To raise up on it burning. . . [Rashi knows this] because it does not say מזבַח as it does with מזבַּח העולה (38:1). Consequently, מזבֵּחַ is not connected with מקטר קטרת . It can connect only if we add the word להעלות (to raise up), so that it conveys: “An altar which is in order to raise up on it burning incense.” This is as Rashi explains: “Burning — smoke of incense.”

Here it has the meaning of “corners”. . . Although everywhere else it means “side.”

Since the verse states: “on its sides” ( על שני צדיו ) . . . Therefore we may infer that צלעותיו does not mean “sides,” which is why Rashi does not explain צלעותיו the usual way. Rashi adds the phrase, “On its two corners which are at its two sides,” so we will not think that על שני צדיו comes to explain צלעותיו . I.e., [we should not think] שני צדיו and שתי צלעותיו are the same. Rashi also parenthetically explains that “on its sides” means “at its sides.” This is because the corners are at the sides, not on top of them.

The making of these rings. Rashi is saying that והיה refers to [the implied word] מעשה , which is missing from the verse. Otherwise, [if it refers to the rings themselves,] it should say והיו (plural).

The ring itself will be. . . [Rashi is saying:] it does not mean that the rings will be for houses and for poles. Rather, the rings will be houses, and the houses are for the poles.

Lest you say that it should be somewhat drawn away from being exactly opposite the Ark. . . Rashi is explaining why it is written, “In front of the covering,” after it already said, “In front of the paroches.” It is because the paroches traversed the whole width of the *mishkon.*Therefore we might think that the altar was in front of the paroches not right in the middle; the altar was rather drawn towards the northern or southern wall. Therefore Scripture adds, “In front of the covering. . .”

Every single day. He burns one pras. . . This means half a maneh in the morning and half a maneh in the evening, making a full maneh every day.

Upon this altar. But on the copper altar, you may bring it.

Neither burnt-offering nor meal-offering. . . Rashi is explaining that the לא at the beginning of the verse refers also to the burnt-offerings [and meal-offerings]. It means, “And neither burnt-offerings nor meal-offerings.”

For the uncleanness of the mikdosh and its holy things. I.e., the bull and goat of Yom Kippur atone for the following: 1. The kohein knows he is unclean and accidentally enters the mikdosh, thinking it is a regular building. 2. The kohein knows he is unclean and accidentally eats korbonos, thinking it is regular meat. 3. The kohein knows it is the mikdosh but is unaware of his uncleanness. 4. The kohein knows it is korbonos but is unaware of his uncleanness.

Exclusively for these things. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say here: “It is Holy of Holies”?

The meaning of “taking,” as Onkelos translates. . . כי תשא is like, “Do not accept ( תשא ) a false report” (Shemos 23:1). It does not mean “lift,” as in: “Pharaoh will lift off your head ( ישא את ראשך ) from you” (Bereishis 40:19). In Bamidbar 1:2, it says about B’nei Yisrael: שאו את ראש . [There, it indeed connotes, “Lift off their heads,”] because Hashem foresaw that He would decree against them: “In this desert they shall perish” (ibid 14:35). However, pertaining to the Levites it is written פקד את בני לוי (ibid 3:15), since they were not subjected to this decree.

Do not take a head count. . . Rashi is telling us not to think it means that after you take the sum total of their numbers, then, “Each man shall give an atonement pledge.” Therefore he explains, “When you will wish. . .” Rashi is saying: when you want to know their number, let each give a half-shekel. Then you will have the half-shekels, and thereby you will know their number. But do not take a head count of them. Rashi states it in the negative, “Do not take a head count.” He does not state it [only] in the positive — “When you will wish . . . let each give a half-shekel then count the shekalim and you will know their number” — even though it so appears in the verse. Rashi thereby tells us it is not a mitzvah to count them specifically by half-shekels, so as to make the sockets [of the mishkon from their silver]. Giving half-shekels is merely a means to keep the evil eye from them; they may be counted also by means of something else. Half-shekels are mentioned only because they can be used for the sockets, thus achieving two purposes. (Re”m)

Like the one which occurred in the days of David. In Shmuel II ch. 24, David counted the people without half-shekalim. He thought the half-shekalim were a one-time decree for making the sockets of the Tent of Meeting, rather than for all times to buy from them the korbonos. And he thought that “Thus there will be no plague among them” means [that donating shekalim saves] from plagues in general, along the lines of, “Charity saves from death” (Mishlei 10:2). You might ask: In Shmuel II 18:1-2, when David counted the people and sent a third [of the army] with Yoav, a third with Avishai ben Tzeruya, and a third with Itai Hagiti, why then was there not a plague? Perhaps the answer is: Only when all Yisrael are counted does it cause the evil eye.

The likeness of a coin made of fire. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written זה , implying that God hinted to Moshe [to look at] a certain object.

The weight of the shekel which I set aside for you. . . Rashi is answering the question: מחצית השקל בשקל הקודש seemingly implies they should bring a half-shekel, along with a whole shekel. But if so, Scripture should have written, “A shekel and a half”! Thus Rashi explains [that בשקל means]: “Based on the weight” of the sacred shekel.

