Parshas Vayakhel
1. On the words "ויקהל משה" ("And Moshe assembled") at the beginning of the sidrah, Rashi explains: "למחרת יום הכפורים כשירד מן ההר" ("On the day after Yom Kippur, when he came down from the mountain").
We need to understand: What is not right with the simple understanding of the words "And Moshe assembled," such that in order to clarify it, Rashi must explain that this was "on the day after Yom Kippur, etc."?
The commentators1 say that Rashi derives this explanation, "on the day after Yom Kippur, etc.," (not from any precise inference in the wording of the verse "And Moshe assembled," but rather) from reasoning: Since "זריזין מקדימין למצות" ("the diligent hasten to perform mitzvos")2, logic dictates that Moshe did not neglect to convey to the Jewish people the command to build the Mishkan, which he had heard from G‑d on the mountain (Sinai), but did so immediately on the morrow after his coming down from the mountain.
But this is not understood:
a) In his commentary on Chumash we do not find that Rashi explains the time of a particular event (even in a case where it is compelled by reason and the like3 that it happened at such-and-such a time), except where this bears on understanding the plain meaning of the verse.
b) This very assumption — that Moshe Rabbeinu surely did not delay in conveying the command to build the Mishkan, but did so in the manner of "the diligent hasten," immediately at the first opportunity — is, seemingly, something understood in the plainest of terms4. That being so, why must Rashi let us know, as a novelty, that this occurred "on the day after Yom Kippur" (because Moshe did not put it off until later)?
2. Regarding the second question, the commentators5 say: Since the last verses of the preceding sidrah speak about the manner and order of conduct of Moshe's speaking to the Jewish people — which applies to a longer span of time after Yom Kippur6 — one might therefore have thought that the matter of "And Moshe assembled" as well (which comes after it) took place a long time after Yom Kippur; Rashi must therefore make clear that it was on the day after Yom Kippur.
It is difficult, however, to answer in this way:
Even supposing that "And Moshe assembled" was somewhat removed in time from Yom Kippur, it must still turn out that the order of conduct related in the verses at the end of Parshas Ki Sisa ("וידבר משה אליהם גו', ואחרי כן נגשו גו'" ("And Moshe spoke to them, etc.; and afterwards they approached, etc.")) extended for a long time after "And Moshe assembled" — that is, for the entire time that Moshe spoke with the Jewish people — even after the erection of the Mishkan7, or at any rate until the day of the erection of the Mishkan8.
Accordingly one must, in any case, deduce that the fact that these verses — which describe the manner of Moshe's speech to the Jewish people and their conduct in it — come in Scripture before "And Moshe assembled" is because this order came about and began immediately when Moshe came down from the mountain, even before "And Moshe assembled."
That being so, the question returns to its place: Why would one mistakenly think that "And Moshe assembled" was a span of time after Yom Kippur, and not deduce, according to the simple reasoning, that he did this right after Yom Kippur?
3. Another thing needs to be understood: According to the aforementioned reasoning (section 1) of "the diligent hasten to perform mitzvos," one should have concluded that "And Moshe assembled" took place even earlier than "the day after Yom Kippur": on the very day of Yom Kippur. For there is a basis for saying that Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Mount Sinai "בתוך ו' שעות" ("within six hours") of the day (similar to what we find regarding his first descent from the mountain, on 17 Tammuz9 — since the forty days are compared to those first forty days, there is no room to differentiate regarding their conclusion in the descent from the mountain*). He thus had enough time on the day of Yom Kippur itself to convey to the Jewish people the command to build the Mishkan10. If so, why does Rashi conclude that he did so only on the day after Yom Kippur?
Seemingly, one could say that Rashi derives the compulsion for his explanation (that "And Moshe assembled" was "on the day after Yom Kippur" and not on Yom Kippur itself) from the following: Before conveying to the Jewish people the command regarding the work of the Mishkan, Moshe prefaced only the warning regarding the observance of Shabbos (in order to say that the work of the Mishkan "אינו דוחה את השבת" ("does not override Shabbos"))11, but not the instruction of the "warning of Yom Kippur." For if we were to say that "And Moshe assembled" took place on Yom Kippur itself, he should first of all have told them the warning of Yom Kippur, to keep them from doing the work of the Mishkan12 right on that very first day.
In truth, however, one cannot answer in this way. For the reason for all the laws of Yom Kippur — including "וכל מלאכה לא תעשו" ("and you shall do no work")13 — is, as stated explicitly in the verse14, "כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם גו'" ("for on this day He shall atone for you, etc."). That being so, it is understood that the entire matter of Yom Kippur came about only at the moment when G‑d said "סלחתי כדבריך" ("I have forgiven according to your word"), from which time on it was established "למחילה ולסליחה" ("for pardon and forgiveness")15.
