Parshas Pekudei
1. Together with G‑d's command to Moshe in our Parsha that he erect the Mishkan and place the vessels inside it1, G‑d also instructed him to perform certain services in connection with this: following "והבאת את השלחן" ("You shall bring in the table"), He told him "וערכת את ערכו" ("and you shall set its arrangement in order"), and regarding "והבאת את המנורה" ("You shall bring in the Menorah") — "והעלית את נרותיה" ("and you shall kindle its lamps")2. By contrast, regarding the altars — the golden altar and the altar of the burnt-offering — Moshe is instructed only to bring them into their place3; there is no mention, however, that he should perform the services upon them.
Further on in the Sidra, however, where Moshe's fulfillment of the command is recounted, mention is made not only of the two services he was instructed about — "ויערוך עליו ערך לחם גו'" ("He set the bread in order upon it...")4 and "ויעל הנרות" ("He kindled the lamps")4 — but also of "ויקטר עליו קטרת סמים" ("He burned upon it incense of spices") following "וישם את מזבח הזהב וגו'" ("He placed the golden altar...")5, and of "ויעל עליו את העולה ואת המנחה" ("He offered upon it the burnt-offering and the meal-offering") following "ואת מזבח העולה שם גו'" ("The altar of the burnt-offering he placed...")6.
For this reason — since G‑d's command does not mention that Moshe should perform these two services (the incense, and the offering of the burnt-offering and the meal-offering) — there are two opinions among the commentators on the Torah as to whom the verse means by "ויקטר" ("He burned") and "ויעל" ("He offered"):
There are commentators7 who learn that this too was done by Moshe Rabbeinu (as is implied by the plain sequence of the verses). For although G‑d did not explicitly instruct him about these services, Moshe deduced it from the command he had received regarding the arranging of the bread and the kindling of the lamps;
Other commentators8 learn that regarding these two services the Torah means Aharon (since Moshe had not been commanded) — and according to this view, the meaning of the verses9 is: After Moshe fulfilled G‑d's command through "He placed the golden altar...", the "He burned upon it incense of spices" came about through the one whose service it is to burn the incense — Aharon. And the same applies to "The altar of the burnt-offering he placed... He offered upon it the burnt-offering and the meal-offering"9: after Moshe set up the altar of the burnt-offering, someone else offered upon it "the burnt-offering" and "the meal-offering".
What is Rashi's view on this? — On "He burned upon it incense", Rashi does not explain who performed this service9; he merely explains here the time when it was burned: "שחרית וערבית כו'" ("morning and evening, etc."). Whereas on "He offered upon it, etc." Rashi says: "אף ביום השמיני למילואים שהוא יום הקמת המשכן שימש משה והקריב קרבנות צבור, חוץ מאותן שנצטווה אהרן בו ביום שנאמר קרב אל המזבח וגו'" ("Even on the eighth day of the inauguration, which was the day the Mishkan was erected, Moshe ministered and offered the communal offerings, except for those which Aharon was commanded that very day, as it says10, 'Approach the altar...'") — meaning that "He offered" refers to Moshe Rabbeinu11.
According to this, it is not understood: Why, on "He burned upon it incense", does Rashi not mention who burned the incense, while on "He offered upon it" he explains "Moshe ministered, etc."?
2. The question becomes even stronger: In his continuing commentary on "He offered upon it" — where only the burnt-offering and the meal-offering are mentioned — Rashi says "Moshe ministered and offered the communal offerings", and from the unqualified expression "communal offerings"12 it is apparent that Rashi's intent is to inform us that Moshe then offered (not only "the burnt-offering and the meal-offering" stated in the verse, but also) all the communal offerings13 — including, of course, the service14 of the incense15. This is then even more difficult: Why does Rashi not explain this earlier, on the words "He burned upon it incense"?
From this itself it is implied that from the verse "He burned upon it incense" alone, Rashi does not find any clear proof as to who burned the incense. Only afterward, from the following verse "He offered upon it the burnt-offering and the meal-offering", where it is clear to Rashi that "He offered" refers to Moshe, does Rashi deduce from this, regarding all the communal offerings as well — including the incense — that Moshe offered these too. For there is no reason to distinguish between the burnt-offering and meal-offering and the other communal offerings, except (as Rashi concludes) "for those which Aharon was commanded, etc."
