Since my master commits sexual crimes. You might ask: I can understand [why Rashi mentions] idolatry and Shabbos [as they] are written here, in the verses of this section. But why does Rashi mention sexual crimes which are not mentioned in this section? The answer is: Even though the verses do not mention sexual crimes, it they hints at them by mentioning idolatry. As the Midrash says, “’Your two breasts, etc.’ (Shir Hashirim 4). [This hints] that the two Tablets correlated one to another, with one command corresponding to [the opposite] command. ’Do not commit adultery’ (Shemos 20:13) corresponding to ’You must not have any other gods’ (verse 3),” i.e., idolatry. Alternatively, this is based on the sages’ statement that Yisroel served idolatry only for the purpose of permitting immorality for themselves. Rashi mentions Shabbos since whoever desecrates Shabbos is considered as if he denied God’s Creation of heaven and earth, [which is like idolatry]. Alternatively, the master might buy the slave for homosexuality, which is a sexual crime.

If he does not repent. (Gur Aryeh) Re’m asks: Why does the verse mention a “foreign family” (verse 27)? If he is sold to idol worship itself (see Rashi there), how much more [will he be sold] to a non-Jew? I do not understand this question, as Re’m should [also] have asked, why does the verse (ibid.) mention a “resident foreigner”? If he is sold to a non-Jew, how much more to a foreign resident, so why write “foreign resident”? However, the verse writes them all for the reason Rashi says, that the Holy does not bring them all onto upon him at once. So if it wrote “offspring” [i.e. idol worship] (verse 27), I would think that he was sold to the “offspring” first. But the Holy One does not do so; rather He brings it onto upon him gradually.

The spreading out of hands and feet. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it is forbidden even in the Temple? The answer is: It is written in the verse, “A prostration stone you shall not set in your land upon which to prostrate oneself,” which implies that the Torah forbade this in your land, but did not forbid it in the Temple.

Behold, the fulfillment of the mitzvos is mentioned. This is the correct text: “When the verse says, ‘And you will fulfill them,’ behold, the fulfillment of the mitzvos is mentioned.” Therefore “If you follow My statutes” means to labor in Torah with no particular intent, and “keep My commandments” means to labor [in Torah] in order to keep and fulfill.

That you should labor in [studying] Torah. Because it is written “follow” and not “study,” this teaches that you should follow the [intricate] exegesis of the Sages [which requires labor]. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi infers this from the word תלכו, as we find the expression הליכה [relating to Torah] in Yirmeyahu (9:1), “Because they left My Torah... and did not walk in it,” and also (55:1), “Ho, all who are thirsty go for water,” which refers to being occupied in Torah.

In order to keep [in mind]. Rashi is answering the question: Afterwards it is written, “I will provide your rains in their proper time,” implying that they should study Torah in order to receive reward. But do our Ssages not say, “Do not be like servants who serve the master in order to receive reward”? Therefore Rashi explains, “In order to keep [in mind] as it states: ’And you shall teach them and keep [in mind] to fulfill them.’” This indicates that while one is laboring in their [study], one should keep in mind to do all that is written in it.

At the time that it is not the habit of people to go out. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps “in their proper time” means at the time you need rain? The answer is: Since it is written “your rain” instead of “rain,” this indicates it will be “your rain,” i.e., at the time you need it. If so, why does Scripture write “in their proper time”? To teach you, “At the time...”

On Friday nights. As it says in Arvei Pesachim (Pesachim 112b), that “in their proper time” refers to [the verse] above where it is written, at the end of parshas Behar (26:2) “You shall keep My Shabbosos,” and [this is based on the rule that] they derive [new laws] from [the juxtaposition of verses]. See more about this later in parshas Eikev.

