Parshas Tetzaveh
1. At the beginning of our parsha, Rashi quotes the words "ואתה תצוה... זך" ("And you shall command... pure") and explains: "Without dregs, as we learned in Menachos1: 'He picks [the olives]1* at the top of the olive tree, etc.'"
This needs clarification:
a) From the fact that Rashi does not explain the word "pure" in the verse (which means "clean"2 and the like), but only explains the matter "without dregs," it is evident that the meaning of "pure" is known and need not be stated; rather, what needs explanation is: pure and clean of what? And he explains that it excludes dregs. But this is not understood: what is he teaching us? It is self-understood that "clean" means free of any admixture of a foreign substance (including "dregs")3?
b) Later, in Parshas Sisa4, it says "לבונה זכה" ("pure frankincense"), and there Rashi does not explain "pure" of what.
c) Rashi brings a proof for his explanation, "as we learned, etc."; but seemingly the explanation "without dregs" needs no proof at all, as mentioned above5?
d) It is not Rashi's way, in explaining the plain meaning of Scripture, to bring proofs for his explanation from laws in the halachic part of the Torah (similar to Rashi's comment on the next phrase: "Crushed — he would crush the olives... and the second oil is invalid for the Menorah and valid for meal-offerings, as it says 'crushed for the light,' and not 'crushed for meal-offerings,'" and he does not bring the source6 for this law from the Gemara6*, and the like).
Accordingly, in our case, even if we say that a proof is needed that the oil must be "without dregs," what proof is there, in the plain meaning of Scripture, from what "we learned in Menachos"?
e) Rashi quotes from Menachos the words "he picks [the olives] at the top of the olive tree, etc." But seemingly, the proof that the oil must be without dregs is (not from the fact that "he picks [the olives], etc.," but) from the conclusion of the matter, "and he crushes, etc."; as Rashi states explicitly here (in the next comment): "Crushed — he would crush the olives in a mortar, etc., so that there should be no dregs in it."
Yet Rashi explicitly quotes the words from which there is no (main8) proof for his explanation, while the words from which there is proof for his explanation he merely alludes to with "etc."7!
f) Why does Rashi include in his explanation the source as well — "as we learned in Menachos" — and not write (simply) "as we learned, etc."? This is even more difficult, since in his commentary on Parshas Emor8* he writes "in Menachos and in Toras Kohanim."
g) Rashi also quotes from the verse the words "And you shall command"9, although he explains only the word "pure"?
We must therefore say that Rashi quotes them because from them, too, there is evidence for his explanation, "without dregs." This needs clarification: (a) What is the evidence from the words "And you shall command" that the oil must be without dregs? (b) On the other hand: if there is evidence from the verse, what does Rashi add with the proof from Tractate Menachos?
2. The explanation of this:
The verse states "שמן זית זך כתית למאור" ("pure olive oil, crushed, for lighting"). Now, the word "crushed" refers to the word "olive," i.e., the olive must be crushed. Accordingly, it is difficult to explain that the word "pure," which is stated between "olive" and "crushed," refers to the word "oil" (stated before it); for then it should have said "olive oil, crushed, pure" — i.e., that the oil must be: (a) of crushed olives (olives crushed in a mortar), and (b) pure.
[Though, with difficulty, one could explain that first the Torah writes the conditions of the oil — that it be (a) of olives, (b) pure — and afterwards it explains the middle one: that in order for the oil to be "pure," this is achieved through the olive being "crushed."]
Since it says "pure olive oil, crushed, etc.," one must explain it (as the Ibn Ezra explains10) that "pure" refers to the olive, i.e., that the olive must be "pure" (and "crushed") — that one must take "the berries that have no rot, or that have not been partly eaten, and from them they make oil fit for the food of kings."
Rashi rejects this interpretation by saying "without dregs." That is, with this explanation he comes (not to explain the word "pure" — for, as mentioned, it is self-understood — but) to teach that the word "pure" refers to the oil and not to the olive, despite the difficulty in this interpretation, as mentioned above.
This is why Rashi explains "pure — without dregs" (for excluding an admixture of dregs can only apply to oil, not to the olive, as is understood11).
3. In order to prove that the word "pure" refers to the "oil" and not to the "olive" (although that is forced, as mentioned), Rashi quotes from the verse (also) the words "And you shall command."
