During an assembly. You might ask: Moshe taught the whole Torah to Israel as Rashi says in parshas Ki Sisa. The answer is: This parshah was said to them in an assembly of women and children [too] as it is written, “the entire congregation [of] Bnei Yisroel,” and [also] as it is written in parshas Vayeilech (Devarim 31:12), “Assemble the people — the men and the women and the infants.” But [generally], Moshe taught the men only. Another answer is: Moshe [generally] taught them in groups, one after the other, but this parshah was in the assembly of all Israel. The difference [of teaching in this manner] was that no one could say, “I do not accept this mitzvah because I have questions against it, and the reason I did not ask Moshe immediately is because not all Israel were present there.” Therefore, [here] all Israel were together so that no one could say this. [See Re’m]

From sexual crimes. Because [one may have thought that] holiness is only discernable in Jews when they are separate and apart from the nations, through acts like tzitzis, etc., and tefillin and [by keeping] other positive commandments. But separation is not discernable by keeping negative commandments. And he explains: “Separate yourselves etc.,” meaning that this [command] applies even to sexual prohibitions mentioned above. When Rashi says “from transgression,” he also means the transgression of sexual prohibitions.

Each one of you. Rashi is answering the question: “Man” is the singular [form], but תיראו is the plural form?

Two are [implied]. If so, why is “man” mentioned? You might ask: We say that Scripture equates woman to man (Kiddushin 35a) [and therefore “man” implies women as well]? The answer is: This only applies where Scripture writes a masculine expression, but where it writes “man,” women are excluded unless there is an inclusive expression. A concept similar to this we find in Tosfos (Sanhedrin 66a). I found this.

But a woman is under the control of others. You might ask: If so, why does the Torah include a woman? The answer is: [To include] a divorced woman or a widow, for example, who is not under the control of others.

שמשדלתו. Explanation: She wins him over [lit. seduces him] as Targum translates כי יפת, “If a man seduces” (Shemos 22:15), ארי ישדל.

Are obligated. Rashi is answering the following question: Why do we explain that the verses are juxtaposed to teach that even though I warned you regarding the fear of one’s father and mother, this does not push aside Shabbos? Rashi says the opposite in parshas Vayakhel (Shemos 35:2), that whatever is mentioned first in the verse is the more important as he says there. And here since the fear of one’s father and mother precedes Shabbos, perhaps fear of one’s father and mother should push aside Shabbos? In addition, how can Rashi say, “And so it is in regard to all the other mitzvos”? Perhaps only Shabbos is not pushed aside because of its severity that it includes a positive commandment and a negative commandment, whereas other mitzvos would be pushed aside by [fear of one’s] father and mother? Therefore Rashi explains: “’I am Adonoy your God.’ You and your father [are obligated to honor Me].”

{To] honor Me. You might ask: In this parshah “honor” is not written, only “fear.” Also, Rashi previously explained the reason why “man” is mentioned is because it is in a man’s [power to do]. Rashi apparently means to say that this parshah is discussing “honor” for the expression “in one’s power” and “not in one’s power” does not pertain to “fear.” The answer is that before, a woman is included to “fear” for תיראו, is written [in the plural form]. Nonetheless, a man’s obligation is greater than a woman’s because Scripture uses the term “man” [איש], as Rashi previously explained. And if it cannot be applied to “fear” because the expression “in one’s power” and “not in one’s power” does not pertain to “fear,” then apply it to “honor.” The expression “not in one’s power” definitely does not pertain to “honor” for a woman is under the control of others.

He may not sit in his place. Some explain that this includes any place that is especially [reserved] for him in the house. And some explain that this is the special place he has [when he sits] with the elders.

Nor speak in his place. Such as when the elders are speaking one after the other. When his time comes to speak, his son should not speak in his place.

And what is honor? He provides food... You might ask: Why does Rashi say this here [at the end of the verse]? He should have explained it above [where the verse said, “A man — you shall fear his mother and father”]? Also, he should have explained this in parshas Vayishma Yisro [where honoring parents is mentioned in the Ten Commandments]? The answer is: Without this explanation [that honoring parents does not push aside mitzvos], I would think fear includes that even if he told you to desecrate Shabbos, you should listen to him and desecrate it. And so with all the mitzvos, if he tells you to transgress them you are obligated to listen to him and transgress them. And honor, which is written elsewhere, means to not sit in his place etc. But now that Rashi explains that fear of one’s father and mother does not push aside the mitzvos, we are forced to say that fear means to not sit in his place. If so, what is honor? He answers, “He provides food...”

