They will ultimately approach the court of justice, etc. Meaning: It should have [simply] said, “And the two people who have the judgment come.” This indicates that the verse is saying that if men have a quarrel, they will ultimately bring it to court and be unable to reach a compromise except through judgment.

“Should the wicked one deserve flogging” (בן הכות**), etc.** Like its Targum [בר חיבא לאלקאה, that בן means “son”]. Some explain that it is an expression of בינה, understanding, because the person must have discernment. This excludes a deaf person, an insane person, or a minor. Some explain that it refers to the judge. I.e., if the judge understands that the person transgressed and deserves flogging (I found this interpretation).

A negative commandment unattached to a positive commandment. But if it is attached to a positive commandment, one is not flogged. The same applies to a negative commandment that involves no physical action, or that is subject to warning of death by court, or that is subject to financial restitution, or a general negative commandment that includes many things, as stated in masechesMakos (13a).

And behind him, in the amount befitting a double crime, etc. Thus there are three amounts befitting a crime, one at the front, i.e., a third at the front, and two measures from behind him. There are those who explain thatכדי רשעתו [which can be translated, “according to amount that makes him wicked”], is thirteen lashes, because a person is punishable when he reaches the age of thirteen. “Before him” mean opposite his heart, “behind him” on his back, [and he gets “the amount befitting a double crime” on his back] because those two measures are a fine.

This is not vocalized במספר, etc. I.e., with a pasach under the ב'.

Rather, the number which concludes and completes up to forty, etc. I.e., one has to count and mention the number forty minus one; that is, one must not say “thirty-nine,” but “forty minus one.” The reason for [counting] this [way] is so that one does not forget and give him an additional lash, and transgress “lest he additionally flog him, etc.” Therefore he must say “forty minus one” in order for him to remember. This explains why Scripture mentions “forty,” and not thirty-nine.

From here we derive that one is forbidden to strike one’s fellow. Because here, where one initially gives lashes permissibly, nevertheless it is written to not flog his fellow additionally for nothing [and thereby he transgresses a negative command], so then certainly if one illegally flogs his fellow for nothing from the very start, he transgresses a negative commandment.

But this applies as well to all domesticated animals, wild animals and fowl, etc. Because we derive this by comparing the word “ox” to the word “ox,” [by means of a gezeira shava] as explained above (22:10).

If so, why is the ox mentioned? To exclude man. Meaning that since “ox” is imprecise, Scripture should simply write, “You may not muzzle while threshing.”

Perhaps one may muzzle it while outside? Meaning that since “While it threshes” implies only while threshing, if so, “perhaps one may muzzle it while outside” while it is not threshing and afterwards be permitted to thresh with while it is muzzled, “the Torah therefore teaches, etc.”

The Torah therefore teaches, “You may not muzzle an ox,” anywhere, etc. Otherwise it should have said, “You may not thresh with a muzzled ox,” which would imply that there is only a prohibition during actual threshing. But because it is written “you may not muzzle,” it implies anywhere. “While it threshes” comes to teach a different lesson as Rashi goes on and explains, “Then why is threshing stated, etc.” I explained similar to this in parshas Eikev (above 11:25) on the verse, “No man will stand up to you, etc.”

It excludes prying apart dates and figs, etc. I.e., if one puts them on the roof to dry and they became attached to each other, and has to pry them apart if he wants to take them. For these types of work there is not even a mitzvah [to allow a worker to eat]. But with something done with produce whose work was not completed, even though he will not transgress a negative commandment, as is derived from “an ox and not a person,” nevertheless, it is a mitzvah to do so unless he made a special condition with the worker. But in these cases one does not even need [to make] a special condition.

Together in their inheritance, etc. I.e., only if they are “together in their inheritance,” meaning, that one inherits the other if one of them dies. This includes paternal brothers, but excludes maternal brothers who do not inherit one another. For all paternal relatives inherit a person, and not his maternal brothers. You might ask, why learn this from “together”? Why not derive it from a gezeira shava by comparing “brothers” here to “brothers” by the sons of Yaakov? It is written here “brothers,” and it is written there (Bereishis 42:13), “Your servants are twelve brothers, the son of one man, etc.” Just as there [“brothers” are] paternal, so here too “brothers” are] paternal! The answer is that since we find that even relatives are called “brothers” as it is written (ibid 13:8), “For we are kinsmen (אנשים אחים, lit. “people who are brothers”), you may have thought that even relatives are obligated to perform a levirate marriage, and as we find with Boaz. Therefore it is written “together,” together in their inheritance, etc. The Gemora in chapter 2 of Yevamos (17b) gives a different answer, see there. Re”m cites it, see there.

