English translation — פקודי א

A.

Together with the command of the Most High to Moses,

in our parshah,

that he should set up the Mishkan and place into it the vessels¹,

the Most High also told him that he should do certain services thereby: In continuation of "And you shall bring the table" He told him "And you shall arrange its arrangement",

and at "And you shall bring the menorah" — "And you shall kindle its lamps"².

In contrast, by the altars — the golden altar and the altar of burnt offering — Moses is only told to bring them to the place³

; but it is not mentioned that he should do the services upon them.

But further in the parshah,

where it is told about the fulfillment of the command by Moses,

are mentioned not only the aforementioned two services — "And he arranged upon it an arrangement of bread etc." and "And he kindled the lamps"⁴

— but also "And he burned upon it incense of spices" after "And he placed the golden altar etc."⁵,

and "And he offered upon it the burnt offering and the meal offering" after "And the altar of burnt offering he placed etc."⁶.

Because of this reason,

that in the command of the Most High it is <b>not</b> mentioned that Moses should do these two services

(incense and the offering of the burnt-offering and the meal-offering),

therefore there are two opinions among the commentators of the Torah — whom the verse means with "and he offered incense" and "and he offered up":

There are commentators⁷

who learn,

that also this was done by Moses our teacher

(as is implied from the plain sense of the continuation of the verses).

Because despite that regarding these services the Most High did not explicitly command him,

but Moses derived it from the command that he had regarding the arrangement of the bread and the kindling of the lamps;

Other commentators⁸

learn,

that regarding the two services the Torah means Aaron’s

(since Moses was not commanded)

— and according to this approach the explanation of the verses⁵

: after <b>Moses</b> fulfilled the command of G‑d through “and he placed the golden altar etc.”,

the “and he burned upon it incense of spices” was performed by the one whose service is to burn incense — Aaron.

And the same is also regarding “and the altar of burnt offering he placed etc. and he offered upon it the burnt offering and the meal offering”⁶

; that after Moses had set up the altar of burnt offering,

someone else offered upon it “the burnt offering” and “the meal offering”.

What is Rashi’s approach in this?

— On “and he burned upon it incense” Rashi does not explain <b>who</b> performed this service⁹

He only explains the time,

<b>When</b> they offered the incense: "morning and evening etc."; in contrast, on "And he offered upon it etc." Rashi says: "Even on the eighth day of the consecrations, which was the day of the erection of the Tabernacle, Moses served and offered communal sacrifices,

aside from those that Aaron was commanded on that day, as it is said¹⁰

Draw near to the altar etc.",

d.

e.

So with "And he offered" is meant Moses our teacher¹¹.

So according to this it is not understood: Why on "And he offered incense upon it" does Rashi not mention who offered the incense,

and on "And he offered upon it" does he explain "Moses served etc."?

2.

The question becomes even stronger: in his later commentary on "and he offered upon it" — where only olah and minchah are mentioned — Rashi says "Moshe served and offered the communal sacrifices,"

that from his language "communal sacrifices" <b>plainly</b>¹²,

it is indeed evident that Rashi's intention is to let us hear that Moshe then offered

(not only "the olah and the minchah" which are stated in the verse,

but also)

<b>all</b> communal sacrifices¹³

— including in this,

of course,

also the service¹⁴

of the incense¹⁵.

So it is even more difficult: why does Rashi not explain earlier on the words "and he offered incense upon it"?

So from this itself it is implied,

that from the verse "and he offered incense upon it" itself Rashi finds no clear proof who offered the incense.

Only afterwards,

from the later verse "and he offered upon it the olah and the minchah",

where there it is clear to Rashi that "and he offered" refers to Moshe — Rashi then learns from this also regarding <b>all</b> communal sacrifices — including also incense — that Moshe also offered them.

For there is no logic to differentiate between the olah and minchah and the other communal sacrifices,

"except

(as Rashi elaborates)

from those that Aharon was commanded etc."

One must understand: with what is,

according to Rashi,

in this "vaya'al" there more proof — that this means Moshe — than in this "vayaktar"?

3.

In addition to this

(that the difference between "vayaktar" and "vaya'al" is not noticeable)

is not understood each explanation by itself — both Rashi's explanation on "vayaktar alav ketoret" and also his explanation on "vaya'al alav g'":

On "ויקטר עליו קטרת" Rashi says: "שחרית וערבית as it is written¹⁶

בבקר בבקר בהטיבו את הנרות etc."

