You shall not withhold the wages of a worker who is poor, an oni, or destitute, an evion, whether he is from your brothers or from the strangers who live in your land, within your gates. The Torah here is commanding us not to delay or withhold the pay of a worker, especially one who is poor or destitute. This applies to both Jews and non-Jews who are living among you. The verse emphasizes that this prohibition applies in your land and within your gates, meaning wherever you have jurisdiction or authority. The Torah is very sensitive to the needs of the poor and the vulnerable, and it is a serious prohibition to withhold their wages.

Rashi asks: Wasn't this already written earlier, in Vayikra 19:13, where it says, 'You shall not withhold the wages of your friend'? Why is it repeated here? Rashi answers that this verse is written to add an additional prohibition for the destitute person. If you withhold pay from a worker who is also an evion, you transgress two prohibitions. First, the general prohibition of not withholding wages, and second, the specific prohibition regarding the poor and destitute. For a wealthy person, we already know from the earlier verse that you cannot withhold his pay. But here, the Torah adds an extra prohibition for the poor and destitute, so if you withhold from them, you violate both. The poor person is included in 'your friend' anyway, but this verse adds an additional layer for the destitute.

Rashi explains that the word evion means someone who longs for everything, who needs everything. The word evion is related to the word toev, which means to desire or long for. This is a level even lower than oni; it describes someone who basically has nothing and is in total need.

Rashi says that the 'stranger' mentioned here, mi gercha, refers to a ger tzedek, a righteous convert. This is not talking about a ger toshav, someone who just lives among you and has accepted not to worship idols but still violates other mitzvos. Here, the mitzvah of not withholding wages applies to a full, righteous convert.

Rashi explains that the phrase 'within your gates', bisharecha, comes to include a ger toshav, someone who lives with you and has given up idolatry but still eats non-kosher food. The Torah's obligation not to withhold pay applies whether the worker is a ger tzedek or even just a ger toshav living in your cities.

The phrase 'in your land', asher be'artzecha, comes to include the wages for renting an animal or vessels. If you rent an animal or tools from someone, you are also prohibited from delaying payment for their use. This prohibition is not limited to a worker who works for you, but also applies to these other cases of rental.

On the day you must pay his wages, and the sun should not set upon him without him getting paid, for he is poor, and he risks his life for it. He should not call out to Hashem against you, and there will not be a sin upon you. The Torah commands that you must pay the worker on the same day, before sunset. The reason is because he is poor and depends on this money for his livelihood; he risks his life for it. If you delay his pay, he might call out to Hashem against you, and then there will be a sin upon you. Rashi explains that 'he risks his life for it' means he endangers himself, sometimes even to the point of death, just to earn his pay. He might go up on a ramp or climb a tree, taking risks to make a living. Therefore, it is crucial to pay him on time. Rashi also explains that 'there will be a sin upon you' applies in any case, whether or not the worker calls out to Hashem. However, if he does call out, Hashem hastens to punish the employer more quickly. So the Torah warns not to let it come to that, to avoid a quicker punishment.

Rashi explains the phrase "Ve'elav hu nosei es nafsho" as referring to the worker risking his life for this wage. He is so desperate for the money that he endangers himself for it. Rashi gives examples: he climbs up a ramp or hangs from a tree just to earn a living. This shows the extent to which a poor worker will go, risking his very life for his pay.

On the words "Vehaya becha chet"—Rashi explains that this means, in any event, there will be a sin upon you. Even if the worker does not call out to Hashem against you, you are still considered to have sinned if you withhold his wages. However, if the worker does call out to Hashem, then Hashem hastens to punish the one who withheld the wages. So the Torah says not to let the worker call out to Hashem, because if he does, the punishment will come more quickly.

The verse says: "Lo yumtu avos al banim, uvanim lo yumtu al avos, ish becheto yumatu"—Fathers should not be put to death because of their children, and children should not be put to death because of their fathers; each person shall die for his own sin. The teacher explains that this means fathers should not die for their children, and children should not die for their fathers. Each person is responsible for his own actions and is punished for his own sins, not for the sins of his relatives.

Rashi explains that "Lo yumtu avos al banim" means that fathers are not put to death through the testimony of their children. In other words, children are not allowed to testify against their parents in court to have them put to death. If you might think that it means fathers are not put to death for the sins of their children, Rashi says that is already stated later in the verse: "Ish becheto yumatu"—each person dies for his own sin. So the main point here is about testimony: fathers are not executed based on the testimony of their children. However, Rashi adds that someone who is not considered an "ish"—a man, meaning a minor—can die for the sin of his father, meaning that small children can die by the hand of Heaven for the sins of their fathers.