To worship them. Meaning, do not turn your thoughts to worshipping them. “To worship them” should not be understood literally, because this is already mentioned, once in the Ten Commandments (Shemos 20:5), and once in parshas Mishpatim (22:19) where it taught that it is forbidden to worship them even in an unusual way [see Rashi ibid]. Furthermore, Rashi writes afterwards, “When you turn to follow them, in the end you will make them gods.” But [according to the literal meaning of Rashi] he already made them gods when he served them? Thus one must say that Rashi means “do not turn your thoughts to worshipping them.” You cannot say [the verse means] do not turn to look at them, because if so it should have written “Do not look.”

In the end [you will make them gods]. Because if not, why does it initially refer to them as אלילים [which connotes nothingness] and afterwards Scripture calls them gods.

Nor may others [make them] for you. I.e., we divide the verse. “Do not make” means “for others,” and “for yourselves” means “nor may others [make them] for you.” It is two commandments, one, “do not make” and one, “for yourselves.”

And if you say [the verse means]: Do not make [them] for yourselves, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi not ask also, “[And if you say the verse means: Do not make them for yourselves], but you may make them for others.” The answer is: This question would not be answered [by his answer] because “you must not have” only implies that when he or others make [an idol] for him he may not keep it. But “you must not have” does not imply that he may not make for others. You might ask: If so, perhaps one is permitted to make [idols] for other because it only writes “Do not make for yourselves?” The answer is: Because we include from “you must not have” that you may not have what you make or what others make. This indicates that “for yourselves” written in our verse is not connected with “Do not make,” because what others make is also forbidden for you. Thus we have to divide the verse and if so, “Do not make” implies for others [as well]. Maharitz.

This parashoh was said only to teach, etc. (Nachalas Yaakov) Explanation: Because all this is [already] written in parshas Tzav [including that one must have intention to eat it during the proper time]. Rashi answers: It is written here “to teach etc.” Because from [what is written] there, one might have thought that even if he had no intention at all the offering would also be accepted. Therefore, this parashoh is stated [to teach] that if he had no intention at all, even though it is not an abomination, nonetheless, the offering is not accepted.

If one handles holy offerings, etc. I.e., if one is involved with something (else) and he happened to slaughter. For example, he threw [a knife] at a wall to affix it [in the wall], and while throwing, the animal was slaughtered without intent.

Perhaps they should be liable to koreis. I.e., if he thought, while he was slaughtering, on condition to eat it outside its [proper] place. The verse says: “And anyone who eats from it, etc. This is written regarding outside its [proper] time.

With the intention [of eating it] outside its [proper] place. I.e., while slaughtering he thought of eating it outside its place, i.e., outside the [courtyard] curtains.

[The verse speaks] of absolute נותר. Rashi is answering the question: Since verse 7 which states, “And if it should be eaten at all,” is speaking of someone having the thought of outside its place and he does not incur the punishment of koreis, how can Scripture write “Whoever eats from it shall bear his iniquity,” which implies that he does have the punishment of koreis?**He answers: “This verse speaks of absolute נותר.”

[Our Rabbis] derived it from a גזירה שוה. It says here, “Whoever eats from it shall bear his iniquity,” and elsewhere in parshas Tzav (7:18) it says “Anyone who eats of it shall bear [the burden of] its iniquity.” Just as there it speaks of absolute נותר, so here it speaks of absolute נותר.

A corner at the end of his field. Rashi means, when he ends reaping his field, not when he starts.

[Which fall down] during harvesting. Explanation: But not during the picking off of grains [by hand]; if these fall from his hand they are not considered “gleanings” because harvesting is generally done with a scythe as this is the usual way.

Three are not [considered] “gleanings.” Because in parshas Emor (later 23:22) it is also written, “You shall not gather the gleaning of your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and the proselyte,” and the smallest of many (them) is two. I also found that it says (Shemos 12:22), “Take a bunch (אגודת) of hyssop,” and Rashi explains, “Three stalks are called an אגודה.” Therefore, Rashi explains here that three are not “gleanings” but an אגודה.

