The 10 RashiYomi Rules
Their presence in Rashis on Parshat BreiShitH 
Vol 19#3 - Adapted from Rashi-is-Simple 
(c) RashiYomi Incorporated, Dr. Hendel President, Oct. 16, 2012
For the full copyright statement see the Appendix

Useful URLS:,  
Rashiyomi Website:       http://www.RashiYomi.Com
This week's issue: 	        http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule1903.rtf
Former week's issue:      http://www.Rashiyomi.com/rule.htm
Old weekly Rashis:       http://www.Rashiyomi.com/weeklyarchives.htm
Rashi short e-course:      http://www.Rashiyomi.com/RashiShortGuideHTMLBook.htm

GOALS
The goal of the Weekly Rashi Digest is to use the weekly Torah portion to expose students at all levels to the ten major methods of Rashi's commentary. Continual weekly exposure to these ten major methods facilitate the acquisition, familiarity, and facility with the major exegetical methods. This year, 2012-2013, we are concentrating on the grammar rule. We acknowledge benefitting from Dr. Isseroff's book, An Introduction to Rashi's Grammatical Explanations in the Book of Genesis, 1985, Published by the Torah Education Department of World Zionist Organization, MP Press Inc, ISBN 965-222-049-3. For a full  lightning statement of all Rashi rules see the Appendix

Subscribe / Unsubscribe: Email RashiYomi@GMail.Com

Questions - Interrogative sentences

What is the difference between 
•	"You walked to the store in the rain."
•	"You walked to the store in the rain?"

There is a 
•	difference in form, and a
•	difference in meaning.

The differences are as follows:
•	Form: One sentence ends in a period while the other ends in a question mark
•	Meaning: One sentence is a declarative statement while the other is a question.

Biblical Hebrew  has a similar rule for transforming declarative sentences
into interrogative questions.
•	English: You indicate a question by changing the terminal punctuation mark to a question mark
•	Hebrew: You indicate a question by prefixing the Hebrew letter hey punctuated with a chataf-patach to the first word in the sentence.

Rashi, who lived at a time when Hebrew grammar books were not accessible, saw as one of his goals in his commentary to introduce students to rules of grammar. Hence Rashi comments on the following biblical sentence which begins
with the Hebrew letter hey punctuated with a chataf patach: [Kayin, who just murdered his brother Hevel, responds to God's question, "Where is your brother", by stating] (Gn04-09c) I am my brother's watcher." Rashi: Because of the prefix hey this is really a question not a statement. It should be translated, "Am I my brother's watcher?"
 
Denominatives

All languages have the capacity to change a noun, naming an object, into a verb naming an activity. Grammarians call this a denominative. Here are some common examples from English as well as two Rashis.

Example 1:
To dust means to remove dust. Here the verb to dust comes from the noun dust.

Example 2:
To hammer means to use the hammer in its typical way. Here the verb to hammer comes from the noun, hammer.

Example 3: 
To flower means to produce flowers. Here the verb to flower comes from the noun, flower.

Example 4: 
To be fruitful means to have many children like a tree producing many fruit.Here the verb to be fruitful comes from the noun fruit and indicates an important attribute of fruit, the large number of fruit produced by each tree (Rashi: Gn01-22b)

Example 5:
From the noun, children, we derive the verb, to build a household (Rashi: Gn05-28a). Rashi's perspective is interesting here. We might erroneously translate the Hebrew word Bayit as meaning house. Rashi actually translates it meaning household. Rashi's translation is extremely precise: Compare the use of Bayit in Gn 45-02: "And word was heard in Pharoh's household that Joseph's brother's had come." As Rashi observes, "The house did not hear; rather the household heard."
 
Plural vs. Singular

All languages have the capacity to indicate plurality - many vs one:
•	In English, the plural is indicated by a terminal s: For example, apples, would indicate many apples.
•	In Hebrew, the plural can be indicated by a terminal mem, or in the case of the Hebrew construct, by a terminal yud.

