He is then commanded to divorce her, etc. Since the verse explains that “she did not find favor in his eyes because he found in her something lecherous.” This indicates that “he is then commanded, etc.” And [also], because it states the term והיה which is an expression of certainty, i.e., a command. (Minchas Yehudah). [An alternative explanation]. Because it should have stated, “If he found in her something lecherous, he shall send her from his home.” Why is it written, “Should she not find favor in his eyes, etc.”? This indicates that the verse is teaching that you should not tell him that he can send her away even after a while, because in the meantime she might find favor in his eyes and he will not send her away. Therefore the Torah commands him to send her away [immediately]. [The text is reconstructed as follows: “Should he find in her something lecherous, she must not find favor in his eyes”]. I know what Re”m had written and I do not want to be lengthy (Nachalas Yaakov).

This one is not like the first one, etc. Meaning, this second one who marries her is not like the first one who divorced her; בן זוגו means “like him.” Otherwise, why does the verse write “another”?

Scripture informs him that he will ultimately hate her, etc. Otherwise it should have said, “If (אם) her last husband hates her.”

This adds the adulteress who was secluded [with the adulterer]. Rashi explains: Do not learn this verse according to its simple meaning as [a case] where she married someone [else], because if so, this would imply that he [the first husband] is forbidden to take her back only if he [the second husband] had relations with her, whereas he could take her back if she was divorced after betrothal (אירוסין) [to her second husband]. But this is not so, because it is written, “If she leaves his home and goes and becomes (והיתה) [a wife to another man],” and והיתה implies הוייה, which is an expression that indicates betrothal. This means that he may not take back his divorced wife even if she was only betrothed [to another man]. But if so, why does the Torah write, “After her having been defiled?” Therefore it must be to “add the adulteress who was secluded.” That is, since there is a doubt whether she was defiled, he may not have relations with her until he gives her the cursed waters to drink. Even though the Torah (Bamidbar 5) explicitly writes defilement regarding the prohibition of [such] an e, as the Gemora (Sotah 28a) says, “She has become defiled” is mentioned three times: one [to create a prohibition] for the adulterer, one for the husband, and one for [forbidding her to eat] terumah, the Gemora (Yevamos 11b) answers that we need the verse here to establish this as a negative prohibition.

One that is new to him, etc. Otherwise it should have said, “When a man marries a virgin.” (Gur Aryeh)

However, those who return from the combat formations etc. [Rashi] explains: When the verse writes “over him,” it is an exclusionary expression. Only “over him” may no matter connected with the military command be imposed, but over another person it may be imposed.

Even for the sake of his home, etc. [Rashi explains: The word “shall be” denotes adding on [another case]. Add to it another “shall be” like this one; i.e., someone who built a house and already inaugurated it or someone planted a vineyard and already redeemed it, but a year had not [yet] transpired from the inauguration or redemption. Their status is the same as a person who married a wife but a year has not yet transpired from their wedding; he does not budge from his place. The same applies to inauguration and redemption.

If he demands security from him for his debt in court, etc. Rashi means to say that “he may not secure as collateral” implies that he is not permitted to demand security from him in court. But this is not so because it was necessary for the Torah to command, “Return are you to return the pledge to him” (v. 13), which indicates that one is permitted to take security. Rashi answers that when it is written here, “He may not secure as collateral,” is in a case where originally he had lent him without security and “now he demands security, etc.”

He may not secure implements of food preparation. Rashi is answering the question: It is written “For he is taking life as security,” which indicates anything used for food preparation. [You might ask] if so, why does it say “the upper and lower parts of a millstone,” [writing] only one of them would suffice, because they are both implements of food preparation? The answer is, to give a negative command for the upper part on its own and for the lower part on its own. Even though each needs the other, however since they are two [separate] implements one transgresses a negative command for each implement on its own.

Through witnesses, and after a warning, etc. Rashi says this as you might think that since the Torah [seemingly] makes this law dependent on the [victim] being found in the perpetrator’s hand [then this law applies] even if there were no witnesses when he stole him. Therefore Rashi tells us that generally, “to be found” generally means with witnesses. Otherwise, the perpetrator could claim that he did not steal him but that he sold himself.

So as not to pluck the symptoms of defilement, etc. Because by plucking the symptoms of defilement or by removing the plague itself, the kohein is unable to detect whether it is pure or defiled.

If you intend to take precautions, etc. Otherwise what does this have to do with this [previous subject]? It seems to me that Rashi is answering an apparent redundancy of verse (v. 8) that deals with the leprosy affliction. Why does it say “to be extremely careful”? Regarding this he answers, “If you intend to take precautions to avoid suffering, etc.”

You obligate your fellow. And the expression תשה is similar to (Shmos 22:24), “Do not act towards him as a creditor (כנושה).” Targum [Onkelos] translates it as ארי תרשי, and this too is an expression of owing money as it says (Bava Kama 46b), “From the person who owes you (ממארי רשותך) accept bran [as payment].” I.e., accept even bran from your debtor.

The slightest debt. But do not explain [the meaning of] the word מאומה here as elsewhere in Scripture, where it means “nothing.”

Do not repose with his collateral in your possession. Because according to the verse’s plain meaning [i.e., lying on the object] would be forbidden [because it considered] as [collecting] interest.

