Whether physically sound or blemished. Otherwise, why does the Torah write “the entire tribe of Levi” after it had written “the kohanim, 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 parshas 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 terumah and bikkurim, the firstborn, challah, and the forelimb, etc. have tovas hano’ah in their offerings, i.e. they can give them to any kohein they choose, and they usually give these items to physically sound kohanim who can perform the sacrificial service and not to blemished kohanim 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 terumah-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 kohanim 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 kohanim etc. a portion, etc.,” it repeats it and concludes with this [same statement]. (Re”m)

“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].

But not from the kohanim. Kohanim are exempt from having to give the gifts from their animals to another kohein. 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, espaldonin Old French. And shoivil in German.

Including the tongue. Otherwise, why would the kohein 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 kohanim merited [to receive] the foreleg which represents the hand of Pinchas as it says, “And he took, etc.”

One sixth of an eiphah**(וששיתם האיפה).** This denotes a sixth.

From a chomer. I.e. a kur.

Now one sixth of an eiphahis half a se’ah. etc. Because an eiphah is three se’ah and it is written, “Give one sixth of an eiphah from a chomer of barley,” which means you should separate a sixth of an eiphah from a kur, which is half a se’ah for thirty se’as. 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 kohein, 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 kohein, etc. because one is obligated regarding the gifts even when he has only one animal. Perforce, it is referring to the first shearing.

Perhaps it is literally to the Levite that Scripture refers?, etc. I.e. an actual descendant of Levi, to exclude a kohein. Or perhaps the verse includes a kohein also, because a kohein 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 kohein, that he is permitted to come and offer up, etc. Because this is implied in the word “with all his soul’s desire,” 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 kohanim 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 musaf-offering of festivals that come because of the festival, and not to things which do not pertain to the festival.

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] kohanim only have a portion in the musaf-offerings of the festivals, and these musaf-offerings are burnt offerings and sin-offering goats as it says in parshas Pinchas. And they offer up the burnt offerings completely to Hashem and the kohanim receive only their skins. But [regarding] the sin-offering goats, the kohein receives [their skins and also] their meat after the burnt portions have been offered up.

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.”

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 Perek Arba Misos (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.

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.”

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. (Re”m)

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.

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 him,” 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.

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.

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 parshas 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). 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.”