Prior to translating and commenting on the verse studied today, we mention some useful background information: Certain words are collective nouns and do not have a plural. Here are some simple examples from English
•	Grass is a collective noun; it can equally refer to a single blade of grass or to many grass growing in a field.
•	Cattle is a collective noun; it can equally refer to a single cattle or to a herd of cattle.
•	Blood is a collective noun; it can equally refer to a single drop of blood or to many blood.

Hebrew also has collective nouns. For example 
•	desheh, meaning grass-like foilage and 
•	shor, referring to ox (similar to the English cattle) are collective nouns. 
However, English and Hebrew do not always agree on whether a noun is collective. 
•	Blood is not a collective noun in Hebrew even though it is a collective noun in English. 

With this background let us properly translate Gn04-10a and present Rashi's comments.

Text: [God speaking to Kayin, after he had murdered his brother Abel] He [God] said: 'What have you done? The voice of your brother's bloods scream to Me from the ground.'

Rashi: Bloods is plural. It can possibly refer to
•	The blood (life) of both Hevel and all his potential descendents who all ceased to exist because of Kayin's murder
•	Multiple wounds each one with its own flow of blood.

Here the text would be emphasizing the premeditated nature of the murder. It is not the case that Kayin lost his temper, pulled a trigger and killed Abel without fully being aware of his actions. On the contrary, Kayin struck Abel multiple times, and on each wound Abel screamed and pleaded for mercy. Thus the murder was indeed premeditated.
 
Puns

We tend  to think of puns as something clergy does in a sermon to emphasize a point or something done in bars to impress people. Not so! Many secular scholars consider  puns as simply another legitimate grammatical rule. After all you might add an "s" to a word to indicate the plural; similarly you might change the spelling of a word to hint at some idea. Such a change of spelling is called a spelling pun or metaplasmus. Please find below some simple English examples of spelling puns as well as Rashis based on this idea

Example 1: 
A girl texts her friend about her date and writes "I really liiiked the guy."
Here by deliberately mis-spelling "like" as "liiked", with an elongatd  "iii", the girl indicates intensity of liking!

Example 2: 
The Bible states "God, Lord, creeeatd Adam, dust  from the ground and breathed into him a living soul. (Gn02-07a)" Notice the spelling pun, the deliberate mis-spelling of 'created' as creeated. Rashi: "The elogated "eee" indicates intensity of creation. When God created Adam he not only gave him a living soul, as he did the animals; he also gave him a spiritual soul by which Adam could obtain the hereafter.

Example 3: 
The Bible states, "God blessed the humans; God  said to them: 'Humans, be fruitful; Humans, multiply; Humans, fill the earth; human, conquer her'...(Gn28-01a)" Notice the deliberate spelling  change of "humans" (plural  with an 's') to 'human' (without the plural 's'). Rashi: This hints that in a healthy male-female relationship the male  human should be possessive ('conquer her'). There  is actually a double  pun here: The misspelled human refers to single man; the word 'her' does not refer back to 'earth' but rather to the woman.

Philosophical Consequences

We pause for a moment to dwell on the possible sexism in a phrase like 'conquer  her.' This possible sexism annoys some people. I would respond that these people have good values but are unaware of the nature of puns. Certainly,if  the Bible  itself said that man should conquer  his partner that would be sexist. But the Bible makes  no such statement. Indeed, if anything the Bible admonishes the man that he must give his wife food,  clothing, and adequate physical relationship!  However, when you make a pun - in contrast to writing prose - you may use exageration to hint at a point. This is an important component of the pun rules. The punned phrase 'Human conquer her' is simply an exaggeration mirroring required possessiveness in any relationship.

Some people may still question whether a healthy relationship requires any one-sided possession. Consider  the following three scenarios.

Scenario 1: 
The husband continually asks his wife where she had been that day,  who she had seen, details  of conversations, etc. Such a relationship is 'jealous' not possessive and wrong.

Scenario 2: 
The husband, upon witnessing his wife carrying on animated conversation with say a business partner of hers might ask 'What transpired.' This is healthy. Since the female is more vulnerable than the male, a mild amount of possessiveness makes a woman feel secure and protected.

