Eighth [day] of the installation. Since it is written at the end of Parshas Tzav: “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night... Aharon and his sons fulfilled...” after which it is written: “And it was on the eighth day,” it surely refers to what came precedes it, those seven days, for we expound the juxtaposition [of the verses]. Furthermore, we can say that Scripture comes to elucidate and not to be unclear. Why, then, does it not specify which day it was? Rather, it must have been the eighth day (Rosh Chodesh Nison) of the installation, and it does not need to specify since it was juxtaposed to that verse.

That very day. Rashi is answering the question: The verse comes to tell us when this happened, when it says: “And it was on the eighth day,” but we still do not know in which month the eighth day of installation was, or the date of the month. Because of this Rashi explains that it was Rosh Chodesh Nison. And Rashi means to say: The verse does not need to tell us that, for surely it was Rosh Chodesh Nison, because the Mishkon was erected on that very day, as it clearly says in Parshas Pekudei (Shemos 40:2). Since we have found that there was holiness on Rosh Chodesh Nison, then this [the eighth day of installation] was surely on Rosh Chodesh Nison as well, for we should assume that holiness occurs on a holy day. The verse relied on [this rationale], and it therefore did not specify the date. Additionally, Rashi is answering the question: How do we know the rationale to assume holiness occurs on a holy day — that [we should say] the verse relies on this logic? Therefore Rashi explains: And it took ten crowns which are taught in Seder Olom, i.e., we say in Seder Olam that this day took ten crowns. Why, though, did Hashem let it have all these virtues more than the other months? Perforce, it must be: This day was sanctified beforehand for the sake of the erection of the Mishkon, and we assume holiness occurs on a holy day.

Took ten. For this reason it uses the indicative ה, the special eighth day, because of the ten crowns that it took. And they are: 1) The first day of the act of Creation, 2) first of the [Roshei] Chodashim, 3) first day of the princes’ [sacrifices], 4) first day of kehunah, 5) first day of Temple service, 6) of the fire descending, 7) of eating the sacrifices, 8) for the prohibition of individual altars, 9) for the presence of the Shechinoh in Yisroel, 10) for blessing the people of Yisroel.

Entered and served. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he call the elders of Israel? We cannot say he wanted to speak to them so that they would tell the people of Israel to bring their offerings, because it is written afterwards (v. 3): “To Bnei Yisroel you [Aharon] shall speak, saying...” To the elders, however, Moshe said nothing! Therefore, Rashi explains: “To announce to them...” [You might ask:] Above, in the previous parshah, it is written (8:5): “Moshe said to the congregation, ‘This is the edict that Adonoy commanded,’” upon which Rashi explains: “You should not say that [it is] for my honor and for my brother’s honor [that] I do this.” If so, why does he need to announce to them a second time that it was by Divine command that Aharon entered to serve? The answer is: Here, Moshe came to let them know that it is by Divine command that Aharon entered to serve even as a kohein godol, which is a different service than the service of an ordinary kohein (Re’m). [Alternatively,] the answer is: There, it refers to what they did during the seven days of installation, but here it refers to what he did on the eighth day. This is why Moshe mentioned above: “[You should not say that it is] for my honor” and here he speaks on Aharon’s behalf alone (Nachalas Yaakov).