The explanation: The command "And you shall command... that they take to you..." was said while the Jewish people were in the desert, a place where olives do not grow. We must therefore say that they lit the Menorah with oil that they took with them when they left the land of Egypt12 (for one cannot say that they took olives with them for the entire period and crushed them in the desert13).
From this there is proof that one cannot explain that the olive must be "pure" — for in the oil they brought with them it is impossible to recognize whether it came from an olive that had been "partly eaten," or even whether it was "rotten."
[But according to the interpretation that the oil must be "pure" — "without dregs" — this is recognizable in the oil.]
Therefore Rashi also quotes the words "And you shall command," i.e., the command about making the oil (explained in the parsha). Since the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moshe to command the Children of Israel (in the desert) to take "pure olive oil," we are compelled to explain that the oil must be pure, and not the olive, as explained above.
4. One can add another point in this:
A sharp student could still argue: nevertheless, it is preferable to explain according to the simple sense of the verse, that the word "pure" refers to the "olive"; and the difficulty in this interpretation can be answered (at least with difficulty): the detail of the obligation of a "pure olive" applies only when they come to the Land of Israel, "a land of olive oil," and will be able to obtain "pure olives"; but in the desert — where there are no "olives" at all — there is no room for the condition that the olive be "pure"14, and they lit with plain olive oil15.
This too is explained by Rashi's quoting the words "And you shall command," which alludes to: "אין צו אלא מיד ולדורות" ("The term 'command' always denotes [an instruction] for immediately and for all generations")16. Thus it is proven17 that this command applied "immediately," also while they were in the desert18 — and since it is impossible to say that they knew how to distinguish which oil is from pure olives, as mentioned, we must say that "pure" refers to the oil.
5. But this is still not a conclusive proof, for one could still force the argument and say: just as we must say that the Jewish people knew that they would be commanded about oil for lighting in general (and therefore took it from Egypt, even though "they had not prepared provisions for themselves"19), so too they knew that they would be commanded to take "pure olive oil," and when they left Egypt they took with them oil from olives that had not been partly eaten, etc.20
Therefore Rashi adds and brings proof from what we learned in Menachos, "he picks [the olives] at the top of the olive tree, etc.":
According to the Ibn Ezra's interpretation, that the olive must be "pure" — "berries that have no rot, or that have not been partly eaten" — the olives growing at the top of the tree have no advantage over the other olives. On the contrary: at the top of the tree there are more birds, which eat the olives. Accordingly, it would be preferable to take from the olives growing in the middle and inner part of the tree — above the reach of human hands, and below the top of the tree, where the birds usually are.
Since it says in Menachos "he picks [the olives] at the top of the olive tree," it is proven that according to the Gemara21 "pure" refers to the oil and not to the olive. Therefore "he picks [the olives] at the top of the olive tree" (since the olives at the top of the tree are well ripened, and it is easy to separate the dregs from the oil that comes from them), and it makes no difference whether the olives themselves are rotten or partly eaten, etc.
Rashi adds "in Menachos" in order to exclude Toras Kohanim21*, for there the opinion (of the Tanna Kamma) that one grinds the olives in a mill is also cited (whereas in Menachos this opinion is found only in the Gemara), while Rashi here continues, "and he does not grind them in a mill." For here the discussion is in the style of a narrative, continuing the making of the Mishkan, after which comes the section of the dedication of the Mishkan, all of which was done with great splendor, glory and wealth, etc. (and likewise all the days they were in the desert there was a state of wealth22). In contrast, Parshas Emor is "the section of the commandment of the lamps," the laws of the oil. Therefore here Rashi explains as it actually was in the desert, while in Parshas Emor he explains according to the law (and therefore he must add there another source — Toras Kohanim), and therefore he also adds there: "three oils, etc."
6. From the "wondrous matters" regarding halachah in our Rashi:
The Rambam rules22*: It is said in the Torah, "And Hevel brought... and of their fats...." Anything that is for the sake of the good G‑d should be of the finest and the best. If one builds a house of prayer, it should be nicer than his own dwelling; if he feeds a hungry person..., clothes the naked..., consecrates something..., and so it says23, "כל חלב לה'" ("All the fat is the L‑rd's").
