It states concerning the inner [altar]: “square”. . . [This interpretation is made] because the word “square” in both places is [extra and is therefore] available for a gezeirah shavah. For it is written here, “Five amohs long, and five amohs wide,” so why does it also say, “Square”? This shows the word is available [for a gezeirah shavah]. And it is available there as well. For it is written (30:2), “It shall be one amoh long and one amoh wide,” so why does it also say, “Square”? This shows that it too is available [for a gezeirah shavah]. Since the word is available for a gezeirah shavah on both sides, it may be interpreted even contrary to the verse’s plain meaning.

The same as כל כליו . Rashi is saying that [despite the ל of לכל ,] the vessels themselves are to be of copper, not the items needed for the vessels. [Rashi knows this] because there is nothing other than them [i.e., the vessels themselves] mentioned here. The ל is superfluous; it is [written] for stylistic reasons.

Between the raised projections. . . Meaning: It was a little farther in [toward the altar’s center] than the four projections.

For its hollow was filled with earth. . . In order to offer sacrifices upon it.

From one pillar to the next. I.e., [the five amohs] include the width of the pillar, which was one amoh. You might ask: Since there were twenty pillars, and five amohs between pillars, does that not make [nineteen spaces, which is] only ninety-five amohs? But in the verse it is written one hundred amohs, so five amohs are missing! The answer is: The twenty southern pillars and the ten western pillars were set up so that the first western pillar was aligned with the southern pillars. Thus, the southern side actually had twenty-one pillars, with five amohs between each pillar, making one hundred amohs. And the same setup was on the northern side: the first eastern pillar was aligned with the northern pillars, so that the northern side actually had twenty-one pillars. However, since the corner pillars belonged to the setup of the pillars of the width and not to the length, therefore Scripture wrote [regarding the length]: “It shall have twenty pillars,” and not, “twenty-one pillars.” And so with the pillars of the [western] width: the first northern pillar was aligned with the pillars of the width, so that the width had eleven pillars and ten spaces. And so for all the sides. And [regarding the eastern side:] The enclosure’s entrance was from the fourth pillar to the eighth pillar. It was four pillars. From the first pillar to the fourth were the three pillars [of the flank], because the fourth pillar was part of the four pillars of the entrance. Thus the first flank had three spaces, totaling fifteen amohs. From the fourth pillar to the eighth were the four pillars of the entrance, with four spaces, and comprised the twenty amohs of the entrance. [It was just four pillars] because the eighth pillar was counted among the three pillars of the second flank. From the eighth pillar to the tenth were three pillars, with three spaces, and comprised the fifteen amohs of the second flank. Although three pillars make only two spaces, the tenth pillar did not belong to the pillars of the [southern] length. Thus, there was an extra space between the tenth pillar of the [eastern] width and the first pillar of the [southern] length. This resolves [the difficulties with] Rashi’s explanation. (Re”m) In fact, Rashi clearly explains this way (vs. 13-14). See there.

[I.e., the sockets] of the pillars. . . [Rashi is saying that the sockets belonged to the pillars,] not to the curtains. Otherwise, why is it written, “It shall have twenty pillars,” in the singular form, referring to the enclosure, and then say, “And they shall have twenty copper sockets,” in the plural form? Perforce, “they” refers to the just-mentioned pillars.

He made a kind of rod. . . I.e., he took a piece of wood and made it into a kind of rod whose length was six tefachim.

The courtyard on the eastern was a square of fifty by fifty amohs. . . Rashi is answering the question: “fifty by fifty amohs” implies that the courtyard was only fifty amohs long, [but Scripture says it was actually one hundred amohs long]? He answers: The eastern part of the courtyard, in front of the entrance, was a square area of fifty by fifty amohs.

Consequently there was a space of twenty amohs. . . You might ask: The mishkon’s interior was thirty by ten amohs, and the planks were an amoh thick. Does that not leave a space of only nineteen amohs behind the mishkon? Similarly, the [eastern part of the] of the mishkon’s courtyard would not be fifty amohs, but forty-nine. Similarly, the northern and southern sides would be only nineteen amohs. The answer is: The pillars of the courtyard were an amoh thick, which was the same thickness as the mishkon’s planks. And the courtyard’s curtains were not hung inside the pillars, but on the outside. Rashi made his calculations based on measuring from the curtains, not from the pillars.

E.g., מקבות. A sort of hammer.

A sort of copper נגר . A נגר is a sort of bar.

Without sediment . . . Rashi explains this, lest we ask: How can oil have no sediment? It says in Bava Metzia 40a: R. Yehudah says that even refined oil has one and a half logim of sediment per one hundred logim of oil. This shows there is no oil without sediment. Therefore Rashi explains: “As we have learned . . . ‘He lets it ripen. . .’”

