The most distinguished of your elders, etc. Because it should have said “the elders of the city” similar to “the elders of that city are to take.” Yet it is written “your elders,” implying “the most distinguished of your elders,” i.e. the Sanhedrin; see there in Maseches Sanhedrin (14b).

From the spot where the corpse is lying. Even though the verse tells us only the end of the measurement and not the beginning, it is logical that the measurement begins with the corpse.

In every direction, in order to determine which is closest. Not that there is an obligation to measure from the corpse to every city; rather, the measurement is to determine which city is nearest the corpse. Therefore if the corpse was near a city and it is certain that there is no other city closer, there is no need for measuring.

Hard, which cannot be cultivated. I.e. איתן is an expression of toughness and hardness.

By severing the nape with an axe, etc. We derive this by [comparing]עריפה [that is written here to] עריפה [of] the bird sin-offering. Just as there it is at the nape, so too here. The meaning of וערפו is to remove its nape, just as the word תזמור, “you shall [not] prune” (Vayikra 25:3), means to remove a twig (זמורה).

Who was not permitted to bear fruit. You might ask: This implies that if the murdered victim was an old person or a eunuch who does not bear fruit, a decapitated calf would not be brought; but this is not so, because the verse does not differentiate! The answer is that “fruit” [here] means mitzvos [and the verse means]** that he was not permitted to fulfill mitzvos, for they too are called “fruit.”

The kohanimthen say, “Forgive your people Yisroel.” Otherwise, for what purpose are the kohanim [coming] here? [The presence of elders] is understandable for it is written, “And all the elders of that town [those near the corpse, etc. will wash their hands.”] But why are the kohanimneeded? They [are the ones who] recite, “Forgive your people Yisroel.”

For with regard to the war for Eretz Yisroel it would be inappropriate to say “and you capture prisoners from them,” etc. You might ask: Perhaps Scripture’s subject is the warfare of Eretz Yisroel, and when it writes, “And you capture prisoners from them,” it refers to a case where there were [people] from nations other than the seven nations inside [the town]. The answer is that Rashi himself answers this question when he explains afterwards: “And you capture prisoners from them,” this includes the Canaanites among them, although they are members of the seven nations. This implies that we always go according to the people of the town. For here if the people of the town are from other nations, one is also permitted to keep alive the Canaanites inside it. And the same applies if the citizens of the town are of the seven nations, one is not permitted to keep alive [people from] other nations inside it. Therefore if the verse is speaking of warfare of Eretz Yisroel, Scripture would not write “and you capture prisoners from them,” because you would not be able to say that it refers to [people from] other nations inside it, since it is forbidden to keep alive even [people from] other nations that are inside it as we explained. (I found this in the name of Maharitz). Re”m answers that since the main point of the parsha is to permit the “beautifully formed woman,” it would only permit her in optional warfare where all women are permitted [to be kept alive], and not in obligatory warfare where the prohibition of “You are not to leave any person alive (above 20:16)” applies to every woman except the one that he captured [who] is of other nations. And perhaps he will not capture her, and even if he does capture her it would be a very rare possibility.

This includes the Canaanites among them, etc. And their wives and children are saved like them. Otherwise, why is [the apparently superfluous word] שביו necessary. See the verse above in parshas Shoftim (20:11), “All the people found in it.”

Only in deference to the wicked inclination, etc. Rashi is answering [the following]: The expression, ולקחת לך לאשה, seems to imply that it is a positive mitzvah to take [this] non-Jewess for a wife, but this is not so, for it is better to marry a Jewess!

