Parshas Pinchas
1. On the verse "צו את בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם את קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחוחי תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו" ("Command the Children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread for My fire-offerings, a pleasing fragrance to Me, you shall be careful to offer to Me in its appointed time")1, Rashi pauses on the word "במועדו" ("in its appointed time") and explains: "בכל יום הוא מועד התמידים" ("Every day is the appointed time of the temidim [the daily continual offerings]").
We need to understand:
What is Rashi adding to what is stated explicitly right in the following verse? There it says, "שנים ליום עולה תמיד" ("two each day, a continual burnt-offering")2 — that the time for offering the temidim is continually, every day. So why does Rashi need to explain this in the first verse, on the word "in its appointed time"3?
The Ra"m understands that Rashi does not come to say that this is a mitzvah that applies every day, since that is stated explicitly in the verse (as above); rather, "this is its meaning": that every day is "the time of the temidim, and nothing at all prevents them, for even in a state of impurity they offer them on their day."
But this interpretation of Rashi seemingly requires great study. Rashi wrote his commentary (also) for a five-year-old beginning Scripture, that is, in clear language (also) for the simple folk; and if Rashi had meant to say that the temidim are always offered, even in impurity, he would have said so explicitly — just as he says in Parshas Behaaloscha4 regarding the word "in its appointed time" stated about the Pesach offering: "אף בשבת . . אף בטומאה" ("even on Shabbos . . even in impurity")5.
We also need to understand: why indeed does Rashi not explain here, "In its appointed time — even on Shabbos, even in impurity"?
And although regarding Shabbos no derivation is needed here in Rashi, since it is stated explicitly further on in the verse6, "עולת שבת בשבתו על עולת התמיד" ("the burnt-offering of each Shabbos on its Shabbos, in addition to the continual burnt-offering"), a derivation is nevertheless needed that the tamid is offered "even in impurity."
2. The Ibn Ezra7 translates "in its appointed time" as "שלא יקדמו קודם הבוקר ושלא יאחר אחר הערב" ("that they should not offer it earlier than the morning, and should not delay it past the evening"). According to this it is understood why it needs to say "in its appointed time," even though it says further on, "two each day, a continual burnt-offering," and "את הכבש אחד תעשה בבוקר ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערביים" ("the one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon")*7 — for the verse comes to emphasize its precise time: "that they should not offer it earlier . . and should not delay it, etc."8
This requires explanation: why does Rashi not learn like the explanation of the Ibn Ezra, according to which it is understood why it needs to say "in its appointed time," and which is an explanation that fits the plain meaning of Scripture9?
3. The explanation of this is:
The difference between Rashi's commentary in our parshah and Rashi's commentary in Parshas Behaaloscha is as follows:
In Parshas Behaaloscha, Rashi comes to explain the superfluousness of the word "in its appointed time"10, for the verse there immediately continues with its precise time: "בארבעה עשר יום בחודש הזה בין הערבים גו'" ("on the fourteenth day of this month, in the afternoon, etc.")11. Therefore Rashi learns that the superfluous word comes to teach a new law — "in its appointed time, even on Shabbos; in its appointed time, even in impurity."
In our parshah, however, what is difficult for Rashi is the meaning of the word "in its appointed time." The simple meaning of "in its appointed time" is: at the time that was designated for it. And as Rashi translates "למועד"12 — "לאותו מועד המועד שקבעתי לך" ("at that appointed time which I set for you")13.
Accordingly: with regard to the offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and the festivals — offerings that come from time to time — the expression "in its appointed time" is understood: each offering is brought on the fixed day that was designated for it, which is unique to it.
But regarding the tamid offering, for which no special day was set apart — it is offered constantly, continually, every day (as its name: the tamid offering; "a continual burnt-offering"14) — it does not seem fitting to use the expression "in its appointed time" for it.
And therefore Rashi does not learn like the explanation of the Ibn Ezra, "that they should not offer it earlier than the morning, and should not delay it past the evening." For according to his explanation, "in its appointed time" refers (not to the time designated and fixed for the tamid offering, but) to a limitation within the time itself (in which it is offered — each and every day): that one must be careful not to bring it before the morning and not to delay it past the evening. For this, the expression "in its appointed time"15 is not fitting — it is not a fixed appointed time, the time set apart for the tamid, but a law16 (and one that pertains to all offerings17).