These are non-fruit bearing trees. Because it is written “trees of the field,” which is a superfluous [phrase]. Thus “of the field” implies trees that grow in the field that do not generally produce fruit. I.e., non-fruit bearing trees. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi is answering the question: We do not find that the bearing of fruit by non-fruit bearing trees was fulfilled, even though “the word of our God stands forever” (Yeshayahu 40:8) and cannot remain unfulfilled? He answers: Even though Israel did not merit to receivereceiving this blessing in this world, it will be fulfilled in the [Messianic] future, soon in our days.

You will occupy yourselves with the grape-harvest. Explanation: He is answering the question: It is no blessing if the threshing is delayed until close to the grape-harvest. Rashi answers, etc.

Eating a little. See what I wrote in parshas Behar.

Peace is equal to all [other blessings]. Because above it is written “The earth shall give forth its produce,” [which is] speaking about produce. And then, after the verse, “I will grant peace in the land,” it again writes, “You will eat the old [store] long kept,” which is also about produce, and “I will grant peace” is in the middle. Why is it written in the middle? Because it is equal to all [other blessings].

He makes peace and creates all. Even though the verse does not say this, but rather “He makes peaces and creates evil” (Yeshayahu 45:7), they altered [the words] in order to use pleasant language as we say in Berachos (11b).

[They will not] even pass. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should have said “No sword ... shall come in your land.” In addition, it is already written “You will live securely... I will grant peace...” Therefore [the verse means], “Not only will they not come to war [upon you], but [they will not] even etc.”

Each before his fellow-soldier’s sword. Since it is not written “You will fell them before you by the sword.” Or it should have said “You will strike them by the sword.” Therefore, it means that they will fall by their fellow-soldier’s sword (Re’m). Alternatively, normally a person strikes fleeing people from behind and they fall on their faces. If so, why does the verse write לחרב (lit. to the sword)? Therefore, it means [he will fall by] his fellow-soldier’s sword.

Of the weak. Since it is not written ורדפו חמשה מכם [placing מכם after the number] as it says afterwards, ומאה מכם רבבה, this alteration perforce indicates that מכם here does not have its plain meaning [of “from you”]. Rather, מכם means מך (weak), as in the verse (earlier 25:47), “while your brother becomes impoverished (ומך) by him,” which means poor. And a poor person is generally weak.

Is this thus the proportion? Would one not need five hundred men for a hundred thousand according to the calculation of five men for a hundred? I found in the name of Rav Yaakov of Orleans that he explains the verse as follows: Five of you will pursue one hundred, and a hundred times five men will pursue ten thousand. So I found.

There is no comparison. Re’m writes, You might ask: If so, regarding [non-Jewish] idolaters [pursuing Jews who sin], of whom it is written (Devarim 32:30), “How can one pursue a thousand, and two make ten thousand flee,” it should have said, “and two make two thousand flee”? The work book Imrei Noam asks this question and answers in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, that here it is talking of pursuing and killing as it is written, “Your enemies will fall before you by the sword.” Therefore five can only pursue and kill a hundred. There, however, there is no killing but only pursuing. It seems to me that although pursuit includes killing, this is not the case with fleeing. Therefore, regarding non-Jews, if one of them pursues and kills a thousand, two will kill two thousand and no more, and three will kill three thousand, and so on ad infinitum. But the Israelites are different as Rashi explains when he asks, “Is this thus the proportion, etc.” Regarding fleeing however, two men can make ten thousand flee, and two Jews can perhaps make double that number flee, as with Yonasan and his arms bearer. Perhaps my words include what the Imrei Noam says. See Tosfos Sotah 11a. (Divrei Dovid) It is fitting to give some sort of rationale for the ratio of a hundred to ten thousand. It seems as follows: Since five people kill a hundred, when they are many, each one of the hundred [Jews] is like five and can kill a hundred. Thus, that hundred is capable of killing a hundred times hundred, namely ten-thousand.

Not in a natural way. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah write about enemies falling twice, since before in v. 7 it [already] wrote, “They will fall before you ... ” Therefore, etc.

