He cannot effect marriage with her, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “he may not expose” as it is written in the end [of the verse], “And may not expose.” He explains that קיחה implies that he cannot effect marriage with her, i.e. [he cannot] marry her with money, because we derive this law by comparing the expression קיחה written here to קיחה written regarding the field of Efron (Kiddushin 2a) [where it denotes marrying with money]. Rashi is referring to [marrying] her after the death of his father, otherwise, we would know [that he cannot marry her] because she is a married woman.

His father’s prospective levirate partner, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse needs to add, “And may not expose the edge of his father’s garment,” [which seems superfluous]? Therefore he says that it comes to include his father’s prospective levirate partner, etc.

Evidently, to transgress, with her, against two prohibitions, etc. You might ask: There are three prohibitions, because there is also the prohibition, “Let the wife of the dead man not marry outside to a strange man” (below 25:5)! The answer is that these two prohibitions apply even after his father’s death, but the prohibition of “Let the wife of the dead man not marry outside to a strange man” applies only as long as he is alive.

To teach that the bastard is only, etc. Rashi means that this is another reason why the Torah writes, “And he may not expose the edge of his father’s garment,” in order to juxtapose to it, “the bastard may not enter, etc.” You might ask that the verse, “One may not enter — with injured or crushed genitals, etc.,” interrupts between these two verses! The answer is since such people cannot have children and so they are unable to produce bastards, the verse [concerning them] is not considered an interruption.

As no act of incest or adultery subject to judicial execution, etc. Rashi is saying that you should not ask: There is a rule that we cannot add extra punishments [or extra prohibitions to a transgression] through a kal vachomer [and similarly we cannot add the status of a bastard to a child resulting from this transgression through a kal vachomer]! He explains that “no act of incest, etc.” Therefore, since this transgression is liable to kares, the child will be a bastard even without a kal vachomersince he is the result of a kares prohibition. And the father’s prospective levirate partner is a karesprohibition because she is his aunt.

Whose testicles were injured or crushed. Because afterwards it is written, “A base-born may not enter.” Theפצוע דכא is juxtaposed to the base-born to teach that just as the disqualification of the base-born resulted from the procreative organs, so too the disqualification of the פצוע דכא is connected with the procreative organs.

He may not marry an Israelite woman. You might ask: Why Rashi does not explain this above by פצוע דכא? The answer is that Rashi’s intent here is not to explain the meaning of “Adonoy’s community,” as it is obvious that “Adonoy’s community” means to not marry an Israelite woman. Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written that “a base-born may not enter into Adonoy’s community,” as we would already know this from a kal vachomer. If a פצוע דכא who was not created through sin is forbidden to enter the community, how much more a base-born who was created through sin! Therefore he explains, “He may not marry an Israelite woman.” That is, even if he married her we force him to divorce her. But if a פצוע דכא married her he does not have to divorce her. Therefore we cannot learn the base-born from the פצוע דכא with a kal vachomer because the rule is, “suffice it for that learnt from the kal vachomer to be like the source.”

He may not marry an Israelite woman. You might ask: Rashi already said this before on the verse, “A base-born may not enter into Adonoy’s community”! The answer is that since Ammonite and Moavite males are forbidden to enter the community, but females are permitted to enter the community, Rashi has to explain that a male may not marry an Israelite woman, but [an Ammonite and Moavite] woman may marry an Israelite man. This too is why the verse had to write, regarding an Ammonite and Moavite, that they may not enter the community of Adonoy.

Because of their advice, etc. Otherwise, why does it say דבר, [which also means “word”]? It should have simply said “that they did not greet you, etc.”! Therefore we say it means as follows: “Because of the words,” i.e., the advice, that they did not greet you, etc., i.e. and also because of this thing too, “That they did not greet you, etc.” meaning, “that” actually means “and that.”

Perhaps this one as well, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why would I think one should pursue their peace and benefit? He answers, “By inference from what is said, etc.” It seems to me that the correct text in Rashi is, “‘Do not pursue, etc.,” [omitting the words “their peace”], as he is explaining the latter part of the verse, where it says “and their good.” Because we learned in Sifrei: “Do not pursue their peace.” You might think that because it says (earlier 20:10), “When you near a city (to do battle against it, you are to offer it peace),” you might think the same applies here too. Therefore the verse says, “Do not pursue,” regardless [of what it said earlier]. “And their benefit.” And because it says (below v. 17), “do not distress him” you might think the same applies here too. Therefore the verse says, “And their benefit, etc.” The printers did not understand Rashi’s intention and omitted the word “etc.” [from the text] (Kitzur Mizrachi).