At first glance it is apparent,

that Rashi with this commentary intends to explain: Since all these previously enumerated actions in the parshah

(from "ויקם etc." and so in every verse until "וישם etc.")

were performed only <b>one </b>time on that day¹⁸

— therefore,

in order that one should not learn also by "ויקטר" in this manner,

Rashi warns that the incense was offered on that day <b>two </b>times: morning and evening.

In truth, however, it is difficult to learn it in this way:

a)

Also the lamps of the menorah were certainly lit again on the same day,

because the lighting of the lamps must be between the evenings¹⁹

(and "And he raised the lamps,"

from our verse,

was in the morning²⁰),

Rashi should have placed this objection

(also)

by "And he raised the lamps" which stands before "And he burned incense upon it"?

b)

To protect that "and he offered incense upon it" was two times,

it is necessary specifically according to the explanation that "and he offered incense" refers to Moses: since the other actions of that day Moses did only once,

it could be a possibility to compare and say that he also performed the service of the incense offering only once,

and therefore Rashi's protection is necessary.

If however one learns,

that with "and he offered incense upon it" the verse does not mean Moses but &lt;b&gt;Aaron&lt;/b&gt; — that from when "and he placed

(Moses)

the golden altar etc." Aaron began upon it to offer incense — then it is on the contrary,

then it is &lt;b&gt;simple&lt;/b&gt; that just as Aaron later always did it two times a day

(as it states in Parshat Tetzaveh&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;),

so too he did it on that day — for what reasoning is there to distinguish between them?

And consequently the novel idea of "morning and evening" is not necessary.

Now according to the above

(section b)

that by the verse "and he offered incense upon it" it is not yet clear to Rashi that &lt;b&gt;Moses&lt;/b&gt; offered it — then there is as yet no place to say that it was not "morning and evening"; and if because of that which from the verse "and he brought up upon it etc." one knows retroactively that "and he offered incense" refers to Moses — since he performed all the communal services — then again it is not necessary to innovate that he also offered incense in the evening,

because also the evening incense offering is one of the communal services.

Then it is in any case difficult: for what does Rashi need to explain "morning and evening"?

3)

Also the proof that Rashi brings for his explanation “morning and evening” — “as it is written ‘in the morning, in the morning, when he sets the lamps in order etc.’” — is difficult to understand:

According to the above explanation, it turns out that the entire novelty consists

(not in the burning of the “morning [incense]”,

but)

in the burning of the “evening [incense]” — but when bringing upon this the proof from the verse, it comes entirely in the opposite manner: the words “in the morning, in the morning” Rashi copies explicitly,

and the words “between the evenings”,

from which is the main proof for the novelty,

he alludes only²²

with an “etc.”²³?

Also it is not understood: for what reason does Rashi quote also the words "when he kindled the lamps",

which are here seemingly entirely not relevant?

D.

Also in the further commentary of Rashi on "and he brought up upon it etc." it is difficult:

a)

If Rashi only wants to explain that with "and he offered upon it" the verse means Moshe,

he should have said it with two words: "Moshe offered".

Why all the length "even on the eighth day ..

Moshe served": what is relevant to know about <b>this</b> verse,

that the day of the establishment of the Mishkan was "the eighth of the consecration" etc.?

b)

Rashi here quotes from the verse,

as an introduction to his commentary,

only the words "and he offered upon it"; the subsequent words — "the burnt offering and the meal offering" — he hints at only with the word "etc.".

The reason for this is understandable simply: Rashi's explanation "even on the eighth day etc. Moses served and brought communal offerings etc." is not only in connection to "the burnt offering and the meal offering,"

but also to the <b>general</b> matter of "and he offered it up."

That is why Rashi does not use in the continuation of the explanation the words of the verse,

"burnt offering" and "meal offering,"

rather he emphasizes "communal offerings" simply

(as above section 20).

But according to this the question turns the other way: since his explanation refers to the general meaning of ,

"and he offered it up,"

as this includes also the other communal offerings — he seemingly should have omitted entirely these details "the burnt offering and the meal offering" and not even hinted at them through the word "etc."?