It needs clarification whether the obligation of "All the fat is the L‑rd's" also applies at the time of preparing and making the item that one intends afterwards to give to Hashem. For example, is there an obligation to take choice wool in order to make from it a garment for a poor person, and the like? One may posit two lines of reasoning in this:
a) The obligation of "All the fat is the L‑rd's" applies at the time of giving, when the item becomes Hashem's, and therefore it is then that one must choose "of the finest and the best" that he has.
b) This obligation applies even before the giving — since he resolves in his mind that ultimately it will be for Hashem, also at the time of preparing and making the item "for the sake24 of the good G‑d" he must choose "of the finest and the best." (And in this one may say two ways: only when an advantage will be recognizable at the time of giving, or even when there is no advantage — since he is now preparing it for the sake of G‑d.)
Now, according to the Ibn Ezra's interpretation, that "pure" refers to the "olive," one could learn from this law that also at the time of preparing and making the item "for the sake of the good G‑d" one must choose the choicest. For the Torah was particular that the olives which are crushed for the oil for lighting be pure and choice — hence this obligation begins from the preparation (even if this will not create a recognizable advantage at the time of giving to Hashem).
But according to Rashi, that "pure" refers to the "oil," the Torah was not particular that at the time of preparation it be of the choicest25; only at the time of giving26 must it be "of the good and the finest."
7. From the "wine of Torah" in our Rashi:
It is explained in Chassidus that there are two levels in the "olive":
a) The "olive" according to its plain meaning: its bitterness (as our Sages say27, "The dove said: let my food be bitter as an olive") indicates the level of the "darkness" and "bitterness" of the sitra achra. This is why "the olive causes one to forget seventy years of learning"28, for forgetfulness stems from the world of kelipos29. Therefore, from the aspect of this level, it is specifically through crushing the olive — through subduing (iskafya) the sitra achra — that the oil is revealed: the level of Chochmah, bittul to G‑dliness30.
b) The "olive" according to its inner meaning: the source from which the oil is drawn. That is, its bitterness (darkness) indicates, on the contrary, its lofty level (the Sefirah of Kesser), which is higher still than illumination and revelation (the Sefirah of Chochmah, oil)31. This is the level of "ישת חשך סתרו" ("He made darkness His concealment")32, which is called "darkness" because it is abstract and exalted beyond any definition of light that comes into revelation33.
This is the difference between the interpretation of the Ibn Ezra and that of Rashi in the inner dimension of the matters:
The Ibn Ezra explains according to the plain sense of the matters — and as for the "olive" in its plain content, its bitterness (and darkness) results from an admixture of kelipah and sitra achra. For this reason special care is needed in choosing the olive in order to extract from it (through crushing) "oil" and the bittul of holiness — the olive itself must be "pure," for only then is it fit to become a vessel for G‑dliness.
However, in Rashi's commentary, which is the "wine of Torah" (the inner dimension of the Torah), the matters are illuminated (at least by allusion) according to their inner dimension. The inner meaning of the "olive" is the level of "He made darkness His concealment," which is higher even than the light that relates to the chain of the worlds (hishtalshelus), and is the ultimate of holiness and bittul. Therefore, according to his interpretation, no care and precision is needed regarding the olive itself, but only regarding the oil that comes from it — the drawing down to the level of Chochmah, which is the beginning of revelation in hishtalshelus and has a connection to the worlds. Therefore care is needed that the oil and the bittul be clean of any admixture — "pure"34.
(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh, 5725)
Notes
1) Menachos 86a.
1*) As in our version of the Mishnah, even though the conclusion of the Gemara is that the Mishnah reads "מגלגלו" (see also the question of the Re'em here). So too writes the Rambam in Hilchos Issurei Mizbe'ach 7:8 (and see Lechem Mishneh there).
2) See Menachos (ibid., 86b): "'Pure' means nothing other than clean." And see Re'em here.
3) One cannot say that Rashi comes to exclude the notion that even when the oil contains dregs it can be called "pure oil," since the dregs are separate, below, and do not mix with the oil. For since "oil does not mix" (Shemos Rabbah, beginning of our parsha) with any liquid, as is plainly seen, and nevertheless the verse adds "pure," it is self-understood* that "pure" stated of oil means cleanliness (and not merely the absence of mixture) from foreign substances. Seemingly one could say (and see Tzeidah LaDerech here) that dregs, since they come from the olive itself, are not an admixture of a "foreign" substance, and therefore one might have erred that "pure" stated of oil does not exclude dregs. But according to this it is difficult from the other side: what is Rashi's basis, in the plain meaning of Scripture, that the oil must be "without dregs"?
