You promise him that you will be a corrupt witness. [The case is that] the claimant already has one false witness [to support his claim]. And the verse is warning this [potential second] witness: Do not join with that false witness, who is “a wicked man.”

And let the collar hang from the necks of the majority. Rashi means that you should not say: “What difference will it make if I judge the case truthfully? They are the majority and I am one person, and they will not heed me.” Rather, you should do your duty, “and let the collar. . .”

And say, “He is poor. I will find in his favor and show him regard.” Rashi had to explain that the regard shown the poor man is [not actually treating him with honor but] judging in his favor, because the natural tendency of a judge is to treat only a rich man with honor — as it says, “You shall not show regard to a prominent man” (Vayikra 19:15). Therefore, Rashi explains that the regard shown here [to the poor man] is by judging him favorably, and through this he will be looked upon with regard. For otherwise he would have to pay, and since he cannot, he will be disgraced.

Judgments of truth. . . In other words, Torah judgment, as it is written [about the Torah], “The judgments of Hashem are true. . .” (Tehillim 19:10).

Because סורו is bad. Some explain סורו as שְׂאוֹר (leaven), referring to his evil inclination — which is strong and bad, thus the stranger is easy to tempt [away from the path of the Torah]. Others explain [ סורו as סָר (stray). This means that] once he strays from the path [of the Torah], he cannot be [easily] persuaded to return.

From working. Rashi explains this way because שמיטה and נטישה always imply releasing a thing from something else. [Thus, the fields are released from working.]

Hoeing. In Moed Katan (3a), Rashi explains לקשקש as hoeing under trees to make them grow. But in Bava Metzia (89b) Rashi explains it as covering tree roots with straw ( קש ) and manure, in the winter, so the cold will not damage them.

So, too, do the poor eat without tithing. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why does it say, “What they leave over, the beasts of the field can eat”? It cannot be to permit the beasts to eat it in the seventh year, because these beasts are not under one’s control.

But the beginning of the verse deals with a grain-field. . . Rashi is explaining that the words “do the same” refer back to the beginning of the verse: just as you did with the grain-field, do the same with your vineyard.

Do not cancel the weekly Shabbos. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is [this verse, speaking of Shabbos,] juxtaposed to [the previous verse, speaking of] the seventh year? Although this verse needed to be written for the new laws it contains, that an uncircumcised slave, a stranger and a settler must rest on Shabbos, nevertheless, we learn this matter (not to cancel the weekly Shabbos) as well.

Allow it to relax, permitting it to tear up. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is it said here, “So that your ox and your donkey may rest”? This was already said in the Ten Commandments. And if it is written in order that we will not say, “Since the entire year is called Shabbos. . .” then the phrase “But on the seventh day you must cease” would be sufficient.

An uncircumcised slave. Before, in the Ten Commandments, it spoke of a gentile slave who is circumcised. Here, it speaks of one who is uncircumcised — but still within twelve months of being purchased. However, his master may not keep an uncircumcised gentile slave longer than this, if the slave does not want to undergo circumcision.

גר תושב — “a settler.” [Rashi knows this] because if it was referring to a convert to Judaism, it is already written: “and the foreigner ( גר ) within your gates.” Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because a convert is full Jew [and need not be mentioned separately].

To make every positive precept as a negative precept. This is why a positive precept always overrides a negative precept ( עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ). For every positive precept includes a negative precept. Thus it has both, and therefore a positive precept overrides a single negative precept.

Next to such and such an idol. . . [Rashi explains it this way] because otherwise, why is it necessary [to forbid this]? Is there any reason that a Jew would mention the name of an idolatry that he denies, and regarding which he is commanded to destroy?