That being so, it is obvious that on that day when Moshe came down from the mountain, on which it first came about that the day of "בחודש השביעי בעשור לחודש" ("in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month")16 should be a day of forgiveness, the laws of Yom Kippur could not apply to it (not even to the part of the day that was already after "I have forgiven"16) — since the earlier part of that day, before G‑d said "I have forgiven," was not Yom Kippur17.
This is also implied by what is related in Parshas Yisro18. First it says there: "ויקח יתרו חותן משה עולה וזבחים לאלקים גו' לאכל לחם גו'" ("And Yisro, the father-in-law of Moshe, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for G‑d, etc., to eat bread, etc."), and immediately after that begins the verse "ויהי ממחרת" ("And it was on the morrow"), on which Rashi says "מוצאי יום הכפורים הי'" ("It was the day after Yom Kippur"). And since "And it was on the morrow" in its plain sense also means — on the morrow of "And Yisro took"19, it follows that "And Yisro took" took place on the day of Yom Kippur, when Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Mount Sinai. — And since on that day they offered "a burnt-offering and sacrifices" (and came "to eat bread, etc."), it is evident that the laws of Yom Kippur did not apply to that day at all20.
4. After Rashi explains that "And Moshe assembled" was on the day after Yom Kippur, he continues — in the same heading21: "והוא לשון הפעיל, שאינו אוסף אנשים בידים אלא הן נאספים ע"פ דבורו. ותרגומו ואכניש" ("It is in the causative form [lashon hif'il], for he does not gather people with his hands; rather, they gather by his word. And its Targum is ve'achnish").
Here too it is difficult to understand:
a) What connection is there between the matter of "It is in the causative form, etc." and the matter of "the day after Yom Kippur," such that because of this connection Rashi includes both matters22 in one heading23?
b) Gathering people is always done not by hand but through speech — and yet the word for gathering often appears in that context not in the causative form. For example: "אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל" ("Gather for Me seventy men of the elders of Israel")24; "ויאסוף שבעים איש גו'" ("And he gathered seventy men, etc.")25; and also earlier22 it says "לך ואספת את זקני ישראל" ("Go and gather the elders of Israel"). Why, specifically in our verse, must it say "Vayakhel" — in the causative form26?
c) In general, what novelty is Rashi offering here with "the causative form"? The causative form is used many times in Chumash, and Rashi does not dwell on it: "וילבש אותו" ("And he clothed him")27; "וירכב אותו" ("And he had him ride")26*; and others27*?
d) What is Rashi's intent with the conclusion, "And its Targum is ve'achnish"28?
5. The explanation of all the above:
According to the plain sense of matters (if not for Rashi's commentary) one would have learned that "And Moshe assembled" took place on Yom Kippur itself, on the same day when Moshe came down from Mount Sinai — and one would have learned so because there is a twofold proof for this:
Both from reasoning ("the diligent hasten"), which says (as above, section 3) that Moshe Rabbeinu would not have waited until the morrow to convey the command, but would have done so immediately on that same day. As Rashi says in an earlier sidrah29, Moshe used to convey G‑d's message to the Jewish people immediately. Especially since the command to build the Mishkan, "ושכנתי בתוכם" ("and I shall dwell among them")30, carried within it the announcement of G‑d's forgiveness and atonement for the Jewish people's sin of the Golden Calf29* — Moshe Rabbeinu would certainly have endeavored to convey these good tidings as early as possible30*;
And from the wording of the verse, since by this it would be understood why it says "Vayakhel," in the causative form (he caused them to gather together — and not "ויאסוף" ("and he gathered"), which means that he gathered them): It is self-evident that Moshe Rabbeinu's coming down from the mountain with the second Tablets would cause all the Jewish people to gather together on their own, in order to hear what Moshe would convey to them. Therefore, it does not say here "And he gathered" (the simple form), for then it would mean that he carried out the gathering. In contrast, "And Moshe assembled" (the causative form — making others do) means that Moshe Rabbeinu, by his coming, brought about the gathering together of the Jewish people; he caused them to perform the act of gathering together.
