That [the Sanhedrin] proclaims a leap year. This is the correct text: “Regulate the appointed times so that [the] Israel[ites] should become knowledgeable in them,” i.e., they should become used to coming up [to Jerusalem] on the festivals. He then explains how [it is regulated]. “[The Sanhedrin] proclaims a leap year, etc.” Since the [people]y were uprooted from their place they [Sanhedrin] proclaim a leap year, because if they do not proclaim a leap year, they [people] will be unable to come up and reach Jerusalem until after the festival., and t The following year they will not want to come up for the festival, thinking that that they will be unable to reach Jerusalem before the festival. Therefore they proclaim a leap year. See Sanhedrin 11a.

Sanctification of the month. I.e., above (in verse 2) it is written, “The appointed times of Hashem, which you shall proclaim them” (תקראו אֹתם), and we [expound the word and] read it as אתם (you). I.e., everything depends on beis din; if they proclaim a leap year it is a leap year, and if not, it is not a leap year. And here too it is written, “The appointed times of Hashem, the holy assemblies that you shall proclaim them (אֹתם),” which implies that it depends on beis din, if they sanctify [the month] it is sanctified, and if not it is not sanctified.

From six hours onward. I.e., from the beginning of the day until six hours [midday], the day is brightest. And from six hours onwards it is less bright than before, therefore from six [hours] onwards is called evening. The real evening is when night approaches and it becomes very dark. Thus the entire period from immediately after six hours [into the day] onwards until nightfall is called “between the evenings.”

The sacrifice whose name is Pesach. Because “Pesach” refers not to the festival, but to “the bringing, etc.”

Seteyne in Old French. In other words, שבעה is like an adjective describing a group of seven tangible objects, whether animals, plants or inanimate objects, whereas שבעת refers to a group of seven that is removed from something tangible, such as power or wisdom which are not intangible. Unlike “the strong person” or “the wise person,” which indicate a connection [of strength or wisdom] to something physical. Afterwards the verse explains that the group [implied by the abstract seven] consists of days. See parshas Bo (Shemos 12:15).

Perhaps even [during] the intermediate days of the festival. It answers [this query by saying] that whatever any activity which [would] incurs a loss [if it were not done at that time] is permitted [to be performed] onduring the intermediate days of the festival. This implies that on the festival itself, even that something which incurs a monetary loss [if it is not done] is forbidden.

The first of the harvest. I.e., Jews may not reap their fields until the omer is reaped first, [before]of all everything else that is being reaped. But Rashi is not saying that ראשית קצירכם means that you should may only bring the omer only from the first of the harvest and not from the end or middle of the harvest.

Such was its name. I.e., the measure that contains a tenth of an ephoh is called an omer.

Horizontally away from him and toward him. You might ask: How does Rashi know that תנופה includes “vertically upwards and downwards” as well? The answer is: This is derived from a gezeroh shovoh of “waved,” “waved.” It says in parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:27), “Which were [the] waved (הונף) and uplifted (הורם).,” and over tThere [the verse refers to]he movinges [it] horizontally away from him and toward him, and vertically upwards and downwards. Because The word הונף means to move something away from him and toward himforwards and backwards, similar to the expression “waving (הנפה) with cloths,” when people chase away flies by moving a cloth to and from themselves. And הורם means to move something vertically upwards and downwards, because הורם is an expression of הרמה (lifting), and if one you lifts something one you haves to lower it. Here too it is the same.

To prevent harmful dews. I.e., so that the dew should serve as a blessing and not as a curse.

The Shabbos of Creation. Every Shabbos is called the Shabbos of Creation because that is when the Holy One “rested” at from the work of Creation.

You [cannot] know which [Shabbos] is meant. Even though this proof is disproved and they cite other proofs there, nonetheless, Rashi cites this proof as it is a response to the words of the Tzedukim and Baitusim, [see explanation of Re’m]. Therefore For this [reason] he cites it.

An obligation in connection with the omer. Rashi is answering the question: Why in parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 28,) which lists [all] the additional offerings [of Pesach], as Rashi explains (in verse 8), is there no mention of this sheep? He answers: This sheep is not brought as an additional offering but comes as an obligation in connection related towith the omer.

The meal-offering [which accompanies] its wineoffering. I.e., [this offering is] not the meal offering [which is brought] by itself that is mentioned in parshas Vayikra. Because iIt is written afterwards “Its wine-offering is one fourth of a hin,” and since the wine is [comes as] a wine-offering, the meal offering too is also certainly the mealoffering [which accompanies] a wine offering. Even though it is two tenths and the mealoffering of a sheep [that accompanies a wineoffering] is [generally] one [tenth], even so, it is [nevertheless] the meal-offering [which accompanies] a wine-offering, except that [here] it is double [the normal amount].

