Why are they called עשתרות**?** See above parshas Eikev (7:13) where I have explained this.

Liquids which you filter. Meaning [liquids] such as wine and oil.

Solids, which remain in the utensil, etc. Such as all varieties of fruits. It is called משארתך because they remain (נשארים) in the basket. According to the first explanation [that טנאך means] “your fruit,” there is no explanation [in Rashi] of משארתיך. You must resort to its plain meaning, similar to (Shmos 12:34), “(The people took their dough before it was leavened.) Their leftovers were wrapped in their clothing.” It is as if the verse said, “Blessed will be its fruits and its dough.” According to the first explanation you could ask why it does it not simply say fruit? Why does it say טנאך? Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation: Your basket — liquids which you filter etc.” But according to the “other interpretation” you might ask that the blessing of grapes [wine] is included in the blessing of fruits, so why does the Torah give it a separate blessing? And you cannot answer that the Torah gives it a separate blessing so that even in the event there is no blessing of plenty with the grapes, even so there will be plenty wine. This is not so because once there is a blessing of plenty for fruit in general, the grapes too are included, and there will probably be plenty of wine. Therefore he also needs the first explanation.

For your departure from the world will be without sin, etc. Meaning that just as your arrival to the world was without sin, so too your departure from the world will be without sin. Rashi's proof [for this interpretation] is that it first it is written “at your arrival” and afterwards “at your departure,” whereas the way of the world is to first depart from a house and afterwards to arrive [back home]. Also, why bless [only] one's arrival and departure, but not one's walking and other movements? Therefore he explains that the verse means to arrive without sin. The verse is saying as follows: You were blessed at your arrival for you had no sin, and so too you will be blessed at your departure that you will have no sin. You might ask, how do we explain the [verse dealing with the] curse where it also written first (v. 28) “Cursed are you upon your arrival,” since over there one cannot say, “Like your arrival into the world with sin,” as Re”m questions. However, I found written in the name of the Mahara of Pragure that this is not difficult at all, as the verse means as follows: You will be cursed at your arrival just as at your departure. Just as you will certainly have sin at your departure, so too you will be cursed at your arrival, i.e., full of sin. You might ask, what sin could a newborn possibly commit? The answer is that the Holy One visits the sins of fathers onto sons. Much more has been said about this. It seems to me that one can answer this question in conjunction with what they said in Chapter Hamapeles (Niddah 30b): To what can an embryo be compared in its mother's womb? To a folded tablet, etc. and they teach it the entire Torah, etc.” Regarding this it says, “Cursed are you upon your arrival,” that just as you are caused to forget the entire Torah [at birth], so too, “cursed are you upon your departure,” as you will also forget all the Torah that you learn in this world. And the beginning of a person's judgment is, “Were you involved in Torah learning?” Another answer is that a person's arrival in this world is with wailing, because it is usual for a baby to cry when it emerges into the air of the world. So too when he departs the world it will also be with wailing. And this is a bad sign for him as it says (Kesuvos 103b): Someone who dies while laughing, it is a good sign for him; while wailing, it is a bad sign, etc.” This is easy to understand. (So it seems to me).

By scattering in every direction. Why then it is written “seven”? Re”m explains that it is customary for “seven” to represent an expression of multiplicity, as in (Shmuel I 2:5), “Until the barren gives birth to seven, etc.”

He will incite armed forces against you. Rashi is answering the question: Until this point the verse lists various kinds of illnesses, but what sort of illness is the sword? He explains that this is a separate curse, that He will incite armed forces against you. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question how does a sword strike of its own volition [which the verse implies]?

Injury to the crops in the field. Rashi is answering the same question as before, what sort of illness is “שדפון וירקון”? And he explains that these are injurious to the crops. Until now the verse lists illnesses afflicting the body and here it list plagues that afflict the crops.

Targum: עד דתיבד**, meaning, etc.** Because according to its straightforward meaning, the verse implies that the Holy One will chase you until you are lost from Him, and someone else will find you. But this is impossible because if one is lost from the Holy One, who will find him and save him from His hand? Therefore he cites the Targum, עד דתיבד, which is an expression of annihilation from the world. Then Rashi asks that if so, why mention a description of destruction? It should have simply said עד אבוד, until annihilation? Regarding this he explains, “meaning, ‘until the annihilation of you.’” That is, if it had not written the ך' that connects the verb to speak in the second person, you might have thought the word אבד is an infinitive*, like אבד תאבדון, “You must obliterate” (above 12:2), and its meaning is “until you will annihilate” something [of your own] as atonement for your sins. Therefore the Scripture adds the ך' that converts the verb to speak in the second person, so that the word אבד refers to the person spoken of, meaning, until you [yourself] are annihilated. Nevertheless, he [concludes and] explains that according to the Targum it means “until you are annihilated of yourself.” Examine this carefully. This answers what Re”m wrote, “I do not know how to resolve what Rashi first writes עד דתיבד [until the annihilation of you] and then writes עד אבוד אותך, [until you destroy], which implies that this is the explanation of עד דתיבד, but then he concludes, שתכלה מאליך, “until you are annihilated of yourself,” which can only be going according to the Targum.*