[Even if one were to accept that it is not smooth to say that their gathering together was entirely automatic — because the meaning of "And Moshe assembled" still implies that Moshe did something in the gathering together — the explanation of this is:
Earlier, in Parshas Ki Sisa, it is related31 that "וייראו מגשת אליו" ("they feared to approach him"), and that through "ויקרא אליהם משה" ("And Moshe called to them"), "וישבו אליו גו'" ("they returned to him, etc."); "ואחרי כן נגשו כל בני ישראל גו'" ("and afterwards all the children of Israel approached, etc."). This too is meant by "Vayakhel," that is, Moshe's causing in "And he assembled" consisted of "And he called." But the gathering together itself was not done by Moshe Rabbeinu — he only brought them close to himself — and so it is also proper that it says here "Vayakhel" in the causative form and not in the simple form.]
To this Rashi adds a novelty: "And Moshe assembled" was "on the day after Yom Kippur." That is, one cannot say that it took place on that same day, when the Jewish people gathered together on their own, for the narrative style of "And Moshe assembled" implies that it wishes to relate an important matter concerning Moshe, and a distinction of Moshe, that he assembled, etc. Therefore one must deduce that this took place "on the day after Yom Kippur," when it was done by Moshe.
Accordingly, why does it say here "Vayakhel" in the causative form? To this Rashi answers that since "he does not gather people with his hands; rather, they gather by his word," the causative form fits also when someone gathers them32. For ultimately he does not actually gather the people with his hands; it is only that his speech brings about that they be "gathered."
6. Based on this one will also understand why Rashi concludes, "And its Targum is ve'achnish": Since with "And Moshe assembled" the intent is to relate an important matter and a distinction concerning Moshe, that he — Moshe — assembled the Jewish people, why should one learn that "Vayakhel (Moshe)" is in the causative form, and deduce that since it was only "by his word" it does not count as an act of his own (despite the fact that the term for gathering, even when people are gathered through speech, does appear in the simple form (as above, section 4))? One could better learn that "Vayakhel" is in the simple form33!
[And one cannot say that since the yud of the word "Vayakhel" has a patach (and not a chirik), it must be in the causative form (as we find regarding "ויקרא שם בשם הוי' א-ל עולם" ("And he called there in the name of G‑d, the eternal L‑rd"): when our Sages explain that Avraham caused others to call out, they say: "אל תיקרי ויקרא" ("Do not read vayikra") (with the yud in chirik) "אלא ויקריא" ("but rather vayakri")34 (with a patach) — since a yud with chirik indicates the simple form, and a yud with patach the causative form) — for with the simple form as well one finds in many places that the yud has a patach, such as "ויהרג ה' גו'" ("And G‑d slew, etc.")35, and in our own sidrah itself — "ויעש" ("And he made")36, and elsewhere.]
Therefore Rashi here adds the novelty "It is in the causative form," and brings proof for it: "And its Targum (and when Rashi cites "Targum" without qualification, he means Targum Onkelos37) is ve'achnish" — that the Targum renders the word "Vayakhel" (not as "וכנש," in the simple form, but) as "ואכניש," in the causative form.
7. Why indeed did Moshe wait to convey to them the command to build the Mishkan until the morrow, and did not convey it to them on that same day?
In Parshas Yisro (and also at the end of Parshas Mishpatim) we are told of the great elevation of the Giving of the Torah and the giving of the Tablets, and how this aroused the tremendous self-sacrifice and devotion of the Jewish people to receiving the Torah and the Tablets. One must accordingly understand that it was likewise when Moshe brought down the second Tablets.
Moreover: One can say that it was even more so than with the first Tablets, since the second Tablets (on Yom Kippur) were connected with "נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל בשמחה ובלב שלם ואמר לו למשה סלחתי כדבריך" ("the Holy One, blessed be He, was reconciled with Israel with joy and a whole heart, and said to Moshe, 'I have forgiven according to your word'")38. It is therefore understood that on that very day Moshe and the Jewish people were entirely immersed in the matter of "I have forgiven" and in the content of the Tablets — Torah — and they had no room for other matters, not even such a matter as building the Mishkan. Therefore that day was occupied exclusively with matters of ("I have forgiven" — teshuvah and) Torah.
And although these matters of Torah (which Moshe then studied with them) contained commands for action, in that study of the sections and laws at that time only the Torah aspect of them was relevant39.
Only on the second day, on the day after Yom Kippur, did he gather the Jewish people and say to them: "אלה הדברים אשר צוה הוי' לעשות אותם" ("These are the things that G‑d commanded to do"), "זה הדבר אשר צוה הוי'" ("This is the thing that G‑d commanded"); then he conveyed to them G‑d's command regarding (Shabbos and) the work of the Mishkan — as a matter of Torah in which what is essentially relevant is the "to do," the matter of study in order to come to action.
