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 Nu06-17b URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/w33n21; Brief Summary: The Ram REST OFFERING and LIBATIONS mentioned in Nu06-17b cross reference the offerings detailed at Nu15-06:07.

Verse Nu06-17b discussing the ram offering offered by the Nazarite states And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread; the priest shall offer also its meal offering, and its drink offering. Rashi clarifies the underlined words its meal offering, and its drink offering by referencing verse(s) Nu15-06:07 which states Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two tenth measures of flour mixed with the third part of a hin of oil. And for a drink offering you shall offer the third part of a hin of wine, for a sweet savor to the Lord. Hence the Rashi comment: As the underlined words show, the rest offering and the drink offering of the ram mentioned in Nu06-17b cross-reference the detailed offerings mentioned at Nu15-06:07.

Text of Target verse Nu06-17b	Text of Reference Verse Nu15-06:07
And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread; the priest shall offer also its meal offering, and its drink offering.	Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two tenth measures of flour mixed with the third part of a hin of oil. And for a drink offering you shall offer the third part of a hin of wine, for a sweet savor to the Lord.
Rashi comments: As the underlined words show, the rest offering and the drink offering of the ram mentioned in Nu06-17b cross-reference the detailed offerings mentioned at Nu15-06:07.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi may appear to be making a grammatical point: That the word its in the verselet ...and he shall offer its meal offering and its drink offering refers back to the ram not to the immediate antecedent, the meal offering. However the method (in Hebrew) for determining antecedents is by context. Hence we must bring verses Nu15-06:07 which show that the ram has both a meal offering and drink offering. This then justifies the interpretation of its as referring back to ram rather than the immediate antecedent, the meal offering. So the heart of the Rashi comment is based on the reference method.

An idiom is a collection of words which means more than the sum of the meanings of each of the phrase's individual words. Verse Nu04-22:26b discussing the work responsibilities of the Gayrshonites states Take also a census of the sons of Gershon, ... This is the service of the families of the Gershonites, to ... And they shall carry the curtains of the tabernacle, and ... and all for which they are responsible. Rashi explains: The literal Biblical text and all that is made for them; so shall they serve. is an idiom meaning and all for which they are responsible. As indicated by the underlined phrase, we have incorporated the Rashi comment into the actual translation of the verse.

A familiar function of grammar in all languages is to enable distinctions between plural and singular. In this case, very often, a single letter can totally change the meaning of a verse. Today's example illustrates this.

Verse Nu05-15f discussing the suspected-adulterous-woman offering states then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is a rest-offering of standing-ups..., a rest-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. Rashi comments on the plural standing-ups: The offering enables many parties to stand up for themselves. The woman is suspected of adultery. (1) The husband stands up for himself. (2) Organized religion stands-up for itself since every act of adultery cheapens the institution of marriage.

Advanced Rashi: Rashi literally says God stands up for Himself since His prohibitions of adultery have been violated. We have interpreted this broadly to mean that Organized religion in general and God in particular stand up for themselves. We consider this a proper reading of Rashi consistent with his intent.

The table below presents an aligned extract of verses or verselets in Nu05-13c, Lv05-04. Both verses/verselets discuss offerings brought on hidden or unknown matters. The alignment justifies the Rashi assertion that For an ordinary sin offering we require the matter was hidden and unknown. For an adulterous-woman-sin-offering we require more strongly that the matter was hidden from his eyes and unknown. The extra emphasis indicated by hidden from his eyes implies a requirement that a) he is not blind, b) he was unaware of his wife's misbehavior and c) there was no overlooking (he didn't see something unseemly and ignore it).

Verse	Text of Verse	Rashi comment
Nu05-13c	And a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and this is kept undetected, and she is defiled, and there is no witness against her, since she was not caught in the act;	For an ordinary sin offering we require the matter was hidden and unknown. For an adulterous-woman-sin-offering we require the matter was hidden from his eyes and unknown. The extra emphasis indicated by hidden from his eyes implies a requirement that a) he is not blind, b) he was unaware of his wife's misbehavior and c) there was no overlooking (he didn't see something unseemly and ignore it).
Lv05-04	Or if a soul swears, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatever it is that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it is hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.	For an ordinary sin offering we require the matter was hidden and unknown. For an adulterous-woman-sin-offering we require the matter was hidden from his eyes and unknown. The extra emphasis indicated by hidden from his eyes implies a requirement that a) he is not blind, b) he was unaware of his wife's misbehavior and c) there was no overlooking (he didn't see something unseemly and ignore it).

