Parshas Vayakhel
1. At the beginning of the parsha it says, "ויקהל משה את כל עדת בני ישראל גו' ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה גו'" ("Moshe assembled the entire congregation of the Children of Israel... Six days work shall be done...").1 Rashi comments on the words "six days" and explains: "הקדים להם אזהרת שבת לציווי מלאכת המשכן לומר שאינו דוחה את השבת" ("He preceded the command concerning the work of the Mishkan with the warning of Shabbos, to say that it does not override Shabbos").
As it is commonly learned, Rashi's intent is that the fact that the Torah places2 "the warning of Shabbos before the command of the work of the Mishkan" is a proof that the warning of Shabbos is weightier3 than the command concerning the work of the Mishkan, and therefore the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos.
This is difficult (as commentators ask4): we find many times that two commands stand adjacent to one another and Rashi explains that the "later" one overrides the "earlier" one, beginning with the very matter we are discussing (Shabbos and the work of the Mishkan). In Parshas Tisa, on the verse5 "ואתה דבר גו' אך את שבתותי תשמורו גו'" ("And you, speak... But you shall keep My Shabbosos..."), where the Torah6 places the command of the work of the Mishkan before the warning of Shabbos, Rashi explains: "אע"פ שתהיו רדופין כו' בזריזות המלאכה, שבת אל תדחה מפניה" ("Although you will be eager... in the diligence of the work [of the Mishkan], Shabbos shall not be set aside on its account").
Similarly, further on, in Parshas Kedoshim7 it says "איש אמו ואביו תיראו ... ואת שבתותי תשמורו" ("Every man shall fear his mother and his father (and afterwards) and you shall keep My Shabbosos"), and Rashi says in his commentary: "סמך שמירת שבת למורא אב, לומר: אע"פ שהזהרתיך על מורא אב, אם יאמר לך חלל את השבת, אל תשמע לו" ("He placed the keeping of Shabbos next to the fear of a father, to say: although I have warned you concerning the fear of a father, if he tells you to desecrate Shabbos, do not listen to him").8
Yet here9 Rashi emphasizes that "He preceded" is a proof that Shabbos overrides the work of the Mishkan!?
2. The commentators answer:10
In Parshas Tisa, Rashi explains that this is learned from the word "אך" ("but"): "כל אכין ורקין מיעוטין, למעט שבת ממלאכת המשכן" ("Every ach and rak is an exclusion, to exclude Shabbos from the work of the Mishkan").11 Furthermore,12 in Parshas Kedoshim Rashi continues (in the comment that follows): "אני ה' אלקיכם — אתה ואביך חייבים בכבודי, לפיכך לא תשמע לו לבטל את דברי" ("I am the L‑rd your G‑d: you and your father are both obligated in My honor; therefore do not listen to him to nullify My words"). That is, in both cases one needs the words "but" and "I am the L‑rd" to warn that Shabbos is not overridden by the work of the Mishkan or by the fear of a father.
From this itself it is understood that, on the contrary, in general the "earlier" overrides the "later." Therefore, were it not for the verses, "but" regarding the work of the Mishkan in Parshas Tisa, and "I am the L‑rd" regarding the "fear of a father," we would indeed say that since the commands concerning the work of the Mishkan and the fear of a father appear before the warning of Shabbos, they override Shabbos.
However, according to the plain meaning this explanation is insufficient, for one can ask on this very point:13 Why does the Torah place the command of the work of the Mishkan (and similarly the "fear of a father") before the warning of Shabbos, and because of this need to add the exclusion "but" (and the addition "I am the L‑rd")? The warning of Shabbos could have been placed from the outset before the work of the Mishkan (and the fear of a father), and one would already have known (from the precedence) that Shabbos overrides the work of the Mishkan (and the fear of a father)!14
From this it is implied that from "precedence" alone one cannot learn that the first command overrides the second; rather one needs an explicit exclusion (and derivation). Yet here Rashi says, "He preceded [the warning of] Shabbos... to say that it does not override Shabbos"?15
We find lengthy discussion among the commentators on Rashi,16 who resolve the above question with various answers and distinctions as to when, and in what manner, one can learn from "precedence" that the first command overrides the second.
