English translation — עמוד 251

A)

Why does Rashi bring the second proof from "A horse and its rider He cast into the sea",

and not from the earlier verse "And all the horses of Pharaoh came after them"²¹

where Rashi himself says the same explanation: "Was there only one horse? Rather it tells that all of them are not considered before the Omnipresent except as one horse"²²?

B)

Why does Rashi emphasize "And likewise in Egypt etc.": What is the practical difference,

regarding the proof that Rashi brings from "A horse and its rider etc.",

whether the verse speaks about Egypt²³

or about someone else?

And since so,

it is understandable that also in our verse <b>must</b> stand "he killed a man" in the singular,

because <b>in practice</b> all were considered only as one man — <b>not</b> meaning thereby whichever deed it is

(and virtue — on Shimon and Levi)

in the words of rebuke of Yaakov.

And therefore Rashi also brings the words "cast into the sea",

and is not satisfied only with "horse and its rider" — because from "cast into the sea" is,

as above,

the proof that many considered as one are called in singular language also when this is <b>not</b> relevant as an emphasis and greatness in the content of the matter.

And in particular, we find regarding this

(and with the <b>same</b> wording)

by Lemech,

who said "for I have slain a man"⁴⁵

and the Torah

(in writing)

does not mention the incident.

And the reason for this,

why Rashi completely rejects the interpretation — to the point of not bringing it even as a third interpretation — he indicates through the copyist being before the interpretation also the word "for

(when he killed a man)

which seemingly is superfluous: