“And He called to Moshe, and G-d spoke to him” (Vayikra 1:1). “For all communiqués, and for all messages, and for all commandments, there was a ‘calling’ that preceded it” (Rashi). Toras Kohanim (Rashi’s source) specifies that G-d “called” to Moshe before speaking to him at the burning bush (Sh’mos 3:4), on Mt. Sinai (Sh’mos 24:16; 19:3 and 19:20 may not qualify since there is no “and He spoke to him” or “and He said to him” following the “calling,” and it is the double-language of “calling” and “saying” or “speaking” that proves there was a “calling” before each communication, although there is a discussion among the commentators about which “calling” is being referred to) and in the Tent of Meeting (Vayikra 1:1), and adds that this applies to every time G-d spoke to Moshe in the Tent of Meeting (the Mishkan).

Rabbi Yitzchok Sorotzkin, sh’lita (Rinas Yitzchok III) quotes Rashi (Sh’mos 33:11), who says that from Yom Kippur until the Mishkan started operating on the 1st of Nisan, G-d’s divine presence would go to Moshe’s “Tent of Meeting” and speak to him there, and asks whether there was a “calling” prior to these communications as well.

Although he never comes to a full resolution, he does say that the fact that Toras Kohanim doesn’t mention that there was also a “calling” in Moshe’s “Tent of Meeting” implies that there wasn’t. However, the Midrash says that if not for the fact that we can’t apply what happened at Moshe’s first divine communication to subsequent ones, we would know there was a “calling” in the Mishkan based on the fact that there was one at the burning bush. It then says that even though there was also a “calling” at Sinai despite it not being the first communication, we still can’t apply what happened there to the Mishkan, since the communication at Sinai was for (or on behalf of) the entire nation, as opposed to the communication in the Mishkan, which was not. [It is unclear why one was considered for the entire nation and one wasn’t, but since it will not impact this discussion, we will put that aside for now.] An attempt is then made to apply the concept of there being a “calling” to the Mishkan by combining the two precedents (a “calling“ by the burning bush and at Mt. Sinai), with the issues preventing us from knowing this from either of them (on their own) covered by the other (a “tzad hashaveh”). This is rejected because there was a fire at both the burning bush and atop Mt. Sinai, so we can’t apply apply what happened there to the Mishkan, where there was no (uncovered) fire. Therefore, we have to be told that G-d “called to Moshe” at the Mishkan as well. [End of my attempt to translate the Midrash; here comes my takeaway.] Once we are told that there was a “calling” at all three places, though, it would seem that we can assume there was a “calling” preceding every communication from G-d to Moshe, including those in Moshe’s “Tent of Meeting.” [Toras Kohanim does not mention this explicitly because it is trying to explain the first verse in Vayikra, not verses in Sh’mos.]

One of the reasons given for G-d “calling” Moshe before speaking to him was to give him permission to enter the Mishkan (or the cloud that covered Mt. Sinai) despite “G-d’s honor” being there (see https://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/parashas-pekuday-5776/). When it came to Moshe’s “Tent of Meeting,” though, we are told that “when Moshe entered the tent, the cloud-pillar descended, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and [G-d] spoke with Moshe” (Sh’mos 33:9). Since Moshe was already in his tent when the cloud-pillar descended, and it stayed by the doorway, there was no need to “call” Moshe to give him permission to be there. Nevertheless, Rashi (40:35) says that the cloud had to leave the Mishkan before Moshe could enter, so according to him this was not the reason for the calling. Instead, he explains (Vayikra 1:1) the “calling” to be an expression of G-d’s fondness for Moshe, and that fondness should have also manifested itself when G-d spoke to Moshe at his “Tent of Meeting.”

[Although Toras Kohanim also says that G-d called to Moshe “out of fondness,” it is explaining why He called his name twice (“Moshe, Moshe”), and not just once, so we don’t know if it is only the double-calling that, according to Toras Kohanim, reflects G-d’s fondness for him, or the calling itself.]

Exactly when Moshe moved his tent “outside the camp,” what it’s function was, and how long it served that function (including how long his tent remained “outside the camp”) is a separate discussion; I will just point out that if its purpose was for “all who sought G-d” to “go out to [Moshe’s] Tent of Meeting” (Sh’mos 33:7), the nature of the communication with G-d would be different, as instead of G-d initiating the communication to teach Moshe a commandment, Moshe would be the initiator, asking G-d for direction in order to help those who came out “seeking G-d.” If Moshe was the one who initiated the conversation, no “calling” from G-d would be needed. However, Rashi (33:11) says explicitly that Moshe would “return to the camp and teach the elders what he was taught.” Unless Moshe was sharing with the elders what G-d had told him regarding those who “sought G-d,” it seems that, at least according to Rashi, there were commandments taught there, which Moshe would then share with the nation’s elders, and Rabbi Sorotzkin’s question as to whether there was a “calling” that preceded these communications would apply.

Rabbi Sorotzkin continues by quoting Rashi in Ta’anis (21b), that G-d’s divine presence stayed atop Mt. Sinai until the Mishkan was built, and all mitzvos given there were accompanied by the same fanfare that was present when the “Ten Commandments” were given. He then asks if there was also a “calling” before each of these communications, adding that even though Toras Kohanim says there was a “calling” on Mt. Sinai because it was for the entire nation, since the mitzvos taught there after the public revelation were no different (in this regard) than those taught in the Mishkan, they may not have been considered “Mt. Sinai communications.” However, since after all is said and done we know that there was a “calling” before every communication in the Mishkan too, even those communications at Mt. Sinai should have had one as well. Additionally, the focus there (in Ta’anis) is on how long G-d’s divine presence stayed on Mt. Sinai, not how long the mitzvos continued to be taught there. It is therefore quite possible that the “mitzvos” referred to are those taught before Yom Kippur, telling us that they were accompanied by the same “light and sound” show that occurred during the public revelation. Rashi is quite explicit (Sh’mos 33:11) that from the time Moshe descended Mt. Sinai until the Mishkan was built, any new mitzvos were taught in his “Tent of Meeting,” not on Mt. Sinai. [It should be noted that the commentary on Ta’anis attributed to Rashi is likely not really Rashi (see http://dafyomi.co.il/discuss.php?gid=10&daf=0&file=2).] Besides, just as Toras Kohanim implies that after we are told that Moshe was “called” at the burning bush, at Mt. Sinai and at the Mishkan it applies everywhere, including Moshe’s “Tent of Meeting,” it would apply to all communication atop Mt. Sinai as well.

There is another issue that needs to be resolved, though, as after Toras Kohanim explains why we need to be told that there was a “calling” in the Mishkan, it adds that we might have thought it was only before the first communication there, so the Torah adds the words “from the Tent of Meeting” (even though we would know from the context that this is where it occurred) to teach us that there was a “calling” before each and every communication in the Mishkan. If we would already know that Moshe was “called” before every communication, why would we think he was only “called” before the first communication in the Mishkan, but not subsequent ones?

The wording of this “limud” (teaching) has baffled the commentators, as instead of saying “how do we know there was a ‘calling’ before every communication in the Mishkan,” the Midrash asks how we know there was a “calling” before “every communication in the Torah.” I would therefore suggest that the Midrash is addressing the possibility that there was only a “calling” before the first communication in each location, as opposed to any subsequent communications on Mt. Sinai, in the Mishkan, and even in Moshe’s “Tent of Meeting.” By “proving” that there was a “calling” before every communication in the Mishkan, the Midrash is teaching us that the same is true for every communication in the other locations as well, as “for all the communications in the Torah” (with Moshe), there was a “calling” that preceded it.