And as is related in Parshas Yisro40, that on the morrow of his descent from the mountain "וישב משה לשפוט את העם גו' בין איש ובין רעהו והודעתי את חוקי האלקים ואת תורותיו" ("And Moshe sat to judge the people, etc.; between a man and his fellow, and I make known the statutes of G‑d and His teachings").
8. From this we can derive a directive in the service of man (as with Rashi's commentaries, which also contain "יינה של תורה" ("the wine of Torah")41 — inner directives in the service of G‑d):
There are those whose entire effort is to make of the world a "משכן ומקדש" ("a Mishkan and Sanctuary") for G‑d. They must know that as lofty as such service is, it cannot replace (the mitzvah and) the matter of Torah study, which is greater than all the mitzvos42. Therefore, during study one must be so united with the subject being studied43, and so devoted and given over to Torah, to the point that one has no connection at that time to any other matters, not even to the matter of "קחו מאתכם תרומה גו' יבואו ויעשו גו' את המשכן גו'" ("Take from among you an offering, etc. ... let them come and make, etc. ... the Mishkan, etc.")44; up to the halachah45: "אין מבטלין תשב"ר (אפילו) לבנין ביהמ"ק" ("We do not interrupt the Torah study of schoolchildren (even) for the building of the Holy Temple")46.
And thus it is alluded to in our parshah itself, and as a preface to the Mishkan — "and I shall dwell": "הקדים להם אזהרת שבת לציווי מלאכת המשכן לומר שאינו דוחה את השבת" ("He prefaced to them the warning regarding Shabbos before the command regarding the work of the Mishkan, to say that it does not override Shabbos")47.
However, on the other hand, one might think that one can fulfill one's duty with Torah study alone. On this we are told that "on the day after Yom Kippur," immediately after studying, one must strive in the service of making the world into a dwelling for Him, may He be blessed. For "כל האומר אין לי אלא תורה אפילו תורה אין לו" ("whoever says, 'I have nothing but Torah,' does not even have Torah"); together with Torah there must also be acts of kindness48.
9. Another matter of "the wine of Torah" (and also in halachah) in this commentary of Rashi:
The wording of the verse is "Vayakhel Moshe." But Rashi in his commentary on it uses the expression (not "שאינו מקהיל כו' נקהלים כו'" ("he does not assemble, etc., they are assembled, etc."), but) "שאינו אוסף כו' נאספים כו'" ("he does not gather, etc., they are gathered, etc.").
According to the plain approach, this poses no question, since asifah is a more common term than hakhel. But in the inner dimension of these matters, it can be said that Rashi thereby (by changing from the term kehilah to the term asifah) alludes to a matter in the inner teachings of the Torah:
The word "קהל" (kahal) is a name that denotes the collective (of people) not as a multitude and combination of many particulars, but as a new entity — a kahal49. And in this lies the advantage of "Vayakhel" over "Vaya'asof": "Vaya'asof" means that he gathered a number of people in one place (or for one matter), but even after the gathering, each of those gathered may be a separate entity. In contrast, "Vayakhel" means that he made of them a kahal: everyone who enters the kahal becomes nullified from his individual separateness and becomes part of the kahal.
And this is the reason why, regarding the making of the Mishkan, it says "ויקהל משה את כל עדת בני ישראל" ("And Moshe assembled the entire congregation of the children of Israel"), that Moshe made all the Jewish people into a kahal. For the purpose of "ועשו לי מקדש" ("And they shall make Me a Sanctuary") is the revelation of G‑dliness of "and I shall dwell among them"; therefore all the Jewish people had to become a kahal, for only then, when they are "כולנו כאחד" ("all of us as one"), can there be among them the revelation of "הוי' אחד" ("G‑d is One")50.
Therefore we also find that the Mishkan had to be built specifically from communal funds (for just as with the community, its money too becomes one thing), and not from money belonging to many individuals as a partnership50*.
True, only at the making of the Mishkan did it become communal funds, but it came from individual donations, "נדיב לבו יביאה" ("whoever is generous of heart shall bring it"): each Jew had to donate according to his heart from his separate property51. And yet it says "And Moshe assembled" (with the allusion to the kahal-entity) right at the instruction regarding the donations for the Mishkan — for this itself is the directive: This donation, which each Jew gave according to his heart from his own money, he had to give from the outset in such a way that his separate ownership of the money would be nullified, that it should become communal funds.
