Why does Moshe's name not appear in the entire Parshah, as it does in every other Parshah in the Torah from the time that he was born?
Rosh, Moshav Zekenim and Ba'al ha'Turim #1 (citing the Zohar): Because he asked Hashem to erase him from the Torah (See Ki Sisa, 32:32) and the curse of a Chacham always materializes (at least in part).
Ba'al ha'Turim #2 (citing Zevachim 120a): Because Tetzaveh deals with topics that concern the Kehunah, which saddened Moshe, 1 since the Kehunah was originally intended to come from him, 2
Kol Eliyahu and Divrei Eliyahu: Because the seventh of Adar almost always falls in the week after this Parshah; 3 So Hashem erased his name from it, to hint that Moshe will leave the world then. 4
And it is to demonstrate Moshe's sadness that the Torah omits his name from the entire Parshah. See Oznayim la'Torah DH 've'Atah Tetzaveh, #2.
A Z'chus that he lost during the episode of the burning bush, when, for seven days, he refused to become Hashem's emissary.
See Oznayim la'Torah's objections to this explanation DH 've'Atah Tetzaveh, #1. See also DH 've'Atah Tetzaveh, #3, as to why Chazal fixed this Parshah specifically on the day that Moshe was both born and died. Refer also to 27:20:1:5:1.
Kol Eliyahu and Divrei Eliyahu: And that explains why the exact same command about oil for the Menorah appears in Vayikra Emor 24:1, prefaced by "Hashem spoke to Moshe..."
Why did Hashem pick Tetzaveh as the Parshah to omit Moshe's name?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because it contains the Parshah of the Bigdei Kehunah, and, as the Gemara states in Yoma, 72 , the Bigdei Kehunah enable Yisrael to exist in spite of the sin of the Golden Calf. Consequently, now that Yisrael were only pardoned on the merit of Moshe, who asked for his name to otherwise be removed from the Torah. It is befitting to pick the Parshah which deals with the Bigdei Kehunah to omit Moshe's name, so that the Bigdei Kehunah stand in place of Moshe Rabeinu, who shields over them in all the remaining Parshiyos of the Torah. 1
See also Oznayim la'Torah, DH 've'Atah Tetzaveh' #2, where he gives another answer to the question.
Why did Hashem say "ve'Atah Tetzaveh" in the future"
Rashi (in Emor, 24:2): Because the Mitzvah of kindling the Menorah is primarily taught in Emor, and the Pasuk here is merely explaining the purpose of the Menorah.
Rashbam #1 and Seforno (in a commenting similarly on the expression "Veyikchu Eilecha" [in the future]): Hashem is instructing Moshe here that, when the oil that they donated in Terumah runs out, they should donate fresh oil to continue with the Mitzvah. 1
Rashbam #2: Because, unlike the issues dealt with in Terumah, the current Pasuk was not a once off donation for the Mishkan, but an ongoing obligation 2 to donate oil for the Menorah once a year.
Why did Hashem use the expression "ve'Atah Tetzaveh" instead of "ve'Asisa" like He constantly did in Terumah?
Ramban #1: Because there was no way that the people could produce in the desert oil that was 'Zach'; It had to have been prepared beforehand and was now brought to Moshe 1 to check (for "Zach" and "Kasis" 2 ). 3
Ramban #2 and Seforno: Because, whereas "ve'Asisa" implies via somebody else, Hashem said "ve'Atah here, because he wanted Moshe to personally issue Yisrael with the instructions regarding manufacturing the oil, 4 bearing in mind that the actual production of the Begadim was performed by Betzalel. 5
Rashbam: "Tzav" always means that the Mitzvah is to last for all generations 6 - in this instance, it entails donating fresh oil every year.
Ba'al ha'Turim: An expression of Tzivuy is to make people zealous. It is used for matters that involve monetary loss, such as oil and lambs for the Menorah and Tamid, which apply every day. 7
Perhaps it is because Moshe's name is not mentioned in the Parshah 8 that the Torah stresses a number of times "ve'Atah", to emphasize that ultimately, everything that took place in the Mishkan was under his auspices.
In fact, the Ramban adds, it was the princes who brought it.
Refer to 27:20:3.1:1.
Which explains why the Torah writes "Eilecha" (Ramban).
And it is for the same reason that Hashem will shortly use the same expression in 28:1, with regard to bringing Aharon and his sons close - to personally inaugurate them, and with regard to instructing the wise-hearted men the details of manufacturing the Bigdei Kehunah, in 28:3 [Ramban and Seforno]) - because he knew the exact task that each person was capable of performing (Ramban). Refer also to 28:3:1:2 & 28:3:1:3.
As the Torah states in Ki Sisa, Sh'mos, 31:2 (Ramban).
Rashbam: And not just once only, like we find atthe beginnimg of Terumah 'Daber el B'nei Yisrael Veyikchu Li Terumah - which was once only, and where the Torh did therefore not use a Lashon of Tzivuy.
This does not concur with Rashi who states in Vayikra 24:2 that the Mitzvah of Hadlakah is primarily taught in Emor (24:2), and here it merely explaining the need for the Menorah. We also find 'Tzav' regarding expelling Temei'im from the camp, and the borders of Eretz Yisrael. Bamidbar 5:2 & 34:2 (PF).