Scrutinize him — a son or daughter, etc. Rashi means [that we derive this] because the verse writes אין with a יו"ד when it should have written אין without a יו"ד as it writes below (v. 7), מאן " יבמי (my brother-in-law refuses)” without a יו"ד. Therefore, because it is written with a יו"ד we read it as ayin; theאל"ף is interchanged for an עי"ן, and it is as if the verse wrote עין (scrutinize). That is, “scrutinize him” whether he has “a son or daughter, etc.” for if so she is exempt from a levirate marriage and from chalitzah.

The oldest brother shall perform levirate marriage, etc. I.e., it is a mitzvah for the oldest brother to perform a levirate marriage. You might ask that perhaps if there is no firstborn brother [still alive] the others are exempt from performing a levirate marriage? The answer is that if so, it should not have said, “If brothers reside together,” which teaches, “This excludes the wife of his brother who did not share his world,” as Rashi explains. Because if a non-firstborn brother does not perform levirate marriage, why would one need to exclude the wife of his brother who did not share his world? This would be obvious as he [the surviving brother] is not the firstborn? This certainly indicates that even a non-firstborn brother performs a levirate marriage, and when Scripture writes “firstborn,” it comes to teach you that it is a mitzvah for the oldest brother as Rashi explains.

This excludes the eilonis,who cannot bear children. The verse is read as follows, “Marrying her to be his wife... He shall be the firstborn.” I.e., the one performing the levirate marriage shall be the firstborn. “When she is capable of bearing children,” i.e., that yevamah should be capable of bearing children. This excludes the eilonis etc.

Shall receive the deceased’s share in his father’s estate. You say this means inheritance, or perhaps it only means that if his [i.e., the deceased brother’s] name was Yosef they call him [i.e., the child] Yosef, or [if his name was] Yochanan, they call him Yochanan. It says here “his [deceased] brother,” and it says there (Bereishis 48:6), “They shall be called by their brothers’ name with regard to their inheritance.” Just as there it is [with regard to] inheritance, so here too [it is in regard to] inheritance (Yevamos ibid).

This excludes the wife of a eunuch, whose name is already obliterated. The Mishnah states in Yevamos (79b), “If he was a ‘sun’ eunuch,” and Rashi explains: That he was afflicted from his mother’s womb and never saw the sun in a state of being fit, neither may he perform chalitzah nor may they perform chalitzah to his wife. But if he was a “man” eunuch [i.e., castrated], who did have a time of being fit, he performs chalitzah and they perform chalitzah to his wife.”

As Targum [Onkelos] translates, “To the portal of the court of law.” This [translation of שער] is not like, "In your cities (בשעריך) may you eat it (Devarim 15:22),” which means city, because it is written, "to the judges," and the judges sit in the portal of the court of law.

She, too, must speak in the sacred language. We derive this through a gezeira shava from [comparing] the words "and declare" (ואמר) and "and say" (ואמרו). It says here "and declare" (ואמר), and it is written below in parshas Ki Savo (27:14), "The Levites are to respond and say (ואמרו) to every man, etc." Just as there it is in the sacred language, [so here it is in the sacred language]. And from where do we know this over there? We derive it from the words "respond (עניה)," "respond (עניה)." Since here it is written, "And the Levites are to respond (וענו)," and in parshas Yisro (Shmos 19:19) it says, "Moshe spoke and Hashem responded to him (יעננו) with [His] voice." Just as there it was in the sacred language, so here it is in the sacred language.

On the ground. It means before him [i.e., in front of him], opposite his face, but not actually in his face. The reason for this is because "and spit" is connected to the earlier phrase, "in the sight of the judges," [to teach that there must be enough spit to be seen by the judges], and it is as if it said, "in front of the judges she shall spit." Thus the word בפניו is left by itself and can only mean "before him." Since the spit must be specifically before him [in order to embarrass him], it is as if it is actually in his face. Therefore the verse writes בפניו [which also means "in his face"] and not לפניו [which would only mean "before him"].