We must understand: In what way, according to Rashi, is there greater proof in "He offered" — that it means Moshe — than in "He burned"?
3. In addition to this (that the difference between "He burned" and "He offered" is not apparent), each commentary in its own right is not understood — both Rashi's commentary on "He burned upon it incense" and his commentary on "He offered upon it...":
On "He burned upon it incense" Rashi says: "שחרית וערבית כמ"ש בבקר בבקר בהטיבו את הנרות וגו'" ("Morning and evening, as it says16, 'Every morning, when he cleans the lamps...'").
At first glance it is apparent17 that with this commentary Rashi aims to explain: Since all the actions enumerated earlier in the Parsha (from "ויקם גו'" ("He erected...")18 and so on in each verse until "וישם גו'" ("He placed...")) were done only once on that day18 — therefore, so that one should not interpret "He burned" in this way too, Rashi cautions that the incense was burned twice on that day: morning and evening.
In truth, however, it is difficult to interpret it this way:
a) The lamps of the Menorah, too, were surely kindled again on the same day, since the kindling of the lamps must be in the afternoon19 (and "He kindled the lamps" of our verse took place in the morning20). Rashi should therefore have placed this caution (also) at "He kindled the lamps", which comes before "He burned upon it incense"?
b) A caution that "He burned upon it incense" took place twice is necessary only according to the interpretation that "He burned" refers to Moshe; since the other acts of that day Moshe performed only once, one might have thought to compare them and say that he also performed the incense service only once, and for this Rashi's caution is needed. If, however, one learns that by "He burned upon it incense" the verse means not Moshe but Aharon — that from the time of "He [Moshe] placed the golden altar...", Aharon began burning incense upon it — then, on the contrary, it is obvious that just as Aharon later always did so twice a day (as stated in Parshas Tetzaveh21), so he did on that day too — for what reason is there to distinguish between them? Consequently, the novelty of "morning and evening" is not needed.
Now, according to what was said above (Section 2), that at the verse "He burned upon it incense" it is not yet clear to Rashi that Moshe burned it, there is as yet no room to say that it was not "morning and evening". And if, because from the verse "He offered upon it..." one knows retroactively that "He burned" refers to Moshe — since he performed all the communal services — then again there is no need to state as a novelty that he also burned incense in the evening, since the afternoon burning is also one of the communal services. So either way it is difficult: Why does Rashi need to explain "morning and evening"?
c) The proof that Rashi brings for his commentary "morning and evening" — "as it says, 'Every morning, when he cleans the lamps...'" — is also difficult to understand:
According to the above interpretation, it turns out that the entire novelty consists (not in the burning of the "morning", but) in the burning of the "evening". Yet in bringing the proof from the verse, it comes out in entirely the opposite way: The words "Every morning" Rashi cites explicitly, while the words "בין הערבים" ("in the afternoon"), which are the main proof of the novelty, he merely22 alludes to with a "וגו'" ("etc.")23?
It is also not understood: For what reason does Rashi cite here the words "when he cleans the lamps" as well, which are seemingly entirely irrelevant?
4. In Rashi's following commentary on "He offered upon it, etc." there is also a difficulty:
a) If Rashi merely wishes to explain that by "He offered upon it" the verse means Moshe, he should have said so in two words: "משה הקריב" ("Moshe offered"). Why all the length of "Even on the eighth day ... Moshe ministered"? What relevance does it have to this verse to know that the day of the Mishkan's erection was "the eighth of the inauguration", etc.?
b) Rashi cites here from the verse, in prefacing his commentary, only the words "He offered upon it"; the following words — "the burnt-offering and the meal-offering" — he merely alludes to with the word "etc."
The reason for this is simply understood: Rashi's commentary, "Even on the eighth day, etc., Moshe ministered and offered the communal offerings, etc." relates not only to "the burnt-offering and the meal-offering", but also to the general matter of "He offered upon it". For this reason Rashi, in continuing his commentary, does not use the verse's words "burnt-offering" and "meal-offering", but rather emphasizes "communal offerings" without qualification (as above, Section 2).
According to this, however, the question arises from the other direction: Since his commentary relates to the general meaning of "He offered upon it", which includes the other communal offerings as well, he should seemingly have omitted these details, "the burnt-offering and the meal-offering", altogether, and not even alluded to them with the word "etc."?
