meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Siftei Chakhamim/Siftei Chakhamim/English/merged.txt"}
text: Siftei Chakhamim
  שפתי חכמים
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009
  -
  -Sefaria Community Translation
  -
  
  Siftei Chakhamim
  
  Genesis
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  R. Yitzchok said. Some commentators object that neither the Talmud nor the Midrash mention this statement in the name of R. Yitzchok. [The Midrash] states only what Rashi said [later]: מה טעם פתח בבראשית וכו' but states no more than that. [These commentators then explain] that R. Yitzchok was Rashi’s father and he was not a great Torah scholar. Rashi wished to honor his father by mentioning him in the beginning of his work. Thus Rashi asked his father to pose a difficulty that could be cited in his name. His father asked: למה התחיל בבראשית but did not ask מה טעם פתח בבראשית [as the Midrash does. Thus, Rashi cites the question in his father’s name.] This explanation, found in an old manuscript, is incorrect. For Rashi’s commentary on Avodah Zarah (75a) cites [a scholarly explanation of the Talmud] and says, “This is the explanation of my father, my teacher, may he rest in peace...” Thus it is clear that Rashi’s father was learned in Torah. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  The Torah should have begun... This is because the Torah was given to Israel only for the mitzvos it contains, that they should keep them. (Thus it is called Torah, connoting “instructions”). If so, all these narratives should not have been written in the Torah, but they should have been made into a separate book, like Sefer Yehoshua or Sefer Shoftim. 
  That the Israelites were commanded. The precepts of <i>milah</i> and <i>gid hanasheh</i> [although they appear prior to “This month shall be...”] are different because they were commanded only to individuals (for their sake and for all Israel’s). It is only when all Israel is commanded that it is considered among the Torah’s precepts, for it is written (<i>Devarim</i> 33:4): “The Torah that Moshe commanded <i>us</i>.” 
  What is the reason... begins with “In the beginning?” This is not a question but [the start of] the answer. Rashi is saying: The verse in Tehillim explains the reason why the Torah begins with “In the beginning.” For the verse means, “He declared the power of His works” (i.e., the Creation of the world) “to His people.” Why? Because He wanted “to give them the inheritance of nations.” It is on account of Avraham, whom Hashem promised to give Eretz Canaan to his offspring, (and the inheritance was in reward for the mitzvos, and it is considered like the mitzvos). [Thus, the Torah indeed begins with the mitzvos]. For this reason [of giving them “the inheritance of nations,”] Hashem needed to declare that the Creation of the world is the power of His works. Alternatively, we could say [that Rashi is asking]: The Book of Bereishis should have been written [at the end,] after Parshas Haazinu. Why then does the Torah begin with it? Rashi answers: Because of “He declared the power of his works, etc.” Rashi is saying that if Bereishis would be at the end of the Torah, it would not be clear that the Torah’s intention was to testify that Bnei Yisrael are not robbers. Rather, we would think that Bereishis was written to teach that the world [is Hashem’s Creation and] did not always exist; this is central to our faith, as Ramban explains. But now that the Torah <i>begins</i> with Creation, we must say that the Torahs’s intention is to testify that “He declared the power of His works....” 
  You have taken by force the lands of the Seven Nations. This implies that originally it belonged to the Seven Nations (who are descendants of Cham). But you might object: It is written in Parshas Lech Lecha (12:6): “And the Canaanites were <i>then</i> in the Land,” and Rashi there explains that the Canaanites were then conquering the Land of Israel from the descendants of Shem — as it was given to Shem when Noach divided the earth among his sons. If so, why is it robbery (when Bnei Yisrael [who are Shem’s descendants] reclaim their inheritance)? It seems the answer is: Although land cannot be acquired by theft and always remains the property of the previous owner, nonetheless, Bnei Yisrael are like robbers. For the Canaanites were considered like someone who unrightfully seizes a field and makes improvements on it — in which case when the true owners return they must pay the one who seizes the land for his expenses, assuming the improvements are of greater value than the expenses. But Bnei Yisrael took the Land of Israel with all the improvements [that were made by the Canaanites], and did not pay even for the expenses. Therefore the Torah began with “In the beginning...” to say that all the earth and its fullness belong to Hashem, Who may do with it as He wishes. For it says (Chavakuk 3:6): “He saw and <i>allowed</i> the nations,” which is interpreted to mean that [in specific cases,] Hashem allowed their property to [be taken by] Israel (Bava Kama 38a). An alternative answer: “You are robbers” because Shem had other sons as well, and they too have a portion in the Land. However, there is a difficulty [with the first answer, that the descendants of Cham should be paid their expenses. And] even if we say that R. Yitzchok held the [other] view [mentioned in the Gemara,] that the entire Land [originally] belonged [not to Shem but] to Cham, who gave it to his son Canaan, [still their claim is invalid]. For it is written (9:25), “Cursed is Canaan. He shall surely be a slave to his brethren.” Thus, [the offspring of] Cham is enslaved to Shem, and all of a slave’s acquired property belongs to his master. [So whatever Canaan says is his, automatically belongs to Bnei Yisrael who are the offspring of Shem. Why, then, are Bnei Yisrael “robbers”?] An answer is: It is written that Canaan is a slave “to his brethren,” which includes Yefes. Thus, Yefes also has a share in what Canaan acquired, [not just Shem]. (<i>Re’m</i>) Alternatively: [R. Yitzchok held that the Land originally belonged to Cham. And] a slave’s acquisitions belong to his master only when the slave acquires them from others, or seizes ownerless property — but not when the slave inherits them. And since it is by Torah law that a non-Jew inherits his father, Canaan rightfully inherited the Land from his father Cham. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Another answer: When someone gives a gift to a slave and stipulates that the master should have no rights to it, the gift does not belong to the master. And here, Hashem apportioned specific territories to Canaan, and different territories to Shem, as the Torah recounts. Therefore, it is as if there is a stipulation that each one may not have any claim to the other one’s portion. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  This verse insists that it be expounded. This is because its simple meaning seems to teach the sequence of Creation. And this cannot be, as Rashi goes on to explain: “For the word ראשית never appears in Tanach except when it is annexed to the following word.” 
  For the sake of the Torah. This is because the word ראשית cannot mean the start [of the sequence of Creation], as then it would be annexed to the following word. Thus, בראשית means “For the sake of the [ראשית, which is the] Torah and Israel.” (The ב means “for the sake of”). 
  But if you insist on the simple interpretation. I.e., if you say that בראשית is a word annexed to the following word, then you must change the past tense verb בָּרָא into the “noun” ברוא, as if it was written בְּרִיאַת (the creating of) instead of בָּרָא. Thus, בְּרוֹא itself will be annexed [to the coming words. This interpretation is possible] because we may follow the way the Torah is written and handed down without vowelization, and therefore בָּרָא can be read as בְּרֹא. 
  As if, “At the beginning of the creating.” Thus, בראשית [and what follows] will mean: At the start of the creating of heaven and earth, the situation was that the earth was unformed and desolate, and darkness. And because it was dark, Hashem said, “Let there be light.” It all leads up to: Hashem said, “Let there be light.” 
  As if to say, “At the beginning of Hashem’s speaking...” [Rashi cites this] so we will not ask: How can we say our verse means, “At the start of the creating of heaven and earth” — all leading up to the statement of “Hashem said, ‘Let there be light,’” which is the conclusion of what preceded? On the contrary: the statement of “Hashem said, ‘Let there be light’” seems to be a new and independent point, similar to: “Hashem said, ‘Let there be a canopy’” (v. 6). Thus, Rashi proves otherwise from Hoshe’a. For there we cannot say that Hoshe’a was the first man to whom Hashem spoke, as Hashem spoke to many prophets before him. [So then, what is the meaning of תחלת דבר ה' בהושע?] Perforce it means that the beginning of Hashem’s speaking to Hoshe’a was what follows: “Hashem said to Hoshe’a...” Thus, it all leads up to “Hashem said to Hoshe’a,” just like here. 
  And its interpretation is that at the beginning of everything. And as for the objection [raised earlier], that ראשית is always annexed, the answer is that it means: “At the beginning of <i>everything</i>.” Thus, it is indeed annexed to the [understood but omitted] word “everything.” 
  There are such verses that are shortened. I.e., [the Torah occasionally omits a word] where we would logically understand by ourselves that a word is missing. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  You must question yourself. Because water preceded. I.e., it is understandable if we say that the Torah is not stating the sequence of Creation. And it is not explaining when water was created, because it deals only with what was created after the heaven and earth. But if it <i>is</i> stating the sequence of creation, the question arises: Why does it not mention also the creation of water? (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  The Torah not yet having revealed... The creation of fire and of the angels was also not mentioned in the Torah, although [the angels] were created on the second day, [and the heavens were created from fire and water. If so, why does this not raise the same question? The answer is:] Water is different because the Torah mentions it in the sequence of creation: “The breath of Elohim hovered above the surface of the water” (v. 2). Thus, the time of its creation should be mentioned. 
  Thus teaching that the waters preceded the earth. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi give this answer here, and not above, where he said: “This verse does not intend to teach the sequence of creation”? The answer is: above, you could have deflected this answer, and argued that the Torah deals only with what came <i>after</i> the creation of heaven and earth. But now that Rashi is speaking of “the beginning of<i> everything</i>,” this implies that nothing was created before heaven and earth. So here Rashi says: “You must question yourself...” 
  It is not written “Adonoy created”! Rashi does not mean that it should say Adonoy without Elohim, for you would still ask: Why did the verse not say Elohim as well? Rather, Rashi means that the verse should say Adonoy as well, as it does later (2:4): “On the day when Adonoy Elohim made earth and heaven.” Rashi then continues to explain “at first He intended to create it with...” However, <i>Maharshal</i> explains [differently], that the question Rashi is answering is: If the world would be created with the attribute of justice it could not exist for even a moment! Thus, He must have created it with the attribute of mercy. If so, why did the verse not say “Adonoy”? The verse should say, “Adonoy created,” using His essential Name, for His Essence expresses mercy. But it should not say Elohim, a Name descriptive of a judge, for He did not yet judge the earth. Thus Rashi answers, “First He intended to create...” (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  This is conveyed in the verse, “On the day when Adonoy Elohim made.” Rashi might be bringing this verse also to answer the question: Why say that Hashem added the attribute of mercy because He saw that the world cannot exist with justice alone? The reason is for it is written (Tehillim 89:3), “The world will be built with kindness,” or perhaps there was a different reason. Furthermore, why did He give priority to the attribute of mercy? Rashi answers by citing the verse, “On the day when Adonoy Elohim made earth and heaven” (2:4). And why does the verse not mention heaven before earth like the first verse did, “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth”? The answer is: to show that Hashem added the attribute of mercy mainly for sake of the earth and what emerged from it, for the earth cannot stand up to the attribute of justice. Thus He gave priority to mercy over justice, so that mercy would be stronger, for the sake of the earth. The heavens, however, can stand up to the attribute of justice.
  
  Verse 2
  
  Desolation and empty space. It seems that Rashi treats ריקות וצדו as synonyms; both mean desolation. Alternatively, Rashi is saying that ריקות is biblical Hebrew and צדיא is Aramaic, both meaning desolation. And Rashi disagrees with Targum Onkelos, who translates תוהו ובהו [respectively,] as desolation and empty space. Rashi explains בהו as desolation and empty space, and תהו as astonishment, i.e., that one would be astonished by its emptiness. Thus the ו of ובהו is like a ב, for ו is interchangeable with ב, as in (Yeshayah 48:16): “אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה שְׁלָחַנִי וְרוּחוֹ,” which means, “Hashem Elohim has sent me <i>with</i> His Spirit (ברוחו).” 
  Upon the waters. Rashi is answering the question: It should say simply על תהום. Why does it say על פני תהום? It must refer to the water that is upon the earth, and is the surface (פני) of the earth. The verse continues similarly, “The breath of Elohim hovered above the <i>surface</i> of the water.” This [surface] is like [the surface] mentioned earlier regarding the darkness: “And darkness covered the <i>surface</i> of the abyss.” Another explanation is: The proof for Rashi’s comment [that the waters were upon the earth] is that prior to each of these ten Divine utterances of Creation, the subject of the utterance did not exist. Thus Hashem needed to say, “Let there be...” For example, first it is written: “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. The earth was unformed and desolate,” implying there was only the earth, with nothing upon it. Thus it says later: “Elohim said, ‘Let the earth sprout grass.’” Accordingly, when it says: “Elohim said, ‘Let there be light,’” beforehand there was only darkness [upon the earth]. But where it is written that there was darkness? It must be that when it is written, “And darkness covered the surface of the תהום,” and תהום always means water. Perforce, the waters were upon the <i>earth</i> — [and for the sake of the earth, light was created]. Rashi earlier implied that “Let there be light” connects back to the “darkness covered the surface of the abyss,” as he explained (בד"ה בראשית ברא): “At the beginning of the creation... and darkness covered the surface of the abyss... Hashem said, ‘Let there be light.’” Rashi could have quoted the entire verse, or not have quoted it at all. By quoting only, “Let there be light...” Rashi implies that the creation of light connects back to the darkness on the abyss. I.e., if not for the darkness upon it, Hashem would not have commanded that there be light. 
  The Throne of Glory. Rashi is answering the question: Why did it not say simply, “The breath hovered above...”? 
  Hovering over the surface of the waters... Rashi is answering the question: If the verse is referring to the Throne of Glory, why does it say it was hovering? It should simply say, “The breath of Elohim was above the waters.” [Thus Rashi explains that it was hovering in space.] Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why is the Throne of Glory called “the breath of Elohim”? [The answer is: It was hovering.] 
  And his word. מרחפת refers to Hashem’s word and His breath [which supported the רוח אלהים, i.e., the Throne of Glory].
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  The Aggadaic explanation is necessary. This is because the verse’s simple meaning implies that light and darkness originally were mingled, for “to divide” is said only about things that are mingled with each other. But this cannot be true here, since darkness disappears the moment there is light. The two cannot exist simultaneously. (<i>Re’m</i>) [Alternatively,] Rashi’s question was as follows: How could Hashem establish that the darkness be bounded by the night, when this division did not actually take place until the fourth day, on which it is written (v. 14): “To divide between the day and the night”? Therefore, the Aggadaic explanation is necessary. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  He saw that it was not fitting... <i>Ramban</i> objected: This makes it seem that Hashem reconsidered and changed His plan. For Hashem said, “Let there be light” and then “He saw that the light was good” and had to set it apart — implying that at first, He did not know that the light would be good. And this is far from the truth! <i>Re’m</i> deflected this objection, saying that such an idea is mentioned later as well, [regarding Generation of the Flood]: “Adonoy saw that man’s wickedness had increased... and Adonoy’s <i>thought turned</i>...” [as Rashi explains it there (6:5)]. <i>Nachalas Yaakov </i>challenged <i>Re’m</i>: Although Hashem reconsidered in v. 6:5, it is no proof for our issue, since everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven. [And there they sinned greatly, bringing about Hashem’s change of thought]. 
  He set it apart for the righteous. I.e., “good” in our verse refers to the righteous one. Thus Hashem “divided,” to set apart the righteous one, who is light, from the wicked one, who is darkness. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  In confusion. This means that one territory would have light while another has darkness. Or, it means hours: it would be day for one hour and then night for two hours, and then the opposite; that was the confusion. But it cannot mean light and darkness simultaneously, because this is impossible, as explained earlier (בד"ה צריכין לדברי אגדה). Accordingly, “Elohim divided” means that He divided their times; one to be bounded by the day, and the other, by the night. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  It should have said “the first day.” [You might ask:] Later it is written concerning the four rivers (2:11): “The name of the <i>one</i> is Pishon,” although afterwards it is written “the second” and “the third.” [Why does this not raise the same question?] The answer is: If there it would say “the first,” we might think that what is stated, “And from there it separated and became four headwaters” (2:10) means that the rivers separated off from one another successively, in four different places, rather than breaking into four headwaters at one place. For example, the second river might separate off several miles downstream from “the first” river, and so forth. Thus it says “one,” and not “first,” to prevent us from making this error. Accordingly, “second” and “third” reflects importance rather than location. 
  This is because... <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> [diverged from Rashi and] agreed with <i>Ramban</i> [that it says “one day”] because the Torah is written as if copied from a sequence of events recorded as they happened. That is why the entire Torah is [written] in the present tense. And initially, the second day was not yet in existence, so it was appropriate for the first day to be called “one” [whereas “first” is a relative term that is followed by a “second”]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Be solidified. Rashi is answering the question: [“Let there be a רקיע” implies that it was created now.] But was the שמים [which is the רקיע, see v. 8,] not already created earlier? [For it says (1:1), “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth.” Thus Rashi answers, “Be solidified.”] Although the simple interpretation of verse 1:1 is explained there by Rashi as, “At the beginning of the creating of heaven and earth,” implying that Hashem did not yet create the heavens, this does not mean that the heavens were not created on the first day. Rather, the Torah was starting to recount how heaven and earth were created on the first day. 
  “Quivered.” ירופפו means they were weak and loose.
  Astonished. יתמהו means they were startled and strengthened.
  Because the separation... Rashi’s proof is not because it is written, “בתוך the waters” and that בתוך means “in the middle.” For it is written (Shemos 15:19), “Bnei Yisrael walked on dry land בתוך the sea,” and it was not in the middle [of the sea]. Rather, the proof is from what is written: “And let it divide between waters and waters.” Since the canopy is in the midst of the waters, obviously it divides between waters and waters! It must therefore mean that the upper waters are separated from the canopy in the same manner as the lower waters are separated from the canopy. Thus, the canopy is in the middle.
  
  Verse 7
  
  He fixed it... Rashi is answering the question: Were the heavens not already created on the first day?
  Similar to, “And she made [fixed]...” I.e., ועשתה also means fixing [i.e., improving]. You might object: There (Devarim 21:12), Rashi explained that ועשתה means that she lets her nails grow in order to make herself repulsive. Thus it means [the opposite], not fixing up! The answer is: letting the nails grow indeed improves them, although it makes the woman appear repulsive. Hence, Rashi’s proof from ועשתה is valid. (<i>Re’m</i>) Another answer: By letting her nails grow, although it makes her repulsive, it will eventually improve her status — for otherwise she is prohibited to marry. (<i>Maharshal</i>) The term עשייה clearly means fixing, according to all views, as the Gemara (Yevamos 48a) proves from מפיבושת, about whom it says, ולא עשה רגליו ולא עשה שפמו (Shmuel II, 19:25). Although in that Gemara, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer disagree whether ועשתה means letting her nails grow or trimming them, the reasons for their views are explained there. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov, </i>see further elaboration there) 
  Because they are suspended in space. A question arises: Do we not learn from, “Let there be a canopy <i>in the midst</i> of the waters,” that the waters were suspended, as Rashi explained earlier? The answer is: Both phrases are needed. If it said only, “in the midst of the waters,” we would know that there is a separation between the canopy and the upper waters, but we would not know that they were suspended. Only the phrase “from above the canopy” teaches us this point. And if it said only, “from above the canopy,” we would know that the waters were suspended in space, but we would not know that there is such a big separation [between them and the canopy]. Only the phrase “in the midst” teaches us this point. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  And why does it not state... You might ask: How is this question relevant to [the waters being suspended, which is the subject] here? The answer is: We would say that the Torah omitted “It was good” when referring to the canopy since it disobeyed Hashem’s command. For Hashem said, “Let there be a canopy in <i>the midst of</i> the waters,” teaching that it should be equally distant from the upper waters and the lower waters. And we might think that the canopy did not do so, and the upper waters were right on it. Similarly, we find that the earth disobeyed Hashem’s command, as Rashi explains later (v. 11) regarding the fruit trees. But now that Rashi explains that the waters are suspended in space, we see that the canopy obeyed Hashem’s command. If so, why does it not state, “It was good”? Another answer: [We would say that] the lower waters are jealous of the upper waters which actually touch the canopy — hence it does not say, “It was good.” But now that Rashi explains that even the upper waters do not touch the canopy, the question arises: why does it not state, “It was good”? [Another answer: We would say that] the Torah omits “It was good” because the creation of the waters is not finished, since the object upon which the upper waters would rest was not yet created. But now that Rashi tells us that they are suspended in the air, the creation of the waters was apparently completed. Thus the question arises: Why does it not state about them, “It was good”? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Because the work involving the water was not completed... You might ask: Why does it not state, “It was good” on day two for the completion of the canopy, as Rashi explained earlier (v. 6) that it was fluid but solidified on the second day? The answer is: The gathering of the waters [on the third day] was a work on its own, as well as the completion of day two’s work. But the canopy’s solidification only completed the earlier work and was not a work on its own. And the phrase, “It was good” is inappropriate just for the completion of an earlier work. (<i>Re’m</i>) Another answer is: The canopy’s solidification was not a [significant] act since it did not change from its original appearance; rather, the fluid merely thickened. Thus, “It was good” is inappropriate. You might object: [If so,] why does it not state, “It was good” three times on day three? Twice as Rashi said, and a third for the completion of the earth’s work — as it is written (v. 9), “And let the dryness be seen,” as Rashi explains there [that this refers to the earth]. For the earth changed from its original appearance! The answer is: This is not called a change, for the earth remained the same — only that before it was not visible [due to the water covering it]. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Carrying of water. [This interpretation arises] because there is no difference between <i>shin </i>and <i>sin </i>when we explain the Torah as it is written [rather than how it is pronounced]. Thus, it is as if the Torah expressly wrote שָׂמָיִם. Furthermore, a <i>kamatz</i> is naturally followed by an <i>alef, </i>so it comes out שָׂא מָיִם. 
  There is water. This interpretation answers the question: How could we say that שמים means “carrying of water,” when earlier (בפסוק ו ד"ה בתוך) Rashi explained that there is a separation between the waters [and the canopy]? Thus Rashi answers that שמים also means “there is water” — i.e., the canopy does not directly carry the water. In truth, the water is there above it, and through the separation it is as if the canopy carries the water. Then Rashi answers an objection: [If so,] why does the Torah not simply write שם מים, and then the error will not arise, to say that the canopy carries the water? Rashi answers that שמים also means אש ומים, and for this reason the Torah wrote שמים, which is interpreted as שא מים — and שא is the same letters as אש. Thus, the Torah teaches that Hashem blended fire and water to make the heavens. You might object: Perhaps the only reason why the Torah wrote שמים is for the meaning of אש ומים. How do we know that it means also שם מים? The answer is: Otherwise it should have been called אש ומים. We need not ask: Why did Rashi not mention these three interpretations before, [when the Torah first wrote] שמים? The answer is: שמים is [usually] a proper noun, but here it is an adjective, for it is written, “Elohim called the canopy שמים.” That is why Rashi mentioned these interpretations here. [Alternatively,] Rashi cites all three explanations to teach that fire is not located in one place while water is in another, and to teach that they are [not merely in one place but are] mingled with each other. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  "He called seas"d. Is there not but one sea? I.e., all other seas flow from the Ocean, as it says (Koheles 1:7): “All the rivers flow into the sea...” 
  At Spain. For in Spain, the fish are better. 
  
  Verse 11
  
   is not synonymous with... Rashi is answering the question: Why did it not say: תדשא הארץ דשא מזריע זרע [omitting עשב], or תעשיב הארץ עשבים [omitting דשא]? 
  That its seed is grown within it. Rashi is answering the question: Is מזריע not a transitive verb that indicates an ongoing action?
  So that it can be resown elsewhere. Meaning, the person’s ability to sow the seed in another place is the verb’s ongoing action. 
  However, it [the earth] did not do this. <i>Maharshal</i> asked: Why did the earth disobey? The answer is: Hashem commanded it to bring forth fruit trees in a way similar to herbs, whose stalks and leaves are similar. Thus the earth understood that the fruit trees too should be this way, i.e., the wood should be edible like the fruit. But the earth reasoned as follows: Herbs have stalks and leaves that are naturally similar, yet the stalks are inedible without some preparation. However, the wood and fruit of trees are naturally dissimilar, and rightly so. Thus, even if they were to be made similar, the wood will need a lot of changing and preparation to become edible. Thus, the earth did not do this. This explains why in Hashem’s command, it says למינו once for herbs and trees together, but in the earth’s action it is written למינהו for each one separately. For when Hashem commanded the herbs and the trees to be the same, למינו applied equally to both. But when the earth disobeyed [and made them different], it is written למינהו twice. 
  It, too, was punished for its sin. [You might ask:] Rashi later comments as follows on the earth’s curse (3:17): “This is comparable to one who adopts evil ways and people curse the breasts at which he was suckled.” Does this not imply that the earth was not punished for its own sin, [but for Adam’s]? The answer is: Both sins caused the punishment. Perforce Chazal said there, “This is comparable to one who adopts evil ways...” because in that verse it says, “The soil will be cursed because of <i>you</i> [Adam],” which implies: it was not cursed for its own sin. (<i>Re’m</i>) [Furthermore,] if the earth was cursed for its sin alone, why was it not cursed immediately, but only when Adam sinned? And if it was cursed only because of Adam, the curse should be in what affects man alone, such as emitting flies and mosquitoes — not by changing the earth’s own nature, to grow thorns and thistles. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) How is the earth’s sin connected to Adam’s? It seems that the earth’s sin caused Adam to sin, as Adam ate from the esrog tree, whose wood and fruit have the same taste. This quality was unique, thus he desired to eat from it. But if the earth had not sinned, the wood and fruit of every tree would be this way, and man would not have desired the esrog tree, through which he sinned. Therefore, the earth was punished together with Adam. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  These are the kernels... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אשר זרעו בו concerning the trees, but מזריע זרע concerning the herbs? Thus Rashi explains, “These are the kernels...” meaning that new trees are grown mainly through grafting or planting a branch from another tree, [although the kernels, too, may be planted]. Thus it says here אשר זרעו בו, [omitting מזריע זרע], since the fruit’s kernels are not its [primary] means of planting. But herbs are planted only by their seeds, thus it says מזריע concerning them. (<i>Devek Tov</i>)
  
  Verse 12
  
  Though למינהו was not said... they applied a קל וחומר. [Their קל וחומר was:] Trees are large, with many large branches, and cannot stand close together. And even if they were to intermingle, their species are distinguishable from one another. Nevertheless, they must come forth each according to their kind. All the more should we herbs come forth each according to our kind. For we are small; and if we were to intermingle we would be indistinguishable from one another! 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Were created from the first day. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said first, “Let there be luminaries,” marking their creation. And then, “And the luminaries shall be in the canopy,” marking their suspension in the canopy. [Thus Rashi explains, “They were created from the first day.”]
  Was stored away... Rashi is answering the question: It is already written (v. 4): “Elohim divided the light from the darkness.”
  You need not worry. But if they follow the ways of the gentiles, they indeed should fear. 
  By the new moon. This results from the interaction of both luminaries [sun and moon], as known to astronomers. Thus the Torah connects the holidays to both. 
  A complete day. In other words, [each luminary has its own] complete day of twelve hours. 
  After 365 days. 365 days is for the solar year, while the lunar year of 354 days is included in the solar year. Since the solar year is determined by the sun’s cycle through the twelve constellations [of the zodiac], and the lunar year is determined by the moon’s interaction with the sun in each of these constellations, Rashi connects the [solar] year to both sun and moon — although in truth, the moon completes its cycle [through each constellation] in twenty-nine days and a specific number of hours. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  They serve another purpose, that they provide light. This is in addition to the purpose of, “Divide between the day and the night.” 
  For the world. Rashi explains that the sun and moon are to provide light for living beings. Thus Rashi says לעולם, rather than על הארץ as the verse does — to indicate that the light is for the people of the earth, since the earth itself does not need light. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  They were created equal. Rashi is answering the question: At first it is written, “The <i>two great</i> lights.” Why does it then say, “The <i>large</i> light... and the <i>small</i> light”? 
  Because He diminished. This explains why it is not written, “Let there be stars,” or, “And He made the stars.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  That it will have a living soul. Rashi is answering the question: Our verse implies that the waters brought forth the living creatures. But it is written further on (v. 21), “Elohim created... every living creature,” [implying that He created them directly]? Thus Rashi explains, “That it <i>will have</i> a living soul.” In other words, the waters prepared the body that will later receive the living soul given by Hashem. And this is in accordance with Rashi’s comment further on “[Elohim created]... every living creature” (ibid.), where he says, “That <i>has</i> in it a living soul,” [in the present tense]. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: [נפש חיה usually means land animals,] but those animals were created later (v. 24) from the ground. Thus Rashi explains that here it means living beings. And Rashi needed to explain this a second time (v. 21) because there it says נפש החיה with the definite article ה, implying actual animals — which cannot be true, since it is written there, “with which the <i>waters</i> teem.” And on day six (v. 24) Rashi needed to explain this a third time because there [after this phrase] it is written, “<i>And</i> beasts of the earth.” Thus, נפש חיה [that is written just before it] must mean living beings in general, and refers [also] to the creeping things. (<i>Devek Tov</i>) 
  Any living thing... Rashi reverses the order and explains נפש חיה before שרץ because the verse, too, needs be understood this way: “Let the waters teem with living creatures,” which consist of: “swarms and birds.” For so it is written later (v. 24), “Let the earth bring forth living creatures, each of its kind: animals [of pasture], creeping things...” 
  Beetles and worms. These are the worms found in refuse, and also on the ground in the summer after it rains. 
  Among [larger] creatures. I.e., among larger animals, beasts, etc. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  According to the Aggadah this refers to the Leviasan. Rashi is answering the question: Why did it specify התנינם, as opposed to any other creature? And why were they singled out among all living beings by the definite article ה? Thus Rashi explains, “According to the Aggadah...” (<i>Devek Tov</i>) 
  He killed the female. Rashi is answering the question: It is written התנינם without the י of the plural form, implying there was only one. Yet we read it as התנינים, plural. Thus Rashi explains that Hashem created them male and female, and therefore we read it in the plural form. But later He killed the female, and that is why it is written in the singular form. (<i>Devek Tov</i>) 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Because they are decimated. [Rashi knows this because] the blessing is not needed so that they can [naturally] multiply. For they are Hashem’s own creation and thus are inherently blessed [with the ability to multiply]. (<i>Re’m</i>)
  The animals also... but since the serpent... We need not ask why the animals remain numerous although Hashem did not bless them and they are constantly decimated. For the answer is: The blessings given to man also included the animals, since they reproduce in a fashion similar to man. This is preferable to <i>Re’m’s</i> answer<i> </i>that the fish’s blessing was in general, for all נפש חיה, and also included the animals, who are נפש חיה. [You might ask:] Mankind was blessed although they are not constantly decimated. Why was being created by the will of their Creator insufficient [to make them inherently blessed]? A possible answer is: Hashem knew that Adam would eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and become affected by the Snake’s impurity, thus receiving an evil inclination — causing many wars in the world. 
  Give birth to many. This means in one birth, i.e., twins. We need not ask: It could say just רְבוּ. Why say also פְּרוּ? For [the answer is:] We would not know whether רְבוּ means many offspring or great height. Similarly we find in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:9), on the verse והרביתי אתכם, which means “erect stature.” But by saying both פְּרוּ and רְבוּ, we understand that רְבו is connected to פְּרוּ, and means many offspring. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  What I have already explained... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written, “Elohim created”? Whereas “Bring forth” implies it was already created but was covered by the earth. [Thus Rashi explains, “Everything was actually created from the first day.”] But the earlier verse (v. 12), “The earth brought forth grass,” does not prove this. For there it means that the earth brought to actuality what it was commanded (v. 11): “Let the earth sprout grass.” This is so because being commanded creates a potential [which can then be brought to actuality]. But it is different in our verse, where “Let the earth bring forth” is the commandment itself, without there being a prior potential existence. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  [A soul] which is alive. On v. 20, “Let the waters teem,” Rashi explained: “It <i>will have</i> a living soul.” But here he explains differently [and says: “It <i>has</i> a living soul.” Why?] The answer seems to be: The beasts of the earth were completely created on the first day, with their living soul. For about them it is written, “Let the earth bring forth,” [but does not say, “Elohim created.”] Whereas for the fish and birds, only the ability to swarm as bodies was created on the first day, without the living soul. For about them it is written (v. 21): “And thus Elohim <i>created...</i>” [referring to their living souls]. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  According to their desire. בצביונם means according to their will, i.e., if the animal had originally been asked: “Do you want to be created like this?” it would have agreed. 
  And their full size. I.e., they were full-sized from the beginning. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written here, “And thus Elohim made...” after it is already written (v. 24), “And it was so”? [To teach that they were created as they desired, and fullsized. Similarly we may ask:] For the grass, why did it say, “The earth brought forth grass” (v. 12), after it already said, “And it was so”? To teach that the earth disobeyed, as Rashi explained there (רש"י פסוק יא ד"ה עץ). And for the luminaries, why did it say, “Elohim made” (v. 16), after it already said, “And it was so”? To teach that Hashem diminished one of them. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 26
  
  They were jealous of him. This raises a question: Are angels indeed jealous? [Apparently not] for at the Giving of the Torah, <i>Chazal</i> say [that Moshe answered the angels rhetorical-ly]: “Is there jealousy among you?” (Shabbos 89a). The answer seems to be: Angels surely are not jealous of each other. But they are jealous of man, who was granted loftiness similar to theirs, although he is formed from clay. 
  By the decree. I.e., as the angels decree and speak before Hashem, so the matter stands. Thus we see that Hashem consults the angels. 
  The attribute of humility, that... But before, Rashi explained that [Hashem consulted the angels] so they would not be jealous. [Why does Rashi explain here that it was to teach humility?] The answer is: Hashem could have ignored the angels’ jealousy. Nonetheless, He showed humility and consulted them, to remove grounds for jealousy. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Had it been written... And then, the heretics would not err. 
  In our form. This means: the form we prepared for man. It cannot mean the form of Hashem, for He has no form or image, as written in Parshas Va’es’chanan (Devarim 4:12): “But you saw no image.” Thus, בצלמנו means: in the form we made for him, just as בצלמו (v. 27) means “in the form that was made for him,” as Rashi says there. And when Rashi says later (v. 27, ד"ה בצלם), “The form that was made for man is the form of the <i>image of his Creator</i>,” it means the image that Hashem used when revealing Himself to the prophets. Furthermore, Rashi there says, “The form of the image of his Creator” only because he is explaining the double expression of בצלמו בצלם אלהים. Thus, בצלמו means the form that was made for man, while בצלם אלהים means the image of his Creator. See <i>Re’m</i>. 
  To understand and to be intellectually creative. Rashi is answering the question: [How is man in the likeness of angels, when] man has a body and the angels do not? 
  This expression וְיִרְדוּ has [the meaning of] ruling... Meaning, if we read וְיִרְדוּ it means ruling, and if we read it וְיֵרְדוּ it means descending. [Alternatively,] here it is written וירדו [with a <i>yud</i>], meaning descending, but later (v. 28) it is written ורְדו [without a <i>yud</i>], meaning domination. Here, where Hashem spoke to the angels, He minimized man, saying he is lower even than the fish, not to mention the beasts of the earth. But when Hashem spoke to man (v. 28), He boosted his pride, saying that if he will be righteous he will dominate the beasts and cattle. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 27
  
  In the form... Rashi is answering the question: It already said (v. 26), “Let us make man in our image.” Why say here also, “In his image?” (<i>Devek Tov</i>)
  
  Verse 28
  
  [וכבשה is spelled] without a vav to teach you. Accordingly, we read it וּכְבָשָׁהּ. 
  Whose way it is to subdue. This means that man, who goes out to subdue [the enemy] in war, is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Another explanation: A man subdues a woman for marital relations even if she is not desirous, but a woman cannot subdue him since he is incapable of relations if he lacks desire. This is what the verse is saying: “Be fruitful and multiply... and subdue” — referring to the one whose way it is to subdue. (<i>Tzeidah LaDerech</i>) Rashi gave two explanations [“not be a gadabout” and “whose way it is to subdue”] because the first explanation raises the question: Why is it mentioned in connection with the blessing? Thus Rashi explained, “Also to teach you...” And the second explanation raises the question: Why does the verse not say [in opposite order], “Subdue... be fruitful and multiply... and dominate”? (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 29
  
  He equates. This means that since the Torah equated them concerning food, and we know that animals may eat only vegetation, but may not eat man. For it is written above, “And [man shall] dominate the fish of the sea etc,” implying that man shall dominate them but they shall not dominate man. Thus, since man and animals are equated, [we learn that] man may eat only vegetation and may not kill an animal. It follows that man’s permission to dominate the animals refers to using them for work, not for food. (<i>Re’m</i>) See Sanhedrin 59b. 
  To kill any creature. This implies that only killing an animal is forbidden, but if it died naturally, they may eat it. You might ask: How does Rashi know [that such meat is permitted, when on the contrary, regarding man’s food] it is written: “I have given you all seed-yielding herbs...”? The answer is: They were commanded not to eat a limb from a <i>living</i> animal, as explained in Sanhedrin 56b. This proves Rashi’s point, for if an animal that died naturally is forbidden, certainly a living animal is forbidden! But if an animal that died naturally is permitted, since man did not kill it, one might think that a limb from a living animal is also permitted, if man did not sever it and the animal does not die as a result. [Thus they were commanded not to eat it.] 
  When the “sons of Noach” came... Rashi says this to prove that meat was prohibited to Adam HaRishon, for when the sons of Noach came [out of the Ark], Hashem needed to permit meat to them. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  The letter ה[=5] was added... He stipulated with them... I.e., Hashem created heaven and earth for this end [that Bnei Yisrael should accept the the Five Books of the Torah].
  Another explanation ... They all are pending ... See explanation in Avodah Zarah (3a) and Shabbos (88a).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  R. Shimon said, flesh and blood who cannot know... Rashi is answering the question: ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי implies that Hashem worked even on the seventh day, but concluded the work then. Yet it is written, “He abstained on the seventh day,” implying that He did no work at all. [Thus Rashi explains, “It <i>appears</i> as if He concluded His work on that very day.”] 
  It can enter into it. I.e., the work enters into Shabbos. 
  And it appears. I.e., it appears to people as if Hashem concluded His work on that day, but it is not really so. Thus, “Elohim completed on the seventh day” describes the appearance, not the reality.
  Another explanation: What was the world lacking? Rest. You might ask: Why cannot the world exist without [a day devoted to] rest? Will heaven and earth otherwise cease to exist? The answer is: In fact they would [cease to exist], for Rashi explained above (1:1) that בראשית means that the world was created for the Torah which is called ראשית דרכו. And without a day of rest, Jews would not have time all week to engage in Torah study. Thus Hashem created Shabbos on which work is forbidden, giving them time to study Torah. Consequently, the existence of heaven and earth is due to rest. 
  The work was completed and finished. This explains why it is written, “Elohim completed <i>on</i> the seventh day,” since rest was created on the seventh day and all the work was completed. [At the same time, “He abstained on the seventh day,”] because rest is only an act of abstaining and not actual work. (<i>Re’m</i>) Rashi’s second explanation [that the world lacked rest], raises a question: Why does it say מלאכתו אשר עשה implying that Hashem did actual work? Thus Rashi gives the first explanation. And his first explanation, [that it entered by a hairbreadth,] raises a question: Why is it not written, “Elohim completed on the <i>sixth</i> day”? Therefore Rashi gives both explanations. (<i>Maharshal</i>) [You might ask:] How can the terms “creation” and “work” apply to rest, which is only an act of abstention [passive] and does not involve a physical action? It seems [that the answer is]: Had Hashem not added the seventh day to the days of creation, the nature of man and other creatures would be to work day and night without cease. Resting would not be part of nature, and the body of man would wear out, leaving the world empty and desolate. But by adding the seventh day, on which Hashem abstained from work and rested, it became part of the world’s nature to rest and refresh oneself, regaining strength. [Thus, it is part of creation.] (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  He blessed it through the manna... but on the sixth dayou might ask: Why is this a blessing? It would be a blessing if there was more on Shabbos than during the week, yet Shabbos had only an <i>omer</i> per person like the other days. An answer is: The manna that fell each day was a blessing, for it is written, “and sanctified it,” [meaning] that Shabbos was sanctified and no manna fell then. Nonetheless it had the blessing of the manna, for the sixth day was doubly blessed. Thus, “He blessed it” means that the blessing was not interrupted on Shabbos. (<i>Re’m</i>) An additional answer is: “He blessed it through the manna” means the manna did not spoil. On other days, leftover manna would spoil by the next day, as it is written (Shemos 16:20), “Some men left some over until morning. It became wormy and putrid.” However, if people would eat only a half <i>omer</i> [on Friday], and leave an <i>omer</i> and a half for Shabbos, it would not spoil. This is Shabbos’ additional blessing. (<i>Maharshal</i>) It seems, [as an additional answer,] that the blessing [of Shabbos] was the manna’s increasing and sufficing for three meals, while the other days the manna yielded enough for only two meals. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) It is amazing that in recounting the world’s Creation, it would say “blessed” and “sanctified” just because of the short time — forty years — that the manna came down. Thus it seems that this teaching means as follows: Hashem sanctified the Shabbos as a day that we may not do anything for material needs, such as work and business, nor even walk and speak in the same manner as he does during the week. Thus, due to our evil inclination which will tell us, “What shall we eat... we will not sow, and we will not gather in our produce!” (Vayikra 25:20) the Torah first tells us: “Elohim blessed the seventh day.” I.e., Hashem doubled the blessing on the sixth day so that the day of Shabbos may then be sanctified, and no work need be done. Otherwise a person might think he will lack bread, and be unable to restrain himself in the face of monetary loss. And this blessing and sanctity was not only with the manna. But each Shabbos, Hashem proclaims: “Borrow on Me [i.e., on My credit] and I will pay” (Beitzah 16b), involving blessing and sanctity. The manna was mentioned because we saw with our own eyes its great miracle of “The one who had taken less, was not lacking” (Shemos 16:18). And since there was no one to keep Shabbos at the time of Creation, for the mitzvah had not yet been given, Rashi commented, “This verse is written with reference to the future,” meaning when the Jews will keep Shabbos, not only in the time of the manna. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  The work which was to have been done on Shabbos Rashi knows this] because לעשות implies [doing in] the future. Otherwise it should have written, “Which Elohim had created and made.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Those mentioned previously. Rashi is answering the question: Why is nothing mentioned afterwards? Thus it must refer to the previously mentioned.
  This teaches you that they were all... I.e., even the products of heaven and earth were created on the first day, as the verse states: “When they were created, on <i>the day</i> when Adonoy Elohim made.” You might ask: Earlier, on “Let there be lights” (1:14), Rashi wrote, “[All products of heaven and earth were created on the first day...] ‘with the heavens’ to include their products, ‘with the earth,’ to include its products.” [Why then does Rashi repeat it here?] The answer is: If not for this verse, I might think that the creation of heavens had its command, and each product of the heavens had its own command too — just as they each came to actuality on their own. Thus it is written here, “This is the history...” to teach that the products were created with the same command as the heavens. It is like wheat kernels sown on one day, and each kernel sprouts and emerges on its own, at its time. 
  Another explanation of בהבראם... You might ask: Why is this “Another explanation,” a differing view? The first view did not explain the word בהבראם at all, and could thus agree with this explanation! The answer is: The first view relates בהבראם to the end of the verse, “When they were created, on the day.” But the second view relates it to the beginning of the verse, “The heavens and the earth בהבראם,” implying that He created them with the letter <i>hey</i>. 
  Here it teaches you... But without this verse, we would not know which world was created with <i>hey,</i> and which with <i>yud</i>. There is a difficulty with the second view: why does it say, “On the <i>day</i> when...”? Thus Rashi brought the first view. And there is a difficulty with the first view: Why does it say בהבראם, with a <i>hey</i>? Therefore Rashi brings also the second view. That is why both explanations are needed. 
  Like the ה which is closed on all sides. See Menachos 29b for another reason.
  
  Verse 5
  
  It means ‘not yet.’ I.e., it stands in place of the two words עדיין לא. 
  And cannot form a verb. I.e., it is a noun that does not take the form of a verb. 
  This verse proves this. Because if it means “before,” it would be connected to the words יהיה and יצמח written after it [thus forming an incomplete statement], and would not explain why Hashem had not brought rain. And if it is connected to the [implied but] omitted word “this,” as if it said: “<i>Before this</i>, all the plants were upon the earth, and <i>before this</i>,<i> </i>all the vegetation sprouted,” then it does not fit with: “For Adonoy Elohim had not brought rain.” (<i>Re’m</i>)
  And another [proof]. Meaning, there is another proof for this point. 
  This verse, too, should be explained thus. <i>Re’m</i> wrote at length on this, but <i>Maharshal</i> explained that Rashi means that it is impossible to explain the verse any other way, for if we say that טרם means before, how can the future tense verb תיראון be applicable to it? 
  When man appeared. Rashi means as follows: Hashem, who surely desires the prayers of tzaddikim, knew that man would appreciate the rain — and pray for it. See Chulin 60b. 
  Adonoy is His Name. His actual Name is יהוה, as it has the letters of היה הוה ויהיה (He was, He is, and He will be), and that is His Name. An alternative explanation: It is the Name signifying His essence, whereas the other names each describe one of His traits. Rashi did not explain this earlier, when it is written (v. 4): “On the day when Adonoy Elohim made...” because there it was necessary to say “Adonoy Elohim,” as Rashi explained earlier (1:1 ד"ה ברא). 
  That He is Ruler and Judge. I.e., Elohim means that He is All-Powerful, as it says, “The powerful ones (אילי) of the land” (Melachim II, 24:15). 
  
  Verse 6
  
  For the purpose of creating. Rashi is answering the question: Earlier it is written that Hashem did not bring rain, since man had not yet been created. Why then is it written here, “A mist rose,” implying that there was rain before man was created? 
  Here, too. Why was Rashi forced to explain [that “a mist rose” is from the waters of the deep and] not from the waters on the surface of the earth which [evaporate and] feed the clouds? Because it is written: “For Adonoy Elohim had not brought rain,” referring to ordinary rain, from which come the waters on the earth. Thus, before man was created it did not rain. Yet “a mist rose” before man was created, for only afterwards it is written (v. 7), “Adonoy Elohim then formed the man.” If this mist was from ordinary rain, the verses would contradict each other. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Two creations. One creation for this world, and one creation for when the dead will be resurrected. This apparently means that Hashem now gives man the vitality to come back to life after death, as Hashem wills it. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  He gathered dust... [Rashi knows this] because if not, why does it say, “<i>Dust</i> from the <i>ground?</i>” One term is sufficient! But this explanation raises a difficulty: It should say, “From <i>all</i> the earth.” Thus Rashi offers the other explanation. And the other explanation also raises a difficulty: It should say: “מֵאדמה”. Why the word מִן? Thus Rashi offered the first explanation, “From all four corners.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Will receive him for burial. This raises a difficulty: Animals are received for burial, although their dust was never gathered! Rather, Rashi is saying that the earth receives and guards man’s body within it until the dead will be resurrected (<i>Devek Tov</i>). 
  If this were not so, there would be jealousy... This is from Vayikra Rabba. One might ask: Rest on Shabbos was created for earthly matter. Why then is there no jealousy in Creation? The answer: Rest is mainly for man, who is created from heavenly and earthly matter. Thus there is no jealousy. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  East of Eden. This explanation is contrary to Targum Onkelos who translates מקדם as “previously.” [Rashi rejects this] because a simple reading of the verse implies that vegetation and trees did not sprout in Gan Eden, or anywhere else, before man’s creation. Rashi added the extra words “where He planted the Garden” so we will not mistakenly explain the verse as: “To the east He placed the man He had formed.” 
  Should you ask. Although the question’s proper place is earlier (v. 7), on “Adonoy Elohim then formed the man,” Rashi waited to ask it until after he explained that Hashem “planted a garden in Eden מקדם, to the east.” Thus this verse describes one of the details of man’s creation, and thereby in accordance with Rashi’s answer to the above question, in which he says, “Hashem... caused the Garden of Eden to sprout for man’s benefit.” But if מקדם means “previously” [as Onkelos said,] then the Garden’s sprouting was not for man — and is not a detail of his creation. This would raise the question: Why does our verse interrupt [the story of man’s creation] to say, “Hashem planted a garden,” since He had planted it previously? Perforce, מקדם means “to the east,” as Rashi said. (<i>Re’m</i>) Alternatively, we can explain it the opposite way: If מקדם means “previously,” as Targum Onkelos says, then it is understandable that there it is written, “Hashem planted a garden [for him,]” right next to “Hashem formed man.” For this is in accordance with the Midrash: “וייצר with two <i>yuds</i> referring to two creations: One creation for this world and one creation for the World to Come.” I.e., man was created for the pleasures of the World to Come <i>and</i> for the pleasures of this world. Without the Midrash a difficulty arises: Why did He plant a garden in Eden <i>previously,</i> if not for man’s pleasures? But now that Rashi explains מקדם means “to the east,” it teaches only about the location of man’s residence, not about the pleasures of this world. And we could say the opposite, Heaven forbid, that He created man [only] to enjoy the pleasures of this world. And the question arises: Why is “Hashem planted a garden” written next to “Hashem formed man,” and not next to the earlier verse (1:27) “Hashem created man”? To answer this question, Rashi explains: “I saw in the B’rayso of R. Eliezer...” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  This verse relates to the Garden. [Rashi knows this] because if it relates to the entire earth, why did Hashem not initially command the earth to bring forth “every tree that is pleasant... and good”? 
  In the center of the Garden. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it written “בתוך הגן”? It is already written: “Hashem made grow out of the soil every tree,” which refers to the Garden. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Because its waters are bountiful. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is the Nile, why is it not called by its wellknown name, the river of Egypt? We could erroneously think it is another river, and a land other than Egypt! Rashi answers: “Because its waters are bountiful... it is called Pishon.” I.e., it is called Pishon because this name conveys the river’s praise. And this raises the question: Why does the Torah tell us of this river’s greatness more than it tells of the other rivers’ greatness through their names? Thus Rashi explains that also the other rivers’ praise is conveyed by their names: “Gichon is so called because it flows and roars...” This explains why Rashi first comments on the names of [<i>all</i>] the rivers, and only then comments on, “To the east of Ashur,” which is not according to the order appearing in the Torah. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  But the Torah writes [these names]... Why did Rashi not say about Pishon, regarding which it is written (v. 11), “It surrounds all the land of Chavilah,” [that the name Chavilah is based on the future]? For a man named Chavilah is mentioned [twice] in Parshas Noach (10:7, 29). The answer is: Here, Chavilah is simply the name of a territory, not named after a person. [Rashi knows this] because Pishon flows in the land of Egypt, so how could it be named after the man Chavilah [who was from a different place]? Furthermore, since it is written ארץ החוילה, with a modifying ה it must merely be the name of a territory. And this answers the question that people ask: How does Rashi know that Kush and Ashur are based on the future? Perhaps they are simply names of territories, just like Chavilah. The answer is: If so, when they are mentioned, their names should begin with a ה, like החוילה is written. 
  On the eastern side of Ashur. Rashi is saying that קדמת is like קדמה (to the east), since we often find a ת is written in place of a ה. But here it is written קדמת because it is connected to the word [following] אשור. And since it really means קדמה, it has the same meaning as if it had written לקדם, for the Torah places a ה at the end of a word that would otherwise take a ל at the beginning. Thus it has the same meaning as if it would have been written, “<i>to</i> the east of Ashur.” 
  The most important... Rashi derived this from the fact that it is written הוא פרת. Although the word הוא is written about all the rivers, [for example] הוא הסובב, nevertheless, only for P’ras is the word הוא written next to the river’s name. (Regarding P’ras, the Torah does not say “it surrounds” or give any identifying sign. Why is P’ras different, that it needs no sign? Because of the importance of the Land of Israel!) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  He “took” him with kind words. Rashi is answering the question: The word לקיחה implies [an act of acquisition,] that before the taking it was not in the taker’s possession. But everything is in Hashem’s possession! 
  And persuaded him to enter. Why did Rashi not explain this earlier (v. 8), on: “And there He placed (וישם) the man?” It seems the answer is: [The import of the earlier verse] is closer to the simple meaning of its words, “placed (וישם),” [thus no difficulty arises]. But the term “took” (לקיחה), in our verse, is a term that relates only to inanimate objects or animals who naturally do not possess any intellect, whereas man’s essence is his knowledge and intellect, not his physical self. “Took” cannot be applied to knowledge, because it is not a physical object. Thus [Rashi was forced here to say that it means] inducing — i.e., inducing the mind to a different thought, similar to physically “taking” and moving an object from one location to another. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  If he is not worthy, then opposite him. Rashi is answering the question: At first it is written “a helper.” Why then is it written כנגדו, implying she is against him, to fight him?
  
  Verse 19
  
  Also, it teaches you... This explanation [“On the day they were created...”] seems to apply only to the animals and beasts, which were created on the sixth day, [like man was]. But it does not apply to fowl which was created on the fifth day. Thus Rashi brought also the first explanation, “That the fowl were created from the swamps.” And the second explanation is to teach about the animals and beasts. 
  You must transpose [the words]... Rashi not only inverted the verse but also added “a name” after “Adam” and “forever” after “its name.” For without the addition of “a name,” the verse would not mean that Adam called them names. Rather it would mean “he called to it,” as in (Shemos 2:20): “Call him, and let him eat bread.” Then, the phrase of “that is its name” would not be understandable, for it cannot say “that is its name” before Adam gives it a name — since he was the one who named them. And without inverting the verse, it would seem as if Adam gave the name “living creature” to everything. That is untrue, for even without him giving it this name it was already called a “living creature.” This is because the term “living creature” includes animals, beasts and fowl. Furthermore, how could it say (v. 20): “And man gave <i>names</i> to every animal,” when there is only the name of “living creature”? (<i>R’em</i>) 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  From his sides. מסטריו means from his sides.
  This [coincides with what] we said that they were created with two faces. I.e., this is true if we explain צלעותיו as “his sides.” But according to the simple meaning of the verse, צלעותיו are ribs. 
  The place of the cut. <i>Re’m</i> writes: This follows the opinion (Eiruvin 18a) that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail. Thus nothing was missing from his body [and only the place of the cut needed to be closed]. Whereas according to the opinion that they were first created with two faces, ויסגר בשר תחתנה follows its simple meaning: Hashem filled in the missing flesh. But I would say that even according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, nothing was missing from Adam’s body. Adam and Chavah were two faces with [full] bodies, attached at the side, and only the place of the cut was missing. One might object that the above Gemara implies that ויסגר בשר תחתנה follows its simple meaning according to the opinion that they were created with two faces. Only according to the opinion that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail, does it mean “the place of the cut.” The answer is: Even according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, they were slightly fastened, [so a little flesh needed to be filled in]. (<i>Maharshal</i>) The verse reads simply according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, for Adam was left without a back and his whole body cavity was open. Thus it says that Hashem “closed,” as one closes an open house or an open chest. But according to the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail, the verse reads with more difficulty — thus Rashi continued to explain that according to this opinion, it means “the place of the cut.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  So that he not see. This is from Bereishis Rabba 17:6 and Sanhedrin 39a, where Rashi explains [that “And he slept . . . and He took” was in order] that Adam should not see the piece of flesh before it was perfected. And there it is clear that this explanation follows the opinion that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail. Thus, [contrary to the order of the verse,] Rashi on this verse first explains “the place of the cut” — which also follows the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail. This was to convey that also his comment of, “So that he not see the piece of flesh” is according to the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail. <i>Re’m, </i>too,<i> </i>offered this explanation. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 22
  
  So that it should become a woman. Rashi is answering the question: Does ויבן את הצלע לאשה not imply that He built the rib <i>for</i> the woman, to be used for something, rather than implying that He formed the woman from the rib? Thus Rashi explains [that the ל of לאשה means] “<i>to become</i> a woman.” Similarly in the verse Rashi cites, “And Gidon made it to an ephod” (Shoftim 8:27), it does not mean that Gidon made the material into something to be used for the ephod. Rather, he made the material into an ephod. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  This teaches. בא אדם על כל בהמה וחיה does not mean intimate relations, for this expression is only a hint, while the matter itself is expressed in (4:1): “The man knew his wife, Chavah.” (<i>Maharam</i>) Another answer: It means that Adam grasped with his intellect the nature of each animal and beast, for if he did not know their nature he could not have named them. Some commentators, [understanding Rashi literally,] ask: How could Adam have intimate relations with the animals? He was commanded against illicit relations, and that includes relations with animals! However, this question is asked by the ill-informed. In Sanhedrin 38b it says that at the seventh hour Chavah was given to Adam as a mate, and at the ninth hour were they were commanded by Hashem. Thus, the command was given <i>after</i> pairing Chavah [with Adam]. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) Another proof that Adam sought a mate amongst the animals is that it says: “This at last is <i>bone of my bones</i>,” implying that in previous times it was not “bone of my bones.” Rashi explains quite similarly in Yevamos 63a. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  From this [we derive]... The proof is that איש and אשה have the same root. In no other language is there an etymological reason for her being called אשה. This is because only in the Holy Tongue is the word for woman derived from the word for man.
  
  Verse 24
  
  The Divine Spirit. Rashi knows this because Adam could not have said it. Adam had no father, mother or children at that time, so what brought him to say it? 
  Prohibiting to the “sons of Noach.” As it says, “He shall cling to his wife,” and not to his fellow’s wife. The prohibition on illicit relations is derived from this verse, as if it said: “Therefore, a man shall leave his father’s wife and his mother and he may not have relations with them.” (<i>Re’m</i>) You might ask: What difference does it make that the Divine Spirit said it? [The answer is:] So you will not think that the verse is stating that this is the nature of things [and it is not a commandment]. For if so, it should say עוזב (“leaves”) rather than יעזוב (“shall leave”). (<i>Maharshal</i>) The implication of “therefore” could be explained as follows: Since I did a great kindness for Adam by forming the woman for him, [it is only right that I may make] a condition: that Adam refrain from engaging in forbidden relations. Similarly, Hashem says to Israel (Shemos 20:2): “I, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt,” implying that I brought you out on condition: that you fulfill the mitzvos. (<i>Nachalas</i> <i>Yaakov</i>) 
  The child is formed. In other words, the verse prohibits relations with animals, who do not form a child after relations with humans. (<i>Re’m</i>) It seems that according to Rashi, the verse is giving a reason for the forbidden relations: so that there be no illicit children. True, such relations are forbidden even with women too young or old to give birth, and with animals who do not conceive from humans. Nevertheless, the prohibition becomes more noticeable and visible when it produces an illicit child, a wrong that cannot be corrected. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  They did not... It means that they did not know of modest conduct at all. Not from lack of wisdom, but because they did not need to know, for they had no evil inclination. (<i>Tzeidah</i> <i>L’Derech</i>)  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Why is this incident inserted here? <i>Re’m</i> asks: How does Rashi know that the coats were made right at Adam and Chavah’s creation, to protect from cold and heat, giving rise to the question: “Why is this incident inserted here?” Perhaps the coats were made only after they sinned by eating from the tree, to cover their shame of being naked! This way, the verses are in proper sequence [and Rashi’s question does not arise]. It seems that Rashi knew it because it is written (v. 20), “The man called his wife’s name Chavah,” and subsequently, (v. 21) “And Hashem Elokim made for Adam and his wife leather coats.” Rashi explains that this verse “And man gave names...,” returns to the earlier narrative. As the naming of Chavah was before the sin, and is connected to “And Hashem made... leather coats,” we can conclude that right at their creation Hashem made them coats [to protect from cold and heat]. Thus, the coats were not made to cover their shame after they sinned. An alternative answer is: [Rashi knew it] because it is written, “Hashem made... leather coats and <i>He</i> clothed them.” Why, because they sinned, would Hashem have to clothe them Himself?! They should clothe themselves, just as they made for themselves loincloths. It should have written, “Hashem made... leather coats <i>for clothing</i>.” Perforce, Hashem made them coats right at their creation to protect from cold and heat. <i>Re’m</i> asks: [If they had coats from the beginning,] why were they “naked” (v. 25)? The answer is: According to the opinion (Bereishis Rabba 20:12) that כתנות עור means fingernail-like garments, smooth [and transparent], which cleaved to their skin, they were as naked. Although it was attached to their skin, their entire body was revealed, including the loins. And even according to the opinion (ibid) that the garments were of rabbit fur, to protect from cold and heat, still they were naked — for Adam was created in Tishrei (according to Rabbi Eliezer), or in Nisan (according to Rabbi Yehoshua), when it is neither cold nor hot; [thus they were not dressed.] They were not embarrassed to be naked since they did not yet eat from the tree. The serpent “saw them unclothed, indulging in marital relations unashamedly, and he coveted her.” We need not ask: If so, why did they take fig leaves to make loincloths? They should have worn the coats! [The answer is:] Indeed they could have. But just then the coats were not available to them and they did not want to stand naked for even a moment. In any case, this point [of when the garments were created] seems to be disputed. For it says in Pesachim 54a: “Ten things were created at twilight on Erev Shabbos... and some say: ‘Also Adam’s garments.’” The second view holds that the garments were created <i>after</i> they sinned, for they sinned in the tenth hour of the day, which is before twilight. But the first view could hold that the garments were created before the sin. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Indulging in marital relations. You might ask: Where does the verse allude to marital relations? The answer is: The verse could just say, “The two of them were naked.” Why does it add, “The man and his wife”? This implies that besides being naked, they acted as man and wife. (<i>Ab’a</i>) 
  More cunning... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “More... than any”? Because being “More cunning than any” led to becoming “More cursed than any.” 
  Did He perhaps tell. [Rashi explained אף as “perhaps”] because it cannot mean “even more so,” coming as it does at the beginning of the serpent’s statement. 
  And, although he saw them... The Torah does not recount [that he saw them eat], but it must be so: otherwise, what did they eat? (<i>Re’m</i>) But this is no proof — perhaps they ate herbs and legumes! Rather, Rashi knows [that he saw them eat] because the serpent said, “You should not eat from <i>all</i> the trees of the Garden?” If he saw that they were eating only herbs and legumes, he should have said simply, “You should not eat from the <i>trees</i> of the Garden?” Since he said “<i>all</i> the trees,” he must have seen them eating other fruits. But he saw them eating sporadically: they would eat figs but not grapes, and then eat from another nearby tree. Since he saw them eating some fruits and leaving others, there was room for his question: Are you doing this out of choice, because the other fruits are not as good, or is it because Hashem commanded you not to eat from all the trees of the Garden — and therefore you eat only some of them?
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  He pushed her... If it were not so, why did she believe him when he said, “You certainly will not die,” and not contradict him? 
  So. too, there is no death in eating. This [the serpent’s argument] is puzzling: she might still die, for Hashem said, “On the <i>day</i> you eat from it you will certainly die,” and there is plenty of time left in the day! Another question: If [she thought] they would die for touching, then it goes without saying for eating. For one cannot eat without touching. If so, why does she [mention both and] say, “You shall not <i>eat</i> from it, neither shall you <i>touch</i> it”? It seems the answer is: [She thought that] for eating from it they would die, and for touching it they would fall sick immediately, and then grow more sick until they would die on that same day. When she saw that she did not fall sick from touching it, [she thought that] she surely would not die either. Some ask: What did the serpent prove by making her touch the tree and not die? In truth she was forbidden only on eating, not on touching, and she knew this herself! Why was she not afraid for her life [to eat]? Furthermore, why did she add to Hashem’s command? The answer is: The command was made to Adam, not to Chavah. But when Adam taught it to Chavah he warned her not to touch it either, for he knew that women are light-minded. Whereas she thought that Hashem actually forbade touching. Although Rashi says that <i>she</i> added, and in fact she added nothing to what Adam had told her in Hashem’s Name, nonetheless she should not have replied to the serpent more than what he asked her. [And in this way, she added.] He asked only about eating, not about touching! So when she saw that she did not die from touching — which she should have, according to her understanding of her husband’s command — she took of its fruit as well and ate. And some ask further: How does touching prove that for eating [she will not die]? She was forced to touch, since he pushed her. But she will eat willingly! The answer is: She thought that the tree was like a deadly poison. Anyone who eats from it will die, similar to the Tree of Life whose very fruit bestows life. Thus she said, “Neither shall you touch it.” She considered it like a very potent poison which, as is known, can be lethal upon touch. So the serpent pushed her and told her, “Just as there is no death in touching...” (<i>source unknown</i>) There is a famous question: Why did Chavah fool herself? She knew that she herself added the prohibition against touching, and that is why she did not die! The answer is: Chavah understood that Hashem’s prohibition against eating also included touching. This is similar to the verse (Vayikra 12:4), “She shall not <i>touch</i> anything holy,” which means, “She shall not <i>eat</i>...” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Every craftsman... Rashi is answering the question: On the contrary, why did Hashem not feed them the fruit so they will become wise and know of good and evil? Rashi answers: “Every craftsman resents his fellowcraftsman.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  She “saw”... Rashi is answering the question: What did she see now that she did not see before, as she did not yet eat from the tree? [The answer is: Here,] “seeing” means “contemplating.” 
  To be... You might ask: Why does Rashi not interpret [the phrases of our verse] in the same order that the serpent spoke to her? First he said, “Your eyes will open,” and then, “To be like a god.” The answer is: Since in the second phrase it is clearly written: “Tempting to the <i>eyes,</i>” this must refer to: “Your <i>eyes</i> will open.” And “Appealing as a means of <i>wisdom</i>” clearly refers to: “<i>Knowers</i> of good and evil.” Perforce, “The tree was good for food” refers to, “To be like a god.” 
  So that she will not die... Rashi knows this because it is written, “with her”. 
  Comes to include animal and beast. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why was death imposed upon the animals? But her intention was not that they should die. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Refers to wisdom... I.e., the wisdom is that of knowing. Now they <i>knew</i> what they had lost — the mitzvah of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge. (<i>Re’m</i>) It seems that this is referring to the wisdom of distinguishing between good and evil, as Rashi wrote earlier (2:25) that although Adam had the wisdom to give names, he did not have an evil inclination [and could not distinguish between good and evil] until he ate from the tree. When Rashi says, “As evidenced by the end of the verse,” he means that it does not say, “And they <i>saw</i> they were naked,” rather, “they <i>knew</i>.” I.e., they acquired knowledge. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  That is the tree... Rashi knows this because it is written: “<i>Fig</i> leaves,” when the Torah could simply have written: “They sewed together leaves...” Rashi is also answering the question: Why did Adam take leaves from the tree he sinned with? He should have taken them from a different tree, so people will not know with which tree he sinned! For it is wrong to publicize the way in which one sinned, as it says in Berachos 34b: “It is impudent to publicize one’s sin.” Rashi answers: “The other trees prevented them...” 
  Why is the name of the tree not... Rashi means: Since it is written, “They sewed together <i>fig</i> leaves,” in order to tell us with what he sinned, why does it not state expressly which tree it was? Why only allude to it? 
  
  Verse 8
  
  As He was walking. [The verse says only מתהלך but] Rashi added the word היה before it, since otherwise it is present tense, [whereas past tense is called for]. And Rashi added also a ש, שהיה, since מתהלך calls for a ש. (<i>Re’m</i>) The reason [that Hashem was walking through the Garden] is: Hashem did not want to punish him hastily, but after deliberation, as it says in Avos 1:1, “Be slow and deliberate in judgment.” (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  He knew... that he not be bewildered. In other words, Hashem wanted him to say, “I have sinned,” and repent in his heart. For Hashem wants [the wicked] to repent, not that they die. You might ask: Here Rashi says that Hashem spoke to Bilam for a similar reason. So why does Rashi explain in Parshas Balak that Hashem’s intent was to mislead him? The answer is: There as well, Hashem wished to enter into conversation, but [with a different intent:] He increased His speech with Bilam and said, “Who are these people with you?” to mislead him. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  From where... You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain as he did earlier (v. 7), that [“naked’ means that] Adam was stripped of the command? The answer is: Hashem’s question, “Who told you that you are naked?” related to Adam’s statement of, “I was afraid because I was naked.” Adam’s nakedness caused his fear. And he could not mean “stripped of the command,” [i.e., that the command was no longer relevant to him,] since a man who has no command need not fear. A man must fulfill only what he is commanded, and will not be punished for transgressing what he has not been commanded! And if Adam was afraid because he transgressed his [original] command, he should have said clearly: “I was afraid because I transgressed the command.” Thus Rashi explains it here as the shame of being unclothed. Another answer is: The verse cannot mean, “Who told you that you are stripped of the command?” since Adam obviously was aware that he had transgressed. (<i>Re’m</i>) I heard a different explanation. The verse should be read: “Who told you, ‘Are you naked?’” In other words, Hashem is saying: I did not ask why you are naked, so why do you answer Me about more than what I had asked? When I said, “Where are you?” I was only asking whether you sinned by eating from the tree! (<i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>) 
  With wonder. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Adam should have simply answered, “Yes” to Hashem’s question. But since the question expressed wonder and astonishment, Adam responded to this by saying, “The woman... gave me of the tree and I ate.” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  From here. You might ask: Why cannot every מסית exonerate himself with this claim? The answer is: The serpent was not forbidden to entice others to sin. He was punished only because of the sin that the <i>others</i> committed, due to him. Thus he could answer, “The words of the master...” But a מסית who is forbidden by the Torah to entice others to sin is transgressing Hashem’s command. This helps to answer <i>Re’m’s</i> question. (<i>From my father’s manuscript. And Maharshal is quoted as saying the same.</i>) You might ask: [Why was the serpent called a מסית?] It is stated in Sanhedrin 67a that a מסית is only someone who incites to idolatry! The answer is: The serpent said to Chavah, “You will become as gods,” — this is idolatry. (<i>Chizkuni</i>) 
  If he was cursed more than the animal... [The curse refers to] the length of the serpent’s gestation period, that it be longer than the gestation period of domesticated animals. The gestation period of domesticated animals is longer than the gestation period of wild beasts. 
  The gestation period of a snake [lasts] seven years. The calculation is as follows: The gestation period of a [wild] cat is fifty-two days, and that of a [domesticated] donkey is one year. Thus, animals are cursed seven times more than beasts [7 x 52 days = 364 days.] Thus the snake, was cursed seven times more than animals, and has a gestation period of seven years. But “From all the beasts” cannot mean more than a lion or viper, whose gestation is three years and seventy years, for if so the Torah should have written: “From all the beasts,” and not mention, “From all the animals.” [Since it mentions both, it means as explained.] (<i>Re’m</i>)
  He had legs... For if he never had legs, why is crawling on his belly a curse? (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Your intention... You might ask: Why was the serpent not concerned that Chavah would eat first, as he gave to her first? The answer is: The way of women is to honor their husbands by giving to them first, so the serpent reasoned that Chavah would do so — and once she sees him die, she will not eat! Alternatively, the serpent thought he would stop her from eating. Another answer: The serpent reasoned that Adam, who was commanded not to eat from the tree, would die. But the woman was not commanded, and would not die even if she ate. For it was to Adam that Hashem said: “But from the Tree of Knowledge... you shall not eat.” 
  And you would marry Chavah. [Rashi knows this] because “I will put hostility” implies that Hashem was punishing the serpent for loving her.
  You will be unable to... We could say that Rashi is answering the question: Hashem cursed man separately. So why is man’s curse mixed here with the serpent’s curse? Rashi answers: It is entirely the serpent’s curse and disgrace, as it conveys that the serpent will be unable to stand upright. But <i>Re’m</i> explains that [Rashi is answering the question:] Why is, “And you [the serpent] shall strike him...” mentioned in the serpent’s curse? It is no curse! [Rashi answers that it conveys, “You will be unable to stand upright.”] And this point cannot be learned from, “On your belly you shall crawl,” since that teaches merely that his legs were cut off — but if he wanted to stand upright, perhaps he could. Thus the Torah says: “You shall strike him on the heel,” [to convey that he cannot stand upright]. 
  But, even from there... Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “He shall strike you on the head, and you shall strike him on the heel,” implying that the only difference between man and snake is where they strike. What about the other difference? The man kills the snake but the snake does not kill the man! Therefore Rashi explains, “Even from there you will kill him.” (<i>Re’m</i>) Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “He shall strike you on the head,” i.e., a blow which surely kills. And then it is written, “You shall strike him on the heel,” using the same word. But if the snake strikes the man’s heel, he will not die. Why does the same word connote death here, but not there? Thus Rashi explains, “Even from there you will kill him.” 
  The form נשיפה is used. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say expressly, “You shall bite him (תשכנו)”? (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) But <i>Re’m</i> explains: ישופך is an expression that connotes crushing [a blow] to the [snake’s] head. However, תשופנו is an expression that connotes the hissing of a snake. Nevertheless, for the sake of eloquence, the Torah often equates words [that sound alike] even though their meanings differ. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  The pain of rearing children. Why was she cursed first with the pain of rearing children and then with the pain of pregnancy, which is chronologically out of sequence? Because at that time, they [already] had children, as it says in Sanhedrin 38b: “Two people entered the bed, and four left it.” And it says (4:1), “The man knew his wife,” on which Rashi comments: “This had already occurred before the previous narrative.” (See <i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  You will not have the audacity... Although the Gemara calls this a praiseworthy trait for women, we could say that this means she is praiseworthy for not transgressing Hashem’s command, as she was cursed by Hashem not to demand relations. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  All will come from him and not from you. Why does Rashi explain at such length, when he already said, “You will not have the audacity...”? It is to say that <i>all</i> depends on the husband. If she does not want [relations] and he does, he can compel her. But if he does not want and she does, she cannot compel him. Thus Rashi explained: “All [the initiative] will come from him and not from you.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  Comparable to one who adopts... The text of Rashi should read: “<i>A second explanation</i>: This is comparable to one who adopts evil ways...” [This correction must be made] because the first view holds that the curse was on <i>man</i>, by means of the soil, whereas the analogy conveys that the curse was on the <i>soil</i>, since man was created from it. A question arises: Here Rashi says that the earth was cursed because of [man’s sin], but earlier (1:11) Rashi said that it was because the earth disobeyed Hashem’s command. The answer is: Both sins caused the earth to be cursed. (If for its own sin alone, the earth would be cursed to give one-third of its regular produce. But [the curse of] thorns and thistles were for both their sins.) (<i>Devek Tov</i>)
  
  Verse 18
  
  Kundes and thistles. The <i>Aruch</i> explains that these are bitter vegetables which are prepared [i.e., made edible] by stewing. And <i>kundes</i> is called <i>kardi</i>. 
  Which require special preparation to be eaten. Rashi says this because afterwards it says, “And you will eat the herbs of the field.” I.e., you will have to subsist on these, since whatever seeds you sow, only these will sprout. Thus we must say that these are edible after preparation. The verse cannot not mean thorns and thistles exclusively, for it is written afterwards, “And you will eat the <i>herbs</i> of the field.” [How are there herbs,] if only thorns and thistles<i> </i>sprout? 
  Does it not state in his blessing... In the blessing it is written (1:29): “I have given you all seed-yielding herbs,” which are food for man. But here it says, “You will eat the herbs<i> of the field</i>.” I.e., even if you sow your garden with legumes and vegetables — food for man — it will sprout for you herbs of the field which are animal fodder. And you will be forced to eat them. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  After you will toil... It does not mean that you will eat bread mixed with sweat.
  
  Verse 20
  
  A play on the word חיה [alive]. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he not name her חיה? Thus he explained, “A play on the word...” 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Smooth. חלקים is from the same root as חלוק, robe. In other words, cloaks of fingernail-like material cleaving to their skin.
  
  Verse 22
  
  He is unique in the terrestrial as I am unique in the celestial. <i>Re’m</i> raised a difficulty with this, but it seems that Rashi is saying: Hashem is unique in heaven, for His knowledge includes all: intellect, knowledge (to distinguish between true and false), and knowledge of good and evil (to distinguish between proper and improper). So too with man on earth: his intellect, coming from heaven, enables him to distinguish between true and false, and by eating from the Tree of Knowledge enables him to distinguish between proper and improper. But animals and beasts, although they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, cannot distinguish between right and wrong — only between beneficial and harmful, as they flee from harm and pursue what is beneficial. Thus, man is unique on earth as Hashem is in heaven, for the angels cannot distinguish between right and wrong, only between true and false. Therefore, Adam “must be prevented from reaching out his hand,” as he is “likely to lead people astray after him.” 
  If he would live forever... [You might ask:] Once Adam was given a mate why would people claim that he is a god, according to what Rashi explained on (2:18), “It is not good for the man to be alone”? The answer is: If he had no mate, people would err on their own. But with a mate, he could still mislead people, since he has the knowledge of good and evil and lives forever. (<i>Nachalas</i> <i>Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  To the east of Gan Eden. The מ of מקדם causes it to mean “to the eastern side.” Thus it means, “To the east of Gan Eden.” And “Outside the Garden” means that the Cherubim themselves were outside the Garden. If they were inside the Garden, on its eastern side, man could enter the Garden until he came close to them. Since they were outside of the Garden, he could not enter at all. 
  Which had sharpness, to frighten him. להט means a shiny appearance. Since this appearance cannot exist without a sword, Rashi says, “The rotating sword” — which had להט. As if it stated, “A rotating sword which has a להט appearance when it rotates.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  This... before he sinned. Rashi is answering the question: It should have been written וַיֵדַע [rather than יָדַע].
  Children were born to him. Rashi used the expression “children were born to him” rather than “he knew his wife” because otherwise Rashi would be implying that Adam knew her only after he was exiled, not before. [And this is not true,] for earlier, on the verse of “This at last is bone of my bones...” (2:23), Rashi says: “Adam attempted to find a mate amongst all the animals... until he discovered Chavah.” This implies that Adam had relations with Chavah at that point. This answers another question: How does Rashi know that Adam’s “knowing his wife” before he was exiled included conception and birth as well? Perhaps it was referring only to relations. The answer is: “This at last is bone of my bones...” already taught us that Adam had relations. Thus, the verse “The man knew his wife...” perforce [includes conception and birth]. 
  With Hashem. This comment is out of sequence, because Rashi did not wish to state that the word את “implies additional facts or things” before he explained את ה', [which is understood differently]. Once he explained that את ה' means “with Hashem,” rather than “implying additional facts or things,” he can then state: “The word את is repeated thrice, to expound additional facts or things.” (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  We are co-partners with Him. For there are three partners in [the formation of] a person: Hashem, the person’s father, and the person’s mother. (<i>Nidah</i> 31a) 
  Consequently, it says: “And she increased.” In other words, it means, that “she increased an את.” This is because two instances of את imply two additional children. This fully explains why the word ותוסף is written. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Because the earth was cursed... Rashi is answering the question: Why was Hevel a shepherd? Since they were not allowed to slaughter any creature, what benefit could be derived from this? [This is not true,] for he could benefit from the butter, cheese, milk and wool, which were permitted to them. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  From the worstashi is answering the question: Why did the Torah not write, “From the first fruits of the soil,” as it writes for Hevel: “From the firstborn of his flock, from the best thereof.” 
  That it was linseedHow does Rashi know this?] Because it is the answer to the question: Why does it say, “<i>Fruit</i> of the <i>soil</i>?” It should say either “From the soil,” [i.e., a vegetable], or “Fruit of the tree.” [The answer is:] Kayin brought a “fruit” that was like [a vegetable of] the soil. For it says in Berachos 40a that if a plant that does not produce fruit from its branch a second time, it is called [a vegetable of] the soil. And flax plants do not produce fruit from their stalks a second time. Yet flax is also called a tree, as it says (Yehoshua 2:6), “And she hid them with the stalks of <i>flax trees</i>.” Thus, “<i>Fruit</i> of the <i>soil</i>” must refer to linseed, which is of the soil, yet called a tree. (<i>Maharshal</i>) An Aggadah explains that “the worst” refers to linseed, as it says in Bava Basra 92a: “One who sells fruit to his friend and it did not sprout, <i>even</i> if it was linseed...” The Gemara did not mention any seed [other than linseed as the example], because it is the most inferior of foods. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 4
  
  And he turned... Do not turn (אל ישעו). Many are puzzled by this, as Rashi himself says in Parshas Shemos 5:9 that the אל ישעו written there does not mean “Do not turn,” [rather, “Do not talk”], and is unlike לא שעה written here! It seems the answer is: לא שעה, [whose basic meaning is “to disregard”], is an expression [that can connote disregard] in a broad sense and in a limited sense. There are two ways of [disregarding a] matter: 1. To not even to speak of it. 2. To speak as one wishes but refrain from action. This answers the question. For in Shemos, אל ישעו also means “to disregard.” But Pharaoh did not mean in the narrow sense, refraining only from action, as לא שעה means here. That is why the Torah writes there בדברי שקר, rather than אל דברי שקר, as Rashi points out there — to indicate that אל ישעו בדברי שקר means even in speech. Therefore it is fine that Rashi here explains the אל ישעו of Shemos as disregarding, for that indeed is what it means, [but in the broad sense]. Rashi in Shemos is saying that אל ישעו cannot mean the same as the וישע אל הבל of Bereishis — which was in action alone. That is why there, Rashi was careful to say that אל ישעו means, “Let them not... even talk,” to convey that even talking is included. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  A fire descended and consumed his gift-offering. Rashi is answering the question: How did Hevel know that Hashem paid regard to him? The answer is: “A fire descended...”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Your grave. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “At the opening?” [The judgment of] being sentenced to Gehinom has no “opening”! Thus Rashi explains, [it refers to] “The opening of your grave,” i.e., the pain of being put in the grave.
  
  Verse 8
  
  He engaged him in argument and dispute. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse not explain what Kayin said? It must be that “he engaged him in argument...” (<i>Devek</i> <i>Tov</i>) In Bereishis Rabbah (22:7) it explains that Kayin the soilworker would argue that the soil belongs to him, thus Hevel the shepherd had no place in the world. Kayin would not allow him to graze his flocks. This caused a dispute. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  So that he may repent... Why did Rashi not say the same regarding Adam? The answer is: By hiding himself, Adam admitted that he had sinned. Thus Rashi could not say, “He may repent and say: ‘I sinned.’” Another answer: Adam was a great tzaddik, as he was created by Hashem Himself. Surely he will admit his sin! Not so concerning Kayin. Therefore, Hashem had to “engage him in conversation so that he may repent...” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  He became a deceiver... Kayin thought that Hashem is not All-Knowing; otherwise he would not have tried to deny [that he had sinned].
  
  Verse 10
  
  For he did not know... This is from Sanhedrin 37b, which goes on to say: “Until he reached his neck.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Even more... This refers to the ground’s sin of bringing forth [inedible] trees bearing fruit; when Adam was cursed, so too was the ground. It does not refer to the ground’s sin of opening its mouth. For about that sin it cannot be said, “You are cursed more than the curse of the ground,” as the ground had not yet been cursed for it. 
  It continued to sin. Rashi apparently holds that the term פצתה means to open extra wide, which was the [ground’s] sin, as Tosafos says (Sanhedrin 37b ד"ה מיום): “It left no trace [of Hevel’s blood] at all.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) <i>Re’m</i> asks: Here, it was considered bad for the ground to open its mouth. So why does it say in Sanhedrin 37b: “From the day the ground opened to accept Hevel’s blood it has not opened [again] for the good”? This implies that opening its mouth was good! However, I do not understand what the question is. Surely it was good for Kayin that Hevel’s blood be covered, but for Hevel it was bad [that the ground opened and covered his blood] because as long as Hevel’s blood remains visible, his death would be avenged — as was the case with the blood of Zechariah the prophet (see Gittin 57b). (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  An incredulous question. This is a question, although it lacks the ה which would indicate this. It cannot be a statement, with Kayin saying that his sin is unforgivable and more than he can bear, for Kayin would then be magnifying his sin. How could he then [contest his punishment and] say, “Behold, today You have banished me...” if he already admitted that his sin is deserving of it? (<i>Re’m</i>) Question: What does Hashem’s bearing of the worlds have to do with His bearing of Kayin’s sin? It seems the answer is: Kayin is saying that earthly creatures surely sin, as it says (8:21), “For the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Why did You, Hashem, create them? It must be that repentance can rectify their sins. If so, “You cannot manage to bear my sin?” (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  “And you cannot manage to bear my sin?” This may be understood according to (Tehillim 130:4): “Forgiveness is with You, in order that You be feared.” “Forgiveness is with You” — nothing stops You [from forgiving sin]. “In order that You be feared” — [this forgiveness increases fear of Hashem]. But a human king cannot grant pardon beyond the rules of protocol. Thus a transgressor [against him] thinks, “I am surely lost!” and therefore he will continue to sin more. [However, Hashem’s forgiveness holds man back from further sin.] Accordingly, Kayin said: “You bear the worlds. Everything is Yours and no one holds You back [from forgiving]. Why can You not bear my sin? People will say that You are unable to forgive beyond the rules of protocol, Heaven forbid!” (<i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>, citing <i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  “I do not wish... I will take my vengeance. The sevenfold vengeance is not referring to the killer of Kayin. For Lemech killed Kayin — and revenge was not taken on him to be killed after seven generations! Rather, “Whoever kills Kayin...” serves as a threat [that no creature injure Kayin], while “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold” refers to Kayin’s own punishment. Thus, Hevel’s revenge from Kayin will come only after seven generations. This is seen from the end of the verse, “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold,” that it pertains to Kayin and not to Kayin’s killer. (<i>Re’m</i>) Another reason why this verse cannot mean that sevenfold revenge will be taken on Kayin’s killer: why should Kayin’s killer be different from other killers, to have his punishment delayed seven generations? Perforce, “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold” is a separate point — that Hashem will take revenge from Kayin after seven generations, [due to Kayin’s claim, “You cannot manage to bear my sin?”] Consequently, “This is one of those verses in which words are brief...” 
  The verse speaks by hinting. It means that here, the verse speaks by hinting, but in another place it is spelled out: He who kills these, “He shall be a leader and general.” 
  And the blind. The “blind” and the “lame” were idolatrous images. The “lame” corresponded to Yaakov [who limped on his thigh], and the “blind” corresponded to Yitzchak [whose eyes dimmed]. Upon these idols was written the oath Avraham swore to Avimelech that they would not wage war against one another. However, in David’s time the oath had been voided. 
  He inscribed a letter from His Name. It means a letter from Kayin’s name, the letter ת, which hints: “With this, תחיה (you shall live).” I.e., none shall kill him. [ת is a letter from Kayin’s name because his mother named him (4:1): “I have obtained (קניתי) a man with Adonoy”]. Alternatively, it means a letter from Hashem’s Name, the letter ה, which hints: “Therefore, whoever kills (הורג) Kayin...” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  He exited with humility... a deceiver... Rashi knows this because the Torah uses the term ויצא (exited), which means leaving an enclosed area, instead of וילך (went). But Kayin ‘exited’ from the Presence of Hashem, for Whom there is no enclosed area, as the whole earth is filled with His Glory! [Thus it hints, “He exited with humility.”] 
  Which indicates that Adam was there... For if not, why were the angels in the east and not elsewhere? 
  An alternative explanation of בארץ נוד. But the verse cannot mean only this explanation, for otherwise, why does it say: “East of Eden”? Thus we need the first explanation, “That is where his father was exiled.” And the verse cannot mean only that explanation, for otherwise, why does it say: “In the land of Nod,” instead of, “In the territory”? [Thus Rashi offered both explanations.] (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Kayin was building. Rashi is explaining that Kayin is the one who “was building a city,” not Chanoch although his name is mentioned immediately before. Otherwise, why would it say: “He named the city after his son Chanoch”?
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  It would not be necessary to detail... It could have just said: “Mesushael had a son Lemech, and Lemech had a son Yuval.” Why is it written, “Lemech married two women”? 
  The one intended for conjugal relations. She was given a potion that would make her barren so she would not lose her beauty. You might ask: If so, why does it say, “Tzillah also gave birth”? The answer is: She gave birth before she drank the potion. Another answer: It says, “Tzillah also gave birth,” to teach that even though she took the potion she gave birth anyway, as the potion did not affect her at all. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 20
  
  He was the first one. I.e., “father” means that he was the “first” to dwell in tents and to breed cattle. Rashi says “in the wilderness” since Yaval was different from Hevel who shepherded in a settled area. [In the wilderness] it requires great mastery of the craft. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Sharpens the tools [used for working]. I.e., the verse should be understood by rearranging its order, as if it said: לוטש וחורש כל כלי נחושת וברזל. Rashi adds the phrase “all tools of crafts,” to imply “tools of crafts” such as those for plowing, cutting and the like, which are sharpened and polished (לטישה).
  She was Noah’s wife. You might ask: How did Rashi know this? The answer is: She is called Naamah (נעמה) because her deeds were pleasant (נעימה) and she behaved modestly. If so, why would she perish in the Flood and not be saved like Noah was? Perforce she was Noah’s wife, and was thus saved from the Flood. Another answer: Rashi’s proof is the fact that this woman is mentioned where other women are not. And why is this? Because Naamah [was Noah’s wife and she] had three brothers: Yaval, Yuval and Tuval Kayin. And Tuval Kayin was wicked; as Rashi previously explained that he produced weapons for murderers. But Yaval was righteous, dwelling in tents, according to Rashi’s first explanation. Also Yuval was righteous [according to this explanation]. Thus two brothers were righteous, and one was wicked. Noah also had three sons: Shem, Cham and Yefes. Shem and Yefes were righteous, as Rashi explains in Parshas Noah (9:23). And one son was wicked, as is seen there. Accordingly, one should not ask why two [of Noah’s sons] were righteous and one wicked. For Rashi already explained that Naamah was Noah’s wife — and children are usually like the mother’s brothers.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  His wives separated from him once they fulfilled... because it had been decreed. This phrase [“once they fulfilled...”] is not found in our text of Bereishis Rabbah. It seems that Rashi added this phrase on his own, to explain why they gave birth until now: they wished to fulfill the mitzvah of “Be fruitful and multiply.” See <i>Re’m.</i> (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  And sweep everything away. I.e., everyone will die. You might ask: At first Rashi said they separated from Lemech because of the decree on the descendents of Kayin. Why does he say here that it was because of the Flood? The answer is: His wives knew the Flood would come in the days of Lemech. They mistakenly thought it would be in the days of [their husband] Lemech son of Mesushael, a descendent of Kayin. But it was [later,] in the days of [a different] Lemech, the son of Mesushelach [a descendent of Sheis]. 
  This is an absurd <i>kal vachomer.</i> But according to [Rashi’s first explanation,] Midrash R. Tanchuma, the <i>kal vachomer</i> is not absurd since it does not contradict Kayin’s punishment; it applies only to Lemech’s [unintentional] sin. (<i>Re’m</i>) You might ask: What was Lemech’s reasoning [when he put forth his absurd argument]? The answer is that he thought as follows: Kayin killed intentionally and should have been killed immediately, as it says (9:6), “Whoever sheds the blood of man, through man shall his blood be shed.” Yet with his prayer, he held back the decree for seven generations. I, who killed unintentionally, can surely hold back the decree with prayer. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 25
  
  Lemech came... You do what you have been commanded... A difficulty arises: According to the first explanation [brought by Rashi above], that Lemech’s wives separated from him because he killed someone, what did Adam answer them? The answer is: Adam said to them, “Just because Lemech transgressed once, by killing, should he transgress further, and refrain from ‘Be fruitful and multiply’? [By way of metaphor,] if someone ate garlic [and has unpleasant breath, should he therefore eat more garlic]?” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  His desire for her was greater. Originally he had desire only when he saw Chavah, but now his desire was greater and he had a burning desire even when he did not see her. How does Rashi know this? Because the Torah should have instead said: “His wife conceived again.” That way, “again” would refer to her curse, the pain of pregnancy. Why does the Torah write “again” regarding “Adam knew his wife”? Obviously [he knew her, for] she could not conceive without relations. Perforce, it teaches “that his desire for her was greater...” Another answer: [Rashi knows this because] עוד is written only when the second action is close to the first. It implies actions in close succession, such as with Leah it is written (29:33): “And she conceived עוד,” meaning right after the first birth. But here, since Adam separated from his wife for 130 years, it should not say עוד, but simply, “Adam knew his wife.” Or, it should be called a second marriage, as with Amram who separated from his wife, and it is written (Shemos 2:1) that he “went and married.” So it seems to me. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  That on the same day that he was created he begot. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “This is the book of the generations of man on the day...” implying that on the day he was created he had offspring. Accordingly, “On the day,” is attached to “generations of man,” rather than to “He made him in the likeness of Hashem” which follows. For otherwise, why does it say, “On the day Elohim created?” The Torah should have simply written, “The generations of man, in the image of Hashem He made them,” and that would suffice. Perforce, “This is the book of the generations of man” refers back to (4:1), “The man knew his wife, Chavah” and she gave birth to Kayin and Hevel. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Until now he had separated from his wife. Rashi is answering the question: On the day he was created he had children. If so, why did he not have [more] children until now, [one hundred and thirty years later]? 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  He could easily be induced to turn... Rashi is explaining: Since it is written, “Chanoch walked with Elohim,” we see he was righteous. So why did he die before his time? [The answer is] because “he could easily be induced...”
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  From whom the world was built up. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say בן here, and not for other descendants? It simply should have written ויולד את נח. Perforce, בן connotes בנין (building). 
  
  Verse 29
  
  He will give us rest. Bereishis Rabbah says: Was Lemech a prophet, that [when Noach was born] he knew about this? R. Shimon ben Yehotzedek said: Noach was born circumcised. For when Hashem cursed the earth, Adam said to Him: O Master of the World! Until when? Hashem told him: Until you beget a circumcised person. Once Noach was born circumcised, they said: He will give us rest! (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  If you do not explain it this way then the meaning of the term is not... I.e., if you explain ינחמנו as “he will comfort us,” then its meaning is not related to the name Noach — and the verse says that Lemech named his son Noach because of ינחמנו. For נח [means “rest” and] does not mean “comfort,” so you would have to call him Menachem for the meaning to match the name. And the verse does not say יניח ממנו את מעשינו [although it is closer to “Noach”] because then it would mean that they rested from the work of their hands, and that did not yet happen. They still needed to plow, sow and thresh. Therefore it says that Noach “will bring us rest from... the <i>anguish</i> of our hands,” as he prepared plowing tools for them which they did not have as yet. Why did Rashi not explain, “From <i>our work</i> and the anguish of our hands,” following the order of the verse, but rather put “the anguish of our hands” first? The answer is: “Anguish” refers to the earth’s curse to produce thorns and thistles. And as soon as Noach was born, that curse stopped. But Noach did not make the plow until he grew up. Thus Rashi mentioned “anguish” first, indicating that the verse as well should be understood this way. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  I would have to burden him to build many arks. Maharam Yafeh objected: On the contrary, if they would be righteous, together with their wives they would be more than ten and would protect the world, and no arks would be needed! For Rashi explains in Parshas Vayera (18:32) that Avraham did not pray [for Sedom to be saved] for less than ten tzaddikim, since [he knew that] the generation of the Flood had eight tzaddikim, and it did not save their generation. This implies that ten tzaddikim would save their generation. The answer is: Ten tzaddikim would not save the <i>whole</i> generation from the Flood; they would save their city only. Consequently, “I would have to burden him to build many arks” for all the inhabitants of their city, as the Flood would still come and wipe out the rest of the world. (<i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>) 
  Of punishable age. You might ask: Rashi already explained what would happen if Noach would have children before the age of five hundred, why was that explanation not sufficient? The answer is: It still needed to be explained what Noach gained by waiting, for if his children would be wicked they too would be destroyed! Thus the second reason is needed, that Noach’s children would not be of punishable age, thus Noach’s merit can save them even if they would be wicked. But all the other people who were not of punishable age were destroyed nonetheless, since they had no [saving] merit. Thus, only one ark was needed. For Noach’s children were not considered righteous just because they were below punishable age — only in Noach’s merit were they saved, which is why Noach did not build a separate ark for each of them. 
  And so it was before the Torah was given. This raises a difficulty: Later, in Parshas Chayei Sarah (23:1), Rashi explains: “When Sarah was one hundred years old, she was like a twenty year old regarding sin.” This implies that from the age of twenty, she was already at a punishable age. Furthermore, Yaakov and his sons did not live to be one hundred and fifty. How could it be that for two thirds of their lives, they were not of punishable age? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov, </i>see further explanation there) 
  First you must discuss... Question: [If so,] why is Yefes not mentioned after Shem, [as he too was righteous]? The answer is: The Torah did not wish to change [the order] too much. Since Shem and Cham were born one after the other, it did not interrupt between them. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  When they improved (מטיבין) her appearance. This is similar to the expression מטיבין את הנרות. It means this because טֹבֹת conveys that they just now became fair, similar to ועפרון ישֵׁב (23:10), conveying that Ephron just now sat. Furthermore, טבת without a <i>vav</i> is a singular expression, implying that not all women were fair, only individual women — the beautified brides. But if it were written טובות, a plural expression, it would imply that the women were always fair, i.e., beautified. 
  Even a man or an animal. [Rashi knows this] because it says נשים מכל אשר בחרו. The word נשים implies “even a married woman,” while אשר בחרו implies “even a man or an animal.” (<i>Re’m</i>) <i>Re’m</i> asks: It says in Kiddushin 13a that they did not commit adultery. [Why then does Rashi say, “even a married woman”?] <i>Nachalas Yaakov </i>answers: It seems that only the sons of rulers committed adultery, not the common people, because נשים מכל אשר בחרו refers back to: “The sons of the rulers saw.” That is why Rashi says, “The head ruler would then enter and have relations....” However, <i>Re’m</i> suggests that these might be two conflicting opinions. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Due to manAccordingly,] the ב of באדם is similar to (29:20): “So Yaakov worked for Rochel (ברחל),” which means “due to Rochel.” 
  For a long time. You might ask: Why cannot לעולם mean literally, forever? The answer is: Then the verse would imply that Hashem’s spirit will not contend forever, only for a long time. But, afterward it is written, “His days shall be one hundred and twenty years”! This implies that right away, Hashem [tentatively] decreed upon them [to perish after one hundred and twenty years, if they do not repent]. Thus Rashi explains לעולם as “For a long time.” Accordingly, it means that His spirit will not contend for a long time. Rather, [He will tentatively decree upon them] right away. 
  Whether to destroy or to show mercyhis implies that Hashem did not yet decide <i>definitely</i> to destroy them. But why did Rashi not say that לא ידון רוחי means, “I will not wait anymore for man”? Furthermore, how does Rashi know [that it means Hashem’s spirit was undecided]? The answer is: Otherwise it would imply that Hashem already decided definitely to destroy. And this is not so, for only later it is written (v. 7): “I will obliterate mankind,” and that is the first Divine utterance [on this matter]. But beforehand He did not decide [definitely] to destroy. 
  With a segol. I.e., if the <i>shin </i>has a <i>segol</i> it becomes an expression of גם. Similarly, שַקמתי (Shoftim 5:7) is like שֶקמתי, and שַאתה (ibid 6:17) is like שֶאתה. Rashi added the words זאת בו because otherwise the verse implies another [creature] of flesh, and “also” man is of flesh. But there is no other [creature spoken of here]. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  So called because they “fell.” I.e., they were killed. 
  And caused the downfall of the world. I.e., their descendants copied their evil deeds and were killed as well [in the Flood of Noach]. Rashi is saying that the giants in the days of Enosh and the sons of Kayin were killed (“fell from the world”) when the ocean rose upon them. 
  In Hebrew it means giants. I.e., נפילים is an adjective, conveying that their great might caused people to fall. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  In the days of Enosh and sons of Kayin. It seems that the primary explanation [of בני האלהים is “angels”, see Rashi on v. 2. This] is how Rashi explains נפילים in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 13:33), where he says they were “giants, descended from Shamchazai and Azael, who fell from heaven in the generation of Enosh.” Accordingly, when Rashi says the giants “fell from the world,” it means from the <i>upper</i> world, i.e., heaven. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Though they saw... Meaning, even afterward they were wicked and sinful. Some ask: [How can Rashi say, “Though they saw...?] In Parshas Eikev, on “And you will perish quickly” (Devarim 11:17), Rashi explains that the generation of the Flood had no one to learn from! (<i>Nachalas Yaakov, </i>see further explanation there) 
  Giants like them. Rashi is explaining why there were giants in the generation of the Flood as well. Although the [original] giants were wiped out when the ocean flooded upon them, the בני אלהים came to the daughters of man and they gave birth to giants like them. 
  On account of their destruction for they were wiped out. מחויאל is from נימוחו, meaning “wiped out.” מתושאל is from הותשו, meaning “torn out.” [Rashi knows that אנשי השם means על שם אבדן] because ordinarily it means “men of renown,” whereas these people were wicked. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  He would have caused them to rebel. Man caused the animals and beasts to rebel, as they all became perverted [see Rashi on v. 7]. Had man been in heaven, he would have caused the heavenly beings to rebel as well!
  The man. In His heart. Of Hashem. [Rashi explains as he does] because otherwise ויתעצב contradicts what is written before: וינחם, which means, “Hashem was comforted.” Rashi is saying that ויתעצב means [not “grieved” but] “loathsome”, i.e., man became loathsome in the heart of Hashem, [and He decided] to destroy him. <i>Maharshal </i>explains: Since it says that Hashem was comforted, ויתעצב must refer to man. Thus Rashi explains that man was ויתעצב to Hashem. But according to Rashi’s alternate explanation, that Hashem’s thought turned from Divine Mercy to Divine Justice, ויתעצב refers to Hashem [i.e., He mourned]. 
  What to do with man. Rashi is saying that originally, Hashem did not intend to do anything with man. But now He intended to investigate what do to with him. Rashi does not mean that He now decided to do evil, and decreed the Flood. This cannot be, because only afterwards it is written (v. 7), “Adonoy said, ‘I will obliterate mankind,’” and that is His first utterance [on this matter]. “I will obliterate mankind” does not come to explain the turning of Hashem’s thought, i.e., that it turned from Mercy to Justice. For if so, v. 7 should say: “And <i>He</i> said, ‘I will obliterate mankind.’” Why does it say, “<i>Adonoy</i> said, ‘I will obliterate...’”? Clearly, it is the beginning of His utterance. Since it is the beginning, this implies that [in this verse,] He had not yet passed judgment on man. Rather, He was investigating what to do with man. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  I rejoiced and made everyone joyful. Meaning, I rejoiced myself and also made others joyful. 
  So it is with acts of Hashem. Question: How could the Rabbi compare the acts of Hashem to the acts of flesh and blood? The answer is: This was only to deflect the heretic’s challenge. But in truth, Hashem’s reason was “For the sake of the righteous...” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  For the sake of the righteous. This [is an alternative explanation, and] means to say: “<i>Furthermore</i>, for the sake of the righteous...” Otherwise the parable does not fit the message. For no benefit came from the son; it was a case of, “At the time of joy let there be joy.” But benefit does come from the wicked, since the righteous descend from them. Perforce, Rashi means to say, “Furthermore...” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 7
  
  They, too, perverted. This raises a question: Why did the verse not [equate them and] write, “Man and beast”? Thus Rashi offered the alternate explanation, which raises another question: Why did the verse not [make the beasts secondary and] say: “Man, and beast as well”? Thus Rashi offered the first explanation [as both are needed]. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Since it mentions him, it tells of his praiseworthiness. The <i>Re’m </i>writes that Scripture repeats Noach’s progeny here, though it already mentioned it in the last Parshah, to tell us that he fathered only these — he did not have more children later, who were unworthy of entering the ark. But the <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> disagrees, since Rashi explained above (5:32) that Noach did not begin to have children until age 500 so they would still be young at the time of the Flood and thus be saved <i>even</i> if they were wicked. Rather, the Torah mentions his progeny again here to tell us that they were righteous. For it says here אלה תולדות, [rather than ואלה], thereby disqualifying what preceeded: the generation of the Flood. [See Rashi on ואלה המשפטים, Shemos 21:1.] In other words, Noach’s progeny are called תולדות but those of the generation of the Flood do not deserve to be called תולדות. 
  That the main progeny of the righteous... It seems that Rashi means as follows. It is written, “These are the progeny of Noach,” and then it explains, “Noach was a righteous man,” thus we see that good deeds are also called progeny. And it first states, “Noach was a righteous man,” and only afterwards, “Noach fathered three sons,” thus we see that good deeds are the <i>main</i> progeny. 
  There are others who infer from it to his discredit. Question: How can they infer his discredit, if he was righteous? The answer is: They derive it from, “Noach walked <i>with</i> Elokim,” which Rashi explains [to mean, “Noach required support to uphold him”]. But those who infer his praise interpret “with Elokim” differently, as follows. It is written about Avraham, “Elokim, <i>before</i> whom I walked,” implying that Avraham was not with Hashem all the time. He was busy with people, drawing them to Hashem. But Noach was not busy with the people of his generation since they were completely wicked. Thus it is written, “Noach walked <i>with</i> Elokim.” I.e., he was busy with nothing else but with Hashem. (<i>Maharshal</i>) Alternatively, those who infer “praise” are answering the question: Why did it not say בדורו [singular]? It is because בדורותיו [plural] implies that in all the ten generations from Adam until Noach, Noach was the righteous and flawless man. But those who infer “discredit” explain it as follows: Relative to the deeds of these generations, [he was righteous]. But had he lived in the generation of Avraham... Alternatively, those who infer “praise” explain “in his generations” to refer to the ten generations from Adam until Noach. And those who infer “discredit” explain it to refer to the ten generations from Noach until Avraham — but had he lived in the generation of Avraham... (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Both views agree that Noach was righteous only as compared to his generation, not completely righteous. For had he lived in a righteous generation, [all agree that] he surely would have been more righteous. These views differ only over the interpretation of “In his generations.” One holds that it comes to praise him: even in those wicked generations, where he could have learned from their wickedness, he remained righteous — and surely had he lived in a righteous generation. And the other view holds as explained earlier. All agree that in a righteous generation, his present level of righteousness would have been considered insignificant. And all agree that had he been in a righteous generation, he in fact would have been more righteous. For growing up among the righteous is not like growing up among the wicked. [You might ask:] Why does one infer “praise” and the other infer “discredit,” if there is no clear proof either way? [The answer is:] The one who infers “praise” holds that בדורותיו refers to היה, which immediately precedes it. Thus the verse is telling us that in his wicked generations, he remained righteous — certainly had he lived in a righteous generation. And the one who infers “discredit” holds that בדורותיו refers back to צדיק. Thus the verse is saying, “He was righteous in his generations” — relative to his generations. This is undoubtedly to his discredit. (<i>Re’m</i>) One might ask: If the Torah (7:8) does not even mention an impure animal’s discredit [see Bava Basra 123a], why does one view infer a tzaddik’s discredit from our verse? The answer is: The verse implies the [wicked] generation’s discredit, not Noach’s. It is saying that in this generation, even a tzaddik like Noach required Hashem’s support, unlike Avraham [in his generation]. Clearly, it was an inferior generation. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  Concerning Avraham it says: [“Elokim,] before whom I walked.” According to Rashi, “Noach walked with Elokim” implies that Noach walked with Hashem alone. Noach separated himself from people since they were all wicked and he feared he would learn from their wicked deeds. For Noach was not so righteous and he needed support, so he “walked with Elokim,” i.e., where there was only Hashem. But Avraham’s righteousness was strong on his own, as he was completely righteous. He went among the wicked to reprove them and convert them, and he did not fear that he might learn from their [wicked] deeds. Thus [Rashi says] he did not need support. 
  Past tense. It is in the התפעל conjugation.
  In the כבד form. I.e., since the ל of התהלך has a <i>dagesh</i>, it is a כבד form. 
  The vav at the beginning changes it to the future. I.e., without the <i>vav</i> in והתפלל, it also would be past tense. But I was taught that Rashi is referring to the <i>vav</i> of ובא. For if it would say בא והתפלל then perforce it would be past tense [in spite of the <i>vav, </i>and would mean, “He came <i>and</i> prayed”], similar to פעל ועשה and יצר וברא. But since it says ובא, this changes it to the future. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Lewdness and idolatry. I.e., since either one could be described as ותשחת, the verse means both. 
  Robbery. [Rashi is explaining that] חמסן is different from the Rabbinic term חמסן, which refers to someone who pays [for what he forcibly takes]. But the Scriptural term חמסן includes outright robbery. See Bava Kama 62a. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Consorted with dissimilar species. Rashi knows this because it is written דרכו, which implies lewdness, as it is written (Mishlei 30:19): “The דרך (way) of a man with a young woman.” Rashi did not mention fish because it is written, “On the <i>earth</i>” — excluding fish in the sea.
  
  Verse 13
  
  Upheaval comes upon the world. Not that upheaval will definitely come; but if death <i>is</i> decreed upon them, it is of this type. 
  The good and the bad. I.e., <i>normally</i> it kills bad and good alike. But here, it did not kill the good along with the bad. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Only because of robbery. You might ask: Did Rashi not say before that upheaval comes upon the world because of lewdness, implying that they died because of lewdness? The answer is: Both sins played a part. For just robbery, only the wicked people’s fate would be sealed. And for just lewdness, no one’s fate would be sealed. But now since both sins were present, fate was sealed for the wicked and the good alike. We are forced to make this distinction because otherwise the verses are in contradiction. For first it says, “For all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth,” and then it is written, “Elohim said to Noach: ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me.’” This implies that the Flood was due to lewdness. But then it is written, “For the earth is filled with violent crime” — implying that the Flood was due to robbery. Perforce, it means as explained. This answers another question: If “The earth was corrupt” means lewdness <i>and</i> idolatry, as Rashi said before, why does Scripture go on to mention only lewdness but not idolatry? For it is written, “For all flesh had corrupted its way,” which means lewdness, as Rashi himself explained. [The answer is:] There was no death penalty for idolatry [alone. Furthermore, it alone] would not kill the good and the wicked alike. [Thus idolatry was not mentioned, since it did not change the decree]. Furthermore, each stole his fellow’s wife, an act that involves both robbery and lewdness. So their fate was in fact sealed for both. The <i>Maharshal</i> asks: Why did Rashi (v. 11) not mention robbery together with lewdness and idolatry? The answer is: It is written right before, “Elohim saw,” implying sins between man and God. But robbery is a sin between man and his fellow. 
  Together with the earth. The first explanation raises the question: Why is it not written מארץ? Thus Rashi brings the alternate explanation, <i>“together with</i> the earth.” But this raises the question: Since את is not an adjective, why is it not written עם? Thus Rashi needs the first explanation as well. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  That also three handbreadths. For up to a depth of three handbreadths it is called ארץ, but further down it is called אדמה. And here it is written את הארץ. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Perhaps they will repent. Question: Would not the building of the ark have an opposite effect, for it may cause them <i>not</i> repent? For they could answer Noach: “If the ark’s purpose is really to save you [from the Flood, this makes no sense. For] Hashem has many ways to save you even without an ark!” The answer is: They knew the Flood would come, as Rashi explained in connection with the story of Lemech’s wives (4:24). But they thought it would come in the distant future. His building the ark showed that it was imminent, thus they might repent. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Of cedar wood. That is its name. [Rashi is answering the question:] Why is עצי written in the plural form, when גפר is singular? (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  Its name relating to sulphur. I.e., boiling water comes from the earth’s sulfur; see Sanhedrin 108b and Rosh Hashanah 12a. You might ask: How did Rashi know that the water [of the Flood] was hot? The answer is: Here (8:1) it is written וישוכו המים, and about Achashveirosh (Esther 7:10) it is written וחמת המלך שככה. There it means subsiding from a previous heat, as it said before, “His anger <i>burnt</i> within him” (ibid. 1:12). And here also it is written וישוכו, meaning that the water subsided from its boiling and cooled off. 
  Because the waters were calm. You might ask: Why does Rashi bring this here? The answer is: Without Rashi’s above explanation [that כופר means tar] we would not have asked why Noach’s <i>teivah</i> had tar inside and outside, whereas Moshe’s <i>teivah</i> had tar only outside. For they seem to be different — here it says כופר and there it says tar. But now that Rashi explained that כופר means tar, we see that Noach’s <i>teivah</i> had tar just like Moshe’s <i>teivah</i>. If so, why did Moshe’s teivah not have tar on the inside and outside, like Noach’s did? Furthermore, without Rashi’s explanation [that כופר means tar] we could say that כופר is something that is stronger than clay but weaker than tar. Therefore, clay on the inside and tar on the outside [Moshe’s <i>teivah</i>] is the same strength as כופר on inside and outside [Noach’s <i>teivah</i>]. But now that Rashi explained that כופר means tar, the question arises: Why were both not [built] the same manner? 
  Another reason... It seems that when Rashi explained that the waters were calm for Moshe’s <i>teivah, </i>therefore clay inside and tar outside was sufficient, it means as follows: Surely the waters were calm, so clay inside and tar outside was sufficient. But with Noach’s <i>teivah</i> it needed tar inside and out. This raises a question: What is wrong with making it that way also for Moshe? Rashi answers with the second reason: so that Moshe would be spared the odor of tar. This raises the question: Noach was also righteous; [why should he not be spared the odor?] Rashi answers: “But, here at the Flood, because of the force of the water, he tarred it on the inside and the outside.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Others say it was a precious stone. The word צהר is similar to צהרים, denoting illumination. And some say it was a window, for it is written (8:6), “Noach opened the <i>window</i> of the ark.” If so, [why do the others say it was a precious stone? Because] the window was only for air. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  So that the water would flow. I.e., rather than seep inside. You might ask: Why not make it flat, but very strong and thick so the rainwater could not penetrate? The answer is: Rashi means it had an open space of one <i>amoh</i>, since a house without air is uninhabitable. But if it would be completely open the rain would fall in. Thus Noach made the open space only one <i>amoh</i> in length, with a tiny width of a sixth of an <i>amoh</i>, i.e., a <i>tefach</i>. [The roof sloped down in four directions from the open space,] and below, the <i>teivah’s</i> length was three hundred <i>amos</i>, while on top, only one <i>amoh</i> in length. This is one three-hundredth. Below, the width was fifty <i>amos</i>. Thus the width above was one sixth of an <i>amoh</i>, i.e., one <i>tefach</i>. For fifty <i>amos</i> is three hundred <i>tefachim</i>, and the width [above] was one three-hundredth [of the width below]. 
  So that the rain may not seep through. Rashi is answering the question: Are not ship openings normally on the top?
  
  Verse 17
  
  “I am now prepared to agree.” Rashi is answering the question: ואני implies that another being wants it, and I, too, concur. How can it be said about Hashem that another being assists Him, Heaven forbid? Thus Rashi answers that ואני refers to the angels, who agreed long ago — “And I am now prepared to agree.” Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ואני הנני, a double expression? 
  With those... Meaning: I consulted the angels whether to create man, and they answered, “What is man that You should consider him.” Now, I agree with them. 
  Flood waters. It ruined... It confused... You might ask: How does Rashi know that it means these three things? The answer is: The ב of מבּול has a <i>dagesh</i>, and such a <i>dagesh</i> implies that the first letter of the root is a י or a נ, or, the <i>dagesh</i> represents a double letter. According to the first meaning, “it ruined everything,” it is as if it had written נבול, as in נבול תבול (Shemos 18:18), meaning “wear out.” According to the second meaning, “it confused everything,” it is as if it had written מבול twice, i.e., בלבל, meaning “confusion.” According to the third meaning, “it brought everything,” it is as if it had written יובל, as in (Tehillim 76:12) יובילו שי למורא, meaning “will bring.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  A covenant was necessary. It is as if it said, “I have established My covenant with you, <i>and then</i> you shall go into the ark.” But otherwise you could not go in. 
  And so that they not kill him. You might ask: Why not say this was the only reason [for the covenant]? The answer is: Then it should say, “I <i>will</i> establish My covenant.” Since it says והקמותי, “I established,” it means: When I created the fruits, I already established My covenant with them to fulfill My word. [And if the covenant was for the fruits alone, why does it say אתך?] (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  That marital relations were prohibited to them. Rashi knows this because of the textual changes between Scripture’s description of their coming into the ark and their leaving the ark. When they left the ark it is written (8:16): “Depart from the ark, <i>yourself and your wife</i>.” I will later explain <i>b’ezras Hashem</i> why it is written (ibid. v. 18), “Noach departed from the ark together with his sons, his wife and son’s wives,” [implying they were separate]. Question: Why, on the verse of “Noach went in...” (7:7), did Rashi repeat his comment, “Because they were forbidden marital relations”? Furthermore, Rashi explained there, “Since the world was in a state of grief.” Why did he not mention this here? It seems the answer is: The command [to enter, which appears here,] mentions entering the ark first, and afterwards the separation. But when it comes to actually entering, the separation is mentioned first and only afterwards does it says “<i>into the ark</i>.” This is because Noach decided on his own to separate even before entering the ark, because he saw the world was already in a state of grief. For Noach did not enter the ark until forced by the water, as Rashi explains (7:7). Thus the grief had already begun [before he entered], and marital relations became prohibited. This is why Rashi mentioned grief then. But the command [as mentioned here] was to enter the ark <i>before</i> the rainfall, when there was not yet grief. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Even the demons. [Rashi knows this] because it says afterwards, “From all flesh,” i.e., all that have flesh. Thus, “From all living things” comes to include even demons, which do not have flesh. 
  From the least of them. Rashi is answering the question: Does it not say a little later (7:2), “Take to yourself <i>seven </i>pairs”? 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Came of their own accord. Rashi is saying that they <i>all</i> came, even the ones that corrupted their way. But Noach permitted only “those that the ark took in.” What forced Rashi to explain that they came of their own accord? The answer is: Noach would otherwise have to trap them during the 120 years he had. Perforce, Hashem would give him a sign to know which ones consorted with their own species, as one opinion in the Midrash indeed says. [But Scripture mentions no such sign, so this cannot be the simple meaning.] For if Noach had no sign other than the ark taking them in, [a problem would arise:] there are numerous rare species, found only in the deserts, mountains and forests, which are very difficult to trap. And each comes out in its own special season. After extended effort to trap a specimen, Noach would have to bring it to the ark to see if it is taken in — perhaps it did not consort with its own species, as “all flesh corrupted its way”! Thus all of Noach’s trouble would be for naught, and his whole life would not be long enough to trap each species many times. Therefore, Rashi explains that they “came of their own accord and all those that the ark took in.” (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  This refers to his constructing the ark. Rashi is answering the question: Doesn’t “Noach did so” imply that he entered the ark, as commanded? But afterwards it says (7:1), “Adonoy said to Noach, Come into the ark...” Clearly, Noach did not yet enter the ark! Perforce, “This refers to his <i>constructing</i> the ark.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  [We learn] from this that we tell... This raises a question: Now that the Torah taught us the proper conduct of telling only מקצת, i.e., part of a man’s good qualities, the man will understand on his own that his good qualities are double this, [thus defeating the purpose]! It seems the answer is: Telling מקצת does not necessarily mean half. It could be a small amount: a tenth or a hundredth. Thus, the man will not know the extent of his good qualities. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  We learn that Noach studied Torah. For if not, how would Noach know [which ones were clean]? At that time, “clean” and “not clean” did not yet apply. (<i>Re’m</i>) Still, the Gemara needed to say that the ark took them in and they came on their own. For otherwise how could Noach check them? One of the signs of cleanness [for birds] is that the gizzard is peelable — and this can be known only after slaughter. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) You might ask: How did Rashi know that Noach studied Torah? Perhaps Noach took seven pairs because the ark accepted exactly so many! The answer is: That explanation is unlikely because the statement [in Sanhedrin 108b] implies that the ark rejected only those animals that consorted with another species. And it cannot be that each unclean species had exactly one [properly behaved] pair, and each clean species had exactly seven [such] pairs. Rather, there were many pairs from each, and Noach took seven pairs from the clean and one pair from the unclean. How did he know? He must have studied Torah. In fact in the verse itself it is written, “Take to <i>yourself</i>,” implying that Noach did the taking, [not the ark]. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  So that he might use some as sacrifices. When it says שבעה שבעה it means a total of seven, that is, three couples and one single. Just as שנים שנים means one male and one female, so too שבעה שבעה means seven birds, male and female. This leaves one without a mate. Rashi is thus answering the question: Why was one bird left single? The answer is: “So that he might use some as sacrifices.” And the single one was male. (<i>source unknown</i>) I was taught [differently,] that the reason [for seven full pairs] is as follows: Upon leaving the ark, Noach needed to offer four [males as] burnt offerings. This was for the four couples saved in the ark — Noach and wife, plus his three sons and their wives — as they might have sinned in thought, [for which a burnt offering atones]. And four females were thanksgiving offerings for the four couples, because it says (Berachos 54b), “Four people need to offer thanks: seafarers...” Also, Cham and his wife sinned by having marital relations in the ark. Thus Noach offered a [female] sin offering for each. This accounts for six pairs. And one pair was to sustain the species, just like the unclean species. <i>Moreinu HaRav Nosson</i> and the <i>Gur Aryeh</i> wrote different explanations; the reader may choose. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  What is not explicit... from that which is explicit. We need not ask: Earlier, the birds were mentioned before the animals, as it says, “From the <i>birds</i> of their kind, from the <i>animals</i> of their kind” (6:20). If so, why does it not mention here [the birds first, and say] “clean” for the birds rather than for the animals, and then learn the animals from the birds? The answer is: Clean animals were mentioned first, to say about them שבעה שבעה — thus hinting to Noach that seven were needed to offer sacrifices, [which come only from clean species]. Had it mentioned birds first, Noach would not know that seven was because of offerings. He would think that the animals are like the birds, about which it says, “To keep seed alive upon the face of the earth,” and the seven animals were to keep seed alive. That is why it mentioned the animals first. However, <i>Mahara’i </i>answered differently; see there. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  This refers to the seven days of mourning... For if not, why were these “seven days” expressly mentioned? (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) Question: Mesushelach and Chanoch were righteous as well, [so why was Noach singled out as “righteous in his generations”]? It seems the answer is: [Scripture mentioned] only someone whose married sons and their spouses were worthy of being saved with him. And this was true only of Noach. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>)
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Since the world was in a state of grief. It seems that Rashi is answering the question: Why does “The flood waters were on the earth” immediately precede “Noach went in...”? It is to tell us why marital relations were prohibited — the Flood came and the world was in a state of grief. Thus it is written right afterwards, “Noach went in, and his sons...” to show why the men entered separately and the women entered separately, and relations were forbidden. But why does it say the same about their departure [from the ark]: “Noach departed with his sons, his wife and son’s wives” (8:18)? Relations were then permitted! It is because, as Rashi explains later (9:9), Noach was afraid to beget children after the Flood until Hashem gave him a sign that He would not bring another Flood. Thus, [since there was still separation at the time of his departure], it is written “Noach departed with his sons, etc.” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Of their own accord. Otherwise it should say [not בָּאוּ, but] הובְאו (they were brought). [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not offer this comment earlier, on: “Two of each will<i> come to you</i> to be kept alive” (6:20)? [The answer is:] There Scripture tells us the ark’s benefit: it will save them. But here it is an extra phrase, thus we infer that they came of their own accord. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) [Note: Rashi’s second comment on this verse used to appear first. Accordingly, you might ask:] Why does Rashi reverse the order of the verse and first explain, “Of their own accord,” and then, “The minimum number was two”? It seems the answer is as we explained earlier (6:20): If the animals had not come on their own, and Noach would have had to trap them, Hashem would have given him a sign [to know which ones cleaved to their own species], as we explained. And we would say that this sign is hinted to in our verse: “Two by two,” i.e., animals that go as a couple of male and female, unaccompanied by other animals. So [that we will not say this,] Rashi first explains that בָּאוּ implies that they <i>all</i> came on their own, as we explained on 6:20. Thus Noach could not know [through the sign of “two by two”], since <i>all</i> the animals and birds came. Furthermore, since [Rashi first explains that] they came on their own, then if Noach had such a sign he would need to choose from among the many animals in each species that cleaved to their own kind. Yet Noach would have no way to choose. If he took these, he would cause those to die! Which should he reject? Surely [Noach had no sign], and whatever the ark took in was saved. Thus, “two by two” [is not a sign but is as Rashi says:] “They were all equal in this number...” (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  The minimum number was two. For if not, it contradicts what was said before (v. 2): “Of every clean animal, take to yourself <i>seven</i> pairs.” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  To release their waters. [Rashi is explaining that] this was not an ordinary bursting, which conveys that the object is now broken. This bursting conveys that the wellsprings grew stronger.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Scripture teaches... For if not, it should say just ביום הזה, as it says earlier (v. 11).
  
  Verse 14
  
  [The word ציפור] is in the construct state. I.e., we should not think that צפור stands on its own and כנף stands on its own. [This cannot be,] since a צפור, too, has a כנף. Alternatively, if כל כנף is a different thing, how could it come into the ark with Noach? There cannot be a wing without a bird! Thus, it must be in the construct state. Rashi then answers the questions: [If so,] why is it necessary to write כנף? Obviously, a bird has wings! Furthermore, how can it say כל כנף? A bird does not have all the wings in the world! Rashi answers: It means, “Birds of <i>every</i> winged species, including locusts,” since they, too, have wings. But צפור [alone] does not include locusts, as they are not birds. The <i>Maharshal</i> explains that if not for the construct state, we would interpret it as כל צפור כנף, thereby excluding anything without a wing. And locusts would be excluded too, since they are not called birds.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  He protected him. Otherwise why does it say, “Hashem shut him in”? Noach already built the ark and entered it as commanded, to be thereby saved. [Compare this with next entry.] It must refer back to (6:18), “And I will establish My covenant...” [on which Rashi explains, “...that the evil people of that generation not kill him.”] But without Hashem’s protection, Noach could not survive. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  The simple explanation... He shut before him against the waters. In other words, [it does not mean shutting the door. Rather,] Hashem’s command to build the ark and enter it is how He shut before him against the waters. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 17
  
  It was immersed in water. Rashi is answering the question: After forty days there was high water. Why did the ark not lift up before? Because, “It was immersed eleven cubits in water.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  By themselves. [Rashi knows this] because if they became powerful from the forty days of [rain of] the Flood, the order should be reversed and it should have written: “There was a Flood on the earth for forty days. <i>The waters were powerful and increased greatly over the earth</i> and lifted the ark, and it rose [high] above the earth, and the ark moved on the surface of the waters.” Rather, “The waters were powerful” was written at the end to teach that the [waters of the] deep rose “by themselves” and made the waters powerful. The <i>Re”m</i> explained differently: The rain stopped after forty days. And the water’s power could not have been during these forty days, for it is written (v. 24), “The waters were powerful over the earth for 150 days.” And it is not logical to say that the first “powerful” [mentioned in our verse] was from the rain, and the second “powerful prevailed” [of v. 24] was from the deep; [rather, the waters became powerful by themselves]. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Once the water reached the level... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it means fifteen <i>amos</i> above the ground! The answer is: Then the high mountains would not have been covered with water. And in the verse it is written (v. 19), “And they covered all the high mountains.” Thus Rashi explains, “Above the peaks...”
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  A breath of the spirit of life. The Ibn Ezra writes that נשמת רוח חיים refers only to man. But [the <i>Re’m </i>disagrees, and says that] the text of Rashi should read נשימה, not נשמה, and it means “breath,” not “soul.” For animals have no נשמה, only man. Pertaining to man only is it written (2:7), “And He blew into his nostrils the נשמת חיים,” but not about other creatures. 
  But not the fish in the sea. Perhaps this was Rashi’s intention when on “For all flesh had corrupted...” (6:12), he commented: “Even cattle and beasts...” but omitted fish. The verse itself implies this, for it is written על הארץ — but not fish in the sea. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 23
  
  It is in the וַיִפְעַל form. וַיִפְעַל is the simple verb form, like וירא and ויתן. But they are intransitive, while וימח is transitive. It is not the וַיִפָּעֶל form, which is passive — as in וימחו מן הארץ, “they were obliterated from the earth.” 
  This is from the forms [of the verbs:] ויפן ויבן. Rashi is answering the question: If it is in the simple וַיִפְrַל form, why is it vowelized ויִמח, which is a strong verb form, rather than ויָמח, which denotes a simple verb? Rashi answers: “This is from the forms ויפן ויבן,” which are also vowelized with a <i>chirik </i>under the <i>yud</i>. This differs from the <i>Re’m’s</i> explanation, that [Rashi is addressing the point: Why is it vowelized וימַח rather than וימֶח? And Rashi answers that] it is like ויפן but here the <i>mem </i>has a <i>patach</i> because of the following <i>ches,</i> which is a guttural letter. 
  Every word whose last root letter... Rashi is answering the question: Why do all these verbs have a <i>chirik</i> under the <i>yud</i>?
  Only Noach. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source [in the verse to support the Midrashic explanation]? The answer is: It is written אך נח, and אך comes to exclude something. But there is nothing here to exclude; [only Noach was left]! Rather, it means that part of Noach’s very self was excluded. I.e., his vitality was diminished. “He was coughing...”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The merit that they did not corrupt... This implies that the other animals corrupted their ways on their own, not due to demons. Otherwise, what was the merit of these animals? The same is implied by, “They did not cohabit in the ark,” meaning, on their own. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) Both merits were needed, since “not corrupting their ways” was not an active mitzvah; it was merely refraining from sin. (Although it says in Makkos 23b that he who passively refrains from a sin is rewarded as if he did a mitzvah, but it says in Kiddushin 39b that this applies only when a chance to sin presented itself but he held back.) Therefore the animals needed also the merit of not cohabiting in the ark, which was self-imposed abstinence from permitted behavior. But this merit alone was insufficient, as it somewhat resembled doing a mitzvah without being commanded, [which is a lesser merit]. For we have no source to indicate that the animals were forbidden to cohabit in the ark. Hashem forbade only Noach and his sons. Although Rashi later says that, “Let them spread over the <i>earth</i>” (v. 17), teaches that the animals had a prohibition to propagate in the ark, they accepted this upon themselves without Hashem’s command. Why does the verse not say that Hashem remembered also the birds and Noach’s sons? It seems the answer is: Cham, and the raven, sinned by cohabiting in the ark. That is why Noach’s sons and the birds are not mentioned. [If so, why are beasts and animals mentioned, when the dog cohabited in the ark (Bereishis Rabba 36:7)? The answer is:] There is an uncertainty about dogs. Perhaps they are in the category of “beasts”; perhaps in that of “animals.” Although Heaven surely knows, still, the Sages disagreed about it. Thus we see that Hashem’s will is not to resolve it, and therefore, Scripture does not omit either beasts or animals [although dogs are included in one of these two categories]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  A spirit of comforting. Rashi is answering the question: If it was an actual wind, why is written afterwards, “And the water subsided”? On the contrary, it is written (Tehillim 147:8), “He blows His wind; water runs.” [I.e., wind does not calm the waters.] (<i>Devek Tov</i>) Alternatively, Rashi knows this because it says, “Over the <i>earth</i>.” How could a wind blow over the earth’s surface when the water covered the earth? But if it was “a spirit of comforting,” it is understandable. “Over the earth” then means, “On account of the matters of the earth.” In other words, for the sake of man who dwells on the earth. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  For which the world had need. You might ask: If the world has need of them, why were they not created at the time of Creation? The answer is: Before the Flood they were not needed, as people were healthy and robust. After the Flood, people became weak [and there was a need for them].
  
  Verse 3
  
  They began to diminish. We cannot say they were completely diminished on Sivan 1, as the waters continued diminishing until the 27th of the second month, when the earth became dry (v. 14). Rather, they now <i>began</i> to diminish. 
  On Kislev 27 the rains ceased. You might ask: Did Rashi not say before (7:12) that they ceased on Kislev 28? The answer is: There, Rashi explained that they ceased on Kislev 28 because the first day did not count in the forty days of rain. It did not count because its [preceding] night did not have rain. For it says (7:11), “On that <i>day,</i> all the wellsprings... burst open.” This means at daytime, not at night. Nevertheless, it was considered a [half] day. Thus, Marcheshvan counted for twelve full days and one [half] day, and Kislev counted for twenty-seven full days. And the rain did not cease until the morning of the 28th. So the last night, when added to the first day, completed the forty full days. Thus it could be said that the rains ceased on Kislev 28, as they still fell on its [preceding] night. And it could be said that the rains ceased on Kislev 27, because in the daytime of the 28th there was no rain. 
  Which accounts for three days in Kislev. This counts the following night. Also the 29 days of Teves counts the following night.
  
  Verse 4
  
  Which is the seventh month from Kislev, in which the rain stopped. The counting cannot start from the rainfall, as it is not logical that the count of 150 days includes forty of rain and [110] of powerful waters. It must be either rain alone or powerful waters alone. Since it cannot be rain alone [see 7:17], it must be powerful waters alone. Thus they were two separate periods and did not finish until Sivan 1. 
  Immersed eleven amohs in the water. Meaning: at least eleven <i>amohs</i> were immersed, maybe more. For there might be mountains higher than those of Ararat, and the ark did not come to a rest earlier because it did not reach those mountains. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  If you might say... Elul. Furthermore, we could not learn that the ark was immersed eleven <i>amohs</i> if “In the tenth, on the first of the month” means Elul. For from Sivan 1 until Elul 1 there are ninety days, thus the water receded one <i>amoh</i> every five or six days. Accordingly, the ark would have been immersed twelve and a third <i>amohs</i>. 
  “The tenth” can only be counted... For the ark did not come to rest until after the 40 days of rain and the 150 days of powerful waters were finished. And this was in Sivan, not in Iyar. 
  A total of sixty days from when the mountain peaks appeared... [You might ask: Why does it not total sixty-one? The answer is] that the forty days after [the mountains appeared] is counted from the very beginning of the forty days, producing thirty-nine full days [since one night is missing. See entries on v. 3]. With the twenty-one days of sending the dove, it makes sixty. Since Av and Elul together are only fifty-nine days, Rosh Chodesh Tishrei must be counted in the twenty-one days [of sending the dove.]
  
  Verse 6
  
  From when the mountain peaks appeared. We cannot count from when the ark rested, and say that “the tenth” means the tenth month from the rain’s ceasing, just as “the seventh” is the seventh month from when they ceased — and accordingly, the ark would be immersed twelve and a third <i>amohs</i>. [Because] if so, this verse should come earlier, rather than following: “The mountaintops became visible.” The <i>Re’m</i> asks: Why did the dove not find a place to rest, if it was sent forty-seven days after the mountain peaks appeared? This was only fourteen days before the water began to dry, and assumedly, all the high and low mountain peaks had appeared, as well as some tall trees, etc. It seems the answer is: Although the mountain peaks had appeared, the dove could not rest on the ground because the water had not begun to dry. And the high trees were uprooted and wiped out by the flood waters, as the Midrash implies. 
  To the window. Meaning, this window was their light source. 
  And not the door... Rashi is answering the question: Why did it say before (6:16) “opening,” and here, “window?” He answers: “This is not the door...” Although Rashi on 6:16 brought two meanings for צוהר — “window” and “precious stone” — as he was in doubt, this verse implies it was a window. Some say that לצוהר means “for illumination,” similar to צהרים. Thus, Rashi is explaining that Noach opened the <i>window</i> which he had made <i>for light</i>, and not for entry and exit. You might ask: If so, [that the window provided light], why did he need the light of the precious stone? The answer is: It was needed for nights, and for the days when the window was closed. For it says, “Noach opened the window...” [implying that some days the window was closed]. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Because it suspected him concerning his mate. Meaning: [Its suspicion was] concerning <i>Noach’s</i> mate — that [Noach and] his wife were having marital relations in the ark. This is because the raven cohabited in the ark, and one accuses another of his own flaw (Kiddushin 70b). Thus the raven, too, did not want to be separated from its mate. And this is the explanation in Sanhedrin 108b as well. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  During the time of Eliyahu. A hint to this [Midrashic explanation] is that the word יבֹשת is written without the ו, yielding the letters תשבי — a hint to אליהו התשבי. Furthermore, it is written “the <i>water</i> dried up” rather than “the <i>earth</i> dried up,” alluding to [the drought in] Eliyahu’s days. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 8
  
  This does not refer to sending it on an errand... For שליחות is only [sending] someone with intelligence. Earlier (v. 7), [regarding the raven,] Rashi saw no need to explain this. For there it is written, “Going to and fro,” on which Rashi comments, “It flew around, circling the ark.” Clearly, this is not שליחות, therefore Rashi did not comment when Noach sent the raven. [The <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> explains differently:] Rashi did not [make this] comment regarding the raven because Rashi had the following question: Why did it not say about sending the raven, “To see if the water had subsided,” as it says about sending the dove? Apparently, because Noach did not send the raven to see if the water subsided! Rather, he drove it out to seek its own place because it [sinned and] cohabited in the ark. But Noach did not do this right after its misdeed, since the water still covered the earth, and driving it out then would make its species extinct. This also explains why Noach waited seven days before sending the dove. He should have sent it immediately, if the raven did not fulfill its errand! Perforce, Noach did not send the raven “to see” [if there still was water]. Accordingly, “He sent out the raven” is similar in meaning to, “Moshe sent his father-in-law off” (Shemos 18:27), and other verses, which do not mean sending to bring back a response. That is why Rashi did not make this comment [regarding the raven]. But with sending the dove, which Noach indeed sent “to see” [if there still was water], it appeared like a שליחות. [Thus, Rashi needed to comment.] (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) [Rashi knows that Noach sent the dove on its way] because it says מאתו, implying that it will no longer be “with him.” (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>)
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  This is because wherever יונה... Meaning: Even had the verse said טריפה בפיה [the more standard form], it still would apply to a male dove. But since the dove was indeed male, Scripture preferred the masculine form, טרף. 
  Means: “he seized.” As opposed to meaning “he killed,” as in, “Like a wolf that preys (יטרוף)” (49:27). Since every preying animal seizes [its victim], one who seizes is called טורף. [You might ask:] Why did Noach send the male [dove]? Was he not concerned that it would suspect him, as the raven did? The answer is: A person accuses another of his own flaw (Kiddushin 70b). Therefore, because the raven cohabited in the ark, it suspected Noach, too, of marital relations. And Noach intended to bring this out into the open: for the dove was also male, yet it went on its errand. Why? Because the dove [unlike the raven] did not cohabit in the ark. Thus he did not suspect that Noach will have relations with his mate. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  She said, “Better that my food be...” And the verse reads as follows: עלה זית — “bitter as an olive.” טרף — “my food.” בפיה — “she said.” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  וייחל [means] he had forbearance. Rashi is saying that [the reflexive form וייחל was used because] the point was easy to understand without analysis: if the waters dried up in seven days, they will dry up more if Noach will wait another seven days. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  But it is read היצא. Meaning, even without the ו it may be read הוצא. For the ו is the [sometimes] absent first letter of the three letter root (in place of the י of יצא). Thus, Rashi says it is read with a י, because the י and ו are interchangeable, yielding היוצא. (<i>Maharshal</i>) [Rashi knows this because] היצא means Noach should cause them to leave by themselves, whereas הוצא means he should remove them himself. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  They accepted... Rashi is answering the question: No beast or bird remained in the world. How could they go to their families? Thus Rashi explains that they accepted to keep to their own species, i.e., to be a family. And this is what R. Yochanan meant when he said (Sanhedrin 108b), “According to their families, but not they themselves.” (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  
  Verse 20
  
  To sacrifice... The <i>Re’m</i> writes that Rashi is explaining how Noach knew he should bring sacrifices, although there was no such command from Hashem. Rashi explains that Noach reasoned: “Hashem would not have commanded me to take in seven of each...” But if it is as the <i>Re’m </i>explained, Rashi should have explained this on, “Noach built an altar,” or on, “And brought up burnt-offerings on the altar.” Thus it seems to me [to explain differently.] Noach knew on his own to bring offerings to Hashem, just as Hevel brought offerings for the goodness he received from Hashem. Surely Noach should bring offerings as thanksgiving, since he was saved from the Flood, and “four people need to offer thanks: Seafarers...” (Berachos 54b) Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why did Noach bring a burntoffering from each and every clean animal and bird? Was it not enough to bring for himself, his wife, his sons and their wives? Why did he bring from all the species? Rashi answers: “He thought: Hashem would not have commanded me to take in seven of each...” This answers the difficulties raised by the <i>Re’m</i>. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  The expression is repeated, as an oath. We cannot say that one expression of “Never again” refers to the destroying of three handbreadths’ depth of the ground, and the other expression of “Never again” refers to the smiting of every living thing. For both could be included in one phrase: “Never again will I curse the ground or smite every living thing.” Perforce, “Never again” is repeated to serve as an oath. This seems preferable to <i>Re’m’s</i> explanation, that [one expression of] “Never again will I curse” refers to destroying the three handbreadths’ depth of the ground as well as the smiting of every living thing — and perforce, the expression is repeated to serve as an oath. 
  That is... the verse: “That I have sworn ... The <i>Re’m</i> asks: Why does Rashi not bring the verse written in this passage as his proof that it was repeated as an oath? For it says (9:11): “I will keep My ברית with you”, implying that Hashem already made a ברית, and now wishes to establish it. Why did Rashi need a verse from the Prophets, “That I have sworn...,” to prove this? The <i>Re’m </i>left this unanswered, but perhaps the answer is: The term ברית implies only a promise, not an oath. Thus, Rashi had to prove it from, “That I have sworn...,” which clearly implies that the repetition constitutes an oath. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat is the cold season. Rashi’s text should read: Half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat is חורף, winter. (<i>Re’m</i>) But the <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes that he sees no need to alter the text; it is indeed as Rashi explained [in the extant text]. 
  קור is half of Shevat, Adar, and half of Nissan. [This version follows the alteration of the <i>Re’m. </i>But] the correct version is: קור is half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat. 
  The end of the summer is more severe than the summer. This is because people are still cool all summer, due to the winter’s cold. But at the end of summer they heat up. That is why summer’s end is more severe than its middle. [And according to the <i>Re’m, </i>we can say that] the cold season is more severe than winter for a similar reason. Rashi writes in Bava Metzia 106b that winter is “the most chilly part of the fall season; the days of cold.” If so, how could Rashi say here that the cold season is more severe than winter? Perforce, it is the way we explained. And so it is implied by the <i>Re’m</i> as well. 
  ...During all the days of the Flood. I.e., all twelve months of the Flood. The <i>Re’m</i> asks: But how will we explain [verse (8:13), “...He looked, and behold the surface of the ground had dried”]? How could Noach see on the first of Tishrei that the water had dried, if this was during the twelve months [when there was no light]? Furthermore, how could he count the days? For it says (v. 6): “At the end of forty days, Noach opened the window of the ark.” Also (v. 8), “[After 7 days] he sent the dove...” Furthermore, how did the dove fly without light, and how could it see if there was a place to rest? Furthermore, how did the window benefit the ark, if there was no light? The <i>Re’m</i> left the issue unresolved. 
  The constellations did not function. Although the verse speaks of the six seasons as well, Rashi explains specifically that the constellations ceased functioning — rather than that the seasons ceased — since the seasons obviously depend on the earth’s existence, but the water covered the surface of the earth, [so the seasons obviously ceased]. Thus Rashi explained that even day and night ceased, although they do not depend on the earth’s existence. This was due to the constellations not functioning. It seems the answer is: The constellations “not functioning” means the heavenly spheres did not move. There were no normal daily twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours of darkness. Rather, during all twelve months, one half of the globe had light while the other had darkness — as at the beginning of Creation, before the luminaries were placed in their orbits. And when Noach entered the ark, the sun was shining, as it is written (7:13), “On that very <i>day</i>...” This is why the Midrash says, “The constellations did not <i>function</i>,” rather than saying, “The constellations did not give light.” They gave light, but they did not alternate in their normal daily manner of day and night. And when Rashi says, “Night and day were indistinguishable,” it means that in one place it was always daytime, and in another, darkness. And the earth’s surface dried up from the sun’s heat since it shone on the earth even during these twelve months. This resolves [almost] all the <i>Re’m’s</i> questions. As for his question, “How could he count the days?” perhaps Noach knew the days by measuring the passage of time, as the <i>Akeidah</i> explains in Parshas Bereishis, or through a sun dial. For the sun would shine through the ark’s window. Noach made the window for a purpose, so he would not dwell in darkness, according to the opinion that צהר means window. Or, [Noach counted the days] by observing the animals, as it says in Berachos 3a: “In the first watch the donkey brays...” Or, by observing the ravens or roosters, according the opinion that הנותן לשכוי בינה להבחין בין יום ובין לילה [refers to the rooster]. Or, by observing a special stone or by some other means. Similarly it was asked about Moshe Rabbeinu, “How did he know when it was day and night [when he was in heaven for forty days]?” May Hashem show us the wonders of His Torah. 
  None of them shall cease. Rashi is saying that we should not understand ישבותו to mean resting. For “rest” can be said only about the performer of the activity, not about the activity itself. Thus for the seasons, we cannot say that they “rested.” We could say only that Hashem rested, as He performs the activity. That is why Rashi explainsישבותו  to mean cessation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  “I did not permit... The reason why Noach was permitted to eat meat, while Adam was not, seems to be as follows: Previously, men and animals were equal in that they all were Hashem’s creations. He formed them all from the earth; none had higher status than the other [as regards their bodies]. Why should one kill the other? But when they sinned, all should have been destroyed, and they survived only in Noach’s merit. This gave Noach a higher status than the animals. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) Scripture connected the permission to eat meat to that of eating vegetables so we will not say that meat is now permitted <i>instead</i> of vegetables, and vegetables are no longer permitted. Thus Scripture tells us that eating meat is in <i>addition</i> to eating vegetables. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Literally meaning: while the “soul” [life] is within its blood. The <i>Re’m</i> writes: I have found this correct version of Rashi: With its life — “while it is still alive.” You shall not eat — “this refers to limbs from a living animal.” While the life is in its blood you shall not eat — “this refers to blood of a living animal.” [Accordingly,] the ב of בנפשו means “with,” as if it said: “Flesh, <i>while it is with</i> life, you shall not eat.” And the Sages learned from the extra word דמו that the word בנפשו should be read with the preceding word, בשר, and also the following word, דמו. Thus: “בשר בנפשו — You shall not eat flesh with its life.” And also: “בנפשו דמו — You shall not eat its blood with its life.” The verse is thus telling us not to eat the flesh or the blood of an animal that is still alive. Rashi said בעוד נפשו בו, rather than [staying closer to] the wording of the verse and saying בשר עם נפשו, which would express the verse’s simple meaning. This was because the latter expression implies that the prohibition is on eating the blood and the meat together. Thus Rashi explained that בנפשו means [not to eat the meat <i>or</i> the blood] while the life is still in the animal. Question: A limb from a living animal had been prohibited to Adam, so [why was it repeated to Noach?] The answer is: Since Noach was now permitted to eat meat, we might think he was permitted to eat the limb from a living animal as well. Therefore, Scripture tells us that the previous prohibition stands. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>)
  
  Verse 5
  
  From one who spills his own blood. [Rashi know this] because if it refers to spilling another's blood, this was already mentioned: ומיד האדם. (Kitzur Mizrachi) 
  Also if he strangles himself. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say לנפשותיכם?
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Plain explanation, the first is... Rashi holds that, “Elohim said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’” (1:28), comes to explain [the preceding blessing of], “Elohim blessed them” (ibid.). And so it is with the verse for Noach and his descendants. “He said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’” (9:1) comes to explain [the preceding blessing of], “Elohim blessed Noach and his sons” (ibid.). However, the mitzvah to propagate is learned only from the verse, “And now be fruitful and multiply,” because no term of blessing is mentioned here. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Hashem did so eventually... Meaning, Hashem did so a second time. Although Hashem had already promised Noach, he was still concerned. For Hashem’s promises are conditional: if they fulfill His will [and do not sin as the generation of the Flood did,] He will keep His promise; and if not, not. Therefore Noach was concerned, until Hashem promised him again that He would never bring another Flood. This also explains why Noach was commanded to have children. For even though Adam had already been commanded — Hashem needed to command Noach again because Noach was concerned. We need not ask: Why was Noach concerned? Hashem already swore He would never again smite mankind! As Rashi explained (8:21), “Never again, never again” serves as an oath. The answer is: It says (ibid), “And Adonoy said <i>in His heart</i>, ‘Never again...’” I.e., Hashem thought this [oath], but Noach knew nothing of it. (<i>Re’m</i>) It seems that Rashi deduced [that Noach was concerned] from the fact that Noach was permitted marital relations when he left the ark, as it says (8:16), “Depart from the ark, yourself and your wife” — yet he did not engage in relations. Rather, they left in separation (ibid v. 18): “Noach departed from the ark together with his sons, his wife and son’s wives.” So we see that Noach did not wish to have children. Therefore Hashem said, “I agree with you...” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 10
  
  Unclean birds, and crawlers. שקצים means unclean fowl, of which it says (Vayikra 11:13), שקץ הם. And רמשים has its usual meaning. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  That is with you. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reverse the order and explain “that is with you,” which comes first in the verse, at the end? [The answer is:] It is all part of the same comment [as it appears in our version of Rashi], as follows: Beasts of the earth — [These] include the dangerous animals that are not included in “Every living creature that is with you,” [i.e.,] that they do not walk among people. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  “I will confirm My covenant.” Rashi is answering the question: Is it not already written (v. 9), ואני הנני מקים את בריתי, “I am making a covenant with you”?
  
  Verse 12
  
  That did not require a sign. You might ask: How does the incomplete form imply this exegesis? It seems the answer is: When the generations are incomplete — wicked — they need the rainbow as a sign, but not when they are complete, i.e., righteous, they do not need the rainbow as a sign. Another answer: Since דרת is written in an incomplete form, it can be read דָרַת — “dweller,” in the singular. Thus, לדרת עולם connotes “for a certain dweller in the world.” The verse is saying: “For certain families that dwell in the world, I have set My rainbow in the clouds.” Yet, [we ask,] is not the rainbow for all? Perforce, “There are some generations that did not require a sign....” (<i>Re’m</i>) The <i>Maharshal</i> explains: If it were written complete, we would understand that all generations for all time require the sign. Now that it is written incomplete, it implies the generations that [dwell in] this world [only], require a sign. However, those generations which dwell in this world and are destined for the World to Come, do not require a sign.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  To bring darkness... Rashi holds that “When I bring clouds” does not means actual clouds, rather: “If you are deserving of a Flood, and it enters My mind to bring darkness and destruction to the world, then the rainbow will be seen in the ‘clouds’ [i.e., the darkness] and I shall remember My covenant.” [And therefore,] “Never again will flood waters destroy all flesh.” But if the verse meant actual clouds, why then would it say, “Never again will flood waters destroy all flesh,” [implying that if not for the rainbow, they would be punished]? Why should they be deserving of a Flood just because there are clouds over the earth? [Alternatively,] it seems that Rashi knew this because it is written, “Clouds over the <i>earth</i>,” connecting the clouds to the earth. But in fact, clouds are not connected to the earth! It should say, “When I bring clouds in the <i>heavens</i>.” Thus Rashi explains that it is not actual clouds, rather “darkness and destruction” regarding the world. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  He made himself profane [חולין]. Otherwise, why does it say ויחל? It should simply say, “He planted a vineyard.” (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  As in “Naomi’s master.” We cannot say it means Naomi’s husband, because a husband does not belong to his wife in the way a wife belongs to her husband. We do not say איש אשה (a man belonging to a wife) like we say אשת איש (a woman belonging to a husband). The construct form, אשת איש, indicates “belonging to.” (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  Vine branches and fig shoots. You might ask: How does Rashi know he brought with him fig shoots? Granted that he brought vine branches, for it says ויטע כרם, and נטיעה denotes planting branches. For when seeds are used, it is not called נטיעה, [rather זריעה]. But how does Rashi know about fig shoots? R. Isserel answers in his commentary: Since Noach “should have first been occupied with another נטיעה,” as learned from ויחל, he must have had some other branch to plant! Although we do not know which other species he had, we do know that until this point, the Torah has mentioned no species of trees other than figs. For it is written in Parshas Bereishis (3:7): “They sewed together fig leaves.” Thus we may infer that Noach had fig shoots. But it seems to me [that Rashi knew Noach had fig shoots because] Noach’s son Cham castrated him in order that Noach should not have a fourth son (see Rashi 9:25). But how did Cham know he wanted to have another son? Because he planted trees whose fruit bring physical desire. And there is no fruit that brings desire like figs. For it is written in Sanhedrin 70b that the tree from which Adam was a fig tree, as it says, “They sewed together fig leaves, etc.” They set themselves aright with what they had sinned. And the fig tree brought upon Adam additional physical desire, for it says (4:25), “Adam knew his wife again.” And Rashi explains: “His desire for her was greater than before.” This explains why Rashi said that Noach brought vine branches and fig shoots into the ark. The <i>Re’m</i> answers differently, citing R. Yaakov of Orleans: [Noach brought these species] because vines and figs are more easily damaged by water. Thus Noach chose to bring them into the ark over other trees, and therefore he needed to bring in the actual branches, [not just the seeds]. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Referred to as Shomron. In Yechezkel (23:4) it says, “And they bore sons and daughters, and their names: Shomron is Oholah (אהלה)...” And here since it is written אהלה instead of אהלו, to hint to Shomron’s exile (which was due to wine). This also explains the expression ויתגל, which is related to גלות (exile). (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>)
  
  Verse 22
  
  Some of our Sages say, he castrated him. Others say, he sodomized him. I will explain this a little later (v. 25, ד"ה אתה גרמת לי), with Hashem’s help. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  And their backsides bare. חשופי means exposed and שת means loins, so it is saying their loins were exposed since they were naked and had no clothing to cover themselves. But Yefes, who covered [his father’s nakedness], merited a covering for himself: burial. And Sheim who exerted himself more for the mitzvah — and covered Noach with a cloak — merited a tallis with tzitzis. [You might ask:] It says in Maseches Sotah 17a that Avraham’s descendants were rewarded with <i>techeiles </i>strings and tefillin straps for his saying [to the King of Sedom], “Neither a thread nor a shoelace” (14:23). Does this not imply that the mitzvah of tzitzis was given to Avraham for saying, “Neither a thread,” rather than for Sheim’s covering his father? The answer is: A tallis with tzitzis is one thing, and <i>techeiles </i>is another. Due to Sheim, they merited a tallis with white tzitzis strings. And due to what Avraham said, they merited <i>techeiles</i>. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 24
  
  The worthless and contemptible one. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise why does it call Cham קטן? He was older than Yefes, for Scripture (5:32) counts him before Yefes. And we cannot say Cham was counted before Yefes because of his importance, although Rashi writes (ibid.) that Sheim was counted first of all due to his importance. For Cham was the lowliest of them all. (<i>Re’m</i>) But the <i>Maharshal</i> [writes that the <i>Re’m </i>was mistaken, and Cham surely was not older than Yefes. He] explains that Rashi is rather answering the question: [Why is Cham called קטן?] Sheim was the youngest! For it is written (ibid.), “Noach was 500 years old, and Noach produced Sheim, Cham, and Yafes.” And it is written (7:6), “Noach was 600 years old when the flood waters were on the earth,” [thus his oldest child was then 100]. Additionally, it is written (11:10): “Sheim was 100 years old... two years after the Flood.” Since Sheim was born when his father was 502, he [was not the oldest. Rather he] was the youngest son, [for if Cham was youngest, then in 5:32 the order should be: “Shem, Yefes, and Cham.” See entry there, citing <i>Maharshal</i>.]
  
  Verse 25
  
  You caused me. This is proof for those who say Cham castrated Noach. For it is written, “Cursed is Canaan.” Why did Noach curse Canaan? Because Cham castrated Noach, who then said, “You caused me... may <i>your </i>fourth son...” And the proof for those who say he sodomized him is from (9:22): “Cham the father of Canaan <i>saw</i>.” And it is written (34:2): “She was <i>seen</i> by Shechem.” Just as there, Shechem had relations, so too here, Cham had relations. If so, why did Noach curse Canaan? Because Cham did both: he sodomized him and castrated him. Tosafos explain in Sanhedrin 70a that the reason Noach did not curse Cham himself is because it is written (9:1), “Elohim blessed Noach and his sons.” And a curse cannot be effectuated where there is a blessing. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Why did Cham... You might ask: How did Cham know that Noach desired a fourth son? The answer is: It is written, “He uncovered himself (ויתגל) in his tent (אהלה).” It is read אהלו (his tent) but is written אהלה (her tent). And Rashi explained there that ... ויתגל is the reflexive form. Thus, the verse is saying that Noach acted with himself [“reflexive”] as if he was engaged in relations with his wife [“her tent”]. I.e., his organ had the requisite hardness as if he was engaged in relations. Cham thereby recognized that Noach desired a fourth son. See the other answer I wrote on v. 20 (ד"ה זמורות וייחורי תאנים); both are good.
  
  Verse 26
  
  His promise to his seed. The verse is explained as referring to Sheim’s seed, rather than to Sheim himself, because it is written: “May Canaan be their (למו) slave.” If it referred to Sheim himself, it should say, “May Canaan be his (לו) slave.” Alternatively, it must refer to Sheim’s seed because it is written, “Elokei [God of] Sheim,” and Scripture does not say “Elokeif” regarding an individual. Hashem places His Name only on a nation, such as “Elokei Yisrael” or “Elokei the Hebrews.” (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 27
  
  Even after... will be exiled. [Rashi knows this] because if it referred to the time when they ruled, it is already written, “Blessed is Adonoy, Elokei Sheim; may Canaan be his slave.” Why does it say a second time, “Canaan will be their slave”? Perforce, it means even in exile. You might ask: [Perhaps it means Canaan will be a slave] for Yefes? [The answer is:] If so, it should say, “Elohim will enlarge Yefes, and Canaan will be their slave.” And only then it should say, “But He will dwell in the tents of Sheim.” Perforce, it means even in exile. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  This refers to Persia. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain Tiras any more than the others? The answer is: Rashi said on 9:27 (ד"ה וישכון) that “Cyrus, Yefes’ descendant, built the Second Temple.” And one might ask: How does Rashi know that Cyrus came from Yefes? Thus Rashi explains here that Tiras is Persia, so Persia is from Yefes. And Cyrus, king of Persia, assumedly descended from Tiras. Furthermore, the <i>Re’m</i> says that Rashi [explains Tiras because he] is answering the question: Why here is it written מדי, not פרס? These two nations are always mentioned together! Thus Rashi explains that Tiras is פרס. But <i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i> says that [it is not as the <i>Re’m </i>said. Rather, Rashi explains Tiras because] it is from Yoma 10a: “How do we know that the Persians come from Yefes? Because it is written, ‘The sons of Yefes were: Gomer... and Tiras.’ And Rav Yosef taught: Tiras is Persia.” [Thus, Rashi brings it to prove that Cyrus came from Yefes.]
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  In causing the entire world to rebel. [Rashi explains החל as “rebel”] because otherwise, [if it meant “began,”] why should it say החל? Nimrod was not the first to rebel against Hashem. Back in the days of Enosh it already says (4:26), אז הוחל לקרא. Perforce, החל is related to the word חילול. I.e., Nimrod publicly desecrated Hashem’s Name [by rebelling against Him]. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) But it seems to me that החל must mean “began”. For if meant “rebel”, why does it say [גבור] twice? It should [combine the verses and] say, הוא החל להיות גבור ציד לפני ה'. But if it means “began,” the verse is understandable as is. Scripture is saying: “He was the first one who began to be powerful in causing rebellion, and he was a mighty hunter before Hashem, intentionally provoking Him.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 9
  
  He intentionally provoked Him. Rashi is answering the question: Wherever Nimrod is, he is “before Hashem.” [So what is the meaning of “before Hashem”?] 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  This refers to Nineveh. [Rashi explains this] because we do not know if “the great city” refers to Nineveh or to Kalach. [And Rashi knows it is Nineveh] because if Kalach was “the great city,” it should say, ובין כלח העיר הגדולה. Why does it say היא? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov,</i> citing Tosfos Yoma 10a, ד"ה איני) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Because of their fiery faces. Wherever the name is a Hebrew word, Rashi explains why that name is used, telling us what it signifies. But if the name is not a Hebrew word, Rashi does not comment. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  And the Plishtim descended from them. For if the Plishtim descended from the Kasluchim alone, it should say: “And the Kasluchim produced the Plishtim,” and omit, “From whom came.” Furthermore, Scripture cannot be identifying which Kasluchim it speaks of — i.e., they are the ones from which the Plishtim came — as no other mention of Kasluchim appears in Scripture. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Many families. ואחר נפצו cannot refer to the above-mentioned descendants of Canaan, [saying that they spread across the earth,] for then it should say just ואחר נפצו and omit משפחות הכנעני. For it clearly would refer back to those above. Perforce, it says משפחות הכנעני to tell us that “from these, many other families branched out.” This is similar to Noach’s three sons [from whom many families branched out]. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Of the river. The simple reading of the verse is that Eiver is the name of a man [who was a greatgrandson of Sheim]. But if so, why does it say that Sheim was “father of the children of Eiver”? Was Sheim the forefather only of Eiver’s descendants? Sheim had other sons as well! Thus Rashi explains that Eiver is not a name of a person, but it means עבר הנהר, the other side of the river. This is preferable to the <i>Re’m’s </i>explanation, that it cannot refer to Eiver the great-grandson of Sheim because then what would it come to teach us? Everyone is the forefather of the families he produced! Perforce, עבר means the other side of the river. 
  Consequently, his oldest child was 100 years old. [The <i>Re’m, </i>who holds that Cham was the oldest son of Noach (see entry on 9:24, citing <i>Re’m</i>) writes as follows:] You might ask: How does this prove [that Yefes was older than Sheim]? Perhaps Cham was 100 years old when the Flood came, Sheim was 100 at two years after the Flood, and Yefes was 100 at three or four years after the Flood. The answer is: In the early generations, sons were born at intervals of one year, as it says in Sanhedrin 69b. Once Scripture tells us that Sheim was born when Noach was 502, which is [deduced from the fact that Sheim turned 100] “two years after the Flood,” we may infer that Sheim was the last [to be born. This is because “Noach was 500 years old when he had his first child.” [We may therefore deduce that] Yefes was born when Noach was 501, and Cham was born when Noach was 500.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Towards the end of Eiver’s life they became dispersed. If so, how did Eiver know [to name his son Peleg]? Perforce, he was a prophet. 
  Early in his life. And thus Eiver was not a prophet. Perhaps, the dispersion happened early on, and he named [his son Peleg] after a past event. [This is not so,] because “Yokton... had propagated many families before this.” 
  And if you will claim that [the dispersion took place] in his mid-life. Meaning: Peleg had a different name before the dispersion, and when it occurred, Eiver renamed him. [To this Rashi counters:] “Scripture does not come to obfuscate, but to clarify. Hence, you may conclude that in the year of Peleg’s death they were dispersed.” This eliminates the possibility that Peleg had another name beforehand, and Eiver renamed him after the dispersion occurred. For it occurred at the end of Peleg’s life, and a deceased person is not renamed on account of an event that took place at the time of or shortly before his death. Surely, Eiver named him Peleg early in Eiver’s life, on account of a future event. 
  And thought little of himself. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture change the style of its text when telling about the birth of Eiver’s sons? For it is written: “Two sons were born to Eiver.” This is unlike other births, where it says, for instance, “Arpachshad produced Shelach,” and, “Yaktan produced Almodad, Shelef...” Perforce Scripture changed the style of its text and writes, “Two sons were born to Eiver,” [because] he named them on account of an event. But the question is: Indeed, Scripture gave a reason for naming Peleg so. But why was Yaktan named so? It must be because he thought little of himself. Eiver saw all this prophetically. But the <i>Re’m </i>writes that Rashi specially explains Yaktan because it is derived from קטן [which is a Hebrew word]. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  He was so called because of his city. [The Aggadah explains that] the people of that city awaited death [מות] every day, because they [were very poor] and ate animal fodder.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The holy language. For if it was another language, there would not be only one language [on earth, as the holy language remained until this point.]. For all agree that the world was created with the holy language, as Rashi explained on (2:23): “The man said, ‘This at last... shall be called אשה.’” 
  Another explanation: Against the Sole Being of the universe. There is a question on the first explanation: Why does it not say בדברים אחדים (<i>with</i> conforming words)? Thus Rashi says, “Another explanation...” But this answer also raises a difficulty: Why does it not say ודברים אחרים (and <i>other</i> words)? Thus Rashi offers the third explanation, which interprets דברים אחדים to mean דברים חדים (sharp words). (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Where they resided. Rashi is answering the question: There is no city or place called קדם. [So why does it say they journeyed from there?] Earlier (10:30), it mentions קדם only to mark the place of Meisha, which was by Sephor, towards the east (קדם). Thus Rashi explains that they resided there, i.e., in the city of Meisha. But not in קדם, which merely marks the location. Then Rashi answers the question: Why does it not say ויסעו מקדם? For בנסעם implies they found the valley at the very start of their journey, which cannot be. Thus Rashi explains, “They journeyed from there <i>to seek</i> for themselves...” [I.e., they were <i>seeking</i> from the very start.] (<i>the author</i>) 
  They journeyed from there... Rashi knew they journeyed for this purpose because it is written afterwards, “They <i>found</i> a valley,” implying that from the start they were looking for it. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  One nation to another. Rashi knows this because it is written later (v. 7), “And jumble their language that they will not understand איש שפת רעהו".” There, it must mean one nation understanding another, for if it meant individuals, there would be more than seventy languages! And that verse refers back to our verse, ויאמרו איש אל רעהו. Thus we learn that in our verse, too, it means “one nation to another.” This is preferable to <i>Re’m’s </i>explanation that the plan was made between nations rather than between individuals.
  
  Verse 4
  
  To scatter us from here. This refers back to “city,” not to “tower.” [I.e., they built the <i>city</i> in order not to be scattered.] Otherwise it would contradict what Rashi explained on 11:1, that they built the tower to rebel against Hashem, whereas Rashi explains here, “So that He will not bring some plague...” Perforce, the <i>city</i> was built in order not to be scattered [by some plague]. (<i>Re’m</i>) But <i>Gur Aryeh </i>writes that “not be scattered” was indeed the reason for the tower. [They reasoned that] if He will bring some plague to scatter them, they will ascend the tower to wage war against Hashem. Similarly with Rashi’s second explanation there, “To make supports for the heavens.” [It was so that Hashem would not bring a Flood upon them to scatter them].
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  As in אמרם עשותם. Meaning: החל is the root, and the suffix [of ם] denotes the subject [of the verb], like אמרם meansאמר הם  and עשותם means עשות הם. Here as well, החלם means החל הם. 
  An incredulous question. Meaning: Shall they not be prevented from this plan? Behold, we will descend and jumble their language, and this idea surely will be stopped! But this phrase cannot be a statement of fact, for they indeed were stopped. Question: Why should they be unstoppable [if not for Hashem’s intervention]? The answer is: Peace has great power. For even if [the Jews] worship idols they are not punished [if they have peace among themselves], as it says (Hoshea 4:17), “Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.” But Hashem countered: Their power of peace will not help them, as they can be brought to fight and argue. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>)
  
  Verse 7
  
  Measure in kind. [Rashi knows it means this] because if not, why does it say הבה, which means “prepare yourselves” [see Rashi on v. 3]? As regards Hashem, everything is already prepared! (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  The letter ה at the end is superfluous. Rashi means that since it is written ונבלה rather than ונבל, we might think it is not plural — rather it is like נָפְלָה, which starts with a נ and is not plural. There, the נ is the first letter of the root, and the ה makes it feminine. The נ is not a plural prefix. And we might say the same for ונבלה. Thus Rashi explains, “The letter ה at the end is superfluous.” In other words, ונבלה is unlike נָפְלָה [where the ה is to make it feminine]. Rather, ונבלה is the same as ונבל, which is [first person] plural. And v. 9 proves that the נ of ונבלה is a plural prefix, for it is written afterward, “Adonoy jumbled (בלל)...” Thus we see that the נ of ונבלה is not the first letter of the root, [because the root is בלל]. Rather, it is a plural prefix. This is preferable to the explanation of <i>Re’m, </i>[who writes that we might think the נ of ונבלה is from the passive verb form נפעל. The <i>Re’m </i>argues that if so,] the verse would be difficult to understand, because it would be saying: “Let us descend and their language will be jumbled.” Their language would not be jumbled due to Hashem’s descending!
  And splits his brains open. For if they stopped building simply because one could not understand the other, why did they scatter? They could live together despite not understanding one another. It must be that they started fighting. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Two years after the flood. Rashi is explaining that, “Two years after the flood” refers to, “He begat Arpachshad,” and also to, “Sheim was 100 years old.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  The Midrash Aggadah. Rashi [offers the Midrashic explanation] because of a question on the simple meaning: What does it matter to us whether Haran died during Terach’s lifetime or after his death? Whereas according to the Midrash Aggadah, it teaches us the miracle of Avraham being saved while Haran was burnt [to death].
  
  Verse 29
  
  This was Sarah. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Furthermore: What does it matter that Yiskah is Sarah? The answer is: Rashi knows this because before it is written that Haran was “the father of Milkah and Yiskah,” and it lists Haran’s [female] offspring. If so, why does it not mention Sarah as well, who was a daughter of Haran? Perforce, Yiskah is Sarah. Furthermore, Sarah is בג"ץ in the <i>alef beis</i> ofא"ת ב"ש , [in which א equals ת, and ב equals ש, etc]. And בג"ץ has the same numerical value as יסכה. Rashi offers three explanations for the name Yiskah because [the name hints to all of them, so] which one should be ruled out? Alternatively, it is because Sanhedrin 69b mentions two of them. And Rashi added a third, “princely”, because he is answering the question: Why was she not called by her actual name, שרי? It must be that יסכה means “princely,” and is thus similar to שרי, which means “ruling”. (<i>source unknown</i>) 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  Terach and Avram went forth. [Theoretically,] it could be the other way around: Lot and Sarai went forth, bringing along Terach and Avram. Thus, Rashi is telling us that Terach and Avram were primary while Sarai and Lot were secondary. But if so, why is it written before: “Terach took his son Avram...” implying that Terach [alone] took them out, while here it implies that also Avram took them out? The answer is: Also Avram took them out. Nevertheless, he accorded the honor to his father as if his father alone took them out, which is why it is written, “Terach took...” And if not for, “With them <i>they</i> departed,” we would assume that in truth, Terach alone took them out. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 32
  
  [People] would say, “[Avraham] did not show...” The <i>Re’m</i> writes: I do not understand about which time period Rashi is concerned [that “people would say”]. If it is referring to Avraham’s time period, what does it help that “Scripture refers to him as dead”? The Torah was not written in Avraham’s days! And if it is referring to the time period after the Torah had been written, why would people say Avraham “did not show respect for his father”? The next verse says, “Adonoy said to Avram, ‘Go from your land...’” Obviously, Avraham could not stay with his father and disobey Hashem’s command! It seems the answer is: It is after the Torah was written. And they would say Avraham did not respect his father because he did not take his father with him to Canaan as he did when he left Ur Kasdim. But in fact Avraham did not take his father along because his father was wicked and worshipped idols. Although Terach repented before he died, Avraham left him in Charan when he was still wicked. But it seems to me that [he who answered this] did not understand the <i>Re’m</i>. The whole reason Hashem said to Avraham, “Go from your land... and from <i>your father’s house</i>” was because He did not want Avraham to take his father with him! Hashem did not want Avraham to make himself secondary to his father as he did in the first journey, where it is written, “Terach took his son Avram...” Moreover, it is not true that Avraham took his father along when he left Ur Kasdim. On the contrary, Terach took Avraham, as we explained above. Thus, the <i>Re’m’s </i>question stands. (<i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>) See what I cited above (v. 31) from the <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>, and you will find a good reply to this rebuttal. [For the <i>Nachalas Yaakov </i>proves that Avraham did not truly make himself secondary to his father; he merely accorded honor to his father.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  It is there that I will make you into a great nation. Rashi is explaining his comment of above: “For your own benefit, for your own good.” What is the good? “I will make you into a great nation.” And what is the benefit? “I will make your character known to the world.” Since the next verse elaborates by saying, “I will make you into a great nation ... and make your name great,” we learn that it was for this purpose that Hashem told Avraham to go there. The [repetitive phrase] לך לך does not present a difficulty, for [similarly] it is written in Shir HaShirim 2:11: הגשם חלף הלך לו. Thus we could explain the phrase לך לך is common in Scripture. Nevertheless we explain [such a phrase] where possible, [as Rashi does here]. So wrote <i>Re’m</i>, but it seems to me that it indeed presents a difficulty everywhere it appears. With הגשם חלף הלך לו, it means that the rain ceased, following its nature and inclination. But here, Hashem told Avraham to “Go from your land” against his will, [so that explanation does not fit]. Thus Rashi explains, “For your benefit...” The <i>Maharshal</i> writes: There is a difficulty with Rashi’s first explanation, [“It is there that I will make you into a great nation.” For in v. 2,] we need to insert the phrase, “<i>It is there that.</i>” Thus Rashi offers the second explanation, “I will make your character known to the world.” But according to this explanation, a question arises: What is meant by (v. 2), “I will make you into a great nation”? Therefore, Rashi needs both explanations.
  
  Verse 2
  
  Since traveling causes three things. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Hashem give Avraham these three specific blessings, and not other blessings? 
  Therefore, these three blessings were necessary. Question: How did these three things that are diminished by traveling pertain to Avraham? He had no children. Also, he had no wealth, for on his way [down to Egypt] he bought everything on credit [see Rashi on 13:3]. Furthermore, he replied to the King of Sedom (14:23): “So you will not be able to say, ‘I have made Avram wealthy’” — [implying that beforehand, he indeed was not wealthy]. And nowhere does it say he had acquired fame. [Since he never had these things, he need not fear losing them on account of traveling!] It seems the answer is: Rashi means that for one who has them, traveling inhibits these things. And one who lacks them surely will not acquire them on account of traveling. Thus Avraham needed these three specific blessings in order to <i>acquire</i> them, being that they are contrary to the norm, for traveling inhibits them. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) This refers to valuing the mitzvah of the <i>Akeidah,</i> [not Yitzchok]. (<i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>)
  He promised him children, wealth and fame ...  Rashi seems to be saying: since traveling inhibits having children, Hashem therefore promised him that traveling will not harm him. If he were not to travel he would have had children, so too he will have children, in spite of his traveling. But this contradicts what Rashi said before: “Here<i> </i>you will <i>not</i> merit having children.” Similarly, since traveling lessens fame, Hashem promised him that traveling will not harm him. If he were not to travel he would have fame, so too he will have fame in spite of traveling. But this contradicts what Rashi said before: “I will make your character known to the world,” implying that outside of Eretz Yisrael he had no fame at all. A further question: Why does Rashi first explain והיה ברכה and only then say, “An alternate explanation: ואעשך לגוי גדול...” which is contrary to the verse’s order? Moreover, why does Rashi first explain ואעשך לגוי גדול and only then explain מארצך וממולדתך, which is contrary to the verse’s order? The <i>Re’m</i> answers that Rashi cited the Bereishis Rabbah’s teaching [of “Traveling causes three things...”] at the end, to show that it disagrees with the previous explanation of “For your own benefit, for your own good.” But there is another, more intricate answer: When Rashi says, “Traveling causes three things...” he is not explaining ואעשך לגוי גדול [differently than before]. Rather he is challenging what he said before, “Here you will not merit having children” — for in Bereishis Rabbah it says that “traveling causes three things...” and this implies Avraham would indeed have children without traveling to Eretz Yisrael. And lest we claim that the text of the Midrash Rabbah is inaccurate, as children and fame are mentioned in the verse while wealth is not, Rashi then explains that wealth is also mentioned: ואברכך refers to wealth. And lest we still claim that the Midrash is inaccurate, as it attempts to interpret all the extra words in the verse, but how will it interpret והיה ברכה? To answer this, Rashi explains that והיה ברכה comes to teach that, “The blessings are entrusted to you....” Perforce the Midrash is accurate, and therefore it presents a difficulty on Rashi’s first explanation. Rashi answers: “An alternate explanation is ... the basis of the opening Shemoneh Esrei prayer...” Rashi is saying that the Midrash Rabbah itself has an additional explanation for ואעשך לגוי גדול. Consequently, when Rashi said, “Here you will not merit having children,” is in line with the Midrash Rabbah’s alternate explanation. (<i>author’s commentary</i>) 
  This is when we say: “God of Avraham.” The verse implies this explanation, since only about a multitude is it said, “God of.” For instance, it says, “God of Israel” (33:20), “God of the Hebrews” (Shemos 3:18) and “the gods of the peoples” (Devarim 6:14). The Torah never says “God of” about an individual. Accordingly, Hashem told Avraham: “I will make you into a great nation” — you will be as a great nation, since they will say about you “God of Avraham.” And since “I will bless you” connotes additional blessing, it means that also Avraham’s son will be so blessed, that they will say “God of Yitzchok.” And since “I will make your name great” connotes further greatness, it means that also Avraham’s grandson will be so blessed, that they will say “God of Yaakov.” The reason this blessing was dependent on his traveling to Eretz Yisrael, and he could not receive this blessing outside of the Land [of Yisrael], is because it says in Kesubos 110b: “Anyone who lives outside the Land [of Yisrael] is considered as if he has no God.” Therefore, “God of Avraham” could not be said unless he traveled to Eretz Yisrael. Rashi offers this alternate explanation, [about the Shemoneh Esrei,] because according to the [first] explanation, the verse should say והיה מבורך [rather than והיה ברכה] — as the verse is speaking about the one who offers blessings. Thus Rashi gives the alternative explanation [in which the verse speaks about the blessing itself]. Then Rashi goes on to explain the whole verse accordingly. And Rashi’s explanation of והיה ברכה [is based on] the gematria ofוהיה , which is the same as that of י-ה-ו-ה. It hints that only with mention of Avraham do we conclude the [first] blessing [of the Shemoneh Esrei] and say: ברוך אתה ה' מגן אברהם. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Keep distancing yourself from there. Regarding “your father’s house,” where Avraham was living, לֶךְ could only mean “leave.” But regarding “your land,” which Avraham had already left, it could only mean “further distance yourself.” Thus Rashi was forced to explain לֶךְ both as “distancing” and as “leaving.” 
  In order that it be precious in his eyes. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse elaborate so much, by writing from where he left? It is obvious that he left his father’s house, as he was then living there. Scripture should simply have written, “Go to the land...” Rashi explains: The verse elaborated in order that Avraham’s own homeland will become more precious in his eyes. And this was to reward him for every word [Hashem spoke] and for every footstep [he took]. The more Hashem describes the land he is leaving, the more precious it becomes in his eyes, and the more will he be more pained upon leaving it. Thus his reward will be greater, since “The reward is according to the pain.” That is why there so many descriptions are written: “From your land, from your birthplace, and from your father’s house.” This fits well with what Rashi wrote next: “Similarly: ‘Your son ... Yitzchok.’” Hashem elaborated about Yitzchok, using many descriptions, to make him precious in Avraham’s eyes and give Avraham great reward for every word. The many descriptions served to increase Avraham’s pain in sacrificing his son and parting with him. For the same reason, here Hashem did not tell Avraham where he was going, [so he would think:] “Perhaps it is worse than the place I am leaving,” and he will be more pained. And this will increase his reward. (<i>Re’m</i>) The <i>Maharshal</i> explains that Rashi is answering two questions: 1.Why does the verse elaborate so much? It should say right away, “...From your father’s house.” Why did Hashem not tell him immediately [where he was going]? Rashi answers: 1.The purpose of the elaboration was to make his homeland more precious in his eyes. He did not tell him immediately [where he was going], to reward him for every word. Then Rashi explains that Hashem similarly elaborated in order to make Yitzchok precious to Avraham, and did not reveal the place in order to reward him. I agree with this explanation, except [for one point:] my teacher <i>Maharam Yafeh</i> is right that when Rashi says, “In order that <i>it</i> be precious in his eyes,” it refers to the land mentioned previously, [which is Eretz Yisrael]. For Rashi said right before, [regarding Avraham’s destination,] “He did not immediately reveal which land it was.” Whereas the land Avraham left was not mentioned at all. How could that be the land Rashi refers to? Similarly with, “Please take your son...” (22:2), about which Rashi says: “So that he value the mitzvah.” 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  And Sarah would convert the women. Rashi knows this because it is written אשר עשו בחרן, in plural — referring to both Avraham and Sarah. It seems that [Rashi knew they made converts because] a convert is regarded as a newborn. Thus it is considered as if they “made” them. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 6
  
  He entered it. ויעבור usually means “he passed through” the land but did not dwell there. Thus Rashi needed to explain that here it is different, and means, “He entered it.” Rashi knows this because here it is written בארץ, not הארץ. Alternatively, because it is written: “Until the place of Shechem,” and Shechem is in Eretz Canaan. 
  To pray for Yaakov’s sons. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not recount that he came to Sukkos, the city closest to Eretz Yisrael’s boundary — as we see in Parshas Vayishlach (33:17)? Thus Rashi explains that [he came to Shechem] to pray. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “The <i>place</i> of Shechem,” and not, “The <i>city</i> of Shechem,” as it is written later (33:18), “Yaakov arrived safely at the city of Shechem”? Thus Rashi explains that he came to pray, and it says “place” because he who prays should set for himself a fixed <i>place</i> for his prayer. This is preferable to <i>Re’m’s</i> explanation, that otherwise there is no reason to say, “Until the place of Shechem” [at all]. One might ask: If Avraham knew all this prophetically, why did he say later (15:2-3): “My Master, God, what will You give me since I continue to be childless ... and the manager of my household is Eliezer of Damascus. Behold, You have not given me children ... .”? We see he feared he would die without children! The answer is: Despite [his knowing about Yaakov’s sons], Avraham feared he would not have children until very old age, and Eliezer would take his wealth. (<i>R. Noson</i>)
  He showed him Mount Gerizim. Rashi is answering the question: If Shechem is the same as the Plain of Moreh — and it is written, “Until the place of Shechem” — why does it also need to be called the Plain of Moreh? Rashi answers, “He showed him Mount Gerizim and Mount Eival.” And it is written [regarding the oath that was taken there], “The Plain of Moreh” (Devarim 11:30). Where Israel accepted ... [אלון מורה is so called] because אלון is from the root of אלה (oath), and מורה is from the root of הוראה, which is Torah. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  He gradually conquered. Rashi is answering the question: “Then” is qualifying word, implying that in Avraham’s days it was so, but afterwards, the Canaanites were not in the Land. But how can this be? They were still there in Moshe’s days! Thus Rashi needed to explain that it means “then but not before.” For [in Avraham’s days,] the Canaanites began conquering the Land. 
  For it fell to the share of Sheim. This indeed contradicts what Rashi said in (Bamidbar 13:22) וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צען מצרים. [There Rashi said that Cham built Hebron, implying that all of Eretz Yisrael belonged to Cham — not Sheim — from the start.] Yet we can answer that these Aggados disagree with each other. But we cannot answer that all of Eretz Yisrael fell to Cham, except for Jerusalem and its vicinity which fell to Sheim. For Rashi says here, “He [the Canaanite] gradually conquered <i>Eretz Yisrael</i> from the descendants of Sheim,” implying that all of Eretz Yisrael was Sheim’s. (<i>Re’m</i>) However, the answer that only Jerusalem and its vicinity was Sheim’s seems better. For “The Canaanite gradually conquered Eretz Yisrael” could refer to the small part of Eretz Yisrael that Cham’s son Canaan did not already have. This is better than saying that the Midrashim disagree with each other. <i>Mahara Ashkenazi</i> writes: All Eretz Yisrael surely belonged to Sheim, as Rashi implies here. And what Rashi wrote on Bamidbar 13:22 should be understood as follows: If one man built two cities, it would make sense to identify which was built first. Thus if Cham was the builder, the Torah could very well be identifying which he built first, [by saying וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צען מצרים]. But it cannot be that Cham built both Hebron and Zoan, due to Rashi’s question there: “Could Cham have built Hebron for Canaan his youngest son, before building Zoan for Mitzrayim his eldest son?!” Thus we see that Sheim built Hebron, while Cham built Zoan. Consequently, the Torah cannot be saying that Hebron preceded Zoan by seven years, as different people built them, and there is no reason to identify their respective order. It follows that there is no contradiction at all [between what Rashi said in Bamidbar and what he said here]. And the verse in Bamidbar means, [as Rashi concludes there,] “Hebron was built up with everything good, seven times more than Zoan.” 
  As it is said: “Malki Zedek King of Shaleim.” Malki Zedek is Sheim the son of Noach, as Rashi explains on 14:18. And King of Shaleim means King of Yerushalayim. [Thus, the Land originally was Sheim’s]. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  For the tidings of children ... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Avraham build an altar now? If he built it on account of the Divine revelation, as the verse seems to be saying, then he should have built an altar in Charan as well — for Hashem appeared to him also there and said, “Go from your land.” Although it is not written there, “God appeared,” it was a Divine revelation nonetheless. Therefore Rashi explains, “For the tidings of children and for the tidings of Eretz Yisrael.” For it says, “To your <i>descendants</i> I will give this <i>land</i>,” and this contains both tidings. Furthermore, Rashi knows this because it is written, “To Adonoy <i>Who had appeared to him</i>.” Why is it not written just, “To Adonoy”? Because from “Who had appeared to him,” we learn that he built the altar on account of the vision he had now: the tidings of children and Eretz Yisrael. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  This refers to his tent. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ויעתק, a term that is used in conjunction with a living being? The proper term is יציאה, as in v. 5: ויקח אברם ... ויצאו ללכת ארצה כנען. Or the term נסיעה, as in v. 9: ויסע אברם.... Thus Rashi explains that ויעתק is referring to his tent, i.e., he moved his tent, [not himself]. 
  Means east of Beis-Eil. Rashi is saying that מקדם is connected to ההרה, and is explaining where the mountain was. It does not refer back to, “From there he moved,” stating from where he traveled. Rashi proof is because it is written: “Beis-Eil was to the west and Ai was to the east.” If מקדם refers to where he traveled from, why was Beis-Eil described as being to the west? On the contrary: before he traveled, Beis-Eil was to his west. But now that he traveled from the east [of Beis-Eil] in a different direction [of Beis-Eil], it would no longer be to his west. Thus, we must say that מקדם is connected to ההרה. And this is why Rashi then says, “Whereby Beis-Eil is located to his west.” I.e., it is now understandable for Beis-Eil to be described as being to the west. We need not ask: If it means “east of Beis-Eil” why is it not written בקדם. For מקדם, too, conveys that the mountain was east of Beis-Eil. The מ of מקדם is like the מ in, “Adonoy Elohim planted a garden in Eden, to the east (בעדן מקדם)” (2:8). And there it means, “East of Eden.” 
  He first pitched his wife’s tent. You might ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps it was the reverse! The answer is: Since it says in Yevamos 63b, “A man is obligated to honor his wife more than himself,” Avraham surely pitched hers first. 
  He prophetically saw that his descendents were destined. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Avraham build another altar? He already built one for the tidings of children and Eretz Yisrael. It seems that Hashem showed him specially this trouble, because it was like putting a qualification on the gift of Eretz Yisrael to his descendants (v. 7). If his descendants will sin as Achan did, they will fall into the hands of the Canaanites. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  But, all his travels were southward, aimed at going... Rashi is answering the question: הלוך ונסוע implies that he traveled continuously. If so, is it written before, “From there he moved ... his tent” — implying that he encamped in the meantime? [Rashi answers: “He would stay here a month or so, and then travel.”] And Rashi is answering another question: Why is it written, “Traveling steadily southward,” implying that he was traveling toward the world’s south, which is outside of Eretz Yisrael? This cannot be, for he was traveling from Charan to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore Rashi explains, “All his travels were southward, going to the south of Eretz Yisrael.” His travels were to Eretz Yisrael’s south. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  He became aware of her due to an event. They crossed a river and she had to lift her clothes, so he saw she was beautiful. The Midrash says he recognized her great beauty when he saw her reflection in the water as they crossed. 
  Another explanation: It is usual ... [Despite Rashi’s first explanation,] the verse is still selfcontradictory: הנה נא is present tense, while ידעתי is past tense. Therefore he offers another explanation. (<i>Maharshal</i>) The simple explanation ... I now realize the time has come to be concerned. In this explanation, the verse must be divided. [The first part is:] “Behold I now realize the time has come ... .” And the [second] part starts with ידעתי: “I have known this for a long time.” Rashi then proves that a verse may be so divided (19:2): “See now my lords, please turn ... ’” [“See now” means:] “Behold, the time has come that you must be careful in regard to these cruel people.” [And “Please turn” means: “Turn off the main road to my home.” See Rashi there.] Some ask: It says in Kiddushin 41a that it is forbidden to marry a woman without seeing her first. [Why then did Avraham not know she was beautiful?] It seems the answer is: Avraham surely saw her before they married and he knew she was beautiful. But then she was very young, when it is natural to be beautiful. But now she was 65, and beauty usually changes. Thus, Avraham did not know until now [that she still was beautiful]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Among black people. [You might ask:] The people of Avimelech were not black. Why did Avraham say there (20:2), “She is my sister”? Avraham himself already answered this by saying (20:11), “There is no fear of Elohim in this place, and they will kill me to take my wife.” Rashi explains (<i>ad loc</i>) that Avraham knew this since he was asked about his wife as soon as he arrived, rather than being asked about food and lodging. This is preferable to the <i>Re’m’s</i> answer that word had already spread that she was his sister, [thus they needed to continue saying so]. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  So that they give me gifts. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ייטב? Avoidance of death is called הצלה, not הטבה. Thus Rashi explains, “So that they give me gifts.” You might ask: This implies that Avraham wanted gifts. Why did he later reject gifts from the king of Sedom? There he said (14:23), “Neither a thread nor a shoelace! I will not take anything of yours,” although the wealth was rightfully due to him, since he took it from the four kings. If so, he surely would not want outright gifts, for it is written (Mishlei 15:27): “He who hates gifts will live.” An answer is: Avraham wanted only a small gift, for it says in Berachos 10b, “One who wishes to benefit from others may do so, as did the Prophet Elisha.” This means one may take food, drink and lodging. And the proof [that Avraham objected only to substantial gifts] is that it is written (14:21): “The king of Sedom said, ‘Take take the <i>possessions</i> for yourself,’” to which Avraham answered, “I have lifted my hand to Adonoy ... Neither a thread nor a shoelace! ...so you will not be able to say, ‘I have made Avram <i>wealthy</i>.’” A further answer is: Women desire money. So in order to appease her, he told her: “Please say ... my sister, so that it will go well with me.” But Avraham never intended to take gifts from Pharaoh. A further answer is: Avraham had not yet acquired wealth, so he took gifts. [We see he was poor when he went down to Egypt] because the verse later says (13:3), “He continued on his travels,” on which Rashi says: “On his return trip he paid the debts he incurred.” But when speaking to the king of Sedom he had acquired wealth, thus he refused even what was rightfully due to him, because of “He who hates gifts will live.” Some ask: Why would Avraham want to cause the Egyptians to sin and take a married woman, by telling them Sarah was his sister? The answer is: He told them she was his sister, who was married and whose husband was overseas. This also explains why he said, “And my life will be spared <i>because of you.</i>” Avraham said to Sarah, “I will tell them that you are my sister, and that you are married, but your husband left you. I am searching for him — perhaps I will find him and he will give you a <i>get</i>, or perhaps he has died, and then you can remarry. Thus they will spare my life, [since I am helping] to avoid the sin of taking you as a married woman.” This also explains why Sarah agreed: since he told them that she might be married, they surely will not take her. (see <i>Chizkuni</i>) 
  
  Verse 14
  
  It should have said, “When they came...” Question: Why did Rashi not make this comment before, on (v. 10) “Avram went down to Egypt,” or on (v. 11) “As he came near and was about to enter”? There as well it should have been written, “<i>They</i> went down,” and, “<i>They</i> came near.” [Rashi’s lack of comment there] indicates that Sarah and the others were clearly included when Avraham was mentioned, as he was the central figure of the home. If so, the same should be true here. The answer is: The earlier verses raised no question because Avraham indeed was the central figure, and everything was dependent upon him. But here, Sarah was the central figure: Avraham had requested <i>her</i> to say she was his sister. Thus it should say, “When <i>they</i> came,” at least equating Sarah to Avraham. The <i>Mahara’i</i> answers: Only here can we object that “it should have said, ‘When <i>they</i> came.’” For here the subject of the verse is Sarah, not Avraham — as it is written, “The Egyptians beheld the woman.” But the earlier verse spoke of Avraham. Furthermore, Avraham was more important.
  
  Verse 15
  
  They praised her among themselves saying ... Otherwise it should have written לפני פרעה or לפרעה, [rather than אל פרעה]. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  With a kind of skin disease ... There are twenty-four types of rashes, none of which is more harmful for marital relations than this kind (ראתן). And [it must be that] Pharaoh was afflicted with it, for otherwise how did Pharaoh know she was his wife, so that he immediately called for Avraham [and said, “She is your wife”]?
  According to her words. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written אודות שרי [instead of דבר שרי]?
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Concerning him. Rashi is answering the question: If [ויצו עליו means] Pharaoh commanded Avraham some-thing, why does the verse not say what it was? Thus Rashi says it means, “Concerning him, to escort and protect him.” But a question remains: How did Rashi know that this is what Pharaoh had commanded? Perhaps he commanded that they let Avraham depart in peace, unhindered, not that he be protected. To answer this, Rashi explains that וישלחו means as the Targum says: “They escorted him.” And this implies, “To protect him.” [Note: The text of Rashi’s commentary on 13:1-2 was apparently in a different order than it appears today.] But a question still remains: How did the Targum know this? To answer this, Rashi explains that כבד מאוד (v. 2) means, “He was laden with baggage.” Since the Torah relates Avraham’s honor at length, his departure from Egypt must also have been in an honorable fashion. And that is why Rashi explained כבד מאוד before ויעל אברם, contrary to the order of the verses. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  To arrive at the south of Eretz Yisrael. Rashi is answering the question: Avraham was [already] in the south, for Egypt is south of Eretz Yisrael and in the south of the world. Accordingly, why is it not written, “Avraham went up north”? Thus Rashi explains, “To arrive at the south of Eretz Yisrael.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  This teaches good manners that a person not change ...  This explanation raises a question: Why does it not say במסעיו? Thus Rashi offered another explanation: “On his return trip he paid the debts he incurred.” But according to that explanation it should say ויחזור למסעיו. Why does it say וילך? Thus we need the first explanation as well. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  Egypt is south of ... Rashi is answering the question: Above it says [that he was traveling <i>to</i>] הנגבה. If so, why is it not written here וילך למסעיו הנגבה? Thus Rashi explains that Egypt is in the south. Accordingly, הנגבה [in our verse] refers to Egypt. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  And where “Avram called...” Rashi is answering the question: Since Avraham already made an altar there and called in the Name of Hashem, why does it tell us here [again], “And there Avram called...”? Thus Rashi explains that the verse is informing us where he went: to the place from where he had already called in the Name of Hashem. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  What brought this about? Rashi is answering the question: It is already written (v. 1), “Avram went ... <i>together with Lot</i> into the south,” [so why is it repeated?] 
  
  Verse 6
  
  The text, therefore, reads ולא נשא, in the masculine form. Rashi is answering the question: Since הארץ [which is the subject] is feminine, why does it say נשא in the masculine? And there is a further question: Why was the land unable to bear [the weight of] people? Thus Rashi explains, “It could not provide enough מרעה (pasture).” In other words, נשא refers to the [implied word] מרעה, which is masculine. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Because Lot’s shepherds were ...  Rashi is answering the questions: Why did they quarrel, and why does it say here, “The Canaanites ... were then living in the land”? Rashi explains: [They quarreled] “because Lot’s shepherds were wicked and grazed their animals in others’ fields ... .” And the verse says, “The Canaanites ... were then living in the land” because this was Hashem’s response [to their claim that it is not robbery]. And we need not ask why Avraham’s shepherds did not respond that Avraham will still beget an heir, for the response they gave was a better one, in that even Lot’s shepherds, who did not know that Avraham would still beget an heir, [had to admit that] “the Canaanites ... were then living in the land.”
  So that Avram did not yet possess it. Otherwise, Avram would give them permission to graze wherever they wish. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Relatives. Rashi is answering the question: They were not brothers, only relatives. [Why does it call them אחים?] And according to the Midrashic explanation, that they were called brothers because they looked similar, אחים means כאחים (<i>like</i> brothers). 
  
  Verse 9
  
  I will not go far from you ... Rashi is answering the question: Avraham just said, “We are kinsmen.” Why does he now say, “If you go to the left, I will go to the right” — implying he wants to distance himself due to the hatred between them? Where did the hatred come from? There was no quarrel between them, [only between the shepherds]. Thus Rashi explains, “I will not go far from you...” [Alternatively,] Rashi explained this because the words seem superfluous, as it could have just said, “Please separate from me.” Therefore Rashi explains: “I will not go far...” And if you ask why Avraham needed to promise this to Lot, Rashi answers: [To tell him that] “I will stand by you as a shield.” (<i>R. Yaakov Kenizal</i>) Rashi is answering the question: If Lot goes to the left, Avraham will obviously be on his right! [Why did the verse need to state this?] Thus Rashi explains: Avraham will actually stay near him by his right. He will not distance himself. (<i>R. Shmuel El Mashonino</i>) 
  
  Verse 10
  
  A land of water streams. Rashi is answering the question: משקה is a causative verb [meaning “to cause to be watered”]. In what way is the causative form appropriate here? Furthermore, the verse is speaking about streams, not about people watering fields. Thus Rashi explains: “A land of water streams,” and they are called משקה because people use them to water the fields. 
  That plain was... Rashi is explaining that “Before Adonoy destroyed Sedom and Amorah is read with, “It was like Adonoy’s garden....” It is not read with the preceding phrase, “It was abundantly watered.” [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what would it be telling us? The verse had already written, “Lot raised his eyes and saw...” and this was before Hashem destroyed Sedom. Perforce, it is read with, “It was like Adonoy’s garden...” (<i>Re’m</i>)
  For trees. Rashi inferred this from (2:9): “Adonoy Elohim made grow out of the soil every <i>tree</i> ... in the middle of the <i>garden,</i>” which shows that “garden” refers to trees. And Rashi explained like the land of Egypt “for זרעים” because it is written in Devarim 11:10: “For the land to which you are coming ... is not like the land of <i>Egypt</i> ... where you sowed your זרעים.” This shows that Egypt is a land of זרעים. (<i>Re’m</i>) [Without Rashi’s explanation that “garden” refers to trees, while “Egypt” refers to זרעים,] the verse’s comparisons [to two different places] seem both to relate to the same point. If so, only the better of the two need be mentioned — and if Scripture wishes to mention both, the better one should be mentioned last. It should say, “It was like the land of Egypt, [and was even] like God’s garden.” [Thus the verse’s is difficult to understand,] for if it was as good as Hashem’s garden, surely it was as good as the land of Egypt! Therefore, Rashi explains that the comparisons relate to two different points. (<i>R. Yaakov Kenizal</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  He departed from Avram. Rashi is answering the question: We see that Beis-Eil, [where they were located,] is in the north. For it is written (12:9): “Avram journeyed [from Beis-Eil], traveling steadily southward.” If so, why does it not say here, “Lot journeyed from the north”? Thus Rashi explains that he “departed from Avram ... traveling from east to west.” The <i>Re’m</i> writes: This is puzzling, as the boundaries of the Land indicate that the Jordan Plain is to the east of Eretz Yisrael, while Beis-Eil is within. Thus, traveling from Beis-Eil, where Avraham lived, to the Jordan Plain entails going to the east! <i>Re’m </i>left this unresolved. It seems to me that the answer is: The Jordan Plain was very large and extended within Eretz Yisrael. It reached close to Jerusalem, which is distant from Beis-Eil and within Eretz Yisrael. [This is possible] because the Jordan Plain was close to Sedom, which is not so far from Jerusalem. 
  From the One Who precedes the world. Otherwise it should say, “Lot journeyed from Avram,” as they were dwelling together, and Lot departed from him. (<i>Kitzur</i> <i>Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  He pitched tents for his shepherds. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “Setting up his tents as far as Sedom,” [if Lot lived in the Plain]? Thus Rashi explains: “He pitched tents for his shepherds.” I.e., he had many tents and pitched them from the Plain until Sedom. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Our Sages learned from here, “The names of the wicked shall rot.” There was no need at all for Scripture to write, “The people of Sedom were wicked and sinful.” Scripture wrote this because the people of Sedom needed to be mentioned in the previous verse: “Setting up his tents as far as Sedom.” That is why Scripture writes here that they were “wicked and sinful.” From this Shlomo HaMelech learned, “The names of the wicked shall rot.” I.e., when they are mentioned they should be disparaged.
   רעים with their persons. וחטאים with their wealth. Rashi’s explanation is the opposite of Onkelos, who translated: “רעים with their money. וחטאים with their persons.” You might ask: How did Rashi know [that it means as he explained]? The answer is: Yosef said (39:9), “How can I do such a great רעה,” speaking of sinning with his person. Here too, רעים means sinning with their persons. And it is written in Devarim 24:15 about a hired worker: “You shall give him his wage on his day ... lest there be חטא upon you.” And this involves money. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  At that time he was righteous. This can be seen also from Rashi’s comment on v. 10: “It was because they were permeated with immorality that Lot chose their locality.” [We may assume that] Lot became this way due to having been in Egypt, where they also were permeated with immorality, and he learned from them. Furthermore, Rashi explained on v. 11, “Lot removed himself from the One Who precedes the world” — implying that previously he was righteous.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  The name of a person. I.e., not the name of a place. For it is written (v. 24): “The men who went with me Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Who told Avraham, “Jump...” Rashi is answering the question: Was not Nimrod [not Amraphel] the king of Shinar?
  
  Verse 2
  
  He set his wings ...  Meaning, he made himself wings to fly. 
  The name of the city. Rashi knows this because it says בלע היא צוער. If Bela was the name of a person, it would not say היא צוער. We need not ask how Rashi knew these kings’ names were mentioned to tell us their wickedness, and thus interprets Shinav to mean, “He hated his Father in Heaven,” etc. For the answer is: Since the king of Zoar’s name is omitted, it must be that the others’ names were mentioned to convey their wickedness. It is likely that the king of Zoar was not wicked, thus his name did not show his wickedness. For it says concerning Lot (19:20): “Let me escape there [to Zoar],” and Rashi explains there [that Zoar’s sins were few]. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Many fields were in it. Since it is written השדים, with a “specifying ה,” but it does not specify where the “Siddim Valley” is located, Rashi explained that “it was so called because of the many fields (שדות) ... .” (<i>R. Shmuel El Mashonino</i>) But it seems to me that Rashi is saying that the proper name of the valley derives from its descriptive name. I.e., the Siddim Valley is its name, and it has no other proper name. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Afterward, the sea flowed into it. [Rashi says this] because it cannot be a valley and a sea simultaneously. 
  That the surrounding stones cracked... [Rashi offers this Midrashic explanation] because הוא ים connotes that it became a sea on its own — not that the sea flowed into it. Otherwise, it should say בו ים. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Of their rebellion ...  By saying, “Of their rebellion,” Rashi is telling us that it does <i>not </i>mean they served Kedorlaomer for twelve years, and the next year they rebelled, and the next year Kedorlaomer came. For then it should have said ובשלש עשרה שנה, as it says afterwards, ובארבע עשרה שנה. Rather, Rashi is saying that after serving for twelve years, they rebelled for a thirteen year period. And the very next year, i.e., in the fourteenth year, “Kedorlaomer came.” 
  These are the Zamzumim. Rashi knows this because it is written here Rephaim and Aimim, and mentions the Zuzim with them — while in Devarim 2:11, it mentions Rephaim, Aimim and Zamzumim. Thus, Zuzim must be Zamzumim. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  But that the plain of Paran was called איל. Rashi is answering the question: Onkelos translated אלוני (v. 13) as “the plain” of Mamrei. If אלוני means “plain,” how can איל also mean “plain”? Thus Rashi explains, “I maintain that this does not mean...”
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Yet, the fewer ones were victorious. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it need to state, “Four kings”? We see that they were four! Thus he explains [that it comes to teach]: “Yet ... Avraham did not refrain...” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  There were many pits ... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say בארות twice? Another question: If the pits had mortar, why is it written, “They <i>fell</i> there”? It should say, “They <i>sank</i> there,” as is in Yirmeyahu 38:6: “And Yirmeyahu sank into the cement.” Another question: Since the pits had mortar, why did they not die when they sank into the mortar, which is cement? Thus Rashi explains that there were many pits, and they did not actually contain mortar but provided earth for making mortar. 
  The Midrashic explanation is ... the King of Sedom escaped ... Rashi is answering the question: Why are the pits called בארות (lit. “wells”), if they would remove all the [earth for the] mortar from the pits? בארות implies they were always full of cement! Thus Rashi brings the Midrashic explanation. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  This refers to Og who escaped from the war. But not that he survived the Flood. For it is written (7:23), “Only Noach and those with him in the ark survived.” 
  As is written, “The נפילים were upon the land.” Rashi is saying that רפאים means giants, and the נפילים also were giants who lived in the generation of the Flood. Og was a remnant of the giants who lived in the generation of the Flood. [According to this explanation,] אך נח [previously translated as “only Noach”] means as Rashi explained on 7:23: “He was coughing and spitting blood...” And ואשר אתו (those with him) means: “ ... from the toil and burden of the animals that were <i>with him</i> in the ark.” 
  That Avram be killed so he might marry Sarah. Rashi is explaining according to the latter Midrash why Og came to tell Avraham about Lot. According to the first explanation, that Og escaped the war, it is understandable. He told Avram in order to take revenge on Amraphel and the others who had killed his family. But according to the latter Midrash, why did he tell him? Perforce, “It was his intention that Avram be killed...” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  As the Targum translates: “And he armed.” [You might ask:] Rashi explained on Shemos 15:9 that [אריק חרבי means, “I will draw My sword,” and he writes:] “Do not make a forced interpretation that אריק חרבי means the same as in וירק את חניכיו, and conveys, “I will arm myself with a sword.” [So why does Rashi here say that it means “to arm”? The answer is:] Rashi is saying here that the term <i>could</i> be interpreted everywhere as “to arm” — whereas in our verse this is its only possible interpretation, since it refers to “his trained servants,” [not to a weapon]. Thus Rashi explains אריק in the other verses in a forced way, so we will not immediately object to his interpretation here, citing the other verses. But in truth, it means “to draw” everywhere except for here. Thus Rashi said there: “And do not make a forced interpretation.” (See <i>Re’m</i> for a different explanation) 
  And it is the gematria equivalent of his name. <i>R. Noson</i> asks: Since a verse never leaves its plain meaning [altogether], and it says that there were 318 [men involved, how could Rashi say it was only Eliezer]? He answers, citing Rabbeinu Bechayeh, that the men of Avraham’s household indeed numbered 318. But after Avraham prepared them for war he decreased their number by ordering all the sinners to go back home, in accordance with Torah law (Devarim 20:8): [“And the officers shall continue to speak to the people and say,] ‘What man is there who is fearful ... ’” Thus [in the end], only he and Eliezer remained. But the <i>Gur Aryeh </i>writes that all 318 men surely went with him, to frighten the kings so they would not stand strong against him. Avraham alone could have defeated them, as nothing can stop Hashem. But he took them so as to use natural strength and thereby conceal the miracle, as it says (Yehoshua 8:2): “Set yourself an ambush...” And he took the [number of people] that is to the <i>gematria</i> of Eliezer, to hint that all [the men came] on account of Eliezer, [so that Avraham would not be only with his faithful servant Eliezer].
  There his strength ebbed. For he saw... [Rashi offers this Midrashic explanation] because it is written later, “He pursued them until Chovah,” which is Dan. If so, why does it need to say here, “And he pursued until Dan”? (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  According to its plain meaning the verse should be inverted...  Without inverting, the division refers to the night, and the following “he and his servants” does not convey anything. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  The Midrashic explanation is... [Accordingly,] “He and his servants...” is read with what follows below “ ... attacked them and pursued them.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  The Midrash Aggadah explains that he is Sheim. For the abbreviation of מלך שלם, when reversed, spells שם. 
  He bore him no resentment for his having killed his descendants. For it says, “After his return from defeating Kedorlaomer” — and Kedorlaomer was the king of Ailam, one of Sheim’s descendants. Assumedly, his people also were from Sheim. Rashi explains, “This is done for those who are battle-weary,” because if he meant to feed them as [honored] guests, why did he not bring out cattle and sheep to slaughter for them? But <i>Re’m</i> explains that if [he meant to feed them as guests], why does it say he brought out bread <i>and wine</i>? Scripture always mentions bread alone, such as (18:5): “I will get bread,” and (Shemos 18:12): “Aharon and all the elders of Yisrael came to eat bread.” Here, why does it mention wine too? Perforce, because they were battle-weary. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  He gave him. Avram. Rashi is answering the question: Who gave to whom? Thus Rashi explains that Avram gave to Sheim. And why did Avram do so? Because Sheim was a Kohein.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  This is an expression of an oath. There is no actual mention of an oath here — unlike with, “For I raise up My hand (אשא ידי) to heaven...” (Devarim 32:40), where it is written right afterwards, “ ... and I say, ‘As I live forever.’” Nevertheless, Scripture was brief here and relied on our understanding. (<i>Re’m</i>) Furthermore, we can say that אשא ידי [on its own] is considered an expression of mentioning an oath. And it is actually another way of saying הרימותי ידי. Therefore, הרימותי ידי is also an expression of an oath, although it is not expressly stated. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  And if you offer to compensate me... Rashi knew this because it says, “<i>And</i> I will not take, implying that “Neither a thread nor a shoelace” is a separate point which means: I will not retain the spoils. [Then comes a new point:] “<i>And</i> I will not take” from your treasure house. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: [The spoils] were already in Avraham’s hands. Why did he say, “I will not <i>take</i>”? Perforce it means, “I will not take compensation from your treasure house.” 
  
  Verse 24
  
  My servants who went with me. The verse should be divided into three parts: (1)“I am excluding myself, only what the <i>lads</i> have eaten” — referring to Avraham’s servants who accompanied him, for it is written before in v. 15: “He and his servants.” The phrase “who went with me” is Rashi’s own words [explaining who the “lads” are. It is not a quote from the verse]. (2)“And the portion of the <i>men</i> who went with me” — referring to his trained servants (חניכיו) mentioned in v. 14 above. (3) “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” — about them it says, “They may take their portion.” The fact that “portion” is mentioned again shows that “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” must be different from “The men who went with me,” regarding whom it already is written, “And the portion of...” Therefore, “They may take their portion” refers only to “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” [Thus there are three parts]. 
  Aneir and his friends stayed with the supplies to guard it ... Rashi knows this because it is written in v. 13, “He [Avram] was living in the Plains of Mamrei the brother of Eshkol and Aneir.” And then it is written (v. 14), “When Avram heard ... he pursued them...” but it does not say Aneir and his friends [joined the pursuit]. Perforce, they remained behind to guard the supplies.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  But <i>Avraham</i> <i>will</i> have a son. Although he had Yishmael while he was still called Avram, it says in Kiddushin 68b: “Your son from a nonJewess is not called your son.” Therefore, Yishmael could not be his heir. 
  This explains the use of the term הבטה: from above to below. You might ask: If so, why does it say (Bamidbar 21:9), “He would look (והביט) upon the copper snake and live,” [although he was lower than the snake]? The answer is: It means the <i>copper snake</i> would “look” upon him. And why is it written (Tehillim 34:6), “They looked (הביטו) to Him and became radiant,” which is from below to above? The answer is: Hashem is found everywhere. (<i>source unknown</i>) But <i>Re’m</i> explains: Rashi is saying that the הבטה mentioned <i>here</i> is from above to below, [but not everywhere else].
  
  Verse 6
  
  He did not ask of Him a sign concerning this ...  Rashi is answering the question: Would we think that Avraham might not believe in Hashem and in his own prophecy? Avraham was a prophet! So why does it need to say, “He believed in Hashem”? Rashi answers: To tell us that “he did not [even] ask of Him a sign...” If you ask: Why did Avraham not ask for a sign regarding the promise of children, as he did regarding the inheritance of the Land? The <i>Ramban</i> answers: [The promise of children was between him and Hashem. But inheriting the land was dependent on the sins of the Canaanite inhabitants, thus Avraham asked for a sign.] The <i>Re’m</i> answers: At this point, inheriting the land was merely told to Avraham, not promised: “I am Adonoy who brought you out of Ur Kasdim <i>with the intention</i> to give you this land as an inheritance.” Avraham asked for a sign because this promise was not definite. But the promise of children was a definite promise and therefore he did not need a sign. But it seems to me that he did not request a sign for children because it is written (v. 5), “He took him outside and said: ‘<i>Look</i> ....’” And this is interpreted in Shabbos 156a to mean: “God said to him, ‘Leave your astrological calculations ... It is <i>Avram</i> who will have no son, but <i>Avraham will</i> have a son.’” Once Avram saw this marvel, he no longer needed a sign. But the inheritance of the Land was not [seen]; thus Avraham requested a sign. A further answer: Avram had doubt about inheriting the Land because Hashem did not include the promise regarding the inheritance of the Land together with the promise of children. Rather He separated the two. This cast a doubt in Avraham’s heart. (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>) According to Rashi the phrase והאמין בה' seems to be unnecessary. It is obvious that Avram believed the promise of children, since he said nothing when Hashem promised him this. Therefore Rashi commented, “Concerning the inheritance of the Land he asked for a sign.” Rashi explains that והאמין בה' was written to infer from it: He believed <i>this,</i> and did not ask for a sign. But [for inheriting the Land] ... (<i>R. Yaakov Kenizal</i>) 
  God considered it for Avram... Rashi is explaining that Hashem accounted צדקה to Avram, not Avram to Hashem. Rashi knows this because the greater one grants צדקה and חסד to the lesser one, not the reverse. (<i>Re’m</i>) [Alternatively,] Rashi knows this because if it meant that Avram accounted צדקה to Hashem, it would be obvious. For even if he did not see in the stars that he will be childless, he would still consider [having children] a צדקה, and would not say that he deserved it — all the more so that the stars were against it. This is why Rashi explains that “God considered it for Avram.” (<i>R. Yaakov Kenizal</i>) 
  By what merit will they remain in it? Accordingly, that verse is understood as if it said אדע במה אירשנה —“Let me know by what merit I shall inherit it.” The <i>Re’m</i> writes: According to this explanation, I do not know how Rashi will explain והאמין בה', for the [original] question stands: would we think that Avram might not believe in his own prophecy? The <i>Re’m</i> answers: Avram believed he would have children, without puzzling over it. But he puzzled over inheriting the land — by what merit will his descendants remain in it? But it seems to me [the answer is]: He believed his children would continue to exist even without merit, for v. 10 says, “The bird, however, he did not split.” And Rashi comments there, citing <i>Chazal</i>: “This signifies that Israel will exist forever.” Similarly it is written (Devarim 32:23), “I will use up My arrows on them,” and <i>Chazal</i> comment (Sotah 9a): “My arrows may come to an end, but Israel will not come to an end.” Whereas for the Land, he believed they would [initially] inherit it, because the merit of their forefathers would be sufficient for this, as Rashi says at the beginning of Parshas Va’eira. But he had doubt whether they would have the merit to keep it. Thus he said, “How will I know?” I.e., by what merit will my descendants keep the Land? 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Symbolic of the goat that is offered inside... [The individual’s sin offering] does not come to atone for all of Israel as do the other bulls and goats mentioned. Yet, since it can be brought by anyone who sins, it is considered as atonement for all of Israel. (<i>Re’m</i>) But it seems to me that it serves as atonement for all of Israel because there is no one who is completely righteous, who does only good and never sins, [therefore it is considered as atonement for all of Israel.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  On the pieces. Rashi explains this because the term פגרים usually refers to complete bodies, while here the bodies were split into two. Therefore Rashi says that here הפגרים means “the pieces.” Rashi is thereby telling us that the vultures did not descend also on the birds, [which were not split]. For that would make it seem as if Israel too would be annihilated as the birds symbolize Yisrael [see Rashi on v. 10]. Thus Rashi explains that הבתרים means the [split] pieces, which symbolize the nations [<i>ibid</i>]. (<i>R. Yaakov Kenizal</i>)
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  That Kehos lived after Amram’s birth ... Also, [you must subtract] Kehos’s years before he descended to Egypt. Since the enslavement itself was not 400 years, we are forced to say that “for four hundred years” refers to “your descendants will be foreigners in a land that is not theirs,” rather than to “they will enslave them and oppress them.” Indeed, from the time Yitzchok was born, they were as foreigners in various lands, as it is written (Bereishis<i> </i>26:6): “Yitzchok settled in Gerar.” [And there are many verses that] use the term ויגר, which connotes being a foreigner. Although the enslavement was only for 210 years, they were foreigners from the time Yitzchok was born. 
  It does not state, “In the Land of Egypt” ... Rather it is written, “In a land that is not theirs” — as they [resided in various lands that were not theirs and] did not descend to Egypt until the end of Yaakov’s life. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  וגם includes the Four Kingdoms... They were hinted to above in v. 12: והנה אימה חשיכה גדולה נופלת עליו. אימה is Bavel. חשיכה is Medai, who darkened Israel’s eyes by [causing them] to fast. גדולה is Greece, and נופלת is Edom [i.e., Rome]. 
  With ten plagues. As opposed to with actual judgment, for it does not say anywhere that Hashem judged them. 
  With much money ... [Rashi carifies this because] רכוש usually means possessions [such as cattle and flocks]. But here the רכוש [the Egyptians] lent them was money, not the customary רכוש = possessions. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  And will, therefore, not witness all this. I.e., the enslavement and the oppression. But being a foreigner applied to Avraham as well, since the 400 years began immediately upon Yitzchok’s birth, as Rashi said on v. 13. 
  His father was an idol-worshipper and He foretells that he will join him ... This is a statement, not a rhetorical question. For Rashi does not say afterwards, “<i>Rather, </i>this teaches you ... (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  And on that very day that Eisav rebelled. As it is written (25:29), “When Eisav came in from the field, exhausted,” on which <i>Chazal</i> comment (Bereishis Rabbah 63:12): “[Exhausted] as a result of committing murder.” And that was the day Avraham died. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>)
  
  Verse 16
  
  And Calev son of Chetzron was of those who entered the Land. You might ask: Was Calev not the <i>fifth</i> generation? Since Yaakov himself descended to Egypt, it was 1) Yaakov, 2) Yehudah, 3) Peretz, 4) Chetzron, and 5) Calev. The answer is: Yaakov was very aged; he was considered as if dead and did not count as a generation. Furthermore, there was no enslavement at all in the days of Yaakov. Only in the days of Yehudah did some of the enslavement begin, as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayechi (47:28). Accordingly, “They will enslave them and oppress them” (v. 13) is connected to, “The fourth generation.” 
  
  Verse 17
  
  This is similar to ויהי הם מריקים שקיהם ...  Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ויהי, masculine? שמש is feminine, as it is written באה, thus it should say ותהי השמש. Rashi answers that it means, “This thing happened (ויהי דבר זה), that the sun set.” So ויהי refers to [the implied phrase] דבר זה, similar to (Bereishis 42:35) ויהי הם מריקים שקיהם , which means: “This thing happened (ויהי דבר זה), that they were emptying their sacks.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  The Land of Og about which it is said ... It seems that Og, although he was actually an Emorite — as it is written about [Sichon and Og], “Two kings of the Emorites” (Devarim 3:8) — was king of the Chivites who are the Refa’im. And Og who was an Emorite, is called “remnant of the Refa’im” (<i>ibid</i>) because he was their king. But if you say “the Refa’im” means [the Land of] Og, and all of them were Emorites, then why does it say (v. 21), “the Emorites”? The Emorites were already accounted for by, “the Refa’im”. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  She was Pharaoh’s daughter ...  Rashi knows this because it is written לה שפחה, even though everything a woman acquires belongs to her husband, [so Hagar really belonged to Avraham]. It must be that Hagar was Pharaoh’s daughter and he gave her to Sarah. Therefore it is written ולה שפחה to hint to the miracles performed “לה” — for Sarah — which Pharaoh saw. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Because of the merit of admitting my rival into my home. I.e., [Rashi is answering the question:] If Hagar gives birth, does this make Sarah built-up? Rashi answers: “Through her” means, “As a result of [what I do for] her.” 
  To the prophecy that was within her. Rashi knows this because it is written, “To the <i>voice</i> of Sarai,” rather than just, “To Sarai.” Thus it means [that Avraham listened] to the voice that came <i>to</i> Sarai, i.e., her prophecy. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  She took her with words ...  [Rashi knows this] because the mind is the main part of a person, and one can “take” a person’s mind only with good words that draw his mind to what one wants. 
  The time allotted to a woman ...  Otherwise why does it say, “At the end of ten years”? 
  
  Verse 4
  
  From the first marital union. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? The answer is: Because it is written, “He came to <i>Hagar</i> and she conceived,” rather than simply, “He came to <i>her</i> and she conceived.” It says “Hagar” to indicate that she was still being called Hagar when she conceived. That is, she conceived from the very first union. But other women do not so conceive [from he first union], and Hagar’s conception from the first union was a miracle. This is preferable to <i>Re’m’s </i>explanation that she [previously had] taken action and deflowered herself [thus allowing her to conceive]. 
  I have become pregnant from the first union. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Sarai became slighted in her eyes because she conceived from the first union? Perhaps the very fact that she conceived was the reason! The answer is: Then it should say, “She conceived and her mistress became slighted in her eyes,” [without the intervening phrase, “When she realized she was pregnant”]. A further answer: If it was just because she conceived, Sarai would not be slighted in her eyes, as perhaps Sarai never became pregnant simply because she was barren. But if Hagar conceived [miraculously] from the first union, the verse is understandable. She reasoned: “Sarah surely is not righteous. For if she was, why did her merit not help [to bring a miracle]? If I conceived from the first union, unlike any other woman [and Sarah did not], it is clear that she has no merit.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  I call for you to be punished. [חמסי means “my wrong”] and does not mean, “The wrong that I am doing,” as the suffix י refers to the subject, who is Sarah. [When Rashi says,] “Furthermore: You have unrightfully withheld your words from me,” this is an alternate explanation. 
  For you have heard my shame and remained silent. I.e., [you heard my shame] from Hagar, as the verse continues and states: “I gave my maid to you and ... I became slighted in her eyes.” 
  Every ביניך that appears in Scripture is lacking but, here, it is “full.” Meaning, [usually] it is written בֵּינְךָ, second-person masculine. But here it is written ביניך, which may be read בֵינֵיךְ, second-person feminine, addressing Hagar. I.e., Sarah was speaking to Hagar as well. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Where is the place about which you can say ... Otherwise it should say מאיזה, and the מ at the beginning of the word would indicate a question, as in (Shoftim 17:9): מאין תבוא, “From where do you come?” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  When you return you will conceive ... He did not tell her of the pregnancy that was, for she had already miscarried, as Rashi explained earlier (v. 5). 
  As if it were written ויולדת... I.e., יוֹלֶדֶת, which is present tense. [Rashi is saying:] Do not be surprised by the שוא under the ת, for it is similar to (Yirmeyahu 22:23):יושבת בלבנון מקוננת בארזים, which also are present tense, and have a שוא under the ת. 
  This is a command ... I.e., although it is written וְקָרָאת without a שוא under the ת, it still is a command, just as one would say וְקָרָאתָ when addressing a male. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Loves the wilderness to hunt wild animals ...  He is called פרא as in the verse (Iyov 24:5): “פראים במדבר (wild donkeys in the desert).” This follows R. Yochanan’s view in Bereishis Rabbah 45:9. Accordingly, it makes sense that ידו בכל means: “a robber.” But according to Reish Lakish, who explains פרא אדם to mean “kidnapper,” ידו בכל will need to bear a different and far-fetched explanation. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  He sees the humiliation of the humiliated. [Hagar was saying:] “Granted, I saw angels in the house of Avraham, due to Avraham and Sarah’s righteousness — but why in the wilderness? It must be that, ‘He sees the humiliation...’” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  The spirit of prophecy rested upon him. For if Avraham heard [the name] from Hagar [and then named him, this would be difficult to understand, for] <i>she</i> should have named him Yishmael, as she was commanded [regarding this name,] and not he. Perforce, the spirit of prophecy rested upon him, and he was as if commanded. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  To let us know that he was thirteen years old ... For Avraham was 99 when he circumcised Yishmael, and he was 86 when Yishmael was born. You might ask: [If the reason is as Rashi says,] why is it expressly written, “And his son Yishmael was 13 years old when he circumcised...” (17:25)? The answer is: Scripture repeats it to emphasize that Yishmael circumcised himself because of Hashem’s mitzvah, not from fear of his father who obliged him to do it. But the <i>Mahara’i</i> answers: We would not know from v. 17:25 that Yishmael was a full 13 years old, which is the age of attaining maturity, [for it could mean he was just over 12, and thus still a minor,] and that is why he did not resist. But the verse here makes the point clear. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  I am the One Whose Godliness suffices. Avraham had said to Hashem: “If I circumcise myself, people will regard me with disgust!” Hashem answered him: “I am the One Who said to My world: It suffices...” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  This, too, is an imperative following an imperative, “Be perfect...” [Rashi is answering the question:] Since it is already written, “Walk before Me,” what was added by, “And be perfect”? Rashi explains that this, too, is a command. It is one imperative following another, saying: “Be perfect in all My tests.” 
  Now you are lacking five organs ...  The <i>Re’m</i> writes: These organs, over which a person lacks full control, lead him to sin. But because of Avraham’s great righteousness, Hashem gave him control over them. For it is written (Shmuel I, 2:9), “The feet of His pious ones He will guard”: when one overcomes one’s <i>yetzer hara,</i> in the end Hashem gives one full control over it [see <i>Yoma </i>38b]. 
  Two eyes ... You might ask: Could Avraham really have lacked all these organs? The answer is: Surely he had them, but since he did not control them, it was as if he lacked them. Hashem now told him that they would all be under his control. Question: Did Avraham not lack the heart as well, as he was still uncircumcised of heart? The answer is: Only external organs are counted here. Furthermore, it is written in Nechemiah 9:8: “You found his [Avraham’s] heart faithful before You. And [then] You made the <i>bris</i> with him.” We see that even before circumcision, Avraham’s heart was hardly [considered as] uncircumcised. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  From fear of the Divine Presence ...  [You might ask:] When it is written earlier (12:7), “Adonoy appeared to Avram,” why is it not written that he fell on his face? The answer is: He fell on his face then as well, as derived from here. And falling on his face was not mentioned until now to show the difference between before circumcision and after. For after his circumcision, it is written (18:22): “Avraham was still <i>standing</i> before Hashem.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  For even the י of Sarai’s name complained to the Divine Presence ... Rashi is answering the question: ]According to this,] he should have been called אבהם, replacing the ר with a ה. Why was the ר not removed? Rashi answers: So the ר will not complain to Hashem, as did theי  of Sarai. And perhaps the reason theי  of Sarai was removed was because it was destined to be placed in Yehoshua’s name. Furthermore, the י [which equals 10] remained also with Sarai, as it was divided: half [ה = 5] was given to Sarah, and half to Avraham. But the ר could not have remained in their names [in this way].
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  But, one who resides outside Eretz Yisrael is like someone who has no God. R. Noson writes: This is because Eretz Yisrael is Hashem’s inheritance. He took it as His portion, as it says in a number of verses; the other lands were apportioned to the archangels. Thus, whoever resides in other lands is considered as though he has removed himself from Hashem’s domain, so to speak. And these are the words of <i>Gur Aryeh</i>. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  As if it were written להמול ... [I.e.,] although it is in the imperative form, it cannot be a command. For the next verse states [the command]: “You shall circumcise...” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  As ומלתם ... I.e., although it is not in the imperative form, it is a command. 
  But ימול is the form יִפָrֵל. I.e., [it is the passive form,] referring to the one who is being circumcised, not the circumciser, as in ונמלתם. Otherwise the verse would be lacking the active party. 
  As in יעשה יאכל. The words יעשה יאכל are vocalized with a צירי under the י.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Here is repeated ... Above (v. 12) it is also written, “Every male throughout your generations he that is a house-born slave...” and it specified: “At the age of eight days.” Here it repeats “house-born slaves” but does not specify [the age]. 
  There is a יליד בית that is circumcised on the first. I.e., on the first day. This case is explained in Shabbos 135b: Two people jointly bought a pregnant maidservant. One bought the maidservant herself, and the other, the embryo. [Note: This entry relates to a phrase that was once printed in Rashi’s commentary.] 
  After eight days ... This case is: One person bought a pregnant maidservant. If she gave birth on Shabbos, the circumcision does not override Shabbos [i.e., the circumcision does not take place on the eighth day]. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Teaches that circumcision is where there is a distinction ... The <i>Re’m </i>writes: Otherwise, why does it say זכר? But it seems to me that Rashi’s proof is as follows: It should have said וזכר ערל, but did not, because that would imply the command is directed to males, not to females — even though the command could be relevant to females as well. In that case, the verse would not come to teach the place of circumcision. But since it is written וערל זכר, it implies that the verse is indeed teaching the place of circumcision, and telling us that the ערלה is in the place that distinguishes between male and female. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  One who has reached the age of punishment and then he shall be excised ... For if he is still a minor and not liable for punishment, why should he be excised? 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  What is this blessing? She reverted to her youthfulness ... Otherwise, why does it say, “I will bless her,” and only then, “And I will also give you a son through her”? Perforce, “I will bless her” refers to the blessing that comes before [having children]: which is youthfulness. 
  The ability to breastfeed ... Otherwise, why after [mentioning] the birth of her son does it say further: “I will bless her”? Every woman after birth is able to nurse her child, and so too Sarah, since she reverted to her youthfulness. Therefore Rashi explains, “When she needed this ability...”
  
  Verse 17
  
  There are expressions of astonishment that affirm ... I.e., they do not deny the matter. Avraham meant: “Hashem can do anything, even against the laws of nature, but not everyone merits that Hashem should bestow upon him such kindness!” [You might ask:] Rashi later writes: וכך אמר בלבו הנעשה חסד זה לאחר מה שהקב"ה עושה לי. Is this not an expression of astonishment that denies? The answer is: Avraham was not denying the matter, claiming it could not be. Rather, he was praising Hashem for bestowing upon him more kindness than He does anyone else. So it seems to me; this explanation is preferable to the <i>Re’m’s.</i> 
  In the days of Avraham, life was already shorter ... [Rashi is answering the question:] Why was Avraham surprised that Sarah should give birth at 90?] The <i>Re’m</i> writes: I do not understand Rashi’s answer. Although life was shorter in Avraham’s days, the question stands: Avraham’s age of 100 when compared to his lifespan of 175 is about the same as an age of 500 when compared to Noach’s lifespan of 950. Thus, Avraham should not have been surprised. The <i>Re’m </i>elaborated on this difficulty. But it seems to me that Avraham’s surprise was because they both were old. An elderly man can beget children if his wife is young, whereas if they both are elderly it is surprising. This resolves the <i>Re’m’s</i> difficulty. The <i>Re’m </i>also asks: Why did Rashi base his question on Noach? Noach [was different, because] Hashem decreed that he should not be able to beget children, so that his [oldest] son would not reach punishable age before the Flood. The answer is: Hashem decreed only that he should not beget [until then]. But the fact that he was able to beget at 500 was natural. 
  Who gave birth at the early age of 60-70. Meaning: Previously, people could not have children until age 100, for in those days a 100-year-old was still a youth, like today’s 13-year-old. Then their lifespan shortened and they began to have children at 30. The fact that Avraham begat at 100 does not raise any question. The astonishment is mainly over the fact that an elderly man who had become weak and an elderly woman would beget children. This answers all the <i>Re’m’s </i>questions. I found the <i>Maharshal </i>cited in a similar vein. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  I am unworthy to receive such a reward. I.e., the verse does not mean that Avraham was displeased by the promise of Yitzchok’s birth.
  That he live in fear of You ... You might ask: How could Avraham pray for fear of Heaven? It is stated in Megillah 25a, “Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for fear of Heaven”! The answer is: Avraham prayed only that Yishmael should live. Whereas “Before You” conveys that it is good for Yishmael to live in fear of You. [But <i>Re’m </i>explains that it is indeed] two requests: First, that Yishmael should live, and second, to have fear of Him. For otherwise, why does it say לפניך? But the <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> says: It seems to me that “In fear of You” means: if Yishmael will be righteous [then I pray he should live]. But if he will be wicked, I do not intervene on behalf of the wicked, and have no request. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Based on the laughter. Some say, based on the ten trials. Both explanations are needed. For if he was so named because of laughter [alone], his name should be צחוק. Why is there a י? Perforce, it is because of the ten trials. And this entails saying that ח is for circumcision performed on the 8th day, and צ and ק are for Sarah’s 90 years and Avraham’s 100. But this explanation alone is insufficient, for it says clearly (21:6): “God has given me laughter,” indicating he was so named because of laughter. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 20
  
  They will dissipate like clouds ... Otherwise, why are they not called שבטים as are Yaakov’s sons, connoting might, or why are they not called ministers and chiefs? Perforce, נשיאים [hints that they will dissipate like clouds]. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>)
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  This is the ויפעל form. [Rashi is explaining that] even though the <i>yud</i> has a <i>dagesh</i>, it is not the intensified form [called <i>pi’el</i>], but the simple form [called <i>pa’al</i>]. It means he circumcised others. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  In the בהפעלו form, the same as בהבראם. This is the passive form, meaning he was circumcised, just as בהבראם (2:4) means they were created, which is also in the passive form.
  
  Verse 25
  
  Therefore, concerning him את is said. The words את and גם always come to add something. Although it is stated in Yevamos 71b that Avraham was not commanded to do פריעה, he did it on his own just as he kept the whole Torah on his own. But regarding מילה he waited since he knew he was destined to be commanded, and then he could do it in fulfillment of a command, [which is more praiseworthy]. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 26
  
  That Avraham turned ninety-nine. You might ask: In v. 23 it is already written, “On that very day,” on which Rashi commented, “On the same day that he was commanded.” And in the next verse it is written, “Avraham was 99 years old.” [Why then is his age repeated here?] The answer is: Otherwise we might have thought that Avraham was over 98 but not yet 99, although it is written “Avraham was 99 years old,” because part of a year is considered as a whole year. Thus it is repeated “On that very day” to teach that [they were circumcised] on the day Avraham turned 99, and Yishmael turned 13.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  To visit the sick person. You might ask: How did Rashi know this? The answer is: Because it is written, “Hashem appeared to <i>him</i>,” rather than, “Hashem appeared to <i>Avraham</i>.” [And why is this?] Perforce, it does not mention Avraham explicitly because it relates back to the previous passage regarding the bris milah, where it is expressly written, “To Avraham.” If so, why did Hashem appear to him now? Not to command him about milah—as He already commanded him, and he already performed milah on himself and on the members of his household. It must be that [since Avraham was sick due to the milah,] He came to visit the sick. Alternatively, Rashi knew this because the verse does not go on to explain why Hashem appeared to him. Thus we may assume it was to visit the sick. Question: Why does Rashi say, “To visit the sick person,” rather than simply saying, “To visit him”? [The answer is:] Because we learn from here the mitzvah of visiting the sick, as it says in Bava Metzia 86b. Since it was not limited to Avraham, Rashi says: “To visit the sick person.” 
  It was the third day since his circumcision... [Rashi knows this] because He appeared to him in order to visit him, thus it makes sense that it was on the third day, since he was in the most pain then. For it says (34:25): “On the third day when they were in pain.” The <i>Re’m</i> asks: On the contrary, the danger on the third day is less than the danger during the first two days, for it says in Shabbos 134b that [according to the first Tanna] we may wash a circumcised infant [with warm water on Shabbos during the first two days after milah, but not on the third day, when he is in less danger]. If so, how did R. Chama bar Chanina [cited by Rashi] know that He appeared to Avraham was on the third day? Perhaps it was on the second day! Granted it was not the first day, when he was busy doing his own milah and that of his servants, but perhaps it was the second day. It seems to me that the answer is: The Tannaim (<i>ibid.</i>) only disagree regarding the milah of an infant, who is more exposed to danger on the first and second day than on the third day. The first Tanna holds that an infant’s wound heals very quickly [and the third day poses less danger]. Whereas R. Eliezer holds there is no difference between the first two days and the third day, and cites the verse, [“On the third day when they were in pain,” about the men of Shechem,] although it is not conclusive proof. But for the milah of an adult, all agree that the third day poses a greater danger than the first two. For the verse testifies: “On the third day when they were in pain,” which Onkelos explains as, “When their pains were the strongest.” And so the Rambam explains the third day’s pains (Peirush HaMishnayos, Shabbos 19:3): “Fluids flow down and create swelling, increasing the pain.” It is likely that an infant is different in this respect, as he has less fluid. His danger is the wound itself, thus on the third day his danger is less, since his wound heals quickly. But an adult’s wound is not as dangerous in itself, for he can withstand a knife wound, as is well known. [His danger is from] the fluids, which do not accumulate so much at first. It seems to me that the answer is: The Halachah states (Yoreh De’ah 335) that one should not visit the sick person on the first two days. [Therefore, it must have been the third day.] (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) The <i>Re’m</i> asked: On v. 18:6, “Knead it and make cake-rolls,” the Midrash commented (Bereishis Rabba 48:12): “It was Erev Pesach.” And so it says in v. 19:3 [regarding Lot], “He baked matzos,” upon which Rashi himself comments: “It was Pesach.” Thus the Midrash must be of the opinion that Hashem visited Avraham on the very day of the milah, the fifteenth of Nisan, [since Yitzchok was born one year from the milah (see 17:21), and was born on the fifteenth of Nisan (see Rashi, 18:10). And since Hashem’s visit was Erev Pesach after noon, it was considered the fifteenth of Nisan]. But R. Chama [cited by Rashi here] is of the opinion that the visit was on the seventeenth of Nisan, [which is the third day]. If so, why did Rashi cite conflicting Aggados? The <i>Re’m</i> elaborated but did not explain it well. It seems to me that the answer is simple: According to all opinions, the milah was on the twelfth of Nisan, and the visit was on the fifteenth of Nisan. And, [as Rashi mentioned on 21:2,] the angel scratched a mark on the wall [to mark the date]. This was done on the 16th, [so as not to desecrate Yom Tov]. At that point Hashem said (v. 14): “At the appointed time (למועד) I shall return,” [referring to the 15th of Nisan of the coming year. You might ask:] On the day of the milah it said (17:21): למועד הזה, but on the day of Hashem’s visit it says: למועד, without הזה. [If so, why was Yitzchok born the following year on the day of the visit, rather than on the day of the milah? The answer is]: Rashi explained on v. 14 as follows: “למועד, i.e., on the מועד that I previously set for you when I said (17:21), ‘למועד הזה next year.’” And the reference works in reverse as well: when Hashem said on the day of the milah: “למועד הזה next year,” it actually referred to the day of the visit. And so Rashi explained on 21:2 [that it refers to the day of the visit]; see Rashi there. 
  Therefore, He appeared to him in his territory. It seems that Rashi is not attempting to answer the question of why Hashem appeared to Avraham specifically there, as Avraham might have simply happened to be there at the time [when Hashem chose to appear]. Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture need to <i>inform</i> us that Hashem appeared to him there, [when we would know this on our own? For] it already said that Avraham dwelled in the groves of Mamrei. Assumedly, Hashem appeared to him there, since that is where he circumcised himself and his household. And he surely did not leave, as he was still recovering from the milah; in fact Hashem came to visit him [for that reason]. The <i>Re’m</i> asks: How did Rashi know that Mamrei advised him? Perhaps Hashem appeared to Avraham there simply because Avraham’s tent was there on that day. He answers: Rashi knew it from the extra phrase, [“In the groves of Mamrei”]. It could have said simply, “Adonoy appeared to him and he was sitting...” as it does for other prophecies, [where the place is not mentioned]. This answer is similar to what I explained above. Alternatively: Rashi knew [that Mamrei advised Avraham] because it said in Parshas Lech Lecha (14:13), באלוני ממרא האמורי. And האמורי implies that Mamrei said (אמר) to Avraham to perform Hashem’s command. Question: How could one suggest that Avraham Avinu asked advice whether or not to fulfill Hashem’s command? Avraham was a great tzaddik who withstood ten trials! The <i>Re’m</i> explains that Avraham surely would have done the milah anyway, as commanded by his Creator. Avraham asked Eshkol, Aneir and Mamrei for advice since they were his allies and spoke to them as his friends, but Avraham wanted to test their sincerity. If they will advise him to circumcise, they are sincere friends. In the end, Eshkol and Aneir advised him against circumcising, and only Mamrei advised him to circumcise. Avraham thereby knew what was in their hearts. The <i>Re’m</i> offers another answer: Avraham asked their advice because he assumed they would advise him not to circumcise, yet he would do it anyway—making his reward greater. A further answer: Avraham sought advice whether to circumcise himself in private or in public, as he was concerned lest people come and prevent him. Mamrei said to do it publicly, for people will not be able to stop him. This is in accord with 17:23 where it is written בעצם היום, [on which Rashi comments that Avraham performed the milah openly, without fear of intervention]. (<i>Mahari</i>) It seems to me [that the answer is]: Avraham asked whether to circumcise in public, as nowhere does it say he was commanded to do it publicly. Aneir and Eshkol were opposed, as it says in Midrash Tanchuma Vayeira 3, while Mamrei enheartened him to circumcise in public, and not to be concerned at all about his enemies. Hashem rewarded Mamrei accordingly, measure for measure, and appeared [to Avraham] in his territory. Although Rashi said in 17:23 that Hashem told Avraham not to fear, that was after Mamrei advised him [not to be concerned about his enemies], to which Hashem concurred. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) A further answer: The Midrash says that Avraham circumcised Eshkol and Aneir, and they died. Mamrei told [i.e., advised] him: “The others will not survive unless you circumcise yourself.” This is as it says (17:13): המל ימול, the first word spelled without a ו, implying that he who circumcises himself (הַמָל) may circumcise others (ימול). [See also Yerushalmi, Shabbos 19:2. But in present-day Torah scrolls it is written המול.] Avraham then began to circumcise himself, but could not [finish], due to the pain. Hashem came and helped him, as it says (Nechemiah 9:8): “וכרות עמו הברית (and You cut the bris <i>with him</i>).” And since Mamrei advised him regarding the milah, Hashem appeared to him in Mamrei’s territory. Question: If Hashem would not appear to Avraham in Mamrei’s territory, where would He appear? Avraham dwelled in Mamrei’s territory! The answer is: Hashem caused Avraham to dwell there in order to bring about Mamrei’s reward. You might ask: Why did Avraham seek advice regarding milah, but not regarding any other mitzvah? An answer is: Avraham did not need advice whether to wait until he was commanded [before he fulfilled] the other mitzvos, as he knew he would not be commanded regarding any other mitzvah. An alternative answer: Even should he be commanded later concerning another mitzvah, this is no reason to refrain from performing it before—as he can always perform it later, in fulfillment of the command. But milah cannot be done a second time. I later heard that this answer is written in <i>Mishpetei Shmuel.</i> (<i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>) 
  It is written ישב... Rashi is saying that יושב is present tense. It conveys that Avraham was sitting before, and still is. But ישב is past tense, and conveys that he was sitting before but not now. If so, [we might ask,] why did he stand? Thus Rashi explains: Avraham wanted to rise, to honor the Shechinah, but Hashem said to him: “Sit...” This is preferable to the <i>Re’m’s</i> explanation, see there. The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes: It seems to me that Rashi means that יֹשֵב lacking a ו implies that Avraham’s sitting was lacking, as he wanted to rise. The same goes for ועפרון יֹשֵב (23:10). There, too, Ephron’s sitting [as an officer] was lacking, for they appointed him only that day. 
  And you will symbolize to your descendants that I am destined ... It seems that Rashi is answering the question: It says in Moed Katan 27b, “We tell anyone to sit, [after he stands for the Nasi] — except for a mourner and a sick person,” as then it would connote that he should “sit” [i.e., stay] in his mourning or his sickness. And here, Hashem came to visit a sick person. Why did He tell him to sit? Thus Rashi explains: “You will symbolize...” (<i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>) 
  To see if there are any passers by that he might invite into his home. Rashi is answering the question: Do sick people usually sit at the door of the tent? They usually sit or lie on a bed [inside]! Thus Rashi explains: “To see...”
  God brought the sun out of its sheath... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it anyway was a hot day! The answer is: It is written כחם היום, rather than בחם היום, implying that the heat of the day was <i>like</i> that mentioned elsewhere (Malachi 3:19): “For lo, the day (היום) comes, glowing like a furnace.” This forced Rashi to explain: “God brought the sun out...” But it seems to me that [Rashi knew this because] if כחום היום indicates what time of day it was, Avraham should have sat earlier at the door of the tent to look for passersby to invite. For it says in Berachos 27a and Bereishis Rabbah 48:8 that כחום היום is the sixth hour, and וחם השמש (Shemos 16:21) is the fourth hour. And mealtime is at the fourth hour, as it says in Shabbos 10a and Pesachim 12b. Perforce, the verse must be explaining <i>why</i> he was sitting at the door of the tent, [not <i>when</i>]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  He brought the angels to him in the guise of men. Rashi is answering the question: Did Hashem not need anyway to bring the angels, as we see from the story’s continuation? Thus Rashi explains that Hashem indeed needed to bring them anyway — but not in the guise of men. That was for Avraham’s sake. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  One to foretell to Sarah... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Hashem bring three “men,” instead of one angel? He answers: Hashem anyway needed to bring three angels. One to foretell to Sarah... 
  You may be convinced of this because in the entire parshah they are mentioned in the plural form. The <i>Maharshal</i> objects: This “proof” just begs the question. Perhaps one angel can do multiple missions, and it mentions one [and the same] angel concerning each deed. [The answer is:] I heard from my father and teacher that Rashi is saying as follows: [You might ask:] Perhaps [there were three] because three angels were needed for a single mission? And it is not because an angel is incapable of multiple missions. Rashi answers: “You may be convinced...” 
  Rephael, who healed Avraham, went from there... Question: Why does Rashi need to mention this here? The answer is: Rashi says this to answer the following questions. One angel cannot do multiple missions, as seen from the fact that the foretelling to Sarah and the overturning of Sedom are written in the singular, as Rashi explained above. If so, where do we find Avraham’s healing written in the singular? Furthermore, why did Hashem not bring four angels, [the fourth] one to rescue Lot? Thus Rashi explains that Rephael who healed Avraham went to rescue Lot, and Lot’s rescue is written in the singular, as Rashi goes on to say. Therefore it is as though a single angel was also mentioned for Avraham’s healing. (<i>Re’m</i>) Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: Later, concerning the overturning of Sedom, it is written (19:1): “The two angels came to Sedom,” implying that it involved two angels, although one of them had already done his mission [and was incapable of another mission]. Thus Rashi explains: “Rephael who healed Avraham...” to tell us that one of the angels was Rephael. He only rescued Lot and did not assist in overturning Sedom. Rashi explains that Rephael who healed Avraham went to rescue Lot. You might ask: If so, why did this angel say about himself (19:13), “<i>We</i> are going to destroy”? The answer is: His essential mission was to rescue Lot, but to destroy Sedom was an indirect result [of the rescue]. For it says (19:23-4), “When Lot came to Zoar, Adonoy caused to rain upon Sedom...” I.e., rescuing Lot indirectly caused the destruction. Thus it is rightly said that an angel of good does no evil, and vice versa. (<i>Ra</i>) Some versions of Rashi say: “The mission of healing and rescue are one.” Rashi is answering the question: Why three angels? [There are four missions but only three angels, so it seems that an angel can indeed do a second mission if it is in a different place! Therefore,] let the two angels of Avraham’s healing and Sarah’s foretelling go to Sedom. One will overturn Sedom while the other will rescue Lot. Thus Rashi explains that [an angel <i>cannot</i> do a second mission in a different place either. Rather,] rescuing and healing are one [mission; they save endangered life. Therefore, it can be done by the same angel]. But foretelling and rescue are two different missions. Other versions of Rashi do not have this. The reason one angel does not perform multiple missions is to demonstrate that Hashem’s legions are countless; where there is wealth there is no scantiness. The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> debated at length, and concluded: It seems clear that Hashem brought three angels so that Avraham would not be aggravated over [lack of] guests, even though one angel can do multiple missions. [You might ask:] If so, why does it state that there were three? Would it matter if there were more, or less? Thus Rashi explains that Scripture informs us that there were three angels to carry out three types of missions. 
  Next to him. We need not question: If so, [that “over” is respectful], then [below in v. 8] it should say that he stood <i>next</i> to them, [rather than “over them”]. For the answer is: Since there [in v. 8] he is serving them at the meal, it is proper to write he stood “over” them, as it means he was right next to them, ready to serve them immediately. But in this verse this reason does not apply. It says likewise in Pesachim 103b: “Rav Yeiva was standing <i>over</i> them to serve them during the meal.” (<i>Mahara’i</i>) 
  And then it says: “He ran to greet them.” Some ask: According to the Aggadah that they were close and then moved away, it should say: “He ran <i>after</i> them”! The answer is: Avraham’s tent had four openings. When they went away, he ran from that opening to one in the north or south, to stop them [from leaving]. That is why it says, “[He ran <i>toward</i> them] to greet them.” Another answer is: Angels have no backside, [but multiple faces]. For it says (Yechezkel 1:12): “They did not turn as they walked.” Although these angels were in the guise of men, they retained their trait of seeing what was either in front or behind them. [Thus, Avraham was actually greeting their faces.] (<i>Toldos Yitzchok</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  He was speaking to their leader... Rashi is answering the question: Why did he first say אדנָי, the plural form, and then אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניךָ, the singular form? Rashi answers: He was speaking to their leader [yet referring to them all]. And there is no difference between אדנַי and אדנָי; both are plural form. You might ask: How did Avraham know who the leader was? The answer is: He reasoned they were two disciples and a teacher. And normally, the teacher walks in the middle with the greater disciple to his right and the lesser one to his left. 
  Both explanations are in Bereishis Rabbah.e., the explanations of whether אדני is holy or profane—not those of לא ידון וכו'. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Through an intermediary. Rashi is not telling us that יוקח means through an intermediary, as that is obvious. Otherwise it should say אקחה (I will bring)! Rather, Rashi is telling us that Hashem rewarded his descendants through a messenger. (<i>Ra</i>) 
  And God rewarded his descendants through a messenger. But Avraham brought the bread himself, as it says: “I will get bread.” Hashem, too, gave it Himself to Avraham’s descendants, and showered upon them manna. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  As it is said: “And Moshe raised his hand...” The verse Rashi cites, from Bamidbar 20:11, is perplexing: it speaks of punishment [for Moshe’s striking the stone]. Whereas the Gemara in Bava Metzia 86b cites a verse regarding the blessing of Miriam’s Well (Shemos 17:6) “You shall strike the rock,” as Rashi explains there. Also Bereishis Rabbah (48:10) brings a verse of blessing (Bamidbar 21:17): “Ascend, O well; sing to it.” Furthermore, why did Rashi even bring this Midrashic explanation, which is not needed for the plain meaning of the verse? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  However, Lot, who was not particular, invited them to lodge before... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written differently here than it is concerning Lot? Here it mentions washing before lodging, but about Lot (19:2) it mentions lodging first. Perforce, [the washing was] because of idolatry, about which Avraham was particular, and Lot was not. Thus Rashi offers this explanation. Question: Perhaps Lot, too, was particular—and he mentioned lodging first because they did not appear to him as Arabs? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Under the tree (אילן). As opposed to a piece of lumber (עץ), as in (Devarim 19:5): ונשל הברזל מן העץ [which refers to a wooden axe handle]. Rashi explained that here it means “tree” because the verse cannot be saying [that Avraham was inviting the angels to rest] under a piece of lumber. And so Onkelos translates it here as אילנא (tree) rather than as אעא (lumber, wood).
  
  Verse 5
  
  Here it is not spelled לבבכם but לבכם. The word לבבכם (“your hearts”, plural form) is said about two people, as their minds are not the same. This is as the Gemara says (Sanhedrin 38a): “Man was originally created as one individual [in order to minimize divisiveness and strife, such as] that of the thieves and robbers.” In other words, the <i>yetzer hara</i> affects man, [making one think differently than the other]. But the angels have no <i>yetzer hara</i>, so they are of one mind, and about them it may be said לבכם (your heart, singular form). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  After that you may leave. Rashi is answering the question: Does not וסעדו לבכם אחר תעברו imply that <i>after</i> they leave, they will eat? Thus Rashi explains: “After that” — after eating, “you will pass” — you may leave. 
  For this thing I ask of you... Rashi is saying that על כן [if taken literally] implies that [from the very beginning] they had intended to eat. And this contradicts what it is written above, “If I have found favor... please do not pass by,” implying they came to eat only because Avraham implored them. Thus Rashi explains, “This thing I ask of you...” Accordingly, על כן is like על אשר.
  
  Verse 6
  
  The fine flour is used for cakes, the meal is for the starch used by cooks... Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that she should knead קמח and סלת together, to make cakes from them. Was Avraham stingy and therefore he did not instruct that the cakes be made from fine flour alone? Thus Rashi explains: Only the fine flour was for the cakes, and the meal... 
  
  Verse 7
  
  There were three calves. You might ask: How does Rashi know there were three calves; perhaps there was only one? The answer is: Rashi inferred this since it is written בן בקר, which means of a tender of age, why then does Scripture write רך [an apparent redundancy]? Furthermore, why does it say וטוב and not simply טוב? Perforce, there were three: בן בקר is one, רך is two, and וטוב is three. The <i>Re’m</i> explains that it should say רך טוב. Since it says וטוב, it must have been written for a homiletical exposition. And since טוב is meant to be expounded, so too is רך meant to be expounded. This is based on the Gemara in Bava Metzia 86b. 
  So that he might feed them three tongues together with mustard. You might ask: How does Rashi know he served them tongues? The answer is: Because it explains why Avraham slaughtered three calves for three people, which seems a waste of money. And we cannot simply say it was to honor them, as even [the slaughtering of] one calf is a great honor. Furthermore, the slaughtering of three calves makes them look as if they were gluttons, which is not an honor but a disgrace. Thus Rashi explains that Avraham wished to feed them three tongues. We need not ask: Why were three [tongues needed, when two have enough meat]? For the answer is: The flavor of tongue is uneven. The middle is better, and the bottom is fattier. Avraham wanted to feed them three, so each could eat what he wished or what the others ate. [Furthermore,] Avraham otherwise would have had to cut the tongues, and the [irregular] pieces would not be fit to be received by such important guests. Rashi mentions mustard because, as he explains on Bava Metzia 86b, [tongue with mustard] is a delicacy of kings and ministers. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Three calves were needed in order to serve them similar portions, so as not to cause jealousy at the meal: Avraham held them all equal in honor. (<i>Akeidah</i>) 
  This refers to Yishmael, to train him in mitzvos. Rashi inferred this since it is written הנער, meaning the abovementioned lad: Yishmael. But it seems to me that [Rashi knew this] because Avraham ran to the cattle himself. If so, why did he let someone else complete the mitzvah? Therefore Rashi explains that [the someone else] was his son, [and Avraham did this] to train him. (<i>R. Yaakov Kenizal</i>) [Furthermore,] Rashi is answering the question: Why was Avraham not punished for giving it to the lad, as he was for having the water brought [through an intermediary]? Thus Rashi explains, “This refers to Yishmael...” and it was an act worthy of reward. (<i>Devek Tov</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  But, the bread he did not bring... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it simply was not baked yet! The answer is: Bread is the main part of the meal, as it is written (Daniel 5:1): “עבד לחם רב, [King Belshazzar] made a great feast.” Thus, Avraham would not have prepared the other foods if the bread had not yet been baked. 
  Because Sarah began to menstruate... She did not actually menstruate, for she exclaimed soon afterward (v. 12): אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, implying she did not have menstruation [see Rashi there]. Rather, “the way of women” returned to her. I.e., her head and limbs felt heavy, and her lower abdomen ached. Thus she feared she would menstruate and render the dough impure. Since Avraham ate all his food in ritual purity, she stopped working the dough and left—and before someone else could come, it turned to chametz. And it was Pesach, when chametz is forbidden. Alternatively, it could be that she actually began to menstruate. If so, why did she ask incredulously: אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, when she was already menstruating? The answer is: She thought it [was not a regular cycle but] happened by chance. And she knew that Avraham ate all his food in ritual purity. So explained the <i>Re’m</i>. You might ask: How could Avraham give them butter and milk and calf? It is mixing milk and meat! An answer is: He first gave them the milk, and afterward the meat. Alternatively, [he first gave the meat,] and held like the <i>Halochos Gedolos,</i> [cited in Tur, Yoreh De’ah 89]: through cleaning out [the mouth by eating and drinking pareve items,] one is then permitted to eat cheese. 
  As each one was prepared he immediately brought it to them. [How does Rashi know this? Because it answers the question:] If there were three tongues, why does the verse imply he brought only one, by writing “the calf,” in singular form? (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: Butter and milk were not mentioned before, so should it not say first, “He took the calf,” and then, additionally, he took “Butter and milk”? Thus Rashi explains, “As each one was prepared...” Since the butter and milk were ready before the calf was prepared, [he brought them first]. A further answer: Rashi learned it from the apparently extra phrase, “He had prepared, which implies that whatever he prepared first, he brought immediately. 
  From this that a person should not act differently... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Since angels do not eat, perhaps it is written they “ate” in order to appear as [human] guests, rather than as angels! The answer is: If so, “And they ate” teaches us nothing. It need not be written, as it is obvious that they did not really eat. And what does it even matter if they ate or appeared to eat? Thus Rashi explains, “We learn from this...” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  You must explain the dotted... You might object: Let Scripture dot only the ל, thus the undotted letters will be more, and we will expound the undotted letters — [thereby producing the same meaning, but more simply. An answer is:] It seems that we always expound the undotted before explaining the dotted. Thus if the ל alone was dotted, the verse would not indicate whom the angels asked first. They might first have asked Sarah about Avraham, or vice versa, for it is like it was written איו איה (“Where is he? Where is she?”). On the contrary, the verse would imply that they first asked Sarah about Avraham! For [we would say that] the reason only the ל is dotted is [to teach that] we should explain איו first, [before איה]. But now that איו is dotted, we first explain the undotted איה that is written in the verse. Therefore, they first asked Avraham: “Where is Sarah, your wife?” and then they asked Sarah, “Where is Avraham?” You might object: What difference does it make [whom they asked first]? The answer is: It teaches us proper conduct. First one should ask the man about his wife, and then, the woman about her husband. <i>R. Shmuel El Mashonino</i> wrote: The correct answer [to “Let it dot only the ל”] is: The Torah itself is composed of undotted letters. When the undotted letters [of a dotted word] are more, and thus are explained, then the meaning of those undotted letters must fit in with the other words in the verse, since everything is undotted. And this would not be true here, [if only the ל was dotted]. This is because איו is masculine form, and does not fit in with “Sarah your wife.” (He proved this from Bamidbar 9:10: או בדרך רחוקה, where the ה is dotted; see his explanation there.) But when איו is dotted, and thus explained [since it is more than the ל], we need not worry about [it fitting in with] the rest of the verse. For in this case, איו is extracted [and explained] on its own. This is because the dotted letters, and [the verse’s] undotted letters, are both interchangeable. Furthermore, איו is dotted because the dots always come to remove letters. Only ל remains, so we add it to [the following word] איה, producing אליה, “to her”. This teaches that the angels also asked to her, about Avraham. Otherwise, where do we find that the angels asked Sarah about Avraham? Perhaps they asked someone else who was home where he was. That is why איו is dotted, [rather than the ל]. So I found written in the manuscript of my father and teacher ז''ל. This also answers a question I have heard people ask: How did Rashi know that they asked Sarah about Avraham? Perhaps they asked someone else! The <i>Re’m</i> writes: Although a man should not inquire about a woman’s welfare, the Gemara already answered that this applies only when speaking directly to the woman. But a man may ask a woman’s husband about her. See explanation there. The <i>Gur Aryeh</i> writes: One might ask: When did the angels ask Sarah, “Where is Avraham?” They saw Avraham first, and he brought them into his home! The answer is: It was when Avraham ran to the cattle and was busy preparing the meal. 
  In order to send to her the cup of blessing. After they ate they recited <i>birkas hamazon</i> over a cup of wine. Sarah was not with them, and Avraham did not wish to send the cup to her, because she began to menstruate and would impart impurity to the cup with the wine. He did not want to reveal that she had begun to menstruate, so he did not pour the wine into a different cup to send to her. Alternatively, [he did not use a different cup because] the primary mitzvah is to drink from the same cup that was blessed over. Accordingly, when Avraham answered, “Here, in the tent,” he was hinting to the angels that she had begun to menstruate and thus was dwelling alone, as menstruating women do.
  She is modest. This relates back to what Rashi explained above: “They inquired to make known her modesty.” In other words, they asked Avraham where Sarah was so that he would answer, “Here, in the tent” — and he would see that she was modest. Rashi means: to make her modesty known to Avraham. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  This was on Pesach... You might ask: How does Rashi know it was Pesach? The answer is: Yitzchak was born [exactly] one year later. And it is written (Shemos 12:41): “It was at the end of the 430 years, and on <i>that very day</i>, all of Adonoy’s multitudes went out...” The 400 years began with the birth of Yitzchak, from which time Avraham had progeny [who sojourned in foreign lands]. The 400 years began and ended on the same date, and on the very day the 400 years ended, the Israelites left Egypt, as Rashi explains there. They left on the fifteenth of Nisan, the first day of Pesach. Therefore, the angel’s foretelling of Yitzchak’s birth — as well as the actual birth — were on Pesach. A further answer: Rashi learned it from what is written about Lot (19:3), “And he baked matzos,” indicating it was Pesach. And this was the same day that the angel foretold Yitzchok’s birth [to Avraham]. 
  Since it is not read כְעת but, rather, כָעת... It has a קמץ, not a שוא. For כְעת would connect it to חיה. [But since it says כָעת,] no time is specified later. Perforce, כָעת is like בָעת, meaning: “at this time.” [I.e., the word “this” is added.] And חיה stands separately, as Rashi goes on to explain: “When there will be life to you.” But<i> R. Meir Stern</i> writes: It seems to me that כָעת denotes a time that is hinted to, as it is here, since the angel scratched a mark on the wall [to mark the time for the next year, see Rashi on 21:2]. This is because כָעת is like writing כְהָעת. But כְעת does not indicate which time. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  He was speaking to him as God’s agent... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? This does not seem to be a question at all, as it means as follows: The angel never said that <i>he</i> will return to Avraham. Rather, he was speaking as Hashem’s agent, saying that <i>Hashem</i> will return. This is as it says later (v. 14): “At the appointed time, I [Adonoy] will return to you.” Although the angel said, “I will return,” as if speaking about himself, it is the way of an agent to speak in the name of the party he represents, as in (Shemos 18:6): “I, your father-in-law, Yisro...” (This example is according to the view that Yisro sent an agent; see Rashi there.) And Rashi inferred this to be so, [that it is Hashem who will return,] because otherwise, why would the angel take the credit for himself [and say,] “<i>I</i> will surely return”? We see later that the angels were punished for doing such a thing, when they said (19:13): “<i>We</i> are going to destroy.” [See Rashi on 19:22.] Perforce, the angel was speaking as Hashem’s agent. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) A further answer: [The angel would not promise to return, as] Hashem might send him on another mission. He will then not be free to return with Hashem, and thus will have spoken falsely. Perforce, he spoke as Hashem’s agent. This explains why Rashi explains כעת before שוב אשוב, which does not follow the order of the verse: [for כעת denotes a set time, thus the angel must have said שוב אשוב as Hashem’s agent.] 
  The entrance was behind the angel. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it means the opposite: [the angel was behind the entrance]. The answer is: If so, [that והוא refers to the angel], the verse would have to say: “He was <i>in front</i> of it.” Then it would convey that the angel was not inside the tent but in front of its entrance, where in fact he was, as Avraham was sitting at the entrance when the angel spoke with him. For if אחריו referred to the entrance, it would come out that הוא — the angel — was behind the entrance, inside the tent. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Ceased from her. You might object: Rashi explained on v. 8 that she began to menstruate that day, and the dough became impure. Doesn’t this indicate that she now had the “way of women”? [The answer is:] She seems to have thought it happened by chance, not as a regular cycle. Thus she asked: היתה לי עדנה? (v. 12). She meant: “I am in doubt about the blood I saw. Is it my regular cycle, or a chance occurrence caused by my hurrying to knead the dough?” For Avraham had said (v. 6): “Hurry! Three measures of flour...” This is preferable to <i>Re’m’s</i> explanation — on v. 13 — that Sarah was saying, “My regular cycle has indeed returned, although I was worn out. But Avraham is an old man.” The <i>Maharshal</i> writes: Hashem set her childbirth to be one year later, to give her three months to establish a regular period, as she had ceased seeing blood and now returned to her youth, and then nine months for pregnancy. However, it says in Rosh Hashanah 11a that Sarah conceived on Rosh Hashanah, which implies that she gave birth in the seventh month of pregnancy. This calls for further thought. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Is there anything beyond and separated and hidden from Me... Rashi avoided explaining היפלא as “surprise and wonder,” in which case the verse would mean: “Should we be surprised that Hashem can do a novel thing?” That would not be in accord with Targum Onkelos who explains it as, “Is it hidden?” Yet, there is a question on Targum Onkelos: How to understand Hashem’s response “Is it hidden?” to Sarah’s laughing? She said, “My master is an old man,” conveying that it is impossible that she should give birth. Thus Hashem’s response should have been: “Is anything too difficult for Hashem?” or, “Is God’s hand unable?” But this response is understandable if היפלא means, “Should we be surprised...?” [However, Onkelos’s explanation is difficult]. Therefore, Rashi explains היפלא as “Is it hidden?” and nonetheless, Hashem’s response to Sarah is understandable. She said that it is impossible. And He responded: “Is there anything beyond and apart and hidden from Me, which might prevent Me from doing My will?” Rashi means that something which is hidden from a person is “separated” from him, i.e., he cannot do it when he wants to. For if he can do it when he wants, then he can declare, “I know that it will be,” [for it is not separated from him]. And why did Rashi not choose the explanation of “surprise and wonder”? Because then it should say היפלא על ה', as it is the proper usage to say that when one is surprised “over” something. Furthermore, Sarah did not express surprise; rather, she decided that it is impossible. And the response of, “Should we be surprised...?” would not be appropriate. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  To escort them. Rashi explained this so we will not mistakenly think that לשלחם is similar to בשלח פרעה (Shemos 13:17), which means he sent them out of his domain. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise this verse would be out of sequence. It is already written ויקומו משם האנשים, how could it then say that Avraham sent them out? A further difficulty: They were not under Avraham’s control [so that he could send them out. On the contrary,] he implored them: “Please do not bypass...” Thus Rashi explains, “To escort...” (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  He thought that they were travelers. You might ask: Even without לשלחם, would we not know that Avraham thought they were travelers? He prepared a meal for them to eat, and water to wash [their feet]! The answer is: Once they foretold [Sarah’s childbirth], and healed him, we might think he realized they were angels. Thus Rashi says he [still] thought they were travelers. (<i>Re’m</i>)
  
  Verse 17
  
  I renamed him Avraham, a father of a multitude of nations... With only the first explanation, we could say: Whatever is there is his. And whatever is not there [anymore] was never his. Thus Rashi explains: “I renamed him...” And with only this [second] explanation, we could say: whatever is in his land is his, but these four cities are not his. That is why both explanations are needed. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  As a lesson to judges not to rule on capital punishment unless they see it... Rashi does not mean that it is learned from ואראה; rather, fromארדה . It is like a person descending from his seat, to go and see a matter and to investigate it. Otherwise, why does Rashi then say: דבר אחר ארדה נא לסוף מעשיהם? If Rashi is explaining ואראה, would he say דבר אחר ארדה נא? Furthermore, should he not have written his explanation about the judges on ואראה, not on ארדה נא? Both explanations are needed. The difficulty with the first is: Hashem did not yet judge them. His descending was to see whether they sinned. Thus Rashi brings the second explanation. The difficulty with the second is: It should say אראה נא וארדה. That is why the first explanation is also needed. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Of the country (מדינה). Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written הכצעקתם, as it is written before, וחטאתם? Why then is it written in the feminine form? 
  And if they maintain their rebelliousness... Otherwise, what is the meaning of עשו, i.e., whether they had sinned? Scripture had already written, וחטאתם כי כבדה מאוד, indicating that indeed they had sinned.
  Our Sages explained: The cry of a certain maiden... with a horrible death. They stripped her bare and smeared her with honey, and the bees stung her to death. You might ask: How did Rashi know she was a maiden? The answer is: From a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> to (Devarim 22:24): “על דבר אשר לא צעקה בעיר, which speaks of a betrothed maiden. There is a question on the first explanation: How could Hashem be unsure of the facts, not to know whether it was indicative of their conduct so that they should be destroyed? Thus Rashi explains, “The cry of a certain maiden,” [according to which the verse means:] If they killed her unjustly, as she claimed [when she cried out, then they will be destroyed]. And even if they killed her justly, “I will know” what to do [as to punishing them for their other sins]. But the actual deed was well known to Hashem. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 22
  
  It is an emendation of the Scribes. This does not mean that the Scribes changed even one letter of what was written in the Torah, far be it. Rather, “emendation of the Scribes” denotes that they scrutinized each of those verses, and found that according to its context, its primary meaning cannot be as written in the text, but the verse bears a different meaning. Thus it should not have written, “Avraham was still standing,” but, “God was still standing” — except that Scripture changed the wording [out of respect]. It is called “emendation of the Scribes” only because they scrutinized it and commented that Scripture changed the wording. (<i>Rashba</i>) 
  
  Verse 23
  
  Yehudah approached him. Many find difficulty with this proof, since Rashi himself explains later (44:18) that Yehudah in fact spoke sternly to Yosef. In truth, it is a scribe’s error. The text should read: “The children of Yehudah approached,” a verse that is in Yehoshua (14:6). 
  
  Verse 24
  
  Ten righteous for each city... This is because they are merely individuals until there are ten, when they are called a “congregation.”
  And if You will respond that the righteous will not save... Rashi says this because the verses seem to contradict one other. First Avraham says, “Would You... not bear with the place?” implying he is praying also for the wicked. Then he says, “It would be sacrilege... to kill the righteous with the wicked” implying he is praying for the righteous only. Thus Rashi explains that it means, “And if You will respond that the righteous will not save the wicked...” 
  
  Verse 25
  
  This is what you did to the Flood generation, and to the Dispersion generation. [You might ask:] Noach and his sons survived the Flood. Furthermore, He did not kill the Dispersion generation [at all]; rather, He only dispersed them. Why then would people say His craft is to destroy the righteous with the wicked? The answer is: People would say there were more people who were righteous at the time of the Flood, but He swept them away and saved only Noach and his sons in order to preserve mankind. Otherwise He would have swept away even them. And when He does not sweep away everything, because He is angry only with a certain region, He destroys the whole region, righteous and wicked alike. And so it surely was with the Dispersion generation. But the <i>Re’m</i>, [commenting not on the above, but on Rashi,] objects: If so, Hashem could have responded to Avraham: Since they claim this even though it is not true, then even if I do not kill the righteous along with the wicked [but kill only the wicked] they still will say it is My craft to destroy everything! Therefore, <i>Re’m</i> explains: The first חלילה לך relates to the previous verse. [I.e.,] it would be sacrilege not to save the whole place in merit of the righteous that are in it. For people will say, “It is His craft to destroy everything, the righteous with the wicked,” since they do not know that those [destroyed] were wicked. They will think that [some of] the righteous were destroyed with them. Next, Rashi sets into place, “To kill the righteous with the wicked.” This phrase is not connected to what came before, in which Avraham argued that the righteous should save the whole place. Rather, Rashi now adds: “And if You will respond...” This relates to the second חלילה לך, where Avraham argues on behalf of the righteous alone: If the righteous cannot save the wicked, and You wish to bring a general destruction upon the place, it will be sacrilege: “Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice [and save the righteous]?” Later, after having set these phrases into place, Rashi went back to explain the meaning of חלילה. So wrote the <i>Re’m</i>. But what I wrote above is also a partial answer to his objections. 
  Neither this nor anything like it. Rashi is answering the question: Simply speaking, כדבר הזה means that Avraham was praying only that Hashem should not do a similar act again — but was not praying for the people of Sedom [to be saved]. If so, why did he say: “Suppose there are 50 righteous people...” showing that he indeed prayed for the people of Sedom? Thus Rashi explains that כדבר הזה means: “Neither this nor anything like it,” i.e., הזה includes both present and future acts. Avraham prayed for Israel as well, that if they will sin, Hashem should not kill the righteous with the wicked. And when Rashi later says, “In the World-to-Come,” it means in future generations. 
  In the World-to-Come. This is as stated in <i>Perek Chelek</i> (Sanhedrin 107b) that the people of Sedom have no portion in the World-to-Come. But the <i>Maharshal</i> explains as follows: If such an act is done in this world, there is sacrilege to Hashem’s Name. And even in the World-toCome, where sacrilege to Hashem’s Name does not exist, no reason will yet be found why You destroyed the righteous with the wicked. 
  Can it be that He who is Judge should fail to do true justice? Why did Rashi need to explain this ה of incredulity, saying: “Can it be that He who is Judge...”? Why was it not enough to simply say that the ה of השופט is one of incredulity? It is because Rashi wished to tell us that the ה — although it is in the word השופט — expresses incredulity regarding לא יעשה משפט.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  And, thereby, four cities will be saved... <i>Mahari Kolan</i> writes (ch. 152): Avraham prayed that if one city has fifty righteous people, then the place should be saved — i.e., all five cities. And surely, if there will be [ten] in each city. Hashem consented, and added (v. 26): “I will bear with the <i>entire</i> place,” i.e., even the villages. That is why it says עיר, and then מקום, then לכל המקום. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  “I was willing,” as in: “And Moshe was willing.” We need not ask: Why did Rashi not explain this on the first הואלתי (v. 27)? The answer is: It would contradict his commentary on הואיל משה (Devarim 1:5), where Rashi says: “He began, just as, ‘Here I have begun (הואלתי)’ (Bereishis 18:27).” We see that הואלתי means, “I have begun.” Thus the first הואלתי means “I have begun,” as Rashi explained there, while only the second הואלתי means “I was willing.” 
  
  Verse 32
  
  He had already asked but could not find. [Rashi means] that when Avraham mentioned fifty, he prayed also for nine including Hashem, as it says (v. 28): “But suppose they lack five of the fifty righteous?” Thus, Avraham did not need to ask again. Surely, Hashem would not destroy a city if He would find there nine righteous; however, He did not actually find. The words “but could not find” are Rashi’s comment, saying that since in fact, Hashem did not save even one city, it must be that Hashem “could not find.” Some ask: Why did Rashi say that fifty righteous people are for five cities, forty for four cities, and so forth? What brought him to this forced explanation? Perhaps Avraham was always praying for all five cities. At first he prayed by mentioning fifty, to give a complete number of ten for each city, and then he decreased the number by as much as he could, but always with the intent of saving all [the cities] everything, as Ramban writes: “I do not know what forced Rashi to say this...” It seems the answer is: Rashi deduced his explanation based on the verses’ changing expressions, as sometimes it is written לא אעשה and sometimes לא אשחית. Accordingly, when Avraham first prays for the five cities by mentioning forty-five, which includes Hashem, it is written לא אשחית. I.e., I will not destroy them altogether, but I will make them suffer because [they have ten righteous per city] only by counting Hashem. When he then prays for four cities by mentioning forty, which does not include Hashem, it is written לא אעשה. I.e., I will not do anything at all, not even make them suffer. Similarly when mentioning thirty, it is written לא אעשה, since it is without including Hashem. Then when he prays by mentioning twenty and ten, it is written לא אשחיתregarding them both. I.e., I will make them suffer [because the majority of the five cities are without ten righteous in them]. Thus we see that first he prayed for all the cities, then for four, three, two, and then for one. 
  
  Verse 33
  
  Once the Judge leaves, the defender leaves... I.e., the verse comes to teach us that Hashem seeks out the defender’s words because He does not desire death for the wicked. But when the defender fell silent, He left. Otherwise, why does it say here, “He departed,” unlike all other prophecies where this is not mentioned? 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Elsewhere they are called men. Rashi is answering the question: By calling them angels, the verse implies that they [appeared as angels and] wore angels’ garments. But this cannot be; why then would Lot bake matzos [for them]? Perforce, they appeared to him as men. Thus Rashi explains, “Elsewhere they are called men...” I.e., they are merely <i>called</i> so, not that they [now] divested themselves of physicality. Regarding Avraham they were called men, out of respect for the Divine Presence. But with Lot, the Divine Presence was not there — so they are called angels. 
  When the Divine Presence was with them they are called men... There is a difficulty with this explanation: It is obvious that angels have no importance relative to the Divine Presence. [Why does the verse switch terms to teach this?] Thus Rashi offers “another explanation.” And there is a difficulty with that as well: Why not call them men everywhere? And if you object that we would not know they were angels, so call them angels [everywhere]! And if [the term is switched] to teach that angels were common [to Avraham but not to Lot], do we not already know that Avraham was a greater tzaddik than Lot? Therefore, we need the first explanation too. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  They appointed him to be their judge. You might ask: How does Rashi know that he was a judge? The answer is: It is written he was “sitting at the gate,” and “the gate” is usually the place of judgment, as we find with Boaz (Ruth 4:1). Furthermore, it is written later וישפט שפוט (v. 9), implying he was a judge.
  He had learned from the house of Avraham to seek out travelers. It cannot be because he was [generally] careful about mitzvah performance, as he was not careful about idolatry: he had them lodge before they washed (see Rashi 18:4). 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Behold, you are now my masters since you have passed by me. According to this explanation, [נא means]: “Now” that you have passed by me, you are my masters. 
  Turn off the main road... According to this explanation, [נא means]: “Please” turn in. Otherwise, why did he say to them סורו נא? He should have simply said, “Come to the home of your servant.” 
  
  Verse 3
  
  It was Pesachhy, concerning Avraham, does it say (18:6), “Knead it and make <i>rolls</i>,” rather than matzos? It was Pesach, so it should have said “<i>matzah</i> rolls”! The answer is: Avraham ordered rich matzos to be made, [e.g. kneaded with oil and honey,] in honor of the guests.
  
  Verse 4
  
  The people of the city, who were evil people, surrounded the house... Rashi is saying that “Sedomites” is used as a term for evil people, as the people of Sedom were [exceptionally] evil. 
  There was not one who protested... Rashi is saying: Surely it is impossible that the small area around Lot’s house held all the people of the city! Perforce it means none of the people of the city objected, and thus it is considered as if they themselves did it. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  For the purpose of homosexuality... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? The answer is: It says afterward, “Behold! I have two daughters...” This implies that from the beginning they sought something similar, i.e., homosexual relations.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Since they have come. Otherwise, the verse would mean they came to Lot so no one would harm them. But this cannot be, as the Sedomites were not previously harassing them. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Back away... גש means to draw close to them, while הלאה means to move away from them. Thus Rashi explains it as קרב להלאה, meaning: go away from us and thereby draw close to where you are going.
  You are the only stranger among us. “The only,” as it is written האחד. “Stranger,” as it is written בא לגור, which denotes a stranger. 
  And you have become our chastiser. As it is written, וישפוט שפוט. It cannot mean actual judgment, because there is no prosecution and defense here.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  If you have a son-in-law or sons and daughters... “Who else do you have here” implies they did not know. Whereas “a son-inlaw, <i>your</i> sons, <i>your</i> daughters” implies they did know. Thus Rashi explains, “<i>If</i> you have...” 
  Your married daughter’s sons. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps they were his sons and not his grandsons! The answer is: Since it is written “son-in-law” first, followed by “your sons, your daughters,” it implies that “your sons, your daughters” refers back to “son-inlaw,” i.e., the married daughter’s sons. 
  He was justifying them. Although Rashi explained (v. 4) that Lot said the majority of them are wicked, at first he told the angels so, but when he saw they wished to destroy the city, he justified the people. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Those to whom the ones at home were betrothed. But we cannot say that חתניו and לוקחי בנותיו are one and the same, for if they were his sons-in-law, it is obvious that they married his daughters. Why would it need to write this?
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  To salvage his possessions. This is as Rashi explains on the next verse, regarding “Escape for your <i>life</i>.” 
  
  Verse 17
  
  You participated in their evil ways. You might ask: It said in v. 15, “Lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city.” Does this not imply that he did not participate in their evil ways [and was in danger only due to <i>their</i> sins]? This is not a question, as v. 15 means: If you remain in the city you might be swept away with them [regardless of your virtue or lack of It]. Avraham’s merit will not help you then — for a tzaddik’s merit would not save even his own life! As Rashi says on 18:32, Avraham did not pray to save the city if there were less than ten tzaddikim; consequently the few would be swept away with the city if they remain. But Rashi’s comment here, “Only for the sake of Avraham are you saved,” means: [Although you participated in their evil ways,] you will be treated as if you did not do evil and are not deserving of punishment. Thus, if you leave the city you will be saved. But if you stay, you might be swept away with their iniquity — and Avraham’s merit will not help! Furthermore, Rashi’s comment of “You are not worthy to see their punishment” answers the question: Lot might be swept away with the city if he remains because he is not worthy to see their punishment, as indeed happened to his wife. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  And only for the sake of Avraham are you saved. People ask: It says, “Elohim remembered Avraham and He sent Lot out of the upheaval” (v. 29). On this, Rashi comments that Elohim remembered what Lot did for Avraham. Although Lot knew Sarah was Avraham’s wife, Lot did not betray Avraham in Egypt [by telling Pharaoh about Avraham]. Accordingly, why does Rashi not say here that Lot was saved because of his own merit? Furthermore, [if he had such a merit,] why did the angel warn him not to look back? The answer is: Lot indeed saved Avraham from death by not revealing who Sarah was, and, measure for measure, he was saved from death. But this act was meritorious enough to save Lot only because Avraham’s merit was so great. Lot would not have been saved had he done this kindness for someone less righteous than Avraham. Thus, the merit of Lot’s act actually depended on Avraham’s merit. This is why it says, “Elohim remembered <i>Avraham</i>” (v. 29), when it should say, “Elohim remembered <i>Lot</i>,” according to [the initial understanding of] Rashi’s above-mentioned comment on that verse. Perforce, it is as we explained. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 18
  
  Our Sages said that this Name is holy. In light of this we must understand Rashi’s next comments: אַל נָא אל תאמרו אלי וכו', נָא לשון בקשה. Rashi is saying that this verse is split delicately into two parts. Lot says to the angels [only one word]: אַל. By this, Lot conveys: “Do not tell me to flee to the mountain.” Then begins his prayer to Hashem: נָא ה', הנה מצא עבדך. And this is what Rashi means by, “נָא. It has the meaning of making a request.” In other words, Lot’s request to Hashem begins with the word נָא, as Rashi said before: “The Targum also translates it בבעו כען ה'.” I.e., בבעו is the translation of נָא, and expresses a request. This is why Rashi first explains that this Name is holy, and only then explains אַל נָא, contrary to the verse’s order. Rashi is telling us that since our Sages said this Name is holy, we must separate אַל from נָא. And אַל means: “[O angels,] do not tell me to flee to the mountain,” while נָא begins Lot’s prayer to Hashem. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 19
  
  And I appeared as a righteous person and worthy of rescue. [You might ask: Does this not contradict what] Rashi explained before, that Lot too participated in the evil ways of Sedom and was saved only in Avraham’s merit? The answer is: [What Rashi said before] is the truth. But Lot mistakenly thought he was saved in his own merit. Accordingly, when Rashi explains on v. 21: “I will spare the entire city for your sake,” it does not mean, “In your <i>merit</i>.” Rather it means, “In order that you will be saved.” Nonetheless, everything that is happening is in Avraham’s merit. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) But this is difficult: How could Lot make such a mistake after hearing the angel say, “Do not look back,” implying, “You did evil and are saved only in Avraham’s merit”? The answer is: Lot was not saying [that he appeared as a righteous person] to explain why he was being saved from Sedom’s upheaval. He was speaking generally about his residence in Sedom, during which time he was saved from punishment for his deeds because he was considered to be righteous when compared to them. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 20
  
  Thus, from the generation of the Dispersion till this point, there are 52 years. You might ask: How does Rashi know that the other places [besides Zoar] were settled 52 years earlier? Perhaps people did not [start to] build for many years subsequent to the Dispersion. (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>) This is not a question, as Rashi already said: “How recent is its settlement? From the generation of the Dispersion, when humanity dispersed and began to settle, each in his place... From then till now were 52 years.” Here, Rashi is explaining his proof: As soon as the people dispersed they began to build and settle in the various places. The reasoning is as follows. Originally, they sought to build a city and tower where they could settle. When they were dispersed over the face of the earth and stopped building the tower, each built in his own place and settled there. However, נא having the numerical value of 51 is no proof, as it is not the verse’s primary meaning. It is a mere allusion that supports the point as indicated from Rashi’s text here, and from the comments of Rashi and Tosafos in Shabbos 10b. And the Ein Yaakov writes there: “So explains Rashi on the Torah.” This refutes the <i>Minchas Yehudah</i>. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  Is it not a small city... The <i>Re’m</i> asks: I do not know what Rashi will do with the question raised by <i>Chazal</i> in Shabbos 10b: “[Why did Lot need to state that it was close and small?] They could see that!” And this question is what moved <i>Chazal</i> to depart from the plain explanation of our verse, as explained there. This is not a question, as Rashi brings the simple explanation [only] for the end of the verse, הלא מצער הוא, not for the beginning, הנה וגו' קרובה וגו' והיא מצער. The beginning surely follows [<i>Chazal’s</i>] Midrashic explanation: the city was recently settled and its sins are few. Although Rashi at first explains also the end of the verse Midrashically, he then brings the simple explanation, “A small city... and you should not mind...” This is because the end of the verse can bear this meaning, too. And Rashi needed to bring the simple explanation for the verse’s end, although the verse’s beginning must be understood [only] Midrashically, because he is answering the question: According to the Midrashic explanation, why is מצער repeated, stating twice that its sins are few? Thus Rashi brings the simple explanation: It is a small city. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 21
  
  I overturn... I.e., we should not mistakenly explain it as, “It overturns me,” since that too is a possible meaning when one speaks about another. But that meaning is not appropriate here. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 22
  
  From this you can learn that one destroys and the other rescues... But v. 17 does not prove this. Although it is written there, “He [the one angel] said, ‘Escape for your life,’” and it is not written, “They said,” it could be that only one angel rescued, but they both overturned. 
  Based on: “It is insignificant.” Rashi is saying that this verse must refer back to והיא מצער, [as only that explains the name צוער]. This verse does not refer to what immediately precedes it. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Whenever וה' appears in Scripture, it represents Him and His Heavenly Court. I.e., Hashem and His Heavenly Court agreed upon the matter. You might ask: Why does the Heavenly Court [represented by the ו] come before Hashem? (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>) This is not a question, because “the Heavenly Court” is not expressly written. It is merely hinted to, by the ו of וה'. Therefore, it would be impossible to write Hashem before the Heavenly Court, all in one word. (<i>Maharshal</i>) Although we might ask why did Rashi not make this comment on (18:17) וה' אמר המכסה אני מאברהם and on (21:1) וה' פקד את שרה, <i>Re’m</i> explained each case. See there for more detail. (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>) But this is not a question, because the rule of “Whenever וה' appears in Scripture, it represents Him and His Heavenly Court” applies only when וה' has no direct connection to what preceded. [Thus it does not apply to those verses, as will be explained later]. This is because when “Hashem” is at the beginning of a phrase or matter, the verb should precede it. Here it should say וימטר ה' rather than וה' המטיר. Whereas the order [of וה' המטיר] implies it is in the middle of the matter, when it is not. Perforce, it comes to allude to Him and His Heavenly Court. But with וה' אמר המכסה אני, the ו simply means “and.” It connects to the previous point. “They [the angels] got up from there” to go destroy Sedom, and consequently, ה' אמר המכסה אני, as Rashi explained there: “I gave him this Land... Can I, then, destroy the children without informing the father?” Similarly is the case with וה' פקד את שרה. As Rashi explains there, “This is... to teach that whoever prays for another... will be answered first. For it said before, ‘He [Avraham] prayed,’ and right afterwards, ‘And Hashem remembered Sarah.’” But here it is not a continuation of anything previously mentioned. On the contrary, it is written, “The sun had risen, etc.” and afterwards, “[Hashem] caused it to rain, etc.” Actually, He caused it to rain before the sun came out as it states, “At the break of dawn, etc.” and Rashi explains that this is a time when both the sun and the moon rule.” (<i>Maharmash</i>) 
  At the advent of the morning... Rashi is saying that “Hashem caused to rain” does not relate to the preceding verse, “The sun had risen upon the earth, when Lot came to Zoar,” [to say] that only after Lot came to Zoar did it begin to rain. Rather, it means that “Hashem caused to rain” already <i>before</i> Lot came to Zoar, at the very advent of the morning, before the sun had even risen. 
  God said: If I punish them by day... Question: They will all be destroyed. How then will they be able to say this? The answer is: Hashem wanted to demonstrate that they did not repent [when they saw the punishment begin], although they had no excuse not to. (<i>Maharshal</i>) However, this is not a question. Rashi means that the sun and moon worshipers in other places would say this, not those in Sedom who were destined for destruction. [You might object to this answer:] Rashi says, “<i>We</i> would not have been destroyed,” implying that those in Sedom are saying this about themselves. The answer is: People in other places could speak in this manner too, [identifying with them] as if they were speaking about themselves. This is similar to (Shemos 18:9) ויחד יתרו, [on which Rashi explains:] “Yisro’s flesh felt sharp stinging [as he was grieved by the destruction of Egypt].” 
  It began as rain and turned into sulfur and fire. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “Caused to rain”? It should say, “Hurled down.” Furthermore, “Caused to rain” contradicts [what follows], as sulfur is not rain. Thus Rashi explains: “It began as rain, and turned into...” (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  Behind him [meaning: in back] of Lot. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say, “Behind herself”? Perforce, it means that when she was behind Lot, she looked. The <i>Maharshal</i> explains that it says “behind him” because she reasoned: since she is being saved due to Lot, she may look behind him — just not behind herself.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  How does the remembering of Avraham affect Lot? He remembered... [Rashi is answering the question:] Whenever it says, “Hashem remembered,” the one who needs the deliverance is remembered. For example (30:22): “Elokim remembered Rochel,” and (Shmuel I, 1:9): “Hashem remembered her [Channah].” But here, why is Avraham remembered, while Lot is delivered? Therefore Rashi explains that Hashem indeed remembered Lot, who needed the deliverance. And when it says את אברהם, it means that Hashem remembered for Lot the kindness he did “with Avraham.” Thus, את אברהם is to be understood as עם אברהם (with Avraham). (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  And he did not betray him because he was sympathetic towards him. <i>Re’m</i> asks: Why is the [greater] kindness of Lot leaving his country and birthplace to follow [i.e., accompany] Avraham wherever he went, not mentioned [instead]? It seems to me that this is no question on <i>Chazal’s</i> statement [that Hashem remembered only Lot’s kindness to Avraham in Egypt], because the answer is: When Lot went with Avraham, he did not go for Avraham’s good but for his own good. For if Avraham would die, Lot would inherit his property! As Rashi explains [that Lot’s herdsmen thought] as much, on (13:7), “There was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Avram’s flocks...” But when Lot did not reveal who Sarah was, this was indeed considered to be for Avraham’s good. The whole reason he went with Avraham was to inherit him, so he should have told them that Sarah was Avraham’s wife, so they would kill Avraham, and he would inherit him. After all, he had set his eyes on Avraham’s money. Therefore, [because Lot did not reveal this to Pharaoh,] it was considered a [true] kindness.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Wine presented itself to them in the cave... The <i>Re’m</i> asks: Why does Rashi disregard the opinion in Bereishis Rabbah (51:8) that says Lot’s daughters had wine in the cave because the people of Sedom had a lot of it, and would store it in caves? Instead, Rashi follows R. [Yehudah] bar Simon, who says that something resembling [the World to Come] was done for them, [as it says (Yoel 4:18): “And it shall come to pass on that day that the mountains shall drip with wine,”] showing that the intention of Lot’s daughters was for the sake of Heaven. But Rashi later comments that the older daughter initiated <i>zenus</i>—implying that their intention was for <i>zenus</i>, not for the sake of Heaven! <i>Re’m</i> answers: Rashi’s opinion is that even according to the one who says their intention was for <i>zenus</i> would agree that Hashem presented them with wine so that two nations might come forth from them, as Rashi explains on ותשקין.
  To tell us that once she arose he was aware... You might ask: Is it not written, “He was <i>not</i> aware that she lay down or got up”? The answer is: At first he was not aware of her lying down or getting up, but when he began drinking the second night he remembered what he had done, yet he drank anyway. (<i>Maharshal</i>) [Alternatively:] You might ask: Why is it written, “He was not aware that... she got up,” if he was aware? The answer is: Lot surely was aware she got up from his bed. But he was not aware he had relations with her. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) But this answer is difficult, for if he was aware that she got up from his bed, the original question stands: Is it not written, “He was <i>not</i> aware that she... got up”? Rather, it means that at the moment she got up from his bed he was not aware [immediately of her having lied down]. And the dot tells us that later he became aware of both her lying down and getting up. And so we must say, simply speaking, that when she got up he was aware of this, and consequently he became aware of her lying down as well, for one cannot get up without having lied down. And when Rashi writes that “once she arose he was aware,” this is as opposed to between the lying down and the getting up, he was not aware. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  These did it with themselves... שלטו means “had relations,” since לרבעה is translated by Onkelos as למשלט. In other words, they “had relations with themselves” and removed their virginity [beforehand. This enabled them to conceive]. This is the meaning of והוציאו ערותן לחוץ. Some versions of Rashi say והוציאו עדותן (“they removed their evidence”), which means the same. It refers to their virginity, which are the evidence they are virgins, as it is written (Devarim 22:17) אלה בתולי בתי, which Targum Yonasan explains as אלה עדות בתי.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  When he saw that the cities were destroyed and the travelers ceased... This explanation raises the question: Why did he go to Gerar, which is very distant? Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation. Since he wished to distance himself from Lot, he traveled to Gerar which was an inhabited place. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  The angel prevented him... Rashi needed to explain this so the verses do not contradict each other. It is written later (v. 6): “I also prevented you from sinning against Me,” implying that Hashem prevented him, whereas this verse implies that Avimelech refrained on his own from coming near her. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  To include her servants, camel-drivers, and mule-drivers... גמלים וחמרים is the correct text. It refers to the men who drive the camels and donkeys, [not the animals themselves]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  It is true that at first you had no intention of sinning... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written, “I also know that you did this with an innocent heart <i>and clean hands</i>,” as Avimelech said about himself? 
  But, do not claim clean hands. You might ask: After all, was Avimelech in fact not free of sin, since he did not transgress? The answer is: Hashem was saying, “Not due to yourself are you free of sin, as you say. Rather, it is due to Me. You would have lain with her even though she told you she was his wife!”
  
  Verse 7
  
  And do not think: perhaps she has become repugnant in his eyes... Rashi explains this because “Return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet” implies Avimelech should return her only because Avraham is a prophet <i>and</i> Sarah is a married woman. But were he not a prophet, he would not return her although she is a married woman. How can this be? Illicit relations are forbidden to all Noach’s descendants! Therefore Rashi answers that “For he is a prophet” means: “And do not think...”
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  A plague that is unusual to befall any beings... I.e., “Deeds that ought not to be done” cannot refer to Avraham, as he had not performed any deed. He only spoke.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  In order to make his words truthful, he responded in this fashion... I.e., Avraham should have said, “She is my brother’s daughter,” and then he would not have needed to say, “But not the daughter of my mother.” He said as he did to make truthful what he had said earlier: “She is my sister.” You might ask: In 12:19, [Avraham was asked a similar question.] Why did Avraham not respond to Pharaoh at all? The answer is: Pharaoh had asked him only once, so he did not respond. But Avimelech asked twice, therefore he found it necessary to respond. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  So that he be mollified and pray for him. [Rashi knows this] because for taking his wife, [gifts were not necessary]. As Avimelech did not touch her, it is like he never took her. [You might ask:] Why did Avimelech need to mollify Avraham, while Pharaoh did not? The answer is: Pharaoh was completely unaware [that he had taken a married woman], because Avraham on his own craftily told Sarah (12:13): “Please say that you are my sister.” But here, <i>they</i> asked Avraham if she is his wife or his sister. He feared they would kill him and was compelled to say, “She is my sister.” That is why Pharaoh was smitten only with a disease for which relations are harmful, and after he returned her he no longer needed a cure. Whereas even after Avimelech had returned her, mollified Avraham and gave gifts, nonetheless it says: “Adonoy restrained every womb.” This was because Avimelech was considered a nearly deliberate sinner, since they interrogated Avraham: “Is she your wife?” As it says in Bava Kama 92a, “When a guest arrives in a city... is he asked about his wife?” [see Rashi, v. 11]. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Avimelech said it was out of respect for her, in order to mollify her... This means as follows: Avimelech really gave them to Avraham so that Avraham would pray for him, as Rashi explained on v. 14. If so, why did Avimelech say to Sarah that it was to honor <i>her</i>? [The answer is:] He said the opposite [of the truth] in order to mollify her. The <i>Re’m</i> asks: How does Rashi know that Avimelech gave them to Avraham in order to mollify <i>him</i>? Perhaps he really gave them in Sarah’s honor! The <i>Re’m</i> answers: Since Hashem said, “Now return the man’s wife... and he will pray for you,” we learn that Avimelech’s goal [in returning Sarah] was to mollify Avraham so he would pray for him. Assumedly, Avimelech gave the gifts for the same reason. But it seems to me [that the answer is:] If Avimelech really gave for <i>her</i> honor, why did he give to Avraham? According to what Avimelech said [his intentions were], he should have given them to Sarah, which would have honored her more! Perforce, the main [reason for] giving the gifts to Avraham was so Avraham would pray for him, and Avimelech said what he did to Sarah only to honor and mollify her.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  According to Sarah’s words. על דבר cannot mean “because of,” as it does in Devarim 23:5 על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם, because [of the following difficulty:] it is written earlier (v. 6), “Also, I prevented you from sinning against Me.” This implies that Hashem deprived Avimelech alone of the ability to have relations. Yet in our verse it is written, “For Hashem had restrained <i>every</i> womb.” Perforce, in our verse על דבר means Adonoy did this “according to Sarah’s words.” And when it said (12:17) וינגע ה' את פרעה... על דבר שרי, on which Rashi commented: “According to her commands,” this explanation was learned from here, based on the phrases’ similarity. (<i>author’s commentary</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  To teach you that whoever prays for mercy for another... You might ask: How does this prove it? Perhaps she was remembered now because this was the time Hashem set. She needed to give birth on Pesach, and she was remembered on Rosh Hashanah, so it had to be now. The answer is: Rashi himself answered this when he wrote, “He had already remembered her <i>before</i> He cured Avimelech.” And what is the verse teaching us by saying that Hashem cured Sarah first? Perforce, “To teach you that whoever prays for mercy for another...” (<i>Re’m</i>) The <i>Re’m</i> objects: Rashi implies that this section is out of place, for he says, “This section was placed here to teach you...” But this is not so, for on the fifteenth of Nisan the angel foretold to Sarah, and on the sixteenth, Sedom was overturned and Lot was rescued with his daughters. And right after the incident of Lot with his daughters, Avraham traveled to reside in Gerar, where Sarah was taken and Hashem restrained every womb of Avimelech’s house, whereupon Avraham prayed for them and they were cured. And on Rosh Hashanah, Sarah was remembered. Everything is in chronological order! He answers: וה' פקד implies He remembered her before He cured Avimelech. [Had Sarah conceived after, it would say ויפקוד ה'.] Thus, Avimelech’s curing should not have been written before. And why was it? In order “to teach you that whoever prays for mercy for another...” 
  To Avraham. Not to Sarah, as it says nowhere that Hashem spoke to her [about this]. The <i>Re’m</i> asks: Why did Rashi not explain that also Hashem’s <i>saying</i> was to Avraham and not to Sarah? He answers: Perhaps because it is written there (17:19), “God said, ‘Indeed your wife Sarah will bear you a son,’” [so it is obvious] that this was said to Avraham; Rashi did not need to explain it. And Rashi did not need to explain it even for Hashem’s <i>speaking</i>, since it is written there (15:1), “The word of Adonoy came to <i>Avram</i>.” Rather, Rashi comes to tell us the difference between “Hashem did for Sarah as He <i>had spoken</i>,” and “At the designated time that Elokim <i>had spoken</i>” (v. 2). The former refers to Avraham, while the latter refers to [His declaration of] the designated time, as Rashi explains there. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain this? The answer is: Rashi means that Hashem said only to Avraham, “That one [Yishmael] will not be your heir” (15:4), and never promised that the heir will come from Sarah. Nevertheless, “Hashem did for Sarah,” although He had spoken only to Avraham. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  The designated time that He spoke... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אֹתו? It should be vowelized אִתו, since it was spoken to Avraham. Therefore Rashi explains that אֹתו refers to the designated time. And since it cannot be said that one “speaks” a time, Rashi needed to add the phrase “and set” so that the speaking refers to the <i>setting</i> of the designated time. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  An expression of praise and esteem... [Rashi is saying] that the word מי is similar to the word מה, which infers greatness and honor, such as (Tehillim 31:20): “How (מה) great is Your goodness!” and (ibid. 92:6): “How (מה) great are Your works!” (<i>Re’m</i>) But it seems to me that [Rashi explained as he did] because if the verse follows its plain meaning, why did Sarah ask, “Who said to Avraham?” Hashem clearly said it to him! Perforce, it is “An expression of praise...” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  After he was twenty-four months old. [Rashi knows this because otherwise] it should have written ותגמל (she weaned him). Perforce, ויגמל means the child weaned himself. [And Rashi deduced that this happened] because he was twenty-four months old, when a child rejects his mother’s milk and stops nursing. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Because the great people of the time were there... <i>Re’m</i> explains that [Rashi knows this because] for a prophet [such as Avraham, unlike for a king such as Achashveirosh,] it makes no difference if his feast was great in its number of days or guests. Perforce, it means that the world’s great people were there.
  
  Verse 9
  
  And make sport before us... [Rashi brings all three explanations] because if Scripture meant only one, Scripture should have stated it expressly. Perforce, the general term מצחק was used to refer to all of them. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) <i>Re’m</i> asks: When Hashem asked, “What is Yishmael now, righteous or wicked?” the angels responded: “He is righteous” (see Rashi on v. 17). But according to Rashi here, on the contrary, Yishmael was exceptionally wicked! <i>Re’m</i> answers: Hashem was asking only about the particular sin for which the angels were condemning him [i.e., killing the Jews through thirst]. And similarly Yishmael was not judged as a בן סורר ומורה [who is killed for his future sins] because a בן סורר ומורה has already become involved in activities leading to his eventual death penalty, whereas Yishmael did not as yet do anything to deserve to die of thirst.
  
  Verse 10
  
  That he is my son even if he were not as deserving as Yitzchok... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say עם twice? It should say: עם בני יצחק. Perforce, it means that being “my son” is reason enough to exclude Yishmael from the inheritance, as is being “Yitzchok,” each on its own. [Rashi considered this explanation] preferable to that of Targum Yonasan. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  For he heard that he fell into bad ways. Rashi brings both the Midrashic and the simple explanation because with the simple explanation alone, a question arises: In v. 12, Hashem tells Avraham, “Do not consider this wrong on account of the boy <i>and your slave-woman</i>.” This implies that Avraham was perturbed also about his slave-woman. So why does our verse mention only “his son”? Thus Rashi explains our verse [Midrashically,] that Yishmael fell into bad ways—something not relevant to Avraham’s slave-woman. But without the simple explanation, another question arises: [Since Avraham was not perturbed about sending Yishmael away,] why does Hashem then say to Avraham in v. 12: “Do not consider this wrong... regarding all that Sarah tells you, listen to her...”? What does listening to Sarah have to do with Yishmael’s fall into bad ways? Furthermore, the reason that Scripture then gives, “For only through Yitzchok will seed be considered yours,” is irrelevant to Avraham’s concern over Yishmael’s falling into bad ways. This is why Rashi needed the simple explanation as well. It seems that [Rashi learned] the two explanations from על אודות בנו, for it appears to be repetitious. Since אודות means the same as על, why say על twice? It could have simply said על בנו, as in the next verse: אל ירע ... על הנער. Perforce, it comes to tell us that Avraham was perturbed about two things. But only for sending them away did Hashem say (v. 12), “Do not consider this wrong...” (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  To the voice of prophecy that was within her. [Note: although this phrase is absent from our version of Rashi here, it parallels an extant comment of Rashi on 16:2.] Rashi deduced this because it could have said, “Listen to her words,” as it said before, “Regarding all that Sarah tells you.” Or [it could have said] שמע אליה, as in (Devarim 11:13): והיה אם שמוע תשמעו אל מצותי. Furthermore, a voice without words is just a meaningless sound. How could Avraham be told to obey a mere sound? Thus Rashi explains that it means the voice of prophecy. I.e., she did not say it on her own; it was the voice of prophecy. The expression יצאה בת קול is somewhat similar to this. And for this reason, כי שמעת לקול אשתך (3:17), written concerning Adam HaRishon, is interpreted in Bereishis Rabba 19:5 to mean that she was wailing over him with her voice. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  But no silver and gold because he despised him... But according to the simple explanation [see Rashi on v. 11] he did not fall into bad ways. Why did Avraham not give him silver and gold? An answer is: Avraham assumed that shortly, after Sarah’s anger subsides, he will bring him back. (<i>Maharshal</i>) But according to <i>R. Meir Stern’s</i> explanation on v. 11, the question does not arise, because the simple explanation does not conflict with the Midrash. Both are needed; see there. Furthermore, <i>Maharshal’s</i> answer cannot be correct. For if it was, Rashi himself should have explained thusly, that Avraham intended to bring him back—as this would satisfy both the simple explanation and the Midrash. Rashi should not have given a reason that satisfies only the Midrash. 
  He also placed the child on her shoulder... ואת הילד refers to what immediately preceded [שם על שכמה] rather than to ויתן אל הגר. [Rashi knows this] because if Avraham did not place the child on her shoulder, Scripture should state that she picked him up before saying, “And she threw the lad...”
  She returned to her family’s idolatry. Rashi deduced this because ותלך connotes going along deliberately and willingly, as הליכה always means. Yet then it says ותתע, connoting that she did not know where she was going, as she lost her way in the desert. One term contradicts the other. And we cannot say that at first she knew where she was going but then lost her way, because why should Scripture tell us she went deliberately? It is obvious that she went where she was going before she lost her way! Furthermore, the verse’s intent is to recount how she lost her way in the desert and therefore had no water, etc. There is no reason to say she went deliberately on the way. Therefore Rashi explains that her ותתע was deliberate, and that is why it says ותלך ותתע — she deliberately went astray. How? She returned to her family’s idolatry. Rashi explained ותתע as idolatry, based on ויהי כאשר התעו אותי (20:13), translated by Onkelos as: “When the nations went astray after idolatry.” (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Because the sick drink a great deal. Rashi deduced this because it should have said, The <i>bread</i> and the water were wused up.” For it said before, “He took bread and a skin pouch of water,” and Avraham assumedly gave them food and drink proportionally, so both should have finished together. Thus Rashi explains that Scripture is telling us that Yishmael drank disproportionately to his eating, as the sick drink a great deal, and that is why it says, “The water was used up,” but not the bread. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) But it seems to me that Rashi knows this because it does not say, “And they had no more water to drink.” The expression “the water was used up” implies that it happened unexpectedly, ahead of time. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 16
  
  From afar. Here, נגד does not follow its simple meaning (“in front of”) for if so, why would Scripture need to tell us this? But it is understandable if it means “from afar,” because the verse goes on to give a reason: “She said, ‘Let me not see the lad die.’” We find נגד meaning “in front of,” as in (Tehillim 16:8): “I have placed Hashem in front of me (לנגדי) constantly,” where it has the connotation of closeness. Yet in our verse, following נגד comes the word הרחק, meaning “distant,” one term contradicting the other. Therefore, Rashi explains that מִנגד means the opposite of נגד. It is like saying מִן נגד, the prefix מִ is like מִן. It conveys that she did not sit close, in front of the child. She sat from afar, about two bow-shots away.
  