You must not take [the] gleanings. An expression [similar to] עולל ויונק, “infant and suckling” (Yirmeyahu 44:7). I.e., the small clusters.

No “shoulders.” Explanation: They are not next to each other and lying one on the other as when people rest on each other’s shoulder. “Drippings” means like drops that drip one after the other, and are not near and next to each other. This is called “drippings.” Explanation: some clusters have stalks going in all directions off the main stem, one above the other, and grapes hang on these stalks in one bunch. The combination of all those stalks with their grapes creates the cluster. Some clusters do not have stalks coming off at all, but only single grapes coming off their main stem and going down from the top of the cluster to the bottom. Each of these two kinds is not called “gleanings” but a cluster. However, whatever is not of these two kinds just mentioned, but has grapes all gathered together in one place with no main stem at all, and most of this type are called בוסר (unripe grapes) and are found at the top of vines, this is called “gleanings” and the verse commands us to not take them. Re’m. See maseches Pei’ah chapter 10 where Rabbeinu Shimshon explains at length “shoulders” and “drippings.”

[The single] berries of the grapes. I.e., פרט connotes a single item like פרט וכלל (an individual case and a general rule); meaning [the single] berries of grapes.

A Judge Who punishes. Rashi is answering the question: It is written “You shall not glean,” “You shall not gather,” all in the singular form, and [then] it is written, “I am Adonoy, your God ((אלקיכם in the plural form. [The answer is]: He punishes [many] “souls,” since [by taking away] the thief’s soul he also takes away the souls of the thief’s sons when they are orphaned, [because a poor person is considered dead].

Nothing less than [your] souls. (Gur Aryeh) Because if not, why [does Scripture] mention here, more than elsewhere, [that Hashem is] faithful to pay back.

[This is] a prohibition against one who steals money. Rashi means that over there, since it is written, “You shall not murder,” “You shall not commit adultery,” which are liable for a court-exacted death penalty, therefore, “You shall not steal” too is speaking of [a case liable for] a court-exacted death penalty. Therefore, “you shall not steal” [here] must refer to money because if not so, why two [verses]? [Re’m] Re’m writes: You might ask, why does Rashi need to prove from there that the Torah here is speaking of stealing money? He should have proved it from here, because from here too it is obvious [that it is speaking of stealing money] because of [the rule that] “a matter is interpreted according to its context,” since the verse here only speaks of monetary cases. [I say], the answer is that here too the verses are speaking of [cases punishable by] death because it is written (in the previous verse), “I am Adonoy, your God,” and Rashi explains, “A Judge Who punishes [wrongdoers], and [for this sin] I exact from you, nothing less than [your] souls.” And this [indeed], is why Rashi mentioned this exegesis above [in verse 10]. It also seems to me that Rashi is answering the question that you could have said the opposite; that here the verse is talking about kidnapping and above it is talking about stealing money? Rashi answers, “This matter is deduced from its context, etc.” This is not like Re’em’s explanation above that Rashi is answering the question “Why [do we need] two [verses]?” This is easy to understand. (Gur Aryeh). Rashi here is not trying to deduce that the verse here is talking about stealing money. Rather, he is answering why the verse [here] has to write “You shall not steal” since it already wrote “You shall not steal” in the Ten Commandments that includes everything, both money and people since the verse writes in general terms, “Do not steal.” He answers that the verse “Do not steal” of the Ten Commandments is certainly [only] speaking of kidnapping because “this matter is deduced from its context.” But he was certainly never bothered by the question why Scripture had to write “Do not steal” in the Ten Commandments once it writes “do not steal” here, because it is obvious that the verse here is talking [only] about money, because it says “You shall not deny,” and [stealing] is certainly the same as “you shall not deny” because [in the latter] too one is taking the money of his fellow. But “You shall not steal” of the Ten Commandments is not completely the same as “Do not murder” and “Do not commit adultery,” and therefore one may have thought that there it is talking about every [kind of] theft, whether of money or people. Therefore, he has to say that there it is talking only about kidnapping because “something is deduced from its context.” Regarding “you shall not steal” [of the Ten Commandments] no punishment is stated. Therefore you cannot explain that one verse is for the punishment and one is for the negative commandment. Therefore, he has to say that one [verse] is talking about kidnapping, and the other, about stealing money. (Nachalas Yaakov)

