The westernmost lamp. Gur Aryeh writes: Re’m asks: how does one reconcile the Rabbis’ exposition with the “Curtain of Testimony”? The curtain does not serve as a curtain for the westernmost lamp, which [according to the Rabbis] is called a testimony! The answer is as follows: The curtain is called the “Curtain of Testimony” since it was next to the ark that holds the Tablets of Testimony which are a testimony between the Holy One and Yisroel. However, the Rabbis are explaining why the Torah specifically writes the “Curtain of Testimony” here [where the Torah speaks of the menorah]. They explain that only through the westernmost lamp from which the kohein begins and where he ends, is it evident that the curtain is a “Curtain of Testimony.” The “Tablets of Testimony” alone are no proof to this testimony, since they do not demonstrate that the Divine Presence still dwells in the midst of Yisroel, as perhaps it no longer dwells in Yisroel. Thus, we need the westernmost lamp to demonstrate that the curtain is a “Curtain of Testimony” and that the Tablets are a testimony between the Holy One and Yisroel that the Divine Presence still dwells in the midst of Yisroel. [Alternatively], even if you say that the word “testimony” here refers to the westernmost lamp there is no difficulty, because the Torah says that the menorah should be next to the curtain as it says, “outside of the Curtain of Testimony,” from which Toras Kohanim derives that the menorah must be closer to the curtain than it is to the entrance. Therefore, since the menorah is at the curtain and close to the curtain, it is appropriate to call the curtain the “Curtain of Testimony” because they are together.

And with it he would end. I.e., when he began lighting the lamps in the evening, he would first light the westernmost lamp. And when he came to set up the lamps in the morning he would set them all up and the westernmost lamp would still be burning; he would take out the burning wicks out and set [them] up. However, this lamp he only set up in the evening and he would put into it the same amount of oil as the other lamps. So explains Rashi in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 22b).

Six loaves. The is an abbreviated verse and Rashi has to add the word “loaves” after the word “six,” in order to tell us what these six are. Rashi adds the word “one” to tell us that the six other loaves were on a second stack.

On the “purity.” The meaning of “purity” is the top. In Arabic the top is called tahor, with a weak טי"ת that is called dat in that language. Re’m.

Above the table. I.e., there were supports above the table upon which the loaves rested; they [i.e. the tubes that rested on the supports] separated between all the loaves as is explained in parshas Terumah, so that the upper loaves would not weigh down on the lower ones and break them. However, there was no [supporting] tube on the table, because the loaf at the bottom rested [directly] on the table

On each one of the two stacks. Explanation: This is derived from a gezeroh shovoh. It is written “stack” here, and it is written “stack” regarding the showbread. Just as [the word] “stack” stated by the showbread refers to two, so here also, [meaning] he put down two bowls of frankincense, i.e., he put frankincense next to each stack. The bowls were not placed on the bread but next to each stack, so that the bread should not break from the bowls’ weight. When the verse says “on (על) [each] stack” it means next to and close to the stack, similar to, “And spread the paroches (partition) over (על) the ark.”

He went out of his [everlasting] world. Because we derive lessons from juxtapositions. [Since] it is written above, “an everlasting statute” [and then it says], “[He] went out,” it hints that he went out of his [everlasting] world.

“Every Shabbos he shall arrange them.” Re’m writes: This indicates that the incident of the blasphemer occurred in the second year, because there was no showbread until after the Mishkonwas erected. Similarly, the arrangement of the tribes under flags [mentioned by Rashi in verse 10] only happened in the second year as it is written in parshas Bamidbar. But this is contradicted by Rashi who writes, “’They placed him [in the guardhouse],’ (by himself), and they did not place the wood-gatherer with him, etc.” But the wood-gatherer incident occurred in the first year as Rashi (Bamidbar 15:32) explains [on the verse], “(Bnei Yisroel were in the desert) and they found a man gathering wood.” “Scripture speaks disparagingly of the Israelites. They kept only the first Shabbos, and then this person came and desecrated the second, etc.” Thus, the incident of the blasphemer was also in the first year. Re’m answers: Even though there was no showbread until the second year, nonetheless, perhaps they had been commanded about it in the first year, and at the time of the command, that wicked person heard and immediately mocked. See there.

Whom Moshe killed. Because you might ask: Regarding Rashi’s above explanation that, “He entered Moshe’s court and went out guilty, [whereupon] he stood up and blasphemed,” how did this [blaspheming] result from that [his leaving guilty]. Therefore [Rashi explains that] it means as follows: When they told him that it is written “[according to] the signs of their fathers’ house,” he said to them, “Who was my father?” They said to him, “He was an Egyptian.” He said to them, “Which Egyptian?” They said to him, “The Egyptian that Moshe killed with the explicit Name.” He immediately stood up and blasphemed [the Name that killed his father].