5.

The explanation of all the above is:

In the portion of the showbread in the section Emor²⁴

— which Rashi already mentioned <b>earlier</b>²⁵

— it is said,

that the time of the arranging of the bread is on the Sabbath day.

One can ask: The time of the erection of the Mishkan was indeed not on the Sabbath day²⁶,

so how does it come that on that non-Sabbath day of the erection of the Mishkan should take place the "and he shall arrange upon it the arrangement of bread"?

The same question is also regarding "Vayaal HaNeros": the time of hadlakas haneiros was in the evening,

not in the morning²⁷

Today how then was the "Vayaal HaNeros" of our parshah done in the morning?

One must say,

that the arranging of the bread and the raising of the lamps on that special day of the establishment of the Mishkan,

represented with themselves a special matter²⁸,

different from the <b>constant</b> matter of the raising of the lamps²⁹

and the showbread³⁰.

And therefore,

when it comes to the verse "and he burned incense upon it" one could have made a mistake that also the service of "and he burned"

(like "and he arranged" and "and he offered" in our portion)

was a special matter,

and one would consequently have been able to assume that <b>the</b> "and he burned" was different from the order of the incense offering in general

(and perhaps only <b>one</b> time)

— therefore Rashi warns: "morning and evening as it is said 'in the morning in the morning when he tends the lamps etc.'",

that this was exactly in the same manner as one would offer every "morning and evening" that stands in the verse "in the morning in the morning when he tends the lamps etc."

And accordingly it is also understandable that Rashi does not bring explicitly³¹

the words "between the evenings" — because after Rashi explains that <b>the</b> "and he burned" is not at all different from the service of the incense offering in general,

it is no longer necessary for proofs that one offered on that day also at night³².

This verse Rashi does not bring as a <b>proof</b>,

but as a comparison and explanation,

that our "and he burned" is the same as the incense of the verse "in the morning in the morning etc."³³.

6.

But it remains not understood:

a)

Why does Rashi also quote the words "when he sets up the lamps",

since for the explanation of his commentary only the words "in the morning, in the morning etc." are relevant?

Further: b)

The words "when he sets up the lamps" are very much arousing a contradiction to his explanation — that the "and he burned incense upon it" on the day of the establishment of the Mishkan was the same service of the incense that they afterwards burned every day — because "when he sets up the lamps" means to say,

that the incense offering "in the morning, in the morning" is bound,

and related to the preceding service of setting up the lamps

(which is the "cleaning of the bowls of the Menorah from the ash of the wicks that were burned during the night"³⁴)

; and since on that day of the establishment of the Mishkan there was apparently no setting up of the lamps

(because the previous night was still <b>before</b> the establishment of the Mishkan,

they presumably did <b>not</b> light the Menorah),

it must therefore follow that the "and he burned" on the day of the establishment of the Mishkan was <b>not</b> from the type of incense "in the morning etc.",

but a special matter.

But the explanation in this: Rashi assumes <b>simply</b> that also during the seven days of the consecration,

<b>before</b> the day of the establishment of the Mishkan,

they performed all the services³⁵,

and among them — the lighting of the lamps.

And according to this it turns out,

that on the "morning" of the day of the establishment of the Mishkan, Rosh Chodesh Nissan,

there was also the service of setting up the lamps,

and consequently it is then correct to learn that the incense that they burned then is none other than that which is spoken of in the verse "in the morning, in the morning, when he sets up the lamps etc."

And with this it will be understandable that the words "when he kindles the lamps" are not only not a contradiction to his explanation,

but Rashi <b>needs</b> to cite them: among all the types of service of the inauguration that the Torah enumerates in connection with the days of the consecration,

it is not explicitly mentioned that they also lit the menorah.

One could have thought that because the lighting was lacking and consequently the kindling,

also the "and he burned incense upon it" was a special matter

(just as the "and he arranged upon it the arrangement of bread" and "and he kindled the lamps")

— therefore Rashi hints in a precision "as it is said 'morning by morning when he kindles the lamps'",

that the incense of our case was connected with the kindling of the lamps exactly as always — "morning by morning when he kindles the lamps"³⁶.

7.

