Because the flame rises. Rashi is answering the question: How is the term “When you cause to rise” appropriate for lamps such that Scripture writes בהעלותך (when you cause to rise) instead of בהדלקתך (when you light)? He answers that it is because the flame rises, meaning that this was why the terminology of ‘rising’ is appropriate. Rashi also answers another question: Nonetheless the Torah should have written “when you light,” so why does it write “when you cause to rise”? It is certain that the term “when you cause to rise” may also be appropriate regarding lamps, as Rashi explains “because the flame rises,” however the term “when you light” is more correct. He answers that it is written “when you cause to rise” in order to teach that “he is required to ignite…” However [one may ask another question:] in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 27:20) regarding the lighting of the continual flame, Rashi only answers why it is written “to cause to rise” rather than “light.” He says that he is required to ignite [the lamp] until the flame rises by itself. The answer is that there it is written להעלות “to cause to rise” in the command form, therefore Rashi explains why the command was given with the term “to cause to rise” rather than the term “to light” which is a clearer command. He answers that because “he is required to ignite…” which is a component of the command, therefore it is written “to cause to rise.” See Re’m. Parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:2) is the real source of this command, as Rashi explains there. The question is why did Rashi did explain anything there? The answer is that he relies upon his explanation in Parshas Tetzaveh about the term “to cause to rise” which was in the command form, as explained. Re’m explains similarly that a commentator will sometimes explain all matters that relate to a term, sometimes he will explain some of them and sometimes he will rely upon what he explained elsewhere. Therefore Rashi gave no explanation in Parshas Emor, even though the term “to cause the continual flame to rise” is written there.

That there was a platform. Even though we [already] learned from here that he had to ignite until the flame rises by itself, one may explain that the main source for expounding this is from the verse in Parshas Tetzaveh concerning the lighting of the continual flame, and here Rashi mentions it in passing. Another answer is that if it only came to teach that the flame should rise by itself, Scripture should have written “to cause to rise” and not “when you cause to rise.” And if it came only to teach about the platform then it should have written “when you rise up.” Rather the Torah writes “when you cause to rise” to expound both points. Re’m explains that the implicit meaning of this teaching (about the platform) and the one that the flame should rise by itself are evenly balanced; therefore [since neither is more implicit than the other] we are able to learn both.

Upon which the kohein stood. You might ask: Surely a man is four amos high, corresponding to twenty-four tefachim, while the height of the menorah was only eighteen tefachim, as Rashi explains in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:35). If so, why does he need a platform? The answer is that the tefachim of the Temple were ‘extended,’ such that the eighteen tefachim of the menorah were equal to twenty-four regular tefachim, i.e. equal to the height of a man. If one comes to clean the lamps he needs to see inside the lamps in order to clean them, therefore he needed a platform. (Divrei Dovid) Were all the kohanim of equal height? Surely it is possible that a kohein has a slightly shorter stature. Thus there needs to be a platform there so that every kohein can comfortably perform the service of the menorah.

Their wicks. Meaning that since it is written “shall the seven lamps cast light,” one is forced to say that it refers to the wicks, since they cast light. For if it refers to the lamps, the cups (containing the oil), it should have said “toward the face of the menorah shall the seven lamps tilt.” You might ask: The verse writes “toward the face of the menorah” meaning that all seven lamps should cast light towards the lamp of the middle branch, but Rashi explains that only six cast light towards the middle lamp. The answer is that Rashi is answering a different question: “Shall the seven lights cast light” implies that all of them cast light before the middle branch, i.e. above it, which is termed the ‘face of the menorah.’ However this is not possible. Granted that the lamp on the middle branch casts light above it, however the six other lamps only illuminate the area above their own branches. Such is the manner of all lamps, which cast light upon themselves. He answers that the six other lamps that were on the six branches also cast light towards the middle branch. Because of the six lamps that were on the six branches, the three eastern ones turned towards the middle … meaning that the ends of the wicks were bent towards the middle branch, and the same with the western ones. Thus “the seven lamps cast light” means that in this fashion the seven lamps cast light towards the middle branch. Re’m expands upon this. (See Responsa of Rivash siman 400). (Gur Aryeh) raises a difficulty: If this is so, the Torah should have said “the six lamps cast light” because only six cast light toward the menorah. Some explain that the verse is to be understood as follows: “When you light the lamps, towards the face of the menorah” meaning that when you light them the lamps should be towards the menorah — six should face toward the middle. But “the seven lamps shall cast light” is a separate phrase meaning that in this fashion the seven lamps should cast light.

