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 Gn39-09a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n6.htm Brief Summary: Jews are called HEBREWS from EYVER-OTHER SIDE. They are DIFFERENT - OTHER SIDE.

Verse Gn39-09 discussing Joseph's refusal to commit adultery states There is none greater in this house than I; nor has he kept back any thing from me but you, because you are his wife; how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? Rashi notes The underlined words, how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? references verses Gn12-17:18, Gn26-11 which explicitly indicate general awareness among non-Jews that adultery leads to Gods killing people.

Text of Target Verse Gn39-09	Text of Reference Verse Gn12-17:18, Gn26-11
There is none greater in this house than I; nor has he kept back any thing from me but you, because you are his wife; how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?	And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife. And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?... And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He who touches this man or his wife shall surely be put to death
Rashi comments: The underlined words-plagues...put to death - show that the non-Jewish world was aware that the prohibition of adultery was not something religious and abstract but rather real-world and perceived, consistent with Gods punishment and bringing plagues on people here and now in this world.

The literary techniques of synechdoche-metonomy, universal to all languages, states that items can be named by related items, by parts of those items, or by good examples of those items. For example honey refers to anything sweet since honey is a good example of something sweet. Similarly hot refers to matters of love since the two are related. Today's Rashi can best be understood by applying these principles.

The words brother and daughter refer to particular social relationships. However metonomy allows these words to refer to any social relationship, even those not based on family. The following verses, with the referents to brother and daughter enclosed in brackets illustrates this usage.
• Verse Gn29-12a discussing Jacob's relationship to Rachel states And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, [actually Jacob was Rachel's father's nephew] and that he was Rebekah’s son; and she ran and told her father.
• Verse Gn31-46a discussing the help Jacob received in making a treaty with Laban states And Jacob said to his brothers, [his children, students and staff] Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a heap; and they ate there upon the heap.
• Similarly verse Gn35=27a discussing the comforting of Jacob while mourning his son's death states And all his sons and daughters [his daughters and daughter-in-laws] arose to comfort Jacob....
As can be seen these verse(s) illustrate a metonomycal use of brother and daughter to refer to any social relationship, even those not based on family.

Advanced Rashi:Rashi on Gn31-46a actually says Brothers: This refers to his children who were brotherly with him in times of danger. However, I, above, translated brothers as meaning [his children, students and staff]. This is an important principle in Rashi - Rashi will often let the obvious comment on a verse be supplied by the reader and will supplement this obvious comment with a non-obvious comment. In this verse it is obvious that to make a heap of stones you call your staff and servants. However family members may not want to indulge in manual labor. Rashi's point is that even the family members helped out also since they wanted to show brotherly solidarity with Jacob in making a treaty. After all, Laban not only mistreated Jacob - he mistreated Jacob's children and their mothers. So yes, Rashi supplements the obvious metonomy - Jacob's servants helped him - with the non-obvious comment that even family members helped.

Similarly the word daughters in Gn35-27a should be understood to refer to both his actual daughters as well as his daughter-in-laws. There is nothing gained by understanding Rashi as interpreting the verse as exclusively referring to his daughter-in-laws; rather we interpret Rashi as indicated that the verse also refers to this daughter-in-laws.

We feel that the understanding of Rashi can be greatly enriched by using this supplemental-method approach to Rashis.

Today Hebrew grammar is well understood and there are many books on it. Rashi, however, lived before the age of grammar books. A major Rashi method is therefore the teaching of basic grammar.

Many students belittle this aspect of Rashi. They erroneously think that because of modern methods we know more. However Rashi will frequently focus on rare grammatical points not covered in conventional textbooks.

There are many classical aspects to grammar whether in Hebrew or other languages. They include
• The rules for conjugating verbs. These rules govern how you differentiate person, plurality, tense, mode, gender, mood, and designation of the objects and indirect objects of the verb. For example how do you conjugate, in any language, I sang, we will sing, we wish to sing, she sang it.
• Rules of agreement. For example agreement of subject and verb, of noun and adjective; whether agreement in gender or plurality.
• Rules of Pronoun reference.
• Rules of word sequence. This is a beautiful topic which is not always covered in classical grammatical textbooks.

Today Rashi gives an example of the construct rule. First we explain the construct in English. In English we indicate the construct by placing the word of after a noun. So the difference between The pen is red vs. The pen of John is red is that pen of indicates possession. This indication of possession is accomplished by using the construct form which in turn is indicated by using the word of.

In Hebrew the construct form is indicated by a different conjugation of the word. For example Kutoneth is the Hebrew word referring to the noun, coat. Ketoneth is the construct form indicating possession, coat of Joseph. Because both forms occur in the same verse Rashi felt obligated to clarify their difference in meaning.

Today's example uses both the Formatting-Climaxrule #7 as well as the alignment rule #4. The Climax rule states that a sequence of phrases describing some event or activity should be interpreted in climactic order.

Verse Gn37-34:35 discussing Jacob's severe reaction to the news of Joseph's death states
• And Jacob tore his clothes,
• and put sackcloth upon his loins,
• and mourned for his son many days.
• And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted;
• and he said, For I will go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.
• Thus his father wept for him.

Note the anti-climax in the sequence of underlined words: tore, sackcloth, mourned, comfort-refusal,mourn, cry. Cry should not be the climax of the list; it should preferably be in the middle. Hence, based solely on this anti-climax Rashi suggests that The first part of the list tore, sackcloth, mourned, comfort-refusal,mourn. applies to Jacob, but the second part of the list cry applies to his father that is, Jacob's father, Isaac.