Scenario 3: 
The husband gives his wife total independence and never  inquires about her interactions  with other  men. While this isn't bad, it is not ideal. The relationship can be improved with a modest amount of male possessiveness.

Notice in the above examples, how the flavor of the biblical puns was preserved with a comparable English spelling pun. This is a translation technique developed by me.  I hope  future translations of the bible (including JPS) use this informative technique. For more information on the fascinating topic of puns as well as references please see my article "Biblical Puns" published  in The  Jewish Bible Quarterly, Volume 34#3, pp 190 - 197,2006. You can access this article at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/puns.pdf

Cho-RAYSH vs. CHO-resh
Note: This Rashi involves technical Hebrew and may be skipped  on a first readng by those unfamiliar with Hebrew.

Rashi lived before Grammar Textbooks, as we know them today, were available. 
•	Today you can purchase many types of Grammar books. Using these books you can learn all about verbs, their conjugations, plurality, gender and pronouns.
•	In Rashi’s time such books were rare. Furthermore, the few grammar books that did exist were not written in a student friendly manner that facilitated learning.
Hence, one of Rashi’s primary jobs in his commentary was to teach grammar. 

Rashi used an ingenious pedagogic technique, the method of near misses, to teach grammar. Basically the near-miss method requires the teacher to teach grammar, not using tables, as is currently done in modern grammar textbooks, but rather, using grammatical pairs which are identical in almost all features except one or two. Rashi then teaches the difference in meaning between these two items. I call this method the near miss method since the two forms almost equal each other and nearly miss equality. The term near miss is borrowed from the computer science artificial intelligence literature. The near miss method is a powerful method and I am surprised it is not used in more textbooks.

Today we concentrate on the difference between the Hebrew cho-RAYSH, referring to forming and fashioning metal, vs. cho-RESH, meaning a forest or thicket. 

Rashi identifies the near miss here and its consequent effect on meaning:
•	Cho-RAYSH is accented on the last syllable and uses the Tzaray, ay, punctuation. Hence, it is a present particle verbal form, referring to instrument sharpening.
•	CHO-resh is accented on the penultimate syllable, the syllable before the last syllable, and is punctuated with a the segol, eh, vs ay, sound. Hence, it refers to a noun, the thicket or forest.

Further elaboration

The above is what Rashi says. I believe it complete and not in need of further elaboration. However I add my own insights which are based on the 6 distinct meanings of the biblical Hebrew root, Cheth-Resh-Shin. This list of meanings is given by the Radaq in his biblical dictionary. It is also repeated in such modern biblical dictionaries as BDB. Here are the six meanings which have a unifying theme of a ploughing zig-zag form.

•	Ploughing

•	A ploughing cutting wind which has a zig-zag force pattern coming from multiple directions.

•	Intensive research-type thinking; 

The type of thinking which is not linear, such as done on something familiar, but exploratory. The thinking has a zig-zag pattern in the precise sense that it explores paths of thought, backtracks, explores other paths etc.

•	The forest or thicket. 

Forests and thickets are in contrasts to paths and clean trails. The clean trail path is straight, you simply follow the path. Contrastively, the forest or thicket is characterized by zig-zag motions; you cannot simply walk through a forest or thicket in a straight manner; of necessity the motion is zig-zag.

•	Fashioning metal. 

Unlike the fashioning of say clay utensils, fashioning metal requires intensive effort on the metallurgist who uses zig-zag motions to obtain a final form.

•	The deaf person. 

This is a bit of an anomaly on this list. Since we can neatly explain the other five meanings using the concept of a zig-zag form I would speculate that chayraysh can refer to an almost deaf person, if you like, a person with hearing loss. Such a person must strain in conversations. They cannot simply listen in a straightforward way to the conversation; they are constantly straining and looking for cues to obtain meaning. This constant seeking of cues has an exploratory zig-zag form.

I believe the above review of all meanings of the biblical root, cheth-resh-shin, supplements Rashi who shows how meanings are concretized with specific grammatical forms.

