my words; If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses, for he is the trusted one in all my house.With him I speak mouth to mouth,...in clear vision... Hence the Rashi comment: Why did Bilam have to wait overnight to hear God's response on whether he is allowed to be hired by the Midianites to curse the Jews? Because non-Jewish prophets only prophesy at night!

Text of Target verse Nu22-08a	Text of Reference Verse Nu12-06:08
And he said unto them: 'Lodge here this night, and I will bring you back the word that God may speak unto me'; and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam.	And he said, Hear now my words; If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses, for he is the trusted one in all my house.With him I speak mouth to mouth,...in clear vision...
Rashi comments: Why did Bilam have to wait overnight to hear God's response on whether he is allowed to be hired by the Midianites to curse the Jews? Because non-Jewish prophets only prophesy at night!

When Rashi uses, what we may losely call, the hononym method, Rashi does not explain new meaning but rather shows an underlying unity in disparate meanings. Rashi will frequently do this by showing an underlying unity in the varied meanings of a Biblical root.

Warning: The following Rashi is slightly technical and is best skipped by readers who are not familiar with Biblical Hebrew.

This Rashi was incompletely done last week so we are redoing it this week. This Rashi affords us a glimpse into how to treat Hebrew Grammar. Verse Nu21-30c states We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even to Dibon, and we have laid them waste VaNaShiM even to Nophah, which reaches to Medeba Rashi makes two comments on the Hebrew VaNaShiM: VaNaShim uses the language of shemamah destruction. The dot in the Shin indicates a missing root letter. Literally Rashi appears to say that the root of VaNaShim is Shin Mem Mem. However literally Rashi simply relates VaNaShim and Shemamah. As I will show below, based on a RadaK, Rashi undoubtedly takes the Hebrew root of VaNaShim to be Nun-Shin-Mem which to cite Rashi uses the language of Shemamah.

Rashi continues and comments VaNaShim means they destroyed them. Rashi appears to be saying that the terminal mem of VaNaShim refers to the object of the verb. (In Hebrew one can indeed suffix a mem to indicate a direct object.) However I would suggest that Rashi regards the occurrence of VaNaShim as intransitive - they destroyed. Rashi adds the direct object - they destroyed them in order to make the verse sound better. That is Rashi is not interpreting the terminal mem as indicating an object but rather Rashi is explaining that the verse left out the object, them, because it was understood! Below we will present an extremely deep alternate explanation of this second Rashi comment.

Let us delve a little further into this Rashi. The first issue before us is the root of the Hebrew VaNaShim. How does one identify a root? One studies the meaning and the grammatical form. One then looks up in tables till one finds that form. My favorite source of tables are the appendices in volumn 5 of Ibn Shoshan. Applying this procedure we get four distinct answers!!!!
• The meaning of VaNaShim based on the context of the verse is destruction. But the official Hebrew root for destruction is Shin Mem Mem. This sounds reasonable enough except that for a 1-2-2 verb (Shin-Mem-Mem) the plural, first person, future causative is VaNoShem. (Table 10, Ibn Shoshan). And that is the problem. The verse does not say VaNoShem but rather says VaNaShim. This approach (Shin-mem-mem) is mentioned by Radack in his book Roots.
• The Silverman Grammatical Konkordance suggests that VaNaShim comes from the root Nun-Shin-Hey. Table 9 of Ibn Shoshan suggests the form VaNanSheh. Silverman suggests that the terminal mem indicates an object and this terminal mem changes the segoL to a chirik. Hence VaNaNSheH Otham becomes VaNaNShim which becomes VaNaSShim with a doubled root letter. So Silverman seems to be following the two Rashis: Silverman is arguing that 1) The root is Nun-Shin-Hey and 2) the terminal mem indicates a direct object. Rashi then fills in and explains that the Shin becomes dotted so that the word can avoid two nuns. Furthermore the segol changes to a Chirik.
• Radack cites his father (something he occasionally does) who suggests that the root is Yud-Shin-Mem. The Yud-2-3 verbs are covered in Table 2 of Ibn Shoshan. Except these tables say that the word should be conjugated VaNoShim. And that is the problem: It is not conjugated that way - it instead is conjugated VaNaShim.
• However Radack cites the similar form YaTztziv. YaTztziv has the same form as NaShim! But we know that YaTzTziv comes from the root Nun-Tzade-Beth. The Nun-2-3 verbs are covered in table 3 of Ibn Shoshan and bullseye - the plural, first person, causative is NaShShim as occurs in the verse. Besides the Radack's example of YaTziv we have the example from Ibn Shoshan, NaPPil.

