דבר…ואמרת. speak…and say! We need to understand why the Torah wrote both "speak" and "say!" Also, why did the Torah choose two different expressions when referring to how Moses was to communicate with Aaron? Midrash Tanchuma 8 and others on our verse query the reason why the instructions about lighting the candlestick are written here instead of where the construction of the candlesticks is described. The Midrash answers that when Aaron observed that the princes of all 12 tribes had offered inaugural offerings for the altar, all except the tribe of Levi, he became despondent over the fact that neither he nor his tribe had been allowed to participate in this inauguration. Thereupon G'd assured him that his share in the inauguration would be greater than that of the princes who had just concluded bringing their respective offerings. G'd told him that he, Aaron, would light the candlestick in the Sanctuary on a daily basis and would prepare the oil and wicks both mornings and evenings. Thus far the words of the Midrash. These words themselves beg for an explanation. In what way did G'd console Aaron about not having participated in the inaugration of the altar when He told him he could perform duties relating to the candlestick? How is the candlestick and its function related to the altar and its function? Besides, why didn't G'd put Aaron's mind at rest by referring to all the public offerings he would offer on the altar on an ongoing basis as opposed to the princes who performed a one-time inaugural offering? He could offer the daily תמידים, the additional offerings on the festivals, as well as the twice daily portion of incense which would be offered on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. He even performed the rites when the bulls of the princes were placed on the altar and their blood sprinkled thereon. So why did G'd choose the matter of the candlestick as the vehicle which would appease Aaron?

This matter can best be understood in connection with Menachot 88. The Talmud there discusses the cleaning of the lamps on the candlestick and the filling up of the bowls (lamps) with half a log of oil each. The Talmud describes the removal of the bowls (lights) with their wicks, the bowl being deposited on the floor before being cleaned with a sponge and filled with oil and new wicks being inserted. According to the view that these bowls (lamps) were not detachable, the priest had to bend the candlestick in order to perform the cleaning of these bowls and the wicks (compare Rashi on the same folio).

Had I been present when the scholars discussed if the lamps were fixtures that could not be detached from their respective arms of the candlestick, I would have proven that they were most certainly detachable. Firstly, there is the fact that although the Torah gives us details of all the various parts and decorations of the candlestick, it did not mention anything about the lamps being part of the "cast candlestick." Only the parts which formed part of the single chunk of gold were mentioned in the Torah. Had the lamps been part of that chunk, the Torah would have had to report it. Another proof that these lamps were removable can be gleaned from Numbers 4,9 where the Torah described how the candlestick was to be wrapped up prior to transportation. The Torah there specifies a number of separate components. 1) the candlestick of the light, 2) and its lamps, 3) and its tongs, 4) and its snuff-dishes, 5) and all the oil vessels thereof. This is a clear indication that just as the tongs were separate from the main shaft so the lamps were separate components. If the lamps had been an integral part of the shafts the Torah had no business to mention them separately as they could not have been packed separately.

In Chronicles II 4,20 where the candlesticks for Solomon's Temple are described we read: "and the candlesticks and their lamps." This means that the lamps are not included when one speaks of the candlesticks. Rashi comments as follows on that verse: "This is stated in order to disabuse the commentators of the belief that the lamps were part of the cast part of the candlestick. This is why the verse mentions the נרות, lamps, separately. Rashi continues at some length on the whole subject of the candlestick. At any rate, the plain meaning of the verse indicates that the lamps were detachable.

Let us now examine the answer G'd gave to Aaron according to the Midrash. G'd wanted Aaron to know that the task of taking the candlestick apart daily when he would clean the lamps and then reassemble them constituted a daily inaugural. In effect, Aaron put the candlestick together every single day. Every time he would light the candlestick would be like inaugurating the candlestick anew. According to the Midrash G'd told Aaron that he would light and clean the lamps evenings and mornings whereas in actual fact we find that he lit the lamps only in the evenings. We are told in Tamid 6,9 that the נר מערבי the lamp in the middle shaft of the candlestick, had to burn both night and day, i.e. it was cleaned only in the evening and immediately relit. [This is not actually spelled out there. Ed]. Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 24,2 comments as follows: "The words להעלות נר refer to the lighting of the נר תמיד, the eternal flame, the lamp which is to keep burning around the clock. In the event that it became extinguished, Aaron would clean it and rekindle it at once using the fire from the copper altar." Thus far Torat Kohanim. This means that the נר מערבי burned around the clock. At any rate, we see that Aaron inaugurated the candlestick daily whereas the princes performed only a single inauguration of the altar. The expression דבר introduced the commandment which was the necessary introduction to any commandment G'd conveyed to the people or to a specific person. The expression ואמרת describes that Moses should talk so softly when instructing Aaron that he would put his mind at ease concerning the inauguration service of the altar he had not been a part of. Moses did this by pointing out that Aaron's privileges were far greater than those of the princes. We could also interpret the word ואמרת as similar to the word והאמרת in Deut. 26,17, where it implies the spiritually elevated status of the people addressed.

