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.” 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 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 mitzvos to them, as will he explains later.

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 all the places.” I.e., here he recounted all the places 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' (that they became guilty to Hashem in the wilderness). 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.

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] (Re”m).

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 Re”m who elaborates at length).

The Shechinaattempted 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.

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.

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. Re”m says: (If this is not so, then) the verse should say ובאדרעי (and in Edrei).

[The word הואילmeans] 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].

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 (Enough of your living).” Why does it use the term רב (lit. a lot)? Therefore, Rashi explains: But there is an Aggadic interpretation.

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 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.

No one will contest this matter, etc. Otherwise, how could he say to them “Come,” for the Land had not yet been conquered?!

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.”

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 Maharitz). The phrase לרוב (as numerous) means: In the future, 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 (Re”m).

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 mitzvos and the Torah.

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.

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 (Re”m).

Righteous men. Why did Rashi not explain this above regarding, “Send for yourself men, 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 אשמםlacks the letter yud, etc. The word אשמם is an expression of אשמה (guilt). Although it should have said, “Your guilt (ואשמכם) is placed upon your heads,” since this whole section is in the second person, nevertheless, we do not question an exegesis (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 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.”

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.

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? Re”m 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 Re”m 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 (Re”m). 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.

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, Re”m 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 halacha or to sit idly, which is no longer the case.

Who accumulates words against him, etc. The word גרו is missing an alef, 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 resident or citizen). For if so, why is the letter vav of גרו necessary? However, there is a difficulty with this explanation, for then גרו is missing an 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.

Even [a dispute] about an oven and a range. Because it is written גרו, and the letters gimmel and 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.

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 to the judge 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 Targum Onkelos has [adding the word מילי (matter)]: Litigation involving a peruta should be as dear to you, etc. Rashi’s [first] explanation is Talmudic (Sanhedrin 8a), and the last two are from Sifrei (Nachalas Yaakov).

So if a [minor litigation] comes before you first, etc. For if you [incorrectly] think to interpret this verse literally as, “Whether the defendant 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.” (Re”m).

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 aleph], an expression similar to אוגר בקיץ (gathering in the summer) (Mishlei 10:5). Therefore, the first reason is also needed. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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... first.”

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. Re”m 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. Re”m 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 go with them,” for this was already written above in Parshas Shlach Lecha.

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.

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 (Re”m).

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. Re”m 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. Re”m 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: “For one, because of Adonoy’s hatred of us etc.,” — this is for the comparison to the dry field and watered field. “And furthermore, in order to put us, etc.” The word בעל means a dry and arid land that requires irrigation.

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].”

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).

The word לראתכםis the same as להראתכם, etc. The pasach vowel under the ל is a substitute for the missing ה.

This refers to Chevron, etc. Rashi is explaining: Is the entire Land going to be given to Koleiv!

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.”

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 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.

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 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 do,” then it is comparing them only to the way that bees act, etc.

You made His attribute of compassion, etc. For otherwise, the name Adonoy denotes compassion — so why then is it mentioned regarding punishment? (Devek Tov).

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.