Also: it is not reasonable to explain the plain meaning of Scripture according to that explanation, because18 then "in its appointed time" should have been said after the Torah states the general and specific time of its offering: "two each day, a continual burnt-offering; the one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon." For according to his explanation, "in its appointed time" is not an explanation of the time itself, but a detail and limitation within its general time of the day and its specific time of morning and afternoon: "that they should not offer it earlier than the morning, and should not delay it past the evening."
From the fact that the Torah places the word "in its appointed time" before the general time, and all the more so before the specific time of each tamid — in the morning and in the afternoon — it is understood that "in its appointed time" speaks of its time itself.
Therefore Rashi explains, "Every day is the appointed time of the temidim," meaning that the verse here accomplishes a new definition regarding the tamid offering:
Simply, one would understand19 that the tamid offering is not like all the offerings of the appointed times, each of which has its appointed time, its fixed time; whereas the tamid has no fixed appointed time — it is offered continually, every day, and that is why it is called "a continual burnt-offering" —
— Rashi says that with "in its appointed time" the verse comes to say that this is not the meaning; rather, "every day is the appointed time of the temidim": each day is an appointed time, a time set apart, for offering the tamid of that day. Each and every day in itself is a distinct (appointed time —) time for the tamid of that day, on its day.
4. What practical difference results from this definition of the tamid offering20, that "every day is the appointed time of the temidim"? This is understood simply:
Further on in the parshah, regarding the offering of Shabbos, Rashi pauses on the words "the burnt-offering of each Shabbos on its Shabbos" and explains: "ולא עולת שבת בשבת אחרת הרי שלא הקריב בשבת זו שומע אני יקריב שתים לשבת הבאה ת"ל בשבתו מגיד שאם עבר יומו בטל קרבנו" ("And not the burnt-offering of one Shabbos on another Shabbos. If he did not offer it on this Shabbos, I might understand that he should offer two on the following Shabbos; therefore the verse says 'on its Shabbos,' telling us that if its day has passed, its offering is void").
This needs examination: what is the law regarding the tamid? Regarding the tamid offering, should one offer two on the following day, or is it "if its day has passed, its offering is void"?
Seemingly one could say that from Shabbos we learn this regarding all offerings, as is precise in Rashi's wording, "telling us that if its day has passed" (not "if its Shabbos has passed" or the like), by which it "tells us" that with an offering, "if its day has passed" — the day of each offering — "its offering is void."
But it is difficult to say this, because a few verses later, on the verse21 "זאת עולת חדש בחדשו" ("This is the burnt-offering of each new month in its month"), Rashi says: "שאם עבר יומו בטל קרבנו ושוב אין לו תשלומין" ("that if its day has passed, its offering is void, and it no longer has any make-up"). From this it is understood that the derivation from "the burnt-offering of each Shabbos on its Shabbos" does not apply to every offering.
Furthermore: even regarding the offerings of the festivals there is a separate derivation — earlier, in Parshas Emor, on "דבר יום ביומו" ("each day's matter on its day")22, Rashi explains: "הא אם עבר יומו בטל קרבנו" ("Hence, if its day has passed, its offering is void").
Accordingly it seemingly follows that regarding the tamid offering we do not say "if its day has passed, its offering is void"23, unlike all the offerings mentioned above.
But according to the above explanation of Rashi's commentary, it can be said that this law applies to the tamid offering too:
Since the definition of the tamid offering is, as above, not merely that one must constantly, every day, bring an offering, but rather that "every day is the appointed time of the temidim" — each day is a distinct appointed time, a set-apart, fixed, and appointed time for offering the tamid of that day — it is consequently understood that the rule also applies to the tamid: if "its day has passed" — the day which is the "appointed time" for offering the tamid of that day — then "its offering is void."
5. Nevertheless, no special derivation is needed for this (that with the tamid too the law is that "if its day has passed, etc."), even though Shabbos and the festivals are certainly set-apart days on which an offering is brought, and nevertheless for them a verse and a special derivation is needed that "if its day has passed, its offering is void." This is because there is a fundamental difference between the offerings of Shabbos, etc., and the tamid offering:
The set-apartness of Shabbos and the festivals (relative to the other days of the year) is not because of the offerings brought on them, but because of themselves: Shabbos is a holy day and labor is forbidden on it, and likewise the festivals — they are special days with the prohibition of doing labor and with mitzvos specific to them*; it is only that on these days obligations are added to bring the offerings specific to them24.