According to the view that the lamps were an integral part of the candlestick, one must assume that the tubes which contained the oil were very narrow and that the whole candlestick had to be bent until it was almost horizontal in order to perform the daily cleaning of the lamps and the wicks. This too could be understood as a daily renewal, i.e. inaugural process.

בהעלותך את הנרות. "when you 'raise' the lamps," etc. Why did the Torah use the term "raise" when it could have used the normal term for lighting, i.e. בהדליקך? Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 15 as well as in the Sifri offer a variety of explanations about this, such as that the lamps were to be raised. Another problem with our verse is why G'd did not issue the instructions to kindle the candlestick on the first day when the first of the princes offered his offering, seeing that the kindling of the candlestick was part and parcel of the regular service in the Tabernacle? Moreover, the very commandment we have here has been recorded already in Exodus 25,37, i.e. והעלה את נרותיה והאיר על עבר פניה? "He who kindles its lamps will cause its light to shine towards its 'face' (centre)." Furthermore, why does the Torah speak about יאירו, they will cause it to give light, instead of תאיר, you shall cause it to give light? After all, the verse commenced in direct speech? When you compare the verse we quoted from Exodus you will find that the entire verse is in the third person, i.e. והעלה,…והאיר.

When you take into consideration our introduction to this subject from the Talmud in Menachot you will find that the wording makes perfect sense. The reason the verse commenced with the word בהעלותך is because seeing that the lamps were not an integral part of the candlestick G'd had to give a commandment that whenever the lamps would be removed for cleaning purposes this should be done in a prescribed sequence, i.e. in the order in which the lamps shone towards the centre shaft, the eternal light. The entire commandment was not an instruction to light the candlestick but to arrange its lights in a certain order. This explains why it would have been inappropriate to use the direct תאיר, "you shall let them give light."

This also explains why the Torah had to repeat what appeared at first glance to be a repetition of the instructions given in Exodus 25,37. Up until now Moses had performed these tasks during the seven days of the inauguration of the Tabernacle from the first to the seventh of Nissan. G'd was concerned that Aaron would think that it did not matter in which order the various lamps would be cleaned and filled with oil for the following day. In fact, Aaron would have reasoned that logic dictated that the various lamps be cleaned in a sequential order either from the left to the right, or from the right to the left and not as described in the Talmud that five lamps on one side were cleaned followed by two lamps on the other side. G'd had decided that this was the appropriate moment to instruct Aaron in these details and to impress on him that the correct order for this procedure was an essential part of the whole service. By not informing Aaron of these details when he was informed about other details of the sacrificial service, G'd wanted to demonstrate that He held Aaron in such high esteem that He had accorded him tasks that were more important than those performed by the princes.

אל מול פני המנורה, towards the front of the candlestick, etc. The reason for this line may be understood when we consider the Talmud Shabbat 22 where the words "outside the dividing curtain" are discussed. The Talmud asks if G'd needed the light of the candlestick? Was it not a fact that the Israelites marched through the desert for forty years receiving their light from G'd and not vice versa? The light of the candlestick therefore was merely testimony to the nations of the world that G'd's Presence resided amongst Israel. The Talmud goes on to ask "what kind of testimony was this?" Rav answered that the middle one of the lamps which did not receive any more oil than any of the other six lamps of the candlestick and which was used to kindle the other lamps nonetheless kept on burning even though all the other lamps went out in the morning. It was the last lamp to be cleaned and replaced on the following evening. Accordingly, the Torah gave instructions to light the lamps so that they faced the lamp in the middle to draw attention to the fact that everyone should point to the miraculous nature of that lamp in the centre called נר המערבי.