For the deed of the [Golden] Calf. You might ask: [There is a rule that] the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, as Rashi explains in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:22)! The answer is: That [rule] applies specifically regarding to the service performed inside [the Holy of Holies], such as the garments of kehunah û when the kohein godol entered the most innermost, he would not wear any garments that had gold, because “the prosecution, etc.” There was no concern about this [rule], though, regarding the service performed outside. [Alternatively:] We need not ask: Since Aharon sinned with regard to the [Golden] Calf, this raises the concern that the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, as Rashi explains in Parshas Chukas. [The answer is:] It is different there, because the Red Heifer was to atone for all of Israel. If Aharon was making the atonement [instead of Elozor his son, see Rashi (ibid.)], there would be reason to be concerned that the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, but here, where he was atoning only for himself, this rule is not applicable. Re’m writes: However, that which Rashi says: “to let know that Hashem forgave him by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf,” I do not know how it lets us know this. If it was because the honor of Hashem appeared to them by means of these offerings, which demonstrates that Hashem atoned by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf — then even without this calf we would also know that since the honor of Hashem appeared to them by means of Aharon’s bringing the offerings he has already achieved atonement for his sin... It appears to me that Rashi derives this from what it is written: “Take, for yourself, a young calf...” Why does it say, “for yourself”? It should only say, “Take a young calf...” as it is written regarding the people (v. 3): “Take a he-goat...” Rather, perforce, since it is written, “Take, for yourself, a young calf for a sin-offering,” it means that the taking should be ‘for you,’ i.e., for your good: “To let us know [that Hashem forgave]...” Alternatively: Rashi’s proof is from that which Aharon was commanded about this calf for a sin-offering. Normally, the sin-offering of an anointed kohein is a bullock, as it says in Parshas Vayikro (4:3). Why, then, did He command a calf for the sin-offering here? Rather, [it must be:] “To let know that Hashem forgave him by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf which he made.” [This is from] Toras Kohanim. [The Sages made this drashah] because otherwise, why did Aharon take a calf whereas Israel [took] a he-goat? Rather, Aharon brought a calf because he sinned with a calf, and Israel [brought] a he-goat because they sinned with a he-goat — in that they dipped the tunic in blood [after selling Yosef]. You might ask: If so, this poses a difficulty with regard to the burnt-offering as well: Why was Israel’s burnt-offering a calf, and Aharon’s burnt-offering a ram? The answer is: Since Aharon sinned with an action, in that he made the Golden Calf, therefore he brought a sin-offering that is appropriate for a sinful deed. Israel, on the other hand, sinned in thought, for they erred by following after the Golden Calf, brought a calf as a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering atones for [sinful] thought, as it is written (Yechezkel 20:32): “העולה על רוחכם” [the עולה is for what enters your mind]. This is because those who sinned [with the Golden Calf] by deed were [already] judged by Moshe with their appropriate judgment. Aharon, however, brought a burnt-offering, although he sinned with deed, because Aharon also sinned in thought, for in his mind he consented to make the Golden Calf (Gur Aryeh).

**To rest His Shechinoh...**As it is written (v. 24): “A fire came forth ... and consumed...” This is “on the work of your hands,” because this was [a demonstration of] extra affection in that the offerings were accepted. However, [the resting of His Shechinoh was] not [revealed] in that which it is written (v. 23): “and the glory of Adonoy appeared to the entire people.” This is because a number of times the glory of Hashem appeared when they were not commanded to bring offerings. Furthermore, sometimes the glory of Hashem appeared to them even for disaster (Nachalas Yaakov).

Aharon was ashamed. [Rashi knows this] because it is not written: “Moshe said to Aharon: ‘Perform [the services of] your sin-offering...’” Why did Moshe need to say: “Approach the altar”? Furthermore, it already said (v. 2): “And bring them before Adonoy.” Rather, “[It was because Aharon was ashamed], etc.”

**Kid.**Re’m writes: Rashi needs to explain that the people’s offering is the kid of goats, young calf, and lamb, to exclude the additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh that are also called “the people’s offering.” Because of these, he explains “your sin-offering and your burnt-offering...” as well. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to explain this? Obviously, it definitely refers to the previously mentioned matter. Furthermore, Rashi explains, “wherever it states [עגל (a calf), it refers to a yearling] ...” raises a difficulty: Why did he not explain this previously in verse (3) where it mentions “calf”? Re’m, too, points this out. There is another difficulty: We should also derive כבש (lamb) from here; why did Rashi not say: “wherever it states עגל או כבש (a calf or a lamb)”? The answer is: I might have an erroneous assumption from the fact the verse uses a different expression, for with regard to Aharon it is written, “your sin-offering and your burnt-offering,” in a specific fashion, whereas regarding the people it is written, “the people’s offering,” in a general fashion, without specifying “their sin-offerings and their burntofferings.” Thus, it certainly [appears as though it] does not refer to the offerings mentioned previously. For this reason Rashi needs to explain that despite this, it does refer to the offerings mentioned previously. Rashi held the view that different expressions in the verse do not pose a difficulty at all. This is because regarding Aharon Scripture could not write the general term “your offerings,” since I would say it refers to the regular sin-offering brought by the kohein godol, which is a bullock, for instance, the bullock of the anointed kohein or the bullock of Yom Kippur. Therefore, it needs to specify “your sin-offering” — a young calf, etc. However, regarding the people there is no room for error, for their sin-offering was a kid goat, and also the regular communal sin-offering is a kid goat.