  Verse 17
  
  The prayer of the sick person is more effective than the prayers of others... Rashi is answering the question: Hagar also cried, as it is written (v. 16), “She wept in a loud voice.” Why did Hashem not hear her voice? [You might object:] The Gemara asks in Berachos 5b, “Why was R. Yochanan unable to heal himself [through prayer]?” and answers, “A prisoner cannot free himself from jail.” The reason must be that R. Yochanan was not able to concentrate [in prayer]. But if he were able to do so, his own prayer would be better. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  He is judged according to his present deeds... The question this raises on בן סורר ומורה, who is killed for his future sins (Sanhedrin 71b), will be answered in Parshas Ki Teitzei (Devarim 21:18). <i>Re’m</i> asks: Why did the angels not condemn him for the sins he already did, rather than for those of the future which will be done not by him but by his descendants? He answers: Perhaps this Aggadah is according to R. Shimon, who differs with R. Akiva and all those who interpret מצחק (v. 9) as speaking of [Yishmael’s] misdeeds. But to answer that the Aggados are in disagreement seems to me forced, unless we see clearly that it is so. Thus it seems the answer is: The angels could not condemn Yishmael for his present deeds because the Heavenly Court punishes only from the age of twenty, and Yishmael was just seventeen. [You might ask:] Why did they not condemn him for his present deeds, but in terms of the future [when he will be of punishable age]? The answer is: At the end of his life he repented for his present deeds, as Rashi explains on (25:9): “His sons Yitzchok and Yishmael buried him [Avraham].” 
  One whose descendants will eventually kill Your children with thirst, You will provide for him a well? You might ask: Is it not written (Devarim 24:16), “Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons”? The answer is: Hashem asked the angels if Yishmael had sinned through water. Regarding water, was he righteous or wicked? They answered he was righteous regarding water but was otherwise wicked, and moreover, “His descendants will kill Your children with thirst. Will You then provide him a well?” Hashem answered: “Since now he is righteous regarding water, I will provide him the well.” (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  The feminine form for “witness”... Rashi is explaining that לעדה means “witness” (עדות), not “congregation” (עדה). And it is written לעדה rather than לעד because עדה is the feminine form of עד. 
  They agreed among themselves that whoever appears at the well... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, how did Avraham prove it [that he dug the well]? It could not have been through actual witnesses, for if Avraham’s servants had actual witnesses, why did they not make a legal claim before Avimelech?
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  That year preceded the binding of Yitzchok by twelve years. Rashi was brought to explain this due to the following verse, “After (אחר) these events,” which [ostensibly] means right after, since אחר always implies right after—as Rashi commented earlier on 15:1. Yet the binding of Yitzchok was 12 years later, so why does it say אחר? Thus Rashi explains (on the following verse) that it means “After the words of Satan,” not after the just-mentioned events of Avraham and Avimelech.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   is an expression of a request... I.e., נא mentioned here means “request” although in many places it does not mean “request.” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  So that He not confuse him suddenly, and become bewildered... I.e., so people will not say that Hashem confused him and that is why he did it, but otherwise he would have refrained. It seems that [Rashi added the second explanation, “To endear the mitzvah to him,”] because the first explanation is insufficient on its own, as then it should sayאת בנך יחידך אשר אהבת. The fact that את is repeated, implies a division [of the verse into separate parts]: each time, Hashem was answering another question of Avraham’s. And the second explanation is insufficient on its own, as then the verse should be reversed [and follow its logical order]: קח את יצחק את בנך את יחידך אשר אהבת. For also [in this order, the use of many expressions would] endear the mitzvah. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Yishmael and EliezerRashi knows this] because otherwise, what does “his two assistants” mean? Did Avraham have only two assistants? Perforce, it means his special assistants Yishmael and Eliezer. See Bamidbar 22:22 where I answered why Rashi explained Bilaam’s [need for] two assistants differently, [saying: “An esteemed person who travels should take along two people to serve him, and for one to serve the other.”] But the <i>Maharshal</i> answered that Rashi explained that Bilaam’s assistants served one another because Bilaam was arrogant and needed service. But Avraham was humble and did not require service; he took care of himself. He took along two assistants only so he would not be alone when one of them needs to relieve himself. Thus Rashi explained here as he did. 
  Onkelos translates it וצלח [he split] as in וצלחו [they split]... It seems that Rashi is not proving from Onkelos [that ויבקע means “splitting”]. Rather, he is explaining that [also Onkelos’s translation of] צלח is “splitting,” as in (Shmuel II 19:18): “They split (וצלחו) the Jordan.”
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Because Israel eats of its reward. Rashi brought both explanations because according to the first one [“it consumes”] a question arises: Why not call it אוכלת? Thus Rashi explains, “it prepares.” But according to this [second] explanation, it should be called סכין, which is its simple meaning. Thus Rashi explains further: “Because Israel eats of its reward.” And the last explanation alone is insufficient, although it answers why it is called מאכלת and not אוכלת or סכין, because why does it say המאכלת, connoting something already known? Until this point a knife was not called a מאכלת! Scripture calls it so only now, because of this incident. Therefore, Rashi explains that “it consumes” and “it prepares,” and therefore it is a term that is used for every knife. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  I will make a cut in him and draw a little blood... Question: Why does drawing blood make a מום (blemish)? The answer is: Avraham said, “I will draw blood and offer it up. Hashem said: “Do not draw blood.” Avraham thought that just drawing blood was insufficient and said, “If so, I will offer up one of his limbs.” Hashem said: “Do not cause him any מום.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  It was prepared for this purpose from the Six Days of Creation. [Rashi knows this] because it should have said וירא איל אחר נאחז. Why does it say והנה? Perforce, to teach that “it was prepared for this purpose...”  
  After the angel had said to him... I.e., אחר is connected to an earlier phrase. It is out of place. The verse means to say: “Avraham looked up <i>afterward</i>, and beheld a ram that had been caught...” Rashi proves it from Onkelos, who translates: “And Avraham looked up <i>after these</i> [words].” 
  For it was running towards Avraham... [Rashi knows this] because it says נאחז in singular, which must refer to the ram itself. If so, why does it say בקרניו? Rashi answers that it tells us that the ram’s face, meaning its horns, was towards Avraham, as it was running to Avraham to be sacrificed, but the Satan entangled it to impede it. Perhaps the <i>Re’m,</i> too, meant this. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  One for the father and one for the son. It seems to me that Rashi means that both blessings are for Yitzchok: one in his own merit and the other in Avraham’s merit. This is the meaning of “One for the father and one for the son.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  The words of the thoughts that came about as a result of the akeidah. The <i>Re’m</i> writes: I do not know what brought Rashi to depart from the simple meaning of Scripture, that אחרי הדברים האלה refers to the words spoken previously — the angel’s words promising “I will make your descendants as numerous” — as indicated by the word האלה (these). And after these words, Avraham was informed of Yitzchok’s destined mate. Rashi instead follows the Midrash of, “[After] the <i>words</i> of the thoughts that came about as a result of the <i>Akeidah</i>.” [But these “words”] are not mentioned in Scripture at all! Continues the <i>Re’m</i>: [Rashi says,] “Therefore, Hashem announced to him that Rivkah, Yitzchok’s destined mate, had been born.” It is implied that this was immediately [after the <i>akeidah.</i> But is it not written אחרי, which Rashi states in many places that it always means “after a long time”? The answer is: It is called “after a long time” if it is not immediate and without delay.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The reason שנה is written with every set... I.e., and Scripture does not gather the ones and the tens in a set, and the hundreds in a separate set, as it did in Parshiyos Bereishis and Noach. Rashi’s is not asking why it says שנה for 100 years whereas it says שנים for seven years, for also in Parshiyos Bereishis and Noach it is always written שנה for hundreds, and שנים for smaller numbers. Rather, Rashi’s question is about the middle שנה, written after twenty, for שנה is never written three times. Perforce, it is meant to be expounded upon. Since one of them is to be expounded, so too are the rest to be expounded. 
  That every set is to be explained by itself. I.e., each set bears its own meaning and does not join with the other sets to form a single sum, as numbers composed of ones, tens and hundreds usually do. This is because the repetitive שנה divides them, placing the ones on their own, and so the tens and the hundreds. According to this [Midrashic interpretation], it is not twenty-seven plus one hundred. Rather, twenty-seven represents the first years <i>within</i> the one hundred. 
  At one hundred years old she was like a twenty year old, regarding sin. Rashi implies that from this comparison we learn that all Sarah’s days were good. But Rashi’s next comment — “‘The years of Sarah’s life,’ they were all equally good” — implies that “The years of Sarah’s life” comes to teach that all her days were good. If so, Rashi seems to be contradicting himself! But in fact, this is not a question. On the contrary, from the comparison of one hundred to twenty regarding sin, we would not know that at one hundred she was beautiful as at twenty, since we learn only one quality from each set by itself. Therefore, we still need “‘The years of Sarah’s life,’ they were all equally good.” A further answer: Since שנה is repeated in order to compare one hundred to twenty, which are the first twenty years counting from her birth [see previous entry], therefore, the “twenty-seven” years are <i>within</i> the one hundred and are not the additional years <i>after</i> the one hundred that the verse’s simple meaning infers. If so, we might think that during the twenty-seven years after the one hundred, she had sin and not beauty. This is why we need “The years of Sarah’s life,” to tell us that they were all equally good. And from “The years of Sarah’s life” alone, we would know just that her years were equally good in one quality. Thus it says שנה after each set, to compare them in both qualities: lack of sin and that she possessed beauty. And “The years of Sarah’s life” applies to both [qualities, telling us that in <i>all</i> her years she possessed beauty and she was without sin]. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  Just as when she was twenty she was not considered as having sinned... Question: Here, Rashi implies that right after turning twenty she was subject to [Heavenly] punishment. But regarding “Noach produced Sheim...” (5:32), Rashi said that before the Torah was given, people were not subject to [Heavenly] punishment until the age of one hundred? The answer is: Sarah was subject to punishment right after turning twenty because they accepted the Torah upon themselves—and after the Torah was given, people were subject to punishment from the age of twenty. Thus, Scripture is telling us that even by post-Torah standards, she was without sin. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  So called because of the four giants that were there... <i>Re’m</i> writes: However, I do not know what brought <i>Chazal</i> to say that Kiryas Arba was named after the four giants [or the four couples], when the city’s ruler was himself named Arba! It is written: “And the name of Hebron previously was Kiryas Arba; he was the greatest man among the giants” (Yehoshua 14:15). <i>Chazal</i> should have said that Kiryas Arba means “the city of the man named Arba,” and then explain why <i>he</i> was named Arba, rather than why the <i>city</i> was named Arba. The <i>Re’m</i> answers: Perhaps it is because <i>Chazal</i> found a reason for the city to be called Arba, but not for its ruler to be called Arba. Therefore they explained that the city was so called because of [the four giants or] the four couples — and the city’s ruler was also called Arba, after his city’s name. 
  Another explanation: So called because of the four couples that were buried there... Both explanations are needed, because each on its own raises the question: Why does the city’s name not reflect the reason for its origin? If after the four giants, it should be named Kiryas Anakim, and if after the four couples, it should be named Kiryas Zugos — but not Kiryas Arba. Since it makes no difference that there were exactly four giants, or couples, the city should not be called after a number which is not the reason for its name. That is why Rashi uses both explanations — to say that Kiryas Arba is called after the fact that it contains certain things which relate to the number four. E.g., it has four giants and four couples. But it was not called after one thing alone. Furthermore, we could even say it was called after the thing itself, but was called a number for the sake of brevity. The word “Arba,” alludes to two things the city has, both related to the number four. And since both are equally alluded to, both are included. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  From Beer Sheva. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? The answer is: Since the verse does not specify where he came from, it must be from where he dwelled before. And Beer Sheva, written in 22:19, is the only place mentioned by Scripture in which Avraham dwelled after the <i>Akeidah</i>. 
  Sarah’s death immediately follows the Akeidah of Yitzchok... Rashi does not mean that the sections are juxtaposed, because if so he should have said this at the beginning of the Parshah. Furthermore, how does he know that this is not the section’s proper place, [so that the juxtaposition is significant]? Rather, [Rashi means that the events] are juxtaposed in time, as <i>Chazal</i> had an oral tradition that Sarah died close to the <i>Akeidah</i>, and they found support for this in the phrase, “Avraham came.” [Although Avraham came from Beer Sheva, he was there for just a short while (see Rashi on 22:19), so it is as if he came straight from the <i>Akeidah</i>.] (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  As a result of the news of the Akeidah, that her son had been prepared for slaughter... Otherwise, why does the Torah write, “Avraham came,” teaching that he came from Mount Moriah? [See end of previous entry.] Perforce it is to tell us, “As a result...” 
  And almost not been slaughtered, her soul departed from her and she died. You might ask: Should Rashi not have said, “Almost <i>been</i> slaughtered”? The answer is: An emissary came from Mount Moriah, told her about the <i>Akeidah</i>, and began to say how her son had been prepared for slaughter. He delayed the end of his account that Yitzchok was actually saved from slaughter. He “almost” told her that Yitzchok had “not been slaughtered,” but a moment before, she became so shocked by his words that her spirit and soul departed. (<i>Mahara’i</i>)
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  For God has told me, “To your descendants I will give this land.” You might ask: Rashi explained in Parshas Lech Lecha, on “The Canaanites and the Perizzites were then living in the land” (13:7), that Avraham did not yet have possession of the land. Does this not imply that Avraham did not have a portion in it as yet? The answer is: In the above verse, Avraham did not yet have children, but now he did. This is why Rashi states here that Hashem said to him: “To your<i> descendants</i> I will give this land” — and now he had descendants. Accordingly, [Avraham said to them]: “At least grant me the possession of a grave site, although my descendants are not yet ready to inherit the land, as they are still few.” 
  The possession of land to serve as a burial place. Rashi is answering the question: How can the word אחוזה apply to a grave, which is a cavity in the ground? The word אחוזה applies only to an object with substance! Therefore Rashi says an אחוזה of land to serve as a burial place. Accordingly, אחוזה refers to the land. But <i>Re’m</i> explains that [Rashi is answering the question:] The word אחוזה applies to land that is at a person’s disposal. How then can it apply to a grave, which is set aside for the dead? Therefore Rashi explains that [Avraham asked] them to give him land for an אחוזה, and he will make graves there.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Will not withhold as in, “You will not withhold (לא תכלא) ...” Although the word in our verse ends with a ה, and the word cited by Rashi ends with an א, they still mean the same: “will not withhold.” [Rashi is saying that] our verse does not mean “destruction” (כליון), as in “Destruction (כלה) shall come upon them” (18:21), or “For destruction (כלה) and annihilation” (Yeshayahu 10:23), although those words indeed end with a ה like the word in this verse (יכלה). This is because this verse would not be understandable if יכלה meant “destruction.”
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Another explanation: It is doubled with couples. [You might ask: Why did Rashi need to bring two explanations? The answer is:] These two explanations reflect two opinions in Eiruvin 53a. They are telling us not to mistakenly think that the cave itself was double—one cave within the other, or one cave on top of the other—for then it should have said מערה הכפולה, “the double cave.” Since מערה lacks the ת of the construct state, כפולה [would consequently be an adjective and] its feminine ה would refer back to [the feminine] מערה. But with מערת in the construct state, המכפלה is a noun meaning “doubleness.” Thus, מערת המכפלה denotes “a cave of some other doubleness.” One opinion is that it was so named for the doubleness of the building (a house with an upper level above it) and the other opinion is that it was so named for the doubleness of the couples. And since Rashi does not decide which is closer to the plain meaning of Scripture, he cites both; they are equally good. A further answer: Rashi held that each explanation on its own raises the question: Why was the cave called מכפלה, after its doubleness, thereby omitting the main reason for its name? It should have been called after the main reason: according to one opinion, “Cave of House and Upper Level” or “Cave of Double Building”. And according to the other opinion, “Cave of Couples” or “Cave of Doubled Couples.” This is why Rashi brings both explanations—to say that it was called after the fact that it has certain things which relate to doubleness. These are: building and couples. But it was not called so for relating to only one matter. Alternatively, it was [so called] for the sake of brevity, to include two things in the word מכפלה. [Since both are equally hinted to,] both are included. We explained the name “Kiryas Arba” along similar lines. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  On that day they appointed him an officer over them... If it were written יושב it would be in the present tense, denoting that he once lived as an equal in the midst of the sons of Cheis, and he still does. But it is written ישב, in the past tense, denoting that he once lived in their midst as an equal but no longer. [Therefore, Rashi deduces] that on that day they appointed him to be an officer. 
  For they all left their work and came... It seems that Rashi deduced this from the fact that here it is written, “Who <i>came to</i> the city gate,” whereas in the story of Shechem it is written, “Who <i>left</i> the city gate” (34:24). Each verse makes a different point: Here, it teaches that even if someone had to do work, he left it to come pay respects to Sarah. There, it teaches that even if someone urgently needed to leave, he did not, but first circumcised himself—in order to cleave to the offspring of Yaakov. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  I do not wish this... Rashi needed [to add] this phrase, due to the word אך which always comes to exclude something stated previously. Here it excludes [Ephron’s previous offer, by saying]: “I do not wish this...” 
  And I wish that I had already given it to you. [Rashi makes this comment] because here it is speaking of money, which must be actually handed over [to validate the transaction]. However [in v. 11 it speaks of] land, which is at one’s disposal [one can say] “<i>as though</i> I have already given it to you.” This is because land [is readily available and] doe need to be collected. (<i>Maharshal</i>) But <i>R. Meir Stern</i> writes: Here it says נתתי כסף, past tense, although it should have used future tense and said: “I <i>will</i> give you the money.” And Rashi explains it as: “I <i>wish</i> that I had already given it to you.” And also in v. 11 it said השדה נתתיה, past tense, although it should have used future tense. Yet, Rashi explained it as: “<i>As though</i> I have already given it to you.” Why does Rashi explain it differently? [The answer is:] Here, Avraham said afterward: “Take it from me.” If נתתי כסף meant, “<i>As though</i> I have already given it to you,” he would not then say, “Take it from me.” If he already “gave” Ephron the money, then Ephron already “received” it, since by definition, giving entails receiving. That is why Rashi explains it as: “I <i>wish</i> that I had already given.” Then it understandable for Avraham to say: “Therefore, now, take it from me.” But on v. 11, Rashi could not explain as he does here, because here it is written לו שמעני נתתי, and לו means “if only.” Here, לו can refer both to שמעני, “<i>If only</i> you would listen to me,” and to נתתי, “<i>If only</i> I had already given.” But in v. 11 it does not [say לו]. However, if it were not written here, “Take it from me,” we would not be forced to say that לו refers also to נתתי; we would say it refers only to שמעני. And we would rather have explained נתתי as in v. 11: [“<i>As though</i> I have already given it to you.”]. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Between two friends such as we are, what significance does it have... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Ephron say, “Between me and you”? How was Avraham different from anyone else? Rashi answers: “Between two friends such as we are.” Rashi then answers another question: Why did Ephron say: ואת מתך קבור (“<i>And</i> bury your dead”? Rashi answers: Ephron was saying: “Disregard the sale, <i>and</i> bury your dead.” ואת relates to, “Disregard the sale.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  Without a vav because he said much... [You might ask:] Are not יעקב and אהרן also spelled without a <i>vav</i>? [The answer is:] עפרון is spelled with a <i>vav</i> throughout the parshah, and only here is written missing a <i>vav</i>. Therefore, it is to be expounded. But יעקב and אהרן are always without a <i>vav</i>. Where they have a <i>vav</i>, it is to be expounded. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  It was elevated for it left the possession of a commoner to the possession of a king. [Accordingly,] ויקם does not mean acquisition, as in (Vayikra 25:30): “The house in the walled city shall be established (וקם), to the one who bought it,” where Rashi explains that possession is transferred from the seller to the buyer’s control. This is because there, the verse mentions the buyer after וקם, unlike here. [You might object: Here too, the next verse says]: “This became <i>Avraham’s</i> through a purchase” — [thus mentioning the buyer after ויקם. The answer is:] That is not a continuation of the previous verse, since the <i>ta’amei hamikra</i> divide [it into a separate verse].
  The simple meaning of the verse is: The field came into... It seems we could ask either way: If the simple meaning works well, [why do we need the first explanation?] Rashi does not usually bring a Midrash without reason! And if the simple meaning does not work well, why bring it? This question should be asked whenever Rashi brings both. The answer is: The simple meaning, on its own, raises a question. It is redundant to say, “The field <i>of Ephron</i>... became Avraham’s through a purchase.” Why say, “Of Ephron”? Do we not already know it was his field? Perforce, an elevation took place specifically for the field of Ephron—it previously belonged to a commoner, Ephron. However, the exposition by the Midrash of “elevation,” when on its own, also raises a question. The verse already said, “The <i>field</i> of Ephron was established.” Why say again, “The <i>field</i> and the cave...”? A further problem with the Midrash, [when on its own, is that] the next verse לאברהם למקנה. becomes somewhat disjointed Thus Rashi brings also the simple meaning: the field, etc, came into Avraham’s possession. It says, “The <i>field</i> of Ephron,” and then repeats, “The <i>field</i> and the cave...” in order to indicate both explanations. Accordingly, ויקם applies to both. It applies to “The field of Ephron” to indicate “elevation.” And it applies to “The field and the cave” to indicate that it came into Avraham’s possession. In the simple meaning, ויקם denotes that possession of the field was transferred from the seller’s control and was established to the buyer, as Rashi exsimpleed on (Vayikra 25:30), “The house in the walled city shall be established (וקם)...” The questions of <i>Re’m</i>, and of the <i>Minchas Yehudah</i> who came after him, are thus resolved. There is no need for their forced explanations, as ויקם שדה and וקם הבית both mean the same. In the simple meaning, ויקם השדה means that possession of the field was established in the buyer’s control, the same as Rashi exsimpleed for וקם הבית. Rashi understands the word וקם to mean “shall be established,” and only says “in the control of the buyer” to exsimple that verse’s following phrase: “To the one who bought it.” The same applies here: ויקם means the field was established to Avraham. Whereas <i>Re’m</i> and <i>Minchas Yehudah</i> understood that according to Rashi there, וקם means “acquisition” [and thus conflicts with its meaning here]. But this is not so, and it is difficult to understand why they said this. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  And in the presence of all, he gave him possession. [The prefix] ב usually denotes “within.” But since “within” or “inside” does not fit here, Rashi says: “In the presence of all.” Rashi did not wish to explain here as in v. 10, that everyone left their work, because then Scripture should have written לכל, as it does there. Why is it written בכל, implying he was amongst them? Perforce, it is to be interpreted as “in the presence of all.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Since he had a son he needed to find a wife for him. Otherwise, why does it say this here? The reason Scripture does not write outright [that he had a son] is to teach us that the son was considered like “all things.” Before he had a son, he said (15:2), “What will You give me since I continue to be childless?” But now all his blessings were complete. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Whereas, above he did say, “And I will have you swear...” I.e., it says in v. 3: “[God of heaven] and <i>God of earth</i>.”
  From Ur Kasdim. <i>Re’m</i> and <i>Ramban</i> discuss this at length. But it is clear that Rashi holds that ארץ מולדתו refers to Ur Kasdim, while מולדתו [without ארץ, as in v. 4] refers to his family in the city of Charan. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  And you may take a wife for him from the daughters of Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei. [Rashi knows this] because Avraham said (v. 3), “[You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites] <i>among whom I live</i>.” Avraham commanded Eliezer from the daughters of the Canaanites <i>among whom I live</i>.” Avraham commanded Eliezer not to take a wife from the people they lived among, i.e., Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei, who were Avraham’s allies. So when it is written here, “You are <i>absolved</i> from this oath,” it also refers to Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  They would go out only muzzled, out of concern for robbery... [Rashi knows this] because it is written (v. 32): “And he removed the muzzles the camels,” which implies that until now they were muzzled. [You might ask: Why was muzzling necessary?] Hashem does not bring wrongdoing to the animals of the righteous, as it says in Chulin 7a! An answer is: Hashem surely does not bring them wrongdoing but Eliezer muzzled them so they will not eat even [what is lying near] the sides of the road. Although the produce there is considered abandoned since the owners assumedly gave up hope [of recovering it], Eliezer the servant of Avraham was very pious and did not wish to benefit from another’s property even when permitted. But <i>Re’m</i> answers that one should not rely on a miracle. [Although Hashem usually protects,] it is different where harm is sure to happen, as the camels were going among other people’s fields. 
  He wrote a gift-deed to Yitzchok of all his possessions... [Rashi knows this] because when the verse says: “He departed, and all the property of his master was in his hand,” a new point is being expressed: even though Eliezer departed, all his master’s property was still in his hand. If all the verse means is that the property remained in Eliezer’s possession, why does the verse even need to tell us this? [It would be obvious, so] what is the new point? Furthermore, why did Scripture not tell us this in the previous section, that all his master’s property was in his possession? Perforce, it means that Avraham gave a gift-deed to Yitzchok. But <i>Re’m</i> writes that [Rashi knows this] because there is no other way that all his master’s property would be “in his hand.” Avraham surely would not grant all his money to Eliezer! We need not ask: It is written later (25:5), “Avraham gave all that he possessed to Yitzchok.” Does this not imply that he did not give a gift-deed to Yitzchok beforehand? [An answer is:] Rashi explained there in the name of R. Nechemia [that Avraham gave Yitzchok] the blessing of Hashem, Who had said to Avraham, “And you will be [in control of the world’s] blessing.” Avraham then entrusted the blessings to Yitzchok. A further answer: Avraham acquired possessions after his gift-deed to Yitzchok, during the ten years following Sarah’s death. Avraham, upon his death, bequeathed them to Yitzchok.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Because he saw the water rise toward her. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse say: “Toward her”? Since she already filled the pitcher and came up from the well, it should say he ran <i>after</i> her, as he had been standing by the well next to her, as it is written (v. 13): “Behold, here I stand by this well of water.” Perforce, “toward her” means he ran after her because of the <i>water</i> which rose <i>toward</i> her. (cited in the name of R. Avraham of Prague) <i>Maharshal</i> explains: It seems that Eliezer was not standing right at the well, but some distance from it. And Rashi deduced [his comment] from the fact that it is written, “The <i>servant</i> ran.” Why is it not written, “He ran,” similar to the preceding verses? Perforce, [it comes to say] that since he was Avraham’s servant he knew that Avraham was used to such miracles, as seen in (21:30) שבע כבשות האלה [where Rashi explains: “And the waters rose towards Avraham.” Thus,] Eliezer ran toward her, thinking: “She is worthy for the House of Avraham since the water even rises toward her, like for Avraham.”
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Because that is the end of their drinking—when they have had enough to drink. Accordingly, כלו is not from כלייה (“finished off”), as the Targum for that word is גמירא. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Because the verb “drink” does not take an א. Rashi is saying: [If it means “drinking”] why is there an א? It is plausible according to Onkelos, who said it means שהייה (waiting), for the verb root is שהי or שהה. Thus, the א replaces the third letter of the root, which is י or ה. But if it means שתייה (drinking) whose root is שתה, then all three letters of the root are found in משתאה. [Why is there an א?]. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  This is symbolic of the shekels of Israel, a בקע per head. Otherwise, why does it tell us, “Weighing half a shekel”? It was not a tremendous weight! The same is true for, “Weighing ten gold shekels.” <i>Chazal</i> interpreted “two bracelets” as they did because of the question: Why does it need to say “two”? [We always assume the minimum, and] the least number that the term “bracelets” could be referring to is two. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  He asked her this after giving her... Although in Eliezer’s recount to Lavan (v. 47) it is written that he first asked and then he gave, Rashi explained there that Eliezer changed the story so they would not catch [something incongruous] in his words. Eliezer’s recount to Lavan cannot be the primary version, while here [we apply the rule that] Torah narratives are not always in chronological order, because within one topic the Torah observes chronological order. (<i>Re’m</i>) A question on the <i>Re’m</i>: In the beginning of Parshas Vayeira, Rashi explains on, “He said, My Master...” (18:3), that the Torah is not following chronological order. Yet there, it is within one topic! And Rashi there brings proof from, “My spirit will not continue to judge man forever” (6:3). 
  One night’s lodging. Otherwise, why does it not say the same in both places: either ללין or ללון? 
  לין is a noun. This noun is similar to שיר and ניר. But ללון is an infinitive that can mean many lodgings or one lodging.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  And a daughter confides only in her mother. Although it is written about Rachel: “She ran and told her <i>father</i>” (29:12), that was because her mother had died. (<i>Bereishis Rabbah</i>) 
  
  Verse 29
  
  Why did he run and for what did he run? Rashi is not asking why Lavan ran, and answering, “He said, ‘This one is rich....’” Rather, Rashi is arranging the verses, as they are not written in chronological sequence. It should have said first, “When he had seen the nose ring and the bracelets on the hands of his sister, and heard the words of his sister...” and then, “He ran.” That is the sequence: Lavan saw the ring, heard his sister’s words, and ran. Also, it is not feasible that [the sequence follows the order of the verses]: first he ran, then he saw the ring and heard his sister’s words, and then he went out to the man. An even greater [break in sequence is that] in the middle, it says Lavan saw the ring. [On the contrary,] “He ran” and “He came” should be next to one another, not interrupted by, “When he had seen...” All this brought Rashi to explain, “‘He ran.’ Why did he run...?” Rashi is saying that the verses are written in this order so they will [state that Lavan ran, and then] explain <i>why</i> he ran. Furthermore, there are two [possible] reasons why Lavan ran: seeing the ring, and hearing his sister’s words. When Rashi says, “And for what did he run?” he is asking: for which reason did he run? [Rashi answers:] “He saw” and “He ran” are written next to each other to show that he ran because, upon seeing the ring, he said: “He is rich.” It was not because he heard Rivkah’s words, [in which case we could] judge him favorably, that he ran to honor Eliezer or for some other reason, and not out of his lust for money. Whereas if “He saw” and “He heard” would have been written before “He ran,” [in chronological sequence,] we would not know what he ran for, or if it was for both reasons. This is why Rashi carefully quotes the wording of the verse: “Why ‘He ran’? ‘When he had seen the nose ring...’” From this we see that Rashi’s true intention is to arrange the verses so they will be orderly and connected. He does this by inserting a few [explanatory] words into the verses, which is his practice in most places, as known by those familiar with Rashi’s ways. Whereas if Rashi merely intended to ask and answer, as certain commentators explained, then he should [have paraphrased] and said: “Why did he run? He said, ‘This one is rich’....” [According to them,] that which Rashi quotes, “When he had seen the nose ring,” before explaining, “This one is rich....” is completely not understandable. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 30
  
  To watch over them... Otherwise it should say רוכב על הגמלים rather thanעומד על הגמלים.
  
  Verse 31
  
  Of idols. Otherwise, it would be sufficient to say there is a place for the camels, or a place to lodge, [without mentioning, “I have emptied the house.”] 
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Here אם is used as a term for אשר as well as כי... Rashi is answering the question: אם [in its usual sense of “if”] implies uncertainty whether Eliezer spoke. Yet, he surely spoke! Rashi answers: אם [also] means “that,” [as seen from the] כי in עד כי יבא שילה (49:10), where כי means “that.” [And since כי means אם, as Rashi explains here, it follows that] אם means “that.” 
  This is what is meant when our Sages said... Rashi is answering the question: [אם means “that”] because אם is like כי, [and כי means “that”]. But כי has only four meanings, אלא דילמא אי דהא, and אם is not one of them! If so, how do we know that אם means “that”? Rashi answers: “This is what is meant when our Sages said... and one is אי <i>which means</i> אם.” Thus we see that כי means אם. Here too, אם is like כי, and means “that.”
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  And she will not be willing to follow you. [This comment] solves three problems. First, [in v. 38] it connects תלך to לא, as if it were written אם לא תלך אל בית אבי. [This solves the problem] that לא does not fit with [its following word] אל. Second, [Rashi’s addition of] “And she will not be willing to follow you” [solves the problem] that otherwise it would imply: as soon as you go to my father’s house you will be absolved of the oath not to take a wife from the Canaanites, whether or not she is willing to follow you. [Third, in the phrase, “Unless you <i>first</i> go...”] Rashi adds the word “first” [to solve the problem] that otherwise it would imply: if you take a wife from the Canaanites, and <i>afterwards</i> go [to my family,] and she is not willing to follow you, you still will be absolved of my oath. But this is not so, as Eliezer was not allowed [to take a Canaanite wife] unless he <i>first</i> went [to Avraham’s family] and she would not be willing to follow him. [Accordingly, the final phrase in v. 38,] “Take a wife for my son,” begins a new sentence. It is as if saying: “Rather, you should take a wife for my son from my family, as mentioned above.” 
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  It is written אלי. Eliezer had a daughter... You might ask: Above (v. 5), when Eliezer first said to Avraham, “Perhaps (אולי) the woman will not be willing,” why was it not spelled אלי there, for this exposition? The answer is: There, it is followed by, “Shall I bring your son back to the land from where you came?” There, it does not imply that Eliezer was looking for an excuse. Rather, he was asking: if she will not come with me, should I bring Yitzchok to them? But here, since this is not written afterwards, it is for this exposition. (<i>Mahara’i</i>) Another answer: After Lavan said to Eliezer (v. 31), “Come, you who are <i>blessed</i> of Hashem,” Eliezer thought: “Now I am blessed! Perhaps Yitzchok will marry my daughter.” Thus here, it is spelled אלי, for this exposition. But above, Eliezer was not yet blessed. The <i>Maharshal</i> answers: Eliezer never thought he would become Avraham’s in-law, because Avraham was blessed but he was cursed. Rather, Eliezer feared that once he told them he was under oath to take a wife specifically from Avraham’s family, they would extort him for a great sum of money. Thus he told them אלי, to hint to them that he had a daughter. 
  And one who is cursed cannot cleave to one who is blessed. I.e., Eliezer came from Canaan, of whom it is written (9:25): “Cursed be Canaan.” You might ask: Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei were also cursed, as they were Amorites, [who also come from Canaan]. The answer is: The curse was actualized in Eliezer, as he was a slave. Thus, he was more cursed than they. This resolves the difficulty of <i>Re’m</i> on v. 8.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  From here [we learn] that thanks should be given for good tidings. You might ask: Why did Rashi not make this comment above, on: “The man bowed his head and prostrated himself” (v. 26)? An answer is: Above, it is followed by: “He said, ‘Blessed is Hashem, God of my master, Avraham.’” Perhaps there, he prostrated himself because he mentioned Hashem’s Name in a <i>brocho</i>, as “blessed” means a <i>brocho</i>. But here, no <i>brocho</i> follows. The <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> answers: The Bereishis Rabbah (60:7) made this comment on, “The man bowed his head and prostrated himself” (v. 26). But Rashi makes it here, because Eliezer could not have given thanks until after they said (v. 51), “Take her and go.” But, when he first spoke to Rivkah, he did not yet know if she would agree to go with him!
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  He wanted to prevent ... [therefore] an angel came and killed him. Besueil poisoned the food in Eliezer’s plate, and then he rushed Eliezer to eat before he would notice it. For it is written here (v. 33), “Food was <i>set</i> before him,” and about Yosef also it is written (50:26), “He was <i>set</i> in a coffin.” Here, too, they sought to kill Eliezer and put him in a coffin. But Eliezer realized it and said (v. 33), “I will not eat until I have spoken my words.” In the meantime, the angel moved the plate and the poison ended up in front of Besueil, who ate the poisoned food and died. (<i>source unknown</i>)
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  From here [it is derived], that a woman may not be given in marriage unless it is with her consent. Rashi is answering the question: They said before (v. 50), “We cannot say anything to you, bad or good,” as it is clearly ordained by Hashem. [Why then did they now need to ask her?] 
  
  Verse 58
  
  Of my own accord... Rashi is answering the question: Why did she answer, “I will <i>go</i>,” instead of simply saying, “Yes”? For they had asked her, “Will you <i>go</i> with this man?” (<i>Re’m</i>)
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  May you and your descendants receive the same blessing... Rashi said, “May it be His will that those <i>descendants</i>...” [but did not speak directly of her,] because the blessings were given to Yitzchok, not to Rivkah. [You might ask:] Is it not written [that they said to her, “May <i>you</i> become thousands of myriads,” even though she was not included in the blessings [to Yitzchok]? The answer is: If her descendants receive the blessing, it is considered as though she received it herself.
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  It is between Kadeish and Bered. Bered and Shur are the same place, as Onkelos translates both as חגרא. Since it is written about one of them, “To the land of the Negev” (20:1), and it is written about the other that the well was there (16:14), they derived that the land of the Negev [where Yitzchok lived] was close to that well. 
  
  Verse 63
  
  A term for prayer, as in, “He pours out his prayer.” Question: For the verse ישפוך שיחו (Tehillim 102:1), the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 7b uses the verse over here לשוח בשדה as a source that שיח means prayer [as if <i>our</i> verse was the source]?! Tosafos answer (in Berachos 26b) that this is the way of the Gemara. For we see that the Gemara (Megillah 13a) proves Esther was righteous because it is written about her (Esther 2:7), “He brought up <i>Hadassah</i>,” and it is written (Zechariah 1:7), “And he was standing among the <i>hadassim</i>.” Just as in Zechariah 1:7 it refers to the righteous, so too in Esther 2:7. Yet, in Sanhedrin (93a) the Gemara brings the proof the other way around. But this does not seem right to me. Rather, the answer is: Both verses are needed [to prove that שיח means prayer.] With ישפוך שיחו alone, we would think that שיח means speech, not prayer, since that same verse already said תפלה לעני. But לשוח בשדה [must mean prayer, for] with whom was Yitzchok speaking? Perforce, he established [the afternoon] prayer. And with לשוח בשדה alone, we would think that לשוח means as it does in Demai 1:1: “בנות שוח (white figs).” I.e., Yitzchok went for a walk among the trees in the field. This is why Rashi brings a proof from ישפוך שיחו. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 64
  
  She saw that he was majestic and was astonished at his sight. Otherwise, how did she know it was [someone important like] Yitzchok, so that she let herself down from the camel? 
  She leaned towards the ground but did not reach the ground. [Rashi knows this] because it is written ותפול מעל הגמל, rather than מהגמל ותפול or ותפול לארץ. Consequently, it implies that she let herself down from the camel’s back, but not to the ground. 
  Similarly, כי יפול לא יוטל... Even though he falls he will not be cast to the ground, as Rashi goes on to explain: “He will not reach the ground.” 
  
  Verse 65
  
  As in ותקבר and ותשבר. These verbs refer to the object of the action, and are in the נפעל (passive) form. So too with ותתכס: it is reflexive, and she was the object of the action.
  
  Verse 66
  
  
  
  Verse 67
  
  That is, she became the image of his mother Sarah. [Rashi knows this] because it should have said ויביאה לאהל שרה אמו, in which case אהל would be connected to שרה, [meaning “Sarah’s tent.”] But האהלה is an independent phrase. 
  For, as long as Sarah was alive a candle burned... They correspond to the three mitzvos which women are commanded (Shabbos 2:6). Corresponding to challah, there was a constant blessing. Corresponding to Shabbos candles, a lamp burned. And the cloud which hung [over the tent] represented the Shechinah. It was there due to the holiness of purity: she carefully observed [the laws of] <i>nidah</i> and would purify herself. And purity brings <i>ruach hakodesh</i> (Avodah Zarah 20b). (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  As long as one’s mother is alive... Otherwise, why does it say אחרי אמו? 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Because her deeds were as beautiful as קטורת. But [the first explanation] raises a question: Why was she not named Ketores? Thus Rashi offers the [second] explanation: “Because she ‘tied her womb.’” And the second explanation raises a question: Why was she not named Keshurah, which means “tied” in Hebrew, instead of Keturah, which means “tied” in Aramaic? Therefore, Rashi offers the first explanation. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Did not mate with any man from... she separated from Avraham. [You might ask: Why were her deeds so beautiful?] Rashi explained above (21:14), “She returned to her family’s idolatry”! The answer is: She had in mind to return to idolatry because she thought, “Since I was rejected from the House of Avraham, his God has also left me.” But when she saw the miracle of the well for her son, and the angel revealing himself to her, she did not abandon Hashem. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>)
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  The name of the heads of nations. I.e., from one of Dedan’s sons descended all the Ashurim, and so from the second one [descended all the Letushim]. Otherwise, it should say Ashur and Latush, [in singular]. (<i>Re’m</i>) But <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains: Otherwise it should say ובני דדן אשורים ולטושים. Why does it say היו? Perforce, because they are “the name of the heads of nations.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  He gave him ברכת דייתיקי. [According to the first approach, ברכת דייתיקי means “the blessing of Hashem,” and] Rashi is answering the question: Did not Avraham already give Yitzchok all he had (see Rashi on 24:10)? The word דייתיקי comes from עתיק יומין, which means “Hashem.” Alternatively, דייתיקי comprises three words, דאי תהא קאי, and means, “the gift will be established.” In other words, Avraham now gave Yitzchok active possession of the property he had previously granted him. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  It is written lacking... there was only one concubine. Rashi knows this because other concubines were not written of, only Hagar. (<i>source unknown</i>) 
  Wives are with a kesubah, concubines arewithout a kesubah. Rashi is answering the question: If the concubine mentioned here is Hagar, why before (v. 1) is she called a wife? The answer is: Scripture called her a wife because she had a kesubah like a wife. And it calls her a concubine because Avraham took her only for conjugal relations and not for child-bearing. The word פלגש connotes פלג אשה (a half wife): one who is for conjugal relations and not for child-bearing. 
  Our sages explained that he transmitted to them impure names... This means [names for] handling demons. Alternatively, it means names [of Hashem] that may be uttered in a state of impurity, as he knew that these sons will not keep themselves pure, so he did not transmit to them Names that require a state of purity. 
  He transmitted to them impure names. [Rashi knows this] because Avraham had already given all his possessions to Yitzchok.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  From here ... that Yishmael repented... Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture mention Yitzchok before Yishmael, when Yishmael was older?
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  He comforted him ... for comforting the bereaved. [Rashi knows this] because if you think “Elokim blessed” follows its simple meaning, why does Scripture say, “After Avraham died”? What does it matter if He blessed Yitzchok during Avraham’s lifetime or after? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  He was afraid to give the blessings to Yitzchok... You might ask: Did not Rashi say before (v. 5) that Avraham gave the blessings to Yitzchok? The answer is: Avraham empowered him to bless others, but Yitzchok himself was not blessed [until now]. And so wrote <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  In order of their birth, one after another. Rashi is saying that בשמותם לתולדותם means, [“Their names] in the order of their birth.” Otherwise, why is this phrase said? This explains why it says afterwards, “Nevayos was Yishmael’s first born.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Why are the years of Yishmael enumerated... Rashi is saying that שנה is written after each set [i.e., after hundreds, tens and ones] that it be expounded: “...To trace the years of Yaakov,” but not because all his years were equal in goodness [as it is expounded for Sarah and Avraham]. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Expire is only used with the righteous. Although in 7:21 it says גויעה about the [wicked] generation of the Flood, it is explained in Bava Basra 16b that גויעה refers to the righteous only when it is written with ויאסף. And for the generation of the Flood it does not say ויאסף.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Yaakov and Eisov who are discussed in this parshah. Meaning: wherever it is written, “<i>And</i> these,” it is a continuation of that which preceded. Just as Avraham fathered a righteous son and a wicked one, so too did Yitzchok father a righteous son and a wicked one. 
  Because the scoffers of the generations were saying... <i>Re’m</i> writes: The reason that Scripture needed to verify that Yitzchok was Avraham’s son was because [the Torah’s writing of, “<i>And</i> these are the descendants of Yitzchok son of<i> Avraham</i>,”] brought about the scoffers of the generation to claim that Sarah conceived from Avimelech. But <i>Re’m’s</i> reason is not correct. Because if so, let it not write the “and” [which connects it to the preceding narrative.] And let it not write the ה [of אברהם, but rather omit mention of Avraham altogether]. It should say simply, אלה תולדות יצחק, as it says אלה תולדות נח (6:9) and אלה תולדות יעקב (37:2). [This way, Scripture would not elicit the scoffing in the first place.] Rather, Rashi means as follows: Our <i>Parshah</i> discusses Yaakov and Eisov, one of whom was righteous, and the other, wicked. Due to them, our verse needs to offer explanation. So we need not ask why it writes “<i>And</i> these,” and אברהם, because [the answer is:] The scoffers of the generations were already claiming at the time of Yitzchok’s birth [that Sarah conceived] from Avimelech. And now, they found support for their claim! One son [of Yitzchak’s] was righteous like Sarah, and the other, wicked like Avimelech. [They claimed] that both sons would be righteous if they came from Avraham. [Our P<i>arshah</i> is thus connected to an earlier narrative, explaining why it says, “<i>And</i> these.”] This is the reason it was necessary to say, “Yitzchok son of <i>Avraham</i>,” and support it by saying, “Avraham was the father of Yitzchok,” [implying that Yitzchok’s face resembled Avraham’s]. And this is why Rashi concludes by saying: “This is the meaning of what is written <i>here</i>....” It is written <i>here</i> because one son was righteous and the other wicked, [as discussed in our <i>Parshah</i>]. Otherwise, it would be written in another place. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 20
  
  For when Avraham returned from Mount Moriah... The verse’s statement that Yitzchok was forty needs no support. Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yitzchok not marry when he was eighteen or twenty? He fulfilled all the Torah, and was a beloved, only son to his father and mother. They should have married him off as soon as he was fit to have children. Rashi answers [that they waited for his destined mate to be born]: “For when...” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  And at that time Rivkah was born. He waited for her... Otherwise, why did he wait so long and not marry her as soon as he received the news? [This question arises] because properly speaking, Yitzchok should have married earlier — but could not, as Avraham did not want to marry him to a Canaanite woman. We see this from, “After these words... Milkah has also born children to Nachor” (22:20). There Rashi comments, “The words of the thoughts that came about as a result of the Akeidah...” 
  Until she was fit for marriage — three years — whereupon he married her. Although she was not fit to conceive, he married her nonetheless, so he would not have improper thoughts. 
  That she was the daughter of a wicked person and the sister of a wicked person... You might object that the question still stands. When it said before that she was Besueil’s daughter and Lavan’s sister, we could have learned the same lesson, [so why is our verse needed?] The answer is: By writing this verse, Scripture is testifying that she truly was righteous and did not learn from their deeds.
  
  Verse 21
  
  To be implored and to be placated and swayed by him. [Rashi says this] because וַיֵrָתֶר (He granted his prayer) cannot mean “increase.” Rather it means “implore,” whose meaning is close to that of “increase.” [Although וַיֵrָתֶר comes later on in the verse,] this is why Rashi explains it before לנוכח אשתו: [in order to explain the meaning of the root עתר]. Since נתפצר [implies giving in due to pressure] and may not to be used for Hashem, Rashi adds the word נתפתה, conveying that Hashem “consented” to his request. 
  It means imploring and increasing... Rashi is explaining that עתר does not [generally] denote prayer, rather imploring. [Here,] it means he implored and increased his prayers. 
  And similarly: “Exorbitant are the kisses of the enemy,” meaning, they <i>seem</i> exorbitant... Rashi is answering the question: It was explained above that ונעתרות also means “increasing.” But why would an enemy increase his kisses? Thus Rashi explains that they <i>seem</i> exorbitant and are burdensome. I.e., an enemy kisses only once, but it seems as if he kissed exorbitantly, and even the one kiss is burdensome. [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not mention נעתרות נשיקות שונא above, when he was explaining וַיֶrְתַר which also means increasing? The answer is: Above, we could have said that עתר has two [separate] meanings: imploring and increasing. This would be similar to וישבר למצרים (41:56), where Rashi explains that שבר can mean either selling or buying. Thus וַיֵrָתֶר could be explained as imploring, since increasing does not apply to Hashem — Heaven forbid we should say He “increased”! If so, נעתרות נשיקות שונא could also mean imploring: one must implore the enemy to kiss his adversary. But now that Rashi explained that even וַיֵrָתֶר means [something similar to] increasing, and that עתר <i>always</i> means increasing, we are forced to explain נעתרות נשיקות שונא as, “They seem exorbitant.” 
  He was standing in one corner and praying... [Although לנוכח usually means “facing,” Rashi explains it differently here] because it is not normal to pray facing one another. 
  “His” but not hers. For it is not comparable... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say, “He granted <i>their</i> prayers”? They both prayed! He answers: “‘His’ but not hers. For it is not comparable...” 
  
  Verse 22
  
  For it does not clarify what this struggle was... Meaning: since Scripture does not explain the רציצה, assumedly it was [the standard רציצה,] like that of other pregnant women. But if so, why is it written afterwards, “If this is so, why did I desire this?” Did she not know she would have pregnancy pains? Perforce, as the Midrash says, רציצה means moving quickly, not what other women experience. About this Rashi later commented: “She said, ‘If this is so, that the pain of pregnancy is so great’” — more than that of other women — “‘Why did I desire this?’” 
  To the house of study of Sheim. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should simply say, “She inquired of Hashem.” Why does it say, “She went”? Hashem fills the whole world! And while Sheim was still alive, she would not go to the house of study of his grandson Eiver. We need not ask why she did not go to Avraham, as he too was a prophet, for the answer is: Hashem hid the meaning of her pregnancy from Avraham so he would not be pained [over his wicked grandson-to-be, Eisov]. We see that before Eisov fell into to evil ways, Avraham died, so that his death would be “in a <i>good</i> old age” (25:8). 
  
  Verse 23
  
  Through an intermediary. We cannot say that Hashem told her Himself, as she did not speak to Hashem herself. Furthermore, Rashi knew this since it is written ויאמר ה' לה, rather than ויאמר לה ה' as it says for Hagar ויאמר לה מלאך (16:9) and for Rus ויאמר לה בועז (Rus 2:14). Perforce, ויאמר ה' לה means that Hashem told her through an intermediary. גיים
   is written. This refers to Antoninus and Rabbi... גיים means גאים (great and princely persons) because the י is in place of the א.
  Whose tables never lacked radish or lettuce... I.e., Antoninus was a scion of Eisov, and Rabbi [referring to R. Yehudah HaNasi] was a scion of Yaakov. Question: Does it not say in Kesubos 104a that when Rabbi was dying, he lifted his ten fingers toward Heaven and said, “I did not benefit from this world even my little finger’s worth”? The answer is: Rabbi’s household would eat [the special foods], and his table was never lacking. This was the princeliness. But Rabbi himself did not eat them. (<i>Re’m</i>) See <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>. 
  The word לאום always means kingdom. Otherwise, why does it say ושני לאומים [after it already said שני גוים]? But <i>R. Noson</i> explained that Rashi knew this from the word יאמץ, which is used only for kings, as Rashi clearly states on Avodah Zarah 12b. 
  Already from the womb they are separated... <i>Re’m</i> writes that according to Rashi, יִפָרֵדו is to be understood as present tense, for Rashi writes הם נפרדים (they <i>are</i> separated). Here, Hashem is not telling her what is in her womb. He already told her, “Two nations are in your womb.” He is rather telling her the nature of these nations. While still in the womb, as yet unborn, they are exceptionally separated from one another — one to his evil ways and the other to his wholesomeness. This is why Rashi writes נפרדים, present tense, rather than יִפָרֵדו, future tense. He is saying that already in the womb, they are separated. You might ask: Does the Sifrei not say that the evil inclination does not affect a person while he is his mother’s womb? For it is written (8:21), “The inclination of man’s heart is evil מנעריו,” meaning [that he has the evil inclination only] after he is shaken (ננער) from his mother’s womb. The answer is: Before a person is born, the evil inclination does not cause him to lust sins. But Eisov was drawn to the sin of idolatry because it was his nature. He sought out his own kind. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  When one rises the other falls... I.e., both of them cannot be great at the same time because when one rises the other falls. The מ of מלאום is [not] like the מ of מכל מלמדי השכלתי (Tehillim 119:99), which means “more than.” [In other words, מלאום does not imply a comparison, that one government has “more” power than the other.] Rather, the מ of מלאום means “from.” I.e., one government seizes power “from” the other [and thereby acquires its greatness.] Tyre is the kingdom of Eisov. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  A sign that he will be a murderer. [Rashi knows that] this was written here to be a sign, because otherwise, why would Scripture tell us he was reddish? Whereas it is understandable that it says he was hairy — this explains why his name is “Eisov.” Although it is written also about Dovid that “He was reddish” (Shmuel I 16:12), the earlier sages have explained in Bereishis Rabbah 63:8 that concerning Dovid it is written (ibid), “With beautiful eyes” — teaching that David shed blood according to the directives of the Sanhedrin, who are called “Eyes of the congregation” (Bamidbar 15:24). 
  Full of hair like a woolen garment. Rashi is answering the question: How can it say כאדרת שער, implying that a robe has hair? A robe is made of wool! Thus Rashi explains: “Full of hair like a woolen garment.” Rashi is saying that שער does not refer to אדרת. Rather, it conveys that Eisov was full of hair like a robe is full of <i>wool</i>. (<i>Re’m</i>) But <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes: <i>Re’m</i> forgot about the verse in Zechariah 13:4 which clearly states, “They will not wear a hairy robe (אדרת שער).” Thus, שער indeed refers to אדרת! Rather, our verse means that Eisov was completely full of hair like a robe that is full of <i>hair</i>. The verse should have said כולו שער כאדרת שער, but [did not because in the word כאדרת,] the כ conveys this point, since כ means “like.” And so explains <i>Radak</i> in his entry on the word שער: “A robe has hair.” See there. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  I heard an Aggadaic exposition that interprets it according to its plain meaning... Rashi is answering the question: If it is written, “The first one came out,” why then is it not written, “The second one came out”? Rashi answers: I heard an Aggadah that explains why it does not say, “The second one.” Yaakov rightfully should have come out first, just as he was conceived first!
  A sign that this one will not yet have completed his dominion... Otherwise the verse should have [omitted all mention of “the heel of Eisov,” and] just said, “His hand grasping him.” 
  God called him... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written who named him? Furthermore, since it says [right afterward], “Yitzchok was sixty years old,” it is implied that until now the verse was not speaking of Yitzchok. Thus Rashi explains that Hashem named him. 
  Another explanation: his father called him... [Question: If so,] why is Yitzchok not written? [The answer is:] So the gentiles will not say that Yaakov’s father called him so because he knew Yaakov would deceive Eisov twice. 
  On account of his holding the heel. When Rashi said before that [holding the heel of Eisov is] “a sign that this one will not yet have completed his dominion,” this is according to the first explanation, that <i>Hashem</i> named him Yaakov. For if Hashem named him, we ask: “Why does it need to mention Eisov’s heel?” [And we answer:] “Perforce, it is a sign that...” But according to the alternate explanation, that his <i>father</i> named him, it means that Eisov’s heel is not mentioned superfluously at all. It is needed to explain why his father named him Yaakov, [so it is not a sign]. 
  And the following ten years he hoped and waited for her... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yitzchok wait until he was sixty before praying? Avraham waited only ten years, as Rashi explained in Parshas Lech Lecha (16:3), while Yitzchok waited twenty years. This is why Rashi explains as he does. And lest we say that from here we can learn that a husband who waits ten years [without children] should pray, not take another wife, Rashi explains: “He refused to marry a hand-maid because he was sanctified....” It was not just a hand-maid [that Yitzchok did not take; it was any other wife]. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  As long as they were little... Rashi is answering the question: [Did not v. 23 teach us] that they were separated already from the womb, one to his wickedness and the other to his wholesomeness? Thus Rashi explains, “As long as they were little...” I.e., even though Eisov was doing evil, people assumed it was due to childishness and did not recognize who he was until he turned thirteen. You might object: Eisov did not fall into bad ways until he was fifteen, which is why Avraham’s life was shortened by five years, as Rashi explains on v. 30. The answer is: During those two years [between thirteen and fifteen], Eisov was secretly wicked. Later, he did so publicly. 
  Entrap and deceive his father with his mouth... [Rashi knows this] because it says יודע ציד, implying that it requires wisdom. Otherwise it would mean the same as, “A man of the field.” Furthermore, [Rashi knows this] because איש ציד is the opposite of איש תם, just as איש שדה is the opposite of יושב אוהלים. And if איש ציד meant trapping animals, it would not be the opposite of איש תם. A wholesome man could also trap animals!
  How is salt tithed... Since these things need not be tithed even Rabbinically, [Eisov’s question implied that] he observed mitzvos meticulously. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi say that Eisov deceived Yitzckok [specifically] in the mitzvah of tithes? The answer is: Since it is written expressly that Avraham observed this mitzvah, as it says (14:20), “[Avram] gave him a tenth of everything,” it is certain that his descendants continued to keep this mitzvah. For it says so about Yitzchok (26:12): “A hundred-fold,” [which was for the purpose of tithing; see Rashi there]. And it says so about Yaakov (28:22): “I will surely give a tenth to You.” (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  Who uses his bow to hunt animals and birds. It does not mean he worked in the fields, for then it should say: “Man of the soil,” as it did for Noach (9:20). Or it should say: “Worker of the soil,” as it did for Kayin (4:2).
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  As a result of committing murder... Otherwise, it should say he was hungry. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  Red lentils... [Rashi knows this] because it is written here ויזד יעקב נזיד, and in v. 34 it is written נזיד עדשים. Just as there it is lentils, so too here it is lentils. And just as here they are red, as it is written, “Please give me a swallow of this <i>red</i>,” so too there they are red. 
  For this reason God shortened his life by five years... You might ask: Perhaps his time to die had arrived? The answer is: About Avraham it is written זקן ושבע (25:8), omitting the word ימים. Whereas about Yitzchok it says (35:29): זקן ושבע ימים, [connoting fullness of days,] and so is it said about other righteous men.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Said Eisov: “What is the nature of this Service?” If he said it due to hunger, he should have said, “I <i>am</i> dying,” [rather than, “I am <i>going</i> to die”].
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  Scripture testifies to his wickedness... Meaning: we know he did not desire his birthright since it is written that he sold it to Yaakov. If so, why does Scripture need to write, “Eisov scorned the birthright”? Perforce, Scripture is testifying to his wickedness. In other words, we would anyway know that he was wicked, but here Scripture is testifying to it. We similarly explained the verse, “The daughter of Besueil, the Aramite, of Padan Aram” (v. 20).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  For you are a burnt-offering without blemish and being outside the [Holy] Land does not befit you. I.e., a burnt-offering is a <i>kodshei kodoshim</i> sacrifice and may not be taken outside the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, the Land of Israel is your “Temple Courtyard”; you may not go outside the Land.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  A man will say to his son, “May your children be like the children of Yitzchok.” Rashi is explaining that the nations will receive oral blessings [from one another], not that they will become blessed because your children [are a source of blessing for them]. For then it should say והתברכו מזרעך. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  To include the Oral Law — laws given by God to Moshe at Sinai. You might ask: Since they fulfilled the entire Torah, why did Yaakov marry two sisters, (and Shimon his sister Dinah), and Amram his aunt Yocheved? The answer is: They only accepted upon themselves to fulfill the mitzvos in the Land of Israel, but they were outside the Land [when these events occurred]. (<i>Ramban</i>) 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Concerning his wife. [Rashi explains this] because [the word לאשתו in] the verse makes it sound as if they asked Rivkah, and Yitzchok answered. But this is not plausible. Perforce, [it means they asked him, <i>concerning</i> his wife].
  
  Verse 8
  
  He thought, “From now on I have no need to worry... The explanation of וישקף is that Yitzchok unconcernedly left open the place where people could look in. Consequently, “Avimelech looked.” 
  He saw him having marital relations. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, how did Avimelech know she was his wife? But [Rashi’s proof] is not readily understood, as Avimelech could [have known this by just] seeing an embrace and a kiss. (<i>Re’m</i>) [Another approach:] It seems that Rashi deduced this from the superfluous word אשתו, which implies that Yitzchok was amusing himself in a way pertaining to his wife, i.e., marital relations. [Another approach:] Rashi makes his comment on “Avimelech looked,” not on “Avimelech saw,” so we will not say that Avimelech actually saw him having marital relations. Heaven forbid that a tzaddik like Yitzchok would leave the window open! Rather, Yitzchok <i>closed</i> the window — and that led Avimelech to understand [that she was his wife]. “Avimelech <i>looked</i>” means he observed and understood. And the phrase בעד החלון [does not mean “through” the window. It] means “facing the window,” as this is the general meaning of בעד that appears in Scripture. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) See there for his proof against <i>Re’m</i>.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  The one singled out amongst the people, meaning, the king. Rashi knows this because it is written, “You would have brought guilt upon <i>us</i>.” It is understandable if it refers to the king, as a king is referred to in the plural form, as is a prominent man. [Another approach:] It seems to me that Rashi knows this because otherwise it should say אֶחד rather than אַחד. And similarly Rashi explains the verse דן ידין עמו כאַחד (49:16). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Had he had relations, you already would have brought guilt upon us. והבאת cannot be future tense because it says שכב which is [clearly] past tense. A further reason [it cannot be future tense]: Avimelech had them announce that she is Yitzchok’s wife [and that whoever touches her shall die]. As a result, no one would sleep with her. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Despite the fact that it is not as esteemed as Eretz Yisrael itself... Rashi is answering the question: Is not Gerar also in Eretz Yisrael, as Rashi explained above (v. 2)?
  They had estimated the amount it ought to produce... מאה שערים means מאה שיעורים (a hundred amounts), as they had estimated it (שערה). 
  Our Sages said, the purpose of this estimate was for tithing. Rashi is answering the question: Why did they measure [the produce after the initial estimate]? It is stated in Bava Metzia 42a that only something hidden from the eye is blessed, not something that is counted and measured! Thus Rashi explains that Yitzchok wanted to give tithes, and one may not give tithes based on a mere estimate (Avos 1:16). 
  
  Verse 13
  
  So that people would say: Rather the dung of Yitzchok’s mules... Otherwise why does it say, “Until he became very great”? [The next verse details his wealth! Perforce,] it comes to tell us the extent [of his blessing]. Thus Rashi mentions mules, since mules [ordinarily] have no blessing at all, as Rashi explained in Devarim 15:14. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Because they said, “They are a danger to us because the armies... But [the plugging was] not because of jealousy. For then Scripture should [connect the idea of their jealousy to their plugging, and] say: “And the Philistines were jealous of him. They plugged all the wells that his father’s servants had dug....” (<i>Re’m</i>) But it seems to me that they indeed plugged the wells because of jealousy, but to conceal their jealousy they mentioned the aspect of danger. Otherwise, “And the Philistines were jealous” should come right before, “Avimelech said to Yitzchok, ‘Go away from us.’” And afterward it should say, “All the wells...,” followed by, “Yitzchok returned and excavated the wells.” Why is, “All the wells...” juxtaposed to, “And the Philistines were jealous”? To tell us that they plugged the wells because of jealousy! They thought Yitzchok would sense their jealousy, and leave [on his own]. When Avimelech saw that his plan failed, he told Yitzchok outright, “Go away from us.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  טמונון פלשתאי meaning stopping up... Rashi is telling us not to explain Onkelos along the lines of טמוני חול (Devarim 33:19), denoting something hidden. That is why he explains that [this word] also means stopping up.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Far away from the city. Rashi is answering the question: Avimelech told him, “Go away from us,” i.e., from Gerar. Why then did Yitzchok camp in the valley of Gerar, close to the city? 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Those wells that... in the days of his father Avraham... Rashi is answering the questions: Yitzchok already left, so how could he dig the wells, [which were in Gerar]? Furthermore, if Avraham already dug them, [and nothing happened in between, see next question,] why did Yitzchok dig them again? Also, why is it written: “And were plugged by the Philistines,” implying that the Philistines went and plugged them <i>after</i> Yitzchok dug them? Yet this is not so — nowhere does it say they plugged them after Yitzchok’s digging. Thus Rashi answers: “Which the Philistines had stopped up <i>before</i> Yitzchok departed from Gerar, he again dug them [before departing].” The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes at length, and maintains that the text of Rashi should say: ופלשתים סתמום קודם שנסע יצחק מגרר חזר וחפרן. Written like this, it is evident that [before Yitzchok left, the Philistines stopped them up, and] <i>after</i> he left and camped in the valley of Gerar, far from the city, he then returned and dug the wells.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  They disputed with him... Rashi is telling us not to explain the word עשק as meaning “dispute.” Rather, it means an actual עסק (matter). I.e., it was a matter of dispute.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  As Onkelos translates it: “And we will increase in the land.” The word ופרינו cannot be past tense, because Yitzchok said: “For <i>now</i>, Adonoy has made room for us.” How could he then say they were <i>already</i> fruitful in the land? Perforce, it is future tense. Thus Rashi disagrees with our version of Onkelos which says ויפשיננא, past tense, and explains that the text of Onkelos should read: וניפוש.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  That oath that exists between us since your father’s times. Rashi is answering the question: Is not the phrase בינותינו בינינו וביניך redundant? He answers that the phrases in this verse are not written in sequence. It should say תהי אלה בינותינו, נא ביני וביניך. This means: let that oath, which already exists between us, continue now. Rashi adds a ה to אלה, and inserts אשר, because it is recounting what happened to Avraham. And he inserts גם because Avimelech is seeking to make the same covenant with Yitzchok that he made with Avraham. Thus he says גם עתה. It is evident that Rashi, when he says עתה (now), is explaining נא. [Accordingly, נא means “now,” rather than “please.”] 
  
  Verse 29
  
  You, also... Rashi inserts the word גם to indicate that the Torah’s word אתה means גם אתה (“You, also, do with us likewise”). This is the prevalent version of Rashi’s text. Accordingly, עתה ברוך ה' is an independent phrase, [not to be read together with the preceding word אתה,] and comes to explain what was stated above: Why are we asking this of you? Because <i>now</i> we have seen that you are the blessed one of Hashem. question: Is not the phrase בינותינו בינינו וביניך redundant? He answers that the phrases in this verse are not written in sequence. It should say תהי אלה בינותינו, נא ביני וביניך. This means, “Let that oath, which already exists between us, continue now.” Rashi adds a ה to אלה, and inserts אשר, because it is recounting what happened to Avraham. And he inserts גם because Avimelech is seeking to make the same covenant with Yitzchok that he made with Avraham. Thus he says גם עתה. It is evident that Rashi, when he says עתה (now), is explaining נא. [Accordingly, נא means “now,” rather than “please.”]
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  An expression meaning: a spirit of rebellion, as in: “You were rebellious.” For if it meant מרירות (bitterness), it would not have a ת in the construct state, since the root would be מרר. Whereas the root of ממרים is מרה, and the ת of the construct state replaces the ה, since it is the third letter of the root. מרת רוח conveys that each of Eisov’s wives possessed a rebellious spirit, whereas bitterness does not relate to one’s spirit. 
  Because they worshiped idols. It seems that Rashi deduced this since Scripture mentions Yitzchok before Rivkah, to say that the pain was greater for Yitzchok. [Perforce,] this was because all his life he was not accustomed to idol worship. But Rivkah was accustomed to her father’s and brother’s idolatry. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Because of the smoke of these. This follows its simple meaning: smoke is bad for the eyes. But Rivkah was used to it, as explained in the previous entry. It seems to me that all three reasons are needed, as follows. First Rashi explains that Yitzchok’s blindness was from the smoke, as Scripture juxtaposed it right afterward. But this raises the question: Why did Hashem bring this misfortune on him? [Rashi answers:] Perforce, Hashem did not save him from this cause [of blindness] so that Yaakov could receive the blessing. But a question remains: In any case, if there was smoke, why did not Rivkah, too, become blind? Thus Rashi explains that Yitzchok’s eyes were already weakened from the <i>akeidah</i>, and the smoke caused him to lose his sight altogether. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Sharpen your knife and slaughter properly... Meaning: there should not be a nick in the knife. <i>Re’m</i> asks: Granted that Yitzchok relied on Eisov, as he held him to be a good person. Nevertheless, since Eisov slaughtered birds in flight [with his bow], why was Yitzchok not concerned that the slaughter would be invalid because of <i>chaladah</i> [when the <i>simonim</i> — windpipe or esophagus — are cut under the cover of the feathers or skin]? <i>Re’m</i> answers as in Chulin 31a, [that the feathers around the neck were cut; see there]. But <i>Re’m’s</i> discussion is unnecessary, as Yitzchok never asked Eisov to bring fowl, only animals [such as deer]. This is as Rashi explains in v. 9: “The taste of kid is similar to the taste of deer.” Although our verse mentions the bow, which implies that Eisov was asked to shoot arrows at birds, however, the bow could be used for animals: he could shoot the animal so it cannot flee, but in a manner that does not render it a <i>treifah</i>, and then he would slaughter it with a sword. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  From the ownerless and not from the robbedtherwise, why does it say, “For me,” when it is written (v. 4), “Bring it to me”? Thus Rashi explains: “From ownerless....”
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  With His consent... Question: How could Rivkah say, “In the presence of Hashem,” something which Yitzchok never said? The answer is that Rashi had a question: If Yitzchok considered Eisov righteous, why did he warn him so much on this day about <i>neveilah</i> and robbery? Rashi, [by explaining, “With His consent,”] answers that Yitzchok intended the blessings to be with Hashem’s consent — that He should grant His approval. This is why Yitzchok especially exhorted Eisov on this day. [And when Rivkah heard his exhortation, she understood that Yitzchok intended to bless Eisov “in the presence of Hashem.”] Rivkah said [to herself] about this: Since Eisov is going to bring any animal, even a stolen one [see Rashi on v. 5], he also will not obey his father regarding <i>neveilah</i>. If so, Hashem surely will not grant His approval. Thus she told Yaakov (v. 9, see Rashi there): “Take for me from there,” i.e., they are not stolen ones. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  One ... his Paschal offering and one ... as delicious food... You might ask: How does Rashi know it was Pesach? It seems the answer is: Yitzchok was born on Pesach, as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayeira (18:10). And Hashem completes the days of the righteous — they die on the same day they were born. This is as it says about Moshe (Devarim 31:2): “Today I am one hundred and twenty years old,” and Rashi explains: “Today, my days became complete. On this day I was born, and on this day I will die.” Since Yitzchok said (v. 2), “I do not know the day of my death,” i.e., perhaps I will die today, it must have been Pesach. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  The ones he coveted from Nimrod. Meaning: These garments bore pictures of all kinds of animals, and when Nimrod would wear them and go out to the field, the animals would think the pictures were animals, and would approach him. Eisov killed Nimrod and took the garments.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  I am the one who brings you, and Eisov is your first-born. Otherwise, Yaakov lied. You might object: He still lied, for Eisov had sold him the birthright. How could he say, “Eisov is your first-born”? The answer is: Yaakov bought only the rights, i.e., the sacrificial service entitled by the birthright, not the birthright itself. Eisov remained the first-born for the double inheritance. Another answer: Eisov was indeed the one born first [although he sold the accompanying rights].
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  It is unusual for Eisov to readily mention God’s Name... You might ask: Did not Yitzchok consider Eisov completely righteous? The answer is: For the very reason that he was completely righteous, he would not mention Hashem’s Name needlessly! [You might object:] This surely should be true of Yaakov, and Yitzchok considered him more righteous than Eisov, as explained above. [The answer is:] Yitzchok reasoned that Eisov cannot avoid filthy places, thus he is more careful than Yaakov about mentioning Hashem’s Name. For Yaakov dwelled in tents [of Torah study] and did not enter filthy places. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  He spoke gently and entreatingly... [Rashi knows this] because if it follows its simple meaning, i.e., Yitzchok recognized his voice, then Yitzchok immediately should have commented when hearing him say, “It is I, Eisov your first-born.” Furthermore, when Yaakov said to his mother, “Suppose my father touches me” (v. 12), why was he not worried [also] about being recognized by voice? Perforce, their voices were similar, and this is why Rashi explains “the voice of Yaakov” as speaking entreatingly. 
  Spoke stridently... Although Yitzchok considered Eisov completely righteous, this does not show Eisov’s wickedness. There are many people who speak stridently although they are good people.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  This teaches that the smell of the Garden of Eden entered with him. This is because Eisov coveted these garments [and took them] from Nimrod, who inherited them from Adam, who wore them in the Garden of Eden. 
  Which is that of an apple-orchard. “Blessed by Hashem” refers to “field”, as if saying: Like the fragrance of a field to which Hashem has given a pleasant scent, i.e., an apple-orchard. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  May he give repeatedly. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ויתן, with a ו? Perforce, it means as follows: He will give to you — <i>and</i> even if sins cause the blessing to cease, He will give again. This explanation follows the Midrash. But according to the simple meaning, the ו connects it to what preceded, saying: Hashem gave you one blessing; may He give you another. And where did Hashem bless Yaakov before? The answer is: It is written (v. 27), “Blessed by Hashem.” Here, Hashem blessed Yaakov, as this phrase refers back to, “My son,” written earlier in the verse. It is as if saying: “See that the fragrance of my son, whom Hashem has blessed, is like the fragrance of a field to which Hashem gave a pleasant fragrance.” 
  
  Verse 29
  
  Whereas here that he married only one woman he says, “Your mother’s sons.” [Yitzchok said it in this manner] because he did not want to say that his sons will be slaves, relating the curse to himself. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  Regarding Bilam it states, “Those who bless you... and those who curse you...” Meaning: Concerning the righteous, the troubles come first. Thus Yitzchok mentioned the curses of the cursers first. The Ramban asks: Why is it written in Lech Lecha (12:3), “I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you, I will curse”? He answers: Because it is written afterward, “And through you, will be blessed...” Thus, the curses of the cursers indeed precede the blessings of those who bless. Although Bilam said to B’nei Yisrael, “Those who bless you are blessed,” he spoke as he did because he was accustomed to addressing the wicked. Alternatively, he blessed them with the reward of the wicked: B’nei Yisrael too, should have tranquility at the beginning. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  As one went out the other came in. Otherwise, why does it repeat: יָצֹא יָצָא? Perforce, Yaakov <i>left</i> his father’s tent while Eisov <i>left</i> the field and came to the house. But <i>Re’m</i> explains that [Rashi knows this because] אך diminishes the leaving. [I.e., before Yaakov finished leaving, Eisov had come]. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  As Onkelos translates it ותוה, meaning surprise. But its Midrashic... According to the Midrash, ויחרד means fear of the opening of Gehinom. It does not mean what it sounds like, i.e., surprise. Yet even according to the simple meaning, the word ויחרד denotes “fear” and not “surprise.” Rather, Rashi is explaining that [according to the simple meaning,] the fear came from the surprise of, “Who, then, is he?” as the verse sounds like it is saying. Whereas according to the Midrash, the fear was of Gehinom. 
  He saw Gehinom open beneath him. It means beneath Eisov, [not beneath Yitzchok]. Yaakov entered accompanied by the Garden of Eden, and Eisov was accompanied by Gehinom. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  An independent word, used with many situations... I.e., it is not [always] a compound word from איה and פה. Rather, it [often] is a word on its own and has various meanings depending on its context.
  Any taste that I wished to taste... Otherwise, why does it say מכל? 
  So you may not say: had Yaakov not tricked his father... Question: [If so, why] was “He has deceived me” (v. 36) written after “He shall be blessed”? It seems the answer is: Eisov surely wailed immediately, “What has this brother done to me? He has deceived me twice!” Upon hearing this, his father said, “He shall be blessed.” When Eisov heard his father respond, “He shall be blessed,” to the claim of, “He has deceived me twice,” paying him no heed, Eisov exclaimed (ibid): “Is he not rightly called Yaakov?” I.e., I see that you like his deceit and trickery, and that is why you named him יעקב [“He will deceive”], in the future tense, rather than עקב [“he held the heel”] — because he would deceive me twice! (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Therefore he affirmed it and knowingly blessed him. Otherwise, why does it say, “He shall be blessed”? He had already blessed him!
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  With cleverness. Otherwise, [if it meant deceit], why should he be blessed? 
  
  Verse 36
  
  As in “Is it because you are my relative?” From what was said after “You shall work for me without pay,” it is clear [that it was an incredulous question,] and Lavan was not actually requesting this. For Lavan said right after: “Tell me, what should your wages be?”
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  This refers to the part of Italy belonging to Greece. It was previously stated (v. 28), “Of the dew of heaven and of the <i>fatness of the land</i>,” referring to the <i>fruit</i> of the land. I.e., the grain and produce of your land should be rich and good. But here it refers to the place. I.e., that it should be located in the richness of the earth. Thus, here it says, “Your dwelling,” meaning the <i>place</i> he dwells in. Otherwise, [if it meant rich produce,] the question arises: Yitzchok had already given to Yaakov the blessing of the fatness of the land. [How then could Yitzchok now give it to Eisov?] 
  
  Verse 40
  
  And you will have reason to grieve over the blessings... You might object: It does not say anywhere that Yitzchok placed conditions on his blessings to Yaakov. The answer is: It is written, “And may האלהים give you” (v. 28). The word האלהים implies justice: “If you deserve it, ‘He will give to you.’” (<i>R. Noson</i>)
  
  Verse 41
  
  So that I will not grieve my father... Although he was wicked, he would never grieve his father. He treated his father with honor, as proved by (28:8): “Eisov realized that the daughters of Canaan were evil in the eyes of Yitzchok, his father...”
  
  Verse 42
  
  The meaning of consolation... You might ask: Does it not mean consolation according to the Midrash as well? The answer is: Rashi is saying that if we explain it as the Midrash does, meaning consolation — rather than as regret — then the verse can be explained [quite simply]: Eisov will comfort and console himself over losing the blessings by killing you. Thus, we need not explain it as referring to the cup of consolation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Any word that requires a ל prefix... It does not mean just any word, as we find this rule applies only to names of places and countries, such as בבלה and חברונה, and sometimes to vessels, such as המזבחה. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  He who has sufficient blessings... Otherwise, why is this particular Name of Hashem mentioned here?
  
  Verse 4
  
  May that nation descend from you as well as that blessed seed. Otherwise, [if it simply meant that Yaakov should be blessed as Avraham was,] it should say ויתן לך ברכת אברהם. But את ברכת אברהם implies taking Avraham’s blessing and bequeathing it to Yaakov. Why does Rashi not relate ברכת אברהם to inheriting the Land, saying that Yaakov, over and above Yitzchok’s other sons, should receive the Land? Because inheriting the Land is a gift, not a blessing. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  I do not know what this teaches us. Some ask: What is Rashi telling us — that he does not know? If he does not know, let him not comment! The answer is: Rashi knew a number of answers that could be given, but did not know which is true according to the simple meaning of Scripture. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>; see <i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>)
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  We learn from this that he hid in the house of Eiver for fourteen years and afterwards went to Charan. Question: Why does Rashi here mention [only] Eiver, while when explaining the verse “She went to inquire of Hashem” (25:22), he mentions [only] Sheim, and when explaining the words “They clashed” (ibid), he mentions [both] Sheim <i>and</i> Eiver? The answer is: “They clashed” is a blanket statement. When she would pass houses of Torah study, Yaakov would agitate and rush to come out. Sheim and Eiver had different study halls, as it is written (25:27): “Yaakov was a man without fault, dwelling in tents,” [in the plural form. See Rashi there.] Assumedly, Scripture means that Yaakov agitated by both tents. But regarding “She went to inquire of Hashem,” Rivkah went to [only] one of them, and surely she went to Sheim, since he was the grandfather of Eiver, and greater than him. While here, Rashi mentions only Eiver because, by this time, Sheim had already died.
  
  Verse 10
  
  When it finished it went back to the previous subject. I.e., Rashi’s original question was: Why does Scripture need to repeat the point and write, “Yaakov left,” when it had already written (28:5), “Yitzchok sent Yaakov on his way”? Rashi answers: Since the narrative of Yaakov was interrupted by the subject of Eisov—and proceeds to explain why it was interrupted: since [Yitzchok sent Yaakov away,] Eisov understood that Yitzchok considered the daughters of Canaan evil, so Eisov went to Yishmael. After explaining why the narrative was interrupted, Rashi goes back to complete his explanation of why Scripture repeats the point: “When it finished...” (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi,</i> see there) 
  It had only to be written: “And Yaakov went to Charan...” [Rashi knows this] because it is written in another place, “Yaakov... went to Paddan Aram” (28:5), without writing beforehand, “Yaakov left.” Perforce, if he went to Paddan Aram, he left Beer Sheva! Here too, Scripture should have written only, “Yaakov went.” 
  This tells us that the departure... makes an impression... [Rashi is answering the question:] Why did Scripture write two departures, so to speak? It says, “Yaakov left,” and also, “He went towards Charan,” [which itself implies that he left.] Perforce [the answer is]: One teaches that his person departed, and the other teaches that the brilliance, splendor and glory departed. (<i>Re’m</i>) <i>Maharshal</i> comments on this: <i>Re’m’s</i> explanation differs from Bereishis Rabboh (68:7), which says: It is written ויצא (singular), and not ויצאו. But did not also camels and other animals leave with him? Perforce, it teaches: “Its brilliance has departed....” [<i>Maharshal</i> continues:] It seems that we need both the explanation of <i>Re’m</i> and of Bereishis Rabboh, as follows: Since it is written “Yaakov left” and also “He went,” it is appears to be redundant. Perforce, it comes to say that <i>he</i> left and not another. This raises a question: Did not also camels leave with him? Perforce, [it speaks specifically of him] because when Yaakov left, the glory and brilliance departed—which would not be so if someone else had left. 
  While a righteous person is in the city, he is its glory... I.e., when a tzaddik is in the city, the men and people are also righteous because they are ashamed of him [and do not sin]. Also, because he reproves them. 
  Once he has left there, its glory has departed... I.e., the people of the city commit sins. We need not object that Yitzchok was still there, as Bereishis Rabboh already answered: The righteousness of one tzaddik is not like the righteousness of two tzaddikim. 
  “And she left the place,” which is written concerning Naomi and Ruth. Question: Why does Rashi bring a proof from Ruth, when in Ruth, he brings a proof from here? The answer is: Without the proof from Ruth, we might think that the two leavings written here are (1) the departure of his person and (2) the departure of his money, flock and cattle which left with him. Thus, Rashi brings proof from Ruth that the departure of a tzaddik makes an impression—as there, it cannot refer to the departure of their property. For it is written there that she said (Ruth 1:21), “Hashem has brought me back empty,” indicating clearly that she had no property. And in Ruth, Rashi brings a proof from here, because we might think that it makes an impression only if no tzaddik remains behind, as was the case there. But where there are tzaddikim, how do we know that the departure of a tzaddik makes an impression? Thus Rashi proves it from here, as Yitzchok and Rivkah remained, yet Yaakov’s departure still made an impression. (See <i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>, who offers a lengthy explanation.) 
  He left in order to go to Charan. Rashi is answering the question: וילך חרנה seems to imply that he came to Charan. But how can this be? It is written after the verse, “He reached the place [of Mt. Moriah],” which occurred <i>before</i> he came to Charan! It is difficult to say that וילך means what it sounds like, that he got to Charan, and then Scripture goes back to explain the place he reached while traveling—this is not the norm of Scripture. Thus Rashi explains: “He left <i>in order to go</i> to Charan” [but he did not get there yet]. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Scripture does not identify which place... Rashi is answering the question: The verse is written to explain, not to be indefinite. Why then does it not specify the place? Thus Rashi explains: “It refers to <i>the place</i> mentioned elsewhere.” 
  As in, “And it reached Jericho”... There it means to come to rest, not to meet. 
  The Sages explained it as a term for prayer... Accordingly, במקום means “to Hashem,” Who is called מקום (“Place”) since He is the world’s place. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  Scripture used an alternate word and did not write ויתפלל to teach you... [Rashi is answering the question:] In the verse אל תפגע בי, it is understandable [that it says תפגע], as it conveys: do not come to Me to entreat. But for [Yaakov praying to] Hashem, this meaning does not fit, so why does Scripture use the alternate word? [Rashi answers:] Perforce, because פגיעה also means to meet, thus teaching that the earth shrank [and Yaakov “met” Mount Moriah which came toward him]. But if our verse would have said ויפגוש [the usual word for “meet”], we would not have learned anything about prayer. Therefore the verse writes ויפגע, which conveys both meanings. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  It should have said “And the sun set” and he “spent the night there”... Although there is no difference [in meaning] between ויבא השמש וילן שם and וילן שם כי בא השמש, [Rashi is saying that] it should have been in [chronological] order, as in (Shoftim 19:9) it is written: “Behold, now the sun has waned and it is setting. Please remain overnight.” Perforce, our verse conveys that the sun set suddenly. A further explanation: It is written, “He spent the night there <i>because</i> the sun set,” implying that otherwise he would have traveled on. This proves there still was much daytime left. If so, why did the sun set [early]? Perforce, “The sun set... so that he should stay <i>there</i> overnight.” This is Rashi’s explanation in Sanhedrin 91b. 
  He made them in the form of a drainpipe around his head... Otherwise it should say, “He took a stone.” 
  They began to argue with one another... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, the verses contradict one another. Here it is written, “He took some of the stones of that place,” i.e., many stones. But then it is written (v. 18), “And he took <i>the stone</i>.” Perforce, at first there were many stones, but “they began to argue....” You might ask: How does Rashi know he took many stones? Perhaps he took one stone from among (מאבני) the stones of that place, and that is why it is written later, “And he took <i>the stone</i>.” Tosafos answer this in Chulin 91b: then Scripture should have written ויקח אבן, as in (Shemos 17:12) ויקחו אבן וישימו תחתיו . This is because our verse is written to explain, not to be indefinite. Perforce, since it is written מאבני without further explanation, it means [he took] many stones. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  It states עולים first and יורדים afterwards... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say “descending” first, since the angels dwell in heaven? 
  
  Verse 13
  
  To guard him. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what does נצב עליו mean? [“Above the ladder.” But this cannot be, as] the whole world is filled with His Glory! Perforce, it refers to [guard] Yaakov. You might ask: Why did Hashem need to guard him now, and not before? The answer is: Yaakov’s image is inscribed on the Throne of Glory. The angels now saw Yaakov and realized that it was his image [inscribed on the Throne]. They were jealous of him, as he was closer to the Throne than they were, and wanted to harm him. Thus, Hashem protected him. Another answer: The angels of the Land were ascending, and the angels of outside the Land, descending. In between [the changing of the guard], while no angels were with him, Hashem guarded him. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  Hashem folded the entire Eretz Yisrael beneath him... Otherwise, what was so great about giving him the land he was lying on, which was just four cubits? Thus Rashi explains, “Hashem folded...” Question: <i>Why</i> did Hashem fold it beneath him? The answer is: To make the whole land as easy to conquer as the four cubits he was lying on, as all of Eretz Yisrael was included in it. This is similar to (Melachim II 13:17): “And Elisha said, ‘Shoot!’ And he shot. And he said, ‘This is an arrow of salvation from Hashem....’” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  “You will become strong,” as in וכן יפרוץ. The meaning is not as in פן יפרץ בם (Shemos 19:25), where it means destruction. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Because he feared both Eisov and Lavan. Otherwise, why does it say, “I am with you,” which implies, “I will protect you”? Yaakov was afraid on his way there, lest Eisov pursue him, and on his way back, lest Lavan do so, as it actually happened. That is why the verse continues, “I will guard you wherever you <i>go</i>, and I will bring you <i>back</i>.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) אם
  , here, is used in the sense of כי. Rashi is answering the question: “I will not forsake you until” implies He <i>surely</i> will not forsake him until then. So why does it say אם, which implies uncertainty? Thus Rashi explains that אם means כי, which conveys certainty. Rashi is saying that since כי can mean אם, it follows that אם can mean כי. 
  For He had not spoken to Yaakov prior to this. You might ask: Perhaps אשר דברתי לך refers to what He just spoke to Yaakov: “I am Hashem...” (v. 13)? The answer is: If it referred to what He just spoke, it should have said כל אשר אני מְדַבֵר עמך, rather than דִבַרְתִי which is past tense. This is because it is one prophecy, and everything was in one dream; Yaakov did not wake up in between. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  For had I known I would not have slept... Rashi is answering the question: What difference does it make that he did not know?
  
  Verse 17
  
  This ladder stood in Beer Sheva... Rashi is answering the question: Yaakov said, “This is... בית אלהים,” implying he was in Beis Eil, as it is written later (v. 19): “He named that place Beis Eil.” This indicates that the ladder stood in Beis Eil. Yet, Scripture implied before that the ladder stood in Beer Sheva. For it is written (v. 12), “He dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth.” And since it does not state the location of the ladder, we interpret it as referring to the place mentioned just before, which is Beer Sheva. If so, the verses appear to be contradictory. Thus Rashi explains that the ladder was standing in Beer Sheva, as Scripture implies, and the middle of its slope reached opposite the Beis Hamikdosh, which is Yerushalayim. And its top was in Beis Eil, as the verse also implies. It cannot be that the top of its slope is opposite the Beis Hamikdosh, for then Yaakov would be outside of the ladder. This is because Beer Sheva is in southern Yehudah, while the Beis Hamikdosh is in its north. If so, by what merit would Luz, [far away in northern Binyamin,] be called the House of God and the gate of Heaven? Neither the foot nor the top of the ladder is there! Thus Rashi explains that the middle of its slope is opposite the Beis Hamikdosh, and the top of the ladder is opposite Beis Eil, which is Luz. <i>Maharshal</i> writes: It seems to me that the verse and Rashi’s commentary on it mean as follows. Rashi says, “Our Sages have stated... ‘This righteous person has come to My Dwelling Place.’” [Rashi is saying that this raises the question:] Hashem’s “Dwelling Place” is Yerushalayim. Yet, Scripture implies here that Yaakov slept in Beis Eil, [not in Yerushalayim! Rashi continues:] “And they stated furthermore: ‘Yaakov called Yerushalayim, Beis Eil.’” [Rashi says that this raises the question:] “Yet, this place that he called Beis Eil was Luz, not Yerushalayim!” [Rashi knows this] because it is written (v. 19), “But Luz was the original name of the city.” And even if we answer it all by saying that Luz <i>is</i> Yerushalayim, [Rashi continues that] a question remains: “From where did they derive that [this was the site of the Beis Hamikdosh, and it is all the same place?” Rashi then rejects the idea that Beis Eil is Yerushalayim, and explains:] “I say that Mount Moriah was uprooted and came here, [to Beis Eil].” Accordingly, Yaakov gave the name of “Beis Eil” to both places at once: to Luz, which was the original name of the city, and to Yerushalayim, which came there. This properly explains the statements of our Sages [quoted by Rashi]. This explanation opposes the approach of <i>Re’m</i>, [who writes that Rashi is answering two questions: 1.Perhaps Luz is Yerushalayim? 2.How did our Sages <i>know</i> Luz that is not Yerushalayim?] In our text of Rashi it is written that Yaakov called Yerushalayim, “Beis Eil,” but according to <i>Re’m,</i> this is not needed. Furthermore, <i>Re’m</i> says that the phrase, “Yet this place was Luz and not Yerushalayim,” is part of the Sages’ statement—but we do not find it written anywhere. Furthermore, even according to Rashi’s answer [that the ground “shrank”] the question would remain: Perhaps Luz really is Yerushalayim, and when Yaakov reached half way there, it came to him. It is without doubt that Rashi was always certain that Yerushalayim is not Luz. This is evident from the verses, as I explained. 
  Should you ask: When Yaakov passed the Beis Hamikdosh why did He not detain him there? This is a quote from the Gemara, and is posing a question: Why did Hashem not detain him? The Gemara answers: “If it did not enter his mind... should Heaven detain him?” I.e., since Yaakov did not pray of his own accord, why should Hashem detain him? Hashem does not force a person to perform a mitzvah. 
  The Targum translates it: How דחילו is this place... Rashi is proving that the word דחילו, which is Onkelos’ translation of נורא, [is a noun. It means “awesome.” Despite the ו, it] is not a plural [verb]. Rather, it is Onkelos’ way [to add a ו], such as with the noun תבונה (understanding), which Onkelos translates as סוכלתנו. And so he translates the noun בגד (garment) as וכסו. This shows that it is usual for Onkelos to do so. 
  Its Midrashic ... the Heavenly Beis Hamikdosh is situated directly... It seems that the Midrash is not disagreeing. It is explaining <i>why</i> this is the place where prayers ascend: because it is right below the Heavenly Beis Hamikdosh. Nonetheless, “the gate of heaven” is allegorical; heaven has no gate or window. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  If He will keep these promises that He promised me... Rashi is answering the question: Is not the verse repetitive? It is written אם יהיה אלקים עמדי, which is the same as ושמרני. Thus he explains that אם יהיה אלקים עמדי refers to keeping the promises. You might ask: How could Yaakov Avinu have been in doubt whether Hashem would keep His promise? The answer is: Yaakov was afraid his sins might cause Hashem not to guard him. Another answer: Yaakov thought the promise might be a [mere prophetic] dream, and every dream includes some nonsense (Berachos 55a). Therefore he said, “If He will keep these promises...” You might ask: Since Rashi is showing where the promises are written, where did Hashem promise Yaakov “clothing to wear”? The answer is: If Yaakov was promised bread, surely he was promised clothing. For <i>Chazal</i> say (Bava Metzia 52a): “Exploit for your back, but only its worth for your belly.” This means: exploit (i.e., misuse) your money to buy overpriced clothing [if necessary]. “But only its worth for your belly.” For your stomach, do not pay more [for food] than it is worth. It also says in Chulin 84b: “A person should always eat below his means, but dress above his means.” So if Hashem promised him food, surely He promised him clothing as well. Otherwise, Yaakov would have to cut down on food in order to buy clothing, and would not have [sufficient] food to eat — yet, Hashem promised him [sufficient] food! (<i>Mahara’i</i>) 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Completely free from sin... This too was part of Hashem’s promises. He said (v. 15), “...Until I have done what I spoke to you,” on which Rashi explains: “In your interest and concerning you.” And if Yaakov would not be free of sin, but would learn from Lavan, then Hashem’s promises surely would not be fulfilled. For all Hashem’s promises are on condition that sin should not cause [their nonfulfillment]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 22
  
  As it is translated ... And he, indeed, did so upon his return... Rashi says, “And he indeed did so...” so that we will not ask: How does Onkelos know that “become a House of God” means specifically that Yaakov will serve<i></i> Hashem on this monument, [i.e., will bring offerings on it?] Rashi answers: We see that Yaakov brought offerings in the end. Evidently, this was his intention from the beginning. The phrase, “And Hashem will be my God” (v. 21), is part of the condition [that Yaakov set for his vow,] not part of [his promise in] the vow. Therefore Onkelos says here, “I shall serve Hashem <i>upon it</i>,” implying: Even if Hashem does not keep His promise, I surely will bring offerings to Him—but not on <i>this</i> altar. You might object: It says וכל אשר תתן לי עשר אעשרנו לך, implying: “And if You do not keep the promise, I will not give You a tenth.” The answer is: [The ו of וכל denotes “but”. Accordingly,] this phrase means: “But of all that You give, I will surely give a tenth to You, even if You do not keep the promise.” However, the <i>Maharshal</i> writes: It seems that Yaakov was saying as follows: “If You keep the promise—עשר אעשרנו, I will give two tenths. And if not, I will give one tenth.” And so he did. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  The shepherds give the flocks to drink... Meaning: They would give them to drink [regularly]. Similarly with ונאספו and וגללו [in the next verse]; the future tense is used in place of the present tense, to convey that they would regularly gather and roll the stone. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Because the stone was largeashi is explaining [how the phrases fit together, as logically they should be ordered differently.] When it said, “There were three flocks of sheep lying beside it,” it should have immediately explained <i>why</i> they were lying there, and say it was because “all the flocks would gather.” [And why would they gather? Because “there was a large stone.”] Therefore Rashi says on our verse, “Because...” He is explaining how, “There was a large stone over the mouth of the well,” [fits in with the other phrases]. 
  Every expression in the present tense... in the future tense as well as in the past ... Why did Rashi not explain this before, on ישקו העדרים — “The shepherds give (משקים) the flocks to drink”? Furthermore, why did Rashi not bring the Targum there? [The answer is:] Here it is written וגללו (past tense) and the Targum is מגנדרין, present tense—while in v. 8, again it is written וגללו, and the Targum there is ויגנדרון, future tense! The [varying] Targum clearly shows that the verses are speaking in present tense. But the Targum of ישקו does not show this, as the word is not repeated. Before, it is written ישקו, and here it is written והשקינו. And so too all the other words are all different, except for וגללו. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Nevertheless, it is not yet time for the sheep to be gathered. Rashi is answering the question: Is not this point expressed backwards? Once Yaakov said, “The day is yet long,” Scripture does not need to write, “It is not yet time for the sheep to be gathered,” as it is obvious! Thus Rashi explains that Yaakov is making two points. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  To give them drink because the stone is large. Rashi is explaining that they cannot roll it due to its weight, as Rashi said on v. 3, and not because they had so agreed among themselves. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  As one removes a פקק from a bottle opening... This means a cover from a bottle. Rashi is saying that Yaakov did not roll the stone [with difficullty] as the shepherds did, but [he removed it] with ease. Rashi deduced this because it is written ויגל, “he revealed,” and not ויגלל (“he rolled”). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Because he foresaw... she would not be buried with him. There is a question on this explanation: If she would ask him, “Why are you crying?” he surely would not mention her death to her. What <i>would</i> he answer? Therefore Rashi brings another explanation. And with the second explanation alone, a question arises: Why would this great tzaddik cry because he came empty-handed? (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 12
  
  Because her mother had died... Regarding Rivkah it is written (24:28), “The girl told her mother’s household.” [Why here did Rochel tell her father?] Thus Rashi explains that Rochel’s mother had died. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  He thought that he was loaded with money... Otherwise, why would he run? 
  He thought: “Maybe he has brought gold coins...” Since Lavan did not run [to greet Yaakov because of affection] but only because [he thought that Yaakov was loaded with] money, why then did Lavan embrace him? Thus Rashi explains as he does. 
  He thought: “Maybe he has brought pearls and he has them in his mouth.” [Question:] Is it normal to carry jewels in one’s mouth?! The answer is: Someone carrying jewels hides them and does not reveal them. Lavan thought: “I will kiss him and appease him so that he will reveal to me what he has.” (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  That he came only under duress, because of his brother. Otherwise why does it say, “<i>All</i> that had happened”? 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Now I have no reason to take you into the house... I.e., every אך comes to exclude something. What does it exclude here? Therefore Rashi explains, “Now I have no reason...” 
  I will put up with you for a month. You might ask: How does Rashi know [that Lavan said] specifically for a month? The answer is: Since he actually did so, as it says, “Yaakov lived with him for a month,” this surely is [what he said] at the beginning. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Because you are my brother, should you work for me for nothing? Rashi is saying that the incredulity is not on the phrase, “You are my relative (אחי),” as they indeed were אחים, as in (13:8): “We are kinsmen (אחים).” Furthermore, if this is the meaning, then it should say הֲאָחִי אתה. Rather, the incredulity is on the phrase: “Should you work for me for nothing?” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Because she thought she would fall to the lot of Eisov. [Rashi is answering the question:] Why does the verse speak badly about this righteous woman? He answers: “Because she thought...” I.e., from her bad point we learn her good point. You might ask: The verse implies that Leah also was of beautiful form, but had tender eyes. If so, why does the verse contrast her with Rochel by saying, “Rochel was of beautiful form”? It should rather say, “The eyes of Rochel were beautiful.” The answer is: Since Leah’s eyes were not beautiful, <i>she</i> was not beautiful either. For it says in Taanis 24a: “If a bride’s eyes are beautiful, her entire body need not be checked.” Thus it was rightly said that “Rochel was of beautiful form.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  These are the “few days” that his mother had told him... Otherwise, he would be disobeying his mother’s command. 
  And you may know... for it is written: They seemed to him... Rashi is saying that by nature, Yaakov’s love of Rochel should make [even] a few days seem long—as it is written (Mishlei 13:12), “A delayed hope makes the heart sick.” [Why did seven years seem to him like a few days?] Perforce, it is referring to the “few days” that his mother had told him. 
  And lest you say, “I will change Leah’s name...” therefore, I say “the younger one.” You might ask: Why did he not just say, “Your younger daughter”? The answer is: Had he not said “Rochel,” Lavan would have given him Zilpah. She also was his daughter, but from a concubine, as Rashi explains on v. 31:50. And she was even younger than Rochel. But if so, why did Yaakov not fear Lavan might change Zilpah’s name to “Rochel,” and give her instead, since she was his youngest daughter? The answer is: Zilpah was not his true daughter as she was from a concubine. And her name was not really “Rochel” so he would have to change her name. Yaakov did not fear a double deceit by Lavan. Another answer [why Yaakov said “Rochel”]: If Yaakov had only said, “Your younger daughter,” perhaps Lavan’s wife would have another daughter, whom Lavan would give him. The marriage would be after seven years of work, and though she would be a minor, she would be fit for relations — as Yitzchok married Rivkah when she was just three. And then Lavan would not be tricking him at all, as the stipulation was to give his youngest daughter! Therefore Yaakov said: “For <i>Rochel</i>, your younger daughter.” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Even the lowest of the low would not express himself in such a manner... I.e., it is not acceptable behavior for a hired worker to say, right when the years of his contract are up, “Give me my wages.” 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Immediately after the seven days of the marriage feast. For it is written, “And he completed the week for this one, and he gave him...” 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  [The Torah] compares the others to the first... Rashi deduced this from the extra word אחרות. Alternatively, since it is written עוד, it implies “additional” ones similar to the first ones. Just as he was faithful in the first ones, as Lavan had not yet deceived him, so was he faithful in the latter ones, although he had deceived him. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  Since the Matriarchs were prophetesses... You might ask: [If so,] why does Megillah 14a mention only seven prophetesses — Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chan-nah, Avigayil, Chuldah and Ester? The answer is: Scripture testifies about Sarah [that she prophesized], as it is written (21:12): “Regarding all that Sarah tells you, listen to her,” teaching that Avraham was inferior to Sarah in prophecy. And so [Scripture testifies about] all of them. But we do not find [it written unequivocally] that the [other] Matriarchs prophesied, as our verse could follow to its simple meaning. <i>Maharshal</i> answers that the Matriarchs prophesied only on matters pertaining to themselves: they knew what the future held for them but not for others. Therefore, they were not counted with the other prophetesses. 
  With the exception of Leivi, because the Ark decimated them. I.e., the tribe of Leivi would carry the holy Ark and could not handle it with sufficient caution. Thus, many of them died.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  She was envious of her good deeds. [Rashi knows this] because envy is [otherwise] forbidden.
  Did your father act this way to your mother. Rashi derives this from Yaakov’s answer: “Who has withheld <i>from you</i>.” This implies, as Rashi says there, that Yaakov was saying: “You tell me to act as my father did. I am not like my father. It is from <i>you</i> that Hashem has withheld children, not from me,” implying that she had mentioned his father. 
  From here, that one who has no children is considered as if dead. Otherwise, [if it meant that she is presently dying,] why did she ask for children? מתה is an adjective, not a present tense intransitive verb [conveying that she is dying]. And it is not a transitive verb [conveying that if Yaakov does not give her children, she will kill herself]. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  From you that He has withheld, not from me. Question: Many prophets prayed for others, such as Elisha (Melachim II 4:33), and [Eliyahu] for the Tzorphis woman. Why did not Yaakov, too, pray for her, although he had children? Furthermore, why was he angry? He should have answered her calmly, as the words of the wise are heard when spoken calmly. The answer is: Yaakov told Rochel that he had prayed for her, but Hashem did not accept the prayer. Rochel said, “If so, you must be wicked.” Thus he was angry with her, as she considered him wicked. He answered her: “I am not like my father. Both of them were childless, and his prayer was accepted because of both their merits. But I am not childless; Hashem has withheld children only from you. With us, only one person’s merit [is relevant]. That is why my prayer is not answered! (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  She said to him, “Your grandfather Avraham, had children from Hagar...” I.e., although he had children from Hagar he interceded for Sarah. So you too, although you have children, you should do the same for me. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  He has judged me and found me guilty, and found me innocent. In Bereishis Rabboh (71:7) it says: “He judged me and found me guilty — ‘Rochel was barren.’ He judged me and found me innocent — ‘And has given me a son.’” Accordingly, “Hashem has judged me” is one matter [i.e., “found me guilty”], and “He has also heard my voice” is another matter [i.e., “found me innocent”]. See <i>Re’m</i>. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Menachem ben Saruk explains it in the Machberes as צמיד פתיל... Meaning: In his work that connects words of the same root, he connects נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי with צמיד פתיל.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  He was born circumcised... Accordingly, גד means “cutting,” that is to say that the cutting of his circumcision was already done. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  With me.... Otherwise, what does “in exchange for” mean? “Your son’s jasmines” clearly implies a complete trade, i.e., each gives something that is his. 
  Because she made light... she did not merit being buried with him. [You might ask:] Does it not it say in Bereishis Rabboh 82:11 [that she was buried on the road] so she would assist her children when Nevuzaradan will exile them, as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayechi (48:7)? The answer is: Had she not made light of Yaakov, Leah would be buried there instead, and <i>she</i> would assist her children. Because Rochel made light, she did not merit being buried with him.
  
  Verse 16
  
  God helped him... Rashi is saying that הוא refers to Hashem, for otherwise, [if it meant “that night,”] it should say ההוא. How did He help him? Yaakov came from the field riding a donkey, intending to ride to Rochel’s tent. Hashem caused the donkey to bray so that Leah would hear and go out to meet Yaakov, so he would come to her tent. And so it was. He came to Leah’s tent, and that night, Yissachar was conceived. Thus it says יששכר חמור גרם(49:14). I.e., how did יששכר come to be born? חמור גרם. I.e., the donkey was the cause (הגורם). 
  
  Verse 17
  
  She desired and sought to increase the number of tribes. [Rashi knows this] because normally the phrase וישמע אלהים pertains only if one prayed. But here it is not stated that she prayed for sons. Thus Rashi explains, “Because she desired...” I.e., since she so wished to increase the tribes, it was considered as if she prayed for this — and Hashem granted her wish. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Having a similar meaning as בית זבול... Meaning: his dwelling will be with me. The suffix ויזבלני denotes “with me.” It does not mean he will take me to his dwelling.
  His main dwelling place will not be other than with me... <i>Re’m</i> writes: I do not know why Rashi states it as a negative, “Will not be other than,” rather than as a positive, as the verse itself implies: “Now his main dwelling <i>will</i> be with me.” 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  He remembered that she gave her signs to her sister... Otherwise, what did He remember about her? In Scripture, זכירה always refers to a deed. For example (8:1), “And Hashem remembered Noach and all the beasts...” which Rashi explains there: “That they did not cohabit in the ark.” And so with the זכירה of Lot (19:29), he did not tell [the Egyptians] that Sarah was Avraham’s sister. 
  She was concerned lest she fall to Eisov’s lot... [The reward] is measure for measure. Since Rochel acted so that her sister would not be sent away in shame from her husband, it is not fitting that she should be barren and be sent away in shame from her husband. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  This is what the poet alluded to: “When the Red One...” האדמון refers to Eisov. כבט means, “When he saw.” שלא חלה means, “That Rochel did not have birth pangs.” צבה means “he desired” to take her as wife, and she was petrified.
  
  Verse 23
  
  He has brought it into a place where it will not be seen... I.e., אסף does not mean that her shame was [previously scattered and now] gathered into one place, as that would be to her detriment — her shame would be seen more. 
  As long as a woman has no child she has no one to blame for her faults... Accordingly, “my shame” means my fault and my sin for breaking my husband’s household utensils.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Is it possible that he had sons and would send his daughter...? You might ask: Perhaps he had younger boys [who were too young to be sent]? The answer is: If so, he would have sent Bilhah or Zilpah, who were from a concubine, rather than Rochel who was his daughter from his true wife. If he had no sons, it is understandable to send Rochel, for then she will inherit him. [According to the laws of inheritance] daughters from a true wife come before daughters from a concubine. Consequently, she would surely guard [his flock] well. But if he had sons, she would not inherit any property, as sons come before daughters according to the laws of inheritance. Were that the case, he would not have sent Rochel. Perforce, he had no sons at all. (<i>Mahara’i</i>) 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  The meager amount... I.e., it does not mean that Lavan knew his livestock was with Yaakov, rather that he knew of the livestock’s meager amount. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  For the needs of my household... Rashi is explaining that לביתי does not mean as it seems to, that Yaakov is saying he will go “to my home,” i.e., return to his father’s house and stay there. For Lavan said afterwards, “What shall I give you? ...” [And Yaakov replied], “I will continue to tend....” This shows that he did not intend to leave Lavan, but to [stay and] guard his flock. Perforce, לביתי means “for the <i>needs</i> of my household.” 
  Now only my sons provide my needs... Rashi explains this since גם אנכי implies that previously, some else was doing for the needs of his household. Thus Rashi explains: “Now only my sons...” 
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Dark brown, similar to red... I.e., Onkelos translates חום as שחום, which means red.
  Speckled and spotted among the goats and dark brown among the sheep... <i>Re’m</i> asks: If so, speckled and spotted was the sign for goats, but not for sheep. Yet, does not the verse say, “I will remove from them every שה that is speckled or spotted,” [ostensibly referring to sheep]? He answers: The word שה in our verse refers to goats. For it is written (Devarim 14:4): שה כבשים ושה עזים, showing that goats too, can be called שה. <i>Maharshal</i> objects: On the contrary, since Scripture needed to specify (in Devarim 14:4) that שה also refers to goats, this indicates that wherever שה appears without specification, it refers to sheep and not goats! Furthermore, our verse should have combined the phrases and said only, “And every goat that is spotted and speckled.” Also, why does the verse speak first of goats and then switch to sheep? Furthermore, it is written in v. 35, “That day he removed the תישים.” Why when referring to goats does Scripture sometimes say שה and other times תיש? <i>Maharshal</i> answers: It seems to me that שה means sheep, not goats. Nevertheless, the sign [of Yaakov’s wages] was speckled or spotted for goats, and dark brown for sheep, [as Rashi says]. And when Yaakov said, “Remove from them every שה that is speckled or spotted,” he meant as follows: You surely should take away the speckled and spotted goats, and the dark brown sheep, [as those kinds will be my wages]. And take away <i>even</i> the speckled or spotted sheep, [kinds] which should have been mine [but in fact are not]. This way I will not have any of the speckled or spotted goats, or any of the speckled, ringed or spotted sheep. Only those that will be born from now on, i.e., the speckled or spotted goats, and the dark brown sheep, will be mine. But Yaakov did not say to take away the dark brown goats because there were none to be found. This answers all the questions. 
  Furthermore, that you may not say... because of the speckled and spotted males... According to the first explanation, they could simply count how many there are now, and know that all above this number were born later. Thus Rashi says: “Furthermore, that you may not say...” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 33
  
  For my righteousness will come and testify before you... [Rashi is saying that] תבוא is third person feminine, not [masculine] second person. The proof is: it is written the righteousness will come “before you,” as if Yaakov said: “For my righteousness will come before you and testify concerning my wages.” 
  And it is through theft that it is in my possession. On the phrase, “Is stolen if it is in my possession,” why did Rashi need to offer an explanation: “It will be obvious that I have stolen it from you”? [The answer is:] So we will not think it means, “I bought it properly, but it turned out to be stolen merchandise, which I did not know.” Thus Rashi explains as he does. 
  
  Verse 34
  
  A term indicating acceptance of terms. [Rashi is explaining that here it is] not like הן לי לא נתת זרע (15:3), which means הנה (behold). 
  If only you remain satisfied with this. I.e., although Yaakov said it verbally, Lavan thought: perhaps he does not mean it in his heart, or he will change his mind. 
  
  Verse 35
  
  Lavan, on that day... [Rashi knows that our verse speaks of Lavan and] not Yaakov, for it is written afterwards, “And he gave them to his sons and he placed a three days’ journey between <i>himself</i> and <i>Yaakov</i>.” 
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  It is a tree called לבנה... Otherwise, [if לבנה meant white], it should be writtenלְבָנָה . <i>Re’m</i> explains that if [it meant] the tree was white, why did Yaakov need to peel it to make it white? It already was white! 
  He also took a stick from לוז... Rashi is answering the question: לבנה is not לוז; [so why does the verse describe it as such?] Thus Rashi explains, “He <i>also</i> took a stick from לוז. <i>Re’m</i> explains that “were fresh” interrupts between “poplar” and “hazel”, thus [Rashi explains that the phrase] “hazel and chestnut” is a separate point. 
  
  Verse 38
  
  Where the water was running... [Rashi knows that רהטים means running] because the Targum of [(Bereishis 18:2)] וירץ (he ran) is ורהט.
  In the ducts where the flock came to drink... אשר תבאן הצאן forms one phrase with שקתות המים, so that נוכח הצאן refers back to ויצג המקלות. Rashi is saying that Yaakov stuck the rods into the ducts and watering troughs so the rods would be in front of the flock when it drank, so the animals will become heated.
  The female animal would see the sticks... Otherwise, [if they were not startled backwards,] why does it say, “They became heated”? Water does not usually cause animals to become heated. And according to R. Hoshaya, “heated” means “pregnant.” 
  
  Verse 39
  
  To the appearance of the sticks. [Rashi explains this] because the <i>sticks</i> did not make the animals have ringed, speckled and spotted offspring. It was the sticks’ <i>appearance</i> that did this, i.e., the uncovered white. You might ask: How could Yaakov commit this trickery? There are many explanations, but it seems to me that Yaakov did it with his own flock, [not with Lavan’s.] The offspring of Yaakov’s flock rightfully belonged to Yaakov even without these signs, but Lavan wanted to take even those offspring from him. Yaakov thought: I will make sticks so that the offspring of my flock will all be speckled and spotted, to gain what is rightfully mine. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 40
  
  So that the flock faced the... the brown ones that he found among Lavan’s flock. The [second] flock mentioned here means the goats, as Lavan had taken away all the brown sheep, as it says in v. 35. But Lavan did not separate the brown goats since this [kind] was not Yaakov’s wages. Similarly, he did not separate the speckled and spotted from the sheep, only from the goats, as I [<i>Re’em</i>] wrote above. This is because these [kinds of sheep] were not Yaakov’s wages. (See the <i>Re’m’s</i> elaboration here.) <i>Re’m</i> writes further that [when Rashi says, “Those that were born spotted and speckled,”] the phrase “those that were born” is likely a misprint [and should be omitted], unless we say it refers to those already born <i>before</i> Lavan took away [part of his flock]. Then, Rashi would be saying: Those speckled and spotted [sheep] already born to Lavan’s flock, which Lavan did not take away because these [kinds] were not Yaakov’s wages. 
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  Fruitful and multiply more than other flock. צאן רבות cannot mean what it sounds like, that he had many flocks, for it is already written, “The man became tremendously prosperous” — which surely refers to the flocks mentioned before. Rather it means, “That are fruitful...” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  He would sell his flock at a high price and buy for himself all these. [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, why does Scripture mention slaves while recounting [how the rods increased] the flock? <i>R. Meir Stern</i> writes: [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, it should have mentioned people before animals. Moreover, why does Scripture go back and speak of animals, saying: “Camels and donkeys”? Thus Rashi says, “He would sell...” to explain that the flock was mentioned first because he owned it first. Then Scripture mentions what he bought by selling the flock, placing people before animals. And since everything is now in proper order, we need not say, [to explain the order in which they are listed,] that he sold the slaves to buy camels and donkeys, as he did with the flock [to buy the slaves]. Therefore Rashi says, “And buy for himself <i>all</i> these” — all was bought with the money he received from selling the flock. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  And there I will be with you... This was not a stipulation: “If you return, I will be with you. And if not, I will not be with you.” Rather, Hashem was telling him the reason: Because here it is not possible [to rest My Divine Presence upon you]. 
  It is not possible to rest My Divine Presence upon youI will be with you” cannot mean, “To guard you on the way,” because Yaakov had already been promised this (28:15): “I am with you, and I will guard you wherever you go.” Rather it means, “There I will rest My Divine Presence upon you,” which necessarily includes the promise that he will not be killed on the way. This explains Rashi’s comment in Parshas Vayishlach (32:10): “You made two promises to me...” implying that when it says here, “I will be with you,” it means, “I will guard you on the way.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  מונים is no less than ten. מונים is a term of counting, which is [done in sets of] ten. It is written, “Ten מונים,” i.e., 10 x 10 =100. But מונים does not mean “times.” 
  We thus learn that he changed his conditions 100 times. Rashi explains it as changing the conditions rather than changing the form of payment because it would cause no loss if Lavan changed the wages. For example, if Lavan owed cash but gave movables, [thereby changing the form of payment,] this would not be a loss. Thus Rashi explains that Lavan changed the actual conditions, as Rashi says on v. 41: “You kept changing the condition between us, from speckled to spotted...”
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  The angels would bring them... Rashi is saying that the spotted males going upon the flock surely were not those males born [after the agreement, which rightfully belonged] to Yaakov. For if so, what is the verse coming to teach us? Perforce, they were Lavan’s flock. And [if you ask:] How did they get here? Rashi explains, “Although Lavan... the angels would bring them...” 
  A white strand encircled its body... I.e., one could run one’s hand along the white strand, for the black did not interrupt. The white strand stretched around its entire body. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  For he withheld the wages for your work. I.e, of the six years that you worked for pay. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Whereas Eisov put the females ahead of the males... Because he was lustful, and his wives were his primary interest. (<i>Re’m</i>)
  
  Verse 18
  
  That which he had obtained for his sheep... [מקנה קנינו] means the purchases resulting from his livestock: what he bought by selling his flock. “He led away all his livestock” refers to the [spotted] livestock that was born and constituted his wages.
  
  Verse 19
  
  That he had given to his sons... three-days’ travel... Rashi says this because of the coming verse (v. 22): “Lavan was told on the third day...” And why didn’t Lavan know until the third day? Perforce it was because, “A distance of three-days’ travel...” 
  She intended to remove her father from idol-worship. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “That belonged to her father,” an apparent superfluous phrase. It should simply say, “His idols.” Perforce, she intended to remove her father from idolatry. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  The entire distance that Yaakov traveled in seven days... Rashi means: if Yaakov would have traveled from the place of Lavan’s flock, it would have taken him seven days.
  
  Verse 24
  
  All that is considered good by the wicked is bad as regards to the righteous. [Accordingly,] it seems that the verse means: Do not speak with Yaakov that which is good for you, that he should return with you to Charan, since for him that is bad — for as long as Yaakov associates with a wicked person, the Divine Presence will not rest upon him.   
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  An army going to war is called “sword.” [Rashi explains this] because “prisoners” are not of a חרב (sword). It should have said, “Prisoners of an army.”
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Because Yaakov was constantly with her... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “Yaakov’s tent”? Did Lavan suspect Yaakov of idol worship?! Especially as Yaakov was returning to his father’s house, about which Lavan himself said (v. 30): “For you yearned for your father’s house, but why did you steal my gods,” when your father’s house is not idolatrous? Thus Rashi explains that it is the same as Rochel’s tent.
  When he left Leah’s tent he returned to Rochel’s tent... Yaakov’s tent is Rochel’s tent, as Rashi just explained. If so, why does it say, “And came into Rochel’s tent,” when he already searched it? Furthermore, why is it written, “He left Leah’s tent and came into Rochel’s tent”? It should have written: “He left the tent of the <i>two handmaidens</i> and came into Rochel’s tent,” as he already left Leah’s tent and came to the tents of the handmaidens. Thus Rashi explains, “When he left Leah’s tent he returned to Rochel’s...” 
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  Let them determine who is right. The meaning of this expression is similar to (24:14), “The girl will be the one whom You have determined (הוכחת) for your servant.” Its meaning is not similar to (21:25), “Avraham then reprimanded (והוכיח) Avimelech.” For if so, it should have said ויוכיחו אותנו.
  
  Verse 38
  
  From here they derive that even a one-dayold ram is called איל... [You might ask:] Doesn’t Rashi comment on Bamidbar 15:11 that if it is under a year old it is called כבש, and only after 13 months it is called איל? [The answer is:] That is true only in regard to sacrifices. See Tosafos, Bava Kama 65b. 
  
  Verse 39
  
  I will suffer its loss. If it be missing... Rashi adds the words, “<i>If</i> it be missing,” because you might ask: Yaakov declared, “Your she-goats never miscarried... I never brought you a mutilated animal....” If so, why did he then say, “I would take the blame for it,” [when no animal was missing]? Therefore Rashi explains, “<i>If</i> it be missing.” Yaakov was saying: If something ever happened and any animal was missing, I would take the blame for it. I.e., I would cover the loss. 
  
  Verse 40
  
  The same meaning as a consuming fire. אוכלה denotes destruction (כלייה), [not eating (אכילה)].
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  Yaakov was afraid to say אלהי and instead said ופחד. Question: Did he not say אלהי יצחק in Parshas Vayishlach (32:10)? The answer is: There, Yaakov was recounting how Hashem had said “אלהי יצחק.” 
  
  Verse 43
  
  “How could it enter my heart to cause them any harm?” [I.e.,] it cannot mean that Lavan asked Yaakov, “What do you want me to do to them?” because Yaakov never asked him [to do anything].
  
  Verse 44
  
  God [being the witness]. Since והיה לעד is written without specifying [its subject], perforce it refers to the preceding phrase: “The God of my father.” Furthermore, if it referred to the pact, it should say והיתה (feminine form). 
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  This Mitzpah is the one on Mount Gilad. Rashi means as follows: Why is Mount Gilad called Mitzpah, as seen from the verse in Shoftim 11:29, which mentions Mitzpah? [The answer is:] The verse itself explains that Gilad is called also Mitzpah because they said to one another, “May Hashem watch (יצף)...” 
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  Here אם is used to mean “that”... I.e., אם [in its usual meaning of “if”] implies uncertainty. But here it cannot be explained so. Thus Rashi explains, “Here, אם is used to mean ‘that’.” It comes in place of [the prefix] ש, as if it said ועדה המצבה שאני לא אעבור. 
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  For his friends who were with Lavan. Here Rashi does not explain “his brethren” as “his sons” as he did on v. 46, “Yaakov said to his brethren,” because here he would not make a feast for his sons. [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not explain there as he does here? The answer is: There Yaakov issued a command and said, “Gather stones.” He would say so only to those under his authority. Therefore Rashi explained it there as “his sons.” 
  Food, in general, is called bread... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say, “To eat meat,” as he slaughtered animals for them? 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Two camps—from outside Eretz Yisrael... Question: Rashi explained on, “Ascending and descending” (v. 28:12), that the two [groups of angels] were not together. Rather, one ascended and only then the other descended. [Why were both groups together here?] The answer is: Rashi explains at the beginning of Parshas Vayishlach that Yaakov sent actual angels [to Eisov]. Accordingly, it means as follows: Here too, the angels of outside Eretz Yisrael wanted to ascend before the angels of Eretz Yisrael would descend. But Yaakov forced them to stay because he wanted to send them to Eisov. If so, this implies that [the messengers sent by Yaakov] were actual angels.
  
  Verse 4
  
  Actual angels. Otherwise, why does it need to say לפניו? The verse is saying that Yaakov sent the messengers [i.e., the angels] who were לפניו. In other words, he sent the ones mentioned before: “And the angels of Elohim met him” (v. 2). (<i>Re’m</i>) Much more has been said regarding this. See <i>Gur Aryeh, R. Noson</i> and <i>Nachalas Yaakov.</i> 
  
  Verse 5
  
  I have not become an officer or anyone of importance... Otherwise it should simply say, “With Lavan I was delayed.” 
  Another explanation: The gematria of גרתי... I have kept תרי"ג commandments... Thus, you cannot defeat me. When your father blessed you that “you shall live by your sword” (27:40), that is only “When you have cause to be grieved” (ibid). [I.e., “When the Israelites will transgress the Torah.”] But I kept the whole Torah! <i>Maharshal</i> explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yaakov say, “I have not become an officer...”? For this actually would allow the wicked Eisov to claim, “If the blessings were not fulfilled for you, you surely did not keep the mitzvos! Thus I should fulfill regarding you, ‘When you have cause to be grieved, you will throw off his yoke from your neck.’” Therefore Yaakov told him, “I kept all the 613 mitzvos. Nevertheless, I have not become an officer.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  These are neither from the heavens nor from the earth. Although they are nourished from the earth, they do not actually grow from the earth. Otherwise, [if Yaakov meant as follows, a contradiction arises.] First he said, “I lived as a stranger,” to convey that the blessings were not fulfilled. Then he said ויהי לי שור וחמור, [detailing his many blessings. And he must have meant שור וחמור in plural,] as is customary to refer to many oxen as “ox.” This is obviously so, for he sent Eisov a whole camp as a gift, and would be proven a liar if he meant, “I acquired one ox [and one donkey].” According to Rashi’s other explanation above, Yaakov was saying: “Although I kept the 613 mitzvos, my father’s blessing has not been realized. I have only oxen and donkeys, not the rest of my father’s blessing, which is “from the fat of the land.” Therefore, [since my merits have not been offset by my rewards,] I do not fear you. 
  To announce that I am coming to you. [Rashi knows this] because if Yaakov was sending [the messengers] to tell him, “I lived as a stranger with Lavan... I acquired oxen and donkeys...” then [the next phrase,] “To find favor in your eyes,” would also refer to this. And that cannot be, for such a message is not a reason to find favor; it is merely [a reason] that Eisov should not hate him. Therefore Rashi explains, “To announce that I am coming to you” to be subservient to you — and through this will I find favor in your eyes. <i>Maharshal</i> writes that Rashi is answering the question: Yaakov said before, “This is what you should say.” Why does he say [again], “To tell my master”? Perforce it means, “To announce that I am coming.” In this way I will find favor, because when people send [messages] to appease someone, they do not come themselves. But I will even come myself! All this is because I am at peace with you. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  But he acts towards you as the wicked Eisov... Otherwise, why does it say, “Eisov”? Yaakov had only one brother! Perforce, “Eisov” connotes he who is famous for extreme wickedness. (<i>Re’m</i>) A further explanation: Rashi is answering the question: It should say באנו אל עשו אחיך, like it is written אל עשו אחיו at the beginning of the <i>parshah</i>. Why does it say אל אחיך אל עשו? <i>Maharshal</i> explains [that Rashi is answering the question:] Why does it say אל twice? We need not object: [Accordingly,] why did Yaakov say לאדוני לעשו (v. 4)? For the answer is: There, Yaakov was commanding them to speak with honor. But here, where they are reporting the reply to Yaakov, why did they speak in this fashion? Thus Rashi explains as he does.
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויירא lest he be killed. You might ask: Had Hashem not promised him when he left his father’s house, “And I will bring you back to this land” (28:15)? The Gemara (Berachos 4a, Sanhedrin 98b) answers: [He feared that] sin might cause [the promise not to be fulfilled]. Another answer: The promise was only, “And I will bring you back to this land,” meaning to Eretz Yisrael, but not to his father’s house. See <i>Re’m</i>, <i>R. Noson, Gur Aryeh</i> and <i>Minchas Yaakov</i>. 
  ויצר לו that he might kill others. [Question: Why did this distress him?] The answer is: Yaakov feared he might kill Eisov, and Yitzchok loved Eisov and considered him a good person. It would pain Yitzchok greatly and bring him to curse Yaakov. (<i>Midrash Tanchuma</i>) An alternative answer: Yaakov surely did not fear killing Eisov, for it says in Sanhedrin 72a: “If someone comes to kill you, kill him first.” Rather, Yaakov feared that he might kill Eisov’s men, who came to kill not Yaakov but Yaakov’s men. Only Eisov came to kill Yaakov. Indeed, Eisov’s men would be attacking Yaakov’s men, and one may save the attacked even by taking the attacker’s life. But if injuring the attacker’s limb would suffice to save the one being attacked, then for killing the attacker [instead of just injuring him] one is liable for the death penalty. Thus, Yaakov feared he might kill them in the confusion of war even where injuring a limb would suffice. Some ask: Why did Yaakov fear being killed? Eisov said, “When the mourning days for my father approach, I will kill my brother Yaakov” (27:41), and Yitzchok was still alive. A further question: Why did Eisov send Elifaz to kill Yaakov [at the time that Yitzchok was alive]? It seems the answer is: When Eisov said he will not kill Yaakov while his father is alive, this applied only if Yaakov was with Yitzchok. But if he was elsewhere, Eisov would kill him. See <i>Minchas Yaakov</i>. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Against his will, because I will do battle with him. I.e., while I will do battle with him, the second camp surely will have time to escape. <i>Maharshal</i> writes that Rashi inferred this because it is not written, “<i>Perhaps</i> the remaining camp will survive,” but, “The remaining camp <i>will</i> survive.” This implies, “Against his will, because I will do battle....” Rashi said all this, based on Scriptural inferences, to support <i>Chazal’s</i> teaching that Yaakov prepared himself for three things. [Rashi says “against his will,” i.e., it surely will be.] This is because the verse cannot mean “perhaps” [the remaining camp will survive]. If so, it would be more logical to gather everyone in one camp to fight Eisov—for maybe they will win due to greater numbers. However if the remaining camp will [surely] survive, against Eisov’s will, it is proper for Yaakov to have divided them into two camps. For it is better to act in a manner that will surely save one camp, even if it places the other camp in greater danger, than to put them in a situation in which they are not sure whether they all will be lost or saved. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  He prepared himself for three things. All three are derived from Scripture [see <i>Pesikta D’Rav Kahana</i> 19:3]. And “war” is derived from, “The remaining camp will survive,” showing that this phrase refers to war. Thus Rashi explains it as, “I will do battle with him.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  Return to the Land of your father and to your birthplace, and I will be with you... Yaakov was saying: Since You promised to be with me when I come to the Land of my fathers, if I die on the way, it will turn out that Your promise to me was not fulfilled. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  My merits have diminished because of the kindnesses and truth... מכל החסדים means <i>because</i> of the kindnesses. ואת עבדך means, “That you have done <i>with</i> me.” Rashi is explaining that [in this verse,] את means “with.” 
  Lest from the time You made me the promises, I have become tainted by sin... For the reason of diminished merits alone, Yaakov would not have feared, as there is no death without sin and no suffering without iniquity (Shabbos 55a). Thus Rashi brings also the reason of “tainted by sin.” And for the reason of “tainted by sin” alone, we might think that Yaakov still need not have feared, as his merits would outweigh his sins. Thus Rashi brings also the reason of diminished merits. Due to both of these reasons, Yaakov was frightened. 
  “Making Your words come true...” Rashi is answering the question: Just because Hashem spoke [true promises], should Yaakov’s merits diminish? For Rashi said above, “My merits have diminished.” [Therefore Rashi explains, “You have <i>kept</i> all the promises.”] And why did Rashi say, “You have <i>kept</i>,” rather than, “You have <i>done</i>,” as the verse says? Because [the fulfillment of] what one says is not called עשייה, but שמירה. I.e., “keeping” it is the same as “doing” it. 
  The Midrashic explanation is: He placed his staff into the Jordan [River] and the Jordan split. According to this, [Yaakov is saying that] Hashem did him two good deeds: the splitting the Jordan, and the [dividing into] two camps. But according to the simple meaning, there is only one kindness. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  “From the hand of my brother who does not act towards me as a brother...” Here too, Rashi deduced this because מיד is written twice. And Yaakov would not use an expression of honor [about Eisov] when speaking to Hashem. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 13
  
  היטיב on account of your merits, and איטיב on account of your fathers’ merits. Although the Torah speaks in the language of man, [thus a double verb need not be expounded,] here it is clear that it is to be expounded. For it should have said היטב תיטב, in second person, like העניק תעניק (Devarim 15:14). This is preferable to <i>Re’m’s</i> explanation, that whenever an exposition can be made it should be made. You might ask: Rashi explained on v. 11 that Yaakov said, “My merits have diminished.” [Why did he pray here on account of his own merits?] The answer is: He surely was not praying here on account of his merits, but on account of his fathers’ merits. That is why Rashi adds, “I will do good on account of your fathers’ merits.” 
  Until I have done. Also this verse shows that, “Until I have done that which I have spoken for you,” refers to [what Hashem spoke to] Avraham, as Rashi explained on v. 28:15. Otherwise, the difficulty [remains]: Hashem never said this to Yaakov.
  
  Verse 14
  
  In his possession. There is a question [on the first explanation]: Why does it need to say בידו? [Obviously, he took only from what was his!] Thus Rashi brings the Midrashic explanation that it refers to jewels. But there is a question on this: Why does it not mention [the type of jewel] by name, [as it does with the animals]? Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation, about tithes. But this explanation alone does not suffice, because why did it say, “Which comes into his hand”? The non-sacred was already in his hand, [as he made it so by tithing it]. That is why Rashi presents all the explanations. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Once an animal has become pregnant it does not accept the male. Rashi is saying that it is the nature of an animal to mate as often as enjoyment calls for and free time permits. Since he-goats and rams are free all day, Yaakov gave them ten females each. This enabled them to fulfill their desire and maximize offspring for the owner. And so Yaakov gave each [type of male animal] according to its free time. This raises a question: Although he-goats and rams are free all day, they do not know that their mating with many females benefits the owner. Perhaps one male will fulfill its desire with one female, mating with it repeatedly? To this Rashi answers: “Once an animal has become pregnant...” This forces the male to separate from her and go to a second and a third, etc. <i>Re’m</i> explained differently; the reader may decide. See Kesubos 62a, which says that free time serves as the determining factor. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  And their young were with them... Rashi is saying that there were also thirty young ones. Otherwise, why would it include them all in the same number, when the verse is coming to describe how large the gift was? The young are not significant when [included] with their mothers! Perforce, the verse should be rearranged to read: גמלים מניקות שלשים ובניהם. 
  The Midrashic explanation... one male per female... Accordingly, שלשים is rightly written after בניהם, for it indicates that there were thirty altogether. The numbers of the males and of the females were not stated explicitly because camels are discreet in mating. 
  And their young were with them... This [first explanation] is saying that there were also thirty young ones. Question: If so, why does it not say שלשים also for the young, like it does for the nursing camels? Thus Rashi brings the Midrashic explanation, that they were thirty altogether. And so that we will not ask, “If so, why does the verse not state the numbers of the males and of the females?” Therefore Rashi explains, “Since it is discreet in mating...” And in fact there were fifteen males and fifteen females. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 17
  
  A distance of one day or less... [Rashi knows that they were] not immediately ahead of Yaakov, because it is written in v. 22: “The present passed on ahead of him, but he spent the night in the camp.” If they were just a short way from Yaakov, they could have all spent the night together. And they were not more than a day’s distance ahead, because Yaakov gave Eisov the present on the same day [after daybreak], as is evident from the coming verses. 
  And I will follow behind you. [Rashi knows this] because Yaakov told them to say to Eisov, “And see, he himself is also behind us.” Thus, Yaakov must have said it to them, too: “Pass on ahead of me and I will follow behind you.” 
  One herd was ahead of the other... Rashi is explaining that they were herd behind herd. [Rashi knows this] because if they were lined up alongside each other, how could they be described [in the coming verses as] first, second and third? They would all be “first.”
  
  Verse 18
  
  To whom is this gift being sent... I.e., the second למי conveys [“to whom”, which is] its primary meaning. But למי אתה does not convey its primary meaning, which would be: “To whom are you bringing it.” [Rashi knows this] because it says afterward, “You should say, ‘They belong to your servant, Yaakov.’” This is answering Eisov’s first question first, as Rashi explains there. But if the first למי conveyed its simple meaning, then it should say afterward, “To my master, Eisov” — for that would be the answer to Eisov’s [first] question. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Referring to Yaakov. [How does Rashi know this? Because] it is written, “He commanded the first one... and to all who followed after....” If so, the last one also said, “He is also behind us” — although there was no [group] behind him. Perforce, it referred to Yaakov. Consequently, all [the groups must have meant] the same. [You might ask: If so,] why does it then say, “You should also say, ‘See, your servant Yaakov is behind us”? [This is repetitious, as] all the servants already said this! The answer is: Yaakov was saying to them as follows. Regarding what I commanded you to say to Eisov — “And see, he is also behind us” — do not say it vaguely, by concealing my name. Rather, say it expressly, like this: “See, your <i>servant Yaakov</i> is behind us.” I.e., mention to him [also my] servility.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  He was also angry that he had to resort to all this. [Rashi knows this] because it is written על פניו — similar to על אפו (in his anger) — instead of לפניו. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 23
  
  Where was Deenah? You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps Deenah was among the eleven, and one of the sons was missing. The answer is: It is written in v. 43:29, “Hashem be <i>gracious</i> to you, my son.” Yoseif said this to Binyamin. And, as Rashi explains, Yoseif blessed him so because for the other brothers it had already been said (v. 33:5), “The children whom Hashem has <i>graciously</i> granted your servant”. [Yaakov said this to Eisov when they met.] Since Binyomin was not yet born at that time, Yoseif blessed him now with grace. This clearly shows that “his eleven children” were the eleven sons, without Deenah. For otherwise, the question stands: why did Yoseif bless only Binyomin with grace, and not the other son who was missing at the time [that Yaakov met Eisov]? 
  So that Eisov could not set eyes on her... I.e., for this reason we must say that it was Deenah who was missing, and that Yaakov placed her in a box because of Eisov. For otherwise, why was Yaakov punished through Deenah [i.e., the episode with Shechem]? Perforce, he was punished because he feared Eisov, and Yaakov therefore put her in a box. And this answers the question in the previous entry. 
  Yaakov was thus punished... You might ask: It is written in v. 35:1, “Arise, go up to Beis Eil,” on which Rashi explains, “Because you lingered on your journey you have been punished and this trouble of your daughter has come to you.” [Does this not imply that Yaakov was not punished for withholding Deenah?] The answer is: Each of thee matters caused [Yaakov’s punishment]. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  The cattle and movable property. He acted as a bridge... [How does Rashi know he acted as a bridge? The answer is:] Scripture writes [only once] that he “crossed over the ford of the Yabbok.” Otherwise [i.e., if he did not act as a bridge] Scripture should have written that he crossed back to where his wives were, before saying, “He took them....” [Perforce, he merely stretched his arms back over the river.] Another answer is: Rashi deduced this because it is written, “He <i>took</i> them and crossed them,” instead of simply saying, “He crossed them.” Perforce, he acted as a bridge. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  He had forgotten some small jars and he returned for them. [Rashi knows this] because he had already brought over all the important utensils, as it is written, “He brought over all that he possessed.” It does not mean literally jars, as all unimportant utensils are called פכים. Much has been said on this in <i>Gur Aryeh</i> and <i>R. Noson</i>, but Rashi explained it this way in <i>Chulin</i> 91a. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  Our Sages have explained that this was Eisov’s guardian angel. Rashi proves this on, “If I have found favor in your eyes... like seeing the face of a Godly being” (33:10). <i>Maharshal</i> writes: You might ask: What caused Rashi make the forced explanation that ויאבק is of Aramaic origin, instead of saying like Menachem did? The answer is: It is because our Sages say that this was Eisov’s guardian angel. [And it says in Chulin 91a that according to the view that they kicked up dust,] they raised dust until the Throne of Glory. But Eisov’s guardian angel, [could not reach such a lofty level]. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Concede to me the blessings with which my father blessed me... You might ask: Perhaps Yaakov requested that he actually bless him? The answer is: The angel replied, “No longer will your name be spoken of as Yaakov.” How did this answer [Yaakov’s request]? Perforce, the angel’s answer means as Rashi explains: “It will no longer be said that the blessings came to you through deceit and trickery.” This implies that Yaakov had requested for a concession to the blessings, and the angel replied accordingly. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  God will reveal Himself to you in Beis Eil, and change your name... I.e., the angel did not change Yaakov’s name here. Rather, he told Yaakov that Hashem will change his name in the future, and he said that he will interpret the change [of his name] that Hashem will make as applying to the blessings. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  We do not have a set name. Our names keep changing... I.e., he was not angry when Yaakov asked this. [And how does Rashi know?] Because the angel asked Yaakov the same question.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Those hours that the sun prematurely set ... it prematurely rose for him. Rashi is answering the question: Even if we say that the sun shone for him [to heal him], did it shine only “for him”? 
  He was limping when the sun rose. Rashi is saying he was limping when the sun began to rise, but he was cured right afterward. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  There are those who explained these dots as saying that he did not kiss him wholeheartedly. Meaning: וישקהו has dots on all letters except the ש. Thus it is as if it is written ויקהו, as in הקהה את שיניו (blunt his teeth — Pesach Haggadah). This is because he intended to bite him. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Who are these that they should be yours? Rashi is answering the question: “Who are these” implies that Eisov did not know to whom they belonged. Why did he then say, “To you”? Thus Rashi explains, “That they should be yours.” I.e., are they your sons, servants or hirelings? 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Who is this entire camp that I have met... [Rashi says this because] מי לך cannot mean the same as in v. 5, “Who are these to you,” where it meant: “Are they your servants or your sons?” For here, Eisov knew they were the gift-bearers, and surely they were Yaakov’s servants. Furthermore, why would Yaakov reply, “It was to find favor in the eyes of my master”? Perforce, Eisov was asking: “What is its purpose to you?” In other words, “Why did you go to all this trouble?” But <i>Maharshal</i> writes that מי לך means, “Whose are they?” You might object: If so, why did Yaakov reply, “It was to find favor in your eyes”? Should he not have replied first that they were his? The answer is: Eisov was asking, “To whom belongs this entire camp that I should inquire of him, “For what purpose did you send it?” Yaakov replied, “It was to find favor in your eyes,” as Eisov’s main inquiry was about the gift’s purpose. 
  The Midrashic explanation is: He met up with groups of angels... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what does “that whole camp” mean? The gift-bearers were only five servants! [You might ask: According to the Midrash,] why did Yaakov answer, “It was to find favor in the eyes of my master”? Will Yaakov find favor in Eisov’s eyes because the angels hit him? The answer is: When Eisov’s people said, “He is Yaakov’s brother,” the angels paid attention. This demonstrated how important Yaakov was in the angels’ eyes, and Yaakov thereby found favor in Eisov’s eyes. In other words, [the angels were] informing Eisov that Yaakov has many friends and allies, and you, too, should be among them. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Here, he conceded the blessings to him. Rashi deduced this from the extra phrase, “Let what you have remain yours.” “I have plenty,” would have sufficed. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  Do not tell me this. [Rashi knows this] because אַל always prefaces an order [not to do something]. Thus Rashi explains it as, “Please do not tell me this.” [Rashi is also explaining] that we should not think that “Please no” relates to Eisov’s concession of the blessings, as that cannot be. Rather, “Please no” relates only to Eisov’s statement that he has plenty and does not want the gift. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  For it is right and proper for you to accept my gift... Rashi adds, “It is right and proper...” since על כן means “because.” [Consequently, על כן means the same as כי.] If so, one of them should have sufficed: either על כן ראיתי פניך, or כי ראיתי פניך. Therefore Rashi added, “For it is right...” so that כי gives the reason for the preceding statement, “Take my present from my hand.” It is as if Yaakov said, “Take my present from my hand <i>because</i> (כי) it is right and proper for you to accept it.” Whereas על כן connects to [what follows:] “<i>Because</i> I have seen your face...” 
  Which is esteemed to me like seeing the face of an angel for I have seen your guardian angel... [Rashi is explaining that] when it says, “Like seeing,” it does not mean: “I have seen your face, <i>like</i> I saw the face of a Godly being.” For that would not be a reason to give Eisov a gift. Thus Rashi explains, “Which is <i>esteemed</i> to me like seeing...” 
  You have become reconciled to me... Rashi is saying that the ו of ותרצני signifies the idea: <i>“and there is another</i> reason to receive the gift.” Otherwise, ותרצני [is not understandable, as] it does not relate to ראות פני אלהים.
  
  Verse 11
  
  You did not need to exert yourself for it, whereas I toiled... I.e., since you did not exert yourself over it like I did, it is fitting that you accept it. “Until it has come into your hand” means: until this time when it has already come into your hand. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  The same as נְסַע with the נ being part of the root... It is like שְׁמָעָה and סְלָחָה, where the ש [and ס] is from the root, and the ה is added. Here too, the נ is from the root and the ה is added. It is a simple verb; [the נ is] not from the reflexive form. Neither is the נ from the prefix letters ה, א, י, ת, נ, [in which case it would mean, “Let us go.”] For if so, there should be two נ, one for the root and one for the prefix, and Scripture should have written ננסעה. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  The translation of Onkelos טול ונהך. I.e., Onkelos is also a proof to this point. For he does not translate נסעה as נטל (“Let us go”), but as טול, implying it is a noun [meaning “going”]. Whereas נלכה, which refers to both Eisov [and Yaakov], Onkelos translates as ונהך. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Please do not extend the length of your trip... Rashi is saying: It does not mean Eisov should go in front, with Yaakov following.
  According to the requirement of the pace of the feet of the work... [Rashi is saying that] the ל of לרגל conveys כפי רגל (“according to the feet”). Accordingly, [with Rashi’s addition of, “Of the pace,”] the verse means: according to the ability of the feet <i>to move</i>, rather than according to the fact that they are feet. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Do you do this favor for me for which I have no need. Rashi is answering the question: למה זה אמצא חן seems to imply that Yaakov did not want to find favor. But did he not send a large gift in order to find favor in Eisov’s eyes? Thus Rashi explains it as, “For what do you do this favor?” Whereas “Let me find favor in your eyes” is a separate statement. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Eisov alone. Whereas the four hundred men that had gone with him slipped away... You might object: Although Eisov alone is mentioned in the verse, his men are tacitly included, for the verse speaks of the primary figure. [And the proof is that] the next verse says, “Yaakov traveled to Sukkos,” which includes Yaakov’s wives and children. Why does the same not apply here? The answer is: Eisov said, “Let me leave some of the people with you,” and we might mistakenly think that they indeed stayed with Yaakov. Thus, it should be clearly written that they went with Eisov, [if in fact they did]. (<i>Re’m</i>) Another answer: It is written in v. 1, “He saw Eisov was coming, and with him, four hundred men.” Since the verse [specially] mentions the four hundred men, it is implied that Eisov was secondary to them. Accordingly, our verse should have mentioned them, too. But this is not the case with Yaakov. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  He stayed there eighteen months; a summer, a winter, and a summer. <i>Re’m</i> objects: “I do not know why Rashi cites this Midrash [which does not fit with the simple meaning of the verse.] The house and the shelters were all [used] at the same time—the house by Yaakov, and the shelters by his animals—as the verse states. And Rashi writes [in many places], ‘My intention is only to explain the simple meaning.’” <i>Maharshal</i> answers: Scripture wrote סכות twice, and בית once, indicating that “סכות is one summer, בית is a winter...” The <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> answers: Rashi cites this Midrash in order to corroborate the twenty-two years in which Yaakov did not fulfill the mitzvah of honoring his parents, mentioned by Rashi in <i>Parshas Vayeishev</i> (37:34). 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Safe in body, for he was healed from his lameness. [Rashi knows this] because it is written שלם, without specifying [in which way he was whole], implying he was whole in all ways. And [aside from lameness,] what is written in this vein? Before, it said he had property. And now it says, “He bought the part of the field,” implying he [still] had money. And whole in his Torah [knowledge] is learned from, “When he came from Padan Aram.” Why was this [phrase written]? To teach that even though he came from Padan Aram, which is utterly ignorant of Torah, he did not forget what he had learned. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Our Sages interpret that it was God who called Yaakov... It is as if it said ויקרא אלקי ישראל ליעקב אל. I.e., Hashem is the Almighty above, and so is Yaakov below. Why? Because the Divine Presence rests on earth because of Yaakov — thus it is considered as if he was the Almighty. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  For the gentiles constrained themselves from illicit relationships as a result of the Flood. And one who transgresses is sentenced to death. So did they accept upon themselves, as Rashi mentioned in Parshas Chayei Sarah [24:16]. Although this was beyond the requirement of the law [i.e., to be sentenced to death in a case where the woman is unmarried]. And so too, the expression גדרו עצמן implies: they constrained themselves, although Hashem did not command it. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> objected to this answer: The prohibition on unmarried women was merely a constraint and decree that the descendants of Noach [placed upon themselves. If so,] why was Shechem liable for death? The Rambam says because of robbery, and the Ramban says because of Shechem’s various evil deeds, [but no one says that he was liable to be executed for engaging in illicit relations]. And Rashi does not mention the above reasons because he is not seeking to explain why Shechem was liable for death, but to explain that “Such a thing should not be done” even with an unmarried woman. This raises the question of <i>Re’m</i>: [“Is not an unmarried woman permitted to the descendants of Noach?”] to which Rashi answers, “For the gentiles constrained themselves....” See there for elaboration. [An alternate approach:] You might ask: Is not an unmarried woman permitted to the descendants of Noach? The answer is: Since Shechem kidnapped her and thereby had relations with her, it is considered like illicit relations. Thus, he was liable to be executed. (<i>Re’m</i>)
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Will we be reconciled with you. Rashi is saying that נאות does not mean נויה (beauty) or נאוה (habitation). For if so, in v. 22 it should not have written יאותו לנו but ינאו לנו, which is the correct conjugation for נוי. 
  To be circumcised. I.e., it is in the passive form, not the active. This is because the root is מול, and if [it was active] it would be written לָמול. And if the root is נמל, then it would be written לִנְמוֹל.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  To this matter and, as a result, they will settle with us. Rashi is answering the question: The verse seems to implythat the sons of Yaakov asked for consent to live with them. But it was just the opposite! 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Shimon and Leivi acted as other people... Rashi knows this because Scripture should have just said, “Shimon and Leivi.” Why is it [also] written, “Two of Yaakov’s sons”? Thus Rashi explains as he does. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Because they risked their lives for her... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say, “Brothers of Deenah?” Perforce, it tells us that they acted out of brotherhood and not because they were violent.
  The Aggadaic explanation is: They were confident of the power of the “old one.” This refers to Yaakov. Alternatively, [it refers to Avraham. They were confident] of Avraham’s prayer for them, as explained in Parshas Lech Lecha (12:10). (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  From the term שבייה. The accent is, therefore, on the latter syllable. But if the accent was on the first syllable, like with קמו and שבו, the root would be שוב. Then it would mean “returning.”
  
  Verse 30
  
  “When your numbers will increase, then will you inherit the land.” This is a verse in Parshas Mishpatim (Shemos 23:30). It implies: after you are fruitful and multiply, then you will inherit. 
  They had, therefore, been silent. But now they will think the time has come, and they will attack us. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  Abandoned. Rashi is answering the question: Only a woman who <i>willingly</i> abandons herself to relations with any man is called a harlot. If so, how could Shechem possibly make her a harlot, when she did not willingly abandon herself? Thus Rashi explains [that here it means] “abandoned.” I.e., Shechem acted as if she was [property that has been] abandoned. 
  To our sister. Rashi is answering the question: Perhaps הכזונה should be interpreted as missing a ב, as if it said הכבזונה עשה את אחותינו? Then it would mean, “Should he do <i>with</i> our sister as one does <i>with</i> a harlot?” Accordingly, זונה would indeed mean harlot, [contrary to Rashi’s explanation of “abandoned”]. Therefore Rashi cites Onkelos who translates [את as] ית, proving that it does not mean “with.” This explains why Rashi said that הכזונה means “abandoned.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Because you lingered on your journey you have been punished... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did Hashem need to command him, “Arise, go up [to Beis Eil]”? Yaakov had already vowed to do this! Perforce, Hashem was telling him: Go up quickly and linger no longer. But Yaakov was not punished for lingering in Lavan’s house, because the vow went into effect only when he began to return [home]. For it is written [when he made his vow], “And if I return in peace...” (28:21).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  A kind of non-fruit bearing tree. I.e., it does not produce fruits. סרק means רֵק (empty) of fruit. Yaakov did not want the delay of bringing the idols to the Dead Sea, [the normal way to dispose of such objects,] because he was hurrying to fulfill his vow. So he innovated [a quicker method] and buried them in the ground. And he buried them under a non-fruit bearing tree, [where people do not go,] so no one will notice later that the ground had been dug up. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  God is in Beis Eil... [Rashi knows] that אל [means “God,”, and] is not a preposition [meaning “to”], because its vowel is a צירה. Also, its <i>tropp</i> is a טפחא, indicates that it is disconnected [from the following word].
  
  Verse 8
  
  The plain of Beis Eil was called Allon. Rashi is saying that Allon does not mean “plain.” Rather, Allon is the name of the plain, as Rashi explains in Parshas Lech Lecha, on איל פארן (14:6). See there. 
  He was told that his mother had died. [Rashi knows this] because she did not die earlier, for she sent Devorah to Yaakov, indicating that she had not yet died. However, when Yaakov comes to his father’s house it is written only (v. 27), “Yaakov came to Yitzchok his father,” omitting, “To Rivkah his mother.” Yet, Yaakov came because Rivkah had sent Devorah to him! This implies that Rivkah had [just] died. And since Yaakov now received tidings of a second mourning, as it is written אלון בכות, which means “another mourning,” perforce he was informed of his mother’s death. 
  It is for the following reason that the date of her death was kept secret so that... I.e., Yitzchak was confined to his home due to blindness. And Yaakov was in [transit from] Padan Aram. The only one still with Rivkah was Eisov. Thus the day of her death was kept secret, so that Eisov should not be involved with her burial, for this would cause people to curse the womb from which he came. Some ask: Why would people curse her after her death more than during her life? The answer is: Before her death, people did not see Eisov since he was with his father-in-law in Seir, for that is where Yaakov sent his gift to Eisov. But now, if he would be the only one to come and bury her, people would curse her. <i>Maharshal</i> answers: Her death was kept secret so people would think she was still alive, and they would not be permitted to curse her due to, “You shall not curse a deaf person” (Vayikra 19:14). But this applies only to a live person, [and to the non-deaf as well. See Rashi there]. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  A term denoting a person who comes in ambush and deceit... מארב means as in וארב וקם עליו, “And will ambush him, arising against him” (Devarim 19:11). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  I have the power to bless because the blessings are Mine. Rashi is answering the questions: Why does it say אני? And why does it say שדי, rather than another Name? 
  Menasheh and Ephraim... <i>Re’m</i> writes that the Rashi text should read: “וקהל גוים. This refers to Menasheh and Ephraim.” [I.e., adding וקהל]. For Rashi interprets גוי as one son, and וקהל גוים as another son. Otherwise, the question arises: Why does Rashi say on 48:4, “Hashem informed me that there would yet emanate from me קהל ועמים,” [referring to Menasheh and Ephraim]? Alternatively, Rashi’s text on 48:4 should read קהל עמים, deleting the ו. And here, the text reads גוים [without וקהל. And the word גוים, which is plural, implies two sons] Menashe and Ephraim. But see the <i>Gur Aryeh</i> on 48:4, who [writes that the <i>Re’m</i> unnecessarily] alters the Rashi text. 
  Shaul and Ish Boshes who were from the tribe of Binyamin... Rashi is saying, that which is written “Kings will come out of your loins,” implies that they were still in his loins—and this could only refer to the tribe of Binyamin, who had not yet been born.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  I do not know what this teaches us. [Note: Rashi’s comment relates to v. 13.] Bereishis Rabboh derives from this verse that the Patriarchs are the מרכבה (seat and vehicle of Hashem’s Presence). And Rashi holds of this exposition, as he cited it on 17:22. Nevertheless, Rashi still holds that “At the place where He had spoken to him” is superfluous. For regarding Avraham it is written (17:22), “Elohim ascended from Avraham.” [And it teaches that the Patriarchs are the מרכבה,] even though it does not conclude, “At the place where He had spoken to him.”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Plowing is prevalent the winter has passed — and the hot weather has not yet arrived... [Rashi is saying that] even though the time was good [for traveling], so Yaakov should not have buried her on the road but rather he should have brought her to Ephros, nonetheless he did not do so. This is as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayechi (48:7). However, Rashi explains there that “it was the dry season,” implying it was the middle of summer. Therefore, perhaps Yaakov did not bring her for burial in [the settled part of] Eretz Yisrael because it was too hot [to travel]? The answer is: When Rashi said there that “it was the dry season when the earth is riddled with holes...” he did not mean that it was in the middle of summer. Rather, he meant the beginning of summer when the earth is riddled with holes from the blade of the plow, because plowing is prevalent. 
  However, this is not the plain meaning of the verse, for concerning Na’aman we find... I.e., what would Scripture gain there by teaching that the earth was like a sieve and the winter had passed and the hot weather had not yet arrived? What difference would it make? Perforce, כברת ארץ means it was a short distance, and Geichazi immediately ran after Na’aman [and caught up with him]. 
  Just as you say צמד of vineyards, חלקה of a field... In other words, when one sells a vineyard to another, he says to him, “I am selling you a צמד of vineyards.” And when he sells him a field he says to him, “[ I am selling you] a חלקה of a field.” I.e., this was the known measurement for them.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Prior to his coming to Chevron to Yitzchok... I.e., all this happened to him because he delayed coming to his father Yitzchok. 
  Yaakov took his bed... and placed it in Bilhah’s tent... This was because Bilhah was Rachel’s handmaiden. You might ask: Why did Yaakov do this? Why did he not place it in Leah’s tent? The answer is: Yaakov did not place his bed in Leah’s tent when Rachel was alive, so he reasoned that Leah would not want to accept it now. But Reuven, who regularly spent time with his mother, knew she would accept it. Therefore he went and disturbed the sleeping arrangement. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 23
  
  The firstborn in inheritance; the firstborn in Divine Service. I.e., when the Kohen Gadol performed the Divine Service, he would wear the <i>choshen</i> and <i>ephod.</i> The names of the Tribes were on the <i>choshen</i> and the shoulder straps of the <i>ephod.</i> Reuvein[’s name] appeared first. 
  The firstborn in enumeration... When the names of the Tribes are enumerated, Reuvein is counted first. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  The name of the plain. But is it not written in Parshas<i></i> Lech Lecha (13:18), “And he settled in אלוני ממרא which is in Chevron,” on which Rashi explains that ממרא is the name of a person? The answer is: There it is written באלוני ממרא, and אלון is itself the name of the plain. [Perforce, there it means, “The אלון of the person named ממרא.”] We should not object that perhaps the plain has two names, אלון and ממרא, and there it was called by both its names. Because then it should have said באלוני בממרא, to show that the plain has two names. Since it is not written in this manner, ממרא must be the name of a person. <i>Re’m</i> explains that here, ממרא cannot be the name of a person, because it is written afterwards קרית הארבע, which refers to the place. 
  The name of the city. Rashi is saying that the city’s name is Kiryas Arba, and it does not mean, “The kiryah (city) of the person named Arba.” For it is written (23:2) ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע היא חברון, [and not ותמת שרה בחברון קרית ארבע]. This shows that Kiryas Arba is the name of the place. The ה of הארבע in this verse is in place of של (of). Thus it means, “The plain <i>of</i> Kiryas Arba,” as Rashi himself goes on to explain.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  In order to mislead his father. Question: Why did Eisov not call Bosmas, [too,] by a good name in order to trick his father? In Parshas Toldos (26:34), it should have mentioned that name, if she had it. The answer is: Eisov indeed called her by another, non-idolatry name. But [in Parshas Toldos], Scripture itself calls her Bosmas, denoting idolatry. This is because Scripture goes on to say (27:1), “Yitzchok’s eyesight faded and he could not see.” Rashi there explains that this was due to the smoke of these wives [who burned incense to idols]. And if Scripture would have called her by a different name there, we would ask: Where do we find [any hint] that they burned incense [to idols]? Thus Scripture calls her by the name of Bosmas (incense), to indicate this. See there. (<i>Maharshal</i>) [You might ask]: Yehudis was the daughter of Be’eri the Chittite (26:34), while Oholivomoh was the daughter of Anoh the Chivite, [as it says here. How then could Rashi say that Yehudis and Oholivomoh are the same? The answer is:] Anoh and Be’eri is the same person with two names. Although Scripture connects him here to the Chivites and there to the Chittites, it is possible that his father was a Chittite, and his mother, a Chivite. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yehudis is Oholivomoh? Perhaps Yehudis died, and Oholivomoh is another wife? <i>Re’m</i> answers: Because it is written, “Eisov took his wives,” rather than, “Eisov took wives.” This implies they were the same wives who were mentioned before. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  This Korach was of illegitimate birth and was fathered by Eliphaz... <i>Re’m</i> asks: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps there were two Korachs. He answers: Korach is not mentioned among Eliphaz’s sons but among Oholivomoh’s sons, [implying he was not publicly known as Eliphaz’s son]. Yet later, he is mentioned among the chiefs of Eliphaz. This implies he was of illegitimate birth. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  To reside wherever he might find. Otherwise, why does it not mention to which land he went?
  
  Verse 7
  
  Due to the shame that he sold his birthright. Rashi is saying: This is an additional reason [for his leaving].
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  She said: “I may not merit being married to you, but, if only I could be your concubine.” Otherwise, why does it say, “Timna became a concubine...”? It should just say that Amalek, too, was among Eliphaz’s sons. Why was his mother’s name mentioned, over and above that of Eliphaz’s other sons? Also, what difference does it make if she was Eliphaz’s concubine or his wife? Therefore Rashi explains, “This is to inform us... if only I could be your concubine...” And therefore Rashi explains [on v. 24] that this is why the Torah had to write the families of the Chorites in vs. 29—30. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  Indicating that he came upon Seir’s wife... <i>Re’m</i> asks: How does Rashi know that Timna was an illegitimate child? Perhaps Eliphaz took Seir’s wife after Seir’s demise, and begat Timna from her. <i>Maharshal</i> answers: If so, how could Eliphaz’s own daughter publicly become his concubine? But it is understandable if Eliphaz illicitly came upon Seir’s wife, as people would not know that Timna was Eliphaz’s daughter. But it seems to me [that the answer is:] that if Timna was Eliphaz’s [legitimate] daughter, why does it say, “Lotan’s sister was Timna”? It is understandable if she was Eliphaz’s illicit daughter, as people would assume she was Seir’s daughter and thus Lotan’s full sister. And Scripture would be informing us of the greatness of Avraham, [for the sister of Chief Lotan became a concubine to Eliphaz]. But if Eliphaz legitimately begat Timna, and then took her as a concubine because a <i>ben Noach</i> is [technically] permitted to his daughter, why does the verse tell us she was Lotan’s sister? To inform us of Avraham’s greatness? [This cannot be,] because she anyway was known to all as Avraham’s descendant. For Eliphaz legitimately took Seir’s [former] wife and begat Timna from her. <i>Re’m</i> answers: All these families were written here only to tell of their shame and illegitimacy. So wherever the opportunity arises, we attribute it to [their] illicitness. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Heads of families. Rashi is saying they were leaders and heads, each over a different family, but not that the families were formed by them.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Indicating that Tzivon came upon his mother and bore Anoh. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Tzivon came upon his mother, Seir’s wife? Perhaps Seir, Tzivon’s father, came upon Tzivon’s wife and begat Anoh from her. And people thought Anoh was Tzivon’s son, but Anoh was in fact Seir’s son and Tzivon’s brother. The answer is: It is logical to attribute an act of corruption to one who is corrupt. And before we find that Tzivon was corrupt (Rashi, v. 2), as he came upon his daughterin-law, Anoh’s wife. But there is no reason to say that both [Anoh and Seir] were corrupt. You might object: And before, how did Rashi know that Tzivon was corrupt and came upon his daughter-in-law? Perhaps Anoh was the corrupt one and came upon his mother, Tzivon’s wife. The answer is: If so, there still would be two corrupt people—Anoh and Seir. And since we could rather attribute it all to Tzivon, we do so. (<i>Re’m</i>) <i>Maharshal</i> objects: Why should we consider two women corrupt—Anoh’s wife who was Tzivon’s daughter-in-law, and Seir’s wife who was Tzivon’s mother? [It is possible that Tzivon’s wife was the corrupt one in both incidents.] The answer is: Women are not called corrupt, because they are passive. The man, who does the act, is called corrupt. An alternative answer: Women can say they were forced to have relations. But a man cannot thereby exempt himself, since he is capable of having relations only if he is willing. 
  “No person has ever consulted me about a wound caused by a white mule and lived.” I.e., R. Chanina was a doctor, and said: “No one ever consulted me about a wound caused by a white mule and I gave him a cure.”
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  Yaakov established a corresponding number in whose days Eisov’s kingdom ceased... Rashi means: It is written [about Yaakov and Eisov], “One government will be mightier than the other” (25:23), implying they will not be simultaneously great [see Rashi there]. Thus, when the kings of Yisrael ruled, Eisov’s kingdom ceased that entire period, as Rashi proceeds to explain. 
  About the days of Yoram his son, it is written: “In his days Edom revolted...” Since Yoram was at the end, the kingdom of Eisov began immediately in his time. And so too in the time of Shaul who was the first king, the kingdom of Eisov immediately ceased. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Because it provided a king for Edom it is destined to be smitten together with them... Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse identify Yovav by his father, if it [also] identifies him by his place? [The place alone should suffice,] as with “Samlah of Masriekah” (v. 36), etc. Rashi answers: Yovav was not well known by his place. Scripture mentions his place only in order to teach, “It is destined to be smitten...” (<i>R. Hendel</i>) 
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  Called by the names of their states... I.e., when the verse says, “According to their places, by their names,” it means they are named after their places. And lest we object that the chiefs of Eisov were listed before, and furthermore, other [chiefs] are also listed there, Rashi goes on to say: “The previous chiefs... are their family names.” The proof that the ones listed here are named after their provinces is that Magdiel is Rome [as Rashi says on v. 43]. For it says in Midrash Rabbah: “[The day that Lotianos became Caesar in Rome,] R. Ami was shown in a dream that today, Magdiel became king.” But from the other ones, such as Chief Kenaz, etc., [there is no proof.] It could be family names, since they were called by these same names even before. And Chief Oholivomoh and Chief Timna seem more likely to be family names, since we saw before that these are names of people. And nothing forces us to say that the others are names of provinces, either. Therefore Rashi brings a proof from Magdiel, which is the name of a place—and so they all are named after their provinces, because Magdiel serves as an example for the others. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants... <i>Re’m</i> explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture not write first ואלה תולדות יעקב..., and then וישב יעקב..., which is the same format that it writes about Eisov. First Eisov’s descendants are enumerated (36:1) and then it tells where they had settled. Rashi answers: “After it has written for you concerning the <i>settlements</i> of Eisov and his descendants...” In other words, Scripture’s purpose is not to enumerate Yaakov’s descendants [as it did with Eisov], but only to explain the <i>settlements</i> of Yaakov and his descendants; and how they settled. [Thus, this section connects to the previous one as regards to settling,] as also the section about Eisov explained his settlement and that of his descendants. For it is written (36:8), “Eisov settled in Mount Seir,” explaining his settlement. Then it describes his descendants, “These are the descendants of Eisov...” and the descendants of his wives. Then it explains the settling of his sons (vs. 40-43), “These are the names of the chiefs of Eisov, each with their families, according to their places... These are the chiefs of Edom according to their places of residence.” Thus for Yaakov, too, Scripture tells about his settlements and that of his descendants, as it is written וישב יעקב..., which means, “Yaakov settled...” Then it is written אלה תולדות יעקב..., meaning: these are the <i>settlements</i> of the descendants of Yaakov, too, like [Scripture explained regarding] the descendants of Eisov. For at this point the Torah begins to recount what happened to them until they came there [to settle the Land]. It begins with “Yoseif at the age of 17,” then his being sold to Egypt and their enslavement there, then the Exodus — this and that happened to them until they came to settle the Land. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  This is the history of the children of Yaakov... This comment of Rashi relates to what he said before, that our verse is explaining the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants. Here, Rashi is answering the question: Where does Scripture explain the settlements of Yaakov’s descendants? It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה..., [seemingly a different topic]! Thus Rashi explains that אלה תולדות... is about the chain of events leading to the eventual settlement of Yaakov’s descendants, who are the Tribes: Yoseif was seventeen, etc, and because of Yoseif they came to Egypt, after which they left and came to Eretz Yisrael. [Question:] אלה תולדות יצחק... (25:19) is similar, in that it begins with אלה תולדות and then tells the events before their births. Why did Rashi not ask the same question there? The answer is: Rashi’s question here is mainly because it begins with the settlements of Yaakov and then Scripture writes אלה תולדות יעקב, but the order should have been reversed! 
  These are their settlements, and occurrences... <i>Re’m</i> explains that Rashi adds, “And occurrences,” because the Torah recounts the actual settlements of only two and a half tribes among Yaakov’s descendants. 
  The Midrash however explains: Scripture identifies Yaakov’s children as Yoseif... Rashi is saying that [according to the Midrash,] the Torah is indeed explaining the descendants of Yaakov, not their settlements. It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף to convey that all Yaakov’s descendants are called after Yoseif. This is because Yaakov worked the first seven years due to his love for Rochel, to beget a son from her. But then Lavan deceived him and gave him Leah, from whom he begat sons. When Rochel saw that she had no sons, she gave him her maidservant Bilhah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. Then Leah gave him her maidservant Zilpah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. And then Rochel gave birth to Yoseif. As soon as Yoseif was born, Yaakov told Lavan that he wished to return to the place of his fathers. Thus we see that all Yaakov’s descendants were due to Yoseif who was born from Rochel. 
  Yaakov’s entire purpose in working for Lavan was only for the sake of Rochel. You might ask: Binyomin also came from Rochel, so why is [only] Yoseif mentioned? The answer is as I explained before: Yaakov worked mainly for Yoseif, as it says (30:25), “When Rochel had given birth to Yoseif, Yaakov said to Lavan, ‘Send me on my way...’” 
  Yoseif’s זיו איקונין resembled his. Why did Rashi not use the term קלסתר פנים, as he did on 25:19, regarding Yitzchok [who resembled Avraham? The answer is:] Rashi learns Yoseif’s resemblance to Yaakov from the word זְקֻנִים, as Rashi explains on 37:3. And זְקֻנִים is an abbreviation for זיו אקונין. 
  Also, everything that happened to Yaakov happened to Yoseif... [According to the above Midrash,] the verse is saying, so to speak: “These descendants” about which everyone can testify that they are “of Yaakov,” they are [none other than] “Yoseif,” [for only Yoseif’s facial features resembled Yaakov’s.] This is similar to Rashi’s explanation on (25:19) ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, [where everyone testified that Yitzchok looked like Avraham]. Alternatively, the reason why everyone knew Yoseif was Yaakov’s son was that the events which happened to Yaakov happened only to Yoseif, [and a son’s fate generally resembles that of his father]. 
  Another Midrashic exposition: “[Yaakov] settled.” Yaakov was seeking to be settled in tranquility... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written ויחי יעקב בארץ..., [rather than וישב יעקב בארץ...]? 
  The righteous seek to be settled in tranquility, God says... In all places where Rashi explains that [ישב implies there was a lacking,] it is because it is written lacking [the <i>vav</i> of יושב]. Such as והוא ישב פתח האהל (18:1), and ולוט ישב (19:1). But here there is no reason to interpret it as, “Seek to be settled in tranquility,” [since וַיֵשֶב is not a lacking form of יוֹשֵב]. Thus, it should literally mean “settled.” [If so, why does Rashi interpret as he does?] The answer is: [This interpretation is needed] because it is written afterwards, אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, which has no connection with וישב יעקב. Alternatively, because it should have said אלה תולדות יעקב ראובן.... This forced Rashi to explain that אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף is the cause which prevented the fulfillment of Yaakov’s intention [to be settled in tranquility]. And קפץ עליו רגזו means the controversy and fighting [surrounding Yoseif]. The meaning of רגזו is similar to אל תרגזו בדרך (45:24), which Onkelos translates as אל תתנצון (do not quarrel). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  He did things that were childish... Otherwise, why does it say, “And the <i>lad</i>”? 
  Meaning that he associated with the sons of Bilhah... “With the sons of Bilhah” cannot be [a continuation of] the same point, that he did childish things with the sons of Bilhah. Would he not act the same way when he was not with them? Perforce, [it means, and in addition, he associated with them]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Any wrong that he would see in his brothers, the sons of Leah. Rashi deduces this because it is not written ויוצא יוסף דבתם, as it is written about the Spies (Bamidbar 13:32), ויוציאו דבת הארץ. Perforce, the reason it is written here ויבא יוסף את דבתם is because Yoseif said what was true. I.e., he reported the events to his father according to how he saw and heard them, and he did not say things he did not see. However, with regard to the Spies it is written ויוציאו, “they brought out,” meaning they brought out [i.e., fabricated] falsehoods from within themselves. 
  In his brothers, the sons of Leah. [Question:] In the verse it is written just, “With his brothers.” [How does Rashi know it means the sons of Leah?] The answer is: Yoseif was close with the sons of the handmaidens. If he considered them evil, how could he be close with them? Furthermore, since he was their friend, the evil that he reported surely was not about them.
  And that they are suspect in illicit relationships ... Question: How could the sons of Yaakov have been suspect of doing these things? And if they were suspect, why then was Yoseif punished on account of this? The answer is: They surely were not suspect of doing these things; Yoseif erred. And he was punished because he should have looked further into the matter before suspecting them. He thought they ate limbs of living animals because they ate from a properly slaughtered animal that was still convulsing. But the meat was permitted since it was after <i>shechitah</i>. Or, he saw them eating a <i>ben pekoa</i> [an animal found alive in the womb of its mother that had been properly slaughtered]. It is permitted [to eat it,] due to the <i>shechitah</i> of its mother. And even if it [develops into] a big bull it does not require to be ritually slaughtered. [It only needs to be slaughtered] because it <i>appears</i> to be forbidden. Yoseif however, considered it as being the limb of a living animal because it nonetheless requires to be ritually slaughtered, due to appearance. They demeaned the sons of the handmaidens by calling the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah “sons of handmaidens.” Although this was true, and even Scripture refers to them so, Yoseif thought it implied that their sons were non-Jewish slaves. But he erred, because their sons were not non-Jewish slaves, for Bilhah and Zilpah were freed women who assisted Rochel and Leah. Regarding illicit relationships: a man may not use another man’s wife to serve him (Kiddushin 70a), and Yoseif saw them using the services or doing business with a married woman, so he suspected them. But he erred, because a man is forbidden to use the services of a married for intimate purpose only, such as washing his face, hands and feet, or making his bed. But, non-intimate matters or doing business with her are permitted. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yoseif suspected them of all three things? The answer is: Rashi himself answers this by saying, “Yoseif was, in, turn, smitten by these three...” Another answer: There is a connection between דבתם רעה written here, and v. 33 חיה רעה אכלתהו (“A wild beast devoured him”). Just like there it involved a limb from a living creature, since a wild beast devours its prey alive, so too here it involved a limb from a living creature. [The matter regarding non-Jewish] slaves is derived from what it is written about a handmaiden in Shemos 21:8: אם רעה בעיני אדוניה. Just like רעה there involves slavery, so too here it involves slavery. [The matter regarding] illicit relationships is derived from what it is written in 39:9 regarding Yoseif: ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת (“How can I do such a great evil”). Just like רעה there refers to illicit relationships, so too here it refers to illicit relationships. 
  “They slaughtered a goat” when he was sold, and they did not eat it while it was alive. I.e., the Torah had no need to write that they slaughtered it, since they did not eat it. Perforce, it comes to tell us that even though they did not intend to eat it, they nonetheless slaughtered it [because they were meticulous about <i>shechitah</i>]. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Because he was born to him in his old age... You might ask: Was not Binyamin born in an older age than Yoseif? The answer is: all of Yaakov’s sons were born one right after another, as they were all born within six years — except for Binyamin, whose birth was separated [from Yoseif’s birth] by a long period of time. People had thought that Yaakov would not beget another son from Rochel, so they called Yoseif “son of old age.” And out of habit they continued to do so even after Binyamin was born. 
  Onkelos translates it: “He was a wise son to him.” [Rashi cites Onkelos] because there is a question on the first explanation: What difference does it make [to us] whether Yoseif was born to Yaakov in his old age or his youth? Thus Rashi says, “Onkelos translates it...” But a question still remains: It should have said בן זקנותו. Why does it say בן זקונים? Perforce, it comes to say: “His facial features (זיו איקונים)...” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  A Midrashic explanation is for his misfortunes ... [Rashi cites this] because there is a question on the first explanation: For what purpose does Scripture say that Yaakov made him a כתונת פסים? Perhaps to teach, [as it says in Shabbos 10b,] that a person should not treat one son differently than the others, since Yoseif’s brothers were jealous of him because his coat was worth two <i>sela’im</i> more. But this is not the simple meaning of the verse, as it is not written, “His brothers <i>saw </i>that he made him a כתונת פסים.” Rather, they were jealous of him due to his dreams and words (v. 8). Therefore Rashi cites the Midrashic explanation. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  That he was sold to Potiphar, traders... I.e., פסים is the abbreviation for פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים. According to this explanation, the [prefix] ו is lacking from the word סוחרים in (37:28): וַיַּrַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים. It should be understood as וסוחרים (<i>and</i> merchants), [for otherwise it would mean, “Midianite merchants,” and one group would be missing]. Although Scripture omits Yoseif’s sale to the merchants, it also omits his sale to the Midianites, [which surely took place, as they sold him to Potiphar — see v. 36. This understanding of סוחרים fits the verse well,] because otherwise, why is the word סוחרים even needed? 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  To stand steadfastly straight. Rashi is explaining the difference between קמה and נצבה, which seem repetitive because they mean the same. Therefore he explains that קמה means momentarily arising from a lying position, and וגם נצבה means staying that way, remaining steadfastly straight. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  After he had told it to his brothers he retold it to his father in their presence. You might ask: Why did Yoseif not tell the first dream to his father? The answer is: Yoseif knew that most dreams follow their verbal interpretation, and his brothers interpreted it for the good, so he did not want to tell it to his father. But his brothers did not interpret his second dream for him, as they realized he was telling them his dreams so they will make a good interpretation. Thus he had to tell it to his father so he will interpret it for him. His father did so, and rebuked him so that his brothers would not hate him. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Because he was bringing hatred upon himself. I.e., Yoseif was bringing hatred upon himself. That is why Yaakov rebuked him — not because Yaakov did not want the dream to come true. For it is written in the next verse, “His father kept the matter in mind.” [See Rashi there.] 
  But he did not know that these things were referring to Bilhah who had raised him like his mother. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yaakov did not know this? Perhaps Yaakov knew, but he questioned [the dream] for the reason Rashi had given before: that Yoseif should not bring hatred onto himself. <i>Re’m</i> asks [the question this way]: Regarding the explanation of “These things were referring to Bilhah,” Rashi says that Yaakov did not know. But had he known, he would not have said, “Has your mother not already died?” lest his sons realize [that his comment was just a trick]. Yet, regarding the explanation of “No dream is without meaningless things,” why did Yaakov not fear that his sons, too, might know this rule and thus say that his comment was just a trick? <i>Maharshal</i> answers: [In the first explanation,] had Yaakov known that these things were referring to Bilhah, his sons surely would have known too, because this is a matter grasped through reasoning. Saying, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” would not make them ignore the matter. But [in the second explanation,] it then says, “His father kept the matter in mind,” because Yaakov had an oral tradition that no dream is without meaningless things. His sons however, did not know this tradition. 
  However, our Sages learned from here that no dream is without meaningless things... Rashi is explaining why Yaakov questioned [the dream] and said, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” Did he not know that no dream is without meaningless things? Perforce, [he said it] “To make his sons ignore...” 
  But Yaakov intended to make his sons ignore... I.e., our Sages hold that “your mother” must mean Yoseif’s true mother. However, “No dream is without meaningless things.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  There are dots on the word את indicating that they went only to “pasture” themselves. Rashi means that if there were no dots on את, it would be connected to צאן, and mean “to pasture the sheep.” But now that it has dots, it is as if the את was not written at all. Consequently, לרעות is not connected to the next word, and means: “They went to pasture.” I.e., to pasture themselves. And צאן אביהם בשכם is a separate statement. But if את was completely omitted from the verse, it would not prove the point. Surely we could still say it means “to pasture themselves,” but it would be more logical to say that the words are connected, and form one statement. Thus, although the את would be omitted, we would say it is an abbreviated verse. But now that את is written, and it has dots, it is considered as erased. This indicates that the words are not connected; they are rather two statements. Otherwise, why does it have dots?
  
  Verse 13
  
  A term indicating humility and readiness. You might ask: Why did Rashi not give this explanation on (22:11) אברהם אברהם ויאמר הנני, and on (Shemos 3:4) משה משה ויאמר הנני? The answer is: Here, הנני cannot be a way of answering [when called], as Yaakov was already speaking with him. For it is written, “Yisrael said to Yoseif, ‘Are your brothers not pasturing...’” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  But, is not Chevron on a mountain... <i>Re’m</i> writes: It seems that this verse was not [<i>Chazal’s</i>] proof that Chevron was on a mountain. Although it is written, “Went <i>up</i>,” this could be because Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the lands, as Rashi explains on, “Hurry, go <i>up</i> to my father” (45:9). Rather, <i>Re’m </i>explains, the proof is that Chevron was designated as a burial place. People designate only rocky areas for burial, as it says in Kesubos 112a, and rocky areas are on mountains. An alternate explanation: It is written, “They went <i>up</i> and scouted the land...” (Bamidbar 13:21), and then is written (v. 22), “They went <i>up</i> into the southern part, and came to Chevron.” Why is it written “they went up” twice? Scripture should simply have written, “They went up into the southern part, and scouted the land... and came to Chevron.” Perforce, “they went up” is repeated because it refers to Chevron, which is on a mountain. So it seems to me.
  A place with a predisposition to misfortunes... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should simply say, “And he came there,” since it is already written, “Pasturing in Shechem.” Perforce, [the name is repeated to imply,] “the notorious Shechem”. [Alternatively, Rashi knows this because] it should simply say, “He sent him from the depths of Chevron, and a man found him...” Perforce, [Shechem is mentioned to imply, “the notorious Shechem”]. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  This refers to Gavriel... Yoseif did not say to the man, “Do you know my brothers, and where they are pasturing?” Rather, he said [straight away], “Tell me please, where are they pasturing?” This shows it was an angel, [who assumedly knows]. And since Scripture refers to him as איש, this shows it was specifically Gavriel. [Furthermore,] if it was not an angel, why did the Torah recount the whole story of Yoseif going astray? What does it matter if he went straight there, or strayed? Perforce, it was an angel sent by Hashem to bring him to his brothers, in order to fulfill His decree. For Yoseif otherwise would have turned back from Shechem, as he could not find them. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  They have removed themselves from brotherhood. Rashi is answering the question: How does the angel’s reply pertain to Yoseif’s inquiry? Yoseif only requested to be told where they were, while the angel replied, “They have traveled from here.” Furthermore, Yoseif already knew they traveled from there, since he did not find them there. Thus Rashi explains, “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” I.e., they want to kill you — do not go there. [You might ask:] how does Rashi know it means [specifically] this? The answer is: זה in <i>gematria</i> is twelve. Thus, it means they have moved away from twelve. I.e., they do not want there to be twelve [brothers], rather they want to kill you, and there will be only eleven. Alternatively, Rashi’s proof is that it says, “From this.” In other words, they have moved away “from this” which you say, “I am looking for my <i>brothers</i>.” They, however, have removed themselves from brotherhood. 
  To seek lawful pretexts concerning you... Rashi is answering the question: The angel said to him נסעו מזה, meaning: “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” If so, what is the meaning of, “Because (כי) I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Doson’”? The word כי always comes to give a reason. What reason is given here? Thus Rashi explains: lawful pretexts concerning how to kill you. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Similar to אתו, with him, meaning toward him. Rashi is answering the question: How does אוֹתוֹ fit with ויתנכלו? The verb ויתנכלו is reflexive, and means: “They became filled with conspiracies,” thus it does not connect with אוֹתוֹ. If Scripture had written וַיְנַכְלו, [a transitive verb,] אוֹתוֹ would fit. But with ויתנכלו, the fitting word is אליו. Thus Rashi explains that אוֹתוֹ is similar to אִתּוֹ. Rashi is saying that if we follow how it is written [rather than how it is pronounced,] we would read it אִתּוֹ, since it is written missing a ו. Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because אוֹתָנו sometimes means אִתָנו. Thus, אוֹתוֹ can mean אִתּוֹ. And אִתּוֹ means עמו. And Rashi says, “עמו, meaning אליו,” because Onkelos translates אליו as עמו; see Rashi on 24:7. Consequently, it is as if the verse said אליו. (<i>Re’m</i>) The <i>Maharshal</i> explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו, rather than simply ויתנכלו להמיתו? Perforce, אוֹתוֹ is like אִתּוֹ, “with him.” Thus it means, “They were plotting <i>with</i> him,” i.e., also Yoseif had in mind that they should kill him. And lest we think it means that he and they had in mind to kill someone else, Rashi says that אותו also implies אליו, “toward him” — toward Yoseif. He and they had in mind to kill Yoseif. There is also a varying text of Rashi. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  A blow to the soul, which refers to killing. Otherwise, how does נכנו — the object of which is Yoseif — connect to the following word נפש? Thus Rashi explains that the verse is as if it said מכת נפש, [which is an adverbial phrase modifying נכנו]. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) 
  
  Verse 22
  
  The Divine Spirit testifies concerning Reuvein. Rashi is answering the question: How could Reuvein himself have said they should throw Yoseif in the pit so he may bring him back to his father? If they knew this, they would not let Reuvein rescue him! Furthermore, if these were Reuvein’s words, it should say, “<i>My </i>purpose is to rescue.” Why does it say, “<i>His </i>purpose was to rescue”? <i>Re’m</i> comments: I do not understand why Rashi needed to write this. It is selfevident that these are not Reuvein’s words. 
  He thought: “I am the firstborn and the oldest of them all... You might ask: How does Rashi know this is why Reuvein wanted to save him? Perhaps he was very pious and did not want to kill? The answer is: In Parshas<i> </i>Vayechi, among the blessings with which Yaakov blessed his sons, it is written that he blessed Yehudah, who said: “What will we gain if we kill our brother... come let us sell him...” Yet, why did Yaakov not bless Reuvein, who wanted to totally rescue Yoseif and bring him back to his father? Whereas Yehudah suggested to sell him! Perforce, Reuven’s intent was not for the sake of Heaven, but so people should not put the blame on him, saying: “You are the firstborn...” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 23
  
  This is an additional one that his father gave him in excess of what was given to the brothers. <i>Re’m</i> explains that it is all one garment. He was wearing only one כתונת, which was of פסים, and the verse reads as follows: “They stripped him of his כתונת.” Which כתונת? “The פסים כתונת that he had on.” It cannot mean that he wore two כתונות, one top of the other, because only the garment touching the skin is called כתונת. But <i>Maharshal</i> writes: It seems to me not so. Rather, he had on two כתונות, one on top of the other. The first was on his skin, so that sweat should not ruin the כתונת of פסים. They stripped off both garments at once by grasping the bottom one and removing both. That is why it says אשר עליו (“that was on <i>it</i>”), referring to the other garment on which the פסים כתונת was on top of. The reason they grasped the bottom one was to show him that they were not doing this because his father gave him an additional כתונת of פסים. Rather, it was because of his bad reports and his dreams [that he told his father]. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  No water in it but there were snakes and scorpions in it. Rashi deduces [that it had snakes and scorpions] because it is written, “The pit was empty.” If sticks and stones or the like were in it, this would not be called empty. But with snakes and scorpions, the pit could well be called empty, as they crawl into the holes and cracks, so the pit looks like it is empty although they are there. [Alternatively], it is derived from a <i>gezeirah shavah. </i>In Devarim 8:15 it is written: “Snake, serpent, and scorpion... there was no water.” Just as there, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions, so too here, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions. But it seems to me that “there was no water” cannot teach us that sticks and stones were there, because what difference would that make? Perforce, it comes to tell us that other dangers were there, and they threw him in nevertheless. (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>) We need not ask: If there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, how was Reuven going to rescue him? The snakes and scorpions would kill him! For the answer is: The brothers did not know about this. They thought the pit did not contain even snakes and scorpions. Otherwise, how could they want to sell him after seeing the miracle Hashem performed for him, that he was not harmed or killed? (<i>Re’m</i>)
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  What profit? as Onkelos translates it. I.e., we should not explain בצע as “theft.” 
  And we will conceal his death. Rashi is answering the questions: He was not a wild animal or a bird, [whose blood there is a mitzvah to cover. Why does it say, “Cover up his blood”?] Furthermore, they threw him into a pit. What blood was there to be covered? 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Yaakov’s sons [pulled] Yoseif from the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites... Rashi deduces this from what is written, “They pulled Yoseif up from the pit and sold Yoseif.” If it was the Midianites [who did all this], how could they sell him? He did not yet belong to them! And if [you suggest that] the Midianites pulled him out of the pit without the brothers’ knowledge and sold him, why is it written later (45:4), “I am Yoseif your brother, whom you sold into Egypt”? They never sold him! And why would the brothers say, “Come let us sell him to the Yishmaelites,” if they never sold him? Perforce, “they pulled” refers to Yaakov’s sons who sold him to the Yishmaelites, and the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites. We need not ask: How does Rashi know that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites? Perhaps they sold him to the מדנים [written without the intermediate <i>yud</i>, see v. 36], which is a different nation — as it is written (25:2), “Medan, Midian...” [The answer is:] If so, why does the verse mention, “Midianite merchants passed by”? They must be mentioned in connection with Yoseif’s sale, that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites to the מדנים, and the מדנים to Potiphar. So it seems to me. <i>Re’m</i> asks: The verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites” (39:1). [But did not the Yishmaelites already sell him to the Midianites?] It appears that the answer is: Although he was sold several times, the Midianites had not yet paid. Because of this, he still belonged to the Yishmaelites, as the Midianites received [from their sale of Yoseif] only the profit, i.e., the amount that exceeded what they owed the Yishmaelites. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  He was not present when he was sold, for his day had arrived to go and attend to his father. [You might ask:] What forced Rashi to say this? Perhaps he went to take care of business. And the same [question can be asked] according to the alternate explanation, that “he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fasting.” The answer is: If he had gone for mundane business, how was he allowed to leave? He knew his brothers wanted to kill Yoseif. Why did he not fear they would kill Yoseif when he left? Perforce, he went for a mitzvah, as his day had arrived, etc. There is a question [on the first explanation]: Why does it say he “returned” (וישב)? It should say he “came.” Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation, [according to which וישב is] an expression of repentance (תשובה). And the second explanation is insufficient on its own, as he should have waited for another day [to do repentance], because of [the danger to] Yoseif. Thus Rashi explains that “his day had arrived...” and he could not delay. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Another explanation: He was occupied with his sack-cloth... Rashi deduces this because it is written here, “Reuvein <i>returned</i> to the pit,” and it says, “Mordechai <i>returned</i> to the king’s gate wearing sack-cloth” (Esther 6:12). Just as “returned” over there refers to sack-cloth and fasting, so too here. Reuvein must have done his repentance secretly, and thus he was absent at the time of Yoseif’s sale. Otherwise it would contradict Rashi’s explanation of וזאת ליהודה (Devarim 33:7), that Yehudah’s confession over the incident with Tamar was what influenced Reuvein to <i>confess</i> and repent over the incident with Bilhah. Therefore it must be that Reuvein first repented secretly and later he did so publicly.
  
  Verse 30
  
  Where can I flee from my father’s grief? [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, would the boy not being there cause a lack of space for Reuvein, leaving him nowhere to flee? Perforce, it means: since the boy is not there, I must flee from my father’s grief, and where can I flee? 
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Is this. It is an abbreviated verse. For without [adding] “is this,” it is not understandable. 
  It is his destiny that Potiphar’s wife would provoke him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “Yoseif has been torn to pieces,” [omitting “evil beast had devoured him”]. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: How would Yaakov know that a wild animal tore him up? Perhaps bandits attacked him. 
  Because they banned and cursed anyone who would reveal it and they included God with them... Hashem surely was not “forced” [as it were]. But He willingly agreed with the ban for a number of reasons. First, so that [the decree of] “Your descendants will be foreigners in a land not theirs...” (15:13) could be fulfilled. If Yaakov had known that Yoseif was brought to Egypt, he would have given all the money in the world to redeem him! Second, if Yaakov had known [what the brothers did] he would have cursed them that their names be blotted out, and the seed of Yisrael would have perished — whereas Hashem wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. As Rashi proceeds to explain, “Hashem does not <i>wish</i> to reveal it to him,” implying that He was not forced. Had He wished, He could have revealed it, but He agreed with them in order to fulfill the decree, “...They will enslave them and oppress them” (ibid). Third, it says: “He mourned his son for many days” (v. 24), and Rashi explains that it was twenty-two years. Why did Rashi say specifically twenty-two? He must have been answering the question: Why did Hashem put Yaakov in anguish for twenty-two years, and not tell him [that Yoseif was alive]? Perforce, it was for the twenty-two years that Yaakov did not honor his parents. Whereas if Hashem would tell Yaakov, he would repent, nullifying the twentytwo year decree of anguish. But because Hashem wished to punish him for not having honored his parents, He agreed to the brothers’ ban on revealing it. A ban (חרם) is like an oath, and when Hashem takes an oath [over a decree of punishment], repentance cannot nullify it. For it says [about Moshe’s punishment]: “Therefore, you will not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them” (Bamidbar 20:12). And Rashi there explains: “This was said as an oath... He swore precipitously, so that he should not pray at length about it [to nullify the decree].” Here as well, the ban was like an oath; thus Hashem agreed with them. 
  
  Verse 34
  
  Twenty-two years... <i>Maharik</i> writes (ch. 37) that Rashi cited this, although it is not the verse’s simple meaning, in order to explain why Hashem agreed to the ban and did not reveal to Yaakov [that Yoseif was alive]. It was because He had decreed that Yaakov be anguished for twenty-two years. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Yaakov did not fulfill honoring one’s father and mother. You might ask: Why was he punished for this? Yitzchak and Rivkah commanded him to go there and take a wife! Rabbeinu Bechaye answers in Parshas Toldos (28:1): They intended for him to marry Leah and return immediately. But he desired Rochel because of her beauty and said, “I will work for you seven years for Rochel” (29:18). Thus, all the time he spent there was his own choice. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 35
  
  A twin sister was born with each brother... It means that each brother married his brother’s twin, i.e., his paternal but not maternal sister — since a paternal sister is not considered incest for the sons of Noach.
  A person cannot accept consolation for one who is alive but is thought to be dead... The question is asked: Did Yaakov not know that consolation cannot be accepted for a live person thought to be dead? If so, why did he mourn over Yoseif? He would know he was alive! The answer is: Yaakov in fact did not know this because “consolation cannot be accepted for one who is alive but thought to be dead,” is learned from the case of Yaakov himself. Heaven decreed that the dead be forgotten, allowing consolation to be accepted. Yet, Yaakov did not accept consolation. Therefore, we derive that consolation cannot be accepted in such a case, and Yaakov was therefore unaware of this. <i>Maharshal</i> answers: When a person agitates himself, he is unaware that his anguish is excessive because he considers all the anguish as nothing. 
  The same as על בני... It means, “because of my son.” This is because [in this verse,] אל cannot mean “next to” or “to,” as in, “Avimelech came to him (אליו) from Gerar” (26:26), and as in, “He said to him (אליו): ‘I am Adonoy’” (15:7). 
  While still in mourning will I be buried and not be consoled all of my life... I.e., this mourning will stay with me until I am buried. But not that I will mourn in the grave, for there is neither mourning nor joy there.
  If none of my children die in my lifetime then I am assured not to see Gehinom. <i>She’ol</i> is one of Gehinom’s seven names. The rationale [of the sign] is that a person can be judged to twelve months [at most] in Gehinom. If Yaakov’s twelve sons are all alive, corresponding to the twelve months, Gehinom cannot affect him. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  But he did not mourn, for he knew that he was alive. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written simply, “<i>He</i> wept for him,” as it had written before: “All <i>his </i>sons and daughters rose to console him.” [Why does it say, “His<i> father </i>wept for him”?] A further question: Why does it say, “He wept,” rather than, “He mourned,” as it said before: “He mourned for his son”? Thus Rashi explains that it refers to Yitzchok, about whom it cannot be said, “He mourned,” for he knew Yoseif was alive. And we need not ask how Yitzchok knew, as Hashem might have revealed it to him to save him anguish; for the ban was only against revealing it to Yaakov. 
  
  Verse 36
  
  The slaughterers of the king’s animals. [Rashi knows this] because if Hashem brought balsam and lotus carriers for Yoseif, to spare him the odor of naphta [see Rashi on v. 25], He surely would not bring him to an executioner, who is even more repulsive. Onkelos holds that Potiphar was merely appointed over the executioners, but he himself did not kill. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  A merchant. You might ask: How does Rashi know that this term refers to a merchant? Perhaps Shua was an actual Canaanite. The answer is: Avraham did not want to give Yitzchok a Canaanite wife, and also Yitzchok commanded Yaakov not to marry one, so Yaakov’s sons surely would not [marry a Canaanite] either. But you might object: Rashi explained on 37:35, “R. Nechemiah says: ‘They [Yaakov’s daughters-in-law] were Canaanites,’” implying the sons did marry Canaanites. The answer is: Men from a different nation took Canaanite women and begat daughters, [whom Yaakov’s sons married], for these daughters were not [true] Canaanites because the lineage follows the father. But here it cannot be explained so, since it is written, “The daughter of a Canaanite <i>man</i>,” implying that the <i>father</i> was Canaanite.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Why did Er waste his seed? However, it is understood why Onan wasted his [seed], as the verse explains: the son is called by the name of his deceased brother, and Onan did not want to do this.
  
  Verse 8
  
  The son will be called by the name of the one who is dead. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> extensively contradicts <i>Ramban</i> and <i>Re’m</i>, [who explain that the son would literally be named after the deceased]; see there. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> rather explains that calling the son after the deceased means that it is considered as if the deceased were his father. That is why the verse says, “Establish <i>seed</i> for your brother,” and not, “Establish a <i>name</i> for your brother,” for the name is not the issue. See there. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Meaning, he pushed her off with a straw... Rashi is answering the question: Is the verse not self-contradictory? First it is written עד יגדל שלה בני, implying Yehudah intended to give her to Sheilah. Then it is written כי אמר פן ימות, implying Yehudah did not want to do so. Furthermore, when it says כי, how is this a reason for the preceding? If she is a woman whose husbands die, how could Yehudah give her to Sheilah when he comes of age? Therefore Rashi explains that Yehudah offered a pretense when he said עד יגדל שלה בני, for he did not intend that Sheilah should marry her. And when it says כי אמר פן ימות, this is giving the reason for [the verse’s implied statement] why he did not intend for them to marry. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  “Shimshon went down, etc... to Timnah”... [Question:] In the previous verse it is written, “He went up,” and Rashi explained that this is connected with “to Timnah.” If so, why did Rashi not make his comment there? The answer is: [Based on the previous verse alone, Rashi would agree that] “He went up” could be connected with “to his sheep-shearers.” I.e., he went up the mountain to where the shepherds were, to stand by his sheep-shearers. [Thus, Rashi’s comment depends on the present verse.]
  
  Verse 14
  
  She covered her face so that he not recognize her. [Rashi knows this] because it is written later, “Because she had covered her face” — implying that this was already mentioned before. 
  At the opening of the eyes, at the crossroads... [It is so called] because two roads branch out, each in a different direction than the other, to here and to there, and one needs to open his eyes and think which road to take. פתח עינים means opening one’s eyes. 
  Our Sages explain it Midrashically: At the entrance of our father Avraham... I.e., at the tomb of our father Avraham. She prayed that a descendant of Avraham should come to her in order to have children by him. So say <i>Chazal</i> in Sotah 10a. 
  She desired to have children... [Rashi knows this] because afterwards she went back to her widow’s garb. If she did it to be promiscuous, she would not have gone back to her widow’s garb. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 15
  
  Because she was sitting at the crossroads. Rashi is answering the question: How is, “Because she had covered her face,” a reason for [Yehudah to think] that she was a harlot? On the contrary, it shows she is modest! Thus Rashi explains, “Because she was sitting at the crossroads.” Then Rashi says that he did not recognize her “because she had covered her face.” Had he recognized her he would not have “thought she was a harlot.” You might ask: How could Yehudah go to a harlot? The Patriarchs and their children kept the Torah, so how could he transgress, “There shall not be a harlot” (Devarim 23:18)? <i>Re’m</i> answers: Perhaps he performed <i>kiddushin</i> with her through money or a written contract, and the goat-kid [which he promised to send] was only to appease her [i.e., not a harlot’s fee]. An alternate answer: He had relations with her as an act of <i>kiddushin. </i>Although it says in Kiddushin 12b that it is impudent to perform <i>kiddushin </i>by having relations, this is only when there are witnesses. Privately it is permitted, and here there were no witnesses — only his [close] friend who was considered as himself. Or, it was not in his friend’s presence. Accordingly, the verse says הבה נא (v.16), which Rashi explains as, “Prepare yourself and your mind for this,” it means to prepare for <i>kiddushin </i>by having relations. An alternate answer: Yehudah held that, “There shall not be a harlot,” applies only between a Jew and a Jewess, but a non-Jewess is merely forbidden Rabbinically. 
  At her father-in-law’s house, she was a modest woman, therefore, he did not suspect her. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise he would have recognized her when they spoke and also during their having relations, since afterwards she must have uncovered her face. This is why Rashi brings the Midrash. (<i>Devek Tov</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  עזקתך ושושיפך, the ring that you use as a seal... Rashi is answering the question: Why does Onkelos translate חותמך as עזקתך, which means “your ring”? In the verse it is written חותם, which means “seal.” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “The ring that you use as a seal.” Also, why does Onkelos translate פתילך as שושיפך, which means “your cloak”? In the verse it is written פתילך, “your thread.” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “The cloak with which you cover yourself.” This is because פתיל is written regarding tzitzis (Bamidbar15:38), and about tzitzis it is written, “Your garment with which you cover yourself” (Devarim 22:12). So too here, [פתילך means,] “The cloak with which you cover yourself.” 
  Strong men, as he was; and righteous men, as he was. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ותהר לו? Scripture should have written ותהר ממנו. Just as it says צדקה ממני (v. 26), which Rashi explains as, “‘It is from me’ that she has become pregnant.” Perforce, לו means having similar traits. And we need not ask how Rashi knew they were strong <i>and</i> righteous, because the answer is that [both traits are equally implied. So] which one would you exclude?
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Let her keep what she has. Rashi is answering the question: He already gave her it. Why does it say, “Let her take it?” Thus Rashi explains, “Let her keep...” 
  The thing will become public and will result in disgrace. Rashi is saying that the disgrace is not due to leaving the security with her.
  For what else is there for me to do to be true to my word? Rashi is answering the question: How is, “Behold I sent her...” a reason for what preceded? Thus Rashi explains that Yehudah meant: If you say I must [search for her] since I promised her a goat-kid, [this is not so]. For what else is there for me to do? “Behold, I sent her this kid...” I.e., Rashi inserted the phrase, “For what else is there for me to do,” before, “Behold I sent her,” to explain the connection between, “Let her take it,” and, “Behold I sent her.” 
  
  Verse 24
  
  Most of the first and most of the last... Although the fetus is discernable only after three months, a third of the pregnancy, that is for [a full term, i.e.,] nine month pregnancy. But Tamar had a seven-month term. For it is written about her, “When the time came for her to give birth” (v. 27). It is not written, “When her days of pregnancy were <i>completed</i>,” as it does about Rivkah. So explains Rashi on 25:Because of this, the fetus was discernable before three months. 
  And the entire middle month. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the opposite is true: it was the entire first and second month, and part of the third. Or, it was part of the first month, and the entire second and third month. The answer is: If so, it would be two months and just ten days [when the child would be discernable]. One of the months would be only ten days, i.e., a third of a month. This is a minority of a month, and cannot be considered a month, whereas the verse says: “About three months later,” implying three whole months. <i>Re’m</i> answers: Perhaps a fetus is discernable after a third of the pregnancy only if it includes the majority of the first month, the whole second month, and the majority of the third month. Since the majority is considered like all, it is counted like three whole months — and the months themselves have an effect [on the fetus’ development]. 
  An adjective — pregnant... Rashi means as follows: Although הרה is sometimes a future tense verb, such as in, “Behold you will conceive (הרה) and give birth to a son” (16:11), here it cannot mean this. For how would they know that Tamar will conceive? Thus Rashi explains it as an adjective. 
  She was the daughter of Sheim who was a Kohein... Not literally a daughter, for Sheim had died when Yaakov was fifty, and now Yaakov was over one hundred and ten. Rather, she was from Sheim’s family.
  They, therefore, sentenced her to be burned. You might ask: Why was she liable for burning? She was neither married nor betrothed, and only then is a Kohein’s daughter burned. Although she needed <i>yibum, </i>this does not make her liable for death because [promiscuity in such a case] is merely a Biblical prohibition: “The wife of the deceased shall not marry out” (Devarim 25:5). The answer is: They sentenced her to death so as to cast fear on the people and save the generation from becoming immoral. And once she had been sentenced to death, it was by burning because we find elsewhere that the execution of a Kohein’s daughter was by burning. Also Rashi holds this view, as he explains, “They, therefore, sentenced her to be burned.” This is as <i>Re’m</i> explained. But <i>Maharshal</i> asks: Was she not unmarried [and not liable for death]? He answers: She [was liable because she] needed <i>yibum.</i> 
  
  Verse 25
  
  From here they concluded: Better for a person to be thrown into a fiery furnace... You might ask: How did <i>Chazal</i> know this? Perhaps Tamar did not inform [that it was Yehudah] because she was not yet thrown into the fire, neither was it burning. But had the fire been burning she would have informed. The answer is as Rabbeinu Tam explains in Tosafos, Bava Metzia 59a: It is written here היא מוצת, missing an א, which is similar to, “He has kindled (ויצת) a fire in Zion” (Eichah 4:11). This implies that the fire was burning and still she did not inform. This is why <i>Chazal</i> concluded as they did. 
  Please recognize your Creator and do not destroy... She did not know there were three lives. Rashi says this because in truth it was so, but she mentioned only two lives. <i>Maharshal, </i>however, explains that Rashi knew this because it is written הכר נא. Why is נא written in the middle [of her plea]? It should be at the beginning or the end. From this Rashi deduces that she first said: “הכר (recognize) that I conceived from you,” [i.e., there are two lives]. Then she added נא, as if to say, “I have another request: Do not destroy the additional life.” I.e., do not destroy three lives. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  In what she has said. Rashi is answering the question: צדקה ממני implies she was more righteous than him. But here, what does it matter whether she was more righteous? 
  She is righteous in what she has said. But she is not righteous in her act of illicit relations. The verse says, “He did not know that she was his daughter-in-law” (v. 16), implying that if he had known he would not have been with her. But she knew, so how did she permit herself to do this? She should not have relied on stretched explanations [that it was permitted due to <i>yibum</i>]. But she is righteous in what she said, for I do indeed recognize the signs as belonging to me. She assumedly conceived from me, since they said, “There was no harlot here.” Also the calculation of “about three months” is proof. Although she could have conceived from others, who might also have been with her, that is a mere possibility whereas the signs are definite. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Conformed with the law inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Sheilah. [Rashi knows it means this] because it says both כי and על כן, when one is sufficient. 
  Some say he did not continue whereas others say he did not cease. Some say Yehudah did not continue since his only reason for being with her would be to establish seed in the name of the deceased. As he had done this, he ceased from relations [although Halachically she was his wife]. And some say he did not cease since he saw she yearned to have children from him. Her intentions were pure, so he continued being with her. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  One extended his hand outside and after she tied... Rashi explains that it means “extended” because ויתן יד [would seem to] imply that the fetus intended to give her a hand. And Rashi says “one,” meaning that it was one of the two, because the verse does not state who put out his hand, nor does Scripture state המוציא or הנותן [as is usual when the subject is unidentified]. And Rashi adds, “After she tied the thread on it he withdrew it,” because כמשיב ידו [implies he put his hand back out, which] is understandable only if he had withdrawn it. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  Corresponding the four bans ... corresponding to the four things that he took... I.e., the four things Achan took, which were: a cloak from Shinar, two chunks of silver worth 200 shekels, making three, and a strand of gold, making four. <i>Re’m</i> objects: Sanhedrin 43b mentions a view that he violated three bans, and a view that it was five — four in Moshe’s time and one in Yehoshua’s. Either way, it was not four. <i>Re’m</i> answers: According to Bereishis Rabbah, [which Rashi is citing, this verse] deals only with the four bans of Moshe’s days. But this is incorrect because Bereishis Rabbah lists the four bans: those of Amalek, Sichon and Og, Yericho, and Midian. This is three in Moshe’s days and one in Yehoshua’s. There is a lengthy answer to this. But the Maharsha emends the text in Sanhedrin 43b to read: “Rabbi Yochanan said it was <i>four</i> bans...” [Accordingly, Rashi was following this view.] (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Because of the bright color of the scarlet thread. [Rashi knew this because this way Zorach] is like Peretz, who was named after what happened. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  [Scripture now] returns to the earlier narrative, but only interrupted it... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise [there is a question:] Is it not already written, “The Midianites sold him [in Egypt to Potiphar]” (37:36)? Perforce, Scripture “only interrupted it to relate...” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  Also, in order to relate the narrative of Potiphar’s wife to the narrative of Tamar... You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this before, at the beginning of the section (38:1)? There, Rashi asks why Scripture interrupted to tell the narrative of Yehudah, and Rashi explains only that “his brothers demoted him,” but he did not bring this alternate explanation. The answer is: Before, one could have objected: how does Rashi know that Tamar had pure motives? But now that Rashi proves that her motive were pure, from the verse, “She is righteous, it is from me,” he therefore brings the explanation here. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) Question: According to the first explanation, Scripture should have only interrupted [by telling the narrative of Yehudah] until, “Many days passed ... the wife of Yehudah died...” (38:12), where a different episode begins. Why did it not [return and] finish the narrative of Yoseif at that point? Rashi answers, “In order to connect the narrative of Potiphar’s wife to the narrative of Tamar.” But with this explanation only, [a question arises:] The narrative of Yehudah should begin with, “Many days passed ... the wife of Yehudah died...” Why begin with, “Yehudah descended from his brothers” (38:1)? [The answer is:] Perforce, to indicate that they demoted Yehudah. Accordingly, at the beginning of the section Rashi is explaining only why “Yehudah descended from his brothers” follows after Yoseif’s sale. Thus he wrote only the first explanation. But here Rashi is explaining the reason for the <i>entire</i> interruption, so he brings both explanations. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  A reference to his wife. You might ask: Perhaps it was actual bread? The answer is: Rashi deduced this from what Yoseif said (v. 9), “He has not withheld anything from me other than you,” implying that Potiphar placed everything except his wife in Yoseif’s hand. Thus, “bread” must refer to his wife. 
  Once he perceived himself as a ruler. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it mentioned here? [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: ויהי always refers to a new occurrence. But was not Yoseif well-built from birth, and assumedly good looking too? Rashi answers: “Once he perceived himself a ruler...” and this he did not do before. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  I will provoke the bear against you. Immediately: Rashi calls her a beast because it is written (37:33), “An evil beast has devoured him,” referring to Potiphar’s wife, as Rashi explained there. And he calls her a bear because a bear has no rest; it is always moving. So too was Potiphar’s wife — she had no rest because of her pursuit of Yoseif to have relations with him. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Even without intimacy. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it not written לשכב עמה, as it said before (v. 7), שכבה עמי? You might ask: If he would not lie next to her even without intimacy, why does it then say, “nor to be with her,” which Rashi explains as referring to the World to Come? For what would he be punished? [The answer is:] Perhaps the verse is saying he would not lie next to her even without intimacy because he feared his evil inclination might bring him to intimacy, and he would go to Gehinnom. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Rav and Shmuel: One says, literally, his work... <i>Tosafos</i> explain in Sotah 36b [that the second explanation is] because it says ויבא הביתה, which is the same word as ביאה (relations). The verse could have [omitted this phrase and] said: “It was on such a day, and no man of the household was there...” 
  But, his father’s image appeared to him... [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “No man <i>of the household</i> was there in the house,” implying another man was there. (<i>Tosafos ibid</i>, citing <i>R. Moshe Hadarshan</i>) Perforce it was Yaakov, as Rashi comments on 49:24. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  From the other side of the river. One who is a descendant of Eiver.  [Question:] On the verse, “He told Avram the Hebrew” (14:13), Rashi explained: “He came from the other side of the river.” Why did he not he also explain, “A descendant of Eiver”? The answer is: “The other side of the river” is a sufficient explanation for Avraham, who came from there himself. But for Avraham’s descendants it is not sufficient, as they did not come from there, so Rashi needed both explanations. And it is not sufficient to say only that they are descendants of Eiver, because why should they be called after Eiver, and not after Shem? (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  In order to mock me, the Hebrew slave that you brought to us. Rashi changes the order of the verse, because as written it implies that her husband brought the Hebrew slave in order to mock her, which is incorrect.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  As Onkelos translates it: It was done at his command. It means he had slaves under him, whom he told what to do — i.e., “It was done at his command.” It does not mean that he did what had to be done, for then he would be their servant. And that is not, “Granting him favor in the eyes of the prison chief.”
  
  Verse 23
  
  Because God was with him. [Rashi knows this] because the ב of באשר ה' אתו cannot follow its usual meaning, [“<i>when</i> Hashem was with him”]. For it says afterwards, “<i>Whatever</i> he did, Hashem made him succeed” — not sometimes yes and sometimes no. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  One, a fly was found in his cup... פיילי means cup in Aramaic. Then Rashi explains that in Greek, cup is פוטירין. 
  A pebble was found in the bread of the other. You might ask: Perhaps it was the opposite? The answer is: It must have happened this way, because the other way a question arises — why was this one hanged, and the other, not? It is understandable if the fly was the butler’s. He was not hanged because it was beyond his control; he could not prevent a fly from suddenly falling into the cup. The baker, however, whose bread had a pebble, was negligent. He should have cleaned out the oven thoroughly, so that no pebble remained.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  To be with them. I.e., the verse seems to imply that the chief of the slaughterers appointed Yoseif along with them, and they too had been appointed over something. Had Scripture previously written that the butler and baker received appointments, this would be understandable. But now that Scripture did not [write this], what is the meaning of, “With them?” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “To be with them.” 
  ימים refers to twelve months. Rashi deduces this from (Vayikra 25:29), ימים תהיה גאולתו, through a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> between ימים and ימים. We need not ask: Perhaps they were there for two days [because ימים literally means “days” and implies a minimum of two], and they dreamt on the second night? For [the answer is:] If so, why would Yoseif say (v. 13): “In <i>another</i> three days,” [if three days had not yet past]? He should have simply said, “After three days.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  The same as ויחלמו שניהם חלום. Meaning: each of the two had a dream. Not that each saw the dream of both of them, i.e., his dream and that of his fellow.
  The Midrashic explanation, however, is: Each of them dreamed his own dream and the interpretation of the other’s... <i>Chazal</i> interpreted the verse literally. But instead of saying that each dreamed the other’s dream, they said, “The <i>interpretation</i> of the other’s dream.” We need not ask: How do <i>Chazal</i> know this? Perhaps it means literally, that each one dreamed his own dream and the other’s dream. For the answer is: Right afterwards it is written איש חלומו בלילה אחד, [implying each had only his own dream,] whereas at first it said חלום שניהם, implying that each had two dreams. Since this is self-contradictory, it must mean his dream and the interpretation of the other’s. And when it is writtenאיש כפתרון חלומו, i.e., like the interpretation of his friend’s [dream, perforce] it means a dream consistent with the matter destined to befall them. It cannot mean as it sounds, that he saw also the interpretation [of his own dream]. For if so, what was there for Yoseif to interpret?
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  It seemed as if it budded... Rashi is explaining that the כ of כפורחת denotes “similar to.” It does not denote “when” (כאשר), for such a כ occurs only with a gerund (a type of noun), but not with a verb. But ויהי כמשיב ידו (38:29) [raises a question. Is it not a verb, and yet it has such a כ? The answer is: It] means, “it appeared as if he put back his hand.” He did it unintentionally. However since he put out his hand, the midwife tied on the scarlet thread, and then he immediately pulled it back, it seemed as if he had done so intentionally. Therefore Scripture describes it as such. Onkelos, who translates כפורחת as כד אפרחת, “when it budded,” is rendering a non-literal meaning. The proof is that he renders the present-tense verb פורחת as אפרחת, which is in the past tense. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  In my dream it seemed as if it budded. In other words, in my dream I saw it actually budding like a budding vine. [It looked like the real thing,] not like something that had been altered and is “similar to.” 
  And after it budded, the blossoms bloomed... I.e., he did not see it all happen simultaneously, as the verse seems to imply. [Rashi knows this] because Heaven does not show a person an elephant standing in a needle’s eye. [I.e., prophetic dreams are not absurd.] 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  They are a symbol to you of three days. I.e., they are not three days themselves, as the verse seems to imply.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  [כי means:] that if you will remember me after... In other words, Pharaoh will lift your head and you will be so important “that” if you mention me, you will be able to get me out. כי denotes “that” (אשר). This is because כי has four meanings, and one is אם, which is the same as אשר. Rashi adds, “<i>After</i> things become well for you,” because it is not befitting to mention Yoseif right when Pharaoh treats the butler well, but later, while the butler is standing and serving [before Pharaoh].
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Ginusia Day. This means “birthday” in Greek.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Afterwards. Because Yoseif depended on him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it written here that the butler failed to remember? If to tell us that he did not deal kindly with Yoseif, this is already written: “It was at the end of two full years... the chief butler spoke to Pharaoh...” (41: 1-9). Perforce, it tells us that Hashem caused the butler not to remember Yoseif for two years because Yoseif depended on him. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) In Shemos Rabboh ch. 7 it is explained that Yoseif deserved only ten years in prison, corresponding to his bad reports about his ten brothers. But since he said to the butler, “But <i>remember</i> me... and <i>mention</i> me,” two more years were added, because Yoseif mentioned זכירה twice. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Every form of the word קץ means “the end.” It is obvious that קץ means “end,” as Onkelos translates it. However, [Rashi is answering the] question: Why does Scripture write the word ימים? It would be understandable if קץ did not [always] mean “end,” but [also can mean] “some of,” as in מקצה אחיו, “From some of his brothers” (47:2). Accordingly, here it mentions ימים to indicate that it was two full years, not part of two years. But if מקץ always means “end,” why does Scripture write ימים? Rashi answers: We might think מקץ means “some of,” and it <i>always </i>means this, unless it is evident otherwise from the verse. That is why it is written here ימים — to show that it means “end,” and not “some of.” Consequently, קץ <i>always</i> means “end.” For it is evident here that קץ means “end,” and we make a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> between קץ [written here, and any other instance of] קץ. Thus Rashi says, “And [henceforth,] every form of the word קץ means ‘the end’.” So it seems to me, as opposed to <i>Re’m’s </i>explanation, that Rashi says every form of the word קץ means “the end” because Rashi wishes to distinguish קץ from קצה. This is because קצה sometimes means “end,” as in: “At the end (מקצה) of three years” (Devarim 14:28). And it sometimes means “side,” as in: “One cherub on this side (מקצה)” (Shemos 25:19). And it sometimes means “some of,” as in: “From some of (מקצה) his brothers” (47:2). Although [the word קץ] appeared several times previously in Scripture, [and Rashi did not comment there,] this is not problematic, as many similar cases exist [where Rashi does not explain a word the first time it appears]. <i>Re’m</i> writes: We need not object that it says, “At the קץ of seven years, you are to make <i>shemitah</i>” (Devarim 15:1), which apparently means at the beginning of <i>shemitah</i>, as it is written, “But in the seventh year you must let it rest” (Shemos 23:11). For [the answer is:] The verse in Devarim is speaking of releasing debts (השמטת כספים), and this is at the end of <i>shemitah</i>. 
  All other rivers are not referred to as יאורים except for the Nile... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written היאור, with a definite article? [The answer is:] Perforce it refers to the known יאור, mentioned earlier — the four נהרות written in Bereishis (2:11). Accordingly, why is it not written נהר here, like it does there? Surely [the answer is:] If it was written נהר here, we would not know which נהר, as four נהרות were mentioned earlier. Thus it says יאור, meaning the נהר that has יאורים. And all other נהרות are not called יאורים, only the Nile, as Rashi goes on to explain. The Nile is the Pishon River mentioned in Bereishis, as Rashi explains there. When Rashi says, “All other rivers,” he is referring to the other three נהרות written in Bereishis. 
  The entire country is made up of man-made canals, and the Nile overflows... Rashi is answering the question: Since this verse is referring to one of the rivers mentioned in Bereishis, why is it not mentioned by its name? [The answer is:] Since Egypt is made up of man-made יאורים, its river [came to be] called יאור. But all other rivers [of other countries] are not made up in this manner. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Symbol of the period of abundance... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yoseif not interpret the fact that the cows were “fine-looking”? In v. 26 it clearly says he interpreted “well-fleshed,” but his interpretation of “fine-looking” is nowhere mentioned. Rashi answers: Just as he interpreted that the seven good cows mean seven years of abundance, so too he interpreted that “fine-looking” symbolizes the years of abundance. For in a period of abundance, people look finely upon one another: they greet each other pleasantly and provide one another with whatever is lacking. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Meaning thin. Rashi is answering the question: How could an animal and its flesh be described as דק [literally: “fine”]? It should have said כיחוש בשר (“lean”). Thus Rashi explains: “<i>Tenves </i>in Old French.” Rashi is saying that in O.F., a lean animal is called <i>tenves, </i>even though <i>tenves </i>means דק. Thus in Hebrew, too, a lean animal is called דקות בשר. Rashi is explaining the word <i>tenves</i> when he says, “Meaning thin.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Symbolizing that all the joy of the abundant years will be forgotten. Rashi is answering the question: The cows’ eating can be understood in two ways. Either that the joy will be forgotten in the hunger years, or that there will be food to eat in the hunger years, which is a good sign. How do we know which it is? Thus Rashi explains: “Symbolizing that all the joy... will be forgotten.” This [i.e., Rashi’s] explanation is right, [despite Ramban’s objections] — for later on, we see clearly that Yoseif explained it so. <i>Maharshal</i> explains that Rashi [knows this because he] is answering the question: Why does it say the cows “ate”? It should say they “swallowed up” (ותבלענה), because the term “ate” is not normally used to describe one animal consuming another. Thus Rashi explains: “Symbolizing that all the joy... will be forgotten.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Tudel in O.F. Rashi is saying that in O.F., a grain stalk is called <i>tudel, </i>although this also means a wooden reed. And so too it is in Hebrew. 
  Seines in O.F. Rashi is answering the question: How could ears of grain be described as בריאות (literally: “healthy”)? This applies only to animals, as with the cows before. Rashi answers: In O.F., good ears of grain are called <i>seines, </i>which in Yiddish is <i>frisch</i>. Thus in Hebrew, too, בריאות can apply to both. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Hasledes in O.F. Rashi [is answering the question:] שידפון is a type of disease, affecting only people, not grain. [So why does it say שדופות]? He answers: In O.F., [afflicted grain] is called <i>hasledes, </i>even though this is a human disease. And so it is in Hebrew. Whereas Onkelos does not translate שדופות as שידפון, but as שקיפן, which means “beaten.” So explains <i>Re’m</i>. But <i>Maharshal</i> writes about this: To me it does not seem so, because in Devarim 28:22 Rashi clearly explains that שידפון is an epidemic affecting grain. It must be that שידפון and שדופות are different, for Rashi cites a different O.F. word here than he does there. And we cannot say that here Rashi is explaining [it in connection with] the wind, because Rashi there explains differently in connection with the wind. 
  The wind from the east which is called bise [in O.F.]. Rashi is answering the question: It is implied here that the east wind is bad, while in Yoma 21b it says that the east wind is the best of all winds and it is a sign of blessing for the world. Thus Rashi explains: “The wind from the east which is called <i>bise</i>.” Rashi is saying that the east has three kinds of winds, and the one called <i>bise </i>is bad. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  A whole dream was complete before him... I.e., the first time [he woke up] he decided to sleep more, perhaps he will dream more, as in fact happened. But the second awakening was at the end of his sleep, close to morning when he would not sleep more. Thus, the dream was complete and required interpreters. [Alternatively: Rashi knows it means this] because והנה [usually] indicates the timing, that it happened just now. But here we cannot say it means: “Behold, the dream was completed after he woke,” because the dream was completed even before he woke, when he saw the ears eating the other ones. [Alternatively,] it seems to me [that Rashi explains it so] because after the first dream Pharaoh may have thought it was completed, but it was not — for it says, “As for the dream being repeated twice to Pharaoh, it is because the thing stands ready...” (v. 32). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  It beat within him like a פעמון. I.e., ותפעם comes from פעמון. His spirit was beating like a clapper within a bell. 
  Bones in Aramaic. Rashi first explains that טימי is Aramaic because he seeks to explain חרטמי as two words: חר, from נחורים, and טומי, from טימי (bones). נחורים could be from נחירים (nostrils), because they would put the bone of a corpse into their nostrils, and it would speak. Or it could be from חום (heat), as in (Yechezkel 24:10), והעצמות יחרו (“And the bones will be burnt”). This is because they would put a bone under their armpit and warm it, and it would speak through sorcery.
  He found no relief in their interpretations... But when Yoseif told him the land will have a famine, he found relief, saying this is why Hashem showed it to him — so he could properly prepare the country lest they die in the famine. (<i>Maharshal</i>) [Alternatively,] he found relief because kings’ dreams are not private matters but matters affecting the whole kingdom, or the whole world, as with the dreams of Nevuchadnezzar. (<i>Akeidah</i>) 12
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   A fool, and is not fit for greatness. I.e., נער in gematria<i> </i>equals שוטה. 
  He does not even know our language. And surely not other languages. And it is written in the laws of Egypt that the ruler must know seventy languages; see Sotah 36b. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  And it is written in the laws of Egypt that a slave can never rule... [Rashi knows this] because the word “slave” is also superfluous. Once it was said that there was a Hebrew lad in the prison, why mention also that he was a slave? Surely, no Hebrew lad was there other than Yoseif. Perforce, the word “slave” is to be expounded.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  From the prison... Rashi explained this so we will not think that after the butler got out of prison, Yoseif was put into a בור (i.e., an actual pit). Thus Rashi explains that בור and prison mean the same. And we need not ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it was an actual pit? For [the answer is:] It is writtenוירצוה מן הבור . And ריצה (literally: “running”) is not the right term for [exiting] a pit. Rather the proper term is משיכה (pulling out), as it is written (37:28): וימשכו את יוסף מן הבור. 
  It was made as a sort of pit... Before it is written (39:20) that they put Yoseif in <i>prison</i>, whereas here it is written, “They hurried him out of the בור (literally: ‘pit’).” Therefore Rashi explains that the prison “was made as a sort of pit.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Even if it does not contain water it is called בור... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise his clothes would be wet. He obviously would have to change them regardless of respect to royalty. In which case, why does it need to say, “He changed his clothes”? Thus Rashi explains that בור means prison, so it did not contain water. And why did Yoseif change his clothes? Perforce, out of respect to royalty. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Out of respect to royalty. [Rashi knows this] because Yoseif would not have shaved out of celebration, for he did not yet know how he would be judged, as he had not yet come before Pharaoh. And who knows if he would be able to interpret [the dream]?
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  This wisdom is not mine, but God will answer... [Rashi knows this] because here it cannot mean as it did in (14:24), “<i>Except</i> (בלעדי) what the lads have eaten.” Here, how could it mean: “Except for Hashem”? It also cannot mean, “Rather, Hashem will respond,” because Yoseif indeed intended to interpret the dream for him. Perforce, בלעדי consists of two words: בלי (not), and עדי, which means “from me,” as Rashi explains. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Meaning lean, as in... I.e., דלות does not mean impoverished. 
  All terms of רקות that appear in Scripture [refer to] lacking of flesh. Meaning: the words אך and רק always come to exclude something. Here, too, רקות comes to exclude. What does it exclude? Flesh. It does not mean רֵק (empty), because that word is missing the middle letter of the root [and thus would not take a <i>dagesh </i>in the ק]. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Onkelos translates it נצן לקין... Question: Why does Rashi cite Onkelos, when he already cited a [differing] Aramaic translation, “dry as a stone”? [The answer is:] It seems Rashi is thereby answering a question. Pharaoh had said to Yoseif that the ears were צנומות, but Yoseif did not interpret this at all. He interpreted only “bad-looking” and “thin” (v. 27). Furthermore, in Pharaoh’s above-stated dream it does not even mention צנומות. We are forced to say that Pharaoh told him something he never dreamed because he wanted to find out whether Yoseif would interpret correctly. Pharaoh reasoned: if he grasps this, he then understands the [correct] interpretation of the dream. Yoseif grasped it and did not interpret צנומות at all. Perforce, this is the plain meaning of Scripture. Rashi questions this: how did Yoseif grasp it? Was he a prophet? [To answer this,] Rashi cites the first Aramaic translation of צנומות, “dry as a stone.” Yoseif reasoned that צנומות could not have been in the dream because if the curse was to the point of “dry as a stone,” the world could not survive. Yoseif assumed there must have been some moisture. But a question remains: How do we know that צנומות means “stone”? Perhaps it means נצן לקיין, [as Onkelos says]? Thus Rashi explains that also Onkelos’ translation conveys lack of moisture, since נצן means, “They had only the נץ... no seeds.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  The dream being repeated twice is because the thing... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yoseif interpret that this was one dream? Being that one [dream] was with cows and the other with ears, it surely must be two dreams! Therefore Rashi explains that it was [one dream but was] repeated [because of its imminence].
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  This is the interpretation of “But it could not be recognized...” You might ask: [Rashi says that ולא יודע השבע is the interpretation of the good cows being eaten up.] Why did Rashi not explain that ונשכח כל השבע is the interpretation of the good cows being eaten up? Rather, he says [on v. 30] that ונשכח כל השבע is the interpretation of the ears of corn being swallowed up. The answer is: ולא נודע כי באו אל קרבנה, said of the cows in v. 21, is from the root of הודעה, and so is ולא יודע השבע here. Therefore, Rashi connects them. However, ונשכח is not from הודעה, therefore Rashi connects it with the ears being swallowed up. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  Stands ready. I.e., the meaning here of נכון is not the same as in אמת נכון הדבר (Devarim 13:15), where it means “correct.” 
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  As Onkelos translates it: and prepare... I.e., וחמש does not mean taking a fifth, as Scripture mentions only gathering, which is the preparation. 
  
  Verse 35
  
  And is vocalized with a patach koton... A <i>patach koton </i>is [what we call] a <i>segol</i>, and a <i>kametz koton </i>is [what we call] a <i>tzeirei.</i> 
  
  Verse 36
  
  That is stored up as any other deposit that has been stored away... I.e., the food that they wish to save should be like any other deposit. In other words, not that it should be entrusted in the care of an individual, rather it should be stored like a deposit of silver and gold. 
  For maintaining the country. I.e., it is not for [maintaining] the soil but for [the survival of] the people.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  “Can we find another like this one”... I.e., the meaning of הנמצא here is not the same as in הנהיה כדבר הגדול הזה (Devarim 4:32), where it means, “Did such a great thing ever happen in the world?!” Otherwise, Onkelos would have translated it here as האשתכח כדין (Did something like this ever exist?!) Since he translates it הנשכח, it means: “If we would go and search, would we find?” Accordingly, the נ is of the active future tense, not of the passive past tense. Furthermore, if הנמצא meant: “Was there ever anyone in the world like this?!” then a question arises: For what purpose did Pharaoh say this? But if it means, “If we would go and search, would we find?” then it is understandable, for Yoseif said, “Pharaoh should seek a man of understanding and wisdom.” Pharaoh thus said to his servants, “If we would go and search, would we find one like him? We should therefore appoint Yoseif for this.” 
  If we would go and search for him, would we find another like him... Rashi cites Onkelos in order to say that הנמצא כזה means, “Would we <i>now</i> find one like him,” rather than, “Would one like him <i>ever have </i>been found.” The latter is not true since there was Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov. Thus it must mean “now,” and this is seen more clearly from Onkelos: if Onkelos meant, “<i>Ever have </i>been found,” he would have said אם אשתכח כדין (past tense). But in Scripture, הנמצא is conjugated in the same manner for both the past tense and the future tense. Onkelos deduced that it is not past tense because it is writtenהנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלקים בו, rather than הנמצא איש אשר רוח אלקים בו כזה. The verse placed כזה at the beginning in order to connect it with איש אשר רוח אלקים, conveying that no one has Hashem’s spirit like he does. All this shows that it means, “Would we <i>now</i> find one like him?” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 39
  
  To seek an understanding and wise man as you suggested... [Rashi knows this] because if Pharaoh intended to praise Yoseif, why did he do so in Yoseif’s presence, [which is not the way of a king]? Furthermore, why did he not praise him before, when he told him the dream [and Yoseif interpreted it? Rather, Pharaoh first spoke to his servants; see v. 38]. Perforce, Pharaoh is replying to Yoseif’s statement of, “Pharaoh should seek a man of understanding and wisdom,” and he is saying: Hashem’s spirit is in you, as you know about the famine. So too, you will know how to handle it, to gather the grain. 
  
  Verse 40
  
  Shall be fed... I.e., יתזן is Onkelos’ translation of ישק, and means “shall be fed.” Scripture itself does not write [the Hebrew equivalent of] יתזן because then we might say that Pharaoh appointed Yoseif only over matters pertaining to food. Thus it is written ישק, which means, “All my people’s needs...”
  
  Verse 41
  
  I have appointed you... Rashi is answering the question: If נתתי here has its literal meaning of “placing,” why is it written על ארץ מצרים? It should have written בארץ מצרים. Furthermore, Yoseif was already in Egypt. [So why would it say, “I have placed you in Egypt”?] 
  
  Verse 42
  
  Considered very prestigious in Egypt. The Egyptians worshiped the Nile, which is the Pishon River, so called because it raises linen (פשתן) — as Rashi explains on Bereishis 2:11. That is why linen garments were prestigious to them. But <i>Devek Tov</i> writes: A sage from Eretz Yisrael came and told me that [the שש mentioned here] does not mean linen. Rather, שש denotes a prestigious, many-colored garment of silk, worn on top of one’s clothes. It is not the שש mentioned in connection with the <i>Mishkan</i>. Rashi’s words lend themselves to his interpretation, because Rashi says דבר חשיבות הוא במצרים (lit. “It is a prestigious <i>item</i> in Egypt”). If Rashi meant it is linen he should have just said בגדי שש — חשיבות הוא במצרים. Furthermore, Rashi explains on Shemos 25:4 that שש means linen, whereas here he does not, and says only that it is a prestigious item.
  On the rows of stones in the Temple Court, refers to the floor. I.e., it says there [in Yoma 4:3] “on the רובד” referring to the floor. 
  
  Verse 43
  
  ...דין אבא למלכא This is the king’s colleague.
  How much longer will you continue to misinterpret Scripture... I.e., R. Yehudah divides אברך into two words, which is a stretched explanation. You might ask: Why was this objection not made before, on Onkelos’ translation, “This is the associate of the king?” There as well, אב means “associate” and רך means “king,” as Rashi explained. The answer is: There, no extra words needed to be inserted. But here, בחכמה must inserted after אב, and בשנים after רך, and that is a stretched explanation. 
  Because all would enter before him and leave only with his permission... I.e., אברך conveys that all who came to him would say, “I bend my knees to you.”
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  He is Potiphar and was called Poti Phera. Rashi deduced this from the fact that it is written, “Pharaoh gave Yoseif the name...and he gave him Osnas...” That is, Pharaoh gave Osnas to Yoseif. Now, what difference does it make that Pharaoh was the one who gave her to Yoseif? It must be that Poti Phera is Potiphar, and it makes a great difference, as follows: Pharaoh wanted to bestow greatness upon Yoseif and dress him royally. But he feared people would not allow Yoseif this greatness since he was a slave. Furthermore, the laws of Egypt stated that a slave may not rule nor wear prestigious garments. Thus Pharaoh [arranged that Potiphar] give Osnas to Yoseif as a wife. If a master gives his slave a wife, the slave is freed — and surely if he gives him his own daughter. From this we may conclude that Poti Phera is Potiphar. 
  As a result of becoming castrated... His castration may be learned from the term פרע (torn), but not from פוטיפר. So it seems to me. 
  Because he had lusted to sodomize Yoseif. You might ask: Earlier it is written, “Your slave did such things to me” (39:19), and Rashi explains there: “She told him this when they were intimate.” And this was well after he bought Yoseif. [Does this not imply that he was not castrated?] The answer is: He did not have actual relations, only an embracing and kissing. And this explains why Rashi used the phrase ענייני תשמיש כאלה (<i>matters</i> of intimacy such as these), i.e., but not actual relations. Another answer: The castration affected only his testicles and not his membrum, as the <i>Radak</i> explains. 
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  The word does not lose its meaning of doing, making. [Accordingly,] ותעש refers to הארץ, which made storehouses. And הארץ refers to the people of the land, as in: “When a land sins” (Yechezkel 14:12).
  
  Verse 48
  
  Because every area preserves its produce. I.e., the verse implies that Yoseif stored all the produce that grew in a town’s area into that specific town. Why? Rashi explains, “Because every area preserves it produce...” 
  And they put among the grain some of the earth from the place... This is an opinion [also from Bereishis Rabboh] which explains it differently: They brought all the produce to [the capital of] Egypt, where Yoseif was. When it is written אכל שדה העיר ... נתן בתוכה, it means they needed to mix into the produce some of the soil from where it grew, but afterwards they would bring it to Egypt [for storage]. 
  
  Verse 49
  
  Until that the counter gave up counting it. כי sometimes means אשר (that), as Rashi explains in many places. [Accordingly, the verse means:] Until that the counter gave up counting.
  Here כי means because. [Meaning:] חדל implies that the counter decided on his own to give up, [but could have continued]. Why did he not count more? “Because there were no numbers.” I.e., he knew he will surely run out of numbers because there was so much — thus he gave up from the beginning. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 50
  
  That a person may not have marital relations during years of famine. Although it is written (v. 54), “There was famine in all the lands, but in all the land of Egypt <i>there was bread</i>,” perforce it means there was famine in all the lands even in their storehouses. But in Egypt there was bread in the storehouses [of Yoseif]. Although Yitzchok had relations during a famine year (26:8), it was already explained [that in Gerar there was no famine]. <i>Re’m</i> asks: Did not Leivi have relations during famine years? Yocheved was born to him as they entered Egypt, as Rashi explains on 46:15, and there was famine then. The answer is: One who is childless may have relations even during years of famine.
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  Because Yoseif was telling them to be circumcised... Rashi deduced this because it is written אשר יאמר לכם תעשו. Why is it written אשר יאמר (“whatever he says”), rather than אשר יצוה )“whatever he commands”)? Perforce, אמירה implies circumcision, as David says (Tehillim 119:162): “I rejoice over Your word (אמרתך),” [referring to circumcision]. The commentators discussed this at length; see there.
  
  Verse 56
  
  Who are referred to as פני הארץ? The wealthy people. But the poor people lower their faces to the ground and do not lift their faces.
  Because we find it also in regard to wine and milk: “And go buy...” This is what Rashi means. We should not ask: Although שבר means selling, it also means grain. And since it is written שבר here, perhaps pertaining only to grain can שבר be used to mean selling, because the meaning of the word שבר applies [only] to grain? But regarding wine and other liquids, שבר cannot be used since its meaning of “grain” is not applicable to them. Rashi answers: [This is not so,] “because we find it also in regard to wine...”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Why do you show yourselves... as though you are satiated?” Meaning: If you show yourselves to them as being satiated and having grain, they will come and ask us for food, since they are our relatives. Therefore, go and buy food so they will think we have no food. But in fact they did have food at the time. Accordingly, תתראו means satiation.
  Similar to: ומרוה גם הוא יורא. The א of תתראו replaces the ו of the root ר–ו–ה. There are many similar examples. The verse means: He who satisfies others with his learning in this world will himself be satisfied in the World to Come. You might ask: How is this proof for the last explanation, that תתראו is a term for leanness? On the contrary, it is a proof that it means satiation! The answer is: Rashi is bringing a proof for both explanations. For the first explanation, the plain meaning is a valid proof. And for the last explanation too it is a proof: תתראו is like תתרוו, but it means “not satiated.” This is similar to Rashi’s explanation of הולך ערירי (15:2) as “childless,” although ער means an heir, i.e., one who has sons. And it is also similar to what is written ודשנו את המזבח (Bamidbar 4:13), where Rashi explains: “They shall <i>take away</i> the ashes from the Altar,” although דשן means ashes. The same is true here. It is as if Scripture had written תתרוו since an א can be replaced by a ו, because the letters א–ה–ו–י are interchangeable. Thus מרוה, too, could mean “satiation,” yet will fit exactly with תתראו. Accordingly, the meaning of ומרוה גם הוא יורא is: He who is not satiated in this world will be satiated in the World to Come. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  This alludes to the 210 years... The correct text of Rashi omits, “He did not say לכו but rather רדו.” This is because no teaching can be derived from רדו. Scripture needs to write רדו (go down) — for Eretz Yisrael is higher than the other lands, so רדו is the right term for going from Eretz Yisrael to Egypt, as <i>Re’m</i> writes. And so the term ירידה is written in the entire section<i>. </i> Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture need to write, “Go down <i>there</i>”? It is written right afterward, “And buy for us from there.” Thus it should just say, “Go down and buy for us from there.” Perforce, it is written רדו שמה (Go down there) to allude that they will be there (שמה) for 210 (רד''ו) years. But without the word “there,” we would be unable to expound anything. Alternatively, we could say that the correct text of Rashi includes, “He did not say לכו but rather רדו,” and Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written רדו, which connotes downfall? It should use the favorable term of לכו (go). Despite Eretz Yisrael being higher than the other lands, it should not use a term which connotes downfall. Perforce, “This alludes to the 210 years...”
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  He acted as a נכרי to them. I.e., ויתנכר means he acted like a stranger (נכרי).
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Onkelos translates it: בדקא דארעא as in  בדק הבית... Meaning: breach in the [wall of the] town.
  
  Verse 10
  
  Do not say this (לא תאמר כן)... Rashi added in the wordsתאמר כן  (say this) because Yoseif had declared them as spies, so the proper word [to deny this] would be אַל. So we see with Channah (Shmuel I, 1:16). Eli thought she was a drunk, and she replied [in denial]: אַל תתן אמתך לפני בת בליעל. Whereas לא [when standing alone] is the proper reply to a question or a request. 
  Rather, “Your servants have come to buy food.” This statement is not a proof [that they are not spies, which we see] because Yoseif replied, “No, rather, you have come to spy the land.” This is what the verse means: Do not say this. Rather, [the point is that] your servants have come to buy food. It is like saying אבל עבדיך. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Why did you not all enter through one gate? Yoseif knew his brothers would come to buy food, and he told the guards of the gates to write the name and father’s name of whoever came to the city, and show it to him. Ten guards came and he found here, “Reuven son of Yaakov,” and there, “Shimon ben Yaakov,” and so in every record book. Thus he knew they entered through ten gates. You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this before, on: “You have come to see where the land is exposed” (v. 9)? The answer is: The proof for it is here, because it is written in the next verse, “Your servants are twelve brothers... and one is no more.” How did this refute his assertion that they were spies? Perforce, Yoseif had said, “[You are spies,] for you entered through ten different gates of the city,” to which they replied, “No, rather we are all the sons of one man... and one is no more.” And it was because of the one who is no more that we scattered throughout the city in order to search for him, [as Rashi explains on v. 9]. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  The statement that I made, that you are spies... Rashi is answering the question: Does the verse not imply that the brothers, too, said they were spies? For we find Yoseif responding to them, “That is just what I said... you are spies.” Yet this cannot be true, for they said, “Your servants have never been spies.” Rashi answers: The word “that” (הוא) belongs at the end of the sentence. [Accordingly,] the verse means: “What I said to you, saying you are spies, <i>that</i> is the truth.” Some ask: What was it that led Yoseif to accuse them of being spies, causing him to say, “That is just what I said... you are spies”? Another question: How would bringing Binyamin verify that they were not spies? The answer is: First he said to them, “You are spies, for you entered through ten different gates of the city,” as Rashi explained. They replied, “We are all the sons of one man, and a man does not send all his sons together to spy, lest they be caught and all killed.” He said to them, “According to this, you surely are spies. Would a man send all his sons [to buy food] without leaving one or two to serve him? Perforce, your father sent [some of] you to spy the land, but since [each of] you was afraid to be caught and did not want to [be the one to] take the chance, your father was obliged to send all of you. Furthermore, he did this so that you could take counsel from ten, because “Salvation results from much counsel” (Mishlei 11:14). To this they replied, “Your servants are twelve brothers, and behold, the youngest one stayed with our father to serve him, while the ten of us went to search for our lost brother. None would do this as faithfully as his own brothers. We risked our lives to bring him back to his father, and entered through ten gates.” Yoseif replied, “That is just what I said to you. You are spies. You claim your brother is missing for many years, but you did not search for him until now! Surely you are lying, and you came to spy. And it is also a lie that you left one brother with your father to serve him. Therefore, you shall be tested in this manner. If your brother comes with you, it is questionable whether you are spies. But if he does not come, you definitely are spies, for the reasons I stated.” This answers all the questions. In the name of <i>Maharshal</i> I found somewhat similar to this.
  
  Verse 15
  
  If Pharaoh lives. If understood literally, [חי פרעה means “Pharaoh’s life,” then the verse is not understandable. Thus Rashi added the word “if” (אם) so that it means, “If Pharaoh lives you shall not leave from here.” Accordingly, אם conveys a negative. It is like אם לדוד אכזב (Tehillim 89:36), which means, “I will <i>not</i> lie to David.” From our verse it follows that if you do leave, Pharaoh will not live. Yet, they left [with Yoseif’s permission], proving that “Whenever he swore falsely [he would swear by Pharaoh’s life].” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Whether there is truth with you. Rashi is answering the question: האמת אתכם seems to show that Yoseif admitted that the truth was with them. But does this not contradict, “Your words will be tested,” which shows that he was in doubt about them? Thus Rashi said that the ה is in question form, conveying: “Is it so?” 
  If you do not bring him, then by Pharaoh’s life, you are spies. [Rashi knows this] because it cannot mean that “If you are not <i>tested</i>, then by Pharaoh’s life, you are spies.” For even if they are not tested, they are not necessarily spies. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Prison. I.e., משמר does not mean that he merely placed guards (שומרים) over them, for in v. 19 it is written יֵאָסֵר בבית משמרכם (<i>imprisoned</i> in your place of משמר). Rashi did not explain on 41:10 that משמר means prison because there it is clearly written in 40:3 that it was a בית הסוהר (jail). 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  In which you are now imprisoned. [Rashi explains this] so we will not think that משמרכם (<i>your </i>place of guarding) means that it was made especially for them.
  That you bought for the hunger of the people of your household. [Here,] שבר denotes buying, not selling. And since hunger is not applicable to their houses, Rashi added “<i>the people </i>of your houses.” 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Will be shown to be true... as in: אמן אמן... Rashi is saying that ויאמנו does not mean “faithful” (אמונה). It means “true,” as in: “And the woman shall say אמן... (Bamidbar 5:22). For the <i>kohein </i>says [to the <i>sotah</i>], “Adonoy shall make you a curse and an oath...” and then it is written, “And the woman shall say אמן.” There, אמן cannot mean “faithful.” It can mean only it will be “true” that her thigh will collapse, etc.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  When they spoke... the interpreter was between them. I.e., whenever they spoke with Yoseif previously, the interpreter was among them. But now the interpreter was not there, and they thought Yoseif did not understand Hebrew. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  Because he heard that they had regrets. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he cry? He should have been angry with them, as he heard that they themselves admitted that they did wrong. Therefore Rashi explains that he cried because he heard that they had regrets. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  The one that threw him into the pit, he was the one who said to Leivi... Rashi deduced this because it is written [prior to throwing him into the pit]: “A man said to his <i>brother</i>, ‘Here comes the dreamer...’” (37:19). And it is written in 49:5, “Shimon and Leivi are <i>brothers</i>.” (<i>Re’m</i>) [You might object: Did Shimon alone throw him in?] Is it not written (37:24), “<i>They</i> took him (ויקחהו) and threw him into the pit,” in the plural form? The answer is: ויקחהו is written with the middle ו missing, so we [could] read it ויקחֵהו, in the singular form. 
  He bound him only while he was seen by them... Otherwise, why does it say, “Before their eyes?” 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  This was Leivi because he was left alone... [Rashi knows it was Leivi] because otherwise, why does it say, “<i>The</i> one”?
  At the place they stayed overnight. [Rashi is saying:] Do not think that since it is written בַמלון [rather than בְמלון] it means the place set for all wayfarers to stay. For if so Scripture should have written, “They came <i>to</i> the מלון,” and only afterward say, “The one opened his sack...at the מלון.” 
  It is the sack. Rashi says, “It is the sack,” rather than simply saying, “Sack,” because he is answering the question: At the beginning of the verse it is written, “One of them opened his <i>sack</i>.” And afterwards it is written, “For behold it was in the opening of his <i>bag</i>.” Does this not imply it was not the [abovementioned] sack? Thus Rashi explains, “It is the sack.” In other words, the bag mentioned here is the same sack mentioned before. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  To cause us to be falsely accused... Accordingly, “What is this?” means: “What evil is this?” It does not mean, “What good [is this, that our money was returned]?” Otherwise, why does it say, “And they trembled”?
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  You will travel around. You might ask: Where do you find that Yoseif said this to them? The answer is: Since Yoseif accused them of being spies, he did not let them roam about the city in order to prevent them from spying. But if they bring Binyamin and will thus no longer be suspect of spying, they will be allowed to roam about the city. This relates back to (v. 20), “So that your words will be verified.” The meaning of תסחרו is “to roam about,” and not, “to do business (סחורה).” Otherwise, how is it connected to the narrative? 
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  This teaches that he suspected them of killing him or selling him as they did to Yoseif. You might ask: It is implied that now, when they asked for Binyamin to go down with them, that Yaakov realized they had sold Yoseif, [or killed him]. If so, why did he later say to them (44:27-28): “You know that... surely he is torn to pieces,” [i.e., by a wild beast]? (<i>Re’m</i>) This is not a question because nowhere do we find Yaakov saying, “Surely he is torn to pieces,” to his sons. It was only Yehudah who said this to Yoseif, in his father’s name. Yehudah might have fabricated it to evoke Yoseif’s mercy, just as Yehudah also said, “His brother is dead” (v. 20), on which Rashi explains that fear brought Yehudah to utter an untruth. The proof [that Yehudah fabricated it] is that Yaakov said here in v. 38, “My son will not go down with you; for his brother is <i>dead</i>.” He did not say, “Torn to pieces.” (<i>Tzeidah Laderech</i>)
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  He did not accept Reuvein’s offer... [How does Rashi know this? The answer is:] It was not because misfortune might befall Binyamin that Yaakov prevented him from going with them, although the verse states as much. Because if so, why did Yaakov not say he feared misfortune might occur on the way, when Yehudah offered (43:9), “I will be security for him”? Perforce, the argument of misfortune was merely an excuse, as Yaakov did not want to shame Reuvein by rejecting his offer. The reason he rejected Reuvein’s offer was he feared the master of the land would imprison Binyamin, as he did to Shimon, and no one could stop it. But when Yehudah assumed responsibility when he offered to take Binyamin, Yaakov allowed it because he knew that if Yehudah was involved, he would utterly dedicate himself to rescue Binyamin.2
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   Yehudah had told them, “Wait...” Otherwise, why did only Yehudah reply to, “Go back and buy a little food,” when this was said to them all? Perforce, [it is as Rashi explained]. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  “You will not see me without your brother with you.” Rashi is answering the question: In all of Scripture, בלתי means “rather.” So why is it not written בלתי כאשר אחיכם אתכם (rather, you will see me <i>when</i> your brother is with you)? Therefore Rashi says that here, בלתי means “without.” (<i>Re’m</i>) [Rashi is saying] that we should not think it means, “You will not see me; rather, your brother alone will see me.” Thus he explains that it means: “You will not see me without your brother with you.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Explained the thing so that it fits, but was not meticulous to translate it literally. I.e., Onkelos translates בלתי as “rather,” and he adds כד, which means “that.” This is non-literal, because [if Onkelos is translating literally,] the word כד is added to the verse — and that is a forced explanation. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Even the type of wood of our childhood cradles he revealed to us. I.e., even the small children lying in a cradle. [Rashi knows this] because it is written מולדתנו, which alludes to the cradles in which the children (ילדים) lie. 
  That we have a father and a brother. [Rashi inserts these words into the verse] because על פי הדברים האלה means, “According to his questions.” It follows that ונגד לו means, “We told him <i>such and such</i>, according to his questions.” However, if the verse meant, “We told him the questions he asked, ‘Do you have a father and a brother?’” then it should simply say ונגד לו את הדברים האלה. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  He had a spark of Divine prophecy... Since Yehudah said, “And not die,” obviously he means they will live. So why did he say, “Let us live”? Perforce, [it is as Rashi explained]. 
  Whereas, we will certainly die of hunger if we do not go. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yehudah reply, “Let us... not die”? That is why Yaakov is sending them — to buy grain! Thus Rashi explains that “Let us... not die” conveys: “Concerning Binyamin, it is doubtful ... <i>we will certainly die</i> of hunger...” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  You would not have had to suffer all these days. Otherwise, what difference does it make that they could have returned twice? Perforce, it means we would have returned with Shimon and you would have been spared all your suffering until now.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Twice as much as the first time. I.e., it does not mean a second sum of money, besides what was returned, [and equal to it. For if so, it should first say, “The money that was returned,”] and then say, “Double the money.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Now you are lacking nothing except prayer... I.e., Yaakov said to them: If on his own he grows angry and harasses you, it is a natural occurrence. Appease him with these fruits which are the best of the land. And if this does not appease him, it is surely caused by Hashem. Then, prayer alone is lacking — and “I, hereby, pray for you...” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Until your return, I will possibly be bereft of children. [This is how Rashi knew that] it does not mean, “Now I am bereft of children”: because if so, why did he say, “May the Almighty, Shaddai, grant you compassion...”?
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  טבוח is not an imperative for then it should have said וטבח. And then it would be like (Shemos 4:4): שלח ידך (Stretch out your hand), and (Shemos 9:19): שלח העז (Now send word and gather), which are imperatives. 
  Which, in Aramaic, means the first meal... I.e., in the morning. Onkelos does not explain צהרים here as he does elsewhere because people usually eat at the fourth hour, [the middle of the morning]. Even Torah scholars, [who wait the longest,] usually eat at the beginning of the sixth hour, [an hour before noon] — as it says in Shabbos 10a. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  According to Onkelos who translates as ולאסתקפא עלנא... I.e., this translation is for ולהתנפל. 
  ולהתגולל, which he translates as לאתרברבא... The word לאתרברבא denotes “lordship.” You might ask: Is this translation not contrary to the [simple] meaning of להתגולל? And why does he translate [להתנפל] as “to libel,” which is not in accordance with the plain meaning of the verse? The answer is: Onkelos started by explaining להתגולל as “lordship,” based on the verse גלת הזהב. As a result, להתנפל is understandable only if we explain it as “to libel.” Had להתגולל meant “to turn things against,” following its plain meaning, then להתנפל could mean “to come down upon.” But since להתגולל means “lordship,” להתנפל must mean “libel.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  A “come down” for us... Rashi deduces this from the repetitious ירד ירדנו and not because it is written “coming down” instead of “going,” as he explained on רדו שמה (42:2), see there. Although [the repetition could be explained simply because] the Torah speaks as people do, however we expound the verse when we have the opportunity to do so. (<i>Re’m</i>)
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Prostration upon the ground. [Rashi knows this] because it is written in 42:6, “And they prostrated themselves (וישתחוו) to him with their faces to the ground.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  גביע is a tall goblet... Since it is written גביע twice, Rashi deduced that it means a <i>tall</i> cup. We need not ask: Why was Yoseif not concerned they would [later] claim the goblet was theirs? Because [the answer is:] It was for divination, so surely it was [not theirs but] Yoseif’s. For it says, “There is no divination amongst Yaakov” (Bamidbar 23:23). (<i>author’s commentary</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  May God spare us from doing such a thing... [Implying,] since we have not done it. <i>Re’m</i> asks: On חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה (18:25), Onkelos translates חלילה as קושטא (truth). [Why does he translate it here differently?] <i>Re’m</i> answers: [There, it refers to Hashem. And] being “spared” is not applicable to Hashem, since He is not subject to the mercy of others.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  This, too, would be only just. Truly it should be as you say... Rashi means as follows: “Your words are now also correct,” does not relate back to [their statement of,] “He among your servants with whom it is found, <i>he</i> shall die.” This is because, “When there are ten persons and a stolen item is found in the possession of one of them,” they all deserve <i>equal</i> punishment [by the king’s law], whatever the punishment may be. That is why Rashi says, “You are <i>all</i> responsible.” Although they had said, “He shall die,” in their bitterness they exaggerated. [Rashi elaborated because] we might think that, “He... shall die,” is what is intended by, “Your words are now also correct.” But this is not so, for [in v. 16, when] the brothers [speak to Yoseif himself, they] do not say this, [that he shall die. Perforce, it was an exaggeration]. Rashi added, “Not according to the strict letter of the law; only he with whom it was found shall be my slave,” because it was not strictly according to the law [to punish only one of them]. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Through knowledge, reason ... that you stole the goblet. I.e., although you stole the goblet I divine with, so how could I have known that you stole it? Common sense should have told you that, “A man like me...”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  May my words penetrate your ears. [How does Rashi know it does not mean that Yehudah literally requested to whisper in Yoseif’s ear? The answer is:] They spoke to Yoseif only through an interpreter, as they did not know he understood Hebrew. So how could Yehudah speak directly to Yoseif? Another answer: It is not a king’s honor for a lowly person to whisper in his ear. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  From this you may infer that he spoke harshly to him. I.e., not gently and politely as one usually speaks to a king. Otherwise, why should Yoseif grow angry? 
  You are as esteemed in my eyes as a king... From this it follows that “For you are equal to Pharaoh” explains why Yehudah said to him, “Please my master,” by which Yehudah pleaded and supplicated to him, although Yoseif was not a king. Thus Yehudah said [in explanation]: “For you are equal to Pharaoh,” i.e., “You are as esteemed in my eyes as a king.” However, “For you are equal to Pharaoh” does not explain Yehudah’s statement of, “And do not be angry,” which he had previously made. On the contrary, since Yoseif was as esteemed as a king, this is a reason for Yehudah <i>not</i> to speak harshly to him, [so Yoseif’s anger would be justified]. 
  Its Midrashic explanation is: “Ultimately you will be stricken...” [Although the simple meaning is, “You are as esteemed in my eyes as a king”], the Midrash preferred not to say that Yehudah was speaking gently, rather that he was speaking harshly. Thus it explains, “Ultimately you will be stricken...” But there is a question on the Midrash: Why did it not say, “For you <i>will</i> be like Pharaoh”? Thus Rashi offers another explanation: “Just as Pharaoh issues decrees...” I.e., right now you are like Pharaoh. But there is a question regarding this explanation: Why did it not say אתה כפרעה? Thus, both explanations are needed. And there is a question regarding all the [above] explanations: Why did it not say כפרעה כמוך, since Yoseif was being compared to Pharaoh? Thus Rashi offers another explanation: “If you will provoke me...” Now, Pharaoh is compared to Yoseif as regards being killed. But this explanation is implausible on its own because how could Yehudah have said, “Do not be angry,” when he was threatening to kill him? That is why the above explanations are also needed. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  As the Pharaoh was stricken... From this it follows that “For you are equal to Pharaoh” is connected to, “Let your servant speak a word in my master’s ears.” And what is the [harsh] word that I will speak to you? “For you are equal to Pharaoh,” meaning that “ultimately you will be stricken...” 
  Just as Pharaoh issues decrees without carrying them out... Meaning: Pharaoh wrote in his register that a slave may not rule nor may he wear silk garments, yet he did not carry it out because he made you a ruler though you were a slave. And “he makes promises without fulfilling them,” i.e., if he did not carry out his decree where there is no monetary loss, surely he will not carry out a promise where there is monetary loss. You, too, do the same. You promise and do not fulfill, for is this [the meaning of, “Set your eyes on him?”] “You, too, do the same” does not refer to issuing decrees without carrying them out, for nowhere do we see Yoseif issuing a decree and not carry it out. And nowhere do we see Pharaoh making a promise and not keep it. You might ask: What did Yehudah have against Pharaoh, that he so denigrated the king? The answer is: Yehudah was saying to Yoseif, “On what do you rely? Do you place your trust in Pharaoh [to protect you from our retribution]? Pharaoh himself issues decrees but does not carry them out, as he wrote in Egypt’s laws that a slave may not be a ruler yet he did not carry it out.” (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  If you will provoke me I will kill you... From this it follows that “For you are equal to Pharaoh” is connected to, “Do not be angry with your servant,” for if you get angry, I will kill you and your master. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  From the start you encountered us with subterfuge. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yehudah tell Yoseif what Yoseif had spoken to him? Did Yoseif not know what he said? Rashi answers: He repeated it in order to say, “From the start you encountered us with subterfuge.” 
  Why did you need to ask all these question? Were we seeking your daughter... [Rashi knows this] because only concerning marriage do people ask about sons and daughters and fathers and mothers. You might ask: Why does Rashi say “your daughter” pertaining to Yoseif, and “our sister” pertaining to his brothers, and not the opposite, since the brothers were older than Yoseif? The answer is: Since Yoseif was esteemed in their eyes as a king, they said, “Were we seeking your daughter.” For a son-in-law usually honors his father-in-law. Similarly with, “Were you seeking our sister,” i.e., we would need to treat you with honor so that it will be well with our sister. But the opposite would be a disgrace to Yoseif as a king, for Yoseif would need to honor them. 
  Nevertheless, “We said to my master” — we withheld nothing from you. Rashi explains this so we will not ask: If Yehudah knew that Yoseif was acting with subterfuge, why did he answer him, “We have an old father...”? Rashi answers: Yehudah was saying, “Nevertheless ... [we acted respectfully and withheld nothing from you].”
  
  Verse 20
  
  He thought, “If I tell him that he is alive, he will say, ‘Bring him to me.’” You might ask: On the contrary, was Yehudah not contradicting himself? When they had come previously to Yoseif, they said he was still alive but had been sold, as it says, “And one is no more” (42:13). The answer is: The first time they came, they said, “And one is no more.” But the second time they came, they were saying that he had died, and this verse pertains to [what they were saying] the second time. Although it is not expressly written that Yoseif asked [now for details] about their lost brother, we can still say that he asked, as we anyway have to say [something similar to] this. It is written here that Yoseif had said to them, “Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes on him.” But we do not find it written previously that Yoseif had said this to them. Perforce, he must have said it to them although it is not written previously. And the same is true here: the second time they came, when he asked about their father, he inquired also about their lost brother — and they replied that he had died. [They so replied] out of fear. They saw he had told them to bring Binyomin, and perhaps he would tell them to search for the lost brother and bring him. So they replied that after having searched for him, they received word that he had died. 
  From that mother he has no other brother. I.e., לאמו means “of his mother,” [not “to his mother”]. This is because “to his mother” can be said only if the mother is alive. But after her death, one says that he remains “of his mother.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  He may die en route for his mother, too, died while en route. Question: If it is [as Rashi explains,] why did Yehudah say the danger depended on leaving his father? [According to Rashi,] even if his father would come with him, he should not go, due to the hardships of traveling — as Rochel [his mother] had died in Yaakov’s presence. A further question: Why did Yehudah mention [the factor of] leaving his father, while Yaakov had said (42:4), “Misfortune might befall him” due to the hardships of traveling and the weakness it causes; [see Rashi there]? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  As long as he is beside me I find comfort through him. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written here that on account of Binyomin [Yaakov said], “You will bring my white head down to the grave in evil,” whereas in 37:35 it is written [that Yaakov said] a similar phrase on account of Yoseif? It is written there, “I will go down to the grave mourning for my son [Yoseif].” Rashi answers: Because of Yoseif, they indeed had already brought Yaakov down to the grave in mourning. But now, “As long [as Binyomin is beside me I find comfort through him].” Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why would Yaakov be more sorrowful for Binyomin than for Rochel, Yoseif or Shimon? 
  
  Of his mother and his brother. You might ask: How does Rashi know that it refers also to Rochel, when she is not mentioned in the verses? The answer is: It is written (v. 27), “Two sons were born to me by my wife [Rochel].” This conveys, “Two sons were born to me from her, and she is my wife” — i.e., she especially is my wife, [more than Leah]. This is because Yaakov lived mainly with Rochel. This verse implies that he mourned for Rochel but was comforted through Yoseif. And when Yoseif died, leaving Binyomin, he was comforted through him for both. “And if he dies, it will seem to me as if all three died the same day.” But it seems to me that [the answer is:] It is written here, “You will bring my white head down to the grave in <i>evil</i>,” whereas in 42:38 it [merely] is written, “You will bring my white head down to the grave in <i>sorrow</i>.” Accordingly, Yaakov was saying: until now I found comfort for the loss of his mother. But now I will no longer be comforted for her, thus I will go down in <i>evil</i> to the grave. This is because <i>Chazal</i> say (Yevamos 62b): “He who is without a wife is without good.” Consequently, he is with evil. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  By accepting to be outcast in both worlds. You might ask: Rashi said before (43:9) that “I will have sinned to you for all time” meaning in the World to Come. Why does he say here that it means, “In both worlds”? It seems [the answer is:] Here Yehudah is telling [Yoseif] what he said to his father, so it should say מעם אבי לאמר אם לא אביאנו אליך וחטאתי לך כל הימים. [Why does it say וחטאתי לאבי כל הימים?] Perforce, וחטאתי לאבי means in this world, while my father is alive. And [כל הימים means] also in the world that is completely יום, i.e., the World to Come. We need not ask: Why did Yehudah, in order to explain himself, find it necessary to say that he was liable of being an outcast in both worlds, [whereas to Yaakov he spoke only of being an outcast of the World to Come]? For the answer is: He thought Yoseif might not believe in the punishment meted out in the World to Come, so he mentioned also the punishment of this world. But Yaakov believed in the punishment meted out in the World to Come. 
  
  Verse 33
  
  I am superior to him for all purposes — in strength... Question: Strength is used for either war or service, and both are mentioned. So why does Rashi need to say “strength”? The answer is: War and service are the explanation of “strength.” In other words, “For what am I strong? For war and service!” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  He could not bear that the Egyptians standing by him... The verse means that Yoseif could not bear his brothers’ humiliation in front of all the people, so he said the people must leave. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did he have them leave? 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Here, the reference is not to a literal house... Otherwise, it would not be vocalized וַיִשְמַע, but rather וַיִשָמַע, [so it would mean, “It was heard in the house of Pharaoh”].<i> </i>(<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  And showed them that he was circumcised. You might ask: How does Rashi know that he said “Come near to me” because he wanted to show them the circumcision? Perhaps he saw them moving back, so he said, “Come near.” The answer is: Rashi infers this because it is written גשו אלי rather than קרבו אלי, and גשו means coming close. Why did they have to come so near to him? Perforce, because he showed them the circumcision. We need not ask: How does Rashi know that he saw them recoiling backwards? Perhaps he said “come close” only to show them the circumcision. For [the answer is:] If so, why did he say, “Please?” It is understandable if he saw them recoiling backwards, and he said “please” in order to speak to them tenderly so they would not feel ashamed. But if they stayed in place, why did he say “please” to them, using an expression of pleading?
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  From the same root as מוריש ומעשיר. But it is not from the root of destruction and expulsion, as in אכנו בדבר ואורישנו (Bamidbar 14:12). That cannot be the meaning, as Yoseif had [enough] to feed all the people during the seven years of famine. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  I have no animosity toward my brother Binyomin... Question: How does this connect to, “‘That I speak to you’ in the Holy Language”? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  For the two Temples which were destined to be... [According to <i>Re’m, </i>Rashi knows that it alludes to <i>two</i>] because it is written צוארֵי (plural) rather than צואריו. And [Rashi knows that it alludes to the <i>Temple</i> because] it says in Shir Hashirim (7:5), “Your neck (צוארך) is like an ivory tower.” Just as there, צוארך refers to the Temple, so too here, צוארי refers to the Temple. 
  For the Tabernacle of Shiloh... You might ask: Perhaps this phrase follows its plain meaning, [and Binyomin’s crying was not over the Tabernacle’s destruction]? Rashi’s explanation about Yoseif’s crying is understandable because there it is written צוארֵי, the plural form, rather than צואריו. But here it is written צואריו. Perhaps it follows its plain meaning. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> answers: <i>Re’m</i> explained at length [citing Midrash Rabbah 92:12. See] there. Also <i>Matnos Kehunah</i> [on that Midrash] writes that [<i>Chazal</i>’s interpretation is because] צואריו is singular. However, they both overlooked the Gemara in Megillah 16b which also states [as the Midrash Rabbah:] “How many necks did Binyomin have?!” [thus implying that the interpretation is based on the switch between צוארֵי and צואריו]. However, Rashi explains that this line should be deleted from the Gemara’s text because it is normal for Scripture to refer to צואר in the plural form. Accordingly, <i>Re’m’s</i> efforts were in vain [because Rashi states that Scripture’s switching between plural and singular of צואר is not a basis of expounding the word]. Rather, it seems that the [following] change in wording is the basis for the exposition. Regarding the [other] brothers it is merely written that Yoseif wept upon them. But with Binyomin it mentions צואר (neck). Therefore צואר is to be expounded: it hints to the Temple, which is called צוארך, as mentioned above. The reason that two Temples are mentioned for Binyomin and one for Yoseif is because in fact it was so, not because this was learned from plural and singular forms [of the word צואר]. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  The same as בבית פרעה — in Pharaoh’s house, and here it is meant literally. You might ask: Why is v. 2 different? There, Rashi said that וישמע בית פרעה does not mean a house literally, but the people of the house. But this is not a question. There, it could not mean a house literally, because it is written וַיִשְמַע, in the active form, [meaning: “Pharaoh’s house heard.”] This cannot be [understood literally. If it meant there as it does here] it would have said וַיִשָמַע, in the passive form, conveying that it was heard in Pharaoh’s house, as it is written here: “The news was heard (נשמע) in Pharaoh’s house.” (<i>R. Meir Stern</i>)
  
  Verse 17
  
  With grain. Accordingly, טענו is a transitive verb with an auxiliary object. I.e., they should load the beast with grain. [Rashi says this] so we will not think it means they should load the beasts themselves, i.e., that they should feed the beasts. [Rashi knows it does not mean this] because if it did, what difference does it make [that Pharaoh said this? Scripture would have omitted it]. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  It would ... like the depths of the sea which contains no fish. Explanation: There are no fish in the water’s depths; rather, they swim above. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Through me to tell them. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written who commanded him this? A further question: Why does is it then written זאת עשו, in the plural form? It should say זאת עשה, [in the singular form] since before too it spoke in the singular form: ואתה צויתה. Therefore Rashi explains: “You are commanded through me, [Pharaoh,] to tell them.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Aged wine from which old people derive pleasure. <i>Maharshal</i> writes: [Rashi knows this] because it is not written what was the good thing that Yoseif sent him, implying it was not something notable. So why did he send it to him? Because for Yaakov it was good. Therefore Rashi explains it was aged wine which is generally not so notable, but it was noteworthy to Yaakov because old people derive pleasure from it. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  Do not become involved in halachic discussion... Meaning: halachic discussion requires more delving into, and your attention will thus be diverted from travelling. As a result the road will lead you astray, i.e., you will get lost (Rashi, Taanis 10b). Yoseif warned them only against involvement and delving. But he did not warn them against reciting Torah teachings, since our Rabbis of blessed memory say (ibid): “Two who were walking on the road and there were no words of Torah between them...” 
  An alternate explanation. Do not take very large steps... <i>Maharshal</i> writes that Rashi’s first explanation follows one opinion in Taanis 10b, and Rashi’s alternate explanation follows the Baraisa there. Rashi also explains, “And arrive at your evening destination while there is still daylight.” The Baraisa itself offered these two explanations [of “large steps” and “daylight”] because it understands תרגזו בדרך to mean overly intensive walking, but it did not know whether it means taking large steps or walking a long time, i.e., until nightfall. Thus it offered both explanations: one pertaining to taking large steps, and one pertaining to arriving at their destination while there is still daylight. An overly intense person takes large steps, and the Rabbis taught (ibid), “Large steps remove one-fivehundredth of a person’s eyesight.” 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  That he is ruler. [Rashi knows this] because כי can mean אם, and אם can mean אשר (that). (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  His heart was not swayed by their words... [Rashi is answering the question:] Why did Yaakov not believe that Yoseif was alive? He himself had suspected them of selling him! Rashi answers: They said Yoseif was the ruler, and it is implausible that a foreigner would become the ruler, especially in Egypt where a slave may not rule. [Yaakov reasoned:] since this [i.e., that Yoseif is a ruler] is not so, that [i.e., Yoseif is alive] is also not so. Therefore [Rashi says], “His heart was not swayed by their words, [i.e., <i>all </i>of their words].” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 27
  
  He gave them as a sign — the subject that he was studying... Rashi is answering the question: “They told him all the words of Yoseif” is written after, “For he could not believe them.” This implies that they came to speak to him [after his initial disbelief] and to prove to him that it was true. What proof did they bring? Perforce, “He gave them a sign... the topic of עגלה ערופה.” I.e., the word העגלות that is written in the verse should be read as הrֶגְלות (the heifers). You might ask: How did Yaakov decide to teach him the subject of עגלה ערופה when they parted? The answer is: When Yoseif left, Yaakov escorted him until the depths of Chevron, as Rashi explained on the verse (37:14), “And he sent Yoseif from the depths of Chevron.” Yoseif said to him, “You should go back.” Yaakov answered, “I am not permitted to go back. A person must escort his fellow [on the way], as it is written in the section of עגלה ערופה (Devarim 21:7): ‘Our hands have not spilled this blood,’ [which means:] ‘We did not dismiss him without escort,’” as Rashi explains there. Consequently, he taught him the subject of עגלה ערופה. When the verse says וירא את העגלות, the word וירא means “understood.” When they told him about the subject of עגלה ערופה, he then understood that [what they had said] was true. 
  The Divine Presence, which had left him, rested on him. I.e., “spirit” refers to prophecy, as it is written (Divrei Hayamim I 12:18): “The spirit (רוח) clothed Amasai.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  A person must honor his father more than ... his grandfather... Rashi is answering the question: Why did it not say, “To the God of his fathers”? Or, “To the God of Avraham,” who was the main one to spread knowledge of Hashem’s Presence? Whereas Yitzchok received [this knowledge] from Avraham.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  He promised him that he will be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Rashi deduces this because it is written, “I will bring you up,” implying to Eretz Yisrael, which is higher than all the other lands. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Asher’s daughter, Serach and Leivi’s daughter, Yocheved. You might ask: Why does Scripture write “his daughters” in the plural form? He had only Dinah! We cannot answer that this is in accordance with R. Yehudah who said that a twin sister was born with each of Yaakov’s sons, and the sons married them [i.e., each married another’s twin]. This cannot be, for the twin sisters died before coming to Egypt, as Rashi explains on v. 26. Neither can we answer that it is in accordance with R. Nechemiah who said that the wives of Yaakov’s sons were [born of fathers from other nations and mothers who were] Canaanites, and Scripture calls them Yaakov’s “daughters” because people call their sons-in-law “son” and their daughters-in-law “daughter.” Rashi cited these two conflicting opinions on the verse, “All his sons and <i>all his daughters</i> rose to console him” (37:35). Accordingly, [also here] “his daughters” will mean his daughters-in-law. But this cannot be, for Scripture is counting Yaakov’s own offspring here [as it says in v. 26]. It seems the answer is: When Scripture treats the genealogy of many people, it speaks in plural even for one person. [Examples are:] “The <i>sons</i> of Don were Chushim” (v. 23), and, “The <i>sons</i> of Palu were Eliav” (Bamidbar 26:8). Although [it might infer that] “his daughters” means Dinah alone, we still would prefer to include [other descendants] where possible, rather than relying on stretched explanations. Thus Rashi explains [“his granddaughters” as] Serach and Yocheved, [even though Yocheved is not expressly mentioned in this section]. And so it seems from Bava Basra 143b. We need not ask then on the contrary: [If this is true, then] on the verse, “They rose to console him” (37:35), why did R. Yehudah say they were twins, and R. Nechemiah say they were daughters-in-law? Perhaps it was only Dinah! For [the answer is:] It is different there, because it is written, “<i>All </i>his daughters.” Alternatively, it is different in this case, because here it is treating the genealogy of many people, as mentioned above. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Concerning that particular time Scripture refers to them as “those who are coming”... Rashi is answering the question: Moshe Rabbeinu wrote the Torah for us, and in his days they had already come. If so, it should say, “Who came”! Thus Rashi explains [as he does].
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  The son of Deenah who was violated by a Canaanite... Rashi is answering the question: According to the view that the wives [of Yaakov’s sons] were Canaanites [see entry on v. 7], all of their children should have been called children of Canaanite women. Why is Shaul singled out? And according to the view that a twin sister was born with each son, and they married them [see entry on v. 7], why mention “A Canaanite woman,” at all? Rashi’s answer addresses both views.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  We must assume that they died... Because otherwise, why were they not counted among the other children? Thus it says, “Not counting the wives [of Yaakov’s sons],” to convey that they had died, and these wives [mentioned here] were of foreign origin and did not come out of Yaakov’s loins. Scripture itself explains this. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Eisov had six souls... As it is written in 36:6: “Eisov took his wives... and all the <i>souls</i> of his household.” There must be an error in the text of Rashi, because Eisov had only five souls, yet Rashi, who cites the Midrash that says six. This requires further investigation. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  To prepare a house of study... I.e., since it is written להורת without a second <i>vav, </i>it contains the letters [of the word] תורה.
  
  Verse 29
  
  He himself harnessed the horses to the chariot. Otherwise, it should say: “He rode in his chariot.” 
  Yoseif appeared to his father. [Rashi knows this] because we cannot say Yaakov appeared to Yoseif, since Yaakov did not go to appear to Yoseif. Rather, [Yaakov went] to see him and to live in Egypt. But Yoseif went toward his father to appear before him. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  He does not place upon him accusations which are in excess of his sins... Rashi is explaining the verse he cited: כי לא על איש ישים עוד. I.e., when Hashem punishes the wicked, He does not punish them more than they sinned. “He does not place upon him [accusations which are in excess of his sins].” 
  Our Sages explained that this was because he was reading the “Shema.” Some ask: Perhaps he was standing in prayer? It seems [the answer is:] Our Rabbis of blessed memory said in Berachos 27a that we may not pass in front of someone standing in prayer, so as not to interfere with his concentration. Surely, Yoseif would not fall on Yaakov’s neck lest he disturb his concentration. But with the Shema, we need to concentrate mainly in the first verse, which where we accept upon ourselves the Kingship of Heaven. And Yoseif fell on Yaakov’s neck after Yaakov had read the first verse. You might ask: Why was Yoseif, too, not reading the Shema? The answer is: Yoseif was involved with the mitzvah of honoring his father. Someone involved in the performance of a mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah. Another answer: Yoseif exempted himself by reading the first verse [alone], since he was busy and occupied, as it says in the Gemara in Berachos 13b that [the single verse of] Shema Yisrael was the Shema of R. Yehudah Hanasi, because he was busy with teaching the disciples. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  The plain meaning is as Onkelos explains it. I.e., the verse does not mean what it sounds like, that Yaakov wished to die now that he merited seeing Yoseif’s face. On the contrary, after having merited to see him, Yaakov should pray to live and enjoy being with his son [to make up for] the days of their suffering. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  And I will also tell him: “The men are shepherds, etc.” Rashi means: we should not think that “The men are shepherds etc.” is a new statement, and Yoseif said it to his brothers, not to Pharaoh. If so, “the men” would refer to different men, [not his brothers]. Thus Rashi explains: And I will also tell Pharaoh this matter, that “the men are shepherds etc.” 
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  Because they are deities to them. The Egyptians know that shepherds know all about sheep, since they are always with them. Shepherds therefore know that sheep have nothing [divine about them], so the Egyptians hate all shepherds. Alternatively, when Scripture says כי תועבת מצרים כל רעי צאן, the word תועבה means idolatry. In other words, the Egyptians greatly respected shepherds and considered them as if they were deities. Therefore, Pharaoh will settle them in the best of the land. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  But there is a reason for this... Which is: the entire forty years the Israelites were in the wilderness, Yehudah’s bones rattled in his coffin, [and Moshe prayed for him]. Rashi cites this on Devarim 33:7.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Experts in their occupation of tending sheep. Rashi is saying that here, חיל does not mean piety or wealth. 
  Over my sheep. It is written (v. 3) רועי צאן עבדיך. Since they said to Pharaoh they were רועי צאן only, [thus Rashi knows that] the word מקנה in this verse refers to צאן (sheep).
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  What blessing did he give him? That the Nile rise as he approached it... This explanation is from Midrash Tanchuma, as Rashi mentions at the end [i.e., older versions of Rashi mentioned Tanchuma as the source]. Accordingly, “Yaakov blessed” means he gave him an actual blessing. But according to the first explanation, it was not an actual blessing. It rather meant: “Those who take leave of royalty, bless them [as a matter of formality]and take their leave.” Therefore, Rashi is asking [according to the Midrash: “What blessing did he give him?” Alternatively, even according to the first explanation that maintains that those who take leave of royalty offer a blessing, but that too is an actual blessing, regarding this [Rashi asks:] “What blessing did he give him?”
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  According to the needs of all the members of the household. Meaning: children scatter bread unnecessarily, and it says that Yoseif provided even for the needs of the children, i.e., he provided more than they really needed. [Thus Rashi knows that] he surely provided for the needs of the members of the household. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Returns to the beginning of the account... I.e., to the first year. [Rashi knows this] because the famine ceased when Yaakov came to Egypt, as Rashi soon explains [see v. 19]. Perforce, our verse goes back to before Yaakov came to Egypt. 
  Similar to this is: כמתלהלה who shoots firebrands. I.e., the ה of כמתלהלה is in place of א, as the letters א–ה–ו–י are interchangeable. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  They gave him the money. Rashi is saying that we should not think שבר means selling, because if it did, the verse should have written בשבר אשר הוא שובר, referring to Yoseif, who sold to them. Since it is written בשבר אשר הם שוברים, it refers to the people who purchased from Yoseif.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  That the money and livestock are used up... Rashi writes אשר in place of [Scripture’s word] אם. This is because אם [generally] conveys “if,” but here it does not mean that. Rashi adds, “And everything has come into my master’s hand,” because the verse seemingly says that the money was used up by Yoseif. [But now] it conveys: “We did not spend any of our money on anything else; all has come into our master’s hand.” 
  The same as: if not for our bodies. [Rashi knows this] because בלתי cannot mean “except for” and it cannot mean “not,” because then the word אם (“if”) will not fit in. [I.e., it would read as: “except for if our bodies,” or: “not if our bodies.”] Thus Rashi explains that בלתי indeed means “not.” However, the verse’s wording must be inverted: אם לא גויתינו, i.e., אם בלתי גויתינו. Accordingly, it means: “except for our bodies.” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  To sow in the ground. [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise it should say, “Give us bread,” or, “Give us foodstuff.”
  They began to sow and the famine ended... You might ask: If so, would people not say that Yoseif is a fraud? For he had interpreted [Pharaoh’s dream] that there would be a seven-year famine! The answer is: The famine ended only in Egypt, not in other lands. And when they observed the Nile rising to meet Pharaoh they knew it was on account of Yaakov’s blessing. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Bought for him. Rashi is explaining that it does not mean under his rulership, as that was so even beforehand. 21
  
  Verse 21
  
   Yoseif transferred them from city to city... [Rashi says this] so we will not think that it was Pharaoh who is mentioned just before, [who did this. That is not so,] because Yoseif was the buyer, the one who transferred them, and the giver of seed. 
  He did this to all the cities that were in the kingdom of Egypt... Rashi says this so we will not think that Yoseif only switched [people] from one end to another end, but he did not switch [people living] in the middle of the country. Therefore he says, “<i>All</i> the cities...” 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Whenever the word כהן is used it refers to a servant of a deity... Wherever it says כהן alone, without explaining the association to what he is a כהן, it assumedly means he is the servant of a deity. This is surely so when it states כהן to Hashem, or כהן to an idol. But with כהן מדין and כהן און, where it mentions the name of the country or city, it means he is their governor or leader. That is why Onkelos translates it here as כומריא (priests), but translates כהן און and כהן מדין as רבא דאון and רבא דמדין. (רבא means leader.)
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  For each year. I.e., not the first year alone. <i>Re’m</i> asks: Why did Rashi not make this comment at the beginning of the verse, “When it produces”? then it would apply to everything written afterward. The answer is: Here, [Rashi’s comment] is proven true. For Yoseif already said, “Here is seed, plant the soil.” Why does it say here, “For seed for your fields”? Perforce, because the statute of giving a fifth to Pharaoh applied for each year, thus he ordered them here to sow [each year] so that the fifth not become lessened. But if the statute was only for the first year, why was Yoseif concerned whether they sow [each year] or not? Perforce, it must have been for each year. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  As food for your man servants and maid servants that are in your homes. [Rashi knows Scripture is referring to this] because later it is specifically written לטפכם, referring to small children. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  That you may do for us as you have said. [Rashi is explaining:] this is not the beginning of a [new] point, that they were now asking to find favor in his eyes. [Rashi knows it cannot mean this] because otherwise it would not be understandable. 
  Paying him this tax annually... [Rashi is explaining:] it does not mean that they themselves will belong to him as slaves, for it is written before (v. 20), “Yoseif bought all the <i>land</i> of Egypt for Pharaoh...” [But it does not say he bought the <i>people</i>]. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  And where? In the Land of Goshen... [Rashi explains this] so we will not think they lived in two lands: Egypt and Goshen. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 28
  
  Why is this portion completely closed... I.e., we have a tradition from Ezra the Scribe that Parshas Vayechi begins a new section and is not in the same parshah with the preceding verse וישב ישראל. Yet, a “closed” parshah usually has [a blank space in front of it] the measure of nine letters, while here it is completely closed with no space. 
  And hearts of Israel were “closed” because of the hardships of the bondage for they began... I.e., they were not yet in actual bondage, but had the “hardship” of bondage. Pharaoh requested them to [voluntarily] serve him, as it says in Sotah 11b that בפרך (Shemos 1:13) means בפה רך, “with a soft mouth.” In the beginning, the Egyptians enslaved them with a soft mouth. 
  An alternate explanation: Because he wished to reveal the End... You might ask: According to the first explanation, it should be “closed” [not here but] in the verse where it is written that Yaakov died (49:33). And according to the alternate explanation, it should be “closed” in the verse, “Gather around and I will tell you... the end of days” (49:1). The answer is: In the middle of the <i>parshah </i>it would not be noticeable that it is “closed,” since it is usually “closed” there, so we would not know [that we should make] these expositions. And here Scripture enumerates Yaakov’s years, so it is considered the place where he died. And [this as well answers the explanation of] “reveal the End”: Yaakov assumedly would not reveal the End until close to his death, and here is the place of his death, as Rashi explains. Therefore, [the basis for Rashi’s interpretations] is evident. <i>Maharshal</i> writes that there is a question on the first explanation: This <i>parshah</i> does not mention the bondage. Why then was Parshas<i> </i>Shemos not “closed”? Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation. And there is a question on the alternate explanation: Why is it not “closed” at the section of (49:1), “Yaakov called for his sons... gather around and I will tell you...”? Therefore Rashi brings also the first explanation. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  Everyone of whom it is said that his “days drew near”... Rashi is answering the questions: Why does it say “days” in the plural form, [rather than saying, “The day of Yisrael’s death drew near”]? And why does it speak of the days, implying that the days drew near? It should say, “Yisrael drew near to die.” Thus Rashi explains that the days themselves indeed “drew near.” They shortened and drew near [rather than expanding to the age of his fathers]. 
  And take an oath. Rashi is explaining that we should not think the placing of the hand is the oath itself. He knows this because it is written regarding Avraham (24:2): “Place your hand under my thigh,” after which it says, “I will have you swear by Adonoy.” Since Avraham did it this way, [to place the hand under the thigh while swearing,] so did Yaakov. (<i>Re’m</i>)
  Is considered true kindness for one does not anticipate... Rashi does not mean that it is true kindness only when it is done with the dead. Rather, whenever kindness is done without the anticipation of remuneration, even if the recipient of the kindness is alive, it is considered “kind and truthful.” For Eliezer said that Lavan and Besuel should [“do kindly and truthfully” (49:22) and] give him Rivkah freely, anticipating no remuneration — not from him, as he promised them no gifts of silver and gold, and certainly not from Avraham, since he was far away. You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain before, regarding Eliezer, that this is considered true kindness? The answer is: Yaakov in fact remunerated Yoseif for swearing to take him to Eretz Yisrael. He said (48:22), “I have given you one share more,” as Rashi explains ad loc. That is why Rashi explains the point here [and not regarding Eliezer]. It is to say that even so, at the time Yaakov asked Yoseif to bury him in Eretz Yisrael, he neither promised to give him anything, nor did he have in mind to give him one share more. And that is why it says here, “kindly and truthfully.” 
  By suffering the pain of rolling through underground tunnels. Also, so that the Egyptians not make a deity of me... Rashi needed these three explanations because: If it was only on account of lice, Yaakov should have requested that they make an iron coffin. Therefore Rashi explained, “rolling through underground tunnels.” And if because of these two reasons alone, why did Yaakov trouble Yoseif that he be brought to Eretz Yisrael immediately? He could have told them to take his bones along when they leave Egypt, as Yoseif said [to do for himself] in 50:25. Thus Rashi gives the [third] reason, “That the Egyptians not make a deity of me.” And there is a question: If the only reason is that the Egyptians might “make a deity of me,” why did he say to take him to Eretz Yisrael, rather than to cast him in the Nile? Thus Rashi also offers the reason of “rolling through underground tunnels.” And if it was for these two reasons alone, he should have had them swear just as Yoseif told his brothers to swear, [that they will take him along when they leave Egypt]. Thus Rashi also offers the reason of “its soil will become lice.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 30
  
  This letter ו connects this with the beginning of the previous verse... Rashi explains right afterward that ושכבתי means dying. Accordingly, Yaakov should first have said he will die, and then say, “Please do not bury me in Egypt.” Thus Rashi explains, “This letter ו connects ...” 
  Put me to rest with my fathers in the cave... According to which it would mean actual burial. Rashi explains ושכבתי to mean השכיבני because ושכבתי implies putting oneself down to rest, whereas burial is done by others. Thus he also adds “in the cave,” since [in this explanation] ושכבתי עם אבותי means actual burial. Accordingly, the verse means: “Put me to rest [i.e., bury me] with my fathers in the cave.” 
  Carry me from Egypt and bury me in their grave... Rashi is saying that there are two contradictions. 1.It should It should have written first, “Carry me out of Egypt,” and then, “I will lie,” since he must first be carried and only then buried. 2.“I will lie” is apparently repetitive because it is written afterward, “Bury me in their grave.”
  “And Dovid lay with his fathers” and afterwards: “And he was buried...” Perforce, the וישכב of Dovid means death. For if it meant burial, it would indicate that they buried him with his fathers, i.e., in Beis Lechem where Dovid’s fathers lived. But then it is written, “He was buried in the City of Dovid,” implying Tzion, which is the City of Dovid. Thus it must be that שכיבה means death. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  When it is the time of the fox, bow to him. I found it written that for one month in the year the fox is king of the animals. About that month it was said, “When it is the time of the fox.” (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  He turned toward the Divine Presence... You might ask: Did not Rashi just say, “When it is the time of the fox, bow to him,” implying that he bowed to Yoseif? The answer is: If he bowed only for Yoseif, why was it specifically, “At the head of the bed”? And if he bowed only for the <i>Shechinah</i>, Scripture should have written, “Yisrael prostrated himself to Hashem,” or, “...to Elokim.” Perforce, he bowed on account of both of them, the Divine Presence <i>and</i> Yoseif.
  It is from here that they derived that the Shechinah is above the headrest of a sick person... Although Yaakov was not sick [then], he had weakened and was as if sick. Otherwise, why did he request [regarding] his burial place? 
  For his bed was perfect and none of the offspring was wicked... We cannot say that [the bowing was] only to the <i>Shechinah</i>, because then it should say, “<i>To</i> the head of the bed.” Perforce, he bowed also to Yoseif. But it is a forced explanation of the verse to say that he bowed to Yoseif, yet turned toward the Divine Presence. Therefore Rashi brings “another interpretation... for his bed was perfect...” But this cannot be the only explanation, because if so, why does it say, “At the head of”? [It should just say, “At the bed].” Therefore, Rashi brings the first explanations [as well]. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  One of the tellers... [Rashi says, “One of the tellers,” to convey that] “said to Yoseif” in fact means “told Yoseif,” for news is “told,” not “said.” Yaakov’s falling sick before he died was something new to the world, since before his time there was no weakness [before death]. And why is it not written, “told Yoseif”? Because the teller was Ephraim, who was frequently with Yaakov so he saw that he was sick, and it was nothing new to him. 
  Ephraim was frequently with Yaakov for study... We need not ask: How does Rashi know that Ephraim was frequently [with him for study]? For the answer is: It is written (v. 14), “Yisrael stretched out his right hand... he deliberately placed his hands so (שכל את ידיו).” And why does it not say he “switched his hands” (הפך את ידיו)? Because Yaakov was hinting to him that Ephraim was expert in Torah and had greater understanding (שכל) than Menasheh, and for this reason Yaakov deliberately placed (שכל) his hands. And how did Yaakov know this [about Ephraim]? Because Ephraim was frequently with Yaakov for study.
  So that Yaakov might bless them. Otherwise, why should it be mentioned? 
  Before his death. Yoseif knew that Yaakov had weakened, and now they told him that he was sick. Yoseif said to himself: surely, the day of his death has come. Thus he took his sons with him. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  There are numerous such elliptical verses. Rashi does not explain here that the teller was Ephraim, as he explained above, since “he took his two sons with him” implies that Ephraim was with Yoseif and went with him to Yaakov. 
  From here that we must honor royalty... [Rashi knows this] because Yoseif needed Yaakov [to bless his sons], yet Yaakov bowed to him nevertheless. But before (47:31), Rashi explained [the bowing differently:] “When it is the time of the fox, bow to him.” This is because Yaakov needed Yoseif [to swear to bury him]. 
  And your servants will come down to me... Moshe knew that even Pharaoh would come down, as in fact happened. He said “your servants” [instead of “you”] to honor royalty. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  That one of my tribes is destined to be divided... I.e., the division into two is considered as two extra sons. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  לפני — before I came to you... [Rashi explains this] because עד בואי seemingly implies they were born after Yaakov came to him. But in 41:50 it is written, “Two sons were born to Yoseif before the years of famine came.” And when Yaakov came to Yoseif, two famine years had already passed. Thus Rashi explains, “<i>Before</i> I came...” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  If you will have any more children they will not be counted... Since אשר seems to imply that he surely will have children, Rashi explains: “<i>If </i>you will have any more children.” This is because אשר can mean אם (if). Since we find that אם can mean אשר, as Rashi explained on 24:19, therefore אשר can mean אם. 
  Nevertheless, the only ones to be called Tribes are these... Each tribe’s inheritance was called by its own name: Reuven’s inheritance, Shimon’s inheritance, etc. Similarly, the inheritance of Menasheh and Ephraim will be called by their name: Menasheh’s inheritance and Ephraim’s inheritance, each with his own territory, like the other tribes. It will not be called Yoseif’s inheritance. And when Rashi said above: “They [the future children of Yoseif] will not have their own names as tribes,” it means that their inheritance will not be called by their name.
  
  Verse 7
  
  When the earth is riddled with holes like a sieve. Rashi explained כברת as a measure. Nevertheless, since Scripture chose to use the word כברת, both [explanations] are implied. 
  Even to Beis Lechem in order to bring her to a [settled] land... You might ask: Does the verse not state clearly that she was buried in Eretz Yisrael? For it is written, “Rochel died unto me in the land of Canaan,” and Canaan is Eretz Yisrael. [If so, why does Rashi say that Yaakov did not bring her לארץ?] The answer is: Surely she was buried in Eretz Yisrael, but לארץ means “to an inhabited town,” as in ארץ נושבת (Shemos 16:35). 
  I buried her there so that she may help her descendants... You might ask: Did Rashi not previously explain (30:15) that “because she made light of being with the tzaddik, she did not merit being buried with him”? The answer is: Although this caused her to not be buried with him in Me’aras Hamachpelah, the question remains: why did she not merit burial in a town, rather than in a field? Perforce, “So she might help her descendants...” But we cannot say that “help her descendants” was the sole reason, and not “she made light.” For if so, why was Rochel — out of all the matriarchs — not buried with Yaakov? Surely, it was also because “she made light.” Question: Why did Yaakov tell Yoseif only now that her burial on the road was according to the word of Hashem? [The answer is:] Yaakov did not want to reveal to him the future troubles [of Israel’s exile] until necessary. For if not now, when? 
  As is mentioned: “He plows repeatedly.” This means to plow and then repeat it.
  
  Verse 8
  
  He attempted to bless them, but the Divine Presence departed from him... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ‘Who are these?” Did Yaakov not recognize that they were Menasheh and Ephraim? Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: [How can it say,] “Yisrael saw”? It is written right afterward (v. 10), “Yisrael’s eyes were heavy ... he could not see.” Thus Rashi explains, “He attempted to bless them but the Divine Presence departed from him...” Accordingly, “Yaakov saw” means he saw through <i>ruach hakodesh,</i> as [Rashi explained on], “Yaakov saw that food was being sold in Egypt” (42:1). 
  
  Verse 9
  
  He showed him his betrothal and marriage contracts... Question: Why did Yoseif show him the betrothal contract, and then pray? Why not the other way around? The answer is: At first he thought Yaakov did not want to bless them because they were born out of wedlock and were illegitimate children. So he showed him the contract, [proving] they were legitimate children. When he saw that Yaakov still did not bless them, he figured that surely <i>ruach hakodesh </i>must have left him, and he prayed for compassion. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  I did not dare have any thought... Rashi is answering the question: Yaakov thought that “Yoseif has been torn to pieces” (37:33). If so, why would he think he would see him? Thus Rashi explains, “I did not dare have any thought.” In other words, it never occurred to me to think differently, that perhaps you were not torn up and I will see you alive. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  When he stepped back from his father. It seems to me that Rashi here may be understood according to what he explained on 42:6, that “Every השתחואה implies the stretching out of the hands and feet.” Accordingly, while Yoseif was still standing before his father he could not stretch himself out. Perforce, it was “when he stepped back.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  For he well knew that Menasheh was the firstborn and, nevertheless... Rashi is answering the question: The word כי in Scripture usually comes to explain what preceded. But according to Onkelos, who explains שִׂכֵל as “wisdom,” how does [“Menasheh was the firstborn”] explain [what preceded]? Thus Rashi explains [that here, כי does not explain what preceded. It rather means:] “And, nevertheless.” In other words, [כי means:] <i>even though</i> he knew that Menasheh was the firstborn. And this was the wisdom, as it says, “I know my son, I know” (v. 19). <i>Maharshal</i> writes: Many explain that [according to Rashi, this] כי means “even though.” But it seems not so. Rather, this is how the verse flows. It says, “He deliberately placed his hands,” and then explains why he did this instead of telling Yoseif to rearrange them with Ephraim to his right and Menasheh to his left. [The explanation is:] “Because Menasheh was the firstborn.” In other words, since Menasheh was the firstborn he did not want to embarrass him.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  The angel who was usually sent to me in my time of affliction... [Rashi knows this] because an angel is unable to redeem anyone without Hashem’s permission.
  Menasheh and Ephraim. If Rashi did not specifically explain this, we would think that it cannot mean Ephraim and Menasheh. Since it is specifically written in v. 20 that Yaakov blessed them, why then would he bless them again? Thus we would have thought that “the lads” were Yoseif’s young sons. Therefore Rashi explains that it refers to Menasheh and Ephraim. [Rashi knows this] because Yoseif did not have other sons. And why did he bless them twice? The answer is: Here it is written, “He blessed Yoseif,” and he included them in Yoseif’s blessing but did not bless them on their own. In v. 20 he gave them their own blessing. But to me it seems [that Rashi knew it means Menasheh and Ephraim] because it is written <i>“the </i>lads,” meaning those mentioned above, and only Menasheh and Ephraim were mentioned. Furthermore, Yoseif is not known to have had any other sons. The proof is that on v. 6, Rashi explained אשר הולדת to mean, “<i>If</i> you will have any more sons.” (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 17
  
  He lifted it from his son’s head... Rashi needed to explain this because הרמה means removing, but ויתמוך means supporting, [and they are opposites]. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  That he is the firstborn. Rashi needed to explain this so we will not think it means, “I know that he too will become a people.” I.e., that Yoseif knew Menasheh will become a people but he thought Yaakov did not know — and Yaakov said he also knows Menasheh will be great and will become a people. And [Rashi knows it does not mean this because] the verse does not say so. Yoseif said only, “For this one is the firstborn.” Thus Rashi explains: “I know,” as you do, “that he is the firstborn.” And I also know something you do not: “He too will become a people; he too will become great.” 
  The whole world will be filled when his reputation and name will spread... Rashi is answering the question: “His descendants will fill the nations” — does this not imply his descendants will be scattered throughout the world? And this is not [greatness] but a curse! Thus Rashi explains, “His reputation.” The verse is as if saying, “The <i>name</i> of his descendants will be throughout the world,” by means of [making] the moon and sun [stand still] which is seen throughout the world. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  He will bless them with their blessing and a person will say to his son... Since the term “Yisroel” means the people of Yisroel, which is a plural noun, why does it say ישימך, in the singular form? Thus Rashi adds, “And a person will say to his son...” 
  Insofar as his blessing was concerned. Ahead of Menasheh... [Rashi is explaining] that this was not a literal placing; Yaakov did not take Ephraim and put him in front of Menasheh. Rather, it was a placing [in order] of importance, that Ephraim comes first for the banners, etc. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Because you will take the trouble to occupy yourself with my burial. Rashi said, “Because you will take the trouble...” because [otherwise the reason for giving him Shechem] has no connection with the preceding. 
  Therefore, I have also given you an inheritance. Explanation: I have already given it to you. This is because in the blessings that Yaakov gave them afterward, they were all equal [in inheriting the Land]. Accordingly, Yaakov said to him: I have hereby given it to you, and it will not be included in those blessings. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  This shall be for you one share in excess... Rashi is answering the question: If Shechem means the actual עיר (city) of Shechem, [and עיר is a feminine noun,] why is it written אחד which is the masculine form? Perforce, אחד does not refer to the city. Rather, the verse is saying that the city of Shechem shall be for you אחד חלק (one share), and אחד refers to חלק, which is masculine. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  You will scatter my enemies before me. I.e., this is an explanation of the verse, “You will make them as portions.” 
  Who acted as if he were an Emorite. There is a question on this explanation: why should Eisov be compared specifically to an Emorite? Thus Rashi brings another explanation. And according to the second explanation: It should have said אמרי instead of אמורי! That is why Rashi brings both explanations. (<i>Maharshal</i>)
  His wisdom and prayers. I.e., “with my sword” is wisdom. Just as a sword saves the one who has it, so too, wisdom saves the one who possesses it. This is as it says (Koheles 7:11), “Wisdom gives life to the one who has it.” “My bow” (ובקשתי) is an expression of pleading (בקשה) and prayer. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  He wished to reveal the End... [How does Rashi know this? The answer is:] Since Scripture uses two expressions, “gather around” and “come together,” it hints to the End. For it is written (Yeshayah 66:12), “He will gather the scattered ones of Yehudah.” And it is written (Tzephaniah 3:19), “He will gather the lost one,” which hints to the last exile. Anoher answer: Since it is written, “In latter days,” which is superfluous, [perforce] it hints to the End of Days which will be in latter days. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  He had never had a nocturnal emission. [Rashi knows this] because אוני is redundant, for it is already written כחי, and אוני and כחי have the same meaning as Rashi explains. [Question:] A woman cannot conceive from her first act of relations. [So how could Reuvein the son of Leah, have been conceived from Yaakov’s first drop? The answer is:] Perhaps Leah had been deflowered by a piece of wood. <i>Re’m</i> answers: She had deflowered herself with her finger. There are other answers; see there. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes: If not for what they wrote, I would explain that Leah did not actually conceive from the first drop. Rather, all of Yaakov’s drops were for [the purpose of conceiving] Reuvein, as Yaakov never had a nocturnal emission due to improper thoughts. See what he says there. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  The Name... [Rashi knows this] because “profaned” refers to Hashem. “To profane” can be said regarding Hashem, as in the expression חילול השם. But “To profane” cannot be said about a bed, and he who explains it so is mistaken. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Their hatred was not so complete... Rashi did not give the reason of “They would not have spoken before their older brothers” because Yoseif had told Yaakov that [the older brothers] were calling the handmaids’ sons “slaves.” Thus Yoseif slandered the handmaids’ sons, and they would have had a justification [to speak before their older brothers,] since Yoseif called them “slaves.” Thus Rashi gives a stronger reason, [that their hatred was not so complete]. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Yissachar and Zevulun would not have spoken before their older brothers... You might ask: How did Shimon and Leivi speak before Reuvein? <i>Maharshal</i> answers: Reuvein was not there at the time, as he had gone to attend to his father [see Rashi, 37:29]. 
  Another explanation of מכרותיהם: in the land of their sojournings (מגורתם)... [Rashi knows this] because the כ of מכרותיהם is interchangeable with a ג, since they are among the group of letters of ג–י–כ–ק [that are interchangeable]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Who permitted you to marry Yisro’s daughter? You might ask: Why was Moshe in fact permitted to marry a Midianite woman? The answer is: Tzipporah was a proselyte. Another answer: Moshe married her before the Torah was given.
  When the lineage of Korach is recorded concerning the “platform,” it is said... It seems Rashi cites this so we will not ask: How does Rashi know that the verse means this? Perhaps the Torah omitted Yaakov from the episodes of Zimri and Korach because it is Scripture’s way to trace lineage back to the Twelve Tribes, but not further. Therefore Rashi cites this verse where the lineage is traced back to Yaakov. If so, why in [Parshas] Korach did the lineage go back only to Leivi? The verses seem to conflict. Perforce, it is because Yaakov had requested that he not be mentioned in the lineage there. This seems to be an answer to <i>Re’m, </i>who asked the question: why is Yaakov’s name mentioned in Divrei Hayamim contrary to the manner in which it is mentioned in Scripture? <i>Re’m</i> also asks: Nowhere is Yaakov’s name mentioned in Scripture in connection with Zimri. If so, why did we not say that Scripture fails to say זמרי בן סלוא נשיא בית אב לשמעוני בן יעקב simply because heads of families are traced back to the Twelve Tribes, not further? It seems the answer is: We see that the reason <i>Korach’s</i> lineage is not traced back to Yaakov is due to Yaakov’s prayer, as I wrote, for otherwise the verses would conflict. If so, with Zimri too it was due to Yaakov’s prayer. For the verse mentions the two together: “My soul will not enter their secret council (Zimri), [let my honor not be identified with their assembly (Korach)].” 
  The word כבוד is masculine... [Rashi is saying] that the conjugation for the masculine second person is the same as for the feminine third person, as it is here. Therefore תחד could be either feminine third person or masculine second person.
  They wished to exterminate Yoseif... [Rashi is explaining: The verse does] not mean they actually exterminated him, for Yoseif ruled. Rather, they are so called because their intent was to exterminate him, as in (Devarim 26:5): “The Aramaean who destroyed my forefather,” [referring to Lavan who sought to destroy Yaakov, but did not actually destroy him]. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  This is what Bilam meant ... “How can I curse one whom God has not cursed?” “One” refers to Yaakov, as Rashi explains in Bamidbar 23:8. 
  Another explanation: There will be no poor... There is a question on the first explanation: [“I will divide them” is explained. But] what is the meaning of, “And scatter them throughout Israel?” Thus Rashi brings the second explanation. We need not ask: If the second explanation is for, “And scatter them,” why is it considered another explanation? The first explanation [was only for, “I will divide them,” but] did not explain, “And scatter them.” The answer is: The second explanation goes also on, “I will divide them.” [Accordingly, the verse] means as follows: “I will divide them” from one another. And how will I do this? I will “scatter them.” In other words, “And scatter them” comes to explain, “I will divide them.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  He allowed his dispersal to be more honorable. “I will divide <i>them</i> throughout Yaakov” refers to Shimon. “Scatter <i>them</i> throughout Yisroel” refers to Leivi. Therefore [referring to Leivi] it is written “Yisroel,” which is a more honorable [as compared to “Yaakov”]. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  In the days of Dovid... [Rashi knows this] because Yaakov should have blessed Yehudah with, “You shall rule over nations,” or, “You shall be king.” Why did he say, “Your hand will be on the neck...”? To allude to Dovid. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Likewise, when Tamar was sentenced to die... Rashi is saying that “my son” refers to Yehudah, not to Yoseif. [There are two proofs to support this:] First, Yehudah as well was Yaakov’s son, [so the verse would not say, “You (Yehudah) have risen above plundering my son (Yoseif).”] Second, Yehudah removed himself also from the plundering of Tamar, as Rashi explains. If he removed himself from plundering them both, why would it say [only] “my son,” referring to Yoseif? Perforce, “my son” refers to Yehudah. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  From Dovid and on... Rashi is answering the objection: Until Shaul there was no king in Israel! Thus Rashi explains that it means, “From Dovid and on,” and Dovid is from the tribe of Yehudah. 
  King Moshiach that the kingdom is his. This refers back to the beginning of the verse. It means: “The rod” of rulership “will not depart from Yehudah,” and even during exile they will have a limited authority, continuing “until Shiloh comes,” the one “that the rod is his.” Rashi says “kingdom” instead of “rod”, but it means the same. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  A Midrashic interpretation שי לו, a present unto him... The Midrash explains Shiloh as referring to the redeemer, but instead of saying that שילו means שלו (his), it is two words: שי לו — “a present unto him.” 
  The eye that mocks the father and despises ליקהת אם the gathering of wrinkles upon her face. Rashi is citing a proof that יקהת with one י means gathering.
  They sat and gathered אקהתא [assemblies] in the streets... They gathered assemblies around themselves, which came to hear their words; see there.
  
  Verse 11
  
  Onkelos explains as referring to the King Moshiach. Accordingly, אוסרי לגפן עירה means: Israel will surround the city of Jerusalem. ולשורקה בני אתונו means: Israel will build the Temple. 
  From the idea: Those who ride on white donkeys... This verse refers to Torah scholars. צחורות means white. I.e., Torah scholars who wear white garments [are riding on donkeys]. Alternatively, it means they ride on white donkeys from place to place in order to learn Torah.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  His land will be by the חוף ימים. [<i>Re’m</i> explains that חוף ימים does not mean “seashore.” It means “border town.” And] since it is written ישכון, implying his dwelling place, this refers to his land — which will be on the border [between Eretz Yisrael and foreign lands]. But he himself will [not be there; he will] be at “a harbor of ships.” I.e., he will spend time [away from his land,] at the port where the ships bring merchandise. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> rejected all this and said that the land of Zevulun was at the edge of the sea, the dividing place between Eretz Yisrael and foreign lands; thus all the ships passed through his land. See there.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  All the tribes of Israel will be as one with him... I.e., this phrase [should be understood] as if it is backwards. It means: “Dan will avenge his people, all of Israel together (כאחד).” For Shimshon avenged all of Israel together. ידין cannot mean “will judge,” because we do not find anywhere [that Dan judged all of Israel]. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  It is so named because it hisses... נושף is a sort of whistling. So did Rashi explain before on 3:15.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Moshe, too, blessed him thus... [You might ask: Why does Rashi need this proof?] The answer is: Rashi cites the proof from Moshe Rabbeinu so we will not object: How does Rashi know that here, שמנה means oil? Perhaps it means Asher’s food will be good and rich. Thus he brings a proof from Moshe. For it is evident that Moshe blessed them the same way Yaakov blessed them, and there it is clearly written, “He will dip his foot in oil.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  Due to them, Devorah and Barak sang... Rashi is answering the question: It is written אילה שלוחה, in the feminine form. Why then is it written הנותן, in the masculine form? Therefore Rashi explains, “Devorah and Barak sang...” [and due to Barak,  הנותןis in the masculine form]. 
  Onkelos translates: “His lot will fall”... Rashi is saying that this is how Onkelos actually translates this verse. According to Onkelos, הנותן אמרי שפר means that Naftali will give thanks with beautiful words for his lot. But when Rashi wrote above, “‘He delivers pleasant sayings,’ as Onkelos translates it,” it means as follows: The first explanation holds that אילה שלוחה refers to the fruits of Ginosar, according to which אמרי שפר means as Onkelos said. [I.e., he will give thanks with beautiful words. But this will be interpreted differently:] the people of Naftali will [give thanks by] reciting the appropriate blessing over the fruits.
  
  Verse 22
  
  Many daughters climbed — each one... Rashi is answering the question: [Why does it say] בנות, implying there were many, and also say צעדה, implying there was but one? Thus Rashi explains, “Many daughters climbed — each one...” 
  The letter ת is added for stylistic purposes. I.e., it is not the ת of the feminine form, as it is speaking of a masculine subject. 
  פרת meaning, being fruitful and multiplying... Rashi is answering the question: How did Onkelos know that it should be translated so? Thus Rashi explains, “פרת meaning, being fruitful and multiplying.”
  
  Verse 23
  
  His brothers made him bitter. [Rashi knows it means his brothers] because at the end of the verse it is written בעלי חצים, similar to ותהי המחצה (Bamidbar 31:36), referring to those who are fit to share the inheritance with him, [as Rashi explains]. 
  Potiphar and his wife made him bitter... [Rashi knows] that it cannot refer to his brothers alone. For then it should say, “They quarreled with him and made him bitter” — as it cannot be that they first embittered his life and then became his antagonists. Perforce, it refers also to Potiphar and his wife.
  
  Verse 24
  
  Because he secretly kept the Torah. This is an addition... I.e., Onkelos added [an explanation] to the verse. 
  Father and son, אבהן ובנין... Rashi is saying that Onkelos translated אבן as “father and son.” And how did Onkelos know it means this? Therefore Rashi explains that “אבן is a contraction of אב ובן.”
  
  Verse 25
  
  So, too, the word שדים here... Rashi is explaining how the word שדים means father. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  הריון ... i.e., “The one who made my mother conceive me”... Rashi is explaining how the word הורי means father. ויפוזו זרועי ידיו as ויפוצו... Rashi is saying that ז and צ often interchange, as in זעקת which is like צעקת. 
  תאות עולם from the same meaning as desire and longing... Accordingly, עד תאות גבעות עולם means as follows: the blessings my father gave me were stronger — better — than the blessings Hashem gave my father. This is so, since the great ones [i.e., “the pillars”] of the earth longed for my blessings. And Rashi then explains who longed for them: it was Yaakov’s mother. (<i>source unknown</i>) 
  And וגבעות ... for which his mother longed... Rashi is answering the question: Onkelos explained תאות as longing. And before that, it is written ברכות אביך גברו וגו', which Rashi previously explained as, “The blessings that Hashem blessed me surpassed the blessings that He blessed my forebears.” If so, according to Onkelos, how does the phrase following עד תאות גבעות עולם fit in? Therefore Rashi explains, “His mother longed for them.” Rashi is saying that according to Onkelos, תאות גבעות עולם refers to Rivkah, Yaakov’s mother. She desired those blessings and made Yaakov receive them. Therefore she dressed Yaakov in Eisov’s garments that were desired (החמודות), in order that Yaakov should receive the blessings.
  
  Verse 27
  
  He is a wolf, for he preys... [Rashi is saying that] יטרף does not apply to זאב, for [this would not need to be stated since] every wolf preys. Rather, יטרף applies to Binyamin. It is saying that Binyamin is a wolf because he preys like one. But <i>Maharshal</i> explains that [Rashi is answering the objection:] The verse seems to say that Binyamin will prey on the wolf. However, “preying” cannot be said about a person. Thus Rashi explains, “He is a wolf, for he preys.”
  
  Verse 28
  
  “And this is what their father spoke to them”... referring to everything that was said above. [Rashi is saying] that if not for, “And this is what their father spoke to them,” we would think Yaakov altogether regretted what he had said, and took back his reproach. For it says, “He blessed them,” implying they all [received blessings and not reproaches]. Thus Rashi says, “And this is...” to teach that whatever Yaakov had said remained in force, but he then included them all [in the blessings]. (<i>R. Noson</i>) 
   “He blessed them,” which implies all of them. I did not find this explanation in any Midrash. Furthermore, it seems odd, for where does it state what Yaakov blessed Reuvein, Shimon and Leivi? If it is because he included them all in one blessing, that was learned from ברך אותם [at the end of the verse]. If so, why is ויברך אותם necessary?
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Our father Yaakov did not die. The Gemora in Taanis 5b objects, “Did not the doctors embalm Yaakov (Bereishis 50:2)? And does it not say that his sons carried him from Egypt and buried him in Eretz Yisrael (ibid v. 13)? The answer is: It means he did not taste death, i.e., he did not feel the pain of death. Much more has been said on this subject.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  They completed the days of his embalming until forty days. Rashi is answering the question: [Why does it say וימלאו?] The term מלוי (completion) applies only to a predetermined number, such as: “I will fill (אמלא) the number of your days” (Shemos 23:26), meaning the number of days apportioned to you. Similarly (25:24): “When her days of pregnancy were completed (וימלאו),” meaning the number of days apportioned for her pregnancy. There are many [other examples of this] in Scripture. But here, there was no predetermined number, so Rashi needed to add: “They completed the days <i>of his embalming</i>.” Their period for embalming was for a predetermined number of forty days, as Rashi goes on to say. Rashi says השלימו instead of וימלאו, to teach that this מילוי denotes “completion,” rather than denoting “full” which is the opposite of empty. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  Forty days of the embalming period and thirty for mourning... [Rashi explains] that the seventy days of mourning are not in addition to the forty days mentioned here.
  Because a blessing had come to them on account of him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did they weep? It could not have been to honor Yoseif, because a person cannot weep at will.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Related to כרי דגור... כרי is Hebrew, and דגור is Aramaic. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Not to reveal about the Hebrew Language... Question: If so, how was Yoseif allowed to speak to his brothers in Hebrew? Rashi explained [that Yoseif spoke to them in Hebrew] on, “I speak to you with my own mouth” (45:12). The answer is: Pharaoh stipulated with Yoseif not to speak Hebrew specifically to the Egyptians. When Yoseif spoke to his brothers, no one else was with him in the house, and it did not become known that he spoke to them. (<i>Re’m</i>) The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes: The real question is that everything Yoseif’s interpreter spoke [to the brothers] was in Hebrew, and many Egyptians were present. Furthermore, <i>Re’m</i> contradicts himself, because he wrote on 45:12 that many Egyptians knew Hebrew [since it was the language of the neighboring land of Canaan]. If so, what use was it for Yoseif to swear not to speak in Hebrew, when many Egyptians were speaking it [even though Pharaoh did not understand Hebrew]? See his elaboration there.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Out of respect to his father. But once Yaakov died he no longer received them warmly. It says in Bereishis Rabbah: “R. Tanchuma said that Yoseif’s intent was for the sake of Heaven, for he reasoned, ‘In the past, my father would seat me above Yehudah who is the king, and above Reuvein who is the firstborn. Now, it is not right for me to sit above them...’” And he did not wish to sit below them, because it would be disrespectful to the royalty [of Egypt]. 
  But there is no other example of this in Scripture... Rashi is saying: although there is no other example in Scripture, still we can say that לו means שמא (lest). This is because לו sometimes means אולי, (perhaps), as Rashi proved from Scripture. And אולי sometimes means שמא. If so, לו can mean שמא, since לו and אולי are the same. 
  Sometimes אולי denotes a wish... Rashi is saying there is another proof that לו and אולי are the same: לו often means בקשה (a wish), and אולי sometimes means בקשה. Thus we can say that לו sometimes means שמא just like אולי sometimes does. [Rashi adds:] “Sometimes אולי has the meaning of ‘if’,” [just like לו does] as Rashi said before. Therefore, לו and אולי are the same. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Who was it that they charged [to be messengers]? The sons of Bilhah... [Rashi knows this] because the messenger could not have been an individual who was not their brother. For then Yoseif surely would not believe him, as Yoseif knew that his father did not suspect him of this. But now that they sent one of the brothers to him, to stand in front of him and say, “Father charged me with this message,” Yoseif could not deny its truth. [Another reason the messenger could not have been an individual who was not their brother:] It is not logical that they would divulge to a stranger that they sold their brother. This was a secret and was to their disgrace. It would be more fitting to speak to him themselves. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Ten lights cannot extinguish one light... [You might ask: Why did Yoseif compare them to lights? The answer is:] Because the twelve tribes correspond to the twelve stars which illuminate the whole world. Therefore he mentioned to them “ten lights.” I.e., he was saying that despite their plan to kill him, he was saved from them because each tribe is like a constellation in the heavens which cannot be destroyed. And surely he alone is unable to destroy them. But it cannot simply mean that [since ten could not kill him, surely] he cannot kill ten. This would be no proof because Yoseif was a king and could order a thousand people to kill them. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>)
  
  Exodus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Though [Scripture] has previously enumerated them during their lifetime, etc. Rashi questions the need to count them [the Bnei Yisrael] a second time. They had previously been counted in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:8). One cannot argue that they were previously counted while alive and now they were being counted after death because this makes no difference [in the count] since they had already been counted. This is why Rashi expounds, “[This is] to show,” etc. Rashi finds further difficulty with the “vav” [= and] at the beginning of the word  ואלה [And these]. “‘These’ are the names,” would have been sufficient. 
  It again enumerates them at their deaths, but without using the phrase “by their names” in conjunction with their death. Previously (Ibid.) while alive a detailed count was made (including their extended families) whereas in death, only the tribal leaders were counted. As it is written here “seventy souls.” 
  To show how dear they are [to God], because they are compared to the stars. Do not ask “what is this dearness” that they are compared to the stars. The answer is that just as the stars are exist forever and illuminate by day and night, but their illumintation is not visible during the day because “light at midday is of no value,” so too does Yisrael exist in this world and in the World to Come. 
  Which He brings out and brings in by number and by their [individual] names; The words “and by their names” refer only to the words “and He brings them in.” But concerning taking them out, (Hashem takes them out) only by number and not by name as it says in the verse, “Who brings out their host by number, and calls each by its name (when bringing them back in)” — concerning taking them out it is written “by number,” and (only) concerning bringing them in it is written “by name.” (<i>Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  But, were not he and his sons included in the seventy? And if so, Yoseif’s name should have been included with those of seventy. In other words, it should have come before the sum total of Yaakov’s descendants. 
  Would we not know ourselves that he was in Egypt? We might suggest an answer [to Rashi’s original question]: It was necessary to write that Yoseif was in Egypt [and therefore mentioned him separately]. However, [as Rashi here points out,] another question would arise: “Would we not know . . .?” The <i>Re”m</i> writes at length where he could have been brief, saying Rashi holds that  ויוסף (“Yoseif who was”) relates to what was written above, telling us that with Yoseif there were seventy souls. And it is so stated in Shemos Rabbah (1:7). Thus Rashi asks: “But, were not he and his sons included . . .?” So why then is Yoseif mentioned alone, [without his sons]? It is understandable regarding the other tribes because they all are covered by the phrase “ איש וביתו (Each man with his household),” but this phrase does not relate to Yoseif. Therefore, just as Yoseif is mentioned, so too his sons should have been mentioned. Alternatively, we might suggest that [Rashi does not hold that] “Yoseif who was” relates to what was written above. And “Yoseif and his sons” do not need to be mentioned, since all of them were already included in the count of seventy souls. Rather, “Yoseif who was” tells us that Yoseif was in Egypt. On this Rashi questions: Then what does [Scripture] intend to teach us? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  The same Yoseif who tended his father’s sheep. That is to say: since Yoseif was so lowly and humble, perhaps he sinned, since poverty induces a person to sin. Or since Yoseif was a king, perhaps he sinned as a result of his high status. But since this count (of B’nei Yisrael) is after their deaths, it tells here of Yoseif’s righteousness. For our Rabbis of blessed memory say (Avos 2 :4): “Do not trust yourself [that you will not sin,] until the day of your death.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  They bore six children at one time. The <i>Re”m</i> writes that in Shemos Rabbah (1:8) the number of births at one time is derived from the six words in the verse [ פרו . . . מאד ]. But I would say Rashi is following a view in Yalkut Shimoni that compare them to the largest rodent; the rat gives birth to six at one time.” We see that Rashi is follows this view because he derives the number of births at one time from the word  וישרצו . [This word is a variation of the word  שרץ , “rodent”]. Since the common phrase “were fruitful and multiplied” is interrupted by “and prolific,” which is unusual, certainly the reason for this interruption is because “fruitful” implies one offspring, whereas “multiplied” implies many offspring, as Rashi explained in Parshas Bereishis (1:22). Thus, “prolific” interrupts the phrase “fruitful and multiplied” to teach that the number of offspring born at one time was like that of the largest rodent. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov.</i> See further in <i>Gur Aryeh</i>.) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  The other said, [he was actually the same king] but his edicts were new. Otherwise, [if it was a new king,] the verse should have said “ וימת וימלוך , he [the king] died and a new king came into power.” [Rather it merely says  ויקם (he arose).] 
  He acted as if he did not know [him]. The text of Rashi properly reads  ואשר (<i>And</i> he acted). Otherwise it would imply that Rashi’s explanation is according to both Rav <i>and</i> Shmuel [who disagreed whether a new king arose], which is not so. Whereas “<i>And</i> he acted” implies that it was the same king but he acted <i>as if</i> he did not know Yoseif. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  To the nation [of Israel]. The [singular] word  לו (to him) refers to  עם (nation), and not to [the plural] Bnei Yisrael. 
  Let us wisely determine what to do to him. [Rashi adds the words  מה לעשות (what to do) in order] to say that the Egyptians did not try to be wiser than the nation. Rather, to deal wisely with the nation. For if the Egyptians tried to be wiser than the nation, it should have said  נתחכם עליו (become wise “over” him), so why does it actually say  לו (“with” him)? Therefore Rashi explains: “[To wisely determine] <i>what to do</i> to him.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Let us deal shrewdly with the Savior of Yisrael (God). According to this view, the word  לו (with Him) is referring to Hashem [and not to the nation of Yisrael]. This explains the term  רב ועצום (great and strong), and why the entire passage is written in the singular form. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  By bringing about their fate through water. If so, why did Pharaoh immediately order the midwives to kill any son that was born? [This act was not through water.] The answer is that this wise strategy was without the knowledge of the Egyptians. Rather, Pharaoh himself ordered the midwives [to kill the sons], and he did not fear Divine retribution because the midwives, not he, would actually carry it out. 
  For He has already sworn that He will never again bring a flood upon the world. Hashem exacts justice only in a manner of measure-for-measure.
  
  Verse 11
  
  [The burdens] of the Egyptians. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said to oppress <i>him</i> with <i>his</i> burden, or to oppress <i>them</i> with <i>their</i> burdens. [Instead of to oppress <i>him</i> with <i>their</i> burdens.] 
  They strengthened and fortified them. [If Bnei Yisrael built new cities] then the verse should have written  ויבן את פיתום ואת רעמסס לערי מסכנות (And they built Pisom and Ramseis for supply cities). Since it is written “ ויבן ערי מסכנות (And they built supply cities),” this implies that Pisom and Ramseis already existed and Bnei Yisrael only strengthened them. (<i>Re”m)</i> 
  
  Verse 12
  
  To the extent that they set their hearts to oppress [them]. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that Bnei Yisrael increased because the Egyptians oppressed them. Would they not have increased otherwise? A further question: oppression <i>decreases</i> a population’s growth. Rashi answers: “To the extent that they <i>set their hearts</i>. . .” In other words, the Egyptians did not actually oppress them [at this point]. Rather, they intended to do so. 
  So they are increasing and becoming strong. Since  כן ירבה (lit. “so they <i>will</i> increase”) is referring to Hashem’s intent [to increase them], and He desires that Bnei Yisrael should constantly increase, why does the verse say  ירבה in the future tense, [implying that it did not take place now]? Therefore Rashi explained it as  כן רבה וכן פרץ (they are increasing and becoming strong), which indicates that is was ongoing. 
  Their lives became abhorrent to them. Rashi is answering the question: it says the Egyptians came to loathe,  מפני בני ישראל (lit. <i>in the presence of</i> Bnei Yisrael). Yet Bnei Yisrael were not with the Egyptians all the time. They were in the land of Goshen far from Pharaoh and his people. Therefore Rashi explains: The Egyptians’ own lives became abhorrent to them when Bnei Yisrael were mentioned. I would rather say Rashi inferred it from the verse’s use of  מפני (because of) instead of simply saying  ויקוצו בבני ישראל , “They came to loathe the Bnei Yisrael.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  It sometimes comes in the  קל (light) conjugation . . .  מְיַלְּדוֹת (delivering births) is considered the  כבד (heavy) conjugation since there is a dagesh in the  ל .  מוֹלִידוֹת [which means the same] is considered the  קל (light) conjugation since there is no dagesh in the  ל .
  The same is true of the words  שוֹבֵר (break) and  מְשַׁבֵּר ,  דוֹבֵר (talk) and  מְדַבֵּר .  שׁוֹבֵר is in the  קל conjugation, whereas  מְשַבֵּר is in the  כבד conjugation, yet their meaning is basically the same. The same is true of  דוֹבֵר and  מְדַבֵּר . 
  This is Yocheved. . . It is written nearby (v. 21) that Hashem gave Houses to the midwives, which Rashi there explains as “Houses [i.e. families] of the Kohanim and the Levites and Royalty.” And we do not find that these families came from another woman, rather from Yocheved and Miriam. Therefore Shifra must be Yocheved, for she was Miriam’s mother — as it is not logical to write first the daughter and then the mother. [It follows that] Puah is Miriam. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Only in regard to the male children because his astrologers. . . We might suggest that Pharaoh’s decree was to prevent Bnei Yisrael from multiplying [and not because of his astrologers]. However, then Pharaoh should have killed the females. For if Pharaoh kills the males and leaves the females, as long as one male remains he could impregnate many females. (<i>Re”m</i>) But it seems to me [to explain Rashi otherwise]: If Pharaoh’s decree was only to prevent Bnei Yisrael from multiplying, why did he innovate the decree pertaining to the midwives? He was concerned about them multiplying because of “he will join our enemies and fight against us,” and this problem was removed by the decree of [appointing] the conscription officers. Rather, this new decree was “Because his astrologers. . .” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) See further elaboration there. 
  And she will live ( וְתִחְיֶה ). Rashi is answering the question that  וְחָיָה (lit. “and he will live”) is in the masculine form, as is seen in many places, [and thus it does not fit the subject (girl) of the verse]. But this  וְחָיָה is in the feminine form, and is like the term  וְתִחְיֶה . For there is a difference. The word in our verse has the accent on the next-to-last syllable, on the  ח , thus it is in the feminine form. But when the accent is on the last syllable, on the  י , it is in the masculine form. We find [examples of the masculine form] in Megillas Esther (4:11) where it is written:  אֶת שַׁרְבִיט הַזָּהָב וְחָיָה [the accent is on the  י ]. And the same is in Koheles (6:6):  וְאִלּוּ חָיָה אֶלֶף שָׁנִים . Another explanation: [Rashi is emphasizing that] since the letter  ו begins the word  וְחָיָה , this switches it to the future tense. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  They provided water and food for them. When it says “And did not do as the Egyptian king had told them,” we infer that the midwives did not kill them. So what does “they kept the infant boys alive” teach? That “they provided water and food. . .” 
  This word  וַתְּחַיֶיo and any form thereof is used to mean: “they” (fem.) did something, as well as: “you” (fem. pl.) did something. In other words, there is no difference [in spelling or nikud] between the third person plural feminine and the second person plural feminine, in the future tense [which here is switched to the past by the  ו ]. (<i>Re”m</i>) It seems that Rashi offers the above explanation because he is answering the question: Since we explained the first “ וַתְּחַיֶיo (they kept. . . alive)” as providing water and food, the Targum is difficult to understand. It translated the first “ וַתְּחַיֶיo as  וְקַיָימָא (they kept alive),” yet the second (v. 18) as  וְקַיֵימְתּוּן . Why the switch? Otherwise we could have said that  וְקַיֵימְתּוּן means they provided water and food, and for this reason the translation differs. But according to our explanation that the first  וַתְּחַיֶיo means providing water and food, why did the Targum translate it as  וְקַיָימָא ? Therefore Rashi explains: “This is because, in Hebrew. . .” [Therefore the Targum translated the verbs according to their relative subjects]. 
  You [women] have spoken,  וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה , is the same as  דִבַּרְתֶּן . Just as we find  וַתּאמַרְנָה (third person, plural feminine) in one place, and  וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה in another, and this [second] word is like  וַתּאמַרְנָה , with the same conjugation — yet it means the same as  דִבַּרְתֶּן , which is second person. Here as well, the first  וַתְּחַיֶיo is third person, while the second  וַתְּחַיֶין is second person, although they has the same conjugation. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  They may be compared to animals of the field. . . [Rashi offers this explanation because of] a difficulty with the first explanation: Even if they were as knowledgeable as midwives, but a midwife also requires a midwife to deliver her. (<i>Re”m)</i> 
  What a lioness is your mother! In other words, the verse compares the congregation of Israel (“your mother”) to a lioness. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  When it speaks in terms of “he did.” Meaning: he himself underwent the action [i.e. a transitive verb].
  Do not reject my [explanation] because of the words  וילך . . . These words [seem problematic because they] also are vocalized with a  צירי yet they mean that he himself underwent the action.
  
  Verse 21
  
  Houses of Kohanim and the Levites . . .  וייטב [Rashi is explaining that] “He was good,” and “he gave them houses” are not two separate points, [as Rashi preceded this by saying: “What was this good?”] 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Also upon them (the Egyptians) did he issue the decree. . . People ask: if they threw the infants into water because of what the astrologers said, what was their wisdom in “Come let us deal <i>wisely </i>with him” (Shemos 1:10), on this Rashi explains: “Let us . . . bring about their fate through water, for He has already sworn. . .”? The answer is: Originally, Pharaoh issued the decree only upon the Hebrews. “Come let us deal wisely,” refers to that decree. But Pharaoh issued an additional decree upon the Egyptians, on the day that Moshe was born. Only on that day <i>all</i> male infants were thrown into the river, since the astrologers said their savior will be smitten through water, “but we do not know whether he is from the Egyptians or the Hebrews.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Married her a second time. [The proof:] immediately after this marriage, Yocheved conceived and gave birth to Moshe. Yet, Aharon and Miriam were older than Moshe. Therefore, they were born from the first marriage of Amram and Yocheved’s first marriage. 
  She, too, became youthful again. Since Yocheved is described as  בת  לוי (lit. “girl of Levi”), this implies she was youthful. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  When he was born the entire house was filled with light. Here it says  כי טוב (he was good), and earlier (Bereishis 1:4) it says  וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב (And Elokim saw the light, <i>that</i> <i>it was good</i>). Just as  כי טוב earlier refers to light, so too here it refers to light. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  One who gives birth in the seventh month can give birth to a live child, even though the seven months are incomplete, and are only six months and one day. 
  Tar on the outside. . . so that the righteous [child] should not have to smell. . . Rashi added a reason in Parshas Noach (Bereishis 6:14): “With Moshe’s box, since the water current was mild, it was sufficient to have [just] clay on the inside and on the outside.” See [Rashi] there. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  They were going to die because they opposed her (Pharaoh’s daughter).” The maids opposed her rescue of Moshe.
  Her handmaiden. Rashi said above: “Our Sages explained” [that the maids died.] For the angel Gavriel killed all the maids who accompanied Pharaoh’s daughter. If so, [how could she now send a maid to fetch the box?] The Gemara (Sotah 12b) already answered that Gavriel did not kill all her maids. He spared one maid, to extend honor to royalty, so that Pharaoh’s daughter would not be left alone. This remaining maid was sent. 
  But the Sages explained it as “hand” . . . and her arm extended many cubits . . . The verse should have said, “(She sent)  נערתה or  שפחתה ” if it simply meant handmaidens. Because it did not sprecifically state  ידה , the Sages explained  אמתה as implying that her arm extended many  אמות (cubits). Alternatively, the Sages explained this because the  מ [of  אמתה ] has no dagesh [although the word  אמה (hand or arm) requires one]. And the dagesh in nouns does not change even in the <i>nismach</i> form, or with a possessive suffix [such as  תה as it appears here]. Yet the word did change here, for the  א has a sheva [i.e., a chataf patach, due to which the dagesh in the  מ drops out], although the  א should have had a [simple] patach. [Therefore our Sages explain: The word  אמתה changed, to indicate that the arm of Pharaoh’s daughter changed.] (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 6
  
  She saw the Divine Presence with him. If [the verse means that]she saw Moshe, it should have stated  ותראה (she saw). Therefore, the letter  ו at the end of the word  ותראהו refers to the Divine Presence, [Whom she saw with the child]. 
  His voice was like that of a [grown] boy. Rashi is answering the question: Why is he called a  נער (grown boy)? This implies thirteen years old, but Moshe was not this age. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  She unknowingly prophesied. Although  הֵא [i.e., the first half of  הֵיליכי ] is normal usage of the language, as in (Bereishis 42:23)  הֵא לכם זרע (here is seed for you), [Rashi offers his Midrashic explanation] only because  ליכי is written instead of  לָךְ . Although  ליכי is feminine [and is thus fitting for the verse], but  לָךְ also refers to females. For example [Elkanah speaking to Chanah]:  אנכי טוב לָךְ (I have been good to you). (Shmuel I, 1:8) 
  
  Verse 10
  
  As one who extracts a hair from milk.  כמשחל בניתא מחלבא is Aramaic for “taking a hair out of the milk.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  He was one of the slave drivers. Since the beating [that the Egyptian did] is juxtaposed to the burdens of hard labor, they are related. Therefore Rashi explains: “He was one of the slave drivers.” 
  He would wake them at the crow of the rooster to their tasks. When the rooster crowed, they immediately needed to get up for their work. 
  He was beating and terrorizing him. We need not ask how Rashi knew that  מכה means only beating rather than smiting and killing. For the answer is [clear]: Rashi explains later that Moshe killed the Egyptian only after seeing that there was no good man destined to descend from him. Otherwise Moshe would not have killed him. Whereas if  מכה means kill, why did Moshe need to see this? Even if the Egyptian would have good descendants he would deserve death for murdering a Hebrew, as Scripture states (Shemos 21:23), “A soul for a soul.” Thus,  מכה must mean beating and terrorizing but not killing. That is why Moshe needed to see if there would be any good descendant—otherwise he would not kill him since he was not liable for death by Torah law. You might then ask: how was Moshe allowed to kill him, [if he was not liable for death by Torah law]? The answer is that B’nei Noach are liable for death for violating any Noachite law. And they are commanded against beating, just as Jews are. Nevertheless, were he destined to have a good descendant, Moshe would have judged the Egyptian by Torah law rather than by Noachite law. 
  He (the victim) was the husband of Shlomis, daughter of Divri. [Rashi knows this] because of what is written later in Parshas Emor: “Shlomis daughter of Divri” (Vayikra 24:11). There Rashi explained: “It is praiseworthy to the Jews that Shlomis is specified, as this means only she had illicit relations.” And if this woman was not Shlomis, then there would be two Jewish women who had illicit relations. 
  He (the Egyptian) was attracted to her . . . and came upon his wife. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Moshe would not have killed him. The Egyptian would not deserve death for only beating the Hebrew. Therefore, he must have come upon his wife and definitely deserved death since adultery is forbidden by the seven Noachite laws, as it is written (Bereishis 2:24): “And he shall cleave to his wife” [and not to another’s wife; see <i>Yerushalmi, Kiddushin </i>1:1]. This also answers the question posed above (How was Moshe allowed to kill him?). 
  