Let us summarize:
• Based on the form NaSShim, NaPPil, YaTztziv we see the root of NaSShim as Nun-Shim-Mem. (Table 3 of Ibn Shoshan: First person Plural causative).
• The root Nun-Shin-Mem fulfills Rashi's criteria of using the language of Shemamah destruction.
• Furthermore the form NaSShim also fulfills Rashi's criteria having a dotted Shin to compensate for the missing initial root letter Nun.
• If we follow this then the simple meaning of the verse is intransitive: we destroyed until Nopach that is until Maydevah. Rashi therefore supplies the elliptical direct object, We destroyed them until Nopach.
• But there is a beautiful encylopedic Midrash Rabbah, Bamidbar Rabbah 3:13 which lists the 10 places in the Bible where words have dots over them. We have explained these biblical dots as indicating strikeout. In fact there is a dot on the resh of Asher ad maydevah. So as you see there are two dots too explain: #1) The dot in the actual Biblical text on the Resh and #2) The dot in the written Biblical text on the Shin. The Rashi above explained the dot on the Shin. The Midrash Rabbah explains the reason for the dot on the Resh - that is, the Midrash Rabbah explains what is stricken out: They destroyed both cities and people until Nopach; but until Maydevah they did not destroy both, just one. In other words, the destruction is stricken by the dot and becomes a weaker destruction - a destruction of people but not of cities also!
• But then we have a beautiful explanation on Rashi's comment They destroyed them. Rashi was not explaining the direct object. Rather Rashi was explaining the dot on the Resh indicating a strikeout: Until Nopach they destroyed people and cities but until Maydevah they just destroyed the cities (possibly letting the people escape).

As can be seen this innocuous grammatical Rashi is rich and complex. There are four theories on the real root. There are two possible dottings to be explained. I hope this Rashi convinces the reader that grammatical Rashis are not a matter of lookup but involve careful debate and research.

Finally we point out that the issue of Destroying people and cities or just cities is a modern issue also. One example are certain types of weapons of mass destruction which kill off the population but leave the buildings and structures intact. A second recent example is the expulsion of the Jews of Gaza: Recall that a serious discussion point was whether to destroy the houses also or just expel the inhabitants. It is always meaningful to find modern themes echoed in ancient Rashis.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Nu23-05:07, Nu23-17:18, Nu24-02:03 Both verses/verselets discuss the orders by God to Bilam. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: Only in vision #2 of the 3 Bilam visions do we find Balak asking What did God say and Bilam responding Please get up to hear the word of God. Because this phrase only occurs once I would suggest that Balak made fun of Bilam: What did God say - after all, all that matters is what God says since you can only repeat him. Bilam sensitive to the sneerings retaliated by forcing Balak to get up to hear the word of God.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Nu23-05:07	And the Lord put a word in BalaamÆs mouth, and said, Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak. And he returned to him, and, lo, he stood by his burnt sacrifice, he, and all the princes of Moab. And he took up his discourse, and said, Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, from the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse Jacob for me, and come, defy Israel.	Only in vision #2 of the 3 Bilam visions do we find Balak asking What did God say and Bilam responding Please get up to hear the word of God. Because this phrase only occurs once I would suggest that Balak made fun of Bilam: What did God say - after all, all that matters is what God says since you can only repeat him. Bilam sensitive to the sneerings retaliated by forcing Balak get up to hear the word of God.
Nu23-17:18	And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said to him, What has the Lord spoken? And he took up his discourse, and said, Rise up, Balak,and hear; listen to me, you son of Zippor;
Nu24-02:03	And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him. And he took up his discourse, and said, The speech of Balaam, the son of Beor; the speech of a man whose eyes are open;

5. RASHI METHOD: CONTRADICTION BRIEF EXPLANATION:Rashi resolves contradictory verses using 3 methods. (5a) Resolution using two aspects of the same event (5b) Resolution using two stages of the same process (5c) Resolution using broad-literal interpretation. This examples applies to Rashis Nu22-34a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w34n1.htm Brief Summary: Brief Summary: Bilam claimed to know the THOUGHTS OF GOD. But comically he knew less than his DONKEY.