And therefore, were it not for the special derivation, one might have thought that the offering should be made up on the following Shabbos, and likewise regarding the festivals25.
Regarding the temidim, however, according to Rashi's explanation that "every day is the appointed time of the temidim," the set-apartness of the day is only through, and because of, the offering for that day. Consequently it is obvious26 that "if its day has passed" — the day that is set apart and designated for the tamid of that day — "its offering is void"27. It cannot be brought tomorrow, which is set apart in its own right for the tamid of its own day (of tomorrow).
6. This, however, is not yet a sufficient explanation:
It is reasonable to say that the first verse of the section of the offerings, "Command the Children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread for My fire-offerings, a pleasing fragrance to Me, you shall be careful to offer to Me in its appointed time," is a general introduction to all the offerings that come in the continuation of the parshah — the temidim, and the additional offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and the festivals — all of which are "My bread for My fire-offerings, etc." And with "ואמרת להם זה האשה אשר תקריבו גו'" ("And you shall say to them: This is the fire-offering that you shall offer, etc."), the verse begins to set out the details of the offerings, each one separately — beginning with the tamid offering.
Accordingly it follows that the word "in its appointed time" also refers to all these offerings, as the verse goes on to enumerate the times of each offering: Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and the festivals. (Rashi further explains28 that with the tamid, too, the meaning of "in its appointed time" is the same, since "every day is the appointed time of the temidim.")
Consequently it is understood that the offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and the festivals are not something additional to these days; rather, the set-apartness of these days is (also) because of the offerings of the day — these days are designated and fixed for the offerings of that day29.
And so the difficulty returns to its place: why is a special derivation needed (regarding Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh) that "if its day has passed, its offering is void"?
7. The explanation of this can be given by first explaining the differences in wording found in this matter. Regarding Shabbos, Rashi writes [OCR unclear]: "If he did not offer it on this Shabbos, I might understand that he should offer two on the following Shabbos; therefore the verse says 'on its Shabbos,' telling us that if its day has passed, its offering is void." A few verses later, however, regarding Rosh Chodesh, Rashi says briefly (and, together with this, also with the addition "and no longer, etc."): "that if its day has passed, its offering is void, and it no longer has any make-up."
And earlier, in Parshas Emor, on the verse "each day's matter on its day," Rashi says briefly (and without the addition): "Hence, if its day has passed, its offering is void."
Now with Rosh Chodesh, since it comes a few verses after his explanation of "on its Shabbos," it is understood why he does not need to repeat at length, "If he did not offer it on this Rosh Chodesh, etc."30 But regarding the offerings of the festivals in Parshas Emor (which comes before this, and in another book), why does he speak briefly there, and not say as he says here regarding Shabbos, "If he did not offer it on this Shabbos, etc."?
The commentators31 say that regarding the festivals no derivation is needed "שאין מביאין עולת יו״ט ביו״ט אחר" ("that the burnt-offering of one festival is not brought on another festival"), because it is obvious "that if they did not offer it on Pesach, they should not offer it on Shavuos as a make-up for Pesach32; for although their offerings are equal, nevertheless they are two names; but Shabbosos and Rosh Chodesh, which are all one name, one might have thought that he should offer it as a make-up for the first — therefore it teaches us."
Accordingly, the derivation of "each day's matter on its day" regarding the offerings of the festivals rules out making up one day of a festival on a later day (days) of that same festival33 itself — during the seven days of Pesach and the seven days of Sukkos34.
The question, however, is: why should no derivation be needed that "if he did not offer it on this Pesach, he should offer two on the following Pesach"35, and likewise regarding Shavuos*35?
8. The explanation of this is:
In the concept of make-up there are several modes, among them: a) from the aspect of the person (gavra) — he comes to complete the obligation that he should have done on a previous day, and the like; b) from the aspect of the object (cheftza) — something that he should have done with a certain object, he does with that object at a later time.