The verse says: "Lo tateh mishpat ger yasom, velo tachavol beged almana"—You should not pervert the judgment of a stranger or an orphan, and you should not take a widow's garment as security for a loan. The teacher explains that you are not allowed to tilt or pervert the judgment of a convert or an orphan, and you cannot take a widow's garment as collateral.

Rashi explains that regarding a wealthy person or any ordinary person, the Torah has already warned not to pervert justice, as it says earlier: "Lo tateh mishpat." So why does the Torah repeat it here for the ger (convert) and the yasom (orphan)? It is to make you transgress two prohibitions if you pervert the justice of a poor person—one for the general prohibition, and one specifically for the poor person. The reason for this is that it is easier to pervert the justice of a poor person than a rich person, so the Torah repeats the warning to emphasize not to do it. Regarding the widow's garment, Rashi says you cannot take it as collateral after the loan is given, but if she gave it as collateral at the time of the loan, that is permitted.

You should not take a widow's garment as security for a loan. Rashi explains that this prohibition applies specifically not at the time of the loan itself. In other words, when you are coming to collect payment and she does not pay, you cannot take her garment as collateral. However, if at the time of the loan she herself puts up her garment as collateral, then it is permitted, since that was the condition upon which you gave her the loan.

And you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and Hashem your God redeemed you from there. Therefore, I command you to do this thing. The verse is telling you to remember your experience as a slave in Egypt and that Hashem redeemed you, and that is the reason you are commanded to keep these laws.

Rashi explains on the words 'VeZacharta'—and you shall remember—that Hashem redeemed you on the condition that you will keep His statutes. Even if there is a financial loss involved, even if it costs you money, you are still obligated to listen to these commandments, because that is the reason Hashem redeemed you from Egypt.

When you reap your harvest in your field and you forget a sheaf in the field, do not go back to take it. It shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that Hashem your God will bless you in all the work of your hands. The verse is teaching that if you forget a sheaf in the field while harvesting, you are not allowed to go back and collect it; it must be left for the poor, the orphan, and the widow. The Torah promises that by doing so, Hashem will bless you in all your endeavors.

Rashi explains on the words 'VeShachachta Omer'—and you forgot a sheaf—that this refers only to a small amount, a single sheaf, and not a whole stack. If a person forgets an entire stack, he may go back and collect it; that is not considered 'shikcha' (forgotten produce). From here, our rabbis said that if a sheaf contains two se'ah (a large amount) and he forgot it, it is not considered forgotten, and he is permitted to go back and collect it.

On the word 'BaSadeh'—in the field—Rashi says this comes to include the case of forgetting standing grain, before it was cut. If a person forgot to harvest part of his standing grain, that too is included in the law of shikcha (forgotten produce). So not only if you forget a sheaf that has already been cut, but even if you forget to cut some standing grain, you cannot go back to collect it.

Do not go back to take it. From here, our sages said that what is behind a person is considered forgotten. In other words, if you have already passed by and forgotten something, you are not allowed to go back to get it. But if it is still in front of you, meaning you have not yet passed by it, it is not considered forgotten, because you are not returning to get it, you are simply continuing forward. The prohibition of 'bal tashuv'—not to return—applies only to what is behind you.

Rashi explains on the words 'Lema'an Yevarechecha'—so that He will bless you—that even though the forgotten grain came into the hands of the poor person unintentionally, you still receive a blessing. How much more so if you deliberately give to the poor. From this, we can say that if a person drops a coin from his hand and a poor person finds it and sustains himself with it, the one who lost the coin is blessed because of it, just as one is blessed for the forgotten sheaf.

When you beat your olive tree to harvest the olives, do not de-glorify it by picking off all its fruit after you. In other words, you should leave some olives on the tree. The Torah says that what remains should be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. This means that you are not supposed to take away all the beauty and glory of the tree by removing every last olive. The beauty of an olive tree is its olives, so the Torah instructs you to leave a portion for those in need. This is a mitzvah to leave some of the produce for the poor and vulnerable in society.

Rashi explains that the phrase 'lo tefa'er' means do not take away its beauty from it. From here, we learn that you must leave a corner of the tree, just as you leave a corner of a field for the poor. The beauty of the olive tree is its olives, and you are not allowed to strip it completely. This is the source for the law that you must leave a portion—called peah—for the tree, so as not to take away its entire beauty.