Even someone’s wife. The reason Rashi explains [“a wife”] out of order [that it appears] in the verse is because he does not wish to explain the verse, but he is referring to what he explained above, “for if the Holy One, Blessed Is He, would not permit her, he would live with her illicitly.” And [thus we can infer that] if the Torah has to permit “the beautifully formed woman,” this indicates that without [the verse permitting] “the beautifully formed woman,” she would be forbidden [to him] by Torah command. But this is not so, because a non-Jewess is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree! As [the Gemora] says that the sages decreed that one who has relations with a non-Jewess is liable because of nashgaz (as if she was a nidah, shifcha [maidservant], goyah [non-Jewess] and zonah [harlot]). [To answer this question], Rashi explains that although an unmarried non-Jewess is certainly forbidden only by Rabbinic decree, the verse here writes אשת, which implies [even if she is] someone’s wife. You might ask: What difference does it make if she is someone’s wife? Non-Jews cannot contract a marriage because it is written (Vayikra 20:10). “A man who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow (רעהו),” and we say (Sanhedrin 52b), “the wife of his fellow” [comes] to exclude the wife of a non-Jew,” for a non-Jew cannot contract a marriage! [The answer is that] a [non-Jewess] who is the wife of [a non-Jew] is nevertheless forbidden [and the above verse only excludes a non-Jew marrying a Jewess]. The sons of Noach are also commanded regarding married women as it is written (Bereishis 2:24), “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife,” and [the sages] say (Sanhedrin 58a): “To his wife,” and not to the wife of his fellow. And similarly regarding Avimelech it is written (Bereishis 20:3), “For she is a married woman.” This indicates that a married woman is forbidden even to sons of Noach and how much more so she is forbidden to a Jew. But in the case of “the beautifully formed woman,” the Holy One Blessed Is He permitted her.

She must allow them to grow so that she becomes ugly. See [Rashi on] parshas Bereishis (1:7) on the verse, “Elohim made the canopy.”

As they are attractive, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: It is not the way of the world for people to wear unappealing clothing on the road so that [their] attractive clothing does not become dirty? If so, she should not remove these clothes so that she becomes repulsive to him! He explains that the way of the Israelite nation is certainly so, that they wear unappealing clothing when they go out on the road, but “the young gentile women, etc.”

In the home he makes use of, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should only have said “and she should sit and weep for her father and her mother,” since obviously she is in your house, for above it is written, “You will bring her into your house”! He answers that you might have thought that if he had two or three houses and lived in only one of them, she may sit in the one that he does not live. Therefore it says, “She will remain in your home,” [i.e.,] “in the home he makes use of,” meaning in the place that is his primary residence.

Why to such an extent? So that the Israelite daughter, etc. I.e., why does the Torah say that she should mourn over her idolatrous father and weep? She is [now] a convert! Rashi answers that this crying is not on account of her father’s honor, but “so that, etc.”

Scripture informs you that you will ultimately hate her. Re”m writes: I do not know from where they expound this, etc. It seems [to me] that they expound this because it is written, והיה אם וגו', (But it shall come to pass, etc.)” and the wordוהיה is an expression of certainty [that he will hate her], and therefore they expound what they expound. You cannot say that (והיה) refers to the end of the verse [and it means that he must certainly send her away], because [if so], it should have said “אם לא תחפוץ (If you will not desire her),” in the future tense, and not “חפצת (lit. you did not want)” in the past tense. Therefore [it means] “Scripture informs you, etc.” You might ask that Rashi [already] explained above (v. 11), “However, if he does marry her, he will ultimately hate her, etc.” If so, why do we need [this verse] “but it shall come to pass, etc.” to inform of this; it is [already learnt] from the juxtaposition of these sections as Rashi explained above? The answer is in accordance to Tosefos’ explanation of Rashi, and Re”m cites this in his book and discusses it there at length, that Rashi explains in the first chapter of Kiddushin (22a): The Torah does not permit him [to have] even the first intimate relations [with her] except after doing all these actions [including marrying her]. It seems that the verse too supports him because it is written, “And afterwards you may come to her and consummate with her,” and it says afterwards, “And she will become your wife,” [implying that with this first consummation she becomes his wife]. If so, we can say that the verse, “But it shall come to pass, that if you do not desire her,” is saying that he should not even have this first marital relations with her. And from the juxtaposition of these sections we learn that beginning with the second [instance of] intimate relations and onward, that if he takes her, and forcibly converts her and takes her as a wife [for the long term], “he will ultimately hate her, etc.”

