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 Gn31-32a URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n5.htm Brief Summary: Jacob cursed the robber of Laban's idols (Gn31-32) and as a result Rachel died prematurely (Gn35-19).

Verse Gn31-32 discussing who robbed Laban of his idols states With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, she shall not live; before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee.' --For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.-- Rashi notes: The underlined phrase, she shall not live, can be supported by a cross-reference to Gn35-19 discussing the death of Rachel which states . And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Beth-Lehem Recall that in fact Rachel had stolen Laban's idols as stated in verse Gn31-19 which states And Laban went to shear his sheep; and Rachel had stolen the teraphim that were her father’s Hence the Rashi comment: Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen her father's idols. For this reason he cursed with death the person who stole it. This curse led to the premature death of Rachel.

Text of Target Verses Gn31-19,32	Text of Reference Verses Gn35-19
And Laban went to shear his sheep; and Rachel had stolen the teraphim that were her father’s .... With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, she shall not live; before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee.' --For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.--	. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Beth-Lehem
Rashi comments: Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen her father's idols. For this reason he cursed with death the person who stole it. This curse led to the premature death of Rachel.

Sermonic Points: The sermonic point behind this Rashi is obvious: Do not curse! Do not swear! Do not take oaths! Be cautious in judgement.

Rashi's explanation of Biblical words can sometimes be etymological. A particularly simple example of this approach occurs with four-letter words. Rashi, following the Talmud, interprets the meaning of every four-letter word as being the combination of the meanings of its two sub-two-letter words. The examples in the list below illustrate this.

• The Hebrew Gimel-Lamed-Ayin-Dalet (Gilad, the name of a place of a treaty) means Gimel-Lamed (the stone heap where the treaty was made) Ayin-Daleth (bears witness to the treaty.) This etymology is consistent with the explicit explanation presented in verses Gn31-45:48 which state And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. And Jacob said to his brothers, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a heap; and they ate there upon the heap. And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha; but Jacob called it Galeed. And Laban said, This heap is a witness between me and you this day. Therefore was the name of it called Galeed;
• The Hebrew Mem-Mem-Zayin-Resh (illegitimate) means Mem-Mem (a blemish) Zayin-Resh (from a stranger.)
• The Hebrew Pay-Ayin-Nun-Cheth (The name Pharoh bestowed on Joseph) means Pay-Ayin (bringing out) Nun-Cheth (the hidden/resting things.) This explanation is consistent with the context of the naming of Joseph since Joseph had brought forth the true meaning of the dream (Gn41-38:39)
• The Hebrew Cheth-Caph-Lamed-Lamed (drunk) means Lamed-Lamed (swirling from ) Cheth-Caph (the palate.)
• The Hebrew Beth-Lamed-Yud-Ayin-Lamed (rowdy / obnoxious ) means Beth-Lamed-Yud (without) Ayin-Lamed (yoke.)

Most people are aware that Hebrew has 3 tenses: Past, present, future. However most people are unaware that there are over a dozen meaning needs of tenses. Consider the following two sentences: I am walking to synagogue versus I walk to synagogue every day. The first sentence - I am walking to synagogue - indicates something happening now, in the present, while the second sentence, I walk to synagogue every day indicates something habitual.

We can summarize this as follows: There are at least two types of present: A simple present - I am walking to synagogue - and a habitual present - I walk to synagogue every day. We will refer to these as verb semantics or verb meanings. They are the types of meaning that a verb can have.

By contrast the form in which we write the verb - walk, walking, walked, will walk, did walk - will be referred to as the verb conjugations.

The challenge in learning grammar is to learn which verb conjugations go with which verb meanings. Most people are unaware that Hebrew uses the same conjugation for multiple meanings!!!!

Because this concept is complicated let me re-summarize it with the examples given above: The sentences I walk to synagogue every day and I am walking to synagogue illustrate two verb meanings: simple present activity and habitual activity. The verb forms - walk, walking are two verb conjugations, forms. In English walking is a verb form or conjugation associated with the verb meaning of something done at the present time while walk is a verb form or conjugation associated with the verb meaning of a habitual activity.

Scholars have erroneously not distinguished between verb meaning and form. This has created complications. However once you distinguish between meaning and form many things become clear. Todays example illustrates this.