  Verse 12
  
  No man was there . . . that would convert. [Rashi offers this Midrashic interpretation] because the verse says “he saw that no  איש (man) was there,” rather than “no  אדם (person) was there.” Whereas according to the verse’s plain meaning that Moshe was afraid of being seen, there is no difference whether it was a man or a woman. Therefore Rashi explains, “No man. . . that would convert,” since  איש implies a tzaddik. Similarly Rashi explains in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 13:3) and in Parshas Devarim (Devarim 1:13) that  איש implies a tzaddik but it does not exclude women (<i>Maharamash)</i>. You might ask that in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:10), Rashi says that  בתוך בני ישראל (among the B’nei Yisrael) means that the son whom the Egyptian begat from Shlomis had converted. [Thus, he did have a righteous descendant.] The answer is that when Moshe killed the Egyptian, Shlomis had already conceived him. However, Moshe saw that no additional converts were destined to descend from him. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Dosson and Avirom. [Rashi knows it was them] because the verse here states “Two  אנשים (men),” similar to what is written there [about Dosson and Avirom]: “Move away from the tents of these evil  אנשים (men)” (Bamidbar 16:26). 
  Though he had not yet struck him. [Rashi knows this] because the verse should have said  למה אתה מכה (“why are you beating,” in the present tense), as it did above:  מכה איש עברי מאחיו (beating one of his Hebrew brethren). Thus,  למה תכה (“why will you beat,” in the future tense) means “why <i>do you wish</i> to strike your friend?” 
  He is as wicked as you. Rashi is answering the question: why did Moshe call him  רעך (your friend), if one was wicked and the other not? Therefore Rashi explains that also his friend was wicked (<i>Maharshal</i>). 
  
  Verse 14
  
  He killed [the Egyptian] with the Divine Name. [Rashi knows this] since the verse states  הלהרגני אתה אומר (Are you <i>saying</i> to kill me), rather than  הלהרגני אתה מבקש (Are you <i>planning</i> to kill me). This shows that Moshe killed him through speech. Who told him that the Egyptian was killed by the Divine Name? We could say [that the wicked man knew how Moshe killed the Egyptian] since he saw that Moshe buried him in the sand but he did not see Moshe lift a hand against him. Thus he deduced that Moshe killed him with the Divine Name (<i>Re”m)</i>. 
  Wicked people who were informers. The word  דלטורין means “informers.”
  To be subjugated by oppressive work. Although there had been a decree upon the descendants of Avraham: “And they will enslave them and afflict them four hundred years” (Bereishis 15:13), nevertheless, Moshe questioned [Why they were oppressed], since it is written (Devarim 24:16): “Children shall not die for [the sins of] their fathers.” Alternatively, [Moshe’s question was that] Avraham and Yitzchak had other descendants, so why was subjugation not decreed upon them. Alternatively, although “they will enslave them and afflict them” had been decreed, but oppressive work had not decreed upon them. And this [i.e., their oppressive work] is what puzzled Moshe (<i>Maharma”i</i>). 
  
  Verse 15
  
  They (Dosson and Avirom) informed on him. [Rashi knows this because] it says later on (Shemos 4:19): “For they have died — all the men who had sought your life.” This was Dosson and Avirom, as we see in Maseches Nedarim 64b. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  He abandoned the worship of idols whereupon they (the Midianites) banished him. Rashi is answering the question: Since Yisro was the most prominent man of Midian, why did the shepherds chase away his sheep? Therefore Rashi explains: “He abandoned the worship of idols. . .” (<i>Maharshal</i>) Although Yisro abandoned the worship of idols, he did not convert fully. For later, upon hearing of the Splitting of the Sea, he came to convert. But I heard it means that Yisro abandoned the idols of Midian to worship other idols. This is in accordance with the Mechilta (Yisro 1): “There was no idol that Yisro had not worshipped.” Thus we must say that Yisro abandoned one idolatry for another. According to this, we can understand why Yisro stipulated with Moshe that Moshe’s first son shall be devoted to idolatry (ibid.), [although Yisro had already “abandoned” the worship of idols]. (<i>Maharamash</i>) 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  For whom the waters [of the Nile] rose. It seems that Rashi inferred this from the fact that Yisro asked his daughters: “How did you get to come [home] so early today?” It is difficult to understand the basis of his question. If he knew that the shepherds came every day and chased the sheep away, they would not go in the first place before the shepherds finished watering. And if he knew that the shepherds did <i>not</i> come first every day, [why was he surprised his daughters returned early?] Perhaps the shepherds did not come [first] today. Thus we must assume that on that day Yisro’s daughters returned home so early that even if the shepherds did <i>not</i> come first, the daughters would not have returned so soon. Therefore he asked them: “How did you get to come [home] so early today?” And they answered that a man came and drew for them, and the water rose up for him, thus they did not need to draw. And how did Rashi know that they answered so? Because the verse stated previously: “To draw water and <i>fill the troughs</i>,” implying that the daughters would pour water into the troughs to water their sheep. Whereas they now said to Yisro: “He also drew for us, and watered the sheep,” implying that Moshe did not pour the water into the troughs but watered the sheep straight from the well. Since he did not need to pour, the water must have risen up for him (<i>Maharshal</i>). (There are new insights to be formulated here, but time does not permit.) 
  Perhaps he might marry one of you. Rashi [offers this Midrashic explanation in answer to] the question: Why did Yisro say “let him eat bread”? Is it proper that Yisro honor Moshe merely with bread, in return for his great kindness? It would be understandable [for Yisro to say so] if Moshe was present. Then we could assume that Yisro was saying little and doing much, as the Gemara (Bava Metzia 87a) states regarding Avraham’s statement, “I will bring some bread [for the guests to eat]” (Bereishis 18:5). However, Avraham was a tzaddik, and the tzaddikim say little and do much, but Yisro was not as righteous and Moshe was not present so Yisro would not say this, for even Avraham made his statement when the angels <i>were</i> present. Furthermore, the verse implies that Moshe was invited only for eating bread, and then he would go on his way. Was Yisro’s great concern justified for this [i.e., eatng bread] alone, that he should exclaim: “Why did you abandon the man? Call him . . .”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Perhaps he might marry one of you.” This also explains the verse following, “Moshe agreed to reside with the man . . .,” i.e., Moshe agreed to remain with Yisro because of “. . . and he gave Moshe his daughter Tzipporah.” The word  ויואל (agreed) clearly implies that Yisro requested this of him, and now Moshe agreed to fill his request. Therefore, we must say that this request is hinted in “Call him and let him eat bread,” meaning: “perhaps he might marry one of you.” That is why Yisro sent after Moshe (<i>Maharamash</i>). 
  
  Verse 21
  
  I have agreed to speak ( הואלתי לדבר ). We must say that Rashi is bringing his proof [that  ויואל means “I have agreed”] from the second instance that  הואלתי appears in Parshas Vayeira (Bereishis 18:31). For  הואלתי appears there twice, and the first  הואלתי (ibid v. 27) does not mean “I have agreed,” rather “I have begun,” as Rashi explains there. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  He was stricken with leprosy . . . If the verse means that he actually died, why did B’nei Yisrael cry? Perhaps the king to reign after Pharaoh will be benevolent. Perforce we must conclude that he was stricken with leprosy, and a leper is considered as dead (Nedarim 64b). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  The place. Rashi is answering the question:  אדמת (ground) is feminine, but  הוּא [the pronoun ostensibly referring to it] is masculine. Therefore Rashi explains that  הוּא refers to  המקום (the place). 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  You will bring My nation out. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should have said “Go, I am sending you to Pharaoh  להוציא (to bring out),” whereas  והוצא (and you will bring out) implies that it is a separate statement. Therefore Rashi inserts  ואם תאמר (should you say . . .) to which the answer is: “and you will bring out . . .” (i.e., that it is one statement). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Who am I. The word “who” [am I] is used in place of “what” [am I] because it is not possible to explain this statement as referring to “bringing them out,” for the verse continues “Am I able to bring the Bnei Yisroel out.” Perhaps Moshe felt inadequate to speak with Pharaoh for he was a king. Thus Rashi comments “that I might speak with kings.” 
  What did the Israelites do to merit . . . [Rashi knew this] because Hashem responded, “When you bring the people out [to receive the Torah].” This implies that Moshe asked this (i.e., what did.the Israelites do to merit . . .) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  And the vision that you saw in the thornbush . . . Rashi explains: Do not think that the burning bush was just an illusion. Rather, it was a true sign from Hashem. 
  You, too, shall go on My mission and you will not be harmed. Otherwise,  לך (to you) is superfluous in the verse. Therefore, [Hashem tells Moshe that] it is a sign to you, Moshe, that you will not be harmed, just as you saw the bush was not being consumed. 
  Three months after they go out of Egypt. If you ask: When does the count start? [For it cannot start] from this Divine statement, as the ten plagues came in between, and each plague lasted for a quarter month, and the other three quarters [of the month] Moshe would caution and warn them, as Rashi explains in Parshas Va’eira (Shemos 7:25), on “Seven full days [passed].” Thus, the plagues lasted for a ten month period. Furthermore, the plagues did not begin immediately after this Divine statement. And if [you suggest that] the count begins with the exodus from Egypt, this is less than a two month period: half of Nisan, Iyar, and on the sixth of Sivan they received the Torah. The answer is: The promise of receiving the Torah is not speaking exclusively of the Written Torah, but also of the Oral Torah. After they received the [Written] Torah, Moshe ascended Mount Sinai. He was there forty days and nights, and received the Oral Torah. When he descended on the 17th of Tammuz, it was three full months [from the exodus]. And the B’nei Yisrael were redeemed in order [to receive] the Oral Torah. As it is written (ibid., 34:27): “ על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית (for with these words, I have made a covenant with you),” and  על פי [lit. “by the mouth of”] alluding to the Oral Torah. An alternative answer: “Three months after [they go out of Egypt]” means “<i>in</i> the third month [following their exodus from Egypt].” As Rashi similarly explains (Shemos 19:15): “ לשלשת ימים (for three days)” as meaning <i>on</i> the third day. 
  And this will be a sign to you. Rashi is proving that Hashem makes a promise which is contingent to a previous promise, although that first promise has not as yet been fulfilled. The same is true here. The promise of Moshe’s mission [to bring the people out] has not as yet been realized. [You might ask:] how can that [promise] serve as a proof [of the fulfillment] of a further promise — the receiving of the Torah? [Thus Rashi answers:] We find a similar sentence structure in Yeshayahu regarding the promise of Sancheriv’s downfall, which had not yet happened. Yet it signaled [the fulfillment of] another promise — namely, that which grows of itself will be blessed. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  So that it (My Name) not be read as written. The <i>Re”m’s</i> lengthy commentary is expressed in the Gemara (Pesachim 50a), and he [apparently] overlooked it. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Through Yaakov and Yoseif. You might ask: If so, Moshe also knew the expression, as they did. So how is [his using] it a proof? Perhaps Moshe was lying [that Hashem sent him]! The answer is: Moshe was only twelve [when he fled from Egypt], and this sign was transmitted only to adults. 
  Elokim will surely consider you. This is puzzling: we do not find such a verse said by Yaakov. Perhaps the answer is: this verse is said twice by Yoseif (Bereishis 50:24, 25), thus Yoseif said one on his own accord, and one he said in the name of his father Yaakov, i.e., Yoseif received [this expression] from his father. (<i>Re”m</i>) So it is written in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer (ch. 48), in Tosafos (Sotah 13a), and in Shemos Rabbah (here and in ch. 5). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  The word  נקרה is derived from the term  מקרה (happening). But in the beginning of Parshas Vayikra (1:1) Rashi wrote [that it means otherwise]: Hashem reveals Himself to prophets of the nations with a term [ ויקר , similar to  נקרה ,] meaning impurity. Perhaps the answer is:  ויקר [and  נקרה ] is always derived from  מקרה , but sometimes it means a chance happening, such as (Devarim 22:6): “ כי יקרא קן ציפור (if you <i>happen</i> upon a bird’s nest).” And sometimes it means emission of a man’s seed, which denotes impurity, such as in (ibid., 23:11) “ מקרה לילה (a <i>happening</i> of night).” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  I [Bilaam] will be met by Him here ( ואנכי אקרה כה ). This  אקרה does not imply that Bilaam happened to meet Hashem, since [on the contrary], Hashem met <i>him</i>, [as it states,]  ויקר אלהים אל בלעם (“Hashem happened to meet Bilaam”). Bilaam was not the one initiating; rather he was the one being met. Rashi explains  כה to mean  הלום (“here”), as in (Shemos 7:16): “Until here ( כה ) you have not listened.” This  כה does not mean “thusly”, as in (Shemos 4:22), “Thusly ( כה ) said Adonoy.” For if this  כה means “thusly,” then  אקרה  could imply: “I thusly will be met by another, just as Hashem met me.” But this is not the intent of this verse. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  And not because his hand is strong. In other words, the verse means: “The king of Egypt will not allow you to go, but <i>not</i> because his hand is strong.” For [the next verse says:] “I will then send forth My hand and strike Egypt . . . [and then he (Pharaoh) will send you out.]” Whereas if Pharaoh’s hand was strong, he would not send them out [even after being struck]. 
  And not because his power is strong.  ולא מן קדם דחיליה תקיף means “but not because he has great strength.” Rashi attributes the explanation to Rabbi Yaakov rather than to Onkelos only as regards the meaning of  ושלחתי את ידי , who explained it as, “for once I send forth My Hand and strike [Egypt]” he will immediately send you out. The <i>Re”m</i> writes: “But [according to this,] I do not know how to explain the  ו of  אחרי כן ישלח אתכם (<i>And</i> then he will send you out).” It would seem the answer is: The  ו is [superfluous] like the  ו in (Bereishis 36:24):  ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה (And these are the children of Tziv’on: <i>and</i> Ayah and Anah). 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Menachem places it ( ונצלתם ) in the Machberes . . . Rashi is explaining that Menachem categorizes  ונצלתם (you will divest) with the words that have  צ as the first letter of their root. Thus the root is  צל , and the  נ is not a root letter. 
  Whereas, every letter  נ which sometimes appears in a word . . . Rashi is offering an additional proof that the  נ of  וינצלו [and of  ונצלתם ] is a root letter. 
  E.g. “ ונשאתם (you shall carry) your father.” Surely the  נ of  נִצלתם , which sometimes is omitted entirely according to Menachem who says it is not a root letter, should be vocalized here with a [mere] <i>shva</i>. Yet, it is vocalized with a <i>chirik.</i> Thus Rashi concludes: “I, therefore, say . . . is part of the root.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  As a person who says to his friend. . . This does not contradict the Midrashic explanation [which preceded]. Rather, it explains why Hashem said: “What is that in your hand?” in the form of a question. For did Moshe not know what was in his hand? He surely saw it was a staff. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Once you tell them, “because of you I was struck [with tzora’as]” . . . they will believe you. [Rashi offers this explanation because] otherwise the last sign is no better than the first. [Rashi offers this explanation because] otherwise the last sign is no better than the first. The <i>Re”m</i> asks: “But [according to this,] I do not know what Rashi would say regarding the sign of [water turning to] blood. How is it better than the two preceding signs?” It would seem the answer is: the B’nei Yisrael did not actually see the first two signs, thus they might not believe them. But the sign of blood they will see with their own eyes, therefore they will believe in it. And Moshe was not commanded to perform the first two signs [before them] because these signs served also to punish Moshe, as Rashi explained, [and it would not be proper to punish Moshe in front of them]. The <i>Maharshal</i> explains [why the first two signs were not repeated]: For if we say the <i>tzora’as</i> punished Moshe for slander, then he had received his [due amount of] suffering from Hashem the first time, and need not be afflicted with <i>tzora’as</i> again. And if we say it was not because of Moshe’s sin, then surely Hashem would not make him suffer a second time for naught. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  They will not turn into blood until they reach the dry land. You might ask: But why is the first  והיו needed? The answer is: It is the way of Scripture to begin [a phrase] with  והיו . (<i>Re”m</i>)
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  [And who made] his servants deaf. The <i>Re”m</i> asks: If Pharaoh became dumb and exerted no effort to kill Moshe, why did Hashem also need to make his servants deaf and blind? The <i>Re”m</i> answers: [Originally, Pharaoh spoke up and ordered Moshe’s death. And] after he heard of Moshe’s escape, he commanded his servants to give chase and capture him. It was then that all his servants became deaf. And when Pharaoh saw that Moshe was not captured, he thought they gave chase but did not find him. Thus Pharaoh did not exert any effort to send many more servants from all areas to find and capture Moshe and have him executed. Instead, he kept silent and went his way. 
  Is it not I, that My Name is Adonoy, who did all this? [Rashi adds<i>“</i>that My<i> Name</i>” to explain that] it does not mean “My essence is Adonoy.” For it is written (Shemos 6:3), “My Name Adonoy I did <i>not</i> make known to them.” The reason Rashi says, “ ששמי ה (that My Name is Adonoy)” instead of simply “ שמי ה' (My name is Adonoy),” is that it would otherwise mean Hashem is informing us of His Name, which is Adonoy. And if so, how does it relate back to [the beginning of the verse]: “Who gave man a mouth . . .”? But with the added  ש it means: “Who gave man a mouth? . . . It is I, that My Name is Adonoy.” Rashi’s further addition, “Who did all this?” refers back to “Who gave man a mouth . . .” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Through the one You usually send, namely, Aharon. This raises a difficulty: Why did Moshe not expressly say: “Send Aharon”? Thus Rashi offers the alternate explanation. And the alternate explanation raises a difficulty: It is not plausible that Moshe would himself utter this bad matter. Thus the first explanation is needed, too. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 14
  
  The adornment of the breastplate. The word  עדי means “ornament.”
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  This is an indication. In other words, this verse is <i>one</i> of the indicators. For Rashi has many other verses to prove that these words mean  על , which denotes  בשביל (for). [The proof here is that] if  לך is to be taken literally, then it means that Aharon will speak <i>to</i> Moshe. If so, what does “to the people,” which follows it, mean? Therefore it must mean “<i>for</i> you,” i.e., “in place of you.” 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  But had become paupers. Although it is stated (Nedarim 64b): “Four [kinds of people] are considered as if dead: a poor man, a blind man, a metzora and someone without children,” [nevertheless, for the following reasons Rashi knew that] here, “died” certainly means poverty. We cannot say they became blind, for regarding Korach’s rebellion it is written (Bamidbar 16:14): “If you put those people’s [Dasan and Aviram’s] eyes out.” [This implies they could indeed see.] And we cannot say they were afflicted with tzoraas, for it says (Devarim 11:6) that they were “in the midst of the camp,” [and a metzora must dwell outside of the camp]. And we cannot say [they were afflicted with tzoraas or blindness at the time] but were healed when the Torah was given, because all the people’s blemishes returned after the sin of the Golden Calf (Bamidbar Rabbah 7:4). And we cannot say they were considered as if dead because they had no children. For why would Hashem tell Moshe to return to Egypt because of this? Would their lack of children cause the authorities not to accept their slander against Moshe. Rather, it surely must be that Dasan and Aviram [were considered as if dead] because they became paupers, and for that reason Pharaoh would not heed their words. (<i>Ran</i> in Nedarim 7a) 
  
  Verse 20
  
  “Earlier” or “later” are not exact in Scripture. [Rashi states that events are not always recorded chronologically. This answers the question:] it should have been written “Moshe took the rod” before “Moshe took his wife.” For Moshe did not take the rod in Egypt, rather in Midian. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Moshe. You might ask: perhaps  ויהי (he was, or: it was) refers to an event rather than to a person, as in (Bereishis 14:1), “ ויהי (<i>It </i>was) in the days of Amrafel,” and (ibid., 15:17), “ ויהי (<i>It</i> was) at sunset.” The answer is: since it says afterwards “ ויפגשהו ה' (Adonoy confronted <i>him</i>),” without stating who was confronted, we must say that  ויהי refers to Moshe [and thus means: <i>he</i> was]. 
  Because his first concern was his lodging. You might ask: Rashi himself explained earlier that [Moshe did not circumcise him] because traveling endangers the child during the first three days [following circumcision]. If so, why was Moshe punished, [as they were in the midst of traveling]? The answer is: Moshe was now at an inn that was a distance of one day’s travel to Egypt. Such a short journey would not hurt or endanger the child. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  The angel turned into a kind of snake. [Rashi knew this] because otherwise, how could Zipporah have known that it was because of the circumcision that the angel wanted to kill Moshe? We need not object: Perhaps the angel told her expressly that it was because of the circumcision? For the answer is that the verse later states: “<i>Then</i> she said, ‘[You are] a bridegroom of blood [to me] because of the circumcision.’” This implies that Zipporah did not actually understand it until <i>then</i>. Whereas if the angel told her expressly, why did she not understand? 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  She understood . . . You might ask: Rashi explained above (v. 24) that she understood why the angel came since it swallowed Moshe from his head to his thigh, etc. Yet here Rashi explains that [she understood it] since the angel withdrew from Moshe now. Also the <i>Re”m</i> asked this, writing: “I do not understand Rashi’s intent . . .” The <i>Re”m</i> elaborated on this point, leaving the question unresolved. 
  Referring to the blood of the circumcision. Whereas according to Rashi’s explanation,  דמים (blood) is an expression of death and murder. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  They received their retribution at Sinai: “Moshe, alone, drew near . . .” <i>Re”m </i>wrote: “It is puzzling that Rashi here explains the verse from Shemos 24:2 as implying that ‘But they did not draw near’ refers only to the elders. This is not true, because the previous verse (24:1) states: ‘Ascend to Adonoy, you <i>and Aharon, Nadav, and Avihu</i>, and seventy of the elders of Israel.’ Then is written, ‘Moshe, alone, drew near . . .’ Yet if Hashem turned everyone back as a punishment, what was Aharon’s sin? Similarly with Nadav and Avihu, who were not among the seventy elders. [What was their sin?]” <i>Re”m</i> left the matter unresolved. But to me it seems not so problematic. For Rashi explains in Parashas Yisro (Shemos 19:24): “You [Moshe] will have your own designated area [when Hashem descends on Mt. Sinai], and also Aharon will have his own designated area, whereas the people may not break through their position at all.” Thus we see that the elders did not have their own designated area but stood among the people, and this was the punishment. And as for Nadav and Avihu, perhaps they stood in the same designated area as Aharon. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  And have thoughts of resting from the work. Rashi explains [as he does] because nowhere do we find Moshe and Aharon telling them to disengage from their work, or that they were commanded to do so. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  They were Egyptians while the officers were Israelites. Otherwise, why did only the  שוטרים (officers) cry out to Pharaoh and not the  נוגשים (taskmasters)? Also, why were only the officers beaten and not the taskmasters? 
  
  Verse 7
  
  As you had been doing till now. I.e., [ כתמול שלשום does not refer to] just the past two days.  כתמול here means the same as in (Iyov 8:9), “We have been since  תמול (yesterday) so we do not know,” [where it is to be understood figuratively]. Consequently, the word  שלשום (“and the day before”) is unnecessary—since  תמול includes everything in the past. Nevertheless, it says  שלשום so we will not mistakenly think that this  תמול follows its usual, [i.e., literal] meaning in Scripture. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  It is impossible to say that “ ואל ישעו (Let them not talk)” has the same meaning as: “Hashem ( וישע ) turned to Hevel.” This raises a difficulty: Rashi explained the verse “Hashem ( וישע ) turned to Hevel” (Bereishis 4:4), that  וישע has the same meaning as in “ ואל ישעו ” in our verse. Nevertheless, there is a view that even “ ואל ישעו ” means “turn.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  And you must go with zeal. Rashi is answering the question: How does “because your workload must not be reduced” provide a reason for the preceding “You must go get your own straw”? On the contrary: if they go get straw, their work will surely be reduced! Therefore Rashi explains “And you must go with zeal,” [i.e., quickly], for the reason that the verse provides: “because your workload must not be reduced.” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Pressured. I.e.,  אצים does not mean speed. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Those officers that Pharaoh’s taskmasters appointed. Rashi is answering the question:  אשר שמו עליהם נוגשי פרעה seems to imply that the officers of B’nei Yisrael appointed Pharaoh’s taskmasters over themselves. Therefore Rashi explains: “Those officers that <i>Pharaoh’s taskmasters</i> appointed.”
  Because they would say to them . . . Usually,  לאמר (to say) or  אמירה (saying), when following a term of  דיבור (speaking), comes to specify what was spoken in general, . But here,  לאמר cannot mean this, [since  וידבר is not written]. And here,  לאמר also cannot mean “say to others,” [as it sometimes does]. Therefore Rashi was forced to explain: “Why were they beaten? Because they would <i>say</i> to them . . .” 
  The taskmasters beat them. Rashi explains  ויוכו (they were beaten by others) only after he provides the reason why they were beaten. [Although logically, Rashi should first explain that they were beaten, and then provide the reason why]. This is because the reason provided, “Why have you not completed . . . the quota,” is in fact not the reason [said by] the beaten party, rather it is the reason [said by] the beaters, i.e., the taskmasters. [This is problematic because the taskmasters are not actually the subject of the verse.] Therefore, Rashi needed to explain that  למה ויוכו implies that they were recipients of an act, and thus it is the same as saying  למה הכום (why did they [the taskmasters] beat them). [In this way the taskmasters become the subject of the verse, and the reason of “Why have you not completed. . . the quota” follows logically.] 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Make bricks to equal the earlier amount. Otherwise, why did the officers complain about making bricks? They could just reduce the set number of bricks. Rather, their complaint was over being required to produce the same amount as before. 
  This thing is the sin of your people. In other words, [with a patach it would mean]: it is the sin of the Egyptians’. 
  And this thing brings sin to your people. In other words, “It brings sin to the B’nei Yisrael [when they fail to fulfill the command].” 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Some of the B’nei Yisrael . . . These were not from among the officers, for they were pious people (as explained earlier). (<i>Re”m)</i> However, it seems to me that surely they were from among the officers [who had just cried out to Pharaoh], since the verse states, “as they were leaving Pharaoh.” And “they” cannot refer to Moshe and Aharon, for they were not with Pharaoh now. And so it says in Shemos Rabbah (5:20). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  To the kings of the seven nations when I will bring them (Yisrael) to the Land. You might ask: It seems that Hashem is hinting <i>now</i> to Moshe that he will not enter the Land. Yet later, in Parshas Beha’alosecha (Bamidbar 10:29), and it says, “<i>We</i> are traveling to the place,” Rashi himself explained that Moshe thought he would enter the Land. The answer is: He thought he would enter but would die before conquering the seven nations, as B’nei Yisrael fought a long time before conquering them. But a difficulty remains, for earlier, it says, “Please send the one You usually send” (Shemos 4:13), and Rashi explained: “I [Moshe] am not destined to bring them into the Land.” Thus, it clearly implies that Moshe knew he would not enter the Land. The answer is: Moshe thought he would not bring them into the land as their leader, but would still enter as one of the people. But a difficulty still remains: Later on in Parshas Beshalach, it says, “<i>You </i>will bring them and plant them on the mountain of Your inheritance” (Shemos 15:17), and Rashi explains: “Moshe prophesied that he would not enter the Land [at all].” The answer is: Moshe surely prophesied this, but not as a full prophecy, i.e., he prophesied without realizing the content of his prophecy. 
  Due to My strong hand . . . I.e., we should not explain that Pharaoh will let them go by <i>his</i> strong hand, as in “The Egyptians pressed the people to hurry them” (Shemos 12:33), because this point is stated in the <i>end</i> of our verse (“and by [a] strong hand, he will drive them out from his land”). 
  He will drive them out against their will. This seems to mean: Because of Hashem’s strong hand on Egypt, Pharaoh will drive the people out. But the <i>Re”m</i> explains: Because of Pharaoh’s strong hand on the people, he will drive them out. However, his explanation is not correct. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  He spoke to him with severity. . . Rashi infers this since it is written  אלהים , [a Name] which denotes Divine judgment. Alternatively, Rashi infers this since it is written  וידבר , an expression which denotes harsh speech. (<i>Re’m</i>) And we need not ask: In many verses it is written  וידבר ה אל משה לאמר , yet there it does not imply harshness. [Why then is it different here?] The answer is: Usually, after  וידבר it is written  לאמר , [which implies soft speech]. Thus  וידבר is general (<i>klal</i>), and  לאמר is a specific (<i>prat</i>) which tells us what is included in  וידבר . But here there is no  לאמר written afterward, since  ויאמר אליו אני יהוה is not a <i>prat</i> but an independent clause. It relates to what Moshe said [at the end of Parshas Shemos] — “Why did you send me?” — as Rashi here explains. [Alternatively,] it seems to me that [Rashi infers this since] it says afterward  אני יהוה , [a Name denoting Divine mercy,] which is the opposite [of the Name  אלהים that the verse began with]. And that is why Rashi makes this comment here, and not in the other places. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  It is not in vain that I sent you. . . In other words, Moshe said (5:22): “Why did you send me?” and Hashem answers him: “It is not in vain that I sent you”. (<i>Re’m</i>) The <i>Re’m’</i>’s words on this verse, [in which he also says that “Elohim spoke (harshly) to Moshe” refers back to Moshe’s question of “Why have you brought harm?”] are too lengthy to quote. However, it seems to me that this is not Hashem’s answer to what [Moshe said] before, in the way the <i>Re’m</i> explained it. Rather, Rashi means to say as follows: Hashem spoke to Moshe with  משפט , i.e., harshly and unpleasantly, because Moshe spoke harshly when he said “Why have You brought harm. . .?” [But Hashem’s harshness was not for this question itself,] as this is merely the beginning of [the more important phrase:] “. . .Why did you send me?” where Moshe was <i>concerned over his own honor</i>, as Rashi explained ad loc. [And <i>that</i> is why Hashem spoke harshly.] And when Rashi here explains, “It is not in vain that I sent you,” this also is not in answer to [Moshe’s question] which came before. Instead, [it is an independent point in which] Hashem is saying to Moshe, “Perhaps you think that you will not succeed in your mission? [This is not so;] it is not in vain that I sent you. . .” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  To the fathers. It is merely for brevity that Rashi says “to the fathers” rather than saying, as the verse does, “To Avraham, to Yitzchok, and to Yaakov.” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
   I was not recognized by them by My attribute of keeping trust. . . Rashi is answering the question: In Parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis 9:7) it is written  אני יהוה וגו ’ (“I am <i>Adonoy</i> who took you out from Ur Casdim”). [If so, why does our verse imply that the fathers did not know the Name of Adonoy?] Therefore Rashi explains: “ לא הודעתי is not written here. . .” 
   For I made promises but have not fulfilled them. Rashi is explaining the difference between  יהוה and  אל שדי . He therefore explains: “For I made promises but have not [as yet] fulfilled them” — in other words, “I did not yet fulfill My promise because they were not worthy of it.” If so, there is indeed a difference between [the two Names]. For a promise in the Name of  יהוה is unconditional, [and it is fulfilled] even if they were to sin. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Also when I revealed Myself to them as Almighty Shaddai. . . Rashi is answering the question: How does our verse’s wording, “I <i>also</i>,” fit in with what precedes it? It would be understandable if it had been written in the preceding verse: And My Name Adonoy I <i>did</i> make known to them. Then, “I <i>also</i>” would mean: I also did this for them, [to establish My covenant]. Or if it had been written in this verse: I also did <i>not</i> establish My covenant, it would be understandable — [as it would fit in with “I did <i>not</i> make known”]. But since it is written, “My Name Adonoy I did <i>not</i> make known to them,” what does “I <i>also</i> established” mean? Therefore Rashi explains, “Also when I revealed Myself. . .” Rashi means that Hashem says, so to speak, “Do not think that since I revealed Myself to them as Almighty Shaddai rather than as Adonoy, I do not need to fulfill My promise. This is not true, because I <i>also</i> set up and established a covenant with them. For these two reasons, Almighty Shaddai and the covenant, I need to fulfill My word that I promised them. This is because, [when combined,] they are as if I had promised them with the Name of Adonoy [which is unconditional]. According to this, the phrase “I <i>also</i> established My covenant” refers back to “I revealed Myself to Avraham. . . as Almighty Shaddai,” rather than referring to “but My Name Adonoy I did not make known to them.” 
  I have made vows to them but have not fulfilled. In other words, [Rashi is saying that] from the verses he cited, we see that Hashem made vows to them. However, from these verses we do not see that Hashem has not fulfilled [those vows]. Without citing a proof [for that point,] Rashi is answering why Hashem sent Moshe, [in response to Moshe’s question at the end of Parshas Shemos. The answer is]: Since “I have not yet fulfilled those vows,” I must send you in order to fulfill My word to the Patriarchs. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Just as I established and set up the covenant. . . Rashi is answering the question: What does “And <i>also</i> I have heard” mean? It implies that someone else heard, and also Hashem heard! Therefore Rashi explains, “Just as I established the covenant. . .” In other words, “<i>also</i>” refers back to the preceding. It is saying: Since I revealed Myself to them as Almighty Shaddai and established a covenant with them, and therefore I <i>also</i> must fulfill it, consequently, “I have heard.” [According to this,] “I have heard” is an independent clause, and it means: consequently I have heard. This section is to be understood as follows: At first, “Elohim spoke to Moshe” with severity because Moshe had said to Hashem, “Why have You brought harm to this people. . .?” Then, “. . .and said to him, ‘I am Hashem’,” refers back to what Moshe said, “Why did You send me?” Hashem is answering him, “I am Adonoy” and I can be trusted to keep My promise! [If so, how could] you ask, “Why did You send me”? And if you say: Why do I need to keep My promise, when it was made not by the Name Adonoy, rather by Almighty Shaddai — “but My Name Adonoy I did not make known to them”? However [this question is incorrect, because] “I also established My covenant,” therefore I also must fulfill it. For this reason, “I have heard. . .” 
  Therefore, I heard the groaning of the B’nei Yisrael, who groan . . . Rashi is explaining] that it is impossible to fulfill the promise to give them Eretz Yisrael until after the exodus from Egypt, which itself requires the fulfillment of “And also, I will judge the nation to which they will be enslaved” (Bereishis 15:14). That is why the phrase, “That the Egyptians are enslaving them” is added to the verse — [thus indicating that the Egyptians must first be judged]. This is the meaning of, “And I have remembered My covenant.” It is saying: Since I have remembered the covenant of <i>bris bein habesarim,</i> in which I promised to give them Eretz Yisrael, therefore I have remembered also, “I will judge the nation. . .” For both promises were made at the same time. This completes Hashem’s answer to [Moshe’s question]: “Why did You send me? Ever since I came to Pharaoh. . . he has done harm to this people. . .” (5: 22—23). [Hashem is answering: I cannot fulfill, “I will judge the nation” until I first harden Pharaoh’s heart and he does harm to B’nei Yisrael.] (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>; see elaboration there) 
  
  Verse 6
  
  The trouble of the burden of Egypt. Here Rashi is answering the question: What does “under the burdens” mean? It implies that the burdens are [an actual physical object] spread on top of B’nei Yisrael, and Hashem is bringing them out from underneath. Therefore Rashi explains, “The <i>trouble</i> of the burden,” i.e., [it is a figure of speech and] B’nei Yisrael are like a person carrying a load, from under which he is brought out. Here too, Egyptian slavery is like a load on top of them, and Hashem, so to speak, is bringing them out from underneath it. But before (1:11) it said “burdens” without saying “under,” [thus prompting Rashi’s comment here]. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  To swear by My Throne. This is like saying, “To swear by My Kingship,” since a throne represents kingship, as [Pharaoh said to Yosef] in (Bereishis 41:40), “Only by [virtue of] the throne I will be greater than you.” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  They did not accept words of comfort. [Rashi is explaining that] here,  שמעו means “accept.” They had given up hope of being redeemed, as they considered it impossible for them to be redeemed from such hard labor. Thus, “to Moshe” means, to Moshe’s words of comfort. 
  He is short of breath. . . The verse is saying, so to speak: They would not listen to Moshe because of their <i>great distress</i> and hard labor. As a distressed person is normally short of breath, therefore it says “shortness of wind.” 
  This is all the more so when it is a fulfillment of reward. In other words, Rabbi Baruch is bringing proof to what Rashi explained before, on the verse: “. . .and said to him, ‘I am <i>Adonoy’</i>” (v. 2). There Rashi explained, “I can be trusted to properly reward. . .” [And Rabbi Baruch proves] that “even where punishment is involved, He lets it be known that His Name is Adonoy [a Name denoting Divine mercy]. This is all the more so when it is a fulfillment of reward,” since Hashem’s measure of giving reward is much greater than His measure of exacting punishment. 
  As referring to what is discussed earlier. . . Rashi is saying that according to the Sages, the entire section beginning with “Elohim spoke to Moshe. . .” (v. 2) refers back to [Moshe’s question in the end of Parshas Shemos,] “Why have You brought harm?” Whereas according to Rashi, only the phrase “Elohim spoke to Moshe” relates to “Why have You brought harm” — while the rest of the section, starting from “. . .and said to him, “I am Adonoy” relates to “Why did you You send me?” as explained earlier. You might ask: Afterward the Sages explain that the section relates to [another question of Moshe:] “Should they ask, ‘what is His Name,’ what shall I tell them?” (Shemos 3:13). [So how can Rashi say that the Sages relate the whole section to “Why have You brought harm?”] The answer is: [“Elohim spoke to Moshe,” which teaches that] Hashem spoke with severity to Moshe, for both these questions. Rashi first said that the section relates to “Why have You brought harm. . .?” because that is the main factor that brought on all [of Hashem’s rebuke]. And while Hashem was rebuking Moshe for that, He also rebuked him for [his other question of] “Should they ask, ‘what is His Name?’” The proof is the fact that Hashem did not speak with severity to Moshe until he asked, “Why have You brought harm. . .?” Why did He not speak with severity right after Moshe said, “Should they ask, ‘what is His Name?’ what shall I say to them?” This shows that “Why have You brought harm. . .” was the cause for it all. 
  What shall I tell them? It is difficult to understand [Rashi’s explanation of the Sages’ view. For we could object:] That is the very reason why Moshe needed to ask [Hashem’s Name], as he did not know any of Hashem’s Names — whereas Hashem revealed Himself to the Patriarchs many times. Why should they ask? A further difficulty is that Moshe did not ask for himself, rather for Yisrael. [He asked,] “What shall I tell <i>them</i>?” Thus it seems to me that the following is the explanation of [the Sages’ view as cited in] the Talmud and Shemos Rabba: Hashem did not make known to the Patriarchs the Name  יהוה , which is Hashem’s great and true Name, only the Name  אל שדי , which is a mere description [of His traits]. Nevertheless, the Patriarchs did not question Hashem’s ways. Even though the Name of Hashem was mad known to him, he asked, “What shall I tell them?” Even so, Moshe questioned Hashem’s ways. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov;</i> see explanation there) 
  And when Avraham sought to bury Sarah. . . Rashi is explaining the verse according to the Sages’ view.
  Until he had to buy it at a great expense. . . This means: Despite the fact that “I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan,” I did not fulfill it in their lifetimes — as they needed to buy land at great expense. Nevertheless, they did not question My ways. 
  And they did not ask about My Name Adonoy. . . In other words, [the Sages explain] the verse “I revealed Myself to Avraham. . .” (v. 3) to mean that “many times I revealed Myself to them with the Name Eil Shaddai and they never said, “What is Your Name?” But if so, the verse should have continued: “And they did <i>not ask</i> about My Name, Adonoy — unlike you [Moshe], who did ask Me about this.” 
  He did not make known that that is His Name. . . [Rashi is saying] that either way we look at it, the Sages’ explanation is problematic. If the Sages hold that “I did not make known to them” means “they did not <i>ask</i> Me,” although He did inform the Patriarchs that His Name is Adonoy. But then the verse should have said, “And they did <i>not ask</i> about My Name, Adonoy” [as explained above]. And if the Sages maintain that “I did not make known to them” follows its literal meaning, [i.e., the Patriarchs did not know the Name Adonoy at all]. And the Sages added [a comment] to this, saying that the Patriarchs did not [even] ask Him [about His Name]. But then [a different problem arises:] Originally, when Hashem appeared to Avraham at <i>bris bein habesarim,</i> He said to him: “I am Adonoy. . .” [So clearly, they knew His Name]. Furthermore, the Sages cannot explain “I did not make known to them” as Rashi does, i.e., “I was not <i>recognized</i> by them by My attribute of keeping trust.” For that implies that Hashem indeed informed the Patriarchs of His Name. That being so, the Sages could not add [a comment] to this, saying that the Patriarchs did not [even] ask Him about His Name. For once He informed them that His Name is Adonoy, there is no need for them to ask. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  And, furthermore, how is there continuity of context. . . [Rashi’s comment] is puzzling. Perhaps the Torah is saying as follows: Since the Patriarchs are beloved to Me for not questioning My ways, that is why “I have heard the groaning of the B’nei Yisrael” — for the Patriarchs’ sake, even though the B’nei Yisrael do not act properly. “Therefore say to the B’nei Yisrael, ‘I am Adonoy. . .’” (<i>Re’m</i>) But it seems that [Rashi’s comment is indeed understandable, because a difficulty arises] with the <i>Re’m’s </i>approach that the main reason for the redemption is Hashem’s love of the Patriarchs, although the Bnei Yisrael are not deserving. For earlier (3:11), Moshe asked [two questions]: “Who am I. . .? Am I able to bring the B’nei Yisrael out of Egypt?” And Rashi (<i>ad loc</i>) explained [the second question as follows]: “Even if I <i>am</i> worthy, what did the B’nei Yisrael do to merit that a miracle be performed for them. . .?” But according to the <i>Re’m,</i> Hashem should have replied: The miracle will come due to His love of the Patriarchs, although B’nei Yisrael are not deserving. 
  Divide into many parts. In other words, the stone divides into many parts through the hammer. Thus did Rashi explain it in Maseches Shabbos (88b). But Tosafos (<i>ad loc</i>) challenged this, and explained it differently. See explanation there. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  “ והערל ” [meaning:] and become obstructed. . . In other words, Rashi is saying [ והאטם as] an explanation of  והערל . 
  This is one of the ten a fortiori inferences in the Torah. Rashi is telling us: Do not say that “How then will Pharaoh listen to me” is a separate statement [from “B’nei Yisrael have not listened to me”], and it means that Pharaoh will not listen for a <i>different</i> reason, which is: “I whose lips are covered.” Therefore, [to exclude this,] Rashi explains: “This is one of the ten <i>a fortiori</i> inferences.” Thus [it follows that] the entire verse is one statement: [because Moshe’s lips are covered, therefore B’nei Yisrael did not listen — how then will Pharaoh listen?] This explains why Rashi switched the order of the verse and explained “I whose lips are covered” before explaining “How then will Pharaoh listen to me.” The <i>a fortiori</i> inference is as follows: To B’nei Yisrael, the redemption is good tidings and they should have listened to me, yet they did not. To Pharaoh, it is bad tidings — all the more so he will not listen! You might object: This inference can be refuted, as B’nei Yisrael did not listen to Moshe for the reason of their great distress, as explained above (v. 9), [whereas Pharaoh is not in distress]. The answer is: Moshe did not know that B’nei Yisrael failed to listen out of distress; he thought it was because his lips are covered. Although the Torah writes that it was because of their distress [that they did not listen], as this was the true reason, Moshe did not know that. Thus he considered his inference to be solid, [although in truth it was refutable]. [You might ask:] Nevertheless, even after Hashem revealed to Moshe that they failed to listen due to their distress, [why is Moshe’s inference incorrect?] He could have incorporated the refutation into the <i>a fortiori</i>, as we find a number of times in the Talmud, [and reasoned as follows: To B’nei Yisrael, the redemption is good tidings <i>and despite their distress</i> they should have listened to me, yet did not. To Pharaoh, it is bad tidings — <i>and despite his lack of distress,</i> all the more so he will not listen!] The answer is: This refutation is [based on a fact] written in the Torah. The Torah itself testifies that the [true] reason they failed to listen was their distress. Such a refutation cannot be incorporated [into the <i>a fortiori</i>]. (thus wrote the <i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  To lead them with gentleness. . . Rashi is answering the question: The verse, [due to the word  ויצום ,] implies that B’nei Yisrael were commanded to bring themselves out of Egypt. Therefore Rashi explains: “He commanded them regarding the B’nei Yisrael. . .” In other words,  ויצום means that Moshe and Aharon, were commanded to lead the B’nei Yisrael with gentleness, and to treat Pharaoh respectfully. And when it is written afterward “To bring out the B’nei Yisrael. . .” this is a separate statement. 
  Its simple meaning. . . regarding the matter of Yisrael and regarding his mission. . . [According to this,] the word  להוציא (to bring out) refers to both matters. Hashem commanded Moshe regarding the matter of Yisrael, i.e., that Moshe should tell them that he will bring them out of Egypt. And Hashem commanded Moshe regarding his mission to Pharaoh, i.e., that Moshe and Aharon should tell Pharaoh to send the B’nei Yisrael out of Egypt. They should also warn Pharaoh that if he does not allow the B’nei Yisrael [to leave]; Hashem will bring suffering upon him. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  In the order of their births from Reuvein. You might ask: The difficulty remains unresolved, for why did the Torah not begin with [the genealogy of] the tribe of Leivi? The <i>Ramban</i> answers: If so, it would appear that from now on Leivi is considered the firstborn, in honor of Moshe. Therefore the Torah begins from Reuvein, to show that Reuvein is still the firstborn regarding to lineage, and Leivi is the third of the tribes. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  And Leivi outlived all of them. If so, it means that they were enslaved only 116 years. For [it says in <i>Bereishis</i> 41:46 that] Yoseif was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh, and [we know that] Leivi was then 34 — since all the sons of Yaakov were born within a 6-year period, except for Binyamin. Thus we subtract [from these 6 years] 2 years until Leivi was born, as Leivi was the third child after Reuven, and it means that Leivi was four years older than Yoseif [who was born last]. After [Yoseif stood before Pharaoh] there were seven years of bounty and two of famine, after which the B’nei Yisrael came to Egypt. At that time Leivi was 43 [34 plus 9], and he lived until 137. Subtract 43 from 137, and we are still left with 94 years of Leivi’s lifetime, during which the enslavement did not begin. Now, the B’nei Yisrael were in Egypt for 210 ( רדו ) years. Subtract Levi’s 94 years from these 210, and the result is that they were enslaved only 116 years. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  His father’s sister. . . Rashi is telling us that we should not interpret this  דודתו like the  דודתך written in the section of forbidden relations (Vayikra 18:14): “Do not come close to  דודתך ,” where it means “your uncle’s wife.” [Here it cannot mean this,] as Yocheved was Leivi’s daughter, thus she was Kehos’s sister. For Kehos was Leivi’s son. And Kehos was Amram’s father. Thus, Yocheved was the sister of Amram’s father. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  When marrying a woman he should investigate her brothers. However, Lavan the brother of Rivka (Bereishis 25:20), is mentioned only “in order to praise Rivkah.” This is because Yitzchok surely would not have investigated Lavan [to know about Rivkah]. Furthermore, [it is different with Rivkah because] there was no need for Scripture to mention her father, brother or birthplace, as all were mentioned before — forcing us to say that they all have a Midrashic meaning. (<i>Re’m</i>) And we cannot say that it indeed teaches us that one who contemplates marrying a woman should investigate all these factors. First of all, granted that investigating the woman’s brothers has a reason: [her children will probably resemble them] as most children resemble their mother’s brothers. But this is not true of her father, and certainly not of the people of her birthplace. Secondly, [if all of these factors should be investigated], why did Aharon only investigate Elisheva’s brother? We see that her father’s name is not mentioned — implying that Aharon investigated only her brother. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Of the descendants of Yisro who fattened calves for idolatry. . . Rashi’s comment is based on Meseches Sotah (43a), that his father was from the tribe of Yoseif and his mother was from Yisro, or vice-versa. It seems to me that Rashi inferred this since  פוטיאל is written with a <i>yud</i>, denoting plural. Alternatively, [Rashi inferred it] since it is written  בנות , also plural, which tells us that Scripture mentions her lineage in two ways. We need not ask: Perhaps Putieil is simply the name of an [unknown] person? For the answer is: Rashi inferred that this is not so, since it says above: “Aharon took Elisheva, daughter of Aminadav. . . for a wife.” Thus we see that Scripture intends to <i>explain</i> the lineage. Here as well, Putieil is coming to <i>explain</i> the lineage [and thus cannot refer to an unknown person]. 
  Who showed contempt for his evil inclination. Some explain  פטפט as “defied,” and some explain it as “showed contempt.” 
  
  Verse 26
  
  With their multitudes. . . [Rashi explains this] because  על צבאותם literally implies that Aharon and Moshe brought out B’nei Yisrael in greater numbers than their multitudes. Alternatively, it implies that they brought out the multitudes first, [and only then, the B’nei Yisrael] — and this is not so. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  To be joined. . . For if this were not so, it would not be possible to explain “It was the day when Adonoy spoke. . .” [We are not told what happened on that day. Rather, [this verse] must be joined [to the following verse]. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  This is the same statement. . . Rashi is referring to “. . .I whose lips are covered” (6:12), which comes after “Behold the B’nei Yisrael have not listened to me. . .” (<i>ad loc</i>) which is the first statement in that section. And it [“. . .I whose lips are covered”] is repeated here, in the second section. Rashi is <i>not</i> referring to “Behold the B’nei Yisrael have not listened. . .” as this [statement] is not repeated in the second section. (<i>Re’m</i>) But I say that Rashi is referring to everything stated [in this verse] in the first section. Although “Behold the B’nei Yisrael have not listened to me. . .” is not repeated in the second section [in an express way], it is alluded to nevertheless. For a question arises: Why does the verse reverse [the order] that appeared before? In the first section it said, “How then will Pharaoh listen to me — I whose lips are covered?” Yet here it says, “Behold, I have covered lips. How will Pharaoh listen to me?” The answer must be that our verse [needs to be filled in and] is saying as follows: “Behold, <i>the B’nei Yisrael have not listened to me. Even though my mission is for their benefit, nevertheless they have not listened to me, for the reason that</i> I have covered lips. <i>If so,</i> how will Pharaoh listen to me?” And this is the same <i>a fortiori</i> inference that was said in the first section. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  As you heard it from Me. . . Rashi is explaining why it says, “<i>All</i> that I command you.” You (Moshe) will say each statement before Pharaoh, concisely and only once, just as you heard it from Me. And Aharon your brother will express each statement a few times, eloquently, until it is palatable to the ears of Pharaoh. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  And in opposition towards Me. . . Rashi is answering the question: Pharaoh will surely defy Hashem if He hardens his heart. Is this Hashem’s way, to induce a person to transgress His will? Therefore Rashi explains, “And it is revealed to Me. . .” 
  It is better for Me that his heart be hardened. . . In other words, if I do not harden Pharaoh’s heart he will surely repent. But it is revealed to Me that he will not really repent wholeheartedly. And then, if I smite him with plagues and punish him, people will say that Hashem brings punishment upon repenters — for they will not know that Pharaoh’s repentance was not wholehearted. Therefore I will harden his heart so that he will not repent at all, and then I will be able to increase My wonders and punish him for all to see. 
  And you will thereby recognize My power. . . Rashi inferred this because it is written, “to <i>increase</i> My signs,” implying that Hashem will punish Pharaoh more severly in proportion ot his sins. This raises a difficulty: Why should Hashem want to bring more plagues on Pharaoh than he deserves? Thus Rashi explains: In order that “you will thereby recognize My power.” And Rashi then brings a proof for this concept: “This is the way of Hashem. . .” 
  Nevertheless, concerning the first five plagues it does not say. . . Rashi is saying that even though Hashem should have strengthened Pharaoh’s heart in the first five plagues as well, [He refrained from doing so] because He wished to publicize Pharaoh’s wickedness — so that people should know that even without Hashem strengthening his heart, he strengthens it on his own. Therefore, Hashem did not do so until after the first five plagues. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  A sign. Since Rashi interprets  מופתים as “wondrous plagues,” in Parshas Va’es’chanan (Devarim 4:34), he needed to explain that here  מופת means “a sign.” 
  To make it known that there is power. . . [ צרוך means power], i.e., the One Who sends you has power and rulership, as it is written in Parshas Ha’azinu (Devarim 32:17), “They will sacrifice to demons that have no <i>power</i>,” and Onkelos there translates as, “. . .that have no  צרוך .” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  A serpent. The term  תנין when on land means a serpent (i.e., a snake). And when in the sea it means a [kind of] fish. So too does the <i>Radak</i> explain  תנין . 
  
  Verse 11
  
  For it appears to rotate by magic. In other words, this sword rotates on its own, and a person who sees it thinks it rotates by magic. Accordingly, the word  להט which appears there connotes “magic.” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  After it became a rod again did it swallow all the rest. I.e., since it is not written that “Aharon’s <i>serpent</i> swallowed,” we infer that “after it became a rod. . .” If it was still a serpent when it swallowed the others, it would be only one miracle. But [this occurred] after they [all] became rods again, as it is also written “[Aharon’s <i>rod</i> swallowed] their <i>rods</i>,” so it was a double miracle. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Which I will begin with the word  כה . . . Regarding the other plagues,  כה is written at the warning, but not at the actual plague. Whereas for the killing of the first-born,  כה אמר ה' is written at the actual plague.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  The water in the wooden vessels and the stone vessels. Rashi is explaining that the plague affected only the water in the vessels, but not the wood and stone vessels themselves. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   בלטיהם refers to works of demons. . . This is because demons walk  בלט (with stealth). In Sanhedrin 67b it says: R. Aiba bar Nagari said in the name of R. Chiya bar Abba,  בלטיהם is works of demons;  בלהטיהם is witchcraft. And so it says (Bereishis 3:24), “The  להט of the sword. . .” Rashi (Sanhedrin, ibid.) explains  בלטיהן as in (Shoftim 4:21): “And she went to him  בלאט (with stealth).” 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  The number of seven days. . . Rashi is explaining why it is not written  וְיִמָּלְאוּ , [the plural form of “full,” instead of  וימלא , which is the singular form.] Rashi explains that  וַיִמָּלֵא refers to the <i>number</i>, [which is singular,] and not to “seven days.” 
  For each plague functioned for a quarter of a month. . . in other words, seven days. You might object: But the plague of darkness lasted only six days, as indicated in Parshas Bo (10:22). The answer is: Later, in Parshas Beshalach (14:20) it said: “There was cloud and darkness and the night was illuminated.” This means: The cloud and darkness was for Egypt, while the night was illuminated for Yisrael. And why was there darkness for Egypt? Because there, Hashem punished them with the seventh day of darkness that He did not bring upon them at first. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  It is describing a person based on an ongoing action. . . [Rashi is answering the question:]  מָאֵן implies that Pharaoh constantly refuses. And that is not so, for just because Pharaoh refuses now, therefore will he constantly refuse? Thus Rashi explains: “It is describing. . .” [And to prove the point,] Rashi says it is similar to  שלו ושקט , which [due to their grammatical form] imply a permanent, ongoing condition, yet [in fact they only] describe a temporary condition, [since no one is constantly serene and at ease]. Similarly with  סר וזעף , which imply permanency although they are only temporary. Therefore Rashi explains, “It is describing. . .” 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  They would enter and croak.  מקרקרין means crying out and making noise.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  By asking something difficult and then saying. . . In other words, [see] if you can ask me to do something that I cannot do, then you can boast that I [was shown to be inferior because I] could not do it. 
  By when do you wish them destroyed. . . You might ask: What was Moshe asking him? Surely Pharaoh would like them destroyed immediately! The answer is that Moshe reasoned: if I pray to have them destroyed immediately, Pharaoh will be obligated to release Yisrael immediately, as promised to me (v. 4) — and this is bad for him. Thus Moshe did not know which Pharaoh prefered — [keeping Yisrael, or destroying the frogs]. An alternative answer is what the <i>Ramban</i> says, citing the <i>Naggid</i>. 
  And not  אעתר עתרו . . . [Rashi says as he does] because  אעתיר העתירו והעתרתי is in the verbal form of  הפעיל , which is transitive. However, our verse should use the [intransitive] form of  אפעל , such as  אעתר עתרו ועתרתי , since it is describing prayer, which is intransitive. Thus Rashi explains: “Because wherever a form of. . .” 
  So, too, does it say  אעתיר . . . In other words, it is transitive because the direct object of the verb is “words”. [It is conjugated] as if “words” was actually written in the verse. 
   והעתרתם your words about me, meaning you have increased. Rashi is saying that [here is the main proof] because it is written explicitly, “your words”. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Pray today that they be destroyed by tomorrow. [Rashi knows this because] Moshe had asked, “When should they be destroyed?” Thus Pharaoh’s answer must refer to the time of their destruction, [not about the time of praying]. So explained <i>Re’m</i>. But this raises a difficulty: Why would Pharaoh want to suffer until the next day, and not ask for their immediate destruction? The answer is: Pharaoh thought that Moshe was a sorcerer who knows what times are auspicious. Pharaoh assumed that now is the auspicious time for destroying them, and when the time passes, Moshe will not be able to remove the frogs. Therefore he said “by tomorrow,” to show that Moshe works through sorcery. However, Moshe’s prayers were accepted whenever he prayed. (<i>Maharshal</i>) People ask: Why at the plague of frogs does it say, “Moshe <i>cried out</i> to Adonoy,” while at the other plagues it says, “Moshe <i>prayed</i> to Adonoy”? The answer is: One who prays must hear what he is saying, and the frogs were croaking as Rashi explained, thus during the plague of frogs Moshe needed to raise his voice in order to hear himself pray. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  And where had He said this? When He said, “Pharaoh will not listen. . .” You might ask: Why did Rashi not make this comment before, regarding the plague of blood, where it is written, “Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened. . . <i>just as Adonoy had spoken</i>” (7:22), or regarding Aharon’s staff swallowing the others (7:13)? The answer is: Before, since the plague had not yet passed [and Pharaoh was suffering] and nevertheless he was persisting in his wickedness, his heart was certainly hardened because of what Hashem had said, “Pharaoh will not listen to you.” But here it is written, “[When] Pharaoh saw that there was <i>respite</i>, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, just as Adonoy had spoken.” Thus Rashi is explaining how we know that even when there is respite, Hashem said that he will still not listen — for which Rashi cites the verse (7:4), “Pharaoh will not listen to you,” after which is written, “But then I will display My hand. . .” The question arises: if it is speaking where the plague did not yet pass, why does it say: “But then I will display My hand”? Obviously, it must be speaking where Pharaoh will have respite, and nevertheless he will not listen — and “then I will display My hand.” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  “To bring forth lice.” To create them from elsewhere. [Rashi is explaining:] Do not understand  להוציא to mean that the sorcerers tried to remove the lice. Rashi knew this because it says “The sorcerers did <i>likewise</i>,” i.e., as Moshe and Aharon did. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  There is a reason in aggadic writings. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did Hashem afflict Egypt with a swarm of animals from which they will benefit from the hides, meat, etc? Therefore Rashi explains: “There is a reason in aggadic writings. . .” (Found written in the name of the <i>Mahara”d</i>) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   אתחבלת ארעא (past tense). Rashi is answering the question: Why is [it written]  תשחת הארץ a term that denotes the future tense, if the land had already been devastated? Therefore Rashi cites Onkelos, who explains the term as  אתחבלת ארעא , to prove that this term also denotes the past or present tense. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Where you are, and do not go into the wilderness. Rashi is answering the question: [Since  בארץ implies anywhere on earth, what is Pharaoh saying?] Would they sacrifice in heaven? Therefore Rashi explains: “Do not go into the wilderness,” for they had requested to go into the wilderness to sacrifice to Hashem. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  When speaking to Israel is it called abominable. I.e., Moshe called it abominable when speaking to Yisrael, but not when speaking to Egypt. 
  It would be despicable to Egypt. . . I.e., the word  תועבה means “something despicable.” Accordingly, Moshe is saying this to the Egyptians themselves. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  They did not die as did the frogs. . . You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this before, where it said (v. 25), “And the wild animals will <i>depart</i> from Pharaoh”? The answer is: It was Moshe’s way to use the term “depart” when praying [to end a plague]. For we see earlier that Moshe prayed (v. 7): “The frogs will be <i>removed. . .</i>” yet it is written [that in fact,] “The frogs <i>died</i>.” [Note: it seems that the order of Rashi’s commentary on these verses was different than what we have, thus prompting the following comment.] Since  ויסר (to depart) explains  וסר , which is written above (v. 25) and appears <i>before</i>  ויעתר (v. 26), therefore Rashi explains  ויסר (v. 27) before  ויעתר , even though it is written afterwards. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Is thrown only with one hand. . . I do not know Rashi’s proof that Moshe threw [the furnace soot] with force. A possible answer: Here it is written  השמימה , rather than  על השמים as it is written about the plague of hail (v. 22). Apparently, Scripture changed the wording here to teach that Moshe sent up the soot unusually high, until the heavens. (see <i>Re’m</i>) But it seems to me that [we need not find a proof for this, for] Rashi means to say the following: Anything that is thrown ( נזרק ), is thrown with force. This is because  נזרק implies with all of one’s force, which is with one hand. See Bereishis Rabba ch. 5 and Vayikra Rabba ch. 7. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Both his and Aharon’s handfuls. Rashi says this because it is written before, “Both of you take full handfuls.” [which is four handfuls in total]. 
  And another, that the soot spread over the entire land of Egypt. You might ask: Since [it spread so far only because] it was a miracle, why did Rashi explain that Moshe’s one fistful held both his and Aharon’s handfuls, [so that he could throw it with force]? [The miracle would be even greater if Moshe were to throw the soot with two hands and without any force and yet it travelled such a great distance.] Perhaps his fistful did not hold it, and Moshe threw with both hands [and it spread by a miracle]. The answer is: The miracle of its spreading over Egypt was not that it went farther than Moshe could throw, but that this small amount [of soot] covered the entire land of Egypt. [The fact that he was able to throw it with force because his fistful held both his and Aharon’s fistfuls does not pertain to this miracle. Rather, it is a miracle that stands on its own.] And according to what I explained above — that Rashi inferred from  השמימה that Moshe threw with force — we may answer this question as well. Since  השמימה  implies with force, surely he threw with one hand, for he did not to rely on a miracle. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Meaning of heat. [Rashi explains this] because the verse implies that the rash [itself] caused the boils, which is incorrect. Therefore Rashi says that  שחין “has the meaning of heat,” and the boils were caused by the heat. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  And whoever feared the word of God made his livestock flee. . . People ask: Why does it state here, “Whoever feared the word of Hashem” relevant to this plague of pestilence? Furthermore, why indeed were the Egyptians not warned here [as they were regarding the hail]: “Now send word and shelter your livestock. . .”? <i>Mahara”n</i> answers: This plague [pestilence] did not need such a warning since Moshe said clearly, “Behold, the hand of Adonoy is directed at your livestock that are <i>in the field</i>,” implying that the plague will manifest itself only in the field. Consequently, whoever feared the word of Hashem brought his livestock inside, since pestilence normally kills livestock. But hail does not usually kill livestock. Therefore, if the people were not warned, they would not have been particular about [not] leaving their livestock in the fields. (See <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> for other answers.) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  We learn from here that  מכת בכורות . . . We cannot say that “ מכת בכורות ” means the slaying of the first-born, because if so, why is it mentioned here? Therefore, Rabbeinu Tam of Orleans explains it as  מַכַּת בַּכּוּרוֹת , an expression of  בִּכּוּרִים (ripening produce). This is because the plague of hail, [of which this section speaks,] smote only the ripe produce — as is written (v. 31), “Since the barley was ripe, and the flax had formed into stalks,” upon which Rashi comments, “ שֶבִּכְּרוּ ”. You might object: In Parshas Shemos (4:23) it says: “Behold, I will slay your firstborn son,” on which Rashi comments that the slaying of the firstborn was the most severe plague. An answer is: The slaying of the firstborn was indeed the most severe plague for Pharaoh. But for the people, who were left without anything to eat, hail was the most severe plague. Another answer is: When Rashi said that the hail “is equivalent to all the plagues,” this refers to the plagues that preceded it. However, the plagues that followed it were even more severe. The <i>Maharshal</i> writes: According to Rabbeinu Tam of Orleans, why does our verse say: “For this time ( בפעם הזאת ), I will send. . .”? Rather, it seems to me that the verse means as follows: [Hashem is saying to Pharaoh,] “Do not think that I cannot kill you, by claiming that I first sent the severe plague of pestilence and then the lighter plague of boils — and thus I am unable to kill you, for otherwise why did I not kill you with pestilence.” Rather, “ בפעם הזאת I will send all my plagues.” In other words, the time will come when I will slay the first-born, [which is equivalent to all the plagues,] and then “you will know that there is none like Me in all the earth.” Then, you will admit yourself that “I [could] have extended My hand, and struck you and your people with the pestilence. . .” (v. 15). 
  
  Verse 15
  
  And your people together with the animals. Rashi is explaining that when the verse says “and struck you and your people,” it [is not excluding the animals. Rather it] means “<i>also</i> you and your people.” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  When the sun reaches here the hail will come down. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does our verse say: “tomorrow <i>at this time</i>,” whereas with the plague of pestilence it says only “tomorrow”? (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The reason the pestilence [was not given an exact time] is that the animals were spread throughout the fields and Pharaoh would not know precisely when the pestilence began, thus nothing would be gained by scratching a mark in the wall. That is why the verse said simply “tomorrow” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Over the heavens. I.e., at first Moshe had control only over matters on earth. Now Hashem lifted Moshe up and gave him control over matters in heaven, and Moshe brought a plague from heaven. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  A miracle within a miracle. . . One miracle was that a flame usually ascends, but here it descended. The second miracle was that the fire and ice did not extinguish, [or melt,] one another. [<i>Re’m, </i>citing Shemos Rabba]. However, this does not seem correct [as an explanation of Rashi]. Firstly, fire descended many times from heaven to earth, both for good and for bad, and it was not considered miraculous. Secondly, the previous verse stated, “and fire came streaming down upon the earth,” but there it does not say, [“there had never been anything like it”]. There is a dispute over this point in Shemos Rabba, and it seems to me [that Rashi is following the view of Rabbi Nechemiah]. According to Rabbi Nechemiah, the fire and hail combined with each other. The fire was flashing from inside the pieces of hail, and both were burning. According to his view, the second miracle was that the hail burnt. This explanation is what Rashi intended, for he said: “The fire and the hail intermingled.” According to this, when Rashi finishes by saying: “they made peace between themselves,” he is referring to [the second miracle,] that they both were burning. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Because it was full of idols. [A question arises:] During the plagues of frogs and wild beasts, Egypt was also full of idols. Assumedly, Moshe did not pray in the city. Why did it not say there, “When I leave the city”? The answer is: With those plagues, Moshe was praying for [it to stop] the next day. Since he had plenty of time, it was not necessary to tell Pharaoh, “When I leave the city.” But here Pharaoh said, “There has been enough of Hashem’s thunder and hail,” and requested that the hail stop before reaching earth. Thus Moshe should not have tarried, and needed to explain to Pharaoh: “[I will pray] when I leave the city,” but not in the city. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  And is the same form as  ושפו עצמותיו . Rashi is answering the question: Since the  נ [of  נכתה ] is part of the root, the verb is incomplete and is missing the  ה of the  הפעל form, and it should have been written  הנכתה . Therefore Rashi explains: “And is the same form as  שפו .” In other words, since it is vocalized with a <i>shuruk</i>, it is considered as if it were written with a  ה . 
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  In the category of  כהתוך כסף . . . [ בחלק ] is in the same category, i.e., from the same root as  כהתוך כסף (the pouring of metal). (From the <i>Maharan’s</i> manuscript) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  And warn him. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “ כי (for) I have hardened his heart.” Every  כי that appears in Scripture comes to give a reason for what preceded. And if “Go in to Pharaoh” did not mean “and warn him,” how would  כי be giving a reason for what preceded? This is what Hashem was saying to Moshe: [It is true that] warning Pharaoh will surely have no effect, since he did not send out the B’nei Yisrael in spite of his confession, “This time I have sinned” (9:27). Thus our verse explains: “For I have hardened his heart <i>and the hearts of his servants</i>.” In other words, the warning is necessary for his servants, whose hearts had not yet hardened [and they rebelled in the plague of hail only because Hashem hardened their hearts]. The reason Hashem did not harden their hearts sooner [but He waited for the plague of hail to do so] is that the verse states there, “he that feared the word of Hashem . . . made his servants and his livestock flee. . .” (9:20). If Hashem had not hardened the servants’ hearts at that time, they would have insisted that Pharaoh release the B’nei Yisrael. Thus He hardened their hearts, “So that I will be able to set these signs in their midst.” Although [with the coming plague of locusts] Pharaoh’s servants said, “Send the men out” (20:7), their repentance was not wholehearted [and they deserved the ensuing punishment]. For they said to send only the men [and not the entire nation], as Pharaoh himself said, “The [adult] men should go.” (20:11) (<i>Nachalas Yaakov,</i> see further elaboration there) 
  That I will set. We need not ask: The same word,  שת , is written in Parshas Vayeitzei: “ וישת his own flocks. . .” (Bereishis 30:40), and in Parshas Va’eira: “Pharaoh . . . did not  שת even to this” (<i>Shemos </i>7:23). Why did Rashi not comment there? The answer is: Here [the <i>shin</i> of]  שתי is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i> and no <i>yud</i>, so I might think it does not mean  שימי but is a different word, such as, “For they destroyed the  שתות (foundation)” (Tehillim 11:3). Or, “ שות שתו (they did battle) at the gates” (Yeshayah 22:7). That is why Rashi needs to explain it here as  שימי , although generally, the meaning is obvious. Even after explaining that  שתי means  שימי , Rashi explains further and says, “that I will set,” because  שתי still has two possible meanings. This is similar to  תִּתִּי , which has two possible meanings. One is written regarding Lavan, in Parshas Vayetzei (Bereishis 29:19): “Better  תִּתִּי (<i>I</i> shall give) her to you.” The other [possible] meaning is written in Parshas Balak (Bamidbar 22:13): “For Hashem has refused  לְתִתִּי (to give <i>to me</i>) permission to go with you.” Thus Rashi explains that here,  שתי means “<i>I</i> will set” [and not “set <i>for me</i>”]. (<i>Re”m</i>) Alternatively: Rashi explains further and says, “that I will set,” because  שתי could mean the past tense, “I already set.” Thus Rashi explains “I <i>will</i> set,” is in the future tense. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Which is from the root  עני — poor. Rashi is explaining that  לענות does not mean servitude as in, “ והתעני (submit yourself) under her power.” (Bereishis 16:9) Rashi continues by saying, “You have refused to be poor and humble,” because  עני usually refers to [lack of] money, while here it refers to humility. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  The illumination of the land. Rashi is answering the question: What is the meaning of  עין הארץ (literally, “the eye of the land”), since land does not have eyes? Therefore Rashi explains: “The illumination of the land.” The shining of the sun brings illumination upon the land, enabling one to see the land. And that illumination, which is from the sun, was covered up [by the locusts]. Consequently, one could not see the land. Onkelos explains similarly: “The illumination <i>of the sun</i> of the land.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Did you as yet not realize. Rashi’s view is that  טרם means “not yet,” as he explained the verse in Parshas Bereishis (2:5), “The vegetation of the fields had <i>not yet</i> sprouted,” and in Parshas Va’era (Shemos 9:30), “You are <i>not yet</i> in fear.” Thus,  טרם should not be explained as “before.” Accordingly,  תדע really denotes past tense although it is written in the form of future tense. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  They were brought back by a messenger. . . Rashi is answering the question: [If they returned on their own,] Scripture should have written  וַיָשוּבוּ (“and they went back”). Whereas  ויושב is a passive form, implying that Moshe and Aharon were acted upon by others. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Even were I to send. . . Rashi explains as he does because their flocks and cattle were more valuable to Pharaoh than were their children; for note that after the plague of darkness Pharaoh said (v. 24): “Just let your flocks and cattle stay behind. Even your little ones can go with you.” This implies that even though Pharaoh agreed to their children going with them, he still did not want their flocks and cattle to go with them. Accordingly, this is the meaning of the verse. Pharaoh said to them: You asked to send your children, flocks and cattle. May Hashem be with you [to protect you from disaster] if I send you and your children, and surely if I also send the flocks. This is because  אף כי is like  כל שכן (all the more so). And so it is in Parashas Vayelech (Devarim 31:27): “ אף כי (all the more so) after my demise.” (See <i>Kitzur Mitzrachi</i> for other versions of Rashi) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  This service. . . Rashi is explaining that  אותה refers to  עבודה , i.e., “go and worship Hashem,” [although the actual word  עבודה does not appear in the verse].  אותה cannot refer to the men, for then it should say, “ אותם ”. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Is what you requested till now. . . But we cannot say it means what they are requesting now, since now they are requesting also the children, flocks and cattle. 
  This is a shortened statement. . . But we cannot say that Pharaoh himself expelled them, because it is written, “from Pharaoh’s presence.” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  The likes of which never had been and never would be. <i>Ramban</i> and <i>Re”m</i> explain Rashi at length, but I say that Rashi’s own words elsewhere explain his intention. Rashi says on Sefer Yoel (2:2): “But the species of <i>Arbeh</i> on its own was not like that of Egypt.” This supports <i>Re”m</i> who said that the <i>Arbeh</i> of Moshe was greater than the <i>Arbeh</i> of Yoel, while the plague of Yoel was greater because of the multiple species it included. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Some object and say that also the plague of Moshe had three species, as it is written (Tehillim 78:46) “<i>Arbeh, Chasil,</i>” and (105:34) “<i>Yelek</i>.” We could answer that the multiple terms in Tehillim are only for rhetorical purpose [while in truth there was just <i>Arbeh</i>]. Similarly [we find multiple terms used rhetorically]: “He killed with <i>hail</i> their vineyards, and their sycamores with <i>hail-stones</i>” (ibid. 78:47). And likewise, “He trapped their cattle by the <i>hail</i>, their herds by the <i>plague</i>.”(ibid. v. 48) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  A green leaf. Rashi is answering the question: How can the word  ירק (green vegetable) apply to trees? For it is written (Bereishis 9:3): “ כירק עשב (as the vegetable herbs),” and herbs in the fields are referred to as  ירקות . Therefore Rashi explains it as “a green leaf,” as if the verse had actually said “green leaf.” Rashi proves this from “<i>Verdure</i> in Old French” which means green leaf [and comes from the root of <i>verd,</i> “green”]. And so it is in Hebrew. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Not even a salted one that they had salted. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is already written, “Carried away the locusts,” why does Scripture add, “Not a single locust remained”? It must come to include even the salted ones. And regarding the plague of wild beasts, Scripture did not need to indicate that even the salted ones did not remain. Since they were dangerous animals, the Egyptians surely were afraid to trap them. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  The darkness of night will become even more black and dark. The phrase ויאמש חשך (He will darken the night) implies that night has already arrived. But “And there will be darkness” implies that the plague created a new darkness. Therefore Rashi explains: [“A darkness greater than the darkness of night. . .”]
  Is the same as  ויאמש (He will darken). This word is like  אמש , which means night. For yesterday is referred to as  אתמול , and last night is referred to as  אמש . 
  After the darkness of night has departed. This means: After Hashem removes the darkness of night and the day has begun, at that moment that darkness will begin. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Why did He bring darkness on them? You might ask: In Parshas Va’era, Rashi explained the verse: “For if you do not send out My people” (8:17), that the reason for each plague is in accordance with the strategies of war, based on Midrash Tanchuma. If so, why does Rashi need to give a reason here for the plague of darkness? Furthermore, why did Rashi not ask this question [as his first comment] on the verse? The answer is: Rashi is explaining why Hashem brought such total darkness. [Ordinary] darkness that does not allow one person to see another would be sufficient [as a war strategy]. Therefore Rashi explains: “Because there were. . . [among B’nei Yisrael. . . Furthermore, the Israelites searched. . .]” 
  Furthermore, the Israelites searched and saw their vessels. . . It seems to me that [Rashi means as follows]: First he asks why there was darkness, i.e., why did the plague change so that at the end it was darker than at the beginning? Rashi answers [that there were two reasons for the darkness]. At first the darkness was needed only so the Egyptians would not see the downfall of the evil Israelites. Ordinary darkness was sufficient for this, and Hashem did not want to change nature more than necessary. Then after three days, and they were all dead and buried, Hashem brought extreme darkness to immobilize the Egyptians so B’nei Yisrael could enter their homes and search their vessels, and the Egyptians were unable to stop them. We need not ask: Why was all this necessary? Is it not written (12:36), “Hashem granted the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians,” and the Egyptians even lent them items they did not ask for [see Rashi there]? The answer is: Since the Egyptians saw that B’nei Yisrael could have taken everything they owned during the days of darkness, without anyone to stop them, yet they did not take anything — this is what made B’nei Yisrael favorable in their eyes, and they even lent items that they did not ask for. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  A threesome of days. Rashi is answering the question: Why did the verse not simply write  שלושה ימים (three days)? The word  שלשת with a <i>tav</i> is in the <i>nismach</i> form (lit. three of days); why is this form needed? Furthermore,  ימים is masculine [and should therefore have an adjective in the masculine form,] but  שלשת is feminine! Therefore, Rashi explains that it means “a three<i>some</i> of days.” 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Shall remain in its place. [Rashi is explaining that although  יצג is in the future tense], it does not mean “<i>will</i> remain,” starting from now. This is because the sheep and cattle were already in their place. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  The hoof of the foot. Rashi is answering the question:  פרסה implies that Moshe requested only the animals with “split hooves” ( מפרסת פרסה ). Yet this cannot be, for in the beginning of the verse, does it not say, “Our own flocks will <i>also</i> go with us,” implying every animal? Therefore Rashi explains that  פרסה means “the hoof of the foot, (<i>plante</i> in Old French).”  
  The magnitude of the service. [Rashi explains as he does because] it cannot be that they did not know what the service would be. For note that they said, “Our own flocks. . . We must take from them to worship Hashem our God.” Similarly, many times previously they said, “To sacrifice to Hashem.” 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  You have spoken properly and you have spoken at the right time. “You have spoken properly” is Rashi’s explanation of: “As you say.” This follows Onkelos’ translation,  יאות מלילתא . Therefore Rashi explains <i>why</i> Pharaoh has spoken properly: He has spoken at the right time, since “it is true that I will never see your face again.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  He will send you all away. [Rashi is explaining that  כלה is] not from the word  כלייה (destruction). Rather it is like  כליל תקטר (Vayikra 6:15), which Onkelos translates as  גמירא (<i>completely</i> burnt). And there,  גמירא cannot mean “destruction,” rather it means “completely.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
   נא can only indicate. . . Rashi means that  נא written <i>here</i> can only indicate pleading [but in other places it can mean “now”].
  Speak to them about this. . . You might ask: Since Hashem told it to Moshe, is it not obvious that he will tell it to B’nei Yisrael? The answer is: Moshe did not intend to instruct them about this because [if they fail to return the borrowed items] it will be like holding stolen property. However, Hashem considered it as having received wages for their work (Sanhedrin 91a). Another answer: [Moshe was concerned that] the Egyptians will be troubled by the loss of their property and will chase after them. Therefore, Moshe needed to be told to instruct them. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  While still standing before Pharaoh. . . You might ask: Earlier (11:1), it says similarly: “Hashem said to Moshe, ‘There is one more plague. . .’” Furthermore, “I will not see your face again” was written previous to it. Why then did Rashi not make a similar comment there? The answer is: The content of the earlier verse (11:1) was actually told to Moshe before, for it is written (3:21): “I will give this people grace. . .” But it is merely repeated here, because now was the time for its fulfillment. This section, in contrast, is dealing with the exodus from Egypt, and that the plague will be at midnight, was not hinted anywhere else. Perforce, this prophecy was told to Moshe while still standing before Pharaoh. You might ask: If Moshe would not even offer a simple prayer within the city, how could he be given a full prophecy there [see Rashi 11:1]? The answer is: [Hashem did it] for Moshe’s honor so that he should not be considered a liar. Otherwise, Moshe would need to go back to Pharaoh [to announce Hashem’s prophecy, but Moshe had already told Pharaoh that he would not see his face again]. Alternatively: Hashem lifted Moshe ten handbreadths above the ground when He spoke to him, thus placing him in a separate domain. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  For  חצות is not the noun. I.e., [Rashi is telling us that the term]  חצות here is not a noun like it is in (Tehillim 119:62), “ חצות לילה (In<i> the middle</i> of the night) I will rise to praise You.” Here this is not so, because it is preceded by a  כ , which is not appropriate for a noun. Furthermore,  כחצות implies uncertainty as to when midnight is, and surely, Hashem has no such doubt! Thus  כחצות must mean, “When the night is divided.” 
  Which implies at about midnight. . . I.e., our Sages say that  חצות here is indeed a noun, meaning “<i>the middle</i> of the night.” Hashem told Moshe  בחצות הלילה , meaning <i>exactly</i> at midnight, but — lest Pharaoh’s stargazers say, “Moshe is a liar!” —Moshe changed it to  כחצות , meaning at <i>about</i> midnight 
  And say, “Moshe is a liar!” You might ask: Why should Moshe change Hashem’s words just so these fools will not err? The answer is: From the third plague on, the sorcerers admitted to the authenticity of Moshe’s prophecy. Thus Moshe feared that a desecration of Hashem’s Name might occur at the very conclusion, lest they err now and they will deny the previous prophecies. (<i>Rabbeinu Bechayeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Why were the captives struck down? You might ask: The verse mentions the first-born of the captives only later (12:29), in connection with the plague itself. Why does Rashi explain it here [in connection with the warning]? An answer is: Rashi explained above, according to our Sages, that Moshe said “<i>about</i> midnight” because Pharaoh’s sorcerers might say that he is a liar. Yet we might object: Here, they surely will say that Moshe lied! For Moshe said [in his warning], “From the first-born of Pharaoh. . . to the first-born of the [Egyptian] slave girl,” including everyone in between, but excluding those lowlier than the slave girl. Yet later on, in connection with the plague itself, it is written that also the captives were smitten, and they are lowlier, as Rashi explains there. Thus Rashi explains here why the first-born of the captives were struck down, to answer the above objection. [The sorcerers would not err] because they knew that Moshe warned only regarding those who oppressed B’nei Yisrael — i.e., the first-born of Pharaoh until the first-born of the slave girl. But Moshe’s warning did not include the captives. [For the plague came primarily to punish those who enslaved B’nei Yisrael, and] the captives did not enslave them. [As Rashi explains, they died only so that they should not say, “Their own god. . . brought retribution upon the Egyptians.”] Nevertheless, [we could object to the above explanation:] Moshe did not say clearly that the captives are excluded, for the term “first-born of the Egyptian slave girl” could be referring to “the lowly ones,” including the captives. Thus another answer is: Rashi is defending what he explained above, that Moshe changed Hashem’s word because of what the sorcerers might say. If we object that this is no reason to change Hashem’s word, Rashi answers us: “Why were the captives struck down? . . .So they should not say. . .” Thus we see that the captives did not really deserve this, as they did not oppress B’nei Yisrael, and were struck down only because of what they might say. And Moshe changed Hashem’s word for the same reason. 
  Because they too enslaved them and rejoiced in their oppression. Enslavement alone is not sufficient reason, as it was not a complete enslavement. And rejoicing alone is not sufficient reason, for no action was involved. Thus both reasons are needed. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Together with all the people. Rashi is answering the question: Why should Pharaoh care if only Moshe leaves? Furthermore, even if he leaves with all the people, but they only leave the city to worship and then return, [why should Pharaoh care]? Therefore Rashi [further] explains, “From your land.” 
  But only after concluding his words. Moshe left after concluding the whole section of “About the time of midnight. . .” Although Pharaoh had told Moshe to leave [earlier], Moshe did not leave. 
  Because Pharaoh had said to him, “Do not see my face again!” Rashi is answering the question: On the contrary, should not Pharaoh have been angry with Moshe, for warning him and speaking harshly to him? Therefore Rashi explains, “Because he had said to him. . .” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  The killing of the first-born. . . This raises a difficulty: It is written, “In the land of Egypt,” but these wonders were outside of Egypt. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Moshe had difficulty regarding the renewal of the moon, how much of it must be visible so that it be fit to be consecrated. <i>Re”m</i> cited and compared many sources but they are not connected. . . However, it seems clear to me that exceptional wisdom is needed in this matter. It says in Maseches Rosh Hashanah 20b: “Said R. Zeira said R. Nachman, ‘The new moon is invisible for twenty-four hours. For us [in Bavel], it is six from the old moon and eighteen from the new. For them [in Eretz Yisroel] it is six from the new and eighteen from the old.’” And this is the point over which Moshe had difficulty: is it six hours from the new, or is it eighteen from the new? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Has it not already been stated “You speak?” Rashi’s words are difficult to understand. For perhaps when it says (Shemos 7:2): “You (Moshe) speak,” it means that Moshe speaks to Aharon, but to B’nei Yisrael, both speak together. Furthermore, even if it means that Moshe alone speaks, this was said in connection to Pharaoh, i.e., Moshe speaks alone when he is speaking to Pharaoh, but to B’nei Yisrael both speak. The answer is: Although it is written, “Aharon your brother will be your spokesman” (7:1), Moshe must first concisely tell the message to Pharaoh once, just as he heard it from Hashem. And that is the meaning of, “You (Moshe) speak.” Afterwards, Aharon will express it eloquently until it is palatable to Pharaoh. And the same is true regarding B’nei Yisrael, as it is written (4:16), “He will speak to the people for you.” Aharon will speak [eloquently] to the people for you, but [first] you must concisely tell them the message once. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Speak today, on the first of the month. . . I.e., “On the tenth of this month” does not refer to when to speak, rather when to take the lamb. Otherwise the verse should have stated, “On the tenth of this month  לאמר (say), ‘they shall take. . .” Then it would mean, “Speak on the tenth.” But since  לאמר comes before “On the tenth of this month,” it refers back to “on the first of the month.” 
  The korbon Pesach in Egypt. . . [Rashi knows this] because  הזה (“<i>this</i> month”) excludes [any <i>korbon Pesach</i> brought in later years]. The <i>Maharshal</i> explains that [Rashi knows this] because otherwise the verse should have [reversed the order] and said,  ויקחו להם בעשור לחודש , thus telling us that the taking is to be on the tenth. But the verse is written as it is, to tell us that only this time is the taking [of the <i>korbon</i> <i>Pesach</i>] on the tenth, but not for all generations. 
  [One lamb] per family. . . Later (v. 21), Moshe tells B’nei Yisrael to take “a lamb  למשפחותיכם (for your <i>families</i>).” Thus we know that  בית אבות [mentioned in our verse] is the same as  משפחות . That is why Rashi explains  למשפחותיכם (v. 21) to mean  בית אבות . 
  
  Verse 4
  
  While the lamb still exists, while it is still alive. . . I.e., our Sages [change the  ה of  מהיות to a  ח , and] interpret  מהיות משה (while the lamb still exists) as  מחיותו דשה (while the lamb is still alive); because the letters  אחע"ה are interchangeable. 
  Each according to his fitness to eat. . . [Rashi is answering the question:] The <i>korbon Pesach</i> is eaten only after one is full. If so, why does it go according to how much a person eats, [if he has already eaten his fill]? Thus Rashi explains  לפי אכלו as one who is fit to eat [a <i>kezayis</i>]. 
  You will be counted. Rashi cites Onkelos who translates it as  תתמנון so we will not say that  תכוסו means, “you will count others.” (<i>Re”m</i>) However, it seems to me that Rashi [cites Onkelos] so we will not say that  תכוסו means, “you will slaughter.” [We might think this because] “Do not slaughter” (Vayikra 22:28) is translated by Onkelos as  לא תכסון . And so is  תכוסו interpreted in the Talmud. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Its entire [first] year it is called. . . This excludes an animal after one year of its life has passed. Although it has not yet lived two full years, it is unfit for the <i>korbon Pesach</i>. So says Rashi in Maseches Pesachim (97b), that a male in its second year is unfit for the <i>korbon Pesach</i>. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov,</i> see further proofs there) 
  Either one or the other. . . [Rashi is explaining that the beginning of our verse, where it says  שה , means also either one or the other] — as it is written (Devarim 14:4),  ושה עזים . And if you suggest that [the end of our verse is to be understood literally], “One from the sheep <i>and</i> one from the goats,” then the [beginning of our] verse should have said  שיים (plural form), as a goat is also called  שה . Perforce our verse means, “Either one or the other.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Why was it necessary to acquire it four days before its slaughter. . . Why did Rashi not ask this question on (v. 3), “On the tenth of this ( הזה ) month they shall take. . .”? It seems that the answer is: There we would have assumed that the four days [before its slaughter] are to examine the animal against blemishes, a law that applies also to the <i>korbon Pesach</i> of later generations. For  הזה excludes only the <i>Pesach sheini</i> sacrifice from the four days of examination. But now that it is written here, “You shall <i>hold it in safekeeping,</i>” which implies examining, we know that “they shall take” (v. 3) means actually acquiring the animal [as a <i>korbon Pesach</i>]. If so, the question arises: Why did it have to be acquired as a <i>korbon Pesach</i> four days before its slaughter, when the <i>korbon Pesach</i> of later generations may be acquired at any time [prior to its slaughter]? But we could challenge this explanation: How does the statement of R. Masia b. Cheresh answer the question? [Acquiring the animal is a one-time act, not a mitzvah “with which to be occupied” for four days.] Furthermore, why is the mitzvah done four days before its slaughter — no less and no more? This matter requires further investigation. 
  And because they were immersed in idol worship. . . Here, Rashi is offering an additional reason: “And because they were. . .” 
  From here we derive that “the agent of a person is as himself.” You might ask: Why was this not derived from (v. 3), “Each man [shall take] a lamb for [his] family,” where one man takes a lamb for the entire family? Furthermore, perhaps the case in our verse is different [from most cases where “the agent of a person is as himself”] since in our case both the person and the agent are partners in the animal? The answer is: The rule is derived from both verses together. One verse tells us the rule where there is a partnership. And since the rule is repeated in the second verse, this tells us to apply it even where there is no partnership. So it is explained in Maseches Kiddushin 42a. (<i>Re”m</i>) <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> disagrees, and concludes: It seems to me that [the rule is derived as follows:] It should have said, “<i>They</i> shall slaughter <i>them</i>,” implying that many people shall slaughter many Pesach sacrifices. Or it could have said, “<i>He</i> shall slaughter <i>it</i>.” However when it is written, “<i>They</i> shall slaughter <i>it</i>,” the question arises: “But did they all slaughter it? From here we derive. . .” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  This refers to the mitzvah of “taking the blood.” [Rashi knows this because] it only needed to say, “and place (some of) its blood. . .” Why did it say also, “they shall take”? To teach us about  קבלת הדם (taking the blood). 
  I might think that it is taken by hand. . . Rashi means as follows: Since we learn קבלת הדם from “They shall take,” and it is not written into what to put the blood, therefore, “I might think that it is taken by hand. Therefore the Torah states, ‘Which is in the basin.’” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  In which people do not reside. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “In which they will eat.” And we cannot say that the verse means to place blood only on the houses in which they actually<i> </i>eat, but not on other houses, even if they are fit to live in. For it is written later (v. 13), “on the houses where you are [staying],” implying that blood should be put on all houses that are fit to live in, even if they do not eat there. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  But not the sinews or the bones. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “They shall eat <i>it</i>,” without mentioning “the meat.” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The sinews referred to here are the ones so tough that they are not [normally] eaten. 
  Any bitter herb is called  מרור . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Matzos and bitter herbs,” comparing one to the other. Just as any seed-plant that turns to leaven may be used for matzah, so too with  מרור : any seed-plant that is a bitter herb may be used for  מרור . 
  
  Verse 9
  
  The Torah tells us  ובשל מבושל to include anything boiled. In other words, since it is written  ,מים we would think that boiling is forbidden only in water. Therefore it says [the repetitive term]  ובשל מבושל , to include all liquids [in the prohibition]. You might ask: Let the verse omit  מים and [thereby eliminate the need to say]  מבושל , and mention only  נא and  ובשל ? <i>Re”m</i> answers: Cooking includes roasting, as it is written [later about the <i>korbon Pesach</i>], “You shall cook it and eat it” (Devarim 16:7), and Rashi there explains, “Roasting is also called cooking.” That is why our verse needed to state that only  מים [is forbidden to cook with], but not roasting [which is permitted, and consequently Scripture needed to forbid all liquids]. This was needed even though it is written, “But only roasted over fire,” and we would know that here, cooking does not include roasting. 
  He roasts it all as one with its head together with its legs together with its inner parts. Rashi is clarifying the meaning of the verse, for we might have said that the <i>korbon Pesach</i>’s head, legs and inner parts are all roasted together, and the rest of the sheep by itself. Therefore Rashi explains that the entire sheep is roasted as one. 
  And he places its intestines inside after having rinsed them. <i>Re”m</i> writes: “This is true only according to R. Yosi HaGelili, while R. Akiva disagrees and says that this would be like cooking — the intestines should rather be suspended outside the sheep. But it is puzzling that Rashi follows R. Yosi HaGelili’s view rather than R. Akiva’s, when the Halachah generally follows R. Akiva’s view over that of any single Sage who disagrees with him.” The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes: If Rashi was following R. Yosi’s view, then why would he say that only the intestines are placed inside? He should have said that even the legs are placed inside! Rather, it seems to me that according to Rashi, [all views agree that the intestines are placed inside,] just as all agree that the head is [not] placed inside. And the only disagreement is over the legs. (see <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 10
  
  Because “morning” signifies the time of sunrise. . . This is puzzling, for in many places in the Talmud we see that  בקר refers to daybreak  עמוד השחר , and Rashi clearly says so himself in Berachos 9a and Pesachim 120b. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  On the following morning go and burn it. The reason why Rashi says  עד בקר שני תעמוד ותשרפנו rather than simply quoting the verse, which says  עד בקר באש תשרפו , is so that we do not err and say that the verse means that the <i>korbon Pesach</i> should be burned continuously from the first day until the second day. Rashi says that we should not begin to go burn it until the second day. (<i>Re”m</i>) Furthermore, Rashi says  תעמוד so we will not think that while the verse prohibits burning it before the second day, one is permitted not to burn it altogether. Therefore Rashi says  תעמוד , implying that it is a positive mitzvah to burn it. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Ready to travel. Rashi means that they do not actually have to belt their waists; rather, they should hurry as though they want to leave to travel. 
  The korbon is called “Pesach” on account of the skipping. . . Rashi is explaining [the verse in light of the following:] “It is a Pesachoffering <i>to Hashem</i>” comes to give the reason why “You must eat it in haste,” [the reason being that haste emulates Hashem’s skipping]. 
  You perform all its service for the sake of Hashem. . . The correct version is [as it appears in this book]: “You perform all its service for the sake of Hashem in a manner of skipping and springing as a remembrance of its name. . .” I.e., the phrase  דבר אחר should not preface the words, “In a manner of skipping. . .” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  As if He were a king who passes from place to place. . . Rashi is saying that Hashem was like a king who passes straight through without turning aside into the city’s alleys. Although Hashem passed through on one road only, the first-borns of Egypt were struck whether they were on that road or elsewhere. This is what “I will pass through” comes to teach us. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Also other first-born who were in Egypt. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what does [the verse’s repetition of]  בארץ מצרים come to teach? 
  I myself, not through an agent. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “I will execute judgments,” and then adds, “I am Hashem,” [to indicate that Hashem did it Himself]. If so, on the verse “Hashem struck down every first-born” (v. 29), why does Rashi comment: “He <i>and</i> His Divine court”? The answer is: Since He Himself was striking, it was not considered through an agent even though His Divine court was with Him. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  For [future] generations. Rashi explains this so we will not make a mistake and say that “for you” means only for this generation. Although it is written afterwards, “Throughout your generations,” thus Rashi did not really need to explain this, he did so to connect it to  וחגותם אתו . (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Which day is the day of remembrance. This is because the Torah previously mentioned [several dates on which significant events occurred:] the first of Nisan, the tenth, and the fourteenth. 
  The Torah therefore says: “As a statute forever shall you celebrate it.” We need not ask: Now [that it says “forever”], why do we need “throughout your generations”? The answer is: Otherwise, I would think it is an eternal statute for this generation to celebrate it every year, but not for future generations. Therefore, both phrases are necessary. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  This teaches that on the seventh day of Pesach it is not obligatory to eat matzoh. . . [Rashi knows this] because of what is written in Devarim 16:8 [at the end of the verse of “Six days shall you eat <i>matzos</i>]: “And on the seventh day shall be a festival to Hashem your God.” If there was an obligation to eat <i>matzoh</i> on the seventh day, it should say expressly, “And on the seventh day <i>you shall eat matzos</i> and it shall be a festival.” This would be needed since that verse begins, “<i>Six days</i> shall you eat <i>matzos</i>,” hinting not on the seventh — thus we would think that the seventh day is an exception to the rule of eating <i>matzoh</i>. Therefore, [since at the end of the verse the seventh day is mentioned as being a festival while<i> matzoh</i> is omitted,] the verse is teaching [in the format of  דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד ] that the seventh day is a festival alone, without an obligation to eat <i>matzoh</i>. We need not ask: Why is it not written, “In the evening you shall eat <i>matzoh;</i> for seven days do not eat <i>chometz</i>”? And then we would know that <i>matzoh</i> is obligatory on the first night, and optional for the remaining seven days. The answer is: We would then think that the verse means to start eating <i>matzoh</i> in the evening, and continue eating it all seven days in place of eating <i>chometz</i>. (See <i>Re”m</i> for further elaboration; what appears here is sufficient to understand Rashi.) 
  Something that was included in a general rule and was singled out. . . The Rashbam explains (Pesachim 120a) that the seventh day was included in [the general rule of our verse,] “You must eat <i>matzos</i> for seven days.” But it was singled out in Devarim: “And on the seventh day shall be a festival to Hashem your God.” For there, “you shall eat <i>matzos</i>” is not mentioned. This teaches about itself: on the seventh day, <i>matzoh</i> is merely optional. From this method we derive that it was singled out not only to teach about itself; rather, to teach something new concerning the rule as a whole. (<i>Re”m</i> rejects this approach and explains it differently; [see previous entry].) 
  Therefore, the Torah states: “In the evening you shall eat matzos.” As Rashi explains (Pesachim 28b), the verse of “In the evening you shall eat <i>matzos</i>” would be superfluous, [if not to establish eating <i>matzos</i> on the first night as an obligation for all generations]. For it already said (v. 8), “They shall eat it [the <i>korbon Pesach</i>] with matzos and bitter herbs,” [which teaches us the obligation of <i>matzoh</i> in the time of the <i>Beis Hamikdash</i>]. And [as regards eating <i>matzoh</i> as something optional,] the first night is already included in our verse, “You must eat matzos for seven days,” since “days” includes the nights, as we learn from, “Until the twenty-first day of the month” (v. 18). 
  When [that soul] has its full faculties and knowledge. I.e., one who transgresses intentionally. The <i>Mechilta</i> states this clearly. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  The word  מקרא is an infinitive. . . It means declaring holiness. I.e., you shall declare it holy with regard to [wearing] special clothing, eating, and drinking. But  מקרא should not be explained as an adjective, meaning that the day is declared holy by Hashem. For then, it should have said  היום (the day) rather than  ביום (on the day). 
  It, but not the preparations for it. . . [Rashi knows this] because it says  הוא , which implies only the work itself but not the preparations. Yet it also says  לכם , which implies that [work may be done for] all your needs, [including the preparations]. How is this [self-contradictory verse to be explained]? Where only the work itself is permitted, is when the preparations can be done before Yom Tov. And where even the preparations are permitted, is when the preparations cannot be done before Yom Tov. 
  Even for an animal. You might think for non-Jews as well. . . You might ask: Perhaps the opposite is true, [i.e., for non-Jews it is permitted and for animals it is not]? The answer is: It is more logical to include [our domesticated] animals in the permission to do work, for they are dependent on us [i.e., we are responsible] to feed them, and to exclude non-Jews, for they are not dependent on us [i.e., we are not responsible] to feed them. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  If it has begun to rise, pat it with cold moisture. I.e., when dough merely begins to rise, this does not make it into <i>chametz.</i> Nevertheless, if the <i>matzoh</i> begins to rise and is on its way to become <i>chametz</i>, [the woman kneading it] should place her hands in cold water and smear the surface of the dough to cool it down. This is [not because of the prohibition to eat <i>chametz,</i> rather] because of the obligation of “You must be vigilant.” 
  Do not read it the matzos, but rather, the mitzvos. [Rashi offers this midrashic explanation because] according to its simple meaning, [explained in the previous entry,] the verse is out of place. It should come right after (v. 15), “You must eat matzos for seven days,” and teach that we must vigilantly guard them from becoming <i>chametz</i>. The Torah separated these two verses with other laws, to indicate that “You must be vigilant” is not limited to <i>matzos</i>. (<i>Devek Tov</i>) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Why is this said. . . You might ask: Does this verse not imply that eating <i>matzoh</i> is obligatory for all seven days, yet before, Rashi clearly explained that for all seven days it is optional? The answer is: Rashi indeed said before that eating <i>matzoh</i> is optional, as that was the verse’s subject. But here, the subject is the removal of leaven from the home, as is seen in the following verse, “For seven days no leaven may be found in your homes.” And when Rashi mentioned “seven days,” he was not referring to: “You must eat<i> matzos</i> for seven days” (v. 15), rather he was referring to: “For seven days no leaven may be found” (v. 19). And if it said only, “Seven days no leaven may be found,” I might think that this applies only during the daytime, but not at night. (See <i>Re”m</i> for further elaboration.) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  From where do we know [that this applies] to [your properties] outside your house? “Your boundaries” (v. 13:7) comes [to extend the prohibition to areas] outside the house, such as in the fields and vineyards, [although houses are included in “your boundaries”]. 
  A non-Jew’s chametz which is by a Jew. . . I.e., the Jew does not transgress the prohibition of having <i>chametz</i>. Also the prohibition of “your boundaries” (v. 13:7) applies only when you have rights to the <i>chametz,</i> as is learned from “in your homes.” This is because “in your homes” would otherwise be superfluous, [since homes are included in “your boundaries”]. Thus, “in your homes” comes to exclude [cases where the Jew has no rights to the <i>chametz,</i> such as] a non-Jew’s <i>chametz</i> stored by a Jew. 
  But has it not already provided for the kares punishment regarding chametz?! Rashi is saying that the prohibition on  שאור may be derived through <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning, as follows:  חמץ is not so strongly leavened that it can ferment other dough. Nevertheless, one who eats it is liable for <i>kares</i>. Then regarding  שאור , which is strongly leavened, all the more so that one who eats it should be liable for <i>kares</i>. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  This is the warning against the eating of yeast. For the punishment was already learned from (v. 19), “Whoever eats <i>chametz</i> that soul shall be cut off. . ..” 
  Includes its mixture. <i>Re”m</i> discussed Rashi’s comment at length and found difficulty with it. But see Maseches Chulin 43a, and the commentary of Rashi and Tosafos there (beginning with  והא אמר רבי יוחנן ), discussing the Mishnah of  אלו כשרות . <i>Re”m</i> found difficulty with Rashi only because he overlooked this. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  This comes to teach. . . Rashi is answering the question: It is obvious [that the mitzvah of <i>matzoh</i> applies in all places], for <i>matzoh</i> is an obligation upon the person, [not upon the land], and therefore applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it. Rashi answers: “This comes to teach. . .” 
  This excludes Maaser Sheni and the breads of the thanksgiving korbon. Rashi is saying that even if these were eaten in Jerusalem one cannot fulfill his obligation of eating <i>matzoh</i> — since they may not be eaten “in all your dwellings.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  Whoever owns lambs shall draw one of his own. Why does Rashi not explain this as he did above (v. 6), “Withdraw your hands from idol worship”? The answer is: Above, Rashi was not explaining the meaning of the verse, but the reason for the mitzvah. For that, a midrashic explanation is sufficient. But here Rashi is explaining the meaning of the verse; thus he offers its simple meaning (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Three stalks are called a bunch. I.e., we should not explain that five stalks are needed. See Tosafos, Maseches Succah 13a. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  This teaches that once dominion is given to the destroyer. . . This is not referring to the destroyer of the Egyptians, as every first-born was smitten although he did not step outside. Rather it is referring to the destroyer that comes out every night, as Rashi proceeds to explain, “Night is when the destroying angels have dominion.” The B’nei Yisrael were commanded not to go out this night in particular — although all nights have the same danger — so the Egyptians would not say, “Just as we were smitten, they were also smitten,” and then they would say that Moshe is a liar. For they would not know that the regular destroyer did it, whereas Moshe was speaking of the special destroyer who smote the Egyptian first-born. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  For the foretelling of the redemption. . . Rashi inferred that there were three reasons for being thankful because it is written,  ויקוד העם וישתחוו , “they bowed (singular) and prostrated themselves (plural).” The verse should have simply said  ויקדו (and they bowed, plural), similar to  וישתחוו (which is plural). Thus, the verse’s wording indicates that there was one bowing and two prostrations. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 28
  
  In order to relate the praise. . . [For they did it] even though it was dangerous to slaughter Egypt’s god in front of their eyes.
  Moshe and Aharon, too, did so. [This needed to be stated] otherwise we might think: Moshe and Aharon were not commanded because they did not need to be redeemed; and therefore they did not do so. Thus, the additional phrase of “They [also] did so” teaches us [that Moshe and Aharon also did it.] Otherwise it would be sufficient to say, “The B’nei Yisrael went and did.” 
  
  Verse 29
  
  Wherever it states. . . It is written (Bereishis 19:24), “<i>And</i> Hashem made sulfur and fire rain down.” There, <i>Re”m</i> explained that wherever it says “<i>and</i> Hashem,” it means “He and His Divine court,” and enumerated other places where it says, “<i>and</i> Hashem.” 
  Because they rejoiced at the misfortune of the Israelites. See above (v. 11:5) for an explanation why two reasons are needed.
  
  Verse 30
  
  This teaches us that he made the rounds. . . Why did Pharaoh’s servants not wake him up? The plague was mainly on them, as it is written, “For there was no house. . .” The answer is: They had already said, “Send these men out. . . do you not yet realize. . .” (v. 10:7), but Pharaoh did not listen to them. Therefore [they despaired of persuading him and] he needed to wake them. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  An alternate explanation: The Egyptian women were unfaithful. . . This raises a difficulty: Now too, the Egyptians will say that Moshe is a liar, for sons who are not first-born were dying. The answer is: Moshe will tell them that they are all first-born because the women were unfaithful. And all this was in order to show the Egyptians’ lowliness and impurity. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  And bore children from single, unmarried men. . . Rashi is explaining that  רווקים means  פנוים (unmarried). 
  
  Verse 31
  
  This tells us that he went. . . Otherwise it should say, “He called  אל משה , as it does in “Hashem called  אל משה (<i>to</i> Moshe) and spoke to him.” But  למשה means, “<i>for</i> Moshe.” 
  
  Verse 32
  
  Pray for me that I do not die, for I am a first-born. Otherwise, why would Pharaoh need their blessing, since he sent the people out [and consequently needed not fear further plagues]? 
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  The Egyptians did not let them procrastinate long enough to become chametz. But [the reason they took it before it was leavened] was not on account of the prohibition against <i>chametz</i>, because for the Pesach in Egypt there was no prohibition against having <i>chametz</i> in the home. Alternatively, Rashi’s comment may be understood as follows. He is answering the question: Why is it written, “Before it was <i>leavened</i>”? It should have said, “Before they baked it.” Therefore Rashi explains: “The Egyptians did not let them. . .” I.e., by writing “Before it was <i>leavened</i>,” the Torah is informing us the extent to which the Egyptians were hurrying B’nei Yisrael. 
  What was left of their matzoh and maror. But not what was left of the <i>korbon</i> <i>Pesach</i>, because any leftovers from the <i>korbon Pesach</i> must be burned. [see 12:10] 
  
  Verse 35
  
  These were even dearer to them than silver and gold. Otherwise, why should “clothing” even be mentioned? If they lent them silver and gold, surely clothing. Thus we [must say: on the contrary,] “these were even dearer. . .” However, the <i>Maharshal</i> explains: Since Hashem did not command them to borrow clothing, perforce it was not so valuable. Hashem said to request only silver and gold, to uphold His promise of, “Afterwards they will leave with great wealth.” They borrowed the clothing on their own, since a pauper who lacks clothing does not look to acquire silver and gold, but coats and shirts. And what does it mean that the clothing was even dearer to the Egyptians? It means that it was a great and serious matter for the Egyptians to lend it to them. This is because the Egyptian clothing and customs were different from those of B’nei Yisrael, so when they lent them clothing they knew it would not be returned since B’nei Yisrael would make alterations to the clothing. Nevertheless, they lent it to them. Therefore Rashi explains that the clothing was “even dearer <i>to them</i>,” i.e., to the Egyptians, but not to B’nei Yisrael. Whereas the silver and gold was not as dear to the Egyptians, since they thought it would be returned. 
  The later in the verse, the dearer. This raises a difficulty: In the verse mentioning “Wheat and barley” (Devarim 8:8), the more important item comes first. The answer is: [Rashi is not stating a general rule. And] here, the more important item cannot be the first one, as then the latter items would not need to be mentioned at all. For if the Egyptians lent the valuable items, surely they would lend the cheap ones. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 36
  
  Even that which they did not request of them. . . [Rashi knows this] because at first it is written, “And they requested of the Egyptians” (v. 35), and then it is written, “Hashem granted the people favor,” telling us that they found favor, and their request was granted. If so, why does Scripture need to write here, “And they granted their request”? It must come to tell you that they gave them even things that they did not request. 
  
  Verse 37
  
  [The distance between them was] 120 mil. [Rashi knows this] because Scripture did not need to write, “From Ramseis,” since we already know that they were in Ramseis, as it is written in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 47:11). Thus, “From Ramseis” is mentioned only to tell us that they traveled a distance of 120 <i>mil</i> in a moment. 
  Who were twenty years and older. [Rashi knows this] because in Parshas Bamidbar, the males are counted from twenty years and older, and the number is similar to this one — and both counts were taken within one year. We cannot suggest that here they were counted from thirteen years old, because then the count in Parshas Bamidbar would be less, as they would not all turn twenty within one year. Thus, the count here must have been from twenty years and older. 
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  This is what is explicitly told in the Prophets. The word  קבלה refers to the Prophets.
  
  Verse 40
  
  And thirty years passed from when the decree of “between the pieces” was decreed. . . <i>Re”m</i> explains in Parshas Lech Lecha that Avraham was seventy at the decree of “between the pieces,” and so it says in <i>Seder Olam.</i> 
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  It is continuously protected from destructive forces. Rashi is answering the question: What does “this night remains a vigil for all generations” mean? Surely, this actual night of the Exodus does not remain forever. Rashi answers: “It is continuously protected.” I.e., every year when this night comes, it is protected from destructive forces. 
  
  Verse 43
  
  This section was told to them on the 14th of Nissan. For if it was told on the first of the month, it should have been written above with (v. 12:2), “This month shall be [reckoned] to you,” if they were both stated at the same time. 
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  A circumcised Arab. . . See <i>Re”m,</i> who discusses Rashi’s comments on  תושב ושכיר at length, and reconciles them with what is stated in the Gemara. 
  
  Verse 46
  
  From this [we infer] that whoever eats it may eat it in two places. You might ask: How does Rashi know [that in this verse, “house” means “group,” whereas in the earlier verse (v. 7), it means “place”]? Perhaps it is the opposite:  בבית אחד יאכל means as it sounds, [and “house” means “place.” Thus, they shall not continue eating it in a different <i>place</i> from where they started]. And  על הבתים אשר יאכלו אותו בהם (v.7) teaches that the <i>group</i> is allowed to break up [before they start eating,] and eat it separately in two different houses. <i>Re”m</i> answers: Since our verse is vocalized  יֵאָכֵל (<i>it</i> must be eaten), perforce it refers to the <i>korbon Pesach</i>. [This way the emphasis is on the <i>korbon Pesach</i> itself, teaching that it must remain in one group, although the eaters themselves may move from place to place, as long as they stay as one group]. For if it was referring to [the <i>eater</i> of the <i>korbon</i> <i>Pesach</i>, that he shall not move from house to] house, then it would be vocalized  יֹאכַל (<i>he</i> must eat it). Then it would mean that its members shall eat it in one house [and shall not continue eating in a different place, even if they stay as one group]. 
  [A bone] that is edible as, for example. . . Rashi is explaining that  יֵאָכֵל refers also to the prohibition of breaking bones. It is as if Scripture had written, “A bone that may be eaten, you must not break.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 47
  
  The Torah tells us: “The entire community of Yisrael.” I.e., even if they are not from the same family [they may make a group]. 
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  Regarding the other mitzvos of the Torah. You might ask: Why should we think converts are different? They are full Jews! Granted that the previous verse needed to equate the convert to the native born regarding bringing the <i>korbon Pesach</i> on the 14th of Nisan, since we might have thought that he brings the <i>korbon Pesach</i> right when he converts. Thus it is written, “Like the native born,” as Rashi explained. But why should converts be different regarding the other <i>mitzvos</i> of the Torah? The answer is: The fact that the Torah needed to equate them regarding the <i>korbon</i> <i>Pesach</i> on the fourteenth [of Nisan] might have led us to say that they are different regarding other <i>mitzvos.</i> (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  That is the first to open the womb. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does not every infant open the womb [through its birth]? Thus he explains, “The <i>first</i> to open. . .” 
  I have acquired them for Myself. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does not everything in the world belong to Him? Thus Rashi explains, “I have [already] acquired them for Myself.” I.e., every firstborn is holy even without your sanctifying it. Nevertheless, “Sanctify to Me all the first-born” in order to receive reward. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  This teaches that mention of the Exodus from Egypt should be made every day. [<i>Re”m</i> explains that Rashi knows this because]  זכור is written with a  קמץ , therefore it implies a constant remembering, as Rashi explains in Parshas Yisro, on “Remember the Shabbos day” (20:8). There, the <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> disagrees at length with <i>Re”m</i>, and concludes: It seems to me that Rashi derived the mentioning of the Exodus every day from the word  הזה (this). For the verse could have [omitted  הזה and] said simply, “Remember the day on which you came out from Egypt,” as the Torah says in: “In order that you shall remember the day on which you came out from Egypt” (Devarim 16:3). Therefore, when this verse says  היום הזה , this implies that every day should be to you as if you left Egypt today, similar to: “On <i>this</i> day you have become a nation (ibid 27:10),” on which Rashi explains: “Every day should be to you as if today you entered the covenant.” Deriving the mention of the Exodus from  היום הזה fits well [with Maseches Berachos 12b, which states that] only at daytime would we mention the Exodus, [if not for the extra verse in Devarim 16:3 which teaches to mention it also at night]. This is understandable if we learn from  היום הזה , as the Exodus itself was during the daytime. But if we learn from  זכור , which implies constant remembering, [and thus it includes the nighttime as well, there is no need for an extra verse]. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Who had no other name except “Canaanite.” Rashi is answering the question: Elsewhere, where all seven nations are enumerated, why is Canaan mentioned with them? There, it is unnecessary for Canaan to be mentioned in order to include other nations. Thus Rashi explains: “One among the family of Canaan. . .” (<i>Re”m</i>) Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Since all seven nations are included in “Canaan,” why did it need to say, “the Chittites, the Emorites. . .”? Just saying “Canaanite” should have sufficed. Rashi answers that one nation had no other name, thus if it would be written only “Canaanite” we would think [it means only that nation, and] the other nations were not included. Thus it is written “Canaanite” — and afterwards, “the Chittites, the Emorites. . .” so that we will ask why are only five nations enumerated. And then we will be compelled to answer that they are all included in “Canaanite.” 
  Hashem made a covenant with Avram. . . You might ask: It says in Parshas Va’eira (6:3), “I revealed Myself to Avraham. . . as Almighty Shaddai, but My Name Ad-noy I did not make known to them.” [Thus, how could Hashem have used the Name Ad-noy to swear to Avram]? The answer is: Hashem gave Avram mere good tidings, [without yet keeping the promise. Whereas v. 6:3 means: “I was not recognized by them by My attribute of <i>keeping</i> trust,”] as explained there by Rashi. You might ask: If so, [that it was mere good tidings,] where did Hashem swear to Avram? The answer is: [It was good tidings accompanied by an oath. For] Hashem twice stated to Avram His words of promise, and this repetition constitutes an oath. For example it says, “As I swore regarding the floodwaters of Noach” (Yeshayah 54:10), regarding which Rashi comments in Parshas Noach (Bereishis 8:21), “We find in Scripture no oath regarding this, except for His repeating His words regarding this.” Rashi is referring to the words  לא אוסיף which are written twice in that verse. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Because I will fulfill His mitzvos, such as. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written  זה , which implies that the father is pointing to something specific [when speaking] to his son. 
  This is an allusion to a response to the evil son. . . You might ask: Why is the allusion to the response to the evil son here, in the middle of what is actually the response to the son who does not know what to ask, [as Rashi says (v. 5)]? The answer is: The message alluded to the evil son applies also to the son who does not know what to ask. The message is that Hashem performed the miracles only for the righteous who know the Torah. The ignorant people did not have the merit for these miracles, and were not worthy on their own to be redeemed, only through the merit of the righteous. We need not ask: [If the alluded message applies to the son who does not know what to ask,] perhaps the whole response is for him alone. How do we know that there is an allusion to a response to the evil son? The answer is: Since it is written “for me,” it implies for me and not for him. I.e., he would not have been redeemed at all. This must refer to the evil son, since the son who does not know what to ask would indeed have been redeemed in the merit of the righteous. However, the evil son would have died during the three days of darkness. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  The weak hand.  כהה means “dark,” i.e., the right hand is more important than the left hand [which is called “dark”]. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  I will bring you to the land about which I raised My hand. . . Above, it is written that Hashem swore to your fathers (v. 5), while here it is written, “He swore to you.” This implies that Hashem swore twice, once to your fathers, and once to you. The oath that was to you is in the verse “I will bring <i>you</i> to the land about which I raised My Hand. . .” (6:8), for the beginning of that section deals with the oath to the fathers, and then concludes, “Therefore say to the B’nei Yisrael. . .” which Rashi explains as, “In accordance with that oath.” If so, why did it repeat, “To the land about which I raised My hand [as an oath]”? Thus we must say that the second oath was to the B’nei Yisrael. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) However, <i>Re”m</i> explains [differently]: “He swore to you” in this verse means that He swore for your sake. The oath was made to your fathers, but sometimes it is called the oath of the children since the oath was for their sake. 
  You should consider it as if He had given it to you on the same day. . . Rashi is answering the question: Is it not superfluous to say, “He will have given it to you”? Once He brings you to the land, surely He will have given it to you. Thus Rashi says: “You should consider it. . .” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Should you ask: does it refer also to a first-born of an unclean animal? In other words, you might suggest that  שגר in this verse does not refer to one prematurely born, just as שגר אלפיך does not. Even though it is already written, “Every one that [is first to] open the womb,” [apparently forcing us to say that  שגר refers to one prematurely born, you might suggest:] perhaps  שגר comes to include the first-born of an unclean animal. 
  There is a possible alternate explanation. And according to this explanation,  שגר does not refer to one prematurely born. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  This is a Scriptural decree. . . As stated in the first chapter of Bechoros (5a). Rashi added his own explanation by saying, “Because the Egyptian first-born. . .” 
  The sheep is not sacred in the possession of the kohein. [Rashi is explaining that] the sheep does not become forbidden to be used, in place of the firstling donkey [which becomes permitted to be used]. Rather, the sheep is ordinary property and the <i>kohein</i> may use it as he wishes. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   טט in the Kathphi language is two. . . Katheph is the name of a place where “two” is called  טט . Similarly, Afrik is the name of a place where “two” is called  פת . See Tosafos in Maseches Sanhedrin (4b). Rashi was answering the question: Here it is written  ולטטפות , while in the section of <i>kadeish</i> (v. 9) it is written  ולזכרון . Why are different words used [to describe <i>tephillin</i>]? To answer this, Rashi cited this explanation [about Kathphi and Afriki]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) You might ask: According to this, <i>tephillin</i> should contain twelve compartments, since “<i>totafos” </i>is written three times. The answer is: One instance of “<i>totafos</i>” is needed for itself, [to tell us the mitzvah]. Another teaches “two” (compartments) in the Kathphi language, or “two” in the Afriki language. The third “<i>totafos</i>” teaches that in Kathphi four (compartments) are needed, or in Afriki four (compartments) are needed; if “<i>totafos”</i> were only written twice, then only two compartments would be needed. Another answer is: <i>“Totafos</i>” is not written three times for the sake of [new] commands. Rather, [the section of <i>tephillin</i> is] like a section that has been stated once and then repeated, just as many other sections of the Torah [are repeated in whole, for the sake of a certain new teaching that the repetition contains]. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Lead them. . . The  ם of  נחם is a suffix, not the third letter of the verb root. The word means “lead,” and not “rest” ( מנוח ) or “consolation” ( נחמה ). 
  And it was therefore easy to return by that route to Egypt. . . Rashi is answering the question: Every  כי in Scripture is put there to give a reason. How does [“Because it was the shortest route”] give a reason for the preceding [statement that Hashem did <i>not</i> lead them that way]? On the contrary, Hashem should lead them via the shortest route! Thus Rashi explains that it was easy to return by that route, as it says afterwards, “For Elohim said. . .” I.e., what would cause them to return to Egypt? “Elohim said. . . should they encounter war.” The war would be the cause [for them to return]. 
  There are many Midrashic explanations. I.e., they give different explanations for, “Because it was the shortest route.” Accordingly, “Elohim said. . .” does not refer to, “Because it was the shortest route.” It rather refers to, “Elohim did not lead them. . ..” It is giving an additional reason why Elohim did not lead them: “Because Elohim said. . .” 
  For example, the war of: “And the Amaleikites and Canaanites. . .” [mentioned in Bamidbar 14:45. Rashi is saying] that it does not mean war in general. For they encountered war with the Amaleikites [Shemos 17:8, yet did not return to Egypt]. Although they defeated Amaleik, they were close to Egypt and could have returned, from fear of other wars. (<i>Re”m,</i> based on Mechilta) But the <i>Maharshal</i> explains: Rashi did not mention the nearby war with Amaleik (17:8) because Israel defeated Amaleik then. So there was little concern that they would set their hearts to return to Egypt. But in the war of “the Amaleikites came down,” Yisrael was stricken and smitten. Thus, there was concern that they would return. 
  They said, “Let us appoint a leader and let us return to Egypt”. . . Rashi is saying that the reason they did not return was because they lacked a leader. It was a long route and required a leader. But were they to have a leader, they clearly would return — despite their distance from Egypt. So if they had a short and straight route back to Egypt, not requiring a leader, they surely would return. <i>Maharshal</i> explains: Although they traveled a round-about route they still said, “Let us appoint a leader and let us return,” after merely hearing about Amaleik from their scouts. So had they taken a straight route, and encountered actual war, they surely would have returned all the way. 
  Have second thoughts.  ינחם means changing one’s mind. This follows Rashi’s second explanation on Bereishis 6:6. However, in Rashi’s first explanation there, it means “consolation.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
   סוף is a term meaning a marsh. [Rashi is saying] that we should not think  סוף means “end,” in which case it would mean, “They traveled to the end of the sea.” Thus he explains, “ סוף is a term meaning a marsh,” i.e., a sea full of reeds. Therefore the meaning of  ים סוף here is as if it were written  לים סוף . (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  An alternate explanation. . . one of every five went out. . . There is a question on the first explanation: What is the proof [from “You shall pass by with arms”]? In the context of that verse, there is no other way to explain  חמושים . Therefore Rashi presents the alternate explanation. And he also presents [the first explanation] so that the verse does not depart from its simple meaning [completely], and  חמושים has the [simple] meaning of “armed.” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Swear that they will make their children swear. [How does Rashi know this? The answer is:] It cannot be that [the repetitive  השבע השביע is merely because] the Torah speaks as people do, [and the oath was for Yoseif’s generation alone]. For how is it possible that Yoseif’s generation would leave Egypt? They needed to be in Egypt for 400 years, or at least for 210! Furthermore, [if Yoseif’s oath was for that generation alone,] how would [we explain the word  כי ? I.e., how would] the oath be the reason [for Moshe to take along Yoseif’s bones]? Perforce, “He made them swear that they will make their children swear.” This is preferable to <i>Re”m’s</i> explanation. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Why did he not bind his sons by oath. . . Meaning: And then he would not need to make them swear to make their children swear. Rashi answers, “Yoseif said: ‘I was a ruler in Egypt. . .’” This, explains why Rashi asked his question on the verse rather than on his explanation of it. [It is because the repetitive  השבע השביע clearly shows that Yoseif made them swear to make their children swear.] Furthermore, [this explains] why Rashi did not ask this question in Bereishis 50:25, where the oath itself is stated. [It is because Rashi’s question arises only due to the words  השבע השביע ]. (<i>Devek Tov</i>) 
  It was his brothers that he bound by this oath. . . [Rashi is saying that here,] “B’nei Yisrael” means Yaakov’s sons. And the meaning of “Elohim will surely remember <i>you</i>” is that He will remember <i>your children</i>, who are in your place. Otherwise, [if Yoseif was not speaking to his brothers,] why would it say  אתכם ? Therefore Rashi explains that Yoseif bound his brothers by this oath, and  אתכם is referring to his brothers’ bones. Thus, the verse means as follows: “Elohim will surely remember <i>you</i>,” i.e., “your children.” “You must carry up” is Yoseif’s command [to his brothers]: Make your children swear to carry my bones up with yours. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Here, too, to lead them by means of an agent. . . I.e.,  לנחותם is a transitive verb involving a secondary object [i.e., the “agent”]. Rashi proves this from  לַראתכם (Devarim 1:33), which must be the same as  להראותכם (to show), for otherwise it would be like  לִראותכם in the simple verb form, and mean “to see you.” But this meaning would not fit into the context of the verse. Perforce, it is the same as  להראותכם . Here too,  לַנחותם means the same as  להנחותם (to lead them). (This is not in accordance with <i>Re”m</i>’s explanation.) 
  Hashem Himself, in His glory, led it before them. Rashi is answering the question: Is it not written, “<i>Hashem</i> went before them,” not the pillar of cloud? Thus Rashi explains that Hashem Himself led the pillar of cloud before them. We need not ask: If Hashem went before them, why was the pillar of cloud needed? For Rashi explains: “Nevertheless, He provided the pillar of cloud to lead them by its means. . ..” 
  The pillar of cloud was not providing light, but rather to show them the way. [Rashi knows this] because during the day they do not need light. Perforce, it showed them the way. When Scripture writes, “To provide them with light,” it refers only to the pillar of fire. However, the pillar of fire also showed them the way, as it is written, “So that they could travel by day and by night.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Hashem [did not remove] the pillar of cloud by day. . . [Rashi knows this] because  ימיש is a causative verb. Otherwise, [if it meant “the cloud did not depart”], it should be vocalized  יִמּוֹשׁ . 
  Before one would depart the other would arrive. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is [this verse of]  לא ימיש necessary? [The previous verse] already said, “Hashem went. . . in a pillar of cloud. . . and at night in a pillar of fire.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Is Pisom. . . [Rashi knows this] because the verse comes to tell us at which border they encamped, yet we do not know of Pi Hachiros, for it is not mentioned in Scripture. Thus, it must be Pisom. 
  Because there they became free men. . . It is called Pisom, an acronym for “<i>Peh sasum</i>” (sealed mouth). This is because an idol was there which did not allow any slave to escape. But now they became free men there, because Hashem altered Egypt’s ruling star in the heavens. So now [the place] was called Pi Hachiros, named after their attaining freedom (<i>cheirus</i>). We need not ask: Why was it not now called Cheirus? And also, why was it not previously called Sasum<i>,</i> rather than Pisom? For Rashi explains: “They were two high, upright rocks and the valley between them was like a mouth (<i>peh</i>).” 
  It alone was left from all the gods of Egypt. . . I.e., this god was left even though it is written, “Against all the gods of Egypt, I will execute judgments” (12:12). 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  To relate their praises that they listened to Moshe. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written, “They did just that,” for all mitzvos? Perforce, because it is obvious that they did just that. Therefore, it is obvious here as well! So Rashi explains, “To relate their praises.” I.e., Scripture testifies to their righteousness. But it seems to me [that Rashi is answering the question:] It says, “The Egyptians. . . overtook them as they were encamped by the sea. . . at Pi haChiros, facing Ba’al Tzephon” (v. 9). This proves they turned back. Therefore, “They did just that” is superfluous, and it is stated “to relate their praises. . .” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  He sent officials along with them. . . Rashi is answering the question: Pharaoh willingly sent B’nei Yisrael out. He knew himself that they left Egypt. Why then does it say he was “told”? Perforce, “He sent officials. . .” 
  On the fifth and sixth days they pursued them. . . You might ask: B’nei Yisrael journeyed on the first and second days, but on the third day they turned back a day’s journey, as it is written: “Have them turn back” (v. 2). Thus, they were only a day’s distance from Egypt. Why then did it take Pharaoh two days to overtake them? The answer is: “Have them turn back” means they traveled at an angle. Although Rashi says (ibid), “They kept moving nearer to Egypt,” it does not mean they went straight back [via the same route they had taken]. They were heading back on an indirect path, which is not a true returning. It demonstrated that they were in a state of confusion, for they did not return the way they came. Had they not returned in a straying way, Pharaoh would not have pursued them, for he released them because he considered it Hashem’s will. But upon seeing them returning [in an apparently confused manner] convinced Pharaoh that if it was Hashem’s will, He would have led them on a straight path. 
  In the morning they chanted the shirah and that was the seventh day of Pesach. . . You might ask: Did not Rashi say in Bamidbar 15:41 that they chanted the <i>shirah</i> on the eighth day? The answer is: [It is the eighth day] if you count from <i>Erev Pesach</i>, which is when the <i>korbon</i> <i>Pesach</i> was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled on the lintel and doorposts. [True,] <i>Erev Pesach</i> is not a complete day, for the night had already passed before the slaughtering, and is not counted with the day. Nevertheless, it is considered a full day regarding sacrifices. This is because for sacrifices, the night <i>following</i> is considered part of the day. So when counting from the day of slaughtering, the seventh day of Pesach is actually the eighth day. In Bamidbar, Rashi is counting from the day of slaughtering, and here he is not. But <i>Re”m</i> explains: Perhaps R. Moshe Hadarshan, who said it was the eighth day, disagrees with the Aggadah [cited here] which says they chanted the <i>shirah</i> on the seventh day. 
  Now they changed. . . Some ask either way: If Pharaoh initially had in mind that B’nei Yisrael will leave Egypt and not come back, as Rashi explains that he now had a change of heart, why did he send along the officials? Rather, he must have had in mind that they will make a three-day festival in the wilderness and then come back, as the verse implies: “Go worship Hashem as you have said” (12:31). But if so, why does Rashi say he had a change of heart [if he thought all along that they will come back]? The answer is: Pharaoh initially sent B’nei Yisrael out regardless of whether or not they will come back. He sent the officers along with them so that if B’nei Yisrael were to decide to leave permanently, they should either give the officers the possessions, or come back and return what they had borrowed. This also explains why Rashi says they changed their minds “because of their property.” The officers saw that B’nei Yisrael intended to go away and flee, and they informed Pharaoh and his servants. Then Hashem gave them a change of heart, to bring B’nei Yisrael back to Egyptian slavery as before, although they initially did not have in mind that B’nei Yisrael will come back. 
  To pursue them. . . Question: How does Rashi know [that it was because of the property they lent them]? Perhaps it was as it is written in the verse: “How did we release B’nei Yisrael from<i> serving us</i>?” The answer is: Indeed, this was Pharaoh’s reason, that because of the slave labor, he never wanted to send Israel away. But his servants were always telling him, “How long will this man be a menace to us” (10:7), etc, and now they said, “What have we done? How did we release Israel from<i> serving us</i>?” Perforce, it was because of their property. Another answer: [Rashi knows this] because it is written “regarding the people,” implying: because of the people to whom they lent their property. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Selected. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say  בחורים (plural form)? The answer is: Had it said  בחורים we would think [it meant “young men,”] as in Devarim (32:25), “The young man ( בחור ) and the young woman ( בתולה )” — and it comes to exclude the elderly. Therefore it says  בחור (singular form), which means “selected” — to convey that all the 600 chariots were select. And since  בחור in fact refers to the 600, which is plural, Rashi writes [ נבחרים ] in the plural form. 
  And along with them, all the remaining chariots. Rashi is answering the question: First it is written that Pharaoh took only 600 chariots. Why then is it written afterward, “All the chariots of Egypt”? Furthermore, once it is written, “All the chariots of Egypt,” why does it need to say, “600 chariots”? Thus Rashi explains, “Along with them.” In other words, Pharaoh took only 600. But those 600 [chariot commanders] had servants [with their own chariots,] and they also went along with Pharaoh, of their own accord. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  An alternate explanation: And behold the Egyptian is coming. . . The angel is not called by a proper name but rather  מצרים , because the guardian angel of Egypt is in fact named  מצרים . 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Is it due to a lack of graves . . . [Rashi is answering the question:] Why did it not say  המבלי קברים במצרים [without  אין ]? Thus Rashi explains: “Is it due to. . .”
  
  Verse 12
  
  Where was it that they told him? “Let Hashem look. . .” Meaning: They said to Moshe, “Now we know that we then spoke correctly when we said, ‘Let Hashem look at you and judge’ (5:21). For according to what we see now, it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die now in the desert.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  This is the day that you saw them, but you will never again. Rashi means: [You see them today] but you will not see them any other day [because I will destroy them]. And therefore I command you not to see them again [i.e., there is a command not to return to Egypt]. This is why Rashi adds a  ו [to the verse, and says:]  ולא תוסיפו . Otherwise [it would mean: “Because you saw the Egyptians this day, you will never again see them.” This cannot be,] for how is seeing the Egyptians this day a reason [for the command?] (<i>Re”m</i>) Everything <i>Re”m</i> says seems contrary to logic. If “Never again see them” is a command, then the verse states two separate things. The first is that you have seen them only this day, and the second is the command not to see them again. Accordingly, there is no need to add a  ו which means “and.” Rather, we must say it is not a command but a promise that “You will never again see them” because they will all drown in the sea. Also, most <i>Poskim</i> do not consider this to be among the negative mitzvos. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  An alternate explanation: Why do you cry out?  אלי — This thing depends on Me. . .” Explanation: The <i>tropp</i> under  תצעק is a <i>tipchah</i>, showing that  תצעק is not connected to  אלי . This conveys that  אלי means, “This thing depends on Me.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Because the sea will not stand in their way. . . Explanation: If B’nei Yisrael moves on, you can make the sea split by raising your staff. But if they do not move on, the sea will not split, although you raise your staff over it. This is because [raising your staff does not split the sea. Rather,] “The merit of their ancestors. . . is effective to split the sea for them.” Accordingly, “Why do you cry to Me” means as follows: Do not think <i>you</i> can accomplish the splitting of the sea through your prayers. Rather, “Let <i>them</i> move on” [and this will effect it]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>; see there.) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  To receive the arrows and the projectiles of the Egyptians. . . <i>Re”m</i> explains that the angel of Elokim moved [behind them] as soon as the Egyptians came upon them. This was to separate the Egyptian camp from the camp of B’nei Yisrael and to absorb the arrows and projectiles. But the pillar of cloud moving behind them and the moving of the angel were separate matters. The pillar of cloud was to make it dark for the Egyptians. Question: Why does Rashi later say in 19:4 that the<i> cloud</i> absorbed the arrows, etc? The answer is: As soon as the Egyptians came, the angel went behind them to separate and to absorb the arrows etc. But the cloud was still in front of them until it completed its tour over the camp and gave way to the pillar of fire. Then the pillar of cloud moved behind them to make it dark for the Egyptians, and the angel departed. But the Mechilta states that the cloud <i>and</i> the angel absorbed the arrows, etc. The commentators resolve this matter; see <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  The pillar of fire. [The verse has an unstated word and] it is as if it said, “The <i>light source</i> lit up the night” — referring to the pillar of fire, not to the angel. 
  One camp to another. This explanation disagrees with the Midrashic explanation that  ולא קרב זה אל זה refers to the angels, who did not recite shirah. (Maharshal) 
  
  Verse 21
  
  All the waters of the world. [Rashi knows this] because it already said, “He made the sea into dry land.” Alternatively, because it should have said, “The <i>sea</i> was divided.” 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Was there only one horse. . . [Rashi is asking:]  כל indicates something that is two or more. Why then is  סוס written in the singular form? Rashi did not ask this on  כל סוס רכב פרעה (v. 9), because there,  כל refers collectively to horse and chariot. But here the question arises, since it is written  סוס , in the singular form. This resolves <i>Re”m</i>’s difficulty; see there. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  It is for this reason that Onkelos translates it:  מטרת . This word means waiting.
  He gazed. . . [Rashi knows it was to destroy them] because every expression of  השקפה in Scripture is for something bad, except for: “Gaze down ( השקיפה ) from Your Holy dwelling place” (Devarim 26:15). [There it is for the good] because giving gifts to the poor has such great power, [that it even changes Hashem’s anger to compassion]. 
  The pillar of fire heated it up. . . [Rashi says this] because in between the divided water standing on both sides was dry land, for B’nei Yisrael crossed the sea on dry land. Therefore, after B’nei Yisrael passed, the pillar of cloud moistened the land within the sea to make it like soft clay. Then the pillar of fire came and heated it up. 
  He took away their senses.  סגניות  means intelligence, as in: “One thought ( סגנון ) is presented to many prophets. . .” (Sanhedrin 89a) 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  The waters that were standing erect. . . Rashi explains this because  וישובו seems to imply that the waters will come back <i>again</i> over the chariots and cavalry, while in truth the waters were still standing erect until Moshe extended his hand over the sea. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  The sea expelled them onto its shore. . . Otherwise, how could Yisrael see them? They drowned in the sea! 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Then, when Moshe saw. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did it not say  אז שר (present tense)?  ישיר is future tense, while  אז is present tense, conveying: “then he sings.” Rashi answers: “Then, when Moshe saw the miracle, it entered his mind. . .” In other words,  ישיר refers to his [present] thought to sing. 
  And he did so: “And they said. . .” I.e., for right afterward it is written, “I will sing.” 
  From here we derive an allusion that the resurrection of the dead. . . Meaning: ישיר  implies at a future time.
  
  Verse 2
  
  Being the same as  עזִי , vocalized with a shuruk, and  וזמרת being the same as  וזמרתי . . . Meaning: “My might and My praise.” 
  
  And the second one is not a sheva or chatef. . . Rashi is referring to the middle letter of עזי, which is ז, and to the middle letter of  חקי , [which is  ק ], etc. 
  And they are all followed by  ויהי לי לישועה . . . [Rashi is saying:] If  וזמרת means  וזמרתי (my praise), why then does it say  ויהי לי לישועה ? Could it be that his praise was the cause of his deliverance? (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Do not wonder about the use of  ויהי . . . Whereas according to Onkelos, [the use of  ויהי ] is quite appropriate, as the verse is saying: “Hashem is my might and my praise.” And  ויהי לי לישועה  is a new point: [“He was my deliverance.”] 
  Is this, and I will exalt Him. Rashi adds the word “this” because  אלהי אבי stands separately, and seems to imply that “Hashem of my father” is a different God [from the God previously mentioned]. Thus Rashi explains the verse as if it said, “This is my God and the God of my father, and I will glorify and exalt Him.” 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  A noun as  מרכב . . . I.e., we should not say that the  מ is a prefix, and the word means  מן מבחר (some of the elite). 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  It is constantly crushing. . . I.e., we should not understand that  תרעץ is in the future tense. Rashi similarly explains  תהרוס (v. 7). 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  For the sake of My Name I will lengthen My breath”. . . I.e., I will not be angry. For “when one’s anger is calmed, his breath is longer.” 
  I will place a nose-ring in My nose. . .  חטם means “nose-ring,” as Rashi continues to explain: “In order to close up My nostrils against. . .” 
  אחטם is like  נאקה בחטם . . . The <i>Aruch</i> explains: They pierce the animal’s nostrils and insert a ring there. They put a leash through the ring by which they lead the animal. Rashi’s explanation ad loc seems the same.
   חרון is derived from  חרה . . . [First] Rashi proves from Scripture that  חרה means “burning”. [Then] Rashi says: if so,  חרון also is an expression of “burning,” because  חרון is derived from  חרה . 
  
  Verse 9
  
  My spirit and my will. [Rashi explains that the expression of]  מלא (to fill) can be used relating to one’s “will,” as in: “To fill ( למלאות ) the will of your Father in Heaven.” Also: “To fulfill ( למלאות ) his friend’s will.” 
  Do not wonder about a word that expresses something expressed by two words. . . I.e., it is one word that is like two words. 
  The same meaning as: “And he armed his trained servants”. . . See Bereishis 14:14.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  As is written: “For You, silence is praise.” Therefore, when a person prays, [as in the first blessing of the Amidah,] he should conclude [his praises of Hashem] with the word  הנורא . For it is written (Devarim 10:17): “God of all gods, Master of all masters, Hashem, the Great, the Mighty, the Awesome ( הנורא ).” And so with all [other praises of Hashem. One should not add more than was fixed by Scripture and <i>Chazal</i>.] 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  They tremble. Rashi is saying that  ירגזון is the present tense, not future. 
  Who had calculated prematurely the end. . . They calculated that the period began at the time of the decree of בין הבתרים , which was 30 years before Yitzchok was born [and thus they attempted to leave Egypt 30 years before the prescribed time]. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  For they were not going against them. . . [Rashi knows this] because it says (Devarim 2:9), “Do not afflict Moav,” and (ibid 2:5), “Do not attack them (Edom).” Although these verses were written 40 years after their Exodus, they were actually commanded many years earlier. (<i>Mechilta</i>) See also Tosafos  נשא משה ד"ה , Bava Kama 38a. 
  Pained over the honor of Yisrael. . . And they feared Yisrael would quarrel with them on account of the quarrels [that were] between the shepherds of Avraham and Lot, and between Yaakov and Eisov. (<i>Mechilta</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  On those who are nearby. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why are both terms necessary? 
  Than other nations. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does not Hashem possess the entire world [and everything in it], as it says: “To the supreme God, Possessor of heavens and earth” (Bereishis 14:19)? Perforce [it means, “You hold it dearer. . ..”] 
  
  Verse 17
  
  The Temple below is lined up. . . [Rashi knows this] because instead of  מקום it is written  מָכוֹן [which may also be read  מְכֻוָּן , “lined up”]. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The verse reads as follows: “You will bring them and plant them on the mountain of Your inheritance.” And that mountain is lined up with “the place for Your habitation” above, “which You have made.” (“You have made” refers to “Your habitation,” which is the Throne above.) However, not the whole mountain is  מכון — only “the Sanctuary which Your hands established” is  מכון , i.e.,  מְכֻוָן . (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>; see there.) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Therefore it is vocalized with a patach. The <i>“patach”</i> means the <i>segol</i> (called “<i>patach koton</i>”) which is under the  ע of  ועד .
  Where the letter  ו in it is a prefix, it bears the kametz vowel. The <i>“kametz”</i> means the <i>tzeirei</i>, which is called “<i>kametz koton.</i>” “It bears” refers to the <i>word</i>  ועד [not to the letter <i>vav</i>]. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  When it came. The verses mean as follows: Because Pharaoh’s horse came into the sea, therefore Miriam took the drum. And this is what Rashi means: When it came, Miriam then took. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Miriam sang the song for the women. Although regarding Miriam only the first stanza is written, [she sang the whole song]. Scripture abbreviated, relying on the fact that the song is written above. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  He made them travel against their will. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say, “Moshe led”? They always traveled by command of Hashem. 
  The Egyptians adorned their horses with gold and silver ornaments and precious stones. . . You might ask: Is it not written (12:36), “They drained Egypt of its wealth,” and Rashi explains [in Bereishis 45:18] that they made Egypt like the depths of the sea which has no fish, [i.e., they emptied Egypt from its wealth]? The answer is: Here it is speaking of their hidden treasures. 
  We will make gold bracelets for you, together with silver studs. . . I.e., “gold bracelets” are the booty of the sea, and “silver studs” are from the booty of Egypt — as stated in Midrash. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  To revert the statement to the person:  מתלונן . . . I.e., meaning: [It refers] to the complainer. But the expression  לונן does not revert to the complainer as much. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  That they occupy themselves with them: Shabbos, Parah Adumah. . . You might ask: How does Rashi know it was these three sections? The answer is: the Torah speaks of Shabbos right afterward (16:23). [I.e., Shabbos is the first mitzvah to be mentioned afterward.] An alternative answer: In the second set of the Ten Commandments it is written [about Shabbos], “As He commanded you” (Devarim 5:12), and Rashi explains: “As He commanded you. . . in<i> Marah</i>.” Regarding the <i>Parah Adumah,</i> [the answer is]: Here it is written  חק , and regarding <i>Parah Adumah </i>it is also written  חקת (Bamidbar 19:2). The commentators discuss this at length, as the Mechilta and the Gemara [additionally] mention other mitzvos; see there. 
  They did not consult with Moshe with respectful language. . . <i>Re”m</i> writes: I do not know what forced Rashi to explain that “There He tested them” refers to their complaint. And consequently, it is unrelated to the statutes and ordinances that He set before them. Why did Rashi not explain that it refers to the mitzvos He gave them, to test them if they will accept the mitzvos with joy? And that would fit better with what follows: “If you vigilantly obey. . .” The answer [to <i>Re”m’s</i> objection] is: If “There he tested them” referred to the mitzvos He gave them, it should have simply said: “There He set before them statutes and ordinances, and He tested them.” Why does it say, “And<i> there</i> He tested them”? The word “there” implies it is a new point. Thus Rashi explains that it refers to the people’s complaint. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  And if I do bring it, it will be as if it were not brought — for “I am Hashem, Who heals you.” Rashi is answering the question: If He will not bring sickness, what is the meaning of, “I am Hashem, Who <i>heals</i> you”? Thus Rashi explains, “And if I do bring it. . .” means as follows: “If you vigilantly obey,” then I will not bring sickness. But if you do not obey, then I will bring it upon you. However, “It will be as if it were not brought. . .” 
  It will be healthful to your body. I.e., from here we learn that it is healthful and prevents sickness. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  Corresponding to the twelve Tribes. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it mention the number?
  Were made available to them. I.e., B’nei Yisrael found them. It does not mean they were created now, for it is written (Koheles 1:9), “There is nothing new under the sun.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Sixty one meals. . . There were sixteen days of Nisan and fifteen days of Iyar until the manna first descended. This makes sixty-two meals. However, they ate their first meal in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth, and went out that morning. 
  Which was on the first day of the week. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day” from when it began to descend “is Shabbos, there will be none on that day” (16:26). <i>Re”m</i> asks: Our verse shows that the fifteenth of Iyar, when they traveled from Eilim to the desert of Sin, was Shabbos. [For the manna started to fall the next morning, on Sunday]. But were they not commanded already at Marah to keep Shabbos [and certain other mitzvos? If so, how could they carry their possessions, and go beyond the Shabbos boundary? <i>Re”m</i>] answers: Perhaps the fifteenth of the month mentioned in our verse is when they <i>arrived</i>, but they actually journeyed on Friday the fourteenth. (See the <i>Nachalas Yaakov </i>regarding this.) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Onkelos translates it  לוי דמיתנא . . . Meaning: Onkelos translates  מי יתן מותנו just as he translates the verse  לו מתנו (Bamidbar 14:2). And  לו מתנו clearly means, “If only that we should die.” Thus our verse also means, “If only that we should die.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  The food requirements for the day. . .  דבר means “matter” or “requirements.” Since the day’s requirement comprises many things, Rashi explains that here it pertains to the day’s food requirements. And Rashi inserts  "ילקטו" in between  יום and  ביומו . This is to tell us that  ביומו refers back to  ולקטו , rather than to  יום which immediately precedes it. [Thus it means: “They shall gather on that day the food requirements for the day”]. Otherwise it would mean, “They shall gather the requirements of the day of that day.” This is not understandable. Furthermore, it does not tell us the time of the manna’s gathering. Rashi also [adds, “They may not gather today for tomorrow’s needs.”] This tells us that  ולקטו does not mean there is an obligation to gather manna. Rather, there is a prohibition to gather today for tomorrow’s needs. 
  Whether they will keep. . . <i>Re”m</i> writes that the correct text of Rashi includes the words  בו אנסנו — “That I may test them through <i>it”</i> — referring back to, “I will make bread rain from heaven.” In other words, I will test them through the mitzvos dealing with the manna, which are: 1. keeping Shabbos 2. not gathering [manna] today for tomorrow’s needs. Accordingly,  בו אנסנו does not refer to the immediately preceding phrase, “Gather enough for each day.” For then it would mean that [only] the mitzvah of not gathering today for tomorrow’s needs was used to test them if they will keep mitzvos. This is not logical, for why would Hashem wish to test them in the mitzvah of not leaving manna overnight, but not in the mitzvah of keeping Shabbos? 
  Mitzvos dealing with it. . . [Rashi is saying that the test here] is not like what he explained on, “To test you to know if you will keep His mitzvos” (Devarim 8:2). Rashi there explains that it means: “That you not test Him and question His ways.” [Rashi knows this because] there, the test is connected to previously mentioned affliction. And a test by an affliction is to determine that you do not question His ways. But since no pain or affliction is mentioned here, the test cannot be to determine that you do not question His ways. [<i>Re”m</i>] For if a person is told, “I am testing you to see if you will question My ways,” it is not a test! [Once the person knows why Hashem is doing it, there is no point in questioning His ways.] But it is logical to say, “I will test you to see if you will keep My mitzvos,” [because one’s dedication to mitzvos is being tested]. However in Devarim, it is Moshe who is saying [about past events], “He afflicted you. . . to test you” if you will question His ways. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 5
  
  As they usually gathered. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is it “twice as much”? Perhaps this amount normally comes down [on Friday]. Rashi answers: It is “twice as much” when compared to what they usually gathered each day. In other words, it was not twice as much as they gathered the whole week — which would be ten <i>omers —</i> as the verse seems to imply. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  The same as “in the evening.” [Instead of  לערב ,] the correct text of Rashi reads  בערב — as it says afterward (v. 8):  ויאמר משה בתת ה' לכם בערב . 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Not a reference to the glory that is mentioned: “and behold. . .” [Rashi knows this] because it is not written, “And behold the glory of Hashem was visible in the cloud <i>in the morning.</i>” [Rather, the glory was visible in the cloud that same day.] 
  For you asked for something improperly. . . I.e., you asked it unnecessarily because a person can survive without meat. Furthermore, you made your request “on a full stomach,” i.e., they had much livestock. 
  Is the same as: that are against Hashem. [Rashi is answering the question:] The apparent meaning of  בשמעו את תלונותיכם על ה' is: now He will hear that your complaints are against Him. But Hashem knows this! [Thus Rashi explains:] It rather comes to tell us against whom these complaints really were. [Although they ostensibly were “against Moshe and Aharon” (v. 2), in truth] they were against Hashem. [For “what are we that you cause complaints against us?”]. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  The dew rose from the earth into the air. . . Meaning: The world’s natural order is that bread comes up from the earth, and water descends from the heavens. But here it was the opposite. The manna — bread — descended from heaven, and the dew came up from the earth, as it says in Midrash Tanchuma. 
  And when the layer of dew rose up, the manna appeared and they saw. . . Rashi explained before: “When the sun shone then the dew which was on the manna rose.” Accordingly, he now explains that the verse is saying that when the dew rose, the manna was revealed and they <i>saw</i> it — not that it came into existence when the dew rose. However, according to the Sages’ explanation that the dew came up from the earth, “Behold on the surface of the desert” means that the manna actually came into existence, i.e., when the dew rose from the earth, the manna descended onto the surface of the desert. 
  Comes from the phrase “a box and a chest.”  חפיסה ודלוסקמא are various jugs and flasks.
  It was as fine as  גיר and lay. . . I.e., the manna did not look like  גיר , for  גיר is black while the manna was white. Rather, it means the manna was as fine as  גיר . 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Some gathered much, some gathered little. . . It does not mean that some transgressed Moshe’s command and gathered more or less than an <i>omer</i> per person. For if so, why would it say, “The B’nei Yisrael did so”? 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Dosson and Aviram. [Rashi knows this] because it is written  אנשים . Anywhere that it says “ אנשים ” [in a negative context], or  נצים , it refers to Dosson and Aviram. 
  Derived from  רמה . [ רמה and  תולעים are synonyms, so] it is like saying  והתליעו תולעים .  וירם is not derived from  הורמה , in which case it would mean: “the manna brought up worms,” for we never find  וירם as a transitive verb. 
  This verse is inverted. . . It seems to me that it is not inverted. The manna was a heavenly food (see Tehillim 78:25), and it was not natural for it to become putrid. So first it became wormy, and because of the worms it became putrid. (<i>Maharshal</i>) But what he says seems incorrect, for it is written, “. . .As Moshe had commanded. It did not become putrid, and it had no worms” (v. 24). [This shows that the order was first putrid and then wormy, as Rashi said.] 
  
  Verse 21
  
  That which remained in the field. . . I.e., it was not the manna they gathered that melted. For if so, what would they eat? 
  פשר is from  פושרים — lukewarm water. Onkelos translates  נמס as  פושרין because the sun turns it into lukewarm water.
  
  Verse 22
  
  They measured what they gathered. . . [Rashi is saying:] It does not mean that because they knew the manna would not descend tomorrow they intentionally gathered double, for today and tomorrow. Because if so, why did the leaders come to tell Moshe when they saw they had a double portion, to which Moshe replied, “This is what Hashem had said. . .”? 
  
  Verse 23
  
  What you wish to bake. . . Rashi is answering the question: What is the difference between  תאפו and  בשלו ? It seems redundant. [Rashi is also answering the question:] את אשר implies an action that had already been taken; otherwise it should say  אם תאפו אפו . So if they had already baked and cooked, why should they bake and cook it again? Therefore Rashi explains that  את אשר תאפו means, “What you <i>wish to</i> bake.” 
  For storage. As in, “It shall be stored away ( למשמרת ) for the B’nei Yisrael” (Bamidbar 19:9). But not as in, “Keep the watch ( משמרת ) of the Mishkon and the watch of the altar” (ibid. 18:5). 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  In the morning, when they were accustomed. . . Rashi is answering the question: How does [“For today is Shabbos”] give a reason for the preceding statement, [“Eat it today”]? If they asked, “Shall we eat it or not?” then Moshe needed only to answer, “Eat it today.” Whereas if they asked, “Shall we go out or not?” then Moshe’s answer is understandable. Moshe was saying, “Eat what you have, for today is Shabbos and you will not find it [if you go out].” Possibly, they were misled by Moshe’s instructions (v. 23): “Whatever is left over, put aside for yourselves,” and Rashi explains this as, “For storage.” So they thought it meant for long term storage — as in, “It shall be stored away for you for all your generations” — rather than meaning they should [set it aside to] eat the next day. That is why they inquired about going out and not about eating. 
  In the evening they again came before him and asked him. . . This was because they reasoned: perhaps it is only for the Shabbos meal that we should not go out to gather, but for the [post-Shabbos] night meal, we should go out. This is because Friday prepares for Shabbos, but not for the weekday. Therefore, they asked Moshe again. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  This verse comes only to add. . . Otherwise [it is superfluous, for] it is already written (v. 25), “For today is Shabbos to Hashem. Today you will not find it.” Perforce, [this verse comes only to add. . .]. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  There is a proverb among common people. . . The proverb is that when thorns, weeds and vegetables grow together in a field, a bit of the good cabbage sometimes gets pulled out along with the thorns — “The cabbage is stricken with the weeds.” So too here: along with B’nei Yisrael who sinned, those who did not sin [i.e., Moshe] were also stricken. You might ask: Did Rashi not himself explain on v. 22 that the sin was attributed to Moshe because he did not tell them about the laws of [Shabbos pertaining to] the manna, until they asked? The answer is: Both factors contributed. [The proof is as follows:] if the only reason was for failing to tell them the mitzvah of Shabbos, why did Hashem not reprove him right away, rather than waiting until now? Perforce, because “the cabbage is stricken with the weeds.” And if the only reason was because “the cabbage is stricken with the weeds,” why then was Moshe singled out here and included with the wicked, rather than the other times B’nei Yisrael sinned? We therefore must conclude that both factors contributed. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  With your own eyes that. . . Meaning: See with your own eyes that Hashem gives you double bread on Shabbos eve. <i>Re”m</i> asked: How does this prove Shabbos’s sanctity? Perhaps Friday is more blessed, and that is why Hashem gave it double bread. For any blessing is manifested by an increase of goodness. And if the proof is that the manna did not descend on Shabbos, the verse should have said: “Therefore the manna did <i>not</i> descend on the Shabbos.” <i>Re”m</i> gives his answer, but it seems to me [that the answer is]: They gathered it on Friday, some much more, some much less, but when they measured it at home they all found that they had only double bread, two <i>omers</i> per person. But, if the reason for the extra manna is attributed that Friday is [more] blessed, why did they have just double bread and no more? Let Friday’s blessing enrich them! Perforce, double bread descended on Friday in order for them to eat it on Friday <i>and Shabbos</i>. Therefore Rashi writes that a miracle occurs every Shabbos eve when He gives you bread for <i>two days.</i> Rashi is emphasizing that it was just enough for two days and not any more. 
  From here the Sages found an allusion. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Every man must remain in his place,” implying it is forbidden to move around [on Shabbos]. But this is not so, for it is written, “They found a man chopping wood” (Bamidbar 15:32). It is evident that those who found him were moving around, and this implies it is permitted to move around. Thus Rashi explains that our verse alludes [specifically to “someone who had gone out of the Shabbos limit.” This individual is restricted to his place and he may not move beyond his four <i>amos</i>]. 
  Three for his body. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written  שבו איש תחתיו , implying he must remain in the area that is  תחתיו (under him). And how much area is under him? Four <i>amos</i>. Three for his body, and one <i>amoh</i> to stretch his arms and legs. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  In front of the Ark. . . [Rashi knows this] because wherever it is, it is before Hashem since the whole world is His. [Thus, the verse must be referring to Hashem’s special place.] 
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  For on the fifteenth day of Iyar. . . You might ask: Did not Rashi explain before in v. 1 that the manna first descended on the sixteenth? The answer is: There Rashi meant the beginning of the sixteenth. And here he means at the end of the fifteenth, for he is counting the night after the previous day, because the manna descended right away on the sixteenth before morning. 
  
  Verse 36
  
  Consequently 1/10. . . [Rashi knows this] because an <i>eiphoh</i> is 432 eggs in total. A tenth of 400 is 40, and a tenth of 30 is 3. 2 eggs remain. If you divide each remaining eggs into 5 parts, then 2 eggs make 10 parts. A tenth of this is 1/5 of an egg. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  If I wait etc. . . Rashi adds, “<i>If</i> I wait,” because otherwise it implies they will surely stone him before long — whether or not he waits [to give them water]. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Places this section adjacent. . . It is surprising that Rashi brings this Midrash, as he only brings Midrashim explaining adjacent sections when the sections are written out of sequence. But here they need to be adjacent because both incidents occurred in the same place. (<i>Re”m</i>) <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains that Rashi [brings the Midrash because he] is answering the question: Why did it not say, “Amalek <i>went out,”</i> as in (Devarim 2:32), “Sichon <i>went out</i> to war against us”? Therefore Rashi explains: “The Torah places this section adjacent to the previous verse. . . that the dog (Amaleik) will <i>come</i> and bite you. . ..” [In other words, it says] “Amaleik <i>came</i>” because they asked, “Is Hashem among us or not?” [Another explanation:] I wrote many times that Rashi only explains why verses are adjacent when there are extra words. Therefore Rashi comments here about the juxtaposition. Rashi is answering the question: Is “In Rephidim” not superfluous? It is written in v. 17:1, “They camped in Rephidim.” And it is written in 19:2, “They journeyed from Rephidim.” Consequently, whatever happened in between occurred in Rephidim. Perforce, “In Rephidim” is written here to tell us that the incident occurred in Rephidim [i.e., the verse of, “They tested Hashem, saying, ‘Is Hashem among us or not?’”] caused that “Amaleik came.” And that is why Rashi says, “Adjacent to the previous <i>verse</i>,” rather than, “Adjacent to the previous <i>section</i>.” Rashi is explaining the juxtaposition [of “Amaleik came”] specifically regarding this verse. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  At the time of battle, I will stand. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say specifically, “<i>Tomorrow</i> [I will stand”]? Perforce, because that is the time of battle. Rashi goes on to say, “I will stand,” to convey that “tomorrow” is connected to “I will stand.” Accordingly, the verse means: Tomorrow, at the time of battle, I will stand and pray for you. This was to encourage Yehoshua and strengthen him for battle, for he will be confident of victory due to Moshe’s prayers during the battle. But if “tomorrow” refers to the preceding, [and the verse reads: “Tomorrow go out to battle Amaleik,”] then what does [“I will stand”] come to teach us? 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Moshe was. . . hands were with faithfulness. Rashi is answering the question: [If  ויהי refers to Moshe’s <i>hands</i>] why did it not say  ויהיו , [the plural form, rather than  ויהי ]? Thus Rashi explains that  ויהי refers to Moshe, not to his hands. 
  Faithful and well-intended prayer. [ תפלה  נכונה ] means: focused prayer. [<i>Maharshal</i>]
  
  Verse 13
  
  And left only. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “Yehoshua <i>weakened</i>. . . with the edge of the sword”? If Yehoshua killed with the sword, then they were not weakened but killed. Therefore Rashi explains, “And left only the weak. . .” 
  From this we may conclude. . . Meaning: Hashem’s command was not mentioned at the beginning of this war. Rather, it is written “<i>Moshe</i> said to Yehoshua” (v. 9), as if Moshe commanded him on his own. Thus Rashi explains that Moshe acted according to Hashem’s command. And the proof is from our verse, for if it was not according to Hashem’s specific command, then Yehoshua [who was able to kill the mighty ones] would not have left the weak ones alive, but he would have killed them all. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  The hand of Hashem. . . Rashi is resolving several issues. First, he says, “The hand of Hashem,” because the unidentified hand mentioned in the verse seems to mean Moshe’s hand. Second, he says, “Is raised,” to convey that Hashem’s hand is not always on His Throne [as the verse seems to mean]. Rather, His hand is momentarily raised toward it, similar to: “For I shall raise My hand to Heaven. . .” (Devarim 32:40). (See <i>Kitzur Mizrachi.</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  What news had he heard. . . that motivated him to come? (<i>Re”m</i>) Question: Perhaps his coming was motivated equally by all the news, not by one incident more than another? The answer is: [One Tanna says that Yisro heard of the splitting of the Sea and thus came, and another says it was the war with Amaleik (Zevachim 116a).] According to the Tannaim,  וישמע יתרו means Yisro heard [especially significant] news other than what the Torah mentions afterward, for otherwise the Torah should have stated  ויתרו שמע . Accordingly, the phrase following  את כל אשר עשה means: “<i>And</i> he heard about all. . .” This is similar to  כי הוציא , which [perforce] means: “<i>And</i> that Hashem brought.” <i>Re”m</i> asks: Why did Rashi omit the [third] opinion (in Zevachim 116a) that Yisro heard of the giving of the Torah, and thus came? <i>Re”m</i> offers an answer, but it seems he overlooked the dispute in <i>Zevachim</i> 116a as to whether Yisro came before the Torah was given, or afterward. Since Rashi stated in many places that Yisro came after the Torah was given, [Rashi gave this opinion sufficient mention. Thus] he does not need to mention it here. (See <i>Nachalas Yaakov.</i>) [Alternatively, Rashi says it was the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik] because he is answering the question: Why is it not written either: “Yisro saw,” as in “Balak saw” (Bamidbar 22:2), or: “Yisro knew”? Rashi answers: Because Yisro <i>heard</i> about the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik. They were one-time events, about which it cannot be said that “he saw” or “he knew.” For when Yisro came, he did not see that the Sea had split or that there had been a war with Amaleik. Now it is understandable why Rashi did not say Yisro “heard” about the manna, the well or the Torah. For [if it was referring to them] the Torah would have written, “Yisro saw,” since the manna, the well and the Torah were there for many years, and it could properly be said that he saw them. But this is not the case with the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  He was called by seven names. . . However, in Bamidbar 10:29, Rashi mentions only two names, as it stated in the Sifrei. [It is Rashi’s way to cite differing Midrashim.] 
  A letter was added to his name. <i>Re”m</i> asks: If so, there are only six names! Before he converted he was called Yeser and not Yisro. After he converted he was called Yisro and not Yeser. They should not be considered as two names, just as Avram and Avraham should not be considered as two names. <i>Re”m</i> leaves this question unanswered. But it seems to me not to be a question, for Rashi does not say, “He <i>has</i> seven names.” He rather says, “He <i>was called</i> by seven names.” I.e., some names he was called before he converted, and some, afterward. (<i>Maharshal</i>) Yet, it seems to me there is no proof that his name was [always] Yeser until he converted. Perhaps he [originally] had a different name. For Rashi also explained the verse, “Moshe went and returned to Yeser his father-in-law” (4:18), that Yisro was called seven names, just like Rashi explains here — but that was before Yisro converted and before he caused an additional <i>parsha</i> in the Torah. Perforce, he had a different name before he converted, and there the Torah called him “Yeser” based on a future event. In truth, when he came and advised Moshe how to judge the people, he was immediately called [the new name of] Yeser, because he caused this additional <i>parsha</i> in the Torah. And this occurred before he converted. After he converted, the letter  ו was then added [to his name]. Thus, he was called seven names in addition to his original, nonJewish name. We need not object: In Parshas Shemos it said, “Moshe went and returned to <i>Yeser</i>, his father-in-law,” implying that his nonJewish name was Yeser. For this is no proof, as it is also written there, “Moshe tended the sheep of his father-in-law <i>Yisro”</i> (3:1),” [though Yisro had not yet converted]. Perforce, [he was called Yeser and Yisro] based on a future event, as I explained. (<i>Author’s commentary</i>) 
  Chovov is Yisro. . . [Rashi says this] so we will not think Chovov was Yisro’s son. And Rashi clearly explains so on v. 13, [that we should not think this]. 
  Others say that Re’uel was Yisro’s father. . . Question: If so, Yisro would have only six names! The answer is: [Here,] Rashi is explaining according to the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] which says that he only had two names, Chovov and Yisro. Assumedly, the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] holds that he was called also Yeser, for it is written: “Moshe went and returned to <i>Yeser</i> his father-in-law.” This is because the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] holds that Yeser and Yisro are actually the same name, similar to Avram and Avraham. [Accordingly, Rashi is answering the] question: It is written, “They (Yisro’s daughters) came to their father Re’uel” (2:18). Does this not imply that Yisro was also called Re’uel, [giving him more than two names]? The other names do not pose a difficulty, for they could be family names, as the Torah does not say “their father” regarding them. But “Re’uel” poses a difficulty. Therefore [to resolve this difficulty] Rashi explains: “Others say that Re’uel was Yisro’s father.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Here Yisro prides himself with Moshe. . . [Taken on its own,] there is no difference between  וישמע יתרו חותן משה and  וישב משה אל יתר חותנו . In both cases, the Torah identifies Yisro by means of Moshe, not the other way around. This is because  חותנו (“his father-in-law) means the same as  חותן משה (“Moshe’s father-inlaw”). But the context makes a difference. [In the latter verse,] the subject of the story is Moshe, and Yisro is mentioned as “his father-inlaw.” Thus the story implied that Moshe is priding himself [with Yisro. In the former verse,] the story’s subject is Yisro, and Yisro is mentioned as “Moshe’s father-in-law.” Thus it is implied that Yisro is priding himself [with Moshe]. 
  Moshe is equal to all of Yisrael. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should say only “Yisrael,” for this would also include Moshe. Perforce, it comes to teach that Moshe is equal. Why does Rashi’s commentary not follow the order of the verse? [I.e., he first explains, “For Moshe and Yisrael,” and then, “About all that Elohim had done.”] It is because Rashi is answering the question: “All that Elohim had done” surely [seems to] refer to, “Hashem brought Yisrael out of Egypt.” But [if it is really] referring to this, why [does it say, “For <i>Moshe</i> and Yisrael”? The phrase should place Yisrael before Moshe, because Yisrael was enslaved, but Moshe and his tribe were not, as Rashi explained in 5:4. But if Moshe is greater than all of Yisrael, it would be logical [to place Moshe first]. But being that Moshe was equal but not greater, Yisrael should have come first, since the main reason for the Exodus was for them [and the question remains unresolved]. Neither can we answer that Moshe is placed first in order to teach that he was <i>equal</i> to all of Yisrael. For this is learned from the mere fact that Moshe is mentioned separately, as I explained at the beginning. Thus, Rashi answers as follows: “All that Elohim had done” does <i>not</i> refer to Hashem’s bringing them out of Egypt. It rather refers to the manna, [the well and the war of Amaleik, as Rashi states in the next entry]. These acts of goodness benefited both Moshe and Yisrael equally. And since Hashem performed these acts mainly for Moshe, he is mentioned first. Hashem brought the manna and the well in order to save Moshe from Yisrael’s complaints against him. And Moshe, who was the king of Yisrael, defeated Amaleik by his prayer and by confusing the hours for Amaleik as it says in the Midrash (see Rashi on 17:12). [This answers the original question: Why does Rashi’s commentary not follow the order of the verse? The answer is that Rashi first explained “For Moshe and Yisrael” because it is the key to understanding “About all that Elohim had done.” Since Moshe is placed before Yisrael, “All that Elohim had done” cannot refer to Hashem’s bringing them out of Egypt.] 
  For them. . . [You might ask:] Why does Rashi write, “For them,” instead of saying, “For Moshe and for His people Yisrael”? [The answer is: It is simply] for the sake of brevity. Similarly, Rashi says on 6:3, “To the fathers,” instead of saying, “To Avraham, to Yitzchok and to Yaakov.” (<i>Re”m</i>) [An alternative answer:] So we will not think Hashem did some miracles for Moshe alone, and some for Yisrael alone. Therefore Rashi says, “For them,” to group them together. What he did for one, he did for the other. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  This being the greatest of them all. Rashi is answering the question: Why was bringing them out of Egypt mentioned separately? Perforce, it is to tell us that it was “the greatest of them all.” For it says, “<i>All</i> that Elohim had done,” and concludes with, “That Hashem brought Yisrael out.” This implies that Hashem did other miracles as well, [besides bringing them out]. Otherwise, why does it says, “All”? 
  
  Verse 2
  
  He said to her, “Go to your father’s house”. . . [Question: Why was Moshe concerned only about his wife, whereupon her sons she took on her own accord? The answer is:] Moshe was worried only for his wife, lest the Egyptians enslave her. But he was not worried for his sons because they would not be enslaved there. This is because the tribe of Leivi was not subjected to the enslavement, as Rashi explained in 5:4. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  He attempted to kill Moshe, his neck became. . . See [Rashi on] v. 4:11. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Through a messenger. [Rashi knows this] because it is written afterwards, “Moshe went out to greet his father-in-law.” Accordingly, “He said. . . <i>I</i> am coming,” is what Yisro told the messenger to say in his name. 
  Go out on account of your wife. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise the Torah should have written, “I, your father-in-law Yisro, along with your wife. . . are coming to you.” Why does the verse separate “Yisro” from “Your wife”? Perforce, because Yisro was telling Moshe: “I am coming to you; go out on account of me. But if you do not want. . .” 
  And if. . . not. . . on account of your wife. . . Since Rashi needed to interpret “Your wife” in this manner, he also needed to explain “Her two sons” in this manner. (<i>Re”m</i>) But it seems to me that Rashi deduced [this whole explanation, even regarding “Your wife”,] because the verse says the [superfluous] word “I.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Once Moshe went out. . . Rashi is answering the question: How was Yisro being honored by Moshe going out by himself to greet him? [Furthermore,] Moshe was their king and leader. Is it not a disgrace for the king to go out by himself? Thus Rashi explains that once Moshe went out, Aharon assumedly went out too, etc. Rashi says this [as the simple meaning of the verse, although its source is in various Midrashim,] because of logical reasoning. [Moshe must have intended to honor Yisro when he went out to greet him]. 
  Who is referred to as  איש ? That is Moshe. . . Question: Is not Yisro also referred to as  איש , as it says (2:21): “Moshe agreed to reside with the man ( איש )”? It seems [the answer is:] The  איש written about Moshe is superfluous. It could have said, “Moshe was very humble,” [instead of saying, <i>“The man</i> Moshe was very humble” (Bamidbar 12:3).] Perforce, it is to show that Moshe is called  איש . However, “Moshe agreed to reside with the man” is the same as writing, “Moshe agreed to reside with Re’uel,” [i.e., Yisro]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  In order to draw his heart to bring him closer to the Torah. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did Moshe tell him? Yisro already heard everything, as it is written: “Yisro heard. . . about all that Elohim had done” (v. 1). 
  
  Verse 9
  
  His flesh had  חדודין חדודין . . . I.e., it became very creased. Rashi knows this because the Torah varied from [the usual term,]  וישמח , and wrote  ויחד instead. 
  And above all: That He had rescued them. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, the verse should just say, “Yisro rejoiced,” [and stop there]. For it would refer to the previous verse, “Moshe told his father-in-law. . . all that Hashem had done.” But the phrase “Hashem had rescued them” of the previous verse does not teach us [that being rescued from Egypt was above all]. For there, it was speaking of the means by which they were rescued. [I.e., it was speaking of] what was done to Pharaoh and to Egypt. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  As Onkelos translates it. . . authority and dominion. . . [Rashi is explaining that “<i>Under</i> the hand of Egypt”] does not mean the same as “<i>From</i> the hand of Egypt” [written at the beginning of the verse]. For that means “from his possession,” as in: “He took all his land <i>from his hand”</i> (Bamidbar 21:26), which Rashi there explains as: “From his possession.” [Rashi here knows that “<i>Under</i> the hand of Egypt” means as Onkelos translates] because otherwise, why [does our verse need] both phrases? 
  
  Verse 11
  
  I was aware of Him in the past. . . [How does Rashi know this?] Because Rashi is answering the question:  עתה is in the present tense. [Why is it followed by]  ידעתי , which is in the past tense? Therefore Rashi explains, “I was aware of Him in the <i>past</i>, but <i>now</i>. . .” Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: In 2:16, [Rashi explained] that Yisro had abandoned idolatry. Why then does it say here, “<i>Now</i> I know”? Perforce it means, “Now, all the more so.” [Another approach:] <i>Re”m</i> explains that it is because the verse does <i>not</i> say, “Now I know Hashem, and He is greater than all. . ..” Thus we may infer that Yisro knew Him in the past. But only now, after all these deeds [of Hashem], he recognized that His power is greater than that of all the gods. 
  He did not leave any idol. . . Otherwise, how would he know [that Hashem is greater than all the gods]? You might object: Referring to Dovid Hamelech it is written, “For I know that Hashem, our Master, is greater than all gods” (Tehillim 135:5). <i>Re”m</i> answers: Dovid knew it through practical exploration rather than logical explanation. Whereas Yisro said, “<i>Now</i> I know.” I.e., he knew this because of all the deeds that Hashem [just now] did. It was not through the wonders [that He performed]. If so, how did Yisro know this? Perforce, by [comparing Hashem’s deeds to that which he knew from previous] exploration. Another answer: Here it is written, “Yisro said, ‘I know that Hashem is greater than all <i>the</i> gods.’” Due to the definite article, it means: “. . .Greater than all the gods, who are known to me <i>and to no one else</i>.” How did Yisro know this to be true? Perhaps someone else also explored, as he did, and also has this knowledge. Perforce, [Yisro knew this to be true] because “Yisro did not leave any idol unworshipped.” [But Dovid said, “Greater than all gods,” without the definite article.] 
  In the pot in which they cooked, they were cooked. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is not written  אשר הרשיעו , [the more usual term. An alternative approach:] It seems to me that Rashi is answering the question: Why did our Sages (Sotah 11a) use cooking in a pot for their analogy? They could have said, “They fell into the pit that they themselves dug,” using Scripture’s own analogy in Koheles 10:8! Perforce, it is because they understood  זדו as in  ויזד יעקב נזיד (Bereishis 25:29). 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  And to what does  ממחרת refer. . . It cannot refer to the day after they ate and drank [as mentioned in v. 12. For if so,] the Torah would not be using this as an indication [when this event took place], for we still do not know on what day [they ate and drank]! Perforce, it was the day after Moshe’s descent from the mountain. And [the date of] descending the mountain is clearly understood from the Torah [as Rashi explains]. 
  Even according to one who says that Yisro came before the giving of the Torah. . . According to the view that Yisro came <i>after</i> the giving of the Torah, the <i>parsha</i> obviously is not recorded in order. Since [the giving of the Torah is not stated until the next chapter,] even the beginning of the <i>parsha —</i> when Yisro came — is not in order. Rather, Rashi is explaining that even if Yisro came <i>before</i> the Torah, it still is not in order. Until this verse the sequence is indeed in order, but from here on, it is not. 
  Until the second year. . . This is according to regular years, i.e., counting from Tishrei. Rashi is bringing another proof that beginning from this verse, the <i>parsha</i> is not recorded in order, as he continues to explain: “For it says here. . .” 
  Where do we find that he returned? [You might ask: Why is this a proof? Many events are not expressly stated in the Torah! The answer is:] If Yisro was sent away after the giving of the Torah, then [even if he returned,] the Torah does not mention his return because it is of no importance. He already accepted Torah and mitzvos. But if he was sent away before the giving of the Torah, [he must have returned, as Rashi proved. And then] he came to accept the Torah, which is the main purpose of his coming. The narrative would then mention his return, so people will not say that Yisro came once, and only in order to bring Moshe’s wife and sons — for his return is not mentioned. See all this in <i>Re”m</i>, who wrote at great length, citing various versions of Rashi and discussing them. The main point is as I wrote. 
  He was not showing proper respect to Yisrael. . . The Ibn Ezra objected that this was not disrespectful, for judges always sit while the litigants stand. <i>Re”m</i> writes that this is no objection: Yisro was displeased that <i>everyone</i> stood, even those who had no litigation. He thought that they stood before Moshe to afford him princely honor. [Alternatively,] the <i>Maharshal</i> wrote that this is no question: litigants stand (Devarim 19:17) only during the hearing. But with Moshe they stood even before the hearing, for Moshe was the only judge and they were unable to come before him [immediately]. Sometimes they would stand until the evening, waiting to come before him. For this, Yisro reproved him. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  Can this be taken literally. . . This <i>parsha</i> speaks of the day after Yom Kippur, when Moshe needed to gather Yisrael and command them to build the <i>Mishkan</i>. If so, how could he have sat to judge from morning to evening? 
  As if he has become a participant with Hashem. . . Since the world’s existence depends on judgment. The proof is that the Flood [destroyed the world, and it] came because there was no judgment among them and people were robbing each other. As it is written, “The land was filled with robbery” (Bereishis 6:13). Therefore, he who judges truthfully supports the world’s existence, and it is as if he is partnership with Hashem. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  [The same as:]  כי בא in the present tense. I.e.,  כי יבא is not in the future tense, otherwise Moshe would not have sat before they came to seek instruction. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Whoever has the matter comes to me. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it begin in plural: [ להם ], but conclude in singular:  בא אלי ? Thus Rashi explains: “Whoever has. . .” [In vs. 15-16,] Moshe is answering Yisro, who thought that Moshe’s sitting is [inappropriate] princely behavior. [The thrust of] Moshe’s answer is only, “I judge between man and his neighbor.” I.e., Moshe is answering that the people stand for judgment, not for his honor. [The thrust of] Moshe’s answer is not, “I impart to them Hashem’s statutes and His laws,” [which, taken on its own, could] mean that he is teaching them [and not judging them. This would not answer Yisro] because [in the early generations] both master and disciple stood while studying. Due to the fact [that everything revolves around, “I judge between man and his neighbor,”] Rashi explains that [everything] refers to judgment — even  כי יבא in v. 15, and  כי יהיה להם דבר in this verse. This is against [the simple understanding of] Onkelos, [that v. 15 speaks of teaching, not judgment]. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  As a way to honor him. . . Why did Rashi not make this comment before, where it said, “Moshe’s father-in-law saw” (v. 14)? The answer is: This verse here is preceded by (v. 15), “Moshe said to <i>his</i> father-in-law.” So here it should say, “<i>His</i> father-in-law said,” not, “<i>Moshe’s</i> father-in-law said.” Thus Rashi explains that [Moshe was mentioned] as a way to honor Yisro. And this is why Rashi did not make this comment before. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  This includes Aharon, Chur. . . Question: Was not Chur killed when they made the Golden Calf, and this <i>parsha</i> comes afterward? The answer is: Rashi mentions Chur according to a different Aggadah which opines that Chur was not killed when they made the Golden Calf. According to the first Aggadah,  גם אתה includes only Aharon and the seventy elders. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Through the Divine Spirit which is upon you. [Rashi knows this] because  תחזה is an expression related to  חזיון (prophetic vision). Otherwise, it should say  תבחר (choose). Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, how would Moshe be able to choose the capable and the truthful from among 600,000 men? 
  Any judge from whom property is taken. . . <i>Re”m</i> writes: The adage which Rashi cited does not exactly fit the point of discussion. [This is because property, if taken away through litigation, is not their <i>own</i> property. On the contrary, it rightfully belongs to the other party.] The answer [to the <i>Re”m</i> is as follows: Rashi’s adage] refers to the case [stated in Midrash Tanchuma, Yisro ch. 2] where one litigant says to the judge, “If you do not rule in my favor, I will burn down your house.” The judge rules in his favor, out of fear. Yet, the judge knows that the other litigant will sue him for the false ruling, and the judge will have to compensate him [from his own property] for the loss he caused him. About this Rashi said, “Any judge from whom property is taken through litigation.” In other words: Any judge who must pay money because he ruled against the innocent party is not fit to be a judge, for it is written: “Do not fear any man” (Devarim 1:17). 
  
  Verse 22
  
   וידונון — an expression of a command. It means “They shall always judge,” which is called the “future progressive” tense. I.e., they will always be judging. But the second  ושפטו (v. 26) is translated by Onkelos as  ודיינין , which means: “They were always judging.” This is called the “past progressive” tense. 
  The present tense. I.e., it is not an expression of a command because the above-mentioned appointing of the judges already made things easier, and no further action is necessary. It means, “This is the way to make things easier; not any other way.” 
  
  Verse 23
  
  If He will command you to do so. . . [The verse literally means: “Hashem <i>will</i> command you, and you will be able to survive.” Thus] Rashi explains that it [should be understood] as if it said: “<i>If</i> Hashem commands you, then you will be able to survive.” For how could it mean, “Hashem <i>will </i>command you”? How did Yisro know that Hashem will command Moshe to do as he proposed? 
  And the seventy elders. . . [How does Rashi know this? An answer is:] Because it cannot mean the litigants. For in the desert, there were no farmers or craftsmen who would miss work by [standing and] waiting. Although the Torah seemingly says that Moshe was judging alone, our Sages interpret “You, and also this people” (v. 18) to mean that Moshe was accompanied by the elders even before Yisro’s advice. (<i>Re”m</i>) [An alternative answer:]  גם comes to include Aharon and the elders, and  כל comes to include Nadav and Avihu, who were not yet elders. Rashi did not want to mention Chur here, since one Midrash says he had already died, so there is no point in mentioning him. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Converting his family. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why was the sending attributed to Moshe? Perforce, because it was to convert Yisro’s family. And [the Torah considers] this to Moshe’s credit, for it is written, “The children of Keini, <i>Moshe’s father-in-law</i>, ascended from the city of palm trees with the children of Yehudah. . . and dwelt among the people” (Shoftim 1:16). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The first day of the month. . . [Rashi knows this] because here it is written,  ביום הזה , and there (12:2) it is written  החודש הזה . There it means the first day of the month, so here too it means the first day of the month. 
  Why is  ביום הזה written. . . [Question: Since  ביום הזה is needed to teach that it is the first of the month, how can it also teach that words of Torah should be as new to you (as though they were given today)? The answer is:] In the Mechilta it says, “‘On that very day they came to the desert of Sinai.’ This was on the first of the month. Thus it is written, ‘In the third month.’” It seems the Mechilta means as follows: the intent of the verse is not to conceal, but to explain. Yet it says  בחדש השלישי . . . ביום הזה , not stating which day it was. Perforce, it means the first of the month. This is because the first of the month is called  חודש , as in (Shmuel I, 20:18): “Tomorrow is the  חודש (first of the month),” and as in (Melachim II, 4:23): “It is neither the  חודש (first of the month) nor Shabbos.” So when it says  בחודש השלישי , [we understand that it was the first of the month]. Accordingly, Rashi asks: Why did it not say  ביום ההוא ? Even without the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> [between  ביום הזה and  החודש הזה , see previous entry,] we still would learn from  בחודש השלישי that it was the first of the month. Perforce, it says  ביום הזה to teach that words of Torah should be as new to you (as though they were given today). This answers <i>Re”m</i>’s questions. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Just as their arrival at Sinai was of repentance. . . For it is written,  ויחן שם ישראל . [Since  ויחן is in the singular form], it implies: “As one person.” 
  Wherever you find “opposite” it means facing to the east. Rashi is not saying that  נגד <i>always</i> means eastward, for it is written (Bamidbar 2:2), “They shall encamp around the Tent of Meeting, <i>from a distance</i>  (מנגד) .” There it does not mean toward the east, [for they encamped on all sides]. Rather, Rashi means that wherever  נגד refers to an opposite side, [it is toward the east]. This is because  נגד conveys facing something, [i.e., they are “faceto-face.”] And east is called  פנים , “face.” [See Iyov 23:8]. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  On the second day. . . [Rashi knows this] because the intent of the verse is not to conceal, but to explain. And since we find elsewhere that when Moshe ascended the mountain it was early in the morning, we cannot say that here Moshe ascended on the day they came [at some unspecified time]. Also, we cannot say that Moshe ascended [early in the morning] on the third of the month, for it is written (v. 8), “Moshe brought the words of the people.” This was on the day following [Moshe’s ascent], i.e., the third of the month, [as Rashi explains there]. And it is written (v. 9), “Moshe told the words of the people. . .” which was on the fourth of the month, as Rashi explains there. Therefore, if Moshe first ascended on the third of the month, [everything would be pushed one day later and] the giving of Torah would not be on the sixth of the month. 
  And in this order. I.e., first to the women, and then to the men. 
  Say it to them in a gentle voice. See <i>Re”m</i> on this. It seems to me that [Rashi knows this] because we find that  דיבור is speaking in a harsh manner, as in: “The man in charge of all the land spoke ( דבר ) to us harshly” (Bereishis 42:30). Thus we may deduce that  אמירה is speaking in a gentle manner. Furthermore, it is written: “And Yoseif said ( ויאמר ) to his brothers, ‘I am Yoseif’” (ibid. 45:3). And it is written: “Yoseif said ( ויאמר ) to his brothers, ‘Please approach’” (ibid. v. 4). And it is written: “Yoseif said ( ויאמר ) to them, ‘Do not fear’” (ibid. 50:19). From all these we see that  ויאמר is gentle speech. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  You do not receive it as a tradition. . . Here Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “You <i>saw</i>”? Furthermore, “seeing” applies only to things that are done, not to the act of doing. Furthermore, it is evident that the verse comes to inform B’nei Yisrael that Hashem loves them, for it concludes: “I carried you on wings of eagles.” But [you might ask:] How is His love of them apparent from what He did to Egypt? Perhaps Hashem so dealt with Egypt because they sinned, and not because He loves B’nei Yisrael. Thus Rashi explains, “There were many sins. . . yet I did not punish them. . .” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  They all gathered at Raamses. In 12:37 it states, “B’nei Yisrael traveled from Raamses to Sukkos,” and Rashi there comments: “The distance was 120 <i>mil</i>, but they came there in a moment, as it says: ‘I carried you on wings of eagles’ (19:4).” [If so, why does] Rashi say here that “carried you on wings of eagles” refers to gathering <i>at</i> Raamses? [The answer is:] Both explanations are correct. 
  As an eagle which carries. . . The <i>Re”m</i>’s version of Rashi says: “An alternate explanation: As an eagle. . .” And so it is in the Mechilta. For there are two different explanations here. In the first, [“wings of eagles”] refers to swiftness of an eagle, and the second refers to the manner by which an eagle “carries its fledglings on its wings.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  If you will now accept it. . . Rashi says, “<i>If</i> you will now accept,” because all words that stipulate conditions, such as  אם in this verse, are time related. This is why Rashi switches the order of the verse’s words, and explains it: <i>If now</i>, at this time, you will accept the yoke of Torah, it will be pleasant for you <i>in the future</i>. However, in the verse’s simple reading, the conditional word  אם refers to accepting the mitzvos. Accordingly it would mean, “<i>If</i> you accept the mitzvos,” and thus would not convey, “It will be pleasant for you from here <i>on</i>” — i.e., at a future time. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Regarding the observance of the Torah. I.e., “My covenant” does not refer to the covenant that was already established, i.e., that of Shabbos or of circumcision. [Rashi knows this] because it is evident that Scripture is speaking of the covenant of the Torah, which is the main subject in this passage. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  The thickness of the cloud which is called  ערפל . Rashi is answering the question: Why are two terms [ עב and  ענן ] necessary?  עב also means cloud, as in (Yeshayah 19:1): “Behold, Hashem rides on a swift cloud ( עב ),” and as in (Melachim I 18:44): “Behold, there was a small cloud ( עב ) like a man’s palm.” Thus Rashi explains that here,  עב refers to the thickness ( עובי ) of the cloud. This is  ערפל , which is thicker than an ordinary cloud. 
  On the following day. . . [It could not have been the same day] because Moshe always ascended the mountain early in the morning.
  As hearing from the King. . . Since Hashem responded to Moshe: “For on the third day, Hashem will descend. . .” (v. 11), we may infer that Moshe had said this, and that the people had requested it. But <i>Re”m,</i> citing the Mechilta, explains [that we know this] because otherwise, what could B’nei Yisrael have told Moshe to say to Hashem? 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Separated from their wives. This is learned by a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> between  נכונים here and  נכונים in v. 15. Here it is written  והיו נכונים , and there it is written  היו נכונים לשלשת ימים אל תגשו אל אשה (“. . .do not come near a woman”). 
  This teaches us that there were no blind among them. . . This was in response to their request, “It is our wish to <i>see</i> our King!” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  The boundary says to them. . . <i>Re”m</i> explains [that Rashi knows this] because “Set bounds for the people” cannot mean “Tell them to be careful.” This is because setting bounds for an area and warning people are two different things. Therefore, [since the verse is not speaking of Moshe’s verbal warning, we must say that]  לאמר is connected to the boundary, not to Moshe. However, the Torah never punishes without a verbal warning. Therefore Rashi adds, “And you, too, warn them,” for Moshe also told them to be careful. This being so,  לאמר connects to Moshe as well as to the boundary. 
  Even its edge. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, [if  ונגוע meant literally, “<i>And</i> touch its edge,”] it would not need to say, “Not to go up the mountain.” For it is impossible to go up without [first] touching its edge. (<i>Re”m</i>) [A second approach:] I heard from a certain sage that Rashi is telling us not to think that, “Not to go up the mountain and touch its edge,” refers to its <i>uppermost</i> edge. Therefore Rashi explains, “<i>Even</i> its edge.” Alternatively, [now returning to the first approach:] It seems to me that Rashi means as follows: “Be careful not to go up” implies not to ascend, but standing at a distance and touching is permitted. Therefore Rashi explains that “And touch its edge” means: “Even to stand at a distance and touch its edge.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  From here we learn that those who are stoned. . . [Rashi knows this] because of the repetitive  ירה יירה , [which teaches that “cast down” applies not just at Mt. Sinai]. 
  It is a sign of the departing. This is because singers and musicians make a long, drawn-out note at the end. The ceasing of the sound signified the departing of the Shechinah, which had arrived accompanied by sounds, lightning and horn-blasts. After the Shechinah departed, they were allowed to ascend the mountain. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  The horn of Yitzchok’s ram. [Rashi knows this] because it is written  במשוך היובל , implying a certain horn. This is the horn of Yitzchok’s ram, about which it is written (Yeshayah 27:13), “On that day He will sound a great horn.” (<i>Maharshal</i>) The Ramban asks: Was not Yitzchok’s ram offered as an <i>olah,</i> thus its horns and hoofs were burnt [on the Altar]? <i>Re”m</i> answers: Perhaps the horns were removed while the ram was still alive, in which case they would not be burned, although they may not be used for non-sacrificial purposes. Alternatively, they were removed after the ram’s blood was cast on the Altar [but before the ram was placed on the fire], in which case they may be used even for non-sacrificial purposes. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  By the end of three days. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is not written  ליום השלישי , as Hashem commanded Moshe — but rather  לשלושת ימים , implying when three days have already passed. 
  The woman might expel the seed. . . You might ask: Why was the Torah particular about impurity from seed, and not about impurity from <i>zav, tzaraas</i> or relations with a <i>nidah</i>? Tosafos in Shabbos 86a already answered: [In earlier times, someone impure from seed was forbidden to study Torah]. See there. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  This tells that the Shechinah came out. . . Meaning: The word  לקראת is used only when two parties approach one another, as in: “Behold, he (Aharon) is setting out to meet you” (4:14). 
  And arched over them like a barrel. You might ask: Since they had already said (24:7), “We will do and we will listen,” [why was this necessary]? Tosafos in Shabbos 88a already answered: Because they might otherwise retract when they see the great fire, and their souls depart. A further answer: They said, “We will do and we will listen,” regarding the Written Torah. But the mountain arched over them so they will accept the Oral Torah. It was for their benefit that Hashem forced them, as now the Shechinah will not leave them and He will not cast them off. For it is written regarding a woman forced into relations (Devarim 22:19): “She shall be his wife; he may not cast her away all his days.” (<i>Mahara”i</i>) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  And he did not translate it  תננא . . . As he translated  כעשן הכבשן .
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Warn them. . . [Rashi says that  העד , which usually means “testify,” here means “warn.”] It is like (Bereishis 43:3), “The man warned ( העד ) us.” Warning is expressed as  עדות because it is ordinarily delivered before witnesses. 
  That they not break down their position. [Rashi knows this] because  הריסה applies only to things separating from one another, such as the separation of [the parts of] a building, or separating people who are positioned [together]. 
  Even if only one. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it should have said  ונפלו , [the plural form, rather than  ונפל ]. Thus he explains, “Any of them that will die. . .” 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  One might think they, too. . . “They, too” refers to the <i>kohanim</i> [and not the people. This is evident because later,] Rashi mentions the [area of the] <i>kohanim</i>, but does not write: “. . .And the people.” [Rashi knows that the <i>kohanim</i> were closer to Moshe] because it is impossible for the people, too, to be with Moshe. For if so, to whom would “Do not break through” apply? [Everyone would be with Moshe!] Perforce, [it is as Rashi said]. Rashi is saying as follows: If you suggest that the <i>kohanim</i> are included in the warning, “Do not break through,” [for they are with the people,] why did it not say  ואהרן עמך והעם אל יהרסו , [omitting  והכהנים ]? This would convey that the <i>kohanim</i>, too, should not break through. But the verse states  והכהנים . If so, perhaps  והכהנים should be read with the preceding, thus the <i>kohanim</i> are with Moshe? Therefore the verse says  ועלית אתה , to exclude [a certain set of people from being with Moshe]. But since the excluding  אתה is written before  ואהרן , perhaps it implies that Aharon, too, is excluded. Therefore it says  עמך , to indicate that Aharon is indeed with Moshe in the same area — he is not with the <i>kohanim</i>. [To resolve these seemingly contradictory inferences,] we are forced to conclude that  אתה means Moshe has his own area, not with Aharon. And Aharon has his own area, not with the <i>kohanim,</i> for it says  עמך . And “they”, the <i>kohanim</i>, have their own area, not with the people. <i>Re”m,</i> [who does not grant the <i>kohanim</i> their own area], happened upon a different version of Rashi. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>; see there.) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Elohim refers only to Judge. . . Although it says: “In the beginning <i>Elohim</i> created” (Bereishis 1:1), and: “<i>Elohim</i> said to Noach” (ibid. 8:15), and: “<i>Elohim</i> called to him from the midst of the thorn-bush” (Shemos 3:4), see <i>Re”m</i> here and in 6:2 [for an explanation of these verses]. 
  But if he does not fulfill them he does not receive . . . This applies when it is not a time of [Hashem’s] anger. But in a time of anger, Hashem punishes for any mitzvah that is not fulfilled. This is evident from Menachos 41a; see there. 
  Why does the Torah repeat: “I am Hashem” and “You must not have”. . . Rashi means as follows: Since they were all said in one utterance, why does it say in Tehillim 62:12: “Elohim spoke one utterance, and I heard <i>two</i>”? This implies that only “I am Hashem” and “You must not have” were said in one utterance, but actually all of them were said in one utterance. Rashi answers, “Because He explicitly repeated. . .” Rashi is saying that they all were said in one utterance, but when Hashem repeated [i.e., explained] them we heard only [the first] two directly from Him. The rest were repeated by Moshe. 
  “Yes” to a positive command. . . Rashi is answering the question: Wherever  וידבר is written it always speaks in general, while  לאמר introduces the specifics. But here, the specifics are clearly stated: “All these words.” If so, why does it say  לאמר afterward? Perforce, to teach us [that they replied “Yes. . .”]. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  The act of bringing you out is sufficient. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is His Godliness associated with the Exodus, rather than with Creation? Why did the Torah not write, “I am Hashem, your God, who created Heaven and Earth”? 
  Since He revealed Himself at the Sea as One Who is powerful at war. . . I.e., His Godliness is associated with the Exodus, but not regarding <i>all</i> His actions [in the Exodus]. Rather, “Since He revealed Himself at the Sea. . .” Rashi cites, “And under His feet. . .” to show that Hashem’s attributes change according to the situation. And though in the verse it is written, “Who brought you out of <i>Egypt</i>,” Rashi nevertheless explains it as, “He revealed Himself at the<i> Reed Sea</i>,” because that was the culmination of the Exodus from Egypt. 
  Do not think that there are two dominions. . . Meaning: Just as you acknowledge that I was One at the splitting of the Sea, for there it is written (15:2)  זה אלי ואנוהו (in the singular form), so too, you should believe that I am that same God. Therefore Rashi explains, “I am the [same] One Who has brought you out of the Land of Egypt. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  An alternate explanation: Because they had heard many sounds. . . Rashi is answering the question: According to the first explanation, [“The act of bringing you out is sufficient,”] the verse should say only: “Who brought you out of the house of slaves.” Why does it say also, “From the land of Egypt”? Therefore Rashi brings the second explanation, [“Since He revealed Himself at the Reed Sea. . .”]. According to both explanations there is a question: Why does it first say, “I am Hashem,” and only afterward, “You must not have any other gods”? First it should forbid other gods, and then say, “I am Hashem,” conveying: “I alone.” It is not the way to first command a certain action and then forbid an action that is its opposite. Therefore Rashi brings an alternate explanation: “Because they had heard many sounds. . .” So they immediately thought there were many dominions. Therefore, it was necessary to say right at the beginning, “I am Hashem. . .” to convey that there are no dominions besides Me. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Once it has been made, how. . . This refers to an idol that neither he made, nor did others make it for him. It was already made, and he either found it or bought it. How would we know that he may not keep it in his possession? The Torah therefore says: “You must not have” — in every case. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  As long as I exist. . . It is commonly asked: Rashi in Devarim 5:7 explains  על פני as follows: “Wherever I am, i.e., the entire world. An alternate explanation: As long as I exist.” [Why does Rashi here omit the first explanation?] The answer is: There, Rashi is addressing a different difficulty. It is written there (Devarim 4:25), “When you have been <i>in the Land</i> for a long time. . . and make a statue,” implying that the prohibition on idolatry applies only to the Land [of Yisrael]. Yet there, the Ten Commandments are preceded by: “It was not with our fathers that Hashem made this covenant [against idolatry], but <i>with us</i>” (ibid 5:3). This implies that the prohibition of idolatry applies to the person, and it must be observed [not only in the Eretz Yisrael] in all places. Therefore these two verses seemingly contradict each other. In light of this, Rashi in Devarim first explains  על פני as, “Wherever I am,” [thus teaching that the prohibition against idolatry applies in all places]. This is in order to resolve the contradiction. But if so, why is it written, “When you have been <i>in the Land</i>”? [The answer is:] Because the [former] people of the Land were more steeped in idolatry than the other nations. Therefore the verse singles out “the Land” because the B’nei Yisrael needed a stronger warning pertaining to the idolatry in the Land. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Because it is carved. It is from the same root as (34:1) “Carve out  פסל לך , two stone tablets for yourself.” 
  A picture of any thing in the heavens. . . Rashi explains this so we will not think  תמונה is the name of a certain idol [whose image may not be made]. Furthermore, [Rashi says this] because a picture of heaven cannot be made. A picture is a property of an entity; one cannot make a picture that stands [independent of a material entity]. Therefore Rashi explains: “Of any <i>thing</i> in the heavens,” such as stars in the shape of Aries or of Taurus. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  He is jealous to exact punishment. . . I.e., He intends to exact punishment [if He has not yet done so]. And if He has already punished, this demonstrates His jealousy, for He punishes because of jealousy. 
  When they retain in their hands the deeds. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it [contradicts what] is written (Devarim 24:16): “Fathers shall not be put to death for the children, [and children shall not be put to death for their fathers].” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  That a person does. . . Question: Why does Rashi write  ונוצר חסד , from 34:7, when here it is written  ועושה חסד ? The answer is: So we will not mistakenly think that  ועושה חסד refers to Hashem. I.e., that Hashem does lovingkindness for two thousand generations, but no more. [This is not so,] for it is written: “Hashem’s kindness is never-ending, His mercy does not cease” (Eichah 3:22). Thus Rashi brings the verse of  ונוצר חסד , which means: when a <i>person</i> does loving-kindness, Hashem stores reward for him for two thousand generations. And so too, the verse of  ועושה חסד refers to the person, [not to Hashem]. It means: when a person does loving-kindness, Hashem rewards until two thousand generations. 
  Measure for reward is greater. . . Question: Why does Rashi need to tell us this simple mathematical calculation? The answer is: Rashi is resolving a difficulty with the verse in which is written that Hashem rewards for two thousand generations. This cannot mean as it seems, for the world lasts only six thousand years, so from beginning to end is less than one thousand generations! Thus Rashi explains that the verse only comes to teach how much greater is Hashem’s measure for reward. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 7
  
  One who swears for naught and meaninglessly. . . Rashi is explaining that we should not think Onkelos’s translation of  למגנא , “for nothing,” implies that the one who swears derives no benefit from it — but if he would derive benefit, it would be permitted. Therefore Rashi explains that it means  להבל , i.e., an empty and meaningless oath. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) See Shavuos 29a, which lists four types of vain oaths. 
  
  Verse 8
  
   זכור and  שמור were said in one utterance. . . You might object: Those other verses [that Rashi quotes] are not similar to  זכור and  שמור . Those contradict one another, while  זכור and  שמור do not. An answer is: Also  זכור and  שמור contradict.  זכור is a positive mitzvah, while  שמור is a negative one. As it says in Zevachim 106a that  השמר לך ,  פן and  אל all signify a negative mitzvah. [And  שמור is similar to  השמר לך .] [So when later it is written  שמור , it seemed as though the mitzvah of Shabbos had been changed from a positive one to a negative one.] (<i>Ramban</i>) A further answer: [ זכור and  שמור contradict one another because]  זכור implies that one should remember not to do work. It is an active term, forbidding the worker to work, but not requiring that no work is done. However  שמור implies guarding that no work be done. Perforce,  זכור and  שמור were said in one utterance. 
  To constantly remember the Shabbos day. . . I.e., you should constantly be remembering. This is different from  זכור ברית אברהם , which means, “Remember it <i>now</i>.” However, remembering Shabbos is continuously ongoing. The word  זכור is neither in the infinitive form nor in the imperative form. If it were in the infinitive form, it would not convey taking action [on what one remembers], but [remembering it by] thought alone. And if it were in the imperative form, the  ז would not have a <i>kametz</i>. Rather, it is an intermediate form between thought and action. Therefore Rashi explains: “Take heed to constantly remember. . . set it aside for Shabbos.” 
  So that if you happen upon. . . Ramban objects: This is against the Halachah, which follows Beis Hillel. In Beitzah 16a it says that the elder Shammai always “ate” in honor of Shabbos. [The Gemara continues and explains that] when Shammai would find a fine animal, he would set it aside for Shabbos. If he then found a finer one, he would eat the first one and put the second one for Shabbos. . . but Hillel conducted himself differently, as it is said (Tehillim 68:20) “Blessed is Hashem day by day.” [He would not put aside fine items for Shabbos, but he would trust that Hashem would provide fine items later.] <i>Re”m</i> answers: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree regarding food items, and the Halachah indeed follows Beis Hillel. But Hillel agrees with Shammai regarding other items, [for they are less readily available]. And here Rashi is speaking pertaining to other items. However, it seems to me that all this is unnecessary. The Halachah always follows Beis Hillel, except in this case — since Hillel himself, who stated this law, does not disagree with Shammai regarding this matter. It is evident that he does not disagree, since the Gemara says: “Hillel <i>conducted</i> himself differently.” This implies that Hillel did not opine that this is the law. He merely conducted himself in this manner. (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Because his Shabbos rest is upon you. This is true only if he does the work for the adult’s sake. Otherwise, we neither tell him to extinguish it, nor do we tell him not to. The adult is commanded not to directly cause the minor to do work. (<i>Re”m</i>) However, since Rashi quotes the Mishnah [of the minor who offers to extinguish the fire] word-for-word [and does not take its ruling and apply it to a specific case,] it seems to me to imply that adults must stop the minor [in every case, even when the minor does the work for his own sake]. Rashi explains this law also in Vayikra 11:13, regarding eating non-kosher fowl, and in Vayikra 17:12, regarding consuming blood, and in Vayikra 21:1, regarding kohanim defiling themselves<i>.</i> [And in those places, it presumably is not for the adult’s sake.] (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  By giving twice as much on Friday, a “double bread”. . . See Bereishis 2:3, and Shemos 16:22. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  From the positive to the negative. [Rashi knows this] because the Ten Commandments are all negative mitzvos, except for the first, which is essential and the basis for all the mitzvos. Therefore Rashi explains that also this one is a negative commandment, for “inference may be made from the positive to the negative.” 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  This teaches that not one among them. . . You might ask: Did we not already learn this from, “In the sight of all the people” (19:11), as Rashi explained there? The answer is: Here it teaches that they did not go blind after the giving of the Torah. For even if someone looks at the <i>kohanim’s</i> hands while they bless the people [in the Beis Hamikdosh] his eyesight dims, as R. Chagai said in the Talmud Yerushalmi. And this is on account of the Shechinah’s presence upon the <i>kohanim’s</i> hands. [And we would think this applies] here even more so, since the people saw an even greater revelation of the Shechinah. 
  Which came from the Almighty. Rashi is answering the question:  וכל העם רואים את הקולות seems to have been before the giving of the Torah, for it is written above (19:16):  ויהי קולות וברקים . If so, why was not “They trembled and stood far off” written above, before the Ten Commandments? Therefore Rashi explains that the  קולות mentioned here refer to [Hashem’s uttering] the Ten Commandments, [not of the thunder that preceded]. 
  The root word  נוע means  זיע . It is an expression meaning  זיע ורתת (shaking). It is not an expression meaning  נע ונד (wandering). For afterwards it is written, “And stood far off.” 
  Twelve mil, the distance of their encampment. . . You might ask: How does Rashi know they went back twelve <i>mil</i>, not less? The answer is: Since it is written, “Stood far off,” we may infer that until now they [all] were standing near. Even those at the back of the camp were near. And the length of their encampment was twelve <i>mil.</i> Therefore, if not that they were startled backwards twelve <i>mil</i>, those who stood at the front of the camp would still be within twelve <i>mil</i>. If so, how could it say, “And stood far off”? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Because it is raised high. I.e., a banner is called  נס because it is lifted up and raised high. Here, too,  נסות means “so they will be lifted up.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  In this language. But here, [unlike 19:3,] Rashi does not explain it as, “In this order.” For here, the order does not matter. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Attached to the earth. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it called “earthen”? For it was made of copper-plated acacia wood, as it is written in 27:1. (<i>R. Noson</i>) 
  That are from your sheep and your cattle. Rashi added the words “That are” in order that the phrase, “Your sheep and your cattle,” will be an explanation of, “Your burnt-offerings, your peace-offerings.” And Rashi understands  את in the sense of  מן (from). Thus it is as if the verse said, “Slaughter your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings <i>from</i> your sheep and <i>from</i> your cattle.” 
  Wherever I will permit you. . .  אזכיר is a transitive verb involving a secondary object, [conveying: <i>I</i> permit <i>you</i> to mention <i>My Name</i>. Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it should say  תזכור שמי (you mention My Name). Rashi explains “My Name” as “My special Name” — the Explicit Name — which was permitted to be uttered only in the Beis Hamikdosh, where the Shechinah resides. However, other Names of Hashem may be mentioned elsewhere. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  You can derive from these things a fortiori. . . Rashi is saying: Should you ask, “What does the stone care if we bring anything that cuts and destroys upon it?” the answer is: so we will learn from it <i>a fortiori</i>. The same applies to Rashi’s final comment on the next verse. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  Do not make it as a row of steps. . . Rashi is answering the question: [Why does the verse prohibit the <i>kohein</i> to go up the steps?] If the altar was made with steps, the <i>kohein</i> is compelled to use them to go up. And if the altar was not made with steps, there is no reason that he use them. Thus Rashi explains that the prohibition is on the <i>builder</i>. When he <i>builds</i> the altar, he should not make steps. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  It disqualifies that which preceded it. If you say: [This rule seems not true because] in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 27:34) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the commandments.” And in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 36:13) it says, “ אלה (These) are the commandments and the laws.” And in Parshas Matos (ibid 30:17) it says, “ אלה (These) are the statutes.” And in Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 28:69) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the words of the covenant.” And in all theses cases we do not interpret it as disqualifying that which preceded. The answer is: We only interpret it this way for “ אלה (These) are the histories of the heaven and the earth” (Bereishis 2:4; see Shemos Rabba 30:3), where the histories were already mentioned above, so a difficulty arose: why are they repeated and detailed? Similarly for “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach” (Bereishis 6:9), where the descendants were mentioned above in Parshas Bereishis, so a difficulty arose: why were they mentioned again? Thus we say they were mentioned again in order to disqualify the preceding. [The meaning of “disqualify” is discussed in the next entry.] But with “ אלה (These) are the commandments” and all the above verses, nothing was mentioned [preceding them that was similar to them], so  אלה cannot mean to disqualify the preceding. Similarly in Parshas Devarim, where it says “ אלה (These) are the words” (Devarim 1:1), we cannot interpret  אלה as disqualifying the preceding, since Chumash Devarim is <i>Mishneh Torah</i> [i.e., its primary purpose is a repetition of the Torah]. 
  Then why was the section of judgments placed near the section dealing with the Altar? Many difficulties arise. First, Rashi should have asked this [first, as his first comment] on the verse, “And these are the laws. . .” Second, perhaps [the Torah is just following] the order that these Torah sections were told by Hashem to Moshe. Third, Rashi explained straightforwardly at the beginning of Parshas Behar that the entire Torah was said by Hashem at Sinai. [So why does our verse connect only the judgments to Sinai?] Fourth, Rashi [earlier] should have said that the  ו of  ואלה “is a continuation of that which preceded it.” [I.e., why does Rashi need the whole word of  ואלה to teach this?[ Fifth, Rashi should have explained this rule on the verse “ אלה (These) are the products of the heaven and the earth” (Bereishis 2:4), or “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach” (ibid 6:9). The answer is: The rule that  אלה disqualifies ( פסל ) that which preceded it, means [that it <i>minimizes</i> that which preceded it. I.e.,] these things now to be mentioned are better and more important than those preceding things which are less significant. That is the meaning of  פסל . So did Bereishis Rabba explain “ אלה (These) are the products of the heaven and the earth,” and “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach.” Here too, if the Torah had written  אלה , I would think it is disqualifying [i.e., minimizing] the judgments, [since it cannot be minimizing the preceding — the Ten Commandments — which were on the highest level]. But now that the Torah wrote  ואלה , it means “a continuation of that which preceded it,” saying that the judgements, too, were given in the assembly of all B’nei Yisrael, with thunder and lightning, like the Ten Commandments that preceded them. Whereas the other mitzvos were given to Moshe alone, during his forty days on the mountain. Therefore Rashi asks: “Why was the section of judgments placed near the section dealing with the Altar?” Since the section of judgments is a continuation of the Ten Commandments, why does the section dealing with the Altar interrupt them? So explained the <i>Re’m</i> at length. 
  Do not allow it to enter your mind to say, I will teach them. . . [Rashi knows this] because for most mitzvos the Torah says, “<i>Speak</i> to the B’nei Yisrael and <i>say</i> to them,” [or similar expressions]. Thus [the repetition of] “speak” and “say” implies teaching them at least twice. If so, why did Hashem now use the [unusual] expression of “set before them”? We must say it means “to make them understand the reasons for each thing.” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  And not before the gentiles. [Rashi knows this] because “before <i>them</i>” refers to the seventy elders mentioned above in Parshas Yisro, who ascended the mountain with Moshe before the giving of the Torah. This is Rashi’s approach, as stated in the first chapter of Maseches Gittin. Tosafos explained that “before <i>them</i>” refers to the judges mentioned in a future verse: “The claims of both parties must be brought to the <i>judges</i>” (22:8). But according to both views, it refers to expert judges and not laymen judges. Thus you might ask that “before them” could be teaching us: “and not before laymen judges,” and certainly not before the gentiles. The answer is: Rashi himself answered this question when he explained, “And even if you know of a particular law that they render the same as Jewish law, do not bring the matter to their courts.” Rashi is saying that the Torah excluded gentile judges absolutely, even if they rule the same as Jews. But [this exclusion could not apply to laymen judges,] since one is indeed allowed to have them judge if they know a particular law as well as the experts do. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  “If you buy. . .” A slave who is a Hebrew. Whereas if the verse was indeed referring to a gentile slave, it would have said: “When you buy a gentile slave from a Jew who sold him to you,” and it is not referring to a slave who was sold by a court for his theft. This is why Rashi first explains the meaning of  עבד עברי before the words of  כי תקנה that appear earlier, so that in this way,  כי תקנה will prove that the verse is speaking of a [Hebrew] slave sold by the court. 
  But if bought from a Jew he shall go free after six years. And accordingly, piercing the slave’s ear [so he will serve until the yovel] would be a decree of the Torah rather than because of [what Rashi explained in v. 6]: “The ear, which heard upon Mount Sinai, ‘You shall not steal!’. . .” and “‘For <i>to Me</i> are the B’nei Yisrael servants’. . .” 
  If your brother, the Hebrew, is sold to you. In other words, through a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> we learn the meaning of  עברי in this verse, from  עברי (in Devarim 15:12), “Your brother, the Hebrew ( העברי ) . . .” For the word  העברי there is superfluous — since it says “your brother”, [we know it is speaking of a Hebrew. So] why say also “the Hebrew”? Thus,  עברי there is for a <i>gezeirah shavah,</i> teaching that  עברי here is “your brother”, [i.e., a Hebrew]. So explained the <i>Re’m.</i> 
  
  Verse 3
  
  If he came by himself. The term  בגפו is the same as  בכנפו . [Rashi knows this] because the Targum translates the word  כנף as  גפא .
  Wrapped in his garment, in the skirt of his garment. Since Rashi explained that  בגפו means “the skirt of his garment,” which does not [directly] imply that he came single, thus Rashi explains that the verse indicates that he came with <i>nothing</i> but his garment, [which is an expression used to describe someone who is single]. 
  This teaches that if he was unmarried. . . [Rashi knows that this refers to a gentile handmaid] because otherwise, [if  בגפו referred to his Jewish wife as in the beginning of the verse,] it should have said simply:  בגפו יבא כן יצא (If he came by himself, so shall he go out.) Perforce, the second  בגפו refers to a gentile handmaid, not to a Jewess. [And the first  בגפו cannot refer to a gentile handmaid because it is written about a gentile handmaid (v. 4), “the woman and her children belong to her master,” whereas here it says, “his wife shall go out with him”]. Rashi uses the term  מגיד (this teaches) because the law is only interpreted from the verse, and is not the verse’s simple meaning. 
  To a Jewish woman. [Rashi knows this] because it says afterwards, “His wife shall go out with him.” But if it is a gentile handmaiden, it says (v. 4), “The woman and her children belong to her master.” <i>Re’m</i> based his explanation on the Mechilta, that “If he [was] married” relates back to  בגפו יבא , i.e., his Jewish wife, rather than to the adjacent  בגפו יצא , i.e., the gentile handmaiden. 
  He. . . becomes obligated to support his (the slave’s) wife and children. Although here the verse teaches only about supporting the wife, a later verse (Vayikra 25:41) says, “And he shall go out from you, he <i>and his sons</i>.” But here Rashi mentions the support of children only in connection with the support of the wife (<i>Re’m</i>), and it is speaking of children who are minors. In Maseches Kiddushin 22a it is explained why the Torah needs to mention that he is obligated to support both his wife and his children. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  From here. . . his master has the right. . . You might ask: Perhaps “his master should give him a wife” means giving him an adult Jewess who sold herself as a slave. [The verse stating that the Hebrew handmaid shall go free after six years refers only to a minor who was sold by her father. Thus it is possible to have an adult Jewess as a slave]? And a gentile handmaid would then be forbidden to a Hebrew slave, [as she is to other Jewish men,] for it is written: “There shall not be a male prostitute from the B’nei Yisrael” (Devarim 23:18). The answer is: Rashi holds that a woman may not sell herself as a slave, because it is written (Vayikra 25:39), “If your <i>brother</i> becomes impoverished and sells himself to you,” implying: your <i>brother</i> and not your <i>sister</i>. 
  Or perhaps it is only a Jewish wife (that he may give him). You might ask: [Why think that the master may give his slave a Hebrew handmaid?] The master may designate a Hebrew handmaid only to himself or his son, and not to his slave [see verses 8 and 9]. The answer is: We might think that he may indeed give her to his slave, but not in marriage, only out of wedlock. And when it says (v. 8), “He has no power (right) to sell her. . .” we would say that this refers only to her father and not to her master. 
  [If] your Hebrew brother or sister. . . This refers back to what Rashi said before, “a Hebrew handmaid too goes free after six years.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  The handmaid. [Rashi knows that]  אשתי must be referring to the gentile handmaid, since she remains with the master. In this way, the slave’s love of his master, wife and children is equal, in that he does not want to part with them. But this would not apply to a Jewish wife, [as she would go out with the slave]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
   אל האלהים means to court. The view holding that even the ear of a self-sold slave may be pierced would still agree that this verse of “bring him next to the door. . .” speaks of a slave sold by the court for his theft — since all agree that the verse “If you buy a Hebrew slave” speaks of a slave sold by the court for theft. Piercing a self-sold slave’s ear is learned from a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> between the word  שכיר , “hireling” (Devarim 15:18), and  שכיר (Vayikra 25:50). The reason a self-sold slave’s ear is pierced is because [his ear heard Hashem say,] “For <i>to Me</i> are the B’nei Yisrael servants.” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  Till the Jubilee. . . Because in the verse it is written  לעולם , instead of simply  עולם , [Rashi knew that] it means until the yovel. For Rashi already proved that  עולם means yovel, thus]  לעולם means until the yovel. Whereas  עולם would mean an entire 50 years. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Comparing the Hebrew woman to the Hebrew man. . . attaining their freedom. This teaches that she goes out even at the yovel, because going out after six years is written expressly in the verse of “If there should be sold to you your Hebrew brother or <i>your Hebrew sister</i>. . .” 
  Thereby comparing the Hebrew man to the Hebrew woman: You might ask: Since the Hebrew man is compared to the Hebrew woman, should he not too, go free upon showing signs of puberty? The answer is: There is no case of a male Hebrew slave showing signs of puberty, [since he is always an adult before he is sold]. For a minor cannot sell himself, as a minor’s transactions have no validity. And the court cannot sell a minor for his theft, since a minor is not subject to punishment. And a father cannot sell his son, because it is written in our verse, “If a man sells his <i>daughter</i> to be a maidservant,” thus excluding the sale of his son. All this is explained by the <i>Re’m</i>. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Here the Torah implies that it is a mitzvah for him to marry her. [Rashi knows this] because it says, “If she is displeasing to her master,” providing the reason why he did not marry her. Thus we infer that if she is not displeasing, he should marry her. Since the Torah calls her marriage  יעוד (designation), rather than saying: “had not <i>married</i> her,” we learn that she requires no other marriage ritual. 
  For he, too, must aid in her redemption. Since it does not say  ונפדת (she shall be redeemed), rather  והפדה (lit. he shall make her redeemed), we learn that the master must aid in her redemption by calculating for her [the years she already served]. 
  Neither the master nor the father. Since it says that the master should designate her to himself, or to his son, why would we think he could sell her? Therefore, we must say that “He has no power to sell her” means that even the <i>father</i> may not sell her. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  [“He” refers to] the master. [Rashi knows this] because [after selling her,] the father may not give her to another, [thus the verse must refer to the master]. And Rashi had to state “the master” expressly, so we would not mistakenly say the following: just as neither the master nor the father may sell her [see Rashi on the previous verse], so too, neither of them may designate her to the master’s son. Therefore Rashi expressly states that the master may do so. His proof is from v. 11 which says, “If he does none of these three things to her, she goes out free.” And two of these three things (deducting from her price and designation to the master) [see Rashi on v. 11], are done by the master. [Thus the third — designating to a son — is also done by the master.] (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  And he will not require another marriage ritual. Meaning that [the son is] just like his father, who does not need another marriage ritual since her purchase money effects the marriage. For if this were not so, the verse should have said: If he has <i>married</i> or <i>taken</i> her for his son, [rather than: “he has <i>designated</i> her”]. 
  Food, clothing, and marital relations. Meaning that she has the same marital rights as all other <i>bnos Yisrael</i>, in regard to food, clothing and marital relations. Although a husband’s general obligation in these matters is not stated anywhere in the Torah, [as the following verse mentions them only in connection to the Hebrew maidservant], our verse teaches [that these obligations apply to the Jewish maidservant], and consequently [we] learn [that these marital rights apply to all <i>bnos Yisrael</i> as well]. <i>Mechilta</i> 
  
  Verse 10
  
  Whom he had already designated as his wife. Rashi is saying that “not diminish” implies not taking away from what she already had, as it is written in v. 9, “He must grant her exactly the same rights as daughters,” which is speaking before he took a second wife. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  If he does none of these three things. . . [Rashi knows this] because if the verse meant doing all three, why does it say, “She goes out free with no repayment of money?” If he designated her as a wife to himself or his son, she needs a divorce document [rather than going out freely]. And if he deducted from her redemption price, she must pay the rest [rather than going out without money]. Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because doing all three is impossible: it would entail designating her to both himself and his son. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  What are the three things. . . [Rashi knows this] because if the three were sustenance, clothing and conjugal rights, she would not go out freely. She would need a divorce document, since he designated her as a wife. 
  Until she demonstrates signs (of puberty). [Rashi is explaining that] she does not go out immediately upon his failure to do one of these three things.
  
  Verse 12
  
  Which does not cause death. The <i>Re’m</i> asks: How could [Rashi suggest that] he might be put to death for a blow which does not cause death? [On the contrary,] it is written (v. 19) that if the victim does not die, the law is: “the one who struck him be acquitted, still he must pay for his loss of work, and must pay for his complete cure.” The <i>Re’m</i> left this unanswered. An answer is: We would think it is like striking one’s father or mother, for which one is put to death for striking them, even without killing them. And the difference would be that for parents, one is liable even without making a wound, but for others, only with a wound. Although it is written (v. 25): “a wound for a wound,” [teaching that for making a wound, one pays damages but is not put to death], and Rashi explains there: “A wound that draws blood,” [thus we see that for making even a significant wound, one is <i>not</i> liable for death]. But [we could explain that] that verse applies only if one struck unintentionally. Whereas if intentionally, one would be liable for the death penalty. And when it is written (v. 13): “But Hashem brought it to his hand,” teaching that for striking unintentionally, he is liable for exile [but not for paying damages], this applies when he had intent to strike one person but in fact struck another. Whereas without any intent to strike, he is not liable for exile [and must pay damages]. And when it says (v. 18—19) that if the victim “does not die”, [thus one pays damages], we could say that this applies to striking in a way that cannot kill, i.e., there was no wound at all. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) Another answer is: We would think that if he does not agree to pay damages [for striking without killing], then he is put to death — as it is said in Maseches Sanhedrin (15b) concerning <i>kofer</i> [the atonement fine for when one’s ox kills a man]. And this answers all <i>Re’m</i>’s questions. 
  Even were a minor to strike a blow and kill he would be liable. The <i>Re’m</i> asks: [Why does Rashi say that a minor might be liable?] Where do we ever find the Torah punishing a minor? The Gemara (Sanhedrin 68b) raises a similar question concerning the <i>ben sorer umoreh,</i> and answers: “Did you think that a <i>ben sorer umoreh</i> is killed for his sin? He is killed only because of what he will do in the end!” There, the Gemara says that even a minor might be liable. But here, how could we say such a thing? The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> answers: Since it is written, “If <i>one</i> strikes a man,” [implying any striker at all,] we might think it includes that even a minor is subject to the death penalty, although generally a minor is exempt from all mitzvos. Therefore we need “And if a <i>man</i> strikes,” to exclude a minor. This question and its answer are relevant to all the cases following as well. 
  Even a baby that cannot live would be included. The <i>Re’m</i> says that this interpretation [saying that one is liable for killing a viable child] was received by <i>Chazal</i> as an oral tradition. Otherwise, we could say that “If one strikes a <i>man</i>” exempts killing a minor, and “any human being” makes one liable for killing an [adult who is a] woman, one whose gender is indistinguishable, or a hermaphrodite. The same applies to <i>Chazal</i>’s interpretation that the verse “If a man should strike” (Vayikra 24:17) makes one liable only for a blow that kills. Otherwise we could expound the opposite: since it says in our verse, “If one strikes a man and he dies,” this means only for a blow that kills. Therefore the verse in Vayikra says, “If a man should strike,” teaching that even for a blow that does not cause death, [still he would be liable]. The <i>Re’m</i> explained at length. However, it is difficult [how can Rashi suggest that one might be liable for the death penalty for killing even a baby that cannot live]. If so, when would one be liable merely to pay damages for killing a fetus [see v. 22]? An answer is: damages would apply when one had no intent to injure the fetus. This is similar to what Rebbi said (Sanhedrin 79a), that “A life for a life” (v. 23) means merely to pay money [when the striker intended to kill a certain person but actually killed another). Another answer is: One would be subject to the death penalty for killing an unviable baby that was already born, whereas before its birth, one would not be liable [to the death penalty, only to pay damages]. (Tosafos, Sanhedrin 84b) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Like its Targum, “And he did not ambush him.” Since the Targum translates  וארב לו (Devarim 19:11) as:  וכמן ליה , and the Targum translated the same on our verse, which says  צדה , this proves that our verse, too, means: “He did not ambush him.” 
  And falls upon the one. . . This means he already went up, and is falling upon the one below as he is going down the ladder — and not as he is going up, since in such a case he would not be exiled (Makkos 7b). Rashi here mentioned going up the ladder only because he could not fall while going down unless he first went up. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  The one who killed accidentally is exiled. You might ask: But he still is not being punished for his <i>first</i> accidental killing? The answer is: he killed someone who was already considered “dead,” [as the person he fell upon was liable for death]. And it is known before Hashem that he need not be exiled for this [second accidental killing], only we do not know this. [Thus, the court rules that he must be exiled — ostensibly for the second killing, but Hashem knows that it is for the first.] 
  And the one who killed with premeditation is killed. We must say that he had a sword in his hand when he fell and killed him. Otherwise, the premeditated murderer would not be killed by the sword, which is the type of death for which he is liable as he is liable for. For if the person simply fell on him, it is like [death by] stoning. 
  It was the camp of the Levites. Since [Hashem speaks to Moshe in this verse and says:] “I will designate for <i>you</i> a place,” it means that the place will be in <i>your</i> camp. And Moshe was a Levite. Thus, the place designated is in the wilderness, and in the Levite camp. For in the wilderness, Moshe’s camp gave refuge. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  The Torah therefore says: “If he plots.” You might ask: Since liability for the death penalty requires testimony and prior warning, how could killing accidentally ever be liable for the death penalty? And perforce, an accident was not prewarned. For if it was, it would not be accidental! The answer is: We are dealing with [a killer who is] a learned person and needs no warning [since he surely knows the punishment — were he to act intentionally]. You might ask: Why do we need our verse to exclude an unintentional killer [from the death penalty]? It is written (v. 13) that when “he did not lie in wait,” the punishment is exile, not death. (<i>Re’m</i>) The answer is: We are dealing with an unintentional killing that was close to being intentional. For example, he intended to kill one person and killed another. In such a case, exile does not atone for him, since he acted negligently, [therefore we need this verse to exclude this case from the death penalty]. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Which causes a wound. [Rashi knows this] because it says (Vayikra 24:21): “Whoever smites an animal shall pay for it, and whoever smites a man shall be put to death.” [This implies a comparison between the two:] just as smiting an animal [is liable only] when there is a wound [as otherwise there is no damage to the animal], so too with smiting a man, [one is liable only] when he inflicts a wound. 
  Either one or the other. It is written  ואמו , and a <i>vav</i> usually means to add to what preceded [and thus would be translated as “and”]. Nevertheless, Rashi explains that a <i>vav</i> can also denote one of the two, [and thus would be translated as “or”], unless the verse specifically states that the two are to be considered “together” ( יחדו ). So it is with the verse, “You may not plow with an ox and a donkey ( ובחמור ) <i>together</i>” (Devarim 22:10). There, the verse needed to state “together” [in order for the <i>vav</i> to mean “and”]. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Who stole another person. The <i>Re’m</i> was puzzled by Rashi’s comment. For when it said (v. 12): “If one strikes a man,” Rashi did not expound the verse along the same lines as he did here. He should have said there: “Since it is said: ‘If a man strikes’ (Vayikra 24:17), I would know only [that this applies to] a man who struck. But a woman, or one whose gender is indistinguishable, or a hermaphrodite [who struck], how would we know [that this law applies]? Therefore the Torah says: ‘If <i>one</i> strikes a man.’” The <i>Re’m</i> on v. 12 explained Rashi’s exegesis there by saying that perhaps the interpretation was received by <i>Chazal</i> as an oral tradition. Another answer, which the <i>Re’m</i> offers, is that perhaps the Tanna there was not trying to explain all the laws that those verses teach us. He intended only to explain the seemingly extra verses. Thus he merely stated some of the laws, thereby showing the need for both verses: what this verse lacks, the other verse teaches. 
  And he was already in his (the thief’s) possession before he sold him. Rashi is excluding the case where the thief first sold him and only then stole him [i.e., took him out of his home]. Thus, the law of kidnapping resembles the law of other property theft — where the thief is exempt [from the law of paying four or five times the stolen animal’s value] if he slaughtered or sold the animal before removing it from the owner’s premises. And this is how the Ramban understands Rashi’s words on the Gemara (Sanhedrin 95b). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Wherever the Torah mentions an unspecified death. . . But above (v. 15), Rashi did not need to explain this. This is because the verse of “Whoever steals a man and sells him” interrupts between the verse of striking one’s father (v. 15) and that of cursing him (v. 17). And had it not interrupted, we would say that [the punishment for] striking is learned from [the punishment for] cursing. As Rashi explains, one who curses his father is stoned. Thus, one who strikes him would also be stoned. Therefore the Torah interrupts with “Whoever steals a man” [in order to teach us:] just as one who kidnaps is strangled, so too, is one who strikes his father strangled. And if you would ask: How do we know that one who kidnaps is strangled? The answer is as Rashi explains here: “Wherever the Torah mentions an unspecified death. . .” I found this [written]. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  But the loss of work and medical costs. Rashi mentions [only] loss of work and medical costs, because [compensation for] pain and embarrassment are learned from other Torah sections. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  On his health and his strength. [Rashi knows this] because if the meaning of  משענתו was literal, “his staff,” the person [walking on his staff] could still be ill and might still die. If so, why does it say, “The one who struck him shall be acquitted”? 
  He must pay the doctor’s fee. [He must pay in all cases because] even if he is a doctor, the victim may claim: “I do not want you to heal me, because to me, you are like a devouring lion!” And if the striker says, “I know a doctor who will heal you for free,” the victim may claim, “A doctor who heals for nothing is worth nothing.” 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Included in: “Whoever strikes a man who dies. . . [Rashi asks this] because even a gentile is included [in the term  איש (man), in the verse: “Whoever strikes a <i>man</i> who dies shall be put to death.”] And certainly a gentile slave, who is obligated to keep mitzvos, [is included]. For a gentile is only excluded when the Torah writes  רעהו (his friend). 
  By the rule of “a day or two.” You might ask: Why did Rashi not ask his question on the verse [immediately, rather than first proving that it speaks of a gentile slave]? The answer is, so we will not say: Since the Torah taught the special law of “a day or two” concerning a gentile slave, it will apply also to a Jewish slave, in accordance with the rule of <i>davar shehaya bichlal. . .</i> [which allows this special law to apply to everything in the category of slaves]. Therefore Rashi first proves that the verse is talking <i>only</i> about a gentile slave. And Rashi is saying, so to speak: “Now [the rule of ‘a day or two’] will come out clear, [since we have established that the verse is not speaking of a Hebrew slave].” 
  And upon a limb which is capable of causing death. . . [Rashi knows this] because [regarding a Yisraelite victim] it says (Devarim 19:11): “And he will ambush him, arising against him.” This means that he has intent to kill him. But if the rock [or the stricken limb] was not capable of causing death, perforce he had no intent to kill him. You might ask: [If this law can be learned from a Yisraelite victim,] why does the Torah need to write in this verse, “With a rod”? The answer is: <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning [“it follows even more so. . .”] is not a valid basis for applying a punishment. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Even were he to linger for 24 hours. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did the verse not simply say, “His slave, who is his property”? Why does it instead say, “<i>For</i> he is his property”? Thus Rashi explains that this phrase is providing a reason for the above law, saying: only the master is subject to the law of “a day or two,” [since the slave is his property], but another person does not. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  If men will fight — with one another. As opposed to both of them fighting with the woman. For if that was the case, even one man [would be sufficient]. Furthermore, it would say [at the end of our verse], “<i>They</i> shall pay. . .” 
  To the woman. It could not refer to the fetus, because the next verse says: “However if there <i>is</i> a fatal injury, you shall give a life for a life.” And if it referred to the fetus, [this law would not apply], because it says [in v. 12 that one is liable only] “if one strikes a <i>man</i>,” as opposed to striking a fetus that cannot live. 
  They shall impose monetary compensation on him. Since it says afterwards, “He shall pay as determined by the judges,” implying that he did not paid yet, Rashi therefore says: “they shall impose,” rather than “he pays.” 
  When the husband summons him to the court. [Rashi knows this] because if it meant he pays the amount that the husband demands, what is the meaning of “He shall pay as determined by the judges”? 
  The one who struck. . . the value of the offspring. [Rashi is explaining:] as opposed to paying the value of the stricken woman. And this is a “short” verse [because it says “he shall pay” without saying <i>what</i> he pays].
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  She shall not go free as do the (gentile) male-slaves. [Also a <i>male</i> Hebrew slave does not go free in this manner, since male and female Hebrew slaves] are compared to one another by the Torah, as it says, “If your Hebrew <i>brother or sister</i> is sold to you. . .” (Devarim 15:12). 
   Twenty-four tips of limbs. This is derived from the law of tooth and eye, which serves as a <i>binyan av</i> (prototype). The common denominator [of tooth and eye] is that they are: permanent defects, tips of limbs, visible, and the result of an intentional blow. Thus, all [the other 24 tips of limbs, which have these qualities, have the same law]. This excludes the case of the master cutting flesh from his slave, since it grows back. (<i>Mechilta</i>) 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  And a beast or bird. This is learned from a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> between the word  שור (ox) in our verse, and the word  שור in the section of Shabbos (Shemos 23:12) — as Rashi explains [below] on the verse of “an ox or a donkey” (v. 33). 
  
  Verse 29
  
  Making. . . three gorings. [They are:] the goring of yesterday, of the day before, and of today. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) This teaches that he is not liable until the fourth goring. 
  Kill him with biting. . . [Rashi knows this] because “and it kills” is a superfluous phrase. For it already said (v. 28), “If an ox gores a man. . . and he dies,” and immediately afterwards the verse states, “But if the ox had gored. . .” Thus, the superfluous “and it kills” comes to include any method of killing that is similar to [goring with] the horn. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) The reason why Rashi did not mention the method of crouching [on the victim, although the Gemara mentions it] is because Rashi included it in “shoving.” 
  
  Verse 30
  
  The word  אם here. . . You might ask: At the end of Parshas Yisro, Rashi cited R. Yishmael’s statement that there are three cases of  אם in the Torah that are not conditional. This was on the verse, “ אם (When) you build a stone Altar for Me.” And this verse, “ אם (When) an atonement fine. . .” is not included among them. The answer is: Although this verse, too, is not conditional in the sense that it is indeed obligatory, [like the three cases of R. Yishmael], nevertheless, it is conditional in the sense that it depends on an external factor — if an ox gores someone and kills him, only then is one liable for an atonement fine. But if not, one is not liable. Therefore it was omitted. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 31
  
  He is liable for a minor. You might ask: If this is so, why did it need to say (v. 28): “a man or a woman”? [Since he is liable for a minor, surely he is liable for an adult!] An answer is: Had it not said “a man or a woman,” I might think that the “son or daughter” of our verse means an <i>adult</i> son or daughter. Alternatively, [I might have applied the rule that] <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning is not a valid basis for a punishment, [thus we cannot learn from a law pertaining to minors and apply it to adults]. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  Gentile [slaves]. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “He must give thirty silver <i>shekalim</i>” — whereas if it was speaking of a Hebrew slave, he would have to pay the atonement fine [see v. 30]. 
  This is a decree of the Torah. . . It seems that Rashi is answering [a question that could arise] about what he said earlier, that “male or female slave” refers to a gentile slave. [For one could ask:] perhaps in truth it is referring to a Hebrew slave? And even though their law is the atonement fine, this verse is [not contradicting this law, but] adding a stringency onto the owner of the goring ox: if the atonement fine is greater than the 30 shekalim, he must pay the atonement fine. And if it is less, he must pay the 30 shekalim. Therefore Rashi explains that the 30 shekalim is a decree of the Torah [and applies absolutely] — so we cannot make the above distinctions regarding the 30 shekalim, [calculating which way the payment is higher], and apply these distinctions to the Hebrew slave. 
  
  Verse 33
  
  One who digs. . . after another has dug. . . is liable. Rashi means that if the first man dug nine <i>tefachim</i> and the second man completed it to ten <i>tefachim,</i> the second is [fully] liable whether the ox died or was damaged. For by completing the pit to ten <i>tefachim,</i> it can now both kill and damage [whereas before it could only damage]. And the first man is fully exempt, even if the ox is damaged. For no verse is needed to exempt him if the ox died, since he did not make it deep enough to kill, and clearly he is exempt — [perforce, the verse comes to exempt him even if the ox is only damaged]. 
  But if he covers it, he is not liable. Rashi means: Do not think that covering it is insufficient and he needs to fill it up with earth, so the verse tells us [this is not so]. 
  Of digging in the public domain. Because if he dug in the [damager’s] private domain, the damager could tell the damaged party, “What was your ox doing in my domain?” The law [of this verse] applies as well to any place where the damager cannot say, “What is your ox doing in my domain?” Rashi is only excluding digging a pit in the [damager’s] private domain (Bava Kama 49b). 
  We derive it “ שור ,  שור ” regarding Shabbos. The <i>Re’m</i> was puzzled [why we need the <i>gezeirah shavah</i>], The Gemara (Bava Kama 54b) mentions the verse, “He must compensate its <i>owner</i> with money” (v. 34), and applies it to a damaging pit, teaching that [payment must be made for] anything with an owner, [not just for animals and beasts. If so, what does the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> of this verse teach us?] The <i>Re’m</i> answers: we need “compensate its <i>owner</i> with money,” [and we need this verse as well]. Because without “compensate its <i>owner</i> with money,” we would interpret this verse as follows:  ונפל שמה is a <i>klal</i> (general rule), and  שור או חמור is a <i>prat</i> (specific case). Consequently, the <i>klal</i> includes only what is in the <i>prat</i> — an ox and donkey, and nothing else. And the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> is not strong enough to nullify the <i>klal</i> and <i>prat.</i> Therefore, “compensate its <i>owner</i> with money” comes to teach us [that payment must be made for] anything with an owner — and this nullifies the <i>klal</i> and <i>prat.</i> But if so, why do we need the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> of “ שור ,  שור ” regarding Shabbos, [i.e., the original question arises again]? The verse could have simply said,  ונפל שמה הנופל (And something fell into it). Why does it say שור או חמור , [from which the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> is derived]? The answer is: [In truth, the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> is not needed. And that is why Rashi goes on to say that from  שור או חמור we infer,] “An ‘ox,’ but not a man. A ‘donkey,’ but not vessels.” 
  “An ox,” but not a man. This is a decree of the Torah [and thus applies absolutely.] It makes no difference whether or not the man was intelligent or not, and [it applies] even at night and even if he was blind. [I.e., the exemption from payment applies even in cases where the man who fell in could not be faulted.] 
  A “donkey,” but not vessels. Meaning: [The case is not that a man pushed the vessels into the pit, rather] that a donkey with vessels fell into the pit, and the [donkey was injured and the] vessels were damaged. And [the verse teaches that] the digger is liable for the animal but exempt for the vessels. 
  
  Verse 34
  
  The injured party’s. [Rashi knows this] because if [ לו refers] to the owner of the pit, the Torah should simply write, “The owner of the pit must pay” — and then the Torah does not have to say, “And the dead [animal] remains his.” [For we would know that he receives the carcass, since he is paying for the full value of the animal.] Perforce, [ לו refers] to the injured party. 
  
  Verse 35
  
  The ox of a man. This is the meaning as opposed to [saying that  וכי יגף שור איש ] means, “If an ox gores a man.” [It cannot mean that,] because afterwards it is written, “his neighbor’s ox.” 
  
  Verse 36
  
  Or it was not a  תם . Rashi does not explain או (or) as meaning  אם (if), because then it would be written with an adjunctive <i>vav,</i> as  ואם (and if). This resolves the <i>Re’m</i>’s question: why does Rashi not explain the verse as “if”, as Rashi did on the verse, “If ( או ) his sin becomes known to him” (Vayikra 3:23)? [The <i>Re’m</i> claimed] that “if” would have explained the verse very well, and Rashi would not have had to insert the word “ אלא ,” [in order to give meaning to the verse]. The <i>Re’m</i> left the matter unresolved. The <i>Re’m</i> also objects: Rashi himself, on the verse of “If ( או ) his sin becomes known to him,” explains that  או is like  אם , as in: “If ( או ) it was known that it was a goring ox.” This contradicts what Rashi says here! This matter is unresolved. 
  To the damaged party. You might object: Rashi already explained this above (v. 34). An answer is: This verse is the primary source for the law that the owner has to look after the carcass, [thus Rashi mentioned it again here]. An alternative answer is: Since [this law is stricter than that of the  תם , and] the damager pays in full, we might mistakenly think that he must also look after the carcass. Therefore Rashi explained that the carcass belongs to the damaged party. 
  
  Verse 37
  
  The Torah repeats them. Meaning: if the Torah did not repeat them, we would make a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> between  שור here and  שור in the section of Shabbos (Shemos 23:12), and learn that the law of paying “four or five” applies even to stealing any beast or bird. When Rashi says, “The Torah repeats them,” it means as follows: The Gemara (Bava Kama 67b) explains that the verse could have said, “If a man steals an <i>ox</i> and then slaughters or sells it, he must pay five oxen for it, and four sheep for each <i>sheep</i>.” Why repeat “ox” at the beginning and “sheep” at the end? [See Gemara for full explanation.] It is to tell us: [for stealing] an ox or sheep, yes, [he pays four or five]. But for other things, he does not. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  He was actually in the act of breaking in. This is as opposed to explaining: the thief was found in the <i>place</i> of breaking in. [That cannot be the meaning,] because “breaking in” is not a place, about which we could say that the thief was “found” there. Therefore, Rashi explains that he was found “in the act” of breaking in. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  If the issue is clear to you. . . That is, if reason dictates that his intentions are peaceful. For example, a father who is breaking in to steal money from the son. But if reason dictates that he has intention of killing, since he knows that a man does not remain silent while seeing his property being taken — then you should kill him first. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  That his intentions. . . are peaceful — just as this sun. . . The <i>Re’m</i> was puzzled why Rashi cited the Mechilta, [which says that the sun is an allegory for peace,] and ignored the Baraisa in Sanhedrin 72a, which says: “If it as <i>clear to you as the sun</i> that his intentions towards you are peaceful. . .” For according to the Baraisa, the sun is an allegory for the issue being clear, not for peace. [To resolve this,] it seems that Rashi was answering a question: [If the simple meaning of the verse is as the Baraisa said,] why does the verse not say, “If it shines on him like day,” or simply “day,” as in, “Sell, <i>as the day</i>, your birthright to me” (Bereishis 25:31)? This would have meant that the issue is clear. Therefore Rashi explains [the verse according to the Mechilta:] “Just as the sun represents peace. . .” Yet you might object: Why does Rashi cite the Mechilta, [which does not follow the plain meaning of the verse either]? The answer is: The Mechilta is close to the verse’s plain meaning, and also resolves various difficulties in the verses. 
  The thief. Rashi added the word “thief” so we will not say that the <i>house-owner</i> pays the heirs, [if he killed the thief. I.e.,] that the house-owner would not receive the death penalty even though “there is liability for the thief’s blood,” but would instead pay an atonement fine to the thief’s heirs. This cannot be [the verse’s meaning] because it is written afterwards, “If he does not have [the means to do so], he shall be sold for his theft.” Thus we see that the verse is speaking of the <i>thief</i>. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  In his possession, for he had not slaughtered it. . . [Rashi mentioned slaughtering] because it said earlier (21:37): “And then slaughters or sells it.” Thus Rashi writes here, “He had <i>not</i> slaughtered it nor sold it.” But Rashi does not really mean to say only slaughtering. [For if the thief slaughtered it, it would still be “in his possession”]. 
  Pay two-fold to his fellow man. [A difficulty arises:] The other verse, [“for a sheep, a garment. . .”] is speaking of [a different case: that of a watchman] who [falsely] claims that a thief [stole what he was guarding — and when disproved, he must pay two-fold.] But this verse is speaking of the thief [himself. So how can Rashi compare them?] The answer is: Since the Torah gave them the same law regarding two-fold restitution, surely they are the same as regards paying two-fold for everything, whether animate or not. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Either by sending in his cattle. . . Rashi is saying that there are two types of damages here: one is “sending in,” which is damage caused by trampling of the  רגל (foot). And the other is “feeding,” which is damage of the  שן (tooth). The verse does not mean that he sent the animal into a vineyard and it went and ate, which would be only the damage of  שן . 
  In another man’s field. Rashi added the word “man’s”, [and did not explain  שדה אחר as “another field”,] because  שדה is feminine, whereas  אחר is masculine. [Therefore,  אחר cannot be the adjective of  שדה .] (<i>Maharshal</i>) 
  We evaluate the damage. . . [Rashi is saying] that the damager does not give him <i>all</i> of his best fields even if they are worth more than the damages. He cannot give him whichever field he wishes, [i.e., pick an inferior field to pay from]. Also, that he is not required to pay specifically from prime fields as opposed to paying money. 
  He must pay him from the best of his fields. . . If he chooses to pay from moveable possessions, he may pay even from bran [i.e., items of the lowest quality]. For with moveable possessions, everything is considered the best [because one can take it from place to place and find a buyer for it]. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Even by itself. [Rashi knows this] because it does not say  יבעיר (he made it burn) as it is written in the preceding verse, “If he damages a field. . . with his animal ( כי יבער ).” It is written here “ המבעיר את הבערה (The one <i>who started</i> the fire).” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  According to his own testimony. Rashi, [in explaining that the theft is not an established fact,] is answering the question: But it says afterwards (v. 7), “He must come before the judges [to swear]” — [and why should he swear, if we already know?] Furthermore, how could <i>Chazal</i> say that “If the thief is not found,” it means that the watchman stole it himself? Yet here it says, “And they are stolen,” apparently meaning that they were surely stolen. [Therefore Rashi explains that this is not an established fact; rather it is the watchman’s claim.] 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Unless he made a partial admission. . . [Rashi knows this] because “Of which [a witness] says, ‘This is it!’” implies that the watchman had previously said to the owner: I owe you only this [part, not more]. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  The first section deals with a  שומר חנם . . . Rashi means that we cannot say it is the opposit way, as reason dictates that it is this way, [since in the first section he is <i>not</i> held responsible for theft]. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  He is liable for those accidents. Why must he take an oath that he did not lay his hand on it, in order to be exempt for accidents? Because it deals with a  שומר שכר , whose oath comes to support his claim that he is exempt from payment since an accident happened. Yet, when is he exempt when accidents occur? [Only] if he did not lay his hand on it [i.e., he did not make personal use of it]. 
   [The watchman need not make restitution] to him at all. [Rashi explains this, so] we do not think that he is exempt from the double restitution mentioned above, yet he must still pay for the item itself. Therefore Rashi explains that he is exempt from making any restitution to him at all. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  He shall bring [two] witnesses. . . There are those who ask: Why are two witnesses needed? One witness [supporting his claim] would exempt him from the oath, and consequently he would also be exempt from having to pay. The answer is: Rashi holds that a single supporting witness does not exempt [from an oath. Rather, a single <i>opposing</i> witness makes one <i>liable</i> for an oath]. Therefore he needs two witnesses. (See <i>Choshen Mishpat</i> ch. 87) 
  But who whispered to you to come to these conclusions? The <i>Re’m</i> explains: But who whispered to you to differentiate between torn apart by a lion and torn apart by a cat, when the Torah only writes a general phrase: “If it was torn apart”? True, it is written  הטריפה with a  ה , implying that a distinction is to be made. Nevertheless, from this we cannot know what sort of tearing apart makes one liable and what sort of tearing apart causes one to be exempt. Therefore we need the <i>hekeish</i> [that Rashi mentions]. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Employed by the borrower to do his work. Rashi adds the phrase “employed by the borrower to do his work” so we will not think that when the verse says “with him,” it means that they are physically together in a certain place. Therefore Rashi explains it as “to do his work.” [Consequently, the verse is saying that the law is the same] whether the borrower and owner are doing the work in different places or in the same place, or even if the owner is with the borrower but in a different work [not connected to the ox. We know this last case] because the [next] verse says, “If the owner is with him,” implying any work done with him [see Rashi there]. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  At the time of the injury or the death. [Rashi knows this] because it says [in the previous verse]: “If a man borrows something from his neighbor, <i>and</i> it becomes broken or dies; if the owner is <i>not with him</i>. . .” This implies that the owner was not with him either at the time he borrowed and at the time of breaking and death. For the phrase, “if the owner is not with him” refers back to both stages. And then, “he must make full restitution.” This means that if he was with him during only one of these times, he does <i>not</i> have to make restitution. However, it says [in our verse]: “If the owner is with him, then he need not make restitution” — [implying that] the reason [for no restitution] is that the owner was with him at <i>both</i> stages. And this means that if he was with him at one stage but not at the other, he is liable. Thus, the verses seem to contradict each other. To resolve this, we must say [as Rashi did,] that the previous verse exempts the borrower even if the owner was with him at <i>one</i> of the two stages. That is, he was with him at the time he borrowed, although he was not with him at the time of breaking and death. And the verse that holds the borrower liable, is in the case where the owner was with him at the time of breaking and death but <i>not</i> at the time he borrowed. And we cannot say the other way around, because reason dictates that the time he borrows is the key stage — for that is when the borrower becomes obligated to feed the animal. [See Bava Metzia 96a.] 
  If the ox was not borrowed. . . Rashi adds the word “ox,” to teach that “hired” is describing the ox hinted to above (v. 13): “If a man borrows something. . .” Yet, if “hired” in our verse refers to that, [then a question arises:] how can the ox be both borrowed and hired? Therefore Rashi adds [the word  אלא ] and says, “The ox was not borrowed but rather ( אלא ) hired.” This teaches that this verse is negating the first case (v. 13), where it was borrowed, and saying that [in our case] it is not borrowed but rather hired. 
  Into the hands of the lessee. The word  בא [ בא בשכרו , “it comes. . .”] expresses that one thing comes into another, and our verse is “short” [and does not state what the ox comes into]. Therefore, Rashi had to explain that “it came into the hands of the lessee.” And in order to tell us the reason why the lessee’s law is unlike that of the borrower, who is liable even for accidents, Rashi explains that the ox did not come as a borrowed item, [thus the lessee does not gain all the benefit from this arrangement. His use of the ox] is in return for its rental fee, [thus the lessor benefits as well]. According to this, the words  בא בשכרו are reversed, as it should have said  בשכרו בא , thereby emphasizing the verse’s point: that the ox came through its <i>rental price</i> rather than through borrowing it [free of charge]. And since the point being made is that the lessee does <i>not</i> pay for accidents, and it does not teach us what <i>is</i> his law, the Sages disagreed as to what law is he subject: whether he is like a  שומר חנם or a  שומר שכר . 
  
  Verse 15
  
  He must set aside a dowry for her. Rashi explains [as he does] because if  מהר ימהרנה denoted  מְהִירוּת (speed) rather than  מוֹהַר (dowry), then there should be a <i>patach</i> under the <i>mem</i> [ מַהֵר יְמַהֲרֶנָּה ]. Because in all of Scripture,  מְהִירוּת is written in the verbal form that has a <i>dagesh</i> [i.e., in the <i>pi’el</i> form]. 
  As is the law regarding a man and his wife. [Rashi is explaining that the dowry comes only with their marriage,] rather than him giving it to her immediately as a fine. For otherwise, why does it say [in the next verse], “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he must give the weight of silver. . .”? But he already gave her the fine! 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  But she must be put to death by the court. [Rashi is explaining that] it is not like, “You shall not allow any soul to live” (Devarim 20:16), where [it means that] any person may kill that individual. Rather, a witch is put to death by the court. And the Sages disagreed as to what method of death is the witch punished; some say it is death by the sword, as [described in the verse,] “You shall not allow any soul to live,” and some say it is death by stoning, as [described] in (Shemos 19:13), “Neither man or beast shall be allowed to live.” 
  Whether they are male or female. . . [Rashi knows this] because regarding  אוב וידעוני , which are types of witches, the Torah made no difference between man and woman. For it is written, “Man or woman” (Vayikra 20:27). (<i>Rashi, Sanhedrin</i> 67a) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  He must be put to death. [Rashi is explaining] that this instance of  יחרם [does not mean “dedicated, rather it] means “death”, as in: “Any condemned person ( חרם ) who has been banned shall not be redeemed; he shall surely be put to death” (Vayikra 27:29). (<i>Rashi, Sanhedrin</i> 60a) 
  Or is not the usual way of worshipping it. Because the verse did not say, “He who <i>worships</i> a god through slaughtering must be condemned,” we learn that [the law applies] even when this is not the usual way of worshipping it. (<i>Rashi, Sanhedrin</i> 60a) 
  His penalty is not death, but he transgresses a negative precept. Rashi means that this applies [only] if it is <i>not</i> the usual way of worshipping it. Whereas if it is the usual way, we derive from “How did these nations worship. . .” (Devarim 12:30), that all [usual] ways are punished with death, as Rashi explained the verse, “How did these nations worship. . .” 
  
  Verse 20
  
  He, too, is capable of abusing you. And consequently, “for you were strangers” just refers back to “You must not abuse,” which means “abusive words.” But “for you were strangers” is not the reason for “nor oppress a stranger,” which means “robbing him of his money.” For the fact that we were strangers is not the reason to refrain [from robbing him]. 
  The term  גר . . . a person who was not. . . Rashi is explaining that <i>all</i> Yisrael were  גרים , even Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, [not just the Bnei Yisrael in Egypt]. For the term  גר means someone who is not a native citizen of that country. [And about the <i>Avos</i> it says (Bereishis 21:34),  ויגר (“He sojourned”), which comes from the same root as  גר .] 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  But does not make clear his punishment. The word  כי always gives a reason for the point made before it. Thus we must say this is a “short” verse [since it omitted the point that the reason explains]. It is as if the verse is saying: “If you do mistreat him, <i>in the end you will get yours. Why?</i> When he cries out to Me. . .” This is as Rashi himself explained. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  One of My people has priority. [You might ask: Is it not obvious that a Jew has priority over a gentile]? The answer is: [The law applies] even if the gentile is giving interest and the [Jewish] poor person is not. Even so, “one of My people has priority.” 
  
  Verse 25
  
  But rather the security. . . from the borrower. This is why the verse says afterwards, “[you must return it to him] till sunset.” Whereas if you took it at the time of the loan, you need not return it. 
  A garment worn by day. The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> explains: Since it is written [in the next verse], “With what shall he lie down?” it is obvious that it is referring to a garment worn by night. [Thus we might think that this verse, too, is the same.] And when it is written, “You must return it to him till sunset,” it means <i>before</i> sunset, as in the verse, “Before ( עד ) I came to you” (Bereishis 48:5). Or [it could mean] that till sunset the garment remains in your hand, and then you should return it to him. Therefore, Rashi [needed to] explain that it is referring to “a garment worn by day.” [Rashi knows this] since he explained in <i>Parshas Ki Seitzei</i> that “and he will lie down in his garment” (Devarim 24:13) [refers to a garment worn by night. Thus, this verse must refer] to a garment worn by day. And [here, following our verse,] it concludes: “With what shall he lie down?” to also include [various types of other] garments [and bedding] used at night. You might ask: What does the lender gain by taking the security from him, if he has to return it [every day]? The Gemara (Bava Metzia 114b) already answered: If he lends with a security, the shmittah year does not release the loan. Furthermore, [if the borrower dies,] the security will <i>not</i> be considered as moveable possessions of the orphans. Therefore these possesions cannot be collected by the creditor. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  The prohibition against cursing judges. [Rashi’s two explanations appear in] <i>Sanhedrin</i> 66a: R. Yosei holds that  אלהים is a mundane word and the verse is a prohibition against cursing a judge, and R. Akiva holds that  אלהים is a sacred word, and the verse is a prohibition against cursing Hashem. And according to both views, we learn both laws from our verse — since it is not written  תקל , [rather it is written תקלל ,] which Rashi explains as implying two curses. And the word  אלהים [which is plural] also contains two meanings. Therefore we apply  תקלל to both of them [i.e., to Hashem and judges]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 28
  
  When your grains reach their full ripeness. [Rashi is saying: The meaning is] not that [it is a collective obligation, and] <i>every</i> person must not delay. Therefore he explains that it means: “When <i>your</i> grains reach their full ripeness,” meaning, when <i>you</i> have [such grains, do not delay them]. 
  Do not alter their order of separating them. We cannot say [that the verse means simply] not to delay giving the first fruits, because the Torah does not expressly set any time-limit on them. Therefore we must say [as Rashi did, that] it means: do not delay it until after the next mitzvah [i.e., separating <i>terumah</i>]. 
  By redeeming him for five sela’im. Rashi means: not that you shall give the child itself to Me. [That cannot be,] because in <i>Parshas Korach</i> (Bamidbar 18:15) it is written, “But you must surely <i>redeem</i> the firstborn of man.” 
  You must do likewise with your oxen. . . The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> says that there is a mistake in our text of Rashi. It should [continue after “You must do likewise,”] and say: “with your <i>sheep</i>.” Firstly, because Rashi concludes with: “the smaller cattle” [which means sheep and goats]. And there is another reason that is mentioned there [in <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>.] 
  
  Verse 29
  
  This is a warning to the kohein. However, a person may consecrate his animal [as a sacrifice] even if it is only one day old. This warning, [i.e.,] negative commandment, is part of the positive commandment of “Seven days it shall remain. . .” [and thus is judged as a positive commandment]. 
  This is the intended meaning of it. . . Rashi means that since there is a <i>gezeirah shavah </i>of “the eighth day,” thus we understand that “On the eighth day you must give it to Me” means that you are permitted, but not obligated. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  From the abhorrence of neveilah and tereifah. . . Rashi adds the word “if”, [“<i>If</i> you will be holy. . .], because it says afterwards, “And you must not eat flesh that was torn off in the field.” Rashi adds this so we will not explain “Be men of holiness” as a command, saying: “So shall you be. . . to Me.” [Rather, the meaning is as follows.] Because there are many things which, whether we do them or not, God does not distance us from being His, therefore the verse had to say here that <i>if</i> you do not abstain from the abhorrence of <i>neveilah</i> etc, then “you are not Mine.” This is the main message of the verse; it does not merely teach us the prohibition [of eating tornoff flesh]. 
  The same applies within the house. [Rashi knows this] because elsewhere <i>neveilah</i> and <i>tereifah</i> are written together, to compare them and teach us: just as eating <i>neveilah </i>is forbidden whether it is in the house or in the field, so too concerning <i>tereifah.</i> 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  You promise him that you will be a corrupt witness. [The case is that] the claimant already has one false witness [to support his claim]. And the verse is warning this [potential second] witness: Do not join with that false witness, who is “a wicked man.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
  And let the collar hang from the necks of the majority. Rashi means that you should not say: “What difference will it make if I judge the case truthfully? They are the majority and I am one person, and they will not heed me.” Rather, you should do your duty, “and let the collar. . .” 
  
  Verse 3
  
  And say, “He is poor. I will find in his favor and show him regard.” Rashi had to explain that the regard shown the poor man is [not actually treating him with honor but] judging in his favor, because the natural tendency of a judge is to treat only a rich man with honor — as it says, “You shall not show regard to a <i>prominent</i> man” (Vayikra 19:15). Therefore, Rashi explains that the regard shown here [to the poor man] is by judging him favorably, and through this he will be looked upon with regard. For otherwise he would have to pay, and since he cannot, he will be disgraced. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Judgments of truth. . . In other words, Torah judgment, as it is written [about the Torah], “The judgments of Hashem are true. . .” (Tehillim 19:10). 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Because  סורו is bad. Some explain  סורו as  שְׂאוֹר (leaven), referring to his evil inclination — which is strong and bad, thus the stranger is easy to tempt [away from the path of the Torah]. Others explain [ סורו as  סָר (stray). This means that] once he strays from the path [of the Torah], he cannot be [easily] persuaded to return. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  From working. Rashi explains this way because  שמיטה and  נטישה always imply releasing a thing from something else. [Thus, the fields are released from working.] 
  Hoeing. In Moed Katan (3a), Rashi explains  לקשקש as hoeing under trees to make them grow. But in Bava Metzia (89b) Rashi explains it as covering tree roots with straw ( קש ) and manure, in the winter, so the cold will not damage them. 
  So, too, do the poor eat without tithing. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why does it say, “What they leave over, the beasts of the field can eat”? It cannot be to permit the beasts to eat it in the seventh year, because these beasts are not under one’s control. 
  But the beginning of the verse deals with a grain-field. . . Rashi is explaining that the words “do the same” refer back to the beginning of the verse: just as you did with the grain-field, do the same with your vineyard. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Do not cancel the weekly Shabbos. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is [this verse, speaking of Shabbos,] juxtaposed to [the previous verse, speaking of] the seventh year? Although this verse needed to be written for the new laws it contains, that an uncircumcised slave, a stranger and a settler must rest on Shabbos, nevertheless, we learn this matter (not to cancel the weekly Shabbos) as well. 
  Allow it to relax, permitting it to tear up. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is it said here, “So that your ox and your donkey may rest”? This was already said in the Ten Commandments. And if it is written in order that we will not say, “Since the entire year is called Shabbos. . .” then the phrase “But on the seventh day you must cease” would be sufficient. 
  An uncircumcised slave. Before, in the Ten Commandments, it spoke of a gentile slave who is circumcised. Here, it speaks of one who is uncircumcised — but still within twelve months of being purchased. However, his master may not keep an uncircumcised gentile slave longer than this, if the slave does not want to undergo circumcision. 
   גר תושב — “a settler.” [Rashi knows this] because if it was referring to a convert to Judaism, it is already written: “and the foreigner ( גר ) within your gates.” Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because a convert is full Jew [and need not be mentioned separately]. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  To make every positive precept as a negative precept. This is why a positive precept always overrides a negative precept ( עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ). For every positive precept includes a negative precept. Thus it has both, and therefore a positive precept overrides a single negative precept. 
  Next to such and such an idol. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is it necessary [to forbid this]? Is there any reason that a Jew would mention the name of an idolatry that he denies, and regarding which he is commanded to destroy? 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Bring Me burnt-offerings. We cannot say that the verse refers to [gifts of] money, because it says, “My Presence”. And one greets the Presence of the Master only with a sacrifice. But the Mechilta learns [that it means burnt-offerings and not money, as follows]: It says “joy” regarding people [i.e., that they should rejoice on the festivals by eating the meat of peace offerings.] And it says “joy” regarding Heaven. . . Just as the joy regarding people is with something fit for people [i.e., something they eat], so too the joy of Heaven is with something fit for Heaven, such as burnt-offerings [of which the entire sacrifice is consumed upon the Altar.] This is because it is not right that your table should be full, while the table [i.e., Altar] of your Maker is empty. (Re’m) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  This refers to the holiday of Shavuos. Rashi [knows this,] as he goes on to explain, because it states (Bamidbar 28:26): “On the Day of Bikkurim ( בכורים ) . . . on your Festival of Shavuos. . .” And here, too, it is written: “The Festival of Harvest, the first fruits ( בכורי ) of your labor.” Just as the  בכורים there refers to Shavuos, so too the  בכורי here refers to Shavuos. 
  Permit the new crop for meal offerings. . . Whereas the Omer meal offering, brought on the 16th of Nissan, was of barley. Yet the Sotah’s meal offering, also of barley, is not brought from the new crop until the offering of the “two loaves”, which are of wheat, are brought. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  It was necessary to state. . . Rashi is answering the question: It has already been stated elsewhere, “Three times a year. . .” [So why is the mitzvah repeated here?] (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). But it seems to me that this is what Rashi means: Since the Festivals depend on working with the grain —  חג האביב חג הקציר חג האסיף — and during <i>shemittah,</i> harvesting the grain and gathering it into the house are forbidden, we might think that the Festivals, too, do not apply. Thus, our verse tells us otherwise. 
  The males among you. Rashi says  הזכרים (males) to tell us that  זְכוּרְךָ with a <i>melupum</i> has the same meaning as  זָכָר with a <i>kamatz</i> (and both mean “male”). And he says “among you” to tell us that the suffix of  זְכוּרְךָ is a substitute for  בך (among you) rather than a substitute for  שלך (belonging to you). [Rashi knows this] because a son does not “belong” to his father like  ביתך ושדך . Thus,  זְכוּרְךָ means the males who are among you and your nation. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Do not slaughter the Pesach korbon. . . Rashi says “Pesach <i>korbon</i>” where the verse says  דם זבחי to tell us that here,  זבחי (“My sacrifice”) refers only to the Pesach <i>korbon</i> and not the <i>Chagigah korbon.</i> And Rashi says “On the fourteenth day of Nisan” to tell us that this prohibition applies only on the 14th of Nisan and not the rest of the year. And he says “Until you <i>remove</i> your <i>chametz</i>” whereas the verse says  על חמץ , because  על חמץ literally means on top of the <i>chametz.</i> Therefore he explained, “Until you <i>remove</i> your <i>chametz</i>” [from your possession]. 
  Away from the Altar. Meaning, [do not leave the fat away from the Altar] when its blood was cast on the Altar during the day. For then, if the fats are left on the floor, i.e., away from the Altar until dawn, they become unfit because of  לינה (remaining overnight). (<i>Megillah</i> 20) 
  All night. Rashi means that the verse, “It is the burnt-offering on the fireplace, on the Altar all night. . .” (Vayikra 6:2) does not teach that after morning arrives, one may no longer burn the offering on the Altar. Rather, it teaches that if the offering was brought onto the Altar even a moment before dawn, it is fit to be burnt there also after dawn. We need not ask: If so, why do we need two verses, [this verse and “. . .on the fireplace”]? The answer is: “. . .on the fireplace” comes mainly to teach a mitzvah: we should bring the offerings onto the Altar from the time of sunset and leave them there all night so they will be burnt well. By the way, we also learn that if they were up on the Altar’s wood-pile [before dawn], they are fit to be burnt on the Altar even after dawn — as is implied by this verse, “You must not allow to remain. . .” With this, all the difficulties of <i>Re’m</i>’s are resolved. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Even during the seventh year bikkurim is obligatory. In some texts of Rashi, [the obligation of <i>bikkurim</i> in the seventh year is not mentioned.] It is written only, “‘The first fruits of your land.’ A man who, upon entering his field. . .” And so write Re’m and <i>Gur Aryeh</i> that [those texts are correct, because] during the seventh year there is no mitzvah of <i>bikkurim.</i> This is because a person cannot declare, [as is required when bringing <i>bikkurim</i>]: “And now, I have brought. . . from the land that You have given me” (Devarim 26:10). For the land was not given to him in the seventh year; rather it is ownerless, for all [to eat its fruits]. 
  He ties a reed around it to identify it. . . [Rashi knows this] because if not, how can he know which are his first fruits and which are not? 
  Only from the seven species. This is learned through the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> of  ארץ ארץ (Menachos 84b). Rashi had to explain this so we will not object that people will have to constantly search the forests and fields for all species in order to find the fruit that ripened first, in order to bring it as <i>bikkurim</i>. 
  From the fact that you find in a number of places in the Torah. . . [Rashi explains this] so that you will not object: Since it is written  גדי עזים , perhaps this constitutes a <i>binyan av</i> (prototype), and teaches that wherever it says  גדי , it means  גדי עזים (goat). Therefore Rashi explains that we find  גדי עזים in other places, so it is a case of  שלשה כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין (three verses which teach the same thing, do not make a <i>binyan av.</i>) And even according to the opinion that two verses can make a <i>binyan av,</i> here since there are three verses [all would agree that] there is no <i>binyan av.</i> 
  
  Verse 20
  
  For I will not go up among you. Although Moshe Rabbeinu nullified this decree, as it says, “My Presence <i>will</i> go [with you]” (Shemos 33:14), the decree nevertheless returned in Yehoshua’s time — as [the angel] said [to Yehoshua]: “I, the prince of Hashem’s legion, have now come” (Yehoshua 5:14). See Ramban. 
  My Place has already been set up in line with it. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it should say: “that I have prepared <i>for you</i>.” Whereas “I prepared” standing on its own means [that God prepared] for Himself. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  As Onkelos translates it: “I will oppress.” [Rashi says this so that] we will not explain it as in, “You will bundle ( וצרת ) the coins in your hand” (Devarim 14:25). 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Their idols. [Rashi is saying that  תהרסם refers to their idols] but not to those who worship them — just as  כמעשיהם , written just before it [which refers to the people’s deeds but not the people themselves]. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  If you act according to My will. In other words, the whole verse refers back to “You must serve Adonoy, your God. . .” (v. 25). It is saying, so to speak: “Serve Adonoy, and then I will bless your bread and your water. . . and no woman will suffer miscarriage. . .” Otherwise, it would not make sense. For the Torah would not state that no woman will suffer miscarriage, without stating the condition of “if you do My will.” Thus, we must say that the whole verse refers back to “You must serve Adonoy. . .” 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  The hornets did not cross. . . [Rashi says this] so you will not ask regarding what he explained, “It. . . would strike them. . . and they would die,” and say that this cannot be — for Yehoshua fought against them seven years! Thus Rashi explains that “the hornets did not cross. . .” 
  
  Verse 29
  
  Is to be understood as  ותרבה עליך . You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain here as he does later in Parshas Eikev (Devarim 7:22) on the verse, “Lest the wild animals multiply against you”? [For there he said,] “But behold, if they do the will of God then they need not fear the beasts. . . Rather, [the verse implies that] God knew they are destined to sin.” It seems that [Rashi did not say so here because] it is written here, “Lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field multiply.” This implies that the verse is explaining that the many beasts are a result of the desolation of the land, [rather than being an allusion that they are destined to sin]. Another answer: Here it is written (v. 20), “Behold, I will send an angel. . .” on which Rashi explained, “Here they are foretold that they are destined to sin.” So Rashi does not need to explain this point again here. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  And you will drive them away.  ותגרשם . In other words, [Rashi is explaining that] this is in future tense, and that [the suffix] is plural. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  This (the usage here) is actually  אי . . . Rashi is answering the question: The word כי can convey only one of four meanings:  אי (if),  דלמא (perhaps),  אלא (but), and  דהא (because). But it does not convey  אשר (that). [So why here does it convey  אשר ?] Rashi answers that this  כי conveys the meaning of  אי , which is the same as  אם . And we often find that  אם conveys  אשר , for example  אם תקריב , “That you will offer. . .” (Vayikra 2:14). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  On the 4th of Sivan. . . [Rashi knows this] because afterwards it is written (v. 3), “Moshe came and told the people. . .” and Rashi explains that Moshe told it to them on that same day. [And that verse goes on to say that Moshe told them] “all the words of Adonoy.” And Rashi explains that this is the command to separate from their wives. And Rashi explained earlier, in Parshas Yisro (19:9—10), that the mitzvah of separation was on the 4th of Sivan. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  The command to separate [from their wives] and the setting up of boundaries. [Rashi knows this] because it says afterwards (v. 4), “He arose early in the morning, and built an altar beneath the mountain,” and that must have been on the 5th day, as Rashi explained earlier in <i>Parshas Yisro.</i> Therefore, what he told the people was one day earlier, on the 4th day, as Rashi explained above that the mitzvah of separation was told to them on the 4th day. The <i>Re’m</i> was puzzled by this, for in Gemara Shabbos (86a) it is clear that according to all opinions, Moshe told them the mitzvah of setting up boundaries on the 3rd of the month, and they separated from their wives on the 4th. Yet from Rashi here, we see that both these mitzvos were on the 4th. The <i>Re’m</i> left this unresolved. The <i>Gur Aryeh</i> writes that the <i>Re’m</i> did not analyze this sufficiently. For [these mitzvos] were surely told to them on the 3rd of the month, but the actual separation was only on the 4th of the month. He brought a proof for this; see what he wrote there. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  On the fifth of Sivan. Rashi writes this to inform us that Moshe’s ascent to the mountain with Nadav and Avihu and the elders, to receive the Torah, was on the day following this: the 6th of Sivan. [Thus, Rashi is explaining it] not like R. Yosei, who said that it was on the 7th. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  The first-born. The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes that sacrifices were offered by the first-born [not only now, before the Giving of the Torah, but even afterward,] until the <i>Mishkan</i> was actually constructed. This is true even though the Levites were chosen right after the sin of the Golden Calf [to take their place]. This is different from the <i>Re’m’s</i> approach; see what he wrote there. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  An angel came and divided it. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it should first say that Moshe divided it, and then say that he took half of it. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  From Bereishis till the Giving of the Torah. . . Therefore it is called [“<i>the</i> Book,”] with  ה"א הידיעה , because it is referring to what was mentioned before (v. 4), “Moshe wrote down. . .” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  The meaning of sprinkling. The word  זרק is an expression meaning the same as as in, “And I will sprinkle ( וזרקתי ) purifying water upon you” (Yechezkel 36:25). But it does have the meaning as in, “And let Moshe cast ( ויזרוק ) it heavenward” (Shemos 9:8), which means actual throwing. 
  Onkelos translates it [literally]: “He cast it on the altar . . .  And not actually on the people, for it is written, (24, 6) “sprinkled on the altar.” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  They intentionally looked and intently gazed. . . This means that they intellectually perceived, as Rashi explains on the next verse: [ היו מסתכלין בו בלב גס ]. But it cannot mean actually looking, because it is written (33:20), “For no man can see My Presence and live.” And they became liable for death because [through this “looking”], they entered past their designated area. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  All 613 commandments are . . . in the Ten Commandments. [Rashi knows this] because it says, “[The Torah and the commandment] which <i>I</i> have written in order to teach them.” This cannot refer to the Torah scroll<i>,</i> because that was written by Moshe, not Hashem, as it says (Devarim 31:24): “When <i>Moshe</i> finished writing the words of this Torah in a book, till they were completed.” Thus we must say that this verse speaks of [God’s writing] the Ten Commandments, [which contain all the 613 mitzvos]. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  When he left the camp. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, how were the elders here [outside the camp]? Only Moshe and Yehoshua left the camp as it is written (v. 13), “Moshe and Yehoshua, his attendant, set out.” 
  And remain here with the rest of the people in the camp. . . With this, Rashi resolves many issues [that could arise with the verse]. He explains that the word  שבו does not mean literally [“to sit”]; rather it means “to remain.” Also, he explains that  בזה refers to a place (the camp) rather than to a certain object that [the verse] hints to. Also, he explains that the elders should not remain by themselves but with the rest of the people, since the elders did not leave the camp [as explained previously]. And Rashi also informs us that they remained in camp in order to render decisions for the people. Otherwise, [Moshe’s order to the elders to remain] in the camp would be no different from [the order given to] all of Yisrael [who also remained in the camp]. 
  He was Miriam’s son. . . Rashi is answering the question: How could Moshe say that Aharon and Chur will be with them [to render decisions, but they are only two and a court of law needs three judges]? If two render a decision, their judgment is invalid. And even according to the opinion that holds that their judgment is valid, such a court would be called insolent. Therefore Rashi explained that Chur was Miriam’s son. This forces us to say that the two would not judge together, since they were relatives. For according to all views, a first generation relative and a second generation relative are unfit to judge together. Rather, it must be that each one rendered decisions on his own, acting as an expert judge who is permitted to render decisions alone. 
  Whoever has a lawsuit. [Rashi is explaining that] the word  מי is not implying a question. Also, [he is explaining that]  בעל דברים does not mean  בעל לשון (man of speech). Accordingly, we need to add the word  שהוא (who is) in between  מי and  בעל , [in order to complete the verse] so it will say: “ מי שהוא בעל דברים (whoever has a lawsuit).” Rashi hints to this by adding the word  שיש (who<i>ever has</i>). 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  The mountain. [If the six days that are referred to in the verse took place before the giving of the Ten Commandments, we must say that the cloud covered the mountain] but not Moshe. For right afterward it says, “He called to Moshe” to proclaim the Ten Commandments. And it cannot be that Moshe was covered in the cloud all six days, because Moshe was going up and down the mountain each day as it says in <i>Parshas Yisro.</i> But according to the opinion [that Rashi mentions later,] that holds that “He called to Moshe” took place <i>after</i> the Ten Commandments were given, at the beginning of the forty days, then  ויכסהו הענן refers to Moshe — because “whoever intends to enter the camp of the Shechinah. . .” 
  To proclaim the Ten Commandments. All agree that “Come up to Me to the mountain” (v. 12) took place <i>after</i> the Giving of the Torah, as Rashi wrote previously. Nevertheless, the Torah then went back to relate [the events] according to the order [in which they happened]. First it writes the story of the Ten Commandments, and afterward the story of [Moshe going up to receive] the Tablets (v. 18): “. . .Moshe remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights.” 
  Requires seclusion for six days. This is like the Kohein Gadol who requires seclusion for seven days before Yom Kippur, since he enters the Kodesh HaKodoshim. Surely this [need for seclusion] applies as well to one who enters the camp of the Shechinah. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   לי means for the sake of My Name. Everything in the world is His, [therefore it cannot mean, “so it will be Mine.”] 
  Setting aside. Rashi is explaining that here it does not mean “lifting up,” as it does in (29:27): “The shoulder of the <i>terumah</i>-offering.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Let them set aside from their possessions a donation. Rashi is answering the question: Since <i>terumah</i> here means “setting aside,” why does it not have a fixed amount, like <i>terumah</i> taken from grain and wine? Therefore Rashi explains that it is “from their possessions,” [not from their fields,] so it has no fixed amount. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: If <i>terumah</i> here means “setting aside,” why does the verse not state first <i>what</i> they are to set aside, and then write, “Have them take for Me a <i>terumah</i>-offering”? Thus Rashi adds the words, “From their possessions.” [This answers also a second] question: Does the verse not imply that the <i>terumah</i> should come from their very selves, as it is written, “A <i>terumah</i>-offering from every man”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Let them set aside from <i>their possessions</i> a donation.” This answers everything. “Have them take for Me a <i>terumah</i>-offering” indeed means “set aside,” as Rashi said, “Let them <i>set aside</i> from their possessions.” And we need not say that the <i>terumah</i> comes from their very selves, because it comes from their possessions. Accordingly, “From every man” is not to be read with the preceding phrase, “<i>terumah</i>-offering,” but with the phrase following “Whose heart impels him.” And since we might think that this setting aside is obligatory, Rashi tells us that it is a good-will donation, as implied by, “Whose heart impels him to generosity.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  The same root as  נדבה . . . It is as if it said  ינדבנו , for the  נ is represented by the <i>dagesh</i> of the  ד . 
  The expression  תרומה is mentioned here three times. . . However, Scripture explains here only the <i>“terumah</i>offering for the<i> mishkon</i> — the donation of each individual.” Otherwise, [if it does not allude to three different <i>terumah</i>-offerings,] why does it say  תרומתי and  וזאת התרומה ? Scripture should have written:  ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו זהב וכסף ונחשת . 
  The thirteen items mentioned. . . [Question: Are there not fifteen items listed here? The answer is:] Greenish-blue, dark red and crimson are all of wool, just with different dyes [so they count as one]. Another answer: The onyx stones and filling stones were brought by the leaders of the tribes, while Rashi is counting what the public donated. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  The rest of the silver which was brought. . . [Rashi is answering the question: If] the silver was [obligatory, it was] different from the other donations. So why is it written here? We cannot say that the people brought silver twice, and the silver here was a goodwill donation like the other items, whereas the [obligatory] half-shekel was different silver. This is not so, for Rashi says: “We do not find in all the works of the <i>mishkon</i> that any more silver was needed.” Rashi answers: In fact there are two types of silver [included here. One was obligatory, and the other, not]. Although we said that no more silver was needed, this is not a difficulty, because “the rest of the silver which was brought voluntarily, they made from it the holy vessels,” [and it was not significant enough for Scripture to mention expressly]. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Wool that is dyed with the blood. . . Rashi explains  ארגמן , too, as dyed wool. His proof is from the priestly vestments, which were made of these four types —  תכלת ,  ארגמן ,  תולעת שני ,  ושש — yet in Scripture it is not written what material they were. But in Yechezkel 44:17, regarding the <i>kohanim’s</i> garb on Yom Kippur, it is written: “They shall wear vestments of linen, and vestments of wool shall not come upon them.” This implies that during the year they wore linen <i>and</i> wool vestments, but no other material. About the <i>kohanim’s</i> pants it is written (39:28):  ואת מכנסי הבד שש משזר . Since  בד is linen,  שש is linen. And if  שש is linen, then  תכלת must be wool, [because the <i>kohanim</i> wore only linen and wool]. It cannot be the other way around because we see clearly that  שש is linen. And since  תכלת of the priestly vestments is [dyed] wool, also  ארגמן [and  תולעת שני ] must be types of dyed wool, [as all the dyed types were assumedly of the same material. But  שש was not dyed]. 
  Hair of goats. . . [Rashi knows this] because if it meant <i>skins</i> of goats, Scripture should have written  עורות עזים [as it is written for rams’ skins in next verse]. It is written “goats” instead of “goats’ hair” because they spun the threads from [the hair that was attached to] the goats themselves. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  [They were dyed] red after they were tanned. [Rashi knows this] because if they were naturally red, it should say  אֲדוּמִים , [not  מְאָדָמִים ]. 
  A kind of animal which existed only. . . [Question: Does it not say in Yechezkel 16:10 that they made shoes from <i>tachash</i> leather all the forty years that they were in the desert? The answer is:] The tachash of Yechezkel was a species of impure animal called <i>Tala Ilan</i> (Shabbos 28a).
  Where did they get it in the desert. . . [Rashi asks this] because it is written in Yeshaya 41:19: “I will place cedar, acacia. . . in the desert,” implying that in the future it will be so, but now it is not. (<i>R. Noson</i>) 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Clear olive oil. . . Rashi is answering the question: [Since it says, “Oil”,] why does it need to say, “For the lamp”? Thus he explains: Because this is “<i>clear</i> olive oil,” and is unique. They needed to pluck the [sun-ripened] olives from the top of the tree for it, as stated in Menachos 86a. Rashi is also answering the question: Why in fact did this oil need to be different from ordinary oil used for lighting? He answers: “To keep the lamp burning constantly,” so it will not go out. 
  Made for the purpose of anointing the vessels of the mishkon. . . [Rashi is answering the question: Since it says, “Spices,” why does it need to say, “For anointing-oil”? Thus] he explains: The spices of the anointing-oil were not just any spices but specifically “pure myrrh, fragrant cinnamon, etc” (30:23). Moshe must have explained to them that the needed spices were pure myrrh, etc., but the verse is brief and simply writes, “For anointing-oil,” without giving the details. <i>Re”m</i> elaborates; see there. 
  As is explained in the parsha  ואתה תצוה . . . I.e., there it says to burn them evening and morning. The spices themselves are not explained in  ואתה תצוה but in  כי תשא . <i>Re”m</i> elaborates; see there. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Filling-stones for the breastplate. . . Rashi explains this so we will not say that both the onyx stones and the filling stones were for the <i>eiphod</i>, and similarly both were for the breastplate. <i>Re”m</i> explains that the breastplate, too, had onyx stones. But since “filling stones” include <i>all</i> the breastplate’s stones, the “onyx stones” that are stated pertain only to the stones for the <i>eiphod.</i> 
  
  Verse 8
  
  They shall make for the sake of My Name a house of holiness. Rashi is answering two questions. First: Why is it written “for Me,” when everything already belongs to Hashem? Second: Making a  מקדש seemingly implies making any holy item, not necessarily one with an interior. If so, how then can it be written, “And I will dwell in their midst”? How can Hashem’s Presence dwell in something without an interior? Rashi answers: “‘They shall make’ — for the sake of My Name.” And it shall be “a house” — with an interior. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Here, the form of the mishkon. . . Rashi is saying that we should not think it means, “According to all that I show you later” when you actually make the <i>mishkon.</i> Rather, it means, “that I am showing you <i>here</i>.” [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should say, “That I <i>will</i> show you.” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Bezalel made three arks. . . You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps there was but one ark, gold-plated inside and out as goldsmiths generally make? <i>R. Noson</i> answers: This <i>parsha</i> is about the making of the ark which held the Tablets. On the Tablets was [written the Ten Commandments, containing] all the letters of the <i>alef beis</i>. This is because the [Ten Commandments on the] Tablets contain the entire Torah. This <i>parsha</i> of the making of the ark alludes to this by using all the letters of the <i>alef beis,</i> which comprise the Torah, except for the letter  ג which is missing. Why? Perforce, there is no need for the allusion of the  ג because the ark itself was made up of three ( ג ) layers. An alternative answer: The Torah writes the extra word  תצפנו to teach that afterward, its upper rim should be covered with gold. Thus we may infer that there were three arks placed one within another, thereby making it covered on the inside and on the outside — except for the upper rim, which was covered afterward. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Two on one side and two on the other, along the width of the ark. . . But if it was two on each side along the <i>length</i> of the ark, two people carrying it could not walk next to each other, since the space between [the poles] was only an <i>amoh</i> and a half. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Forever. [Rashi knows this] because it is written at the beginning of the verse that the poles must remain in the ark’s rings. Why then write afterward that they must not be removed?
  
  Verse 16
  
  The Torah, which is testimony. . . [Question:] It is written in 40:20, “He took the Testimony and placed it into the ark,” and Rashi explains it means the Tablets. Furthermore, the Torah was not written until the end of the forty years. [Why then does Rashi here say that “Testimony” means the Torah?] It seems the answer is: In our verse it is written, “The Testimony that I <i>will</i> give you,” in the future tense. But, the Ten Commandments were already given! Although the Tablets were broken, Moshe assumedly wrote it down or he prayed that the Tablets be restored to their original form. Perforce, our verse refers to the entire Torah, which would be written later. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Its thickness was a tefach. [Rashi knows this] because in Vayikra 16:2 it is written  פני הכפורת , and  פנים (face) is at least a <i>tefach</i> in size. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  They had the likeness of a child’s face. [Rashi knows this] since it is written , כרובים we [could] read it as  כרביא , i.e., “like a youth.” Onkelos [elsewhere] translates “child” as  רביא , and the  כ of  כרובים means “like.” 
  The extreme ends of the cover. These are the ends of the ark’s length, not its width. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, one cherub’s back would be to the Tent of Meeting, which is improper. Furthermore, it is written (v. 22): “I will set My meetings with you there, and I will speak with you from above the cover.” If the back of one cherub was toward the Tent of Meeting, its body would be an obstruction between the Tent of Meeting and the place from where Hashem’s voice emanated. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Rather, spread open. . . Rashi is saying that the term  פורשי (lit. “shall spread”) means  פרושי (are spread open). [Rashi explains that the term is in the passive form] because the cherubim are not living beings [and cannot spread their wings]. It would have been sufficient for Rashi just to explain that  פורשי means  פרושי . But because  פורשי refers to the [action of the] cherubim, while  פרושי refers to the [state of the] wings, therefore Rashi says: “Do not make <i>their wings</i> lying” [i.e., in a closed position] — to show that the term refers to the wings. 
  So that there be ten tefachim in the space. . . [Rashi knows this] because the <i>mishkon</i> was one-third the size of the <i>mikdosh,</i> which was thirty <i>amohs</i> high. The cherubim reached until the top one-third of its height, i.e., ten <i>amohs.</i> But the <i>mishkon</i> was ten <i>amohs</i> high, the equal of sixty <i>tefachim</i>. Therefore the cherubim needed to reach until [the top] one-third [the height] of the <i>mishkon</i>, i.e., twenty <i>tefachim.</i> The ark was one and a half <i>amoh</i> or nine <i>tefachim</i> high, and the cover was a <i>tefach,</i> totaling ten <i>tefachim</i>. [The wings were spread and occupied a space of ten <i>tefachim</i> above the cover, reaching a height of twenty <i>tefachim</i>]. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  The letter  ו' here is superfluous. . . Although [in our Torah scrolls] it is not written  ואת , in Rashi’s Torah scroll it was written with a  ו , according to [his] Masoretic tradition. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Houses — for the purpose of being receptacles. I.e., the rings are for the purpose of being receptacles for the poles. 
  As Onkelos translates it: “a place for the poles.” <i>Re”m</i> explains that “A place for the poles” means that the rings are to be receptacles, and the receptacles are for the poles — not that the rings are for the receptacles <i>and</i> the poles. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  It was bent upwards at both ends. . . Meaning: the dough was erect at each end, like walls, with space in the middle between them. It was like an upside-down  ח . 
  Lined up with the edge of the shulchan. . . The showbread was right at the edge of the <i>shulchan,</i> so that the thickness of the <i>shulchan</i>[’s tabletop] was lined up with the [“face” of the] showbread. And similarly at the other edge. As a result, “It has a ‘face’ ‘looking’ in two directions towards the sides of the House (i.e., <i>mishkon</i>).” This was because the length of the table was placed to the width of the <i>mishkon.</i> I.e., to the width of the [section of the] Tent of Meeting that was outside the Curtain [of the Holy of Holies]. 
  A golden form and a metal form were made for it. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Its dishes” (in the plural form), implying there were two dishes. And so with all [the table’s accessories, written in plural]; they all were multiple. 
  Were as a covering over it. . . Meaning: the half tubes that were inserted between one bread and the other acted as sort of a covering over the bread. Although the verse makes no mention of bread, “By which they shall be covered” refers to that which needs to be covered, i.e., the bread. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  Because Moshe had difficulties with it. Hashem saw that Moshe had difficulty, therefore He showed him a menorah of fire. But Moshe still had difficulty, so He said, “Throw the mass into the fire.” This was done by Betzalel. Thus in actuality, the menorah was made by itself, although Hashem never expressly told Moshe that it would be made by itself. This is learned from the word  תיעשה , which is written with a  י , rather than  תעשה . <i>Re”m</i> elaborates here, but I was brief. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  Their shine would be turned towards. . . Rashi is saying that the phrases of, “They shine toward it,” and, “Its lamps shall be lit,” do not teach the manner in which the menorah shall be lit because this <i>parshah</i> is not speaking about the manner of lighting the menorah but on how it should be constructed. Perforce, the verse is instructing the craftsman to make its lamps in a way that the lamps will shine toward the middle branch once the menorah is lit. This is accomplished by making the mouths of the six lamps, which are on the six branches, turned towards the middle one. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  The pattern which I show you. . . Rashi is explaining that this is an elliptical verse. Scripture should have written: “Observe <i>the pattern</i> <i>which I show you,</i> and make them like the pattern. . ..” [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what is the meaning of, “Make them like the pattern”? Scripture never mentioned that Hashem showed Moshe their pattern! Rashi adds, “See here on the mountain,” in order to explain that the verse’s phrase of “On the mountain” refers to the mountain [in general] which Moshe was standing on, not to a specific place on that mountain. Otherwise, [if it referred to a specific place,] the verse would not say, “That will be shown to you <i>on the mountain</i>,” which is general, but rather the verse would specify the exact place on the mountain. [If Rashi had said only,] “Here,” it would have implied a specific place. [Therefore Rashi says, “Here <i>on the mountain.</i>”] (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Until God showed him a menorah made of fire. Here it is implied that Moshe made the menorah. You might ask: Did not Rashi earlier explain that  תיעשה means it was made by itself? The answer is: Even [when God showed him the menorah, as stated here,] it did not help, and it was made by itself, as Rashi explained above. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Thus you have four kinds [of material] together in each and every thread. . . Explanation: all were entwined [into one thick thread], for it is written, “Twined.” The  ו of  ותכלת has the meaning of  ב . Thus the verse conveys: “Fine linen entwined <i>with</i> greenish blue, dark red, and crimson.” It is like the  ו in  ה' שלחני ורוחו (Yeshaya 48:16), which means: “Hashem sent me <i>with</i> His spirit.” Similarly, ה' וכלי זעמו  (ibid. 13:5), which means: “Hashem <i>with</i> His weapons of wrath.” 
  Which is done through needlework. . . In which the image appearing on both sides is the same.
  A lion on this side and an eagle on the other side. <i>Re”m</i> writes: “According to [what Rashi wrote on Yoma 72b], it does not mean specifically ‘a lion on this side and an eagle on the other side.’ It just means various images. . . However, I do not know why the verse calls these various images ‘cherubim,’ if ‘cherubim’ means images of children. Onkelos translates  כרובים as  כרביא , [‘like children,’] and so Rashi wrote on 25:28, and so it says in Chagigah 13b.” But it seems to me that the <i>mishkon’s</i> drapes had only the four images of the Heavenly Chariot: man, lion, ox and eagle, [all of which are referred to as “cherubim”; see Yechezkel 10:20.] Rashi meant specifically “a lion on this side and an eagle on the other side.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  The loops of one drape [should] line up exactly opposite the loops of the other. . . The loops of one are lined up with the loops of the other, and the clasps join them together. 
  Result in the paroches being a distance of one amoh westward from the clasps. . . Explanation: the <i>paroches</i> divided the Holy of Holies from the [remainder of the] <i>Ohel Moed,</i> and stood ten <i>amohs</i> from the west side, equal to the length of the Holy of Holies. Thus, the distance from the <i>paroches</i> to the [<i>Ohel Moed’s</i> entrance in the] east was twenty <i>amohs.</i> Now, if the drapes covered the one-<i>amoh</i> width of the eastern pillars, and then covered another twenty <i>amohs</i> before reaching the <i>paroches</i> of the Holy of Holies, then the <i>paroches</i> would be one <i>amoh</i> distant from the clasps. This is because the clasps were in the middle of the [two groups of] drapes, on the [inner] edge of each twenty-<i>amohs</i>-wide group. The drapes would have to cover twenty-one <i>amohs</i> [before reaching the <i>paroches</i>]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Half of its width hung. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written (v. 12), “Half of the extra drape shall overlap the back of the <i>mishkon.</i>” Accordingly, the other half overlapped the front of the <i>mishkon.</i> 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Of the planks that remained uncovered. Rashi does not mean that the uncovered area consisted specifically of the planks. [That cannot be,] because one <i>amoh</i> [of the planks] was inserted into the sockets. Rather, the two uncovered <i>amohs</i> consisted of an <i>amoh</i> of the planks and an <i>amoh</i> of the sockets. Furthermore, only according to the <i>Beraisa</i> in <i>Maseches Midos</i> were there two <i>amohs</i> left uncovered. But according to the Gemara in <i>Maseches</i> Shabbos, [the first set of drapes] covered nine <i>amohs</i> at the back of the <i>mishkon,</i> and only the <i>amoh</i> of the sockets was uncovered. All views agree that the drapes of goats’ hair covered the sockets also. [Even] according to <i>Maseches</i> Shabbos, one <i>amoh</i> of the [goats’ hair] drapes must have covered an <i>amoh</i> of the [width of the] pillars [at the entrance], and two <i>amohs</i> were folded down over the screen of the entrance of the tent. Alternatively: one <i>amoh</i> folded down over the screen, and one <i>amoh</i> overlapped behind the <i>mishkon,</i> lying on the ground. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  For the roof made of the drapes of goats’ hairs. . . I.e., the covering went over the roof but not over the sides. [Rashi says this] because even [the covering of] the eleven drapes of goats’ hair is called  אהל (tent), for it is written (v. 7): “Make drapes of goats’ hair for a  אהל over the <i>mishkon.</i>” 
  
  Verse 15
  
  From those that were prepared and designated. . . Our verse refers to the cedar trees as “planks” because they were designated from the very beginning to become planks. “<i>The</i> planks” means “<i>the</i> [designated] cedars.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Were cut out on three of their sides. . . 1. The side [of the <i>mishkon’s</i>] interior. 2. The side [of the <i>mishkon’s</i>] exterior. [These are both sides] of the planks’ thickness. 3. The side of the planks’ width, [facing the adjacent plank. Rashi is not counting the hollow between the pegs]. 
  Their cut away sections should be exactly alike. . . This refers to the three cut sides of the pegs [see previous entry], without [additional] cuts being made in the planks [themselves, as the Ramban suggests]. Therefore it is the pegs, not the planks, that are “parallel to each other.” 
  The other is pulled more to the outside in relation to the thickness of the plank. . . For if so, the planks would not line up straight but would stand slanted. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Against the amoh thickness of the northern and southern mishkon planks. [Rashi knows this] because [the dimensions of the <i>mishkon</i>] is derived from the <i>Beis Hamikdash,</i> whose width (twenty <i>amohs</i>) was one-third of its length (sixty <i>amohs</i>). So too with the <i>mishkon</i>: its width [ten <i>amohs</i>] was one-third of its length (thirty <i>amohs</i>). 
  
  Verse 24
  
  The northern and southern sides. . . This is different from the preceding. The other planks were cut away in their width, for beauty’s sake, i.e., so that the sides of the sockets and of the sides of the planks would be even, and not jut out past one another. But for these [corner] planks it was an absolute necessity that they be [cut away] in their width, because it says: “Coupled together on the bottom.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Whether they were fixed. . . I.e., whether the rings were fixed to one of the planks which were joined together by the rings. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes: This is as opposed to the rings into which the bars were inserted, as mentioned in v. 29. Those rings were fixed, as it says in Shabbos 98. 
  The top of the corner plank. . . Explanation: the one-<i>amoh</i> [thickness of] the last plank [on the northern wall] meets up with the width of the [western wall’s] northernmost plank. And so on the south. Therefore, the ring placed in the thickness of the last plank on the northern wall was inserted into the top of the [northern] corner plank of the western side. And similarly for the southern wall. 
  The plank at the end of the northern side. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written  יהיה , which is an extra word. Perforce, the phrase of “So must it be done with the two planks” is a separate phrase, and teaches: just as all the planks have two cut-outs on top, for the rings, so shall it be with the two end planks — i.e., the end plank of the northern side, and the adjacent plank of the western side. Similarly, the phrase of “Which are at the corners” is a separate phrase, and teaches that the same is done with <i>both</i> corners: the north-west corner, and the south-west corner. In this manner, all the planks are joined with each other. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  The planks were cut out at the bottom. . . Explanation: The bottom of the plank was cut out in a way that left intact one-quarter of the [width of the] plank on one side, and the same on the other side. And the cut-out part in the middle was one-half of the [width of the] plank. [Then, the one-quarters on the sides were partially cut out, to form the pegs]. For otherwise, [if Rashi meant to <i>cut away</i> one-quarter of the plank on each side, and also to cut away one-half in the middle,] nothing would remain from the width of the plank. And what then does Rashi mean by, “Thereby forming two pegs that were similar to two legs”? 
  
  Verse 26
  
  Each section being one fourth. . . [You might ask:] Why did Rashi divide it into three sections, [and say, “Placed at three equidistant places”]? He could have divided it [more simply]: from the top of the plank to the top bar is like from the top bar to the middle bar. And from the middle bar to the bottom bar is like from the bottom bar to the bottom of the plank — thus dividing it into four sections. [The answer is:] Both sides of the top bar are equal. From the top of the plank to the top bar is like from top bar to the middle bar. Therefore, these sides are considered as belonging to the top bar. Similarly, both sides of the middle bar are equal. From the middle bar to the top bar is like from the middle bar to the bottom bar. Therefore, these sides are considered as belonging to the middle bar. Similarly, the sides of the bottom bar are equal. From it to the middle bar is like from it to the bottom. Therefore, they are considered as belonging to it. That is why Rashi divided into three sections and not four. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  He fastened them near the rings. . . Explanation: the cane sections did not cover the rings, but reached from ring to ring. Therefore, each plank needed one [set of] half canes [above and below], since each plank had two rings. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  After it is completed, erect it! I.e., this is a command to Moshe to erect the <i>mishkon</i> himself. [Alternatively,] the <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> (citing Sifri) says it means: When all the work of the <i>mishkon</i> and all its vessels is completed, erect it at one time. Do not erect each part as it is completed, rather, [erect it] all at once. 
  Before this. . . Meaning: before it is erected. Hashem had not yet shown it to Moshe, so properly speaking it should say, “. . .According to its rules as <i>will be</i> shown to you on the mountain.” Nevertheless, the verse is in the past tense form because when the <i>mishkon</i> will be erected, He will already have shown it to Moshe on the mountain. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  The paroches was ten amohs long. . . <i>Re”m</i> writes: I do not know why Rashi places its length along the <i>mishkon’s</i> width, and its width along the <i>mishkon’s</i> height. Why not the other way around, with its width to the <i>mishkon’s</i> width, and its length to [the planks’] length? Furthermore, how can the <i>paroches</i> have a long side and a wide side, when it is square? I do not know the place [of Rashi’s source]. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> answers: It seems to me that the long side of the images on the <i>paroches</i> was along the <i>mishkon’s</i> width. The direction of the images determines what Rashi calls “length.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  It states concerning the inner [altar]: “square”. . . [This interpretation is made] because the word “square” in both places is [extra and is therefore] available for a <i>gezeirah shavah.</i> For it is written here, “Five <i>amohs</i> long, and five <i>amohs</i> wide,” so why does it also say, “Square”? This shows the word is available [for a <i>gezeirah shavah</i>]. And it is available there as well. For it is written (30:2), “It shall be one <i>amoh</i> long and one <i>amoh</i> wide,” so why does it also say, “Square”? This shows that it too is available [for a <i>gezeirah shavah</i>]. Since the word is available for a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> on both sides, it may be interpreted even contrary to the verse’s plain meaning. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  The same as  כל כליו . Rashi is saying that [despite the  ל of  לכל ,] the vessels themselves are to be of copper, not the items needed <i>for</i> the vessels. [Rashi knows this] because there is nothing other than them [i.e., the vessels themselves] mentioned here. The  ל is superfluous; it is [written] for stylistic reasons. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Between the raised projections. . . Meaning: It was a little farther in [toward the altar’s center] than the four projections.
  For its hollow was filled with earth. . . In order to offer sacrifices upon it.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  From one pillar to the next. I.e., [the five <i>amohs</i>] include the width of the pillar, which was one <i>amoh.</i> You might ask: Since there were twenty pillars, and five <i>amohs</i> between pillars, does that not make [nineteen spaces, which is] only ninety-five <i>amohs</i>? But in the verse it is written one hundred <i>amohs,</i> so five <i>amohs</i> are missing! The answer is: The twenty southern pillars and the ten western pillars were set up so that the first western pillar was aligned with the southern pillars. Thus, the southern side actually had twenty-one pillars, with five <i>amohs</i> between each pillar, making one hundred <i>amohs</i>. And the same setup was on the northern side: the first eastern pillar was aligned with the northern pillars, so that the northern side actually had twenty-one pillars. However, since the corner pillars belonged to the setup of the pillars of the width and not to the length, therefore Scripture wrote [regarding the length]: “It shall have twenty pillars,” and not, “twenty-one pillars.” And so with the pillars of the [western] width: the first northern pillar was aligned with the pillars of the width, so that the width had eleven pillars and ten spaces. And so for all the sides. And [regarding the eastern side:] The enclosure’s entrance was from the fourth pillar to the eighth pillar. It was four pillars. From the first pillar to the fourth were the three pillars [of the flank], because the fourth pillar was part of the four pillars of the entrance. Thus the first flank had three spaces, totaling fifteen <i>amohs</i>. From the fourth pillar to the eighth were the four pillars of the entrance, with four spaces, and comprised the twenty <i>amohs</i> of the entrance. [It was just four pillars] because the eighth pillar was counted among the three pillars of the second flank. From the eighth pillar to the tenth were three pillars, with three spaces, and comprised the fifteen <i>amohs</i> of the second flank. Although three pillars make only two spaces, the tenth pillar did not belong to the pillars of the [southern] length. Thus, there was an extra space between the tenth pillar of the [eastern] width and the first pillar of the [southern] length. This resolves [the difficulties with] Rashi’s explanation. (<i>Re”m</i>) In fact, Rashi clearly explains this way (vs. 13-14). See there. 
   [I.e., the sockets] of the pillars. . . [Rashi is saying that the sockets belonged to the pillars,] not to the curtains. Otherwise, why is it written, “<i>It</i> shall have twenty pillars,” in the singular form, referring to the enclosure, and then say, “And <i>they</i> shall have twenty copper sockets,” in the plural form? Perforce, “they” refers to the just-mentioned pillars. 
  He made a kind of rod. . . I.e., he took a piece of wood and made it into a kind of rod whose length was six <i>tefachim</i>. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  The courtyard on the eastern was a square of fifty by fifty amohs. . . Rashi is answering the question: “fifty by fifty <i>amohs”</i> implies that the courtyard was only fifty <i>amohs</i> long, [but Scripture says it was actually one hundred <i>amohs</i> long]? He answers: The eastern part of the courtyard, in front of the entrance, was a square area of fifty by fifty <i>amohs</i>. 
  Consequently there was a space of twenty amohs. . . You might ask: The <i>mishkon’s</i> interior was thirty by ten <i>amohs,</i> and the planks were an <i>amoh</i> thick. Does that not leave a space of only nineteen <i>amohs</i> behind the <i>mishkon?</i> Similarly, the [eastern part of the] of the <i>mishkon’s</i> courtyard would not be fifty <i>amohs,</i> but forty-nine. Similarly, the northern and southern sides would be only nineteen <i>amohs</i>. The answer is: The pillars of the courtyard were an <i>amoh</i> thick, which was the same thickness as the <i>mishkon’s</i> planks. And the courtyard’s curtains were not hung inside the pillars, but on the outside. Rashi made his calculations based on measuring from the curtains, not from the pillars. 
  
  Verse 19
  
   E.g.,  מקבות. A sort of hammer. 
  A sort of copper  נגר . A  נגר is a sort of bar.
  
  Verse 20
  
  Without sediment . . . Rashi explains this, lest we ask: How can oil have no sediment? It says in Bava Metzia 40a: R. Yehudah says that even refined oil has one and a half <i>logim</i> of sediment per one hundred <i>logim</i> of oil. This shows there is no oil without sediment. Therefore Rashi explains: “As we have learned . . . ‘He lets it ripen. . .’” 
  He lets it ripen on top of the olive tree. . . Meaning: he picks the olives growing at the top of the tree, one from here and one from there, because these olives are well ripened and do not have sediment. 
  So that it would not contain sediment . . . When ground in a mill, it has sediment even if “he lets it ripen. . .” 
  He would put them into a mill and grind them . . . Because the more [oil] he extracts from the olives, the more it contains sediment. Therefore, the second oil is unfit because of its sediment. 
  But may be used for menachos . . . You might ask: How does Rashi know the second oil may be used for <i>menachos</i>? It is written: “And one-tenth of an <i>eipha</i> of fine flour, mixed with one-quarter of a <i>hin</i> of <i>crushed</i> olive oil” (29:40). Does this not imply that crushed is required [for <i>menachos</i>]? The answer is: Here it should not say, “[crushed] for lighting,” [if it is true that crushed is required in other cases as well]. Perforce, “[crushed] for lighting” is written here to exclude another case: i.e., the oil must be crushed for lighting, but not for <i>menachos.</i> Thus we learn that the second oil may be used for <i>menachos.</i> You might object: Why does it say “crushed” regarding <i>menachos,</i> [if the second oil may be used]? The answer is: Otherwise, we might think that only the [tastier] second oil may be used for <i>menachos,</i> and not the first oil. Therefore it is written “crushed” regarding <i>menachos,</i> to teach that the first oil may also be used. You might object: If so, why does it say here, “crushed for lighting”? Had Scripture omitted this, we still would know [that “crushed” is required for lighting, and not for <i>menachos</i>]. For it is written “crushed” concerning <i>menachos</i> only to teach that crushed, too, may be used for <i>menachos.</i> [We would so understand it] because if [the “crushed” of <i>menachos</i> meant that] <i>only</i> crushed oil may be used for them, but not the second oil, it would not say “crushed” at all for <i>menachos.</i> Then, we would learn from the [“crushed” of the] lighting oil and apply it to <i>menachos:</i> only the crushed oil may be used, not the second oil. [Since it says “crushed” for <i>menachos,</i> perforce it teaches that crushed, too, may be used for them, although it is not as tasty. If so, why does it say, “<i>crushed</i> for lighting”?] The answer is: If “crushed” was not written at all that it may be used for <i>menachos,</i> we would not learn it (that crushed may be used) from the oil of lighting. This is because the two cannot be compared: the oil of lighting is different because it is needed for illumination. Since a wick draws crushed oil better, crushed oil is required [so the lamp will not go out]. But for <i>menachos,</i> [we might think that] only the second oil may be used, since it is sweeter [i.e., tastier]. Therefore, the “crushed” of <i>menachos</i> comes to teach that even crushed oil may be used for them. Accordingly, it says here, “<i>crushed</i> for lighting,” to exclude [<i>menachos</i> from the requirement of crushed oil, since we might think that only the purer crushed oil may be used for them. It teaches] that for <i>menachos,</i> the second oil may also be used. When Rashi says  כתית למאור ולא כתית למנחות , [this does not mean that crushed is unfit for <i>menachos</i>]. It means that crushed is not required for <i>menachos</i>; even ground oil may be used. 
  He must kindle it until it. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written  להדליק ? [He answers:] It is written  להעלות to teach that the <i>kohein</i> should not leave the lamp as soon as it is ignited, while the flame has not yet ascended. [Rather, “He must kindle it until the flame ascends.”] 
  Each and every night may be referred as  תמיד . . . Rashi is saying that even though it does not burn during the day, only from nightfall until day, it is still called  תמיד . For we see there are other things that are not continuous and unending, yet they are called  תמיד , as Rashi proves. So it is with the “flat-pan <i>mincha,</i>” about which it is written  תמיד , although it is only from day to day, and is divided even during the day itself: “Half was done in the morning and half in the evening” (Vayikra 6:13). Nonetheless, it is called  תמיד because it is ongoing without end. 
  But the  תמיד that is said of the show-bread. Rashi is saying that the term  תמיד that is stated by the show-bread, etc., is no proof that the term  תמיד can be applied to something that is without end but with breaks. [We might think it is a proof] because the old bread is removed and then the new bread is arranged on the table. [But, this is no proof] because the bread lay on the table continuously from Shabbos to Shabbos. There was no break even when the bread was removed to put the new bread in its place. For as the <i>kohanim</i> pulled off [the old bread], other <i>kohanim</i> placed [the new bread]; both breads being separated by less than a <i>tefach.</i> 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Put into it the amount necessary for it to burn. . . Rashi is answering the question: The verse seems to say that the amount required for arranging the lamp is from evening to morning, i.e., Aharon should arrange the lamps all night long. If so, when does he kindle them? Therefore Rashi explains: “Put into it the amount necessary for it to burn,” i.e., Aharon should arrange the lamps so they will <i>burn</i> from evening to morning — not that he should arrange them from evening to morning. There can be no fixed amount [of oil] because it depends on the wicks. If they are thick, even a whole <i>log</i> will not suffice. [So how did the Sages estimate that the amount of oil is a half a <i>log?</i>] The answer is: Each lamp had a holder for the wick, and the holder allowed only wicks of a certain thickness. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  After the work of the mishkon is completed. But not now. [Rashi knows this] because they were taken [as <i>kohanim</i>] only by means of the garments and the <i>mishkon,</i> as it is written (v. 4): “Make sacred garments for your brother Aharon. . .” [See Rashi on v. 3.] (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  The term  כהונה denoting “service.” Accordingly,  לכהנו does not mean to make him a <i>kohein,</i> but “to bring him into the service by means of the garments.” Rashi added the phrase, “So that he shall be a  כהן unto Me,” in order to connect  לכהנו with  לי . Rashi did not comment on  לכהנו לי in v. 1, where it first appeared, because he wanted to explain  לקדשו , and say that it means  לכהנו . Accordingly, our verse conveys: and how should Aharon be sanctified ( לקדשו )? By bringing him into the service ( לכהנו ). 
  
  Verse 4
  
  It is thus made for the lower. . . I.e., toward his feet, and not toward his head. Rashi’s explanation, “Its width being <i>the same as</i> the width of the back of a man,” should not be to be taken literally, because Rashi explains in v. 6 that its width was “somewhat more” on each side. 
  We learn from this that the eiphod is a kind of belt. I.e., that the <i>eiphod</i> is a garment [which is belted on]. 
  “And he put the eiphod on it”. . . I.e., on the coat, as we see later. 
  Because it adorns him and ornaments him. . . Rashi is saying that <i>eiphod</i> means an ornament. [Here,] it adorns the <i>kohein.</i> The term  חֵשֶב that is written dealing with the priestly garments means a belt. 
  While he likewise translated  מעילים (robes). . . Robes are surely a garment. So the <i>eiphod,</i> too, is a garment. 
  This was a type of shirt. . . Rashi is referring to the word  מעיל in the verse, and explains it. 
  A kind of a domed hat. Rashi is explaining that we should not think  מצנפת is what is called <i>hoiben</i> in Yiddish, which lies flat on the head. For a <i>hoiben</i> does not have a dome. The verse’s  מצנפת is rather a type of hat that is hard, with a dome-like space inside. 
  Which Onkelos translates for us as “hats.” Rashi is saying that the  מגבעת of ordinary <i>kohanim</i> is also a  מצנפת , as it says in Yoma 25a: “The appointee took the  מצנפת off one of the <i>kohanim.</i> . .” Thus we see that  מצנפת is called  מגבעת for ordinary <i>kohanim,</i> and [here] it says  מצנפת in place of  מגבעת . Since  מצנפת means  מגבעת , and Onkelos translates  מגבעות as “hats,” it follows that  מצנפת is a kind of hat. Sometimes it is called  מצנפת because it wraps the head like a  צניף (turban), and sometimes [i.e., for the ordinary <i>kohanim</i>] it is called  מגבעת because it covers their [whole] head like a hat, [however, the  מצנפת of the <i>Kohein</i> <i>Gadol</i> was smaller, in order to leave room for the  ציץ ]. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  From the terumah that was sanctified for My Name. . . Rashi is answering the question: The term “sacred garments” implies that the garments are sacred as soon as they are made. But they are not sacred until they are worn, because they are made for Aharon and his sons, [not for Hashem]!? Rashi answers, “From the <i>terumah. . .</i>” [I.e., they are called “sacred” because they are made from the funds of <i>terumah</i> which was collected from the people for the sake of Hashem, so they became sacred immediately]. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Shall receive from the donors. . . Rashi is explaining that the pronoun “they” does not refer to “Aharon and his sons,” mentioned immediately before, but to the “wise at heart” in v. 3. The word  יקחו [usually] conveys legal acquisition, which is unrelated to craftsmanship and the artisans who perform their work. Therefore Rashi explains that here,  יקחו means “they shall receive” the materials in order to make the garments. And because there is no receiver without one who gives, Rashi adds: “From the donors the gold. . .” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  The settings were put in their ends in front of his shoulders. . . I.e., the settings were put on the shoulder-straps in the place where the <i>shoham-</i>stones were fixed. 
  Similarly the two ends of the chain. . . Explanation: These are the golden braided chains. After they are inserted in the rings [of the breastplate], each chain has two heads; they are thus double. [They are attached to] the settings of the <i>eiphod,</i> which are actually the settings on the shoulder straps [of the <i>eiphod.</i> They are so called] because everything connected to the <i>eiphod</i> is called <i>“eiphod” —</i> and the shoulder straps are connected to the belt of the <i>eiphod.</i> 
  Lying on each other. . . Explanation: The rings of the shoulder straps were on the outside and the rings of the breastplate were on the inside. He then  מרכסן , i.e., joins them with a thread of greenish-blue wool, so the breastplate will not move about and separate. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  In the order that they were born. . . Rashi is explaining that we should not understand  כתולדותם like other instances of  תולדות in Scripture, i.e., [listing in the order of] who begat first, or whose number of offspring [is greater]. Therefore Rashi says that here,  כתולדותם means: “In the order that they were born.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  The work of one skilled with stones. . . Rashi is explaining that  חרש is connected to  אבן , so that  חרש means “one skilled with stones.” Rashi says “stones” instead of “stone” [as in the verse], to tell us that “stone” means the category of stones, not a particular stone. [Rashi knows this] because one is not called skilled [by being skilled] with just a single stone. 
   כגלף דעזקא (like the engraving of a signet). . .  כגלף means “like the engraving,” and  עזקא is a signet ring. Rashi is telling us that  פתוחי חותם means the engraving on a ring used for making seals, [not the seal that it makes. Rashi knows this] because engraving is done on the ring itself, not on the seal. He says, “<i>Like</i> the engraving,” so we will not think it means to carve the engravings of an actual signet ring into the stones. It rather means to carve writing that is “precise,” similar to the letters carved into a signet ring which are obvious and precise. So too should be the names of the Bnei Yisrael that are carved into the stones. 
  Same here as  בשמות . Meaning: engrave the stones with names. [Rashi explains this] because the stones are not engraved on the names [as the verse seems to say, but the other way around]. 
  By gold settings. . . Meaning: the verse conveys that the stones are “surrounded by settings,” not that the stones surround the settings [as the verse seems to say]. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  The tribes written before Him. . . [Meaning:] not that Aharon should bear them in order to remember Hashem. This is because the engraved names make the tribes to be remembered, not Hashem to be remembered. Why did Rashi not explain this on, “As remembrance stones for the B’nei Yisrael”? Because there, “remembrance” is connected to “stones.” But here it is written, “Their names before <i>Adonoy.</i> . . as a remembrance,” which implies that God will remember. . . (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Only part of their purpose. . . I.e., for the chains should be inserted in them. But it does not explain here that the ends of the chains should be inserted in the settings on the two shoulder straps of the <i>eiphod</i> from above. And that these chains should be inserted through the rings of the breastplate from below, so that the breastplate does not detach from the <i>eiphod.</i> (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Made for wells. . . To draw water.
  Rather, like those made for incense receptacles. . . They are sacks tied onto a small rope. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Its promise is true. . . Meaning: anything that one was not sure whether or not to do, would go to [and inquire from] the breastplate, which had all the letters of the <i>alef beis. </i>If Heaven wished to tell him to do it, letters would stand out and form a word. In that word was written whether or not to do it. 
  Here it is used in the sense of making its words clear. . . Meaning:  משפט conveys three possibilities, one of which is “the handing down of the verdict.” The term  משפט which is part of the name given to the breastplate refers to “the handing down of the verdict,” i.e., clarifying the matter. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  As was the order of their birth so was the order of the stones. . . I.e., it was in the order by which the matriarchs [started to] give birth. Whoever gave birth first, [<i>all</i> her sons came before those of the next matriarch]. This disregards the order that the tribes were actually born — Reuvain, Shimon, Leivi, Yehudah, [Dan, Naftali] — as the  תולדותם of the <i>eiphod</i> is ordered. Therefore here, Yissachar and Zevulun [who are sons of Leah, the first matriarch to give birth,] come before Dan and Naftali. As a result, Dan’s name was written on the <i>leshem</i> stone, as it is written in Yehoshua (19:47): “They called [the town of] Leshem ‘Dan,’ like the name of Dan their father” [see Rashi on Shoftim 18:29]. <i>Re”m</i> elaborated, and I summarized. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  To fasten them by means of its rings. . . [Rashi explains that  על החשן means “<i>for</i> the breastplate”] so we will not think that they [the chains] must be made <i>on</i> the breastplate, and may not be made elsewhere and then attached. For as Rashi explains on v. 23, [they are made elsewhere and then they are attached]. 
  Is the same as “chain” in Mishnaic Hebrew. Accordingly, it means to make chains that will serve as “roots.” 
  
