Because he utterly dedicated. It appears that Rashi is answering the question: The notation above the words “Moshe finished” separate it from the words “erecting the Mishkon” meaning that “Moshe finished” is not to be read together with “erecting the Mishkon” and it is as if they are two separate topics. But what two topics could there be here? Rather one must say that the verse is to be explained as saying “It came to pass on the day that Moshe finished the making of the Mishkon and the erection of the Mishkon”. Thus Rashi asks “Betzalel and all the wise-hearted men…” He answers that “because he utterly dedicated himself…” With this one may answer the widely asked question: The verse merely attributes the erection of the Mishkon to Moshe, and he did this alone as is written previously in Parshas Pekudei (Shemos 39:33) Maharai explains that Rashi was answering the question: The Torah should have merely said “It came to pass, on the day Moshe erected the Mishkon. …

On the second the [red] cow was burned. Rashi wished to answer this so that you would not ask: Didn’t the Levites begin their service immediately after the erection of the Mishkon as is written shortly? How would they be permitted to do this, since they were impure due to contact with a corpse and could not be purified since the red cow has not yet been burned? One cannot say that the cow was burned before the erection of the Mishkon because concerning its sprinkling in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:4) the Torah writes “opposite the face of the tent” implying that the Mishkon has already been erected when it was slaughtered. He answers “on the second, the cow was burned…” thus it emerges that they were purified on the seventh.

And on the seventh they were shaven. This is the shaving mentioned in Parshas Beha’alosecha (Bamidbar 8:7) “and they shall pass a razor over their entire bodies…”

They were officers. Rashi is answering the question: What is the Torah teaching by saying that they were the leaders of the tribes? In response Rashi explains that they were officers over them in Egypt, and the verse is saying that they were the leaders who were appointed officers over them in Egypt. The taskmasters would beat the officers with clubs because they did not pressure Bnei Yisroel to fulfill their quota of bricks. [However this presents a difficulty:] Even those who stood by during the counting were not appointed until Iyar. The answer is that the Torah speaks about the future, when they would stand by during the counting on the first of Iyar. (Nachalas Yaakov) is puzzled: The officers who were beaten were only chosen for the Sanhedrin at the incident of the complainers in Parshas Beha’alosecha (11:16) where the Torah writes “gather seventy men for Me, from among the elders of Israel, men] whom you know to be the people’s elders and its officers.” Rashi explains that they are those “whom you know,” who were appointed as officers over them in Egypt during the hard labor. The incident of the complainers was on the twenty-second of Iyar and here it was Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Rather one must say that the greatness of becoming the Sanhedrin was more than the greatness of becoming the leaders. Therefore, here on Rosh Chodesh Nissan they merited to become leaders and on the twenty-second of Iyar at the time of the complainers they merited to become the Sanhedrin.

Because Moshe did not accept. Because if this were not so what would be meant by “before the Mishkon,” surely it had already written “They brought their offerings before Hashem” meaning before the Mishkon where His Glorious Presence rested. For this reason Rashi also explains that “before the altar” (v. 10) means that he did not accept it from them. Since it had already written “The leaders brought forward the [offerings for] the consecration of the altar,” why would I need it to add that they placed them before the altar?

Moshe did not accept [the gift] from their hands until… Because if this were not so, what would be meant by “before the altar” and “Hashem said to Moshe…” which comes afterwards (v. 11)? This implies that if Hashem had not said this to him he would not have accepted them. When Hashem said to him “one leader each day…” Even though we do not find that Moshe was uncertain about this, as Rashi explained only (v. 11) “whether in order of their birth…” Nevertheless Hashem Himself answered, without Moshe’s question, lest he err and say that all should bring their offerings on one day. Since all of them had brought forward their offerings together, and they were all zealous in performing the mitzvah, it would have been correct for them to be equal in bringing them, thus Hashem had to say “one leader each day”. Re’m writes that he was also uncertain whether they should all would bring their offerings on one day or each one on his individual day. Immediately Hashem answered him “one leader each day.” See his question and answer there. However, since it was not needed for the explanation I have been brief and not quoted it. Re’m writes that one might wonder how Moshe could have been uncertain as to the order of those offering, whether it was in order of their birth or in the order of the traveling. Surely the order of the traveling was not established until the first of Iyar, as is explained in Parshas Bamidbar (1:1). One answer is that from the time that Moshe was at Mount Sinai for the second set of forty days Hashem informed him that the firstborn were replaced by the Levites and the division of the banners and the order of the traveling of the camps. It appears to me Moshe knew the order of the traveling and the division of the banners from Yaakov, as Rashi explains in Parshas Bamidbar on the verse “each man at his own banner with the insignia…” (2:2) “by the sign their forefather [Yaakov] gave them …” It stands to reason that with the traveling it was also so, because there is no reason for the travels to be different from the banners.