*) It is still difficult regarding what Levush HaOrah writes there (from the other side), that Rashi comes to exclude "that 'pure' here does not mean clear, like the 'pure' stated regarding water." For since "it is not the nature of oil to be clear like water, as it is thick" (as he writes in Levush there), i.e., oil cannot be clear, it is obvious that "pure" stated of oil means without an admixture of a foreign substance — "without dregs" — and Rashi need not explain it.
4) 30:34.
5) In Devek Tov and Sifsei Chachamim they write that the proof is so that one should not wonder how there can be oil without dregs. But this is not understood at all, for we see that there is oil without dregs. As for the proof brought in Sifsei Chachamim that there is no oil without dregs, from the Mishnah in Bava Metzia (40a), "One who sells refined oil... accepts upon himself a log and a half of dregs per hundred" — this is not so, for the case there is what is called in common parlance "refined oil" (even though it contains dregs)*. On the contrary: from the fact that the Tanna (according to the plain sense) not only sets the measure but also teaches that the buyer accepts the dregs upon himself, it is proven that there can be oil without dregs — for otherwise it would be obvious that he accepts the dregs.
*) One cannot say that Rashi comes to exclude the interpretation that the "pure" of the verse is the "refined oil" of common parlance (which contains dregs). For (besides the fact that it is forced to interpret the "pure" of the verse as containing dregs because that is the meaning of "refined" in common parlance), according to this it is difficult from the other side: if so, where does he derive, in the plain meaning of Scripture, that the oil must be without dregs?
6) Although one could (with difficulty) say that he relied on what he wrote just before, "as we learned in Menachos."
6*) Menachos ibid., 86a.
7) As the Re'em asks here.
8) Although the fact that "he picks [the olives] at the top of the olive tree" is also because these olives are well ripened, so that through proper crushing there will afterwards be no dregs in the oil (Devek Tov, Maskil LeDavid, Sifsei Chachamim, and others — in accordance with the second interpretation in Rashi on Menachos (ibid., s.v. "Megargero BeRosh HaZayis")), nevertheless it is understood that the main proof is from the manner of its making, "he crushes, etc.," for specifically through this there are no dregs in the oil.
8*) 24:2.
9) In the first printing of Rashi the words "And you shall command" are absent; but in all the other printings it is as in the text.
10) And see Gur Aryeh here.
11) See similarly in Sefer HaZikaron (by Rabbi Avraham Bakrat HaLevi) here.
12) See Ramban here.
13) As for Rashi's explanation, "he picks [the olives] at the top of the olive tree," and likewise later (Vayakhel 35:14): "And the oil for lighting — it too required wise-hearted people, for it is different from other oils, as explained in Menachos: he picks [the olives] at the top of the olive tree, and it is crushed and pure" — one may say that his intent is (not that in the desert they picked olives at the top of the olive tree, but) that a wise-hearted person was needed to recognize whether the oil was properly pure and crushed (similar to what the Ramban writes here regarding the reason for "that they take to you"). This is proven from what is written (Terumah 25:2–6), "And this is the offering that you shall take... oil for lighting," and likewise "The princes brought... and the oil for lighting" (Vayakhel ibid., 27–28), and the verse does not mention that the wise-hearted made it before it was brought.
14) The "oil for lighting" of the offering for the Mishkan was plain olive oil. And although Rashi says in Parshas Vayakhel (cited in the previous note), "different from other oils... he picks [the olives]... crushed and pure," this is according to what he explained here, "without dregs."
15) Note the view of the Rogatchover on the verse (Pekudei 40:23), "And he set upon it an arrangement of bread," that this was different and was not the showbread, since the arranging of the showbread was only on Shabbos, etc. (Tzafnas Pa'ane'ach al HaTorah there).
16) Rashi, beginning of Parshas Tzav. (And although we have not yet learned this — the question too is not so simple, but is only that of a sharp student, and therefore the answer too comes by allusion.) And although "And you shall command" means "and you will eventually command the Children of Israel concerning this" (Rashi, Emor 24:2) — that "eventual command" too was in the desert, as written (Emor ibid.), "Command the Children of Israel...."