Equivalent to two brothers. Rashi is answering the question: “Doublefold of all that he possesses” implies doublefold of everything he possesses, i.e. that he should have two portions. [For example,] if he left three manah and there were five brothers, the firstborn should take two manah and the four [remaining] brothers should take one [manah]! Rashi answers that “of all he possesses” does not refer to “doublefold” but means as follows: “Doublefold [of one brother’s share],’ i.e., the equivalent of what two brothers [take].” And [the term] “of all that he possesses” is a separate phrase.

Does not inherit doublefold of receivables due, etc. Rashi means that he inherits doublefold only from “all that he possesses”, i.e. what the father has now and [actually] possesses, but regarding receivables, such as when a legator of his father died after the father died, even though the father receives ownership of the [the legator’s] money in the grave, the firstborn does not take doublefold of those funds, but [takes only a single portion] like a regular brother. The same applies if the father had a loan [that was owed to him] without a pledge. This too is “a receivable” and the firstborn does not receive doublefold of it.

They warn him before three [magistrates] and have him flogged, etc. Rashi is citing the words of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 71a) that says, “They warn him before three and have him flogged.” The Gemora explains that the Mishnah is speaking of two separate cases, that they warn him before two [witnesses] and he is flogged before three [magistrates]. You might ask, from where does Rashi derive that they have him flogged [and not some other form of chastening]? The answer is that it is written here “בן סורר (a wayward son),” and later (25:2) it is written, “והיה אם בן הכות הרשע (should the wicked one deserve flogging).” And we derive a law by comparing [the section here that says] בן to [the section there where it says] בן. Just as over there, there is flogging, so here too there is flogging.

And consumes a tartamorof meat, etc. Because you might ask: What do the witnesses warn him about? [Therefore] Rashi explains, “The wayward, rebellious son is not liable, etc.” Therefore they warn him to not steal and to not eat a tartamor of meat.

Do not be among the wine guzzlers, among those who gluttonously consume meat [for themselves], etc. This indicates that the terms זולל וסובא applies to meat and wine. Rashi then asks: Why should he be killed for stealing and eating a tartamor of meat and drinking a half log of wine? He explains, “The wayward, rebellious son is executed in consideration of his [ignoble] end, etc.” You might ask: Why is the wayward and rebellious son singled out that “the the Torah penetrates to the logical conclusion of his thought” and is executed in consideration of his ignoble end? But regarding Yishmael it is written (Bereishis 21:17), “in the place where he is,” and Rashi explains, “He is judged according to his present deeds and not according to what he will do in the future, etc.” See Rashi there in parshas Vayera. The answer is that there regarding Yishmael who was still a child, so he had not started doing anything connected to that [future] sin of killing Israel by thirst. But the wayward and rebellious son began [doing things that will ultimately lead] to that sin [of robbery], because he ate a tartamor of meat. Another answer is that the Heavenly court does not judge [a person] in consideration of his end, but it is a mitzvah for the Beis Din below [i.e., our court system] to judge a person in consideration of his end.

Station himself near an intersection and plunder, etc. I.e., and he will kill them. You might ask: Why is he punished with stoning, which is a more severe form of death? But the [death of] a murderer is [execution] by the sword! The answer is that he sometimes robs and kills on Shabbos. Thus he desecrates Shabbos and is therefore liable to be executed by stoning because of taking a life [and he is punished with stoning for desecrating Shabbos].