5. The explanation of all the above is:
In the section of the showbread in Parshas Emor24 — which Rashi has already mentioned earlier25 — it is stated that the time for arranging the bread is on Shabbos. One may ask: The time of the Mishkan's erection was not on Shabbos26; how then could "He set the bread in order upon it" take place on this non-Shabbos day of the Mishkan's erection?
The same question applies to "He kindled the lamps": The time for kindling the lamps was in the evening, not in the morning27 — how then was the "He kindled the lamps" of our Parsha done in the morning?
We must therefore say that the arranging of the bread and the kindling of the lamps on this special day of the Mishkan's erection constituted a special matter28, different from the regular matter of kindling the lamps29 and of the showbread30.
Therefore, on reaching the verse "He burned upon it incense", one could have erred and thought that the service of "He burned" too (like "He set in order" and "He kindled" in our Parsha) was a special matter, and one would consequently have assumed that this "He burned" differed from the general order of the incense burning (and was perhaps only once). Therefore Rashi cautions: "Morning and evening, as it says, 'Every morning, when he cleans the lamps...'" — that it was done in exactly the same manner as it was regularly offered every "morning and evening", as stated in the verse "Every morning, when he cleans the lamps...".
According to this it is also understood why Rashi does not explicitly31 cite the words "in the afternoon" — because after Rashi establishes that "He burned" is in no way different from the incense service in general, no proofs are needed that on that day it was also offered at night32. Rashi cites this verse not as a proof, but as a comparison and explanation: that our "He burned" is the same as the incense of the verse "Every morning..."33.
6. It remains, however, not understood:
a) Why does Rashi also cite the words "when he cleans the lamps", since only the words "Every morning..." are relevant to the explanation of his commentary?
Moreover: b) The words "when he cleans the lamps" actually raise a contradiction to his commentary — that "He burned upon it incense" on the day of the Mishkan's erection was the very same incense service that was subsequently burned every day. For "when he cleans the lamps" means that the burning "every morning" is bound up with, and related to, the preceding service of cleaning the lamps (namely, "ניקוי הבזיכין של המנורה מדשן הפתילות שנשרפו בלילה" ("cleaning the cups of the Menorah of the ash of the wicks that burned during the night")34). And since on the day of the Mishkan's erection there was seemingly no cleaning of the lamps (because the preceding night was still before the Mishkan's erection, and presumably the Menorah was not lit), it should follow that the "He burned" on the day of the Mishkan's erection was not of the category of the incense of "Every morning...", but a special matter.
The explanation of this is: Rashi takes it as simple that during the seven days of inauguration as well, before the day of the Mishkan's erection, all the services were performed35, among them the kindling of the lamps. Accordingly, it comes out that on the "morning" of the day of the Mishkan's erection, Rosh Chodesh Nissan, there was also the service of cleaning the lamps, and it is therefore correct to interpret that the incense burned then was none other than that spoken of in the verse "Every morning, when he cleans the lamps...".
With this it will be understood that the words "when he cleans the lamps" are not only no contradiction to his commentary, but Rashi needs to cite them: Among all the types of inaugural service which the Torah enumerates in connection with the days of inauguration, it is not explicitly mentioned that the Menorah was also lit. One might therefore have thought that, because the lighting and consequently the cleaning were absent, "He burned upon it incense" too was a special matter (like "He set the bread in order upon it" and "He kindled the lamps"). Therefore Rashi alludes with precision, "as it says, 'Every morning, when he cleans the lamps'", that the incense in our case was connected with the cleaning of the lamps just as always — "Every morning, when he cleans the lamps"36.
7. Since the arranging of the bread and the kindling of the lamps, which were done by Moshe on the day of the Mishkan's erection, were a "הוראת שעה" ("a directive for that hour"), it is understood that one cannot deduce from them regarding the regular services — that Moshe performed these too at that time37. On the contrary: According to simple logic it should follow that Moshe performed the regular services only during the seven days of inauguration, but as soon as the Mishkan was set up in a permanent manner (including its first day — the eighth of the inauguration), the services were performed by the one who performed them on a permanent basis — Aharon38.
