On the day following Yom Kippur. [Rashi knows this] because it is written above, “When Moshe came down from Mount Sinai” (33:29), and that was on Yom Kippur. And this verse relates back to that event, because [when the Torah finishes the account of Moshe’s coming down, immediately] afterwards it is written, “Moshe assembled. . .” Thus we see it was the day following Yom Kippur. (Re”m) Furthermore, the assembly was mainly for donating toward the work of the mishkon so that the donated gold should atone for the gold given for the Calf. Therefore, we may assume it happened immediately after Moshe came down from the mountain, in order to atone right away for the incident of the Calf, and so that Hashem’s anger against Yisrael should be removed. See 31:18 [Rashi there]: [“On Yom Kippur, God reconciled Himself to Yisrael. The next day they began donating to the mishkon.”] You might ask: How did Moshe have time to assemble them and tell them to donate to the mishkon? The day after Yom Kippur he sat to judge the people all day, as it says: “On the following day Moshe sat to judge . . . from morning until evening” (18:13). And Rashi there explains, “It was the day following Yom Kippur,” and goes on to prove it. The answer is: Rashi there answers it himself by saying that “From morning until evening” [is not to be understood literally. Rather, it] is to teach us that “every judge who judges correctly and truthfully is . . . as if he were involved in Torah study the entire day. . .”

It ( ויקהל ) is in the causative form. . . Explanation: Rashi’s main proof is that it is vowelized וַיַּקְהֵל rather than וַיִּקְהַל . The pasach indicates the causative form, as in וַיַּסַּע משה את העם (15:22), and אשר המה מַלִינִים (Bamidbar 14:27), which are also in the causative form.

The correct version of this in Onkelos is: ואכניש . Re”m writes: “I do not understand what Rashi means by this.” Nachalas Yaakov writes: It seems to me that Rashi wrote this because he saw two versions of Onkelos. Therefore he proves that the correct version is [the causative form] ואכניש , not וכנש . Similarly in Bamidbar 16:19, וַיַקְהֵל עליהם קרח , Onkelos writes ואכניש . But in Bamidbar 20:10, וַיַּקְהִילוּ . . . אל פני הסלע , Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan both say וכנשו .

Saying . . . it does not supersede . . . Rashi is answering the question: Why are they admonished again here concerning Shabbos? They had already been admonished. You might ask: On the contrary, perhaps the admonition of Shabbos is repeated here to tell us that the work of the mishkon supercedes Shabbos, even though it is written [pertaining to Shabbos], “You must not do any work” (Shemos 20:9)? The answer is: The section of Shabbos is written before the section dealing with the work of the mishkon. And the section written first is surely the more important one, and supersedes the one written afterward. The proof is that otherwise, a question arises: why did Moshe change the order here? In parshas Ki Sisa, Hashem stated the admonition of Shabbos to Moshe after having stated the work of the mishkon. And that is why it is written there, “Still ( אך ), you must keep My Shabbos” (31:13). As Rashi explains there, “Every time the term אך or רק appears, it conveys limiting or excluding. And here, אך apparently excludes Shabbos from any work of the mishkon.” Thus, the question arises: why did Moshe not state this matter to Yisrael in the same way that Hashem had commanded him? Perforce, Moshe put [the section of Shabbos] first, in order to teach that the work of the mishkon does not supercede Shabbos.

Some of our Sages say: Kindling. . . Rashi is answering the question: Is kindling not already included in the prohibition, “You must not do any manner of work”?

“Went out” to be a לאו . I.e., it is not a principle category of labor, punishable by kareis and stoning, but merely a negative precept.

Others say it “went out” to separate. I.e., we would have thought that if someone did all thirty-nine types of labor within one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring only one sin offering. Therefore, it “went out” to separate: [just as kindling was singled out here, so should all the thirty-nine types of labor be singled out one from another, each requiring its own sin offering].

Me, to tell you. [Rashi knows this] because the verse seems to mean: This is the word which He has commanded to all of Israel to say ( לאמר ) to others. [Yet, it cannot mean this]. Therefore Rashi explains: He commanded me to tell you this in an assembly, as opposed to the other instructions which were not in an assembly.

Since it is his heart that inspires him. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did Scripture choose to write, “Generous of heart”? Rashi answers: “Since it is his heart that inspires him.”

