The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Nu32-03,Nu32-34:38 Both verses/verselets discuss the cities that the 2 1/2 tribes wanted in Transjordan. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: The cities mentioned in Nu32-34:38 are the same cities mentioned in Nu32-03 with minor changes in vocalization. The order is also reversed: Thus cities #1 and #2 are reversed and similarly cities #7,8,9 become #9,7,8.

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Nu32-03	Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon,	The cities mentioned in Nu32-34:38 are the same cities mentioned in Nu32-03 with minor changes in vocalization. The order is also reversed: Thus cities #1 and #2 are reversed and similarly cities #7,8,9 become #9,7,8.
Nu32-34:38	And the sons of Gad built Dibon, and Ataroth, and Aroer,And Atroth, Shophan, and Jaazer, and Jogbehah, And Beth-Nimrah, and Beth-Haran, fortified cities; and folds for sheep. And the sons of Reuben built Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Kiriatayim, And Nebo, and Baal-Meon, their names being changed, and Shibmah; and gave other names to the cities which they built.

Advanced Rashi: Actually Rashi only comments on city #9, which has both its vocalization and sequence number changed. But, as we have numerous times in this weekly digest indicated, the understanding of Rashi is enriched if we consistently apply the Rashi principle to all similar items in the verse. That is, we perceive Rashi as giving an example of what he is trying to say and letting the teacher fill in other examples for his students.

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 Nu32-08a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w34n3.htm Brief Summary: Brief Summary: The rebellion of the spies took place in KADESH BARNAYAH in PARAN DESERT; Moses' lost of temper happened in KADESH in TZIN desert.

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about incidents in Kadesh The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says The rebellion of spies happened in Kadesh in Paran desert while the other verse says The rebellion of spies happened in Kadesh Barnayah. Which is it? Is the name of the place Kadesh or Kadesh Barnayah. Rashi simply resolves this using the 2-aspects method: (1) The rebellion of spies happened in Paran desert in Kadesh. (2)Kadesh is a one-word shortening of the full name Kadesh Barnayah. (3)There is a second Kadesh in Tzin desert where Moses lost his temper.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
The rebellion of the spies happened in Kadesh, also called Kadesh Barnayah, in Paran desert.	Nu32-08a, Nu13-26	And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the people of Israel, to Paran desert, to Kadesh; and brought back word to them, and to all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land.
Moses lost his temper in Kadesh in Tzin desert.	Nu27-14	For you rebelled against my commandment in the desert of Zin, in the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the water before their eyes; that is the water of Meribah in Kadesh in the TZin desert.
Resolution:	2-Aspects	(1) The rebellion of spies happened in Paran desert in Kadesh. (2)Kadesh is a one-word shortening of the full name Kadesh Barnayah. (3)There is a second Kadesh in Tzin desert where Moses lost his temper.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi actually resolves two Contradictions:
• The rebellion of the spies is described as happening at Kadesh and Kadesh Barnayah in the Paran desert.
• Moses' loss of temper happened at Kadesh in the Tzin desert.

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 Nu30-04b URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w34n3.htm Brief Summary: If a GIRL in her FATHER'S HOUSE while a TEENAGER vows...RASHI: FATHER'S HOUSE + TEENAGER = Beginning Puberty.

Certain Biblical paragraphs are stated in a Theme-Development form. In other words a broad general idea is stated first followed by the development of this broad general theme in specific details. The Theme-Detail form creates a unified paragraph and consequently the law only applies to the enumerated details but not to other cases. Today's example illustrates this as shown below.

Verse Nu30-04 states If a woman also vows a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by a bond,
• while being in her father’s house
• while a teenager;

This verse has a General-Detail style as shown by the bulleted structure. The Rabbi Ishmael Style Guidelines interpret a General-Detail verse as speaking literally / restrictively only about the details.

Hence the Rashi comment The laws at Nu30-04:
• apply specifically to a Beginning teenager--age 12-12.5: Such a person is both in her father's house and a teenager
• Minors--children under 12 are not governed by these laws as they are not teenagers
• Mature teenagers--children over 12.5 are also not governed by these laws since they are no longer in their father's house

Rashi's treatment here of the general-detail style is illuminating. The classical explanation, as expounded by Rabbi Ishmael, of the general-detail style is that it indicates a literal/restrictive interpretation of the details. But if we followed this approach then the laws of the verse cited above would only apply if the person is really and only a teenager with no other attributes, such as mature, applicable. Rashi in this verse goes a step further and indicates that the restrictive interpretation is due to the fact that both the general and detail attributes must simultaneously apply. This teenager must be both in her father's house and a teenager. Hence we exclude the minor who is not yet a teenager and the mature teenager who is technically no longer in her father's house.

Thus Rashi here makes a contribution here to the understanding of the Rabbi Ishmael Theme-Detail laws by pointing out that although there is an emphasis on the details the theme itself must simultaneously be present.

Advanced Rashi: We make some additional comments on several items:
• Rashi indicates that the laws of Nu30-04 do not apply to minors or mature teenagers. Needless to say other oath laws (different from those at Nu30-04) do apply.
• The ages 12 and 12.5 are legal definitions of beginning teenager and mature teenager. They are not derived from the verse but rather Sinaitically defined. To facilitate understanding the Rashi comment we have used looser terms like mature teenager, beginning teenager, beginning puberty.
• We have translated the Biblical phrases to mean teenager. Several other translations are possible such as young person or apprentice The above analysis would be the same with any such translation. We feel the nuances of the English word teenager best fits the verse here.
• Rashi additionally brings down some Rabbinic enactments related to the verse: The Rabbis ordained that when an 11 year old makes a vow she is reviewed: If she understands that she made an oath to God we encourage her to keep her oath or seek annulment while if she doesn't yet have this understanding we ignore the oath (no annulment is necessary.)

