The punishments for the prohibitions. Rashi is answering the question that all these negative commandments are already written in parshas Acharei Mos. He answers that above Scripture wrote the prohibitions, and here it is writing the punishment for [violating] the prohibitions.

The people of the land shall assist them. Because if “the people of the land shall stone him to death” was the explanation of “he shall surely be put to death,” let the verse omit it and not write “he shall surely be put to death.”

For whose sake. Because if not so, why write “of the land”? It should have said, “The people shall stone him, etc.” (Maharam). This [answer, that the land, i.e., the world, was created for their sake] is insufficient because if so, it should have said “people of the world.” And this [second answer] is also insufficient because if so, the verse should have said explicitly that it is talking about Eretz Yisroel. But because it writes [“the land”] in general terms, this implies the whole world. You might ask, why did Rashi not explain this above in parshas Vayikra (4:27) where it is written, “(If a person should unwittingly sin [and he is]) one of the ordinary people (עם הארץ), by transgressing [one of the commandments of Adonoy that should not be done and he incurs guilt]”? The answer is that above the explanation is according to its plain meaning, anyone from the whole nation of Yisroel, whether a kohein, a Levi, or a regular Jew, as Ibn Ezra explains. One cannot explain the same here, because why would one think there is any distinction, and thus [here] it should have said “the nation.” You cannot explain that it means “in the assembly of them all,” because if so it should have said “the entire congregation (כל העדה)” as it says in parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:14) regarding a blasphemer. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

“Free time.” Rashi is answering the question that on the contrary, it would be a favor if the Holy One directs his face to him. Also, it is His way to direct His face only onto the righteous. Therefore he explains that it is not connected with the word “face,” [rather it means “free time”].

And not [a congregation]. (Nachalas Yaakov). This is stated in Toras Kohanim. I think it means as follows: If the entire congregation give of their children to Molech, they are not cut off. You cannot say it means that the whole congregation is not cut off because of the sin of the individual, since that is obvious as even his family is not cut off. See more over there.

From where [do we know this of] illegitimate offspring? Rashi explains in Sanhedrin (64b) that these two verses, “for he gave of his children to Molech” and “when he gives of his children to Molech” are superfluous. Therefore, the rabbis expound that one is to include “his son’s son and his daughter’s son,” and one is to include “illegimate offspring.”

Which is sanctified to Me. But not the actual Sanctuary, because what has the defiling of the Sanctuary to do with [this] sinner? Re’m writes, “You might ask how can the Community of Israel become defiled by one person who sinned?” It seems to me that because he served idolatry, the Shechinah leaves the land, and by the Shechinah leaving, evil spirits enter the land and automatically, [the Community of] Israel is defiled. The Zohar discusses these matters at length and there is no need to discuss this at length.

For all of them protect him. I.e., they all try to justify his actions since they are his relatives; therefore they are all [considered] robbers. (Nachalas Yaakov) This seems to refer to above [where it says], “If the people of the land will hide, etc.” This is probably because they are afraid of him and his family who protect him. Therefore [the verse writes] “and his family.”

[This phrase] includes worship of any other idol. Since it is already written, “I shall cut him off... from among their people,” why does it again write “and cut him off”? It must have been written again in order to write “along with all those who go astray after him, etc.,” meaning, to stray after the Molech, to do like its [service] for other idols. [This teaches] that even though this is not its usual way [of worship], if one worshipped the idol in this way his punishment is kareis. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

This [refers to] separation from idolatry. Even though [Rashi] said above (Vayikra 19:2), “Wherever you find a fence against sexual crime, you find holiness,” which implies that the term “sanctity” only applies to sexual matters, the answer is that idolatry is also called a harlot (זונה) as it says here “To go astray (לזנות) after Molech.”

To include [cursing them] after death. You should not compare it to hitting one’s father where one is liable only when he is alive. Because if not so, the Torah already said “Any man that curses his father or his mother,” therefore it must be coming here to include after death.

Excluding a minor. You might ask that this is obvious since he is not liable for [any] punishment. The answer is that it is telling us that although the minor is not punished, she [an adult] is punished even if a minor had relations with her.

Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc. Rashi here explains at length “Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc.,” instead of [simply] saying, “’Another man’s wife,’ excluding a non-Jew’s wife,” as he said [earlier], “’A man,’ excluding a minor.” This is because he is answering the question why the verse is lengthy and writes “who commits adultery” twice. It should have simply written, “Who commits adultery with another man’s wife, the wife of his fellow man.” Therefore, he explains that the verse itself is explaining its words, “Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc. Rashi explains further, “This teaches us, etc.,” to answer the question that what difference does it make [if her husband is non-Jewish]? She is [still] a married woman! Even though they [non-Jews] are not obligated in [performing] mitzvos, she is still a married woman! Therefore he explains, “This teaches us, etc.”