Completely, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It is written afterwards, “Children who will be born to them, in the third generation, will enter.” This implies that the second generation may not enter and if so he is despised! Why then does it say in the beginning, “Do not despise”? Rashi explains that when it is written, “Do not despise,” it means do not despise completely, but you may despise a bit.

Totally, etc. Since it is written afterwards, “the third generation will enter,” this implies that the second generation may not enter. Why then does it say, “Do not despise the Egyptian”? Rashi answers that this is what it means, “‘Do not despise,’ totally,” but you may despise a bit, as I explained above regarding “do not despise the Edomite.” Rashi says here, [do not despise them] totally, because it says (Shmos 1:22) [that Pharaoh ordered], “Every boy who is born must be thrown into the river, but every daughter shall be allowed to live.” Even though they cast your males into the river, do not despise them [totally]. “What is the reason? Because, etc.” Therefore Rashi says here [do not despise them] totally.

What is the reason? Because they received you hospitably, etc. There are those who ask: Why does Rashi have to explain the reason why the third generation may enter, for the verse itself explains the reason, “For you were a stranger, etc.”? The answer is that Rashi was questioning — should they [be allowed to] enter the community merely because you were a stranger in his land, after they perpetrated all this evil of killing your firstborn? Do other countries harboring foreigners kill their firstborn? Therefore Rashi explains, “What is the reason, etc.” [and he says that the Egyptians helped us]. This “what is the reason” is the explanation of “for you were a stranger” written in the verse.

The other nations, however, are permitted immediately. I.e., do not ask what punishment is it to delay them until the third generation? The same law applies to other nations as well! Therefore Rashi explains, “The other nations, etc.”

Someone who incites a man to sin is worse than someone who murders him, etc. You might ask: Why are they not totally despised? If Amon and Moav who did nothing except to incite Israel to sin, and they were totally despised, why then were Edom and Egypt who wanted to kill them not totally despised? You cannot answer because [Amon and Moav] “did not greet you, etc.” (v. 5), since it is obvious that Edom too did not greet you, for otherwise, why does the verse say you should not despise Edom “for he is your brother,” and also not say the reason is because he met you, etc.? This indicates that this is not the main reason! You also cannot say the difference is that Moav hired Bilam to curse them while Edom did not hire Bilam, because perhaps Edom failed to hire Bilam only because Edom was not aware that whomever Bilam cursed was cursed, whereas Balak knew this from the war against Sichon, as Rashi explains above (Bamidbar 22:6). Thus there is no reason to show gratitude to Edom because of this. On the contrary, we should despise them more because they wanted to kill them by the sword. And if because he is your brother, Amon and Moav are also related to us, as Avraham said to Lot (Bereishis 13:8), “For we are kinsmen.” Rashi answers, “Thus we learn, etc.”

Scriptural law is expressed in common circumstances. Because it is common to have an emission at night but it is not common during the day. But, certainly if one has an emission during the day, he too will become defiled.

He is not permitted to enter the camp of the Levites, certainly not, etc. Rashi means, because “camp” is written twice in the verse. You might ask that these two “camps,” are being used, one for a positive command and one for a negative command! Furthermore, why does Rashi learn the camp of the Shechinah from a kol shekein? He should have [simply] said, “And he is not permitted to enter the camp of the Levites or the Shechinah.” The answer is that Rashi is saying as follows. When it is written, “He must go out of the camp,” this must mean the camp of Shechinah because why should we include any other camps? Afterwards when it is written, “He may not enter into the midst of the camp,” this includes even the camp of Levites. But this raises a difficulty, since one with the defilement of an emission enters the camp of Shechinah which has greater sanctity, transgresses only a positive command as it is written, “He must go out, etc.,” but if one enters the camp of the Levites which has less sanctity, one transgress a negative command, which is more severe than a positive command, as it is written, “He may not enter, etc.” [To resolve this difficulty] Rashi answers that if a negative command forbids one from entering the camp of Levites, then “certainly [too], he may not enter the camp of the Shechinah.”** You might ask that one is not permitted to derive [new laws that incur] punishment from a kol shekein? The answer is that this rule only applies when the law is not hinted to in the Torah at all, but here it is written that he transgresses a positive command, and only the negative command has to be derived from a kol shekein, in this case we would punish [someone who transgresses by using such a derivation]. Re”m answers that the camp of the Shechinah and the camp of the Levites are both [forbidden] because of the sanctity of the Shechinah and are [therefore] regarded as one camp, etc., [and in such a case we can derive punishment from a kol shekein]. See there where he discusses this at length.