[This is similar to the make-up with regard to the mitzvah of "והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל" ("he shall return the stolen object that he stole")36: while the stolen object still exists, he returns the thing itself and fulfills "he shall return the stolen object" literally (the object); when the thing no longer exists, he pays its value and thereby completes the obligation of the mitzvah that rests upon him (the person)37.]
The same applies to the bringing of the offerings: since each offering has its fixed time — "in its appointed time" — it is understood that the fulfillment of the obligation and the mitzvah of bringing the offering on this day cannot be accomplished by offering it on another day38. And this is what Rashi emphasizes regarding the temidim, that "every day is the appointed time of the temidim." Consequently there is no room for the fulfillment of the mitzvah of offering the temidim of this day to be accomplished by bringing it on another day, which is not "its appointed time."
The same is understood regarding all the offerings in our parshah, where "in its appointed time" refers to their fixed time on a specific day — the additional offerings of Shabbos on Shabbos, of Rosh Chodesh, and of the festivals: there is no thought at all that when one missed bringing the Shabbos musaf, one should complete the mitzvah and obligation of that day on the following Shabbos (and likewise with Rosh Chodesh and the festivals).
9. The question remains, however: since the offering itself exists — the lamb prepared for the tamid of that day — let one offer the lamb tomorrow; and likewise with the additional offerings of Shabbos — let one offer on the following Shabbos the lambs that were prepared for the previous Shabbos, because this is a lamb prepared for a tamid or for Shabbos. (And even if the lamb for the tamid or for the Shabbos musaf, etc., had not yet been prepared — since there is money consecrated (in the Temple chamber), specified and designated for the lambs of the tamid and the additional offerings of Shabbos, let it be used for the additional temidim of the next day, and likewise regarding Shabbos.)
And this is the novelty in "If he did not offer it on this Shabbos, I might understand that he should offer two on the following Shabbos": the thought here is not that one should complete the obligation of the mitzvah of offering the previous Shabbos musaf, but rather because of the existence of the lambs for the offering (or the money for the offering)39.
— On this we learn from "on its Shabbos" — "telling us that if its day has passed, its offering is void": the existence of "its offering" is no more. Not only is there no longer the obligation of the mitzvah to offer it from the previous Shabbos, but once "its day has passed," the offering of that Shabbos has become void.
And this law is learned also regarding Rosh Chodesh and the festivals.
Regarding the tamid, however, although "every day is the appointed time of the temidim," there is no thought at all that one could fulfill the obligation of today's tamid by offering it tomorrow, since tomorrow is not "its appointed time"40. But there is no derivation that "its offering is void," that the existence of the offering becomes void. Consequently, according to the plain meaning of Scripture it can be said that one may (moreover — one must) offer the temidim tomorrow, since the offering itself (or the money for the offering) exists41.
Accordingly it is simply understood that regarding the festivals there is not even a thought that if one did not offer on Pesach, one should offer two on the following Pesach, and likewise with Shavuos —
— because the shekalim of each year, which are for buying the communal offerings of each and every year, are different each and every year, as Rashi already explained earlier42 ("נתנו כל אחד מחצית השקל והן לקנות מהן קרבנות צבור של כל שנה ושנה" — "each one gave a half-shekel, and these were for buying from them the communal offerings of each and every year"). There is therefore no reason to bring the offerings of one year on a festival of the next year (even from the aspect of the existence of the offering, not only from the aspect of completing the obligation and mitzvah, as above), since the shekalim of this year have no connection to the offerings (and the money for the offerings) of the second year43.
10. From the "wine of Torah" in this commentary of Rashi:
It is known that the resting of the Shechinah in the Sanctuary (and through this in the entire world) came about through the offerings44. And understandably, each type of offering is connected with a different mode of this indwelling (according to the definitions and conditions of each offering).
The same applies to the offerings in our parshah, which divide into two types: a) the tamid offering, which is brought constantly, each and every day; b) the additional offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and the festivals. They are connected with two (general) modes of the indwelling of holiness:
The additional offerings of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and the festivals bring about an indwelling of holiness that transforms "time": on these days a holiness shines openly (the holiness of Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, and Yom Tov), which causes the time to become holy time.
But from the fact that the holiness on these days transforms time, it is understood that it has a limitation; which is why this "indwelling" is connected specifically with a particular day45.
