Midrash su Levitico 24:3

3b) binyan av mishnei kethuvim (a general rule derived from two verses). viz.: The topic of the lamps (on the menorah) is not like that of sending the unclean outside (of the encampment), and the latter is not like the former. What is common to them is that they are introduced by "Tzav" ("Command") — [the lamps, (Vayikra 24:2); sending, etc., (Bamidbar 5:2)] — and apply both immediately and for future generations. [The lamps: immediately — (Bamidbar 8:3): "And Aaron did so. He kindled its lamps towards the face of the menorah, etc."; for future generations — (Vayikra 24:3): "… an eternal statute throughout your generations." Sending the unclean outside: immediately — (Bamidbar 5:4): "And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp"; for future generations — (Bamidbar 19:21): "And it shall be for them an everlasting statute."] So, all commandments introduced by "Tzav" apply both immediately and for future generations.

8) (Vayikra 24:3) ("Outside the veil (parocheth) of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, shall Aaron order it, from evening until morning, before the L–rd always, an everlasting statute throughout your generations.") "outside the veil (parocheth) of the testimony": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written) From (Shemoth 40:24) "And he put the menorah in the tent of meeting opposite the table, "I do not know if close to the parocheth or close to the entrance. "Outside the parocheth of the testimony in the tent of meeting tells us that it was closer to the parocheth than to the entrance.

(Fol. 86b) (Lev. 24, 2) Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil. R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said: "It says unto thee, but not unto Me, for I need not its light. The table was in the north side [of the Temple] and the candlestick was at the south side. R. Zerika in the name of R. Elazar remarked: 'He said neither do I need eat food nor its light [of the Temple]'." (I Kings 6, 4) And for the house he made windows broad within, and narrow without. We are taught in a Baraitha concerning this passage that it was purposely made broad within and narrow without, because 'I need not its light.' (Lev. 24, 3) Without the veil of the testimony in the tent of meeting, i.e., this is a testimony for the entire world that the Shechina rests upon Israel. And if thou wilt claim that I need its light; how is it possible? Behold during the entire period which Israel wandered in the deserts they did go after My light. You must therefore admit that this is a testimony for the entire world that the Shechina rests upon Israel. What was the unusual thing which served as testimony? Said Raba: "This refers to the extreme western candle in which the quantity of oil was as much as in all other candles, yet it was this candle from which all other candles were kindled and this was also the last one [to burn until the priest fixed it] ."

9) "Outside the parocheth of the testimony": Now was the light of the menorah required? Was it not with His light (i.e., that of the Shechinah) by which the Jews traveled all forty years in the desert? Rather (it is to be understood as meaning that) it served as testimony to the inhabitants of the world that the Shechinah resided in Israel. What is the testimony? Rava said: It is the western lamp, into which he would place as much oil as in all the other lamps, and yet would commence (lighting all the other lamps) with it and conclude (servicing the lamps) with it.

7) kllal shehu tzarich lifrat ufrat shehu tzarich lichllal (general requiring specific and specific requiring general): (Shemoth 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every bechor (first-born), the opener of each womb." I might think that even females are included; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:19): "the male." If "the male," (I would think that) even a yotze dofen (Caesarian birth) were a bechor. It is, therefore, written "the opener of the womb." This is an instance of "general" (bechor) requiring "specific." I might think that even if it were born after a yotze dofen it were a bechor (being the first opener of the womb); it is, therefore, written "bechor," (which connotes first in all respects; not only first opener of the womb, but also first in birth). This is an instance of "specific" ("opener of the womb") requiring "general" (bechor).

"He shall set it up in the tent of meeting outside the curtain of the pact" (Leviticus 24:3). Rabbi Elazar said, "In the merit of, 'set up,' they were saved from 'It has been set up for a long time' (Isaiah 30:33)." Rabbi Chanin said, "In the merit of the perpetual light, you have merited to receive the face of the lamp of the King Messiah." What is the reason? "There I will make a horn sprout for David; I have prepared a lamp for My anointed one" (Psalms 132:17); and it states (Psalms 122:1), "I rejoiced when they said to me, 'We are going to the House of the Lord.'"

What is the intent of this section? From (Shemot 25:37) "and he (the artificer) shall fashion its lamps so that it shall light across its face," I might think that all the lamps should light across all of the menorah (i.e., from all directions); it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 8:2) "towards the face (the central shaft) shall the seven lamps light" — that the lamps parallel the menorah (the central lamp), and the menorah, the (other) lamps. How so? Three in the north, three in the south and one (the menorah) in the middle, so that all (of the lamps) are parallel to the middle — whence R. Nathan says: "The middle one is honored." "Speak to Aaron": Because the entire section deals with Aaron, the words are directed to him. "and say to him": This is an exhortation to Aaron. "Beha'alothecha (lit., "when you raise) the lamps": Make steps (ma'aloth) for it. "towards (mul) the face (panim) of the menorah": Make for it "mul" (the three on each side facing) "towards" and "face" (i.e., the central shaft). "shall the seven lamps light": I might think that they light forever; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 24:3) "from evening until morning." If "from evening until morning" (alone were written), I would think that this applied to all of them. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 2) "to cause a lamp to light continuously" — This is the western lamp, which burned continuously and from which the menorah was kindled towards evening.

(Bamidbar 8:3) "And Aaron did so": This is in praise of Aaron. As Moses told him, thus did he do, without any change. He made "mul" and "panim" (see above). "He'elah" (lit., "he raised") its lamps" — whence they said: There was an ascent before the menorah of three steps on which the Cohein stood and tended to the lamps, (after which) he placed the oil jug on the second step and left. "as the L-rd had commanded Moses" (i.e., half a log for each lamp, etc.) This tells me only of Aaron (the high-priest). Whence do I derive the same for his sons (i.e., ordinary Cohanim)? From (Vayikra 24:3) "Aaron and his sons shall arrange it." This tells me only of the menorah, that the sons were equated with the father. Whence do I derive the same for the (offering of the) incense? (viz. Shemot 34:7) "It follows, viz.: "Service in the tent of meeting" is written in respect to the menorah, and it is also written in respect to the incense. If I have learned of the first that sons are equated with the father, so, do I learn with the second. — (No,) this is refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, in which instance, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written in respect to it, the sons are not equated with the father. And this refutes (the argument for) incense, which, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. — Would you say that? There is a (strategic) difference! "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written both in respect to the menorah and in respect to the incense, and this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, which, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, is not in golden (but in linen vestments). — This (argument) is refuted by the instance of the bullock of "forgetfulness" of the anointed (high-priest [viz. Vayikra 4:3]) whereof "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written, and in respect to which sons were not equated with the father. And this will refute (the argument for) incense, which even though "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. Would you say that? There is a difference! I would derive it from three terms together. In respect to the menorah it is written "service in the tent of meeting," and "golden vestments," and also "continuously" (tamid), and thus is it written of incense. And this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, where, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, it is not in golden vestments. Nor (is it to be refuted) by the bullock of forgetfulness of the anointed (high-priest), where, even though "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written thereof, "continuously" is not written thereof. I will learn a thing from a (similar) thing, and I will derive a thing from a (similar) thing. I will learn a thing from another thing which is similar to it in three ways, but not from a thing that is not similar to it in three things, but only in one or two. Therefore, if I have learned in respect to the menorah that sons are equated with the father, so, I will learn in respect to the incense that the sons are equated with the father.