10. Every thing that feels itself to be an entity cannot by nature bear a second entity. Therefore, when they come into any manner of integration — even only an integration of "asifah" (after which, too, each one remains a particular entity, as above) — this is connected with a movement of bittul on the part of those gathering and integrating. For the very fact that they come together in one gathering for one goal already indicates a certain measure of bittul, of a lack of self-expansion (for when someone's existence is in a state of expansion, he will be unable even merely to come together with another52).
Nevertheless, the bittul present in "asifah" is no more than a matter of bittul hayesh (only the nullification of his "yesh," of his existence as it stands in selfhood and expansion — and not bittul bimetzius). In contrast, "Vayakhel" is an integration in a manner of bittul bimetzius: he becomes entirely nullified from his own existence and becomes only a part of the kahal-entity.
And this is the precise meaning of "Vayakhel Moshe": This power that exists in a Jew, to sense how his entire being is only a part of the totality of Israel, of the kahal of Israel — "Vayakhel" — comes from "Moshe"53, whose quality is the bittul of "ונחנו מה" ("and what are we?") — bittul bimetzius54.
11. Nevertheless, Rashi changes the wording and says: "he does not gather ... they are gathered" (not "he does not assemble ... they are assembled"), because he thereby wishes to indicate a directive in the order of service: The empowerment from Moshe, "רעיא מהימנא" ("the faithful shepherd"), and the ultimate elevation is indeed the manner of bittul bimetzius, "Vayakhel Moshe," which the Torah speaks of and demands of Jews. But Rashi (whose role is to teach a Jew gradually, starting from a "בן חמש" ("five-year-old"), etc.) teaches with precision that the beginning is in the manner of "asifah," bittul hayesh, and afterwards from level to level, up to the bittul bimetzius of "Vayakhel Moshe."
But also Rashi's term "asifah" is joined with "Vayakhel Moshe"55. That is, in order to bring about in oneself the bittul of even only "asifah," one must have the empowerment from Moshe — for on one's own, one cannot possibly come together with another even in the manner of "asifah," as above.
12. Although even for the bittul of "asifah" one must come to the empowerment of Moshe, it is understood that this level of "Moshe" which brings about asifah (bittul hayesh) is not comparable to the level of "Moshe" that brings about "Vayakhel" (bittul bimetzius):
When there shines in a Jew the glow of the level of "Moshe" that is commensurate with his existence, there comes about in him only "bittul hayesh" — he does not lose his entire being, since this glow of Moshe, which brings about the bittul, is measured and limited according to his existence. But when there shines in him the level of Moshe as it is beyond his existence, then there comes about in him "bittul bimetzius."
And Rashi alludes to this with his explanation that "Vayakhel (Moshe)" is in the "causative form": This is the level of Moshe that does not descend to effect through enclothement ("with hands"), but "causes" through speech — and speech in general is "מורגש ונראה דבר בפני עצמו מובדל משליטו" ("perceived and seen as a thing in itself, separate from its master")56. That is, the level of Moshe remains in its place, and from this specifically there comes about (automatically) "Vayakhel," bittul bimetzius.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel, 5725.)
Notes
1) Re'em and Gur Aryeh on the verse.
2) Pesachim 4a. Tanchuma, Vayeira 22. And elsewhere. See also Rashi, Vayeira 22:3.
3) For example, in our case: the command to Moshe in Parshas Terumah and Tetzaveh — whose time Rashi did not establish in those parshiyos (but rather in Ki Sisa 33:11 — where it bears on understanding the verses there (when Moshe conducted himself, etc.)).
4) Especially according to Rashi on Yisro (19:14) — cited below in section 5.
5) Gur Aryeh on the verse.
6) See Rashi there (Ki Sisa 34:31): "And this entire passage is in the present tense."
7) Sifsei Chachamim on Ki Sisa there.
8) Note the Re'em on Ki Sisa there.
9) Rashi there, 32:1.
*) Tosafos (s.v. kedei shelo — Bava Kamma 82a) states that the last forty days lacked a night, and on this basis it could be said that the time of his descent on Yom Kippur must be delayed as long as possible — that he descended close to evening (see the commentaries on Orach Chaim 581; Seder HaDoros (year 2448, s.v. "in the book P.R."); and elsewhere). But from the plain sense of the verses it is implied that the last forty days too were complete, and that we do not count hours, as Rashi explains (Ki Sisa 32:1 — regarding the first forty days).
