Would that we had died. Meaning that it is not in the sense of “if” as in “would that I had a sword in my hand” (Bamidbar 22:29) and “would that they were wise” (Devarim 32:29). Rashi uses the word הלואי which has the sense of “would that…” It takes a vav afterwards similar to “מי יתן והיה לבבם” (would that it was in their hearts” (Devarim 5:26), therefore Rashi needed to add in the vav — הלואי ומתנו as if it had read “would that we had died.”

Consequently “and you…” With this Rashi makes sure that you do not say that these are two independent ideas. Rather one is the resultant of the other, meaning that if you do not rebel against Hashem, consequently you will not have to be afraid.

Like bread. As if it had stated “they are as our bread.”

Their shield. Because a person’s shield provides him with protection (shade), a shield is termed “a shade.”

Yehoshua and Caleiv. Not Moshe and Aharon, because they did not say anything.

The Cloud descended there. To absorb the arrows and stones. Rashi wished to answer the question: Surely the glory of Hashem constantly rested upon them, over the Ark-cover between the Cheruvim.

To what degree. But not “to which place” which is normally the meaning of “until where.”

As Targum Onkelos renders it meaning annihilation. Meaning “eradication from the world.” It is not an expression denoting inheritance (ירושה). Rashi also explains like this further on (v. 24).

Perhaps you will ask, “What will I do…” For if not so, what would its relevance be here. Was Hashem making an arrangement with him that He would make Moshe into a greater nation if he allowed Him to kill them? There are those who ask: Concerning the golden calf in Parshas Ki Sisa (Shemos 32:10) where it is also written “I shall make you into a greater nation,” Rashi explains “if a chair with three legs [cannot stand before you at a time of anger]…” (v. 13). The answer is that here Rashi is answering the question: Why did the Torah write “stronger than they”? It must have been in order to remove the argument that “a chair with three legs” meaning that your descendants will be like a chair with four legs. Since you are descended from the patriarchs it will have three legs, and your merit will provide the fourth leg. Alternatively ממנו (than he/they) refers back to Avraham who is the beginning of the lineage, and therefore your descendants will have four legs. However above the Torah does not write “than they,” which implies that the lineage would begin anew with Moshe — meaning that they would be called the children of Moshe rather than the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In response to this Moshe said “can a chair with three legs…” If one investigates thoroughly he will see that this explanation answers many questions. (Divrei Dovid) I say that this question is not based on any logic. For in Parshas Ki Sisa only the merit of the patriarchs is mentioned, as Rashi there writes “if they are not saved in [the patriarchs’] merit, why do You say “I will make you [into a great nation] … can a chair…” However here it does not refer to merit, rather it refers to the oath given to the patriarchs, as Rashi explains. Thus if you ask: “What will I do about the oath given to the patriarchs,” one can easily answer that “I shall make you into a greater nation for you are descended from them” and thereby the oath would be fulfilled. Consequently it appears clear to me that there is no need to ask “can a chair…”

That You killed them. They will not hear that You brought them up, as would be understood from the simple reading of the verse; rather they will hear about their being killed. Thus the word “כי” here is in place of “אשר” (that). It is as if the Torah had said “Egypt will hear that You in your might have brought up this people from among them” and having seen the great unbounded love, they will not say [that their being killed is because] they sinned, rather that “It is because of [Hashem’s] inability…” (v. 16).

Suddenly. (Nachalas Yaakov) There is a difficulty: In Parshas Vayechi it is written “because in their anger they killed a man” (Bereishis 49:6), and Rashi explains “this was Chamor and the people of Shechem who were only considered like one man.” Furthermore: When Rashi writes that as a result “the nations will say” this implies that specifically if they were to die suddenly, the nations would say so. However if they were not to die suddenly then they would not. What is the difference? It appears that one question is answered by the other. In Parshas Vayechi there would be no difference if they were killed suddenly or not, therefore Rashi was forced to say that the people of Shechem were only considered like one man. However here where he wished to conclude that “as a result the nations will say…” this would be understandable if they were to die suddenly in an unnatural manner, then they would know that it was through the hand of Hashem. However, if they were to die one at a time then they could say that they died naturally and thus the nations would not say … You should know that after Moshe’s prayer, Hashem said “I have forgiven them as you said.” Subsequently they died one at a time, and the nations did not say anything.