Bring Me burnt-offerings. We cannot say that the verse refers to [gifts of] money, because it says, “My Presence”. And one greets the Presence of the Master only with a sacrifice. But the Mechilta learns [that it means burnt-offerings and not money, as follows]: It says “joy” regarding people [i.e., that they should rejoice on the festivals by eating the meat of peace offerings.] And it says “joy” regarding Heaven. . . Just as the joy regarding people is with something fit for people [i.e., something they eat], so too the joy of Heaven is with something fit for Heaven, such as burnt-offerings [of which the entire sacrifice is consumed upon the Altar.] This is because it is not right that your table should be full, while the table [i.e., Altar] of your Maker is empty. (Re’m)

This refers to the holiday of Shavuos. Rashi [knows this,] as he goes on to explain, because it states (Bamidbar 28:26): “On the Day of Bikkurim ( בכורים ) . . . on your Festival of Shavuos. . .” And here, too, it is written: “The Festival of Harvest, the first fruits ( בכורי ) of your labor.” Just as the בכורים there refers to Shavuos, so too the בכורי here refers to Shavuos.

Permit the new crop for meal offerings. . . Whereas the Omer meal offering, brought on the 16th of Nissan, was of barley. Yet the Sotah’s meal offering, also of barley, is not brought from the new crop until the offering of the “two loaves”, which are of wheat, are brought.

It was necessary to state. . . Rashi is answering the question: It has already been stated elsewhere, “Three times a year. . .” [So why is the mitzvah repeated here?] (Nachalas Yaakov). But it seems to me that this is what Rashi means: Since the Festivals depend on working with the grain — חג האביב חג הקציר חג האסיף — and during shemittah, harvesting the grain and gathering it into the house are forbidden, we might think that the Festivals, too, do not apply. Thus, our verse tells us otherwise.

The males among you. Rashi says הזכרים (males) to tell us that זְכוּרְךָ with a melupum has the same meaning as זָכָר with a kamatz (and both mean “male”). And he says “among you” to tell us that the suffix of זְכוּרְךָ is a substitute for בך (among you) rather than a substitute for שלך (belonging to you). [Rashi knows this] because a son does not “belong” to his father like ביתך ושדך . Thus, זְכוּרְךָ means the males who are among you and your nation.

Do not slaughter the Pesach korbon. . . Rashi says “Pesach korbon” where the verse says דם זבחי to tell us that here, זבחי (“My sacrifice”) refers only to the Pesach korbon and not the Chagigah korbon. And Rashi says “On the fourteenth day of Nisan” to tell us that this prohibition applies only on the 14th of Nisan and not the rest of the year. And he says “Until you remove your chametz” whereas the verse says על חמץ , because על חמץ literally means on top of the chametz. Therefore he explained, “Until you remove your chametz” [from your possession].

Away from the Altar. Meaning, [do not leave the fat away from the Altar] when its blood was cast on the Altar during the day. For then, if the fats are left on the floor, i.e., away from the Altar until dawn, they become unfit because of לינה (remaining overnight). (Megillah 20)

All night. Rashi means that the verse, “It is the burnt-offering on the fireplace, on the Altar all night. . .” (Vayikra 6:2) does not teach that after morning arrives, one may no longer burn the offering on the Altar. Rather, it teaches that if the offering was brought onto the Altar even a moment before dawn, it is fit to be burnt there also after dawn. We need not ask: If so, why do we need two verses, [this verse and “. . .on the fireplace”]? The answer is: “. . .on the fireplace” comes mainly to teach a mitzvah: we should bring the offerings onto the Altar from the time of sunset and leave them there all night so they will be burnt well. By the way, we also learn that if they were up on the Altar’s wood-pile [before dawn], they are fit to be burnt on the Altar even after dawn — as is implied by this verse, “You must not allow to remain. . .” With this, all the difficulties of Re’m’s are resolved.

Even during the seventh year bikkurim is obligatory. In some texts of Rashi, [the obligation of bikkurim in the seventh year is not mentioned.] It is written only, “‘The first fruits of your land.’ A man who, upon entering his field. . .” And so write Re’m and Gur Aryeh that [those texts are correct, because] during the seventh year there is no mitzvah of bikkurim. This is because a person cannot declare, [as is required when bringing bikkurim]: “And now, I have brought. . . from the land that You have given me” (Devarim 26:10). For the land was not given to him in the seventh year; rather it is ownerless, for all [to eat its fruits].