The lower drapes . . . Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written, “The mishkon,” why was it necessary for Scripture to write, “Its tent and its cover”? Everything is included in “mishkon”!

Goat-hair drapes . . . [Rashi knows this] because we find that the goat-hair drapes are called אהל , as it says: “Make drapes of goats’ hair for an אהל over the mishkon” (26:7).

Rams’ skins and the tachash-skins . . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Make a covering for the tent out of red-dyed rams’ skins and. . . tachash-skins. . .” (26:14).

Paroches of the partition . . . Rashi is answering the question: Does פרוכת not mean a curtain hung at the entrance, while מסך means a covering spread out as a roof? Therefore Rashi explains that מסך means “partition.” And so it must be understood in several places in this section. The term מסך sometimes means “roofing,” and sometimes it means “partition,” as in: “You have protected ( סכת ) him” (Iyov 1:10), and: “Behold I will protect ( סך ) your road” (Hoshe’a 2:8).

Because it had a face . . . Rashi is answering the question: Any woman can bake bread. [Why did it say (v. 10), “All those who are wise in heart among you shall come and make”?] Thus Rashi explains, “I have explained. . . it had a face in two directions. . ..” Therefore it needs “wise in heart” [to bake it].

על הנשים means with the women . . . Rashi is answering the question: [Why were the donations accepted?] Only a small amount of tzedakah may be accepted from a [married] woman, [unless the husband approves]. Thus Rashi says that the men came with the women, [showing they approve]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Worn on the arm . . . ]Rashi knows this] because Onkelos translates חח as שירין . And so does he translate אצעדה in Bamidbar 31:50, and צמידים in Bereishis 24:These [latter two] are clearly ornaments worn on the arm.

Our Sages explained . . . Rashi is answering a question on his own explanation: Does this not imply that כומז is a noun referring to something [in the form] of one’s private parts? But, our language is called the Holy Tongue because it has no specific word for one’s private parts! Therefore Rashi brings our Sages’ explanation [that it is not a noun, but an abbreviation for “here is the place of lewdness”].

Or rams’ skins or tachash skins — they all brought. Some ask: Why does Rashi not list them as they are written — “Greenish-blue wool, dark red wool, crimson wool, fine linen, goats’ hair, red dyed rams’ skins”? [Rather, Rashi omits fine linen and goats’ hair.] It seems to me that Rashi may be explained by first asking another question on Rashi: Why does he [need to] explain that the verse means or this, or that? Why would we [otherwise] have thought that only someone who has all these items should bring, and someone who does not, should not bring [anything]? A poor person who has only one item would be excluded! Yet Scripture said (25:2), “From every man whose heart impels him to generosity shall you take My terumah-offering.” Perforce, [Rashi explains this] because throughout the work of the mishkon and the garments of the Kohein Gadol, we find that the three items of greenish-blue wool, dark red wool and crimson wool are always [mentioned together]. Similarly, the red dyed rams’ skins and the tachash skins together formed the cover of the tent, as Rashi explains in 26:14. Thus we might think that whoever has all these things, [i.e., the three wools, or the two skins,] should bring. But he who has only one, should not. This is because all three are needed for the work; nothing is made of one without the other. Whereas the garments of ordinary kohanim are made of fine linen alone, and so are the four garments of the Kohein Gadol used for the inner service of Yom Kippur and for some other services. Similarly, goats’ hair was used only for the drapes of goats’ hair, [never together with other materials]. Therefore it is obvious that one could bring fine linen or goats’ hair by itself, and Rashi does not [need to] mention it because this is obvious. Furthermore, it is written: “All the women whose hearts inspired them. . . spun the goats’ hair” (v. 26), implying that goats’ hair was brought by itself. And “fine linen” (end of v. 25) is juxtaposed [specially] to “goats’ hair.” Throughout Scripture, fine linen is mentioned at the beginning [of the items], but here, it is [mentioned at the end,] next to goats’ hair. This comes to teach that fine linen should be compared to goats’ hair, which is brought by itself. This is why Rashi did not need to explain that fine linen and goats’ hair may be brought by themselves, [and he therefore omitted them].

He was Miriam’s son. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah trace Betzalel back only as far as Chur? Alternatively, why does it not say, “Betzalel, son of Uri, of the tribe of Yehudah”? Rashi answers that Chur was the son of Miriam, who was a prophetess — and that is why Betzalel merited all this [honor].