This prohibits causing the piguldisqualification 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 sefer Vayikra (7:18) and in parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:8), it is written that one is forbidden to eat pigul, but it does not specify whether the person who made it pigul 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 pigul, 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.

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].

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].

“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 gateposts (ובשעריך) (above 6:9).”

None are liable as “conspiring witnesses” unless all are convicted as conspirators. You might ask, why does Rashi write, “And none are liable, etc.”? He should have written, “Hence 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:] And 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.

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). Re”m 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).

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.

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.

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. Re”m 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 see and fear”? It is written “hear and fear,” which indicates only hearing. Research this in the commentaries.

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 this route, i.e. from Eretz Yisroel to Egypt, but from other countries it is permitted. This is correct.

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.

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.

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.

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.”