But not that he solicited [payment]. Meaning that the meaning of the lamed in למטה יהודה (of the tribe of Yehudah) is not like the lamed of אמרי לי (say for me) (Bereishis 20:13), in which case it would have meant “for the tribe of Yehudah” — that he solicited payment from his tribe and brought it forward. Thus the meaning of למטה is like ממטה (from the tribe). (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Why did it write למטה? It should have written “the one that brought his offering on the first day [was] Nachshon the son of Aminadav, leader of Yehudah” as it writes for the other leaders. Then it would not have had to write that it was the offering of Nachshon. It appears that the answer is that the verse comes to say that this leader did not merit greatness — to offer first — because of who he was. All of the leaders were equivalent [in their personal qualities]. Rather it was because of his tribe, the tribe of Yehudah, who were fitting be first. Thus the Torah writes “of the tribe of Yehudah” meaning that he was secondary and his significance came to him by virtue of his tribe, the tribe of Yehudah who were the primary factor.

As a voluntary meal-offering. This is the first meal-offering mentioned in Vayikra, not the meal-offering of the libations. This is learned from the context. Just as “filled with incense” (v. 14) refers to a voluntary offering, so too “the fine flour” is also a voluntary offering.

The weight of ten. Rashi is answering the question: “Ten gold [shekolim]” implies that there were ten gold coins, and how could this be, because if it was a spoon it could not have been a gold coin.

We do not find. Meaning that we do not find any individual who brought incense upon either of the two altars. Furthermore incense is only burned upon the inner altar. Thus here there were two changes from the norm.

The best. Here the Torah does not mention any number that is greater than one such that it had to explicitly write the word “one” to distinguish this from the other number. Rather this came in order to expound. Another answer is that because the Torah deviated, writing “one bull, young” and did not write “a young bull, one” (as with the other animals in this verse) this certainly came in order to expound.

To atone for the grave of the abyss. Meaning of “the grave of the abyss” is when one did not realize about at all, as if it had been buried in the abyss where a person does not think that there may be a grave. It was still necessary for them to purify themselves from this “impurity” and from contact with a doubtful impurity. If they did not then they would not be permitted to come to the sanctuary or to the courtyard because their doubtful impurity that can be atoned for by way of the he-goat sin-offering must be atoned for. However a definite impurity would be overridden by a communal offering such as the Pesach-offering, this overrides impurity if most of the community are impure, as the Torah writes “in its time” — even in impurity. Re’em expands upon this, but I have been brief.

930 corresponding to the years. Rashi brings these allusions in order to relate to the simple understanding of the verses. For if this were not so, what is the relevance detailing these utensils by their number and weight, and similarly in detailing the animals teaching that all the leaders agreed to them, neither subtracting or adding? This is even though it is not the manner of Rashi to bring interpretations such as this (Re’m). (Gur Aryeh) Rashi brought these numerical values here upon the offerings of Nesanel the son of Tzu’ar because he gave this advice and if there had not been an important symbolism with wisdom and appropriate reasoning they would not have listened to him, also they would not have needed this advice. You might ask: How are the ages of Adam and Noach relevant here? The answer is that the Mishkon was representative of the creation of the world, as is brought in Shemos Rabbah, Parshas Pekudei. Therefore their offerings were related to all of the foundations of the world — Adam, Noach and the seventy nations, the Torah, the Ten Commandments and the fathers of the world upon whom the world stands.

On the third day, the leader was. Rashi is answering the question: “On the third day the leader was…” implies that on the third day he was the leader, but afterwards he was not the leader.

On the day [they were] anointed.(Kitzur Mizrochi) It appears to me that this is a copyist’s error and it should read “on the day אותו (it) was anointed,” this refers that which was written above “It came to pass on the day Moshe finished…” (v. 1). For we do not find a verse anywhere referring to the day that he anointed them, however we do find written “on the day they were anointed” (Vayikra 7:36) regarding the sons of Aharon. This is quoted here in Bamidbar Rabbah in relation to another matter and consequently the copyists erred and also wrote אותם (them) here.

These are the very ones. Rashi is answering the question: Why do I need it to count one spoon for each day since I know that the will total twelve?

By which shekel standard. Meaning that if not for this verse one would have said that the “holy shekel” written regarding the bowl referred to it alone. Therefore it wrote “one hundred thirty [shekolim was the weight of] each tray…”

Precision. Meaning that each one was precisely the weight of the other, even though the scales of an individual do not normally weigh exactly, however the Sanctuary vessels were exactly the same. It appears to me that the reason was to show that even though the thoughts of each leader were directed towards his tribe, as Rabbeinu Bachaye writes in this Parshah, the volumes and the weights were equal to show that they all intended them for the same God.

It was golden and it weighed. Meaning that I would not know whether the word “gold” written regarding the spoon refers to the spoon — which was golden, or whether it was actually silver and its weight was “of gold”, given that the shekolim of gold and those of silver were not equal. Therefore the Torah said “golden spoons”, juxtaposing the words “gold” and “spoon” to teach that the spoon was golden and that [the words] “ten gold” refers to the spoon. Re’m. You might ask: Why didn’t Rashi answer as he did previously, that the number was written because they were the exact same ones that were donated. For even without his answer one would have to say so, given that the Torah writes “bowls of silver, twelve” where this raises the difficulty: Why do I need the number? One must answer that they are the exact ones etc. Thus, we see that it is normal of the Torah to teach the same novelty for each and every utensil. It appears to me that Rashi was answering the question: Why did it write “golden” when it should have just written “twelve spoons”? Re’m answers that the number was written in order to tell one that they were the exact same ones that were donated, however since the word “gold” and “spoons” were juxtaposed we also learn like I explained above.