Rashi comments that the word 'acharecha'—after you—refers to shikcha, the forgotten produce. This means that if you have already left the tree and forgotten some fruit, that constitutes shikcha, and you are not allowed to go back and collect it. The Torah is teaching that what is left behind after you have moved on is for the poor.

When you harvest your vineyard, do not pick after yourself the small grapes that remain. These should be left for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. The Torah is telling you not to go back and collect the little grapes that are left behind after the main harvest. Instead, you must leave them for those in need.

Rashi explains that 'lo teolel' means that if you find 'olelos'—these small, incomplete clusters of grapes—you should not take them. What qualifies as 'olelos'? Any cluster that does not have a 'kateif' (shoulder) or 'natof' (drippings). If the cluster has either a shoulder or drippings, then it belongs to the owner of the vineyard. Rashi adds from the Yerushalmi that a 'kateif' is when the sprigs of grapes pile one on top of the other at the top of the cluster, forming a shoulder. 'Natof' refers to grapes that hang down from the central stalk of the cluster, like drippings. Only clusters lacking both features are considered 'olelos' and must be left for the poor.

You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and therefore, God commands you to do this thing. Rashi explains that you were redeemed from Egypt on the condition that you would keep God's statutes, even if it means a financial loss. Even if there is a loss of money involved in leaving produce for the poor, you are still obligated to do so, because that is the reason for your redemption—to observe these commandments.

When there is a dispute between men and they come before the court, the judges will judge them, acquit the righteous, and condemn the guilty. Rashi explains that when there is an argument, it will ultimately lead to judgment in court. From here, we learn that peace does not come out of arguments. For example, who caused Lot to separate from the tzadik, Avraham? It was the argument between their shepherds that led to the separation. The verse says that the judges will acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty, but Rashi notes that not everyone found guilty receives lashes. Only those who are guilty of a prohibition that is not mitigated by a positive commandment will receive lashes, as learned from the context of the following verses.

Rashi explains on the words, "Ki yihiye riv"—when there will be an argument—that the end result of an argument is that they will come to judgment. In other words, when there is a dispute, it ultimately leads to going to court. From here, Rashi says, we learn that peace does not come out of strife. He brings an example: who caused Lot to separate from the tzadik, from Avraham? It was the argument, the dispute between their shepherds, that eventually led to Lot leaving Avraham. So, the point is that arguments and disputes do not lead to peace, but rather to separation and judgment.

On the words, "Ve'hirshiu es ha'rasha"—and they will condemn the guilty—Rashi asks: One might think that anyone who is found guilty in court receives lashes. But the verse says, "Ve'haya im ben hakos ha'rasha"—if the guilty one is deserving of lashes. This teaches us that sometimes a person receives lashes and sometimes not. Who is the one who does receive lashes? We learn it from the context, from the subject that follows, which is the verse about not muzzling the ox while it is threshing. That is a prohibition, and for violating such a prohibition, one would receive lashes. But the rule is that it must be a prohibition that is not mitigated by a positive commandment. In other words, if the prohibition can be corrected by doing a positive commandment, then lashes are not given. So, only for a prohibition that stands alone, not connected to a positive commandment, does one receive lashes.

The verse says: "And it shall be, if the guilty one is deserving of lashes, the judge shall make him lean over, and he shall flog him in front of him, according to the measure of his guilt, by number." The teacher explains that when a person is found guilty and is to receive lashes, the judge has him lean over. The lashes are not given while the person is standing or sitting, but rather while he is bent over. The judge is present, and the number of lashes is according to the measure of his guilt. The verse uses the word "b'mispor"—by number—which, as will be explained in the next Rashis, connects to the number of lashes given, and there are specific rules about how the lashes are divided between the person's back and front. The teacher also notes that the verse is teaching us the procedure for administering lashes: the judge is present, the person is leaned over, and the number of lashes is determined by the severity of the crime, as will be further detailed in the Rashis that follow.

Rashi explains on the words, "Ve'hipilo ha'shofet"—the judge shall make him lean over—that this teaches us that the lashes are not given while the person is standing or sitting, but only when he is bent over. The person receiving lashes is positioned in a way that he is leaning forward, and only then are the lashes administered. This is the proper way to fulfill the mitzvah of malkos, the lashes, as prescribed by the Torah.

