This teaches that they were not obligated to bring the first fruits, etc. You might ask why did Rashi not explain this earlier inparshas Shoftim (17:14) in the section [dealing with the appointing] a king, for there too it is written, “and inherit it and live in it”? The answer is that Rashi wants to explain why here it says, “And you inherit it and settle it.” For the [the law derived from these words] could be derived from the section dealing with [appointing] a king since we derive [from the term] “come” “come” from each other. Just as there they are not obligated [to appoint a king] until after the conquering and apportioning [the Land], so too here. And there is a tradition that this gezeira shava is a halacha given to Moshe at Sinai as Rashi explains in parshas Shelach Lecha (Bamidbar 15:18) regarding challah. [He comments there on the verse], “At your coming to the land,” that, “This [term] 'coming' is different from all the 'comings' in the Torah, etc. because Scripture specified with one of them, etc.” I.e., since it specified regarding [the obligation of appointing] a king, that it does not apply until after inheritance and settling [the Land], so too with all of them. Thus we see that this is an absolute gezeira shava. And if so, why does the verse here need to write “and you inherit it and settle it”? Rashi answers, “This teaches that they were not obligated to bring the first fruits, etc.” Apparently this verse is talking about eating [fruits], so one might have thought there is an obligation to bring first fruits immediately [after arriving in the Land] before benefiting from them, as we say (Berachos 35a), “Whoever benefits from this world without a blessing is considered as if he committed sacrilege,” and we would not have applied the gezeira shava from [appointing] a king. Therefore Rashi has to explain explicitly, “'And you inherit it and settle it,' [This teaches, etc.”] However, above in parshas Shoftim [the verse also has to specify that it is only after settlement, as] we would not learn this from first fruits, because one might think that they are obligated to appoint a king immediately they enter the Land, because the king is appointed to lead them in war, and there is no greater need for this than during the conquest and apportionment, since that is the main time of war. Therefore the verse there has to explain [by saying], “And inherit it and settle in it,” that this [appointing] is only after conquest and apportionment, in order that they give credit for the conquest to the Holy One and not to a mortal king.

But not all the first, etc. This is the text in most books that are available to us. Re”m asks on this: Why learn this law from “of the first”? Derive it from the gezeira shava of “land” “land,” that only fruits of the seven species are subject to “first fruits”? Also, why is it different here that we expound “of the first” and not all the first to exclude, that not all trees are subject to the first fruit obligation, but only some of them. And why is challah (Bamidbar 15:21) different that we expound from “of the first” but not all the first, to exclude, that one may not make the whole dough *challah.*He discusses this at length. See the Nachalas Yaakov at length.

The aguriolive, with its oil gathered inside. You might ask: In parshas Eikev (above 8:8), Rashi explains, “' oil, olives,' Its meaning is, olives that produce oil.” Why does Rashi not explain there as he explains here [that “oil, olives” means the aguri olive]? The answer is that above he is discussing the praise of the Land of Israel; and regarding that he explains, “Olives that produce oil,” meaning that in other lands there are olives that do not produce oil, whereas in the Land of Israel, all its olives produce oil. But here he is discussing the verse dealing with the first fruits, and we bring only first fruits from the fruits of the Land of Israel by which the Land of Israel is extolled, as we derive from [the gezeira shava of] “land,” “land,” and it is as if the verse had explicitly written these fruits in the parsha of first fruits here as well. And here [too], “olive” means the olives of the Land of Israel and they all produce oil as Rashi explains in parshas Eikev. If so, it is understandable why he explains [the further point that for the mitzvah of first fruits that must be from the very best, one must bring] “the aguri olive, whose oil is gathered inside,” because there are olives whose oil oozes out during rainfall and these are not as good. Therefore Rashi explains, “The aguri olive, etc.” This also answers the contradiction in Re”m's words [where he seems to be saying that all the olives in the world produce oil].

When a man enters his field. Rashi is explaining why the verse says “first”? It should have said only, “You are to take of the fruits, etc.”

