meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Mizrachi/Torah/Mizrachi/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mizrachi
  מזרחי
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mizrachi
  
  Genesis
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ... And it appears to me that they derived this from that which it is written,  vayigal, which is an expression of revealing (gilui), and not vayigalgel, which is an expression of rolling (gilgul). 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ... And that which he says, "and discards the pebbles," has no relation to the comparison; but it is rather only the end of the parable (a tangential detail). 
  
  Exodus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Some commentators explain: Because it is written et (a preposition indicating action upon the object,) Pithom and et Raamses," it implies that they were already in the world before the Israelites built them. As if you say that they were named Pithom and Raamses after they built them, it should have written, "And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses..." But this is not correct. For behold, we find (Genesis 10:11), "and he built et Nineveh and et Rechoboth the city and et Kalach," the explanation of which is Nineveh and Rechoboth the city, that exist in the world now. Here too [it means], Pithom and Raamses that are now in the world; and like (Genesis 2:14), "it is the one that flows east of Assyria," today - and not in those days. Rather the correct understanding of this is...  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ..."Why was the section of the laws made adjacent to the [section about the] altar": And is it not the case that Rashi only cited those that expounded about the adjacency of sections when they are not written in [chronological] order - when they [expounded in a manner] that was close to the simple meaning of Scripture? But not those sections that are not understood as being out of order - as there is no need to give a reason for their adjacency...
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  I might have inferred that mere smiting without resultant death [is subject to the death penalty]: It is a wonder how it could come to one's mind that he would be killed for hitting without [killing] - and behold, it is written (verses 18-19), "and he struck his neighbor with a stone... and he did not die, and the one who struck is cleared, yet he must give his rest, etc." And Rashi himself wrote there, s.v. "And the one who struck is cleared," "And would it come to one's mind that this one who did not kill would be killed?"
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  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
  
  ... As even though Moses did not need to say this, since He already promised that He, Himself, would go with them; he nonetheless wanted to make known Israel's love of His going with them. So he said that if, God forbid, He had not agreed to go with them, they would not have gone up from there until they died - them, their wives, their children, their infants and all that they had. And the wonder is about Ramban, who argued and said, "God forbid that Moses should say, "If your presence does not go," once He promised, "My presence will go!"
  
  Leviticus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  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
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  ...On account of proper behavior, such that a man should not say even about something that is clear to him, "[It is] certain," but rather, "[There is] a doubt." And this is what the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 4a), "Teach your tongue to say, "I don't know.'"
  
  Numbers
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  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
  
  ...And I have not known what forced the Sages, may their memory be blessed, that they should say that this section is connected with the distant section of inheritances (27:7); and not to "Go up to the mountain..." (27:12-15), which is adjacent to it - meaning to say that once Moses heard that the decree upon him was in force, and he gave up asking for himself, he requested to appoint someone else in his place?...
  
  Deuteronomy
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  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
  
  He added, "things," as the word, "all," is always attached to another word. And see that before it was written (4:16), "the likeness of all symbols."
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ...And the word, "him/it," is to make known that "your brother" is an object; as if it had said, "until you investigate your brother." And at the outset, it appears that that "your brother" is the subject, and "him/it" refers to the lost item. And therefore, [Rashi] raised the difficulty, "But would it ever enter your mind that one could give it back before [the claimant] inquires about it?" So he answered, that "your brother" is the object, and "him/it" [refers to] your brother. And he [hence] comes to clarify that it is an object; and that the subject is the one who has the lost object in his hand, such that he should investigate the claimant of the lost object, that he is not a swindler...