Tossaphot query why the Talmud speaks only of the 40 years the Israelites were in the desert when they enjoyed G'd's light. They say that all of mankind needs G'd's light at all times throughout the ages? They amend the text of the Talmud somewhat. Our author does not feel that Tossaphot's question was justified so that it needed to be answered. A look at the Talmud in Menachot 86 would take care of Tossaphot's question.

In view of the fact that the function of the candlestick was only to demonstrate the miracle of the נר המערבי burning longer than the lamps on either side, why did the Torah require a candlestick with seven lamps? Three lamps, one on either side of the נר המערבי would have sufficed! We may say that the other lamps were there for aesthetic reasons. It would not do to furnish the Tabernacle with a candlestick containing fewer than the accepted number of lamps.

If we were to use a symbolic approach we could see in the seven lamps a hint at the seventy nations, each lamp representing 10 nations. The idea would be that the miraculous nature of the lamp in the centre represents the Jewish nation; the other lamps all focus on the Jewish people, who in turn represent the concept of מערב, West, a concept familiar to students of kabbalah. The fact that all the other lamps burn out symbolises the eventual disappearance of all the other nations, only Israel surviving. The fact that the lamps burned only at night are a reminder of our exile, which is called לילה. The time of redemption is referred to by our prophets as בקר, morning, compare Isaiah 21,12. At that time the lights of the nations will go out only Israel's light remaining. When kindling the candlestick, the priest doing so should also think that its light should face the front of the candlestick, i.e. he should think of the needs of the Jewish people and that G'd should turn His face towards them.

ויעש כן אהרון, Aaron did so, etc. Why did the Torah have to write again אל מול פני המנורה, seeing this was already implied in the words: "Aaron did so?" The words: as G'd had commanded," are also superfluous as they are part of the line "Aaron did so." Perhaps we can explain this as follows: The words ויעש כן refer to the dismantling of the candlestick, i.e. the removal of its lamps. The Torah added the words כאשר צוה ה׳, to tell us that he cleaned the lamps so that the whole candlestick should be as new. This would justify what the Midrash had called the inaugural aspect of the cleaning of the candlestick. The reason the Torah adds the words אל מול פני המנורה is to tell us that Aaron kept to the sequence as he had been instructed, i.e. that the cleaning proceeded towards the centre lamp and not from right to left or from left to right. [Compare Yuma 33 for a full discussion of that procedure. Ed.] The reason the Torah wrote כאשר צוה, was to inform us that contrary to the fact that Aaron had received G'd's command during the daylight hours so that I might have expected him to carry it out during daylight hours, he did so at the time concerning which G'd commanded it, i.e. in the evening. Although we have said that the נר מערבי was lit by day, on occasion, this occurred rarely and always signified that Israel was out of favour, else that light would not have gone out prematurely. As long as Aaron was alive this never happened. The words also imply a compliment for Aaron. Whatever Aaron did he did not do in order to be viewed as distinguished but he did so purely in order to fulfil G'd's command.

וזה מעשה המנורה, And this is how the candlestick was made; The reason this verse is repeated here a third time after we have read it in Parshat Terumah as well as in Parshat Vayakhel, can be explained both according to those who hold that the lamps were detachable as well as according to the scholars who hold that the lamps were an integral part of the cast candlestick. We have explained that the word בהעלותך as distinct from בהדליקך meant that the candlestick had to be taken apart in order for the lamps to be prepared. This in turn might have led one to believe that the remainder of the candlestick did not have to be cast from one piece seeing the lamps were included in the description of the "candlestick." We could therefore have applied an exegetical method of דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא (compare Baraitha of Rabbi Yishmael, introduction to Sifra on Leviticus) according to which other parts of the candlestick would also qualify even if they were detachable. The fact that the verse specifically mentions the word מקשה, cast, would only have referred to the initial construction of the candlestick. Once it had been made according to G'd's instructions it would have been permissible to detach sections in a manner that allowed them to be re-assembled. The Torah had to repeat the manner in which the מנורה was to be made to ensure that we would not arrive at such a faulty conclusion. The repetition means that the candlestick was to remain exactly as it had been cast originally. The scholars who hold that the candlestick was cast including the lamps can accept this interpretation also.