10) The Bach on Orach Chaim there explains, according to Rashi (in one interpretation), that "ירידתו ביוהכ"פ סמוך לערב היתה" ("his descent on Yom Kippur was close to evening"). But since according to the opinion that Yisro came after the Giving of the Torah it is compelled that the entire passage from "ויבא יתרו גו' אל משה גו'" ("And Yisro came, etc., to Moshe, etc.") until "And it was on the morrow" took place on Yom Kippur (as below, note 16), it is impossible to say that all of this was close to evening. Accordingly it stands to reason that this was so also according to the opinion that he came before the Giving of the Torah — for we should minimize disputes, and we do as much as possible to bring the views together (Beis Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 194, s.v. ume'eimasai, and the works cited in Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, Mem, rule 16, at the end).*
*) However, one cannot prove that also according to the opinion that Yisro came before the Giving of the Torah his descent was some time before nightfall from what Rashi explains (Yisro 18:12), that Moshe "הי' עומד ומשמש לפניהם" ("was standing and serving them"). For (in addition to what can be said, that this explanation in Rashi is only according to the opinion that he came after the Giving of the Torah (as is somewhat evident from his wording, "ומשה היכן הלך אלא כו'" ("And where did Moshe go? Rather, etc."))) it is possible that the meal and the offering were close to evening and at night. On the contrary — the meal (of the afternoon) is specifically in the evening, as is explicit in Scripture (Beshalach 16:6, 8, 12), in Rashi (Toldos 27:7, 9), the time of eating, and elsewhere. See Berachos (2, end of side b): "משעה שרוב בני אדם נכנסין להסב" ("from the time when most people go in to recline").
11) Our parshah, 35:2, and Rashi there.
12) For from the plain sense of the verses it is implied that everything related in the parshah (until "ויאמר משה גו' ראו קרא ה' בשם וגו'" ("And Moshe said, etc., 'See, G‑d has called by name, etc.'")) took place on that same day. And [even if we were to say, with great strain,* that according to the plain approach "carrying out" is not considered a labor forbidden on Shabbos (based on what is written in Tosafos, s.v. pashat — Shabbos 2a), nevertheless] it is obvious that spinning — and especially the spinning of goats' hair, which "היתה אומנות יתירה" ("was an exceptional craft") (Rashi on our parshah, 35:[OCR unclear], and see Rashi there, 26) — is a labor even according to the plain approach.
*) For this is the opposite of the plain meaning of the verse, "אל יעשו עוד מלאכה גו' ויכלא העם מהביא" ("Let them do no more work, etc. And the people ceased bringing") (our parshah, 36:6).
13) Acharei 16:29.
14) Ibid., 30.
15) Rashi, Eikev 9:18.
16) From what Rashi writes (Yisro 18:13) after explaining "מוצאי יוה"כ הי' כו'" ("It was the day after Yom Kippur, etc.") — "ומהו ממחרת למחרת רדתו מן ההר" ("And what is 'on the morrow'? The day after he came down from the mountain") — one could seemingly prove that Rashi holds that on that Yom Kippur too they fasted, etc., and that is why he asks "And what is 'on the morrow'?": since the meal was not on Yom Kippur, it is impossible to explain it as the morrow of "to eat bread," to which "And it was on the morrow" seemingly refers (and see further in the text).
But this is not so. For according to the opinion that Yisro came after the Giving of the Torah, it is compelled that the entire passage before "And it was on the morrow" took place on Yom Kippur [for one cannot say it was before Yom Kippur, since from the Giving of the Torah until Yom Kippur Moshe was on the mountain. Nor can one say it was after Yom Kippur, for it is obvious that everything related until after the verse "And Yisro took" was before "And it was on the morrow, etc. And Moshe's father-in-law saw, etc."].
As for why Rashi needed to explain "the day after he came down from the mountain" and not the day after the meal — see note 19.
17) Even if we were to say that according to the plain approach each and every moment of Yom Kippur is a point unto itself,* and that a minor who grew two hairs on Yom Kippur is biblically obligated to fast — it is obvious that this is only once the reality of Yom Kippur already exists. But it is inapplicable (according to the plain approach, at any rate**) that the entire matter of Yom Kippur would be newly introduced in the middle of the day.
*) Also according to the halachic approach, that night and day are two points (as the Rogatchover discusses at length — cited in Mefa'ne'ach Tzefunos, p. 96), the saying of "I have forgiven" was already after the day had begun.
**) According to the halachic approach (regarding Shabbos) [OCR unclear]
18) 18:12-13.
19) And what Rashi writes, "ומהו ממחרת — למחרת רדתו מן ההר" ("And what is 'on the morrow'? The day after he came down from the mountain"), means (as above, note 16) that "on the morrow" is also the day after he came down from the mountain; but it does not come to negate the plain explanation that "on the morrow" is the morrow of the preceding verse. (See also Da'as Zekeinim MiBa'alei HaTosafos and Divrei David by the Taz, who understood Rashi's words this way.)