  Verse 23
  
  We should have written at the beginning. . . Perforce, it means “<i>for</i> the breastplate,” and “you must also interpret it this way regarding the chains.” 
  
  Verse 24
  
  In parshas Pekudei they are not mentioned twice. I.e., in the section of the breastplate, the  עבותות are not mentioned, [only the  שרשרות ]. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  Of the eiphod. . . As opposed to “toward the robe.” [Rashi knows this because if “Toward its face” meant toward the face of the <i>kohein,</i> what would it be as opposed to? The shoulder-straps of the <i>eiphod</i> are necessarily toward the face of the <i>kohein who wears them.] </i>
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Where it is attached to the eiphod. . . I.e., to the belt of the <i>eiphod.</i> 
  Above the belt. . . Explanation: the shoulder straps were joined along their width to the belt, and the rings were placed above their [point of joining], right at the [upper] edge of the belt. Consequently, the bottom of the breastplate, [which was tied to the rings,] reached the top of the belt. [Rashi knows this] because it says, “Above the <i>eiphod’s</i> belt.” 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  Put on over it as a wrap around. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, a question arises: The robe and the <i>eiphod</i> are two different garments. Why then is it written, “The robe of the <i>eiphod,</i>” implying it is one garment? 
  
  Verse 32
  
  So that it will not be torn. . . Rashi is saying that in the verse’s plain meaning,  לא יקרע comes to explain what preceded it. [I.e., its opening should have a border <i>so that</i> it will not tear<i>.</i>] However, since it does not say  שלא יקרע , we may infer that it is a negative precept on its own. In all the cases that Rashi brings, the proof is the same, [i.e., it does not say  שלא .] 
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  Subject to the death penalty at the hands of Heaven. Rashi is telling us that the verse does not come to teach that he will not die; rather, it teaches that this negative precept bears the death penalty. [Rashi is further telling us] that “So that he will not die” applies to all the priestly garments, not just to the robe of the <i>eiphod</i> which preceded this warning. When Rashi says, “While lacking one of these garments,” he means any of the aforementioned garments. In Zevachim 17b, this law is derived from the verse, “And the priesthood [i.e., the garments] shall be for them an everlasting statute” (29:9), [which is interpreted to mean:] “When their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them. When their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them.” Thus they are subject to the death penalty, since a non-<i>kohein</i> who serves is subject to the death penalty (Sanhedrin 9:6). See more on this in <i>Re”m.</i> 
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  At these three places. . . Since the threads were inserted through holes, each was doubled, and three threads became six. The middle thread was in the middle of the diadem. One of its strands was on top of the diadem, on the outside, and the other strand was under the diadem, opposite the first thread. Therefore it says here, “Set it <i>on</i> a greenish-blue cord,” but elsewhere it says, “Put <i>over</i> it a greenish-blue cord.” The middle thread holds it so it does not fall; otherwise it would slip downward. 
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  These four garments and no more. . . Rashi is saying that it does not mean we should make an undershirt, sash-belt, turban and pants only for Aharon’s sons, and not for Aharon himself. [This is not so] because these garments were made for Aharon as well. Rather, it means that among Aharon’s eight garments, these four should also be made [for his sons]. 
  
  Verse 41
  
  Those that are mentioned regarding Aharon. . . Not only the undershirt, turban and sash-belt written just before this. 
  Mentioned later concerning all of them. . . I.e., [the verse about] pants refers both to the <i>Kohein Gadol</i> and to ordinary <i>kohanim.</i> 
  Those that are mentioned in connection with them. Which are: the undershirt, turban and sash-belt, along with the later-mentioned pants. 
  Aharon and his sons. . . Rashi is coming to tell us that [this term  אותם ] does not refer to the garments, as does the term  אותם at the beginning of the verse. Rashi says, “With the <i>anointing</i> oil,” to tell us that it does not mean with olive oil or something else. [Rashi knows this] because it is written in the next section: “Take the garments. . . and take the <i>anointing</i> oil, etc.” (29:5-7). 
  And that is the expression of filling the hand. Explanation: When one’s hand fills a glove it acts as a sign that he has control over that to which he has been appointed. This is because a person has control over that which he holds in his hand. And holding on with a full hand gives one more control than holding it with only part of his hand. Therefore, he who takes control over something does so by “filling the hand.” 
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  Into the Sanctuary as well as into the mishkon. [<i>Gur Aryeh</i>:] I.e., when the Temple will be built, the term “Tent of Meeting” will refer to the Sanctuary. [<i>Re”m</i>:] The term “Tent of Meeting” refers only to the <i>mishkon.</i> However, the Sanctuary is learned from the <i>mishkon</i> by <i>kal vachomer.</i> (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>:) This is not so, for it says clearly in Shavuos 16: “If it said <i>mishkon</i> and did not say <i>mikdosh,</i> I would say. . . And if it said <i>mikdosh</i> and did not say <i>mishkon,</i> I would say. . .” This implies that we cannot learn one from the other either by <i>kal vachomer</i> or by <i>bameh matzinu.</i> Therefore, it seems that Rashi learned [the law of the Sanctuary] from what the Toras Kohanim in <i>parshas</i> Shemini says about [the prohibition of drinking] wine [before entering] in the Tent of Meeting: “I know only for the Tent of Meeting [in the desert, that it is prohibited]. From where do I know that it applies also to [the <i>mishkon</i> in] Shiloh, and to the permanent <i>beis hamidkash</i>? Thus it says, ‘An everlasting statute.’” This is what Rashi meant when he wrote here: “‘An everlasting statute for him’. . . it is a decree for the immediate present and for future generations.” 
  One who performs. . . lacking any of the garments [is liable to] the death penalty. [This verse is needed] because  ולא ימות (28:35) teaches only about the six garments that preceded it, not about the pants and the diadem that follows it. Question: why were these two garments not written earlier, and included with the others, so that  ולא ימות would apply to them all? And then, our verse  ולא ישאו עון ומתו could have been omitted. Perhaps the answer is: [Our verse is needed] so we will not think that the <i>kohein</i> is liable only when he has all eight garments, and serves without wearing them all. But if he does not have all eight, for example, if they were lost or defiled, we might think that he may serve with the remaining garments, in order that the <i>korbon</i> will not be suspended due to lack of garments. Thus it repeats here  ומתו to teach that one who serves while lacking garments [for whatever reason] is liable for the death penalty. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  They are of two different  גִזְרוֹת . . . I.e., two different word roots. One is  קיחה and the other is  לקיחה . 
  To atone for the act of the calf. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is a bull taken, and not another type of animal? [Rashi answers as he does] because “bull” means the same as “calf” whenever it is not written “less than a year old” [for the calf. Question: How can a bull be used for this purpose?] An accuser cannot become a defender. <i>Re”m</i> answers: That rule applies only to service done inside [the <i>ohel moed</i>], not to service done outside [in its courtyard]. Later, in <i>parshas</i> Tzav, I will explain this further, God willing. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Is referred to later on. . . Rashi wishes to prove that the “unleavened bread” mentioned here is actually “scalded dough.” The term “bread” comprises all types, so Rashi explains that here, “bread” means “scalded dough.” His proof is from (Vayikra 6:13), “This is the offering of <i>Aharon and his sons.</i> . . on the day that <i>he</i> is anointed.” [This verse raises a question:] What does, “The day that <i>he</i> is anointed,” teach us regarding his sons? [The answer is:] The installation of an ordinary <i>kohein</i> into his service, in all generations, is being compared to the <i>Kohein Gadol’s</i> daily offering<i>.</i> This offering is called <i>chavisin,</i> and is of “scalded dough” — as it is written, “You shall bring it well scalded in boiling water” (ibid. v. 14). Therefore, on the day of installation of Aharon’s sons, who are ordinary <i>kohanim,</i> there is an offering is of “scalded dough.” [See Menachos 78a and Rashi there.] The “scalded dough” is bread whose dough is completely scalded in boiling water, then baked in an oven, and then fried in a pan. The “loaves” and “wafers” are only baked in an oven. The “loaves” are mixed with oil while still flour. The “wafers” are first baked and then anointed with oil in the shape of the Greek letter <i>chi,</i> and the rest of their oil is consumed by the <i>kohanim.</i> Some say that the wafers are repeatedly anointed until the whole <i>log</i> of oil is used up. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Brought of each kind. . . [The number ten] is learned from the number of loaves of the thanksgiving offering: just as there are ten loaves there, so too here. It is clear that the thanksgiving offering has ten loaves [of each kind of bread], because it is written about its bread: “From it, he shall bring one from each offering as <i>terumah</i>” (Vayikra 7:14). And the Gemora in Menachos 78b interprets as follows: It says <i>terumah</i> here, [regarding the bread of the thanksgiving offering,] and it says <i>terumah</i> there, [in Bamidbar 18:26,] regarding <i>terumas ma’aser.</i> Just as there, it is one from ten, so too here, one from ten [is brought as <i>terumah.</i> Thus we learn that the bread of the thanksgiving offering has ten loaves of each kind.] 
  While they were still flour, oil was poured into them. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture describe each differently, rather than saying “mixed” or “anointed” for all of them? 
  
  Verse 3
  
  To the courtyard of the mishkon. . . But not to the altar. [Rashi knows this] because only one of every kind was actually offered up, as it is written below in vs. 23-25. Rashi adds, “On the day when it will be erected,” to say that it should be done then, and not beforehand. The <i>mishkon</i> was actually erected only on <i>rosh chodesh Nissan, because during the [preceding] seven days of installation, Moshe built and dismantled it every day. </i>
  
  Verse 4
  
  This is immersing the entire body. And not sanctification of the hands and feet. [Rashi knows this] because it is written  בַמים (<i>the</i> water), implying the water known from elsewhere. This is <i>mikveh</i> water, which contains forty <i>se’ah.</i> Consequently, it means immersing the body. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  He puts oil on his head. . . I.e., a drop of oil. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  This procedure of installation. . . Question: In Zevachim 17 and Sanhedrin 28 this verse is interpreted to mean that they acquire priesthood by wearing the garments, [and the wearing of garments is apparently not referring to the installation procedure]: when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them. And when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them and they are like non-<i>kohanim.</i> [Why does Rashi explain it as referring to the installation procedure?] The answer is: We already learned from, “These garments must be worn by Aharon and his sons” (28:43), that if they lack one of the priestly garments [and perform the service,] they are liable for the death penalty [since they are like non-<i>kohanim;</i> see 28:35]. Therefore, Rashi holds that we must explain our verse here according to its plain meaning, not according to its Halachic exegesis [as it is interpreted in the Gemara]. Otherwise, the prohibition to serve without priestly garments would seem to be written twice. 
  By means of these things. I.e., by means of the things written afterward: “Bring. . . Slaughter . . .” [Rashi is explaining that] the installation procedure is not a separate matter from the things written afterward. 
  Installation and the appointment to the priesthood. Since  מילוי ידים always means installation, Rashi tells us to what they were installed. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  In the courtyard of the mishkon. . . As stated in <i>parshas Tzav. It does not mean literally in the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, since sin offerings were slaughtered north of the altar, [while the Tent’s entrance was to the west]. The verse rather means “opposite the entrance.” </i>
  
  Verse 12
  
  At the top, actually on the “horns.” Explanation: He may not do as with the burnt offering and all the other sacrifices, standing below [on the ground] and casting the blood onto the lower half of the altar’s wall below the horns [which protruded from its upper corners]. 
  The remaining blood. [Rashi knows this] because he puts blood also on the horns. If so, how does it say, “Pour <i>all</i> the blood”? Perforce, it conveys: “All the <i>remaining</i> blood.” 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Also take some of the liver. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written in Vayikra 9:10: “The lobe <i>from</i> the liver,” implying he should take a bit of the liver along with the lobe. In our verse,  על הכבד means  עם הכבד i.e., <i>with</i> the liver. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  We find no other “outside” sin-offering. . . Question: Is there not another “outside” sinoffering that was burnt, namely, the calf sinoffering of Vayikra 9:11? The answer is: Rashi means that there is no other besides those of the installation procedure. The calf sin-offering was also part of the installation procedure, as it was the beginning of Aharon’s installation as <i>Kohein Gadol.</i> [It was the first sacrifice that Aharon himself offered.] Thus, “No other. . . besides this one” is not to be taken literally. It means: “no other besides this one and those similar to it.” 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  With a vessel. He holds the basin. . . [Rashi knows this because] if we think it means [to put the blood] with his finger, we should note that it says  וזרקת [literally: “You shall throw”]. How is this done? Perforce, “He holds the basin. . .” 
  But other korbonos... Including this one.
  
  Verse 17
  
  With its cut up pieces. . . [Rashi says, “In addition to the <i>other</i> pieces,”] rather than, “In addition to the pieces,” because the intestines and legs are among its pieces. That which Rashi said before — “With its cut up pieces” — seemingly implied that the intestines and legs are not among its pieces. Therefore Rashi writes [in clarification], “In addition to the <i>other</i> pieces.” We need not ask: How does Rashi know that  על means “with”? Perhaps it means literally [“on”]. For the answer is: It is written  על נתחיו ועל ראשו . This raises a question: if the intestines and legs are “on” the pieces, how can they be “on” the head? And if they are “on” the head, how can they be “on” the pieces? Therefore Rashi explains, “<i>With</i> its cut up pieces.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  “It is pleasing to Me. . . Not that the fragrance itself is pleasing to Him. [Rashi knows this] because it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I was hungry I would not tell you [to feed me], for Mine is the world and its fullness.” [Alternatively], Rashi is answering the question: Does not the burning of meat and bones produce a terrible odor? Therefore he explains, “It is pleasing to Me. . .” (<i>Devek Tov</i>) 
  From the word  אש . . .  אשה is an adjective describing  עולה . It is so described because all the limbs of the  עולה are put in fire.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  [ בהן means:] “the thumb” — and on the middle joint. [Rashi knows it is the middle joint] because it is similar to the  תנוך , which is in the middle of the ear. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  This refers to the fat of the small intestines. R. Akiva and R. Yishmael disagree over this: one says it is the fat of the small intestines, and one says it is the fat of the stomach. 
  With the other parts to be burnt. Nor do we find anywhere that the <i>terumah</i> separated from the bread of a  שלמים sacrifice is burnt, like this one is burnt. The <i>terumah</i> is always given to the <i>kohanim.</i> Here however, it was a temporary injunction. 
  It is “perfect” in every way. Scripture thereby teaches. . . Explanation: The  מלואים written here is the same as  שלמים written elsewhere. It is called  מלואים because anything that is  מלא (full and complete) is  שלם (perfect). That is why  שלמים is called as it is.  שלמים means complete in every way. Here the verse uses the term  מלואים , rather than the usual  שלמים , because “Scripture thereby teaches that the completion-offerings were  שלמים sacrifices.” In other words, [it teaches that  שלמים ] are completed and filled in every way: “They bring about peace to the altar, and to the one who performs the service and to the ‘owners’.” 
  
  Verse 23
  
  From the scalded kind. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Loaf of oiled bread,” indicating that much oil is put in it. This is the “scalded dough,” for its amount of oil equals that of the loaves and wafers together. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  Both participated in the waving. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Place all these things upon the hands of Aharon. . . and you shall wave them.” If they are on Aharon’s hands, how could Moshe wave them? Yet it is written, “<i>You</i> shall wave them.” Perforce, they both waved. 
  He brings it back and forth. . . [Rashi knows this] because  תנופה means waving. Whereas bringing it up and down is learned from  ואשר הורם (v. 27), since  הרמה is upwards. And one cannot bring up without lowering [afterward, thus we learn bringing it down as well]. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  After the earlier ram. Rashi is saying that the burning of the parts to be burnt from the  שלמים sacrifice came <i>after</i> the placing of the burnt offering on the altar. I.e., we should not think that  על העולה means to place the parts to be burnt from the  שלמים sacrifice, with its shoulder and loaves, on top of the burnt offering and burn them all together. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  And the waving of the breast and shoulder. . . [Rashi is explaining that] it does not mean to sanctify the actual breast and shoulder spoken of here. [Rashi knows this because] they were already waved and uplifted. Then the shoulder was burnt and the breast was given to Moshe as a portion, and they have no further level of sanctity. Perforce, [“Sanctify the breast. . . and the shoulder. . .”] was written for generations, as Rashi explains: “That there will continue to be practiced the uplifting and the waving of the breast and shoulder of the  שלמים offerings. However, not insofar as burning them is concerned, but instead: ‘They shall be Aharon’s. . .’” 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Whoever follows him in his exalted position. I.e., to be <i>Kohein Gadol</i> in his place, for an ordinary <i>kohein</i> is forbidden to wear the <i>Kohein Gadol’s</i> eight garments. 
  To be put in a high position by them. . . [Rashi knows this] because  משיחה [in its usual sense of “anointing”] does not apply to garments. Anointing is not done with garments [but with oil].
  By means of the garments. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written (v. 9): “Gird them. . . and bind turban-like hats for them and then the priesthood shall be for them an everlasting statute.” But if their garments are not upon them, they are like non-<i>kohanim.</i> 
  
  Verse 30
  
  [They must be] consecutive. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say “seven days”? A <i>Kohein Gadol</i> must wear these garments <i>every</i> time he serves, after which he removes them [until the next time]. Perforce, it refers to his seven days of installation — which are consecutive. 
  One of his sons who will rise up in his place. . . Rashi is telling us that [ תחתיו מבניו ] should be understood in reverse order, as  מבניו תחתיו , thus meaning: “He who serves<i> — </i>one of his sons — who will rise up in his place to the high priesthood.” 
  Prepared to enter the innermost part. . . See Yoma 73a. Perforce, it means “the innermost part.” This is because the “Tent of Meeting” mentioned here cannot refer to the <i>mishkon,</i> like it does everywhere else in the Torah, since every<i> kohein</i> is fit to enter the <i>mishkon.</i> So Scripture would not identify [a specific <i>kohein</i>] by saying one who is fit to enter the Tent of Meeting. Perforce, “Tent of Meeting” refers to “the innermost part.” <i>Re”m</i> [who did not understand why Rashi said this,] overlooked the above Gemora. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Who can fill his position. . . [Rashi knows this] because in Vayikra 16:32 it is written  ואשר ימלא את ידו , which teaches: when he can fill ( ממלא ) his father’s place, [he should be appointed]. 
  A participle — the one actually doing service. . . This is because the term  הכהן must be connected to  תחתיו מבניו . For if it is connected to  ילבשם , and means, “The priest shall wear them,” then  תחתיו would be without meaning. i.e., it would not be referring to anything. But since  הכהן and  תחתיו are connected, this shows that [regarding Aharon and his sons,] the term  כהן is “a participle — the one actually doing service.” For if the term  כהן mentioned here means someone with a prominent position, as in the following verses —  מדין  כהן (2:16),  כהן און (Bereishis 41:45),  בני דוד כהנים (Shmuel II 8:18) —  תחתיו would not follow it. It is not idiomatic to say  המלך תחתיו , or  השר תחתיו , but rather  המלך אשר יהיה תחתיו , or  ימלוך תחתיו . Therefore, [if  הכהן meant someone with the prominent position of “priest,”] the verse would be elliptic. [However, if  הכהן means “the one actually doing service,” and it is as if it said  המשרת , then  הכהן connects smoothly with [the next word,]  תחתיו . Therefore Rashi says: “It is for this reason that the mark of the intonation is a  תביר , which connects it to the next word,” and not to the preceding word  ילבשם . This is because a  תביר does not [necessarily] connect to [the preceding mark of]  דרגא . See <i>Kitzur Mizrachi.</i> 
  
  Verse 31
  
  In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written in Vayikra 6:9, “In a sacred place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting.” 
   These shlomim were Holy of Holies. [Rashi knows they were not like regular <i>shlomim</i>] because otherwise, why does it say, “A non-<i>kohein</i> may not eat thereof” (v. 33)? Sacrifices of lesser holiness, such as [regular] <i>shlomim,</i> may be eaten by all! 
  
  Verse 32
  
  The entire courtyard is referred to in this way. [Rashi knows] it does not mean literally at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting because why should these offerings be different from all other <i>korbonos</i> that are Holy of Holies, which are eaten [anywhere] in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting? 
  
  Verse 33
  
  Through which atonement was achieved. . . “strange” and objectionable. I.e., everything strange and objectionable that Aharon and his sons did was atoned for them through this ram of the completion-offering and this bread. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, [if  כֻפַר referred to Aharon and his sons, and not to everything “strange and objectionable”,] it should say  אשר כֻפְרו בהם (plural). 
  By means of the ram and these breads. [Rashi is explaining that] Aharon and his sons became established into the priesthood by means of properly <i>performing</i> the ram and bread offerings, not by the previously mentioned <i>eating</i> of them. 
  By means of these  מלואים -offerings. . . Rashi is explaining that  לקדש אותם [should be understood as if it] is missing a  ו , [and means  ולקדש אותם  ]. Otherwise, it would convey that their installation is what sanctifies them for the priesthood, but this is not so. Rather, performing the  מילואים -offerings causes both their installation in the service and their sanctification for the priesthood. 
  Holy of Holies. . . I.e., [a non-<i>kohein</i> is forbidden to eat] from <i>every</i> kind of offering that is classified as Holy of Holies, not only from these offerings. [Rashi knows this] because Scripture gave a reason for the prohibition of “A stranger may not eat thereof,” [saying: “For they are sacred.”] This implies that the prohibition applies to all [offerings with similar sanctity]. 
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  Scripture now repeats. . . critical. . . Explanation: from what was written before would lead us to say that these things are a mitzvah to do, but failing to do everything stated would not invalidate them as <i>kohanim</i> and their service would be valid. Therefore Scripture repeats, to teach that [each thing] is critical. 
  With these korbanos every single day. Rashi says this so we will not think it is sufficient to do it once, and we should divide it into seven parts, every day doing one part of these actions which sanctify them. Rather, on each of the seven days we must do all the actions and <i>korbonos </i>which are stated regarding this. 
  
  Verse 36
  
  I would know only something that is offered for their sake. . . Otherwise, why does it say: “Offer a bull for a sin-offering <i>each day</i>”? It is already written (v. 35), “Seven days shall you install them,” and [the <i>korbonos</i> of] their installation consists of the bull for a sin-offering and the two rams. 
  Atonement for the altar was necessary. . . Rashi is saying that [according to the Midrash,] it does not mean atonement from acts that are “strange and objectionable,” as with the atonement of Aharon and his sons (v. 33) — for that meaning does not fit here. 
  All anointings are in the form of  כי .  כ"י stands for  כ"ף יונית (a Greek <i>chaf</i>). It has the shape of our  נ . 
  
  Verse 37
  
  Such as an animal used for bestiality. . . All these were disqualified before being brought into the courtyard, and are unfit [for the altar]. 
  For example. . . overnight . . . taken out . . . ritually unclean. . . All these were disqualified only after being brought to the courtyard. “Overnight” means the blood was left overnight, rather than being cast on the altar on the day the animal was slaughtered. The same is true if its flesh or parts to be burnt were left overnight. “Taken out” means the blood, flesh or parts to be burnt belonging to a burnt offering, sin offering or guilt offering that were taken outside the curtains [that enclose the <i>mishkon’s</i> courtyard]. “Slaughtered. . . outside the time” means that when slaughtering the sacrifice, the <i>kohein</i> had in mind to do one of the following things on a day when this is forbidden: 1. burn the parts to be burnt 2. burn its limbs 3. eat its flesh. “Outside the place allotted for it” means that when slaughtering the sacrifice, the <i>kohein</i> had in mind to eat its flesh outside its allotted place, i.e., outside the curtains [that enclose the <i>mishkon’s</i> courtyard] or outside the wall [that encloses the <i>Beis Hamikdosh</i>]. 
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  Forty-three and one-fifth eggs. [Rashi knows that it is of an <i>eipha</i>] because it states in Bamidbar 28:5: “And a tenth <i>of an eipha</i> of fine flour as a meal-offering.” An <i>eipha</i> is three <i>se’ah,</i> and a <i>se’ah</i> is six <i>kav,</i> and a <i>kav</i> is four <i>log,</i> and a <i>log</i> is six eggs. Thus an <i>eipha</i> is 432 eggs, a tenth of which is 43.2 eggs. 
  For the bowls. . .  ספלים means bowls, as in (Shoftim 5:25): “In a majestic bowl ( ספל ).” 
  From there it runs down into the crevices. . . the altar. . .. The  שיתין are orifices in the altar’s foundation, as in (Tehillim 22:3): “When the foundations ( השתות ) are destroyed.” 
  
  Verse 41
  
  This refers to the minchah. . . I.e., we should not think that this <i>minchah</i> is like other <i>menachos,</i> which are not entirely consumed on the altar. For then [we would mistakenly conclude that] “For a pleasing fragrance” — which conveys that the whole offering ascends to God — refers only to the sheep of the burnt offering and not to the <i>minchah.</i> 
  
  Verse 42
  
  That is where I will set it. . . I.e., the two phrases “Meet with you” and “Speak to you” are not two separate matters. Therefore Rashi skips the word  שמה , [which seemingly separates it into two matters], so that the word  שם at the end of the verse will suffice [to convey the meaning]. 
  
  Verse 43
  
  I will meet with them by speaking, as a king. . . Rashi explains “By speaking” because the verse does not mention in what way Hashem will meet with them. Rashi then answers the question: [If so,] why is it not written, “I will speak”? He answers: “As a king who sets a meeting place where he will speak with his servants.” In other words, it is customary for a king to set a place to speak. Therefore the verse says simply, “I will meet,” without [needing to specify,] “I will speak.” 
  The mishkon. I.e., the <i>mishkon</i> will be sanctified by My <i>Shechinah</i> resting in it. Rashi is saying this even according to those Sages who hold that “Where I will meet with you” (v. 42) refers to a special place in the <i>mikdosh,</i> namely, the copper altar. All agree that [in our verse,] “it will be sanctified” applies to the whole Tent of Meeting, i.e., the <i>Shechinah</i> will rest there. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  To raise up on it burning. . . [Rashi knows this] because it does not say  מזבַח as it does with  מזבַּח העולה (38:1). Consequently,  מזבֵּחַ is not connected with  מקטר קטרת . It can connect only if we add the word  להעלות (to raise up), so that it conveys: “An altar which is in order to raise up on it burning incense.” This is as Rashi explains: “Burning — smoke of incense.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Here it has the meaning of “corners”. . . Although everywhere else it means “side.”
  Since the verse states: “on its sides” ( על שני צדיו ) . . . Therefore we may infer that  צלעותיו does not mean “sides,” which is why Rashi does not explain  צלעותיו the usual way. Rashi adds the phrase, “On its two corners which are at its two sides,” so we will not think that על שני צדיו  comes to explain  צלעותיו . I.e., [we should not think]  שני צדיו and  שתי צלעותיו are the same. Rashi also parenthetically explains that “on its sides” means “<i>at</i> its sides.” This is because the corners are at the sides, not on top of them. 
  The making of these rings. Rashi is saying that  והיה refers to [the implied word]  מעשה , which is missing from the verse. Otherwise, [if it refers to the rings themselves,] it should say  והיו (plural). 
  The ring itself will be. . . [Rashi is saying:] it does not mean that the rings will be for houses <i>and</i> for poles. Rather, the rings will be houses, and the houses are for the poles. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Lest you say that it should be somewhat drawn away from being exactly opposite the Ark. . . Rashi is explaining why it is written, “In front of the covering,” after it already said, “In front of the <i>paroches.</i>” It is because the <i>paroches</i> traversed the whole width of the <i>mishkon. </i>Therefore we might think that the altar was in front of the <i>paroches</i> not right in the middle; the altar was rather drawn towards the northern or southern wall. Therefore Scripture adds, “In front of the covering. . .” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Every single day. He burns one pras. . . This means half a <i>maneh</i> in the morning and half a <i>maneh</i> in the evening, making a full <i>maneh</i> every day. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Upon this altar. But on the copper altar, you may bring it. 
  Neither burnt-offering nor meal-offering. . . Rashi is explaining that the  לא at the beginning of the verse refers also to the burnt-offerings [and meal-offerings]. It means, “And neither burnt-offerings nor meal-offerings.” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  For the uncleanness of the mikdosh and its holy things. I.e., the bull and goat of Yom Kippur atone for the following: 1. The <i>kohein</i> knows he is unclean and accidentally enters the <i>mikdosh,</i> thinking it is a regular building. 2. The <i>kohein</i> knows he is unclean and accidentally eats <i>korbonos,</i> thinking it is regular meat. 3. The <i>kohein</i> knows it is the <i>mikdosh</i> but is unaware of his uncleanness. 4. The <i>kohein</i> knows it is <i>korbonos</i> but is unaware of his uncleanness. 
  Exclusively for these things. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say here: “It is Holy of Holies”? 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  The meaning of “taking,” as Onkelos translates. . .  כי תשא is like, “Do not accept ( תשא ) a false report” (Shemos 23:1). It does not mean “lift,” as in: “Pharaoh will lift off your head ( ישא את ראשך ) from you” (Bereishis 40:19). In Bamidbar 1:2, it says about B’nei Yisrael:  שאו את ראש . [There, it indeed connotes, “Lift off their heads,”] because Hashem foresaw that He would decree against them: “In this desert they shall perish” (ibid 14:35). However, pertaining to the Levites it is written  פקד את בני לוי (ibid 3:15), since they were not subjected to this decree. 
  Do not take a head count. . . Rashi is telling us not to think it means that after you take the sum total of their numbers, then, “Each man shall give an atonement pledge.” Therefore he explains, “When you will wish. . .” Rashi is saying: when you want to know their number, let each give a half-shekel. Then you will have the half-shekels, and thereby you will know their number. But do not take a head count of them. Rashi states it in the negative, “Do not take a head count.” He does not state it [only] in the positive — “When you will wish . . . let each give a half-shekel then count the shekalim and you will know their number” — even though it so appears in the verse. Rashi thereby tells us it is not a mitzvah to count them specifically by half-shekels, so as to make the sockets [of the <i>mishkon</i> from their silver]. Giving half-shekels is merely a means to keep the evil eye from them; they may be counted also by means of something else. Half-shekels are mentioned only because they can be used for the sockets, thus achieving two purposes. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Like the one which occurred in the days of David. In Shmuel II ch. 24, David counted the people without half-shekalim. He thought the half-shekalim were a one-time decree for making the sockets of the Tent of Meeting, rather than for all times to buy from them the <i>korbonos</i>. And he thought that “Thus there will be no plague among them” means [that donating shekalim saves] from plagues in general, along the lines of, “Charity saves from death” (Mishlei 10:2). You might ask: In Shmuel II 18:1-2, when David counted the people and sent a third [of the army] with Yoav, a third with Avishai ben Tzeruya, and a third with Itai Hagiti, why then was there not a plague? Perhaps the answer is: Only when all Yisrael are counted does it cause the evil eye. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  The likeness of a coin made of fire. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written  זה , implying that God hinted to Moshe [to look at] a certain object. 
  The weight of the shekel which I set aside for you. . . Rashi is answering the question:  מחצית השקל בשקל הקודש seemingly implies they should bring a half-shekel, along with a whole shekel. But if so, Scripture should have written, “A shekel and a half”! Thus Rashi explains [that  בשקל means]: “Based on the weight” of the sacred shekel. 
  It now clarifies for you. . . I.e., the shekel was mentioned before, in <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim, but there Scripture did not clarify for us how much it is. And “it <i>now</i> clarifies for you how much it is.” 
  For an  אגורה of silver. . .  אגורה , too, means  מעה . 
  A whole shekel. . . Rashi is answering the question: First it is written  מחצית השקל . Why then is it written  עשרים גרה השקל , implying they should give a whole shekel? Rashi answers: “A whole shekel.” I.e., a whole one is twenty <i>geirah</i>, of which they give half, which is ten <i>geirah</i>. 
  One sixth was added. . . Rashi added this comment so we will not object: The verse says the shekel is twenty <i>geirah</i>, but really it should be twenty-four, for a whole shekel is four <i>zuz</i>, and a <i>zuz</i> is six  מעה . Thus Rashi explains, “One sixth was added. . .” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Here it teaches you. . . [How does Rashi know this?] Because it is written  מבן עשרים שנה , so why does it need to say also  כל העובר על הפקודים ? Perforce, because “here it teaches you. . .” The term  פקודים is used for the army, as in (Bamidbar 31:14), “Moshe was angry with the commanders ( פקודי ) of the army,” and as in (Shmuel I 13:15), “Shaul counted ( ויפקוד ) the people [of the army].” Thus, our verse uses the term  הפקודים to tell us “that no one below twenty years of age goes into the army.” Accordingly, the passage means: “When you take the count of the B’nei Yisrael to go into the army for war, they shall be from twenty years and older.” You might ask: Why do we need to be taught here [by inference] that no one below twenty goes into the army? We were already taught this [expressly]: “From twenty years old and above, all those eligible for the army” (Bamidbar 1:3). The answer is: We might think Scripture was particular [about age] only regarding obligatory wars [such as the conquest of Eretz Yisrael], but not regarding optional wars [such as the conquest of surrounding lands]. Thus Scripture repeated it, [to teach that] for optional wars also, no one below twenty goes out to war. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  So that you not be struck. . . But it does not mean to atone for your sins, like other atonements mentioned in the Torah. [Rashi knows this] because [otherwise,] why is the atonement connected to the counting? 
  
  Verse 16
  
  When they began to contribute to the mishkon. . . Explanation: The mitzvah of “When you take the count” is general, for all time. [I.e., it teaches that a head count is always forbidden]. But it does not say to count them now. However, we see from “Donate it for the work of the Tent of Meeting,” which was for the sockets of the <i>mishkon</i>, that Moshe was specifically commanded to count them before the erection of the <i>mishkon</i>. 
  Whereas the ages of the people are calculated. . . Thus, they cannot become a year older until Rosh Hashanah. And even those born [shortly] before Rosh Hashanah become a year older with the arrival of Rosh Hashanah. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  This refers back to the wash basin. Rashi is answering the question: How could they wash from the base? Thus he explains, “This refers back to the wash basin.” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  He simultaneously washed his hands and feet. . . I.e., when they wash their hands, they must wash their feet with them. [Rashi knows this] because [the extra words]  את come to add something. When it says  את ידיהם ואת רגליהם , it conveys: “‘With’ their hands shall be their feet, and ‘with’ their feet shall be their hands,” i.e., both simultaneously. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  The incense, morning and afternoon. . . Rashi [mentions burning the incense because he] holds that there is no death penalty for merely entering [the Tent of Meeting without washing,] if they do not perform service. And so it says in Zevachim 19b, that the words “for Divine service” in our verse refer [also] to “Entering the Tent of Meeting.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  In the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference. . . It seems that Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse not say, “And if they do not wash, they will die”? This is a stronger exhortation than saying, “They will not die.” Thus Rashi explains [that this indeed is the intent]: “But, if they do not wash, they <i>will</i> die, for in the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference.” <i>Re”m</i> explains: It is the way of Scripture to state the punishment that a person is liable for, not that which he is not liable for. This brought Rashi to explain, “In the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference, hence from the inference of the negative you may derive the positive.” Question: If so, is not the verse in effect saying, “If they do not wash, they <i>will</i> die”? Perhaps [the answer is:] <i>Re”m</i> indeed meant what I wrote above. 
  The outer. . . Rashi is answering the question: Since it is forbidden to enter the Tent of Meeting without washing, is it not obvious that one may not go to the [incense] altar? Therefore Rashi explains, “The outer altar.” 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Half of what is brought shall be two hundred fifty. . . [Rashi knows] it is not half its <i>measure</i>, because then Scripture should simply write, “Five hundred,” [stating its full measure]. And since it is required to be brought twice, we may infer that it has tippings of the scale. But you cannot say that  מחציתו refers back to the myrrh, conveying that the cinnamon is half the measure of the myrrh, i.e., two hundred and fifty. For if so, Scripture should simply write, “The fragrant cinnamon is two hundred and fifty,” without the word  מחציתו . Perforce,  מחציתו refers to the cinnamon [as Rashi explained]. 
  For things cannot be weighed to their absolute exactness. . . Explanation: things cannot be weighed [on opposite arms of a scale] perfectly equally, without the scale tipping. 
  That contain no spices. They are only wood.
  The amount of the total weight. I.e., we should not think that half the calamus is two hundred fifty, as it is with the cinnamon. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should write  קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה ומחצה חמשים ומאתים . But now [that  מחציתו is written only once, between cinnamon and calamus, it explains both the cinnamon and the calamus, as follows:]  מחציתו as it relates to cinnamon refers to the cinnamon itself, [and conveys: “Half the cinnamon.” Thus] its whole measure is five hundred. But  מחציתו as it relates to calamus refers back to what was mentioned above, [i.e., the cinnamon. Thus] it conveys: “The calamus is half the measure of the cinnamon,” as in total it is only two hundred and fifty. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  To coat the roots this amount would be insufficient!  סיפק  אינו means “not enough”.
  But they soaked them in water. . .  שראום means “soaking.”
  Skimmed the oil off the roots. I.e., they poured and skimmed the oil off the roots. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  And the accent’s being on the first syllable indicates this.  למעלה means at the beginning of the word.
  It is the same as  רֶקח or  רֶגע . . . I.e., it is vocalized  רֶ — unlike  רוֹגע הים , which is a verb. 
  That one absorbs from the other. . .  קופח means that one takes from the other.
  
  Verse 26
  
  Anointings were done in the form of the Greek chi. . .  כ"י means a Greek <i>chi</i>, which looks like a Hebrew  נ . 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  It is this anointing which sanctifies them. Thus the verse means, “Anoint them, and they thereby become sanctified” — not that they should be anointed and <i>also</i> sanctified. I.e., their sanctification is not a separate action. See the <i>Minchas Yehudah</i> who explains why Rashi did not explain this before, on: “All anointings were done in the form of the Greek <i>chi.</i>” 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   זה . The numerical value corresponds to the twelve logs. You might ask: Why does Rashi [explain the words of] the verse in reverse order? The answer is: [Rashi brings this explanation of  זה ] as a contradiction to the teaching of our Sages, that “the entire  שמן המשחה will be preserved for the time yet to come.” Assumedly, our Sages so interpreted because it is written  זה לי לדורותיכם , not  כזה , thus implying that the oil itself will be “to Me for all your generations.” But, [argues Rashi,] this does not prove the Sages’ teaching, because  זה teaches that there were twelve <i>logs.</i> [Thus, the Sages were interpreting Midrashically.] An alternative answer: On the contrary, Rashi is bringing a proof to the teaching of our Sages. The verse is saying: “For all your generations” will the number be represented by [the numerical value]  זה , namely twelve <i>logs</i>. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  In proportion to the measure of a hin of oil. . . Explanation: Had Scripture written only  ובמתכנתו , we would think that if he made it with the weight of these spices, he is liable even if he decreased or increased in proportion to a <i>hin</i> of oil. Therefore it is written also  לא תעשו כמוהו , to say that if he decreased or increased [the weight of these spices] he is not liable. 
  
  Verse 33
  
  From the one which Moshe blended. This was already prohibited in the previous verse. It is written again, “If he places from it upon an unauthorized person,” to teach that the punishment is <i>kareis.</i> It conveys: “He who pours it on any man shall be cut off from his people.” However, nowhere does Scripture forbid us to pour oil made according to its formula on the flesh of any man. [This is how Rashi knows it is only, “From the one which Moshe blended,”] since there can be no punishment unless Scripture forbids it. 
  The priesthood or kingdom. This refers to the <i>Kohein Gadol</i>. Even a regular <i>kohein</i> is considered an unauthorized person [pertaining to the use of the anointing oil]. And even the <i>Kohein Gadol</i> and the king themselves, after having been anointed, are considered unauthorized [pertaining to further use of the oil]. 
  
  Verse 34
  
  Including in our gatherings. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, galbanum should have been mentioned either at the beginning or at the end, but not [in the middle] among them. 
  They should be counted with us. In order that Hashem will see that even the sinners are repenting, and thus He will have mercy on us. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  So as to add an amount equal to the above. . . You might ask: How does Rashi know it means to add an amount equal to the above? Perhaps  סמים means to add two spices, like the first  סמים means. The answer is: Rashi’s proof is that it is not written  סמים סמים together, at the beginning or end. Rather, [the second  סמים ] is written here in order to add an amount equal to the above.  
  
  Verse 35
  
  Thoroughly blended shall it be. . . Rashi is answering the question: How does “Make it into. . .” apply to “pure and holy”? Something becomes pure and holy [not by what we do to it, but] by the absence of making impure and secular use of it. Thus Rashi explains: “Thoroughly blended shall it be, pure shall it be, and holy shall it be.” I.e., it shall be thoroughly blended by our making it so. But it shall be pure and holy on its own accord. 
  
  Verse 36
  
  This refers to the daily incense burning. . . Rashi is explaining that it does not mean to place some of it before the Ark as a <i>remembrance</i>; rather, to <i>burn</i> it. 
  That I will set up to speak with you. . . Rashi is explaining: And why is it called “Tent of Meeting”? Because every meeting place and time that I will set to speak with you, will be only there. 
  
  Verse 37
  
  You shall do it only for My Name. I.e., it does not mean literally [to make incense] for Adonoy, for it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I was hungry I would not tell you [to feed Me], for Mine is the world and its fullness.” Similarly with (25:2), “Have them take for Me a <i>terumah</i>-offering”; [it does not mean literally for Hashem]. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> writes that Rashi explains this here, rather than on: “This shall be sacred anointing oil <i>to Me</i>” (v. 31), because here the verses contradict each other. It is written: “It shall be holy of holies <i>to you</i>” (v. 36), and: “It shall be sacred <i>to you</i>” (v. 37). Yet it is written also: “<i>For Adonoy</i>” (v. 37). Therefore Rashi explained: “‘It shall be holy for you’. . . meaning: You shall do it only for My Name.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  To do My work. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say  קראתי שם לבצלאל — “I gave a name to Betzalel”? Therefore he explains that it means: “I have called [someone] by name to do My work.” And whom did I call? Betzalel.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  And the other wise-hearted. . . [Rashi explains this] so we will not think they were all with Betzalel, helping him. If they were, why is Oholiav specifically mentioned, above the other wise-hearted? Therefore Rashi explains as he does, saying that Oholiav helped Betzalel with all the craftwork that Betzalel did himself. But the other wise-hearted merely did the craftwork that Betzalel and Oholiav gave them to do. Accordingly, the passage reads as follows: “I have designated Betzalel. . . and I have also appointed Oholiav to be with him. Furthermore, the other wise-hearted among you, and all those I have given wisdom to, will do all that I have commanded you.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  So called on account of its pure gold. Rashi is answering the question: Does this not imply that the other vessels were not pure? Alternatively, Rashi is explaining that  טהור means “refined,” not “ritually pure.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  For it states. . . I.e., it is written immediately afterwards, indicating that they are different items. 
  And the Targum of  מכבר . . . It is translated  שרדין because it was net-work. Therefore, also  שרד means net-work. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  For the purpose of bringing up smoke in the  היכל . . .. I.e., the  ל [of  לקדש ] conveys “for the purpose of.” Rashi does not explain the verse according to its apparent meaning, that  לקדש refers back to the anointing oil as well. This is because the verse should then say  לְקַדֵש — “to render holy” — [for “to render holy” is the purpose of the anointing oil]. Whereas  לַקֹדֶש conveys that it is already holy. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Though I have charged you. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why was this section placed here?
  To exclude Shabbos. . . You might ask: Was it not explained above that Shabbos is excluded merely by placing this section adjacent to [the work of the <i>mishkon</i>]? The answer is: Above, only the public was excluded [from doing work], such as bringing the public donations. But we might think an individual may do work; therefore, Scripture had to write  אך . 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Provided there are witnesses and a warning. [Rashi knows this] because “Shall be cut off,” mentioned afterwards, is clearly a punishment by the hand of Heaven. If so, [we may infer that] “Shall be put to death” is a punishment by the hand of man. And man is executed only when there are witnesses and a warning is given. See <i>Nachalas Yaakov,</i> who explains why [is the double phrase]  מות יומת written for the punishment of death by the hand of man. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  A restful rest. . . I.e., a rest that is significantly restful. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Now He, about Whom it is written. . . This is a question: I.e., “Hashem, about Whom it is written, ‘He does not become faint’. . . [how could He attribute rest to Himself?”] 
  Attributes “rest” to Himself. . . I.e., He says that “rest” should be written about Himself. 
  Only to accustom the ear. . . This is the conclusion of the answer.
  
  Verse 18
  
  There is no “earlier”. . . [Rashi knows the sin preceded the command] because otherwise, how could Moshe have known that God reconciled Himself [to the point that they may] make the <i>mishkon</i>? For Moshe told them to contribute towards the <i>mishkon.</i> [And if the command was before the sin,] perhaps God’s subsequent reconciliation was only regarding the giving the [second set of] Tablets, about which Moshe was expressly told (34:1), “Carve out two stone tablets for yourself.” [But perhaps God no longer desired the <i>mishkon.</i>] God needed to give them the second Tablets so they would observe Torah law. God could not reject them from Torah observance because they had already converted and accepted Torah and mitzvos upon themselves. Although they went back to their evil ways [of idolatry], they were like apostate Jews, who are considered Jews in every way — certainly then the Bnei Yisrael, for they had repented, as it is written: “Bnei Yisrael [obediently] took off their ornaments. . .” (33:6). So it was only right to give them the Tablets. But God might not have reconciled Himself also for making a <i>mishkon</i> to dwell in, for the <i>mishkon</i> shows a special love. Perforce, [the sin preceded the command]. 
  He could not have learned it all. . . Therefore, God gave it to him as a bride [is given to a groom] — i.e., as something that he acquires as his. 
  The statutes and laws. . . Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “When He finished speaking with him.” What were the matters that God had finished speaking with Moshe? It cannot be the command of erecting the <i>mishkon</i>, as the golden calf incident preceded it, as Rashi explained above. Therefore Rashi explains that He finished speaking with him the statutes and laws in <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim. <i>Re”m</i> writes: This section connects [chronologically] to the end of <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim, where it is written (24:18): “Moshe came into the midst of the cloud and. . . remained on the mountain for forty days.” [Everything in between — the command of the <i>mishkon</i> and the section about Shabbos — was actually after the golden calf incident. And that which Rashi says here, “The statutes and laws in <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim,”] is not in accordance with R. Yishmael. For he says that the  ו of  ואלה המשפטים indicates a connection to that which preceded: just as the Ten Commandments were given with thunder and lightning, and said in the assembly of all Israel, so too were the laws [of <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim presented. However here, Rashi explains that these laws were said to Moshe alone, during his forty days on the mountain.] 
  This teaches that Moshe. . . Rashi inferred this because it is written, “Speaking <i>with</i> him,” rather than, “Speaking <i>to</i> him.” Perforce, “This teaches that Moshe would. . .” 
  It is written  לחת to indicate. . . [Since  לחת is written without a  ו , it connotes that] it was like there was only one Tablet. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Six hours have already come. . . I.e., the word  בשש connotes  באו שש (six have come). 
  And taught us the way. . . Rashi is answering the question: First it is written  עשה לנו אלהים אשר ילכו לפנינו . Accordingly, it should then say  כי זה משה האיש שהלך . This way it would convey: “Moshe, the man who once went before us, has now died. Therefore, make us gods who will go before us.” Why is it written  אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים ? Therefore Rashi explains that  אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים is not to be understood literally; rather it means that Moshe taught us the way to go. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  The meaning of unloading a burden. . . Thus Rashi later explains that  את נזמי means  מן  נזמי . This is because the  ת [of  ויתפרקו ] makes it a reflexive verb [denoting “they unloaded themselves”]. But had it said  ויפרקו , [a transitive verb,] Rashi would not need to explain  את נזמי as  מן נזמי . In addition, I found [an alternative explanation:] they had a small ring in their ears, on which their jewelry hung. [Accordingly, the verse means: “They unloaded the jewelry <i>from</i> the small golden rings.”] 
  
  Verse 4
  
  He had come out of the foundations. . . Explanation: when the Israelites were in Egypt, building Pisom and Ramseis, and they failed to complete the amount of work they were told to do, the Egyptians came and took their children, put them into the wall being built, and placed stones around them and on them — thereby completing the amount of work. Moshe said to Hashem: “Master of the World! Why should the children be punished by such a death?” Hashem answered: “These children will not end up good. They will go in evil ways when they mature. Better they die while they are worthy.” Moshe went and removed a child who was crushed (<i>nimach</i>) in a row being built. He was called Michah. 
  And he threw it into the melting pot and out came the Calf. Since “Arise ox” was written on it, the Calf arose, for it was a [young] ox. 
  And afterwards misled. . . Therefore it says: “These, Yisrael, are <i>your</i> gods who brought <i>you</i> up.” I.e., the riffraff said this to the Israelites. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  As it is said, “in the form of an ox eating grass”. . . This refers to the Calf. 
  He thereby saw that the Satan’s act succeeded. . . Satan caused disorder in the world at the sixth hour, and his deeds succeeded, for he achieved his aim. 
  Chur reprimanded them, they killed him. . . Explanation: Chur reprimanded them for making the Calf, and they killed him. Thus Aharon was afraid to reprimand them, lest they kill him. You might ask: Rashi explained above, “‘He built an altar’ — so as to stall them.” Rashi comments on this, “That is its plain meaning.” [Yet the midrash says, “Through my <i></i>building it and procrastinating in my work, in the meantime Moshe will come.”] If so, is the midrash not saying the same as the plain meaning? The answer is: [At first] Rashi is answering the question: Why did Aharon build a new altar? There was one already built, as it is written at the end of <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim. Thus Rashi explains, “So as to stall them. . . that is its plain meaning.” Whereas the midrash’s interpretation answers the question: Why did Aharon build the altar, and not someone else? 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  A term of harshness. . . However,  וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר is not a term of harshness, because  וידבר is followed with  לאמר . Thus,  וידבר is the general [act of speaking], and  לאמר specifies [what is spoken]. But here  לאמר does not follow afterward. And it is written  וידבר instead of  ויאמר . Perforce it is a term of harshness. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Can there be a thought of jealousy, unless it is. . . Rashi is answering the question: Was it not right for Hashem to be angry with them for having made the Calf? Perforce, Moshe meant: “Can there be a thought of jealousy. . .” But above, on  אנכי ה' אלהיך (20:2), Rashi explains [our verse differently]: “Why is it in the singular form:  אלהיך ? This was meant to give an opening for Moshe. . . This is what is meant when he said: “Hashem! Why should Your wrath blaze against Your people?’ [Meaning:] ‘It was not to them that You issued the command: You shall have no other gods, but only to me.’” Both [of Rashi’s explanations] are correct. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Formulate another plan. . . I.e., act for them, and change from a thought of evil to a thought of good. [Rashi knows it means this] because the term  ניחום always denotes [changing to] another thought. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Their father Avraham. . . [Rashi knows that Avraham “has not yet received his reward”] because otherwise, why does it say, “Remember Avraham”? He already received his reward for his righteousness, and Hashem is no longer obligated on Avraham’s account to help his children.  
  Remember Avraham who offered himself. . . [Rashi knows all this] because otherwise, why are all three mentioned? Mentioning just Avraham alone is sufficient. (<i>Re”m</i>) Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “Remember Avraham, Yitzchok and Yisrael, Your servants, to whom You swore”? [Ostensibly,] Hashem is being asked to remember what He swore, and what He swore is written in connection with Avraham, as it is written: “‘By My Self I have sworn,’ says God.” So the order of the verse should be reversed: “Remember what you swore to Your servants Avraham. . .” Thus Rashi explains: “Remember for Avraham the ten tests. . .” I.e., Hashem is being asked to remember Avraham’s righteousness, not what He swore. Then Rashi answers the question: According to this, what is there to be remembered for Yitzchok and Yaakov? Thus he explains: “If by burning. . .” We need not ask: Why does Rashi mention the ten tests for Avraham? Perhaps [the verse is referring] only to the test of burning. The answer is: Since Avraham has both merits, and neither is more excludable than the other, [therefore both can be included as the verse’s intent]. 
  Certainly a chair with one leg. Some ask: What is the logic of this argument? Moshe also has the forefathers’ merit, for he is their descendant, as seen from (Bamidbar 14:12): “I shall make you into a greater nation,” where Rashi explains, “It is not written, ‘I shall make your <i>descendants</i> into a greater nation,’ because you are descended from the forefathers.” They offer an answer: Had the people not sinned with the Calf they would have entered the Land, as Hashem promised Avraham (Bereishis 12:7): “To your descendants I will give this land.” But now that He will destroy them, we see that the sin prevented the promise to Avraham from being fulfilled. If so, how do we know the promise to Moshe will be fulfilled, that his children will be a great nation? Perhaps his children too will sin, and this promise also will not be fulfilled. And if we argue that Moshe’s merit will persevere in any case, even if his children will sin, this claim is against logic: If the merit of three forefathers did not shield them from sin and bring them to the land, certainly the merit of Moshe alone will not. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  A work of miracles. Explanation: [The letters were readable but ran in opposite directions on each side. The word  נבוב ,] for instance, was read as  בובנ . And so with all the words. The miracle was that the writing was carved through both sides, including the  ם and  ס — and with them, the middle part was not connected at any point, yet it did not fall. But the Bereishis Rabbah explains that the writing was readable in the same direction on both sides, and this was indeed miraculous. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  The foot of the mountain. Rashi is answering the question: Does “Beneath the mountain” not imply that the mountain had an interior cavity? Thus he explains, “At the <i>foot</i> of the mountain. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  He intended to test them as are women suspected of adultery. . . The reason being that he who strays after idolatry is like a married woman who strays from her husband by having relations with an adulterer, as is stated in the Midrash on Shir Hashirim 4:5 that Rashi cites. That is why Moshe tested them in the same manner as women who are suspected of adultery are tested. 
  As an idolatrous city when there are many involved. . . I.e., the death of the city dwellers is by the sword, as opposed to an individual idolater whose death is by stoning. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  How much pain did you endure. . . This is a rhetorical question: How much pain they must have caused you, that you were coerced into making them the Calf! Moshe said this to emphasize the point, that [in truth] they did not cause you any pain. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  They are always going. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written it say  כי רע הוא , [instead of  ברע ], if it refers to the Bnei Yisrael? He explains that  ברע refers to the evil way. And Rashi adds the words “they are going” because “going” is the term that is associated with “way.” And Rashi adds the word “always,” because otherwise Aharon seems to be speaking of this [specific] way on which they intend evil. But this cannot be, because if Moshe had known of this [as the verse says, “You know,”] he should have taken preventative measures at the onset, before they did evil. Therefore Rashi adds “always,” to convey that in all their deeds they are always on an evil way. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  One thing. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, the whole sin would be Aharon’s. I.e., Aharon did not say, “Remove them,” but just said, “Who has gold?” and they hurriedly removed [their gold ornaments]. 
  I did not know that this calf would come out. . . I.e., this calf came out without my forming it with an engraver’s tool. ]Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did Aharon say, “And this calf emerged”? If he threw it in the fire and shaped it into a calf with an engraving tool, obviously this calf would come out. <i>Re”m</i> writes: Scripture testifies that Aharon said, “Remove the rings of your wives” (v. 2), and that “he formed it with an engraving tool” (v. 4). If so, how could Aharon say, “I said one thing to them”? And how could he say, “I threw it into the fire,” intimating that it emerged by itself, when in fact he took the gold and “formed it with an engraving tool and made it into a molten calf” (ibid)? It seems [the answer is:] He said a lie because he feared Moshe. But this is difficult [to say], for how could Aharon, Hashem’s holy one, say a lie? See <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  “Come to me.” Meaning: he who is for Hashem, i.e., he who fears Him, should come to me. The word “come” is missing [from the verse, but implied. Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise it would be saying: he who is for Hashem and fears Him is [already] close to Me. Why would it then say, “All the sons of Leivi gathered to him”? 
  
  Verse 27
  
  “His brother” — having a common mother, and he is an Israelite. Rashi is answering the question: If the entire Tribe of Leivi was righteous, [as Rashi stated above], why does it say that each man [of Leivi] should kill his brother? He answers: “His brother — having a common mother,” for [such a brother] is not a Levite but an Israelite. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  By this act you will install yourselves. . . Explanation: Originally, the firstborn were priests to Hashem. But then they sinned with the Calf and sacrificed an offering to idolatry. Therefore you are to kill them, and you should become priests to Hashem in their stead. Rashi says, “You will install yourselves,” because  מילוי יד means installation to a position that one will hold from then on, as Rashi explained in <i>parshas</i> Terumah. 
  “For each man” amongst you will be installed [as a result of what each did] to his son. . . In connection with the actual killing, it mentions only an Israelite brother, relative and friend, [but not a son]. Nevertheless, here it says, “His son,” in order to emphasize the point. It conveys that each man would have killed even his own son to sanctify Hashem’s Name. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  Wiping away and a covering in front of your sins”. . . Explanation: Rashi holds that every instance of  בעד in Scripture means “in front of.” But here, this meaning does not fit [if  אכפרה ] means “atonement.” Therefore he explains that here,  אכפרה does not mean “atonement”, but “wiping away” and a “covering.” Accordingly, “in front of” is fitting. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  “You are the One Who caused this to happen to them. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe say, “A god <i>of gold</i>,” and not simply, “A god”? Perforce, he meant: “You are the One who caused this to happen to them.” 
  
  Verse 32
  
  From the entire Torah. . . Although [all] the Torah had not yet been given, Moshe already wrote from Bereishis until the giving of the Torah, as previously explained (24:4). Alternatively, [Moshe was referring to] the Torah he was destined to write. 
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  Here is an instance where  לך is used connected with the verb  דבור in the place of  אליך . . . Explanation:  לי ,  לך and  להם , when following  דבור , usually mean “about me,” “about you” and “about them,” [rather than “to me,” “to you” and “to them”]. This was explained in Bereishis 24:7. Nevertheless,  לך here means “to you.” [Rashi knows this] because nowhere does it say that God spoke to someone else “about” Moshe. And so with [ לדבר לו ] written about Adoniyahu (Melachim I 2:19). There too it means “to him,” not “about him.” 
  But not I. Rashi is answering the question: Hashem’s intention is to punish them. But is it not good for them that “My angel will go before you”? It should say only: “Go, lead the people to [the place] which I have spoken to you. However on the day when I take account. . .” Therefore Rashi explains, “But not I.” In other words, this was bad for them, for the Shechinah itself was previously with them, [and now they will have only the angel]. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Do I tell you to bring them up. [Rashi is explaining] that this connects to v. 1: “Leave, go up from this. . . to the land of which I swore.” It does not connect to what immediately precedes, [for then it would convey:] “And I will drive out the Canaanites. . . to a land flowing with milk and honey.” 
  For this reason I say to you. . . I.e., this gives the reason for (32:34), “Behold, My angel will go before you.” It is because, “I will not go up among you. . . I may destroy you.” This does not connect to what immediately precedes, rather to (v. 1): “Leave, go up from this.” 
  And you are rebellious against Me. . . [Question:] It is written in 34:9, “Let my Master go among us, for ( כי ) it is a stiff-necked people.” Does this not show the contrary to be true, that being stiff-necked makes it fitting for God to go among them, thereby contradicting what it says here? [The answer is:] Rashi already resolved this by explaining that the  כי written there means “if,” conveying: “Since You bear iniquity. . . <i>if</i> they will be a stiff-necked people and rebel against You. . . You will forgive our iniquity.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Immediately, that you will remove your ornaments from yourselves. . . It means: I will do this to you immediately. The word “now” does not relate to that which preceded, as it does in: “Now here is your wife, take her and go” (Bereishis 12:19), and: “Now your two sons” (ibid. 48:5). [Rashi knows this] because our verse cannot be so explained. This is because the preceding statement is for their good. [To save them from destruction,] God is sending the angel rather than going Himself. Whereas this phrase, “Now remove your ornaments,” is a punishment. You might ask: Is it not written in v. 4 that they took off their ornaments of their own accord, as it is written, “No man wore his ornaments”? The answer is: There, they just removed them temporarily, out of mourning. But here, Hashem told them to remove them permanently. 
  I know what I have in My heart. . . I.e., it does not mean that through their removing the ornaments, He will know what to do with them, as the verse seems to imply. [Rashi knows this] because removing the ornaments is not a cause for God to know what to do with them. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Their ornaments which they possessed. . . I.e., they did not remove their ornaments while still at Mount Chorev. [Rashi knows this] because they removed them only after the incident of the Calf. There is a  ש is missing, for it is [as if it says  עדים שמחורב .] The <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> asks: It already said in v. 4, “No man wore his ornaments.” If so, why did Hashem have to command, “Now remove”? <i>Rabbeinu Bechaye</i> answers: They refrained of their own accord from wearing all their ornaments, and wore only some. When Hashem commanded them, they completely removed and stripped themselves of all their ornaments. See other answers there. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  He thought: one who is ostracized by the master. . . I.e., B’nei Yisrael are ostracized by the Master, which is Hashem. Then too, [they should be] ostracized by the disciple, who is me; for I am Hashem’s disciple. 
  Two thousand amohs.. The reason [for this distance] was so everyone who sought Hashem could come on Shabbos to the tent, as was the arrangement in Yericho in Yehoshua’s time (Midrash Tanchuma ch. 27). 
  Even the ministering angels. . . Rashi derives this from  כל מבקש ה' , which is an inclusive term. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  To go to the tent. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “Whenever Moshe <i>went out</i> to the tent”? It should say: “Whenever Moshe <i>entered</i> the tent.” Rashi answers that “went out” refers to Moshe’s exit from the Israelite camp, not Moshe’s tent. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  The same as  ומדבר עם משה . . . I.e., it is an ongoing action (the present tense). 
  “He heard the voice  מִדַבֵר to him.” It is  מִדַבֵר , as opposed to  מְדַבֵר . This is because  מְדַבֵר denotes that the king is speaking with a commoner, whereas  מִדַבֵר means that the Voice is speaking to Itself. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  To the Shechinah. I.e., not to the entrance of Moshe’s tent, as  איש פתח אהלו seemingly implies. The only reason it says  איש פתח אהלו is because the Pillar of Cloud was there [i.e., at the entrance of Moshe’s tent]. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  After conversing with him. . . [Rashi knows that it was in order to teach what he had learned] because otherwise, why would Moshe return to the camp after God spoke to him face to face? The place where God spoke to him was where he dwelt, as it is written: “When Moshe had gone into the tent. . .” 
  Until the mishkon was erected but not longer. . . Beforehand he did not act in this way because there was no time to learn or to teach, due to the troubles with the Calf, his praying for the people, and his receiving the second set of Tablets. 
  And on the nineteenth he went up, as it says. . . You might ask: In v. 18:13, Rashi wrote: “On the seventeenth of Tammuz he descended and broke the Tablets, and early the next day — which is the eighteenth of Tammuz he ascended.” [Why does Rashi say here that it was the nineteenth?] The answer is: In Taanis 29a, Abaye resolves a difficulty by saying that Tammuz in that year had thirty days [instead of its usual twenty-nine]. Rashi [in 18:13] calculates Moshe’s forty days and nights according to the [usual] pattern of a twentynine-day month being followed by a thirty-day month — based on Tammuz being always twenty-nine days — therefore Rashi says that Moshe ascended on the eighteenth of Tammuz. But when he calculates it according to Abaye’s statement that Tammuz in that year was thirty days [which adds a day,] he says that Moshe ascended on the nineteenth. (<i>Re”m</i>) <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes: It seems to me that <i>Re”m</i> confused one Tammuz with another. Abaye spoke about the Tammuz when the Spies were sent, which was in the second year [after leaving Egypt]. Whereas the Tammuz of the Calf was in the first year. See there. An alternative answer: Moshe ascended on the [morning of the] eighteenth, but the calculation of forty days started only on the nineteenth. This is because the eighteenth was without the nighttime [i.e., it was not complete so it was not counted]. 
  
  Verse 12
  
   ראה means: Set Your “eyes” and Your “heart”. . . <i>Re”m</i> writes that, in his opinion, the text in our books is corrupt. [Instead of the verse quoted,] it should have written, “And this that You said to me: ‘I will send an angel before you and I will drive out. . .’ (33:2).” This is because [the present verse,] “Behold, I am sending an angel” (23:20), was stated before the incident of the Calf. It is true that Rashi explains there, “Here they are foretold that they are destined to sin, and the Shechinah would then say to them: ‘For I will not go up among you.’” Nevertheless, the primary verse is, “I will send an angel before you,” which was stated after the incident of the Calf. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> [disagrees partially with <i>Re”m</i>] and writes: It seems to me that it should rather say, “Behold, My angel will go before you” (32:34). First of all, this verse precedes, “I will send an angel before you” (33:2). Second of all, it is more likely to have been confused with (23:20), “Behold, I am sending an angel,” [due to their similarity,] thus causing the corruption in the text. 
  “By name” i.e., to recognize your importance. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does the verse not imply that God knows only Moshe as an individual, whereas His knowledge and supervision of other people is only in general, not on an individual basis? Heaven forbid we should say this! God supervises all His creatures individually, from biggest to smallest. Therefore Rashi explains that “by name” conveys that Moshe is beloved and important. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  If it is so that I have found favor in Your eyes. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does the verse not imply that Moshe was unsure whether Hashem had said that he finds favor in His eyes? But earlier, Moshe told Hashem that He had said to him: “You have found favor in My eyes”! Rashi answers: Moshe surely knew it was true that [Hashem had said that] he found favor in His eyes. Moshe meant: “Is it really so that I have found favor? Perhaps when You said, “You have found favor in My eyes,” You were jesting as people have a manner of doing. 
  What reward do You give. . . [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, why did Moshe request this here? 
  What is this “finding of favor”. . . Explanation: This [phrase in the verse] is connected to “Please let me know Your way.” The verse conveys: Let me know what reward You give to those who find favor in Your eyes. Then I will understand the meaning of this favor which I have found in Your eyes.
  So that I may appreciate. . . I.e., so I may recognize and understand what benefit this finding of favor provides. And thereby I will know the degree to which You give reward for the favor which I have found in Your eyes. 
  My reward for this people. . . Explanation: Just as I requested that You let me know what reward You will give me for the favor I found in Your eyes, so do I request that You let me know what reward You will give me for my leadership of this people. [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, why is this phrase here? (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  That is exactly what I wish. . . Although Hashem already acquiesced to Moshe and said, “My Presence will go,” nevertheless, Moshe wanted to let Him know how much the people cherished His going with them. Thus he said that if, tragically, Hashem would not acquiesce to go with them, the people would not move from there until they died: they, their children and all that is theirs. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  I ask one more thing of You. . . Rashi so explained the phrase of, “So that we will be distinguished — I and Your people,” because this request is not like the first one. The first request was to know the reward of finding favor and of leading the people. But this request is that the Shechinah should not rest on the other nations, only on Israel. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  His words were finding acceptance. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, this request does not belong here. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  The time has come for you to see of My Glory. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is evident from the verse as a whole that even without Moshe’s request, God needed to show him and teach him the order of prayer. This is because “I will cause all My <i>goodness</i> to pass. . .” does not answer Moshe’s request, which was to see Hashem’s <i>Glory</i>. Thus Rashi says that God anyway needed to teach him the order of prayer, for it can be seen from what Moshe had said that [he thought] once the merit of the Patriarchs is exhausted, no longer is there any way for someone to make a request, Heaven forbid. For Moshe said (32:13), “Remember Avraham. . .” Therefore [said Hashem], I need to teach you the order of prayer, by which someone who makes a request can have it accepted. And when I show you this order, you will receive what you requested: seeing Hashem’s glory. This means seeing Hashem’s back, which is the tefillin knot [see Rashi on v. 23,] rather than seeing His face. [His face cannot be seen] because it says (v. 20), “For no man can see My Presence and live.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  For My mercies are never exhausted. As opposed to the merit of the Patriarchs, where there is concern that it could possibly become exhausted. 
  That I will wish to be gracious. This is contrary to the verse’s apparent meaning, that God will be gracious to the people He is gracious to, and will be compassionate to the people He is compassionate to. [Rashi knows it does not mean this] because one who has received God’s graciousness does not need graciousness, and one who has received God’s compassion does not need compassion. Rather, it means: “At times I will respond, and at times I will not respond. . .” 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  In the mountain, where I constantly speak with you. . . Rashi is telling us that the verse is elliptic, and Scripture should have written, “In the mountain.” Rashi says, “In the mountain, <i>where I constantly speak with you</i>,” because the missing part should be understood from the verse itself. Rashi means to say that the place is assumedly in the mountain, as that is where God constantly speaks with Moshe. And since  אתי seemingly implies [literally] “with Me,” not in the mountain, thus Rashi says: “I have a place prepared for your needs.” For this can be understood from  אתי . 
  
  Verse 22
  
  When I pass by you. [Rashi is explaining that] “My Glory” refers to God Himself. The proof is that afterward it is written, “Until <i>I</i> pass by,” rather than, “Until <i>My Glory</i> passes by.” 
  A place dug out in the rock.  כריית means a place carved out in the rock, as in (21:33):  כי יכרה איש בור (If a man digs a pit). 
  Onkelos translates it, “I will protect you with My word”. . . This is the Targum of  ושכותי כפי . 
  Who does not need to cover him actually, with His Hand. Rather, He can cover him with His word. 
  
  Verse 23
  
   ואעדי ית דברת יקרי . . . This is the Targum of  והסירותי את כפי . Rashi explains that the Targum means: “When the guidance of My Glory is removed.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Prepared. As in, “Send portions of food to he who has nothing prepared ( נכון ) for him” (Nechemiah 8:10). As opposed to its [other] meaning, “correct,” as in: “If in fact the report is true and correct ( נכון )” (Devarim 13:15). 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Because the first ones were with great uproar. . .  בתשואות means raising the voice.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  He called out in the Name of God ( וקרא בשמא דה' ). [Rashi is saying that] from Onkelos, it is evident that Moshe was the one who called. For if God was the One Who called, Onkelos would say וקרא בשמא ה'  , [instead of  דה' ], thus conveying: “And Hashem called out in the Name.” (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 6
  
  The first before man sins. . . Explanation: Even though it is known to God that he is going to sin, still He has mercy on him because he has not yet sinned. 
  This, too, represents the Attribute of Mercy. . . But it is not pure mercy like the Attribute of the Four Letter Name. The Attribute of Mercy has many levels. 
  In case he will repent. The second attribute of “Adonoy, Adonoy” is also mercy after he sins. But it applies if he repents immediately, in which case He has mercy on him. However, this attribute is to put off His anger, hoping he might repent. 
  They do not have sufficient merits. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “<i>Abounding</i> in kindness,” implying that when the person sinned and his merits cannot shield him from punishment because they are few, nonetheless He tilts the scales towards kindness, and has mercy on him. The first attribute of “Adonoy, Adonoy” is when he has not yet sinned. But this attribute is that He tilts the scales towards kindness even after he has sinned. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Which the person does before Him. I.e., not the kindness that Hashem intends to do for him. [Rashi knows this] because  נוצר applies only to that which has already been done. 
  He does not clear those who do not repent. Although the second attribute of “Adonoy, Adonoy” also entails mercy for those who repent, the difference is: the attribute of “He clears” waives the sin and clears him as if he never did it, without bestowing any goodness upon him. Whereas the second attribute [of “Adonoy, Adonoy” bestows goodness upon him]. And this is the difference between the plain meaning, and the interpretation [of our Sages]: the plain meaning conveys that He does not completely waive the sin but exacts retribution for it bit by bit. Whereas the interpretation [of our Sages] is that He waives the sin completely. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Five hundred fold for regarding the Attribute of Good. . . Explanation: one generation of the Attribute of Retribution corresponds to five hundred generations of the Attribute of Good. Accordingly, the four generations of the Attribute of Retribution correspond to the two thousand generations of the Attribute of Good. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  There are places where  כי is used in place of  אם . Rashi is answering the question: On the contrary, is not their being a stiff-necked people a reason that He should <i>not</i> go with them? As it is written above (33:5), “You are a stiff-necked people. Were I to go up among you for one moment, I would destroy you.” Thus Rashi explains that this  כי means “if,” as he goes on to elaborate. 
  Take us to Yourself as a special possession. . . (An alternative text:) “That You should give us a special possession. . .” Explanation: This [special possession] is the resting of Your <i>Shechinah </i>upon us alone, not upon other nations. Since Hashem already answered Moshe about this, Rashi therefore says: “This is the same request as: ‘so that I and Your people will be distinguished.’” I.e., Moshe is mentioning here what he had requested before. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  On this. I.e., on [the promise of]  אעשה נפלאות , which has the same meaning as  ונפלינו אני ועמך (33:16). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  I will consider it for you. . . I.e., this comes to give a reason for the preceding [“Take care not to make a covenant”]. You might think that only their sacrificial services are prohibited, as I commanded you, “You must shatter their altars. . .” — but that nothing is wrong with making a covenant with them and participating in their feast, [while eating your own food (<i>Avodah Zarah</i> 8a)]. Do not think so, because “I will consider it for you as if you concur in his idol worship.” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  That is male of the first-born of the cattle and sheep. . . [Rashi is explaining that]  אשר is missing from  תזכר , and a  ב is missing from  פטר , so the verse means  וכל מקנך אשר תזכר בפטר שור ושה . Rashi adds a  ב to  פטר because  תזכר refers to the livestock which gives birth, not to the  פטר [the first-born animal]. The verse thus conveys: “All your livestock which a male opens its womb, [that male is Mine].” 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Not of any other unclean animal. The reason it is specifically a donkey and not other unclean animals is explained by Rashi in 13:13.
  It remains non-sacred in the hands of the kohein. . . [Rashi is explaining that] this is different from other consecrated and unfit animals which were redeemed, since they and [even] their replacements may not be shorn or used for work, since [the replacements] stand in their place. [And here, the baby donkey is consecrated as a first-born, but is unfit to be a sacrifice due to its species. Yet, after being redeemed with a sheep, it may be used for work.] 
  To teach about the severance pay to a Hebrew slave that it must be five sela’im. . . I.e., it is written “empty-handed” here, relating to a donkey’s redemption. And it is written “empty-handed” in Devarim 13:15, relating to the severance pay of a Hebrew slave. Therefore, just as the redemption of a first-born [human being, as mentioned in v. 19,] is five <i>sela’im</i>, so the severance pay is five <i>sela’im</i>. Furthermore, the “empty-handed” of severance pay is at the beginning [of the section there], while [ostensibly] it should be at the end. Thus, we apply [the meaning of] “emptyhanded” [to all that follows it:] to “flocks,” to “winery” and to “threshing floor,” so that [the value of] five <i>sela’im</i> of each [of the abovementioned] kind should be [paid to the Hebrew slave]. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Which extends into the post-sheviis year. . . [Rashi knows this] because if it referred to Shabbos, other labors are also forbidden? Thus Rashi explains that it means not to plow a field of grain or of fruit trees, if it will benefit the [coming] <i>sheviis</i> year. “Harvest of the <i>sheviis</i> year” refers to grain that reached a third [of its growth] in the <i>sheviis</i> year, thus the laws of <i>sheviis</i> apply to it [even] in the year after <i>sheviis</i>. 
  Just as the plowing is optional. . . Explanation: There is no obligatory plowing. Even to plow specifically for the <i>omer</i> and the “two breads” [of Shavuos is not obligatory. Thus] it is forbidden to plow on Shabbos. Similarly, harvesting is forbidden if it is optional, but not if it is obligatory. [Harvesting the <i>omer</i> is considered obligatory] because even if you found it harvested, it is obligatory to harvest [a different <i>omer</i>. However, if you found plowed ground, it is not obligatory to plow (<i>Makkos</i> 8b)]. Hence from here we learn that the harvesting of the <i>omer</i> takes precedence over Shabbos. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  When you bring the “two breads”. . . I.e., not that this is the time of harvesting the first wheat crops. Rather, they now start harvesting to bring a <i>minchah</i> from wheat. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  All the males among you. . . [I.e.,  זכורך is not literal and] does not mean, “the males that are <i>yours</i>.” [Rashi knows this] because even male children are not yours, i.e., they are not in your ownership, and surely not the adults who are obligated in mitzvos. Rather, it means the males who are among you, i.e., in your nation. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  Therefore I establish for you. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say, “<i>For</i> I will drive out”? How does this give a reason [for the preceding]? 
  
  Verse 25
  
  While chometz still remains. . . I.e., rearrange the verse and explain it as follows: “Do not slaughter My [Pesach] sacrifice, and do not sprinkle its blood, ‘on’ <i>chometz</i>.” [The word “on”] means while <i>chometz</i> still remains. It does not mean literally [that the sacrifice is] actually “on” it. 
  Or to any member of the group. Rashi is not saying that the prohibition is on the slaughterer, or on the sprinkler, [etc]. Rather, he is saying that if one of them has <i>chometz</i> in his house [when the <i>korban Pesach</i> is slaughtered], he transgresses a negative precept. However, Rashi does not explain who transgresses: the slaughterer, the sprinkler, or both. 
  Remaining overnight does not render it unfit. . .  מועלת is similar to the word  מעילה [misappropriation of consecrated property]. Rashi is saying that if the sacrifice was on top of the altar, remaining overnight does not render it unfit. In other words, if the parts to be burnt were brought up to the altar’s top before dawn, they are not rendered unfit [at dawn,] even if they were not yet offered [on the altar’s fire]. 
  Applies only at dawn. I.e., only if the fat remains until dawn is it rendered unfit. However, if it remains all night but is burnt before dawn, this is not called remaining overnight. 
  The parts to be burnt. . . [Rashi knows this] because from the <i>korbon Pesach,</i> [most of the meat is eaten]; only the parts to be burnt ( אימורים ) are offered. 
  All fats and limbs that require burning. I.e., [we learn] not to offer them after dawn, [since they are then unfit. Rashi knows] that all offerings are included, and become unfit through remaining overnight, because it is written  זבח חג הפסח and not just  חג הפסח . 
  
  Verse 26
  
  Which are listed in praise of your land. . . Rashi does not mean that this is derived from the word  אדמתך . For in Devarim 26:2, it is derived from a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> between  ארצך (<i>ad loc</i>) and  ארץ (Devarim 8:8). Rashi here is rather saying that  אדמתך does not mean you must bring first fruits from all the [species of] fruits in your land; only from the seven species, as derived from the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> of  ארץ ארץ . 
  Referring to date-honey. Rashi is answering the question: The seven species include honey, and honey is not a fruit. But regarding the first fruits, it is written, “Of all the <i>fruits</i> of the land” (Devarim 26:2), implying fruit only? Rashi answers that the honey is date-honey, and dates are fruit. 
  An admonition. . . It does not mean only “in its mother’s milk”; the admonition applies also to its own milk. It says “its mother’s milk” in order to exclude fowl, which has no mother’s milk — as Rashi goes on to explain. 
  Once prohibiting the cooking. . . Question: Why are two verses needed for prohibiting the mixing of meat in milk, one to forbid eating and one to forbid benefit? Regarding other Torah prohibitions where it is written, “You shall not eat,” it includes both eating and benefit. The answer is: A person is liable for eating meat in milk even if he has no benefit while eating, for instance, [the food is very hot and] his throat is burnt while eating it. This is not the case with eating other prohibited foods. 
  Which it is necessary to explain in many places. . . [Rashi says “in many places”] because if the Torah had explained “a goat’s kid” in only one place, we would say that here, too, it means specifically a goat’s kid. We would learn the meaning of this non-explained place from the explained place. But since it says “a goat’s kid” in several places, we thereby learn that “goat’s kid” applies only where the Torah specifically states it. This is because all Sages agree that three [or more] verses stating the same point, [each in a different place,] do not teach a general rule. Thus, wherever the Torah does not state “goat’s kid” — such as here, where it is non-explained — all suckling animals are implied. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  But you are not permitted to write. . . [Rashi knows this] because “these” is an exclusionary word, [implying: “these” and not “those”]. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  When he brought the Second Tablets. . . When he brought the First Tablets on the seventeenth of Tammuz, it is also written that “Moshe went down from the mountain with the two Tablets of the Testimony in his hand” (Shemos 32:15), like it is written here. Nevertheless, [Rashi knows that the verse here speaks of the Second Tablets because] all the following incidents took place only with the Second Tablets. 
  From where was Moshe privileged for these rays of splendor. . . I.e., why was he privileged to them with the Second Tablets, and not with the First Tablets? 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  In the present (ongoing) tense. . . [How does Rashi know this? The answer is:] Since nothing specific was spoken here, it must refer to what God spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai — which is the message of God to Israel. I.e., Moshe is to teach them the whole Torah. Perforce, this entire subject is in the present (ongoing) tense. Moshe would call them every day and teach the Torah and mitzvos to the leaders and then to all Yisrael, as explained further on. This continued even after the <i>mishkon</i> was erected. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  On the day following Yom Kippur. [Rashi knows this] because it is written above, “When Moshe came down from Mount Sinai” (33:29), and that was on Yom Kippur. And this verse relates back to that event, because [when the Torah finishes the account of Moshe’s coming down, immediately] afterwards it is written, “Moshe assembled. . .” Thus we see it was the day following Yom Kippur. (<i>Re”m</i>) Furthermore, the assembly was mainly for donating toward the work of the <i>mishkon</i> so that the donated gold should atone for the gold given for the Calf. Therefore, we may assume it happened immediately after Moshe came down from the mountain, in order to atone right away for the incident of the Calf, and so that Hashem’s anger against Yisrael should be removed. See 31:18 [Rashi there]: [“On Yom Kippur, God reconciled Himself to Yisrael. The next day they began donating to the <i>mishkon</i>.”] You might ask: How did Moshe have time to assemble them and tell them to donate to the <i>mishkon</i>? The day after Yom Kippur he sat to judge the people all day, as it says: “On the following day Moshe sat to judge . . . from morning until evening” (18:13). And Rashi there explains, “It was the day following Yom Kippur,” and goes on to prove it. The answer is: Rashi there answers it himself by saying that “From morning until evening” [is not to be understood literally. Rather, it] is to teach us that “every judge who judges correctly and truthfully is . . . as if he were involved in Torah study the entire day. . .” 
  It ( ויקהל ) is in the causative form. . . Explanation: Rashi’s main proof is that it is vowelized  וַיַּקְהֵל rather than  וַיִּקְהַל . The <i>pasach</i> indicates the causative form, as in  וַיַּסַּע משה את העם (15:22), and  אשר המה מַלִינִים (Bamidbar 14:27), which are also in the causative form. 
  The correct version of this in Onkelos is:  ואכניש . <i>Re”m</i> writes: “I do not understand what Rashi means by this.” <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> writes: It seems to me that Rashi wrote this because he saw two versions of Onkelos. Therefore he proves that the correct version is [the causative form]  ואכניש , not  וכנש . Similarly in Bamidbar 16:19,  וַיַקְהֵל עליהם קרח , Onkelos writes  ואכניש . But in Bamidbar 20:10,  וַיַּקְהִילוּ . . . אל פני הסלע , Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan both say  וכנשו . 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Saying . . . it does not supersede . . . Rashi is answering the question: Why are they admonished again here concerning Shabbos? They had already been admonished. You might ask: On the contrary, perhaps the admonition of Shabbos is repeated here to tell us that the work of the <i>mishkon</i> supercedes Shabbos, even though it is written [pertaining to Shabbos], “You must not do any work” (Shemos 20:9)? The answer is: The section of Shabbos is written before the section dealing with the work of the <i>mishkon</i>. And the section written first is surely the more important one, and supersedes the one written afterward. The proof is that otherwise, a question arises: why did Moshe change the order here? In <i>parshas</i> Ki Sisa, Hashem stated the admonition of Shabbos to Moshe <i>after</i> having stated the work of the <i>mishkon</i>. And that is why it is written there, “Still ( אך ), you must keep My Shabbos” (31:13). As Rashi explains there, “Every time the term  אך or  רק appears, it conveys limiting or excluding. And here,  אך apparently excludes Shabbos from any work of the <i>mishkon</i>.” Thus, the question arises: why did Moshe not state this matter to Yisrael in the same way that Hashem had commanded him? Perforce, Moshe put [the section of Shabbos] first, in order to teach that the work of the <i>mishkon</i> does not supercede Shabbos. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Some of our Sages say: Kindling. . . Rashi is answering the question: Is kindling not already included in the prohibition, “You must not do any manner of work”? 
  “Went out” to be a  לאו . I.e., it is not a principle category of labor, punishable by <i>kareis</i> and stoning, but merely a negative precept. 
  Others say it “went out” to separate. I.e., we would have thought that if someone did all thirty-nine types of labor within one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring only one sin offering. Therefore, it “went out” to separate: [just as kindling was singled out here, so should all the thirty-nine types of labor be singled out one from another, each requiring its own sin offering]. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Me, to tell you. [Rashi knows this] because the verse seems to mean: This is the word which He has commanded to all of Israel to say ( לאמר ) to others. [Yet, it cannot mean this]. Therefore Rashi explains: He commanded me to tell you this in an assembly, as opposed to the other instructions which were not in an assembly. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Since it is his heart that inspires him. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did Scripture choose to write, “Generous of heart”? Rashi answers: “Since it is his heart that inspires him.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  The lower drapes . . . Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written, “The <i>mishkon</i>,” why was it necessary for Scripture to write, “Its tent and its cover”? Everything is included in <i>“mishkon”</i>! 
  Goat-hair drapes . . . [Rashi knows this] because we find that the goat-hair drapes are called  אהל , as it says: “Make drapes of goats’ hair for an  אהל over the <i>mishkon</i>” (26:7). 
  Rams’ skins and the tachash-skins . . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Make a <i>covering</i> for the tent out of red-dyed rams’ skins and. . . <i>tachash-skins. . .” (26:14). </i>
  
  Verse 12
  
  Paroches of the partition . . . Rashi is answering the question: Does  פרוכת not mean a curtain hung at the entrance, while  מסך means a covering spread out as a roof? Therefore Rashi explains that  מסך means “partition.” And so it must be understood in several places in this section. The term  מסך sometimes means “roofing,” and sometimes it means “partition,” as in: “You have protected ( סכת ) him” (Iyov 1:10), and: “Behold I will protect ( סך ) your road” (Hoshe’a 2:8). 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Because it had a face . . . Rashi is answering the question: Any woman can bake bread. [Why did it say (v. 10), “All those who are <i>wise in heart</i> among you shall come and make”?] Thus Rashi explains, “I have explained. . . it had a face in two directions. . ..” Therefore it needs “wise in heart” [to bake it]. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   על הנשים means with the women . . . Rashi is answering the question: [Why were the donations accepted?] Only a small amount of tzedakah may be accepted from a [married] woman, [unless the husband approves]. Thus Rashi says that the men came <i>with</i> the women, [showing they approve]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  Worn on the arm . . . ]Rashi knows this] because Onkelos translates  חח as  שירין . And so does he translate  אצעדה in Bamidbar 31:50, and  צמידים in Bereishis 24:These [latter two] are clearly ornaments worn on the arm. 
  Our Sages explained . . . Rashi is answering a question on his own explanation: Does this not imply that  כומז is a noun referring to something [in the form] of one’s private parts? But, our language is called the Holy Tongue because it has no specific word for one’s private parts! Therefore Rashi brings our Sages’ explanation [that it is not a noun, but an abbreviation for “here is the place of lewdness”]. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  Or rams’ skins or tachash skins — they all brought. Some ask: Why does Rashi not list them as they are written — “Greenish-blue wool, dark red wool, crimson wool, <i>fine linen, goats’ hair</i>, red dyed rams’ skins”? [Rather, Rashi omits fine linen and goats’ hair.] It seems to me that Rashi may be explained by first asking another question on Rashi: Why does he [need to] explain that the verse means <i>or</i> this, <i>or</i> that? Why would we [otherwise] have thought that only someone who has <i>all</i> these items should bring, and someone who does not, should not bring [anything]? A poor person who has only one item would be excluded! Yet Scripture said (25:2), “From <i>every</i> man whose heart impels him to generosity shall you take My terumah-offering.” Perforce, [Rashi explains this] because throughout the work of the <i>mishkon</i> and the garments of the <i>Kohein Gadol</i>, we find that the three items of greenish-blue wool, dark red wool and crimson wool are always [mentioned together]. Similarly, the red dyed rams’ skins and the <i>tachash</i> skins together formed the cover of the tent, as Rashi explains in 26:14. Thus we might think that whoever has all these things, [i.e., the three wools, or the two skins,] should bring. But he who has only one, should not. This is because all three are needed for the work; nothing is made of one without the other. Whereas the garments of ordinary <i>kohanim</i> are made of fine linen alone, and so are the four garments of the <i>Kohein Gadol</i> used for the inner service of Yom Kippur and for some other services. Similarly, goats’ hair was used only for the drapes of goats’ hair, [never together with other materials]. Therefore it is obvious that one could bring fine linen or goats’ hair by itself, and Rashi does not [need to] mention it because this is obvious. Furthermore, it is written: “All the women whose hearts inspired them. . . spun the goats’ hair” (v. 26), implying that goats’ hair was brought by itself. And “fine linen” (end of v. 25) is juxtaposed [specially] to “goats’ hair.” Throughout Scripture, fine linen is mentioned at the beginning [of the items], but here, it is [mentioned at the end,] next to goats’ hair. This comes to teach that fine linen should be compared to goats’ hair, which is brought by itself. This is why Rashi did not need to explain that fine linen and goats’ hair may be brought by themselves, [and he therefore omitted them]. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  He was Miriam’s son. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah trace Betzalel back only as far as Chur? Alternatively, why does it not say, “Betzalel, son of Uri, of the tribe of Yehudah”? Rashi answers that Chur was the son of Miriam, who was a prophetess — and that is why Betzalel merited all this [honor]. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  More than is. . . The  מ [of  מדי ] means “more than,” as in (Bereishis 29:30), “He loved Rochel more than Leah ( מלאה ).” Rashi adds the phrase, “What was needed for,” because the people brought only what was needed for the work, not the [completed] work itself. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  The work of bringing was sufficient . . . Rashi is explaining that the first  המלאכה in the verse refers to bringing the donations, and the second, to the actual work of the <i>mishkon</i>.<i> </i>[Rashi knows this] because if it means the same thing [both times] there is no reason for  המלאכה to be mentioned again! Also, [Rashi is explaining that] the suffix of  דים refers to the workers. 
  As in “( והכבד ) to harden his heart” . . . Rashi is answering the question: Does  והותר , [which is in the imperative,] not imply that it is a mitzvah to leave over? But this is not so; there is no such mitzvah. Therefore Rashi explains that it conveys  ולְהוֹתִיר , [in the infinitive], and that there are other such words [in the infinitive which are] missing a  ל , such as  והכבד , [meaning]  ולְהַכְבִד , and  והכות , [meaning]  ולְהַכוֹת . 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Because he extended himself for the work . . . I.e., throughout the section it is written, “He made,” but it is not written “Betzalel” as it does about the ark. This is because they [the other items] do not have as much sanctity as the ark, so Betzalel did not wish to exert himself as much in making them. Instead, Betzalel showed Oholiav and the other disciples [what to do], and they made them. But the ark possessed great sanctity, so Betzalel personally exerted himself over it and extended himself more for the work. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Their purpose is to incite the evil inclination . . . You might ask: The  כומז , which is in the shape of the woman’s private parts, is even more repulsive. [Yet, Moshe readily accepted the  כומז .] Why did Moshe not find it repulsive? The answer is: About the  כומז it is written that the women brought it together with bracelets, nose-rings and fingerrings. Then it was all melted down together by fire, and the  כומז became nullified among them. Here, however, they did not bring any copper other than the mirrors. An alternative answer: The  כומז is for nullifying the evil inclination. I.e., it [guards the private parts and] prevents from coming to lewdness. But the mirrors facilitate lewdness, so Moshe found them repulsive. 
  God said to him: Accept. Meaning: you should accept them.
  Entice him ( ומשדלתו) with words.  ומשדלתו means verbal seducement, for Onkelos translates (22:15)  כי יפתה [as  ארי ישדל .] 
  That is the intent of what is said: “By the mirrors of the  צובאות ” . . . I.e.,  הצובאות comes from  צבאות (hosts).  במראות הצובאות conveys: with the mirrors from which very many hosts came. 
  Whose husband expressed jealousy and she nevertheless concealed herself . . . I.e., he who expresses jealousy to his wife then tests her with these cursing waters, as written in Bamidbar 5:17. 
  Onkelos also translates it this way:  במחזית of the women . . . I.e., also Onkelos translates  מראות to mean mirrors used by women for adorning themselves. For he translates  והגליונים as  מחזייתא , and  והגליונים are surely mirrors used by women for adorning themselves. 
  To bring their contribution. Rashi means as follows: the word  צבאו comes from  צבא (host). I.e., people gathering together. And [this raises the question:] why did he gather them together? Thus Rashi explains: to bring their contribution to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Like the measurements of the curtains of the courtyard. The word  לעומת is ordinarily used for something that is “across from.” Yet, the curtains were not across from [the screen], but at its sides. Thus Rashi explains: “Like the measurements.” I.e., the screen should be the same size [as the curtains]. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  All the weights of the contributions of the mishkon . . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did the verse not say, “<i>And </i>these are the accounts. . .” thereby connecting it to the preceding? Rashi answers, in order that we should not mistakenly think this section refers specifically to the vessels of the <i>mishkon</i> which is the subject of the section that immediately precedes it. For then we would ask: Why does the Torah count and mention the weights [of the vessels, if they were just mentioned]? For this reason it is written, “These are the accounts,” without the connecting “and,” to convey that our section refers also to the weights of the <i>contributions</i> to the <i>mishkon</i>, not just to the vessels of the <i>mishkon. </i> 
  Taken as “collateral” by being destroyed twice . . . You might ask: Is there not only one  משכן extra, to be interpreted, for one is needed for the simple meaning? The answer is: Scripture altered the wording, saying  המשכן [and then simply]  משכן , rather than writing either both with a  ה or both without a  ה . Perforce, the  ה conveys “the” special  משכן , i.e., the Eternal House, which is the <i>Beis Hamikdosh</i>. If this is so [that it is referring to the <i>Beis Hamikdosh</i>,] the question arises: why does Scripture refer to it as  משכן ? Perforce, [as Rashi explains]: “This is an allusion. . .” 
  It bears witness for Yisrael . . . But the fact that God gave them the [second] tablets does not bear witness. [Rashi knows this] because God could have given them [the tablets] in order not to actively reject them [from Torah observance]. Although they sinned, they were like apostate Jews, who are still called Jews. For it is written (Yehoshua 7:11), “Yisrael has sinned” — [interpreted in Sanhedrin 44a to mean] although one has sinned, he is still called Yisrael. (<i>Re”m</i>) But it seems to me that [<i>Re”m’s </i>explanation is incorrect.] Those who sinned in the presence of witnesses, after being warned, were killed by the Levites. If there were witnesses but no warning, they died in the plague. And if there were neither witnesses nor a warning, they were examined in the manner that a <i>sotah</i> is examined. Thus, whoever remained had not sinned. [Nevertheless, the tablets merely stated laws and obligations, whereas the <i>mishkon </i>was an open testimony of God’s love.] 
  To carry, to disassemble, and to set it up . . . Rashi is answering the question: Is not the simple meaning of the verse that the work of the Levites was to make the accounts of the <i>mishkon</i>, i.e., to count the vessels of the <i>mishkon</i>? [But this cannot be, as the Levites were not involved at all with the construction of the <i>mishkon</i>.] Thus Rashi explains: “. . .To carry, to disassemble. . .” 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  The <i>maneh</i> associated with the Sanctuary was double. . . Rashi is answering the question: If the <i>maneh</i> was not double, and the <i>kikar</i> was only sixty <i>maneh</i>, and a <i>maneh</i> equals twenty-five <i>selaim</i> (<i>shekalim</i>), then there would be 201 <i>kikar</i> [of silver, yet the following verse says there was only half that amount]. This is because there were 301,775 whole <i>shekalim</i>. And 1,500 <i>shekalim</i> equal a <i>kikar</i>. This is because ten <i>maneh</i> equal 250 <i>shekalim,</i> and twenty <i>maneh</i> equal 500 <i>shekalim</i>. According to this reckoning, sixty <i>maneh</i> equal 1,500 <i>shekalim</i>. Thus, ten <i>kikar</i> would equal 15,000 <i>shekalim</i>, and one hundred <i>kikar</i> would equal 150,000 <i>shekalim</i>. So according to this reckoning there should be 201 <i>kikar</i>. Rashi answers that the <i>maneh</i> of the Sanctuary was double the weight of the common <i>maneh</i>. Therefore, 3,000 <i>shekalim</i> equal one <i>kikar</i>, and one hundred <i>kikar</i> equal 300,000 <i>shekalim. </i>
  It counts as units all the shekalim . . . Explanation: if the <i>maneh</i> of the Sanctuary was double, it is understandable that 1,775 extra <i>shekalim</i> are counted as units, as they did not add up to a <i>kikar</i>. However, if we say the <i>maneh</i> was not double, then 1,500 <i>shekalim</i> equal a <i>kikar</i>. So why are 1,750 <i>shekalim</i> counted [as units that did not add up to a <i>kikar</i>]? The count should be 201 <i>kikar</i>, plus 275 <i>shekalim</i> that did not add up to a <i>kikar</i>. Thus we must conclude that the <i>maneh</i> was double. [It comes out that] this, too, is a proof that the <i>maneh</i> of the sanctuary was double, making the <i>kikar [also] double. </i>
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  This is the name of the weight . . . Rashi is answering the question: Does  בקע not mean “splitting” throughout Scripture? But here, “splitting” does not fit as a meaning. 
  This was the count of the Israelites . . . Rashi is answering the question: Surely, the count was higher. When they were counted in <i>seifer</i> Bamidbar, there were 603,550 men. This was besides the Levites, who were not counted among the B’nei Yisrael. So regarding the donations to the <i>mishkon, </i>where Israelites <i>and</i> Levites gave, should there not be more? Therefore Rashi explains: “This was the count of the <i>Israelites</i>.” The <i>beka</i> per person was given only by the Israelites, [i.e., the non-Levites]. They had sinned by making the Calf, and they needed to give the donation for the <i>mishkon</i> in order to atone for it. But the Levites, who did not sin, did not need to give. <i>Re”m</i> offers a similar explanation. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Of the pillars with them . . . Rashi is answering the question: The verse seems to say that the caps of the <i>hooks</i> should be overlaid [with silver]! Why do they need this? The hooks were made completely of silver! [Rashi answers that the overlaying is for the pillars, not for the hooks.] Rashi adds the phrase, “With them,” to convey that the overlaying, the hooks and the bands — not just the hooks alone — were made with this [1,775 <i>shekalim</i> of] silver. Rashi’s proof is that no silver was collected in the community census other than the one hundred <i>kikar</i> from which the sockets were made, and the 1,775 [<i>shekalim</i>] were less than a <i>kikar</i>. [Thus, everything else must have been made from the 1,775 <i>shekalim</i>]. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  
  
  Verse 67
  
  
  
  Verse 68
  
  
  
  Verse 69
  
  
  
  Verse 70
  
  
  
  Verse 71
  
  
  
  Verse 72
  
  
  
  Verse 73
  
  
  
  Verse 74
  
  
  
  Verse 75
  
  
  
  Verse 76
  
  
  
  Verse 77
  
  
  
  Verse 78
  
  
  
  Verse 79
  
  
  
  Verse 80
  
  
  
  Verse 81
  
  
  
  Verse 82
  
  
  
  Verse 83
  
  
  
  Verse 84
  
  
  
  Verse 85
  
  
  
  Verse 86
  
  
  
  Verse 87
  
  
  
  Verse 88
  
  
  
  Verse 89
  
  
  
  Verse 90
  
  
  
  Verse 91
  
  
  
  Verse 92
  
  
  
  Verse 93
  
  
  
  Verse 94
  
  
  
  Verse 95
  
  
  
  Verse 96
  
  
  
  Verse 97
  
  
  
  Verse 98
  
  
  
  Verse 99
  
  
  
  Verse 100
  
  
  
  Verse 101
  
  
  
  Verse 102
  
  
  
  Verse 103
  
  
  
  Verse 104
  
  
  
  Verse 105
  
  
  
  Verse 106
  
  
  
  Verse 107
  
  
  
  Verse 108
  
  
  
  Verse 109
  
  
  
  Verse 110
  
  
  
  Verse 111
  
  
  
  Verse 112
  
  
  
  Verse 113
  
  
  
  Verse 114
  
  
  
  Verse 115
  
  
  
  Verse 116
  
  
  
  Verse 117
  
  
  
  Verse 118
  
  
  
  Verse 119
  
  
  
  Verse 120
  
  
  
  Verse 121
  
  
  
  Verse 122
  
  
  
  Verse 123
  
  
  
  Verse 124
  
  
  
  Verse 125
  
  
  
  Verse 126
  
  
  
  Verse 127
  
  
  
  Verse 128
  
  
  
  Verse 129
  
  
  
  Verse 130
  
  
  
  Verse 131
  
  
  
  Verse 132
  
  
  
  Verse 133
  
  
  
  Verse 134
  
  
  
  Verse 135
  
  
  
  Verse 136
  
  
  
  Verse 137
  
  
  
  Verse 138
  
  
  
  Verse 139
  
  
  
  Verse 140
  
  
  
  Verse 141
  
  
  
  Verse 142
  
  
  
  Verse 143
  
  
  
  Verse 144
  
  
  
  Verse 145
  
  
  
  Verse 146
  
  
  
  Verse 147
  
  
  
  Verse 148
  
  
  
  Verse 149
  
  
  
  Verse 150
  
  
  
  Verse 151
  
  
  
  Verse 152
  
  
  
  Verse 153
  
  
  
  Verse 154
  
  
  
  Verse 155
  
  
  
  Verse 156
  
  
  
  Verse 157
  
  
  
  Verse 158
  
  
  
  Verse 159
  
  
  
  Verse 160
  
  
  
  Verse 161
  
  
  
  Verse 162
  
  
  
  Verse 163
  
  
  
  Verse 164
  
  
  
  Verse 165
  
  
  
  Verse 166
  
  
  
  Verse 167
  
  
  
  Verse 168
  
  
  
  Verse 169
  
  
  
  Verse 170
  
  
  
  Verse 171
  
  
  
  Verse 172
  
  
  
  Verse 173
  
  
  
  Verse 174
  
  
  
  Verse 175
  
  
  
  Verse 176
  
  
  
  Verse 177
  
  
  
  Verse 178
  
  
  
  Verse 179
  
  
  
  Verse 180
  
  
  
  Verse 181
  
  
  
  Verse 182
  
  
  
  Verse 183
  
  
  
  Verse 184
  
  
  
  Verse 185
  
  
  
  Verse 186
  
  
  
  Verse 187
  
  
  
  Verse 188
  
  
  
  Verse 189
  
  
  
  Verse 190
  
  
  
  Verse 191
  
  
  
  Verse 192
  
  
  
  Verse 193
  
  
  
  Verse 194
  
  
  
  Verse 195
  
  
  
  Verse 196
  
  
  
  Verse 197
  
  
  
  Verse 198
  
  
  
  Verse 199
  
  
  
  Verse 200
  
  
  
  Verse 201
  
  
  
  Verse 202
  
  
  
  Verse 203
  
  
  
  Verse 204
  
  
  
  Verse 205
  
  
  
  Verse 206
  
  
  
  Verse 207
  
  
  
  Verse 208
  
  
  
  Verse 209
  
  
  
  Verse 210
  
  
  
  Verse 211
  
  
  
  Verse 212
  
  
  
  Verse 213
  
  Loading...
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  The splendid turbans. Rashi needed to explain this so we will not mistakenly think that  פארי means as it does in, “He will cut the branches ( פארה ) with terror” (<i>Yeshaya </i>10:33). Thus Rashi explains that it means, “The splendor of the turbans.”  פארי is the plural of  פאר , and means the same as  פארים (splendors). Rashi says, “The splendid turbans,” because if the turbans were not splendid, there would not be any  פארים [at all, since  פארים is not an object that stands on its own] — and in that case it would not say  פארי המגבעות . 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  The work. Rashi adds the phrase, “The work,” to inform us what B’nei Yisrael did. For it is written [just before], “Thus was <i>completed</i> all the work of the <i>mishkon</i>.” If so, they surely did the work [already], so what does it mean that they “did”? Therefore, Rashi explains, “The work.” The verse is conveying that the work they did was not any different, but rather they did it just as God commanded Moshe. 
  
  Verse 33
  
  For they were unable to erect it . . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, they would not have brought it [to Moshe] in pieces, since it is the way of craftsmen to erect a house and then to show what they built. Therefore Rashi explains, “For they were unable to erect it.” Rashi then answers a further question: Every time they traveled from place to place, they erected the <i>mishkon </i>[themselves]. If so, why did they not do so now as well? Therefore Rashi explains, “Because Moshe did no work. . ..” Thus the first time, it was erected through Moshe, of its own. And from then on, each time they traveled, it stood upright on its own, and through those who erected it. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Here it is implied that even Moshe erected it [only] by a miracle. But in Shabbos 92a, Berachos 54b and Bechoros 44a, it is implied that since Moshe was ten <i>amohs</i> tall, he therefore had the strength to erect it. See there. 
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  May the pleasantness . . . Rashi is answering the question: What blessing did Moshe give them? Therefore Rashi explains that it was the blessing of  ויהי נועם , which Moshe composed upon the completion of the building of the <i>mishkon</i>. 
  This is one of the eleven Psalms . . . It seems that Rashi needed to bring this as proof [that Moshe blessed them with  ויהי נועם ] because [one opinion] in Sifra ch.1 says that they [the people] said  ויהי נועם to Moshe. Similarly in Yalkut Shimoni, Pekudei 418. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Moshe performed the service . . . [Accordingly,] when it is written here, “He burned the incense of spices upon it” (v. 27), it refers to Moshe, who burnt the incense during the seven days of the Installations before Aharon was anointed. And even on the eighth day, when Aharon began to burn incense, Moshe still burnt the incense [and brought the offerings] except for those which Aharon was commanded specifically for that day. Aharon and his sons brought [only] the offerings that they were commanded specifically for that day. 
  The daily burnt-offering. This, as opposed to the burnt-offering of Aharon and the burnt-offering of the people, which, on the eighth day, were offered by Aharon — not Moshe — as stated in <i>parshas</i> Shemini. 
  The mincha of the libations of the tamid . . . [Rashi knows this because] even though there are many [kinds of] meal-offerings, nevertheless since it is written, “And a meal-offering,” without specifying it further, it is speaking of the <i>mincha</i> of the <i>tamid</i>. If it was a <i>mincha</i> that comes separately, it should be mentioned separately, [i.e., by name], since it is not subsidiary to another offering. Perforce, it is speaking of the <i>mincha</i> of the <i>tamid,</i> which is part of the <i>tamid</i> burnt-offering as it says (Bamidbar 28:4—5), “Offer one lamb in the morning . . . and one tenth of an <i>eiphah</i> of fine flour as a meal-offering . . .” 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  Their encampment is also called  מסע . . . Rashi is answering the question: While Yisrael traveled, the cloud did not rest. Rather, B’nei Yisrael encamped only when the cloud rested, and in that place. Why does the verse say, “In all their travels,” implying that the cloud rested even while they traveled? Rashi answers, “Their encampment is also calle  מסע .” Accordingly, the verse conveys, “In all their <i>encampments</i>.” It does not mean literally, “In all their <i>travels</i>,” because then the cloud was not upon the <i>mishkon.</i> 
  
  Leviticus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  And all commands a calling preceded. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ויקרא and וידבר, which is apparently redundant? Therefore, he explains: [For all “speakings” and all sayings and all commands a calling preceded] ... meaning: Hashem did not speak to Moshe abruptly, but first He greeted him with “Moshe, Moshe” and he would answer “Here I am,” and then He would speak with him. 
  A calling, an expression of love. [All the “speakings,” etc.] in the Tent of Meeting were preceded by a calling. That is to say, from here we learn through a בנין אב (by comparison) that whenever it says, וידבר, ויאמר, or צו, it was preceded by calling. This is so in the case of דיבור as explained here. אמירה: as it is written in Parshas Shemos (3:4): “Elohim <i>called</i> to him from the midst of the thorn-bush, and <i>said</i> (ויאמר).” ציווי: as it is written in Parshas Yisro (19:20): “And Adonoy <i>called</i> to Moshe to come up to the top of the mountain ... [Adonoy] said ... ‘Go down and warn the people...’ This is an expression of ציווי: Lest they break through toward Hashem to see. However, there remains a difficulty: Why did Rashi not give this explanation above in Parshas Shemos or Yisro; why did he leave it until now? (<i>Minchas Yaakov</i> and <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  Happenstance and uncleanness. Meaning: ויקרא is related to the word קרי, as in nocturnal emission. [You might ask:] The word ויקר refers to Hashem! [The answer is:] It seemed to Hashem, as it were, as if He contracted repulsiveness and impurity in speaking to Bilaam, as one who contracts repulsiveness through nocturnal emission. 
  And reaches his ears. This refers to the utterance “Moshe, Moshe,” as is, with the pronunciation of the letters. All of these are needed [i.e., the three exclusions that Rashi mentions: 1)This one, “And He called to Moshe,” which excludes all Israel, 2)“and Adonoy spoke <i>to him</i>,” to exclude Aharon, and 3)“the voice to him (אליו instead of לו),” Moshe heard but all Israel did not hear], for if only one of these was written we would have established it [as excluding] only Israel. And if it was only written: “And He called to Moshe and [Adonoy] spoke to him,” [without the exclusion 3)] I would have thought that Aharon and all of Israel heard the <i>sound</i> of Hashem’s utterance. If it was only written: “And He called to Moshe and he heard the sound,” [without exclusion 2)] I would have thought Aharon heard even the speech itself. If was written: “Adonoy spoke to him,” and also: “He heard the voice,” together, [without exclusion 1)], I would have thought Aharon heard even the speech itself and all of Israel heard the call, “Moshe, Moshe” (This is the essence of Re”m’s words). 
  Perhaps even for the breaks. I.e., in a place where there is a parshah-break but there is not [at the beginning of the next parshah an expression of] דבור, אמירה, or ציווי, for example, the breaks preceding (v. 10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep,” (v. 14): “If his burnt-offering is of fowl,” and (2:1): “When a person brings,” and the like. You might ask: Why did Rashi not ask this “Perhaps even [for the breaks...]” after stating, “God happened upon Bilaam”? The answer is: Above, it was all right because I would have thought that everyone, including Israel, heard the voice of Hashem. If so, it did not indicate that Moshe was greater than the rest of Israel, for they also heard, as Moshe did. Thus, it was obvious there was a calling even for the breaks, for the fact he was called even for the breaks was the greatness of Moshe over the rest of Israel. But now that Rashi explains that Moshe alone heard the calling voice, one could be in doubt if he also had the greatness of being called for the breaks or not, because he was greater than the rest of Israel even without this, for the people of Israel did not even hear the calling voice. Thus, “the verse states 
  The verse states, “He spoke.” [Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say: “And He called <i>to</i> (אל) Moshe”?] You might ask: In the entire Torah it is written, “Adonoy spoke <i>to</i> Moshe, saying...” Why did Rashi not ask this before? The answer is: Here, Hashem called, “Moshe, Moshe,” if so, [it should have said: “And He called Moshe,”] why is it written אל? Rather [it is saying:] “The voice proceeds...” However, Re”m explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אל משה, it should say simply למשה? To this Rashi comments: “The voice proceeds...” Rashi responds here more than from every other place it says אל in the Torah because in Toras Kohanim the Sages expounded that וידבר אליו comes to exclude Aharon from the actual words of the command. But how did they derive that? Perhaps it only comes to exclude Israel, but Aharon, who was appointed to speak, did hear! Rather, perforce we must say that there was a previous “exclusion,” which is the word אל משה that excludes all Israel, that they did not hear it, and they did not even hear the call “Moshe, Moshe.” This is because [the word אל] refers to the verb “He called.” So much more so [that Israel did not hear] the actual words of the One Who is commanding. Thus, the extra word אליו remains [available] to exclude Aharon from [hearing] the explicit words, and the drashah קול לו excludes all of them, even from the <i>sound</i> of the calling. 
  To give a breathing space. It is understandable if this was a new calling or prophecy — that is why there is a break. But if there was no calling, why is there a break? Rashi answers: “To give a breathing space...” 
  How much more so for an ordinary person. The main point is to teach us who learn from ordinary persons that we must allow for a break between one subject and another in order to reflect between one and the other.
  To exclude. Meaning: the speaking was specifically to Moshe alone. Rashi is saying that to exclude Israel does not need an extra word, because it is [already] written אל, which excludes Israel. Rather, [the extra word] אליו comes to exclude Aharon. 
  Rabbi Yehudoh ben Beseiro says: Thirteen... It appears to me that there is no disagreement. It is only that Rabbi Yehudoh explains the words of the Tanna Kamma, so that you will not understand אליו comes here to exclude Aharon from the “speaking,” regarding the command: “If his offering is a burnt-offering.” This is because an extra word is not needed here to exclude him, since Aharon is not mentioned. Rather, it should be applied to the verses where Aharon is mentioned, which are the thirteen places. The text in Toras Kohanim follows this understanding as well: “Said Rabbi Yehudoh...” It seems to me Re”m wrote unnecessarily at length about this (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  Perhaps they heard. Many trouble themselves to explain why Rashi writes this matter here and not before the comment: אליו — to exclude Aharon. In my humble opinion the matters are straightforward: Rashi’s comments here are dependent on each other. The main reason to differentiate between “calling” and “speaking” is based on the thirteen exclusions, which are the thirteen “speakings” in which Moshe and Aharon are mentioned. These are specifically in regard to speaking and not to the “sound of calling.” Thus, we could have possibly thought the entire people of Israel actually heard the calling, for there is no exclusion concerning this by Aharon. If so, the entire people of Israel are equal to Aharon in this matter, and Aharon would have no advantage over Israel in this matter. This is because it is based on the extra word אליו, and Aharon is excluded together with the entire people of Israel. Therefore, we would have thought this applies only to “speaking,” but not in regard to “the sound of calling.” Thus, it says: [Instead of] “the voice to him (לו),” [it states] “the voice to him (אליו).” Meaning: In the verse at the end of Parshas Nosso it is written (Bamidbar 7:89): “When Moses would come into the Tent of Meeting [to speak with Him,] he would hear the voice speaking to him.” It would have been possible to say: קול מדבר לו, but it is written: מדבר אליו, for the sake of expounding this drashah: The entire people of Israel did not hear, thus, Aharon also did not hear, for they were already equated together, as we mentioned (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  “The voice to him (לו),” “the voice to him (אליו).” I.e., Scripture should have written: קול לו, why is it written קול אליו? It must be: “Moshe heard but all Israel did not hear.” I.e., it is obvious that Israel did not hear, for they did not even hear the calling, for their exclusion was expounded from the phrase: אל משה. So much more so that they did not hear the “speaking.” Rather, this teaches about Aharon, and refers back to the words of Rabbi Yehudoh ben Beseiro there, in which Aharon was excluded by expounding the extra word אליו, even in a place where it is written: “אל משה ואל אהרן.” Rashi raises a difficulty on this: Perhaps he heard the <i>sound</i> of the speaking, though not the exact letters? [Therefore, it says: (Instead of) “the voice to him (לו),” (it states) “the voice to him (אליו)” — even the <i>sound</i> of the speaking he did not hear] and it excludes even Aharon with the extra word אליו. So Re”m explains. 
  And did not leave the tent. It is not written: “And He called to Moshe from the Tent of Meeting and [Adonoy] spoke to him.” It must be that the reason it is written: “[Spoke] to him from the Tent of Meeting,” i.e. [placing the phrase “from the Tent of Meeting” next to the words] “to him” must be [in order to convey that] the voice was heard by Moshe, because he was in the Tent of Meeting, but it was not heard outside of the Tent (<i>Re”m</i>). This does not appear to me to be correct. Rather, Rashi derives [that this verse is also speaking about the voice’s range] for if you would assume that it is only referring to the place from where the voice originated, it should say: “From between the two cherubim,” as the Toras Kohanim concludes. But since it is written, “From the Tent of Meeting,” perforce it also refers to the voice’s range (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). However, this poses a difficulty: If so, why is the extra word אליו needed to exclude that Moshe heard and all of Israel did not hear? It is obvious that they did not hear, since the people of Israel were standing outside of the Tent! The Ra’avad answers that the exclusion is needed [for the period] before the Tabernacle was erected (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  For we find. The expression “for we find” is not meant to be precise, for the sending of the spies was only after Nissan of the second year and the Tabernacle’s establishment was on the first of Nissan of the second year from the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. Rather, perforce, we must say that the expression “for we find” only comes to give an example of what is meant by sobering words (<i>Re”m</i>). However, I say that this is what it means: Hashem commanded Moshe to tell them: “It is for your sake that He speaks to me.” These were the sobering words and no more. The authors of the Midrash that bring proofs for their statement that Hashem speaks to the prophets only for the sake of Israel: “For we find...” In the same way, the Mechilta dwells on this at length (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  And answer Me whether they will accept them. You might ask: How could it be that Hashem would not know whether or not they will accept them? The answer is: It is for this reason Rashi brings a proof: “As it is stated...” There, Rashi explains that it is the proper mode of conduct to speak in such a way, and Scripture only comes to teach you correct manners. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Voluntary sacrifices. You might ask: Perhaps it is speaking about an obligatory burnt offering! Re”m answers: Perforce, the word כי means “if” and not “that.” [If it meant “that,”] it is as if it says: Because he shall bring an offering to Hashem, which means, “because I admonished you to bring an offering to Hashem, I am telling you to bring it from the cattle, etc.” However, this is not applicable unless the sacrifices were mentioned before elsewhere. Sacrifices, though, were not mentioned in anywhere before. Therefore, it is only possible to explain that כי means “if.” See Re”m’s explanation there, because he goes on at length. It seems to me that since it is written, “You should bring your offering,” in the plural form, “you” teaches that two [people] may volunteer a burnt-offering in partnership. Perforce, this is referring to a voluntary offering, for if it refers to an obligatory offering, how could two people bring such an offering in partnership, when each one is obligated to bring an offering? Rather, perforce, it refers to a voluntary offering (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  Why is this said? It should say איש. Above [before Rashi explains that the section speaks of voluntary sacrifices], however, it did not pose a difficulty, because I could say אדם comes to exclude an idolater, as we derive: “You are termed אדם but idolaters are not.” Now, though, that Rashi explains אדם כי יקריב speaks of a voluntary offering, and an idolater is permitted to bring a voluntary offering, as we derive from the extra words איש איש כי יקריב  — [from which we learn that] idolaters are included in bringing voluntary offerings. [Therefore, now it is difficult:] Why does it say אדם? (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>). However, this is not true, for if so, what shall you say it means in Parshas Tazria where it is written: “אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו”? Why does it not say איש? Furthermore, when we look at what Rashi quotes [in the first d.h.]: “אדם כי יקריב מכם,” this is apparently unnecessary. First, he should quote אדם and explain it, and afterwards quote כי יקריב מכם and then explain it. Rather, Rashi’s intention is to explain the double expression אדם מכם, for it would be sufficient to say just אדם כי יקריב or simply כי יקריב מכם. Since Rashi wishes to explain this problem, which is based on the phrase’s beginning and end, i.e., the double expression, he felt it was best to first explain כי יקריב which appears first — that it refers to a voluntary offering — before he explains the later word מכם, which is a repetition of אדם, for one of them is extra. Therefore, he explains first כי יקריב, which comes first in the verse, and afterwards אדם, since the problem is based on the word מכם, which comes later. One who wishes to make the difficulty presented by the word אדם dependent on the phrase כי יקריב is just making an unnecessary pilpul (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  So should you not bring from stolen property. As it is written (Yeshayahu 61:8): “[For I am Hashem, Who loves justice,] hates robbery in a burnt offering.” 
  Perhaps even wild animals. [You might think this] because wild animals (חיה) are included in the term בהמה, as it is written (11:2): “These are the living things (החיה) that you may eat from among all the animals (הבהמה)” (<i>Re”m</i>). In Toras Kohanim [the following verse is used to support the assumption]: As it says (Devarim 14:4-5): “These are the animals (הבהמה) that you may eat: [ox, lamb,] and kid, <i>gazelle, deer</i>...” which is a verse in Parshas Re’eh, and this is the text cited in Zevachim 34a as well (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  The verse teaches us: Cattle. I.e., why is it written: “Cattle or sheep,” since the word בהמה means cattle and sheep unless specified otherwise? Rather, it comes to exclude: Specifically cattle and sheep, but not wild animals. 
  [A male animal] which was with a woman. You might ask: Why does it need to exclude these animals, since they are stoned to death? The answer is: [It is needed,] where [it was known only] by the testimony of one witness, or the owner admitted, in which case the animal is not stoned. Therefore, it is needed to exclude them. Similarly, we must say [regarding Rashi’s comment later] concerning the animal that was worshipped as an idol or the ox that killed a man. 
  Which was worshipped. Concerning the animal that was with a woman it says בהמה (20:15): “A man who lies [conjugally] with an animal (בבהמה),” whereas concerning the animal that was worshipped it is written (Tehillim 106:20): “They exchanged their glory for the likeness of an <i>ox</i> eating grass.” The verse here speaks of a <i>living</i> animal that was worshipped, which is permitted for secular use and is not forbidden as an animal that was worshipped as an idol or as an animal that was set aside as an offering to an idol, as it says in Temurah (28b). 
  Set aside [as an offering to an idol]. Meaning: [An animal] set aside and separated for idolatry should not be brought as an offering. This refers to the case when they fed it fodder of idolatry, but with a statement alone [it would] not [be considered as set aside], as it says in Temurah 29a. 
  To exclude a goring ox. Meaning: Specifically, an animal that killed a man, not that it killed another animal. 
  [An animal] with a fatal defect. This refers to the case where the animal was fit at the time the owner consecrated it, and then it became fatally defective. If so, I might have thought it is permissible for one to sacrifice it on the altar since it was fit at the time he consecrated it. Thus, it is necessary to exclude it here. 
  That two [people] may volunteer. Otherwise, it should say: יקריב קרבנו [in the singular form instead of in the plural form]. This does not mean only two, but rather ten, a hundred, or a thousand [and it is still considered an individual’s offering and requires leaning] as long as the entire people of Israel are not partners in it [as we find, for example, with the burnt offerings of the “summer fruit” for the altar which comes from the surplus of the yearly half-shekels]. 
  “Summer fruit” for the altar. I.e., a “meal” for the altar that comes from the surplus, i.e., the surplus from the half-shekels given the previous year. From those surplus half-shekels they bought sheep as burnt offerings and sacrificed them on the altar when there were no individual offerings to bring, so that the altar would not be unused, without any sacrifices being offered.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  It comes only to say — a male. Rashi brings here the exclusion from “a male” (v. 10) — not [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined and the one which has both male and female characteristics — and not the rest of the exclusions later on [such as an old or sick animal], because he explains in the next comment: “תמים. Without a blemish.” [Rashi does this] so that you will not raise the objection: How does he know that תמים means without a blemish? Perhaps תמים means that it should be perfect in its quality, i.e., it should not be [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined or one which has both male and female characteristics? Therefore, Rashi brings [the drashah] from “a male” later on, where it excludes — “a male,” and not [an animal] whose sex cannot be determined or one which has both male and female characteristics. Thus, as a matter of course, תמים means “without blemish.” 
  Without a blemish. Re”m writes: Even though it is written in another place (22:20): “Anything that has a blemish on it you shall not bring,” and if so, why does it say [here] תמים? The Sages already answered in Toras Kohanim: This word תמים comes for a <i>hekeish</i> (comparison). I.e., just as when the animal is blemished and not תמים it will not be accepted favorably, as it is written (ibid.): “Anything that has a blemish on it [you shall not bring, for it will not be accepted favorably for you],” so too, if it is not a male, but rather a female, one whose sex cannot be determined, or one which has both male and female characteristics, it will not be accepted favorably.
  
  Until the court. The word יקריבנו is from the root of קורבה, which means to bring close. Rashi’s proof is [that otherwise,] why does it say, “[He shall bring an unblemished male] to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”? It should write: “An unblemished male he shall bring to be accepted favorably before Hashem,” and no more. 
  Even if [Reuvein’s burnt-offering] became mixed up [with Shimon’s]. Meaning: Scripture could have written: “He shall bring it ... to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting that it be favorably accepted from him before Adonoy.” [Why does it say “he shall bring it” a second time?] Without Rashi’s explanation that [the one who brings the sacrifice] takes care of it until [it is brought to] the [Temple] courts, I might have thought [that the first “he shall bring it” is needed for the plain meaning, to teach that he should not slaughter it outside the courtyard and] the extra “he shall bring it” teaches that he takes care of it even <i>inside</i> the court. However, now that Rashi explains that he is only obligated to take care of it until the entrance to the courtyard, why does it need [to repeat] “he shall bring it”? 
  Unfit. Meaning: Such as [a male animal] which was with a woman or a [female] animal which was with a man, and the like. 
  Or of another kind. With a sin-offering, guilt-offering, first-born, animal tithes, Pesach offering, or peace offering. 
  That they force. This is not derived from the repetition of יקריב, because that is needed to include the law when a burnt-offering became mixed up with another burnt-offering, or a burnt-offering became mixed up with a common [animal]. Rather, this is derived from the extra word אותו. 
  Against his will? The verse comes only to say: לרצונו. I.e., you might think that if they forced him to buy [an animal] to bring as the sacrifice and he cries out the whole time that he does not want to do it — even so — he must do it against his will. Therefore, the verse comes to say: לרצונו, they force him until he says, “I want to.” Then, he brings it. We should not ask: What does this statement help, since he says it against his will? [The answer is:] We say that because he was forced he decided to agree with what he is saying out loud, because he wants to be rid of being forced. Even regarding monetary issues we say this (Baba Basra 47b): Rav Huna said: If they hung him up until he agreed to sell to him, the acquisition has been made, because due to his being forced he decided to transfer his ownership; so much more so here where it is a mitzvah (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  There is no laying [of the hands] at a private altar. The verse (4) [“and he shall lay his hand”] is interpreted in juxtaposition to the preceding section and to the section following: “Before God,” which refers to the Tent of Meeting, where the Ark and the Divine Presence are found. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  For laying (of hands). Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “[on the head of] the burnt-offering”? [It should say “on <i>its</i> head,”] because at the verse’s beginning it is written “burnt-offering” to which the verse is referring. Rather, it comes to include everything that is termed a burnt-offering for laying [of the hands], even an obligatory burnt-offering. And since it is written “<i>the</i> burnt-offering” with the indicative ה, this implies [only] the burnt-offering that was mentioned: “From cattle or from sheep,” and to exclude a bird [offered as a] burnt-offering from laying [of the hands]; and to include a sheep [brought as] a burnt-offering, i.e., also for laying [of hands]. 
  A prohibition which is uprooted by a positive commandment. For instance (Devarim 22:6): “You shall not take the mother upon the young,” upon which it is written (Ibid. 7): “You shall send away the mother.” Similarly (Shemos 12:10): “You must not leave any of it over until morning. Any of it left over until morning must be burned in fire.” Also (Vayikro 19:13): “And you shall not rob,” upon which it is written (Ibid. 5:23): “He shall return the stolen property.” No punishment is mentioned with regard to these prohibitions, but the prohibitions mentioned by Rashi have their punishments specified, whether committed intentionally where there is execution ordered by a court or being whipped, or when committed unintentionally where there is a sin-offering. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Valid by a non-kohein. Since it is written “he shall slaughter” without specifying who slaughters, and afterwards it is written: “The <i>kohanim</i> shall bring,” this implies that the slaughter is valid even when done by a non<i>kohein</i>. The explanation is: If you would think that receiving [the blood] is permitted by a non-<i>kohein</i>, and it is a mitzvah of the Kohanim [only] from carrying and onwards, and accordingly, “they shall bring” means carrying, then it should mention receiving together with slaughtering before the phrase, “and the sons of Aharon will bring.” Since it did not mention it there, perforce that “they shall bring” means receiving (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). This is the explanation: Certainly, this word “they shall bring” refers to receiving, since we cannot say it refers to carrying because carrying is not necessarily a Temple service, for if the animal was slaughtered close enough to the altar that no carrying would be needed, then surely no carrying need to be done. If so, we must say that “they shall bring” is receiving, which is an indispensable mitzvah. However, why does Scripture use the expression “they shall bring”? Rather, it implies carrying as well, and we [therefore] learn that both [receiving and carrying] require a <i>kohein</i> (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  In the court. But not in the Tent of Meeting, for if [Scripture wants to specify a location that is even holier than the entrance to the Tent, or the Temple courts,] it should have written: “Before Hashem, in front of the Ark-cover,” or “Before Hashem, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” 
  An expression of carrying. I.e., although [“they shall bring”] literally means carrying [the blood] to the altar, nevertheless, since the receiving of the blood [in a vessel] is the first act after slaughtering and precedes carrying, perforce, we must explain [“they shall bring”] as referring to the receiving. We learn carrying [requires a Kohein] as well through a kal vachomer [<i>Re”m</i>]. 
  Perhaps those unfit? The verse says: You might ask: [If so,] let it not say “the sons of Aharon”? The Sages already answered in the Gemoro: Perhaps I should exclude those unfit and not those with a blemish? The verse says: “The sons of Aharon” — just as Aharon is valid because he is unblemished, so too, his sons are valid... However, [you might ask:] In Parshas Emor we include those with a blemish from the verse: “[the sons of Aharon]”? See Minchas Yaakov who answers. You might ask: Why do I need a verse to invalidate those with a blemish, you can derive it from what is written (21:18): “For any man who has a blemish [shall not approach]”? The answer is: There, it refers to the service on the altar, as it is written: (Ibid. 21): “Shall not approach to offer the fireofferings of Adonoy.” But here it includes receiving [the blood] and all the rest of the service. Alternatively, it informs that he transgresses on a positive commandment and a negative commandment, for this is what it implies: “The sons of Aharon” — just as Aharon is unblemished, so too every unblemished <i>kohein</i> is permitted to bring, [but a blemished <i>kohein</i> is not permitted to bring]. A negative commandment that is derived by implication from a positive commandment is considered a positive commandment. Thus, it informs us that he transgresses a negative commandment and a positive one (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  Which was mixed with [other blood of its type or of another type]. “Of its type” means [for example that] the blood of Reuven’s burnt-offering [that was mixed] with the blood of Shimon’s burnt-offering. “Or of another type” [refers to] the blood of a burnt-offering [which was mixed] with the blood of an exchanged offering or with the blood of a guilt-offering or with the blood of any sacrifice whose blood is sprinkled below the red line, such as the blood of a burnt-offering. There is no problem since they are all sprinkled below the red line. [You might ask:] The blood of the burnt-offering requires two applications [of the blood by sprinkling] that are four [in direction], and some of the other [types of] blood require only one application? This is no problem, for he may place all the blood in one application. However, the opposite is not true, because some of the [types of] blood require only one application, and [by placing more than one application] he would transgress the negative commandment of “do not add [to the mitzvos].” 
  “Inner” sin-offerings. Their blood is sprinkled on the inner Holy Curtain and on the inner altar.
  “Outer” sin-offerings. Their blood is sprinkled on the outer altar.
  Where these, [the inner ones, require sprinkling] above. Meaning: Above the red line.
  
  “Its blood.” Meaning: This excludes the case where its blood was mixed with the blood of an inner or outer sin-offering. What should he do if the blood was mixed? He should spill it into the amoh (the drainage ditch in the courtyard). Similarly, if blood that is sprinkled above the red line was mixed with blood that is sprinkled below he should spill it into the amoh as well. 
  Stands below. Meaning: on the ground and not on the ramp.
  Two applications that are four. Meaning: The sprinkling is from the vessel in which the <i>kohein</i> received the blood, and he sprinkles on the altar’s wall opposite the edge of the altar’s northeastern corner. The blood spreads on the corner’s two directions like a Greek “Ã” (<i>gamma</i>) which is like our ך that is inverted. Then, he goes to the southwestern corner, diagonally opposite, and sprinkles from the vessel towards the edge of the corner like a “Ã.” Thus, with these two applications, one on the northeastern corner and one on the southwestern corner, the sprinkled blood appears on four directions of the altar. This is what is meant by “all around.” 
  Not when it is taken apart. Otherwise, why does it say: “The entrance of the Tent of Meeting”? Above, it is already written: “The entrance of the Tent of Meeting”!
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  To include all the burnt-offerings. Meaning: The section is [already] referring to a burntoffering; Scripture should have said: He shall skin <i>it</i>... Rather: [To include all the burntofferings]; it makes no difference if it is a burnt offering of women, converts, or slaves. The ה of העולה excludes [the case] when it was slaughtered [with intention to eat it] beyond its [prescribed] time or [with intention to eat it] outside of its [prescribed] place (pigul), or any other invalid offerings, and it went up on the altar [without being skinned]; it should not be taken down [from the altar]. Instead, they burn it with its skin, and it does not need skinning. 
  But not its pieces... In the second chapter of Yoma the Gemara explains how the pieces were cut.
  
  Verse 7
  
  It is a mitzvoh to bring [some fire]. This does not mean that the fire descended every day, but rather the fire that descended in the days of Moshe did not depart from the altar until the Jewish people came to the Eternal House (First Temple). Then, a fire descended from Heaven in Shlomo [HaMelech]’s building, and it did not depart until the days of Menashe, as [the Sages] taught [in a Baraisa] at the end of the first chapter of Yoma. 
  In his role as kohein godol. Otherwise, why does it say “the <i>kohein</i>”? Similarly, why does it say: “the sons of Aharon the Kohein”? If [you say] it comes to exclude the unfit <i>kohanim</i>, [that cannot be,] for the verse already excluded them from receiving the blood, which is the first step in sprinkling the blood, so much more so [they are excluded] from the rest of the service that follows! Rather, it tells you that the entire service of the <i>kohein godol</i> should be in the way of a <i>kohein godol</i>, and that [the entire service] of an ordinary <i>kohein</i> should be in the way of an ordinary <i>kohein</i>, i.e., the <i>kohein godol</i> wears eight garments and the ordinary <i>kohein</i> wears four garments. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Since it was already cut off. Once the signs (windpipe and esophagus) were cut, Rashi calls the head “cut off,” because the animal’s life-force depends on them. As a result, it is considered as if it was placed in a basket. The head is not included in skinning, but rather is brought as is with the skin. 
  And covers. It is understandable for Scripture to mention “the head,” for it is needed to be included, because it had already been cut off and it was not included in the skinning. However, why is it necessary to say “the fat”?
  
  Protrude. Meaning: They cut thick pieces of wood that will not protrude outside the pile, which is where they burnt the offerings’ limbs; it is one amoh (cubit) by one amoh. The cut pieces of wood were also one amoh long so they would not protrude outside the pile. This was so the wood would not interfere with the <i>kohanim</i>’s feet when they walked around the pile. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  For the sake of a burnt-offering. Meaning: This excludes [burning it] for the sake of a peace offering.
  For the sake of the fire. Meaning: With the intent of burning it completely and not just to roast it there, like pieces of meat roasting on coals. He removes it afterwards, at the time of the removal of the ashes from the altar (<i>Ramban</i>). 
  Satisfaction before Me. I.e., it is not that Hashem is pleased by the fragrance of the sacrifice, for it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I were hungry I would not tell you...”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  The word “and” adds. And one learns the previous section from the next section, and the next section from the previous one: Sheep require laying [of the hands], skinning, cutting into pieces, and all the things listed above. 
  Why was there a break. You might ask: Rashi explains above: Perhaps even for the breaks there was a calling, etc. [to give Moshe a breathing space], therefore, even without the ו adding to the first matter [we have already learned this]? The answer is: Rashi is saying this only to strengthen the question, i.e., since it says ואם, which adds to the earlier matter and it is like one parshah — if so, so much more so — why is there a break in the matter? He answers: In order [to give Moshe a breathing space...] (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  Excluding old. For if [you say] it excludes [a male animal] which was with a woman or a [female animal] which was with a man, or the other unfit animals excluded above in the beginning of the section — [this cannot be, for] the verse already excludes them above, and the ו of ואם מן הצאן comes and adds to the earlier matter, to learn the next section from the previous one. We need not ask: Why are three exclusions [the three extra words מן] needed? Let us learn [them all] from one! The Sages already answered in the Gemara (Bechoros 41a): If we were to learn from a sick animal with a מה מצינו (by comparison), I might think that only a sick animal is unfit, because being sick is not inevitable, but an old animal, since it is inevitable [for animals get old] is not unfit. Therefore it lets me know [that even an old animal is unfit]. If [we were to learn] from a filthy animal, I might think that it is [unfit] because it is repulsive, but an old or sick animal [which are not repulsive] are not [unfit]. Therefore, Scripture needed the three exclusions.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  On the side. The side is called “thigh” because the thigh is on the side; similarly (Shemos 26:22): “ולירכתי המשכן (For the end of the <i>mishkon</i>),” (Ibid. 27): “לירכתים ימה (of the western [back] wall)” — [means] the side.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  But not all fowl. I.e., although a blemished bird is fit [as an offering], nevertheless, a bird lacking a limb is unfit [as an offering]. However, we do not say ואם מן העוף — the ו adds [to the previous section] and a bird would be unfit [as an offering] even if it is only blemished, and it needs to be a male. For if so, why does it say “an unblemished male” with regard to sheep? It could have derived the later section [sheep] from the previous section [cattle]. Rather, it comes to exclude [that only regarding cattle and sheep does Scripture require unblemished males, but not regarding birds] (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  Large ones. Otherwise, Scripture should have written בני תורים as it writes בני יונה, which refers only to small ones. Rather, [it must mean the large ones]... We learn from the expression בני יונה that there is only one kind [of pigeons] that is fit — specifically small ones — since it is written, בני (the sons of) — so too, turtledoves, have only one kind that is fit. And we surely cannot say it refers to small ones, as I explained above. If so, it must mean the large ones. 
  Excluding [birds whose feathers] are becoming bright. I.e., when the feathers start to redden. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Even one pigeon. Otherwise, Scripture should have written: “The Kohein shall bring,” why is it written, “He shall bring <i>it</i>”? Rather, it teaches that if he comes to bring one pigeon he may do so. [You might ask:] It is written above, “He shall bring from turtledoves...” which implies two! [The answer is:] That [perhaps it means that this] is the best way to fulfill the mitzvah but not necessary after the fact. Alternatively, “from turtledoves” refers to the species of turtledoves, but [he may bring] even one. 
  With the kohein’s own body. Otherwise, why does it say “the <i>kohein</i>”; [even without specifying a <i>kohein</i>,] the nipping must obviously be done by a <i>kohein</i>, for a non-<i>kohein</i> may not bring sacrifices upon the altar. If not for the verse, I might have thought that nipping must be done with a knife, [and I would have derived it] by means of a <i>kal vachomer</i> from slaughtering, which can be done by a non-<i>kohein</i> and yet it requires a knife, so much more so nipping, which is invalid for a non-<i>kohein</i> — is it not logical that it should require a knife? (Zevachim 65a). 
  Near the nape. This is derived from the turtledoves and young pigeons spoken about at the end of the parshah, where it is explicitly written (5:8): “opposite of its neck,” i.e., [the part of the neck] that looks upon the nape of the neck, [i.e., behind the throat], but not the nape itself, which is [the back of the head,] on the level of the face and behind it, as it says (Yirmeyahu 2:27): “For they turned to Me their nape and not their face.” 
  After he burns it he squeezes the blood [out the blood]. Meaning: First, he must squeeze out the blood, for the limbs of an offering are brought to be burnt only after the blood is taken out. Thus, it should say “He nips, the blood is squeezed out,” and then, “he burns it.” Rather, the word “burns” is inserted between them [i.e., nipping and squeezing] to make a comparison to “nipping”: [Just as regarding burning, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, so too nipping, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, i.e., the head is completely severed by the nipping. What is the source that the burning of the head and body are separate?] Concerning the burning of its body it is written (17): “[The <i>kohein</i>] shall burnt it on the altar,” this speaks [of the burning] of the body. And it is [also] written (v. 15): “Its head and burn it.” [This refers to burning the head]. So too, in regard to nipping, the head is by itself and the body is by itself (Zevachim 65a). 
  So too the nipping. Although it is still connected by the skin it is considered separated.
  It is transposed. As if it is written: “He shall nip its head, [the blood] shall be squeezed out,” and then: “and he shall burn it.” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  The place of excrement; this is the crop. רעי means excrement, as in (Nachum 3:6): “ושמתיך כראי (and I will make you like dung).” In the language of the Sages רעי is with an ע, for the א and the ע are interchangeable.
  
  East of the ramp. [Rashi knows that it is eastward of the <i>ramp</i>] because Scripture should have written (v. 16): “throw it to the place of the ashes,” and the place of ashes is explained in Parshas Tzav (6:3) that it is beside the altar. Rather, [it must be that] “beside” that is written here refers to the ramp, and “beside” means that the ramp was beside the altar. [This is because] the altar was thirty-two amoh by thirty-two amoh, the ramp’s width was on the altar’s southern side, and the ramp’s width was sixteen amoh and its length thirty-two amoh. The [corner formed by the] rest of the amos in width that remained on the altar’s southern side, where it intersected with the ramp’s eastern side, was where they placed the bird’s crop and the ashes that had been lifted [from the altar]. This is taught in the first chapter of Tamid (Mishnah 4). 
  Were absorbed there. [Rashi knows this] because it should say “upon the ashes.” Rather, it must be that it comes to teach that the ashes were absorbed there, and only the place was there [and no ashes].
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  A meal-offering without specifying. Otherwise, it should say: “When a person brings a meal-offering to Adonoy, <i>if</i> his offering shall be of fine flour,” and afterwards (v. 4): “And when you bring a meal-offering that has been baked in an oven,” as it does concerning the burntoffering (1:3): “If his offering is a burnt offering [of cattle],” [and afterwards (v. 10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep,”] and then (v. 14): “[If his burnt-offering to Adonoy is] of fowl.” Rather, it must be that the reason it says in a definitive fashion is to convey that whoever says: I am obligated [to bring] a meal-offering without specifying [which one] must bring a fine-flour meal offering. 
  Which is the first. Rashi does not mean to say because it is the first [mentioned], for if so, one who volunteers to bring a burnt offering [without specifying] should have to bring specifically from cattle. Rather, this is what it means: He brings the fine flour meal-offering which is the first of the meal-offerings, and not from one of the other four meal-offerings that are from fine flour as well. Rashi gives the reason why the fine flour meal-offering is called the first, more than other meal-offerings, and says because its fistful is taken while it is [still] fine flour, but all the other four meal-offerings have their fistfuls taken only after they are baked. Although the halachah follows the view of the Sages (Menachos 104b) who said he [one who volunteers to bring a meal-offering without specifying] may bring from whichever [mealoffering] he wants, [nevertheless,] since this is closer to the verse’s plain meaning, Rashi’s way is to explain it this way even though it is not in accordance with the halachah. 
  But to exclude. Meaning: Each [mention of the word] “upon it” in Scripture is to include. Therefore, the Sages derived from the first inclusion “upon it” that he shall put the oil on <i>all</i> of the fine flour and mix thoroughly together. From the second “upon it,” which would now be an inclusion after an inclusion — and there is no inclusion after inclusion but to exclude — they derived that he should place the frankincense on part of the flour, and it is not required that he put it on all of the flour, for it does not need to be mixed thoroughly. Rather, he puts it on the fine flour in one place, and at the time of burning the fistful, he gathers the frankincense from there and burns both of them together. 
  From its flour and from its oil. I.e., since it is written: “He takes from there its fistful from its flour and from its oil,” we hear that the oil was mixed thoroughly with the fine flour, which excludes with regard to frankincense, where it is written: “With all its frankincense.” From this we hear that the frankincense is not taken as a fistful with the fine flour, because it is impossible to take all the frankincense with one fistful. Rather, after he takes the fistful [he gathers the frankincense]. 
  Are valid when done by a non-kohein. Meaning: Rashi knows that “pouring” [is valid when done by a non-<i>kohein</i>] because it is written: “He shall pour oil upon it ... he shall bring it to the sons of Aharon.” Perforce, before he brings it to the <i>kohein</i>, he is permitted to put oil upon it, thus it implies that even a non-<i>kohein</i> may “pour.” “Mixing” also [can be done by a non-<i>kohein</i>] as demonstrated from what is written (v. 5) regarding a panbaked meal-offering: “mixed with oil,” and afterwards it is written (v. 6): “and pour oil on it.” Perforce, since the pouring is after the mixing, and since the pouring is valid with a non-<i>kohein</i>, as we explained, so certainly the mixing, which precedes the pouring, is valid if done by a non-<i>kohein</i> (<i>Re”m</i>). Rashi mentioned pouring and mixing but did not mention the placing of the frankincense and the bringing, which were mentioned explicitly in the verse, because he mentions a matter through which the meal-offering is done, which excludes placing [the frankincense] because the meal-offering is not done with it, for he gathers the frankincense from it afterwards, and similarly, the meal-offering is not done through the bringing [either] (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Spilling out. מבצבץ is the translation of מבורץ; Rashi is explaining what is meant by מבורץ.
  Three fingers. Meaning: with his two other fingers, which are the thumb and little finger, he would make it even, for he would wipe away from below with his little finger and with the thumb from above, so that it would not be overflowing. 
  And this is the meaning of a “fistful.” For in other languages a fistful is called what is inside of four fingers. But since the finger close to the little finger is called קמיצה in Hebrew, that which is inside the three fingers including the קמיצה finger is therefore called קומץ (fistful) (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  Must be burned. Because you might think that the burning is only for the fistful, but the frankincense, which is not included in the taking of the fistful, is not included in the burning [either], therefore, it comes to inform us [otherwise]. 
  A particle of frankincense. Meaning: Since a fistful that is lacking [in its minimum measurement] is invalid, perforce, if a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense came into his hand, in which case the fistful is lacking, it is invalid. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reverse the order [of the verse]? He should explain first “his fistful” before he explains “Its frankincense and he shall burn.” [The answer is:] Because you might think that only fine flour and oil are burned, since they are [included] in [the taking of] the fistful, but its frankincense, which is not in the fistful, would not be burned. But now that he explains that although its frankincense is not in the fistful, nonetheless it <i>is</i> burned, if so, the words “his fistful” are extra, and it teaches that if a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense came into his hand, etc. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). We need not ask: How does Rashi know that the frankincense is burned? The answer is: Since it juxtaposes “and he shall burn” to “its frankincense,” perforce, even its frankincense is burned (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). In the first chapter of Menachos (11a) Rashi raises a difficulty: Let it say [only] frankincense [may not be in the fistful] and I would know salt through a kal vachomer! The answer is: This is taught in the form of “not only this but even that”: If it taught [only] salt [is invalid], I might think specifically salt, for which the Torah does not clearly specify a place for salt is not put into the meal-offering, as it is added only at the top of the altar [invalidates the fistful], but regarding frankincense, which needs to be brought with the meal-offering from the beginning as well, I might think that if a grain of frankincense came into his hand it would be valid, therefore, it lets us know [that it is not] (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Takes a portion first. Otherwise, why does it say, “Aharon and his sons”? Is he worse than his sons? Rather, it must mean that he takes a portion first, without a distribution. 
  After the [fire-]offerings. I.e., Aharon and his sons may have a portion of what remains of the meal-offering for eating only after the fistful was burned for the sake of Hashem and it becomes a fire-offering of Hashem.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Baked in an oven. [Rashi states this] for if he did not say clearly, but only said without specifying: “I am obligated to bring a meal-offering,” he brings a fine-flour offering, as stated above. 
  Or matzoh wafers. As it is written, “And when you bring an offering,” which implies a singular offering. Therefore, when it is written: “Matzohloaves ... <i>and</i> matzoh wafers,” the ו of ורקיקי is like או (or). 
  Our Rabbis disagree on their smearing. I.e., [the loaves] are specifically <i>mixed</i> [with oil] and [the wafers] are specifically <i>smeared</i> [with oil]. As a result, there is no place to ask what difference exists between them to the point that our Rabbis disagree on their smearing! However, from what is written in the verse: “matzoh-loaves ... mixed ... or matzoh wafers smeared...” there is no proof, because I might think that mixed and smeared is the same thing, but only that the term ‘mixed’ is appropriate for loaves and ‘smeared’ is appropriate for wafers. Therefore, Rashi explains [the loaves mixed and the wafers smeared]... The difference between mixing and smearing is that mixing is when they are still fine flour and the smearing is after the baking. 
  To permit oil of the second [or third pressing]. [You might ask:] Above, in Parshas Tetzaveh, it says (Shemos 27:20): “crushed for lighting,” and Rashi there explains: [oil from the second crushing is unfit for the menorah] but not for meal-offerings; for there even second oil is fit. If so, why do we need [the drashah here from] “in oil ... in oil”? The answer is: I might think that the verse that makes second oil valid is applicable only to meal-offerings [brought together with an animal sacrifice with the] wine-offerings, but for meal-offerings [brought] by themselves, mixed with oil or smeared with oil, [then oil from the second crushing] would be invalid. Therefore, we need the verse, “in oil ... in oil.” (<i>Re”m</i>). It seems that it comes to permit here even oil of the third [crushing], for I might think [since] for the lighting it requires clear oil, which is the first [crushing], then regarding meal-offerings it drops down only one level, i.e., even the second oil is valid. Thus, it lets me know that even third oil is valid here (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  Ten loaves. As it is written in Parshas Tzav, regarding the breads of a thanksgiving offering (7:12): “loaves and matzoh wafers,” and it is written afterwards (v. 14): “From it, he shall bring one from each offering as separated portion (תרומה) to Adonoy.” And we learn [through a gezeirah shavah based on the words] תרומה תרומה: It is written here (ibid.): תרומה (separated portion), and it is written (Bamidbar 18:26) regarding the separation of a tenth from the Levites’ tithes (תרומת מעשר): “[You shall set aside from it] a separated portion (תרומה) [for Hashem, a tithe of the tithe].” Just as regarding the separated portion from the tithes (תרומת מעשר) it is written that it must be one out of ten, so too the separated portion [of the thanksgiving offering] here must be one out of ten. [Now,] if the loaves were less than ten or more than ten, a tenth of each offering would constitute a fraction of a loaf. The Torah requires, however, “one” of each type, i.e., it must be a whole loaf or whole wafer, not a fraction (Menachos 77b). 
  
  Verse 5
  
  The fire burnt. I.e., it is not deep, but rather the pan’s bottom ‘floats up’ (צפין) close to the rim and the oil scattered towards the pan’s rim. An alternative interpretation: The middle of the pan’s floor, which is the place he would place the meal-offering, was raised from below to above, and protruded like our glass vessels. It was raised like a mount in its middle, and when they put the meal-offering on that place it seemed as if it floated (צפה), since it was a raised area. 
  Pouring, mixing. As it is written with regard to the pan-baked meal-offering (v. 5-6): “Mixed with oil ... and pour oil on it.” 
  And placing of oil in the vessel. As it is written with regard to the deep-pan meal-offering (v. 7): “With fine flour and oil you shall make it,” which refers to placing the oil in the vessel. This is before they are prepared, as it is written, “with fine flour and oil,” followed afterwards by, “you shall make it.” Next, we learn [a gezeirah shavah from the words קרבנך קרבנך]: “קרבנך (your offering)” stated above [regarding the pan-baked meal offering] from קרבנך stated below regarding the deep-pan meal-offering, and we apply what is stated by this to that, and what is stated by that to this. Therefore, all of them require pouring, mixing and placing of oil in the vessel before they are prepared. “Before they are prepared” means: Before anything is done with them at all. Although it says: “Mixed with oil... Break it into pieces” and only afterwards: “And pour oil on it,” and if so, perforce, after they were prepared he poured the oil on it! Rather, the explanation is [the oil is poured] before they are brought, [i.e., the flour is put into the vessel]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  To include. Meaning: It is not the phrase “break it into pieces” that includes all the meal-offerings, for here, the phrase is not extra that it should include, as it is needed for itself. Rather, we derive it from the verse’s end, where it is written, “It is a meal-offering,” because “it is a meal-offering” is extra, to include all the meal-offerings in [the law of] breaking into pieces. [You might ask:] It is written “it,” which implies an exclusion! [The answer is:] “It” excludes the Two Loaves and the Show Bread from [the law that requires the] breaking into pieces. 
  Perhaps. That which they exclude a <i>meal-offering baked in an oven</i> from pouring, and [they exclude] the <i>Two Loaves and the Show Bread</i> from [the law] of breaking into pieces, is explained in פרק אלו מנחות (Menachos 75b), because pouring has two exclusions: “on it” and “it,” which excludes the [meal-offering] baked in an oven that has two types: loaves and wafers. Breaking into pieces, however, which has only one exclusion: “it,” excludes the Two Loaves and the Show Bread which need only one exclusion. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  In any of [these] types. I.e., a meal-offering only needs to be presented to the altar if it is one of the types mentioned, which are the meal-offering of fine flour, baked in an oven, a pan, or a deep pan... 
  The owners. Not that the one who brings the offering should present it, as might be understood, for if so, why does it say “he shall being it to the <i>kohein</i>”? What does the <i>kohein</i> have to do with bringing it?
  
  To the southwest corner. As it is written in Parshas Tzav (6:7): “He shall bring it ... before Adonoy, to the front of the altar.” We derive from what is written “before [Hashem]” that it means that the presenting needs to be towards the west side of the altar, which is opposite the Sanctuary entrance; this is [considered] before Hashem. Additionally, when it is written, “to the front of the altar,” it implies the southern side of the altar, where the ramp is located, because the entrance to the house is the front of the house. How can this be reconciled? Perforce, he presents it to the southwest corner of the altar. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  The fistful. [Rashi knows this] because it is written above: “The <i>kohein</i> shall separate from the meal-offering,” and afterwards it is written: “its memorial portion and burn it on the altar...” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Sweet [juice] of a fruit. [Rashi knows this] from what it says next that they bring first fruit offerings from [honey of the first fruits of] dates and figs. If “all honey you shall not burn” refers to bee honey, what does it mean when it says afterwards “You <i>shall</i> bring them as a first fruit offering,” i.e., including honey? But, first fruits are not brought from bee honey! Rather, it must be that any sweet juice of a fruit is called honey. However, this raises a difficulty: Perhaps “<i>all</i> honey” comes to include date honey <i>and</i> bee honey! And [the verse] “You shall bring them as a first [fruit-]offering” refers to date honey alone and to sourdough, because when the Torah says honey without specifying it refers to dates. [The answer is:] Rashi derives this because Scripture should have said “all sourdough or honey,” which would imply that the word “all” refers to both. Since it is written “<i>and</i> all honey,” however, it includes another principle: Any sweet juice of a fruit is included (Rav Yaakov Trivash). 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  And the water-offering. I.e., water is brought to the altar by the means of salt because salt has its origins in water. Rashi mentions the example “water-offering” so that you will not pose the difficulty: If it was because of the promise made to the waters, it would be more appropriate that the waters themselves should go up on the altar and not salt. He answers, therefore, that the waters also go up on the altar with the water-offering. You might ask: If so, why are there two things — salt and the water-offering? It would be sufficient with the water-offering, which is preferable! The answer is: Salt and water are two opposite entities — water is liquid and salt is dry. Therefore, one does not make up for the other. You should comprehend these matters well: Why were these two chosen for the altar? Actually, this Midrash contains a concealed matter, which is that everything seeks to be elevated, [as it is said:] We raise up in matters of holiness and do not bring down. [At the time of Creation some of] the upper waters were separated from the upper waters and made into the lower waters, which is the reverse of the order of creation. Therefore, the waters would not agree to be separated until Hashem promised them they would be offered on the altar. In this way, they would acquire a high level by being elevated in an elevation of holiness. Furthermore, we find that Hashem chose only humble species for the altar, as the Sages said: Why did He choose the turtledoves and young pigeons? Because there is no species among the birds that is more pursued than these, and there is no species among the animals and beasts that is more pursued than the ox, sheep, and goat; and Hashem chose them. Also, in a number of places we find: This teaches you that Hashem uplifts anyone who humbles himself. Since the waters were separated to become the lower waters [and thereby humbled], they were promised that they would go up on the altar (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). [Rashi mentions the water-offering on Sukkos] because he wishes to answer the question: Why was salt water privileged to be brought, more than fresh water? Therefore, he answers that without doubt the fresh water was privileged to be brought on Sukkos, [but even salt water was privileged as well]. The reason why salt water was brought with every offering but fresh water was brought only on Sukkos is because fresh water is representative of the righteous and salt water is representative of the evil-doers. We find that every fast and tefillah needs that evildoers be a part of the congregation. And the proof is from the חלבנה [galbanum, “spice with a bad odor, to teach us not to look with contempt at the sinners among Israel but to include them in our gatherings for fasts and prayers,” Rashi, Shemos 30:33], which is one of the eleven spices in the <i>ketores</i>. Therefore, the Torah honors the evil-doers so that they should repent, for the repentant sinner is greater than a completely righteous person (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 14
  
  As meaning “when.” Then, I may explain it as being an obligation. 
  When there will be a jubilee year. [You might ask:] Above, at the end of Parshas Yisro (Shemos 20:22), Rashi cites only three [examples], and he does not bring this one. The answer is: Over there he explains according to the view of Rabbi Yishmael, but here he explains according to the view of Rabbi Shimon, who explains this phrase, “<i>when</i> there will be a jubilee year” as being obligatory. 
  Comes fresh. I.e., Rashi provides two signs [that it deals with the omer]. One is that it comes fresh, i.e., at the time when the crops ripen, which is the start of the harvest. Secondly, it comes from barley, as is derived from a gezeirah shavah from the words אביב אביב. 
  Kernels. I.e., the word כרמל is a compound word: כר מלא (full husk).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  The fat on the stomach. Meaning: The fat on the small intestines are included [as well] by kal vachomer, since they have two signs of forbidden [fats]: They are spread like a garment and they have a detachable membrane. Rabbi Akiva, though, says only the [fat on the] small intestines [are included] because they have two signs: They are spread like a garment and they have a detachable membrane, but [the fats] on the stomach are not spread like a garment, but rather are many pieces of fat [that are attached to the stomach]. The word תותב means a garment, as the Targum Onkeles [writes in Shemos 22:26] היא שמלתו = היא תותביה.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Separating. The separation (the diaphragm) which divides between the respiratory organs and the intestines is called in the Talmud “the lobe of the liver.”
  The liver. Accordingly, the word על means “<i>with</i> a little of the liver.” We should not say [he removes] the entire liver, for if so, it should say “he shall remove <i>them</i>.” 
  And in another place. I.e. this is proof that “on the liver” means [he should take a little] of the liver [with it].
  Aside. Re”m raises a difficulty: Above, Rashi explains “על” means “with” and here he explains that “על” means “aside.” The answer is: The word על has two explanations, “with” and “aside.” Concerning the kidneys Rashi perforce explains that על means “aside from the kidneys,” because the entire kidneys are burnt on the altar. However, here when he explains that “על הכבד” means “aside from the liver,” he is <i>not</i> saying that the word על appearing in conjunction with “liver” means “aside from.” Rather, he is eliminating an error that we might say the <i>kohein</i> burns on the altar only that area of the lobe of the liver which is attached to a small part of the liver, [but not the entire lobe]. Therefore, he explains “aside from the liver,” i.e., the entire lobe was burnt with that little that was attached to the liver (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). It appears that Rashi’s intention is clear and proper [unlike Re”m contends]. At first, Rashi writes that the fact that Scripture equates the liver and the kidneys was certainly not with regard to burning on the altar, because the liver is not burnt. If so, you might think that not even a little of the liver is burnt on the altar — but this cannot be. This is because we find different expressions regarding the liver: Here it says: “on the liver,” and in another place it says (9:10): “from the liver.” Thus, it must be that it teaches that the liver is burnt as well, and perforce this means a part of it. Then, Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written: “On the liver on the kidneys,” this implies that they are completely equal, but you maintain that only a part of the liver is burnt whereas the entire kidneys are burnt? To answer this Rashi writes: “[That is,] aside from the liver and aside from the kidneys — he should remove this.” Meaning: With regard to removing [the lobe] they are both equal — the lobe needs to be removed from the liver and the kidneys, each one according to its law — this one in part and this one entirely. Therefore, Rashi concludes “he should remove this,” i.e., in this aspect the liver is the same as the kidneys [but not for burning on the altar] (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Every sacrifice. Rashi does not derive that [the daily burnt-offering] must precede [every sacrifice] from “על העולה,” because there is no implication from the word על, which means “aside from,” whether it precedes or comes after. Rather, [he derives this] from what is written later: “That is on the logs which are on the fire,” which implies they already arranged the burnt offering on the logs which are on the fire. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Into two sections. Meaning: Not in one section like the voluntary burnt-offering, where it is written (1:10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep — of lambs or of goats — etc.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Only the sin-offering. Concerning the sin-offering brought inside [the Heichal] it is written (4:6): “The <i>kohein</i> shall dip his finger into the blood and he shall sprinkle from the blood” and concerning the sin-offering brought outside it is written (ibid. 34): “The <i>kohein</i> shall take some blood from the sin-offering with his finger and put it atop the corners of the altar.” [Concerning the rest of the offering, however, it says that the <i>kohanim</i> should sprinkle the blood and does not mention “finger”] (<i>R’em</i>). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not mention this above regarding the peace-offering of cattle? The answer is because it is not so much of a proof above, for perhaps the <i>kohein</i> did sprinkle the blood with his finger, and although Scripture does not write “finger,” we should learn a place where it is not specified from where it is clearly written — regarding the sin-offering. Therefore, Rashi waited until the end of all the sacrifices and since none of them mentioned “finger” except the sin-offering, perforce [only for the sin-offering was the blood sprinkled with the finger] (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Food of the fire. Meaning: The form of a noun with two <i>segolim</i> under the פ and ע position of the פֶעֶל [such as לֶחֶם] is the same whether it is annexed to the next word or stands alone, and it is unlike the other annexed words that change to the חטף vowel [when annexed to the next word]. 
  For the sake of the Most High. I.e., the meaning of לה' is “for the sake of Hashem,” but not that one gives to Him, for it already is written (Tehillim 50:12-13): “If I were hungry I would not tell you... [Will I eat the flesh of bulls or do I drink the blood of he-goats?]”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  The entire verse is well explained in Toras Kohanim. They learned from this that the prohibition of fats is even in the everlasting house [the Beis HaMikdash], during the time it is standing and also when it is destroyed, in the Land of Israel and outside the Land. Thus it is explained in the first Perek of Kiddushin (37b).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  A negative commandment and kareis. This excludes circumcision and Pesach, which only have kareis [but are positive commandments; also, not for something whose intentional violation is a negative commandment alone, such as not harvesting the corners of the field, and most of the Torah’s other negative commandments]; and not something which is a negative commandment and punishable by execution by a Beis Din, but not kareis, such as one who strikes his father or mother, one who kidnaps an Israelite, or the rebellious elder; and not for something whose intentional violation is a negative commandment and has the penalty of kareis, but it does not involve an active deed, such as one who curses his father, conspiring witnesses, a blasphemer, a sorcerer, an enticer or one who causes others to worship idols, or a false prophet. All these were learned from what it is written [regarding idol worship] (Bamidbar 15:29): “One law shall apply to anyone who sins inadvertently,” and it is written (ibid. 30): “But if a person should act highhandedly (intentionally) ... [and that soul shall be cut off from among its people].” The Torah compares (<i>hekeish</i>) all the inadvertent transgressions of the Torah and the inadvertent transgression of idolatry in that they are liable for its intentional violation the penalty of kareis and for its unintentional violation, a sin-offering. 
  Noach of Nochor. Because it is written, “<i>from</i> one [of these],” it implies that even a part [of one of them]. We should not say [that one who writes on Shabbos] even one letter, because we derive from the word “one” as well, i.e., as if Scripture wrote, “one,” which would imply [he writes on Shabbos] the entire name. Therefore, [in resolution] we say that he is liable only if he writes Shem of Shimon, which is both, a whole name in itself, and also part of another name. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  With an unintentional act. I.e., first, the law was concealed from him and he ruled against the halachah, and then he personally acted according to his decision. However, if the <i>kohein</i> ruled for others and they acted according to his decision, the <i>kohein</i> is exempt [from bringing the sin-offering], because it is written, “[He shall bring] for <i>his</i> sin which <i>he</i> committed.” 
  Perhaps an old one? The verse says: “son.” Meaning: If Scripture had only written “a bullock,” I would think that even a four or five year old [was acceptable], therefore, it lets me know “son” — because everywhere it says “son” [it refers to] a two year old, as it is written (9:2): “Take, for yourself, a young calf (בן בקר), for a sin-offering and a ram, for a burnt-offering, unblemished ones.” So too, regarding years, just as the ram is two years old, the young calf is also two years old. If it said “son” [perhaps a young one?] Meaning: Now that it is written “bullock” and also “son of cattle,” perforce, it must be explained as a bullock close to [the age of] a “son,” which is three years old. You might ask: Rashi explains above (1:10): “And if ... from flocks of sheep” — “excluding [an animal too] old”? [Why is another exclusion needed here?] The answer is: I might think that Scripture excludes with regard to a burnt-offering, but with regard to a sin-offering, I might think even an old animal is valid. [Therefore,] the verse says: “son,” and not an old one (<i>Re”m</i>). This raises a difficulty: Rashi explains above regarding the burnt-offering (ibid.): “[From flocks,] of lambs, of goats” — “these [are three] limitations — excluding [an animal that is ill], one [that is] too old [to be offered], and one [that is] filthy.” Why is another exclusion needed here for offering an old one? Perhaps you will say: There, it is with regard to a burnt-offering and here it deals with a sin-offering, therefore it needs an independent [source of] exclusion. If so, however, it remains difficult: Scripture should have written here another exclusion for the one that is ill and one that is filthy. The answer is: With regard to being invalid because of illness or filth, which is repulsive, we can easily derive [the law of] a sin-offering from a burnt-offering, as it is logical to invalidate such an animal because of [the reason mentioned in Malachi 1:8]: “[When you offer a blind animal for a sacrifice, is there nothing wrong? And when you offer a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong?] Were you to offer it to your governor, [would he accept you or would he favor you]?” However, regarding the old one which is [merely] older than three years, it is not logical [that it should be invalid]. Rather, it is a Scriptural decree that it is invalid. [Thus,] I might think [it is invalid] only where the Torah reveals so. [Therefore,] Scripture lets me know that an [old] sin-offering is invalid as well (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>).
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  To the Heichal. This does not refer specifically to the Mishkon, but rather the same applies to the Beis HaMikdosh, as it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:13): “He has defiled the Mishkon of Adonoy,” and afterwards it is written (v. 20): “For he has defiled the Mikdosh of Adonoy.” Our Sages derived from this (Shavuos 16b): If it says Mishkon, why does it say Mikdosh? And if it says Mikdosh, why does it say Mishkon? Rather, it applies the laws of this to that, and of that to this. Perforce, there is no difference between them, but only that Scripture uses the term Mishkon because it was in existence at that time. [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not explain this above (1:3) with regard to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting? [The answer is:] Because there it refers to the courtyard, and the term “courtyard” applies equally to the Mishkon and the eternal house [Mikdosh]. However, the term “Tent of Meeting” is applicable only to the Mishkon, and the holiness of the Mishkon was exchanged for the holiness of the eternal house, for this one’s holiness was temporary and this one’s holiness is eternal, [thus, it was necessary to explain that although this is so, the mitzvah of ‘bringing’ applies to them both]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  In front of the space between the poles. Otherwise, why does it say “the Holy [Curtain]”? Rather, [it comes to teach us that] the sprinkling is valid only on the spot exactly in front of the space between the poles of the Aron HaKodesh, and not any other place along the Curtain’s width. 
  Not touch. [Rashi knows this] since it is not written, “<i>on</i> the Holy Curtain,” implying even without touching.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  The remaining blood. Although he already sprinkled from it, it is called “<i>all</i> the blood.” This teaches that the one who slaughters needs to receive all the bullock’s blood, as if it says: All the bullock’s blood he shall receive, and afterwards sprinkle. After the sprinkling, he pours the remaining [blood]. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  The bullock of Yom Kippur. Re”m writes: They taught the same in regard to “He shall spill all the bullock’s blood” — It should have stated [“its blood,”] etc. Rather, [it comes] to include the bullock of Yom Kippur for spilling [the blood]. Rashi, however, only brings what they derived from the verse: “And all the fat of the bullock,” but I do not know why. It appears that it is because it is a disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, as cited in the Yalkut on this Parshah (pg. 157, see there). (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). Rashi did not bring this because in Zevachim (25a) they derived another matter from this verse — that the one who slaughters needs to receive all the blood of the bullock (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  The goats of idolatry for the kidneys. This is [Rashi’s] text in Toras Kohanim, but our version is: “To include the goats of idolatry for all that was stated in this matter.” [You might ask: They said the <i>goats</i> of idolatry] although there is only <i>one</i> goat [brought as the sin-offering] for idolatry! It is brought together with the bullock burnt-offering, as it says in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 14:24), for an anointed <i>kohein</i> who inadvertently violated idolatry brings a goat like an ordinary person. The answer is because all the tribes, each one separately, would bring a bullock for their burntoffering and a goat for a sin-offering for the [transgression of] idolatry violated due to the inadvertently incorrect ruling of the Beis Din. If so, there were twelve goats, as we find in Horiyos (4b and 5a) (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  From that which is still attached. And the meaning of “from it” is when the bullock is still whole.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  But what was explained. Meaning: Just as it specifies all the fats with regard to the peace-offering, it also specifies them here regarding the bullock of the anointed <i>kohein</i>. 
  Just as peace-offerings [must be offered] for their own sake. As it is written (3:1): “If his offering is a peace-offering...” Perforce, the Merciful One [in the Torah] is particular that the offering must be offered for the sake of a peace-offering. 
  Law from a law. Meaning: Since the bullock of the matter concealed from the community (v. 13) was needed to teach about the goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry with regard to the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, in that they are compared through a <i>hekeish</i> to one another regarding the burning of the inner parts, as it says in Zevachim (41a). However, Scripture does not write the lobe of the liver and the kidneys in the section of the bullock of the matter concealed from the community [itself]. Instead, [they are derived] through a <i>hekeish</i> from the bullock of the anointed <i>kohein</i>, where it is written (v. 20): “He shall do to the bullock [the same] as he did to the sin-offering bullock.” And [the Rabbis] taught [in a Baraisa]: “To the bullock” — this is the bullock of the matter concealed from the community; “To the sin-offering bullock” — this is the bullock of the anointed <i>kohein</i>: Just as the bullock of the anointed <i>kohein</i> has the two kidneys and the lobe included its inner parts [that are burnt on the altar], so too the bullock of the matter concealed from the community. And [since] we may not derive a law from a law [which itself was derived from Scripture], Scripture was therefore required to write the verse: “In the same manner as they were separated” regarding the bullock of the <i>kohein</i>, even though it is not needed for itself, to say: If it is not needed for itself, it should be applied to another matter — the bullock of the matter concealed from the community [and it will be considered as if it was written explicitly in the section of the bullock of the matter concealed from the community]. We learn from this that if it were not written clearly [by the bullock of the matter concealed from the community], the [law of the] goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry could not be derived from the bullock of the matter concealed from the community, since a matter that was itself derived through a <i>hekeish</i> cannot go back and teach [about something else] through a <i>hekeish.</i> 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Beyond the three. [Rashi knows this] from what is written here: “Encampment,” and later on in this section it is written (v. 20): “[The same] as he did to the sin-offering bullock, so he shall do to it,” and then it is written (v. 21): “He shall take the bullock outside, beyond the encampment.” Why is this needed? Obviously, it is extra, in order to derive from it one more encampment. [That it should be beyond] the third encampment is derived from what it is written in Parshas Tzav (6:4): “He shall take out the ashes beyond the encampment.” It should only say: “He should take out the ashes,” and I would know that it is beyond the encampment, because it is written in our section: “Beyond the encampment, to a pure [undefiled] place, where the ashes are thrown,” [thus,] this [the place where the ashes are thrown] is outside the encampment. Obviously, it is [also] extra, to derive from it another encampment. Thus, [we derive that he takes it out] beyond <i>three</i> encampments. The three encampments are: The encampment of the Divine Presence, from the entrance to the courtyard and within. From the entrance to the courtyard to the entrance to the Temple Mount is the Levites’ encampment, and from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the city gate is the third encampment. Beyond the city gate is outside of three encampments. 
  Outside the city. This raises a strong difficulty: There is no difference between the eternal house and Shilo, and the other places, for in every place where the Ark was located there were three encampments. The Gemara says [the same] clearly in Sanhedrin 42b, see there. The answer is: Perhaps it is a textual error and it should say “And in Jerusalem” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reserve the verse’s order to explain first “to a pure place” and then, “beyond the encampment” — “beyond the three encampments”? [The answer is:] This is to say: How do we know that the explanation of “beyond the encampment” is “beyond the three encampments”? Therefore, Rashi explains [first] “to a pure place” — Since there is a place prepared for impurity outside in which they throw out stones stricken with plague, and that is certainly outside of three camps. This is because the stricken house was inside the city, and it was necessary to take it outside. If so, when it is written: “beyond [the encampments],” it means beyond the three encampments, which is outside the city (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  A place. I.e., this does not refer to the ashes that were lifted from inner consumed parts, which are the ashes from “when the fire consumes the burnt-offering on the altar” (6:3) each day [i.e., the trumas hadeshen], for those ashes were not thrown out beyond the encampment. Rather, he would rake a full pan of ashes each day and place it in the courtyard on the ramp’s eastern side, as it is written (6:3): “And he shall separate the ashes...” 
  There are no ashes there. You might ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps the verse’s repetition is to [make it] an absolute requirement, that if there are no ashes there, it is invalid? (<i>Re”m</i>). The answer is: It should only say: “It shall be burnt upon the ashes.” Why [does it say:] “It shall be burned <i>where </i>the ashes<i> are thrown</i>”? Rather, it must be [that it teaches he burns the bullock] upon the place of the ashes although there are no ashes there at all. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  The Sanhedrin. [Rashi knows this through a gezeirah shavah:] because it says here “עדה (congregation)” and it says later “עדה” (Bamidbar 35:24-5): “Then the congregation shall judge... The congregation shall protect”: Just as עדה that is mentioned later refers to the Beis Din, so too עדה that is mentioned here refers to the Beis Din. And since it says: “Congregation of Yisroel,” perforce [it is referring to] the special congregation of the people of Yisroel, which is the Great Sanhedrin that sits in the Chamber of Hewed Stone. 
  That the community acted according to their decision. The word הקהל (the community) is linked to the previous phrase and to the next phrase. [It is linked to the previous phrase, as follows]: “And the matter was concealed from the eyes of the community” — which is the Great Sanhedrin; they decided against the Halachah and said to the nation: “You are permitted.” [And it is linked to the next phrase:] “The community and they did” — that the community acted according to their decision. In such a case the Great Sanhedrin bring a young bullock... 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Opposite the entrance. Otherwise, why does it say “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above (v. 7) regarding the bullock of the anointed <i>kohein</i>? The answer is: Rashi explains here that this refers to the western base [to let us know that spilling the blood there impedes. We should not say that he spills the blood there only] because he first passes that side when he exits the Tent of Meeting after completing the sprinklings inside, for the reason that we do not pass over mitzvos. Therefore, the second verse comes to teach us that this is the requirement of the mitzvah, and it is not because of the rule that we do not pass over mitzvos. Rashi in Zevachim (51a) answers in a different way as to why “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” is repeated a second time, and we can resolve it differently based on his answer. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  This. Rashi adds the word “this” to the word “bullock” because if the first [sacrifice] was a goat or sheep, it would be correct to say, “He shall do to the bullock as he did to the goat or sheep.” It is not correct, however, to say, “He shall do to the bullock as he did to the bullock.” Because of this, Rashi added the word “this.” Also, it is not correct to say, “He shall do to <i>this</i> bullock as he did to the sin-offering bullock,” unless the word “first” is added [i.e., “as he did to the <i>first</i> sin-offering bullock]. For this reason, Rashi needs to say: “As explained in regard to the bullock of the anointed <i>kohein</i>, etc.” [which takes the place of the word “first.”] [Also,] so that we should not err and say perhaps it refers to another bullock, such as the bullock of Yom Kippur, although it has not yet been mentioned, Rashi therefore adds [“As explained in regard to the <i>bullock of the anointed kohein</i>, etc.” in place of] the word “first.” 
  The lobe and two kidneys. Rashi mentioned: “To include the kidneys and the lobe,” and did not mention the fats, because all of them are included in the statement: “He shall burn all its fat,” and this is according to [Rabbi Yossi]. I have already explained this above (v. 10) with regard to what Rashi explains: “And [it is taught] Shechitas Kodoshim, etc. that we may not derive a law from a law [which itself was derived from Scripture].” What Rashi writes: “And to repeat, etc.” is according to the Tanna Kamma in Toras Kohanim and not according to Rabbi Yishmael (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  To teach that if he omitted. This is its explanation: We also learn from it, i.e., from: “He shall do to the bullock...” that he should sprinkle the blood as he sprinkles the blood regarding the sin-offering bullock. You might object: It says clearly that he sprinkles the blood! Therefore, Rashi explains that it repeats twice [to teach] that if he omitted [one of all the applications...] (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). 
  With one application he has atonement. It atones even with only one application, i.e., with one sprinkling he achieves atonement, and it does not impede atonement [although most sin-offerings require two applications that are four in direction]. On the inner altar, however, [if he lacks one of the required sprinklings] it does not achieve atonement for him. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  An expression of “fortunate is...” Meaning: This is because the verse [began with אשר and] did not begin with the usual “If (אם) a leader sins,” as it is written, “If the anointed <i>kohein</i>...” and “If the entire congregation...” This is the statement of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai in the Gemara (Horiyos 10b). [It is written] in the Zohar (Vayikro pg. 38-9): “Rabbi Yitzchok taught... ‘If a leader sins’ — because he was haughty... Rabbi Yehudah taught...” It appears that he does not disagree with Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai. Rather, it is only that the verse does not depart from its plain meaning, as Ibn Ezra explains: “If a leader sins. Reverse it: [אשר יחטא הנשיא]. It is connected to what it states above: “If the entire congregation,” as if it says: “If the one that sins is the leader.” If so, according to the words of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai alone it should say: “ואם אשר נשיא יחטא” because אשר is extra, rather, it is an expression of “fortunate.” From the fact it is not written אם, it includes here that it comes to hint that he will surely sin, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Yehudah. But according to their words alone, it is difficult: Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of G-d. You might ask: Why according to the Ibn Ezra is it not written אשר יחטא נשיא; why did it reverse the order? The answer is: As it says in Horiyos (10b), it comes to teach that this [offering] should not be brought for previous sins, for if he sinned and then was appointed leader, he brings like [the offering of] an ordinary person, as it is written: “אשר נשיא יחטא,” that he sinned when he was [already] the leader (Rav Yaakov Trivash). 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  In the north. You might ask: It already says in Parshas Tzav (6:18): “In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, the sin-offering shall be slaughtered”! The answer is: This establishes an obligation — that it should be slaughtered only in the north, and if it is not slaughtered in the north, the offering is invalid. 
  Not for its sake, it is invalid. Meaning: We derive this since it is written “הוא (it is),” because הוא implies that it is as it should be, i.e., one should bring in the first place for the sake of a sin-offering. If it is not as it should be, however, because it was slaughtered for the sake of a burnt-offering, it is entirely invalid. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  The remnants of its blood. But not all of its blood, because he already put some of it on the corners of the altar. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  A goat. Rashi said “as those parts (אימורים)” instead of “as that fat” which would be understood [more directly] from the word [in the verse] “as the fat,” because Scripture does not intend to specify the fats. This is because the phrase, “all its fats” [already] includes all the fats. Rather, the verse’s intention is to add the lobe and the kidneys, which are not included in the statement, “all its fats.” Rashi [then] says: “which are detailed regarding a goat which is discussed [in the section dealing with] the peace-offering” because the peace-offering of a sheep also includes the tail fat among the אימורים, but the sin-offering of the leader is a goat, which has no tail fat.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  On the fires which are made for, Hashem. Meaning: [This does] not [mean he shall burn the fats] on the fire that descends from Heaven, which in actuality is a “fire of Hashem,” for that fire was <i>one</i>, and in the verse it is written: “The <i>fires</i> of Hashem,” [i.e.,] those which are made for Hashem [by human effort]. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  In which he is a witness. This is derived from “He is a witness,” which is redundant [since the verse had already stated “he heard an oath” and continues with “or saw or knew”]; it excludes a witness who heard [secondhand] from another witness, a relative, or an invalid [witness] — even though he hears an oath [demanding testimony] he is exempt. Also, it teaches: “And he is a witness” — now, at the time of the oath, he is a witness in the matter, [but if they made him take an oath that if he will become aware of testimony in the future that he must testify, he is exempt]. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  And after this impurity he eats. You should not err and say that only because of touching something impure which was concealed from him and was later became known to him does he bring an offering. Therefore, Rashi says: “After this impurity he eats holy [sacrificial food or enters the Temple]. His proof is since it is written, “And incurs guilt,” i.e., by eating holy [sacrificial] food or entering the Temple, which must be after touching this impurity, for otherwise, why would he incur guilt? [Could we say that] because he becomes impure he should bring an offering? We should not ask: How does Rashi know that he eats holy [sacrificial food] or enters the Temple? Perhaps he is obligated to bring the offering for another transgression! The answer is: Rashi’s proof is since it is written here (v. 3): “Whatever that impurity may be,” and in Parshas Chukas it is written (Bamidbar 19:13): “And his impurity remains upon him.” [We derive through a gezeirah shavah:] Just as there it deals with the impurity of the Temple, so too, here, it deals with the impurity of the Temple, i.e., that he enters the Temple. Furthermore, it is written here: “The impurities of man,” and it is written in Parshas Tzav (7:21): “The impurities of man,” just as there [it deals with] eating holy [sacrificial food], so too, here, [it deals with] eating holy. 
  The impurity. Meaning: [The impurity was concealed from him] and not [the fact he entered] the Temple or [the awareness of] its holiness, since it is written: “And this was concealed from him and he is impure” — [from which we derive:] He is liable for concealment of impurity and not for concealment of the Temple. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  One who swallows the carcass. This causes a person to become impure in the place of swallowing [i.e., when the carcass that is swallowed touches the esophagus] to make garments [that he is wearing] impure; if he eats it and enters the Temple he is liable. You might ask: The word בה [“אשר יטמא בה (that causes impurity <i>within</i>)”] is an exclusion! They already answered in the Gemara (Shavuos 7b) that it is because there is an extra exclusion — for it is written [here] in the section of the sliding scale offering (i.e., a sacrifice whose worth varies in accordance with the financial ability of the person bringing it): “Or, if he <i>touches</i> the impurities of man.” Thus, something [which imparts impurity] through touching is included, but what is not [capable of making impure] through touching is not. The carcass of a kosher bird does not impart impurity through touching, if so, why does the Merciful One [in the Torah] write “within”? Hence, it is an “exclusion after an exclusion,” and “an exclusion after an exclusion” only comes to be inclusive. 
  And he does not know, for he forgot. It seems that the text [“and he does not know,” which seems to be Rashi’s words] is a scribal error, and it should say: “And he realizes” [i.e., as a <i>divrei hamaschil</i> (s.v.)] — “that he forgot the impurity.” It is, in effect, a separate comment, meaning: “And he realizes” — this is to say that he now realizes that he forgot about the impurity when he ate the holy food or entered the Temple. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). Nachalas Yaakov corrected the text based on the difficulty he had in Rashi’s text: “And he does not know, for he forgot.” [The reason he changed Rashi’s text is that] this does not follow any view — for Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree about the reason the Torah repeats twice the word ונעלם (and it was concealed): Rabbi Akiva holds the view that we require that the person [who ate in impurity unintentionally] knew it was prohibited before the transgression and afterwards, and Rabbi Yishmael holds that the first word ונעלם obligates for not knowing he was impure and the second word ונעלם is for not knowing he entered the Temple or that he ate holy food. But Rabbi Akiva establishes it for previous knowledge and not for being unaware he was impure. Therefore, Nachalas Yaakov corrected the text [to follow the view of Rabbi Akiva]: “It should say: And he knew.” However, Gur Aryeh explains: He is only liable if he <i>forgot</i> the impurity but beforehand knew about the impurity. But if he had no knowledge whatsoever of the impurity, he is not liable. This is derived from the second time the word ונעלם is written: “ונעלם והוא ידע (and this was concealed from him, and he realizes).” This did not need to be written, for it is already written (v. 2): “And this was concealed from him, and he is impure.” Rather, you should place the phrase, “And he realizes” between one ונעלם and the other, and derive from it: After he had knowledge, he forgot the impurity. Therefore, Rashi writes as a comment to “ונעלם” — “And he did not know,” which is to say: [He is liable] specifically in this type of not knowing — that he <i>forgot</i> about the impurity [of which he once knew]. However, if he never knew about the impurity in the first place he is not liable. 
  Entering. [This is derived] from the gezeirah shavah mentioned above (see v. 2). However, this raises a difficulty. It is understandable over, for it is written: “And this [impurity] was concealed from him, and he incurs guilt,” i.e., because the impurity was concealed from him he entered the Temple. Here, though, it is written: “[And this was concealed from him,] and he <i>realizes</i>, he incurs guilt.” Could it be that because he knew he was impure he ate holy food or entered the Temple?! Perhaps the answer is: The verse is written out of order, and this is what is meant: “This was concealed from him and he incurs guilt” — because the impurity was concealed from him he entered the Temple and afterwards it was known to him that he was impure (<i>Re”m</i>). Furthermore, we can say: We derive a gezeirah shavah from the words ואשם ואשם, and we derive the later section from the previous section. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  But not with his heart. I.e., if he decided in his heart by making an oath silently without verbalizing not to eat, and then he ate, he is not liable to bring an offering. 
  To himself. This excludes if he took an oath to harm others, for instance, [he said:] “I will hit Ploni,” but he forgot and did not hit him, he is not liable to bring an offering. Rashi’s proof is from what it is written: “To do harm or to do good” — we make a <i>hekeish</i> (comparison) between the two — just as to do good is optional, so too to do harm is optional, excluding harming others, which is not optional, as it is written (Devarim 25:3): “He shall flog him with forty [lashes]; he shall not exceed.” With regard [to an oath] to do good, however, he is liable [for failing to keep an oath] even towards others. [You might ask: If so,] why does Rashi write: “Do good” — for himself? [The answer is:] Since he said that doing harm is for himself, he said that doing good is also for himself, but in fact he is liable [even for failing to keep an oath] to do good for others, as it is explained in the third chapter of Shavuos (26b). 
  And he violated. Scripture is truncated; it should have written: “This was concealed from him and he violated.” Otherwise, for what would he bring an offering? Would he bring an offering because it was concealed from him? [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not explain here upon the word, “ואשם (and he incurs guilt)” as he does above, with regard to the word ואשם in the verse dealing with impurity (v. 2, 3)? The answer is: The word ואשם written here is followed by the phrase, “for any one of these,” which implies that it refers to all the aforementioned sins. Therefore, perforce we must say that the verse, “And it was concealed from him” is a truncated verse, and it is as if it says: “It was concealed from him and he violated his oath, when he realizes [his sin],” i.e., when he finds out afterwards. It then returns: “And he incurs guilt for any one of these... He shall bring his guilt-offering” (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  A sliding scale sacrifice. Meaning: If he is wealthy he brings a female lamb or she-goat; if he is poor he brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons; and if he is of the poorest of the poor he brings a tenth of an eiphah. Therefore, this offering is called the sliding scale sacrifice. 
  As is explained. Although Rashi does not need to say all this, for Scripture is clear about it, as it explicitly stated in this section, nevertheless, he says it so that he can say: “But [violation] of an oath...” as it says in the end of the parshah (v. 21): “If a person sins and wrongfully deviates...” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  One organ. In the first chapter of Chulin (21b) Rashi explains because it is written: “He does not separate,” and a bird is slaughtered with only one siman (gullet <i>or</i> windpipe). If he does anything more than what is necessary it is considered “separation.” A further consideration: the [severing of the] entire organ is included in the mitzvah of slaughtering a bird in the preferred way — therefore, regarding shearing [the head], when he nips the entire siman it is not “separation.” With regard to the second siman, however, there is not even a mitzvah [of slaughtering] in the preferred way, as [the Rabbis] taught [in a Baraisa] (ibid. 27b): To obligate him in two simanim is impossible, for a bird was already compared to fish. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  For its sake. This was explained above (Rashi 4:24) regarding the sin-offering of a leader. Rashi repeats it [here] because it is dealing with bird sinoffering and above it is dealing with an animal sin-offering, and [one cannot learn from the other because] they have dissimilar aspects. Therefore, he repeated the explanation here. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  According to the rule. Meaning: Its head is sheared in both simanim (gullet and windpipe) and according to all the instructions outlined in the [free-will fowl burnt-offering]. Rashi interprets: “כמשפט” [literally, as the judgment,] as “according to the rule” because [the term] judgment or justice does not pertain to an offering. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Not for its sake. Meaning: For example: He brought it at first for the sake of a pan-baked meal-offering and then at the time of taking a fistful he took it for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering, or vice versa. Rashi repeats this here [see v. 9] because this is a meal-offering and those above refer to an animal or bird, and [one cannot be learnt from the other because] they have dissimilar aspects. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Of these three. One is a lamb or goat, the second is turtledoves or two young pigeons, and the third is a tenth of an eiphah of fine flour. 
  And the less severe. Meaning: The most severe of them are [entering] the Temple or [eating] the holy [foods] in impurity (5:2), which is punished by koreis. And a less severe case is the one who took an oath to testify (5:1), which is not punishable by koreis if intentionally violated, but Scripture equates the intentional violator to the unintentional one. This is because with regard to all of them it is written, “and this was concealed from him,” but here [concerning the one who took an oath to testify] it does not say, “and it was concealed from him.” [This comes] to make him liable [to bring an offering] for the intentional violator as the unintentional one. The least severe is the oath expressed orally, which is not punished for intentional violation with koreis, and the intentional violator was not equated to the unintentional one. [You might ask:] It is written (v. 7): “If his means are not sufficient [for a sheep...” which implies that the poor person brings turtledoves or pigeons for the same sin the rich person brings a lamb. If so, why would you assume: “Perhaps the most severe of them (=sins)...”? We can answer:] This refers to the wrongdoing, as if to say: If he did not touch upon a wrongdoing that would be sufficient when violated to be liable to bring a lamb, rather, only a lesser transgression — he should bring two turtledoves. And if he did not touch upon a wrongdoing that requires two turtledoves, but only a lesser wrongdoing, he should bring a tenth of an eiphah. Therefore, it writes: “In one of these” to equate the least to the most severe [sin]. 
  Its remnants should be eaten. Accordingly, the meaning of “as a meal-offering” is: As the free-will meal-offering mentioned above, for all the remnants of all the free-will offerings are eaten by the <i>kohanim</i>. 
  Completely burnt. [According to this:] “To the <i>kohein</i>” is interpreted in conjunction with the preceding phrase and with the next phrase. I.e., [<i>With the preceding phrase</i>: “And it shall belong to the <i>kohein</i>” means:] If the meal-offering is from an [Israelite] sinner, [the remaining portion] shall belong to the <i>kohein</i>. [<i>With the next phrase</i>:] “To the <i>kohein</i> [as a meal-offering” means:] As the <i>kohein</i>’s free will offering, and any free-will meal-offering [of a <i>kohein</i>] — the remnants are eaten by the <i>kohanim</i>. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  [Means] changing. I.e., He “changes” it from sacred property to not sacred, even though he did not drive benefit from it, for instance: If a Temple treasurer gave money of sacred property to another person who went and took it out of the domain of sacred property, the Temple treasurer has misappropriated the sacred funds, as the Mishnah states in Maseches Meilah. The correct text is: “אין מעילה אלא שנוי (מעילה always means ‘changing’),” and we should not use the text: “בכל מקום (wherever it occurs).” It means: <i>This</i> מעילה can only mean “changing,” etc. (<i>Re”m</i>). [This is because] Re”m raises the difficulty: The word מעילה written concerning the guilt-offering of thievery does not connote “changing,” because someone who withholds payment of a hired worker or denies owing a debt is not taking anything out of the owner’s domain, and yet it says there (v. 21): “ומעלה מעל (and wrongfully deviates).” This is no difficulty, however, for he certainly does take it out of the owner’s domain. This is because we have established the Halachah that the Sabbatical year will not release [the debt of] one who denies a loan and stands by his denial. But if there was no change of ownership, and it remained as it originally was [before his denial], the Sabbatical year should release him [from his debt]. Thus, this is [also] called “changing.” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). Divrei Dovid answers that it is also called a change of domain there, because the obligation [to bring a guilt-offering] is only if he swears falsely. If so, he turns away from Hashem in that he takes His Name in vain, and throws off His yoke. In this it resembles idolatry which is mentioned afterwards. 
  And where. Meaning: We derive through a gezeirah shavah [from the words] חטא חטא from terumah. It says here: “וחטאה בשגגה (and unwittingly sins)” and it says regarding terumah (22:9): “ולא ישאו עליו חטא וגו' (lest they bear sin...).” Just as חטא mentioned with regard to terumah is [referring to the case] where he benefited from it, as it is written (ibid. 14): “If a man inadvertently <i>eats</i> of sacred-offering,” where he benefits by eating, so too חטא mentioned here is where he benefits from the sacred property — even if he did not change it from the sacred domain to an ordinary domain and did not harm it — for instance, he drank from a gold cup or wore a sacred ring on his finger. Thus, the meaning of וחטאה is “<i>or</i> he unwittingly sins,” i.e. [“If a person wrongfully deviates”] — he changes it from one domain to another but does not have benefit, [“or he unwittingly sins”] — or he has benefit from it but does not change it, he has misappropriated “and shall bring his guilt-offering...” 
  Against eating. Meaning: [Perhaps] the same applies as with the other benefits that are included in “consuming,” where the Merciful One [in His Torah] was not concerned that it be harmed, so too here the Merciful One warned only against eating and the like, but not that it must be harmed, [for example,] if he wore a sacred garment and had a copper coin’s worth of benefit from it, even though he did not harm it in the value of a copper coin, he has misappropriated? The verse says: תמעול מעל — it [thus] includes [even actions aside from eating]. I.e., if it is a thing which usually gets damaged, he has not misappropriated if he has benefit from it until he damages it. This is as [the Rabbis] taught [in a Mishnah] (Meilah 18a): One who derives benefit from sacred property, even though he has not damaged it the worth of a copper coin, he has misappropriated; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: One does not misappropriate with something which is susceptible to damage until he damages it, but with something that is not susceptible to damage he misappropriates as soon as he derives benefit from it. How is this so? If he placed a gold necklace [of sacred property] on her neck or a ring on her finger, or drank from a golden cup, he has misappropriated. 
  תמעול מעל — it [thus] includes [even actions aside from eating]. [Rashi does] not [mean] exactly that it includes, because we do not actually derive this through an “inclusion.” Rather, [it is derived] from a comparison (<i>hekeish</i>) to idolatry, in which it is written מעילה (Divrei Hayomim I, 5:25): “They deviated from the God of their fathers”: Just as regarding idolatry there is a change, for until now, before he bowed down to it, it was in his domain and benefit was permitted, but now its domain has changed and it has entered the domain of the idolatry, and deriving any benefit from it is prohibited; this is its damage. This is what is meant by: “It includes” — Scripture includes it through this <i>hekeish</i>. Here as well, if it is a matter that is usually damaged, even if he has benefit from it he has not misappropriated until it is damaged (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  Excluding sacrifices of lesser holiness. Meaning: Misappropriation is not applicable to the meat of sacrifices of lesser holiness both before the blood is sprinkled or after the blood is sprinkled, because they are not designated for the sake of Hashem alone; their only restriction is that they may be eaten only inside the walls [of Jerusalem], but they are permitted to an ordinary Jew who may eat them. The meat of sin-offerings and guiltofferings as well: misappropriation is applicable to them before the blood is sprinkled, but after sprinkling there is no misappropriation since they are permitted to be eaten by the <i>kohanim</i>. 
  Implying toughness. See above in Parshas Vayeitzei on the verse (Bereishis 31:38): “[And I did not eat any] rams of your flocks...”
  Worth two selaim. Rashi informs us that בערכך means “they are worth,” and not an actual estimation, for the translation of estimation and appraisal is not applicable here. Rather: “they are worth.” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  The principal and the fifth. Rashi informs us that the meaning of, “את אשר חטא (that which he sinned)” is the principal, as if it says: “The principal upon which he sinned he shall pay,” and not “the <i>sin</i> that he sinned,” as the apparent meaning of Scripture, for the concept of payment does not pertain to sin, and certainly that [it is not something that] he would give to the <i>kohein</i> (<i>Re”m</i>). We find in regard to terumah that he pays the principal to the owners and the fifth to any <i>kohein</i> he wishes, therefore, Rashi needed to explain that he gives the principal and the fifth to the <i>kohein</i> (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  In the value recorded. It is the value of two silver selaim (shekalim) of holy selaim. You might ask: Say that the guilt-offering of the nazir and the guilt-offering of the metzoro is two selaim, and the guilt-offering [brought by one who seduced] an engaged maidservant is even one sela. The Sages answered this question in Toras Kohanim: I include the guilt-offering of an engaged maidservant which is a [two-year old] ram, the same as the uncertain guilt-offering, and I exclude the guilt-offering of the nazir and metzoro which is a [one-year old] lamb and not a ram. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  A guilt-offering two-years old. This is surely a scribal error, because why would Scripture need to write that the guilt-offering of the engaged maidservant should be two-years old, since it is written “ram” concerning the engaged maidservant (19:21), the same as here? What is the strength of “ram” written here over the word “ram” written concerning the engaged maidservant? Furthermore, Rashi says: Perhaps I should include the guilt offering for a nazir and the guilt offering of a metzoro? But why would you think that the guilt-offering of the nazir and metzoro should be a two-year old ram, when it is written “lamb” concerning them, and whenever it is written “lamb” or “calf” it refers to a one-year old? Rather, we have to correct the text: “that it should [consist] of a ram <i>worth two Shekalim</i>.” This is because it is not written regarding the engaged maidservant, “the valuation of two shekalim,” and so it lets us know here that we require two shekalim here as well (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Acted faithlessly with Hashem. Toras Kohanim. This is the explanation: In the section regarding misappropriations it is written (v. 15): “If a person wrongfully deviates” and does not say, “from Hashem” [as it does here] (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  With witnesses and a document. This raises a difficulty: What denial is there here of witnesses and a document, and [how is] taking a false oath [applicable]? For surely, when there are witnesses he does not take any oath, for he must pay. It seems that Rashi is referring to that which it says in Baba Metzia (3a): [Rabbi Chiya] taught [in a Baraisa]: One says to his fellow man: I have one-hundred gold pieces deposited by you, but he responds: I have nothing of yours, and witnesses testify that he has fifty. He must pay fifty and take an oath on the rest, as the law of one who admits to a partial amount [of the claim]. This is because his oral confession should not be greater than the testimony of witnesses, and the same law applies if the claimant later shows a document for fifty (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  The Third between them. Meaning: Hashem, Who is the Third between them. What it says afterwards: “or a deposit, or theft, or oppressed his friend,” refers only to: “and [he] denies to his friend” but not to: “[he] deviates from Hashem.” 
  That he stole something from him. Meaning: The phrase, “or theft” does not refer back to “and he denies to his friend,” that you should say “או בגזל” is the same as “פקדון,” which means: he gave his friend a deposit, money which he placed in his possession to invest, and we would [then] say “או בגזל” is also explained this way — that his friend gave him a stolen object he had stolen and he [the recipient] denied to his friend with regard to that deposit. [This cannot be,] for if so, “בגזל” would be the same thing as “פקדון.” 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Any of these. Rashi added the word “these” to say that the phrase “אשר יעשה וגו' (whatever [someone] will do...)” is not connected to the word “מכל (of all)” that appears before it. Rather, [מכל is connected to על אחת (in any), as if it says] “in any of all these aforementioned instances,” and it is a truncated verse. “Whatever [someone] will do” is an independent matter, for Scripture wishes to inform us that it is not unusual that someone will deny money to his fellow man, even though there is a Halachic presumption that a person is not brazen-faced in front of the one to whom he is indebted. This is because it is a common matter that someone swears falsely for the sake of denying his fellow man’s money. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  To repent. Otherwise, who is forcing him to return the theft, since there were no witnesses here? Perhaps by himself? If so, what did he think originally when he denied and swore falsely? Rather, it must be: When he recognizes in himself [the need] to repent... This is a truncated verse, and it is as if it says: “It shall be that when he admits that he sinned and incurs guilt, he shall return the stolen property...”
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  The principal. Meaning: The principal is called the head because it is the head of the money, since it is the main source and the root of all profit that results from it, just as the head of a living creature which is the main source and root of all its limbs. 
  The money belongs. To exclude someone who is the relative or friend of [the one to] whom the money belongs. This is the same as: “Everyone’s holy things shall belong to him” (Bamidbar 5:10), upon which the Sages derived that it is his prerogative to give them to whichever <i>kohein</i> he wants, because the pleasure of giving to whom he chooses is the right of the owners. See later in Parshas Naso (ibid.).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  An expression of “urging.” Rashi explains in the Gemara (Kiddushin 29a) that [זירוז means] one should be quick and vigorous. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above on the verse in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 27:20)? The answer is: [There,] the urging is a result of the special expertise needed to harvest the olives from the olive tree’s top [branches] and to crush them in a mortar so there will be no sediment. 
  And for generations. [Rashi knows this] from what is written (Devarim 3:28): “Command Yehoshua and strengthen him” — [the addition of the word “and strengthen him” shows that] this is an expression of “urging.” “And for generations” — it is written in Parshas Emor (24:2-3): “Command the children of Israel and let them take [pure olive] oil ... from evening until morning before Hashem, continually, as an everlasting statute throughout your generations,” this stipulates “for generations.” “Immediately” — it says in Parshas Behaloscha (Bamidbar 8:3): “Aharon did so; he lit the lamps toward the face of the menorah, as Hashem had commanded...” — this denotes “immediately.” 
  Monetary loss. I.e., [Rabbi Shimon is saying] it is specifically in a place where there is monetary loss that it needs to write צו for urging, but where there is no monetary loss it does not need to write צו, even if it is an expression of urging, immediately and for future generations. And [according to this] Rabbi Shimon disagrees [with the Tanna Kama]. [You might ask:] It says here צו even though there is [seemingly] no monetary loss! The answer is: Since the kohanim do not have any benefit from the burntoffering besides its skin, and that was only given to the <i>kohein</i> who brought the burnt-offering, therefore it is called a monetary loss as well. However, Re’m writes that Rabbi Shimon is not coming to argue on the words of the Tanna Kama. Rather, he is coming to add and say that the primary reason that Scripture uses the expression “command” is because there is monetary loss. However, when there is no monetary loss [although there is urging, immediately and for future generations,] the word צו is not applicable. The same applies when there is no urging, immediately and for future generations, although there is monetary loss, the expression צו is not applicable, etc. (see there, where Re’m dwells at length). [You might ask:] It is written regarding the apportioning of Eretz Yisroel (Bamidbar 34:2): “Command (צו) the children of Yisroel,” although there is no monetary loss! The answer is: Since the entire people of Yisroel were disparate with regard to the conquering of the Land, for one tribe took a larger portion than another, and some took a portion in the hills and some in the plains, it is also considered, in some aspect, a monetary loss. Re’m, however, explains the entire matter differently, examine it and choose for yourself. Meaning: Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say this, specifically here? All the offerings are applicable immediately and for future generations! He answers: All the offerings have a benefit for the kohanim in that they receive a portion of the sacrifice. Therefore, each <i>kohein</i> will hurry and not be indolent in the Divine service, so that he will not be preempted by someone else. This however, does not apply to a burnt-offering, which is entirely burnt, and the kohanim did not receive any of the meat. Therefore, I might think they would be indolent with it. This then would be a monetary loss for the <i>kohein</i> of that watch. Therefore, it says צו, an expression of urging (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). Nachalas Yaakov explains that regarding other offerings they bring only the blood and the fats [to the altar] and the meat is eaten by the kohanim. Thus, their benefit is large and their effort is minimal. This is not so concerning the burnt-offering, for a lot of effort is involved [in bringing it to the altar] and its benefit is minimal — [they receive] only the hide — therefore, it requires urging. Rashi is answering the question: The laws of the burnt-offering were already set down in Parshas Vayikro! Rather, it comes to teach... (<i>Gur Areyeh</i>). 
  Valid all night. Rashi knows this from the end of the verse, where it is written: “All night, until the morning.” It is [from there] he derives this. 
  If taken up, need not be taken down. This is because the altar sanctifies them. It is written afterwards: “<i>It</i> is the burnt-offering” — which comes to exclude, implying “it” and not another. [This implies that some of them, even if they were taken up must be taken down. When is this so?] Rashi explains [later]: “<i>It</i> is the burnt-offering, to exclude [a male animal] which was with a woman and [a female animal] which was with a man, and similar cases, whose disqualification [did not occur] in the Holiness [=the Temple].” Rashi is saying that these could have been disqualified before they were sanctified, [and therefore, even if they went up on the altar must be taken down,] but other invalid sacrifices, for instance, those that became impure, or other disqualifications that are inapplicable until after they had become sanctified, [if they were taken up they need not be taken down]. Toras Kohanim lists all these [examples], and Re’m cites them. Re’m writes: You might ask: Why do we need this exclusion: “<i>It</i> is the burnt-offering” — to exclude [a male animal] which was with a woman and [a female animal] which was with a man that if they went up on the altar they must be taken down? They were already excluded by Scripture in the verse (1:2): “From an animal” in Parshas Vayikro. Since they were excluded there, [to teach] that they are not sanctified, why do we need the exclusion here — that if they went up on the altar they must be taken down? It is obvious that since they are not sanctified, they are not sacred, and certainly they must be taken down from the altar. The Sages already answered this in the Gemara (Nidah 41a), that [two verses are needed, one for a non-sacred animal that he tries to sanctify — that it will not be sanctified, and] one verse for a sanctified animal, that although he sanctified it originally, if it went up on the altar it must come down, [since it was invalidated in a way that could have happened before it became sanctified]. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Linen garment. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written: “The <i>kohein</i> shall dress in his linen garment (מדו בד),” [using the unusual expression מדו for garment instead of בגד]? Above (Shemos 28, 39-40), it does not use such an expression concerning the garments of Aharon. Rashi answers: This is the <i>kutones</i> (undershirt) mentioned with regard to the garments of the kohanim that is worn close to his skin. The phrase, “On his skin” refers to both, for if it referred only to the linen pants, it should write: “The <i>kohein</i> shall dress in his linen garment, and linen pants on his [body] skin.” Why does it say, “he shall wear”? Rather, [it must be that] it refers to מדו as well, which is the <i>kutones</i> (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  According to his size. Meaning: It should not be longer or shorter than his body, because I might think that since it is on his skin and he is wearing other garments on top of it, if it was shorter than his body it is of no concern. Therefore, Scripture teaches us [that it must be according to his size]. Otherwise, why does Scripture not call it a <i>kutones</i> as in the other places? 
  Consumed ashes. Since it is written, “He shall separate the ashes,” which is an expression of separation — that he separates from the ashes. If he were to rake up all of it there would not be any separation. 
  The innermost.. Because it is reasonable [to assume] that what was lying in the middle of the fire was extremely burnt up, they would take the innermost ashes. 
  On the east of it. This is because it is written “next to the altar,” and the ramp was next to the altar. How do we know that it was the eastern side of the ramp? This is proven from what it is written in Parshas Vayikro (1:16): “Beside the altar, eastward, [to the place of the ashes].” There, too, it implies next to the ramp, and it is clearly written “eastward.” Perforce the place of the ashes was at the eastern side of the ramp, and that is what is meant by “eastward.” 
  And makes them ashes. Rashi is rectifying with this [the problem we might have] because the plain meaning of the verse implies that the <i>ashes</i> consume the <i>fire</i>. Therefore, he explains: “And makes them ashes,” i.e., the word “fire” refers to the phrase “[which consumes] the burnt offering.” Furthermore, Rashi explains that he separates <i>from</i> that ash, so that you will not think [he takes] <i>all</i> the ashes which [the fire] makes of the burnt-offering. Re’m explains: Otherwise, [it is problematic that] the verse begins with the ashes and concludes with the consumption of the burnt-offering. It should be understood as if it says, “And he shall separate the ashes” — and which ashes are these? — those “that are as a result of the fire that consumes [the burnt-offering” and makes it ashes]. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Clothes in which he cooked. If Scripture had written: “He shall [then] remove his garments and dress in others,” I would understand that it is an obligation: If he wore [until] now priestly garments, he should now wear non-sacred garments, or vice versa. However, now that it is written, “He shall [then] remove his garments and dress in other <i>garments</i>,” this implies garments like the first ones, i.e., if the first ones were non-sacred, he should now wear non-sacred ones as well. If so, what is the difference between the first ones and the second ones? Therefore, Rashi explains that the other garments are of lesser worth than these, but both are sacred garments. If so, why does he need to remove them? Perforce [it is because of] good manners: “This is not [obligatory,] but good manners.” 
  Which are gathered. Rashi is answering the question: Above, it is written, “and he shall separate,” and here it is written, “he shall take out”! Furthermore, here it is written: “beyond the encampment,” and there it is written, “next to the altar.” Upon this Rashi explains: “[He shall take out the ashes] which are gathered in the heap.” This, then, is the difference between [the mitzvah of] “and he shall separate” and [the mitzvah of] “he shall take out” — [the terumoh was obligatory every day and the removal was only when there was a great deal of ash. Also, the terumoh was from the innermost ashes and the removal was from the ashes gathered in the heap] (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Our Rabbis differed on the number. The largest number of all [these views was that] each day there were four woodpiles: One was the large woodpile upon which they arranged the burntofferings [and all the sacrifices burnt that day]. Afterwards he placed two wooden logs upon that large woodpile; this was the woodpile for the sake of maintaining the fire, because if the [fire of the] large woodpile did not prevail over [the sacrifices], then this additional woodpile of two wooden logs would maintain the fire and prevail. Afterwards, he arranged another woodpile on the altar to burn the limbs that had not been consumed [whether because they had not been placed on the large woodpile or because they had not yet been consumed — thus, three woodpiles were placed one after another in the surrounding area of the large woodpile]. Before the placement of the two wooden logs they would arrange a second woodpile for the incense alongside the large woodpile, on the southwest corner, at a distance of four amos north of the corner. It was called “[the woodpile] of incense” because the <i>kohein</i> would rake the coals from there to bring to the inner altar in the morning and evening for the purpose of burning the incense upon these coals. 
  If [a peace offering] is brought. Rashi is answering the question: It is understandable [for Scripture to mention] a burnt-offering [since] every day there was a continual burntoffering, but perhaps there was no peace offering! Therefore he explains: <i>If</i> a peaceoffering is brought there, they should burn it after the morning’s continual offering. 
  Learned from here. Our Sages were answering the question: If so, it should say חלבי שלמים, why does it say השלמים with the ה? Therefore, they removed it from its plain meaning and explained it as referring to the matter of “completing” [all the sacrifices]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  That too is kindled from the outer altar. You might ask: Above, Rashi explains: “[The Torah] here includes many kindlings and all of them are expounded in Maseches Yoma,” and he brings the verse “a continual fire” there as well! [Why, then, is it available for a drashah here?] The answer is: This is what Rashi means above: [The Torah] here includes many kindlings, but why are they needed? It is understandable [that the Torah mentions] “a continual fire” — I need to expound from it “a fire of which it is said, ‘continual,’ [etc.]” However, why do I need the rest? With regard to this Rashi explains: “All of them are expounded [in Maseches Yomo].”  
  Two prohibitions. Because it is written twice, “It shall not go out.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  To require oil. Meaning: Every time the word תורה is written in Scripture it comes to include, as Rashi explains above (v. 2). 
  That is bringing near. And not burning as the plain meaning implies, for the <i>kohein</i> would burn only the fistful and not the entire [meal-offering], as it is written: “He shall separate from it, when he takes his fistful ... and he shall burn on the altar...” 
  To the southwest corner. As Rashi himself explains: It is written “before Hashem,” which is the west... “To the front of the altar” — that is the south...
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  That he should not take [the fistful] by measure. Meaning: He should not make a utensil that holds a fistful and use it to measure. Rashi’s proof is because it is written בקמצו and it is not written מלא קמצו (the full fistful) [as in 2:2 above].
  In which the oil is plentiful. Otherwise, why does it say, “and from its oil”? It already is written in Parshas Vayikro (2:1) that all the fine flour is mixed with oil, and since the fistful [was taken] from the fine flour, it surely must have included oil. Accordingly, the ו of ומשמנה is a ו of explanation, meaning as if it says: And from which place does he take the fistful? — ומשמנה — where the oil is plentiful. 
  And burns it. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “He shall separate from it, when he takes his fistful,” and afterwards it is written: “and all the frankincense.” This implies that the frankincense is not included in the taking of the fistful.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. You might ask: Why does it say, “In a sacred place”? The answer is: It comes to include the chambers built in a non-sacred place that have an opening into the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, in which it is permissible to eat meal-offerings, as we find in the first Chapter of Keilim and in Zevachim 56a. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  Even the left-over portions. So much more so that what is burnt on the altar [is prohibited when chometz], as it is clearly written in Parshas Vayikro (2:11). Rashi’s proof [that even the left-over portions are prohibited] is that the word חלקם (their portion) is juxtaposed to “It should not be baked as leavened.” 
  Like a sin-offering. As it is written (4:24): “<i>It</i> is a sin-offering,” it should remain as it is, [i.e.,] it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. However, regarding a guilt offering it says “it is a guilt-offering” only after its fats have been burnt [on the altar], but [the guilt-offering] itself even though its fats have not been burnt is valid (as Rashi explains on 7:5).
  
  Verse 11
  
  To include [kohanim] who have a physical defect. Meaning, they receive a portion of the meal-offering together with the unblemished kohanim, portion for portion. I might have thought they are included only for eating the sacrifices, as it is written (21:22): “The bread of his God which is of the most holy ... he may eat,” but they may not take a share together with the unblemished kohanim, since they are not allowed to bring the sacrifices. Thus, it lets us know... 
  And absorb from it. It is written, “Whatever shall touch,” why then does it say, “<i>them</i>”? Rather, [the extra word <i>them</i>] teaches that it touches and enters into them, [i.e.,] it is absorbed within. 
  If it is invalid, they become invalid. I.e., the place where it touches, but not all of it. 
  Under the stringent rule [of eating] the meal-offering. That is, it must be eaten within the Temple courtyard, and for but one day and night, until midnight. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Even ordinary kohanim. [Rashi knows this] because why does the Torah say, “and his sons”? Indeed, kohanim gedolim are mentioned when it says (v. 15): “The <i>kohein</i> who is anointed...” 
  Who is anointed in his stead. Meaning: The phrase, “as a mealoffering, always” is connected with “the <i>kohein</i> who is anointed” (v. 15), and not with “and his sons” (v. 13). If so, their meal-offering is not continual. It is [brought] only on the day of their inauguration, like the day the <i>kohein gadol</i> is anointed, which is the inauguration for the <i>kohein gadol.</i> It is written: “ביום המשח (on the day that he is anointed)” and not מיום המשח (<i>from</i> the day he is anointed), in order to include the inauguration of the ordinary kohanim as well. Otherwise, it should say, “from the day,” because from that day onward the <i>kohein gadol</i> continually offers [the meal-offering].
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  In an oven and thereupon fries it. [Rashi knows this] because it is written תופני which comprises the words תפי נא (baked raw), implying that it is uncooked. This teaches that it should be uncooked when he bakes it and not fried. Therefore, Rashi explains that it is baked originally and afterwards fried. 
  Breaking. Although [breaking] is explicitly mentioned, Rashi comes to exclude from Rabbi Shimon’s view that the meal-offering of kohanim and the meal-offering of the anointed <i>kohein</i> do not require breaking, i.e., he should not fold each piece into two and then into fours, etc. since there is no taking of the fistful from these meal-offerings. It is written here only “פתים (broken pieces)” but not “פתות אותו פתים (break it into pieces),” as it does regarding the meal-offering of a Yisroel (2:6). 
  
  Verse 15
  
  The one anointed of his sons in his stead. Rashi explains by changing [the order of] the verse because we could have explained המשיח תחתיו — the anointing shall be in his stead. Or, we could have explained it as: “the anointed in his stead of his sons, shall bring the offering,” i.e., the son should bring the offering. Therefore, Rashi explains by changing the verse so that “in his stead” will be connected to “of his sons” and not with “the one anointed”; “in his stead” connotes one person in succession to another (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). See Kitzur Mizrachi, Mahara’n, Gur Areyeh, and Divrei Dovid — each one has a unique approach in this. Meaning: According to the verse’s order it would seem that the anointed one in his stead who is one of his sons shall offer this meal-offering, to exclude an anointed one who is not one of his sons — that he should not offer. This cannot be. But now [that Rashi reverses it] it means the anointed of his sons in his stead shall offer it [always], to exclude any of his sons who is not anointed shall not offer it [always] (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>). 
  All of it is completely [burnt]. This is to exclude that you should not explain “כליל (completely burnt)” refers to all the meal-offerings, and it means that the <i>fistful</i> of all the mealofferings should be burnt. [Therefore, Rashi explains that the word כליל refers only to this mealoffering,] and כליל means all of it is completely burnt. So too, every meal-offering of a <i>kohein</i>, of a voluntary offering. I.e., not that a <i>kohein</i>’s meal offering should be different than an anointed <i>kohein</i>’s meal offering — that is why Rashi adds: “so too, etc.” — that it is also completely burnt. Rashi adds, “of a voluntary offering,” because without this it would imply: So too the <i>kohein</i>’s obligatory meal offering [is completely burnt], just as the anointed <i>kohein</i>’s [meal offering that is obligatory], but not a voluntary one. Therefore, it lets us know that both of them are completely burnt. 
  So too, every meal-offering of a kohein. Rashi’s proof is that it is written: “Every mealoffering of a <i>kohein</i>...” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Equally, to the Most High. I.e., since it says “shall be completely,” but it did not say whether for the sake of the Most High [burnt on the altar] or for an ordinary person [completely eaten], for this reason Rashi explains it is entirely for the Most High, i.e., it is burnt. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  One fit [to perform] the Temple service. Rashi did not explain the verse according to its plain meaning — “[The <i>kohein</i>] who offers it as a sin-offering, shall eat it” — because it is written (v. 22): “Every male among the kohanim may eat it.” We need not ask: Perhaps the one fit for the avodah shall eat it — to exclude a <i>kohein</i> who has a physical blemish, who is not fit. [The answer is:] It is written: “Every male” — to include a <i>kohein</i> with a blemish. Perforce, it comes to exclude an impure <i>kohein</i> who immersed in a mikveh that day [and could eat it at night] — <i>that he has no share</i>. We should not say: Say the opposite! The one who immersed in the mikveh that day may eat at night, but the <i>kohein</i> with a blemish may never eat. [We do not say this because] it is logical that the <i>kohein</i> with a blemish should partake since he is allowed to eat immediately, and to exclude the one who immersed that day who may not eat until the evening. Meaning: It is impossible to say that it means [only the one who offers] should actually eat it, and the one who was impure at the time of the sprinkling [of the blood], who was not fit for the avodah, will be forbidden afterwards from partaking [in the meat of the offering] at all. Because if so, a minor as well, who was not fit for avodah at the time of sprinkling would be forbidden afterwards to eat. And if you would claim that this is so — [it cannot be, for] we include from “Every male” — even a minor — “may eat it.” Rather, here we only exclude that he [i.e., the impure <i>kohein</i>] <i>may not have a share</i> in the meat (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Which touches and absorbs. In Toras Kohanim: You might think that even if it did not absorb, therefore, the Torah says: “In its flesh” — until it absorbs, etc. This Baraisa is brought in Zevachim (97a) (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  Bloodspot on the garment. The verse implies that one is required to sprinkle on the entire garment, but this cannot be. Therefore, Rashi explains: “If...” And the meaning of “ואשר” is: [If] it will have been sprinkled, as Rashi explains nearby. In Toras Kohanim: You might think that the entire garment requires washing, therefore, the Torah says: “Whatever it is sprinkled upon, you shall wash” — the bloodspot requires washing but the entire garment does not require washing. 
  In the court. As it is written (v. 9): “In a sacred place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting.” Perforce, the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting is the “sacred place.” 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Becomes נותר(meat left overnight that is invalid and must be burnt). After the day and the night that follows it. You might ask: Leave it until after daybreak on the morrow when it [the taste absorbed in the vessel’s wall] will give a bad taste (נותן טעם לפגם) and it will not require breaking or scouring! The answer is: Since at daybreak on the morrow the obligation to break or scour is immediate, it does not lapse afterwards (<i>Re’m</i>). With regard to Re’m’s question I stood trembling and astonished. Why is he raising such a difficulty? It is only with respect to [the prohibition of] eating, which depends on the taste of the forbidden food, that it is permitted when it gives a bad taste, since [in this case] he does not benefit. This is not so concerning נותר, which has to be burnt — the main mitzvah of burning is even after its taste has gone bad and it was left longer than its time period. As long as it is in the world he is required to burn it. How would the fact that the taste has gone bad help in this case? Therefore, the Torah commands to break the earthenware vessels and scour and rinse copper vessels so that they will not come to the circumstance of having a bad taste and of being נותר at the time of daybreak. This is because it is prohibited to bring something to the condition of becoming נותר so that it will have to be burnt. How would having a bad taste help to nullify the mitzvah of burning the נותר? It was not that the Torah said the earthenware vessel needs to be broken because it will discharge [the taste of נותר] into the food that is cooked in it afterwards, for certainly, even if he wants to leave it and not cook anything in it afterwards it does not help. Rather, he would be transgressing by causing נותר and he blemishes that which is holy. Therefore, he needs to break the earthenware pot since it is not possible to burn the absorptions of נותר in it (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  But its exchange is not. Meaning: The exchanged animal itself is not sacrificed, nevertheless, it becomes holy and does not go out to become non-sacred. It is left to graze until it develops a blemish. Then, it is sold and its value is used to buy a voluntary offering.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Ram or lamb. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written: “If he is bringing a lamb...” or “If he is bringing a goat...” [as it does regarding peace-offerings (3:7-12)]?
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Whose owners have died. That is, [the owners died] before they brought the guilt-offering, so it no longer needs to be offered since death atones. 
  Have been atoned for. For instance, he separated a guilt-offering and it was lost, and he brought another guilt-offering. Afterwards, the first guilt-offering was found. If so, the owners have already received atonement. This guiltoffering needs to graze until it becomes blemished; they then sell it and buy a burnt-offering with its value. Rashi is explaining specifically that even though its value is destined to be used for the קיץ מזבח (when there were not enough sacrifices donated to keep the altar fully in use, the deficit was made up by Temple-funded sacrifices. This money is used to buy sacrifices for the “summertime altar”), if they slaughtered it without any designation it is not valid for a burnt offering before it is removed for pasture. Once it was removed for pasture, however, if it was slaughtered without any designation, it is valid. This is because it is written, “it is a guilt-offering,” implying: But not a burnt-offering. However, it is obvious that it is a guilt-offering and not a burnt-offering! Rather, this implies that sometimes it <i>can</i> be a burnt-offering. For instance: if it was removed for pasture and they slaughtered it without designation, it will be valid as a burnt-offering. 
  Even though [its fats] have not been burnt. I.e., since the guilt-offering is valid even if the fats were not burnt, it is no longer applicable to say that a guilt-offering brought for its own sake is valid but if not for its own sake is invalid. Because if you were to say this, the guilt-offering would have to have the fats burnt for its own sake, since “it is a guilt-offering” is written after the burning of the fats. [But this is not so,] for if the fats were not burnt it would still be valid, since atonement is only accomplished by the blood. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  The one who is fit to [accomplish] atonement. Meaning: The phrase “One law applies to them both” is connected to the phrase following, “the <i>kohein</i> who will bring about atonement ...” for if it meant to equate the sinoffering and guilt-offering [this cannot be,] since it is already written: “As the sin-offering is, so is the guilt-offering,” in which they are equated. 
  Excluding a טבול יום (one who has entered a mikveh, but who has to wait for sunset to become ritually pure). Meaning: the sunset has not yet come. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  A מחוסר כפורים. Meaning: Sometimes there is an impure person [that has entered the mikveh] who needs to bring a sacrifice the next day.
  Who do not share. Excluding a טבול יום. Even though Scripture excluded them from a share in the meat, as stated above (v. 7), I might think that specifically with regard to the meat, which is eaten, and these kohanim are not fit to eat now — therefore, Scripture excludes them. Regarding the skins, however, since they are not fit to be eaten, I might think that although these kohanim are not fit for performing service, nonetheless they share in the skins. Therefore, it lets us know ... [that since they are not fit for performing service or eating,] they are excluded from sharing in the skins. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  To the priestly family. Meaning: The kohanim were divided into twenty-four watches, and each watch had one week. Each watch was divided into six priestly families for the six weekdays, each day had one priestly family [assigned to it], and on the Shabbos day all six priestly families served together. Many raise the difficulty: It is written later (v. 10), “[It shall belong] to all the sons of Aharon,” with regard to the <i>meal-offering mixed with oil or dry</i>, and Rashi writes later: The verse which says: “to the <i>kohein</i> who offers,” is written concerning the <i>meal-offering baked in an oven</i> — why do we not say that there exists a difference between different types of mealofferings, that this one goes to the one who offers and this one is for all the sons of Aharon? It seems to me [that we can answer] in this way: When it says, “the <i>kohein</i> who offers,” it cannot mean strictly him, and that the members of the watch have no rights in it. This is because perforce the watch must be included, since “the one who offers” refers to anyone who was fit to offer, just as nearby (v. 7), “the <i>kohein</i> who will bring about atonement,” Rashi explains that “anyone who is fit to [accomplish] atonement has a share in it.” If so, it cannot be that only the <i>kohein</i> who offers shall have a share. Rather, perforce it means anyone who was fit [to offer] in that watch [has a share]. Then afterwards, concerning the meal-offering mixed with oil, when it says, “to all the sons of Aharon,” perforce it means to all the members of that watch as well, for certainly, it cannot be referring to all the kohanim in the world, since it would be impossible to share it with everyone. If so, Scripture poses a contradiction in the usage of language: First it uses a singular term to refer a watch [“the <i>kohein</i> who offers”], and afterwards a plural term, “to all the <i>sons</i> of Aharon.” Rather, we must say there is relevancy for the singular and plural terms. And that is that each watch had priestly families, for there were twenty-four watches, and each watch was divided into six priestly families; each priestly family had its day. Therefore, the singular term usage mentioned first is fine, because it excludes all the other [i.e., twenty-three] priestly families. And the verse, “to all the <i>sons</i> of Aharon” includes all those kohanim who were serving on that day, and not just the <i>kohein</i> who offers it (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 10
  
  A voluntary mealoffering. Meaning: This is the voluntary fine flour meal-offering mentioned in Parshas Vayikro (2:1), for the other types have already been listed, as it is written: “Every meal-offering that shall be baked in an oven and every one made in a deep pot or frying pan...” If so, “Every meal-offering mixed with oil” must be identified as the fine flour meal-offering.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  So it is set forth in Menochos. It says here (v. 14): “תרומה ליי (separated portion to Hashem),” and it says with regard toתרומת מעשר  (the tithe of the tithe): “תרומה ליי” (Bamidbar 18:26), just as later on it means one tenth, here, too, it means one tenth. Thus, we learn that each type [of bread] should be ten loaves. This is because if they were less than ten or more than ten, then the tenth of each type would be a piece of a loaf or half a loaf. The Torah however says, (v. 14): “<i>one</i> from each offering,” which means one <i>whole</i> loaf from each type; he should not take a piece. 
  Twenty esronos (tenths). This is because it is written here (v. 13): “לחם חמץ (leavened <i>bread</i>),” and with regard to the loaves of Atzeres (Shavuos) is written: “לחם תנופה שתים שני עשרונים (two <i>bread</i> wave-offerings; of two tenths)” (23:17). If so, we derive [from a <i>gezeiroh</i> <i>shovoh</i>] “לחם לחם” — just as each bread mentioned concerning Atzeres was one ‘tenth,’ [so too, here, each leavened bread was one ‘tenth’]. Here, there were ten loaves of leaven, since each type had ten loaves. If so, the amount of bread was ten ‘tenths.’ The total of the rest of the three types [of matzoh] was only ten ‘tenths,’ [thus, the total of all the four types was twenty ‘tenths’]. [You might ask:] How does Rashi know this? Perhaps each type [even of matzoh] was ten ‘tenths’! [The answer is:] If so, Scripture should have written, “And leavened bread...” why does it say: “<i>With loaves — </i>[leavened] bread [he shall bring]...”? It had already specified above the three types of leaves! Rather, it comes to tell you that the loaves should resemble the [leavened] bread, i.e., all the loaves [of matzoh] should only be ten ‘tenths’ as was the [leavened] bread by itself. 
  Scalded in boiling water as much as needed. Rashi does not intend to say that they were scalded in boiling water but not baked afterwards in an oven. Rather, they are required to be baked after the scalding, as it is written clearly regarding the meal-offering (6:14): “תופיני (well-baked).” Then, we derive from the words “מורבכת מורבכת (saturated, saturated)” for a <i>gezeiroh</i> <i>shovoh</i>. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  That the bread is not holy. Otherwise, why does it need to say: “He shall bring his offering, along with his peaceoffering of thanksgiving”? It is written above (v. 12): “He shall bring along with his thanksgiving offering matzoh loaves...”! Perforce this verse comes for to be elucidated: “[This tells us] that the bread is not holy, etc.” Accordingly, the phrase, “Loaves of leavened bread,” is expounded with the preceding verse and the phrase following: With the preceding — “matzoh loaves mixed with oil ... and loaves of saturated fine flour mixed with oil, with loaves of leavened bread, etc.” and with the phrase following — “With loaves of leavened bread he shall bring his offering, along with his peace-offering of thanksgiving.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  One bread of each type. Rashi is answering the question: There was only one קרבן (offering) — the peaceoffering of thanksgiving! [How, then, can the verse say, “one from each קרבן”?] Therefore, he explains: “One <i>bread</i> of each type, etc.” because each type is called a קרבן. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  The festal offering of the fourteenth. [You might ask:] On the verse in Parshas Re’eh (Devarim 16:4): “Neither shall any of the flesh remain all night until the morning,” Rashi explains: “Scripture is referring to the festal offering brought on the fourteenth of Nissan [and not to the Pesach offering], and it teaches with reference to it that it may be eaten for <i>two</i> days and [the intervening] night”! [Yet here he writes that it may be eaten for <i>one</i> day and a night]. [The answer is:] Rashi’s explanation here is according to the view of Ben Teima, who said that a festal offering that comes with a Pesach offering is eaten one day and a night, like the Pesach offering. And what Rashi says [in Parshas Re’eh that it is eaten] for two days, etc. is according to the Rabbis who disagree with Ben Teima. They hold the view that a peace-offering that comes because of the Pesach offering is eaten for only one day and a night, solely when it is a specific case of a peace-offering that comes from the surplus of a Pesach offering. For instance, someone separated money for his Pesach offering and he bought a Pesach offering, but there was a surplus of money. From that money he should bring a peace-offering. But since it originates from the Pesach offering, its laws are as that of the Pesach offering, to be eaten for one day and a night. Do not question why Rashi explains here according to the view of Ben Teima and later on according to the view of the Rabbis, since this is Rashi’s approach in a number of places in his commentary on the Chumash. 
  The time limit of its bread. As it is written: “On the day <i>of its sacrifice</i>,” and it is not written: “On its day it may be eaten.” Rather, this is to tell you that [the laws pertaining to] the loaves should be like the sacrifice itself with [the laws pertaining to] eating, because the loaves are also called a קרבן (sacrifice), as it is written (v. 14): “והקריב אחד מכל קרבן (he shall bring one from each offering).” 
  Until midnight. Rashi is answering the question: Why did the Rabbis say that he may eat it only until midnight and not later?
  
  Verse 16
  
  Thanksgiving for a miracle. Meaning: That which is written: “If either a vow or voluntary offering,” does not mean that what is written above it is not referring to voluntary offerings, because above it does refer to a voluntary offering! Therefore, Rashi explains: “Which he did not bring as thanksgiving...” however, until now it refers to one who brings an offering for thanksgiving for a miracle. 
  May be eaten. It may be eaten on the second day. You should not explain that it may be eaten on the first day, and on the next day it may also be eaten, and the remnant of it, i.e., of the second day, may be eaten on the third day. Rather, this is what it means: And on the next day the remnant from the first day may be eaten, meaning: what remained from the first day may be eaten on the second. According to this, the ו of והנותר is superfluous. Rashi’s proof is that it is written nearby (v. 18): “If it will be eaten ... on the third day...” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not interpret this ו like the ו of (6:8): “ומשמנה (and some of its oil),” where he explains [that the ו of ומשמנה is a ו of explanation, meaning as if it is written:] <i>And</i> from where does he take the fistful? — ומשמנה — where the oil is plentiful. So too, here, let it be explained: <i>And</i> when is it permitted to eat on the next day? When the remnant is from the first day. However, the preferred way to fulfill the mitzvah is [to eat it] on the first day alone. This, indeed, is as Re’m wishes to explain. [The answer is:] Because if so, Scripture should write: “יאכל והנותר ממנו ממחרת (the remnant of it shall be eaten <i>on the next day</i>),” [and not: “And on the next day, the remnant of it may be eaten”], so that we would not err to explain that it is referring to the remnant from the second day, which is to what it seems to refer, rather than explaining that it refers to the first day. Thus, the ו is certainly superfluous. Above (6:8), however, there is no reason to err. Here, though, <i>without</i> the ו there is no reason to err, therefore, Rashi explains that the ו is superfluous. This answers the difficulty which Re’m raised on Rashi who did not explain this ו like the ו of ומשמנה. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  One who intends during the slaughtering. Meaning: If he had an invalid intention about it at the time the <i>kohein</i> sprinkles its blood, that is, to eat it on the third day, which is beyond its permitted time, then it is invalid. But after it was sacrificed, and all of its service was properly performed, no intention or action can invalidate it. 
  Should become invalid retroactively. We should not raise the difficulty: Since the sacrifice was done properly, how could he make it invalid afterwards by the manner in which he eats it? The Sages already answered in Toras Kohanim: Just as we find concerning a zov and a zovoh, and one who counts a day against a day, who were in the presumption of being pure, yet when they see [a discharge] the day is removed from its presumption of purity, so too, here. 
  This should not enter the mind. Meaning: This is why the verse uses the term: “לא יחשב” to tell you that it is with thought (מחשבה) that it becomes invalid. And this is what it means: “The one who brings it,” that is, at the time of bringing the sacrifice, “לא יחשב לו,” meaning: He should not have the aforementioned thought: “it will be eaten ... on the third day.” 
  And if he thought of it, “it will be an abomination.” Meaning: If he transgressed and thought. Rashi rectifies a number of matters in his paraphrase of this verse. He explains “המקריב אותו” as referring to the time of bringing the sacrifice, as aforementioned, and not as referring to the <i>kohein</i> who brings it, as implied by the plain understanding. Also, he explains “לא יחשב לו” as a prohibition on thought, and not as a matter of [not] being credited. Additionally, he added the word זאת to teach that the thought about which he is cautioned against having is <i>this</i> thought: “it will be eaten ... on the third day,” which is the thought of eating beyond the prescribed time. However, a thought [of eating] outside of the prescribed <i>place</i> is derived from the verse, “if it should be eaten ... on the third day” in Parshas Kedoshim (19:7), as Rashi explains there: “If this does not refer to [the prohibition of eating it] beyond its [proper] time, etc.” Also, he adds the words “if he thought” before the words, “it will be an abomination,” because otherwise it would be understood from the verse that when the <i>kohein</i> does <i>not</i> think that he will eat it beyond its time it will be an abomination. 
  During the time limit. During the [prescribed] time it is also an abomination since its invalidity is in thought at the time of slaughtering or sprinkling. Therefore, Rashi emends: “[even] during the time limit.” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Peace-offerings. This excludes the just mentioned פיגול, which is not eaten even without touching impurity. 
  A limb, part of which went out. Meaning: It went out of the courtyard, or, [with regard to] holy things of lesser holiness — outside the walls of Yerushalayim. The meat of an offering that goes outside [of its prescribed limits] is prohibited to be eaten because (Shemos 22:30): “You must not eat flesh that was torn off in the field.” The part that remains within [its prescribed limits] is permitted even though it touches the part that went out [its prescribed limits, and we do not say [that just as] something that touches the impure becomes impure, [i.e., if part of it becomes impure the entire thing becomes impure,] so too, [if part of the meat of an offering becomes] invalid [because it went outside, the entire meat should be considered invalid]. [This is] because the second word והבשר comes to include, since it should say, “כל טהור יאכל בשר (every pure person may eat the meat),” and no more, why does it say והבשר? Rather, it comes to include that this [i.e., the part of the meat that remains within its prescribed limits] is permitted. 
   
  Therefore. [Re’m poses the difficulty:] You might ask: Why does the verse need to teach me this? It can be derived from the fact Scripture needs to write concerning the Pesach offering that it may only be eaten by its “subscribers” (the members of the group that purchased it), who are the owners. This implies that peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and a night, may be eaten by any person. Because if you were to assume that peace-offerings are eaten only by the owners, why does the Torah single out the Pesach offering, about which the Merciful One wrote that it is eaten only by the owners? According to this assumption, we could learn from peaceofferings, which are lenient, in that they may be eaten for two days and in any [form of] food [preparation], yet even so they may be eaten only by the owners; the Pesach offering, which is more severe, in that it may be eaten only one day and night, and it is eaten only roasted, is it not so much more so [that it may be eaten only by the owners]? The answer is: Were it not for this verse, I might think that the rest of the peace-offerings may be eaten only by the owners, and yet the verse concerning the Pesach offering is needed for itself, [to teach] that they are considered owners only if they “subscribed” to it before it was slaughtered, but after slaughtering they may not subscribe. This is not the case by other peace-offerings — even if some people became partners after slaughtering they are permitted to eat from it. However, if they do not join as partners they may not. For this reason, the verse is needed to teach this, so it appears to me (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). Re’m answers: Were it not for the verse: “Every pure person [may eat the meat...],” the verses would contradict each other: It is written concerning the Pesach offering (Shemos 12:4): “You shall make your count regarding the lamb,” which teaches that the Pesach offering is eaten only by the owners. This implies that peace-offerings may be eaten even by those who are not the owners, for if only the owners [may eat peace-offerings], Pesach should be derived from a <i>kal</i> <i>vachomer</i> from peaceofferings, as previously mentioned. [On the other hand,] it is written (Devarim 12:27): “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured ... and <i>you</i> shall eat the flesh.” This implies that peace-offerings may be eaten only by the owners. For this reason the Merciful One wrote the verse: “Every pure person...” to teach that the verse [in Devarim] “and [you shall eat] the flesh” is not meant to be interpreted precisely as referring only to the owners. Rather, any pure person [may eat] even if he is not an owner.
  
  Verse 20
  
  Bodily uncleanness. We derive a <i>gezeiroh</i> <i>shovoh</i> from the words טומאתו טומאתו: It is written here: “וטומאתו עליו, (while his uncleanness is yet on him),” and it is written there in Parshas Parah (Bamidbar 19:13): “עוד טומאתו בו (and his uncleanness remains upon him).” Just as there it refers clearly to impurity of the person (ibid.): “Whoever touches a corpse,” so too, here, it refers to impurity of the person. Rashi explains the later phrase: “וטומאתו עליו,” before he explains the preliminary [point]: “The warning for an unclean person who ate clean [sacrificial meat], etc.” because at first I might think that “וטומאתו עליו” refers to impure meat, and if so, it has a warning from the strength of the verse (19): “The flesh [of offerings] that will touch [any unclean thing may not be eaten],” and the punishment from the strength of this verse: “while his uncleanness is yet on him, [that person’s soul] shall be cut off.” [It is a generally accepted rule in regard to prohibitions and punishments in Vayikro that every punishment must be accompanied by a warning in another verse]. However, now that he explains that “וטומאתו עליו” refers to bodily uncleanness, it only speaks here of a warning for the meat’s uncleanness and the punishment for bodily uncleanness. The warning [for bodily uncleanness], though, is from the strength of the <i>gezeiroh</i> <i>shovoh</i>. That is: here it is written טומאתו, and [it also says טומאתו] by an impure person who enters the Beis HaMikdash, concerning which it states a warning and punishment. Thus, here, too, it has a warning. Afterwards, Rashi raises the difficulty: If so, why does it need to mention כרת again regarding bodily uncleanness? [He answers:] There are three כריתות (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). אתו here has a warning. 
  Not explicitly mentioned. Rashi is answering what you might ask: There is no punishment [for a prohibition] unless there is a warning [in the Torah]! Therefore, he explains: “[The warning...] is not explicitly [mentioned in the Torah].” 
  Derived it with a גזרה שוה. The גזרה שוה is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:13), טומאתו בו as previously mentioned. And [the punishment of] כרת (ibid.), and its warning is written in Parshas Naso, as it is written (5:3): “And they not defile their camps, in which I dwell among them,” which is a warning not to enter the Beis HaMikdash with bodily uncleanness. We derive [through a <i>gezeiroh</i> <i>shovoh</i>] טומאתו that is written here from טומאתו written there, just as טומאתו there has a warning, so too טומאתו here has a warning.
  Three כריתות. One in Parshas Emor (22:3): “any person of your offspring who will draw near to the holy things ... [while his impurity is on him, that soul shall be cut off].” The Gemara says in Zevachim Chapter 4 that when it says “who will draw near” it refers to eating: What does it mean, “who will draw near”? It is said concerning something that is fit to be brought near [the altar]. And how is that so? Because it had already been consecrated in a holy vessel. The other two כריתות are mentioned in Parshas Tzav (v. 20): “The person who eats of the flesh of the peace-offering,” and the next verse (v. 21) reads: “A person who touches anything unclean.” Concerning both of these it says: “[that person’s soul] shall be cut off.” [Rashi explains:] “One is [to teach] a general rule” — meaning: The one [in Parshas Emor]: “to the holy things,” which includes everything. One from the two mentioned in Parshas Tzav [teaches the rule regarding] a particular case. This is a rule [handed down at Sinai as a method of expounding the Torah] explained in Toras Kohanim, in the beginning of the sefer: Something that was included in a general rule, and [then] was singled out from that rule to teach, was not singled out to teach only about itself, but rather to teach about that entire general rule. How is that so? [Peace-offerings need not have been mentioned separately:] “The person who eats of the flesh of the peace-offering, etc.” since peace-offerings were included in the general category of “to the holy things.” Why then, did they depart [as a separate category here]? To compare to them — just as peace-offerings are special in that they are brought to the altar, so too, anything else that is brought to the altar [is included in the punishment of כרת]. This excludes animals dedicated to the Temple upkeep that one is not liable to the punishment of כרת [if he eats their flesh] while in a state of impurity. 
  And one to teach regarding a sliding-scale sacrifice. As it is written in Parshas Vayikro (5:2): “and this [impurity] was concealed from him, he is impure and incurs guilt.” We would not know why he incurs guilt. Could it be that because he was impure he should incur guilt and bring a sliding-scale sacrifice? Therefore, this [third] כרת was made available to teach that [the sliding-scale sacrifice] comes to atone for this כרת, referring to [a person in the state of impurity who ate] sacrificial meat. [However,] if this does not refer to sacrificial meat [eaten by a person] in [the state of] impurity [then it should be used to teach something else]. [It is not needed] because it is [already] derived from a <i>gezeiroh</i> <i>shovoh</i>: Regarding the sliding-scale sacrifice it is written (ibid.): “or the carcass of an <i>impure animal</i> of pasture,” and it says concerning one who eats sacrificial meat in the state of bodily uncleanness in Parshas Tzav (v. 21): A person who touches [anything unclean] ... or an <i>impure animal</i> ... and then eats some flesh [of the peace-offering].” Just as later on [in Parshas Tzav] it refers to sacrificial meat in impurity, so too, here, [regarding the sliding-scale sacrifice] it refers to sacrificial meat in impurity. Thus, [since it is not needed for this], it should be used to teach about one who enters the Temple in impurity. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  [Fat ...] does not acquire uncleanness. Meaning: If [the verse came] to permit deriving benefit, [it would be unnecessary] since one is permitted to derive benefit from a נבלה (the carcass of an animal which has been slaughtered improperly), as it is written (Devarim 14:21): “To the stranger that is in your gates...” thus, the fat is also included. Perforce, it comes [to teach] that the fat does not cause impurity of נבלה and may even be used for oiling the hides of animals dedicated to the Temple upkeep. For this reason it is written, “may be used for any purpose.” 
  And fall on the prohibition of חלב. [Although Rashi writes, “he will be liable for the prohibition of נבלה”] the same applies to the prohibition of טריפה (an animal which died of natural causes, or would have died of such causes had it not been slaughtered). Rashi needs to mention both of these examples: the fat of a נבלה and the fat of a טריפה, for if it let us know only נבלה, I would say that regarding נבלה a prohibition falls on another prohibition because it acquires a severe impurity, but regarding טריפה it does not. And if it let me know only concerning טריפה, [I would say that regarding טריפה] a prohibition falls on another prohibition because it is a prohibited while still alive, but regarding נבלה it is not. For this reason, both are necessary. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  Excluding the blood of fish and grasshoppers. Otherwise, why does it say, “be it of fowl or beast”? However, we should not say it excludes the blood of wild beasts (חיה). This cannot be, because חיה is included in the word בהמה. It not only excludes [the blood of] fish and grasshoppers, but also human blood. This is because this verse follows the rule [of Torah interpretation handed down at Sinai] of a general rule that is followed by a specific rule (כלל ופרט) — that the general rule includes only what is specified in the specific detail — fowl or בהמה. Other blood, however, that is not the blood of fowl or בהמה, is not included. 
  It applies in all habitations. You might ask: Why does Rashi reverse the order and not explain according to the order of the verse? The answer is: Without this [that Rashi first explains “be it of fowl or beast”], I might say that “in all your dwelling places” comes to include that everything in your dwelling places would be prohibited, even [the blood of] fish and grasshoppers. Now, however, that it is written, “be it of fowl or beast,” which excludes [the blood of] fish and grasshoppers, if so, it raises a difficulty: Why do I need, “in all your dwelling places”? Rather, it must be coming to teach us that it applies even outside of Eretz Yisroel since it is an obligation of the individual. You might ask: It is obvious that since it is an obligation of the individual that it applies whether in Eretz Yisroel, etc. [so why do we need the inclusionary phrase?] Therefore, Rashi explains: And in Maseches Kiddushin [it is explained why it was necessary to state this]. It is explained there: If Scripture did not write, “in all your dwelling places,” I might assume that since it is included within the general discussion of sacrifices, when the sacrifices are extant [i.e., when the Beis HaMikdash is standing] the fat and blood are prohibited, but when there are no sacrifices, they are not prohibited. Therefore, it teaches us [that these prohibitions apply to all times]. Divrei<i> </i>Dovid answers why Rashi reverses the order and first explains “be it fowl or beast” and then “in all your dwelling places,” which appears earlier in the verse. This is because Scripture says (v. 25): “Anyone who eats fat [of an animal from] which is offered a fire-offering to Hashem...” Meaning: There is a prohibition of fat and blood specifically from an animal that is fit for sacrifices, however, there is no prohibition from what is not fit for sacrifices. Accordingly, the verse, “be it fowl or beast,” refers to “fowl” such as turtledoves and young pigeons; and “beast” refers to the type that is pure [for sacrifices], in particular. According to this, I would explain that when the verse says, “in all your dwelling places,” it comes to prohibit all types of blood, even [from animals] not fit for sacrifices. But now that the verse, “be it fowl or beast” excludes the blood of fish and grasshoppers, by the strength of a כלל ופרט (that the general rule includes only what is specified in the specific detail), and [thus] the general rule that is mentioned does not prohibit all the types, if so, there is a difficulty: Why do I need “in all your dwelling places”? Even without it, we know that it does not depend on whether or not it is fit for a sacrifice. Rather, the blood of every fowl and beast is prohibited. Therefore, Rashi cites the Gemara in Maseches Kiddushin which answers this. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  The kohein’s hand beneath. Since it is written (Devarim 26:4): “And the <i>kohein</i> will take the basket from your hand,” just as there [it refers to] the hand of the <i>kohein</i>, so too, here, it refers to the hand of the <i>kohein</i>. And yet it is written: “His hands shall bring it,” which refers to the [hands of the] owner. How [do we resolve the apparent contradiction]? “The owner’s hands should be [on top ... with the <i>kohein</i>’s hand beneath].”
  
  That three kohanim. Although it would be sufficient with one, this is because “the glory of the king is when there is a multitude of people.” 
  
  Since it is said. Meaning: Since it is written: “את החלב על החזה יביאנו (he shall bring the fat on the breast)” it did not need to additionally write: “את החזה (and the breast).” Therefore Rashi explains that the second phrase “את החזה” refers to the phrase “להניף אותו (to wave it),” as if it says: The only reason he brings the breast together with the fat is to wave with it. Were it not for this, I would think that the aforementioned phrase “the fire-offerings of Hashem” includes [both] the fat and the breast that appear in the verse after it. You might ask: It is clearly written in the next verse: “The <i>kohein</i> shall burn the fat on the altar and the <i>breast shall belong</i> to Aharon and to his sons.” How, then, could we have assumed that the breast would also be [burnt] with the fire offerings? The answer is: Were it not for the verse: “And the breast to wave,” I would think that the verse (31), “The <i>kohein</i> shall burn the fat on the altar and the breast shall belong to Aharon and to his sons” comes to teach that you should not say that even the breast is a fire offering, [which you might say] because it is written, “the fat on the breast.” However, it (v. 31) does not teach that the meat is not eaten as long as the fats are below the altar (see Rashi there). Now that it is written, “and the breast to wave,” which teaches us that the breast is not one of the fire offerings, the verse, “and the breast shall belong to Aharon and to his sons” remains available to teach that the meat is not eaten while the fats are below the altar (<i>Re’m</i>). Were it not for the verse, “and the breast to wave,” I might think that part of the breast is for a fire offering and part is for Aharon, as we say (3:4) regarding the liver. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Gur Aryeh’s answer poses a difficulty: The liver is different, because it is written (ibid.): “יותרת על הכבד (the lobe on the liver)”; the expression על הכבד is extra. Therefore, the Sages derived that he should take a small part [of the liver with the lobe]. This is not so, here, regarding the breast, where the fat is placed upon it, and there is no extra expression. Thus, it appears to me that I might assume this is what it means: “His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of Hashem” refers to the fat and the breast, since both of them are relevant as fire offerings of Hashem. However, the Merciful One gave [the breast to] Aharon and his sons from the table of the Most High, and it would not be the property of the owner with which he could betroth a woman. Therefore, it teaches us know that the breast is not of the fire offerings of Hashem at all, and it is the property of the owner. With this, the language of the later verse is understandable as well (v. 34): “Because the breast wave-offering... I have taken from Bnei Yisroel ... and I have given them to Aharon the <i>kohein</i>.” This verse poses a difficulty: What new information does Scripture give here? According to what I mentioned it goes well: Scripture teaches us that they were taken from the Bnei Yisroel and not from the table of the Most High. Thus, what Hashem has given to them is the property of the owner (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>).
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Or at the time of burning. Although above, regarding the sin-offering, Rashi writes only (6:19): “Excluding the one who is impure at the time of sprinkling the blood,” this is because Scripture writes here: “And the fat,” which implies that he needs to be pure at the time of burning the fat [as well] (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 34
  
  He moves them. [Rashi knows this] because it is written (Shemos 29:27): “[Sanctify the breast of the wave-offering and the shoulder of the terumoh-offering] which were [the] waved and uplifted [parts].” The meaning of תנופה is waving to and fro, and תרומה is an expression denoting lifting up, and as a matter of course lowering.
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  For the day of installation of the kehunoh. Every place where the expression “מלוי יד” (literally, filling the hand) appears, it means the installation, as above in Parshas Tetzaveh.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  For there is no earlier. The erecting of the Mishkan was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, and this was on the twenty-third of Adar. The explanation of (v. 35): “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit ... for seven days” is: In the place of the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, since for the entire seven days they would erect it and take it apart [and when it was taken apart there was no entrance’]. On Rosh Chodesh the Mishkan was erected and not taken apart, except during their travels. 
  
  With words. This is not from an expression of לקיחה (taking); this has already been explained in Parshas Bereishis (20:15) and other places (Bereishis 43:15, and more).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  The things which you will see. [Rashi is answering the question:] Nothing was mentioned earlier that Moshe could be referring to when he said, “This is the edict”! Therefore, Rashi explains: “The things which you will see.” 
  God commanded me. [Rashi adds this] because in the verse it does not mention Who commanded. [Therefore,] it was necessary to explain: “[Hashem] commanded me...” Although Moshe knew that in the end the honor would come and the Shechinah would dwell in his sacrifices, then, everyone would know as a matter of course that everything was a command of Hashem, nevertheless, he wanted to remove himself from even momentary suspicion (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  On the turban. See above in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 28:37).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  I do not know... The Ramban [suggests that the source of this command is] because it says regarding the altar (Shemos 40:10): “[Sanctify the altar] so that the altar becomes holy of holies,” which indicates that additional sanctification and sprinkling was necessary, more than [the sanctification] for the other vessels. But it appears to me it is because the altar was not like the other vessels of the Mishkan, in that the hollow of the altar was filled with earth and the anointing was for the copper [exterior] alone. However, there was no anointing for the earth that filled its hollow space. Therefore, he <i>sprinkled</i> unto the altar in the place where they were bringing sacrifices after it was filled with earth. It needed <i>anointing</i> because it was no less than other vessels (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>).
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Purified it from any strangeness. I.e., [Rashi is answering the question:] Who made the altar impure that it was necessary to purify it? On this he explains: “From any strangeness...” 
  With this service. Otherwise, with what did he sanctify it? 
  From now... As if it says: He sanctified it so that he could make atonement upon it from now on.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Aside from the liver. Here, the Torah does not say על הכבד, only Rashi writes it here. His proof is from what it says here יותרת הכבד (the lobe of the liver). If so, why does it mention in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:13): “על הכבד (the lobe <i>on</i> the liver),” and not יותרת הכבד, as it says here? Rather, the word על mentioned above is to expound that he takes a small part of the liver (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>).
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  For they fulfill and complete. The word מלואים written here is not an expression of installation, but rather an expression of wholeness: For they fulfill and complete, etc.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  Use much oil. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written חלת מצה שמן in the earlier part of the verse [and שמן would then refer to everything mentioned in the verse], or at the end: ורקיק שמן, and would then refer to everything mentioned beforehand? He explains: [That is the scalded dough, in which he would use much oil]. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Moshe performed [the Temple service] all seven. Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi explains this here and not on (v. 15): “and Moshe took the blood...” where it would imply all the services that followed afterward were performed by Moshe. Perhaps the answer is: Rashi waited until the end of Moshe’s service. Additionally, we can say: Rashi is answering the question: Why did they burn the thigh on the altar? We do not find any thigh of a peaceoffering that was burnt, as Rashi writes nearby. And Rashi answers: “Moshe performed...” Regarding the breast and the thigh it is written that it shall be to Aharon and his sons as a portion (7:33, 34). For this reason Moshe burnt the thigh on the altar and it was not given to him as a portion, and only the breast [was given to him] to distinguish between him and Aharon and his sons, for they were the kohanim, and he was a Levi. He served only during the seven days of installation. Hashem made this distinction between Moshe and the kohanim, the sons of Aharon. Rashi did not write this above because there it was not necessary to say that Moshe served the entire seven days of installation. Rather, [one could say that] he served only on the first day to teach Aharon the details of service. The rest of the days, however, if they wished, Moshe could bring [sacrifices] to be burnt, or someone else, as long as he knew how to bring them [upon the altar] to be burnt. However, it is written here (v. 25-28): “He took the fat and the fat tail... He put them all on Aharon’s palms and on the palms of his sons and he waved... Moshe took them from their palms and he burned them on the altar in addition to the burnt-offering,” and this raises a difficulty: Why did Moshe perform all these services alone? Rashi explained (7:30) that waving requires three kohanim because the glory of the king is with a multitude of people! Therefore, perforce, no one else was fit to serve besides Moshe. Thus, one must say that Moshe served the entire seven days of installation (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  After the burnt-offering. It does not literally mean על (upon), for he already burnt the burnt-offering before the slaughtering of this ram.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  All seven days. Meaning: This is a truncated verse, and it should have said: “Just as he did on this day, Hashem commanded him to do <i>all seven days</i>.” This is because if the phrase, “Just as he did on this day” was meant to be connected with the verse above: “because for seven days your hands will be filled.” If so, the phrase, “Hashem commanded him to do” would remain by itself, without being understandable. However, our Rabbis expounded: “To do” — this refers to the ritual of the Red Heifer, “to bring about atonement,” — this [refers] to the ritual of Yom Kippur. If so, according to what they expounded, we must say that the phrase, “Just as you have done on this day” is connected with the previous phrase. And the statement, “Hashem commanded him to do” is a separate statement — that Hashem commanded to do the ritual of the Red Heifer; and [commands] the <i>Kohein Godol</i> “to bring about atonement for you” on Yom Kippur by the means of seclusion for seven days. 
  
  Seclusion seven days before Yom Kippur. [I.e.,] just as these laws are required here they are also required there.
  
  Verse 35
  
  Thus, if you do not do so. Otherwise, if it were not written to infer from it, why is “and you will not die” written at all? Certainly, they will not die when they observe Hashem’s mitzvos! Rather, it must have been written for the sake of the inference. 
  Death. Meaning: From the negative statement you can infer the positive one. This is because Scripture here only intends to punish someone who will not do so, and not to say that if he will do so he will not die, since the main “cutting” is the death penalty, Rashi found it necessary to say here that from the negative statement you can infer the positive one, as if it says that if you do not do so you will die. 
  
  Verse 36
  
  That they did not deviate. Otherwise, why does Scripture write, “[Aharon and his sons] fulfilled”? It is obvious! Would a righteous man such as he not do, Heaven forbid, as he was commanded by Hashem? Re’m writes: Similarly, the Sages expounded in the Mechilta, regarding (Shemos 14:2,4): “Speak to the Bnei Yisroel and have them turn back... They did just that.” And in Parshas Acharei Mos, regarding (16:34): “He did as Hashem commanded Moshe,” and in Parshas Bo, regarding (Shemos 12:28): “The Bnei Yisroel went and did...” and in Parshas Beha’aloscha, regarding (Bamidbar 8:22): “Just as Hashem had commanded Moshe.” However, in Parshas Beha’aloscha, regarding (ibid. 9:5): “So they made the Pesach offering ... [so did the Bnei Yisroel do],” the Sages did not expound. Perhaps this is because they relied on what was expounded concerning the [first] Pesach itself in Parshas Bo. It appears to me: The reason the Sages did not expound in Parshas Beha’aloscha, regarding (ibid.): “So they made the Pesach offering...” was because that entire section speaks of the Jewish people’s degradation, as Rashi explains: The entire forty years they were in the wilderness they made only this one Pesach offering, etc. For this reason the Sages did not expound concerning “So they made...” as they did elsewhere. Furthermore, Re’m writes: “However, in Parshas Korach (Bamidbar 17:26) regarding: ‘Moshe did so, [he did just as Hashem had commanded him],’ concerning the matter of the staffs, the Sages did not expound anything, and I do not know why.” It seems to me the answer is because it is not applicable to expound there: To tell you his praise, etc., since Moshe was the messenger of Hashem, and it is presumed that a messenger fulfills his assignment. It is no praise for a messenger when he does the assignment of the one who sent him. However, the Bnei Yisroel, and Aharon and his sons, did according to the words of Moshe. They made no changes from all that he commanded them, and they believed that Moshe was sent [by Hashem]. For this, it is apropos to expound: “To tell you their praise.” So it appears to me.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Eighth [day] of the installation. Since it is written at the end of Parshas Tzav: “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night... Aharon and his sons fulfilled...” after which it is written: “And it was on the eighth day,” it surely refers to what came precedes it, those seven days, for we expound the juxtaposition [of the verses]. Furthermore, we can say that Scripture comes to elucidate and not to be unclear. Why, then, does it not specify which day it was? Rather, it must have been the eighth day (Rosh Chodesh Nison) of the installation, and it does not need to specify since it was juxtaposed to that verse. 
  That very day. Rashi is answering the question: The verse comes to tell us when this happened, when it says: “And it was on the eighth day,” but we still do not know in which month the eighth day of installation was, or the date of the month. Because of this Rashi explains that it was Rosh Chodesh Nison. And Rashi means to say: The verse does not need to tell us that, for surely it was Rosh Chodesh Nison, because the Mishkon was erected on that very day, as it clearly says in Parshas Pekudei (Shemos 40:2). Since we have found that there was holiness on Rosh Chodesh Nison, then this [the eighth day of installation] was surely on Rosh Chodesh Nison as well, for we should assume that holiness occurs on a holy day. The verse relied on [this rationale], and it therefore did not specify the date. Additionally, Rashi is answering the question: How do we know the rationale to assume holiness occurs on a holy day — that [we should say] the verse relies on this logic? Therefore Rashi explains: And it took ten crowns which are taught in Seder Olom, i.e., we say in Seder Olam that this day took ten crowns. Why, though, did Hashem let it have all these virtues more than the other months? Perforce, it must be: This day was sanctified beforehand for the sake of the erection of the Mishkon, and we assume holiness occurs on a holy day. 
  Took ten. For this reason it uses the indicative ה, the special eighth day, because of the ten crowns that it took. And they are: 1) The first day of the act of Creation, 2) first of the [Roshei] Chodashim, 3) first day of the princes’ [sacrifices], 4) first day of kehunah, 5) first day of Temple service, 6) of the fire descending, 7) of eating the sacrifices, 8) for the prohibition of individual altars, 9) for the presence of the Shechinoh in Yisroel, 10) for blessing the people of Yisroel. 
  Entered and served. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he call the elders of Israel? We cannot say he wanted to speak to them so that they would tell the people of Israel to bring their offerings, because it is written afterwards (v. 3): “To <i>Bnei Yisroel</i> you [Aharon] shall speak, saying...” To the elders, however, Moshe said nothing! Therefore, Rashi explains: “To announce to them...” [You might ask:] Above, in the previous parshah, it is written (8:5): “Moshe said to the congregation, ‘This is the edict that Adonoy commanded,’” upon which Rashi explains: “You should not say that [it is] for my honor and for my brother’s honor [that] I do this.” If so, why does he need to announce to them a second time that it was by Divine command that Aharon entered to serve? The answer is: Here, Moshe came to let them know that it is by Divine command that Aharon entered to serve even as a <i>kohein godol</i>, which is a different service than the service of an ordinary <i>kohein</i> (<i>Re’m</i>). [Alternatively,] the answer is: There, it refers to what they did during the seven days of installation, but here it refers to what he did on the eighth day. This is why Moshe mentioned above: “[You should not say that it is] for my honor” and here he speaks on Aharon’s behalf alone (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  For the deed of the [Golden] Calf. You might ask: [There is a rule that] the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, as Rashi explains in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:22)! The answer is: That [rule] applies specifically regarding to the service performed inside [the Holy of Holies], such as the garments of kehunah û when the <i>kohein godol</i> entered the most innermost, he would not wear any garments that had gold, because “the prosecution, etc.” There was no concern about this [rule], though, regarding the service performed outside. [Alternatively:] We need not ask: Since Aharon sinned with regard to the [Golden] Calf, this raises the concern that the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, as Rashi explains in Parshas Chukas. [The answer is:] It is different there, because the Red Heifer was to atone for all of Israel. If Aharon was making the atonement [instead of Elozor his son, see Rashi (ibid.)], there would be reason to be concerned that the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, but here, where he was atoning only for himself, this rule is not applicable. Re’m writes: However, that which Rashi says: “to let know that Hashem forgave him by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf,” I do not know how it lets us know this. If it was because the honor of Hashem appeared to them by means of these offerings, which demonstrates that Hashem atoned by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf — then even without this calf we would also know that since the honor of Hashem appeared to them by means of Aharon’s bringing the offerings he has already achieved atonement for his sin... It appears to me that Rashi derives this from what it is written: “Take, <i>for</i> <i>yourself</i>, a young calf...” Why does it say, “for yourself”? It should only say, “Take a young calf...” as it is written regarding the people (v. 3): “Take a he-goat...” Rather, perforce, since it is written, “Take, for yourself, a young calf for a sin-offering,” it means that the taking should be ‘for you,’ i.e., for your good: “To let us know [that Hashem forgave]...” Alternatively: Rashi’s proof is from that which Aharon was commanded about this calf for a sin-offering. Normally, the sin-offering of an anointed <i>kohein</i> is a bullock, as it says in Parshas Vayikro (4:3). Why, then, did He command a calf for the sin-offering here? Rather, [it must be:] “To let know that Hashem forgave him by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf which he made.” [This is from] Toras Kohanim. [The Sages made this drashah] because otherwise, why did Aharon take a calf whereas Israel [took] a he-goat? Rather, Aharon brought a calf because he sinned with a calf, and Israel [brought] a he-goat because they sinned with a he-goat — in that they dipped the tunic in blood [after selling Yosef]. You might ask: If so, this poses a difficulty with regard to the burnt-offering as well: Why was Israel’s burnt-offering a calf, and Aharon’s burnt-offering a ram? The answer is: Since Aharon sinned with an action, in that he made the Golden Calf, therefore he brought a sin-offering that is appropriate for a sinful deed. Israel, on the other hand, sinned in thought, for they erred by following after the Golden Calf, brought a calf as a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering atones for [sinful] thought, as it is written (Yechezkel 20:32): “העולה על רוחכם” [the עולה is for what enters your mind]. This is because those who sinned [with the Golden Calf] by deed were [already] judged by Moshe with their appropriate judgment. Aharon, however, brought a burnt-offering, although he sinned with deed, because Aharon also sinned in thought, for in his mind he consented to make the Golden Calf (<i>Gur</i> <i>Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  To rest His Shechinoh... As it is written (v. 24): “A fire came forth ... and consumed...” This is “on the work of your hands,” because this was [a demonstration of] extra affection in that the offerings were accepted. However, [the resting of His Shechinoh was] not [revealed] in that which it is written (v. 23): “and the glory of Adonoy appeared to the entire people.” This is because a number of times the glory of Hashem appeared when they were not commanded to bring offerings. Furthermore, sometimes the glory of Hashem appeared to them even for disaster (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Aharon was ashamed. [Rashi knows this] because it is not written: “Moshe said to Aharon: ‘Perform [the services of] your sin-offering...’” Why did Moshe need to say: “Approach the altar”? Furthermore, it already said (v. 2): “And bring them before Adonoy.” Rather, “[It was because Aharon was ashamed], etc.”
  
  Kid. Re’m writes: Rashi needs to explain that the people’s offering is the kid of goats, young calf, and lamb, to exclude the additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh that are also called “the people’s offering.” Because of these, he explains “your sin-offering and your burnt-offering...” as well. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to explain this? Obviously, it definitely refers to the previously mentioned matter. Furthermore, Rashi explains, “wherever it states [עגל (a calf), it refers to a yearling] ...” raises a difficulty: Why did he not explain this previously in verse (3) where it mentions “calf”? Re’m, too, points this out. There is another difficulty: We should also derive כבש (lamb) from here; why did Rashi not say: “wherever it states עגל או כבש (a calf <i>or a lamb</i>)”? The answer is: I might have an erroneous assumption from the fact the verse uses a different expression, for with regard to Aharon it is written, “your sin-offering and your burnt-offering,” in a specific fashion, whereas regarding the people it is written, “the people’s offering,” in a general fashion, without specifying “their sin-offerings and their burntofferings.” Thus, it certainly [appears as though it] does not refer to the offerings mentioned previously. For this reason Rashi needs to explain that despite this, it does refer to the offerings mentioned previously. Rashi held the view that different expressions in the verse do not pose a difficulty at all. This is because regarding Aharon Scripture could not write the general term “your offerings,” since I would say it refers to the regular sin-offering brought by the <i>kohein godol</i>, which is a bullock, for instance, the bullock of the anointed <i>kohein</i> or the bullock of Yom Kippur. Therefore, it needs to specify “your sin-offering” — a young calf, etc. However, regarding the people there is no room for error, for their sin-offering was a kid goat, and also the regular communal sin-offering is a kid goat. 
  Wherever it states עגל (a calf) it refers to a yearling. Rashi needs to explain, so that you will not say since it is written regarding Aharon, “עגל בן בקר” and not just עגל, that it means to say an עגל בן בקר is the same as a bullock (פר), i.e., an עגל בן בקר is also three years old. [You might assume this] because the undesignated term עגל in the Torah refers to a two year old, except where it explicitly says “one year old.” Thus, as a matter of course, here, where it is written עגל בן בקר, it is three years old [(עגל = 2 years) + (בן בקר = 1) = 3]. If so, the aforementioned difficulty remains: Why does Scripture change the expression regarding Aharon, and does not write “your offerings” in an unspecified fashion? Because of this, Rashi explains: “Wherever it states עגל it refers to a yearling...” You can learn, as a matter of course, that where it written בן בקר it is two years old. For this reason, Scripture could not write without being specific regarding Aharon, “your offerings,” for one would err and say that עגל בן בקר is the same as a פר [three years old]. Rather, wherever it says פר it is three years old, עגל בן בקר is two years old, and עגל undesignated is one year old, even if it does not specify clearly that it is one year old. “And from here you learn [this rule].” I.e., since Scripture uses a different term regarding Aharon, etc. as I explained. With this, Re’m’s difficulties are resolved, for he posed the difficulty: Why did Rashi not write this on the verse (v. 3): “and a calf and a lamb, both one year old”? Why did he wait until now? Similarly, why did he not say: “Wherever it states עגל בן בקר it refers to a two year old,” for both are true in Rashi’s view? Also, [this answers] that which Re’m asks: How does he know there is a בניין אב (comparison)? Perhaps, wherever it does not specify, it is two years old, except where Scripture clearly states otherwise. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  And all of them by Divine command. Rashi is answering the question: Usually, the sin-offering is eaten! Alternatively: Rashi is answering the question: Since this entire section is about the avodah of the sin-offering, until (v. 12): “He slaughtered the burnt-offering,” Scripture should have written (v. 10): “Just as Adonoy commanded Moshe” after verse (11): “And the flesh...” so that then it would refer to the entire section. Rashi answers: The burning of this sin-offering was not commanded to Moshe beforehand, only now, “for we do not find, etc. except this one and that of the installation.” For this reason, it was not written at the end [of the section] (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). [You might ask:] Above, in [the parallel verse in] Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:14): Rashi explains: “We find no other outside sin-offering burnt <i>besides this one</i>” [and he does not mention the one of installation]! The answer is: He does not mean only this one; rather, this one and all that resemble it. For that one is also termed “one of installation.” It was only that the one [outside sin-offering] of the seven days of installation was for the inauguration of the kehunah, for from that point the designation of kehunah took effect upon them, although they did not yet begin avodah until the eighth day of installation. The one of the eighth day of installation was for the inauguration of the avodah. Similarly, the second young bull of the Levites in Parshas Behaloscha (Bamidbar 8:8), where Rashi explains: “What does it mean by ‘a second’? It teaches that just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so is [this] sin-offering not eaten...” This was also a sin-offering of installation, for the Levites were inaugurated with it for the avodah of the Levites (<i>Re’m</i>).
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  As his calf. Rashi is answering the question: Since it refers to the sin-offering (חטאת), which is a feminine noun, it should use [the feminine adjective form] כראשונה (as the first one)! He answers: The expression ראשון refers to the עגל (calf) which is also masculine. Therefore, Rashi did not use the expression כחטאת שלו (as his sin-offering). Alternatively, we can say that Rashi is answering this question: The expression of ראשון (the first one) implies that it refers to what is written previously. However, previously it mentioned a burnt-offering. How then could it say he should treat the law of a sin-offering like a burnt-offering? Therefore he explains: As his calf, i.e., it does not refer to what was mentioned previously; rather, [it refers to] what was mentioned ‘preceding what was mentioned previously,’ which is a sin-offering, that is: his calf (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 16
  
  In a freewill burnt-offering. Re’m writes: In Menachos (93b) and in Beitzah (20a): “The Tanna taught in front of Rabbi Yitzchok bar Abba: ‘He brought ... and he did it <i>according to the rule’</i> — as the rule of the freewill burnt-offering. This teaches that the obligatory burnt-offering requires laying [of hands]...” We should not raise the difficulty: In Parshas Vayikro (1:4), Rashi explains on the verse: “the head of the burnt-offering” — [the word “burnt-offering” comes] to include an obligatory burnt-offering for laying [of hands]... If so, why do we need “according to the rule” to teach that the obligatory burnt-offering requires laying [of hands]? The answer is: The obligatory burnt-offering here is Aharon’s burnt offering that he brought on the eighth day, in which Scripture placed an obligation of the day on him. Above in Vayikro, Scripture comes to teach that an individual’s obligatory burnt-offering of generations requires laying [of hands]. Here, however, it speaks of the obligatory burnt-offering of [a specific] time, and one cannot derive the sacrifices of a specific time from sacrifices of generations. You might ask: How does Rashi know this [that it refers to the rule of freewill burnt-offering]? Perhaps it refers to the burnt-offering mentioned here, with regard to sprinkling the blood around the altar, with regard to cutting the limbs and washing the innards and the feet, as [we find concerning] the sin-offering (v. 15) which refers to the sin-offering mentioned here. The answer is: [Rashi knows this] from the fact that Scripture changes its language and writes regarding the sin-offering “as the first” but here [it writes] “according to the rule.” Perforce, we must say that “he did it according to the rule” means: as the customary rule of a burnt-offering. This must refer to the burnt-offering of Parshas Vayikro, where the customary rule of the burnt offering is detailed. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Fistful. Otherwise, why would this meal-offering be different from the meal-offering of generations in Parshas Vayikro, more so than the burnt-offering? Could it be that the burnt-offering of [the specific] time was the same as the voluntary burnt-offering of generations, and yet the meal-offering of [the specific] time would not be the same as the mealoffering of generations? 
  After the [daily] burnt-offering. Meaning: <i>In addition</i> to the burnt-offering of the morning, for if it meant: all these he did <i>without</i> the burnt-offering of the morning, Scripture should write this at the end of the section after he brought the peace-offerings, because he offered the peace-offerings without the burnt-offering of the morning as well. Or, Scripture should write this at the beginning of the offering, and then it would reflect on the entire section. Why was it written specifically here? It is all right if we explain that all these he did <i>after</i> the morning burntoffering [as Rashi explains], then it is understandable why it is written specifically here: It comes to teach that these offerings were brought after the morning burnt-offering. But, if it was written at the end, it would imply that the peace-offerings as well were specifically after the morning burntoffering. This, however, is not so, because we can say there was no order for the peace-offerings in terms of which of them came first. Re’m explains: If so, it should say, “aside from the burnt-offering of the month,” as it says regarding the additional offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and Holidays. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Covering the innards. Rashi rectifies [the verse’s language] in that “the covering,” although it is unspecified, is none other than the fat covering the innards. This is because we do not find anything else called “the covering” besides for the fat covering the innards. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  To another <i>kohein</i> to burn them. Rashi is answering the question: In another place it is written (10:15): “The thigh that is the separated portion and the breast that is the wave-offering, on top of the fats of the fire offering,” implying that the thigh is on top and the fat below! In Parshas Tzav (7:30), Rashi explains this well.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  May [He] bless you. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to mention, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up”? Since he mentioned Birkas Kohanim, surely it was, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up”! The answer is: So that you will not raise the difficulty: How does Rashi know at all that he blessed them with Birkas Kohanim? Perhaps it was another blessing, such as the blessing of Shlomo, as it says (Melachim I, 8:22): “And he spread forth his hand...” Therefore, Rashi mentioned, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up,” i.e., why did Aharon bless them? Because they offered a sin-offering, burnt-offering, and peace-offerings, which are alluded to in these blessings. See <i>Baal HaTurim</i> [who explains the hints]. 
  From the altar. And not that Aharon descended from the place of lifting his hands. According to this, the verse is reversed. Possibly, “he descended” can be explained: He had already descended. Examine what I wrote in Parshas Shemos on the verse (4:20): “And he returned to the land of Egypt and Moshe took the rod of Hashem in his hand.” Similarly, the Sages said in Toras Kohanim: “This verse’s text is distorted, and it should say: He descended after offering the sin-offering, the burnt-offering and the peace-offering, and Aharon raised his hands toward the people and he blessed them... [after he descended he raised his hands and blessed them].” The Sages in Megillah (18a) said the same (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  To teach him. You might ask: How could they postpone bringing the incense until after all these offerings? [The Rabbis] taught [in a Mishnah] (Yoma 31b): The incense of the morning was brought between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the limbs. Furthermore, what did Moshe have to teach Aharon? Could it be that during the entire seven days of installation Moshe did not burn the incense in order to teach him [just as he brought the offerings to teach him]? The answer is: Scripture did not allow them to enter inside the entrance [of the Tent of Meeting] at all during the entire seven days of installation, as it is written (8:35): “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night.” Since the incense is a service performed inside [the Tent of Meeting], Moshe could not teach Aharon during the seven days of installation, and he needed to teach him on the eighth day of the installation, after the Mishkon has already been erected and all the inner and outer services were permitted. Now, since the golden altar can be inaugurated only with the afternoon incense, as [the Rabbis] taught [in a Mishnah] (Menachos 49a), if so, the only purpose of the incense they burnt in the morning, before inaugurating the golden altar, was to teach Aharon so that he would know how to burn it in the afternoon. Because of this he was not concerned to burn it at the proper time, and he burnt it after bringing all the offerings (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  May it be [His] Will that [the Shechinoh] should rest. We should not say this was Birkas Kohanim, because Aharon had already blessed them. Furthermore, Moshe was a Levi; so how could he bless with the Birkas Kohanim?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Only because they rendered. This raises a difficulty: There is no [liability for] punishment without a warning! I will answer this difficulty in the next comment.
  Intoxicated with wine they entered. [According to this] the explanation of “which He had not commanded them” is not the reason for their deaths. Rather, it only informs that they volunteered themselves to bring the incense, and not that He commanded them, as He had commanded Aharon (9:2): “Take, for yourself, a young calf...” And the explanation of (16:1): “[After the death of two sons of Aharon] in their coming close (בקרבתם),” is: At the time of their bringing an offering, and not that they had died because of [using] a strange fire. Rather, the main reason for their death was because they were intoxicated with wine. If it were not that Hashem wanted to be sanctified by means of Nodov and Avihu, they would not have died now, even though death had already been decreed upon them at the time they peered [See Shemos 24:11, Rashi there: “They envisioned Hashem.” They (Nodov and Avihu) gazed at Him insolently while engaged in eating and drinking]. Similarly, they would not have died on this day which was a joyous occasion for Israel, if they had not rendered a halachic decision on this day. (See more about this in the following). Gur Aryeh answers that [although death was already decreed at the time of Matan Torah] since Hashem’s anger passes, as it is written (Yishayahu 26:20): “Hide for almost a moment, until the anger passes,” and since that anger had passed, another cause was necessary to be liable for death. Re’m poses another difficulty: They were liable for death from the time of the Golden Calf, as punishment for Aharon, and Moshe’s prayer only helped for half the decree — that two [of Aharon’s four] sons would die [see Rashi 10:12]. Nachalas Yaakov answers: According to the assumption that Aharon’s sons would die solely for the sin of the Golden Calf, Elozor and Isomor should have died, for they were presumably less righteous than, and they did not have as much merit as, Nodov and Avihu. Gur Aryeh answers: We find concerning the wicked that if they continue the deeds of their forefathers, Hashem punishes them for their forefathers’ deeds, so too, concerning a completely righteous person. If his son does any sin, Hashem punishes him for the deeds of his father, and if the son does not sin at all, Hashem does not bring the sin of the righteous man upon the son. This [concept] necessitates that when the sons sin, it is added to the forefathers’ sins and then the sons are punished even for the sin of the forefathers. [Thus,] the sin of the sons together [with the sin of the forefathers] causes the punishment. See Kitzur Mizrachi where he brings additional views: Rabbi Yossi HaGelili said: For drawing close, in which they entered the innermost (Holy of Holies) they died. Rabbi Akiva said: For drawing close, in that they brought a strange fire they died. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: Because of both reasons they died. Bar Kappara said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeyah ben Eliezer: Because of four things they died: 1) For coming close, 2) for the offering that they brought without being commanded, 3) for the strange fire, a fire from the Beis HaKirayim (house of ovens), and 4) because they did not ask advice from one another. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  That they are greater than I or you. The difficulty is raised: Perhaps the sanctification needed to be with both of them [Nodov and Avihu], for one of them would not be sufficient, and the two of them together were greater. Thus, two were needed, and they were better than Moshe alone or Aharon alone. How does Rashi know they were greater than Moshe and Aharon together? Another difficulty: How could Moshe make such a big mistake in thinking that he and Aharon were greater than them, and yet [in truth] Nodov and Avihu were greater? It would be enough if Moshe thought that they were all equal, and he erred in [only] one level? It seems [that the answer is:] It is written: “בקרובי אקדש (through <i>those</i> that are near me I shall be sanctified),” and בקרובי with a <i>pasach</i> is in the plural form. Moshe thought that they were all equal in goodness, and he said: I had known that the Temple would be sanctified with those singled out as special (במיודעיו) by the Omnipresent, and במיודעיו is in the plural form. I.e., two pairs are in the matter of “בקרובי אקדש” which is plural. If so, I thought: either me, and one of them, or you, and one of them, since we are all equal. But now that He did not want any of us, I see that they are greater than me or you (<i>Rav Yaakov Trivash</i>). 
  He received a reward. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “and Aharon was silent”? What could he have said about the decrees of Hashem? Could he challenge Hashem? With regard to this Rashi explains: He received a reward for his silence, i.e., for this reason it is written, “and [Aharon] was silent,” because he received a reward for his silence, for this reason Scripture writes, “and [Aharon] was silent.” Rashi reverses the order and explains “and Aharon was silent” before “through those that are near Me” in order to inform why Aharon was silent. Because he heard that his sons were Heaven fearing, near to, and singled out as special by Hashem. Therefore, he was silent. So, too, it is in the Midrash Rabboh (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). The reason Rashi reverses the order is to prove why Aharon received reward for his silence. This is because in the natural order of things one who consoles does not praise the departed person in the presence of his relatives. On the contrary, they say words that are not painful to the mourner, such as we find concerning the daughter of R. Shmuel bar Yehudah (Bava Metzia 38a), where they told him that if something good was destined to come from her she would not have died. But here Moshe praised the departed ones in front of Aharon, [saying] that they were closer to Hashem than them. Aharon, then, should have intensified his crying, nevertheless, he was silent. Therefore, he was worthy of good reward (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  To him alone. I.e., [“To him, alone”] implies two [rewards]. Because of his silence he merited that he heard <i>directly</i> the Divine command which he had not been privileged until now. This is because: “[Rabbi Yehudah says:] Thirteen instances of ‘speaking’ are recorded in the Torah [directed] to Moshe and Aharon, and thirteen exclusions corresponding to them, [in order] to teach you that they were not said to Aharon but to Moshe, for him to tell Aharon” [see Rashi 1:1]. Furthermore, he merited that this section was said to him <i>alone</i>, and he did not share with Moshe, so that it would not seem that because of Moshe’s merit he heard the Divine command. Thus, it goes well even according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehudah, who is cited by Rashi above at the beginning of Vayikro. 
  Exalted. See Kitzur Mizrachi as to why Rashi did not give this explanation on the phrase “בקרובי אקדש (through those that are near Me I shall be sanctified)” since he brings the proof from the verse (Tehillim 68:36): “נורא אלקים ממקדשיך (“You are awesome, O God, from Your Sanctuaries).”
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Uziel was the brother of Amram. [Rashi mentions this so that you would not erroneously] explain that דוד is referring to the husband of his aunt, as in Parshas Acharei Mos (18:14), where we find that דודתך is referring to the wife of your uncle. Alternatively, this is so that we will not err by saying that “Aharon’s uncle” refers to Mishael and Elzafan. Therefore, Rashi explains: Uziel was the brother of Amram. 
  So as not to disturb. Otherwise, it should say: Come closer and carry your brothers and bury them. Why does it say, “from the presence of the Sanctuary”? Rather: “Take away ... [so as not to disturb].” Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe not call Elozor and Isomor? It is explicit in Scripture (21:2): “for his brother” he may become impure. To this, Rashi answers that this taking out was not for the sake of burial. Rather: “from the presence of the Sanctuary” — “As a man who says...” Therefore, Elozor and Isomor were not permitted to become impure. And this is even though in fact Elozor and Isomor did not become impure even for the sake of burial from the strength of a Divine command (v. 7): “From the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall not go forth” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Of the dead men. As it is written, “בכתנתם (in their tunics),” and every כתונת mentioned in Torah Kohanim (Vayikro) is referring to garments of kehunah. Mishael and Elzafan, however, were Levites and not kohanim; so from where would they have tunics? Rather, it must refer to [the tunics of] the dead men. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Do not let [your hair] grow. Meaning: the hair of his head. I.e., someone whose hair grows long, the hairs become divided one from the other and become disheveled (פרע). [You might ask:] Rashi explains later in Parshas Sotah (Bamidbar 5:18): “And [the <i>kohein</i> shall] expose (ופרע) the [hair on the] head of the woman” — “He unravels the braids of her hair...” and yet here he explains that פרע means growing [the hair long]! The answer is: The unraveling of her hair braids is the ‘growth’ of her hair in terms of appearance, because until now it was braided and it seemed she had no hair, but with the unraveling of her hair it seems as if her hair grew. 
  From here [we learn] that a mourner. Re’m writes: In Moed Katan (14b) Rashi explains that the fact the verse needs to permit the sons of Aharon implies that others are prohibited [to take a haircut], because Rashi holds the view that the verse, “Do not let [your hair] grow long” comes to <i>permit</i> Aharon’s sons [to take a haircut], and for that reason they inferred: This implies that every other mourner is prohibited. For if the verse comes to <i>caution</i> them — that they are not permitted to let their hair grow long, how could they infer from here that others are prohibited to take a haircut and are obligated to let their hair grow? In truth, the only inference that could be made is since Aharon’s sons are prohibited from letting their hair grow, this implies that other mourners are permitted to let their hair grow. However, this poses a difficulty: If the verse comes to permit Aharon’s sons [to take a haircut], but they are not obligated to let their hair grow, why does Scripture write, “So that you will not die” afterwards? This implies that if they let their hair grow they will die, as Rashi himself explains: Therefore, if you do so, you will die. If so, Rashi’s words seem to be contradictory. This matter needs analysis. See there where Re’m dwells at length on this matter. Perhaps [we can say:] Rashi sensed this difficulty and therefore explained in his commentary on Chumash: “From here [we learn] that a mourner is forbidden [to take] a haircut...” 
  Therefore, if... Re’m explains: Rashi explains this here, although it is obvious you can infer the positive statement from the negative statement, and so we infer throughout the entire Torah. [Here, however, it is] to teach that the verse’s intention is the affirmative statement that is inferred from it, and not the prohibition itself. This is because even in the rest of the optional matters that do not have the death penalty it is applicable to say with regard to them that if he will not do them he will not die. In this way we can explain “and you will not die” of (v. 9), “[do not drink] wine or any other intoxicant.” Rashi relies on his explanation here and does not explain similarly over there. It is from the superfluous phrases “you shall not die” that Rashi derives this, [because it did not need to be said] since Aharon’s sons were permitted to take a haircut, perforce they will not die. It seems that Rashi infers that this verse implies that other mourners are forbidden [to cut their hair], for if everyone else was permitted, and the verse only comes to caution that Aharon’s sons should not let their hair grow, if so, it would be difficult: Why does the verse need to caution them, since everyone else is permitted, why would you think that they would let their hair grow? Why should they be stringent and disturb the Omnipresent’s celebration? Furthermore: Why does it need to say, “and you will not die” — “therefore, if you do so, you will die”? Why do I need so much — a warning after a warning? It is understandable if all other mourners are prohibited [to cut their hair], for this reason we need a warning after a warning, so that you will not say that although Aharon’s sons were permitted to cut their hair, nevertheless, they could be stringent with themselves and go beyond the letter of the law since other mourners are prohibited [from taking a haircut]. For this reason Scripture needs to caution them, and write, “and you will not die” — “therefore, if you do so, you will die.” With this it seems to me that all Re’m’s difficulties are resolved. 
  Must [be mourned] by all. I.e., everyone is obligated to mourn if a Torah scholar is in pain, as the example here, in which Aharon was in pain. We should not say, however, perhaps this implies that if a Torah scholar died he must be mourned by all, as it is written: “And the entire House of Israel shall weep...” For if so, Scripture should have written, “and <i>their</i> brothers,” i.e., the brothers of the dead ones, which refer to all of Israel, “shall weep over the conflagration.” However, since it is written: “And <i>your</i> brothers,” it implies the brothers of Aharon, Elozor, and Isomor — the ones to whom Moshe was speaking.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  In a manner which intoxicates. Meaning: If he took a break [in drinking] or he mixed it with the smallest measure of water he is exempt. [You might ask:] Rashi writes, without any qualifications, that one who enters the Tent of Meeting [while he is intoxicated] is liable the death penalty. However, Toras Kohanim it implies that only if one was intoxicated <i>and</i> performed Divine service is he liable death! The answer is: Since it is derived from a <i>gezeiroh shovoh</i>, and regarding sanctification of the hands it is written in Parshas Ki Sisa explicitly (Shemos 30:20): “Or whenever they approach the Altar for Divine service,” which is only at the time of Divine service, therefore it was unnecessary for Rashi to specify here.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Between. I.e., that there should be a distinction between proper service and [one which is] improper, for the services that are done in intoxication are always improper [and then there is no distinction between proper and improper]. This is what Rashi explains: “Thus you learn that if he performed [the Temple service his service is] invalid.” This is because it is written (v. 9): “When you enter the Tent of Meeting and you will not die,” and we derive through a <i>gezeiroh shovoh</i> from sanctification of the hands and feet. There, it is specifically written when he performs Divine service, as I explained above. And perforce, if one performed Divine service while being intoxicated, he is liable the death penalty. If so, <i>all </i>the services that are performed while being intoxicated are improper, and if so, why does is it written, “to distinguish”? Rather, perforce we must say that it means, “in order that you should distinguish, etc.” Even though regarding [the next phrase], “To distinguish ... between what is impure and what is pure,” this explanation is not applicable — that we would say: If you drink there will be no difference between the pure and the impure, and they will all be impure. Could it be that an intoxicated <i>kohein</i> who performed the Divine service would make it impure? It is improper [but not impure]! Perforce, we must say: “To distinguish ... between what is impure...” [means:] You should know how to distinguish, and not that there should be a distinction, etc. Despite this, Rashi had to explain [the aforementioned] way regarding the Divine service. Accordingly, one time the explanation of the word ולהבדיל is: “in order that <i>you should</i> <i>distinguish</i>...” in reference to [to the first phrase in the verse that teaches about the] Divine service, and another time: “in order that <i>you know</i>...” in reference to impurity and purity. With this it seems we can answer the difficulty raised by Re’m: Concerning the phrase: “To distinguish ... between what is impure and what is pure,” this explanation is not applicable! Re’m answered what he answered, see there at length.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Perhaps he is. Meaning: And the ו of ולהבדיל and the ו of ולהורות are in addition to the first subject [prohibition of entering while intoxicated] and they too are liable the death penalty.
  Kohanim in their service. [Rashi knows this] because Scripture should have written only: “you and your sons.” In effect, when it is written, “with you,” it is as if it said “your sons will be with you.” But why do I need it? It is already written, “you and your sons.” Rather, it is to teach: “Kohanim in their service...” This answers Re’m’s difficulty: From where does Rashi derive this? The verse, “you and your sons” is needed for itself, [to teach] that the sons are included in the warning as well. We cannot say that he derives it from the word “you,” and it comes to exclude, for if so, it would have to mean only “you” [Aharon, and not even his sons,] are worthy of death. Meaning: Since the verse put “and you will not die” is juxtaposed to “you and your sons,” which is a command that refers to their service, perforce: Kohanim in their service [are worthy of] death, but halachic decision making, which is a command to all of Israel is not [worthy of] death. According to the assumption that halachic decision making is worthy of death as well, it should say, “and you will not die” (v. 9) after, “[And that you may] teach” (v. 11), so that it would refer to the entire subject matter (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  For the sin of the Golden Calf. You might ask: Above (v. 2), Rashi brings a Tannaic disagreement: One view holds because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of their master, and the other holds because they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated with wine. The answer is: Both factors were the cause. If there had been only the deed of the Golden Calf, why did Hashem wait until now? Alternatively, why did He kill Nodov and Avihu, and not Elozor and Isomor? Rather, it must be [that the cause of death] can be attributed to another sin as well, each Tanna according to his reasoning. But if it was only for the last reason, I would say that there is no punishment without [a prior] warning, therefore the sin of the Golden Calf was necessary as well, since it had a warning. 
  And I also prayed. [The word] “also” includes the [Aharon’s] children.
  And holy things are forbidden to an אונן (mourner on whom the obligation of burying the deceased still rests). Otherwise, why does it need to say this to them? It already speaks about it in Parshas Tzav (6:9): “Whatever remains from it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons” (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  Meal-offering of the eighth. The twelve princes began to bring offerings and Nachshon was the first. [You might ask:] There was also the [meal-offering of the] he-goat of Rosh Chodesh, and so there were three he-goats! [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Rashi did not want to mention the he-goat of Rosh Chodesh since Moshe did not command him to eat that meal-offering, as it is implied at the end, when Aharon told Moshe: If you heard [this law] regarding holy offerings of a [specific] time, etc. (see Rashi, end of v. 19). Moshe agreed [with the rationale of] Aharon’s words. This implies that Moshe did not explicitly say to eat it in the first place.
  
  What does this verse teach? You might ask: Above, as well, why did Rashi not explain: “Take the meal offering” — What does this verse teach? Because it is [a communal mealoffering,] etc.? Why did he need to explain: “Even though you are אוננים and holy things are forbidden to an אונן”? Another difficulty: Nearby (v. 13), Rashi explains: “For so have I been commanded” — “That they should eat it while they are אוננים.” Perhaps “for so have I been commanded” [means] they should eat the meal-offering as matzos? The answer is: “For so I have been commanded” implies a novel law — even though the law is otherwise regarding other meal-offerings. If it refers to [the law] that they should eat the meal-offering as matzos, this is obvious, for every meal-offering is eaten as matzos. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain: They should eat it while they are אוננים. Also, this is why he needs to explain above: “Take the meal-offering” — “Even though you are אוננים...” because the verse, “For so have I been commanded” refers back to it. However, if he was to explain above [on “Take the meal-offering”]: Because it is a communal meal-offering, it would no longer be applicable to write: “For so I have been commanded,” because with one command alone, in which He commands them regarding a meal-offering that this meal-offering will be treated like any other meal-offering, it would be sufficient. Why does it say again: “For so I have been commanded”? Rather, perforce, it was because of אנינות He commanded, which is contrary to the precedent that an אונן is prohibited to eat holy sacrifices.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Of the communal peace-offerings. Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi does not include here the breast of Nachshon’s peaceofferings that was brought on that day, as he included Nachshon’s meal offering with the communal meal-offering of the eighth day, etc. (see Rashi v. 12). [The answer is:] Regarding the meal-offering, concerning which the verse comes to permit [to be eaten although they are] אוננים, Rashi found it necessary to include Nachshon’s meal-offering, so that you would not say that the verse only means to permit a communal meal-offering about which it revealed the law explicitly; Nachshon’s meal-offering, however, which was not revealed in the verse, was not permitted and is prohibited to be eaten by אוננים. [Therefore, Rashi lets us know otherwise in v. 12]. However, concerning the breast of the wave-offering, about which we have not been taught any novel law that is not included in other peace-offerings, why would Rashi need to include Nachshon’s peace-offerings, for what difference would there be between Nachshon’s peace offerings and these peace-offerings? (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  Within the camp of Israel. Meaning: Even though those impure from contact with the dead and the other types of impure persons are found there. Rashi’s proof is from the fact Scripture did not write: “In a sacred place,” perforce it means a place that is partially pure. And since it says above regarding the meal-offering (v. 13): “You shall eat <i>it</i> in a sacred place,” [this implies:] It, and not another. [Thus, the place of eating the breast] is removed from the place of the Shechinoh and established to be in the camp of the Levites. Furthermore, since it is written afterwards: “In a pure place,” this implies a further leniency, and it may be eaten in the Israelite’s camp, for it is obvious that they may not eat it in an impure place.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh. This is the goat of additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh that is offered as a communal sinoffering, as it is written (v. 17): “And He gave it to you, to bear the iniquity of the congregation.” Which goat bears the sin of the congregation? This is the goat of Rosh Chodesh. 
  Why was. The following is Re’m’s text: “Why was this one burnt and why were these <i>not</i> eaten?” I.e., they did not eat it [the goat of the additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh] during the day because of אנינות but rather left it to be eaten towards evening, when the time of אנינות would be finished, according to the view of Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Shimon (Zevachim 101a) who said that the prohibition of אנינות is permitted at night. It was burnt and not eaten because it was touched by something impure [and so it could not be rectified, thus, it was immediately burnt]. But, according to Rabbi Nechemiah [ibid.] the reason was because it was of the sacrifices [ordained] for the generations [which were not permitted to אוננים] and אוננים are prohibited to eat from offerings both during the day and the night by Torah law. Thus, they burnt it immediately (<i>Re’m</i>). However, if we have the text: “And why were these eaten?” it is then entirely one inquiry: Why was this one [the goat of the additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh] burnt and this one [the he-goat of the installation or the goat offered by Nachshon] eaten? Either both of them should have been burnt or both of them eaten! This, however, is one inquiry, [yet Rashi writes there were two inquires], therefore, we should use the text: “And why were these <i>not</i> eaten?” Gur Aryeh uses the text: “Why were these eaten?” He explains, however, that there are two inquires: “Why was this one burnt? If it was because of אנינות — is it not true that אנינות is permitted to you! According to your response that you were not allowed to eat them because of אנינות, why, then, did you eat the other sin-offerings?” This is considered two inquires — the first is according to the truth and the second is according to their response. 
  He turned. Otherwise, why was he angry at them? Aharon was included in the anger as well, and he was required to respond (v. 19): “and then such [tragedy] befell me!” This is how it appears in Toras Kohanim — that he was angry with Aharon as well. 
  Answer. Rashi was forced to explain this way, because wherever it says “לאמר” in the Torah [it means] to tell others. Alternatively, “וידבר” is a general rule, and “לאמר” is a detail (כלל ופרט). Here, however, these explanations are not applicable, and therefore Rashi has to explain: “Answer my questions!” 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Did [they then eat it] outside? Meaning: You would assume the question “why” refers to the phrase “in the sacred place,” as if Moshe asked: Why did you not eat it in the sacred place?” For this reason, Rashi is answering the question: Did they then eat it outside the sacred place? Rashi answers: The word “why” refers to “did you not eat it,” and the meaning of “in the sacred place” is: <i>Since</i> it was in the sacred place, and did not go out [from its permitted boundaries] to become invalid. However, it would be impossible to make this statement if Moshe did not ask them first whether it went out [from its boundaries] and they answered him that it did not. Therefore, Rashi inserts: “Perhaps it went out ‘beyond the curtains’ and became invalid?” The statement, “for it is holy of holies” is the reason for the statement, “Perhaps it went out beyond the curtains...” (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  Did not [come] for atonement. You might ask: In the beginning of the parshah it is written (9:7): “and atone on your behalf,” which refers to the sin-offering of the eighth day. Perforce, these also came for [the purpose of] atonement. The answer is: When it is written “and atone on your behalf” it does not really mean atonement, but rather it is only an expression of cleansing and preparation. Similarly, we find regarding the person with tzora’as, where it is written (14:19): “and atone (וכפר) for the person undergoing purification from his impurity.” What was his sin for which he needs atonement? Rather, it must be that there as well it is an expression of becoming fit. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  You should have. It does not mean they should eat it now, as the expression implies, since it was already burnt.
  
  Regarding the meal-offering. This is because it [the goat of Rosh Chodesh] is holy of holies and should be eaten in the sacred place like it [the meal-offering]. However, we should not say that “as I have commanded you” refers to the breast that is the wave-offering and the thigh that is the separated portion, regarding which Moshe instructed them to eat as well (v. 14). This is because they are sacrifices of lesser sanctity, and they are eaten in a pure place, thus, we cannot derive [laws pertaining to] sacrifices that are holy of holies [which must be eaten in the sacred place] from those of lesser sanctity. It appears to me that the answer is: [Moshe could not be referring to the breast and the thigh] because Hashem did not command explicitly regarding eating the breast and the thigh, but rather only regarding the meal-offering, as Scripture states (v. 12): “Take the meal-offering ... and eat it [as] matzos.” Moshe, however, added them by his own reasoning by comparing the eating of the breast and thigh to the eating of the meal-offering (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  
  Verse 19
  
  The term “speaking” is an expression of harshness. Meaning: [This is true] where it is not written afterwards לאמר, as I explained in Parshas Va’eira (6:2). Alternatively, when the speech comes in a private conversation, such as (Bamidbar 21:5): “The people spoke (וידבר) against Hashem and against Moshe, ‘Why have you brought us up...’” in which it should say ויאמר since it is a private conversation. Here, too, it should say ויאמר אהרן וגו', since it is a private conversation (<i>Re’m</i>). And this is what I wrote in Parshas Va’eira. 
  Rather. Meaning: Why does it need to say: “Behold, today they brought...”? It would have been sufficient to say: “Such [tragedy] befell me, if I had eaten...” Rather, this is what it means to say: Moshe said to them [Elozor and Isomor]: Perhaps you sprinkled its blood as אוננים after the death of your brothers, and an אונן who performs the service profanes it? Therefore, you did not eat it. Moshe did not see their actions because he was heavily involved with the Shechinoh on that day And he was afraid they found the blood of this he-goat that had not yet been sprinkled and they sprinkled it. Aharon answered him: “And did they, who are ordinary kohanim, bring [it], so that you would think it is invalid? I brought [it], for it is incumbent upon me, as it is written (9:7): “Approach the altar,” and a <i>kohein godol</i> may bring [a sacrifice while being] an אונן. Accordingly, the ן of הן היום is in place of a ם, [meaning: Did <i>they</i> bring today?], as in (Rus 1:13): “הלהן תשברנה (Would you wait for them?).” Re’m explained this at length, but I was brief. Re’m writes: “[You might ask:] Bringing a sacrifice is more lenient than eating it, for a <i>kohein godol</i> may bring a sacrifice while he is an אונן but he may not eat from it, and here they were permitted even to eat from it while they were אוננים, so much more so they [would be permitted to] bring the sacrifice. [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Moshe said to them: “Perhaps you erred and thought...” This raises a difficulty, though, for according to Re’m’s words — that the bringing of the sacrifice is more lenient and it is permitted [to an אונן] — if so, why did Aharon reply: “And did they bring it...” which implies that it would be invalid if they indeed brought it, from the perspective of bringing it. [On the contrary,] Aharon should have answered better: “Would it be invalid today? It is permitted! Rather, the reason it was burnt was because such [tragedy] befell me, and there was no one to eat it, since there is a difference in the law between the sacrifices earmarked for a [specific] time and the sacrifices prescribed for generations.” Therefore, it appears to me that it should be interpreted according to its plain meaning: An אונן who performs Divine service actually profanes it, and Aharon ruled as the law is for [future] generations. The <i>kal vachomer</i>, indeed, can be refuted, because the leniency for eating the sacrifices of an אונן is different here, in that it was only so the sacrifices would not become נותר (left-over), for there were no other kohanim in the world, only these, and they were אוננים. This is not so regarding the bringing of the sacrifice, however, since the <i>kohein godol</i> was permitted to bring it. Thus, it remained prohibited [for an ordinary <i>kohein</i> to bring it]. It would be impossible, however, for the <i>kohein godol</i> to eat the entire amount, and ultimately it would become נותר. This is the reason for the law of [future] generations as well: A <i>kohein godol</i> may bring sacrifices while he is an אונן since there are many Divine services that only he is allowed to perform. However, [regarding to eating from the sacrifices] all kohanim are allowed to eat from the sacrifices, therefore, the <i>kohein godol</i> may not eat. [The point is that] it is not because the prohibition of eating the sacrifice is more stringent than the prohibition of bringing it, and therefore there is no <i>kal vachomer</i> (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). Gur Aryeh explains that Divine service is more stringent than eating [sacrifices], because we find that a <i>kohein</i> with a blemish may eat sacrifices, but he is invalid to perform Divine service. If so, we cannot use the [following] <i>kal vachomer</i>: Eating [sacrifices] is more stringent because it is prohibited to a <i>kohein godol</i> when he is an אונן, yet it was permitted to the sons of Aharon while they were אוננים, then the Divine service, which is more lenient, in that it is permitted to the <i>kohein godol</i> when he is an אונן, is it not logical that it should be permitted to the sons of Aharon who are אוננים! [This <i>kal vachomer</i> can be refuted] because we can object: Eating has a leniency that it is permitted to a <i>kohein</i> with a blemish [whereas such a <i>kohein</i> is invalid to perform Divine service]. 
  And if I had eaten. Meaning: [Rashi adds <i>if </i>because the expression] ואכלתי implies he had already eaten it, but this was not so, for it had been burnt (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>). 
  Permitted, for [the laws applying to] an אונן [relate] only... You might ask: This answer is only according to the view that it was burnt because it had touched something impure; for if it was because of אנינות (the state of being an אונן), so much more so it would pose a difficulty: Why did they burn it, they should have waited until the night [to eat it], as Ramban writes. If so, what difference does it make that he answered him that it was prohibited due to the אנינות of the day, but not at night, considering that it was burnt because it touched something impure. What kind of answer was this? We can give a forced answer: Moshe was not asking that perhaps it touched something impure, because according to his reasoning they should have eaten it right away. If so, they certainly could have prevented it from touching impurity in the short amount of time from sprinkling the blood until eating. Probably, they would have eaten it right away, as those with alacrity perform mitzvos as soon as possible. Thus, Aharon answered: “Today” — i.e., there is a prohibition for אנינות in the day, and they were forced to leave it [i.e., not to eat it] until the evening. This made created the possibility for it to have been touched by impurity and therefore it was burnt. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  He admitted and was not ashamed... [Rather Moshe said: I heard and I forgot (Zevachim 101a)]. This raises a difficulty: Where does the verse hint that he admitted by saying: “I heard [and I forgot],” perhaps he admitted by saying: “I never heard”? The answer is: The phrase, “Moshe heard” is superfluous, for it is obvious he heard, as he spoke with Aharon. Rather, this is what it means: Since Moshe had already heard previously, Aharon’s words were good in his eyes afterwards, for he had forgotten what he had heard (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). Rashi’s words raise a difficulty, however, because it should not say “וישמע,” but rather: “...ומשה שמע’,” which is in the past tense. Then, it would mean that because he had already heard it was therefore good in his eyes. Another difficulty: Rashi should have made his comment on the s.v. וישמע and not on “It was good in his eyes.” Therefore, it appears that the verse’s language is surely reversed, and the word “וישמע” is superfluous as well. It should say only: “And it was good in Moshe’s eyes.” Although the word וישמע hints at hearing, as implied by Targum Yonasan (see there), nevertheless, we should derive from the fact that it should say: “He heard and it was good in Moshe’s eyes.” However, [according to the way it is] now, “it was good in his eyes” does not refer to Moshe alone, but rather comes to hint that we should also explain: “It was good in his eyes,” i.e., in <i>Aharon’s</i> eyes. [This follows the saying]: Hashem spoke once and we heard twice. Thus, since וישמע comes to teach regarding ‘hearing,’ it must be that Moshe admitted he had heard and forgot, and therefore, “it was good in his eyes,” i.e., also in Aharon’s eyes, for he was happy that his understanding [of the matter] was in agreement with the Omnipresent’s point of view (<i>Rav Yaakov Trivash</i>). Some raise the difficulty: It implies here that it is a greater shame if he would say “I forgot” than if he said “I never heard,” and yet in Shabbos (119b-120a): “Rabbi Katina said: Even at the time of Yerusholayim’s shame there were still honest men there, as it is written (Yeshayahu 3:7): ‘[I will not be a ruler,] while in my house there is neither bread nor clothing,’ which refers to Torah, and they would not say: I learned and I forgot.” [Thus, they were honest because they would admit to being completely unlearned although they could have said: I learned and forgot]. This poses a difficulty: Perhaps [they were not honest at all but] they just did not want to say “I learned and I forgot” because it is a great shame. [Otherwise, they might have lied]. However, there is no difficulty at all. There, it is referring to the entirety of Torah — that he does not know anything about it — in such a case it is a great disgrace if he says he never learned any Torah. It would be better for him to say: I did what is incumbent upon me and I learned, but I forgot for some reason. However, this is not so here where it refers to one matter. It would have been more comfortable for Moshe to say I learned much Torah, but one matter I have not learned yet. Furthermore, we can say: How could Moshe say: “I never heard”? If so, from where would Aharon know? For if Moshe never heard, [from where would Aharon know? Rather,] the praise of Moshe’s admission was in this: Regarding anything that has two types of rationale, one to permit and one to forbid, people will often rationalize one way and then later retract from their original line of reasoning, because the second line of reasoning seems more logical. Thus, there is no shame in retracting. Therefore, if Moshe would have said: I never heard, but my reasoning was originally to permit, but Aharon posed a difficulty on it. And since there was an opposite reasoning [not to permit], it would not be shameful for Moshe [to retract from his original position]. However, now that he [originally] heard it was forbidden, and he forgot and ruled to permit from the strength of his reasoning, and then he remembered that he heard explicitly to forbid, this clarifies now that his reasoning was wrong. In this, there is great shame. If so, the Gemara in Shabbos (ibid.) presents no difficulty, for there it is not applicable to say they relied on rationale that would result in shame (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  To tell Aharon. Thirteen instances of “speaking” are recorded in the Torah [directed] to Moshe and Aharon, and thirteen exclusions corresponding to them, [in order] to teach you that Hashem did not speak to Aharon but to Moshe alone, as mentioned above in Parshas Vayikro. Although Rashi already explains above in Parshas Vayikro (1:1), he explains here again so that you will not explain that as a reward for “Aharon was silent” Aharon merited that the Divine word was specially [directed] to him alone, together with Moshe, as he merited regarding the laws of those intoxicated by wine. Furthermore, we can explain that although in general the Divine word was spoken simultaneously by the two of them — that was when they spoke to Israel. Here, however, Moshe told Aharon that he alone would be the messenger to tell them (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  
  Verse 2
  
  An expression of life. Otherwise, it should say: “These are living things (חיה instead of החיה) that you may eat from among all the animals.” 
  Hold. Meaning: [Rashi adds this explanation] because the word זאת [implies] one points with his finger to the subject about which he is hinting, but when Hashem was speaking to him there was nothing impure there. Re’m wrote at length [but] I made it brief. 
  This teaches. [Rashi knows this] because it should only say: זאת (these are), why does it say החיה? [You might ask:] Rashi [already] derived from the word החיה — “an expression of life”! The answer is: He derives that from the extra ה in the word החיה. However, [the extra word itself] comes to teach [that animals...] 
  
  Verse 3
  
  “Split.” I.e., this is not translated as “hoof,” but rather as “split.” And the word פרסה means <i>plante</i> in Old French, or <i>kaput</i> (hoof) in German. The Targum’s proof is that it is written (v. 5): “The rabbit, for it chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof (ופרסה לא יפריס),” but in fact, all ruminants have hooves with which they walk upon the earth. Perforce, מפרסת is translated as “split.” 
  Extraneous. [Rashi knows this] because it is already written (v. 2): “that you may eat from among all the animals.” Rather, [it must be that] this is an [apparently] extraneous word... It is as if it is written, “You may eat the animal that is inside an animal,” which refers to the embryo found within an animal, for the phrase “that you shall eat from among all the animals” refers to the entire section. 
  A positive commandment. [It is a positive commandment] because a negative command that is derived from a positive command is considered a positive commandment. The negative commandment is written clearly nearby (v. 4): “However, these in particular you may not eat...” However, it does not come to teach the plain meaning — that it is permitted to eat — for it already says (v. 2): “That you may eat from among all the animals.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Kal vachomer. You might ask: We may not derive a warning [for punishment] based on a <i>kal vachomer</i>! The answer is: It is different here where there is a positive command (v. 3): “You may eat <i>it</i>,” upon which Rashi explains: “And not an impure animal.” This refers to every impure animal, since it is written, “you may eat it,” which implies that the ones written in the parshah are permitted to be eaten, but the rest of the animals that do not have signs are forbidden to be eaten although they are not written in the parshah. If so, since there is a positive command also for the animal that has no permitting sign, we may derive a warning based on a <i>kal vachomer</i> so that there will be a negative command as well. However, where there is no positive command we may not derive the warning from a <i>kal vachomer</i> (<i>Re’m</i>). [Alternatively:] Perhaps we do not derive a warning from a <i>kal vachomer</i> where we wish to derive from the essence of the law. [For example,] the Torah prohibited [relations with] one’s granddaughter and we wish to derive [the prohibition also applies to] one’s daughter from this. In such a case we say that we may not derive a warning [based on a <i>kal vachomer</i>], for perhaps it is a Scriptural decree and thus we cannot derive the warning based on a <i>kal vachomer</i>. However, when the Torah gives a reason [for prohibiting] and states: “The rabbit, for it chews its cud but does not have a cloven hoof,” then certainly we may clearly derive that if an animal has no sign at all there is more reason to forbid it, and it may be derived correctly through a <i>kal vachomer</i>. When [the Torah gives] a reason it is not applicable [to say] “we do not derive a warning...” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>).
  
  On a festival. “On a festival” means on Yom Tov, i.e., when the people of Israel are obligated to purify themselves on the festival, because one is obligated to bring the burnt-offering of being seen, to the Temple courtyard. This [reason] is not applicable during the rest of the year. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  To forbid their mixtures. [Rashi knows this] because this is an extra verse, for it is written above: “They are repulsive.” 
  [Enough to] impart [their] taste. This is only when one kind is mixed with a different kind, but if one kind was mixed with its own kind, one impure mixed with two hundred pure is permitted. 
  Gnats. Meaning: A [creeping] thing that originates and develops in the water inside of vessels is not subject to the prohibition. The verse: “And their carcasses shall be repulsive to you” comes to include [in the prohibition] immediately when [the creeping things] are separated from the water, for instance, he filtered them from the water. They are forbidden because they have been separated from the place of their proliferation. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  What does this verse tell [us]? This is an extra verse, for it is written above (v. 10): “All that do not have fins...” 
  I might know only... I.e., were this verse not written, I would have thought: “I know only...” 
  Although it lost them in being brought up. However, this cannot be derived from the first verse (10), for if so, it should say “in the water,” and not “in the oceans and rivers.” Rather, it teaches that in the oceans and rivers, which are running, flowing water, the fish without signs are forbidden, but in vessels, ditches, and cisterns, even though they have no signs they may be eaten. See there (Chulin 67a). 
  
  Verse 13
  
  “To be eaten.” [Rashi knows this] from the fact Moshe Rabbeinu changed the expression in Mishneh Torah (Devarim 14:12) and wrote: לא תאכלו, and did not write לא יאכלו, which implies both the prohibition of eating and obtaining benefit, as he heard the Divine word from Hashem. Rather, it must be that this was how he received it at Sinai: [The phrase] לא יאכלו written regarding impure birds does not come to prohibit one to receive any benefit from them. Perforce, then, it [comes to make] liable one who feeds them to a minor. 
  All of them are of one species. You might ask: How does this relate to what Rashi explains beforehand? The answer is: Since he explains beforehand that the impure birds written in the Torah explicitly are permitted for one to receive benefit, for it is written: לא תאכלם, we can explain where it is written, למינה למינו למינהו, even if they do not resemble each other, either in appearance or name, they are of one species. However, if those that were written in the Torah explicitly were forbidden for one to receive benefit, because it is written: לא יאכל, we would then explain that where it is written למינה למינו למינהו it does not teach they are actually one species, but rather those that resemble each other in appearance and name are prohibited [also for one to receive benefit] as these which are written explicitly. However, those that do not resemble them, either in appearance or name, are not the same species, and are not as stringent as the ones written explicitly in the Torah in that they are not forbidden for one to receive benefit; they are only prohibited to be eaten. But now that we say even those that are written in the Torah explicitly do not have a prohibition for one to receive benefit, if so, we cannot say those that are written explicitly are more stringent. Perforce, it comes to teach that they are of one species.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  It has five [feet], it is [ritually] clean. Otherwise, why does it say this when above it is written (v. 21-22): “However, these you may eat of all the flying insects that walk on four [legs]...” which implies that only these four species [mentioned] are permitted, but the rest of the flying insects that have four feet are prohibited to be eaten? Rather, it must be: “[This] comes and teaches [us]...” This raises a difficulty: Perhaps [we should instead learn] from this that if it has two legs it is pure? [The answer is:] It seems that a verse is surely not needed for one with two legs, for Scripture only says: “that walk on four [legs]” and not on two. A verse is needed, however, for five legs, because four legs are included in five. Therefore, it is needed to exclude that if it has five it is pure (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  There is uncleanness with their touch. I.e., not that He commands them to become impure. Rather, this is what it means: If you touch them you will be made unclean. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  The uncleanness [caused by] carrying is more severe than [that caused by] touch. Re’m writes: I have not heard a correct explanation as to what Rashi is coming to let us know with this rule. It is explicitly written here that the impurity caused by touch does not require washing of clothing and impurity caused by carrying requires washing of clothing! If it is to inform us that everywhere else it is as it is written here — what practical difference does that make? Perhaps the answer is: Rashi is coming to let us know that the impurity of touch is not derived through a <i>kal vachomer</i> from the impurity of carrying and it would thus require washing of clothing, [as follows:] [The impurity acquired by] carrying is <i>not</i> applicable to creeping creatures [and the impurity of a seminal discharge], yet it requires washing of clothing, then [the impurity of] touch, which <i>is</i> applicable to all types of impurities, is it not logical that it requires washing of clothing? For this reason Rashi explains: “Wherever the uncleanness [caused by] carrying is mentioned, it is more severe than [that caused by] touch,” and you will not find any place where Scripture obligates washing clothing for the impurity of touch. If the impurity of touch required washing of clothes from a <i>kal vachomer</i>, then Scripture would not have neglected to write in some place regarding the impurity of touch: “He shall wash his garments.” The same type of argument is found in the first chapter of Chulin (22b) (<i>Re’m</i>). This does not seem to be true, because if Rashi means this, he should say the opposite: “Wherever the uncleanness [caused by] touch is mentioned, it does not require washing of clothing.” And a further difficulty: Rashi should explain that Scripture is coming to let us know that the impurity of carrying is not derived from the impurity of touch to be exempt from washing clothing, [as the Sages derived in Toras Kohanim]: [The impurity of] touch is more allencompassing, yet it does not cause impurity to clothing, then [the impurity of] carrying, which encompasses less [types of impurities], is it not logical that it should not cause impurity [to clothing]? Therefore, the Torah teaches, etc. It seems to me that Rashi is coming to inform us not to say [the impurities of] touch and carrying are the same. Because if so, when the Torah writes that creeping creatures and seminal discharge cause impurity through touch, they should also cause impurity by carrying. With regard to this Rashi says in any case the impurity [caused by] carrying is more severe than [that caused by] touch, in that it requires washing of clothing. If Scripture’s intent was that they [creeping creatures and seminal discharge] cause impurity also with carrying, it would not have remained silent, for washing of clothing cannot be derived from [the impurity of] touch, since, “it is sufficient for that which is derived through logical means [such as through comparison or <i>kal</i> <i>vachomer</i>, to be like that from which is was derived]...” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  
  Verse 26
  
  At the end of the parshah it explains [the rule] regarding a [ritually] clean animal. I.e., Scripture divides them into two categories to tell us that the [proper] slaughter of a treifah (debilitated animal) renders it pure from the impurity of neveilah (carcass, an animal that died without slaughter). For this reason it is written there (v. 39): “If [any animal] dies...” [which implies] specifically one that dies [without slaughter] causes the impurity of neveilah, but a treifah, although it will eventually die, if it was slaughtered it is pure from the impurity of neveilah. However, an impure animal, whether it died or was slaughtered, is not purified from the impurity of neveilah by means of slaughtering. Therefore, it is written regarding it (v. 27): “[All who touch] their carcasses,” without specifying whether it died or was slaughtered (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 27
  
  Bear and cat. Meaning: Their paws are not covered with hooves.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  After its immersion it is unclean. I.e., you should not say that because it was put into water, that is, it was immersed, it would be impure until evening, as would be understood from, “shall be brought into water and is unclean until the evening.” Therefore, Rashi adds “even after its immersion” — it does not depart from its impurity until after the setting of the sun. Meaning: For terumah, whereas for ma’aser (tithes) it is pure immediately after it is immersed and comes out, as it says in Yevamos (75a) (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>). 
  