To a king who hired workers ... They did not serve him faithfully, except for one who served him faithfully. When the workers came to receive their pay, that worker too came with them. The king said to him: “My son, I will turn my attention to you [later]. Because these worked for me a little I will give them a small wage, whereas I have a large calculation [to make] with you.” So is the Holy One. He pays the non-Jews’ wage swiftly. But when Israel comes, He turns away from all his [other] businesses since their wage is very large and He needs time to calculate with them to pay them for all their merits (Nachalas Yaakov). See what I wrote in parshas Ki Sissa and in parshas Acharei Mos.

With increasing population. You might ask: Perhaps והפרתי והרבתי both refer to “fruitfulness and increase,” as everywhere [else] where פריה ורביה are written together? [Why then does Rashi translate והרבתי as “I will make you great”?]. The answer is since the Torah does not write והפריתי והרבתי אתכם, but rather, והפרתי אתכם והרבתי אתכם, this indicates that they are two separate things (R. Noson). You might ask: Why the Sages do not exposit anything regarding Yishmael where it is written (Bereishis 17:20), “ And as for Yishmael I have heard you..., and I will make him fruitful, (and will increase him exceedingly),” yet they do not expound anything from the [extra] word him? The answer is: Regarding Yishmael the word him is exclusionary: I will bless him with the blessing of fruitfulness and increase, but I will not bless the sons of Keturah, even though they too were the sons of Avrohom. Analyze this.

With an upright stature. Re’m explains that if they are fruitful they will certainly increase. Therefore הרבתי must mean התרברבות (greatness), i.e., an upright stature.

Good [quality] to be aged. Rashi is answering the question: What blessing is it to “eat the old”?

Full of new [crops]. Because new crops generally cannot remain on the threshing floor as they will rot if they remain there, and therefore they must put them in the storehouses.

To empty the storehouses. Rashi does not say that they throw the old crops away, because what blessing would that be? In addition, how would they eat “the old store long kept”? Furthermore, that verse indicates that old crops are better than new. Therefore, the verse perforce means to take [the old crops] from the storehouse and put them somewhere else in the house. Because the storehouse preserves the new crops from rotting, whereas the old crops do not rot easily once a year has passed.

This is the Temple. But not the Tabernacle, as implied, because there was no Tabernacle in the Land of Israel, only in the desert. [Alternatively], the first sugyah of Maseches Eiruvin (2a) writes, “It is all right to say that the Temple is called a Sanctuary, because it is written, “I will set My Sanctuary among you.” Rashi explains that when this verse was said the Tabernacle was already erected, since this verse appears in Vayikra and this whole book was [of Vayikra was dictated by God] in the Tent of Testimony [the Sanctuary] as it is written (Vayikra 1:1), “And Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.” Therefore, concerning what [future] Tabernacle could he be promising them, if not the Temple, etc.etc? So far are Rashi’s words.

To know the expositions of the Sages. Explanation: Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah make a change? Before (26:3) it is written, “If you follow My statutes,” meaning that you should labor in Torah, while here it writes “If you will not listen to Me,” when it should have said, “If you do not follow My statutes.” This question is answered if the verse is also referring to “the exposition of the Sages,” as the exposition of the Sages is called “receipt,” since they received [the tradition] from each other [by listening to their teachers].

Resulting in two sins. Rashi is answering the question: If they did not learn, obviously they will not know what to do? He answers: This is indeed what the verse is saying; since you will not learn, you will certainly not fulfill.

Despise others who do perform [My statutes]. Because if not so, it already written above “and you will not fulfill,” which is to despise the mitzvos. If so, why does the verse need to say, “If you despise My statutes? Therefore, it must mean to despise others. This too is the explanation of [Rashi’s interpretation of] “[if] your souls loathe My laws.”

You hate the Sages [lit. the wise ones]. (Gur Aryeh) Why does the verse say “Your souls loathe My laws (משפטי)” regarding this, [and not “If you despise My statutes (חקותי)”]? Because [monetary] laws (משפטים) require wisdom [to understand]., This is as the Sages say (Bava Basra 175b), “He who wants to be wise should occupy himself with monetary laws.” And so they expounded (Sifri 9, 10) regarding Shlomo, “Would he, of whom it is said (Melachim I 5:11), ’He was wiser than any man,’ say (Melachim I 3:9), ’Who can judge this, Your great nation’?’” [This indicatesing that judging monetary laws requires wisdom and logic].