And notices the first fig to mature, he wraps, etc. Not a fig in particular, but other species as well. The reason for mentioning a fig is because it ripens earlier than other fruits.

That you are not ungrateful. Otherwise, why mention this? Does not the Holy One already know that he arrived to the Land? כפוי [to turn the good upside down and ignore it] is derived from the expression הכפשני באפר, “He turned me upside down in the ground” (Eicha 3:16).

Once each year, etc. Meaning that if he had more than one species of fruit, and one species ripened faster than the second, and he brings the first one to Jerusalem and says the readings, and then when the second species matures he brings it too, he does not say a reading a second time. Rashi's proof is that it is written “today,” which implies a restriction; otherwise, why write “today”?

Places his hand below the owner’s hand and waves. I already explained [how Rashi knows this] in parshas Tzav (Vayikra 7:30) and in parshas Tetzaveh (Shmos 29:24) and in parshas Emor (Vayikra 23:11). His proof is that it should have said, “The kohein shall then take the basket and place it before the altar of Adonoy, etc.” Why does it say “from your hand”? Thus “from your hand” is available for a gezeira shava. It says “hand” here and it says “hand” by the owner of a peace offering (ibid 7:30). Just as over there, there is waving, as it is specified there, so too, the “hand” over here involves waving. Regarding the waving here, Rashi explains in ChapterLulav Ve'arava (Sukkah 47b) that the owner holds the edge of the basket while the kohein places his hands beneath the bottom of the basket. Even though regarding peace offerings, the kohein puts his hand directly under the owner’s hand, that is because a peace offering has no edge or bottom, therefore the kohein’s hand is directly under the owner’s hand.

This denotes a loud proclamation. But it does not denote [an expression of] answering or replying, because there cannot be a reply unless someone calls or asks, and here, who called to him or asked him anything?

He cites the Omnipresent’s benevolence, etc. I.e., because he mentions the Holy One's benevolence, that He gave them this Land, he also mentions the other benevolences that He treated our forefathers. Otherwise, what connection is there between “the Aramite destroyed my forefather” and the first fruits?

Because he intended to act, etc. Rashi is answering the question: If Lavan did not destroy him, why then is it written “destroyed,” which indicates that he did destroy him? אובד is a verb acting on something else [i.e. saying that the Aramite destroyed Yaakov], as if it said מאבד, [sought to destroy] even though this is not in accordance with proper grammar. So one has to explain according to this Midrash of the sages.

For with the nations, the Omnipresent equates, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The Holy One does not equate thought with deed except for idolatry (Kiddushin 39b)! Therefore he explains, “For with the nations, etc.” I.e., even not in the case of idolatry He equates, etc., and only with Yisroel is it so [that He does not equate thought with deed].

Yet others fell upon us to annihilate us, etc. Rashi explains [the verse as follows]: The straightforward meaning implies that because the “Aramite destroyed my forefather” therefore “he descended to Egypt.” But this is not so. Therefore he explains “yet others, etc.” which is a separate matter.

As indicated by the plain connotation. And therefore perforce “this place” refers to the Beis Hamikdosh. But if the explanation of “He gave us this land” is not according to its simple meaning, we could then explain that “to this place” means the Land of Israel.

This teaches that he takes it after the kohein’s waving, etc. Otherwise, why write “and you shall then place it”? It already said (v. 4) “and he will place it.” Rashi's proof that he “then waves it again,” is from here; that we derive “and you shall then place it” from “and he will place it before [the altar of] Adonoy.” Just as regarding “place it” in the beginning, he waved it before placing it down, so too, etc.

Except during the time of rejoicing, etc. Otherwise, what rejoicing is there that it is written “you shall rejoice, etc.”? It is not eaten by non-kohanim because its laws are derived from terumah[which is forbidden to non-kohanim]? Therefore he explains, “From here they derive, etc.” Therefore, regarding the Levi and the proselyte too, you cannot explain as in parshas Re'ei (above 12:18), that you are obligated to have them rejoice with you, since it is forbidden to them. Therefore he explains that they too are obligated in first fruits (Devek Tov).