To indicate his virtue. For if not so, why is it necessary to write “Aharon did so”? Would one think that he did not do what Hashem commanded him through Moshe? Even though we would know on our own that he fulfilled Hashem’s command, nonetheless, it is great matter and therefore the Torah attests to his righteousness, as it does in similar cases. One may inquire: why does it repeat “towards the face of the menorah he lit”? It appears that Rashi explains (v. 2) [that the lamps were directed] “towards the middle” so that one not say that He requires the light. Rather it is in order to elevate you above the nations, as the Midrash says “all the time that the lamps are lit, you will rule over the nations.” Even though the Rabbis say that Yisroel only received the Torah in order that no nation would rule over them, as it is stated “חרות (engraved) on the Tablets” (Shemos 32:16) do not read חרות (engraved) rather חירות (free). If so, why was the menorah needed? The answer is: Due to the severity of the sin of the golden calf which Aharon made, the nations would rule, as the Torah states “I had said, ‘You are godlike beings…’” (Tehillim 82:6). This was Aharon’s virtue, that he did not deviate from lighting opposite [the face of the menorah], even though doing so recalled his sin, which made the menorah necessary. R. Yaakov Triosh.

Since he had difficulty with it. Meaning that the word “this” refers to the instruction, but the actual [making the menorah] was only at the time when Betzalel made it. Initially Moshe had difficulty with it until Hashem showed him by pointing with the finger. He again had difficulty until Hashem said to Moshe “take a kikar…” see above in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:31).

Lump. Lump is a term meaning “piece.”

Shears. [Like] scissors.

The menorah proper. Rashi is resolving the apparent contradiction: Here it implies that it was only beaten from its base until its flowers, while in Parshas Terumah (ibid.) it is written that it was entirely beaten out.

Delicate work. Meaning that from its largest point until the thinnest it was all one piece. Thus the word עד (lit. until) is used in the sense of “between.” Rashi makes a similar explanation in Parshas Bo (Shemos 11:5) referring to the verse “from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on the throne…”

According to the form. Rashi is answering the question: “According to the vision” implies the sense of an appearance which denotes color, but it is not correct to say that Hashem showed him the color of the menorah. Alternatively “according to the vision” refers to a vision of prophesy, meaning that just as he saw in the prophetic vision of fire, they too should make a menorah of fire. However, this cannot be so because he did not make it of fire. Therefore Rashi explains “according to the form” meaning that “according to the vision” is understood as “according to the form,” as we see written elsewhere, “Observe and make them according to the form” (Shemos 25:40). The “form” was described in terms of a “vision” because by seeing [the vision] he learned its form.

The one who made it. Meaning the one who made all of the utensils; this was Betzalel.

It was made spontaneously. This is explained in Parshas Terumah. This Midrash disagrees with the first explanation.

Take them with words of persuasion. [The Torah] does not mean to physically “take” them, in the sense of an acquisition and the bringing of something into one's domain. The Levites were not acquired and they were not brought into his domain. See Parshas Lech Lecha (16:3) Bereishis on the verse “Sorai, wife of Avrom, took.”

For some of them were defiled by contact with the dead. Not by other forms of impurity, because other forms of impurity do not require sprinkling.