It now clarifies for you. . . I.e., the shekel was mentioned before, in parshas Mishpatim, but there Scripture did not clarify for us how much it is. And “it now clarifies for you how much it is.”

For an אגורה of silver. . . אגורה , too, means מעה .

A whole shekel. . . Rashi is answering the question: First it is written מחצית השקל . Why then is it written עשרים גרה השקל , implying they should give a whole shekel? Rashi answers: “A whole shekel.” I.e., a whole one is twenty geirah, of which they give half, which is ten geirah.

One sixth was added. . . Rashi added this comment so we will not object: The verse says the shekel is twenty geirah, but really it should be twenty-four, for a whole shekel is four zuz, and a zuz is six מעה . Thus Rashi explains, “One sixth was added. . .”

Here it teaches you. . . [How does Rashi know this?] Because it is written מבן עשרים שנה , so why does it need to say also כל העובר על הפקודים ? Perforce, because “here it teaches you. . .” The term פקודים is used for the army, as in (Bamidbar 31:14), “Moshe was angry with the commanders ( פקודי ) of the army,” and as in (Shmuel I 13:15), “Shaul counted ( ויפקוד ) the people [of the army].” Thus, our verse uses the term הפקודים to tell us “that no one below twenty years of age goes into the army.” Accordingly, the passage means: “When you take the count of the B’nei Yisrael to go into the army for war, they shall be from twenty years and older.” You might ask: Why do we need to be taught here [by inference] that no one below twenty goes into the army? We were already taught this [expressly]: “From twenty years old and above, all those eligible for the army” (Bamidbar 1:3). The answer is: We might think Scripture was particular [about age] only regarding obligatory wars [such as the conquest of Eretz Yisrael], but not regarding optional wars [such as the conquest of surrounding lands]. Thus Scripture repeated it, [to teach that] for optional wars also, no one below twenty goes out to war.

So that you not be struck. . . But it does not mean to atone for your sins, like other atonements mentioned in the Torah. [Rashi knows this] because [otherwise,] why is the atonement connected to the counting?

When they began to contribute to the mishkon. . . Explanation: The mitzvah of “When you take the count” is general, for all time. [I.e., it teaches that a head count is always forbidden]. But it does not say to count them now. However, we see from “Donate it for the work of the Tent of Meeting,” which was for the sockets of the mishkon, that Moshe was specifically commanded to count them before the erection of the mishkon.

Whereas the ages of the people are calculated. . . Thus, they cannot become a year older until Rosh Hashanah. And even those born [shortly] before Rosh Hashanah become a year older with the arrival of Rosh Hashanah.

This refers back to the wash basin. Rashi is answering the question: How could they wash from the base? Thus he explains, “This refers back to the wash basin.”

He simultaneously washed his hands and feet. . . I.e., when they wash their hands, they must wash their feet with them. [Rashi knows this] because [the extra words] את come to add something. When it says את ידיהם ואת רגליהם , it conveys: “‘With’ their hands shall be their feet, and ‘with’ their feet shall be their hands,” i.e., both simultaneously.

The incense, morning and afternoon. . . Rashi [mentions burning the incense because he] holds that there is no death penalty for merely entering [the Tent of Meeting without washing,] if they do not perform service. And so it says in Zevachim 19b, that the words “for Divine service” in our verse refer [also] to “Entering the Tent of Meeting.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

In the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference. . . It seems that Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse not say, “And if they do not wash, they will die”? This is a stronger exhortation than saying, “They will not die.” Thus Rashi explains [that this indeed is the intent]: “But, if they do not wash, they will die, for in the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference.” Re”m explains: It is the way of Scripture to state the punishment that a person is liable for, not that which he is not liable for. This brought Rashi to explain, “In the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference, hence from the inference of the negative you may derive the positive.” Question: If so, is not the verse in effect saying, “If they do not wash, they will die”? Perhaps [the answer is:] Re”m indeed meant what I wrote above.

The outer. . . Rashi is answering the question: Since it is forbidden to enter the Tent of Meeting without washing, is it not obvious that one may not go to the [incense] altar? Therefore Rashi explains, “The outer altar.”

Half of what is brought shall be two hundred fifty. . . [Rashi knows] it is not half its measure, because then Scripture should simply write, “Five hundred,” [stating its full measure]. And since it is required to be brought twice, we may infer that it has tippings of the scale. But you cannot say that מחציתו refers back to the myrrh, conveying that the cinnamon is half the measure of the myrrh, i.e., two hundred and fifty. For if so, Scripture should simply write, “The fragrant cinnamon is two hundred and fifty,” without the word מחציתו . Perforce, מחציתו refers to the cinnamon [as Rashi explained].

For things cannot be weighed to their absolute exactness. . . Explanation: things cannot be weighed [on opposite arms of a scale] perfectly equally, without the scale tipping.

That contain no spices. They are only wood.