However (as has been discussed many times), Rashi wrote his commentary on the Torah in a style such that even a "בן חמש למקרא" ("five-year-old beginning the study of Scripture") can understand Rashi's intent from his (carefully counted) words, without needing any additional explanation;
and especially since in this case there is extensive debate among the commentators on Rashi, with all sorts of answers,17 it is seemingly unreasonable to say that Rashi intends (at least in the plain meaning of his commentary) all these various explanations, and that he leaves it unspecified and does not say which of the many explanations he adopts.17
Therefore it is reasonable to say that when one studies the words of Rashi themselves, everything is understood and explained, so that the above questions fall away of their own accord.
3. The explanation of this can be stated simply:
With the words "He preceded for them the warning of Shabbos... to say that it does not override Shabbos," Rashi does not mean to say that from the fact that the Torah here places the warning of Shabbos before the command of the work of the Mishkan one learns the law (that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos)
— for the law itself had already been stated earlier, in Parshas Tisa, where it says (in G‑d's command to Moshe) "But you shall keep My Shabbosos...," and as Rashi explains there (as mentioned above, section 2), "to exclude Shabbos from the work of the Mishkan." And it is self-understood that when the Torah relates afterwards (in our parsha) how Moshe transmitted to the Jewish people the commands concerning Shabbos and the work of the Mishkan, this was exactly as stated earlier (in Parshas Tisa), namely that (he told the Jews that) the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos —
rather, the precise point here is18 "He preceded for them the warning of Shabbos...": here it is speaking (not about the precedence in the Torah as G‑d's command, but) about the precedence in Moshe's words "to them."
Rashi finds it difficult: since in G‑d's words to Moshe the command of the work of the Mishkan was stated before the warning of Shabbos, why did Moshe Rabbeinu make a change, and when transmitting the commands to the Jews19 "precede for them the warning of Shabbos..."?
To this Rashi answers, "to say that it does not override Shabbos": since Moshe had to convey to them20 that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos (as he had been told in Parshas Tisa), he therefore "preceded the warning of Shabbos."
That is to say: in addition to the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu told the Jews (explicitly) that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos, he additionally, in order to strengthen among the Jews the gravity of the warning of Shabbos, (also) placed21 the command of Shabbos before the command of the work of the Mishkan.
Accordingly, the above discussion about Rashi's commentary (how it fits with Rashi's commentary in Parshas Tisa and Parshas Kedoshim) falls away of its own accord, because in our parsha Rashi is not speaking at all about the derivation of how we know that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos. (And one can say that indeed, from "precedence" and "following" in Scripture one cannot learn22 (according to the plain meaning) that the "earlier" is decisive and overrides the "later.")
4. However, it still remains not understood:
Since when conveying the commands to Moshe, G‑d did not place the warning of Shabbos before the command of the work of the Mishkan (since there is an exclusion for this, "But you shall keep My Shabbosos"), why did Moshe Rabbeinu need to add extra emphasis by placing the warning of Shabbos first, and thereby change the order of the commands as they had been stated by the Holy One, blessed be He?
This will be understood by first explaining Rashi's commentary on the (above-mentioned) verse in Parshas Tisa, "ואתה דבר אל בני ישראל לאמר אך את שבתותי תשמרו גו'" ("And you, speak to the Children of Israel, saying: But you shall keep My Shabbosos..."). Rashi comments (in the first caption) on the words "And you, speak to the Children of Israel," and explains: "ואתה, אע"פ שהפקדתיך לצוותם על מלאכת המשכן, אל יקל בעיניך לדחות את השבת מפני אותה מלאכה" ("And you: although I have appointed you to command them concerning the work of the Mishkan, let it not be light in your eyes to set aside Shabbos on account of that work"). Further on, Rashi explains: "But you shall keep My Shabbosos: although you will be eager and quick in the diligence of the work, Shabbos shall not be set aside on its account; every ach..."
From the plain wording of Rashi it is evident that these are two separate warnings that the work of the Mishkan should not override Shabbos:23 one from the (superfluous24) word "And you," and the second from the exclusion "but."