If you steal, in the end you will deny. It seems that Rashi deduces this as the verse should have written “You shall not deny” without [writing beforehand] “and.” Because “you shall not steal” [applies to stealing] both from a Jew or from a non-Jew as Rambam writes at the beginning of the first chapter of Laws of Theft, and as Smag writes in Lavin 195, [whereas the next two commands of the verse only apply to acting against Jews]. Because grammatically, “You shall not steal” is not connected with בעמיתו (lit. “against one’s fellow [Jew]”) [at the end of the verse], because if it was [connected], it should have said מעמיתו (“from one’s fellow) and not בעמיתו. Furthermore, the cantillation interrupts it [from מעמיתו], i.e., the esnach [that signifies the end of a clause] under לא תגנובו. Therefore, the verse says “(You shall not steal), and you shall not deny, and each one of you...,” in order to hint that they are connected to each other as one causes the other, because “in the end, etc.” (Yaakov Tayrosh)

This [refers to one] who withholds the wages of a hired hand. Because every expression of עשק (oppression) refers to the withholding of a hired hand’s wages. So explains Rashi in Bava Metzia 61b.

[This verb] is feminine], referring to [the word] פעולה [“wages”]. Re’m explains that if the letterתי"ו [made תלין] a second person [male] verb, it would then make it a transitive verb, [i.e., a verb referring to an object]. But we never find this word used except as an intransitive verb, such as וילן שם , “And he spent the night there” (Bereishis 28:11), וילינו שם, “And they spent the night there” (Shoftim 19:4), כי ברחוב נלין , “We will spend the night in the street” (Bereishis 19:2), except for the verseערום ילין בלי לבוש , “They spend all the night naked without clothing” (Iyuv 24:7). [Therefore], it is better to explain it as referring to [the word] פעולה, so that it is intransitive like the others. [Alternatively], I think that if it referred to the householder, the word “in your possession” would be unnecessary as the verse should simply have said, לא תלין פעולת שכיר עד בוקר, “Do not leave the wages of a day-laborer overnight until morning.”

The verse speaks of a day-laborer. Rashi is answering the question: This verse implies that the wage may remain the whole night and there is only a prohibition until the morning, but in parshas Ki Seitzei (Devarim 24:15) it is written “And let the sun not set upon it.” He therefore answers that the verse speaks of a day-laborer.

A half-day period (עונה). A twelve hour period of either day of night, is called “עונה.”

The verse says: “[Do not curse] among your people.” [We deduce that it includes everyone] because the verse should simply have said, “Do not curse a leader.” Why say “among your people”? Therefore it comes to include anyone among your people. And that which the Rabbis expound [that the prohibition of not cursing anyone only applies if] the person who acts in accordance with the behavior of your people [i.e. observing the commandments], is only based on the juxtaposition [of the two terms], for the verse juxtaposes the commandment regarding “a leader” to the commandment regarding “your people.”

Excluding the dead. Because if not for this exclusion, I would think that the dead are also included since later (20:9) it is written “Any man that curses his father or his mother” [which is expounded] to include after death. Therefore this exclusion is needed.

Advice which is unsuitable for him. You might ask, how does Rashi know this? Perhaps the explanation of the verse is according to it its plain meaning? The answer is that Rashi himself answers [this by saying], “’You shall fear your God,’ since this matter is not given over to people, etc.” If you said that “before a blind person” is explained according to its simple meaning, this then is a matter that can be detected by others that this person’s intent is evil, because he put an obstacle by the blind person’s feet. The phrase “you shall fear your God” is inapplicable in a matter that can be detected by others. Therefore, the explanation is certainly not according to its plain meaning. [However], you might ask [on this answer] that when the verse says “you shall fear your God,” it is speaking of a case where no one sees [the person putting the stumbling block before the blind person]. Therefore, it seems that we learn this from “whoever misleads the blind about the way” (Devarim 27:18) in parshas Ki Savo, and there itself from where do we know [that it speaking about bad advice?] See there, where I explained it. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

[While] you maneuver against him. [עוקף is] similar toאל תבא עליו בעקיפין , “you must not approach him deviously” in parshas Behar (Rashi later, 25:50), and it is an expression of deviousness as Rashi explains in Bava Kama (113a), “With devious schemes.” It is similar to עוקב, as in the expression ויעקבני זה פעמים, “He has deceived me twice” (Bereishis 27:36), because פ"א interchanges with ב'as Rashi himself explains this below (verse 16).