Verse Gn29-08b discussing the daily sheppard routine to water their flocks states And they said, We can not [water the flocks], until all the flocks are gathered together, and people role the stone from the well’s mouth; and [only] then will we water the sheep. The important grammatical point made by Rashi is that:
• The conjugation form of the Hebrew word meaning the underlined word people role is the past conjugation which in English is usually translated as people rolled while
• The grammatical meaning of the underlined word people role is the habitual present.
Rashi's point is more precisely translated as follows: One method of indicating the habitual present in Hebrew is to use the past conjugation.

To recap: In this verse the shepards were not telling Jacob that they were waiting for the stone to be rolled in order to water the flocks but rather they were telling Jacob a habitual activity - we roll the stone daily and then water the flocks.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Gn31-47 Both verses/verselets discuss the name given to the heap of stones by which Jacob and Laban made a treaty. The alignment justifies the Rashi comment that: Jacob named the place Stone-heap-witness; Laban named it Yegar Sahadusa which is the aramaic translation of Stone-heap-witness

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Gn31-47	And Jacob said to his brothers, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a heap; and they ate there upon the heap. And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha; but Jacob called it WitnessHeap	Jacob named the place Stone-heap-witness; Laban named it Yegar Sahadusa which is the aramaic translation of Stone-heap-witness
Gn31-47	And Jacob said to his brothers, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a heap; and they ate there upon the heap. And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha; but Jacob called it WitnessHeap

Advanced Rashi: So one of Rashi's points is that the meaning of the unknown Aramaic translation can be inferred from the alignment. For a further Rashi point see rule #9 below.

The table below presents two contradictory verses. Both verses speak about Jacob's wedding night The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve you seven years for Rachel your younger daughter. ...And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in to her. while the other verse states And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah; and he said to Laban, What is this that you have done to me? did not I serve with you for Rachel? why then have you deceived me? We see the contradiction---Was Jacob double crossed by day or night? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Aspects method: Jacob wanted Rachel. Rachel knew how Jacob liked to be flirted with. She shared his flirting preferences with Leah. When Jacob married Leah he thought he was marrying someone who understood his physical needs. But in the morning Leah resumed to her old self and it was only then that Jacob understood he was double-crossed.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
Jacob was double crossed (Leah vs Rachel) by evening.	Gn29-18,23	And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve you seven years for Rachel your younger daughter. ... And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in to her.
Jacob only found out in the morning that he was double crossed	Gn29-25	And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah; and he said to Laban, What is this that you have done to me? did not I serve with you for Rachel? why then have you deceived me?
Resolution:	2 Aspects	Jacob wanted Rachel. Rachel knew how Jacob liked to be flirted with. She shared his flirting preferences with Leah. When Jacob married Leah he thought he was marrying someone who understood his physical needs. But in the morning Leah resumed to her old self and it was only then that Jacob understood he was doubl e-crossed.

Advanced Rashi: This is a beautiful example of refutation of a flippant reading of Rashi. Rashi literally says: Rachel did not want her sister Leah to be embarassed. Jacob had personal signs with Rachel since he expected to be double-crossed. But Rachel gave these signs to Leah. Notice that Rashi already leaves out the more explicit statements, found in some midrashim, that Rachel hid under the marital bed so that Jacob should think he was relating to Rachel.

From a conceptual point of view I am interpreting the Rashi comment Rachel gave Leah the personal signs she and Jacob had agreed on to mean that Rachel shared highly personal preferences of Jacob in flirting. I would similarly interpret the phrase found in other midrashim Rachel hid under the bed to mean Rachel shared personal flirting signs with Leah.

From a content point of view I don't see any religious value in interpreting this Midrash literally. Does it enhance our admiration of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs that they swapped identities in marital bedrooms? Surely not. For this reason I think the straightforward social interpretation I have given is superior.

Men and women view physical relations differently. Men are more biological while women are more personal. Men are more likely to select a spouse based on physical items like flirting. At early stages of their life this is important to them(or more important then it should be). Women sometimes belittle this need of men and play games with men. It doesn't have to be as extreme as the Rachel-Leah case. If people think that two people belong together they may give instruction to each other on how to flirt with specific men to facilitate marriage. As is clear from the Jacob-Rachel-Leah story such attempts, however noble their intention, do not always work. Rather the social area requires special emphasis on equality of sensitivity in all areas.

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. The Rabbi Ishmael Style rules require exhausting the meaning of the theme sentence in the indicated development sentences. Today's example illustrates this as shown below.