He does not become pure without the setting of the sun. Meaning, he can certainly immerse himself whenever he wants [during] the entire day. But, Rashi wants to explain that when the verse writes, “As sunset nears he is to immerse in water,” you should not say that he cannot do so before this. Rather the verse is giving good advice as it writes afterwards, “And after the sun has set he may enter the midst of the camp.” Since before sunset he remains defiled, why then should he immerse himself when it is still broad daylight? Therefore Rashi says, “Close to the setting of the sun he should immerse himself, as he does not become pure, etc.

Outside the cloud. You might ask: After Aharon died, the clouds of glory departed! The answer is that the Torah is not written in the order that events had taken place, and this was said before Aharon’s death.

Aside from your other utensils. I.e., you are to have a peg aside from your other utensils in order to dig with it.

[Let] the Holy One, Blessed Is He [not see] disgraceful objects. [He] Who is mentioned at the beginning of the verse. Because otherwise, [i.e., if the verse meant, “Disgraceful objects should not be seen with you”], לא יראה should have had a tzeirei under the יו"ד.

As Targum [Onkelos] renders, etc. עבד עממין (a slave of nations), meaning, a Jewish slave sold to non-Jews, as it says in Gittin (45a). According to this, why then does the verse call him a slave? He is a Jew! Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation, etc.” But according to the alternative interpretation you might ask that since the term לא תסגיר implies freedom, as it says (Gittin 53b), “From here [we say that] if someone sells his slave to a non-Jew or outside the Land [of Israel], he goes free,” if so, why does the verse use the expression לא תסגיר, it should have said, “Do not enslave a slave to his master.” Therefore Rashi also needs the first interpretation.

For she, too, engages promiscuously, etc. Rashi is saying: Do not regard this translation of Onkelos as a difficulty against me [that I said קדשה means promiscuous], as I can answer that [Targum] Onkelos agrees with me for “she, too, engages promiscuously, etc.” And Rashi explains similarly afterwards [regarding the maidservant].

This adds alterations in form, etc. You might ask, why Rashi leaves the opinion of Beis Hillel who said (Bava Kama 94a), “Them but not their alterations in form,” and explain [the verse] according to Beis Shamai who expounds, “‘Even both’ to include their alterations in form”? The answer is that since the Gemora said that there is a difficulty also according to Beis Hillel, he therefore explains according to Beis Shamai.

This prohibits the borrower. Otherwise it should have written לא תשך. [לא תשיך in the causative] implies that the borrower is causing the lender to extract interest from him.

So that he transgresses, for this, two negative commandments and one positive commandment.“You may not pay usury to your brother,” and, “To your brother you may not pay usury.” You might ask: There are three negative commandments, because it is written (Vayikra 19:14), “Before a blind person you shall not place a stumbling block.” The answer is that this negative commandment is a לאו שבכללות (a negative general commandment that includes many different things), because [besides the verse’s simple meaning] we expound from it, “Someone who is blind regarding some matter,” i.e., you should not give someone bad advice, and we do not give lashes for [violating] a לאו שבכללות. Alternatively, because they expound this as [also] meaning someone who was blind regarding some matter, they do not want to count it among the negative commandments [here]. Re”m explains that he transgresses two negative commandments, the negative command of “You may not pay usury to your brother,” and the negative commandment of “Before a blind person you shall not place, etc.” He discusses this there at length. But what I have written, so I have found.

For three festivals. The Rabbis derive this from Scripture, etc. Because it is written earlier at the end of parshas Re’ey (16:16), “in the festival of Matzos, and on the festival of Shovuos, and on the festival of Sukkos.” The verse [there] should only have said, “(Three times a year are all your males to be seen in the presence of Adonoy, your God), in the place that He chooses, and he shall not appear (in Adonoy’s) presence empty-handed),” [without mentioning the three festivals by name], because the beginning of the verse it is already written “three times a year” and probably refers to these three. So why is this stated? To allow a person three festivals to fulfill his vow. If he does not fulfill his vow within three festivals he will transgress a negative command and a positive command.

This specifies a positive commandment with the negative. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture has already written above, “Do not delay in discharging it.” This indicates that one must fulfill his obligation!

Scripture refers to a laborer. Rashi goes on and explains: You should not ask from where one knows this, for it is written [afterwards], “But do not place it in your container.” From here [we derive] that the Torah refers only, etc. However, if he hired him to till or to hoe he may not eat. This indicates that Scripture is talking about a laborer during the harvest season.

However, etc., or to hoe. Meaning, to remove the bad grapes from the good.

With this, as well, Scripture refers to the laborer. Because it is written, “But do not lift a sickle.” This indicates that Scripture is referring only to the time of harvest, [a time] when you reap and place into the owner’s receptacle. But, if he is hired to plow or for some other activity, he may not eat. This indicates that Scripture refers to the laborer.