And an abomination is called accursed and detestable. And an abomination is also called hateful as it says in parshas Re’eh (Devarim 12:31), “Because whatever is abominated by G-d, what He hates, [they have done].”

A poor man. Because if not so, why [command] “You shall not favor a poor man?” Are all these [cases] not included in “You shall not commit injustice in judgment”?

Another interpretation: Judge your fellow [favorably]. [You need the second interpretation] because you might ask that once it is written “You shall not commit injustice in judgment,” one would certainly judge with righteousness. And according to the other interpretation you might ask that it should have said צדק (favorably). Why is it written בצדק (with favor)? Therefore you need the first interpretation of “According to its plain meaning.” (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

Favorably. I.e., you only need to judge him favorably if he is “your fellow.” But if he is wicked, judge him unfavorably. See the commentary of the Rambam in maseches Avos, chapter 1.

Since the kof interchanges with the gimmel. I.e., some letters are enunciated by the lips, some by the tongue, and some by the throat.

Faithful to reward. To those who fulfill the commandments.

To exact payment. Explanation, to those who transgress them. (Gur Aryeh) [Even though “I am Adonoy” generally means “faithful to reward,” this verse cannot be saying that] since this negative commandment involves no urge of the evil inclination as in immoral relationships, where a person’s inclination lusts for forbidden women there is no reward here, since there is no reward unless one’s inclination urges one [to sin], as we see in the first chapter of Kiddushin. Therefore, Rashi is forced to say that this is what the verse means: “I am Adonoy” regarding everything, whether reward or punishment. Since He is faithful to pay reward, He is also faithful to exact punishment. [See Gur Aryeh] (Kitzur Mizrachi) Because you might ask, why does it say here “I am Adonoy?” These cases are visible [to everyone], “Do not be a tale-bearer among your people. You shall not stand idly by, etc.,” [and the Torah generally only writes “I am Adonoy” regarding cases where people cannot detect whether one did right or wrong and one has to fear Hashem who sees one’s hidden deeds]. Therefore [Rashi explains], “Faithful to reward.” [The Torah emphasizes this here to tell you that] even if there is a an aspect of transgression in saving someone, such as when a woman is drowning in a river and you have to save her, or if you have to save someone by killing the person pursuing him, nevertheless, I will pay reward for your good intent. Similarly the opposite, if you do not save him [because of this aspect of transgression], I am faithful to exact payment.

Lend me your scythe. You might ask, why is a scythe used first in the example of revenge, and an axe is used first in the example of bearing a grudge? The answer is that regarding revenge he mentions a scythe first in order to add that even if he only refused to lend you a scythe which is worth one zuz, and then he asked you for an axe which is worth five *zuz,*even so, do not take revenge and lend it. Regarding bearing a grudge he mentions an axe first so that one should take note [of the difference between these two utensils] and explain the added point discussed above.

This is a great principle. I.e., this mitzvah includes the whole Torah as Hillel the Elder said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow,” and Rashi explains, “’Your friend and the friend of your father do not leave’ (Mishlei 27), this is the Holy One. ’Do not leave,’ [i.e.,] do not transgress His words, because it is hateful to you when your friend transgresses your words.” It seems to me that according to this, “You shall love your friend as yourself” means as follows. What friend is spoken of? You shall love, “I, Hashem,” Who is called a friend. You shall love Me like [you love] yourself, as is said of you, “[What is hateful to you], do not do [to your fellow].”

Nuzis an expression of something rubbed. Meaning: stretched.

And woven. Meaning: entwined.

An expression of “withering.” I.e., hardened, like something twisted which is hard.

Combination of wool and flax. I.e., שעטנז connotes combination, that one combines wool and flax.