On the words, "Lefanav k'dei rish'aso"—in front of him, according to his guilt—Rashi explains that in front of him, he receives one portion of lashes, but on his back, he receives two portions. From here, the sages say that the person is lashed with two-thirds of the lashes on his back and one-third on his front. In other words, the majority of the lashes are given on the person's back, and a smaller portion on the front, on his chest. This is how the total number of lashes is divided during the punishment.

Rashi comments on the word "b'mispor"—by number—that it is not vocalized as "b'mispor" (with a pause), but rather it is connected to the next word. This teaches us that the number is referring to the number of forty, as it says in the next verse. However, it is not a full forty lashes, but rather a number that sums up and completes to forty. In practice, this means forty minus one, which is thirty-nine lashes. So, the Torah says forty, but the way it is counted is that the person receives thirty-nine lashes.

The verse states: "Forty he shall strike him, he shall not add, lest he add to strike him beyond these with a great blow, and your brother will be degraded before your eyes." The teacher explains that the Torah is telling us that the maximum number of lashes is forty, but as explained in the previous Rashi, it is actually thirty-nine. The Torah warns not to exceed this number, because if you add more, it is considered a more severe blow, and it is forbidden. The verse also says, "and your brother will be degraded before your eyes," which teaches that although the person was called a rasha, a wicked person, throughout the process, once he has received his punishment, he is again called your brother. This shows that after receiving his punishment, he is restored to being considered a full member of the community, your brother, and not to be looked down upon.

Rashi explains on the words "lo yosif"—he shall not add—that from here we have a warning not to strike one's friend. In other words, the Torah is teaching that it is forbidden to hit another person, and this verse serves as a source for that prohibition. The warning is not only about not exceeding the prescribed lashes in court, but also a general prohibition against hitting another Jew.

"V'nikla achicha" – Rashi explains that all day, throughout the whole process, the Torah refers to this person as a "rasha," a wicked person, because he is being judged and found guilty. But once he receives his punishment, once he is flogged, the Torah calls him "achicha," your brother. This teaches us that after a person is punished, he is restored to being your brother, and you should not continue to look at him as a wicked person. The punishment cleanses him, and he returns to being part of the community as your brother.

"Lo sachsom shor b'disho" – You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing. This means that when an ox is working, threshing the grain, you are not allowed to prevent it from eating from the grain as it works. The Torah is teaching us to be compassionate even to animals, and not to cause them unnecessary suffering by withholding food from them while they are working for you.

Rashi explains that the Torah speaks in the common case, which is that the animal used for threshing is usually an ox. However, the same law applies to any animal, whether it is a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or even a bird, as long as it is doing work that is related to food, and the animal wants to eat while it is working. The prohibition of muzzling applies to all of them. So why does the Torah specifically mention an ox? It is to exclude a human being. If a person is doing the work, you are allowed to prevent him from eating, even though there is a positive mitzvah to allow a worker to eat from the produce he is working with, but the prohibition of 'lo sachsom' does not apply to a person, only to animals.

On the words "b'disho" – Rashi asks: Could you think that you are allowed to muzzle the animal from outside, meaning you put the muzzle on before it comes in to thresh? The Torah says, "lo sachsom shor," you shall not muzzle the ox, in any case, whether inside or outside. Why does the Torah specify "disho," threshing? To teach you that the prohibition applies to cases similar to threshing. What is unique about threshing? Two things: first, the work is not yet completed – the grain still needs to be processed further; and second, it is something that grows from the ground. Therefore, the prohibition applies to all cases that are similar: where the work is not finished and it is produce that grows from the ground. This excludes cases like milking an animal, making cheese, or buttermilk, because those do not grow from the ground. It also excludes kneading dough or rolling it out, because at that point the work is finished, and you are already obligated in challah. It also excludes separating dates or figs that have been bunched together, because once you separate them, the work is finished and you are obligated in maaser. So, the prohibition of muzzling only applies when the work is not finished and it is produce that grows from the ground.