  Verse 33
  
  Except through its interior. I.e., if the impurity entered its interior space but did not touch it, it is impure. From the outside, however, it remains pure even if the impurity touches it. This is derived from, “everything that is within it becomes unclean,” [by means of a comparison:] We find that the interior — when the vessel causes impurity to the <i>food</i> within — even if the impurity never touches [all the food contents] it becomes impure, for even if the vessel was full of mustard seeds, everything is impure, although the vessel does not [directly] touch all the seeds, but only the seeds that are adjacent to its walls. You cannot say that this seed causes impurity to that one, and this one causes impurity to that one, since food cannot cause impurity to food. Furthermore, if it did, this would become a Second [level of impurity], and the next one a Third, but a Third does not cause impurity to make a Fourth. Perforce, the mustard seeds become impure by being in the interior of the vessel. So too, the interior mentioned in the imparting of impurity to the vessel — even though the impurity never touches the vessel, but it is only suspended within [the interior of] the vessel, the vessel becomes impure (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  In turn causes impurity. [Rashi knows this] from the fact that it is not written “everything that it touches within it.” Rather, even if it does not touch anything but only enters the interior, whatever is in it is impure (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). Alternatively, it is not as if the vessel is full of impurity and whatever is in it is touching the impurity, for if so, why are vessels excluded from the law of becoming impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel, as Rashi explains later (v. 34)? Rather, it must be that the vessel itself becomes impure from the creeping creature in its interior, and the vessel becomes a First [source of impurity]. It then in turn causes impurity to whatever is in its interior to make it a Second. Thus, vessels are excluded, because a vessel that is a First does not cause impurity to another vessel (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  Cannot be purified. I.e., if you want to purify it from its impurity you must break it until it is no longer fit for its original use. If it was made to hold food items, one makes a hole until olives would fall out, and if it was made for liquids, he bores a hole until it can no longer hold liquid. 
  
  Verse 34
  
  To the verse. This is because it is not connected with the juxtaposed verse: “you shall break it.” The meaning of “אשר יבא עליו מים (upon which water <i>comes</i>),” is: “אשר באו עליו (upon which [water] <i>came</i>).” This is because the expression אשר יבא [seemingly] instructs that after the food was within the impure earthenware vessel — if water will come upon it — it will become impure. This, however, is not so, for the Torah enjoins (v. 38): “If water was once placed on seeds and part of their carcasses fall upon them” — then it will become impure. Rashi then adds: “While it is within an unclean earthenware vessel.” So that you will not say that since the food entered the interior of an impure vessel and then was taken out from the vessel, it will become impure if water now came upon it, because we would say the impurity returned and awakened after the water came upon it. Therefore, Rashi says: “[Water comes] while it is within the vessel” (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  Even when dry. This is because Scripture makes its being subject to impurity dependant only on whether water comes on it, without specifying; it does not differentiate whether it is dry or moist. 
  Food or liquid become unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel. Re’m writes: It seems to me that the phrase “or liquid” is a misprint, and the correct text is “food becomes unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel,” and not “food <i>or</i> <i>liquid</i>.” This is because the word “beverage” that is written in the verse was already explained by Rashi as referring to preparing it for impurity, and according to Rabbi Eliezer, but it does not refer to causing impurity from a beverage, as the view of Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Yossi (Pesachim 16a). If so, [that “beverage” refers to preparing for impurity], how could Rashi write later: “Furthermore, our Rabbis learned from here [food <i>or liquid</i> becomes unclean from the interior of an earthenware vessel, but not vessels]...”? Also, in Toras Kohanim and in Pesachim (20b) it is only written: “Food becomes impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel, but vessels do not become impure from the interior of an earthenware vessel.” 
  After it had been picked. Meaning: After the food had been detached from the earth, otherwise, there is no [vegetation] that had not been exposed to water [through rain], so why then does it say [impurity is only applicable]: “Upon which water comes”? 
  Unless there is an egg’s-volume. I.e., people that eat less than this amount are not impure. However, this does not mean that food does not cause other items to become impure when it does not have this amount, because even if it has the minimum amount through which it becomes impure it does not cause other things to become impure. This is because foodstuffs do not cause other foodstuffs to become impure by Torah law (so I found). The fact that it does not cause impurity to other things is derived from [the fact] that Scripture does not write טמא but rather, יטמא, which is as if it says: It is impure but it will not cause other things to become impure. 
  
  Verse 35
  
  Which may be moved. [Rashi knows this] because if they were vessels that are not movable, but rather attached to the ground, they would not become impure, for every item attached to the ground is like the ground [which does not become impure]. And from the fact it is written, “it shall be shattered,” which implies it cannot be purified in a mikveh, Rashi infers that the verse refers to earthenware vessels. And since they are earthenware vessels, we must say they have an interior, for earthenware vessels become impure only from their interior. However, this does not mean specifically earthenware, for an oven is not fired in a kiln. Rather, since ovens are made from clay and dried in the sun they are called earthenware, and they have the same law as earthenware vessels (<i>Re’m</i>). This raises a difficulty: Scripture already wrote the law of earthenware vessels, as it is written (v. 33): “Every earthen vessel”! Re’m wrote that an earthenware vessel is fired [in a kiln] and is made from clay, but the oven and hearth are only made from clay and dried in the sun. However, I do not know what difference this makes. Thus, it appears to me that above it lets us know that an earthenware vessel that became impure can be rectified through purification by breakage, as it says in Toras Kohanim: “And you shall break it” — it has rectification through breaking it. [If it was used for food] he breaks it partially until it has a hole that makes it unable to be used for foodstuff. If Scripture had only written the verse above, I would think (v. 33) “and you shall break it” means entirely, and it cannot be purified by partially breaking it. Thus, the verse (35): “it shall be shattered” lets us know, [because] it means that it cannot be purified through immersing [in a mikveh] and remain as it is. Boring a hole, however, helps. This is because we cannot say “it shall be shattered” means literally [to completely shatter it], for it says afterwards “and they shall be unclean to you,” upon which Rashi explains he is not obligated to shatter it, but may keep it for the days when he is impure. However, [if it only said this verse, “and he shall shatter it,” I might think it has no purification in a mikveh and he must keep it for the days of his impurity, but] to purify it through breakage does not help, thus, it lets us know with the verse above that it can be purified through boring a hole (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 36
  
  Attached. You might ask: Above, Rashi derives that (v. 34): “Every beverage that is drunk, in any vessel, shall be impure” refers to the preparation [of foodstuffs] for impurity, and not impurity [of liquids themselves]. This is because Rashi holds like the view that there is no impurity of liquids by Torah law, and this is according to Rabbi Eliezer’s view (Pesachim 16a). Here, though, Rashi explains that specifically the water attached to the ground do not acquire impurity. Hear from this that <i>there is</i> impurity of liquids by Torah law, which follows the view of Rabbi Yuda (ibid.)! The answer is: This is why Rashi adds: “Moreover, you have still to learn...” which is according to Rabbi Eliezer. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not say, “And there are those that explain”? The answer is: Rabbi Yuda would also agree with this, for he holds that both can be derived, since they are equal, and therefore both may be learned (<i>Re’m</i>). It appears that there is proof for both these teachings, for the first explanation alone presents a difficulty: Why does it say: יהי' טהור? Why doe we need the word יהי'? Rather, it refers to someone who is now impure that he can be pure through immersion in these waters. And the second explanation alone poses a difficulty [as well:] What is the relevancy of this to here, which deals with the way in which a vessel acquires impurity? Perforce, here also it lets us know that water cannot become impure in any way (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  Well-spring or pit. I.e., if he touches a carcass and he is inside a well-spring or pit, he becomes impure. This exegesis is based on the extra verse, which is expounded as follows: “However, a well-spring and a pit, a gathering of water” — an impure person that immerses in them — “shall be pure.” But — a pure person that stands in them and touches a creeping creature that falls into it — “shall be unclean.” 
  For you should not propose a ק"ו. Re’m writes: However, [the Rabbis] taught in Toras Kohanim: The earth uplifts impure items from their impurity, for if impure seeds were planted, which then took root in the earth, they become pure, and a mikveh also purifies the impure, thus, just as the earth saves the pure, i.e., the seeds that take root in the earth [are saved] from becoming impure, so too, water [accomplishes] the same. Therefore, it says: “That which touches their carcasses shall be unclean” — water does not save from becoming impure. 
  
  Verse 37
  
  To be called “food.” Meaning: From that which it is written in the next verse: “If water was once placed on seeds and part of their carcasses fall upon them, they are unclean,” it implies that previously where it is written, “it remains [ritually] clean,” is dealing in a case where a part of their carcasses fell upon them before water came upon them. See Re’m where he cites the difficulties raised by Toras Kohanim and the Talmud: Why do we need a verse when it can be derived from that above (v. 34)? He brings the answers the Sages answered there. This raises a difficulty: This can be derived from (v. 38): “If water was once placed,” which implies that without water it cannot become impure! It appears to me that upon analysis of Scripture that first it says: “on any sowing seed that will be planted,” and then afterwards it says, “If water was once placed on seeds” where it mentions only “seeds.” Consequently, one could err and make a distinction between seeds that grow on their own without planting and those that are planted. I might think that when we say seeds are prepared to acquire impurity specifically through water being placed on them — that refers only to seeds that grew on their own without any action, but seeds that were planted and designated as food do not need require that they be prepared with water [in order to become impure]. Therefore, Scripture lets me know [that this is not true] (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 38
  
  Or other liquids. For we derive a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> from מים מים, from the word מים above (v. 34) regarding earthenware vessels, where other liquids are regarded the same as water. 
  Whether the seed falls into them. As it is written: “If water was once placed on seeds,” and it is written nearby: “ונפל וגו' (and falls...).” [Thus,] the word ונפל should also be read with what precedes it: And seed falls into water. [And the word זרע is interpreted both with the previous phrase and the next phrase: “Water upon seed,” and “seeds falls...”] (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 39
  
  Not bones. Meaning: This is when they are separated from where they are attached. But when they are attached to the flesh, one who touches them is like he is touching the flesh — either because they serve as a ‘handle’ or as a ‘protective agent.’ 
  
  Verse 40
  
  The uncleanness of carrying is more severe. I explained this above (v. 25). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi explain this here when he already explained it above? The answer is: Since it is written here: “Whoever eats of its carcass” — To provide a [minimum] measure for one who carries or touches [it] — I might think that since Scripture equates them for the minimum measure of impurity, the same also applies for the washing of clothing. For this reason, Rashi needed to once again explain here. We should not ask: How does Rashi know this? Re’m already answered: Since Scripture would not have neglected to mention in some place regarding impurity [caused by] touch that one must wash his clothing. 
  Perhaps. Rashi explains this out of order, after the phrase “Whoever carries its carcass,” so that he could connect the one who carries with the one who touches — to inform us about the difference between them, that is, that the impurity of carrying is more severe than the impurity of touch, as explained above, for otherwise, what is it coming to let us know? 
  As much as for eating — and that is an olive’s-bulk. That is, a <i>half of an egg</i>. [You might ask:] Rashi explains above (v. 34): “food which is eaten in one [gulp], and the Sages estimated that the gullet cannot hold more than a hen’s egg [at once],” i.e., <i>an entire egg</i>! [The answer is:] That is referring to a forced situation and here it is referring to an unforced situation. This raises a strong difficulty: In the end, it is not possible that Scripture should write a falsehood! The one who eats it does not need to wash his clothing, only the one who carries it! It appears to me: Certainly, the verse goes according to its plain meaning, that is, whoever eats of its carcass, in that he stuck it into his gullet by himself, is not impure due to the eating but he is impure due to carrying the [minimal] amount of eating (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  The setting of the sun. I already explained this above regarding (v. 32): “shall be brought [put] into water, and remains unclean until the evening,” and here its explanation is the same. Re’m explains this in another way: Although he immerses [in a mikveh] he needs the setting of the sun, for if not, it should say: “After he washes with water he shall be pure.” “הערב שמש” means the setting of the sun, which is the coming out of the stars, for the expression וטהר (22:7) means the cleansing of the <i>day</i>. Otherwise, it should say ויטהר (Berachos 2b). Rashi explains this here and not in another place [where it says “he is unclean until the evening”] because this verse does not come to teach that he should be impure until the evening [and not seven days] as the others. Rather, it teaches the minimal amount for the one who carries or touches. Meaning, although it says in Parshas Emor (22:7): “ובא השמש וטהר (When the sun sets he is pure),” that is said in regard to the other types of impurity, but this one is for the carcass of an animal. The Torah writes it for both. Up to this point are the words of Re’m, but I wrote what appears [to be correct] in my eyes (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). 
  
  Verse 41
  
  Short feet. You might ask: How does this relate to what Rashi explained beforehand? He should have brought this explanation on the verse! The answer is: This is so that you will not contend: Perhaps “לא יאכל (it may not be eaten)” comes to prohibit one from deriving any benefit from שרצים (creeping creatures), and the phrase (v. 42): “לא תאכלם (you may not eat them)” of שרצים comes to prohibit eating a creature which is low with short feet although it is not considered [in the category of] שרצים. For this reason Rashi explains: “[The word] שרץ denotes only a [creature which is low, with short feet].” If so, something low <i>is</i> the שרצים spoken of in the Torah. Therefore, “לא תאכלם” (v. 42) comes only with regard to שרצים. Consequently, perforce, “לא יאכל” (v. 41) does not come to teach a prohibition of deriving benefit, for later it is written, “לא תאכלם” (see Pesachim 21b). Similarly, that which Rashi explains above (v. 13): “Any fowl of which it is said: ‘to its kind’...” needs to be explained in this way (so I found). 
  
  Verse 42
  
  Worms. These are the long worms that come out of the ground that have no legs, found in garbage, and especially in the summer days after the rain stops. 
  And whatever is similar to anything similar to it. I.e., they have slight signs of legs but they crawl on their belly like a snake. 
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  As I am holy. Meaning, because every use of the word כי is to provide a reason for what precedes it. Therefore Rashi explains: “Just as I...” 
  Sanctify yourselves. This is an extra phrase, for it would be sufficient to say: “You shall sanctify yourselves for I am Holy,” [and omit the phrase: “and you shall become holy”]. Rather, it is extra in order to expound in this manner. 
  Many negative commandments. Otherwise, it is already written above (v. 43): “and do not make yourselves unclean...”
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  You must know. Meaning: That which it cautions: “To distinguish...” is not only that he should learn and know their laws, but he also needs to put in an effort so that he is able to recognize which is impure and which is pure as well. 
  A donkey and a cow. Meaning: Their signs were already explained as to which are impure and which are pure. If so, why does it say: “To distinguish”? 
  That which is clean to you. Meaning: What is unclean for you by your own doing or clean for you by your own doing.
  And when the greater part of has been cut through. I.e., if you slaughter the animal’s entire gullet but only half of the wind-pipe, you have made it unclean for eating although it is a clean species. However, when [the entire gullet and] the greater part of the wind-pipe is cut, you have made it clean for eating. Although it was forbidden to be eaten until now due to the prohibition of a limb from a living animal (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  Characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden [but] it is kosher. For instance, the windpipe had a hole, or the skull was opened but the brain’s membrane was not pierced, and the like, which are kosher. 
  Characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden. And these are all the eighteen treifos enumerated by the Sages. See all this in the Chazkuni commentary. Chazkuni writes: “Between [those] in which there have arisen characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden [but] it is kosher” — for instance, he cut the wind-pipe and then the lung developed a hole before he cut the gullet, which is a characteristic of treifah but it is kosher, because the lung’s vitality depends on the wind-pipe [and the lung is as if it is “placed in a basket” after the wind-pipe is severed, thus, it has no influence on the kashrus of the animal]. “And [those] in which there have arisen characteristics [which render the animal] forbidden and it is [indeed] not kosher” — for instance, the lung developed a hole before the cutting of the wind-pipe. This is found in Maseches Chulin (32b). However, I say this is not the way, since Rashi did not say these words on his own, but rather, it is a Baraisa in Toras Kohanim, and the majority agree that the halachah is not like Reish Lakish [who says if he cut the wind-pipe and then the lung developed a hole before cutting the gullet it is kosher] (<i>Tzeidah L’Derech</i>).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  In the Work of Creation. You might ask: Why did the creation of animals and beasts precede the creation of man? The Sages already answered in Sanhedrin (38a): “Why was man created on Erev Shabbos? So that they [i.e., the heretics] would not say Hashem had a partner in the Work of Creation. Another explanation: Because if man would be haughty they can say to him: The mosquito preceded you. Another explanation: So that he would immediately become obligated in a mitzvah [Shabbos]. Another explanation: So that he would find everything immediately prepared for his meal. This can be compared to a king...” You might ask: If the Torah explains according to the order of creation, then Parshas Metzoro should come before Parshas Ki Tazria, because Metzoro speaks of a man and Tazria speaks of a woman, and Adam was created before Chavah! The answer is: It is more common for a woman gives birth than for a man to become afflicted with <i>tzora’as</i>. Furthermore, we can say: The reason Tazria comes before Metzoro is because the main reason a person is afflicted with <i>tzora’as</i> is because he has relations with his wife when she is a menstruant, as the Gemara says (Erachin 16a, and Tanchuma Tazria 11). Another answer: The woman is compared to the earth’s soil, which causes what is planted (שזורעים) in it to grow. Man, as well, was created from the earth’s soil. Therefore, it is written regarding a woman: “When [a woman] conceives (תזריע) and gives birth to a male child,” i.e., the male is created from the female who is likened to the earth’s soil. This raises a difficulty: What practical difference does this comparison make? Furthermore, Re’m raised the difficulty that the Gemora says in Sanhedrin (38a) that the reason Adam was created last was so that if he would be haughty it can be said to him: The mosquito preceded you in the work of creation, and so that he would find everything prepared for his meal, [and more reasons,] all of which are not applicable here! He also asks: Why does it mention the law [of <i>tzora’as</i>]: “When a man will have in the skin of his flesh” after the law pertaining to a woman: “When [a woman] conceives”? The woman was created last! It appears to me the answer is: All this is what R. Simlai [who is cited in Rashi] means to say: Just as there is a good reason why Adam was created last — so that he would come and find everything ready for his meal — so too, regarding the law of man: It was explained after the laws of animals, beasts and birds, i.e., with regard to what is forbidden and permitted [among them]. This follows what it says in the Midrash (Vayikro Rabboh 13:3) on the verse (11:2): “These are the living things” — “Every word of Hashem is refined” (Mishlei 30:5), “The mitzvos were given to Israel” — i.e., what is forbidden to be eaten — “only for the sake of refining the people with them.” In this way Hashem demonstrates his love for us, as it says in the Midrash that someone who loves his servant cautions him from eating harmful food. Therefore, R. Simlai said that just as Adam was created last at the time of Creation for his advantage, so that he find his provisions prepared, so too, regarding Torah and mitzvos, Hashem gave them to Israel for their benefit, to refine them. Therefore, mankind was mentioned last so that they would have the refinement of mitzvos by means of the laws pertaining to animals, beasts and birds. Therefore, there is no difficulty posed from: “When a man will have, in the skin of his flesh” [the law of <i>tzora’as</i> of a man is mentioned after the section dealing with a woman], for there [the concept of] refinement is not relevant (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  Mushy. [Rashi knows this] because it should only say: “When a woman gives birth to a male child.” [Why does it add “conceives”?] Rather, this comes to include even [when the embryo] is born mushy. One should not object: [The Rabbis taught (Berachos 60a)]: This teaches that if a woman emits seed first [the child will be a male, thus,] it is needed for that! [The answer is:] If so, it should say: “כי תזריע האשה וילדה זכר.” Rather, it juxtaposes “conception” to “giving birth” and writes וילדה זכר with a ו, which indicates certainty, and does not write “if,” the way it does (v. 5): “<i>If</i> she gives birth to a female.” Perforce you have both [explanations]. [You might ask:] Rashi explains above in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:15): “These are the sons of Leah... along with his daughter Deenah.” — “The males are attributed to Leah while the females are attributed to Yaakov, to teach you that if the woman emits seed first then she will give birth to a male [and if the man emits seed first then she will give birth to a female].” Why is this needed? It is derived from here! The answer is: From here we can only derive that a woman who emits seed [first] gives birth [to a male], however, [it is inconclusive in the event] the man emits seed first or they both emit simultaneously, that she will give birth to a female. Therefore, Scripture lets us know: “along with his daughter Deenah,” that if they [both] emit seed simultaneously they each cancel the other [and she will give birth to a male or female]. And from there alone, however, it cannot be derived, because we can say Scripture attributes the males to Leah because it cannot attribute them to Yaakov, who had other male children, [and if it said “these are the sons of Yaakov” I might think that these alone are the sons of Yaakov]. The female [Deenah] was attributed to him, though, since he had no other daughter besides her. [Thus,] from both [verses] it is derived well. Re’m dwelt at length on this but I shortened it (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). 
  As semen. Rashi’s explanation implies that first, before it was born, it was somewhat formed as a fetus, but afterwards it became crushed. [He knows this] from what is written, “when [a woman] conceives,” which implies even if she only gave birth to something resembling semen. But it is written, “and gives birth to a male child,” implying that it was a fully formed embryo. How [can this be resolved]? Perforce, we must say that originally it was a fully formed fetus, but afterwards it was crushed and became as semen. 
  Mentioned in regard to a menstruant woman. She causes impurity due to lying down or sitting, as does a menstruant woman, and all the laws of impurity apply to her. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse means: “as the days of her menstrual flow” — which is seven days — so too, the amount of impurity for childbirth is seven days. The answer is: This would not require a verse, for it clearly says: “she will be ritually unclean for seven days.” If so, why does it say: “as the days of her menstrual flow”? Rather, it comes to teach about other [laws of menstrual] impurity. You might ask: This is obvious! She is a menstruant woman, for at the time of her difficulty [in birth] she saw blood. Therefore, Rashi explains: “even if the womb opens without blood.” 
  Which flows. [Rashi knows this] because the ז is interchangeable with the ד, as [we see from the fact that] the Aramaic translation of זב (discharge flow) is דב (15:2) [and the ו and the ב are interchangeable since they have the same source of pronunciation]. If so, it is as if Scripture had written זבותה (her flow). 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Even if. Otherwise, why does it say: “בדמי”? Alternatively, this is the explanation: Would it be insufficient that she does not see blood, that it was written with the expression “תשב בדמי (she will remain in the blood)”? Therefore, Rashi explains: “even if [she sees blood]...”
  
  To one who eats. As it is written nearby: “and she shall not come into the Sanctuary,” and the one who enters the Sanctuary in impurity is liable <i>koreis</i> (excision), as it is written at the beginning of Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:20). [Thus,] the Gemora (Yevamos 75a) makes a comparison between “she shall not touch anything holy” and one who enters the Sanctuary, just as one who enters the Sanctuary involves <i>koreis</i>, so too, when it is written, “she shall not touch anything holy,” it refers to <i>koreis</i>. If so, perforce we must say that “she shall not touch” is a warning to one who eats, for one who eats sacrifices in the state of impurity is liable [<i>koreis</i>. Regarding <i>terumoh</i>, though, which Rashi derives above from “anything holy,” the punishment is] death [at the hands of Heaven], as it is written (22:9): “And die because of it for having profaned.” However, one who touches sacrifices in the state of impurity is not liable <i>koreis</i> [and the reason the verse teaches eating with an expression of ‘touching’ is to let us know that one who is forbidden to eat sacrifices may also not touch them]. Furthermore, we can say that Rashi [knows that ‘touch’ refers to eating from that which he] explains nearby “anything holy” — “to include [<i>terumoh</i>].” Perforce, he did not intend to explain the verse, for the phrase “anything holy” is written before “she shall not touch,” so why does Rashi reverse the order? Rather, this refers to what precedes his explanation on “anything holy.” And this is its explanation: “She shall not touch” — “A warning to one who eats,” but how do we know it is a warning to one who eats? Thus, he explains: Because “anything holy” includes <i>terumoh</i>, and “she shall not touch” also refers to it. If so, we cannot say “she shall not touch” is a warning for actual touching, since it is permissible to touch <i>terumoh</i> immediately after immersing [in a <i>mikveh</i>], and she immersed immediately after the seven days. A טבול יום (one who immersed and is waiting for sunset) is permitted to touch <i>terumoh</i>. Rather, [it must be] a warning for one who eats. This raises a difficulty: In the verse it is written קדש (holy) and not <i>terumoh</i>! Upon this Rashi answers: The proof is from that which it is written: “until the <i>days</i> of her purity are completed,” which is applicable only to <i>terumoh</i>, “for this one is [considered] as one who has immersed [in a <i>mikveh</i> but whose purification is concluded only] after a long day, [thus,] the expression “days” is applicable to her. However, sacrifices cannot be eaten until one brings his [sacrifice of] atonement, and it does not depend on days alone. [Thus,] although the [warning] itself comes for one who eats sacrifices, nevertheless, the exclusion from “anything” comes to prohibit eating <i>terumoh</i> (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  One who has immersed after a long day. Meaning: We need not ask: Terumoh is permissible to be eaten after the sunset, so why should it be forbidden to be eaten after the end of the seven days? Rashi answers: “For this one is as one who has immersed after a long day...” until the fortieth day when they bring their offerings of childbirth, and at sunset before the fortieth day she is permitted to eat <i>terumoh</i>. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  One of them. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written: “He will bring <i>them</i>” since childbirth requires two offerings — a lamb in its first year and a young pigeon or turtledove. Rather, [it must be:] “This teaches you...” 
  On it the purification depends. For in every place regarding to the sin-offering it is written: “The <i>kohein</i> will atone for him and he shall be forgiven.” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi bring the verse at the end of the section (v. 8) and not the verse preceding it (v. 7): “and atone for her and she will be cleansed”? The answer is: This verse (7) does not prove that the sin-offering comes for atonement, for perhaps the burnt-offering comes for atonement. The other verse (8), however, demonstrates this well, since it is written: “And one as a sin-offering...” which implies that the sin-offering comes to atone. Another answer: Because the verse placed the burnt-offering before the sin-offering, and it placed it first “only for [the purpose of] reading [the Torah scroll].” However, this poses a difficulty: For what practical difference does Scripture place it first? Rather, it is to juxtapose “and he will atone” to “sinoffering” to teach that the atonement depends on the sin-offering. You might ask: Let the Merciful One [in the Torah] write [only]: “And he will atone” and it need not say, “And he will bring it,” and it would imply the one upon which the atonement depends! This is no difficulty, for Scripture had not written “and he will bring it” I might think that “he will atone” refers to the burnt-offering as well, since it is written regarding the burnt-offering (1:4): “And it will be favorably accepted from him to achieve his atonement.” However, now that it is written, “And he will bring it,” which implies one [of them], it is more reasonable to establish it as [referring to] the sin-offering that atones, since he is obligated to bring it to atone, and to exclude the burnt-offering that although it atones, he is not obligated to bring it as atonement. Even when the burnt-offering is obligatory, it comes as a present (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  That until now she is considered unclean. Rashi’s view in this is so that you will not raise a difficulty upon what he explains (above): “only one of them prevents her from eating holy food,” if so, this implies only sacrifices are forbidden and not <i>terumoh</i>. However, above he explains (v. 4): “Anything holy” — “to include <i>terumoh</i>”; that it too, is forbidden to be eaten. Therefore, he explains: “And she will be cleansed. Therefore, [we learn] that until now she is considered unclean.” Perforce, this impurity refers to prohibiting [eating from] sacrifices, since <i>terumoh</i> is permitted to be eaten from sunset of the fortieth day and onwards, which implies that sacrifices are prohibited [to be eaten] until after her atonement. Therefore, he explains: “from eating holy food.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  [The verse] placed it first. Meaning: For the purpose of reading the Torah that the one who reads in the Torah will read the word “burnt-offering” first, “but as to [the order of] offering...” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not explain this above, where it is written: “She shall bring a lamb, in its first year, as a burnt-offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering”? This is because above it is logical that it should place the burnt-offering first, since it is speaking about a rich person who brings a lamb as a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering, and even for bringing the offerings the burnt-offering comes first, since a lamb is more important. Here, however, [it is speaking] of a poor person who brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons, which are both the same, so I might think that also for bringing the offering the burnt-offering comes first since it was placed first, etc. Therefore, Rashi explains: “The verse placed it first...” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  A Scriptural decree. Rashi’s view is so because it is written nearby: “He shall be brought to Aharon, the <i>kohein</i>, or to one of his sons, the <i>kohanim</i>.” Why does it need to say, “one”? Also, Scripture does not need to write, “of his sons, the <i>kohanim</i>,” but rather only: “Or to his sons.” Thus, “one” comes to include even a non-<i>kohein</i>, [in the case] that the <i>kohein</i> was ignorant of Torah law he may show [the signs] to a man who knows [the laws of] signs of impurity, although he is a non-<i>kohein</i>. And that which it is written afterwards, “of his sons the <i>kohanim</i>” is to teach that although the <i>kohein</i> does not know the signs of impurity, and needs to show [them] to a Torah scholar who may not be a <i>kohein</i>, nevertheless, the Torah scholar is not allowed to say: This is a sign of impurity or this is a sign of purity. Rather, he must teach the <i>kohein</i> the laws of impurity and purity so that the <i>kohein</i> will tell the person who has the skin-eruption: You are pure or impure. Upon this Rashi explains: “It is a Scriptural decree...”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Within the skin-eruption. That which Rashi explains: “Within the skin-eruption” is to tell you that you should not think “has turned white” [means] if there is a white hair <i>near</i> the skin-eruption it is a sign of impurity. Therefore, he explains that only when it is within the skin-eruption. Also, you should not say that if it turned white before he has a skin-eruption it would be a sign of impurity, therefore, he explains: “Within the skin-eruption.” Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written in Scripture: “In the skin-eruption” — to say that only if the skin-eruption preceded the white hair, but if the white hair preceded the skin-eruption it is pure, hear from this that sometimes a hair can turn white even without a skin-eruption. If so, when the hair turns white within the skin-eruption it will not be impure, for perhaps it did not turn white due to the plague, maybe it was a some coincidence that it turned [white]. Thus, with regard to this Rashi explains: “The minimum [amount of] hair is two.” Since two hairs turned white, it is surely because of the plague and not a coincidence, for any matter [that occurs] in multiplicity is not a coincidence. 
  The minimum [amount of] hair is two. I do not know how the Rabbis knew that שער indicates a multiplicity of hairs, etc. (<i>Re’m</i>). See Tosafos Yom Tov, Negaim (4:1). 
  As the appearance of the sun. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “and the appearance of the plague [is deeper]...” which implies that the <i>appearance</i> is deeper than his flesh and not that the plague is actually deeper than his flesh. Why does the white appearance seem deeper? The answer is: Because a person’s main vision is through the black in his eye, and when he looks at something that has black and white, for instance: the sun which is white and shade which is black, it seems to him the black is closer to him that the white, because the black in the eye receives more of the vision of something that is black than something white. 
  He must say to him. I.e., not that he should manually make him impure with something that is one of the Fathers of impurity. And this is what Rashi writes, “for white hair is a sign of uncleanness...” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  I do not know its [proper] interpretation. It appears that Rashi is bothered by the difficulty: It should say: “ואין מראה עמוק מן העור,” [instead of ועמוק אין מראה]! So Rashi answers: If Scripture had written so, it would imply that the appearance is not deep at all. If so, it would pose a difficulty: Why does it require confinement, since it does not have a white appearance and the hair has not turned white? Now, however, that it says: “ועמוק אין מראה,” it implies that there is a small amount of depth [appearance], but it is not deeper than the skin. Thus, it does not have the minimal amount, and it has not reached [the level of] the four appearances [as described in Mishnah Negaim (1:1)]. Nevertheless, it is deep and therefore requires confinement. With regard to this Rashi says: “I do not know its interpretation,” i.e., the explanation of its minimal amount: which depth requires confinement and which depth does not require confinement. Divrei Dovid explains in this way as well, and he follows his view (see there). Rashi [said he does not know] because it posed a difficulty to him: Since a snow-white spot (בהרת) is white, why is it not deeper [in appearance] than the skin? Every white appearance is deeper than the dark [background], as I explained! Due to this difficulty, Rashi did not know the verse’s explanation. Ramban explains similarly. The explanation lying behind his explanation is that according to the view of Rambam and Rashi all the four appearances [of the signs of skineruptions] are deeper [than the skin]. They explain that a spot of intense whiteness (שאת) is slightly higher [in appearance] than בהרת, as Rashi explains in Shavuos (5b), and so the Kesef Mishneh explains in Hilchos Tzora’as (1:6). However, it was momentarily hidden from the Beis Yosef that Rashi explains the same way as he explained Rambam. This is not so according to the view of Targum Yonoson and Ra’avad, [who explain] that שאת is higher [than the skin itself], according to the plain meaning of the Baraisa, and only the strong בהרת is deeper [than the skin]. And if we explain, “ועמוק אין מראה” according to the view of Rabbi Akiva, [it means] as compared to the skin of a white man. However, the Sages said: These and these are [judged] like an average person, i.e., for a German (who is very white) or a Kushi (Ethiopian, very dark skinned), we place medium-darkness paint around the skin-eruption [to judge it]. Still, it remains difficult: Which medium paint? There are a number of levels of “medium”! [Thus,] Rashi did not know how to interpret this (<i>Rav Yaakov Trivash</i>). Ramban answered this question according to the view he had in Rashi’s opinion. [Rashi was bothered by the difficulty mentioned above that a white mark will always appear “deeper” than a dark background. Ramban explains that since the hair has not turned white, the skin-eruption’s whiteness is dimmed by the black hair within it, and so it does not seem so deep]. 
  One house. Meaning: The <i>kohein</i> confines the man afflicted; as a result, the plague is confined as well. [It does] not [mean] he should cover the skin-eruption for seven days (<i>Re’m</i>). [Rashi explains this] so that you should not say that during the seven days he might be confined once in this place and another time in that place in a way that each day is a [different] confinement. Therefore, Rashi explains that the confinement should be one time in one house, and he will not be seen seven days. This excludes that if he would be seen during the seven days, even if the skin-eruption spreads, he is not impure, because possibly it could change at the end (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Its appearance and original size. That which Rashi explains also, “and original size” is not an explanation of the expression בעיניו. Rather, it refers to what it is written, “the skin-eruption did not spread,” rather, it is still its original size. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to explain this? It is clearly written: “The skin-eruption did not spread”! Furthermore, Rashi should have explained this on the verse: “Did not spread” — “And is like its original size.” Another difficulty: That which Rashi explains: “And confine him ... a second time.” — “Thus, if it spread...” — This is obvious, since it says, “and behold! ... did not spread ... [the <i>kohein</i>] shall confine him...” which implies that if it did spread he is definitely impure. The answer is: Rashi’s view is to say that we must infer that it is in its original appearance and also its original size — that the skin-eruption did not spread — then, he must be confined a second time and he is not yet definitely impure. However, if it spread he is definitely impure. [Accordingly, the s.v. “And confine him ... a second time” is actually a continuation of the s.v. “Maintained its hue,” and they are both parts of one s.v.]. However, you should not infer [from the word] בעיניו [that it means] only if it is in its original appearance, then he must be confined, but if it did not maintain its original appearance, for instance, it became whiter, he would be definitely impure, for this is not relevant: Since it was already white [which is a sign of impurity] it is not relevant that it becomes whiter. Rather, we should infer that only if it maintains its original appearance, that is, its original whiteness, and also it did not spread, i.e., from its original size, then he needs to be confined. However, if the skin-eruption spread and remained in its original whiteness, he is definitely impure. But if it did not maintain its hue, for instance, it became less white, even though the skin-eruption spread, it is still not definitely impure. This is because it is not written, “or it did not spread,” which would imply either this or that. These are the principles of Re’m’s explanation, see there at length. However, he raises a difficulty there: Why did [the Rabbis] teach [in a Mishnah] (Negaim 3:3) there are three signs of impurity: the white hair, healthy flesh, and spreading? There are actually four, including the maintaining of their hue! This can be resolved: [The Rabbis] taught in the Mishnah only those signs of impurity that pertain to the first week; this is not the case of maintaining their hue, which is relevant to the second week. 
  If it spread. Although the entire Torah is general rules, and from the negative rule you derive the positive one, [Rashi needs to explain here] because two inferences that can be derived from here: One is, “if it spread,” and the other is, “if [its hue] became stronger.” [Therefore,] he needs to say that the inference here is only one: “If it spread,” and not “if it became stronger.” This is because even if its appearance became stronger, since the first and the last appearances are both appearances of impurity, we apply the verse that it “maintained its hue” (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Or it spread, he is impure. I.e., you should not infer: [If it] became dimmer than its [original] appearance, even though the skin-eruption spread, or it did not spread, even though it maintained its hue — he does not need confinement and is pure. Rather, you should infer: [If it] became dimmer and also it did not spread, then he does not need confinement and he is pure, as it implies: “became dimmer <i>and</i> [the skin-eruption] did not spread.” But, if it maintained its appearance even though it did not spread, or it spread even though it became dimmer, he must be confined and is impure. This is implied nearby: “If [the white discoloration] has spread,” and it is not written: “And it maintains its hue.” [Thus,] it implies either this or that (<i>Minchas Yehudah</i>). [This contradicts what Re’m explained in Rashi above, however, see Ramban: “This is the implication of the verse, but according to the drashah of Chazal it is not so (Negaim 1:3).” There, it is explained that after the second week even if it maintains its hue, as long as it does not spread, it is pure. See also Divrei Dovid]. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  And a sacrifice. I.e., this is not the case regarding a <i>metzoro</i> who is [only] confined, who does not have any of these. Because the impurity of a confined <i>metzoro</i> is mentioned here as well as the impurity of a <i>metzoro</i> who is definitely impure, as [we see that] “impurity” is mentioned with regard to both of them, as it is written concerning the confined one, “and he shall wash his clothing,” which implies that he is impure, and regarding the definitely impure it is written, “the <i>kohein</i> shall declare him unclean...” [Therefore,] Rashi here lets us know the difference between them as well. 
  This. Rashi needs to explain this because מספחת (white discoloration) is the special name for a pure skin-eruption, [therefore,] he needs to explain that the word היא refers to the word המספחת, and its explanation is that the skineruption, which we would have thought is a מספחת and thus pure, is actually <i>tzora’as</i> and is impure. Above, however, concerning (v. 6): “מספחת היא (it is [merely] a white discoloration),” it surely refers to the word בהרת above, and since בהרת is a general expression for every brightly hued skin-eruption, it is fine to say, “מספחת היא,” that is, the mentioned above בהרת [is merely a white discoloration]. There, Rashi does not need to explain anything (<i>Re’m</i>). 
   is masculine. Rashi is answering the question: Above, it is written, “נגע צרעת הוא” [in the masculine form] which implies that <i>tzora’as</i> is masculine, but here it is written, “נגע צרעת כי תהיה,” which is the feminine form. For this reason Rashi explains: “Tzora’as is of feminine gender, but נגע is masculine.” Because of this, it is written above, “נגע צרעת הוא”; the word הוא refers to נגע which is masculine. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  As well as healthy [flesh] without white hair. [Rashi knows this] because later in this section it is written (v. 14), “On the day that healthy flesh appears on him he will become unclean,” which implies that if there is healthy flesh he will become impure even when the hair does not turn white. If so, that which it is written here: “and it has turned the hair white or there is healthy flesh” means: The hair turned white without healthy flesh or there is healthy flesh without the hair turning white. 
  It is a sign of uncleanness. [Rashi knows this] because we include from that which is written, “נגע צרעת”; why does Scripture need to write נגע? It should have written only צרעת [or only נגע]! Rather, [it must be that] it includes every appearance of a נגע if it has the signs which it continues to explain, constitutes a sign of impurity. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  It has produced healthy [flesh], I will declare it clean. Re’m writes: This raises a strong difficulty: From here it implies that healthy flesh is a sign of purity, and therefore one [might] say: “Since it has produced healthy [flesh], I will declare it clean.” Above, however, Rashi says: “Or there is healthy flesh” — “This too is a sign of uncleanness...”! It appears to me that Rashi is coming to answer why does Scripture need to write: “It is an old <i>tzora’as</i>...” It should have written only, “or there is healthy flesh in the spot of intense whiteness, and the <i>kohein</i> shall declare him unclean.” Rashi answers that Scripture itself comes to give the reason why we declare him impure when he has healthy flesh, [since,] on the contrary, he should be declared pure because the skin-eruption has begun to heal since it has healthy flesh. For this reason Scripture explained: “It is an old <i>tzora’as</i>.” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Of a man. And not from the head of the skin-eruption until its feet, for head and foot are not applicable with regard to it. Meaning: We should not say: from the head of the skin-eruption, for afterwards Scripture said: “The <i>kohein</i> shall see and behold! The <i>tzora’as</i> has covered all of his body” — of a man (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>). 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Healthy [flesh] could be seen. Meaning: “On the day” does not come to teach that the healthy flesh is a sign of impurity, since it has already indicated: “Or there is healthy flesh in the spot of intense whiteness, it is an old <i>tzora’as</i>.” Rather, it teaches about the tips of the limbs where the skin eruption cannot be seen all at once, since [the limbs] slope on either side, [the healthy flesh will <i>not</i> be a sign of impurity,] as it is written: “[The <i>kohein</i>] will see it,” [and the Rabbis taught in Toras Kohanim that he must see it] entirely [as one]. [If that limb subsequently became fat and the tip broadened so that its slope was exposed and now the entire skin-eruption can be seen at once,] I might think that since originally it was not seen in its entirety, now also, when it fattened and broadened and is entirely seen, the healthy flesh will [still] not be a sign of impurity. Therefore, it lets us know [that it is].
  
  From here they [the Sages] said: A bridegroom. [Rashi knows this] because it should say [only]: “ובהראות.”
  ולאיצטליתו. Meaning: His clothing, for the Targum Onkeles of (Bereishis 45:22):חמש חליפות (and five changes of clothing) is חמש איצטלוון. 
  During a festival, he is given all the days of the festival. Meaning: The <i>kohein</i> may not declare other people [other than bridegrooms] impure during a festival, until after the festival passes. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Because of a wound. [This raises a strong difficulty: Why did Rashi not include an inflammation that came by itself and not because of a wound? (<i>Re’m</i>)] It seems Rashi’s intention is that so much more so [there is impurity regarding] an inflammation which occurred by itself and not because of a wound. Rashi only comes to exclude an inflammation that was caused by a fire, since that is called a מכוה (burn). All this is obvious in Toras Kohanim and Chulin (8a). Re’m brought the Gemora in Chulin and the Toras Kohanim but did not realize it is a <i>kal vachomer,</i> and therefore he wrote what he wrote (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  The inflammation. [The inflammation healed] but not the flesh that had the inflammation, for you would not say the flesh “healed” as long as it has the שאת (spot of intense whiteness). Rather, it means the inflammation healed but the flesh is still afflicted. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  פתוך. In Shavuos (6a) Rashi explains פתוך means intermingled.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  The black hair in it [turned] golden. [Rashi knows this] from that which is written (v. 31): “When the <i>kohein</i> will see the skin eruption of nesek,” [thus,] “skin-eruption” is connected to “nesek”: Just as [we find concerning] the skineruption the white hair in it only makes one impure if it turned [from being black], so too, a nesek, the golden hair in it only makes one impure if it turned, as if it said: “And the hair in the skin-eruption <i>turned</i> golden.” 
  Such is the name. Otherwise, why does it change the name of this impure skin-eruption from the name of the impure skin-eruption [mentioned] above, as it is written (v. 25): “it is the skin-eruption of <i>tzora’as</i>”? (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 31
  
  If there was a black hair in it, he is [ritually] clean. [Rashi explains this] so that you will not explain: “And behold! it does not appear deeper than the skin,” even if it has a black hair, and I might think that a black hair is a sign of impurity, or if it has no black hair, even if its appearance is deeper than the skin, it requires confinement, and the ו of ושער שחור is like או (or). Therefore, Rashi explains that everything depends on the black hair, as it says: “And a black hair [grew in it, the nesek is healed, he is clean].”
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Or there was in it a golden hair. [Rashi explains this so] that you should not infer: “And behold, it did not spread,” even though it has a golden hair, or if it does not have a golden hair, even though it spread, it [only] requires confinement, and the ו of “ולא היה בו שער צהוב (and there was no golden hair in it)” is instead of או (or). If it had both signs, however, it would be definitely impure. Rather, you should infer as follows: “And behold, it did not spread” — and also — “there was no golden hair in it” — then, it requires confinement, as it implies: “And behold! the nesek did not spread and there was no golden hair in it,” the ו adds to the first subject. However, if it spread, even though it does not have a golden hair, or if it has a golden hair, even though it did not spread, it is unclean, as it is clearly written later in this section (v. 36): “The <i>kohein</i> shall see him and behold! the nesek has spread in the skin. The <i>kohein</i> shall not [even] look...” This implies that he is impure immediately when it spreads even though there is no golden hair. Consequently, we say the opposite as well: If there is a golden hair even though it did not spread [it is impure] (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  Tzohov [is] like zohov. That which Rashi explains this here and not above [where it says] (v. 30): “and there is a golden hair in it,” is because above it could be explained that whatever is not black is called <i>tzohov,</i> but after he explains that red and green are included in the word “ושער (<i>and</i> hair)” and are included in “black,” if so, it poses a difficulty: What does <i>tzohov</i> mean? Thus, he explains, etc. (<i>Devek Tov</i>). 
  Thus, an unclean [person]. Is not clean. You should not say since it is a Scriptural decree that the impurity and purity of skin-eruptions depends on the <i>kohein</i>’s declaration, [and] although a skin-eruption has all the signs of impurity he is not impure as long as the <i>kohein</i> does not say, “impure,” the same applies if he has signs of impurity and the <i>kohein</i> declares him pure he will be pure. Therefore, it lets us know: “He is clean, and the <i>kohein</i> shall declare him clean,” etc. Re’m writes: “The same applies if he was pure and the <i>kohein</i> declared him impure, he is not impure.” This lets us know that the impurity of skin-eruptions and their purity are only according to the word of the <i>kohein</i>, and the explanation is thus: Although a pure person developed certain signs of impurity, he only loses his previous presumption (<i>chazokoh</i>) [of being pure] by the word of the <i>kohein</i> who says to him, “You are impure.” The proof is from a bridegroom and festival (see Rashi 13:14). Similarly, a person that was certainly impure who was healed and developed the signs of purity only loses his <i>chazokoh</i> of being impure by the word of the <i>kohein</i> who tells him, “You are pure.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). The same applies if he was pure and the <i>kohein</i> declared him impure and erred, he will be pure. You need not ask: Why did Scripture not write this, which would be a greater novelty — that we are lenient and do not pay attention to that which the <i>kohein</i> declared him impure? [The answer is:] It is obvious that immediately when the <i>kohein</i>’s error in declaring him impure is discovered it will be as if the <i>kohein</i> never said anything. Consequently, the person is pure. This is not so regarding someone who is truly impure and the <i>kohein</i> erred to declare him pure, [it is not enough to say that it is as if the <i>kohein</i> never said anything], for the <i>kohein</i> needs to explicitly declare him impure, since any truly impure person is only impure when the <i>kohein</i> declares him impure (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  Other afflicted persons. Meaning: I [know] only of <i>nesokin</i> that require that “his garments shall have a tear in them and his hair...” You might ask: Rashi should explain this on [the verse that follows:] “His garments shall have a tear in them.” The answer is: This is Rashi’s view: Do not think you should say [the phrase] “his skin-eruption is on his head” is extra, as [I might think since] the entire section speaks about the head. Perforce, it comes to include other types of afflicted persons. You cannot say this, because we only learn from “his skin-eruption is on his head” other afflicted persons that are [of the sort] of skin-eruptions of <i>nesokim</i>, which resemble the baldness in back of the head or in front of the head, both of which are in the head — that his garments shall have a tear in them and all the rest of the laws of the impurity of baldness in back of the head or in front of the head, and that the <i>kohein</i> shall declare them impure. From where [do I know] to include even the other afflicted persons with <i>tzora’as</i> of the skin or flesh — that the ones afflicted with them shall tear their garments, their hair shall grow long, and the rest of the [matters] mentioned, and that the <i>kohein</i> shall declare them impure? The Torah states: “טמא יטמאנו (shall surely declare him unclean),” a twice repeated verb, to include all of them. This is what Rashi concludes at the end: “Regarding all of them it says: ‘His clothes shall have a tear in them’” (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 45
  
  [So that people] will keep away from him. Not that he should call others impure as what seems to be understood from Scripture.
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  By his slanderous tongue, he separated. For this reason he is called a <i>metzoro</i> — מוציא רע — one who slanders. 
  Beyond the three encampments. Meaning: From that which is written: “He shall dwell alone,” which implies that even other impure persons, [such as] a <i>zov</i> (one with a discharge) or impure person due to [defilement by] a corpse, should not sit with him. If so, perforce, “beyond the encampment” means beyond the three encampments, for an impure person from a corpse is permitted to be in the Levite camp but prohibited from the camp of the Shechinoh, and the <i>zov</i> is prohibited in the Levite camp but permitted in the Israelite camp, as it is written (Bamidbar 5:3): “and they not cause impurity in their camps (מחניהם),” and it does not say “מחנם.” This implies you should give one camp to this one and one camp to that one; one camp for the impure person due to [defilement by a] a corpse, and one camp for the <i>zov</i>. I will write more about this, God willing. 
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  Or of wool. The ל is like the ל of (Bereishis 32:18): “למי אתה” which means: To whom do you belong?
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  Prickly. Rashi explains: “As in the expression, ‘a prickly brier,’ which means a painful thorn. It is a verse in Yechezkel (28:24). Radak explains: A painful thorn, and the same appears in his <i>Shoroshim</i>. 
  
  Verse 52
  
  Of wool. Not that the ב is instead of של (of), but rather instead of a מ (from), as in (8:32): “והנותר בבשר ובלחם (and the left over from the flesh and bread).” 
  To exclude. And the ב is in its plain meaning, connected with the phrase, “he shall burn.”
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  The place of the eruption alone. Meaning: [You might think] only the place of the eruption is required to be washed but not the garment in which there is the eruption. [Therefore] the verse says: “the article having the eruption...”
  The verse says: “the eruption.” Meaning: Later in this section it is written regarding the washing of an eruption (v. 56): “And behold! The eruption grew faint after it was washed,” which refers to the eruption. Meaning: We cannot say the place of the eruption alone, since it says, “the article having the eruption,” and we cannot say the entire garment, because it should say “they shall wash [it]” [and not mention the eruption]. Would we not know that the eruption is in the garment? (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 55
  
  It did not fade. You should infer: Thus, if it did fade it is pure. [Its explanation is] not that it did not increase [from its appearance], and you would infer that if it increased it is pure or confined, for that is more severe than if it did not change its hue, which is impure (<i>Re’m</i>).
  
  All the more so if it did not turn [color] but spread. For spreading is more severe than not spreading, which is impure. 
  What should be done with it. This is because it is not mentioned in any place if [the case where] it turned is more severe than [the case where] it did not turn, or not. 
  
  Verse 56
  
  And burn it. Not that he should tear it alone, but rather he should also burn it. Even though burning was not mentioned [here,] it was already mentioned above (v. 55), and here it returns to explain the manner of burning — how it should be. Meaning: We cannot say the garment is just torn, for it is written, “from the garment.” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  That we do not proclaim him pure at night. You might ask: Why does Scripture need to write, “on the <i>day</i> of his purification”? It is written elsewhere (7:38): “On the day that he commanded” — in the day but not at night. The answer is: If it did not write, “on the day of his purification,” I might think that since his sacrifice is different than any other sacrifice, in that it requires waving while [the animal is] alive (v. 12), then its law is different as well. Therefore, it needed [to say,] “on the day of his purification” (so I found).
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Beyond the three camps. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to explain this? He already explained this above regarding (13:46): “Beyond the encampment.” The answer is that he explains a second time here for the following reason: So that you will not say that since it is written, “he shall be brought to the <i>kohein</i>,” it implies that the one who is afflicted with <i>tzora’as</i> should go to one of the camps, and there the <i>kohein</i> will examine him. Therefore, Rashi had to explain as he did, because it is written: “[The <i>kohein</i>] shall go out beyond the encampment.” And that which it is written, “he shall be brought...” does not refer to the one who is afflicted with <i>tzora’as</i>, but rather to the purification [process] of the one who is afflicted with <i>tzora’as</i>, i.e., [the means of] how the <i>metzoro</i> is purified from his <i>tzora’as</i> is by him being brought to the <i>kohein</i>. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Excluding טריפות. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say חיות? A bird is not a חיה (beast)! We cannot say that חיות means that they have to be alive and not dead, because it is written afterwards, “and he slaughters the one bird,” and it is written, “and send the live bird into the open field.” Rashi answers: “Excluding טריפות,” meaning: We require that they should be fit to be alive and not a טריפה because a טריפה cannot live. We need the exclusion for טריפות so that we will not say since it is not an offering, but rather it is slaughtered outside the encampment, טריפות would be acceptable for the <i>metzoro</i>’s purification. Thus, it lets us know [otherwise]. 
  Because. Re’m writes: This implies that Rashi holds the view that the expression ציפרים does not refer to a pure bird, but rather it refers to [both] impure and pure [ones]. This raises a difficulty, because in (Chulin 139b) [the Rabbis] taught: “An impure bird is exempt from [the mitzvah of] sending [away the mother bird]. What is the source of this? Rabbi Yitzchak said: As it is written (Devarim 22:6): ‘If a bird’s nest (קן ציפור) chances before you on the road.’ — The expression עוף implies both impure and pure, [but] ציפור — we find that a pure bird is called [ציפור]; an impure [bird] is not called [ציפור], etc.” Thus, [the expression] ציפרים in Scripture refers to pure and not to impure. It appears to me that Rashi was aware of this difficulty and answered it with that which he wrote: “Because [these] eruptions come...” [This poses] a difficulty: Why did he not explain this regarding “two birds,” but rather waited until here? It must be Rashi is coming to answer [the question:] Why does it say, “pure”? [The expression] ציפרים in Scripture refers to pure [ones]! Rashi answers: “Because, etc.” If so, hear from this that because of the chattering sounds he brings birds and not animals. If so, I might think that so much more so he should bring impure birds [which twitter and emit sounds more than pure birds, and that which it says in the verse ציפרים is not meant to exclude impure birds], but rather to include even pure birds, and so much more so impure [birds]. For this reason Scripture specified “pure.” Alternatively, the reason it is written, “ציפרים” is to indicate the twittering, because they twitter from the morning (צפרא), and ציפור (bird) is from the expression צפרא (morning), as Ramban writes. Nachalas Yaakov explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture exclude impure? They are not offerings; but rather he slaughters it outside the encampment in an earthenware vessel! On this he answers that the pure species include birds that chatter incessantly with twittering sounds, which is not so regarding the impure species.
  
  For haughtiness. This is why he needs to take cedarwood which is tall and the most beautiful of all the trees. You might ask: Scripture requires that he take cedarwood regarding <i>tzora’as</i> of houses as well, but what haughtiness of spirit does a house have? The answer is: The <i>tzora’as</i> that Hashem placed in houses was because the Emorites hid treasures in the walls of their houses, and therefore Hashem placed <i>tzora’as</i> in the houses so that the Jews would need to break down the houses and thus they would find the [hidden] treasures, as Rashi explains later (14:34). And someone who has a lot of money becomes haughty of spirit, as it says in Parshas Eikev (Devarim 8:13): “And your herds and your flocks multiply...” after which it is written: “And your heart grows haughty, and you forget, etc.” Therefore, Scripture requires him to take cedarwood, as if to say: Do not be haughty of spirit due to the large amount of money that [was hidden] in the house’s wall, which I gave you (<i>Mahara’i</i>). Above, Rashi explains: [Because eruptions come] for [the sin of] lashon hara! Both of them are one reason: One speaks lashon hara about others because of his haughtiness of the spirit, since they are not considered important at all in his eyes. You might ask: This explanation is valid for skin-eruptions on a person, but what will you say regarding eruptions in houses? There is no difficulty! The eruptions of houses come for the transgressions of people as well, as the Midrash says: The Merciful One does not afflict people first. Thus, all the eruptions are for the sake of a person’s atonement, because they come on account of him (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  A stick. This does not mean a cedar tree as the word עץ usually connotes, for how could he take the entire tree? 
  A strip (לשון). I.e., the wool was long like a tongue (לשון) and dyed crimson. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  First in a vessel. Because at first it is written, “in an earthenware vessel,” and afterwards it is written, “over running water.” How could that be? Rashi answers: Both are true: He [first] places [the water in a vessel]... 
  A fourth. [Rashi knows this] from that which is written afterwards: “And immerse them and the live bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird...” This implies that the blood should be recognizable in the water.
  
  Verse 6
  
  That he does not tie it with them. Rashi is answering the question: It should say “taking” once on all of them: “The [living] bird... [and the cedarwood, the crimson thread] and the hyssop he shall take them.” 
  Are wrapped together in the [crimson] strip. I.e., the cedarwood and hyssop, and also the crimson strip are wrapped together in a bundle, but the crimson strip is not wrapped around the [other] two. Rather, it was wrapped with them in a bundle with the remnants of the strip. 
  It is not included in the [requirement] of dipping. It appears to me that we should not explain that [Rashi means] it would not be included at all in [the requirement of] dipping, because Scripture writes: “and the live bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird.” Rather, it appears to me that this is what he means: Perhaps, just as it is not included in [the requirement of] tying together, but rather is taken by itself, so too it is not included in [the requirement of] dipping with the bundle. Instead, [it would have a] dipping by itself. [Therefore,] the verse says, “and he shall dip them and the live bird” — one dipping for all of them (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  That he is forbidden marital relations. [Rashi knows this] because we derive “his tent” from “your tents” as it is written concerning Matan Torah (Devarim 5:27): “Go say to them, ‘Return to your tents’,” where marital relations were permitted to them. Meaning: We cannot say [it means] that he should not enter his home, because since he has entered the Israelite encampment why should he not enter his home? (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>).
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Every place in which there is a collection of hair [which] is visible. “He shall shave off all of his hair,” a general statement; “his head, his beard, and his eyebrows,” a statement of particulars; “he shall shave off all of his hair,” again a general statement. [This constitutes a] כלל ופרט וכלל — and you must judge only like the particulars [i.e., the general statement must conform to the particulars listed between the general statements in the verse]. Just as the particulars are clearly in a place where there is a collection of hair which is visible, so too every place in which there is a collection of hair which is visible, such as the mustache. This excludes the hair of the armpits or of the genitals that although it is a collection of hair, it is not visible. And it excludes the hair on the hands that although it is visible, it is not a collection of hair as [written in] the statement of particulars.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  For a sin-offering. One lamb came for a guilt-offering, as it is written (v. 12): “The <i>kohein</i> shall take one lamb and bring it as a guilt-offering.” It did not specify anything, however, regarding the other lamb and the one ewe; it only states without specifying that one is for a burnt-offering and one is a sin-offering. However, the second lamb must be for the burnt-offering, because a female is not brought for a burnt offering, as it is written in Parshas Vayikra (1:3). Therefore, the ewe must be for the sin-offering (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  Require drinkofferings. I.e., [you might ask:] the other sinofferings and guilt-offerings do not require drink-offerings, as we derive (Menachos 91b) from Scripture: “For an expressed vow or for a voluntary offering” (Bamidbar 15:3) — that which comes as a vow or voluntary offering requires drink-offerings, but that which does not come as a vow or voluntary offering does not require drink-offerings. If so, I might think that these three tenths here are referring to a meal-offering that comes by itself, and not the meal-offerings of drink-offerings. [This cannot be,] for if so, it would require only one tenth for the burnt-offering. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain that they come for these three sheep. 
  And for placing on his thumbs. Rashi wants to give a reason for this log: Why is it not mentioned in any one of the drink-offerings of animals? On this he explains: “To sprinkle...” (<i>Re’m</i>). It appears that we can explain that Rashi is coming to explain so that we should not err to say that [this log] is for the oil of the meal-offering of drink-offerings. Concerning the difficulty raised by Re’m: How could we err to say [that this log is the oil that was mixed with the fine flour when it already says beforehand, “a meal-offering mixed with oil”?], etc. The answer is: This is what the verse says: “A meal-offering mixed with oil” — and how much oil does one [need to] mix with the meal-offering? — One log of oil. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain [what he does with the leftover oil]: “To sprinkle...” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  At the Nicanor Gate. [This gate] was in the eastern section of the Courtyard and a person who stands there and faces the west sees the entrance to the Sanctuary, and that is “before Hashem.” The interior space of Nicanor Gate was not sanctified with the holiness of the Courtyard so that the <i>metzoro</i>, who was missing atonement could stand there in order to put his hand inside [the Courtyard], to sprinkle on him. This was because someone who is lacking atonement that enters the Courtyard is liable <i>koreis</i>. Therefore, the Sages did not sanctify it [the interior space of Nicanor Gate] with the holiness of the Courtyard. See Re’m. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Into the [outer] court. [Rashi knows this] because it is written in the next verse: “He shall slaughter the lamb,” which implies that it is still alive. Thus, how could [it mean] they bring it as an offering? Rather, [it must mean] they bring it into the outer court. Rashi gives the reason for this [in the next comment:] In order to wave it when it is alive because “it requires waving [while it is still] alive,” unlike the fats of the peace offering [that require waving after slaughtering], etc. 
  The guilt-offering and the log. I.e., but [it does] not [refer to] the two lambs, the ewe, and the three tenths of the beginning of the section. Or, [perhaps] we should say that the lamb is not included in the waving, since the “bringing” refers especially to the lamb and the “waving” to the log. And why does it say “[he shall wave] <i>them</i>” which is the plural form? — To include the log and the tenths, but not the lamb. [Therefore, Rashi needs to say that even though “he shall bring it” refers specifically to the lamb,] nevertheless, since it is written afterwards, “and with the log of oil,” it is as if it says, “and he shall bring it and also the log of oil,” for both of them are included in this bringing. And when it repeats and says, “and he shall wave them,” it refers to the lamb and the log. Similarly, it is written explicitly regarding [the section] “If he is poor” [in v. 24]: “The <i>kohein</i> shall take the [guilt-offering] sheep [and the log of oil and the <i>kohein</i> shall wave them]” (<i>Re’m</i>). 
  
  Verse 13
  
  To be subject to being placed. You might ask: Why does Scripture not reveal with regard to the sin-offering and the burnt-offering that they too must be slaughtered in the north? They too departed from the general rule of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings to be subject to being placed [at the Nicanor Gate], as it is written (v. 11): “The <i>kohein</i> shall place,” which refers to all the offerings needed by the one undergoing the purification. The answer is: Why would you think they do not need to be slaughtered in the north? With regard to the guilt-offering it is understandable that Scripture needs to reveal [that it must be slaughtered in the north], because a guilt-offering is different in that its blood has to be put on the thumb and the ear’s middle ridge of the man undergoing the purification. [Thus,] I might think that it is permitted to slaughter the guiltoffering in the place where the man undergoing the purification is standing, since the <i>kohein</i> brings the blood there to put on his thumbs and the middle ridge of his ear. But with regard to the sin-offering and burnt-offering — no blood is needed there at all! 
  Has been made similar. The meaning of, “regarding all the services which depend on the <i>kohein</i>” is that just as with regard to the sin-offering the animal comes from unconsecrated [livestock], [it is offered] in the day, [the service is done] with the right hand, and it requires a [sacred] vessel, so too this guiltoffering. [But] it is not like a sin-offering to be given to the <i>kohein</i>. 
  Above as a sin-offering. Meaning: It is known that the height of the altar is ten amos, and in the middle of its height there was a red line around the altar to divide between the blood [placed] above and that [placed] below. Regarding the sin-offering it is written (4:25): “[The <i>kohein</i> shall take some blood of the sin-offering with his finger and put it] atop the corners of the altar.” Perforce [the sin-offering is] of the [offerings whose blood is] put above. But, regarding the guilt-offering it is not is written “corners,” perforce its blood is [put] below. 
  The verse says, etc. The verse says, “This is the teaching of the guilt-offering.” The word תורת always comes to include, so that the guilt-offering of the <i>metzoro</i> should have its blood placed below the red line, even though it is connected to the sin-offering pertaining to other matters. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Toward the Holy of Holies. Because now he is not lacking atonement and it is permitted for him to go to the Courtyard and within. Furthermore, this sprinkling is not at the Nicanor Gate, and so perforce this expression “before Hashem” means opposite the Holy of Holies. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  The meal offering [accompanying] the drink-offering. I.e., that is brought with an animal, which is the meal-offering of a drinkoffering and not a meal-offering that is brought on its own, because the meal-offering that is brought on its own has a fistful taken and the remnant is eaten by the <i>kohanim</i>. But this meal-offering is compared [through a היקש] to the burnt-offering which is entirely burnt, and so too, this meal-offering is entirely burnt.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  One tenth as its drink-offering. [Rashi is answering the difficulty] that it did not need to say “<i>one</i> [tenth fine flour].” It is fine that it mentions “one lamb,” that is understandable, since a wealthy person brings three animals it emphasizes that the poor person [brings only] one. But regarding the tenth, we cannot say this, since the tenth is secondary to the animal it only needed to say “a tenth fine flour.” Therefore, we need to say that the explanation of the verse is: “One tenth (ephah) fine flour, for this lamb, which is a [single] one.” Accordingly, the word “one” is connected to “lamb” and refers to the word “one” written by the lamb (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). Meaning: Rashi is answering the question: Why is it different from above where it requires three tenths but here one tenth? We cannot say because it decreased the [amount of] lambs, for this is fine [regarding] the lambs, because it requires in their place turtledoves or young pigeons, but nothing was required in place of the tenths at all. On this Rashi answers: Since the tenths are only brought only on account of the lambs and not for a meal-offering on their own, therefore, he brings only one tenth (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  The verse did not have to specify. You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above (v. 10) concerning the three sin-offerings [i.e., the three animal sacrifices of the wealthy man], where it requires three tenths for three mealofferings? There, as well, it is not written how much oil is needed for the drink-offerings of the meal-offering! The answer is: From that which Rashi explains: “One tenth fine flour, for this lamb,” he wishes to prove what he explained above — that the <i>metzoro</i>’s sin-offering and guilt-offering require drink-offerings. This is in order that you will not ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps the three tenths are for the drink-offerings of the burnt-offering alone, but the <i>metzoro</i>’s sin-offering and the guilt-offering are like the rest of the sin-offerings and guiltofferings that do not require drink-offerings. [Thus,] he explains: Regarding the poor man it says, “One tenth fine flour,” — “for this lamb, which is a [single] one,” he must bring <i>only</i> one tenth [as its drink-offering]. Consequently, it is impossible to say that regarding a wealthy man, three tenths [of flour] are for the burnt-offering alone, and there is nothing for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. For if so, why does the poor man bring only one tenth? Since concerning the rich man everything depends on the animal, and he needs to bring three tenths for one animal, then concerning the poor man there should be three tenths as well. Rather, [it must be] as I explained: The <i>metzoro</i>’s sin-offering and guilt-offering require drink-offerings. If so, the remaining two [are distributed] one for the sin-offering and one for the guilt-offering. Rashi is answering the question: Because of his [i.e., the one being purified] poverty, should he not bring less oil as well. On this Rashi answers: [This amount of oil is necessary] to put on his thumbs, which includes sprinkling seven times, upon the [ear’s] middle ridge, and upon the head of the one being purified. Therefore, this log is needed in his poverty as well (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  The eighth day from when the birds [were brought] and the sprinkling. Rashi is answering the question: It implies that on this [day], the eighth day from when the birds were brought, he is pure, but this cannot be, for on the eighth day he brings the offerings and, perforce, he is not pure beforehand. Upon this Rashi explains: “The eighth day from [the day when] the birds [were brought]...” and that day is also called purification from causing impurity due to lying down or sitting. You need not ask: How does Rashi know it is the eighth day from the sprinkling? Perhaps it refers to the day of bringing the burnt-offering, sin-offering, and guilt-offering. The answer is: Because it says above (v. 9): “It shall be, that on the seventh day, he shall shave off,” thus, it must be that “the eighth day” refers to [the day after] “the seventh day.” And even though above it also says (v. 10): “On the eighth day, he shall take two lambs...” — and there Rashi does not explain anything — that is because earlier it is written (v. 8): “He must remain, outside of his tent, for seven days,” and [in the next verse] it is written: “It shall be, that on the seventh day,” and then immediately afterwards: “On the eighth day.” [Thus,] it must surely refer to what precedes it.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Even if it had been cleaned. So much more so if the blood had not been cleaned, and you should not say if the blood is there it is an interfering factor between the oil and the thumb, [because] that it why it is written above (v. 17): “on [over] the blood of the guilt-offering.” And so the Gemora says in the first perek of Menachos (10a) (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  This is an announcement. Otherwise, it should say: “When there will be.” Why does it say, “And I shall put”? You might ask: This [reason] is fine regarding the eruptions in houses, but what is the reason for the eruptions on clothing? The answer is: Because they did not know which garments were used for idolatry and the eruptions came in those garments, and they had to burn them (so I found). Some raise the difficulty: This [reason] is fine regarding a returning eruption, whose law is to tear down the house, however, with a non-returning eruption — what can we say [i.e., what is the reason for such eruptions]? Furthermore, some ask: The Gemora says (Erichin, 16a) that eruptions of the house come because of miserliness! It seems that one [question] is answered by the other. Certainly, the eruption of a house comes because of a transgression, but Hashem’s kindness makes it possible that sometimes goodness will come out of the punishment, which [in this case] is the hidden [treasures]. This is included in the language of the Sages: A goodness [resulting] from miserliness, and this is the announcement (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>).
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  Something like an eruption. The Torah teaches good character traits. A person should use an expression of doubt, as Chazal said (Berachos 4a): Teach your tongue to say, “I do not know.” And with this, Rashi is answering the question: At first it said, “I shall put the eruption of <i>tzora’as</i>,” which implies that it is surely an eruption of <i>tzora’as</i> in the eyes of the beholder. Why then does it say afterwards that he says: “<i>Something like</i> an eruption,” an expression of doubt? Rather, Scripture is teaching us that even if he is a learned man and knows for certain that it is an eruption that causes impurity, nonetheless, it is a Divine decree that he should only say an expression of doubt. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question that according to the plain meaning I might think that it is a Divine mitzvah for the house-owner to come and declare this. However, this cannot be. Do you think that if the <i>kohein</i> happens to be there, or if he did not say the expression — “something like an eruption” — it would not be fine? Therefore, Rashi lets us know that this is only a warning that one should not decide the matter with absolute clarity; but if he is completely silent [and says nothing pertaining to the eruption], that too is fine (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 36
  
  And sees. I.e., immediately when the <i>kohein</i> sees the eruption everything in the house becomes impure, even if he does not tarry in the house the time it takes to eat a half a loaf [of bread]. Otherwise, what is Rashi coming to let us know? It is something that is obvious even to schoolchildren! 
  And with what was [the Torah] concerned. This raises a difficulty: How does Rashi know that the Torah was concerned with earthenware vessels? Perhaps it is for silk garments or other things that if he were to immerse them [in a <i>mikveh</i>] they would be ruined. The answer is: All the important [i.e., expensive] vessels are derived from what is written: “And they shall empty the house,” which is because of impurity. And if it comes to specify the reason explicitly it should [just] say: “so that which is in the house shall not become impure.” Why does it say, “everything”? Rather, this is to say he should empty the house even of objects that are not important [i.e., objects that are not expensive such as earthenware] (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> in name of <i>Paneach Raza</i>). 
  With earthenware vessels. You might ask: Let us say that he should use them when he is impure, as we say regarding impure food, of which he eats when he is impure. The answer is: Food is different because it is eaten over a minimal period of time and we are not concerned about a stumbling block [i.e., he will eat when it is prohibited for him to do so]. However, regarding a vessel, which lasts a long time, we are concerned perhaps it will come to be a stumbling block — that he will use it on the days he is pure or it will come in contact with <i>terumoh</i> or sacrifices (<i>Devek Tov</i>). 
  
  Verse 37
  
  Sunken. Re’m writes: This is very difficult in my eyes: If so, why does Scripture write afterwards: “And they appear to be lower than the [surface of] the wall”? Perhaps the answer is: Scripture itself is explaining itself what is the meaning of שקערורות.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  As: “and she shall remove.” I.e., the explanation of [the Targum] וישלפון is “he shall carry them away.” Afterwards, Rashi shows how Targum knows this explanation, and he says: “As [in the expression], ‘and she shall remove his shoe.’” However, Rashi is not able to explain that the <i>verse</i> means: “he shall carry them away,” because how would he know that? However, I do not understand his words: Is it not explicitly stated in the verse: “And cast them away”? Also, there is another difficulty: Every place where Rashi explains, “according to its Targum,” [he means to say] the explanation is not like the Hebrew, but here the Hebrew too is the same, as in “וחלצה (and she shall remove)”! Thus, it appears that Rashi is answering the question: It should say וחָלצו with a קמ"ץ under the ח, as in וחלצה, and not with a חירי"ק, which is הפעיל (a causative verb form). This is because it is written, “The <i>kohein</i> shall command,” so it should use ויפעלו (direct verb form) and not ויפעילו (causative). Therefore, Rashi brings the Targum וישלפון, and this completes the explanation. Furthermore, חילצו with a חירי"ק means ‘urging,’ but an expression of urging is not relevant here, therefore he brings the Targum (<i>Rav Yaakov Trivash</i>). 
  While they are still there. However, if they are not there they do not cause impurity to the place, because the earth cannot acquire impurity. This is similar to the house afflicted with eruptions — anyone who enters it is impure because of the eruptions that are in the house. Similarly, as long as the stones with the eruptions are in their place they cause impurity to the place because of the eruptions that are in the stones (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  
  Verse 41
  
  From within. מבית does not mean “from the house,” because it is missing the ה (מהבית). Also, it would not be understandable to say that he should scrape the house from the house. 
  Around the eruption. Because we cannot say all around the house, from the four walls, for if so, why does it say, “all around”? It is already written, “He shall scrape the house from the inside”! 
  Wherein they scraped. Because the word הקצו is of the form (Tehillim 106:33): “המרו את רוחו (They rebelled against His spirit),” and [since] the intention here is the scraping and not the border [i.e., edge], therefore, Rashi says it refers to that which they scraped within the border of the eruption all around. If it said, “אשר קצעו (which they scraped),” we would not know where that scraping is. 
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  An expression of something having been done. Meaning: This is the passive conjugation (נפעל), and so too הטוח, because the ה has a חיריק it is an expression התפעל (reflexive), i.e., the house was scraped within the border of the eruption, “but [the phrase] חלץ את האבנים כו'...” 
  Intense conjugation. I.e., it is one of the stressed letters, therefore it is vowelized with a חירי"ק, as in <i>dibbeir</i> (he spoke), <i>kippeir</i> (he atoned). 
  
  Verse 44
  
  “And if the eruption returns.” Meaning: The phrase “prickly <i>tzora’as</i>” does not refer to “the <i>kohein</i> shall come,” but rather to (v. 43): “If the eruption returns.” It is as if it says: “If the eruption returns” until “and after it was plastered” [skipping “the <i>kohein</i> shall come and see and behold, the eruption has spread in the house”] “prickly <i>tzora’as</i> is in the house, it is impure. He shall dismantle the house.” Then, [it returns to explain the laws of the confined house] (v. 46): “Whoever will come into the house...” until (v. 47): “Whoever will eat inside the house shall wash his garments,” and afterwards [we go back to] (v. 44): “The <i>kohein</i> shall come and see and behold! The eruption has spread,” he shall remove the stones, scrape, and plaster, “and the <i>kohein</i> shall return” as above (v. 39) [as Rashi explains further on]. 
  And finds that it spread. Meaning: The phrase, “[The <i>kohein</i> shall come] and see; and behold! [The eruption] has spread” does not refer to [the case where it] returns and sprouts, because we derive ממארת through a <i>gezeiroh shovoh</i> above (3:51) that even though it does not spread it is impure. If so, in [regard to] what is the verse speaking? If regarding [a case] where [the eruption] spread during the first [week], it was already mentioned (v. 39): “The <i>kohein</i> shall return on the seventh day and shall see; and behold! The eruption has spread.” [It must be then that it speaks] only regarding the <i>kohein</i> who comes at the end of the first week and found it unchanged in his sight and it spreads in the second [week]. [In this case] we derive “coming” from “returning” through a <i>gezeiroh shovoh,</i> just as later [he removes the affected stones and] scrapes and plasters and gives it another week, so too here. And the verse (45), “and he shall dismantle the house” refers to (v. 43) “If the eruption returns and sprouts,” of which Scripture did not speak at all, and it explains here that it must be dismantled. However, if it remains unchanged in the first week and spreads in the second week, he removes the stones, scrapes, plasters, and gives it a week. 
  And gives it a week. Meaning: I only know that he [removes the stones,] scrapes, plasters, and gives it a week; and if it returns and sprouts, he dismantles [the house] when it spreads at the end of the first week, because it had a spreading, and even if it remains unchanged in his eyes in the second week. Or, it was unchanged in the first week and spread in the second [week] he removes the stones, scrapes, and plasters. This is because we derive “coming” from “returning,” according to the aforementioned. However, where it is unchanged in his eyes during the first and second week — how do we know that even in this case he removes the stones, scrapes, plasters; and gives it a week, as in the case where there is a spreading? The verse says, “(ובא) he shall come,” and (v. 48): “(ואם בא יבא) and if he shall come he will come.” Meaning: It (v. 48) should say: ובא, why does it say: ואם בא יבא, twice? Perforce, it is to compare the two “comings” one to another: Just as regarding the first “coming” he removes the stones, etc. 
  If regarding [a case] where [the eruption] spread. I.e., we have not yet determined from this verse that it refers to [a case] when it is unchanged in this and that [week]. Because of this Rashi says: “In [regard to] what is the verse speaking? If regarding [a case] where [the eruption] spread during the first [week],” and he did not remove the stones, and in the end, when he comes on the second week to remove the stones it spread, behold, [it was already mentioned] he must remove the stones, scrape, and plaster, even though it did not spread in the second [week]. This is because it says (v. 39): “The <i>kohein</i> shall return on the seventh day...” implying that since it spread [at the beginning], he must remove the stones even though it remained unchanged afterwards. If it spread in the second [week], and he did not remove the stones and it was unchanged in the third week, and then, at the end of the third week, he found that it remained in the area to which it spread the first time, i.e., the spreading of the second week, [this too, has been mentioned] that since it spread he must remove the stones, etc. This is because it says (v. 44): “The <i>kohein</i> shall come and see; and behold! the eruption has spread,” which we established as referring to when it spread in the second [week], which implies he should remove the stones, etc. even though it is unchanged in the third [week]. 
  Thus, “he shall come,” “and if he shall come,” must deal... We should not have in our text here, “he shall come,” “and if he shall come...” Rather, the correct text is: Thus, “and if he shall come,” must deal with [a case] in which [the <i>kohein</i>] came at the end of the first week, even though it did not spread it is not pure. He confines the house and comes at the end of the second [week] and it did not spread. Even though it did not spread he removes the stones, etc. as Rashi explains in [the case where it is] unchanged. Re’m dwelt at length here but I shortened it. 
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  [But] not the days in which he scraped. Meaning: All the days of confinement perforce the impurity is there, and therefore a person who enters is impure. However, the days [after] he removes the stones, scrapes, and plasters do not cause impurity to a person who enters since the impurity is gone, until he begins to count the weeks of confinement. This raises a difficulty: Why would you think that a [house that has been] declared [unclean] would be lenient, and a person who enters it would not become impure? [A house that has been] declared [unclean] is more severe than a confined [house], as it says in Toras Kohanim and the Mishnah (Negaim, 13:4): “A confined house causes impurity from the inside and a declared [unclean house causes impurity] from the inside and from the outside”! It appears to me the answer is: Only when the stones upon which the eruption returned are in the wall does it cause impurity, even from the outside. However, if he scraped the stones even though the house stands to be dismantled [I might think] it will not cause impurity to a person who enters during the intermediate days. Therefore, it lets us know: “Any of the days...” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  Declared [unclean] which had been scraped. This is a house in which the eruption sprouted after he removed the stones, scraped, and plastered. The eruption returned and sprouted, and its eruption was scraped and the stones with the eruption were taken out. [I might think] that someone who enters will not become impure, [therefore,] the verse says, “any of the days.” Scripture should have written: “In the days of its confinement,” why does it say, “any”? This is to include [a house that has been] declared [unclean], even though it has had its eruption scraped, it causes impurity. Since it is standing to be dismantled, the entire house is impure and it causes impurity to a person upon entering. 
  That it does not cause impurity to clothes. Otherwise, Scripture should have written, “and he shall wash his garments and he shall be impure until the evening.” 
  As that in which one might eat half a loaf. Meaning: The volume of four eggs. [You would assume that it does not] cause impurity to clothes because Scripture writes without specifying: “Whoever will come inside the house... shall be impure until the evening,” which implies even if he stays there the entire day it does not cause impurity to clothes. Rashi continues explaining: “The verse says: ‘Whoever will eat... ’” I.e., just as whoever will eat stays there and his clothes become impure, the same applies to what Scripture writes: “Whoever will come inside the house” as well — if he stays [the period of time] in which one might eat half a loaf, it will cause impurity to clothes although he does not eat. This is because we cannot say only eating [causes impurity to clothes], but one who lies down, in which only staying is applicable, does not [cause impurity to clothes], since the verse says: “Whoever will lie down.” This teaches that the reason that “whoever will eat” [causes impurity to clothes] is not because of eating. Rather, it is because he stays, and the same applies to coming inside as well — if he stays [the period of time] in which one might eat [half a loaf] it causes impurity. We cannot say that the verse means only eating or lying down [causes impurity to clothes], but if he did not lie down or eat, for instance, he only came inside, even though he stays [the period of time in which one might eat half a loaf] it does not cause impurity to clothes. [Because] if so, why does the verse say: “he must wash...he must wash” two times. Scripture should have written: “Whoever will lie down inside the house or whoever will eat inside the house shall wash his garments.” Rather, perforce, it includes a person who comes inside and stays although he does not eat or lie down, but [only] stays, causes impurity to clothes. Then, Rashi continues and asks: If so, that the matter depends on staying, why does it say, “whoever will lie down”? It is fine [that it says] “Whoever will eat”, [because] it is needed to give the minimal amount of staying — as the minimal amount of eating. [But why is “whoever will lie down” needed?] If it is because of the extra phrase “he must wash,” which includes even someone who only stays without eating or lying down, then Scripture should write “whoever will come inside” in place of “whoever will lie down,” since coming inside is included in lying down. Why does the verse say, “whoever will eat” and “whoever will lie down”? Rather, it is to teach that a minimal amount of time is necessary for one who lies down. Rashi explains this verse (46) after (v. 48): “If the <i>kohein</i> shall come,” which is out of order, in order to juxtapose “If the <i>kohein</i> shall come” with (v. 44): “The <i>kohein</i> shall come and see,” because both are of one matter. Re’m dwelt at length but I made it short. Many raise the difficulty: Why is this different than a prohibition of eating, where the Torah prohibits an olive’s bulk? Why here is it the volume of four eggs? It appears to me that there is no difficulty at all: In all the other places Scripture does not intend to give the minimum amount, rather, it mentions the prohibition alone. However, we have established from a halachah of Moshe from Sinai [that the minimum amount is] an olive’s bulk. This is not the case here, where it intends to let us know the minimum amount. If it means to say as all the minimum measurements of all prohibitions — there is a prohibition in eating any amount at all, for example: something that is a living creature. Rather, it is referring to something that is the amount of a meal, which is the volume of four eggs (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  What day he is to declare [the house] pure. The ב of ביום טהרתו is like the ב of “ובחרושת אבן למלאות ובחרושת עץ (to cut stones for setting, to carve wood)” (Shemos 31:5), which means with regard to cutting stone. The same applies here as well, Scripture instructs with regard to the day of becoming impure and the day of becoming pure. [However, in Toras Kohanim the Rabbis taught: This teaches that in the day he declares impure and in the day he declares pure], that is, during the day but not at night, because we do not declare impure nor do we declare pure at night. [Rashi did not use this explanation because he already explained (v. 2): “on the day of his purification” — “This teaches that we do not proclaim him pure at night.” Also, from the verse above (13:14): “On the day that healthy flesh appears on him” the Rabbis derived (Moed Katan 8a): “This teaches that we do not proclaim him impure at night.”] 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Perhaps [a discharge] flowing from anywhere. Meaning: [I might think] even a flow from his mouth or nostrils or ears should be impure.
  [The Torah] declared a male with a discharge unclean and a female with a discharge unclean. If the verse did not distinguish, I might think that a [discharge] flowing from anywhere should be impure, even if it flows from the mouth or from the ear or from the nostrils. We cannot derive through a <i>gezeiroh shovoh</i> from a female, because we can refute: What [special characteristic does] a female have [that causes the law]? Because she becomes impure as a <i>zovoh</i> only through three sightings [of discharge] on three consecutive days to require seven clean [days] and an offering. However, three sightings on one day does not impart the law of <i>zovoh</i>. A male, on the other hand, has the law of <i>zov</i> even with three sightings on one day. If so, I might think [a discharge] flowing from anywhere would make him impure. However, now that the verse reveals: “<i>from</i> his flesh” — and not all his flesh — that [a discharge] flowing from anywhere does not make a <i>zov</i> impure, nevertheless, we do not yet know from which flesh a discharge flowing renders him impure and from which flesh a discharge flowing leaves him pure. [Therefore Rashi explains:] “I may argue...” 
  With a less severe impurity — נדה. Rashi calls נדה a less severe impurity because it does not require seven clean [days] and an offering, which is not the case regarding <i>zovoh gedolah</i> (a female who has had three sightings on three consecutive days), who requires seven clean [days] and an offering. 
  A drop [of discharge] that it causes impurity. You might ask: This is obvious! The <i>zov</i> becomes impure from that same drop of impurity with such a severe impurity that it causes impurity to people and vessels. Is it not more so that the drop [itself] causes impurity? The answer is: If Rashi did not explain I would have said that the drop does not cause impurity, because we can learn from the goat that is sent away — the one who deals with it becomes impure and causes impurity to others, but it itself is not impure. I might think that the same applies to a flow [of discharge], and therefore Rashi explains: “This teaches in regard to a drop...” 
  And dissolved. ודחוי means thin.
  To the white of an egg which is crushed. Meaning: [An egg] from a hen that rubbed on the ground and not from a male. Rashi means to say that you should not be troubled: Since its impurity is so severe that even one drop of the <i>zov</i> causes impurity, how will we know if one drop discharges from him? Perhaps it is a drop of semen and he is pure, or [perhaps] a <i>zov</i> and he is impure. Upon this Rashi explains: “[This] discharge resembles water of dough...” 
  
  Verse 3
  
  And the third requires him [to bring] a sacrifice. Meaning: If he sees the first sighting he is like someone who sees semen who only causes impurity [to another person] through touch, and with the second sighting he causes impurity also with carrying, lying down, sitting, and he must count seven clean [days]. Upon the third sighting he must also bring an offering, as it says in the first chapter of Megillah (8a): The only difference between the second sighting and the third sighting for a <i>zov</i>, is the offering.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  The verse says: “Upon which he lies.” Meaning: For instance, a bakers’ plank or large kneading trough. 
  Get up so that we can do. I.e., when it is being used for other work it is impossible that he could continue lying on it. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Secondary source of uncleanness. I.e., the bed that the <i>zov</i> touches is a primary source of impurity, and it causes impurity to a person [who in turn] causes impurity to clothing that he is wearing, as it is written, “shall wash his garments and bathe in water.” However, something which is not specifically [used] for lying down and is touched by the <i>zov</i>, is not a primary source of impurity. Rather, it is a secondary cause of impurity, which is only a first. When in contact with the <i>zov</i>, the item causes impurity to a vessel which it touches that is purified by immersion; but it does not cause impurity to a person or earthenware vessels. After the <i>zov</i> separates from it, the item only causes impurity to food or drink. The meaning of “more severe than touch” is [that it is more severe than touch that is] not [associated] with lying down. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Even ten vessels one on another. As it is written, “Whoever sits on the vessel that was sat upon by a <i>zov</i>.” This makes a comparison between the sitting of the pure person and the sitting of the <i>zov</i>: Just as the sitting of the <i>zov</i> causes impurity to the vessels even though he does not sit on the vessel, such as the case of the “placed” stone (see later), so too is the sitting of the pure person who acquires impurity from the vessel which contracted impurity from the <i>zov</i>, even if he does not touch it. A “placed” stone is a stone placed on pegs with vessels underneath it, as it is written (Daniel 6:18): “And a stone was brought and placed on the mouth of the pit.” If a menstruant woman or a <i>zov</i> sit on it, even though their weight is not felt on the vessels, the vessels are impure, as it is written (v. 10): “Anything which is beneath him.” Rashi (Shabbos 82b). 
  And so [too] in regard to a bed. [Rashi knows this] because we derive through a מה מצינו (comparison) from sitting. Meaning: If a pure person lies down on a “placed” stone (see above) and a <i>zov</i>’s bed was underneath the stone, the pure person becomes impure even though the stone separates between them, and the stone does not acquire impurity; nonetheless, he is impure. Although it is written only regarding sitting, we derive lying down from it as well, since lying down and sitting are equal in their severity of touch, to cause impurity to clothing, [thus,] they are one matter. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Because spittle causes uncleanness by means of carrying. This is how it is derived: “If the <i>zov</i> spits on a ritually clean person (בטהור),” and it is not written, “upon (על) the ritually clean person,” i.e., [he spits] on what is in the hand of the pure person, that is, if he spits on the staff that is in the pure person’s hand who is carrying it, he becomes impure. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Even if he had not sat. Meaning: He does not actually sit on it, which would be sitting mentioned in the verse (6). Rather, [this refers to] the side of the saddle, which is the wood in the front and back of the saddle that he does not sit upon, but rather the rider holds onto it so he will not slip forwards or backwards. Therefore, it is called the ‘hold,’ since he holds onto it. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  [Beneath] the zov. I.e., not beneath “anything used for riding” which is juxtaposed to this phrase. Rather, it refers to the <i>zov</i> — that is, [a pure person who] touches the saddle that was underneath the <i>zov</i>, becomes impure but he does not require washing clothes. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  As he did not immerse. This refers to the <i>zov</i> and not to the one who touches him, to teach that before he immerses he is impure and requires washing clothes. Otherwise, Scripture would only need to write, “If a <i>zov</i> touches anyone, he shall wash his garments and bathe in water.” Why does it say, “And his hands were not rinsed”? Meaning: We cannot say it means literally “his hands,” literally, because it is written (v. 13): “and bathe his <i>body</i> in [running] water, and he will be purified” (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>). 
  Hidden parts. For instance: Inside his mouth, the opening of the male member below, or inside of body folds, which although the water does not enter there, he is pure. We only require that it should be fit for the water to enter. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  This is [when one] causes it to move. Meaning: Its movement to and fro is caused entirely by the <i>zov</i>’s power, because there is no [such thing as] partially moving, only entirely. The reason Scripture uses the expression “touching” for “moving” is to say that touching is compared to moving — just as touching is [accomplished] with his hands from outside, so too, moving is [accomplished] with his hands from outside — to exclude [the case of] a reed [held] in the <i>zov</i>’s body folds. If there was a reed in his body folds and he moved a pure [object with it], it is pure, since the moving is caused only by his hidden parts. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  When he stops. That is, the purity [cessation] of blood [i.e. discharge] and not the purity [cessation] of his impurity, for it is written afterwards: “and bathe in running water and he will be purified.” 
  That he not see. Meaning: These seven days have to be pure from the impurity of discharge, otherwise, why does it say, “When a <i>zov</i> will become ritually clean... he shall count for himself...” which implies if it does not stop he does not count? If these days will not be pure from discharge, he has not stopped! Rashi continues to explain: “And all of them consecutive,” as it is written, “for his purification” — that his purification shall be as one. Meaning, he did not see a discharge in the middle, and if he saw in the middle, it disrupts the first days and he must begin to count another seven clean days.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Contact with one’s inner parts. And contact with inner parts is pure even regarding a <i>zov</i>. [This is because] from a <i>zov</i> we learn that contact with inner parts does not cause impurity, from that which Scripture uses the expression “touching” in the case when the <i>zov</i> moves something. We learn from here that all contact with inner parts does not cause impurity, because it is “a Royal decree.”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Only saw one sighting. [This is] because “she shall be” is extra. This is what it means: “When a woman sees blood even one time, for seven days she will be in [the state of] her menstrual impurity.”
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Even if he did not touch [it]. This is as Rashi explains above (v. 6) regarding: “Whoever sits on the vessel” — “even if he did not touch [it].” Above (ibid.), I explained Rashi’s proofs that lying down and sitting cause impurity even though he does not touch the vessel. Rashi’s view is thus: Do not think that [the phrase] “when he touches <i>it</i> he shall be impure until the evening,” which it says after [the phrase], “If he is on the bed...” implies that even if he touches the bed, chair, or saddle he does not require washing clothes, and the explanation of the word “it” would be: “in each one of them.” This cannot be, for it does not refer to “If he is on the bed...” This is because even if he does not touch it he requires washing clothes. We need not ask: To what does the phrase “when he touches it he shall be impure until the evening” refer? Therefore Rashi explains: “On the vessel — to include...” I.e., why does it need to say, “on the vessel”? It only needs to say, “that she is sitting on.” Rather [it must be]: “To include a saddle.” If so, that which is written, “when he touches <i>it</i>...” refers to a saddle, as Rashi explains later that it does not require washing clothes. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  Perhaps he will join her in her state. Meaning: For her sake, as in the expression (Shemos 11:8): “And all the people that follow you (ברגליך),” which means: that are drawn after you. [Perhaps] he will enter the days of her purity for her sake, i.e., straight away when she enters the days of purity he will immediately follow her. [Therefore,] the verse says... 
  
  Verse 25
  
  Three. And so we learn in Toras Kohanim: Many days, three; or perhaps it means ten? It says “days” and it says “many.” The minimum number for [the plural] “days” is two; so too, the minimum number for [the adjective] “many” is three. Perhaps two and three equals five? But does it say “days <i>and</i> many”? etc. We need not ask from the phrase “many days” regarding Yaakov where Scripture writes (Bereishis 37:34): “He mourned for his son for many days,” and Rashi explains it means twenty-two years. This is because regarding Yaakov, we cannot explain it means three days, for what would Scripture be informing us [by saying] that he wept for three days? Any man would mourn three days! Furthermore, regarding the laws of the Torah where it is written, “her [blood-]flow, many days,” and one must give a minimum amount for the matter. Otherwise, we would not know how many [days] constitutes a <i>zovoh</i>, thus, one must explain there a minimum amount. And that is: If you hold onto the minimum amount you will take hold, but if you take hold of too much, you will lose everything, and that is the Torah’s measure. However, the verse, “He mourned for his son for many days,” only comes to tell us an excessive amount, and we do not need to know any minimum measurement — how many days, no more or no less. Scripture does not depart from its plain meaning (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  Seven days of her menstrual uncleanness. Meaning: After the seven [days] she saw three consecutive days, then, she is a <i>zovoh</i> and she requires seven clean days and a sacrifice. However, if she saw three consecutive days within the time of her menstrual impurity she is only a menstruant woman [and she counts seven days even if she sees during that time, and if she stopped seeing at the end of] seven she immerses and is permitted to have marital relations with her husband. She needs neither seven [clean days] nor a sacrifice. For this reason the verse needs to say, “Outside her menstrual cycle,” to teach this. The first section in which it is written, “When a woman has a discharge,” refers [to the case] when she saw one day or two days, where she is a <i>zovoh ketanoh</i> (lesser <i>zovoh</i>). Re’m writes: However, this raises a difficulty: Why did Rashi derive this teaching from the verse, “outside her menstrual cycle”? Why did he ignore the Beraisa in Toras Kohanim which derived this teaching from the phrase, “<i>after</i> her menstrual cycle”? However, I am astounded that the Rav missed what the Rabbis derived at the end of Maseches Nidah (73a), and Rashi’s words are explicit in the Talmud in Maseches Nidah, see there. 
  These three days. I.e., it does not mean, “if [the discharge] flows” without specifying — even one day — because someone who has a flow of one day is not a <i>zovoh gedoloh</i> but rather a <i>zovoh ketanoh,</i> and she “keeps watch day by day.” In the evening she immerses herself and is permitted to have marital relations with her husband. Rashi mentions “these” as if to say: Those mentioned above. This is so that you will not ask: Why does the verse not specify? [The answer is] because they are mentioned above. 
  After. We should not say “close to her menstrual cycle,” i.e., she never stopped seeing all the seven days of her menstrual cycle, and on the eighth day of her menstrual cycle she also saw. If so, she is still a menstruant woman, and she does not enter the category of a <i>zovoh</i> until she stops [seeing completely] and becomes pure for at least one day. This demonstrates that she stopped seeing the menstrual blood and the source of the menstrual blood is closed. And from this point, another source [of blood] has been opened. Here as well, Re’m says that Rashi’s words originate in the Midrash of Toras Kohanim and he raised a difficulty (see there). However, Rashi’s comment originates from the Midrash Aggadah in Maseches Nidah (73a), and there it was expounded from the verse, “<i>Outside</i> her menstrual cycle” — close to her menstrual cycle, and from the verse, “or if it flows <i>after</i> her menstrual cycle” — distant from her menstrual cycle. 
  For three. Meaning: [Regarding] all the blood of a woman, from the day she has a regular monthly period until she dies or until her period changes to a different day, she counts seven [days] from the beginning of the day of her period, and then afterwards eleven days. And after them, seven [days], and thus the cycle repeats over and over again. All the blood she sees in those seven days is the blood of menstruation, and she sits seven days in her menstrual cycle, even if she saw only one day, and even if blood flowed freely all seven days of her menstrual cycle and stopped within the seven [days] before evening, she immerses and is permitted to have marital relations with her husband. She does not need [to count] seven clean days or [to bring] a sacrifice. All the blood she sees in the eleven days between one menstrual cycle and the next are the blood of zivah. The following is her law: If she sees one day or two days during those eleven days she “keeps watch day by day” and is only impure the day of the sighting alone. And the next day, if she does not see [blood] that entire day she immerses in the evening and is permitted to have marital relations with her husband. But if she sees three consecutive days in those eleven days then she needs [to count] seven clean days and [to bring] a sacrifice. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  Separation. This is because the ז of והזרתם is stressed, bringing a נ before it, as if it is written, והנזרתם. Thus, the root of היזרתם is נזר (to abstain from). 
  One who causes impurity to the sanctuary is called “death.” Rashi is answering the following question: here it mentions “death” regarding causing impurity to the Temple, but “death” connotes that he is cut off but his seed is not cut off, whereas <i>koreis</i> — he <i>and</i> his seed are cut off. However, it is written in the beginning of Parshas Chukas that causing impurity to the Temple is punished by <i>koreis</i>! He answers: “Thus the ‘being cut off,’ etc.” Thus, “death” refers to, in general, death by the hands of Heaven, and [it includes] the particulars as well.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  One who has had two sightings. Rashi is answering the question: It compares a <i>zov</i> to one who had a seminal emission (v. 32) to let us know that his impurity is only like that of one who had a seminal emission, which is impurity until the evening. But afterwards it is written: “For the menstruant woman during her period of separation...” comparing him to a menstruant woman, whose impurity is more severe. On this Rashi explains that this refers to one who had two sightings, whose is impurity is more severe as explained above: One who has two sightings is compared to a menstruant woman who does not bring a sacrifice. By mentioning three [types of] persons with a discharge Scripture teaches that one who has had three sightings brings a sacrifice as well, as it is explained clearly in the section above (v. 14).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  In a damp place. טחב refers to any place that cools or dampens [a person]. The explanation of the verses is as follows. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe” [and then repeat, “Adonoy spoke to Moshe.”] It should merely have written, “After the death [of two sons of Aharon] ... Adonoy spoke to Moshe, Speak to your brother Aharon...” Alternatively, it should have written, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe after the death [of two sons of Aharon]... Speak to [your brother] Aharon... Why does it write [“And Adonoy spoke to Moshe,” and then repeat], “Adonoy spoke to Moshe.” Regarding this Rashi explains: “Why does the verse say [this]...” He then cites the parable of Rabbi Elazar in order to say that the verse is like this parable... And thus, “This [second speaking to him clearly] urged him on more than the first one.” The verse, too, means the same when it is written, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe” [and repeats it]. [The first time the verse says “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe], means [that He instructed] Moshe to only tell Aharon not to come into the Holy that is inside of the curtain and not to mention [that he can incur] death similar to the death of his sons. Afterwards, the verse writes “After the death ... Adonoy said to Moshe...” meaning that the Holy One spoke again to Moshe to tell Aharon something else — he should warn him a second time to not come into the Holy, and [this time] also mention the death [of his sons] as it is written, “After the death of two sons of Aharon ... Adonoy spoke to Moshe, Speak to your brother Aharon ... so that he not die.” I.e., if you do not come into the Holy you will not die as your sons died, but if you come into the Holy as your sons did, you too will die like them. <i>Re’m’s</i> text of Rashi is different, see there. Aharon’s sons did not die for entering the Holy of Holies, the place where Aharon was forbidden to enter at all times. If so, what proof does the death of his sons serve to support this warning? The verse means as follows: Aharon should not enter [the Holy of Holies] at all times in order not to die as his sons died when they entered a place forbidden to them. Similarly, he should not enter a place that is forbidden to him. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  For if he enters, he dies. Rashi needs to say this. Because according to his explanation that the verses are a parable of two doctors, and that the second doctor gave a greater warning — so that you do not die in the way so and so died, you might ask that the verse only writes “that he not die,” and does not write that if he comes in he will die. Instead [it writes] that if he does not come in he will not die, which implies, the way his sons did not come in and did not die. Rashi answers that the words “that he not die” also hint that if he comes in he will die, because from the negative you infer the positive. 
  For I constantly appear. According to this explanation, כי is a reason for the above, the cause why the person who comes into the Holy dies. Thus the word כי here means “because,” like every כי in Scripture. And בענן means an actual cloud. Rashi explains further “For I constantly appear,” because the word אראה is [usually] in the future tense. Therefore Rashi explains אראה [here] as meaning “I appear” which is a present participle, since Hashem’s appearing in the future would not cause someone to die. 
  Except with the cloud of incense [on Yom Kippur]. According to the explanation of our Rabbis [the Midrash], it seems that כי here means “except,” i.e., he shall not come to the Holy except with the cloud of incense on Yom Kippur, and [the verse calls it a cloud] because the smoke of the incense is like a cloud. This differs from the previous explanation where Rashi said it meant “a pillar of cloud,” i.e., that the Divine Presence rests inside. Rashi does not mean that he comes in from outside with the cloud of incense, as this is the opinion of the Sadducees. He is only excluding his earlier interpretation where he said it was the cloud where the Divine Presence resides. Regarding Rashi saying “on Yom Kippur,” Rashi himself soon explains that the whole section is talking about Yom Kippur.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Its [בזאת] gematria is 410. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse say “with this”? You cannot say that it refers to the sacrifices mentioned afterwards because if so it should have said “With <i>these</i> Aharon shall come” in the plural form, since there were two sacrifices. Also, זאת is a feminine expression and the sacrifices mentioned afterwards are male [animals]. If so, the verse should not have said “with this” at all, but merely said, “For in a cloud I shall appear on the Ark-cover, and with a young bullock, for a sin-offering Aharon shall come...” Therefore, it must be hinting at the number of years that the First Temple stood. You might ask: Were there only <i>kohanim gadolim</i> in the First Temple? Were there not <i>kohanim gadolim</i> in the Second Temple as well? The answer is as follows: The <i>gematria</i> of בזאת tells you how many years there would be <i>kohanim</i> like Aharon [i.e., <i>kohanim gadolim</i>] who were anointed with the anointing oil. After the First Temple, however, they no longer anointed them with anointing oil like Aharon, because at the end of the First Temple era the anointing oil was hidden away from the time of [King] Yoshia onwards, as Rashi explains later. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> asks: How do we know that one is warned against entering the Holy in the Second Temple? Perhaps this law only applies to the first Temple that stood this number of years? The Toras Kohanim answers as follows: “Why does v. 3 say ’into the Holy’? Did it not already say in v. 2 ’That he not come at all times into the Holy that is inside of the curtain.’ Why does it say ’into the Holy’ a second time? Because the verse said ’into the Holy that is inside of the curtain before the Ark-cover that is on the Ark.’ You might think that this only applies to a Holy [sanctuary] that has an ark. From where do we know that we make a Holy [sanctuary] without an ark the same as a Holy [sanctuary] that has an ark? Because the verse says ’into the Holy’ again.” You might ask: If so, why does the verse write בזאת to hint [at the years of the First Temple] if this prohibition applies in the Second Temple as well? Perhaps this teaches that if one enters the place of the Holy of Holies after its destruction one is not liable. Thus the verse refers to the First Temple as “into the Holy” to hint that one is liable because of its holiness, and therefore [entering] the Second Temple that is also holy [also] makes one liable. [But after its destruction one is not liable.] 
  But [only] on Yom Kippur. Even though Rashi already explained earlier regarding “for in a cloud I shall appear,” that this was on Yom Kippur, [Rashi repeats this] so that you should not say that only when there is only a cloud [of incense] may one may come in only on Yom Kippur. But if one brings a young bullock, for a sin-offering and a ram, for a burnt-offering one can come in even during other days of the year. Therefore Rashi explains here, “And this too, not at every time.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  He does not perform the Service within etc. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah already mentioned wearing these garments in <i>parshas</i> Ve’ata Tetzaveh? Therefore, he explains, “[This] tells us...” 
  But with four [garments] like an ordinary kohein.. Here too, it seems that he is answering the question: Why does it specifically write the garments of a regular <i>kohein</i>? 
  That it should come from the Temple treasury. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse write, “He shall don a sanctified...,” which implies that they are holy even before he wears them? What holiness can they have before he wears them? You cannot answer that he wore these garments on the previous Yom Kippur and this is speaking of a second Yom Kippur, because immediately after wearing them they need to be hidden away and the <i>kohein gadol</i> never serves in them again as it is written (verse 23) “and place them there.” Therefore Rashi explains: “That it should come from the Temple treasury,” meaning he should buy them with money of the Temple treasury. Since we find that he buys the bull with his own [money], you might have thought that the garments too should be from his own [money]. Therefore the verse informs us [that this is not so]. The reason the bull comes from his own [money] is since it comes for [his personal] atonement as it says (verse 6), “And atone on his own behalf and on behalf of his household.” On the other hand, he prayed in the garments on behalf of all Israel. I found this. 
  He shall place [on his head]. According to this, the ב' of ובמצנפת is superfluous, similar to the ב of ברוחו שמים שפרה, “His wind calmed the heavens” (Iyov 26:13), which is also superfluous. It is as if the verse said ומצנפת בד יצנוף. The בי"ת should be understood as a substitute for עם (with), as if it said, “With a linen turban he should wind around his head.” In the Targum too, ומצנפתא is without a ב. The Targum has to say this [translating יצנוף as “to put”] because the expression of צניפה does not exist in Aramaic. But in Scripture where we do find words like צנוף [and] יצנוף [which mean to surround], the ב has the meaning of עם (with) as in the phrase ובאבנט בד יחגור, “He shall gird himself with a linen sash.” Here too it means, “He shall surround his head with a (linen) turban.” Rashi cites the Targum to inform us that the expression צניפה refers to the head [only] and not to somewhere else. And incidental to this he explains that that יחית means “to place.” 
  He would change. The following is the order of the Services on Yom Kippur: First, he immersed and donned the golden garments for the daily morning sacrifice which is a Service outside. Afterwards he removed the golden garments and immersed, and donned the white garments to perform the Services of the bull and the goat and the incense of the hand shovel inside. Then he removed the white garments and immersed, and donned the golden garments to perform the Services of his ram and the ram of the people and some of the additional sacrifices outside. Afterwards he removed the golden garments and immersed, and donned the white garments and entered inside to remove the spoon and the hand shovel. Afterwards he removed the white garments, immersed, and donned the golden garments to perform the Services outside, to sacrifice the remaining additional sacrifices and the daily sacrifice of the evening and the [daily evening] incense. Analyze this and you will find it so. As Rashi explains later on v.24, “He shall wash his flesh in water,” this (v. 4) indicates that he has to immerse before donning the white garments, and later (in v. 24) too it is written that he had to immerse before donning the golden garments. Therefore, we say that he must immerse whenever he changes from the golden garments to white garments or from the white garments to the golden garments. Rashi also explains that he requires two sanctifications, because verses 23 and 24 write “he shall wash” between “and remove” and “and don.” [“Aharon will then come into the Tent of Meeting <i>and remove</i> the linen garments that he wore.... <i>He shall wash</i> his flesh in water in a sacred place <i>and don</i> his garments.”] This is to apply washing to both the removing [his garments] and the donning [his garments], and if it is not to teach immersion which we have already learnt [from other sources], we use it to teach sanctification. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  And not from public [funds]. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “which is his,” if no other bull is mentioned in this <i>parsha</i> except that of Aharon as it is written, “With this Aharon shall come... with a young bullock?” [He answers]: This indicates that he must bring the sacrifices from his [property]. In addition, since it is written above, “He shall take, from the congregation of Israel two he-goats etc.,” it indicates that the sacrifices written above he brought for himself [i.e., with his own funds]. 
  He confesses over it. [Rashi says this] since it is impossible to say that this means actual atonement, as there is no atonement until after throwing of the blood as it is written below (verse18), “[He shall go out to the altar that is before Adonoy] and atone on it. He shall take some of the bullock’s blood [and some of the he-goat’s blood] and put it atop the corners of the altar, [all around].” But [here] this animal is still alive because afterwards (verse 11) it is written “And he shall slaughter his sin-offeringbullock.” Therefore, we learn from לכפר עליו, that it means “to achieve atonement with it” (verse 10), and [just as the atonement there is through confession, here too] it means through confession. I found this. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  One to his right and one to his left. [Rashi adds this comment] because it is written, “Aharon shall put lots on the two he-goats,” indicating that he places lots on both of them with one act of placement, and this is impossible unless one is in the right hand and one in the left hand.
  
  A high cliff. Azazel connotes both [strength and power] as it is a compound word עזז אל (strength, power), and אל connotes power as in the verse (Yechezkel 17:23), “And he took away the powerful (אילי) of the land.” Rashi explains further: How do we know it was a mountain? Because it says “A land cut off (גזירה),” and גזירה connotes “cut off.” [This indicates a mountain] because if one cuts a trench in the earth, a mountain automatically results, since for someone standing in the trench it is the same as standing in the valley of a mountain. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  “A sin-offering.” I.e., “And do (offer) it as a sin-offering” means “he calls it a name... ‘a sin offering.’” You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it means that he sacrifices it for the sake of a sin-offering, as is indeed the law of a sin-offering? The answer is: Later in the <i>parsha</i> (verse 15) it is written, “He shall slaughter the he-goat sin-offering,” which implies that he had not yet sacrificed it. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  Why does the verse say [this]? Explanation: because it [already] said יעמד, “it shall stand,” and “standing” implies that it is alive. If so, why does the verse say “alive?” 
  That he shall confess over it. But not atonement of blood, because this goat was not sacrificed and its blood is not received [in a vessel], as it is sent to Azazel. In addition, this cannot be [referring to the] blood atonement [of his bullock], because his bullock was not yet slaughtered.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  And his brother kohanim. You might ask: Why does Aharon not atone for his brother <i>kohanim</i> with the first confession that he confesses on his behalf and on behalf of his household? The answer is: Because it is written, התקוששו וקשו (Tzephanya 2:1). [Although this actually means, “Gather yourselves together, gather yourselves], Reish Lakish said, [read the word התקוששו as התקושטו and say,] קשוט לעצמך ואח"כ קשוט אחרים, “Ornament yourself before ornamenting others.” Therefore, Aharon first confesses only on his behalf and on behalf of his household, and afterwards, during the second confession, he confesses also on behalf of his brothers. And the word “his household” [in this verse] also refers to his brothers as it says, “House of Aharon...” <i>Gur Aryeh</i> asks: Why does Aharon have to atone for himself twice? He answers: [to atone] for a sin that occurred between the first confession and the second confession, as <i>Chazal</i> say, it would be fitting for Israel to offer their sacrifices every hour, except that Scripture had mercy on them. Therefore, here where he anyhow has to confess for his brothers the <i>kohanim</i>, he again confesses his own sins. Also, because the bullock belongs only to him, it is not fitting that he confess over it only on behalf of the [other] <i>kohanim,</i> but rather they are subsidiary to Aharon as [belonging to] “the house of Aharon.” Therefore, in the second confession he once again confesses, “I and my household, the <i>kohanim,</i>” who are subsidiary to Aharon. 
  Impurity to the Temple. With this, he also wants to prove that when it is written “and on behalf of his household,” it refers to his brothers the <i>kohanim.</i> Because its whole atonement is only for impurity to the Temple and its holy things, therefore all the <i>kohanim</i> need atonement for this. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  The outer [one]. Because it is written “From atop the altar, which is before Adonoy,” and Rashi explains, “From the side [of the altar that is] before the entrance [to the Sanctuary], and that is before Adonoy.” Perforce, this must be the outer altar, because if it is the inner altar, how can it say “before Adonoy,” which implies the side [of the altar] that is before Hashem? The entire inner altar is before Hashem! Rather, it is the outer altar, whose western side is opposite the eastern side of the Temple, where the Temple entrance is located, and which is called before [Hashem]. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Which is within [the incense-pan]. [Rashi says this] to preclude explaining that there was another fire “before Adonoy” onto which he put the incense. Therefore he explains that he places the incense “’on the fire’ which is within the incense-pan.” “Before Adonoy” means [that he put the incense on the fire] inside [the Holy of Holies] and not outside like the opinion of the Sadducees.
  If he did not do it properly. I.e., he did not put in all its ingredients according to their weight. Even if he did not do like the Sadducees, but placed the incense on the fire within the incense-pan after entering, even so, if he omitted some of its ingredients, either the ingredients themselves or [part of] their weight, he is liable for death. Rashi writes, “If he did not do it properly...,” since it is obvious that from the negative, one can infer the positive. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  One. Rashi does not mean that word “he shall sprinkle” implies once, because “he shall sprinkle” does not indicate once or more. Rather, he means that “he shall sprinkle with his finger” implies one sprinkling because of a <i>gezeirah shavah.</i> It says [that] “blood” [is sprinkled] below [=downwards] by the he-goat (verse 15) and it says [that] “blood” [is sprinkled] below [=downwards] by the bullock [in our verse]. Just as [the sprinklings] below by the bullock are seven, so too [the sprinklings below] by the he-goat are seven. And just as [the sprinklings] above [=upwards] by the he-goat are once as it is written, “He shall sprinkle <i>it</i>,” and <i>Chazal </i>expound “it” as exclusionary, he should sprinkle it once and no more, so we learn that the blood of the he-goat [sprinkled] above [=upwards] on the Ark-cover is only once, so too the sprinkling of the bullock above is [only] once, because “blood, blood” is a <i>gezeirah shavah. Re’m</i> 
  
  Verse 15
  
  The goat atones. I.e., just as the bullock atones for impurity of the Temple and its holy things for the <i>kohanim</i> as Rashi just explained above, similarly the he-goat of the public atones for the impurity of the Temple. Rashi is [actually] saying [the reverse]: You might ask: Why does the verse write “that belongs to the people” since there is no he-goat sin-offering that does not belong to the people? This comes to teach you, what does the bullock atone for on behalf of the <i>kohanim</i>? That same thing which the he-goat of the people atones for. The he-goat of the people certainly atones for the impurity of the Temple as it is written regarding it, “He will atone for the Sanctuary, from the impurities of Bnei Yisroel,” so the bullock of the <i>kohanim </i>atones for the impurity of the Temple. [See <i>Re’m</i>] 
  One above and seven below. Explanation: Rashi needs to explain this so that we do not learn the first instance of “blood” [in verse 14] from the last instance [of “blood” in verse 14] and the last instance [of “blood” in verse 15] from the first instance [of “blood” in verse 15], and say that the above [sprinkling] and below [sprinkling] of both the bullock and the he-goat] should be the same, or one [sprinkling above and below for the he-goat] or seven [sprinklings above and below for the bullock]. We would learn each case from itself. Therefore “just as he did with the bullock’s blood” tells us that we compare the he-goat to the bullock in all its actions, [and both of their numbers of sprinklings are equal]. [See <i>Re’m</i> verse 14] 
  
  Verse 16
  
  In [a state of] impurity. Explanation: For being in impurity and inadvertently entering the Sanctuary or [eating] its sanctified items. However, [the verse is] not [speaking about] the impurity of idolatry or promiscuity or murder which are also called impurity. This is because it is written, “He will atone for the Sanctuary.” This indicates that it is speaking about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sanctified things. See the Gemara, first chapter of Shavuos (7b), where this is explained well. 
  [Which] was not known to them afterwards. Because if it was known afterwards, why does the verse command to bring a he-goat? Above in <i>parshas</i> Vayikra (4:13,14) it is written, “If the entire congregation of Yisroel erred ... [when] they realize the sin which they committed, the community shall bring a young bullock as a sin-offering...” Thus here we must say that it was completely inadvertent [and they did not realize even afterwards]. Therefore they bring a he-goat and not a bullock. This sacrifice is brought to suspend and to shield [in the meantime] from punishment, until the person realizes [that he sinned] and is then obligated to bring a sliding-scale sacrifice described in <i>parshas</i> Vayikra. 
  And a transgression is unintentional. And so it says (above 4:2), “If a person unwittingly transgresses (תחטא).” “ומפשעיהם, are rebellious sins,” i.e., deliberate sins, as it says, (Melachim II 3:7), “The king of Moav rebelled (פשע) against me.” Here too, the case is that afterwards they do not know that they sinned. 
  Even intentionally entering in [a state of] impurity. You might ask: If intentional sin requires atonement, how much more so do intentional sins [require atonement]. The answer is: You may have thought that the severe intentional sin is severe that it is never atoned. Therefore it says “and from their rebellious sins.” You might ask: Once the verse has to mention intentional sin, it should not mention unintentional sin. The answer is: You might have thought that [only] an intentional sin which is severe requires atonement, but an unintentional sin which is not severe does not require atonement. 
  Just as he sprinkled. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: Seven below and one above is not written in the he-goat itself but is derived from the bullock, and regarding sacrifices we do not derive a derivation from a derivation. The Gemara in chapter <i>Hotzi’u Lo</i> asked this question and answered that this is not a derivation from a derivation because “above” and “below” are written both for the bullock and for the he-goat, except that the number [one above and seven below] is not written explicitly [for both] and we derive the number from their comparison to each other; this is not called a derivation from a derivation but only a revelation of how many sprinklings must be made [see <i>Re’m</i>]. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> explains [why Rashi stresses “just as he sprinkled of the two of <i>them</i>. This is] so that you should not explain that “he shall do likewise” teaches that he has to sacrifice another bullock and he-goat; therefore, Rashi tells us that they are the same two mentioned above. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  And why does Scripture state: “And he shall go out”? Rashi means: before this Aharon was [already] at [i.e. outside] the curtain where he made the sprinklings. But then it is written “and he shall go out” which implies that [only now] does he go outside of the curtain? Rashi explains that regarding this too, it is appropriate to say “he shall go out,” because he was at the curtain which is further inside than the altar. Therefore, when he returns to the altar it is appropriate to say “he shall go out.” When Rashi explains that he “begins with the northeastern corner,” he means as follows: When he wanted to sprinkle he would turn his face towards the altar and his right hand would be towards the north. He [then] walked along the north side of the altar because, as they say, all turnings that you make should only be to the right. Therefore when he returned [to the exit, going] outwards [without sprinkling on the northwestern corner of the altar because the verse says “he shall go out”], he went along the [altar’s] north side until he reached the front of the altar that faces east. From there he immediately began [sprinkling] on the northeastern corner because one may not pass over mitzvos. 
  Some of the bullock’s blood. You cannot say that this refers to confession because it is already written above (verse 17), “He shall atone on his behalf,” which refers to confession, which is atonement of words, as explained above (Rashi verse 6). If so, his atonement [here] is that “he shall take some of the bullock’s blood...” It is as if Rashi said, “’And atone on it.’ What is his atonement? ’And he shall take some of the bullock’s blood.’” 
  Mixed together. Because it is written at the end of <i>parshas</i> Tetzaveh (Shemos 30:10), “Aharon shall make atonement on its horn-like elevations once each year.” This implies that he only placed [blood] on the horns of the inner altar once each year. If so, if they were not mixed together and he put on each one by itself, the blood of the bullock and then the blood of the he-goat, the blood would be placed on the horns of the inner altar twice every year? Thus we must say that he put them on with one act. How? They are two bloods, the blood of the bullock and the blood of the he-goat? Therefore [we must say] they were mixed together. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  He sprinkles seven sprinklings on its top. Because it is written “on it,” implying that he placed [the blood] on its roof. 
  From what has passed. Explanation: “And purify it” from the impurity that has passed, “and sanctify it,” to be careful from making it impure in the future.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Who is prepared. The Toras Kohanim says: עתי, that he should be prepared. Radak’s explanation for the root עת, says that he is called עתי because he was accustomed in going there many times (עתים). 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  This is not the [proper] place. [I.e., verse 23 and 24 are written in the wrong order. The <i>kohein gadol</i> first burns his ram and the people’s ram as burnt-offerings (verse 24); afterwards he goes into the Sanctuary to remove the spoon and incense-pan (verse 23)]. In <i>maseches </i>Yoma 32a [the Gemara asks]: Why does he interrupt, [by burning the rams before removing the spoon and incense-pan]? Said Rav Chisda, we have a tradition that he immerse five times and makes ten sanctifications on that day. [He makes one immersion and two sanctifications every time he changes into the white or the golden garments]. But if the verses are in order we would only find three [immersions]. Rashi explains: “You would only find three immersions, one [when he dons golden garments] for the morning perpetual offering, and one between it and the whole service of the day including taking out the spoon and incense-pan (verse 23) [when he dons white garments], and one between the taking out of the spoon and incensepan, and his ram and the ram of the people (verse 24), and with them the additional sacrifices and the perpetual-offering of the afternoon [when he dons golden garments]. Therefore, his ram and the ram of the people have to interrupt between the service of the day and the taking out of the spoon and incense-pan [in order to require an extra immersion]. And the taking out of the spoon and incense-pan interrupts between his ram and the ram of the people, and [the additional sacrifices] and the perpetual-offering of the afternoon [in order to require yet another immersion]. Thus we [now] have five immersions [prior to donning garments]. The morning daily sacrifice in the golden garments, the service of the day in the white garments, his ram and the people’s ram on the outside altar in the golden garments, taking out the spoon and incense-pan in the white garments, and the additional sacrifices and the perpetual-offering in the golden garments.” Between each donning [of garments] he needs to immerse; therefore there are five immersions. And every immersion requires sanctification before it and after it as I explained above, so that there are ten sanctifications. 
  Hidden away. Explanation: So that a <i>kohein gadol</i> should not use them even for the next Yom Kippur, and so that a regular <i>kohein</i> should not use them all the days of the year. You cannot say that he should place them in the place he removed them [from himself] and not take them outside, because nowhere does it say “before Hashem,” to which “place them there” would be referring to [and saying that they must not be removed from “before Hashem”]. Therefore, “[This] teaches...” 
  
  Verse 24
  
  And here we have learned. Explanation: [To know] the reason we need them both (see Yuma 32b). (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The Gemara there asks as follows. The verse should not write that he requires immersion when changing from the white to the golden garments because this can be derived by a <i>kal vachomer.</i> If [changing] from the white garments to the golden garments, whose sanctity is less severe as he does enter the Holy of Holies with them, requires immersion, so then certainly that [changing] from the golden garments to the white garments whose sanctity is more severe requires immersion? The Gemara answers that the golden garments [have a superiority in that] their atonement is greater the entire year. But the white garments whose atonement is not great [the entire year], I would say [one does] not [require immersion]. Therefore both [verses] are needed. 
  In the roof of the Parva House. Rashi on the Gemara explains, “A Persian magician built it and his name was Parva.” See the Aruch, in the entry for <i>parva</i>. 
  In common [space]. <i>Re’m</i>. It was in common [space] because every day too it is thus. But regarding the four immersions which are on account of the obligation of the day [i.e., Yom Kippur] it is written “in a holy place.” 
  In which he performs the Service. Not his [daily] clothes that he wears the rest of the year when not performing the service, which are common clothes, because he sacrifices his ram and the people’s ram in them. Therefore Rashi explains that they are holy clothes, and they are called “his clothes” because he wears them when performs the service the rest of the year. 
  And one ram, etc. <i>Re’m</i> writes: It is surprising that he needs to explain something as obvious as this... The answer is: “Rashi explained [just before], “’And do (offer) his burnt-offering,’ refers to the ram for the burnt-offering mentioned above.” Thus Rashi is teaching: Just as the burnt offering of Aharon was the ram mentioned above [in verse 3], since Aharon only sacrificed one burnt offering [for himself], so too “and the people’s burnt-offering” means the one mentioned above [in verse 5]. And this is meant to exclude [that the verse here is not referring to] the burnt-offerings written in <i>parshas</i> Pinchas (Bamidbar 59:7,8), “On the tenth day of this seventh month... you shall bring a burntoffering [for a pleasing aroma to Adonoy, consisting of] one young bull...” Rashi’s proof for this is that the verse groups them as one and does not write, “He shall go out and do his burnt-offering and atone on his behalf, and do the people’s burntoffering and atone on behalf of the people.” This is to tell you that the burnt-offering of the people too refers to the one mentioned above, like the burnt offering of Aharon, and not the burnt-offerings mentioned in <i>parshas</i> Pinchas.” (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 25
  
  The bullock and goat. Because if it was [referring to] the entrails of only the bullock burnt-offering or only the goat, which is the sacrifice of the people, it should have written, “the fat of the sin-offering of the people.” Or, if it was referring only to the bullock of Aharon, it should have written, “the fat of the burnt-offering which is his,” as Scripture writes above (verse 6), “the sin-offering bullock which is his.” Therefore, because it is simply written “the fat of the sin-offering,” it refers to both sin-offerings. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  And within. Not like every sin-offering “whose blood is to be brought inside the Tent of Meeting to achieve atonement,” i.e., [it is brought]only into the Sanctuary and not within the Holy of Holies. Here however, it refers to the bullock of Yom Kippur whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary within [the Holy of Holies]. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Except [when carried out] by a Kohein Gadol. Explanation: “who himself will be anointed” applies only to a <i>Kohein Gadol</i> because it is written later (21:10), “The <i>kohein</i> who is greatest among his brethren [upon whose head was poured the anointing oil].”
  
  One distinguished only by the greater number of garments from where? You might ask: If so, the verse should not say “who himself will be anointed,” and I would say that if even someone distinguished only by the greater number of garments becomes a <i>Kohein Gadol,</i> how much more so someone anointed with the anointing oil? The answer is: I would then say that even when anointing oil is available one only has to distinguish him by the greater number of garments; so it tells us [that this is not so]. 
  And who will be initiated. Explanation: Wearing of clothes is initiation as it is written in <i>parshas</i> Tetzaveh 28:8, 9), “...And clothe them [with undershirts]. Gird them etc. Thus you shall initiate Aharon and his sons.” And Rashi explains, “’Thus you shall initiate,’ by means of [following] these things [enumerated here].” 
  He has precedence. [The son must be capable of fulfilling his father’s place] because it is adjacently written, “And who will be initiated,” [lit. “whose hand is filled”], meaning, “He who fills his father’s place will serve in his stead.” Even though Rashi above expounded this for something else, nevertheless, because it is adjacent to “to serve in his father’s stead,” it comes to teach this as well. [see <i>Re’m</i>] 
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  When Yom Kippur arrived. He did not do this immediately after the command, because Aharon’s sons died on the eighth day of the inauguration and the command was probably immediately afterwards so that Aharon should not enter the Sanctuary [Holy of Holies]. But the eighth day of inauguration was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan as Rashi explains at the beginning of <i>parshas</i> Shemini. So how could Aharon do as Hashem commanded, if Hashem had only commanded this in regard to Yom Kippur? Therefore he explains, “When Yom Kippur arrived.”  
  For his own greatness. I explained this above in <i>parshas</i> Shemini, see there. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  This verse speaks of consecrated [animals]. Explanation: the verse is speaking about consecrated animals that were slaughtered outside [the Temple courtyard]. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You cannot say the verse is saying that [even] unconsecrated animals slaughtered outside would make one liable for excision, as we find no commandment against this. You might ask that the Gemara Chulin (16b) says, “Originally, flesh of desire [i.e., unconsecrated animals killed in order to enjoy their meat] was forbidden,” and Rashi explains, “Because it is written, ’Each and every person [of the House of Israel] who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat etc.,” indicating that our verse is talking about unconsecrated animals? It seems to me that the correct way to explain Rashi is as follows: The main subject of the verse is not unconsecrated animals because the verse makes one liable for excision, and there is no penalty of excision regarding unconsecrated animals. However, because Scripture writes in general terms, “Each and every person of the House of Israel who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat,” instead of writing, “who will slaughter a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,” this indicates that no animal may be slaughtered outside because “meat of desire” was forbidden to them. Because no animal may be slaughtered outside as meat of desire was forbidden to them, the verse did not write, “who will slaughter a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,” as that would have implied that other meat is permitted to slaughter outside. Therefore, since nothing may be slaughtered [anywhere] except for consecrated animals, because they were forbidden to eat meat of desire, the verse did not need to specify consecrated animals and wrote in general terms, “who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat.” 
  Outside the [Temple] courts. I.e., when it is written “within the encampment” here, it does not mean the priestly encampment, i.e., within the Temple courts, making someone liable for excision if he slaughtered a sacrifice outside its correct place north of the altar. [This is not so], because even if one slaughtered in the south, what liability would there be for this, so long as he slaughtered within the Temple courts? [The Toras Kohanim derives from the words “beyond the encampment.” See <i>Re’m</i>]. Therefore it means outside the Temple courts. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  As one who shed the blood. I.e., it is as if it said, “It shall be considered [for that person] as blood of a person.” Because if not, would we not know that it is considered bloodshed [of an animal] when a person spills blood during the slaughtering. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Which they were accustomed to slaughter. Because if it refers to their actually slaughtering them, this would mean the same as “their sacrifices” and why would the verse repeat itself? Therefore one must say “they slaughter” means “which they are accustomed to slaughter.” Alternatively, you might ask that “which they slaughter” implies that the animal has already bee slaughtered, yet afterwards it is written, “And slaughter them as peace-offerings”? <i>Re’m</i>
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Outside [the Temple Courts]. Because you might ask: What does “who will bring a burntoffering” come to prohibit? If it is to prohibit slaughtering sacrifices outside, it already said “Each and every person etc. who will slaughter” above, (verse 2) in this <i>parsha.</i> Rashi explains that it comes “to make liable one who burns limbs outside as one who slaughters outside.” I.e., even though someone already slaughtered it outside and disqualified the sacrifice, and you might have thought that someone who offered it after this invalid slaughtering would incur no transgression because the first person had already disqualified it. The verse teaches that they both transgressed and are both are liable. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  His children will be cut off. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Rashi does not explain this above in v. 4), because there it says “from among his people” in the singular form. But “from his peoples” [here], in the plural form, implies to some degree that there are many sorts of excisions. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) This is a difference between excision and death: death is decreed on the individual person, whereas excision cuts off him and his children. Death does not affect one’s children because so is the way [of the world], a generation goes and another generation comes. But excision [results in] the person being cut off from the root of life and the fruit is afflicted as well. Because when a tree’s root is removed, the fruit too is afflicted with it. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  The verse says: Any blood. <i>Re’m</i> writes: You might ask, why do we need “any” to include not eating the blood of unconsecrated animals? Derive this from the verse in <i>parshas</i> Re’ey, “However, you may not eat the blood; on the earth are you to spill it like water,” where <i>Chazal</i> expound that even where there is no throwing [of blood] on the altar, there is a negative commandment [against eating blood]. He answers: It is written in both places [even though once would have been enough], similar to what the Gemara (Pesachim 28b) says regarding the obligation to eat matzoh nowadays [when there is no Pesach sacrifice]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) With all due respect, it seems that <i>Re’m</i> fails to distinguish between the expression  חייב(liable), which means [to the punishment of] excision, and the expression “do not eat,” which is [in violation of] a negative commandment. This difference is obvious. <i>Re’m</i> forgot what <i>Chazal</i> said in the first chapter of Kerisus (4a): Rava said, “The three excisions regarding blood, are for what [reason]...” See there. 
  I will turn from all My [other] concerns. [Rashi says that פני means “free time” and not Hashem’s “face”], because wherever the Torah speaks of Hashem directing his face it is for good, and here it is for bad [<i>Re’m</i>]. It seems to me that Rashi is answering the question of how can [the expression] “I shall <i>direct</i>” apply to anger? It should have said would be “rest” or “set down.” Therefore he explains, “I will turn away etc. and concern Myself with him” to give him according to the fruit of his deeds. This is easy to understand. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Depends on the blood. By saying this, Rashi indicates that “flesh” of the verse does not mean actual flesh, but that every creature is called flesh as it says (Bereishis 6:12), “For all flesh (כל בשר) had corrupted [its way on the earth].” He also writes “depends” to indicate that the soul is not in the blood, because the soul has no tangibility. One cannot speak of it being anywhere, but only of dependency, that its existence depends on the blood since without blood the soul is gone. He also says “therefore” instead of saying “And I have given it to you” like the verse, so that the verse is saying: Because the soul depends on the blood, therefore I have given the blood to achieve atonement for the soul of a person. Thus the verse is not saying “And I have given...” as a separate statement. It seems that the verse uses the expression “flesh” to exclude fish and locusts that are not flesh, and [therefore], when Rashi says “every creature,” this is because a soul cannot rest on any flesh that is not [of] a creature, because there is no soul without life, and no life except [in] a creature. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>).
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  [That one should not eat meat without this] preparation. Rashi (Chulin 84a) explains, “As if one hunted [it], that it was not [always] prepared for him. I.e., one should not eat meat constantly lest he become poor.” 
  Except for [ritually] unclean. You might ask: Perhaps it comes to exclude [even] טריפה [a “torn” animal], for example, if the brain membrane was pierced or if it became טריפה while being slaughtered. The answer is: Here it is written “he shall spill its blood and cover it,” and earlier (verse 4) it is written “he has spilt its blood.” Just as there it is speaking of an unfit slaughter [outside the Temple courts, so here it is speaking of an unfit slaughter], such as slaughtering a טריפה. And even so, it is written, “Cover it with earth.” If so, what does “that is permitted to be eaten” come to exclude? It must come to exclude the ritually unclean. This is in accordance with R. Meir but not the Sages. The halachah however is according to the Sages, and this requires [further]analysis. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  For the soul depends on it. Not that a person’s blood depends on his soul, but rather his soul depends on his blood. 
  The soul is the blood. Rashi is answering the question: Since flesh and blood are words of the male form, why then does the verse write היא [the female form]. He answers: “The <i>soul</i> is the blood,” and the word היא refers to the soul, which is a word of the female form.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  The carcass of a pure bird. Explanation: [This law concerns the carcass of a pure bird] because it is written (below 22:8), “He must not eat to defile himself with it,” i.e., [the verse there is speaking of a bird] that causes defilement only by eating it, and perforce it is not speaking of the carcass of an impure animal that [also] causes defilement through touching and carrying. The verse here writes “that will eat,” to teach that [it is speaking of something that] causes defilement through eating but not through touching and carrying. And this applies only to the carcass of a pure bird, because [the carcass of] an animal causes defilement through touching and carrying. [See <i>Re’m</i> ) 
  When it is swallowed. To exclude before a person swallowed, when it is still in his mouth; [in that case] one is [still] pure. And to exclude after one had swallowed it and it is still in his innards and not digested, and he immersed after swallowing it, that he is pure.
  
  Whatever has within its category [the possibility of being] improperly slaughtered. I.e., it was previously kosher and now it became improperly slaughtered. Excluding... i.e., there was never a time when it was kosher. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  If he eats holy food. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “iniquity” [not “<i>his</i> iniquity”]? He answers: The word “<i>his</i> iniquity” implies the specific punishment for someone who enters the Sanctuary when he is impure, i.e., the punishment written regarding other [such] impurities, which is excision. <i>Re’m</i>. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why should he bear his iniquity for [merely] making himself impure? 
  And for not washing his clothes [he is punished] with lashes. (<i>Mahar”i</i>) Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “his body?” It should have said “If he does not wash his clothes and does not bathe in water” as it is written nearby (verse 15), “[He] shall wash his clothing and bathe in water.” He answers: The verse writes “his body” [to specify that] “He is punished with excision for not washing <i>his body</i>, etc.” Explanation: if he did not immerse, which is the [ritual] washing of the body, his punishment is excision if he eats holy food or enters the Sanctuary. But if he did not wash his clothes and threw them into the Sanctuary, or even if his clothes touched a corpse while he was wearing them and he entered the Sanctuary while the clothes were still touching the corpse, he is exempt from excision but liable for lashes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  A Judge who will exact punishment. (<i>Re’m</i>) Because [the expression] אלהים represents the attribute of justice, i.e., to punish sins. [Whereas the expression] ה' represents the attribute of mercy, i.e., to forgive sins if a person repents, and to reward one for <i>mitzvos</i>. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) <i>Re’m</i> did not remember what Rashi writes at the beginning of <i>parshas</i> Va’eira, “’I am Adonoy,’ ([denoting] that He may be relied upon to exact retribution), etc.” We see that Rashi derives this from “I,” without regard to the expression אלהיכם. See there.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  [And that place] in which the Israelites settled [was the most corrupt of all]. Explanation: Even [worse] than the practices of the Land of Goshen, and how much more so than that of Egypt. Because if not so, why [does the verse add] “and the practices of the Land of Canaan?” [The answer is]: The verse is adding [in severity as it goes] from Egypt to Goshen, and from Goshen to Canaan. 
  Theatres. In the first chapter of Kesuvos (5a), Rashi explains that טרטיאות are palaces of non-Jewish kings and non-Jewish ministers. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>): אצטדיאות is a sport where they incite bulls and other beasts to gore and fight each other. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  In the Torah as law. Such as robbery and murder.
  You may not evade them. Because if not, why write “and follow them”? Scripture already wrote, “And keep My statutes.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Other subdivisions. Because if not, why write “You shall keep”? Scripture already wrote, “And you shall keep My statutes?” 
  Keeping and fulfilling the statutes. Explanation: Above it is written “And you shall keep My statutes,” and here it is written, “which if a man fulfills, etc.,” which refers to [both] statutes and laws. And keeping and fulfilling the laws is written above, “You shall fulfill My laws.” And here it is written “You shall keep My statutes and My laws.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  In plural form. You might ask: It is normal for verses to speak in the plural form, which means each one of you as [above] where it says תשמרו, לא תעשו, and לא תלכו? The answer is: Here it is different, because at the beginning it is written in the singular, “each and every person,” and afterwards it is written תקרבוin the plural form. Perforce תקרבו comes to include females. You might ask: Why does the verse have to [specially] include [females] regarding prohibited relationships, which is a negative commandment, for females too are obligated to keep negative commandments since they are compared to men regarding all punishments of the Torah as the Gemara says in Kidushin (35a). The answer is: Prohibited relationships are different because regarding other prohibitions of the Torah such as forbidden foods of נבילה and טריפה, it is logical that a woman is liable because she violates the prohibition the same manner a man does. But regarding prohibited relationships, the man is the active party whereas the woman does nothing for she is [as passive] as the earth. Therefore, the Torah needs to include that she too is liable. 
  Faithful to give a reward. Even though here there is no performance of a mitzvah but only keeping away from a sin, and the giving of a reward is only appropriate regarding to an action, one may say that if a person had opportunity to sin and refrained himself from sinning, he is rewarded as if he performed a mitzvah, as we find in Kidushin 39b. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Its plain meaning. I.e., homosexuality. <i>Re’m</i> writes, “You might ask against R. Yehuda and against Rashi who cites him: Why do they not use the <i>gezeira shava</i> ’your father’ ’your father’ from the verse “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness,” which is juxtaposed and it is a negative commandment just like it, and [instead] bring a <i>gezeira shava</i> from the verse in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim which deals with punishment. He leaves the matter unanswered. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) But I say that the question itself hints [at the answer]. Because [if this was derived] from “the nakedness of your father’s wife” that is juxtaposed to it, you could ask, as it asks there (Sanhedrin 74a), “This only teaches that there is a negative commandment etc. From where do we derive that one is liable to punishment?” Because the juxtaposed verse too, is only a negative commandment! Therefore he had to learn it from “the nakedness of his father he uncovered.” See there. 
  [Who] is not the wife of his father. I.e., if he was born from a woman raped or seduced by his father.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Even the daughter of a [woman] raped [by your father]. And the verse (11), “The nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife,” teaches that she must be someone whom your father could marry, excluding your sister born to your father from a maidservant whom one cannot marry [i.e., the marriage would be null and void] as it is written (Bereishis 22:5), “Remain here with the donkey,” [hinting], a people similar to a donkey. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  His daughter [from a woman he] raped. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written “your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter,” this implies that the daughter of a son or daughter she had from another man is permitted. But it is written (v. 17), “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover. The daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter”! Therefore Rashi explains: [Over here] we are dealing with a raped woman who is not his wife. Therefore [regarding her children] there is only a prohibition against the daughter of his daughter who came from his seed. But the daughter of the woman he raped came from the seed of other men, she is not included in the prohibition of “you shall not uncover” [in our verse]. And the same law applies to the daughter of his wife who is not his daughter. 
  We learn from the [prohibition], etc. Explanation. You might ask: Since this verse “The nakedness of your son’s daughter,” is dealing with rape, from where do we know [the prohibition against] his daughter and the daughter of his daughter or son [that resulted] from marriage? You cannot answer that this is derived through a kal vachomer from [our verse that forbids offspring of] the woman he raped, because we cannot derive prohibitions or punishment from logical arguments<i>.</i> Rashi answers: “His daughter and daughter’s daughter from his wife we learn...” 
  [This could be derived by] a קל וחומר for your [own] daughter.. Explanation: By a kal vachomer for your daughter of a raped woman. Because [the prohibition of your daughter] through marriage is [already] derived from “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter” (verse 17).
  [It was] derived it from a גזירה שוה. Here, regarding the “the nakedness of your son’s daughter,” it is written הנה, and later (verse 17) where it is written “a woman and her daughter” it is also written הנה. Just as הנה written there deals with one’s daughter, so הנה written here deals with one’s daughter.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  “You shall not approach his wife.” But regarding the nakedness of your father (above, verse 7), it does not have to write afterwards “You shall not approach his wife” to inform you what his nakedness is, [i.e., that it refers to his wife and not to himself], since the verse relies on the גזירה שוה [cited] above. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Explanation: [Do not say that] “the nakedness of your father’s brother” is [a prohibition] in itself [and that] “you shall not approach his wife” [is a prohibition] in itself, so that “the nakedness of your father’s brother” is literal and makes one liable for two [prohibitions], for homosexuality and for “the nakedness of your father’s brother.” Because according to the plain meaning of the verse this would be illogical, as [in that case] it should have written “<i>And</i> you shall not approach his wife.” 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Excluding a woman raped. Rashi does not say “[excluding] a woman raped” above (verse 11) regarding “the nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife,” because above we include [the daughter of] a raped woman to make one liable, since it is written (verse 9), “your father’s daughter,” and Rashi explains, “Even the daughter of a [woman] raped [by your father].” You might ask: What is the difference that here, the verse “your son’s wife” excludes even “a woman raped,” whereas regarding “the nakedness of your father’s wife” we do not exclude a woman raped? If this is because the verse above includes her by writing “your father’s daughter,” which implies even the daughter of a raped woman, here too it is written “your daughter-in-law,” which should imply even a raped woman? <i>Re’m</i> answers: “There it is different, as there are two verses and each one is expounded separately. And since one (verse 9) implies even a raped woman and one (verse 11) implies that we exclude a raped woman, in order to prevent a contradiction they expounded that it [verse 11] only comes to exclude a handmaiden or a non-Jewish woman in order to resolve [the apparent contradiction between] both verses. But here where the inclusion and the exclusion are in the same verse, they are not expounded separately. Rather each one explains the other. What daughter-in-law did I prohibit? The one that your son has a marital relationship; however, a raped woman etc., with whom your son does not have a marital relationship... 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  But if he raped a woman, he is permitted to marry her daughter. Regarding “The nakedness of your son’s daughter...” where the verse forbids the daughter of the woman raped [by one’s son], it only forbids the son’s daughter or his daughter’s daughter from the raped woman, but not her daughter or her daughter’s daughter [that did not result from the rape].  
  An [evil] plan. Because the דגש [dot] in the מ"ם implies that it is double. This results in the word זמם, which connotes thought. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Both as one. As it was learnt in the Mishnah, “Someone who marries a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister [together] at one time, neither are married [to him] as it is written, ’You shall not take a woman and her sister,’ [meaning], you shall have no ’taking’ [marriage] even to one of them.” The meaning of אל אחותה [lit. to her sister] is like על and means עם אחותה, “<i>with</i> her sister.” This is similar to על נשיו (Bereishis 28:9), which means “<i>with</i> his wives.” 
  As long as [his former wife] is alive. (<i>Devek Tov</i>) Because if not, why write “in her lifetime?” The verse already wrote “with her sister” which implies [taking] both together as one.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  So is the Land of Israel: It cannot sustain [sinners]. Because the plain reading of the verse implies that the land will not expel Israel even if they defile it; as it expelled the nation that defiled it. But if so, what threat is this to them that they should keep the laws and statutes? Therefore, he brings the parable of the king’s son. I.e., you will be like the king’s son who vomits immediately if he eats something disgusting because he is sensitive. So with you, if you defile the land, it will expel you immediately and you will not last many days on the land, like the nation before you that lasted may days on the land even though they did all these abominations. However, you it will expel immediately if you do these abominations. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  Both male and female are implied. See v. 6 above, “You shall not approach.”
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  To warn the Court. Because if to warn Israel about this, it already says (v. 26), “You shall adhere to My statutes etc., and not do any of these abominations.” It seems that Rashi infers this idea because it is written “You shall keep my watch,” which implies to make a safeguard for My watch, and then it is written לבלתי עשות  (lit. that it shall not be done), instead of writing לא תעשו (you shall not do). Perforce this is a warning for the Court to make a fence and barrier so that no one, God forbid, ends up committing a sin. (<i>Nalit</i>) 
  And you are cut off from Me. Rashi is answering the question: At the beginning of the section<i> </i>(verse 2) it is written, “I am Adonoy, your God” [so why repeat it]? Therefore Rashi explains: “I am Adonoy, your God” here means to accept My kingdom and My statutes because it is for this purpose that I took you out [of Egypt]. Therefore, when you defile yourselves and do not keep My decrees you are cut off from Me. If so, what benefit does the world have from you since you do not keep the decrees and statutes of the Holy One, and certainly you do not keep the decrees and statutes of other mortal kings. Therefore you are liable to destruction since there is no need for you, especially when you worship idols.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  During an assembly. You might ask: Moshe taught the whole Torah to Israel as Rashi says in <i>parshas</i> Ki Sisa. The answer is: This <i>parshah</i> was said to them in an assembly of women and children [too] as it is written, “the entire congregation [of] Bnei Yisroel,” and [also] as it is written in <i>parshas</i> Vayeilech (Devarim 31:12), “Assemble the people — the men and the women and the infants.” But [generally], Moshe taught the men only. Another answer is: Moshe [generally] taught them in groups, one after the other, but this <i>parshah</i> was in the assembly of all Israel. The difference [of teaching in this manner] was that no one could say, “I do not accept this mitzvah because I have questions against it, and the reason I did not ask Moshe immediately is because not all Israel were present there.” Therefore, [here] all Israel were together so that no one could say this. [See <i>Re’m</i>] 
  From sexual crimes. Because [one may have thought that] holiness is only discernable in Jews when they are separate and apart from the nations, through acts like tzitzis, etc., and tefillin and [by keeping] other positive commandments. But separation is not discernable by keeping negative commandments. And he explains: “Separate yourselves etc.,” meaning that this [command] applies <i>even</i> to sexual prohibitions mentioned above. When Rashi says “from transgression,” he also means the transgression of sexual prohibitions. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Each one of you. Rashi is answering the question: “Man” is the singular [form], but תיראו is the plural form?
  
  Two are [implied]. If so, why is “man” mentioned? You might ask: We say that Scripture equates woman to man (Kiddushin 35a) [and therefore “man” implies women as well]? The answer is: This only applies where Scripture writes a masculine <i>expression</i>, but where it writes “<i>man</i>,” women are excluded unless there is an inclusive expression. A concept similar to this we find in Tosfos (Sanhedrin 66a). I found this. 
  But a woman is under the control of others. You might ask: If so, why does the Torah include a woman? The answer is: [To include] a divorced woman or a widow, for example, who is not under the control of others. 
  שמשדלתו. Explanation: She wins him over [lit. seduces him] as Targum translates כי יפת, “If a man seduces” (Shemos 22:15), ארי ישדל. 
  Are obligated. Rashi is answering the following question: Why do we explain that the verses are juxtaposed to teach that even though I warned you regarding the fear of one’s father and mother, this does not push aside Shabbos? Rashi says the opposite in <i>parshas</i> Vayakhel (Shemos 35:2), that whatever is mentioned first in the verse is the more important as he says there. And here since the fear of one’s father and mother precedes Shabbos, perhaps fear of one’s father and mother should push aside Shabbos? In addition, how can Rashi say, “And so it is in regard to all the other <i>mitzvos</i>”? Perhaps only Shabbos is not pushed aside because of its severity that it includes a positive commandment and a negative commandment, whereas other mitzvos would be pushed aside by [fear of one’s] father and mother? Therefore Rashi explains: “’I am Adonoy your God.’ You and your father [are obligated to honor Me].” 
  {To] honor Me. You might ask: In this parshah “honor” is not written, only “fear.” Also, Rashi previously explained the reason why “man” is mentioned is because it is in a man’s [power to do]. Rashi apparently means to say that this parshah is discussing “honor” for the expression “in one’s power” and “not in one’s power” does not pertain to “fear.” The answer is that before, a woman is included to “fear” for תיראו, is written [in the plural form]. Nonetheless, a man’s obligation is greater than a woman’s because Scripture uses the term “man” [איש], as Rashi previously explained. And if it cannot be applied to “fear” because the expression “in one’s power” and “not in one’s power” does not pertain to “fear,” then apply it to “honor.” The expression “not in one’s power” definitely does not pertain to “honor” for a woman is under the control of others. 
  He may not sit in his place. Some explain that this includes any place that is especially [reserved] for him in the house. And some explain that this is the special place he has [when he sits] with the elders.
  Nor speak in his place. Such as when the elders are speaking one after the other. When his time comes to speak, his son should not speak in his place. 
  And what is honor? He provides food... You might ask: Why does Rashi say this here [at the end of the verse]? He should have explained it above [where the verse said, “A man — you shall fear his mother and father”]? Also, he should have explained this in <i>parshas</i> Vayishma Yisro [where honoring parents is mentioned in the Ten Commandments]? The answer is: Without this explanation [that honoring parents does not push aside mitzvos], I would think fear includes that even if he told you to desecrate Shabbos, you should listen to him and desecrate it. And so with all the mitzvos, if he tells you to transgress them you are obligated to listen to him and transgress them. And honor, which is written elsewhere, means to not sit in his place etc. But now that Rashi explains that fear of one’s father and mother does not push aside the mitzvos, we are forced to say that fear means to not sit in his place. If so, what is honor? He answers, “He provides food...”
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  To worship them. Meaning, do not turn your thoughts to worshipping them. “To worship them” should not be understood literally, because this is already mentioned, once in the Ten Commandments (Shemos 20:5), and once in <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim (22:19) where it taught that it is forbidden to worship them even in an unusual way [see Rashi ibid]. Furthermore, Rashi writes afterwards, “When you turn to follow them, in the end you will make them gods.” But [according to the literal meaning of Rashi] he already made them gods when he served them? Thus one must say that Rashi means “do not turn your thoughts to worshipping them.” You cannot say [the verse means] do not turn to look at them, because if so it should have written “Do not look.” 
  In the end [you will make them gods]. Because if not, why does it initially refer to them as אלילים [which connotes nothingness] and afterwards Scripture calls them gods. 
  Nor may others [make them] for you. I.e., we divide the verse. “Do not make” means “for others,” and “for yourselves” means “nor may others [make them] for you.” It is two commandments, one, “do not make” and one, “for yourselves.” 
  And if you say [the verse means]: Do not make [them] for yourselves, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi not ask also, “[And if you say the verse means: Do not make them for yourselves], but you may make them for others.” The answer is: This question would not be answered [by his answer] because “you must not have” only implies that when he or others make [an idol] for him he may not keep it. But “you must not have” does not imply that he may not make for others. You might ask: If so, perhaps one is permitted to make [idols] for other because it only writes “Do not make for yourselves?” The answer is: Because we include from “you must not have” that you may not have what you make or what others make. This indicates that “for yourselves” written in our verse is not connected with “Do not make,” because what others make is also forbidden for you. Thus we have to divide the verse and if so, “Do not make” implies for others [as well]. <i>Maharitz</i>. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  This parashoh was said only to teach, etc. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Explanation: Because all this is [already] written in <i>parshas</i> Tzav [including that one must have intention to eat it during the proper time]. Rashi answers: It is written here “to teach etc.” Because from [what is written] there, one might have thought that even if he had no intention at all the offering would also be accepted. Therefore, this <i>parashoh</i> is stated [to teach] that if he had no intention at all, even though it is not an abomination, nonetheless, the offering is not accepted. 
  If one handles holy offerings, etc. I.e., if one is involved with something (else) and he happened to slaughter. For example, he threw [a knife] at a wall to affix it [in the wall], and while throwing, the animal was slaughtered without intent. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Perhaps they should be liable to koreis. I.e., if he thought, while he was slaughtering, on condition to eat it outside its [proper] <i>place</i>. The verse says: “And anyone who eats from it, etc. This is written regarding outside its [proper] <i>time</i>. 
  With the intention [of eating it] outside its [proper] place. I.e., while slaughtering he thought of eating it outside its place, i.e., outside the [courtyard] curtains.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  [The verse speaks] of absolute נותר. Rashi is answering the question: Since verse 7 which states, “And if it should be eaten at all,” is speaking of someone having the thought of outside its place and he does not incur the punishment of <i>koreis,</i> how can Scripture write “Whoever eats from it shall bear his iniquity,” which implies that he does have the punishment of <i>koreis</i>?<i> </i>He answers: “This verse speaks of absolute נותר.” 
  [Our Rabbis] derived it from a גזירה שוה. It says here, “Whoever eats from it shall bear his iniquity,” and elsewhere in <i>parshas</i> Tzav (7:18) it says “Anyone who eats of it shall bear [the burden of] its iniquity.” Just as there it speaks of absolute נותר, so here it speaks of absolute נותר. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  A corner at the end of his field. Rashi means, when he ends reaping his field, not when he starts.
  
  [Which fall down] during harvesting. Explanation: But not during the picking off of grains [by hand]; if these fall from his hand they are not considered “gleanings” because harvesting is generally done with a scythe as this is the usual way.
  Three are not [considered] “gleanings.” Because in <i>parshas</i> Emor (later 23:22) it is also written, “You shall not gather the gleaning of your harvest. You shall leave <i>them</i> for the poor and the proselyte,” and the smallest of many (<i>them</i>) is two. I also found that it says (Shemos 12:22), “Take a bunch (אגודת) of hyssop,” and Rashi explains, “Three stalks are called an אגודה.” Therefore, Rashi explains here that three are not “gleanings” but an אגודה. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  You must not take [the] gleanings. An expression [similar to] עולל ויונק, “infant and suckling” (Yirmeyahu 44:7). I.e., the small clusters. 
  No “shoulders.” Explanation: They are not next to each other and lying one on the other as when people rest on each other’s shoulder. “Drippings” means like drops that drip one after the other, and are not near and next to each other. This is called “drippings.” Explanation: some clusters have stalks going in all directions off the main stem, one above the other, and grapes hang on these stalks in one bunch. The combination of all those stalks with their grapes creates the cluster. Some clusters do not have stalks coming off at all, but only single grapes coming off their main stem and going down from the top of the cluster to the bottom. Each of these two kinds is not called “gleanings” but a cluster. However, whatever is not of these two kinds just mentioned, but has grapes all gathered together in one place with no main stem at all, and most of this type are called בוסר (unripe grapes) and are found at the top of vines, this is called “gleanings” and the verse commands us to not take them. <i>Re’m</i>. See <i>maseches</i> Pei’ah chapter 10 where Rabbeinu Shimshon explains at length “shoulders” and “drippings.”
  
  [The single] berries of the grapes. I.e., פרט connotes a single item like פרט וכלל (an individual case and a general rule); meaning [the single] berries of grapes. 
  A Judge Who punishes. Rashi is answering the question: It is written “You shall not glean,” “You shall not gather,” all in the singular form, and [then] it is written, “I am Adonoy, your God ((אלקיכם in the plural form. [The answer is]: He punishes [many] “souls,” since [by taking away] the thief’s soul he also takes away the souls of the thief’s sons when they are orphaned, [because a poor person is considered dead]. 
  Nothing less than [your] souls. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Because if not, why [does Scripture] mention here, more than elsewhere, [that Hashem is] faithful to pay back. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  [This is] a prohibition against one who steals money. Rashi means that over there, since it is written, “You shall not murder,” “You shall not commit adultery,” which are liable for a court-exacted death penalty, therefore, “You shall not steal” too is speaking of [a case liable for] a court-exacted death penalty. Therefore, “you shall not steal” [here] must refer to money because if not so, why two [verses]? [<i>Re’m</i>] <i>Re’m</i> writes: You might ask, why does Rashi need to prove from there that the Torah here is speaking of stealing money? He should have proved it from here, because from here too it is obvious [that it is speaking of stealing money] because of [the rule that] “a matter is interpreted according to its context,” since the verse here only speaks of monetary cases. [I say], the answer is that here too the verses are speaking of [cases punishable by] death because it is written (in the previous verse), “I am Adonoy, your God,” and Rashi explains, “A Judge Who punishes [wrongdoers], and [for this sin] I exact from you, nothing less than [your] souls.” And this [indeed], is why Rashi mentioned this exegesis above [in verse 10]. It also seems to me that Rashi is answering the question that you could have said the opposite; that here the verse is talking about kidnapping and above it is talking about stealing money? Rashi answers, “This matter is deduced from its context, etc.” This is not like <i>Re’em</i>’s explanation above that Rashi is answering the question “Why [do we need] two [verses]?” This is easy to understand. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). Rashi here is not trying to deduce that the verse here is talking about stealing money. Rather, he is answering why the verse [here] has to write “You shall not steal” since it already wrote “You shall not steal” in the Ten Commandments that includes everything, both money and people since the verse writes in general terms, “Do not steal.” He answers that the verse “Do not steal” of the Ten Commandments is certainly [only] speaking of kidnapping because “this matter is deduced from its context.” But he was certainly never bothered by the question why Scripture had to write “Do not steal” in the Ten Commandments once it writes “do not steal” here, because it is obvious that the verse here is talking [only] about money, because it says “You shall not deny,” and [stealing] is certainly the same as “you shall not deny” because [in the latter] too one is taking the money of his fellow. But “You shall not steal” of the Ten Commandments is not completely the same as “Do not murder” and “Do not commit adultery,” and therefore one may have thought that there it is talking about every [kind of] theft, whether of money or people. Therefore, he has to say that there it is talking only about kidnapping because “something is deduced from its context.” Regarding “you shall not steal” [of the Ten Commandments] no punishment is stated. Therefore you cannot explain that one verse is for the punishment and one is for the negative commandment. Therefore, he has to say that one [verse] is talking about kidnapping, and the other, about stealing money. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>)
  
  If you steal, in the end you will deny. It seems that Rashi deduces this as the verse should have written “You shall not deny” without [writing beforehand] “and.” Because “you shall not steal” [applies to stealing] both from a Jew or from a non-Jew as Rambam writes at the beginning of the first chapter of Laws of Theft, and as Smag writes in <i>Lavin</i> 195, [whereas the next two commands of the verse only apply to acting against Jews]. Because grammatically, “You shall not steal” is not connected with בעמיתו (lit. “against one’s fellow [Jew]”) [at the end of the verse], because if it was [connected], it should have said מעמיתו (“from one’s fellow) and not בעמיתו. Furthermore, the cantillation interrupts it [from מעמיתו], i.e., the <i>esnach</i> [that signifies the end of a clause] under לא תגנובו. Therefore, the verse says “(You shall not steal), <i>and</i> you shall not deny, <i>and</i> each one of you...,” in order to hint that they are connected to each other as one causes the other, because “in the end, etc.” (<i>Yaakov Tayrosh</i>) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  This [refers to one] who withholds the wages of a hired hand. Because every expression of עשק (oppression) refers to the withholding of a hired hand’s wages. So explains Rashi in Bava Metzia 61b.
  
  [This verb] is feminine], referring to [the word] פעולה [“wages”]. <i>Re’m</i> explains that if the letterתי"ו  [made תלין] a second person [male] verb, it would then make it a transitive verb, [i.e., a verb referring to an object]. But we never find this word used except as an intransitive verb, such as וילן שם , “And he spent the night there” (Bereishis 28:11), וילינו שם, “And they spent the night there” (Shoftim 19:4), כי ברחוב נלין , “We will spend the night in the street” (Bereishis 19:2), except for the verseערום ילין בלי לבוש , “They spend all the night naked without clothing” (Iyuv 24:7). [Therefore], it is better to explain it as referring to [the word] פעולה, so that it is intransitive like the others. [Alternatively], I think that if it referred to the householder, the word “in your possession” would be unnecessary as the verse should simply have said, לא תלין פעולת שכיר עד בוקר, “Do not leave the wages of a day-laborer overnight until morning.” 
  The verse speaks of a day-laborer. Rashi is answering the question: This verse implies that the wage may remain the whole night and there is only a prohibition until the morning, but in <i>parshas</i> Ki Seitzei (Devarim 24:15) it is written “And let the sun not set upon it.” He therefore answers that the verse speaks of a day-laborer.
  
  A half-day period (עונה). A twelve hour period of either day of night, is called “עונה.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  The verse says: “[Do not curse] among your people.” [We deduce that it includes everyone] because the verse should simply have said, “Do not curse a leader.” Why say “among your people”? Therefore it comes to include anyone among your people. And that which the Rabbis expound [that the prohibition of not cursing anyone only applies if] the person who acts in accordance with the behavior of your people [i.e. observing the commandments], is only based on the juxtaposition [of the two terms], for the verse juxtaposes the commandment regarding “a leader” to the commandment regarding “your people.” 
  Excluding the dead. Because if not for this exclusion, I would think that the dead are also included since later (20:9) it is written “Any man that curses his father or his mother” [which is expounded] to include after death. Therefore this exclusion is needed.
  
  Advice which is unsuitable for him. You might ask, how does Rashi know this? Perhaps the explanation of the verse is according to it its plain meaning? The answer is that Rashi himself answers [this by saying], “’You shall fear your God,’ since this matter is not given over to people, etc.” If you said that “before a blind person” is explained according to its simple meaning, this then is a matter that can be detected by others that this person’s intent is evil, because he put an obstacle by the blind person’s feet. The phrase “you shall fear your God” is inapplicable in a matter that can be detected by others. Therefore, the explanation is certainly not according to its plain meaning. [However], you might ask [on this answer] that when the verse says “you shall fear your God,” it is speaking of a case where no one sees [the person putting the stumbling block before the blind person]. Therefore, it seems that we learn this from “whoever misleads the blind about the way” (Devarim 27:18) in <i>parshas</i> Ki Savo, and there itself from where do we know [that it speaking about bad advice?] See there, where I explained it. (R. Yaakov Taryosh) 
  [While] you maneuver against him. [עוקף is] similar toאל תבא עליו בעקיפין , “you must not approach him deviously” in <i>parshas</i> Behar (Rashi later, 25:50), and it is an expression of deviousness as Rashi explains in Bava Kama (113a), “With devious schemes.” It is similar to עוקב, as in the expression ויעקבני זה פעמים, “He has deceived me twice” (Bereishis 27:36), because פ"א interchanges with  ב'as Rashi himself explains this below (verse 16). 
  
  Verse 15
  
  And an abomination is called accursed and detestable. And an abomination is also called hateful as it says in <i>parshas</i> Re’eh (Devarim 12:31), “Because whatever is abominated by G-d, what He hates, [they have done].” 
  A poor man. Because if not so, why [command] “You shall not favor a poor man?” Are all these [cases] not included in “You shall not commit injustice in judgment”? 
  Another interpretation: Judge your fellow [favorably]. [You need the second interpretation] because you might ask that once it is written “You shall not commit injustice in judgment,” one would certainly judge with righteousness. And according to the other interpretation you might ask that it should have said צדק (favorably). Why is it written בצדק (with favor)? Therefore you need the first interpretation of “According to its plain meaning.” (R. Yaakov Taryosh) 
  Favorably. I.e., you only need to judge him favorably if he is “your fellow.” But if he is wicked, judge him unfavorably. See the commentary of the Rambam in <i>maseches</i> Avos, chapter 1. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Since the kof interchanges with the gimmel. I.e., some letters are enunciated by the lips, some by the tongue, and some by the throat.
  
  Faithful to reward. To those who fulfill the commandments.
  To exact payment. Explanation, to those who transgress them. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) [Even though “I am Adonoy” generally means “faithful to reward,” this verse cannot be saying that] since this negative commandment involves no urge of the evil inclination as in immoral relationships, where a person’s inclination lusts for forbidden women there is no reward here, since there is no reward unless one’s inclination urges one [to sin], as we see in the first chapter of Kiddushin. Therefore, Rashi is forced to say that this is what the verse means: “I am Adonoy” regarding everything, whether reward or punishment. Since He is faithful to pay reward, He is also faithful to exact punishment. [See <i>Gur Aryeh</i>] (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) Because you might ask, why does it say here “I am Adonoy?” These cases are visible [to everyone], “Do not be a tale-bearer among your people. You shall not stand idly by, etc.,” [and the Torah generally only writes “I am Adonoy” regarding cases where people cannot detect whether one did right or wrong and one has to fear Hashem who sees one’s hidden deeds]. Therefore [Rashi explains], “Faithful to reward.” [The Torah emphasizes this here to tell you that] even if there is a an aspect of transgression in saving someone, such as when a woman is drowning in a river and you have to save her, or if you have to save someone by killing the person pursuing him, nevertheless, I will pay reward for your good intent. Similarly the opposite, if you do not save him [because of this aspect of transgression], I am faithful to exact payment. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Lend me your scythe. You might ask, why is a scythe used first in the example of revenge, and an axe is used first in the example of bearing a grudge? The answer is that regarding revenge he mentions a scythe first in order to add that even if he only refused to lend you a scythe which is worth one <i>zuz,</i> and then he asked you for an axe which is worth five <i>zuz, </i>even so, do not take revenge and lend it. Regarding bearing a grudge he mentions an axe first so that one should take note [of the difference between these two utensils] and explain the added point discussed above. 
  This is a great principle. I.e., this mitzvah includes the whole Torah as Hillel the Elder said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow,” and Rashi explains, “’Your friend and the friend of your father do not leave’ (Mishlei 27), this is the Holy One. ’Do not leave,’ [i.e.,] do not transgress His words, because it is hateful to you when your friend transgresses your words.” It seems to me that according to this, “You shall love your friend as yourself” means as follows. What friend is spoken of? You shall love, “I, Hashem,” Who is called a friend. You shall love Me like [you love] yourself, as is said of you, “[What is hateful to you], do not do [to your fellow].” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Nuz is an expression of something rubbed. Meaning: stretched.
  And woven. Meaning: entwined.
  An expression of “withering.” I.e., hardened, like something twisted which is hard. 
  Combination of wool and flax. I.e., שעטנז connotes combination, that one combines wool and flax. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  I know of no similar term in Tanach. But there is a similar term in the Mishnah, such as, “If someone says, ’(You are hereby) my <i>charufah,</i>’ she is married, because in Yehudah etc.” (Kiddushin 6a). This is the plain meaning [of <i>charufah</i>]; the <i>midrashic</i> meaning [is found] in Krisus (11a). 
  Half maid-servant and half free woman. I.e., below, the verse writes  והפדה לא נפדתה (lit. she is redeemed and she is not redeemed). This is a contradictory expression because if she is redeemed, why does it say, “she is not redeemed,” and if she is not redeemed, why does it say “she is redeemed”? Therefore it means “redeemed and not redeemed,” as Rashi soon explains. 
  Who is engaged to a Hebrew slave. I.e., she is certainly betrothed to someone since the verse requires the person who had relations with her to bring a guilt-offering. But if she is betrothed to a free Jew, he would be forbidden to have relations with her because of the “maidservant part” of her And if she is betrothed to a Canaanite slave, he would be forbidden to have relations with her because of the “free part” of her. Therefore one must say she is married to a Hebrew slave to whom she is permitted. 
  By deed [of manumission]. Because it is written “Or her freedom was not given to her (לה), and we learn a <i>gezeirah shavah,</i> לה לה from the case of a wife where the verse writes (Devarim 24:3), “And writes for her (לה) a document of severance and places [it] in her hand.”
  
  She suffers [lashes] and not he. You should not say that the verse reveals lashes by the woman and a guilt-offering by the man and one should learn one from the other, so that the woman is [punished] with lashes and a guilt-offering and so the man. Therefore it is written תהיה [a verb in the female form] to exclude the man from lashes. 
  [Is subject] to a proclamation. I.e., because it is written בקורת which is [also] an expression of קריאה (proclaiming), [this teaches] that they “call out to the one lashed.” 
  He is not liable. Because every כי in Scripture is giving a reason for what came before.
  Thus, if she was freed. This deduction is required to teach that if she was freed even with money [and not with a document], she becomes free and is permitted to a free Jew, and her marriage is considered a marriage.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  [This] includes one who sinned intentionally as one who sinned unwittingly. Rashi explains in chapter <i>Araba Mechusarei Kapara</i> (Kerisus 9a) [where the Gemara says], “[This] includes one who sinned intentionally as one who sinned unwittingly,” that he too has to bring a sacrifice [even] for an intentional [sin in this case]. [The Gemara deduces this] because this is apparently a superfluous verse. Since it is written before “For the sin which he committed and he will be forgiven,” why does it then again write “for the sin which he committed?” This is to tell you that one brings a sacrifice even for an intentional [sin].
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  It should be permitted after three years. And the verse would mean as follows: Three years the fruit shall be closed off and from then onwards it will be permitted. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) It seems to me that if we counted the three years from the time it produces fruit, we would obviously know that whatever grew during the three years is forbidden forever. But now that we count from its planting even if it produced nothing, and that which grows after three years is permitted immediately, this implies that the matter does not depend on fruit but on years. So one may have thought that even that which grew within the three years is permitted after three years since the matter is dependent on years. Therefore, the verse says, “it shall be.” 
  The verse says: “it shall be.” Meaning, in the forbidden state it had during the three years, so it shall be forever. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  That he carries it there. I think this is connected with his explanation above. You might have asked, why does Rashi explain that we learn a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> “sacred,” “sacred” from [second] tithe to teach that it is permitted when redeemed? Perhaps we should learn a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> “sacred,” “sacred” from the Sabbatical Year teaching that it cannot be redeemed as it says later (25:12), “For it is a jubilee, it shall be sacred to you.” Rashi answers that if we would learn “sacred,” “sacred” from the Sabbatical Year, we would be unable to resolve what is written afterwards, “Holy [upon which to say] praise[s to] Adonoy,” since it would be forbidden to redeem it and eat it. If [the <i>gezeirah shavah</i>] applied to [second] tithes it would be all right for the verse to write “Holy [upon which to say] praise[s to] Adonoy,” and that “this matter is ’praise to Adonoy.’” However, the Gemara (Berachos 35a) explains this differently.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  A mole. [To interpret] their cries or meeting them for good or for bad. Eliezer, Avraham’s slave, and Yehonasan did not rely on this thing [omens]. Eliezer relied on Avraham’s merit as I explained above (Bereishis 24:14), and Yehonasan the son of Shaul said this in order to encourage his young man and he would have gone up in any case (Chulin 95b). 
  He says, “This day is good.” I.e., the person said this not through astrology but because this is the way of the Emorites, i.e., this is people’s common practice even though they know no logical reason for it. But if one saw through astrology that a particular day was not good for a certain matter or for his work, he may refrain from doing it; and we do not rely on miracles. I think that it forbidden to go against the constellations [relying] on a miracle, etc. All this is from the responsa of the Ramban, responsa 283. The Yoreh Dei’ah cites some of this in chapter 179. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  
  Verse 27
  
  Who makes [the hair of] his temples similar. It is as if it said, “Do not destroy [the hair of] your temples.” The verse calls them “the corners of your heads” because the ends of the head [where hair stops growing] are the end of the hair roots on the forehead, and the end of the hair roots behind the ears, and the end of the hair roots behind the head, as from there downwards it is the hair of the back of the neck which is part of the neck. Thus, all the hair roots are at the ends of the head in a circle except for the temples, which go down on each side and break the circle. And when one destroys the hairs of the temples with a razor and makes them level to behind his ears and his forehead, his whole head is left surrounded in a circle [of hair]. Therefore, when it says “Do not round the corners of your heads,” it is as if it says “Do not destroy your temples.” <i>Re’m</i>. 
  Near the head. I.e., the place where the cheek meets the temple. There are two corners, [one at] the end of the [jaw] bone of the cheek [where it meets the temple], and one at the end of the width of the cheek [above], because the cheek is wide on top, and these are called “the apples of the face.” This “end” is in the middle of the face [looking from the side], and it is at the end of the width of the cheek. And there is one [more corner] at the place where the two cheeks join together at the chin where you have the <i>shiboles</i> [point] of the beard (<i>Re’m</i>). There are other explanations; see Tur Yoreh Dei’ah chapter 181.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Such is the custom of the Amorites. Because if not so, what is its relevance here to “You shall not act on the basis of omens nor act on the basis of auspicious times,” which are practices of the Amorites. 
  Because he tattoos it with a needle. With this, Rashi is telling us that he is not liable unless he wrote and he is not liable unless he engraved, and so it says in Makkos (21a). 
  And stuck into the ground. I.e., the person hung on it looks as if he is stuck into the ground, and הוקע is an expression of “sticking.” 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  The building of the Temple does not supersede [the] Shabbos [laws]. You might ask, how would one think that the building of the Temple supersedes Shabbos? The Temple is a positive commandment and [observing] Shabbos is a positive and negative commandment, and a positive commandment cannot supersede a positive and a negative commandment. The answer is that if not for the verse, I would think that since the sacrificial offerings that are offered in the Temple supersede Shabbos, because the Temple service supersedes Shabbos, then how much more so does the building of the Temple supersede [Shabbos]. Therefore one needs the verse. Even though Shabbos is mentioned [in the verse] before the Temple to indicate that building the Temple does not supersede Shabbos, as Rashi explains in <i>parshas</i> Vayakhel (Shemos 35:2), [and thus you might ask], why does it have to say here “[You shall fear My Sanctuary], I am Adonoy”? The answer is that since the Torah writes “fear” concerning the Temple, you may have thought that it supercedes Shabbos where the commandment is to “observe,” [whereas <i>parshas</i> Vayakhel is discussing the Tabernacle and not the Temple], therefore it says “I am Adonoy.” This also answers the above question [that a positive commandment generally cannot supersede a positive and negative commandment]. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  A warning to mediums. Since it says in <i>parshas</i> Shoftim (Devarim 19:10,11), “Let there not exist among you [...or one who asks of a medium], etc.,” and there too, [although] it says a negative commandment prohibiting it, it does not mention <i>kareis,</i> but here it mentions <i>kareis</i> as it says (below, 20:5), “And [I shall] cut him off from among his people.” If so, it is certainly speaking here of the medium itself, while there it is speaking about one “who <i>asks</i> of a medium.” 
  An animal whose name is Yadu’a. Rabbeinu Shimshon wrote in the name of R. Meir bar Kalonimus that this is an animal whose name is <i>Yadu’a,</i> which has a sort of big cord coming out of a root in the earth from where it gets its nourishment just like gourds and squashes do. However, the <i>Yadu’a</i> has the appearance of a man regarding both its face and its other limbs. It is joined from its navel to that rope and no creature can approach within the length of that rope as it tears and kills everything; within the length of its rope, it grazes all its surroundings. When people come to hunt it, they shoot arrows from afar at its cord until it is severed, and then it dies immediately. (<i>Sefer Mitzvos Gedolos</i>) 
  To be occupied with them. Rashi is answering the question that it is obvious that a person would not willingly [“seek out” so as to] defile himself. He answers, [that the verse is warning against seeking, i.e.,] “to be occupied with them, etc.” 
  
  Verse 32
  
  Perhaps even an ignorant (אשמאי) old man. Rashi [on that Gemara] explains that this is an expression of אשם (sin), meaning, a wicked man who is liable for many sins. Rabeinu Tam explains that this person is an ignoramus [desolate of wisdom], as in the expression “not become desolate (תשם)” (Bereishis 47:19), which Unkelos translates as לא תבור, i.e., desolate. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask that this [Rashi’s interpretation] is obvious, since why would one think that a wicked man should be honored? The verse (Shemos 22:27) writes, “Do not curse a leader of your people” [from which the Sages deduce in Bava Metzia 48b that this only applies] “when he acts [according to] the behavior of your people”! The answer is that one may have thought one has to stand in the presence of a wicked [old] man because he must have lived a long life due to having fulfilled <i>mitzvos</i>, and thus, one may have thought he must be honored. Therefore, the verse is necessary. 
  Only one who has acquired wisdom. This is not derived from an acrostic of זקן, but from the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> זקן זקן regarding the elders of Yisroel as it is written (Bamidbar 11:16), “Whom you know to be the people’s elders (זקני), and its officers,” meaning that they are great and wise. 
  Perhaps he is permitted to close his eyes. You might ask, how can one think he is permitted to close his eyes? Obviously, this would be a transgression! The explanation is that he might think he is permitted to close his eyes before he reaches his four <i>amos</i>, since he is not obligated to rise before him until he enters his four <i>amos.</i> 
  
  Verse 33
  
  The anguish of [wounding] words. Because the verse in <i>parshas</i> Behar (25:14) it is written לא תונו (“do not cheat one another”), which is speaking of cheating in monetary matters since the verses there discuss buying and selling. Therefore, לא תונו here must be speaking [not about monetary matters, but] about the anguish of [wounding] words. 
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  One who measures is termed a judge. Since the verse writes “judgment” it teaches that one who measures is termed a judge. And the difference this makes is that “if he acts falsely in measure, he is as one, etc.” 
  And causes five [catastrophic] matters. You might ask, why do we need the word “judgment” to teach this? Here too the verse writes עול which implies “corrupt, hateful, [etc.],” as Rashi explained above (verse 15) regarding a judge. You might also ask, why does he explain here that this “causes five [catastrophic] matters, etc.” Why did he not explain this earlier regarding a judge? The answer is that Rashi is saying as follows. Why does the verse write “judgment”? To teach that he is like a judge. Concerning what? [You cannot say that it is to teach you that he is corrupt, hateful, etc.] because here too the verse says עול [which implies these things]. The answer is that he is compared to a judge to inform you that he causes the five [catastrophic] matters which are said regarding a judge. 
  Land measure. I.e., when there are two brothers or two partners, you may not measure for one of them in winter when the rope is wet and stretches more, and for the other one in the summer when the rope is hard and does not stretch, causing one of them a loss. Alternatively, even if one measures with [the length of a rod of] wood, one may not measure for one of them in summer and for the other in winter, because in summer the earth is dry and cracked, while in winter it is [tightly] joined together. 
  Liquid and dry. The correct text is, “’Volume,’ that is liquid measure.” The text should not include the words “dry measure,” because משורה is a liquid measure as it says (Amos 6:4) “And drink water in a measure.” 
  
  Verse 36
  
  That is a dry measure. Because it says [regarding manna] (Shemos 16:36), “The <i>omer</i> is a tenth of an <i>eiphoh.</i>” 
  That is a liquid measure. As it says [regarding oil and wine] (see Bamidbar 28:5, 6), “One fourth of a <i>hin</i>.” 
  Who dips his weights in salt to cheat people. Some explain that the buyer dips his weights in salt so that they should be heavy because of the dampness of the salt. Others explain that the seller dips his weights in salt as salt is strong and sharp and erodes the weight and makes it lighter, and he sells to people by weighing with this [lighter] weight.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  The punishments for the prohibitions. Rashi is answering the question that all these negative commandments are already written in <i>parshas</i> Acharei Mos. He answers that above Scripture wrote the prohibitions, and here it is writing the punishment for [violating] the prohibitions. 
  The people of the land shall assist them. Because if “the people of the land shall stone him to death” was the explanation of “he shall surely be put to death,” let the verse omit it and not write “he shall surely be put to death.” 
  For whose sake. Because if not so, why write “of the land”? It should have said, “The people shall stone him, etc.” (<i>Maharam</i>). This [answer, that the land, i.e., the world, was created for their sake] is insufficient because if so, it should have said “people of the world.” And this [second answer] is also insufficient because if so, the verse should have said explicitly that it is talking about <i>Eretz Yisroel.</i> But because it writes [“the land”] in general terms, this implies the whole world. You might ask, why did Rashi not explain this above in <i>parshas</i> Vayikra (4:27) where it is written, “(If a person should unwittingly sin [and he is]) one of the ordinary people (עם הארץ), by transgressing [one of the commandments of Adonoy that should not be done and he incurs guilt]”? The answer is that above the explanation is according to its plain meaning, anyone from the whole nation of Yisroel, whether a <i>kohein,</i> a Levi, or a regular Jew, as Ibn Ezra explains. One cannot explain the same here, because why would one think there is any distinction, and thus [here] it should have said “the nation.” You cannot explain that it means “in the assembly of them all,” because if so it should have said “the entire congregation (כל העדה)” as it says in <i>parshas</i> Emor (Vayikra 24:14) regarding a blasphemer. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  “Free time.” Rashi is answering the question that on the contrary, it would be a favor if the Holy One directs his face to him. Also, it is His way to direct His face only onto the righteous. Therefore he explains that it is not connected with the word “face,” [rather it means “free time”]. 
  And not [a congregation]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). This is stated in Toras <i>Kohanim</i>. I think it means as follows: If the entire congregation give of their children to <i>Molech</i>, they are not cut off. You cannot say it means that the whole congregation is not cut off because of the sin of the individual, since that is obvious as even his family is not cut off. See more over there. 
  From where [do we know this of] illegitimate offspring? Rashi explains in Sanhedrin (64b) that these two verses, “for he gave of his children to <i>Molech</i>” and “when he gives of his children to <i>Molech</i>” are superfluous. Therefore, the rabbis expound that one is to include “his son’s son and his daughter’s son,” and one is to include “illegimate offspring.”
  
  Which is sanctified to Me. But not the actual Sanctuary, because what has the defiling of the Sanctuary to do with [this] sinner? <i>Re’m</i> writes, “You might ask how can the Community of Israel become defiled by one person who sinned?” It seems to me that because he served idolatry, the <i>Shechinah</i> leaves the land, and by the <i>Shechinah</i> leaving, evil spirits enter the land and automatically, [the Community of] Israel is defiled. The Zohar discusses these matters at length and there is no need to discuss this at length. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  For all of them protect him. I.e., they all try to justify his actions since they are his relatives; therefore they are all [considered] robbers. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) This seems to refer to above [where it says], “If the people of the land will hide, etc.” This is probably because they are afraid of him and his family who protect him. Therefore [the verse writes] “and his family.”  
  [This phrase] includes worship of any other idol. Since it is already written, “I shall cut him off... from among their people,” why does it again write “and cut him off”? It must have been written again in order to write “along with all those who go astray after him, etc.,” meaning, to stray after the <i>Molech</i>, to do like its [service] for other idols. [This teaches] that even though this is not its usual way [of worship], if one worshipped the idol in this way his punishment is <i>kareis</i>. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>)
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  This [refers to] separation from idolatry. Even though [Rashi] said above (Vayikra 19:2), “Wherever you find a fence against sexual crime, you find holiness,” which implies that the term “sanctity” only applies to sexual matters, the answer is that idolatry is also called a harlot (זונה) as it says here “To go astray (לזנות) after <i>Molech</i>.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  To include [cursing them] after death. You should not compare it to hitting one’s father where one is liable only when he is alive. Because if not so, the Torah already said “Any man that curses his father or his mother,” therefore it must be coming here to include after death.  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Excluding a minor. You might ask that this is obvious since he is not liable for [any] punishment. The answer is that it is telling us that although the minor is not punished, she [an adult] is punished even if a minor had relations with her. 
  Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc. Rashi here explains at length “Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc.,” instead of [simply] saying, “’Another man’s wife,’ excluding a non-Jew’s wife,” as he said [earlier], “’A man,’ excluding a minor.” This is because he is answering the question why the verse is lengthy and writes “who commits adultery” twice. It should have simply written, “Who commits adultery with another man’s wife, the wife of his fellow man.” Therefore, he explains that the verse itself is explaining its words, “Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc. Rashi explains further, “This teaches us, etc.,” to answer the question that what difference does it make [if her husband is non-Jewish]? She is [still] a married woman! Even though they [non-Jews] are not obligated in [performing] mitzvos, she is still a married woman! Therefore he explains, “This teaches us, etc.” 
  Strangulation. Because it is written “shall be... put to death” without specifying [which death penalty], and this [case here is] a death administered by man. And we also find “death” mentioned without specifying [which death penalty], regarding a death administered by heaven, by [the deaths of] Er and Onan where it is written (Bereishis 38:10), “And He also put him to death.” [Therefore, we say that] just as a [an unspecified] death administered by heaven leaves no mark, so too, the death administered by man is one that leaves no mark. See all this in Sanhedrin (52b). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  They mix. According to the first interpretation, the root [of the word] is תבל, which has [two meanings], an expression of despising, or a term referring to all the lands [of the world]. According to the second interpretation, its root is בלל. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  One inserts. Because if not so, why write “in the same manner as with a woman?” Is there another way to lie with a male that the verse has to say “in the same manner as with a woman” in order to exclude this other way of lying? 
  Stick. Rashi explains in Bava Metzia (91a), “As one inserts a stick or spoon into a hollow tube with make-up inside, and extracts out the make-up and applies it on the eye. (<i>R. Noson</i>) 
  
  Verse 14
  
  One of them. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Why does it not write “he and her”? The answer is that if Scripture had written this I would think [the prohibition applies only] if one married the daughter legally and the mother illegally as the verse implies “Who marries a woman and her mother.” I would then say [the prohibition applies] only if the daughter was first and the mother afterwards, and that “her” referred to “her mother.” But now that it is written אתהן [which means] “one of them,” [this indicates that the prohibition applies] whether he married the mother first and the daughter illegally [and] the daughter is liable, or married the daughter first and the mother afterwards [and] the mother is liable.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  And its midrashic interpretation: And if you argue that Cain, etc. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Explanation. Even though Adam could have married his daughter since a non-Jew is permitted to have relations with his daughter, and the resultant daughter would have been a niece to Kayin. This [union] is permitted even for a Jew. Although she would have been his paternal sister, a non-Jew is not regarded as related to his father. Nevertheless, the Holy One did an act of kindness with His world and forbade them to Adam and permitted them to Kayin so that the world would be built speedily. <i>Re’m</i> raises a difficulty, “You might ask that this implies that if not because of “the world is built [in] kindness,” he would have been forbidden to his sister. But if so, how did the tribes marry their sisters according to R. Yehudah who says that twin sisters were born with each and every tribe and they married them? The answer is that only one’s maternal sister is forbidden [to a non-Jew], whereas a paternal [sister] is permitted. Therefore the tribes married the twin sisters of the other tribes.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  That it [involves] the punishment of remaining childless. Explanation: In [<i>parshas</i>] Acharei Mos it is written, after mentioning all the <i>arayos</i> (18:29), “Their souls will be cut off, etc.” This includes the punishment of being childless, because in general, <i>koreis</i> means that he is cut off and his children are cut off. However, I [still] would not know which children are cut off. Are those he had before the sin included in [his] punishment, or specifically those born after the sin, as they were born of a wicked person? Thus the verse [here], “they will die without children,” comes to indicate that they will die childless as they are now [when they sinned, because any children he has from now on will die]. And the [next] verse “They will be without children,” comes to indicate that when they die they will be childless, because if he had children he will bury them, whether he had them before the sin or after the sin, they will all be cut off. Some texts, however, turn it round (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). <i>Re’m</i> raises a question. How can we say that <i>koreis</i> means that he and his seed are cut off? The Gemara (Mo’ed Katan 28a) says in connection with Shmuel the Ramati, that [dying like Shmuel at] 52 years is the death of <i>koreis</i> [which is between 50 and 60 years], and the reason the Gemara did not mention this [in an earlier statement] was due to Shmuel’s honor, since the Holy One had [actually] shortened his years so that he should not witness his sons’ deaths. But why should the Gemara not mention this because of Shmuel’s honor? Since he had sons this could not have been <i>koreis</i>? The answer is that the Tosefta says that [<i>koreis</i>] only applies to small sons who do not have their own merit, and does not apply to adult sons. Therefore, there is no [contrary] proof from Shmuel the Ramati as they were adults.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Pure for you. Explanation: Pure or impure through your action. For example, if one slaughtered the whole gullet and only half the windpipe it is impure; if one slaughtered the whole gullet and most of the windpipe it is pure. I.e., you made it pure for eating. 
  To forbid. It is pertinent for the verse to speak of “distinguishing,” since Rashi explained that “impure” means “impure for you,” i.e., impure through your action, that the majority of one “sign” was not cut. But regarding something that is the way it is without any [human] action [such being a cow or donkey], since it is pure or impure of itself, it is not pertinent [to write] “you shall distinguish,” as [Rashi explained] above.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Say (אמור), and you shall say. The verse should only have written, “Speak, to the <i>kohanim</i>.” Therefore [the apparent redundancy teaches us that], “speak” is to warn [the adult <i>kohanim</i>] themselves, “and you shall say” is to warn the adults regarding the minors. You might ask why Rashi does not also say this answer [regarding the verse] “Speak (דבר) (to the entire congregation [of] Bnei Yisroel) and say (אמרת) (to them)” in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:2). The answer is that דבור is a general [command to speak] and does not explain what the statement will be, while אמרת implies something specific, i.e., say this [particular] thing. Here however, where אמור is [already] specific, Rashi is asking why one needs [a command to say] two specific [statements]. 
  The verse says: The kohanim. You might ask, why does Rashi explain the verse in reverse order? He should have first explained “the sons of Aharon” and then [explained] “you shall say to them.” You might also ask, how does he derive all these lessons from “the sons of Aharon”? The answer is that Rashi is explaining as follows: Once I have explained that “you shall say to them” is to “to warn the adults regarding the minors,” why then does the verse need to write “the <i>kohanim,</i> the sons of Aharon”? Without [the first explanation regarding minors] there would be no difficulty as I could say that, if it wrote “the <i>kohanim</i>” and not “the sons of Aharon,” I would think the law only applied to adults and not to minors. Therefore it had to write “the sons of Aharon” in order “to warn the adults regarding the minors.” But now that I derived this from “you shall say to them,” you might ask, why write “the <i>kohanim</i>”? Rashi answers, if it wrote “the sons of Aharon” and not “the <i>kohanim</i>,” I would think even those who are unfit. Therefore the verse says “the <i>kohanim</i>,” i.e., he must be a complete <i>kohein.</i> Rashi then answers another question. How can you explain that “the <i>kohanim</i>” excludes those who are unfit? Perhaps it is needed [for something else], since if it did not write “the <i>kohanim,</i>” but only “the sons of Aharon,” I would think they must be perfect like the sons of Aharon, and it would exclude those who are blemished. Therefore you need “the <i>kohanim</i>” to include the blemished. [To this] Rashi answers that “the sons of Aharon” implies the blemished as well and therefore this would not answer why the verse writes “the <i>kohanim.</i>” Rather, you need it as I answered above, to exclude the unfit. Rashi then answers why the verse writes “the sons of Aharon.” It should only have written “the <i>kohanim</i>” and from that I could exclude the unfit and include the blemished, because both of these [laws] are implied in the word “the <i>kohanim.</i>” He answers that if it did not say “the sons of Aharon,” I would think that even daughters of Aharon are implied in “the <i>kohanim,</i>” because wherever the Torah writes a masculine term, women are also included. Therefore it has to write “the sons of Aharon” and exclude the daughters of Aharon. See Mizrachi who explains in a different way, as follows: You need them both because if it only wrote “the sons of Aharon,” it would imply even the unfit and if so, there would be no exclusionary phrase for the unfit, and they would be included in “sons of Aharon.” [Therefore] it writes “the <i>kohanim</i>” to exclude the unfit. [Rashi] then says, from where do you include even the blemished? Because the verse says “the sons of Aharon.” I.e., there is no exclusionary phrase to exclude them as “the <i>kohanim</i>” came to exclude the unfit, and therefore “the sons of Aharon” implies that even the blemished [should be included]. Thus we are left with a situation where “the sons of Aharon” includes the blemished and [the Torah writes the phrase] to exclude the daughters of Aharon. Whereas if it were only written “the <i>kohanim</i>” one would have thought that women <i>kohanim</i> are included because men and women are [generally] treated the same regarding all the punishments of the Torah. You cannot say the other way round, which would be stringent [as follows]: “’The <i>kohanim.</i>’ You might think, but not the unfit, so the verse says ’the son of Aharon,’ and even the unfit are included in the sons of Aharon.” Because if so, for what would you use the exclusionary expression “the <i>kohanim.</i>” 
  Among his people. Because if not so, why say “among his people?” Therefore, it is saying [that this law only applies] when the deceased is among his people and there are many people involved in his burial. 
  Excluding a mes mitzvoh. I.e., [when] there is no one to bury [the deceased], he is permitted to become defiled and bury the deceased. A <i>mes mitzvoh</i> is every case where one [the finder of the body] calls [for help] and no one responds. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) <i>Re’em</i> raises a difficulty: Why do we need a verse to permit <i>mes mitzvoh</i>? Why not derive this from the <i>Kohein Godol</i> and <i>nazir</i> who may defile themselves for a <i>mes mitzvoh</i> even though they may not defile themselves for their relatives. How much more so should a regular <i>kohein</i> who does defile himself for his relatives be permitted to defile himself for a <i>mes mitzvoh.</i> Should his being a regular <i>kohein</i> make the law more stringent for him than that of a <i>Kohein Godol</i>? It seems that if not for [this] verse, I would think that the verse “he shall not become [ritually] impure” [said of the <i>Kohein Godol</i>] means that he may not defile himself for no purpose, [and is] not [speaking about] for the sake of a mitzvah. But to deal with a corpse in order to bury it, where there is a mitzvah, he is permitted, and it is only forbidden when not for the purpose of a mitzvah. Therefore the Torah writes regarding the regular <i>kohein</i> that whenever the dead body is “among his people” he may not defile himself, and if so, the leniency of the <i>Kohein Godol</i> [too] is [only in] a case of <i>mes mitzvoh</i> that has no one to bury the deceased. But if there are people available to bury the deceased, he is forbidden to become defiled for it even though he would be performing a mitzvah [by doing so]. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  “His kin” [refers] to none other than his wife. I.e., “his kin” that is written here, (see Tosefos Yom Tov in Bava Basra chapter <i>Yeish Nochalin</i>  [Mishnah 1]. You might ask that it should have written הקרובה (to whom he is closely related) in the feminine form? The answer is that wherever it is written שאר (kin) it means שאר בשר (blood kin) and thus it is as if the verse had written שאר בשר. And since בשר is masculine, it writes the masculine form הקרוב. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) You might ask that if so, it should have said “<i>and</i> for his mother” with a <i>vav,</i> since שארו refers to something else. It seems that שארו actually refers to his mother and his father mentioned afterwards as they are his close relatives and his flesh. However, since one could ask [that if so], why does the Torah writes שארו, since afterwards it explicitly says to whom he may become defiled. To answer this they said that it includes his wife, because besides his wife there is no close relative of his [not already mentioned]. We need to find a reason why, in truth, the Torah does not mention the wife separately as it mentions his mother and father. It seems that we learn from this that regarding his wife too, there is a distinction [to teach us] that he does not defile himself for his betrothed. This is what the Torah is saying: he defiles himself for his wife whose marital status is similar to that of his mother and his father, but for his betrothed he is forbidden to defile himself. (The <i>Pa’anei’ach Raza</i> writes) that here it says “for his mother and his father,” and regarding the <i>Kohein Godol</i> it says “for his father and his mother,” because in both cases it goes from the obvious to the less obvious. Here, regarding the regular <i>kohein</i> who defiles himself for them, it says that not only for his mother who is certainly [his mother] does he obviously defile himself, but even for his father who is in doubt [as maybe his mother conceived from someone else] he defiles himself. And regarding the <i>Kohein Godol</i> who does not defile himself, it says that not only for his father does he obviously not defile himself, but even for his mother he should not defile himself. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  
  Verse 3
  
  The betrothed. You might ask, why not say the opposite, that it comes to exclude the betrothed, that he may not become defiled for her? The answer is that if so, the verse need not have written “closely related,” and I would still know that the betrothed is excluded because it says “who has not yet been married” (לא היתה), since “married” (הויה) generally means betrothal. Perforce, “closely related” is coming to include, that he may become defiled for her. And [therefore], “who has not yet been married” must mean “consummated,” as Rashi explains nearby. You might ask: why say that [“closely related”] come to include “the betrothed”? Perhaps “closely related” comes to include “someone [whose signs of virginity were] struck by a stick,” so that you do not exclude “someone struck by a stick” because of the verse “virgin” which [seems to] exclude a non-virgin; and “who has not yet been married” [actually] comes to exclude the betrothed? The answer is that if so, the verse should have written neither “virgin” nor “closely related,” and I would have known that he is permitted to defile himself for “someone struck by a stick.” Therefore we must say that “closely related” comes to include the betrothed, and “who was not married” means “consummation,” and “struck by a stick” is automatically included since she became a nonvirgin without consummation. Do not ask that the verse should write neither “virgin” nor “who was married to a man,” because in that case I would have said that “closely related” comes to exclude the betrothed. Therefore it has to write “who was not married to a man, [which], as Rashi explains above [means that the marriage was consummated], and automatically we also include “struck by a stick.” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i> and <i>Divrei Dovid</i>) You might ask, why is [the phrase] “closely related” [written in the verse dealing with] his sister different such that we expound from it, “to <i>include</i> the betrothed,” whereas regarding “his kin to whom he is closely related” we <i>exclude</i> the betrothed? The Yerushalmi explains that regarding his [the <i>kohein’s</i>] betrothed, so long as she has not had <i>nisu’in</i> she remains in the house of her father and brothers, and therefore we [expound to] <i>exclude</i> her. But regarding his sister, she is [regarded] his close relative until the <i>nisu’in</i> [as] she is in the home of her brothers. Therefore, we expound to include [her]. 
  [It is] a [positive] command. Because before it is written, “Let him not defile himself with the dead among his people. Except to his kin ... for his virgin sister...” This implies that he may defile himself for everyone mentioned. If so, why also write, “For her, he may be defiled”? Therefore, it must be to add a positive command. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  For a deceased person. As Rashi proves from a <i>gezeroh shovoh.</i>
  So too further on the entire head. You might ask, perhaps [we should say] the opposite? Just as later [it says] specifically between the eyes, so too regarding <i>kohanim</i> it means specifically between the eyes and not the whole head? The answer is that one cannot learn <i>kohanim</i> from Israelites in this manner, because the verse here explicitly writes “on their heads,” which implies the entire head. Do not ask that now, how can you learn that regarding Israelites too it means the entire head if the verse writes “between your eyes”? The answer is that it certainly means the entire head, and it only writes “between your eyes” for the purpose of another <i>gezeroh shovoh,</i> so that we can learn <i>tefillin</i> from it, as it is written, “They will be <i>totafos</i> between your eyes,” so that you do not say it means literally between your eyes. So [to avoid this mistake] we learn a <i>gezeroh shovoh.</i> It is written here [regarding <i>tefillin</i>], “between your eyes,” and later it is written, “You shall not make any baldness between your eyes.” Just as later it refers to a place where one makes baldness, so regarding <i>tefillin</i> it is a place where one makes baldness. Do not ask, how could we think [in our first question] that we should learn <i>kohanim</i> from Israelites that [the prohibition of <i>kohanim</i>] is specifically between their eyes? If so, why would I need the verse “They shall not make baldness”? Are they not [included in the prohibition of] Israelites? The answer is that you would use [our verse] in order to learn from it that if one made many bald patches at once he is liable for each [instance of making a] bald patch. With all this we have answered the question of <i>Re’m</i>. He asks, how the sages could expound: Since it says, “You shall not make any baldness between your eyes,” I would think the prohibition is only between your eyes. From where do we include the entire head? Because the verse says, “On their heads.” [Regarding this <i>Re’m</i> asks]: But it is written, “Between your eyes,” And if the verse “on their heads” comes to include the entire head,” why do we explain the verse “between your eyes” [which implies only part of the head]? On the contrary, the sages should expound the opposite, that because it says, “They shall not make baldness on their heads,” I would say it means the entire head. And therefore the verse says “between your eyes” [to tell you], I only said between your eyes! And now you could not object, that it is written “on their head,” because between the eyes is also on their heads, because even part of the heads is called “their heads.” And the reason it writes it again regarding <i>kohanim</i> is only because of the superfluous [word] קרחה written there, to make one liable for every bald patch, etc. <i>Re’m</i> left this unanswered; analyze this. 
  Perhaps for plucking with tweezers. I.e., they should be liable for this as well. [In conclusion] we derive Israelites from <i>Kohanim</i> to whom the Torah gave more <i>mitzvos,</i> and even so, they [<i>kohanim</i>] are not liable except for shaving. How much more so an Israelite. 
  To make him liable for each and every gash. And we learn Israelites from <i>kohanim</i> with a <i>gezeroh shovoh.</i> But you cannot say that we learn Israelites from <i>kohanim</i> through a plain comparison that they are liable for every gash, because you could disprove it, since what [makes <i>kohanim</i> liable for every gash]? [The fact] that the Torah added many <i>mitzvos</i> for them. Therefore we need the <i>gezeroh shovoh.</i> Even though Rashi does not mention this [<i>gezeroh shovoh</i>], this is because he relied on his writing the <i>gezeroh shovoh</i> of “baldness, baldness” [earlier], and he did not want to be lengthy.   
  
  Verse 6
  
  The court shall sanctify them against their will. [<i>Re’m</i> explains]: Because it is not written “They (are) holy” (קדושים הם), but rather, “They shall be holy” (קדושים יהיו), which indicates [even] against their will. The explanation of his explanation is: יהיו is in the third person, speaking of the <i>kohanim</i> to the <i>beis din.</i> Even though the verse could not say “you shall be” (תהיו) in the second person because the whole subject is said in the third person, “<i>They</i> shall not make baldness,” “<i>They</i> shall not shave,” etc., nevertheless, it could have said “<i>They</i> (are) holy” (קדושים הם). This is easy to understand (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) Even though above (Vayikra 19:2) it says [regarding the Bnei Yisroel], “You shall be holy” (קדושים תהיו), and there it is not mentioned that this is against their will? The answer seems to be: Above, it first said “You shall be holy” and afterwards explained how they should be holy, by restricting themselves from wives who are forbidden to them. Here, however, it first commanded the <i>kohanim</i> about what is forbidden, such as defilement of the dead; if so, what is it adding when it says “They shall be holy,” since “They shall be holy” cannot be an explanation of what came before it [as it adds nothing]. Therefore, Rashi answers that it is an additional command to the <i>beis din,</i> in addition to commanding [the <i>kohanim</i>] themselves regarding this. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Because she had sexual relations in one of the marriages forbidden to a kohein. For example, a widow [who was married] to a <i>Kohein Godol,</i> or a <i>chalutzah</i> to a regular <i>kohein,</i> who becomes profaned from the <i>kehunah.</i> She is called profaned even though she was already forbidden to a <i>kohein,</i> [since] there is a difference. If a <i>kohein</i> had relations with her afterwards, he will be liable for two negative commands, one because of [her being] a widow and a <i>chalutzah,</i> and one because of [her being] profane. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Against his will. You might ask: Above too in v. 6 it is written “They shall be holy,” [and Rashi explained], “Against their will”? The answer is that above it is saying that regarding the prohibition against become defiled by the dead, the <i>beis din</i> are obligated to separate him against his will. But here it is discussing an invalid woman, and therefore Rashi says here, “For if he does not wish to divorce, beat him...” Even though it already mentioned that the <i>beis din</i> [forces him to be] sanctified him [even] against his will, it seems that the verse says this again so that you do not say that only when he wants to defile himself does the <i>beis din</i> force him to not defile himself, since he is [still] pure. But if he married a woman forbidden to him, I might think that since he is already profaned and considered like a non-<i>kohein,</i> we should leave him thus [with her]. So it tells us that the <i>beis din</i> is commanded [to see to it] that he must specifically divorce her. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  
  Verse 9
  
  When she becomes profaned through fornication. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that she is only burnt if she “began (תחל) to fornicate” [and was caught immediately]. But if she had already begun to fornicate and no one knew, and the matter only became known later, she is not burnt. But this is not logical! Therefore Rashi explains: “When she becomes <i>profaned</i> through fornication,” and informs us that the word תחל means “profanity” and not “beginning.” 
  Marital tie (זיקת) with a husband. זיקת is an expression of tying. The Targum Yonasan translates (Yeshayahu 60:11) ומלכיהם נהוגים , “And their kings tied up,” as ומלכיהם זקוקין. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  It shall not grow wild in mourning. As we learn from the sons of Aharon where it is written (Vayikra 10:6), “Do not let your hair grow long (תפרעו),” just as over there [it refers to someone] in mourning, so here [it refers to someone] in mourning. And what is [the definition of] growing [hair] wild? [Leaving it uncut for] more than thirty days as we learn from the [laws of] <i>nazir</i> of whom it is written, “He shall let (יהיה) the hair of his head grow long; the <i>gematria</i> of יהיה is thirty. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  A tent [which is over a] dead body. I.e., because it is written “he shall not enter,” and entering is not applicable except into something that has an interior. 
  A quarter of blood. It seems that Rashi infers this from Scripture’s writing “souls” in the plural, and “dead body” in the singular., as iI It should have said either “the soul of a dead body,” or “the souls of dead bodies.” Thus it is saying that one body can impart impurity similar to that of many souls, and this is [through] the quarter [of a לוג] of blood, since each quarter [of a לוג] from a corpse imparts impurity, and one can call it “soul” as the soul rests in a quarter [of a לוג] of a person. And this is easy to understand. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) You might ask: In <i>parshas</i> Chukas (Bamidbar 19:13) it is also written, במת בנפש, “a corpse,” and Rashi writes, “’Of a [human] soul’ refers to a quarter [of a לוג] of blood.” Why do we need two verses [to teach this lesson]? The answer is: Here it is speaking of a case where it caused impurity in a tent, and there it is speaking of a case where it caused impurity though contact. 
  To permit him [to become impure] for a meis mitzvoh. Because Scripture has already written, “Adjacent to any dead body he shall not enter,” which must be teaching that he may not become impure even for his father and mother. Because if it meant for other people, this would be obvious as even a regular <i>kohein</i> is prohibited as it is written (verse 1), “Let him not defile himself with the dead.” Therefore, “Adjacent to any dead body he shall not enter,” must be coming to prohibit a corpse [for whom] a regular <i>kohein</i> is permitted [to defile himself], e.g., his father and mother. But if so, why do we need [the verse], “for his father and mother he shall not become [ritually] impure”? We must certainly need it [for the following]: If the Torah did not write “his father and his mother,” we would think that since the verse “Let him not defile himself, etc.,” prohibits the <i>Kohein Godol</i> doing even that which is permitted to the regular <i>kohein,</i> and earlier the Torah permitted [the regular <i>kohein</i> to become impure for] a <i>meis mitzvah</i> and for his father and mother, whereas here regarding the <i>Kohein Godol</i> the Torah forbids everything, we would then think that even for a <i>meis mitzvah</i> it is forbidden for him to become impure. Therefore the verse repeats and writes, “For his father and his mother he shall not become [ritually] impure,” [to teach us that] for his father and mother he may not become impure, but for a <i>meis mitzvah</i> he may become impure. So I found. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  May offer [a sacrifice] while he is an onein. Explanation: We derive this from theis verse, “He shall not profane his God’s Sanctuary.” You cannot say we derive this from “He shall not depart (from the Sanctuary),” [because] how could we derive these two teachings from this verse? The teaching that “he does not follow the bier” implies both during the Temple service and not during the service, whereas according to the second teaching, the verse has to be explained [as speaking of] during the service, [whereas not during the service he should follow the bier]. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Born of [a marriage] forbidden to the kehunoh. You might ask: Rashi already explained this above (verse 7)? Furthermore, if Rashi wanted also to explain [the verse] here as well, he should have also mentioned the second explanation [of profaned woman as] he explained above, and also explained the word “harlot” written here. The answer is: he has to explain the meaning of “profaned woman” here, since you may have thought the case is specifically that she was invalidated from <i>kehunoh</i> through having sexual relations with one of those people forbidden to <i>kehunoh,</i> i.e., even if the relations were unnatural [and she remained a virgin according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir (see Yevamos 59a)]. But [you may have thought that] a virgin born from someone invalidated from <i>kehunah</i> would not be considered a profane woman, since the verse specifically writes חללה זונה, which implies, a profane woman who is [also] a harlot. [You might think this] because preceding this, the verse wrote אלמנה וגרושה (“a widow and a divorcee), which implies a widow <i>or</i> a divorcee. If so, here [too] it should have written וזונה (and a harlot), which would have implied “<i>or</i> a harlot.” Therefore, because it writes “harlot” without a ו, this implies that she is a profaned woman who is also a harlot. Therefore, Rashi has to explain that [a daughter] “born of [a marriage] forbidden to the <i>kehunoh</i>” is also considered a profaned woman, and that the word “harlot” is not connected with the word “profane woman.” The reason Scripture does not write “and a profaned woman <i>and</i> a harlot,” is because it is normal for verses to write in this way. For example, above (verse 2) [it says], “Except to his kin to whom he is closely related, for his mother and his father,” it should have said “<i>and</i> for his mother.” 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Profaned from the status of the holiness of the kehunoh. I.e., his male children are permitted to become impure, to marry a divorcee, and anything similar. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  The food. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above in v. 6 where it says, “The bread of their God they bring, and they must be holy?” The answer is that above you could say that when the verse mentions bread, etc., it is referring to the show bread that was in the sanctuary. But here, where it says “shall not approach to offer,” why do we need [the extra word] “to offer?” Thus, it must be dealing with all the offerings offered on the altar, and therefore he has to explain, “Every food [meal]...” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  It is not proper that he approach. Because if not so, what reason is the verse giving when it says (verse 17) “Shall not approach... For any man who has a blemish shall not approach.” What is the verse adding with this? Therefore he explains, “It is not proper.” (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  Both his eyes with one stroke. Explanation: his nose is sunk close to his eyes so that when he wants to paint both of his eyes, his nose does not prevent him from painting them both together with one stroke. 
  Longer. You might ask: This is the same as being lame. The answer is that lameness is when his limbs are like everyone else except that one thigh is shorter, while “disproportionate” is the opposite, all his limbs are like everyone else except that one thigh is longer. The expression of שרוע is similar to, “For the bed is too short to stretch oneself out (מהשתרע)” (Yeshayahu 28:20). 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Snake, wart. I.e., he has the form of a snail, or the form of a snake, or something like the pit of a grape in his eyes. Some have the text, “worm, snake, his eyes,” meaning that he has the form of a snail or snake in his eyes. Some say that ענב is an expression of עניבה (coil), because it is the way of the snake to coil itself and עניבה is an expression of coiling. All [the versions] mean the same, [i.e., that he has some kind of a streak in his eye]. מריס פחדין. פחדין means testicles. 
  מריס פחדין. פחדין means testicles.
  
  Verse 21
  
  To include other blemishes. Because if not so, why does it repeat “Any man who has a blemish” a second time? It is already written above (verse 17), “Anyone of your offspring, through [all] their generations who will have a blemish, etc.” 
  Every food. You might ask: Rashi already explained this above (verse 17)? Furthermore, here he [only] explains “every food,” while above he [also] explained “the food of his God?” The answer is: Above he is talking about the daily sacrifices that are called bread as it says, “My food [lit. bread] of My fires” (Bamidbar 28:2). But here he is talking about the most holy sacrifices, which one may have thought are not called bread. Therefore, he explains, “<i>Every</i> food is called bread.” [See <i>Re’m</i>] 
  
  Verse 22
  
  I would have thought: A blemished person may eat of the most holy sacrifices. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) <i>Re’m</i> raises a question regarding Rashi’s statement that the holy sacrifices were permitted to a non-<i>kohein</i>: The Gemara in <i>Perek Tevul Yom</i> (Zevachim 101b) says<i>,</i> Moshe, our teacher, was a <i>Kohein Godol</i> and took a portion of the sacrifices of Heaven as it says concerning the ram of inauguration (Vayikra 8:29), “That was the portion of Moshe.” If so, [where is the proof that] it was not permitted to a non-<i>kohein</i>? This is no difficulty, since it is still correct to say that it was permitted to a non-<i>kohein,</i> i.e., to someone whose sons were not <i>kohanim.</i> Also, Moshe was not a <i>kohein</i> regarding everything, as he was not permitted to do service after the Tabernacle was erected, and concerning this he is called a non-<i>kohein.</i> 
  
  Verse 23
  
  To sprinkle seven sprinklings. Because if not so, what has he to do with the Curtain that the verse should warn him from entering there. 
  The outer [one]. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it is the inner altar? The answer is: If it was speaking about the inner altar, there would be no need to write, “He may not enter beyond the Curtain,” because if he is forbidden to approach the inner altar which is outside the Curtain, he would certainly not be permitted to approach the curtain. But if it is speaking of the outer altar, “both had to be written, and [the reason] is explained, etc.”
  
  His service is profaned. I.e., מקדשי of the verse does not mean the actual Temple, but rather His service, because the word מקדש can refer to the actual Temple and also to the service performed in the Temple. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  To warn the court. Because if not so, what have Yisroel to do with the warning of the <i>kohanim</i>? 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Reverse the verse. I.e., “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel which they sanctify for Me.” But not as the verse is written. If you do not reverse the verse, and “which they sanctify for Me” is written after “and they shall not profane,” and “which they sanctify for Me” comes “to include the holy offerings of the <i>kohanim</i> themselves,” as Rashi soon explains, the verse would be unclear. Because we could explain that the negative command of “and they shall not profane” also refers to “which they sanctify for Me [i.e., the sacrifices of the <i>kohanim</i>].” On the other hand [we could explain that] if “which they sanctify to Me” refers [only] to “I am Hashem,” and that the verse means as follows: “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel and they shall not profane My holy name.” However, regarding those “which they sanctify for Me [i.e., the <i>kohein’s</i> own sacrifices], I am Hashem,” [ready] to punish them, but they will not transgress [the negative command of] “they shall not profane, etc.” (<i>Re’m</i>). But I discovered in a corrected text that the words “another alternative interpretation” in Rashi’s text above [in the text of Sifsei Chochomim, the words “another alternative interpretation” appeared just before our current Rashi], are a copyist’s error and one should move the words “another alternative interpretation” below. And this is the [correct] text: “They shall separate [themselves] from holy things in the days of their impurity. ’And let them keep away from the holy offerings, etc., and not profane My Holy Name.’ Reverse the verse and expound it. An alternative interpretation. ’Which (they sanctify for Me), etc.’.” I heard that this [alternative interpretation] should be explained as follows: According to the first interpretation, Rashi is explaining that [the phrase] “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel” refers to days when [a <i>kohein</i>] is impure. But according to the alternative interpretation where Rashi explains “They shall separate themselves” [in a new way], he means that the verse [“which they sanctify for Me”] is referring to an animal that was sanctified for a sacrifice. The <i>kohanim</i> are commanded not to not eat them but to offer them on the altar. [The verse says this] so that you do not say, since sacrifices are permitted to <i>kohanim</i> after their organs [of the animal] have been sacrificed, if so, once an animal has been sanctified, it too should be permitted [immediately]. Therefore the Torah commands against this. This is why Rashi reverses the verse and expounds it as if it is written, “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel, which they sanctify for Me,” so that [according to the alternative interpretation, the verse] is referring to a person declaring [that an animal is] sanctified [as an offering, and is commanding the <i>kohanim</i> not to not eat such an animal before it is sacrificed]. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  From a gezeroh shovoh. This is according to our text. The text should be amended to read But “oOur sages actually learned it from a <i>hekesh</i>: Is then a <i>kohein</i> who [merely] touches [sacrificial flesh when he is unclean] liable [to <i>koreis</i>]? If so, etc., i.e., if he was liable for touching, the verse would not have to make him liable for eating. Therefore one has to say that the [words] “drawing near” [inof our verse] means “eating”. You might ask: Why not say that “draw near” means touching, and regarding your question that if so, the verses in [the parshah] <i>Tzav es Aharon</i> should not have mentioned eating, [you could answer] that the verses [there] neededs [to mention eating] as one might have said that we do not derive punishment from a <i>kal vachomer.</i> The answer is: We do not derive punishment from a <i>kal vachomer</i> only with regard to human punishments, but regarding Divine punishment, we derive punishment from a <i>kal vachomer.</i> 
  Unless that which makes it permissible is offered. Meaning, he is not liable unless they offered that which permits the sacrifice to be eaten. I.e., [the burning of] the fat and the sprinkling of the blood. 
  And if you say: Why are there three kerisos. Rashi is saying as follows: I explained earlier, “Since <i>koreis</i> is mentioned regarding eating in [the parshah] <i>Tzav es Aharon:</i> Two <i>kerisos</i> are [mentioned] next to one each another, and if he is liable, etc.” This implies that the [word] <i>koreis</i> here too is also speaking about eating. But if so, the question is even greater — why mention three <i>kerisos</i>? Why does Rashi only ask this question here, after explaining that the drawing near means eating? The answer is: Had he not said this, he could have answered that the three <i>kerisos</i> are [necessary], one to prohibit eating, one to prohibit touching, and one <i>koreis</i> for someone who eats it before that which makes it permissible has been offered. But now that Rashi explained that one is not liable for touching, but only liable after that which makes it permissible is offered, the question arises: why are three <i>kerisos</i> mentioned? 
  Passes away from him. Since the verse writes “on him,” this implies that the impurity is still on him as he has not yet become purified. Because if it referred to the meat which cannot be purified in a <i>mikveh,</i> the verse should have said “and it <i>is</i> impure” implying that it cannot be purified from its impurity.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  A lentil. Otherwise Scripture should have written only “Anyone who touches any creeping creature,” and nothing more. Why does it write “that causes impurity to him”? So that you do not say that [he is impure] only if he touched a complete creeping creature. 
  A dead body. You might ask: Impurity imparted by a dead body requires seven days [for the person to become pure], yet here it is written that one only requires for the sun to set [for the person to become pure, which is] like the impurity imparted by a creeping creature where it is written, “He will be impure until the evening”? The answer is that we are only deriving [the law of] the impurity imparted by a dead body from [the law of] the impurity imparted by a creeping creature regarding the necessity for the sun to set. So that you do not say that once as soon as the seventh day begins he is pure, [on the basis] that part of the day is considered the whole day. I found this. 
  An olive’s-bulk. Otherwise, why write “Which causes uncleanness to him”? This would [already] be implied in “Any person ... [with] whatever impurity he has.” 
  This includes one who touches a zov. Even though this is not the uncleanness imparted by the dead that the verse is discussing, nonetheless it is included in “whatever impurity he has,” since all these are human impurities. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Any of these [ritually] unclean [persons]. I.e., the verse should have said, “Anyone touching them.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Terumah. Explanation: This [verse that writes] “<i>of</i> the holy things” and [not] “all holy things,” implying only some holy things, is speaking about the holy <i>terumah.</i>  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Regarding the matter of uncleanness. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah already wrote [this prohibition earlier], “An animal which has died on its own, or an animal that was fatally maimed, he must not eat,” [earlier, verse (11:40)]? When Rashi writes, “[This verse] warns regarding the matter of uncleanness, etc.,” he means that this prohibition does not pertain to its eating but to its imparting impurity, telling us “That if he ate, etc.” Regarding what he says, “Except for the uncleanness [caused by] eating as soon as it is in the gullet,” see above in <i>parshas</i> Acharei Mos (17:15) in the verse “that will eat an improperly slaughtered animal.” 
  Which has no [rule of] uncleanness of touch. You might ask: Why does Rashi mention that it does not impart uncleanness [of touch]? He should have [only] said that if one eats the carcass of a ritually clean bird, he gets the uncleanness caused by eating as soon as it is in the gullet? The answer is: Rashi wants to prove his statement that the verse is talking about the carcass of a ritually pure bird, and not about the carcass of an animal: Since in the verse it is written “An animal which has died on its own, or an animal that was fatally maimed, he must not eat to defile himself with it,” [this indicates specifically] eating. I.e., [the creature spoken of] imparts uncleanness only through eating and not through touching or carrying. But if it was talking about the carcass of an animal, this it would also impart uncleanness through touching and carrying! This problem is resolved if the verse is talking about the carcass of a ritually pure bird, since it imparts uncleanness only through eating. If one ate the carcass of a ritually clean bird, the carcass does not impart uncleanness by touching and carrying. It only imparts uncleanness by eating when it enters the person’s gullet. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Not to eat. Explanation: “They shall keep” is referring to [what is written] earlier where it was discussing <i>terumah,</i> as Rashi explained above. 
  At the hands of Heaven. <i>Re’m</i> asks: From where do we derive that this is death at the hands of Heaven? Is there not a rule that every death mentioned in the Torah without specification is [death by] strangulation? He leaves this question unanswered. The answer is: The death spoken of here must be at the hand of Heaven, because <i>kodshim</i> are more severe than <i>terumah,</i> since [unlike <i>terumah</i>] <i>kodshim</i> are forbidden [for someone who went to <i>mikveh</i> for his impurity] to be eaten <i>kodshim</i> at [after] sunset. Yet even so, if someone ate <i>kodshim</i> when ohine’s body was impure, heone is not liable for death at by the hand of man, because we derive the eating of <i>kodshim</i> from entering of the Sanctuary with a <i>hekesh,</i> as stated above in <i>parshas</i> Ki Tazria (12:4). And entering the Temple in a state of impurity is punished by <i>koreis</i> as it is written (Bamidbar 12:20), “That soul will be cut off from the community; for he defiled the Sanctuary of Hashem.” [If so], how much more is the lenient <i>terumah</i> not be liable for death by the hand of man. Another answer is: Rashi explained earlier in <i>parshas</i> Ki Tazria (ibid), that [the words] “anything holy” come to include <i>terumah.</i> This indicates that the death mentioned in <i>terumah</i> is <i>koreis,</i> similar to [the punishment for] eating <i>kodshim.</i> Another answer is that the verse indicates this by writing “And die because of it, etc., I am Hashem.” Why add “I am Hashem”? This must refer to the beginning of the verse where it states “And die because of it, etc.,” and it means, “I am Hashem,” Who will surely punish and kill him. This is death by the hand of Heaven. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  Or his hired hand. Explanation: Not that the indentured person and the hired hand are <i>kohanim,</i> because cshould [you think that] someone who belongs [to ahis master] for [a period of] years lose his <i>kehunah</i>? 
  Who leaves [his master’s service] in six years. You might ask: If so, the verse should [only] write the indentured person who does not eat <i>terumah</i> even though he belongs to [his master] until the Jubilee year, and then Scripture would not have to write that the hired hand may not eat since [it would be obvious since] he goes out [free] after six years? The answer is: If it did not mention the hired hand, we would say that the verse is speaking of the most likely case. [Thus] we would think that תושב is somebody who belongs [to his master] for [a period of] years and goes out after six years, and this is why he does not eat. But the one [who had his ear] pierced who belongs to him until the Jubilee year may eat <i>terumah.</i> Therefore the verse needs [to mention] the indentured person and the hired hand. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  A Canaanite slave. Rashi is answering the question: The previous verse implies that a [slave’s] body does not belong to the master, yet here it is written, “If a <i>kohein</i> shall purchase ... ?” He answers that the verse above is speaking of a Hebrew slave, while here it is speaking of a Canaanite slave. 
  And [this law] is also learned from another verse. There is a reason for these two sources. If [we would learn only] from here [where it says] “his monetary possession,” I might think that only his wife [may eat], but his <i>yevamah</i> may not eat as she is not his קנין כספו [lit. brought with his money]. Rather, Hheaven gave this wife to him as a possession [without the second husband giving her any money]. Thus “in your house” informs you [that she too eats <i>terumah</i>], because his <i>yevamah</i> is also regarded as “your house.” And if [we would learn] only from there, you might think that only a <i>nesu’ah</i> [may eat] because she is “his house,” but not an <i>arusah.</i> Therefore “his monetary possession” teaches us [that an <i>arusah</i> too also eats <i>terumah</i>]. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  To a Levite or an Israelite. Rashi is answering the [following] question: that It is obvious that she has to marry an איש זר (lit. a nonrelative), because she is forbidden to relatives. He answers that regarding her, a Levite or an Israelite are considered a זר. [See <i>Re’m</i>] 
  
  Verse 13
  
  From him. I.e., even if she has children from another person who is a <i>kohein,</i> even stillso she may not eat [<i>terumah</i>] if she has children from him. [See <i>Re’m</i>] 
  She is forbidden. Even though this is obvious, Rashi needs to mention this here since the Torah’s [actual] intent is only to tell us the prohibition, and not to tell us the a leniency as one would [normally] [implied by the simple] understanding of the verse. It is as if the verse said, “If a <i>kohein’s</i> daughter is either widowed, etc., and she has children from him, she may not eat <i>terumah.</i>” [See <i>Re’m</i>] 
  The children live. But after his death she returns [to her father’s home]. Even though with regard to <i>yibum</i>, if her husband died and afterward her child died, the child is considered as living and she is no longer [considered] attached for <i>yibum</i>. Nonetheless, with regard to terumah, if her son child died [after she was widowed or divorced], she returns [to her father’s home] and the child is not considered as living, for it is written, “she has no children” as explained in Yevamos chapter 7. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Terumah. Because the whole <i>parshah</i> is talking about <i>terumah.</i> Not like <i>Re’m</i> who explains that [this is derived from] a <i>gezeroh shovoh</i> of “holy,” “holy,” because regarding divestment (ביעור) it is written, “I have divested my estate of sacred (holy) material” (Devarim 26:13). [See <i>Re’m</i>] 
  Fit to become holy. Rashi is answering the question: Since he has already eaten the <i>terumah</i> because he has to pay, so how can it write, “And give to the <i>kohein</i> the holy thing”? 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  And Onkelos who translated “in their eating, etc.” Explanation: Onkelos seems to think that “They shall not profane” refers to above [verse 2], “And let them keep away from the holy offerings of Bnei Yisroel.” I.e., they [<i>kohanim</i>] should be careful with <i>terumah,</i> not to profane it and thereby burden themselves with sin by eating it in impurity. Therefore, Rashi writes that this is unnecessary since it is possible to explain that “they shall not profane” refers to the prohibition not to of feeding it to non-<i>kohanim. Re’m</i>
   
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  “I am obligated.” I.e., if he [then] set aside [an animal for this vow] and the animal was lost before it was sacrificed, he is obligated to make restitution. 
  Behold, this. And if it was lost he is not obligated to make restitution.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  By his speech. [Rashi says this] so that you do not think that if he [merely] thought in his heart to bring a vowed [sacrifice], he must bring the vowed [sacrifice]. Therefore Rashi explains, “To express, etc.” You might ask: Nevertheless, why does Rashi say “by his speech,” once he already explained “to express” obviously it implies speech? The answer is: You might have thought he [only] expressed [the word] “animal” [and mentally thought whether it would be a vow or a free-will-offering], and thus, [according to this premise], there would be no [verbal] difference between a vow and a free-will-offering. Therefore Rashi explains [that he expresses everything] “by his speech,” [and his obligation depends on] whether he [actually] says “I am obligated [to bring this sacrifice],” or “Behold, this [I will bring].”
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  [This is] the noun. Explanation: עורת is not the adjective of a female [noun], i.e., a blind animal, because [in] this whole subject [of blemishes, the adjectives are] expressed in the masculine form. Rather, it is a noun like <i>ivaron</i> (blindness), excepting that <i>ivaron</i> is a masculine term and עורת is a feminine term. It is as if the verse said, “The blemish of blindness shall not be in it” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). <i>Gur Aryeh</i> means that עורת cannot be the adjective of “animal,” because if so שבורה (broken-limbed) too should have been feminine. Rather it is a noun, like <i>tzedakah</i> and <i>tzedek</i> [righteousness] that both have the same meaning. 
  It shall not be. Rashi does not write “it shall not have [the blemish of] broken-limbed” as he wrote concerning blindness, because שבור (broken-limbed) is an adjective, i.e., the sacrifice shall not be broken-limbed. Therefore it is suitable to write that “it shall not be” [broken-limbed]. But regarding the noun of עורון (blindness) it is suitable to write “It shall not have.” I.e., it shall not have the blemish of blindness. 
  A type of lichen. Why does Rashi explain here what he already explained by [in the section of] the blemishes of a <i>kohein</i>? Because since the Torah lists here blemishes that are not mentioned over there, one may have thought that these [too] are blemishes [sharing the same names] that were not mentioned there. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) 
  
  Verse 23
  
  Whose hooves are uncloven. I.e., an animal that has cloven hooves, except that the hoof of one foot is uncloven and not cloven like the others. Instead, its foot is like that of a horse or donkey. 
  Dedicated for the altar. With this Rashi is answering the question: How do we know that “You shall make it as a free-will-offering” means “for the repair of the Temple,” and that “For [the fulfillment of] a vow” means “for the altar”? Perhaps it is the opposite? He answers: “What dedicated thing ... Say: this is the dedicated [animal intended] for the altar.” Therefore, since “it will not be favorably accepted” refers to the altar, then “you shall make it as a free-will-offering” obviously refers to dedication “for the repair of the temple.” <i>Re’m</i> explains that since most freewill-offerings are for the repair of the temple, and most vows are for the altar, the Torah therefore refers to repair of the house as a “freewill-offering, and to the altar [sacrifices] as a “vow.” 
  
  Verse 24
  
  But they are still in the pouch. It is written in the name of <i>Moreinu Harav Hendel</i> that if they were cut off completely with the pouch and the pouch was missing, this would obviously invalidate it, because even for a bird and for non-Jews it is invalid. So how could can [the sages] say that [non-Jews] are permitted [to offer such animals on] altars in the fields? (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) 
  To castrate.  It cannot mean that you should not offer a crushed and mangled [animal] in your land [whereas elsewhere you can], because sacrifices are not offered outside the land. Therefore “you shall not do this thing” refers only to castration. 
  Even a [ritually] unclean one. Explanation: You cannot say that “And in your land you shall not inflict” means that they need only observe the prohibition against castration in the land and not outside the land, and that [therefore] it does not come to include everything in your land, even including unclean animals, because [the prohibition against] castration is an obligation [pertaining to] the person and it is not dependent upon the land. Perforce [“in your land”] comes to include even an unclean animal. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  Verse 25
  
  A blemished [animal]. Explanation: Specifically concerning the offering of an individual, if [a gentile] brings it to a <i>kohein</i> to sacrifice we only refuse to accept blemished [animals]. But if they are nonblemished we accept them as Rashi explains, “’Any man’ — to include non-Jews.” [But concerning public communal sacrifices, a gentile may not contribute to them at all even if the animal has no blemish]. But if they [the offerings of an individual brought by a gentile] are non-blemished we accept them as Rashi explains, “’Any man’ — to include non-Jews.” In the first chapter of Chullin (13) Tosfos asks: Why do we need “any man” to include non-Jews? Derive it from the verse, “And from a stranger’s [non-Jew’s] hand you shall not bring (offer) the bread of your God from any of these,” i.e., blemished animals, which indicates that we may accept non-blemished animals from them? Tosfos answers: One may have thought [that sacrificing their] blemished animal incurs a negative and positive commandment, and [that sacrificing] a non-blemished animal nevertheless incurs a prohibition. Therefore “any man” informs us [otherwise]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  To atone for you. Explanation: Since לא ירצו לכם indicates that “they are not acceptable for you,” the word “for you” is inappropriate unless one adds the word “to atone.” Rashi also alters the word לכם to עליכם (for you), because the word atonement is only used in conjunction with the word על, such as in the verse “And it will be favorably accepted from him to atone for him (לכפר עליו)” (above 1:4). 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  The mother [together with] the son or daughter. We derive this from the sending away [of the mother bird from] the nest as [we derive other things from the mother bird] later below [in the next S.C.]. Just as over there females are also included because it says “on the fledglings” which includes both males and females, here too, it makes no difference whether they are males or females. 
  And it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son. We derive this by comparing this case to the sending away [of the mother bird from] the nest. The mitzvah of “it and its offspring” applies to parents and offspring, and the mitzvah of sending away [from] the nest applies to parents and offspring. Just as over there it [only applies] to offspring and a mother as it is written “And the mother is sitting,” so here [it only applies to] offspring and a mother. You might ask that it should have said אותה ואת בנה, “she and her offspring”? The answer is that since it is written earlier, “an ox or a lamb” in the male gender, therefore Scripture also writes the adjacent אותו ואת בנו, [lit.] “he and his son” in the male gender. 
  Even its offspring and it. I.e., if one slaughtered the offspring before it, one is also liable since לא תשחטו [“you shall not slaughter” in the plural] implies that there is a case where two slaughterers are liable, both the one who slaughtered the mother and the one who slaughtered the daughter. Where do we find such a case? The case must be that there are three cows, a daughter, a mother, and a granddaughter, and the first [slaughterer] is always exempt. You cannot say the case is that one person slaughtered the mother and the two other people each slaughtered a daughter, because in that case it would be obvious that the last two are liable as both are [cases of] “it and its offspring.” Thus the case must certainly be that one person slaughtered a cow, and one person [then] slaughtered its mother and is liable, and another person slaughtered its daughter. Why is the person who slaughtered the mother liable when the first person had slaughtered its daughter beforehand? This indicates that one is also liable when the offspring is slaughtered before the mother. You need not ask: Perhaps [the Torah writes] תשחטו so that you do not think that only if one person slaughtered [both] it and its offspring is he liable, but if one person slaughtered the mother and another person slaughtered the offspring he would not be liable, and therefore it writes תשחטו, [to teach] that even though one person slaughtered the mother and a second person slaughtered the offspring, the second person is liable. Because if so, the Torah should have said לא ישחט (“it shall not be slaughtered”), [see <i>Re’m</i>]. This is easy to understand. (<i>Rav Yaakov Taryosh</i>). 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  Again detailed. In <i>parshas</i> Tzav (above7:18) where it says, “If it will be eaten, of the flesh of the peace-offering on the third day, it will not be favorably accepted.” [The verse] again detailed [it here], regarding [those] eaten for one day. Because the peace offerings mentioned here are peace offerings that are eaten for one day. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  This [refers] to study. I.e., to study and preserve all the mitzvos in one’s heart, and afterwards “[you shall] fulfill” what that which is preserved in the heart. Because For actionperformance always follows thought, i.e., what is preserved in the heart. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  To transgress My words. I.e., if someone wants to cause you to transgress the Torah, do not listen to him to transgress My words. 
  Surrender yourself. Without [Rashi’s previous comment] I would say that one [phrase, “You shall not profane My holy Name”] refers to inadvertent sin, and one [phrase, “I will be sanctified among Bnei Yisroel”] refers to deliberate sin, and the [purpose of the] verse is to instructing us to be careful to avoid both severe, intentional sins, and also less severe sins, unintentional sins. But now that Rashi explained that the phrase [“to transgress My words”] is speaking of intentional sins, why do I need [the words] “I will be sanctified among Bnei Yisroel?” I think Rashi means as follows: Since “You shall not profane My holy Name” means that one should not transgress My words intentionally but observe them, why does the Torah need to write “I will be sanctified,” [commanding us to sanctify] Hashem and to observe themHis words?. Is this not obvious, since the opposite of to sanctify is to profane? Rather, the verse means as follows: Even if you can avoid transgressing and profaning [My name], even so, [you must] surrender yourself and sanctify [My Name]. And since it is forbidden to just avoid [profaning Hashem’s Name] but rather one must surrender himself [to sanctify Hashem’s Name], one should therefore surrender himself to death, since by surrendering himself to death he is sanctifying the Name. But if one surrenders himself [to death] relying on a miracle to occur, it is not considered as though he is surrendering himself to death, and this is not a sanctification of the Name. Thus Rashi concludes, “’Who brought you out’ — for this purpose,” i.e., so that you surrender yourself to death without relying for a miracle to occur. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 33
  
  Faithful to give reward. Rashi writes this so that you should not say: Since Rashi just said that He took us out of Egypt for this purpose, if so this mitzvah does not have a reward., for wWe are obligated to fulfill it, since He took us out of Egypt for this purpose. So he [Rashi] tells us [that this is not so]. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) The Torah writes this here so that one should not say: Once a person surrenders himself to death and is killed he will no longer be able to fulfill mitzvos, so better that he profane the Name of Heaven once [and not allow himself to be killed] in order that he will fulfill the entire Torah [later]! Therefore it says, “I am Hashem,” faithful to give reward in the World to Come and at the Resurrection of the Dead [and will consider it] as if he had fulfilled the entire Torah. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> in the name of <i>Moreinu Harav Hendel</i>) 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  That [the Sanhedrin] proclaims a leap year. This is the correct text: “Regulate the appointed times so that [the] Israel[ites] should become knowledgeable in them,” i.e., they should become used to coming up [to Jerusalem] on the festivals. He then explains how [it is regulated]. “[The Sanhedrin] proclaims a leap year, etc.” Since the [people]y were uprooted from their place they [Sanhedrin] proclaim a leap year, because if they do not proclaim a leap year, they [people] will be unable to come up and reach Jerusalem until after the festival., and t The following year they will not want to come up for the festival, thinking that that they will be unable to reach Jerusalem before the festival. Therefore they proclaim a leap year. See Sanhedrin 11a. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Sanctification of the month. I.e., above (in verse 2) it is written, “The appointed times of Hashem, which you shall proclaim them” (תקראו אֹתם), and we [expound the word and] read it as אתם (you). I.e., everything depends on <i>beis din</i>; if they proclaim a leap year it is a leap year, and if not, it is not a leap year. And here too it is written, “The appointed times of Hashem, the holy assemblies that you shall proclaim them (אֹתם),” which implies that it depends on <i>beis din,</i> if they sanctify [the month] it is sanctified, and if not it is not sanctified. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  From six hours onward. I.e., from the beginning of the day until six hours [midday], the day is brightest. And from six hours onwards it is less bright than before, therefore from six [hours] onwards is called evening. The real evening is when night approaches and it becomes very dark. Thus the entire period from immediately after six hours [into the day] onwards until nightfall is called “between the evenings.” 
  The sacrifice whose name is Pesach. Because “Pesach” refers not to the festival, but to “the bringing, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Seteyne in Old French. In other words, שבעה is like an adjective describing a group of seven tangible objects, whether animals, plants or inanimate objects, whereas שבעת refers to a group of seven that is removed from something tangible, such as power or wisdom which are not intangible. Unlike “the strong person” or “the wise person,” which indicate a connection [of strength or wisdom] to something physical. Afterwards the verse explains that the group [implied by the abstract seven] consists of days. See <i>parshas</i> Bo (Shemos 12:15). 
  Perhaps even [during] the intermediate days of the festival. It answers [this query by saying] that whatever any activity which [would] incurs a loss [if it were not done at that time] is permitted [to be performed] onduring the intermediate days of the festival. This implies that on the festival itself, even that something which incurs a monetary loss [if it is not done] is forbidden. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  The first of the harvest. I.e., Jews may not reap their fields until the <i>omer</i> is reaped first, [before]of all everything else that is being reaped. But Rashi is not saying that ראשית קצירכם means that you should may only bring the <i>omer</i> only from the first of the harvest and not from the end or middle of the harvest. 
  Such was its name. I.e., the measure that contains a tenth of an <i>ephoh</i> is called an <i>omer.
  </i> 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Horizontally away from him and toward him. You might ask: How does Rashi know that תנופה includes “vertically upwards and downwards” as well? The answer is: This is derived from a <i>gezeroh shovoh</i> of “waved,” “waved.” It says in <i>parshas</i> Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:27), “Which were [the] waved (הונף) and uplifted (הורם).,” and over tThere [the verse refers to]he movinges [it] horizontally away from him and toward him, and vertically upwards and downwards. Because The word הונף means to move something away from him and toward himforwards and backwards, similar to the expression “waving (הנפה) with cloths,” when people chase away flies by moving a cloth to and from themselves. And הורם means to move something vertically upwards and downwards, because הורם is an expression of הרמה (lifting), and if one you lifts something one you haves to lower it. Here too it is the same. 
  To prevent harmful dews. I.e., so that the dew should serve as a blessing and not as a curse. 
  The Shabbos of Creation. Every Shabbos is called the Shabbos of Creation because that is when the Holy One “rested” at from the work of Creation.
  You [cannot] know which [Shabbos] is meant. Even though this proof is disproved and they cite other proofs there, nonetheless, Rashi cites this proof as it is a response to the words of the Tzedukim and Baitusim, [see explanation of <i>Re’m</i>]. Therefore For this [reason] he cites it. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  An obligation in connection with the omer. Rashi is answering the question: Why in <i>parshas</i> Pinchas (Bamidbar 28,) which lists [all] the additional offerings [of Pesach], as Rashi explains (in verse 8), is there no mention of this sheep? He answers: This sheep is not brought as an additional offering but comes as an obligation in connection related towith the <i>omer.</i> 
  
  Verse 13
  
  The meal-offering [which accompanies] its wineoffering. I.e., [this offering is] not the meal offering [which is brought] by itself that is mentioned in <i>parshas</i> Vayikra. Because iIt is written afterwards “Its wine-offering is one fourth of a <i>hin</i>,” and since the wine is [comes as] a wine-offering, the meal offering too is also certainly the mealoffering [which accompanies] a wine offering. Even though it is two tenths and the mealoffering of a sheep [that accompanies a wineoffering] is [generally] one [tenth], even so, it is [nevertheless] the meal-offering [which accompanies] a wine-offering, except that [here] it is double [the normal amount].
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  As its Targum: “the seventh week.” Rashi is answering the question: If it means [the passing of seven] actual Shabbosos, then the seven שבתות would be not fifty days, but only fortytwo days. 
  On the fiftieth day. I.e., since we only count forty-nine days, how can the verse write fifty days? He answers that fifty does not refer to “you shall count,” but to the offering, that on the fiftieth day you shall bring it, and the word (יום) is missing a בי"ת. It is as if it said, “On the fiftieth day you shall bring it [the sacrifice].” 
  Barley. I.e., that [offering] is the first of the barley, and the <i>omer</i> is the first of the wheat. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  For the Most High. Explanation: The word תנופה here does not have the same meaning as תנופה [of verse 10] where Rashi said it means [waving], “he moves [it] horizontally away from him and toward him.” Because over there, תנופה occurs after the bringing [of the offering and is part of the sacrificial ceremony]. But here, תנופה occurs before the bringing [of the offering, and simply means to separate it for Hashem]. This is implied by the [order of the] verse saying that you should bring of the bread of תנופה, i.e., first תנופה and then bringing. Perforce, תנופה here means raising and separating, that it is “raised for the most High.” 
  May not be brought. Not that this [offering] is [merely of] the first harvested [wheat], but rather, that the offering itself is a first-fruit-offering, first of all the meal-offerings. Because if not so, why does the verse say “first-fruit-offering,” once it is already written, “You shall bring a new meal-offering to Hashem,” i.e., you shall bring the offering from the new [harvest]. Therefore [we say that] the Torah wrote בכורים, similar to the word בכור (firstborn), to indicate that it is the first of all the meal-offerings. I.e., even the jealousy offering [of the <i>sotah</i>] which is of barley, is only brought after this meal-offering, even though the jealousy offering is not of wheat. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  An obligation. Since the verse obviously cannot be understooand according to its plain meaning [that the animals are] actually on top [of the bread]. Rather, it means because of the obligatory [offering] of the day, [implying] that if one did not bring the bread, he does not bring the sheep, etc. Rashi says [that it means] “for the sake,” because we find that על sometimes serves in place of a <i>lamed,</i> which serves in place of “for the sake.” <i>Re’m</i> explains the meaning of Rashi at length, writing that if one did not bring the bread, he does not bring the sheep, etc., proving this from the <i>Toras Kohanim.</i> [However] he forgot what is mentioned in Menachos (45a) in the Mishnah, and what is explained further in the Gemara. And so it says there in the words of R. Akiva. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 19
  
  These are [a group] unto themselves. Explanation: even though the number of sheep and the he-goat of this <i>parshah</i> are the same as those of <i>parshas</i> Pinchas, however the number of oxen bullocks and rams of this <i>parshah</i> are not the same as the bullocks and rams in <i>parshas</i> Pinchas. Because here it is written “one young bullock and two rams,” whereas in <i>parshas</i> Pinchas (Bamidbar 27:28) it is written, “two young bulls [and] one ram.” 
  
  Verse 20
  
  [While] alive. We derive this from the <i>gezeroh shovoh</i> “them,” “them.” It is written here, “The <i>kohein</i> shall <i>wave</i> them,” and it is written elsewhere, in <i>parshas</i> Metzora (14:12), “And <i>wave</i> them [the lamb and <i>log</i> of oil] as a wave-offering before Hashem.” Just as there [it is when they are] alive, for it is written afterwards (verse 13), “He shall slaughter the lamb,” so here too while they are alive. <i>Re’m,</i> however, explains: Because [We derive that the animal is waved while still alive] since it says regarding the peace-offering of an individual (above 7:34), “Because the breast waveoffering and the thigh [that is] the uplifted portion I have taken from Bnei Yisroel, from their peace-offerings (זבחי שלמיהם),” which implies the plural form. It should have said this in the singular form because it is talking of the peace-offering of an individual. This [plural expression] teaches that public peace-offerings too require waving. If so, why does the verse here need to write “The <i>kohein</i> shall wave them [the sheep peace-offerings] along with the bread of the first-fruit-offering as a wave-offering before Hashem?” It must be to teach the waving of the public peace offerings is [also] while they are still alive. This is [derived] in <i>Perek Kol Hamenachos</i> (Menachos 62a). 
  Holy things of a greater degree. Because if not, why write holy at all? Can it be that [the sanctity of] peace-offerings of the public be is less holy than peace-offerings of the individual which are holy? Thus, our verse must be saying that they are holy things of a greater degree. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Leave [it] before them. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> asks: Why did Rashi not explain this above in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:10) where it is also written [regarding left over grapes], “You shall leave them for the poor and the proselyte?” Also, how can Rashi [here] expound two lessons from one word? I think that one question answers the other. Since it is already written “you shall leave” in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim to teach “Leave [it] before them, etc.,” if so, “you shall leave” over here is apparently superfluous and comes for us to expound another lesson, that [besides] “Leave [it] before them and they will gather [it],” also, “You must not help any one of them [in preference to anyone else].” Rashi wanted to write both these lessons at one time and therefore he waited until here. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  To remember for your sake the binding of Yitzchok. Explanation. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say “It shall be a day of sounding the ram’s horn,” (as in <i>parshas</i> Pinchas (Bamidbar 29:1)?. Regarding this he explains: “A mention of Biblical verses, etc.” He is also answering the question: Why do we mention Biblical verses that relate to the <i>shofor.</i> Although iIt is understandable that we say recite the Biblical verses relating to kingship since the Holy One Blessed Is He judges the whole world on Rosh Hash anah like a king, but why do we say the Biblical verses which relate to the <i>shofor</i>? Rashi answers, “To remember for your sake...” <i>Gur Aryeh</i> asks: The [extra] blessings of [the Additional prayer of] Rosh Hashanah are only a Rabbinic decree and as can be proven from Rosh Hashanah (34b) [where it says that] we go to a place where they are blowing [the <i>shofor</i>] and not to a place where they are reciting [these] blessings, since they [the prayer services] are [only] by from a Rabbinic decree. It seems that the <i>beraisa</i> is not explaining that the words of the verse’s words, “a remembrance of the sounding,” actually mean that one must say Biblical verses relating that relate to Remembrances and the <i>shofor,</i> because [the mitzvah to recite] these [verses] are is certainly a Rabbinic decree. Rather, Rashi means as follows: Because Scripture writes “a remembrance of the sounding,” and not “a day of sounding,” it means that Israel will be remembered through the sounding. Therefore, it is written “remembrance.” And because of this, the Sages instituted these blessings as it says there (Rosh Hashanah 16a), “Say remembrances so that your remembrances should rise before Me for the good.”
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  Work at night is prohibited, just as working during the day [is prohibited]. You might ask: Why is this necessary? Why would one exclude the night? The answer is: One may have thought, since it is written “on this very day,” it implies only the actual day as in the verses (Bereishis 7:13) “On that very day Noach came,” “On that very day Avraham [and his son Yishmael] were circumcised” (ibid 17:26). These, which means specifically during the actual daytime, so “Any person who does any work on this very day, etc.,” means specifically during the actual daytime. Therefore one needs “any work, etc.” (<i>Re’m</i>) Alternatively, the Gemara (Yuma 81a) says that “on this very day” excludes time added to Yom Kippur., Ii.e., someone who does work during the time added from weekday to sacred at the beginning and the end [of Yom Kippur], one is not liable for <i>koreis</i>. Thus, one may have thought that night too is excluded from [the prohibition of doing] work, and one needs an inclusory verse is necessary.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  Fine clothing. Why does Rashi explain the phrase “a holy assembly” out of order? He should have explained it [where it first appears in verse 27] before explaining “I will cause that person to perish,” and before “You shall not do any work?” The answer is: He could not explain “sanctify it with fine clothing, etc.,” [earlier], because perhaps when it wrote “a holy assembly,” this was to make the night forbidden like the day regarding work and <i>koreis.</i> But now that it is written “You shall not do any work” which is apparently superfluous to teach and warn that work is forbidden by at night as well as by during the day, [therefore] “a holy assembly” must be teaching that we “sanctify it with fine clothing.” This statement [of Rashi] too seems out of place and it belongs earlier, before “I will cause that person to perish,” because [here] he is referring to Yom Kippur of which the verse writes “a holy assembly” [as the Torah also writes regarding other festivals], and [yet] it is different than other assemblies. Therefore, Rashi did not explain anything [in his commentary on the other verses] where it states “a holy assembly” preceding this [when referring to] other festivals. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>)
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  With the burnt-offering. Rashi is answering the question: Many [kinds] of meal offerings are written in <i>parshas</i> Vayikra, so why does the verse not specify which one it is? <i>Re’m</i> explains that if the meal-offering was by itself, it should have said “a burnt-offering and a sacrifice and wine-offerings and a meal-offering.” 
  In Chumash Hapekudim. In <i>parshas</i> Pinchas, where all the <i>musofim</i> are specified, some days with many <i>musofim</i> and some days with few <i>musofim.</i>  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  Which remain on its tree. You might ask: [perhaps the verse refers to] the long pepper which remains on its tree from year to year and the taste of its wood and its fruit are also the same? The answer is: Even so, one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with it since if one takes [only] one it would not be the requisite size and its taking would be insignificant. And if one took two or three, the verse writes “You shall take for yourselves ... a <i>fruit</i>,” which implies one fruit and not two. 
  One [palm branch]. You might ask: If so, the verse should have written כף? The <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> answers: כפת implies one branch with many leaves, whereas כף implies one leaf only. 
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  This is the native-born. I.e., an Israelite, because Scripture writes האזרח (lit. the citizen) with the definitive article of ה"א, this implies the highest form of citizen, namely a [native born] Israelite. But if so why does the verse write “Israelite”? Perforce it is to include [the fact that] converts [are considered] like Israelites.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  The westernmost lamp. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> writes: <i>Re’m</i> asks: how does one reconcile the Rabbis’ exposition with the “Curtain of Testimony”? The curtain does not serve as a curtain for the westernmost lamp, which [according to the Rabbis] is called a testimony! The answer is as follows: The curtain is called the “Curtain of Testimony” since it was next to the ark that holds the Tablets of Testimony which are a testimony between the Holy One and Yisroel. However, the Rabbis are explaining why the Torah specifically writes the “Curtain of Testimony” here [where the Torah speaks of the menorah]. They explain that only through the westernmost lamp from which the <i>kohein</i> begins and where he ends, is it evident that the curtain is a “Curtain of Testimony.” The “Tablets of Testimony” alone are no proof to this testimony, since they do not demonstrate that the Divine Presence still dwells in the midst of Yisroel, as perhaps it no longer dwells in Yisroel. Thus, we need the westernmost lamp to demonstrate that the curtain is a “Curtain of Testimony” and that the Tablets are a testimony between the Holy One and Yisroel that the Divine Presence still dwells in the midst of Yisroel. [Alternatively], even if you say that the word “testimony” here refers to the westernmost lamp there is no difficulty, because the Torah says that the menorah should be next to the curtain as it says, “outside of the Curtain of Testimony,” from which <i>Toras Kohanim</i> derives that the menorah must be closer to the curtain than it is to the entrance. Therefore, since the menorah is at the curtain and close to the curtain, it is appropriate to call the curtain the “Curtain of Testimony” because they are together. 
  And with it he would end. I.e., when he began lighting the lamps in the evening, he would first light the westernmost lamp. And when he came to set up the lamps in the morning he would set them all up and the westernmost lamp would still be burning; he would take out the burning wicks out and set [them] up. However, this lamp he only set up in the evening and he would put into it the same amount of oil as the other lamps. So explains Rashi in <i>Perek Bameh Madlikin</i> (Shabbos 22b).
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Six loaves. The is an abbreviated verse and Rashi has to add the word “loaves” after the word “six,” in order to tell us what these six are. Rashi adds the word “one” to tell us that the six other loaves were on a second stack. 
  On the “purity.” The meaning of “purity” is the top. In Arabic the top is called <i>tahor,</i> with a weak טי"ת that is called <i>dat</i> in that language. <i>Re’m.</i>
  
  Above the table. I.e., there were supports above the table upon which the loaves rested; they [i.e. the tubes that rested on the supports] separated between all the loaves as is explained in <i>parshas</i> Terumah, so that the upper loaves would not weigh down on the lower ones and break them. However, there was no [supporting] tube on the table, because the loaf at the bottom rested [directly] on the table 
  
  Verse 7
  
  On each one of the two stacks. Explanation: This is derived from a <i>gezeroh shovoh.</i> It is written “stack” here, and it is written “stack” regarding the showbread. Just as [the word] “stack” stated by the showbread refers to two, so here also, [meaning] he put down two bowls of frankincense, i.e., he put frankincense next to each stack. The bowls were not placed on the bread but next to each stack, so that the bread should not break from the bowls’ weight. When the verse says “on (על) [each] stack” it means next to and close to the stack, similar to, “And spread the <i>paroches</i> (partition) over (על) the ark.”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  He went out of his [everlasting] world. Because we derive lessons from juxtapositions. [Since] it is written above, “an everlasting statute” [and then it says], “[He] went out,” it hints that he went out of his [everlasting] world. 
  “Every Shabbos he shall arrange them.” <i>Re’m</i> writes: This indicates that the incident of the blasphemer occurred in the second year, because there was no showbread until after the <i>Mishkon </i>was erected. Similarly, the arrangement of the tribes under flags [mentioned by Rashi in verse 10] only happened in the second year as it is written in <i>parshas</i> Bamidbar. But this is contradicted by <i>Rashi</i> who writes, “’They placed him [in the guardhouse],’ (by himself), and they did not place the wood-gatherer with him, etc.” But the wood-gatherer incident occurred in the first year as Rashi (Bamidbar 15:32) explains [on the verse], “(Bnei Yisroel were in the desert) and they found a man gathering wood.” “Scripture speaks disparagingly of the Israelites. They kept only the first Shabbos, and then this person came and desecrated the second, etc.” Thus, the incident of the blasphemer was also in the first year. <i>Re’m</i> answers: Even though there was no showbread until the second year, nonetheless, perhaps they had been commanded about it in the first year, and at the time of the command, that wicked person heard and immediately mocked. See there. 
  Whom Moshe killed. Because you might ask: Regarding <i>Rashi’s</i> above explanation that, “He entered Moshe’s court and went out guilty, [whereupon] he stood up and blasphemed,” how did this [blaspheming] result from that [his leaving guilty]. Therefore [<i>Rashi</i> explains that] it means as follows: When they told him that it is written “[according to] the signs of their fathers’ house,” he said to them, “Who was my father?” They said to him, “He was an Egyptian.” He said to them, “Which Egyptian?” They said to him, “The Egyptian that Moshe killed with the explicit Name.” He immediately stood up and blasphemed [the Name that killed his father]. 
  He was converted. You might ask: In <i>parshas</i> Shemos <i>Rashi</i> explains on the verse, “And he saw that no man was there,” that no good man was destined to descend from him. The answer is: This is why <i>Rashi</i> writes “Destined to descend from him,” as this one was already born at that time. However, no good person would come from him afterwards. Regarding <i>Rashi’s</i> statement that he was converted, [you might ask that] when a non-Jew has relations with a Jewess the offspring is a kosher [Jew], so why did he have to convert? The <i>Ramban</i> answers that it was not that he required conversion, but that like all of Bnei Yisroel he underwent the circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of blood at the time the Torah was given. He chose not to follow his father’s ways, but went after his mother and attached himself to the Israelites. <i>Tosfos</i> answer that before the giving of the Torah, the status of offspring was determined by one’s father. When he was born they did not circumcise [or convert] him because he was an Egyptian, and when he grew up, he converted voluntarily. 
  Who protested. I.e., he would not allow him to pitch his tent there. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  She alone. <i>Re’m</i> asks: In <i>Parshas</i> Shemos (2:11), <i>Rashi</i> explains, “She thought that he was her husband.” If so, she erred and [did] not [sin] voluntarily, so why does he call her wayward? It seems to me that she was not modest before men as <i>Rashi</i> explains, “She would chatter..., inquiring [about] everyone’s wellbeing.” Therefore, she stumbled into waywardness and suffered this mishap, just as we find with Dinah. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  By himself.. [Afterwards<i> Rashi</i>] explains [that he was imprisoned by himself] because the woodgatherer was more wicked, since everyone knew that he was liable for the death penalty, whereas the blasphemer was less wicked, for they did not know whether or not he was liable for the death penalty. Therefore they were not imprisoned together. As the Gemara says that there were two cemeteries, one for those whom [Beis Din] stoned, and one for those whom they burnt [because stoning is punishment for a more serious sin]. Similarly, we do not imprison someone who is [considered] more wicked together with someone who is [considered] less wicked. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  That one who gathered wood [on Shabbos] was [condemned] to death. This is a reason for the above, why he [Moshe] did not put them together. He [Rashi] explains that this was because they knew that this one was liable to death, but did not know whether the blasphemer was liable to death. Perhaps he was not liable to death and would suffer by thinking, that because they are sitting together [he too, must be liable to death]. 
  The execution itself. You might ask: Since they knew that one who desecrates Shabbos is liable to death, why did they not punish him with strangling, since every unspecified death penalty in the Torah is by strangling? The answer is: They thought that one who desecrates Shabbos is like an idolater and an atheist; since he does not believe that the Holy One rested at Creation he does not believe that the Holy One created the world, and it is as if he believes in idolatry. And perhaps, just as idolatry is punished by stoning, so too one who desecrates Shabbos is punished by stoning, or perhaps [he is punished by] strangling. Therefore, they were in doubt. Many ask, why was there any doubt? If someone who curses a father or mother is liable to death, how much more so regarding the Divine Presence? You cannot answer that we do not derive punishment from a <i>kal vachomer,</i> because if so, it would be obvious that he was not liable for death since [the prohibition against blasphemy] was not explicitly [stated until now]. It seems that they were in doubt here because he had not been warned properly, and the Gemara rules in Sanhedrin that a person is not liable for any sin unless he was warned that he will be liable to death and also the type death he is liable for. This however, was a temporary injunction [valid only] for that particular time [to kill him without prior warning]. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>)
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  For you caused [it] to yourself. Some explain [that the witnesses were saying], “We will not be punished [for testifying against you],” even though the witnesses have to testify [the actual blasphemy] they heard from the blasphemer. However, this is not implied in Rashi. 
  In the presence of the entire congregation. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse implies its plain meaning as taught in the Mishnah of <i>Perek Nigmar Hadin</i> (Sanhedrin 45a), “He is stoned by all Yisroel,” and the Mishnah there is speaking of all cases when people are liable to death? The answer is: There it is different because the Mishnah says, “One of the witnesses pushes him [so that he falls onto] his back [lit. loins] ... If he died through this, the obligation has been fulfilled. And if not, he is stoned by all Yisroel as it says, “The hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first to kill him, and the hand of the entire nation in the end” (Devarim 17:7). This [indicates that] we require the hand of the witnesses be first. But here it is written, “The entire congregation shall surely stone him,” implying that they should all stone him immediately, and thus the verses apparently contradict each other. Therefore, Rashi answers that although the witnesses’ hands are is certainly first, this should be [done] in the presence of the entire congregation so that it is as if the entire congregation stoned him, because a man’s agent is like the man himself. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  We appraise [his worth] as a slave. Explanation: What he was worth without the maiming and what he is worth with it, and he pays the depreciation.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Who causes a wound to it. Because if not so, why should he pay for it [for merely smiting it]? What deficiency did he make in it that he should pay? 
  His father or his mother. Explanation: Because it is not written “soul,” it implies a blow that did not cause death. However, if the verse is speaking of someone else [i.e., other than his father or mother], is written (Shemos 21:12), “If one strikes a man and he [the victim] <i>dies</i> (he shall be put to death),” not only for a mere blow. Perforce, it is speaking of one who strikes his father or his mother.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Their general rules and specifications. You might ask: How does Rashi know that all of them [including] their general rules and specifications were said at Sinai? Obviously, because the superfluous words “on Mount Sinai” indicate that the general rules and specifications were said at Mount Sinai. But perhaps this only comes to teach [the laws] of about the Sabbatical year itself, and not about other <i>mitzvos</i>? Also, regarding [the claim that these words are superfluous] itself you can object, from where [does Rashi know this]? Perhaps [the verse writes] “on Mount Sinai” so that you do not say that “(And Hashem spoke to him from) the Tent of Meeting” written at the beginning of <i>parshas</i> Vayikra refers to all the <i>parshiyos</i> after <i>parshas</i> Vayikra, and therefore it writes “on Mount Sinai” here? The answer is: This is why Rashi writes “And it seems to me, etc.” He means as follows: Since we do not find that [the laws of] <i>shemittoh</i> of the land whose general rules principles were taught at Sinai were repeated at the Plains of Moab in <i>Sefer Devorim</i>., Tthis could make lead one to mistakenly say that all the <i>mitzvos</i> were repeated taught at the Plains of Moav because of their details and specifications, and are [thus] not from Sinai. Even though it is written later at the end of Vayikra (27:34), “These are the commandments which Hashem commanded Moshe for Bnei Yisroel on Mount Sinai,” which implies that <i>all</i> the <i>mitzvos</i> are from Sinai, this may apply only to the general rules of <i>mitzvos</i> but not to their details. However, since the Sabbatical year is not repeated there except in the hint of “Suspend (every creditor’s hand from his loan to his neighbor)” (Devorim 15:2), if so, its general rules <i>and</i> details must all have been said at Sinai. If so, why does the verse here [superfluously] say “Mount Sinai”? It must be to teach us that every utterance which was prophetically said to Moshe, that <i>all</i> of them were from Sinaiùtheir general rules <i>and</i> their specifications. And [the Sabbatical year] is an example that applies to the entire Torah.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  The Shabbos of Ccreation. You might ask: What has this [Shabbos] to do with that [the Sabbatical year]? The answer is: A person sometimes stops plowing his land for its benefit, so that the land should be fertile. Therefore, Rashi explains, “As it was said regarding the Shabbos of creation.” I.e., it says there (Shemos 20:10), “But the seventh day is Shabbos to Hashem, your God,” since the Holy One rested on the seventh day. Here too, we are commanded to keep the Sabbatical year in the seventh year in order to remind us that the Holy One rested on the seventh day. And the verse is commanding to not plow the land for the sake of Hashem, and his intent should not be for his own benefit.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  For the fields. Because if not [for this limitation], even making a hole in the earth [for non-agricultural purposes] would be forbidden. Therefore, Rashi explains: “For the fields and vineyards.” His proof for this is that it is written, “You shall not plant your field and you shall not prune your vineyard,” indicating that only fields and vineyards are forbidden, whereas making a hole is permitted. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above where it says “The land shall be at rest”? The answer is: [If he said it there] you might object, how does he know that? Perhaps even digging the earth is forbidden? Here, however, it is explicitly written a “field” and a “vineyard.”
  
  That they cut off its branches. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above where it states “You shall prune your vineyard”? The answer is: Above you might have thought that תזמור is an expression of planting, [meaning] that one should not plant branches that grow will beinto a vineyard. But now that it is written וכרמך לא תזמור (your vineyard you shall not prune), by writing “vineyard” first indicates that the vineyard has already been planted, and if so, what is the meaning of לא תזמור? Thus, it must be an expression of pruning.
  
  And its Targum is: “you shall not cut off.” You might ask: Why does Rashi not [simply] explain, “Like its Targum?” The answer is: [He wanted to add] that it is also an expression found in Scripture, “as thorns cut off.” We find the same in <i>parshas</i> Vayeitzei (Bereishis 30:32) [regarding the word] חום (dark) where Rashi explains שחום (dark brown), which is [actually] like its Targum. [If so], why does Rashi not [simply] explain “Like its Targum”? Because [he wants to explain that] it is also an expression found in the Mishnah, “[It was sold as] dark brown (שחמתית) etc.”
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  To retain it with the rest of the harvest. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say קצירך (your harvest)? It should have just said “Crops that grew on their own you shall not reap.” He answers, “To retain it...” Alternatively, Rashi is answering [the question of] how can Scripture write “you shall not reap,” when it is written [later], “The [produce] ... shall be for yourselves, for food,” indicating that one may eat it, and it is unreasonable [to suggest] that one eats it from the field like an animal without reaping it. Regarding this he explains, “To retain it...”
  
  But from [that which is] ownerless. <i>Re’m</i> explains that the first command [of this verse] teaches us that one may not even reap even crops that grew on their own unless they are ownerless, and the same applies to grapes that grew without pruning or digging. The second command teaches that even if the owner kept people away from the grapes, or even if he transgressed by plowing and sowing and only then he made them ownerless, the grapes may be eaten and the owner may gather them like any poor person. The same applies to crops. If the owner kept people away from them, or even if he transgressed by plowing and sowing and only then he made them ownerless, the grapes may be eaten, and the owner too may reap them like any poor reaper.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  All shall be equal in it. You might ask: Rashi already explained above, “’You shall not reap,’ [in order] to retain it with the rest of the harvest, but it should be ownerlessùfree to all,” which implies that one may benefit from it or eat it. The answer is: Above too, Rashi proved this from here. Because if not for this verse, “[It] shall be for yourselves, for food,” I would say that “you shall not reap” forbids even eating and benefit.
  
  From that which has been “rested.” שבות is an expression of permission. I.e., you may eat whatever everyone has permission to take from, i.e., [whatever is] ownerless.
  
  From that which is kept. Explanation: From the fruits of the Sabbatical year that someone kept for himself, by not making them ownerless. [Rashi understands that שבת means שבות] because the verse writes “The land’s <i>Shabbos</i>[-year] (shall be for yourselves),” instead of writing, “<i>The produce of</i> the land’s <i>Shabbos</i>[-year] shall be for yourselves.” Thus [he understands that] שבת  means שבות. Even though above, Rashi commented on the verse “You shall not gather,” that “Those you may not gather, but from [that which is] ownerless, [you may gather],” there he was only talking about grapes, whereas here the verse includes all produce from the land. Alternatively, that [law of the earlier verse] is derived from here, because, as I explained above, if not for this verse, you would think that one may not gather at all.
  
  By the wealthy. And you might think that when the verse includes the owner by writing, “The [produce] of the land’s <i>Shabbos</i>[-year] shall be for yourselves, for food,” that is only if he too is poor since it is written (Shemos 23:11), “And let the needy among your people eat it.” Therefore Scripture writes, “For you, and for your servant,” to teach that even if he is wealthy he may eat it. You might ask: Why does it write here “(you), your servant and your maidservant?” It should only write “you,” since poor people are already mentioned in the verse “And let the needy among your people eat it”? The answer is: Here it is speaking of before [the time of] <i>bi’ur,</i> when there is still produce in the field, [in which case rich and poor are equal]. But there it is talking about after [the time of] <i>bi’ur,</i> when the householder has to put his [produce that he had taken indoors back] in the field. Therefore it is written “And let the needy among your people eat it,” because [only] they eat without having to put [anything] in the field. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: If so, why do I need [the words] “And let the needy among your people eat it”? If a wealthy person may eat, how much more a poor person! The answer is: “The needy among your people” have precedence over a wealthy person. Therefore, it is written “And let the needy among your people eat it.”
  
  Even the non-Jews. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> explains: You cannot say the verse is talking about a Jew and that שכיר (hired hand) means [a Jew] acquired for [six] years, and (resident sojourner) means [a Jew] acquired forever [i.e., until the <i>Yovel</i>], like every [other use of the words] שכיר and תושב in Scripture, because the verse already said “your slave and your female slave,” and these are Jews. The verse is telling us that even though the year is called “holy,” its fruit is permitted to non-Jews. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> asks: Why does the verse need to write [both] “for your hired hand” [and also “for your resident sojourner”]? The answer is: If it only wrote “for your hired hand,” I might think that only he [eats Sabbatical year produce] because he is a Jew’s worker and it is normal to give him food, whereas, since a Jew is not responsible to provide food for “your resident sojourner,” I might think he may not [eat food of the Sabbatical year]. So it tells us [otherwise]. And if it [only] wrote “for your sojourner,” I might think [only] a sojourner who accepted upon himself not to serve idols [may eat food of the Sabbatical year], but not a regular non-Jew, so it tells us [otherwise].
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Since you are obligated to feed it. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> explains as follows: Because the verse is permitting the [Sabbatical year’s] fruits even to non-Jews, domesticated animals and beasts, even though the fruits are holy, it would be more logical to permit them [only] to a domesticated animal which is a mitzvah to feed since it belongs to you and you are obligated to feed it, unlike the beast [which you are not obliged to feed]. [Therefore Rashi is answering the question]: If so, why does the verse need to say “for your domesticated animals”? This answers the question of <i>Re’em,</i> see there.
  
  Put at an end (to that stored) for your domesticated animal [removing it] from the house. I.e., you must remove whatever fruit you gathered for your domesticated animals from the house when they those [fruits] are gone no longer [growing] infrom the field [and no longer available] for wild beasts. And one has to make ownerless all the Sabbatical fruit that he had gathered into the house.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Seven sabbatical years. Explanation: The sabbatical year is called Shabbos as it says (later 26:34), “The land will then be appeased for its Shabbosos.” So translates Onkelos, “Seven sabbatical years.” The proof [that “Shabbos” means “sabbatical year” and not “a period of seven years”], is because Scripture writes [afterwards], “seven years, seven times,” which indicates that [Shabbos] refers to [sabbatical] years and not to a period of seven years. [Otherwise, why should the verse repeat the same thing twice?] [Translating שבתת as “a period of seven years] would have been] similar to “Seven complete weeks (שבתות) they shall be” (earlier 23:15), which Onkelos translates as “seven complete weeks.” [See <i>Re’m</i>]
  
  That even if, etc., declare the jJubilee. Explanation: Expound the verse as follows: “And it shall be for you, the days (period) of the seven sabbatical years forty-nine years,” then [even if you did not declare the sabbatical years], “you shall make a proclamation with the <i>shofar</i>” and declare the Jubilee.
  
  Add up to the number forty-nine. You might ask: Does the verse need to tell us the number? The <i>Re’m</i> answers: This is the way of Scripture in many places. But, it seems to me [that Rashi says this] since the year of <i>yovel</i> counts for here and for there. I.e., during this year of <i>yovel,</i> one [already] begins to count [towards] the [next] sabbatical year [that is to arrive] after the <i>yovel</i> (Rosh Hashana 9a). If so, I might say that every the sabbatical year too also counts for here and for there, and the sum of the years would only be forty-three. Therefore, Rashi explains, forty-nine. Another answer is that Scripture writes “seven sabbatical years” and then writes “You shall make a proclamation with the <i>shofar</i> on the tenth day of the seventh month, on Yom Kippur.” If so, I might have said that the forty-nine years end on Yom Kippur, and there will be ten days extra. Therefore, Rashi explains “forty-nine.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  An expression of “proclaiming.” Not [an expression of] moving something with one’s hand (Rosh Hashanah 34a).
  
  Since it is said, “onOn Yom Kippur.” <i>Gur Aryeh</i> asks: Why does Rashi not ask this question according to the order of the verse as follows: Since it states, “On the tenth day of the (seventh) month,” do I not know that it is on Yom Kippur?. If so, why does it say, “on Yom Kippur”? The answer is: Rashi thinks it is no coincidence that the verse makes the Jubilee contingent on Yom Kippur. There is certainly a reason for this, and therefore the verse has to write, “On Yom Kippur shall this <i>shofar</i>-proclamation be made,” making the mitzvah of the Jubilee contingent on Yom Kippur. The reason is, as understanding people know, that the <i>yovel</i> and Yom Kippur share common features, because during the <i>yovel</i> everything reverts to its original state [of ownership] as in the beginning, and so too on Yom Kippur everything returns to its original status because Hashem atones gives atonement to people and they return to their original condition.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  They sanctify it in Beis Din. But not on the tenth of the month when they proclaim the JjubileeJubilee with the shofar. Because if it was so, why write “the year of the fiftieth year”? We already know that they are sanctifying the fiftieth year [from the previous verse]. You need not ask: This verse implies that that people are freed from the beginning of the year, while above it writes, “You shall make a proclamation with the <i>shofar</i> on the tenth day of the seventh month.” Why make a proclamation with the <i>shofar</i> on the tenth [day] if the year is already sanctified in every way from the beginning of the year? The Gemara already answered this in the first chapter of Rosh Hashana (8b): “From Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur, slaves did not leave for home and did not work for their masters. Rather, they ate and drank and had crowns on their heads. Once Yom Kippur arrived, <i>Beis Din</i> blew the <i>shofar</i> and slaves would leave for their homes and fields would return to their owners.”
  
  As one [=a free man] who dwells at an inn, etc. And takes merchandise around the whole country. The <i>Aruch</i> explains, “’Like a runner with a load.’ Explanation. The carrier of the load [of] a merchant, who runs and takes merchandise everywhere. מדייר is an expression of running, and דיירא means a load. [It is actually spelled] מדוור with two <i>vavs</i>.” But Rashi there explains, “As one who dwells at an inn. Someone who is in his own jurisdiction and can dwell in any inn he pleases.” <i></i> 
  
  The fields return. According to this, the verse is in the wrong order. It should say, “The ancestral land should return to each man,” and not that the owners return to the fields as is implied in “Each man shall return, etc.”
  
  To include one who[se ear has been] pierced. Explanation: [This refers to] tThe person [whose ear has been] pierced person who reached the Jubilee before six years passed since his piercing, as is taught in the Beraisa of <i>Toras Kohanim</i> and Kiddushin (15a). You might ask: Since it is already written (verse 10) “proclaim freedom,” and Rashi explained, “To slaves, whether [one whose ear has been] pierced, etc.,” why [also] write, “Each man shall return to his family”? The answer is: When Rashi explained that “proclaim freedom” means, “To slaves, whether [one whose ear has been] pierced, etc.,” he actually derived this from “Each man shall return to his family,” as this is the main verse. Proof for this is that Rashi comments on the verse in <i>Ve’eileh Hamishpatim</i> (Shemos 21:6), “He then serves his master forever,” that “[This means] until the Jubilee year.” He then asks, “Or perhaps it means <i>forever</i> as is its literal meaning? The Torah therefore says: ’And each man will return to his family.’” He does not cite the verse, “And proclaim freedom,” indicating that it (the latter part of the verse) is the main source. Another answer is that if the Torah only wrote “And proclaim freedom,” I might think that he only leaves at the <i>yovel</i> if <i>beis din</i> had sold him, but not if he sold himself. Therefore, it says “Each man will return to his family.” Or [I may have thought the inference of each of the two verses may be] the opposite.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  As it is [stated] in Rosh Hashanah. Explanation: Wherever it says “holy,” such as pertaining to Shabbos and Yom Tov, we add from secular to the holy, and here pertaining to the Jubilee too it is written (verse 10) “You shall sanctify.” Thus, one may have thought that we add to the Jubilee from the year following the Jubilee. Therefore it says, “<i>It</i> is a Jubilee, the year of the fiftieth year,” only this year and no more, and one does not need to add from the following year.
  
  Just as this is said, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain, “Just as this is said, etc.,” on the phrase “You shall not gather the [grapes of] its untended vineyard,” more than on the phrase “You shall not plant and you shall not reap”? The answer is: Rashi writes “Just as this is said, etc.,” because regarding the JjubileeJubilee it is written “You shall not gather its untended vineyard [lit. fruits]” without specifying, and one might think that this applies to other fruits but not to grapes. Therefore Rashi explains, “Just as, etc.,” since there by the sabbatical year it says “The grapes of your untended vines (את ענבי נזירך) you shall not gather,” and here too likewise it writes, “its untended vineyard” (את נזיריה). Just as it applies to grapes there as it is explicitly written, “The grapes of your untended vines you shall not gather,” so here too it applies to grapes. Therefore Rashi explains, “Just as, etc.,” i.e., the sabbatical year and the Jubilee are the sameidentical in everything [restriction]. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) You might ask: What is Rashi telling us? Does the verse not state explicitly, “You shall count for yourself seven sabbatical years... You shall sanctify the year of the fiftieth year”? The <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> found written [an answer] written: From the verses it is not obvious that they are [both] equally holy, and one may have thought that one has greater sanctity than the other does. But now that he explained, “Just as this is said in regard to the sabbatical year, so it is said in regard to the Jubilee,” we know their sanctity is equal. (<i>R. Noson</i>)
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Its sanctity attaches its worth as Temple property [does]. Explanation: If one redeemed the fruit of the sabbatical year or JjubileeJubilee with money, this money attaches [to itself the] sanctity [of the fruits]. It is like <i>hekdesh</i> (Temple property) that was redeemed for its monetary worth, where the money is attached and become <i>hekdesh.</i> 
  
  Perhaps it becomes common food? Like Temple property redeemed for its worth, where the money because attached in its stead and [the Temple property] becomes non-sanctified. [Perhaps] fruit of the sabbatical year is the same? The verse thus teaches, “It shall be,” [i.e., it remains sanctified.]
  
  Just as it was said in regard to the seventh [year]. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain “Just as, etc.” He already explained this above regarding the untended vineyard? The answer is that this is proof to what he explained, “If [the crops] of the field have ended for the beast, you have to remove [crops that have been stored] from the house.” You might have asked, how does Rashi know this? Perhaps even if the crops have ended for the beast, you still do not have to remove [the crops] from the house. And when it is written, “Whatever is in the field, you may eat of its produce,” it means that what you bring from the field you [must] eat on that day, and [you may] not [eat] from what you stored of it in the house. [Rashi’s answer] is: Do you not agree that whatever is stated in regard to the sabbatical year, so too it is stated in regard to the Jubilee? And regarding the sabbatical year it is written (verse 7), “For your domesticated animals and for the [wild] beasts,” and Rashi asked, “If a [wild] beast may eat, certainly a domesticated animal”? And he answered, “[When the produce] is gone from the field for beasts, put at an end (to what you stored) for your domesticated animal [by removing it] from the house.” Thus, the same applies to the Jubilee. This is why Rashi said, “Just as it was said, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  It returns to his father in the Jjubilee. I.e., do not say that since his son will inherit him [anyway], the field should not return to his father in the jubileeJubilee.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  This refers to cheating in monetary matters. I explained this in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim (above 19:33). (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) [says] in the name of R. Noson: Although our Sages said that the laws regarding to cheating in monetary matters do not apply to [buying or selling] land, however this only pertains to [not] having to return the money when the cheating was by more than one sixth. Nonetheless, he transgresses a negative commandment [by doing so].
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  How many years there are until the jubileeJubilee. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) You might ask: According to Rashi’s explanation that the verse “according to the number of years” is explaining the cheating involved in selling land, would we not know this ourselves? Since he is obligated to return it in the jubileeJubilee, the sale [price] obviously depends on the time left until the jubileeJubilee. Perhaps the difference that arises from this [Rashi’s explanation] is when a first buyer sold to a second buyer. You might have thought that he [the first buyer] can say to him, “I am selling it to you forever! Even though you have to return it to the [original] seller, I have nothing to do with that! The obligation is upon you to fulfill the mitzvah.” This would be similar to someone who sells an animal to a slaughterer, where the obligation to give the gifts to a <i>kohein</i> rests upon the slaughterer and not upon the seller. Here too regarding the jubileeJubilee [one might have thought it is the same and that] one is permitted to “cheat” him [the second buyer]. So it comes to teach us that even in this case do not cheat, and you are included in the obligation [to ensure that the field returns to its original owner].
  
  And according to the years [remaining] and the crops. Explanation: This verse, “according to the number of years,” is explained afterwards in the next verse, “Based on the abundance of years, etc.” Even though the first verse is speaking of the years that passed <i>since</i> the [last] jubileeJubilee, while the next verse is speaking of the years <i>until</i> the [next] jubileeJubilee, this is because the one results from the other, since the buyer and seller only look at the years remaining until the jubileeJubilee and calculate according to them. Therefore, Rashi explains both verses according to the years remaining. <i>Re’m</i> 
  
  In less than two years. Because they find it problematical to explain [verse 14 in a way] that the first verse (verse 14) is connected with the second verse (verse 15). [See <i>Re’m</i>]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Lessen its price. Because תרבה or תמעיט מקנתו implies to increase or decrease the [number of the] field’s sales, which is not the verse’s meaning. Therefore Rashi explains, “’You shall increase its purchase price,’ sell it at a high price,” and “’You shall decrease its purchase price,’ lessen its price.” Rashi says, “’You shall increase its purchase price,’ sell it at a high price (תמכרנה ביוקר),” instead of saying “increase its price” (תרבה בדמיה) as he said “lessen its price” (תמעיט בדמיה), so that you do not think that one should increase and lessen its price more than it is worth. The expression תמכרנה ביוקר, however, does not imply selling for more than its worth, but rather [implies] that it is worth a lot. <i>Re’m</i>
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Here [the verse] forbids insulting others with words. Rashi specifically says “here,” because since it is written עמיתו(his fellow), annoying someone with words is applicable. But in verse 14 where it says אל תונו איש את אחיו (do not cheat, a man his brother), one cannot say it means annoying with words because however he denigrates [his brother], he is denigrating with his own flaw since his brother’s honor is his own honor, and by insulting his brother he himself is insulted. Therefore, over there he explains it as cheating in monetary matters, and here he explains it as insulting with words. And so writes the <i>Sheloh.</i> (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>)
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  For, by the sin of [neglecting] the sabbatical year Israel is exiled. And when the beginning of the verse says, “You shall fulfill My statutes and keep My laws and fulfill them,” it is referring to the statutes and laws pertaining to the sabbatical year, because if not what is its relevance to here?
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Within your stomach. Because once it is explicitly written “The land will give forth its fruit,” we already know that you will eat one’s your fiull, so why write “You will eat your fill”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Within your stomach...” You might ask: Why does Rashi turn the verse around and explain “You will live securely on it,” before explaining “You will eat your fill”? Also, why does Rashi cite two phrases of the verse, “The land will give forth..., etc. and you will live securely on it,” and then only explain “And you will securely on it”? The answer is: Learning the verse according to its order one could understand that “you will live securely” refers to “you will eat your fuill,” and is answering the question that once [the Torah writes] “the land will give its fruit,” why does it need to write “you will eat your fill”? If it is to tell you that “there will be blessing even within your stomach,” as meaning that you will eat [only] a little and it will bring provide blessing in your stomach, as implied by the verse writing לשובע (to fullness) and not ושבעתם (you will be filled), as the satiation will come afterwards by itself, why should the Torah give such a blessing? Is it not better to taste food and enjoy eating one’s food? The verse answers this question by saying “you will live securely.” You will not need to worry about years of famine (בצורת) that might come. [Even though the Torah promised there will always be fruit], בצורת can also mean that money will be scarce. Thus the Torah blesses you that you will be filled with the little food that you buy with a few coins. And thus it [the verse] is all one blessing. Rashi rejects this explanation of the verse, because if so, the verse could have omitted “you will live securely.” Because if it comes to explain why the food needs to be blessed in one’s stomach, people would in any case understand the reason when a shortage [of money] occurs, as [explained] above. Therefore, he explains that “You will live securely” refers to “the land will give its fruit,” and means that both fruit and money will be available so that there will never be any shortage. And if so, [the blessing] that “you will eat your fill” even by eating a little, is perforce another blessing, that you will have more than you need and be able to buy whatever items you want [by selling your surplus food]. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>) 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Into the house. And it is an expression of bringing [produce] into the house. You cannot say it means we did not gather [the produce] into a pile in the field, and that it means to gather to one place, because what does it help if the produce is gathered in a pile in the field and not brought into the house?
  
  Which grow on their own. Because once it is written “we have not planted,” why write the obvious fact that “we have not gathered our produce.”? Therefore, when it says “We have not gathered our produce,” it must refer to things like wine, fruit, and crops that do not need to be sown.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Tishrei is the season of gathering into the house. This implies that they did not eat from the produce until Sukkos. But above Rashi explained:, “’For three years,’ for part of the sixth, from Nisan until Rosh Hashanah and the seventh and eighth [years], since they would sow in the eighth during Marcheshvon, and harvest in [the following] Nisan.” This implies that they ate immediately in Nissan, which is an apparent contradiction. The answer is: Above (verse 20) it is written “If you shall say (ask).” I.e., “If you shall say (ask), ’What will we eat in the seventh year, for lo! we have not planted nor gathered our produce?’” The Holy One answers them, “I shall command (direct) My blessing to you... and it will produce [enough] for three years.” And as Rashi explains, “They would sow in the eighth during Marcheshvon, and harvest in [the following] Nisan.” [Thus, by Nissan their question regarding what they will eat will no longer apply]. But they actually did not eat [that produce] until the ninth year on Sukkos. So when it is written, “You will still be eating... until the ninth year,” it is saying even more. That the old produce will be enough not only for three years from Nissan of the sixth year until Nissan of the eighth year, but will even be enough until the end of the eighth year and the beginning of the ninth year. You will eat from it as you do every year when you eat from the old produce until Sukkos of the following year. <i>Re’m</i>
  
  [However,] this verse was said regarding all other sabbatical cycles. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask, why does Scripture not write more, that it will produce for four years. The answer is that the verse is answering the people’s’ question regarding what they will eat. This question does not apply to the jubileeJubilee as they will not ask about one year [that only comes once every fifty years], as for one year people can make an effort to get produce. But for every sabbatical year it would be impossible.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  The buyer should not hold it. In other words, the buyer should not hold it and refuse to return it, resulting in it being sold forever.
  
  For it is not yours. Rashi does not cite the reason written in the verse, that it “is Mine,” because for the reason the buyer should not hold it in his hand and refuse to return it to the owners is not because “the land is Mine.” Rather, the verse should have said: Do not begrudge returning it because the land is theirs, or because the land is not yours. Therefore Rashi writes, “For it is not yours.”
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Houses [and] a Hebrew slave. Because if not so, why write “in <i>all</i>”? Thus, it comes to include [the law] that even relatives may redeem houses of a walled city or a Hebrew slave who was sold to a Jew. [See <i>Re’m</i>]
  
  Adjacent to the following section. <i>Re’m</i> writes: “I do not know what forced him to say that it is adjacent to the following section, and not [connected] to the beginning of the same section (v. 15), and that it is telling us that the buyer cannot refuse; rather, ‘you shall grant redemption to the land.’” It seems that Rashi had to explain like this as he is answering the question: why do we need the verse “In all of your ancestral lands, etc.”? In the second [following] section in v. 25 it is written that the buyer cannot refuse? Therefore, he explains that this verse too is adjacent to the following section. Analyze this.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Proper behavior: that he should leave over some of his field. Because since he may only sell under pressure, why does the verse write “<i>some</i> of his ancestral land”? Since he is under pressure and has to sell, [why not sell] even all of it? Therefore he writes, “The (Torah) taught, etc.” I.e., even if he is under pressure, he should restrict his [expenses] to the best of his ability and not sell it all, but leave for himself, etc. This is easy to understand.
  
  And the buyer cannot impede [it]. <i>Re’m</i> writes: This is according to the opinion (Kiddushin 21a) that [when the verse writes], “(a close relative comes) and redeems,” this is a voluntary (Kiddushin 21a). Therefore the verse “and redeems” is saying that the buyer cannot impede the redemption, because if not so, for what do I need “and redeems”? However, according to the opinion that [the relative has] an obligation [to redeem the field] this is no difficulty, as the verse is coming to obligate the closest relative to redeem it. But according to the opinion that it is voluntary, why do I need “and redeems”? Would you think that if he wants to redeem he is not allowed to? Perforce, it is telling us that the buyer cannot impede the redemption. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  Who has no redeemers. I.e., is there any Jew who receives a portion in the land who does not have redeemers from the seed of Yaakov?
  
  Who can redeem. I.e., because they are poor. <i>Re’m</i> writes: But in Kiddushin (ibid.) it says, “Rather, this is someone who has [money] but does not want [to redeem], because he has permission [not to redeem].” [In fact], Rabbi Yehoshua [there] proves from this verse that the verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold,” is voluntary. As he says there, “You [would] say it is voluntary. Or [perhaps] it is obligatory? The verse says, ‘If the man has no redeemer.’ Is there any person in Yisroel who has no redeemer? Rather, this is someone who has [money] but does not want [to redeem], he has the option [not to not redeem].” However, according to Rashi that having no redeemer means that he cannot afford it, this verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold,” would be no proof that it is optional, as perhaps it is obligatory, and what is the meaning of the verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold”? That he has no redeemer who can afford it. But if so, according to <i>Re’m</i>, Rashi would be contradicting himself. Because above (verse 25) Rashi explains according to the opinion that it is voluntary [to redeem], as the <i>Re’m</i> explained, while here he explains according to the opinion that it is obligatory [to redeem]. Though we often find that Rashi explains sometimes like one opinion and sometimes like another even when they are apparently contradictory, but that is [only] in two [different] places [in Scripture]. But[to make such a claim that Rashi does so] in the same place like here, presents a difficulty. Therefore, it seems, unlike <i>Re’m,</i> that Rashi holds like the opinion that redemption is obligatory, and above too he learns that redemption is obligatory. You might ask: What is answered with this [Rashi’s answer]? Is there any Jew who has no redeemer wealthy enough to redeem his sale? The answer is that Rashi means as follows: He has no closest relative who can redeem his sale, since the obligation lies [only] on his closest relative, and that relative is not wealthy enough to redeem his sale. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) In <i>parshas</i> Naso (Bamidbar 5:8) Rashi asks this same question [regarding a case where there are no heirs to whom to return a stolen item], and he says that the verse there is speaking of a convert who has no heirs. That answer cannot be applied here in the case of an ancestral field, as a convert has no portion in the land of Yisroel. So answer <i>Gur Aryeh</i> and <i>Maharan.</i> I have difficulty with this, as a convert could own an ancestral field by gaining permanent ownership of a field he bought from a Jew in a walled city. [This could happin in a case where] hHe bought it from him and the seller did not come to him [to redeem] it within its [first] year, and it [then] belongs to him permanently. Then the convert left the field to his son who was born a Jew. This law would be applicable if the son of the convert sold [the field] to a Jew, as there would be no paternal relatives to redeem it. The answer is: Rashi prefers to learn the verse according to its plain meaning, as talking of a regular Jew [whose closest relative] cannot afford to redeem.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  This [original] seller who comes. Explanation: To the first buyer. Because if not, the seller of an ancestral field will sometimes lose, as perhaps when the first buyer buys for a hundred and then sells for two-hundred.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  He may not redeem it by halves. Because if not, why does the verse write “enough”? Thus it must be telling us that if he has within his means enough to redeem the whole field, he redeems, and if not, [he does] not. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> asks: Why does Rashi not say this on the verse “And finds [it] enough to redeem it [himself]” above (verse 26)? Perhaps Rashi thinks that this is more obvious over here, as the verse concludes, “That which he sold remains in the possession of the buyer until the Jubilee year,” and returns nothing to him. This indicates that he may not redeem it by halves. But above it said that if he finds enough to redeem it, he should calculate with the buyer, and one could say that the same applies if he did not have enough to redeem it [all], that he redeems it according to the money he has. And that the verse is speaking of a normal case where he had [money] equal to the whole field. Therefore Rashi delayed his explanation until here.
  
  For the jubileeJubilee releases from its beginning. Erchin 28b. Rashi [there] explains, “At twilight of the [first] evening of the Jubilee year the sabbatical year ends, and at that time both of them release.” [I.e., the sabbatical year releases loans, and the Jubilee year releases sold lands].
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Surrounded by a wall: Explanation: It was first surrounded by a wall and then settled [with people]. He says “from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun,” because the verse is probably only speaking of a town surrounded by a wall at the time of the conquest when the land was first settled.
  
  [Referring to] the house (בית). But it is not referring to his sale of the house. It is not like “enough for its redemption” above (verse 26), which has to be translated as “the redemption of its sale (ממכר),” and it cannot mean “the redemption of the ancestral land (אחוזה)” since אחוזה is a word in the female form. Here, however, בית is a word in the male form. In addition, the word ממכר [connoting “sale”] is not mentioned in this verse that “its redemption” could refer to it. Therefore, it must mean the redemption of the house. (<i>Re’m</i>)
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  Under the control of the buyer. I.e., even though it was in the hands of the buyer [beforehand], it was also under the control of the seller because he could still redeem it. [But now] it remains in the hand of the buyer, as the seller can no longer take it from his hand. <i>Re’m</i> writes: You might ask: [Why does Rashi [say that “it will remain” refers to “its purchaser”]? Why does he not explain that “it will remain” refers to “in perpetuity,” that until now it was only acquired for a year in the purchaser’s hand, [but now it is acquired forever]? It seems that Rashi deduces this since it is written “in perpetuity to its <i>purchaser</i>.” “Its purchaser” is apparently superfluous as it is obvious that this refers to the purchaser. Thus, one can deduce from [the superfluous] “to its purchaser,” that the verse means “for its purchaser and not for its seller.” I.e., until now, the seller had the right to redeem it, but now, after the year has passedt, it left the jurisdiction of the seller, etc.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  Without cost. I.e., without compensation. Because regarding an ancestral field it is taught in a Beraisa, “If [the buyer] used it for a year and the jubileeJubilee year arrived, he has to add another year for [the buyer] after the jubileeJubilee year [because generally one cannot redeem a field before two years have passed]. Therefore one needs the extra words “and it is released by the jubileeJubilee,” to teach that it goes out without cost, without adding [an extra year]. [See] Erchin 29b.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  This “redemption” is an expression of “selling.” <i>R. Noson</i> wrote: I found written somewhere that the verse calls the selling here “redemption” because anything belonging to Levites once belonged to Israelites, since they received no portion or inheritance with the Israelites except the forty-eight towns the Israelites gave them in exchange for their service [in the Temple]. Therefore, when an Israelite buys from a Levite, it is as if he is redeeming it from him, as this inheritance too once belonged to the Israelites.
  
  An Israelite who buys a house. The “another interpretation” means as follows: ואשר יגאל means to actually redeem, an expression of actual redeeming and not an expression of buying, and it is referring to where it is written is written above, “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption.” This verse is telling us that not only when an Israelite buys from a Levite can the Levite redeem it forever, but even when a Levite bought from a Levite the seller has eternal right of redemption.
  
  This is another mitzvoh. I.e., according to the “another interpretation,” it is not connected to the “eternal right of redemption” of the previous phrase, as that refers to redeeming. However, according to the first interpretation, the entire verse discusses [the] one same subject [of selling to a Yisroel].
  
  Like fields. When Rashi says “They have [a rule] of redemption like fields,” and does not also say, “And they go out in the jubileeJubilee year like fields,” this is imprecise, since they too go out in the jubileeJubilee year, but Rashi only mentions one of these [points]. <i>Re’m</i> writes: You might ask: The reasonis rationale that, “For the houses of the Levitic cities, etc.,” only applies when an Israelite buys from a Levite. However, when the buyers are Levites and this rationale does not apply, since it will remain in the hands of a Levite and their inheritance will not be removed,, perhaps [Therefore] perhaps this case has the law of houses of an Israelite walled city, etc. The answer might be: Since most people who buy from Levites are Israelites, as they are the majority, the Torah gives a rationale that applies to them and it is not concerned about the minority of buyers who are Levites. It seems to me that we learn that it makes no difference whether the buyers are Israelites or Levites from what the verse writes, “(This) is their ancestral lands <i>among Bnei Yisroel</i>.” Why write “among Bnei Yisroel”? This must come for us to expound that the inheritance of the Levites should remain whole as it was originally “among Bnei Yisroel.” And since you do not need this regarding Israelite buyers, you expound it regarding Levite [buyers], that they [the houses they buy] return in the Jubilee year.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  It does not go out to the kohanim. <i>Re’m</i> writes: You might ask: The Rrabbis need to bring a proof from “it is their perpetual ancestral land” that their fields cannot be sold forever. This is taught in a Beraisa of in <i>Toras Kohanim</i> that says, “Does ’it may not be sold’ refer to the treasurer selling it [saying that the treasurer cannot sell it forever], or does ’it may not be sold’ mean that it cannot be sold forever [by the Levite himself],” i.e., that the Levite cannot sell it [forever]? [The Beraisa continues]: “The verse says, ’It is their perpetual ancestral land,’ [which teaches that the Levite cannot sell it forever. Therefore, ’it may not be sold’ must be teaching that the treasurer cannot sell it forever.”] Since the Beraisa does not cite verse (33) “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption” [to prove that a Levite cannot sell their fields forever], this indicates that the Beraisa holds that the verses above are dealing with houses and towns and not with a field on the outskirts. But if so, why does the Beraisa not explain that “it may not be sold” teaches that the Levite cannot sell a field onf the outskirts [at all], and that the verses above [that allow him to sell] are talking only about houses and towns, and not about a field onf the outskirts? This question requires investigation. [S.ifsei Chachomim. answers]: It seems to me that this is how the Beraisa expounds the verse “It is their perpetual ancestral land.” If the Torah had not stated “it is their perpetual ancestral land,” I would think that when the Torah writes of the outskirts, “It may not be sold,” it [indeed] means that the Levite cannot sell his field onf the outskirts [at all], and that the verse “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption” is speaking of houses and towns and not of fields onf the outskirts. But now that it says “it is their perpetual ancestral land,” we derive through [a <i>gezeiroh shovoh</i>] “ancestral land,” “ancestral land” from houses and towns, [that] just as houses can be sold, so too a field of the outskirts can be sold, the same as houses that cannot be sold forever. But if so, since we derive that houses and towns and a field of the outskirts all have the same law, why does the verse not combine them and write them together [in one verse]. Therefore one must say that “it may not be sold” must is certainly be teaching about the treasurer selling it [that he cannot sell it forever]. This also answers the second question of <i>Re’m</i> regarding the Beraisa of the <i>Toras Kohanim.</i> 
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  And what is a “sojourner”? Explanation: But [the verse does not mean] literally “a stranger <i>and</i> [non-Jewish] sojourner” [i.e., a stranger who is a non-Jewish sojourner, because the word גר here refers to a proselyte who converted to Judaism] similar [the commandment] to not to cause anguish to a גר (see above 19:33), and “You are to love the [righteous] convert (גר)” (Devarim 10:19). [גר here must be referring to someone who converted to Judaism] because in the beginning of the verse it is written “If your brother becomes impoverished” and a תושב [i.e. if we translated גר ותושב as “a stranger and sojourner”] would not be considered your brother since he eats <i>neveilos,</i> even though he fulfills the seven Noahide <i>mitzvos</i> and he does not worship idols.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  For whoever dwells in the land of Israel. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). The reason for this is well known. The Holy Land belongs to Hashem as it is written (Yechezkel 36:20), “These are the nation of Hashem and they went out of His land.” Therefore, when one dwells in the Land of Israel, the Holy One is his God. But outside the Land, because it is under the hand of the supernal [angelic] princes, someone whowhen on dwells outside the Land it is considered as if he serves idols. Since “In a multitude of people is the king’s glory” (Mishlei 14:28), someone who lives there, glorifies and honors foreign gods [by increasing the population there].
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  If the jubileeJubilee [year] met him. Explanation: There are four verses. One, “He shall serve you until the jubileeJubilee year,” which is speaking of someone who sold himself [into servitude] and whom the jubileeJubilee year met [and set free] before six years [of slavery had passed]. “Return to his own family” refers to someone sold by <i>beis din</i> whom the jubileeJubilee year met before six years. “Each man shall return to his family” (verse 10) refers to someone whose ear was pierced whom the jubileeJubilee year met before six years passed since his piercing, and “He then serves his master forever” (Shemos 21:6) [refers to someone] whom the jubileeJubilee year met after six years since his piercing. Beraisa first chapter of Kiddushin 15a.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  This master is obligated to feed his children. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) It is not talking about any sons, but [only] of sons whom the father is obligated to feed; i.e., until they are six years old.
  
  To the honor of his ancestors. It does not mean his ancestral land, because [if so,] once it is written “estate,” why write “ancestral”? In addition, the verse is not speaking of someone who sold his land. Rather, it means the honor of his ancestors, which means that people should not denigrate him for being a slave. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>).
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  If you say: “If so, etc.” It seems that the verse is the source of this question. I.e., [the verse itself is hinting at the question], “If you say, etc.” Because if not so [that the verse is hinting at question], why does it say “<i>And</i> your slaves (ועבדך)” with a <i>vav</i>, connecting it to the above. Why do we need this? Therefore Rashi writes that there is a question here, and answers it.
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  Them you may buy. You might ask: Why does Rashi have to explain “Them you may buy”? The answer is: If he did not explain this, I would say that if they had slaves who were sold to them, you may buy those slaves from [among] them, [but the children of the sojourners you may not buy]. Therefore, Rashi explains, “Them you may buy.” I.e., you can buy even them. Another reason Rashi says “Them you may buy” is to say that one may buy the fathers of the sons and even more so the children. But simply understood, I would say that “from them” means one can buy the children of the fathers as slaves, but not the fathers themselves. Therefore Rashi explains, “’From them you may purchase [slaves].’ Them you may buy.” You may buy even the fathers themselves, like the children. [Alternatively], you might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above in [the previous verse], “From them you may purchase slaves and maidservants?” The answer is: Above, Rashi does not have to explain anything because the verse itself explains, “From them you may purchase slaves and maidservants.” But here where the verse says nothing afterwards and I do not know to what “from them you may purchase” refers., Pperhaps it refers to animals and means as follows, “From them you may purchase animals.” Therefore Rashi has to explain, “Them you may buy.” (<i>Re’m</i>) You might ask: How does Rashi know that “from them” means “them you may buy?” Perhaps “from them” simply means [buying their animals] and not [buying] them? The answer is: Above in <i>parshas</i> Shemos (1:7), it is written, “The land was filled with them (אותם),” and Rashi explains “From them (מהם).” And it is obvious there that the meaning of אותם is ’from them.” Therefore, [Conversely] here too, מהם means “from them.”
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  Do not leave him to sink (שיטמע). I found in the name of the <i>Aruch,</i> that the Aramaic translation of מטמון (a hidden treasure) is טמוע. And in the <i>Aruch</i> I found, ויחפרוהו ממטמונים, (“They dig for it more than buried treasures)”) (Iyov 2:21), the Aramaic translation [of this] is מן טומעיא. כי בא השמש לּ, “Because the stun had set” (Bereishis 28:11), Targum Yerushalmi [translates this as] טמעת שמשא. Thus here Rashi means,means do not leave him until he is sunk among idolaters.
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  Who is in your power. Rashi is saying this out offrom logic. Because if it is speaking of a non-Jew who is not in your power, what can you do to him that results with the verse saying of him, “He then goes out in the jubileeJubilee year.”
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  While you look on. You might ask: How do I know whether his intent is to rule over him, to crush him? Above (verse 43) Rashi explained, “’You must not rule over him to crush him,’ refers to unnecessary labor, in order to torment him.” But here one cannot know, [as] perhaps it is necessary? You might also ask: Rashi explained above, “If you say: ’If so, by whom shall I be served?’” What is Rashi’s difficulty? One may use a Hebrew slave for whatever one needs? The answer is: When Rashi explains above, “’You must not rule over him to crush him,’ refers to unnecessary labor, in order to torment him,” he means as follows: “Do not say to him: ’Warm this glass for me,’ while not needing it; ’Hoe beneath this vine until I come.’” [The latter case is forbidden] even when necessary, as perhaps he will never come. If so, everything is answered. When Rashi explained, “If you say: ’If so, by whom shall I be served?’” this is because one may not use him even for necessary work, as Rashi explained. It also answers that which Rashi explained, “While you look on,” as you can see whether he is saying, “Do this work until I come.” This is called ruling over him even if it is necessary, since he said to him “until I come.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Since my master commits sexual crimes. You might ask: I can understand [why Rashi mentions] idolatry and Shabbos [as they] are written here, in the verses of this section. But why does Rashi mention sexual crimes which are not mentioned in this section? The answer is: Even though the verses do not mention sexual crimes, it they hints at them by mentioning idolatry. As the Midrash says, “’Your two breasts, etc.’ (Shir Hashirim 4). [This hints] that the two Tablets correlated one to another, with one command corresponding to [the opposite] command. ’Do not commit adultery’ (Shemos 20:13) corresponding to ’You must not have any other gods’ (verse 3),” i.e., idolatry. Alternatively, this is based on the sages’ statement that Yisroel served idolatry only for the purpose of permitting immorality for themselves. Rashi mentions Shabbos since whoever desecrates Shabbos is considered as if he denied God’s Creation of heaven and earth, [which is like idolatry]. Alternatively, the master might buy the slave for homosexuality, which is a sexual crime.
  
  If he does not repent. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) <i>Re’m</i> asks: Why does the verse mention a “foreign family” (verse 27)? If he is sold to idol worship itself (see Rashi there), how much more [will he be sold] to a non-Jew? I do not understand this question, as <i>Re’m</i> should [also] have asked, why does the verse (ibid.) mention a “resident foreigner”? If he is sold to a non-Jew, how much more to a foreign resident, so why write “foreign resident”? However, the verse writes them all for the reason Rashi says, that the Holy does not bring them all onto upon him at once. So if it wrote “offspring” [i.e. idol worship] (verse 27), I would think that he was sold to the “offspring” first. But the Holy One does not do so; rather He brings it onto upon him gradually.
  
  The spreading out of hands and feet. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it is forbidden even in the Temple? The answer is: It is written in the verse, “A prostration stone you shall not set in your land upon which to prostrate oneself,” which implies that the Torah forbade this in your land, but did not forbid it in the Temple.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Behold, the fulfillment of the mitzvos is mentioned. This is the correct text: “When the verse says, ‘And you will fulfill them,’ behold, the fulfillment of the <i>mitzvos</i> is mentioned.” Therefore “If you follow My statutes” means to labor in Torah with no particular intent, and “keep My commandments” means to labor [in Torah] in order to keep and fulfill.
  
  That you should labor in [studying] Torah. Because it is written “follow” and not “study,” this teaches that you should follow the [intricate] exegesis of the Sages [which requires labor]. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Rashi infers this from the word תלכו, as we find the expression הליכה [relating to Torah] in Yirmeyahu (9:1), “Because they left My Torah... and did not walk in it,” and also (55:1), “Ho, all who are thirsty go for water,” which refers to being occupied in Torah.
  
  In order to keep [in mind]. Rashi is answering the question: Afterwards it is written, “I will provide your rains in their proper time,” implying that they should study Torah in order to receive reward. But do our Ssages not say, “Do not be like servants who serve the master in order to receive reward”? Therefore Rashi explains, “In order to keep [in mind] as it states: ’And you shall teach them and keep [in mind] to fulfill them.’” This indicates that while one is laboring in their [study], one should keep in mind to do all that is written in it.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  At the time that it is not the habit of people to go out. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps “in their proper time” means at the time you need rain? The answer is: Since it is written “<i>your</i> rain” instead of “rain,” this indicates it will be “your rain,” i.e., at the time you need it. If so, why does Scripture write “in their proper time”? To teach you, “At the time...”
  
  On Friday nights. As it says in <i>Arvei Pesachim</i> (Pesachim 112b), that “in their proper time” refers to [the verse] above where it is written, at the end of <i>parshas Behar</i> (26:2) “You shall keep My <i>Shabbosos</i>,” and [this is based on the rule that] they derive [new laws] from [the juxtaposition of verses]. See more about this later in <i>parshas</i> Eikev.
  
  These are non-fruit bearing trees. Because it is written “trees of the field,” which is a superfluous [phrase]. Thus “of the field” implies trees that grow in the field that do not generally produce fruit. I.e., non-fruit bearing trees. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Rashi is answering the question: We do not find that the bearing of fruit by non-fruit bearing trees was fulfilled, even though “the word of our God stands forever” (Yeshayahu 40:8) and cannot remain unfulfilled? He answers: Even though Israel did not merit to receivereceiving this blessing in this world, it will be fulfilled in the [Messianic] future, soon in our days.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  You will occupy yourselves with the grape-harvest. Explanation: He is answering the question: It is no blessing if the threshing is delayed until close to the grape-harvest. Rashi answers, etc.
  
  Eating a little. See what I wrote in <i>parshas</i> Behar.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Peace is equal to all [other blessings]. Because above it is written “The earth shall give forth its produce,” [which is] speaking about produce. And then, after the verse, “I will grant peace in the land,” it again writes, “You will eat the old [store] long kept,” which is also about produce, and “I will grant peace” is in the middle. Why is it written in the middle? Because it is equal to all [other blessings].
  
  He makes peace and creates all. Even though the verse does not say this, but rather “He makes peaces and creates evil” (Yeshayahu 45:7), they altered [the words] in order to use pleasant language as we say in Berachos (11b).
  
  [They will not] even pass. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should have said “No sword ... shall come in your land.” In addition, it is already written “You will live securely... I will grant peace...” Therefore [the verse means], “Not only will they not come to war [upon you], but [they will not] even etc.”
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Each before his fellow-soldier’s sword. Since it is not written “You will fell them before you by the sword.” Or it should have said “You will strike them by the sword.” Therefore, it means that they will fall by their fellow-soldier’s sword (<i>Re’m</i>). Alternatively, normally a person strikes fleeing people from behind and they fall on their faces. If so, why does the verse write לחרב (lit. to the sword)? Therefore, it means [he will fall by] his fellow-soldier’s sword.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Of the weak. Since it is not written ורדפו חמשה מכם [placing מכם after the number] as it says afterwards, ומאה מכם רבבה, this alteration perforce indicates that מכם here does not have its plain meaning [of “from you”]. Rather, מכם means מך (weak), as in the verse (earlier 25:47), “while your brother becomes impoverished (ומך) by him,” which means poor. And a poor person is generally weak.
  
  Is this thus the proportion? Would one not need five hundred men for a hundred thousand according to the calculation of five men for a hundred? I found in the name of Rav Yaakov of Orleans that he explains the verse as follows: Five of you will pursue one hundred, and a hundred times five men will pursue ten thousand. So I found.
  
  There is no comparison. <i>Re’m</i> writes, You might ask: If so, regarding [non-Jewish] idolaters [pursuing Jews who sin], of whom it is written (Devarim 32:30), “How can one pursue a thousand, and two make ten thousand flee,” it should have said, “and two make two thousand flee”? The work book <i>Imrei Noam</i> asks this question and answers in the name of <i>Rabbeinu Tam,</i> that here it is talking of pursuing and killing as it is written, “Your enemies will fall before you by the sword.” Therefore five can only pursue and kill a hundred. There, however, there is no killing but only pursuing. It seems to me that although pursuit includes killing, this is not the case with fleeing. Therefore, regarding non-Jews, if one of them pursues and kills a thousand, two will kill two thousand and no more, and three will kill three thousand, and so on ad infinitum. But the Israelites are different as Rashi explains when he asks, “Is this thus the proportion, etc.” Regarding fleeing however, two men can make ten thousand flee, and two Jews can perhaps make double that number flee, as with Yonasan and his arms bearer. Perhaps my words include what the <i>Imrei Noam</i> says. See <i>Tosfos</i> Sotah 11a. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) It is fitting to give some sort of rationale for the ratio of a hundred to ten thousand. It seems as follows: Since five people kill a hundred, when they are many, each one of the hundred [Jews] is like five and can kill a hundred. Thus, that hundred is capable of killing a hundred times hundred, namely ten-thousand.
  
  Not in a natural way. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah write about enemies falling twice, since before in v. 7 it [already] wrote, “They will fall before you ... ” Therefore, etc.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  To a king who hired workers ...  They did not serve him faithfully, except for one who served him faithfully. When the workers came to receive their pay, that worker too came with them. The king said to him: “My son, I will turn my attention to you [later]. Because these worked for me a little I will give them a small wage, whereas I have a large calculation [to make] with you.” So is the Holy One. He pays the non-Jews’ wage swiftly. But when Israel comes, He turns away from all his [other] businesses since their wage is very large and He needs time to calculate with them to pay them for all their merits (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). See what I wrote in <i>parshas</i> Ki Sissa and in <i>parshas</i> Acharei Mos.
  
  With increasing population. You might ask: Perhaps והפרתי והרבתי both refer to “fruitfulness and increase,” as everywhere [else] where פריה ורביה  are written together? [Why then does Rashi translate והרבתי as “I will make you great”?]. The answer is since the Torah does not write והפריתי והרבתי אתכם, but rather, והפרתי אתכם והרבתי אתכם, this indicates that they are two separate things (<i>R. Noson</i>). You might ask: Why the Sages do not exposit anything regarding Yishmael where it is written (Bereishis 17:20), “ And as for Yishmael I have heard you..., and I will make <i>him</i> fruitful, (and will increase <i>him</i> exceedingly),” yet they do not expound anything from the [extra] word <i>him</i>? The answer is: Regarding Yishmael the word <i>him</i> is exclusionary: I will bless <i>him</i> with the blessing of fruitfulness and increase, but I will not bless the sons of Keturah, even though they too were the sons of Avrohom. Analyze this.
  
  With an upright stature. <i>Re’m</i> explains that if they are fruitful they will certainly increase. Therefore הרבתי must mean התרברבות (greatness), i.e., an upright stature.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Good [quality] to be aged. Rashi is answering the question: What blessing is it to “eat the old”?
  
  Full of new [crops]. Because new crops generally cannot remain on the threshing floor as they will rot if they remain there, and therefore they must put them in the storehouses.
  
  To empty the storehouses. Rashi does not say that they throw the old crops away, because what blessing would that be? In addition, how would they eat “the old store long kept”? Furthermore, that verse indicates that old crops are better than new. Therefore, the verse perforce means to take [the old crops] from the storehouse and put them somewhere else in the house. Because the storehouse preserves the new crops from rotting, whereas the old crops do not rot easily once a year has passed.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  This is the Temple. But not the Tabernacle, as implied, because there was no Tabernacle in the Land of Israel, only in the desert. [Alternatively], the first <i>sugyah</i> of <i>Maseches</i> Eiruvin (2a) writes, “It is all right to say that the Temple is called a Sanctuary, because it is written, “I will set My Sanctuary among you.” Rashi explains that when this verse was said the Tabernacle was already erected, since this verse appears in Vayikra and this whole book was [of Vayikra was dictated by God] in the Tent of Testimony [the Sanctuary] as it is written (Vayikra 1:1), “And Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.” Therefore, concerning what [future] Tabernacle could he be promising them, if not the Temple, etc.etc? So far are Rashi’s words.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  To know the expositions of the Sages. Explanation: Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah make a change? Before (26:3) it is written, “If you follow My statutes,” meaning that you should labor in Torah, while here it writes “If you will not listen to Me,” when it should have said, “If you do not follow My statutes.” This question is answered if the verse is also referring to “the exposition of the Sages,” as the exposition of the Sages is called “receipt,” since they received [the tradition] from each other [by listening to their teachers].
  
  Resulting in two sins. Rashi is answering the question: If they did not learn, obviously they will not know what to do? He answers: This is indeed what the verse is saying; since you will not learn, you will certainly not fulfill.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Despise others who do perform [My statutes]. Because if not so, it already written above “and you will not fulfill,” which is to despise the <i>mitzvos.</i> If so, why does the verse need to say, “If you despise My statutes? Therefore, it must mean to despise others. This too is the explanation of [Rashi’s interpretation of] “[if] your souls loathe My laws.”
  
  You hate the Sages [lit. the wise ones]. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Why does the verse say “Your souls loathe My laws (משפטי)” regarding this, [and not “If you despise My statutes (חקותי)”]? Because [monetary] laws (משפטים) require wisdom [to understand]., This is as the Sages say (Bava Basra 175b), “He who wants to be wise should occupy himself with monetary laws.” And so they expounded (<i>Sifri</i> 9, 10) regarding Shlomo, “Would he, of whom it is said (Melachim I 5:11), ’He was wiser than any man,’ say (Melachim I 3:9), ’Who can judge this, Your great nation’?’” [This indicatesing that judging monetary laws requires wisdom and logic].
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  I will command against you. Rashi is answering the question: The term והפקדתי implies depositing, but “deposit” is not relevant here. Therefore, he explains that it is an expression of commanding.
  
  The appearance of his skin (lit. surface) is washed out. I.e., the appearance of the skin of swollen flesh is washed out [pale]; it is not red like the flesh of other, healthy people.
  
  Your enemies will consume [your crops]. Rashi is answering the question: First it said “You will plant [your seeds] in vain,” which implies that they will not grow, and afterwards it says, “And your enemies will consume the crops,” which implies that they will grow? Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: How can one sow seed לריק (lit. on emptiness)? A person sows in the ground? He answers that “on emptiness” means that it will not grow, etc.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  This is a deathly plague (מותן). Some explain that this is an expression of waiting (המתנה), that people will wait and expect the disease to leave him any moment and [they wait for] he will his recovery., and wWhen he dies, people will be alarmed (נבהלים) that he suddenly died. Others explain that it is an expression of מתניים, a disease that begins from the hips (מתניים), and this [terrible] disease alarms him. The expression of מותן [instead of מתניים] is similar to the expression (Kiddushin 22b) “The ear (אוזן) that heard on Mount Sinai, etc.,” where it should have said “ears” (אזניים). Here too, it means מתניים.
  
  [He sows it] the second year, and it grows. I.e., if it happens to grow the second time.
  
  For the days of siege. I.e., they gather produce to eat while they lay siege upon Jewish towns.
  
  Within [your cities]. You might ask: From where does Rashi [know to] explain like this? “You will be stricken before your enemies” implies that they will kill them with the sword? The answer is: Rashi proves this from “I will set My face against you,” which implies that the verse is speaking of death by the hand of Heaven, i.e., excision. [This is], when a person dies prematurely on his bed as it is written in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim (above 20:5), “I shall set My face against that man and his family; I shall cut him off.” This indicates that wherever it is written “My face” it means excision. Yet after this it is written, “You will be stricken before your enemies,” which implies death atby the hand of man by the sword? Therefore, Rashi answers that it means as follows. When it says, “You will be stricken before your enemies,” it means that you will be killed within, by excision. And when it says “You will be stricken before your enemies,” it means that your enemies will surround you without, i.e., standing outside and rejoicing at their your death. Thus, you will be “stricken before your enemies.” Alternatively, [Rashi derives this] from ונגפתם, which is an expression of plague, a death by the hand of Hheaven.
  
  From you. Rashi is answering the question: It is already written “you will be stricken...” Therefore, this must come to be expounded upon. [Later], Rashi has to say the double expression “from you and over you” in his commentary, because the exposition indicates that the enemies will be “from you,” while the verse indicates that they will rule “over you.” Therefore he says both in his explanation.
  
  Because of panic. Because afterwards is written “when no one is pursuing.” If so, why will they flee? Perforce, only because of panic.
  
  Because of lack of strength. Rashi is answering the question: Its its [not] a blessing if no one pursues them? He answers that [the enemy] will not need to pursue them, as they will have no strength. They will think, “Why pursue them? They have no strength to wage war.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  And if while these [are happening]. Rashi is answering the question: ואם עד אלה (lit. if until these) implies that there is a time limit and the verse is saying that if the time passes and you still do not listen to Me, then I will increase your punishment. However, it is impossible to say that Hashem would set for them a time [until when they] transgress the commandments. Therefore he explains that עד is like עוד (while), because if not, the verse should have said, “If, you still do not listen to Me because (על) of these [catastrophes].”
  
  Still other sufferings. Not that ‘I will once again increase to bring the first sufferings onto them a second time’, since the second sufferings are not the same as the first.
  
  Seven punishments. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that the Holy One will punish them seven times for their sins, yet this cannot be as He does not punish a person more than he transgressed against Him.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Destroys its produce. Because [the land] is damp, its the fruits rots.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Who does not weed, nor harvest. נוכש is to gather weeds from among the seedlings, כסח is to harvest, and עודר is to dig.
  
  Behold the teeth of such a one are set on edge. Thus “Your strength will be exhausted in vain” means after this labor and effort, since then the teeth of such a one are set on edge. If “your strength” meant their money that comes from [exerting] strength [effort], the verse need not have mentioned this, as Scripture had already written, “I will make your heavens like iron,” and probably they exhausted [their money] in vain. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You also cannot say it means that their physical strength will be exhausted, because if so it need not have said “in vain,” but [simply], “Your strength will be exhausted.”
  
  What you bring to it. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written “<i>your</i> land”? It should have written “<i>The</i> land will not yield,” as above in the blessing (verse 4), “The earth shall give forth its produce.” Therefore, “your land” implies even what you bring to it of your own at the time of seeding; even this it will not yield. Alternatively, Rashi infers this from the word יבולה (produce), which connotes moving something (מוביל), [implying] that he brings [seed]. (<i>Re’m</i>)
  
  Even from the very earth a curse will be upon them. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “And the tree will not give forth its produce”! Why write “of the land”?
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  An expression of inciting. Because [the other meaning of והשלחתי] “sending on a mission” only applies to [a human] who has intellect.
  
  I will set (אשלח) upon them. And here too it writes “I will send (והשלחתי) among you,” giving us a <i>gezeiroh shovoh.</i> 
  
  There were indeed years. Rashi mentions this so that you do not ask: Where do we find that a domesticated animal killed with its bite? He cites an incident that there were indeed, etc.
  