Cardinal vs. Ordinal numbers: 1,2 vs. 1st,2nd

All languages distinguish between cardinal and ordinal numbers. Cardinal numbers, such as 1,2,3, count sets without regard to order while ordinal numbers, such as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, count sequence and ordering. 

A simple example might illustrate when each one is useful:
•	If you are running a restaurant and want to know how much of a certain food to order you are interested in the count of the item, the cardinal number of consumers. 
•	On the other hand, if you are assigning seats in the restaurant, you want to sequence the customers so that those who came earlier can be seated earlier. In such a case you use ordinal numbers.

In examining the verse descriptions of the 7 days of creation Gn-01:01-35 we find the following usages:
•	The 7th day
•	The 6th day
•	The 5th day
•	The 4th day
•	The 3rd day
•	The 2nd day
•	Day 1 (Gn01-05a)

You can see the obvious anomaly: Sunday is called Day 1 rather than the 1st day. Rashi explains that the Bible hints that Sunday, was the day, or epoch of time, when people discovered God's oneness, that there is one God. 

Philosophical Consequences

To delve more deeply into this we can visit the thesis of my articles, "Genesis One Speaks about the Creation of Prophecy not the Creation of the World", published in B'OR Hatorah, Volume 13E, published in 2002, or "Dreams: The true religion science conflict," published in CCAR, the Reform Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2012, pp 111-124 and also published by CCAR press, Jan 2012,   as part of a book, ISBN 9780881231809. These two articles may be accessed on the RashiYomi website at
•	http://www.rashiyomi.com/gen-1.htm
•	http://www.RashiYomi.Com/dreams-science.htm
 
In these two articles I show that Genesis 1 is not speaking about the creation of the physical world as is commonly believed. Rather, Genesis 1 is speaking about the creation of prophecy. For example, Heaven and Hell were created on Monday; the prophetic fire dreams, symbolized by the sun, were created on Wednesday. On Sunday, God created dreams. Dreams are called light since they illuminate the dark night. This idea is not mine; Rashi explicitly states that the light that was created on Sunday refers to "The spiritual light by which one sees from one end of the world to the other", in other words, the light of dreams.

The thesis that Genesis 1 speaks about prophecy, not physical creation, may appear bizarre. It certainly looks like Genesis 1 is speaking about physical creation.  To understand my thesis better please visit my website and read in depth the articles cited.  

Using the idea in these articles we can more fully understand Rashi's comment that Sunday was the day of God's oneness. Every person's dreams represents some aspect of God as it relates to that person. People may base their lives on important dreams which guide them as they walk through life. These important dreams become prophecy-like. As I show in my articles, ancient man did not care about the creation of the physical world but rather cared about dreams: ancient man wanted to know why certain dreams were important and determined the course of history (if you like the nature of their gods) while other dreams were inconsequential.

What happened on Sunday is that the unifying feature of all dreams, a spiritual God who was the source of light to all people irrespective of their individual needs, was understood. That is, people became aware of God vs god. gods referred to the content of their dreams on which they based their civilization and which some nations or cultures incorrectly deified; while light referred to the commonality of all dreams and to the one God that provided it. Hence, Sunday was the day of God's oneness.

Proper vs. Improper Nouns: The vs a

All languages distinguish between proper and improper nouns. 
•		A proper noun indicates a particular noun; 
•		An improper noun indicates a general category.

In examining the verse descriptions of the 7 days of creation Gn-01:01-35) we find the following usages:
•	Day one
•	2nd day
•	3rd day
•	4th day
•	5th day
•	The 6th day 

You can see the obvious anomaly: Friday is treated as a proper noun, something specific. We are given no further hints or details. Rashi argues that the day is special, and consequently is a proper noun, when it is a holiday. But we indeed have one holiday which occurs on the 6th of the month, Shavuoth. So Rashi interprets the 6th day,  a phrase that occurs in Genesis 1,discussing creation, to refer to Shavuoth.

Philosophical consequences

The following section elaborates on the consequence of this Rashi comment. This section may appear overly philosophical or speculative but it is based on the grammatical argument of the proper noun, a grammatical rule, present in every language. Therefore, because of the speculative nature of this explanation, those who wish to, may skip this section on a first reading of this Weekly Rashi digest.