"Ki yeishvu achim yachdov..." – When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and he has no son, the wife of the deceased should not marry an outsider. Instead, her husband's brother should marry her and perform yibum. The Torah is teaching the mitzvah of yibum, that if a man dies without children, his brother should marry the widow to continue the deceased brother's name. The verse says "achim yachdov," brothers together, which means they had to have lived at the same time, to have had a 'yeshiva achas ba'olam,' a shared existence in this world. This excludes the case of a brother who was not alive at the same time as the deceased – for example, if a brother is born after the other brother died, he is not obligated in yibum, and in fact, it is forbidden for him to marry the widow. The word "yachdov" also means that they are united in inheritance, which means they are brothers from the same father, not just from the same mother. If they only share a mother, the mitzvah of yibum does not apply. The verse also says "uvein ein lo," he has no son. The word "ein" can be read as "ayin," meaning you must investigate thoroughly to make sure he has no children at all – not a son, not a daughter, not a grandson or granddaughter, from either a son or a daughter. If there is any descendant, the mitzvah of yibum does not apply. The mitzvah is for the oldest brother to perform yibum, but in this context, "bechor" means the oldest, not necessarily the firstborn. The verse says "asher teiled," that she gives birth, which teaches that the woman must be able to give birth – this excludes an "aylonis," a woman who cannot have children. "Yakum al sheim achiv" – the brother who does yibum stands in place of the deceased brother, and Rashi explains that he also inherits the portion of the deceased brother in their father's estate, in addition to his own share. "V'lo yimoche shmo" – his name should not be erased, which excludes the wife of a "soris," a man who could not have children, because his name was already erased, so the mitzvah of yibum does not apply in that case.

On the words "ki yeishvu achim yachdov" – Rashi explains that this means the brothers had a shared existence in this world, a 'yeshiva achas ba'olam.' This excludes the wife of a brother who was not alive at the same time as the surviving brother. If the deceased brother and the surviving brother were not in the world together, the mitzvah of yibum does not apply.

The phrase yachdov, together, means that the brothers are united in inheritance. This excludes a brother from the mother’s side. In other words, the mitzvah of yibum only applies to brothers who share the same father, because they are considered to be together in inheritance. If they are only brothers from the mother’s side, then the law of yibum does not apply to them.

The verse says uvein ein lo, and he has no son. The teacher explains that the word ein means there is nothing, but it can also be read as ayin, to look into. This teaches that you have to investigate thoroughly to make sure that the deceased brother has no children at all—not a son, not a daughter, not a grandson, not a granddaughter, not a great-grandson, or great-granddaughter. If there is any descendant from that brother, then the law of yibum does not apply. So, the Torah is telling us to look carefully and check if there are any children or descendants before proceeding with yibum.

The verse says, "And it will be that the firstborn whom she bears shall stand up in the name of his deceased brother, and his name shall not be erased from Israel." The teacher explains that normally the word bechor means the firstborn, but here it means the oldest of the brothers, not necessarily the literal firstborn. The one who does the yibum is considered the bechor in this context. The verse is teaching that the brother who performs yibum stands in place of the deceased brother, and his name is not erased from Israel. This means that the brother who does yibum takes over the portion of the inheritance of the deceased brother, in addition to his own share as a brother. The Torah wants the name and legacy of the deceased brother to continue through this act, so that his name is not wiped out from among the Jewish people.

On the words vehaya habechor, "and it will be the firstborn," Rashi explains that this refers to the oldest of the brothers, not necessarily the literal firstborn. He is the one who performs the yibum, the mitzvah of marrying the widow of the deceased brother. So, the mitzvah of yibum is primarily the responsibility of the oldest brother.

The verse says asher teiled, whom she will bear. The teacher explains that this comes to exclude an aylonis, a woman who cannot give birth. If the widow is an aylonis and is unable to have children, then the law of yibum does not apply to her, because the whole point of yibum is to establish offspring for the deceased brother. If she cannot have children, the mitzvah does not apply.

On the words yakum al shem achiv, "he shall stand up in the name of his brother," Rashi explains that the brother who performs yibum to the wife of the deceased brother will take the inheritance of the deceased in the property of their father. In other words, in addition to his own share as a brother, he also receives the portion that belonged to the deceased brother, because he performed yibum. So, the yavam, the brother who does yibum, inherits the deceased brother’s share in the father’s estate.

The verse says, "and his name shall not be erased." The teacher explains that this excludes the wife of a saris, a man who is incapable of having children. If the deceased brother was a saris, whose name was already erased in a sense because he could not have children, then the law of yibum does not apply to his wife. The mitzvah of yibum is only for someone whose name could be continued through children, not for someone who could not have children at all.

If the man does not wish to take his yevama, his brother's wife, then the yevama goes up to the gate, to the elders, and she says, "My yavam refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he does not want to perform yibum with me." The teacher explains that "goes up to the gate" means she goes to the beis din, the court, not just the physical gate of the city. She presents her case before the elders of the court, stating that her brother-in-law refuses to fulfill the mitzvah of yibum, to marry her and establish the name of his deceased brother.

