May Hashem command… Rashi is answering the question: What connection does the passage of the constant burnt-offering have with the passage above, where it states “May Hashem, God of the spirits command”?

Before you command Me concerning My children, command My children concerning Me. As it is written, “May Hashem command…” (27:16). [This means first] command My children concerning Me, that they should serve Me [by teaching them the laws of My altar offerings].

This refers to the blood. As is written (Vayikra 1:5), “The sons of Aharon shall bring the blood” upon it.

This refers to the “emurin” parts. Meaning that והקטירם ["shall burn them"] refers to the emurin parts that are burned. There (Vayikra 3:16) it is written “bread” [referring to the emurin parts]. Thus we see that the emurin parts are referred to as “bread.”

They learned from here and instituted the ma’amados units. Meaning that it is written, “You shall be vigilant.” This implies that for the entire duration of the offering, in the morning and in the afternoon, all of Yisroel should stand over it. However, this is impossible because everyone has to concern himself with his own affairs to support himself. Therefore, they instituted [the ma’amados] and divided all of Yisroel into twenty-four groups, and similarly the Leviim and the Kohanim were divided into twenty-four groups. One of those twenty-four groups of Kohanim would serve, and similarly they instituted that one group of Leviim and Yisraelim would stand over the constant burnt-offering for one week. During the next week a different ma’amad [would take their place] and they would be considered as the emissaries of all of Yisroel, for the emissary of a person is considered like the person who sends him. The cycle would continue in this way, such that no one ma’amad served more than twice a year.

Every day… For surely it was offered twice daily, thus why was it necessary to say, “At its prescribed time”? Rather, it was so that it would not be withheld, even in a state of impurity. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not explain here that “at its prescribed time” means even in a state of impurity, as he explains concerning the Pesach offering (Bamidbar 9:2)? The answer is that there the Pesach offering came only once a year, thus the term “At its prescribed time” would imply even in a state of impurity. However here the constant burnt-offering was offered twice daily, thus “At its prescribed time” was only appropriate according to Rashi’s explanation. Re’m

This is an admonishment to the Beis Din. Meaning, an admonishment to Beis Din, that they should warn Yisroel regarding the constant burnt-offering. For if not so, why repeat, “Say to them”?

Like the plain interpretation. Meaning: Two each day; one in the morning and one in the evening.

That they should be slaughtered towards the sun. For if not so, why is it necessary to say “two each day”? Since it says, “You shall offer the one lamb in the morning” (v. 4) why did the Torah say, “Two each day”? Rather it means כנגד היום [lit. "opposite the day"] which means opposite the sun.

To the east of the rings. Meaning: [They should be slaughtered] near the rings which were in the east, in order to be opposite the sun so that no one would say that they were serving the sun. The rings mentioned here are the rings that Yochanan the Kohein Gadol established in the area of the courtyard used for slaughtering. They were inserted into the ground and the legs of the animals were fastened to them during the slaughter…

Here the commandment is for all the generations. (Kitzur Mizrochi) Ramban claims that this is not correct, for there it already stated, “A continual burned-offering for your generations.” Chizkuni answers that the minimum [meaning of the] number of “generations” is two and no more, therefore the verse where it is written “command” (v. 2) implies alacrity for now and for future generations is necessary.

The libation minchah. Meaning that this was the tenth of an eiphah of fine flour which comes with the offering, to the exclusion of the meal-offerings mentioned in Vayikra, which come on their own (Vayikra 2).

Like those which were done during the days of inauguration. Meaning that when the Torah wrote, העשויה בהר סיני [lit. "that was offered at Mount Sinai"] it implied that these had already been offered at Mount Sinai. So why then was it necessary to offer it here? Rashi answers that it was “like those…” meaning that he ‘amends’ the verse as if it had said כהעשויה ["as was done"] with a [letter] kaf indicating comparison.

Wine. Meaning [wine] but not other drinks, for in the passage dealing with the libations it is written “wine for a libation, one fourth of a hin” (Bamidbar 15:5).

They shall be poured on the altar. Although it is written, “In the Holy” alone without explaining where, it means upon the altar which is termed "holy," as is taught in Succah 49a.