The amount of the total weight. I.e., we should not think that half the calamus is two hundred fifty, as it is with the cinnamon. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should write קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה ומחצה חמשים ומאתים . But now [that מחציתו is written only once, between cinnamon and calamus, it explains both the cinnamon and the calamus, as follows:] מחציתו as it relates to cinnamon refers to the cinnamon itself, [and conveys: “Half the cinnamon.” Thus] its whole measure is five hundred. But מחציתו as it relates to calamus refers back to what was mentioned above, [i.e., the cinnamon. Thus] it conveys: “The calamus is half the measure of the cinnamon,” as in total it is only two hundred and fifty.

To coat the roots this amount would be insufficient! סיפק אינו means “not enough”.

But they soaked them in water. . . שראום means “soaking.”

Skimmed the oil off the roots. I.e., they poured and skimmed the oil off the roots.

And the accent’s being on the first syllable indicates this. למעלה means at the beginning of the word.

It is the same as רֶקח or רֶגע . . . I.e., it is vocalized רֶ — unlike רוֹגע הים , which is a verb.

That one absorbs from the other. . . קופח means that one takes from the other.

Anointings were done in the form of the Greek chi. . . כ"י means a Greek chi, which looks like a Hebrew נ .

It is this anointing which sanctifies them. Thus the verse means, “Anoint them, and they thereby become sanctified” — not that they should be anointed and also sanctified. I.e., their sanctification is not a separate action. See the Minchas Yehudah who explains why Rashi did not explain this before, on: “All anointings were done in the form of the Greek chi.”

זה . The numerical value corresponds to the twelve logs. You might ask: Why does Rashi [explain the words of] the verse in reverse order? The answer is: [Rashi brings this explanation of זה ] as a contradiction to the teaching of our Sages, that “the entire שמן המשחה will be preserved for the time yet to come.” Assumedly, our Sages so interpreted because it is written זה לי לדורותיכם , not כזה , thus implying that the oil itself will be “to Me for all your generations.” But, [argues Rashi,] this does not prove the Sages’ teaching, because זה teaches that there were twelve logs. [Thus, the Sages were interpreting Midrashically.] An alternative answer: On the contrary, Rashi is bringing a proof to the teaching of our Sages. The verse is saying: “For all your generations” will the number be represented by [the numerical value] זה , namely twelve logs.

In proportion to the measure of a hin of oil. . . Explanation: Had Scripture written only ובמתכנתו , we would think that if he made it with the weight of these spices, he is liable even if he decreased or increased in proportion to a hin of oil. Therefore it is written also לא תעשו כמוהו , to say that if he decreased or increased [the weight of these spices] he is not liable.

From the one which Moshe blended. This was already prohibited in the previous verse. It is written again, “If he places from it upon an unauthorized person,” to teach that the punishment is kareis. It conveys: “He who pours it on any man shall be cut off from his people.” However, nowhere does Scripture forbid us to pour oil made according to its formula on the flesh of any man. [This is how Rashi knows it is only, “From the one which Moshe blended,”] since there can be no punishment unless Scripture forbids it.

The priesthood or kingdom. This refers to the Kohein Gadol. Even a regular kohein is considered an unauthorized person [pertaining to the use of the anointing oil]. And even the Kohein Gadol and the king themselves, after having been anointed, are considered unauthorized [pertaining to further use of the oil].

Including in our gatherings. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, galbanum should have been mentioned either at the beginning or at the end, but not [in the middle] among them.

They should be counted with us. In order that Hashem will see that even the sinners are repenting, and thus He will have mercy on us. (Gur Aryeh)

So as to add an amount equal to the above. . . You might ask: How does Rashi know it means to add an amount equal to the above? Perhaps סמים means to add two spices, like the first סמים means. The answer is: Rashi’s proof is that it is not written סמים סמים together, at the beginning or end. Rather, [the second סמים ] is written here in order to add an amount equal to the above.

Thoroughly blended shall it be. . . Rashi is answering the question: How does “Make it into. . .” apply to “pure and holy”? Something becomes pure and holy [not by what we do to it, but] by the absence of making impure and secular use of it. Thus Rashi explains: “Thoroughly blended shall it be, pure shall it be, and holy shall it be.” I.e., it shall be thoroughly blended by our making it so. But it shall be pure and holy on its own accord.

This refers to the daily incense burning. . . Rashi is explaining that it does not mean to place some of it before the Ark as a remembrance; rather, to burn it.

That I will set up to speak with you. . . Rashi is explaining: And why is it called “Tent of Meeting”? Because every meeting place and time that I will set to speak with you, will be only there.

You shall do it only for My Name. I.e., it does not mean literally [to make incense] for Adonoy, for it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I was hungry I would not tell you [to feed Me], for Mine is the world and its fullness.” Similarly with (25:2), “Have them take for Me a terumah-offering”; [it does not mean literally for Hashem]. Gur Aryeh writes that Rashi explains this here, rather than on: “This shall be sacred anointing oil to Me” (v. 31), because here the verses contradict each other. It is written: “It shall be holy of holies to you” (v. 36), and: “It shall be sacred to you” (v. 37). Yet it is written also: “For Adonoy” (v. 37). Therefore Rashi explained: “‘It shall be holy for you’. . . meaning: You shall do it only for My Name.”