This is an abstract noun. [It is] not a verb in the feminine form. However [the word Hashem] lacks a lamed, and it is as if Scripture had stated “[lack of] ability of Hashem.”

By fulfilling your word. Moshe did not request anything new [of Him], only to fulfill His word. This is what is meant by “as You spoke.”

Those who repent. You might ask: Surely this verse is also written in Parshas Ki Sisa (Shemos 34:7) and there Rashi explains the entire verse. The answer is that here he only explains the word “acquits” in order that one not question Rashi’s earlier comment “slow to anger” which meant both to the righteous and to the wicked. However here it writes “acquits” meaning the righteous “but does not acquit” meaning the wicked. Thus Rashi explains that He acquits those who repent but He does not acquit those who do not repent.

Lest they say. But not because of your “words” — because you prayed for them and said “Please forgive…” (v. 19). For if not so, what is meant by “just as you spoke”? Surely “I have forgiven them” [alone] would be sufficient!

As I live. There are texts that read “As I live is an expression that denotes an oath.” Just as I live and My glory fills all the earth, so I shall fulfill to them “for all the people…” However afterwards these texts do not read “if they will see the Land, and My Glory will fill all the earth, so that My Name will not be desecrated through this plague…” These texts explain “and the Glory of Hashem fills…” as meaning “just as My Glory fills the entire land,” similar to the understanding of Ibn Ezra. According to this explanation there is no need to rearrange the passage (see Rashi’s comment to v. 23). However according to the text that we have written before us, “if they will see…” the passage should be rearranged as follows: “As I live, for all the men…” These texts explain “and the Glory of Hashem fills…” in the future tense (will fill…), like the second explanation given by Ibn Ezra. Thus it is necessary to rearrange the passage and explain “My Glory will fill all the earth, so that My Name will not be desecrated through this plague,” all in the future tense. According to this explanation one has to omit the words above “and My Glory will fill all the earth” and to merely read “as I live, so shall I fulfill for them…” Re’m writes that the passage should be rearranged. The words “the Glory of Hashem will fill” should be at the end of the entire passage since they are related to the oath. And afterwards, “Hashem says ‘Why do I delay punishing them — so that My Glory will fill all the earth and My Name will not be desecrated among the nations — to consider Me as not having the ability.’” This explanation is according to the texts that we have before us.

Twice at the sea. This is the language of the Gemara in chapter Yesh Be’arachin (Arachin 15a): It was taught in a Beraysa: Our forefathers tested Hashem ten times. Twice at the sea, twice with the manna, twice with the quail, twice with the water, once with the golden calf and once at the desert of Paran. The explanation is as follows: Twice at the sea: Once when they descended to the sea, as it is written “is it because there were no graves in Egypt…?” (Shemos 14:11). Once when they ascended as it is written “and they rebelled at the sea of Reeds” (Tehillim 106:7); this teaches that Yisroel were rebelling at that moment saying “just as we came up from this side, the Egyptians are coming up from the other side.” Twice with the water: At Marah as it is written “they came to Marah … and the people complained against Moshe” (Shemos 15:23-24). And at Rephidim as it is written “they camped at Rephidim and there was no water for the congregation to drink, and the people argued with Moshe” (Shemos 17:1). Twice with the manna: As it is written “Do not go out” but they went out (Shemos 16:26-27). And “do not leave over” but they left over (Shemos 19:20). Twice with the quail: Firstly “when we were satiated over the fleshpots” (Shemos 19:3). And secondly “the mixed multitude that was among them” (Bamidbar 11:4). With the golden calf, as it is written (Shemos chapter 32). And at the desert of Paran, which Rashi explains as a reference to the incident dealing with the spies.

They will not see. (Gur Aryeh) For it is certain that they will not see, since there is never any doubt before Hashem.