Wherever it states עגל**(a calf) it refers to a yearling**. Rashi needs to explain, so that you will not say since it is written regarding Aharon, “עגל בן בקר” and not just עגל, that it means to say an עגל בן בקר is the same as a bullock (פר), i.e., an עגל בן בקר is also three years old. [You might assume this] because the undesignated term עגל in the Torah refers to a two year old, except where it explicitly says “one year old.” Thus, as a matter of course, here, where it is written עגל בן בקר, it is three years old [(עגל = 2 years) + (בן בקר = 1) = 3]. If so, the aforementioned difficulty remains: Why does Scripture change the expression regarding Aharon, and does not write “your offerings” in an unspecified fashion? Because of this, Rashi explains: “Wherever it states עגל it refers to a yearling...” You can learn, as a matter of course, that where it written בן בקר it is two years old. For this reason, Scripture could not write without being specific regarding Aharon, “your offerings,” for one would err and say that עגל בן בקר is the same as a פר [three years old]. Rather, wherever it says פר it is three years old, עגל בן בקר is two years old, and עגל undesignated is one year old, even if it does not specify clearly that it is one year old. “And from here you learn [this rule].” I.e., since Scripture uses a different term regarding Aharon, etc. as I explained. With this, Re’m’s difficulties are resolved, for he posed the difficulty: Why did Rashi not write this on the verse (v. 3): “and a calf and a lamb, both one year old”? Why did he wait until now? Similarly, why did he not say: “Wherever it states עגל בן בקר it refers to a two year old,” for both are true in Rashi’s view? Also, [this answers] that which Re’m asks: How does he know there is a בניין אב (comparison)? Perhaps, wherever it does not specify, it is two years old, except where Scripture clearly states otherwise.

And all of them by Divine command. Rashi is answering the question: Usually, the sin-offering is eaten! Alternatively: Rashi is answering the question: Since this entire section is about the avodah of the sin-offering, until (v. 12): “He slaughtered the burnt-offering,” Scripture should have written (v. 10): “Just as Adonoy commanded Moshe” after verse (11): “And the flesh...” so that then it would refer to the entire section. Rashi answers: The burning of this sin-offering was not commanded to Moshe beforehand, only now, “for we do not find, etc. except this one and that of the installation.” For this reason, it was not written at the end [of the section] (Minchas Yehudah). [You might ask:] Above, in [the parallel verse in] Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:14): Rashi explains: “We find no other outside sin-offering burnt besides this one” [and he does not mention the one of installation]! The answer is: He does not mean only this one; rather, this one and all that resemble it. For that one is also termed “one of installation.” It was only that the one [outside sin-offering] of the seven days of installation was for the inauguration of the kehunah, for from that point the designation of kehunah took effect upon them, although they did not yet begin avodah until the eighth day of installation. The one of the eighth day of installation was for the inauguration of the avodah. Similarly, the second young bull of the Levites in Parshas Behaloscha (Bamidbar 8:8), where Rashi explains: “What does it mean by ‘a second’? It teaches that just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so is [this] sin-offering not eaten...” This was also a sin-offering of installation, for the Levites were inaugurated with it for the avodah of the Levites (Re’m).

**As his calf.**Rashi is answering the question: Since it refers to the sin-offering (חטאת), which is a feminine noun, it should use [the feminine adjective form] כראשונה (as the first one)! He answers: The expression ראשון refers to the עגל (calf) which is also masculine. Therefore, Rashi did not use the expression כחטאת שלו (as his sin-offering). Alternatively, we can say that Rashi is answering this question: The expression of ראשון (the first one) implies that it refers to what is written previously. However, previously it mentioned a burnt-offering. How then could it say he should treat the law of a sin-offering like a burnt-offering? Therefore he explains: As his calf, i.e., it does not refer to what was mentioned previously; rather, [it refers to] what was mentioned ‘preceding what was mentioned previously,’ which is a sin-offering, that is: his calf (Re’m).

In a freewill burnt-offering. Re’m writes: In Menachos (93b) and in Beitzah (20a): “The Tanna taught in front of Rabbi Yitzchok bar Abba: ‘He brought ... and he did it according to the rule’ — as the rule of the freewill burnt-offering. This teaches that the obligatory burnt-offering requires laying [of hands]...” We should not raise the difficulty: In Parshas Vayikro (1:4), Rashi explains on the verse: “the head of the burnt-offering” — [the word “burnt-offering” comes] to include an obligatory burnt-offering for laying [of hands]... If so, why do we need “according to the rule” to teach that the obligatory burnt-offering requires laying [of hands]? The answer is: The obligatory burnt-offering here is Aharon’s burnt offering that he brought on the eighth day, in which Scripture placed an obligation of the day on him. Above in Vayikro, Scripture comes to teach that an individual’s obligatory burnt-offering of generations requires laying [of hands]. Here, however, it speaks of the obligatory burnt-offering of [a specific] time, and one cannot derive the sacrifices of a specific time from sacrifices of generations. You might ask: How does Rashi know this [that it refers to the rule of freewill burnt-offering]? Perhaps it refers to the burnt-offering mentioned here, with regard to sprinkling the blood around the altar, with regard to cutting the limbs and washing the innards and the feet, as [we find concerning] the sin-offering (v. 15) which refers to the sin-offering mentioned here. The answer is: [Rashi knows this] from the fact that Scripture changes its language and writes regarding the sin-offering “as the first” but here [it writes] “according to the rule.” Perforce, we must say that “he did it according to the rule” means: as the customary rule of a burnt-offering. This must refer to the burnt-offering of Parshas Vayikro, where the customary rule of the burnt offering is detailed.