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about what Bilam knew. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says Bilam knew the thoughts of God while the other verse says Bilam didn't know about an Angel that his donkey saw! Which is it? Was Bilam a prophetic genious knowing all sorts of things about God, or was he an idiot who knew less than a donkey. Rashi simply resolves this using the broad-literal method: Since Bilam did not see an angel which his donkey did see we conclude Bilam was quite ignorant. We therefore interpret non-literally the verse statement he knew the thoughts of the High one: This statement should be perceived as stated with irony; it reflects his bragging self conception rather than his true self.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
Bilam was ignorant	Nu22-32:34	And the angel of the Lord said to him, Why did you strike your ass these three times? Behold, I went out to withstand you, because your way is perverse before me; And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times; if it had not turned aside from me, surely now also I would had slain you, and let her live. And Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, I have sinned; for I knew not that you stood in the way against me; now therefore, if it displeases you, I will go back again.
Bilam knows the thoughts of the Most High	Nu24-16	The speech of one who heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling down, but having his eyes open;
Resolution:	broad-literal	Since Bilam did not see an angel which his donkey did see we conclude Bilam was quite ignorant. We therefore interpret non-literally the verse statement he knew the thoughts of the High one: This statement should be perceived as stated with irony; it reflects his bragging self conception rather than his true self.

6. RASHI METHOD: STYLE Rashi examines how rules of style influences inferences between general and detail statements in paragraphs. Example: Every solo example stated by the Bible must be broadly generalized; Theme-Detail: A general principle followed by an example is interpreted restrictively---the general theme statement only applies in the case of the example; Theme-Detail-Theme: A Theme-Detail-Theme unit is interpreted as a paragraph. Consequently the details of the paragraph are generalized so that they are seen as illustrative of the theme. This examples applies to Rashis Nu22-22c URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w34n1.htm Brief Summary: We generalize Bilam's behavior: A distinguished person should always take 2 servants on a journey (They talk to each other and leave him alone)

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in an example form. In other words an example of a law is stated rather than the full general rule. The reader's task is to generalize the example. The idea that all Biblical laws should be perceived as examples (unless otherwise indicated) is explicitly stated by Rashi (Pesachim 6.). This is a rule of style since the rule requires that a text be perceived as an example rather than interpreted literally. The Rabbi Ishmael style rules govern the interpretation of style.

Verse Nu22-22c discussing how Bilam journeyed states And GodÆs anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the Lord stood in the way as an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. Rashi commenting on the underlined phrases states: We generalize the underlined phrase: Any distinguished person like Bilam should take two servants with him on trips. This way the two servants talk to each other and the distinguished person avoids being involved in lower level conversations.

Warning: We repeat this Rashi from last week with some minor corrections. We have given an extensive supplementary explanation in rule#3 above.

When a modern author wishes to deemphasize a concept they will strike it out. When the Biblical author wishes to deemphasize a concept He places dots over it. The dots in the Biblical version, or the strikeout in the modern version, indicate deemphasis.

There are 10 examples of dotting or strikeout in the Bible. They are enumerated (with explanations) in Bamidbar Rabbah 3:13. 8 of these 10 examples are explained by Rashi in his commentary on the Bible. They are presented in the list below along with the accompanying Rashi interpretation. In each case Rashi interprets the verse as if the word was Stricken out.
• Nu21-30b: We have shot at them--Heshbon unto Dibon is destroyed, and we have laid waste even unto Nophah that reaches to Maydvah Rashi: The clause that reaches to Maydvah introduced by the relative pronoun that is stricken indicating that the destruction discussed in this clause was stricken out. In fact the Jews destroyed both cities (buildings) and inhabitants until Nopach but only destroyed cities (but apparently let the inhabitants flee) until Maydvah. Hence the Maydvah destruction was stricken and weakened as it only applied to the cities and not the people.
• Nu03-39a: All that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of HaShem, by their families, all the males from a month old and upward, were twenty and two thousand. Rashi: Aaron was stricken from the census--that is he wasn't counted since he was a Levite.
• Gn33-04b: And Esau ran to meet him [Jacob], and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they wept. Rashi: The kiss should be stricken from the record! It wasn't a real (i.e. sincere) kiss since Esau really hated Jacob. Rashi offers an alternative explanation: The kiss should be stricken from the record since it was the only sincere kiss. All other kisses were insincere.
• Dt29-29a: The secret things [sins] belong unto HaShem our G-d; but the things [sins] that are revealed belong [are visited] unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Rashi: Revealed should be stricken. Revealed sins weren't always visited upon the community; they weren't visited upon the community till after the conquest of Israel in the time of Joshua.
• Gn37-12a: And his brethren went to shepard their father's flock in Shechem. Rashi: The word shepard should be stricken out since they didn't really go to shepard sheep; rather they went to escape their father who favored Joseph.
• Nu09-10a: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If any man of you or of your generations shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto HaShem; Rashi: The requirement far off should be stricken. One need not be absolutely far away - but far away enough not to be able to come to Jerusalem.
• Gn18-09: And they said to him: 'Where is Sarah thy wife?' And he said: 'Behold, in the tent.' Rashi: The phrase to him should be stricken. They said it generally, not just to him. When they met Abraham they said to him where is your spouse. Similarly when they met Sarah they said where is your spouse.
• Gn19-33c And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Rashi: The phrase nor when she arose is dotted indicating a strikeout: Lot really did know when she arose and even so did not avoid a recurrence on the 2nd night with his second daughter. [How can Rashi say he did know if the verse explicitly say he didn't know? Probably Rashi meant that e.g. he had a visual sexual dream about the affair so he really suspected it].