On the words "ha-sha'arah"—the gate—Rashi explains, as the Targum translates, that this means "le-tara beis dina," to the gate of the beis din, the court. So, the teacher clarifies that the verse is not referring to the physical gate of the city, but rather to the place where the court sits, and that is where the yevama must go to present her claim.

The elders of his city call him, and they speak to him, and he stands up and says, "I do not wish to take her." The teacher explains that when the man makes this declaration, he must do so while standing. The verse emphasizes "ve-amat"—he stood up—to teach that the declaration must be made in a standing position. Additionally, when the verse says "ve-amar"—and he says—it means he must declare this in lashon ha-kodesh, the holy tongue, and the woman also must say her words in lashon ha-kodesh. Both parties must use the sacred language when making their statements before the court.

On the word "ve-amat"—and he stood—Rashi explains that this means he must make his declaration while standing. The teacher points out that this is a requirement of the process: the man must be standing when he says he does not wish to take her.

On the word "ve-amar"—and he says—Rashi explains that this declaration must be made in lashon ha-kodesh, the holy tongue. The teacher adds that not only must the man make his statement in lashon ha-kodesh, but also the woman, when she presents her words, must do so in lashon ha-kodesh as well. Both the man and the woman must use the sacred language in this process.

Then his yevama approaches him before the eyes of the elders, removes his shoe from his foot, spits in front of him, raises her voice, and says, "So shall be done to the man who does not build his brother's house." The teacher explains that when the verse says she spits "before him," it does not mean she spits in his face, but rather, as Rashi says, she spits on the ground in front of his face. This is part of the chalitza ceremony, where the woman removes the man's shoe and spits in front of him as a public demonstration that he refused to perform yibum. The phrase "asher lo yivneh"—who does not build—teaches, as the teacher elaborates, that once a man has performed chalitza, he cannot later change his mind and do yibum. The verse uses the future tense, "who does not build," to indicate that after chalitza, he may not build, meaning he may not marry her. If he did not build at the time when he had the opportunity, he cannot go back and do so later.

On the words "ve-yarka befanav"—and she spits before him—Rashi explains that this means she spits on the ground in front of his face, not directly in his face. The teacher clarifies that the act of spitting is done in front of the man, on the ground, as part of the chalitza ceremony.

On the phrase "asher lo yivneh"—who does not build—Rashi teaches that from here we learn that one who has performed chalitza may not go back and do yibum. The verse does not say "asher lo banah"—who did not build (in the past), but rather "asher lo yivneh"—who will not build (in the future). This teaches that once he has not built, meaning once he has performed chalitza and declined yibum, he may not later change his mind and marry her. The teacher emphasizes that the Torah's use of the future tense indicates a permanent prohibition after chalitza.

And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the one whose shoe was removed. The Torah is telling us that after the process of chalitza, the family of the man who refused to perform yibum will be known as the family of the one whose shoe was removed. This is a kind of public declaration and a mark that remains with the family.

Rashi explains that it is a mitzvah for all those who are present at the chalitza ceremony to proclaim, "Chalutz HaNa'al"—the one whose shoe was removed. In other words, everyone standing there is supposed to say this out loud, publicly identifying the man as such.

When men are fighting together, a man and his brother, and the wife of one of them approaches to save her husband from the hand of his assailant, and she stretches out her hand and grabs him by his private parts. The Torah is describing a case where two men are fighting, and the wife of one tries to rescue her husband from the other by grabbing the attacker in a very sensitive area.

Rashi explains on the words "Ki yinotzu anoshim"—when men are fighting—that the end result of such fighting is that it will lead to blows, to hitting. As it says in the verse, "from the hand of the one who is striking him." In other words, when there is strife and argument, it eventually leads to physical violence. Rashi adds, 'Ein sholim yaitzeh mitoch meriva'—peace cannot come out from strife. When there is fighting and argument, it only leads to more conflict, not to peace.

You shall cut off her hand; do not have pity. The Torah says that if the woman intervenes in the fight in this way, her hand should be cut off, and you should not have mercy on her. But as the teacher explains, this is not meant literally. Rather, it means that she must pay the value of the embarrassment—damages for the shame caused. The amount depends on the one who was embarrassed and the one who did the embarrassing; it is assessed according to their status. The teacher raises the question: perhaps the verse means literally to cut off her hand? But we see that the Torah uses the same language of 'do not have pity' here and also in the case of 'eidim zomemim'—false witnesses—where it clearly means monetary payment. Just as over there it refers to money, so too here it refers to monetary compensation, not an actual amputation.