As for why Rashi needed to explain that "on the morrow" is also the day after he came down from the mountain — it is because from the plain wording of the verse, "ויהי ממחרת וישב משה לשפוט את העם" ("And it was on the morrow, and Moshe sat to judge the people"), it is implied* that the word "on the morrow" relates [not only to "ויקח חתן משה גו'" ("And Moshe's father-in-law took, etc.") in the verse after it, but] also to "and Moshe sat to judge the people," which is stated adjacent to "And it was on the morrow." And since Moshe's sitting to judge the people does not depend on the meal but on his coming down from the mountain, he therefore explains that "on the morrow" means — also the day after he came down from the mountain.
— See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 8, p. 50 ff., and the sources cited there. See also there, note 22.
*) But this is not compelled — which is why Rashi writes the explanation "And what is 'on the morrow'? The day after he came down from the mountain" only after citing what is "שנוי' בספרי" ("taught in the Sifri"), that it was the day after Yom Kippur — since according to this the explanation of "And it was on the morrow" is all the more understood.
20) Based on this, what the Ramban (Yisro, 13) and the commentators on Rashi there ask is plainly resolved. In Divrei David by the Taz there: that "And Yisro took, etc." was on the night after the day of Yom Kippur. And although they then offered "a burnt-offering and sacrifices" — we find that even after the Giving of the Torah there was offering (on a bamah) at night (see Zevachim 102a — at any rate according to one opinion). And from a verse we derive that it is forbidden at night (Megillah 20b). But see Rashi (Beshalach 16:7, 8), that beginning to prepare for a meal in the evening (and all the more so — also offering several sacrifices before it, likewise in the evening) was such a burden that it was considered a punishment.
21) So it appears in most printed editions of Rashi, in Divrei David by the Taz, and elsewhere. In the first printing (and so too as cited in the Re'em) it is a new heading: "ויקהל הוא לי הפעיל כו'" ("Vayakhel is in the causative form, etc.").
22) He also writes "והוא" ("It is") with the additive vav.
23) The Divrei David by the Taz asks similarly.
24) Behaaloscha 11:16. Ibid., 24.
25) Shemos 3:16.
26) As the Re'em asks here.
26*) Mikeitz 41:42-43. As the Re'em asks. Note Rashi on "וישאילום" ("and they lent them") (Bo 12:36), and see Rashbam there.
27) The commentators on Rashi say that his intent is to establish the correct reading in Targum Onkelos (or to negate Targum Yonasan's "וכנש") — but seemingly this is not at all the concern of Rashi's commentary on the Torah.
27*) Yisro 19:14. See also Shemos 4:24.
28) Terumah 25:8.
29) Tanchuma, Terumah 8. See also Rashi, Ki Sisa [OCR unclear] 5:15: "שנתרצה המקום לישראל לסלוח להם ונצטוו על המשכן" ("that the Omnipresent was reconciled with Israel to forgive them, and they were commanded about the Mishkan") (see also Rashi there, 31:18; 33:11). See also Shemos Rabbah, end of ch. 21. Zohar II, 224a.
29*) [OCR unclear]
30) In the manner of what it says: "מהרו ועלו גו'" ("Hurry and go up, etc.") (Vayigash 45:9). And therefore they needed the warning, "אל תפסיעו פסיעה גסה והכנסו בחמה לעיר" ("Do not take large steps, and enter the city while the sun shines") (Rashi there, 45:24).
30*) [OCR unclear]
31) 35:30-32.
32) It can be explained: Since the term hakhel (from kahal) applies only to gathering people (whom it is impossible to gather by hand), therefore we do not find hakhel in the simple form — even when they were assembled through his speech (and not automatically). In contrast, asifah is also used regarding fish (Behaaloscha 11:22) and the like; therefore also with people, when they were gathered through his speech, the simple form is used.
33) Especially since it is not written "ויקהיל" (with an extra yud — as in the causative form) — see the Re'em here.
34) Vayeira 21:33. Sotah 10, end of side a, ff.
35) Bo 13:15.
36) 36:8.
37) Which is close to the plain meaning; unlike Targum Yonasan, which renders "וכנש" and is closer to Midrash and halachah.
38) Rashi on Ki Sisa (33:11).
39) Note the teaching of our Sages that at each and every utterance — even the utterances of command and action — there was brought about in the Jewish people that "פרחה נשמתן" ("their souls flew out") (Shabbos 88b ("their souls departed"); Tanya, end of ch. 36), the opposite of action.