  These are minors. The death of one’s children when they are minors is called משכל as we find byin the case of Rivkah who said (Bereishis 27:45), “Why should I lose (אשכל) both of you on one day?” At that time they [Yaakov and Eisav] were minors. See <i>parshas</i> Toldos.
  
  Within. Rashi alters his wording and says “within” regarding people. He is answering the question: Why did it not [simply] write “I will destroy your cattle and you”? The answer is: The wild animals will completely destroy the cattle that are outside in the field. But since people are within, inside the town, the wild animals will not destroy them all, but will only reduce them.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  To return to Me. Because the expression לא תוסרו לי (lit. do not accept your sufferings) is problematical, as people obviously do not want to accept sufferings [and they sufferings are given to people whether they want them or not]. Therefore Rashi explains: If, despite all these sufferings, you do not want to return to Me.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  There is “avenging” ...  I.e., “I will bring an avenging sword upon you avenging the covenant,” implies the sword written in the covenant, i.e., the Torah. But there is another avenging not [mentioned] in the covenant, and that is the blinding of Tzidkiyohu.
  
  The blinding of Tzidkiyohu. Blinding is not written in the Torah. Alternatively, “avenging the covenant” refers to Tzidkiyohu who made an oath [covenant], [then] transgressed the oath, and was blinded. And “other avengings” means cases where people transgressed the Torah’s commands such as theft and immorality, [where one does not transgress a specific covenant. Rashi is saying as follows: “There is ’avenging’ which is not for the (violation of a) covenant, such as with other avengings, while this (case of our verse) is the blinding of Tzidkiyohu.]
  
  Which you have transgressed. I.e., the Torah [according to the first interpretation].
  
  Enemy armies. Rashi is answering the question: How can a sword on its own strike them? Why does Rashi not explain this above in v. 6 where it said, “No sword shall pass through your land”? The answer is: Above it is written “I will grant peace in the land.” Since peace is the opposite of war, as it is written (Tehillim 120:7), “I am for peace, but when I speak they are for war,” [“sword” of that verse] certainly refers to an armed force [i.e., war]. Here, however, no enemy is mentioned as it is only written, “I will bring an avenging sword upon you.” Therefore, he explains that “sword” refers to an army of enemies.
  
  When they take out. Because otherwise, how is pestilence relevant to “You will be given into the hand of the enemy”? Even though did every evil, they did not leave the dead overnight because the [holy] Land is unable to bear it and the corpse immediately gives off a stench if left overnight.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  I will break for you. Rashi needs to explain that בשברי means “I <i>will</i> break,” because the [literal] meaning of בשברי is “when I break,” but the intent here is “I <i>will</i> break” and not “when I break.”
  
  For lack of wood. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains that you cannot say it is for lack of bread, because it is already written “When I break the staff of your bread.” But, this is no proof, because “staff of bread” can refer to anything that gives sustenance (הסועד), as every meal (סעודה) is called [bread] because of bread [which sustains most of all]. This is clearly indicated in Rashi who writes “every support (מסעד) of food.” Rashi’s proof [that the verse refers to lack of wood] seems to be because it is not written “Ten women will knead one <i>dough</i>,” which occurs before baking. This indicates that even though they have flour and each woman can make dough by herself, they are unable to bake [separately for lack of wood]. This is easy to understand. (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>)
  
  “And you will be given [into the hand of the enemy]” is not of that number. Because otherwise, there would be eight. Rather, it is [the same as] “the sword” written in the beginning of the verse. And its explanation is: through the sword, that is, the enemy armies, you will be given into the hand of the enemy through pestilence [that breaks out during the siege].
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  And he would fall [dead] upon it [the idol]. Rashi is explaining how the verse can say, “I will set your corpses upon the carcasses of your idols,” implying that the people fall on their idols when they are already dead.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  This is [actually] a kindly measure for Israel. Rashi is answering the question: Why is this not counted among the punishments, making them eight? Therefore he explains: “This is a kindly measure, etc.” Do not ask: Why does Rashi not include the even harsher “I will scatter you among the nations, etc.” among the punishments? The answer is: Once the verse interrupted with a kindly measure, it is not counted as being part of the above mentioned punishments. This is not like <i>Re’m</i> who explains: “This is a kindly measure.:” Rashi is telling us the truth of the matter and is not saying that if it was not a kindly measure, but a punishment, there would be eight [punishments]. Because if so, you could ask that since “I will scatter you among the nations” is a measure of punishment, there would [still] be eight. Therefore one must say that once the number of seven is complete, the Torah is not particular if there are eight [punishments or for that matter] other punishments in addition to the seven. So far are his words. [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write, והשימותי אני and not [simply] write והשימותי את הארץ as it is written in v. 31, והשימותי את מקדשיכם without writing אני (Myself)? This indicates [the direct involvement of] the Holy One Himself. But, being that no evil comes from Him as “evil does not come from the Most High,” therefore Rashi has to explain, “This is [actually] a kindly measure.”
  
  For their enemies will not find any satisfaction. I.e., when the verse writes “Your enemies who live on it will be desolated,” it means that they will not be able to live in your land because of the desolation. [It means] that they will not be able to live in your land because of the desolation.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  The scabbard is emptied. Because the expression of ריק (empty) is not applicable to a sword as Rashi explains in <i>parshas</i> Beshalach. הנדן is the sheath of the sword.
  
  As a person who empties. And therefore it is written והריקותי.
  
  It does not return. I.e., the water.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  It will appease the wrath of God. <i>Re’m</i> writes: Rashi’s explanation, “It will appease the wrath of God,” is not referring to the word תרצה, because תרצה is a verb referring to the subject [the land which will be appeased], while “It will appease the wrath of God” is a verb referring to an object, meaning that the land will appease the wrath of God. Rather, “It will appease the wrath of God” is the explanation of והרצת את שבתותיה (and appease for its Shabbosos) which is written at the end of the verse. But תרצה means to be appeased, i.e., “The land will then be appeased for its Shabbosos.” Because the purpose of the land’s appeasement is in order so that it will then appease God, Rashi writes this purpose at the very beginning, by saying, “It will appease the wrath of God.” Proof to this is that regarding והרצת Rashi explains “the King,” meaning that the word “King” is missing, whereas regardingתרצה הארץ he does not explain that the word “King” is missing and says, “It will appease the King of His wrath.” Therefore, one must say that above he is only explaining the verse’s intent when he says, “It will appease the wrath of God.” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The word תרצה is similar to the word פיוס, appeasement. Rashi says “It will appease the wrath of God,” since he cannot explain that it will appease the wrath of the sabbatical years, because it is not feasible to appease sabbatical years that they already transgressed. Rather, they will appease the wrath of God who is angry about the sabbatical years. But והרצת את שבתותיה is a verb applying to an object, since the verse does not write ותרצה שבתותיה as in the beginning of the verse. Therefore it means “It will appease its Sabbatical years to the King,” since it is a verb applying to an object, that the land will appease the King regarding the sabbatical years.
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  You will lie on your right side [again]”ùforty days.” Forty days hints at the forty years that Judah remained behind after the exile of the ten tribes.
  
  And if you say Menashe’s years were fifty-five. I.e., Menashe was born immediately after the exile of the ten tribes and he lived for fifty-five years, and we find that Menashe was wicked. If so, during Menashe’s years the people angered Him for fifty-five years, in addition to what they angered Him during the years of the other kings. Rashi answers, “Menashe repented.”
  
  And on them was decreed [an exile] of seventy complete years. There was an exile of seventy complete years, even though only sixty-eight sabbatical years and jubilee years passed over them. The reason the Holy One did not wait until seventy years passed was because He acted righteously with them, as Rashi explains in <i>parshas</i> Va’eschanan on the verse “When you have children ... ” (Devarim 4:25).
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  As though the pursuers... [We read the verse] as if it said, “And they will flee as though fleeing from a sword,” and not “(And they will flee), fleeing from the sword,” because afterwards it is written, “With no one chasing them.”
  
  In tapping it. Because נדף means נדחף (pushed). However, a pushed leaf only produces a noise when it is pushed against another leaf; also, a leaf is not pushed of itself but only by the wind. Therefore Rashi explains this at length, citing proofs. When Rashi cites the Targum who translates שקיף, i.e., beating, Rashi is not saying that נדף means beating, since נדף is an expression of pushing. Rather, he means that the pushing causes beating, and the Targum is explaining the verse’s intent and not the actual word; such is the way of the Targum when explaining the meaning in many places. [In some texts], Rashi first explains that “They will flee, fleeing from a sword” does not mean actual fleeing from a sword, so that the explanation of “The sound of a driven leaf” applies to it. That the reason they are fleeing is not because of an enemy killing them, but because of the great fear in their hearts. (<i>Re’m</i>) 
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  One by the sin of the other. And “As though before a sword” means, just as one stumbles before a sword that pursues after him so he will stumble because of his fellow’s sin (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> citing <i>Toras Kohanim</i>). I think the verse is giving a reason for what was said above. Since v. 36 is speaking of “those who survive among you” who are apparently righteous, why then are they punished by “timidity in their hearts,” and that “The sound of a blown leaf will put them to flight and they will flee ... and fall?” Rashi answers, “They will stumble over one another”ùone by the sin of the other, since all Israel is responsible for one another.” Therefore, He will bring these punishments upon them. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains that [this interpretation is deduced] because it says, איש באחיו (lit. man against his brother). It should have said “one man against [another] man” or “one man against another,” since it is inappropriate to mention brotherhood in connection with falling [against one another]. But regarding sin it is fitting to write “his brother,” because the reason they will stumble against each other is that all Israel are brothers [i.e., all Israel is responsible for one another].
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  When you will be scattered you will be lost. But not really lost, because it is written (v. 44), “All this notwithstanding ... to annihilate them.”
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  When they hold onto the deeds of their ancestors. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “with them”? He is also answering the question: The Torah says, “Fathers shall not be executed through sons, (and sons shall not be executed through fathers)?” Therefore, he explains, “When they hold...”
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  I Myself will bring them. Explanation. Because it is written “I will bring them” instead of “I will lead them” as in the verse (Devarim 28:36), “Hashem will lead you and your king,” perforce, it is expounded that He will “bring them” under His wings while they are in the land of their enemies.
  
  If then they will be humbled. <i>Re’m</i> writes: I do not understand Rashi’s intent here. Because according to this, the verse means that I Myself will bring them under the wings of the Divine Presence if their uncircumcised heart is humbled. But if their heart is not humbled I will not bring them under the wings of the Divine Presence. And this is the opposite of the Midrash that he cited, “Surely... with fury poured out, will I be king over you.” I will assert My kingship over you by force. But Rashi should have explained או אז (or then) according to its literal meaning: Either I will bring them under the wings of My Divine Presence by force, or then their hearts will humble of themselves and I will not need to bring them under the wings of My Divine Presence by force. So far are <i>Re’m’s</i> words. This [way of understanding Rashi] is difficult as Rashi in <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim explains, “<i>Or</i> it was not a תם, but rather it was known that it is a goring ox,” [and thus probably learns that expression similarly over here]. I think that this is the explanation of Rashi: [Rashi omits a few words at the beginning, and is actually learning או as meaning “or”]: “Or I will not have to rule over them by force, if then they humble their uncircumcised heart of themselves, and then confess their sins and their iniquities are atoned through suffering. If they do this, “I will [then] remember My covenant, etc.” The meaning of או אז יכנע will be as Rashi explained in או נודע כי שור נגח הוא above. This also explains the “other interpretation” of Rashi. Analyze this.
  
  With their sufferings. Rashi is answering the question: What will appease their iniquities? He answers that appeasement refers to the suffering that will atone for their iniquities.
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  A pledge, that he should come. I do not know why five places [were necessary], since one would be enough. Perhaps this was as if he swore by the five books of the Torah, just as [the word] Israel is written five times in one verse (Bamidbar 8:19) corresponding to the five books of the Torah; <i>Re’m.</i> It seems to me as follows: the Yalkut states that before the coming of Moshiach, Eliyohu will arrive first and reveal himself to individual righteous people, afterwards in a few towns and communities, and afterwards upon the mountains of Israel, etc. The Yalkut Yeshaya comments on the verse (Yeshayahu 52:7), “How pleasant are the feet of the bearer of good tidings on the mountains,” that three days before the arrival of Moshiach, Eliyohu will come and stand on the mountains of Israel ...  and his voice will be heard from the one end of the world to the other ...  On the second day he will stand on the mountains of Israel ...  And on the third day ...  Thus he will come to announce the good tidings five times. Israel will then make a great repentance as it says in the Yalkut at the end of Malachi in the name of R. Eliezer. Therefore, he has to give a pledge five times in order to [guarantee that he will] come and announce good tidings five times (<i>R. Yaakov Taryosh</i>). (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) <i>Maharan</i> writes in the name of <i>Tzror Hamor,</i> that he [specifically] took a <i>vov</i> so that he should come to redeem in the sixth millennium, soon in our days. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> gave another reason at length. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) He explains that he took a <i>vov</i> as his name would still be pronounced as Yaakov without change, whereas if he had taken another letter, the name Yaakov would be corrupted and no longer be pronounced as Yaakov.
  
  And why is “remembrance” not said [in connection] with Yitzchok. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) [Rashi] seems [to be saying] that this question only arises now, since if not for his answer [as to why the patriarchs are listed in reverse order], I would think the verse means that only through combination, [i.e.,] that only the remembrance of all three together will cause [the redemption]. If so, one need not mention “remembrance” with Yitzchok, because [remembrance] is mentioned at the beginning and end of the [one] combination and it is not necessary [for it to be inserted] in the middle. But now that that the verse is making two statements, first that Yitzchok will combine with Yaakov, and then, if this combination is insufficient, He will also combine with Avrohom, therefore Rashi asks why no remembrance is said with Yitzchok pertaining to the first combination.
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  [As] retribution and in retribution. Because יען always means retribution. Rashi also adds the word אשר (that) since without it, the words “As retribution and in retribution” would not be connected with “They despised My laws.” It is as if the verse said, “As retribution that they despised My laws and in retribution that their soul loathed My statutes.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  On which the soul depends. [This comes] to exclude a hand or a leg upon which the soul does not depend, [e.g.,] if he said, “the worth of [his] hand or leg [is incumbent upon me],” it is as if he said nothing and he is absolved from making payment.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  But rather, whether he is worth much or little. I.e., other items whose monetary value is dedicated to the Temple, where, if the donor said, “The money of so and so is on me,” we calculate according to the high or low value at that time. This dedication, however, is not so, but rather [it is calculated] according to his years written in this section.
  
  And as to the doubling of the kof, I do not know. <i>Re’m</i> writes: This is surprising as in <i>Toras Kohanim,</i> cited in the first chapter of Erchin (4a), it explicitly says that this is a <i>kaf</i> of <i>kinui</i> [a pronominal suffix, “<i>your</i> value”): “It was taught in a Beraisa, בערכך, ’according to your value.’ One gives the value of a person’s whole body and one does not give the value of his limbs. Since you might think I exclude the value of a limb that the soul depends on, the verse says, ’souls.’.” We see that the meaning of בערכך is the value of one’s whole body and from this [word] they derived [that one] cannot [dedicate] not the value of part of him, and they [also] said, ‘not the value of his limbs’. So far are his words. I do not understand his difficulty with Rashi, since Rashi is writing about the other appearance of ערכך in the section where the explanation of our Sages is not applicable at all [since they derive it from the first mention of this word]. You cannot say that since one is for an exposition, for this reason the Torah wrote the rest as ערכך because of this even where this exposition of the Sages is not relevant at all., as Rashi thinks it this is a strained explanation.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  An old man in the houseùa snare (פחא) in the house. Like the expression “a net (פח) that snares” (Tehillim 91:3). I.e., it is bad to have him in the house.
  
  An old woman in the houseùa treasure (סימא) in the house. A good treasure. The Targum translates ומטמוני מסתרים, “secret hidden things” (Yeshayahu 45:3) as סימא דמטמרן.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  “The foot of this [animal] is a burnt-offering,” his statement is binding. But not so regarding the evaluation of a person since we require something on which life depends, because it is written “souls” regarding a person. But here it is written “any of it that he will give,” to include <i>whatever</i> he dedicates as becomes dedicated.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  An unblemished one for one which has a blemish. I.e., he may not give an undedicated unblemished animal in place of an already dedicated one which has a blemish. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse means according to its plain meaning, a fat one for a thin one? The answer is: We find elsewhere regarding sanctified animals that it is written  רעand “blemish” is written next to it, indicating that wherever it says ‘bad’ regarding sanctified animals, it means a blemish. Because it is written in <i>parshas</i> Re’ey (Devarim 15:21), “And if it has a blemish, if it is crippled or blind, or has any severe (רע) blemish.”
  
  And certainly (כל שכן) [the exchange of] good for good or bad for bad. You might ask: Why is this a כל שכן?” Perhaps one may only not change a bad undedicated [animal] for a good dedicated one, but if they are both good, this כל שכן does not indicate that it is forbidden? Also, why does the Torah need to write “a good one for a worse one”? This would be a כל שכן as even a bad one for a good one is forbidden? Also, why does Rashi explain “certainly good for good” when discussing “a bad one for a good one”? He should have explained this while discussing “a good one for a bad one”! The answer is: He means as follows. The verse certainly has to write “or a bad one for a good one” because of the end of the verse where it says, “If he did exchange, etc., then both it and its replacement shall be sacred.” This indicates that after the act they are both sacred. Therefore the Torah needs to write “a bad one for a better one” to include that even if one gives a bad one in exchange for something better that was dedicated, where one may have thought it does not become sanctified at all, the verse lets us know that if one made such an exchange it is holy, since the end of the verse refers to both cases. And now that even a blemished one exchanged for an unblemished one, the blemished one becomes sacred, so then exchanging an unblemished one for an unblemished one, will certainly become sacred since both are good. You might ask: Why does Rashi [also] mention “bad for bad”? The answer is that you might have said this only works if one exchanges good for good because the sanctity of the good one has the power to fall on its exchange. However, if one exchanged bad for bad you might have thought that the sanctity of the blemished animal does not have the power to fall [on its exchange]. So Rashi tells us [that it does], because it is also written “a good one for a bad one.” Analyze this. See <i>Re’m</i> who discusses this at length, asking many questions.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  A blemished [animal]. Rashi’s proof of this is from the end of the section (verse 27) where it is written, “If it is of an unclean animal...” There one is has to say that it is speaking of an actual unclean animal, and it is connected to this verse [which speaks of exchanging animals for animals], as Rashi explains there. If so, this indicates that [here] it is speaking of a blemished animal (<i>Re’m</i>). Alternatively, Rashi derives this since it is written, “Which cannot be offered to Hashem.” This is superfluous as it is obvious that one cannot offer unclean animals to Hashem. Thus it teaches that the verse is speaking of a blemished animal.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  For other people who come to buy it from Temple property. Rashi is answering the question: Initially it is written “As the <i>kohein</i> determines its value for you, so shall it be,” but then [in the next verse] it is written “If he will indeed redeem it he shall add on one fifth to its valuation”? Rashi answers: Here it is speaking of another person who comes to buy it, and there [in the next verse it is speaking] of owners who want to redeem it. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains: But [here it is not speaking of] the owners, because the owners [who redeem it] have to add a fifth. You might ask: Just because it belonged to him before [why does] he haves to add a fifth? The explanation is that because it was his before, he is more satisfied [when he purchases it back], as it states everywhere (e.g., Bava Metzia 93b), “The difference [between keeping one’s own animals or having to buy new ones] is that his animals are accustomed to work for their owner, [i.e., it is easier for the owner to work with such animals].” Explanation:, a person prefers his first animal. Therefore, he has to add, because it is worth more to him. And the same applies to one who sanctifies his house. However, we still need to understand, why a fifth. According to teachings of wisdom, a second is not considered an addition to one, and a third is not considered an addition to two, and a fourth is not considered an addition to three. This is because [only] a plane is considered a complete [entity] as it has four corners. Therefore, a fourth portion is not considered an addition. But a fifth portion is considered an addition because a complete item is four. Therefore, one has to add a fifth portion.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Not according to its worth. Explanation: “According to the measure of its seed” means according to the amount of seed he can sow in it. I.e., according to its size and not according to its worth, since if it is big enough to sow in it a <i>chomer</i> of seed, even if it is inferior, he has to give the amount written in the <i>parsha.</i>
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  According to this assessment mentioned shall it be. Explanation: Rashi substitutes the word יקום (established) with יהיה (it will be), because the verse is referring to the giving [of money], and not saying that the field should be established in the hand of the person who presently has it. And [because] the word יקום [generally] cannot be explained as “giving something,” Rashi explains that יקום means יהיה. Because this word (יהיה) can either be translated as meaning that it shall “it shall be established where it is” [i.e., יהיה can have the same meaning as יקום], or [it can mean] that “it shall be according to the amount he gives,” which is connected to giving.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  And it remains in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer. Explanation: When the verse says, “The <i>kohein</i> shall calculate the money,” and that he does not give the whole fifty shekels, this is not only when the dedication was after the jubilee year. It also applies when the dedication was immediately after the jubilee year in a case where the redeemer only came to redeem it a few years after his dedication. The verse wrote one case and the same applies to someone who came a few years after his dedication.
  
  A kalbon (small sum). I.e., an additional amount for each <i>sela</i> [acquired in exchange for smaller coins, because small coins are more valuable]. פרוטרוט is similar to the word פרוטה (the small <i>perutah</i> coin), i.e., small coins [lit. little by little].
  
  That are from the jubilee year. Because it was in the hands of the Temple during those years, we count from [after] those years. Because the amount the redeemer must give is only according to number [of years] from the year of redemption until the jubilee year, when the redeemer eats its fruits. But not according to the number of years from the jubilee year until the year of redemption when he does not eat its fruits.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  The Temple treasurer. Explanation: He is the seller and not the ‘one who dedicated’ mentioned above.
  
  To return to. In the jubilee year.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  From the possession of the one who bought it from the Temple treasury. Explanation: But not from possession of the Temple treasury, because we do not find anywhere that the Torah commands that the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury at in the jubilee year, so how could it say, “When the field is then released...”?
  
  Which is given to the kohanim. Because the expression “It becomes sacred to Hashem” is said in reference to the Temple upkeep and also in reference to the <i>kohanim,</i> Rashi now explains, “’Just as a field that was consecrated,’ which is given to the <i>kohanim</i>.”
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Must be in holy shekolim. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that no valuation is less than a <i>shekel,</i> but this is not true since we assess him according to his means and leave him enough to live on, as said earlier (verse 8).
  
  Twenty-four mo’oh to the sela. Because the <i>sela</i> is four <i>dinar</i>, and the <i>dinar</i> is six <i>mo’oh.</i> Thus there are twenty-four <i>mo’oh</i> to the <i>sela.</i>
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  This verse does not refer to ... Rather, the verse refers to... <i>Gur Aryeh</i> asks: Why does it interrupt between them, writing the <i>parshah</i> of dedication of a house and inherited field between them? Why does it not juxtapose [the exchanging of an] animal to [the exchanging of an] animal? The answer is that it is juxtaposed to the firstling as they are similar. There are things whose sanctity cannot be transferred such as the firstling of a clean animal, which cannot be sanctified for something else because it was born with the sanctity [of a firstling], and likewise, there are things born without the ability of attaining sanctity, such as an unclean animal, which is in itself unclean and cannot attain sanctity [i.e., it cannot be sanctified].
  
  “He shall redeem it based on the valuation.” [Furthermore,] this [cannot] be a donkey. Because no unclean animals, except for the donkey, have a firstling law.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Unspecified consecrations belong to the Temple treasury. Meaning, to the Temple upkeep.
  
  To the hand of the kohein. Explanation: After they reach the hand of the <i>kohein</i> they are completely unconsecrated in every way, and if one wants, one may buy them from the <i>kohein</i> and they are like absolutely unconsecrated items.
  
  Dedications [dedicated] to the Highest may be redeemed. Explanation: Dedications to the Temple upkeep while still in his hand. The money goes to the Temple upkeep and the property becomes unconsecrated.
  
  If a vow he gives their worth. Explanation: That he said “I am obligated (to bring an offering).” He is therefore liable for responsibility [to pay if the animal] is lost, and thus the dedication obligates him [to give its full value]. He has to give money equal to its value to a <i>kohein,</i> because dedicated items go to <i>kohanim,</i> and the animal is sacrificed on the altar because of his prior vow.
  
  If a voluntary offering, he gives the worth of its benefit. That is, if he says, “<i>This</i> burnt-offering is dedicated.” He is thus not liable for responsibility [i.e., he is not liable to pay] if the animal got lost, and the dedication is only effective regarding the benefit he derives. That is, what another <i>kohein</i> would want to give this owner in order to delay this sacrifice and not sacrifice it until his watch arrives so that he can have its skin and the other items [a <i>kohein</i> can may take]. There used to be twenty-four watches. Each one took one week during which it sacrificed all the sacrifices and the watch of that each week took whatever the <i>kohanim</i> had a right to. [The person who dedicated a voluntary sacrifice gives] what another <i>kohein</i> would give the owner [of the sacrifice] to delay sacrificing this sacrifice until his watch arrives so that he can have the sacrifice’s skin and the other items. This is a small amount [of money] as the sacrifice might get lost and the <i>kohein</i> will get nothing. Because the owner is not liable for responsibility [if it gets lost], the owner who dedicated a voluntary offering only has to give this [small] amount to a <i>kohein.</i>
  
  His [Canaanite] slaves or his Canaanite maidservants. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains: Because it says מאדם (lit. <i>of</i> a person), this implies only his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, but not his Hebrew slaves and maidservants.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  If a person is going to be executed. But if his death verdict was not finalized, even if he was plagued with boils, one gives according to the rate of years. Rashi explains the verses out of order, first explaining “Everything that is dedicated is most holy,” and then going back and explaining “be it people (slave), or animal,” and then [moving forward again to verse 29 and] explaining “Any dedication that a man will dedicate.” This is because he wants to explain all the laws of dedication in order. [That is, he first explains the verse in general, “However, any dedication that a man will dedicate to Hashem from any of his belongings ...  Everything that is dedicated is most holy, unto Hashem.” Afterwards, he explains the specifics of the verse, “Be it people, etc.] Because he explained “However, any dedication...,” saying that dedications to <i>kohanim</i> cannot be sold to someone else or redeemed by the owner himself [who dedicated it], but must [first] be given to the <i>kohein,</i> he concludes that this [dedication also] works for sacrifices that are most holy and for sacrifices of lesser degree, and he gives the money of the vow and the worth of its benefit of a voluntary offering to a <i>kohein.</i> And if something is dedicated to Hheaven [the Temple], one redeems it and gives its worth to the Temple upkeep, and it is not like a dedication to <i>kohanim</i> that one cannot redeem until it has reached the hand of a <i>kohein.</i> This is the explanation of “Everything that is dedicated is most holy.” Afterwards, Rashi goes back and explains the laws of [specific] dedicated items and explains מאדם (lit. <i>from</i> a man) but not every man; thus only one’s Canaanite slaves. “’Any dedication that a man will dedicate,’ If a person is going to be executed... behold, he is going to die... [and] he has no worth.”
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  Second tithe. Because here it is written is written “<i>sacred</i> to Hashem,” and regarding second tithe it is written (Devarim 26:13) “I have divested my estate of <i>sacred</i> material.” Thus we derive one from the other [through the common words] “sacred,” “sacred.” This excludes first tithe which is completely non-sacred as it is written (Bamidbar 18:27), “Your <i>terumah</i>-gift will be considered the same as grain from the granary.”
  
  Grain. Since the verse is speaking of the second tithe, and pertaining to the second tithe it is written “grain,wine” so surely here “of the seed of the land “ [refers to] grain, wine and oil which are “of the seed of the land.”
  
  And eat in Jerusalem. Not that it actually belongs to Hashem and would therefore be forbidden to benefit from.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  And calves. Because this mitzvah only applies to cattle and the flock as it says, “tithes of cattle and the flock.”
  
  
  Numbers
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Because they are precious. Rashi wishes to explain why the Torah writes all of these details. He answers that “Because they are precious … [Hashem counts them all the time].” He means to say that even without these details one would have to explain why the Torah writes “Take a head count of the entire congregation” (v. 2), given that He had already counted them in Parshas Ki Siso. Therefore one must say that these details are mentioned “Because they are precious.”
  To know the number of those who remained. It is written [regarding the golden calf] “From the people approximately three thousand men fell” (Shemos 32:28), so by counting the fallen, [Hashem] knew the [number of the] remainder. Thus Rashi explains: When they fell because of the calf He counted the dead to know how many remained alive.
  And on the first of Iyar He counted them. <i>Re’m</i> writes: This count occurred once the Divine Presence had rested among them. Do not ask why [Hashem] did not count them in Nissan when the Divine Presence first rested. He answers that that on the first of Nissan the Divine Presence rested and so when He counted them on the first of Iyar, it was as if He counted them in Nissan. It appears to me that Rashi’s intent here so that you should not ask how he knows that Hashem counted them three times. Perhaps [you may think that] He only counted them twice! This would seem to be the case because the total mentioned here and the one mentioned in Parshas Ki Siso are one and the same. Accordingly, Rashi explains that on the first of Nissan the Mishkon was set up, and on the first of Iyar [Hashem] counted them. Because if this count was the one mentioned previously, why is it written there (Shemos 38:27) that they made sockets for the Mishkon from the silver that they brought as an atonement for the count of their souls, while here it is written that “on the first of Iyar He counted them.” Surely the Mishkon had already been erected on the first of Nissan. Rather, this must have been a different count. You might ask: Why did the Torah not count them immediately after the setting up of the Mishkon, since immediately afterwards the Divine Presence came to rest. The answer is, as we say concerning oaths, (Bava Basra 8a): If one prohibits oneself from benefiting from the residents of a town, he is permitted to benefit from people who have not lived there for thirty days because they are not considered established there. Similarly, Hashem did not count them until the Divine Presence had been established for thirty days.
  
  Verse 2
  
  The number of each tribe. But not each and every family — because the Torah does not mention a count of families in the subsequent verses, only a count of the tribes (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). You might ask: Then why did it write “according to their families”? The answer is that through the families they knew the count of the tribes, as the Torah writes (v. 18), “and they were registered by family ancestry” implying that they were not known by the name of their tribe. Therefore, one must say that it was by their families that Moshe and Aharon knew which tribe they were from.
  Maintained in his father’s tribe. Meaning that if his father was from one tribe and his mother was from another tribe, he would be maintained in his father’s tribe. However, it does not refer to [a case where] his father was from one family and his mother was from another family, even if they were from the same tribe, as would be understood from the plain meaning of the verse. Because what difference would there be if the father was from the Chanochite family and the mother was from the Paluite family, and consequently they were included among the Chanochites? Since both were from the tribe of Reuven, there would be no difference whether he is established in the family of the father or the mother.
  Through the shekolim. Rashi wishes to answer why they were counted. Surely a plague comes when one counts them [directly]. Therefore he explains that it was done “through the shekolim.”
  
  Verse 3
  
  Below the age of twenty. You might ask: From where does Rashi know this? Perhaps even those younger than twenty were eligible for the army. And accordingly, the Torah would be understood as saying that you shall count those from twenty years old and above who are eligible for the army. However, if they are twenty years old but are not eligible, such as the old or sick, or are eligible but are not twenty years old — do not count them. The answer is that if this were so the Torah should have stated “from twenty years and above who are eligible for the army,” why then does the Torah state “<i>all</i> those eligible for the army.” Thus, it is certain that the verse must be explained as Rashi says. Similarly, when Rashi writes in Parshas Ki Siso (Shemos 30:14) that below the age of twenty no one is eligible for the army, this is derived from here (<i>Re’m</i>). See also Parshas Ki Siso.
  
  Verse 4
  
  When you count them, there shall be with you. One might ask: From where does Rashi know this? Perhaps they should be with you for other matters, but not when you count them. Furthermore, from where does he know that the Torah refers to the leaders of the tribes, perhaps it refers to other people? The answer is: Since it is later written “these are the ones called from the congregation, the leaders of their fathers’ tribes” (v. 16), one can infer that they were the leaders of the tribes. Furthermore, it is written “Moshe and Aharon took these men … and they gathered together the entire congregation” (vs. 17-18) from there one may infer that they did the counting along with Moshe.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  To everything of importance. Rashi wishes to explain: Was their importance [only] that they called to the entire the congregation? Thus Rashi explains they were “invited to everything” meaning they were invited to deliberate and decide matters affecting the congregation.
  
  Verse 17
  
  Those twelve leaders. Rashi wished to explain: The Torah should have stated “Moshe and Aharon took them,” and since it previously listed the leaders of the congregation we would automatically know that they were the leaders already mentioned. However, it is clear that because it is written “these men” I might now say that it refers to others, not the leaders of the tribes. Therefore, Rashi explains that it does indeed refer to the twelve leaders. Furthermore, if one were to say that they were others, Rashi explains that [this cannot be because] they were “designated to him here by their names,” and it was the leaders who were designated here by name. The phrase “to him” was added because without it, it would not be known to whom they were designated. One might ask: From where does Rashi know to explain so, perhaps they were indeed others? The answer is: It is written האנשים האלה (those [specific] men) with a <i>hei</i> (implying the definite article) rather than אנשים אלה. If one asks: Then why does it not simply say they “took them,” as the <i>Minchas Yehudah</i> asks? The answer appears to be: The Torah initially said “the head of the fathers’ house” (v.4) while now it says “the leaders of their fathers’ tribes” (v.16). Thus, one might think that the heads of the fathers’ houses were not the leaders of the tribes, only of their families. And when here the Torah writes “the ones called from the congregation, leaders of their fathers’ tribes” it refers to the leaders themselves — but those listed above were indeed others. Consequently the Torah here would have said “the ones called from the congregation” only to inform us that they are the ones called “to any matter of importance.” For this reason the Torah states “these [specific] men” to teach that they were the very same leaders listed above. <i>Maharshal</i> writes that Rashi is answering the question: Why did the Torah write “who were designated by name,” when it would be sufficient to write “these men”? Therefore he explains that they were designated to him here by name, as a matter of importance, that they were worthy of their greatness and leadership. This is in contrast to the spies who were referred to by name in disgrace, due to what would befall them in the end, as is taught in <i>Midrash Rabbah.</i>
  
  Verse 18
  
  Genealogical documents and witnesses. Rashi was obliged to explain so because the word ויתילדו is from the reflexive התפעל construct. Thus, according to its simple meaning as a term of giving birth, it would imply that they caused themselves to give birth. Therefore Rashi explains that they themselves brought their genealogical documents.
  Verified the status of their birth. The word חזקת (status) is a term of honor. Rashi explains so in Parshas Behar (Vayikro 25:41) where “he returns to his fathers’ possession” alludes to his fathers’ status, a term of honor.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  Counted separately. Meaning that they would not be counted from the age of twenty, but from the age of one month. Since the Levites were the legion of the King, the Levites’ children who had passed the stage when a baby may be categorized as stillborn, were considered as important as those who go forth into the army of Israel.
  Another interpretation; … foresaw. According to the first reason, one could ask why it is written אך (however), because the word אך always comes to exclude something. Therefore Rashi explained here that exclusion was from the decree that those aged over twenty should die in the desert. One might ask: Rashi should have said that they did not err during the episode of the spies, whereas the decree of death in the desert was due to this. The answer is: Even the Levites erred in the episode of the spies, and it was only with the golden calf that they did not err. Therefore, they were not punished [for the episode of the spies] given that even the rest of Yisroel were only punished because of these two sins together. Rashi proves this in Parshas Shlach Lecha (Bamidbar 14:33), where the Torah writes “bear your <i>sins</i>” rather than “bear your <i>sin</i>.” Consequently, it is certain that two sins of the golden calf and of the spies were the cause. [You might question:] Rashi explains later in Parshas Devarim (Devarim 1:23) that the Levites were not with them at the sending of the spies, or even at the decision to do so, as we will explain later. The answer is: Initially at the sending they were not with them, even for the decision, however when the spies returned and made an evil report about the land —when the entire congregation raised their voices and wept — the tribe of Levi was included in that weeping. They too said “why would Hashem bring us … to fall by the sword, our women and children to be taken captive.” With this, one may also answer the question that is widely asked: Even if they were counted from the age of twenty, if the Levites did not sin they would not have been included in the decree — because “it is not the serpent that causes death rather it is sin.” Thus we can certainly see that the Levites sinned during the episode of the spies and because of this they were not counted.
  
  Verse 50
  
  Authority. One might ask: Why does Rashi explain that this word is to be understood as the Targum translates (with the word מני — “appoint”), was it merely so that one would not say that הפקד (appoint) is a term of counting? What answer is this, given that the Targum also renders terms of counting with the word מני? The answer is: Wherever the Targum uses the word מני for an appointment to authority, the <i>nun</i> is punctuated with a dagesh (מנּי), and here is also punctuated so. Thus we may infer that it refers to an appointment to authority. However, when the <i>nun</i> of the word מני is not punctuated, it refers to counting. Another answer is that Rashi explains that the word is to be understood as the Targum translates, because the word הפקד is also a term of remembrance, as in “Hashem פקד (remembered) Sarah” (Bereishis 21:1) and sometimes it is a term of omission as with “and not one of us is missing” (Bamidbar 31:49). Therefore Rashi explains that it is to be understood as the Targum translates, to exclude those two explanations (remembrance and omission) of the word. One is unable to say that it is a term of counting; therefore he explains that it is to be understood as in the phrase “let the king appoint officials.”
  
  Verse 51
  
  As Targum translates, “they shall dismantle.” Meaning that they dismantle the parts of the Mishkon, separating them from the place where they are attached and leaving each piece on its own. However, they did not take it down from a high place to a low place, as might be understood from the term “take down.”
  When they were going to depart. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ובנסוע המשכן (lit. when the Mishkon moved), did the Mishkon move? — Surely the people would move it! Furthermore he answers the question: Did they not dismantle it before the journey? Yet the verse implies that they would dismantle during the time of the journey. Therefore Rashi explains: “When they were going to depart” meaning that the departure is referring to the people. He added that they would “carry it…” so that you would not say that only the taking down was an obligation of the Levites, but not the carrying. Even though there is no mention here of their carrying it, it is inferred in a later passage, as explained in Parshas Naso (Bamidbar 4:25, 31).
  To [perform] this service of theirs. This is the dismantling and the assembly. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Scripture had already warned several times that one who comes close to perform the service of the altar or who enters the sanctuary would die. Therefore he explains that “to [perform] this service” refers to the dismantling and assembly of the Mishkon. It does not refer to approaching the altar.
  By the hand of heaven. One might ask: From where does Rashi know this, surely any death penalty mentioned by the Torah that is not detailed, normally refers to strangulation. The answer is: Rashi himself explains this shortly (v. 53) where he writes that “so that there will not be anger…” refers to death at the hand of heaven, as one finds in the section dealing with Korach, “for the anger had emerged” (Bamidbar 17:11) which refers to death at the hand of heaven. See also above in Parshas Emor (Vayikro 22:9).
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  There will be anger. There are those who ask: In all of the Torah inferences are mentioned, and from one side of the inference you may infer the other [so what is Rashi adding]? The answer is: Rashi elaborates here so that you do not err and say that when the Torah writes “so that there will not be anger” it refers to that which was juxtaposed to it “Bnei Yisroel shall camp … and the Levites shall camp…” (v. 52-53). Therefore, Rashi explains “if you fulfill my commandments … and if you do not fulfill my commandments…” which refers to the service of the Mishkon — it’s dismantling, loading and assembly, “as we find in the episode of Korach.”
  As we find. Rashi says this because of his explanation above where he said that they would die at the hand of heaven. So that one should not question his source, he mentions the incident with Korach.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Each one's color. Thus the meaning of “their fathers’ houses” was the names of their fathers that were engraved on the breastplate. But since this is a forced explanation in the understanding of “their fathers’ houses,” Rashi gives another explanation. Nonetheless, according to the other explanation one may question the connection between the word “banner” and “the insignia of their fathers’ houses,” therefore he also needs the first explanation.
  When they carried him. Meaning that accordingly one must say that “banner” is a term of gathering as in “ודגלו עלי (and encamped around me)” (Shir HaShirim 2:4). This teaches that each banner was with its group.
  At the distance of a <i>mil</i>. One might ask: Previously in Parshas Yisro (Shemos 19:2), Rashi explained that נגד ההר  (opposite the mountain) meant to its east, because any time that you find the word נגד  it implies facing east, even if it comes as a construct (opposite <i>something</i>). The answer is: Here it is written “around the Tent of Meeting they shall encamp” so it is not possible that they were all facing east. Thus Rashi explains that it is a term of distance. Furthermore, I have found that one may learn this through a gezeirah shavah (comparison); the Torah here says מנגד (opposite) and elsewhere it says ותשב מנגד הרחק (“and sat facing him about the distance”) (Bereishis 21:16). Thus, just as there it refers to distance, so too here it refers to the distance. A <i>mil</i> is a distance of two thousand <i>amos</i> [the maximum distance] that one may travel on Shabbos.
  
  Verse 3
  
  This is the eastern side. One might ask: From where does Rashi know this? One may explain that since west is called the rear one may infer that the front is the east. An alternative explanation: A <i>hei</i> at the end of a word is in place of a <i>lamed</i> at the beginning. Thus, since קדם  means פנים (front — lit. face) it is clear that קדמה would mean לפנים (towards the front) while the word מזרחה  would also mean towards the east. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) One might ask: Why does the Torah write the repetitive phrase קדמה מזרחה (in the forefront to the eastern side)? It appears that it wishes to teach us that because Yehudah held the kingship he was to be given the side that was most important. Therefore the east was referred to in terms of being “first” and “in the forefront.” If the Torah had written מזרחה or קדמה alone we would not have learned this point.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  When they see the cloud. Rashi is answering the question: How did they know when to travel in order that they would be first to travel. For one cannot say that they traveled at their own volition, since the Torah writes “on the word of Hashem did they travel” (Bamidbar 9:18). Thus Rashi explains, “When they saw the cloud…” <i>Re’m</i> writes that one might question: Why does Rashi omit Moshe’s declaration “Arise Hashem…” (Bamidbar 10:35) and only mention the lifting of the cloud and the blowing of the trumpets? It appears that Rashi only comes to explain how they knew to prepare themselves to travel, and he says that they knew this “when they see the cloud rise.” However, the actual journey was not until Moshe said “Arise Hashem.” Thus when the verse writes “they travel first” it means that they were the first to prepare themselves to travel. I will write more about this in Parshas Beha’aloscha (ibid). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) I myself say that Rashi omitted this, because in Parshas Beha’aloscha he also brings the Beraysa on the verse “on the word of Hashem did they travel” (Bamidbar 9:18), and that they traveled in response to three things. (See Rashi Bamidbar 1:2) See there.
  The way they camped. This is according to the view that they traveled in the shape of a box. The explanation of the term “gatherer for all of the camps” (Bamidbar 10:25), that is written concerning Don, means that if anyone from the tribes who had already traveled lost something, Don would return it to them. However, Rashi does not mean to say that the banner of the tribe of Don was the very last of all the banners, in accordance with the opinion that they traveled in the shape of a beam.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  After those two banners. Meaning that “in the center of the camps” refers to the four camps of Israel, two in front and two behind. But it does not mean that it was between the camps mentioned above (vs. 3-16), i.e. between the camps of Yehudah and Reuven, given that it is written “the Tent of Meeting shall travel” after [mentioning] the banners of Yehudah and Reuven.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  As Targum translates “the one near him.” Previously (v. 5, 12) Rashi did not need to explain the word עליו (with him, lit. “above him”) because the Torah added the words “those who camp.” Thus it was obvious that the  explanation is as Targum translates. However here where it does not add anything, but merely states “along with him is the tribe of Menashe,” I would not know the meaning of the word ועליו, therefore Rashi explains “as Targum translates.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Since he taught them what he had learned. Otherwise [i.e. if the Torah did not say this], what relevance does this point have here. Thus Rashi explains that ביום דיבר (lit. <i>on</i> the day that He spoke) means “<i>from</i> the day that He spoke,” and that the letter <i>beis</i> is like the <i>beis</i> in והנותר בבשר ובלחם (that which is left <i>from</i> the meat and <i>from</i> the bread) (Vayikro 8:32). It was not on the day that Hashem spoke to Moshe on Har Sinai that he taught them, rather from that day onwards he taught them and thus they became his descendants. One might ask: Surely all of Israel learned Torah from Moshe, so why were they not [also] called his descendants? The answer is: When he taught Torah to the whole of Yisroel it was at the command of Hashem, as it is written “Hashem said to Moshe come up to me … that I wrote to instruct them” (Shemos 24:12). This implies that the main reason for Hashem teaching Moshe was for [Moshe to teach] the people of Yisroel. Therefore it is not correct to say that [regarding them that] “one who teaches another’s son…” However regarding Aharon’s sons, Moshe was not obligated to teach them, given that only a father is obligated to teach his son Torah, therefore they were called the descendants of Moshe. This appears to the precise meaning of the wording “anyone who teaches <i>another’s</i> son Torah…”
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  During his lifetime. There are texts that read “In the presence of Aharon their father— during his lifetime.” One might ask: Why did Rashi explain “during his lifetime.” The answer is that if he had not explained so, one would say that this was after his death, because they were not fitting to serve when [Aharon] was present. Therefore Rashi explains, in the presence of Aharon their father, in his lifetime they were made Kohanim Gadolim, meaning that if Aharon became impure then Elazar would serve, and if Elazar became impure then Isamar would serve (<i>Tanchuma</i>).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  They shall preserve. These are not two topics — that they would serve, and also preserve their guardianship, because there is no other service aside from the guarding of the sanctuary which was the service of Aharon and his sons.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  For assistance. Meaning for the holy service, but not for mundane work. Rashi’s proof is from that which is mentioned in Parshas Korach, “that I have given you a gift to perform the work of the Tent of Meeting” (Bamidbar 18:6). From there one may infer that it was specifically for holy service, but not for the mundane.
  From [among] the rest of the entire congregation. Rashi is answering the question: The term מאת בני ישראל (from the Bnei Yisroel) implies that they were under the ownership of the Bnei Yisroel and that they gave them to the Kohanim, but this was not the case. Furthermore, the Torah writes “Behold! I have taken the Levites from among Bnei Yisroel…” (v. 12) implying that Hashem was the one who gave them, not Bnei Yisroel. Thus Rashi explains that this is to be understood as מתוך (from among).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  She bore her, yet she is counted. You might ask: Previously the Torah writes “from the age of one month and above” (Bamidbar 1:49) meaning that when they can no longer be categorized as stillborn they were counted. The answer is that here she certainly was not considered stillborn because [it was clear from birth that] she had completed her months [of gestation], therefore she was counted from the time of birth, before thirty days. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) It was specifically there that she was counted in the womb because she certainly was not to be considered stillborn — because when the Torah was written in the days of Moshe she had already passed the stage where there was a question that she might be considered stillborn. Therefore Yocheved was counted immediately. In addition, even though they were counted here through Divine Inspiration, he did not want to count them until they had completed one month in order not to make distinctions.
  
  Verse 16
  
  How can I enter. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) This raises a difficulty: Was it due to the effort involved that he did not wish to enter their tents? In other words, was that [the reason why] they were counted according to the word of Hashem? It appears that the explanation is that because it is dishonorable for a scholar to enter a tent where there are women, therefore he said “How can I enter into their tents…?”
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  The family of Livni. There are texts that read “the first was to explain who his children were”. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah write this twice, since above it is written “these are the names of Gershon’s sons…” (v. 18)? He answers that the first time was to explain who his children were, and the second was to say that for Gershon the family of Livni and the family of Shim’i numbered so many and so many. According to our text one may also explain, that the verse does not come to inform us who his families were, since we already knew this. Rather this verse comes to inform us that the count of the families of Livni and Shim’i were so many and so many — as if it had said “Of Gershon the family of Livni and the family of Shim’i which are the families of Gershon — their numbers were so many and so many.”
  Their numbers were so many and so many. Rashi is answering the question: The term “Of Gershon, the family of Livni” implies that Gershon was from the family of Livni and this is not the case, because the family of Livni was from the family of Gershon. Therefore he explains “Meaning, of Gershon those who were counted…”
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  The lower drapes. Why were they called the Mishkon — because they were seen from inside when one stood in the Mishkon. Furthermore, the Torah writes “You shall make the Mishkon — ten drapes…” (Shemos 26:1) which refers to the lowest of the four covers, not to the Mishkon as a whole, as in “You shall erect the Mishkon” (Shemos 26:30) (<i>Re’m</i>).
  The goats’ hair drapes. Why was this called the אהל (tent) — because it made an אהל (roof) over the lower drapes.
  Ram skins. You might ask: Why is it written “its cover” which implies that the ram and tachash skins were all one cover, while elsewhere it implies that each one was a separate cover on its own. The answer is that each one was certainly a separate material in of itself, however they were joined together in the middle and therefore they were both called “the cover”. Furthermore, you might ask: Shouldn’t the Torah have called them “the tent” since they too formed a roof over the goats’ hair drapes? The answer is that the goats’ hair drapes can understandably be called “the tent,” because they covered the top and the sides of the Mishkon they protected it from every direction. However the red ram and tachash skins only covered the top of the Mishkon, therefore they were called “the cover”.
  The drape. This is a [vertical] partition that divides, not something that was spread on top as the term מסך implies.
  
  Verse 26
  
  Of the Mishkon and the tent. Because the sons of Merari carried the ropes of the enclosure. See Rashi to Parshas Naso (Bamidbar 4:32).
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Woe to the wicked. The question is widely raised: Why does Rashi explain all of this here? The answer is that he is answering the question: Why did the Torah not write “the families of the children of הקהתי (<i>the</i> Kehosites)” as it writes in the next verse — “of the families of the Kehosites,” and above (v. 27) — “these are the families of the Kehosites”? He explains that this was because “Near them was the banner of Reuven…” They sinned and they caused the congregation to sin, thus it was not correct to write the Name [of Hashem] — with the <i>hei</i> at the beginning and the <i>yud</i> at the end together with their name. (The letters <i>yud hei</i> together comprise one of Hashem’s names.)
  And two hundred and fifty men together with Korach. Most of them were from the tribe of Reuven, as we see later in Parshas Korach. It is written in <i>Gur Aryeh</i> that Rashi comes to explain why regarding the children of Gershon the Torah writes (v. 23) “behind the Mishkon they shall camp, on the west” and regarding the children of Merori it states (v. 35) “on the side of the Mishkon they shall camp, on the north”. However here it is written “they shall camp on the side of the Mishkon, on the south” [without juxtaposing the word יחנו (they shall camp)] to the word לתימנה (on the south). This is to teach that the Torah here does not come to instruct them to camp on the south, rather they were already to the south, and it is as if the Torah had written “they shall camp on the side of the Mishkon where they are presently camping”. And for what reason does the Torah teach this? — To say that “This is why they were drawn…”
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Appointed over all of them. The language in the verse implies that he was like one of the other leaders, (<i>a</i> leader of the leaders of Levi) and no more. This is so because in the word ונשיא (the leader) the <i>vav</i> is vowelized with a <i>shuruk</i> (וּנשיא) which means that it is connected to the word following (the leaders), otherwise it should have been vowelized with a <i>shva</i> under the <i>vav</i> and a <i>kometz</i> under the <i>nun</i> (וְנָשיא). Therefore Rashi needed to explain that “He was appointed…”
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  Near them. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Here too, Rashi comes to answer the question: It should have stated “Moshe, Aharon and his sons shall camp in front of the Tent of Meeting.” However the Torah is not coming to instruct them, only to inform that those who camped in front of the Tent of Meeting were these important individuals, therefore those people who camped near them were like them.
  
  Verse 39
  
  There are dots over ואהרן. Meaning that only Moshe was involved in the counting of the Levites. (The dots imply that the word should not really be there, as if it were erased. See Bereishis, 33:4.) However, since both of them were involved in the count of the Israelites it is the manner of the Torah to write like this. Even though he did not take part in the count of the Levites he was still mentioned along with the count. There are those who explain Rashi’s words “he was not included in the counting of the Levites” to mean that he was not one of those who was counted. This is also implied in Tractate Bechoros 4a. However this raises a difficulty because the verse refers to those who did the counting — “whom Moshe and Aharon counted” — and not to those who were counted (<i>Re’m</i>). It appears to me that the correct explanation is as follows: The dots above Aharon’s name imply that he was not included in those who did the counting nor in those who were counted, because if not so why would the Torah mention Aharon and then place dots over his name. Therefore, so that you do not [mistakenly] say that he was <i>not</i> included in doing the counting, but he <i>was</i> one of those who were counted, there are dots over his name to teach that he was absent from everything, even those who were counted. This explanation is somewhat similar to the explanation that I gave for the words את צאן (Bereishis 37:12) where there are dots over את. Even though this explanation is somewhat forced, it helps to resolve a difficulty so that Rashi’s explanation in Chumash will not contradict his explanation in Tractate Bechoros where he explicitly says that Aharon was not included in the count. Similarly one can understand the statement of Bamidbar Rabbah: “The number of all the Levites whom Moshe and Aharon counted” — there are dots over his name because Aharon was not included in the count. The statement implies that he was not included in those who were counted.
  For them to release themselves. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) I have a difficulty with this: How can one say that the redemption of five shekolim would apply to the firstborn Levites? Surely the main reason for the redemption was that initially the firstborn were sanctified to perform the service of the offerings. However, since they sinned in the incident with the golden calf they were invalidated to perform the service, and their sanctity was transferred to the Levites who were not involved in the sin with the calf. This was the redemption of their sanctity; therefore the Torah says that those 273 remaining firstborn, whose sanctity did not have anyone to whom to be transferred, would have their sanctity removed by the giving of five shekolim. And [the removal of sanctity in this manner] is just like any sanctified property, which can be redeemed with money. But if this were the case, the firstborn Levites who were not involved in the sin with the calf would not have had their sanctity invalidated, so why then did they need to be redeemed? Consequently the question remains: Why did the two hundred and seventy-three firstborn need to give five shekolim, given that there were three hundred Levites. The explanation appears to be that we know that sanctified property cannot redeem sanctified property, rather mundane property redeems sanctified property and the sanctity becomes attached to the mundane property. However it is not possible for sanctified property to redeem sanctified property, since it is already sanctified. Similarly here, the twenty-two thousand Levites were ‘mundane’ until now; therefore the sanctity of the firstborn could be transferred to them. However the three hundred Levites who were firstborn and who were not involved in the sin with the calf, remained in their sanctified state for service, thus they could not take the place of the firstborn since they were already fit to serve in the Mishkon. Therefore, a firstborn could not release another firstborn and they needed to redeem their sanctity with five shekolim.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  But [they did redeem] the firstlings of their donkeys. There are those who explain that Rashi is answering the question: If the verse refers to kosher animals it would not be possible to redeem them, because the sanctity of a firstborn would not be released given that the kohanim themselves were obligated regarding the sanctity of the first animals. One may say further that Rashi’s proof is from Parshas Bo where it is written “and every firstling donkey you shall redeem with a sheep… and every firstborn man you shall redeem” (Shemos 13:13), thus here it also refers to [the redemption of a firstborn man, and] the firstborn animal, refers solely to the firstling donkeys. (<i>Re’m</i>) This is puzzling: Surely Rashi himself explains differently in the first chapter of Bechoros (4a), concerning Rava’s challenge to Abaye. [Rava says:] If you are correct, that one can learn a <i>kal vachomer</i> (a fortiori reasoning) from the case of an animal then the Levites should be exempt from the redemption of firstborn kosher animals! [Since the Levites’ kosher animals are not exempt, Abaye’s <i>kal vachomer</i> must also be false.] – [there Rashi explains:] because their kosher animals released the kosher animals of the Israelites. The matter requires investigation. However perhaps the answer is that the challenge made by Rava upon Abaye was only according his own reasoning, however Abaye disagrees and holds that the animals of the Levites did <i>not</i> redeem the kosher firstborn animals of the Israelites. See <i>Minchas Yehudah</i>.
  But did not count the extra animals. (<i>Re’m</i>) It is puzzling how he brought this proof which the Talmud (Bechoros 4b) had already negated? The Talmud [disproved this by saying] that perhaps the [Levites] had many animals which were equal in number to the firstborn [animals] of the Israelites. [The Talmud] brings another proof: The verse says ואת בהמת הלוים תחת בהמתם (lit. and the <i>animal</i> of the Levites instead of the Israelites’ animals) implying that one animal was in place of many. Because if you would think that ואת בהמת הלוים refers to many animals, then the verse should have either written בהמת both times or בהמתם both times. [However since it changed its language,] we see that one animal exempted many. He answers that Rashi discarded the second proof because it was far from the simple reading of the verse, and therefore he brought the first proof.
  
  Verse 46
  
  Take five shekolim. In order that you do not err and say that “the פדויי (redemption) of the 273…” is to be explained like “those whose numbers were in excess of those פדויי (redeemed) through the Levites” (v. 49). There Rashi explains that [the word פדויי] refers to “those redeemed by the very presence of the Levites.” Thus you might think that you should also take five shekolim from them. Therefore, Rashi explained that “the redemption of the 273…” refers to the firstborn who <i>required</i> redemption, because they did not have anyone to redeem them and from them you should “take five shekolim from each individual.”
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  Twenty-two thousand slips. Meaning pieces of paper. Similarly “inscribed in a book” (Iyov 19:23), is translated by the Targum as בפתקא יתרשמון, meaning “on slips they shall be noted.” (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) This is the view of Rabbi Yehudah, however Rabbi Nechemyah questions this: If all of the slips marked “Levite” were gone and I drew one —what would I get? Who could tell me that if there had been a “Levite” slip there, that I would not have merited it? Rather Moshe did the following: He wrote upon twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three slips “Levite,” and upon two hundred and seventy-three slips [he wrote] “five shekolim.” <i>Re’m</i> writes that one may even question this: Even so, the last ones to draw could say that if they had drawn first when there were many “Levite” slips — twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three and only two hundred and seventy-three “five shekolim” slips — who could say that they would not have drawn “Levite” slips, based on the dictum, כל מה דפריש מרובא קפריש — “whatever is separated [from a group] is [assumed to have been] separated from the majority [of the group].” Apparently the answer is that whoever drew a slip would then toss it back into the container so that the number of slips there was always equal. However this raises the difficulty: If so, perhaps all of them would draw a “Levite” slip, one after the other and the initial problem would remain. One cannot say that as soon as twenty-two thousand “Levite” slips had been drawn, the remaining would be “five shekolim” slips and they would inevitably be required to redeem themselves. Because if so who would want to draw last instead of drawing first. Unless we say that they drew according to their age or their importance, which is difficult to propose. There are those who answer that it is known that whatever Moshe did was through Divine Inspiration, therefore there were no complaints. However this is untenable, because if so why was there a lottery at all; let Moshe say to each person “You are obliged to redeem yourself,” and “You are exempt,” all through Divine Inspiration. However, it appears to me that [this whole question is really] no difficulty: At the end of the first chapter of Kesubos we establish that כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי — “anything that is fixed [in a single location] is considered to be half in half.” This is so even where it leads to a leniency, such as a case where someone threw a rock into a group of ten people comprising nine Jews and one was a gentile. Even if the person killed is a Jew the thrower is exempt from the death penalty because the one gentile who was among them (being viewed as a fixed group) is considered as if he comprised half of the group. This law was clear to every Jew in all matters and therefore there would have been no complaint here. Even if the minority of the slips had been marked “Levite,” since the [slips of paper] were fixed [in a single location] there they would have been considered as numerous as the majority. <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> explains that the Talmud Yerushalmi writes that the slips came out alternately, one “Levite” and one “five shekolim” in a miraculous fashion.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  For the service of carrying. Rashi intends to explain the reason for the count: All those enumerated are normally counted from one month, from twenty or from thirteen years of age, but this number is not similar to any other. Therefore he explains “count those among them suited…” <i>Re’m</i>.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  When the cloud rises. Meaning that one should not raise the difficulty: How did they know the time that they were to travel, in order to begin to dismantle the Mishkon? Because it is not respectful for the Holy Ark to be covered after the banner of the camp of Yehudah had traveled — since it would appear that the departure of the banner of Yehudah was the reason to dismantle the Mishkon and to cover the Ark.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  In which the oil [and wicks] are placed. The word נרותיה (its lamps) does not refer to the wick that is lit as [it does] in “the lamp of God…” (Mishlei 20:27) Therefore Rashi explains here that it refers to the container, because the word “lamp” can also pertain to the container.
  
  Verse 10
  
  Sack. A large sack in which one places merchandise; because it is written “<i>into</i> the covering,” it is clear that it has an inside.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Inside the Mishkon which is holy. Rashi is answering the question: It simply should have stated “with which they serve.” Why did it add “בקדש — in the sanctuary” (lit. in the Holy)? He answers that it is written בקדש to teach that they would not serve on the altar with these utensils, but rather in the Mishkon. For they did not need utensils for the inner altar, since they would only burn incense on it. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) One is not to explain [the verse to mean] that they served there in holiness, because if this were so, the Torah should have vowelized the <i>beis</i> with a <i>shva </i>(בְקדש). However, now that it was vowelized with a <i>pasach</i> (בַקדש) it is implies a known “holy” (i.e. <i>the</i> holy) entity and this is the Mishkon, for it was the most known [holy entity].
  
  Verse 13
  
  They shall take the ashes. Not that they should place the ashes there (as the word ודשנו might imply).
  Like a lion. Specifically at the time when they traveled the coals appeared like a lion, however when they camped it was not visible because of the fire of the pyre that was placed above it. At the time of departure they removed this fire and the coal was visible.
  Vessel. At the end of Perek HaMotzi Tefillin (Eiruvin 104b), Rashi explains that a פסכתר was a copper pot. The word סירות (Shemos 27:3) — “pots” is translated by the Targum as פסכתרות.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  The Menorah and the service vessels. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) This raises a difficulty: Previously (v. 4) Rashi explained that the Holy of Holies referred to the Ark, the Table, the Menorah, the Paroches, and the service vessels, but here he does not mention the Table and the Altars. After I wrote this I found in the Midrash Rabbah “and the holy utensils” — these are the Table and the Menorah and the two Altars and their utensils.
  Since, if they touch they will be subject. Not that if they do not touch they will die, as is implied by the simple reading of the verse. The word ימותו “and they will die” is not together with the words ולא יגעו— “they shall not touch,” only with the word יגעו “touch.” Thus we are to infer “they shall not touch,” but if they do touch, then ימותו “they will die.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  To carry … and to offer. You might ask: Doesn’t the written verse implies “to <i>carry</i> them” (rather than to <i>offer</i>)? The answer is that he means that Elazar was assigned “to carry them — the oil, incense and anointing oil.” However for the continual meal-offering it was his responsibility [to issue orders…]. Even though the word “to carry” appears to refer to all of them, even to the meal-offering, it is impossible to say this. The meal-offering was flour that was offered with a sacrifice — an <i>issaron</i> for the sheep — and the flour was only termed a meal-offering at the time when it was brought together with the offering. This was only at the time of camping for then they would offer, but not at the time of traveling. Furthermore one cannot say that Rashi refers to the setting aside of flour or its sanctification in a utensil, because if so it would have become invalid after leaving the courtyard of the Mishkon. Also why would they set it aside earlier, since a mitzvah is most dear at its allotted time? Thus, it is impossible to say that they carried it at the time of traveling. Consequently Rashi explains that Elazar was responsible to issue orders, and with this Ramban’s question on Rashi’s explanation is rejected.
  To issue orders for everyone. Meaning that he would not carry them himself like the oil for illumination and the other items, because the Torah had already written above (v. 15) “and after that, the sons of Kehos shall come to carry [these items].” Rashi adds that he oversaw the load of Kehos, so that one does not err and say that the loads of Gershon and Merrori were also the responsibility of Elazar — given that the Torah here writes “the entire Mishkon.” However this is not the case because the loads of Gershon and Merrori were the responsibility of Isamar. Thus Rashi explains that Elazar was assigned to the load of Kehos.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Do not cause. Rashi thus informs us that the word תכריתו — “cut off” is from the causative הפעיל construct and it refers to the third person.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Its “בלוע” refers to the covering of it. Similarly the Targum translates כד מכסן ית מני קודשא — “when the holy vessels are covered.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Just as I commanded you. Rashi stated “just as I <i>commanded</i> you concerning the sons of Kehos” rather than “just as you <i>counted</i> the sons of Kehos” because he had not yet counted them. Hashem had commanded Moshe to count them, previously in Parshas Bamidbar (4:2), and the act of doing so is recorded in this Parshah. Therefore Rashi writes “just as I <i>commanded</i> you concerning the sons of Kehos,” meaning that I am also commanding you to do the same for the sons of Gershon. Consequently the word גם (also) is connected to the phrase “according to the house of their fathers, according to their families.” Alternatively, one may say that Rashi was answering the question: The Torah should have stated “גם אותם (also them)” because the word הם is normally used as a subject, for example הם ילכו (they shall go), הם ישרתו (they shall serve). However the word הם is not used [when referring to an object] as with the word נשא (count), rather [the word] אותם is used. Therefore Rashi explains “just as I commanded you…” and אותם is not used with these two words—that are either in the active פועל or in the passive נפעל constructs.
  Have reached [the working] category. Rashi did not state “just as I commanded you concerning the sons of Kehos <i>to count them</i>” because he was answering the question: Why didn’t the Torah write “also count the sons of Gershon according to the house of their fathers…” such that there would have been no need to write הם (them). He answers that if it had written “also count…” this would have implied that you should also take their count from twenty-five years and above, or alternatively from one month and above. Therefore it wrote גם (also) at the end of this phrase to indicate that גם does not refer to the count mentioned previously, rather to the phrase “from thirty years…” below (v. 23). This is why Rashi stated “[how many] have reached the working category,” which lasts from the age of thirty until fifty.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  The ten lower ones. <i>Re’m</i> explains that Rashi knew this because the Torah afterwards writes “and [of] the אהל (Tent) of Meeting,” which refers to the eleven goat-hair tapestries. They were termed an אהל when the Torah wrote “and make goat-hair tapestries לאהל (to cover)” (Shemos 26:7).
  Goat-hair tapestries. I explained all of this is Parshas Veyakhel (Shemos 35:11).
  Red dyed. As if the Torah had said ומכסהו (<i>and</i> its covering) however it omitted the <i>vav</i>; there are many examples like this. If one did not say this, why would the Torah have mentioned the tachash skins alone without the cover of the ram skins?
  The eastern curtain. This was already explained in Parshas Bamidbar (3:25). When Rashi writes “the eastern [curtain]” this does distinguish it, because there was no other curtain at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting aside from the eastern one. Thus this is only an embellishment of the explanation. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains that Rashi means to exclude the half curtain that was folded over in front of the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, to the east, as mentioned previously in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 26:9). It was joined to the other curtains and it did not have a distinct identity in of itself.
  
  Verse 26
  
  Guard over the Mishkon. Rashi is answering the question: The hanging tapestries were like walls around the courtyard; thus the term “על (lit. above) the Mishkon” is not appropriate, because “above the Mishkon” implies that they were above — on top of the Mishkon. He answers that it means that they protect and guard over the Mishkon. As if to say that one has to “add” a word such that it reads “which <i>protect</i> over the Mishkon.” It would be acceptable language to say that it guarded over the Mishkon and that it guarded over it on all sides. There are those who ask: Why didn’t Rashi explain this above in Parshas Bamidbar when it wrote “the hanging tapestries of the courtyard and the screen at the entrance of the courtyard which is <i>over</i> the Mishkon and the Altar on all sides…” (3:26)? He did not say anything there. [We may explain this] with the comment of <i>Re’m</i> at the beginning of Parshas Beha’aloscha regarding the lighting of the Ner Tamid — that in Parshas Emor Rashi did not give any explanation. There he writes that sometimes a commentator will explain all of the matters that apply to a certain term, sometimes only some of them and sometimes he relies on what he explains elsewhere, not explaining anything there. It appears to me that Rashi was forced to explain this here, even though it is obvious, because the verse wrote “and the screen for the entrance to the gate of the courtyard…” This raises a difficulty: Why did the Torah use this repetitive language — stating both “entrance” and “gate”. Furthermore one may raise a difficulty with the pause between the word “entrance” and the word “gate”. This could cause one to err and explain the verse as if it had said “and the screen for the entrance and the screen for the gate of the courtyard.” Thus one would explain that the screen for the entrance of the courtyard was the eastern gate of the courtyard while the screen for the gate was the screen for the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. This [latter] is also termed “the gate of the courtyard” since it opened into the courtyard of the Mishkon. Accordingly the Torah said “which are over the Mishkon” meaning the gate of the courtyard that is <i>close to</i> the Mishkon and to the Altar. The word על (over) would thus be understood as a term of closeness. When the Torah previously wrote “and the screen for the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” this would have meant the Paroches that is in front of the Holy of Holies, being termed the “entrance to the Tent of Meeting” because it stands inside the Tent of Meeting. Thus one would have thought to say that the Paroches in front of the Holy of Holies was also part of the load of the sons of Gershon. However, this was not true because the Paroches screen was part of the load of the sons of Kehos, as is written above in Parshas Bamidbar (4:5) “Aharon [and his sons] shall enter … and take down the Paroches screen and with it they shall cover the Ark of the Testimony.” Therefore Rashi explains that “which are over the Mishkon” refers to the hanging tapestries etc. that protect and guard over the Mishkon.
  The copper altar. Rashi is answering the question: Since the hanging tapestries protected the Mishkon it is obvious that they were all around the altar that was inside the Mishkon. Furthermore, the beams of the Mishkon would guard over the golden altar. He answers that the verse does not refer to the Golden Altar that was in the Mishkon, rather to the copper altar that was outside the Mishkon.
  All that will be given. Meaning that this does not refer to the parts just mentioned, because there were no other vessels needed for their service. Furthermore, neither the term “giving” nor the term “making” would be applicable to them. Rather the term “giving” refers to the sons of Gershon. Furthermore, if it referred to parts, the Torah should have written “that will be made to them for their service.” Therefore Rashi brought the translation of the Targum which explains that יעשה (lit. will be made) is a term of giving and the word “to them” refers to the sons of Gershon who were mentioned above. This teaches that everything mentioned in this passage was given over into their hands.
  
  Verse 27
  
  Appointed over them. Rashi is answering the question: The verses contradict each other, because here it says “by the instruction of Aharon and his sons” and afterwards it writes (v.28) “under the supervision of Isamar son of Aharon the Kohein.” He answers that the second verse explains the previous one — which of his sons was appointed over them? [the second verse] explains that it was Isamar son of Aharon. You might ask: Since only Isamar was appointed, why did it write ובניו (lit. and his sons) in the plural. However this is not a question because in many places we see the plural used for a single son, for example “ובני (lit. and the sons) of Don is Chushim” (Bereishis 46:23) and “ובני (lit. and the sons) of Palu is Eliav” (Bamidbar 26:8).
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  And ropes for the pillars. With this Rashi explains how both [Gershon and Merori] had stakes and ropes. You might ask: Previously in Parshas Bamidbar (3:26) Rashi explained [that Gershon’s load was] the ropes of the Mishkon and the Tent <i>but not</i> of the courtyard. If so how can he explain that the sons of Gershon also carried the ropes of the courtyard? The answer is: When Rashi said previously “but not of the courtyard” he meant that the ropes of the Mishkon were all in the load of the sons of Gershon. However the ropes of the courtyard were not all in their load, rather some were in the load of the sons of Gershon and some in the load of the sons of Merori, as he explains here.
  By their upper border. <i>Re’m</i> explains that stakes were connected to the pillars. They were made like rods called <i>falush</i>, which are stakes six tefachim long and three tefachim wide with a copper ring in the middle. One would wrap the border of the curtain around it with the ropes in a position next to each pillar, and hang the rod with the ring on hooks that were on the pillar, made in the shape of the letter <i>vav</i> with one side bent upwards and the other inserted into the pillar.
  And rods. In Parshas Terumah (Shemos 27:10) this is explained fully.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  Service for [another] service. Meaning that at the time when the Kohanim were making offerings and dealing with the service, the Levites were singing and playing on their cymbals and harps. Thus they performed a service for the service of the Kohanim.
  As the phrase indicates. Meaning that even though “the service of the service” is explained as “the service <i>for</i> a service,” nonetheless the “the service of carrying” is not explained as the service <i>for</i> carrying, rather as the phrase indicates it means “the service that is carrying.” (R. Hendel)
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  From the ages of thirty to fifty. The opinion of Rashi is that the word ופקודיו (and they were counted) refers to Moshe, as the verse wrote previously “he counted them, by the hand of Moshe.” The words “אשר (that) [Hashem] commanded” are thus understood as “כאשר (as) [Hashem] commanded.” Consequently the verse is saying “the counting of Moshe as Hashem commanded Moshe,” meaning from the ages of thirty to fifty. This is why Rashi said “those counted were, as commanded, from the ages of thirty to fifty.” Do not ask why it writes Moshe’s name twice, instead of writing “him,” even though it refers to Moshe earlier in the verse. The answer is that many verses speak in this way, for example “He said to Moshe: come up to Hashem” (Shemos 24:1) where it could have said “come up to Me.” Similarly “Hashem rained down sulfur and fire upon Sodom and upon Ammorah, and the fire came from Hashem” (Bereishis 19:24) where it could have said “from Him.” Similarly “Lemech said to his wives Adah and Tzilah: Hear my voice, wives of Lemech” (Bereishis 4:23) where he could have said “my wives.” One might ask: Why did Rashi need to explain this — doesn’t the Torah state “from the ages of thirty…” many times? The answer is: Because it wrote (v.48) “Their numbers were eight thousand five hundred and eighty” and afterwards said “according to the word of Hashem he counted them,” you might want to explain that this refers to another count that was made in Parshas Beha’aloscha, which was from the age of twenty-five. Therefore Rashi explains that “those counted…” His proof is from the fact that it writes “as Hashem commanded Moshe” implying that they had already been commanded about this, however the command to count from the age of twenty-five was only said later. There are those who explain that ופקודיו means “and they were appointed” and that Rashi explains “ואותם הפקודים…” meaning that those appointed — Elazar and Isamar who were appointed over them — must also be between the ages of thirty and fifty. I found this explanation in the name of a certain great scholar.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  This Parshah was said on the day. Rashi is answering the question: Why didn’t he command them this Parshah immediately after the Mishkon was erected? Surely they arranged the camps on the day that the Mishkon was erected, and immediately afterwards he should have commanded them to send everyone who was impure out of the camp. He answers that it was indeed said on the day that the Mishkon was erected. Rashi is also answering another question: Where do we find that that any other Parshah was said to them on the day that the Mishkon was erected? He answers that “eight parshiyos…”
  Three camps. Because it wrote the word “camp” three times in this Parshah.
  Out of all of them. Regarding the metzoro the Torah writes “he shall dwell alone” (Vayikra 13:46) implying that he should dwell in a place where no other impure people go, i.e. outside the three camps. When the Torah wrote “and they shall not defile their camps,” (v.3) rather than writing “their camp” this implies that there was one camp for a zav and another camp for a person defiled by the dead. Now, since one defiled by the dead is permitted in the Levite camp, as explained previously, one may infer that a zav is permitted in the Israelite camp.
  From the encampment of the Shechinah. You might ask: From where did Rashi know this? The answer is that the fact that one defiled by the dead is even permitted in the Levite camp is learned from Moshe Rabbeinu who was himself a Levi. The Torah writes “Moshe took the bones of Yosef with him” (Shemos 13:19) and he entered the camp of the Levites.
  Means … bones. Meaning that the opinion of the Targum is that they were defiled through the bone of a corpse. <i>Re’m</i> explains Rashi’s proof: Had this been a term meaning impurity, a person who touched someone who became impure from a corpse would have also been rendered an <i>av hatumoh</i> (‘father’ i.e. originator of impurity) since [the verse would mean that] a person who touched someone who became impure from a corpse is commanded here to be sent out of the camp like a zav or a metzoro, which are both <i>avos hatumoh</i>. However this is not so, because a person who touches someone who became impure through touching a corpse only becomes a <i>vlad hatumoh</i> (‘offspring’ of impurity). Thus one is forced to say that “defiled by a [departed] soul” refers to bones. A bone is an <i>avi avos hatumoh</i> (‘father of a father’ of impurity) and one who touches it becomes an <i>av hatumoh</i>. You might ask: How did Rashi know this, perhaps the verse means that he was rendered impure by flesh rather than a bone. An answer is that if this was so the Torah should have written טמא בנפש (defiled <i>by</i> a soul), but what is meant by טמא לנפש (lit. defiled <i>to</i> a soul) — this implies that he was rendered impure by something connected to the soul — and this is the bones. Another answer is that it was because the Targum translates דמסאב לטמי נפשא (who were defiled by the bones of a soul) whereas he should have merely translated it as דמסאב נפשא (defiled by a soul). However the additional word לטמי implies bones.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  This is the principal [payment] concerning which he took the oath. This was the value originally payable, thus Rashi explains: What is termed the principle? — The money concerning which he took the oath. This means to say that it is the money concerning which he took an oath, and not the additional fifth.
  To whom he is liable. Rashi is answering the question: Why didn’t the Torah write “from whom he stole” instead of “to whom he is indebted”? This implies that [one returns the money] to the one to whom the principle belongs. For example, if someone lent money to the person who was robbed, and this [thief] came and stole it from him, he is obliged to give it to the lender who lent it to the person who he stole from. Thus Rashi stated “to the one to whom he is liable” to teach that one gives the money to the one to whom the victim of the theft is liable.
  
  Verse 8
  
  When he recants. Rashi is answering the question: Since the thief denied it and the one who caused him to swear has already died, how could it be that he now wished to pay? He answers that it is “when he recants…”
  [This refers to] a proselyte who died without heirs. You might ask: In Parshas Behar it writes “and a man who will not have a redeemer” (Vayikra 25:26). Rashi asks: Is there anyone in Yisroel who does not have a redeemer? He answers that it refers to a redeemer who can redeem him from his sale. Meaning that he certainly has a redeemer, however he does not have a wealthy redeemer who can redeem him from his sale. Why didn’t Rashi explain that it refers to a proselyte who died without heirs, as he answers here? The answer is that there it was not possible to say that it referred to a proselyte, because the Torah wrote “and he sold some of his holdings” meaning [land] that he inherited from his father. But a proselyte would not have an inheritance from his father. Here it was also not possible to answer as Rashi did there, because anyone would want to receive the debt — the principle and the additional fifth, whether poor or wealthy.
  This is the principle. The Torah did not write this previously when it said “But if the man has no redeemer to whom the debt may be returned,” omitting to write “[the debt] <i>being returned</i>,” because it relied on what was written previously where the Torah stated “and return the principal amount of his guilt, and [add] one fifth…” (v.7).
  Then gives it to the <i>kohein.</i> Because if this were not so, if it was for Hashem it could not be for the kohein, and vice-versa. Furthermore, one cannot say that it would be for both — the sacrificial parts for Hashem and the meat for the kohanim, because then the Torah should have said “to Hashem <i>and</i> to the kohein.”
  In that watch. You might ask: Perhaps he gives it to any kohein to whom he wishes, even if they are not in that watch. The answer is that since the Torah afterwards writes “besides the ram of forgiveness…” this implies that this should be given to the kohein aside from the ram of forgiveness. The ram of forgiveness was given specifically to a kohein in that watch, as the Torah writes in Parshas Shoftim “portion by portion they shall eat…” (Devarim 18:9). Therefore the principle and the additional fifth should also only be given to a kohein from that watch.
  Mentioned in Vayikra (5:25). (<i>Paneach Raza</i>) The term “besides” implies that the Torah obliges one to bring it, therefore Rashi had to say that this is the one mentioned in Vayikra. Furthermore he had to mention this here, because one might think that when one returns stolen property to its owners, one requires an offering to atone for the heavenly judgment; however when one gives it to a kohein this itself is an atonement. Thus Rashi lets us know that this is not so.
  
  Verse 9
  
  But one does not know. (<i>Ba’al Hamesader</i>) A question is asked upon Rashi’s explanation: “Do we not know what must be done with them?” Surely there is an explicit verse in Parshas Korach “the bikurim of all that is in their land, which they bring before Hashem, shall be yours” (Bamidbar 18:13)! The answer is that in Parshas Mishpotim (Shemos 23:19) the mitzvah of bringing bikurim is listed as one of the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos, but Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 26:1-11) only lists the mitzvah of recitation over the bikurim that is stated in that Parshah. In Parshas Korach Rashi explains on the verse “I have given [you the guarding of my trumah-gifts]” (18:8) that there is “a comparison to a King…” consequently “I have given” means “that I have already given”; thus “shall be yours” (18:13) also means [that the bikurim] have already been given. However, we do not find in the entire Torah that the kohanim were given the bikurim like they were given the other twenty-three gifts. Therefore Rashi here needed to explain as he did and switch the word terumah for the word bikurim, using the force of Rabbi Yishmael’s question.
  
  Verse 10
  
  Informing us that the executory benefits belong to the owner. Meaning that he can give them to any kohein to whom he wishes; this is termed טובת הנאה (executory benefits). Accordingly one may take a selah or more from an Israelite in order to give the produce to his daughter’s son who is a kohein, however one may not take money from a kohein in order to give the kohein these gifts. The Torah wrote “shall be his” meaning that the executory benefits belong to the owners.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  What is written [immediately] above this subject? Normally Rashi only makes inferences from juxtapositions when matters are not written in their normal place, because then they were certainly written so for one to make an inference. Nonetheless, since there is no comparison between the laws of marriage and those of terumah and sanctified property, it is certain that they were only juxtaposed in order for one to make an inference. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) explains that [Rashi’s inference] is not from the juxtaposition of the passages, because if this were so he should have said “why was the Parshah of the sotah juxtaposed to that of sacred property,” as is his normal style. Rather, Rashi was answering the question: The Parshah should not have begun with the man, rather with the woman — saying “a woman who goes astray and acts treacherously…” given that she was the source of the sin. Therefore he explains “what is written above…” meaning that <i>he</i> was the source of the sin and “any man” refers to the passage above. See there. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) The matter is puzzling — ‘Tuviah sinned and Zeigud was punished?’ So too here — the husband sinned because he withheld the gifts to the kohanim and the woman was disgraced such that she had to come before the kohein! All the more so if she literally became defiled, it is difficult to understand how the sin of the husband could cause the sin of the wife. Rather, this is the correct explanation: The woman certainly has sins of her own and her sins caused the sin of promiscuity. Nonetheless if it were not for the combination of the sin of the husband with her sin of promiscuity, her sin would certainly have caused it to become publicized without the warning and seclusion. Thus the Beis Din would have killed her without causing disgrace to the husband, obliging him to bring her before the kohein and cause her to drink in order for her to die through the lethal waters. Instead, the combination with the sin of the husband caused there to be witnesses to the seclusion rather than witnesses to the defilement, and he had to bring her to the kohein in order to cause her to drink. Likewise, if she were to come away exonerated from the charge of promiscuity, had it not been for the combination with the husband’s sin, the sin of the wife would have lead to a simple rumor, without witnesses to her seclusion. Alternatively, there would have been only one witness to her defilement or she would have said that she would not drink — and in all of these cases one would not cause her to drink. Rather, here the combination with the sin of the husband caused him to have to bring her to the kohein in order to cause her to drink. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) [One may ask:] It appears that this is not specific to the case of a sotah, because had he been a zav or metzora he would also have needed a kohein, given that they too require a kohein. For if one did not say so, why should sotah be different? One may answer that the cases of a zav or metzora are different. If he wanted to be a sinner and not bring an atonement, who would know? Thus he would not necessarily need a kohein. However with a sotah, even a sinner would not wish his wife to be promiscuous, since it is the nature of people for this to be detestable, as the Torah writes “and he was jealous.” And since he was jealous, he would certainly bring her before the kohein. When one appreciates this matter further, one will see that it is measure for measure. Since he did not wish to give the gifts to the kohein, asking why he should give his money to the kohein, the Torah said “By your life you will need him.” You shall know the greatness of the kohein — that he is the intermediary between Hashem and Yisroel, making peace between them through the offerings. Yisroel are called Hashem’s wife as it writes, “If you do not know, most beautiful of women” (Shir Hashirim 1:8) and in many other places where they are termed a wife. Therefore this man will now require a kohein to whom he will bring the sotah, in order that he can also make peace between him and his wife. She strayed from him and the kohein would make peace between them. Surely this is exactly the same as when a kohein makes peace between Yisroel and their Father in Heaven, causing the Divine Presence to rest in the world. Similarly Rashi explains in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 35:25) that Hashem is called a husband to Yisroel (see <i>Gur Aryeh</i> there). This man was one of them but he did not wish to recognize the greatness of the kohein, therefore he had to bring the sotah to the kohein in order to make peace between himself and his wife.
  Spirit of foolishness. Meaning that their evil inclination would tell them that it was permitted - and this is the foolishness. If one did not say so then why would she be liable for death, given that it was due to foolishness?
  Turns aside from the ways of modesty. Rashi specifically said “from the ways of modesty” and not “from the ways of the Torah,” because if it was from the ways of the Torah this would imply that she certainly was promiscuous, and if it was certain that she was promiscuous then we do not give her [the waters] to drink. Therefore he stated “from the ways of modesty,” meaning that she was seen embracing or kissing another man and there was a suspicion that she had been promiscuous.
  What is the treachery. Rashi is answering the question: The words “acts treacherously toward him. And a man has lain [with her]” imply that there are two matters. Thus Rashi explains “What is the treachery? [A man] lay…,” as if it had written <i>that</i> a man lay with her. However this does not mean that a man really lay with her, because if this were so we not give her the waters to drink. Consequently the sequence of events in the passage is as follows: When she goes astray and turns away from the ways of modesty, and a spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife; If afterwards she is concealed long enough to have been defiled, then whether she acted treacherously towards him, for a man to lay with her conjugally and it was hidden from him, or whether a man did not lay with her and she was not defiled, rather he was only jealous of her even though she did not act, then the man shall bring his wife … (<i>Re’m</i>).
  
  Verse 13
  
  Lying with her. Rashi’s text read “And a man has lain with her conjugally. Lying with her disqualifies her but lying with her sister does not disqualify her <i>from her husband</i> (Yevamos 95).” Meaning that if her husband lay with her sister, she is not disqualified to her husband due to her sister’s promiscuity. For one might have said that she was disqualified due to a kal vachomer (a fortiori reasoning): Just as when one has relations with a ‘lesser’ prohibition, the one who causes the prohibition becomes forbidden — in a case where one has relations with a ‘stricter’ prohibition, the one who causes the prohibition should certainly be forbidden. Rashi explains that the ‘lesser’ prohibition is that of a married woman who can become permitted to others through divorce. [The kal vachomer is as follows]: If the wife was promiscuous, she becomes forbidden to her husband, which means she is forbidden to the entire world. Thus, in a case where he had relations with a ‘strict’ prohibition, such as the sister of his wife who is prohibited to him through by his marriage to his wife all the time that she is alive. Is it not logical that the one who ‘caused’ this prohibition should be prohibited — his wife should be prohibited to her husband, since she ‘caused’ the prohibition of her sister to her husband? Therefore the Torah said “with her” to teach that “lying with her disqualifies her…” (Yevamos 95a). However, a mistake occurred in the Rashi texts. I heard this from Rabbi Yitzchak Cohen z’l. I have found written that the comment, “incident of the two sisters…” should have been placed on the verse “if any man” (v. 12) where Rashi explained that she is doubly treacherous — against the “Man” in Heaven, and the man on earth. There the Midrash teaches: Against the “Man” on High and the man below — Hashem says to her “You are fooling your husband, perhaps you think that you can fool me” — there was an incident of two sisters …
  This excludes a blind man. Meaning that there are two matters here and both are excluded by the verse. From the word מעיני (from [his] eyes) we exclude a blind man, who, even if it is known that she was promiscuous, does not cause her to drink given that he cannot see. While from the word נעלם (hidden) we infer that if he saw the two of them, but feigned ignorance that both of them were together, the waters do not examine her. The word מעמעם (feigned ignorance) is understood as in גחלים עממות (dimmed coals) which the Targum uses to translate the word “dim” (Vayikra 13:6).
  Long enough. Meaning that the words “and she has been defiled” that are written after “and she was concealed” refer to a time long enough to have been defiled. This is the time that it takes to roast an egg and swallow it. Because if you were to think that it means that she was actually defiled, surely the Torah previously wrote “and a man has laid with her” which referred to defilement. Therefore I would not need the Torah to write the words “and she has been defiled”? Rather they must have come to teach that she was concealed long enough to have been defiled.
  Even one witness. You might ask: From where does this inference come — is it because the Torah wrote “and there is no עד (witness) against her”. Surely we have established that wherever the Torah says עד (lit. witness in the <i>singular</i>) it refers to two. This is because it had to specify “<i>one</i> עד (witness) shall not arise” (Devarim 19:15) which implies that every עד written in the Torah refers to two, unless the Torah specifies that it is one, as Rashi explains in Parshas Shoftim (ad loc.). If so, here where it writes עד alone, this would imply that there are not two witnesses against her but there <i>is</i> one against her (and in such a circumstance one would cause her to drink the bitter waters). The answer is that the words “and there is no witness against her” refer to the words “and she was not seized forcibly” and not to “and he is jealous of his wife … that man shall bring his wife to the kohein” to cause her to drink (v. 14-15). Meaning that if there is no witness against her that she was not seized forcibly, i.e. there were not two witnesses to defilement, though there <i>was</i> one witness who saw that she was defiled — one would not cause her to drink, but she would be forbidden to her husband (Sotah 2a). Thus the word הא (but) in Rashi is like והא למדת (you have learned) and does not imply an inference, only a conclusion “you have learned this, but if there was [even one witness]…” Furthermore, Rashi was answering the question: Why is one witness believed to prohibit her to her husband? He answers that “there is no witness against her” to the defilement but there are witnesses to the concealment. Since there are two witnesses to the concealment who say that they saw that she was concealed with a certain person long enough for defilement, and there is one witness against her who say that she was defiled, this is enough circumstantial evidence to believe that she was certainly promiscuous. Thus the Torah writes “and there is no witness against her” here to teach you that it refers to the word נטמאה (and she had become defiled) above. Meaning that when there are [two] witnesses to concealment then one witness [to defilement] is believed. However, had it not been written here then I would not know that there were witnesses to the concealment.
  Ravished. The verse is saying as follows: “And there is no witness against her” — meaning that there are not two [witnesses] against her <i>but there is</i> one, “and she was not seized forcibly” - rather he testifies that she did so willingly. In such a case she is forbidden to her husband. Thus it is a separate law on its own.
  
  Verse 14
  
  Before. This implies that the verses are not in order as explained above (on v. 12).
  It is not known. Meaning that he neither know she was defiled nor know that she was not defiled as implied by the straightforward understanding of the words “and she was defiled … and she was not defiled”. Because the Torah writes “but it was hidden from her husband’s eyes” and the Rabbis learn that that if he saw that she was defiled then the waters do not examine her.
  
  Verse 15
  
  But not of fine flour. <i>Re’m</i> writes that Rashi is informing us of the reason why the Torah excludes fine flour and wheat. For one cannot explain he means to inform us that the words “flour” and “barley” in the verse are there to exclude fine flour and wheat, given that this is obvious. It is something that any schoolchild knows.
  Identified as light. Meaning that oil is termed יצהר, as the verse writes “Your grain, your wine, יצהרך (your oil)” (Devarim 7:13). This is the same as the terms צוהר (skylight) and צהרים (noon) which refer to light.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  But, they moved. מסיעין (they moved) in the sense of transferring.
  He disentangles. This implies that פרע (disentangle) is a term of demolishing. You might ask: Rashi always explains the word פרע when used regarding the head as a term of growth. This was evident above in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 21:11) where he said that לא יפרע means “you shall not grow,” and below regarding the Nazir. The answer is that here it is also a term of growth, because when the hair is plaited it is shorter, and when one disentangles the plaits it ‘becomes’ longer. Thus it emerges that the disentangling causes the hair to ‘grow’. <i>Re’m</i> writes that though פרע is normally a term of exposing, as Rashi himself writes on the verse “for they were פרוע (exposed)” (Shemos 32:25) where he says that that this means exposed … as with “and expose the woman’s hair,” this is not a contradiction to his explanation that he disentangles the plaits of her hair. For Rashi’s explanation here is not inferred from the word פרע, rather from the superfluous word “the woman”. The Torah should have written “and expose <i>her</i> hair” since it refers to the woman mentioned previously. Thus “the woman” was added to allude to her whole body, teaching that one disentangles her hair revealing her heart and compounding her disgrace. It appears possible to me to say that by way of the disentangling one reveals how the hair appeared long before it was shortened.
  Debasing. The reason that I found is a parable of a person who committed a sin. He went out to the market place and was embarrassed, so he covered his head and his face. Likewise one uncovers the hair of a woman who transgressed the command.
  At the Nikanor Gate. He [Nikanor] was a virtuous person who brought copper doors for this gate from Alexandria in Egypt. In doing so Hashem performed many miracles, as is taught in Maseches Yoma 37b. Some say in the name of <i>Maharam</i>: Why Rashi did explain this out of order, after “and expose the woman’s head.” Furthermore, upon the words “before Hashem” (v.16) above he did not explain anything. The answer is that there it would be possible to explain “before Hashem” as referring to the sanctuary. However here, Rashi explains that he disentangles the plaits in her hair in order to humiliate her, in accordance with the teaching of the Rabbis that there were many actions through which she was humiliated. It would not be proper to do so in the sanctuary, therefore one is forced to say that it was at the gate of Nikanor.
  To exhaust her. One cannot say that this was for waving, as previously in the verse “upon the palms of Aharon and upon the palms of his sons” (Shemos 29:24) in the context of the inauguration. There the Torah continues, “and shall wave,” while here it begins with causing her to drink the bitter waters and the oaths of accursedness. Only afterwards does it write “and shall wave” (v.25). Therefore one is forced to say that it was in order to exhaust her etc.
  So that the Sacred Name not be erased. [<i>R. Hendil</i>] Rashi did not explain this above when he also wrote that they acted to exhaust her (s.v. “The Kohein shall station”). The reason is that there he was commanded to exhaust her so that she would not drink and die. The Torah took pity on her since there were neither witnesses nor warning of her defilement. However here it is not possible to say this because there is no reason to be concerned about her to this extent, since she turned aside from the ways of modesty and transgressed the warning to conceal herself. Rather, here Hashem was concerned for the honor of His name.
  Because of their aftermath. Thus מי המרים means “the bitter waters” while המאררים למרים (v. 24) means “[they shall enter her] to become bitter and lethal” becoming bitter and destructive in her mouth. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) If this were not so why would they be bitter? Though the Gemara says that they would place a bitter grass in them, because the Torah writes המרים (the bitter [waters]), nonetheless the word המרים with a <i>hei</i> denoting the definite article (<i>the</i> bitter [waters]) implies that it was for this that they were known. We do not explicitly find anywhere [in the Torah] that they would place a bitter substance in them. Therefore Rashi says that they were termed bitter because of their aftermath.
  
  Verse 19
  
  If no [man] laid. Meaning that one should not say that he adjures her by the Holy Name, like all other oaths where we explain that one swears with the Holy Name. <i>Re’m</i> explains: This is so that one should not say that the statement is one matter and the oath is another. If no [man] laid, הנקי (be absolved); but if he laid, לא תנקי (do not absolved). There are texts that read “but if he laid, חנקי (may you choke).” This is why the Torah wrote the word חנקי without a <i>yud</i> (with a <i>chirik</i> taking its place) in order to teach homiletically term חנק (strangulation) as if it had been written with the letter <i>hei</i> as part of the root [of the verb]. This is possible because the letters <i>hei</i> and <i>ches</i> are interchangeable and thus one can homiletically learn “may you choke” meaning that you shall die.
  
  Verse 20
  
  In the sense of “if”. Rashi is answering the question: The word כי (which would have been translated here as ‘since’) implies that she had certainly been promiscuous, and if she had certainly been promiscuous then one would not cause her to drink.
  
  Verse 21
  
  The way. Meaning “if what I said is not true may [disaster] happen to me…” For if this was not so, the Torah should have said “Hashem shall place אלה (a curse) in you”. Thus the lamed of the word לאלה is in place of the word “<i>for</i>” (the verse reading “Hashem shall make you <i>for</i> a curse), meaning that she shall be a tool for everyone who curses or makes an oath.
  
  Verse 22
  
  For the curse. Tosafos in the first chapter of Kiddushin (27b) explain that one could have easily derived “for the curse … for the oath … from this husband … from a different husband” from one Amein, since it refers to all that was said in this passage. The curse and the oath are written explicitly here, while the Torah also writes “while you were married to your husband” (v. 20) which implies both this husband and another husband. Thus the other Amein refers to women who were engaged or waiting for levirate marriage who are not mentioned in this passage, and Rashi has condensed his words. This raises a difficulty: If Rashi’s opinion was so, he should have said “Amein if from this husband, if from different husband; Amein for the curse and for the oath. However, Rashi elaborated where he should have been brief and said the word Amein twice — Amien for the curse and Amein for the oath — and similarly Amein if from this husband, Amein if from a different husband. Thus it is certain that Rashi here means to explain that these two Ameins are needed for what was mentioned, one for the curse and one for the oath, and similarly one Amein if from this husband and one if from a different husband. And there is no difficulty that there are only two Ameins here, for one may answer that one can derive two things from the one Amein. Rashi here did not want to explain [that it referred to] the cases of the betrothed woman etc., because they are not implied by the verse, only through oral tradition like most of the Oral Law. Rashi only explains the language of the Torah — and it should have written Amein <i>and</i> Amein with a <i>vav</i> if it was adding another case. (<i>R. Y. Triosh</i>)
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  He brought her offering. As the Torah writes (v. 26) “…and burn it on the altar” and after that he shall cause the woman to drink the water”.
  Since it says “abdomen” and “thigh”. Rashi is answering the question: Wasn’t this was also written previously (v. 22) “these lethal bitter waters will enter … to swell the abdomen…”? He answers “since it [merely] says…”
  They will be [harmful and bitter] for her. Not that the waters would enter there <i>towards</i> some bitter substance, for they were already in her stomach and there was no other bitter substance there.
  
  Verse 25
  
  Up and down. I have explained this in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 23:11).
  Above the hand. We learn [a comparison] to the word “hand” from the Peace-offering where it writes “his hands shall bring it” (Vayikra 7:30). Just as there the owners wave the offering with the kohein, so too here she waves with the kohein. However, the verse also writes “the kohein shall take” thus how can both be true? Rather, the kohein waves and she also waves with him with her hands above the hands of the kohein. Furthermore, he learned this from the word “from the hand” meaning that the hand of the woman was above the hand of the kohein. For if this was not so the Torah should have written “the kohein shall take from the woman” — why was it necessary to say “from her <i>hand</i>”?
  Before taking the handful. Rashi is answering the question: The word והקריב (and bring it close - a term that normally denotes the bringing of an offering) implies that he offered the minchah. However afterwards (v. 26) it writes “the kohein will scoop out from the meal-offering,” implying that he had not yet scooped anything out. So how could the Torah write that he should offer the handful which had not yet been scooped out? Rashi answers that the word והקריב connotes placing, meaning that he placed the minchah on the southwest corner.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  I will not drink. Meaning that if she said “I will be divorced from him without collecting a kesubah, but I will not drink” then we do not listen to her, since the Holy Name has been erased. [We only do not give her to drink if] she says “I am defiled.” However before the Holy Name is erased, if she says “I will not drink, and I will be divorced without collecting a kesubah” then we listen to her and do not make her drink, even though she does not admit to being defiled.
  We coerce. Rashi explains in Perek <i>Hayah Notel</i> (Sotah 19b) that they would open her mouth against her will and pour the water down her gullet. The Aruch explains that this is an elongation of the root ער having the connotation of intoxication.
  Tested her. Even though in the curse itself the Torah writes “to swell the abdomen and collapse the thigh” (v. 22) with the stomach first and then the thigh, this does not refer to the abdomen and the thigh of the sotah, rather to the abdomen and the thigh of the adulterer.
  Use her as a curse. Even though Rashi explained previously that “everyone will swear through you” and “will curse through you” (v. 21), here it is not possible to explain so, because if this were so why would it have been necessary [for the Torah to repeat it]?
  Among those who know her. Because it is a greater embarrassment for her.
  
  Verse 28
  
  During this concealment. It was unnecessary to say this, because the entire passage refers to a woman who was warned and concealed herself. Nonetheless Rashi was obliged to explain the words “and is pure” as meaning “from any other place” other than the man about whom she was warned and was concealed with. Thus he first explained that “if the woman was not defiled” refers to concealment with the man about whom she was warned.
  Furthermore. You should not say that “she will bear seed” is the continuation of “she will be cleansed,” which would mean that she will be cleansed and therefore she will bear seed or that she will be cleansed from the things that prevent her from childbearing and consequently she will bear seed. Rather Rashi explains that she will be cleansed from the lethal waters, referring to her being saved from the swelling of the abdomen and the collapse of the thigh. He then explains that “she shall bear seed” means that furthermore she shall bear [seed].
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  The sotah is forbidden. Since the Torah had to write “the man is cleansed of sin,” meaning that she is permitted to him after drinking, this implies that before she drinks she is forbidden to her husband.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  That whoever observes a sotah. Rashi is answering the question: Why was this not been placed next to the passage of Nedarim (vows), which is its fitting place? <i>Re’m</i> explains that there is no association whatsoever to the passage of the sotah, for she transgressed [one of] the Ten Commandments while the Nazirite sanctified himself, abstaining from that which was permitted to him. Therefore Rashi asks why this passage was placed here, even though such a question is not normal for Rashi.
  In her decadence. Meaning how they degraded her, as it writes, “and expose her hair” (5:18).
  
  Verse 3
  
  Wine intoxicates. Meaning why is new wine called יין (wine) while old wine is called שכר (lit. intoxicating)? The answer is because it is [more] intoxicating.
  Denotes adding color. Meaning [the adding of color by] the soaking of something in water or any other liquid. Because for the term כיבוס (lit. washing) which refers to immersion [in a mikveh] the Targum translates with the word ויצבע (related to the word for coloring), as Rashi explains at the end of Parshas Tazriah (Vayikra 13:58).
  
  Verse 4
  
  Like the tongue of a bell. Meaning that according to Rashi זג (skin) is from the same derivation as זוג (bell).
  
  Verse 5
  
  [His] hair. Meaning that the word “sacred” does not refer to his body, rather to his hair. Rashi’s proof is that the phrase preceding “he shall be sacred” refers to the hair as it writes “he shall not pass a razor over his head” and then the Torah writes “he shall be sacred.” Similarly the verse writes “he shall let the hair of his head grow long” which refers to the hair, and the word “sacred” is written in between, meaning that it apparently also refers to the hair.
  For growing the growth. Rashi needed to add the <i>lamed</i> to the word לגדל (<i>for</i> growing) because once he had explained that “he shall be sacred” refers to the hair of his head, he explained how it would be sacred — that one should not cut it, rather grow it. The word פרע (growth) is also juxtaposed to the words “hair of his head” as if the verse were saying “for growing the growth of the hairs of the hair on his head.”
  A small <i>patach.</i> Meaning a <i>segol</i> which is referred to as a small <i>patach</i>. Furthermore there is also a real <i>patach</i> vowelized below the <i>reish</i>.
  Less than thirty days. Meaning that [we may infer this law] because the Torah writes “He (his hair) shall be sacred [for] growing the growth of hair,” and the word יהיה (shall be) has the numerical value of 30 [which teaches us the number of] days.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  From defilement. Meaning that this is not like the words “he shall be sacred” above, where it was a description of his hair.
  
  Verse 9
  
  A sudden incident. Meaning that both words refer to the swiftness of the matter, that he did not realize that he would die and it was totally unavoidable. For if this was not so there would have been a partial transgression, or it would be possible that he had transgressed the prohibition (v. 6) “he shall have no contact with the dead.” The Nazirite saw that the person was ill and he should have been careful not to come into his tent in case he died, thus it would be a case of the unintentional bordering on the intentional. Therefore Rashi said another explanation that the words בפתע (suddenly) and פתאם (unexpectedly) are a single statement. <i>Re’m</i> may also have alluded to this explanation. Now it is understandable why Rashi reverses the order of his commentary, initially explaining the words suddenly and unexpectedly and afterwards adding “if someone died in the tent.” Meaning that now it is understandable why the verse says עליו (near him) — meaning that it was sudden and unexpected, as if this had happened upon him without him being able to avoid it, so too this person died suddenly meaning that he had not been ill. When Rashi says “a sudden incident,” this is not to teach the meaning of the words פתע פתאם only that something sudden and unexpected is termed a מקרה (a [chance] incident).
  In the tent. Because if this were not so what difference would there be if someone died near him (given that there is no transfer of impurity in an open space), rather it must be explained as being “in the tent.” The word עליו (lit. upon him) is understood like [the meaning of] ועליו מטה מנשה (<i>near</i> him is the camp of Menashe). (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) The reason why Rashi did not comment according to the order of the verse, which says “if someone died near him” before “suddenly [or] unexpectedly” is because now that he had explained the alternative understanding that פתע פתאם (suddenly [or] unexpectedly) refers to a sudden incident there is a difficulty regarding the word עליו. This was understandable according to the first explanation that פתע refers to the unavoidable [chance event], there was no difficulty because since it was unavoidable it could be considered like the case in the verse “near him is the camp of Menashe”.
  When he is sprinkled. It is called his purification even though he is not completely purified until he brings his atonement offering. This is because the day of his sprinkling is his partial purification.
  
  Verse 10
  
  Designated a time for the offerings. Meaning for the sacrificing of the offerings, as is written in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 22:27), “from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted as an offering.”
  
  Verse 11
  
  He inflicted suffering on himself. This implies that there was a transgression in abstaining from wine. You might ask: [How can we reconcile this with] Rashi’s explanation above that whoever sees a <i>sotah</i> in her decadence should take the <i>nazirite</i> vow against wine, [because wine can] lead to promiscuity. One answer is that it is certainly a mitzvah to take the nazirite vow against wine, but nonetheless it involves a minor transgression in causing oneself suffering by abstaining from wine. This is similar to one who fasts on Shabbos following a disturbing dream, this affliction of fasting likened to the great mitzvah of rejoicing on Shabbos, but nonetheless one has to fast again afterwards for one day to make up for fasting on Shabbos. Tosafos explain that the same is true here (Bava Kamma 91). Another answer is that it is certainly a mitzvah to abstain from wine, which intoxicates and leads to promiscuity. However new wine does not intoxicate, and [similarly] grapes, seeds and skins [so] this is the transgression of suffering by abstaining from them. You might ask: Since the Torah juxtaposed the chapter of the nazir to the chapter of the sotah it is implied that there is a mitzvah to take a nazirite vow against all types of wine and grapes in the manner of a nazir. The answer is that because one may not be able to restrain oneself and will be drawn after wine — which carries one even further — thus the Torah commanded one to take a nazirite vow against everything. As we say to the nazir “turn away, do not come close to the vineyard”. If nothing bad could come of it there would certainly have been a mitzvah to occasionally drink a little, because “wine and aromatic spices make one wise”. (<i>R. Y. Triosh</i>)
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Of the burnt-offering and the peace- offering. To the exclusion of the sin-offering, for the Torah writes shortly (v.17) “He shall make the ram a peace-offering … and his meal-offering and libation” which refer to the ram as Rashi explains. But why did the Torah have to write this? Are they not included in the group of rams that require libations? Why were they mentioned separately? Rather it was to compare to them, just as peace-offerings can be brought as vowed-offerings or freewill-offerings and require meal-offerings and libations, so too all [all offerings that come] … This comes to exclude the sin-offerings that cannot be brought as vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings and do not require meal-offerings and libations (<i>Perek Shtei Middos</i>).
  Ten of each kind. We learn a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> (a masoretic link between two similar words) with the word ‘matzos’ from ‘matzos’ in the case of the thanksgiving-offering. There one requires ten loaves of each type as it writes in Parshas Tzav regarding the thanksgiving-offering “and offer from it one of each as ‘<i>terumah’</i> offering” (Vayikra 7:14) meaning like one takes <i>terumah</i> from <i>ma'aser</i> in the ratio of 1 from 10.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  He shall slaughter. Meaning that the word יעשה (“he shall make”) means “he shall slaughter.” This is because the entire matter is dependent upon the time of slaughter — if one has an intention at that time to eat it after the allotted time or outside its designated place then it becomes invalid. Rashi also explains “along with the basket of matzos” to mean with the intent to sanctify the bread, because without this one would understand that he slaughtered with the intent to sanctify the basket but not the bread inside.
  The Ram’s. So that one not say that it refers to each one of offerings mentioned above. This comes to exclude the sin-offering which does not. As above (v. 15)
  
  Verse 18
  
  But this would be grossly disrespectful. Because he would have to stand bareheaded, therefore it is forbidden to shave in the courtyard.
  After the slaughter. As if it had said “the nazir shall shave” after the slaughter of the offering at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. This refers to the peace-offering.
  The pot. Rashi is answering the question: “Put it in the fire” implies that he should place it directly to the fire, while afterwards it writes “which is under the peace-offering sacrifice” implying that it is under the flesh of the peace-offering. The flesh was cooked in a pot thus this would imply that one would also have to place the hair in the pot that was beneath the peace-offering. Therefore he explains that it was underneath the pot … meaning that the word “underneath” does not refer to under the flesh inside the pot, rather to the fire that was underneath the pot.
  Were cooked in the courtyard. The peace-offerings of a nazir may be eaten anywhere, and are like unconsecrated meat. Nonetheless one must cook them in the courtyard because one must remove the foreleg, which is sacred, after it has been cooked and give it to the kohein. Because of this foreleg that is given to the kohein one must cook it in the courtyard.
  
  Verse 19
  
  After it was cooked. Meaning that one gives it to the kohein once it is cooked. One might ask: Why doesn’t the foreleg, which is consecrated, prohibit the meat of the ram that was cooked along with it? The answer is that since the foreleg comprises one sixtieth of the ram it is considered annulled in sixty times its volume.
  
  Verse 20
  
  The loaf. The word הוא (it) which normally refers to a single item, refers to what was waved, as dictated by the context. Thus it refers to the three items and הוא is in place of הם (they).
  
  Besides the breast. Meaning that the word על (lit. upon) substitutes for the word מלבד (“besides”), rather than its literal meaning of “upon”. Rashi mentions what is “due to him” meaning those items mentioned previously in Parshas Tzav (Vayikra 7:34), and the peace-offerings of the nazir are included among them. They were only written here for the foreleg that is added in the nazirite peace-offerings but is not part of the other peace-offerings.
  Because the [nazirite] peace-offerings were. You might ask: If so, since the nazirite peace-offerings were included in the group of normal peace-offerings, where the Torah writes “for the breast of the wave offering …” (Vayikra 7:34) why did the Torah have to write “besides the breast of the wave-offering…” here? Rashi answers that it is “because the [nazirite] peace-offerings…”
  
  Verse 21
  
  Relative to a hundred burnt-offerings. But not relative to a hundred sin-offerings. When the Torah writes “what he can afford to bring” it only refers to offerings that come as vowed-offerings or freewill-offerings that are dependent on what one can afford.
  Increase but not reduce. Meaning that because the verse explains “according to his vow that he vow, so shall he fulfill” this implies whether one increased or reduced from what was prescribed. Therefore it writes “על (in addition to) the laws of his nazirite [vows]” where על literally means “upon” – such as when one vows more than the law of the nazirite vow. However if it was less than the law of the nazirite vow, such as where one said “I am hereby a nazirite five times …” [this is not effective].
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Like זכור (remembering). Meaning that it is in the present tense. This is how Rashi explains the word זכור (Shemos 20:8) — that one should pay attention to continuously remember, denoting an ongoing action.
  They all hear. According to this the word אמור (“saying”) refers to Aharon and his sons while the word להם (“to them”) means to the Bnei Yisroel. It is as if it had said “each one of you shall say the subsequent blessings יברכך, יאר, ישא to Yisroel. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) explains that when the Torah states “saying to them” while it should have said “bless them”. It only spoke in the terminology of “saying” to teach that the blessing should be like a statement — that they hear the blessing.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  I will concur. But one should not explain that He would bless them Himself, because what would be the purpose of the blessing of the kohanim if Hashem were to bless them.
  [And I] will bless them—the <i>kohanim</i>. According to the first explanation the words “And I will bless them” means that I will concur with them, but this appears forced therefore Rashi says another interpretation. According to the last explanation there is also a difficulty: The implication of the verse is that it refers to Yisroel and not to the kohanim, therefore the first explanation was also required.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Because he utterly dedicated. It appears that Rashi is answering the question: The notation above the words “Moshe finished” separate it from the words “erecting the Mishkon” meaning that “Moshe finished” is not to be read together with “erecting the Mishkon” and it is as if they are two separate topics. But what two topics could there be here? Rather one must say that the verse is to be explained as saying “It came to pass on the day that Moshe finished <i>the making of the Mishkon</i> and the erection of the Mishkon”. Thus Rashi asks “Betzalel and all the wise-hearted men…” He answers that “because he utterly dedicated himself…” With this one may answer the widely asked question: The verse merely attributes the erection of the Mishkon to Moshe, and he did this alone as is written previously in Parshas Pekudei (Shemos 39:33) Maharai explains that Rashi was answering the question: The Torah should have merely said “It came to pass, on the day Moshe erected the Mishkon. …
  On the second the [red] cow was burned. Rashi wished to answer this so that you would not ask: Didn’t the Levites begin their service immediately after the erection of the Mishkon as is written shortly? How would they be permitted to do this, since they were impure due to contact with a corpse and could not be purified since the red cow has not yet been burned? One cannot say that the cow was burned before the erection of the Mishkon because concerning its sprinkling in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:4) the Torah writes “opposite the face of the tent” implying that the Mishkon has already been erected when it was slaughtered. He answers “on the second, the cow was burned…” thus it emerges that they were purified on the seventh.
  And on the seventh they were shaven. This is the shaving mentioned in Parshas Beha’alosecha (Bamidbar 8:7) “and they shall pass a razor over their entire bodies…”
  
  Verse 2
  
  They were officers. Rashi is answering the question: What is the Torah teaching by saying that they were the leaders of the tribes? In response Rashi explains that they were officers over them in Egypt, and the verse is saying that they were the leaders who were appointed officers over them in Egypt. The taskmasters would beat the officers with clubs because they did not pressure Bnei Yisroel to fulfill their quota of bricks. [However this presents a difficulty:] Even those who stood by during the counting were not appointed until Iyar. The answer is that the Torah speaks about the future, when they would stand by during the counting on the first of Iyar. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) is puzzled: The officers who were beaten were only chosen for the Sanhedrin at the incident of the complainers in Parshas Beha’alosecha (11:16) where the Torah writes “gather seventy men for Me, from among the elders of Israel, men] whom you know to be the people’s elders and its officers.” Rashi explains that they are those “whom you know,” who were appointed as officers over them in Egypt during the hard labor. The incident of the complainers was on the twenty-second of Iyar and here it was Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Rather one must say that the greatness of becoming the Sanhedrin was more than the greatness of becoming the leaders. Therefore, here on Rosh Chodesh Nissan they merited to become leaders and on the twenty-second of Iyar at the time of the complainers they merited to become the Sanhedrin.
  
  Verse 3
  
  Because Moshe did not accept. Because if this were not so what would be meant by “before the Mishkon,” surely it had already written “They brought their offerings before Hashem” meaning before the Mishkon where His Glorious Presence rested. For this reason Rashi also explains that “before the altar” (v. 10) means that he did not accept it from them. Since it had already written “The leaders brought forward the [offerings for] the consecration of the altar,” why would I need it to add that they placed them before the altar?
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Moshe did not accept [the gift] from their hands until… Because if this were not so, what would be meant by “before the altar” and “Hashem said to Moshe…” which comes afterwards (v. 11)? This implies that if Hashem had not said this to him he would not have accepted them. When Hashem said to him “one leader each day…” Even though we do not find that Moshe was uncertain about this, as Rashi explained only (v. 11) “whether in order of their birth…” Nevertheless Hashem Himself answered, without Moshe’s question, lest he err and say that all should bring their offerings on one day. Since all of them had brought forward their offerings together, and they were all zealous in performing the mitzvah, it would have been correct for them to be equal in bringing them, thus Hashem had to say “one leader each day”. <i>Re’m</i> writes that he was also uncertain whether they should all would bring their offerings on one day or each one on his individual day. Immediately Hashem answered him “one leader each day.” See his question and answer there. However, since it was not needed for the explanation I have been brief and not quoted it. <i>Re’m</i> writes that one might wonder how Moshe could have been uncertain as to the order of those offering, whether it was in order of their birth or in the order of the traveling. Surely the order of the traveling was not established until the first of Iyar, as is explained in Parshas Bamidbar (1:1). One answer is that from the time that Moshe was at Mount Sinai for the second set of forty days Hashem informed him that the firstborn were replaced by the Levites and the division of the banners and the order of the traveling of the camps. It appears to me Moshe knew the order of the traveling and the division of the banners from Yaakov, as Rashi explains in Parshas Bamidbar on the verse “each man at his own banner with the insignia…” (2:2) “by the sign their forefather [Yaakov] gave them …” It stands to reason that with the traveling it was also so, because there is no reason for the travels to be different from the banners.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  But not that he solicited [payment]. Meaning that the meaning of the <i>lamed</i> in למטה יהודה (<i>of</i> the tribe of Yehudah) is not like the <i>lamed</i> of אמרי לי (say <i>for</i> me) (Bereishis 20:13), in which case it would have meant “<i>for</i> the tribe of Yehudah” — that he solicited payment from his tribe and brought it forward. Thus the meaning of למטה is like ממטה (<i>from</i> the tribe). (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: Why did it write למטה? It should have written “the one that brought his offering on the first day [was] Nachshon the son of Aminadav, leader of Yehudah” as it writes for the other leaders. Then it would not have had to write that it was the offering of Nachshon. It appears that the answer is that the verse comes to say that this leader did not merit greatness — to offer first — because of who he was. All of the leaders were equivalent [in their personal qualities]. Rather it was because of his tribe, the tribe of Yehudah, who were fitting be first. Thus the Torah writes “of the tribe of Yehudah” meaning that he was secondary and his significance came to him by virtue of his tribe, the tribe of Yehudah who were the primary factor.
  
  Verse 13
  
  As a voluntary meal-offering. This is the first meal-offering mentioned in Vayikra, not the meal-offering of the libations. This is learned from the context. Just as “filled with incense” (v. 14) refers to a voluntary offering, so too “the fine flour” is also a voluntary offering.
  
  Verse 14
  
  The weight of ten. Rashi is answering the question: “Ten gold [shekolim]” implies that there were ten gold coins, and how could this be, because if it was a spoon it could not have been a gold coin.
  We do not find. Meaning that we do not find any individual who brought incense upon either of the two altars. Furthermore incense is only burned upon the inner altar. Thus here there were two changes from the norm.
  
  Verse 15
  
  The best. Here the Torah does not mention any number that is greater than one such that it had to explicitly write the word “one” to distinguish this from the other number. Rather this came in order to expound. Another answer is that because the Torah deviated, writing “one bull, young” and did not write “a young bull, one” (as with the other animals in this verse) this certainly came in order to expound.
  
  Verse 16
  
  To atone for the grave of the abyss. Meaning of “the grave of the abyss” is when one did not realize about at all, as if it had been buried in the abyss where a person does not think that there may be a grave. It was still necessary for them to purify themselves from this “impurity” and from contact with a doubtful impurity. If they did not then they would not be permitted to come to the sanctuary or to the courtyard because their doubtful impurity that can be atoned for by way of the he-goat sin-offering must be atoned for. However a definite impurity would be overridden by a communal offering such as the Pesach-offering, this overrides impurity if most of the community are impure, as the Torah writes “in its time” — even in impurity. <i>Re’em</i> expands upon this, but I have been brief.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  930 corresponding to the years. Rashi brings these allusions in order to relate to the simple understanding of the verses. For if this were not so, what is the relevance detailing these utensils by their number and weight, and similarly in detailing the animals teaching that all the leaders agreed to them, neither subtracting or adding? This is even though it is not the manner of Rashi to bring interpretations such as this (<i>Re’m</i>). (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Rashi brought these numerical values here upon the offerings of Nesanel the son of Tzu’ar because he gave this advice and if there had not been an important symbolism with wisdom and appropriate reasoning they would not have listened to him, also they would not have needed this advice. You might ask: How are the ages of Adam and Noach relevant here? The answer is that the Mishkon was representative of the creation of the world, as is brought in Shemos Rabbah, Parshas Pekudei. Therefore their offerings were related to all of the foundations of the world — Adam, Noach and the seventy nations, the Torah, the Ten Commandments and the fathers of the world upon whom the world stands.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  On the third day, the leader was. Rashi is answering the question: “On the third day the leader was…” implies that on the third day he was the leader, but afterwards he was not the leader.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  
  
  Verse 67
  
  
  
  Verse 68
  
  
  
  Verse 69
  
  
  
  Verse 70
  
  
  
  Verse 71
  
  
  
  Verse 72
  
  
  
  Verse 73
  
  
  
  Verse 74
  
  
  
  Verse 75
  
  
  
  Verse 76
  
  
  
  Verse 77
  
  
  
  Verse 78
  
  
  
  Verse 79
  
  
  
  Verse 80
  
  
  
  Verse 81
  
  
  
  Verse 82
  
  
  
  Verse 83
  
  
  
  Verse 84
  
  On the day [they were] anointed. (Kitzur Mizrochi) It appears to me that this is a copyist’s error and it should read “on the day אותו (<i>it</i>) was anointed,” this refers that which was written above “It came to pass on the day Moshe finished…” (v. 1). For we do not find a verse anywhere referring to the day that he anointed <i>them</i>, however we do find written “on the day <i>they</i> were anointed” (Vayikra 7:36) regarding the sons of Aharon. This is quoted here in Bamidbar Rabbah in relation to another matter and consequently the copyists erred and also wrote אותם (them) here.
  These are the very ones. Rashi is answering the question: Why do I need it to count one spoon for each day since I know that the will total twelve?
  
  Verse 85
  
  By which shekel standard. Meaning that if not for this verse one would have said that the “holy shekel” written regarding the bowl referred to it alone. Therefore it wrote “one hundred thirty [<i>shekolim</i> was the weight of] each tray…”
  Precision. Meaning that each one was precisely the weight of the other, even though the scales of an individual do not normally weigh exactly, however the Sanctuary vessels were exactly the same. It appears to me that the reason was to show that even though the thoughts of each leader were directed towards his tribe, as Rabbeinu Bachaye writes in this Parshah, the volumes and the weights were equal to show that they all intended them for the same God.
  
  Verse 86
  
  It was golden and it weighed. Meaning that I would not know whether the word “gold” written regarding the spoon refers to the spoon — which was golden, or whether it was actually silver and its weight was “of gold”, given that the shekolim of gold and those of silver were not equal. Therefore the Torah said “golden spoons”, juxtaposing the words “gold” and “spoon” to teach that the spoon was golden and that [the words] “ten gold” refers to the spoon. <i>Re’m</i>. You might ask: Why didn’t Rashi answer as he did previously, that the number was written because they were the exact same ones that were donated. For even without his answer one would have to say so, given that the Torah writes “bowls of silver, twelve” where this raises the difficulty: Why do I need the number? One must answer that they are the exact ones etc. Thus, we see that it is normal of the Torah to teach the same novelty for each and every utensil. It appears to me that Rashi was answering the question: Why did it write “golden” when it should have just written “twelve spoons”? <i>Re’m</i> answers that the number was written in order to tell one that they were the exact same ones that were donated, however since the word “gold” and “spoons” were juxtaposed we also learn like I explained above.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Because the flame rises. Rashi is answering the question: How is the term “When you cause to rise” appropriate for lamps such that Scripture writes בהעלותך (when you cause to rise) instead of בהדלקתך (when you light)? He answers that it is because the flame rises, meaning that this was why the terminology of ‘rising’ is appropriate. Rashi also answers another question: Nonetheless the Torah should have written “when you light,” so why does it write “when you cause to rise”? It is certain that the term “when you cause to rise” may also be appropriate regarding lamps, as Rashi explains “because the flame rises,” however the term “when you light” is more correct. He answers that it is written “when you cause to rise” in order to teach that “he is required to ignite…” However [one may ask another question:] in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 27:20) regarding the lighting of the continual flame, Rashi only answers why it is written “to cause to rise” rather than “light.” He says that he is required to ignite [the lamp] until the flame rises by itself. The answer is that there it is written להעלות “to cause to rise” in the command form, therefore Rashi explains why the command was given with the term “to cause to rise” rather than the term “to light” which is a clearer command. He answers that because “he is required to ignite…” which is a component of the command, therefore it is written “to cause to rise.” See <i>Re’m</i>. Parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:2) is the real source of this command, as Rashi explains there. The question is why did Rashi did explain anything there? The answer is that he relies upon his explanation in Parshas Tetzaveh about the term “to cause to rise” which was in the command form, as explained. <i>Re’m</i> explains similarly that a commentator will sometimes explain all matters that relate to a term, sometimes he will explain some of them and sometimes he will rely upon what he explained elsewhere. Therefore Rashi gave no explanation in Parshas Emor, even though the term “to cause the continual flame to rise” is written there.
  That there was a platform. Even though we [already] learned from here that he had to ignite until the flame rises by itself, one may explain that the main source for expounding this is from the verse in Parshas Tetzaveh concerning the lighting of the continual flame, and here Rashi mentions it in passing. Another answer is that if it only came to teach that the flame should rise by itself, Scripture should have written “to cause to rise” and not “when you cause to rise.” And if it came only to teach about the platform then it should have written “when you rise up.” Rather the Torah writes “when you cause to rise” to expound both points. <i>Re’m</i> explains that the implicit meaning of this teaching (about the platform) and the one that the flame should rise by itself are evenly balanced; therefore [since neither is more implicit than the other] we are able to learn both.
  Upon which the <i>kohein</i> stood. You might ask: Surely a man is four <i>amos</i> high, corresponding to twenty-four tefachim, while the height of the menorah was only eighteen tefachim, as Rashi explains in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:35). If so, why does he need a platform? The answer is that the tefachim of the Temple were ‘extended,’ such that the eighteen tefachim of the menorah were equal to twenty-four regular tefachim, i.e. equal to the height of a man. If one comes to clean the lamps he needs to see inside the lamps in order to clean them, therefore he needed a platform. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) Were all the kohanim of equal height? Surely it is possible that a kohein has a slightly shorter stature. Thus there needs to be a platform there so that every kohein can comfortably perform the service of the menorah.
  Their wicks. Meaning that since it is written “shall the seven lamps cast light,” one is forced to say that it refers to the wicks, since they cast light. For if it refers to the lamps, the cups (containing the oil), it should have said “toward the face of the menorah shall the seven lamps <i>tilt</i>.” You might ask: The verse writes “toward the face of the menorah” meaning that all seven lamps should cast light towards the lamp of the middle branch, but Rashi explains that only six cast light towards the middle lamp. The answer is that Rashi is answering a different question: “Shall the seven lights cast light” implies that all of them cast light before the middle branch, i.e. above it, which is termed the ‘face of the menorah.’ However this is not possible. Granted that the lamp on the middle branch casts light above it, however the six other lamps only illuminate the area above their own branches. Such is the manner of all lamps, which cast light upon themselves. He answers that the six other lamps that were on the six branches also cast light towards the middle branch. Because of the six lamps that were on the six branches, the three eastern ones turned towards the middle … meaning that the ends of the wicks were bent towards the middle branch, and the same with the western ones. Thus “the seven lamps cast light” means that in this fashion the seven lamps cast light towards the middle branch. <i>Re’m</i> expands upon this. (See <i>Responsa of Rivash</i> siman 400). (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) raises a difficulty: If this is so, the Torah should have said “the <i>six</i> lamps cast light” because only six cast light toward the menorah. Some explain that the verse is to be understood as follows: “When you light the lamps, towards the face of the menorah” meaning that when you light them the lamps should be towards the menorah — six should face toward the middle. But “the seven lamps shall cast light” is a separate phrase meaning that in this fashion the seven lamps should cast light.
  
  Verse 3
  
  To indicate his virtue. For if not so, why is it necessary to write “Aharon did so”? Would one think that he did not do what Hashem commanded him through Moshe? Even though we would know on our own that he fulfilled Hashem’s command, nonetheless, it is great matter and therefore the Torah attests to his righteousness, as it does in similar cases. One may inquire: why does it repeat “towards the face of the menorah he lit”? It appears that Rashi explains (v. 2) [that the lamps were directed] “towards the middle” so that one not say that He requires the light. Rather it is in order to elevate you above the nations, as the Midrash says “all the time that the lamps are lit, you will rule over the nations.” Even though the Rabbis say that Yisroel only received the Torah in order that no nation would rule over them, as it is stated “חרות (engraved) on the Tablets” (Shemos 32:16) do not read חרות (engraved) rather חירות (free). If so, why was the menorah needed? The answer is: Due to the severity of the sin of the golden calf which Aharon made, the nations would rule, as the Torah states “I had said, ‘You are godlike beings…’” (Tehillim 82:6). This was Aharon’s virtue, that he did not deviate from lighting opposite [the face of the menorah], even though doing so recalled his sin, which made the menorah necessary. <i>R</i>. <i>Yaakov Triosh</i>.
  
  Verse 4
  
  Since he had difficulty with it. Meaning that the word “this” refers to the instruction, but the actual [making the menorah] was only at the time when Betzalel made it. Initially Moshe had difficulty with it until Hashem showed him by pointing with the finger. He again had difficulty until Hashem said to Moshe “take a kikar…” see above in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:31).
  Lump. Lump is a term meaning “piece.”
  Shears. [Like] scissors.
  The menorah proper. Rashi is resolving the apparent contradiction: Here it implies that it was only beaten from its base until its flowers, while in Parshas Terumah (ibid.) it is written that it was entirely beaten out.
  Delicate work. Meaning that from its largest point until the thinnest it was all one piece. Thus the word עד (lit. until) is used in the sense of “between.” Rashi makes a similar explanation in Parshas Bo (Shemos 11:5) referring to the verse “from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on the throne…”
  According to the form. Rashi is answering the question: “According to the vision” implies the sense of an appearance which denotes color, but it is not correct to say that Hashem showed him the color of the menorah. Alternatively “according to the vision” refers to a vision of prophesy, meaning that just as he saw in the prophetic vision of fire, they too should make a menorah of fire. However, this cannot be so because he did not make it of fire. Therefore Rashi explains “according to the form” meaning that “according to the vision” is understood as “according to the form,” as we see written elsewhere, “Observe and make them according to the form” (Shemos 25:40). The “form” was described in terms of a “vision” because by seeing [the vision] he learned its form.
  The one who made it. Meaning the one who made all of the utensils; this was Betzalel.
  It was made spontaneously. This is explained in Parshas Terumah. This Midrash disagrees with the first explanation.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Take them with words of persuasion. [The Torah] does not mean to physically “take” them, in the sense of an acquisition and the bringing of something into one's domain. The Levites were not acquired and they were not brought into his domain. See Parshas Lech Lecha (16:3) Bereishis on the verse “Sorai, wife of Avrom, took.”
  
  Verse 7
  
  For some of them were defiled by contact with the dead. Not by other forms of impurity, because other forms of impurity do not require sprinkling.
  Who practiced idolatry. (<i>Minchah Blulah</i>) Even though others who practice idolatry are not required to shave, these were different because they served the golden calf and were afflicted with leprosy. As the Rabbis expounded the verse “for it is פרוע (revealed), for Aharon has פרעה (revealed) it” (Shemos 32:25) where they learn a gezeirah shavah to the leper — where the Torah writes “his head shall be פרוע (unshorn)” (Vayikra 13:45).
  
  Verse 8
  
  What does the Torah teach [by specifying] ‘a second’? Though it is written “and the second sheep…” (Bamidbar 28:4) regarding the Tamid offering, this was because it is [also] written “the first sheep.” However here it is not written “the first,” therefore the terminology of “a second” is not appropriate.
  
  That it was a temporary ruling. Meaning that when Rashi explains “so the sin-offering was not eaten” even though other sin-offerings are eaten, this was a temporary ruling. And you should know that it was a temporary ruling, because they should have brought a goat as a sin-offering for idolatry along with the bullock burnt-offering, as is normal when the congregation performs idolatry. Why then did they bring a bullock for the sin-offering — it must have been a temporary ruling, therefore regarding this matter (eating the offering) it was also a temporary ruling. However even without this, we could still say that it was a temporary ruling. For external sin-offerings (those offered outside the Sanctuary) are eaten, but this one for the inauguration of the Levites, who were installed through it, was burned. One should not say that this sin-offering was offered inside the Sanctuary, given that it was burned and then say that “just as a burnt-offering is burned so too the sin-offering was burned,” that it is offered inside. <i>R’em</i>.
  
  Verse 9
  
  And stand near. Even though the Levites were only an atonement-offering for the firstborn, as explained above, nonetheless, since the firstborn were part of the congregation of Yisroel, they were termed the entire congregation of Yisroel as if they were all of Yisroel.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Requires waving. A leper is termed “dead” as it says at the end of the Parshah “please, let her not be like the dead” (12:12) and the Levites were as an atonement for the firstborn who worshiped idols, which is termed “sacrifices of the dead.” Therefore, the Levites required “live waving” like the guilt-offering of a leper. Furthermore, the waving of the Levites would only be possible while they were alive.
  Three wavings. Rashi does not ask why the verse states three wavings, because one may answer that it is a decree of the Torah that he had to wave them three times. However, now that Rashi explained “just as the leper’s guilt-offering requires waving…” and the guilt-offering of a leper only requires one waving, he asks why are three wavings required here?
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Since I protected them. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Hashem say “for every firstborn [of Bnei Yisroel] is Mine” which implies that they are still His, when it is written (v. 18) “I have taken the Levites” which implies that He had already taken them. In response [to this question] Rashi explains that “they were Mine by the rules of justice” [meaning according to the strict interpretation of the law]. <i>Re’m</i> writes that with this he answers that “for every first born is Mine” does not refer to the present, because they were disqualified when they erred with the golden calf. It merely means that they were His initially. Rashi also informs one of the reasons why they were His by the rules of justice — “because I protected them…” Rashi states “I took them for Myself” instead of “I have sanctified them [to be mine]” in order to correspond with “I have taken the Levites instead of all firstborn” (v. 18) which means I have now taken them for Myself in the place of those whom I had taken before. He adds a <i>vav</i> on the word ולקחתי (<i>and</i> I have taken) which is in the place of הקדשתי (I have sanctified) in order to indicate that they are two different ideas — “for every firstborn is mine … on the day in which I slew…” <i>and also</i> “I have sanctified them” at that time for my service. However, once they sinned they were disqualified and I took the Levites instead of them. Rashi concluded “now I have taken” so that you should not say “I took them” (v. 18) refers to the time that I sanctified the firstborn for Myself. For it is written, “instead of all firstborn” which implies that they had left the service and the others entered in their place.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Bnei Yisroel are mentioned five times. Rashi brought this here because he was answering the question: He had explained that the words “I took them for Myself,” in the past tense, refer to the firstborn — meaning that “I took them for Myself and at that time I sanctified them for Myself.” Why then does the Torah need to say that Hashem had chosen them previously, did it not merely come to explain that he rejected them because they erred with the golden calf? Rashi answers that because of their preciousness and despite their rejection, He did not wish to mention their sin. Rather He mentions their praises and merits when Hashem brought them in to his service. You should know this by the fact that they were mentioned five times in one verse, due to their preciousness. In some editions of Rashi I have found the text “and I have given the Levites … [Bnei Yisroel are mentioned] five times…” and this more correct. (This appears to be our text).
  [If] they approach. Meaning that this is an abbreviated phrase. For it should have said “I have given the Levites … to atone for the Bnei Yisroel so that the Bnei Yisroel will not need to approach the Holy and so that there will not be [a plague…].” The reason that the Levites were given to the Kohanim was so that they could serve, and the Israelites would not need to approach — so that there would not be a plague among Yisroel for if they were to approach, there would be a plague. The verse means to say the positive (if they approach there will be a plague), and not the negative “there will not be a plague among Yisroel” (if they do not approach). It is as if the Torah had said “Why were the Levites given to Aharon and his sons — in order that the Bnei Yisroel would not need to enter for this service and approach the Holy. And why should they not approach the Holy — in order that there will not be a plague among them.” <i>Re’m</i>. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Is it because He now took the Levites that there would not be a plague with their approach to the Holy? Surely, it is written “the foreigner who approaches shall die” (Bamidbar 1:51). Therefore he explains that “so there will not be a plague among them” means “so for they will not need to approach the Holy.” For otherwise there would be a concern over a plague among them when they were to approach the Holy.
  
  Verse 20
  
  The Israelites rested their hands. So that you not say that all of them stood the Levites up, or that all of them waved them or all of them rested their hands. Rather the word “did” refers to the specific action of each one — Moshe placed them…
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  No one objected. For if this were not so, why would this [phrase “so they did unto them”] be necessary, surely the Torah already stated that “Moshe did … [just as Hashem commanded]” (v. 20). <i>Re’m</i> writes that there is still a difficulty: This implies that because the Torah above wrote “Moshe did…” we infer both the praiseworthiness of those who did and those with whom it was done. If so, regarding the verse “Aharon did so” (v.3) where it does not previously write that he did so, one could say that this comes to teach about the matter itself — that he fulfilled the commandment that he was instructed, and that it does not to relate his praiseworthiness. One could ask a similar question in Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 14:4) where the Torah does not initially write that he did so, and in many other places – where they expounded in the same manner. It seems to me that certainly in any place where the Torah writes “he did so” or “they did so” it would not have been necessary to do so, because ordinarily the Jews fulfilled and accepted all mitzvos that Moshe commanded, and “he did so” is written only in order to recount their praiseworthiness. However here, if it were not for the phrase “as [Hashem] commanded” we would not have inferred their praiseworthiness from the phrase “Moshe did [all that Hashem commanded].” One would have said that it was necessary, to teach that they fulfilled the mitzvah, because one could not say that this was obvious. Hashem Himself had to make “effort” in this regard, instructing Moshe “take the Levites” (v.6) which Rashi explains as meaning “take them with words — fortunate are you…” Many prohibitions and death penalties were dependant upon this mitzvah and the firstborn Israelites had been disqualified from the service of Hashem. Therefore it was necessary, to teach that they fulfilled what He commanded. However, one cannot learn their praiseworthiness from here; therefore the verse writes “as [Hashem] commanded” to relate their praiseworthiness.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Favorable indications in his studies for five years. The expectation is that the Torah only gave him these five years in order to study [the laws of the service] because this is the maximum time that one needs to engage in his studies. If so, one who does not see a favorable sign in all of these years will never see them.
  
  Verse 25
  
  On the shoulder. Rashi is answering the question: [Isn’t this phrase redundant, since] it is written afterwards “but he shall serve his brethren” (v. 26)? Therefore one is forced to say that “and he shall no longer work” refers to the [work of] carrying on the shoulder. The subsequent statement “but he shall serve his brethren” means “with his brothers.” However, one should not think that this is like the service of a slave to his master. Rather he shall serve with his brothers, the sons of Merori and Gershon, locking the gates, loading of the wagons and singing.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Was not said until Iyar. As it is stated (Bamidbar 1:1) “in the second month.”
  That throughout the forty years. Since it is written (v. 5) “on the fourteenth day…” why was it necessary to say “in the desert of Sinai”? — At the beginning of the Parshah it writes “in the desert of Sinai”! Rather, it is to teach you that “throughout the forty years…” You might ask: Why did Moshe not compel them to offer the Pesach-offering? The answer is that in the desert there were many Jews who were not circumcised, and who did not circumcise their sons. In which case you might ask: If so, what was the discredit in this — surely they were unable to offer it? The answer is that they brought this about through their sin, because if it has not been for their sin, they would have entered the Land of Israel in another three days, as Rashi explains [below] on the verse “we are traveling…” (10:29) (Tosafos Kiddushin 38).
  
  Verse 2
  
  Even during ritual uncleanliness. Meaning that we learn this from the second “in its proper time” written in the [next] verse. For we have already learned from the first “in its time” that Pesach-offering overrides Shabbos. We learn the meaning of “in its proper time” from the Tamid-offering where it is written “in its proper time” and the Tamid-offering overrides Shabbos. Thus the second “in its proper time” is “extra” for us to learn that it overrides ritual uncleanliness (Sifri). Alternatively, one may say that that we learn both [laws] from one verse, because either law can be learned. When the Torah writes (vs. 10-11) “any man who becomes unclean … shall make a Pesach-offering to Hashem in the second month” which implies that unclean people are pushed off to the second Pesach-offering, that applies specifically for a “man” — if an [individual] man is pushed off. But the [entire] community is not pushed off [to offer the second Pesach-offering]. Here the Torah is referring to the community or to the majority of the community who are ritually impure. In such a case the pure eat it in a state of purity, while the impure offer the Pesach-offering for themselves in a state of impurity (Pesachim 77). It is specifically [only] impurity caused by a corpse that is pushed aside, but not other impurities (Pesachim 79a).
  
  Verse 3
  
  These are the commandments pertaining to its body. The text should read “According to all its statutes,” these are the commandments pertaining to its body — a lamb; unblemished; male; a yearling. “And according to all its laws,” these are the commandments that have a bearing on the body of the animal — roasted over fire; its head with its knees and its inner organs. Those laws that pertain to outside its body, meaning originating from elsewhere — for example “seven days…” This is also the version of the <i>Ramban</i> and <i>Re’m</i>. However, those texts that write “according to all its laws…” the seven days of eating matzoh and of eliminating chometz” are a copyist’s error. For if this were not an error, regarding the Pesach Sheni, the Torah also writes “according to its laws,” but nonetheless regarding the Pesach Sheni one <i>may have matzoh and chometz</i> together with him in his house, as Rashi explains later. See <i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i> and <i>Nachalas</i> <i>Yaakov</i> who resolve the text of Rashi that we have.
  
  Verse 4
  
  Of God’s holidays. However, our Rabbis do not ask why Hashem repeated the command of the Pesach-offering here, although He had already commanded it in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 23). In order that one should not say that they were exempt while in the desert, since the Torah linked it with entering the Land, therefore the Torah repeats itself and teaches it here. However, the statement of Moshe to Yisroel does not say to offer the Pesach-offering <i>in this month</i>, only to offer the Pesach-offering. This implies that he only commanded them the law of the Pesach-offering and thus the Rabbis ask “What does the Torah teach?” (<i>Re’m</i>) It appears to me that the Rabbis were answering the following question: Why did the Torah have to write “Moshe spoke…” at all, it should have merely said “the Bnei Yisroel offered the Pesach-offering…”? Logically, since Hashem commanded him to speak to them, Moshe certainly told them Hashem’s command. For in the beginning of the passage the Torah writes (8:2) “Speak to Aharon and say to him…,” and afterwards it is written “Aharon did so…” But we do not see in the Torah that Moshe told Aharon Hashem’s command. Rather it is logical that he told him the command, given that afterwards it writes “Aharon did so…” Similarly the Torah writes “Hashem spoke to Moshe, take the Levites…” (8:5) but we do not find that Moshe told Yisroel Hashem’s command. Rather the Torah relies upon what is written afterwards “Moshe and Aharon and all the congregation of Yisroel did…” (8:20). Similarly, from the passage “There were men who were impure, having had [contact with] a corpse…” (9:6), we infer that Hashem told him [Moshe] the laws of the Pesach Sheni, but we do not find that Moshe told the laws to them [the people]. Rather it is logical that he related the laws to them. If so, why does the Torah state “Moshe spoke…” when it should have relied on the verse [written afterwards] “they offered the Pesach-offering”? One cannot answer that he had not yet told them the laws of the Pesach-offering, and only he was relating the laws to them, and this is why it is written “Moshe said…,” for it is already written “Moshe spoke of God’s holidays…” (Vayikra 23:44). Therefore, the Rabbis teach as they do, “Evidently when he heard…” This is what seems to me.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  He said to them: The sacred offerings cannot. Rashi is answering the question: Why did they say “Why should we be excluded” — surely they were impure, and those who are impure are forbidden to offer an offering during the period of their impurity. If so, why was Moshe in doubt, telling them “Wait while I listen…”? Furthermore, how did Moshe forget the passage of the sending out of the impure (5:2), which was said to him on Rosh Chodesh Nissan? He answers that “[The sacred offerings] cannot…” and that his main question was only regarding the sprinkling of the blood for them in a state of impurity. This would be similar to the blood of a sin-offering which has the status of <i>kodshei kodshim</i> (most sanctified) but whose meat is eaten by those who are pure. Certainly this can be applied to the Pesach-offering which is of lesser [sanctity].
  This chapter should have appropriately. A question is widely asked: Why did Rashi link this to his previous comment? The answer is that if he had not explained “Fortunate is the mortal…” I would have said that this chapter was not said in Moshe’s name as punishment for him having said “every difficult matter…” (Shemos 18:26). However now that he explained “Fortunate is the mortal…” and the verse speaks in a manner that praises Moshe, why then is this passage not said in his name? Thus he explains “[This chapter should have] appropriately…”
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  But that he was outside. You might ask: Then why did the Torah say “distant…”? The answer is that if it had said “on the road” but not said “distant” I would have said that only someone who is distant offers the Pesach Sheni. However if he is outside the threshold of the courtyard, then he would not. Therefore the Torah wrote “distant” and placed a dot over [the word] to expound that it does not mean literally “distant,” as I explained previously regarding “to pasture the flock” (Bereishis 37:12).
  Matzoh and chometz may be with him. You might ask: Why did Rashi append this to the earlier comment? The answer is that he is answering the question: Why is the dot necessary to teach that even if he was only outside the threshold of the courtyard, this is termed “distant” and he offers the Pesach Sheni? Without the dot one could have also learned this, given that the law of being distant was juxtaposed to the law of the one who was impure. One could learn from the following juxtaposition: just as someone who is impure [cannot bring the offering] even if he was in the city because he is outside the Temple courtyard, and thus must offer the Pesach Sheni; Similarly, when it is written “or on a distant road,” even if the person was [only] outside the courtyard he offers the Pesach Sheni. If so this raises a difficulty: Why is the dot needed, for even the word “distant” is not needed, according to this explanation? Rashi answers that the dot comes to teach us that even regarding the Pesach Sheni — if he was outside the threshold of the courtyard for the entire period of the slaughter of the Pesach [Sheni]-offering he may not offer the Pesach Sheni. We need not ask that this is obvious, and why would one differentiate [between the first Pesach and Pesach Sheni], because we could answer that we find other differences in the offerings aside from this — since concerning the Pesach Sheni matzoh and chometz are with him in the house … Thus, one might have said that the laws are also different in this matter. Consequently the dot is necessary [to teach that this law is the same].
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  For the tablets of the testimony. Rashi is answering the question: “Mishkon” refers to the lower curtains, as he explains in Parshas Bamidbar (3:25), while the term “אהל” (tent) refers to the goats hair curtains that were above it. If so, how does the Torah say המשכן לאהל (lit. the Mishkon <i>for</i> the tent) which implies that the Mishkon was needed for the tent? Consequently, Rashi explains that it was “made to be a tent…” <i>Re’m</i> explains Rashi’s addition of the word “made” before the word לאהל (<i>for</i> a tent). Since the <i>lamed</i> of לאהל implies its purpose, as if it had said “to be a tent,” without its addition one would imply that the purpose [of the Mishkon] was related to the word “covered” — i.e. that the cloud covered the Mishkon to form a tent. However with the word “made” it is understood as being related to the Mishkon — meaning that the Mishkon was made as a tent. Rashi’s addition of the word “to be” would thus be in place of the <i>lamed</i> of לאהל. Furthermore, when Rashi adds the words “for the tablets of the testimony” this teaches that the Tablets were a testimony to Yisroel, not the tent. This is to be contrasted with the phrase “Mishkon of Testimony” (Shemos 38:21), which Rashi explains that it is “testimony to Yisroel…” For the word Mishkon (משכן) is related to the word Shechinah (שכינה — Divine Presence) which rests (שוכן) among us, a concept not appropriate for the word אהל. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). I have already fully explained in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:16) that sometimes the Tablets are referred to as “testimony,” sometimes the Torah is referred to as “testimony” and sometimes the Mishkon is referred to as “testimony.” See also the beginning of Parshas Pekudei (Shemos 38:21) etc. and elsewhere.
  Similarly, all the usages in the <i>parshah.</i> (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) For the whole passage refers to what would take place continuously every day, as the Torah writes “so it always was” (v. 16). It would be incorrect to say “The cloud covered the Mishkon” in the past tense and later to say “in the evening it shall be over the Mishkon” in the future, because one does not follow from the other. Concerning the use of the word יהיה (lit. will be) in the future tense, see above in Parshas Beshalach on the verse “Thus sang…” (Shemos 15:1).
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Was lifted. But not in the sense of rising. For if this were so it should have said “whenever the cloud rose” in the active קל construct, rather than “was lifted” in the passive נפעל construct.
  
  Verse 18
  
  This is in Sifri. When Rashi said that we learned in [the Beraysa describing] the work of the Mishkon, all this is there until “tekiah, teruah and tekiah.” However when he says “they did not proceed until Moshe intoned: Arise Hashem” this is not in the Beraysa, thus regarding this comment Rashi says “this is in Sifri.” When he writes subsequently “then the banner of the camp of Yehudah departed” and also when he explains that “On the order of Hashem did they camp. When [the Israelites] were…” all this is written in the Beraysa.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  As in “a year…” Because the verse is going in ascending order (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). See the comment above in Parshas Chayei Soroh on the verse “the girl shall stay with us for a year (lit. days)” (Bereishis 24:55).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  At the time of departure of המחנות (the camps). Most texts read “departure of המסעות (the formations)” meaning at the time of the departure of the formations, each comprising three camps, each under its banner. Either way, with this Rashi ensures that one not say that when they wanted to travel they would sound the trumpets. For this is not the case; rather the cloud folded first, and afterwards Moshe would say “Arise Hashem.” Only afterwards would they sound the blasts. Therefore, Rashi explains that that at the time of the departure of the camps when they prepared themselves to travel, they would not depart until the trumpets were sounded.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  They too, meet. Because if this were not so, the congregation and the leaders would differ in two matters. Rashi had to explain this in order to answer the question: In the verse it is written “they shall present themselves to you…” but it does not write where they were to do so. Thus he explains “[they] too…” since it is obvious that the words “they shall present themselves” are used to make a scriptural comparison.
  This is derived from a scriptural comparison. Here it is written ונועדו (they shall present themselves) and referring to the congregation it is written ונועדו. Just as there it refers to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, so too here it refers to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
  
  Verse 5
  
  <i>Tekiah, teruah, tekiah</i> — this is how it is extrapolated by Sifri. For it is written “if you blow (תקעתם — from the same derivation as the word “tekiah”) a teruah” (v. 6) implying a tekiah followed by a teruah. It then written “a teruah they shall blow (יתקעו)” implying a teruah followed by a tekiah. How is this understood — as a tekiah, teruah, tekiah. We need not ask: Why then do we not have two teruos in the middle? Because we never find two teruahs one after the other. The reason for having written “teruah” twice is that one is needed for a <i>gezeirah shavah </i>(Scriptural comparison) to Yom Kippur, and any <i>gezeirah shavah</i> is based upon superfluous wording.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Since it says. Rashi is answering the question: Firstly the Torah already writes above “you shall blow and you shall present yourselves…” Furthermore from where would one learn a requirement for a tekiah, teruah, tekiah such that it had to write “you shall blow [a tekiah] but not a teruah.” He answers “since it says, ‘They shall be used by you…’”
  Perhaps, just as, when initiating the camps’ departure. Since the two are compared together, one might have said that ‘just as when initiating the camps’ departure…” therefore it was necessary to exclude this.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Of the communal offerings. Because the Torah writes “for your burnt-offerings and for your peace-offerings” juxtaposing peace- offerings with burnt-offerings. All burnt-offerings are of the highest sanctity while some peace-offerings are of the highest sanctity and some are of lower sanctity — for example, the peace-offerings of the congregation are of the highest sanctity and those of the individual are of lower sanctity. Therefore, the peace-offerings were juxtaposed with the burnt-offerings to teach that just as the burnt-offerings are only of highest sanctity, so too these peace-offerings are only of the highest sanctity, referring to the peace-offerings of the congregation. We then return and learn the case of the burnt-offering from the peace-offering. Just as the peace- offering which is of the highest sanctity is an offering of the congregation, since one never finds a peace-offering of the highest sanctity that is not an offering of the congregation, so too the case of the burnt-offering refers to an offering of the congregation.
  As a remembrance. This is the shofar and the remembrance.
  
  Verse 11
  
  Twelve months minus ten days. As is written in Parshas Yisro (Shemos 19:1). (<i>Divrei</i> <i>Dovid</i>) asks: I do not know what Rashi is teaching us with this! It is apparently to resolve the difficulty with what is written above “or a year (lit. days) that the cloud prolonged its stay…” (9:22) which refers to a year. But where do we find that they camped for twelve months, given that the longest encampment was here at Chorev until [the journey to] the desert of Paran? This was not a complete year because Rosh Chodesh Sivan of the first year was the beginning of the encampment and on the twentieth of Iyar of the second year they traveled from there. He answers that only ten days were missing and since they were camped for most of Iyar it was as if they were there for the whole month, meaning that it was considered a complete year.
  
  Verse 12
  
  Kivros Hata’avoh. We see that from the desert of Paran, which was termed Kivros Hata’avoh, they traveled to Chatzeros, and afterwards it is written that the people traveled from Chatzeros and camped in the desert of Paran. But surely they had already been in the desert of Paran, which was Kivros Hata’avoh, as it is written here. Therefore Rashi explains that Kivros Hata’avoh was <i>in</i> the desert of Paran, meaning that the desert of Paran covered a large area and contained the places called Kivros Hata’avoh and Chatzeros, which were all in the desert of Paran. In the end they arrived at the border of the desert of Paran, which is what was meant when the Torah says that they camped in the desert of Paran at the end of the Parshah (12:16).
  After this journey. So that one would not err and say that they camped there after the second journey, after leaving Kivros Hata’avoh, since that place was called Taveirah. For this reason Rashi explained that it was “after this journey.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Who were preceded. Meaning that Scripture uses abbreviated language. והקימו (they erected) either refers to those who erected, or it refers to the sons of Gershon and Merori who were mentioned previously. It is not possible to say that the Kehosites erected it before the arrival of the sons of Gershon and Merori. He adds that this was “when the cloud rested” and “the signal for making camp…” because without this it would have appeared that the sons of Gershon and Merori who traveled before the camp would encamp in any place that saw fit. But this is impossible because it is written “they camped by the word of Hashem” (9:18). The meaning of “by the time of their arrival” is “before they arrived,” because the intent of this statement is that at the time when they arrived the Mishkon was set up and they would immediately place the Ark and the Holy vessels inside.
  The departure of the two banners. Meaning that the sons of Gershon and Merori would travel before the camps. When the Torah writes “the banner of the camp of Yehudah traveled” (v.13) and afterwards it is written “and dismantled the Mishkon” (v. 17), <i>Re’m</i> explains that “the banner of the camp of Yehudah traveled” means that they <i>prepared</i> to travel but not that they actually traveled, as it is explained there in depth. If so, the sons of Merori and the sons of Gershon preceded the sons of Kehos by two banners. Before the banner of the camp of Yehudah traveled, and immediately after they saw the cloud depart, Aharon and his sons came in and dismantled the Paroches and covered the Ark with it. The sons of Gershon and the sons of Merori then dismantled the Mishkon and loaded it onto the wagons and traveled. However, the Ark and the Holy vessels in the load of the sons of Kehos would remain covered and placed upon poles until the banner of the camp of Reuven traveled.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  They traveled in the shape of a box. Like Rashi explains in Parshas Bamidbar (2:9) — the banner of Yehudah was on the east, Reuven’s on the south, Ephraim’s on the west and Don’s on the north. Therefore they had to spread out to a width of two banners and consequently [Don] had to be heavily populated. However, according to the opinion that they traveled one after the other in the shape of a beam, and deriving this from “gatherer for all the camps” — even if Don was not heavily populated, they could gather whatever was lost. You might ask: The tribes [traveling under the banner] of Yehudah were more populous than the tribes [traveling under the banner] of Don, because the tribes [traveling under the banner] of Yehudah comprised 186,400 while the tribes [traveling under the banner] of Don totaled only 157,600, as the Torah writes in Parshas Bamidbar (2:9, 31). (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) answers: Yehudah traveled first, given that he was the king, and therefore the last to travel was Don who had the largest population after Yehudah.
  Another opinion is that they traveled in the shape of a beam. When they camped, it was in the shape of a box, as is written in Parshas Bamidbar. You might ask: According to the opinion that they traveled like a beam, how do we understand the words “as they camp, so shall they travel” (2:17). The answer is that as they camped — each man with his banner and his camp — so too they traveled; as it is written “Bnei Yisroel shall camp, each man at his own banner, and each man at his own camp” (1:52).
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  This is the order of their journeys. Rashi is answering the question: “These are the journeys” implies that it refers to the places where they camped and traveled from. However, here the Torah does not expand on the details; instead it describes them later in Parshas Masei. Thus Rashi explains that this is the order of their journeys, meaning that “these are the journeys” refers to the <i>order</i> of their journeys — how they would journey, who was first and who was last.
  On that day they journeyed. Meaning on the day when the cloud was removed. One should not say that since the cloud preceded them by three days in order to prepare the way, they certainly traveled on the next day. For this reason Rashi explains that they traveled immediately. <i>Re’m</i> explains that “They journeyed on that day” refers to the twentieth day of the second month. However, “Bnei Yisroel traveled on their journeys” (v.12) merely means that they traveled according to the order of the banners journeying.
  
  Verse 29
  
  This was Yisro. Rashi is answering the question: It is not clear to whom the phrase “Moshe’s father-in-law” in this verse refers — whether it refers to Reuel or to Chovav his son? He answers that it refers to Chovav who was Yisro, as it states “Of the children…” <i>Re’m</i> There are those who ask: Surely Rashi already gave this explanation in Parshas Yisro? Furthermore, why did he have to mention that Yisro had many names? The answer is that Rashi was answering the question: The Torah writes “Chovav son of Reuel…” This presents a difficulty either way; if Chovav was Yisro, and Reuel was his father — then Yisro was not called Reuel. But if Chovav was the son of Yisro, meaning that Yisro was called Reuel then he could not have been called Chovav. If so, how do we find that he had seven names? Rashi answers that Chovav was Yisro and that he was also called Reuel. And do not be surprised that Yisro was called Reuel when his father was also called Reuel. With regard to his father, his actual name was “Reuel,” this is to be contrasted with Yisro who was called Reuel because of his actions — for he became a ריע לאל (a friend to God).
  Within three days. For it is not written “we are הולכים (going)” rather “נוסעים (journeying).” This implies that this was [still] their first journey, except that they sinned in the incident of the complainers. And what Rashi comments “within three days…” his proof is because in this passage it is written “they traveled from the mountain of Hashem a journey of three days” (v. 33).
  And he thought he would enter. You might ask: In Parshas Shemos, Rashi explains the [meaning of the] words “in the hand of another whomever you wish to send” (4:13) that ultimately Moshe would not bring them into the Land, or be their redeemer in the future. From there we see that Moshe knew that a decree had been issued [so why did he now think that he may enter]? The answer is that he certainly knew that he would not enter the Land to be a leader over them, nonetheless he thought that he would enter like [an ordinary] person amongst them. However this raises a difficulty: At the end of Parshas Shemos (6:1) Rashi explains that “You will see what will be done to Pharaoh, but you will not see what will be done to the seven kings of the nations when I bring them in to the Land.” This implies that he would not enter at all. The explanation is that he certainly thought that he would enter, however the conquest of the Land of Israel lasted fourteen years and Moshe thought that Hashem was telling him that he would not [live to] see those fourteen years, rather that he would enter and die there. Therefore Rashi here states that he thought that he would enter, but <i>not</i> that he would bring them in — for Moshe knew that he would not bring them in. We also see this in Parshas Chukas (20:12). [One might ask:] In Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 15:17) Rashi comments on the phrase “you will bring <i>them</i>” that Moshe prophesied that he would not enter the Land of Israel, apparently not even as an ordinary Jew, while here Rashi comments that he thought that he would enter. The answer is that he prophesied but he did not know what he prophesied. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) He answers the difficulty stemming from the verse (Shemos 6:1) “<i>Now</i> you will see…” — but you will not see the war with the seven kings. The verse is to be understood as follows: The decree of “because you did not believe in Me” (Bamidbar 20:12) had not yet been issued. Regarding that decree the Torah writes “therefore you will not bring this congregation in to the Land.” Rashi explains that He swore precipitously so that they would not engage in lengthy prayer over this, implying that they would have been able to annul the first decree through prayer. Therefore Moshe here says “we are journeying” because he was not concerned about the decree of “Now you will see…” because he thought that it would be annulled through prayer. Consequently, he did not wish to involve himself in lengthy prayers until the time came, and this is why he said “we are journeying.”
  
  Verse 30
  
  Whether for the sake of my properties or for the sake of my family. Because “to” is written twice. Rashi’s comment means to say “whether I go for the sake of my properties,” which I have as an inheritance and I will go to sell. Or “whether I go for the sake of my family,” in order to convert them — as we find (Shemos 18:27) that “he went to his land” where Rashi explains “to convert the members of his family.” Nonetheless it was his intention to return there but not to settle. I have found this said in the name of the Maharal of Prague.
  
  Verse 31
  
  So that they will not say. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he request that Yisro go with him, surely the journey would have been for his own benefit. Then, since he did not want any favors, Moshe should have left him. Rashi explains “so that they will not say…”
  Past tense. Meaning because he had seen the miracles and wonders that Hashem did for Yisroel. And that is what the verse is saying “You were eyes for us,” meaning that you saw it all with your eyes.
  Future tense. According to the first explanation the word לנו (for us) raises a difficulty, therefore Rashi brings another interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is a difficulty: Since the Divine Presence was among them and enlightened their eyes through Moshe, why would they need Yisro? Consequently Rashi brings the last interpretation. However, according to the last interpretation alone there is a difficulty that the Torah should have said “you shall be <i>like</i> eyes for us.” Therefore all the reasons are necessary.
  
  Verse 32
  
  A fertile area of Yericho. דושנה [means] fertile land.
  
  Verse 33
  
  They traveled in one day. For if not so, why does it say “a journey of three days.”
  Went with them. Meaning that it was the Ark which traveled in front of them that went with them to war. Moshe made it before he brought down the second set of Tablets, and it was not the Ark that Betzalel made after Yom Kippur. After they removed the second Tablets from that Ark and placed them in the one that Betzalel had made, the broken Tablets were placed in it and remained there. This Ark would go out with them to war, as well as journeying in front of them. However, the Ark which contained the second Tablets would journey in the midst of the camp, as it is written in this Parshah (v. 21).
  
  Verse 34
  
  Seven clouds. The seven clouds are enumerated in Sifri: (1) “The Cloud of Hashem was above them” (here). (2) “Your Cloud stands” (Bamidbar 14:14). (3) “And in a Pillar of Cloud You go” (ibid.). (4) “When the Cloud tarried” (ibid. 9:19). (5) “When the Cloud was raised” (Shemos 40:36). (6) “If the Cloud was not raised” (ibid. v. 37). (7) “For the Cloud of God was over the Mishkon” (ibid. v. 38). All of them were related to the journeying and encampment of Bnei Yisroel. See <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> and <i>Gur Aryeh</i>.
  
  Verse 35
  
  That this is not its place. And where is its place? Above in Parshas Bamidbar along with the banners and the journeying where the Torah writes “The Tent of Meeting journeyed, the camp of the Levites…” (2:17). It would have been correct for this to have been written after that verse, therefore Hashem made the <i>nuns</i> as an indication, meaning that this chapter should have been written fifty (<i>nun</i> has a numerical value of fifty) chapters previously. For this reason the Torah wrote the <i>nuns</i> backwards to teach that its place is fifty chapters above and not fifty chapters below.
  Between one punishment and the next. You might ask: The last punishment — “the people were like complainers” — is clear; however what was the first punishment? The answer is that above it is written “and they traveled from the Mountain of Hashem” (v.33) while it should have said “they traveled from the Mountain of God.” This teaches that they left like a child who runs off from school. It is also termed a punishment because they turned away from Hashem.
  Those gathered together … These are the pursuers. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah should have written the opposite, because it is typical first to flee, and afterwards, out of fear for the pursuers, to disperse. But here it writes first “they will disperse.” Therefore Rashi explains that “they will flee” does not refer to those who will disperse. <i>R</i>. <i>Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  These are the haters of Yisroel. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) It appears to me that Rashi explained so because it is not possible to use the term “hate” toward Hashem. Nonetheless I do not know why he did not make this comment on the words “May your enemies disperse” which is written before. <i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i> answers that it is because the words “those who hate you have raised [their] heads” that is brought as a proof fits better with the words “those who hate you,” rather than “your enemies,” since there it does not mention enemies.
  
  Verse 36
  
  Twenty-two thousand. “Myriads” and “thousands” refer to two myriad and two thousand, for if not so, Scripture should say only “Come to rest Hashem, among the myriads of Yisroel,” because “a myriad” on its own always refers to ten thousand. And we do not find anywhere that Scripture mentions thousands in conjunction with myriads.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  “The People” refers only to the wicked. You might ask: Do we not [also] find “the people” referring to the righteous, as it says “all of the people together answered and said: All that Hashem says we shall do and we shall hear” (Shemos 19:8). The answer is that when they are wicked the <i>only</i> name that they are given is “the people.”
  Righteous, they are called “My people.” You might ask: Do we not find “my people” referring to them when they are wicked, as it says “my people do not consider” (Yeshayah 1:3). The answer is that the verse means that <i>beforehand</i> they were my people, but <i>now</i> “they do not consider.”
  How we have toiled. לבטנו means “we have toiled.”
  The distinguished among them. You might ask: Rashi explained above that “the people” refers only to the wicked, while here he explains that it refers to the distinguished and the great ones. One cannot say that when he says “the distinguished … the great ones” he is referring to the wealthy ones among the wicked, who are thus termed “great,” because further on Rashi asks (v.16) “where were the original elders…?” He answers that they died at the fire of Taveirah, implying that those [who died] were the elders who were in Egypt — but these elders were righteous and leaders of the generation. The answer is that when the Torah writes “the people were … and the fire of Hashem burned among them” it refers to the wicked, “the people” written above. However, when the fire burned among them, it also burned among those who were not complaining. Thus when it writes “consumed some of the outcasts (lit. edge) of the camp” it refers to the distinguished and the great ones among them. Rashi is referring to these righteous ones when he comments later “in the fire of Taveirah they died.”
  
  Verse 2
  
  Compared to a mortal king. For if not so, the Torah should have said “they cried out to <i>Hashem</i>.”
  Into its place. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) You might ask: If so, why did it not go upwards as is natural for fire. The answer is that Hashem showed them this in order that the fear of Heaven would always be upon them, lest they sin and the fire return to its previous form, to rise up and burn among them.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  And wept with them. Rashi is answering the question: “Bnei Yisroel also began to weep” implies that the mixed multitude also wept, however it is not written that they cried. Therefore Rashi explains “Bnei Yisroel turned, also, and wept with them” meaning that the word “also” refers to “began to have strong cravings” — that the mixed multitude turned away from Hashem and craved meat. Then the Bnei Yisroel also turned and craved meat and afterwards wept with them, meaning that both wept together.
  
  Verse 5
  
  Gave them fish. It is commonly asked: What proof is this, perhaps the reason that they did not give them straw was because they said “they are lax…” [Perhaps] they would have given them fish to eat. It appears to me that this is Rashi’s proof: How would Pharaoh’s decree to not give them any straw help to increase the burden of their work — perhaps they would buy straw from the Egyptians? Rather it is certain that Pharaoh knew that the Egyptians hated Yisroel and would not even sell them straw for money. Therefore, they certainly would not have given them [fish] for free. We need not ask: Does it not say in Maseches Sotah that when the women of Yisroel would go to draw water from the river Hashem would arrange for fish to be in their buckets? The answer is that were only complaining about large fish, in reference to this Rashi comments “perhaps you will say that the Egyptians gave them…” referring to large fish.
  Free of <i>mitzvos.</i> Meaning that then our sustenance was not dependant upon [our] fulfillment of the mitzvos as it is now that our sustenance is the reward for our deeds. If we perform the mitzvos then the Land will bring forth its produce but if not then it will not bring forth its produce. However in Egypt our sustenance was provided for without any need for the fulfillment of the mitzvos.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Round. Rashi is answering the question: The manna was white, while coriander is black, therefore why did the Torah say that it was like coriander seed? Rather [it was shaped like coriander].
  
  Verse 8
  
  Rather [its taste] changed. Since it is written that it was similar to crystal. For what advantage would there be if it were similar to crystal but then it was crushed in mortars and cooked in pots, it which case its consistency would change. Rather it never descended into the millstone…
  The <i>lamed</i> is part of the root. And the meaning of נהפך לשדי is [my moisture was overturned]…
  Kneaded, oil, honey. Meaning a mixture of oil and honey. This is what is meant by the words written afterwards “like a loaf kneaded with oil and coated with honey.”
  Leans towards Donash’s interpretation. You might ask: Does it not lean more towards the interpretation that it is an acronym? The answer is that the acronym mentions honey but the Targum does not. <i>Re’m</i> writes: Meaning that this is not like the interpretation of the Rabbis who explain it as a term meaning “breasts.” However, it is not to the exclusion of the interpretation that it is an acronym, which also leans towards the interpretation of Donash.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  The intimate relations forbidden. You might ask: Surely the intimate relations had already been forbidden to them, so why did they not weep before? The answer is that before the division into the camps, everyone was intermingled and therefore the intimate relations went unnoticed. However once they were divided into camps, each and every tribe was alone and the women from one tribe were not found among another, rather everyone was from the same tribe. Alternatively, before the division into the camps, all of the tribes were intermingled and people could commonly find other women who were not forbidden relations, thus they did not pay attention to the forbidden relations. However, once they divided and each tribe was left alone together with the forbidden relations, therefore they wept. This is not in accordance with the explanation of <i>Re’m</i> who says that even though the entire Torah had been handed over to Moshe, it is possible that the passage of forbidden relations has not been told over to Yisroel until just before their departure from Mount Sinai. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) explains in the name of the <i>Minchah Belulah</i> that they combined the complaint about the forbidden relations with their complaint about the manna. For it says in the Midrash that the Omer-portion would disclose who’s son was a mamzer (a child born from illicit relations), since his Omer-portion would be found in the tent of his father. Thus they complained about the manna, but their main complaint was over forbidden relations.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  That You say to me. The future tense is used in place of the present tense. But its meaning is not in the future tense as is implied, because if so, how did he know this. The word כי here is used in the sense of דהא (“that” in Aramaic) which has the sense of אשר (that).
  That they stone you. Meaning that you will suffer through them.
  To carry them in my lap. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies “as a nurse carries an infant to the land,” but does a nurse carry an infant to the Land that You swore? He answers that “to the land” refers back to “carry it in your lap.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Like a female. The verse is explained as follows: “If this is the way” meaning that if You ultimately do this to Yisroel, then “You make me את” meaning that You would have made me like a female — because את (“you”) is used to address females, just as one says אתה (“you”) to males. The notation proves this, because there is a break between the words “the way” and “You.” It is impossible to say that it refers back to “I cannot…” (v.14) because the distress caused by the complaint would not have been so bad for him to say “please kill me.” Rather it was because of the punishment that Hashem would ultimately bring upon Yisroel that Moshe said this.
  One of the “scribes’ adjustments.” [Rashi] means to say that just as scribes emend their books when they write, Hashem also commanded Moshe to adjust the language when he wrote the Torah.
  
  Verse 16
  
  The reply to your complaint. For if not so, what is the relevance of this passage here being juxtaposed to the passage of the complaints.
  Like someone munching on his loaf while speaking. Likewise they were eating and drinking while gazing at the Divine Presence.
  Officers over them in Egypt. For if this were not so, since they were already officers over the people why would he have to appoint them now?
  
  Verse 17
  
  One of the ten descents. You might ask: Why did Rashi explain this case more than all of the others. The answer is that the term “standing” was not written here like in the other cases.
  I will make greater. וארבי is an expression that denotes greatness.
  
  Verse 18
  
  Prepare yourselves for punishment. For if not so, one could ask: Why did the Torah say “prepare yourselves” when it should merely have said “you shall say to the people: On the morrow you shall eat meat.” Furthermore what preparation is needed for eating? Rather it was [to prepare] for the punishment that is written later, which would come upon them through the eating of the meat.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  This was the virtuous ones. שמתמצין means “who fell ill.”
  You are disgusted. That you will be disgusted by it such that it will seem to you…
  More readily than you welcomed. The word זרא (repulsive) is used in the sense of “scattered” as in “behold he is winnowing” (Rus 3:2), but here the <i>aleph</i> is interchanged with a <i>hei</i>. The meaning is that you will expel it from your mouths and nostrils, i.e., you will not even want to look at it, for you will cast it away entirely, more than you welcomed it originally. You might ask: How did Rashi know to explain “more than you welcomed it”? It appears that the word והיה (it will be) is superfluous, for the Torah should have stated “comes out of your nostrils, repulsive to you.” What is the meaning of “it will be”? It is obvious that if it comes out of your nostrils it will be repulsive to you. Therefore the word “it will be” alludes to another development, in addition to casting it away. Since it will come out from your nostrils, you will cast it away even further. If so this certainly indicates that you will cast it off further that you welcomed it, thus Rashi notes “it will be…” <i>R. Yaakov Triosh</i>.
  You would not have had the arrogance. For if this were not so, why would the Torah have said “among you.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  Those who went out. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) However those born in the desert did not weep, because they could not say “we remember the fish which we ate in Egypt.” Even though it is written “Bnei Yisroel also wept” [which seemingly implies they <i>all</i> wept, nonetheless] Rashi still holds that those who were born in the desert did not weep.
  
  Verse 22
  
  Now, which is worse? One would have said that “will sheep and cattle” was worse than “listen here rebels,” meaning that if he was punished for that speech then all the more so he should have been punished for this. But why was he not punished? — since…
  
  Verse 23
  
  In a dispute. הטפל means dispute.
  This is a compromise. Meaning “you have come to make a compromise.” Perhaps He sent you because “He does not have…”
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  And [left] two blank. The text should read “He wrote ‘elder’ on seventy and left two of them blank,” meaning that afterwards he placed them in the container and mixed them together. You might ask: He should have merely taken twelve and written on ten “six elders” and on two “five elders. Then whoever chose the note saying “six” would chooses six elders from that tribe… (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The answer may be that if so, the tribe that chose the note saying “five” would be entirely disgraced, as if Hashem had not found favor with the entire tribe. However now, only those elders [picking the blank notes] would be disgraced. See <i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i> who asks further on this. See also the passage of the leaders (Bamidbar 3:50) and what I wrote concerning the redemption of the firstborn by the Levites.
  
  Verse 27
  
  Some say that this was Gershom son of Moshe. Since it is written “<i>the</i> youth,” which implies someone obvious, and there was no one more obvious than Gershom who was the firstborn son of Moshe.
  
  Verse 28
  
  And they will destroy themselves. [Rashi] means to say that prophecy will automatically leave them, because the Divine Presence does not rest upon a person in the midst of mourning and burden. Similarly we find with Yaakov that “the spirit of Yaakov their father was revived” (Bereishis 45:28), and there Rashi explains that the Divine Presence rested upon him.
  In prison. Rashi explains in Parshas Beshalach on the verse “Choose men for us…” (Shemos 17:9) that “destroy them” means, destroy them from the world [for] they are liable to be destroyed. One must say that this is according to the other interpretation here, which explains [to “detain them” means] “detain them in prison…” This is termed destruction because they would be incarcerated in a vault.
  
  Verse 29
  
  One who grasps the bulk. One who grasps the bulk of the burden and makes himself appear as if he is alone in carrying it. Similarly he has taken the matter to heart in order to avenge.
  
  Verse 30
  
  From the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Since the implication of ויאסף ([Moshe] entered) implies that he was outside the camp. Therefore Rashi needed to explain “from the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” which was the camp of the Divine Presence and consequently outside Moshe’s camp — the camp of the Levites.
  Everyone entered his tent. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that Moshe and the elders of Yisroel entered the camp, i.e. that everyone went with him into his camp, the camp of the Levites. But were all of the seventy members of the Sanhedrin Levites? — Rather each one entered…
  
  Verse 31
  
  Corresponded with his heart. Rashi is answering the question: If they were laying one on top of the other as it is implied, wouldn’t the lower ones would die?
  Neither to rise (nor to bend). Meaning not to high, so that they not be troubled in collecting them.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Before it was finished. Meaning before it had been digested.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  How did [Miriam] know. Meaning: It is not the behavior of modest women to complain to their neighbors about their husbands concerning intimate relations.
  Just as everyone. For if this were not so, why is the Torah calling her a Cushite? Was she a Cushite? — surely she was a Midianite! Rather, just as a Cushite’s skin is unique, so too her skin was unique in its beauty. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Because it is somewhat incongruous for the Torah to speak in this cryptic manner, Rashi therefore says that כושית is the numerical equivalent of יפת תואר “beautiful appearance.”
  Concerning her divorce. Meaning concerning her husband’s separation from her; this is an abbreviated verse. Why did Rashi reverse the order and explain first the words “the Cushite woman”? It appears that one may have thought that they spoke about him because he in fact married a Cushite woman, as the Midrash says; therefore Rashi first explains that <i>the</i> woman with a <i>hei</i> refers to Tziporah, while the word “Cushite” means that “just as…” Afterwards he explains that “concerning the woman” means concerning her divorce. Subsequently he again explains the word “Cushite” — “What does the Torah teach? — You find…” And then he explains the word “<i>the</i> Cushite” — meaning the <i>hei</i> (indicating the definite article) — teaching “because of her beauty…” This teaches that she appeared this way to everyone and was known for this, consequently the Torah writes “האשה הכושית” (lit. the Cushite the woman). Finally Rashi explains “for [he married a Cushite] woman” teaching why the Torah provided a reason. He explains that this means that he should have either not married or he should have remained with her and not have separated from her. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh</i>.
  
  Verse 2
  
  With him alone. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Rashi was answering the question: The two words רק and אך are terms that indicate a limitation, thus the Torah should have said “הרק (was it only) with Moshe that He has spoken… Did He not also [speak] with us?” Rashi answers that “with him alone” [teaches], but not with others at all, whether they were as righteous as him, or whether they were less righteous than him. “Did He not also speak with us,” even though we are on a lower level of prophecy than Moshe? Therefore the Torah required two terms that indicate both facets of the limitation of speech. The Sifri suggests a similar answer.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Suddenly when they were ritually unclean. For if not so, why does Scripture write “suddenly”? <i>Re’m</i>
  Water! Water! Because it is written here, “suddenly” and also concerning Nazirite it is written, “suddenly or unexpectedly” (Bamidbar 6:9). We make a comparison — just as a Nazirite needs to immerse in water, so too [the sudden call for water] was for immersion in water by day (following marital relations).
  
  Verse 5
  
  He went alone. For if not so, why does the Torah write “Hashem descended in a [pillar of] cloud”? Surely it had already stated “Hashem said: Come out, all three of you,” thus it should have merely said “and He stood at the entrance of the Tent…” However in Parshas Ki Sisa where it is written “<i>Hashem</i> descended in a cloud” (Shemos 34:5), at the beginning of the revelation of the Divine Presence to Moshe in the morning, there one may say that it comes to inform of the revelation of the Divine Presence to Moshe, but not to teach that He descended alone with the pillar of Cloud as Rashi expounds here.
  So that they would be drawn away. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) According to this, there is a difficulty: Since He did not speak to them in the presence of Moshe, why then did He call to Moshe and say “come out all three of you”? One must answer that it was in order that he would pray for Miriam immediately. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) answers in the name of the <i>Ramban</i> that it was in order that Moshe would see Hashem’s zealousness on behalf of his honor. In the name of the <i>Baal</i> <i>HaIkarim</i> he answers that since they were not then ready for prophecy, for they had been somewhat ostracized, they would not have been able to receive the spirit of prophecy without Moshe.
  
  Verse 6
  
  נא is interpreted strictly as a request. Meaning that even though Hashem’s anger flared against them and left, נא is nonetheless interpreted strictly as a request, and Hashem spoke to them gently. For if Hashem had spoken to them angrily, His words would not have been accepted. Thus one may learn a kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) to mortals; that they also should speak gently.
  You will have. The verse implies that the prophets will be Hashem, therefore Rashi explains “if you will have prophets” and that the word “Hashem” is read together with “I will make Myself known to him in a vision.”
  The Divine Presence of My Name. In saying “the Divine Presence of My Name” Rashi teaches that the meaning of “Hashem” is as if the Torah had said “I am Hashem.” For if not so, it should have said “<i>He</i> will make Himself known.”
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  I told him to separate. You might ask: We say (Shabbos 87a) that Moshe did three things on his own accord and Hashem agreed with him. One of these was that he separated from his wife, implying that Hashem did not command him to do so. See Tosafos Yevamos 82.
  I am not aware. You might ask: How did it occur to Hashem that Aharon and Miriam would speak in this way? The answer is that it was because they said “Is it only to Moshe that Hashem has spoken? Did He not also speak with us?” yet we have not abstained from marital relations. Why did Rashi add “… from marital relations”? — because it was a product of their haughtiness. They said “the Divine Presence rests upon him, but since Scripture writes “I will rest upon the contrite and the humble” (Yeshayahu 57:15), given that Moshe is haughty, why then does the Divine Presence rest upon him? It is as if Hashem is not aware that he is haughty.” Consequently Rashi says that this statement is worse than the first, and this is also why it is written here “the man Moshe was exceedingly modest” (v. 3) – in response to what Aharon and Miriam said that Moshe was haughty. This is in contrast to the explanation of <i>Re’m</i> who expounds this from the extra <i>beis</i> of בעבדי (about my servant). However, this presents a difficulty: Why not expound the extra <i>lamed</i> in לעבדך ליעקב “to your servant, <i>to</i> Yaakov” (Bereishis 32:19) and also לאדוני לעשו “to my master, <i>to</i> Eisav” (ibid. v. 5)? He brings a different [version of Rashi’s] text there in order to answer the difficulty, but according to our explanation it is not necessary to modify our version of Rashi.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Just as the dead cause ritual defilement when entering. For it is written, “anything that comes into the tent and anything that is in the tent shall be defiled” (Bamidbar 19:14) and concerning the leper it is written, “that which comes into the house for all of the days of its confinement shall be defiled” (Vayikra 14:46).
  It is unconscionable for a brother. Meaning that even from its plain implication one can explain the verse without the need to say that the Torah uses euphemisms, by saying “<i>his</i> mother” instead of “<i>our</i> mother” and “<i>his</i> flesh” instead of “<i>our</i> flesh.” Thus their words were not directed towards their sister; rather he meant that generally any normal brother would not allow his sister to remain as if dead…
  Who will confine her. Thus the explanation of “let her not be like the dead” is that she has no hope. Given that she came from our mother’s womb, who will be able to confine her? Consequently it will emerge that half of our flesh will be consumed, since her flesh which is one with our flesh is being consumed and there is no remedy for her ailment.
  
  Verse 13
  
  Answer me. Because the word “saying” is superfluous and the Torah should have said “Moshe cried out to Hashem: Please God [please] heal…!” Rather Moshe said to Him “answer me,” similar to “Moshe spoke…”
  
  Verse 14
  
  If her father. Rashi adds the word “if” as if the Torah had said “if her father” because we do not find that her father ever spat in her face or that he rebuked her at any time. Rather the Torah means to say that “if her father were to spit…” He adds “to display to her an angry face” to indicate that “spit” is not to be taken literally, only as reference to rebuke that would be a consequence of spitting.
  Certainly, then, in the case of the Divine Presence — for fourteen days. You might ask: Surely the kal vachomer can be applied for any number of days, so why did Rashi specifically mention fourteen days? (Niddah 31a) The answer is that the Rabbis say that there are three partners in [the formation of] a person — Hashem, his father and his mother — for the father and mother each give five things to the fetus and Hashem alone gives ten things. Thus we see that Hashem ‘creates’ half of the fetus. Another answer is that when a leper is closed off for seven days, if the affliction does not spread rather it remains stable, we close him off for another seven days. Then if it spreads he is definitely impure. Therefore Rashi mentioned fourteen days, which refers to definite impurity, meaning that it is fitting for her to be a metzora permanently.
  
  Verse 15
  
  The one hour. One may explain that this is because the attribute of goodness is five hundred times greater than the attribute of punishment. Thus Miriam, who waited for Moshe for a third of an hour was repaid with five hundred thirds of an hour — equaling seven days. They waited with her day and night for twenty four hours — and seven days and nights equal one hundred and sixty eight hours. This divided into thirds equals five hundred thirds. Though there are an extra four thirds in excess of the five hundred — the seven days — nonetheless, since it was not a complete day, only one and a third hours, this is insignificant. Furthermore it is also possible that in reward for going to call Moshe’s mother, another four thirds of an hour were added on for her. When Rashi says “one hour” he did not literally mean a whole hour, one out of the twenty-four hours in the day, rather “a period of time” meaning a third of an hour.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Why [is the chapter of the spies] adjacent. Rashi is questioning why the chapter of the spies is adjacent only to the chapter of Miriam, for it should have been adjacent to the chapters of both Korach <i>and</i> of Miriam. The Torah should have placed the dispute of Korach first, followed by the chapter of Miriam and afterwards the chapter dealing with the spies, for the dispute with Korach took place in Chatzeros while the affair with the spies took place [later] in Paran. He answers that it is “because she was punished…” and therefore the chapters were not written in the order [that they happened] so that we learn this concept. If the chapters had been written in order, even if the incident with the spies would have been placed before Miriam, one would not have learnt this concept, because perhaps they were merely written in chronological order. <i>Re’m</i>. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) I have already written on several occasions that Rashi does not give a reason for juxtapositions except where there is something superfluous, or a linguistic change, etc. which indicates that the Torah is particular about the juxtaposition. Similarly here, when the Torah writes “Moshe sent them from the desert of Paran” this is seemingly superfluous, for it is written above (12:16) “they camped in the desert of Paran” thus it is obvious that they were sent from there. Rather the Torah is certainly informing us of the place from where they were sent to teach us that even though they had traveled from Chatzeros and arrived at the desert of Paran, and they should have accepted reproof, nonetheless they sinned. This is in contrast to the explanation of <i>Re’m</i>.
  According to your opinion. Rashi is answering the question: Surely it is evident to Hashem that they would sin through this dispatch. If so, why did Hashem command them to send the spies, which would cause punishment to come upon them so that they would not enter the Land of Israel, but die in the desert? In response Rashi answers that “I am not commanding you.” <i>Re’m</i> explains that Rashi is expounding this from the word “send” and not from the word “for yourself.” Since it is written “all of you approached me and said let us send men before us…” (Devarim 1:22), it is certain that Moshe conferred with Hashem and that the reply came that they should be sent. It is evident that this response was granting permission and not giving a command because it was a response to a question, which indicates granting permission rather than giving a command. Concerning the word “לך” (for yourself) one must either say that this is a manner of speech, as in “the rain has passed הלך לו (and gone)” (Shir Hashirim 2:11). Alternatively, one may expound that when Hashem saw that the spies would sin, He referred to them with Moshe’s name — “send for yourself.” However, when Hashem saw the elders, and that their actions would be correct, he called them after His name, as it states “gather seventy men for <i>Me</i>” (Bamidbar 11:16) <i>Re’m</i>.
  Moshe conferred. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The Ramban asks: According to Rashi’s explanation that Moshe consulted with the Shechinah as to whether to send the spies, he also sinned because Hashem had said that the land was very good. Furthermore, we find written explicitly in Parshas Devarim (1:23) “the matter was favorable in my eyes,” but if so, why was it favorable in his eyes? The apparent explanation is that Yisroel certainly wanted to send the spies, for they wanted to spy out the route and the towns that they would encounter.” It is usual for someone who does not know the way to send out spies — this was a correct and conscientious attitude toward a mitzvah. Similarly, Moshe sent spies to Yazer, and Yehoshua sent two men to Yericho. Consequently Moshe said “it was favorable in my eyes.” However, Hashem who knows the thoughts of man understood their evil intent and said to Moshe “Send them if you wish … I have said to them…” See there for further detail.
  An opportunity for error. As [our Rabbis] say “if one comes to defile we allow him.” (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) This does not mean that Yisroel would err in misunderstanding the spies’ words, rather that the spies would err. This refers to their statement “a land which consumes its inhabitants” (v. 32) where the spies erred, as Rashi explains there.
  
  Verse 3
  
  With his permission. Meaning that it was not by Hashem’s decree, for this was only of their own volition. One should not say that “by the word of Hashem” refers back to the word “them” (i.e., Moshe sent <i>them</i>), meaning that those sent were “by the word of Hashem” even though their sending was not, because nothing about their selection had yet been mentioned. Therefore how could the Torah say “[Moshe] sent them” which by implication refers back to those mentioned previously. On the contrary, the Torah should have said “by the word of Hashem” in reference to their journey. Rather, “them” is a general reference to the people mentioned, to teach that their dispatch would be of their own volition.
  Refers to distinction. Meaning that generally the term אנשים refers to distinction, when it comes as a description as in “you shall be strengthened and be a <i>man</i>” (Melachim I 2:2). However when it does not come as a description, as in “the <i>men</i> said” (Bereishis 19:12), “the <i>men</i> who were at the entrance of the house” (ibid. v.11), “send for yourself <i>men</i>” (v. 2 above), all of these refer to regular men, not men of distinction. <i>Re’m</i>.
  At that time they were righteous. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) <i>Maharan</i> raises a difficulty: Is it not written “Moshe called Hosheia … Yehoshua” (v. 16)? If so, even before their journey he sensed their wickedness. It appears to me that this is no difficulty, because Hashem had already said to him “send for yourself — according to your opinion” and they would be given the opportunity to err. If so, he certainly knew of their evil intent and designs. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) answers that [they were righteous] only then, to the exclusion of afterwards, because immediately after they were appointed their designs became evil.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  May Hashem save you. Thus “he called” is in the sense of a prayer, as in “And there Avram called in the Name of Hashem” (Bereishis 13:4), and the <i>lamed</i> of ליהושע is in place of על (for). Rashi’s proof to expound in this manner is that if not so, what is the reason to name him here? (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) There is a difficulty: Why did he pray for Yehoshua and not for Caleiv? But this is not a difficulty, because it is great disgrace for a person whose student does not act properly, for people will say “if he had not learned from his teacher to act in this manner, he would not have done these things.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  This was the worst. For Egypt is to the south of the Land of Israel, and one going from there to the Land of Israel is traveling northwards. One must therefore say that the “south” mentioned here is the south of the Land of Israel, and Chevron is there and it was set aside for the burial of the dead being the most inferior of places in the Land. <i>Re’m</i>.
  
  Verse 18
  
  Some countries. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe first mention “what the land is” when he should have first mentioned the people of the land, which was most important. Thus he explains that “the land” refers to the nature of the land — because “some countries…” and this is the most important factor.
  
  
  He gave them a sign. For if not so, how would they know if they were strong or not? Therefore the verse writes (v. 19) “הבמחנים אם במבצרים” (lit. are they <i>in</i> open) or are they <i>in</i> fortified [cities]” which is the explanation of “if they are strong or weak.” However one should not explain it is a separate subject. You should also see if their cities are fortified or open, because if so the Torah should have written “המחנים אם מבצרים” (lit. are they open or are they fortified). The Targum also indicates this, translating it as הבפצחים (are they <i>in</i> fortified [cities]). <i>Re’m</i> writes that the statement “and how are the cities” (v. 19) refers back to the first subject of whether they are strong or weak, even though there is a break between them, and that this is common. <i>Maharam</i> raises a difficulty: If fortified cities indicate that they are weak, why was Yisroel not happy with the spies report when they heard that the cities were fortified — meaning that they were weak? Another question is asked: If this was an accurate and proven sign, why did the spies say that the people were strong and the cities were fortified, without fear that they would be caught in a falsehood? And if it was not a clear sign, how could Moshe give it to them as a sign? One cannot say like <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> that the sign referred to their residences — that if they live in open cities then they are strong — however the fortified cities were for beauty. For it is written “the nation is mighty … and <i>the</i> cities are fortified” (v. 28). [<i>The</i> cities] with a <i>hei</i> implies that they lived in them, for if not so, it should have said “and fortified cities” without a <i>hei</i>. A further question is asked: Why in each case did Moshe place for us first what was good, such as “is it fat?” or “is it good?” whereas concerning strength he first said “are they strong?” and afterwards he said “are they weak?” For if they were strong then it would not be easy to conquer them. It appears that one question is answered by the other. What was the reason that each question began with a <i>hei</i> — (is it/ are they…) and ended with אם (or…) such as “הטובה אם רעה” (<i>is it</i> good <i>or</i> bad) and likewise all the other questions? On the contrary, it should have either said “הטובה היא הרעה” (<i>is it</i> good, <i>is it</i> bad) both with a <i>hei</i>, or both with אם — “אם טובה אם רעה” ([is it] either good or bad). For a question prefaced by a <i>hei</i> is the same as using אם. Furthermore, why in the case of “החזק הוא הרפה” (are they strong or weak) did it use a <i>hei</i> for both the question and its opposite, rather than saying אם? The answer is that here he was only asking about a matter and its opposite, such as “is it good or bad” or “is it fat or lean” but he did not mention anything in between. Therefore it was necessary to begin with a <i>hei</i> and end with אם, given that אם is not as indicative of a doubt as is the <i>hei</i> preceding a question. For we often find that אם refers to something certain, as Rashi writes in Parshas Mishpotim (Shemos 22:24). Thus he ended with אם as if to say “you will see that if it is not fat, then it will be lean” the matter being almost certain such as “if it is not soft then it will be hard.” This indicates to us that Moshe only gave a sign that if they lived in open cities then they were certainly strong, given that they relied on their strength. However if they lived in fortified cities, it was possible that they were still strong and that the fortified cities were for beauty or grandeur. Thus he first asked if they were strong, referring to whether they lived in open cities. But he also concluded with the <i>hei</i> to indicate that even if they lived in fortified cities, it was appropriate to ask this question with a <i>hei</i> because perhaps they were strong and the fortifications were for beauty. However if he had began by asking “הרפה” (are they weak) it would have been more appropriate to say “אם חזק” (<i>or</i> strong), because those who live in open cities are certainly strong. In this case (writing “are they weak” first) we would not have learned anything more, given that one would always has to start with a <i>hei</i> when inquiring about something that one does not know. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh</i>.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  A righteous man. For it is written afterwards “you shall strengthen yourselves, and you shall take some fruit of the land,” thus there were trees. <i>Re'm</i> explains that if the land is fat then there would naturally be trees and he had already asked them if the land was fat or lean. Even though the Rabbis expounded that [the tree that] he was talking about [refers specifically to] Iyov (Bava Basra 15a), Rashi simply writes “a righteous man” because this is closer to the simple meaning of the verse.
  First ripening. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah should have stated “ביכור ענבים” (“first ripening of the grapes” rather than “ביכורי — first ripenings”). Therefore he explains that it refers to the days in which the grapes were first ripening, referring to the days in which they ripen but not implying a plural.
  
  Verse 21
  
  The length and width. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: Why did they go the length and width, for if they wanted to go throughout the whole land, they would still not have gone everywhere? [The answer is that] one sees that the land is different along its length and width, because the eastern or western reaches are different, as are the northern and southern. Therefore, they traveled in this manner to see all of the differences.
  
  Verse 22
  
  At the grave of the Patriarchs. For if not so, why would he have gone to pray there instead of praying in another place. Rather one must say that it was because of the graves of the patriarchs.
  Built up. Rashi uses the word מובנה (lit. built up) which has the connotation of proliferation as in “and I will also be built (bear children) through her” (Bereishis 16:2).שנים (years) has the connotation of times, meaning that Chevron was seven times better than Tzo’an in Egypt.
  This informs you. A question is widely asked: Even according to the simple understanding of the verse there is a question as to what the verse is coming to teach you. The answer is that Rashi’s words here mean “Now [that I have explained this] the verse is easily understood…” Because according to the simple understanding there is a difficulty as to the significance of it being built seven years before, but according to the Midrashic explanation it is understandable that seven “informs you…”
  Barren. Boulders. Indicating a barren land which produces no fruit, as does a fertile land.
  
  Verse 23
  
  With a cluster of grapes hanging from it. [The meaning is] as if Scripture had written “from there they cut off a branch <i>with</i> one cluster of grapes” rather than interpreting [that they cut off] “a branch” by itself and a “cluster” by itself; for if so why would they have cut off the branch at all, since it had no fruit.
  Do I not know that it was with two? Meaning that when it is written “they carried it,” it implies that there were two, given that the minimum number of plural (i.e. they) is two. Why then does the Torah say “two”? The reason why Rashi did not explain this on the verse (apparently, in the text of Rashi that the Sifsei Chachomim had, this is a continuation of Rashi’s previous comment), is because one would have said that “two” refers to the branch — that they carried the branch on one pole and the cluster of grapes on another. However according to the explanation that there was a branch with a cluster of grapes hanging from it, one concludes that the branch and the cluster are one. Therefore there is a difficulty as to why is it written “two,” and Rashi answers that it was with two poles.
  Eight took the cluster. Meaning that when Moshe said “take from the fruit of the land” (v. 20) it implied that they should take some of every fruit, so why did they only take three types, as the Torah writes “one cluster of grapes … some figs and some pomegranates.” Rather it is certain that “eight took one cluster…” Rashi then explains why they did not take from every fruit, for surely Moshe had said to take from all of the fruit. He explains that it was “since the sole purpose of the others…” For if they had not intended to deliver a slanderous report, they should not have taken a whole cluster of grapes, and they would have been able to take all of the [other kinds of] fruits of the land, or they should not have taken a cluster at all. You should know that they intended to deliver a slanderous report, because we say in the Gemara (Sotah 34a) that “if you want to know [how much one of them weighed]…” But one could ask: What can you learn from the stones that that they erected in Gilgal? Perhaps there is a difference and here they were not carrying a load commensurate to their strength. Rather it is certain that the inference here is because if they had not carried commensurate to their strength, why did they take only three types of fruit? Thus it is certain that they intended to deliver a slanderous report. <i>Re’m</i> quotes the Gemara and Rashi in Maseches Sotah which explain all of this.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  To compare their going. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Rashi explains in the Gemara (Sotah 35a) that “they went” is apparently superfluous, and given that it is written “and came,” Scripture should have merely said “they came to Moshe.” The explanation of his comment is that since the Torah had already recounted that “they returned from spying the land” (v. 25), why does it now mention their departure? Rashi answers that is was “to compare…”
  To Moshe. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source? Perhaps they brought it back even to Yisroel! The answer is that if “them” here refers back to “the entire congregation of the Bnei Yisroel” mentioned above, why is it necessary to repeat “and to the entire congregation” afterwards.
  
  Verse 27
  
  Some truth. For if not so and their intention was only for the bad, why did they start with something that was the opposite of their intention. Rather one must say that “a falsehood…”
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Because they had been burned by Amalek. Even though it was true that they dwelled there, as it is written “the Amaleki and the Cana’ani dwell in the valley…” (Bamidbar 14:25). Rashi infers this because the Torah writes “go up by the mountain” (v. 17) and it was the Emori and the Chiti who dwelled there. Thus, since the Emori and Chiti dwelled in the mountain, while Amalek dwelled in the valley, they should not have mentioned Amalek first. Rather it was “to frighten them…”
  
  Verse 30
  
  Them all. Even though the verse explicitly says “the people,” [so why does Rashi mention it]? There is another difficulty: The verse does not mention that the people spoke up! The answer is that Rashi refers to the spies, meaning that he silenced all the spies, so that they would not speak at all, in order that the people would hear what Caleiv would say about Moshe.
  The listener. Since it is written “because he possessed in him a different spirit” (Bamidbar 14:24), it implies that there were two spirits, one in his mouth and one in his heart. To the spies he said “I am with you in your plan” but in his heart he said the truth. Consequently he was able to silence them. However <i>Re’m</i> explains that it was because Caleiv called Moshe “son of Amram” rather than calling him by name that they thought he was with them. He referred to Moshe in this way so that they would err and think that his intention was to slander.
  Even to heaven. For if not so, Scripture should have said “נעלה וירשנו” (we can go up and we shall possess it), why did it need to add the word עלה (using the repetitive phrase “עלה נעלה” lit. we can go up, go up). Rather this means that we can go up to anywhere, even to heaven. (<i>Gur</i> <i>Aryeh</i>) You might ask: Why did they speak about overcoming them, surely they were not in heaven? The answer is that this is what they were saying: Even if they have in heaven a great celestial power supporting them, such that we would not be able to expel them, we can still go up. Because celestial powers do not affect Israel, for they override the celestial powers. Thus we can surely go up and overcome their celestial powers.
  
  Verse 31
  
  About the One above. Since it is written “כי חזק הוא ממנו” (for he/it is more powerful than we) while it should have written only “כי חזק ממנו” [i.e. the word ‘“הוא — he/it”’ is superfluous and can be expounded]. Also, above (v. 28), [in reference to the nation], the word הוא (he/it) is not written, only “אפס כי $אז העם” (however the nation is mighty). Therefore, [the word “הוא – he/it” that is written here] refers to “the One above…” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) It is impossible to say that [the phrase “more powerful] than we” refers to Israel, since this would imply that Israel were also strong and only that they are stronger. This would be similar to Rashi’s explanation on the verse “[greater] and more powerful than you” (Devarim 9:1), that you are powerful but they are even more powerful than you. But here this explanation is improbable, because the spies likened themselves to locusts in relation to the people who lived in the Land. Rather, “[they said it] about the One above.”
  
  Verse 32
  
  Burying the dead. Rashi’s inference is because it is written “the land through which we have passed … is a land which consumes,” but the words “the land through which we passed” are apparently superfluous; for this is not the beginning of their statement, such that they need to state which land they were referring to. Therefore Rashi explains that wherever we passed we saw that it was consuming its inhabitants — because they were burying the dead. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh</i>
  
  Verse 33
  
  Who fell. As the Torah writes (Bereishis 6:2), “the sons of the lords saw the daughters of man…” For if not so, why is “הנפילים” (the giants) written twice? Rather it is certain that the second term “הנפילים” literally means fallen (from the root נפל — to fall), and there we saw those who fell from heaven, Shamchazai and Azael.
  Say to each other, “there are ants.” There many who find difficulty with this statement: It is written “and so we appeared” which implies “like grasshoppers,” while Rashi explains that we heard them saying “there are ants.” <i>Re’m</i> amends Rashi’s words to read “grasshoppers…” However this does not appear correct, firstly because in every text it is written “ants.” Furthermore, if they were truly “like grasshoppers” when comparing their relative sizes, the comparison being that a hundred grasshoppers piled on each other reach the height of a person, and similarly the giants were the height of a hundred people. If so the Torah should have been brief and merely written “we were like grasshoppers in comparison to them.” Why did it add “and we were [like grasshoppers] in our eyes” which merely reflects how they appeared. Furthermore, there is a difficulty: Did the giants not see that all of the other inhabitants of the land were not giants, and if so why did they say “there are ants in the vineyards like people” as if they had never seen people other than giants like themselves. The answer is that it is a known phenomenon that one who looks down from a height, sees an object as being smaller than one who is standing on the ground and looking at the same object that is high up. The reason is that the sense of vision is like a flame, and it is the nature of a flame to rise and bring the object being viewed towards the eye. Thus, neither of them sees the object according to its actual size. The spies intended to deliver a slanderous report with each and every statement, thus they said “all the people that we saw there were men of great stature,” meaning that they are not used to small people like us. Then they said “we were like grasshoppers in our eyes” meaning that we were standing below and looking at the height of the giants, and we measured ourselves in comparison to them as the size of a grasshopper in comparison to a man. But in truth we were even smaller than this because we were looking upward and thus misrepresented their height. They concluded “and so we appeared in their eyes” meaning that according to the error that we made in looking up from a low position, to measure ourselves as being larger that than our true size, so too the giants erred in looking down from a height to measure us as being smaller than reality. Thus we were not considered like anything in their eyes, only as ants. Consequently they do not fear us at all, even though we are 600,000. Now there is a difficulty: Perhaps they knew how to measure correctly and did not err. If so what is meant by “and so [we appeared]?” Also perhaps Hashem made us appear large in their eyes. Therefore Rashi explains that we heard them saying “there are ants.” <i>R. Yaakov Triosh</i>
  Who make the sun a necklace. Rashi in the Gemara explains “as if their necks extended through the ‘window’ through which the sun emerges.” He explains “who made the sun a necklace” as meaning that the opening through which the sun is viewed became like a necklace around their necks. One might ask why Rashi did not make this comment above on the verse “we also [saw] the offspring of the giant ($)” (v. 28). The answer is that their forefather may have been called ענק (giant) and thus they were called the sons of the giant ($) after him, similar to the term “the sons of Noach ($)” we apply to all mankind. But here it is written “there we saw the נפילים (lit. fallen ones).” Rashi has a difficulty as to why they were so called, and said that it must have been because they were they sons of Shamchazai and Azael. And if so, there is a difficulty as to why they were called “the sons of the ענק (giant),” rather it must be because they make [the sun] a necklace (ענק). (See Tosafos Succah 22).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Would that we had died. Meaning that it is not in the sense of “if” as in “would that I had a sword in my hand” (Bamidbar 22:29) and “would that they were wise” (Devarim 32:29). Rashi uses the word הלואי which has the sense of “would that…” It takes a <i>vav</i> afterwards similar to “מי יתן והיה לבבם” (would that it was in their hearts” (Devarim 5:26), therefore Rashi needed to add in the <i>vav</i> — הלואי ומתנו as if it had read “would that we had died.”
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Consequently “and you…” With this Rashi makes sure that you do not say that these are two independent ideas. Rather one is the resultant of the other, meaning that if you do not rebel against Hashem, consequently you will not have to be afraid.
  Like bread. As if it had stated “they are as our bread.”
  Their shield. Because a person’s shield provides him with protection (shade), a shield is termed “a shade.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  Yehoshua and Caleiv. Not Moshe and Aharon, because they did not say anything.
  The Cloud descended there. To absorb the arrows and stones. Rashi wished to answer the question: Surely the glory of Hashem constantly rested upon them, over the Ark-cover between the Cheruvim.
  
  Verse 11
  
  To what degree. But not “to which place” which is normally the meaning of “until where.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  As Targum Onkelos renders it meaning annihilation. Meaning “eradication from the world.” It is not an expression denoting inheritance (ירושה). Rashi also explains like this further on (v. 24).
  Perhaps you will ask, “What will I do…” For if not so, what would its relevance be here. Was Hashem making an arrangement with him that He would make Moshe into a greater nation if he allowed Him to kill them? There are those who ask: Concerning the golden calf in Parshas Ki Sisa (Shemos 32:10) where it is also written “I shall make you into a greater nation,” Rashi explains “if a chair with three legs [cannot stand before you at a time of anger]…” (v. 13). The answer is that here Rashi is answering the question: Why did the Torah write “stronger than they”? It must have been in order to remove the argument that “a chair with three legs” meaning that your descendants will be like a chair with four legs. Since you are descended from the patriarchs it will have three legs, and your merit will provide the fourth leg. Alternatively ממנו (than he/they) refers back to Avraham who is the beginning of the lineage, and therefore your descendants will have four legs. However above the Torah does not write “than they,” which implies that the lineage would begin anew with Moshe — meaning that they would be called the children of Moshe rather than the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In response to this Moshe said “can a chair with three legs…” If one investigates thoroughly he will see that this explanation answers many questions. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) I say that this question is not based on any logic. For in Parshas Ki Sisa only the merit of the patriarchs is mentioned, as Rashi there writes “if they are not saved in [the patriarchs’] merit, why do You say “I will make you [into a great nation] … can a chair…” However here it does not refer to merit, rather it refers to the oath given to the patriarchs, as Rashi explains. Thus if you ask: “What will I do about the oath given to the patriarchs,” one can easily answer that “I shall make you into a greater nation for you are descended from them” and thereby the oath would be fulfilled. Consequently it appears clear to me that there is no need to ask “can a chair…”
  
  Verse 13
  
  That You killed them. They will not hear that You brought them up, as would be understood from the simple reading of the verse; rather they will hear about their being killed. Thus the word “כי” here is in place of “אשר” (that). It is as if the Torah had said “Egypt will hear that You in your might have brought up this people from among them” and having seen the great unbounded love, they will not say [that their being killed is because] they sinned, rather that “It is because of [Hashem’s] inability…” (v. 16).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Suddenly. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) There is a difficulty: In Parshas Vayechi it is written “because in their anger they killed a man” (Bereishis 49:6), and Rashi explains “this was Chamor and the people of Shechem who were only considered like one man.” Furthermore: When Rashi writes that as a result “the nations will say” this implies that specifically if they were to die suddenly, the nations would say so. However if they were not to die suddenly then they would not. What is the difference? It appears that one question is answered by the other. In Parshas Vayechi there would be no difference if they were killed suddenly or not, therefore Rashi was forced to say that the people of Shechem were only considered like one man. However here where he wished to conclude that “as a result the nations will say…” this would be understandable if they were to die suddenly in an unnatural manner, then they would know that it was through the hand of Hashem. However, if they were to die one at a time then they could say that they died naturally and thus the nations would not say … You should know that after Moshe’s prayer, Hashem said “I have forgiven them as you said.” Subsequently they died one at a time, and the nations did not say anything.
  
  Verse 16
  
  This is an abstract noun. [It is] not a verb in the feminine form. However [the word Hashem] lacks a <i>lamed</i>, and it is as if Scripture had stated “[lack of] ability of Hashem.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  By fulfilling your word. Moshe did not request anything new [of Him], only to fulfill His word. This is what is meant by “as You spoke.”
  
  Verse 18
  
  Those who repent. You might ask: Surely this verse is also written in Parshas Ki Sisa (Shemos 34:7) and there Rashi explains the entire verse. The answer is that here he only explains the word “acquits” in order that one not question Rashi’s earlier comment “slow to anger” which meant both to the righteous and to the wicked. However here it writes “acquits” meaning the righteous “but does not acquit” meaning the wicked. Thus Rashi explains that He acquits those who repent but He does not acquit those who do not repent.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Lest they say. But not because of your “words” — because you prayed for them and said “Please forgive…” (v. 19). For if not so, what is meant by “just as you spoke”? Surely “I have forgiven them” [alone] would be sufficient!
  
  Verse 21
  
  As I live. There are texts that read “As I live is an expression that denotes an oath.” Just as I live and My glory <i>fills</i> all the earth, so I shall fulfill to them “for all the people…” However afterwards these texts do not read “if they will see the Land, and My Glory will fill all the earth, so that My Name will not be desecrated through this plague…” These texts explain “and the Glory of Hashem fills…” as meaning “just as My Glory fills the entire land,” similar to the understanding of <i>Ibn Ezra</i>. According to this explanation there is no need to rearrange the passage (see Rashi’s comment to v. 23). However according to the text that we have written before us, “if they will see…” the passage should be rearranged as follows: “As I live, for all the men…” These texts explain “and the Glory of Hashem fills…” in the future tense (<i>will</i> fill…), like the second explanation given by <i>Ibn Ezra</i>. Thus it is necessary to rearrange the passage and explain “My Glory will fill all the earth, so that My Name will not be desecrated through this plague,” all in the future tense. According to this explanation one has to omit the words above “and My Glory will fill all the earth” and to merely read “as I live, so shall I fulfill for them…” <i>Re’m</i> writes that the passage should be rearranged. The words “the Glory of Hashem will fill” should be at the end of the entire passage since they are related to the oath. And afterwards, “Hashem says ‘Why do I delay punishing them — so that My Glory will fill all the earth and My Name will not be desecrated among the nations — to consider Me as not having the ability.’” This explanation is according to the texts that we have before us.
  
  Verse 22
  
  Twice at the sea. This is the language of the Gemara in chapter <i>Yesh Be’arachin</i> (Arachin 15a): It was taught in a Beraysa: Our forefathers tested Hashem ten times. Twice at the sea, twice with the manna, twice with the quail, twice with the water, once with the golden calf and once at the desert of Paran. The explanation is as follows: Twice at the sea: Once when they descended to the sea, as it is written “is it because there were no graves in Egypt…?” (Shemos 14:11). Once when they ascended as it is written “and they rebelled at the sea of Reeds” (Tehillim 106:7); this teaches that Yisroel were rebelling at that moment saying “just as we came up from this side, the Egyptians are coming up from the other side.” Twice with the water: At Marah as it is written “they came to Marah … and the people complained against Moshe” (Shemos 15:23-24). And at Rephidim as it is written “they camped at Rephidim and there was no water for the congregation to drink, and the people argued with Moshe” (Shemos 17:1). Twice with the manna: As it is written “Do not go out” but they went out (Shemos 16:26-27). And “do not leave over” but they left over (Shemos 19:20). Twice with the quail: Firstly “when we were satiated over the fleshpots” (Shemos 19:3). And secondly “the mixed multitude that was among them” (Bamidbar 11:4). With the golden calf, as it is written (Shemos chapter 32). And at the desert of Paran, which Rashi explains as a reference to the incident dealing with the spies.
  
  Verse 23
  
  They will not see. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) For it is certain that they will not see, since there is never any doubt before Hashem.
  
  Verse 24
  
  Two spirits, one verbal and one in his heart. Rashi is answering the question: Did only Caleiv have a different spirit? Surely Yehoshua also had a spirit different from that of the spies! To this he explains that he had “two spirits…”
  According to what was in my heart. Rashi is obliged to bring proof from the prophets so that you should not question his source that he had one spirit in his mouth and another in his heart. For perhaps he had another spirit both in his mouth and in his heart; and not that he said to them “I am with you in your plan.” Thus Rashi explains that this is what was said in the book of Yehoshua “I brought back word to him according to what was in my heart” but not according to what was in my mouth.
  He followed me full-heartedly. The words “[in] his heart” is missing from the text, because if not so, what is meant by “he followed Me fully”? Surely he was with the spies in his mouth though not in his heart.
  Chevron will be given to him. Meaning that “I shall bring him” which was mentioned in the verse is understood as “I will give him” and the meaning of “into the land” is to Chevron. The meaning of “to which he came” refers to when he came to spy out the land. The verse is not implying that he would be brought into the land and he would not die in the desert, as might be understood from this passage.
  
  Verse 25
  
  They will kill you. This teaches you the reason for the juxtaposition of “tomorrow turn” to “the Amaleki…” which precedes it. Rashi adds the word “back” because without this it would appear that there were two routes by which to enter the Land, one by way of the valley and the other in the desert by way of the Reed Sea. However this is not so, for the desert by way of the Reed Sea was behind them and they had already traveled past it and have come to this encampment. Thus the meaning of “back” is that Hashem does not wish to bring you to the land, because He wants you to perish in the desert.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  These are the spies. But not the whole of Yisroel, for the Torah writes “[who] provoke Me; the complaints of Bnei Yisroel” which implies those who caused Yisroel to complain.
  That [a congregation] is ten. There were twelve spies; without Yehoshua and Caleiv who were not part of the conspiracy there were ten who are referred to as a “congregation”.
  The Israelites against me. Rashi adds the word “Israelites” between the words “provoke” and “[against] me” in order that one not explain the word מלינים [translated as provoke [complaint] but which could conceivably mean “complain”] as referring to the spies. This is not true, because the spies delivered a slanderous report about the Land of Israel, but it was Yisroel who were complaining.
  
  Verse 28
  
  If it were possible to say, I do not live. As if the Torah had said “If I do not do to you as you have spoken, that your corpses shall fall … then I do not live.” However the Torah did not write “I do not live” because the Glory of Hashem is hidden. Thus it relied upon this being understood by first having said “as I live.” For if not so, it should have said “‘As I live,’ says Hashem, ‘as you have spoken in My ears, so shall I do to you.’”
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Bringing [the children] into the land. Meaning that He had discussed the children, recounting that He would bring them into the land, however they [the adults] would die. Thus the word אתם “yours” was necessary to differentiate between one and the other.
  
  Verse 33
  
  Before the age of sixty. The decree was only made upon those who were twenty years old and they were in the desert for forty years, thus it emerges that they were sixty years old [when they died]. Because even though they were to be punished by death, they were not liable for <i>koreis</i> [premature death before the age of sixty].
  The first year was included. Meaning that the first year of the count [of forty] was included…
  Part of the year as the whole. Meaning that some of the people who were counted after the incident with the golden calf, which was after the first count [in the desert], had turned twenty years old. However, if initially they had been nineteen years old, and only at the sending of the spies did they turn twenty, they would enter the land. This is what Rashi means when he says “so that when they entered their sixtieth year, those who had been twenty years old died.” In the name of <i>Maharitz</i>.
  
  Verse 34
  
  You diverted your hearts. The Torah calls the diversion of their hearts from Hashem, as ‘Hashem’s diversion from them’. Because given that they diverted their hearts from Hashem, He diverted Himself from them.
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  What does the Torah teach by saying “lived.” Rashi is answering the question: In another verse (Bamidbar 26:65) the Torah writes “no man from among them was left, aside from Caleiv son of Yefuneh and Yehoshua…”
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  Your actions. The word “it” refers to an action in the feminine [form], as if the Torah had stated “this action that you are doing will not succeed.”
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  Because you turned. The meaning of על כן (for) is “since” [rather than “therefore”], which Rashi explains as על אשר (because). Given that it would be incorrect to say הואיל ושבתם (since you turned away) the Torah adds the formation “<i>verb … </i> על כן” to the word כי which indicates causation — “since you did so…” referring to you turning away from following Hashem.
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  To commemorate this incident. Meaning either that this was prophetic, or that Moshe used this name when he wrote down the Torah after forty years in the desert. By this time the place was already called Chormah.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  This does not denote a command. Meaning that if this were a command, it would not be correct to say “by verbalizing as a pledge or as a donation” because donations are not commanded. Thus Rashi explains that “when it occurs to you…”
  Satisfying. Not that Hashem receives satisfaction from the offering, for it is written (Tehillim 50:12) “Even if I were hungry I would not tell you…” as explained above in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:18, 25). The reason for Rashi commenting on “a pleasing fragrance” before “or on your festivals” is that he first explains that “when you make the fire-offering” does not refer to a command, rather when it occurs to you to make a fire-offering to provide a pleasing fragrance. Linked to this he also explained “a pleasing fragrance” before explaining “on you festivals.”
  In order to fulfill the holiday obligation. Rashi was forced to explain “or that you make…” so that one would not understand this as “by verbalizing a pledge, or by verbalizing a donation or by verbalizing [an offering] on your festivals.” For this is not so, given that the offerings on the festivals are obligatory and thus not dependant upon verbalization.
  
  Verse 4
  
  You should present libations and a meal-offering for each animal. Meaning that even though I said above that the verse “when you make a fire-offering…” was not referring to an obligation; nonetheless if you offer a pledge or a donation or an obligatory-offering on your holidays, you are obliged to offer libations and a meal-offerings with them.
  With the oil absorbed. Meaning that the kohanim do not eat from it like the other meal-offerings mentioned in Vayikra. Rather it is completely consumed and the oil is absorbed in it, instead of being brought separately.
  And the wine [is poured] into the bowls. There were two perforated silver bowls on the altar. The kohein would pour the wine and the water in the mouths of these bowls and the libations would flow down onto the top of the altar. On the altar there was a hole through which the water and wine would go down to the foundations of the altar which were hollow and extremely deep.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  If it is a ram. Meaning that if it is a ram, you should make its meal-offering of two-tenths instead of the one-tenth for a sheep, also one-third of a hin of wine and oil instead of the quarter for a sheep. Thus one makes more for the ram than for the sheep. Here the meaning of או (lit. or) is אם (if), not the literal understanding of “or” which would imply that the sheep and the ram were the same.
  The palgas. Meaning that until twelve months it is called a sheep, while from thirteen months onward it is called a ram. Thus from twelve months until thirteen months and one day I would not know whether it was considered a ram or a sheep regarding libations — whether it required the libations of a sheep or the libations of a ram. At this stage it is called a palgas. Therefore the Rabbis expound the word או to teach that it requires the libations of a ram. The name “palgas” is derived from two words “plag” (divided) “gas” (large) meaning that it is removed from being fully-grown and being referred to as a ram. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) The entire passage is explained in chapter<i> Shtei Middos</i> (Menachos 91b) but it appears to me that <i>Re’m</i> overlooked this.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  According to the number of animals. The verse is ambiguous, writing “according to the number” but not explaining which number, whether the animals or the libations. Furthermore, it repeats itself and writes תעשו (you offer/make) twice. Thus Rashi explains that “according to the number” refers to the animals. The first תעשו ([which] you offer) refers to the offerings while the second תעשו ([so shall] you make) refers to the libations. He also explains לאחד “for one” as meaning for each and every one and the second “according to their numbers” as meaning that the number of animals and libations should be equal.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Like me, like you. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Rashi had to expand upon and bring proofs to his explanation because normally the two <i>kafs</i> would come to equate the two things <i>together</i>, not merely to equate <i>one</i> to the <i>other</i>. This is not so here where Rashi explains that they will be like you, but it is not possible to explain the other way, that you shall be like the proselyte. Thus he brings a proof from the verse “Like Hashem’s garden, like the land of Egypt” which means that so is the land of Egypt. There too, it is impossible to explain the other way — “like the land of Egypt so too is the land of the garden of Hashem” because the garden of Hashem is certainly greater than the land of Egypt. Similarly with “like me, like you” regarding Yehoshafat and Yehoram one can not explain the other way around and nonetheless Scripture writes it with two <i>kafs</i>.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  For which no specific amount is required. Meaning that a single grain exempts the entire silo, given that the Torah merely says “the first of your grain-harvest” (Devarim 18:4).
  For which a specific amount is required. The terumah taken from ma'aser does have a specific amount, one se'ah from ten.
  
  Verse 21
  
  The first of the loaves. Meaning that if one had ten portions of dough then one would have to give the entire first portion for the challah-offering, “the Torah therefore teaches…” You might ask: If so, why does it say (v. 20) “ראשית (the first portion) of your doughs”? The answer is that if the Torah had only stated “מראשית (of the first portion) of your doughs” one would have said that if one had twelve portions of dough, one would have to give a portion of the first, but that the others were exempt. Therefore it wrote “the first portion of your dough” to teach that one must give a part of the entire dough. <i>Re’m</i> raises a difficulty: Here we learn from the word מראשית (of the first portion) that one gives “part of it but not all of it.” However, concerning the first-fruits we learn from the word מראשית that one gives some of the first [fruits] but not all of them — that not all fruits are liable for the first-fruits offering, only the seven species, as is explained by <i>Rambam</i> and <i>Rashi</i> in Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 26:2). Consequently, why do we not say, like here, that the fruit that ripens first are not all liable for the first-fruit offering, only one grape-cluster or one grape? He leaves this as a question both according to <i>Rambam</i> and <i>Rashi</i>. It appears to me that in the case of challah there is another qualification. The Torah writes, (v. 19) “when you eat from the bread of the land…” There is a difficulty as to why it had to say “the land” given that above (v. 18) it wrote “at your coming to the land.” Rather, it must come to teach that one is only liable for challah with produce for which the Land of Israel is praised — the five species of grain. If so, the word מראשית is left superfluous in order to expound that not all of the dough is liable, only part. However this would not be the case there where there is no superfluous wording.
  An amount sufficient for “giving.” (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Even though Rashi previously explained that there is no specific amount. The answer to this difficulty is that here he refers to a mitzvah [to give more]; however it would certainly be considered a challah-offering even if one gave less than the amount sufficient for “giving.”
  
  Verse 22
  
  To indicate that it requires an ox as a burnt-offering and a goat as a sin-offering. But not an ox as a sin-offering, as [is the case] with someone who mistakenly transgressed any of the other mitzvos. Thus we have learned that the mistaken transgression of idol worship is not included with the other mistake transgressions; meaning that if it was not for this passage one would have thought that idol worship was included. However this passage teaches that it is not. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: Let us learn the case of idol worship from the other transgressions and oblige him to bring an ox as a sin-offering. Since for other transgressions where one does not bring an ox as a burnt-offering, one does bring an ox as a sin-offering, in the case of idol worship where one brings an ox as a burnt-offering one should certainly bring one as a sin-offering. <i>Sifri</i> answers that the Torah writes “you shall make <i>one</i> young ox as a burnt-offering” meaning one for a burnt-offering but not as a sin-offering, given that it does not write “you shall make <i>an</i> ox as a burnt-offering.”
  A single commandment … idol worship. Because it is written (v. 24) נעשתה (“having been done” in the singular form), which implies a single transgression.
  And brazenly defies. He expounds <i>aggados</i> fallaciously, for example [he says that] “Moshe should not have written ‘the sister of Lotan was Timna’ (Bereishis 36:22)” (Sanhedrin 99b).
  We heard from the mouth of the Omnipotent. The Torah writes “which Hashem said to Moshe” and it writes “all that Hashem commanded Moshe” which implies that the command was through Moshe. However it is written “which Hashem said” which implies that it was His speech, and that Yisroel heard it from His mouth when he spoke to Moshe. If so, which commandment was both by the word of Hashem and also through Moshe — one must say that it was “I am…” and “you must not have” which we heard from the mouth…
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  And ruled that one of the forms of service. The Torah writes in Parshas Vayikra (4:13) “a matter was hidden” which implies that only one aspect was hidden, but not the entire matter. They knew that it was forbidden to worship idols, only they did not know that this [particular] form of service was a forbidden. Alternatively we learn a gezeirah shavah (scriptural comparison) between the word דבר (matter) here and דבר in the verse “if a matter is hidden from you…” (Devarim 17:8), which implies “and not the entire matter.”
  
  Verse 25
  
  The ox as the olah-offering. [Rashi says this] so that you do not understand the words “they have brought their offering” as meaning the olah- offering and sin-offering. And that when it is written “and their sin-offering” it refers to the ox sin-offering mentioned in Vayikra. Consequently, the verse here would come to say that aside from the ox olah-offering and the goat sin-offering that are mentioned in this passage, they also brought the ox sin-offering that was mentioned in Vayikra. Therefore Rashi explains that this refers to the ox as the olah-offering, as it says “a fire offering to Hashem.” This is to the exclusion of a sin-offering which is not “a fire-offering to Hashem” given that only an olah-offering is considered as such.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Through idolatry. The <i>vav</i> of “ואם נפש” (<i>and</i> if one person) links this to the previous matter which referred to idol worship.
  But for this, a goat is designated. Meaning that this is also a proof that the passage refers to erroneous idol worship. Because surely the offering for the erroneous transgression by an individual that is stated in Parshas Vayikra is a sheep or a goat, while in this passage it is specifically a goat.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  In addition the Rabbis derive. Meaning: Furthermore you should know that it is an expression of a curse, given that the Rabbis derive from here that someone who curses Hashem is subject to <i>koreis</i> when there are no witnesses or warning, when it is done intentionally. However, if it had not been an expression of a curse, then how could the Rabbis derive from here that one who curses Hashem is subject to <i>koreis</i>? Rather the verse is certainly to be explained in this way.
  
  Verse 31
  
  By the word of the Omnipresent. Meaning that the term “the word of Hashem” here refers only to idol worship which was the first of the Ten Commandments that Yisroel heard by the word of the Omnipotent. This was not the case for the other commandments which were only heard by the word of Moshe, even though they too were the word of Hashem. Though Rashi explains that “blasphemy” refers to one who curses Hashem and not to idolatry, the phrase “for he has denigrated the word of Hashem” refers to idolatry. Thus it is as if the Torah had said “he has blasphemed Hashem and [the soul of that person] shall be cut off … <i>And if</i> he denigrates the word of Hashem and violates His commandment; the soul of that person shall certainly be cut off.”
  During the time his sin is within him. And it is as if the Torah had stated “when the sin is within him.” Rashi had to give this explanation because it is impossible to explain “the sin is within him” as referring to the <i>koreis</i> as in “he shall bear his sin” in Parshas Tzav (Vayikra 7:18), since the Torah here has already mentioned <i>koreis</i> explicitly.
  
  Verse 32
  
  They kept only the first Shabbos. Meaning that if not so, why does the Torah mention that they were in the desert? Rather it is to teach that immediately after they came to the desert this man desecrated Shabbos, but not beforehand. One may ask: In chapter <i>Kol Kisvei</i> (Shabbos 118b) it says “If Yisroel had observed the first Shabbos, no nation or tongue could overpower them.” The answer is that these Midrashim disagree with one another. One may ask: It states (Sanhedrin 56b) Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: “As I commanded you” (Devarim 5:12) — this refers to Shabbos and monetary laws which I commanded you at Marah. This means that this it not their first Shabbos, as Tosafos ask (Shabbos 87b). The answer is that Rashi avoids this question because in Parshas Beshalach he explains “There he gave them” (Shemos 15:25) — in Marah he gave them some laws to involve themselves with, Shabbos, the red heifer and monetary laws. This implies that he informed them of these laws and taught them that Hashem would in the future command them so. <i>Ramban</i> also gives this explanation in Parshas Beshalach. Thus they had not yet been commanded to abstain from forbidden work on Shabbos, only to learn about the positive mitzvah of Shabbos (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>). In my opinion this is not a question at all, because there the Torah does not say that they did any forbidden work, rather they went out to gather but did not collect anything. Thus they did not physically sin at all. Rather they did not observe Shabbos in thought, which is not considered a desecration. Therefore the Gemara says “if [Yisroel] had observed…” meaning that had they observed it in thought as in action, then no one could overpower them. However, here the Torah says that this man came and physically desecrated Shabbos.
  
  Verse 33
  
  They warned him but he did not desist from gathering. The Torah does not say “those who found שקשש” (that he <i>had</i> gathered) rather “מקושש” (he <i>was</i> gathering) meaning that after they saw and found him he was still gathering. Why is it presented it in this manner? To teach that they warned him, but he still continued to gather. This is Rashi’s explanation in Sanhedrin 41a. <i>Re’m</i> explains that if not so, why does the Torah need to say “those who found him gathering,” surely it is obvious that “they brought him near” refers to those who found him. Rather the Torah is saying that those who found him approached him, and he was still gathering, and did not desist.
  
  Verse 34
  
  How to execute him. The Torah writes “since it was not specified what was to be done to him” which implies that they knew he was liable to the death penalty, as it is written “One who desecrates it shall surely die” (Shemos 31:14), nonetheless it had not been specified by which death penalty. However regarding the person who cursed [Hashem] in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:12) it says “to explain for them” which implies that they did not know whether he was liable for death or not. You might ask: The standard death penalty in the Torah is strangulation, as Rashi explains in Parshas Emor. Why is this not the same [penalty] regarding Shabbos, where the Torah also mentions the death penalty without clarification, when it writes “one who desecrates it shall surely die”? The answer is that they were uncertain, given that one who desecrates Shabbos is compared to one who engages in idolatry, and idolatry is punishable by stoning. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>) One cannot pose a difficulty according to Rabbi Yehudah who says that one is not liable for a punishment until one is warned which form of death penalty will be imposed. For the case of the wood gatherer was different, given that it was a one-time ruling. <i>Maharan</i> answers that they may have warned him by incorporating all four court imposed death penalties, thus allowing him to be killed using any of those forms.
  
  Verse 35
  
  Similarly “constantly remember” and “constantly keep.” Meaning that this is in the present tense, even though it was not to be done constantly, only at that time when he desecrated Shabbos. Since it refers to anyone who would ever gather, and thus desecrate Shabbos, the present tense is appropriate; for it would always be incumbent upon them to execute by stoning anyone who transgressed this prohibition.
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  So named because of the threads. According to the first interpretation there is a difficulty: The Torah should have stated “to make for themselves פתילים (threads)” given that the verse mentions “a פתיל (thread) of blue”. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However according to the other interpretation there is a difficulty: The Torah should have said מציצין (viewings) rather than ציצית, therefore he also brings the first interpretation where the verse states “He took me by the ציצית (fringes) of my head.”
  Of the chilazon-fish. This is a fish that comes out of the sea once every seventy years, and its appearance is similar to that of the sea. One would use it to color a thread of wool that is placed on the tzitzis.
  
  Verse 39
  
  The numerical value of tzitzis is 600. <i>Re’m</i> writes: It appears to me that Rashi’s explanation is according to the opinion that one expounds a verse according to the way the words are read. Here one reads ציצית as if it was written in full with two <i>yuds</i> (rather than ציצת as it is actually written).
  And the eight threads … equal 613. Not that the Torah’s intent was so, because there are opinions that one can use sixteen threads. Similarly regarding the knots, though under Torah law one only needs one knot, one can make more [than five]. Rather it was the intention of the Rabbinic enactment that there be five knots, no more and no less, in order to complete the sum [of 613] such that there would be a greater remembrance of the mitzvos when one looked at the tzitzis and the knots. Thus Rashi explains the verse according to the situation after the enactment rather that before so.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  Faithful in enacting punishment. אלהים (God) has the same numerical value as זה דיין (He is a judge), teaching that this refers to His attribute of strict justice.
  On condition that you accept my decrees. But not “to be God” because either way He would be God. However the acceptance of His decrees, making Him “your God,” was part of the condition. Had He not redeemed them from the house of bondage they would have been like the other nations, having no obligation to accept the decrees.
  Another interpretation. Meaning that there is a difficulty with the first interpretation, given that the Torah also writes “to be your God” which implies that I will rule over you even against your will, therefore he brings another interpretation. However according to this other interpretation there is a difficulty that the Torah only needed to say “I am Hashem” given that regarding the plague of the firstborn it only wrote “Hashem struck…” Thus why was it necessary to add “your God”? Consequently the first interpretation was also necessary.
  Indigo dye. Rashi explains that this is a color similar to techeiles. However the Torah said “a thread of techeiles” and techeiles is colored with the blood of the chilazon-fish. This verse was necessary in order to teach that one transgresses from the moment that one ties the thread, as Tosafos write in Bava Metzia 61b.
  
  But not on a garment with five [corners]. Meaning that one would have placed tzitzis on all five corners. Nonetheless, one is obliged to place tzitzis on four corners even if the garment has five, given that “one hundred is included in two hundred.” This point is agreed to by all. However <i>Re’m</i> explains this as meaning that a garment of five corners is entirely exempt and that though Rashi brings the words of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan, he himself does not agree. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Initially Rashi uses the heading “on the corners” that was stated here and gives a reason why specifically said “on the corners.” Then he uses the heading “on the four corners” that was stated in Parshas Ki Seitzei (Devarim 22:12) and explains “but not on a garment with three…”
  Correspond with the eight days that the Israelites waited from the time they left Egypt until they sang. You might ask: In Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 14:5) Rashi explains that they sang on the seventh day of Pesach. The answer is that he holds that the night is considered part of the preceding day. This is similar to [the concept of ‘day’ regarding] offerings about which the Torah writes “On the day that you slaughter you shall eat, and that which remains until morning you shall burn in fire” (Vayikra 19:6). There, why would it only be necessary burn it in the morning? Surely once the Torah wrote “on the day that you slaughter you shall eat,” one would have already been obligated to burn it at night. Rather it is certain that one is also permitted to eat it at night, given that the night is considered part of the preceding day. The start of the exodus was calculated from immediately after they slaughtered, roasted and ate the Pesach offering, thus from the start of the exodus there were eight days. However from the actual exodus which was on the fifteenth of the month there were seven days, because if one does not include that night they sang on the seventh day. Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan is also of this opinion. This is in contrast to <i>Re’m</i> who explains that these are the words of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan but Rashi is not of this opinion. See <i>Nachalas Yaakov</i> who disproves the view of <i>Re’m</i> and says that these are Rashi’s words and not those of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan. For it is only the comment “why was the passage of the wood gatherer juxtaposed…” which is to be attributed to Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  This passage is beautifully expounded by Midrash Rabbi Tanchuma. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah use the term “took”? However, given that Rashi says in Parshas Bereishis (3:8) the he comes only to explain the plain meaning of the Torah, not its Midrashic interpretation, he therefore says here that “this chapter is beautifully expounded…” Since the Midrashic explanation is close to the plain meaning, Rashi explains it according to the Midrashic interpretation and it is not necessary to explain it according to the plain meaning.
  Disassociated from the community. Meaning: This taking was in thought — in his heart — and his heart was the subject [of the taking] while Korach was the object. Consequently ויקח (he took) has the same meaning as ויוקח (he was taken) which concurs with the Targum who translates as ואתפלג.
  Another interpretation “Korach took”: He won over the heads of the Sanhedrin. Because according to the first interpretation there is a difficulty that ויקח (he took) was explained as ויוקח (he was taken). However, according to the other interpretation there is a difficulty since the verse does not specify whom he took as it does concerning Moshe, where it is written “Take Aharon.” Therefore Rashi also gives the first reason.
  Scripture does not mention “the son of Yaakov.” Rashi wishes to explain why the Torah does not also trace his genealogy to Yaakov. He answers that “Yaakov implored…”
  Where is his name mentioned. Meaning: where is the name of Yaakov mentioned in connection with Korach such that one has to explain why his name is not mentioned here; for surely it is usual for genealogy to be traced back only to the tribe. <i>Re’m</i> writes that there is still a difficulty according to the Midrash (Tanchuma 3) which expounds the verse (Bereishis 49:6) “Do not let my soul come into their plot” as referring to the incident of the spies. Similarly there is a difficulty according to Rashi’s explanation in Parshas Vayechi that “Do not let my soul come into their plot” refers to the incident with Zimri ben Salu, leader of paternal house of Shimon (Bamidbar 25:14). There Rashi did not ask where else the name “son of Yaakov” was mentioned concerning Zimri such that one would have to explain why it was not mentioned. <i>Re’m</i> leaves the matter as requiring further investigation. See what I wrote in Parshas Vayechi that answers the question of <i>Re’m.</i>
  Neighboring Kehos and his sons. Rashi wishes to answer how Dasan and Aviram came to be with the sons of Kehos to join Korach in disputing the <i>kehunah.</i> Surely they were neither Levites nor firstborn, as it is written (Bamidbar 26:9) “Eliav’s sons were Nemueil, Dasan and Aviram.” And if they came to dispute the <i>kehunah</i> on behalf of their brother Nemueil, who was a firstborn, it is incongruous that they would have come to do so when Nemueil the subject of the dispute is not mentioned in Scripture as having protested.
  Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor. (<i>Maharshal</i>) I have a tradition from my father that this is the explanation: Initially Rashi said “Yaakov implored for compassion…” But this raises the difficulty that the genealogy of Dasan and Aviram was traced back to Reuven and the Torah also did not say “son of Yaakov.” Yet we do not find that Yaakov requested that the genealogy of Reuven’s sons not be traced to him regarding the dispute of Korach. Therefore Rashi explains “woe to the wicked…” and that consequently they were automatically included in his request.
  Why did Korach see fit. Meaning: Even though Korach suspected Moshe in all of his actions, that everything he did was on his own accord, nonetheless he should not have disputed the <i>kehunah.</i> For surely Aharon was rightfully before him, being he is the firstborn of Amram. <i>Re’m.</i> You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this in its place, and also how is this question related to the preceding explanation? The answer is that before he explained about Dasan and Aviram it was understood that one could not ask “why did he see fit” given that he also wanted to be a kohein. However, now he explained that the involvement Dasan and Aviram was because the tribe of Reuven made their camp according to the arrangement of the banners. Consequently one understands that this dispute occurred in the second year after the exodus from Egypt given that the arrangement of the banners began in the second year, as is explained in Parshas Bamidbar. Therefore, Rashi asks why Korach saw fit to dispute with Moshe over the priesthood in the second year. Why did he not dispute with Moshe in the first year, immediately after the building of the Mishkon? Rashi answers that “he envied Elitzafan for his leadership…” for he was also appointed at the time when the banners were arranged. And once Korach had entered into the dispute, he wanted to nullify everything, even those things to which he had no rights.
  Elitzafan for his leadership. You might ask: Why did Rashi explain above that he came to cast aspersion regarding the <i>kehunah</i>? The answer is that if Moshe had given Korach the leadership he certainly would not have disputed the <i>kehunah.</i> However once he gave the leadership to Elitzafan, Korach came to dispute everything, even the <i>kehunah.</i> Therefore Rashi explains “I will oppose him and nullify everything he said.” You might ask: Why did he also not dispute the monarchy (which was Moshe’s position). The answer is that since the sacrificial service was originally performed by the firstborn, they would join him in nullifying Moshe’s ruling in order that they could become the kohanim. But regarding the monarchy everyone agreed that Moshe should be king, because it was rightfully his, for he took them out of Egypt. Furthermore they could not all be kings, and therefore they would not have joined him in disputing the monarchy.
  Those called from the congregation. There are those who ask: Why did Rashi bring a proof from there where the Torah writes, “Those called from the congregation”? Surely his source there was only because the Torah writes “<i>leaders</i> of [their fathers’] tribes” and here also Scripture writes “<i>leaders</i> of the congregation.” The answer is that if not for those words written there, one would have said they were not the heads of the Sanhedrin, since it is written (v. 2), “Those who were called to meetings.” From this, one would understand that they were not called to <i>every</i> matter dealing with sanctity, rather only at certain times. Therefore Rashi brings a proof from there that they were called each time to any matter of sanctity, for the Torah writes “those called from the congregation” meaning for any matter that the congregation required. Rashi adds “and the like” because the people who were designated by name were only the twelve leaders of the tribes, while here there were two hundred and fifty men. Thus he was forced to add “and the like” to say that they were all leaders of Bnei Yisroel, and among them were leaders of the tribes and heads of the Sanhedrin. The <i>gezeirah</i> <i>shavah</i> (scriptural comparison) teaches that they were of the stature of Elitzur and his companions. And the verse that states that they numbered two hundred and fifty teaches that one should not say that it was specifically the twelve who were designated by name [that were of the stature of Elitzur and his companions], but not the others [rather, they were all of the same stature]. <i>Re’m</i>
  Garments made completely of <i>techeiles.</i> At the end of Parshas Shelach the Torah mentions <i>tzitzis</i> and juxtaposes this to “Korach took,” to teach that he took <i>tzitzis.</i> You might ask: why does Rashi expound the juxtaposition here? Rashi only does so if the verse is not written in its correct place, as I explained in Parshas Shelach (13:2). The answer is that here too, according to my previous explanation (s.v. ‘Why did Korach see fit’) this section is not its correct place given that the dispute of Korach was over the leadership of Elitzafan. Elitzafan's appointment as leader occurred before the departure from the Mountain of Hashem. If so, why was this section placed here when it belongs in Parshas Bamidbar? In order for us to expound the juxtaposition. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: What did Korach think? If he held that a garment of <i>techeiles</i> was exempt from <i>tzitzis,</i> perhaps Moshe would also answer that it was exempt and there would be no grounds for dispute. And if Korach held that it needed <i>tzitzis,</i> then this would only have been because there was reason to obligate it. So perhaps Moshe would also answer with this reasoning and there would be no grounds for dispute. The answer appears to be that Korach’s main focus was not the garment alone. Rather, he thought that Moshe would answer that a garment made completely of <i>techeiles</i> is exempt from tzitzis, and he would counter that the entire congregation are holy and therefore we do not need a Kohein Gadol. See there where he details the comparison of <i>tzitzis</i> and the <i>kehunah.</i>
  Dasan and Aviram and On the son of Peles. So that one does not explain “the <i>sons</i> of Reuvein” as referring to Peles alone, and that he was [identical with] Palu son of Reuvein. We find this language elsewhere, as in “the <i>sons</i> of Dan are Chushim” (Bereishis 46:23) and “the <i>sons</i> of Palu are Eliav” (Bamidbar 26:8) where the Torah refers to them in the plural form even though there was only one son. Therefore Rashi explains that the sons of Reuvein were “Dasan and Aviram and On son of Peles,” meaning that Peles was also one of the descendants of Reuvein. We need not ask how one might have thought that Peles was [another name for] Palu when, if so, the Torah should have placed On before Dasan and Aviram, given that they were sons of Eliav son of Palu whereas On was the son of Palu himself! This is not a difficulty because the Torah merely places first those who were more vociferous in the dispute. You might ask: Perhaps he was really the son of Palu, and how does Rashi know that he was not? It appears that Rashi was careful to state “and On son of Peles” because the Torah should have just said “Dasan, Aviram and On.” Why does Scripture write “son of Peles”? This is Rashi’s inference. Furthermore, the Torah writes “On son of Peles” while it should have written “the sons of Eliav, and On, the sons of Peles, son of Reuvein” given that Eliav and On would have been brothers, both sons of Peles, if he had been Palu. Finally, it should not have said “the <i>sons</i> of Reuvein” instead of “<i>son</i> [of Reuvein]” and “<i>son</i> [of Peles]” instead of “<i>sons</i> [of Peles].” Rather “sons” must mean “from the family of Reuvein” and therefore Rashi adds “and On the son of Peles.” <i>R. Yaakov Triosh. Re’m</i> writes: There are opinions that Rashi means to say that “the sons of Reuvein” refers back to “Dasan and Aviram” alone, and not to On, as if the Torah had said that Dasan and Aviram were from the sons of Reuvein, but that On was a son of Peles and not from the sons of Reuvein. There are also opinions that Rashi’s intention is just the opposite and that it also refers back to On, in order that one not say that “the sons of Reuven” refers to Dasan and Aviram but not to On. This might be so, given that neither On nor Peles are ever mentioned along with the sons of Reuvein. <i>Re’m</i> rejects both of these opinions, and I have written what appears most correct to me.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  You have taken much more… With this Rashi resolves many issues. He explains that the word רב is a noun as in הרבה ("much") and he adds “much more” because otherwise one might have said that the greatness that they took for themselves was fitting for them. He also adds the word לקחתם ("you have taken") because the word לכם ("for yourselves") alone would not make sense without being together with “you have taken.” Also, because the dispute was over them having taken more than was appropriate, not over what they already had, he writes here “you have <i>taken</i> … for yourselves” rather than “you <i>have.</i>” Rashi also explains that the word לכם means “for yourselves” because without this one might think that they took it in order to divide among others. He also adds the word “distinction” because the word “much” can refer to ignominy as well as to distinction and exaltedness. Therefore Rashi adds the word “distinction.”
  They all heard [the word] at Sinai. <i>Re’m</i> writes: I do not know why Rashi did not make this comment on the phrases, “You shall be holy” (Vayikra 19:12), “You shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy” (ibid. 11:44), and “For [you are] a holy nation” (Devarim 14:2). It appears to me that if not so, here one could have answered that even though the congregation was holy, Moshe and Aharon possessed a higher degree of holiness, for they were prophets and had heard the Word from the mouth of Hashem. Therefore, Rashi explains “they all heard…”
  If you took … you should not have chosen. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) This means: If you took the monarchy you took it rightfully, because you heard all the commandments whereas the community heard only “I am Hashem” and “You shall not have.” But, nonetheless you should not have chosen the <i>kehunah</i> for your brother, given that your brother did not hear any more than the rest of the community. This is what Korach means when he says, “Why do you raise <i>yourselves</i>” referring to both Moshe <i>and</i> Aharon, for it would have been enough for Moshe to have taken only the monarchy. However one should not explain that Korach intended to dispute Moshe’s taking the monarchy as well, because in the entire parshah we only find a dispute regarding only the <i>kehunah.</i>
  You were not alone in hearing. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) If Hashem wished to teach you a new matter, He would have also said it to everyone, not you alone, [saying] that Aharon was to be the kohein and Elitzafan the leader.
  
  Verse 4
  
  Because of the dispute. You might ask: Surely above regarding the incident of the spies it is also written “Moshe and Aharon fell upon their faces” (Bamidbar 14:5)? The answer is that above one can answer that they fell upon their faces to pray. Since it is not written there that they said anything, one may say that they prayed. However here it is written “Moshe spoke to Korach,” which implies that while he fell upon his face he spoke to them, rather than pray. If so why did he fall upon his face? [It must be] “Because of the dispute.”
  Their fourth despicable act. You might ask: Surely this was only the third, given that the dispute of Korach was before the incident of the spies, as I explained above in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 13:2). The answer is that above in Parshas Shelach, Rashi was explaining according to his first interpretation in Parshas Devarim (1:1), where he says that Chatzeros was the location of Korach’s dispute. However here Rashi explains according to the alternative interpretation, in which he said that Chatzeros refers to [the incident of] Miriam [speaking against Moshe]. Therefore, it is possible that the incident of the spies was before the dispute of Korach, and therefore this was the fourth despicable act.
  
  Verse 5
  
  This is a time when we are intoxicated. They were [not actually drunk, but were] engaged in this dispute all day, therefore he said “This is a time when we are intoxicated.” Similarly we find written (Yeshayohu 51:21), “Intoxicated but not from wine.” We learn from here that even if one has not drunk he can be called “intoxicated.” Rashi had a further question: Why did Moshe not settle his own mind? Therefore he answers that “his intention was…”
  For the Levite services. For the Torah writes about them (Bamidbar 8:14), “The Levites shall be Mine.” You might ask: Surely they were only disputing the service of the <i>kehunah</i>? The answer is that Moshe said [to himself] as follows: If I tell them [that Hashem will make known the one who is] holy for the <i>kehunah,</i> when they see that they have no way of disputing the <i>kehunah</i> they will dispute the Levite service. This would have been fitting, given that they were firstborn and the Levites had replaced them. Therefore Rashi explains …
  Them [close] to him. This is the meaning of the verse: In the morning Hashem will make known “who is His” for the [Levite] service, as the Torah states “the Levites shall be Mine” (Bamidbar 8:14). Also, “who is holy” for the <i>kehunah,</i> as it states “Aharon was separated and consecrated as the holy of holies” (Divrei Hayamim I 23:13). Accordingly the phrase “bring close to Him” has no subject, therefore Rashi adds the word “them.” How was this to be done? Let all the two hundred and fifty men who were seeking the <i>kehunah</i> come close “and offer the incense before Him.” The word "before Him" (לפניו) has the same meaning as the word "to him" (אליו) in the phrase “bring close to Him.” Thus the word “to Him” has the sense of “before Him.” In this way, He will determine who is holy, and everyone will know that Aharon is holy for the <i>kehunah</i> when his incense is accepted. [They will also know that] the Levites are fit for the Levite service when all those who offer the incense are burned up, among them being Korach who was a Levite and was still burned up. Thus the complaint of the Levites will be nullified. The Targum proves this point given that the first אליו ("to him") he translated as “before him” and the second as “into his service.” The second אליו ("to him") that appears in the verse must refer to the service of the <i>kehunah. Re’m</i>
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  But Korach who was astute… Meaning: Since the Torah did not call him a “sinner with his soul,” he must certainly have had some reason that he was relying upon.
  You have undertaken a great task for yourselves. Rashi explains that רב (too much) here is an adjective, but that the object of adjective is missing. Conversely, he explains the first רב (v. 3) as meaning “much” which is a noun rather than an adjective. This was because there Korach was disputing the great positions that [Moshe and Aharon] had taken for themselves, and therefore Rashi explains it in the sense of “greatness.” But, here Moshe’s surprise was only over the enormity of their brazenness to dispute that what Hashem had instructed, therefore Rashi explains the word רב in the sense of an immense [undertaking]. Without the addition of the words “you have undertaken,” one would not have understood the meaning of the phrase “too much upon yourselves.” He says בעצמכם ("upon yourselves") rather than לעצמכם ("for yourselves") like above (v. 3) because the brazenness, which was the great task that they had undertaken, was part of themselves rather than something that had been taken from elsewhere. Therefore here Rashi explains בעצמכם ("upon yourselves"). Conversely, above it was something taken from elsewhere, because the prominence that they had taken was from elsewhere, thus Rashi explains the word לכם as meaning לעצמכם ("for yourselves"). (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) One cannot explain this as “too much” like Rashi explains the words רב לכם above (v. 3), because it would be incongruous to refer to one who disputes with Hashem’s instructions as “too much” implying that it would be possible to have a minor dispute. However above, it can be explained as meaning “too much” since they accepted Moshe’s monarchy, but were disputing Aharon’s taking the <i>kehunah</i> as being too much.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  To the service from which He distanced. Not that He brought you near to Himself, given that he had already said “to bring you closer to Him” (v. 9).
  
  Verse 11
  
  Because of this. Meaning: The <i>lamed</i> is not part of the root, unlike the <i>aleph</i> in the word אכן (even so), which is a construct of the words אך (even) and כן (so). There the <i>kaf</i> serves as the <i>kaf</i> of the word אך and as the <i>kaf</i> of the word כן. However here the <i>lamed</i> of the word לכן serves the same purpose as the <i>lamed</i> of אמרי לי אחי (say <i>because</i> of me that he is my brother) (Bereishis 20:13) [which means] “because of me.” Here too לכן means “because of this.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  You told us “I will bring you up.” Meaning: If Moshe had not promised to bring them up they would not have said this to him, for he would not have been obliged to do so. Rashi reverses the sequence of the verses to indicate that it would have been appropriate to say: “Is it but a pittance that you have brought us up from a land flowing with milk and honey, and into a land flowing with milk and honey you have not brought us, [rather] to kill us [in the desert], so to exercise your power.” Accordingly, the Torah would not have had to use the word אף ("even") and thus Rashi omits it. However, according to the sequence of the verses the word אף ("even") was necessary in order to explain “Is it not sufficient that you did us the evil of causing us to die in the desert, but <i>even</i> the good that you promised us you did not do.” This implies that “If you had [at least] done the good, then we would have also accepted the bad.” If one explains this way, there would be a difficulty: What was the point of their complaint over the lack of good? Since they were about to die, why would why care about the land flowing with milk and honey? Consequently, Rashi reverses the sequence of the verses. According to his explanation two matters are being addressed here, “not only [did you not fulfill the good]…but you even decreed against us that we die.”
  Even if you send agents to put out. Rashi is answering the question: It is obvious that if you were to put out their eyes, they would not be able to go up.
  
  Verse 15
  
  The incense which they will offer. Meaning: Even the smoke should not rise up before you. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) <i>Ramban</i> asks: Moshe was saying this regarding Dasan and Aviram, but they did not offer incense. The answer appears to be that although Dasan and Aviram did not bring any offerings, there is no difficulty, for we still could say that “the agent of a person is considered like [the sender] himself” (Kiddushin 41b). [Those who offered the incense could be considered agents of Dasan and Aviram] because the purpose of those who offered the incense was to say that they were fit to be Kohanim Gedolim, and a Kohen Gadol brings offerings on behalf of all the people, not for himself alone.
  That they have a portion in the continual communal sacrifices. Rashi is answering the question: The verse refers to a מנחה (normally referring to a meal-offering), however incense is not called a מנחה. Therefore he explains it as being a reference to the continual sacrifices, since a meal-offering was also offered with the continual sacrifices. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) The continual sacrifices provide atonement; the morning continual offering for sins committed at night, and the afternoon continual offering for sins committed during the day. However [Moshe prayed that] they should not provide atonement for them. The Torah mentions their meal-offerings rather than the continual sacrifices because it is considered the principle offering. This is in accordance with the teaching of the Rabbis that one who reads Shema without donning tefillin is like one who offers a burnt-offering without a meal-offering. <i>R. Yona</i> explains that one [who did not bring a meal-offering] also does not receive any reward for the burnt-offering, as the verse writes “[Aside from] the continual burnt-offering with its meal-offering” (Bamidbar 19:16).
  One. The word “one” does not describe the donkey, meaning “one of them [as] a donkey” to serve me. Accordingly “them” refers to Yisroel, meaning [according to this explanation] that Moshe is referring to Yisroel as donkeys. [Heaven] forbid that he would have spoken in such a way! Rather, “donkey” is juxtaposed to “one” meaning “the donkey <i>of</i> one of them.” Rashi uses the word נטלתי ("I took") instead of נשאתי ("I sequestered") so that one not think that נשאתי is in the sense of “I raised up,” [which is an alternate meaning of the word].
  I could have justifiably taken [that donkey] from them. "Since I needed a donkey, nonetheless I did not take it." For if not so, how is this to his credit! Perhaps it was because he had no need [for a donkey] that he did not take it, but had he needed to, he would have taken one.
  
  Verse 16
  
  Your congregation. You might ask: Does the verse not write “You and your entire congregation”? The answer is that Korach thought Moshe would go with them; therefore Korach told him that he need not come with them because their quarrel was with Aharon, not him. Moshe then replied that “You and Aharon and they, tomorrow…” <i>Re’m</i> explains that this was so that one does not think that the word “they” refers to other people, aside from the two hundred and fifty men mentioned above. This would be similar to Aharon who was also not one of those mentioned. Surely this is not so, because afterwards the Torah writes “Two hundred and fifty fire pans and you [and Aharon]…” (v. 17), which refers to those mentioned above.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  With mockery. For if not so, how could he have congregated all of Yisroel against them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting? Surely only Korach, Dasan and Aviram and the two hundred fifty men were involved in the dispute. If the congregation were in the dispute from the beginning they would have also gathered against Moshe and Aharon. Rather, one must say that only on that night he enticed them with mockery.
  He came in a pillar of cloud. Rashi is answering the question: Was the Glory of Hashem not constantly over the Mishkon? <i>Re’m</i> explains that this does not mean that He caused the Divine Presence to rest upon them, because surely He said “Separate yourselves from among this congregation…” (v. 21).
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Knower of thoughts. But not “the God of the souls” as would be understood from the word “spirits.” For what would its relevance be here, and what would be the reason for afterwards saying “if one man sins.” Rather, this means “Knower of thoughts” and thus You are able to know who the sinner is.
  Has sinned will You… Because the Torah does not refer to one who will sin in the future, rather to the dispute in which Korach had already sinned. However the word תקצוף (“shall you be angry”) is understood according to its plain meaning (in the future tense), because He had not yet become angry, rather He was about to do so.
  The Holy One Blessed is He, said “You have spoken well.” (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) This language implies that Hashem agreed with them. However, this would certainly pose a difficulty, since it is incongruous to say that Hashem would change His mind due to a person’s statement. It appears to me that [to answer this difficulty] one has to preface with the saying that “Anyone who profanes the Name of Heaven in secret will be made to pay for it in public, whether it was done unintentionally or intentionally” (Avot 4:4). This raises a difficulty: Why is the same punishment given for the unintentional and the intentional? Does this make sense? It seems to me that the answer is as follows: If one sins in secret and is punished [in public] by Hashem for this, it will lead to a profanation of Hashem’s Name. Others will not know about the sin and will say that this person was punished for nothing. Therefore, Hashem arranges for the person to sin in public so that people will say that Hashem’s justice is fair. Consequently, when we say that one who profanes the Name of Heaven in secret will be made to pay in public, means that it will be [Heavenly] arranged that he will profane Hashem’s Name a second time in public. Then after he does so a second time, whether unintentionally or intentionally [he will be made to pay in public]. In this vein, Rashi answers that in truth Yisroel were liable. Rashi explains that the phrase, “[Korach] congregated against them” (v. 19) teaches that he enticed them. Thus they were liable in thought, because one who disputes with his Rabbi is like one who disputes the Divine Presence and so they were liable for disputing against Hashem. In response Moshe and Aharon said “If one man sins” meaning that they sinned in secret and it was only known to Hashem. Thus, “shall you be angry with the entire congregation” causing a desecration of Hashem’s Name. Hashem replied “You have spoken well” because I know who sins in secret. This meant that Hashem would arrange a second sin for them, as indeed happened. The people later complained saying “you have killed the people of Hashem” (17:6) and in response Hashem said “I shall annihilate them” (17:10) because their sin had now been revealed.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Depart. Thus העלו ("ascend") is the same meaning as in “יצועי עלה" ("ascended my couch") (Bereishis 49:4). The <i>lamed</i> of למשכן (lit. <i>to</i> the dwelling) is superfluous. Consequently, Rashi writes סביבות ("the vicinity") instead of סביב ("around") to enable it to refer it to the word “dwelling,” given that the word סביב cannot be connected with what follows.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  With haughty bearing. Rashi is answering the question: What is meant by “went out and stood”? It is obvious that they did not go out while sitting! (Re’m). There is another question: What is meant by “went out and stood”? The word “went out” implies that they were moving, while the word “stood” implies that they were still. Rashi answers this question by explaining “to revile and blaspheme…”
  As He stood for forty days in connection to Golias. And there it states, "I have blasphemed against Hashem, God of Yisrael." (source)
  How inexorably destructive disputes are. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The Torah does not mention their punishment here, only their brazen wickedness in that they “went out and stood.” Nonetheless, one can learn from this that the minors were also punished, since the Torah recalls their sin. [Why was this necessary?] Surely a minor is not liable for punishment, given that he lacks sufficient intelligence. Rather one must say that Scripture comes to teach that they were all punished, both adults and minors, because the sin of dispute is not like other sins. You might ask: How is this sin different from other sins, such that even minors are punished? The answer is that dispute and <i>gehinnom</i> were created at the same time, on the second day of Creation. This is in order to teach that dispute and <i>gehinnom</i> are fundamentally linked, thus the punishment for dispute is inevitably <i>gehinnom. Gur Aryeh</i> goes into detail to explain the reasoning for this.
  
  Verse 28
  
  Conferring the <i>Kehunah Gedolah</i> on Aharon and [appointing] his sons as assistants. For if not so, why would he have said “all of these deeds”? Surely they were only disputing with Aharon. What is meant by “all of these deeds”? Therefore, although these matters were not mentioned previously, since they were well known, it is as if they had been mentioned [previously]. For if not [that they were included], the doubt over the assistantship and the leadership would have remained. The reason that the monarchy was not mentioned is that it was not being disputed.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  With a death that no one has experienced. With this Rashi resolves a difficulty: Surely it is written (Koheles 1:9), “There is nothing new under the sun.” Therefore he explains, “To kill them with a death…”
  If the mouth [of the earth] was created. One may explain that the Rabbis were dealing with the apparent contradiction that: Surely ten things were created on Erev Shabbos at twilight and one of them was the mouth of the earth (Avos 5:6).
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  The sound of [the earth swallowing them up]. Meaning: The sound emitted from the splitting of the earth; this is similar to the sound of thunder which terrifies people causing them to flee. However it was not the sound of their screams when they were swallowed up, because this is not a sound that causes one to flee. On the contrary, it would cause people to gather in order to see the wonder.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  In the firepans. But not the fire that was on the altar, because if so, what is meant by “for they were sanctified”? How does the fire that was upon the altar affect their sanctification?
  From the firepans. But not at a distance, because if so Scripture should have explained where [it was to be scattered].
  The firepans. But not the fire, because if so, it should not have been thrown to the ground. Rashi afterwards explains why they were sanctified and thus prohibited from being used for personal benefit. It is because those who offered the incense had designated them as sacred service utensils and thus they had to be stored away.
  
  Verse 3
  
  They became willful sinners with their souls. Rashi is answering the following question: Surely Moshe warned them. If so, why did the Torah write חטאים (sinners) which has the connotation of unintentional sin? Therefore he explains that they were willful sinners, as it is written (v. 30) “That these men have angered…” which connotes rebellion, meaning that they willfully rebelled in disputing what Hashem had commanded. The reason why the Torah states חטאים (unintentional sinners) rather than פושעים (willful sinners) appears to be because most of them were from the tribe of Reuven, Korach’s neighbors, whom he incited. Similarly, the Rabbis say about them, “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.” This implies that initially it was not because of their own wickedness that they joined him, only because Korach was their neighbor. Therefore, they were considered as if they were unintentional sinners. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  The copper altar. Not the golden altar, because the firepans were copper and one could not use copper on the golden altar. <i>Re’m.</i> Furthermore, I have found [further proof that this is so] because it is written “and they shall be a sign for Bnei Yisroel” and a Yisroel is not permitted to enter the area of the golden altar.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  In order not to be. Meaning: The Torah is giving a reason, not a warning [indicating a negative commandment]. When the Rabbis say “anyone who strengthens a dispute transgresses the negative prohibition that states ‘Do not be like Korach…’” it is only a Scriptural allusion to a Rabbinic law.
  About Korach. Even though the Torah often writes ביד משה (lit. ‘in the hand of Moshe’ but normally meaning ‘through Moshe’) as in Parshas Beha'aloscha where it writes “according to the word of Hashem in the hand of Moshe” (Bamidbar 9:23, 10:13) and similarly in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:46) and Parshas Pinchos (Bamidbar 27:23). Nevertheless, Rashi is answering a question: What is the meaning of “in the hand of Moshe”? For one cannot answer that Hashem said through Moshe to Korach that he would be punished if he disputed the <i>kehunah,</i> since we do not find this in the Torah. Furthermore why would He have commanded Korach any more than the rest of Yisroel? The phrase “to him” certainly refers to Korach, according to the Midrash which says, “This alludes that those who enter a dispute,” a reference to Korach who disputed. Rather one must say that “in the hand of Moshe” comes for one to expound an “allusion that those who dispute…” meaning that it is written “in the <i>hand</i> of Moshe” and there (Shemos 4:6) it is written “Please place your <i>hand</i> in your chest.” Just as there the Torah refers to <i>tzora’as,</i> so too here, those who enter a dispute will be stricken with <i>tzora’as.</i>
  Are stricken with <i>tzora’as.</i> Because the Midrash expounds the verse in this manner, we have proof that לו “to him” refers to Korach, the one who disputed the <i>kehunah.</i> For one cannot explain that it refers to Aharon, given that <i>tzora’as</i> has no bearing to him.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  He grasped the angel. For if not so, what is the meaning of “Between the living and the dead”? Were the living on one side and the dead on another such that Aharon could stand between them? But if it refers to the angel then it is understandable, and means that they no longer died. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) Rashi explains this before his following comment “Another interpretation…” because it appears to contradict his previous comment (v. 11) “This was the secret [the Angel of Death] conveyed to him.” For if this were so, why was the plague not stopped immediately instead of him having to go to the Tent of Meeting? Therefore Rashi explains that Aharon immediately held the angel against his will with the incense; however the Angel of Death did not want to believe that Hashem now wished to use this remedy, given that the plague came because of the gravity of the sin. This secret would only apply when a plague comes naturally and the generation does not have the merit to overturn it, for only then does the incense help. Therefore, they had to go to the Tent of Meeting. After answering this difficulty, Rashi returned to explain the alternative interpretation.
  An alternative interpretation: Why with incense. Because according to the first reason there is a difficulty why did he not pray immediately so that the plague would not start, or at very least [why did he not pray] once it had started. Therefore, Rashi gives the alternative interpretation that it was a decree from Hashem. However, according to this alternative interpretation there is the difficulty that we do not find that Hashem said this to him. Therefore, Rashi also gives the first interpretation, “This was the secret…”
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  In the middle. Once the Torah writes “twelve staffs,” why is it necessary to say that “the staff of Aharon was among their staffs”? Rather this was to teach that before he placed them in the Mishkon, they arranged the staffs before them and Aharon’s staff was placed in the middle. <i>Re’m</i> writes that Rashi may have found Midrashic support for his words, and it is not that the word “among” indicates this.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  When the blossoms drop. We find ציץ ("buds") mentioned before פרח ("blossom") as the verse states יציץ ופרח - "buds and blossom" (Yeshayahu 27:6) therefore Rashi explains “blossomed” as the plain interpretation. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain ציץ ("bud") like its plain interpretation and explain that פרח is something that comes before the bud, for example the sap of the tree? The answer is that after mentioning ציץ ("buds"), the verse says “and bore ripe almonds,” and the budding of the fruit immediately precedes the ripening of the almonds. I have found a further explanation: Wherever there are two terms, such as here where the Torah states פרח ("blossom") and then states ויצץ ציץ ("and bloomed buds"), and the meaning of "blossom" is evident but the meaning of "buds" is not, then Rashi will explain “blossom” as its plain interpretation without the need for further explanation. However, since the meaning of ציץ ("buds") is not evident, he needs to explain “this refers to the budding of the fruit.” Similarly “their <i>minchah</i>-offerings, their sin-offerings and their guilt-offerings” (Bamidbar 18:9) where Rashi explains “like the plain interpretation” because it is evident what they are. However, he then has to explain that “which they return to me” refers to the proselyte’s stolen property because I would not know its meaning. This is unlike “their <i>minchah</i>-offerings, their sin-offerings and their guilt-offerings” the meaning of which is according to the plain interpretation, whether referring to the offerings of the congregation or to the offerings of an individual. Rashi in Parshas Vayeshev (Bereishis 40:10) writes that a פרח is the same as a נץ ("forming-fruit"), only that נץ is larger than the פרח. Accordingly, פרח would refer to a small forming-fruit while יוצא פרח ("a פרח came forth") here refers to a larger forming-fruit, given that both terms can be referred to as פרח. However, it is only when the blossom has not yet fallen that the נץ is also called a פרח. It refers to one which it is larger [than a normal פרח]  which is termed a נץ קטן ("small forming-fruit"). But once the blossom falls, as here, the part remaining is called a ציץ ("[fruit]-bud").
  Why almonds. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Meaning: Once we have explained that “and bore ripe almonds” means “when the fruit was discernable…” why does the Torah say almonds and not a different species? It would have been understandable if the fruit was not discernable, merely standing in its blossom stage. Then one could have said that it was because this fruit blossoms most quickly, and even though it was a miracle, Hashem chose something that blossoms quickly, given that it produced the blossoms in one night. However if one says that the fruit was already discernable, there is a difficulty as to why this species in particular was chosen. For now there would be no difference between this fruit and another. Although this species blossoms quickly, it does not produce fruit that quickly. Since we must say that miraculously it produced fruit, it would have been possible to miraculously produce a different fruit. Rashi answers that this species was merely used as an allusion [that they will be punished quickly] given that it is the type of fruit which blossoms most quickly.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  As a remembrance that I chose Aharon. The staff of Aharon sprouted for he was the one who gave over the staff, not his son Elozor who was the leader of the tribe of Levi. This was in contrast to the other leaders. With this they would know that Aharon was chosen, because the main dispute was over the <i>kehunah</i> and not over the elevation of the tribe if Levi. Thus a symbol of remembrance was only needed for the <i>kehunah,</i> and the blossoming of Aharon’s staff would be sufficient a symbol for the service of the Levites, given that there was only one staff for the tribe of Levi. This is a summation of the words of <i>Re’m.</i> It appears to me that the blossoming of the staff of Aharon, who was from the tribe of Levi, was testimony that Hashem chose Levi over the other tribes. This was because the blossoming was on Aharon’s name, rather than on another place on the staff, as I wrote, providing testimony that Hashem had chosen Aharon over the rest of the Levites.
  Feminine [verbl noun]. For if not so, it should have said ותכלינה ("[their complaints] will end" in the plural). Rashi did not explain ותכל as a reference to Moshe, meaning that Hashem said to him that with this action you will end their complaining against Me, because to end the complaining was not Moshe’s task, rather it would occur on its own as a result of this action.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  The courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. Meaning: The first הקרב ("anyone approaching") refers to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting and the second הקרב refers to the inside of the Tent. And it is as if the verse had said, “Anyone who approaches the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting will die when he approaches the inside of the Tent of Meeting.” The verse did not say simply “anyone approaching the <i>Mishkon</i> of Hashem will die” because it would not be likely for one who is outside the courtyard to enter the Tent of Meeting. Thus there is no reason for them to be concerned about this and say “have we been consigned to die.” However those standing in the courtyard were close to entering the Tent of Meeting and they have reason to be concerned. <i>Re’m.</i>
  [Perhaps] we have been abandoned to die. Not that they had already been consigned to death, because the <i>hei</i> prefix of האם (have…?) which denotes a question would not be appropriate. Furthermore, they did not actually die. Rather “perhaps…”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  To say to Aharon. This is one of thirteen exclusions, as Rashi explains at the beginning of Parshas Vayikra (1:1), that [thirteen matters] were said to Moshe <i>and</i> Aharon [and corresponding to them there are thirteen ‘exclusions,’ matters told [only] to Moshe for him to tell to Aharon]. <i>Re’m</i> rejects this as follows: Perhaps these exclusions only come to exclude Aharon, teaching that Hashem said to Moshe that he should say to Aharon, when Moshe’s name is mentioned along with Aharon’s name. However when Moshe’s name is not mentioned, perhaps it was said to Aharon and not to Moshe. <i>Re’m</i> quotes the Sifri. However it is [actually] from the section following (v. 8); see there in detail. It appears to me that Rashi’s proof is because above it is written “Bnei Yisroel said [the following] to Moshe, saying” (17:27). Rashi questions why it was necessary to write “saying.” Rather, it is certain that they said this to Moshe that he should ask Hashem about their difficulty. It is then logical that Moshe would have asked Hashem and that Hashem would have responded back to him. It would not be proper for Moshe to have asked Hashem, and for Hashem to respond to Aharon. Rather it is certain that He told Moshe to say to Aharon. This [explanation] appears to be correct to me, in contrast to the view of <i>Re’m.</i>
  The children of Kehos. [Rashi knows that the verse is referring to the children of Kehos because] afterwards it is written “will bear the sin of the Sanctuary” and Rashi explains that this refers to “the sacred objects… the Tent, Ark, Table, and sacred vessels,” and these objects were carried by the sons of Kehos. Therefore Rashi explains that these were the children of Kehos. You might ask that perhaps “The sin of the Sanctuary” refers to the Sanctuary itself and He was warning that non-kohanim should not enter! The answer is that if so, why would Amram’s sons be different from the other Levites such that they are singled out and warned but the other Levites are not.
  
  Verse 2
  
  In also warning… Not that they should be joined in the warning that you were told about — warning the Levites about the service of the <i>kehunah.</i> Because the service of the <i>kehunah</i> was not given over to them, so how could they warn the Levites about it? Rather, just as a kohein was commanded to warn the Levite not to come into contact with the service of the <i>kehunah,</i> so too the Levite was commanded to warn the Israelite not to come into contact with the service of the Levites. Both would bear their sin if they did not warn them.
  Administrators. In the sense of אמר כל ("Sayer of everything"). In the book of Yirmeyah (52:24) Rashi comments that the keys of the courtyard were in the charge of the אמרכלין. You might ask: Perhaps [the words] “and serve you” refers to mundane service. The answer is that Rashi’s proof is from the end of the passage where it is written that they are “given to you as a gift — for Hashem…” (v. 6) indicating that it was specifically for holy service.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  I admonish you. Meaning: I am warning you to warn the Israelites not to approach to the service of the <i>kehunah.</i> Previously they were warned regarding the Levites, but now they were warned regarding the Israelites. Although this is a <i>kal vachomer</i> (<i>a fortiori</i> argument), that if they were warned regarding the Levites, all the more so this would apply to the Israelites, one cannot derive a punishment by using logical argument.
  
  Verse 5
  
  As there already was. It was necessary to say “as there already was” because of the word עוד ("more"), which implies that there had already been wrath regarding something similar.
  
  Verse 6
  
  Perhaps .. .to attend. Therefore, the mandate to be custodians was to your benefit, because if it were not for the Levites doing this you would be charged with performing these roles.
  
  Verse 7
  
  As a gift. Meaning: The service which is a gift. This means that the service itself was the gift, not that the service was a consequence of the gift, in which case the gift would have been something other than the service. Accordingly the verse afterwards would have explained that the service was as a gift because “I give you the <i>kehunah</i> to you…” (According to this explanation "gift" would have referred to the <i>kehunah</i> rather than to the service) <i>Re’m.</i>
  
  Verse 8
  
  This term denotes joy. You might ask: It is written “Behold I am bringing a flood of water…” (Bereishis 6:17)! However, the question has already been answered in Sifri: The Omnipresent is joyful only when he removes those who anger him from the world. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) One may ask: Previously it is written “Behold, I have brought your brothers” (v. 6) and Rashi did not make this comment. The answer is that הנה normally has the meaning of “now.” However, here it is impossible to explain that He gave them [the gifts] now, because He had already given them the twenty-four gifts of <i>kehunah.</i> Therefore Rashi has to explain “with joy…” This is also implied by the parable that Rashi brings.
  Presents him with twenty-four gifts [of <i>kehunah</i>]. In Maseches Chulin 133b it is taught: These [twenty-four are as follows]: Ten in the Sanctuary: (1)The animal and (2)the bird sin-offerings; (3)The certain and (4)the doubtful guilt-offerings; (5)The peace-offering sacrifices of the congregation; (6)The <i>log</i> of oil from the <i>metzora</i>; (7)The two loaves; (8)The show breads; (9)The remainders of the meal-offerings and (10)the remainders of the omer-offering. Four more in Yerushalayim: (11)The firstborn; (12)The first fruits; (13)The portions set aside from the thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazarite, and (14)The skins of the sacrifices. And ten outside Yerushalayim: (15)<i>Terumah,</i> (16)<i>Terumas Ma'aser,</i> (17)<i>Challah</i>; (18)The first shearing; (19)The gifts [from a non-consecrated animal]; (20)The redemption of a firstborn son; (21)The [redemption of] a firstborn donkey; (22)A consecrated field; (23)A consecrated ancestral field, and (24)The proselyte’s stolen property. All of these gifts are mentioned in this Parshah and elsewhere.
  Guard in ritual purity. This is to say that they do not have to be guarded against non-kohanim, as in “you shall discharge משמרת הקודש [the sacred duties]” (v. 5). Because regarding <i>terumah</i> it would only be appropriate to say that that one should not cause it to become ritually impure.
  For greatness. Because wine and grain are not used for anointing.
  
  Verse 9
  
  After the burning of the fire. As if the verse had said “after the fire,” meaning after it has been burned in the fire. One cannot explain, “From the fire” as meaning from what was burned in the fire, because the kohanim do not take any portion from the sacrificial parts that are in the fire, since they have already been set aside for Hashem. Rather, its meaning is that the kohanim take their portion only after the burning of the sacrificial parts.
  For example [the communal peace-offerings]. Given that it says here, “most holy” and the peace-offerings of an individual are of lesser holiness. However one should not explain this as meaning “all of their sacrifices” as implied, because “their <i>minchah</i>-offerings, their sin-offerings and their guilt-offerings” is written afterwards.
  This refers to the proselyte’s stolen property. We learn a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> [scriptural comparison]: There it is written “The debt being <i>returned</i> then belongs to Hashem, to the <i>kohein</i>” (Bamidbar 5:8), and here it is written “which they <i>return</i> to Me.”
  
  Verse 10
  
  May be eaten only in the Sanctuary courtyard. Thus the meaning of “in the supremely holy…” is “in the manner of the supremely holy.” This means that they are eaten in the manner of supremely holy [offerings], i.e., in a holy place, the courtyard, as is explained elsewhere. However, it does not refer to the Holy of Holies, the most inner part of the Sanctuary, because even the Kohein Gadol would enter there only on Yom Kippur, meaning that there is never any eating or drinking there. This ruling is repeated in order to teach that it is mandatory.
  
  Verse 11
  
  Which was set aside from the thanksgiving-offering. This refers to the breast, the thigh and one of the ten loaves that come with it. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source? Perhaps “<i>terumah</i>-gift” here refers to the gifts from produce. Therefore Rashi comments that afterwards it is written “of all the wave- offerings — since these require waving” such as the thanksgiving-offering, [the peace-offering] …
  But not those ritually defiled. Meaning: This is not a positive commandment to the ritually pure, rather a warning to the ritually defiled, for from the positive one can infer the negative.
  Another interpretation of “all those ritually impure.” According to the first interpretation there is a difficulty that the verse should have said כל אשר טהור ("All <i>who are</i> ritually pure") which would have implied “but not those who are ritually impure.” Therefore, Rashi gives the other interpretation. However according to the other interpretation there is a difficulty as to why do the words “All those ritually pure” allude to his wife, therefore he also needs the first interpretation.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  The firstborn also… Meaning: The Torah compares the firstborn to the breast and the thigh of a peace-offering, they are also of lesser holiness and are eaten for two days and one night.
  R’ Akiva came. <i>Re’m</i> writes: One may wonder why one needs the comparison? Let us learn it from the verse, “Year by year” (Devarim 15:20). There Rashi explains, “If one slaughtered it at the end of its first year then one could eat it on that day and for one day into the next year; this teaches that the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night.” It appears to me that if not for the words “it shall be yours” one would have thought that “year by year” meant the opposite, that if one slaughtered it at the end of the year it would only be eaten on that day and not in the next year. Therefore, the Torah writes, “It shall be yours” to add an additional “Be…” Inevitably we then expound that “year by year” means that “If [one slaughtered] it at the end of its first year…”
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Even the spoils. Rashi wishes to answer the question: The verse writes, “You will have no inheritance in their land” so why is it also written, “And you will have not have a share…”? Rather it must refer even to the spoils! You might ask: Elozor the kohein took from the spoils, as is clear from Parshas Matos (Bamidbar 31:29). The answer is that here it is in reference to Eretz Yisroel and it was there that they did not take from the spoils. This is why it is written here “in their land” which implies that it is in reference to Eretz Yisroel.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  The Levites. Not that the word “they” and the words “their guilt” refer to Yisroel. Rather [the word] “them” refers to the Levites and “their guilt” refers to Yisroel who are mentioned afterwards. Rashi then explains what is meant by the “bearing of guilt,” that if they do not warn them [the Levites will bear the sins…]
  
  Verse 24
  
  Scripture calls it “a <i>terumah</i>-gift” until he separates. For if not so, why would the verse have to say “<i>terumah</i>-gift (תרומה)” surely it had already said, “Which they must set aside (ירימו) to Hashem,” implying that one must set aside a portion from it. Furthermore, at the beginning the verse calls it a “tithe” while at the end it is called “<i>terumah.</i>”
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Like the major <i>terumah</i>-gift which is called the first portion. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) I do not know why Rashi ended by saying that the major <i>terumah</i>-gift is called the first portion? The answer is that it was because he wrote that the <i>terumah</i> of your tithe is prohibited to unauthorized persons and to the ritually unclean like the major <i>terumah</i>-gift to which it is compared. However, we have not yet learned that the major <i>terumah</i>-gift itself is prohibited to unauthorized persons and the ritually impure. Therefore, Rashi ends saying this, a reference to the beginning of this section (v. 12) where the Torah writes, “The best of the oil, and the best of the wine and grain, ראשיתם [their first portion].” There Rashi explains that “their first portion” refers to the major <i>terumah</i>-gift. The passage there concludes (v. 13) that “all those ritually pure… [may eat it]” which excludes the ritually impure, while “in your house” (ibid.) excludes unauthorized persons. Here the Torah writes, “The same as grain from the granary and fully ripened fruit from the cistern” which refers to the grain wine and oil that was mentioned above. Consequently Rashi ends by saying that it is called “the first portion.”
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  The major <i>terumah</i>… Since “from all of your tithes” (v. 28) implies the <i>terumah</i> of the tithe, then “you must set aside all of the <i>terumah</i>-gifts of Hashem” must refer to the major <i>terumah.</i> But how could this be, for surely an Israelite would have already given the major <i>terumah</i>-gift? Therefore Rashi explains that this is a case where the Levite pre-empted the kohein. This means after threshing, not while the grain was in on the stalks, because if the Levite pre-empted him at that stage he would only be obliged to give the kohein the <i>terumah</i> of the tithe.
  
  Verse 30
  
  After you set aside. Meaning: This refers to what remains after the setting aside of the finest part and it does not mean “at the time when you set apart.” Thus the letter <i>beis</i> of בהרימכם ("when you set aside") is in the sense of “on account of” meaning afterwards.
  What remains. The letter <i>vav</i> of ונחשב ("<i>and</i> it will be considered") comes to add something, meaning that after you have set aside the finest portion <i>then</i> what remains will be considered…
  So that you should not say. Meaning: Rashi himself is explaining this so that one does not ask how one would assume that what remains was forbidden such that a verse was necessary in order to permit it. Rather it was “so that you should not say…”
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Hence if [you do not]. Meaning: This verse does not come to exempt those who separate it. Because why would one assume that they were liable? Rather it comes to make one liable, and from the negative one infers the positive. Accordingly, one inevitably understands that “and you will not die” means “hence if you profane, you <i>will</i> die” because from the negative one infers the positive. For if not so, why would it say “and you will not die”? Why would one assume that one was liable so that a verse is needed to exempt him? <i>Re’m.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Because Satan. Rashi is answering the question: Why are both the words “statute” and “Torah” written [for surely one of them would suffice]? Rashi is not asking why either term is used altogether, for in many instances it is written in the Torah [only] “statute,” for example, “This is the statute of the Pesach offering” (Shemos 12:43) and “If you follow my statutes” (Vayikra 26:3). Also “Torah” appears in, “This is the Torah for the burnt-offering, the meal offering, the sin-offering” (Ibid., 7:37) and, “This is the Torah for the sin-offering” (Vayikra 6:2). But here it is written, “This is the statute of the Torah” so why are both [terms] necessary? Furthermore, “statute” is juxtaposed to “Torah” implying that one term defines the other. It is as if Scripture said that the Torah of the [red] cow is a statute. And it is not similar to, “My statutes and My Torah” (Bereishis 26:5) for there “statutes” is an independent term, not modifying [the word] “Torah.” Now, even though the entire Torah is the King’s edict [and we cannot know the reasons for the mitzvot], nonetheless here it serves to notify that there is no reason at all [for this commandment], rather it is an [absolute] edict and it is worthy of acceptance by Yisroel without any known reason for it. This is what Rashi explains [when he says], “Because Satan, etc.” You might [challenge this and] note that in the episode dealing with Midyan’s utensils it is [also] written, “This is the statute of the Torah” (Bamidbar 31:21). The answer is that there too it is referring to the ashes of the [red] cow for it is written, “However, it must be purified with sprinkling water” (Ibid. v. 23). According to the Midrash (see Rashi there) that the verse, “However, it must be purified with sprinkling water” refers to immersion, for the Torah requires the immersion of metal utensils to purify them from the forbidden [foods absorbed within], one must say that the [act of] immersion itself is among those [statutes] that have no reason. [For one may wonder] why one thousand <i>seah</i> of non-mikvah water cannot accomplish [i.e., purify] what forty <i>seah</i> of mikvah water accomplishes. <i>Re”m</i>
  “What is this commandment? What is the reason for it?” You might ask: Why does Rashi seemingly repeat [the same idea] “What is this commandment? What is the reason for it?” Also, why do the nations taunt Israel regarding this commandment more than with other commandments? There are many commandments that seemingly have no reason, such as [the prohibition of] mixing different seeds, or other such similar commandments. And furthermore, why do Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel particularly regarding this commandment? It seems to me that there are three categories or commandments. First, there are commandments dealing with proper behavior such as prohibitions against theft, murder, and the like, [necessary] for the preservation of the world. Then there is a [second] category of commandments whose purpose is to remove and annul evil spirits and accusations. [These commandments] are the [blasting of the] shofar and [eating] matzos. And being that these commandments have a reason, the nations of the world do not taunt Israel regarding them because the commandments have a reason, in that they serve to remember a miracle. But Satan, which is the evil spirit, seeks to nullify the [reason by saying] "Why can the commandment only be fulfilled by blowing a shofar [i.e., ram’s horn] or only by eating matza and burning the chometz, etc.?" And a third category is commandments whose reason is not revealed, yet the nations of the world do not taunt Israel, such as lulav, <i>tzitzis</i>, or forbidden food. However, this commandment is not related to any miracle, and it has the [power of] removing of impurity. And also it has similarities to witchcraft in its preparation and burning. Therefore Satan, along with the nations of the world, taunts [Israel] by saying, “What is this commandment which is similar to witchcraft? And also, what reason is there for this Commandment? For it is self-contradictory: The ashes of the [red] cow purify the impure, yet it causes the one who carries the ashes to become impure! And furthermore what reason is there for it to purify the impure?” R. Yaakov Taryesh
  It will always be called. Rashi is answering why Scripture writes ךילא? For ךילא ("to you") implies that Moshe is to be involved with the [red] cow, and below it is written, “Give it to Elozor [the kohein]” (v. 3). However, when it is written, “To take to you pure olive oil” (Vayikra 24:2), and Scripture does not clarify who should be involved with it, one might say that Moshe was to be involved, and therefore it is written, “To take to <i>you</i> pure olive oil.”
  The cow which Moshe prepared in the wilderness. Because when Moshe prepared this [red] cow in the wilderness, they left over some [ashes] for [future] <i>Kohanim Gedolim</i> for the Mount of Olives and for other cows that will be sanctified from these ashes, as Rashi explains below (v. 9). That is to say that all [future] cows would need to mix in [ashes] from Moshe’s cow and that is how they became sanctified. Otherwise, it would be disqualified as being ashes of the [red] cow. That is why they are all referred to as Moshe’s.
  It must be perfectly red. Meaning, why is it written “perfect”? For you cannot say that it means without a blemish for it is specifically stated, “Without a blemish.”
  Two black hairs, it was disqualified. You might ask: Perhaps even one hair [would disqualify it]? The answer is that had Scripture not written “perfect” but only “red,” I would know that it has to be entirely red, and that even if it had only one black hair it would be disqualified. Now that Scripture writes “perfect” it is to teach that it must be completely red, implying that were it to have even only one black hair it is disqualified. Thus we have a situation of an exclusion following an exclusion, and in such a situation we derive an inclusion, that one black hair does not disqualify, but two back hairs disqualify. However, <i>Re”m</i> explains that [the law that] two hairs [disqualify] is a law [given] to Moshe at Sinai.
  
  Verse 3
  
  The <i>mitzvah</i> was performed by the assistant [<i>Kohein Gadol</i>]. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture not write “Give it to the kohein”? Therefore it must be that the commandment is that it must be done by the assistant, meaning the assistant to the Kohein Gadol, i.e., Elozor. He is referred to as “assistant” because if the Kohein Gadol became defiled, this kohein would take his place and do the service. And when Rashi explains “The commandment was performed by the assistant,” that is to say, only pertaining to this cow it is a requirement for the assistant perform it, but regarding other cows there are those of the opinion that only the Kohein Gadol may perform this service (Masches Yoma 42b) as Rashi shortly explains (v. 9). Therefore it is written, “Give<i> it</i>” meaning to say, “it” you give to Elozor, the assistant, but as for the others, they are to be prepared by Kohanim Gedolim.
  Outside the three camps. We learn from the term “outside the camp” that is written here and compare it to the term “outside the camp” (Vayikra 13:46) that is written in the section dealing with <i>metzora</i>. There, perforce, it is outside the three camps, for it is written, “He shall dwell alone, [his dwelling] shall be beyond the encampment,” (Ibid.), meaning he dwells alone, that no other defiled person dwells with him. See there and in Parshas Vayikra.
  The commoner slaughters, etc. [The proof is] for it is written, “In his presence.” Scripture should have written, “And someone shall slaughter it,” why add the term, “In his presence”? Perforce someone else slaughters, and since Scripture does not specify who the slaughterer is, it implies that even a commoner may slaughter.
  
  Verse 4
  
  He stands east of Jerusalem, etc. Rashi wants to answer [the following question]: Scripture writes that he must slaughter the cow outside the three camps, as previously explained (v. 3), and this verse that “Elozor [the kohein shall take] which implies that he sprinkles outside the three camps, so how can it be “directly facing the Tent of Meeting”? Rashi answers that it is not meant to be interpreted literally, that he was standing in front of the Tent of Meeting but rather he stood at a distance.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Except for the <i>zav.</i> Even one who has become defiled by a corpse is permitted into the camp of the Levites, and this is derived by an <i>a fortiori</i> [proof] from the fact that a corpse is permitted into the camp of the Levites. For Yoseif’s bones were with Moshe, and Moshe resided in the camp of the Levites because he was a Levy, so certainly one whose impurity resulted from the [red] cow is allowed into the camp of the Levites. If so, that which is written afterward, “And afterwards he may come into the camp” refers to the camp of the <i>Shechinah</i>.
  Rearrange. [Rashi is answering the following] difficulty: The verse implies that after he washes his garments he may enter the camp of the <i>Shichinah</i>, but [this cannot be, for] he is still in a state of impurity until the evening. Is it possible for one to be permitted to enter the camp of the <i>Shichinah </i>when he is still in a state of impurity? He is not even allowed to eat <i>terumah</i> until nightfall! So certainly he is not permitted to enter the camp of the <i>Shechinah</i> until nightfall. Therefore the verse must be rearranged, etc.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  [He divided it] into three parts. As we learned in the third chapter of Parah (Mishnah 11), and Tosafos explains “three parts” as does Rashi. <i>Re”m</i> writes: It seems to me that the division into three parts was by tradition. For although the verse first states "A ritually pure man shall gather, etc." (v. 9), it repeats and says "It shall remain [a keepsake]" for the community of <i>Bnei Yisroel</i> (ibid.) to let us know what shall be done with it by putting it down in a clean place. The third verse that states, "It shall be for <i>Bnei Yisroel</i> and for the proselyte who lives among them," etc. (v. 10) is to let us know that this law shall always be carried out according to this order.
  The word denotes cleansing. It does not have the usual meaning “sin-offering” because for what [sin] was it an atonement!
  In its halachic sense, etc., and thus prohibited from personal benefit. You might ask: But were they not purifying with it? The answer is that anything which was in the חיל [an area in the Beis Hamikdosh] was prohibited from personal benefit. Others explain that it is similar to the atonement brought about by the sin-offering which is also not considered a personal benefit.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  With the ashes of the cow. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have stated "with it" in the feminine form, given that it refers to the cow. Therefore, he explains “with the ashes” meaning that [בו] refers to the אפר (ashes) which is a masculine noun.
  
  Verse 13
  
  This excludes that of an animal. Meaning that once it is written “a corpse” it is obvious that it is “a soul”! Rashi answers that this is an explanation of the word “corpse,” meaning that the verse says “whoever touches a corpse” and [then explains] which type – “the corpse of a human soul…” [One might ask:] Above it is also written, “The corpse of any human soul” (v. 11)! The answer is that above it is written במת לכל נפש (lit. "The corpse <i>to</i> any [human] soul") and this is the equivalent of writing במת של כל נפש האדם ("The corpse <i>of</i> any human soul"). There the meaning of the <i>lamed</i> is like the <i>lamed</i> in Parshas Vayishlach (Bereishis 32:18-19): למי אתה (lit. "<i>To</i> whom are you?") meaning, “<i>Of</i> whom are you?” Also like the <i>lamed</i> in [the verse following] לעבדך ליעקב (lit. <i>"To</i> your servant, <i>to</i> Yaakov") meaning “<i>Of</i> your servant, <i>of</i> Yaakov.” But here the word מת ("corpse") and the word נפש ("soul") are both prefixed by a <i>beis,</i> thus it appears that the phrase “whoever touches” refers to both, [implying that they are independent of each other], as in the manner of a verb in a construct with a subsequent <i>beis</i>. Therefore, Rashi says that even so, the phrase “whoever touches” refers only to the word מת (corpse) and consequently he comments that “soul” is an explanation of the word “corpse.”
  Refers to a quarter of blood. Which emanates from a corpse. [This teaches] that one who touched the blood would be rendered impure for seven days, requiring sprinkling on the third and seventh days. Accordingly, the meaning of the <i>beis</i> would imply [that the phrase “whoever touches” refers to the words “corpse” and “soul” independently]. This is why Rashi brings the second interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is a difficulty that the verse should have stated “<i>or</i> a soul…” given that “soul” is not an explanation of the word “corpse.” Therefore, Rashi also brings the first interpretation.
  If he enters the [Mishkon] courtyard. The verse implies that when he is impure he defiles the Mishkon of Hashem, but why would the Mishkon be defiled just because he was impure. Rashi answers that it refers to a case where he was impure and then entered the courtyard before having been sprinkled upon. You might ask: Rashi should have explained, “If he enters the Mishkon…” [and not, “If he enters the courtyard.]” The answer is that if so, this would have implied that it was specifically now when he was impure that he was forbidden to enter, but that when he was pure it would be permitted. But surely a non-kohein is forbidden to approach the Mishkon, even when he is pure. Regarding Rashi’s explanation that this is even after ritual immersion, we need not ask that perhaps it is specifically only when he does not immerse that there is a prohibition for him to enter the courtyard. For Rashi himself explains the term, “His impurity remains,” by saying that it implies that he had somewhat purified himself, however part of his impurity still remained. This was because he did not have the sprinklings on the third and seventh days. If so, this implies that even if he had already immersed he would be forbidden from entering. Alternatively, it is written, “Because the sprinkling water was not sprinkled on him…” Learn from there that it refers to one who had immersed, because if he had not immersed the verse should have said, “He did not immerse in water and [the sprinkling water] was not sprinkled on him.” Rather, one must say that it even refers to a case where he did immerse.
  
  Verse 14
  
  While the corpse is inside. Rashi negates the following: Do not say the tent would always render one impure, even after the corpse was removed. Logically [this is not so] since there is nothing there to render one impure, for surely one is not touching or carrying any impure object. It is understandable when the corpse is in the tent, then we regard it as if the tent is filled with impurity. For since the impurity cannot be contained it spreads out and rise up, permeating the tent. However, it is [only] when it is not contained, that impurity permeates the tent, making one who enters the tent as if he had touched the impurity itself.
  
  Verse 15
  
  An earthen utensil … but from its inside. For we find in Parshas Shemini (Vayikra 11:33) that an earthen utensil does not render articles impure from its outside, only by means of its airspace. “Thus [if its seal]…”
  The word denotes attachment. You might ask: Previously in Parshas Vayetzei (Bereishis 30:8) regarding נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי ["I have been joined in Godly bonds"] Rashi comments: “Menachem ben Saruk explains this in his work in the sense of צמיד פתיל ["a cover fastened"] meaning, “I have become attached with attachments from the Omnipresent…” However I explain it in the sense of “stubborn and twisted” (Devarim 32:5)…” It would therefore be difficult to say that here Rashi explains [פתיל] like Menachem ben Saruk, given that he disagrees with him. The explanation is that above when Rashi says “I explain it in the sense of ‘stubborn and twisted’…” he is referring to the words נפתולי אלהים; however the last word נפתלתי <i>is</i> in the sense of צמיד פתיל ["a fastened cover"]. Therefore, here he also explains נפתלתי as meaning “I have been joined to my sister.” Nonetheless this appears to be a forced explanation, given that this is not the plain understanding of Rashi. The matter requires further investigation; see <i>Gur Aryeh</i> who comments at length.
  
  Verse 16
  
  The <i>gollel</i> and <i>dofek.</i> Which are normally found in the open field. A <i>gollel</i> is the board that is placed over a casket as a cover, while those that form the walls are called <i>dofek</i> (Rashi to Sanhedrin Perek Nigmar Hadin 47b). There are those who explain (Tosafos there) that the <i>gollel</i> is the headstone, as it is written וגללו את האבן ["and roll the stone"] (Bereishis 29:3). And <i>dofek</i> is [understood] like the first explanation.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  This completes the purification. Rashi is answering the question: Is it specifically on the seventh day that he purifies him, but after the seventh day he would not be able to purify him? On the contrary there is a <i>kal vachomer</i> [<i>a fortiori</i> argument] that he may do so. Rashi explains the verse only comes to teach that the completion of the purification is on the seventh day, to exclude less than seven days. It is as if it stated, “On the day his purification is completed.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  Why was Mishkon stated? Meaning: If the Torah said that one is forbidden to enter the Mikdash while impure, [we would derive using a] <i>kal vachomer</i> [<i>a fortiori </i>derivation] that [it is also forbidden to enter] the Mishkon (v. 13) which was anointed with the anointing oil [while impure]. The answer is that if it had said "Mishkon" but not "Mikdash", I would have said that one was liable for the Mishkon because it was anointed with the anointing oil, which is not the case for the Mikdash which was not anointed with the anointing oil [and] therefore he is not liable. Conversely, if it had said "Mikdash" I would have said that this law applies [only] for the Mikdash whose sanctity is eternal, which is not the case for the Mishkon whose sanctity was only temporary. Thus the verse informs us [that this is not so].
  
  Verse 21
  
  That the sprinkler is actually pure. Since it is written “the pure person shall sprinkle on the unclean person” (v. 19), but it is obvious that he was pure, for if he was impure then he would make the water impure [through contact with it]. Rather it was to teach that even though he sprinkled, he remains pure.
  That one who carries the purifying water becomes [extremely] impure … unlike one who touches. Meaning: One should not question the explanation that “One who sprinkles…” comes to teach that one who carries it becomes impure if he carries an amount sufficient for sprinkling. [For one might say:] Surely afterwards it is written that “One who touches the sprinkling water shall remain impure until the evening,” which also implies that if there is an amount sufficient for sprinkling that he becomes impure. But if “One who sprinkles” refers to one who carries, why does Scripture write “and one who touches.” If one who carries becomes impure, then surely the one who touches [would also become impure]. Rashi explains that the verse, “One who sprinkles…” comes to teach that one who carried the purifying water has to immerse his clothes, which is not the case for one who merely touches it. There he does not need to immerse his clothes. Though Rashi says “To contaminate the garments he wears,” this is also the case for any clothing or utensils that an impure person touches when he is in contact with the source of impurity. The reason why Rashi refers to garments <i>that he wears</i> [because the garments referred to here] would ordinarily be worn at the time of his contact with the impurity. When Rashi writes that he becomes extremely impure, this refers to one who does not carry the water in order to sprinkle it and before the commandment [of sprinkling] was performed. However, if it was carried in order to sprinkle or after the commandment [of sprinkling] had been performed, one who touched or carried the water would be pure. <i>Re’m</i>.
  But his garments do not require ritual washing. Meaning that because “one who sprinkles” refers to the one who carried the water, it should have said “one who touches” along with “one who sprinkles” [in the first part of the verse]. For it is the manner of Scripture to include both touching and carrying together, but here they are mentioned separately. Rather it is to teach that “[his garments] do not…”
  
  Verse 22
  
  Which this person who became impure through contact with a corpse. Meaning that there is a question as to which impure person the verse refers. Apparently the word הטמא ["the impure person"] refers to the person who was just mentioned, the one who touched the purifying waters. But this cannot be, because one who touches the purifying waters is impure only until the evening, thus he cannot contaminate another person. Rashi therefore answers that “the impure person” here refers to one who became impure through contact with a corpse and he “shall be ritually impure,” meaning that if he touches utensils then they will become impure. Rashi adds the word בו ["him"] to indicate what he touched. He also explains that the word בו refers to one who became impure through contact with a corpse and not to one who touched a person who became impure through contact with a corpse.
  The one defiled by the corpse. Meaning: Someone who touched another person who had become impure through contact with a corpse would become impure until the evening. Rashi asks: It is understandable that he could make utensils impure, because one who becomes impure through contact with a corpse has the status of a primary impurity and utensils can become impure through touching a primary impurity. However why would someone who touched this impure person become impure? Surely a person cannot become impure through touching a primary impurity, only from an אב הטומאה ["father of impurity"]? Rashi answers that “from here we learn…”
  Let the cow come and atone… You might ask: Surely a prosecutor cannot become a defender, for we similarly apply [this rule] concerning the golden vestments of the Kohein Gadol (Vayikra 16:4). He is forbidden to wear golden vestments when performing the service inside Holy of Holies because of the sin that was committed through gold. Here too surely the sin was done through the calf. The answer is that it was specifically regarding the service inside the Holy of Holies that it is forbidden because [we apply the principle that] a prosecutor cannot become a defender. For we see that [the Kohein Gadol] did serve wearing the golden vestments outside the Holy of Holies. Here too with the red cow, which was offered outside, it would not be fitting to say [the principle] that a prosecutor cannot become a defender. You might ask: Rashi below explains that the service of the red cow was not done by Aharon because [of the principle that] a prosecutor cannot become a defender! The answer is that Aharon is different, because the sin occurred through his [own] hand. However regarding the red cow, it is not <i>this</i> cow that was involved in the sin of the golden calf, only an animal of the same species. You might ask: In Parshas Shemini (Vayikra 9:2) it writes concerning Aharon, “Take a calf for yourself” and Rashi explains, "To show that Hashem had forgiven him for the incident with the golden calf.” [Surely there we see that] there was no difference between outside or inside the Holy of Holies. The answer is that there it refers to a case where he was atoning for himself, thus it was not appropriate to apply [the principle] that a prosecutor cannot become a defender, even though this was atoning for him regarding the sin of the golden calf. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: What is the connection between the red cow, which purifies after becoming impure through contact with a corpse, and atonement for the incident with the golden calf? The answer is that if they had not sinned with the golden calf they would have lived forever, as is stated in the first chapter of [Tractate] Avodah Zarah (5a): Rabbi Yosi says: Yisroel only received the Torah in order that the Angel of Death would not rule over them, as it is written, “So that it will be good for you.” However, when they sinned, Hashem said, “Rather, you shall die like man.” Consequently we see that death itself is an inherent consequence of the golden calf, and thus Hashem said “Let the child’s mother [the cow, mother of the calf] come and wipe away [the filth].” This is why it is used for purification.
  Just as the calf defiled… Because [the transgression of] the calf was idolatry and idolatry makes one impure like one who becomes impure through contact with a corpse, as is written in Tehillim (106:28) “They attached themselves to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Those who were to die in the desert had already perished. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Since the Torah writes “Bnei Yisroel” it is obvious that it was the “entire community.” He answers that “those who were to die in the desert had already perished,” [i.e., “the entire community” refers to those who were not destined to perish in the desert.]
  Why [is the portion concerning Miriam’s death] adjacent. Meaning that this portion does not belong here, for they made the golden calf in the first year following the exodus from Egypt and in the second year they burned the red cow. But, Miriam’s death occurred at the end of the forty years after the exodus.
  Just as sacrifices bring atonement. You might ask: Was the red cow a sacrifice? Surely they did not offer any part of it [on the altar]! The answer is based on Rashi’s alternative interpretation above (19:9), that the Torah calls it a sin-offering in order to say that it is like the holy sacrifices in that it is forbidden for one to personally benefit from it. From there we learn that it is like a sacrifice.
  So do the death of the righteous… You might ask: According to this, shouldn't the Torah have juxtaposed her death to the sacrifices themselves? The answer is that it is juxtaposed to the red cow because they are similar. The deaths of the righteous are not sacrifices, and the red cow is also not a sacrifice per se. Thus we learn one from the other, just as this one brings atonement, so too that one brings atonement.
  By the Divine kiss. Since it is written here שם ["there"], and concerning Aharon it is also written “Aharon died שם ["there"].” Because if it were not for the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> [Scriptural comparison] why does the Torah write “שם” ["there"] twice regarding Miriam. Perforce it was for the <i>gezeirah shavah</i>, to teach that just as there [Aharon died] by the Divine kiss, as it is written, “By the mouth of Hashem,” so too here it was by the Divine kiss.
  Why then is it not said concerning her, “By the mouth of Hashem.” There are those who ask: What was Rashi’s difficulty? Didn't he explain that we learn a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> from Aharon through the word שם ["there"]? The answer is that Rashi is asking: Why is the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> necessary? Let the Torah write, “By the mouth of Hashem” explicitly. For we are forced to say that it is not a full <i>gezeirah shavah</i>, because if it is, why is it necessary to write “By the mouth of Hashem” regarding Aharon in order to teach that he died by the Divine kiss? We could have learned the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> with the word “there” from Moshe. Rather it is certain that this is not a full <i>gezeirah shavah</i> and therefore the Torah writes “By the mouth of Hashem” regarding Aharon. Consequently it should have also written “By the mouth of Hashem” for Miriam. Nonetheless, the Gemara (Moed Katan 28a) explicitly states that we learn the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> from Moshe. Accordingly one must say that Rashi is saying as follows: “She too died by the Divine kiss” meaning that one learns a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> from the word “there” [stated] regarding Moshe. However, regarding Aharon it says, “By the mouth of Hashem,” thus it is not necessary to learn this from Moshe. This was why Rashi says ובאהרן ["However, concerning Aharon"] rather than שבאהרן ["That was [said] about Aharon"].
  
  Verse 2
  
  The well in Miriam’s merit. For immediately after Miriam died they no longer had water. You might ask: Why was the well not in Aharon’s or Moshe’s merit? The answer is that it was in the merit of Miriam waiting for Moshe by the water, to see what would happen to him when he was placed there in the box [as a baby] (Shemos 2:4). In return, this merit of the well, i.e., the water that Hashem provided for the congregation was on her behalf.
  
  Verse 3
  
  We wish that we had died. Meaning that this is similar to הן לו יהי כדבריך ["Would that it be like your words"] (Bereishis 30:34). However it is not in the sense of “perhaps” as in לו ישטמנו יוסף ["<i>Perhaps</i> Yosef bears a grudge against us"] (Bereishis 50:15) and not in the sense of “if” as in לו הקשבת למצותי ["<i>If</i> you had paid attention to my commandments"] (Yeshayahu 48:18).
  By our brothers’ death. It is as if Scripture had said בגויעת ["By our brothers’ death"]. For if not so, and [the <i>vav</i>] was part of the root, בגוע should have been spelled with a <i>cholam</i>. And its meaning would be “At the time when our brothers died” like [the <i>kaf</i>] in ויהי כשמוע לבן ["When Lavan heard"] (Bereishis 29:13).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  From here … is solicitous of the [Israelites’] property. You might ask: From where did Rashi derive this? Perhaps Hashem was answering their request when they asked why they and their livestock should die there, and Hashem answered, “Give drink to the community and their livestock.” The answer is that the term השקית (lit. "you will give water") refers to animals, as it is written in Parshas Chaye Sarah (Bereishis 24:14) “וגם גמליך אשקה” ["And I will also water your camels"]. Thus the Torah should have said “וישתו העדה” ["Let the community drink"] as it writes shortly (v. 11) “ותשת העדה” ["And the community drank"] because the term שתייה ["drinking"] refers to people, as it is also written “שתה אדוני” ["Let my master drink"] (Bereishis 24:18). However, since Scripture modifies its wording and writes והשקית ["And give drink"] it is certainly because “[Hashem] is solicitous of the Israelites’ property.” (<i>Mahari</i>) Also one may answer that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it necessary for the Torah to state “And their livestock”? For in Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 17:3) when Hashem answered Moshe’s request for water, He answered only that the <i>people</i> would drink, and the answer was despite Yisroel having said “To kill me and my children and my <i>livestock</i> [through thirst].” If so, why does it state, “And their livestock”? Rather it was because “[Hashem] is solicitous…” (<i>Kitzur</i> <i>Mizrochi</i>) Hashem said בעירם ["<i>their</i> livestock"] with a <i>mem</i>. Thus we learn that He is solicitous of them because they are the Israelites’ livestock, and not merely because they are animals. For if not so, it should have said “Give drink to the community and the animals”! This answer is also apparent from <i>Divrei Dovid</i>.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Where a small area held… Rashi is answering the question: Would it be possible to assemble the entire community before the rock?
  Because they did not recognize it. Rashi is answering the question: What reason did they have for saying “Can we [extract] from this rock…”? Since Hashem had said it will give water it would certainly happen! He answers that it was “because they did not recognize it.” The Israelites were asking them, “What difference is it to you from which rock you extract [water]?” Meaning: What difference is there between this rock and another one? Therefore he said to them…
  
  Verse 11
  
  Because at first … only drops. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he strike it twice? He answers that this was because after striking it once it only produced drops. His proof is that if it had not produced anything, why would he have stuck it a second time? Also, why would he not have thought that it was a different rock, about which Hashem had not commanded them? Conversely, if at first it had produced abundant water, they would not have had to strike it a second time. Rather, it is certain that at first it produced drops and therefore he struck it a second time. The reason why it did not produce sufficient water immediately was “Because [the Omnipresent] had not…” Rashi adds “They spoke…” so that Moshe’s mistake be known, that he struck it. Because they had spoken to a different rock and it had not produced water. Consequently he struck the rock, because they said, “Perhaps…” Rashi adds that they happened upon [that rock] because if this were not so, why would it have even produced drops? Even after many strikes it should not have produced even one drop of water! Rather, “They happened upon [that rock]…” There is a minor difficulty based on Rashi’s explanation in Parshas Matos concerning the verse (Bamidbar 31:21) “Elozor the Kohein said…” [There he states]: “Because Moshe fell into a state of anger he fell into a state of error… similar to ‘listen now rebels… he struck the rock’ and because of anger he came to a state of error.” This implies that it was not because they had spoken to another rock and it had not produced water, and that they thought perhaps Hashem’s command was to strike it, like Rashi writes here. The answer may be that these are Midrashim that disagree with each other and Rashi brings both, as is his practice. <i>Re’m</i>.
  
  Verse 12
  
  Scripture reveals… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Is it respectful to reveal the disgrace of the righteous? He answers that on the contrary it is to their credit that the Scripture reveals this “so that it would not be said of them…”
  If it had not been for this single sin. Rashi is troubled by the fact that the word יען ["because"] seems to explain what was stated previously. I.e., it has the connotation of, “If it were not for.” He answers that “if it had not been for…” means that it was <i>only</i> because they did this [that they were punished]. <i>Re’m</i> writes: You might ask: Even without this sin he would not have entered the land because a decree had already been place upon him, as it states (Shemos 6:1) “<i>Now</i> you will see…” [and Rashi comments:] “But not what is done to the thirty one kings.” For the answer see Parshas Beha'aloscha (Bamidbar 10:29) where I wrote on the verse, “We are journeying…” that Rashi’s words there are like his answer here. Therefore I have not brought the answer of the <i>Re’m</i> here.
  Like the transgressions of the rest of the generation of the desert. Meaning: One should not explain that they were also guilty of the sins of the generation of the desert, for they were great sins such as those who complained and the other matters as well.
  Was not “Will sheep and cattle be slaughtered” worse than this? For there Moshe implied that Hashem did not have the power to give them enough meat. Here Moshe merely said that he did not have permission to bring water from a [different] rock [than the one] about which he had been commanded. [The answer is:] This [statement about the rock] gave the people reason to believe that the water came out because of the rock and its own attributes, not because of Hashem’s decree. Because what difference does it make to Hashem whether it is this rock or another. Thus their sin was only that they did not rely on Hashem, that He would bring water out from any rock they wished, even though it was not the one about which they had been commanded.
  He swore precipitously. Meaning on His own, without any need — for surely they had not [yet] stood before Him in prayer.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Because of the bill of debt… Meaning: Hashem said to Avraham, “Your offspring will be strangers…” (Bereishis 15:13). However He placed the decree of being slaves in the land of Egypt upon Yaakov and his sons alone. Thus, "We endured the suffering of the enslavement on behalf of Esav your father, and his children. Consequently it is fitting for you to allow us passage through your land." Rashi explains this shortly [in his commentary] on the words, “Let us pass through your land…” (v. 17).
  
  Verse 15
  
  We endured much suffering. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Though the term וירעו ["they mistreated"] merely implies that they did one evil act to them, but elsewhere (Devarim 26:6) it is written, “They mistreated us <i>and</i> afflicted us…” Therefore Rashi explains that וירעו includes much suffering, and thus all afflictions are included.
  That the forefathers suffer. Because if it is referring to the forefathers who were in the land of Egypt, Scripture should have placed “forefathers” before “us” and said, “They mistreated our forefathers and us.” However, since Scripture wrote “forefathers” at the end, it implies that it refers to a something else (<i>Mahari</i>). (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) For one cannot explain that it refers to the forefathers who were enslaved in Egypt, given that this is so obvious that one would not have to mention it. Rather, it certainly refers to the forefathers who are mentioned at the beginning of the verse that states, “Our forefathers went down to Egypt.” This raises the following difficulty: During the period that any one of the sons of Yaakov was alive there was no enslavement, if so what is meant by “they mistreated […our forefathers]”? Perforce it is to say that “the forefathers suffer…” and accordingly one is able to explain that Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov also suffer.
  
  Verse 16
  
  Through the blessing … “The voice is the voice of Yaakov.” From the answer that the king of Edom gave to Moshe we see that Moshe said to him, “Through the blessing…” Meaning: The Torah writes shortly (v.18), “Lest I go out against you with the sword.” There Rashi explains the reason that he responded, “You pride yourselves…” This proves that Moshe [first] said to him, “Through the blessing…” (<i>Devek Tov</i>) For if not so, when Moshe said, “We cried out to Hashem…” he should merely have said, “Hashem heard and He sent…” Why did he mention “our voice”? Rather, it was “through the blessing…”
  This refers to Moshe. Rashi is answering the question: But it was Moshe who took them out! So Rashi explains “from here…”
  
  Verse 17
  
  You should not challenge… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why did Moshe need to mention to the king of Edom about the exodus from Egypt as well as the entire section written beforehand?
  Although we have in our possession manna to eat. Rashi mentions “manna to eat” even though the verse only writes about water, because Rashi is answering the question: If he had not spoken the king of Edom about food, what benefit would they have in them purchasing water, since this was of minor benefit to them? Rather, Moshe must have also said that they would purchase food from them. The reason that the verse specifically mentions water was to teach something additional; that they also wished to purchase water from them, even though it was not customary to purchase water. We see that from Yirmeyahu who lamented (Eichah 5:4), “We drank our water for money” (<i>Mahari</i>).
  We will muzzle. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Rashi is answering the question: Had they not already said, “We will not pass through any field or vineyard”? [The answer is] that certainly above it refers to their passage on foot but here it is referring to a diversion [from the road] to eat.
  
  Verse 18
  
  With my forefather’s legacy. For if not so, why mention the <i>sword</i>. He should have said, “I will go out against you to <i>war</i>.”
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  With our grandfather’s assurance. For if not so, why does it say “a strong hand.” Any massive number of people constitutes a strong hand.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  All of them, perfect. You might ask: Why does Rashi not comment in the same manner he did above on the phrase “The entire community” (v. 1)? Also, why is it necessary to mention that all of them were perfect [and ready] to enter the land? Furthermore, it was not necessary to explain that “these were among those…” The answer is that it was [necessary] so that you would not ask: Why does Scripture write, “The entire community” teaching that the entire community is designated for life, since those who were destined to die in the wilderness had already perished, since the Torah had written above “the entire community”? Therefore Rashi explains that it is to tell you that even at the time they entered the land, which was some time after the death of the generation of the desert, “All of them were perfect…”
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  In the vestments of the <i>Kehunah Gedolah.</i> Rashi wishes to answer the question: If it was his regular clothes, why did Hashem command Moshe to dress Elozor in [Aharon's] clothes in his presence. <i>Re’m</i> answers that one must say that this refers to the vestments of the <i>Kehunah</i> [<i>Gedolah</i>]. If not so, how would this be a sign that [Elozor] merited the <i>Kehunah</i> <i>Gedolah</i>? It is possible that [he meant] my answer within his.
  He dressed him and then removed them from him. Even though it does not write here that Hashem commanded this, for it is only written, “Remove Aharon’s [vestments].” Otherwise, if Moshe had not dressed him first, how could Aharon have worn the vestments of the <i>kehunah</i> during a time when he was not performing any service? Surely one who leaves the Temple Mount wearing the vestments of <i>kehunah</i> receives forty lashes [for transgressing a Torah prohibition]. Rather one must say that Moshe dressed him per Hashem’s instruction in order that he could remove them and place them on Elozor in Aharon’s presence. This was to demonstrate that his son Elozor had merited the <i>Kehunah Gedolah</i> in Aharon’s place.
  He said to him “Enter the cave.” Rashi is answering the question: Why did Aharon himself not remove his clothes and place them on Elozor? It seems insulting for Moshe to have to serve them. He answers that, “He said to him…” Would it not have been sufficient without mentioning Moshe’s words? Rather, it was to demonstrate the commandment of doing kindness to the dead, and that Moshe himself dealt with all matters pertaining to the death of Aharon.
  
  Verse 27
  
  Although the matter was difficult for him. For if not so, why is it necessary to say “Moshe did…”? Would one have thought that he would transgress the charge of the Omnipresent? <i>Re’m</i> writes: I do not know why Rashi did not make this comment in Parshas Korach where it is written (Bamidbar 17:26) “Moshe did as Hashem commanded Moshe, so he did.” It is possible that he did not comment there because one may say that he did so happily and for his own benefit, so that Bnei Yisroel would not again come to dispute the elevation of the tribe of Levi. There [the happiness due to] the love over his tribe’s elevation was joined with his performance of this commandment, even though he was also doing the command of Hashem. Consequently there Rashi did not wish to make any comment.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  When they saw Moshe… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely they did not see Aharon’s death, for only Moshe and Elozor [witnessed it]. The Torah then should have said “they heard…” given that they heard this from Moshe and Elozor. Rashi explains, “When they saw…” [Rashi continues:] The ministering angels showed them. This is what was meant by “the entire community saw.”
  Because Aharon… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why concerning the death of Moshe is it written “all of Yisroel cried” while here concerning [the death of] Aharon it is written “the entire <i>house </i>of Yisroel”? He explains that here even the women cried, because Aharon [pursued peace…].
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  He heard that Aharon died and [the clouds of glory] departed. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source for this? Perhaps [the explanation of the verse] is like its plain understanding, that it was because “Yisroel had come…” as the verse continues. The answer is that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “He heard”? It should have merely said “Yisroel came by the route of the spies and the Cannanite King of Arad came and attacked…” As the Torah writes (Shemos 17:8) “Amalek came and attacked Yisroel” and (Bamidbar 21:23) “[They] went out against Yisroel to the wilderness; he came to Yohatz and attacked Yisroel.” Similarly it says regarding Og (ibid. v. 33), “He came out against Yisroel, [he with all his people] to wage war at Edre’i.” Rather, it was because they heard that Aharon died and the Clouds of Glory departed. Furthermore one can answer that Rashi’s proof is from Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 33:40) where it is written, “The Canaanites heard…after Aharon’s death.” There it is clear that it was only because they had heard that Aharon had died and that the Divine Presence had departed from Yisroel. Rashi explains on that verse, “From here you learn…” The words, “From here” imply that he is explaining that his proof is from there, as I will explain there. <i>Re’m</i> explains: It is written above וַיִּרְאוּ כל העדה ["The entire community saw…"] (20:29) and Rabbi Abahu says (Rosh Hashanah 3a): Read this as וַיֵרְאוּ ["and they feared"] with a <i>tzerei</i> under the <i>yud</i> in accordance with Reish Lakish who says that here the word כי [translated in 20:29 as "that" but sometimes meaning "because"] comes to explain the matter that precedes it. [Consequently it means that they were fearful] since the community had become vulnerable because of Aharon’s death. It appears that this was why Rashi reversed the order of the verse and explained (20:29) “that [Aharon] had died” after “the entire community of Yisroel” in order to juxtapose it to the comment, “And the Canaanite heard.” <i>R. Yaakov Triosh</i>.
  This was Amalek. Rashi explains this so that you should not pose the difficulty that the verse is contradictory, for it is written, “The Canaanite [king] heard” and afterwards it is written “who lived in the south” which refers to Amalek. [To resolve the difficulty] he explains, “They changed…”
  The great pathfinder. This refers to the Ark, meaning that once they saw that the Clouds of Glory had departed and [the Israelites] only had the Holy Ark traveling before them, they came to attack, something that they had not done previously. <i>Re’m</i>. The other interpretation was necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why is it written, “The route of the spies.” Did the spies establish that route? Surely it had been established for anyone to pass through. Therefore Rashi brought the other interpretation. Accordingly, Rashi brings the other interpretation and as <i>Re’m</i> explains, that it was because only the Ark traveled before them, but the Clouds of Glory had departed that [the Amalekites] came to attack. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why the Torah writes האתרים in the plural form, since it was referring only to the Holy Ark [which is singular]. Therefore Rashi also brings the first interpretation.
  One maidservant. Rashi had to explain so because the Rabbis state that Yisroel can only be defeated at a time when they act corruptly before Hashem. But here we do not find any corrupt behavior. Therefore he says that the captive who was taken here was merely the captive whom Yisroel captured from them. We need not ask how Rashi knew that there was only one, when perhaps there were two. For one can answer that the term שבי ["captive"] implies that there was only one. You might also ask how Rashi knew that the captive was a maidservant. The answer is that the term שבי implies a maidservant. For in Parshas Bo concerning the warning [before the tenth plague] it is written, “From the firstborn of Pharoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the maidservant…” (Shemos 11:5). Whereas later, when the plague struck, it is written “Until the firstborn of the שבי [captive]” (Shemos 12:29). Thus one must explain that שבי there refers to the firstborn of the maidservant and therefore the word שבי written here also refers to a maidservant. For if not so, Scripture should have clarified [whether] he took men, women or children from them.
  