I know of no similar term in Tanach. But there is a similar term in the Mishnah, such as, “If someone says, ’(You are hereby) my charufah,’ she is married, because in Yehudah etc.” (Kiddushin 6a). This is the plain meaning [of charufah]; the midrashic meaning [is found] in Krisus (11a).

Half maid-servant and half free woman. I.e., below, the verse writes והפדה לא נפדתה (lit. she is redeemed and she is not redeemed). This is a contradictory expression because if she is redeemed, why does it say, “she is not redeemed,” and if she is not redeemed, why does it say “she is redeemed”? Therefore it means “redeemed and not redeemed,” as Rashi soon explains.

Who is engaged to a Hebrew slave. I.e., she is certainly betrothed to someone since the verse requires the person who had relations with her to bring a guilt-offering. But if she is betrothed to a free Jew, he would be forbidden to have relations with her because of the “maidservant part” of her And if she is betrothed to a Canaanite slave, he would be forbidden to have relations with her because of the “free part” of her. Therefore one must say she is married to a Hebrew slave to whom she is permitted.

By deed [of manumission]. Because it is written “Or her freedom was not given to her (לה), and we learn a gezeirah shavah, לה לה from the case of a wife where the verse writes (Devarim 24:3), “And writes for her (לה) a document of severance and places [it] in her hand.”

She suffers [lashes] and not he. You should not say that the verse reveals lashes by the woman and a guilt-offering by the man and one should learn one from the other, so that the woman is [punished] with lashes and a guilt-offering and so the man. Therefore it is written תהיה [a verb in the female form] to exclude the man from lashes.

[Is subject] to a proclamation. I.e., because it is written בקורת which is [also] an expression of קריאה (proclaiming), [this teaches] that they “call out to the one lashed.”

He is not liable. Because every כי in Scripture is giving a reason for what came before.

Thus, if she was freed. This deduction is required to teach that if she was freed even with money [and not with a document], she becomes free and is permitted to a free Jew, and her marriage is considered a marriage.

[This] includes one who sinned intentionally as one who sinned unwittingly. Rashi explains in chapter Araba Mechusarei Kapara (Kerisus 9a) [where the Gemara says], “[This] includes one who sinned intentionally as one who sinned unwittingly,” that he too has to bring a sacrifice [even] for an intentional [sin in this case]. [The Gemara deduces this] because this is apparently a superfluous verse. Since it is written before “For the sin which he committed and he will be forgiven,” why does it then again write “for the sin which he committed?” This is to tell you that one brings a sacrifice even for an intentional [sin].

It should be permitted after three years. And the verse would mean as follows: Three years the fruit shall be closed off and from then onwards it will be permitted. (Nachalas Yaakov) It seems to me that if we counted the three years from the time it produces fruit, we would obviously know that whatever grew during the three years is forbidden forever. But now that we count from its planting even if it produced nothing, and that which grows after three years is permitted immediately, this implies that the matter does not depend on fruit but on years. So one may have thought that even that which grew within the three years is permitted after three years since the matter is dependent on years. Therefore, the verse says, “it shall be.”

The verse says: “it shall be.” Meaning, in the forbidden state it had during the three years, so it shall be forever.

That he carries it there. I think this is connected with his explanation above. You might have asked, why does Rashi explain that we learn a gezeirah shavah “sacred,” “sacred” from [second] tithe to teach that it is permitted when redeemed? Perhaps we should learn a gezeirah shavah “sacred,” “sacred” from the Sabbatical Year teaching that it cannot be redeemed as it says later (25:12), “For it is a jubilee, it shall be sacred to you.” Rashi answers that if we would learn “sacred,” “sacred” from the Sabbatical Year, we would be unable to resolve what is written afterwards, “Holy [upon which to say] praise[s to] Adonoy,” since it would be forbidden to redeem it and eat it. If [the gezeirah shavah] applied to [second] tithes it would be all right for the verse to write “Holy [upon which to say] praise[s to] Adonoy,” and that “this matter is ’praise to Adonoy.’” However, the Gemara (Berachos 35a) explains this differently.