But not one Shabbos burnt-offering… You might ask: Why concerning Yom Tov does Rashi also not write that we do not bring the burnt-offerings of one Yom Tov on another Yom Tov? The answer is that this does not have to be taught, for it is obviously forbidden, given that each Yom Tov has a distinct name. However, each Shabbos is the same as another Shabbos and one might have said that this was permitted, thus Rashi informs us that it is forbidden. (Gur Aryeh) One cannot say that this only comes to exclude the burnt-offerings of Shabbos from being offered on Yom Kippur, for example the emurin of Shabbos that were left over until Yom Kippur, teaching that they should not be offered. However one could make up for the burnt-offerings of one Shabbos on another Shabbos. For if so, it should have written עולת שבת בשבת [lit. "the burnt-offering of Shabbos on Shabbos"]. What is meant by בשבתו ["on its Shabbos"]? Hear from this that the verse is saying [it shall be brought] on its Shabbos and not on another.

Between the two constant-offerings. When it is written על עולת התמיד [lit. "upon the constant burnt-offering"] this implies [that it was offered] after the constant burnt-offering. However, since it did not write על עולת התמידים ["upon the constant burnt-offerings"] it implies that it was offered between the two constant-offerings. With this the difficulty of Re’m is answered. However according to Rashi’s comment, “Aside from the two constant burnt-offering lambs” which explains the word על as meaning “aside from” I do not know how one can derive from here that they may only be offered between the two constant-offerings.

Designated as such in the chapter of the libations. Meaning: Parshas Shelach Lecha (Bamidbar 15:9).

All the [musaf] goats… Meaning, why do they bring a he-goat on the New Moon as a sin-offering — for what sin [was it brought]?

The ritual defilement of the Sanctuary. Meaning: If one entered the Sanctuary in a state of impurity; “And its sacred objects,” meaning: If one brought an offering in a state of impurity.

Who was not cognizant either at the beginning or the end. Such as a proselyte who converted, or a baby who was kidnapped by gentiles.

The other goats are derived from this one. Meaning: One learns [this quality] of the festival musaf goat-offerings from the goat brought on the New Moon. For it is written, “And [one] goat,” with a [letter] vav denoting something in addition to the musaf of the New Moon. [This teaches that] just as the musaf of the New Moon atones for the defilement of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, so too the other goats. Those [goat-offerings] that do not have a [letter] vav [preceding them] are learned from those cases where the Torah did teach this law, since we learn the general case from the explicit.

This is also expounded aggadically… Even though the first explanation is also a Midrash. But, the meaning is as follows: It is expounded according to the aggadah, meaning with an aggadic explanation. For the first midrashic interpretation was according to the beraysos of Toras Kohanim which contain halachos and monetary laws.

This entire offering. (Gur Aryeh) Meaning: This does not refer to the goat at all, since there are no libations for a sin-offering. Rather, it refers to the [entire] offering.

“Its libation” does not [only] refer to the goat. Why would this be written concerning the goat and not the bulls, rams and sheep? Furthermore [Rashi comments:] “Its libation” does not refer to the goat, meaning that it only refers to the continuous burnt-offering mentioned previously, as if the Torah had said, “In addition to the continuous burnt-offering and its libation shall you make this offering.”

For example, to prevent a loss. (Gur Aryeh) Meaning: The Torah writes a prohibition concerning “work of consequence” in order for one to expound that on the intermediate days only work of consequence is permitted, [meaning work] that prevents a loss from happening. For if it had only written, “Any work,” then the authorization of allowing to do work that the Torah writes concerning the intermediate days would have also referred to “any work.” However now that the prohibition regarding work to prevent a loss from happening is written regarding the festival, we inevitably learn that the authorization of allowing to do work on the intermediate days is specifically for work to prevent a loss from happening, but not for other types of work. (Kitzur Mizrochi) explains that this was necessary to inform us that other types of work are prohibited on the festival; for one would have said that since work was permitted [on the festival] regarding the preparation of food, so too it was permitted [to do work] to prevent a loss from happening, [i.e.] where there would be a monetary loss if it were not performed on that day. Thus, we are informed that even in this case it is forbidden.

Which are the first of the wheat minchah- offerings. Though the omer allows all varieties of new crop, wheat, barley and other types of grain, this is concerning for food that is eaten. However, for offerings one would not be permitted to bring from the new crop until after the minchah of the two loaves which was brought from the wheat from the present year.

The Rabbis derive from this… Meaning: Above (v. 30) the Torah should have said, “One he-goat to make atonement for you, shall be without blemish for you.” However, it was juxtaposed to the libations to teach you that the libations too, should be without blemish.