For this reason Rashi does not explain on the verse "He burned" that Moshe did this, since from this verse itself there is no proof of this at all; and according to simple logic it should actually come out, on the contrary, that Aharon burned the incense.
Only when one reaches the verse "He offered upon it the burnt-offering and the meal-offering" — where regarding the burnt-offering and the meal-offering it is proven that Moshe offered them (as below, Section 8) — does Rashi allude, by saying "and (Moshe) offered the communal offerings" without qualification — all the offerings of the community — that together with the communal services of the burnt-offering and meal-offering, Moshe also performed the service of "He burned". For it is not reasonable to distinguish within the communal offerings themselves between the burnt-offering and meal-offering (by one offerer) and the other offerings (and services) of the community (by another).
8. The necessity of saying that the verse "He offered upon it, etc." thereby means Moshe (and not Aharon, as it appears at first glance) is understood from the precise wording of Rashi's commentary on this verse — from the fact that after citing "He offered upon it" from the verse he adds "etc.", and from the fact that he begins his commentary with the words "Even on the eighth day, etc.":
By adding the word "etc." — although the content of his commentary itself concerns the general matter of "He offered upon it" (all the communal offerings; which is why he does not explicitly cite "the burnt-offering and the meal-offering") — he aims to convey that the proof for his commentary is from the following words, "the burnt-offering and the meal-offering", which are alluded to in the "etc." And what is this proof? This is understood from the way he begins his commentary, "Even on the eighth day, etc." (and not briefly, "Moshe ministered" or the like):
From the words "the burnt-offering and the meal-offering" (with the definite article, the letter hei) it is clear that the burnt-offering and meal-offering offered on the day of the Mishkan's erection are of the same category of burnt-offering and meal-offering already known to us, those offered during the seven days of inauguration. Now, if one were to say that on the day of the Mishkan's erection Aharon offered the burnt-offering and meal-offering, there would be no common factor between this burnt-offering and meal-offering (which Aharon offered, and in a perpetual manner) and the burnt-offering and meal-offering that Moshe offered earlier, for the sake of the inauguration.
Therefore (Rashi learns) we must say that "Even on the eighth day, etc., Moshe ministered", in which case there is a resemblance between the burnt-offering and meal-offering of the eighth day and those of the days of inauguration: All of them were offered by Moshe Rabbeinu.
And since we already know that Moshe offered the burnt-offering and meal-offering, reason dictates that the other communal offerings of that day as well were performed by Moshe.
9. From the matters of the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of Torah") in this commentary of Rashi:
What indeed is the reason that the matter of "Even on the eighth day of the inauguration Moshe ministered and offered the communal offerings, etc." is alluded to by the verse specifically regarding the burnt-offering and meal-offering (although this was so with the other services as well)?
To understand this, we must first preface another interpretation39 of why it says here "העולה" ("the burnt-offering") and "המנחה" ("the meal-offering") with the definite article: that this burnt-offering and meal-offering are well-known by virtue of being the "עולת תמיד" ("daily burnt-offering") and the "מנחת תמיד" ("daily meal-offering"): Their being known stems from their perpetuity.
In what way are the burnt-offering and meal-offering distinguished by their perpetuity as compared with all the other services, which were done each and every day? This has already been discussed at length40: From the very fact that among all the daily services only the Tamid offering alone is called by the name "Tamid" without qualification, there is proof that the title "Tamid" comes (not only because it was offered every day, but also, and chiefly) to emphasize that it has a constant effect (an ongoing action) — the effect of the Tamid offerings extends throughout the entire twenty-four-hour period.
This also explains why regarding the incense (in our Parsha) the Torah alters its manner of expression and says "He burned upon it incense" (without the definite article), although the incense too was burned every day, while in the following verse it says "He offered upon it the burnt-offering and the meal-offering": because only the burnt-offering and meal-offering are present (in their effect) constantly, at every moment; they are therefore especially important, and consequently especially well-known.
10. The explanation of this in the service of G‑d:
The Tamid offering is a burnt-offering, which is "כולו כליל לה'" ("entirely consumed for G‑d")41; and for the service of giving oneself over entirely to G‑d ("entirely consumed for G‑d") every Jew is ready constantly, at every moment, and needs no special preparations for it:
When speaking of an offering, part of which must be eaten by people, and the manner of eating must be in holiness and purity (as is required when eating an offering) — special preparations are needed for this. For by his nature a person must feel the physical taste and pleasure of the food, and it is therefore difficult for him to bring about within himself that his nature should remain nature (eating), yet "נתהפך" ("be transformed") into holiness, so that he should eat the offering entirely and thoroughly for the sake of Heaven42;
All the more so when it comes to the service of the incense — whose purpose is that even the three impure kelipos43 should be transformed into holiness — surely not everyone stands at such a level.
However, when dealing with a "burnt-offering" — that is, specifically when dealing with an "offering" in which a Jew must himself give himself over "entirely to G‑d" — this pertains to every Jew, by virtue of the essential point of his soul, and he is prepared for it constantly, at every moment.
This is also the reason why all the services each day began with the Tamid offering: Because only after the service of "entirely consumed for G‑d", in which a Jew divests himself of his own existence and gives himself over entirely to G‑d, only then can he bring about within himself that his matters of "existence" should also be holy, because they too become permeated with the self-nullification of the "burnt-offering", which he reached at the start of the day44.
11. All interpretations of Torah are connected with one another45 — there is therefore a link between the two above-mentioned interpretations of the definite article in "the burnt-offering" and "the meal-offering" (their being known from the earlier offering during the days of inauguration, and from the matter of "Tamid" in them).
And as we see, the Torah itself binds both matters together: On the verse "עולת תמיד העשוי' בהר סיני" ("A daily burnt-offering, which was made at Mount Sinai")46, Rashi explains (in his first47 interpretation): "העשוי' בהר סיני — כאותן שנעשו בימי המילואים" ("'Which was made at Mount Sinai' — like those made during the days of inauguration"). We thus see that the verse itself binds together the matter of "a daily burnt-offering" with what was done during the days of inauguration.
What does this connection between them consist of?
The explanation is: True, every Jew, by virtue of the G‑dly soul within him (and especially by virtue of his soul having been present at the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai49), is always capable of standing at the service of "entirely consumed for G‑d"48. Nevertheless, because of the body and animal soul, which conceal the soul, he also needs for this an empowerment from Moshe, the "רעיא מהימנא" ("faithful shepherd"), who arouses the soul's power of self-nullification50, so that even while it is found in the body and animal soul, it should constantly have the ability to nullify itself completely and give itself over to G‑d.
This is the connection of "a daily burnt-offering" to "which was made at Mount Sinai — like those made during the days of inauguration": The unique quality of the "days of inauguration" is that during them "Moshe ministered", and he, Moshe (through his beginning to offer the burnt-offering during the days of inauguration), opened the channel and gave the power to every Jew, that the service of the "burnt-offering" — "entirely consumed for G‑d" — can be his constantly.
12. This also explains why "Even on the eighth day of the inauguration, which was the day the Mishkan was erected", when the regular and permanent service for all Jews began, Moshe offered (not only the Tamid offering, but also) all the offerings (of the community51) — in order to draw down the power of self-nullification of the Tamid offering, the "burnt-offering", also into the services connected with "existence" (as above, end of Section 10).
Nevertheless, the verse states the matter of "Moshe's ministering" specifically regarding the Tamid offering — and from this we learn it regarding the other services as well — because the need for Moshe Rabbeinu's empowerment in the other services is chiefly (not because of their own particular matter, for on the contrary: the matter of the other services consists in a Jew's actually engaging with "existence", but) so that they should be permeated with the matter of the "burnt-offering" and the "meal-offering" — the meal-offering of libations52 — which are "entirely consumed for G‑d".
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei, 5726 and 5727)
Notes
1) Our Parsha, 40:1 ff.
2) Ibid., 4.
3) Ibid., 5–6.
4) Ibid., 23, 25.
5) Ibid., 26–27.
6) Ibid., 29.
7) Ramban here, verse 26. And so it is in the Tur HaAruch on the Torah here.
8) Rashbam here, verse 29 (regarding the offering of the burnt-offering and the meal-offering). See also Rashbam, Tetzaveh 29:30.
