To recognize Hashem’s benevolence, etc. But [the verse does not mean] not to know the great miracles and the signs and wonders, as the simple connotation of the verse implies, because regarding these the verse would not say “a knowledgeable mind, etc.”

I have heard: because on that day, etc.” Rashi is explaining how it is possible that before this they did not have eyes and ears.

How is it that you are empowering your fellow tribesmen over it, etc. That is, over the Torah.

You now view yourselves in prominence and glory, etc. And “to this place” means to this situation, i.e., this importance and greatness. According to the “another interpretation” too, it means to this importance. However, according to the first interpretation that explained “a knowledgeable mind” as meaning “To recognize Hashem’s benevolence,” that all your virtues, greatness and glory are from the Omniscient, the verse means: Since you have come to this level of recognizing that all your success is from the Omniscient and not from your hands, it is fitting that you observe the tenets of this covenant in order to succeed in everything you do. According to the second interpretation that explained “a knowledgeable mind” as meaning a mind to know and fathom his master's wisdom, the verse means: Since you have come to this level of fathoming Hashem's wisdom, from now on He will be exacting with you in observing mitzvos. Therefore it is fitting that you guard the tenets of this covenant, which are Hashem's mitzvos in order for you to succeed and not stumble in all that you do. Re”m writes: But I do not how to fit in the verse “Sichon, king of Cheshbon, came out, etc.” between “Then when you came to this place” and “You are to guard, etc.,” because they [these two latter verses] are connected to one another. I think one can answer according to the first interpretation that explained, “You now view yourselves in greatness and glory,” [as follows: As an example of this viewing yourself in prominence and glory], you recognized Hashem's benevolence when “He struck great kings, Sichon and Og, Kings of the Emori, for his benevolence is everlasting” (Tehillim 136). Therefore, “do not rebel, etc.” And according to the second interpretation, the explanation is as follows: Now that you have reached this level of fathoming His wisdom, which is the Torah and the mitzvah, and also understand that you can gain every success through keeping the Torah and mitzvos, that enabled you to smite the two kings of the Emori, therefore from now on it is only fitting that you guard the tenets, etc., in order to succeed in all that you will do. And if not you will not succeed because from now on He will be exacting.

This teaches that Moshe gathered them, etc. You might ask: From where does Rashi know this? Perhaps he did not gather them but rather each one remained in his encampment and Moshe stood in the middle? Furthermore, why does Rashi explain To introduce them into the covenant”? This is explicitly written in the verse? The answer is that he explains to introduce them into the covenant as this proves that he gathered them together, since one cannot make a covenant except through a rite of passage as we see later (v. 11). If so, since the verse writes that He introduced them into a covenant, Moshe must have uprooted them from their place and gathered them together, in order to perform this rite of passage with them into the covenant.

On the day that he died, to introduce them into the covenant. Since it is written this day it implies, this day my years are complete, i.e., this day I will die. ([See] Re”m). Alternatively, if you do not say this, why did he gather them now more than during the entire forty years? It is understandable if it was the day of his death, because if not now, then when? But if it was not the day of his death, why [do it] now more than the entire forty years?

Your chieftains of your tribes. Otherwise, if it means your chieftains and your tribes, each category by itself, why mention the chieftains at all? Once it writes your tribes the chieftains are included? And also, why mention the other details since all are included in your tribes”? This is no difficulty if the verse means your chieftains of your tribes, for you can say that the verse first mentions your chieftains, then your elders, afterwards your law officers, and afterwards all of Yisrael, i.e., the more prominent being listed first. But if your chieftains and your tribes are two entities, why mention chieftains at all? And if you ask: Why does it write ראשיכם (your chieftains) and not ראשי שבטיכם (the chieftains of your tribes)? The answer is to teach us that the prince of the generation is equal to the entire generation.

This teaches that Canaanites came to convert during the days of Moshe, etc. It does not mean to say that they deceived Moshe as they [later] deceived Yehoshua, for God forbid that they deceived the one [i.e., Moshe] of whom it says In My entire house he is trusted (Bamidbar 12:7). Rather, they came to him to make peace with him, but he did not receive them [by making a covenant with them], rather he assigned them to serve as wood cutters and water drawers. And the explanation of they too, etc, is that they came, but not that they were able to deceive him.

So that you pass into the covenant. I.e., you yourself must pass and not through others. And thus he explains afterwards: But it would be improper to interpret this, etc., i.e., through others. Because if so, how could it say Into the covenant of Hashem, your God, if one explains it to mean to be passed through by others, [since a covenant implies mutual consent]? Furthermore, how can one explain that it means to be passed through? For this would serve notice against acceptance of the covenant, for they could say, We were coerced!

But, rather, as “for your performance of them.” This means to do them, i.e., you of your own volition and not through others.