First let us understand exactly what Rashi says the Biblical text is telling us. Rashi is telling us that the creation on Friday is described as follows:

 ….God said let us make the human …and God created the human(Adam)…and God  blessed them and said to them be fruitful and multiply….And God said to them: ‘Behold I give you for food all vegetation…’ And God saw all He had done: There was morning and evening on Shavuoth.

This is certainly peculiar and anomalous. How does Shavuoth fit into Genesis 1 which is talking about creation!? Rashi says nothing further. To explain Rashi I would like to suggest that Rashi is giving an entirely different meaning to Genesis 1. 

•	Genesis 1 is not speaking about the creation of the physical world; Rather 
•	Genesis 1 is speaking about the creation of human history. Genesis 1 is describing the first two thousand years of human history from Adam to the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai on the first Sivan 6th, the first Shavuoth.

Using this theme I given below how Rashi would reinterpret the six days of creation. First let me make two minor points.

Point 1: Although human history goes back one million years, human prophetic history, that is the history of humans since the first prophecy, is only 6 thousand years old. That is the first recorded prophecy we have is the prophecy of Adam in Genesis 1, the prophecy of God commanding Adam not to eat from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Point 2: I wish to emphasize the naturality of Rashi’s otherwise bizarre explanation. It is not a coincidence developed during the Talmudic period that Shavuoth happens on Sivan 6. Rather, 
•	We know explicitly from the Bible, Ex12, that Passover happened on 14 Nissan.
•	We know explicitly that the Jews arrived at Mount Sinai on 1 Sivan(Ex19-01)
•	We know explicitly from Ex19, that a dialogue happened between God, Moses and the nation which required Moses to come down or go up the mountain each time. Presumably it is reasonable to assume that each component of this dialogue took one day since Moses presumably received the prophecy at night while asleep and then went down to the people who deliberated that day with an answer before Moses returned to the mountain. Hence
•	First, God asked Moses to tell the people that He took them out of Egypt and that in exchange for listening to the commandments the Jews would become God’s treasure (Sivan 1)
•	Next, God asked Moses to tell the nation that “I am coming to you in a thick cloud ofprophecy so that the nation should listen while I talk to you and also believe in you forever”. This happened on Sivan 2.
•	The people responded to Moses' prophecies with acceptance: All that God says we will listen too and understand. This happened on Sivan 2.
•	Then God asked Moses to prepare the people for revelation by abstaining from their spouses for 3 days, and sanctifying themselves. This happened on Sivan 3.
•	The people started observing these 3 days of abstinence on Sivan 4,5 and 6.
•	We know explicitly from the Bible that on the 3rd of these days – Sivan 6 – in the morning, God appeared in a fire vision and gave Moses the Decalogue, the 10 summary commandments which form a basis and summary for the rest of the Torah. 
•	So we have explicitly that the Torah was received on Sivan 6. We know all this from explicit biblical texts and the reasonable assumption that each prophecy that Moses received took place on a separate night with Moses coming down the mountain in the morning and requesting a response from the nation.

Armed with these two points we now list Rashi’s proposed reinterpretation of the 6 days of Creation, listed in Genesis 1, as the first 6 epochs of human prophetic history.

•	Day 1: The epoch of prophecy starting with Adam

•	Day 2: The epoch of heaven and hell which were created on Monday.

Presumably this referred to such punishments as those given to Kayin, who murdered his brother Abel, or those given by the flood to the wicked generation in time of Noah.

•	Day 3: The epoch of plant life species. We need symbolism to interpret this in the context of human history. 

We know that the Bible considers plants to be symbolic of man (Dt20-19). 

We also have good reason to believe that at least one plant commandment symbolically affirms Torah values using plants: The lulav and ethrog commandment symbolizes the unity of all people, a theme of the Succoth holiday, also affirmed by the fact that we all live under the same thatched roof, exposed to the elements, and irrespective of our wealth and social position. Thus the Lulav, or palm branch, symbolizes the sturdy plant/person, the hard worker; the fragrant myrtle symbolizes the pleasant plant/person; the wilting Aravah, willow branch, symbolizes the socially worthy person; the nutritious and fragrant Ethrog fruit, symbolizes a sturdy person who is pleasant to get along with.