This is not understood:
a) As commentators ask,25 why are two needed?
b) How does one learn from the word "And you (speak to the Children of Israel)" that "let it not be light in your eyes to set aside Shabbos on account of that work"?
One must also understand the lengthy wording of Rashi26 in the two comments, and the differences between them:
a) The precise wording "although I have appointed you to command them concerning the work of the Mishkan" — as if there had been a special appointment for this! The entire Torah and its mitzvos were transmitted to the Jews through Moshe Rabbeinu!
b) "Let it not be light in your eyes to set aside..." — Rashi does not say briefly "do not set aside" (or the like), as in Rashi's own wording immediately afterwards (in the second comment).
c) In the second comment Rashi introduces a new idea, "although you will be eager and quick in the diligence of the work..." — from where does Rashi take this? And why does this idea belong specifically in the second comment?
5. The explanation of this can be said as follows:
The difference between Rashi's two comments is this: in the first comment, where Rashi addresses the words "And you, speak to the Children of Israel," it is speaking toward Moshe himself, as Rashi emphasizes in his wording, "although I have appointed you to command them... let it not be light in your eyes..."; whereas in the second comment, "But you shall keep My Shabbosos," Rashi speaks in relation to the Children of Israel: "although you (plural) will be eager..."
And this itself is the reason why both derivations are necessary: warning Moshe Rabbeinu that Shabbos is not overridden on account of the work of the Mishkan is not the same as the warning given regarding the Jewish people (as Rashi emphasizes through the differences in wording between the two comments).
The explanation of this: the command concerning the work of the Mishkan came, according to Rashi,27 after the forgiveness for the sin of the Golden Calf. For the Mishkan is (as Rashi28 explains) "עדות לישראל שויתר להם הקב"ה על מעשה העגל, שהרי השרה שכינתו ביניהם" ("a testimony for Israel that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave them for the deed of the Calf, for He caused His Shechinah to rest among them").
And this is what Rashi says (in the second comment), "although you will be eager and quick in the diligence of the work, Shabbos shall not be set aside on its account": the concern of which the Children of Israel need to be warned is
[not that they would assume that the work of the Mishkan outweighs and overrides Shabbos — for simply put, Jews would not on their own rule that the work of the Mishkan overrides Shabbos; they would surely ask Moshe how to conduct themselves on Shabbos — but rather]:
knowing that the resting of the Shechinah in the Mishkan is the proof of atonement for the sin of the Calf, they will be (and they need to be) "eager," "rushing" with very great diligence to complete29 the work of the Mishkan, so that the atonement will come as soon as possible. Therefore it is likely that being involved in a manner of "eagerness" and "diligence" will cause them to stumble into doing work of the Mishkan on Shabbos as well.30 Therefore the Jews are warned: "although you will be eager and quick... Shabbos shall not be set aside on its account."
This, however, applies only to the Jewish people. Not so Moshe Rabbeinu, who from the outset had no connection to the sin of the Calf; and even after the sin of the Calf, when the Jews were under a ban from one another, the tent of Moshe was an "Ohel Moed,"31 a "place of the Shechinah"32 —
it is understood that regarding Moshe himself the concern arising from "eager and quick..." did not apply, especially since (as Rashi33 explains) "Moshe did not do any work in the Mishkan,"34
[and, as was once discussed at length,35 this is Rashi's intent on the verse (at the command of the work of the Mishkan in our parsha36) "ויאמר משה גו' זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' לאמר" ("Moshe said... This is the thing that the L‑rd commanded, saying"): "זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' לי לאמר לכם" ("This is the thing that the L‑rd commanded me to say to you"). That is, the command to Moshe ("this is the thing") was only ("to say to you") to convey it to the Jews, but Moshe himself was not commanded regarding it, since he had a "place of the Shechinah" even without the Mishkan];
so why must Moshe be warned, "And you: although I have appointed you to command them concerning the work of the Mishkan, let it not be light in your eyes to set aside Shabbos on account of that work"? This will be explained below.