If they planted in their cities. I.e., within their forty-eight cities.

Who brings without reciting, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The proselyte is obligated in all mitzvos of the Torah, is it then not obvious that he is obligated regarding the first fruits, and thus the verse should have written only, “You and the Levi”? He answers, “He brings without reciting,” and therefore the proselyte is specified separately.

When you finish setting aside the tithes, etc. The meaning is not when you finish setting aside the tithes of the second year, as is implied by “in the third year” as meaning that you are in the third year and setting aside tithes of the second year. Because then it should have said, “When you finish tithing all the tithes of your produce [of] the third year.” Therefore one must explain that “in the third year” means “pertaining to the third year,” and the word is lacking a שי"ן, as in the verse (Shmos 18:20), “The path [in which] they must walk.” The third year refers to the third year following Shemittah.

As it is said, “At the end of three years you shall remove, etc.” Rashi wants to prove that the time of divesture and recitation is on the day before Pesach. This verse is written in parshas Re'ei (above 14:28) relating to tithes.

Here, “at the end of” is said, and below, “at the end of seven years” is said, etc. Not actually here in this parsha. Rather, Rashi is saying that [the phrase] “at the end of” is said regarding the third year. Therefore, it is as if it is written here, because here too it talks about the tithe of the third year.

The year when the tithing obligation is for only, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why the verse calls the third year “the year of the tithe.”? Are the first and second years not years of tithes? He explains, “The year when the tithing obligation is for only, etc.”

Supply them with enough to satisfy them, etc. Rashi is answering the question: If he does not want to eat, what can one do about it? Therefore he explains, “Supply them, etc.” Do what you are obligated to do.

Less than half a kavof wheat, etc. Which is [the volume of] twelve eggs. But of barley one has to give him a [whole] kav. And one only has to give him a half a kav of wheat at the threshing area, because in town one does not have to give him a half kav, because in town he can go to others as well. However, this is not the case regarding threshing areas because they are distant from each other.

Acknowledge that you gave your tithes. That is, acknowledge in your heart [i.e. to yourself]. Otherwise, it should have said, “You shall declare to Adonoy your God,” as it says above (v. 3) regarding the bringing of the first fruits. (Minchas Yehuda). Because if the verse is understood according to its simple meaning, what need is there to say [this] to the Holy One? It is already known to Him. (Nachalas Yaakov)

This refers to the second tithe and the fourth-year fruit. As Rashi explains above in parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:24), that the second tithe and the fourth-year fruit are called “sacred.”

And teaches you that if one tarried with his two year tithes, etc. Rashi is answering the question: There is no second tithe in the third year; if so, one should only declare the poor man’s tithe which is obligatory in the third year and continues until Pesach of the fourth year, as said above! Therefore he explains, “And teaches you, etc.”

This includes the terumah**-gift, and the first fruits.** [In some texts] Rashi writes terumos in the plural form to also include the terumah taken from tithes as the Mishnah says at the end of Maaser Sheini (5:10). Rashi includes first fruits with terumah, because, as Rabbeinu Shimshon explains there, the Torah writes (above 12:17), “the terumah-separation of your hand,” and the sages (Makkos 17a) explain, “These are the first fruits.” Rashi mentions them explicitly because not everyone is knowledgeable of this teaching.

For terumahis entitled “the first, etc.” Rashi wants to explain from where we know the Torah is particular about the order.

Of one species for another, etc. For example, wheat for barley.

To bless you for the setting aside of tithes. Re”m writes: It means, from praising and blessing You at the time of setting aside the tithes. But it does not mean from reciting the [formal] blessing for the one who is setting aside tithes, because that [formal] blessing is a text instituted by the men of the Great Assembly, for the blessings upon [the performance of] mitzvos are only Rabbinically ordained.