9) There is a version of Rashi's commentary that reads "שאהרן הקטיר" ("that Aharon burned it"). But the Ramban already wrote, "ואולי טעות סופרים הוא" ("and perhaps it is a scribal error"). And the Tur HaAruch, quoting the Ramban, states simply, "שהוא טעות סופר" ("that it is a scribal error") (omitting the word "perhaps"). See below, note 11.
10) Shemini 9:7.
11) The Ra'av here, [writes] that even according to Rashi's commentary, "Even on the eighth day, etc., Moshe ministered", the intent of the verse in "He offered" (and likewise in the preceding "He burned") is Aharon (and it refers to the whole period following the eighth day), and what Rashi writes, "Moshe ministered", is because "שכך מקובלים אנו שכל ימי המילואים לא נמנע מלשמש" ("for we have a tradition that throughout the days of inauguration he did not refrain from ministering"). [On this basis he resolves what Rashi writes (according to the version he had — see above, note 9), "ויקטר עליו אהרן" ("Aharon burned upon it") — because "He burned" in the verse refers to Aharon.] However: a) As has been discussed several times, everything Rashi writes in his commentary on the Torah is necessitated by the plain meaning of the verses (and not because "we have a tradition"). b) In Zevachim (101b) it is a dispute whether Moshe ministered on the eighth day, and Rashi's commentary on the Talmud (Zevachim 19b) states that Moshe did not minister then. — So one cannot simply say "we have a tradition, etc." c) From the fact that Rashi writes "Even on the eighth day of the inauguration Moshe ministered" on the verse "He offered upon it..." and not on the preceding "He burned upon it incense", it is evident that Rashi was compelled to this interpretation by the verse "He offered upon it".
12) One cannot say that his intent in "communal offerings" is to explain that the burnt-offering and meal-offering in the verse are the daily burnt-offering and the daily meal-offering — for this he explains explicitly in the next comment: "את העולה — עולת התמיד, ואת המנחה — מנחת נסכים של תמיד" ("'The burnt-offering' — the daily burnt-offering; 'and the meal-offering' — the meal-offering of the libations of the daily offering").
13) This is also the reason why Rashi does not explicitly cite "the burnt-offering and the meal-offering" and only alludes to them with "etc.", as below, Section 4.
14) And although Rashi's wording is "communal offerings" — the incense too is included in this, as in Rashi on Tisa (30:15). — Note the wording of the verse: "קרבנם גו' עגלות צב" ("their offering... covered wagons") (Naso 7:3); "וקרבנו קערת כסף גו' כף גו' מלאה קטרת" ("and his offering was one silver dish... one spoon... full of incense") (ibid., 7:13–14, and elsewhere).
15) Rashi's commentators here and on Parshas Shemini (9:23) raised a difficulty from what Rashi writes in Parshas Shemini there, that Moshe entered to teach him about the procedure of the incense. But simply, what is stated there, "ויבוא משה ואהרן גו'" ("Moshe and Aharon came..."), was after all the service of the day (even after the afternoon incense — unlike the Levush), and consequently it has no bearing on our matter.
16) Tetzaveh 30:7.
17) And so it is implied from how the Be'er Mayim Chaim (by the Maharal's brother) explains Rashi.
18) This requires further study (especially according to the plain meaning of Scripture — according to Rashi) whether this order was followed in erecting the Mishkan and placing its vessels each time they arrived at a place of encampment (although the anointing was only this time) — for this would seemingly be a great novelty. See Rashi (and his commentators) on our Parsha (39:33).
19) Tetzaveh ibid., 8. See also Rashi ibid., 26:20; ibid., 21.
20) For "He kindled the lamps" is stated before "He burned" and before "He offered... the burnt-offering". Seemingly one could prove that the verses here are not in sequence, from the statement "וישם את הכיור גו' ורחצו גו'" ("He placed the laver... and they washed...") coming after all the services stated before it. (And according to what the Ramban writes on verse 17, "ויקם את החצר גו'" ("He set up the courtyard...") too was before all the services.) But this is not so. For one can say that all the services ["He set in order upon it"; "He kindled the lamps"; etc.] took place after the completion of the Mishkan's erection and the placing of all its vessels inside it, except that each service is listed in the verse immediately after the placing of the vessel it pertains to. But (since it is reasonable to minimize the "אין מוקדם ומאוחר" ("no chronological order") as far as possible) the order of placing the vessels, as well as that of the services themselves, was as stated in the section. As for "and they washed..." being stated after all the preceding services — although simply the washing was immediately after the placing of the laver, before all the services — this is because "ורחצו" is in the present tense, meaning that from the time the laver was placed "רחצו ממנו . . אהרן ובניו" ("Aharon and his sons would wash from it"), except that it also mentions "Moshe" here, because "בו ביום קידש משה עמהם" ("on that very day Moshe sanctified [his hands and feet] along with them").