I will command against you. Rashi is answering the question: The term והפקדתי**** implies depositing, but “deposit” is not relevant here. Therefore, he explains that it is an expression of commanding.

The appearance of his skin (lit. surface) is washed out. I.e., the appearance of the skin of swollen flesh is washed out [pale]; it is not red like the flesh of other, healthy people.

Your enemies will consume [your crops]. Rashi is answering the question: First it said “You will plant [your seeds] in vain,” which implies that they will not grow, and afterwards it says, “And your enemies will consume the crops,” which implies that they will grow? Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: How can one sow seed לריק (lit. on emptiness)? A person sows in the ground? He answers that “on emptiness” means that it will not grow, etc.

This is a deathly plague (מותן). Some explain that this is an expression of waiting (המתנה), that people will wait and expect the disease to leave him any moment and [they wait for] he will his recovery., and wWhen he dies, people will be alarmed (נבהלים) that he suddenly died. Others explain that it is an expression of מתניים, a disease that begins from the hips (מתניים), and this [terrible] disease alarms him. The expression of מותן [instead of מתניים] is similar to the expression (Kiddushin 22b) “The ear (אוזן) that heard on Mount Sinai, etc.,” where it should have said “ears” (אזניים). Here too, it means מתניים.

[He sows it] the second year, and it grows. I.e., if it happens to grow the second time.

For the days of siege. I.e., they gather produce to eat while they lay siege upon Jewish towns.

Within [your cities]. You might ask: From where does Rashi [know to] explain like this? “You will be stricken before your enemies” implies that they will kill them with the sword? The answer is: Rashi proves this from “I will set My face against you,” which implies that the verse is speaking of death by the hand of Heaven, i.e., excision. [This is], when a person dies prematurely on his bed as it is written in parshas Kedoshim (above 20:5), “I shall set My face against that man and his family; I shall cut him off.” This indicates that wherever it is written “My face” it means excision. Yet after this it is written, “You will be stricken before your enemies,” which implies death atby the hand of man by the sword? Therefore, Rashi answers that it means as follows. When it says, “You will be stricken before your enemies,” it means that you will be killed within, by excision. And when it says “You will be stricken before your enemies,” it means that your enemies will surround you without, i.e., standing outside and rejoicing at their your death. Thus, you will be “stricken before your enemies.” Alternatively, [Rashi derives this] from ונגפתם, which is an expression of plague, a death by the hand of Hheaven.

From you. Rashi is answering the question: It is already written “you will be stricken...” Therefore, this must come to be expounded upon. [Later], Rashi has to say the double expression “from you and over you” in his commentary, because the exposition indicates that the enemies will be “from you,” while the verse indicates that they will rule “over you.” Therefore he says both in his explanation.

Because of panic. Because afterwards is written “when no one is pursuing.” If so, why will they flee? Perforce, only because of panic.

Because of lack of strength. Rashi is answering the question: Its its [not] a blessing if no one pursues them? He answers that [the enemy] will not need to pursue them, as they will have no strength. They will think, “Why pursue them? They have no strength to wage war.”

And if while these [are happening]. Rashi is answering the question: ואם עד אלה (lit. if until these) implies that there is a time limit and the verse is saying that if the time passes and you still do not listen to Me, then I will increase your punishment. However, it is impossible to say that Hashem would set for them a time [until when they] transgress the commandments. Therefore he explains that עד is like עוד (while), because if not, the verse should have said, “If, you still do not listen to Me because (על) of these [catastrophes].”

Still other sufferings. Not that ‘I will once again increase to bring the first sufferings onto them a second time’, since the second sufferings are not the same as the first.

