Do not hold them in esteem, etc. This interpretation is problematic, for it should say תחנן with the letter nun, which is the term for esteem. Alternatively, it should say תחונם, spelled with a vov. Therefore Rashi says, “Another interpretation: Do not give them an encampment.” In other words: Even if you do not make a treaty, but think to [let them live with you and] tax them. Therefore it says not to give them any settlement at all in the Land. The second explanation is problematic, for then the verse should only state not to give them any settlement in the Land (לא תחנם), and all the more so [we would know that] it is forbidden to make a treaty with them. Therefore the first explanation is also needed.

Who is born of a gentile, is considered your son, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse, “For he will turn your son,” seems to be giving a reason for the previous verse. But for what is it giving a reason? It cannot refer to the beginning of the verse, “Do not give your daughter to his son,” for then it should say, “For he will turn your daughter, etc.” And it cannot refer to the end of the verse, which is the simple understanding: “Nor take his daughter for your son,” and this is why it is written, “will turn your son.” This cannot be true, for it is written, “For he will turn, etc,” but it should say in the feminine form, “For she will turn.” Rather, if the son of the gentile, etc. In other words: For he will turn him away from Me, but your son’s son born of a gentile woman is not considered your son. For this reason the Torah is not concerned with him, because he is already turned away.

On account of His keeping the oath. This prefix mem is not in place of the word מן (from), which is usual in most instances. Rather it should be interpreted as, “because.”

But below it states: “For thousands of generations,” etc. In other words: Those who keep His commandments out of fear [are rewarded] for a thousand generations, and those who do so out of love [are rewarded] for two thousand generations. Even though it is also written here, “those who love Him,” before, “those who keep His commandments,” One may say: “Those who love Him” is connected to the previous phrase, “Who keeps the covenant and the kindliness.” And, “Those who keep,” is connected to the phrase written afterwards. Likewise above (5:10) it is written, “two thousand,” and it is also written, “for those who guard.” There also, the answer is similar: “For those who love,” is connected to the phrase preceding it, which is, “For two thousand.” And “For those who keep,” [are rewarded] for a thousand generations.

During his lifetime He rewards him for his good deeds, etc. Otherwise, this verse is self-contradictory: First it says that He rewards even His enemies for their good deeds, but afterwards it is written, “to destroy him.”

And tomorrow in the World to Come, etc. Rashi is explaining that the word, “today,” is connected to the word [following], “to fulfill,” not to the preceding [phrase], “I am commanding you,” for the commandment was not given today.

If, even the lesser commandments, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written עקב, which means “because of,” and implies they will definitely heed these laws, as we find regarding Avraham. There it is written (Bereishis 26:5), “Because (עקב) you have heeded My voice etc,” and Avraham definitely listened to His voice and wished to slaughter his son. If so, here also it implies they will definitely listen. But it says (Megillah 25a), “Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven.” Therefore Rashi explains that עקב means [“heel,” referring to] the lesser commandments (i.e., those commandments that people do not regard as being worth much reward). Therefore Rashi also says, “If, even the lesser commandments,” meaning, it is not definite. Additionally, because משפטים here refers to all the commandments and not just to monetary matters — since monetary matters are not mentioned here — then how can the verse say האלה (these)? Therefore, Rashi changes [the meaning of] the word משפטים [usually referring to monetary laws] to מצות [commandments, in general]. (Re”m). Another explanation is that Rashi is answering the question: The verse should say, “If you will heed the commandments,” as it is written in Parshas Ki Savo (below 28:1), “If you will heed,” and (ibid v. 15), “If you will not heed.” Therefore it is written עקב, to imply “the lesser commandments etc.”

He will keep His promise to you. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture writes ושמר, which implies that Hashem will fulfill His oath. But, why should He not fulfill His oath? Therefore, Rashi explains: He will keep His promise to you. Additionally, Rashi says the word ישמור (He will keep) instead of ושמר. This shows that the prefix vav does not mean “and,” rather, the vav reverses the past tense to the future tense.

Which the female casts out from her womb. I.e., the offspring are called שגר, related to the term “cast out.” And והבקרים אלפים is related to, “Our cattle (אלופנו) are laden (Tehillim 144:14).”

The strong bulls of Bashan means the choicest of the flock, etc. I.e., Bashan is the name of a place. And there they have the choicest of the flock, i.e., healthy and strong. Therefore the flocks are called עשתרת, which is an expression of strength.

Similar to עשתרת קרניםwhich expresses strength, etc. Even though קרנים is not written here, but since we find elsewhere in Scripture that עשתרת [ — written with קרנים — clearly] is an expression of strength. [Therefore] every instance where it is written עשתרות it is explained as “strength,” even though קרנים is not written.

Our Sages said: “Why are they called עשתרות**, etc.** Our Sages do not disagree with Menachem’s explanation, for they also hold that עשתרות expresses strength. Otherwise, our Sages will be contradicting themselves. For in Parshas Ki Savo (below 28:4), regarding עשתרות צאנך Rashi explains: “As Onkelos translates. And our Sages said, ‘Why are they called עשתרות? Because they enrich their owners and strengthen them, like these עשתרות which are mighty cliffs.’” This indicates that our Sages also hold that עשתרות is an expression of strength, just as Menachem. Rather, they disagree on this point: Menachem explains that עשתרות refers to the [condition of the] flocks, but our Sages explain that it refers to [the condition of] their owners. Re”m explains similarly below (ibid).

And it is impossible to explain [the word כי**] according to any other meanings of, etc.** In other words, the word כי cannot mean, “because,” or, “rather,” for these terms cannot begin an idea. The word כי also cannot mean, “if,” for it is not possible to say, “If you will say [i.e., think] this, then do not think it.” For if you have already thought it, it is not possible to say that you should not think it. Furthermore, [if the word כי means “if”] then the verse would imply: If you think… then do not fear them. But if you do not think… then fear them. But this is not correct. Rashi explains in this manner in Gittin (90a).

This refers to the pestilence. As it is written (Shmos 9:3), “Behold the hand of Adonoy is directed at your livestock, etc.”

This is a reference to the sword of the plague of (the Egyptian) first born. As it is written, “And his [the angel’s] sword was drawn in his extended arm upon Yerushalayim (Divrei Hayomim I 21:16).” Some explain this verse simply — that it refers to the sword Hashem had used to smite the first born. Others explain that the first born smote their fathers. For the first born knew they would be smitten because of the Jewish People, so they told their fathers to expel them from Egypt. Their fathers did not listen, so they [fought against their fathers and] killed thousands of them. And this is stated in the verse, “Who smote Egypt through their first born (Tehillim 136:10).” (Kolbo and Avudrohom).

But is it not true that if they do the will of the Omnipresent, etc. Above in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:29) I explained why Rashi did not say this reason.