Who practiced idolatry. (Minchah Blulah) Even though others who practice idolatry are not required to shave, these were different because they served the golden calf and were afflicted with leprosy. As the Rabbis expounded the verse “for it is פרוע (revealed), for Aharon has פרעה (revealed) it” (Shemos 32:25) where they learn a gezeirah shavah to the leper — where the Torah writes “his head shall be פרוע (unshorn)” (Vayikra 13:45).

What does the Torah teach [by specifying] ‘a second’? Though it is written “and the second sheep…” (Bamidbar 28:4) regarding the Tamid offering, this was because it is [also] written “the first sheep.” However here it is not written “the first,” therefore the terminology of “a second” is not appropriate.

That it was a temporary ruling. Meaning that when Rashi explains “so the sin-offering was not eaten” even though other sin-offerings are eaten, this was a temporary ruling. And you should know that it was a temporary ruling, because they should have brought a goat as a sin-offering for idolatry along with the bullock burnt-offering, as is normal when the congregation performs idolatry. Why then did they bring a bullock for the sin-offering — it must have been a temporary ruling, therefore regarding this matter (eating the offering) it was also a temporary ruling. However even without this, we could still say that it was a temporary ruling. For external sin-offerings (those offered outside the Sanctuary) are eaten, but this one for the inauguration of the Levites, who were installed through it, was burned. One should not say that this sin-offering was offered inside the Sanctuary, given that it was burned and then say that “just as a burnt-offering is burned so too the sin-offering was burned,” that it is offered inside. R’em.

And stand near. Even though the Levites were only an atonement-offering for the firstborn, as explained above, nonetheless, since the firstborn were part of the congregation of Yisroel, they were termed the entire congregation of Yisroel as if they were all of Yisroel.

Requires waving. A leper is termed “dead” as it says at the end of the Parshah “please, let her not be like the dead” (12:12) and the Levites were as an atonement for the firstborn who worshiped idols, which is termed “sacrifices of the dead.” Therefore, the Levites required “live waving” like the guilt-offering of a leper. Furthermore, the waving of the Levites would only be possible while they were alive.

Three wavings. Rashi does not ask why the verse states three wavings, because one may answer that it is a decree of the Torah that he had to wave them three times. However, now that Rashi explained “just as the leper’s guilt-offering requires waving…” and the guilt-offering of a leper only requires one waving, he asks why are three wavings required here?

Since I protected them. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Hashem say “for every firstborn [of Bnei Yisroel] is Mine” which implies that they are still His, when it is written (v. 18) “I have taken the Levites” which implies that He had already taken them. In response [to this question] Rashi explains that “they were Mine by the rules of justice” [meaning according to the strict interpretation of the law]. Re’m writes that with this he answers that “for every first born is Mine” does not refer to the present, because they were disqualified when they erred with the golden calf. It merely means that they were His initially. Rashi also informs one of the reasons why they were His by the rules of justice — “because I protected them…” Rashi states “I took them for Myself” instead of “I have sanctified them [to be mine]” in order to correspond with “I have taken the Levites instead of all firstborn” (v. 18) which means I have now taken them for Myself in the place of those whom I had taken before. He adds a vav on the word ולקחתי (and I have taken) which is in the place of הקדשתי (I have sanctified) in order to indicate that they are two different ideas — “for every firstborn is mine … on the day in which I slew…” and also “I have sanctified them” at that time for my service. However, once they sinned they were disqualified and I took the Levites instead of them. Rashi concluded “now I have taken” so that you should not say “I took them” (v. 18) refers to the time that I sanctified the firstborn for Myself. For it is written, “instead of all firstborn” which implies that they had left the service and the others entered in their place.

Bnei Yisroel are mentioned five times. Rashi brought this here because he was answering the question: He had explained that the words “I took them for Myself,” in the past tense, refer to the firstborn — meaning that “I took them for Myself and at that time I sanctified them for Myself.” Why then does the Torah need to say that Hashem had chosen them previously, did it not merely come to explain that he rejected them because they erred with the golden calf? Rashi answers that because of their preciousness and despite their rejection, He did not wish to mention their sin. Rather He mentions their praises and merits when Hashem brought them in to his service. You should know this by the fact that they were mentioned five times in one verse, due to their preciousness. In some editions of Rashi I have found the text “and I have given the Levites … [Bnei Yisroel are mentioned] five times…” and this more correct. (This appears to be our text).

