אֵ֣לֶּה הַמִּצְוֺ֞ת וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהוָ֛ה בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁ֖ה אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל בְּעַֽרְבֹ֣ת מוֹאָ֔ב עַ֖ל יַרְדֵּ֥ן יְרֵחֽוֹ׃
דאָס זײַנען די געבאָט און די געזעצן װאָס גאָט האָט געבאָטן די קינדער פֿון ישׂראל דורך משהן אין די פּלױנען פֿון מואָבֿ בײַם יַרדן לעבן יריחו.
Siftei Chakhamim
It disqualifies that which preceded it. If you say: [This rule seems not true because] in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 27:34) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the commandments.” And in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 36:13) it says, “ אלה (These) are the commandments and the laws.” And in Parshas Matos (ibid 30:17) it says, “ אלה (These) are the statutes.” And in Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 28:69) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the words of the covenant.” And in all theses cases we do not interpret it as disqualifying that which preceded. The answer is: We only interpret it this way for “ אלה (These) are the histories of the heaven and the earth” (Bereishis 2:4; see Shemos Rabba 30:3), where the histories were already mentioned above, so a difficulty arose: why are they repeated and detailed? Similarly for “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach” (Bereishis 6:9), where the descendants were mentioned above in Parshas Bereishis, so a difficulty arose: why were they mentioned again? Thus we say they were mentioned again in order to disqualify the preceding. [The meaning of “disqualify” is discussed in the next entry.] But with “ אלה (These) are the commandments” and all the above verses, nothing was mentioned [preceding them that was similar to them], so אלה cannot mean to disqualify the preceding. Similarly in Parshas Devarim, where it says “ אלה (These) are the words” (Devarim 1:1), we cannot interpret אלה as disqualifying the preceding, since Chumash Devarim is Mishneh Torah [i.e., its primary purpose is a repetition of the Torah].
Chizkuni
אלה הדברים, “these are the words, etc.” wherever a paragraph is introduced with the word: אלה, it is not to be considered as continuation of what preceded it. Up to now we read about commandments involving ritual and social legislation, whereas from here on in we are reading words of admonition and warnings about a dire future for the Jewish people if these warnings should be ignored. There is no point in countering that Numbers 36,13 also begins with the word: אלה, or to point to Leviticus 26,3 27,34, as in those instances the verse itself concludes the subject matter that had been under discussion.
Chizkuni
ואלה המשפטים, “and these are the ordinances, etc.” according to Rashi whenever the word אלה appears, it signals a break with what preceded, whereas when the word ואלה appears it signals a continuation or addition of the subject that had been discussed previously. In other words, the correct translation of the word: אלה is: “these opposed to what preceded it,” whereas ואלה should be translated as “and these as well as the preceding verses.” The author warns the reader not to challenge Rashi by quoting the word אלה in Leviticus 27,34, or the same word in Numbers 36,13, and Numbers 30,17 nor the same word in Deuteronomy 28,69, as in those instances as well as in others like it, the previously mentioned subject has been concluded. ואלה המשפטים, Rabbi Avahu, quoting Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra said that the word אלה represents a break with what was written previously, whereas when the word appears with the prefix letter ו it signals some type of continuation. He quotes Exodus 15,25, as an example, where the Torah had written: שם שם לו חוק ומשפט ושם נסהו, “there He made for them a fixed rule and gave them social laws, there He put them to a test.” המשפטים, prior to this paragraph the Torah spoke about aspects of being G-d fearing, whereas from now on it concentrates on laws that enable living in the land of Israel as a civilised nation. An alternate interpretation: previously the Torah spelled out prohibitions as warnings, as for instance: “do not commit murder; do not commit adultery;” from here on in the Torah repeats the prohibitions but adds the type of penalty that applies to violating these prohibitions deliberately. As to the commentary by Rashi here, who poses the question why we read here about the details of an altar, something entirely different from the subjects the Torah deals with here, he bases himself on the Mechilta, which suggests that this is a hint that the High Court should have its office near the Temple and that all these laws had been told to Moses while he was on the Mountain. The altar was after all also close to the Temple, immediately in front of its eastern entrance. Logic dictates that the whole paragraph commencing with 21,2 “when you purchase a Jewish slave, etc., until chapter 23,10, ושש שנים תזרע, “and during six consecutive years you may plant seeds,” are all laws that G-d taught Moses while he was on the Mountain before the people had heard the Ten Commandments. Concerning all these laws, Rashi has written: these laws are a continuation of the earlier laws.” He is referring to the laws listed in Parshat B’har in the Book of Leviticus.
Rashi
במדבר IN THE WILDERNESS — They, however,were not then in the wilderness, but in the plains of Moab (cf. Numbers 36:13 and further on verse 5): What, therefore, is the meaning of במדבר? It does not mean "in the wilderness”, but the meaning is: he reproved them on account of that wherein they had provoked Him to anger in the wilderness — that they said, (Exodus 16:3) “Would that we had died [by the hand of the Lord]” (cf. Sifrei Devarim 1:11).
Da'at Zekenim
צוטריטלעך נאָר פֿאַר פּרעמיום־מיטגלידערRashi
מחטב עציך FROM THE WOODCUTTER [UNTO THE DRAWER OF THE WATER] — This teaches that some of the Canaanites came in Moses' days to become proselytes just as the Gibeonites came in the days of Joshua, — and this is the meaning of what is stated of the Gibeonites, (Joshua 9:4) “And they also acted cunningly”; — and Moses made them woodcutters and drawers of water (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Nitzavim 2).