That is the first to open the womb. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does not every infant open the womb [through its birth]? Thus he explains, “The first to open. . .”

I have acquired them for Myself. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does not everything in the world belong to Him? Thus Rashi explains, “I have [already] acquired them for Myself.” I.e., every firstborn is holy even without your sanctifying it. Nevertheless, “Sanctify to Me all the first-born” in order to receive reward.

This teaches that mention of the Exodus from Egypt should be made every day. [Re”m explains that Rashi knows this because] זכור is written with a קמץ , therefore it implies a constant remembering, as Rashi explains in Parshas Yisro, on “Remember the Shabbos day” (20:8). There, the Nachalas Yaakov disagrees at length with Re”m, and concludes: It seems to me that Rashi derived the mentioning of the Exodus every day from the word הזה (this). For the verse could have [omitted הזה and] said simply, “Remember the day on which you came out from Egypt,” as the Torah says in: “In order that you shall remember the day on which you came out from Egypt” (Devarim 16:3). Therefore, when this verse says היום הזה , this implies that every day should be to you as if you left Egypt today, similar to: “On this day you have become a nation (ibid 27:10),” on which Rashi explains: “Every day should be to you as if today you entered the covenant.” Deriving the mention of the Exodus from היום הזה fits well [with Maseches Berachos 12b, which states that] only at daytime would we mention the Exodus, [if not for the extra verse in Devarim 16:3 which teaches to mention it also at night]. This is understandable if we learn from היום הזה , as the Exodus itself was during the daytime. But if we learn from זכור , which implies constant remembering, [and thus it includes the nighttime as well, there is no need for an extra verse].

Who had no other name except “Canaanite.” Rashi is answering the question: Elsewhere, where all seven nations are enumerated, why is Canaan mentioned with them? There, it is unnecessary for Canaan to be mentioned in order to include other nations. Thus Rashi explains: “One among the family of Canaan. . .” (Re”m) Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Since all seven nations are included in “Canaan,” why did it need to say, “the Chittites, the Emorites. . .”? Just saying “Canaanite” should have sufficed. Rashi answers that one nation had no other name, thus if it would be written only “Canaanite” we would think [it means only that nation, and] the other nations were not included. Thus it is written “Canaanite” — and afterwards, “the Chittites, the Emorites. . .” so that we will ask why are only five nations enumerated. And then we will be compelled to answer that they are all included in “Canaanite.”

Hashem made a covenant with Avram. . . You might ask: It says in Parshas Va’eira (6:3), “I revealed Myself to Avraham. . . as Almighty Shaddai, but My Name Ad-noy I did not make known to them.” [Thus, how could Hashem have used the Name Ad-noy to swear to Avram]? The answer is: Hashem gave Avram mere good tidings, [without yet keeping the promise. Whereas v. 6:3 means: “I was not recognized by them by My attribute of keeping trust,”] as explained there by Rashi. You might ask: If so, [that it was mere good tidings,] where did Hashem swear to Avram? The answer is: [It was good tidings accompanied by an oath. For] Hashem twice stated to Avram His words of promise, and this repetition constitutes an oath. For example it says, “As I swore regarding the floodwaters of Noach” (Yeshayah 54:10), regarding which Rashi comments in Parshas Noach (Bereishis 8:21), “We find in Scripture no oath regarding this, except for His repeating His words regarding this.” Rashi is referring to the words לא אוסיף which are written twice in that verse.

Because I will fulfill His mitzvos, such as. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written זה , which implies that the father is pointing to something specific [when speaking] to his son.

This is an allusion to a response to the evil son. . . You might ask: Why is the allusion to the response to the evil son here, in the middle of what is actually the response to the son who does not know what to ask, [as Rashi says (v. 5)]? The answer is: The message alluded to the evil son applies also to the son who does not know what to ask. The message is that Hashem performed the miracles only for the righteous who know the Torah. The ignorant people did not have the merit for these miracles, and were not worthy on their own to be redeemed, only through the merit of the righteous. We need not ask: [If the alluded message applies to the son who does not know what to ask,] perhaps the whole response is for him alone. How do we know that there is an allusion to a response to the evil son? The answer is: Since it is written “for me,” it implies for me and not for him. I.e., he would not have been redeemed at all. This must refer to the evil son, since the son who does not know what to ask would indeed have been redeemed in the merit of the righteous. However, the evil son would have died during the three days of darkness.

The weak hand. כהה means “dark,” i.e., the right hand is more important than the left hand [which is called “dark”].