He ties a reed around it to identify it. . . [Rashi knows this] because if not, how can he know which are his first fruits and which are not?

Only from the seven species. This is learned through the gezeirah shavah of ארץ ארץ (Menachos 84b). Rashi had to explain this so we will not object that people will have to constantly search the forests and fields for all species in order to find the fruit that ripened first, in order to bring it as bikkurim.

From the fact that you find in a number of places in the Torah. . . [Rashi explains this] so that you will not object: Since it is written גדי עזים , perhaps this constitutes a binyan av (prototype), and teaches that wherever it says גדי , it means גדי עזים (goat). Therefore Rashi explains that we find גדי עזים in other places, so it is a case of שלשה כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין (three verses which teach the same thing, do not make a binyan av.) And even according to the opinion that two verses can make a binyan av, here since there are three verses [all would agree that] there is no binyan av.

For I will not go up among you. Although Moshe Rabbeinu nullified this decree, as it says, “My Presence will go [with you]” (Shemos 33:14), the decree nevertheless returned in Yehoshua’s time — as [the angel] said [to Yehoshua]: “I, the prince of Hashem’s legion, have now come” (Yehoshua 5:14). See Ramban.

My Place has already been set up in line with it. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, it should say: “that I have prepared for you.” Whereas “I prepared” standing on its own means [that God prepared] for Himself.

As Onkelos translates it: “I will oppress.” [Rashi says this so that] we will not explain it as in, “You will bundle ( וצרת ) the coins in your hand” (Devarim 14:25).

Their idols. [Rashi is saying that תהרסם refers to their idols] but not to those who worship them — just as כמעשיהם , written just before it [which refers to the people’s deeds but not the people themselves].

If you act according to My will. In other words, the whole verse refers back to “You must serve Adonoy, your God. . .” (v. 25). It is saying, so to speak: “Serve Adonoy, and then I will bless your bread and your water. . . and no woman will suffer miscarriage. . .” Otherwise, it would not make sense. For the Torah would not state that no woman will suffer miscarriage, without stating the condition of “if you do My will.” Thus, we must say that the whole verse refers back to “You must serve Adonoy. . .”

The hornets did not cross. . . [Rashi says this] so you will not ask regarding what he explained, “It. . . would strike them. . . and they would die,” and say that this cannot be — for Yehoshua fought against them seven years! Thus Rashi explains that “the hornets did not cross. . .”

Is to be understood as ותרבה עליך . You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain here as he does later in Parshas Eikev (Devarim 7:22) on the verse, “Lest the wild animals multiply against you”? [For there he said,] “But behold, if they do the will of God then they need not fear the beasts. . . Rather, [the verse implies that] God knew they are destined to sin.” It seems that [Rashi did not say so here because] it is written here, “Lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field multiply.” This implies that the verse is explaining that the many beasts are a result of the desolation of the land, [rather than being an allusion that they are destined to sin]. Another answer: Here it is written (v. 20), “Behold, I will send an angel. . .” on which Rashi explained, “Here they are foretold that they are destined to sin.” So Rashi does not need to explain this point again here.

And you will drive them away. ותגרשם . In other words, [Rashi is explaining that] this is in future tense, and that [the suffix] is plural.

This (the usage here) is actually אי . . . Rashi is answering the question: The word כי can convey only one of four meanings: אי (if), דלמא (perhaps), אלא (but), and דהא (because). But it does not convey אשר (that). [So why here does it convey אשר ?] Rashi answers that this כי conveys the meaning of אי , which is the same as אם . And we often find that אם conveys אשר , for example אם תקריב , “That you will offer. . .” (Vayikra 2:14).