6. Rashi cites (at the end of Parshas Tisa37) the "order of teaching" by which Moshe taught Torah to the Jews: "נכנס אהרן, שנה לו משה פרקו . . נכנסו בניו, שנה להם . . נכנסו זקנים, שנה להם . . נכנסו כל העם, שנה להם כו', נמצא ביד כל העם אחד, ביד הזקנים שנים, ביד בני אהרן שלשה, ביד אהרן ארבעה וכו', כדאיתא בעירובין" ("Aharon entered and Moshe taught him his portion... his sons entered and he taught them... the elders entered and he taught them... all the people entered and he taught them, etc. It turns out that all the people had it once, the elders twice, the sons of Aharon three times, Aharon four times, etc., as stated in Eruvin").37*
The reason Rashi adds "etc., as stated in Eruvin," one can say,38 is that he thereby alludes to the continuation of the Gemara: after Moshe finished his four rounds of teaching, "Aharon taught them his portion... his sons taught them their portion... the elders taught them their portion."
[And thereby Rashi forestalls a great question in the plain meaning of Scripture: how is it that Aharon should need to hear it four times, while for his sons three times suffice, for the elders two, and for "all the people" only once? The opposite is more logical! According to the continuation of the Gemara, however, this is resolved, since (as the Gemara concludes there) "נמצא ביד הכל ארבעה" ("it turns out that everyone had it four times").]
Accordingly, the other commands of the Torah the Jews heard not only from Moshe, but also from Aharon, his sons, and the elders. The command of the work of the Mishkan, however, was in the manner of "I have appointed you to command them concerning the work of the Mishkan": the transmission of the command of the work of the Mishkan to the Jews was not according to the "order of teaching," but rather,39 as related at the beginning of our parsha, "ויקהל משה את כל עדת בני ישראל ויאמר אליהם" ("Moshe assembled the entire congregation of the Children of Israel and said to them")39* — Moshe spoke to all the Jews equally, without any distinction between Aharon, his sons and the elders, and all the people.
And this is what Rashi says on "And you, speak to the Children of Israel": "And you: although I have appointed you to command them concerning the work of the Mishkan, let it not be light in your eyes...". Seeing that the command concerning the work of the Mishkan was given in a special manner of "I have appointed you to command them concerning the work of the Mishkan," unlike the other commands of the Torah, Moshe could therefore come to reason that regarding the work of the Mishkan there is a "leniency" in Shabbos,40 and consequently, "it would be light in your eyes to set aside Shabbos on account of that work" — it would be "easy" for him to set aside Shabbos for the sake of the work of the Mishkan. He is therefore warned: "let it not be light in your eyes...," so that there should not come about a leniency in Shabbos.41
Accordingly, the above question is simply resolved: how one can learn from "And you, speak to the Children of Israel" the idea of "let it not be light in your eyes." By telling Moshe that the command of Shabbos too must be "And you, speak to the Children of Israel" — that Moshe himself should say it42 to all the Jews in an assembly (just like "I have appointed you to command them concerning the work of the Mishkan"), as he actually did, as related at the beginning of our parsha, "Moshe assembled... and said to them... Six days..." — it was emphasized to Moshe that Shabbos is not "light" in any way whatsoever relative to the work of the Mishkan.43
7. In light of all the above, the reason for the change in the order of the commands between Parshas Tisa and our parsha is also understood:
In Parshas Tisa, where it speaks of G‑d's command to Moshe, the command concerning the work of the Mishkan comes first and afterwards the warning of Shabbos. Since the main thing there is the command concerning the work of the Mishkan, and the warning of Shabbos comes there only as secondary, namely that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos,44 therefore the work of the Mishkan appears first.
In our parsha, however, where it speaks of Moshe's command to the Children of Israel, G‑d had already told him in Parshas Tisa that they must be warned (not only of the law that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos, but) that "although you will be (you need to be) eager and quick...," they should guard themselves against stumbling in the prohibition of Shabbos.
And in order to warn about this, the warning of Shabbos must be placed first. This precedence accomplishes that, for them, the prohibition of Shabbos always stands "before" the work of the Mishkan; consequently they will always remember and be careful, even in the midst of the eagerness and diligence in the work of the Mishkan, that it must not touch the "שבת שבתון לה'" ("Shabbos of complete rest to the L‑rd").45
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei and Shabbos Parshas Vayikra, 5728)
Notes
1) 35:1–2.