He was converted. You might ask: In parshas Shemos Rashi explains on the verse, “And he saw that no man was there,” that no good man was destined to descend from him. The answer is: This is why Rashi writes “Destined to descend from him,” as this one was already born at that time. However, no good person would come from him afterwards. Regarding Rashi’s statement that he was converted, [you might ask that] when a non-Jew has relations with a Jewess the offspring is a kosher [Jew], so why did he have to convert? The Ramban answers that it was not that he required conversion, but that like all of Bnei Yisroel he underwent the circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of blood at the time the Torah was given. He chose not to follow his father’s ways, but went after his mother and attached himself to the Israelites. Tosfos answer that before the giving of the Torah, the status of offspring was determined by one’s father. When he was born they did not circumcise [or convert] him because he was an Egyptian, and when he grew up, he converted voluntarily.

Who protested. I.e., he would not allow him to pitch his tent there.

She alone. Re’m asks: In Parshas Shemos (2:11), Rashi explains, “She thought that he was her husband.” If so, she erred and [did] not [sin] voluntarily, so why does he call her wayward? It seems to me that she was not modest before men as Rashi explains, “She would chatter..., inquiring [about] everyone’s wellbeing.” Therefore, she stumbled into waywardness and suffered this mishap, just as we find with Dinah. (Nachalas Yaakov)

By himself.. [AfterwardsRashi] explains [that he was imprisoned by himself] because the woodgatherer was more wicked, since everyone knew that he was liable for the death penalty, whereas the blasphemer was less wicked, for they did not know whether or not he was liable for the death penalty. Therefore they were not imprisoned together. As the Gemara says that there were two cemeteries, one for those whom [Beis Din] stoned, and one for those whom they burnt [because stoning is punishment for a more serious sin]. Similarly, we do not imprison someone who is [considered] more wicked together with someone who is [considered] less wicked. (Nachalas Yaakov)

That one who gathered wood [on Shabbos] was [condemned] to death. This is a reason for the above, why he [Moshe] did not put them together. He [Rashi] explains that this was because they knew that this one was liable to death, but did not know whether the blasphemer was liable to death. Perhaps he was not liable to death and would suffer by thinking, that because they are sitting together [he too, must be liable to death].

The execution itself. You might ask: Since they knew that one who desecrates Shabbos is liable to death, why did they not punish him with strangling, since every unspecified death penalty in the Torah is by strangling? The answer is: They thought that one who desecrates Shabbos is like an idolater and an atheist; since he does not believe that the Holy One rested at Creation he does not believe that the Holy One created the world, and it is as if he believes in idolatry. And perhaps, just as idolatry is punished by stoning, so too one who desecrates Shabbos is punished by stoning, or perhaps [he is punished by] strangling. Therefore, they were in doubt. Many ask, why was there any doubt? If someone who curses a father or mother is liable to death, how much more so regarding the Divine Presence? You cannot answer that we do not derive punishment from a kal vachomer, because if so, it would be obvious that he was not liable for death since [the prohibition against blasphemy] was not explicitly [stated until now]. It seems that they were in doubt here because he had not been warned properly, and the Gemara rules in Sanhedrin that a person is not liable for any sin unless he was warned that he will be liable to death and also the type death he is liable for. This however, was a temporary injunction [valid only] for that particular time [to kill him without prior warning]. (Divrei Dovid)

For you caused [it] to yourself. Some explain [that the witnesses were saying], “We will not be punished [for testifying against you],” even though the witnesses have to testify [the actual blasphemy] they heard from the blasphemer. However, this is not implied in Rashi.

In the presence of the entire congregation. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse implies its plain meaning as taught in the Mishnah of Perek Nigmar Hadin (Sanhedrin 45a), “He is stoned by all Yisroel,” and the Mishnah there is speaking of all cases when people are liable to death? The answer is: There it is different because the Mishnah says, “One of the witnesses pushes him [so that he falls onto] his back [lit. loins] ... If he died through this, the obligation has been fulfilled. And if not, he is stoned by all Yisroel as it says, “The hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first to kill him, and the hand of the entire nation in the end” (Devarim 17:7). This [indicates that] we require the hand of the witnesses be first. But here it is written, “The entire congregation shall surely stone him,” implying that they should all stone him immediately, and thus the verses apparently contradict each other. Therefore, Rashi answers that although the witnesses’ hands are is certainly first, this should be [done] in the presence of the entire congregation so that it is as if the entire congregation stoned him, because a man’s agent is like the man himself. (Nachalas Yaakov)

We appraise [his worth] as a slave. Explanation: What he was worth without the maiming and what he is worth with it, and he pays the depreciation.

Who causes a wound to it. Because if not so, why should he pay for it [for merely smiting it]? What deficiency did he make in it that he should pay?

His father or his mother. Explanation: Because it is not written “soul,” it implies a blow that did not cause death. However, if the verse is speaking of someone else [i.e., other than his father or mother], is written (Shemos 21:12), “If one strikes a man and he [the victim] dies (he shall be put to death),” not only for a mere blow. Perforce, it is speaking of one who strikes his father or his mother.