Since the arranging of the bread and the kindling of the lamps,

which were done by Moses on the day of the establishment of the Tabernacle,

were a temporary ruling,

it is understandable that from them one cannot learn regarding the regular services — that also them Moses did then³⁷.

On the contrary: according to the plain sense of logic it must be assumed,

that the regular services Moses performed only during the seven days of the consecration,

but as soon as they set up the Tabernacle in a permanent manner

(including also the first day — the eighth of the consecration),

the services were performed by the one who performed them permanently — Aaron³⁸.

And therefore Rashi does not explain on the verse "vayaktar" that this was done by Moshe,

because from this verse itself there is no proof for this; and from the simple logic it must rather turn out,

the opposite,

that Aharon offered the incense.

Only when one comes to the verse "vaya'al alav et ha'olah ve'et haminchah" — regarding olah and minchah it is proven that Moshe offered them

(as follows in section 68)

— Rashi hints,

by means of what he says "and he offered

(Moshe)

communal offerings" &lt;b&gt;plainly&lt;/b&gt; — all the offerings of the community — that together with the communal services of olah and minchah Moshe also performed the service of "vayaktar".

Because it is not plausible to distinguish in the communal offerings themselves between olah and minchah

(by one offerer)

and the other offerings

(and services)

of the community

(by a second).

Ch.

The necessity to say that the verse "And he went up upon it etc." means thereby Moshe

(and not Aharon,

as it appears at first glance),

becomes understood from the exact wording of Rashi on this verse — from that which after copying "And he went up upon it" from the verse he adds "etc.",

and from that which he begins his commentary with the words "Also on the eighth day etc.":

With his adding the word "etc."

— Despite the fact that the content of his commentary itself is on the general aspect of the matter of "and he offered upon it"

(all communal offerings; and therefore he does not explicitly cite "the burnt offering and the meal offering")

— he lets it be heard,

that the proof for his commentary is from the subsequent words "the burnt offering and the meal offering" — which are hinted at in the "etc."; and what is this proof?

This is understood from the manner in which he begins his commentary "also on the eighth day etc."

(and not briefly "Moses served" and the like)

From the words "the burnt offering and the meal offering"

(with a definite article)

it is clear,

that the burnt offering and meal offering that were offered on the day of the establishment of the Tabernacle are of the same type of burnt offering and meal offering that is already known from them,

which were offered during the seven days of the consecration.

So if one were to say that on the day of the establishment of the Tabernacle Aaron offered the burnt offering and meal offering — then there is no common denominator between these burnt offering and meal offering

(which Aaron offered,

and in a permanent manner),

with the burnt offering and meal offering that Moses offered earlier and for the sake of the consecration

— therefore

(Rashi learns)

one must say,

that "&lt;b&gt;even&lt;/b&gt; on the eighth day etc. Moses served",

that then there is a similarity between the burnt-offering and meal-offering of the eighth day with those of the days of the consecration: &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; of them Moses our teacher offered.

And since we already know that the burnt-offering and meal-offering Moses offered,

then reason already obligates,

that also the other communal offerings of that day — Moses performed them.

9.

From the matters of "the wine of Torah" of our Rashi:

What is indeed the reason that the matter "Even on the eighth day of the consecrations Moses served and offered communal sacrifices etc." is hinted at by the verse specifically by the burnt-offering and the meal-offering

(although that it was so also by the other services)?

In order to understand this, one must preface another explanation³⁹

On that which is stated here "the burnt-offering" and "the meal-offering" with the definite article heh,

that the burnt-offering and meal-offering are known by that which they are "the continual burnt-offering" and "the continual meal-offering": their knownness comes from their continualness.

With what are distinguished the burnt-offering and meal-offering by their continualness relative to all the other services which they performed each and every day — we have already spoken at length⁴⁰,

that from the very fact that among all the daily services only the continual offering itself is called by the name "continual" <b>plainly</b>,

is a proof that the title "continual" comes

(not only because they offered it each day,

but also,

and primarily)

to emphasize that it has a <b>constant</b> effect

(a continuous action)

— the action of the continual offerings extends throughout the entire twenty-four-hour period.

And with this it is also explained,

that regarding ketoret

(in our parshah)

the Torah changes the manner of expression and says "vayaktar alav ketoret"

(<b>without</b> a hei hayediah),

although also the ketoret was offered every day — and in the subsequent verse it says "vaya'al alav et ha'olah ve'et haminchah": because <b>only</b> olah and minchah exist

(in their effect)

always,

at every single moment — they are therefore especially important and consequently particularly known.