Rashi now must explain the aligned verselets: Jacob mourns while Isaac cries: Jacob mourned but Isaac only cried. Apparently Isaac knew Joseph was alive. This is reasonably possible since Isaac's daughter in law was Arab and it was Arabs to which Joseph was sold and transported to Egypt. Hence Isaac could have known the whole story from his Arab contacts since the presence of a Hebrew slave in Egypt would arouse a buzz and Isaac would eventually find out. Rashi continues: Isaac was crying for Jacob who was unnecessarily mourning. He wasn't crying for Joseph since he knew Joseph was alive. This is indeed possible. But it is equally likely that Isaac was crying for Joseph who had been transformed into a slave by his brothers. Perhaps then Rashi's point is that Isaac was crying for the entire situation where a brother was sold into slavery and his father thought him dead. This is the most appealing explanation.

The table below summarizes this analysis of Rashi.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Gn37-34:35	And Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.	Climax see Jacob as tearing, sackcloth, mourning, no-comfort, mourning to grave.. (The crying does not fit in here and belongs to another person as shown in the rest of the table).
Gn37-34:35	Thus his father wept for him.	His father, that is, Jacob's father, Isaac cried since he knew the entire story (Probably because his daughter-in-law was Arab and the Arabs rescued Joseph) He knew the brothers sold him into slavery, framed his death, and Jacob was mourning a live person. He couldn't intefer (because the brothers would go down to Egypt and kill him).

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about Joseph's relationship with his brothers The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says Joseph's brothers hated him, while the other verse states Joseph was eager to see his brothers. We see the contradiction--- Was there hatred or desire between Joseph and his brothers. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Stages / 2 Aspects method: Joseph's brothers hated Joseph because he slandered them(Gn37-04). But Joseph really wanted to rule over this brothers to help them (Gn37-08). Although Joseph's brothers hated him also because of his dreams and aspirations Joseph still was anxious to meet them in the hope of reaquiring their friendship.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
Joseph's brothers hated him due to slander	Gn37-03:04	... Joseph, being seventeen years old, ... and Joseph slandered them ...And when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him.
Joseph desired to meet with his brothers	Gn37-13	And Israel said to Joseph, Are not your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them. And Joseph said to Jacob, I am available.
Resolution:	2 Aspects / 2 Stages	Joseph's brothers hated Joseph because he slandered them(Gn37-04). But Joseph really wanted to rule over this brothers to help them (Gn37-08). Although Joseph's brothers hated him also because of his dreams and aspirations Joseph still was anxious to meet them in the hope of reaquiring their friendship.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a 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 Gn38-25b discussing Tamar's execution for committing incest with her father-in-law states When she was brought out [to be burnt], she sent to her father-in-law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child; and she said, please Discern, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. [Rashi: But she did not outright state, These are yours; you are the father.] The Rabbi Ishmael example rule requires generalization of this passage. In this case we simply generalize from Tamar to all people: any person should prefer to be burnt alive rather than publicly embarass someone.

Advanced Rashi: There is a legal aspect to Rashi's point. After all why not argue that Danger to life (being burnt) overrides all Biblical commandments including the Biblical obligation not to embarass someone? I think therefore, that Rashi's point is that embarassing someone is so confrontational that it would not necessarily accomplish anything (e.g. people do not admit they are wrong under the duress of embarassment). In other words Rashi's point is real-world vs. legal: If you want to accomplish something in a situation with embarassment you shouldn't be confrontational. Even if your life is in danger, embarassment is such a powerful emotion that discretion and respect are the only methods to accomplish your goals.

We ask the following database query: If one person excels in a group how much space does the Bible devote to discussions of the group vs. the individual? The reader is encouraged to perform the query using a standard Biblical Konnkordance or search engine. This database query yields the list below. The list justifies the following Rashi inference: The answer to the question, When one person excels in a group how does the Bible record the history of group/person? is
• The Bible token mentions everyone in the group--typically for a verse or 2
• The Bible devotes a lot of text to the person who excels
The list below presents the results of the database query. Rashi brings the first 3 examples in the list below. We have supplemented this list with two further examples. In each example in this list the excelling person has a great deal of Biblical text devoted to him while the surrounding group has minimal text devoted (2-3 verses per person).

Verses	Group	Who excels	Many verses to whom
Gn05, Gn06	10 Generations-Adam-Noach	Noach	Noach
Gn11, Gn12	10 Generations from Noach to Abraham	Abraham	Abraham
Gn36, Gn37	History of Isaac's children: Esauv, Jacob	Joseph, Jacob's son	Joseph
Nu07, Nu08	Gifts of tribes at Consecration of Temple	Aaron's gift	Aaron
1C01, 1C12, 1C13, 1C17	Human history - Adam-David	King David	King David

With regard to the last example, Chronicles is giving a political history and hence someone like David is more important (politically) than say Abraham and Moses (Who were more important prophetically).

Recall that Judah had visited a prostitute and gave her a deposit for payment. Judah sent friends to find the woman and pay her back but she could not be found. Finally in verse Gn38-23 Judah resigns and says And Judah said, Let her keep it, lest we be shamed; behold, I sent this kid, and you have not found her. Rashi explains the underlined words, lest we be shamed, by reminding us of normal real-world social norms. If we continue investigating her whereabouts it will become public that I visited a prostitute and that will lead to my personal disgrace (since people tend to keep such things discrete). It is therefore better to forego the monetary and convenience loss of the items deposited then to risk such disgrace. Such uses of social logic - conflicts between monetary and social needs - are common in business and political decisions. Since Rashi uses real-world norms to explain the text we classify this Rashi as an example of the non-verse method.