A Judge who will exact punishment. (Re’m) Because [the expression] אלהים represents the attribute of justice, i.e., to punish sins. [Whereas the expression] ה' represents the attribute of mercy, i.e., to forgive sins if a person repents, and to reward one for mitzvos. (Nachalas Yaakov) Re’m did not remember what Rashi writes at the beginning of parshas Va’eira, “’I am Adonoy,’ ([denoting] that He may be relied upon to exact retribution), etc.” We see that Rashi derives this from “I,” without regard to the expression אלהיכם. See there.

[And that place] in which the Israelites settled [was the most corrupt of all]. Explanation: Even [worse] than the practices of the Land of Goshen, and how much more so than that of Egypt. Because if not so, why [does the verse add] “and the practices of the Land of Canaan?” [The answer is]: The verse is adding [in severity as it goes] from Egypt to Goshen, and from Goshen to Canaan.

Theatres. In the first chapter of Kesuvos (5a), Rashi explains that טרטיאות are palaces of non-Jewish kings and non-Jewish ministers. (Gur Aryeh): אצטדיאות is a sport where they incite bulls and other beasts to gore and fight each other.

In the Torah as law. Such as robbery and murder.

You may not evade them. Because if not, why write “and follow them”? Scripture already wrote, “And keep My statutes.”

Other subdivisions. Because if not, why write “You shall keep”? Scripture already wrote, “And you shall keep My statutes?”

Keeping and fulfilling the statutes. Explanation: Above it is written “And you shall keep My statutes,” and here it is written, “which if a man fulfills, etc.,” which refers to [both] statutes and laws. And keeping and fulfilling the laws is written above, “You shall fulfill My laws.” And here it is written “You shall keep My statutes and My laws.”

In plural form. You might ask: It is normal for verses to speak in the plural form, which means each one of you as [above] where it says תשמרו, לא תעשו, and לא תלכו? The answer is: Here it is different, because at the beginning it is written in the singular, “each and every person,” and afterwards it is written תקרבוin the plural form. Perforce תקרבו comes to include females. You might ask: Why does the verse have to [specially] include [females] regarding prohibited relationships, which is a negative commandment, for females too are obligated to keep negative commandments since they are compared to men regarding all punishments of the Torah as the Gemara says in Kidushin (35a). The answer is: Prohibited relationships are different because regarding other prohibitions of the Torah such as forbidden foods of נבילה and טריפה, it is logical that a woman is liable because she violates the prohibition the same manner a man does. But regarding prohibited relationships, the man is the active party whereas the woman does nothing for she is [as passive] as the earth. Therefore, the Torah needs to include that she too is liable.

Faithful to give a reward. Even though here there is no performance of a mitzvah but only keeping away from a sin, and the giving of a reward is only appropriate regarding to an action, one may say that if a person had opportunity to sin and refrained himself from sinning, he is rewarded as if he performed a mitzvah, as we find in Kidushin 39b.

Its plain meaning. I.e., homosexuality. Re’m writes, “You might ask against R. Yehuda and against Rashi who cites him: Why do they not use the gezeira shava ’your father’ ’your father’ from the verse “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness,” which is juxtaposed and it is a negative commandment just like it, and [instead] bring a gezeira shava from the verse in parshas Kedoshim which deals with punishment. He leaves the matter unanswered. (Nachalas Yaakov) But I say that the question itself hints [at the answer]. Because [if this was derived] from “the nakedness of your father’s wife” that is juxtaposed to it, you could ask, as it asks there (Sanhedrin 74a), “This only teaches that there is a negative commandment etc. From where do we derive that one is liable to punishment?” Because the juxtaposed verse too, is only a negative commandment! Therefore he had to learn it from “the nakedness of his father he uncovered.” See there.

[Who] is not the wife of his father. I.e., if he was born from a woman raped or seduced by his father.

Even the daughter of a [woman] raped [by your father]. And the verse (11), “The nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife,” teaches that she must be someone whom your father could marry, excluding your sister born to your father from a maidservant whom one cannot marry [i.e., the marriage would be null and void] as it is written (Bereishis 22:5), “Remain here with the donkey,” [hinting], a people similar to a donkey.

His daughter [from a woman he] raped. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written “your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter,” this implies that the daughter of a son or daughter she had from another man is permitted. But it is written (v. 17), “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover. The daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter”! Therefore Rashi explains: [Over here] we are dealing with a raped woman who is not his wife. Therefore [regarding her children] there is only a prohibition against the daughter of his daughter who came from his seed. But the daughter of the woman he raped came from the seed of other men, she is not included in the prohibition of “you shall not uncover” [in our verse]. And the same law applies to the daughter of his wife who is not his daughter.

We learn from the [prohibition], etc. Explanation. You might ask: Since this verse “The nakedness of your son’s daughter,” is dealing with rape, from where do we know [the prohibition against] his daughter and the daughter of his daughter or son [that resulted] from marriage? You cannot answer that this is derived through a kal vachomer from [our verse that forbids offspring of] the woman he raped, because we cannot derive prohibitions or punishment from logical arguments*.* Rashi answers: “His daughter and daughter’s daughter from his wife we learn...”