Seven punishments. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that the Holy One will punish them seven times for their sins, yet this cannot be as He does not punish a person more than he transgressed against Him.

Destroys its produce. Because [the land] is damp, its the fruits rots.

**Who does not weed, nor harvest.**נוכש is to gather weeds from among the seedlings, כסח is to harvest, and עודר is to dig.

Behold the teeth of such a one are set on edge. Thus “Your strength will be exhausted in vain” means after this labor and effort, since then the teeth of such a one are set on edge. If “your strength” meant their money that comes from [exerting] strength [effort], the verse need not have mentioned this, as Scripture had already written, “I will make your heavens like iron,” and probably they exhausted [their money] in vain. (Gur Aryeh) You also cannot say it means that their physical strength will be exhausted, because if so it need not have said “in vain,” but [simply], “Your strength will be exhausted.”

What you bring to it. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written “your land”? It should have written “The land will not yield,” as above in the blessing (verse 4), “The earth shall give forth its produce.” Therefore, “your land” implies even what you bring to it of your own at the time of seeding; even this it will not yield. Alternatively, Rashi infers this from the word יבולה (produce), which connotes moving something (מוביל), [implying] that he brings [seed]. (Re’m)

Even from the very earth a curse will be upon them. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “And the tree will not give forth its produce”! Why write “of the land”?

An expression of inciting. Because [the other meaning of והשלחתי] “sending on a mission” only applies to [a human] who has intellect.

I will set (אשלח) upon them. And here too it writes “I will send (והשלחתי) among you,” giving us a gezeiroh shovoh.

There were indeed years. Rashi mentions this so that you do not ask: Where do we find that a domesticated animal killed with its bite? He cites an incident that there were indeed, etc.

These are minors. The death of one’s children when they are minors is called משכל as we find byin the case of Rivkah who said (Bereishis 27:45), “Why should I lose (אשכל) both of you on one day?” At that time they [Yaakov and Eisav] were minors. See parshas Toldos.

Within. Rashi alters his wording and says “within” regarding people. He is answering the question: Why did it not [simply] write “I will destroy your cattle and you”? The answer is: The wild animals will completely destroy the cattle that are outside in the field. But since people are within, inside the town, the wild animals will not destroy them all, but will only reduce them.

To return to Me. Because the expression לא תוסרו לי (lit. do not accept your sufferings) is problematical, as people obviously do not want to accept sufferings [and they sufferings are given to people whether they want them or not]. Therefore Rashi explains: If, despite all these sufferings, you do not want to return to Me.

There is “avenging” ... I.e., “I will bring an avenging sword upon you avenging the covenant,” implies the sword written in the covenant, i.e., the Torah. But there is another avenging not [mentioned] in the covenant, and that is the blinding of Tzidkiyohu.

The blinding of Tzidkiyohu. Blinding is not written in the Torah. Alternatively, “avenging the covenant” refers to Tzidkiyohu who made an oath [covenant], [then] transgressed the oath, and was blinded. And “other avengings” means cases where people transgressed the Torah’s commands such as theft and immorality, [where one does not transgress a specific covenant. Rashi is saying as follows: “There is ’avenging’ which is not for the (violation of a) covenant, such as with other avengings, while this (case of our verse) is the blinding of Tzidkiyohu.]

Which you have transgressed. I.e., the Torah [according to the first interpretation].

Enemy armies. Rashi is answering the question: How can a sword on its own strike them? Why does Rashi not explain this above in v. 6 where it said, “No sword shall pass through your land”? The answer is: Above it is written “I will grant peace in the land.” Since peace is the opposite of war, as it is written (Tehillim 120:7), “I am for peace, but when I speak they are for war,” [“sword” of that verse] certainly refers to an armed force [i.e., war]. Here, however, no enemy is mentioned as it is only written, “I will bring an avenging sword upon you.” Therefore, he explains that “sword” refers to an army of enemies.