So the creation on Tuesday of diverse plants each with its own species would correspond to the awareness of different people each with its own distinctness, its own species.

This corresponds neatly to the explicit biblical text, at Genesis 10 and 11, discussing the formation of 70 nations that descended from Noah, each with its own species, language, and land.

•	Day 4: The day of the sun. 

This naturally corresponds to the creation of burning prophecies, the fire prophecies such as we find in Ezekiel 1. The fire prophecies seemed to have been introduced by the Patriarch Jacob who is the first in the Bible to describe people using animal symbolism, just as Ezekiel Chapter one describes fire prophecies in terms of visions of animal symbolism. 

Remarkably we have one further support for Jacob introducing the Fire Visions. Recall Joseph’s dream of the sun and moon coming and bowing down to me. Immediately, Jacob (and his other sons) interpret this as a quest for power by Joseph for his family members bowing to him (Gn37-09:11)

In fact one Midrash commens on the Biblical verse “And his father (Jacob) watched the matter (of the dream)” with the alleged comment by Jacob: If this dream was not prophetic how else could Joseph possibly know that I am nicknamed the sun because I have the right to give fire prophecies to people. According to this explicit Midrash, what was created on Wednesday was not the physical sun but the Patriarch Jacob was born, the spiritual sun of the world.

•	Day 5: 

The day of the great monsters. Presumably these were the dinosaurs. Presumably they refer to herd like nations in which everyone gets absorbed in the herd mentality and there is no individuality. This would neatly describe Egypt, a herd nation based on social position, that enslaved the Jews.

•	Day 6: The day of the animals and Adam. 

The animals would refer to people with animal fire dreams such as happened to the Jews on Sinai. Adam would refer to non-fire prophecy such as that possessed by Adam, the Patriarchs and Moses. Day 6 would thus neatly correspond to Shavuoth the holiday when all Jews had fire visions and Moses advanced to his famous grade of prophecy.

Fanciful? Perhaps! But the above explanation is based on use of the proper noun indicator. It should be taken seriously. 

There is one other Rashi to support this interpretation. Rashi symbolically interprets, Numbers 7, the symbolism of the prince gifts presented at the consecration of the wilderness Temple, the Tabernacle, to also refer to the tracing of human history from Adam, through the flood and culminating at Sinai (Rashi: Nu07-19:22)

Here is another way to look at these Rashis: Rashi is simply stating that human history from Adam until the Sinai revelation formed one unit. It is the unit of human history when prophecy began, developed and flourished until it climaxed with the Divine revelation and the giving of the Torah.  Rashi makes this point both in his commentary on Genesis 1 and his commentary on Numbers 7.