He has committed Himself with such great effort, etc. Rashi has the following difficulty: You cannot say that this In order,, etc. is the reason He ratified the covenant with them, because the reason He ratified the covenant with them is stated afterwards (v. 17) where it says, Perhaps there is among you a man or a woman or a family or a tribe,, etc. If so, what is this in order referring to? Rashi therefore explains, He has committed himself with such great effort, etc. I.e., the verse is answering the question why the Holy One made the effort of binding them by oath. He should simply have given them a commandment and if they listened well and good, and if not, He will punish them as with all the other commands. However, he committed Himself with such great effort because He already swore to your forefathers not to exchange, etc. Therefore He had to bring them, etc.

While the imprecations and the suffering sustain you and stand you before Him, etc. Meaning that through the imprecations you are careful to never transgress the commandments. And furthermore, they atone for sins so that you live and persist eternally. And similarly they said in the first chapter of Avoda Zara (4a) and in maseches Berachos (5a).

The chapter above this, as well, is conciliatory, etc. Rashi proves that Moshe was telling them conciliatory remarks so that you do not ask: How could he be speaking conciliatory words if the whole parsha implies [that he was giving] rebuke, and also above it, everything is rebuke?!

Because the Israelites were passing from one leader to the next, etc. Because according to the first interpretation you might ask that the language of the parsha indicates that this is rebuke and not conciliation. Therefore he offers another interpretation. But according to the other interpretation you might ask why it says You stand this day? Why does the verse write this day?

Even with the generations destined for the future. You cannot explain the verse according to its straightforward connotation, that those who are not here had left, because it is written, “You stand, this day all of you. Also, you could [refute this explanation and] say: How can one contract a covenant with someone who is not present? Perhaps if he came back from where he went and was here, he would not accept the covenant! But if it refers to those who will be in the future, there is no difficulty as even if their bodies were not there, their souls were there and accepted the covenant. Another explanation is that “a son is the extension [lit., leg] of his father,” and being that the fathers accepted [the covenant], the sons who come after them are also included in the covenant.

Since you have observed the idolatrous Gentile nations, etc. Rashi is answering the question: What reason is this for what comes before [in the previous verse], And with those who are not here, etc. Therefore he explains, Since you have observed, etc., therefore, I am compelled to adjure you. I.e., this is a reason for what comes before the previous verses, For your passage into the covenant, etc. (v. 11). It is explaining why the Holy One suspected that Yisroel might serve idols and made it necessary for them take an oath regarding this. The reason he suspected them was what he says here, Because you are aware, etc. These two verses, For you are aware, etc., and Where you observed their abominations, etc., are connected to the verse Perhaps there is among you, etc. that follows them, and the word פן is missing a ויו (and). That is why [in some texts] Rashi explains Where you observed, etc. after Perhaps there is among you.

Those of wood and stone, you saw in the open, etc. Rashi is explaining why the verse altered its wording and wrote you observed regarding wood and stone, but does not write you observed regarding gold and silver.

In case there is among you. Some people ask: It is written above in parshas Va'eschanan (4:9), Lest you forget the words, and, Lest you raise your eyes heavenward (ibid. 19), and in parshas Eikev (above 11:16), Lest your heart be misled, yet over there, Rashi does not explain that it means perhaps. According to Re”m's explanation that this perhaps there is among you is part of Rashi's words and not that he is coming to explain it, but citing it [as part of his sentence] to explain the composition of the verse, there is no difficulty at all. Even without this, you can answer that Rashi explains the meaning of פן here and not above, is because above it connotes a negative commandment as they said (Zevachim 106a), Wherever it says השמר, פן, or אל, it connotes a negative commandment. But here one cannot explain that it is a negative commandment, i.e., that one should not do this, because it is written Perhaps there is among you, which is speaking of a case where such people are already present. Therefore Rashi explains that [here] it connotes “in case” [i.e. perhaps].

Whose thoughts stray today. This is part of Rashi's text, not that Rashi is now explaining the [beginning of] the verse, Perhaps there is among you, etc., [someone] whose thoughts stray, etc. [Because Rashi is actually explaining the second part of the verse, Perhaps there is within you a root producing gall and bitter fruit.] Otherwise, [i.e., if you claim that Rashi is explaining the first part of the verse], the difficulty arises that Rashi already explained [the first part of the verse] above (v. 15) [when he explained, “Perhaps there is, among you, etc.” “Perhaps someone among you has been tempted to follow them.”] Also, our verse seems to be talking about idolatry so how can Rashi explain that it is talking about accepting the covenant”? Thus one must say that [whose thoughts stray today] is part of Rashi's text. Rashi is discussing the words, Perhaps there is within you a root producing gall, etc. and not the words, Perhaps there is among you a man or a woman, etc., because he wants to answer why the Torah writes, Perhaps there is within you, etc. twice. He explains that the reason it is written a second time is because the first instance is talking about idolatry and the second instance [is talking] about accepting the covenant. It is as if the verse says, Perhaps there is among you whose heart strays today from Hashem to go after idols, or perhaps there is among you whose heart strays today from accepting the yoke of the covenant, and thus the word today applies to both of them, because neither of them wants to accept the covenant. [Re”m]

A root nurturing bitter herbs, like the bitter gidin herb. [The latter is] a species of bitter herb. And similarly, the Targum Yonasan translates Bitter as la'anah in Mishlei (5:4), and la’anah and rosh in Eicha (3:19) as gidin.