A mole. [To interpret] their cries or meeting them for good or for bad. Eliezer, Avraham’s slave, and Yehonasan did not rely on this thing [omens]. Eliezer relied on Avraham’s merit as I explained above (Bereishis 24:14), and Yehonasan the son of Shaul said this in order to encourage his young man and he would have gone up in any case (Chulin 95b).

He says, “This day is good.” I.e., the person said this not through astrology but because this is the way of the Emorites, i.e., this is people’s common practice even though they know no logical reason for it. But if one saw through astrology that a particular day was not good for a certain matter or for his work, he may refrain from doing it; and we do not rely on miracles. I think that it forbidden to go against the constellations [relying] on a miracle, etc. All this is from the responsa of the Ramban, responsa 283. The Yoreh Dei’ah cites some of this in chapter 179. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

Who makes [the hair of] his temples similar. It is as if it said, “Do not destroy [the hair of] your temples.” The verse calls them “the corners of your heads” because the ends of the head [where hair stops growing] are the end of the hair roots on the forehead, and the end of the hair roots behind the ears, and the end of the hair roots behind the head, as from there downwards it is the hair of the back of the neck which is part of the neck. Thus, all the hair roots are at the ends of the head in a circle except for the temples, which go down on each side and break the circle. And when one destroys the hairs of the temples with a razor and makes them level to behind his ears and his forehead, his whole head is left surrounded in a circle [of hair]. Therefore, when it says “Do not round the corners of your heads,” it is as if it says “Do not destroy your temples.” Re’m.

Near the head. I.e., the place where the cheek meets the temple. There are two corners, [one at] the end of the [jaw] bone of the cheek [where it meets the temple], and one at the end of the width of the cheek [above], because the cheek is wide on top, and these are called “the apples of the face.” This “end” is in the middle of the face [looking from the side], and it is at the end of the width of the cheek. And there is one [more corner] at the place where the two cheeks join together at the chin where you have the shiboles [point] of the beard (Re’m). There are other explanations; see Tur Yoreh Dei’ah chapter 181.

Such is the custom of the Amorites. Because if not so, what is its relevance here to “You shall not act on the basis of omens nor act on the basis of auspicious times,” which are practices of the Amorites.

Because he tattoos it with a needle. With this, Rashi is telling us that he is not liable unless he wrote and he is not liable unless he engraved, and so it says in Makkos (21a).

And stuck into the ground. I.e., the person hung on it looks as if he is stuck into the ground, and הוקע is an expression of “sticking.”

The building of the Temple does not supersede [the] Shabbos [laws]. You might ask, how would one think that the building of the Temple supersedes Shabbos? The Temple is a positive commandment and [observing] Shabbos is a positive and negative commandment, and a positive commandment cannot supersede a positive and a negative commandment. The answer is that if not for the verse, I would think that since the sacrificial offerings that are offered in the Temple supersede Shabbos, because the Temple service supersedes Shabbos, then how much more so does the building of the Temple supersede [Shabbos]. Therefore one needs the verse. Even though Shabbos is mentioned [in the verse] before the Temple to indicate that building the Temple does not supersede Shabbos, as Rashi explains in parshas Vayakhel (Shemos 35:2), [and thus you might ask], why does it have to say here “[You shall fear My Sanctuary], I am Adonoy”? The answer is that since the Torah writes “fear” concerning the Temple, you may have thought that it supercedes Shabbos where the commandment is to “observe,” [whereas parshas Vayakhel is discussing the Tabernacle and not the Temple], therefore it says “I am Adonoy.” This also answers the above question [that a positive commandment generally cannot supersede a positive and negative commandment].

A warning to mediums. Since it says in parshas Shoftim (Devarim 19:10,11), “Let there not exist among you [...or one who asks of a medium], etc.,” and there too, [although] it says a negative commandment prohibiting it, it does not mention kareis, but here it mentions kareis as it says (below, 20:5), “And [I shall] cut him off from among his people.” If so, it is certainly speaking here of the medium itself, while there it is speaking about one “who asks of a medium.”