When they take out. Because otherwise, how is pestilence relevant to “You will be given into the hand of the enemy”? Even though did every evil, they did not leave the dead overnight because the [holy] Land is unable to bear it and the corpse immediately gives off a stench if left overnight.

I will break for you. Rashi needs to explain that בשברי means “I will break,” because the [literal] meaning of בשברי is “when I break,” but the intent here is “I will break” and not “when I break.”

For lack of wood. Gur Aryeh explains that you cannot say it is for lack of bread, because it is already written “When I break the staff of your bread.” But, this is no proof, because “staff of bread” can refer to anything that gives sustenance (הסועד), as every meal (סעודה) is called [bread] because of bread [which sustains most of all]. This is clearly indicated in Rashi who writes “every support (מסעד) of food.” Rashi’s proof [that the verse refers to lack of wood] seems to be because it is not written “Ten women will knead one dough,” which occurs before baking. This indicates that even though they have flour and each woman can make dough by herself, they are unable to bake [separately for lack of wood]. This is easy to understand. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

“And you will be given [into the hand of the enemy]” is not of that number. Because otherwise, there would be eight. Rather, it is [the same as] “the sword” written in the beginning of the verse. And its explanation is: through the sword, that is, the enemy armies, you will be given into the hand of the enemy through pestilence [that breaks out during the siege].

And he would fall [dead] upon it [the idol]. Rashi is explaining how the verse can say, “I will set your corpses upon the carcasses of your idols,” implying that the people fall on their idols when they are already dead.

This is [actually] a kindly measure for Israel. Rashi is answering the question: Why is this not counted among the punishments, making them eight? Therefore he explains: “This is a kindly measure, etc.” Do not ask: Why does Rashi not include the even harsher “I will scatter you among the nations, etc.” among the punishments? The answer is: Once the verse interrupted with a kindly measure, it is not counted as being part of the above mentioned punishments. This is not like Re’m who explains: “This is a kindly measure.:” Rashi is telling us the truth of the matter and is not saying that if it was not a kindly measure, but a punishment, there would be eight [punishments]. Because if so, you could ask that since “I will scatter you among the nations” is a measure of punishment, there would [still] be eight. Therefore one must say that once the number of seven is complete, the Torah is not particular if there are eight [punishments or for that matter] other punishments in addition to the seven. So far are his words. [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write, והשימותי אני and not [simply] write והשימותי את הארץ as it is written in v. 31, והשימותי את מקדשיכם without writing אני (Myself)? This indicates [the direct involvement of] the Holy One Himself. But, being that no evil comes from Him as “evil does not come from the Most High,” therefore Rashi has to explain, “This is [actually] a kindly measure.”

For their enemies will not find any satisfaction. I.e., when the verse writes “Your enemies who live on it will be desolated,” it means that they will not be able to live in your land because of the desolation. [It means] that they will not be able to live in your land because of the desolation.

The scabbard is emptied. Because the expression of ריק (empty) is not applicable to a sword as Rashi explains in parshas Beshalach. הנדן is the sheath of the sword.

As a person who empties. And therefore it is written והריקותי.

It does not return. I.e., the water.

It will appease the wrath of God. Re’m writes: Rashi’s explanation, “It will appease the wrath of God,” is not referring to the word תרצה, because תרצה is a verb referring to the subject [the land which will be appeased], while “It will appease the wrath of God” is a verb referring to an object, meaning that the land will appease the wrath of God. Rather, “It will appease the wrath of God” is the explanation of והרצת את שבתותיה (and appease for its Shabbosos) which is written at the end of the verse. But תרצה means to be appeased, i.e., “The land will then be appeased for its Shabbosos.” Because the purpose of the land’s appeasement is in order so that it will then appease God, Rashi writes this purpose at the very beginning, by saying, “It will appease the wrath of God.” Proof to this is that regarding והרצת Rashi explains “the King,” meaning that the word “King” is missing, whereas regardingתרצה הארץ he does not explain that the word “King” is missing and says, “It will appease the King of His wrath.” Therefore, one must say that above he is only explaining the verse’s intent when he says, “It will appease the wrath of God.” (Gur Aryeh) The word תרצה is similar to the word פיוס, appeasement. Rashi says “It will appease the wrath of God,” since he cannot explain that it will appease the wrath of the sabbatical years, because it is not feasible to appease sabbatical years that they already transgressed. Rather, they will appease the wrath of God who is angry about the sabbatical years. But והרצת את שבתותיה is a verb applying to an object, since the verse does not write ותרצה שבתותיה as in the beginning of the verse. Therefore it means “It will appease its Sabbatical years to the King,” since it is a verb applying to an object, that the land will appease the King regarding the sabbatical years.