The table below presents presents two contradictory verses. Both verses talk about the prophetic speech of God to Moses. The underlined words highlight the contradiction. One verse says God spoke in the voice, that is, the same thunderous, trumpet-like voice by which God spoke at Sinai, while the other verse says God only spoke to Moses; Aaron could not hear the voice. Which is it? Was the voice thunderous and loud? If so why couldn't Aaron hear it? Perhaps it was a soft voice? Rashi simply resolves this using the 2 Aspects method: God's voice spoke within Moses. Since He did not speak externally Aaron could not hear it. However the voice within was thunderous and loud.

Summary	Verse / Source	Text of verse / Source
God's voice is thunderous and loud	Nu07-69, Ex19-19,	And when Moses went into the tent of meeting that He might speak with him, then he heard the Voice speaking only to him from above the ark-cover that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him.... And when the voice of the shofar sounded long, and became louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him with voice.
Only Moses heard God's voice, not Aaron	Nu07-69	And when Moses went into the tent of meeting that He might speak with him, then he heard the Voice speaking only to him from above the ark-cover that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him.
Resolution:	2 Aspects:	God's voice spoke within Moses (Nu12-06) Since He did not speak externally Aaron could not hear it. However the voice within was thunderous and loud.

Advanced Rashi: This is a peach of Rashi. We have not treated it completely above. A proper analysis would require use of 3 Rashi rules applied 5 times. In fact the original source of this Rashi is not on this verse but rather this Rashi is almost a verbatim citation from the Sifrah on Lv01-01. Here are the Rashi comments which fully justify this Rashi:
• Grammar: The article the indicates something well known.
• Reference: Hence when Nu07-69 refers to the voice that Moses heard it must be referring to some well known voice, namely, the voice of the revelation as accounted in Ex19-19. Note that additionally the Sifrah also cites Ps29 and Ps93 both of which explicitly deal with the magnitude of the voice.
• Grammar: The verb speak is normally accompanied by the pronoun in: You speak to someone in a certain place. However Lv01-01 uses the very rare construction God spoke to Moses from the Temple. The Sifray interprets this to mean that the voice never left the Temple (and hence was inaudible outside). Rather than get involved in defending this from rule I chose an equally good proof of the voice's inaudibility - the fact that Moses did hear while Aaron did not hear. We infer this from the use of the pronoun Aleph-Lamed-Yud-Vav which in rule #3, grammar above we have explained means only to him.
• Grammar: Although the Sifrah does not cite it I found using Nu12-06 which explicitly says God spoke within him in a dream to be a convincing verse for resolving the contradiction. That is prophecy is heard within and consequently although the voice within may be loud it is inaudible to others.
• Contradiction: Finally we have used the contradiction method as indicated above.

We might also indicate the moral point of Rashi: Why is the verse emphasizing that the voice was loud but inaudible.
• The emphasis on inaudibility to others is to indicate that God's voice is not an external voice in the physical world.
• The emphasis on loudness is to indicate that prophecy is not a seance-like state where one hears inaudible voices that murmur and hint at things. Rather prophecy is loud and clear; the prophet is certain of the message received and uses his normal mental state to receive the message.

We still haven't completely explained this Rashi but have presented its basis and showed various rich aspects of it.

We have typically explained the style rules as dealing with paragraph formation. Today we explain a non-standard style rule, the exception style, which is also one of the Rabbi Ishmael style rules. The exception rule deals with exceptions to rules. Here is a simple example:
A manufacturer produces electric cars which runs on electriciy instead of gas.
The electric car is an exception to the general case of gas cars. The consumer has to deal with the following issue.
Is this exception additive or replacive? In other words, has the exception, electrically run cars, replaced all rules of cars, or, is the exception, electrically run cars, an addition to all other rules about cars except for gas?
The Rabbi Ishmael style rules explain that
Exceptions are replacive: all former rules of cars have been replaced and do not apply unless the Biblical text explicitly re-enumerates it.
So for exammple
Electric cars do not require oil checkups and their owners do not require insurance and registration unless the regulations come and explicitly re-require them.

The following Biblical paragraph, Nu06-14:17: illustrates the exception rule.
• And this is the rule of the Nazirite, ...And he shall offer his offering to the Lord,
• one male lamb of the first year without blemish for an up offering, and
• one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering,
• one ram without blemish for peace offerings,
• a basket of unleavened bread,
• cakes of fine flour mixed with oil,
• wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil,
• • and their meal offering,
  • and their drink offerings.
• ....
• And he shall offer the
  • ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord,
  • on the basket of unleavened bread; and
  • he shall offer its meal offering,
  • and its drink offering

In the above passage, the Nazaarite offerings are an exception to general offerings. The reason they are an exception is because, as the underlined phrase shows, the Nazaarite offering has, in addition to traditional offerings - such as the up, sin, peace, wafer and cake offerings - also has a matzoh basket offering. This matzoh basket is an exception to the general offering.

