Elohim refers only to Judge. . . Although it says: “In the beginning Elohim created” (Bereishis 1:1), and: “Elohim said to Noach” (ibid. 8:15), and: “Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn-bush” (Shemos 3:4), see Re”m here and in 6:2 [for an explanation of these verses].

But if he does not fulfill them he does not receive . . . This applies when it is not a time of [Hashem’s] anger. But in a time of anger, Hashem punishes for any mitzvah that is not fulfilled. This is evident from Menachos 41a; see there.

Why does the Torah repeat: “I am Hashem” and “You must not have”. . . Rashi means as follows: Since they were all said in one utterance, why does it say in Tehillim 62:12: “Elohim spoke one utterance, and I heard two”? This implies that only “I am Hashem” and “You must not have” were said in one utterance, but actually all of them were said in one utterance. Rashi answers, “Because He explicitly repeated. . .” Rashi is saying that they all were said in one utterance, but when Hashem repeated [i.e., explained] them we heard only [the first] two directly from Him. The rest were repeated by Moshe.

“Yes” to a positive command. . . Rashi is answering the question: Wherever וידבר is written it always speaks in general, while לאמר introduces the specifics. But here, the specifics are clearly stated: “All these words.” If so, why does it say לאמר afterward? Perforce, to teach us [that they replied “Yes. . .”]. (Re”m)

The act of bringing you out is sufficient. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is His Godliness associated with the Exodus, rather than with Creation? Why did the Torah not write, “I am Hashem, your God, who created Heaven and Earth”?

Since He revealed Himself at the Sea as One Who is powerful at war. . . I.e., His Godliness is associated with the Exodus, but not regarding all His actions [in the Exodus]. Rather, “Since He revealed Himself at the Sea. . .” Rashi cites, “And under His feet. . .” to show that Hashem’s attributes change according to the situation. And though in the verse it is written, “Who brought you out of Egypt,” Rashi nevertheless explains it as, “He revealed Himself at theReed Sea,” because that was the culmination of the Exodus from Egypt.

Do not think that there are two dominions. . . Meaning: Just as you acknowledge that I was One at the splitting of the Sea, for there it is written (15:2) זה אלי ואנוהו (in the singular form), so too, you should believe that I am that same God. Therefore Rashi explains, “I am the [same] One Who has brought you out of the Land of Egypt. (Re”m)

An alternate explanation: Because they had heard many sounds. . . Rashi is answering the question: According to the first explanation, [“The act of bringing you out is sufficient,”] the verse should say only: “Who brought you out of the house of slaves.” Why does it say also, “From the land of Egypt”? Therefore Rashi brings the second explanation, [“Since He revealed Himself at the Reed Sea. . .”]. According to both explanations there is a question: Why does it first say, “I am Hashem,” and only afterward, “You must not have any other gods”? First it should forbid other gods, and then say, “I am Hashem,” conveying: “I alone.” It is not the way to first command a certain action and then forbid an action that is its opposite. Therefore Rashi brings an alternate explanation: “Because they had heard many sounds. . .” So they immediately thought there were many dominions. Therefore, it was necessary to say right at the beginning, “I am Hashem. . .” to convey that there are no dominions besides Me. (Maharshal)

Once it has been made, how. . . This refers to an idol that neither he made, nor did others make it for him. It was already made, and he either found it or bought it. How would we know that he may not keep it in his possession? The Torah therefore says: “You must not have” — in every case. (Re”m)

As long as I exist. . . It is commonly asked: Rashi in Devarim 5:7 explains על פני as follows: “Wherever I am, i.e., the entire world. An alternate explanation: As long as I exist.” [Why does Rashi here omit the first explanation?] The answer is: There, Rashi is addressing a different difficulty. It is written there (Devarim 4:25), “When you have been in the Land for a long time. . . and make a statue,” implying that the prohibition on idolatry applies only to the Land [of Yisrael]. Yet there, the Ten Commandments are preceded by: “It was not with our fathers that Hashem made this covenant [against idolatry], but with us” (ibid 5:3). This implies that the prohibition of idolatry applies to the person, and it must be observed [not only in the Eretz Yisrael] in all places. Therefore these two verses seemingly contradict each other. In light of this, Rashi in Devarim first explains על פני as, “Wherever I am,” [thus teaching that the prohibition against idolatry applies in all places]. This is in order to resolve the contradiction. But if so, why is it written, “When you have been in the Land”? [The answer is:] Because the [former] people of the Land were more steeped in idolatry than the other nations. Therefore the verse singles out “the Land” because the B’nei Yisrael needed a stronger warning pertaining to the idolatry in the Land.