What are the connotations of "Zach" and "Kasis"?
Rashi #1 and Rashbam: "Zach" means pure - without dregs; "Kasis" - that the olives must be pounded and not ground (because grinding produces less pure oil than beating - Rashbam).
Rashi #2 (in Emor, 24:2): One extracts three lots of olive-oil 1 - the first of which is called "Zach".
There are actually nine altogeher. See Torah Temimah, note 25, who elaborates.
How does one obtain good quality oil that falls under the category of "Zach"?
What are the implications of "Kasis la'Ma'or"?
Rashi: It implies "Kasis la'Ma'or", 've'Lo la'Menachos' - the olives must be beaten for the oil for the Menorah but may be ground for the Menachos. 1
Why did the Menachos not need to be 'Kasis'?
Menachos, 86b: Because of the expense involved - due to the large amount of Menachos that need to be brought, 1 and Hashem has pity on the money of Yisrael.
Oznayim la'Torah: To teach us that one should be more concerned for one's Torah to be pure than one's food.
See Torah Temimah, note 27.
Why does the Torah use the word "Leha'alos Ner Tamid" and not 'Lehadlik'?
Rashi: Because the Kohen who lit the Menorah was obligated to apply the lighter until the flame was rising by itself. 1
Moshav Zekenim: To hint that B'ris Milah 2 ` raises (saves) from Gehinom (Zecharyah 9:11).
Yerushalmi Sukah, 5:3: The Chachamim assessed that the only wicks that 'bring-up a nice flame are those made of linen.
This Pasuk is the source of the Halachah that disqualifies the oils and the wicks that are Pasul for the Shabbos lights from being used in the Beis-Hamikdash (Shabbos, 21a). See Torah emimah, mnote 27. Refer also to answer #3..
Moshav Zekenim: he Torah inserts the word "ve'Atah", like "ve'Atah es B'risi Tishmor" - in Lech l'cha Bereishis, 17:9 - to hint at B'ris Milah.
What are the connotations of "Tamid" with regard to the Menorah?
Rashi #1: It means every night. 1
Rashi (in Vayikra 6:13): It teaches us that the Kohen took the light to kindle the Menorah from the Mizbe'ach. 2
Ramban (citing the Sifri in Bamidbar 8:2) and Moshav Zekenim: It refers to the Ner ha'Ma'aravi, 3 which had to remain burning permanently. 4
Sifra (at the end of Emor): "Tamid", 'even on Shabbos', "Tamid", 'even be'Tum'ah' (if the majority of the Tzibur are Tamei). 5
Rashi: Like the Olas Tamid (in Pinchas, Bamidbar 28:6) where it means daily, to the Minchas Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol (in Vayikra 6:13), where it means half each morning and half each afternoon; as opposed to the "Tamid" that is written by the Lechem ha'Panim (in Terumah, 25:30), where it means that they had to be on the Shulchan permaneently - from Shabbos to Shabbos.
See Vayikra, 6:6:1:1.
See Ramban, who elaborates on the definition of 'Ner ha'Ma'aravi'.
In fact, if the Kohen discovered that it had gone out, he was obligated to re-kindle it (Ramban, citing the Sifra in Vayikra, 24:2).
Torah Temimah: This ruling extends to all Korbanos that have a fixed time.
Why does the Torah insert the Parshah of the oil for the Menorah before that of the Kohanim performing the Avodah?
Oznayim la'Torah: So that the Kohanim should not have to work in the dark. 1
Refer to 27:20:151:1.
Why did Hashem insert he word "Veyikchu Eilecha Shemen ... "?
Oznayim la'Torah: Hashem said "Eilecha", both here and at the beginning of Chukas, in connection with the Parah Adumah, in order to console Moshe, who did not have a direct hand in their preparation.
Menachos 86b: Bearing in mind that He illuminated for Yisrael in the desert. Moshav Zekenim: In similar vein, the Torah writes in Chukas Bamidbar, 19:2 "Veyikchu Eilecha Parah Adumah" - because the Parah Adumah was not for Hashem's needs, but to purify Yisrael from the Chet ha'Eigel.
Rather, it was to show Yisrael (through the Ner Ma'aravi) that the Shechinah rests in Yisrael - Refer to 27:21:152:1. See also Torah Temimah, note 22 - citing Seifer ha'Chinuch,. Refer also to 27:20:8:1.
Rashi (citing Menachos, 86b): writes "Kasis la'Ma'or", but not for Menachos. But the Torah writes in 29:40 "Kasis" for the Minchas Nesachim of the Korban Tamid?
Moshav Zekenim: Rashi does not disqualify Kasis for Menachos, only he teaches that it need not be Kasis. 1 What source would we have to require Kasis for Menachos? It was not taught twice to make it obligatory! 2 Rather, "la'Ma'or" is redunden (it says "Leha'alos Ner"); it is as if the commanded was repeated, so it is Me'akev. "la'Ma'or" also excludes Menachos, lest we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Kasis-Kasis" that it is Me'akev. (For Menachos it is only Lechatchilah) .
In Kodshim, something is Me'akev only if it is taught twice. However, also Bamidbar 28:5 the Torah wries "Kasis" by the Minchas Nesachim of the Tamid! This requires investigation. (PF)