40) 18:13-16.
41) Hayom Yom, p. 24.
42) The intent here is the superiority of Torah explained in Tanya, ch. 23, and the like — unlike what is discussed in Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 9; Tanya, ch. 36; and elsewhere.
43) See Tanya, ch. 5.
44) Our parshah, 35:5-11.
45) Shabbos 119b. The Alter Rebbe's Hilchos Talmud Torah, ch. 1, sec. 10.
46) Moreover, it can be said that the making of the Mishkan from gold, etc., was possible only because it was on the day after Yom Kippur, when they were devoted only to teshuvah and Torah — for in order to bring about in physical matters "and I shall dwell among them," there must first be a divestment from the physicality of the world (similar to what is explained in Likkutei Torah (Tzav 8a; Naso 26c; and elsewhere) as the reason it is forbidden to eat before prayer).
47) Rashi, 35:2. And the connection to Torah: the content of the teaching of our Sages that according to all opinions the Torah was given on Shabbos (Shabbos 86b), and according to what is explained in Torah Or on our parshah (88a ff.) that both — Shabbos and Torah — are in essence the supernal will, etc.*
*) And what is explained in Torah Or there (88b), "שהתורה היא נגד בחי' כלי המשכן" ("that the Torah corresponds to the level of the vessels of the Mishkan") — that refers to the level of Torah as it is drawn down into wisdom and the emotional attributes, but the root of Torah is the level of the supernal will. (And although regarding the Ark it is explained there that it is "כמו שהתורה בשרשה" ("as the Torah is in its root"), the intent of this is that within the level of revelation itself, the beginning and root of the revelation is [OCR unclear]
[OCR unclear: the beginning of this note, and its number, are missing] in Torah Or there (88c), that the reason Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him, prefaced the command regarding Shabbos to the work of the Mishkan is because only after the revelation of the supernal will that is drawn down on Shabbos can there be the Mishkan, the encompassing and inner [lights] that come through the curtains and the vessels. From this it is understood that the possibility of making the Mishkan comes specifically after the preface of Torah — the supernal will — as in the previous note.
48) Yevamos 109b. And in Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 5a: "אלא תורה וגמ"ח" ("but rather Torah and acts of kindness"). See also Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 266, note 7.
49) See Vayikra 4:13 ff. From the statement of our Sages (Yevamos 47a), "קהל גרים לא איקרי קהל" ("a congregation of converts is not called a congregation"). And elsewhere. Note Rashi (Bo 12:6), s.v. "קהל עדת ישראל" ("the congregation of the assembly of Israel").
50) Tanya, ch. 32, and elsewhere.
50*) See Rosh Hashanah 7, beginning of side b, that one must hand it over very fully.
51) These two matters that were required in the donation for the Mishkan — that each person donate specifically his private money, and that afterwards it become specifically communal funds — are like the two preparations that were required before the Giving of the Torah:* the preparation of "ויחן" (singular — "כאיש אחד בלב אחד" ("as one man with one heart")) (Rashi, Yisro 19:2); and the preparation of Sefiras HaOmer, which is "לכל אחד ואחד" ("for each and every one") (Menachos 65b). And it was also before the Giving of the Torah (Zohar III, 96, end of side a, and Ra'aya Mehemna there). On the contrary, according to what the Ran writes at the end of Pesachim, citing a Midrash Aggadah, the entire matter of Sefiras HaOmer stems from the counting and yearning of the Jewish people upon their leaving Egypt. (From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei, 5724.)
*) In detail and at length — see Likkutei Sichos Vol. 3, p. 1001, in the note; Vol. 4, Parshas Bamidbar.
52) Note Torah Chaim, Noach 74c ff.
53) See Ohr HaTorah, beginning of Parshas Vayakhel (pp. 2350; 2086; 2091).
54) Beshalach 15:7. Likkutei Torah, Behaaloscha 31d. And elsewhere.
55) For in addition to the fact that for the gathering to be such that it brings those gathered to become one kahal requires empowerment from Moshe, the gathering itself too comes specifically through the power of Moshe, as below in the text.
56) Tanya, beginning of ch. 21.
Key Lesson
Moshe conveyed the command of the Mishkan only on the day after Yom Kippur, teaching that when one studies Torah one must be wholly given over to it, yet immediately afterwards one must work to make the world a dwelling for G‑d. This Sicha further teaches that the Jewish people became a true "kahal" through the power of Moshe: one begins with the gathering of asifah, setting aside one's ego, and rises level by level until one's entire being is part of the community of Israel.