These curses Moshe articulated himself, etc. Meaning that Moshe asked the Holy One for permission to curse them this way, and the Holy One granted him permission. This resolves the Gemara's statement (Sanhedrin 99a) that Moshe did not innovate even one letter [in the Torah] on his own i.e., without permission from the Holy One. And when Rashi explains that Moshe “articulated himself,” he means that he first asked the Holy One [for permission]. Tosefos in ChapterBnei Ha'ir (Megilla 31b), [commenting on the Gemora there] write, “Moshe articulated himself, and through Divine Inspiration.”

It is said, “If you do not heed ‘Me’” etc. But if Moshe pronounced them, it would be impossible to say, “...heed me, etc.”

Still, this is a curse, etc. Rashi is answering the question that if Moshe wanted to curse them, then, what curse is “The heavens above your head will be like copper”?

When the wind follows a rainfall, etc. This is the expression of the Gemora. Rashi is answering: How can it say that rain will turn into dust and soil which are two opposites, and to have two opposites in one situation is impossible! Therefore he explains, “When the wind follows, etc.”

Not enough to settle the dust, etc. להרביץ is similar to the expression (Shmos 23:5), “Lying (רובץ) under its burden.”

Extremely pernicious, etc. Otherwise, why does it say “Egyptian boils”? It should have simply said “boils.”

Boils that are dry, like ceramics. This is its meaning, because it is [also] written “with dry boils,” thus this indicates that גרב means running boils. See above in parshas Emor (Vayikra 21:20).

Whatever you do will be subject to altercation. You cannot say [the term עשוק is related to] “You shall not withhold the wages (לא תעשוק) of your fellow” (Vayikra 19:13), which means to withhold the wages of a hireling, as this has nothing to do with our parsha. And robbery is already mentioned [in the word following]. Therefore Rashi explains the term (עשוק) is related to (Bereishis 26:20), “He named the well עשק [Quarrel], because they had quarreled with him.”

The meaning is related to “mistress,”“concubine.” [שגל means] a woman who is a concubine. That is to say, “A woman will you marry” and another man will take her as his concubine.

But Scripture prefers a more refined term, etc. Meaning that it should have said “will have relations with her,” but Scripture preferred this more refined term, ישגלנה. That is, he will not lie with her like a harlot, but he will take her as a concubine.

This is the kind of refinement made by scribes. I already explained this in parshas Vayera (Bereishis 18:22).

For this reason it is called, [lit.] the demolisher etc. Elsewhere is the locust called חסיל. Why? Because it destroys everything.

Will discard its fruit, meaning the same as “And the iron discards.” Rashi is not satisfied to say that that it (ישל) means being discarded, because it is a verb applying to an object where the object, i.e., the fruits, are missing [from the sentence]. Therefore he says, “Will discard its fruit, meaning the same as 'And the iron discards (נשל),'“ which is also a verb applying to an object and means that the iron will discard a piece from the wood being hewed, and it will go and kill him. (Re”m)

A species of locusts, etc. It is called צלצל, an expression of “clanging cymbals (Tehillim 150:5),” because many of them come at once, and they come with resounding noise and commotion.

For, if so, it should have written יירש**, etc.** With a chirik under the first יו"ד.

While you had every benefit. Rashi makes the מ"ם of מרוב as if it were a בי"ת, like the מ"ם in “מסיני בא (Adonoy came at Sinai) (below 55:2).” As if the verse said ברוב כל, meaning, “while still in abundant affluence,” i.e., while you still had every benefit.

Suddenly, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Is the eagle unable to come from nearby?! Therefore he explains, “suddenly, etc.” I.e., “as the eagle soars” is a separate phrase and does not refer to the adjacent “nation from afar, etc.” Rather, it refers to the beginning of the verse, “Adonoy will raise upon you a nation” suddenly “as the eagle soars, etc.”

The meaning is mastering, conquering. And חומותיך is missing a בי"ת, since it should have written עד רדת בחומותיך, as in the verse (Bereishis 1:26), וירדו בדגת הים, “And let him dominate the fish of the sea.” [Rashi does not translate רדת as “fall” or descend], because the expression of “descend” applies only to falling from a high place to a low place, and the walls are already standing low on the ground. Rashi therefore explains it as an expression of mastering or conquering. And though רדת is of the same basic structure as שבת, Rashi understands that this is one of the atypical words that often appear in the Torah. And though Scripture writes (Bamidbar 10:17), “[Then] the Mishkon was taken down (הורד),” [and] (ibid. 1:51), “They shall take down (יורידו) the Mishkon,” although the Mishkon stood on the ground, the word רדת is different because it is a verb applying to the subject itself, whereas יורידו and הורד are verbs that apply to another object.