From here we derive that it is forbidden during grief. Otherwise, what difference does it make whether or not he ate [during grief]? Even though the declaration includes [all] tithes and terumos as the sages expound from the earlier verse, “I have also presented it to the Levi, etc.,” [and if so, why do the sages apply this prohibition only to the second tithe?] Nevertheless, the word “of it” implies only one [type of] tithe, and this can only be the second tithe which is called “sacred” (Vayikra 27:30), [as the previous verse mentions the word “sacred”] (Kitzur Mizrachi).

Whether I was defiled and it was clean, etc. That is, the terumah, or I was clean and it was defiled.”

Where is the admonition concerning this?, etc. You might ask: Why not say that the admonition is from here, as Rashi explained above, “From here we derive that it is forbidden during grief.” The answer is that the prohibition certainly is derived from here. Therefore the explanation of [Rashi's question], “Where is the admonition concerning this?” means, in order that he transgresses a negative commandment and be given lashes. But regarding eating in grief, there is only a prohibition and no lashes. And when it is written, “I did not eat of it when grieving,” it is merely relating a fact but it is not an admonition, because an admonition is only feasible when it comes from the Holy One's mouth [as a commandment]. Therefore Rashi explains, “Where is the admonition, etc.”

To make a casket or shrouds. This teaching is a novelty; for even a casket or shrouds that are a mitzvah, and certainly secular purposes [are forbidden]. See Kitzur Mizrachi.

I have brought it to the Temple. Otherwise, why write, “I have heeded the voice of Adonoy”? The person has already declared that he fulfilled all he was commanded and he did not transgress all that he was admonished against? For this reason too, they expounded from, “I have fulfilled everything that You commanded me,” [to mean,] “I rejoiced, and brought joy with it.”

I rejoiced, and brought joy with it. That is, [to] others.

Now You fulfill what is incumbent upon You, etc. Otherwise, what relevance has this prayer over here? Therefore [it means], “Because we have fulfilled, etc.” it is fitting for You to fulfill what You promised. At any rate it is a prayer, and not as Re”m and Devek Tov write.

To give to us, and You fulfilled, etc. By adding the words “to give to us,” Rashi is answering the question: The oath does not mention “a land flowing with milk and honey,” so how is it written here, “As You swore, etc.”? Therefore Rashi explains “to give to us.” That is, [You gave to us] as You swore to our forefathers you would give us, “and [also] You fulfilled” the promise you made to those who went out of Egypt to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, [which was] more than You had sworn to our forefathers.

A heavenly echo blesses him, etc. Rashi is answering the question: This parsha is certainly juxtaposed to the parsha of first fruits. Therefore [the words], “You shall observe, etc.,” refer to the parsha of first fruits. But how can “you shall observe and perform them, etc.” refer to the parshaof first fruits if in the parsha of first fruits it is written that he already completed the entire procedure and has already brought the first fruits, as is indicated by the verse, “View, from Your sacred residence, etc.”? Therefore Rashi explains, “A heavenly echo blesses him, etc.” (Re”m). To me it seems that Rashi is answering the question: According to the verse's straightforward meaning, why is it written, “This very day, etc.”? Hashem already commanded this in the parsha of** “Should you thoroughly heed My commandments” (above 11:13), and in the parsha of “You are to love” (ibid 6:5). Perforce, the whole matter refers to bringing the first fruits, and if so, why is it written, “You shall observe and perform them”? What is it referring to? And how is it connected to, “Adonoy, you have distinguished today, etc.”? Therefore it must be that, “A heavenly echo blesses him, etc.”

You have distinguished Him, from the alien gods, etc. This is the explanation of, “You have distinguished today, etc.”

And He set you aside, for Himself, from the peoples of the earth, etc. This is the explanation of, “And Adonoy has distinguished you, etc.”

It denotes glory, etc. Thus האמרת means “you glorified,” as in “All evildoers glorify themselves.” They glorify themselves that their [evil] way is successful (Rashi, Chagiga 3a).