Because it is carved. It is from the same root as (34:1) “Carve out פסל לך , two stone tablets for yourself.”

A picture of any thing in the heavens. . . Rashi explains this so we will not think תמונה is the name of a certain idol [whose image may not be made]. Furthermore, [Rashi says this] because a picture of heaven cannot be made. A picture is a property of an entity; one cannot make a picture that stands [independent of a material entity]. Therefore Rashi explains: “Of any thing in the heavens,” such as stars in the shape of Aries or of Taurus.

He is jealous to exact punishment. . . I.e., He intends to exact punishment [if He has not yet done so]. And if He has already punished, this demonstrates His jealousy, for He punishes because of jealousy.

When they retain in their hands the deeds. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it [contradicts what] is written (Devarim 24:16): “Fathers shall not be put to death for the children, [and children shall not be put to death for their fathers].”

That a person does. . . Question: Why does Rashi write ונוצר חסד , from 34:7, when here it is written ועושה חסד ? The answer is: So we will not mistakenly think that ועושה חסד refers to Hashem. I.e., that Hashem does lovingkindness for two thousand generations, but no more. [This is not so,] for it is written: “Hashem’s kindness is never-ending, His mercy does not cease” (Eichah 3:22). Thus Rashi brings the verse of ונוצר חסד , which means: when a person does loving-kindness, Hashem stores reward for him for two thousand generations. And so too, the verse of ועושה חסד refers to the person, [not to Hashem]. It means: when a person does loving-kindness, Hashem rewards until two thousand generations.

Measure for reward is greater. . . Question: Why does Rashi need to tell us this simple mathematical calculation? The answer is: Rashi is resolving a difficulty with the verse in which is written that Hashem rewards for two thousand generations. This cannot mean as it seems, for the world lasts only six thousand years, so from beginning to end is less than one thousand generations! Thus Rashi explains that the verse only comes to teach how much greater is Hashem’s measure for reward. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

One who swears for naught and meaninglessly. . . Rashi is explaining that we should not think Onkelos’s translation of למגנא , “for nothing,” implies that the one who swears derives no benefit from it — but if he would derive benefit, it would be permitted. Therefore Rashi explains that it means להבל , i.e., an empty and meaningless oath. (Gur Aryeh) See Shavuos 29a, which lists four types of vain oaths.

זכור and שמור were said in one utterance. . . You might object: Those other verses [that Rashi quotes] are not similar to זכור and שמור . Those contradict one another, while זכור and שמור do not. An answer is: Also זכור and שמור contradict. זכור is a positive mitzvah, while שמור is a negative one. As it says in Zevachim 106a that השמר לך , פן and אל all signify a negative mitzvah. [And שמור is similar to השמר לך .] [So when later it is written שמור , it seemed as though the mitzvah of Shabbos had been changed from a positive one to a negative one.] (Ramban) A further answer: [ זכור and שמור contradict one another because] זכור implies that one should remember not to do work. It is an active term, forbidding the worker to work, but not requiring that no work is done. However שמור implies guarding that no work be done. Perforce, זכור and שמור were said in one utterance.

To constantly remember the Shabbos day. . . I.e., you should constantly be remembering. This is different from זכור ברית אברהם , which means, “Remember it now.” However, remembering Shabbos is continuously ongoing. The word זכור is neither in the infinitive form nor in the imperative form. If it were in the infinitive form, it would not convey taking action [on what one remembers], but [remembering it by] thought alone. And if it were in the imperative form, the ז would not have a kametz. Rather, it is an intermediate form between thought and action. Therefore Rashi explains: “Take heed to constantly remember. . . set it aside for Shabbos.”

So that if you happen upon. . . Ramban objects: This is against the Halachah, which follows Beis Hillel. In Beitzah 16a it says that the elder Shammai always “ate” in honor of Shabbos. [The Gemara continues and explains that] when Shammai would find a fine animal, he would set it aside for Shabbos. If he then found a finer one, he would eat the first one and put the second one for Shabbos. . . but Hillel conducted himself differently, as it is said (Tehillim 68:20) “Blessed is Hashem day by day.” [He would not put aside fine items for Shabbos, but he would trust that Hashem would provide fine items later.] Re”m answers: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree regarding food items, and the Halachah indeed follows Beis Hillel. But Hillel agrees with Shammai regarding other items, [for they are less readily available]. And here Rashi is speaking pertaining to other items. However, it seems to me that all this is unnecessary. The Halachah always follows Beis Hillel, except in this case — since Hillel himself, who stated this law, does not disagree with Shammai regarding this matter. It is evident that he does not disagree, since the Gemara says: “Hillel conducted himself differently.” This implies that Hillel did not opine that this is the law. He merely conducted himself in this manner. (Maharshal)