Strangulation. Because it is written “shall be... put to death” without specifying [which death penalty], and this [case here is] a death administered by man. And we also find “death” mentioned without specifying [which death penalty], regarding a death administered by heaven, by [the deaths of] Er and Onan where it is written (Bereishis 38:10), “And He also put him to death.” [Therefore, we say that] just as a [an unspecified] death administered by heaven leaves no mark, so too, the death administered by man is one that leaves no mark. See all this in Sanhedrin (52b).

They mix. According to the first interpretation, the root [of the word] is תבל, which has [two meanings], an expression of despising, or a term referring to all the lands [of the world]. According to the second interpretation, its root is בלל.

One inserts. Because if not so, why write “in the same manner as with a woman?” Is there another way to lie with a male that the verse has to say “in the same manner as with a woman” in order to exclude this other way of lying?

Stick. Rashi explains in Bava Metzia (91a), “As one inserts a stick or spoon into a hollow tube with make-up inside, and extracts out the make-up and applies it on the eye. (R. Noson)

One of them. (Gur Aryeh) Why does it not write “he and her”? The answer is that if Scripture had written this I would think [the prohibition applies only] if one married the daughter legally and the mother illegally as the verse implies “Who marries a woman and her mother.” I would then say [the prohibition applies] only if the daughter was first and the mother afterwards, and that “her” referred to “her mother.” But now that it is written אתהן [which means] “one of them,” [this indicates that the prohibition applies] whether he married the mother first and the daughter illegally [and] the daughter is liable, or married the daughter first and the mother afterwards [and] the mother is liable.

And its midrashic interpretation: And if you argue that Cain, etc. (Nachalas Yaakov) Explanation. Even though Adam could have married his daughter since a non-Jew is permitted to have relations with his daughter, and the resultant daughter would have been a niece to Kayin. This [union] is permitted even for a Jew. Although she would have been his paternal sister, a non-Jew is not regarded as related to his father. Nevertheless, the Holy One did an act of kindness with His world and forbade them to Adam and permitted them to Kayin so that the world would be built speedily. Re’m raises a difficulty, “You might ask that this implies that if not because of “the world is built [in] kindness,” he would have been forbidden to his sister. But if so, how did the tribes marry their sisters according to R. Yehudah who says that twin sisters were born with each and every tribe and they married them? The answer is that only one’s maternal sister is forbidden [to a non-Jew], whereas a paternal [sister] is permitted. Therefore the tribes married the twin sisters of the other tribes.

That it [involves] the punishment of remaining childless. Explanation: In [parshas] Acharei Mos it is written, after mentioning all the arayos (18:29), “Their souls will be cut off, etc.” This includes the punishment of being childless, because in general, koreis means that he is cut off and his children are cut off. However, I [still] would not know which children are cut off. Are those he had before the sin included in [his] punishment, or specifically those born after the sin, as they were born of a wicked person? Thus the verse [here], “they will die without children,” comes to indicate that they will die childless as they are now [when they sinned, because any children he has from now on will die]. And the [next] verse “They will be without children,” comes to indicate that when they die they will be childless, because if he had children he will bury them, whether he had them before the sin or after the sin, they will all be cut off. Some texts, however, turn it round (Nachalas Yaakov). Re’m raises a question. How can we say that koreis means that he and his seed are cut off? The Gemara (Mo’ed Katan 28a) says in connection with Shmuel the Ramati, that [dying like Shmuel at] 52 years is the death of koreis [which is between 50 and 60 years], and the reason the Gemara did not mention this [in an earlier statement] was due to Shmuel’s honor, since the Holy One had [actually] shortened his years so that he should not witness his sons’ deaths. But why should the Gemara not mention this because of Shmuel’s honor? Since he had sons this could not have been koreis? The answer is that the Tosefta says that [koreis] only applies to small sons who do not have their own merit, and does not apply to adult sons. Therefore, there is no [contrary] proof from Shmuel the Ramati as they were adults.

Pure for you. Explanation: Pure or impure through your action. For example, if one slaughtered the whole gullet and only half the windpipe it is impure; if one slaughtered the whole gullet and most of the windpipe it is pure. I.e., you made it pure for eating.

To forbid. It is pertinent for the verse to speak of “distinguishing,” since Rashi explained that “impure” means “impure for you,” i.e., impure through your action, that the majority of one “sign” was not cut. But regarding something that is the way it is without any [human] action [such being a cow or donkey], since it is pure or impure of itself, it is not pertinent [to write] “you shall distinguish,” as [Rashi explained] above.