Yud.

The explanation of this in avodah: the korban tamid is an olah,

which is wholly consumed for Hashem⁴¹

; and to the avodah of giving over <b>entirely</b> to the Supreme

(wholly for Hashem)

every Jew is ready always,

at every single moment,

and he does not need for this any special preparations:

When it speaks about a sacrifice of which a part must be eaten by people,

and the manner of eating must be in holiness and purity

(as is required for eating a sacrifice)

— there are needed for this special preparations.

For by nature a person must feel the physical taste and flavor of the food,

therefore it is difficult for him to effect in himself that his nature should be nature

(eating)

but be "transformed" into holiness,

that he should eat the sacrifice entirely and completely for the sake of heaven⁴²

All the more so,

when it comes to the service of the incense — whose matter is,

that also the three impure husks⁴³

should be transformed into holiness — it is certainly that not everyone is at such a level.

But when it deals about "olah",

i.e.

that is

specifically when it deals about a "korban" that a Jew must <b>himself</b> give over "entirely to G-d",

this pertains to every Jew,

from the aspect of the point of his soul,

and he is prepared for this <b>always</b> at every moment.

And this is also the reason that all the services began each day with the daily offering,

because specifically after the service of "entirely to G-d",

where a Jew removes himself from his own existence and gives himself away entirely to the Most High,

only then can he effect in himself that also his "existence"-matters should be holy,

because also they are permeated with the self-nullification of the "olah" that he came to at the beginning of the day.

11.

All interpretations of the Torah are indeed connected among themselves — there is a connection between the two interpretations mentioned above in the definite article "heh" of "haOlah" and "haMinchah"

(especially being known from the earlier offering during the days of the consecration,

and from the matter of "tamid" that is in them).

And as one sees — the Torah itself binds the two matters together: on the verse "Olat Tamid haAsuyah b'Har Sinai"⁴⁶

Rashi explains

(in his <b>first</b>⁴⁷

interpretation)

"haAsuyah b'Har Sinai — like those that were done during the days of the consecration."

One sees indeed that the verse itself binds together the matter of "Olat Tamid" with that which "were done during the days of the consecration."

In what does this bond between them consist?

So the explanation is: It is true that every Jew,

from the aspect of the divine soul that is in him

(and particularly from the aspect of that his soul was at Mount Sinai⁴⁸),

he is always predisposed to hold to the service of "entirely for G-d"⁴⁹

— nevertheless,

from the aspect of the body and animal soul that conceal the soul,

he needs for this also to have an empowerment from Moses the faithful shepherd,

who arouses the power of self-nullification of the soul⁵⁰,

that even while finding itself in body and animal soul, it should constantly have the ability to completely nullify itself and give itself over to the Most High.

And this is the connection of "the continual burnt-offering" to "that which was made on Mount Sinai — like those that were made in the days of the consecration": the special quality of the "days of the consecration" is this,

that in them "Moses served",

and he,

Moses

(through his beginning to offer the burnt-offering in the days of the consecration),

opened the channel and gave the power to every Jew,

that the service of "burnt-offering" — entirely for G‑d — should be able to be for him <b>continual</b>.

12.

And this is also the explanation that "also on the eighth day of the consecration, which is the day of the establishment of the Tabernacle",

when the regular and fixed service began for all Jews,

Moses offered

(not only the continual offering,

but also)

all the offerings

(communal⁵¹)

— in order to draw down the power of self-nullification from the continual burnt-offering "burnt-offering",

also in the services that are connected with "existence"

(as above end of section 10).

But nevertheless the verse says the matter of "service of Moshe" regarding the daily offering specifically — from this one learns this also regarding the other services — because that which one must arrive at the bestowal of power of Moshe Rabbeinu regarding the other services,

it is primarily

(not from the aspect of their unique matter,

for on the contrary: the matter of the other services consists indeed in that a Jew has to do with "existence",

but)

in order that they should be permeated with the matter of "olah" and "minchah" — minchat nesachim⁵²

which are "entirely for Hashem".

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Vayikra 5726 and 5727)