The second to last thing described in this week’s Parasha is the “m’koshaish,” the individual who did a prohibited activity on Shabbos. Rashi, based on the Sifre, says that this incident was a disgrace for the nation, as they only kept the first Shabbos, the second being desecrated by the “m’koshaish.” Since the laws of Shabbos were first given at Marah three days after crossing through the split sea (see Rashi on Sh’mos 15:25), were explained further when the mun (manna) first started to fall (16:22-30), and were included in the proclamations made at the public revelation at Mt. Sinai (20:8-11), it seems rather obvious that the “first Shabbos” occurred in the first year after the exodus from Egypt. Therefore, the “m’koshaish” incident, if it happened on the “second Shabbos,” must have been in that first year as well.
However, if this occurred in the first year, why is it first mentioned now, when the narrative has taken us well into the second year? Rashi himself tells us that the “m’koshaish” happened at the same time as the “m’kalel,” the individual who cursed G-d (Vayikra 24:12). Since Rashi (24:10) explained that the blaspheming occurred after things that happened in the second year (seeing that fresh bread was made only once per week in the Mishkan, which wasn’t completed until Nisan in the second year, and being told that he couldn’t dwell with the tribe of Dun, with the tribal encampments being set up in the second month of the second year), it would seem just as obvious that the “m’koshaish” must have happened in the second year!
Add to this that Rashi (Vayikra 24:12, also in the Sifre) says that the only confusion surrounding the “m’koshaish” was what type of capital punishment he deserved, as they knew that he deserved the death penalty because they were told “those who desecrate [Shabbos] shall be put to death” (Sh’mos 31:14). But this information came after the commandment to build the Mishkan (see Rashi on 31:13), which was after the third set of 40 days/nights that Moshe spent on Mt. Sinai, i.e. months after the commandment to keep Shabbos was given! How could they know that the “m’koshaish” had to die if his desecration happened on the second Shabbos, months before they were told that not keeping Shabbos is a capital offense?
Rabbeinu Shimshon, in his commentary on Toras Kohanim (14:4, see also Y’riyos Sh’lomo and Maskil L’Dovid), quotes a slightly different version of the Sifre, where instead of saying that the Children of Israel only kept the first Shabbos, the wording is that they only kept it the first year, but not the second. If that was the Sifre’s intent, then it is telling us that the “m’koshaish” incident did in fact happen in the second year, not the first. However, when Rashi paraphrases the Sifre, he frames it as “first Shabbos/second Shabbos,” not “first year/second year,” so even if this approach works in the Sifre, it cannot be applied to Rashi. In his commentary on the Sifre, Rabbi Dovid Pardo admits that the approach he put forth in Maskil L’Dovid (his commentary on Rashi) was a stretch (he didn’t change the wording of the Sifre, only the intent), and instead suggests that “first Shabbos/second Shabbos” is not meant to be taken literally, but refers to kabbalistic concepts that are euphemisms for the first year/second year. However, since Rashi doesn’t use kabbalistic euphemisms to explain the plain meaning of verses in the Torah, it is highly unlikely that this was his intent.
Netziv, in his commentary on the Sifre, makes a very strong case that it was only the very first Shabbos that was kept; every Shabbos after that was not. In Yechezkel (20:12-14), it is quite clear that chilul Shabbos (desecration of the Sabbath) was rampant, which is why the Sifre says Moshe had to appoint watchmen to enforce Sabbath observance. Most of the time, when the watchmen were around, the chilul Shabbos stopped. The “m’koshaish” was the exception, as he continued even after he was warned that he would be put to death. The Sifre is saying that it was a disgrace that after the first Shabbos, starting with the second one, the laws of Shabbos were violated. The Sifre isn’t saying that the “m’koshaish” incident occurred on that second Shabbos, but that chilul Shabbos did; this particular incident happened in the second year. Here again though, the way Rashi paraphrases the Sifre (“and on the second this one came and desecrated it”) precludes Netziv’s approach from being his intent.