  Verse 2
  
  I shall consecrate the spoils. For if [it is explained] like the plain understanding [implying destruction], what kind of vow would it be to destroy their cities? Surely a plain vow to Hashem refers to consecration of property. Rather this expression means, “I shall consecrate…” Rashi comments further (v. 3), that according to this explanation that ויחרם refers to consecration to heaven, it would not be appropriate to say this in reference to people, as the verse continues “<i>them</i> and their cities.” Therefore Rashi explains that when [ויחרם] refers to people it is in the sense of killing [them], but when it refers to cities it is in the sense of consecration to heaven.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Since Aharon had died… Rashi is answering the question: What is meant by “they traveled from Mount Hor by the Reed Sea route…”? Surely before they came to Mount Hor they were circling around the land of Edom, as it is written “Edom refused…” (above 20:21). Thus it is evident that they had already turned back [in order to circle around Edom]. So why does it say now that they turned back? Rashi answers that “since Aharon died….”
  But they returned there … and eulogized him. You might ask: Why did they eulogize him at Moseirah? The answer is that in Parshas Pinchos (Bamidbar 26:13) and Parshas Eikev (Devarim 10:6) Rashi explains why they eulogized him at Moseirah. This is the essence of his words: When they returned to Moseirah, the Levites chased after them until Moseirah and killed several families, as Rashi explains in Parshas Pinchos. Thus they eulogized him there because it was due to Aharon’s death that the Clouds of Glory departed from them, leading the Canaanites to hear and come to attack them. This caused them to return to Moseirah, and because they returned, several families were killed. Consequently they eulogized him there, given that it was due to his death that all of these events befell them, as I explained. The reason why here Rashi explains that they turned back seven journeys, while in Parshas Pinchos he explains that they turned back eight journeys is explained elsewhere (Bamidbar 26:13). Here it means aside from the last journey there were seven journeys.
  
  Verse 5
  
  The manna will eventually swell. Rashi explains “it will swell” because the Torah writes הקלוקל ["this rotten"] with a <i>cholam</i>, which literally implies a sense of decay. This was why they said that it would swell in their stomachs. When he explains that it was absorbed into the limbs, this was because it is written קלקל in the shortened form [without a <i>vav</i>] which implies the sense of קל ["light"], implying that one did not have to digest it. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) This is Rashi’s comment from Avodah Zarah 5a: “With this rotten bread — this is the manna because it was absorbed into their limbs and not excreted they called it rotten…” From there one sees that it is in the sense of lightness, similar to ירקרק or אדמדם ["yellowish" or "reddish" which are variations on the words ירק ["yellow"] and אדום ["red"] formed by doubling the root]. [It appears that] <i>Re’m</i> overlooked this Rashi.
  Can anyone … without excreting. You might ask: Is it not written (Devarim 23:14), “You shall have a shovel aside from your weapons, and it shall be when you sit outside…”? From there it seems that they did excrete. The answer is that they excreted [food] purchased from the merchants [not the manna].
  
  Verse 6
  
  That consume. Meaning that השרפים ["the consuming"] is a description of the snakes that are mentioned in the verse, meaning “the snakes that consume.” Not that this was a species of snake such as שרף מעופף ["a flying seraph" (Yeshayahu 14:29)] or נחש שרף ועקרב ["snake, saraph and scorpion" (Devarim 8:15)]. For if this were so the verse should have said והשרפים ["<i>and </i>the seraphim"]. [One might ask:] It is written, (v. 8) “Make yourself a שרף ["consuming snake"]” which implies that it was a species of snake called the saraph. The answer is that it means “make for yourself a consuming snake” for we find something similar [that an adjective implies a subject that is not stated explicitly in the verse] where מאכלו בריא ["his food is healthy"] (Chabakuk 1:16), refers to a healthy sheep.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Because it is [held high] … it is called a banner. Meaning that it is usual for one to signal with a pole by the placement of a signal on it, given that a pole is high, therefore a pole is called a banner.
  Even if a dog. For if this were not so, why was it necessary to write כל ["anyone"], surely it should have merely written “one bitten.”
  Deteriorate. In the sense of becoming ill, meaning that the body progressively shriveled and he did not die immediately. (Bava Kamma 52).
  Can a snake bring death … and subjugated their hearts… (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) You might ask: If so, why did Hashem tell Moshe to make the snake given that it was dependant upon whether they directed [their hearts etc.]? <i>Ramban</i> has already answered that it was a miracle within a miracle, because when one has been injured by something it is normally dangerous for him to see or to gaze at it. Furthermore, doctors are careful not to mention the thing that caused the injury in front of him. However Hashem said that “anyone bitten will look at it and live” which is contrary to nature, to teach that it is not the snake that brings death, rather it is sin that brings death. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) writes that He commanded Moshe to place it on the banner in order that they would look upward, for then it would be impossible for one not to direct his heart toward heaven concerning this matter and to see who had brought it about. Accordingly when Hashem said [specifically] to make a snake, this was because when one sees the thing that injured him fear overtakes him. Consequently he concentrates more in prayer over the thing that injured him when he sees it before his eyes.
  
  Verse 9
  
  Snake. <i>Ramban</i> writes: I do not understand this, for surely Hashem only said “Make yourself a שרף ["snake"].” Rather they mean that Moshe followed the essential name. His answer appears to be that since the essential name that Hashem gave to the snake was נחש [<i>nachash</i>]. Why then was it called שרף here? Consequently, Moshe said [to himself] “Hashem is surely hinting to me by referring to it with a descriptive name and not the essential name,” in order to make the snake from copper [<i>nachash nechoshes</i>], so that it [also] alludes to the essential name.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  I do not know. Meaning, I do not know <i>why</i> this place was called “the wasteland passes.” However I do know the meaning of עיי as Rashi explains.
  With a broom. Meaning swept with a broom. This is in the sense of יעים ["scoops"] (Bamidbar 4:14) with which one sweeps out ashes.
  For those crossing Mount Nevo. Rashi is answering the question: The term “passes” implies a point they are crossing over to another area, but to where were they crossing over? He answers that “This was the passage route for those crossing Mount Nevo…” because in Parshas Haazinu (Devarim 32:49) it is also written, “This [mountain] pass, Mount Nevo.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  The edge of [their] border. Rashi was obliged to explain that this refers to a border and is not in the sense of a territory [the word גבול ["border"] sometimes includes the territory enclosed by the border]. For if it was the territory of the Emorites then it could not be the territory of the Moavites, and if it was the territory of the Moavites then it could not be the territory of the Emorites. However a border can be a boundary for both.
  
  Verse 14
  
  Concerning this encampment. Meaning, concerning the miracles performed in this encampment. [The Sifsei Chachamim proceeds to explain the somewhat cryptic language used in the next two verses:] The meaning of בספר ["in the book"] is “In the book of stories.” The meaning of והב ["gave"] is יהב which means “gave.” The meaning of בסופה ["at the reeds"] is “at the Reed Sea.” The meaning of ואת הנחלים ["and the valleys"] is “the miracles of the valleys.” The meaning of ארנון ["Arnon"] is “of Arnon.” The meaning of ואשד is “spillage.” The meaning of ואשד הנחלים is that it is a description of “the valleys of Arnon.” The meaning of אשר נטה ["when it turned…"] is that the Mountain at Ar was uprooted from its place.
  
  Verse 15
  
  When the Israelites came to pass through, the Eretz Yisroel mountain was set in tremor. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: The mountain should have returned to its place immediately, such that the Israelites would have seen the dead in the valley. Why then did the mountain only return to its place after they had passed through? The answer is that it is not proper for one who receives his master to return to his place until his master passes, therefore [the mountain] did not return to its place until the Israelites had passed. <i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i> raises a difficulty: We need not ask that surely the cloud went before them, flattening any heights and raising any low places, and as a result the mountain should have returned immediately. Here we cannot answer that the cloud had already departed at Aharon’s death, for the Gemara in Maseches Taanis (9a) states that it returned in the merit of Moshe. Nonetheless, this is not a difficulty because the cloud traveled three days journey ahead of them, thus it is possible that at the time of passing through, the mountain had not yet accomplished its task of killing those who gathered there. Consequently the cloud did not level out the mountain.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  From within the valley. Rashi says “from within the valley” because one always arises from a low place to a higher place. And because the meaning of the word “arise” was not that it would come up, rather that the limbs would come forth so that Yisroel should be aware of the miracles that were done for them, Rashi added the words “and lift…” Nonetheless, since by arising it would lift up, the Torah wrote עלי ["arise"] rather than העלי ["lift"].
  Was it from there? Meaning: The Torah says (v. 18), “From the wilderness as a gift,” meaning that it was given to them at the time they came into the wilderness.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  As there Moshe died. Meaning: Since it mentioned here (v. 19), “The gift [traveled] to the valley” it also mentioned that the well traveled on to the heights, and from the heights to the valley, even though these journeys had not yet happened. Once the well is mentioned here, the Torah relates everything about it. Consequently, once we see that [after the valley] it did not travel any further with them, Rashi gives the reason for this saying “Moshe died there and it was discontinued.” <i>Re’m</i>
  And there the well was discontinued. You might ask: Was the well not discontinued when Miriam died, as stated above (20:2)? The answer is that it returned in the merit of Moshe, and when he died, it [permanently] stopped (Taanis 9a).
  Why is Moshe not mentioned… You might ask: Above, immediately in the beginning of the song “It was then that Yisroel sang” (v. 17). Rashi should have asked why Moshe was not mentioned as well. The answer is that one might have thought that it was because he sinned at the well, as it is written above that he struck the rock (20:11). Consequently [one would say that] the Torah did not wish to mention him in this song which refers to the well, as Rashi explains. However now that he explains that במחוקק ["through the lawgiver"] refers to Moshe, [Rashi asks] why Moshe was not mentioned explicitly in the song.
  That peak. Because we cannot say that it refers to the valley, given that גיא ["valley"] is in the masculine form while ונשקפה ["that overlooks"] is in the feminine form.
  Another interpretation: The well may be seen. Because באר ["well"] is in the feminine form. The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that the entire passage deals with the well, so how could one explain that ונשקפה ["that overlooks"] refers to the peak? Consequently Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty that it should have said ונשקפה מן הישימון ["that looks out <i>from</i> the wastelands"], but what is the meaning of על פני ["<i>over</i> the wastelands"]? Consequently Rashi brings the first reason also.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Although they were not commanded… Meaning that although they were not commanded to do so, they made this request since they only wished to make a temporary traversal [of the land]. It was not similar to the surrounding cities where the Torah forbade [them to make peace] (see Devarim 20:16-17). <i>Re’m</i>, <i>Nachalas Yaakov, Gur Aryeh</i> and <i>Divrei Dovid</i> all raise the difficulty that surely Sichon was king of the Emorites and thus included among the seven nations. Therefore, why did they offer a peace overture given that in reference to the seven nations the Torah writes, “You shall not allow any soul to live” (ibid.)? The answer is that even in the Land of Israel itself, the prohibition, “You shall not allow any soul to live” only applies once they had already begun the war. Thus when it is taught that Yehoshua sent three messages to the Land of Israel, the first of which was “whoever wishes to make peace, come and make peace” it was before they had begun the war.
  
  Verse 23
  
  Delivered tribute to him. For if not so, surely they only requested to pass through their land. [Thus it is understandable that] Sichon did not allow them to pass, but why did he go out to fight against them? (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>, <i>Gur Aryeh</i> and <i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) Rashi needed this answer to explain [a difficulty:] It was understandable that the king of Edom would dispute the inheritance of the Land of Israel, being certain [of his strength] due to the assurance of his ancestor, and also because they sent an appeasing message, “Let us please pass” in terms of a request. However regarding Sichon there is the difficulty as to why he was so confident? Surely it would have been better for him not to wage war with Yisroel. Therefore Rashi answers that “all the Canaanite kings delivered tribute to him.”
  Why should I inconvenience… Rashi is answering the question: Why did Sichon go out against them to wage war? Surely he had no reason to fear given that even “if the city of Cheshbon had been filled with gnats…” and similarly “if Sichon had been alone in a village…” Furthermore the verse continues, “And he gathered all of his people.” This implies [that he gathered] all of the people in the land, but this was not proper practice. On the contrary he should have brought all his troops into the cities in order to protect them. Thus Rashi explains “The Holy One Blessed Is He said…”
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Cheshbon under Sichon’s name. “May it be built and established” refers to Cheshbon mentioned above, not to “as the city of Sichon.” For after he had conquered and taken possession of it, what need was there to say “may it be built and established”? Rather, this is what the parable tellers were saying: Sichon and his people come to the city of Cheshbon, for you can overcome it, given that from the beginning when it was built it was established as the city of Sichon. It was built under Sichon’s name, meaning that from then it was already decreed to be the city of Sichon. Thus “May it be built and established” is in the future tense in place of the past tense.
  
  Verse 28
  
  After Sichon conquered it. But not beforehand, for if so, it should have said “A fire came <i>to Cheshbon</i>.”
  Ar, belonging to Moav. Rashi says this so that you should not think that ער ["Ar"] was in the sense of עיר ["city"]. This would be similar to דם ["blood"] the plural form of which is דמים; so too, the plural form of ער would be ערים ["cities"]. Thus ער would be the general title for all of Moav’s cities. However this would not be possible because Moav still had many cities which they ruled over. Furthermore it cannot refer to one of their cities because if so, Scripture should have mentioned which city, as is its usual practice, given that it does not come to conceal but rather to explain. Rashi brings a proof from the [Onkelos’s] translation which is לחיית [the proper noun "Lechayas"] rather than קרתא ["city"]. <i>Re’m</i> writes: It appears to me that this was Rashi’s intention: The proper name of a city is not normally used in the construct form [<i>semichus</i>, as here where two nouns are juxtaposed indicating possession], and given that Ar is the proper name of a country, it should not have been used in the construct form. Because of this question one might have felt forced to explain that ער is in the sense of עיר ["city"]. However, [Rashi indicates that] one should not explain so, given that it is preferable to explain that it was an individual city which was placed in the construct form, although this is not typical. [This is preferable] rather than explaining that it is in the sense of “city,” due to the difficulties that this would entail.
  
  Verse 29
  
  That he be delivered into his hands. Meaning that this verse is related to, “May it be built and established” (v. 27), as if to say that since the city was built for Sichon, ultimately it would be handed over to him.
  
  Verse 30
  
  As far as Divon. Rashi explains that עד ["as far as"] is in the sense of סר ["removed"] as if to say “the kingdom was removed from Divon” because one cannot explain אבד חשבון עד דיבון like the simple understanding that the entire area from Cheshbon as far as Divon was uprooted. For if so, the word ונירם, which means “their kingdom,” would not be connected to what comes before or after it. However, according to Rashi’s explanation it is as if it is written “their kingdom in Cheshbon was uprooted and their kingdom in Divon was removed.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  The spies captured it. Since it is written “<i>they</i> captured its surrounding villages” with וילכדו ["<i>they </i>captured"] in the plural form, rather than וילכד ["<i>he</i> captured"] in the singular form, as it does shortly where it is written ויורש ["and <i>he </i>inherited"] in the singular. Rather [this implies that] the spies captured the surrounding villages.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  Moshe was afraid [to do battle] that perhaps the merit… For if not so, why was Og any different from Sichon? Regarding Sichon, Hashem did not say “do not be afraid of him.” You might ask: Surely Og’s intentions were purely evil, [namely] that Avrohom would be killed and he would marry Sarah, as Rashi explains in Parshas Lech Lecha on the verse, “The one who had escaped came…” (Bereishis 14:13). The answer is that nonetheless, since the merit of saving Lot came through his hand, Moshe was afraid that this merit might stand for him, even though his intentions were evil. Similarly we say (Horiyos 10b) that in the merit of the sacrifices that Balak offered, he merited that Rus [Ruth] would come from him, even though his intentions were evil. This was because he offered them in honor of Hashem.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  He said “Those two kings…” Rashi is answering the question: Was he the [only one] who saw but others did not see? Rather, he took it to heart and therefore the Torah associates the sighting with him. Alternatively, Rashi is answering a [different] question: The Torah should have stated, “And he heard,” given that presumably he did not partake in the war. Rather, “And he saw” is an expression of comprehension, and what was it that he comprehended? “He said…”
  Certainly we cannot. Rashi is answering the question: How was, “And Moav became terrified” (v. 3) a result of, “And Balak saw…”? For the verse implies that it was because of him seeing that Moav became terrified. Rashi answers: “Those two kings…” referring to Sichon and Og. He means to say that once the general populace heard that the king had said this, as a result “Moav became terrified.” <i>Re’m</i> writes: This is puzzling, because if the word ויגר ["became terrified"] refers to the verse above, what is the meaning of “because of their great numbers” which is written immediately afterwards (v. 3)? For this implies that it was because of their numbers that they were fearful, rather than because of what they did to the two Emorite kings. One cannot answer that there is a <i>vav</i> missing from כי רב הוא ["because of their great numbers"] and it as if it had stated וכי רב הוא ["<i>and</i> because of their great numbers"], which would mean that it was <i>also</i> because of their great numbers; for if so, Rashi should have explained this phrase like he explained “Because Hashem took Yisroel out of Egypt…” (Shemos 18:1). The answer appears to be that the Moavites also knew that Bnei Yisroel were victorious over the two kings, however they thought that the victory had been by natural means. Thus, since their victory in war was only because of their great population, it would be possible to be victorious over them with a greater population, by engaging all the kings of Canaan against them. However, now they had heard from their king that Yisroel’s victory in war was by unnatural means, since they killed the Emorites without standing against them [to cause any casualties]. Consequently, “Moav became terrified of the people because of their great numbers,” meaning that they still had great numbers as before and had not lost a man. This was why they detested their lives. Accordingly Rashi’s explanation is as follows: “These two kings…” meaning that 'we were certain that these two kings would kill at least as many Israelites as the Israelites had killed of them, and then we would come with all the Canaanite kings to kill those Israelites who remained. However now that none of them have been killed, because no man raised his hand against them due to the fear of Yisroel that fell over them, all the more so we will not be able to [overcome them], even with [the help of] all the Canaanite kings.'
  
  Verse 3
  
  They detested their lives. Meaning that the Moavites detested their [own] lives. It is as if it had said “Moav detested their lives.” The reason for this was their fear of Bnei Yisroel. Rashi’s proof is because it is written מפני העם ["because of the people"].
  
  Verse 4
  
  But were they not ancient [enemies] … as it is said “who attacked…” For if it were not so, let it write הכה את מדין ["who attacked Midian"] which would imply once, however המכה את מדין implies that they were continually attacking them.
  Why did Moav see fit to accept advice from Midian. Meaning that though they had made peace between themselves due to their fear [of Yisroel], nonetheless the peace was only so that they would no longer be enemies. However, why did they see fit to accept advice? Rashi answers… [Why did Moav see fit to accept advice from Midian.] Since the verse associated the request for advice with Moav, and it is not written, “The elders of Moav and the elders of Midian said,” one sees that Moav accepted advice from Midian. Consequently Rashi questions “why they saw fit…” [Initially] Rashi had no difficulty with the verse, since one could say that Midian was not afraid of Bnei Yisroel, and only Moav was afraid. However now that he explains that because of their fear of Yisroel they made peace between themselves, we see that both of them were afraid. Thus there is the difficulty as to why Moav saw fit to accept advice from Midian, and why Midian did not accept advice from Moav in order to save themselves. Rashi answers, “When they saw…,” meaning that the Midianites knew [the nature of] the leader of Yisroel, meaning Moshe, because he had been raised in Midian. Therefore, Moav accepted advice from Midian.
  
  Whatever an ox [laps up] is no longer marked by blessing. Because it uproots everything by its roots, similarly with them, they completely uproot everything as it is written, “Leaving no survivors” (Bamidbar 21:35). For if not so, it should have said, “As the <i>animal</i> laps up.”
  One of the chieftains. Meaning: “Officers.” The text of <i>Re’m</i> reads: “He was one of the chieftains of Sichon” see there. However one does not have to emend our texts because of this, since Scripture mentions him in connection with both of them, as it is written (Yehoshua 13:21) “the leaders of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Tzor, Chor and Reva, chieftains of Sichon.” [Midrash Rabbah (20:24) identifies Tzor as Balak.]
  
  Verse 5
  
  Like the money changer. Since פתורה ["to Pesor"] has the meaning of שלחן ["table," in Aramaic. The term for a money changer (שולחני) is derived from the table at which he conducts his business].
  Dispatched their correspondence to him. To take advice from him.
  This was the name of the place. Thus the meaning of פתורה is “to Pesor” like לפתור. For any word that should have a <i>lamed</i> at the beginning [Scripture often] places a <i>hei</i> at the end. According to the Midrashic interpretation the <i>hei</i> was part of the word, given that the translation of “table” is פתורה.
  Prophesied… “You are destined to be a king.” Meaning that Bil’am prophesied about Balak, for though he was one of the chieftains of Midian, the land of his birth was Pesor.
  Should you ask, why did the Holy One Blessed is He visit His Divine Presence… [One might ask why] Rashi did not wait to ask this question in its place (Bamidbar 24:2) “the spirit of Hashem was upon him”? The answer is that further on there is no difficulty, because perhaps it was in honor of Yisroel that the Divine Presence rested upon him, in order that he would bless them. However here there is a valid question.
  For his benefit. Since it is written לקרא ["to call"] why is it necessary to say לו ["to him"]? Surely afterwards it is written (v.6) “please come…” meaning that he should go with the messengers. Rather [“to him” must come] for us to expound [that the invitation was for his benefit]. Furthermore, one can say that since his intention was to [have Bil'am] curse [Yisroel], why did Balak call him to come to him? Why not have Bil'am curse them from where he was? Rather it is certain that the calling was for his benefit, and to make a money arrangement. With this we can answer the question of <i>Re’m</i> who writes: I do not know from where Rashi expounds this, for there is apparent superfluous wording here as [there is] in פסל לך ["carve for yourself"] (Shemos 34:1), עשה לך ["make for yourself"] (Bamidbar 10:2) or שלח לך ["send for yourself"] (Bamidbar 13:2). But לו ["to him"] is necessary here for it is in place of אותו ["him"] as in קראן לו ויאכל לחם ["call to him and let him eat bread"] (Shemos 2:20), where the word לו is in place of אותו.
  You may ask: Why is this harmful to you. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write הנה ["behold"] twice? For הנה always implies an independent matter. With this comment Rashi answers the reason for the repetition, for now this is the beginning of an independent statement and the word הנה is required.
  Sichon and Og. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) Rashi is answering the question: How could he say “they have covered the face of the earth”? Surely the [breadth] of the Israelite camp was only twelve mil? Therefore, he explains that they killed Sichon and Og whom they were relying upon. Thus the meaning of עין [translated as "face" but literally meaning "eye"] is the same as “you will be our eyes” (Bamidbar 10:31).
  This is written incompletely. Meaning that ממולי in the full spelling would mean “across from me,” however since it is written incompletely (ממלי) it is in the sense of “cutting down.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  My people and I. Rashi is answering the question: אולי אוכל [lit. "perhaps I will be able"] is in the singular form, while נכה [lit. "we will strike"] is in the plural form.
  To diminish them a little. Meaning that this was what the Moavites were saying about Yisroel, that they would diminish them a little (Accordingly נכה is the infinitive and it means "[I will be able] to diminish"). The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that one had to ‘emend’ the text to read “my people and I.” Thus Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation, there is the difficulty that it should have said נכה ממנו [lit. "to diminish <i>from</i> him"] like the language of the Mishnah מנכה מן הדמים [lit. "reduce <i>from</i> the price"]. Thus the first reason is also necessary.
  
  Verse 7
  
  All types of magic charms … another interpretation [the elders of Midian took up] this mystical omen. Meaning that they took up this sign. The other interpretation is necessary, because according to the first reason there was the difficulty as to why he would need any tools for this. Furthermore he was at home and the tools of his work were certainly with him. Therefore Rashi brought the other interpretation. However according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty that קסמים is in the plural form [and means "omens"]. Furthermore, it should have said they went with this “sign” or with this “matter” in their hands. Also the term “in their hands” is not appropriate [form of language] for a sign. Therefore the first reason is also necessary. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: Why did they use this omen? What is the reasoning behind the omen that if he did not come with them on the first occasion then he was useless? It appears to me that they applied their wisdom and chose an opportune moment, according to the mystical omens and the stars, to come to Bil’am in order [to ask him] to come with them. For there is an [opportune] time when the requester can elicit his request from the person being asked. Therefore, they said, “If he does not come with us at this time, it is useless” for if our request does not help at a time which is better according to the omens, all the more so [that it will not work] at another time.
  But the elders of Midian departed. Because they knew that he was useless. This was why Rashi above mentioned that the elders of Midian took this mystical omen in their hands, for [we see that] the elders of Moav remained with Bil’am.
  
  Verse 8
  
  Perhaps it is beneath His dignity to allow me to go… You might ask: Perhaps, the meaning is like the plain understanding [that perhaps] Hashem would not want him to go with them? Similarly when it is written shortly (v. 13) “[Hashem refuses to allow me] to go with you” and Rashi explains “but with higher ranking officials,” there is also a difficulty as to what is Rashi’s source. The answer is that since it is written “Balak persisted and sent dignitaries in greater number and of higher rank than these” (v. 15) this implies that he said that it was not dignified for him to go with the first ones. [Alternatively] If “according to what Hashem tells me” means whether he commands me to curse them or not, why did the elders of Midian have depart once he said that he would do the will of Hashem? Rather it means “if He allows me go with lowly people such as you.” Consequently, the Midianites saw that there was certainly no solution here, given that he was so haughty, and as a result they departed. There is a difficulty [according to the first explanation] that Rashi should have said this there (v. 13) rather than here. It appears that Rashi inferred this from the term כאשר “according to” because it should have said אשר ידבר ["what He tells"] meaning that I will relate to you what he says. However, since it states כאשר ידבר ["according to what he tells"] it implies that Bil’am was like one who has dispute with someone and says “this will decide it, according to what He says about this matter [I shall do] whether [He says] to go or not.” Accordingly, there is a difficulty as to how one might think that he would not want go, for surely he despised Yisroel. Rather, [the question] was whether he would go with people like you. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  
  Verse 9
  
  He gave him the opportunity for error. See above in Parshas Bereishis (Bereishis 3:9) where Rashi explains, “So as to enter into conversation with him.” Whereas here he explains that He gave him the opportunity for error. <i>Re’m</i> writes, “He gave him the opportunity for error…” Meaning: He entered into conversation with him so that he would not be startled. And why was this? To give him the opportunity for error. Here Rashi explains why he entered into conversation with him but there he does not explain the reason.
  
  Verse 10
  
  I am distinguished in the eyes of kings. For if not so, why was it necessary to say “the King of Moav”?
  
  Verse 11
  
  This is harsher than ארה לי. For if not so, why did Bil’am change his language? Surely Balak had said ארה לי ["curse for me"]. Therefore, this means that Bil’am despised Yisroel so much that although Balak originally requested ארה ["a regular curse"], Bil’am sought to replace it with קבה ["a harsh curse"]. <i>Re’m</i>
  As it is specific and clear. Meaning that קבה is a more specific and clear term of cursing.
  From the world. Not from his land alone, for if so it should have said “From the land” like Balak’s request. <i>Re’m</i> here also explains that it was due to his great hatred that he asked to banish them from the world. I myself say that he said so because perhaps Hashem would compromise with him in this matter, as I explained above.
  
  Verse 12
  
  He said to Him “If so, I will curse them here.” Rashi is answering the question: Why is לא ["<i>not</i> go…<i>not</i> curse"] written twice? Let it write simply “Do not go with them to curse the people.” Furthermore, why did Hashem say to him “for they are blessed”? This might imply [merely] that he should go and curse the people in order to annul the blessings. Rashi answers that each one is a separate statement. Since he wanted to go, Hashem said to him, “Do not go”. And because he wanted to curse them where he was, Hashem said to him, “You shall not curse.” Finally when he asked to bless them, Hashem said, “For they are blessed” and thus they do not need your blessings. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) You might ask: Since it says later that [Bil'am] only had the power to curse at the moment when Hashem is angry, and that Hashem was not angry for all of those days, why did He not give him permission to go? Then, even if he had cursed them it would not have been effective. It appears to me that Hashem knew that Yisroel were destined to be smitten on account of [the service of] Pe'or. Thus if he had gone and cursed them, people would have said that they died because of the curses of this evil man. Consequently, Hashem did not give permission for him curse, since it was not his curse that caused their deaths, but rather their sin. He also did not want [Bil'am] to bless them because He had already promised the Patriarchs that He would do good to Yisroel. [Hashem did not want] people to say that it was through Bil’am’s blessings that [Yisroel] were blessed with all this good.
  
  Verse 13
  
  We learn that he was arrogant. You might ask: Perhaps עמכם ["with you"] here has the same meaning as “do not go with them” that Hashem said (v. 12)? The answer is that Rashi’s proof is [because otherwise] why was it necessary to say “with them”? Rather it should have said “Hashem refuses to allow me to go” and no more. When Hashem said, “With them” it was understandable [why this phrase was necessary]; for this meant that he should not go “according to their intentions” to curse them. But why was “with them” here necessary? <i>Re’m</i> explains that Rashi’s inference is from the verse, “Balak persisted and sent dignitaries in greater number and of higher rank than these” (v. 15).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  More than you have received in the past. For if not so, how would he know how to honor him? Perhaps the entire honor that he would give him would still not come to half of the honor due to him.
  
  Verse 18
  
  We learn that he was avaricious and he coveted the money of others. Since Bil’am did not say, “If Balak would cut off my head” or do something else to me “I cannot transgress…” Rather he said “if Balak would give me silver and gold enough to fill his house.” [From here] we learn that he was avaricious…
  And he prophesied here… Meaning that he prophesied but he did not know what he had prophesied. For it came forth from his mouth that he could not transgress the word of Hashem and “the word of Hashem” includes both of these matters. <i>Re’m.</i> Alternatively Rashi is answering the question: Why did he say “I cannot [transgress]”? Instead he should have said “I will not transgress,” which would imply that it was dependent upon his own choice. However, “I cannot” implies that he was not permitted [to do so] since he was under the authority of Hashem. Also, since he should have said “I cannot curse them.” What is meant when he said “[I cannot transgress] the <i>word</i> of Hashem”? Rather, he meant I cannot change the blessings which [the Patriarchs] received by the word of Hashem.
  
  Verse 19
  
  In frustration. [Meaning:] In disillusionment.
  He will not alter his words from a blessing to a curse… Rashi is answering the [following] question: Should he not have merely said, “[What] Hashem will tell to me”? Rather this is what he was saying, “I know that He will not alter… would it be that He does not add a blessing.” <i>Re’m</i> also explains here that he prophesied but did not know what he had prophesied.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  He saddled it himself. He arose before his attendants in order to act quickly and depart, rather than waiting until his attendants had saddled his donkey. This raises the difficulty that if so, why is it not written וישכם בלעם ["Bil’am arose early," as it does with Avrohom]. Rashi answers that this was to hint to the response of the Omnipresent, for Hashem said…
  
  Verse 22
  
  He saw that the thing was evil in the Omnipresent’s eyes. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written “Hashem showed anger…”? Surely He had said to him (v. 20) “arise and go with them.” Rather, he saw that the thing was evil in the Omnipresent’s eyes because he had only allowed him to go for his own benefit, in order to take remuneration from this. But [Bil'am] craved to go in order to curse them, therefore “Hashem showed anger…” <i>Re’m</i> explains that since Hashem had only agreed for him to go because of his remuneration, then he should not have gone. Therefore, “[Hashem] showed anger…”
  He was an angel of mercy. Rashi is answering the question: If he was <i>Satan</i> [the angel who leads one astray] then he could not have been an “angel of Hashem” [which implies] an angel of mercy. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) It appears that Rashi inferred this from the word לו ["him"], which implies that he did not thwart anyone else. Rather, he was an angel of mercy, and inevitably here he also behaved with mercy, for Bil’am’s own good.
  He should bring along two people. For if not so, why does it say “two”? It should have merely written “accompanied by his attendants.”
  Attend to one another. Meaning: If one [of them] needs to relieve himself, the other will attend to his own duties and those of [the first]. Rashi explains so explicitly in Parshas Vayera, on the verse “He took his two attendants with him” (Bereishis 22:3). For if it was not so [and Rashi was not alluding to his comment there], one could ask: Why did Rashi not explain here like he did there concerning Avrohom? We need not ask that we had already learned this from Avrohom. For the answer is that if it had not been for this verse, one would have said that it is specifically a Torah scholar who is forbidden [to embark on a journey…] As it is taught: “A Torah scholar is forbidden to travel alone at night because of suspicion” (Berachos 43b), and Avrohom was a Torah scholar. However [one would say that] other people, even if they are distinguished, are not [forbidden from doing so]. Therefore the Torah writes this here. But if it was not for the verse there, one would have thought that this was merely proper conduct, but that there was no prohibition [to travel alone], therefore it was also necessary to write the verse regarding Avrohom. One may give another answer as to why Rashi did not explain here as he did regarding Avrohom. For concerning Avrohom it is written “Avrohom arose early in the morning” (ibid.) where the term וישכם ["arose early"] implies that it was before daybreak, meaning at nighttime before it was daylight. Thus Rashi explained that if one needed to relieve himself, he would be left alone, and it is forbidden for one to travel alone at night. This was why Rashi mentioned that a distinguished person is not permitted to travel without two attendants because of danger, and [the laws pertaining to] danger are stricter than for transgressions. But regarding Bil’am it is not written וישכם ["he arose early"], only ויקם בבוקר ["he arose in the morning"]. This implies that it was already daylight and there was no danger even if he were to remain alone. Consequently, [here] Rashi explains that this is proper conduct. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) In Parshas Vayera Rashi writes that if one [of the attendants] became distanced, then the second one would be with him. However this does not pose a difficulty. For here one could not explain that if one attendant became distanced, the second one would be with him, because even without this Bil’am would have been protected given that there were many people with him. Therefore, Rashi wrote that the reason was so they could in turn attend to one another.
  
  Verse 23
  
  This evil one abandoned the tools of his trade. Rashi is answering the question: Even without a sword the angel could still have killed him! In response he explains that the angel said “this evil one…” This is why it is written that it was שלופה ["drawn"], as if to say שלו פה ["the mouth is his"], that the mouth belongs to Yisroel who pray to Hashem, but not to you.
  
  Verse 24
  
  Unless specified otherwise גדר refers to a barrier of stone. Since below it is written (v. 25), “And pressed him against הקיר ["<i>the</i> wall"]” with a <i>hei</i> denoting the definite article, this implies that it was the same barrier that had been mentioned previously. <i>Re’m</i> explains similarly. [We see that] a קיר ["wall"] is always made of stone because in Parshas Metzora it is written, “Behold the affliction is in the walls of the house” (Vayikra 14:37) and afterwards it is written, “Remove the stones” (v. 40) which implies that the wall was made from stone. Consequently, קיר ["wall"] here, which refers to the barrier mentioned above, was made from stones (see Bava Kamma 29a).
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  To place himself before him in a different place. Rashi is answering the question: The word עבור ["passed"] is only appropriate where one crosses a river or between two objects, but here we do not find that [Bil'am] passed through anything. Therefore he explains that עבור here means “[passed] before him” as if to say that he went to another place to stand before him. The reason why Rashi stated לעבור ["to pass"] instead of עבור ["passed"] is that this is the rule of the root עבר that it comes with a <i>lamed. Re’m.</i>
  He showed him the signs of the Patriarchs. It appears to me that the meaning is as follows: At the first stop he had space at either side, therefore it is written, “The donkey turned aside from the way” (v. 23) implying that it only had to turn aside a little. At the second stop it could only move to one side, as it is written, “She was pressed against the wall” (v. 25) implying that it pressed itself against that side of the wall in order for the angel to pass by. At the third stop there was no room to turn to the right or to the left, as it is written in the verse. What were the sign? That if he wanted to curse the sons of Avrohom he would find a space at either side where the curse could fall, for the sons of Yishmoel and the sons of Keturah were descended from him. And if he wanted to curse the sons of Yitzchak, he would find a space at one side, for Eisav was descended from him. And if he wanted to curse the sons of Yaakov then he would not find a blemish in them, thus he could not touch them. This is what was meant when the Torah writes at the third stop that it was “במקום צר ["in a narrow place"]” which alludes to Yaakov as it says [about him], “ויצר לו ["he was distressed"].”
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Which celebrates three pilgrimages a year. [You might ask why] He alluded to this mitzvah and not to any other mitzvah? The answer is that regarding the pilgrimages it is written three times, “All of your males shall see” (Shemos 34:23). The Rabbis expound the word “see” to teach that just as you come to see, [so you come to be seen by Hashem] (Chagigah 2a). Thus the angel said to him, “You are coming to uproot a people from the world whom Hashem wishes to see three times [a year]. How can this take place if you obliterate them from the world?”
  
  Verse 29
  
  This matter was extremely disparaging from him. There are those who raise the difficulty: Why was this disparaging? Surely Bil’am himself said that he had no power, only that he knew how to discern the time at which Hashem is angry, as Rashi explains later on the verse (23:8) “What Divine wrath can I evoke if Hashem has not been angry.” If so why was it disparaging, given that now was not a time of anger. The answer is that Balak and the dignitaries did not know this initially, for Balak had said, “For I know that whomever you bless is blessed and whomever you curse is cursed” (v. 6). Surely [one could challenge and say that] he was only able to curse when Hashem was angry, and perhaps He would not be angry. Rather, one must say that Bil’am had not revealed this secret, and that later against his will and to his detriment the matter was revealed.
  
  Verse 30
  
  I sent it out to pasture. [ברטיבא שדאי] means, “They are grazing in the dirt” as if to say the horses are grazing in the field, but she said to him “I am your donkey.” He said, “Yes for [carrying a] burden but not for riding.” But she said to him, “That you have been riding on me.” He said, “Sometimes, on a temporary basis.” But she said to him, “All of your life until this very day, and not just this but you have also lain with me” as it says, "ההסכן הסכנתי ["was it ever my habit"]?" For concerning Avishag the Shunamite it is written (Melachim I 1:4) “to be a סוכנת ["covering"] for the king” which means to warm him [by lying with him].
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  An acronym: “She was afraid…” As if to say that she turned because she saw me [and she was afraid].
  As if to say, “To arouse my vengeance, and to anger me.” Rashi is answering the question: Since ירט is an acronym, what does “your way is against me” refer to? He answers that it refers back to "behold, I came out to obstruct you” and this is what the angel was saying: I came out to obstruct you because the way that you have followed is contrary to me, to arouse my vengeance and to anger me. With this the difficulty of <i>Re’m</i> is somewhat resolved, for he writes that he does not know how to explain the word כי ["because"] here.
  The word ירט denotes hurrying. [רטט] means hurrying.
  Because I saw that the traveler along the course hastened and hurried on the course to anger and defy me. This is what the verse is saying: That "the traveler along the course", referring to Bil’am, "hurried contrary to Me", meaning to anger Me and to defy Me. Thus this is a shortened passage, because there are two nouns missing, the [name of the] traveler and the course [he was travelling]; for it would have been correct to write, “Because the traveler along the course hurried on the course that was contrary to me.” Accordingly, it is understandable why Rashi brought the simple interpretation after he brought the Midrashic interpretation, because according to the Midrashic interpretation one does not have to say that this is a shortened passage.
  This is a shortened passage, similar to “Dovid longed.” For it was also missing [something], since ותכל ["longed"] is in the feminine form and cannot refer to Dovid. Thus it must mean “Dovid’s <i>soul</i> longed.”
  Another interpretation ירט denotes desire. The structure of the verse is as before, [but here it means] that the traveler along the course wanted to go along a course that was contrary to me. However, according to the first interpretation ירט is an expression of hurrying, while according to this interpretation it is an expression of desire.
  
  Verse 33
  
  Like לולי “if not.” Rashi is answering the question: אולי implies that perhaps she had turned aside, but here she had certainly turned aside.
  This verse should be rearranged. Rashi is answering the question: גם אותכה הרגתי [lit. "I would <i>also</i> have killed you"] implies that initially the angel had killed someone else, however this is not so. For one cannot say [that it killed] the dignitaries of Balak since they were the agents for this sin, because it is written, “Go with the men.” And one cannot say that it refers to the attendants, for what was their sin? Also, one cannot say that גם ["also"] refers to the donkey, as if to say, “As I killed the donkey, I would have killed you” for it is written, “And she, I would let live.”
  Not only would you have been restrained… Meaning: Not only would I have restrained you from going, but I would also have killed you. The meaning of קראתך is “would have befallen you.”
  Because she spoke and admonished you, and you were unable to withstand… Rashi is answering the question: It is written אולי נטתה וגו' ["had she not turned aside…"] meaning that “<i>if</i> she had not turned aside before me as [she did] now, I would surely have killed you, and she I would let live.” This implies that now that she had turned aside, he would not let her live. But why was this so? On the contrary, now he should have had more reason to let her live since she had turned aside before him; so why would he kill her? Rashi answers that he killed her “because she spoke…” He explains the word הרגתי [lit. "I killed you"] as meaning “I would have killed you” and consequently החייתי [lit. "I let her live"] also means “I would have let her live.” We learn from here that he killed her.
  
  Verse 34
  
  An attack against the Omnipresent. Rashi is answering the question: It was certainly wicked in his eyes given that he was angry with him! An additional difficulty is why does it say “in your eyes” which implies in your eyes but not in anyone else’s eyes? A further difficulty is why it says לי (lit. [I will return] "for myself"). In response Rashi explains that it was “an attack against the Omnipresent…” and with this all the questions are answered.
  
  Verse 35
  
  A man is lead along the path he wishes to follow. For if this were not so, since Bil’am had said that he would return, the angel should have told him to return. Rather, it was because “a man [is led along] the path that he wishes…” that he told him to go. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) There is a difficulty as to why Rashi did not explain this above on the verse, “Arise and go with them” (v. 20). It is apparent that Rashi holds one cannot prove anything from the verse above, for there Hashem did not lead him along the path that he wished to follow. He wanted to curse them, while Hashem only led him on this path for his monetary benefit, having already warned him against cursing them. However here the angel said, “Because your way is contrary to Me” (v. 32), meaning even going for monetary benefit [is contrary to Me]. This caused him to retort saying, “If it is evil in your eyes to go for money, I shall return.” Even so the angel permitted him, by saying to go with the men for money. Perforce, “A man [is led along] the path that he wishes…”
  In spite of your wishes “the word that I will speak”… For if not so, what did the angel gain by chasing after Bil’am in response to Hashem’s anger over him going? If it was in order to say to him, “But the word that I will speak…” surely Hashem had already told him, “However, whatever [I will say]…” (v. 20) <i>Re’m.</i> It appears to me that Rashi learned this from the term אפס [lit. "naught"] because it is known that the term אפס refers to the disappearance of something or some matter, as also (<i>Meir Nesiv</i>) explains on the word אפס. Thus the words of the angel to Bil’am were that you can go, however the [purpose of the] journey which was in your mind is gone, because you are obliged to say “the word that I will speak…”
  Since your portion is with them. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “with the men”? [He answers that] it was to hint that “your portion is with them.” [One might ask the reason why] Rashi reverses the order of the verse and comments on it [so that they are] out of sequence. The answer is that Rashi [first] comes to teach that “but…” refers [back] to the word “go” so that one can learn that “a man [is lead along] the path that he wishes…” For according to the teaching, “Go with the men — since your portion…” the words “but…” would not be relevant. Also, one cannot say that it is a new subject and the beginning of a [new] statement, because why would the <i>vav</i> conjunction (‘<i>and</i>’ indicating a continuation of the previous topic) be necessary? Rather, one must say as explained.
  
  Verse 36
  
  To his metropolis. For if not so, why does it say “the city of Moav”? If it was to inform of the honor that they accorded him by coming out to greet him at the edge of the boundary, it should have said, “He went out to meet him at the city on the edge of the boundary.” Why does it need to say, “To the city of Moav which is on the boundary of Arnon.” In a similar fashion [the verse] regarding Kiryas Chutzos (v. 39) is expounded, as Rashi explains below; for [there too] why does it say, “And they came to <i>Kiryas Chutzos</i>”?
  
  Verse 37
  
  He prophesied that he would in the end depart from him in disgrace. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) For if not so, it should say האמנם אמרת לא אוכל כבדך ["Really, do you say that I am not capable of honoring you"] but what is meant by האמנם לא אוכל כבדך [lit. "Really, I am not capable of honoring you"]. Rather this was the truth, that he would not honor him.
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  A small amount — only one of the cattle and one of the sheep. [Rashi derives this] because it is written, “For I will honor you greatly” (v. 17). [This leads one to ask] why it was necessary to write “cattle and sheep”? He would certainly have honored him as promised. Furthermore, it is the general custom to send food and drink to dignitaries who come to visit, and all the more so for Bil’am and the dignitaries who were with him who came at his behest. Rather, it is written “cattle and sheep” to teach you that he did not honor him as he had promised, but rather [only] with a small amount, and he only sent him one of the cattle and one of the sheep. This teaches the wickedness of Balak, that he said much but did little.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  He does not usually speak with me by day. As it is written (Bamidbar 22:8), “Spend this night here” and similarly, “Fallen, with opened eyes” (24:4), which according to the simple interpretation means, as Onkelos translates, that Hashem only appeared at night when he slept on his bed. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) For if not so, why did he say “perhaps” which implies a doubt, while above he said “I will know what he adds…” which implies that he was certain that Hashem would speak to him?
  
  Verse 4
  
  It denotes disgrace … as if to say “reluctantly and in humiliation.” Rashi says בקושי ["reluctantly"] in the sense of מקרה ועראי ["a chance or casual occurrence"] and בזיון ["in humiliation"] in the sense of קרי ["a seminal emission"].
  But Avrohom only offered up a singe ram. For if not so, it should say, “I offered burnt-offerings”. Why does the Torah say “an ox and a ram”? Rather it was because “Avrohom only…”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  With both names. Though the verse only states (22:6) [that Balak told him], “Curse…” it is logical that he instructed him so, given that this was what Bil’am said. We find a similar instance in the verse, “And you said: Let us send men […to spy out the land]” (Devarim 1:22) even though this [request] is not mentioned in the Torah.
  
  Verse 8
  
  When they deserved to have been cursed, they were not cursed. Thus the meaning of the verse is, “How can I curse when I know that Hashem will not agree to curse them through me?” And how do I know this? Because He never cursed them, even though they were deserving of a curse. One cannot say that it means that Hashem does not want to curse them, for if this were so what was meant by saying, “What Divine wrath can I evoke if Hashem has not been angry.” Surely if he had already said that Hashem did not want to curse them, even if he had been angry in those days he would not have been able to curse them.
  But He was not angry during all those days… You might ask: Since he could only curse them at the moment when Hashem was angry, and Hashem was not angry during all of those days, why did Hashem tell him not to curse the people? Surely the curse would not have taken effect. The answer is that Hashem knew that they were destined to stumble with Baal Pe'or and that a plague would come upon them, thus if he has cursed them, people would have said that the plague came because of the curse.
  
  Verse 9
  
  And powerful like the mountains … because of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs. The Patriarchs are called “mountains” and the Matriarchs are called “hills.”
  This was acquired for them by their forefathers. Meaning though the word הן ["behold"] refers to the beginning of the verse, “For [I view it] from the mountain peaks…” which refers to the Forefathers as Rashi explains. Thus it comes to teach what it was that was acquired for them by their Forefathers, as rendered by Targum Onkelos, “You are destined [to live] alone.” For if not so, what is the meaning of the term הן ["behold"]? But now it means the same as הנה ["here it is"], as if to say that when I said, “It was acquired for them by their forefathers,” this was that they would dwell alone.
  Another interpretation: When they rejoice, no nation rejoices with them. According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to how one would think that He would annihilate them along with the nations, therefore Rashi brought the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to how one would determine to differentiate between rejoicing and punishment, therefore he brought the first reason.
  
  Verse 10
  
  As Targum Onkelos interprets … of the four banners. Rashi explains that, “Who can count the dust…” is as Targum Onkelos interprets, and the Targum translates it as מארבע משרייתא [one] of the four camps"]. But since one might not know the meaning of this, therefore Rashi explains, “Of the four banners.”
  Another interpretation … one cannot reckon the commandments which they perform with dust. Accordingly the sequence of the verse is reversed, as if it had said: “Who can count what Yaakov does with dust,” meaning the commandments which they perform with dust. “Or count the seed of Yisroel” refers to the seed which emanates during their intercourse. Thus, it as if the verse had said “Who can count the commandments of dust that Yisroel perform, or [who can] count the seed of Yisroel’s intercourse. But I do not know how they will explain the word את. The reason why Rashi brings another interpretation is because according to the first reason there is the difficulty as to how one could not have known the count of the four banners, for surely it was possible to count them. Therefore, he brought the other interpretation where he explains that it refers to reckoning their reward [for the number of mitzvos they perform with dust]. However according to the other interpretation one has to reverse the sequence of the verse, therefore he also brought the first reason.
  The seed… (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) Explains this matter according to the teaching in the chapter [entitled] <i>Kol Hayad</i> (Niddah 16b) that the angel who is appointed over pregnancy is called <i>Layla</i> [“Night”]. He takes the drop [of seed] before Hashem and says “Creator of the Universe, what shall become of this drop? Will it be strong or weak, wise or foolish?” With this Bil’am mentioned the praise of Yisroel, that even a repulsive matter such as this was important for Hashem involve Himself with.
  Among them. Not just a regular righteous [death], for if this was his intent, the blessing would not have been directed to Yisroel. Thus, how could Balak say, “I took you to curse my enemies but you have in fact blessed them” (v. 11)?
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  What is this placing and what would Scripture have been lacking. Rashi is asking two questions: Firstly, “What is this placing”? For the verse does not explain to what it refers. Furthermore, “What would Scripture have been lacking”? Meaning that it should have written, “Hashem chanced to appear to Bil’am and He stated, 'Return to Balak…'." For surely the verse would not have been lacking anything if it had not said [the phrase], “And placed the word in his mouth.” <i>Re’m</i> explains: “What is this placing”? for it is impossible to say that the statement “Return to Balak” is what was meant by “and placed the word in his mouth.” For if so, why was it necessary to say “He said”? Instead it should have said, “And placed the word in his mouth: Return to Balak and say as follows.”
  He said to him “You will be forced to return to Balak.” You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above (v. 5)? For there also it is written “Hashem placed the word in Bil’am’s mouth and He said: Return to Balak and tell him as follows.” The answer is that above one could say that “Hashem placed in his mouth…” was in response to “I have set up the seven altars…” (v. 4). However, here the difficulty is that Bil’am had not said anything.
  
  Verse 17
  
  This denotes derision. For if not so, he should have inquired, “What do you [have to] say?” It was obvious that he had asked what Hashem had said. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) For if this were not so, why did he need to ask, given that he would certainly tell him what Hashem said, as he did at first? Rather, he intended to deride him.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  The word denotes a question. As if to say, “Would Hashem say and not do [it], or speak and not fulfill it?
  They retract then reconsider whether to change their minds. Meaning that the Targum translates ויתנחם ["He should change His mind"] as תייבין ומתמלכין, which according to Rashi’s explanation means, “Who retract and then reconsider whether to change their minds.” However, according to Targum’s translation this does not denote a question; [rather] it is a statement that people are accustomed to do so, but not Hashem.
  
  Verse 20
  
  I have received instructions from Him to bless them. With this Rashi informs us that “to bless” is not a continuation of “or speak and not fulfill it” which comes before (v. 19). Rather, it is associated with the statement “what did Hashem say” (v. 17). Rashi says קבלתי ["I have received"] instead of לקחתי [lit. "I have taken"], for he had not taken [anything] from him in the normal sense. Since the word ברך is a verb root Rashi adds a <i>lamed</i> because a verb root normally takes one of the letters <i>beis,</i> <i>kaf,</i> <i>lamed</i> or <i>mem.</i> In order to indicate from whom he received the [the instructions to] bless Rashi adds the word “from Him” and to indicate whom he should bless, he added the word “them”.
  And I will not reverse… With this Rashi informs us that the word ברך ["bless"] is a verb, meaning that He had blessed them, not a noun meaning that He [had a blessing and] was ready to bless them. The words ולא אשיבנה ["I cannot reverse it"] are only appropriate when referring to a noun, implying that He had not yet blessed them and I will reverse His intention to bless them. However they are not appropriate for a verb. Thus, since He had already blessed them Rashi has to say “I will not reverse His blessing” as if the Torah had stated “He has blessed them with a blessing, and I cannot reverse it.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  The wickedness. באוניות ["wickedness"] is derived from the word און ["sin"].
  
  Verse 22
  
  Like the power [of his] loftiness. Rashi means that the word ראם is in the sense of רום ["loftiness"] not ראם ["ram"] which is an animal, for it is not proper to compare the power of Hashem to an animal. Thus the Torah is saying as follows: Just as when a builder constructs a high and mighty building, you recognize him and know that he is mighty. So too Hashem built His world and founded it upon His might. He brought them out with might, “like the power of His loftiness and elevation” meaning like the might of His world. Thus Rashi means that כתועפות ["like the power"] here and וכסף תועפות ["and silver [shall be] your strength"] both denote strength.
  This is a great application of power. Meaning that Rashi wishes to give a reason as to why the power is referred to with the term תועפות. He answers that it is from the same derivation as עוף יעופף ["let birds fly"], because the fact that a bird flies is a great application of power. For it is the manner of anything that is made up of the four elements [of matter] that when one throws it in the air, it falls to the ground. Yet a bird flies in the air, which is [apparently] the opposite of its nature, thus it is certain that it has a great strength.
  This refers to the demons and evil spirits. Meaning: Like the power of the demons which fly quickly from one end of the world to the other. According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why the Torah had written ראם [according to that interpretation meaning ‘loftiness’] therefore Rashi brought the other interpretation because demons and evil spirits are called ראמים. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty that the verse should have written ראמים, therefore he also brought the first reason. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) One must explain why Rashi here mentions demons and evil spirits rather than angels. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> discusses this at length. But it is possible to say that it was because Bil’am’s principle acts were through demons and evil spirits, for originally he was a sorcerer. Thus since Balak was also a great sorcerer, as explained further on (Rashi to v. 28), he therefore scared Balak according to his understanding.
  
  Verse 23
  
  To be another time such as this. [Rashi knows this] because the [letter] <i>kaf</i> of comparison indicates that he is comparing another time to this time.
  For they will be seated before Him… Given that above it is written (v. 21), “He has the King’s friendship,” which refers to endearment and friendship, [here] he is saying that there is destined to be another time such as this, when they will be seated before him in an endearing manner.
  Rather they are told through their prophets. Meaning that כעת יאמר ["in due time it will be said"] is connected with כי לא נחש ביעקב ["for there no sorcery in Yaakov"]. According to the other interpretation the meaning of the <i>kaf,</i> which indicates a comparison, is as follows: “כעת” ["In due time"] as if to say <i>if</i> times arrive at which they need to speak in matters of sorcery or the occult, then “יאמר” ["<i>He</i> will say"] to them [what to do] through prophecy, and they will not need sorcery or the occult. Accordingly it is also understandable why Rashi brought two reasons.
  
  Verse 24
  
  Until he consumes and destroys… אוכל ["consumes"] is also an expression of destruction.
  And strikes them dead. Referring to “and drinks the blood of its kill.”
  Until he would strike the Midianite kings. According to the first interpretation, none of the verse is understood according to its plain meaning. However, according to other interpretation there is the difficulty that it explains לא ישכב ["he will not like down", i.e., die] as referring to Moshe, while simply speaking it refers to the people. Therefore Rashi also brings the first reason. Though there is no hint from here that Bil’am would be killed with them, nonetheless it is logical that heaven showed him his death as they showed him the deaths of the Midianites.
  
  Verse 25
  
  The first “also” is added to the second “also.” As if it had said, “Do not bless them and also do not curse them; do not curse them and also do not bless them.” You might ask: What is the reason that Balak said this to him? The answer is that Balak thought Bil’am might assume when he said, “Also do not curse them…” that if he wished he could bless them first and afterwards curse them. Therefore, he said, “Also [do not] curse them…” meaning that the first “also” refers to the second, and the second “also” refers to the first.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  This is not a command. Because how could he command him to curse them immediately, for perhaps it would not be proper in the eyes of Hashem. Therefore he said וקבותו לי ["and you will curse them for me"] in the future tense, as if to say that once it is proper in the eyes of Hashem, then you should curse them.
  
  Verse 28
  
  It is similar with all the star gazers… (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) Rashi here virtually repeats his comment above concerning the peak of the mountain (v. 14). However he adds that “it is similar with all [star] gazers…” Apparently it was understandable above that he saw there would be a breach at the peak of the mountain, since there indeed was one. For it states at the end of Parshas VeZos Habracha (Devarim 34:1), “Moshe went up… to the peak of the mountain… and Moshe died there…” However, there was no breach at the peak of Pe’or, so why did Balak take him there? And Rashi answers that nonetheless there was a breach <i>through</i> Pe’or. Rashi thus poses the difficulty that if so, Balak was not a sorcerer, for surely he erred. He answers, “It is similar with all [star] gazers…”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  I will mention their sins… The correct text is as follows: “Whether or not He wants to curse, I will mention…” Meaning, whether He wants to curse them or not, I will mention their sins.
  As Targum Onkelos renders. [Meaning:] He mentioned the sin of the [Golden] Calf they made in the desert.
  
  Verse 2
  
  To induce the evil eye in them. For if not so, why did he raise his eyes now more than at other times?
  It occurred to him not to curse them. Rashi wishes to answer why Scripture wrote, “And the spirit of Hashem rested upon him,” which implies that [a spirit of] prophecy was upon him, but it does not specify afterwards what the prophecy was. Rather, the Torah recounts the praise of Yisroel, and he explains, “It occurred to him…” as if the Torah had stated that a different sprit was upon him, which was the spirit of Hashem that caused him not to curse. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) In the Gemara (Bava Basra 60a) Rabbi Yochanan states: He saw that the entrances to their tents did not face each other and he said, “They are fit to have the Divine Presence rest upon them.” There Tosafos explain that one learns this because afterwards it is written, “The spirit of Hashem rested upon him.” However, this requires explanation because the Torah says, “The spirit of Hashem rested upon him” in reference to Bil’am. Rather, one must say that the explanation is as follows: There is a difficulty with the verse because it states, “He saw Yisroel encamped according to its tribes, and the spirit [of Hashem] rested upon him.” This implies prayer, [i.e.,] that he prayed for them that the Divine Presence would rest. [Consequently, we must explain that] whenever a person prays [on behalf of someone] and he needs the same thing, he is answered first. Here too, Bil’am merited that the spirit of Hashem rested upon him. This is why Rashi writes that it occurred to him not to curse them, since the spirit of Hashem had come upon him. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains why he wished to curse them that they not have Synagogues and Study Halls. Bil’am wished to remove the Divine Presence from their midst. [We find] a similar teaching regarding Study Halls: “From the day that the Temple was destroyed, Hashem only has [i.e., rests His Presence upon] four <i>amos</i> of Halachah.” Bil’am’s only intention was to separate the Divine Presence from Yisroel. However, Hashem reversed this and he blessed them saying, “How goodly are your tents, Yaakov, your dwelling places, Yisroel.” Furthermore, [one may explain the blessing] based on [the verse], “The voice is the voice of Yaakov,” [whose Midrashic interpretation is]: As long as the voice is the voice of Yaakov [i.e., Yisroel are engaged in prayer and study], the hands are not the hands of Eisav [i.e., he is powerless].
  
  Verse 3
  
  According to Midrash Aggadah: Both of them were greater… [This refers to] Bil’am and Balak. Previously concerning Balak it is written (23:18), בלק בנו…צפור [lit. "Balak… his son was Tzipor"], which also meant that he was the son, and that Tzipor his father was similar to Balak. However, Rashi did not explain [that he was greater than his father] above in the comment on בנו צפור. The answer is that above one might have said that the <i>vav</i> was superfluous, as with the <i>vav</i> in למעינו מים ["into a spring of water"]. However here he expounds it, given that the Torah writes בנו בעור [having written בנו for] a second time, implying for it to be expounded. Subsequently, one also learns from here the meaning of בנו צפור.
  He was a coin, son of half a coin. As if to say he was a <i>litra</i> [measure], son of half a <i>litra</i> [measure].
  Enough for it to have been opened sealed and dried. [The Mishnah] is speaking about <i>yayin nesech</i> [wine handled by gentiles]. It teaches that if a barrel of wine was in the house of a gentile and remained there [for a length of time that the gentile] could make an opening in the barrel, remove some wine and then seal and wipe it, meaning that the seal would dry, as Targum Onkelos translates חרבו המים ["the water dried" (Bereishis 8:13)] as נגובו [“dried”], then it would be considered <i>yayin nesech.</i> From there we see that שתום is an expression of open.
  Some interpret שתום as “of the open eye.” As if to say that he had better vision than other people.
  But did not say, “Of the open eyes.” Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely we have a tradition that Bil’am was blind, so how could he explain that Bil’am was of open eye, which implies that he had good vision? Therefore he explains that it does not say, “Of open eyes…”
  
  Verse 4
  
  According to the Midrash… he did not have the strength to stand. For according to the plain meaning there is the difficulty why it states “fallen,” since it should have said “lying with opened eyes.”
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Their first king. [Referring to] King Sha'ul. This is what the verse is saying: “He will be greater” referring to King Sha'ul who will take the monarchy from Agag by conquering him. [וירם מאגג מלכו can also be understood as, "He will uproot the monarchy from Agag"].
  
  Verse 8
  
  With his power and exaltedness, shall consume. The intention of this verse is not to say that the God who brought them out of Egypt has power like His [own] exaltedness and loftiness, and that with this power and exaltedness Yisroel will consume the idolaters, who are His enemy, and crush their bones. For the verse does not come to inform of Hashem’s strength; for this was already mentioned above (23:22). Furthermore, it would leave the statement, “He will consume His enemy nations” without any reference, either before or after. Therefore, the explanation of the verse is as follows: Hashem, who took them out of Egypt, has power like His [own] exaltedness and loftiness, and with this power and exaltedness, Yisroel will consume. Rashi adds the word את [which denotes the object] and the <i>hei</i> denoting the definite article to the word גוים ["nations"] saying את הגוים ["<i>the</i> nations"] because with this it is understood that the nations will be consumed, not that they will consume [Yisroel]. He also adds the word שהם ["who"] because with this the word צריו ["his oppressors"] is an explanation of the word גוים ["nations"]. Furthermore, he adds של צרים ["of the oppressors" to the comment “their bones”] to indicate that those who are their oppressors will be crushed, but not all of the nations. This is why it states צריו ["<i>his </i>oppressors"] rather than צרים ["<i>the</i> oppressors"].
  Leaving the bone על ערמימותו ["exposed"]. In the sense of ערום ["naked"].
  Like בעלי חצים [translated as] מרי פלגותא. This is [Onkelos’s] translation of בעלי חצים, thus the verse is saying as follows: And [he shall apportion the land of] the חלוקה ["division" corresponding to פלגותא – "portion"] that came after the Flood, and from [this division] emanated all of the nations, who were [all] descended from Shes.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  His enemies, the Bnei Yisroel. Meaning that “his enemies” that is written in the verse refers to Yisroel who are the enemies of the idolaters. Rashi adds a <i>lamed</i> to the word אויביו ["his enemies", thus reading "<i>to</i> his enemies"] because without this, the verse is not telling to which nation Se'ir would become a possession.
  
  Verse 19
  
  Yet another ruler shall come from Yaakov. That is to say, aside from David who had been mentioned (above, v. 17).
  
  Verse 20
  
  He gazed at Amalek’s punishment. Not referring to a physical vision, for afterwards it is written, “And his end will be total destruction” meaning that the word וירא ["saw"] must refer to vision in thought. The reason why Rashi did not explain above (v. 17) that the word אראנו ["I see it"], which is a sense of gazing, refers to a vision in thought [as Rashi does here] is because the verse above speaks about the praiseworthiness and greatness of Yaakov, which is obviously a vision in thought. However here it says “Amalek was the first among nations” and one might have said that it is referring to a physical vision, therefore he explains that it refers to a vision in thought. <i>Re’m</i>
  In waging war against Yisroel. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely there were many nations before Amalek. And one cannot explain that ראשית ["first"] is an expression of importance, for Amalek descended from the concubine of Elifaz son of Eisav.
  Will be to perish by their hand. As if to say that [their end] will not be like that of the kings of other nations, who will perish through war [with other nations]. It is because the Torah writes, “You shall obliterate the memory of Amalek” that we know that it will be through our hand.
  
  Verse 21
  
  Tirasites, Shimasites, Sochasites. Meaning that they were the members of the Sanhedrin, and all of these terms are related to the Sanhedrin. תרעתים ["Tirasites"] is an expression of a שער ["gate" because the letter <i>shin</i> can sometimes be switched with the letter <i>taf,</i> and the order of letters is also switched], meaning [that they sit at] the gate of the Sanhedrin. שמעתים ["Shimasites"] is because they know the שמעתא ["teachings"]. שוכתים ["Sochasites"] is because סוכין ["they see "] with Divine Inspiration.
  I wonder how you merited this. Rashi had to explain that this was in the sense of wonder, because Bil’am came only to relate the greatness of Yisroel, so why did he relate the greatness of the sons of Yisro? For one cannot say that it was [merely] because they were encamped near to Amalek, and this was why he mentioned them after Amalek, as Rashi explains above [s.v. "He saw the Keinite"]. There is also the difficulty as to how Rashi knows that this is in the sense of wonder? The answer is that if so, [that they were only mentioned because they encamped near Amalek] why did he mention their greatness just to expound upon their deficiencies, namely that they would be exiled? [And even the mention of their deficiencies] is not demeaning, given that they have hope of returning. Rather, one must say that he only mentioned this in the sense of wonder. Another answer is that because he mentions them in the second person, saying, “How powerful is <i>your</i> dwelling place” rather than “<i>his</i> dwelling place,” we see that it was in the sense of wonder.
  
  Verse 22
  
  Perhaps to Chalach and Chavor. Meaning: He will only exile you to Chalach and Chavor, and this is not considered being driven [from the world]. “To Chalach and Chavor” are names of places, and the verse is saying as follows: Even if you are destined to be uprooted along with Yisroel, [you] Kayin, what difference will this make to you, until where Ashur will take you captive? Meaning that they will only exile you to Chalach and Chavor, and this is not considered being driven from the world.
  
  Verse 23
  
  Who is capable…? Meaning: Who is the person who is capable of causing Him not to put these decrees [into effect] against him? [These decrees] refers to the commingling that will come to the world.
  
  Verse 24
  
  Similarly Doniel explains. That is to say that afterwards, the nations who caused suffering to Ashur and those on the other side will ultimately be lost for eternity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  This was its name. Meaning: Although there are Midrashic interpretations explaining why it was called שטים ["Shittim"], alluding to the מעשה שטות ["foolish act "] they performed there, these Midrashic interpretations do not come close to the plain meaning of the verse. Therefore, Rashi explains that this was its name. It appears that Rashi’s inference is that since בַשיטים is written with a <i>patach</i> under the [letter] <i>beis,</i> it implies that it is a well known name. This is not so for the Midrashic interpretations. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  As stated in “Chelek.” Meaning that there it explains the advice that Bil’am gave as to how to seduce them, even though they distance themselves from illicit relationships. As is taught there, that the younger one would sit inside and the older one outside… However he does not mean as stated in Chelek that Bil’am gave this advice. For this is evident from the verse, as Rashi explains above (24:14) that [the Torah] writes (31:16): “They were the very same ones who, on Bil’am’s advice were involved with Bnei Yisroel.”
  
  Verse 2
  
  When he was overcome by lust… Rashi needed to say this, because when one is promiscuous it is because his evil inclination takes control of him. Thus one should not wonder as to how Yisroel stumbled [into promiscuity]. However one might wonder as to how they stumbled into idolatry. Therefore Rashi comes to inform you… (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). For if not so, it should state, “And they prostrated themselves before the gods of Moav.” Why does it state לאלהיהן ["to their gods" with the word "their" in the feminine form]? This implies that their status as “gods” was connected to the promiscuity [of the women]. It was through promiscuity that they engaged in idolatry.
  
  Verse 3
  
  Because they bared [their buttocks] before it. Meaning that פעור ["Pe’or"] is an expression of opening and revealing; for they would reveal their anus and relieve themselves.
  He sent a plague on them. As it is written shortly (v. 8), “And the plague stopped,” implying that He had sent a plague upon them.
  
  Verse 4
  
  To pass judgment on those who worshiped Pe’or. Rashi is answering the question: Though the people had sinned, what was the sin of the leaders of the people? He answers that, “And hang [them]” does not refer to the leaders of the people. Rather [it means] that they judged the people and they would hang whoever was sentenced to death.
  All those stoned are hung. Rashi is answering the question: Surely idolatry is punished by stoning, so why were they hung?
  In full public view. Since the sun is seen by all, anything that is in public view is termed as “facing the sun.” However it does not mean literally facing the sun.
  The clouds roll back from the area above him. There are those who ask: Surely when Aharon died the clouds departed, as Rashi explains above in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 21:1). However, we do not find that the [clouds] returned as did the well [of Miriam] which departed but then came back. <i>Chizkuni</i> also asks this question. It appears to me that though the clouds had departed, [nonetheless this refers to] the cloud which protected them against the wind and the heat. This was particularly [important] in the desert where the heat was intense. It also prevented the winds from blowing, for this was why they had not circumcised themselves, because the northern wind [which provides healing] did not blow. [Rashi refers to] this cloud, which had not departed from their midst. Another answer is that although the clouds had departed, this cloud [which came] was temporary, in order to reveal the identity of the sinners.
  And the sun shines on him. A thick cloud was spread over them like a succah, but for those who sinned the cloud rolled back from the area above him and the sun…
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  The tribe of Shimon gathered… Rashi is answering the following question: Surely all of Yisroel saw that Moshe had commanded them to kill all who united themselves with Ba’al Pe’or and those who had laid with the Moavites. Thus, why was he not afraid to approach her? <i>Re’m</i> explains that if he had done this on his own volition, why did he wait until Moshe said “Each of you must execute his men who were united…” (v. 5).
  Who permitted the daughter of Yisro to you? However they erred, because Moshe had married before the giving of the Torah. Alternatively she was a convert.
  The halachah was concealed from them. For if not so, why would they have wept here more than during the sin of the [Golden] Calf, or during other sins.
  
  Verse 7
  
  And he remembered the halachah. For if this were not so, why does it state, “He saw”? It should have [merely] said “Pinchas rose up from the midst of the community…”
  Executed by the zealous. It means to say that those who wish to be zealous for Hashem are to kill him. The meaning of קנאין פוגעין בו ["executed by the zealous"] is that they must do so of their own initiative, and specifically at the time of the act. However if the one having relations separates then one cannot kill him. Also, if the zealous one comes to ask permission from Beis Din, they do not instruct him to do so, even if it is during the act. Consequently, Pinchas had to rise up of his own accord and take action.
  
  Verse 8
  
  Many miracles were performed for him. [The miracles are as follows:] Zimri should have separated [from her], in which case Pinchas would not have been permitted to kill him, however he did not separate. Zimri should have called the members of his tribe to help him. Since [he struck] through the male organ of the man and the female organ of the woman, everyone knew why he had killed them. They did not become separated by the spear. An angel came and raised the lintel [of the tent] so that he could bring them out. An angel came and caused a plague among the people in order that the tribe of Shimon would be unsettled. The blade of the spear became elongated such that it entered them and came out on the other side. Pinchas’s arm was strengthened, and the spear did not break. Their blood did not fall onto Pinchas. They did not die [immediately, which would have] made Pinchas impure. Also, [when spearing something] that which is above becomes below, and that which is below becomes above, but here what was above remained above and was below remained below.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Because the tribes disparaged him. For if not so, surely the Torah had previously written (25:7) “Pinchas the son of Elozor [and grand-] son of Aharon the kohein,” so why is it written [again] here. Rather, one must say that it was in order to trace his lineage. And if so, one can ask: Why does the Torah trace his lineage [again], given that it had already traced his lineage to Aharon the kohein above, at the end of Parshas Balak regarding this very action? For it is written (ibid.), “When he saw this, Pinchas the son of Elozor [and grand]son of Aharon the kohein, he rose up…”! Rashi answers that it was because the tribes disparaged him that Scripture needed to trace his lineage again, stating that he was the grandson of Aharon. Another answer as to why his lineage was traced to Aharon is as follows: Just as Aharon stopped a plague from among Yisroel when he took the firepans (Bamidbar 17:13), so too Pinchas stopped a plague from among Yisroel by killing a man from Yisroel. Therefore his lineage is traced to Aharon. Consequently, Rashi raises the difficulty that this answer is not relevant here [and answers as he does].
  Who murdered the chieftain of a tribe of Yisroel. Meaning: There are two matters here. Firstly, he was the son of Puti meaning that the wife of Elozor was from the family of Yisro, and her father had fattened calves for idolatry, as Rashi explained above in Parshas Va’eira (Shemos 6:25). Secondly, he had murdered a chieftain of Yisroel. When Rashi states that his mother’s father fattened calves for idolatry, this was not to say that Rashi was certain that his mother’s father was descended from Yisro, rather he was being [intentionally] vague. Rashi chose one [possibility] given that he was uncertain as to whether it was his mother who descended from Yisro, or if it was his mother’s father. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) You might ask: By tracing his lineage [to Aharon] how did the Torah remove the grievance and the charges that they raised against him [by saying], “Have you seen that son of Puti”? For ultimately the disparagement would remain, given that his mother’s father <i>did</i> fatten calves for idolatry. The answer is that when they maligned and disparaged him for murdering a chieftain of Yisroel, this was because they suspected him of doing so out of zealousness for the honor of Moshe, his grandfather’s brother whom Zimri had challenged. Thus, the Torah comes to trace his lineage to Aharon to say that with this action he turned away [Hashem’s] anger due to his great merit, just as Aharon turned back the anger of Hashem with the incense (Bamidbar 17:13). Consequently, they should have praised him for this. Similarly in <i>Perek HaNisrafin</i> (Sanhedrin 82b) [Rashi states] he was the son of Aharon [in explaining the Gemara’s statement that] he was one who turned back anger, son of one who turned back anger. [When it states that] he was the son of one who avenges, [Rashi explains] he was a son of Levi who avenged [the kidnapping of] his sister Dinah. [One could ask:] Why does the Torah trace his lineage only up to Aharon and not until Yaakov? [The answer is because] the main point of the verse is to say that in this act he was similar to Aharon, and he did this to avenge for the sake of Hashem. This attribute was in his nature, passed on from his fathers. It was not to avenge on Moshe’s behalf.
  By avenging. Rashi is answering the question: קנאה [lit. "revenge" or "raging anger"] normally refers to one who bears hatred in his heart; however Pinchas bore no hatred in his heart for Zimri. He answers, "By avenging My vengeance” meaning that קנאה is in the sense of vengeance. This leads Rashi to an additional question: How was it appropriate to write “by avenging My vengeance” in reference to Hashem? He answers, “By his avenging…” meaning that vengeance comes through rage and this was why the Torah used the term קנאה. Similarly, wherever the term “vengeance” is used in reference to Hashem, it is in the sense of rage. Rashi then has a further question: Since קנאה refers to vengeance, why did the Torah not write “by avenging My vengeance” explicitly? He answers that “קנאה always denotes…” meaning that before he enacted out his vengeance he did not decide in his heart that he was enraged to take vengeance. Thus, [we see that] the initiation of vengeance is through rage, and this was why the term קנאה was used.
  Enflamed to avenge something. המתחרה is in the sense of חרה ["burning"].
  
  Verse 12
  
  To be a covenant of peace for him. Rashi is answering the question: Why it is written “<i>My</i> covenant”? Instead it should have written, “A covenant of peace.” He answers that [it was termed] “My covenant” because I am giving it to him to be a covenant of peace for him. Therefore, the verse did not write “a covenant of peace” so that the word “peace” would not be considered the content of the covenant [describing the covenant as one of peace], rather it is as if the verse is abbreviated, as Rashi explains [that “I give him My covenant <i>to be a covenant</i> of<i> </i>peace”]. <i>Re’m</i> explains that Rashi added the words, “To be a covenant of peace for him” rather than settling for the words “I give him” which were written in the verse, because afterwards it is written (v. 13), “It shall be for him … a covenant of eternal <i>kehunah.</i>” There the words “give him” and “My covenant” from our verse are insufficient [meaning that the “covenant of eternal <i>kehunah</i>” was in addition to the covenant already mentioned]. Thus, the same is true regarding the word “peace” and the verse means “I give him My covenant <i>to be a covenant</i> of peace for him <i>and as</i> a covenant of eternal <i>kehunah.</i>” Rashi adds the letter <i>lamed</i> to the word שלום [saying לברית שלום, lit. "<i>as</i> a covenant of peace"] to show the connotation of being <i>for</i> [something], indicating that this covenant was <i>for</i> peace and <i>for</i> an eternal <i>kehunah.</i> However, once Rashi had explained this regarding “peace” there was no need to do so for “eternal <i>kehunah.</i>”
  Gratitude and favor towards someone who benefitted him. Meaning: He expresses favor towards him for the assistance that he provided. <i>Re’m</i> writes: There is reason to be puzzled, for it is understandable according to <i>Ibn Ezra</i> who explains that the peace which He gave him was that he should not be fearful of Zimri’s brothers. For this is an assurance, and for which an oath [in the form of a covenant] would be appropriate, [confirming] that He would uphold His assurance. However, according to Rashi who says that He expressed his peace to him like a man who harbors gratitude, for this there is no assurance, so an oath is not appropriate and it would not say that My oath (covenant) shall be an oath (covenant) of peace for him. One can answer that the main covenant was for the eternal <i>kehunah,</i> for the main Kohanim Gedolim were descended from Pinchas. And by way of this covenant, Hashem informed him that He harbored gratitude and favor towards him because of his assistance, and this was the peace [mentioned].
  
  Verse 13
  
  This covenant of Mine. Meaning that “והיתה” ["it shall be"] is in the feminine form, and it refers to the covenant that was mentioned above, for the word “covenant” is a feminine form. <i>Re’m</i> explains that the word והיתה is not associated with the words “My covenant of peace” because “My covenant of peace” would not become “a covenant of <i>kehunah.</i>” Rather, it is connected with the word “My covenant” [teaching] that this covenant shall be a covenant of eternal <i>kehunah,</i> just as it shall be a covenant of peace.
  Solely to Aharon and his sons who were anointed with him… (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) You might ask: Why was Pinchas not anointed like Aharon and his sons? The answer is that at the time he was a minor, and minors were not anointed. However once he became an adult it was no longer appropriate to anoint him [since the time for anointing had passed]. <i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i> answers: However, it appears more likely that because [Hashem] knew he would merit the <i>kehunah</i> through his own merit, by this great act, he did not want to anoint him at that time. For then it would have appeared as if he only merited the <i>kehunah</i> because he descended from Aharon.
  
  Verse 14
  
  Where he mentions the relationship of the righteous for praise, he mentions the relationship of the wicked for shame. Rashi is answering the question: Above where it is written, “Behold an Israelite man came…” (25:6), the Torah should have mentioned there his name. He answers that “when…” He mentions the relationship of the wicked for disparagement, because the greater one is, so too is his sin greater. <i>Re’m</i>
  Of one of the five paternal houses of the tribe of Shimon. It appears that when Rashi explains, “Leader of a paternal house” as “Of one of [the five]…” it refers to his comment above that Scripture also mentions the relationship of the wicked for disparagement. Meaning: You should not say that since we see that Zimri was a leader, he was a leader of the entire tribe of Shimon. Rather, he was only a leader of one of the five [paternal houses] and this was his disparagement.
  Another interpretation: To proclaim the merit of Pinchas. According to the first reason there is the difficulty that it should have only written “and the man who sinned with the Midianite woman was Zimri…” Why does the verse write, “Who was killed”? Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty that Scripture should have mentioned this above, therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.
  
  Verse 15
  
  To inform you of the hatred of the Midianites, who abandoned a princess to promiscuous behavior. A question is widely asked: How does Rashi know that it was because of their hatred? Perhaps they intended to cause them to sin in order that the Divine Presence would depart from Yisroel, [merely] because they feared Yisroel. The answer is that once the elders of Midian departed, thinking that Bil’am was of no use (Rashi to 22:7), why would they have acted in this manner on his advice? Rather, [we see that] they acted out of hatred. You might ask: Why did Rashi not answer, as he did above that it was, “To proclaim the merit of Pinchas…”? For here he could have also said that even though she was a princess, “He did not refrain…” The answer is that when Rashi explained, “He did not refrain…” it meant that he was not afraid that he would be punished for killing him since he was a leader, as Rashi explained.
  
  One of the five kings of Midian. That is to say, that when it is written, “The national leader” this implies that Tzur was the head of [all of] them. However, afterwards it is written, “Of a paternal house” which implies that he was only the head of a paternal house. Rashi answers that he was certainly only the head of one of the five paternal houses of Midian, however he was the most prominent of all of them and this is why it is written, “The national leader.”
  But because he debased himself by abandoning his daughter, he is counted third. There are those who raise the difficulty: Why was he counted third rather than second? It would have been sufficiently degrading not to have counted him first, given that he was the national leader. The answer is that if he was counted second, one might have thought that it was not to degrade him, but it was because he was younger than all of them. Accordingly, even though he was the most prominent of all of them, he was still not counted first. However, now that he was counted third, one must say that it was to degrade him.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  In order to cause you to stray… Rashi is obliged to explain so because a person only antagonizes others in response to the evil that they had caused him, however we do not find that Yisroel did anything malicious to them. Therefore he explains, “Since they abandoned…” because according to their reasoning they were compelled to abandon their daughters to promiscuity in order to cause Yisroel to stray after Pe’or. <i>Re’m.</i>
  However, He did not order [the destruction] of Moav because of Rus. You might ask: Why did Rashi only bring one reason, while in Parshas Matos (Bamidbar 31:2) he brought two reasons why they merited [to be saved]? The reason is that Rashi was answering the question: Here the Torah writes, “Antagonize the Midianites and kill them” (v. 17). Thus [one may ask] why was the word “antagonize” necessary given that it is written “kill [them]? Rather, one must say that it said “antagonize” because you must always treat them as enemies. This is [also] why it was said in the present tense. This raises the difficulty: Why were the Moavites not treated as enemies, at least so far as not marrying them and prohibiting the females [from converting]? Rashi answers that it was “because of Rus…” With this it is understandable why Rashi’s view is different from that of all the grammarians, who hold that [צרור, "antagonize,"] is a verb root that is used to denote a command, as <i>Re’m</i> writes.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  This is compared to a shepherd … Another interpretation: When they left. Rashi is answering the question: How was the count related to the plague? [He answers] by bringing the parable. However, there is a difficulty according to the other interpretation that Rashi brings: How does this answer Rashi’s question? The answer is that previously it is written “Antagonize the Midianites and kill them…” while in Parshas Matos (31:2) it is written “Take revenge for Bnei Yisroel against the Midianites, afterward, you shall be gathered to your people [i.e. die].” From there one sees that the death of Moshe was related to the war with Midian [which was itself related to the plague], and this was why the count of Yisroel was juxtaposed to the war with Midian. The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that he should have merely counted those who died in the plague, and then he would have automatically known how many were left. Therefore Rashi brings the second interpretation. However, according to this second interpretation there is the difficulty that in the end, the time for Moshe’s death had not yet come, therefore he also brings the first reason.
  
  Verse 2
  
  Their relationship follows the paternal tribe, rather than the maternal. Regarding families [if both parents were from the same tribe] there is no difference between following the father or following the mother, since they were all from the same tribe, even if there were many families in [that] one tribe. However, concerning the tribes there is a difference if the mother was from another tribe [and here he wanted to determine the number of each tribe].
  
  Verse 3
  
  They spoke with them concerning this; that the Omnipresent had commanded to count them. Rashi means to say that the word אתם ["them"] refers to the words that they spoke to Israel, in order to exclude [the alternative], so that you should not understand it like אתם ["with them", meaning] that they spoke with Bnei Yisroel.
  You must be counted… For the word “saying” does not refer to “Moshe and Elozor … spoke.” Rather, it refers to that which came afterwards, namely, “From twenty years of age and above…” Thus the verse is saying as follows: “Moshe and Elozor the kohein spoke of them,” meaning these words, “on the plains of Moav, by the Yardein near Yericho.” And what were these words that they said? “Saying from twenty years and above…” This is what they spoke to them about.
  
  Verse 4
  
  As it is said “everyone passing by to be counted, etc.” You might ask: Why does Rashi bring the verse that is stated in Parshas Ki Sisa, rather than bring the verse that is written here, as it says “count…from twenty years of age…” (v. 2)? The answer is that Rashi is answering [another] question: “As [Hashem] commanded” implies that he had already commanded them, and that Yisroel already were aware of this. However they did not know about this command until Moshe told it to them. Rashi had another difficulty: Why it is written, “Bnei Yisroel who had left Egypt”? It should have merely written “Bnei Yisroel” and no more! Thus Rashi was obliged to explain [differently] and to bring the verse stated in Ki Sisa, for that command was only said to those who left Egypt. You might ask [further]: Nonetheless, he should have brought the verse stated in Parshas Bamidbar (1:3). The answer is that the count mentioned in Parshas Bamidbar was only a temporary measure on the day that the Mishkon was erected, but it was not [to apply] for future generations. However the count mentioned in Ki Sisa was also said for future generations, for [the command], “When you count…” implies that whenever you count them, only count those from twenty years of age.
  
  Verse 5
  
  The ה' on one side and the י' on the other. You might ask: Surely regarding gentiles the Torah also writes in this manner, as it is written וירד העמלקי והכנעני ["the Amalekite and the Canaanite descended"] (Bamidbar 14:45). The answer is that if had written, “The descendants of Reuvein are: the Chanochite family” without adding “from Chanoch” there would have been no difficulty, just as [the Torah writes] regarding the Amalekite. However, now that it is written, “The descendants of Reuvein are: from Chanoch, the Chanochite family” there is a difficulty as to why the Torah [also] placed the ה' on the one side and the י' on the other?
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Israel. The words הצו ["incited"] and בהצותם ["when they incited"] are from the causative [הפעיל] conjugation which would refer to someone else, thus they require an object. Consequently, Rashi was obliged to explain the object of the incitement was the people. <i>Re’m</i> writes: I do not know why Rashi switched the objects, and said that one was Yisroel and the other was the people. Why were they not both the same? [He answers:] Perhaps the answer is that because the verse repeats itself with different terms, the words הצו ["incited"] and בהצותם ["when they incited"]. Rashi said [that it must mean], “[Who] incited Yisroel”…“when they incited the people,” or possibly the reverse.
  
  Verse 10
  
  A symbol and a reminder. That is to say that the term נס ["banner"] has the connotation of something high [which is visible to all], similar to כנס על הגבעה ["like a banner on top of the hill"] (Yeshayahu 30:17), and כנשוא נס הרים ["a banner raised over the mountains"] (Yeshayahu 18:3).
  
  Verse 11
  
  They repented in their hearts. Rashi wishes to answer the question: How could they not have died? For surely it is written (Bamidbar 16:32), “<i>All</i> the people belonging to Korach” meaning that his sons were also swallowed up by the earth.
  An elevated area was secured for them in gehinom.  [נתבצר "secured"] is an expression of ערי מבצר ["fortified cities"] (Bamidbar 32:36). That is to say that Hashem arranged an elevated place for them, such that they would not descend too far into gehinom, and thus they did not die.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  However the family of Ohad became extinct. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely here the Torah only mentions those who came down to Egypt, who were counted in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:8-24). There it writes, “And the sons of Shimon were: Yemuel, Yamin, Ohad, Yachin, Tzochar and Shaul son of the Canaanite.” However, here it counts Zerach who was not counted there. Furthermore Ohad is not counted here. Rashi explains that Zerach who was counted here is Tzochar, and that “Tzochar” is [a word] meaning <i>"tzohar</i>” ["illumination"]. [This is possible] because <i>hei</i> and <i>ches</i> are [sometimes] interchangeable. Also “Zerach” [is a word which] has the connotation of light. However, the family of Ohad became extinct.
  Also Etzbon of Gad… You might ask: Surely Rashi himself comments later regarding Ozni (v. 16) “I say that this was the family of Etzbon”. The answer is that his explanation here is according to the teaching that seven families became extinct, however Rashi himself does not agree to this. [There is another difficulty] according to Rashi’s explanation later (v. 24) that only those who went down to Egypt are referred to as “families,” for Ozni was not one of those who went down to Egypt. Thus why was he mentioned? One cannot say that Ozni refers to Etzbon since there is no commonality between [the names] Ozni and Etzbon. Rather, one must say that when Rashi explains, “Also Etzbon of Gad” this is according to the teaching in the Yerushalmi that there were seven families missing. And Rashi also disagrees with the teaching in the Yerushalmi that only those who went down to Egypt are referred to as families. With this we can answer the inquiry of <i>Re’m</i> who writes: “However there is a difficulty, for surely Rashi himself writes later that all the families were named after those who went down to Egypt, but those who were born from then on were not referred to by their own names. If this is so, how could the Torah count Ozni, for he was not one of those who came to Egypt? The matter requires investigation.” There are those who explain that, “Also Etzbon from Gad” means that one should not be surprised at the change of Zerach’s name, given that Etzbon of Gad from the tribe of Gad also had his name changed. [You might ask:] Rashi writes, “So there are seven families,” however accordingly there are only six. The answer is that when Rashi says, “So there are seven” this refers to the family of Yishvah, one of the sons of Asher. For here the Torah only counts Yishvi while in Parshas Vayigash it writes (Bereishis 46:17) “Yishvah and Yishvi.” This was what Rashi meant when he said “seven families.”
  And from Moserah to Mount Hor there are eight journeys. You might ask: Surely above in Parshas Chukas (21:4) Rashi explained that there were seven journeys. The answer is that above he was considering those from Mount Hor and onwards, not including Mount Hor.
  Of the sons of Yitzhar, none are counted here except for the Korachite family. Meaning that Yitzhar had three sons, Korach and Nefeg and Zichri, but here it only counts the Korachite family while Nefeg and Zichri became extinct. Now, since the majority of the family became extinct [it was considered as if] the entire family became extinct, and it emerges that three of the Levite families fell, the Shimites, Ezrielites and Yitzrites.
  I do not know the identity of the fourth. There are those who raise the difficulty: Perhaps the four missing families are the Shimite and Ezrielite [families], and the Nefegite and Zichrite [families] who are the sons of Yitzhar. For the Torah has only counted the Korachite family from among the sons of Yitzhar.
  That they died in the plague at the affair of Bil’am. Meaning that this specifically refers to the seven families, however one should not say that the Levites were also [killed] in the plague at the incident of Bil’am, for we do not find that the Levites sinned there.
  As compared with the first counting at the Sinai desert. For at the Sinai desert they numbered fifty-nine thousand three hundred, while here only twenty-two thousand two hundred were counted. Thus it emerges that thirty-seven thousand one hundred were missing.
  Fell from the tribe of Shimon. That is to say that the twenty-four thousand [people] who died in the plague at the affair of Bil’am, all fell from the tribe of Shimon. [This is understandable] because we find that from among the tribes, the tribe of Shimon sinned the most, for the leader of Shimon’s tribe had sinned.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  I say that this was the family of Etzbon. Meaning that Ozni who is counted here was not counted among those who came down to Egypt, therefore it appears to me that he is Etzbon, “but I do not know…” You might ask: Surely above Rashi explained, “And similarly Etzbon of Gad [became extinct]” I have already explained this above (v. 13).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  This is Yov… In Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:13). Rashi explains in Divrei Hayomim I (7:1) that he was [really] called Yov, but since they settled down to learn Torah, as it is written (ibid. v.12), “From the sons of Yissachar there were those who had understanding of the times” he merited to be called “Yashuv” (lit. "settled").
  And Ard and Na’aman, the sons of Bela, the son of Binyamin. That is to say that they too were born in Egypt. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) This raises a difficulty, for if so Yaakov came down to Egypt with seventy-two souls, given that she was pregnant with them, just as Yocheved is considered part of the count of seventy souls for the same reason. One answer is that Yocheved was different because she was born at the entrance to Egypt, inside its walls, while they may have been born after being several months in Egypt. Another answer is that the tribe of Levi is different because they are counted from the age of one month. See there for more detail.
  That their mother went down to Egypt. Meaning that he gives the reason why the families of Ard and Na’aman, grandsons of Binyamin were counted, even though they were not from those who went down to Egypt.
  They were therefore divided into separate families… This is what he was saying: Do not ask how it is possible that grandchildren [of Binyamin] are considered as separate families, for the explanation is that it is like Chetzron and Chamul…
  If this is from the Aggadah, fine, but if not… Meaning that if R’ Moshe Hadarshan found this reason in the Aggadah then fine, and I am not permitted to disagree with him. “But if not, then I say…” meaning that if he was saying this based on his own reasoning, then I too, am offering another reason that is my own.
  [From Ard and Na’aman] respectively, large families emanated. Meaning: Ard and Na’aman were counted as families solely because of their large numbers, given that each of them bore many children. Consequently, it was fitting for each of them to be called a family, even though they were not from those who went down to Egypt. [Rashi made this comment] because one could err, [saying] that since Ard and Na’aman were termed families due to their numerous children, their father Bela should not have been termed a family in his own right, just as Yosef was not termed a tribe in of itself, since it had already been divided into the tribes of Efraim and Menashe. [This is not a difficulty] according to R’ Moshe Hadarshan who considers a fetus like a [born] child, for accordingly a father and a child could be counted as two, like Peretz and his sons, since both were among those who went down to Egypt. However, according to Rashi’s explanation there is a difficulty. Therefore he was obliged to say that Bela had many children aside from Ard and Na’aman and they were called by his name, which was not the case for Yosef. <i>Re’m.</i>
  Five families are missing from the sons of Binyamin. This explanation is also from the commentary of R’ Moshe Hadarshan, therefore Rashi brings it before the comment (v. 36), “These are the sons of Shuselach” [even though Binyamin is not mentioned until v. 38].
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  The other sons of Shuselach… This is Rashi’s own language. He wishes to explain why a family was called after a grandchild [of one of the tribes] as explained above.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  Being humbled among the nations. שפוף ["humble"] has the connotation of hovering [just above the ground].
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  Even if they reached twenty before the apportioning of the land. Meaning [the verse implies that] you shall apportion the land “among these” 601,730 mentioned above who came to the land of Israel, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yonasan (Bava Basra 117a). However, [there is a difficulty that] the verse did not need to mention this, given that we would know it from [the verse], “The land shall be apportioned as an inheritance according to the number of names” which comes afterwards, teaching that the land was apportioned to those mentioned above. Thus, what does the Torah mean to teach [by saying] “among these” which implies an exclusion, [i.e.] among these, but not among others. [Rashi answers:] The exclusion is that [the division] was specifically “among these” who were twenty years of age and above, but not others [even if they reached twenty before the apportioning of the land]. <i>Re’m.</i>
  
  Verse 54
  
  They gave a larger portion. Although it was distributed [to the people] in equal portions, nonetheless the land was divided into twelve unequal areas. [This was possible because] the division was miraculous, the lots of each member of the tribe joining together in order to facilitate this. Similarly, it was miraculous in that the lot denoting a large portion of the land did not come out for a tribe with a small population. (See <i>Mizrochi</i> and Gemara Bava Basra).
  
  Verse 55
  
  Scripture deviates with this inheritance… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely above it is written (v. 53), “The land shall be apportioned among these” which implied those who are entering the land of Israel. But here it implies [that it was divided among] those who left Egypt.
  But here the dead inherit the living. It appears that the reason is because anything good that emanates from the mouth of Hashem is not retracted. Here Hashem had promised to give the land of Israel to those who left Egypt, but they all died in the desert. Therefore, Hashem commanded that the inheritance should be returned to those who left Egypt and that they would bequeath it to their children. With this we may also answer [the difficulty with] what was stated in Parshas Va’eira (Shemos 6:8), “I shall give it to you as a bequeathal מורשה” but the Torah did not write “I shall give it to you as an inheritance ירושה.” Rather, [we see] it was a hint that they would not enter and inherit the land of Israel; only they would bequeath it to their children after them.
  Had sons who entered the land. Meaning: They had sons of twenty years of age who were thus fit to inherit.
  To their grandfather, and they then shared everything equally. Meaning to the father of the two brothers who had already died; from here one sees that the dead “inherit” the living. Subsequently they would divide it equally among the two brothers, since it was [considered] the bequeathal of their father, and afterwards the single son would inherit the same amount as the three. Rashi says “to their grandfather” rather than “to their father” because if their inheritance only reverted to their fathers, who were from twenty years of age and above when they left Egypt, why would it be divided equally when each of those who came to the land of Israel returned it to his father. Surely each one would bequeath it back to his children, and not to his brothers’ children. (See Gemara Bava Basra and <i>Mizrochi</i>).
  This excludes Yehoshua and Kalev. Meaning that אך ["only"] comes to exclude [something], implying that it was not divided by lottery. Yet surely the Torah writes, “By word of the lottery” (v. 56). Rather, “This excludes Yehoshua and Kalev…” Rashi reverses the order here, first commenting on “By word of the lottery.” [The reason] appears to be that one might have said “Only by lot” was merely to indicate that everything was done miraculously, as he explains concerning “By word of the lottery.” However, after Rashi had explained concerning “By word of the lottery” that it was “By Divine Inspiration,” there is a difficulty as to what is meant by “only.” Consequently, he explains that “This excludes Yehoshua and Kalev…” <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  
  Verse 56
  
  The lots spoke… For if not so, why does it say, “By word of the lottery”? Surely the Torah had written, “Only by lot shall [the land] be divided…” (v. 55). Rather, it was to teach that it was through Divine Inspiration, meaning that at the moment when the lots came out a voice would emanate with the lot saying, “I am the lot of the area of Acco, and I have come up for such and such a tribe.” Rashi needed to say this, otherwise [one may ask]: Given that they divided [the land] according to the largeness or smallness of the tribe, why then was it divided by lots? Perhaps a tribe with a large population would draw a small portion. Consequently, he explains that the lottery was by Divine Inspiration.
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  Her birth was in Egypt. Meaning, the verse is abbreviated and does not explain who bore her, thus one must say that his wife bore her. Then there is the difficulty as to why does it say “in Egypt”? So Rashi was obliged to explain that her birth was in Egypt, but not her conception. This would only have been possible if she was born between the walls [upon entering Egypt].
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  To have been counted from the age of twenty. Rashi wishes to answer the question: It is written, “They were not counted among Bnei Yisroel.” Yet they were counted! He answers that they were not counted from the age of twenty years like Yisroel, rather from the age of one.
  Since no inheritance was given to them. <i>Re’m</i> writes: The matter requires investigation. Surely above in Parshas Bamidbar (1:49) it is written “However, the tribe of Levi [you shall not count]…” and there Rashi gives two reasons: One is that “The King’s Legion is worthy [of being counted separately],” and another is that “The Holy One, Blessed Is He, foresaw with His Holy Spirit that a decree would arise [against all those who were counted]…” [However, we may ask] what is Rashi’s source for those two reasons? Surely here the Torah writes the reason why they were not counted among Bnei Yisroel. Perhaps the answer is that the reason given by the Torah is to explain why they were counted from the age of one month and above and not from the age of twenty years and above, as it is written, “From one month and older; they were not counted among Bnei Yisroel” [meaning that they were not counted] from age of twenty and older. However, the reason said by the Rabbis was to explain why they were not counted among Bnei Yisroel, rather than why each one was counted separately. Accordingly, the verse [in Bamidbar] was necessary to instruct one not to count the tribe of Levi among the tribes of Yisroel. However I do not know how it would be possible to count them together, since one was [counted] from the age of one month and older, and the other from the age of twenty years and older. Thus the matter requires investigation. It appears to me that the Rabbis were answering the question: The count of Bnei Yisroel was not in the order of birth [of the progenitors of each tribe], rather in order of their banners. Therefore, the Torah should have counted the tribe of Levi after [counting the tribes under] the [first] two banners to travel. So why were they counted separately? For this Rashi gives two reasons.
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  However, against the women. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why did the Torah write “[no] man”? It should have said “no one was left.”
  While the women said “give us possession.” Meaning: They were also among those who cherished the land. They said [the daughters of Tzelofchad], “Give us a possession among our father’s brothers” (27:4).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  To teach you that they were all righteous. That is to say this is another reason why it said “Menashe the son of Yosef.” (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) [Rashi states that they were all righteous] even though regarding Tzelofchad it states (v. 3), “But he died because of his own sin” and the Rabbis disagree as to what was the sin. The answer is that he only had this sin and since he died on account of it, his death was his atonement. Thus he was counted among the righteous. You might ask: Surely it is written “Korach son of Yitzhar, son of Kehos”; and Korach was known to have been wicked, yet the righteous were mentioned along with him. The answer is that the Torah would say this only regarding a person who's actions, and the actions of his forefathers were clearly known, like Korach who was known to have been wicked. Thus regarding Yitzhar, Kehos and Levi who were [clearly] righteous, it would have been impossible to change that which was known.
  
  Verse 2
  
  But rearrange the passage. And it is as if it had said, “They stood before Elozor the kohein” and afterwards [it said], “Before Moshe.”
  
  Verse 3
  
  He died by his sin alone… For if not so, what difference is it if he died because of his sin?
  He was the wood gatherer. Here it says, “Our father died <i>in the wilderness</i>” and there it states “Bnei Yisroel were <i>in the wilderness</i> and they found him…” (Bamidbar 15:32). Therefore [we can learn a <i>gezeirah shavah</i>] — just as there it referred to the wood gatherer, so too here it refers to the wood gatherer.
  Among those who ascended defiantly. As it is written in Parshas Shelach ויעפילו לעלות ["they defiantly went up"] (Bamidbar 14:44) where ויעפילו has the numerical value [of 212 which is equivalent] to צלפחד ["Tzelofchad"]. Because the Torah hid this, without revealing [his identity,] Rabbi Shimon said that he was among those who ascended defiantly, but not that he was so wicked as to have profaned Shabbos.
  
  Verse 4
  
  But if he had a son… Rashi wishes to answer the question: The word כי ["because"] always denotes a reason for that which precedes it. However, how is this giving a reason for that which came before? On the contrary, it was because he did not have a son that [his name was] omitted. Thus Rashi explains that they were saying as follows: Why should it be omitted? Give us the inheritance because he did not have a son. “But if he had [a son]…”
  That they were learned. Maharan raises a difficulty: In <i>Perek Yesh Nochalin</i> (Bava Basra 119b) it says that when they said, “Because he did not have a son” this teaches that they were demanding. And when they said, “We are in place of a son” this teaches that they were learned. The matter requires investigation.
  
  Verse 5
  
  The <i>halachah</i> was concealed from him. For if not so, later in Parshas Masei it merely writes, “Moshe instructed [Bnei Yisroel] according to command of Hashem, [saying]: ‘Correctly are the descendants of Yosef’s tribe speaking’” (Bamidbar 36:5), but here he had to bring their case before Hashem. Rather, [the <i>halachah</i>] “was concealed…”
  Another interpretation: It was fitting [for this chapter]… According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to how [do we know that] the <i>halachah</i> was concealed from him? Perhaps Moshe did not want to rule on the <i>halachah</i> without Hashem’s instruction, as is written above in Parshas Beha'aloscha concerning “There were men…” (Bamidbar 9:6). There Rashi did not explain, “Here he was punished,” so the same should hold true here. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why here it is not written, “Stand and I will listen…” as it does there (v. 8). Therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  As Targum renders יאות [as] “correctly.” Meaning that Rashi wishes to explain the word יאות used by the Targum; that it means that the daughters of Tzelofchad had made a correct claim. For this is how the Rabbis expound the verse [teaching]: “Tzelofchad’s daughters speak correctly” because thus is this chapter inscribed before Me. <i>Re’m.</i> It appears that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written “they speak צדק ["justly"]" or “[they speak] משפט ["lawfully"]”? Because the term כן ["correctly"] has the connotation of כמו כן ["similarly" implying a reference to something] written and explained elsewhere. Therefore, Rashi brings the words of the Rabbis that thus is this chapter inscribed before Me. However, since this matter is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, Rashi therefore brings the Targum who uses the word יאות. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  Two portions. <i>Re’m</i> expands here, but his conclusion is that Rashi used the terminology of the <i>beraysa</i> (Bava Basra 116b). Even though the <i>beraysa</i> is according to the opinion that the land was divided among those who left Egypt, Rashi did not [use it] because he holds like this. Rather, from there one can learn that according to the opinion that [it was divided among] those who came to the land. נתן תתן ["give, you shall give"] refers to two portions in the property of Cheifer, which were considered “returned” [to him]. For the portions taken by the sons of Cheifer who were from among those who came to the land, were all “returned” to Cheifer who was one of those who left Egypt, as it is written “according to the names of their fathers’ tribes should they inherit it” (26:55). Thus it would emerge that it is as if Cheifer had [posthumously] received all of these portions and then bequeathed them to each of his sons. Tzelofchad would inherit two portions because he was the firstborn, while the other brothers would each get one portion. Consequently, the daughters of Tzelofchad would receive the two portions of their father from the property of Cheifer, and regarding these two portions the verse wrote, “Give, you shall give.” Rashi uses the language, “The portion of their father… and his portion with his brothers in the property of Cheifer” like the language of the <i>beraysa.</i> His intention was merely to say that they had the two portions of their father among his brothers in the property of Cheifer. However [this raises a difficulty:] His daughters could not have taken anything from Cheifer himself, since the land was divided among those who came there, not those who left Egypt. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to consider anything [as] returned to him, because he did not have any sons who entered the land such that they would return to him the portions that they took there. <i>Re’m</i> concludes that the matter requires investigation.
  Denotes anger. Meaning that Hashem has fury and anger against him, therefore He does not leave a son to inherit him.
  Only on that generation. Meaning: One should not raise the difficulty that in Parshas Masei it is written (Bamidbar 36:9), “No inheritance will be transferred [from one tribe to another]…” teaching that a woman from one tribe is not permitted to marry a man from another tribe. Rashi [there] explains that this command was only for that generation, but not for subsequent generations. [Both interpretations brought by Rashi are necessary:] According to the first reason there is the difficulty that it should have been punctuated as והעברת with a <i>segol,</i> given that it was in the sense of anger, therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why it is written the term “transfer” regarding the daughters of Tzelofchad, for they were permitted to marry only their cousins. Therefore he also brings the first reason.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Nothing constitutes family except from the father’s side. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) Though Scripture often writes “According to their families, their paternal house,” nonetheless, here concerning inheritance where a daughter is considered like a son when he has no son, males and females are inevitably equated. Thus, one might have said that the mother’s [family] was also termed “family” in this matter, so Rashi informs us [that this is not so].
  
  Verse 12
  
  Why is this placed here. Meaning that Mount Avarim is Mount Nevo, and when Moshe went up to Mount Nevo he did not come down. [Rather] he died there immediately, as is written in Parshas Vezos Haberachah (Devarim 32:49). Thus, “Why was this placed here…”
  Another interpretation: When Moshe entered. According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why he rejoiced, perhaps when it is written “give them,” it means through your command, as it is written in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 34:13), therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why this [section] was placed here, therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.
  The chamber. לקיטון means “to the chamber.” Similarly ויבא החדרה ["and he came to the chamber"] (Bereishis 43:30) is rendered by Targum Yonasan as ועל לקיטונא.
  
  Verse 13
  
  From here we derive that Moshe yearned… [Rashi knows this] because it is not written, “As Avraham was gathered” or as any one of the other righteous people [were gathered].
  Another interpretation: You are no better than he. That is to say, that just as he died because of this sin, so too will you die. [One might ask why] Rashi brings the other interpretation here? He does not [mention it] later in Parshas Haazinu (Devarim 32:50) where he only explains “that he yearned.” Similarly, [why he did not bring it] above in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 20:26)? It appears that usually the Torah writes, “As was gathered … על אשר מריתם ["because you disobeyed"]" but here it writes, “As was gathered … כאשר מריתם [lit. "like you (pl.) disobeyed"]” which implies that the reason why he would be gathered in like Aharon was because he sinned like him. Therefore Rashi also explains the other interpretation that “You are no better than he.” <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  Your time would not yet have arrived… You might ask: Surely in this Parshah it is not written על אשר לא קדשתם ["because you did not sanctify"]. The answer is that according to the other interpretation where Rashi explained that "You are no better than he” it implies that just as Aharon died though his time had not yet arrived, so too Moshe would die even though his time had not yet arrived. However, where do we find that he died before his time? Rashi answers that regarding the death of Moshe it is written, “Because you did not sanctify…” (Devarim 32:51). The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that Moshe’s death was not like that of Aharon, for in his lifetime Aharon saw that his position of leadership had been passed to his children, however this was not so regarding Moshe, therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. But, according to other interpretation there is the difficulty that that the phrase כאשר מת אהרן ["just as Aharon died"] implies that Aharon died before his time had come, but this is not explicitly said regarding Aharon. Therefore, the first reason is also necessary. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Though it is stated in the first Perek of Rosh Hashanah (11a): “I am one hundred and twenty years of age today” (Devarim 31:2), why does the Torah say “today”? Rather, [it means]: “Today I am completing my days and my years” teaching that Hashem sits and completes the years of the righteous, from day to day and from month to month. The answer is that it is certainly true that he completed his [natural] years, however he should have lived [longer] due to his righteousness, since the fear of Hashem adds to one's years. However, now that he had sinned he was left with this natural lifespan and nothing was added.
  One for degenerate behavior. She was adulterous, [but did so] without warning.
  The other for eating unripe Shmittah produce. Meaning Shmittah produce that had not yet ripened completely, for the Torah writes, “To eat” (Vayikra 25:6). [From here we derive] "But not to squander" (Pesachim 52b). The one who ate the Shmittah produce requested from the court that they publicize why she was being punished, so that people would not say that she too was [punished for] degenerate behavior; here too…
  
  Verse 14
  
  They had no other sins. That is to say, that they had only the sin of the waters of dispute, but no other sin. Accordingly, this refers to Moshe and Aharon.
  The rebellion at Marah. Meaning that those who rebelled at Marah with the waters of dispute were “the same as those who rebelled…” Accordingly this refers to Yisroel. The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first interpretation there is the difficulty that it had already said that they had no other sin, therefore Rashi also brings the second interpretation that it refers to Yisroel. However, according to this second interpretation there is the difficulty as to why it is necessary to mention here the sin of Yisroel, therefore the first reason is needed.
  
  Verse 15
  
  To make the virtue of the righteous known. Meaning, why did Moshe say this rather than praying that he would enter?
  Answer me… For if not so, why is it written, “Saying”? It is understandable regarding, “Hashem spoke … saying” for this has already been explained as meaning “Go and say overpowering words to them” or “Go and say my words to them, and bring back [word], as to whether they will accept them” as it is written, “Moshe brought back the word of the people to Hashem” (Shemos 19:8). However, here these two explanations are not feasible. Therefore Rashi explains: “Answer me…” See also Parshas Vaeschanan (Devarim 3:23).
  
  Verse 16
  
  He said, “The time has come for me to ask.” It appears that Rashi is answering the question: According to the Rabbis who explain “saying” as meaning Moshe said to Him, “Answer me…” would the generation be without a leader? Rather, his question was whether it was necessary to appoint a leader, or whether his children would inherit his position of leadership, as it says, “Give Tzelofchad’s inheritance to his daughters.” This was why the Rabbis expound so, and therefore Rashi also followed the words of the Rabbis. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) It appears that this contradicts Rashi’s comment above that they [i.e., the leaders] ignore their own needs and concern themselves with the needs of the community, yet here he says that the time had come to ask for his personal needs! However in truth there is no difficulty, because by way of concerning himself with the needs of the community, to appoint a leader for them, he also concerned himself with the needs of his sons. [He asked] that they would be the leaders. Hashem answered him, “He who keeps watch over the fig tree…”
  As he never moved. Meaning that he sat in his tent and studied Torah.
  Why was this said. Rather than saying “God of the heavens” or “God of the earth.”
  
  Verse 17
  
  Another interpretation [of “and bring them in”]: That You will not treat him in the way You treat me. According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why it states, “And who will lead them out” for what merit is needed for leading out? It is understandable that to bring them in requires merit that they not perish, [but regarding leading them out there is a difficulty]. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. And according to the second interpretation there is the difficulty that, “Who would lead them out” is not the same as, “Who will go forth before them.” There, his main prayer was for the people, while, “Who would lead them out” is explained as his prayer for the benefit of the leader. Since the <i>vav</i> conjunctive in ואשר יוציאם ["<i>and </i>who would lead them out"] implies that his prayers were [<i>also</i>] entirely for the benefit of Yisroel, Rashi also brings the first reason.
  
  Verse 18
  
  Take him with words of persuasion. Rashi has already explained on numerous occasions that the term קיחה ["taking"] is inappropriate for people, therefore he explains…
  Someone scrutinized by yourself. Although the manner of Scripture is to use the word לך ["yourself"] without any need, such as in עלה לך היערה ["ascend to the forest"] (Yehoshua 17:15) and other similar instances, nonetheless wherever we can expound, we expound. <i>Re’m</i>: It appears to me that Rashi is answering the [following] question: Since Moshe’s request was that his sons would inherit his position, as Rashi explained above, it should not have said לך ["yourself"] which implies that his initial request was for Yehoshua, since this was not the case. He answers, “Someone scrutinized by you…”
  As you requested… Meaning that above you asked saying “The thought of every individual is known before You…” (Rashi v. 16), thus I shall do so, and I will choose Yehoshua whom you know and in whom there is a spirit, as you requested…
  Provide a public announcer for him. For it is written afterwards (v. 20), “So that the entire community of Bnei Yisroel will hear.” But what would they hear? Rather [this means] to provide a public announcer.
  That he might preach in your lifetime. One must say that the laying of hands of a Rabbi upon his student is related to his being given permission to instruct and give rulings [whether] to forbid or to permit [an issue]. Therefore here, concerning Yehoshua, if the laying of hand was [to take effect] after Moshe’s death, why did he do it? After his death there would be no need for [Yehoshua to receive] permission. Rather [permission was given] during the lifetime of Moshe. You cannot say that perhaps the laying of hands was the bestowing of radiance, for if this were so it should have juxtaposed the statement of bestowing your radiance (v. 20) to the words, “And lay your hand…” Rather, one must say that “Lay your hand” is another matter and it is the giving of permission.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  The face of Moshe was like the sun. Meaning: The face of Moshe shone more than that of Yehoshua. There are those who explain that like the sun takes its light from Hashem and the moon takes light from the sun, so too Moshe took the rays of light [which shone from] his face from Hashem, and Yehoshua took them from Moshe.
  That they will treat him with reverence. Meaning: So that they will hear about the radiance that you gave him, and consequently they will treat him with reverence. However, one cannot explain that “will hear” means “will accept” because if so, the word אליו ["to him"] would be missing, because accordingly the meaning would be, “So that all of Yisroel will accept his words and his decrees.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  Here is [the reply] to your request. That is to say, how was this matter relevant here, for what relevance did Elozor have to [the appointment of] Yehoshua? (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) For if not so, why did He command Moshe, He should have commanded Yehoshua directly.
  The Sanhedrin. [Rashi knows this] because right before [in this verse] it is written, “And all Yisroel with him.” Why then is it necessary to say “And the entire community”? Rather, this refers to the Sanhedrin.
  
  Verse 22
  
  He persuaded him verbally. Rashi is answering the question: It is already written, “Moshe did as Hashem commanded him,” so why is it necessary to say, “He took Yehoshua”? Rashi answers that “He persuaded him…” meaning that he said more to him than Hashem had said. For Hashem only commanded him to say, “You are fortunate that you have merited this…” However Moshe informed him “of the reward…” The reason was so that he would not say, “Of what benefit is this aggravation to me?” given that Moshe and Aharon had been punished because of the people. He therefore informs him of the reward.
  
  Verse 23
  
  Generously. Here also there is also the difficulty as to why was it necessary to write [that he laid his hands] as I explained above (v. 22).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  May Hashem command… Rashi is answering the question: What connection does the passage of the constant burnt-offering have with the passage above, where it states “May Hashem, God of the spirits command”?
  Before you command Me concerning My children, command My children concerning Me. As it is written, “May Hashem command…” (27:16). [This means first] command My children concerning Me, that they should serve Me [by teaching them the laws of My altar offerings].
  This refers to the blood. As is written (Vayikra 1:5), “The sons of Aharon shall bring the blood” upon it.
  This refers to the “<i>emurin</i>” parts. Meaning that והקטירם ["shall burn them"] refers to the <i>emurin</i> parts that are burned. There (Vayikra 3:16) it is written “bread” [referring to the <i>emurin</i> parts]. Thus we see that the <i>emurin</i> parts are referred to as “bread.”
  They learned from here and instituted the <i>ma’amados</i> units. Meaning that it is written, “You shall be vigilant.” This implies that for the entire duration of the offering, in the morning and in the afternoon, all of Yisroel should stand over it. However, this is impossible because everyone has to concern himself with his own affairs to support himself. Therefore, they instituted [the <i>ma’amados</i>] and divided all of Yisroel into twenty-four groups, and similarly the Leviim and the Kohanim were divided into twenty-four groups. One of those twenty-four groups of Kohanim would serve, and similarly they instituted that one group of Leviim and Yisraelim would stand over the constant burnt-offering for one week. During the next week a different <i>ma’amad</i> [would take their place] and they would be considered as the emissaries of all of Yisroel, for the emissary of a person is considered like the person who sends him. The cycle would continue in this way, such that no one <i>ma’amad</i> served more than twice a year.
  Every day… For surely it was offered twice daily, thus why was it necessary to say, “At its prescribed time”? Rather, it was so that it would not be withheld, even in a state of impurity. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not explain here that “at its prescribed time” means even in a state of impurity, as he explains concerning the <i>Pesach</i> offering (Bamidbar 9:2)? The answer is that there the <i>Pesach</i> offering came only once a year, thus the term “At its prescribed time” would imply even in a state of impurity. However here the constant burnt-offering was offered twice daily, thus “At its prescribed time” was only appropriate according to Rashi’s explanation. <i>Re’m</i>
  
  Verse 3
  
  This is an admonishment to the Beis Din. Meaning, an admonishment to Beis Din, that they should warn Yisroel regarding the constant burnt-offering. For if not so, why repeat, “Say to them”?
  Like the plain interpretation. Meaning: Two each day; one in the morning and one in the evening.
  That they should be slaughtered towards the sun. For if not so, why is it necessary to say “two each day”? Since it says, “You shall offer the one lamb in the morning” (v. 4) why did the Torah say, “Two each day”? Rather it means כנגד היום [lit. "opposite the day"] which means opposite the sun.
  To the east of the rings. Meaning: [They should be slaughtered] near the rings which were in the east, in order to be opposite the sun so that no one would say that they were serving the sun. The rings mentioned here are the rings that Yochanan the Kohein Gadol established in the area of the courtyard used for slaughtering. They were inserted into the ground and the legs of the animals were fastened to them during the slaughter…
  
  Verse 4
  
  Here the commandment is for all the generations. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) Ramban claims that this is not correct, for there it already stated, “A continual burned-offering for your generations.” Chizkuni answers that the minimum [meaning of the] number of “generations” is two and no more, therefore the verse where it is written “command” (v. 2) implies alacrity for now and for future generations is necessary.
  
  Verse 5
  
  The libation <i>minchah.</i> Meaning that this was the tenth of an <i>eiphah</i> of fine flour which comes with the offering, to the exclusion of the meal-offerings mentioned in Vayikra, which come on their own (Vayikra 2).
  
  Verse 6
  
  Like those which were done during the days of inauguration. Meaning that when the Torah wrote, העשויה בהר סיני [lit. "that was offered at Mount Sinai"] it implied that these had already been offered at Mount Sinai. So why then was it necessary to offer it here? Rashi answers that it was “<i>like</i> those…” meaning that he ‘amends’ the verse as if it had said כהעשויה ["<i>as</i> was done"] with a [letter] <i>kaf</i> indicating comparison.
  
  Verse 7
  
  Wine. Meaning [wine] but not other drinks, for in the passage dealing with the libations it is written “<i>wine</i> for a libation, one fourth of a <i>hin</i>” (Bamidbar 15:5).
  They shall be poured on the altar. Although it is written, “In the Holy” alone without explaining where, it means upon the altar which is termed "holy," as is taught in Succah 49a.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  But not one Shabbos burnt-offering… You might ask: Why concerning Yom Tov does Rashi also not write that we do not bring the burnt-offerings of one Yom Tov on another Yom Tov? The answer is that this does not have to be taught, for it is obviously forbidden, given that each Yom Tov has a distinct name. However, each Shabbos is the same as another Shabbos and one might have said that this was permitted, thus Rashi informs us that it is forbidden. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) One cannot say that this only comes to exclude the burnt-offerings of Shabbos from being offered on Yom Kippur, for example the <i>emurin</i> of Shabbos that were left over until Yom Kippur, teaching that they should not be offered. However one could make up for the burnt-offerings of one Shabbos on another Shabbos. For if so, it should have written עולת שבת בשבת [lit. "the burnt-offering of Shabbos on Shabbos"]. What is meant by בשבתו ["on <i>its</i> Shabbos"]? Hear from this that the verse is saying [it shall be brought] on <i>its</i> Shabbos and not on another.
  Between the two constant-offerings. When it is written על עולת התמיד [lit. "upon the constant burnt-offering"] this implies [that it was offered] after the constant burnt-offering. However, since it did not write על עולת התמידים ["upon the constant burnt-<i>offerings</i>"] it implies that it was offered between the two constant-offerings. With this the difficulty of <i>Re’m</i> is answered. However according to Rashi’s comment, “Aside from the two constant burnt-offering lambs” which explains the word  על as meaning “aside from” I do not know how one can derive from here that they may only be offered between the two constant-offerings.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Designated as such in the chapter of the libations. Meaning: Parshas Shelach Lecha (Bamidbar 15:9).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  All the [musaf] goats… Meaning, why do they bring a he-goat on the New Moon as a sin-offering — for what sin [was it brought]?
  The ritual defilement of the Sanctuary. Meaning: If one entered the Sanctuary in a state of impurity; “And its sacred objects,” meaning: If one brought an offering in a state of impurity.
  Who was not cognizant either at the beginning or the end. Such as a proselyte who converted, or a baby who was kidnapped by gentiles.
  The other goats are derived from this one. Meaning: One learns [this quality] of the festival musaf goat-offerings from the goat brought on the New Moon. For it is written, “<i>And</i> [one] goat,” with a [letter] <i>vav</i> denoting something in addition to the musaf of the New Moon. [This teaches that] just as the musaf of the New Moon atones for the defilement of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, so too the other goats. Those [goat-offerings] that do not have a [letter] <i>vav</i> [preceding them] are learned from those cases where the Torah did teach this law, since we learn the general case from the explicit.
  This is also expounded aggadically… Even though the first explanation is also a Midrash. But, the meaning is as follows: It is expounded <i>according</i> to the aggadah, meaning with an aggadic explanation. For the first midrashic interpretation was according to the <i>beraysos</i> of <i>Toras Kohanim</i> which contain <i>halachos</i> and monetary laws.
  This entire offering. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Meaning: This does not refer to the goat at all, since there are no libations for a sin-offering. Rather, it refers to the [entire] offering.
   “Its libation” does not [only] refer to the goat. Why would this be written concerning the goat and not the bulls, rams and sheep? Furthermore [Rashi comments:] “Its libation” does not refer to the goat, meaning that it only refers to the continuous burnt-offering mentioned previously, as if the Torah had said, “In addition to the continuous burnt-offering and its libation shall you make this offering.”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  For example, to prevent a loss. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) Meaning: The Torah writes a prohibition concerning “work of consequence” in order for one to expound that on the intermediate days only work of consequence is permitted, [meaning work] that prevents a loss from happening. For if it had only written, “Any work,” then the authorization of allowing to do work that the Torah writes concerning the intermediate days would have also referred to “any work.” However now that the prohibition regarding work to prevent a loss from happening is written regarding the festival, we inevitably learn that the authorization of allowing to do work on the intermediate days is specifically for work to prevent a loss from happening, but not for other types of work. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) explains that this was necessary to inform us that other types of work are prohibited on the festival; for one would have said that since work was permitted [on the festival] regarding the preparation of food, so too it was permitted [to do work] to prevent a loss from happening, [i.e.] where there would be a monetary loss if it were not performed on that day. Thus, we are informed that even in this case it is forbidden.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  Which are the first of the wheat <i>minchah</i>- offerings. Though the omer allows all varieties of new crop, wheat, barley and other types of grain, this is concerning for food that is eaten. However, for offerings one would not be permitted to bring from the new crop until after the <i>minchah</i> of the two loaves which was brought from the wheat from the present year.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  The Rabbis derive from this… Meaning: Above (v. 30) the Torah should have said, “One he-goat to make atonement for you, <i>shall be without blemish for you.</i>” However, it was juxtaposed to the libations to teach you that the libations too, should be without blemish.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  And aside from the constant burnt- offering you shall offer. Meaning: [The words] “[And] the constant burnt-offering” are not referring to “the he-goat as a sin-offering,” rather to “You shall bring a burnt-offering” above (v. 8). Thus the verse reads: “One  he-goat as a sinoffering aside from the atonement sin-offering, and the atonement burnt-offering aside from the constant burnt-offering and its meal-offering.” Consequently, it is as if it is written “aside from” twice, for the [letter] <i>vav</i> of ועולת ["<i>and</i> the [constant] burnt-offering"] refers to “aside from” [of] the atonement sin-offering.
  This relates to the  musaf-offerings. You cannot say that it refers to the constant burnt-offering, for if so it should have said ונסכה ["and <i>its</i> libation"] in the singular, as it writes ומנחתה ["and <i>its</i> meal-offering"]. Furthermore, you cannot say that it refers to “one he-goat as a sin-offering” because sin-offerings do not have libations. Thus, one must say that it refers to the musaf burnt-offerings. Rashi states: “This relates to the musaf-offerings stated above, and to “you shall offer,” even though it is not written, “You shall offer” in this verse. Nonetheless, since Rashi previously commented on, “And the constant burnt-offering” explaining: “Aside from the constant burnt- offering you shall offer these burnt-offerings,” means that it was as if the verse had explicitly written, “You shall offer.” Consequently, “And their libations” refers to them.
  It denotes a command. Rashi holds that the Torah is now commanding to bring the libations of the musaf burnt-offerings, for it had not yet written about any libations concerning these burnt-offerings.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  Restraint from doing work. Thus, when it is written afterwards, “You shall not do any work of substance” this is an additional explanation, [meaning] that the verse itself explains what you shall restrain yourselves from.
  Another interpretation of restraint, restrain yourselves from leaving. For according to the first reason there is a difficulty that the verse itself explains what the restraint was, [stating] that it was the performance of work. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is a difficulty that since it refers to Yisroel, why is it written, “It shall be a day of restraint for you”? It should have merely said, “You shall restrain yourselves.” Therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.
  According to the Aggadic Midrash. [Rashi says this] even though the first reason was also from a Midrash. This is because the first Midrash was in accordance with the <i>beraysos</i> in <i>Toras Kohanim,</i> which are comprised of <i>halachos</i> and monetary laws, however this [Midrash] is Aggadic.
  
  Verse 36
  
  Represent Yisroel. Who are singular on the earth.
  Proper conduct… Meaning: It refers to the bulls of the festival above. From their progressive diminishing [in number] we learn proper conduct…
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  As obligations. Rashi wishes to answer the question: It is written, “These you shall make to Hashem on your festivals, aside from your vows…” However, since you also must make the vows and dedications, why did it not group them together? He answers that “these” which was written at the beginning [of the verse] refer to those things designated as obligations, aside from the dedications which are optional.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Because up until this point we have the words of the Omnipresent. Rashi is answering the question: It is obvious that he said [over] all that Hashem had commanded him! Furthermore, in the entire Torah it mentions the command alone, so why here does it mention the command and also Moshe’s words to Yisroel? He answers that “because…”
  
  Verse 2
  
  By teaching them first. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “To the tribal leaders”? One cannot say this passage was only said to the tribal leaders, and not to all of Israel. For here it states, “This is the word” in order to learn a <i>gezeirah shavah</i> [scriptural comparison] as Rashi explains shortly, to teach that this passage was said to all of Israel. If so, why is it written, “To the tribal leaders”? Rashi answers that it is to “bestow honor…” Accordingly the meaning of “To the tribal leaders <i>of</i> Bnei Yisroel” is “[To the tribal leaders] <i>and to</i> Bnei Yisroel.” <i>Re’m.</i> We cannot say that perhaps the verse means “To the tribal leaders of Bnei Yisroel” because if so, why would it have been necessary to write “of Bnei Yisroel” given that it would have been sufficient to just say “To the tribal leaders, saying…” Rather, one must say that it was informing us of the order of teaching, as <i>Re’m</i> explained and as Rashi will explain shortly. Alternatively, Rashi is answering another question: Why did the verse write ראשי המטות לבני ישראל [lit. "to the tribal leaders, <i>to</i> Bnei Yisroel"] when it should have said אל ראשי מטות בני ישראל ["to the tribal leaders <i>of</i> Bnei Yisroel"]? Rather, since the verse was written in this way one must say that “tribal leaders” is considered a construct, meaning that the word “tribal” is a construct with the word “leaders.” Consequently the word “Yisroel” is distinct, not a construct with the word “tribal,” rather it is an independent word. Thus one is obliged to explain as follows: Initially Moshe said this to the tribal leaders and afterwards to Bnei Yisroel, and it is as if it had written “and to Bnei Yisroel.” This was the honor bestowed upon them, that he taught them first and afterwards the Bnei Yisroel. Accordingly it is also understandable why the Torah did not write, “Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Speak to Bnei Yisroel: If a man makes [a vow]…” Rather the verse must be coming to inform us of the order of teaching, writing “Moshe spoke” as if to say, “This was [the order] of Moshe’s speech to Yisroel.” This is the essence of Rashi’s explanation according to <i>Toras Kohanim,</i> however in Gemara Nedarim (78a) it is expounded differently.
  Why, then, did he see fit to say this here? Meaning that because throughout the entire Torah honor had been bestowed upon the leaders, as it is written, “They returned to him, Aharon [and all the leaders…].” Why was this taught again here?
  Vows may be annulled by a single expert. When the Sage comes to permit a vow, he removes it retroactively as if there had never been a vow. With this sanction, the vow is annulled as if there had never been one; therefore Rashi uses the term הפרה ["annulment"].
  By three laymen. [Rashi says this] because “Tribal leaders” implies that there was one leader who could annul the vow, namely the one expert. You might ask: Surely it is written “leaders” in the plural form? The answer is that it speaks of leaders in general, referring to all the tribal leaders. Now, since one expert was required, then three laymen would be needed. [We derive the number as follows:] It is logical that we would need more laymen than experts. However, it is not possible [that we require only] two, given that a court can never be evenly balanced. Thus, we add an additional one, totaling three. We need not ask that perhaps more than three, because if so there would be no end to the matter.
  Only to the leaders. And accordingly, לבני ישראל ["of Bnei Yisroel"] would mean <i>for</i> Bnei Yisroel, meaning that he taught the leaders so that they would teach Yisroel, but Moshe did not teach everyone for that would not be necessary here. [One might have thought so] since the annulment of vows requires people appointed over Yisroel, in order to instruct them as to which vows one is unable to annul and which one is able to annul. Therefore, here it would have been sufficient to have the leaders instruct them. Thus, Rashi answers that “here it says…”
  Moshe prophesied… You might ask: “This is the word” was necessary for the <i>gezeirah shavah</i> [scriptural comparison] above, as Rashi explained. The answer is that here one cannot question the gezeirah shavah, therefore it does not need to be superfluous [and one can also expound the simple meaning].
  With the phrase “this is the word.” This is an additional distinction, for “This is the word” implies that it is the word itself, which was clearly heard from Hashem in what is termed a “clear vision.” This was not so for the other prophets, as Hashem spoke to them only in riddles or through dreams, termed as “unclear visions.” But to Moshe He spoke “the word” itself, so that he could tell it to Bnei Yisroel. Likewise, it states (Bamidbar 12:8), “Mouth to mouth I speak to him, in vision and not in riddles.” [One might ask what was meant] when Moshe prophesied with the words “So says Hashem” as it is written in Parshas Va’eira (Shemos 8:26) and in Parshas Bo (Shemos 10:3). The answer is that before he stood on Mount Sinai he would prophesize with “So [says Hashem]” however after the Torah was given he prophesied with “<i>This</i> is the word [of Hashem],” once his face began to emit beams of light.
  Another interpretation: “This is the word” is exclusionary. According to the first explanation, there is the difficulty of why it did not say this for all of the mitzvos. Therefore Rashi explains that “this is the word…” However, one cannot say that it was only said for this [second] reason, for if so why did the Torah say, “The word that Hashem commanded…”? It should have said explicitly what is excluded. Therefore, the first reason is also necessary.
  The Sage with the term “release” and the husband with the term “nullification.” The Sage only releases [the vow] when there is regret, therefore the term “release” is suitable. However the husband nullifies without regret and without providing any reason, thus the term “nullification” is appropriate.
  Following the Scriptural language here. For it is written (v. 3) “If a man makes a vow…to initiate a prohibition himself, <i>he</i> may not profane his word” which implies that he may not profane his word, however another [i.e., Sage] may "profane" it for him. Furthermore, it is written לאסור איסר ["to initiate a prohibition"] which implies that he prohibited a certain article upon himself and another person can come and release him from the prohibition. It is regarding “prohibition” the term “release” is appropriate, for איסור ["prohibition"] has the connotation of a knot, making the term מתיר [lit. "untying, releasing"] appropriate — just as one unties a knot. Hear from this that the term התרה ["release"] refers to the Sage.
  
  Verse 3
  
  A <i>konam</i> that I will not eat. Meaning that he says, “Let this article be <i>like</i> a <i>konam</i> to me, that I will not eat…” Though [a statement] prohibiting one from eating is applicable to a שבועה ["oath"] rather than a נדר ["vow"], as <i>Ramban</i> asks, this has already been answered by <i>Re’m.</i> See there.
  
  Like לא יחלל. Thus, it is one of the doubled roots and had it not been a [a letter] <i>ches,</i> which does not take a <i>dagesh</i> [dot], it would have had a <i>dagesh</i> in order to complete the doubling. [Here the root is doubled, thus it should have been חלחל. However a <i>dagesh</i> in the <i>ches</i> would have substituted for the second letter <i>ches</i>]. [לא יחלל] means, “He should not belittle his words” as one belittles unsanctified property without concern of guarding it from impurity, as [one guards only] sanctified property from impurity.
  
  Verse 4
  
  Under her father’s jurisdiction. At the end of this passage it is written, “In her youth, while in her father’s house” (v. 17) which is apparently superfluous, given that here it is written, “In her father’s home while still in her youth.” Rather, it comes to teach you that all the profits of a youth belong to her father, and this is even if she is not in his house, since “In her father’s house” is not to be taken literally. Similarly, here, “In her father’s home” means under his jurisdiction and not literally in his house. <i>Re’m.</i>
  But not a minor. Meaning that her vows are not definite vows, rather there are those whose vows must be examined, and there are those that are not vows at all, as explained.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  I would not know what this הנאה means. You might ask: Surely without that verse Rashi would still know the meaning of הנאה, for afterwards he brings the verses למה תניאון ["why do you turn away"] and אל יניא ראשי ["not turn my head"]. [<i>Re’m</i>] brings many more difficulties. The answer is as follows: Initially Rashi explained “He restrained her from the vow” in accordance with his later explanation that “Its plain meaning is [to restrain…].” However, since it said, “If he restrained her” I might have said that he could annul the vow solely with words, by saying, “I do not wish this vow to stand.” Therefore Rashi explained that “In other words, he nullified it.” Meaning as the <i>Sifri</i> teaches, that he has to explicitly nullify the vow saying, “Let it be nullified for you.” But if he did not say so and merely restrained her, then it is not annulled. It is in relation to the <i>Sifri</i> that Rashi says, “I would not know what this הנאה means,” meaning that according to <i>Sifri</i> “If her father הנאה ["restrained"] her” is in the sense of nullification, and I would not know how הנאה implies nullification. However, since the <i>Sifri</i> explained that at the end of the passage it says regarding the husband, “But if on the day her husband hears about it, he restrains her and then annuls” (v. 9) we see that הנאה in the context of the husband is nullification. Thus it would be logical to say that הנאה here in the context of the father is also nullification. For if it merely meant restraint, the verses would be contradictory, for “Her father restrained her” would imply mere restraint while “restrain” in the context of the husband would imply nullification, that he said, “Let it be nullified for you,” because it is written, “If… he restrains her and nullifies.” Therefore, one must say that “nullify” is the explanation of “restrain” and we see that הנאה written in the context of the father is also nullification, only that [here] the Torah wrote הנאה in place of nullification. Nonetheless, its plain meaning is to restrain and turn aside as Rashi explains above, bringing proof from Scripture. Afterwards (s.v. ‘will forgive her’) Rashi raises a difficulty: Since “Her father restrained” implies actual nullification, why is it written, “Hashem will forgive her”? Why would she need forgiveness if she did not sin, given that her vow had been annulled? He answers that regarding the husband it also writes, “Hashem will forgive her” (v. 9) and, “To whom does Scripture refer? To a woman who made a [Nazirite] vow…” This is a woman who needs forgiveness, even though the vow was annulled. So too, regarding the father and daughter, it refers to a daughter who made a Nazirite vow where her father heard… She too needs forgiveness, since she was not aware that it was nullified, and transgressed her vow, as Rashi explains. He expands more upon this, see there. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>). Regarding Rashi’s comment about the youth, that if she took a Nazirite vow and he nullified it etc., <i>Mahari</i> raises the difficulty that there is no punishment in the heavenly court until the age of twenty. He answers that this could be where she vowed not to eat meat for twenty years, meaning her vow continued until after she had reached twenty, and became independent. If she then transgressed her vow, she would require atonement. He discusses this at length but finally he raises the difficulty with his answer that it is inconceivable that she would not hear or know about the nullification until the age of twenty. It appears to me that the matter is not dependent upon any punishment, for even an older woman would not be punished, given that her husband had annulled the vow. However, there would still be some blemish to her soul. Here too with the youth, since she knew to whom she made the vow [in the case where she was a minor], and all the more so if she was older than twelve where she would be liable to punishment in the earthly court, her soul would be somewhat blemished because her intention was to sin.
  
  Verse 7
  
  But perhaps to a “<i>nesuah</i>.” Meaning that although the plain understanding of הויה [lit. "being" having the connotation of marriage] refers to <i>kiddushin</i> [betrothal], nonetheless, we also find הויה referring to relations as in “his virgin [sister] who is close to him, who was not היתה ["married"] to a man” (Vayikra 21:3) where [היתה] refers to relations, meaning she was a <i>nesuah.</i> Thus, I would have said that הויה here also refers to relations and a she was a <i>nesuah,</i> such that both the father and the husband would annul her vow. However “when it says…”
  So this must mean an “<i>arusah</i>.” For here it is written ואם היו תהיה לאיש ["if she is married to a man"] which is in the sense of הויה ["marriage"] and <i>kiddushin.</i>
  That her father and husband annul her vow. Meaning that the Torah did not group them [the <i>nesuah</i> and <i>arusah</i>] together so that it could distinguish between them, teaching about an <i>arusah</i> that her father and husband annul her vow, which is not the case for a <i>nesuah.</i> Afterwards Rashi explains that one should not say that [between] her father and her husband one of them can annul it, for this is not so, because “if the father annulled…” as is explained in the continuation of the passage.
  If one of them endorsed it. We have said that if one annulled and one was silent then it is not annulled. Even more so if one endorsed, the other would not be able to annul.
  But her father did not hear them — they were neither annulled. Because if the father annulled [the vows], they would not have to be annulled any further.
  Nor endorsed. Because if the father endorsed [the vows], the husband’s annulment would not help. [In the case of an <i>arusah</i>] if the father did not annul while the husband did, it would not help, as Rashi explained above that “[if the father] annulled but not [the husband]…” Consequently, even more so if the father endorsed the vows, they could not be annulled by the husband’s annulment.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Perhaps even if the father did not annul… (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) There is no doubt that [the title of this comment, as it appeared in the text of the Sifsei Chachamim] is a copyist’s error, for that verse (v. 13) refers back to “If she took the vow in her husband’s home” (v. 11) and the case where she was married. However, the text of <i>Re’m</i> is correct, for [its heading] reads, “He then annuls her vow.”
  All through her youth she is under her father’s jurisdiction. Rashi means to say that above when it is written (v. 7) ואם היו תהיה לאיש ["<i>and</i> if she is married to a man"], it should have written אם תהיה ["if she is married to a man"]. However, the [letter] <i>vav</i> links it to the previous subject where it is written (v. 6), “Her father restrained her…” [i.e. where the father annulled her vow]. Consequently, when we expound that "all the profits of a youth belong to her father" from the verse, “In her youth, while in her father’s home” (v. 17) this also implies that here she would require the annulment of her father. Thus, there is no difference between an <i>arusah</i> and an unmarried girl, for the [conjunctive letter] <i>vav</i> links it to the previous subject where she was also under the jurisdiction of the father, and would refer to an <i>arusah</i> who is under the jurisdiction of both [the husband and the father]. <i>Re’m</i> explains that if it had referred specifically to an unmarried girl, but that the jurisdiction of the father had been removed from an <i>arusah,</i> why is it necessary to say “In her youth, while in her father’s house” (v. 17) a second time? Surely it had already written “In her father’s home, in her youth” (v. 4). Both of these explanations are in the Gemara, as <i>Re’m</i> also mentions. Thus, the verse, “If she is married” refers to a woman who imposed a prohibition [on herself] in her father’s home during her youth, where her vow was still upon her since her father had not heard about it. Subsequently, if after she became betrothed her father heard about it, he would also be party to its nullification.
  
  Verse 10
  
  A widow after <i>nisuin.</i> The explanation is as follows: A widow is not under the jurisdiction of the father and a divorcee is not under the jurisdiction of the husband regarding the nullification [of vows]. You might ask: Why would one think that he could annul [the vow]? The answer is that once we find that the husband can annul a vow even if it was not made under his jurisdiction, such as where she made a vow in her father’s house, [one would have said] all the more so that he could annul [this vow] for her, since she made it under his jurisdiction. Therefore, Rashi explains that she is not under the jurisdiction of the husband.
  
  Verse 11
  
  Scripture refers to a <i>nesuah.</i> (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) The reason why the Torah did not place “But if she took a vow in her husband’s home” before the verse, “The vow of a widow” (v. 10) which speaks about a case after marriage, is because the Torah was not being specific when it said, “Widow or a divorced woman.” For the same holds true for an adult who is unmarried, [since] the father does not have jurisdiction over her, her vow stands like that of a widow. Thus the verses are in order, for first it speaks of a youth who is under the jurisdiction of her father entirely, and afterwards, “And if she was married to a man” where she is under the jurisdiction of her father and her husband. Then [it refers to] a woman who is not under the jurisdiction of the father [i.e.] a widow or a divorced woman, with the same being true for an adult. Next, [it refers to] a <i>nesuah</i> who is entirely under the jurisdiction of her husband.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  He may only annul vows which are self-denial. For example, that she may not taste anything [that I prepare] or that she may not drink any beverage.
  
  Verse 15
  
  So that you should not say [he may annul] for twenty-four hours. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it necessary to write, “From one day to the next”? We cannot say it comes to teach that if he did not annul it on the day he heard, he can no longer annul it. For the Torah had already written (v. 8), “And her husband heard about them and remained silent on the day he heard, then [her vows] shall stand.” Rashi answers that if it had not written, “From one day to the next” one might have said that previously when it wrote, “On the day he heard” this was [measured] from "moment to moment," namely a twenty-four hour period.
  Until nightfall. Meaning that if he heard during the day, even if it was close to sunset, once he remained silent until nightfall he can no longer annul.
  
  Verse 16
  
  Saying, “I approve.” Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it written, “If he annuls them after having heard them, he must bear her transgression” which implies that if he annuls them immediately after hearing, he will bear her transgression? But surely [in doing so] he has acted appropriately. We cannot explain that if he heard and endorsed, then later annulled on the same day, they would be annulled. For if so, why does the Torah say, “After having heard them” which implies that if he did not annul her vows immediately upon hearing them, he may not go back and annul them? Therefore, one must say that if he heard her vow and said, “I approve” that he can no longer annul it, even during the same day.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  But not against the Moavites. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why were they commanded to take revenge against the Midianites? Surely the Moavites hired Bil’am, as it is written in Parshas Balak (22:5). You might ask: Why does Rashi bring two reasons here, but in Parshas Pinchas (25:18) he brings only one? The answer is that he is answering another question: Why did the Torah here change its language and write “take revenge” while there it is written (25:17), “Antagonize the Midianites”? Rather, one must say that it was in order to make the inference: “Against the Midianites,” but not against the Moavites. Consequently, we see from the inference of “take revenge” that it was specifically killing them that was forbidden, while hating them was permitted. However, above (ibid.) it is implied that even hating them was forbidden, as it is written, “Antagonize the Midianites” [implying that they could not <i>even</i> antagonize the Moavites]. Thus the verses apparently contradict each other. In response, Rashi here brings two reasons: [Firstly] it is forbidden to kill them, “For the Midianites entered the matter out of fear…” [And secondly] regarding the implication that it is permitted to hate them, this was after the conversion of the "two doves," because the main reason [for not killing them] was for the sake of "two doves," etc. Therefore once the two doves had emerged it was permitted to hate them, however beforehand it was forbidden.
  Enraged over a dispute which was not theirs. Meaning: They became enraged to quarrel with Yisroel when they, i.e. Yisroel, had not traveled through their land. Thus, they had no reason to quarrel with Yisroel.
  For the sake of two doves. פרידות means “doves.” [You might ask: How could he say this] even though only one of them came from Moav. The answer is that Rashi used the language of the Gemara (Bava Kamma 38b). The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that above it was implied that even Midianites were fearful of Yisroel, as Rashi explained above that, “They made peace between themselves…” (22:4), therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is the difficulty that Hashem could have arranged that Yisroel would not kill the ancestors of the family of Rus, so why did he command them regarding the entire nation, [saying] not to antagonize Moav? Therefore, Rashi also brings the first reason.
  
  Verse 3
  
  Although he heard that his demise depended… For it is written, “Take revenge… afterward, you shall be gathered to your people” (v. 2). However, if not so [that he joyfully implemented it], why is it necessary to say, “Moshe spoke,” given that ordinarily he related to Yisroel everything that Hashem commanded?
  Righteous men. For the Torah should not have written “men” given that it is not the nature of women to go out to war, so obviously they were men. Rather, “men” comes to teach you that they were righteous. Likewise, in Parshas Shelach (13:2) Rashi did not explain these words, “Send <i>men</i> for yourself” that they were righteous, because the word “men” was necessary for itself [i.e., to convey the plain meaning]. However, concerning “men” that was written subsequently (13:3) he explained that they were righteous, because the word “men” there is apparently superfluous since “men” had already been mentioned. <i>Re’m</i> explains that [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “From among yourselves” and since this statement was addressed to men, it is logical that those who were went to war were men. Therefore, why was it necessary to write “men”?
  It is as if he stands… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it not written “revenge of Yisroel”?
  
  Verse 4
  
  This includes the tribe of Levi. One would have said that since the tribe of Levi did not take a portion in the land, they would also not partake in the army. Therefore it was necessary to include them. You might ask: Since the tribe of Levi also went to the army there would be thirteen [thousand] since Ephraim and Menashe were considered [separately] in all of the counts. But it is written, “They were handed over… one thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand.” <i>Re’m</i> answers that Ephraim and Menashe were considered two tribes only regarding the inheritance of the Land. Consequently, for the selection of spies which was required as part of the inheritance of the Land, they were considered two tribes. However here, where it was solely [for the purpose] to avenge Hashem, they were referred to as only one tribe. See the commentators who discuss this matter at length.
  
  Verse 5
  
  They refused to go until they were handed over against their wishes. For if not so, it should have said, “Moshe took twelve thousand…”
  
  Verse 6
  
  This teaches that Pinchas was equivalent to all of them. For it is written “Moshe sent them [one thousand…].” So why did the Torah repeat itself and write, “Them and Pinchas”? Rather, it was to teach that…
  Why did Pinchas go… It is understandable without this [previous comment], for one would have said that the reason he did not send Elozor was due to Elozor’s importance, since he was equivalent to all of them. However, now that Rashi explained that Pinchas was <i>also</i> equivalent to all of them, why did he send Pinchas?
  By executing Kozbi … Another interpretation. According to the [first] reason alone there is the difficulty that the principle mitzvah was his executing Zimri, not Kozbi. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation that “he sought…” However, according to the other interpretation alone there is the difficulty that [ultimately] it was for Yosef’s benefit that they sold him to the Egyptians, for he became the ruler there. Therefore Rashi brings another interpretation that he was anointed for warfare. However, according to this reason alone there is the difficulty as to why the verse specified Pinchas’ name [teaching] he was anointed for warfare regarding this war more than another war. Therefore Rashi required all the reasons. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) It appears to me that the intent of this teaching is not to say that Pinchas was a reminder for them of what the Midianites did to Yosef, for any love or hatred towards them had already disappeared, and there was no memory of them. Rather, it means that when Moshe saw that the sale of Yosef took place through the Midianites, he realized that the Midianites were his nemesis. For if this were not so, the sale of Yosef would not have taken place through their hand, given that [Hashem] only brings evil upon a person through those who are the antithesis of them. Yosef was the antithesis of Midian, for he scrupulously resisted immorality, while they abandoned their wives and daughters to promiscuity. And this is what Rashi means when he said, “From the children of Yosef who scorned his evil inclination.” Thus, because he scorned his evil inclination he was the antithesis of Midian and they received their punishment through Pinchas, one of the descendants of Yosef, who in contrast to Midian resisted illicit relationships.
  This refers to the Ark and the Golden Headplate. Because both are termed “holy,” as it is written [concerning the Ark] at the end of Parshas Bamidbar (4:20), “They shall not come in to see when the holy is being covered.” And concerning the Headplate, it is written in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 28:36), “Make a Headplate … holy to Hashem.”
  In his possession. So that you should not wonder: How could Pinchas have carried all of this in his hand, the Ark with the Headplate and the trumpets?
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  To receive the reward for the twenty-four thousand. Rashi is answering the question: Why was Bil’am with the Midianites? Surely he was from Aram Naharayim. [And the reason why] he went to the Midianites to ask for his reward rather than going to Balak was because they were the agents of the sin. Alternatively, he may have been there at that time because he passed through on his way to Balak to request his reward. (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>) The answer [why he went there and not to Balak] is that when he heard Yisroel came to antagonize the Midianites, he went to help them and also to take his reward. Thus, there was a dual cause; for it is possible that he would not have gone to Balak for the reward alone, and consequently this is why he did not go. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>) answers that by law, the Moavites were not liable to pay him, because they could claim that when they had agreed to give him a large reward they did so out of fear. We see this concept in the last chapter of Bava Kamma (116a) concerning one who was fleeing prison and offered someone a <i>dinar</i> to take him across [a river]. There he can only claim his [normal] fee because the fugitive made his offer only out of fear. Here too Bil’am would receive only a nominal reward, a small amount for the trouble of his speaking and for the advice he had given them. However, the Midianites were not afraid and they promised him a large reward, thus they were obliged to pay his full reward as they had agreed. [Alternatively Bil’am’s advice] was agreeable to Midian but not to Moav, for Moav acted out of fear, while Midian acted out of hatred, as Rashi says that they abandoned their daughters [to promiscuity] (25:15). (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) answers that in accordance with the Midrash that Tzur was Balak, consequently he was one of the five kings of Midian, and therefore Bil’am went there to request from him his reward.
  And offered them evil advice. For if not so, how could they have killed him given that he was not a Midianite? One cannot say [they killed Bil’am] because he caused them to sin, for they did not know this until they returned from Midian, as it states (v. 16), “They were the very same ones who, on Bil’am’s advice, were involved with Bnei Yisroel.” Rather, it was because he offered them evil advice [i.e.] to rebel against Hashem’s command.
  His reward in full… One can explain משלם literally as meaning “in full.” Consequently, ולא קפחוהו ["without stinting"] would mean that they did not deduct anything for him, rather they paid him in full for the evil that he had done to them. Alternatively one could explain it as משלם ["from their own'] with a <i>segol</i> under the [letter] <i>shin</i> and a <i>kammatz</i> under the [letter] <i>lamed,</i> meaning, “From that which belongs to the nations,” i.e. the sword was given to them. Since he took up the craft of Yisroel [so they confronted him…] as Rashi explains below.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Ministers. For סרני is the same as שרים ["ministers"] and it is rendered by Targum as טורני. Thus, we see that טורני means ministers. Furthermore, טורני is related to טירותם which [therefore] means the place where ministers sit. According to the last reason alone there is the difficulty that it should have written טורנות, and according to the first reason there is the difficulty that it should have written נוטרותן. Therefore, Rashi brings both reasons.
  
  Verse 11
  
  The plunder of moveable property. As Rashi explains later (v. 32) on the words, “In addition to the בז ["plunder"] that was taken” that this refers to “what remained after the plunder of moveable property that the warriors plundered for themselves.” This implies that the plunder remained in their possession while the moveable property consisting of ornaments ["booty"] did not. For, this [booty] was brought before Hashem as it is written (v. 50). “We have therefore brought an offering for Hashem…” Thus one is forced to say that בז ["plunder"] refers to non-ornamental moveable property. <i>Re’m</i> writes: However, I do not know from where Rashi learned this, for it would have been more appropriate to say that  [שלל "booty"] includes all moveable property, given that the plunder as a whole was divided into שלל ["booty"] and מלקוח ["spoil"]. It appears that Rashi also held that when it is written כל השלל [all the booty"] it includes everything, whether it was ornamental or not. However Rashi wishes to explain why sometimes Scripture calls it שלל ["booty"] and sometimes Scripture calls it בז ["plunder"]. Furthermore, why is it not written (in v. 32), “The spoil was in addition to the שלל ["booty"] that was taken…”? Rather, one must say that <i>here</i> שלל refers to ornamental moveable property, while בז refers to non-ornamental moveable property
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Capable of intimate relations. Such as a girl aged three years and one day. Anyone younger than this is not capable of intimate relations.
  Even if she never actually had relations. Because if it were not so, the verses would apparently be contradictory. For it is written, “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” which implies that only an adult who had relations [was executed], but an adult who had not had relations would be kept alive. [Also that] a minor whether she had relations or not would be kept alive. Then it is written (v. 18) “All the children among the females without intimate knowledge of a man, keep alive for yourselves.” This implies specifically a minor who had not had relations, but a minor who had relations, or an adult whether she had relations or not would be killed. Consequently, the first and second verses are apparently contradictory. Therefore Rashi was forced to explain “capable…”
  For when I read… “And all the children among the females.” You might ask: If so [that we might assume they were kept alive], why is it necessary to write (v. 18), “All the children among the females without intimate knowledge of a man, keep alive for yourselves”? For now even a woman who had intimate knowledge of a man was kept alive, so certainly who had not, was kept alive. Rather, we see that since the verse needed to write, “And all the children among the females without intimate knowledge [of a man], keep alive for yourselves,” [it implies] that a woman who had intimate knowledge of a man was killed. One might say that Scripture had to write, “All the children among the females…” because if it had not I would not know whether “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” referred to someone who was capable of intimate relations, even though they had not had relations, or perhaps only to one who actually had relations. For the reason why we establish it as referring to someone capable of having relations is because otherwise the verses are apparently contradictory, as explained. <i>Re’m</i> answers in a different vein.
  This is why “[you must] execute” is said. You might ask: Nonetheless, why is it necessary to write “Now execute every male” at the beginning of the verse? The answer is that if it had not written “execute” referring to the males in the beginning of the verse, I would have said that regarding them there was also a difference between someone capable of intimate relations, [i.e.] an adult, and someone who was incapable, [i.e.] a minor. Therefore, the verse said “now execute” in every case. <i>Mahari</i> answers that if it had not written “execute” the implication of the verse would be that we expound “every woman” with reference to that which is written afterwards. Now, once it refers to the section afterwards we would reverse our logic [as follows]: We would say that if it had only written, “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” but it had not written about the children, I would not have used a <i>kal vachomer</i> (<i>a fortiori</i> argument) to learn that they be kept alive. For I would have said that since she was capable of intimate relations but did not engage in relations, therefore she was kept alive, because she was capable of causing Yisroel to sin but did not do so. However, regarding the children, who were not capable of intimate relations, they have no merit to be kept them alive. Therefore, the Torah wrote “execute” in order to separate [the two].
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  So that they would not enter the Sanctuary courtyard. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely someone defiled by a corpse is even permitted to enter the Levite camp, so why does it state, “You shall remain outside the camp”? He answers that “camp” refers to the Sanctuary courtyard.
  That a utensil defiles … as if he had touched the corpse itself. Rashi wishes to answer the question: “Whoever has killed a person” also implies the case where one did not touch him. However, if one shot an arrow and killed him, or killed with a simple wooden utensil that is incapable of receiving contamination, why would he become be defiled?
  Since “man” was only said in the context of tent contamination. You might ask: Surely concerning [contamination through] touching it also writes “man” in Parshas Chukas, where it is written (19:13), “Whoever touches a corpse of a man’s soul.” See Tosafos Bava Kamma 38a where you will find an explanation for all the verses in which gentiles are also termed “man.”
  They will require sprinkling. [Meaning that] this verse was also said for subsequent generations. This is also holds true for the entire passage of purging utensils.
  
  Verse 20
  
  This includes utensils made from the horns. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why was it necessary to say “Everything made of goat products”? Surely it is written “every leather article.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  He credited the teaching to his master. Meaning that he should not have said that he heard this from his master, instead he should have said it without elaborating, for surely the entire Torah was given through Moshe. Rather, it was in order to relate the matter in the name of the one who said it, as with “And Esther told the king in Mordechai’s name” (Esther 2:22).
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  In which to cook something. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Just because the artisan made a utensil in fire, would the Torah require one to pass it through fire again? Thus, he explains “in which to cook” and this is an abbreviated verse, for it should have said, “Anything placed on a fire in which to cook [forbidden food].”
  To cleanse it from the contamination of the dead. Thus the word נדה ["sprinkling"] is in the sense of וידו אבן בי ["threw a stone at me"] (Eichah 3:53). However, according to the extrapolative interpretation [מי נדה] is in the sense of נדת דותה ["<i>niddah</i> flow"] (Vayikra 12:2), meaning water suitable for the immersion of the <i>niddah.</i> And because the word יתחטא ["be purified"] is only appropriate for החטוי ["purification"], Rashi termed the first explanation “the plain interpretation.” Furthermore, because “water suitable for the immersion of the <i>niddah</i>” refers to forty <i>se'ah,</i> and this is suitable for any impurity, it should have said במי טמא יתחטא [lit. "be purified with water [suitable for immersion of] the impure"]. Therefore, Rashi says, “The Rabbis extrapolate here…” [rather than considering its plain interpretation].
  Immerse them and it is sufficient. [One might ask:] Why did the Torah refer to immersion using the term of “passing” instead of “bringing” as in “it shall be <i>brought</i> into water and remain contaminated until evening” (Vayikra 11:32)? The answer is that since it said above, “You must pass through fire,” which does not mean that it was passed through fire, rather it was brought on the fire, the same is true for “passing” here, that it too is in the sense of being brought, and refers to immersion. Now that immersion is required, one must remove any substance that adhered to the utensil, so that there will not be any interposition during immersion as it is written, “Only the gold…” (v. 22).
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  Make an accounting. [Thusשא]  means קבל ["take" or "receive"] as in לא תשא שמע שוא ["Do not receive a false report"] (Shemos 23:1). But it is not in the sense of "raising" as in ישא פרעה את ראשך ["Pharoh will lift off your head"] (Bereishis 40:19). The meaning of ראש [lit. "head"] is an accounting of the total, as in כי תשא את ראש ["when you take a census"] (Shemos 30:12). A total is termed ראש ["head"] because it is the tradition of those who are accounting takers to write the total at the head [i.e. top] of a tally sheet.
  
  Verse 27
  
  Half for these. Rashi wishes to answer the question: The verse implies that those who took part in the war would stand on one side and the rest of the community on the other, and he would divide [the spoils] between these two groups [but the verse does mention anything about distribution]. If so, what was the reason for doing this [i.e., standing on opposite sides]? Furthermore, the verse does not explain to whom [i.e. in what proportion] are the portions to be given. Rashi answers that the verse means to say that half should be given to these and half to these.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  For the community, by appropriating it for them… Meaning that when the verse writes, “that Moshe divided from the men of the army” it implies that he divided the men themselves. However this is impossible. Furthermore, why does the verse not explain to whom Moshe gave the portion? Thus, Rashi explains “for the community” meaning that he gave it to the community by appropriating it for them <i>from</i> the military men, and not [the men] themselves. Accordingly, this is an abbreviated verse.
  
  Verse 43
  
  So much and so much. Not that it comes to teach us the total of this half, because this could be learned from the half-portion of those who partook in the war (v. 36). Rather this section continues until “Moshe took…” (v. 47) [teaching] that he took one fiftieth from this half and gave it to the Levites. Furthermore, if not so it should have said מחצית ["the half"], however ממחצית ["<i>from</i> the half"] indicates that what he took was <i>from</i> the half.
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  To atone … concerning the daughters of Midian. You might ask: Was a woman seized in war [יפת תואר] not permitted to them? The answer is that such a woman would only be permitted after the seven years in which they conquered the land and the seven years in which they divided it. This is also the implication of the Talmud Yerushalmi at the end of Maseches Avodah Zarah. It appears to me that the answer is [as follows:] When the Torah permitted a woman seized in war, it was specifically in a discretionary war. However this war was comparable to an obligatory war [about which it is stated,] “You shall not let any soul live.” And Yisroel did not know this initially, until after Moshe became angry with them over their letting the females live. Therefore [it emerges that] their thoughts concerning the daughters of Midian were in a state of sin. (<i>Kitzur Mizrochi</i>) In my opinion it is unnecessary to say this, for there the Rabbis state (Kiddushin 21b) that “the Torah spoke against the evil inclination” and call her “dying [but] slaughtered meat” implying that she was not permitted completely. Rather, one who is meticulous should distance himself from her, and this is what is meant [by "their sinful thoughts”].
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  They were part of the land of Sichon and Og. For afterwards it is written (v. 4), “The land that Hashem struck down…” meaning [the land of] Sichon and Og whom Yisroel defeated, taking their land, as it is detailed in Parshas Chukas (Ch. 21). Alternatively, because it is written (v. 33), “Moshe gave to them, to the tribe of Gad… the empire of Sichon, king of the Emorites and the empire of Og, king of the Bashan” and writing afterwards (v. 34), “The sons of Gad built up Divon and Ataros…” mentioning all of the cities that are written here. Thus, we see that they were part of the land of Sichon and Og, not the cities of Midian that were written before.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  There were two places named Kadeish. Meaning that when it writes Kadeish Barnei’a you should not say that it was named Kadeish and its ruler was called Barnei’a, as with Elonei Mamre (Bereishis 13:18) where the owner of the plain was called Mamre. Therefore, Rashi explains, “This was its name” and Kadeish Barnei’a was the name of that place. But since elsewhere (24:14, 33:37) Kadeish is mentioned alone, Rashi therefore explains that there were two places named Kadeish.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  To whom Kaleiv’s mother bore Osniel. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Here it is written “Kaleiv son of Yefuneh, the Kenizite.” But if he was the son of Yefuneh then he was not the son of Kenaz, and if he was the son of Kenaz then he was not the son of Yefuneh. Furthermore, elsewhere it only writes Kaleiv son of Yefuneh. He answers that here when it is written, “Son of Yefuneh, the Kenizite” the meaning is as follows: After Yefuneh, Kaleiv’s father, died his mother married Kenaz and bore him Osniel. Thus, Kaleiv was called “son of Yefuneh” [who was his biological father] his father, and [he was also called] “the Kenizite” the name of his mother’s husband.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  They were more concerned over their property. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe change [what they said] and say, “Build for yourselves cities for your children and enclosures for your sheep” (v. 24)? He answers that it was because “they were more concerned…”
  
  Verse 17
  
  When we are with our brothers. For otherwise, why would they tell Moshe what would happen [later]?
  Which we shall build now. Since those that were built previously were destroyed during the war.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  On the western [bank]. Rashi was answering the question: Their inheritance was also across the Yardein, so why did they say, “We do not want to take possession…”? Therefore, Rashi explains that “across the Yardein” means the western [bank], meaning that they did not take land on the western side, only on the eastern [bank], as it is written afterwards, “For our inheritance came to us to the east…”
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Conjugated from צנה. Rashi was answering the question: Why is the [letter] <i>nun</i> punctuated with a <i>patach,</i> surely throughout Scripture it is punctuated with a <i>sheva.</i>
  For the sake of Heaven. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it written here, “What you have expressed verbally you must fulfill”? This is the terminology used for a vow, where it is written “in accordance with all that he expresses verbally he shall do” (Bamidbar 30:3). [Therefore Rashi] explains [that it is considered a vow] for the law is that speech with regards to heaven is treated like an act of acquisition with regard to a person [i.e., only with regard to heaven does speech have a binding effect]. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  And they did so. Meaning that you should not question how he knew that they pledged to do this, for in the Book of Yehoshua (ch. 22) it is written that they did so, they remained until they had inherited the land. Hear from this that this was what they pledged.
  
  Verse 25
  
  All of them as one man. Rashi was answering the question: Why is it written ויאמר [lit. "and <i>he</i> said"] in the singular form? There were many Gadites. He did not wish to explain like <i>Ba’al HaTurim</i> that their leader spoke for all of them, apparently because they were two tribes and thus they had two leaders who were able to speak, each one for his own tribe. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Like עליהם [concerning them]. This command was in the sense of appointing, as Rashi subsequently writes, thus the word להם ["to them"] is inappropriate, rather it should have said עליהם ["concerning them"]. Therefore Rashi says “like עליהם.” Since they were only appointed based on certain conditions, he adds “and their stipulation.” He says that we find the word להם ["to" or "for you"] meaning “concerning you” as in “Hashem will fight for you” which means עליכם ["concerning you"] as if to say “on your behalf.”
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  In our possession will be… Rashi wishes to answer the question: When it wrote ואתנו אחוזת נחלתנו מעבר לירדן [lit. "and with us, our permanent inheritance on this side of the Yardein"] to the east, this implies that they took the land with them, but this is impossible. He also has a further difficulty as to why is it written מעבר לירדן [lit. "on the other side of the Yardein"]? Surely they took their inheritance on this side. [In answering] Rashi adds the word “will be” because the statement, “In our hands, in our possession our hereditary territory” might imply that the hereditary territory was already in their hands. Therefore Rashi adds the word “will be” because they had not yet taken this territory, and would only do so after the fulfillment of the conditions. Consequently, they meant that their inheritance would come to them after the fulfillment of the conditions, as if they had said that after the fulfillment of the conditions they would no longer request to take possession across the Yardein and beyond. For they would have received their inheritance on the eastern side of the Yardein, retroactive to the time before they crossed, once they had fulfilled the conditions, given that they had already made an acquisition of their inheritance by building pens for sheep and flocks, and [building] cities for the children and settling within them.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  To serve as fortified cities… Not that this was the reality, and the verse indicates that each of the cities mentioned were fortified and having pens for sheep, for if so, what is meant by “[the sons of Gad] built up” (v. 34) — surely they would had already been built.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  Would name their cities after idols. Meaning that [the Reuvenites] changed the names of the cities before rebuilding them, in order not to recall the names of the idols, for Nevo and Ba’al Me’on were the names of idols, and [the Emorites] named these cities after them. Thus, the sons of Reuven changed their names, as the Rabbis teach [they were named] Beis Galiah and Beis Kariah. However, the names of the other cities were changed <i>after</i> rebuilding them, as is the manner of all city builders.
  They built Sivmah… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why did the verse not mention them together [writing] “Nevo, Ba’al Me’on and Sivmah, their names having been changed.”? Rashi answers that it was specifically Nevo and Ba’al Me’on that had their names changed, in accordance with the comment that before they were rebuilt their names were changed in order not to recall the names of idols. However, the names of the other cities were changed after having been rebuilt. Thus, “Sivmah” is associated with the word “built” (v. 37) above, but not with “their names having been changed.” Rashi says that one should not think that it is associated with “their names having been changed” because Sevam and Sivmah are one and the same.
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  How he would expound two [similar] words. <i>Ramban,</i> together with the other commentators raise the difficulty: How is it that Rashi did not see in Midrash Rus (5:5) [which teaches]: “I am not even like one of your maidservants” (Rus 2:13). Boaz said to her, "Heaven forbid! You are not one of the maidservants, rather one of the matriarchs." Similarly regarding “Novach went…” [which teaches that the name did not endure] and similarly, “He said to me: To build her a house in the land of Shinar” (Zechariah 5:11), which teaches that there is no salvation for falsehood. See there. It appears to me that Rashi was also aware of the Midrash, however when he wrote, “I wonder…” this is in accordance with R’ Moshe Hadarshan’s comment that the name of the city did not endure and therefore it is written לה which is silent, as if it had written לא נבח ["not Novach"], for its name did not endure, rather it received another name. Thus one needs to expound the same inference for “Boaz said to her,” that Boaz did not [say it himself], rather it was an emissary, but this could not be. Similarly with “To build her a house,” [it would mean] not a house, rather a tent but this could not be. Therefore, Rashi chose his words and said, “How he would expound” meaning that since he expounds like this here, he should also do so there, but this would not be possible. In truth, the name of the city was not changed, for it was named after Novach. Yet, when it is written לה which is silent, this is because although Novach and the others named the city after Novach, his sons did not call it Novach. As <i>Rambam</i> writes (Mamrim 6:3) and is brought by Tur (Yoreh De’ah 240) that if the name of one's father was the same as that of others, one should change the name of the others [in order to avoid mentioning the name of one's father]. This appears to me to be the explanation of Rashi’s words.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  You learn that it was in the desert of Paran. Paran was a large plain which included a place called Rismah, thus we see that the decree of the spies was at Rismah.
  That throughout the thirty-eight years… For the decree was only for thirty-eight years, as Rashi explains in Parshas Devarim (1:46). You might ask: From Rismah until Mount Hor there were only nineteen journeys, thus there should have been just forty-one journeys, however Rashi above explained that there were forty-two. See Parshas Chukas (21:4) where Rashi explains that there were seven journeys from Moseirah until Mount Hor (and the comment of Sifsei Chachamim there).
  Expounds the matter differently. Meaning: This is why the journeys were enumerated…
  Here we slept. Meaning: Here <i>you</i> slept. Likewise, Hashem enumerated all the journeys as if to say that on this journey you did this, and on that journey such-and-such happened to you.
  We were chilled. In the sense of being chilled, for it is common for those who are sick to be comforted when one cools them.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  They were preoccupied with their grief. Meaning: This is an explanation of what is written previously, “Yisroel left triumphantly.” For why would the Egyptians have allowed them to do so? Scripture explains that “Egypt was burying…” and thus they were preoccupied with their grief. If it had referred to the burial itself, this would not have been visible to all of Egypt. Now, given that the Torah writes, “Triumphantly, <i>before the eyes of all Egyptians</i>” this apparently repetitive language must certainly be to inform that all of them actually saw [the departure]. However, if they were burying, like the plain understanding, not everyone would have seen, for they would have to bury in the burial grounds. Therefore, Rashi explains that “they were preoccupied…” and “burying” means that they were also preoccupied with burial. <i>R. Yaakov Triosh.</i>
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  So named after [the spies’] slander. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why here was it called Rismoh, while elsewhere it was called Paran? (<i>Devek Tov</i>) The reason why Rashi commented on this journey more than the others was that here it is written, “They journeyed from Chatzeiros and camped in Rismoh” while in Parshas Beha'aloscha (14:16) it is written “afterwards the people travelled from Chatzeiros and they camped in the desert of Paran.” Therefore, he explains that it was “so named after the slander…” meaning that both refer to the same place.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  This teaches that he died by the Divine kiss. Meaning: That על פי ה' [lit. "by the mouth of Hashem" is expounded both forward and backward. [One reads backward, teaching] “Aharon ascended by the word of Hashem” and one also reads [forward,] that “By the mouth of Hashem he died there.”
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  This teaches… Meaning: Above in Parshas Chukas (21:1) following the death of Aharon it is also written, “The Canaanite [King] heard…” However, there it was not clear that he heard about the death of Aharon, for one could have said that he heard what was said subsequently, “That Yisroel had come by the route of the spies.” But here the Torah does not make any comment afterward; therefore <i>here</i> it is clear that “the death of Aharon [was the news…]” It is here that Rashi comments, “This teaches you that the death of Aharon was the news he heard” because it is written “Aharon was one hundred and twenty-three years old at his death… and the Canaanite heard.” However in Parshas Chukas we did not know what he heard, whether it was about the death of Aharon or about their weeping, since both of are written there (20:29).
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  The measure of the Israelite camp. For the three <i>parsa'os</i> from Beis Yeshimos until Aveil Hasheetim were equivalent to twelve <i>mils.</i>
  The Plain of Sheetim was entitled “Aveil.” However, the meaning of “Aveil” is not “plain.” In Parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis 14:6) Rashi comments on this matter at length. [Though] the Targum renders Aveil as מישור ["plain"], this explanation is according to the context and the term.
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  You shall oust. For if it was in the sense of inheritance, it should have said וירשתם ["you shall inherit"]. Alternatively if it meant inheritance, the Torah should not have said, “Before you” because the word “before you” is not appropriate for inheritance.
  On which to prostrate themselves. Rashi wishes to prove that משכית is in the sense of a floor, since it is written in the verse ואבן משכית ["overlaid stones"]. He also wishes to prove his comment, “To prostrate themselves with arms and legs extended.” [He derives this from the fact that] it is written, “On which to prostrate yourselves,” and regarding Yosef it is written (Bereishis 37:10), “To prostrate to you upon the ground” which refers to extending the arms and legs.
  
  Verse 53
  
  Of its inhabitants. Because הורשה is an expression of expulsion, therefore when it is written את הארץ [lit. "[drive out] the land"] it means the inhabitants of the land.
  You shall be able to endure there… For if not so, surely it is already written, “drive out” thus it should have continued, “You shall give [the land] as an inheritance…” Rather, this was said conditionally [i.e.] that if you drive them out you will be able to endure.
  
  Verse 54
  
  Taking into account those who came out of Egypt. Here Rashi does not explain as he did in Parshas Pinchas (26:53), for there his explanation implied that they divided [the land] according to those who entered the land and had reached twenty years of age. There is a dispute in Bava Basra 117a, and one opinion is that [the words] “The land shall be apportioned among these…” (26:53) refers to those who entered the land, and there he explained in accordance with that opinion. However, here Rashi explains in accordance with the opinion that [the words] “The land shall be apportioned among these” refers to those who came out of Egypt. [Alternatively] it is possible to give a forced answer that this is in accordance with the explanation above (26:55) that “This inheritance is different [from all others…]”
  With twelve border demarcations. Meaning: The entire border demarcation was referred to by its tribe [e.g.] this being the border demarcation of Reuven and that being the border demarcation of Shimon. Now we can understand Rashi’s comment in Parshas Vayechi (Bereishis 48:6) that [even though the land was apportioned by population], “Nonetheless only these were termed tribes…” as meaning that the inheritance of Ephraim and Menashe would also be referred to by their name, as the border of Ephraim or the border of Menashe. <i>Re’m</i> writes: This is puzzling, because this is not like either opinion (Bava Basra 117a). For Rabbi Yoshiya says the land was apportioned to those who left Egypt, as it says, “According to the names of their fathers’ tribes should they inherit it” (26:55), while Rabbi Yochanan says that the land of Israel was apportioned to those who came into the land, as it says, “The land shall be apportioned among these…” (26:53). Therefore, how am I to understand [Rashi’s comment (26:55)] “according to the names of their tribes — this inheritance is different…”? He leaves the question unresolved. The answer is that Rashi is answering a question: According to both explanations there is a difficulty as to what is meant by “According to [the names] of their fathers’ tribes.” For it should have merely said, “According to the names of their fathers should they inherit it.” Why was the word “tribes” necessary? Rather, one must say that it was also to expound, “With twelve border demarcations…” This forced Rashi to bring the other interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is also the difficulty as to why it said, “fathers” for it should have merely said, “According to the names of the tribes”. Therefore the first reason is also necessary.
  
  Verse 55
  
  Shall be evil for you. Rashi wishes to answer the question: The verse implies that they would be left over intentionally, for this reason, so that they would be as spikes. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to say about people that they would be שכים which means spikes, as Rashi explains (s.v. "as spikes"). He answers that they shall be evil to you, meaning that <i>if</i> you leave them over they will be evil to you. This means that they will not literally be spikes against you, rather they will be evil, to do evil to you.
  Denoting a barrier. [מסוכת, "barrier"] is similar to מסך פתח ["a screen at the entrance"] (Shemos 39:38) with the connotation of a barrier which encloses.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  The outer reaches of the borders. This following rule should be considered: Wherever Rashi mentions the term מיצר ["outer reaches"] he means “the border” [i.e.] the line that circumscribes the land of Israel.
  In terms of falling. As in הפיל פור הוא הגורל ["the <i>pur</i> was cast, which is the lot"] (Esther 3:7).
  
  Verse 3
  
  From east to west. Meaning that it is not literally the southern corner, rather the entire southern side is termed the flank, from the southeastern corner to the southwestern corner.
  Southeastern. Thus “along Edom” means “which adjoins it [Edom]” teaching that the place where the Tzin wilderness abuts the land of Canaan, which is the land of the nine tribes, and it is on its southeastern corner.
  Three countries. All of Rashi’s words are clearly understood by anyone who looks at the configuration of the border of the land of Israel.
  From the [river] Shichor. The Shichor is the Nile.
  With the land of Moav. Subsequently it is written (Shoftim 11:19), “Then Yisroel sent messengers to Sichon…” implying that initially their journey around was from west to the east, at the southern side of Edom and Moav. Then, when they reached the southeastern edge, they turned northward to go around the eastern border of Moav. Once they had gone around the eastern border, it is written afterwards, “Then Yisroel sent…” for they had reached the land of Sichon and Og.
  Adjoining the land of Edom. This refers to [what is written] before, meaning that [since the southeastern border was adjacent to Edom], therefore it is written “from the Tzin wilderness, along Edom.”
  
  Verse 4
  
  Bending towards the north. Meaning: It bends in the direction of the land of Israel, and the border broadens, resulting in the land of Israel narrowing, for as much as the border broadens into the land of Israel, the land of Israel becomes narrower.
  Within the border. For it is written, “South of Maaleh Akrabim.” This implies that the border, the outer reach [of the land], was to the south of Maaleh Akrabim. However, where it is written “passing” it implies that the border passes through the city.
  To Tzin. Because a [letter] <i>hei</i> at the end of the word is in place of a [letter] <i>lamed</i> at the beginning.
  Angling. Meaning: The border of the land of Israel broadens at the south, and consequently the border broadens northward.
  The term “turns” is used here. Meaning: When it is written (v. 5), “The border turns from Atzmon toward the Egyptian Estuary” this does not have the same meaning as ונסב ["turns"] above, for above it means that the border <i>bent</i> towards the land of Israel, resulting in the land of Israel narrowing while the border broadened. However, ונסב written here (v. 5) means that it turned towards the Egyptian Estuary which is southward, resulting in the border narrowing and the land of Israel broadening.
  From there onward. Meaning that it did not broaden any more once it reached Chatzar Adar, rather it remained in its original breadth. However from Atzmon it began to become narrower until it reached the Estuary of Egypt.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  The islands. From the apparently superfluous word “border,” we include the islands also.
  
  Verse 7
  
  And some outward. Meaning that on the western side [the sea] circles the mountain on the inner side, i.e., the side of the land of Israel, and on the outer side, meaning outside the land.
  
  Verse 8
  
  For [that dimension] ends there. Meaning that from Tzedad until Chatzar Einan the border continues southward, from the west to east, resulting in the land of Israel narrowing while the border broadens.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  The eastern direction. Meaning that קדמה ["to the east"] is in the sense of the front, and the [letter] <i>hei</i> at the end is in place of a [letter] <i>lamed</i> at the beginning. When Rashi comments אל פני this means “to the forefront” and thus he continues to explain to what “forefront” refers, commenting “of the world.” This means towards the front of the world, i.e. the east, “As the [eastern] direction…”
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  For your sake. The word ינחלו ["shall inherit"] implies that they would inherit it themselves ["i.e., on their own"], while לכם ["for you"] implies that they would cause you to inherit it. Therefore, Rashi explains, “Who shall inherit for your sake.”
  He apportioned the tribal inheritance. For if not so, there were minors who were not of the age [to appoint] emissaries; also there were those who preferred [their portions in] the hills or the valleys [in both cases the actions of an emissary would not normally be effective]. Rather, [here] what the guardian did was binding. However, this was for the apportioning of the tribal inheritance to the families, and from the families to the individuals. But the apportioning of the land itself to the tribes was by lot, and thus not dependent upon the actions of the guardian.
  He chose [a suitable portion] for each individual. The reason why Rashi does not also mention that the leaders initially apportioned [the land] to the tribes, and only afterwards to the families and the individuals, is because the leaders did not apportion it to the tribes, rather it was apportioned to the tribes by lot.
  Shall inherit for you. Rashi wishes to answer the question: If so, why it is written לכם [lit. "<i>To</i> you"]? Rather [it means] for your sake.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Against the blood redeemer. Meaning that מגואל ["from the avenger"] refers to the blood redeemer. Rashi continues to explain which person is termed the blood redeemer, given the name “redeemer” could refer either to the redeemer of the murderer or to the redeemer of the victim. Therefore Rashi explains that he is a kinsman of the victim.
  
  Verse 13
  
  The three that Yehoshua placed. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why did it write the number? Surely when it is written afterwards (v. 14), “three cities you shall give…” [Therefore] we see that there were a total of six. Rather, it was to teach that they did not provide refuge until all six were established.
  
  Verse 14
  
  Rife with murderers. You might ask: Surely the cities of refuge would only provide refuge for inadvertent killers, and it is illogical to say that Gil’ad was rife with inadvertent killers. The answer is that they were certainly intentional killers, however there were no witnesses and thus they claimed that they killed inadvertently. Consequently, they required three cities of refuge. <i>Re’m.</i> Another answer is that this refers to a matter detailed in Parshas Mishpatim (Shemos 21:13), “Hashem caused it to come to his hand” teaching that Hashem arranges for them to be at the same inn…” (see below). Here too it refers to the same matter. There were many murderers in Gil’ad who acted with intent but without witnesses, and in the land of Israel there were many inadvertent killers without witnesses. So what did Hashem do? He would arrange for them to be at the same inn, in Gil’ad, and the inadvertent killers from the land of Israel would inadvertently kill the intentional killers. For example, when [the murderer] was sitting beneath a ladder as Rashi explains there [the inadvertent killer would accidentally fall upon the murderer, killing him in front of witnesses]. Consequently, the intentional killers would be killed while the inadvertent killers would be exiled there in Gil’ad to these cities of refuge. Thus, it was necessary to have three cities of refuge in Gil’ad like in the entire land of Israel. (<i>Divrei Dovid</i>) answers the question with the Gemara in <i>Perek Eilu Hen Hagolin</i> (Makkos 10b): It was taught in a <i>beraysa</i>: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehudah says that initially both inadvertent and intentional killers go to the cities of refuge, and the Beis Din sends messengers to bring them [for judgment]. Whoever is liable for the death penalty is executed, as it says (Devarim 19:12), “The elders of his city shall send for him and take him from there…” Whoever is not liable is released, and whoever is liable for exile (i.e., city of refuge) is returned to the place [from where he was taken].
  Bloody ambush. עקובה is in the sense of an ambush.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Of a size capable. כמיסת  means “of a size.”
  But it states. Meaning that when it is written, “If [he struck him] with an iron instrument… or if with a stone that can be held in the hand… or if with a wooden implement…” until “If [he pushes] out of hatred” (v. 20) perhaps it is referring to an inadvertent killer. And this was necessary [in contrast with the verses below] so that you would not say as follows: It is understandable if this refers to an inadvertent killer, that it would have had to say, “And if with an iron instrument” and all of the other cases that follow, in order to teach that he is liable for the death penalty, even if he killed inadvertently. But, if it refers to an intentional killer, what difference does it make whether he killed with an iron or any other instrument? Surely he is an intentional killer. However, when it is written afterwards (v. 21), “Or if in enmity…” until “But if suddenly” (v. 22) [it is clear that] these undoubtedly refer to an intentional killer.
  With a stone. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write about “a stone” (v. 23)? Surely above it is also written about a stone, where it [apparently] also refers to an inadvertent killer. Rather, “This teaches that in its statements above…”
  
  Verse 17
  
  Large enough. You might ask: Surely it is written, “A stone that can be held in the hand” and Rashi explains that this is “large enough to fill the hand,” meaning that it is large enough to kill. The answer is that one phrase teaches that it is large enough to kill when one strikes, and one phrase teaches that it is large enough to kill when one throws it. For sometimes it would be large enough to kill when striking but not when thrown, and if one were to throw it and kill, I might have said that he was culpable. Consequently, we are informed that he is not culpable until it is large enough to kill when thrown. With this we can answer the question of <i>Re’m</i> who writes “I do not know…”
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Even inside the cities of refuge. For here the Torah speaks about a premeditated killer, as Rashi explains above (v. 16). If Beis Din did not execute him and he exiled himself to a city of refuge without its authorization, then [the avenger] could kill him, even inside the city of refuge. For if not so, why does the Torah write “where ever he meets him”? Surely it had already written, “The blood avenger shall kill the murderer.”
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  He struck him. Without the additional phrase, “He struck him,” we would understand “without seeing” is associated with “which can kill” as if to say that he did not see his death. However this is not so, rather it means to say that he did not see when he struck him. Furthermore, without the additional wording the phrase, “Or even with a stone” would obviously be missing [a verb], since it should have said, “Or even <i>struck</i> with a stone.” For if it referred back to [the verb] “threw” (v. 22), the verse should have said או כל אבן ["or even a stone"].
  While descending. Such as where one was rolling a roller downward and it fell upon a person and killed him, or where one was lowering a bundle and it fell upon a person, or one was descending a ladder and fell upon a person and killed him, [in all these cases] he is exiled.
  While ascending is not exiled. If one was pushing a roller upward and it fell on a person and killed him, or one was raising a barrel and the rope broke and the barrel fell on a person and killed him, or where one was ascending a ladder and fell upon a person and killed him, he is not exiled. The reason is that because all of these [deaths] were as a result of moving upward and he was not obliged to be cautious.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  That this [pitfall] not occur. According to the first interpretation there is the difficulty that it is written, “Until the death of the Kohein Gadol.” The verse is saying that the murderer will live after the death of the Kohein Gadol, since the Kohein Gadol would die sooner, but why would this be? Therefore, Rashi explains, “Because he should have…” However, according to the second interpretation there is the difficulty that even if the Kohein Gadol was punished with death for not praying, why should the murderer return home after the death of the Kohein Gadol? Therefore, he also brings the first reason.
  Who anointed him. The verse implies that the murderer anointed the Kohein Gadol with the sacred oil, therefore one must say that this is one of the shortened passages…
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  So long [as it functions]. For it is written in Parshas Shoftim (Devarim 17:8), “You shall ascend to the place” which teaches that it is “the place” which confers authority. This means: At the time when the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalyim sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone [in the Temple, the lower] courts function outside the land and in other locations [within the land] are in effect.
  
  Verse 30
  
  The one who endeavors to kill him. Referring to the killer, because he had killed a person.
  And was forewarned. Meaning that this is one of the shortened passages, and it is as if the verse had said if anyone strikes a person, meaning that he killed a person, he may not be killed unless there is testimony that he killed intentionally and that he was forewarned.
  
  Verse 31
  
  He cannot absolve himself. Meaning that this is one of the shortened passages, and it is as if the verse had said, “Do not accept atonement compensation for the life of a murderer who is wicked to incur the death penalty, <i>to exempt him from death,</i> for he must be executed.” Since in Parshas Mishpatim the Torah writes (Shemos 21:29), “If it was a goring ox… and it killed a man or woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owners shall also die,” [where his death] is at the hands of the heavenly court. This implies that just as his ox is liable for death, so too he is liable for death. Nonetheless, afterwards it is written (v. 30), “When an atonement compensation is imposed upon him, he must give a redemption of his soul,” which implies that if he was liable for the death penalty on account of his ox, he can absolve himself with money. Therefore, I would have thought that the same is true if he was liable for the death penalty on his own account, that he could absolve himself with money.
  
  Verse 32
  
  Like לנס. With a <i>sheva</i> below the [letter] <i>lamed</i> and a <i>kamatz</i> below the [letter] <i>nun</i>  [לנס "one who has fled" rather than לנוס "to flee"], meaning that just as there is no redemption for the death penalty, so too there is no redemption for exile.
  
  Verse 33
  
  Do not bring evil. For the word חנופה [lit. "false flattery"] is not appropriate when referring to blood. With regard to the land this term is understandable, since חנופה would be appropriate if “land” is explained as referring to the inhabitants of the land, with whom false flattery is possible. However, regarding blood, it cannot be explained in this manner.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  R’ Yehudah said. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it written ואם ["and if"], since it should have said וכי יהיה ["and <i>when</i> [the <i>yoveil</i>] occurs"]. For ואם implies that there is doubt as to whether there would be a <i>yoveil.</i> When Rashi writes afterwards “so even if <i>yoveil</i> occurs” he does not mean to explain ואם as meaning אפילו ["even when"], for if so he would be contradicting what he said above, that the word ואם implies doubt. Rather, the word “even” is part of Rashi’s usage of language, and it is not meant to be an explanation of the word אם.
  To discontinue. Meaning that the Temple will be destroyed and <i>shmittah</i> and <i>yoveil</i> will be discontinued.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  And they were married. Rashi is answering the question: In Parshas Pinchas (27:1) Scripture mentioned Sirtzah at the end, while here she is mentioned second. He answers that here they are listed in the order of seniority [i.e., age], meaning that here it is written, “They were…wives to their cousins” and it is customary for sisters to marry in order of their birth, first the oldest and afterward the younger ones in order of their age, as it is written [referring to marrying the younger daughter before the older] (Bereishis 29:26), “Such is not done in our place…”
  Throughout Scripture. [You might ask why] Rashi did not make any comment in Parshas Pinchas (26:33) in the section dealing with the order of the families and the counting of the tribes, where the daughters of Tzelofchad were mentioned. You cannot say that it was because Rashi had no difficulty until now that the order has been changed, for if so, why in Parshas Pinchas did Rashi comment on the verse, “And the daughters of Tzelofchad approached” (27:1), given that there was not [yet] any change [in their order]. Yet Rashi there wrote, “Below it says, ‘Machlah and Sirtzah were…’” Thus, with regards to [order of Tzelofchad’s daughters] in the count of the generations of the tribes he should also have said “below…” There is an additional difficulty that regarding, “They approached” Rashi only explained, “This teaches that they were all equal,” while here he elaborates, commenting, “<i>According to their wisdom,</i> this teaches that they were all equal” meaning that [they were equal] in righteousness and in performing good deeds. It appears that initially in Parshas Pinchas, regarding the order in the counting of the tribes, it would have been incongruous to comment, “Below it changes [the order] in order to teach that they were all equal.” For there would have been the difficulty as to how we could know that they were equal, since perhaps Scripture changed the order and listed them in order of their wisdom. However, regarding “they approached” Scripture still had not changed the original order. Thus, we would have said that since it was not changed in those two cases, we cannot say that below [i.e., here] it was changed on account of their wisdom. For if so, Scripture should have changed the order in the verse “they approached” given that there their wisdom was demonstrated, as Rashi explains (27:4), “[This teaches] that they were learned.” Now, since it was not changed there, one can say it is certain that the change in the order of their listing below [i.e., here] teaches that they were equal [and is not in order of their wisdom]. At this stage, we would have said that on the first two occasions they were listed in order of their birth. However, here it is clear that this is the order of their birth, since they married in order [of their age], if so, in on the first two occasions the order was changed. Rather, [the answer is that] this was to demonstrate that there are listed in accordance with two reasons, “According to their wisdom” and “Teaches that they were equal,” given that the order was changed twice. <i>R.Yaakov Triosh</i>.
  
  Deuteronomy
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Because these are words of admonishment, etc. For it should have said, “And Moshe spoke to all of Israel.” Therefore, Rashi explains: Because these are words of [admonishment]. In other words, we still need to explain why it says, “In the wilderness — on the Arava Plain etc,” rather than explicitly stating their actions. Perforce, we must say that these are words of admonishment etc. And the reason why Moshe said these words in an obscure manner is because in a single speech he recounted all the times that Yisroel angered Hashem. Therefore, he did not rebuke them in a direct manner. But if he was rebuking them for only one incident in which they had angered Hashem, he would have mentioned it directly. For, “There is not a righteous man on earth who does [only] good and never sins (Koheles 7:20),” and therefore it is not so embarrassing. Also, that is why it says הדברים (the words), for the term דברים indicates words of rebuke. Rashi explains this at the beginning of Koheles (1:1), and there his proof is from [this verse], “These are the words.” The primary source that the term דבר indicates rebuke is below (v. 17), “And the matter (דבר) that will be too difficult for you, etc.” <i>Re”m writes: Rashi’s explanation is perplexing. For if “These are the words,” indicates words of rebuke, why does the verse say afterwards (v. 3), “with every detail that Adonoy had commanded etc.”? But, Moshe said the words of rebuke on his own. Perhaps the answer is: The words of rebuke were sanctioned by Hashem, although Moshe said them on his own. And since Hashem had allowed them, it says, “that Adonoy had commanded etc.” Alternatively: Hashem commanded Moshe to rebuke them, and it was on his own that Moshe waited until shortly before his death [to rebuke them]. But it seems to me: “With every detail that Adonoy had commanded etc,” is not referring to the rebuke, but rather to the <i>mitzvos in general, i.e. the review of the Torah. Moshe did two things — he rebuked them on his own, and he also explained the Torah and the <i>mitzvos to them<i>, as will he explains later. </i></i></i></i>
  And only intimated, etc. You might ask: Note that afterwards, Moshe explicitly mentions their sins when discussing the spies, as it says (v. 22), “You approached me, all of you, etc.” And also other incidents in which they had angered Hashem are recounted in this parsha. The answer is: For this reason Rashi chose to say, “Moshe intended to recount here <i>all</i> the <i>places</i>.” I.e., here he recounted <i>all</i> the <i>places</i> in an obscure manner, as explained above. 
  They had angered Hashem in the wilderness, etc. Onkelos also translates in a similar manner, על דחבו במדברא וכו' (<i>that they became guilty to Hashem</i> in the wilderness). <i>Re”m writes: I find it difficult to understand how Rashi can explain that the word אלה (these) is referring to the [actual] words [of rebuke] that the [rest of the] verse is alluding to. Yet, nothing is mentioned here besides the places where they angered Hashem. But the actual words [of rebuke] that Moshe said are not mentioned at all, etc. In truth, I do not know why he finds Rashi to be difficult, because note that Rashi explains אלה הדברים as “these are the words of rebuke.” The word דברים is the rebuke, as if the verse said, “This is the rebuke that Moshe admonished to all of Israel across the Yardein, because they sinned in the wilderness, etc.” Onkelos, however, translates the word הדברים as “These are the words,” instead of, “This is the rebuke, etc.” Therefore, he needed to add the words אוכח יתהון וכו' (he rebuked them, etc). But Rashi, who explains הדברים as “rebuke,” has no need to add the words that Onkelos adds. Rashi’s explanation is logical and clear. </i>
  Because it was at Arava, etc. You should not say that Arava simply means “their place of encampment,” as it is written above in Parshas Masai (Bamidbar 33:48), “And they camped in the plains of Moav (בערבות מואב).” Otherwise, Scripture should have written, “Across the Yardein, in the Arava plain, in the wilderness (בערבה במדבר).” 
  Regarding the denigrating statements, etc. The term תפלו is an expression of being “attached.” I.e., they engaged in an argument about the manna. 
  The sin they committed in the wilderness of Poron, etc. Do not ask why Rashi did not explain “Poron” before “Tofel and Lovon,” in accordance with the order that they appear in the verse. For the answer is: At first, I would have thought that “Between Poron and Tofel and Lovon,” is describing the place called “Mol Suf.” But now that Rashi explains that “Tofel and Lovon” are not the names of places, then what is the meaning of “Poron”? Rashi answers: The sin they committed etc. However, [according to this explanation] the term “between” is problematic. 
  This refers to the rebellion of Korach, etc. This implies that the rebellion of Korach happened before the spies were sent [as follows]: It is written, “The People traveled from Chatzeiros and they camped in the desert of Poron (Bamidbar 12:16),” and afterwards it is written, “Send for yourself men [and have them scout the land].” Since it is written here “Chatzeiros,” and Rashi explains, “This refers to the rebellion of Korach,” then we can infer that before they came to the desert of Poron, the rebellion of Korach had already taken place in Chatzeiros. See Parshas Korach [where Rashi explains differently] regarding the verse (ibid. 16:4), “And Moshe heard, etc.” 
  From what I did to Miriam, etc. According to the first explanation, there is a difficulty: Scripture does not say that the rebellion of Korach happened in Chatzeiros. Therefore, Rashi says: “Another explanation, etc.” But, according to the second explanation there is a difficulty: The term, “Chatzeiros,” is not similar to the terms, “In the wilderness, on the Arava plain.” For, “In the wilderness, etc.,” refers to places where they rebelled against Hashem by angering Him, whereas “Chatzeiros” is rebuke for not having learned from Miriam, etc. But, according to the first explanation, “Chatzeiros” refers to the Jewish People angering Hashem in Chatzeiros; so it cannot be intended as rebuke for Miriam’s sin, for only the sins of the entire People are recounted here. For this reason, the first explanation is also necessary. 
  And nevertheless you spoke against the Almighty. “You spoke, etc,” refers to, “For it [the Nation of Canaan] is more powerful than us (Bamidbar 13:31),” as Rashi explains there. Alternatively: They spoke against the Almighty Who praised the Land, yet they denigrated it. Even though the rebuke regarding the spies was already learned from, “between Poron,” nevertheless, sending the spies was one matter, and their slander against the Land is a separate matter. We could also explain that “you spoke against the Almighty,” is referring to the rebellion of Korach. There is no [practical] difference between Rashi’s first and second explanation; only that the second one says that Hashem rebuked them for not learning from [the incident of] Miriam who was smitten for speaking against her brother, and the first explanation says that Hashem rebuked them for angering the Almighty with the rebellion [of Korach] (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Deduct from these days the thirty days, etc. I.e., in total deduct thirty-six days [instead of thirty-seven] because the thirtieth day is counted as the end of the thirty day period and also as the beginning of the seven days. For on the thirtieth day they traveled from Kivros haTaavah; so it turns out that on the thirty-ninth day they sent the spies from Kodeish-Barnei’a, which is the twenty-ninth day of Sivan (see <i>Re”m</i> who elaborates at length). 
  The Shechina attempted for your good to hasten, etc. The term מתלבטת means to hasten.
  
  Circle around Mount Seir for forty years. This is not an explanation of the verse, “In the fortieth year.” I.e., Rashi is not explaining the verse as: “Eleven days from Choreiv by way of Mount Seir,” but they traveled it in forty years, as it says, “In the fortieth year.” Rather, “In the fortieth year,” refers to what is written afterwards, as Rashi explains, “This teaches that he did admonish them [only shortly before his death], etc.” The first verse is abridged, and it is as if it is written, “Eleven days from Choreiv, but you traveled it in three days with the Almighty’s help. However, because of your misconduct, you were delayed for forty years.” And afterwards starts a new sentence, “In the fortieth year ... Moshe addressed Bnei Yisrael, etc.” One should not ask: Here it implies that the sin of the spies is the reason they were delayed in the wilderness for forty years, yet in Parshas Beha’aloscha (Bamidbar 10:29) Rashi explains, “Immediately within three days we will enter the land ...but they sinned with the complainers [for meat].” The answer is: Because of their complaining they were delayed for thirty days, and on account of the sin of the spies they were delayed forty years. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Only shortly before his death, etc. Otherwise, why does matter when he admonished them?
  
  So that he does not admonish him again and again, etc. In other words, if he admonishes [sometime before] his death, he would consider, “I will admonish them some today, and some tomorrow. For why should I admonish them all at once while I still have time tomorrow to admonish them?” But perhaps the other person might think he is being constantly admonished out of hatred, and therefore he will despise the admonishment. For this reason one should admonish shortly before his own death for all misconduct. You might ask: If so, why does Rashi explain above: “From whom did he learn this? From Yaakov, etc.” How does Rashi know this? Perhaps Moshe thought on his own to do so, as there are four reasons why one would not admonish, etc. The answer is: We know that none of these four reasons apply here. For we cannot say that they would leave Moshe, for where would they go? They only left Egypt in order to enter the Land of Israel. Also we cannot say that [the reason not to admonish them is] so they should not be ashamed of him, since he is admonishing the entire Jewish People together. And Rashi’s statement, “Why did I not admonish you, etc,” is only an explanation for Yaakov. You might ask: It is written, “You shall surely rebuke (Vayikra 19:17),” and Rashi explains, “Even a hundred times.” The answer is: “You shall surely rebuke” applies at the time of the offense. And “So that he does not admonish him again and again,” applies after the offense has been done. 
  So that his fellow not be ashamed, etc. I.e., when the person who gave the admonishment sees him, the one who was admonished would be ashamed.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  If I admonish them, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture need to write, “After he had smitten, etc,” since it is previously written, “In the fortieth year, etc.” Rather, this is what Moshe said, etc. You might ask: If so, perhaps the (only) reason Moshe did not admonish them earlier was because he waited, etc., so they do not say, “What good has he done for us?” The answer is: If so, the verse should have said, “And it was after he had smitten Sichon and Og.” Why does is it written, “In the fortieth year”? Rather, it must be to teach us that one should not admonish until shortly before the admonisher’s death. And since it is written, “After he had smitten, etc.,” we can also learn that Moshe said, etc. 
  To find an excuse, etc. The term עילה is the same as עלילה (lit. false accusation). 
  Even if Sichon was not a formidable opponent, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it necessary for Scripture to write, “who was living in Cheshbon”? Why mention where they were? 
  Similar to Ashteros Karnayim, etc. The word “Karnayim” is from the term קרן (horn), which denotes strength. 
  And this Ashtoros is indeed the same Ashteros Karnayim, etc. I.e., do not ask: How does Rashi know that the term “Ashtoros” denotes cliffs? Perhaps it is specifically the term “Ashteros Karnayim” that denotes cliffs. Therefore, Rashi explains: And this Ashtoros is indeed the same Ashteros Karnayim, etc. There also it is written, “the one who escaped came, etc” which refers to Og. 
  This was the name of the empire. Rashi is answering the question: If he was living in Ashtoros, then he is not living in Edrei. Therefore, Rashi explains: The name of the empire was Edrei. <i>Re”m</i> says: (If this is not so, then) the verse should say ובאדרעי (<i>and in Edrei). </i>
  
  Verse 5
  
  [The word הואיל means] he began, etc. See Rashi’s commentary in Parshas Vayeira (Bereishis 18:31). 
  In seventy languages, etc. Since it is written here באר (elucidate) the Torah, and in Parshas Ki Savo (27:8) it is written “You are to write [on the stones all the statements of this Torah] באר היטב (elucidated well). The numerical value of the word היטב is seventy, when calculated as follows: ה"=5, ה"י=15, הי"ט=24, היט"ב=26; the numbers 5, 15, 24, and 26 add up to 70. [The word באר written here should also be understood as באר היטב]. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  According to its plain meaning. I.e., the word רב means “an extended time period.” 
  But there is an Aggadic interpretation, etc. For according to its plain meaning, there is a difficulty: The verse should have said “די לכם שבת (<i>Enough of your living).” Why does it use the term רב (lit. a lot)? Therefore, Rashi explains: But there is an Aggadic interpretation. </i>
  
  Verse 7
  
  This refers to Ammon, and Moav, etc. Some commentators question: Note that it is written (below 2:9), “Do not intimidate them [Moav] with war [for I will not give you any of his land] etc.” Perhaps the answer is: If the Jewish People had not sinned, Hashem would have given them the land of the ten Canaanite nations, as He promised Avrohom. However, because they sinned, Hashem only gave them the land of seven nations. 
  It is referred to as great, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Is not the Euphrates River the smallest of them all, for in Parshas Bereishis (2:14), it is mentioned last? Rashi explains this in Parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis 15:18). 
  Attach yourself to the chief, etc. The word שחוור means “chief.” 
  Become close to one who is anointed and you too will become anointed. I.e., become close to one who is anointed with oil, and you will also become anointed through your contact with him. The phrase (Yeshayah 34:6) הודשנה מחלב (it <i>became anointed from the fats) is rendered in the Targum as איתדהינא [which is related to the word דהינא quoted by Rashi here]. Rashi means to say: Here too, since the Land of Israel is distinguished, so too the Euphrates River has become important along with it. </i>
  
  Verse 8
  
  No one will contest this matter, etc. Otherwise, how could he say to them “Come,” for the Land had not yet been conquered?! 
  
  Verse 9
  
  What is the significance of לאמר, etc. I.e., the word לאמר (to say) is always intended to be expounded, meaning either, “to say to others,” or, “go say to them My words and bring Me a response,” or, “respond to My words.” But, none of these meanings apply here. Therefore, Rashi asks: What is the significance of לאמר in this context? 
  I am not telling you this on my own initiative, etc. In other words, [Moshe was saying,] “Even if I had wanted to carry you by myself in order to receive reward, I would not be able to because the Almighty has prevented me.” This is the meaning of לאמר (saying) — that the Almighty told me explicitly not to do so. Rashi explains likewise below (v. 12): “If I would say, ‘I will do so in order to be rewarded,’ I cannot do so.” This is what I have [already] told you, etc., referring to the explanation given here. 
  Is it possible that Moshe was unable, etc. You might ask: Did Rashi not explain above, “I am not telling you this on my own, etc.”? If so, what is Rashi’s question? Perhaps Moshe was capable, but he was not permitted. The answer is: Rashi’s question is based on the (seemingly) extra words. Why does Moshe say, “I cannot [carry you] by myself ... Adonoy, your God, has multiplied you etc.”? Rather, Moshe was saying: “I am not telling you this on my own ... And even if the Almighty did not command me, I still would have needed to appoint judges over you, for I cannot carry you by myself, etc.” That is why Rashi asks: It is possible that, etc. 
  Was unable to judge them? Some [commentators] ask: Yisro said to Moshe, “You are going to wear yourself out (Shemos 18:18).” Rashi should have asked [there]: Regarding a prophet like Moshe, how could Yisro think it was difficult for him to judge the People? The answer is that above, I could think that Yisro was saying the following: “You are going to wear out this people.” I.e., it was difficult for the people that Moshe sat alone to judge them, for they all stood waiting for him from morning until evening. Certainly if there were many judges, it would be easier upon the people. Therefore, since it was difficult for the People then they would complain to Moshe, and this would be difficult for him. Therefore, Rashi explains [only] here. 
  Multiplied you — i.e., has made you great and has uplifted you. I.e., the term הרבה means, “He has made you great.” 
  And set it upon the judges. This refers to when the judges have the power to prevent wrongdoing, and they fail to do so. 
  He is the wisest of all men, etc. One should not ask: The verse, “For who is able to judge,” was stated before, “He is the wisest of all men.” And if so, then when Shlomo said, “For who is able to judge?” he was not yet wise! The answer is: His end is testimony to his beginning. I.e., since Shlomo became so wise — to the greatest extent possible — then in the beginning he also must have been wise and capable of judging the People, as it says (Mishlei 14:33), “In an understanding heart, wisdom rests.”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  What then does “you are today” mean? You are compared to the day. I.e., the term כיום [in Rashi] is the same as כהיום (like the day). 
  As the sun, the moon, and the stars. Meaning, “like the day.” Although the moon and stars do not reign during the day, it is not called a “day” without including the night with it, as it is written (Bereishis 1:5), “And it was evening, and it was morning, [it was] day one.” If so, it is fine that the verse says [according to Rashi’s explanation] “like the day” [and then mentions the stars]. (In the name of <i>Maharitz</i>). The phrase לרוב (as numerous) means: <i>In the future</i>, you will also be as numerous as the stars. Now, however, you are eternal like them (the sun, moon and the stars), but you are not as numerous as them (<i>Re”m).
  </i>
  
  Verse 11
  
  Moshe then said to them, “This is my personal blessing etc.” I.e., the one thousand fold is my personal blessing, but Hashem will bless you more than one thousand fold as He spoke about you. You might ask: Since Hashem promised to bless them to be as numerous as the dust of the earth, why does Moshe say, “The one thousand fold is my personal blessing”? Is that not included in Hashem’s blessing? The answer is: Moshe’s statement, “This [one thousand fold] is my personal blessing,” refers to reward [in this world] from the blessings. Another explanation is: “This is from me,” means that these blessings from me are unconditional. However, the blessings from Hashem are on the condition that you uphold the <i>mitzvos</i> and the Torah. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  In order to be rewarded, I cannot do so, etc. In other words: “Even if I would want to carry you alone in order to be rewarded, I cannot do so.” Otherwise, why did he say, “How can I carry alone”? For Moshe had already said (v. 9), “I cannot carry you by myself, etc.” which is due to the penalty, etc.
  
  This teaches that they were scoffers, etc. The word אפיקורסין means (literally) “rebels.” It is a contraction of two words: אפיק (discard), and רסן (bridle). I.e., the bridle is thrown off them — they go about unbridled. Therefore, they are rebellious, just as a horse that is unbridled. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Prepare yourselves to fulfill this matter. The word הבה always denotes preparation for a matter, meaning, to give advice or assistance for a particular matter (<i>Re”m). </i>
  Righteous men. Why did Rashi not explain this above regarding, “Send for yourself <i>men</i>, etc. (Bamidbar 13:2)”? The answer is: This explanation applies here more than it does there. For the Mishnah says (Nidah 6:4), “All who are fit to testify, are fit to judge.” And since women are not fit to testify, they are not fit to judge. Therefore, why does the verse need to specify “men”? 
  Men who are desired. The word כסופים is an expression of חמוד (desirable), i.e., the people desire them, for they speak clearly and they do not speak longer than necessary. Another explanation is: The word כסופים is an expression of בושה (shame). I.e., they are ashamed of their wrongdoings. And when they desire to do an action, they consider the outcome [of their actions] beforehand, in order not to be ashamed from it. And such a person is called a חכם (wise person), as the verse says, “The wise look [ahead] from the beginning (Koheles 2:14).” This is also stated in Pirkei Avos (2:13), “Do not consider yourself to be wicked in your own eyes.” 
  He goes about to bring his own. I.e., he buys and sells merchandise. 
  Enwrapped in his talis, etc. This is the custom of judges. 
  The word אשמם lacks the letter yud, etc. The word אשמם is an expression of אשמה (guilt). Although it should have said, “<i>Your</i> guilt (ואשמכם) is placed upon your heads,” since this whole section is in the second person, nevertheless, we do not question an exegesis (<i>Re”m). The reason why Rashi reverses the order and explains בראשיכם (leaders over you) before ואשמם (and designated them) is because: According to the manner in which the verse is written, it implies the opposite of Rashi’s explanation, that the guilt of the judges is placed on your heads — referring to the people’s heads. Otherwise, the verse should have said ואשמם בראשם (and their guilt is placed upon <i>their heads). Therefore, Rashi first had to explain the word בראשיכם “that you will conduct yourselves with them with respect.” Then afterwards he explains the word ואשמם. It is as if Rashi is saying, “and now this verse is understandable.” </i></i>
  
  Verse 14
  
  You answered with determination, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Everything that Moshe is saying to the Jewish People has been words of rebuke. Why then does Moshe say to them: You replied to me and said, “[It is a] good thing that you said to do, etc.” On the contrary, he is praising them for doing as he had commanded them. Therefore, Rashi explains: You answered with determination, etc. In other words, you did this for your own benefit. The word חלטתם is an expression of [answering with] determination.” 
  Who suffered for it? The word “it” refers to the Torah. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  I persuaded them with words. Whenever the word “take” does not refer to a specific type of acquisition, it means, “persuading with words.” This has already been explained in many other places. 
  This qualification was one of the seven requirements, etc. Four of them are written here: Men — which implies righteous, wise, understanding, and renowned. And another three are written in Parshas Yisro (Shemos 18:21): God-fearing, men of truth, who despise gain. Moshe found only three of them: Righteous, wise, and renowned. Even though the four written here are not written in Parshas Yisro, nevertheless we must say that Yisro also told them to Moshe. Otherwise, why would Moshe disregard what Yisro had told him? <i>Re”m</i> counts four qualifications in Parshas Yisro: Capable, God-fearing, men of truth, who despise gain. And he counts three here: Wise, understanding, and renowned. According to this, we must say that <i>Re”m</i> does not count “righteous,” for it is the same as “God-fearing” which is written in Parshas Yisro. 
  He is to enter [the Synagogue or Bais Hamidrash] last and he is to be first to leave. So that everyone will stand up for them, which is a great show of respect. Also, they should leave first [from the Bais Hamidrash] before anyone else, so that everyone will need to stand up for them (<i>Re”m</i>). Some commentators explain the opposite: He is to enter last from the Synagogue or Bais Hamidrash to his home, and this was Moshe’s humility, so that the people will not have to stand up for him. And he is to be first to leave his home to the Synagogue or Bais Hamidrash; and arrive there before anyone else so that they should not have to stand up for him. 
  I appointed court-officers for your tribes. Rashi chose the word מניתי (I appointed) here, but not earlier (in the verse). In doing so, he is answering the question: The verse, “And designated them leaders over you: masters of thousands, etc ... and court-officers for your tribes,” implies that the “leaders (of thousands, etc.)” are also court-officers. Therefore, Rashi explains: “I appointed court-officers for your tribes,” but the leaders were not court-officers. Rashi continues and explains how he knows this: “For the court-officers are the ones who jail, etc.” meaning, “by order of the judges,” i.e., “by order of the leaders.” This teaches us that the court-officers were not the leaders. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Act with patience in judging, etc. It is written, “I commanded your judges,” but there has not been any previous mention of judges! It should say, “leaders.” Rather, “judges,” is intended for an exegesis. The verse should be interpreted as, “I commanded you regarding matters of judgment to act with patience.” However, <i>Re”m</i> explains that this is derived from, “between your brothers.” It would have been sufficient to say, “And you are to judge right between a man and his complainant.” Rather, “between your brothers,” is intended to teach us to act with patience in judging — to listen between your brothers and understand their statements well, so that if certain litigation is brought before you, etc. 
  In the past you were on your own, etc. It was your choice whether to learn and probe the depths of <i>halacha</i> or to sit idly, which is no longer the case. 
  Who accumulates words against him, etc. The word גרו is missing an <i>alef</i>, as if it said אוגרו (accumulates). Similarly, the phrase (v. 17) לא תגורו is like לא תאגרו. We should not say, as it apparently seems, that the term גרו is like the phrase (Vayikra 24:16) כגר כאזרח (as a <i>resident or citizen). For if so, why is the letter <i>vav of גרו necessary? However, there is a difficulty with this explanation, for then גרו is missing an <i>aleph. Therefore, Rashi says: Another explanation — between his co-dweller, etc. According to this, גרו means “dwelling,” as in the verse (Bereishis 26:3), “Dwell (גור) in this land.” But, with the second explanation alone, there is also a difficulty: The verse should explicitly say כירו (his range). Therefore, both explanations are needed. </i></i></i>
  Even [a dispute] about an oven and a range. Because it is written גרו, and the letters <i>gimmel</i> and <i>kaf are interchangeable, as Rashi explains in Parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:16), therefore, גרו is the same as כירו (his range). And since it is written ובין גרו, perforce it means: And between the division [of a house] between brothers, [even a dispute] about an oven and a range. For it is impossible that the division is between a range and a house.
  </i>
  
  Verse 17
  
  This [command is addressed] to the one who appoints judges, etc. For it is already written [to the judges], “And you are to judge right.” But in Parshas Shoftim (below 16:19) regarding, “Do not display favoritism,” Rashi explains: Even at the time of litigation — this is a warning <i>to the judge</i> not to be gentle to one litigant and harsh to the other, etc. The answer is: It cannot be explained there the same as here. Otherwise, the verses should be reversed and say, “Do not show favor in judgment” before, “Do not bend justice,” [as will now be explained:] the previous verse was dealing with appointing judges. For it is written, “And they will judge the people justly,” and Rashi explains, “Appoint judges who are expert and righteous.” And since, “Do not show favor in judgment,” is written after, “Do not bend justice,” (which is referring to the judges), then it too must be referring to the judges. Rashi does not explain here as he does over there, because here the verse says, “And you are to judge right between a man and his brother.” If he should be gentle to one litigant and harsh to the other, it would not be judging rightly. Therefore, “Do not show favor in judgment,” is unnecessary. Rather, it must be referring to the one who appoints judges. 
  [Litigation involving a peruta] should be as dear to you, etc. It seems that the word כתרגומו is printed in the wrong place, and should read: “Small and great alike will you hear out,” can be explained as <i>Targum Onkelos</i> has [adding the word מילי (matter)]: Litigation involving a <i>peruta</i> should be as dear to you, etc. Rashi’s [first] explanation is Talmudic (Sanhedrin 8a), and the last two are from <i>Sifrei (<i>Nachalas Yaakov).
  </i></i>
  So if a [minor litigation] comes before you first, etc. For if you [incorrectly] think to interpret this verse literally as, “Whether the <i>defendant</i> is an average person or whether he is a figure of authority,” this can be learned from the phrase, “Between a man and his brother.” (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  Another explanation: Small and great alike will you hear out, etc. The first explanation is problematic, for the verse should say כמעט כהרבה (a little or a lot). Therefore, Rashi says: Another explanation... [This one is a poor man, etc.] And the second explanation is [also] problematic, for the verse should say גדול כקטן (the great like the small). I.e., you should rule in favor of the rich man if he is innocent, just as you would try to rule in favor of the poor man to support him in a tidy manner. Therefore, Rashi says: Another explanation: He should not say, [“How can I offend] etc.” Yet, this last explanation is [also] problematic, for the verse should say קטן כגדול (the small like the great) will you hear out. And with only the last two explanations there is [also] a problem, for the verse should say כעני כעשיר (wealthy and poor alike). Therefore, the first explanation is also needed. 
  Do not be afraid. I.e., a judge should not say, “I am afraid of this man, for perhaps he will kill me or he will set fire to my stockpile of grain.”
  
  Do not gather in [suppress] your words, etc. For example, a disciple who is in the presence of his rabbi, and a judgment is presented to his rabbi and he judges incorrectly, the disciple should not remain silent. Rashi’s first explanation is problematic, for the verse should have said אל תיראו (do not be afraid). Therefore, Rashi says: Another explanation, Do not gather in, etc. But, the second explanation is problematic, for the verse should have said לא תאגורו (do not gather in) [with an <i>aleph], an expression similar to אוגר בקיץ (gathering in the summer) (Mishlei 10:5). Therefore, the first reason is also needed. <i>Re”m explains: Do not keep your words [hidden] in your heart out of fear to speak them out and tell the litigant that he is liable or guilty in his dispute. </i></i>
  That you diverted the judgment upon Me. Otherwise, what is the meaning of, “Justice belongs to Hashem”? Justice pertains only to the litigants! 
  Because of this [statement] the law eluded him, etc. Because Moshe likened himself to Hashem: For it is written, “For justice belongs to Hashem,” and afterwards it is written, “And the matter that will be too difficult for you, present to me,” as if Moshe himself were Hashem. Therefore, the laws pertaining to inheritance which are a simple matter eluded him. For everyone knows that if a man has no sons, then a daughter inherits instead of a son. For Rachel and Leah said (Bereishis 31:14), “Do we have a portion anymore, etc,” meaning: We do not share the inheritance along with the males. Yet, this eluded Moshe. Rashi did not explain that because of this statement the law regarding the woodchopper, or regarding the ritually impure eluded him — for those are not simple [laws], and therefore Moshe did not know. But the laws regarding inheritance are simple. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Between monetary litigations, etc. The fourth chapter of Sanhedrin (32a) explains regarding monetary litigation: 1. Three judges are required. 2. The judges may begin even with a guilty charge. 3. A guilty decision may be reached by a majority of only one. 4. A judge may change his verdict and render even a guilty decision. 5. Anyone may partake to acquit or to find guilty, whether a judge or a disciple. 6. A judge who was going to acquit can retract and decide guilty, and vice-verse. 7. Proceedings begin during the day and may be completed at night. 8. A decision to acquit or to find guilty may be reached on the same day. 9. The proceedings are begun by the senior judge. 10. [Ibid. 36a] A father and his son, or a rabbi and his disciple, may be considered as two judges. Capital litigation, however, requires twenty-three judges. Furthermore, everything else written above does not apply to capital litigation. To the contrary, whatever is allowed in monetary litigation is disqualified in capital litigation.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  In there were snakes thick as beams, etc. Otherwise, what is the meaning of “awesome”? In that wilderness, from whom would they fear? For no person traveled there! Rather, it refers to snakes, etc. You might ask: In Parshas Beha’aloscha (Bamidbar 10:34), Rashi explains, “A cloud traveled in front of them and killed the snakes and scorpions.” The answer is: Wherever they camped in the wilderness, the snakes surrounded their camp. When they left the camp to relieve themselves, they saw the dead snakes, and they were in awe, even though the snakes did not harm them.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  In a hodgepodge, etc. Rashi is answering the question: What is the rebuke in this statement? 
  What language they speak. Otherwise, why is “word” needed? The purpose of knowing which language they speak is in order to detect if one of the seven nations dressed up like another nation. Then the Jewish People would recognize the hoax and be able to uphold the commandment, “Do not leave anyone alive (below 20:16).” This is not possible unless they knew which language they spoke so then they knew from which nation they are. Also, there are other explanations given on this matter. 
  There is no road in which there are no winding curves. Otherwise, for what purpose did they ask the spies which road to go upon? Certainly, whichever city they wished to conquer they would go up on that particular road. 
  [Which cities] will we have to capture first. Rashi is answering the question: The phrase, “And the cities,” implies that they will not go to every city. Yet this is not true, for they will inherit the entire land. For this reason Rashi explains: “Which cities... <i>first</i>.” 
  
  Verse 23
  
  From the choicest among you. Otherwise, why is “from you,” needed? 
  From the finest among you. The word המסולתין is from the word סולת (fine flour) [Figuratively meaning, “the finest”]. 
  This tells us that the tribe of Levi was not among them. Otherwise, there should be thirteen men, as the tribes of Ephraim and Menasha are counted separately. <i>Re”m</i> writes: This explanation is perplexing, since without the verse [specifying], “twelve men,” we would know this. For in Parshas Shlach Lecha (Bamidbar Ch. 13), all the tribal leaders are enumerated, and the tribe of Levi is not included with them. <i>Re”m</i> leaves this question unresolved. It seems to me that the verse [specifying], “twelve men,” is teaching us that the tribe of Levi did not even participate [in devising the plan of the spies]. According to this, it fits well that Rashi does not say, “The tribe of Levi did not <i>go</i> with them,” for this was already written above in Parshas Shlach Lecha. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  This tells us that it was called [Eshkol] because of the incident that was to happen there. For they carried a cluster (Eshkol) of grapes from there, as it is written (Bamidbar 13:23), “And they cut off a branch, etc,” and [the following verse says explicitly that] “it was called Wadi Eshkol [because of the report about the cluster of grapes].” But this first occurred when the spies were returning. 
  Along four lines etc. Rashi means to say that they walked through the land in four lines — through its length and breadth, in order to spy out the entire land.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Who were they that said [the land was] good, etc. Although the other spies also said that it was good, nevertheless they also brought a bad report about the land. And here it is written, “They said, ‘Good is the land’,” which implies that they did not say anything bad about it (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  A popular proverb says, etc. Rashi intends to say that you should not ask how did the Israelites know that Hashem hated them. And therefore Rashi explains: Since they hated Hashem, they said that He also hated them, as a popular proverb says, etc. 
  What is in your heart regarding your friend, etc. I.e., whatever is in your heart — that you [subconsciously] hate your friend, you say about him — that he hates you. 
   [You imagine] is in his heart regarding yourself. I.e., whatever is in your friend’s heart — that he loves you, you say about yourself — that you love him. 
  His taking us out was an act of hatred, etc. Rashi answers the question: From the verse it seems that Hashem took them out of Egypt because He hated them. But, He performed many miracles for them in order to take them out to freedom. Therefore Rashi explains that they said, “His taking us out [in itself] was an act of hatred, etc.”
  
  One of which was well-watered, and the other was dry, etc. <i>Re”m</i> writes: This is perplexing. Why does Rashi explain this verse as referring to a dry and a watered field? If it is to demonstrate that Hashem took the Jewish People out of Egypt because He hated them, the fact that He took them out to lead them into the hand of the Emorite and destroy them. is a greater proof of hatred. <i>Re”m</i> leaves this question unresolved. But it seems (to me) that Rashi is answering the following question: The verse should have said, “Because of Adonoy’s hatred of us, He took us out [in order] to deliver us into the hand of the Emorite.” Why is, “of the land of Egypt” needed? Rather, “He took us out of the land of Egypt,” must be to make the comparison to the dry field and watered field. And the verse should be understood as: “<i>For one</i>, because of Adonoy’s hatred of us etc.,” — this is for the comparison to the dry field and watered field. “<i>And furthermore</i>, in order to put us, etc.” The word בעל means a dry and arid land that requires irrigation. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  Exaggerated terms. Rashi explains in the chapter [entitled], “The Sciatic Nerve,” (Maseches Chulin 90b): “לשון הבאי means, ‘a common person’s manner of speech.’ He is not precise with his words, and says things that are not true. He does not lie intentionally; he is just not precise [in what he says].” 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  This verse is connected to the [previous] verse, etc. For the verse could be understood as: “He will wage war for you as in everything that He did... and in the wilderness, etc.” Meaning, that even in the wilderness Hashem waged war on their behalf. But, He did not wage war in the wilderness! Therefore, Rashi explains: This verse is connected to the previous verse, “As in everything that He did with you in Egypt.” I.e., that He bestowed good upon you, and also in the wilderness He bestowed good upon them — for He carried them the way a man carries his son, etc. The word עשה (He did) is being used in two different ways. The first one refers to the waging of war, and the second refers to Hashem’s love (for the Jewish People).
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  The word לראתכם is the same as להראתכם, etc. The <i>pasach</i> vowel under the ל is a substitute for the missing ה.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  This refers to Chevron, etc. Rashi is explaining: Is the entire Land going to be given to Koleiv! 
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  As if to say, you made yourselves ready. Rashi has a difficulty with this verse: How is it plausible to use the word הן (“yes,” or, “here we are”) here? Certainly when a man tells his friend to do something for him, then a response of “yes “ or “here we are” is plausible. But here, Hashem and Moshe warned them not to go up [the mountain]. If so, a response of, “yes” is not plausible! Therefore, Rashi explains: “As if to say, you made yourselves ready.” You made yourselves ready to do this, as if you had explicitly said, “Here we are.” 
  
  Verse 42
  
  There will be no going up [victory] for you etc. Since it is written, “Do not go up,” why then does it need to say, “Do not wage war”? It is obvious that if they do not go up, then there will be no war. Rather, the verse must certainly mean: “Do not go up, for you will not be able to wage war against them.” And if so, going up [the mountain] will be your downfall. But <i>Re”m explains: Since it is written, “So that you will not be shattered,” we can infer that the statement, “Do not go up,” is intended for their benefit. If so, it is not a warning. Rather, it is informing them that their course of action will not be victorious, etc. </i>
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  When it stings a person, it dies immediately, etc. I.e., the bee dies immediately. The word תעשינה is related to the word עשייה (do). We should not say that the verse means: A <i>great number of Emorites will chase you, in the same manner that a great number of bees chase after a person. If so, the verse only should have said, “And chased you like bees.” Now that it is written, “As the bees <i>do,” then it is comparing them only to the way that bees act, etc. </i></i>
  
  Verse 45
  
  You made His attribute of compassion, etc. For otherwise, the name Adonoy denotes compassion — so why then is it mentioned regarding punishment? (<i>Devek Tov</i>).
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  Which totaled thirty-eight years, etc. The spies were sent during the second year after leaving Egypt; and in the beginning of the fortieth year they came to the Land, for a partial year is counted as an entire year. If so, they traveled for only thirty-eight years. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Had they not sinned, etc. Meaning: Due to their sin, Hashem did not manipulate the King of Edom’s heart to allow them to pass through his land. 
  The route they traveled when leaving Egypt, etc. Rashi is answering the question: “By way of the Reed Sea,” implies that they traveled from north to south, along the Reed Sea. Yet, they traveled from west to east in the wilderness! For this reason, Rashi explains: “The route they traveled when leaving Egypt,” i.e., when they left Egypt, they traveled diagonally towards the Reed Sea from west to east. Now, also, they traveled in the same direction, for they abandoned traveling the shorter route from south to north. Instead they traveled along the southern border of Edom, from west to east, until they came to the border of Moav. 
  [We traversed] its entire southern rim. One should not say that they circled Mount Seir on all four sides, and this is not possible. For otherwise Moshe would have entered the Land of Israel, because the land of Edom is on the border of the Land of Israel, as explained in the demarcation of the Land’s borders (Bamidbar 34:3). Therefore, Rashi explains: Only its entire southern rim, until the land of Moav (<i>Maharan</i>). 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Turn yourselves towards the eastern side, etc. This command was given when they were at the end of the southern border of Edom. If so, it contradicts Rashi’s explanation in Parshas Masai (Bamidbar 34:3), that they first turned northward after they had traversed the southern border of Moav. [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Moshe had [first] requested from the king of Edom to travel northward through his land, but he refused. [And therefore] <i>afterwards</i> they needed to traverse the entire southern border of Moav, and then they turned northward (<i>Re”m</i>). But it seems to me as follows: The original intention of, “Turn yourself northward,” was to turn northward after coming to the end of Moav’s border. This is explained in the verses following. And when they came to the border of Edom it says, “Do not incite them (v. 5).” And when they came to the border of Moav and they wanted to pass through their border on the north, Hashem said to them, “Do not besiege Moav (v. 9).” Therefore, it was inevitable that they would have to traverse the entire border of Moav until its eastern side [and then turn northward]. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Even as much as a footstep, etc. The word עד means, “Up until — and including.” It is as if Hashem said to them, “I will not permit you to have any control over their land, even as much as a footstep, to just pass through, without their permission. A similar use [of the term עד] is found in the verse (Shemos 14:28) עד אחד (<i>Not one of them). </i>
  To pass through their land, unless they grant you permission. Otherwise, there is a difficulty: Why did Moshe ask the king of Edom to let them pass through his land, although Hashem forbade it? Therefore, Rashi explains: “Unless they grant you permission.” But with permission, they were allowed to pass through. 
  Until the day comes when there will be footsteps, etc. There is a difficulty with the literal interpretation of this verse, for it should have only said, אף מדרך (<i>even a footstep). Why does Scripture use the term עד (until), which denotes a time period? Therefore, Rashi quotes the homiletic explanation. </i>
  As a reward for his going along with him [Avrohom] to Egypt, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Hashem promised to give ten nations to Avrohom. Why then did He give these two to Lot? Therefore, Rashi explains: As a reward. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Therefore do not show ingratitude, etc. This verse does not mean to say, “You therefore have no need for Eisov.” Otherwise it should say, “You have much,” or, “You have everything,” [instead of, “you have lacked nothing (<i>in the past</i>)”] (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). The term, “Your handiworks,” refers to livestock, as it is written (Iyov 1:10), “You have blessed his handiworks, and his livestock has spread over the land.” 
  
  Verse 8
  
  We turned our faces to travel, etc. Rashi needed to explain, “We turned <i>northward</i>,” because the verse (3), “Turn yourselves northward,” implies the turning of their heads now. Although they were not commanded to do so until after traversing the entire southern border of Moav, nevertheless, [they attempted to turn northward through the land of Edom, but] after they saw that Edom opposed them, they left and traversed the entire southern border of Moav. Afterwards they turned northward, as they were commanded when they were at the southern border of Edom. Then they traversed the entire eastern border of Moav until reaching the land of Sichon and Og, which was to the east of the Land of Israel, etc. (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  
  Verse 9
  
  The only thing He forbid them, etc., war. The verse should only have said, “Do not intimidate them.” Why is, “with war,” needed? For note that regarding the descendants of Ammon it only says below (v. 19), “Do not intimidate them.” Therefore Rashi answers: The only thing He forbids, etc. 
  But they were permitted to terrify them, etc. I.e., the Jewish People were permitted to terrify the Moabites. 
  Do not intimidate them in any way, etc. Because [regarding the people of Ammon,] it is not written “With war.” 
  Who named her son Moav. I.e., מאב (from father), which clearly indicates [her] immoral conduct. 
  The name of the country. For if ער means the same as עיר (city), then the verse should mention the name of the city. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  That I gave to Avrohom, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse need to say, “The Eimim originally lived there, etc.”? Rashi answers: You might think, etc. I.e., One of the seven nations that I gave to Avrohom was called Rephaim. If so you might think this [where Lot’s descendants settled] is the land of Rephaim. I.e., the Eimim who lived there [immediately before Lot’s descendants] were the Rephaim that I gave to Avrohom. But do not think this. Rashi continues to explain, “Because the Eimim, who are actually Rephaim, lived there originally, but the Eimim living there [immediately before Lot’s descendants] were a different people.” I.e., the Eimim that lived there originally, were already driven out [by the second Eimim] in favor of Lot’s descendants and [afterwards] Lot’s descendants settled there. Yet since this was no longer the land of [the original] Rephaim, why was it called “Rephaim”? Rashi explains: “Those Eimim were considered Rephaim.” Yet why were they called Rephaim if they were [actually] the Eimim? Rashi explains: Just as the Anokim were called Rephaim, etc., also the Eimim [were called Rephaim] — because whoever saw them, their hands became weak (<i>rafeh)</i> from fright. And they [the actual Rephaim] were called Eimim because of the people’s fear (<i>eimah</i>) of them, etc. This is how Rashi explains the context of these verses. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  I gave them the power, etc. [Although יירשום literally means, “He <i>will</i> drive them out.”] For any present progressive action may be expressed in the future tense or past tense. However, an action referring only to the present, as in (Shemos 15:1) אז ישיר משה (Literally: Then Moshe <i>will sing), must be explained as the thought to take action (<i>Re”m). </i></i>
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  To be further delayed in the wilderness. For as long as any of them survived, their children could not enter the Land.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  The word וידבר (He spoke) was not mentioned, only ויאמר (He said). I.e., the term “He spoke” was not used affectionately, for “He spoke <i>to me</i>” is not mentioned, as it is here. Instead it only said, “He spoke,” which lacks affection (<i>Maharitz</i>). You might ask that, in Parshas Beha’aloscha (Bamidbar 12:1) regarding the verse, “Miriam spoke,” Rashi explains: “Spoke” implies harsh speech — not affection, whereas “said” implies affection. The answer is: Anywhere it is written, “<i>Adonoy</i> spoke,” with the Tetragrammaton, it implies affection. Though it is harsh, it implies affection towards Moshe. But not, “Adonoy <i>said</i>,” for this can mean, “Adonoy said <i>through a messenger</i>.” As in (Bereishis 25:23), “Adonoy said to her,” which was through a messenger. And also as in (Shemos 18:6), “And he said to Moshe, ‘I am your father-in-law Yisro, etc.’” And also as in (Bereishis 48:1), “He said to Yoseif, ‘Behold your father is ill’.” In contrast, “he spoke,” implies affection, for it means, “(to be speaking) face-to-face,” as it says (Bamidbar 12:8), “Face-to-face I speak to him.” Although to any other prophet it would imply harsh speech, regarding Moshe it implies affection, as Hashem said, (ibid. v. 7), “Not so is My servant Moshe, etc.” See Maseches Ta’anis (30b). 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  That Avrohom swore to Avimelech, etc. Rashi is answering the question: How does, “Arise to travel and cross, etc.” relate to the previous verse? [For Scripture implies:] Since the Caftorim destroyed the Avim and settled in their stead, this is the reason to arise to travel! Rashi answers: “Because of the oath, etc.” 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  This teaches that the sun stood still, etc. For it is written here, “I begin to<i> place</i>,” and it says regarding Yehoshua (Yehoshua 10:12), “On the day that Adonoy <i>placed</i>, etc.” Just as the sun stood still over there, so too here, the sun stood still. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  Even though the Almighty did not command me, etc. Otherwise, what is the significance of קדמות (precedence)? Rashi comments: “Even though the Almighty did not command me, etc.” This implies that he holds that the verse, “When you near a city [to do battle against it] you are to offer it peace (below 20:10),” refers to an optional war. 
  Another explanation of “From the wilderness of Kedeimos”: From You I learned, etc. According to the first explanation there is a difficulty: Why does it is written קדמות (precedence)? There are many things that preceded the creation of the world. The verse should have been more specific. Therefore, Rashi says: “Another explanation, etc.” Yet according to the second explanation there is also a difficulty: Why does it say ממדבר (from the wilderness). It fits well if “wilderness” is referring to the Torah, for it was given in the wilderness. But if it is referring to the Almighty, then why does it say “wilderness”? Therefore, both explanations are necessary. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  This does not refer to [our] passing through their land, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse writes, “Food for money sell me... just let me cross on foot. As the descendants of Eisov did for me.” This implies that Edom [i.e., Eisov] allowed them to pass through their land. Yet, it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 20:21), “Edom refused... and the Israelites turned away from them.” For this reason, Rashi explains: “This does not refer to [our] passing through etc.” You might ask: The verse here implies that Moav also sold food and water to them, but in Parshas Ki Teitzei it is written (below 23:4), “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moavite shall enter into the community... because they did not greet you with bread and water.” <i>Re”m</i> answers: Perhaps there is a [significant] difference between קדמו (greeting [with food]) and השבירו (selling food). For the Moavites did not greet them with bread and water, but they did sell food and water to them. But the verse, “they did not greet you,” means without [charging] money. An alternative answer is: The verse means, “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moavite shall enter into the community — Ammon because they did not greet you, and Moav because they hired Bilaam against you, etc.” 
  This refers to the statement, “Let me pass through [your land].” And not to the statement, “Food for money sell me,” which immediately precedes it. Otherwise, what is the meaning of, “[Sell me food] until I will have crossed the Yardein”? It should say instead, “Until I will have crossed your border,” as it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 21:22). 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  He did not send for Og, etc. Because they were powerful.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  It (בנו) is written, etc. Since בנו lacks the letter <i>yud</i>, it [means “his son” and] implies that Sichon only had one son. Yet, since both syllables are vocalized with a <i>kamatz</i>, it [means “his sons” and] implies that he had many sons. Rather the word בנו indicates that Sichon had one son who was clearly recognizable as his son, for he was as mighty as his father. Therefore, it is written בנו (his son), without a <i>yud. And this verse is informing us that he was killed just as all his other sons were killed.
  </i>
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  All along Wadi Yabok. (Literally, “The hand of Wadi Yabok”). Since a person’s hand is always at his side, any edge can be referred to as “hand.” See Parshas Shemos regarding the verse (2:5), “Walking on the edge (יד) of the river.” 
  Not to capture, we left [uncaptured]. Literally, this verse implies that they did not attack what Hashem had commanded them to attack. Therefore, Rashi explains: “Not to capture, etc.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  I learned from this that, etc. I.e., from <i>Targum Yerushalmi</i> I learned that a palace is called טרכונין, and then we can learn from this that ארגוב also means a palace. The term הפרכיא, in other words, means the Royal Palace. 
  In other words the empire is called after its name. I.e., an important city.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  This is snow, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Since the letters of שרין are the same as the letters of שניר, except that the letters <i>resh and <i>nun switched places, then what is the reason [the verse needs to mention both]? Therefore, Rashi explains: Because of the snow it is called שניר [but it is not called שרין].
  </i></i>
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  The amoh of Og. Rashi is answering the question: It says in Maseches Berachos (54b) that Og uprooted a mountain that was three <i>parsoh </i>squared, implying that Og was a great giant. Yet in the verse here it is written that his bed was only “nine <i>amos</i> long and four <i>amos</i> wide in a man’s <i>amoh.</i>”<i> </i>If this refers to the <i>amoh</i> of the average man, then Og was only eight <i>amos</i> tall — twice as tall as an average person plus another <i>amoh</i>. If so, how then was he able to uproot a mountain? Therefore, Rashi explains: “The <i>amoh</i> of Og.” 
  
  Verse 12
  
  “Mentioned above, etc. I.e., it is not referring to the land mentioned afterwards, “From Aro’er which is on Wadi Arnon.” For the land they inherited at that time extended from Wadi Arnon to Mount Chermon, and not only from Aro’er until half of Mount Gilod. Rather, the verse means: “The land mentioned above that we took from the two kings, which extended from Wadi Arnon until Mount Chermon, we inherited it and fortified it.” Afterwards starts a new account: “From Aro’er which is on Wadi Arnon ... I gave to the Reuvenites and the Gaddites, and I gave the rest to half the tribe of Menashe, etc.” 
  This is not to be connected ... but with its conclusion, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that they only inherited this land, and they gave it to the Reuvenites and the Gaddites. And afterwards it is written, “And the rest of the Gilod ... I gave to half the tribe of Menashe.” But from where did they get this land, since they had not inherited any more land? For this reason Rashi explains: “This land” refers to the land mentioned above, “From Wadi Arnon to Mount Chermon,”, etc. In other words: The land mentioned above is what we inherited at that time, and from that land I gave to the Reuvenites, the Gaddites, and half the tribe of Menashe.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  That is the land which I gave to Avrohom. Rashi is answering the question: Above (2:11), it is also written, “The land of Rephaim”! However, this [land mentioned here] is the land of Rephaim that I gave to Avrohom. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Until its opposite bank etc. I.e., the inheritance of the Gaddites, which was on the eastern side of the Yardein, continues across the western edge of Wadi Arnon. For the verse, “and the border,” means: “This is the border [of their inheritance],” which continues until the wadi on the western side [of the Yardein]. And then it continues up until and includes Yabok. For, “even more,” also includes Yabok.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  This is on the western side of the Yardein, etc. I.e., the Kinneres is on the western side of the Yardein. Since the inheritance of the tribe of Gad was on the eastern side of the Yardein, we find that Gad’s inheritance extended from the eastern side of the Yardein along its entire width, and continued from [the eastern side of] the Yardein westward until the Kinneres. The phrase, “The Yardein and the border,” means that the Yardein itself is included in the inheritance, and also beyond until the Kinneres. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  He was speaking to Bnei Reuvein and Bnei Gad. Rashi is answering the question: The rebuke from the beginning of this book until now was all directed at the entire Bnei Yisroel. But how can, “Cross over in the forefront ahead of your brothers Bnei Yisroel,” be referring to the Bnei Yisroel? Is it possible for Bnei Yisroel to cross over ahead of Bnei Yisroel?! Rashi therefore explains: He was speaking to Bnei Reuvein and Bnei Gad. 
  They went ahead of Bnei Yisroel, etc. Otherwise, what is the meaning of, “ahead of Bnei Yisroel”? It should say instead, “<i>with</i> Bnei. Yisroel.”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  The word חנון everywhere signifies, etc. Otherwise, it should have said ואתפלל (I prayed). 
  Because [the Almighty] had said to him, etc. Rashi is saying: How did Moshe know to ask the Almighty even for an underserved gift, one that is not dependent upon good deeds? On this question Rashi explains, “I will be gracious, etc.” 
  There is another explanation: This is one of the ten terms. According to the first explanation there is a difficulty: Why is it not written ואתחנם (I asked for a free gift). Therefore Rashi says, “There is another explanation, etc.” But according to the second explanation there is a difficulty: Why does it not say ויחל (implored) as above (Shmos 32:11). 
  By which prayer is described, as is stated in Sifrei. The following [are the ten terms: 1.שועה. 2.צעקה. 3.נאקה (three types of crying out). 4.רנה (song). 5.פצור (press). 6.קריאה (call). 7.נפול (fall). 8.פלל (plead). 9.פגיעה (approach). 10.תחנה (supplicate). 
  After I had captured, etc. Rashi has the following difficulty: Above it is written (Devarim 3:21), “And Yehoshua I commanded <i>at that time</i>, etc.” which means at the time of capturing Sichon and Og. And, “I pleaded to Adonoy,” refers to that verse [therefore the phrase here, “at that time,” is apparently not necessary]. Rashi answers: After ... I imagined that the vow had been partially cancelled. Therefore, [at that time] I thought to pray in order to enter the land, etc. (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  I imagined that the vow had been cancelled. You might ask: Since the vow had been cancelled, why then did Moshe need to pray? The answer is that Moshe thought the following: Before the land of Sichon and Og were conquered, it did not occur to me to pray because the Almighty had made a decree along with a vow, and therefore prayer would not help. But after conquering the land, and Bnei Gad, Bnei Reuvein, and half the tribe of Menashe inherited it, I thought that perhaps the vow had been cancelled — for a vow which is partially cancelled becomes totally void. If so, then the Almighty’s decree is without a vow and thus prayer will help. 
  This is one of the three occasions, etc. <i>Re”m</i> writes that Rashi is difficult to understand. For <i>Sifrei</i> lists five places, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria mentions four occasions where Moshe said, etc., and they are all listed explicitly. If so, Rashi’s words do not match either opinion. But it seems to me [the answer is]: Rashi’s commentary, “This is one of the three occasions, etc.,” means that Moshe prayed for these things and requested for the Almighty to fulfill his request and to make known to him if his request will be fulfilled. Such as regarding Miriam (Bamidbar 12:13) where Moshe requested she should be healed from <i>tzara’as</i>. Also regarding (Ibid. 27:15), “Almighty, appoint etc.,” where Moshe requested that his sons inherit his position of leadership — as Rashi explains there. And also here, Moshe is praying to cross the Yardein. But the other two occasions quoted in <i>Sifrei </i>are different. “Moshe spoke before Adonoy saying, etc. (Shmos 6:12),” where Moshe requested to know if You would redeem them, etc. And also, when “Moshe cried out to Adonoy saying ‘What shall I do to this people,’, etc. (Ibid. 17:4),” where Moshe requested to know if he would fall into their hands, etc. These two occasions were only a request to be <i>informed</i>, but not a <i>request and prayer</i> for the Almighty to fulfill what he is asking for. This answer can be found here in Rashi’s words, if you read the text carefully.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Merciful in judgement. Rashi is answering the question: Hashem’s four-letter Name [Tetragrammaton] signifies His attribute of mercy, but the Name “Adonoy” signifies His attribute of justice [so how do we explain the two terms when they appear together]?. Therefore Rashi explains, “Merciful in judgement.” In other words, He judges with mercy, and not with harsh justice. An alternative approach is: Rashi is explaining why Hashem’s four-letter name here is vocalized as “Elohim,” with a <i>chataf-segol, cholam, and chirik,</i> and not in the usual manner? Therefore Rashi says, “Adonoy Elohim,” even though it is written as “Adonoy.” In other words, it is [primarily] the four-letter Name, but according to its vocalization it is as if “Elohim” were written. So Rashi explains: Even though the four-letter Name is Hashem’s attribute of mercy, it is vocalized as “Elohim” to signify that He is merciful in judgment. And the first Name of Adonoy that appears in the verse, Moshe only intended as an introductory remark, “My Master.” According to the first explanation, Rashi must have said, “Elohim,” because that is how the four-letter name is read. Although above in Parshas Lech Lecha it is written, “Adonoy Elohim what will you give me (Bereishis 15:2),” and Rashi offers no explanation. The answer is: The verse in Bereishis means to say: Whether out of justice, or whether out of mercy, I request for You to give me children because You had said to me, “Go for yourself from your homeland ... and I will make you into a great nation (Ibid. 12:1).” But here it is difficult to understand why it needs to say the Name Adonoy, which signifies Hashem’s attribute of justice. 
  An opportunity to stand and pray, etc. Otherwise, it should say, “You have shown Your servant etc.” As [the significance of, “<i>You have begun</i> to show,”] Rashi explains further on. 
  And now please magnify the Might. Afterwards it is written, “Adonoy said, ‘I have forgiven you as you said.’” In other words: Your attribute of goodness is that you forgive those who transgress Your will. 
  Which is extended to all who enter the world. It is extended to accept whoever repents. This is also part of Moshe’s prayer.
  You subdue with [Your] compassion, etc. This is also part of Moshe’s prayer. But it does not mean the same as, “For by [My] strong hand he will let them go (Shmos 6:1),” for how does this relate to Moshe’s prayer? 
  You are unlike a king of flesh and blood. This is also part of Moshe’s prayer. But it does not mean that there is none like You, as in, “For there is no power like You, etc. (Tehillim 81:8).” For how does this relate to Moshe’s prayer?
  
  Who has advisors and critics, etc. The term סנקנתדרין means “critics.” 
  But according to its simplistic sense [it means]; You have begun to show your servant, etc. Also according to its simplistic sense it is part of Moshe’s prayer. In other words: Since You have begun to show me the two wars with Sichon and with Og, show me also the wars with the thirty-one kings. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  The word נא is a term denoting a request. I.e., pertaining to the word נא appearing here. But [where it appears] elsewhere in the Torah it means, “now.” 
  A reference to Jerusalem. As it is written, “Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains (Tehillim 125:2).” 
  A reference to the Bais HaMikdosh. Why is the <i>Bais HaMikdosh</i> called, “Levanon”? Because it whitens (<i>m’labein </i>i.e., cleanses) a person of his sins.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  He was filled with wrath. The term ויתעבר is related to the term עברה (wrath).
  You caused this [to happen] to me, etc. I.e., Because I had said to you, “Listen you rebellious ones (Bamidbar 20:10),” on account of this sin Hashem decreed that I shall not enter the Land. Rashi quotes a proof: Similarly is states, “...and Moshe suffered harm because of them (Tehillim 106:32).” For that verse means the same as here: “Because of them,” means that Moshe suffered because they caused him harm. The word למענכם (lit., because of you) does not mean, “Because He is doing as you wish and you do not wish for me to enter the Land,” as in, “Because of you (למענכם) I was sent to Babylon (Yeshayah 43:14).” 
  So that people should not say “How harsh is the Master,”, etc. The term רב לך means, “master,” as if Hashem were saying: “Since I am your Master and you are my disciple, you must listen to your Master, and you may not stubbornly oppose Me so that, etc.” 
  Another explanation of רב לך, Much more than this, etc. The first reason is problematic, for the verse should say רב אני (I am your Master). Therefore, Rashi suggests, “Another explanation, etc.” But the second reason by itself is also problematic, for the verse should say רב טוב לך (great is the goodness) [that is hidden away for you]. Therefore, the first reason is also needed. 
  Great is the goodness that is hidden away for you. I.e., the goodness that is hidden away for you in the World to Come is greater than [the goodness] you would have from entering the Land.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  I will show you all of it, etc. Rashi is explaining how the Almighty is answering Moshe’s request to cross the Yardein. For how does, “Go up to the peak of the Pisgah ... see with your own eyes, etc,” relate to Moshe’s question? Rashi explains: You asked of Me to see [only] the good mountain and the Levanon, which refers to Yerusholayim and the Beis Hamikdosh — the best of all the Land. But I will show you <i>all</i> of it, which is more than you had requested. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  Regarding the troubles, the burdens, etc. As the verse says (above 1:12), “Your troublesomeness, your burdensomeness, and your contentiousness.” For if וצו (command) is referring to אמצהו וחזקהו (embolden him and encourage him), then וחזקהו would not be preceded by a <i>vov (and), which implies that besides the command given to Yehoshua, you are also to encourage him and embolden him. We see from this that the command is one matter, and “encourage him and embolden him,” is a separate matter. </i>
  With your words so that he will not become faint- hearted, etc. I.e., not with your actions, for you are not able to encourage him and embolden him except with words. In other words, I assure him that he will cross over. For afterwards Rashi says: “He will cross over, etc.” We see from this that the encouraging and emboldening is with speech. 
  If he will cross at the head [of this people] they will possess [the land], but if not, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse only needed to say ינחיל (and he will apportion), etc. Rather the [extra] word והוא (and he) is intended to teach us that only when <i>he will cross, then they will possess, but if not, etc. </i>
  And when he fell on his face, he [Hashem] said to him, etc. I.e., when the Israelites were being killed in the war against Ai, Yehoshua fell [in supplication] before Hashem. 
  It [the word קם] is written [without the vov], etc. In other words: [The defeat was] because you remained in your place and did not go with them.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  And you attached yourselves to idolatry, etc. Rashi is saying: The preceding verse was dealing with the Almighty’s response to Moshe, that he shall not enter the Land. [So now,] Moshe says to the Jewish People, “We lived in the valley,” meaning that you attached yourselves to idolatry and sinned by worshipping it. Nevertheless they are told, “And now Yisroel, etc.” I.e., despite this, you will enter the Land, but I, etc. [Rashi explains in this way,] even though “And now, etc.,” is a separate paragraph. There are other verses that are understood in the same way, such as, “And it was after the plague. And Adonoy said to Moshe, etc. (Bamidbar 26:1).” You might ask: Why does Moshe mention this sin more than any other that they committed in the wilderness? The answer is: Moshe mentions the sin of facing Beis Peor to say that even though they sinned, the Almighty will forgive them through Moshe’s burial [being there]. For this is the reason that Moshe is buried outside the Land, as it is written in Parshas Vezos Habracha (below 34:6), “He buried him in the valley, in the land of Moav facing Beis Peor.” And Rashi explains there that Moshe was buried facing Beis Peor, outside the Land, to atone for their sin of idolatry that they committed in Beis Peor (attributed to the <i>Maharitz</i>). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  This refers to the study of the Mishnah. “Preserve,” is to study, and “fulfill” is to uphold the mitzvos. For whoever does not learn, does not fulfill. 
  Through this you will be considered wise, etc. Rashi changes the nouns, “wisdom and understanding,” into adjectives. This is because wisdom and understanding are not valued by the nations in their own right, and therefore it would not be logical for the verse to say, “In the eyes of the nations.” Rashi therefore adds the word תחשבו (you will be considered), meaning that, “your status will be considered as wise and understanding in their eyes.”
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  That are proper and acceptable. Rashi intends to explain: How can the expression “righteous” apply to statutes and laws? For this expression applies only to people! Therefore Rashi explains: “Righteous” [means] “that are proper, etc.,” [an expression] which is applicable to statutes. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Will you be considered wise and understanding, etc. Rashi intends to explain: Why it is written רק (only), which is an exclusionary term? For what is being excluded here? Therefore Rashi says: “Only” is referring to the above verse, “For that displays your wisdom and your understanding etc.” Under which conditions will you be considered wise and understanding? If you do not forget them, etc.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  On the day you stood at Choreiv, etc. One should not say, “You should make known (תודיע) to your children the day you stood,” because והודעתם is written with the suffix <i>mem</i>, meaning “them.” This implies that it is referring to the above, “Lest you forget <i>the words</i> your eyes witnessed ... you will make <i>them known,” meaning to make the words known. If it were referring to the verse following, it should say only, “You should make known to your children.” [<i>Gur Aryeh]. </i></i>
  For themselves. Rashi is saying: The word ילמדון, which Unkelos translates as ילפון, means, “They will learn for themselves.” But the word ילמדון later on, which the <i>Targum translates as יאלפון, means, “They will teach others.”
  </i>
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  This refers to the Oral Law. Rashi is answering the question: “[Adonoy] commanded me,” definitely refers to the previous verse, “He told you His covenant ... <i>the ten statements</i>.” But if the Almighty commanded Moshe to teach the Jewish People at that time (when they had only been commanded the ten statements), then what is “statutes and laws” referring to? Rather, it must refer to the Oral Law that accompanied the ten statements, which includes their general rules, particular details, and all the <i>mitzvos</i> contained in them. <i>Gur Aryeh</i> explains: [Rashi says, “the Oral Law,”] because it is written, “to teach.” For regarding the Written Law, the word, “give,” would be more appropriate. Since it is written, a person is able to learn it by himself [without being taught].
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  To speculate about the matter and to set your heart, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “Or lest you raise your eyes [heavenward], etc.” But will a person come to worship them just because he raises his eyes heavenward? Therefore, Rashi explains: “To speculate about the matter, etc.”
  
  To provide them with light. Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “And worship them ... has made them available, etc.” But did the Holy One Blessed Is He make them available for all the peoples <i>to worship them</i>? 
  Another explanation: [He made them available] as deities. He did not prevent them, etc. Hashem did not make them available as deities, for He did not create them for this purpose. However, He did not prevent them, etc. Rather, He caused them to slip with matters of nonsense, for it appears to them that the benefit they get is attained by worshipping the stars. But in reality they are bad, [and their purpose is] to banish the people. 
  From blundering after them, etc. The first explanation is problematic, for why does it say, “to them”? Do the stars shine only for them? Therefore, Rashi says, “Another explanation.” Yet, the second explanation is problematic, for why did Hashem create something in the first place that will cause people to err? Is it not written, “The world was built with kindness (Tehillim 89:3)”? Therefore, both reasons are necessary.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  The likeness of any object. Rashi is answering the question: Wherever the word כל (any or all) is written in Scripture, the word afterwards is connected to it. Many examples are found, such as in this Parsha: “All the years (v. 10),” and “Any form (v. 16).” Therefore Rashi explains that it is as if Scripture had written, “any <i>object.” </i>
  That He commanded you not to make. Rashi is answering the question: Did the Holy One Blessed Is He command you to make an image [as a literal reading of the verse would imply]? Therefore, Rashi explains: That He commanded you <i>not</i> to make. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  He is jealous to take vengeance, etc. Rashi explains: He is not called “jealous,” because He has the attribute of jealousy (God forbid), for He is neither jealous, nor angry, nor quarrelsome. Rather, He is called “jealous,” because He quarrels and shows anger to punish idol worshippers. Since the vengeance only comes as a result of the jealousy, therefore “A jealous Almighty,” is written instead of, “A vengeful Almighty.” 
  
  Verse 25
  
  Eight hundred and fifty-two years etc. It is written regarding the building of the first <i>Beis Hamikdosh</i> (Melochim I, 6:1), “And it was in the four hundred and eightieth year, etc,” and the first <i>Beis Hamikdosh </i>stood for 410 years [for a total of 890 years until the first exile]. Subtract from them the forty years that the Jewish People were in the wilderness which is included in the total, because the verse counts the time of leaving Egypt. We find that they were in the Land for only 850 years. They did not reach 852 years, the numerical value of ונושנתם, as Rashi explains. 
  “For Adonoy our God is righteous He acted charitably etc.” Rashi is answering the question: How is it righteous of Hashem that He precipitated the evil and brought it upon us? The answer is that it was righteous of God to bring the evil before the time of ונושנתם [after 852 years, when the Jewish people would “have grown old in the Land” and deserve to be completely destroyed, as stated below in v.26]. See Maseches Sanhedrin 38a. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  I have designated them to be witnesses, etc. I.e., they are witnesses as to Hashem’s warning, but they are not witnesses as to the committing of the sin. For the Jewish People had not yet done evil in Hashem’s eyes.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Since you will serve those who worship them, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Just because Hashem will disperse them among the peoples, they will serve man-made gods? The answer is: As the Targum, etc.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  He will not cause you to be weakened, etc. I.e., the word ארפנו [<i>erpenu</i>], is the simple (קל), intransitive verb form. For example, “Behold, the day faded (רפה) into evening (Shoftim 19:9),” and, “Their spirit subsided (רפתה) (ibid. 8:3).” Therefore, Rashi explains that לא ירפך [<i>yarpecha, rather than <i>yerpecha], is the causative (הפעיל), transitive verb form. Its meaning is, “He will not cause you to be weakened.” (<i>Re”m). </i></i></i>
  The word ארפנו [arpenu] is not vocalized ארפנו [erpenu], etc. I.e., the word ארפנו should not be vocalized with a <i>shva </i>under the <i>aleph</i>, and a <i>patach</i> under the <i>reish</i>, it would be a form of the word, “heal (רפא).” But now that ארפנו is vocalized with a <i>patach</i> under the <i>aleph</i> and a <i>shva under the <i>reish, it is a form of the word, “weaken (רפה).” </i></i>
  “Leave her alone” — let her be released, etc. Its meaning is, “Let her be released,” which is an example of the causative verb form. 
   “Leave Me alone” — release yourself from Me. Its meaning is, “Leave Me alone,” which is an example of the reflexive verb form. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  Regarding the early years. [Rashi inserts, “regarding”] because one cannot inquire of years. 
  Regarding the height of Adam etc. For it is written, “That Hashem created Adam on earth [and from one end of the heavens, etc.]” 
  Which reached from earth to heaven, etc. The phrase, “And from one end of the heavens,” means, “the height of Adam was from earth to heaven.” For if understood simply, then what is the meaning of, “[Inquire ... from the day Hashem created Adam] until the end of the heavens”? 
  Which is the same measurement, etc. [On one hand] the verse implies [that Adam’s height was] “from one end of the world until the other,” as it is written, “and from one end of the heavens to the other end of the heavens [east to west].” Yet, [on the other hand] it implies that Adam’s height was “from the earth until the heavens,” as it is written, “...on earth until one end of the heavens.” How can this be resolved? Rather, it is the same measurement, etc. In other words, the circumference of the heavens — its uppermost limit — is one end [of the heavens], and the center of heaven — which is the earth — is the other end [of the heavens], and this measurement is exactly the same as, “from the heaven until the earth.” It is as if the verse says, “From one end of the heaven until the other, which is from the heaven until the earth.” According to this, the expressions, “From the earth until the firmament,” and, “From the earth until one end of the heavens,” and, “From one end of the heavens until the other end of the heavens,” and, “From one end of the world until the other end,” are all the same, they only differ in what they are called.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  The word הראת according to Targum Unkelos means “You were shown”, etc. I.e., the word הראת means, “you were shown,” rather than, “you showed.” Otherwise, the Targum should say אחזית (you showed) instead of איתחזיתא.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  And all this was because He loved [your fathers]. Rashi is answering the question: Why is the word ותחת (and because) written with a letter <i>vov? Rashi answers: Because it is a continuation of the previous verses, “...and all this, etc.” </i>
  Like a man who leads his son before him, etc. The word בפניו (literally, “in His presence,”) here means לפניו (before Him). Similarly (below 25:9), “And she shall spit before him (בפניו).” Also, according to Rashi’s second explanation, בפניו means “before him.” The only difference is that in the second explanation, “before him,” refers to the forefathers. 
  Do not be puzzled that it refers to them (the fathers) in the singular, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why then is it written, “before <i>him</i>”? According to the second explanation above, “before him” refers to their fathers, [so why then is] in the singular form? Rashi explains: “And He chose <i>his</i> descendants after <i>him</i>.” In other words: Consider even the first explanation where, “before <i>him</i>,” poses no difficulty because it refers to Hashem. Nevertheless the phrase, “...your forefathers, He chose <i>his</i> descendants after <i>him</i>,” is difficult to understand. For it must be that, “He chose <i>his</i> etc,” refers to the forefathers, even according to the first explanation. Nevertheless it says, “his descendants after <i>him</i>,” which is in the singular form. If so, even according to the second explanation where, “before him,” also refers to the fathers, it is not difficult to understand, though it is written in the singular form. And both explanations are necessary: The first explanation is problematic, for it should say, “And He took you out <i>and led you</i> before Him.” Therefore Rashi says, “Another explanation, etc.” But the second explanation alone is also problematic — since the forefathers already had died, then what is the meaning of, “in front of him”? Therefore the first explanation is also needed.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  He gave thought in his heart to be concerned about the matter, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The word אז (then) means immediately. Yet the word יבדיל (set aside) is in the future tense. Therefore, Rashi explains that it refers to his intentions [I.e., Moshe intended then to set the cities aside in the future]. But <i>Re”m explains: Setting aside these cities is not an ongoing action, thus the present tense does not apply to it. Therefore Rashi explains that it refers to his intentions. In other words, Moshe constantly had in mind to set aside these cities until they were actually set aside. </i>
  On that side which is, etc. Rashi is explaining: “Across the Yardein” may refer to the eastern side [of the Yardein] or to [the western side of the Yardein, ie.,] the side of the Land of Israel. Therefore the verse says, “where the sun rises,” to let us know which side of the Yardein it refers to, and that it is not the [western] side of the Land of Israel where the sun sets. 
  The letter reish is vocalized with a chataf. I.e., it is vocalized with a <i>sheva</i>, which is called a <i>chataf</i>.
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  They are the very same [testimonies, etc.] that he spoke when they went out of Egypt, etc. Otherwise, why does the verse say here that Moshe addressed Bnei Yisroel when they came out of Egypt? Rashi explains that, “These are the testimonies,” is connected to, “And this is the Torah (v. 44).” Meaning: This is the Torah, [referring to] the testimonies set forth after this chapter, are the very same testimonies that Moshe spoke when they went out of Egypt, and they were reviewed and taught to Bnei Yisroel in the plains of Moav. The verses are [as if they were] abridged. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  [Not with our forefathers] alone did Adonoy make this, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that Hashem gave the Ten Commandments exclusively to us, and not to our fathers who already died. But, many were alive when the Torah was given, in the year after leaving Egypt. This covenant was also made with them, though now they are not alive. Therefore, Rashi explains: Not with our forefathers <i>alone</i> did Adonoy make this covenant, etc., but also with us. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  The seller himself, etc. This is the meaning of, “Face to face.”
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  [The word לאמר (saying)] is connected with, “Adonoy spoke etc.” For how could it be that, “Saying,” is connected to the phrase that immediately precedes it, “and did not go up on the mountain saying”? For what did they have to say on the mountain? Rather, the verse interrupts between [the phrases], “from within the fire,” and, “saying.” This is to emphasize that I [Moshe] was the agent between Hashem and you, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up on the mountain. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  In any place where I am, etc. This explanation is problematic, for the verse should have said בפני (in My Presence). Therefore Rashi says, “Another explanation.” Yet the second explanation is problematic, for the verse should have said לעולם (forever). [According to the second explanation] it is possible to err, God forbid [and think that idolatry is only forbidden on Har Sinai where Hashem revealed Himself. Therefore Rashi also says the first explanation. See above in Parshas Yisro (Shmos 20:3), where I explained why Rashi gives two reasons here, yet above he only says one. Also see the <i>Gur Aryeh. </i>
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Were pronounced simultaneously as one word, etc. When it previously states that when, “Remember,” was said, “Preserve,” was also said — for both were miraculously pronounced as one word, etc. And unlike the other commandments, Rashi explains this once again here and does not rely on his explanation above (Shmos 20:8). This is because it is written here, “As [Adonoy, your God,] commanded you,” which is the basis for the teaching that, “Remember,” and, “Preserve,” were pronounced as one word. Therefore Rashi repeated his explanation here, in its proper place. 
  Before the giving of the Torah at Marah. The verse (above 4:45), “These are the statutes, etc.,” implies that the Ten Commandments here were said exactly the same as they were said above. If so, how could Moshe add here, “As Adonoy commanded you, etc.”? [Therefore, it cannot refer to the first Ten Commandments, but it must refer to Marah.]. Rashi explains likewise in Maseches Sanhedrin 56b: Moshe could not have said, “As Adonoy commanded you <i>at Sinai</i>” in the plains of Moav. For Moshe did not repeat the <i>Mishnah Torah </i>and warn about its commandments of his own accord. Rather, he repeated them just as he had received them. And whatever was written in the repetition of the Ten Commandments was written on the Tablets, and was heard at Sinai. See further in Tosefos (Maseches Shabbos 87b) where a difficulty is raised: Perhaps “As Adonoy commanded, etc.,” refers to the manna (Shmos 16:23) where Hashem also commanded them regarding Shabbos. The answer is: Regarding honoring one’s father and mother it is also written (v.16), “as Adonoy commanded, etc,” which cannot refer to the manna. For regarding the manna, Hashem did not command them about honoring one’s father and mother. Therefore, “as Adonoy commanded” mentioned regarding Shabbos also does not refer to the manna. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  He freed you on the condition, etc. Because Hashem knows that it is difficult for them to abstain from work. We find this regarding Purim, that they accepted upon themselves a day of drinking and rejoicing, but not for [abstaining from] work (Maseches Megillah 5b). Therefore, he mentions to them that they were slaves. That is to say, when a master tells his slave to abstain from work, it is only right that the slave obeys him because the work [he does] is only for his master. Otherwise, why is slavery mentioned here? [Maharai]. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  The term נאוף (adultery), etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain this [commandment] more than the other Ten Commandments? The answer is that Rashi is answering the question: Why is the letter <i>vov </i>in ולא תנאף necessary? Rashi answers: The term “adultery” is applicable only in reference to a married woman. Additionally, the <i>vov</i> indicates that “do not commit adultery” is a continuation of the preceding matter, “Do not murder.” In other words: Be careful with the commandment, “Do not murder,” and through this you will distance yourself from many other transgressions. One [such transgression] is, “Do not commit adultery.” For one [who wishes to commit adultery] will think, “perhaps the husband will not hand over his wife,” and because of this he may commit murder. So too with all [the commandments] mentioned afterwards. See <i>Kitzur Mizrachi for a different explanation. </i>
  
  Verse 18
  
  Which is also an expression of desiring, etc. I.e., one should not ask: [Why] over there (Shmos 20:14) is it written לא תחמוד (do not covet), but here it is written לא תתאוה (lit., do not desire)? Rashi explains: Which is also, etc. And therefore the Targum says לא תירוג, which is an expression of desiring. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Because His voice is strong and eternal, etc. The first explanation is problematic, for it is obvious. Since the sound of His voice is strong [and eternal] the first time, why then would His voice pause? Therefore Rashi says, “Another explanation, etc.” But the second explanation is problematic. Why does it say יסף [which can mean “stop”]? It should say יוסיף [which clearly means, “did not continue”]! Therefore Rashi also gives the first explanation. 
  In such a public demonstration. The word פומבי means, “a public demonstration.”
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  You have diminished my strength like that of a woman, etc. For the second-person masculine is אתה, and the second-person feminine is את.
  
  For I was distressed about you and you weakened my hands, etc. Everyone raises the question: Had not Hashem agreed to their words and said, “Everything they said is excellent (v. 25)”? The answer is: [This verse] is presenting Moshe’s opinion, for he suspected the reason for their speaking in this manner was because they were not anxious to come near to Him out of love. And [in the next verse] Hashem says to Moshe that the reason for their speaking in this manner was because of their fear of Him. Hashem said all this to remove Moshe’s suspicion of the Jewish People.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Adonoy Who is presently our God, etc. Otherwise it should say, “Listen, Yisroel! Adonoy is one.” Rather, the verse means: Listen, Yisroel! Now He is only [recognized as] our God, but the time will come, etc. In other words, all the idolaters will acknowledge that He is One in heaven and on earth, and in all four directions. And this is the Oneness that our sages derive from this verse, as Scripture says (Zechariah 14:9), “On that day Adonoy will be King...Adonoy will be One, etc.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  You are to obey His words because of your love [for Him], etc. [<i>Re”m</i> says:] I do not understand. For here Rashi explains, “You are to love — You are to obey His words (commands) because of your love [for Him], etc.” This apparently refers to all the mitzvos. And afterwards Rashi explains, “With all your soul — even if He were to take your soul.” This implies to give up one’s life rather than transgress [any mitzvah]. Yet in [Maseches] Sanhedrin (74a) it says that “With all your soul” means, “even if He were to take your soul.” And Rashi explains there: The verse, “You are to love Adonoy, your God,” means that you should not exchange Him for idolatry. Therefore it says “with all your soul,” meaning that your love for Him should be more dear to you than anything else. This implies that the verse is referring only to idolatry, but regarding other mitzvos one should rather transgress rather than give up his life! <i>Re”m</i> leaves this question unresolved. (See also the <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i> and <i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  With your two inclinations. Rashi is answering the question: Why is the letter <i>beis</i> written twice in the word לבבך (your heart)? Rashi explains: With your two inclinations.
  Another interpretation “with all your heart” — your heart should not be fragmented, etc. The first interpretation is problematic, for is the heart actually a person’s inclination that the verse could say [about the heart], “with your two inclinations”? Therefore Rashi says, “Another interpretation, etc.” Yet the second interpretation is problematic, for why does it say לבבך (with the letter <i>beis written twice)? It should say instead לבך. Therefore, the first interpretation is also needed. </i>
  There are men whose wealth, etc. Otherwise, Scripture should write only one of them [either heart or soul], and we would derive the other from it. Why are both needed? Rather, there are men, etc. Both are stated so as not to leave room for the evil inclination. Likewise it is explained in Maseches Yuma 82a, and in Maseches Sanhedrin 74a (<i>Maharan</i>). 
  Another interpretation ... with what ever measure, etc. The first interpretation is problematic, for it should have said ממונך (your wealth). Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation, etc.” Yet the second interpretation is problematic, for it should have said מדך (your measure). Therefore the first interpretation is also needed. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  What is the form of love, etc. Otherwise, how is it possible to love something that one has never seen or comprehended? But by the means of these words (the commandments) being on your heart, through them you will recognize Hashem. For if the world were not created according to His will, then He would not have given us commandments. And because you will know that He is the Creator and He is the source of everything, you will love Him and desire to know Him. 
  Which no one takes seriously, etc. The term סופנה means, “importance.”
  
  But rather like a newly given one which is read eagerly by all, etc. For this reason it is written, “today,” i.e., as if it was [first] said today. Otherwise, what is the meaning of “today”? Had not already forty years passed since it (and the entire Torah) was commanded to the Jewish People. <i>Re”m</i> writes likewise regarding the verse (7:11), “...today, to fulfill.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  [The word שננתם] is an expression of sharpness, etc. This is the same term as in, “<i>Sharp</i> (שנונים) arrows of the mighty (Tehillim 120:4).” But it is not from the term משנה (teach), otherwise it should say ולמדתם (teach them) [as we find in the second paragraph of the Shema (<i>Re”m)]. </i>
  [In this instance בניך] refers to the disciples, etc. If it actually means “sons,” then why is it necessary to say? For it is written previously (v. 2), “You and your son and your grandson,” but here it is written only, “your sons”! Rather, it must be referring to the disciples. 
  Your main discussions should be only about them, etc. Otherwise it should say ודברת אותם (speak them). Rather the word בם emphasizes to speak, “about them,” and not about other matters. 
  It is therefore stated, “When you sit at home and when you journey”, etc. It seems to me that Rashi should be explained as follows: One should not say that, “When you go to sleep and when you rise,” should be taken literally — meaning even at midday or midnight. For it is written, “When you sit at home and when you journey on the road, and when you go to sleep and when you rise.” If so, a person should recite the Shema all day and all night. And if this is so, then it should say, “You are to discuss them day and night.” Rather, the Torah speaks of the usual way of life, etc. And then [it follows that], “When you go to sleep and when you rise,” is an explanation of, “When you sit at home and when you journey on the road.” The verse should be understood as: “When you sit at home, etc.” And [exactly] when? “At the time of sleeping and arising,” which is morning and evening. (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>).
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  It is due to the number of Scriptural sections [contained in them] that they are called totafos, etc. I.e., it is as if the word, “two,” is written twice. The word טט means “two.” 
  For טט in Coptic language means two. In the Coptic language when they wish to say, “two,” they say טט. 
  And פת in the African language means two. In the African language when they wish to say, “two,” they say פת. This is [a total of] four. In other words, four Scriptural sections are contained in each of the <i>tefillin</i>. See <i>Tosefos in Sanhedrin (4b) for further elaboration. </i>
  
  Verse 9
  
  Only one is necessary. Meaning that one doorway [with two doorposts] does not require two <i>mezuzos</i>. Rather, each entrance in the house needs [only] one. This [explanation of Rashi] disagrees with the opinion that says [even] a doorway that has only a doorpost on  one side requires a <i>mezuzah</i>. (Menachos 34a). 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  From the place where you were slaves. The meaning of “from the house of slavery,” is, “from the place where you were slaves.” The verse does not mean [literally], “from the house of slaves,” for the Jewish People were not enslaved to slaves. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  If you possess all these qualities, etc. The meaning is not [as inferred by the simple reading of the text] that it is it a <i>mitzvah </i>to swear, as in “Fear Adonoy,” and, “serve Him,” where each is a separate <i>mitzvah</i>. Rather, if you possess all these qualities, etc. otherwise you should not swear. And if so, then the prefix <i>vov</i> of ובשמו is extra, and the word אם (if) should be added before, “[You] fear Adonoy.” (<i>Re”m).
  </i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Do not hold them in esteem, etc. This interpretation is problematic, for it should say  תחנן with the letter <i>nun</i>, which is the term for esteem. Alternatively, it should say תחונם, spelled with a <i>vov. Therefore Rashi says, “Another interpretation: Do not give them an encampment.” In other words: Even if you do not make a treaty, but think to [let them live with you and] tax them. Therefore it says not to give them any settlement at all in the Land. The second explanation is problematic, for then the verse should only state not to give them any settlement in the Land (לא תחנם), and all the more so [we would know that] it is forbidden to make a treaty with them. Therefore the first explanation is also needed. </i>
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Who is born of a gentile, is considered your son, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse, “For he will turn your son,” seems to be giving a reason for the previous verse. But for what is it giving a reason? It cannot refer to the beginning of the verse, “Do not give your daughter to his son,” for then it should say, “For he will turn your <i>daughter</i>, etc.” And it cannot refer to the end of the verse, which is the simple understanding: “Nor take his daughter for your son,” and this is why it is written, “will turn <i>your son</i>.” This cannot be true, for it is written, “For <i>he</i> will turn, etc,” but it should say in the feminine form, “For <i>she</i> will turn.” Rather, if the son of the gentile, etc. In other words: For he will turn him away from Me, but your son’s son born of a gentile woman is not considered your son. For this reason the Torah is not concerned with him, because he is already turned away.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  On account of His keeping the oath. This prefix <i>mem</i> is not in place of the word מן (from), which is usual in most instances. Rather it should be interpreted as, “because.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  But below it states: “For thousands of generations,” etc. In other words: Those who keep His commandments out of fear [are rewarded] for a thousand generations, and those who do so out of love [are rewarded] for two thousand generations. Even though it is also written here, “those who love Him,” before, “those who keep His commandments,” One may say: “Those who love Him” is connected to the previous phrase, “Who keeps the covenant and the kindliness.” And, “Those who keep,” is connected to the phrase written afterwards. Likewise above (5:10) it is written, “two thousand,” and it is also written, “for those who guard.” There also, the answer is similar: “For those who love,” is connected to the phrase preceding it, which is, “For two thousand.” And “For those who keep,” [are rewarded] for a thousand generations.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  During his lifetime He rewards him for his good deeds, etc. Otherwise, this verse is self-contradictory: First it says that He rewards even His enemies for their good deeds, but afterwards it is written, “to destroy him.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  And tomorrow in the World to Come, etc. Rashi is explaining that the word, “today,” is connected to the word [following], “to fulfill,” not to the preceding [phrase], “I am commanding you,” for the commandment was not given  today.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  If, even the lesser commandments, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written עקב, which means “because of,” and implies they will definitely heed these laws, as we find regarding Avraham. There it is written (Bereishis 26:5), “Because (עקב) you have heeded My voice etc,” and Avraham definitely listened to His voice and wished to slaughter his son. If so, here also it implies they will definitely listen. But it says (Megillah 25a), “Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven.” Therefore Rashi explains that עקב means [“heel,” referring to] the lesser commandments (i.e., those commandments that people do not regard as being worth much reward). Therefore Rashi also says, “<i>If, even the lesser commandments,” meaning, it is not definite. Additionally, because משפטים here refers to <i>all the commandments and not just to monetary matters — since monetary matters are not mentioned here — then how can the verse say האלה (these)? Therefore, Rashi changes [the meaning of] the word משפטים [usually referring to monetary laws] to מצות [commandments, in general]. (<i>Re”m). Another explanation is that Rashi is answering the question: The verse should say, “If you will heed the commandments,” as it is written in Parshas Ki Savo (below 28:1), “If you will heed,” and (ibid v. 15), “If you will not heed.” Therefore it is written עקב, to imply “the lesser commandments etc.” </i></i></i>
  He will keep His promise to you. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture writes ושמר, which implies that Hashem will fulfill His oath. But, why should He not fulfill His oath? Therefore, Rashi explains: He will keep His promise to you. Additionally, Rashi says the word ישמור (He will keep) instead of ושמר. This shows that the prefix <i>vav does not mean “and,” rather, the <i>vav reverses the past tense to the future tense. </i></i>
  
  Verse 13
  
  Which the female casts out from her womb. I.e., the offspring are called שגר, related to the term “cast out.” And והבקרים אלפים is related to, “Our cattle (אלופנו) are laden (Tehillim 144:14).” 
  The strong bulls of Bashan means the choicest of the flock, etc. I.e., Bashan is the name of a place. And there they have the choicest of the flock, i.e., healthy and strong. Therefore the flocks are called עשתרת, which is an expression of strength. 
  Similar to עשתרת קרנים which expresses strength, etc. Even though קרנים is not written here, but since we find elsewhere in Scripture that עשתרת [ — written with קרנים — clearly] is an expression of strength. [Therefore] every instance where it is written עשתרות it is explained as “strength,” even though קרנים is not written. 
  Our Sages said: “Why are they called עשתרות, etc. Our Sages do not disagree with Menachem’s explanation, for they also hold that עשתרות expresses strength. Otherwise, our Sages will be contradicting themselves. For in Parshas Ki Savo (below 28:4), regarding עשתרות צאנך Rashi explains: “As Onkelos translates. And our Sages said, ‘Why are they called עשתרות? Because they enrich their owners and strengthen them, like these עשתרות which are mighty cliffs.’” This indicates that our Sages also hold that עשתרות is an expression of strength, just as Menachem. Rather, they disagree on this point: Menachem explains that עשתרות refers to the [condition of the] flocks, but our Sages explain that it refers to [the condition of] their owners. <i>Re”m explains similarly below (ibid). </i>
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  And it is impossible to explain [the word כי] according to any other meanings of, etc. In other words, the word כי cannot mean, “because,” or, “rather,” for these terms cannot begin an idea. The word כי also cannot mean, “if,” for it is not possible to say, “If you will say [i.e., think] this, then do not think it.” For if you have already thought it, it is not possible to say that you should not think it. Furthermore, [if the word כי means “if”] then the verse would imply: If you think… then do not fear them. But if you do not think… then fear them. But this is not correct. Rashi explains in this manner in Gittin (90a). 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  This refers to the pestilence. As it is written (Shmos 9:3), “Behold the hand of Adonoy is directed at your livestock, etc.” 
  This is a reference to the sword of the plague of (the Egyptian) first born. As it is written, “And his [the angel’s] sword was drawn in his extended arm upon Yerushalayim (Divrei Hayomim I 21:16).” Some explain this verse simply — that it refers to the sword Hashem had used to smite the first born. Others explain that the first born smote their fathers. For the first born knew they would be smitten because of the Jewish People, so they told their fathers to expel them from Egypt. Their fathers did not listen, so they [fought against their fathers and] killed thousands of them. And this is stated in the verse, “Who smote Egypt through their first born (Tehillim 136:10).” (<i>Kolbo</i> and <i>Avudrohom</i>). 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  But is it not true that if they do the will of the Omnipresent, etc. Above in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:29) I explained why Rashi did not say this reason.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  This can be understood in its plain sense. I.e., the word מצוה (lit., commandment) refers to a [whole] category, as if it said, “all the commandments.” 
  There is also a Midrashic explanation: If you began to fulfill a mitzvah, complete it, etc. I.e., the word כל is related to the word, “And Hashem <i>completed</i> (ויכל) on the seventh day, etc. (Bereishis 2:2).” Alternatively, the word כל is related to the word כלה (entire). In other words, you should perform the <i>mitzvah in its entirety — if you begin to fulfill it, complete it. According to this, the word מצוה written in this verse refers to “a single commandment.”
  </i>
  
  Verse 2
  
  Not to test Him and not to be critical of Him. Rashi is answering the question: Just because Hashem oppresses them will they guard His commandments? [Therefore] Rashi explains the verse as, “Adonoy oppressed them in order to know… will you guard His commandments.” I.e., that you are not to test Him, etc. It is at if the verse says: ...to know if you will be critical of Him <i>after He oppresses you</i> and say, “Why do I need His commandments?” 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  As they grew, etc. Rashi is answering the question: What is this verse teaching us, that by storing their garments in a chest they did not wear out? Rashi explains: Even though their garments were on them [i.e., they were worn] for forty years, they did not wear out. And the reason for this is because the clouds of Divine Glory, etc. This is the significance of מעליך (on you). I.e., even though they wore the garments. 
  This usually happens to those who walk barefoot, etc. You might ask: It says in Parshas Ki Savo (below 29:4), “and your shoe did not shred from your foot,” which implies that they wore shoes! The answer is: That verse there refers to the Jews who left Egypt who had shoes — those shoes did not shred. Rashi’s explanation here refers to the Jews who were born in the wilderness who did not have shoes. However <i>Re”m</i> explains that, “This usually happens to those who walk barefoot,” is only describing the type of swelling, but they were not actually barefoot, etc. And according to this explanation, one should not ask: What is the significance of “nor did your foot swell”? Since they did not walk barefoot, is this not obvious? The answer is: Indeed this is so. The verse teaches us that their shoes did not shred from their feet. It should be understood as follows: Your foot did not swell (which usually happens to those who walk barefoot); and this is because you did not have to walk barefoot, since your shoes did not shred. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Olives that produce oil. I.e., there are two species of olives, and one of them does not produce oil. Therefore it needed to write, “oil-olives.” Alternatively, [Rashi’s explanation is] because we say that the Land of Israel is praised for seven items. But if you count, “olive,” and, “oil,” separately, then you will find eight items. Therefore Rashi explains: “Olives that produce oil.” I.e., it is only <i>one</i> item.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  You are powerful, etc. Otherwise why does it say, “than you”? It would suffice to say, “to come inherit nations great and powerful.”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  My righteousness and the wickedness of the nations was the cause. Rashi is answering the question: In the beginning of the verse it is written, “Do not think ... Because of my righteousness and because of the wickedness of these nations, etc.,” which implies that neither of these reasons caused the Jewish People to inherit. Yet afterwards it is written, “Not because of your righteousness ... rather because of the wickedness of these nations, etc.”! Therefore, Rashi explains the verse as follows: The beginning of the verse, “Do not think ... Because of my righteousness <i>and</i> because of the wickedness of these nations was the cause,” means not to think that both reasons were the cause. “Rather the wickedness of these nations,” alone, caused them to be expelled. Then the land was abandoned, and the first to come could take possession of it. Since you are the first to come, you could take possession of it. [You might ask:] the verse above says, “Rather, out of Adonoy’s love for you and out of His keeping the oath (7:8),” and Adonoy’s love only applies to those who keep his commandments [therefore they should deserve to inherit the land in their own right]! <i>Ramban</i> has already explained [the answer]: The verse above refers to the Jewish People in general [throughout history], but here he is rebuking the generation that rebelled against Hashem.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  In this sense, the word ישיבה means remaining. I.e., the expression ישיבה stated here means, “remaining.” Otherwise there is a difficulty from a verse written later (10:10), “I stood on the mountain.”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  As it is said, “I will now ascend to Adonoy, etc.” Rashi is explaining: You should not say that Moshe ascended at this time to receive the second Tablets after which he descended on Yom Kippur. For below it is written (10:1), “At that time, Adonoy said to me, ‘Hew for yourself, etc.,’” and Rashi explains there, “At the end of forty days He granted me favor,” which is referring to the same forty days written here. This implies that he did not ascend here in order to accept the second Tablets. Therefore Rashi explains: These forty days are the middle ones when Moshe ascended to pray (for forgiveness), as it says (Shmos 32:30), “I will now ascend, etc.” 
  As he ascended on the eighteenth of Tammuz, etc. See what I wrote above in Parshas Ki Sisa (Shmos 33:11). 
  That day, the Hashem, granted favor to the Israelites joyfully etc. However, on the first day of Elul, Hashem granted favor only regarding the Tablets, but not regarding the golden calf. But on Yom Kippur Hashem said, “I have forgiven, just as you spoke,” which also refers to the golden calf. Therefore, Yom Kippur was designated for atonement and forgiveness rather than the first day of Elul when Hashem showed favor and said, “Carve two stones for yourself.” Rashi’s question, “From where is it derived that He granted complete favor?” means to say: From where is it derived that the second Tablets were given with favor? [Perhaps they were given] out of necessity, for the Jewish People already had accepted the yoke of Torah and mitzvos and entered the covenant, which would be impossible for them to keep [without receiving] the Torah and mitzvos, etc. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  And said to Moshe, ‘I have forgiven, just as you spoke,’ etc. <i>Chizkuni</i> explains as follows: Rashi’s commentary, “I have forgiven, just as you spoke,” is not quoting the verse written in Parshas Shelach Lecha (Bamidbar 14:20) regarding the spies. Rather, it is Rashi’s own explanation. For note that the Jewish People made the calf on the seventeenth of Tamuz right after leaving Egypt, and the spies were not sent until the twenty-ninth of Sivan of the second year [after leaving Egypt]. This seems so also from Rashi’s words. For note in Parshas Ki Sisa (Shmos 33:11) Rashi did not quote the verse, “I have forgiven, <i>just as you spoke</i>.” Instead he writes there, “On the tenth of Tishrei Hashem granted favor to the Israelites joyfully and wholeheartedly and He said to Moshe, ‘I have forgiven,’ and then He gave him, etc.” 
  From where is it derived that He granted complete favor?, etc. For it is possible to think: “Carve for yourself,” was only out of necessity. For the Jewish People already accepted the yoke of Torah and had converted, and it was impossible for them to retract. Therefore, [you could think that] Hashem did not grant them complete favor until Yom Kippur. And Rashi adds, “You may thus say that the interim days, etc,” only for the sake of completing the thought. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Because he listened to you. I.e., but not because he [i.e., Aharon] sinned. 
  This refers to the death of children, etc. Rashi infers this because it is written להשמידו rather than להשמיד אותו as it says above (v. 19) להשמיד אתכם. Therefore [the lack of the word אותי indicates] it is not referring specifically to Aharon. Rather, it must be referring to his children. 
  My prayer was effective in atoning for half, etc. I.e., the word גם (also) includes Aharon’s sons. 
  Two died and two were spared. Their death was caused by a combination of reasons: For this [the golden calf], and for staring brazenly [at the Divine Presence] when the Torah was given, while engaged in eating and drinking. See Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 24:11), and Parshas Shemini (Vayikra 10:2). 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  And Betzalel made the Tabernacle first, etc. I.e., do not say that they certainly were not commanded to make the Tabernacle until after Yom Kippur, but Betzalel made the ark first and afterward the Tabernacle. And if so, this ark (mentioned here) could be the ark that Betzalel made. Therefore, Rashi explains, “And Betzalel made the Tabernacle first, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  You will discover that there were eight journeys, etc. Yet Rashi comments in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 21:4) that there were <i>seven</i> journeys from Moseiroh to Mount Hor. This [seeming contradiction] is clarified in the beginning of Parshas Masei (ibid. 33:1). [Here, as in Parshas Masei, Rashi is counting the number of places and in Parshas Chukas Rashi is counting the journeys from one place to another].
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  And the Levites did not transgress, the Omnipresent separated them from you. [One might ask:] It is written, “the Omnipresent separated them,” but they were not separated until the second year when the Mishkon was erected! We must say that the Omnipresent separated them in <i>thought</i>. Perforce, “Adonoy separated the tribe of Leivi,” must be explained in this manner [instead of saying that it refers to the second year when they were <i>actually</i> separated] because it is written afterwards (v. 10), “And I stood on the mountain,” which also refers to, “At that time,” which was in the first year, after the sin of the calf. According to this we can understand why Rashi does not explain this verse in the same order it is written in the Torah [I.e., “the Omnipresent separated,” is juxtaposed with their retreat to Bnei Ya’akon to teach us something; not because it happened after their retreat]. 
  The Levites. Rashi is answering the question: From the verse, “Adonoy separated, etc.,” it seems that the Levites also bless in His Name, but this is not so! Therefore Rashi explains that, “to carry the ark,” pertains to the Levites, and, “to stand… and to serve Him and bless in His Name,” pertains to the <i>kohanim</i>. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Because they were separated for service at the altar, etc. I.e., it is not because they were separated to serve Adonoy that they had no share, as might be understood from the verse. For on the contrary, it would be fitting to increase their benefits, not to diminish them.
  
  He receives his allotted portion, etc. His portion is the gifts of <i>terumos</i> and <i>ma’aseros</i> (tithes). The phrase, “Adonoy is his heritage,” is in response to, “Leivi had no share or territory with his brothers.” Their sustenance must be provided in another way in lieu of receiving a share or land. And, “Adonoy is his heritage,” must be explained as referring to Leivi’s allotted portion, which is the gifts of <i>terumos</i> and <i>ma’aseros</i>. Rashi says, “provided readily,” to indicate that Leivi’s portion [of <i>terumos</i> and <i>ma’aseros</i>] was given to them, in lieu of [a portion in the] land that was given to the Israelites, because it is readily available without effort. And [as a result] they do not need to toil, to the point they would refrain from service at the altar [when they will need to toil]. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  With the first tablets, etc. This ended on the seventeenth of Tammuz, not on the twenty-eighth of Av. The comparison of the last forty days to the first ones is not to indicate that they too were with complete favor just as the first ones, for this is not true. The first ones were with complete favor — as they had not yet sinned with the calf, while the last ones were only with favor regarding the giving of the Tablets [Moshe was told “carve for yourself,” before they started]. But forgiveness for the calf was only granted on the last of [these last] forty days, which was on Yom Kippur. For then Hashem said, “I have forgiven just as you spoke.” Therefore, that day was designated for atonement and forgiveness. The comparison is only informing us that the forty days stated here, “And I stood on the mountain,” are not referring to the middle forty days [i.e., Moshe was not on the mountain only for 80 days]. Rather they are an additional forty days, which were with favor and not with anger. From this we derive that Moshe stood on the mountain for 120 days. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Although you turned away from Him, etc. Otherwise why is this verse mentioned during [Moshe’s] words of rebuke?
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  All things are in the hands of Heaven, etc. I.e., this verse is not connected to the previous verses. Rather it begins a new topic to teach us that all things are in the hands of Heaven aside from, etc. Therefore He only asks of you to fear Him — which consists of similar activities that a person may choose to do or he may choose not to do, and it includes the fear of Heaven (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  
  Verse 13
  
  And this is also not for naught, etc. Rashi is answering the question: At the beginning of the verse it says, “To guard Adonoy’s commandments,” meaning, “for Hashem’s benefit.” But at the end of the verse it is written, “For <i>your</i> benefit,” meaning, “for the benefit of the Jewish People.” Therefore Rashi explains: “And this is also, etc.” In other words: Certainly you should keep the commandments for His benefit. But nonetheless, for you too this is not for naught, but for your benefit. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  All things, etc. This refers to all that is written in the verse, “The heavens and the heavens beyond the heavens, the earth, etc.” 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Just as you see yourselves desired, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is the word בכם (you) needed? The verse only needed to say, “He chose their descendants after them from all, etc.” Therefore Rashi explains: “Just as you see yourselves desired, etc.” In other words, “In yourselves you can see that Hashem chose you and your descendants, for you see yourselves desired above all nations.” And Rashi says היום הזה (this day) instead of כיום הזה (like this day), because he explains the word בכם (you) literally, and they [who, “you,” is referring to] were actually present “this day.” The prefix כ (like) is not disregarded, for it is connected to, “He chose their descendants after them.” As if it says, “And He chose their descendants after them, like this day, from all the peoples.” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Your heart’s obstruction — its covering]. “Its covering” is what is meant by “its obstruction.” Rashi writes likewise in Parshas Va’eira (Shmos 6:12).
  
  Verse 17
  
  No lord is capable, etc. Otherwise it should say, “For Adonoy is God and Lord.” Furthermore, since He is God over all gods, then certainly He is Lord over all lords. Rather, [“Lord over lords” means that no lord], etc. 
  If you cast off His yoke. “Exercising favoritism,” generally means either to acquit one who is guilty, or to forgo his punishment. So too, “accepting a bribe” [is for either of these two reasons]. “Acquitting the guilty,” cannot be attributed to Hashem, but, “forgoing punishment,” can be. Perforce, “exercises favoritism” means, “forgo punishment.” Rashi says that if you cast off His yoke then He will not exercise favoritism, meaning He will not forgo your punishment. Similarly, “Nor accepts bribes, etc.,” means for the sake of forgoing your punishment, as is usual for those who accepts bribes. The verse mentions both because punishment is sometimes forgone because of favoritism, and sometimes because of bribery. <i>Re”m</i> writes: I do not know how monetary gifts [i.e., bribes] can be associated to Hashem. Why does Rashi not explain, “Nor accepts a bribe — of a <i>mitzvah </i>in exchange for a sin. I.e., He does not forgo punishment for a person’s sin in exchange for a <i>mitzvah</i> that he did. Rather He gives reward for the <i>mitzvah</i> [that he did] and punishment for his sin.” <i>Re”m</i> leaves this question unresolved. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  This expresses power, etc. I.e., the previous verse, “For Adonoy, your God, is God over judges etc.,” expresses power. Therefore juxtaposed to it is, “Who performs justice for orphan and widow etc.” This is to inform us of His humility, that He performs justice for those who are weak and helpless. 
  This is a significant matter, etc. I.e., do not think that it is a small matter to provide the convert with bread and a garment. [And do not think] it seems from here that He is incapable of [providing] more, for it is written above, “Who performs justice for orphan and widow,” which expresses power. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  With your own blemish do not taunt your fellow. I.e., this verse is as if it says, “You are to love the convert, <i>and do not insult him</i>.” And this is why it says afterwards, “Because <i>you</i> were strangers,” [which implies that] with your own blemish, etc. But “love” alone, means to act kindly towards him, and is not connected to, “because you were strangers.” For having been strangers does not obligate you to act kindly towards a stranger. Rashi explains likewise in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 22:20). See also Bava Metzia 59b. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  After having acquired all of these attributes then swear in His Name. Rashi clarifies several matters. He writes ותעבוד (and serve) instead of אותו תעבוד (serve <i>Him</i>). For the word אותו is not necessary; instead the verse should say תירא ותעבוד (fear and serve.) Also Rashi writes ותדבק בו (<i>and cling to Him) instead of ובו תדבק (and to Him, cling), in order that all the verbs should follow one another [i.e., they should be grouped together] — “Fear, serve, and cling.” Also, by adding the word אז (then) Rashi indicates that, “Swear by His Name,” is not a positive commandment, as [might be] understood from the verse. And [Rashi writes בשמו to indicate] the ו of ובשמו is superfluous. [The meaning of the verse is] as if the word אם (if) is added and the verse said, “<i>If you fear, serve, and cling to Him, then swear.” I.e., then you are permitted to swear, but not that it is a commandment to swear, as [might be] understood from the verse. </i></i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Pay close attention so that you know and understand, etc. [“You will know today,”] does not mean that they will know something new today. For he told them nothing new here.
  
  That I now speak, etc. For the word את [here] means the same as עם (with). Rashi adds, “That I now speak,” for without adding “That I now speak” the [meaning of the] verse cannot be understood. Therefore he needed to explain the word את means “with,” for the word עם applies only to one who is being spoken to. Also Rashi adds the word “now,” for without it the verse means that He would never speak with any of their offspring, only with these alone.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  The ground sloped, funnel-like, etc. Rashi does not explain the verse in the order that it is written. [He explains “Amid all of Israel,” before explaining, “And all the sustenance, etc.”] The reason is: “Amid, etc.” also refers to, “You will know (v. 2).” [I.e.,] it is fitting to accept my reprimand since you witnessed all the signs He performed in Egypt, and what He did for you in the wilderness, and what He did for you when Dosson and Avirom were swallowed up amid all of Israel — the ground sloped (funnel-like), and no one from Israel fell in even if he were standing next to him, and this was a great miracle.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  For it is not with your children, etc. The first כי (v. 2) in the verse means “for,” and the second כי means “rather.” As if it says, “Pay close attention so that you know and understand my reprimand, for it is not with your children that I now speak, etc.,” as Rashi explained above. “But rather with you… I am speaking.” And since it is not [grammatically] correct to say, “Rather with you, eyes have witnessed,” Rashi adds the words אשר (whose) before “eyes.”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  This assurance was made to the Israelites [when they departed from Egypt], etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is Egypt be mentioned here more than any other land? Rashi explains: This assurance, etc. 
  But perhaps Scripture speaks derogatorily, etc. Why should Moshe intend to speak derogatorily of Eretz Yisroel, God forbid? Were the spies not smitten for speaking derogatorily of Eretz Yisroel? Furthermore, how would we explain the verse following, “Rather, the Land where you are crossing to inherit [is a land of mountains and plains — ] by the rain of the skies will you drink water,” which is praising the Land? It seems that Rashi means to say, “But perhaps, etc.” i.e., even though Eretz Yisroel was superior to all other lands, including Mitzrayim, nevertheless Mitzrayim is superior on account that it grows crops perpetually, since it is constantly irrigated. But the Land that you are entering cannot be irrigated because it is a mountainous region. Furthermore, it needs to be irrigated many times, because the water flows down the mountain and does not saturate the land. Therefore, Eretz Yisroel does not grow crops naturally, but rather through Divine providence — supernaturally. This [statement] is praise to Eretz Yisroel that it is sustained by miracles, even though by natural means it is not as good as Mitzrayim. Therefore Rashi says, “But perhaps Scripture speaks derogatorily.” In other words, by describing its inferiority, the Land’s praiseworthiness is revealed. 
  The Torah therefore teaches, “Chevron was built seven years [before]...”, etc. I.e., Chevron was built seven years before Tzoan. 
  In Kesubos (112a) this is expounded differently, etc. [Regarding the verse, חברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני וכו'] In the first explanation [here] each word is understood literally: שנים means “years,” נבנתה means “a physical building,” and לפני means “before (earlier in time).” But according to the explanation in Kesubos: The word שנים means שונים (times), and נבנתה is related to the term, “And I <i>will be built also from her (Bereishis 30:3),” an expression referring to producing offspring. And לפני means, “preceding (superior)”. </i>
  Rather, it was built up seven times more than Tzoan. The word מבונה means “producing offspring,” as in the verse, “And I will be built also from her (ibid.),” as Rashi explains in Kesubos (112a). I.e., One portion of land in Chevron produces a crop that is equal to [the produce yielded by] seven portions [of land] in Tzoan. 
  Even the land of Raamses, etc. Otherwise why does it need to say, “From which you departed”?
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  To see what its needs are, etc. Otherwise what is the meaning of, “Until the year’s end”? For whatever is decreed on Rosh Hashanah will be carried out throughout the year! Furthermore it would be enough to write, “The eyes of Adonoy, your God [are always upon it].” Rather, [“From the year’s beginning, etc.” means] to modify the decrees that were decided on Rosh Hashanah according to what the people deserve. But it seems to me that Rashi is expounding from the word “always,” which implies that Hashem is constantly watching over the Land to initiate [decrees] according to its needs. The same inference is made in Maseches Rosh Hashanah 17b. (<i>Gur Aryeh</i>). 
  As stated in tractate Rosh Hashanah. If the Jewish People are wicked on Rosh Hashanah then He will decree scarce rainfall that year. [Even] if they repent during that year then He will not increase [the rainfall], for the decree was already made. Instead, He brings that scarce amount of rain upon the fields rather than upon the wilderness and other places that do not require rainfall. Also He brings the rain in its proper time. The converse is also true — if the Jewish People are meritorious on Rosh Hashanah, etc. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  By the rain of the skies you will drink water. For if you heed, then “I will provide the rain of your land.” But if not then, “He will restrain the skies, etc.” 
  If you heed the old, etc. I.e., if you review what you already learned, then you will gain wisdom from it and understand new matters from the old. Rashi explains likewise in Succah (46b). Even though regarding [the seeming redundancy] הענק תענק (surely bestow a gift) we say that the Torah uses common speech, we expound the verse whenever we are able to (<i>Re”m). Alternatively, here the word והיה (lit., it will be) is an expression of certainty, whereas the word אם (if) is an expression of doubt. Therefore, the verse is expounded. </i>
  This is as it is written in the scroll, etc. I.e., <i>Megilas Storim</i>, but it is not a verse found in any of the twenty-four books of Scripture. And in the Talmud Yerushalmi, an allegory is mentioned of two people taking leave of each other. One travels a day’s journey eastward, and the other travels a day’s journey westward. They will find themselves distanced from each other by a two days’ journey. The same is true about the Torah. 
  As if you heard them this very day. Otherwise why is, “today,” needed? 
  Rather, all that you fulfill, fulfill with love, etc. The word לאהבה (to love) should be understood as לאהבת ה' (for the love of Adonoy). It then follows that, "And to serve Him," is [also directly] connected to, “Should you thoroughly heed My commandments.” [According to this] it would be fitting for the verse to say ולעבדני (and to serve Me), except this is only a general exegesis. 
  One command is addressed to the individual, etc. I.e., if only one verse were written then we would think it addresses the community as a whole, but not the individual. Even though it is written, “With all <i>your</i> (singular) heart, and with all <i>your</i> (singular) soul,” we would think it is common for Scripture to use the singular when referring to the community, as in the verse, “Listen (singular) O Israel!” You might ask: Why is the individual warned here more than in other commandments, although there is no difference [here] between the individual and the community? The answer is: Regarding this commandment, the verse states many benefits which Hashem will do for fulfilling it: Harvesting grain, wine, olive oil, grass for animals, etc. Therefore I would have thought it is intended specifically for the community but not for the individual, thus the individual also needs to be included. And it teaches us that when the commandments are fulfilled out of love by individuals, He will also perform all these miracles for them (<i>Ramban</i>). And since this commandment addresses the community, it fits well that is not written here, “and with all your possessions,” as it is written above. For it is unlikely that the majority of the community would consider money more precious than life. However, this may be true of an individual (<i>Mahara”i</i>). 
  
  Verse 14
  
  You fulfill your obligation, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say regarding this commandment there is so much reward, “I will provide the rain of your land in its time, fall rain and spring rain, etc.”? Yet above in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:4) Scripture only writes, “I will provide your rain in their proper time”! Rashi answers: You fulfill your obligation, etc. In other words, you shall fulfill your obligation and you need not do more than this — to keep My commandments out of love. As it is written, “To love Adonoy ... and to serve Him, etc.” therefore I shall fulfill my obligation and pay you abundant reward. (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  On Shabbos eve, etc. Rashi [only] says, “On Shabbos eve,” but the Gemora (Taanis 23a) says, “On Shabbos eves and on the eves of the fourth weekday [Tuesday night],” because harmful forces reign on these two nights. The answer is: Rashi’s explanation is based on nowadays when these harmful forces are not common. Therefore, he only mentions, “On Shabbos eve.” Now it fits well that Rashi explains, “When everyone is at home,” rather than, “Because of harmful forces.” Rashi’s first explanation is problematic, for the verse should say בעתותם (in its <i>times), since all nights are included. Therefore, Rashi says, “Another interpretation, etc.” But the other explanation is problematic, for it applies when harmful forces are common. However, when they are not common such as nowadays, then what is the meaning of “in its time” written in the verse? Therefore Rashi also says the first explanation. </i>
  Because it descends on the ears and on the stalks. I.e., the word מלקוש is a contraction of מלילות קשין. This explanation by itself is problematic, for the verse should say ומלילות (ears). Therefore, the first reason in needed. Yet the first reason is problematic, for the verse should say לקשיא (late ones). Therefore the second reason is also needed. 
  You will gather it into your home, etc. Rashi is answering the question: How is it a blessing that he must exert himself to work and harvest rather than having servants and maidservants? Rashi answers: You will gather, [implies <i>you</i>, but] not your enemies. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  So that it will not be necessary for you to lead it to the desert. I.e., to the desert where there is pasture for the animals. Rather, grass for the animals will grow in your field. This is according to Rabbi Yehuda in the Sifrei. Rashi’s second interpretation, “You will reap, etc.” is according to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai who explains that “Grass in your field,” refers to the grass [i.e., produce] of the field and not to pasture for the animals. And ולבהמתך means, “<i>and</i> <i>also for your animals.” Because of its abundance you will reap it and feed it to your animals, and the remainder will be for human consumption. This is why Rashi offers both explanations. </i>
  This is a different blessing, etc. Rashi is answering the question: How does, “And you will eat and be full” relate to the first part of the verse? Is a person sated because there is food for his animals? Rashi answers: This is not related to the first part of the verse, but rather this is a different blessing, etc. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  By abandoning the Torah, etc. In Scripture, every instance of “turn away” means, “to turn away from what was commanded to be done,” referring to a positive commandment. It is written (below 11:28), “And you turn away from the course, etc.,” and not, from what you were commanded to refrain from doing. Therefore, perforce, “turn away,” [here] means, “To turn away from the Torah that you were commanded to toil in it,” and the result will be, “You serve other gods, etc.” From here our Sages say, “For once a man abandons the Torah, etc.” (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  They are alien to those who worship them, etc. See Rashi’s commentary in Parshas Yisro (Shmos 20:3). 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Even what you bring to it, etc. Otherwise why is the word יבולה (literally, “its produce”) necessary? For it is already written, “He will restrain the skies and there will be no rain.” It then follows that the soil will not yield its usual produce. 
  In addition to all the other suffering, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Just because there will be no rain and the soil will not yield its produce, is this why they will be swiftly removed? Therefore Rashi explains, “In addition, etc.” 
  Which caused you to sin, etc. The difficulty is: Why is the word, “good” needed? Instead it should have said, “From upon your land,” or, “From upon the land that Adonoy is giving you.” Why should its goodness be mentioned in the curse? Furthermore, it already says, “And the soil will not yield its produce.” If so, the goodness of the land has (already) been taken away. Rather the word “good” means to say: Its goodness that it had in the past is what caused you to sin. Therefore, I will exile you from it. 
  But you may ask, was not an extension granted, etc. You might ask: Was not an extension granted also to the Jewish People after they sinned? The answer is that Rashi is saying: As soon as the Jewish People’s measure of sin is full, He would immediately punish them. However, regarding the generation of the Flood, even though their measure was full, Hashem granted them a further extension. As it is written (Bereishis 6:3), “Adonoy said, ‘I will not judge… His days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” And Rashi comments [there], “Until 120 years I will extend my anger [i.e. be patient] with them, etc.” 
  [They] had no one from whom to learn, etc. Yet Rashi explained in the end of Parshas Bereishis (ibid v. 4), “Although they witnessed the generation of Enosh being destroyed, for the oceans rose up and flooded a third of the world, yet the generation of the Flood did not humble themselves to take a lesson from them”! The answer is: They attributed it to natural causes since only a third of the world was flooded. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Even after you are exiled, etc. Otherwise why should this be mentioned in connection with their exile? One cannot say that, “You are to place, etc.” and everything [written] afterwards applies [only] during exile. For if so, why does it say afterwards, “In order that they will be many… on the soil”? It must be that they will return to the land and live for many years there. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  From the time that the son is able to speak, etc. Otherwise Scripture should write, “And you are to teach them to your sons to learn them (ללמוד).” Why does it say to, “To <i>speak in them (לדבר בם)”?
  </i>
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Thus, we discover the derivation of the revival of the dead, etc. For the deceased themselves will rise and settle in the land. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  Rather, cling to the disciples and the sages, etc. I.e., “Cling to Him,” cannot be interpreted as, “He is merciful — you should be merciful.” For the verse already has written, “To walk in all His ways,” which Rashi interprets as, “Just as He is merciful, etc.” Rather, “Cling to Him,” [here] must be expounded differently, as Rashi explains. This explanation answers the question: Why Rashi does not comment on the verse (10:20), “Cling to Him,” and also in Parshas Re’ey on the verse (below 13:5), “Cleave to Him”? [The answer is: Because neither verse says, “Walk in all His ways.”] 
  
  Verse 23
  
  You have fulfilled your obligations, etc. The meaning of Rashi here is the same as I explained above (v. 14).
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  The Torah therefore teaches, “there will not stand up” — in any case, etc. I.e., if Scripture had written “איש לא יתיצב (A man will not stand up),” then we would understand it literally as, “a man.” Now that it is written לא יתיצב and afterwards איש, we interpret it as, “will not stand up — in any event.” And then it mentions, “a man,” to expound something different, as Rashi explains, “Even one like Og, king of Bashan.” Rashi explains this in Gittin (77a) regarding “ונתן בידה (and he puts into her hand),” and also in other places [such as] in Chulin (88b) (<i>Mahari”tz). Furthermore since it is written here, “Fear of you and awe of you… upon the surface of the entire land,” which means that the entire world will be afraid of you. Therefore, it is obvious that “there will not stand up” means “in any case.” If so, what is the meaning of, “a man”? Even one like Og, king of Bashan (<i>Re”m). Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why is this matter repeated? For note that it says above (7:24), “no man will stand up to you, etc.” Rather it teaches us, “Even one like Og etc. </i></i>
  Even one like Og, king of Bashan. In other words: The man whose being and strength is so amazing that he could stand up against all of you, as the Gemora (Brachos 54b) says that he uprooted a mountain, [even] he will not stand up against you.
  
  “Awe” denotes long term dread. Although Rashi [already] explained that, “fear” refers to those who are nearby, etc, he is now explaining the difference why “fear” refers to those who are nearby and “awe” refers to those who are distant.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  To be pronounced at Mount Gerizim, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The curses have already been stated above in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:14) and below in Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 28:15) [but not here]! Rashi answers: “To be pronounced at Mount Gerizim, etc.” And “place” means, “to arrange before you today.” 
  