2) The Re'em cites: "Some explain that 'He preceded' is not meant precisely... for even without preceding we could infer this from the fact that He placed them adjacent." (See also Be'er Mayim Chaim (by the brother of the Maharal) here, who explains "He preceded" as referring (only) to importance.) But in addition to the Re'em's questions on this, it is seemingly contrary to the plain wording of Rashi.
3) As written in Kli Yakar, Divrei David (by the Taz), and several other commentators, that in many places what comes first is more important. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 1, p. 161.
4) See Re'em, Gur Aryeh, Divrei David, and many other commentators here; Re'em (and others) on Rashi's commentary in Tisa and Kedoshim, cited below in the main text (and likewise on Rashi's commentary cited below in note 8).
5) 31:13.
6) Ibid., 1ff.
7) 19:3.
8) It should be added that from Rashi's unqualified wording on the verse (Kedoshim 19:3) "You shall keep My Shabbosos and fear My Sanctuary" — "Although I warn you concerning the Sanctuary, you shall keep My Shabbosos; the building of the Beis HaMikdash does not override Shabbos" (and he does not write "He preceded" or the like) — it is implied that there too the derivation is not because Shabbos precedes the fear of the Sanctuary, but from the adjacency itself. See Re'em there. This is not the place to elaborate.
9) It should be noted that Rashi's wording here, "He preceded... in order to," is not found in the Mechilta here (which is seemingly the source of Rashi's comment, as the Re'em writes (Tisa, ibid.), and others). This implies: a) that according to the Mechilta it is not compelling that the derivation is from Shabbos being placed first; b) Rashi's addition here proves that we learn it from the precedence (at least according to the plain meaning of Scripture). One can also say that he interprets the Mechilta's view this way, unlike some of the above-mentioned commentators. See Chizkuni and Bechaye here (35:1).
10) Re'em here (see also Re'em in Parshas Tisa, ibid., and in Parshas Kedoshim (19:3; ibid., 30)); and so too in several other commentators.
11) The Ramban on Tisa, ibid., raises a difficulty on these words in Rashi (see also Tzeidah LaDerech there). But see Abarbanel, Re'em, Gur Aryeh and other commentators on Rashi, who emended Rashi's words. See also Ibn Ezra (and Sforno) there, and elsewhere.
12) In line with the question of the Kli Yakar on our parsha here (his answer regarding Rashi's commentary is seemingly not according to the plain meaning).
13) It should further be added (from the opposite angle): from the plain wording of Rashi there, "He placed the keeping of Shabbos adjacent... to say...," it is evident that the derivation (regarding the keeping of Shabbos) is not from the words "I am the L‑rd," but from the adjacency itself (as the Gur Aryeh writes here) [and the derivation in Rashi's commentary from "I am the L‑rd" — "you... do not listen to him to nullify My words" — concerns "all the other mitzvos" (at the end of the Rashi before us)]. See also Rashi on Teitzei 22:12: "Even from kilayim; therefore Scripture placed them adjacent," even though it placed kilayim before tzitzis.
*) Simply, one can say that the words "I am the L‑rd" are not a new caption in Rashi's commentary, but a continuation of Rashi's comment: "And so with all the other mitzvos (as it says) I am the L‑rd [OCR unclear]... do not listen, etc." Accordingly it is better understood: a) what difference "and so with all the other..." makes here — for this is the addition of the words "I am the L‑rd," that this is a law not only regarding Shabbos (from the adjacency) but also regarding the other mitzvos; b) the continuation of Rashi afterwards, "What is fear...," which seemingly has no connection to this law; but according to the above it is understood: since he explains that the "fear of a father" overrides neither Shabbos nor the other mitzvos, therefore, "What is fear? Not to sit, etc."
14) This also negates the answer (Be'er Yitzchak here; see also Gur Aryeh and others) that specifically in our parsha one can infer from the precedence, since seemingly the work of the Mishkan needed to be placed first (for the assembly was for the sake of the command of the work of the Mishkan), and since it placed the warning of Shabbos first (contrary to how it should have been), we learn, etc.; whereas in Parshas Tisa we would not learn from a change of order alone. For in Parshas Tisa too, had it placed the command of Shabbos before the work of the Mishkan (but after everything that precedes it in the parsha), we would have learned from this that Shabbos is not set aside for the work of the Mishkan, since according to the order of the parsha (in continuation of everything that precedes it) the command of the work of the Mishkan should have come before Shabbos. So why was the exclusion "but" needed, as in the main text?