קח את הלוים, "Take the Levites! etc." Rashi explains that the word "take!" means by means of words. Apparently Rashi means that Moses was to separate the Levites from the camps of the Israelites and make a separate camp for them seeing the Levites had to guard their ritual purity more than ordinary Israelites. The proof is to be found in the words וטהרת אותם, "and purify them!" Clearly what concerns the Torah at this point is the need for the Levites to maintain a state of ritual purity.

ואתנה את הלוים נתנים לאהרון ולבניו, "and I have given the Levites,-they are given to Aaron and his sons, etc;" why did the Torah repeat the word נתנים, "they are given?" This may be intended to obligate the recipient of a gift to accept that gift and not to refuse it. Although in matters of inter-personal relationships it is perfectly in order for a person to decline to accept a gift as long as it has not come into his possession (his hands) and he has thereby acquired it, in this instance the Torah obligates the priests to accept this gift although acceptance involves negative aspects. By accepting the new status of the Levites -even though they were subordinate to the priests- the kind of duties performed by the priests became forbidden to the priests on pain of death. This is the view of Sifri on Numbers 18,3. The wording there is: "both they and you will be subject to the death penalty; you when you interfere in matters allocated to them and they when they interfere in matters allocated to you." This contrasts somewhat with what Maimonides wrote in chapter 3 of Hilchot Kley Hamikdosh where he describes Levites who performed service in the Temple, i.e. the domain of the priests, as guilty of death at the hands of Heaven. However, he describes priests who perform tasks allocated to the Levites as guilty of transgressing only an ordinary negative commandment, and not guilty of death. At any rate, Maimonides also agrees that such a transgression on the part of the priests qualifies for some retribution. Considering this we could understand why the priests would decline the gift of the Levites. The Torah therefore had good reason to repeat the word נתנים to deny the priests the option to decline this gift.

מתוך בני ישראל, from among the children of Israel, etc. Our verse repeats the expression בני ישראל five times, apparently without reason. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 2,1 consider mention of that word an expression of G'd's fondness for the Jewish people. The five-fold mention corresponds to the five books of the Torah. This is all homiletics, of course. According to the plain meaning of the verse the number of times the children of Israel are mentioned appears absolutely justified. When the Torah writes מתוך בני ישראל, it refers to the Jewish people as long as these included the tribe of Levi on an equal footing. When it referred to the עבודת בני ישראל this is a reference to the firstborn of the Israelites who had performed the priestly functions up until then. The Levites had now taken over their functions. The Torah had to refer to these firstborns as בני ישראל instead of merely writing עבודתם, "their service," seeing it was no longer "their service." When our verse continues with the expression לכפר על בני ישראל, it refers to a description of the entire Jewish people. The reason the Torah did not choose the shorter לכפר עליהם is that this would have sounded as if it referred to the people mentioned or rather referred to last, i.e. the firstborn. When the Torah continues with ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף instead of ולא יהיה בהם נגף, it does so in order that we should not understand that the absence of such a plague is merely the result of the atonement mentioned previously. The Torah speaks of two separate benefits devolving on the Israelites as a result of the Levites performing their tasks. 1) There will be no mental illness due to sins perpetrated for which the Levites attain atonement. 2) There will be no physical plague which would result through the unauthorised entry of the Israelites into the sacred precincts of the Tabernacle. It makes eminent sense that this is what the Torah has in mind here as the message is not related to what had been discussed previously. When the Torah continues with בגשת בני ישראל, it means that even though only individuals might become guilty of violating these sacred precincts, the ramifications of the sin of these individuals would involve the whole people. G'd's anger would be vented at the people as a whole. We know from the uprising of Korach which involved only a few people, that Moses had to remonstrate with G'd when he noticed that G'd held the entire nation responsible (compare Numbers 16,21-22).

ויעש משה…וכל עדת בני ישראל..כן עשו להם בני ישראל. And Moses and Aaron and the whole congregation of Israel did….so the children of Israel did to them (the Levites). Why did the Torah have to repeat the line: "so they did?" Why did the Torah speak about the "whole community of the children of Israel" at the beginning of the verse, whereas at its conclusion it only speaks of "the children of Israel?" It appears that the line כן עשו בני ישראל is repeated as it is a reference to the firstborn who are being complimented for agreeing to their new status seeing they were the ones who lost many privileges due to this change. This is also the reason that at the end of the verse the Torah did not speak of "the whole community of Israel," since only the firstborn of the Israelites were meant.