  Verse 27
  
  On condition that you listen. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should have said אם תשמעו (<i>if</i> you heed), in the same manner as it is written afterwards, “And the curse — <i>if</i> you do not heed.” For אשר (<i>that</i>) implies that they will definitely obey the commandments. But this is not so, for everything is in the hands of Heaven besides the fear of Heaven (Berachos 33b), and so perhaps they may not obey. Therefore Rashi explains: “That you heed” means, “on condition etc.” Also, this [that אשר and אם are written together] explains why Rashi does not say that אשר (that) means אם (if), as he explains in Bereishis that the verse, “Any children that (אשר) you will have (Bereishis 48:6),” means, “<i>if (אם) you will have more.” For in that verse it is not written אם (if). as it is written here, “And the curse — <i>if (אם) you do not heed.” Therefore [regarding the blessing] Scripture should have written אם, since it is the same matter. But the verse here changes and writes אם regarding the curses, yet it uses the word — אשר — regarding the blessings, perforce we need to explain that אשר means, “on condition that you listen,” even though both words could mean “if.” Also, this [that אשר and אם are written together] answers the question posed by <i>Re”m: Why does Rashi explain that אשר means, “on condition that, etc.,” instead of, “if,” since we find אם in place of אשר [i.e., these two words are interchangeable]? </i></i></i>
  
  Verse 28
  
  Has strayed from the entire course commanded to Yisroel. The term הסרה always means, “turning away completely,” similar to [the word “send” in the verse], “And Adonoy Elohim sent him out of the Garden of Eden (Bereishis 3:23),” despite that the word מן (from) [usually] implies, “partially.” 
  From here it is derived that anyone who admits to idolatry, etc. I.e., since “The course,” mentioned here refers to the entire Torah, and then afterwards it says, “To follow other gods,” we learn [from this juxtaposition] that anyone who admits to idolatry is [considered] as if he denies the entire Torah. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  As Targum [Onkelos] renders the blessers, etc. I.e., the Levites who will bless the Jewish People. For if הברכה refers literally to the blessing, then why is it written, “you shall place”? For a blessing is intangible [and cannot be placed]! Rather, it refers to the Levites. In other words, “Place <i>the ones who will bless</i> the Jewish People,” which refers to the Levites. Another explanation [why it does not refer to the blessing]: For if הברכה refers literally to the blessing, then the <i>entire</i> Jewish People should place the blessing on Mount Gerizim — which is not so. For in Parshas Ki Savo (below 27:12) [See Rashi and Sifsei Chachomim there] it says that only the Levites are to place the blessing. Rather, the commandment is for the entire Jewish People — they should place the Levites as the ones to bless, on Mount Gerizim. [According to this explanation] the reason is not because the word “place” does not apply to a blessing. For we find the verse (Vayikra 16:21), “And <i>place them on the head of the goat,” which means “through speech.” (<i>Re”m). </i></i>
  Towards Mount Gerizim, etc. For it is written in Parshas Ki Savo (below 27:12-13) that six tribes will stand on Mount Gerizim, and six on Mount Eival. If so, this indicates that the Jewish People stood on Mount Gerizim, and the Levites stood between the mountains. 
  They turned their faces and opened with the blessing, etc. Even though the verse in Parshas Ki Savo only says, “Cursed is the man who makes a sculpture, etc.,” and it does not say, “Blessed is the man, etc.” Nevertheless, since it is written here, “The blessers,” we can infer that there was a blessing. And it is logical to assume that they began with the blessing first. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  This provides the landmarks. Rashi is answering the question: The word הלא usually implies a contradiction! For example, regarding Avraham and Sarah it is written (Bereishis 20:5): “Did he not (הלא) say to me, ‘She is my sister’?” But here it cannot be explained to mean that there is a contradiction. We also cannot explain it as in the verse (above 3:11), “Is it not (הלא) in Rabbas of the descendants of Ammon,” where it means to strengthen and reinforce his words. For here it is not applicable to reinforce his words, for it refers to the giving of the blessing and curse. [Therefore] Rashi answers: “This provides the landmarks,” and this is why it is written הלא [as if it said “behold”]. 
  Far after the crossing of the Yardein, etc. I.e., the word “after,” is connected to the word, “Yardein,” and not to the words following, “along the route of the sunset.” Rashi states a proof for this: “The cantillation of the passage proves they are two matters, since they are punctuated with two cantillation symbols, etc.” 
  As indicated by the word “beyond.” Wherever אחרי — “beyond” is mentioned, etc. The word אחרי spelled with a <i>yud refers to a great distance, as Rashi explains many times: “Wherever אחרי is mentioned is refers to a great distance.” It may refer to a time distance, such as regarding Avraham (Bereishis 22:20), “After these things.” Or it may refer to a geographical distance, such as here.
  </i>
  Beyond the Yardein toward the west, etc. I.e., “Along the route, etc.” is an independent statement. It is as if the verse said, “Are they not across the Yardein and far beyond, along the route of the sunset — which is westward.” 
  Since they are punctuated with two cantillation symbols: אחרי (far beyond) is punctuated with the pashta symbol. <i>Pashta</i> is one of the cantillation symbols that are called “kings,” and indicate a pause to separate [between this word and] the word following. 
  While דרך (the route) is punctuated with the mishpal symbol and is dotted etc. The <i>mishpal</i> is what we call the <i>yasiv</i>.
  Then אחרי (far beyond) would be punctuated with the meshares symbol — the reverse shofar. The reverse <i>shofar</i> is what we call the <i>mahpach</i>, which is like a <i>shofar</i>. It is called <i>meshares</i> (servant), meaning that it connects the word to the word following. For this reason it is called <i>meshares — </i>because this word serves another word. 
  At a distance from Gilgal. Rashi is answering the question: Wherever is written מול, it denotes “opposite.” Yet sometimes it is nearby, and sometimes it is at a distance. But the verse gives an additional indication, “next to the Moreh Plain,” which means, “near the Moreh Plain,” we then understand that the word “opposite” here denotes at a distance. For if it were nearby then the verse should say, “Next to Gilgal and the Moreh Plain.” 
  This was Shechem, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Where do we find a place named Moreh Plain? Rashi answers: “This was Shechem, etc.” Although in Bereishis (12:6) it seems that Shechem and Moreh Plain are two distinct places, nevertheless we must say that because only one arrival is mentioned for both of them, we can infer that they are the same place. For if they were two places, then if Avraham arrived in Shechem he did not arrive in the Moreh Plain. Rather it is the same place. And the verses [in Bereishis] mean the following: “He arrived ... in Shechem, which is the Moreh Plain.” See Rashi’s explanation there.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  The miracles at the Yardein, etc. Otherwise the verse should say, “You shall come to the land... you will inherit it... You will guard to fulfill, etc.” Furthermore, it already is written (v. 29), “When Adonoy ... has brought you.” If so then why is, “For you shall pass across,” needed? Rather [it indicates]: “The miracles, etc.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Destroy, then destroy afterward, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אבד תאבדון, which is repetitive? Even though the Torah uses common speech, it should have said אבד תאבדו. Yet it is written תאבדון [i.e., an extra letter <i>nun] in order to be expounded. This is not in accordance with <i>Re”m’s explanation. </i></i>
  What must you obliterate from them?, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “You must obliterate all <i>the places</i> where the nations worshipped”? But whatever is connected to the earth [and certainly the earth itself] cannot become an idol (Avoda Zara 45a). Rather, “All the places,” means, “From the places. And what must you obliterate from them? Their gods, etc.” I.e., the words “their gods” are connected to, “You must obliterate,” and not to, “where the nations worshipped.” It is as if the verse says, “You must obliterate their gods on the mountains where the nations worshipped.” This is what Rashi means by saying, “What must you obliterate from them?” [“<i>All</i> the places,” taken literally, would include places that are impossible to destroy. But now that “all” is interpreted as “from,”] and it excludes any place that is impossible to destroy, such as worship of the celestial bodies. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  A tree that was worshipped. Although the <i>asherah</i> is connected to the earth and therefore should be considered as the earth itself, here is different. For man is involved at the very beginning when the seed is planted (Avoda Zara ibid.). Alternatively: Here [the verse refers to a tree that] was originally planted for the sake of idolatry. For according to all opinions, such a tree is completely forbidden (ibid. 48a), because it was planted originally for idol worship. 
  “The house of exaltation,” entitle, “The house of ruin,”, etc. Rashi explains (in Temurah 28b): “The term בית גליא denotes exaltation. The term בית כליא denotes ruin. Another version says בית כריא is a “bathroom,” from the phrase (See Yirmeyahu 18:20), “כורה שוחה (he dug a pit).” See the <i>Aruch. </i>
  
  Verse 4
  
  By bringing burnt-offerings for the sake of Heaven anywhere, etc. I.e., “Do not act this way,” is connected to, “[All the places] where the nations worshipped, etc. (v. 2).” It is as if the verse says: “Do not act this way to Adonoy, your God, to bring burnt-offerings on the high mountains ... where the nations worshipped... Rather at the place, etc.” 
  This prohibits erasing the sacred Name, and breaking an altar stone, etc. I.e., specifically regarding idolatry did I command you, “You are to break apart, etc.,” but “Do not act this way to Adonoy your God.” The meaning of, “Rather at the place,” is: You should not act this way to Adonoy your God to break apart and destroy, rather He should be respected in your eyes to the point where you perpetually seek the place that He chooses ... to bring there your burnt-offerings, etc. Rashi’s first explanation is problematic because the verse, “Do not act this way,” should have been written next to the above verse, “...their gods on the high mountains, etc.” And Rashi’s second explanation is problematic because the verse, “Rather at the place, etc.,” is apparently connected to the previous verses and needs to be explained somewhat differently than its plain meaning. Therefore the first explanation is also needed. 
  Rebbi Yishmael said, ‘Is it [conceivable] that an Israelite would smash altars? etc. <i>Re”m</i> writes: It seems to me that Rebbi Yishmael agrees that, “Do not act this way, etc.” prohibits erasing the sacred Name. For it is conceivable that the Israelite does not intend to erase the sacred Name in a destructive manner, but rather it was written in a non- respectful place or it was written in the wrong place and he therefore erases it; and his intention is for the sake of Heaven. For this reason erasing the Name needs to be prohibited. But regarding the breaking of an altar stone, one is liable only by breaking it in a destructive manner, a prohibition is not relevant because, “Is it conceivable etc.” Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with the first opinion [mentioned in the Sifrei — the previous opinion mentioned in Rashi] on one point, but he agrees with the other. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  This refers to the Tabernacle at Shiloh. I.e., do not seek His Presence anywhere [you wish], because private altars are forbidden. It seems that Rashi’s inference is based on the apparently extra word לשכנו (His Presence). For it would suffice to say, “Rather at the place ... to set His Presence there.” Rather, the verse is referring to two places — Jerusalem and Shiloh. <i>Re”m’s</i> explanation is difficult to understand (<i>Nachalas Yaakov). </i>
  
  Verse 6
  
  Obligatory shelamim-offerings. I.e., <i>even</i> obligatory <i>shelamim</i>-offerings, and certainly voluntary <i>shelamim</i>- offerings. [Rashi specifies “obligatory” regarding Shiloh and Jerusalem] as opposed to a private altar where only a pledge or a donation may be offered. This is stated in Megillah (9b) and in Zevachim (117a) (<i>Nachalas Yaakov</i>). 
  And the second tithe to be eaten within the walls [of Jerusalem]. I.e., it is understandable that the animal tithe must be brought to Jerusalem, for it is sacrificed there. But why must he bring the second tithe there, for it is not offered? Rashi answers: To be eaten, etc. 
  To give to the kohein so that he may offer them up there. Rashi is answering the question: The phrase, “the firstborn of your cattle,” implies that the Israelite is commanded to bring the firstborn as an offering. But this is not so, for the Israelite must <i>give</i> the firstborn to a <i>kohein</i>. Rashi answers: The Israelite brings them to give to the, etc. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  According to the blessing, bring. The words אשר ברכך (lit. <i>when</i> He has blessed you) means כאשר ברכך (<i>as</i> He has blessed you). This refers to, “your pledges and your donations,” which one has the option to increase according to the blessing. But for obligatory offerings [that one brings] there is no option to increase. The term אשר ברכך must be explained in this way; otherwise it infers that only one who was blessed needs to bring. But this is not true, for the verse is referring to all of the Jewish People (<i>Gur <i>Aryeh). </i></i>
  
  Verse 8
  
  When you cross the Yardein, etc. I.e., this verse, “You may not do,” does not refer to the previous verse, “You are to bring there (v. 6),” which discusses Shiloh. For if so, it would mean: “You may not do in Shiloh everything we do here today in the wilderness.” But it is impossible to say this, for the same sacrifices that were brought in the wilderness were also brought in Shiloh. Therefore we must say that, “You may not do,” refers to the above verse (11:31), “For you shall pass, etc.” This also proves what Rashi explained above (v. 6), “Your sacred offerings — obligatory <i>shelamim</i>- offerings [only in Shiloh and Jerusalem].” For Rashi explains here, “However, on a private altar you may not offer everything you offer at the Mishkon, etc.” If they brought obligatory <i>shelamim</i>-offerings in the Mishkon and they were also permitted to do so on a private altar, then one may offer on a private altar whatever was offered in the Mishkon. Yet in the verse it is written, “You may not do everything we do here today, etc.” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Throughout those fourteen years. Rashi is answering the question: How is their not coming yet to the peace [Shiloh], a reason why they should not bring sacrifices immediately after crossing the Yardein? [I.e., why does the verse, “For you will not...” follow, “You may not do...”?] Rashi answers that, “For you will not have come,” means: Throughout <i>those fourteen years</i> of [your being occupied with] conquering and dividing, you will be unable to offer here [in the Mishkon] the obligatory offerings that you will offer in the future. 
  Like “yet.” I.e., the term עד עתה does not mean, “until now.” Otherwise it would mean, “Until this very day that we are standing in the desert.” This is impossible, for according to this, it would mean that they did not bring obligatory offerings in the desert. But this is not true, for they brought all types of sacrifices in the desert. Rather, the term<i> עדיין refers also to the future — the fourteen years of conquering and dividing. In other words: Throughout those fourteen years you have not yet come to the peace... Therefore you will not bring obligatory offerings. </i>
  
  Verse 10
  
  And everyone distinguishes his portion, etc. This is after the fourteen years of conquering and dividing the land. For prior to this is not called ישיבה<i></i> (settling) since everyone has not yet distinguished the place upon which he will remain settled. Rashi explains similarly in Parshas Ki Savo (below 26:1), “And you will inherit and <i>settle</i> it — you are not obligated to bring the first fruit offering until after you have conquered and divided the land.” Furthermore, since it is written מנחיל אתכם (is <i>apportioning to you) rather than נותן (is giving), we can infer that the verse is addressing the period after the land has been settled. [I.e., the land cannot be apportioned until after it is settled, but the term “giving” may apply to simply entering the land].
  </i>
  
  Verse 11
  
  The discussion above concerns Shiloh, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture had already written above (v. 6), “You are to bring there, etc.” Rashi answers: The discussion above etc. 
  From the time that Shiloh was laid waste and they arrived at Nov, and Nov was laid waste etc. But before they arrived at Nov, private altars were permitted. Once they arrived at Nov, private altars were again forbidden because the Mishkon was erected there. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  This places a negative commandment over the matter. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture had already written above (v. 11), “It is <i>there</i> you shall bring,” which implies only there and nowhere else. Why does it need to say again, “Take heed”? Rashi answers: “This places a negative commandment over the matter.” 
  However, you may bring an offering by prophetic instruction, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “you envision”? It only needs to say, “anywhere.” The answer is: The words, “you envision,” teach us that bringing sacrifices is forbidden only in a place where <i>you</i> envision. However, you may bring an offering by prophetic instruction, etc. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  In Binyamin’s portion, etc. Re”m writes: This follows the viewpoint that Jerusalem was [included with all the land] apportioned to the tribes, and it fell in Binyamin’s portion. But according to the viewpoint that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, we must say that “Of one of your tribes,” refers to Shiloh. But to me it seems: Even according to the viewpoint that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, the site of the Beis Hamikdash was [nevertheless] apportioned to Binyamin, as it is written (below 33:12), “Between his shoulders it [i.e. the Beis Hamikdash] shall reside.” But the [rest of] Jerusalem was not apportioned. 
  Above, however, it is said, “of all your tribes,”, etc. The verse above must be dealing [in addition to Shiloh] also with the Beis Hamikdash. For it is written (v. 5), “Rather at the place that Adonoy, your God, chooses,” and we do not find that Hashem chose any place besides Jerusalem. The other places such as Gilgal, Givon, Nov, and Shiloh were chosen by the Israelites on their own. Perforce, “Rather at the place,” must be dealing with Shiloh and the Beis Hamikdash. And the term לשכנו (His presence) [which refers to Shiloh] should be understood as ולשכנו (<i>and His presence). It is a new and independent statement, and is not connected to what precedes it, “that Adonoy, your God, chooses,” which refers to the Beis Hamikdash. And therefore, Rashi’s question [“Above, however...”] fits well. [Otherwise, above would refer only to Shiloh, while here refers to the Beis Hamikdash, and there would be no contradiction]. </i>
  
  Verse 15
  
  Perhaps they may be redeemed even with a transient blemish?, etc. I.e., even if they were afflicted with a blemish that will definitely heal, perhaps they may be redeemed and eaten immediately after being afflicted — even though it will ultimately heal. The Torah therefore teaches, “except.” For the terms, “except,” and “only,” are intended to exclude; and here it comes to exclude a transient blemish [from being redeemed]. 
  You are not permitted to shear or milk, etc. The verse should [only] have said, “With the fullness of your appetite you may eat meat.” It is obviously slaughtered, for sacred and non-sacred animals are equal in this regard. Therefore they expounded [from the extra word, “slaughter,”] that only a benefit that requires slaughtering may be derived from unfit sacred animals. This excludes shearing and milking which are benefits that do not require slaughtering. 
  To permit the unclean and the clean to eat it in a single plate. I.e., even though the meat eaten by the clean is touched by the unclean, for they are eating together from the same plate — As our Sages derive from the later verse (12:22), “So may you eat it; the unclean and the clean together,” which refers to sacred meat that became unfit, as explained in Chulin (28a). <i>Re”m</i> writes: It is perplexing that Rashi quotes the verse, “Meat which came into contact with anything unclean, etc.,” to learn from this that a person who is clean may eat sacred meat that became unfit even when an unclean person has touched it. Instead he should have quoted the verse (Vayikra 12:4), “Any [food] that is sacred, she may not touch,” which prohibits one who is unclean from eating sacrificial meat — [and then Rashi should have said:] and therefore it is necessary to permit the unclean and the clean to eat it, etc. <i>Re”m</i> answers: The verse, “Any [food] that is sacred she may not touch,” does not directly say that one who is unclean may not eat sacrificial meat. Rather, this is understood from the interpretation by our Sages. Therefore Rashi quotes the verse, “Meat which came into contact with anything unclean,” and learns that one who is clean may eat impure sacred meat that became unfit. But it seems to me: The verse, “Meat which came into contact ... may not be eaten,” is Rashi’s direct proof that its main intent is to permit one who is clean to eat impure meat. Otherwise, it should not say that the clean is permitted to eat — for if the unclean is permitted to eat it, then certainly the clean should be permitted to eat it. Rather, it must be that the main intent of that verse is to teach that one who is clean may eat impure meat, as we have explained. 
  Which are not eligible as sacrifices. I.e., for this reason it [impure meat] is exempt from the gifts [of the foreleg, the maw, and the jaw], like the deer and the gazelle that are exempt since they are not eligible as sacrifices, as Rashi explains afterwards. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Its blood is not to be sprinkled on the altar, etc. I.e., one might think that eating blood is prohibited only in order to sprinkle it on the altar [and therefore it would be permitted here], so the verse lets us know differently [that “You may not eat the blood,”] However, it is perplexing that we need this verse. For we can derive this from the verse in Parshas Acharei Mos (Vayikra 17:10), “Whoever eats <i>any</i> blood, etc.,” which teaches [a prohibition] regarding blood even from ordinary meat — as Rashi explains there. Perhaps the answer is: The prohibition is written twice [though it is unnecessary]. <i>Re”m</i> explains likewise above in Parshas Acharei Mos. But it seems to me that if we only had the verse, “Whoever eats, etc.,” then we might think: Even though they are ordinary animals, but since at the time of slaughtering they were unblemished and their blood was thus fit to be offered upon the altar, therefore the Torah prohibits [eating] their blood. However, this is not so regarding sacred sacrifices that became unfit, therefore an additional verse is necessary to forbid its blood. See what I wrote above in Parshas Acharei Mos. 
  This teaches you that it does not require covering. Since Scripture compares it to the deer and gazelle, we might think: Just as the deer and gazelle require covering [of their blood], so too this animal requires covering. Therefore the verse needs to write, “Spill it like water,” to say that it does not require covering (<i>Re”m</i>). Additionally, we might think that blood of all animals requires covering, since the term בהמה (domesticated animal) is included under the term חיה (wild animal); and just as the blood of a wild animal requires covering, so too regarding a domesticated animal. Therefore the phrase, “Spill it like water,” teaches us: Just as water does not require covering, so too the blood of sacred animals that became unfit [does not require covering]. And from this we may extrapolate that the blood of all domesticated animals does not require covering. See chapter <i>Kisui Hadam (Chulin 84a), where this is explicitly written. </i>
  Another interpretation: It is like water, etc. The first interpretation is problematic, because why is the word, “water,” needed? The verse only needs to write, “On the earth you are to spill it,” and we would know that it does not require covering. Therefore, another interpretation is needed. But the second interpretation on its own [is problematic], for this verse should have been written over there [in the section] regarding the conditioning (<i>hechsher</i>) of edible seeds (Vayikra 11:38). Therefore we also need the first interpretation. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  This passage places a negative commandment, etc. Re”m writes: Since Rashi does not say, “This is a negative commandment,” but rather says at length, “This passage, etc.,” I must say that this is only hinted at in the verse. But the verse’s primary intention is to forbid eating outside the wall of [Jerusalem]. [Re”m continues:] Alternatively, Rashi’s intent is: Although it is written above (v. 6), “You are to bring there your burnt-offerings, etc.,” which implies — and not outside the wall of Jerusalem. Nevertheless it says afterwards, “You are not permitted to eat in your cities,” in order to place a negative commandment over the matter, as above (v. 13. See Rashi’s explanation there under the caption, “This places a negative commandment, etc.”).
  
  The statues on which the oath was inscribed. This refers to the oath sworn by Avraham and Yitzchak to Avimelech. The blind statues represent Yitzchak, and the lame statues represent Yaakov, about whom the verse writes (Bereishis 32:32), “And he limped due to his hip.” 
  This prohibition applies to the kohanim. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “the first born of you cattle,” when [only] the <i>kohein is commanded regarding [eating] the first born? </i>
  This refers to the first fruits. I.e., this prohibits eating them outside the walls [of Jerusalem], and [for violating the prohibition one] incurs lashes. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Within the walls. [Referring to the walls of Jerusalem] but not [in reference to] within the Temple courtyard as in, “And slaughter the young bull <i>before</i> <i>Adonoy</i> (Vayikra 1:5).” [We know this from context], for note that nothing mentioned above is eaten in the Temple courtyard — for only the most holy offerings are eaten there, but not the offerings of lesser holiness.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  This places a negative commandment over the matter. As I explained above (v. 13). For anywhere it says, “Take heed, etc.” Rashi is answering the question: Why is the verse, “Watch yourself,” needed? It is already written above (v. 12), “And the Levite who is in you cities, etc.” If so, why does this need to be written twice? Rashi answers: “This places a negative commandment over the matter.” In other words: Over the matter mentioned above, “And the Levite who is in your cities, etc.” This is why Rashi chose to say, “Over the matter.” 
  In the diaspora, however, you are not admonished, etc. The reason is because in the Land of Israel, the Israelites received portions in the Land whereas the Levites did not. Therefore, they must attend to the Levites. But in the diaspora, the Israelites, just as the Levites, did not receive any portion of the land.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Unless he enjoys expansion and affluence. You might ask: This verse, simply understood, refers to the expansion of borders and becoming distanced from the Land. Why does Rashi deviate from the plain meaning? The answer is: It is written afterwards, “When the place is distant from you, etc.,” which refers to the expansion of borders. If so, what is the meaning of, “When ... expands your borders”? It must be referring to expansion [of possessions] and affluence. And “borders,” refers to fields and vineyards, which is affluence. This explanation is according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah (<i>Chulin</i> 84a). 
  However in the wilderness, non-sacrificial meat was forbidden, etc. The meaning of בכל אות נפשך (anything you desire), is “any <i>species</i> that you desire,” whether or not you may bring it as a peace offering. This is according to Rebbi Yishmael (<i>Chulin</i> 17b), who expounds the verse, “When ... expands your borders,” refers to the expansion of borders, that is, after they entered the Land. But according to Rebbi Elazar (ibid. 84a) who expounds that [the verse] refers to expansion [of possessions] and affluence, it is not possible to say, “However in the wilderness, non-sacrificial meat was forbidden, etc.” For it simply says, “Anything you desire,” whether after coming to the Land or before coming to the Land. Rashi’s commentary is very difficult [to understand], because first he explains that, “When ... expands your borders,” refers to expansion [of property] and affluence. How then does he reverse himself and explain afterwards that it refers to the expansion of borders? Furthermore, Rashi explains the verse, “Anything you desire,” according to Rebbi Yishmael who says that, “When ... expands your borders,” refers [literally] to the expansion of borders, how then can he explain the verse, “When ... the place is distant from you,” [also meaning] as its borders becoming more distant [i.e., expansion of borders. For this is seemingly redundant.]? (<i>Re”m</i>). But to me it seems: Rebbi Elazar agrees with Rebbi Yishmael that, “Anything you desire,” means that non-sacrificial meat was not permitted to them in the wilderness. For it is written afterwards, “When the place is distant from you ... you may slaughter some of your cattle or your flocks.” And the verse, “When the place is distant,” refers to the expansion of place [i.e. borders], and not according to Rebbi Yishmael who explains it as, “From a place that is distant you may slaughter [non-sacrificial meat] but not from a place that is near, for you may not slaughter non-sacrificial meat in the Temple courtyard.” And the verse, “When ... expands your borders, etc.,” he expounds as, “One should not eat meat unless he enjoys expansion and affluence.” And he agrees with Rebbi Yishmael on one point [that non-sacrificial meat was forbidden in the wilderness], but disagrees with him on another [whether the verse, “When the place is distant,” prohibits the slaughter of non-sacrificial meat in the Temple courtyard]. See <i>Chulin 16b and 84a. </i>
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  You are not admonished to eat them in ritual purity, etc. [We might think:] Non-sacrificial animals eaten to satisfy one’s appetite, from a species that is offered as a sacrifice, must be eaten in ritual purity — just as the sacrificial meat. This would be similar to the fats of non-sacrificial meat which we are forbidden to eat because they are from a species that is offered as a sacrifice. [Therefore, the phrase, “As the deer and the gazelle,”] teaches us otherwise. 
  Perhaps, just as the fat of the deer and gazelle are permitted, etc. In other words: The fat of the deer and gazelle is permitted because they are not offered as sacrifices on the altar. Perhaps so too, the fat of any animal that is not offered as a sacrifice would be permitted. The Torah therefore teaches, “only.” I.e., the word, “only,” is a term that excludes. Rashi has explained this verse according to its simple meaning — that, “Only, as the deer, etc.,” refers to the ritual purity and impurity of non-sacrificial meat. Our Sages, however, expound from here that it comes to teach that the deer and gazelle require ritual slaughtering (<i>Chulin</i> 28a). 
  
  Verse 23
  
  You must exercise strength with mitzvos, etc. For a person’s evil inclination constantly tempts him to transgress Hashem’s will. Therefore, even regarding [seemingly] easy <i>mitzvos</i>, a person must exercise strength. All the more so regarding other <i>mitzvos</i> that a person craves [to transgress them] (<i>Maharai</i>). 
  This prohibits the limb of a living animal. The verse means to say, “Do not eat <i>from it</i> <i>while</i> the spirit is with the meat.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  This prohibits the dripping tamtzis blood. The term דם התמצית means the blood that drips at the time of slaughtering. Three types of [<i>tamtzis</i>] blood come out at the time of slaughtering: The first is black, the second is red, afterwards it gushes [which is not <i>tamtzis</i> blood], and afterwards it drips again. All three [the first two and the last one] are called the dripping <i>tamtzis blood. The blood of the limbs is blood that has moved from one place to another — even though it is still absorbed and did not come out of the limb, it is forbidden. However, if the blood never left its original place then it is not included by the prohibition, “Do not eat it.” This is explained in Chulin (14a). (See Tosefos there) </i>
  
  Verse 25
  
  This prohibits the blood absorbed in the limbs. Rashi’s explanation poses a difficulty, for in chapter “<i>Kol Habasar</i>”<i></i> (<i>Chulin</i> 115b), this verse, “Do not eat it,” is understood to prohibit [the combination of] meat and milk. And [furthermore,] Rashi himself explains likewise in the first chapter of <i>Krisus</i> (4b). <i>Re”m</i> also raises this difficulty. However, it seems to me: Rashi’s explanation here follows the viewpoint of the other <i>Tannaim</i> and <i>Amoraim</i> in chapter “<i>Kol Habasar</i>.” And they learn out the prohibition not to eat meat and milk from other verses (see there). One <i>Tanna</i> learns out [the prohibition not to eat meat and milk] from the verse, ‘Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,’ which is written three times, and one of them is intended to prohibit eating [them together].” See Rashi above in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:19). But Rashi’s explains in <i>Krisus</i> follows the viewpoint of Rebbi who explains that, “Do not eat it,” is a prohibition not to eat meat and milk. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  If they are burnt-offerings, place the flesh, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is this verse necessary to be written? For it is already written (v. 26), “However, your sacred offerings ... you are to bring when you come to the place that Adonoy chooses,” which includes all types of offerings. An additional question: At first it is written, “You are to execute your burnt-offerings — the meat and the blood — <i>on the altar</i> of Adonoy.” But afterwards it is written, “Then <i>you will eat</i> the meat,” which is apparently self-contradictory! Rashi answers that this verse is explaining the previous one, and it should be understood as follows: “If they are burnt-offerings, place the flesh and the blood on the altar. But if they are peace-offerings, etc.” The reason why Rashi says על גבי המזבח (on <i>top of the altar) regarding burnt-offerings, but he says על המזבח (on the altar) regarding peace-offerings is as follows: The flesh and blood of burnt-offerings are placed on top of the altar, not on the altar itself. But the blood of peace-offerings is placed on the altar itself, not on top of it. </i>
  This teaches concerning sacrificial-offerings outside the Land. I.e., if a person who is outside the Land sanctifies an animal as a sacrifice, he must take care in transporting it until he brings it to the Temple [as indicated by the previous verse, “...you are to bring when you come.”] 
  
  Verse 28
  
  But anyone who is not involved in study, etc. For if he has not learned, how will he [know what to] do? 
  A minor commandment should be as precious ... as one of great consequence, etc. Otherwise, why is the word, “all,” needed? Let Scripture write only, “These words that I am commanding you,” which implies, “all of them.” 
  In the eyes of mortals. This means, for example, the neighbor’s law of preemption, [e.g., a neighbor must be given the first chance to buy one’s property], which is only [derived] from [the verse], “Perform the upright and the good (Devarim 6:18).” 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  After you observe when I have annihilated them before you, etc. Rashi found this verse difficult, for its simple meaning implies: Only after the Canaanite nations have been annihilated then you are warned not to be torn apart along with them [i.e., not to follow in their ways], but not beforehand! Therefore, Rashi explains, “After you observe, etc.”
  
  For example, exposing oneself for the sake of Peor, etc. I.e., exposing the anus towards it and defecating. This is the manner of Peor’s worship. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  Before his dog, who then ate him. כלבו (his dog) was his god. ואכלו (and ate him) is the equivalent of burning in fire. With this understanding, the words of R’ Akiva are a proof to Rashi’s explanation [regarding the word, “Even.”].
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Five totafos within the tefilin, etc. See my explanation above in Parshas Va’eschanan (4:2). Rashi’s statement, “five species with the <i>lulav</i>,” refers to where he <i>binds</i> them so that the five species are all bound together — For [only] then does he transgress. But if he did not bind them together, he does not transgress. Even according to the viewpoint that a <i>lulav</i> does not need binding, it is nevertheless understood that if he binds them together he transgresses the prohibition of, “Do not add.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
  And should you ask, why the Holy One, may He be blessed, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The word כי (for) is always a reason being given for what was written above. Yet here, how is it giving a reason? Therefore Rashi explains: “And if you should ask, etc.” And now the word, “for,” fits well as giving a reason. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  The voice of the prophets. I.e., “Keep His commandments,” already implies the entire Torah given through Moshe, which includes all His commandments. If so, what is the meaning of, “Heed His voice”? Rather, it includes the voice of the prophets. 
  In His Sanctuary. The word “serve” refers to sacrifices, which is in the Sanctuary. For if it refers to the service of fulfilling His commandments, this has already been mentioned. 
  Embrace His ways; engage in kindness, etc. Why does Rashi not explain similarly above in Parshas Eikev (10:20) where it also written, “Cleave to Him”? The answer is: The simple meaning of the verse in Eikev [actually] is: “Embrace His ways; engage in kindness, etc.” But here in order that we do not make a mistake to explain [in a similar fashion] the verse “After Adonoy, your God, are you to go...” that it means “<i>after</i> having acquired all of these attributes, then “Cleave to Him” — in order that you shall have His Divine Providence. Therefore, Rashi needed to explain: “Embrace His ways, etc.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Even if He had done nothing for you but redeemed you, etc. Otherwise why is the phrase, “Who redeemed you from the house of bondage,” necessary? For Scripture had already written, “Who took you out of the land of Egypt.” And when He took them out, they had already been set free [i.e., redeemed]. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  The word הסתה always denotes inciting ... He seduces him, etc. You might ask: At first Rashi explains, “The expression הסתה always denotes inciting,” but afterwards he writes, “He <i>seduces </i>him, etc.,” which denotes to mislead. This question has already been answered by <i>Re”m in Parshas Bereishis regarding the verse (3:13), “The serpent seduced me.” He writes: Although the term הסתה usually means, “to mislead,” nevertheless Rashi explains here [in Re’ey], “The word הסתה always denotes inciting ... he seduces him, etc.” This is because inciting is only accomplished through words that are misleading. And the meaning of [Rashi’s words], “He seduces him into performing the act,” is, “he misleads him into performing the act.” </i>
  Maternally. A <i>vav</i> is lacking, [and it means as if it said] ובן אמך (<i>or</i> your mother’s son). It is not correct to say that only a brother from the same father <i>and</i> mother is intended. For we find the term “brother,” indicates even a paternal brother, as in (Bereishis 42:13), “Your servants are twelve brothers,” and (below 25:5), “If brothers reside together.” Rather, the verse must be understood as if it said, “or.” [“Your <i>mother’s son,” is written] because one’s paternal brother is more beloved to him than his maternal brother. </i>
  This refers to your father, etc. [Rashi is referring to the term, “soul mate,” and] the verse is lacking the word “or.” For a father is never referred to as ריע (neighbor). 
  
  Verse 8
  
  This refers to the sun, the moon, and the heavenly hosts, etc. Otherwise Scripture should have written only, “At a distance from you to the ends of the earth.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Do not be inclined towards him, etc. For this verse cannot be understood according to its simple meaning — “Do not agree with his words, and do not accept them.” For if so, what is the meaning of, “Do not view him compassionately ... for you must certainly execute him, etc.” He is about to be executed! Does the verse need to warn, “Do not agree with his words, and do not accept his words to serve other gods”? 
  Because it states, “Lay aside [your hatred of him] and assist him,”, etc. Onkelos explains עזוב תעזוב as, “Lay aside whatever is in your heart against him,” which means to [put aside] the hatred in your heart and be forgiving to him. Although Rashi explains above (Shmos 23:5) that the term עזוב תעזוב denotes assistance, here he says that it denotes forgiveness, because Rashi above is explaining the simple meaning of the verse. (<i>Maharai explains likewise).
  </i>
  
  Verse 10
  
  Do not retry him to exonerate him. Otherwise why does it need to say הרג תהרגנו (lit., you shall execute, execute him), which is apparently repetitive? Even though the Torah uses common speech, <i>Re”m says: “We only say this if there is nothing to expound [from the apparent redundancy]. But if there is something to be expounded, then we do so.” But it seems to me that Rashi is answering the question: The entire phrase הרוג תהרגנו is seemingly superfluous! For it is written afterwards, “Let your hand strike him first to execute him.” Therefore, “surely execute him,” is to be expounded. </i>
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Which was not given as a dwelling place, etc. I.e., to any individual, but rather any Israelite has the right to dwell there, because Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes. 
  Saying the following: Men have gone out, etc. I.e., the word לאמר (saying) here does not follow its usual meaning — “say again,” or, “say to them words of rebuke.” Rather, it is connected to the verse following [“Men have gone out.”] 
  
  Verse 14
  
  But not women. Otherwise why is the word אנשים (men) needed? For Scripture already writes בני בליעל (unscrupulous people). And this is why Rashi explains בליעל before he explains אנשים [even though it appears in the verse later].
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  “Thoroughly” and “Thoroughly” are extrapolated by the principle of textual comparison etc. It is as if they are all written together, “You must (1)investigate, and (2)inquire (3)thoroughly, and the magistrates must (4)investigate (5)thoroughly, and you must (6)investigate (7)thoroughly,”  —  these are the seven [inquiries].
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Do not inflict lacerations and gashes on your flesh, etc. I.e., a prohibition only applies to a person carrying out an action, and not on the one to whom the action is carried out. Since the [<i>hitpa’el </i>verb form of] the term לא תתגודדו (do not lacerate yourself) usually emphasizes on whom the action is carried out, therefore Rashi explains, “Do not inflict lacerations on your flesh.” And Rashi says גדידה ושרט (lacerations <i>and gashes) to let us know that גדידה is a type of gash — the two words are synonymous. See Parshas Emor (Vayikra 21:5), where this verse has been fully explained.
  </i>
  
  Verse 2
  
  Your own sanctity extends from your forefathers, etc. I.e., your sanctity does not stem from you but rather from your forefathers. Otherwise why is, “And Adonoy has chosen you,” needed afterwards? For this means, “And furthermore Adonoy has chosen you,” is a second reason. But their own sanctity [alone] would suffice why Hashem chose them! 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Anything I made abominable to you, etc. You might ask: Why then are we permitted to eat castrated chickens and animals? For Hashem made them abominable to us — it is forbidden to castrate them. The answer is: Since we need a verse (Vayikra 22:24) to prohibit their acceptance as a sacrifice, we can then infer that they are permitted for non-sacrificial purposes. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Split. The word מפרסת is not related to the word פרסה (hoof). Otherwise, the verse regarding the camel (Vayikra 11:4) ופרסה איננו מפריס, would mean, “It does not have a hoof with which to step on the ground.” But this is not so! Therefore Rashi explains that the word מפרסת denotes being “split.” In other words, the hoof is split. 
  The inference it, ‘what is found within the animal, you may eat,’, etc. I.e., since it is written in the beginning of this verse, “And every animal whose sole is cloven...” then what does the phrase, “within the animals, it you may eat” teach us? Rather, put the first word, “animal” in front of the second one and explain it as follows: “Every animal that is found within an animal, you may eat.” Rashi uses the term, “fetus,” to exclude a case in which an animal is slaughtered and the likeness of a dove is found inside, for [in order to be permitted to eat the animal] hooves are required, but are lacking. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  This permits the bird released by the metzora. I.e., the word כל (all) is an inclusive term [and here it comes] to include the bird released by the <i>metzora. </i>
  
  Verse 12
  
  This prohibits the slaughtered bird [offered by the metzora]. Apparently it is expounded this way because the phrase, “This is what you may not eat,” is apparently superfluous. For below it is written (v. 19), “And all flying creeping creatures are ritually unclean for you, they may not be eaten.” Rather, the verse here intends to forbid the bird that is slaughtered by the <i>metzora</i>. The Gemora (Kiddushin 57a) asks, “I would say the opposite — forbid the [<i>metzora’s</i>] released bird and permit the slaughtered bird.” And the Gemora answers, “The Torah does not say to release the bird if eventually it may cause a liability” — that a person might unknowingly sin by taking and eating it. <i>Re”m</i> asks: If [this reasoning is] so, then why is the phrase, “[You may eat] any pure bird,” needed to permit the released bird? <i>Re”m</i> answers: The explanation, “Any pure bird — this permits the released bird,” is only an <i>asmachta</i> [a loose interpretation]. Also Rashi there says this explicitly (ibid.). 
  
  Verse 13
  
  Ayah, and dayah are one and the same, etc. Rashi’s proof is: The Mishnah Torah [i.e., the book of Devarim] only intends to add upon what was previously written above in Toras Kohanim [i.e., the book of Vayikra]. And if so, why is it not written here, “The <i>da’ah</i> and the <i>ra’ah</i>,” to [include what was said in Vayikra and merely] add [the <i>ra’ah</i>] to it? This would be similar to what is said in <i>Chulin</i> (63b), “Why are the animals repeated? Because of the dromedary, which is not mentioned in Vayikra.” If so, why does the verse (Vayikra 11:14) say, “<i>da’ah,</i>” yet here it says, “<i>ra’ah</i>,” but not, “<i>da’ah</i>”? Rather, this indicates that <i>ra’ah</i> and <i>da’ah</i> are one and the same. Therefore Scripture here does not write “<i>da’ah</i>.” For if it did, I would think that the <i>ra’ah</i> and the <i>da’ah</i> are different animals, and that the verse is coming to add [the <i>ra’ah</i>]. For this reason the verse here only says, “<i>ra’ah</i>,” to teach that the <i>da’ah</i> and <i>ra’ah</i> are one and the same. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: If so [that the <i>da’ah</i> and <i>ra’ah</i> are the same], then the verse should say, “and the <i>ra’ah</i> according to its kind,” to include the <i>da’ah</i> mentioned in Vayikra. For this reason Rashi explains, “The <i>ra’ah</i>, <i>ayah</i>, and <i>dayah</i> are one and the same.” The indication that they are all the same is because in the verse it is written, “according to its kind,” at the end to group them all together to teach that they are one and the same. Furthermore Rashi is answering the question: If they are all one and the same, why does the verse say, “The <i>ra’ah</i> and (ואת) the <i>ayah </i>and the <i>dayah</i> according to its kind”? Why is the word ואת, which interrupts between the words <i>ra’ah</i> and <i>ayah</i>, needed? Rashi answers: Why is it entitled “ra’ah”, etc. In other words, the verse interrupts [with the word ואת] to say that this name [that it has] is different from its other names. For it is called “<i>ra’ah” because its vision is exceedingly powerful, as is taught in <i>Chulin (ibid.), “While standing in Babylon it can see a carcass in the Land of Israel.” <i>Re”m’s explanation is most difficult to understand. See the Gemora (ibid.). </i></i></i>
  With the birds, the impure ones are specified. This teaches, etc. Rashi is answering the question: After having explained that all its names are specified, etc. so that one will not come to permit them, the question arises, why would one come to permit them? For perhaps they are from the impure birds and they were not specified — just as the pure birds were not specified. Rashi answers: “The impure ones are specified, etc.” If these names were not specified [among the impure birds], then certainly they would be pure. Therefore all its names are specified. Alternatively: Since the pure birds are more numerous than the impure ones, we would follow the majority — which is pure — and consider it pure. Therefore all its names are specified. 
  Therefore, those less numerous are specified. But regarding the animals, the pure ones are specified.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Sanctify yourselves by abstaining from that which is permitted, etc. <i>Re”m</i> writes: This prohibition, “Do not eat any carcass,” is not for the sake of beauty, as is, “Do not lacerate yourself (v. 1),” which is only for the sake of beauty — as Rashi explains there [and therefore it says there, “You are a sacred people” afterwards]. Rather, “Do not eat any carcass,” is required for the [well being of the] soul, and the phrase, “For you are a people sanctified, etc.,” does not apply to it. Therefore our sages explain: Since you are a sanctified people, it is fitting to sanctify yourselves even regarding that which is permitted to you, etc. But to me it seems that Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse here say differently from what is written at the end of Parshas Shmini (Vayikra 11:43). It should say here instead, “Do not eat any carcass and do not make yourselves repulsive, etc.” The reason why it is written, “For you are a people sanctified to Adonoy, etc.,” is to expound, “Sanctify yourselves, etc.” 
  Three times; this excludes wild animals, fowl, etc. Rashi’s explanation above in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:19), “This comes to forbid eating, cooking, and deriving benefit,” is based on the phrase, “do not cook,” which is written three times. But Rashi’s explanation here, “This excludes wild animals, fowl, and impure animals,” is based on the word, “kid,” which is written three times. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  What is the relationship between the two subjects? etc. Although Rashi does not explain why subjects are juxtaposed unless they are written out of place, in Mishnah Torah he does — just as he explains below in Parshas Ki Seitzei regarding the verse (21:11), “...And take her for yourself as a wife, etc.” 
  Do not cause Me to cook the young shoots of your crops, etc. The word לבשל (lit., to cook) here means, “to destroy.” The word גדיים (lit., kids) here refers to grain still in its stalks and nearly ripe. 
  Similarly, with regard to the bikurim-gift. If you do not bring the first-fruit offering, then your fruits will be destroyed. In other words: We also learn from the juxtaposition of the first-fruit offering to the verse, “You must not cook a kid, etc.,” of Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:19) and Ki Sisa (ibid. 34:26) where it is written, “The first fruits of your land bring to the House of the Adonoy your God. You must not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” Therefore Rashi says, “Similarly.” In other words: Although Rashi usually does not explain why subjects are juxtaposed, nevertheless since, “...do not cook, etc.,” is expounded here, we also expound it there. 
  From here it is derived that one may not use the new crop, etc. Rashi’s explanation is not precise; the old crop also may not be used as tithe for the new. But Rashi is teaching us a greater novelty. Even the new may not be used as tithe for the old — the superior for the inferior. Then certainly the old may not be used as tithe for the new — the inferior for the superior. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  So that the grain is too abundant to carry. The phrase, “For Adonoy ... has blessed you,” refers to, “If you will be unable to carry it,” for the blessing only applies to the abundance of grain. But it does not apply to, “because the place is distant,” which means the expansion of borders by conquering other lands. For the blessing does not apply to the conquest of other lands.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  The earth’s progeny [...and it grows upon the soil]. “The earth’s progeny,” [literally, “The produce of the earth’s produce”] refers to such items as grapevines from grape seeds, and excludes water, salt, truffles, and mushrooms. And, “grows upon the soil,” excludes fish.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  By neglecting to give him the first tithe. This [verse, “You must not abandon,”] does not mean to invite the Levite to your table if he neither has first tithes nor tithes to the poor, as Rashi explained above regarding (12:18), “Before Adonoy, your God, are you to eat it ... you and your son ... [and the Levite], etc.” For the verse above refers to eating, as it is written, “Before Adonoy, your God, are you to eat it, etc.” But here the Levite is not included in eating with him. For it is written, “You will eat it there in the presence of Adonoy ... and you will rejoice, you and your household, etc.,” and the matter is concluded and another verse begins, “And the Levite who is in your city, you must not abandon” — by neglecting to give him his portion which is the first tithe. 
  This excludes the gleaning, forgotten sheaves and edge of the field... Hence, they are exempt from tithing. I.e., why does the Levite have a portion in them? Because they — the gleaning, forgotten sheaves, edge of the field, and abandoned produce — are exempt from tithing. You might ask: Do we not find regarding the Levite in Parshas Korach (Bamidbar 18:29), “From all your gifts you must set aside all the <i>terumah</i>-gifts of Adonoy”? The answer is: Everything that it given to the Levites as a gift, tithes must be given from it. But these [the gleaning, forgotten sheaves, etc.] are not given to them as a gift. Rather, they are abandoned to all. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  And take the first tithe. This verse is abridged. For without adding, “...and take the first tithe,” it seems that the Levite, proselyte, orphan, and widow are treated equally; that you are to give them [enough] food to eat their fill. 
  You must bring to Jerusalem, etc. I.e., you must bring the <i>second</i> tithes of the first and second year in order to eat it in Jerusalem, and confess, “I have divested my home of the sacred produce.” In the first and second years of the Sabbatical cycle, the first and second tithes are separated each year. Likewise, in the fourth and fifth years [of the Sabbatical cycle]. In the third and sixth years the first tithes and tithes to the poor are separated. The tithes to the poor and the first tithes may be eaten anywhere, but the second tithes must be eaten in Jerusalem (as explained elsewhere).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Of every creditor. The verse is disarranged, for the <i>shmitah</i> only applies to the hand of the creditor [and not to his entire self] — that he shall not have a hand [i.e., the ability] to claim his debt. Rashi adds the word של (of) because it says ידו [spelled] with a <i>vav (<i>his hand), then we need to explain whose hand it is. Therefore Rashi continues and says, “...of every creditor.” Rashi also adds the word את, to indicate that “his hand” is the object. For without the word את then “his hand” is the subject, as in “And his hand reaches (Vayikra 25:26).”
  </i></i>
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Then there will be no one destitute among you. The word, “only,” is connected to the previous verse, “End it [poverty], so that there will be no one destitute among you.” As if it said: The promise to you, “There will be no one destitute among you,” applies “Only if you will listen.” 
  Listen a little, etc. Rashi is answering the question: What is the meaning of “only” that is written in this verse? For every instance of, “only,” is an exclusionary term. Rashi explains: It is excluding from, “listen,” and perforce it is coming to be expounded, “Listen <i>a little</i>, and you will be given the opportunity to listen much.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  The neediest [lit., whoever desires most] should be given preference. The most destitute among them. In other words: If someone needs a particular item then give it to him first, since he desires it most. 
  Your paternal brother should be given preference over your maternal brother. Otherwise why is the term מאחד (among one of) needed? Rashi interprets the word מאחד as מיוחד (<i>a particular brother), which is referring to your paternal brother. For it is written below (25:5) says [a related term, יחדו regarding paternal brothers], “When brothers dwell יחדו (together).” </i>
  
  Verse 8
  
  This refers to a wife, etc. In other words, you must provide him with a wife. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Perhaps this is a mitzvah? The Torah therefore teaches, “So that he does not cry out.” That verse is written in Parshas Ki Seitzei (below 24:15). Even though that verse deals with a day laborer, and the verse here pertains to lending to the poor, nevertheless they both pertain to the <i>poor</i>. For it is written here, “Your <i>destitute</i> brother,” and it is written there, “For he is <i>a poor man,</i> etc.” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  Even if you merely say that you would give, etc. Since the word הדבר (this thing) is written, they expounded it as being related to the word דיבור (speech). Likewise the verse (Bereishis 12:17), “Regarding the matter (דבר) of Sarah,” is expounded as, “Through Sarah’s speech.” Otherwise, why is the term, “this thing,” needed? Rather it should simply say, “Because of this, Adonoy will bless you.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  For this reason. I.e., the term על כן does not mean, “since,” as in, “Since (כי על כן) I did not give her to Shailoh my son (Bereishis 38:26),” and, “Since (כי על כן) I did not allow you to touch her (ibid. 20:6).” For in those verses, the expression על כן is connected to the word כי — and every instance of כי על כן in Scripture means, “since,” as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayeirah (ibid. 18:5). But here the expression על כן means, “For this reason,” because it is written without the word כי. 
  I am counselling you for your own good. Otherwise, why is the word, “saying,” needed? For no form of the word דיבור (spoke) is mentioned beforehand so that the word, “saying,” should follow it. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  When the courts sold him for his larceny, etc. You might ask: From where does Rashi know this? Perhaps he sold himself, similar to the verse (Vayikra 25:39) ונמכר לך (And he is sold to you), where he sold himself. We cannot say that Rashi’s explanation is because it already says, “And he is sold to you,” regarding when he sold himself, and therefore the verse here is apparently redundant [and must be discussing a different case — when the courts sold him]. If so [we could say to the contrary], it already says, “If you purchase a Hebrew slave (Shmos 21:2),” regarding when he is sold by others — the courts [and then the verse here must be discussing a different case — when he sold himself]. <i>Re”m</i> answers: Perhaps the expression, “And he is sold,” on its own means that he is sold by others. For the word נמכר is the <i>nifal</i> verb form, which usually means that a subject is acted upon by others. Except regarding the verse, “And he is sold,” it is first written, “When your brother becomes impoverished,” and continues to explain, “And he is sold.” Perforce, it means that he sold himself. But it seems to me that regarding a Hebrew slave we learn one verse from another: It is written here אחיך העברי (Your brother-<i>Jew), and it is written there עבד עברי (<i>Jewish slave) — just as in the verse there he was sold by others, so too here he was sold by others. </i></i>
  Rather, because of two novel teachings here, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi not state another novel teaching — that a Hebrew (male) slave is not set free if his master mutilates the tips of his limbs. For the verse here compares him to the Hebrew maidservant, [and she is not set free if mutilated] as it is written in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 21:7). Perhaps the answer is: The rule stated by our sages, “Any segment of the Torah which is written and repeated — it is only repeated for the sake of a novel teaching,” applies only to a novel teaching stated explicitly in the verse. But it does not apply to [something like] this, which is merely an outcome of the comparison [between the slave and maidservant] (<i>Re”m</i>). But it seems to me: Regardless of the comparison here, we still would not learn that the Hebrew (male) servant is set free if mutilated. [This might have been attempted] through <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning from a Canaanite slave [as follows]: Regarding a Canaanite slave, who is not set free after six years. Nevertheless he is set free if mutilated. So then regarding a Hebrew slave, who is set free after six years, does it not logically follow that he too is set free if mutilated? But I would retort: A Hebrew maidservant disproves this logic. For she is set free after six years, but she is not set free if mutilated, and so a Hebrew slave would be the same. We could not learn through <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning from a Canaanite slave that a Hebrew maidservant is set free if mutilated, for Scripture writes explicitly that, “She shall not go out [free] in the manner of male slaves [if mutilated].” [It seems to me].
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  The literal meaning of this is “adornment.” In other words: The master should adorn his slave lavishly, and this will indicate to the slave that his master treated him benevolently. 
  Just as these are distinguished by their blessed status, etc. Flocks are [blessed because they] bear offspring and multiply. So, too, whatever grows from the earth. However, this excludes mules, since they do not bear offspring and multiply. 
  Also, the Rabbis derive in tractate Kiddushin through the gezeirah-shava comparison principle etc. I.e., the verse here says, “Do not send him away <i>empty-handed</i>,” and in Parshas Ki Sisa regarding a first-born son it says, “Do not appear before Me <i>empty-handed</i> (Shmos 34:20).” Just as regarding a first-born son the amount is twenty silver pieces, here too the amount is twenty silver pieces. From where do we know the amount regarding the first-born? [We know] from Yoseif, the first-born son of Rochel, who was sold to Egypt for twenty silver pieces.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Perhaps this follows the plain meaning? Etc. And we should not say: Perhaps this verse refers to a slave sold by the courts two or three years before the <i>yovel — </i>He goes free in the <i>yovel</i>, but a slave who has been pierced should serve forever, which is the plain meaning of the verse. For the answer is: A slave sold by the courts is set free because the verse says, “And he shall return to his family (Vayikra 25:41).” If so, then what is the verse, “Everyone shall return to his family, etc. (Vayikra 25:10),” referring to? It must mean that a slave who has been pierced is set free in the <i>yovel</i>. See Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 21:6) and Parshas Behar (Vayikra ibid.).
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  His master gives him [a Gentile maidservant], etc. I.e., The Hebrew slave may even be forced to take her. Otherwise [if the meaning is that he is merely <i>allowed</i> to take her], it is already written (Shmos 21:4), “If his master gives him a [maidservant] wife, etc.” 
  
  Verse 19
  
  It is a mitzvah to declare ‘You are hereby consecrated as a firstborn.’ Otherwise, why is תקדיש (you must consecrate) necessary? For it is already consecrated. 
  Another interpretation. One cannot say, “You must consecrate”, etc. The first interpretation is problematic: What is the <i>mitzvah</i> to declare, “You are hereby consecrated,” if it is already consecrated? Therefore Rashi says, “Another interpretation, etc.” And the second interpretation is problematic: For the term תקדיש (You must consecrate) implies that the animals itself must be consecrated, and not its monetary value. Therefore Rashi also says the first interpretation. This answers the question that is asked: Rashi’s second interpretation is the viewpoint of Rebbi Yishmael, but the first interpretation is the viewpoint of the Rabbis who argue with him, and the <i>halacha</i> follows the Rabbis. Why then does Rashi mention the viewpoint of Rebbi Yishmael if the <i>halacha does not follow him? Perforce Rashi is only coming to explain the verse close to its simple meaning, and to set each matter in the verse properly. </i>
  Then donate, to the sacred hekdesh domain, the value of its beneficiary payment. Re”m writes: Here Rashi explains, “Donate to <i>hekdesh</i> the value of its beneficiary payment.” But in tractate <i>Erechin</i> (29a) Rashi explains, “Donate to a<i> kohein</i> the value of its beneficiary payment,” which is difficult to understand. Furthermore: In tractate <i>Bechoros</i> (31a) the Mishnah says, “The monetary benefit of sacred animals that have been disqualified is given to <i>hekdesh</i>. They may be sold in the market and weighed in the usual manner; except for the firstborn and (animal) tithes, since their monetary benefit is given to their owners [the Kohanim].” Yet how can Rashi say here that the beneficiary payment of the firstborn is given to <i>hekdesh</i>? I found [a solution] written, which I think is correct: Rashi’s explanation here, "Then donate, to <i>hekdesh</i>, the value of its beneficiary payment,” is referring to a firstborn that was sanctified, for then its beneficiary payment is given to <i>hekdesh</i>. But there [in <i>Erechin</i> and <i>Bechoros</i>] is referring to a firstborn that was pledged, for all pledges are given to the Kohanim. Therefore Rashi explains there, “Give its beneficiary payment to the Kohanim.” See <i>Erechin 28b, 29a. </i>
  
  Verse 20
  
  Just as the second tithe is not disqualified from one year to the next, etc. As it is written regarding the tithes (above 14:28), “At the end of three years, separate all the tithes of your produce,” and Rashi explains, “This comes to teach that if one withheld his tithes, etc.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  You shall slaughter, as the chagigah- offering, etc. For the <i>pesach</i>-offering may only be from the sheep or from the goats. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Bread which memorializes the anguish, etc. For in a brief moment they were all redeemed — their dough did not even have time to rise. And by [remembering] this miracle, they will [also] remember the anguish. 
  Without sufficient time for the dough to leaven, etc. You might ask: Regardless they were not permitted to eat leaven, for it is written (Shmos 12:15), “Seven days you shall eat matzos, etc.” The answer is: “Seven days, etc.,” applies only to future generations. But in Egypt, leaven was forbidden only on that day, as mentioned in tractate <i>Pesachim</i> (28b, 96a). 
  
  Verse 4
  
  This prohibits retaining the flesh of the pesach offered during future generations, etc. For regarding the <i>pesach</i> brought in Egypt it is written (Shmos 12:10), “Do not let any of it remain until morning.” [Therefore] we might think that this applies only to the <i>pesach</i> brought in Egypt, which the Jews ate in haste while preparing to travel. And for this reason it should not be allowed to remain — so there should be no delay. But the <i>pesach</i> brought during future generations may remain until morning. So the verse here comes to teach us differently. And the verse in Parshas Ki Sisa (ibid. 34:25), “Do not allow to remain overnight until the morning, etc.,” is speaking about the innards of the <i>pesach</i> offering. And the verse in Parshas Beha’aloscha (Bamidbar 9:12), “They shall not leave any of it over until the morning,” is speaking about the Second Pesach [on the fifteenth of Iyar]. 
  The “first day” mentioned here refers to the fourteenth of Nisan, etc. [I.e., it should not be understood literally as “the first day” after slaughtering, which is the fifteenth.] The verse should be understood as, “Which you slaughtered on the first day — which is the fourteenth of Nisan.” And the phrase, “Until morning,” is connected to, “None of the flesh may remain overnight.” It is as if the verse says, “And none may remain overnight until morning from the flesh which you slaughtered towards the evening of the first day.”
  
  Because Scripture has digressed from matters concerning the pesach, etc. I.e., if Scripture had not digressed then it would only need to say, “None of the flesh may remain overnight which you slaughtered towards the evening, until morning.” It would obviously be referring to the fourteenth day of Nisan, for right beforehand it is written, “You shall slaughter the <i>pesach</i>-offering, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  These are three separate times, etc. It is as if the verse had written, “There you will slaughter the <i>pesach</i> in the evening — which is after six hours, and eat it at sunset — which is night time, and burn it at the time you left Egypt.” But since it is not an obligation to burn it, therefore Rashi says, “Meaning that it is disqualified as <i>nosar</i> and must be removed to the burning site.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  The morning of the second day, etc. “Morning,” cannot refer to the morning of the first day, for it is the Festival and one may not leave the city boundaries. Furthermore, one is obligated on the first day to [appear in the Beis Hamikdash and] bring <i>r’iyah</i> burnt-offerings. Tosefos write this in Succah (47a).
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Elsewhere it is said seven days. See <i>Re”m</i> for further elaboration. But I have previously stated that I do not mention whatever is not necessary for the simple understanding.
  Seven from the old crop, six from the new. For on the sixteenth of Nisan the <i>omer</i> is brought, and that permits the new crop. But if one wishes to eat from the old crop all seven days, he is permitted [to do so]. 
  Another interpretation. This teaches that eating matzoh on the seventh day is not obligatory, etc. This has been explained in Parshas Bo (Shmos 12:15), see there. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  From the time the omer is cut, etc. I.e., it does not depend upon the beginning of the harvest, but rather upon the time the <i>omer</i> is cut. But since the harvest begins with the <i>omer</i>, Scripture writes, “From the time the sickle begins felling the standing grain." 
  
  Verse 10
  
  The fullness of the gift of your hand, etc. For the word above (15:8) די (fullness) is translated by Onkelos as כמסת. The letter <i>mem</i> in מסת is a root letter, and the full root is מסס. The letter <i>samech contains a <i>dagesh [dot] to make up for the missing double <i>samech. </i></i></i>
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Another interpretation ... the sukkah should be covered with the husks and skins left in the threshing area and wine cellar. The refuse of the threshing area is the husks, and the refuse of the wine cellar is the skins. [These come] to exclude anything that is attached to the ground or is susceptible to contract ritual impurity. The reason Rashi says, “Another interpretation, etc.” is because the simple meaning of the verse is problematic: Why does it need to say, “The festival of <i>Sukkos</i>,” and also, “When you harvest”? One or the other is sufficient. Therefore Rashi says, “Another interpretation, etc.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  The last evening of the festival is included, etc. As we learned in tractate Sukkah (48a): “You shall experience only joy,” includes the last evening of the festival [i.e., the eve of the eighth day]. Or perhaps it only includes the first evening of the festival? The Torah therefore says, “only,” in order to differentiate. Why do you see fit to include the last evening and to exclude the first evening? [The answer is:] I include the last evening because it is preceded by rejoicing — i.e. the festival. Therefore it must be included with the seven days. But this is not so regarding the first evening. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Rather, bring olah- pilgrimage-offerings, etc. Although the commandment of, “Are all your males to be seen,” only refers to <i>olah</i>-pilgrimage-offerings, Rashi needed also to explain, “Festive <i>shelamim</i>-offerings.” For [in the next verse] it is written, “Everyone according to the gift appropriate to his means,” which refers to the above verse (v. 10), “To the fullness of your open-handed gift,” and there it is also written (v. 14), “You are to rejoice during your festival — you and your son, etc.” and this alludes to the festive <i>shelamim</i>-offerings, for there is no rejoicing without [eating] meat.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  By administering corporal punishment with cudgels, etc. [Rashi specially defines this word] because we find שוטרים [applied also] to those who are appointed in battle as [in the verse], “The officers (שוטרים) will address” (below 20:5) which Onkelos translates as סרכיא (officers) will address. 
  In each and every city. Rashi is answering the question: If one has to appoint judges in each and every gate [of every house], if so who will they judge? They would all be judges! He answers, “In each and every city.” 
  This continues from “You shall appoint for yourself.” Judges, etc. Because you cannot say that it [“for your tribes”] is connected with [the] adjacent [term] “giving you,” because once it says “that Adonoy, your God, is giving you,” the term “for your tribes” is included in the word “you.” [Therefore Rashi explains]: “This continues etc,” and it is as if the verse had written “<i>and</i> in [all] your gates,” and the וי"ו is missing from בכל שעריך. Rashi further explains that if so, why write both terms, “in your gate” and, “for your tribes”? And he explains, “This teaches that judges are to be seated, etc.” 
  This teaches that judges are to be seated for each and every tribe, etc. I.e. “for your tribes” teaches that if [the territory of] two tribes was located in one town, one needs judges for each tribe. “And in all your gates” teaches that if two towns [are located in the territory] of one tribe, one needs [to seat] judges in each town. You may ask, even if it [לשבטיך] were not connected to תתן לך (“appoint for yourself”), one could still explain the same way; because it is written נותן לך לשבטיך (“giving you for your tribes”), לשבטיך is connected to the adjacent לך [and the verse means that לך means לשבטיך]? The answer is that regarding the לך written next to נותן, once the Torah writes there, “אשר ה' אלקיך נותן לך  (that Adonoy, your God, is giving you)”, this includes all your tribes [and if so] the original question returns, why does one need [the word] לשבטיך (for your tribes)? But [when the Torah writes ]תתן לך (“you shall appoint”), it is as if it wrote תתן לשבטיך (you shall appoint for your tribes), and the word לך written in the verse is similar to [the לך] of “לך לך (Go from your land) (Breishis 12:1),” and like “עשה לך (make) (Ibid 6:14),” where (לך is) a grammatical formality [and does not really imply anything]. The same also applies here. But regarding לך written next to נותן, the word לך refers to the entire Jewish people and is not a grammatical formality; rather, it is an explanation of נותן. Because it is written, “That Adonoy your God is giving,” and to whom is He giving? To “you,” and it is explaining that this [you] is the Jewish people. Because one cannot say that “He is giving to your tribes” [because] was the land given to the tribes [and not to individuals]? But regarding תתן לך, once לשבטך is connected with תתן we no longer need the explanation of [the word לך] and perforce it is a grammatical formality. 
  Appoint competent, righteous judges, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have said, “And <i>you</i> shall judge the people righteous justice” as a direct command, just as afterwards it writes as a direct command, “Do not pervert justice,” “Do not show favoritism,” “Do not accept bribery.” And he answers, “Appoint, etc.” I.e. “Judges and police officers you shall appoint for yourself, etc.,” and what sort of judges should you appoint? The verse explains, “Who will judge the people righteous justice.” I.e. this is a command to Yisroel that they should appoint judges who know how to judge righteously, that they must be expert and righteous. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Not even during the arguments, etc. I.e. since [Rashi said that] לא תטה משפט is [interpreted] “according to its obvious interpretation,” meaning that one should not pervert justice, if so, why do we need [the command], “Do not show favoritism”? He answers, to teach you “not even during the arguments, etc.” I.e. even before the [actual] judgment [begins], one should not pervert justice and not ruin [it], “he should not be gentle, etc.” Therefore Rashi also had to explain that “Do not pervert justice” follows the obvious interpretation. 
  Even to adjudicate fairly. Because one cannot explain [that one should not take bribery] in order to <i>not</i> adjudicate fairly, [because] it is already written, “Do not pervert justice,” and if so, why do I need [the command], “Do not accept bribery”? Therefore [it must mean] that it is forbidden to take bribery even to adjudicate fairly. Alternatively, Rashi himself goes on to explain [his rationale]. I.e. the verse “for bribery blinds” is the reason for “Do not accept bribery.” And the explanation of this is that “once he has accepted his bribe it is impossible for him not to be partial, and subvert the verdict in his favor,” because he only took bribery from him in the first place in order to rule in his favor and to pervert the justice of his opponent. Therefore this implies, “‘Do not accept bribery,’ even to adjudicate fairly.” 
  Once he has accepted his bribe, it is impossible for him not to be partial, etc. You might ask that in <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim (Shmos 23:8), Rashi explained [differently], that “For it blinds the clear-sighted,” [means that] even if he is wise in the Torah but he takes a bribe, his mind will ultimately become muddled, etc.” The answer is that there it is written “blinds the clear-sighted,” and that certainly refers to his clear-sightedness, i.e. his clear-sightedness will be blinded because his mind will become muddled, etc. 
  Words that are justified, true justice. I.e. it [the term צדיקים] does not refer to the judges, but to the Torah which is [composed of] words that are justified and are called truth, and those words of the Torah he perverts because he fails to rule according to Torah law. The word דברי has the same meaning as דברים and it is not that דברי is juxtaposed [to צדיקים and means “words of the righteous”]. Rather, it is similar to “חלוני שקופים (transparent windows) (Melochim I 6:4)” which is the same as [if it said] חלונים, [and it is similar to] נטעי נעמנים, “beautiful plants” (Yeshayah 17:10), which is the same [as if it said] נטעים. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Follow after the pre-eminent tribunal. Explanation: even though any tribunal can judge a defendant against his will, nevertheless, it is a mitzvah for the claimant to go after a pre-eminent tribunal. Because you cannot define [the verse] according to its simple meaning [that the judges must pursue justice], because if so it should have said “judge [absolute justice].” Also, why is צדק written twice, [whereas now the verse means, pursue justice that is righteous]. And also it is already written, “Do not pervert justice.” Rather, “Go after, etc.” 
  There is adequate merit in the appointment of ethical judges, etc. Rashi is answering the question: “Pursue absolute justice,” [meaning] follow after the pre-eminent tribunal, is commanded only to someone who has litigation with his fellow, so just for this the entire nation of Yisroel will [merit to] live and inherit the land?! He answers that “so that you may live” does not refer to “Pursue absolute justice” but to “Judges and police officers you shall appoint for yourself, etc.” 
  
  Verse 21
  
  This makes him liable from the time that it was planted, etc. Otherwise [its worship] would be included in [the command], “You must not have any other gods” (Shmos 20:3). Furthermore, why does Scripture make mention of planting? Therefore [perforce], “This makes him liable, etc.” 
  This prohibits planting a tree, etc. Even though the verse does not write, “Do not plant for yourself any tree near the altar,” nevertheless, we are forced to say that “Do not plant” also refers [separately] to “any tree,” because if not, you might ask, how is it that Scripture writes, “Do not plant an <i>Asherah</i> for yourself any tree near the altar”? Is serving idolatry only forbidden next to the altar and permitted when not next to the altar? Rather, this is what the verse is saying. “Do not plant an <i>Asherah</i> for yourself” at all in the entire world. “And do not plant for yourself any tree near the altar” specifically, but not next to the altar you are permitted. 
  Or building a structure on the Temple mount. <i>Re”m</i> writes, “This is only a Rabbinic inference [which is hinted in the verse] as Scripture does not explicitly write “Do not plant for yourself any tree” but only the word tree [without a verb attached to it; and עץ can also mean plank]; [this indicates that] it makes no difference [whether this is done] through planting or through building. However, according to the plain meaning of the verse it refers only to planting, because “Do not plant” in the verse refers to both of them, either [planting] an <i>Asherah</i> [anywhere] or [planting] any tree near the altar of Adonoy.” Also, I found that in <i>parshas</i> Balak (Bamidbar 24:6), Rashi comments on the verse “כאהלים נטע ה' (like the tents Hashem stretched taut),” and that, “The expression of נטיעה is found in relation to tents as it is written, “ויטע אהלו אפדנו (he stretched taut his palatial tents) (Doniel 11:45).” Here too, [we can say that] the expression נטיעה relates to a structure. Another answer is that we include the building of a structure because it is written [the seemingly extra word] “<i>any,” which comes to include even the building a structure. </i>
  
  Verse 22
  
  For sacrificial offerings, even for the sake of Heaven. Rashi’s proof is that it is written, “That Adonoy, your God, detests” [in the present tense]. This implies that originally it was pleasant in His eyes when people erected a monument, but now He detests it. But if [the verse only forbade the erection of a monument] to sacrifice upon it for the purpose of idolatry, He would have hated it <i>originally</i> as well. 
  An earthen altar is what He commanded, but He detests this. And the explanation of “that He detests” is, that it is detested now by “Adonoy your God.” But do not explain that “Adonoy… detests” means to not erect <i>that</i> [detested] monument, whereas a monument that Hashem does not detest you may erect. That is incorrect because Hashem detests all monuments as Rashi goes on to explain. 
  Because it was in the canon of the Canaanites, etc. You might ask that for this same reason altars too should be forbidden, because altars too are included in the canon of the Canaanites as it is written above in <i>parshas</i> Re’ey (12:3), “You are to break apart their altars”! The answer is that this is why Rashi writes, “Since they included it in the idolatrous ritual,” meaning that there is no idol in the world for which they would not make a pillar (מצבה) [and] therefore Hashem hates them, but the altars are not such a [strict] canon as they did not make altars for all idols. Therefore the Holy One does not hate them. (<i>Re”m) </i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  This prohibits causing the pigul disqualification of the sacred offerings through a pernicious statement, etc. Because you cannot say that [this part of the verse] is coming to prohibit [an offering that has] a blemish, since it is explicitly written, “that has a blemish.” He resolves [this problem by saying], “This prohibits, etc. through a pernicious statement.” I.e. above in <i>sefer</i> Vayikra (7:18) and in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:8), it is written that one is forbidden to eat <i>pigul,</i> but it does not specify whether the person who made it <i>pigul</i> had committed a transgression. Therefore it says here, “Do not sacrifice, etc. any bad thing,” to teach you that it is] prohibited to make offerings <i>pigul,</i> i.e. if a person has in mind at the time of slaughtering to eat it beyond its [prescribed] time or outside its [prescribed] place which is accomplished by a pernicious statement. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  To worship them. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that the Holy One Blessed Is He did not command that they should be in the world [and] if so they must be deities because [the verse implies that] they were created against His will; but this is not so! Therefore he explains, “To worship them,” i.e., I did not command to worship [them]. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  The testimony was consistent. Rashi is wants to make clear that you should not mistakenly explain that the verse means, “If in fact the report is authenticated and accurate” in reference to [his] idolatry. I.e. it is authenticated that he served idolatry. Therefore he explains, “The testimony was consistent, i.e., consistent in the mouths of the witnesses when you interrogated [them]. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  “Your gates” is said below. I.e. שעריך, “your gates” written here [in this verse]. 
  And “your gates” is said above, etc. Because it is written (v. 2), “If there is found among you, in one of your cities (שעריך).” Just as there it is the city in which he worshipped, so too [over here, it means to take him] to the city in which he worshipped. 
  Targum [Onkelos] renders לקרוך. Meaning, “to your city.” [Rashi mentions this so that] you should not explain [that it means] לתרעך, “to your gates,” as the Targum translates, “On the doorposts of your house, and on your <i>gateposts (ובשעריך) (above 6:9).”
  </i>
  
  Verse 6
  
  None are liable as “conspiring witnesses” unless all are convicted as conspirators. You might ask, why does Rashi write, “<i>And</i> none are liable, etc.”? He should have written, “<i>Hence</i> none are liable, etc.,” because he is explaining what came before! The answer is that this is what Rashi means: Just as two “comprise a single testimony entity” and if one of them was found to be a relative or personally disqualified, their testimony [of both] is disqualified, so too, three “comprise a single testimony entity” and if one of them was found to be a relative or personally disqualified, their whole testimony is disqualified. [Rashi then concludes:] <i>And</i> also, “none are liable as conspiring witnesses unless all are convicted as conspirators.” I.e., just as two are not liable as conspiring witnesses until they are both found liable, so too, three are not liable as conspiring witnesses until all three of them are found liable. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  The matter is separated and concealed from you. You might ask why Rashi seemingly repeats himself? The answer is that first he explains that it [יפלא] denotes “separation or setting apart” because anything hidden and covered from a person is separated and set apart from him. Afterwards he repeats, “The matter is separated, etc.,” because כי יפלא ממך actually means that it is hidden and covered from him. Therefore [in the second sentence] Rashi [repeats the meaning of יפלא] from [its actual] meaning to [its related] meaning. 
  One finding that it is unclean, the other that it is clean. Rashi means that when Scripture writes “between blood and blood, etc.,” [it means that] they know nothing at all; rather, [the law] is separated and covered from them. But when it is written “matters under dispute,” they know [to some extent], except that “one finds that it is unclean, the other that it is clean.” Otherwise how is it written, “If a matter of law is too abstruse,” which implies that it is covered from them and they know nothing at all, and then write “matters under dispute,” which implies that “one finds that it is clean, the other that it is unclean, etc.” (In the name of Maharitz). <i>Re”m</i> explains that the difference between the doubt [argument] over here and between [the earlier statement], “If a matter of law is too abstruse, etc. between blood and blood,” is that there the doubt involved the blood itself, whether it was clean or unclean, or if the plaintiff is not guilty or guilty. But here the doubt involves the words of the city’s wise men, that one rules “not guilty” and one rules “guilty” [and the doubt revolves] upon whom to rely. Alternatively, the verse first makes a general statement, “If a matter of law is too abstruse, etc.,” and then it explains, “Matters under dispute etc,” one finding that it is clean, the other that it is unclean, etc. 
  This teaches that the Beis Hamikdosh was loftier than all other places. Meaning [that it was higher] than all other places in other countries, but excluding Eretz Yisoel where Ein Eitam was higher, as Rashi explains below (33:12) on the verse, “And He resides between his shoulders. (Tosafos in Sanhedrin 87a). 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Even if he is not comparable to other judges. Rashi is answering the question: Is it then possible for a person to go to a judge who is not [officiating] “during those days?” Rather, it comes to teach “even if he is not comparable,” etc. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Even if he tells you that right is left, etc. It seems that Rashi means as follows: Even if he tells you that what you consider right is left and that what you consider left is right you should listen to him and blame the mistake not on him but on yourself, because Hashem always places His Spirit on those who serve in His sanctuary; and He guards them from any error so that only truth comes out from their mouths. You might ask: How does Rashi know to expound [the verse] this way? Perhaps [it should be understood] according to its obvious meaning that one should not deviate from that word either right or left! The answer is that since the “word” is an intellectual matter, right or left is not relevant to it. Therefore they expound what they expound.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  From here it is derived that we wait with him until the festival, etc. You might ask: What is the difference here that Rashi explains, “From here it is derived that we wait with him until the festival etc,” whereas regarding the wayward and rebellious son (later 21:21) Rashi explains, “‘Let all Yisroel hear and be fearful,’ from here [we derive] that there must be a proclamation at the courthouse, etc.,” see there. <i>Re”m</i> discusses this at length and writes in the end: But you might ask that here we derive from “Let all the people hear and fear” that one needs waiting and a proclamation, whereas regarding the wayward and rebellious son they derive from the verse, “Let all Yisroel, etc.,” only that there must be a proclamation without [requiring] waiting? Furthermore, from where do we derive here [the requirement of] waiting? It is written here, “Let all the people <i>see</i> and fear”? It is written “<i>hear</i> and fear,” which indicates only hearing. Research this in the commentaries. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Except as required for his riding entourage, etc. Because it is written “for himself,” this implies that he may not acquire for himself an abundance of horses just to stand idly by [i.e., without purpose]. But what is required for his needs is permitted, i.e. “as required for his riding entourage.” 
  The source of supply for horses, etc. And since horses come from there, the king would certainly send his servants there so that they should always be there in order to send quality horses. And this would result in them returning to Egypt and dwelling there. You might ask Smag’s question regarding the many Jewish communities that dwell there, etc. He discusses this at length and answers in the name of R. Eliezer of Metz that when the Torah said, “You are not to proceed to return along this route again,” the Torah only forbade <i>this</i> route, i.e. from Eretz Yisroel to Egypt, but from other countries it is permitted. This is correct. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Except as required to maintain his retinue. Because it is written “for himself.” This implies that he may not accumulate in abundance for himself when he [merely] wants to put it into his treasury. “Except as required to maintain his retinue” means supplying his soldiers and horseman [and] to his servants with food, drink and clothing and all that they need.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  If he fulfills this, then he is worthy of [his kingdom] enduring. Otherwise, why is [the phrase] “that when he occupies” necessary? It should have [merely] written, “He must write for himself a duplicate of this Torah, etc.,” because before this he is certainly not any more obligated [to write a Torah scroll] than other Jews. Therefore it must be connected to what is written above [and means] that the Torah is informing him that if he fulfills this [i.e. these commands], his kingdom will endure. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  This follows the plain meaning. Rashi has to explain that this follows the plain meaning because afterwards he explains that “and he does not stray from the commandment” means “even an easily fulfilled directive by a prophet.” However, if “all the words of this Torah” did not follow the plain meaning, you might have thought that “and he does not stray from the commandment” refers to the actual words of Torah. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Implicit in the positive is the negative, etc. Meaning, that it is from here that Shmuel the prophet learned that one who contravenes the directive of a prophet, the days of his reign will not endure for long. And [therefore] he said to Shaul, “You have been foolish! You have not kept, etc.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Whether physically sound or blemished. Otherwise, why does the Torah write “the <i>entire</i> tribe of Levi” after it had written “the <i>kohanim,</i> the Levites” beforehand? Therefore this must be to include “whether physically sound, etc.” You might ask: Why does one need to exclude the blemished [from inheritance]? Above in <i>parshas</i> Tzav (Vayikra 6:11) it is written, “Every male descendant of Aharon may eat it,” and Rashi explains, “‘Every male,’ and even the blemished, etc.” i.e., they too receive portion in the sacrifices. And [if so], it is obvious that they are excluded from inheritance because they are given a portion in the offerings for this [very] reason. The answer is that the owners of extra-Sanctuary items such as <i>terumah</i> and <i>bikkurim,</i> the firstborn, <i>challah,</i> and the forelimb, etc. have <i>tovas hano’ah</i> in their offerings, i.e. they can give them to any <i>kohein</i> they choose, and they usually give these items to physically sound <i>kohanim</i> who can perform the sacrificial service and not to blemished <i>kohanim</i> who are not able to perform the sacrificial service. Therefore one might have thought that they take a portion in the land, and because of this one needs a [Scriptural] exclusion. 
  This refers to the extra-Sanctuary sacred items, etc. I.e. sanctified items brought from the outside. And what are they? Rashi explains, “The <i>terumah</i>-gifts and the tithes.” 
  This refers to the inheritance of the remaining ones. Because the Torah already said at the beginning, “They will not have, the <i>kohanim</i> etc. a portion or an inheritance, etc.,” and they [the Sifrei cited by Rashi] explained, “an inheritance,” refers to a portion in the inheritance of the Land, [the Sifrei] is forced to expound regarding this verse, “But he will have no territory,” [that] “this refers to the inheritance of the remaining ones, etc.” But Rashi who explains “but he will have no territory” according to its plain meaning, [that “they did not receive a complete inheritance”], opines that even though the Torah began [by saying], “They will not have — the <i>kohanim</i> etc. a portion, etc.,” it repeats it and concludes with this [same statement]. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  “And the inheritance of the remaining ones” adds that of the Keinites. Rashi explains: The Holy One Blessed Is He, promised Avraham that He would give his seed ten nations. He gave them seven now, and in the future he will give them the Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni. 
  “But he will have no territory” — this refers to the inheritance of five, etc. Rabbeinu Tam explains that there are five brothers from the same mother, Reuven, Shimon, Yehudah, Yissachar, Zevulun; [and] because they come from the same mother, one needs an extra exclusion [to prevent the Levites from having a portion in the Land]. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  But not from the kohanim. <i>Kohanim</i> are exempt from having to give the gifts from their animals to another <i>kohein.</i> There is an uncertainty whether Levites are included in “the people” and [therefore we apply the rule that] the burden of proof is upon the person who wants to remove something from his fellow. Therefore they are exempt from giving but if people took [these gifts from them], they do not have to return [them]. 
  This excludes wild animals. Otherwise, the verse should have said בהמה (animal) without specifying, and that would have implied everything, whether an ox or a sheep. [And the reason why the verse specifies] Rashi explains [that] if Scripture had written “animal” without specifying, it would have implied a wild animal as well because a חיה (wild animal) is included in the word בהמה (animal). Therefore the verse says, “Whether an ox or a sheep,” [because] “This excludes wild animals.” 
  From the carpus to the shoulder blade, espaldon in Old French. And <i>shoivil</i> in German. 
  Including the tongue. Otherwise, why would the <i>kohein</i> want the bone of the jaw? But certainly it is together with the tongue. Also, it seems to that since the jaw is given as a representation of prayer as Rashi explains, we therefore also give the tongue which is the main organ of speech. 
  Those expounding Scriptural selections. [I.e.] the meaning of the written verses (Bava Kama 82a).
  The foreleg represents the hand, etc. Meaning, the <i>kohanim</i> merited [to receive] the foreleg which represents the hand of Pinchas as it says, “And he took, etc.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  One sixth of an eiphah (וששיתם האיפה). This denotes a sixth.
  From a chomer. I.e. a <i>kur.</i>
  Now one sixth of an eiphah is half a se’ah. etc. Because an <i>eiphah</i> is three <i>se’ah</i> and it is written, “Give one sixth of an <i>eiphah</i> from a <i>chomer</i> of barley,” which means you should separate a sixth of an <i>eiphah</i> from a <i>kur,</i> which is half a <i>se’ah</i> for thirty <i>se’as.</i> Thus one has to separate one sixtieth. 
  When you shear your sheep every year etc. [It does] not [mean] that you should give the entire shearing of the first year to the <i>kohein,</i> and the shearing of all subsequent years are to be exempt.
  
  As it is said, “Five sheep which cause etc.” I.e., [you are obligated] when you have five sheep עשויות (which cause). What does עשויות mean? That they are מעשות (cause), i.e. they obligate their owners and say, “Rise up and do the mitzvah!” (Chullin 137a) And what mitzvah is the verse referring to? You cannot say the mitzvah of the first-born because one is obligated regarding the first-born even when he has only one animal. You also cannot say that it refers to the gifts [of the forearm, etc.] that one gives to a <i>kohein, etc. because one is obligated regarding the gifts even when he has only one animal. Perforce, it is referring to the first shearing. </i>
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Perhaps it is literally to the Levite that Scripture refers?, etc. I.e. an actual descendant of Levi, to exclude a <i>kohein</i>. Or perhaps the verse includes a <i>kohein</i> also, because a <i>kohein</i> is also a descendant of Levi? [In proof of this latter suggestion] the Torah therefore teaches, “He shall perform the service,”, etc.
  
  This teaches, concerning the <i>kohein</i>, that he is permitted to come and offer up, etc. Because this is implied in the word “with all his soul’s <i>desire</i>,” which means that he wants to offer up with his soul’s desire and not because of the obligation of his ministering watch. 
  Another interpretation. This teaches, further, etc. The first interpretation is problematic might why it says “to the place that Adonoy chooses,” [a term normally mentioned in connection with coming up to Yerusholayim on the festivals]. It should have only said “to the altar that is before Adonoy and he shall serve, etc.” And the second interpretation is problematic why it says “with all his soul’s desire.” Therefore we also need the first interpretation that “all his soul’s desire” refers to his personal vows and voluntary sacrifices, because he vows and volunteers out of his soul’s desire. 
  [Were permitted] to bring offerings with the ministering watch, by performing the sacrificial services, etc. Otherwise, why does it say “like all his brother Levites”? It should only have said, “He shall come and serve with all his soul’s desire.” Therefore the verse must be referring to <i>kohanim</i> who come for a festival [and is saying] that they offer sacrifices like all their brothers who belong to the ministering watch. 
  Which were brought because of the festival obligation — for example, the festival musaf-offerings, etc. Below (v. 8) I will explain that [this applies] only to <i>musaf</i>-offering of festivals that come because of the festival, and not to things which do not pertain to the festival. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  That they share in the skins and in the flesh of the sin-offering goats, etc. Rashi mentions specifically skins and flesh of the sin-offering goats because [visiting] <i>kohanim</i> only have a portion in the <i>musaf</i>-offerings of the festivals, and these <i>musaf</i>-offerings are burnt offerings and sin-offering goats as it says in <i>parshas</i> Pinchas. And they offer up the burnt offerings completely to Hashem and the <i>kohanim</i> receive only their skins. But [regarding] the sin-offering goats, the <i>kohein</i> receives [their skins and also] their meat after the burnt portions have been offered up. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  The Rabbis said that this refers to sleight of hand magicians. Rashi (Sanhedrin 65b) explains, “He seizes and closes people’s eyes by showing them as if he is doing miraculous things and [actually] he does nothing.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Someone who conjures up [the dead] onto his male organ. I.e. he conjures up the dead onto his male organ and it speaks there.
  Or communicates with a skull. I.e., with a skull from a corpse lying on the ground. And through magic it answers what one asks it. So Sifrei expounds it. But in <i>Perek Arba Misos</i> (ibid) it is taught in a Beraisa: “Ov” is someone who conjures up onto his male organ or communicates with a skull, and “communicates with the dead” is someone who abstains from food and spends the night in a cemetery. One can explain why Rashi cites Sifrei and ignores our Talmud is because it [i.e., Sifrei] is closer to the verse’s plain meaning. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Walk with Him in utter trust, in anticipation of Him, etc. I.e., do not do like the idolaters [who explore the future], but “walk in perfect trust,” [meaning] that “you should walk with Him in utter trust, in anticipation of Him, etc.” 
  Then, you will be with Him, [He will take you] as His portion. This is how you should explain the verse: “Walk in perfect trust,” meaning that you should “wait for Him and you should not explore the future, etc.,” and then [you will be] “with Adonoy, your God.” I.e., “you will be with Him and as His portion.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Whereby they listen to auguries or sorcerers, etc. Rashi means to say: Do not ask that the plain meaning of the verse, “Adonoy, your God, has not given you so,” implies that Hashem had already commanded them earlier that there should be no sorcerers, auguries and magicians among them, yet, where do we find that He commanded this? Rashi answers that He did command earlier that there should be no sorcerers and auguries, for this is why he rested His Divine Presence on the prophets so that you should listen to the prophets. The reason Rashi says “the Holy One Blessed Is He” and not “Adonoy, your God” [note that this phrase “the Holy One Blessed Is He” is missing in our version of Rashi’s text] is to indicate that the verse here did not have to mention “your God” which always indicates the giving of a reason, that He is your God and He is the possessor of power and authority Who brought you to the Land, as in the verse, “Walk in perfect trust with Adonoy, your God (v. 13),” because since I am your God it is fitting to make an effort to be with Me and to cleave to Me. But here where it is only relating facts there is no need to add “your God” but only “Adonoy,” as in the verse, "See, Adonoy has designated by name [etc.] (Shmos 35:30),” and many others like it. And the reason Rashi does not mention the “Adonoy” [as it appears in the verse but writes instead “the Holy One Blessed Is He”] is so that we do not think he wrote briefly. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Just as I from your midst, etc. The question is: [How can the verse say “like me” when] it is written (Devarim 34:10), “There has not ever arisen a prophet within Yisroel like Moshe”? Therefore he explains [that the verse means], “Just as I am in your midst and of your brethren.” 
  Similarly, from prophet to prophet. Meaning in order that the verse should not be misunderstood that it is speaking about a specific prophet who will arise after Moshe in the future, as the heretics explained, Rashi adds and says, “Similarly from prophet to prophet” [i.e., continuously]. His proof is that the [verse’s] intent is to distant people from auguries and sorcerers and it is saying that you do not need auguries and sorcerers because there will always be prophets from your midst in every generation so that you will not need auguries.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Someone who fabricates a prophetic message he did not hear etc., and one who prophesies in the name of an idol. Because it is written, “That I did not instruct him to say,” i.e. what he did not hear. And because it is written “that I did not instruct <i>him,</i>” which implies that I did instruct his fellow [prophet]. “And one who prophesies in the name of an idol” for it is explicitly written, “or who speaks in the name of foreign gods.” 
  However, one who withholds his prophecy, etc. “One who withholds his prophecy” is derived from (v. 19), “אשר לא ישמע (who does not heed My words),” which can be read as אשר לא ישמיע (“who does not announce My words”), i.e., “one who withholds his prophecy.” And “one who violates a prophet’s instructions,” whether he himself or other people, is derived from (ibid), “Who does not heed My words that he speaks in My Name,” whether he himself or other people. And it is written (ibid), “I shall prosecute [the matter] with him,” which means by Heavenly execution. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  You are destined to say this. Because the word וכי always refers to a future [event], [something] that will happen, such as (Shmos 21:20) “וכי יכה איש (if a man strikes)” which means when he will strike. And similarly (Ibid., v. 28) “כי יגח שור (when an ox gores),” and the same [holds true] in similar cases. 
  While Yirmiyahu will stand and cry out, etc. Meaning, he will say the opposite [i.e., that more exile will follow]. 
  Concerning the columns and the basin, etc. I.e., the basin that Shlomo made.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  And you observe that it does not occur, etc. As in the case of Chananyah ben Azor, because afterwards the rest of the vessels were transported to Babylon with the exile of Zidkiyahu. 
  But you may ask, this applies with a prophet who foretells the future, etc. I.e., this test applies if he prophesies about future events, as in the case of Chananyah ben Azor. But if he came and said, “Do so and so and I am speaking from Hashem’s mouth,” in such a case how can we know that He did not speak? Rashi explains, regarding this, “We have already, etc. 
  If he attempts to divert you from any one of the commandments, do not listen to him, etc. And if he does not attempt to divert you, it does not matter if you listen to him. 
  This is why it is stated, “You shall obey him.” I.e., if in your estimation he is established and a perfect saint.
  
  Do not fear punishment because of him. Because Rashi in <i>parshas</i> Devarim (above 1:17) gives two explanations of לא תגורו, that it means either fear or gathering in [i.e. refraining], therefore he mentions these two meanings [here]. (In the name of Maharitz). <i>Re”m explains that Rashi writes “Do not fear punishment because of him” after saying “Do not refrain from finding him guilty,” because it provides a rationale for [observing the command] “Do not refrain, etc.” It is as if the verse said, “Do not refrain, etc. and do not fear punishment because of this.” </i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  At every fork in the road. So that he does not err at the fork in the road.
  The distance from the border, etc. You might ask that based to this division, the land would be divided into four sections! The answer is that the distance from the border until the second town of refuge is the same distance as from the first town until the last [town]. And from the second town until the second border is also the same as these distances. Therefore it is called “three sections.” I gave the same explanation in <i>parshas</i> Terumah (Shmos 26:26) regarding the bars. It also explains in <i>Perek Eilu Hein Hagolin</i> (Makkos 9b) [like Rashi here], that “divide into three sections” means that the land is divided into four sections along its breadth. See there.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  This is why I am instructing you to ready [the route], etc. Rashi means as follows: The verse seems to be saying, “He is to flee to one of these cities to survive, lest the blood-redeemer pursue etc.” But how will it help to flee? The blood-redeemer might still pursue him until the refuge city and catch him [before he reaches it] since his heart is heated? Therefore Rashi explains that this phrase is not connected with the adjacent “he is to flee, etc.” but to (v. 3) above where it is written, “Ready the route for yourself and divide the borders of your land into three sections,” which means that one must write “refuge,” “refuge” at every fork in the road and also, that one needs three refuge cities. Why? The verse explains, “Lest the blood-redeemer pursue, etc.” But now that there are many refuge cities and there it also written “refuge” at every fork in the road, the murderer can easily be saved so that the blood-redeemer will be unable to overtake him. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  In accordance with His oath to give you the land, etc. Meaning that although Hashem promised to give Yisroel the [land of] the ten nations, He only gave Yisroel seven nations. He did not yet give the [land of the] Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni. However, in the future he will give [these three nations] as an inheritance [in order] to fulfill the oath [made to] the forefathers.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Do not say, the first one has already been killed. Otherwise, why does the verse say, “Do not view him with compassion”? Would you think that any person will have compassion on someone who murdered deliberately after having been warned?
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  This establishes a source construct: Wherever “witness” is mentioned in the Torah, the reference is to two, etc. You might ask: Perhaps this verse indicates that whenever “witness” is mentioned in the Torah the reference is to one, because just as here the Torah writes “witness” [in the singular form] and then writes “one” next to it, so everywhere else where it is written “witness” the reference is to one? The answer [in Sotah 2b] is that otherwise [if not as Rashi says], the verse should not have said “one” here because “witness” is singular, and once the Torah wrote “witness,” why write “one”? [Obviously, this is] to inform you that only here “witness” is the reference to “one,” but elsewhere when it writes “witness” without any specification, the reference is to two. You might ask: Why does [Rashi] not explain this above (17:10) on the verse, “He is not to be executed by the oral testimony of one witness”? Tosefos in the first chapter of Sotah (2b) already answered that the word “one” there comes to [teach something else. That we need] united testimony, and to exclude one [witness] seeing from this window and a second witness seeing from another window. Another answer [to the first question] is that one cannot expound the opposite, that wherever it says “witness” without specifying it means one, because if so, when it is written afterwards, “If a false witness (עד) arises against a man, etc. And behold, the witness testified falsely, etc.,” this too would mean one witness. But this cannot be, because it is written afterwards, “You are to do to him as he conspired to do to his brother.” Yet [how could one witness have conspired, for] above it is written, “One witness may not arise, etc.” Then perforce, wherever “witness” is mentioned, the reference is to two, etc. This answers why Rashi did not explain this above (17:10) on the verse, “He is not to be executed by the oral testimony of one witness.” Because you can say that above one might have said the opposite, but here you cannot say the opposite as I have explained. Analyze this well. 
  To have his fellow penalized, etc. The meaning is as if the verse had said, “One witness may not arise against a man” to penalize him with any punishment (עון) [or] with any sacrifice (חטאת). עון means punishment as in [the verse] (Bereishis 15:16), “For the punishment (עון) sin of the Emorites will not be complete [until then].” And the term punishment generally includes any punishment that is either corporal or monetary. And ולכל חטאת that is written in the verse, means sacrifices [sin-offerings]. And the reason Rashi does not explain this [that חטאת means sacrifices] is because it is included in “monetary” [as sacrifices cost money], but the verse wants to specify them [sacrifices] in detail. 
  Penalized by his testimony. Because a witness does not rise up [directly] to punish, but [rather rises up] against the person who deserves to be punished. It is through his testimony that the person who deserves punishment is punished. 
  However, he may rise up to require him to take an oath. Rashi is answering the following question: The verse should have written “one witness may not arise, etc.” without specifying [for what], and that would imply for both corporal and monetary punishment! He answers that if Scripture had written without specifying, it would imply that it also includes an oath. Therefore it says he may not rise up “about any sin or for any transgression,” but he may rise up to require him to take an oath. 
  But they cannot write their testimony in a letter, etc. You might ask: Why Rashi does not explain this above (17:6) at the verse, “By the speech of two witnesses or three witnesses”? The answer is that above it says “by the speech” because of the flow of the verse [idiom]. But here it is problematical why does the verse say “by the word” twice? Why is it not written, “By the word of two or three, etc.”? Perforce it is to expound -“but they cannot write their testimony in a letter, etc.” 
  Nor may a translator stand between the witnesses and the justices. For example, if the judges do not understand the witnesses’ language. Because “by the word of two witnesses” means by word of two people giving testimony in <i>beis din,</i> [and] that the <i>beis din</i> accepts the testimony [directly] from their mouths. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  As the witness was dissociated from the entire testimony, etc. This is not the case where two [sets of] witnesses merely contradict each other, because each agrees that the other was present at the incident, except that one says that the incident was like this and the other says it was like that. Regarding conspiring witnesses however, the witness is disassociated from his entire testimony, because these witnesses say, “You were with us and you were not present at that incident.” 
  
  Verse 17
  
  Our passage refers to the witnesses, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Do two people become involved in a court dispute but three people not become involved in a court dispute? Furthermore, the verse should have said, “And those who are involved in the dispute shall stand,” because women too can be litigants! Therefore the verse must be talking about witnesses. 
  This refers to the litigants. And it is as if it said, “The two men and those who are involved in the dispute shall stand.” 
  
  Verse 18
  
  This is directed at those asserting that the witnesses were conspirators, etc. Rashi is explaining that this investigation is not directed at the first witnesses but at those who come to assert that they [the first witnesses] were conspirators. [Thus:] “When the judges shall investigate” the [second] witnesses who are asserting that [the first witnesses] were conspirators, “and behold,” it is found that the first “witness testified falsely, etc. You are to do to [each of] them as he conspired to do to his brother.” But if the first witnesses are found to be liars during the actual investigation they are not condemned as conspirators; rather, their testimony is disqualified. The reason Rashi explains our verse out of order [in some Rashi texts] is because he wants to bring further proof that “the judges shall investigate, etc.” refers to those [second witnesses] asserting that the [first] witnesses were conspirators. Because “wherever ‘witness’ is mentioned, Scripture refers to two.” If so, perforce “the judges shall investigate” refers to those [second witnesses] who are asserting that the [first] witnesses were conspirators, since the [first witnesses] can only be condemned as conspirators if both of them are condemned. But if only one of the [first] witnesses was asserted as a conspirator, they would not be condemned as conspirators. However, if “the judges shall investigate” is referring to finding contradictions between the two [first] witnesses, why do I need two of them [to be disqualified in this way]? Even if only one of them contradicted his fellow during the investigations or the interrogations, their [entire] testimony would be disqualified, as the Tur writes in Laws of Testimony (Choshen Mishpat 30).
  
  Wherever “witness” is mentioned, Scripture refers to two. Even though Rashi already explained this above (v. 15), he repeats it here so that one should not err and say that [even] if [only] one of them was found to be a conspirator he is killed, as Yehudah ben Tabai initially thought when he killed a conspiring witness (Makkos 5b). Therefore Rashi repeats it here, “Wherever etc,” so, that people cannot be condemned as conspiring witnesses until both of them are found to be conspirators. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  From here it is derived that if the execution was carried out, the witnesses are not executed. Because the executed person must have been liable for the death penalty for some other reason, and that is why he was executed. Otherwise, how could the Holy One Blessed Is He allow this perversion of a person being executed by <i>beis din</i> for no reason? Why did Hashem not cause those who disqualified the conspirators to come before he was executed? Therefore he must have been liable for the death penalty by <i>beis din</i> for some other reason, and therefore it so happened that he was killed because those who disqualified the conspirators arrived. Therefore [the conspirators] are not executed. There are other reasons as well. See the commentators. 
  Except where the punishment for conspiracy may be fulfilled, etc. But where they are coming to kill only her, for example if she committed murder or desecrated Shabbos, they are executed by the same method she would have been executed. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  From here we derive that there must be a proclamation, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why the verse here differs and writes “the remainder,” and does not write “and all of Israel” as it does in <i>parshas</i> Re’ey (above 13:12) regarding an inciter? He explains that this is because there must be a proclamation by the court, “So and so were executed, etc.” But people who are disqualified to give testimony such as robbers, thieves, usurers and other people who are disqualified from giving testimony that are listed in the Mishnah, are disqualified from giving testimony [this warning is not necessary]. Therefore Scripture does not write “all of Israel” because someone who is disqualified from giving testimony has no need to fearful [since he is disqualified in any case]. Therefore Scripture writes “the remainder, etc.,” i.e., the remainder who are qualified to give testimony. This also answers why Rashi does not explain here “that we wait with him until the festival” as [he writes] at the beginning of the <i>parsha</i> (above 17:13). 
  
  Verse 21
  
  Monetary payment. Similarly, “tooth for tooth.” The explanation is as it says in Perek Hachovel (Bava Kama 84a): Indeed, it writes, “You are to do to [each of] them as he conspired.” And if you suggest “hand for hand” is to be understood literally, then for what reason do I need “hand for hand”? And Rashi explains that if someone testified that so and so cut off the hand of so and so, he pays money, a commodity that is given from hand to hand. Because if the verse is to be understood literally, it already is written, “You are to do to [each of] them as he conspired.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Scripture positioned going to war, ... to teach, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have juxtapositioned over here the judiciary laws of <i>parshas</i> Ki Seitzei (below 21:22), “If a man is guilty of a capital offense, etc.,” and the other capital offenses mentioned there. He answers, “To teach, etc.” 
  Another interpretation. To teach that if you judge righteously, etc. According to the first interpretation you might ask that “eye for eye” mentioned here is referring to money and not the lacking of a body part. Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation, etc.” And according to the other interpretation on its own you might ask that it should have juxtapositioned this to the beginning of the <i>parsha</i> where it is written (above 16:18), “And they shall judge the people righteous justice, etc.” 
  Consider them enemies. Otherwise, why does Scripture write “against your enemy”? Obviously, if they go out to war they are not going out against friends! 
  Do not pity them, etc. One may ask: This is already explicitly written below (v. 13) “And you shall smite all its males by the sword”! Furthermore, why is it written afterwards (v. 14) “However, the women and the children, etc.” yet here Scripture implies that they should not pity them at all! The answer is: Below Scripture is dealing with a war that does not involve direct combat, rather [it is dealing] with the conquest of a city. The proof is that it is written [there] (v. 13) “Adonoy, your God, will deliver <i>it</i> into your hand, and therefore it written “However, the women and the children etc.” But here we are dealing with a war that involves direct combat, so you are not to pity them at all. 
  It says, “When Pharaoh’s horse approached.” Why does Rashi not cite the verse (Shmos 14:23) “כל סוס פרעה (lit. every horse of Pharaoh’s)” which precedes it? The answer is that he does not cite this previous verse because it is written,כל סוס , “<i>every horse,” and כל comes to cite something additional, so that it is as if it had written “each and every horse of Pharaoh.” Therefore he cites the verse “when Pharaoh’s horse approached” which cannot be explained in this manner. It seems to me that this [verse cited by Rashi] is a textual error; Sifrei cites the verse (ibid. 15:1), סוס ורוכבו רמה בים"  (horse and its rider He threw into the sea).” (Nachalas Yaakov) </i>
  In your eyes they are numerous, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: It is written “horse and chariot” which implies that in the eyes of the Holy One Blessed Is He they are all like one horse, yet afterwards Scripture writes “עם רב (people more numerous than you)”! And he answers, “In your eyes, etc.” 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Near your departure, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: Scripture should have written, “And as you go out to battle”! Therefore he explains, “Near, etc.” You might ask, how does Rashi know it means near the border? Perhaps it means actually drawing near to the battle? The answer is since it is written in the next verse, “Hear, Yisroel, [you are setting out today to battle], etc.,” this indicates that [the Torah] already mentions it [drawing near to battle]. [If so], why does the verse say “as you near etc”? This must mean that when they are near the border the kohein makes these conditions. See Sotah (42a). 
  He was entitled “The one annointed for warfare.” Because it is written afterwards, “ודברו השוטרים (the officers will address, etc.)” כהן is juxtaposed to שוטרים, to teach that just as the officers have someone appointed over them, namely judges, so too, the <i>kohein has someone appointed over him, namely the high priest, because the high priest is more important than him. </i>
  In the sacred Hebrew tongue. Because it is written here, “And <i>speak</i> to the people,” and elsewhere in <i>parshas Vayishma Yisro</i> (Shmos 19:19) it is written, “Moshe <i>spoke</i> and Hashem responded with [His] voice.” Just as there it was in the sacred Hebrew tongue, i.e., the Ten Commandments, so too, “and speak to the people” is in the sacred Hebrew tongue (Sotah ibid). Alternatively, it is written regarding Yosef (Bereishis 45:12), “That I <i>speak</i> to you with my own mouth.” Just as there it was in the sacred Hebrew tongue, so here too it is in the sacred Hebrew tongue. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Other than the reading of the Shema, etc. Otherwise, why do I need [the verse to say] “Hear Yisroel etc”? Scripture [already] writes, “The <i>kohein</i> shall approach and speak to the people, etc.” 
  They will be merciless towards you, etc. Otherwise, it is already written “When you go to war against your <i>enemy</i>.” 
  The Gentile monarchs do. They fasten their armor plates, etc. Meaning, they attach their [armor] plates one to another so as the plates strike against each other they emit a clamor. 
  From the horses’ neighing (צהלת). Meaning, the neighing of the horses is called צהלת. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  This refers to the camp of the sacred ark. Because it is impossible to say that it refers to the Holy One Blessed Is He that He marches <i>with you</i>, since the whole world is full of His glory. Therefore he explains, “This refers to the camp, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  This is a matter of great anguish. Otherwise, what difference does it make if he inaugurates it or if someone else does? 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  For if he does not follow the instructions of the kohein etc. I.e., he certainly returns in order to protect those [who return because of their transgressions], etc. [Therefore] if the <i>kohein</i> told him to return and he does not return, he transgresses the words of the <i>kohein</i> and deserves to die in battle because of this sin, and this goes according to the opinion [of R’ Yosi Hagalili] that there is no death without sin. This answers why [in some texts] Rashi explains “lest he die in battle” at the end and not according to the order of the text that is written in the verses, because he is explaining according to [the view of] R’ Yosi Hagalili. (In the name of the Maharitz, and this is similar to <i>Re”m</i>’s explanation). 
  
  Verse 8
  
  R’ Yosi Hagalili said, one who is afraid because of his transgressions, etc. Rashi means to say, R’ Yosi Hagalili is of the opinion that there cannot be death without transgression, and thus, if he is without transgression, why should he be afraid of battle? So most certainly he is afraid of his transgressions. But now Rashi questions: If there is no death without transgression, why then does the Torah decree to return [from going to battle] because of one’s house, or vineyard or wife [to protect those who return because of their transgressions]? If they [the latter] are without transgressions, they do not return even because of a house, or vineyard or wife according to R’ Yosi Hagalili! Rashi answers that they certainly do not have transgressions. But the Torah decrees that they return in order “to protect those who return because of their transgressions, etc.” Rashi then questions that according to R’ Yosi Hagalili who says that the reason that they return because of a house, vineyard or wife is in order to protect those who return because of their transgressions, why does Scripture write regarding each one of these “lest he die in battle,” which implies that he returns because of [fear of] death? This indicates that there is death without transgression! Rashi answers: [This is what Scripture is saying:] “Lest he die in battle, etc.” [He should return lest he die, for if he transgresses the words of the <i>kohein,</i> he deserves to die.]” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Do not run away, for running away is the beginning of downfall. Rashi is of the opinion that whoever flees ends up having a downfall because it says (Shmuel I 31:1), “And the men of Israel fled from before the Plishtim and they fell corpses in Mount Gilboa.” And so it says in Sotah (44b).
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Even if you should find in it members of the seven nations, etc. You might ask, why do we need a verse [to teach us this]? We can derive this from the inclusionary term, “And you capture prisoners <i>from them</i>,” which teaches us to include the Canaanites among them, as Rashi explains later (21:10)! The answer is that if [we learnt this] from there, one might have thought that only if they were found in a town that did not make peace [with you] where one is obligated to kill all the males inside, is the Torah lenient regarding the [female and minor] Canaanites inside, allowing them to be saved with the town’s women and minors, since the men, who are the principle idolaters, are killed. But if they are found in a town that made peace where everyone is saved [including] the men, women and children, one might say that the Canaanites inside are to be treated as if they were in their own town. So [the extra verse] tells us [that this is not so, and the Canaanites are saved even in the latter case]. And if [we learnt] from here, one may have though that this applies only when they were found in a town of other nations that had made peace, because since they submitted to us, the Torah is lenient regarding the Canaanites inside. But if they were found in a town of other nations that did not make peace, whose men are killed, one might have thought that the [female and minor] Canaanites inside are also killed as if they were in their own town. So Scripture tells us [that this is not so and the Canaanites are saved even in this case]. These are [the words of] <i>Re”m</i>. (See what I write later regarding this).
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  It will ultimately engage in war against you, etc. And this is what the verse is saying: If it does not settle for peace with you, in the end it will engage in war against you. Therefore you should lay siege to it.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  This adds the Girgashites. Rashi means to say that [only] six nations are mentioned in the verse but the Girgashites are not mentioned. And “as [Hashem] commanded you” includes the Girgashites. The reason the verse does not mention [them] explicitly is because [the command], “Annihilate are you to annihilate them, etc.,” was not fulfilled regarding them, for the Girgashites rose up and fled [before Israel’s conquest] as Rashi explains in <i>parshas</i> Ki Sisa (Shmos 33:2). (Maharan). Nevertheless, the verse [here] still needed to include them because they are included in [the command here], “You are not to leave any person alive.” And if members of them are found among the six [remaining] nations, [you should know] that they too are like them. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  This infers that if they repent, etc. You might ask: If they repent and convert it is obvious that one may be received, so what is the verse teaching us? One answer is that it is teaching us that one is permitted to receive them even if they only accepted upon themselves the seven Noachide mitzvos. (<i>Re”m</i>). Another answer is that one may have thought that they may not be received even if they repented and converted, for perhaps they converted only out of fear but they did not fully repent. So it teaches us [otherwise].
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Fewer than three days before Shabbos, etc. You might ask: Shabbos is not even mentioned in the verse, and that is what <i>Re”m</i> [also] questions! The answer is that we learn from this verse that one has to tender a peace overture for at least three days. But if they besiege a town of idolaters less than three days before Shabbos they would have to tender peace overtures even on Shabbos, but the verse writes (Yeshayah 58:13), “From doing <i>your</i> matters,” heavenly matters are permitted [to be addressed but] your personal [business] matters are forbidden [to be addressed] on Shabbos; and the tendering of peace overtures is considered personal [business]. Therefore we do not besiege [a town a town of idolaters] less than three days before Shabbos. It may be that <i>Re”m</i> meant this when he wrote, “And perhaps the answer is that one has to tender them a peace overture and it requires three days for the idolaters to take counsel among themselves in order to give a reply.” 
  Scripture refers to discretionary warfare. Because it is written “to capture it,” which implies that they are only coming to capture [the town]. We thus see that it refers to discretionary warfare [outside the Land of Israel], because if it is speaking of the war to conquer the Land of Israel, the verse has already written (v. 16), “You are not to leave any person alive.” 
  Perhaps the tree in the field is a man, to be included, etc. I.e., is the tree in the field perhaps like a man? Because it is the custom of people besieging a town that when they capture one of its inhabitants they torture him with hunger and thirst so that those in the town should fear them [and that would dissuade them] from being involved in the siege and [they too] suffer the pain of hunger and thirst. And perhaps you think that the tree in the field is the same, that if you cut it down, the other trees will fear them [and dissuade them] from being involved in the siege, just as [it works for] the town’s inhabitants. But this is not so, why destroy it?!
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  The meaning is “conquest.” Until it is subjugated to you. [An expression] similar to “conquer (רדה) in the midst of your enemies” (Tehillim 110:2), because the term ירידה (falling) does not refer to the town, meaning its people, but to its walls. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  The most distinguished of your elders, etc. Because it should have said “the elders of the city” similar to “the elders of that city are to take.” Yet it is written “your <i>elders</i>,” implying “the most distinguished of your elders,” i.e. the Sanhedrin; see there in Maseches Sanhedrin (14b). 
  From the spot where the corpse is lying. Even though the verse tells us only the end of the measurement and not the beginning, it is logical that the measurement begins with the corpse. 
  In every direction, in order to determine which is closest. Not that there is an obligation to measure from the corpse to every city; rather, the measurement is to determine which city is nearest the corpse. Therefore if the corpse was near a city and it is certain that there is no other city closer, there is no need for measuring.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Hard, which cannot be cultivated. I.e. איתן is an expression of toughness and hardness. 
  By severing the nape with an axe, etc. We derive this by [comparing]עריפה  [that is written here to] עריפה [of] the bird sin-offering. Just as there it is at the nape, so too here. The meaning of וערפו is to remove its nape, just as the word תזמור, “you shall [not] prune” (Vayikra 25:3), means to remove a twig (זמורה). 
  Who was not permitted to bear fruit. You might ask: This implies that if the murdered victim was an old person or a eunuch who does not bear fruit, a decapitated calf would not be brought; but this is not so, because the verse does not differentiate! The answer is that “fruit” [here] means <i>mitzvos</i> [and the verse means]<i></i> that he was not permitted to fulfill <i>mitzvos</i>, for they too are called “fruit.” 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  The kohanim then say, “Forgive your people Yisroel.” Otherwise, for what purpose are the <i>kohanim</i> [coming] here? [The presence of elders] is understandable for it is written, “And all the elders of that town [those near the corpse, etc. will wash their hands.”] But why are the <i>kohanim </i>needed? They [are the ones who] recite, “Forgive your people Yisroel.”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  For with regard to the war for Eretz Yisroel it would be inappropriate to say “and you capture prisoners from them,” etc. You might ask: Perhaps Scripture’s subject is the warfare of Eretz Yisroel, and when it writes, “And you capture prisoners from them,” it refers to a case where there were [people] from nations other than the seven nations inside [the town]. The answer is that Rashi himself answers this question when he explains afterwards: “And you capture prisoners from them,” this includes the Canaanites among them, although they are members of the seven nations. This implies that we always go according to the people of the town. For here if the people of the town are from other nations, one is also permitted to keep alive the Canaanites inside it. And the same applies if the citizens of the town are of the seven nations, one is not permitted to keep alive [people from] other nations inside it. Therefore if the verse is speaking of warfare of Eretz Yisroel, Scripture would not write “and you capture prisoners from them,” because you would not be able to say that it refers to [people from] other nations inside it, since it is forbidden to keep alive even [people from] other nations that are inside it as we explained. (I found this in the name of Maharitz). <i>Re”m</i> answers that since the main point of the <i>parsha</i> is to permit the “beautifully formed woman,” it would only permit her in optional warfare where all women are permitted [to be kept alive], and not in obligatory warfare where the prohibition of “You are not to leave any person alive (above 20:16)” applies to every woman except the one that he captured [who] is of other nations. And perhaps he will not capture her, and even if he does capture her it would be a very rare possibility. 
  This includes the Canaanites among them, etc. And their wives and children are saved like them. Otherwise, why is [the apparently superfluous word] שביו necessary. See the verse above in <i>parshas Shoftim (20:11), “All the people found in it.” </i>
  
  Verse 11
  
  Only in deference to the wicked inclination, etc. Rashi is answering [the following]: The expression, ולקחת לך לאשה, seems to imply that it is a positive mitzvah to take [this] non-Jewess for a wife, but this is not so, for it is better to marry a Jewess! 
  Even someone’s wife. The reason Rashi explains [“a wife”] out of order [that it appears] in the verse is because he does not wish to explain the verse, but he is referring to what he explained above, “for if the Holy One, Blessed Is He, would not permit her, he would live with her illicitly.” And [thus we can infer that] if the Torah has to permit “the beautifully formed woman,” this indicates that without [the verse permitting] “the beautifully formed woman,” she would be forbidden [to him] by Torah command. But this is not so, because a non-Jewess is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree! As [the Gemora] says that the sages decreed that one who has relations with a non-Jewess is liable because of <i>nashgaz</i> (as if she was a <i>nidah, shifcha</i> [maidservant], <i>goyah</i> [non-Jewess] and <i>zonah</i> [harlot]). [To answer this question], Rashi explains that although an unmarried non-Jewess is certainly forbidden only by Rabbinic decree, the verse here writes אשת, which implies [even if she is] someone’s wife. You might ask: What difference does it make if she is someone’s wife? Non-Jews cannot contract a marriage because it is written (Vayikra 20:10). “A man who commits adultery with the wife of his <i>fellow</i> (רעהו),” and we say (Sanhedrin 52b), “the wife of his <i>fellow</i>” [comes] to exclude the wife of a non-Jew,” for a non-Jew cannot contract a marriage! [The answer is that] a [non-Jewess] who is the wife of [a non-Jew] is nevertheless forbidden [and the above verse only excludes a non-Jew marrying a Jewess]. The sons of Noach are also commanded regarding married women as it is written (Bereishis 2:24), “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to <i>his wife,” and [the sages] say (Sanhedrin 58a): “To <i>his wife,” and not to the wife of his fellow. And similarly regarding Avimelech it is written (Bereishis 20:3), “For she is a married woman.” This indicates that a married woman is forbidden even to sons of Noach and how much more so she is forbidden to a Jew. But in the case of “the beautifully formed woman,” the Holy One Blessed Is He permitted her. </i></i>
  
  Verse 12
  
  She must allow them to grow so that she becomes ugly. See [Rashi on] <i>parshas</i> Bereishis (1:7) on the verse, “Elohim made the canopy.” 
  
  Verse 13
  
  As they are attractive, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: It is not the way of the world for people to wear unappealing clothing on the road so that [their] attractive clothing does not become dirty? If so, she should not remove these clothes so that she becomes repulsive to him! He explains that the way of the Israelite nation is certainly so, that they wear unappealing clothing when they go out on the road, but “the young gentile women, etc.” 
  In the home he makes use of, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should only have said “and she should sit and weep for her father and her mother,” since obviously she is in your house, for above it is written, “You will bring her into your house”! He answers that you might have thought that if he had two or three houses and lived in only one of them, she may sit in the one that he does not live. Therefore it says, “She will remain in <i>your</i> home,” [i.e.,] “in the home he makes use of,” meaning in the place that is his primary residence. 
  Why to such an extent? So that the Israelite daughter, etc. I.e., why does the Torah say that she should mourn over her idolatrous father and weep? She is [now] a convert! Rashi answers that this crying is not on account of her father’s honor, but “so that, etc.” 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Scripture informs you that you will ultimately hate her. <i>Re”m</i> writes: I do not know from where they expound this, etc. It seems [to me] that they expound this because it is written, והיה אם וגו', (But it shall come to pass, etc.)” and the wordוהיה  is an expression of certainty [that he will hate her], and therefore they expound what they expound. You cannot say that (והיה) refers to the end of the verse [and it means that he must certainly send her away], because [if so], it should have said “אם לא תחפוץ (If you will not desire her),” in the future tense, and not “חפצת (lit. you did not want)” in the past tense. Therefore [it means] “Scripture informs you, etc.” You might ask that Rashi [already] explained above (v. 11), “However, if he does marry her, he will ultimately hate her, etc.” If so, why do we need [this verse] “but it shall come to pass, etc.” to inform of this; it is [already learnt] from the juxtaposition of these sections as Rashi explained above? The answer is in accordance to Tosefos’ explanation of Rashi, and <i>Re”m cites this in his book and discusses it there at length, that Rashi explains in the first chapter of Kiddushin (22a): The Torah does not permit him [to have] even the first intimate relations [with her] except after doing all these actions [including marrying her]. It seems that the verse too supports him because it is written, “And afterwards you may come to her and consummate with her,” and it says afterwards, “And she will become your wife,” [implying that with this first consummation she becomes his wife]. If so, we can say that the verse, “But it shall come to pass, that if you do not desire her,” is saying that he should not even have this first marital relations with her. And from the juxtaposition of these sections we learn that beginning with the second [instance of] intimate relations and onward, that if he takes her, and forcibly converts her and takes her as a wife [for the long term], “he will ultimately hate her, etc.”
  </i>
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Equivalent to two brothers. Rashi is answering the question: “Doublefold of all that he possesses” implies doublefold of everything he possesses, i.e. that he should have two portions. [For example,] if he left three <i>manah</i> and there were five brothers, the firstborn should take two <i>manah</i> and the four [remaining] brothers should take one [<i>manah</i>]! Rashi answers that “of all he possesses” does not refer to “doublefold” but means as follows: “Doublefold [of one brother’s share],’ i.e., the equivalent of what two brothers [take].” And [the term] “of all that he possesses” is a separate phrase. 
  Does not inherit doublefold of receivables due, etc. Rashi means that he inherits doublefold only from “all that he possesses”, i.e. what the father has now and [actually] possesses, but regarding receivables, such as when a legator of his father died after the father died, even though the father receives ownership of the [the legator’s] money in the grave, the firstborn does not take doublefold of those funds, but [takes only a single portion] like a regular brother. The same applies if the father had a loan [that was owed to him] without a pledge. This too is “a receivable” and the firstborn does not receive doublefold of it. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  They warn him before three [magistrates] and have him flogged, etc. Rashi is citing the words of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 71a) that says, “They warn him before three and have him flogged.” The Gemora explains that the Mishnah is speaking of two separate cases, that they warn him before two [witnesses] and he is flogged before three [magistrates]. You might ask, from where does Rashi derive that they have him flogged [and not some other form of chastening]? The answer is that it is written here “בן סורר (a wayward son),” and later (25:2) it is written, “והיה אם בן הכות הרשע (should the wicked one deserve flogging).” And we derive a law by comparing [the section here that says] בן to [the section there where it says] בן. Just as over there, there is flogging, so here too there is flogging. 
  And consumes a tartamor of meat, etc. Because you might ask: What do the witnesses warn him about? [Therefore] Rashi explains, “The wayward, rebellious son is not liable, etc.” Therefore they warn him to not steal and to not eat a <i>tartamor</i> of meat. 
  Do not be among the wine guzzlers, among those who gluttonously consume meat [for themselves], etc. This indicates that the terms זולל וסובא applies to meat and wine. Rashi then asks: Why should he be killed for stealing and eating a <i>tartamor</i> of meat and drinking a half <i>log</i> of wine? He explains, “The wayward, rebellious son is executed in consideration of his [ignoble] end, etc.” You might ask: Why is the wayward and rebellious son singled out that “the the Torah penetrates to the logical conclusion of his thought” and is executed in consideration of his ignoble end? But regarding Yishmael it is written (Bereishis 21:17), “in the place where he is,” and Rashi explains, “He is judged according to his <i>present</i> deeds and not according to what he will do in the future, etc.” See Rashi there in <i>parshas</i> Vayera. The answer is that there regarding Yishmael who was still a child, so he had not started doing anything connected to that [future] sin of killing Israel by thirst. But the wayward and rebellious son began [doing things that will ultimately lead] to that sin [of robbery], because he ate a <i>tartamor of meat. Another answer is that the Heavenly court does not judge [a person] in consideration of his end, but it is a mitzvah for the Beis Din below [i.e., our court system] to judge a person in consideration of his end. </i>
  Station himself near an intersection and plunder, etc. I.e., and he will kill them. You might ask: Why is he punished with stoning, which is a more severe form of death? But the [death of] a murderer is [execution] by the sword! The answer is that he sometimes robs and kills on Shabbos. Thus he desecrates Shabbos and is therefore liable to be executed by stoning because of taking a life [and he is punished with stoning for desecrating Shabbos]. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  From here [we derive] that there must be a proclamation, etc. You might ask: How does Rashi know that all that is required is a proclamation? But the verse writes here, “Let all Yisroel hear,” why does Rashi not write “that we wait with him until the festival” as he explains in <i>parshas </i>Shoftim (above 17:13) [the verse] “Let all the people hear and fear” [in the section] dealing with זקן ממרא (the rebellious elder)! The answer is that there (17:7) it is written, “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first to execute him, and the hand of the entire people afterward,” whereas here it implies that the people of his town begin first to stone him as it is written, “And all the men of his city will stone him.” Therefore one must explain [here that the verse means] in the presence of all the people of his city, as Rashi explains below (22:21) regarding, “the people of her city will stone her” written in [the <i>parsha</i> of] the defamer, “in the presence of all the people of her city.” But if you say that here [too] we wait with him until the festival, why does it say [to stone him] in the presence of all the people of the city? It would take place in the presence of all Israel since all Israel would be there! Therefore, [this proves that] we certainly do not wait with him until the festival and when Scripture writes “Let all Israel hear,” it means that “there must be a proclamation at the courthouse.” Another answer is: One might ask why it is written [here], “All the men of his city will stone him etc.” when it is written [earlier] (17:7), “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first etc”? You cannot answer that when it is written “all the men of his city” it means “in the presence of all the men of his city,” because Scripture writes “and let all Israel hear,” which implies that this takes place in the presence of all Israel. So the verse should have said, “All Israel will stone him.” If so, our [original] question returns, that it is written, “Let the hands of the witnesses, etc.” Rashi answers that “all Israel” comes [to teach] that there is a proclamation and [therefore we can answer] as we said originally, “All the men of his city will stone him” [means] “in the presence of all the people of his city.” See more about this subject in <i>parshas Shoftim. </i>
  
  Verse 22
  
  The Rabbis remark that all those who are stoned are also hung, etc. Because it is written, “[If a man is guilty of a capital offense] and is executed; you shall hang [him from a tree].” This is a general rule (כלל) that implies that all those who are executed are hung. Afterwards it is written, “For a hanging corpse is an affront to Hashem.” This is a specific statement (פרט) that implies that only someone who blesses [i.e. curses] the Name, is hung [because when people see him they are reminded of his sin that was an affront to Hashem], but not others who are executed, even those executed by stoning. When they (i.e., a כלל and a פרט) are juxtaposed, it is considered [a case of] כלל ופרט where [the rule is] the general rule only includes what is in the specific case; [implying] someone who blesses the Name, yes [i.e., he is hung, but] any other case, no [i.e., he is not hung]. But now [in our verses] they [the כלל and the פרט] are distant from each other, the general rule comes [and teaches] to include all who are executed. And the particular case comes and limits the general rule [and teaches] that only those who are stoned are hung, since they are partially similar to the particular case, for they are stoned just as the one who blessed the Name [is stoned]. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  It is an affront to the king, etc. Rashi’s intends to explain the word כי, “for.” What reason is this for what is [said] above? He explains, “It is an affront, etc.” This [answer] is according to what our Rabbis (i.e. R. Eliezer, Sanhedrin ibid.) expound, “All those who are stoned are also hung.” However, according to the sages who say that the ones who are stoned are not hung except for the blasphemer and the idolater, who is also similar to the blasphemer, you have to say that when it is written כי קללת אלהים, it means “(For) the one who curses Hashem (is hung),” and קללת is an expression of cursing. [If so, why does Rashi not explain the verse according to the sages whose opinion is accepted as halacha?] The reason is that] by explaining the verse according to the Midrash [that says that each <i>parsha is connected to the one adjacent to it] brings it closer to the plain meaning [of the verses], and the juxtaposition of the sections indicates that all those who are stoned are also hung, Rashi therefore explains [like R. Eliezer] that קללת is an expression of “affront.” (See <i>Re”m who discusses this at length). Another answer [that the word קללת means both “affront” and also “curse,”] is that otherwise you might ask, from where does Rashi know that all those who are stoned are also hung if he [later] explains that קללת is an expression of an affront [and not an expression of “curse.” How then does he know that the verse is talking about someone who incurred stoning for cursing?]. [The answer is] that one must to say that [קללת] implies both [curse and an affront], because if it means only to “bless” the Name, it should have said, “(For he who) blesses Hashem,” [which is] a “clean” expression. Therefore [this indicates that] קללת is an expression denoting an affront. And, if it was an expression denoting only an affront, it should have said explicitly an expression denoting an affront. Therefore [we must say that] it is also coming [to be understood] as blessing Hashem. (I found [this interpretation]) </i></i>
  And the Israelites are His children. Rashi means, and especially Israel who are also His children, therefore, “Do not leave his corpse overnight on the tree.” Because “This is compared to two brothers, etc.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Avert your eyes as if you do not notice it. Because you cannot say [it means] that the person conceals from telling that he found them, because if so, if should have said “and conceal <i>them</i>,” which would imply that he is concealing [the fact] that he has them. But because it is written “and conceal yourself from them,” it implies that he conceals his eye from seeing it. 
  You may not observe it, etc. Rashi is answering [a difficulty]: The verse seems to be saying, “Do not see, rather conceal, etc.,” which implies that one is permitted to conceal himself [and this is not so]. 
  The Rabbis, however, comment: At times, you may conceal yourself, etc. In which case? If he is a <i>kohein</i> and there is a [lost] ox in a cemetery; or if he is an elder and it is not fitting for his honor. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Would it seem reasonable etc. But, rather, ask him [about it]. And the word אותו refers back to “your brother,” meaning that you should inquire of your brother who is the owner of the lost item [by asking] for signs that the lost item had. 
  Provided there is a return, etc. Rashi is answering [the difficulty] that the verse should not have said “and you shall return it to him” [because that is obvious], but [only] “until your brother seeks it,” and if it is known to him that you have it, you are certainly obligated to return it to him. 
  Which does not produce and eat, shall be sold. So that one can fulfill, “And you shall return it to him.” 
  
  Verse 3
  
  By averting your eyes, etc. Rashi has to give this explanation [again] even though he had given it above (v. 1), because he [then] explained the verse again according to the teaching of the sages that “at times you may conceal yourself,” so it seems as if he is not sure of the verse’s meaning. Therefore he says here that it is impossible to explain “you may not conceal yourself” except [as meaning] that you should <i>not</i> [conceal yourself, unlike the earlier verse where it also means that you sometimes may conceal yourself, etc.] 
  
  Verse 4
  
  This refers to loading — to load the burden, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture change the wording? Here it is written, “You must surely <i>lift</i> it up with him,” but in <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim (Shmos 23:5) it writes, “You shall surely <i>help</i> [etc.]” He explains that there it is talking about unloading, to unload the burden, but the section here deals with loading. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  He may not shave the pubic hairs, etc. I.e. [because] women customarily do this, meaning that he should not ornament himself with women’s adornments. You might ask: Why does Rashi give an alternative explanation [only] to the end of the verse? He should also have given an alternative interpretation to the beginning of the verse as well! For the Gemora (Nazir 59a) explains: R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says: From where [do we know that] a woman may not put on weapons and go out to war, because the verse teaches, “A man’s attire may not be on a woman.” <i>Re”m</i> writes: The same applies too, that a woman may not go out with weapons to war. Another answer why [Rashi offers] the alternative explanation [is because that] answers the question: Why in the beginning of the verse is it written, “A man’s attire may not to be on a woman,” while at the end [of the verse] it writes, “nor may a man wear a woman’s garment”? It should have written, “A woman’s attire should not be on a man”! Since Scripture alters [the wording], the verse is obviously talking about another matter [i.e., shaving the pubic hairs, etc.]. But according to the alternative explanation too, one has to answer why the verse uses a term of “wearing.” It should have said, “He should not adorn with women’s adornments.” Therefore the first explanation is also needed. 
  The Torah prohibited only, etc. Rashi wants to explain what he said earlier, “So that she resembles a man, in order to mingle with men,” and also afterwards, “In order to take a place among women,” so that you do not ask, how does he know to explain this way. Perhaps it is forbidden to wear [such clothes] in all circumstances because it is a Scriptural decree? He answers that [it is not a Scriptural decree] as the verse gives a reason [for it], “For the abomination of Adonoy, etc.” This indicates that “the Torah prohibited only, etc.” 
  
  Verse 6
  
  While on top of her young. But if she is hovering in the air above the young, it is permitted to take her. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  If, with an easily fulfilled commandment, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said this regarding one of the other mitzvos! He answers that it is written it here because this mitzvah is more easily fulfilled than all, etc.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  He deserves to fall. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse say הנופל [lit. the one who falls]? He explains that הנופל means, “He deserves to fall.” He continues and explains that if this person deserves to fall, why does one transgress a negative command if he did not make a fence and a person fell off? He explains because even so, “let his death not come about, etc.” 
  As benefit is brought about through the meritorious, and injury through the guilty. And therefore everyone will murmur that you are guilty because this person fell off your roof. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Wheat, barley, and grapeseed. Not only wheat and barley, but any two kinds of other seeds [are included]. You might ask: How does Rashi know that one needs two other kinds of seeds with the grapeseed, perhaps [only] one other kind with grapeseed is enough? The answer is that if so, the verse should have said, “Do not plant <i>in</i> your vineyard mixed species,” which would then imply that planting one other kind of seed within your vineyard is considered mixed species. But since it is written, “Do not plant your vineyard mixed species,” it implies that mixed species are involved here even without any consideration of your vineyard. You might ask: Why does the Torah add this prohibition here when we see earlier in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:19) it is written that even sewing only two seeds together is forbidden? The answer is that the earlier prohibition forbids [two] mixed seeds as it is written, “Do not sow your field with a mixture of different seeds.” [By doing this] one only transgresses one negative command. But here one transgresses two negative commands, the prohibition of mixed seeds and the prohibition of mixed seeds in a vineyard. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  This applies, as well, to any two species in the universe, etc. You might ask: From where does Rashi know this? Perhaps the prohibition applies only to plowing with an ox and a donkey! The answer is that we derive this by comparing the word “ox” here to the word “ox” regarding Shabbos where it says (above 5:14), “Your ox and your donkey and all your animals.” Just as there, all animals are included, so here too, all animals are included. And because “ox and donkey” is not to be understood literally, so too, “you may not plow” is not to be understood literally, “and applies as well, to leading them together, etc.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  The meaning is “a mixture.” The Rabbis interpret, etc. This excludes felt, which is not spun and woven. Such cloth is not subject to the prohibition of a mixture of threads. See earlier in <i>parshas </i>Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:19).
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  He will ultimately. . . Rashi is answering: Why does it say, “And he has relations with her and hates her”? It should have written, “If a man marries a woman, and berates her with calumnies etc.”! He explains, this is to teach you that because he hates her, he will ultimately berate her with etc. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  We derive from here that no statement may be made, etc. Otherwise, why does the verse write “<i>this</i>”? Maharan asks: Why do we need this verse? Why not learn this law from the verse of <i>parshas</i> Mishpatim (Shmos 23:1), “Do not accept a false report, etc.,” and there Rashi explains, “This is an admonition… to a judge, that he not listen [to the claims of one party until the other party arrives].” The answer is that our verse is necessary to make someone who presents his claims before the other party arrives, liable for violating one negative command and one positive command. In my humble opinion you can answer that if we only had that verse one would think that the prohibition applies only when both parties themselves are making claims. But where the woman herself is not saying anything as we see in the coming verses, one might think the husband may make his claim not in her presence. So the verse tells us that this is not so. (Kitzur Mizrachi) 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Those who nurtured the evil branch, etc. Otherwise, the verse should have said, “They will take the girl and prove, etc.” Why does it say, “The girl’s father and mother”? Therefore it is to be expounded: See these [i.e., these parents] who nurtured this evil branch, etc. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  This teaches that a woman is not permitted, etc. Because the woman is also standing in the court as it is written, “The girl’s father and mother will take, etc.” Yet afterwards it is written, “The girl’s <i>father</i> should assert, etc.,” and it is not written, “The girl’s mother should assert.” Therefore, “This teaches, etc.” (In the name of Maharitz). <i>Re”m</i> explains that [this teaching is derived because] otherwise Scripture should have said, “The <i>girl</i> should assert to the elders, ‘Look! This man has promulgated libelous words against me, etc.,” being that she is the defendant.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  This is figurative, etc. Otherwise, what would happen if the cloth had been lost or laundered; or who knows whether it is hers or whether it is virginal blood? 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Flogging. Because we learn “and chastise” from “and chastise” and “son” from “son.” It is written here “and they shall ויסרו (chastise him),” and by the wayward and rebellious son it is written (above 21:18) “and they shall ויסרו (chastise him).” Just as over there it means flogging, so too here it means flogging. And from where do we know [that it means flogging] over there? Because by the wayward and rebellious son it is written “בן (son),” and by flogging (below 25:2) it is written, “Should the wicked one (בן) deserve flogging, etc.” And we learn “son” from “son” as I explained.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Through witnesses, and with a pre-warning, etc. Otherwise, why is she stoned? For even if it is true that she behaved promiscuously, perhaps she did so before her marriage. And even if she behaved promiscuously after her marriage, perhaps she acted without witnesses or pre-warning. Therefore Rashi explains, “Through witnesses, etc.” 
  
  Verse 21
  
  In the presence of all the people of her city. It seems to me Rashi is citing a proof to his explanation that “her father’s house” actually means “<i>in</i> her father’s house,” i.e., the letter ב [and the word “in”] is missing. [He proves this] by explaining that “the people of her city” actually means “<i>in the presence of all</i> the people of her city.” The reason he says this is because the verse states, “The people of her city will stone her with stones,” which implies that they are the ones who begin [stoning], yet this cannot be because it is written (above 17:7), “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first, etc.” Perforce the verse really means (באנשי עירה) “<i>among the people of her city,” i.e. “in the presence of all the people of her city.” This proves that it is common for a verse to omit the letter ב [the word “in”]. Rashi is also answering another question: The verse implies that the reason she is liable for stoning is “because she committed a disgraceful act ... [in] her father’s house.” However, according to this, why does the Torah make someone liable for stoning if he had relations with a married girl [elsewhere] in the city? She did not behave promiscuously in her father’s house! To answer this question Rashi explains: “And a man encounters her in the city,” this is why he had relations with her. The breach summons the thief.” In other words, because she acted immorally by not remaining at home as is customary for virgins, then she certainly was also promiscuous in her father’s house, and therefore she is liable for stoning. Now we can understand why Rashi explains the verses out of order. [Note: In our text, Rashi explains the verses in their correct order]. This also answers <i>Re”m [who asks this same] question, “I do not know a correct reason, etc.” </i></i>
  
  Verse 22
  
  This excludes lascivious activity etc. I.e. if he had intercourse with the woman in a body part [of the body] other than “that place.” For the woman does not derive pleasure, only the man. [In such an instance] they are both exempt because Scripture writes “both of them” which implies that they both derived equal pleasure. Even though [in a case] where he had sodomized her, and the woman does not derive pleasure, they are both liable. That case is different because it is specially included from the words (Vayikra 18:22) “משכבי אשה (lit. the <i>ways of having intercourse with a woman).” </i>
  This adds those following them. There are varying texts here. In some commentaries it is written, “This adds those following them (אחריהם),” without a מ"ם at the beginning of the word. This means that if she and he were sentenced to death, even so, if he had intercourse with another woman, or if another man had intercourse with her, the secondary individuals too, are executed and we do not say that a person sentenced to death is already considered dead so that the secondary individuals are considered as if they had intercourse with corpses. Rather, these secondary individuals are also liable to the death penalty. And in some commentaries the text reads, “This adds those committing sodomy (מאחריהם, lit. from behind them),” with a מ"ם at the beginning of the word. This means from behind her, i.e. sodomy. 
  Another interpretation: “Even both of them,” etc. Because according to the first interpretation you might ask that it is obvious he is liable if he had sodomized her, because it is written (ibid) משכבי אשה, which teaches that she has two משכבים (ways to “lie” with her), a normal way and through sodomy. So why do I need the word “also”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation, etc.” And according to the other interpretation you might ask that it should have said, “They shall both die, the man who had intercourse with the woman [and] also (גם) the woman.” Therefore he gives the first interpretation. 
  Adds the fetus — if she was pregnant, etc. Regarding a similar matter Rashi explains in Erchin (7a), “Because it should [only] say ומתו (they shall die), and I would know that “they shall die” cannot mean less than two. (Nachalas Yaakov) 
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  This (the murderer) appears to teach, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The wording of the verse implies that the murderer is teaching us something about the married girl, whereas we actually learn nothing from the murderer! [Actually] the murderer “learns” from the married girl. Just as the married girl can be saved from sin by killing the rapist as the verse indicates by saying, “there was no one to rescue her,” implying that if there was someone to rescue her, he could do so by using any means, so too in the case of the murderer, one may save the [intended] victim by killing the pursuer. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  He cannot effect marriage with her, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “he may not expose” as it is written in the end [of the verse], “And may not expose.” He explains that קיחה implies that he cannot effect marriage with her, i.e. [he cannot] marry her with money, because we derive this law by comparing the expression קיחה written here to קיחה written regarding the field of Efron (Kiddushin 2a) [where it denotes marrying with money]. Rashi is referring to [marrying] her after the death of his father, otherwise, we would know [that he cannot marry her] because she is a married woman. 
  His father’s prospective levirate partner, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse needs to add, “And may not expose the edge of his father’s garment,” [which seems superfluous]? Therefore he says that it comes to include his father’s prospective levirate partner, etc. 
  Evidently, to transgress, with her, against two prohibitions, etc. You might ask: There are three prohibitions, because there is also the prohibition, “Let the wife of the dead man not marry outside to a strange man” (below 25:5)! The answer is that these two prohibitions apply even after his father’s death, but the prohibition of “Let the wife of the dead man not marry outside to a strange man” applies only as long as he is alive. 
  To teach that the bastard is only, etc. Rashi means that this is another reason why the Torah writes, “And he may not expose the edge of his father’s garment,” in order to juxtapose to it, “the bastard may not enter, etc.” You might ask that the verse, “One may not enter — with injured or crushed genitals, etc.,” interrupts between these two verses! The answer is since such people cannot have children and so they are unable to produce bastards, the verse [concerning them] is not considered an interruption. 
  As no act of incest or adultery subject to judicial execution, etc. Rashi is saying that you should not ask: There is a rule that we cannot add extra punishments [or extra prohibitions to a transgression] through a <i>kal vachomer</i> [and similarly we cannot add the status of a bastard to a child resulting from this transgression through a <i>kal vachomer</i>]! He explains that “no act of incest, etc.” Therefore, since this transgression is liable to <i>kares</i>, the child will be a bastard even without a <i>kal vachomer </i>since he is the result of a <i>kares</i> prohibition. And the father’s prospective levirate partner is a <i>kares </i>prohibition because she is his aunt. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Whose testicles were injured or crushed. Because afterwards it is written, “A base-born may not enter.” Theפצוע דכא is juxtaposed to the base-born to teach that just as the disqualification of the base-born resulted from the procreative organs, so too the disqualification of the פצוע דכא is connected with the procreative organs.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  He may not marry an Israelite woman. You might ask: Why Rashi does not explain this above by פצוע דכא? The answer is that Rashi’s intent here is not to explain the meaning of “Adonoy’s community,” as it is obvious that “Adonoy’s community” means to not marry an Israelite woman. Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written that “a base-born may not enter into Adonoy’s community,” as we would already know this from a <i>kal vachomer.</i> If a פצוע דכא who was not created through sin is forbidden to enter the community, how much more a base-born who was created through sin! Therefore he explains, “He may not marry an Israelite woman.” That is, even if he married her we force him to divorce her. But if a פצוע דכא married her he does not have to divorce her. Therefore we cannot learn the base-born from the פצוע דכא with a <i>kal vachomer because the rule is, “suffice it for that learnt from the <i>kal vachomer to be like the source.” </i></i>
  
  Verse 4
  
  He may not marry an Israelite woman. You might ask: Rashi already said this before on the verse, “A base-born may not enter into Adonoy’s community”! The answer is that since Ammonite and Moavite males are forbidden to enter the community, but females are permitted to enter the community, Rashi has to explain that a male may not marry an Israelite woman, but [an Ammonite and Moavite] woman may marry an Israelite man. This too is why the verse had to write, regarding an Ammonite and Moavite, that they may not enter the community of Adonoy.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Because of their advice, etc. Otherwise, why does it say דבר, [which also means “word”]? It should have simply said “that they did not greet you, etc.”! Therefore we say it means as follows: “Because of the words,” i.e., the advice, that they did not greet you, etc., i.e. and also because of this thing too, “That they did not greet you, etc.” meaning, “that” actually means “<i>and that.” </i>
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Perhaps this one as well, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why would I think one should pursue their peace and benefit? He answers, “By inference from what is said, etc.” It seems to me that the correct text in Rashi is, “‘Do not pursue, etc.,” [omitting the words “their peace”], as he is explaining the latter part of the verse, where it says “and their good.” Because we learned in Sifrei: “Do not pursue their peace.” You might think that because it says (earlier 20:10), “When you near a city (to do battle against it, you are to offer it peace),” you might think the same applies here too. Therefore the verse says, “Do not pursue,” regardless [of what it said earlier]. “And their benefit.” And because it says (below v. 17), “do not distress him” you might think the same applies here too. Therefore the verse says, “And their benefit, etc.” The printers did not understand Rashi’s intention and omitted the word “etc.” [from the text] (Kitzur Mizrachi). 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Completely, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It is written afterwards, “Children who will be born to them, in the third generation, will enter.” This implies that the second generation may not enter and if so he is despised! Why then does it say in the beginning, “Do not despise”? Rashi explains that when it is written, “Do not despise,” it means do not despise completely, but you may despise a bit. 
  Totally, etc. Since it is written afterwards, “the third generation will enter,” this implies that the second generation may not enter. Why then does it say, “Do not despise the Egyptian”? Rashi answers that this is what it means, “‘Do not despise,’ totally,” but you may despise a bit, as I explained above regarding “do not despise the Edomite.” Rashi says here, [do not despise them] totally, because it says (Shmos 1:22) [that Pharaoh ordered], “Every boy who is born must be thrown into the river, but every daughter shall be allowed to live.” Even though they cast your males into the river, do not despise them [totally]. “What is the reason? Because, etc.” Therefore Rashi says here [do not despise them] totally. 
  What is the reason? Because they received you hospitably, etc. There are those who ask: Why does Rashi have to explain the reason why the third generation may enter, for the verse itself explains the reason, “For you were a stranger, etc.”? The answer is that Rashi was questioning — should they [be allowed to] enter the community merely because you were a stranger in his land, after they perpetrated all this evil of killing your firstborn? Do other countries harboring foreigners kill their firstborn? Therefore Rashi explains, “What is the reason, etc.” [and he says that the Egyptians helped us]. This “what is the reason” is the explanation of “for you were a stranger” written in the verse. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  The other nations, however, are permitted immediately. I.e., do not ask what punishment is it to delay them until the third generation? The same law applies to other nations as well! Therefore Rashi explains, “The other nations, etc.” 
  Someone who incites a man to sin is worse than someone who murders him, etc. You might ask: Why are they not totally despised? If Amon and Moav who did nothing except to incite Israel to sin, and they were totally despised, why then were Edom and Egypt who wanted to kill them not totally despised? You cannot answer because [Amon and Moav] “did not greet you, etc.” (v. 5), since it is obvious that Edom too did not greet you, for otherwise, why does the verse say you should not despise Edom “for he is your brother,” and also not say the reason is because he met you, etc.? This indicates that this is not the main reason! You also cannot say the difference is that Moav hired Bilam to curse them while Edom did not hire Bilam, because perhaps Edom failed to hire Bilam only because Edom was not aware that whomever Bilam cursed was cursed, whereas Balak knew this from the war against Sichon, as Rashi explains above (Bamidbar 22:6). Thus there is no reason to show gratitude to Edom because of this. On the contrary, we should despise them more because they wanted to kill them by the sword. And if because he is your brother, Amon and Moav are also related to us, as Avraham said to Lot (Bereishis 13:8), “For we are kinsmen.” Rashi answers, “Thus we learn, etc.” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Scriptural law is expressed in common circumstances. Because it is common to have an emission at night but it is not common during the day. But, certainly if one has an emission during the day, he too will become defiled. 
  He is not permitted to enter the camp of the Levites, certainly not, etc. Rashi means, because “camp” is written twice in the verse. You might ask that these two “camps,” are being used, one for a positive command and one for a negative command! Furthermore, why does Rashi learn the camp of the <i>Shechinah</i> from a <i>kol shekein</i>? He should have [simply] said, “And he is not permitted to enter the camp of the Levites or the <i>Shechinah</i>.” The answer is that Rashi is saying as follows. When it is written, “He must go out of the camp,” this must mean the camp of <i>Shechinah</i> because why should we include any other camps? Afterwards when it is written, “He may not enter into the midst of the camp,” this includes even the camp of Levites. But this raises a difficulty, since one with the defilement of an emission enters the camp of <i>Shechinah</i> which has greater sanctity, transgresses only a positive command as it is written, “He must go out, etc.,” but if one enters the camp of the Levites which has less sanctity, one transgress a negative command, which is more severe than a positive command, as it is written, “He may not enter, etc.” [To resolve this difficulty] Rashi answers that if a negative command forbids one from entering the camp of Levites, then “certainly [too], he may not enter the camp of the <i>Shechinah.</i>”<i></i> You might ask that one is not permitted to derive [new laws that incur] punishment from a <i>kol shekein</i>? The answer is that this rule only applies when the law is not hinted to in the Torah at all, but here it is written that he transgresses a positive command, and only the negative command has to be derived from a <i>kol shekein,</i> in this case we would punish [someone who transgresses by using such a derivation]. <i>Re”m</i> answers that the camp of the <i>Shechinah</i> and the camp of the Levites are both [forbidden] because of the sanctity of the <i>Shechinah</i> and are [therefore] regarded as one camp, etc., [and in such a case we can derive punishment from a <i>kol shekein</i>]. See there where he discusses this at length. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  He does not become pure without the setting of the sun. Meaning, he can certainly immerse himself whenever he wants [during] the entire day. But, Rashi wants to explain that when the verse writes, “As sunset nears he is to immerse in water,” you should not say that he cannot do so before this. Rather the verse is giving good advice as it writes afterwards, “And after the sun has set he may enter the midst of the camp.” Since before sunset he remains defiled, why then should he immerse himself when it is still broad daylight? Therefore Rashi says, “Close to the setting of the sun he should immerse himself, as he does not become pure, etc.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Outside the cloud. You might ask: After Aharon died, the clouds of glory departed! The answer is that the Torah is not written in the order that events had taken place, and this was said before Aharon’s death. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  Aside from your other utensils. I.e., you are to have a peg aside from your other utensils in order to dig with it. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  [Let] the Holy One, Blessed Is He [not see] disgraceful objects. [He] Who is mentioned at the beginning of the verse. Because otherwise, [i.e., if the verse meant, “Disgraceful objects should not be seen with you”], לא יראה should have had a <i>tzeirei under the יו"ד. </i>
  
  Verse 16
  
  As Targum [Onkelos] renders, etc. עבד עממין (a slave of nations), meaning, a Jewish slave sold to non-Jews, as it says in Gittin (45a). According to this, why then does the verse call him a slave? He is a Jew! Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation, etc.” But according to the alternative interpretation you might ask that since the term לא תסגיר implies freedom, as it says (Gittin 53b), “From here [we say that] if someone sells his slave to a non-Jew or outside the Land [of Israel], he goes free,” if so, why does the verse use the expression לא תסגיר, it should have said, “Do not enslave a slave to his master.” Therefore Rashi also needs the first interpretation.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  For she, too, engages promiscuously, etc. Rashi is saying: Do not regard this translation of Onkelos as a difficulty against me [that I said קדשה means promiscuous], as I can answer that [Targum] Onkelos agrees with me for “she, too, engages promiscuously, etc.” And Rashi explains similarly afterwards [regarding the maidservant]. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  This adds alterations in form, etc. You might ask, why Rashi leaves the opinion of Beis Hillel who said (Bava Kama 94a), “<i>Them</i> but not their alterations in form,” and explain [the verse] according to Beis Shamai who expounds, “‘Even both’ to include their alterations in form”? The answer is that since the Gemora said that there is a difficulty also according to Beis Hillel, he therefore explains according to Beis Shamai. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  This prohibits the borrower. Otherwise it should have written לא תשך. [לא תשיך in the causative] implies that the borrower is causing the lender to extract interest from him.
  
  Verse 21
  
  So that he transgresses, for this, two negative commandments and one positive commandment. “You may not pay usury to your brother,” and, “To your brother you may not pay usury.” You might ask: There are three negative commandments, because it is written (Vayikra 19:14), “Before a blind person you shall not place a stumbling block.” The answer is that this negative commandment is a לאו שבכללות (a negative general commandment that includes many different things), because [besides the verse’s simple meaning] we expound from it, “Someone who is blind regarding some matter,” i.e., you should not give someone bad advice, and we do not give lashes for [violating] a לאו שבכללות. Alternatively, because they expound this as [also] meaning someone who was blind regarding some matter, they do not want to count it among the negative commandments [here]. <i>Re”m explains that he transgresses two negative commandments, the negative command of “You may not pay usury to your brother,” and the negative commandment of “Before a blind person you shall not place, etc.” He discusses this there at length. But what I have written, so I have found. </i>
  
  Verse 22
  
  For three festivals. The Rabbis derive this from Scripture, etc. Because it is written earlier at the end of <i>parshas</i> Re’ey (16:16), “in the festival of Matzos, and on the festival of Shovuos, and on the festival of Sukkos.” The verse [there] should only have said, “(Three times a year are all your males to be seen in the presence of Adonoy, your God), in the place that He chooses, and he shall not appear (in Adonoy’s) presence empty-handed),” [without mentioning the three festivals by name], because the beginning of the verse it is already written “three times a year” and probably refers to these three. So why is this stated? To allow a person three festivals to fulfill his vow. If he does not fulfill his vow within three festivals he will transgress a negative command and a positive command.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  This specifies a positive commandment with the negative. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture has already written above, “Do not delay in discharging it.” This indicates that one must fulfill his obligation! 
  
  Verse 25
  
  Scripture refers to a laborer. Rashi goes on and explains: You should not ask from where one knows this, for it is written [afterwards], “But do not place it in your container.” From here [we derive] that the Torah refers only, etc. However, if he hired him to till or to hoe he may not eat. This indicates that Scripture is talking about a laborer during the harvest season. 
  However, etc., or to hoe. Meaning, to remove the bad grapes from the good. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  With this, as well, Scripture refers to the laborer. Because it is written, “But do not lift a sickle.” This indicates that Scripture is referring only to the time of harvest, [a time] when you reap and place into the owner’s receptacle. But, if he is hired to plow or for some other activity, he may not eat. This indicates that Scripture refers to the laborer.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  He is then commanded to divorce her, etc. Since the verse explains that “she did not find favor in his eyes because he found in her something lecherous.” This indicates that “he is then commanded, etc.” And [also], because it states the term והיה which is an expression of certainty, i.e., a command. (Minchas Yehudah). [An alternative explanation]. Because it should have stated, “If he found in her something lecherous, he shall send her from his home.” Why is it written, “Should she not find favor in his eyes, etc.”? This indicates that the verse is teaching that you should not tell him that he can send her away even after a while, because in the meantime she might find favor in his eyes and he will not send her away. Therefore the Torah commands him to send her away [immediately]. [The text is reconstructed as follows: “Should he find in her something lecherous, she must not find favor in his eyes”]. I know what <i>Re”m had written and I do not want to be lengthy (Nachalas Yaakov). </i>
  
  Verse 2
  
  This one is not like the first one, etc. Meaning, this second one who marries her is not like the first one who divorced her; בן זוגו means “like him.” Otherwise, why does the verse write “another”? 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Scripture informs him that he will ultimately hate her, etc. Otherwise it should have said, “<i>If</i> (אם) her last husband hates her.” 
  
  Verse 4
  
  This adds the adulteress who was secluded [with the adulterer]. Rashi explains: Do not learn this verse according to its simple meaning as [a case] where she married someone [else], because if so, this would imply that he [the first husband] is forbidden to take her back only if he [the second husband] had relations with her, whereas he could take her back if she was divorced after betrothal (אירוסין) [to her second husband]. But this is not so, because it is written, “If she leaves his home and goes and becomes (והיתה) [a wife to another man],” and והיתה implies הוייה, which is an expression that indicates betrothal. This means that he may not take back his divorced wife even if she was only betrothed [to another man]. But if so, why does the Torah write, “After her having been defiled?” Therefore it must be to “add the adulteress who was secluded.” That is, since there is a doubt whether she was defiled, he may not have relations with her until he gives her the cursed waters to drink. Even though the Torah (Bamidbar 5) explicitly writes defilement regarding the prohibition of [such] an e, as the Gemora (Sotah 28a) says, “She has become defiled” is mentioned three times: one [to create a prohibition] for the adulterer, one for the husband, and one for [forbidding her to eat] <i>terumah, the Gemora (Yevamos 11b) answers that we need the verse here to establish this as a negative prohibition. </i>
  
  Verse 5
  
  One that is new to him, etc. Otherwise it should have said, “When a man marries a virgin.” (Gur Aryeh) 
  However, those who return from the combat formations etc. [Rashi] explains: When the verse writes “over him,” it is an exclusionary expression. Only “over him” may no matter connected with the military command be imposed, but over another person it may be imposed.
  
  Even for the sake of his home, etc. [Rashi explains: The word “shall be” denotes adding on [another case]. Add to it another “shall be” like this one; i.e., someone who built a house and already inaugurated it or someone planted a vineyard and already redeemed it, but a year had not [yet] transpired from the inauguration or redemption. Their status is the same as a person who married a wife but a year has not yet transpired from their wedding; he does not budge from his place. The same applies to inauguration and redemption. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  If he demands security from him for his debt in court, etc. Rashi means to say that “he may not secure as collateral” implies that he is not permitted to demand security from him in court. But this is not so because it was necessary for the Torah to command, “Return are you to return the pledge to him” (v. 13), which indicates that one is permitted to take security. Rashi answers that when it is written here, “He may not secure as collateral,” is in a case where originally he had lent him without security and “now he demands security, etc.” 
  He may not secure implements of food preparation. Rashi is answering the question: It is written “For he is taking life as security,” which indicates anything used for food preparation. [You might ask] if so, why does it say “the upper and lower parts of a millstone,” [writing] only one of them would suffice, because they are both implements of food preparation? The answer is, to give a negative command for the upper part on its own and for the lower part on its own. Even though each needs the other, however since they are two [separate] implements one transgresses a negative command for each implement on its own. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Through witnesses, and after a warning, etc. Rashi says this as you might think that since the Torah [seemingly] makes this law dependent on the [victim] being found in the perpetrator’s hand [then this law applies] even if there were no witnesses when he stole him. Therefore Rashi tells us that generally, “to be found” generally means with witnesses. Otherwise, the perpetrator could claim that he did not steal him but that he sold himself. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  So as not to pluck the symptoms of defilement, etc. Because by plucking the symptoms of defilement or by removing the plague itself, the <i>kohein</i> is unable to detect whether it is pure or defiled. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  If you intend to take precautions, etc. Otherwise what does this have to do with this [previous subject]? It seems to me that Rashi is answering an apparent redundancy of verse (v. 8) that deals with the leprosy affliction. Why does it say “to be extremely careful”? Regarding this he answers, “If you intend to take precautions to avoid suffering, etc.” 
  
  Verse 10
  
  You obligate your fellow. And the expression תשה is similar to (Shmos 22:24), “Do not act towards him as a creditor (כנושה).” Targum [Onkelos] translates it as ארי תרשי, and this too is an expression of owing money as it says (Bava Kama 46b), “From the person who owes you (ממארי רשותך) accept bran [as payment].” I.e., accept even bran from your debtor. 
  The slightest debt. But do not explain [the meaning of] the word מאומה here as elsewhere in Scripture, where it means “nothing.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Do not repose with his collateral in your possession. Because according to the verse’s plain meaning [i.e., lying on the object] would be forbidden [because it considered] as [collecting] interest.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  In want of all things. Meaning, the words תאב and אבה have similar meanings. 
  This refers to the alien settler, who eats meat which was not ritually slaughtered. It is if the verse said, “Or from your converts, or from who are in your land, or in your gates.” And because “or in your gates” includes the alien settler, and “or from your converts” includes the righteous proselyte, and both are called “converts,” Rashi explains “in your gates” right after explaining “from your converts” and before explaining “in your land” which includes the rental fees for animals and tools, as they are not rental fees of the people themselves. However, it seems to me that Rashi explains “in your gates” before “in your land,” so that “in your land” includes the rental fee of animals and tools, etc. Because if not for “in your gates,” I would think that “in your land” comes to include the alien settler since that is more logical. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  He climbs a wall, or suspends himself from a tree. Rashi (Bava Metzia 112a) explains that he puts his life at risk for him by going up on a high ramp, and puts himself in danger of falling, and suspends himself from a tree when he climbs it. 
  Regardless, except ... swiftly, etc. And even if he does cry out [one is punished]. If so, why does it say, “So that he should not cry out against you? [Rashi answers], “Except that punishment is swiftly dispatched, etc.” 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Not at the time of the loan. Rashi has to explain this here, although he had explained this on the verse earlier (v. 6), “He may not secure as collateral,” so that you do not mistakenly say as follows: Why does Scripture say, “You may not secure as collateral, a widow’s garment” [unless you return it to her during the daytime when she needs it]? The verse had written earlier (v. 13), “Return are you to return to him at sunset”! [Therefore we must say] Scripture mentions “you may not secure as collateral” regarding a widow, to teach that that one is obligated to return it [when she needs it] even if one took it as collateral at the time of the loan. Therefore, [to prevent this erroneous interpretation], Rashi explains, “When it is not at the time of the loan.” But [if one took collateral] at the time of the loan he is not obligated to return it because the prohibition of “you may not secure as collateral” (לא תחבול) applies only when it is [taken] not at the time of the loan. But at the time of the loan, since the person gives it willingly, the expression of חבלה [which implies causing harm] is not applicable. The reason the verse says, “You may not secure as collateral, a widow’s garment,” [even though it could be derived from earlier verses], is to teach that [one cannot take it at all as collateral even if he returns it when she needs it] because it cannot be returned [to her every day as people would suspect the lender is having an improper relationship with her] as the Gemora says in chapter <i>Hamekabel (Bava Metzia 115a). Alternatively, to teach that [the law pertaining to] the poor and the wealthy widow is the same, and one may not take collateral from either. </i>
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  But not a heap. A heap is when it is the size of two <i>seah. </i>
  From here we derive that a sheaf containing two seahs etc. Because if the Torah is particular about two <i>seah,</i> what difference does it make if it is a heap or a sheaf? 
  This is added to include forgotten standing grainstalks, etc. I.e., if the standing grainstalks do not contain two <i>seah.</i> But if they contain two <i>seah</i> it is not <i>shikchah</i>, just as in the case of a “heap” that it is not <i>shikchah</i>. 
  Although it came into his possession unintentionally, certainly, etc. Meaning that when it was forgotten and before the owners realized it, poor people had immediately taken it without the owners’ intent. Even in such an instance the verse says, “In order that. . .will bless you.” Rashi’s proof that this case is talking without [the owners’] intent is since it is written, “In order that…will bless you, etc.” Because if it was with [the owners’] intent, why specifically here is it written “in order that…will bless you” more so than in other places where charity is mentioned? 
  
  Verse 20
  
  Do not remove its glory from it, etc. Meaning, that you may not remove all its fruit to the point that its glory does not remain. The expression לא תפאר [where the word “glory” means to remove the glory] is similar to the expression, “ כל תבואתי תשרש (It would root out all my produce) (Iyuv 31:12),” which means to uproot [even though תשרש means to take root]. 
  This refers to shikchah. I.e., the <i>shikchah</i> of a tree. Since it is written “behind you,” it implies that that regarding for that which is behind you, there is a prohibition to return [for it]. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  What is the shoulder? Clusters atop one another, etc. The middle stalk of the bunch is called a <i>shidra</i> (spine) because it is similar to a person’s spine that joins together the ribs; similarly, joined to it are the smaller bunches that are called <i>pesigin. Pesigin</i> means a piece, as the Targum Yerushalmi of, “He shall sever it into its pieces (לנתחיו) (Vayikra 1:12),” is מפסיק יתיה לפסיגין. When the <i>pesigin</i> lie one upon the other, they are like a load lying on a person’s shoulders and therefore it is called “shoulder.” “Droplets” are when many grapes are joined at the end of the spine and drip (i.e., hang) downwards. All these do not go to the poor. But when there is no shoulder or droplets but only scattered grapes, these go to the poor (I found this interpretation). <i>Re”m</i> explains: Anything lacking the shoulder and the droplets. These [that the poor may take] are the grapes that hang from the end of the branches that are [similar to the fruit] called <i>sevi’a</i> in the Greek language. They neither have a “shoulder,” which are the <i>pesigin</i> that [lie] one on the other, etc., nor do they have “droplets,” which are the grapes that hang on the spine of a bunch [i.e., there is only one bunch of grapes on the spine and not many “shoulders”]. The shoulder is called <i>pesiga</i> because it [i.e. each one] separates between the other <i>kateif. This expression is similar to מפסיג ועולה (Bava Kama 81a), which means “He he cuts [a breach in the vines] and goes up.” So far are the words of <i>Re”m. See above in parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:10) where more is explained.
  </i></i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  They will ultimately approach the court of justice, etc. Meaning: It should have [simply] said, “And the two people who have the judgment come.” This indicates that the verse is saying that if men have a quarrel, they will ultimately bring it to court and be unable to reach a compromise except through judgment. 
  “Should the wicked one deserve flogging” (בן הכות), etc. Like its Targum [בר חיבא לאלקאה, that בן means “son”]. Some explain that it is an expression of בינה, understanding, because the person must have discernment. This excludes a deaf person, an insane person, or a minor. Some explain that it refers to the judge. I.e., if the judge understands that the person transgressed and deserves flogging (I found this interpretation). 
  A negative commandment unattached to a positive commandment. But if it is attached to a positive commandment, one is not flogged. The same applies to a negative commandment that involves no physical action, or that is subject to warning of death by court, or that is subject to financial restitution, or a general negative commandment that includes many things, as stated in <i>maseches </i>Makos (13a).
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  And behind him, in the amount befitting a double crime, etc. Thus there are three amounts befitting a crime, one at the front, i.e., a third at the front, and two measures from behind him. There are those who explain thatכדי רשעתו  [which can be translated, “according to amount that makes him wicked”], is thirteen lashes, because a person is punishable when he reaches the age of thirteen. “Before him” mean opposite his heart, “behind him” on his back, [and he gets “the amount befitting a double crime” on his back] because those two measures are a fine. 
  This is not vocalized במספר, etc. I.e., with a <i>pasach under the ב'. </i>
  Rather, the number which concludes and completes up to forty, etc. I.e., one has to count and mention the number forty minus one; that is, one must not say “thirty-nine,” but “forty minus one.” The reason for [counting] this [way] is so that one does not forget and give him an additional lash, and transgress “lest he additionally flog him, etc.” Therefore he must say “forty minus one” in order for him to remember. This explains why Scripture mentions “forty,” and not thirty-nine. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  From here we derive that one is forbidden to strike one’s fellow. Because here, where one initially gives lashes permissibly, nevertheless it is written to not flog his fellow additionally for nothing [and thereby he transgresses a negative command], so then certainly if one illegally flogs his fellow for nothing from the very start, he transgresses a negative commandment. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  But this applies as well to all domesticated animals, wild animals and fowl, etc. Because we derive this by comparing the word “ox” to the word “ox,” [by means of a <i>gezeira shava</i>] as explained above (22:10). 
  If so, why is the ox mentioned? To exclude man. Meaning that since “ox” is imprecise, Scripture should simply write, “You may not muzzle while threshing.” 
  Perhaps one may muzzle it while outside? Meaning that since “While it threshes” implies only while threshing, if so, “perhaps one may muzzle it while outside” while it is not threshing and afterwards be permitted to thresh with while it is muzzled, “the Torah therefore teaches, etc.” 
  The Torah therefore teaches, “You may not muzzle an ox,” anywhere, etc. Otherwise it should have said, “You may not thresh with a muzzled ox,” which would imply that there is only a prohibition during actual threshing. But because it is written “you may not muzzle,” it implies anywhere. “While it threshes” comes to teach a different lesson as Rashi goes on and explains, “Then why is threshing stated, etc.” I explained similar to this in <i>parshas</i> Eikev (above 11:25) on the verse, “No man will stand up to you, etc.”
  
  It excludes prying apart dates and figs, etc. I.e., if one puts them on the roof to dry and they became attached to each other, and has to pry them apart if he wants to take them. For these types of work there is not even a mitzvah [to allow a worker to eat]. But with something done with produce whose work was not completed, even though he will not transgress a negative commandment, as is derived from “an ox and not a person,” nevertheless, it is a mitzvah to do so unless he made a special condition with the worker. But in these cases one does not even need [to make] a special condition. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  Together in their inheritance, etc. I.e., only if they are “together in their inheritance,” meaning, that one inherits the other if one of them dies. This includes paternal brothers, but excludes maternal brothers who do not inherit one another. For all paternal relatives inherit a person, and not his maternal brothers. You might ask, why learn this from “together”? Why not derive it from a <i>gezeira shava</i> by comparing “brothers” here to “brothers” by the sons of Yaakov? It is written here “brothers,” and it is written there (Bereishis 42:13), “Your servants are twelve <i>brothers</i>, the son of one man, etc.” Just as there [“brothers” are] paternal, so here too “brothers” are] paternal! The answer is that since we find that even relatives are called “brothers” as it is written (ibid 13:8), “For we are kinsmen (אנשים אחים, lit. “people who are brothers”), you may have thought that even relatives are obligated to perform a levirate marriage, and as we find with Boaz. Therefore it is written “together,” together in their inheritance, etc. The Gemora in chapter 2 of Yevamos (17b) gives a different answer, see there. <i>Re”m cites it, see there.
  </i>
  Scrutinize him — a son or daughter, etc. Rashi means [that we derive this] because the verse writes אין with a יו"ד when it should have written אין without a יו"ד as it writes below (v. 7), מאן " יבמי (my brother-in-law refuses)” without a יו"ד. Therefore, because it is written with a יו"ד we read it as <i>ayin;<i> theאל"ף  is interchanged for an עי"ן, and it is as if the verse wrote עין (scrutinize). That is, “scrutinize him” whether he has “a son or daughter, etc.” for if so she is exempt from a levirate marriage and from <i>chalitzah. </i></i></i>
  
  Verse 6
  
  The oldest brother shall perform levirate marriage, etc. I.e., it is a mitzvah for the oldest brother to perform a levirate marriage. You might ask that perhaps if there is no firstborn brother [still alive] the others are exempt from performing a levirate marriage? The answer is that if so, it should not have said, “If brothers reside together,” which teaches, “This excludes the wife of his brother who did not share his world,” as Rashi explains. Because if a non-firstborn brother does not perform levirate marriage, why would one need to exclude the wife of his brother who did not share his world? This would be obvious as he [the surviving brother] is not the firstborn? This certainly indicates that even a non-firstborn brother performs a levirate marriage, and when Scripture writes “firstborn,” it comes to teach you that it is a mitzvah for the oldest brother as Rashi explains. 
  This excludes the eilonis, who cannot bear children. The verse is read as follows, “Marrying her to be his wife... He shall be the firstborn.” I.e., the one performing the levirate marriage shall be the firstborn. “When she is capable of bearing children,” i.e., that <i>yevamah</i> should be capable of bearing children. This excludes the <i>eilonis</i> etc. 
  Shall receive the deceased’s share in his father’s estate. You say this means inheritance, or perhaps it only means that if his [i.e., the deceased brother’s] name was Yosef they call him [i.e., the child] Yosef, or [if his name was] Yochanan, they call him Yochanan. It says here “his [deceased] brother,” and it says there (Bereishis 48:6), “They shall be called by their brothers’ name with regard to their inheritance.” Just as there it is [with regard to] inheritance, so here too [it is in regard to] inheritance (Yevamos ibid). 
  This excludes the wife of a eunuch, whose name is already obliterated. The Mishnah states in Yevamos (79b), “If he was a ‘sun’ eunuch,” and Rashi explains: That he was afflicted from his mother’s womb and never saw the sun in a state of being fit, neither may he perform <i>chalitzah</i> nor may they perform <i>chalitzah</i> to his wife. But if he was a “man” eunuch [i.e., castrated], who did have a time of being fit, he performs <i>chalitzah</i> and they perform <i>chalitzah</i> to his wife.” 
  
  Verse 7
  
  As Targum [Onkelos] translates, “To the portal of the court of law.” This [translation of שער] is not like, "In your cities (בשעריך) may you eat it (Devarim 15:22),” which means city, because it is written, "to the judges," and the judges sit in the portal of the court of law. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  She, too, must speak in the sacred language. We derive this through a <i>gezeira shava</i> from [comparing] the words "and declare" (ואמר) and "and say" (ואמרו). It says here "and declare" (ואמר), and it is written below in <i>parshas Ki Savo (27:14), "The Levites are to respond and say (ואמרו) to every man, etc." Just as there it is in the sacred language, [so here it is in the sacred language]. And from where do we know this over there? We derive it from the words "respond (עניה)," "respond (עניה)." Since here it is written, "And the Levites are to respond (וענו)," and in <i>parshas Yisro (Shmos 19:19) it says, "Moshe spoke and Hashem responded to him (יעננו) with [His] voice." Just as there it was in the sacred language, so here it is in the sacred language. </i></i>
  
  Verse 9
  
  On the ground. It means before him [i.e., in front of him], opposite his face, but not actually in his face. The reason for this is because "and spit" is connected to the earlier phrase, "in the sight of the judges," [to teach that there must be enough spit to be seen by the judges], and it is as if it said, "in front of the judges she shall spit." Thus the word בפניו is left by itself and can only mean "before him." Since the spit must be specifically before him [in order to embarrass him], it is as if it is actually in his face. Therefore the verse writes בפניו [which also means "in his face"] and not לפניו [which would only mean "before him"]. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  It is a mitzvah incumbent on all those standing there etc. [Rashi says this] since you might ask why the word "Yisroel" is needed? He answers, "It is a mitzvah, etc.," and "in Yisroel" means "in the assembly of Yisroel," that they should be there at the time of the <i>chalitzah</i> in order to declare, "The divesture of the shoe." Even though it is written "the house of the divesture," the explanation is that the word "house" comes to be expounded, "He builds one house and not two houses," meaning that once he married his <i>yevamah,</i> he may not perform levirate marriage with her co-wife. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Ultimately, they will come to blows. Otherwise it should have said, "If a man strikes his fellow, and the wife of one approaches, etc." He explains that through altercation, "ultimately they will come to blows." 
  No peace can result from altercation (מצות). Rashi here uses the term מצה and not ריב, as he did earlier (v. 1), "Tranquility does not evolve from quarreling (מריבה)," because he is citing the wording of each verse. Above it is written, "If a quarrel (ריב) should occur" he uses the term מריבה, and here where it is written, "If men engage in an altercation (ינצון)," he uses מצות. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Weights. Rashi is answering the question: Is it forbidden for one to have stones in his house? Rashi answers, "weights" that one weighs with, just as the <i>eipha</i> (lit. basket) is the name of a measure [of volume], so too "stones" [is a word that means weights]. 
  Where the larger contradicts the smaller, etc. For example, if both are a whole <i>manah</i> or both are a half <i>manah</i> but one contradicts the other, i.e., that one is large and one is small.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  If you do this [you shall not have anything]. Otherwise, why do I need the word "<i>you</i> shall not have"? It should have said, "There shall not be in your pouch varying weight-stones,” and the verse “you shall not have” means, if you have varying weight-stones in your pouch, you will not have anything. And because it is not possible to say, “if you do this, etc.” unless you know the meaning of "large and small," therefore Rashi first explains "large and small," and afterwards [he explains] "you shall not to have," which is not according to the order [that the phrases appear] in the verse. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  If you fulfill this, you shall have, etc. The later "you" is similar to the earlier "you" which is connected to punishment for the sin. So too the later "you" is connected to reward for the mitzvah.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  And it is written afterward, “The malicious arrive, then comes mortification.” I.e., the enemy will come and provoke you to battle, and you will suffer mortification. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Another interpretation: The meaning is “cold,” as opposed to heat, etc. I.e., just as everyone is afraid of a hot object, so too the nations had fear of you. But Amalek cooled you, and moderated you to tepidness (הפשירך); an expression of tepid (פושרין) water. 
  Although he was scalded, he cooled it for the others. I.e., he made you seem cold to others. 
  Striking at the appendage — they severed the circumcision, [and flung it heavenward]. The organ that has the circumcision is like an appendage, and the meaning of מזנב is to cut off your appendage, i.e., your circumcisions, and fling them heavenward. I.e., they insulted Heaven [as it were] by saying, "The mitzvah You commanded Your nation, Yisroel, how did it help them?!" 
  Enfeebled. Because נחשלים is derived from the word חלש (feeble); we find many words whose letters are transposed such as כבש כשב (sheep), and אפילות, which Rashi explains at the end of <i>parshas Va’eira (Shmos 9:32) as meaning "wonder of wonders (פלאי פלאות)," and similarly שמלה שלמה (garment). </i>
  Because of their sins, as the cloud ejected them. Those who were ejected by the cloud had their circumcisions severed by Amalek. 
  Amalek, of God, so as not to harm you. [Rashi says this] so that you do not explain this as describing Yisroel, that Yisroel had no fear of Hashem, similar to "exhausted and weary" [that applies to Yisroel]. Therefore he explains, "Amalek, etc." They expound this from the punctuation that places a <i>kamatz</i> under the יו"ד, signifying that it is a past-tense verb similar to, "And when Yitzchok grew old (זקן)” (Bereishis 27:1). If it was an adjective [referring to Yisroel], it should have been punctuated with a <i>sheva under the יו"ד. </i>
  
  Verse 19
  
  Man and woman, etc. I.e., you shall not leave any remembrance of Amalek that his remembrance clings to, so that people say, "This was of Amalek." Otherwise, it should have said "smite" [rather than "obliterate the memory"].
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  This teaches that they were not obligated to bring the first fruits, etc. You might ask why did Rashi not explain this earlier in<i> parshas</i> Shoftim (17:14) in the section [dealing with the appointing] a king, for there too it is written, “and inherit it and live in it”? The answer is that Rashi wants to explain why here it says, “And you inherit it and settle it.” For the [the law derived from these words] could be derived from the section dealing with [appointing] a king since we derive [from the term] “come” “come” from each other. Just as there they are not obligated [to appoint a king] until after the conquering and apportioning [the Land], so too here. And there is a tradition that this <i>gezeira shava</i> is a halacha given to Moshe at Sinai as Rashi explains in <i>parshas</i> Shelach Lecha (Bamidbar 15:18) regarding <i>challah.</i> [He comments there on the verse], “At your coming to the land,” that, “This [term] 'coming' is different from all the 'comings' in the Torah, etc. because Scripture specified with one of them, etc.” I.e., since it specified regarding [the obligation of appointing] a king, that it does not apply until after inheritance and settling [the Land], so too with all of them. Thus we see that this is an absolute <i>gezeira shava.</i> And if so, why does the verse here need to write “and you inherit it and settle it”? Rashi answers, “This teaches that they were not obligated to bring the first fruits, etc.” Apparently this verse is talking about eating [fruits], so one might have thought there is an obligation to bring first fruits immediately [after arriving in the Land] before benefiting from them, as we say (Berachos 35a), “Whoever benefits from this world without a blessing is considered as if he committed sacrilege,” and we would not have applied the <i>gezeira shava</i> from [appointing] a king. Therefore Rashi has to explain explicitly, “'And you inherit it and settle it,' [This teaches, etc.”] However, above in <i>parshas</i> Shoftim [the verse also has to specify that it is only after settlement, as] we would not learn this from first fruits, because one might think that they are obligated to appoint a king immediately they enter the Land, because the king is appointed to lead them in war, and there is no greater need for this than during the conquest and apportionment, since that is the main time of war. Therefore the verse there has to explain [by saying], “And inherit it and settle in it,” that this [appointing] is only after conquest and apportionment, in order that they give credit for the conquest to the Holy One and not to a mortal king. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  But not all the first, etc. This is the text in most books that are available to us. <i>Re”m</i> asks on this: Why learn this law from “<i>of</i> the first”? Derive it from the <i>gezeira shava</i> of “land” “land,” that only fruits of the seven species are subject to “first fruits”? Also, why is it different here that we expound “<i>of</i> the first” and not all the first to exclude, that not all trees are subject to the first fruit obligation, but only some of them. And why is <i>challah</i> (Bamidbar 15:21) different that we expound from “<i>of</i> the first” but <i>not</i> <i>all</i> the first, to exclude, that one may not make the whole dough <i>challah. </i>He discusses this at length. See the Nachalas Yaakov at length. 
  The aguri olive, with its oil gathered inside. You might ask: In <i>parshas</i> Eikev (above 8:8), Rashi explains, “' oil, olives,' Its meaning is, olives that produce oil.” Why does Rashi not explain there as he explains here [that “oil, olives” means the <i>aguri</i> olive]? The answer is that above he is discussing the praise of the Land of Israel; and regarding that he explains, “Olives that produce oil,” meaning that in other lands there are olives that do not produce oil, whereas in the Land of Israel, all its olives produce oil. But here he is discussing the verse dealing with the first fruits, and we bring only first fruits from the fruits of the Land of Israel by which the Land of Israel is extolled, as we derive from [the <i>gezeira shava</i> of] “land,” “land,” and it is as if the verse had explicitly written these fruits in the <i>parsha</i> of first fruits here as well. And here [too], “olive” means the olives of the Land of Israel and they all produce oil as Rashi explains in <i>parshas</i> Eikev. If so, it is understandable why he explains [the further point that for the mitzvah of first fruits that must be from the very best, one must bring] “the <i>aguri</i> olive, whose oil is gathered inside,” because there are olives whose oil oozes out during rainfall and these are not as good. Therefore Rashi explains, “The <i>aguri</i> olive, etc.” This also answers the contradiction in <i>Re”m</i>'s words [where he seems to be saying that all the olives in the world produce oil]. 
  When a man enters his field. Rashi is explaining why the verse says “first”? It should have said only, “You are to take of the fruits, etc.” 
  And notices the first fig to mature, he wraps, etc. Not a fig in particular, but other species as well. The reason for mentioning a fig is because it ripens earlier than other fruits.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  That you are not ungrateful. Otherwise, why mention this? Does not the Holy One already know that he arrived to the Land? כפוי [to turn the good upside down and ignore it] is derived from the expression הכפשני באפר, “He turned me upside down in the ground” (Eicha 3:16). 
  Once each year, etc. Meaning that if he had more than one species of fruit, and one species ripened faster than the second, and he brings the first one to Jerusalem and says the readings, and then when the second species matures he brings it too, he does not say a reading a second time. Rashi's proof is that it is written “today,” which implies a restriction; otherwise, why write “today”? 
  
  Verse 4
  
  Places his hand below the owner’s hand and waves. I already explained [how Rashi knows this] in <i>parshas</i> Tzav (Vayikra 7:30) and in <i>parshas</i> Tetzaveh (Shmos 29:24) and in <i>parshas</i> Emor (Vayikra 23:11). His proof is that it should have said, “The <i>kohein</i> shall then take the basket and place it before the altar of Adonoy, etc.” Why does it say “from your hand”? Thus “from your hand” is available for a <i>gezeira shava</i>. It says “hand” here and it says “hand” by the owner of a peace offering (ibid 7:30). Just as over there, there is waving, as it is specified there, so too, the “hand” over here involves waving. Regarding the waving here, Rashi explains in Chapter<i> Lulav Ve'arava</i> (Sukkah 47b) that the owner holds the edge of the basket while the <i>kohein</i> places his hands beneath the bottom of the basket. Even though regarding peace offerings, the <i>kohein</i> puts his hand directly under the owner’s hand, that is because a peace offering has no edge or bottom, therefore the <i>kohein’s</i> hand is directly under the owner’s hand. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  This denotes a loud proclamation. But it does not denote [an expression of] answering or replying, because there cannot be a reply unless someone calls or asks, and here, who called to him or asked him anything? 
  He cites the Omnipresent’s benevolence, etc. I.e., because he mentions the Holy One's benevolence, that He gave them this Land, he also mentions the other benevolences that He treated our forefathers. Otherwise, what connection is there between “the Aramite destroyed my forefather” and the first fruits? 
  Because he intended to act, etc. Rashi is answering the question: If Lavan did not destroy him, why then is it written “destroyed,” which indicates that he did destroy him? אובד is a verb acting on something else [i.e. saying that the Aramite destroyed Yaakov], as if it said מאבד, [sought to destroy] even though this is not in accordance with proper grammar. So one has to explain according to this Midrash of the sages. 
  For with the nations, the Omnipresent equates, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The Holy One does not equate thought with deed except for idolatry (Kiddushin 39b)! Therefore he explains, “For with the nations, etc.” I.e., even not in the case of idolatry He equates, etc., and only with Yisroel is it so [that He does not equate thought with deed]. 
  Yet others fell upon us to annihilate us, etc. Rashi explains [the verse as follows]: The straightforward meaning implies that because the “Aramite destroyed my forefather” therefore “he descended to Egypt.” But this is not so. Therefore he explains “yet others, etc.” which is a separate matter.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  As indicated by the plain connotation. And therefore perforce “this place” refers to the Beis Hamikdosh. But if the explanation of “He gave us this land” is not according to its simple meaning, we could then explain that “to this place” means the Land of Israel. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  This teaches that he takes it after the kohein’s waving, etc. Otherwise, why write “and you shall then place it”? It already said (v. 4) “and he will place it.” Rashi's proof that he “then waves it again,” is from here; that we derive “and you shall then <i>place it</i>” from “and he will <i>place it</i> before [the altar of] Adonoy.” Just as regarding “place it” in the beginning, he waved it before placing it down, so too, etc. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Except during the time of rejoicing, etc. Otherwise, what rejoicing is there that it is written “you shall rejoice, etc.”? It is not eaten by non-kohanim because its laws are derived from <i>terumah </i>[which is forbidden to non-kohanim]? Therefore he explains, “From here they derive, etc.” Therefore, regarding the Levi and the proselyte too, you cannot explain as in <i>parshas</i> Re'ei (above 12:18), that you are obligated to have them rejoice with you, since it is forbidden to them. Therefore he explains that they too are obligated in first fruits (Devek Tov). 
  If they planted in their cities. I.e., within their forty-eight cities. 
  Who brings without reciting, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The proselyte is obligated in all mitzvos of the Torah, is it then not obvious that he is obligated regarding the first fruits, and thus the verse should have written only, “You and the Levi”? He answers, “He brings without reciting,” and therefore the proselyte is specified separately.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  When you finish setting aside the tithes, etc. The meaning is not when you finish setting aside the tithes of the second year, as is implied by “in the third year” as meaning that you are in the third year and setting aside tithes of the second year. Because then it should have said, “When you finish tithing all the tithes of your produce [of] the third year.” Therefore one must explain that “in the third year” means “pertaining to the third year,” and the word is lacking a שי"ן, as in the verse (Shmos 18:20), “The path [in which] they must walk.” The third year refers to the third year following <i>Shemittah. </i>
  As it is said, “At the end of three years you shall remove, etc.” Rashi wants to prove that the time of divesture and recitation is on the day before Pesach. This verse is written in <i>parshas</i> Re'ei (above 14:28) relating to tithes. 
  Here, “at the end of” is said, and below, “at the end of seven years” is said, etc. Not actually here in this <i>parsha.</i> Rather, Rashi is saying that [the phrase] “at the end of” is said regarding the third year. Therefore, it is as if it is written here, because here too it talks about the tithe of the third year.
  
  The year when the tithing obligation is for only, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why the verse calls the third year “the year of the tithe.”? Are the first and second years not years of tithes? He explains, “The year when the tithing obligation is for only, etc.” 
  Supply them with enough to satisfy them, etc. Rashi is answering the question: If he does not want to eat, what can one do about it? Therefore he explains, “Supply them, etc.” Do what you are obligated to do. 
  Less than half a kav of wheat, etc. Which is [the volume of] twelve eggs. But of barley one has to give him a [whole] <i>kav.</i> And one only has to give him a half a <i>kav</i> of wheat at the threshing area, because in town one does not have to give him a half <i>kav,</i> because in town he can go to others as well. However, this is not the case regarding threshing areas because they are distant from each other.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Acknowledge that you gave your tithes. That is, acknowledge in your heart [i.e. to yourself]. Otherwise, it should have said, “You shall declare <i>to</i> Adonoy your God,” as it says above (v. 3) regarding the bringing of the first fruits. (Minchas Yehuda). Because if the verse is understood according to its simple meaning, what need is there to say [this] to the Holy One? It is already known to Him. (Nachalas Yaakov) 
  This refers to the second tithe and the fourth-year fruit. As Rashi explains above in <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:24), that the second tithe and the fourth-year fruit are called “sacred.” 
  And teaches you that if one tarried with his two year tithes, etc. Rashi is answering the question: There is no second tithe in the third year; if so, one should only declare the poor man’s tithe which is obligatory in the third year and continues until Pesach of the fourth year, as said above! Therefore he explains, “And teaches you, etc.” 
  This includes the terumah-gift, and the first fruits. [In some texts] Rashi writes <i>terumos</i> in the plural form to also include the <i>terumah</i> taken from tithes as the Mishnah says at the end of Maaser Sheini (5:10). Rashi includes first fruits with <i>terumah,</i> because, as Rabbeinu Shimshon explains there, the Torah writes (above 12:17), “the <i>terumah</i>-separation of your hand,” and the sages (Makkos 17a) explain, “These are the first fruits.” Rashi mentions them explicitly because not everyone is knowledgeable of this teaching. 
  For terumah is entitled “the first, etc.” Rashi wants to explain from where we know the Torah is particular about the order. 
  Of one species for another, etc. For example, wheat for barley. 
  To bless you for the setting aside of tithes. <i>Re”m</i> writes: It means, from praising and blessing You at the time of setting aside the tithes. But it does not mean from reciting the [formal] blessing for the one who is setting aside tithes, because that [formal] blessing is a text instituted by the men of the Great Assembly, for the blessings upon [the performance of] <i>mitzvos</i> are only Rabbinically ordained. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  From here we derive that it is forbidden during grief. Otherwise, what difference does it make whether or not he ate [during grief]? Even though the declaration includes [all] tithes and <i>terumos</i> as the sages expound from the earlier verse, “I have also presented it to the Levi, etc.,” [and if so, why do the sages apply this prohibition only to the second tithe?] Nevertheless, the word “of it” implies only one [type of] tithe, and this can only be the second tithe which is called “sacred” (Vayikra 27:30), [as the previous verse mentions the word “sacred”] (<i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>). 
  Whether I was defiled and it was clean, etc. That is, the <i>terumah</i>, or I was clean and it was defiled.” 
  Where is the admonition concerning this?, etc. You might ask: Why not say that the admonition is from here, as Rashi explained above, “From here we derive that it is forbidden during grief.” The answer is that the prohibition certainly is derived from here. Therefore the explanation of [Rashi's question], “Where is the admonition concerning this?” means, in order that he transgresses a negative commandment and be given lashes. But regarding eating in grief, there is only a prohibition and no lashes. And when it is written, “I did not eat of it when grieving,” it is merely relating a fact but it is not an admonition, because an admonition is only feasible when it comes from the Holy One's mouth [as a commandment]. Therefore Rashi explains, “Where is the admonition, etc.” 
  To make a casket or shrouds. This teaching is a novelty; for even a casket or shrouds that are a mitzvah, and certainly secular purposes [are forbidden]. See <i>Kitzur Mizrachi</i>. 
  I have brought it to the Temple. Otherwise, why write, “I have heeded the voice of Adonoy”? The person has already declared that he fulfilled all he was commanded and he did not transgress all that he was admonished against? For this reason too, they expounded from, “I have fulfilled everything that You commanded me,” [to mean,] “I rejoiced, and brought joy with it.” 
  I rejoiced, and brought joy with it. That is, [to] others.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Now You fulfill what is incumbent upon You, etc. Otherwise, what relevance has this prayer over here? Therefore [it means], “Because we have fulfilled, etc.” it is fitting for You to fulfill what You promised. At any rate it is a prayer, and not as <i>Re”m</i> and Devek Tov write. 
  To give to us, and You fulfilled, etc. By adding the words “to give to us,” Rashi is answering the question: The oath does not mention “a land flowing with milk and honey,” so how is it written here, “As You swore, etc.”? Therefore Rashi explains “to give to us.” That is, [You gave to us] as You swore to our forefathers you would give us, “and [also] You fulfilled” the promise you made to those who went out of Egypt to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, [which was] more than You had sworn to our forefathers.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  A heavenly echo blesses him, etc. Rashi is answering the question: This <i>parsha</i> is certainly juxtaposed to the <i>parsha</i> of first fruits. Therefore [the words], “You shall observe, etc.,” refer to the <i>parsha</i> of first fruits. But how can “you shall observe and perform them, etc.” refer to the <i>parsha </i>of first fruits if in the <i>parsha</i> of first fruits it is written that he already completed the entire procedure and has already brought the first fruits, as is indicated by the verse, “View, from Your sacred residence, etc.”? Therefore Rashi explains, “A heavenly echo blesses him, etc.” (<i>Re”m</i>). To me it seems that Rashi is answering the question: According to the verse's straightforward meaning, why is it written, “This very day, etc.”? Hashem already commanded this in the <i>parsha</i> of<i></i> “Should you thoroughly heed My commandments” (above 11:13), and in the <i>parsha</i> of “You are to love” (ibid 6:5). Perforce, the whole matter refers to bringing the first fruits, and if so, why is it written, “You shall observe and perform them”? What is it referring to? And how is it connected to, “Adonoy, you have distinguished today, etc.”? Therefore it must be that, “A heavenly echo blesses him, etc.” 
  
  Verse 17
  
  You have distinguished Him, from the alien gods, etc. This is the explanation of, “You have distinguished today, etc.” 
  And He set you aside, for Himself, from the peoples of the earth, etc. This is the explanation of, “And Adonoy has distinguished you, etc.” 
  It denotes glory, etc. Thus האמרת means “you glorified,” as in “All evildoers glorify themselves.” They glorify themselves that their [evil] way is successful (Rashi, Chagiga 3a).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  This denotes constancy, etc. Meaning, you should always keep this commandment. It is not an expression that denotes a command because if so, it would have been punctuated with a <i>sheva </i>underneath the שי"ן. You also cannot say that it is an infinitive because then it should have said שמור תשמור, as in פתוח תפתח (above 15:8), נתון תתן (ibid. v. 10). (<i>Re”m) </i>
  
  Verse 2
  
  There were three kinds of stones, etc. Nothing can be proved from the verses here. Rather, everything is proved from the verses in Yehoshua. It is written there (4:2) that they erected twelve stones in the Jordan at the place where the <i>kohanim's</i> feet stood, and they erected twelve stones in Gilgal, the first place they sojourned in the Land of Israel. And on those stones [of Gilgal] Yehoshua had previously written the whole Torah at Mount Eival. Because <i>sefer</i> Yehoshua mentions these two types of stones, i.e. those of the Jordan and those of the Gilgal, Rashi therefore mentions them first, even though they [i.e. the ones of Gilgal] were first erected at Mount Eival. But because they removed them, and took and erected them in Gilgal, Rashi mentions them [those of the Jordan and the Gilgal] together. Regarding this Rashi writes “As stated in Tractate Sotah,” because that is where the verses of <i>sefer</i> Yehoshua are cited. And when Rashi writes “three kinds of stones,” he means [two kinds at] three different sites. This answers the questions raised by <i>Re”m</i> against Rashi from Tractate<i></i> Sotah Chapter Eilu Ne'emarin. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  In seventy languages. See above in <i>parshas</i> Devarim (1:5) where I explained this (Minchas Yehuda). The reason it was written in seventy languages is explained in Tractate Sotah (35) that it is to enable the nations to copy it (Nachalas Yaakov).
  
  Verse 9
  
  Each day let it appear to you, etc. Rashi explains that because it is written “you <i>have</i> become a people to Adonoy, your God,” instead of writing “you <i>will</i> become,” it indicates that it is referring to a previous covenant. And by writing “this day,” it hints that “Each day let it appear to you as if, on that very day, etc.” (<i>Re”m</i>). It seems to me that this is deduced from “this day,” as in the verse “This very day, Adonoy, your God, commands you (26:16).” You cannot understand it according to its straightforward meaning, because on that day they accepted upon themselves the blessings and curses that would be said at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eival. And if that is the reason it says “this day” here, it should have first said, “Moshe commanded the people, etc.,” which is the <i>parsha</i> of curses, and afterwards it should say the <i>parsha</i> of “This very day.” It is not relevant to apply here [the rule], “There is no earlier or later in the Torah,” [i.e., the Torah was not written in chronological order] because this is the main reason that “This very day” is said. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  The Levi’im directed their faces toward Mount Gerizim, and began the blessing, etc. You might ask: It is written “(The following will stand to bless the people, etc.) Shimon and Levi and Yehudah, [and Yisachar and Yoseif and Binyomin,]” and this implies that these six tribes said the blessing, not only the tribe of Levi! The answer is that that it is written, “And the following will stand <i>on</i> (על) the curse at Mount Eival.” “On the curse” must mean “next to the curse,” that is, that the <i>Levi'im</i> turned their faces to them and therefore they are called “next to” [the <i>Levi'im</i>] more than those standing on Mount Gerizim, even though the <i>Levi'im</i> were equidistant from both. You cannot explain the verse according to its straightforward meaning, because you cannot say “the following will stand <i>on</i> the curse,” as a curse is not something tangible that can be stood upon. Therefore, (על) must mean “next to the curse,” i.e. next to those who say the curse. All this indicates that they themselves did not say the curses. Consequently, when it says [earlier], “These will stand to bless, etc.,” here too the tribes are not the ones who are actually saying the blessings. And now it is logical to say that they [the ones who said the blessing] were the tribe of Levi because it is written, “The <i>Levi’im</i> are to respond, etc.,” and it is written afterwards [i.e. it says regarding those who stand by the curse who are mentioned after those who stand by the blessing] that they themselves did not say the blessing. You might ask: [If so], what is the meaning of what is written, “The following will stand to bless the people, etc.,” which implies that they themselves said the blessings”? The answer is that it means that the following should stand next to the <i>Levi'im</i> on Mount Gerizim when the <i>Levi'im</i> stand to bless the people, Shimon, etc. (This I found in the name of one of the <i>gedolim</i>). It seems to me that his proof [that the Levites said the blessing] is because it is written, “The <i>Levi’im</i> are to respond and say to every man of Yisroel, etc.” This indicates that the <i>Levi'im</i> said the curses, and similarly they are the ones who said the blessings, because before saying “cursed is the man” they would say “blessed is the man.” You cannot say that when it is written, “The <i>Levi'im</i> are to respond” it means that the <i>Levi'im</i> proclaim [the blessing] first, and the people [respond] after them, because if so it should have said, “The <i>Levi'im</i> and every man of Yisroel are to proclaim and say, etc.” And also, what is the meaning of the verse “say to every man of Yisroel” if they [Yisroel] themselves were among those saying the curse? Perforce the <i>Levi'im</i> were the ones who said the blessings and curses, and they directed their faces as Rashi explains. And when it says, “The following will stand to bless the people, etc.,” it is as if it said, “These will stand on Mount Gerizim when the <i>Levi'im</i> come to bless the people.” And who are the ones to stand on Mount Gerizim? “Shimon and Levi, etc.” You might ask that it is written, “The following will stand to bless the people, etc. Levi and Yehudah, etc.,” which indicates that Levi too stood on Mount Gerizim just like the other tribes, so how could Rashi explain that “the <i>kohanim</i> and <i>Levi’im</i> and the ark [were] below, at the center”? The answer is that there are two kinds of <i>Levi'im, those who are fit to serve, which is until they reach fifty years, and those who are not fit to serve, which is from fifty upwards. Those who were fit to serve stood below, while those who were not fit to serve stood on the mountain (Beraisa in Chapter<i> Eilu Ne'emarin, Sotah 37a).
  </i></i>
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Blind concerning a particular matter, and he offers ill advice. We derive [our case of one who] misleads from misleads [i.e., the case of not putting a stumbling block before the blind] in <i>parshas </i>Kedoshim. And from where we derive that case itself? See <i>parshas</i> Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:14). 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  This refers to slander, etc. Otherwise, why is it written “in secret”? If one would hit someone in public would it be permitted?! Is it not written, “He may not add; lest he additionally [flog him over these],” in <i>parshas</i> Ki Seitzei (above 25:3)? 
  I have seen [this] in R’ Moshe Hadarshan’s commentary, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi mention [the comment of] R. Moshe Hadarshan for [the verse] “whoever strikes his fellow in secret”? The answer is that without this comment [i.e., saying that this verse is in regard to slander] the fact that the Torah writes eleven curses is no difficulty, as one could suggest it was done in order to remove Reuvein from [being represented among] the cursed because it is written, “Cursed is whoever has relations with his father’s-in-law wife,” and he disturbed his father's sleeping arrangement (Bereishis 35:22). Therefore there are only eleven curses in order to exclude Reuvein [who in any case is hinted at in this curse]. But now that we explain that striking one's fellow in secret refers to slander, if so, the Torah should have only said ten curses and [also] exclude Yoseif who slandered his brothers and spoke slander against them. Rashi answers, “I have seen, etc.” This is easy to understand. I have seen texts where Rashi writes “I have seen, etc.” on (v. 26), “Cursed is whoever does not uphold, etc.” The explanation of this [why he cites R' Moshe Hadarshan there] is as follows: “I have seen [this] in R’ Moshe Hadarshan’s commentary: There are eleven curses, etc. he, therefore, did not want to curse him.” [Rashi is answering that] you might ask: There are twelve curses, etc. if you include “Cursed is whoever does not uphold, etc.” Rashi explains that the verse here, “Cursed is whoever does not uphold etc,” encompasses the entire Torah and all the above curses are included in “Cursed is whoever does not uphold, etc.” But if so, you might ask that the above curses are superfluous and why were they written? But certainly [the answer is] as “I have seen in R’ Moshe Hadarshan’s commentary,” [that the eleven curses correspond to the tribes].
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Why are they called עשתרות? See above <i>parshas</i> Eikev (7:13) where I have explained this.
  
  Verse 5
  
  Liquids which you filter. Meaning [liquids] such as wine and oil.
  Solids, which remain in the utensil, etc. Such as all varieties of fruits. It is called משארתך because they remain (נשארים) in the basket. According to the first explanation [that טנאך means] “your fruit,” there is no explanation [in Rashi] of משארתיך. You must resort to its plain meaning, similar to (Shmos 12:34), “(The people took their dough before it was leavened.) Their leftovers were wrapped in their clothing.” It is as if the verse said, “Blessed will be its fruits and its dough.” According to the first explanation you could ask why it does it not simply say fruit? Why does it say טנאך? Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation: Your basket — liquids which you filter etc.” But according to the “other interpretation” you might ask that the blessing of grapes [wine] is included in the blessing of fruits, so why does the Torah give it a separate blessing? And you cannot answer that the Torah gives it a separate blessing so that even in the event there is no blessing of plenty with the grapes, even so there will be plenty wine. This is not so because once there is a blessing of plenty for fruit in general, the grapes too are included, and there will probably be plenty of wine. Therefore he also needs the first explanation. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  For your departure from the world will be without sin, etc. Meaning that just as your arrival to the world was without sin, so too your departure from the world will be without sin. Rashi's proof [for this interpretation] is that it first it is written “at your arrival” and afterwards “at your departure,” whereas the way of the world is to first depart from a house and afterwards to arrive [back home]. Also, why bless [only] one's arrival and departure, but not one's walking and other movements? Therefore he explains that the verse means to arrive without sin. The verse is saying as follows: You were blessed at your arrival for you had no sin, and so too you will be blessed at your departure that you will have no sin. You might ask, how do we explain the [verse dealing with the] curse where it also written first (v. 28) “Cursed are you upon your arrival,” since over there one cannot say, “Like your arrival into the world with sin,” as <i>Re”m</i> questions. However, I found written in the name of the Mahara of Pragure that this is not difficult at all, as the verse means as follows: You will be cursed at your arrival just as at your departure. Just as you will certainly have sin at your departure, so too you will be cursed at your arrival, i.e., full of sin. You might ask, what sin could a newborn possibly commit? The answer is that the Holy One visits the sins of fathers onto sons. Much more has been said about this. It seems to me that one can answer this question in conjunction with what they said in Chapter <i>Hamapeles</i> (Niddah 30b): To what can an embryo be compared in its mother's womb? To a folded tablet, etc. and they teach it the entire Torah, etc.” Regarding this it says, “Cursed are you upon your arrival,” that just as you are caused to forget the entire Torah [at birth], so too, “cursed are you upon your departure,” as you will also forget all the Torah that you learn in this world. And the beginning of a person's judgment is, “Were you involved in Torah learning?” Another answer is that a person's arrival in this world is with wailing, because it is usual for a baby to cry when it emerges into the air of the world. So too when he departs the world it will also be with wailing. And this is a bad sign for him as it says (Kesuvos 103b): Someone who dies while laughing, it is a good sign for him; while wailing, it is a bad sign, etc.” This is easy to understand. (So it seems to me). 
  
  Verse 7
  
  By scattering in every direction. Why then it is written “seven”? <i>Re”m</i> explains that it is customary for “seven” to represent an expression of multiplicity, as in (Shmuel I 2:5), “Until the barren gives birth to <i>seven</i>, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  He will incite armed forces against you. Rashi is answering the question: Until this point the verse lists various kinds of illnesses, but what sort of illness is the sword? He explains that this is a separate curse, that He will incite armed forces against you. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question how does a sword strike of its own volition [which the verse implies]? 
  Injury to the crops in the field. Rashi is answering the same question as before, what sort of illness is “שדפון וירקון”? And he explains that these are injurious to the crops. Until now the verse lists illnesses afflicting the body and here it list plagues that afflict the crops. 
  Targum: עד דתיבד, meaning, etc. Because according to its straightforward meaning, the verse implies that the Holy One will chase you until you are lost from Him, and someone else will find you. But this is impossible because if one is lost from the Holy One, who will find him and save him from His hand? Therefore he cites the Targum, עד דתיבד, which is an expression of annihilation from the world. Then Rashi asks that if so, why mention a description of destruction? It should have simply said עד אבוד, until annihilation? Regarding this he explains, “meaning, ‘until the annihilation of you.’” That is, if it had not written the ך' that connects the verb to speak in the second person, you might have thought the word אבד is an infinitive<i>, like אבד תאבדון, “You must obliterate” (above 12:2), and its meaning is “until you will annihilate” something [of your own] as atonement for your sins. Therefore the Scripture adds the ך' that converts the verb to speak in the second person, so that the word אבד refers to the person spoken of, meaning, until you [yourself] are annihilated. Nevertheless, he [concludes and] explains that according to the Targum it means “until you are annihilated of yourself.” Examine this carefully. This answers what <i>Re”m wrote, “I do not know how to resolve what Rashi first writes עד דתיבד [until the annihilation of you] and then writes עד אבוד אותך, [until you destroy], which implies that this is the explanation of עד דתיבד, but then he concludes, שתכלה מאליך, “until you are annihilated of yourself,” which can only be going according to the Targum. </i></i>
  
  Verse 23
  
  These curses Moshe articulated himself, etc. Meaning that Moshe asked the Holy One for permission to curse them this way, and the Holy One granted him permission. This resolves the Gemara's statement (Sanhedrin 99a) that Moshe did not innovate even one letter [in the Torah] on his own i.e., without permission from the Holy One. And when Rashi explains that Moshe “articulated himself,” he means that he first asked the Holy One [for permission]. Tosefos in Chapter<i> Bnei Ha'ir</i> (Megilla 31b), [commenting on the Gemora there] write, “Moshe articulated himself, and through Divine Inspiration.” 
  It is said, “If you do not heed ‘Me’” etc. But if Moshe pronounced them, it would be impossible to say, “...heed <i>me</i>, etc.” 
  Still, this is a curse, etc. Rashi is answering the question that if Moshe wanted to curse them, then, what curse is “The heavens above your head will be like copper”? 
  
  Verse 24
  
  When the wind follows a rainfall, etc. This is the expression of the Gemora. Rashi is answering: How can it say that rain will turn into dust and soil which are two opposites, and to have two opposites in one situation is impossible! Therefore he explains, “When the wind follows, etc.” 
  Not enough to settle the dust, etc. להרביץ is similar to the expression (Shmos 23:5), “Lying (רובץ) under its burden.” 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Extremely pernicious, etc. Otherwise, why does it say “Egyptian boils”? It should have simply said “boils.” 
  Boils that are dry, like ceramics. This is its meaning, because it is [also] written “with dry boils,” thus this indicates that גרב means running boils. See above in <i>parshas Emor (Vayikra 21:20). </i>
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Whatever you do will be subject to altercation. You cannot say [the term עשוק is related to] “You shall not withhold the wages (לא תעשוק) of your fellow” (Vayikra 19:13), which means to withhold the wages of a hireling, as this has nothing to do with our <i>parsha. And robbery is already mentioned [in the word following]. Therefore Rashi explains the term (עשוק) is related to (Bereishis 26:20), “He named the well עשק [Quarrel], because they had quarreled with him.” </i>
  
  Verse 30
  
  The meaning is related to “mistress,”“concubine.” [שגל means] a woman who is a concubine. That is to say, “A woman will you marry” and another man will take her as his concubine. 
  But Scripture prefers a more refined term, etc. Meaning that it should have said “will have relations with her,” but Scripture preferred this more refined term, ישגלנה. That is, he will not lie with her like a harlot, but he will take her as a concubine. 
  This is the kind of refinement made by scribes. I already explained this in <i>parshas</i> Vayera (Bereishis 18:22).
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  For this reason it is called, [lit.] the demolisher etc. Elsewhere is the locust called חסיל. Why? Because it destroys everything. 
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  Will discard its fruit, meaning the same as “And the iron discards.” Rashi is not satisfied to say that that it (ישל) means being discarded, because it is a verb applying to an object where the object, i.e., the fruits, are missing [from the sentence]. Therefore he says, “Will discard its fruit, meaning the same as 'And the iron discards (נשל),'“ which is also a verb applying to an object and means that the iron will discard a piece from the wood being hewed, and it will go and kill him. (<i>Re”m)
  </i>
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  A species of locusts, etc. It is called צלצל, an expression of “clanging cymbals (Tehillim 150:5),” because many of them come at once, and they come with resounding noise and commotion. 
  For, if so, it should have written יירש, etc. With a <i>chirik</i> under the first יו"ד.
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  While you had every benefit. Rashi makes the מ"ם of מרוב as if it were a בי"ת, like the מ"ם in “מסיני בא (Adonoy came at Sinai) (below 55:2).” As if the verse said ברוב כל, meaning, “while still in abundant affluence,” i.e., while you still had every benefit. 
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  Suddenly, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Is the eagle unable to come from nearby?! Therefore he explains, “suddenly, etc.” I.e., “as the eagle soars” is a separate phrase and does not refer to the adjacent “nation from afar, etc.” Rather, it refers to the beginning of the verse, “Adonoy will raise upon you a nation” suddenly “as the eagle soars, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  The meaning is mastering, conquering. And חומותיך is missing a בי"ת, since it should have written עד רדת בחומותיך, as in the verse (Bereishis 1:26), וירדו בדגת הים, “And let him dominate the fish of the sea.” [Rashi does not translate רדת as “fall” or descend], because the expression of “descend” applies only to falling from a high place to a low place, and the walls are already standing low on the ground. Rashi therefore explains it as an expression of mastering or conquering. And though רדת is of the same basic structure as שבת, Rashi understands that this is one of the atypical words that often appear in the Torah. And though Scripture writes (Bamidbar 10:17), “[Then] the <i>Mishkon was taken down (הורד),” [and] (ibid. 1:51), “They shall take down (יורידו) the <i>Mishkon,” although the <i>Mishkon stood on the ground, the word רדת is different because it is a verb applying to the subject itself, whereas יורידו and הורד are verbs that apply to another object. </i></i></i>
  
  Verse 53
  
  Because they will lay siege to the city, etc. It is not the siege that causes the starvation which leads to people eating the flesh of their sons. Rather, the siege causes torment and agony of starvation that leads to people eating the flesh of their sons. Thus the וי"ו of ובמצוק is superfluous like the וי"ו of (Bereishis 36:24), “[These are the sons of Tzivon:] (<i>and) Ayoh and Anoh (ואיה וענה).” </i>
  
  Verse 54
  
  So that he will begrudge his remaining children. Meaning that his eye will be too stingy to give to them. And to whom will he be stingy? To those who are mentioned in the verse, “At his brother and at the wife of his bosom.” But it does not mean that he will be stingy, i.e., [to] himself, rather it his brother to whom he will refuse to give. 
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  The proof is that the following is written, “If you obey etc.” But one cannot prove anything from the verse here where it is written, “which you dreaded,” because you could say that “which you dreaded” refers to the Egyptians and means as follows: “All the Egyptian diseases,” and which Egyptians? Those “which you dreaded.” Therefore Rashi has to prove this from “If you obey, etc.” 
  
  Verse 61
  
  The connotation is rising up. The מ"ם of this word is grammatical and indicates the plural. It is not an expression of concealment as in (Eicha 3:56), “Do not conceal (תעלם) Your ear,” in which case it would be explained like (verse 59), “Adonoy will strike you with prodigious (והפלא) blows,” i.e., they will be separate and hidden from every living thing, because if so, it should have been punctuated with a <i>shva</i> under the עי"ן as in the verse “Do not conceal (תעלם) Your ear,” and “will hide their eyes” (העלם יעלימו) (Vayikra 20:4). Furthermore, it should have said יעלימם ה' עליך, since it is referring to the plagues. (<i>Re”m). This is difficult to understand because in all the texts יעלם is punctuated with a <i>shva like העלם יעלימו which is also punctuated with a <i>shva. Therefore we must say that Rashi does not differentiate between whether it is punctuated with a <i>shva or a <i>chataf shva, and his main proof is that it should have written יעלימם. Alternatively, his proof is that if it was an expression of concealment, the phrase [following] “against you” would not be understandable. </i></i></i></i></i>
  
  Verse 62
  
  Few instead of many. The verse is not saying that they will remain numerically few and will therefore be unable to stand up against your enemies, because if so, why [does the verse say] “(Instead of your having been) like the stars in the sky, multitudinous”? What difference is it if they were originally many or few? Rather, the verse is saying that they will become less and less, like the bulls offered during Sukkos. You also cannot say [Rashi means] that instead of being wondrously many they will now become wondrously few, because if so he should have said, “Few instead of <i>the</i> many,” which would imply instead of the many they were originally. Rashi should not have said “instead of many” which implies whoever [the many] may happen to be. (<i>Re”m</i>). 
  
  Verse 63
  
  To your enemies, concerning you, to annihilate, etc. Rashi adds “your enemies,” to tell us that the joy is connected with your enemies, i.e., the Holy One will bring joy to your enemies concerning you, etc. Otherwise, it should have said ישוש, which would imply that He Himself rejoices. Also, Hashem does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked (Megilla 10b). 
  
  Verse 64
  
  Not literally idolatry, etc. Because it is impossible to say that the Holy One is informing them that they will serve idolatry.
  
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  This refers to one who depends on the bakeshop. This is far worse that someone who purchases produce at the marketplace, because the person who purchases produce at the marketplace can buy a large quantity at once to supply him for a long time, unlike the one who depends on the bakeshop. And the curse is, perhaps on one occasion he will not find anything to buy and he will die of starvation.. 
  
  Verse 67
  
  That it were last evening. Rashi is answering the question: Logic would dictate the opposite [of what the verse says], because it says in Bava Basra (16b), “When the sun is high, illness is relieved,” which indicates that illness is worse in the evening than in the morning! Regarding this he explains, “That it were <i>last</i> evening.” 
  For “the tribulations constantly increase etc.” Rashi wants to prove [logically] why the explanation is as he said, and the explanation is not, “would that it were the evening <i>to come</i>.” 
  
  Verse 68
  
  By ship, as captives. Rashi adds the words “as captives,” because without adding this, sending them to Egypt in boats would not be a curse. (<i>Re”m</i>). This was a greater curse than taking them by foot, as it was a terrible affliction, for they drowned themselves in the sea, as we find (Gittin 57b) regarding the four hundred children who drowned themselves in the sea. 
  You will be sold, through other sellers, etc. That is, ונמכרתם would be passive usage like (Esther 7:4), “For we are sold (נמכרנו), I and my nation.” But because it is written והתמכרתם in the reflexive usage, it indicates that you will seek to be sold but will be unable to do so because no one will buy. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  To recognize Hashem’s benevolence, etc. But [the verse does not mean] not to know the great miracles and the signs and wonders, as the simple connotation of the verse implies, because regarding these the verse would not say “a knowledgeable mind, etc.” 
  I have heard: because on that day, etc.” Rashi is explaining how it is possible that before this they did not have eyes and ears. 
  How is it that you are empowering your fellow tribesmen over it, etc. That is, over the Torah. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  You now view yourselves in prominence and glory, etc. And “to this place” means to this situation, i.e., this importance and greatness. According to the “another interpretation” too, it means to this importance. However, according to the first interpretation that explained “a knowledgeable mind” as meaning “To recognize Hashem’s benevolence,” that all your virtues, greatness and glory are from the Omniscient, the verse means: Since you have come to this level of recognizing that all your success is from the Omniscient and not from your hands, it is fitting that you observe the tenets of this covenant in order to succeed in everything you do. According to the second interpretation that explained “a knowledgeable mind” as meaning a mind to know and fathom his master's wisdom, the verse means: Since you have come to this level of fathoming Hashem's wisdom, from now on He will be exacting with you in observing mitzvos. Therefore it is fitting that you guard the tenets of this covenant, which are Hashem's mitzvos in order for you to succeed and not stumble in all that you do. <i>Re”m</i> writes: But I do not how to fit in the verse “Sichon, king of Cheshbon, came out, etc.” between “Then when you came to this place” and “You are to guard, etc.,” because they [these two latter verses] are connected to one another. I think one can answer according to the first interpretation that explained, “You now view yourselves in greatness and glory,” [as follows: As an example of this viewing yourself in prominence and glory], you recognized Hashem's benevolence when “He struck great kings, Sichon and Og, Kings of the Emori, for his benevolence is everlasting” (Tehillim 136). Therefore, “do not rebel, etc.” And according to the second interpretation, the explanation is as follows: Now that you have reached this level of fathoming His wisdom, which is the Torah and the mitzvah, and also understand that you can gain every success through keeping the Torah and <i>mitzvos,</i> that enabled you to smite the two kings of the Emori, therefore from now on it is only fitting that you guard the tenets, etc., in order to succeed in all that you will do. And if not you will not succeed because from now on He will be exacting.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  This teaches that Moshe gathered them, etc. You might ask: From where does Rashi know this? Perhaps he did not gather them but rather each one remained in his encampment and Moshe stood in the middle? Furthermore, why does Rashi explain To introduce them into the covenant”? This is explicitly written in the verse? The answer is that he explains to introduce them into the covenant as this proves that he gathered them together, since one cannot make a covenant except through a rite of passage as we see later (v. 11). If so, since the verse writes that He introduced them into a covenant, Moshe must have uprooted them from their place and gathered them together, in order to perform this rite of passage with them into the covenant. 
  On the day that he died, to introduce them into the covenant. Since it is written this day it implies, this day my years are complete, i.e., this day I will die. ([See] <i>Re”m</i>). Alternatively, if you do not say this, why did he gather them now more than during the entire forty years? It is understandable if it was the day of his death, because if not now, then when? But if it was not the day of his death, why [do it] now more than the entire forty years? 
  Your chieftains of your tribes. Otherwise, if it means your chieftains <i>and</i> your tribes, each category by itself, why mention the chieftains at all? Once it writes your tribes the chieftains are included? And also, why mention the other details since all are included in your tribes”? This is no difficulty if the verse means your chieftains of your tribes, for you can say that the verse first mentions your chieftains, then your elders, afterwards your law officers, and afterwards all of Yisrael, i.e., the more prominent being listed first. But if your chieftains and your tribes are two entities, why mention chieftains at all? And if you ask: Why does it write ראשיכם (your chieftains) and not ראשי שבטיכם (the chieftains of your tribes)? The answer is to teach us that the prince of the generation is equal to the entire generation. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  This teaches that Canaanites came to convert during the days of Moshe, etc. It does not mean to say that they deceived Moshe as they [later] deceived Yehoshua, for God forbid that they deceived the one [i.e., Moshe] of whom it says In My entire house he is trusted (Bamidbar 12:7). Rather, they came to him to make peace with him, but he did not receive them [by making a covenant with them], rather he assigned them to serve as wood cutters and water drawers. And the explanation of they <i>too</i>, etc, is that they came, but not that they were able to deceive him. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  So that you pass into the covenant. I.e., you yourself must pass and not through others. And thus he explains afterwards: But it would be improper to interpret this, etc., i.e., through others. Because if so, how could it say Into the covenant of Hashem, your God, if one explains it to mean to be passed through by others, [since a covenant implies mutual consent]? Furthermore, how can one explain that it means to be passed through? For this would serve notice against acceptance of the covenant, for they could say, We were coerced! 
  But, rather, as “for your performance of them.” This means to do them, i.e., you of your own volition and not through others.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  He has committed Himself with such great effort, etc. Rashi has the following difficulty: You cannot say that this In order,, etc. is the reason He ratified the covenant with them, because the reason He ratified the covenant with them is stated afterwards (v. 17) where it says, Perhaps there is among you a man or a woman or a family or a tribe,, etc. If so, what is this in order referring to? Rashi therefore explains, He has committed himself with such great effort, etc. I.e., the verse is answering the question why the Holy One made the effort of binding them by oath. He should simply have given them a commandment and if they listened well and good, and if not, He will punish them as with all the other commands. However, he committed Himself with such great effort because He already swore to your forefathers not to exchange, etc. Therefore He had to bring them, etc. 
  While the imprecations and the suffering sustain you and stand you before Him, etc. Meaning that through the imprecations you are careful to never transgress the commandments. And furthermore, they atone for sins so that you live and persist eternally. And similarly they said in the first chapter of Avoda Zara (4a) and in <i>maseches</i> Berachos (5a). 
  The chapter above this, as well, is conciliatory, etc. Rashi proves that Moshe was telling them conciliatory remarks so that you do not ask: How could he be speaking conciliatory words if the whole <i>parsha</i> implies [that he was giving] rebuke, and also above it, everything is rebuke?! 
  Because the Israelites were passing from one leader to the next, etc. Because according to the first interpretation you might ask that the language of the <i>parsha</i> indicates that this is rebuke and not conciliation. Therefore he offers another interpretation. But according to the other interpretation you might ask why it says You stand <i>this day</i>? Why does the verse write this day?
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Even with the generations destined for the future. You cannot explain the verse according to its straightforward connotation, that those who are not here had left, because it is written, “You stand, this day <i>all</i> of you. Also, you could [refute this explanation and] say: How can one contract a covenant with someone who is not present? Perhaps if he came back from where he went and was here, he would not accept the covenant! But if it refers to those who will be in the future, there is no difficulty as even if their bodies were not there, their souls were there and accepted the covenant. Another explanation is that “a son is the extension [lit., leg] of his father,” and being that the fathers accepted [the covenant], the sons who come after them are also included in the covenant. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Since you have observed the idolatrous Gentile nations, etc. Rashi is answering the question: What reason is this for what comes before [in the previous verse], And with those who are not here, etc. Therefore he explains, Since you have observed, etc., therefore, I am compelled to adjure you. I.e., this is a reason for what comes before the previous verses, For your passage into the covenant, etc. (v. 11). It is explaining why the Holy One suspected that Yisroel might serve idols and made it necessary for them take an oath regarding this. The reason he suspected them was what he says here, Because you are aware, etc. These two verses, For you are aware, etc., and Where you observed their abominations, etc., are connected to the verse Perhaps there is among you, etc. that follows them, and the word פן is missing a ויו (and). That is why [in some texts] Rashi explains Where you observed, etc. after Perhaps there is among you. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  Those of wood and stone, you saw in the open, etc. Rashi is explaining why the verse altered its wording and wrote you observed regarding wood and stone, but does not write you observed regarding gold and silver. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  In case there is among you. Some people ask: It is written above in <i>parshas</i> Va'eschanan (4:9), Lest you forget the words, and, Lest you raise your eyes heavenward (ibid. 19), and in <i>parshas</i> Eikev (above 11:16), Lest your heart be misled, yet over there, Rashi does not explain that it means perhaps. According to <i>Re”m</i>'s explanation that this perhaps there is among you is part of Rashi's words and not that he is coming to explain it, but citing it [as part of his sentence] to explain the composition of the verse, there is no difficulty at all. Even without this, you can answer that Rashi explains the meaning of פן here and not above, is because above it connotes a negative commandment as they said (Zevachim 106a), Wherever it says השמר, פן, or אל, it connotes a negative commandment. But here one cannot explain that it is a negative commandment, i.e., that one should not do this, because it is written Perhaps there is among you, which is speaking of a case where such people are already present. Therefore Rashi explains that [here] it connotes “in case” [i.e. perhaps]. 
  Whose thoughts stray today. This is part of Rashi's text, not that Rashi is now explaining the [beginning of] the verse, Perhaps there is among you, etc., [someone] whose thoughts stray, etc. [Because Rashi is actually explaining the second part of the verse, Perhaps there is within you a root producing gall and bitter fruit.] Otherwise, [i.e., if you claim that Rashi is explaining the first part of the verse], the difficulty arises that Rashi already explained [the first part of the verse] above (v. 15) [when he explained, “Perhaps there is, among you, etc.” “Perhaps someone among you has been tempted to follow them.”] Also, our verse seems to be talking about idolatry so how can Rashi explain that it is talking about accepting the covenant”? Thus one must say that [whose thoughts stray today] is part of Rashi's text. Rashi is discussing the words, Perhaps there is within you a root producing gall, etc. and not the words, Perhaps there is among you a man or a woman, etc., because he wants to answer why the Torah writes, Perhaps there is within you, etc. twice. He explains that the reason it is written a second time is because the first instance is talking about idolatry and the second instance [is talking] about accepting the covenant. It is as if the verse says, Perhaps there is among you whose heart strays today from Hashem to go after idols, or perhaps there is among you whose heart strays today from accepting the yoke of the covenant, and thus the word today applies to both of them, because neither of them wants to accept the covenant. [<i>Re”m</i>] 
  A root nurturing bitter herbs, like the bitter gidin herb. [The latter is] a species of bitter herb. And similarly, the Targum Yonasan translates Bitter as <i>la'anah</i> in Mishlei (5:4), and <i>la’anah</i> and <i>rosh</i> in Eicha (3:19) as <i>gidin.</i>  
  
  Verse 18
  
  He will imagine blessings of tranquility, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Even if [the person imagines that] no oath-curse will affect him, why should this be considered a blessing if it confers him no benefit, i.e., the great good [that results from a blessing]? Therefore Rashi explains blessings of tranquility, i.e., when there is peace that is a blessing as it is written (Tehillim 29:11), Hashem will bless his people with peace. He will imagine this blessing of tranquility. 
  Because I shall punish him additionally, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse I shall follow what my thoughts envision” implies that his sins are intentional; if so, what is the meaning of that the unintentional may be added”? Rashi answers, Because I shall punish him additionally. 
  Now, however, he has provoked me into combining them with the intentionally sinful, etc. With this, Rashi emends a number of things. He explains that the term ספות connotes adding and not destruction as in lest you be swept away (תספה) (Bereishis 19:17). He also alters the verse by saying למען שאוסיף (lit. so that I will add), because ספות is a gerund and could be interpreted as meaning that that transgressor will add. He also adds the word him, because without the word him, we would not understand to whom He is adding. If Rashi had not explained that I shall punish him additionally, one could understand that adding unintentional acts to intentional acts means that the intentional acts will be regarded as unintentional, or vice versa. The explanation of [word so that in the] verse is as follows, that his acts of following what his thoughts envision will be reason for Me to add the punishment for his unintentional sins to the punishment of his intentional sins. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  Adherence to the vengeance mode, etc. Rashi is explaining how the word קנאה connotes revenge. See above at the beginning of <i>parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 25:11) where this is well explained.
  </i>
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  They had no notion that they possessed Divine omnipotence. [In some texts] Rashi explains the text out of order because he wants to prove that when the verse writes unknown to them, it means, They had no notion that they possessed Divine omnipotence. Because once Rashi explains the verse that Which He had not apportioned to them means He did not allot them as their portion, it is obvious that they were unknown to them. If so, why does the verse write unknown to them”? Therefore we must say it means they had no notion that they possessed Divine omnipotence. <i>Re”m</i> explains that [Rashi explains the verse out of order] because the verse [too] should have written, “gods [which] He had not apportioned to them and were unknown to them, in order to first say that they prostrated themselves to those gods not because Hashem had allotted them as their portion. And afterwards he adds that they also did not choose them of themselves for they saw that they possessed Divine omnipotence. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  If you should ask, What are we capable of doing? etc. Rashi is explaining the relevance of the hidden [matters], etc. in this <i>parsha.</i> 
  As it is said, “Perhaps there is, among you a man, etc. This implies that an individual sinned. But afterwards [it is written], They will see the plagues of that land, which implies that the entire land will be punished on account of him. 
  That, even with regard to what is exposed [the community was not punished] until they had crossed the Yarden, etc. Rashi explains that if not for the dots one would think that this has always been Hashem’s attribute, so the dots come here [for us] to expound that when it says ours and our children’s, that this attribute did not apply until now, but only from now on [i.e., once they cross the Yarden], because dots always come to exclude. You might ask that the dots should only appear on Hashem's Name [in this verse], as this would clearly indicate that [without the dots, certain] sins are Hashem our God’s, and with the dots it would also indicate that [certain] sins are ours and not Hashem's. How is this so? To to teach that, even with regard to what is exposed, etc. You might ask why there is a dot on the עין of עד (forever)? The answer is that there is a dot on the עין of עד so that [a total of] eleven letters have dots, corresponding to the eleven dots of Hashem's name [in the verse], to teach you that the dots should have been on Hashem’s Name to exclude [what is exposed, etc.], but it is not proper to put dots on Hashem’a Name. (I found this in the name of Maharitz). <i>Re”m writes that the dot on עד is to indicate that this word עד should not be here but next to the hidden [matters], to indicate that this rule [that the public is not punished for hidden matters] is [in effect] for all time [even before crossing the Yarden]. Even though we would know that it refers to the hidden matters and not the exposed matters as explained above [because of the other dots], nevertheless, were it not for the dot on עד that teaches that it is written out of place, it would have seemed like an error because it is written next to the revealed matters. But once it has the dot, it is as if the Torah explicitly writes that its place is not here but above. You might ask, why was [the public] punished in the incident of Achan? The Gemora (Sanhedrin 43b) already answers because his wife and children knew [of his sin].
  </i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  As it is said, “You shall be plucked, etc. This prophecy was said regarding the exile of Bavel. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  It is not concealed, etc. You might ask that in <i>parshas</i> Va’eira (Shmos 8:18), Rashi comments on the verse והפלתי (I will set apart) that it is an expression that connotes separation [and he then adds, support from our verse], “It is not נפלאת (separate) from You, etc.” But here Rashi explains that it is an expression of concealment. <i>Re”m already answered this question in <i>parshas Shoftim (above 17:8) on the verse If a matter of law is too abstruse (יפלא), [where] Rashi explains that הפלאה always denotes separation, or setting apart, etc. See there. </i></i>
  
  Verse 12
  
  For if it were in heaven, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The beginning of the verse and the end of the verse apparently contradict each other. At the beginning it is written, It is not in heaven, [for you] to say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us, etc.’ This implies: [that it is not in heaven], but near enough to send a messenger for it. It [also] implies that it is not that close that you do not [even] need to send a messenger for it. But afterwards it is written, For the matter is extremely close to you, etc., implying that one does not even need a messenger. Therefore Rashi explains, 'It is not in heaven,' (For if it were in heaven, <i>you</i> would be required to ascend in quest of it). But if it were in heaven it would be impossible to send a messenger after it and if you wanted to study it, you yourself would have to go up for it. Therefore there is no [longer] a problem when it is written [afterwards], For the matter is extremely close to you, [because the beginning of the verse too, is talking about the person himself and now it is saying that, on the contrary, it is close to the person himself]. And when the verse says “[Who will go up to heaven for us], and acquire it for us, [which implies that we are dealing with a messenger], it is adding even more, that [you might mistakenly think that] not only could <i>you</i> certainly never travel or go up to study it there, but you would never find any person to go up or travel [over the sea] in order to bring so as to study it. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  The Torah was presented to you in written and oral form. Rashi is answering the question: Even when the Torah is in front of us it is difficult to understand because of the depth of the subject matter and the shortcoming of the one studying it! Regarding this he explains, The Torah was presented (to you) in written and oral form, and therefore the understanding of the written Torah is very plausible [if one studies it] in conjunction with the Oral Torah. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  If you act with goodness, then you have life, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should have mentioned each thing and its opposite, life and death, and good and bad, as it does below (v. 19). Furthermore, See, I have placed before you, etc. implies that man's acts of goodness are in Hashem's hand, but this is not so because they say (Megilla 25a), Everything is in the hand of Heaven except for fear of Heaven. Therefore Rashi explains, “One hinges on the other — If you act, etc. meaning that if on your account do good, etc., I will give you life, but if on your own you do bad, I will give you death. Because it in your hands to choose of the good or of the bad, and you choose from whichever you want.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  So that when evil befalls you, etc. Rashi wants to answer: They had not yet done anything [bad], so for what could they be invoked as witnesses? He explains, So that when evil befalls you, etc. I.e., they serve as witnesses to Hashem's warning. 
  Another interpretation of “I invoke as witnesses, etc. The Holy One, may He be blessed, said,” etc. Because according to first interpretation you might ask that it should have said, I warn you <i>before</i> heaven and earth, because they are to serve as witnesses to the warning. Therefore he says, Another interpretation, etc. And according to the other interpretation you might ask why the verse says העדותי which is an expression that denotes testimony or warning. Therefore he also says the first interpretation.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  This explains I cannot any longer, etc. It is as if he said, Because Hashem has said to me, ‘You will not cross over [the Yardein], etc. Yehoshua will cross.’ But it is not because his strength had weakened, for it is written, His appearance was not dulled and his freshness did not fade [Devarim 34:7]. For one cannot say, for Hashem is [a phrase] on its own, as if it had said, I am no longer able, and furthermore, for Hashem said to me, because the meaning of I am no longer able is I have no permission, if so that is the meaning of that the Holy One, Blessed Is He said to me do not cross. Therefore [Rashi] explains that for Hashem said is an explanation. As if to say, I am no longer able <i>because</i> Hashem said, etc. The [letter] <i>vav</i> [meaning and] of And Hashem means because, as in [the verse] And there was no man (Bereishis 2:5) which means Because there was no man. 
  This teaches that he was sealed off from the masoretic teachings, etc. The reason is so that he should not be upset that the greatness was taken from him and given to Yehoshua. For once the traditions of wisdom were blocked from him, why would [he wish to continue to] live? If you ask: Why does Rashi switch [the verse] and first explain I cannot any longer go forth and return and afterward he explains I am today [One hundred and twenty years old] which is not in the order [written] in the verse? And another question: This another interpretation should have been said immediately, before I am today. One can answer in the manner of <i>pilpul</i>: I cannot any longer go forth and return, ‘perhaps, etc.’ until ‘for Hashem has said to me, etc.’ And Rashi asks on this: If you were to ask, that the midrash says that Today my days [and years are completed], etc., which implies that if not for this reason For Hashem said to me, etc. he would not have been able to go forth and return! And he answers, Really, etc. as I explained. And what you asked, that the Midrash says Today my days [and years] were completed, etc. which implies that without this reason of For Hashem has said to me, etc. he would not have been able to go forth and return! One can answer that the Midrash explains to go forth and return in a different manner, [as Rashi himself explains in the] alternative answer: To go forth and return, “with respect to words of Torah, etc.” [in the name of <i>Maharitz</i>]. According to the alternative answer one must explain For Hashem has said [to me], etc. according to its plain meaning, that Hashem said. [<i>Re”m</i>]
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  He will not precipitate, in you, the feebleness [ירפך], etc. Rashi did not explain [the letter <i>chaf</i>] is in place of you [i.e. meaning He will not weaken you] as he normally does, that its meaning is that He will not make you weak before Sichon and Og. It seems that this is because whenever a reason is given it refers to what precedes it, and it is written Do not quake before them [and the reason is] because He will not make you weak. For this reason, “Do not quake before them.” is understandable if the meaning of <i>yarpecha</i> is that He will not give you weakness, to be abandoned from Him. Then it is understandable, for this reason “Do not fear,” because you are not [being] abandoned by Hashem. But if the meaning is He will not make you weak the phrase Do not quake cannot apply, because this is no reason not quake. This is also the explanation of <i>R”em</i>. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  Let the elders of the generation join with you, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Later (v. 23) it is written, For <i>you</i> will bring, etc. If so, the verses apparently contradict each other! One cannot answer that You will come has the same meaning as You will bring in order that these verses do not contradict each other. This is not the case, for Unkelos translated the [verse] For you will come, etc. as Because you will go up with this people. Rashi answers and explains that here [it is] Moshe who said it to him. 
  One leader [דבר] for a generation, etc. The meaning of <i>dabor</i> is leader.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  When it was completely finished, etc. Rashi's intention is to explain that the Torah that is mentioned here means the entire Torah from Bereishis until in view of all of Yisroel (Devarim 34:12). It is not referring to the Torah which he wrote after this, which means only <i>Mishne Torah</i> [Devarim]. For why would he give only <i>Mishne Torah</i> to the Kohanim, and not the entire Torah? 
  
  Verse 10
  
  Because there are still seventh-year restrictions which apply, etc. This means if he plants in a prohibited manner during the seventh year, it remains prohibited after the seventh year as it was during the seventh year. Alternatively it refers to produce that grew by itself during the seventh year. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  To bring merit to those who brought them: The verse, In order for them to hear refers back to the women. And In order for them to learn refers to the men. The children are not included in either hearing or learning, but [rather come] to bring merit to those who brought them.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  I shall enthuse them. For one cannot say it means literally a command, as there is no command written afterwards. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  The [non-Jewish] nations of the land: [Rashi writes this] so that you should not explain [erroneously] that the word <i>neichar</i> [foreign] refers to their gods. Rather It is as if it said the gods of the foreigners of the land. For if you say that it means foreign gods, it should have said to foreign gods. For we never find the word gods [<i>elohei</i>] modified [i.e., connected] by the word which follows it. The proof-text for this is God of Avraham [<i>Elohei Avraham</i>], etc. (Bereishis 31:42) which means God <i>of</i> Avraham, and the word god is not connected to the word which follows it. Furthermore, if the word gods' was modified by the word foreign it would not have used the phrase of the land. [I found this in the name of <i>Maharitz</i>]. If you ask, what is the reason that the nations of the land are called the strangers of the land,” one can answer that they are considered foreigners in that land, because the land was not theirs, for it had already been decreed that they would be expelled from there. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  As if I do not notice their suffering. This means that hiding His face is removing His Providence, for one who does not see something does not watch over it.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  That I have warned them, in it, etc. And you have no excuse to say that if we had known of all these bad punishments we would not have transgressed Hashem’s commandments. For then they will read this song which has written in it explicitly the warning that He warned them of all these bad things [if they transgress Hashem’s commandments]. 
  This is a guarantee to Yisroel, etc. He means to say that our eyes see that the hearts are diminishing [from Torah knowledge], so why is it written, For it shall never be forgotten, etc.?
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  This reverts to the text above, etc. That is, it refers back to above (v. 16), Hashem said to Moshe, ‘You are about to die, etc.' and after He concluded His words with Moshe, He commanded Yehoshua. But it is not connected to [v. 22] Moshe wrote, etc. for if so, that Moshe is the one commanding, it should have said That <i>He</i> swore to them and not That <i>I</i> swore to them. But Rashi was unable to prove this from the words, And <i>I</i> shall be with you which should have been written as And <i>He</i> shall be with you if Moshe was the one giving the commandment, because one could explain that I will be with you means my merit will be with you. Therefore Rashi was forced to prove this point from [the verse] that I swore. But were it not written, that I swore, we would have explained that [the words] For you will bring refers to Moshe, that Moshe is commanding Yehoshua. And the reason that he said above [v. 7] That you will enter, etc. is merely as advice. Therefore Rashi proves that it refers to the Divine Presence from the word That <i>I</i> swore.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  Like remember, keep, going. Which are forms of the present tense, rather than an imperative. It is as if he said to them [it is your responsibility] to take this Seifer Torah and to place it at the side of the Ark, as an eternal witness. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  They did not sound the trumpets on that day, etc. [Rashi] wishes to explain why it is not written, They should sound [the trumpets], as it is written in Parshas <i>Beha'aloscha</i> (Bamidbar 10:2) when he gathered them.
  
  And even during his lifetime they were concealed before the day he died, etc. This means that if you were to say that Yehoshua had no control over them, nevertheless he should have blown them, for Moshe was still alive! Therefore Rashi explains that even in his lifetime, etc. In other words, it is understandable if Yehoshua would have control over them after Moshe's death, they would have blown them even on the day that Moshe died. However, since Yehoshua did not have control over them after Moshe's death, it is proper that they be concealed on the day that Moshe died, and Moshe would not use his authority over them on the day of his death to fulfill the verse which states, There is no dominion on the day of death (Koheles 8:8). In other words, the authority that a person has had all his life does not remain on the day of his death. One cannot ask Why were they concealed? Even if they had not been concealed, the [people] would not have blown them. One can answer that even this would be a display of authority, that even though they were still there, Yehoshua was not permitted to use them, and therefore they were concealed. Similarly we find regarding King David of blessed memory, in every place he is mentioned he is referred to as King David. Yet on the day he died it is written, And the days of David drew near to die” (I Melochim 2:1), for this same reason, [because] there is no dominion on the day of death, etc. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  For so long as Yehoshua was alive it appeared, etc. Therefore he described the death of Yehoshua as Moshe’s death, and wrote, After <i>my</i> death instead of, After the death of Yehoshua.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  That I admonish the Israelites. Rashi is answering the question: How could Moshe command the heavens? Does he rule over heaven? And a further question: Why did he take testimony against Yisroel for they had not yet sinned? Therefore he explains that “I admonish [i.e., warn] the Israelites,” as it is written above, “I invoke as witnesses (העדתי) against you this day, heaven and earth” (Devarim 30:19). This is an expression of admonishing [i.e., warning], similar to, “The man warned us repeatedly (העד העיד)” (Bereishis 43:3). For [Moshe] had not yet said anything to heaven or earth, and it is only now that he speaks to them. 
  So that you may serve as witnesses to the matter. For so I informed them, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Perhaps Yisroel would not accept heaven and earth as witnesses [against them]. Therefore Rashi explains, “for so I have informed them.” In other words, “I have already said to them.” 
  Similarly, “let the earth hear.” This means that you should not say that since it is written, “Listen heaven <i>and</i> earth as I declare,” the Torah must be speaking about two separate matters. Rather it means to say and also “let the earth hear” that I am warning Yisroel and you will be witnesses to the matter. The reason that it written regarding he heavens, “hearken” and regarding the earth, “hear” is because Moshe Rabbeinu was cleaving to the heavens, because he was nearing his death, and his soul was now cleaving to the Above. When a person is standing close to his friend, he says “hearken,” and therefore Moshe said, “Hearken [heavens].” But he was distant from the earth, therefore it is appropriate to use the term “hear.” For this reason he did not include them both in the same phrase and say, “Hearken Heaven and earth as I declare, etc.” Re”m explains that the reason he did not combine heaven and earth together is because heaven is deserving of more honor than the earth, and therefore he did not combine them in a single phrase. But his explanation does not answer why Scripture changes its expression and uses the term “hearken” for Heaven and “hear” for the earth.
  
  Moshe said, “I am only mortal and tomorrow I may die, etc. If you ask: Why does Rashi in parshas <i>Nitzovim</i> (Devarim 30:19) offer a different reason for the verse, “I invoke, as witnesses against you this day, heaven and earth”? One can answer that above, regarding the warning, the witnesses are required to admonish the person who wants to commit the sin, in order that he will [listen to them and] not sin. If so, it is difficult [to understand], how can heaven and earth give warning? They are unable to speak! One cannot explain that Moshe warned Yisroel before heaven and earth in order that they should not sin, because at that time [when Moshe warned them] they were not intending to sin. It would have been considered a doubtful warning, which is not considered an adequate warning. Therefore Rashi explains [there] “Gaze at the heavens, etc. This type of gazing is considered as if [heaven and earth] were delivering a verbal warning. However, here in this song, [Moshe] is speaking of the punishments for Yisroel, if they transgress Hashem’s mitzvos and worship idols. And regarding punishment it is written, (Devarim 17:7) “Let the hand of the witnesses against him be first” [to punish the sinners]. Therefore [Rashi] gives a different explanation here. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  This is the witness you are to bear, etc. Rashi is answering the question: How is this matter relevant here? And he explains that it is certainly relevant here, because this is the testimony, etc. 
  When the heavens flow with dew and rainfall. One could say that [Rashi] wants to explain how this is implicit in the verse that [Moshe] said to Yisroel, that the Torah is likened to rain. And he explains that this is what the verse means: “When the heavens, etc.” And how does Rashi know to explain that “My instruction (לקחי)” refers to the Torah? Because it is written, “For I have given to you a good instruction (לקח)” (Mishlei 4:2). What is the reason [that <i>lekach</i> refers to the Torah]? Because it is taken from hand to hand, as the verse states, “From His right [hand] — the flaming Torah” (Devarim 33:1). In other words, Moshe Rabbeinu took it from the right hand of the Holy One, Blessed Is He. And why is it called the “Living Torah”? Because the verse states, “It is a tree of life to those who grasp it” (Mishlei 3:18). 
  With which all rejoice, etc. And this is not the case with rain. Afterwards [Moshe] compares [the Torah] to the wind, because this too is better than dew, and he continues and adds. 
  As in “storm winds, etc.” The letters <i>samech</i> and <i>shin</i> are interchangeable. 
  The envelopment of the earth, etc. This means that the word grass (דשא) includes many kinds of plants which clothe the earth and cover it, and the totality is called <i>deshe</i>. [The other word for] grass (עשב) refers to a specific species, and each species on its own is called <i>eisev</i>. See parshas <i>Bereishis</i> (1:11). 
  
  Verse 3
  
  Now “כי” is used to denote “when”, etc. For it is impossible to explain that [<i>ki</i> here means “because” and that] it is giving a reason for what is written above. 
  That one responds “May the Name of His glorious kingdom be blessed, etc.” If you ask that [perhaps it does not mean this formula of “Blessed, etc.” but simply] it means that they answer “Amein” [in the Beis Hamikdosh]. And furthermore from where does he know that it is referring to the Beis Hamikdosh at all, perhaps it refers to outside the Midkosh? One can answer that because it is written “Give greatness,” and “Amein” does not denote greatness, but rather is a statement of belief in the words of the one who recites the blessing. Also, it is written, “When I pronounce Hashem’s Name” which implies the Tetragrammaton [i.e., Four-letter Name of Hashem], and it is forbidden to mention this Name outside the Beis Hamikdosh. For only in the Beis Hamikdosh did they enunciate the Name as it is written.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Although He is almighty. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Moshe Rabbeinu call the Holy One, Blessed Is He [by the Name] “Rock”? Furthermore, what is the meaning of “flawless” that is mentioned here? Are there any actions of the Holy One, Blessed Is He, that are not flawless? Therefore Rashi explains, “Although, etc.” 
  Although He delays rewarding them, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Moshe use an expression of “faithfulness”? [Rashi] explains that it refers to the reward given to the righteous, which is for an endless time in the World to Come. Therefore it is appropriate to use the term “faithful.” 
  Even the wicked He rewards, etc. I.e. this verse seems repetitive. Since it is written, “God of faithfulness” then certainly He does not commit injustice. [Therefore Rashi explains that the verse means] that even to the wicked [Hashem acts justly]. One might have thought that Hashem does not pay them their reward, but simply He deducts any <i>mitzvo</i>s from their sins, and He punishes only the remaining sins. Therefore it teaches that a sin is not offset by a corresponding mitzvah, but He pays reward for <i>mitzvos</i> in this world. As Scripture writes, “And He pays His enemy to his face [to destroy him]” (Devarim 7:10), in order that he receives their full punishment for his sins in the World to Come. 
  Everyone justifies His judgment, etc. I.e. [Rashi] wishes to explain the term “righteous, etc.” The term “righteous” is said in conjunction with someone who acquires perfection on his own. And Heaven forbid, this term is totally not appropriate to use concerning the Holy One, Blessed Is He (Heaven forbid). Rashi answers that [the term means that] everyone justifies His judgment...” Re”m explains that Rashi needed to explain that “everyone justifies the judgment, etc.” because it is impossible say that the verse is testifying about the righteousness of Hashem, for one would never even consider the opposite to be true. How much more so after [the verse] states pertaining to Hashem, that He is “a God of faithfulness, without injustice.” But since one could might err and say that the words “righteous” and “upright” are descriptions of the Holy One, Blessed Is He, therefore Rashi explained that both of these terms are descriptions that people ascribe to Hashem, etc. In other words, everyone accepts His judgment as being righteous. 
  And it is befitting to justify Him. I.e. it is befitting for people to do so. The phrase “and upright” refers to the people. But one cannot say that “and upright” refers to the Holy One, Blessed Is He, since the word “righteous” refers to the people and not to the Holy One, Blessed Is He. Similarly the phrase, “and upright” also refers to the people, and not to the Holy One, Blessed Is He. This is simple to understand. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  They destroy themselves, not Him. This means “And not Him, not the Holy One, Blessed Is He.” This is what the verse means: “They destroy.” And who have they destroyed? It continues, “not Him,” i.e. not the Holy One, Blessed Is He. Based on this [reading] the term, “Him” is connected to the word, “not” which follows it, rather than to the word “destructiveness.” Based on the words of the verse, [Onkelos] should have translated as “and to Him not.” Instead he translated it based on common usage. He had to add the word, “themselves” after the word “destructiveness” because otherwise, this the verse would not be understandable. For whom did they destroy? And the phrase “not Him” would not fit in since we do not know who they destroyed? (Re”m) 
  His erstwhile children, etc. Rashi is asking: Why does He call them “His children” after they had sinned? 
  The defect was His children’s, not His defect. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written “their defect” rather than simply, “defect”? In which case the phrase, “His children” would refer back to “destructiveness” as if to say, “His children destroyed.” For this reason he translated “They destroy themselves” as if to say, “The children destroyed themselves, not He, and that is their defect,” i.e., the defect does not pertain to Him. This means the same as the phrase above, “destructiveness does not apply to Him.” The verse repeats itself using different words, as is the style in poems and prophecies. (Re”m) 
  And winds around a pendant. In the same way that they make a wick for an oil lamp, where they wrap around a [strand of] straw. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  Is it before Him that you cause displeasure, etc. This means that you are performing acts which are displeasing. Why is it not fitting to act in such a fashion? Because Hashem has the power to seek punishment from you. And furthermore, He has provided you with everything that is good. You should not ask from where Rashi knows that these are the two reasons that [Moshe] said to them? For you can answer, as [Moshe] continues to explain, as it is written, “A base people” who have forgotten that which was done for them, all the goodness that He did for them. And “lacking in wisdom” to understand the consequences, i.e. that He has the power to seek punishment from you, as He did to the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion [Tower of Bavel] and to the people of Sedom. From this we see that the phrase “Is it before Him [that you cause displeasure], etc.” includes both of these two reasons. 
  As He took possession of you. This is a word meaning acquisition (קנין).
  
  As He settled you in a nest of rock mass, etc. The word קננך comes from קן (nest). It is written [in the Torah] as קנך which denotes “acquisition,” so how does this fit in with the term “Your Father”? The expression of “acquisition” does not apply to a father [relationship]! Therefore Rashi [initially] explains that it is related to “nest.” Then Rashi’s difficulty is that if it means “nest” there should have been a <i>chirik</i> under the letter <i>koof</i>, and the <i>nun</i> should have a <i>dagesh</i>, similar to the phrase, “Like an eagle who rouses his nest (קנו) (v. 11). Therefore Rashi explains the word as meaning “perfecting” (תקון). Do not ask how Rashi knows it is from the word תקון (perfecting) rather than from קנין (acquisition) and קן (nest), because if so it should have been vocalized with a <i>cholem</i>=קונך, similar to the phrase “Possessor (קונה) of heaven and earth” (Bereishis 14:22). And it cannot be explained only as meaning “perfecting” (תקון) and “settling in a nest” (קן) and not meaning “acquisition” (קננך), because if so it is missing a letter <i>tav</i> from תקון. Perforce it is a word derived from [a combination of] all three words. 
  A nation among nations. Rashi is answering the question: How is this praise, that Hashem made them? Did He not make the entire world?! Therefore Rashi explains “a nation among nations,” means that Hashem chose <i>you</i> from among all the nations of the world. 
  With every kind of basis and foundation. The word כן (foundation) is also a word meaning “basis,” but בסיס is Aramaic and כן is Hebrew. 
  Some of you are kohanim, some prophets, some kings, etc. Which is not true with other nations, who take a king from a different land.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Another interpretation: You have not taken heed of the past. I.e. it would have been appropriate for you to remember the days [i.e., the history of] the world. Since you did not do so, at least “study the generational epochs” in the future, etc. Rashi has to give the alternative explanation because according to the first explanation it is difficult to understand the seemingly redundant language, for it already says “Remember world history,” which includes the generation of Enosh and the generation of the Flood. Therefore Rashi gives an alternative explanation. The alternative explanation on its own is also difficult, for how does the term “study” relate to something that does not exist in this world, but only in the World to Come which “no eye has seen aside from Hashem alone” (cf. Yeshiva 64:3). Therefore Rashi also gives the first explanation. 
  This refers to the sages. Because the word זקן is an acronym for “one who has acquired wisdom.”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Their ancestral portions, He inundated and swamped them. I.e. what was the portion of their inheritance? He inundated and swamped them. 
  Who were destined to issue from Shem’s posterity, etc. Otherwise, why use the term “according to the number”? This is what the verse means: “When He separated the sons of man,” i.e., when He dispersed them in the generation of the Dispesion; “He established the boundaries of peoples,” which means that He did not remove them from the world. Why did He do so? “According to the number of Bnei Yisroel,” meaning for the sake of Yisroel who would [in the future] be descendants of Shem. 
  According to the number of the seventy souls of the Bnei Yisroel, etc. I.e. [the verse] wants to explain one further concept. This is what the verse means: “He established boundaries of peoples,” which means that He made many nations. And how did He make them? Scripture explains, “according to the number of Bnei Yisroel” that is, He made them according to the number of seventy souls who went down to Egypt, i.e., the seventy nations. The phrase “He established the boundaries of peoples” is elucidated both with the phrase preceding and the phrase following, as I explained. Rashi needed to give two explanations because according to the first [explanation] the word “boundaries” is problematic. It should have only written, “established peoples according to the number of Bnei Yisroel.” The word “boundaries” is not needed. And according to the second explanation, since they angered Hashem, why did He not destroy them from the world? Therefore Rashi also needs the first explanation. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Because His portion was hidden among them, etc. Because the term כי (because) always explains what precedes it. So here too, it implies that Scripture wants to give an explanation of what preceded. 
  He was the third patriarch, etc. I.e. therefore Yaakov is called “the cable of His heritage.” 
  He and his sons were His [Hashem’s] heritage. The question: Why is it also not written “Avraham or Yitzchok”? He answers that Yaakov and [all of] his sons were for Him an inheritance, but Avraham had Yishmoel who is not part of His inheritance, and Yitzchok had Eisov. Even though it has already been said above that the reason Hashem did not destroy them was because of the number of Bnei Yisroel, who are of the descendants of Shem, nevertheless it was still not explained there the connection between them and the number of Bnei Yisroel, such that He saved the generation of the Dispersion for their sake. Here it explains that the reason is “for Yaakov etc.” was hidden among them. Even though from the phrase, “Because [of] Hashem’s portion, etc.” it is not understood as “they were hidden within them.” But since it gives a reason for that which is written above, “He established the boundaries of peoples according to the number of Bnei Yisroel” which means according to the number of Bnei Yisroel who are destined to emerge from them, i.e. who were hidden within them. (Re”m)
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  He found them faithful to Hashem in, etc. [By this,] Rashi means to explain why Hashem did not want Eisav and Yishmoel as His inheritance, even though they are the sons of Avraham and Yitzchok, just like the sons of Yaakov. 
  Which He arched over them like a barrel. The goodness in this is in order that they should be coerced [into the covenant] and He would be unable to send them away ever, like the law of a coerced woman (Devarim 22:29). This is also how I explained in Parshas Yisro (Shemos 19:17). Do not ask how Rashi knows these three explanations [from a single verse], for one can answer, which of them could be excluded? Alternatively [one can answer that] the verse explains all three of them, for it states, “He encircled them, He granted them understanding.” He encircled them at the time of the Giving of the Torah, meaning that He arched the mountain over them like a barrel. “He encircled them,” “He sheltered them” from snakes, i.e. He surrounded them with the Clouds of Glory and killed all the snakes and scorpions. “He encircled them,” “He sheltered them like the pupil of His eye,” from the nations, i.e., He surrounded them with flags. 
  This refers to the dark area of the eye, etc. Why is [this part of the eye] called אישון (man-like)? Because it looks like the image of a small person. Just as the image of a person appears in a woman’s mirror. אישון is a word meaning “man-like.” (Rabbeinu Bachye) 
  He encamped them [around His Presence], etc. I.e. Onkelos translates the phrase “He encircled them” in this manner, and Rashi explains that it refers to the Tent of Meeting, etc. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  He directed them with compassion and sympathy, etc. From here onwards [Moshe] returns to speak of the good things that He [Hashem] did for them from the time they left Egypt, and yet they had forgotten everything. 
  Between one tree and another, between one branch [שוכה] and the next. The meaning of the word שוכה is a branch of twigs. 
  “Shaddai — we did not find the Almighty at full power, etc.” Rashi says this, and this is its meaning: The Almighty, i.e. the Holy One, Blessed Is He, we do not find Him great in power. In other words, although He is strong, He does not act with this power with His creations. 
  As it is stated, “Hashem came from Sinai, radiated forth to them from Se’ir, etc.” “He came from Sinai” is not one of the four directions, rather it means that He came from Sinai towards the Jewish people. The following are the four directions: “He radiated [to them] from Se’ir, [He] appeared from Mount Paran, He came with part of the sacred myriads.” “Hashem came from Teiman” (Chavakuk 3:3). Some challenge [this explanation] because earlier Rashi explained that the verse “He radiated forth to them from Se’ir” refers to the idolaters who did not wish to accept the Torah upon themselves. And Rashi explains similarly later, in parshas Vezos Habracha (33:2). Yet here he explains the verse as referring to the world’s four directions. One can answer that the verse contains both meanings. For if the verse was written solely for the four directions, why does it use these [unusual] names for these directions? These directions are never referred to by these names anywhere else in the Torah. Perforce it refers also to the non-Jewish nations. And if Scripture comes solely to teach about the idolaters, why then does it not explicitly mention them by their names? Rather one must say that both meanings are contained within the verse. And earlier in the verse, “He found them in a wilderness country” which speaks in praise of the Jewish people, Rashi brings the reason that they elucidated [the verse] as referring to the idolaters who did not wish to accept the Torah. And on the verse, “like an eagle who rouses his nest” which speaks of the goodness that Hashem did for the Jewish people, Rashi brings the second reason.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  He conducted them alone, in security, etc. This is the meaning of the verse: And Hashem conducted Yisroel alone and in security. But it does not mean that Hashem was alone, for that is obvious. Rather the word “alone” refers back to the people, that is to say, they did not need any other nation to go along with them due to their trust [in Hashem]. Even though the word meaning “conducted them” is [written] in the future tense, it is used as past tense. 
  There was no capability among any of the, etc. This is the explanation of the word “security.” In other words, they did not fear that one of the gods of the other nations would demonstrate his power to fight against them, because “there was no capability, etc.
  
  The Rabbis expound this as referring to the future, etc. I.e. the verse that “Hashem [conducted them] alone, etc.” 
  Now I say that these are words of reproach, etc. By this Rashi means, how can you explain the verse as referring to the future? Moshe is now speaking words of reproach with them! If so, how can it be that here in the middle of the reproach he prophesies about the future? Therefore I say, etc., in other words, even though he is speaking of the future, nevertheless they are also words of reproach on these matters, etc.  
  Therefore, the matter must be reconciled both here and there, etc. Rashi means that this is why the verse of “Hashem, conducted them alone” is both in the future tense and in the past tense.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  The entire passage should be understood as Targum [Onkelos] translates. Meaning, that Hashem will give them Eretz Yisroel. And if so you might ask, that it should have written “He will cause them to inherit, etc.” Why [write] “He shall transport them”? And Rashi goes on and explains. 
  This refers to the fruits of Eretz Yisroel, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Does Hashem not give them food to eat in other places? Therefore he explains that “this refers to the fruits, etc.” 
  There was an incident. Rashi is answering the question: How could this come about, that they would suck honey from a rock? 
  Someone said to his son in Sichoni. “In Sichoni” refers to the name of a place.
  Bring me dried fig preserves from the barrel, etc.” Dried figs are hard like rock, and even so there was honey on them. Therefore they would suck honey from them [like] from a rock.
  
  When non-adjunctive to the following word the vocalization is chalumish (“the mighty part of”), etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is the word <i>chalmish</i> vocalized with a <i>sheva</i> under the <i>lamed</i>? It would ordinarily be vocalized as <i>chalumish</i> with a <i>kamatz</i> [under the <i>lamed</i>], as in “the flint [<i>chalumish] into a fountain of waters” (Tehillim 114:8). Therefore he explains that “when it is not connected to the following word, etc.” But here it is connected to the word following. </i>
  This refers to the olives of Gush Chalav. Gush Chalav is the name of a place.
  
  Verse 14
  
  Milk of sheep. When it is used adjunctively, etc. Rashi’s question: Why is it vocalized as “<i>cheleiv</i>” with a <i>sheva</i> under the <i>ches</i> and a <i>tzeirei</i> under the <i>lamed</i>? It should have been vocalized as <i>cholov</i> with a <i>kometz</i> in both places. 
  According to its plain meaning. It seems that Rashi’s suggestion is as follows: The word כרים means “sheep.” If so, the plain meaning of the word אילים is “rams.” Without this [comment] one might have thought that the word אילים means “sheep” and they are called אילים because they strengthen and enrich their owners. אילים is similar to in the phrase, “The mighty [אילי] of the land he took” (Yechezkeil 17:13) a term that means “strong.” But now that I explained that the word כרים means “sheep” we need not give a difficult explanation that [in this verse] אילים means “strong,” but in fact the word אילים takes its ordinary meaning. 
  Like the fat of the kidney. Otherwise, why is it compared to the fat of kidneys and not any other fat? 
  You shall drink, etc. I.e., the meaning of the verse is, the blood of the grapes he would drink, etc. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  There is a “light” grammatical usage, etc. Rashi means that since it is from the word “covering” (כיסוי) the [letter] <i>sin</i> [or <i>samech</i>] should have been written with a <i>dagesh</i> (punctuated dot), as we find in all places, that [the letter <i>samech</i> in the word] “כיסוי” is written with a <i>dagesh</i>. 
  It would have meant “You covered others, etc.” But now it means that you cover yourself. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  They inflamed His fury and vengeance. The word “vengeance” always means the anticipation to take revenge for something.
  
  Verse 17
  
  Who fulfill no need, etc. The word צרוך means “power” or “ability.” Rashi had to explain in this manner because afterwards it is written [in the verse], “gods they did not know.” If the meaning of this verse is like the plain meaning, that they are not gods, how does Scripture refer to them afterwards as “gods”? (Re”m) 
  If they had fulfilled some need. Meaning that you should not ask: Since it is written “ineffectual,” it implies that if they would have had powers, such as the stars and the constellations, they would not have provoked His jealousy. But how could it mean this? It is already written, “And lest you raise your eyes heavenward ... or the moon or [the stars] — the entire host of the heavens, etc.” (Devarim 4:19). 
  The vengeance would not have been as doubly harsh as now. If you ask: Rashi explain earlier, in parshas <i>Ki Sissa</i> (Shemos 32:11) “Why should Your anger be aroused” that a mighty person is only jealous of another mighty person, etc. and if so, why should the vengeance be doubled? The answer is that earlier it was pertaining to prayer to appease Hashem, so Moshe said, “Why should Your anger be provoked? That a mighty person, etc.” However, with regard to punishment, when Hashem comes to punish those who perform idolatry, the punishment is greater, for [worshipping] a god who has no power. 
  They did not fear them, etc. The description “awed by them” would be like “My children are gone forth of me” (Yirmeyah 10:20), which means “they came out from me” or “lest you be filled with it” (Mishlei 25:16) which means “filled from it.” Similarly here, “awed by them” means in awe of them. 
  In addition, one may explain the word se’arum [as having the same meaning] as “demons”, etc. Here too it would mean “awed by them.” But the word “by them” would mean “from the demons” which refers to the demons mentioned above. The word שערום means “they made demons” just as מאלמים means אלומים (makes bundles)” (Bereishis 37:7). (Re”m) 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Thus weakening His capacity for benevolence towards you. It comes from the same root as “His strength תשש (became weak) like a female” (Rashi Bamidbar 11:15). According to the first explanation, the word תשי comes from the root “I נשיתי (forgot) prosperity” (Eicha 3:17). 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  What will occur to them at their end. What is desired is only to know what will happen to them in the end, not what will be their end, for their end will be death. Even without Hashem hiding His face, every creature must die. Rather it means what will be their punishment as a result of Hashem hiding His face. 
  They upset My good will and turn it to wrath. Not that they are the ones who turn, like its plain meaning. His proof is from that which is it is written, “Because, etc. and the word “because” always explains what precedes it. This is simple to understand.
  
  My training is not noticeable in them, etc. The meaning of אמן (breeding) is similar to [the verse], “He אומן (raised) Hadassah” (Esther 2:7). And he adds the word “noticeable” for without this addition it would mean “My training is not in them,” that “I have not trained them.” Therefore he added the word “noticeable.” 
  Another interpretation, אֵמֻן denotes “faithfulness”, etc. According to the first reason it is difficult to explain why it did not say אמן with a <i>vav</i>. Therefore Rashi gives an alternative explanation. And according to the alternative explanation it is difficult because it should have said אמון.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Down to the foundation. He added the words “you” and “your land” for without this we would not know who would be burned or which land.
  Jerusalem, which is founded on the mountains, etc. Otherwise, why is “the bases of mountains” needed? Scripture has already written that the entire land will be consumed! Rather it is referring to Jerusalem, which is founded on mountains and has its own unique importance. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  Another interpretation of אספה, “I shall consume, etc. In other words, I will deploy all the evils against them; no evil of the evils will be left, but all of them will be deployed against them. This is similar to “I shall deplete my arrows against them” which means that I will throw all My arrows against them. Rashi needed the alternative explanation because according to the first explanation it is difficult, for it should have written אספו from the term “ספו (you join) year on year” (Yeshayah 29:1), and not אספה with a <i>hei</i>, which is from the term “תספה (destroy)” (Bereishis 18:23). And according to the second explanation alone it is also difficult because it is written afterwards, “I shall deplete my arrows against them.” But the arrows have already been included in the [aforementioned] evils! Some ask that earlier in parshas <i>Nitzavim</i> (Devarim 29:18) Rashi explained the phrase ספות הרוה “so that I shall punish him <i>additionally</i>, etc.” but here Rashi explains ספות הרוה as meaning “to <i>join</i> the sated.” One could answer that every addition means adding to something else, and therefore it joins it. Accordingly, “addition” and “join” have the same meaning and are the same concept. Earlier Rashi explained that it is a term meaning “addition” because of its context, since it is not plausible to say “I will join,” for there is no punishment for unintentional sins. So how could it say “I will join punishment to punishment”? Therefore Rashi explained it as “additionally.” But here, there is no mention of unintentional sin, but rather intentional sin, so according to its context he explains it as “joining.” It also appears to me that one could answer that the plain meaning of אספה whenever it appears is “addition.” However, here one cannot explain it to mean “addition,” because that would mean that would imply that Hashem will add greater punishments than what they have sinned, but this is not so. Hashem only punishes according the wickedness the person commits before Him. Therefore Rashi was forced to explain here that it means “joined.” Therefore Rashi brought all of these verses and explained them as meaning “joined” so that at first glance you would not ask regarding his explanation, because he explains that the word “אספה” as “joined/linked” in all the verses that he cites. I explained similarly above on the verse “He armed his trained servants” (Bereishis 14:14). See there. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  He would tousle his hair. This is a term from the Gemara (Megilla 18a). Rashi wishes to bring proof for the explanation of R’ Moshe Hadarshan.
  There was an incident, etc. Rashi means to explain that the verse should have said, “the teeth of wild animals,” since it is wild animals that are expected to bite, not domesticated ones. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  The chambers of his heart pound with terror, etc. If the verse is explained according to its plain meaning i.e., as referring to the chambers of his house, it should have said, “From his chambers there is פחד (fear).” The word פחד applies to something which is nearby, whereas אימה (terror) applies to something that is distant; As Rashi writes in parshas <i>Beshalach</i> (Shemos 15:16) on the verse, “Horror [and dread] fall upon them” (Maharan) 
  Another interpretation of “From within the chambers, terror.” Indoors will be, etc. According to the first explanation it is difficult for where do we ever find in Scripture the chambers of the heart being referred to as simply “chambers”? Therefore Rashi gives: “Another interpretation, etc.” and the word חדרים is [interpreted] according to its plain meaning. According to this alternative explanation it is difficult, why it says “chambers of terror”? In the city there was also plague. So it should have said “<i>indoors</i> there is terror” as opposed to outdoors.” Therefore Rashi gives a third explanation; that it refers to the sins committed outside, i.e. in public, and to those sins that were committed in the innermost chambers, so that no person sees him. According to this third explanation it is difficult because if so, the verse is missing the verb, it does not mention the word any action. And if so, the letter <i>mem</i> from the word “מחדרים (from his chambers)” should have been [vocalized] with a <i>chirik</i> [<i>michadarim</i>] which means “from the sins committed inside.” Therefore Rashi needed the alternative explanations. And according to these two [latter] explanations it is difficult, why does the verse use the word “terror,” when it should have said “from the chambers a plague.” Therefore Rashi also gave the first explanation. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  Some interpret this according to the Targum’s [Onkelos] translation, etc. Meaning that some explain it according to its apparent meaning, that אפאיהם is derived from the word “אף (anger),” and the first <i>aleph</i> represents the first person, as if it said, “I will place My anger upon them” or “against them.” But this is untenable, etc. 
  Also, the middle aleph is totally inappropriate. In other words, this is another contradiction. 
  Onkelos’ translation follows the text of the Beraysa, etc. Onkelos’ intention when he explained “I shall visit upon them... follows the text of the <i>Beraysa</i>, etc.” The intent is “I shall visit My fury upon them,” that will render them non-entities, etc.” His explanation is not according to the plain meaning, as the [opinion cited above as] “Now some interpret this” understands it. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  Were it not that the enemy’s rage, etc. He explains that the word לולי is a combination of <i>lo</i> [with a <i>vav</i>] meaning “if” and <i>lo</i> [with an <i>aleph</i>] meaning “not.” Even though the word is written with a <i>yud</i>, it is vocalized with a <i>tzeirei</i>, and the <i>tzeirei</i> implies an <i>aleph</i>. Rashi adds the two words “against them for destruction,” because without the term “against them” we would not know on whom He is angry, and [also we would not know] the reason for the anger. 
  And if He were to overcome them and destroy them, etc. Rashi adds all this because without this it is not reasonable to say that “our armed might has prevailed, etc.” For if He did not destroy them [what is the meaning] that their armed might has prevailed? 
  
  Verse 28
  
  For if they were wise, etc. Rashi adds the letter <i>shin</i> [meaning “because”] to the word “לו (if)” because the phrase “לו, etc.” is not the beginning of the phrase, but is proof for the [preceding] statement “for they are a nation who squanders counsel” because if they were wise, etc. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  At the ending punishment of Yisroel. Meaning, not their own ending [but Yisroel’s]. The phrase “How can one pursue, etc.” is Rashi’s proof [to explain] that it refers to the ending punishment of Yisroel. “How could one pursue a thousand” is an explanation of the word “this” and the words “their ending” [mentioned in the preceding verse].
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  One of us [pursue] a thousand of Yisroel. [It does] not [mean] one Jew chasing a thousand of them, because it is listing curses here. Some ask: It is a fact that the attribute of goodness is greater than the attribute of punishment! And with regard to the attribute of goodness it is written, “Five of you will pursue one hundred” (Vayikra 26:8). [Why then] in the attribute of punishment [it states,] that one of them will pursue a thousand of Yisroel? One can answer that the punishments listed in this song are an exception to the letter of the law of strict justice. And this is what is referred to in <i>Megillas Eicha</i> “she has descended astonishingly” (Eicha 1:9), that their downfall was amazing [i.e.], not according to the general law pertaining to attributes [where the attribute of goodness is far greater than the attribute of punishment]. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  צור in Scripture always denotes a rock. Rashi wants to explain also where the word סלע (rock) is mentioned in Scripture.
  
  Verse 32
  
  Galling beverages are appropriate for them, etc. As if it had said, “For their grapevine is of the grapevine of Sedom,” therefore, their galling clusters are fitting for them.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  Their cup, merciless to the bite victim, etc. “<i>Their</i> cup” refers to the adders. 
  A merciless enemy shall come, etc. I.e., this is the meaning of the verse, “A merciless enemy, etc.” 
  
  Verse 34
  
  The fruit of their grapevine, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “Is <i>this</i> not, etc.” which is in the singular form, but Scripture should have written, “<i>Are</i> they not, etc. [the plural form]” because it is based on the explanation of “sequestered [with Me], etc. They think that I have forgotten their <i>actions</i>, etc.” Therefore Rashi explains that “it is [referring to] the fruit of their grapevine.” In other words that which is written above, “their grapevine” refers to the fruit of their grapevine. And this is what the phrase “<i>Is</i> this not, etc.” is referring to. This works well, for the word “fruit” can also be singular. Therefore Scripture says הוא which is masculine, and not היא [which is feminine], even though תבואה (grain)” is feminine, but because פרי (fruit) is masculine. 
  
  Verse 35
  
  With Me, ready and available. Rashi wishes to explain how the word לי (to Me) can possibly apply to Hashem. “To Me” implies that it will come to Him from elsewhere, and this cannot be said about Hashem. From where could it come to Him? Everything is already in Hashem’s hand. Therefore Rashi explains that לי means “With Me.” 
  The punishment by vengeance, and it shall administer [retribution] to them, etc. Rashi’s intention with this is that you should not ask: Is vengeance tangible that it is written “לי נקם ושלם (Literally: <i>To</i> Me is vengeance and repayment)”? By explaining “<i>With</i> Me” it implies that it is tangible! 
  Some interpret ושִׁלֵם as a noun, like ושִׁלוּם “and retribution.” And it means: Mine is the vengeance and the retribution that I will avenge against them and I will punish them according to their deeds. 
  This is similar to, “The word is not theirs, etc.” With this Rashi intends to bring a proof that even though it is not written with the letter <i>vav</i> to make it a noun. Even so it can be explained as if it was written as a noun. 
  At the termination of the merit of the forefathers, etc. This means that the phrase “at the time when they shall stumble” is speaking only of administering retribution, but not of the vengeance. For the punishments of vengeance are always ready and prepared with Him. 
  As soon as I desire to inflict, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “For it is close by, etc.”? But now when Moshe is rebuking them they had not yet sinned! Even [Moshe] attributes [their current status as] being dependent on the merit of the forefathers. And the merit of the forefathers was still in force. So what is the meaning of “for it is close by, etc.”? 
  
  Verse 36
  
  When He punishes them with the afflictions, etc. But it cannot be explained according to its plain meaning, when He <i>judges</i> them whether for innocence or guilt. For if so, how does the next phrase, “And He will reconsider about His servants” fit in? For it implies that He will be “merciful towards his servants.” But perhaps they are found to be innocent in their judgment, and they would not require mercy! 
  The Holy One, Blessed Is He will reconsider concerning His servants, etc. [Rashi] needed to reverse the order [of the words], because after the suffering comes the consolation and afterwards, “to make known that it is on His servants.” Since the verse repeated and said, “About His servants” and “His people” [alone] which precedes it did not suffice. It requires that Hashem’s Name also be repeated, as if it said, “When Hashem administers justice against His people, and Hashem will reconsider about His servants.” 
  When he sees that the power [lit. hand] surging, etc. By this, Rashi corrects several matters. He explains “that He will see” as “when He sees” because the word כי (when) here is like “When (כי) you come to the land, etc.” (Vayikra 25:2) which means “when.” And the word אזלת means “surging.” The word “power” refers back to the enemy, even though it is not mentioned here. He also added the word “against them” to inform who the power is going against. “None (אפס)” means “no more” as in the verse, “for there is no (אפס) money” (Bereishis 47:15). “Structured (עצוב)” means collected under the authority of the ruler. “Fortified” (עזוב) means “strengthened” and he added the term “among them” after “and that there is no one” because “no more” applies only applies to them, i.e. it is finished their being gathered and strengthened. Rashi also adds “The Holy One, Blessed Is He” after “He shall say” to inform that the one who says “Where is their god” is The Holy One, Blessed Is He. He adds “concerning them” to show the subject of “<i>their</i> gods” refers to “about His servants” mentioned above. The conjunctive <i>vav</i> of ואמר “And He shall say” is like the <i>vav</i> of “And the Lord your God will guard (ושמר) for you” (Devarim 7:12) which means “He will guard” [in the future tense]. The meaning of the verses are as follows: When Hashem will inflict suffering on His people with all these afflictions, and He will reconsider and console them when He sees that the power of the enemy becoming greater and greater against them, and they cease to be guarded and held strongly, to be without a protector or a ruler, Hashem will say of them, “Where are your idols in whom you trusted? Let them come and save you.” Therefore it is appropriate for you to understand from all the evils that I have brought on you, and there is no savior from all the idols in whom you trusted. They have no power to stay My hand, because it is I Who has the power to lower or to raise, and “no one can rescue you from My grasp.” Afterwards Scripture mentions the vengeance which He will wreak on the enemies.
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  It is I Who humbles, etc. Rashi explains the necessity of the repetition of the word “I (אני).” 
  
  Verse 40
  
  For, in My fury, etc. Rashi explains: It is written, “The heavens are My throne, etc.” (Yeshayah 66:1) and so if He Himself sits in heaven, so how is it feasible that He raises His hand heavenward? Therefore Rashi explains that when it is written, “heavenward” it means “to Myself” i.e. towards Myself. When [Rashi] explains, “For in My fury, etc.” he means to say that it is not general practice to swear unless one makes a promise and then he swears to verify his word. If so, why does Hashem take an oath here? He did not make a promise! For this reason Rashi explains “for in My fury, etc.” i.e. nevertheless, due to His great anger against the enemy to wreak vengeance on him, and not to reconsider this, He took an oath that He will seek vengeance from the enemy. Re”m wrote: But I do not know the meaning of the word כי in the phrase “For (כי) I will raise My hand heavenward.” It does not fit with any of the four possible meanings of <i>ki</i>, which are: “if, perhaps, rather, [and] because. It seems that this is the explanation: Since it is not general practice to swear unless he makes a promise to give or to do something for him, as we find with Boaz who said “I swear as Hashem lives, lie down, etc.” (Rus 3:13), by this he swore to keep his word, and the promises which he had promised. Something which one says that he would do, can also have the same meaning, since it is the general practice to swear [to verify] what he wants to do, so too, I will swear on account of the fury, that it is My intention to rage against the nations. “I shall lift My hand to heaven” to swear that “If I whet My saber to a gleam, etc.” Then the meaning of כי here is “because” and means because “if I change.” This is similar to “Until I have spoken” (Bereishis 24:33) which is [a form of] “that.” The meaning of the verse here is as follows: Since it is general practice to take an oath on a promise that one makes to his friend, so too I will do, and I will raise My hand to Myself and say, “As I live” which is the oath. The meaning of, “heavenward” is to Himself, Who is called “Heaven’” which is His Throne.” [The verse] does not mean to say that Hashem grasped heaven in His hand and swore by holding an object [which is customary when making an oath], because the purpose in taking an object when swearing is only to add concentration and awe to the oath. This is something that does not pertain to Hashem. Do not challenge me that it says, “The hand is on Hashem’s Throne” (Shemos 17:16) where Rashi explains “the hand of Hashem is raised to swear by His throne,” because nothing is written there to imply an oath, as it does here. (Re”m) 
  This denotes an oath. As if it had said, “By the life of Myself.” Not that He is informing that He is alive and eternal. 
  
  Verse 41
  
  If I whet the blade of My saber. Rashi wants answer the question: How is it possible to sharpen lightning, which has no substance? Lightning is the appearance of a flash! Therefore he explains “the gleam, etc.” i.e. if I sharpen the iron of My saber. The word שינון always means “sharpening” and the blade of the sabre is [made of] iron, as in “the blade of his spear” (1 Shmuel 17:7). It is called להב (flash) because the sword as it flashes is similar to a flame. The word ברק (lightning) is like “לברק (to flash)” (Yechezkeil 21:20) which means [that He will whet it] to a gleam. 
  Discarding the attribute of compassion for My enemies. I.e. and My hand will grasp the attribute of judgment, to hold on to it in order to wreak vengeance, and to discard the [attribute of] compassion, and not use it for My enemies who were destructive to you. The phrase “and hold judgment in My grasp” is connected to the phrase “My enemies who were destructive to you,” not with “discarding the attribute of compassion.” The meaning of the verse is: “I raised My hand heavenward and swore by My life, that I will sharpen My sword until it gleams like lightning, as is the custom of those who go out to war. And hold judgment in My hand, to wreak vengeance on My enemies, to avenge them for their destructiveness to you. [As the verse states,] “Where I was a little angry, and they abetted destructiveness, etc.” (Zecharyah 1:15). 
  Where I was a little angry, etc. Do not ask how is it that the nations sinned in this matter, since you were delivered into their hands [by Hashem] in order that you should suffer at their hands. 
  [Another interpretation.] I hold judgment in My grasp. According to the first explanation it is difficult, where is the attribute of compassion mentioned here? And according to the second explanation it is difficult because it should have written “My hand will grasp judgment.” Therefore Rashi gives the first explanation. And from my teacher, Maharal, I heard that the phrase, “another interpretation” is a copyist error, and it is all one explanation. 
  “Judgment” here denotes retribution. And so the word “He grasps” is connected with “My saber to a gleam,” for lightning is Hashem’s arrow, as it states, “And His arrow will go forth like lightning” (Zecharyah 9:14) referring to retribution. But according to its plain meaning we would not learn anything. For even when a mortal king sits in judgment is able to tip the verdict to whichever side he wishes. But now that Rashi explains it to mean “retribution” we certainly learn-–that “unlike the practice of mortals, etc.” According to the <i>aggada</i>, the order of the words in the verse is imprecise and it means, “And My hand grasp the lightning of My sword in judgment.” 
  
  Verse 42
  
  The enemy. The word “מדם” means the same as “מן דם האויב (with the blood of the enemy).” The [first] letter <i>mem</i> is not a [explaining the] reason, like the <i>mem</i> of “מדם חלל (for the blood of the slaughtered, etc.)” [in the next phrase of this verse]. The phrase “אשכיר (I shall make my arrows drunk” is similar to the phrase, “שכורת (drunk), but not from wine” (Yeshayah 51:21). 
  This will befall them because of their guilt over the blood of the slaughtered [Israelites], etc. He explains that the first <i>mem</i> of the word מדם [explains] the reason. Re”m explains: This retribution that I spoke of, “I shall make My arrows drunk, etc. is because of the sin of the dead, not because of the Jews who were killed. And “from the blood of the slaughtered” means the opposite, as if it had said “from the corpses’ blood.” Because the sin which they committed was due to blood. When it writes above, “I will make My arrows drunk from their blood” it does not mean from the blood of the corpses, but it refers to the blood mentioned at the beginning of the verse. It is a metaphor. The drunkenness of His arrows is only from drinking so much blood of the enemies, as if the arrows that were shot at the enemy drinks so much of his blood that they become drunk. 
  For the iniquity of the original devastation by the enemy, etc. Because it is connected with “from the blood of the slaughtered, and the captives,” which means, the sin of corpses and the sin of captives. If so, Rashi also needs to explain “for the original savagery of the enemy” as “from the sin of the head of the wildest enemy.” The word פרעות means “savagery.” And because the beginning of their savagery was against Yisroel, from the time of the ancestors of these, we learn from here that “when Hashem punishes the nations he invokes against them, etc.” And because it is not clear that the beginning of the enemy’s savagery was against Yisroel, Rashi had to repeat and explain from the original devastation which they perpetrated against Yisroel. (Re”m)
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  For theft, etc. Not for bloodshed, for it already stated, “He will avenge the blood of His servants.” 
  He will pacify His land and His people, etc. The meaning of “His land” is “His people.” 
  With a different viewpoint this is expounded, etc. R’ Yehuda expounds, etc. This implies that there is no difference between his explanation and that of Rashi except for the verse (28) “for those nations squander counsel.” Rashi explains that the verse is referring to the idolater, and R’ Yuda explains that it is referring to Yisroel. Even though they differ on the meaning of the verse, “for the grapevine of Sedom their grapevine is” (Devarim 32:32) where Rashi explains that their behavior is like the actions of Sedom and Amorah. And Rabbi Yuda explains [the verse] as “Are you from the grapevines of Sedom, or from the plantings of Amorah? Are you not from holy plantings?” They both agree, however, that it refers to Yisroel. However, in the verse (v. 37) “where is their god?” Rashi explains that Hashem says to Yisroel, “Where is [your God]?” and Rabbi Yuda explains that this is what Yisroel is saying to the idolaters. One can explain that when Rashi writes that the words of Rabbi Yuda are exactly like his words, completely, except for (v. 28) “those nations squander counsel” only refers to the meaning of (v. 37) “He shall say.” Rashi and R’ Yuda both hold that “He shall say” are not the words of the idolaters, which is Rabbi Nechemyah’s opinion, who says that [“He shall say”] refers to the enemy, e.g. Titus and those like him. But not with regard to the verse, “Where is their god?” For if so, what does it mean that Rabbi Yuda expounds it towards Yisroel? He expounds it as referring to idolaters! But nevertheless Rashi’s and Rabbi Yuda’s explanations are not completely identical, for Rashi explains “He shall say” as referring to Yisroel. (Re”m) 
  In this usage, כי is understood as, etc. I.e. it gives an explanation of what precedes it. 
  Understood as “for.” An explanation of [Rashi’s] explanation is that Rabbi Nechemyah explains the verse “For ... will judge, etc.” as referring to when He represents them in their struggle, and the meaning of כי is “for.” And the meaning of (v. 35), “Vengeance is with Me, and shall administer retribution” (v. 34) refers to the idolaters, because Hashem fights the fight of Yisroel against those who persecuted them. 
  The Holy One, may He be blessed, will then unveil His salvation, etc. According to Rashi’s explanation of (v. 39) “Now observe!” means “that it is in My power to bring death or give life, unlike those idols that you worship. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah who explains that (v. 37) “Where is their god?” refers to the enemy, who says to Yisroel, “Where is your God?, etc.” how can it say “Now observe!” such that they will understand that it is in His hand to bring death or give life? Therefore he adds that “the Holy One, Blessed Is He will then unveil His salvation” which means that then the designs of the enemy will be overturned from what they thought prior to the revelation of His salvation. 
  It is from Me that your ruin emanated. Meaning, against the idolaters. 
  And from Me that your benefaction will come. Meaning, to Yisroel 
  Like “I have raised,” etc. I.e., My hand is already raised in heaven, meaning, constantly I rest my Divine Presence etc. But it is not possible to explain that it is a phrase meaning making an “oath” because the punishments have already been written, (v. 33) “Like caustic serpents’ venom is their wine, etc.” and (v. 39) “Now observe, etc.” If so, why would He swear now? But according to the plain meaning which Rashi explained above, that it refers to Yisroel, it works well. He swears to avenge them. And similarly according to R’ Yuda. But according to the opinion of R’ Nechemyah, who explains the entire section as referring to idolaters, it is impossible to explain this as an oath. 
  
  Verse 44
  
  It was a Shabbos of shared quality (דיוזגי), etc. This is [a combination of] two words and a double phrase, meaning דיו (two) and זוג (pair). The word זוג is Aramaic and דֹיו is Greek. Rashi wishes to explain with this a difficulty. Moshe spoke to the ears of the <i>people</i> because he was still their king and prince. But why is Yehoshua involved here? He did not become their prince until <i>after</i> the death of Moshe! This is why Rashi says “It was a Shabbos of shared quality, etc.” 
  To teach that he was not conceited, etc. I.e., the Torah testifies that he was not proud, and therefore he calls him Hoshei’a rather than Yehoshua. The word “זחה” means “haughty” or “rude.” 
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  Which is comparable to a mountain balanced on a hair, etc. This means that there are many things in the Torah which are as fine as a strand of hair. The word כהררין (like mountains) comes from the word הר (mountain) and alludes to the fact that in each of them are many things like mountains.
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  That if expounded would not yield recompense, etc. Rashi needed his second explanation because according to the first explanation it is difficult, it should have only said, “Focus your thoughts ... to all the statements of the Torah ... for it is your life...” Why did Scripture write, “For it is not a futile thing for you, etc.”? Therefore Rashi gave his second explanation that they are two separate concepts. This is what it means: There is nothing futile in the Torah, i.e. there is nothing that is written without purpose. Furthermore, “if expounded, etc.” means that there is nothing in the Torah which if you expound it, etc. Therefore it is written, “for you,” to allude to the reward which is the essence of a person and the purpose of his success. According to the second explanation it is difficult why it is written “for it is your life”? The reason for this focus was already given. Alternatively, the [order of verses] should have been reversed, i.e., it should have written after “all the statements of this Torah,” “for it is your life” and then “for it is not a futile thing for you, etc.” Therefore Rashi also gives the first explanation. 
  From the following comment by the Rabbis: Lotan’s sister was Timna, etc. I.e. from here he proves that there is nothing futile written in the Torah. But he is not bringing proof from here that it will yield recompense for expounding [theTorah]. 
  
  Verse 48
  
  In three places it is said. If you ask: Why does it not count “that very day” which is stated regarding Avraham? For it is written (Bereishis 17:23), “On that very day” Avraham was circumcised, and Rashi explains, “By daytime and not by night, yet he was not afraid, etc.” One could answer that when it states regarding Avraham “on this very day” it comes to teach that he did the circumcision on the very day that he was commanded, as Rashi explains. Therefore Rashi mentions only three places.
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  With the very death you witnessed and longed for, etc. Otherwise, why does it say, “Just as you brother Aharon died”? He was not the only person to ever die. 
  
  Verse 51
  
  You were the cause of unfaithfulness to Me. This is the correct text: Because you were unfaithful to Me, you were the cause of their unfaithfulness to Me, etc. This is how it appears in accurate texts. It means that you caused that the people would rebel against the word of Hashem, etc., and not that Moshe and Aharon [themselves] rebelled. Rather they caused Yisroel to rebel against Hashem. 
  
  Verse 52
  
  At a distance. So that you do not explain that מנגד has the same meaning as in (Shemos 19:2) “opposite (נגד) the mountain” which means to the east of the mountain. For if so, what difference is it to Moshe whether he sees the land from the east or from any other direction? 
  For if you will not see it now, etc. Rashi explains why the phrase “but you will not come there” is necessary. Certainly if he is only permitted to see it from a distance, he certainly may not come there. Therefore he explains, “For if, etc. i.e. that it refers to what precedes it. “Go up to this Mount Ho’Avorim ... and see, etc.” Why? Because “you will not come there.” And therefore if you do not see it now, when [will you see it]? If you say, I am not concerned about this, therefore he explains “And I know [that it is precious to you].”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Close to his death, etc. Because if you do not explain that before his death means close to his death, we would not know when [Moshe spoke]. Therefore Rashi writes, For if not now when,” because it was before his death and close to his death. Alternatively, his proof is because it is written <i>before</i> his death, as it is obvious that he did not bless them after his death. However, if the verse had not written before his death, I might have thought he blessed them a long time before his death. Therefore it is written before his death to teach us that it was close to his death (Sifri cited by <i>Re”m</i>) 
  
  Verse 2
  
  He began with the praise of Hashem, etc. Rashi is answering the question: What relationship is there between the praise of Hashem and the blessings of the tribes? Thus he explains, He began, etc. 
  [He] also mentions the merit of the Israelites, etc. Otherwise, why not begin with the praise that He created the world or other praises of Hashem? 
  He went out to meet them, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why it written <i>from</i> Sinai? It should have said <i>to</i> Sinai. Therefore, he explains, He went out to meet them, etc. The explanation being that He was already at Sinai, and when Yisroel came, He went out from Sinai to meet them as it says, And Moshe brought the people toward (לקראת) [the Divine Presence of] Hashem, [leading them] out of the camp.” And the expression לקראתם (to meet them) is appropriate only when one is coming to meet the other. 
  To them. Rashi is explaining why the verse does not say to whom He appeared. Therefore he explains to them, i.e., to Yisroel. But regarding [He] radiated forth from Se’ir, he does not have to explain because there it is written to them (למו),” referring to Yisroel mentioned above. 
  To the Israelites. Rashi is answering why it does not say to whom He came? Thus he needs to explain, To the Israelites. 
  Part of the myriads of sacred angels, etc. Rashi is explaining that the מם of מרבבות means part of and not from. His proof is that we do not find anywhere a place called רבבות. Perforce the מם here means part of, and this is easy to understand. <i>Re”m explains that if the מם here means from, it would mean that Hashem left the myriads of sacred angels and came by Himself. If Rashi had not added the words with Him, the verse would be saying that part of the myriads sacred angels came, and this is not understandable [because why did they not all come], unless one adds the words with him. Rashi adds the words מלאכי (angels) before the word קודש (sacred), because the word sacred is [an adjective] that applies to something [a noun], such as in the verse (Shemos 22:30), אנשי קודש (men of holiness). And here [the noun is] the angels. Until here are his words. </i>
  In black flame on white flame. As people commonly write with ink on paper. The verse has to rearranged according to this explanation as if it is written, from His right [hand] to them—the flaming Torah law. And the explanation of the verse is as follows, From the writing of His right hand He gave them a law, which is the Torah that is written in black fire on white fire. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  Another interpretation, — אש דת as rendered by Targum [Onkelos], etc. [Rashi gives two interpretations] because according to the first interpretation one has to rearrange the [words in the] verse; therefore he gives another interpretation, etc. But according to the other interpretation one can ask that it should have said מאש דת, meaning from the fire, i.e., from white fire [as according to this interpretation there is no need to have both black and white fire]. Therefore he also needs the first interpretation.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  He cherished the tribes, etc. Rashi is explaining what the word also refers to, since the word also is inapplicable unless something similar precedes it. Therefore he explains, Also, with (this) surpassing love, etc. Meaning that it was already mentioned before His love for Yisroel and how He went from Sinai to meet them. Similarly, with this too there was surpassing love, etc. 
  They were worthy of this. The explanation of תכו is similar to תוך (within) except it is a verb, meaning that they entered at the bottom of Mount Sinai which is compared to His feet. Rashi says They are worthy of this in order to connect the statement for they were gathered at Your feet with the statement all their sacred ones are in Your keeping. It is as if the verse said, And why did these souls merit to be secreted beneath the Throne, etc. more than other people? Because they were gathered into, etc. 
  The מ"ם here relates to the root, etc. Rash is answering: Why do we need the “מם if the explanation [of מדברותיך] is Your Torah”? 
  Here too, “Your self-spoken” — that which You had spoken, etc. You cannot say that the “מם here is a prefix and means of, because if so it would imply that they did not accept the entire Torah upon themselves, when in reality they accepted all the 613 commandments. The difference between מתדבר and מדבר is as follows: מדבר implies that Hashem is speaking directly to a person, but this is not respectful toward the Above, that He speaks directly to man, just as a person speaking to his friend. However, מתדבר means to speak to oneself and someone else is listening. This is what Rashi explains, That which You had spoken, etc. The [first] יוד of ישא מדברותיך [converts the verb] to the future tense from the past tense [which, grammatically speaking would be correct] because at the time that Moshe blessed Yisroel, they had already received the entire Torah. Rashi says the yoke of Your Torah because the expression of burden is not applicable to speech. Therefore Rashi adds the word yoke, because the expression of burden is applicable to a yoke. 
  Another interpretation: “Even when the nations were cherished, etc.” even during the time when the Gentile nations were cherished, etc. According to this interpretation, the word אף [now translated as even] does not refer to what precedes it. This interpretation is more correct because the first interpretation does not explain well why it says אף חובב (He <i>also cherished) here. According to the other interpretation you might ask that how can the Torah write an expression of cherishment regarding idolaters. Even if He shows them a beaming countenance, this is only because He wants to deliver Yisroel into their hands, but no cherishment is involved. Therefore the first interpretation is also needed.
  </i>
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  The yoke of His sovereignty rests always upon them. Rashi is answering the question: Is the Holy One’s sovereignty only over Yisroel? His sovereignty is over everything! Rashi therefore explains “the yoke of His sovereignty, etc.” that although He is certainly king over the nations, however they do not accept upon themselves His sovereignty like Yisroel does. The explanation [of Rashi’s statement is]: Because Yisroel is always subservient before Him to fulfill all the commandments that He decreed on them. 
  At every gathering. “Of the counting” — the counting of their gathering, etc. I.e., they deserve a blessing. Rashi explains, how does the word ראש relates to counting? Therefore he explains that ראשי means the same as in “When you take count (ראש).” The verse is saying: Whenever they gather for a counting it is in Your honor and [at such times too] they accept the yoke of Your sovereignty upon themselves.
  
  These are worthy of my blessing. [Thus] this [verse] is connected to what comes afterwards, as if it said, Because of this, may Reuvein live, etc. [According to this interpretation], There was a king in Yeshurun is connected to what precedes it, The Torah which Moshe commanded us, etc. [As Rashi writes], We have embraced it, and we shall not forsake it, etc.,” and the Holy One, the yoke of His sovereignty rests always upon them. 
  Another interpretation: “When they gathered, etc.” [According to this interpretation], the statement There was a king in Yeshurun is connected with at the gathering, etc., [and is not a continuation of the previous verse]. And this is more correct. But according to the alternative interpretation you might ask why the verse mentions the word ראשי [now translated as heads]. Therefore he also gives the first interpretation. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  In this world. Meaning, that he should not die from a death incurred by excision. 
  In the World to Come. Meaning, that the righteous even in their death are called living.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  No stranger passed between them, etc. Meaning, that no stranger could compare to them. Alternatively, he juxtaposed the blessing of Yehudah to [the blessing of] Reuvein, and he did not bless Levi after blessing Reuvein. 
  Moshe said, “Who was responsible for Reuvein’s confession? Yehudah, etc.” According to this, Now this for Yehudah is an expression of surprise. [I.e., does Yehudah deserve that his bones roll in the coffin?!]. When Rashi explains, Who was responsible for Reuvein’s confession? he means, Who was responsible for Reuvein’s public confession? because Reuvein had confessed in private beforehand, as Rashi explained earlier in <i>parshas</i> Vayeishev (Bereishis 37:29), that [Reuvein] was occupied with his sack-cloth, etc., which was before the incident of Tamar and Yehudah. This indicates that Reuvein had already confessed. Perforce we must say that he was occupied with his sack-cloth, etc. in private. But after Yehudah had confessed, he was occupied with his sack-cloth even in public. So too answer Tosefos in Perek Hachovel (Bava Kamma 92a). 
  Another interpretation [of] “Hashem, hear the voice of Yehudah, etc.” [Rashi gives two interpretations] because according to the first interpretation, you might ask that it should have said Hashem, <i>accept</i> the voice of Yehudah, because if He [just] heard him but did not accept his prayer, what benefit would there be in listening? Therefore, he gives another interpretation so that the word שמע (listen) hints at Shimon’s name. And according to the alternative interpretation you might ask why Moshe hinted at Shimon’s blessing [specifically] in Yehudah’s blessing? And why did Shimon take a portion [specifically] within Yehudah’s inheritance? Therefore he also gives the first interpretation. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Regarding Levi he said. Because the verse says [afterwards] Your <i>tumim</i> and Your <i>urim</i> which is certainly addressed to the Shechinah, as Rashi explains. Therefore perforce Moshe was speaking not <i>to</i> Levi, but <i>regarding</i> Levi. 
  As Targum [Onkelos] renders. “You tested him at the waters of strife, and found him faithful.” Meaning, that through the quarrels at the waters of strife, you tested his heart and found him faithful. (Re”m) 
  You set a libel upon him to come with a spurious charge, etc. When Rashi writes to come with a spurious charge, this is the explanation of נסתקפת, You set a libel upon him. It [נסתקפת] is an expression of libel as Rashi explained above in <i>parshas Mikeitz (Bereishis 43:18), on the verse That he may turn on us. See there. </i>
  If Moshe exclaimed, “Now listen, rebels.” And on account of this, death was decreed on him and that he could not enter the land. This [interpretation] too is praise of the tribe of Levi. Rashi needs the other interpretation because according to the first interpretation you might ask that Moshe was not found faithful as he erred due to anger, and he was angry when he should not have been. Therefore he gives “another interpretation, etc.” And according to the other interpretation you might ask, were Aharon and Miriam equal to the entire tribe of Levi that the verse should say of them You brought him to strife, etc., which the verse implies as referring to the whole tribe of Levi. Therefore he gives the first interpretation where the whole tribe of Levi was faithful except for Moshe who sinned.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  You must not have other Gods. Meaning that which You told them Yourself, because they heard I am Hashem, your God, and You must not have any other gods from Hashem’s mouth. [Rashi says this] because otherwise the verse should have said They observed your <i>Torah</i>. 
  For, of those born in the wilderness, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It is written (Yechezkel 16:6), And I saw you wallowing in your bloods, and the sages expound, Two bloods, the blood of Pesach [offering] and the blood of circumcision, which indicates that all of Yisroel were circumcised in Egypt and in the wilderness. If so, what is the meaning of [The <i>Levi’im</i>] kept your covenant? Rashi therefore explains that it is referring to those born in the wilderness. (<i>Re”m</i>). But regarding those who went out of Egypt, they were all circumcised. This is an explicit verse (Yehoshua 5:5), For all those who went out were circumcised, but all those who were born in the wilderness, on the road when they went out of Egypt, they did not circumcise. Therefore Rashi [specifically] mentions the wilderness. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  They are worthy of this. Rashi is answering the question: When he is blessing the tribe of Levi here as [he blesses] the other tribes, why does he praise of the tribe of Levi before [bestowing] the blessing, more so than [he does with regards to] the blessings of the other tribes. Therefore he explains, They are worthy of this, etc., meaning that if he did not relate their praise beforehand, Yisroel would quarrel with Moshe for giving them the blessing, They shall teach your law, etc., since this was the best of all the blessings. They would say that Moshe gave them a good blessing because they were of his tribe. Therefore he related their praise beforehand, and afterwards he said, They are worthy of this blessing because of their great importance. 
  The olah. It is called by this name because it entirely consumed [on the altar] for the Above.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  He foresaw that Chashmonai and his sons, etc. Because according to the first interpretation one might ask, why did he give the tribe of Levi this blessing? They did not go out to war like the other tribes, but sat in the sanctuary of the King. Therefore he gives “Another interpretation, etc.” And according to the second interpretation you might ask why Scripture says <i>his</i> adversaries, for they [i.e. the Greeks] were the enemies of all Yisroel because the purpose of their decrees was to make them transgress the commandments. Therefore Rashi also gives the first interpretation. 
  Shatter his adversaries and enemies. I.e., shatter also refers to his adversaries, otherwise, how is [the phrase] his adversaries connected to above? 
  
  Verse 12
  
  Because Levi’s blessing was concerned with the sacrificial services, etc. Rashi is answering the question that if he was the youngest, why is his blessing given precedence?
  
  And because the Eternal Sanctuary is more cherished than Shiloh, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should at least have given precedence to Yoseif because he too had the tabernacle of Shiloh in his territory! Therefore he explains, Because, etc. 
  Eternally — once Jerusalem was chosen, etc. [Rashi says this] to exclude that you do not explain this as referring to the World to Come. Rashi is answering the question: Jerusalem is destroyed, so how can it be forever?! He answers, Once Jerusalem was chosen, etc. meaning that the sanctity was [indeed only] temporary, and [will return only to Jerusalem] in the future. Also, the <i>Shechinah</i> did not rest elsewhere afterwards. This is not the case regarding Gilgal, Nov and Shiloh. 
  At the pinnacle of his territory, etc. This is the meaning of shoulders, which are the highest of all the limbs. You might ask that if so, he should have built it at the top of the mountain which is even higher? Therefore Rashi explains, Except that it was, etc. below, etc. I.e., the place where the Beis Hamikdosh stood was twenty-three <i>amos</i> below Eitam spring. Therefore it is written between his shoulders and not on his head. You might ask how Rashi knows this. Therefore Rashi explains, It was there that David had intended to construct it. And why did he not do so? [But] they remarked, etc. This indicates that the Holy One did not want it built at the highest point of His land. Rashi [then] writes, why did He not want to build it at the highest point of His land but only between his shoulders? Because Nothing is pleasing, etc. (I found this in the name of Maharitz)  
  
  Verse 13
  
  For none of the tribal territories, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Are the territories of the other tribes not blessed? Therefore he explains, For none, etc. I.e., the other territories were also blessed, but the territory of Yoseif was [blessed] more than all of them. 
  As the waters of the deep rise. Meaning, they rise from below. 
  You find that, with all the tribes, etc. Rashi wants to prove how he knows that his explanation of and the depth that lie below is correct? Perhaps it is speaking of something else that lies [in] the depth [and not the waters of the depth]? Therefore he explains, You find, etc. And there with Yaakov it is written (Bereishis 49:25), The blessings of heaven from above, blessings of the depths that lie below. And there its meaning is certainly that the depth itself rises up from below, similar to the dew that comes from above, and if so, here too it is so.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Another interpretation. “The monthly yield.” Rashi is answering the question: It should have said גרש ירח (moon’s ripening) in the singular form. Why does it say ירחים (moons’)? He [therefore] explains, Which the earth sheds, etc. i.e., each month produces once again and therefore it is written moons’ in the plural form. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  Blessed, also, with the first-ripening fruits, etc. Rashi adds the word blessed to indicate that the phrase with the first, etc. is connected with blessed at the beginning of the verses. You might ask what prompted Rashi here to explain that the phrase with the first is connected with blessed at the beginning of the verses, more than the verse With the delight of the sun’s harvest, etc. which is also connected to the beginning of the verses? The answer is that if Rashi did not explain this I might have thought that this verse, With the first of the early mountains, etc. is a separate matter, and means that he should be blessed with the blessing of the Patriarchs who are called mountains and with the blessing of the Matriarchs who are called hills. Therefore he explains that with the first of the early mountains refers to the beginning of the verses that deals with the blessing of his Land. His proof that it refers to the beginning of the verses is because it is written afterwards, And from the sweetness of earth and its fullness, etc. that deals with the blessing of his Land; [this indicates that] all the verses are connected to the beginning of the verses. 
  Another interpretation: This teaches that their creation preceded that of the other mountains. The importance and praise of this is that the Holy One’s supervision over His Land is more than that over the other lands. Since it had precedence at Creation, the Holy One’s supervision also has precedence there. Rashi gives another interpretation because according to the first interpretation you might ask why the verse writes early, being that everything is already included in the word first. Therefore he gives another interpretation. And according to the other interpretation on its own you might ask why this is a blessing. Even though it indicates the land’s importance and praise, as we explained, it is nevertheless not a blessing. Therefore he needs the first interpretation. 
  Hills which are always productive, etc. Meaning, they never fail from producing fruit, even with a lack of rain. It is as if the verse said, With the sweetness of the hills that is constant without pause,” otherwise, what is the relevance of hills to this verse? 
  
  Verse 16
  
  This blessing on Yoseif’s head. Rashi adds the word blessing because without it, the verse does not indicate what will be visited upon Yoseif’s head. Therefore Rashi adds this blessing. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  בכור sometimes denotes grandeur and regency, etc. So here too בכור means grandeur; and it means The king descended from him. 
  Who was as supremely powerful as the ox, etc. Rashi is explaining why the comparison to an ox. 
  The ox is supremely powerful, but his horns are unattractive, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why the verse does not also compare Yoseif to an ox regarding his horns? Why does it compare him regarding his horns to a <i>re’em</i>? This explains why the Rabbis explain, as cited by Rashi in <i>parshas</i> Balak (Bamidbar 23:22), that <i>re’em</i> [there] means loftiness or demons and not an actual <i>re’em,</i> because there it is describing the power and might of the Holy One, and the <i>re’em</i> is extremely weak. 
  Is it possible that all of them were natives of Eretz Yisroel, etc.? This is a question of wonder. Since the land of Yisroel was only four hundred <i>parsah</i> by four hundred <i>parsah,</i> how then is it possible for thirty-one kings rule in the Land of Yisroel?!
  
  The territory coveted (צבי) by hordes of nations. And this is similar to the expression בצביונם (the form <i>chosen</i> for them) (Chullin 60a).
  
  Verse 18
  
  With the following five tribes whom he blessed last, etc. Rashi is explaining why Zevulun’s name is repeated, unlike any other tribe previously mentioned. 
  Zevulun and Yissachar entered into a partnership, etc. Rashi is explaining why Zevulun appears in the text before [the older] Yissachar.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  They shall assemble at Mount Moriah, etc. Meaning, at the pilgrimage festivals. You might ask: If so it should have said assemble and not invited. Therefore Rashi explains, Every assembly is through invitation, etc. Therefore, even though [the assembly] here is not by invitation, rather they came on their own, the verse still writes an expression of “invitation.” <i>Re”m</i> writes, My heart is dissatisfied with this [explanation] because יקראו should have been written with a <i>kamatz</i> under the קוף and the ריש with a <i>tzeirei to make it reflexive. [Whereas according to the punctuation of our verse, יקראו means ‘they assemble them,’ wrongly implying that Yisachar and Zevulun assemble the people]. It seems to me that אסיפה here means inviting as we explained, and [the active conjugation means not that Yisachar and Zevulun assemble them, but that] they assemble on their own to fulfill Hashem’s commandment to come up on pilgrimage festivals. And because other assemblies are by invitation, Scripture here writes יקראו instead of יתאספו. And it is not reflexive and therefore it is not punctuated with reflexive punctuation. (So it seems to me). <i>Re”m further writes, However, I do not know what relevance there is to mentioning the assembling of the tribes at Mount Moriah within the blessing of Yisachar and Zevulun?” In truth, I do not know why he does not know, because [apparently] Rashi himself was aware of this question and he writes, Based on their arrangement of the time [divisions] and of the leap year—‘Peoples,’ of the tribes of Yisroel, — ‘Shall assemble at the mountain,’ Mount Moriah, etc. Perhaps <i>Re”m wrote what he wrote because he had a [different] erroneous text. This is easy to understand. (So it seems to me). </i></i></i>
  And there slaughter, during the festivals, righteous offerings. Rashi wants to show the connection between the verses. Therefore he adds a <i>vav</i> [and] to indicate that they will [all] slaughter righteous offerings on the festivals, even though they bring offerings there every day of the year. Therefore Rashi adds and in order to connect the phrases of the verse together. 
  Affording them the opportunity, etc. Rashi explains, what blessing is there in this [unless they can study Torah]? 
  טרית (tuna). טרית is a kind of fish named <i>tunina. </i>
  Zevulun, a people disdainful of their souls in seeking death, etc. It is talking about Zevulun there, who wished death for himself because Naftoli was on the loftiest ground. The Gemara asks on this [verse]: A people disdainful of their souls, that just because Naftoli was on the loftiest ground he should seek death for himself? The Gemara answers, Zevulun lamented, etc. and to me you only gave seas. The Holy One, Blessed Is He answered him, To you I gave the sea from where you can take tuna, etc. 
  Translated by Targum as “lined with a cedar covering.” Meaning that it covers the beams with cedar.
  
  Another interpretation. “Gentile nations shall assemble at the mountain, etc.” Because according to the first interpretation you might ask why it says <i>There</i> will they slaughter righteous offerings, are not <i>all</i> offerings slaughtered there? Also, what is [the meaning of] <i>righteous</i> offerings? Are not all offerings [wherever they are permitted] righteous offerings? Therefore he gives another interpretation, etc. And according to the other interpretation too, you might ask that it should have said explicitly [that they at least retract from idolatry], because before bringing offerings they need conversion, [retraction] from their idolatry! Therefore he also needs the first interpretation. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  The breadth of Gad’s border ranged eastward. Rashi is answering the question: Gad’s [western] border reached no further than the Jordan, if so what is the meaning, Blessed is the One who broadens Gad? Therefore Rashi explains that it broadened eastward and not westward. 
  Because he was near the border, etc. <i>Re”m</i> writes, I do not understand Rashi’s intent here. How does Rashi know that Gad is compared to a lion because he was close to the border? Perhaps he is compared to a lion because he was strong as a lion? The answer may be that only Gad is compared to a lion [here], but not Yehudah who is compared to a lion in Yaakov’s blessing. Therefore he has to explain, ‘For all those near the border must be supremely powerful.’ It seems to me that Rashi says this because shortly before he said that their names were repeated to strengthen and empower them because they were weak. In accordance to that he explains here Because he was close to the border, etc., since one cannot say the reason [he is compared to a lion] is that he was strong as a lion as he was one of the weak [tribes]. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  In the territory of Sichon and Og, which was foremost in the conquest, etc. Rashi adds the word conquest so that ראשית (foremost) [which serves as an adjective] is connected with the word after it, because there is no case where ראשית is not connected with the word after it. Rashi explains so explicitly at the beginning of <i>parshas Bereishis (1:1). </i>
  For he knew that there, in his territory, was the plot [of the great scribe’s burial ground]. Rashi has to say this because the plain meaning of the verse implies that the great scribe’s is already buried there, and this is not so since Moshe was still alive at that time. Therefore he explains that he knew through tradition or prophecy. By adding the word burial Rashi also rectifies [a misunderstanding], as the verse implies that the great scribe had a portion in the land as it says, חלקת מחוקק ספון (lit. the great scribe’s plot), whereas Moshe did not have a portion or inheritance in the land. Therefore he explains, The plot of the great scribe’s burial ground. He adds the word field because חלקת (plot, but lit. portion) implies a portion of something and one needs to know of what is it a portion. Therefore Rashi adds the word field as in the verse (Ruth 4:3), The portion of the field that belonged to our brother. 
  That plot is concealed, hidden, etc. Rashi says this so that one should not say that the great scribe is hidden, but rather the place of his burial, i.e., the plot he is buried in, as it is written (below 34:6), No man knows his burial place. There are those who question, how is it possible to say that Moshe’s burial place is in Gad’s inheritance? Was not his burial at Mount Nevo, as it is written below (34:1), Moshe went up from the plains of Moav to Mount Nevo etc. and Mount Nevo was in the inheritance of Reuvein as it is written in <i>parshas</i> Matos (Bamidbar 32:37-38), The tribe of Reuvein built up Cheshbon, etc. [and] Nevo, etc. It seems to me that the plain of Nevo was large and the town was established in the plain, while the mountain was in the portion of Gad. And because the mountain and town originally belonged to one person, the mountain was called by the town’s name. Also, it was not all that far from the town and it was situated in the plain of the town. Therefore the mountain was named after the town. 
  Another interpretation: “He came” — Moshe, etc. Because according to the first interpretation you might ask why it says [specifically] of Gad that he came at the head of the people, since Reuvein and the half tribe of Menashe also went before their brothers. Therefore he gives another interpretation. And according to the alternative interpretation you might ask why it mentions Moshe’s righteousness in the blessing of Gad. Therefore he gives the first interpretation.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  The Yardein originated from his portion. I.e., from the portion of Don. 
  From the cavern of Pamias, etc. “The cavern of Pamias” is the Talmud’s term. Scripture calls it Leshem. 
  As it is said, “They called Leshem ‘Don.’” I.e., because it was his portion. 
  It bounds forth, flowing from Bashan. Meaning that the river that it is in the portion of Gad and goes past Pamias, [actually] comes forth from Bashan, which is the name of a location, and it is not in Don’s territory. 
  Another interpretation: Just as the bounding flow emanates from a single source, etc. Because according to the first interpretation you might ask that according to its plain meaning, the verse is speaking of the actual tribe of Don and not about the Jordan, since the verse makes no mention about the Jordan. Therefore he gives another interpretation, etc. And according to the other interpretation by itself you might also ask why it says bounding from the Bashan since he did not take a portion in Bashan? Therefore he also gives the first interpretation. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  He also took a measure of fully spread fishnet rope, etc. Meaning, he took a measure of fully rope to spread nets and traps. חרמים has the same meaning as מכמורות and is a repetition.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  He found favor with his brothers with oil, etc. It was taught in a Beraisa: R’ Yehudah says, “אנפיקינון is oil of olives that had not reached a third [of their size]. And why do they anoint with it? Because it removes the hair and beautifies the skin (Pesachim 43a). 
  Another interpretation: “He shall be favored by his brothers,” since his daughters were beautiful, etc. Because according to the first interpretation you might ask why he was more favored to his brothers than his brothers were to him, since they found favor with him through produce [they supplied him with]. And according to the other interpretation you might ask that the verse should say, May Asher be blessed with daughters since his daughters were beautiful, or at least include the daughters with the sons and write, May Asher be blessed with sons and daughters. Therefore he also gives the first interpretation. 
  “He was the father of Birzayis,”as his daughters were married, etc. You might ask that if so it should have said [his name was] <i>Baszayis</i> (daughter of olive)? The answer is that the children of his daughters were like his own children, because grandchildren are [considered] as one’s own children, and regarding them it says Birzayis (son of olive). (In the name of the Maharitz) 
  They appointed an emissary. Meaning an emissary, and he went and found much oil in his land. 
  
  Verse 25
  
  Another interpretation: Your locks are iron and copper, etc. Because according to the first interpretation you might ask what is the relevance of copper to locks, since people generally make locks only from iron. Also, the verse does not mention bolts. Therefore he gives another interpretation. And according to the other interpretation you might ask why it says this specifically about Asher, since other tribes also settled at the border and mountains surrounded their territory. Therefore the first interpretation is also needed. This is easy to understand. 
  Asher locked-in Eretz Yisroel. Rashi is answering the question: Why this is mentioned in the blessing of Asher more so than [in the blessings of] the other tribes, since it is a blessing that could [otherwise] apply to all the tribes? 
  Which [generally] flow downward, droop, and decline. Rashi is answering how days of old age are connected to [the word] דבאך. 
  Another interpretation: According to your days, shall be your stream, etc. Because according to the first interpretation you might ask that it should have said, As your youth so may be your declining days. Therefore Rashi gives another interpretation. And according to the alternative interpretation alone you might ask that it should have said According to your deeds, shall be your stream. Therefore he also needs the first interpretation. 
  Which are beneficial to you — according to the number of your days, etc. Meaning, all the time that your days are called days, i.e., all the days you do Hashem’s will, so shall be your stream as all the countries shall stream, etc. But when you do not do Hashem’s will, your days are not called days, as the sages say (Berachos 18b), The wicked are called dead even during their lifetime. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  That none is comparable to Hashem, among all the Gentile deities and not like your Mighty Rock is their rock. Why does Rashi cite the words and not, etc. [seemingly] for no reason? One might say that he is answering the question: Why the verse does not say, אין כאלהי ישורון (there is none like the God of Yeshurun) as it says (Psalms 96:5), “כל אלהי העמים אלילים (for all the gods of the nations are things of nothingness).” Why does the verse say אין כאל? Regarding this he explains [that the verse means], For not like your [Mighty] Rock is their rock. And אל too is an expression of might as it says (Yechezkel 17:13), And he took away the mighty (אילי) of the land. Therefore it also says אין כאל, which is an expression of might. 
  He is the God, etc. The letter שין [i.e., the word Who] is missing as [it is missing] in (Shemos 18:20) את הדרך ילכו בה, The path [that] they must walk in. Because without this [Rashi’s interpretation] there would be no way to understand and, in His pride, the high heavens, which means, and in His pride He straddles the high heavens, since straddles at the beginning of the verse also refers to the high heavens at the end of the verse. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  The heavens are as the dwelling, etc. Since this verse is connected to the previous verse and means, In His pride He straddles the high heavens which are the dwelling of the eternal God. He is called the earliest God here to explain why he chose the high heavens as His dwelling place; because He preceded all the gods. 
  Below His dwelling, [all the strong-armed reside]. Meaning that beneath Him all the strong-armed reside, such as Sichon and Og, etc. The verse says that they are beneath in order to describe their weakness. Even though they are the powerful ones of long ago, but because they dwell below, they quake before Him, because the exalted are always fearsome, etc. And because the Mighty One is your aid, He will banish all your enemies from your presence and say to you, Destroy them. (<i>Re”m</i>) 
  And said to you, “Destroy!” them. Rashi adds the word to you after said to inform to whom this statement is said. He also adds the word them after the word destroy, to inform us that the word destroy refers to the enemy mentioned above, and it is as if it said, And said to you, ‘Destroy the enemy.’ 
  
  Verse 28
  
  Each and every individual, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why do we need the word בדד, once it says בטח, securely? For Rashi explained above in <i>parshas Ha’azinu (32:12) [on the verse, ה' בדד ינחנו], Hashem conducted them alone, in security. Thus בדד also connotes security. He answers that here בדד means each and every individual etc. </i>
  As in, “Its likeness was similar to crystal, etc.” Whose meaning is, in the likeness of crystal and its appearance. Here too it means, in the likeness of Yaakov’s blessing. 
  Not like the isolation Yirmiyahu mentioned. Rashi is explaining why the verse needs to say that the blessing is in the likeness the blessing of Yaakov, which implies not in the likeness of another blessing. [Which is the other blessing?] He therefore explains, not in the likeness of the blessing of Yirmiyahu, etc. 
  Also, Yitzchak’s blessing, etc. Meaning, not only Yaakov’s blessing will be fulfilled regarding you, but also Yitzchak’s blessing. I.e., this blessing is like the blessing of Yaakov [that he gave to his sons], and also like the blessing of Yitzchak where it says (Bereishis 27:28), And may G-d give you of the <i>dew</i> of heaven. Therefore Yitzchak’s blessing is alluded to in the words shall drip <i>dew</i>. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  Your salvation is in Hashem, etc. Rashi says your salvation instead of a people saved, because the verse should have said a people saved <i>by</i> Hashem. Therefore he emended this by writing your salvation is <i>in</i> Hashem, meaning that your salvation is dependent upon Him. However, the explanation your salvation would be unconnected to anything preceding it or following it, therefore he adds the word who. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  There were a number of elevations, etc. Otherwise, the verse should only have said Moshe went up to Mount Nevo. Why does it say from the plains of Moav”? Do we not know already that Moshe was in the plains of Moav since the whole of Devarim was taught in the plains of Moav? 
  He showed him all of Eretz Yisroel in its tranquility, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should only have said the entire land until the rearward sea. Why do I need all these details, the Gilod, etc.? And because of this reason he [also] has to explain [what is hinted in] the Negev and the plain, etc.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  So that you may go forth and say to Avraham, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why the verse says saying? It is so that you may go forth and say, etc. According to this, it seems to me that the phrases in the verse should be rearranged and the phrase I have shown it to you should appear earlier. It is as if Hashem said, “This is the land that I swore, etc., I have shown it to you with your eyes to say, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’
  
  However, it has been decreed before Me. Rashi is answering the question: If so, why did He not take him over so he would be able to see more and tell them? Therefore Rashi says However, etc. 
  Were it not for this, I would have sustained you, etc. Meaning, were it not for the oath [that Moshe would not enter]. Even though it is written (above 31:2), I am 120 years old today, [and Rashi explains], Today my days and years are completed, so that even were it not for the oath he would die since his days were completed, nevertheless, I would have sustained you [even longer]. (In the name of the Maharitz). It seems to me that when Rashi explains, Today my days and years are completed, etc. he means, when saying his days were completed, that on this day I was born and on this day I will die. But regarding his years [i.e., age], because of his merit, if not for the sin he would have lived long [even more than 120 years] as his father lived long, and he would have merited to enter the land. But because of the sin he did not live [so] long and his years were completed now. You cannot say that this is [considered] shortened years [and cannot be called completed years], since the span of our years is [normally] seventy years, and when one lives longer, it is because of his merit. According to what I wrote in the name of Maharitz this question is also answered [since he explains that Moshe did reach his allotted time span].
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  While Moshe wrote with teardrops. Some explain, with teardrops and not with ink, in order to differentiate between these eight verses and the entire Torah, so that one person should read them [during the Torah reading] and not two; and without any interruption. And some explain that he shed tears as he was writing. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  The Holy One, Blessed is He, in His glory. They expound this since the two are juxtaposed to each other. By the mouth of Hashem [followed by] He buried him.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  His moistness. He was not subject to decay, etc. This is the meaning of his freshness did not fade. His countenance was not disfigured is the meaning of his appearance was not dulled, meaning that his appearance did not alter even after he died. Because otherwise Scripture should have written, And Moshe was 120, etc. at his death in the plains of Moav, his appearance was not dulled, etc., as it is written above regarding Aharon (Bamidbar 33:39), Aharon was 123 years old at his death on Hor Hohor. Thus [we infer] that the reason it does not say in the plains of Moav here is in order to juxtapose at his death to his appearance was not dulled, to teach that even in his death his appearance was not dulled, etc. Analyze this. (So it seems to me). <i>Re”m</i> explains: And that which he writes, ‘even after his death,’ is according to the Midrash, because otherwise how does he know? Perhaps it is speaking of when he was alive as [the sages] comment [Sotah 13b) on the verse, I cannot any longer go forth and return, as Rashi explains above in <i>parshas</i> Vayelech (31:2) [that this refers to while he was still alive].
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  He [Moshe] had an easy familiarity with Him, etc. Rashi is answering the question: How one can possibly speak of Hashem having a face when He has no image or form? Therefore he explains that the meaning is not according to the plain connotation, but rather it means like a person who has easy familiarity with his fellow and speaks to him any time he desires. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  He received the Torah, etc. Meaning that, For the entire strong hand refers to Moshe, and it means that he had the strength and power to take the Tablets in his hands even though they were very heavy. But it does not mean as everywhere else that it refers to Hashem, because if so it should have said, And for the entire strong hand that Moshe performed by the mouth of Hashem. 
  When he took the liberty of shattering the tablets, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said to all of Yisroel! Why does it say in view of all Yisroel? 
  The Holy One, Blessed Is He consented to his opinion, etc. Rashi is answering the question: If the verse is now coming to relate Moshe’s praises, is this praise to Moshe that he broke the Tablets? Therefore he explains, The Holy One, Blessed Is He consented, etc. You might ask, how does the Midrash know to expound which (אשר) you shattered means More power to you (יישר כחך) for shattering them? Perhaps אשר has the same meaning as it has everywhere else? The Ramban already answered in the first chapter of Bava Basra (14b) that this is expounded by juxtaposition. It is written above (10:2) [And I will write on the Tablets the words that were on the original Tablets] that you smashed, and you will place them [i.e. the smashed Tablets in the case]. We see [from this juxtaposition], that the smashed Tablets were beloved to Hashem, since if their smashing was displeasing to Him, He would not have said to place them in an ark, because “an accuser cannot become an advocate.” Therefore, because of this juxtaposition [over there], they expound אשר [here] as meaning אשרי (increase), [i.e. more power]. So far are his words. See his commentary on tractate Shabbos (87a).
  