APPENDIX
THE 10 RASHI RULE CATEGORIES / THE 30 RASHI RULES
Copyright 2001, Rashiyomi Inc., Dr Hendel President, www.Rashiyomi.com/rules-01.htm
NOTE ON COPYRIGHTS:
This particular appendix, like many portions of the Rashiyomi website, are protected by a paid copyright. However, we clarify  that  the intent of Rashiyomi copyright statements is the intent expressed in the creative commons copyright statement, the full statement of which may be found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode and the human readable summary which may be found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. The basic intent is: (1) (by) any citation of Rashiyomi explanations, rules etc should acknowledge the Rashiyomi website as the author by giving its URL: http://www.Rashiyomi.com (or the specific page on the website); (2) (nc) It is prohibited for anyone to use the material on this website for commercial use, that is to derive monetary gain from it; (3) (sa)while people are encouraged to cite paragraphs of explanations from Rashiyomi in their own works, they must share their works in a similar manner under the creative commons agreement, cc by nc sa version 3.0; they must cite the urls for the Rashiyomi website and the creative commons website. In short our intention is to facilitate distribution of Torah educational material and not inhibit that distribution with monetary interests or lack of acknowledgement. For precise legal details see the URLs cited earlier. The contents of this paragraph govern all future uses of Rashiyomi material and take precedence (or clarify and explain) already existing copyrights as well as permissions given in private emails.
======================================================== 
I-REFERENCE: Dt26-05d We went down to Egypt with a few people explained by Gn46-27: with 70 people
======================================================== 
II-MEANING / Lexicography / Dictionary:  EXAMPLE (Connectives) KI means IF,PERHAPS,RATHER,BECAUSE,WHEN,THAT (Rashi on Gn18-15a Gn24-33a  ) EXAMPLE (Nuances): YDA means FAMILIAR, not KNOW (eg Dt34-10a) eg Gn04-01 Adam was FAMILIAR with his wife EXAMPLE (Idioms) ON THE FACE OF means DURING THE LIFETIME (Rashi on Nu03-04a Gn11-28a Ex20-03c Dt05-07a) EXAMPLE (Synonyms) Marchesheth means  pot; Machavath means frying pan (Lv02-05a, 07a) EXAMPLE (Hononyms) SHAMAH can mean listen, hear, understand: (Gn42-23a) They didn't appreciate that Joseph understood them (Note: They knew he was listening) EXAMPLE (Metonomy) (Lv02-11a) Don't offer ...any honey as sacrifices RASHI: honey includes any sweet fruit juice
=========================================================
III-GRAMMAR:  EXAMPLE: BA-ah means CAME;ba-AH means COMING(Gn46-26a) 
EXAMPLE: Hitpael conjugation has different rules if 1st root letter is Tzade (Gn44-16a) 
===============================================================
IV-PARALLELISM: (Ex20-04) Dont POSSESS the gods of others Dont MAKE idols RASHI: So both POSSESSion & MAKING of idols are prohibited
===============================================================
V-CONTRADICTION: (Nu04-03, Nu08-24a)Levites start Temple work at 25;  Levites start temple work at 30. RASHI: They apprentice at 25 but start actual service at 30.
==============================================================
VI-STYLE: RABBI ISHMAEL RULES: EXAMPLE: (Simple verses should be generalized): (Rashi Pesachim 6) (Dt25-04a) Dont MUZZLE an OX while THRESHING RASHI: Dont STOP any WORKING ANIMAL from eating  
==============================================================  
VII-FORMATTING:  EXAMPLE (BOLD indicated by Repetition): Ex12-09c) COOK COOK it in water (So COOKED-COOKED is understood the same way bold is understood by modern reader) RASHI: Prefered to COOK it in water; But COOK it at all costs(Even if you dont have water) EXAMPLE: (BULLETS indicated by Repeating keywords) (Ex03-11a) Who am I - THAT I should go to Pharaoh - THAT I should take the Jews out of Egypt  RASHI: Repeated word THAT creates BULLET effect - Pharoh was a difficult king (Bullet one) - Jews were not yet ready for freedom (Bullet two) EXAMPLE (Climax assumed in any Biblical list): (Dt19-11a) If a man HATES, SPIES, CONFRONTS & KILLS. RASHI: Bible identifies 4 stages to murder(indicated by capped words
==============================================================  
VIII-DATABASE: EXAMPLE: God spoke to Moses to say over introduces about 7 dozen biblical commandments; God spoke to Aaron to say over only introduces 2 commandments. RASHI: (Lv10-03b) Aaron was silent when his sons died because they served in the Temple drunk; hence he merited that the commandment prohibiting priests to work in the Temple drunk, was given to him
==============================================================  
IX-NON VERSE: EXAMPLE: (Use of Algebra)(Ex38-26b) Temple donations of silver were 100 Kikar and 1775 Shekel from 630,550 half-shekels RASHI: So one Kikar of silver = 3000 Shekel.
================================================================= 
X: SYMBOLISM: EXAMPLE: (Use of puns) (NuXX-XX) Moses made a copper snake for people to look up to when bitten by snakes (so they should pray and recover) RASHI: (Nu21-09a) The Hebrew root for copper and snake are identical (Cf. The English copperhead) Moses  made the metal snake copper colored to symbolize the snake