Midrash su Deuteronomio 16:7

(Ib. b) R. Elazar said: "Those who go on a religious mission, will not meet with evil either going to, or from, their duty." R. Elazar was in accord with the opinion of the Tanna, Issi b. Juda, who taught: "Since the Torah says (Ex. 34, 24) Yet shall no man desire thy land, it is to be implied that the cow shall feed in the pasture and no beast shall harm it, the chicken shall dig in the rubbish and no weasel shall harm it." Now, can this not be inferred a fortiori? If, regarding the things which are exposed to injury, it is promised that no harm will occur, how much the more so regarding things that are usually not exposed to injury? This conclusion I could only arrive at with reference to protection while on the way to perform [a meritorious act]. Whence, however, do we infer that even on the return, no harm will occur? It is said (Deu. 16, 7) And thou shall turn in the morning and go unto thy tents. From this passage we may learn that Thou wilt go and find thy tents in peace. Since even on the return [he will meet no evil], wherefore is it necessary to mention [the protection] on the way going to perform the religious duty? We must therefore say this statement is necessary for the reference to what R. Ami said: "Every man who has land is in duty bound to visit Jerusalem during the festivals, but a man who has no land need not visit Jerusalem during the festivals." R. Abin b. R. Adda said in the name of R. Isaac: "Why was there not Gennesar-fruit in the land of Israel? Lest those who visit Jerusalem during the festivals should say, 'Had we come here merely to enjoy of the Gennesar-fruit, it would have been sufficient. Hence their visit would become not as a matter of duty." The same said R. Dastoe b. Janai: "Why are not the hot springs of Tiberias located in Jerusalem? For the simple reason that those who visit Jerusalem during the festivals, should not say, 'Were it for nothing else than to bathe ourselves in the hot springs of Tiberias that we visited Jerusalem, it would have been sufficient.' Thus their visiting Jerusalem would turn out to be not as a matter of duty."

"uvashel": "bashel" (here refers to flesh that was) roasted (before, the understanding being that it is forbidden to cook it even if it had been roasted previously), as in (Devarim 16:7) "And you shall cook (i.e., roast) it and you shall eat it," and (II Chronicles 35:13) "And they cooked (i.e., roasted) the Pesach in fire as prescribed; and the holy (offerings) they cooked in pots, cauldrons, and pans, and they dispatched them to all the people." From here R.Yoshiyah said: If one takes a vow not to eat "mevushal," roasted (flesh) is (also) forbidden to him. "but roasted in fire": What is the intent of this? I might say: What is (more) fit for roasting should be roasted. It is, therefore, written "but (i.e., exclusively) roasted in fire,"

..."Do not fear him" - this is [the meaning of] that which Scripture stated (Proverbs 28:14), "Happy is the man who always fears." And this is the trait of the righteous: even though the Holy One, blessed be He, reassures them, they do not relinquish fear. And so [was it] with Jacob - "and Jacob feared" (Genesis 32:8). Why did he fear? He said, "Maybe I have been tarnished by something [when I was] with Laban... so the Holy One, blessed be He, abandoned me." And so too did Moses take hold of fear corresponding to his [fore] father. And why did he fear? He said, "Maybe Israel misappropriated [some goods] in the war with Sichon or became tarnished with a sin." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Do not fear"...