Rashi explains on the words "V'katzosa es kapa"—you shall cut off her hand—that this refers to money, the value of the embarrassment. The amount is determined by the status of the one who embarrassed and the one who was embarrassed. Rashi asks: or is it meant literally, to actually cut off her hand? But since it says here 'lo sachos'—do not have pity—and it also says 'lo sachos' regarding 'eidim zomemim' (false witnesses), and over there it means monetary payment, so too here it means money. In both cases, the Torah is referring to a financial penalty, not a literal cutting off of the hand.

You should not have in your pocket even va-even, a stone and a stone, meaning a large one and a small one. This refers to the weights that people would use in business to weigh merchandise. The Torah is telling you not to have two sets of weights, one large and one small, in your possession. The idea is that you shouldn't use the larger one when you buy, which would cheat the seller, and then use the smaller one when you sell, which would cheat the buyer. The Torah is warning against this kind of dishonesty in business dealings, specifically in the use of weights and measures.

Rashi explains that even va-even refers to weights. These are the weights you use to weigh merchandise in business transactions. The Torah is warning you not to have two different weights, one large and one small, to use them dishonestly.

Rashi elaborates on the phrase gedolah u'ketanah—a large one and a small one. The large one contradicts the small one, meaning you present them as if they are both the same weight, but in reality, one weighs more and one weighs less. The prohibition is that you should not purchase with the larger weight, which cheats the seller, and then return and sell with the smaller weight, which cheats the buyer. This is a warning against using different weights to cheat in business.

You should not have in your house eifah ve'eifah, a large and a small measure. This is similar to the previous verse, but here it is talking about measures for volume, not just weights. The Torah is warning you not to keep two sets of measures in your house, one large and one small, for the purpose of cheating others in business. If you do so, you are acting dishonestly, and the Torah is warning against this kind of behavior.

Rashi explains on the words lo yihye lecha—"you shall not have"—that if you do so, if you keep these dishonest measures, then lo yihye lecha klum, you will have nothing. In other words, the Torah is warning that if you act dishonestly in this way, you will lose everything; nothing will remain for you.

You shall have a full and honest weight, even shleima v'tzedek, and a full and honest measure, eifah shleima v'tzedek. The Torah promises that if you do so, l'maan ya'arichu yamecha, your days will be lengthened on the land that Hashem your God gives you. This is a positive commandment to have honest weights and measures, and the reward is long life in the land.

Rashi explains that if you do so—if you have honest weights and measures—then yihye lecha harbe, you will have a lot. In other words, you will be blessed with abundance as a reward for your honesty in business.

For it is an abomination to Hashem your God, anyone who does these things, anyone who does injustice. The teacher explains that this verse is saying that anyone who acts dishonestly, especially in the context of using false weights and measures, is considered an abomination to Hashem. This is a general statement that includes all forms of injustice, not just those specifically mentioned earlier, and it emphasizes how serious it is in the eyes of Hashem to act with dishonesty or corruption in business or in any dealings with others.

Remember what Amalek did to you on the way when you were leaving Egypt. The teacher explains that this verse is a command to remember the actions of Amalek, who attacked the Jewish people as they were leaving Egypt. This is not just a historical recollection, but a mitzvah to actively remember the evil that Amalek did, and to keep it in mind as part of the Torah's commandments. The teacher will elaborate further in the following Rashi.

Rashi on 'Zachor es asher asah lecha' – Remember what Amalek did to you. The teacher explains that Rashi says: If you are dishonest with weights and measures, you should worry about the provocation of the enemy. As it says in Mishlei, 'Deceitful weights are an abomination to Hashem,' and immediately afterwards it says, 'When willful wickedness comes, then comes disgrace.' The teacher elaborates that Rashi is connecting the mitzvah of honest weights and measures with the attack of Amalek. If you cheat in business, you bring upon yourself the danger of enemies like Amalek. The Torah is warning that dishonesty leads to disgrace and to being attacked by enemies, as a direct consequence of such behavior. The teacher points out that this is a moral lesson: when the Jewish people are not honest in their dealings, it opens the door for Amalek and others to attack them, as a punishment and as a result of their actions.