In want of all things. Meaning, the words תאב and אבה have similar meanings.

This refers to the alien settler, who eats meat which was not ritually slaughtered. It is if the verse said, “Or from your converts, or from who are in your land, or in your gates.” And because “or in your gates” includes the alien settler, and “or from your converts” includes the righteous proselyte, and both are called “converts,” Rashi explains “in your gates” right after explaining “from your converts” and before explaining “in your land” which includes the rental fees for animals and tools, as they are not rental fees of the people themselves. However, it seems to me that Rashi explains “in your gates” before “in your land,” so that “in your land” includes the rental fee of animals and tools, etc. Because if not for “in your gates,” I would think that “in your land” comes to include the alien settler since that is more logical.

He climbs a wall, or suspends himself from a tree. Rashi (Bava Metzia 112a) explains that he puts his life at risk for him by going up on a high ramp, and puts himself in danger of falling, and suspends himself from a tree when he climbs it.

Regardless, except ... swiftly, etc. And even if he does cry out [one is punished]. If so, why does it say, “So that he should not cry out against you? [Rashi answers], “Except that punishment is swiftly dispatched, etc.”

Not at the time of the loan. Rashi has to explain this here, although he had explained this on the verse earlier (v. 6), “He may not secure as collateral,” so that you do not mistakenly say as follows: Why does Scripture say, “You may not secure as collateral, a widow’s garment” [unless you return it to her during the daytime when she needs it]? The verse had written earlier (v. 13), “Return are you to return to him at sunset”! [Therefore we must say] Scripture mentions “you may not secure as collateral” regarding a widow, to teach that that one is obligated to return it [when she needs it] even if one took it as collateral at the time of the loan. Therefore, [to prevent this erroneous interpretation], Rashi explains, “When it is not at the time of the loan.” But [if one took collateral] at the time of the loan he is not obligated to return it because the prohibition of “you may not secure as collateral” (לא תחבול) applies only when it is [taken] not at the time of the loan. But at the time of the loan, since the person gives it willingly, the expression of חבלה [which implies causing harm] is not applicable. The reason the verse says, “You may not secure as collateral, a widow’s garment,” [even though it could be derived from earlier verses], is to teach that [one cannot take it at all as collateral even if he returns it when she needs it] because it cannot be returned [to her every day as people would suspect the lender is having an improper relationship with her] as the Gemora says in chapter Hamekabel (Bava Metzia 115a). Alternatively, to teach that [the law pertaining to] the poor and the wealthy widow is the same, and one may not take collateral from either.

But not a heap. A heap is when it is the size of two seah.

From here we derive that a sheaf containing two seahs etc. Because if the Torah is particular about two seah, what difference does it make if it is a heap or a sheaf?

This is added to include forgotten standing grainstalks, etc. I.e., if the standing grainstalks do not contain two seah. But if they contain two seah it is not shikchah, just as in the case of a “heap” that it is not shikchah.

Although it came into his possession unintentionally, certainly, etc. Meaning that when it was forgotten and before the owners realized it, poor people had immediately taken it without the owners’ intent. Even in such an instance the verse says, “In order that. . .will bless you.” Rashi’s proof that this case is talking without [the owners’] intent is since it is written, “In order that…will bless you, etc.” Because if it was with [the owners’] intent, why specifically here is it written “in order that…will bless you” more so than in other places where charity is mentioned?

Do not remove its glory from it, etc. Meaning, that you may not remove all its fruit to the point that its glory does not remain. The expression לא תפאר [where the word “glory” means to remove the glory] is similar to the expression, “ כל תבואתי תשרש (It would root out all my produce) (Iyuv 31:12),” which means to uproot [even though תשרש means to take root].

This refers to shikchah. I.e., the shikchah of a tree. Since it is written “behind you,” it implies that that regarding for that which is behind you, there is a prohibition to return [for it].

What is the shoulder? Clusters atop one another, etc. The middle stalk of the bunch is called a shidra (spine) because it is similar to a person’s spine that joins together the ribs; similarly, joined to it are the smaller bunches that are called pesigin. Pesigin means a piece, as the Targum Yerushalmi of, “He shall sever it into its pieces (לנתחיו) (Vayikra 1:12),” is מפסיק יתיה לפסיגין. When the pesigin lie one upon the other, they are like a load lying on a person’s shoulders and therefore it is called “shoulder.” “Droplets” are when many grapes are joined at the end of the spine and drip (i.e., hang) downwards. All these do not go to the poor. But when there is no shoulder or droplets but only scattered grapes, these go to the poor (I found this interpretation). Re”m explains: Anything lacking the shoulder and the droplets. These [that the poor may take] are the grapes that hang from the end of the branches that are [similar to the fruit] called sevi’a in the Greek language. They neither have a “shoulder,” which are the pesigin that [lie] one on the other, etc., nor do they have “droplets,” which are the grapes that hang on the spine of a bunch [i.e., there is only one bunch of grapes on the spine and not many “shoulders”]. The shoulder is called pesiga because it [i.e. each one] separates between the other kateif. This expression is similar to מפסיג ועולה (Bava Kama 81a), which means “He he cuts [a breach in the vines] and goes up.” So far are the words of Re”m. See above in parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:10) where more is explained.