*) In Meleches HaKodesh on Rashi here: that it should have placed the Mishkan first, since once it says "These are the things which the L‑rd commanded to do," it must perforce refer to the work of the Mishkan (for "doing" does not apply to Shabbos, only "sit and do not do"); if so, why did it insert the command of Shabbos in between? But from Rashi's unqualified wording it is not implied that it refers (only) to the work of the Mishkan; at any rate it refers to Shabbos as well (see Tur HaAroch here). See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 11, p. 161, that the expression "to do them" applies to Shabbos as well. See there.
15) See the sources cited in note 4.
16) As has been discussed many times, the commentators on Rashi explain Rashi's words (also) according to halachah, etc.
17) Especially since most of them are greatly questionable (in addition to the difficulties raised against several of the answers by the commentators on Rashi themselves), since the answer is not hinted at all in Rashi's commentary; and had Rashi intended this, he should have explained it, at least by allusion.
18) The Be'er Yitzchak here also makes this inference (though he explains it differently).
19) As asked by the Gur Aryeh, Kli Yakar and others here. Torah Ohr, beginning of our parsha.
20) That is, the meaning of "to say" here is not "to teach you," but (simply) to say to the Children of Israel. Rashi does not write "(to say) to them" or the like, because this is understood from his preceding words, "He preceded for them."
21) See also the book Dikdukei Rashi (Mira Dachya) here.
22) See also at length Meleches HaKodesh on Rashi here.
23) Unlike what is written in Divrei David (by the Taz) on Rashi there.
24) See Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura, Be'er Mayim Chaim (by the brother of the Maharal), Dvek Tov and Be'er Yitzchak there.
25) Be'urei Maharai (by the author of Terumas HaDeshen), Divrei David, Dvek Tov (in the glosses) and Sifsei Chachamim there. — As for the explanation of why both are necessary in Be'urei Maharai, Dvek Tov and Sifsei Chachamim: had that been Rashi's intent, he should have explained it.
26) He did not write in brief language, as does the Rashbam there; and likewise the Baal HaTurim on the Torah and Sforno there.
27) Tisa 33:11 (and similarly in Rashi, Tisa 31:18). See also Rashi there [OCR unclear] (30:16, at the end), except that there one can say that it refers only to Moshe's command to the Children of Israel, and not also to G‑d's command to Moshe.
28) [OCR unclear] Pekudei, and similarly in Rashi, Shemini 9:23. See Rashi above (Tisa 30, ibid.): "that the Omnipresent was reconciled with Israel to forgive them, and they were commanded concerning the Mishkan."
29) Note what is written (regarding the donation for the Mishkan): "The people are bringing much more... and there was extra" (our parsha 36:5–7; see Rashi 35:27).
30) Accordingly the question of the commentators (regarding this Rashi) is resolved: how could one have thought that the work of the Mishkan (which is [OCR unclear]) would override Shabbos, which involves a positive and a negative command and carries the death penalty, etc.? For the intent is that they would stumble into doing work because of the eagerness and diligence, etc. See below, note 41.
31) Rashi, Tisa 33:7 (see also Rashi there, 11, at the end).
32) Tisa, ibid., 7, and in Rashi ([OCR unclear]. But in any case it is explicit in the verse there (9ff.) that the pillar of cloud descended and stood at the entrance of Moshe's tent and He spoke there with him (see Rashi there, 11)). Note Torah Sheleimah there, §24 (and the sources cited there), though this is not according to the plain meaning of Scripture.
33) Pekudei 39:33.
34) Only the erecting of the Mishkan was done by him (as in Rashi there, and as explicit in the verse, ibid. 40:2ff.). — Seemingly this took place on Shabbos as well, since he erected and dismantled it throughout the seven days of inauguration (Rashi, Shemini 9:23; Naso 7:1). See Rashi, Pekudei, ibid., "it stood up by itself" (see Chasam Sofer on the Torah, our parsha here; Meleches HaKodesh here). But see Likkutei Sichos vol. 1, p. 183, that only on the eighth day of the inauguration was it erected by Moshe in the manner of "it stood up by itself," whereas during the seven days of inauguration one can say that its erection [OCR unclear] together; see there. This is not the place to elaborate.
