Scripture positioned going to war, ... to teach, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have juxtapositioned over here the judiciary laws of parshas Ki Seitzei (below 21:22), “If a man is guilty of a capital offense, etc.,” and the other capital offenses mentioned there. He answers, “To teach, etc.”

Another interpretation. To teach that if you judge righteously, etc. According to the first interpretation you might ask that “eye for eye” mentioned here is referring to money and not the lacking of a body part. Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation, etc.” And according to the other interpretation on its own you might ask that it should have juxtapositioned this to the beginning of the parsha where it is written (above 16:18), “And they shall judge the people righteous justice, etc.”

Consider them enemies. Otherwise, why does Scripture write “against your enemy”? Obviously, if they go out to war they are not going out against friends!

Do not pity them, etc. One may ask: This is already explicitly written below (v. 13) “And you shall smite all its males by the sword”! Furthermore, why is it written afterwards (v. 14) “However, the women and the children, etc.” yet here Scripture implies that they should not pity them at all! The answer is: Below Scripture is dealing with a war that does not involve direct combat, rather [it is dealing] with the conquest of a city. The proof is that it is written [there] (v. 13) “Adonoy, your God, will deliver it into your hand, and therefore it written “However, the women and the children etc.” But here we are dealing with a war that involves direct combat, so you are not to pity them at all.

It says, “When Pharaoh’s horse approached.” Why does Rashi not cite the verse (Shmos 14:23) “כל סוס פרעה (lit. every horse of Pharaoh’s)” which precedes it? The answer is that he does not cite this previous verse because it is written,כל סוס , “every horse,” and כל comes to cite something additional, so that it is as if it had written “each and every horse of Pharaoh.” Therefore he cites the verse “when Pharaoh’s horse approached” which cannot be explained in this manner. It seems to me that this [verse cited by Rashi] is a textual error; Sifrei cites the verse (ibid. 15:1), סוס ורוכבו רמה בים" (horse and its rider He threw into the sea).” (Nachalas Yaakov)

In your eyes they are numerous, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: It is written “horse and chariot” which implies that in the eyes of the Holy One Blessed Is He they are all like one horse, yet afterwards Scripture writes “עם רב (people more numerous than you)”! And he answers, “In your eyes, etc.”

Near your departure, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: Scripture should have written, “And as you go out to battle”! Therefore he explains, “Near, etc.” You might ask, how does Rashi know it means near the border? Perhaps it means actually drawing near to the battle? The answer is since it is written in the next verse, “Hear, Yisroel, [you are setting out today to battle], etc.,” this indicates that [the Torah] already mentions it [drawing near to battle]. [If so], why does the verse say “as you near etc”? This must mean that when they are near the border the kohein makes these conditions. See Sotah (42a).

He was entitled “The one annointed for warfare.” Because it is written afterwards, “ודברו השוטרים (the officers will address, etc.)” כהן is juxtaposed to שוטרים, to teach that just as the officers have someone appointed over them, namely judges, so too, the kohein has someone appointed over him, namely the high priest, because the high priest is more important than him.

In the sacred Hebrew tongue. Because it is written here, “And speak to the people,” and elsewhere in parshas Vayishma Yisro (Shmos 19:19) it is written, “Moshe spoke and Hashem responded with [His] voice.” Just as there it was in the sacred Hebrew tongue, i.e., the Ten Commandments, so too, “and speak to the people” is in the sacred Hebrew tongue (Sotah ibid). Alternatively, it is written regarding Yosef (Bereishis 45:12), “That I speak to you with my own mouth.” Just as there it was in the sacred Hebrew tongue, so here too it is in the sacred Hebrew tongue.

Other than the reading of the Shema, etc. Otherwise, why do I need [the verse to say] “Hear Yisroel etc”? Scripture [already] writes, “The kohein shall approach and speak to the people, etc.”

They will be merciless towards you, etc. Otherwise, it is already written “When you go to war against your enemy.”

The Gentile monarchs do. They fasten their armor plates, etc. Meaning, they attach their [armor] plates one to another so as the plates strike against each other they emit a clamor.

From the horses’ neighing (צהלת**).** Meaning, the neighing of the horses is called צהלת.

This refers to the camp of the sacred ark. Because it is impossible to say that it refers to the Holy One Blessed Is He that He marches with you, since the whole world is full of His glory. Therefore he explains, “This refers to the camp, etc.”

This is a matter of great anguish. Otherwise, what difference does it make if he inaugurates it or if someone else does?

For if he does not follow the instructions of the koheinetc. I.e., he certainly returns in order to protect those [who return because of their transgressions], etc. [Therefore] if the kohein told him to return and he does not return, he transgresses the words of the kohein and deserves to die in battle because of this sin, and this goes according to the opinion [of R’ Yosi Hagalili] that there is no death without sin. This answers why [in some texts] Rashi explains “lest he die in battle” at the end and not according to the order of the text that is written in the verses, because he is explaining according to [the view of] R’ Yosi Hagalili. (In the name of the Maharitz, and this is similar to Re”m’s explanation).