You will lie on your right side [again]”ùforty days.” Forty days hints at the forty years that Judah remained behind after the exile of the ten tribes.

And if you say Menashe’s years were fifty-five. I.e., Menashe was born immediately after the exile of the ten tribes and he lived for fifty-five years, and we find that Menashe was wicked. If so, during Menashe’s years the people angered Him for fifty-five years, in addition to what they angered Him during the years of the other kings. Rashi answers, “Menashe repented.”

And on them was decreed [an exile] of seventy complete years. There was an exile of seventy complete years, even though only sixty-eight sabbatical years and jubilee years passed over them. The reason the Holy One did not wait until seventy years passed was because He acted righteously with them, as Rashi explains in parshas Va’eschanan on the verse “When you have children ... ” (Devarim 4:25).

As though the pursuers... [We read the verse] as if it said, “And they will flee as though fleeing from a sword,” and not “(And they will flee), fleeing from the sword,” because afterwards it is written, “With no one chasing them.”

In tapping it. Because נדף means נדחף (pushed). However, a pushed leaf only produces a noise when it is pushed against another leaf; also, a leaf is not pushed of itself but only by the wind. Therefore Rashi explains this at length, citing proofs. When Rashi cites the Targum who translates שקיף, i.e., beating, Rashi is not saying that נדף means beating, since נדף is an expression of pushing. Rather, he means that the pushing causes beating, and the Targum is explaining the verse’s intent and not the actual word; such is the way of the Targum when explaining the meaning in many places. [In some texts], Rashi first explains that “They will flee, fleeing from a sword” does not mean actual fleeing from a sword, so that the explanation of “The sound of a driven leaf” applies to it. That the reason they are fleeing is not because of an enemy killing them, but because of the great fear in their hearts. (Re’m)

One by the sin of the other. And “As though before a sword” means, just as one stumbles before a sword that pursues after him so he will stumble because of his fellow’s sin (Nachalas Yaakov citing Toras Kohanim). I think the verse is giving a reason for what was said above. Since v. 36 is speaking of “those who survive among you” who are apparently righteous, why then are they punished by “timidity in their hearts,” and that “The sound of a blown leaf will put them to flight and they will flee ... and fall?” Rashi answers, “They will stumble over one another”ùone by the sin of the other, since all Israel is responsible for one another.” Therefore, He will bring these punishments upon them. Gur Aryeh explains that [this interpretation is deduced] because it says, איש באחיו (lit. man against his brother). It should have said “one man against [another] man” or “one man against another,” since it is inappropriate to mention brotherhood in connection with falling [against one another]. But regarding sin it is fitting to write “his brother,” because the reason they will stumble against each other is that all Israel are brothers [i.e., all Israel is responsible for one another].

When you will be scattered you will be lost. But not really lost, because it is written (v. 44), “All this notwithstanding ... to annihilate them.”

When they hold onto the deeds of their ancestors. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “with them”? He is also answering the question: The Torah says, “Fathers shall not be executed through sons, (and sons shall not be executed through fathers)?” Therefore, he explains, “When they hold...”

I Myself will bring them. Explanation. Because it is written “I will bring them” instead of “I will lead them” as in the verse (Devarim 28:36), “Hashem will lead you and your king,” perforce, it is expounded that He will “bring them” under His wings while they are in the land of their enemies.