According to the Rabbi Ishmael exception rule this difference between the Nazaarite and other offerings makes the Nazaarite offerings an exception. Therefore any other rule of offerings does not apply unless the Bible explicitly re-requires it. In particular as indicated by the underlined passages the meal offerings and libations associated with all offerings must also be offered at the Nazarite offering. As can be seen from the underlined passages the emphasis that meal offerings and drink offerings are also brought is mentioned twice.

Advanced Rashi: We have explained elsewhere that all Rabbi Ishmael rules deal with the interaction between examples and generalizations. Thus the law prohibiting muzzling an ox while threshing is, according to Rabbi Ishmael, not the totality of the rule, but a mere example of a more general rule that any animal should not have their eating inteferred with while working. Similarly the requirement, for example, to redeem second tithe on steaks, lambchops, wine and beer is seen, not as the list of things which can be redeeemed, but rather as examples of a more general rule that second tithe can be redeemed on any products that are derived from land based grown items.

The exception rule also deals with the interaction between examples and generalizations. For example when the Bible speaks about the Nazaarite offering and the exceptional matzoh basket we have to ask if this is the only exception or whether other aspects of the traditional sacrifices are also excepted. Thus the example-geenralization issue is a useful lens by which to study all Rabbi Ishmael rules.

We ask the following database query: To whom are Priestly gifts delivered and how are they delivered? 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 Biblical language describing many priestly gifts uses the phrases brought to God or belongs to the Priest. The first fruits were however brought to the Priest in the temple. Hence Nu05-09 should be translated as A priestly gift [ Terumah] brought to the Priest belongs to him. Since first fruits are the only priestly gift brought to the priest we apply this verse to first fruits. The list below presents the results of the database query and shows examples

A Nazarite abstains from wine and ritual impurities. Verses Nu05-09:12 discuss what happens when the Nazarite count is interrupted by an unexpected defilement: And if any man die very suddenly beside him, and he defile his consecrated head, then he shall ... And he shall consecrate unto HaShem the days of his Naziriteship, and shall bring a he-lamb of the first year for a guilt-offering; but the former days shall fall, because his consecration was defiled.

Rashi interprets the two underlined phrases, numerically:
• he shall consecrate unto HaShem the days of his Naziriteship is interpreted to mean He shall begin a new vow and count of nazariteship;
• the former days shall fall, because his consecration was defiled is interpreted numerically - he may not use the former count of days (during which he was suddenly defiled) in the new count of days.

We have classified this Rashi as using the spreadsheet method since Biblical text is interpreted numerically. Some readers may consider this obvious. However there is a point: Notice words like fall which although physical and picturesque refer to numerical events.

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 Nu07-19b:f Nu07-20a:c URL Reference: (c) http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1415.htm Brief Summary: The prince gifts for the consecration of the Temple symbolized human history

Very often a symbolic interpretation will use a single motif to explain a variety of items and procedures. In the example below we symbolically interpret the prince gifts presented when the Temple was consecrated. The single motif used is the important events in human history leading up to the giving of the Torah. This motif is used to symbolically interpret the prince gifts, brought at the consecration of the Temple. These gifts as a whole symbolize the progression of important events in human history leading to the giving of the Torah. The Table below gives details.

Rashi	Item	Symbolizes	Symbolic association	Is association strong?
Nu07-19b	1 Silver Bowl	Adam	One father of human race	No
Nu07-19c	Weight of 130	Age Adam began producing	Numerical association	Yes
Nu07-19d	1 Bowl	Noah	1 Ark	No
Nu07-19e	weight 70	70 nations	70 grandchildren of Noah	Yes - numerical
Nu07-20a	1 scoop	1 Torah		No
Nu07-20b	weight of 10 golden	10 commandments	Numerical association	Strong
Nu07-20c	Incense	Sweet offerings and sweet laws		Weak

Advanced Rashi: We have not reviewed all the prince gifts. Also at times we have deviated from Rashi's associations which use numerical values of letters (There is nothing wrong with this in a symbolic context but we preferred to give the strongest associations). As the table shows there is a natural historical sequence from the beginning of human history, Adam, till the reception of the Torah. Some of the numerical associations are quite strong based on numerical identity. The other associations can then be justified in context because they fill in the gaps in the missing sequence.