With the tamid offering it is the opposite: this is something that is present constantly, continually, without limitations. From this it is understood that the indwelling of holiness46 brought about by the tamid offering is (connected with the revelation of G‑d Himself, with Whom there is) no possibility of any change, G‑d forbid; and consequently it shines and rests constantly, without any limitation.
And this itself is the reason why it does not cause every day to become a Yom Tov: since the indwelling of holiness brought about by the tamid is connected with G‑d's own Being — "אני ה' לא שניתי" ("I, G‑d, have not changed")47 — it is not within the bounds of time, but above time.
11. One might therefore think that it "remains" above time and does not affect time. The verse comes and teaches that this is not so; rather, the tamid offering too must be offered "in its appointed time" — that "every day is the appointed time of the temidim":
Although here one can speak of an indwelling in the mode of "continual" (and "I have not changed"), this does not mean that it has no (connection with and) effect upon time. Rather, "every day is the appointed time of the temidim": the day — time itself — becomes different because of the tamid offering; it is only that this is not seen openly.
It follows that in the matter of the tamid offering there is a fusion of two opposites — "continual" (which is not within the bounds of time) and "in its appointed time" — it is drawn down48 into an appointed and fixed time49.
12. The matter in man's service of his Creator:
When a Jew's service is in the mode of "continual," there are no changes in his service: whether on weekdays or on Shabbos and Yom Tov, or on Yom Kippur (the "Shabbos of Shabbosos")50 — in whatever state and situation he may be, and whatever service he is doing — one thing is felt in him: fulfilling the will of G‑d, "שאמרתי ונעשה רצוני" ("that I spoke and My will was done")51. Such a mode of "service" comes from being entirely devoted to G‑d's will; in him "shines" (and he "feels") "I, G‑d, have not changed," and consequently there is no change in his service either.
And this is what Rashi emphasizes: through the service of the "temidim," "every day" becomes an "appointed time" — each of his days is transformed, until each day is a "set-apart" day; it is not an ordinary weekday like the other weekdays, but a day appointed and fixed for its offering — for drawing near to G‑d.
And through this is accomplished the complete fulfillment of the intent that "the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place in the lower realms"52: that one brings about holiness not only on special and fixed days of the year, but on every day, even on every weekday —
which hastens the fulfillment of what is foretold regarding Shabbos on all days, when every ordinary day will be a holy Shabbos day — "the day that is entirely Shabbos and rest for life everlasting"53.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Pinchas 5732 and 5744)
Notes
1) Our parshah, 28:2.
2) 28:3.
3) The Gur Aryeh explains that here is the main command, and what is said in the following verse, "two each day, etc.," is (in Rashi's words) a warning to the court; see there. But in the plain meaning of Scripture, and in the commentators on its plain meaning, the explanation "a warning to the court" seemingly refers (only) to the repetition "and say to them."
4) 9:2.
5) The answer of the Ra"m ("And the reason he did not explain here 'in its appointed time — even in impurity' as with Pesach is for two reasons: the first, etc." — see there) seemingly requires great study, for even according to his explanation Rashi should have written (added) here "even in impurity."
6) 28:10.
7) On the verse. And so it is in the Chizkuni here, in his second explanation.
*7) 28:4.
8) Rabbeinu Bachya here, after quoting Rashi's wording, writes: "But it comes to say that nothing should be offered before the morning burnt-offering, and nothing should be delayed after the evening burnt-offering." But (besides the fact that in the plain meaning of Scripture this matter has no connection to "in its appointed time") this matter was already explained earlier in Parshas Tzav (6:5), as explained in Rashi there.
9) Note that Rashi does not bring the teaching of our Sages (Toras Kohanim, Tzav 7:38; see also Chullin 22a (and Rashi there) and the sources cited there; and [OCR unclear] in Megillah 20a, end) on the verse (Tzav, there) "on the day He commanded," that all offerings are valid only by day.
10) See Be'er Mayim Chaim (by the brother of the Maharal) here.
11) 9:3.
12) Vayeira 18:14. See also Rashi there, 21:2.
13) And like the wording (Terumah 25:22) "And I will meet with you there," which Rashi explains: "When I set an appointed time for you to speak with you . . at the appointed time when I will come there to speak to you." See also Tetzaveh 29:42–43 and Rashi there.