An animal whose name is Yadu’a. Rabbeinu Shimshon wrote in the name of R. Meir bar Kalonimus that this is an animal whose name is Yadu’a, which has a sort of big cord coming out of a root in the earth from where it gets its nourishment just like gourds and squashes do. However, the Yadu’a has the appearance of a man regarding both its face and its other limbs. It is joined from its navel to that rope and no creature can approach within the length of that rope as it tears and kills everything; within the length of its rope, it grazes all its surroundings. When people come to hunt it, they shoot arrows from afar at its cord until it is severed, and then it dies immediately. (Sefer Mitzvos Gedolos)

To be occupied with them. Rashi is answering the question that it is obvious that a person would not willingly [“seek out” so as to] defile himself. He answers, [that the verse is warning against seeking, i.e.,] “to be occupied with them, etc.”

Perhaps even an ignorant (אשמאי) old man. Rashi [on that Gemara] explains that this is an expression of אשם (sin), meaning, a wicked man who is liable for many sins. Rabeinu Tam explains that this person is an ignoramus [desolate of wisdom], as in the expression “not become desolate (תשם)” (Bereishis 47:19), which Unkelos translates as לא תבור, i.e., desolate. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask that this [Rashi’s interpretation] is obvious, since why would one think that a wicked man should be honored? The verse (Shemos 22:27) writes, “Do not curse a leader of your people” [from which the Sages deduce in Bava Metzia 48b that this only applies] “when he acts [according to] the behavior of your people”! The answer is that one may have thought one has to stand in the presence of a wicked [old] man because he must have lived a long life due to having fulfilled mitzvos, and thus, one may have thought he must be honored. Therefore, the verse is necessary.

Only one who has acquired wisdom. This is not derived from an acrostic of זקן, but from the gezeirah shavah זקן זקן regarding the elders of Yisroel as it is written (Bamidbar 11:16), “Whom you know to be the people’s elders (זקני), and its officers,” meaning that they are great and wise.

Perhaps he is permitted to close his eyes. You might ask, how can one think he is permitted to close his eyes? Obviously, this would be a transgression! The explanation is that he might think he is permitted to close his eyes before he reaches his four amos, since he is not obligated to rise before him until he enters his four amos.

The anguish of [wounding] words. Because the verse in parshas Behar (25:14) it is written לא תונו (“do not cheat one another”), which is speaking of cheating in monetary matters since the verses there discuss buying and selling. Therefore, לא תונו here must be speaking [not about monetary matters, but] about the anguish of [wounding] words.

One who measures is termed a judge. Since the verse writes “judgment” it teaches that one who measures is termed a judge. And the difference this makes is that “if he acts falsely in measure, he is as one, etc.”

And causes five [catastrophic] matters. You might ask, why do we need the word “judgment” to teach this? Here too the verse writes עול which implies “corrupt, hateful, [etc.],” as Rashi explained above (verse 15) regarding a judge. You might also ask, why does he explain here that this “causes five [catastrophic] matters, etc.” Why did he not explain this earlier regarding a judge? The answer is that Rashi is saying as follows. Why does the verse write “judgment”? To teach that he is like a judge. Concerning what? [You cannot say that it is to teach you that he is corrupt, hateful, etc.] because here too the verse says עול [which implies these things]. The answer is that he is compared to a judge to inform you that he causes the five [catastrophic] matters which are said regarding a judge.

Land measure. I.e., when there are two brothers or two partners, you may not measure for one of them in winter when the rope is wet and stretches more, and for the other one in the summer when the rope is hard and does not stretch, causing one of them a loss. Alternatively, even if one measures with [the length of a rod of] wood, one may not measure for one of them in summer and for the other in winter, because in summer the earth is dry and cracked, while in winter it is [tightly] joined together.

Liquid and dry. The correct text is, “’Volume,’ that is liquid measure.” The text should not include the words “dry measure,” because משורה is a liquid measure as it says (Amos 6:4) “And drink water in a measure.”

That is a dry measure. Because it says [regarding manna] (Shemos 16:36), “The omer is a tenth of an eiphoh.”

That is a liquid measure. As it says [regarding oil and wine] (see Bamidbar 28:5, 6), “One fourth of a hin.”

Who dips his weights in salt to cheat people. Some explain that the buyer dips his weights in salt so that they should be heavy because of the dampness of the salt. Others explain that the seller dips his weights in salt as salt is strong and sharp and erodes the weight and makes it lighter, and he sells to people by weighing with this [lighter] weight.