R’ Yosi Hagalili said, one who is afraid because of his transgressions, etc. Rashi means to say, R’ Yosi Hagalili is of the opinion that there cannot be death without transgression, and thus, if he is without transgression, why should he be afraid of battle? So most certainly he is afraid of his transgressions. But now Rashi questions: If there is no death without transgression, why then does the Torah decree to return [from going to battle] because of one’s house, or vineyard or wife [to protect those who return because of their transgressions]? If they [the latter] are without transgressions, they do not return even because of a house, or vineyard or wife according to R’ Yosi Hagalili! Rashi answers that they certainly do not have transgressions. But the Torah decrees that they return in order “to protect those who return because of their transgressions, etc.” Rashi then questions that according to R’ Yosi Hagalili who says that the reason that they return because of a house, vineyard or wife is in order to protect those who return because of their transgressions, why does Scripture write regarding each one of these “lest he die in battle,” which implies that he returns because of [fear of] death? This indicates that there is death without transgression! Rashi answers: [This is what Scripture is saying:] “Lest he die in battle, etc.” [He should return lest he die, for if he transgresses the words of the kohein, he deserves to die.]”

Do not run away, for running away is the beginning of downfall. Rashi is of the opinion that whoever flees ends up having a downfall because it says (Shmuel I 31:1), “And the men of Israel fled from before the Plishtim and they fell corpses in Mount Gilboa.” And so it says in Sotah (44b).

Even if you should find in it members of the seven nations, etc. You might ask, why do we need a verse [to teach us this]? We can derive this from the inclusionary term, “And you capture prisoners from them,” which teaches us to include the Canaanites among them, as Rashi explains later (21:10)! The answer is that if [we learnt this] from there, one might have thought that only if they were found in a town that did not make peace [with you] where one is obligated to kill all the males inside, is the Torah lenient regarding the [female and minor] Canaanites inside, allowing them to be saved with the town’s women and minors, since the men, who are the principle idolaters, are killed. But if they are found in a town that made peace where everyone is saved [including] the men, women and children, one might say that the Canaanites inside are to be treated as if they were in their own town. So [the extra verse] tells us [that this is not so, and the Canaanites are saved even in the latter case]. And if [we learnt] from here, one may have though that this applies only when they were found in a town of other nations that had made peace, because since they submitted to us, the Torah is lenient regarding the Canaanites inside. But if they were found in a town of other nations that did not make peace, whose men are killed, one might have thought that the [female and minor] Canaanites inside are also killed as if they were in their own town. So Scripture tells us [that this is not so and the Canaanites are saved even in this case]. These are [the words of] Re”m. (See what I write later regarding this).

It will ultimately engage in war against you, etc. And this is what the verse is saying: If it does not settle for peace with you, in the end it will engage in war against you. Therefore you should lay siege to it.

This adds the Girgashites. Rashi means to say that [only] six nations are mentioned in the verse but the Girgashites are not mentioned. And “as [Hashem] commanded you” includes the Girgashites. The reason the verse does not mention [them] explicitly is because [the command], “Annihilate are you to annihilate them, etc.,” was not fulfilled regarding them, for the Girgashites rose up and fled [before Israel’s conquest] as Rashi explains in parshas Ki Sisa (Shmos 33:2). (Maharan). Nevertheless, the verse [here] still needed to include them because they are included in [the command here], “You are not to leave any person alive.” And if members of them are found among the six [remaining] nations, [you should know] that they too are like them.

This infers that if they repent, etc. You might ask: If they repent and convert it is obvious that one may be received, so what is the verse teaching us? One answer is that it is teaching us that one is permitted to receive them even if they only accepted upon themselves the seven Noachide mitzvos. (Re”m). Another answer is that one may have thought that they may not be received even if they repented and converted, for perhaps they converted only out of fear but they did not fully repent. So it teaches us [otherwise].

Fewer than three days before Shabbos, etc. You might ask: Shabbos is not even mentioned in the verse, and that is what Re”m [also] questions! The answer is that we learn from this verse that one has to tender a peace overture for at least three days. But if they besiege a town of idolaters less than three days before Shabbos they would have to tender peace overtures even on Shabbos, but the verse writes (Yeshayah 58:13), “From doing your matters,” heavenly matters are permitted [to be addressed but] your personal [business] matters are forbidden [to be addressed] on Shabbos; and the tendering of peace overtures is considered personal [business]. Therefore we do not besiege [a town a town of idolaters] less than three days before Shabbos. It may be that Re”m meant this when he wrote, “And perhaps the answer is that one has to tender them a peace overture and it requires three days for the idolaters to take counsel among themselves in order to give a reply.”

Scripture refers to discretionary warfare. Because it is written “to capture it,” which implies that they are only coming to capture [the town]. We thus see that it refers to discretionary warfare [outside the Land of Israel], because if it is speaking of the war to conquer the Land of Israel, the verse has already written (v. 16), “You are not to leave any person alive.”

Perhaps the tree in the field is a man, to be included, etc. I.e., is the tree in the field perhaps like a man? Because it is the custom of people besieging a town that when they capture one of its inhabitants they torture him with hunger and thirst so that those in the town should fear them [and that would dissuade them] from being involved in the siege and [they too] suffer the pain of hunger and thirst. And perhaps you think that the tree in the field is the same, that if you cut it down, the other trees will fear them [and dissuade them] from being involved in the siege, just as [it works for] the town’s inhabitants. But this is not so, why destroy it?!

The meaning is “conquest.” Until it is subjugated to you. [An expression] similar to “conquer (רדה) in the midst of your enemies” (Tehillim 110:2), because the term ירידה (falling) does not refer to the town, meaning its people, but to its walls.