14) Our parshah, 28:3. And in Tetzaveh (29:42): "a continual burnt-offering."
15) Especially according to what is explained below, section [OCR unclear], that "in its appointed time" also refers to the additional offerings of Shabbos, etc.
16) Similar to the musaf offering of Shabbos (and likewise of Rosh Chodesh and the festivals), whose designated and fixed time is "on the Shabbos day," and besides this there is a special law, "in addition to the continual burnt-offering" — "this tells that they are offered only between the two temidim, and likewise with all the additional offerings it is said 'in addition to the continual burnt-offering,' to teach this" (Rashi 28:10) — which is not part of the essential fixing of the time of the offering on the Shabbos day.
17) See above, note 9.
18) Which is not the case according to what is brought below, section [OCR unclear].
19) Because of the wording "continual burnt-offering" — and as we have learned until now in Rashi, Parshas Tetzaveh [OCR unclear]; 29:42.
20) In Tzafnas Pa'neach (Mahadura Tinyana 26a; see also there 88a): a practical difference regarding the definition of the tamid — whether the obligation on each individual day is to offer one in the morning and one in the evening, or whether it is a continual obligation that every day one should offer two temidim. He explains this according to the intent of the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachos ch. 4, halachah 1, "that their slaughtering should be for the sake of the day."
But this is not the matter explained in the text. For the text speaks not of the obligation on each individual day being particular, but rather that each and every day is a specific and special time for offering the tamid of that day; whereas the question of the Tzafnas Pa'neach concerns the obligation to offer the tamid (not so much the day itself). See Lekach Tov (by R. Y. Engel), principle 6 (33a).
21) 28:14.
22) 23:37.
23) And similarly: [OCR unclear]. See below, and also note 33.
As for the halachah — see Berachos (26a), where the Gemara takes it as obvious that regarding an offering we say "if its day has passed, its offering is void," and there the discussion is about the tamid offerings (see Rashi there, at the end of the page, and the Maharshal there). See also Temurah 14a; Toras Kohanim, Emor there.
But all this does not pertain to Rashi's commentary on the Torah — the plain meaning of Scripture.
24) As in the plain meaning of the verses in the section of the festivals (Emor 23:4ff.), where for each festival the verse first states its special matter — the mitzvos and the prohibition of doing labor — and afterwards the offering of the day. And in Parshas Mishpatim (23:14ff.) and in Parshas Tisa (34:18ff.), before this, the festivals are mentioned by themselves, and not their offerings.
*) Except that the special mitzvah of the festival of Shavuos — "the day of the first fruits" — is "והקרבתם מנחה חדשה לה' וגו'" ("and you shall offer a new meal-offering to G‑d, etc.") (Emor 23:16ff.). On the contrary — in the Chumash, in Parshas Emor, its musaf offering is not mentioned at all (see Rashi there, 19).
25) Regarding Rosh Chodesh, see below, note 30.
26) For if each and every day were in any case distinct and special in itself, only that there is an obligation to bring an offering every day, there would be room (for the thought) to make up the offering of this day on the (one) day after it. But since the entire uniqueness of the day is because of the offering of this day, there is no room to make up and bring this offering on the next day — for it is not the day before it.
27) Similar to the Pesach offering, whose time is on the fourteenth of Nissan in the afternoon, regarding which it is also said (Behaaloscha 9:2) "in its appointed time" (as mentioned in the text), where there was no thought of making up the offering; rather, a separate section and command came from G‑d — the section of Pesach Sheni.
28) And the reason for this "explanation" is understood more simply, since "in its appointed time" refers to the "tamid" and the additional offerings of Shabbos, etc., together.
29) Note what is written in Parshas Emor 23:37.
30) And Rashi's addition, "it no longer has any make-up," implies that the discussion is not about make-up on the following Rosh Chodesh, but on the days after this Rosh Chodesh — that the offering of Rosh Chodesh cannot be made up on the days of the month after it (unlike Shavuos); whereas with Shabbos there is no thought even of making up the Shabbos offering on the weekdays — see Divrei David by the Taz here, 28:10.
31) Biurei Maharai on Rashi on our parshah (and quoted in Sifsei Chachamim here).
32) Note the wording of the Rambam cited below, note 41: "tomorrow or at another festival." This is not the place to elaborate.
