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 [hitpa’elverb 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 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.

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!

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.

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.

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 metzora.

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 metzora. The Gemora (Kiddushin 57a) asks, “I would say the opposite — forbid the [metzora’s] 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. Re”m asks: If [this reasoning is] so, then why is the phrase, “[You may eat] any pure bird,” needed to permit the released bird? Re”m answers: The explanation, “Any pure bird — this permits the released bird,” is only an asmachta [a loose interpretation]. Also Rashi there says this explicitly (ibid.).

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 da’ah and the ra’ah,” to [include what was said in Vayikra and merely] add [the ra’ah] to it? This would be similar to what is said in Chulin (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, “da’ah,” yet here it says, “ra’ah,” but not, “da’ah”? Rather, this indicates that ra’ah and da’ah are one and the same. Therefore Scripture here does not write “da’ah.” For if it did, I would think that the ra’ah and the da’ah are different animals, and that the verse is coming to add [the ra’ah]. For this reason the verse here only says, “ra’ah,” to teach that the da’ah and ra’ah are one and the same. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: If so [that the da’ah and ra’ah are the same], then the verse should say, “and the ra’ah according to its kind,” to include the da’ah mentioned in Vayikra. For this reason Rashi explains, “The ra’ah, ayah, and dayah 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 ra’ah and (ואת) the ayahand the dayah according to its kind”? Why is the word ואת, which interrupts between the words ra’ah and ayah, 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 “ra’ah” because its vision is exceedingly powerful, as is taught in Chulin (ibid.), “While standing in Babylon it can see a carcass in the Land of Israel.” Re”m’s explanation is most difficult to understand. See the Gemora (ibid.).

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.

Sanctify yourselves by abstaining from that which is permitted, etc. Re”m 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 terumah-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.

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 second 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).