**Fistful.**Otherwise, why would this meal-offering be different from the meal-offering of generations in Parshas Vayikro, more so than the burnt-offering? Could it be that the burnt-offering of [the specific] time was the same as the voluntary burnt-offering of generations, and yet the meal-offering of [the specific] time would not be the same as the mealoffering of generations?

After the [daily] burnt-offering. Meaning: In addition to the burnt-offering of the morning, for if it meant: all these he did without the burnt-offering of the morning, Scripture should write this at the end of the section after he brought the peace-offerings, because he offered the peace-offerings without the burnt-offering of the morning as well. Or, Scripture should write this at the beginning of the offering, and then it would reflect on the entire section. Why was it written specifically here? It is all right if we explain that all these he did after the morning burntoffering [as Rashi explains], then it is understandable why it is written specifically here: It comes to teach that these offerings were brought after the morning burnt-offering. But, if it was written at the end, it would imply that the peace-offerings as well were specifically after the morning burntoffering. This, however, is not so, because we can say there was no order for the peace-offerings in terms of which of them came first. Re’m explains: If so, it should say, “aside from the burnt-offering of the month,” as it says regarding the additional offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and Holidays.

Covering the innards. Rashi rectifies [the verse’s language] in that “the covering,” although it is unspecified, is none other than the fat covering the innards. This is because we do not find anything else called “the covering” besides for the fat covering the innards.

To another kohein to burn them. Rashi is answering the question: In another place it is written (10:15): “The thigh that is the separated portion and the breast that is the wave-offering, on top of the fats of the fire offering,” implying that the thigh is on top and the fat below! In Parshas Tzav (7:30), Rashi explains this well.

May [He] bless you. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to mention, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up”? Since he mentioned Birkas Kohanim, surely it was, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up”! The answer is: So that you will not raise the difficulty: How does Rashi know at all that he blessed them with Birkas Kohanim? Perhaps it was another blessing, such as the blessing of Shlomo, as it says (Melachim I, 8:22): “And he spread forth his hand...” Therefore, Rashi mentioned, “May [He] bless you, May [He] cause [His Face] to shine, May [He] lift up,” i.e., why did Aharon bless them? Because they offered a sin-offering, burnt-offering, and peace-offerings, which are alluded to in these blessings. See Baal HaTurim [who explains the hints].

From the altar. And not that Aharon descended from the place of lifting his hands. According to this, the verse is reversed. Possibly, “he descended” can be explained: He had already descended. Examine what I wrote in Parshas Shemos on the verse (4:20): “And he returned to the land of Egypt and Moshe took the rod of Hashem in his hand.” Similarly, the Sages said in Toras Kohanim: “This verse’s text is distorted, and it should say: He descended after offering the sin-offering, the burnt-offering and the peace-offering, and Aharon raised his hands toward the people and he blessed them... [after he descended he raised his hands and blessed them].” The Sages in Megillah (18a) said the same (Nachalas Yaakov).

To teach him. You might ask: How could they postpone bringing the incense until after all these offerings? [The Rabbis] taught [in a Mishnah] (Yoma 31b): The incense of the morning was brought between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the limbs. Furthermore, what did Moshe have to teach Aharon? Could it be that during the entire seven days of installation Moshe did not burn the incense in order to teach him [just as he brought the offerings to teach him]? The answer is: Scripture did not allow them to enter inside the entrance [of the Tent of Meeting] at all during the entire seven days of installation, as it is written (8:35): “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night.” Since the incense is a service performed inside [the Tent of Meeting], Moshe could not teach Aharon during the seven days of installation, and he needed to teach him on the eighth day of the installation, after the Mishkon has already been erected and all the inner and outer services were permitted. Now, since the golden altar can be inaugurated only with the afternoon incense, as [the Rabbis] taught [in a Mishnah] (Menachos 49a), if so, the only purpose of the incense they burnt in the morning, before inaugurating the golden altar, was to teach Aharon so that he would know how to burn it in the afternoon. Because of this he was not concerned to burn it at the proper time, and he burnt it after bringing all the offerings (Re’m).

May it be [His] Will that [the Shechinoh] should rest. We should not say this was Birkas Kohanim, because Aharon had already blessed them. Furthermore, Moshe was a Levi; so how could he bless with the Birkas Kohanim?