17) But one cannot bring proof from the words "that they take to you (Moshe)" that the command was only for the desert — for it had not yet been decreed upon him that he would not enter the Land of Israel. Regarding the rest of the Jewish people, however, already at the time of the sin of the Golden Calf the decree that they would not enter the Land of Israel arose in thought (Rashi, Shelach 14:33) — and the command concerning the work of the Mishkan was after the sin of the Golden Calf (Rashi, Sisa 31:18; 33:11).
18) And although "immediately" can also mean after some time (see the discussion (regarding halachah) in Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, Ma'areches Mem, Kelal 168), nevertheless, in our case one cannot interpret "immediately" as referring to the time of entering the Land. For (besides the fact that this was after thirty-nine years!) the generation of the desert itself did not enter the Land of Israel (see the previous note), only their children, and they are included in "for all generations." We must therefore say that the command "And you shall command" — "immediately (and for all generations)" — was for the generation of the desert.
19) Bo 12:39.
20) But from the fact that Rashi (Terumah 25:5) says only regarding the acacia wood that "Yaakov our father foresaw with Divine inspiration... and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt," it is implied that they did not bring oil specifically for the Mishkan. And see Yoma (75b), that there were things they bought from the merchants of the nations.
21) Although one cannot bring proof for the plain meaning from halachah — in our case the Gemara did not learn this law (that the oil must be pure) through a derashah, etc., which proves that this is the plain meaning of the verses. [Note the saying of our Sages (Sotah 16a), "הלכה... מקרא" ("Halachah... Scripture, etc." [OCR unclear]); and "אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו" ("A verse does not depart from its plain meaning" (entirely)) — Yevamos (24a).] This is especially so in our case, where this is only an additional proof to the main proof from the verse "And you shall command" (as above, section 3).
21*) On Emor 24:2.
22) One may say that then, according to all opinions, "he does not grind them in a mill" — based on what is written, "and of their fats" (Bereishis 4:4 (and the Targum there); Zevachim 116a), unlike with meal-offerings, because of the loss (Menachos 86b). And see below (at the end) from the Rambam.
22*) End of Hilchos Issurei Mizbe'ach. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, end of siman 248 (where the wording is "of the good and the beautiful," and perhaps this was his version of the Rambam).
23) Vayikra 3:16.
24) [OCR unclear.]
25) If no advantage will be recognizable in the item at the time of giving — as in our case, where it is not recognizable in the oil whether it came from a pure olive. But one still cannot determine from here Rashi's view where choosing the good and the finest at the time of preparation will yield an advantage in the item at the time of giving — whether the obligation of "All the fat is the L‑rd's" applies at the time of preparation.
26) And even if we say that according to Rashi too one must choose the good, etc., if it will be recognizable at the time of giving (see the previous note), this is not because of the preparation itself; rather, at the time of preparation the obligation to give of the good already applies.
27) Eruvin 18b (cited in Rashi, Noach 8:11).
28) Horayos 13b.
29) Torah Or, our parsha, 81, end of column c; 110c. Maamarei Admur HaZaken 5568, the Biur on the Chanukah discourse.
30) Torah Or ibid. And see Likkutei Torah, Behaaloscha 36b; and elsewhere.
31) Or HaTorah, Tetzaveh, p. 1546 ff. The discourse beginning "Halelu Es Havaya," 5731.
32) Tehillim 18:12.
33) The discourse "Halelu," ibid.
34) According to this it is understood (also in the "wine of Torah") why Rashi explains that the "pure" of the oil means "without dregs," which are not an admixture of a "foreign" substance but come from the olive itself. For from the aspect of the Sefirah of Chochmah there is no room for the existence of anything truly "foreign" (separate), since in it shines the Infinite Light, "Who alone exists and there is nothing besides Him, and this is the level of Chochmah" (Tanya, ch. 35, in the gloss). Yet because of its connection to the worlds, "dregs" are relevant to it — which are a foreign substance relative to the oil, the level of Chochmah itself.
Key Lesson
Rashi's few words "without dregs" teach that the Torah demands purity in the oil itself — what is actually given to G‑d — rather than in the olive from which it comes. In our service, too, what matters most is that the light we bring into the world be clean of any foreign admixture, while its lofty source, though seemingly "dark," is itself beyond any need for refinement.