[This could be derived by] a קל וחומרfor your [own] daughter.. Explanation: By a kal vachomer for your daughter of a raped woman. Because [the prohibition of your daughter] through marriage is [already] derived from “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter” (verse 17).

[It was] derived it from a גזירה שוה**.** Here, regarding the “the nakedness of your son’s daughter,” it is written הנה, and later (verse 17) where it is written “a woman and her daughter” it is also written הנה. Just as הנה written there deals with one’s daughter, so הנה written here deals with one’s daughter.

“You shall not approach his wife.” But regarding the nakedness of your father (above, verse 7), it does not have to write afterwards “You shall not approach his wife” to inform you what his nakedness is, [i.e., that it refers to his wife and not to himself], since the verse relies on the גזירה שוה [cited] above. (Gur Aryeh) Explanation: [Do not say that] “the nakedness of your father’s brother” is [a prohibition] in itself [and that] “you shall not approach his wife” [is a prohibition] in itself, so that “the nakedness of your father’s brother” is literal and makes one liable for two [prohibitions], for homosexuality and for “the nakedness of your father’s brother.” Because according to the plain meaning of the verse this would be illogical, as [in that case] it should have written “And you shall not approach his wife.”

Excluding a woman raped. Rashi does not say “[excluding] a woman raped” above (verse 11) regarding “the nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife,” because above we include [the daughter of] a raped woman to make one liable, since it is written (verse 9), “your father’s daughter,” and Rashi explains, “Even the daughter of a [woman] raped [by your father].” You might ask: What is the difference that here, the verse “your son’s wife” excludes even “a woman raped,” whereas regarding “the nakedness of your father’s wife” we do not exclude a woman raped? If this is because the verse above includes her by writing “your father’s daughter,” which implies even the daughter of a raped woman, here too it is written “your daughter-in-law,” which should imply even a raped woman? Re’m answers: “There it is different, as there are two verses and each one is expounded separately. And since one (verse 9) implies even a raped woman and one (verse 11) implies that we exclude a raped woman, in order to prevent a contradiction they expounded that it [verse 11] only comes to exclude a handmaiden or a non-Jewish woman in order to resolve [the apparent contradiction between] both verses. But here where the inclusion and the exclusion are in the same verse, they are not expounded separately. Rather each one explains the other. What daughter-in-law did I prohibit? The one that your son has a marital relationship; however, a raped woman etc., with whom your son does not have a marital relationship...

But if he raped a woman, he is permitted to marry her daughter. Regarding “The nakedness of your son’s daughter...” where the verse forbids the daughter of the woman raped [by one’s son], it only forbids the son’s daughter or his daughter’s daughter from the raped woman, but not her daughter or her daughter’s daughter [that did not result from the rape].

An [evil] plan. Because the דגש [dot] in the מ"ם implies that it is double. This results in the word זמם, which connotes thought.

Both as one. As it was learnt in the Mishnah, “Someone who marries a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister [together] at one time, neither are married [to him] as it is written, ’You shall not take a woman and her sister,’ [meaning], you shall have no ’taking’ [marriage] even to one of them.” The meaning of אל אחותה [lit. to her sister] is like על and means עם אחותה, “with her sister.” This is similar to על נשיו (Bereishis 28:9), which means “with his wives.”

As long as [his former wife] is alive. (Devek Tov) Because if not, why write “in her lifetime?” The verse already wrote “with her sister” which implies [taking] both together as one.

So is the Land of Israel: It cannot sustain [sinners]. Because the plain reading of the verse implies that the land will not expel Israel even if they defile it; as it expelled the nation that defiled it. But if so, what threat is this to them that they should keep the laws and statutes? Therefore, he brings the parable of the king’s son. I.e., you will be like the king’s son who vomits immediately if he eats something disgusting because he is sensitive. So with you, if you defile the land, it will expel you immediately and you will not last many days on the land, like the nation before you that lasted may days on the land even though they did all these abominations. However, you it will expel immediately if you do these abominations.

Both male and female are implied. See v. 6 above, “You shall not approach.”

To warn the Court. Because if to warn Israel about this, it already says (v. 26), “You shall adhere to My statutes etc., and not do any of these abominations.” It seems that Rashi infers this idea because it is written “You shall keep my watch,” which implies to make a safeguard for My watch, and then it is written לבלתי עשות (lit. that it shall not be done), instead of writing לא תעשו (you shall not do). Perforce this is a warning for the Court to make a fence and barrier so that no one, God forbid, ends up committing a sin. (Nalit)

And you are cut off from Me. Rashi is answering the question: At the beginning of the section**(verse 2) it is written, “I am Adonoy, your God” [so why repeat it]? Therefore Rashi explains: “I am Adonoy, your God” here means to accept My kingdom and My statutes because it is for this purpose that I took you out [of Egypt]. Therefore, when you defile yourselves and do not keep My decrees you are cut off from Me. If so, what benefit does the world have from you since you do not keep the decrees and statutes of the Holy One, and certainly you do not keep the decrees and statutes of other mortal kings. Therefore you are liable to destruction since there is no need for you, especially when you worship idols.