Two spirits, one verbal and one in his heart. Rashi is answering the question: Did only Caleiv have a different spirit? Surely Yehoshua also had a spirit different from that of the spies! To this he explains that he had “two spirits…”

According to what was in my heart. Rashi is obliged to bring proof from the prophets so that you should not question his source that he had one spirit in his mouth and another in his heart. For perhaps he had another spirit both in his mouth and in his heart; and not that he said to them “I am with you in your plan.” Thus Rashi explains that this is what was said in the book of Yehoshua “I brought back word to him according to what was in my heart” but not according to what was in my mouth.

He followed me full-heartedly. The words “[in] his heart” is missing from the text, because if not so, what is meant by “he followed Me fully”? Surely he was with the spies in his mouth though not in his heart.

Chevron will be given to him. Meaning that “I shall bring him” which was mentioned in the verse is understood as “I will give him” and the meaning of “into the land” is to Chevron. The meaning of “to which he came” refers to when he came to spy out the land. The verse is not implying that he would be brought into the land and he would not die in the desert, as might be understood from this passage.

They will kill you. This teaches you the reason for the juxtaposition of “tomorrow turn” to “the Amaleki…” which precedes it. Rashi adds the word “back” because without this it would appear that there were two routes by which to enter the Land, one by way of the valley and the other in the desert by way of the Reed Sea. However this is not so, for the desert by way of the Reed Sea was behind them and they had already traveled past it and have come to this encampment. Thus the meaning of “back” is that Hashem does not wish to bring you to the land, because He wants you to perish in the desert.

These are the spies. But not the whole of Yisroel, for the Torah writes “[who] provoke Me; the complaints of Bnei Yisroel” which implies those who caused Yisroel to complain.

That [a congregation] is ten. There were twelve spies; without Yehoshua and Caleiv who were not part of the conspiracy there were ten who are referred to as a “congregation”.

The Israelites against me. Rashi adds the word “Israelites” between the words “provoke” and “[against] me” in order that one not explain the word מלינים [translated as provoke [complaint] but which could conceivably mean “complain”] as referring to the spies. This is not true, because the spies delivered a slanderous report about the Land of Israel, but it was Yisroel who were complaining.

If it were possible to say, I do not live. As if the Torah had said “If I do not do to you as you have spoken, that your corpses shall fall … then I do not live.” However the Torah did not write “I do not live” because the Glory of Hashem is hidden. Thus it relied upon this being understood by first having said “as I live.” For if not so, it should have said “‘As I live,’ says Hashem, ‘as you have spoken in My ears, so shall I do to you.’”

Bringing [the children] into the land. Meaning that He had discussed the children, recounting that He would bring them into the land, however they [the adults] would die. Thus the word אתם “yours” was necessary to differentiate between one and the other.

Before the age of sixty. The decree was only made upon those who were twenty years old and they were in the desert for forty years, thus it emerges that they were sixty years old [when they died]. Because even though they were to be punished by death, they were not liable for koreis [premature death before the age of sixty].

The first year was included. Meaning that the first year of the count [of forty] was included…

Part of the year as the whole. Meaning that some of the people who were counted after the incident with the golden calf, which was after the first count [in the desert], had turned twenty years old. However, if initially they had been nineteen years old, and only at the sending of the spies did they turn twenty, they would enter the land. This is what Rashi means when he says “so that when they entered their sixtieth year, those who had been twenty years old died.” In the name of Maharitz.

You diverted your hearts. The Torah calls the diversion of their hearts from Hashem, as ‘Hashem’s diversion from them’. Because given that they diverted their hearts from Hashem, He diverted Himself from them.

What does the Torah teach by saying “lived.” Rashi is answering the question: In another verse (Bamidbar 26:65) the Torah writes “no man from among them was left, aside from Caleiv son of Yefuneh and Yehoshua…”

Your actions. The word “it” refers to an action in the feminine [form], as if the Torah had stated “this action that you are doing will not succeed.”

Because you turned. The meaning of על כן (for) is “since” [rather than “therefore”], which Rashi explains as על אשר (because). Given that it would be incorrect to say הואיל ושבתם (since you turned away) the Torah adds the formation “verb … על כן” to the word כי which indicates causation — “since you did so…” referring to you turning away from following Hashem.

To commemorate this incident. Meaning either that this was prophetic, or that Moshe used this name when he wrote down the Torah after forty years in the desert. By this time the place was already called Chormah.