As its Targum: “the seventh week.” Rashi is answering the question: If it means [the passing of seven] actual Shabbosos, then the seven שבתות would be not fifty days, but only fortytwo days.

On the fiftieth day. I.e., since we only count forty-nine days, how can the verse write fifty days? He answers that fifty does not refer to “you shall count,” but to the offering, that on the fiftieth day you shall bring it, and the word (יום) is missing a בי"ת. It is as if it said, “On the fiftieth day you shall bring it [the sacrifice].”

Barley. I.e., that [offering] is the first of the barley, and the omer is the first of the wheat.

For the Most High. Explanation: The word תנופה here does not have the same meaning as תנופה [of verse 10] where Rashi said it means [waving], “he moves [it] horizontally away from him and toward him.” Because over there, תנופה occurs after the bringing [of the offering and is part of the sacrificial ceremony]. But here, תנופה occurs before the bringing [of the offering, and simply means to separate it for Hashem]. This is implied by the [order of the] verse saying that you should bring of the bread of תנופה, i.e., first תנופה and then bringing. Perforce, תנופה here means raising and separating, that it is “raised for the most High.”

May not be brought. Not that this [offering] is [merely of] the first harvested [wheat], but rather, that the offering itself is a first-fruit-offering, first of all the meal-offerings. Because if not so, why does the verse say “first-fruit-offering,” once it is already written, “You shall bring a new meal-offering to Hashem,” i.e., you shall bring the offering from the new [harvest]. Therefore [we say that] the Torah wrote בכורים, similar to the word בכור (firstborn), to indicate that it is the first of all the meal-offerings. I.e., even the jealousy offering [of the sotah] which is of barley, is only brought after this meal-offering, even though the jealousy offering is not of wheat.

An obligation. Since the verse obviously cannot be understooand according to its plain meaning [that the animals are] actually on top [of the bread]. Rather, it means because of the obligatory [offering] of the day, [implying] that if one did not bring the bread, he does not bring the sheep, etc. Rashi says [that it means] “for the sake,” because we find that על sometimes serves in place of a lamed, which serves in place of “for the sake.” Re’m explains the meaning of Rashi at length, writing that if one did not bring the bread, he does not bring the sheep, etc., proving this from the Toras Kohanim. [However] he forgot what is mentioned in Menachos (45a) in the Mishnah, and what is explained further in the Gemara. And so it says there in the words of R. Akiva. (Nachalas Yaakov)

These are [a group] unto themselves. Explanation: even though the number of sheep and the he-goat of this parshah are the same as those of parshas Pinchas, however the number of oxen bullocks and rams of this parshah are not the same as the bullocks and rams in parshas Pinchas. Because here it is written “one young bullock and two rams,” whereas in parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 27:28) it is written, “two young bulls [and] one ram.”

[While] alive. We derive this from the gezeroh shovoh “them,” “them.” It is written here, “The kohein shall wave them,” and it is written elsewhere, in parshas Metzora (14:12), “And wave them [the lamb and log of oil] as a wave-offering before Hashem.” Just as there [it is when they are] alive, for it is written afterwards (verse 13), “He shall slaughter the lamb,” so here too while they are alive. Re’m, however, explains: Because [We derive that the animal is waved while still alive] since it says regarding the peace-offering of an individual (above 7:34), “Because the breast waveoffering and the thigh [that is] the uplifted portion I have taken from Bnei Yisroel, from their peace-offerings (זבחי שלמיהם),” which implies the plural form. It should have said this in the singular form because it is talking of the peace-offering of an individual. This [plural expression] teaches that public peace-offerings too require waving. If so, why does the verse here need to write “The kohein shall wave them [the sheep peace-offerings] along with the bread of the first-fruit-offering as a wave-offering before Hashem?” It must be to teach the waving of the public peace offerings is [also] while they are still alive. This is [derived] in Perek Kol Hamenachos (Menachos 62a).

Holy things of a greater degree. Because if not, why write holy at all? Can it be that [the sanctity of] peace-offerings of the public be is less holy than peace-offerings of the individual which are holy? Thus, our verse must be saying that they are holy things of a greater degree.

Leave [it] before them. Nachalas Yaakov asks: Why did Rashi not explain this above in parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:10) where it is also written [regarding left over grapes], “You shall leave them for the poor and the proselyte?” Also, how can Rashi [here] expound two lessons from one word? I think that one question answers the other. Since it is already written “you shall leave” in parshas Kedoshim to teach “Leave [it] before them, etc.,” if so, “you shall leave” over here is apparently superfluous and comes for us to expound another lesson, that [besides] “Leave [it] before them and they will gather [it],” also, “You must not help any one of them [in preference to anyone else].” Rashi wanted to write both these lessons at one time and therefore he waited until here.