21) 30:6–7.
22) According to the version in most printings (unlike the version that the Ramban and the Ra'av had. And likewise in the first printing).
23) The difficulty is greater still: Even the word "etc." does not necessarily allude to the words "in the afternoon" — for one can say that it refers only to the word "יקטירנה" ("he shall burn it") following the word "the lamps", especially since "in the afternoon" is in the following verse.
24) 24:8.
25) Terumah 25:30. See also Rashi ibid., 29 (s.v. ועשית): "עד למחר בשבת" ("until the next day, on Shabbos"); Tetzaveh 26:20 (s.v. תמיד): "משבת לשבת" ("from Shabbos to Shabbos").
26) As Rashi explains (Naso 7:12; see also Rashi at the beginning of Shemini), that it was the first day of the week of Creation. And even for the student who has not yet learned this later comment of Rashi — the plain meaning of the verses (and of Rashi), "ויביאו את המשכן אל משה" ("They brought the Mishkan to Moshe") — that they were unable to erect it, etc., and Moshe set it up (our Parsha, 39:33) — implies that he set it up when they brought it to him, on the first of the seven days of inauguration. If so, this was not on Shabbos (when bringing and carrying out are forbidden), and the same applies to the eighth day of the inauguration, since they fall on the same day of the week.
27) See Tetzaveh 26:21 and Rashi there. In Rambam, Hilchos Temidin U'Musafin 3:12, [it states] that the lamps are also kindled in the morning, and he explains "בבקר בהטיבו" ("In the morning, when he cleans") (Tetzaveh 30:7) to mean "when he kindles them". But according to Rashi there, "בהטיבו — לשון ניקוי כו'" ("'When he cleans' — a term of cleaning, etc."), the kindling of the lamps was only in the afternoon. And from what Rashi writes on Menachos (88b), it is evident that he holds this in his commentary on the Talmud as well, as stated in the Kesef Mishneh on the Rambam there. See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 8, p. 97 ff.
28) See Tzafnas Paneach on the Torah here (verses 4, 23) — regarding the arranging of the bread.
29) According to this, it is more readily understood why Rashi does not explain regarding "He kindled the lamps" that this was also in the evening, as he explains regarding "He burned upon it incense" — because [in addition to the fact that only regarding the incense was it necessary to explain this, as in the main text] the fact that the lamps were also kindled in the evening has no relation at all to the novelty of "He kindled the lamps" in the verse; and this is obvious.
30) According to this, it is simply understood why G‑d's command to Moshe states only "You shall set its arrangement in order . . . and you shall kindle its lamps", although Moshe performed all the services on this day — because the novelty in the command was (not that Moshe should do this, but) the matter itself.
31) But it is obvious that "etc." refers not only to the word "he shall burn it", but also to "in the afternoon he shall burn it" — since before this he writes "evening".
32) As for his writing "evening", this is not by way of a novelty, but because it is impossible to write only "morning", since it took place in the evening as well.
33) According to this, it is also understood why he does not explicitly cite the word "he shall burn it" — because Rashi's intent in bringing the verse is (not to prove that there was a burning in the morning, but) that "He burned upon it incense" is the incense of "Every morning, when he cleans the lamps".
34) Rashi, Tetzaveh 30:7. He holds this in his commentary on the Talmud as well (see Kesef Mishneh on Hilchos Temidin 3:12 — cited above, note 27).