If then they will be humbled. Re’m writes: I do not understand Rashi’s intent here. Because according to this, the verse means that I Myself will bring them under the wings of the Divine Presence if their uncircumcised heart is humbled. But if their heart is not humbled I will not bring them under the wings of the Divine Presence. And this is the opposite of the Midrash that he cited, “Surely... with fury poured out, will I be king over you.” I will assert My kingship over you by force. But Rashi should have explained או אז (or then) according to its literal meaning: Either I will bring them under the wings of My Divine Presence by force, or then their hearts will humble of themselves and I will not need to bring them under the wings of My Divine Presence by force. So far are Re’m’s words. This [way of understanding Rashi] is difficult as Rashi in parshas Mishpatim explains, “Or it was not a תם, but rather it was known that it is a goring ox,” [and thus probably learns that expression similarly over here]. I think that this is the explanation of Rashi: [Rashi omits a few words at the beginning, and is actually learning או as meaning “or”]: “Or I will not have to rule over them by force, if then they humble their uncircumcised heart of themselves, and then confess their sins and their iniquities are atoned through suffering. If they do this, “I will [then] remember My covenant, etc.” The meaning of או אז יכנע will be as Rashi explained in או נודע כי שור נגח הוא above. This also explains the “other interpretation” of Rashi. Analyze this.

With their sufferings. Rashi is answering the question: What will appease their iniquities? He answers that appeasement refers to the suffering that will atone for their iniquities.

A pledge, that he should come. I do not know why five places [were necessary], since one would be enough. Perhaps this was as if he swore by the five books of the Torah, just as [the word] Israel is written five times in one verse (Bamidbar 8:19) corresponding to the five books of the Torah; Re’m. It seems to me as follows: the Yalkut states that before the coming of Moshiach, Eliyohu will arrive first and reveal himself to individual righteous people, afterwards in a few towns and communities, and afterwards upon the mountains of Israel, etc. The Yalkut Yeshaya comments on the verse (Yeshayahu 52:7), “How pleasant are the feet of the bearer of good tidings on the mountains,” that three days before the arrival of Moshiach, Eliyohu will come and stand on the mountains of Israel ... and his voice will be heard from the one end of the world to the other ... On the second day he will stand on the mountains of Israel ... And on the third day ... Thus he will come to announce the good tidings five times. Israel will then make a great repentance as it says in the Yalkut at the end of Malachi in the name of R. Eliezer. Therefore, he has to give a pledge five times in order to [guarantee that he will] come and announce good tidings five times (R. Yaakov Taryosh). (Kitzur Mizrachi) Maharan writes in the name of Tzror Hamor, that he [specifically] took a vov so that he should come to redeem in the sixth millennium, soon in our days. Gur Aryeh gave another reason at length. (Divrei Dovid) He explains that he took a vov as his name would still be pronounced as Yaakov without change, whereas if he had taken another letter, the name Yaakov would be corrupted and no longer be pronounced as Yaakov.

And why is “remembrance” not said [in connection] with Yitzchok. (Divrei Dovid) [Rashi] seems [to be saying] that this question only arises now, since if not for his answer [as to why the patriarchs are listed in reverse order], I would think the verse means that only through combination, [i.e.,] that only the remembrance of all three together will cause [the redemption]. If so, one need not mention “remembrance” with Yitzchok, because [remembrance] is mentioned at the beginning and end of the [one] combination and it is not necessary [for it to be inserted] in the middle. But now that that the verse is making two statements, first that Yitzchok will combine with Yaakov, and then, if this combination is insufficient, He will also combine with Avrohom, therefore Rashi asks why no remembrance is said with Yitzchok pertaining to the first combination.

[As] retribution and in retribution. Because יען always means retribution. Rashi also adds the word אשר (that) since without it, the words “As retribution and in retribution” would not be connected with “They despised My laws.” It is as if the verse said, “As retribution that they despised My laws and in retribution that their soul loathed My statutes.”