Because his Shabbos rest is upon you. This is true only if he does the work for the adult’s sake. Otherwise, we neither tell him to extinguish it, nor do we tell him not to. The adult is commanded not to directly cause the minor to do work. (Re”m) However, since Rashi quotes the Mishnah [of the minor who offers to extinguish the fire] word-for-word [and does not take its ruling and apply it to a specific case,] it seems to me to imply that adults must stop the minor [in every case, even when the minor does the work for his own sake]. Rashi explains this law also in Vayikra 11:13, regarding eating non-kosher fowl, and in Vayikra 17:12, regarding consuming blood, and in Vayikra 21:1, regarding kohanim defiling themselves*.* [And in those places, it presumably is not for the adult’s sake.] (Nachalas Yaakov)

By giving twice as much on Friday, a “double bread”. . . See Bereishis 2:3, and Shemos 16:22.

From the positive to the negative. [Rashi knows this] because the Ten Commandments are all negative mitzvos, except for the first, which is essential and the basis for all the mitzvos. Therefore Rashi explains that also this one is a negative commandment, for “inference may be made from the positive to the negative.”

This teaches that not one among them. . . You might ask: Did we not already learn this from, “In the sight of all the people” (19:11), as Rashi explained there? The answer is: Here it teaches that they did not go blind after the giving of the Torah. For even if someone looks at the kohanim’s hands while they bless the people [in the Beis Hamikdosh] his eyesight dims, as R. Chagai said in the Talmud Yerushalmi. And this is on account of the Shechinah’s presence upon the kohanim’s hands. [And we would think this applies] here even more so, since the people saw an even greater revelation of the Shechinah.

Which came from the Almighty. Rashi is answering the question: וכל העם רואים את הקולות seems to have been before the giving of the Torah, for it is written above (19:16): ויהי קולות וברקים . If so, why was not “They trembled and stood far off” written above, before the Ten Commandments? Therefore Rashi explains that the קולות mentioned here refer to [Hashem’s uttering] the Ten Commandments, [not of the thunder that preceded].

The root word נוע means זיע . It is an expression meaning זיע ורתת (shaking). It is not an expression meaning נע ונד (wandering). For afterwards it is written, “And stood far off.”

Twelve mil, the distance of their encampment. . . You might ask: How does Rashi know they went back twelve mil, not less? The answer is: Since it is written, “Stood far off,” we may infer that until now they [all] were standing near. Even those at the back of the camp were near. And the length of their encampment was twelve mil. Therefore, if not that they were startled backwards twelve mil, those who stood at the front of the camp would still be within twelve mil. If so, how could it say, “And stood far off”? (Nachalas Yaakov)

Because it is raised high. I.e., a banner is called נס because it is lifted up and raised high. Here, too, נסות means “so they will be lifted up.”

In this language. But here, [unlike 19:3,] Rashi does not explain it as, “In this order.” For here, the order does not matter.

Attached to the earth. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it called “earthen”? For it was made of copper-plated acacia wood, as it is written in 27:1. (R. Noson)

That are from your sheep and your cattle. Rashi added the words “That are” in order that the phrase, “Your sheep and your cattle,” will be an explanation of, “Your burnt-offerings, your peace-offerings.” And Rashi understands את in the sense of מן (from). Thus it is as if the verse said, “Slaughter your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings from your sheep and from your cattle.”

Wherever I will permit you. . . אזכיר is a transitive verb involving a secondary object, [conveying: I permit you to mention My Name. Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it should say תזכור שמי (you mention My Name). Rashi explains “My Name” as “My special Name” — the Explicit Name — which was permitted to be uttered only in the Beis Hamikdosh, where the Shechinah resides. However, other Names of Hashem may be mentioned elsewhere.

You can derive from these things a fortiori. . . Rashi is saying: Should you ask, “What does the stone care if we bring anything that cuts and destroys upon it?” the answer is: so we will learn from it a fortiori. The same applies to Rashi’s final comment on the next verse.

Do not make it as a row of steps. . . Rashi is answering the question: [Why does the verse prohibit the kohein to go up the steps?] If the altar was made with steps, the kohein is compelled to use them to go up. And if the altar was not made with steps, there is no reason that he use them. Thus Rashi explains that the prohibition is on the builder. When he builds the altar, he should not make steps.