To remember for your sake the binding of Yitzchok. Explanation. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say “It shall be a day of sounding the ram’s horn,” (as in parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 29:1)?. Regarding this he explains: “A mention of Biblical verses, etc.” He is also answering the question: Why do we mention Biblical verses that relate to the shofor. Although iIt is understandable that we say recite the Biblical verses relating to kingship since the Holy One Blessed Is He judges the whole world on Rosh Hash anah like a king, but why do we say the Biblical verses which relate to the shofor? Rashi answers, “To remember for your sake...” Gur Aryeh asks: The [extra] blessings of [the Additional prayer of] Rosh Hashanah are only a Rabbinic decree and as can be proven from Rosh Hashanah (34b) [where it says that] we go to a place where they are blowing [the shofor] and not to a place where they are reciting [these] blessings, since they [the prayer services] are [only] by from a Rabbinic decree. It seems that the beraisa is not explaining that the words of the verse’s words, “a remembrance of the sounding,” actually mean that one must say Biblical verses relating that relate to Remembrances and the shofor, because [the mitzvah to recite] these [verses] are is certainly a Rabbinic decree. Rather, Rashi means as follows: Because Scripture writes “a remembrance of the sounding,” and not “a day of sounding,” it means that Israel will be remembered through the sounding. Therefore, it is written “remembrance.” And because of this, the Sages instituted these blessings as it says there (Rosh Hashanah 16a), “Say remembrances so that your remembrances should rise before Me for the good.”

Work at night is prohibited, just as working during the day [is prohibited]. You might ask: Why is this necessary? Why would one exclude the night? The answer is: One may have thought, since it is written “on this very day,” it implies only the actual day as in the verses (Bereishis 7:13) “On that very day Noach came,” “On that very day Avraham [and his son Yishmael] were circumcised” (ibid 17:26). These, which means specifically during the actual daytime, so “Any person who does any work on this very day, etc.,” means specifically during the actual daytime. Therefore one needs “any work, etc.” (Re’m) Alternatively, the Gemara (Yuma 81a) says that “on this very day” excludes time added to Yom Kippur., Ii.e., someone who does work during the time added from weekday to sacred at the beginning and the end [of Yom Kippur], one is not liable for koreis. Thus, one may have thought that night too is excluded from [the prohibition of doing] work, and one needs an inclusory verse is necessary.

Fine clothing. Why does Rashi explain the phrase “a holy assembly” out of order? He should have explained it [where it first appears in verse 27] before explaining “I will cause that person to perish,” and before “You shall not do any work?” The answer is: He could not explain “sanctify it with fine clothing, etc.,” [earlier], because perhaps when it wrote “a holy assembly,” this was to make the night forbidden like the day regarding work and koreis. But now that it is written “You shall not do any work” which is apparently superfluous to teach and warn that work is forbidden by at night as well as during the day, [therefore] “a holy assembly” must be teaching that we “sanctify it with fine clothing.” This statement [of Rashi] too seems out of place and it belongs earlier, before “I will cause that person to perish,” because [here] he is referring to Yom Kippur of which the verse writes “a holy assembly” [as the Torah also writes regarding other festivals], and [yet] it is different than other assemblies. Therefore, Rashi did not explain anything [in his commentary on the other verses] where it states “a holy assembly” preceding this [when referring to] other festivals. (Divrei Dovid)

With the burnt-offering. Rashi is answering the question: Many [kinds] of meal offerings are written in parshas Vayikra, so why does the verse not specify which one it is? Re’m explains that if the meal-offering was by itself, it should have said “a burnt-offering and a sacrifice and wine-offerings and a meal-offering.”

In Chumash Hapekudim. In parshas Pinchas, where all the musofim are specified, some days with many musofim and some days with few musofim.

Which remain on its tree. You might ask: [perhaps the verse refers to] the long pepper which remains on its tree from year to year and the taste of its wood and its fruit are also the same? The answer is: Even so, one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with it since if one takes [only] one it would not be the requisite size and its taking would be insignificant. And if one took two or three, the verse writes “You shall take for yourselves ... a fruit,” which implies one fruit and not two.

One [palm branch]. You might ask: If so, the verse should have written כף? The Nachalas Yaakov answers: כפת implies one branch with many leaves, whereas כף implies one leaf only.

This is the native-born. I.e., an Israelite, because Scripture writes האזרח (lit. the citizen) with the definitive article of ה"א, this implies the highest form of citizen, namely a [native born] Israelite. But if so why does the verse write “Israelite”? Perforce it is to include [the fact that] converts [are considered] like Israelites.