35) Likkutei Sichos vol. 6, p. 222ff.
36) 35:4.
37) 34:32. — See also Rashi above (Yisro 18:23): "Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and the seventy elders who now accompany you" (and note Mishpatim 24:1 (see there, 3–4, and Rashi), and also there, 9), that simply Moshe studied with them specially.
37*) Eruvin 54b.
38) See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 37ff.
39) The reason can simply be said: since it comes to rectify "ושכנתי בתוכם" ("and I will dwell among them") (as above, section 5), along the lines of the Ramban's explanation at the beginning of our parsha.
39*) This itself is proof that he was so commanded by the Holy One, blessed be He (and there are similar matters where only Moshe's action is specified and not the command to him; see below, p. 263, note 19).
40) Especially since there is a strong reason to do so: to hasten the atonement, as above in the main text. One can say that there is an example of this (also in halachah, and in the laws of Shabbos) in one who erred because he was preoccupied with a mitzvah (Shabbos 136a).
41) Even though regarding punishments it [Shabbos] is more severe than the command of the work of the Mishkan (as above, note 30). One can also say that this is Rashi's precise wording, "let it not be light in your eyes to set aside...": that is, not that one might think all the warnings of Shabbos are nullified relative to the command of the work of the Mishkan, but that one might think one may be lenient in them (in doing work that does not carry the death penalty, neglecting a positive commandment of Shabbos, and the like,* Moshe would be lenient to set aside Shabbos for the work of the Mishkan).
*) See [OCR unclear] on Tisa, ibid. (31:13): "even [OCR unclear] his animal, where there is only an ordinary prohibition." See Re'em, Kedoshim 19:30 (citing R. Yeshayah the First and others). — Note Rashi, caption "Let no man go out" (Beshalach 16:29).
42) See also Be'er Yitzchak, Tisa, ibid.
43) Note also Moshav Zekeinim on the Torah here, that the purpose of the assembly was to warn them against doing the work of the Mishkan on Shabbos.
44) But seemingly this is not implied by the length at which Parshas Tisa there speaks about Shabbos, adding new matters that were not stated in the Ten Commandments* [although regarding the detail "it is a sign between Me and you" in this very verse (31:13), one can say that this is Rashi's precise wording there, "it is a great sign between us...," which explains why Shabbos is not set aside for the work of the Mishkan (see Sforno there; Alshich there, also cited in Tzeidah LaDerech there)]. One can explain differently: the reason it was necessary to command again concerning Shabbos is (also) for the sake of Shabbos itself. Since they sinned with the Calf, "the sign... between Me and you" became "weakened" among the Children of Israel, and they needed extra urging about it. And since Moshe did not sin with the Calf, the command of Shabbos here does not pertain to him and is for the sake of the Children of Israel, whereas the command concerning the work of the Mishkan pertains to him as well;** therefore He placed it before the warning of Shabbos.
*) Likewise in our parsha (35:3) it adds a new detail, "You shall not kindle fire" (see Rashi there), which does not pertain specifically to the work of the Mishkan, as stated explicitly: "in all your dwellings."
**) This does not contradict what was said above in section 5, that Moshe did not need the Mishkan and did not participate in the work of the Mishkan. For obviously the Mishkan brought something new for Moshe as well (the offerings and the service, etc.); only the matter of a "place of the Shechinah" existed for Moshe even before the Mishkan, as mentioned there. And this is a principal aspect of the Mishkan ("and I will dwell"), and it rested in the tent of Moshe. See above, note 34.
45) Our parsha 35:2.
Key Lesson
Even holy enthusiasm, such as the Jewish people's eagerness to complete the Mishkan and hasten their atonement, needs a firm boundary, so that zeal for one mitzvah does not lead to compromising another. By placing Shabbos first, Moshe made sure its sanctity would always stand "before" every other pursuit, however urgent and lofty.