I will bring you to the land about which I raised My hand. . . Above, it is written that Hashem swore to your fathers (v. 5), while here it is written, “He swore to you.” This implies that Hashem swore twice, once to your fathers, and once to you. The oath that was to you is in the verse “I will bring you to the land about which I raised My Hand. . .” (6:8), for the beginning of that section deals with the oath to the fathers, and then concludes, “Therefore say to the B’nei Yisrael. . .” which Rashi explains as, “In accordance with that oath.” If so, why did it repeat, “To the land about which I raised My hand [as an oath]”? Thus we must say that the second oath was to the B’nei Yisrael. (Nachalas Yaakov) However, Re”m explains [differently]: “He swore to you” in this verse means that He swore for your sake. The oath was made to your fathers, but sometimes it is called the oath of the children since the oath was for their sake.

You should consider it as if He had given it to you on the same day. . . Rashi is answering the question: Is it not superfluous to say, “He will have given it to you”? Once He brings you to the land, surely He will have given it to you. Thus Rashi says: “You should consider it. . .”

Should you ask: does it refer also to a first-born of an unclean animal? In other words, you might suggest that שגר in this verse does not refer to one prematurely born, just as שגר אלפיך does not. Even though it is already written, “Every one that [is first to] open the womb,” [apparently forcing us to say that שגר refers to one prematurely born, you might suggest:] perhaps שגר comes to include the first-born of an unclean animal.

There is a possible alternate explanation. And according to this explanation, שגר does not refer to one prematurely born.

This is a Scriptural decree. . . As stated in the first chapter of Bechoros (5a). Rashi added his own explanation by saying, “Because the Egyptian first-born. . .”

The sheep is not sacred in the possession of the kohein. [Rashi is explaining that] the sheep does not become forbidden to be used, in place of the firstling donkey [which becomes permitted to be used]. Rather, the sheep is ordinary property and the kohein may use it as he wishes.

טט in the Kathphi language is two. . . Katheph is the name of a place where “two” is called טט . Similarly, Afrik is the name of a place where “two” is called פת . See Tosafos in Maseches Sanhedrin (4b). Rashi was answering the question: Here it is written ולטטפות , while in the section of kadeish (v. 9) it is written ולזכרון . Why are different words used [to describe tephillin]? To answer this, Rashi cited this explanation [about Kathphi and Afriki]. (Nachalas Yaakov) You might ask: According to this, tephillin should contain twelve compartments, since “*totafos”*is written three times. The answer is: One instance of “totafos” is needed for itself, [to tell us the mitzvah]. Another teaches “two” (compartments) in the Kathphi language, or “two” in the Afriki language. The third “totafos” teaches that in Kathphi four (compartments) are needed, or in Afriki four (compartments) are needed; if “totafos” were only written twice, then only two compartments would be needed. Another answer is: “Totafos” is not written three times for the sake of [new] commands. Rather, [the section of tephillin is] like a section that has been stated once and then repeated, just as many other sections of the Torah [are repeated in whole, for the sake of a certain new teaching that the repetition contains].

Lead them. . . The ם of נחם is a suffix, not the third letter of the verb root. The word means “lead,” and not “rest” ( מנוח ) or “consolation” ( נחמה ).

And it was therefore easy to return by that route to Egypt. . . Rashi is answering the question: Every כי in Scripture is put there to give a reason. How does [“Because it was the shortest route”] give a reason for the preceding [statement that Hashem did not lead them that way]? On the contrary, Hashem should lead them via the shortest route! Thus Rashi explains that it was easy to return by that route, as it says afterwards, “For Elohim said. . .” I.e., what would cause them to return to Egypt? “Elohim said. . . should they encounter war.” The war would be the cause [for them to return].

There are many Midrashic explanations. I.e., they give different explanations for, “Because it was the shortest route.” Accordingly, “Elohim said. . .” does not refer to, “Because it was the shortest route.” It rather refers to, “Elohim did not lead them. . ..” It is giving an additional reason why Elohim did not lead them: “Because Elohim said. . .”

For example, the war of: “And the Amaleikites and Canaanites. . .” [mentioned in Bamidbar 14:45. Rashi is saying] that it does not mean war in general. For they encountered war with the Amaleikites [Shemos 17:8, yet did not return to Egypt]. Although they defeated Amaleik, they were close to Egypt and could have returned, from fear of other wars. (Re”m, based on Mechilta) But the Maharshal explains: Rashi did not mention the nearby war with Amaleik (17:8) because Israel defeated Amaleik then. So there was little concern that they would set their hearts to return to Egypt. But in the war of “the Amaleikites came down,” Yisrael was stricken and smitten. Thus, there was concern that they would return.