From here [we derive] that there must be a proclamation, etc. You might ask: How does Rashi know that all that is required is a proclamation? But the verse writes here, “Let all Yisroel hear,” why does Rashi not write “that we wait with him until the festival” as he explains in parshasShoftim (above 17:13) [the verse] “Let all the people hear and fear” [in the section] dealing with זקן ממרא (the rebellious elder)! The answer is that there (17:7) it is written, “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first to execute him, and the hand of the entire people afterward,” whereas here it implies that the people of his town begin first to stone him as it is written, “And all the men of his city will stone him.” Therefore one must explain [here that the verse means] in the presence of all the people of his city, as Rashi explains below (22:21) regarding, “the people of her city will stone her” written in [the parsha of] the defamer, “in the presence of all the people of her city.” But if you say that here [too] we wait with him until the festival, why does it say [to stone him] in the presence of all the people of the city? It would take place in the presence of all Israel since all Israel would be there! Therefore, [this proves that] we certainly do not wait with him until the festival and when Scripture writes “Let all Israel hear,” it means that “there must be a proclamation at the courthouse.” Another answer is: One might ask why it is written [here], “All the men of his city will stone him etc.” when it is written [earlier] (17:7), “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first etc”? You cannot answer that when it is written “all the men of his city” it means “in the presence of all the men of his city,” because Scripture writes “and let all Israel hear,” which implies that this takes place in the presence of all Israel. So the verse should have said, “All Israel will stone him.” If so, our [original] question returns, that it is written, “Let the hands of the witnesses, etc.” Rashi answers that “all Israel” comes [to teach] that there is a proclamation and [therefore we can answer] as we said originally, “All the men of his city will stone him” [means] “in the presence of all the people of his city.” See more about this subject in parshas Shoftim.

The Rabbis remark that all those who are stoned are also hung, etc. Because it is written, “[If a man is guilty of a capital offense] and is executed; you shall hang [him from a tree].” This is a general rule (כלל) that implies that all those who are executed are hung. Afterwards it is written, “For a hanging corpse is an affront to Hashem.” This is a specific statement (פרט) that implies that only someone who blesses [i.e. curses] the Name, is hung [because when people see him they are reminded of his sin that was an affront to Hashem], but not others who are executed, even those executed by stoning. When they (i.e., a כלל and a פרט) are juxtaposed, it is considered [a case of] כלל ופרט where [the rule is] the general rule only includes what is in the specific case; [implying] someone who blesses the Name, yes [i.e., he is hung, but] any other case, no [i.e., he is not hung]. But now [in our verses] they [the כלל and the פרט] are distant from each other, the general rule comes [and teaches] to include all who are executed. And the particular case comes and limits the general rule [and teaches] that only those who are stoned are hung, since they are partially similar to the particular case, for they are stoned just as the one who blessed the Name [is stoned].

It is an affront to the king, etc. Rashi’s intends to explain the word כי, “for.” What reason is this for what is [said] above? He explains, “It is an affront, etc.” This [answer] is according to what our Rabbis (i.e. R. Eliezer, Sanhedrin ibid.) expound, “All those who are stoned are also hung.” However, according to the sages who say that the ones who are stoned are not hung except for the blasphemer and the idolater, who is also similar to the blasphemer, you have to say that when it is written כי קללת אלהים, it means “(For) the one who curses Hashem (is hung),” and קללת is an expression of cursing. [If so, why does Rashi not explain the verse according to the sages whose opinion is accepted as halacha?] The reason is that] by explaining the verse according to the Midrash [that says that each parsha is connected to the one adjacent to it] brings it closer to the plain meaning [of the verses], and the juxtaposition of the sections indicates that all those who are stoned are also hung, Rashi therefore explains [like R. Eliezer] that קללת is an expression of “affront.” (See Re”m who discusses this at length). Another answer [that the word קללת means both “affront” and also “curse,”] is that otherwise you might ask, from where does Rashi know that all those who are stoned are also hung if he [later] explains that קללת is an expression of an affront [and not an expression of “curse.” How then does he know that the verse is talking about someone who incurred stoning for cursing?]. [The answer is] that one must to say that [קללת] implies both [curse and an affront], because if it means only to “bless” the Name, it should have said, “(For he who) blesses Hashem,” [which is] a “clean” expression. Therefore [this indicates that] קללת is an expression denoting an affront. And, if it was an expression denoting only an affront, it should have said explicitly an expression denoting an affront. Therefore [we must say that] it is also coming [to be understood] as blessing Hashem. (I found [this interpretation])

And the Israelites are His children. Rashi means, and especially Israel who are also His children, therefore, “Do not leave his corpse overnight on the tree.” Because “This is compared to two brothers, etc.”