He lets it ripen on top of the olive tree. . . Meaning: he picks the olives growing at the top of the tree, one from here and one from there, because these olives are well ripened and do not have sediment.

So that it would not contain sediment . . . When ground in a mill, it has sediment even if “he lets it ripen. . .”

He would put them into a mill and grind them . . . Because the more [oil] he extracts from the olives, the more it contains sediment. Therefore, the second oil is unfit because of its sediment.

But may be used for menachos . . . You might ask: How does Rashi know the second oil may be used for menachos? It is written: “And one-tenth of an eipha of fine flour, mixed with one-quarter of a hin of crushed olive oil” (29:40). Does this not imply that crushed is required [for menachos]? The answer is: Here it should not say, “[crushed] for lighting,” [if it is true that crushed is required in other cases as well]. Perforce, “[crushed] for lighting” is written here to exclude another case: i.e., the oil must be crushed for lighting, but not for menachos. Thus we learn that the second oil may be used for menachos. You might object: Why does it say “crushed” regarding menachos, [if the second oil may be used]? The answer is: Otherwise, we might think that only the [tastier] second oil may be used for menachos, and not the first oil. Therefore it is written “crushed” regarding menachos, to teach that the first oil may also be used. You might object: If so, why does it say here, “crushed for lighting”? Had Scripture omitted this, we still would know [that “crushed” is required for lighting, and not for menachos]. For it is written “crushed” concerning menachos only to teach that crushed, too, may be used for menachos. [We would so understand it] because if [the “crushed” of menachos meant that] only crushed oil may be used for them, but not the second oil, it would not say “crushed” at all for menachos. Then, we would learn from the [“crushed” of the] lighting oil and apply it to menachos: only the crushed oil may be used, not the second oil. [Since it says “crushed” for menachos, perforce it teaches that crushed, too, may be used for them, although it is not as tasty. If so, why does it say, “crushed for lighting”?] The answer is: If “crushed” was not written at all that it may be used for menachos, we would not learn it (that crushed may be used) from the oil of lighting. This is because the two cannot be compared: the oil of lighting is different because it is needed for illumination. Since a wick draws crushed oil better, crushed oil is required [so the lamp will not go out]. But for menachos, [we might think that] only the second oil may be used, since it is sweeter [i.e., tastier]. Therefore, the “crushed” of menachos comes to teach that even crushed oil may be used for them. Accordingly, it says here, “crushed for lighting,” to exclude [menachos from the requirement of crushed oil, since we might think that only the purer crushed oil may be used for them. It teaches] that for menachos, the second oil may also be used. When Rashi says כתית למאור ולא כתית למנחות , [this does not mean that crushed is unfit for menachos]. It means that crushed is not required for menachos; even ground oil may be used.

He must kindle it until it. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written להדליק ? [He answers:] It is written להעלות to teach that the kohein should not leave the lamp as soon as it is ignited, while the flame has not yet ascended. [Rather, “He must kindle it until the flame ascends.”]

Each and every night may be referred as תמיד . . . Rashi is saying that even though it does not burn during the day, only from nightfall until day, it is still called תמיד . For we see there are other things that are not continuous and unending, yet they are called תמיד , as Rashi proves. So it is with the “flat-pan mincha,” about which it is written תמיד , although it is only from day to day, and is divided even during the day itself: “Half was done in the morning and half in the evening” (Vayikra 6:13). Nonetheless, it is called תמיד because it is ongoing without end.

But the תמיד that is said of the show-bread. Rashi is saying that the term תמיד that is stated by the show-bread, etc., is no proof that the term תמיד can be applied to something that is without end but with breaks. [We might think it is a proof] because the old bread is removed and then the new bread is arranged on the table. [But, this is no proof] because the bread lay on the table continuously from Shabbos to Shabbos. There was no break even when the bread was removed to put the new bread in its place. For as the kohanim pulled off [the old bread], other kohanim placed [the new bread]; both breads being separated by less than a tefach.

Put into it the amount necessary for it to burn. . . Rashi is answering the question: The verse seems to say that the amount required for arranging the lamp is from evening to morning, i.e., Aharon should arrange the lamps all night long. If so, when does he kindle them? Therefore Rashi explains: “Put into it the amount necessary for it to burn,” i.e., Aharon should arrange the lamps so they will burn from evening to morning — not that he should arrange them from evening to morning. There can be no fixed amount [of oil] because it depends on the wicks. If they are thick, even a whole log will not suffice. [So how did the Sages estimate that the amount of oil is a half a log?] The answer is: Each lamp had a holder for the wick, and the holder allowed only wicks of a certain thickness. (Re”m)