It is a mitzvah incumbent on all those standing there etc. [Rashi says this] since you might ask why the word "Yisroel" is needed? He answers, "It is a mitzvah, etc.," and "in Yisroel" means "in the assembly of Yisroel," that they should be there at the time of the chalitzah in order to declare, "The divesture of the shoe." Even though it is written "the house of the divesture," the explanation is that the word "house" comes to be expounded, "He builds one house and not two houses," meaning that once he married his yevamah, he may not perform levirate marriage with her co-wife.

Ultimately, they will come to blows. Otherwise it should have said, "If a man strikes his fellow, and the wife of one approaches, etc." He explains that through altercation, "ultimately they will come to blows."

No peace can result from altercation (מצות**).** Rashi here uses the term מצה and not ריב, as he did earlier (v. 1), "Tranquility does not evolve from quarreling (מריבה)," because he is citing the wording of each verse. Above it is written, "If a quarrel (ריב) should occur" he uses the term מריבה, and here where it is written, "If men engage in an altercation (ינצון)," he uses מצות.

Weights. Rashi is answering the question: Is it forbidden for one to have stones in his house? Rashi answers, "weights" that one weighs with, just as the eipha (lit. basket) is the name of a measure [of volume], so too "stones" [is a word that means weights].

Where the larger contradicts the smaller, etc. For example, if both are a whole manah or both are a half manah but one contradicts the other, i.e., that one is large and one is small.

If you do this [you shall not have anything]. Otherwise, why do I need the word "you shall not have"? It should have said, "There shall not be in your pouch varying weight-stones,” and the verse “you shall not have” means, if you have varying weight-stones in your pouch, you will not have anything. And because it is not possible to say, “if you do this, etc.” unless you know the meaning of "large and small," therefore Rashi first explains "large and small," and afterwards [he explains] "you shall not to have," which is not according to the order [that the phrases appear] in the verse.

If you fulfill this, you shall have, etc. The later "you" is similar to the earlier "you" which is connected to punishment for the sin. So too the later "you" is connected to reward for the mitzvah.

And it is written afterward, “The malicious arrive, then comes mortification.” I.e., the enemy will come and provoke you to battle, and you will suffer mortification.

Another interpretation: The meaning is “cold,” as opposed to heat, etc. I.e., just as everyone is afraid of a hot object, so too the nations had fear of you. But Amalek cooled you, and moderated you to tepidness (הפשירך); an expression of tepid (פושרין) water.

Although he was scalded, he cooled it for the others. I.e., he made you seem cold to others.

Striking at the appendage — they severed the circumcision, [and flung it heavenward]. The organ that has the circumcision is like an appendage, and the meaning of מזנב is to cut off your appendage, i.e., your circumcisions, and fling them heavenward. I.e., they insulted Heaven [as it were] by saying, "The mitzvah You commanded Your nation, Yisroel, how did it help them?!"

Enfeebled. Because נחשלים is derived from the word חלש (feeble); we find many words whose letters are transposed such as כבש כשב (sheep), and אפילות, which Rashi explains at the end of parshas Va’eira (Shmos 9:32) as meaning "wonder of wonders (פלאי פלאות)," and similarly שמלה שלמה (garment).

Because of their sins, as the cloud ejected them. Those who were ejected by the cloud had their circumcisions severed by Amalek.

Amalek, of God, so as not to harm you. [Rashi says this] so that you do not explain this as describing Yisroel, that Yisroel had no fear of Hashem, similar to "exhausted and weary" [that applies to Yisroel]. Therefore he explains, "Amalek, etc." They expound this from the punctuation that places a kamatz under the יו"ד, signifying that it is a past-tense verb similar to, "And when Yitzchok grew old (זקן)” (Bereishis 27:1). If it was an adjective [referring to Yisroel], it should have been punctuated with a sheva under the יו"ד.

Man and woman, etc. I.e., you shall not leave any remembrance of Amalek that his remembrance clings to, so that people say, "This was of Amalek." Otherwise, it should have said "smite" [rather than "obliterate the memory"].