Gur Aryeh and L’vush (on Vayikra 24:10) both suggest that even though the “m’koshaish” incident happened in the first year, he was kept in jail until the second year. Each gives a different reason why G-d wanted to hold off on punishing the “m’koshaish” until the second year, but the bottom line is that if he was still in jail when the “m’kalel” was incarcerated, they would have both been imprisoned at the same time. However, Rashi’s wording indicates that both incidents occurred at about the same time, not just that they were imprisoned at the same time.
There is another, related, issue discussed by the commentators at length. The Talmud (Shabbos 118b) says that even the very first Shabbos was desecrated, “as it says, ‘and it was on the seventh day that some of the nation went out to gather (the mun)” (Sh’mos 16:27). How could Rashi say that they kept the first Shabbos, when the Talmud clearly says that they didn’t! Addressing this issue may lead to a possible explanation as to how Rashi could say that the “m’koshaish” desecrated the second Shabbos if the “m’kalel” happened in the second year.
Tosfos (Shabbos 87b) asks how the Talmud could claim it was the first Shabbos that they desecrated, since there were two between Marah (where they were first commanded about Shabbos) and when they were given the mun, making it the third Shabbos that was desecrated. Although Tosfos gives no answer, based on how Ramban explains Rashi (Sh’mos 15:25), that the laws given at Marah were to be studied, but not (yet) observed, we can understand why the Talmud considers the Shabbos of the mun — which they were commanded to observe — the “first” Shabbos, as it was the first Shabbos that they were actually required to keep. So far, we have two “first” Shabbasos; when they were first taught about it, and when they were first required to observe it. There were other “firsts” as well.
The public revelation at Mt. Sinai, when G-d descended upon the mountain and communicated with us directly, gave new meaning (and status) even to those commandments that had been given earlier (i.e. the Noachide Laws, gid ha-nasheh, etc.). In effect, despite having desecrated the “first Shabbos” after it was originally commanded, the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai gave them a fresh start, and the first Shabbos afterwards (in Sivan of 2448) was also considered a “first” Shabbos. Similarly, after the “golden calf,” the Mishkan represented the covenant being re-established (see Rashi on Sh‘mos 38:21). Abarbanel says that the Mishkan was an attempt to recreate the Mt. Sinai experience, including (or especially) G-d’s presence dwelling among us. Shabbos itself was given new meaning, as the categories of prohibited activities were now defined as the activities necessary to build the Mishkan. After the details of the Mishkan were laid out, the very first thing G-d told Moshe to tell the nation was to keep Shabbos (Shemos 31:12-17), to reiterate its importance. Just as Mt. Sinai created a fresh beginning, so too did the Mishkan give the nation a new start. And the first Shabbos after the Mishkan was built could therefore also be considered the “first” Shabbos.
Since the Mishkan was built on Nisan 1, 2449, almost a year after the exodus from Egypt, the second Shabbos would have also been in Nisan 2449. This could have been the Shabbos that the “m’koshaish” incident happened, and since it was after the “m’kalel” saw that the “showbread” was baked fresh only once a week, both incidents could very well have been at the same time. If the tribal encampments, which were set up a few weeks later, were what led the “m’kalel” to blaspheme, it’s possible that the “m’koshaish” was kept in prison for a few weeks, and was still there when the blaspheming occurred. The reasons given by Gur Aryeh and L’vush to leave the “m’koshaish” in prison for a while apply here as well, and are more palatable if the wait was a matter of weeks rather than close to a year. Targum Yonasan offers additional reasons why Moshe purposely waited a bit before executing the “m’koshaish,” reasons that necessitate only a short wait, and are somewhat undermined if it was a long wait.
If the “m’koshaish” desecrated the second Shabbos after the Mishkan was built, it would still be a disgrace for the nation, would have occurred during the same time period as the “m’kalel,” and was well after it was known that the punishment for desecrating the Sabbath was death.