They said, “Let us appoint a leader and let us return to Egypt”. . . Rashi is saying that the reason they did not return was because they lacked a leader. It was a long route and required a leader. But were they to have a leader, they clearly would return — despite their distance from Egypt. So if they had a short and straight route back to Egypt, not requiring a leader, they surely would return. Maharshal explains: Although they traveled a round-about route they still said, “Let us appoint a leader and let us return,” after merely hearing about Amaleik from their scouts. So had they taken a straight route, and encountered actual war, they surely would have returned all the way.

Have second thoughts. ינחם means changing one’s mind. This follows Rashi’s second explanation on Bereishis 6:6. However, in Rashi’s first explanation there, it means “consolation.”

סוף is a term meaning a marsh. [Rashi is saying] that we should not think סוף means “end,” in which case it would mean, “They traveled to the end of the sea.” Thus he explains, “ סוף is a term meaning a marsh,” i.e., a sea full of reeds. Therefore the meaning of ים סוף here is as if it were written לים סוף . (Maharshal)

An alternate explanation. . . one of every five went out. . . There is a question on the first explanation: What is the proof [from “You shall pass by with arms”]? In the context of that verse, there is no other way to explain חמושים . Therefore Rashi presents the alternate explanation. And he also presents [the first explanation] so that the verse does not depart from its simple meaning [completely], and חמושים has the [simple] meaning of “armed.”

Swear that they will make their children swear. [How does Rashi know this? The answer is:] It cannot be that [the repetitive השבע השביע is merely because] the Torah speaks as people do, [and the oath was for Yoseif’s generation alone]. For how is it possible that Yoseif’s generation would leave Egypt? They needed to be in Egypt for 400 years, or at least for 210! Furthermore, [if Yoseif’s oath was for that generation alone,] how would [we explain the word כי ? I.e., how would] the oath be the reason [for Moshe to take along Yoseif’s bones]? Perforce, “He made them swear that they will make their children swear.” This is preferable to Re”m’s explanation. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Why did he not bind his sons by oath. . . Meaning: And then he would not need to make them swear to make their children swear. Rashi answers, “Yoseif said: ‘I was a ruler in Egypt. . .’” This, explains why Rashi asked his question on the verse rather than on his explanation of it. [It is because the repetitive השבע השביע clearly shows that Yoseif made them swear to make their children swear.] Furthermore, [this explains] why Rashi did not ask this question in Bereishis 50:25, where the oath itself is stated. [It is because Rashi’s question arises only due to the words השבע השביע ]. (Devek Tov)

It was his brothers that he bound by this oath. . . [Rashi is saying that here,] “B’nei Yisrael” means Yaakov’s sons. And the meaning of “Elohim will surely remember you” is that He will remember your children, who are in your place. Otherwise, [if Yoseif was not speaking to his brothers,] why would it say אתכם ? Therefore Rashi explains that Yoseif bound his brothers by this oath, and אתכם is referring to his brothers’ bones. Thus, the verse means as follows: “Elohim will surely remember you,” i.e., “your children.” “You must carry up” is Yoseif’s command [to his brothers]: Make your children swear to carry my bones up with yours.

Here, too, to lead them by means of an agent. . . I.e., לנחותם is a transitive verb involving a secondary object [i.e., the “agent”]. Rashi proves this from לַראתכם (Devarim 1:33), which must be the same as להראותכם (to show), for otherwise it would be like לִראותכם in the simple verb form, and mean “to see you.” But this meaning would not fit into the context of the verse. Perforce, it is the same as להראותכם . Here too, לַנחותם means the same as להנחותם (to lead them). (This is not in accordance with Re”m’s explanation.)

Hashem Himself, in His glory, led it before them. Rashi is answering the question: Is it not written, “Hashem went before them,” not the pillar of cloud? Thus Rashi explains that Hashem Himself led the pillar of cloud before them. We need not ask: If Hashem went before them, why was the pillar of cloud needed? For Rashi explains: “Nevertheless, He provided the pillar of cloud to lead them by its means. . ..”

The pillar of cloud was not providing light, but rather to show them the way. [Rashi knows this] because during the day they do not need light. Perforce, it showed them the way. When Scripture writes, “To provide them with light,” it refers only to the pillar of fire. However, the pillar of fire also showed them the way, as it is written, “So that they could travel by day and by night.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

Hashem [did not remove] the pillar of cloud by day. . . [Rashi knows this] because ימיש is a causative verb. Otherwise, [if it meant “the cloud did not depart”], it should be vocalized יִמּוֹשׁ .

Before one would depart the other would arrive. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is [this verse of] לא ימיש necessary? [The previous verse] already said, “Hashem went. . . in a pillar of cloud. . . and at night in a pillar of fire.”