Their purpose is to incite the evil inclination . . . You might ask: The כומז , which is in the shape of the woman’s private parts, is even more repulsive. [Yet, Moshe readily accepted the כומז .] Why did Moshe not find it repulsive? The answer is: About the כומז it is written that the women brought it together with bracelets, nose-rings and fingerrings. Then it was all melted down together by fire, and the כומז became nullified among them. Here, however, they did not bring any copper other than the mirrors. An alternative answer: The כומז is for nullifying the evil inclination. I.e., it [guards the private parts and] prevents from coming to lewdness. But the mirrors facilitate lewdness, so Moshe found them repulsive.

God said to him: Accept. Meaning: you should accept them.

Entice him ( ומשדלתו) with words. ומשדלתו means verbal seducement, for Onkelos translates (22:15) כי יפתה [as ארי ישדל .]

That is the intent of what is said: “By the mirrors of the צובאות ” . . . I.e., הצובאות comes from צבאות (hosts). במראות הצובאות conveys: with the mirrors from which very many hosts came.

Whose husband expressed jealousy and she nevertheless concealed herself . . . I.e., he who expresses jealousy to his wife then tests her with these cursing waters, as written in Bamidbar 5:17.

Onkelos also translates it this way: במחזית of the women . . . I.e., also Onkelos translates מראות to mean mirrors used by women for adorning themselves. For he translates והגליונים as מחזייתא , and והגליונים are surely mirrors used by women for adorning themselves.

To bring their contribution. Rashi means as follows: the word צבאו comes from צבא (host). I.e., people gathering together. And [this raises the question:] why did he gather them together? Thus Rashi explains: to bring their contribution to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

Like the measurements of the curtains of the courtyard. The word לעומת is ordinarily used for something that is “across from.” Yet, the curtains were not across from [the screen], but at its sides. Thus Rashi explains: “Like the measurements.” I.e., the screen should be the same size [as the curtains].

All the weights of the contributions of the mishkon . . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did the verse not say, “Andthese are the accounts. . .” thereby connecting it to the preceding? Rashi answers, in order that we should not mistakenly think this section refers specifically to the vessels of the mishkon which is the subject of the section that immediately precedes it. For then we would ask: Why does the Torah count and mention the weights [of the vessels, if they were just mentioned]? For this reason it is written, “These are the accounts,” without the connecting “and,” to convey that our section refers also to the weights of the contributions to the mishkon, not just to the vessels of the mishkon.

Taken as “collateral” by being destroyed twice . . . You might ask: Is there not only one משכן extra, to be interpreted, for one is needed for the simple meaning? The answer is: Scripture altered the wording, saying המשכן [and then simply] משכן , rather than writing either both with a ה or both without a ה . Perforce, the ה conveys “the” special משכן , i.e., the Eternal House, which is the Beis Hamikdosh. If this is so [that it is referring to the Beis Hamikdosh,] the question arises: why does Scripture refer to it as משכן ? Perforce, [as Rashi explains]: “This is an allusion. . .”

It bears witness for Yisrael . . . But the fact that God gave them the [second] tablets does not bear witness. [Rashi knows this] because God could have given them [the tablets] in order not to actively reject them [from Torah observance]. Although they sinned, they were like apostate Jews, who are still called Jews. For it is written (Yehoshua 7:11), “Yisrael has sinned” — [interpreted in Sanhedrin 44a to mean] although one has sinned, he is still called Yisrael. (Re”m) But it seems to me that [Re”m’sexplanation is incorrect.] Those who sinned in the presence of witnesses, after being warned, were killed by the Levites. If there were witnesses but no warning, they died in the plague. And if there were neither witnesses nor a warning, they were examined in the manner that a sotah is examined. Thus, whoever remained had not sinned. [Nevertheless, the tablets merely stated laws and obligations, whereas the mishkonwas an open testimony of God’s love.]

To carry, to disassemble, and to set it up . . . Rashi is answering the question: Is not the simple meaning of the verse that the work of the Levites was to make the accounts of the mishkon, i.e., to count the vessels of the mishkon? [But this cannot be, as the Levites were not involved at all with the construction of the mishkon.] Thus Rashi explains: “. . .To carry, to disassemble. . .”

The maneh associated with the Sanctuary was double. . . Rashi is answering the question: If the maneh was not double, and the kikar was only sixty maneh, and a maneh equals twenty-five selaim (shekalim), then there would be 201 kikar [of silver, yet the following verse says there was only half that amount]. This is because there were 301,775 whole shekalim. And 1,500 shekalim equal a kikar. This is because ten maneh equal 250 shekalim, and twenty maneh equal 500 shekalim. According to this reckoning, sixty maneh equal 1,500 shekalim. Thus, ten kikar would equal 15,000 shekalim, and one hundred kikar would equal 150,000 shekalim. So according to this reckoning there should be 201 kikar. Rashi answers that the maneh of the Sanctuary was double the weight of the common maneh. Therefore, 3,000 shekalim equal one kikar, and one hundred kikar equal 300,000 shekalim.

It counts as units all theshekalim . . . Explanation: if the maneh of the Sanctuary was double, it is understandable that 1,775 extra shekalim are counted as units, as they did not add up to a kikar. However, if we say the maneh was not double, then 1,500 shekalim equal a kikar. So why are 1,750 shekalim counted [as units that did not add up to a kikar]? The count should be 201 kikar, plus 275 shekalim that did not add up to a kikar. Thus we must conclude that the maneh was double. [It comes out that] this, too, is a proof that the maneh of the sanctuary was double, making the kikar [also] double.

This is the name of the weight . . . Rashi is answering the question: Does בקע not mean “splitting” throughout Scripture? But here, “splitting” does not fit as a meaning.

This was the count of the Israelites . . . Rashi is answering the question: Surely, the count was higher. When they were counted in seifer Bamidbar, there were 603,550 men. This was besides the Levites, who were not counted among the B’nei Yisrael. So regarding the donations to the *mishkon,*where Israelites and Levites gave, should there not be more? Therefore Rashi explains: “This was the count of the Israelites.” The beka per person was given only by the Israelites, [i.e., the non-Levites]. They had sinned by making the Calf, and they needed to give the donation for the mishkon in order to atone for it. But the Levites, who did not sin, did not need to give. Re”m offers a similar explanation.

Of the pillars with them . . . Rashi is answering the question: The verse seems to say that the caps of the hooks should be overlaid [with silver]! Why do they need this? The hooks were made completely of silver! [Rashi answers that the overlaying is for the pillars, not for the hooks.] Rashi adds the phrase, “With them,” to convey that the overlaying, the hooks and the bands — not just the hooks alone — were made with this [1,775 shekalim of] silver. Rashi’s proof is that no silver was collected in the community census other than the one hundred kikar from which the sockets were made, and the 1,775 [shekalim] were less than a kikar. [Thus, everything else must have been made from the 1,775 shekalim].