[If] they approach. Meaning that this is an abbreviated phrase. For it should have said “I have given the Levites … to atone for the Bnei Yisroel so that the Bnei Yisroel will not need to approach the Holy and so that there will not be [a plague…].” The reason that the Levites were given to the Kohanim was so that they could serve, and the Israelites would not need to approach — so that there would not be a plague among Yisroel for if they were to approach, there would be a plague. The verse means to say the positive (if they approach there will be a plague), and not the negative “there will not be a plague among Yisroel” (if they do not approach). It is as if the Torah had said “Why were the Levites given to Aharon and his sons — in order that the Bnei Yisroel would not need to enter for this service and approach the Holy. And why should they not approach the Holy — in order that there will not be a plague among them.” Re’m. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Is it because He now took the Levites that there would not be a plague with their approach to the Holy? Surely, it is written “the foreigner who approaches shall die” (Bamidbar 1:51). Therefore he explains that “so there will not be a plague among them” means “so for they will not need to approach the Holy.” For otherwise there would be a concern over a plague among them when they were to approach the Holy.

The Israelites rested their hands. So that you not say that all of them stood the Levites up, or that all of them waved them or all of them rested their hands. Rather the word “did” refers to the specific action of each one — Moshe placed them…

No one objected. For if this were not so, why would this [phrase “so they did unto them”] be necessary, surely the Torah already stated that “Moshe did … [just as Hashem commanded]” (v. 20). Re’m writes that there is still a difficulty: This implies that because the Torah above wrote “Moshe did…” we infer both the praiseworthiness of those who did and those with whom it was done. If so, regarding the verse “Aharon did so” (v.3) where it does not previously write that he did so, one could say that this comes to teach about the matter itself — that he fulfilled the commandment that he was instructed, and that it does not to relate his praiseworthiness. One could ask a similar question in Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 14:4) where the Torah does not initially write that he did so, and in many other places – where they expounded in the same manner. It seems to me that certainly in any place where the Torah writes “he did so” or “they did so” it would not have been necessary to do so, because ordinarily the Jews fulfilled and accepted all mitzvos that Moshe commanded, and “he did so” is written only in order to recount their praiseworthiness. However here, if it were not for the phrase “as [Hashem] commanded” we would not have inferred their praiseworthiness from the phrase “Moshe did [all that Hashem commanded].” One would have said that it was necessary, to teach that they fulfilled the mitzvah, because one could not say that this was obvious. Hashem Himself had to make “effort” in this regard, instructing Moshe “take the Levites” (v.6) which Rashi explains as meaning “take them with words — fortunate are you…” Many prohibitions and death penalties were dependant upon this mitzvah and the firstborn Israelites had been disqualified from the service of Hashem. Therefore it was necessary, to teach that they fulfilled what He commanded. However, one cannot learn their praiseworthiness from here; therefore the verse writes “as [Hashem] commanded” to relate their praiseworthiness.

Favorable indications in his studies for five years. The expectation is that the Torah only gave him these five years in order to study [the laws of the service] because this is the maximum time that one needs to engage in his studies. If so, one who does not see a favorable sign in all of these years will never see them.

On the shoulder. Rashi is answering the question: [Isn’t this phrase redundant, since] it is written afterwards “but he shall serve his brethren” (v. 26)? Therefore one is forced to say that “and he shall no longer work” refers to the [work of] carrying on the shoulder. The subsequent statement “but he shall serve his brethren” means “with his brothers.” However, one should not think that this is like the service of a slave to his master. Rather he shall serve with his brothers, the sons of Merori and Gershon, locking the gates, loading of the wagons and singing.