Very often Rashi will make an inference from the paragraph structure. A typical paragraph structures can be parallel or contrastive with or without bullets. The parallel and contrastive structure naturally generate Rashi comments. This type of inference also follows from the Rabbi Ishmael Style rule of inferring from context since the paragraph structure endows the disparate paragraph sentences with a unified context.

And the chief fathers of the families of the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spoke before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the people of Isr And they said,
1. The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the people of Israel; and
2. my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters.
3. • And if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the people of Israel,
   • then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers,
   • and shall be given to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received;
   • so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance.
4. And [even] when the jubilee of the people of Israel shall be, then shall their inheritance be given to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received; so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.

The main point of the Menasheeans is presented in bullet #3. Bullet #4 does not make sense! - what does it add to the inquiry? Rashi explains bullet #4 by interpolating the word [even]. In other words bullet #4 is simply a follow up to bullet #3 - it explains that bullet #3 is permanant without any remedy - for even the Jubilee, which in many other cases frees lost land, does not help here (The Jubilee does not free land lost through inheritance).

We have classified this Rashi as a Rashi based on format. The point here is that Rashi perceives the paragraph Nu36-01:04 as having a supplemental parallel structure: Bullets #3 and #4 supplement each other; bullet #3 states that tribal land is lost while bullet #4 supplements this statement of loss by pointing out that it can not be remedied. As we have explained above such a Rashi inference based on paragraph formatting echoes the Rabbi Ishmael rule of context.

Today we ask the database query: How was the Torah Moses learned from God transmitted to the Jews. The reader is encouraged to perform the query using a standard Biblical Konnkordance or search engine. These database query yields the list below. The list justifies the following Rashi inference: Moses learned the Torah from God. 1) He taught it to Aaron 2) who taught it to the other priests 3) who then taught it to the Tribal leaders 4) who then taught it to the nation. The list below presents the results of the database query and shows examples

Advanced Rashi: This is an exciting example of a Rashi derivation. Many people regard the Moses-> Aaron -> Priests -> Tribal leaders -> Israelites midrash as fanciful and either based on oral tradition or else read into the Biblical text to emphasize a so-called development of an emphasis on learning as a primary means of serving God. It is therefore fascinating to see that explicit Biblical texts fully justify this 4-fold method of transmission. The fact that this Rashi comment is the simple meaning of the explicit Biblical texts justifies the statement made by Rav Hirsch that the Jews had a sort of Kollel existence in the Wilderness - they were stipened by God Himself so that they could sit and learn all day (There was nothing else to do). Rav Hirsch is quick to point out that this Kollel type existence only existed in the miraculous wilderness stay and was replaced by normal living - Torah learning with a job - when they entered Israel, left the miracle-based existence, and started leading ordinary non-miraculous lives. We see here the importance of fully investigating and justifying Rashi comments since their intrinsicness to the Biblical text justifies certain attitudes of Jewish philosophy and outlook.

This is a true peach of a Rashi clearly illustrating the database method. We have spoken frequently about the distinct flavor of each Rashi method. The database method is characteristically not punchy and sometimes sketchy. For example, in the Rashi we are studying today there is no explicit statement that Moses spoke to Aaron who taught his sons who taught the elders who taught the Jews. Rather we have partial statements. One verse itemizes most of the 4 sets of people. Another verse indicates a partial sequence. Finally we have verses identifying, but in specific situations, the communication to individual groups. It is therefore tempting to say that Rashi knew of the 4 fold sequence through an oral tradition. This is acceptable but it is not the total explanation. The technical thing to observe is that Rashi has supportive Biblical texts which even if they don't fully justify his assertion strongly point in that direction. Part of the act of learning Torah is finding clear proofs, part is learning oral traditions, and part is identifying supportive proofs. All of these are important and should not be belittled. It is therefore important to gather all the verses together (as we have done with some extra verses of our own) to show how the supportive texts fit together.

In conclusion this is an extremely instructive example of the database method. Those serious students of Rashi who wish to have a proper feel for what they can and what they cannot do with Biblical texts should carefully study this Rashi analysis as a prototypical model.

Verse Nu32-17 speaking about the deal Moses made with Gad - to go in the front lines when fighting for Israel in exchange for which Gad received the TransJordan as an inheritance - states but we [the Gaddites] ourselves will be ready armed to go before the Jews, until we have brought them unto their place; and our little ones shall dwell in the fortified cities because of the inhabitants of the land.

Rashi explains why the Gaddites volunteered to go in the front lines: The Gaddites were good fighters. Good fighters are preferred in the front line because it is the thick of battle. Hence the Gaddites volunteered to go on the front line.

Rashi additionally supports his comment using the reference method citing a verse from Dt33-20, which clarifies this volunteer to go in the front lines and states: And of Gad he said, Blessed be he who enlarges Gad; he lives as a lion, and tears the arm with the crown of the head. In other words Gad volunteered to go in the front lines because he is a good lion-like warrior.

Although an other verse is referenced here we have classified this Rashi comment as a NonVerse method. Indeed the focus of Rashi's comment is an explanation of why Gad volunteered to go in the front line. To answer this question Rashi uses knowledge of the real world: The front line men in a battle must be stronger because the thicket of the battle is there. This deduction is logical and does not involve references to other verses. Hence we classify the Rashi as using the Non Verse method. By coincidence Rashi found a reference supporting this logical connection; but his comment is still is in essence a logical connection. Alternatively, we can simply say that Rashi did use a reference but explained the support of this other verse by using knowledge of the real world such as the reasons for placing certain people on the front lines of a war.