Asher korcha baderech – How he happened upon you on the way and attacked all the stragglers at your rear, and you were faint and weary, and he did not fear God. The teacher explains that 'asher korcha baderech' means that Amalek happened upon the Jewish people by chance, but Rashi brings several explanations. One is that it means a chance occurrence. Another is that it is a language of impurity, as in the word 'keri,' and that Amalek defiled the Jewish people in a spiritual sense. Another explanation is that it is a language of cold and heat – that Amalek cooled off the fear that the other nations had of the Jewish people. All the nations were afraid to fight the Jews, but Amalek came and started up, showing others that it was possible to attack. The teacher brings the parable Rashi gives: it's like a boiling hot bath that no one can go into, but one evil person jumps in, even though he gets burned, he cools it off for everyone else. So too, Amalek was the first to attack, making it easier for others to follow. The teacher emphasizes that Amalek's attack was not just physical, but also spiritual and psychological, breaking the aura of fear and respect that surrounded the Jewish people after the Exodus.

Rashi on 'Asher korcha baderech' – The teacher explains that Rashi gives three interpretations for the phrase 'asher korcha baderech.' First, it means a chance occurrence, that Amalek happened upon the Jews by chance. Second, it is a language of impurity, referring to defilement, that Amalek defiled the Jewish people through immoral acts. Third, it is a language of cold and heat, meaning that Amalek cooled off the boiling excitement and fear that the nations had for the Jews. All the nations were afraid to fight, but Amalek came and started, showing others it could be done. Rashi gives a parable: a boiling bath that no one can enter, until one evil person jumps in and gets burned, but cools it off for everyone else. The teacher explains that this is how Amalek made it possible for others to attack the Jews, by being the first to break the barrier.

Rashi on 'Vayizanev b'cha' – He cut off all the stragglers at your rear. The teacher explains that Rashi says this means Amalek struck at the tail end, the rear of the Jewish people, cutting off those who were lagging behind. Rashi uses the phrase 'makas zonof,' a blow to the tail, and explains that Amalek would cut off the weak ones and throw them upwards, meaning he would attack and kill those who were straggling at the back of the camp. The teacher emphasizes that Amalek targeted the vulnerable and weak, those who were not protected by the rest of the nation.

'Kol hanichshalim acharecha' – All the stragglers at your rear. The teacher explains that these were the people who were lacking strength, 'chasei koach,' because of their sin. Rashi says that the cloud would spit them out – meaning, the protective cloud that surrounded the Jewish people in the desert would expel those who had sinned, and they would be left exposed at the back, where Amalek could attack them. The teacher points out that this shows the connection between spiritual weakness and physical vulnerability, as those who sinned lost their protection and became targets for Amalek.

Rashi explains on the words "Ve'ata ayef veyageya" that "ayef" means faint with thirst. He brings a proof from the verse in Shemos, "Vayitzma shom ha'am lamayim"—the nation was thirsty for water. And right after that, the verse says, "Vayavo Amalek"—Amalek came. So the faintness being described here is specifically from thirst, as it says in the Torah that the people were thirsty, and then Amalek attacked.

Rashi explains the word "veyageya"—weary—that it refers to the tiredness from the journey. So the verse is describing that the people were weary from traveling on the road.

"Velo yorei"—he did not fear. This is referring to Amalek, that Amalek did not fear Hashem. Even though you were in a weakened state, Amalek was not afraid of God to refrain from doing evil to you. So the verse is emphasizing that Amalek had no fear of Hashem when he attacked you.

The verse says, "Vehaya behaniach Hashem Elokecha lecha mikol oyvecha misaviv ba'aretz asher Hashem Elokecha nosein lecha nachala lerishtah, timche es zecher Amalek mitachas hashamayim, lo tishkach." This means: When Hashem your God gives you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that Hashem your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you must erase the memory of Amalek from under the heavens—do not forget. The Torah is commanding that once the Jewish people are settled in the land and have peace from their enemies, they are obligated to wipe out any remembrance of Amalek. This is a mitzvah to actively erase Amalek's memory, and the Torah adds, 'do not forget,' to emphasize the importance of remembering this obligation and not letting it slip from your mind.

Rashi explains on the words "Timche es zecher Amalek"—you shall erase the memory of Amalek—that this means from man to woman, from infant to suckling, from ox to sheep, as it says in Shmuel Alef, 'from man to woman, from infant to suckling, from ox to sheep.' The idea is that the name of Amalek should not be remembered even in connection with an animal. For example, you shouldn't be able to say, 'this animal belonged to Amalek.' The eradication must be so complete that nothing remains that can be identified as belonging to Amalek, not even an animal.