Today we ask the database query: Is God formal or does He use conversation openers to soften people up? The reader is encouraged to perform the query using a standard Biblical Konnkordance or search engine. These database queries yield the list below. The list justifies the following Rashi inference: God does use conversation openers and conversational styles. (1) Some prophets use these conversation openers which soften the confrontation and repent. (2) Some prophets obstinately continue their sin despite the conversation openers. (3) With some people (who did not sin) the conversational chatty style prepares them for a difficult prophecy. The list below presents the results of the database query and show examples

Advanced Rashi: The above Rashi is a treat. The Rashi is based upon a Midrash Rabbah. Rashi, in his usual terse style does not bring all examples. I have brought the full Midrash Rabbah to show how Rashi takes an entire Midrash and make a Rashi.

Of special note in this example is the fact that God, Himself,uses conversation openers. Rashi-ists frequently teach us that every word of the Torah must have some hidden deep meaning. This is not so! What is true is that every word is Holy. But holyness should not be equated with lack of redundancy. Redundancy in speech is an important social skill that enables us to maintain social relations. And if verbal redundancy has moral value (for our social relationships) it is a strong reason for God Himself setting an example and showing us how to use conversation openers.

Finally we point out Rashi's sense of humor. Rashi is not, like the Midrash Rabbah, a stuffy professor with elaborate database queries. Rashi also avoids playing the sermonist - that God used conversational openers to get people to repent. After all, Rashi would say, Bilam didn't repent. Indeed, he was evil. How could he repent. So Rashi humourously says God used a conversation opener to make him fail - Bilam would think God is asking the question because He didn't know and further rebel. From a psychological point of view the Rashi gives insights: Bilam was incapable of having a social life. He didn't even recognize a conversation opener when it was given to him. Everything with Bilam was an issue of power. No wonder he failed!

Verse Nu24-06c discussing the public sex of Simonite Governor Zimri with a Midianite princess states And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting. Why were they weeping? There is no textual hint why they were weeping. To answer this question Rashi uses real-world information and reasonable explanations. We call such an approach the fill-in method since we fill-in the text based on our knowledge of the world.

Rashi states: Recall that Moses married Tziproah, a daughter of a Midianite Priestess. But then it would look awkward to for Moses protesting a Simonite Governor having sex with a Midianite Priestess. The above is a reasonable philosophical explanation. Rashi, however, had a delightful sense of humor. His sense of humor facilitated memorizing his Rashi comments - a punchy joke you have heard once you remember forever; a philosophical insight you have heard several times you quickly forget!!! Let us see how Rashi re-expresses the above thought in humorous fashion. Rashi actually states: Zimri came to Moses and the congregational elders in public. He asked: Moses my master, may I marry this Midianite princess. Moses responded No. Zimri retorted:Then who allowed you to marry your Midianite wife. Hence the verse says And they were crying by the Temple door since they couldn't answer him.

10. RASHI METHOD: SYMBOLISM BRIEF EXPLANATION: Rashi provides symbolic interpretations of words, verses, and chapters. Rashi can symbolically interpret either (10a) entire Biblical chapters such as the gifts of the princes, Nu-07 (10b) individual items, verses and words The rules governing symbolism and symbolic interpretation are presented in detail on my website. This examples applies to Rashis Nu24-07a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w34n1.htm Brief Summary: HIS SEED IS ON MANY WATERS metonomycally means HIS SEED IS VERY PROSPEROUS.

Verse Nu24-07, relating Bilam's poetic blessing to the Jewish people states
1. Water will be sprinkled from his [Jewish] wells,
2. his seed shall be on many waters,
3. his king shall be higher than Agag, and
4. his kingdom shall be exalted.
Rashi explains the symbolism in clause #(2): The metonomy method states that ideas can be indicated by stating related items. A simple example of metonomy is using a phrase like America defeated Iraq to indicate America defeated the Iraqii people. Here the people of Iraq is metonomycally related to the land of Iraq. In a similar manner the poet metonomycally relates the success of plant seeds with their being near many waters. Thus phrase #(2) above - his seed shall be on many waters - is simply a metonomy meaning his seed will be highly successful.