35) As in the Ramban here, verse 2. The Gur Aryeh on Shemini 9:23 writes (according to Rashi's view): "שודאי לא הקריב בימי המילואים אלא קרבנות השייכים למילואים ולא הקטרת שהיא קבועה לדורות כמו שלא הקריב התמידים שלא כתיב במילואים מלבד עולת הבקר" ("that surely during the days of inauguration he offered only the offerings pertaining to the inauguration, and not the incense, which is fixed for all generations, just as he did not offer the daily offerings, which are not written in connection with the inauguration, apart from the morning burnt-offering"). However — simply, what is written (Tetzaveh 29:38 ff.), "וזה אשר תעשה גו' את הכבש גו'" ("This is what you shall do... the lamb..."), refers to the seven days of inauguration, which are discussed just before it. Especially since "וזה" ("and this") has the additive vav. And as the Ramban writes here, verse 26. And as stated explicitly in Rashi, Pinchas 28:4.
36) According to this, it is even more readily understood why Rashi explicitly cites from the verse only "Every morning, when he cleans the lamps", and not "in the afternoon" — although seemingly the novelty in his commentary is that he also burned it in the evening (as above, Section 3) — because on the contrary: The novelty in his commentary is that even the incense he burned in the morning is the incense about which it is said "Every morning, when he cleans the lamps", as in the main text.
37) Unlike what the Ramban and the Tur write (cited above, Section 1), that Moshe understood this from what he was commanded to arrange the bread and kindle the lamps.
38) One can say that this is why Rashi writes "Even on the eighth day of the inauguration, etc., Moshe ministered" (in addition to what is explained below, Section 8): that his ministering also on the day of the Mishkan's erection, on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, is because it was the eighth day of the inauguration, and on all the days of inauguration — even on the eighth day — Moshe ministered.
39) See Rashi.
40) See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 3, p. 940 ff.
41) Rashi, Yisro 18:12 (see also Vayikra 1:8–9). See Ohr HaTorah, Tzav, p. 15.
42) See Kuntres Eitz HaChayim, ch. 8. And note what is related in the maamar beginning "רפאני" ("Heal me"), 5698, Section 5: "אשר פעם הראה הבעש"ט נ"ע לתלמידיו שור מלובש בבגדי ש"ק . . כי הי' צדיק א' שאכל בשר לקיים מצות שבת ומפני כו'" ("that once the Baal Shem Tov showed his students an ox dressed in Shabbos garments . . . for there was a certain tzaddik who ate meat in order to fulfill the mitzvah of Shabbos, and because, etc."). See there.
43) See Torah Or 96a, and in many places.
44) See similarly Kuntres Eitz HaChayim there, that for the service of the lower unity to be genuine, the self-nullification of the higher unity must be felt, at least a little. And there, that even if this service is genuine in itself, since "בעת האכילה עד"מ ה"ה מרגיש עכ"פ את הטעם והעונג בזה בעל כרחו שלא ברצונו . . זה מורידו לפי שעה" ("at the time of eating, for example, he still feels the taste and the pleasure in it, against his will . . . this lowers him for the moment") — unlike when he also feels the self-nullification of the higher unity. See there.
45) See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 3, p. 782.
46) Pinchas 28:6.
47) Which is the principal interpretation, as is understood.
48) This is the connection of "a daily burnt-offering" to "which was made at Mount Sinai" according to the second interpretation in Rashi there.
49) Note that at the stand at Mount Sinai, "ויחן" ("he camped") is in the singular (Mechilta and Rashi, Yisro 19:2; see Tanya, ch. 32), they put "we will do" before "we will hear", and at each utterance their souls flew out.
50) Similar to what is known (Torah Or, beginning of Mishpatim; Derech Mitzvosecha 80a ff.), that Moshe is the one who draws down the level of Daas to the souls of the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, although the ability to draw it down to them is by virtue of their root at the level of "עבר הנהר" ("the far side of the river").
51) For the main self-nullification and empowerment from Moshe is in the matter of inclusion — "the community" (see above, p. 218 ff., on "ויקהל משה" ("Moshe assembled")).
52) Which is entirely consumed (Rashi, Tetzaveh 29:41) upon the altar, with no portion for the kohanim (Menachos 74b; Rambam, Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos, beginning of ch. 2).
Key Lesson
Every Jew, by virtue of the essential point of his soul, is ready at every moment to give himself over entirely to G‑d, like the daily burnt-offering that is "entirely consumed for G‑d" — and the power for this comes from Moshe, who opened the channel by offering it during the days of inauguration. This Sicha teaches that when each day begins with this self-nullification, it permeates and elevates the rest of the day's activity, including the eating and other matters of "existence" that follow.