Biblical verse Gn31-50b, discussing Laban's warning to Jacob not to afflict his daughters, states
• General Theme: If thou shalt afflict my daughters, and
• Developmental-Detail: if thou shalt take wives beside my daughters,
no man being with us; see, G-d is witness betwixt me and thee.' Rashi comments on the Theme-development form: If thou shalt afflict my daughters by taking wives beside my daughters and thereby diminish their marital frequency. Here Rashi exhausts the meaning of afflict with taking other wives which as a consequence implies diminished frequency.

We ask the following database query: On whom is the phrase God of so and so used.? 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 phrase God of so and so is typically used after the death of so and so. It is not typically used during people's lifetimes since they might (sexually sin) and lose their righteous status. However 1) Isaac had never had a concubine and 2) his eyes had dimmed (he no longer eye-flirted). Hence since the possibility of sin was minimal the phrase God of Isaac is used during his lifetime (Actually, the phrase used is The Fear of Isaac.) The list below presents the results of the database query and provides examples.

Verse	Said by	To	God of Whom	Dead/Alive
2C34-03a	Biblical author	Yoshiyahu	God of David	Dead
2C21-12	Elijah	Yehoram	God of David	Dead
Ex03-06	God	Moses	God of Abraham	Dead
Is02-03	Isiah	Nations	God of Jacob	Dead
--------------	-----------	-----------	-----------	-----------
Gn28-13	God	Jacob	God of Isaac	Alive
----------	-------	-------	-------	-------
2C32-17	Sacheriv	Jews	God of Chizkiyahu	Alive
Gn09-26	Noah	Cham	God of Shaym	Alive
Gn24-12	Eliezer	God	God of Abraham	Alive

Advanced Rashi: As is our custom with database Rashis we have enriched the Rashi comment with further detail. The above database shows that God and righteous people never use the phrase God of X during X's lifetime. However as the last 3 examples show non-Jews do not adhere to this rule (Probably because they are not worried about sin). This is a novelty not found in Rashi.

Prior to examining todays verse we make some light descriptive comments on the non-verse method.
• When Rashi gathers a collection of verses and infers from numerical computations we say Rashi uses the Spreadsheet method.
• When Rashi clarifies a verse with a geometric diagram we say he is using the geometric or diagrammatic method.
• The spreadsheet and diagram method are examples of the category of non-verse methods - that is clarifications of the verse by knowledge domains outside the verses - outside domains like spreadsheets and geometry.
• So if Rashi clarifies the verse with archaeological finds we are also using the non-verse method.
• Finally We also say the non-verse method is used when Rashi fills-in background with plausible real-world events. Since these fill-ins are not derived from the Biblical text but rather are derived from the real-world we consider them analogous to the use of diagrams and computational spreadsheets.
The common denominator of
• Numerical spreadsheets
• Geometric diagrams
• plausible real world fill-ins and backgrounds
• archaeological finds
is inference from non-verse material. Todays example particularly illustrates this.

Verse Gn31-15 discussing Jacob's plan to desert his father-in-law states Are we not counted by him as strangers? for he has sold us, and has quite devoured also our money Rashi explains the underlined phrase for he has sold us, by filling in with real-world background: In most marriages the father of the bride provides a monetary dowry to help get the couple started. But in Jacob's marriage the exact opposite happened: Jacob had to pay his father-in-law, by working for him for 7 years. Hence the Biblical phrase he sold us.

To recap, Rashi comments on the verse by
• bringing in the custom of the father of the bride giving a dowry to his future son-in-law
• contrasting the gift of the father-in-law to the son-in-law with the purchase requirement of 7 years of labor to obtain Rachel.
Because this comment uses real-world vs non-textual material we say the non-verse method is being used.

Advanced Rashi:This Rashi is also an example of application of archaeological methods. Numerous fragments uncovered from ancient times shows a certain balance in dealing with monetary manners:
• Inheritance went to the males while dowrys went to the females.
Note that this is a strong example of equal but different. Indeed if the woman would both inherit and receive a dowry her inherited money would most likely be given to her husband which would means that the women are getting double. (If women had no dowry they would be less attractive as marriage partners). This duality #NAME?
• The dowry was given during the lifetime of the parents (and hence more certain) while the inheritance was only given at death.
• Finally the inheritance was a legal claim (it could be recovered in court if denied) while the dowry was a strong custom which however was not subject to court review.
So Laban, crook par excellence, shows his real metal by denying his daughters the dowry they deserved - it was against all social custom but was not recoverable in court. This archaeological background enhances the appreciation of the comments of the daughters We are non-family...we are getting nothing monetary from our father We have no economic incentive to stay. As already indicated algebraic, geometric and archaelogical driven Rashis are classified as non-verse.