He will imagine blessings of tranquility, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Even if [the person imagines that] no oath-curse will affect him, why should this be considered a blessing if it confers him no benefit, i.e., the great good [that results from a blessing]? Therefore Rashi explains blessings of tranquility, i.e., when there is peace that is a blessing as it is written (Tehillim 29:11), Hashem will bless his people with peace. He will imagine this blessing of tranquility.

Because I shall punish him additionally, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse I shall follow what my thoughts envision” implies that his sins are intentional; if so, what is the meaning of that the unintentional may be added”? Rashi answers, Because I shall punish him additionally.

Now, however, he has provoked me into combining them with the intentionally sinful, etc. With this, Rashi emends a number of things. He explains that the term ספות connotes adding and not destruction as in lest you be swept away (תספה) (Bereishis 19:17). He also alters the verse by saying למען שאוסיף (lit. so that I will add), because ספות is a gerund and could be interpreted as meaning that that transgressor will add. He also adds the word him, because without the word him, we would not understand to whom He is adding. If Rashi had not explained that I shall punish him additionally, one could understand that adding unintentional acts to intentional acts means that the intentional acts will be regarded as unintentional, or vice versa. The explanation of [word so that in the] verse is as follows, that his acts of following what his thoughts envision will be reason for Me to add the punishment for his unintentional sins to the punishment of his intentional sins.

Adherence to the vengeance mode, etc. Rashi is explaining how the word קנאה connotes revenge. See above at the beginning of parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 25:11) where this is well explained.

They had no notion that they possessed Divine omnipotence. [In some texts] Rashi explains the text out of order because he wants to prove that when the verse writes unknown to them, it means, They had no notion that they possessed Divine omnipotence. Because once Rashi explains the verse that Which He had not apportioned to them means He did not allot them as their portion, it is obvious that they were unknown to them. If so, why does the verse write unknown to them”? Therefore we must say it means they had no notion that they possessed Divine omnipotence. Re”m explains that [Rashi explains the verse out of order] because the verse [too] should have written, “gods [which] He had not apportioned to them and were unknown to them, in order to first say that they prostrated themselves to those gods not because Hashem had allotted them as their portion. And afterwards he adds that they also did not choose them of themselves for they saw that they possessed Divine omnipotence.

If you should ask, What are we capable of doing? etc. Rashi is explaining the relevance of the hidden [matters], etc. in this parsha.

As it is said, “Perhaps there is, among you a man, etc. This implies that an individual sinned. But afterwards [it is written], They will see the plagues of that land, which implies that the entire land will be punished on account of him.

That, even with regard to what is exposed [the community was not punished] until they had crossed the Yarden, etc. Rashi explains that if not for the dots one would think that this has always been Hashem’s attribute, so the dots come here [for us] to expound that when it says ours and our children’s, that this attribute did not apply until now, but only from now on [i.e., once they cross the Yarden], because dots always come to exclude. You might ask that the dots should only appear on Hashem's Name [in this verse], as this would clearly indicate that [without the dots, certain] sins are Hashem our God’s, and with the dots it would also indicate that [certain] sins are ours and not Hashem's. How is this so? To to teach that, even with regard to what is exposed, etc. You might ask why there is a dot on the עין of עד (forever)? The answer is that there is a dot on the עין of עד so that [a total of] eleven letters have dots, corresponding to the eleven dots of Hashem's name [in the verse], to teach you that the dots should have been on Hashem’s Name to exclude [what is exposed, etc.], but it is not proper to put dots on Hashem’a Name. (I found this in the name of Maharitz). Re”m writes that the dot on עד is to indicate that this word עד should not be here but next to the hidden [matters], to indicate that this rule [that the public is not punished for hidden matters] is [in effect] for all time [even before crossing the Yarden]. Even though we would know that it refers to the hidden matters and not the exposed matters as explained above [because of the other dots], nevertheless, were it not for the dot on עד that teaches that it is written out of place, it would have seemed like an error because it is written next to the revealed matters. But once it has the dot, it is as if the Torah explicitly writes that its place is not here but above. You might ask, why was [the public] punished in the incident of Achan? The Gemora (Sanhedrin 43b) already answers because his wife and children knew [of his sin].