33) Similar to the make-up of the shalmei chagigah (Emor there, 39, in Rashi). See note 38.
34) See the Ra"m on Rashi, Emor there.
35) And although we already know that there is no make-up within the festival itself (as in Rashi, Emor, as above) — there, at any rate, an offering is brought on this festival; whereas if one did not offer at all on this Pesach, one might think that he should offer two on the following Pesach.
*35) In Maskil LeDavid on our parshah: "Now that the Torah wrote it regarding Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, all the festivals are derived from them by 'just as we find' — that they have no make-up, neither of Pesach on Atzeres, nor of the Pesach of this year on the Pesach of another year." But we do not find such a derivation ("just as we find") in Rashi, according to the plain meaning of Scripture. And see in general the difference between the derivations of "if its time has passed, its offering is void" in the commentators on Rashi here and in Parshas Emor, and in the commentators on the Sifri here.
36) Vayikra 5:23.
37) Although the expositions of our Sages on this (see Bava Kamma 66a and the sources cited there; see Rashi, Sanhedrin 72a, s.v. "Aval l'inyan"; Rambam, Laws of Theft 1:12; Laws of Robbery and Lost Objects 1:5; and elsewhere) are not mentioned in Rashi's commentary on the Torah, Vayikra there — the above matter is understood also by one who studies the plain meaning of Scripture, for it is a matter of reasoning.
38) The concept of make-up is found in the plain meaning of Scripture only with an individual's offering — the shalmei chagigah — and even for that a special derivation is needed (Rashi, Emor 23:39).
39) Therefore Rashi does not write, "I might understand that he should make it up on the following Shabbos," or the like. Note also the change in Rashi's wording, "he should offer two on the following Shabbos," and not as in the Sifri, "he should offer on the following Shabbos."
40) See above, note 26.
41) Note the wording of the Rambam, Laws of the Daily and Additional Offerings, end of ch. 8 (from Temurah 14a): "And they are not obligated to offer the rest tomorrow or at another festival; rather, any communal offering whose time has passed, its offering is void."
42) Tisa 30:15.
43) As for the halachah — see Rambam, Laws of Shekalim 4:11.
44) See Kuzari, discourse 2, ch. 26; Siddur (with Chassidic discourses) 33b–c; Ohr HaTorah on our parshah, p. [OCR unclear]ff. (and the sources noted there); Vayeitzei 189a; and in many places.
Note also the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of the Chosen House: "It is a positive commandment to make a House for G‑d, prepared for offering the offerings in it, etc., as it says, 'And they shall make Me a Sanctuary.'" And note that according to several versions, the Rambam, in the enumeration of the mitzvos at the beginning of his Yad, brings for positive commandment 20 also the conclusion of the verse, "and I will dwell among them" (see Rambam, Sefer HaMada, Jerusalem 5724).
45) Although "the time of favor Above" and the holiness of Shabbos and Yom Tov is above the bounds of place and time (the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, Mahadura Tinyana, siman 1, se'if 8), this is in relation to the limitation of place and of the entry of time below (as explained there). This is not the place to elaborate.
46) Note the ten degrees of holiness (of place), each higher than the other (Keilim 1:6ff.; Rambam, Laws of the Chosen House 7:13ff.). See below, note 49.
47) Malachi 3:6.
48) Note Likkutei Torah, Tzav (8b), explaining the meal-offering of the Kohen Gadol, about which it is said "a continual meal-offering," meaning forever, and nevertheless it is in the aspect of "on the day he is anointed, etc." See there. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 22, p. 27ff.
49) Note the fusion of the two opposites in space — "the place of the Ark is not within measure" (Yoma 21a), although it had to be precisely "two and a half cubits its length and a cubit and a half its width, etc." (Terumah 25:[OCR unclear]).
50) In the special service of Shabbos, or of Yom Tov, etc.
51) Rashi on our parshah, 28:8 (regarding the tamid offering), and in many places.
52) Tanchuma, Naso 16.
53) Tamid, at its end.
Key Lesson
The daily tamid shows that a constant, unchanging service of G‑d is not detached from time; it makes each ordinary day its own "appointed time." When a Jew's service is steady and devoted to G‑d's will, every weekday becomes set apart for drawing near to G‑d, hastening the time that will be entirely Shabbos.