Because they will lay siege to the city, etc. It is not the siege that causes the starvation which leads to people eating the flesh of their sons. Rather, the siege causes torment and agony of starvation that leads to people eating the flesh of their sons. Thus the וי"ו of ובמצוק is superfluous like the וי"ו of (Bereishis 36:24), “[These are the sons of Tzivon:] (and) Ayoh and Anoh (ואיה וענה).”

So that he will begrudge his remaining children. Meaning that his eye will be too stingy to give to them. And to whom will he be stingy? To those who are mentioned in the verse, “At his brother and at the wife of his bosom.” But it does not mean that he will be stingy, i.e., [to] himself, rather it his brother to whom he will refuse to give.

The proof is that the following is written, “If you obey etc.” But one cannot prove anything from the verse here where it is written, “which you dreaded,” because you could say that “which you dreaded” refers to the Egyptians and means as follows: “All the Egyptian diseases,” and which Egyptians? Those “which you dreaded.” Therefore Rashi has to prove this from “If you obey, etc.”

The connotation is rising up. The מ"ם of this word is grammatical and indicates the plural. It is not an expression of concealment as in (Eicha 3:56), “Do not conceal (תעלם) Your ear,” in which case it would be explained like (verse 59), “Adonoy will strike you with prodigious (והפלא) blows,” i.e., they will be separate and hidden from every living thing, because if so, it should have been punctuated with a shva under the עי"ן as in the verse “Do not conceal (תעלם) Your ear,” and “will hide their eyes” (העלם יעלימו) (Vayikra 20:4). Furthermore, it should have said יעלימם ה' עליך, since it is referring to the plagues. (Re”m). This is difficult to understand because in all the texts יעלם is punctuated with a shva like העלם יעלימו which is also punctuated with a shva. Therefore we must say that Rashi does not differentiate between whether it is punctuated with a shva or a chataf shva, and his main proof is that it should have written יעלימם. Alternatively, his proof is that if it was an expression of concealment, the phrase [following] “against you” would not be understandable.

Few instead of many. The verse is not saying that they will remain numerically few and will therefore be unable to stand up against your enemies, because if so, why [does the verse say] “(Instead of your having been) like the stars in the sky, multitudinous”? What difference is it if they were originally many or few? Rather, the verse is saying that they will become less and less, like the bulls offered during Sukkos. You also cannot say [Rashi means] that instead of being wondrously many they will now become wondrously few, because if so he should have said, “Few instead of the many,” which would imply instead of the many they were originally. Rashi should not have said “instead of many” which implies whoever [the many] may happen to be. (Re”m).

To your enemies, concerning you, to annihilate, etc. Rashi adds “your enemies,” to tell us that the joy is connected with your enemies, i.e., the Holy One will bring joy to your enemies concerning you, etc. Otherwise, it should have said ישוש, which would imply that He Himself rejoices. Also, Hashem does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked (Megilla 10b).

Not literally idolatry, etc. Because it is impossible to say that the Holy One is informing them that they will serve idolatry.

This refers to one who depends on the bakeshop. This is far worse that someone who purchases produce at the marketplace, because the person who purchases produce at the marketplace can buy a large quantity at once to supply him for a long time, unlike the one who depends on the bakeshop. And the curse is, perhaps on one occasion he will not find anything to buy and he will die of starvation..

That it were last evening. Rashi is answering the question: Logic would dictate the opposite [of what the verse says], because it says in Bava Basra (16b), “When the sun is high, illness is relieved,” which indicates that illness is worse in the evening than in the morning! Regarding this he explains, “That it were last evening.”

For “the tribulations constantly increase etc.” Rashi wants to prove [logically] why the explanation is as he said, and the explanation is not, “would that it were the evening to come.”

By ship, as captives. Rashi adds the words “as captives,” because without adding this, sending them to Egypt in boats would not be a curse. (Re”m). This was a greater curse than taking them by foot, as it was a terrible affliction, for they drowned themselves in the sea, as we find (Gittin 57b) regarding the four hundred children who drowned themselves in the sea.

You will be sold, through other sellers, etc. That is, ונמכרתם would be passive usage like (Esther 7:4), “For we are sold (נמכרנו), I and my nation.” But because it is written והתמכרתם in the reflexive usage, it indicates that you will seek to be sold but will be unable to do so because no one will buy.