Derech eretz for Avraham and Bilaam

In Taama deKra on Vayera, Rav Chaim Kanievsky points out an interesting discrepancy between Rashi on Vayera and Rashi on Balak:

That is, the pasuk and Rashi in Vayera (Bereishit 22:3) read:

And Abraham arose early in the morning, and he saddled his donkey, and he took his two young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for a burnt offering, and he arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

ג. וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּחֲבשׁ אֶת חֲמֹרוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וַיְבַקַּע עֲצֵי עֹלָה וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים:

his two young men: Ishmael and Eliezer, for a person of esteem is not permitted to go out on the road without two men, so that if one must ease himself and move to a distance, the second one will remain with him. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 31; Gen. Rabbah ad loc., Tan. Balak 8]

את שני נעריו: ישמעאל ואליעזר, שאין אדם חשוב רשאי לצאת לדרך בלא שני אנשים, שאם יצטרך האחד לנקביו ויתרחק יהיה השני עמו:

while the pasuk and Rashi in Balak (Bemidbar 22:22) read:

God's wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of the Lord stationed himself on the road to thwart him, and he was riding on his she-donkey, and his two servants were with him.

כב. וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא וַיִּתְיַצֵּב מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְשָׂטָן לוֹ וְהוּא רֹכֵב עַל אֲתֹנוֹ וּשְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו עִמּוֹ:

and his two servants were with him: From here we learn that a distinguished person who embarks on a journey should take two people with him to attend him, and then they can attend each other [so that when one is occupied, the other takes his place]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:13]

ושני נעריו עמו: מכאן לאדם חשוב היוצא לדרך יוליך עמו שני אנשים לשמשו וחוזרים ומשמשים זה את זה:

In both cases, Rashi states that this is derech eretz to have two men to attend him. However, in Vayera, Rashi states explicitly that it so that if one attendant needs to defecate, which requires moving to a distance, the other can remain with him. Meanwhile, in Balak, Rashi appears to say that besides attending him, they are attending each other. [The bracketed text in English in the second Rashi is an attempted harmonization, rather than something explicit in Rashi.] This seems to indeed be a discrepancy.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky offers a rather clever resolution. He points to Sanhedrin 104b [the citation in the text which has 105b is in error] which states:

Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that two men [Jews] were taken captive on Mount Carmel, and their captor was walking behind them. One of them said to the other, 'The camel walking in front of us is blind in one eye, and is laden with two barrels, one of wine, and the other of oil, and of the two men leading it, one is a Jew, and the other a heathen.' Their captor said to them, 'Ye stiff-necked people, whence do ye know this?' They replied, 'Because the camel is eating of the herbs before it only on the side where it can see, but not on the other, where it cannot see.¹  It is laden with two barrels, one of wine and the other of oil: because wine drips and is absorbed [into the earth], whilst oil drips and rests²  [on the surface].³  And of the two men leading it, one is a Jew, and the other a heathen: because a heathen obeys the call of Nature in the roadway, whilst a Jew turns aside.' He hastened after them, and found that it was as they had said.⁴  So he went and kissed them on the head,⁵  brought them into his house, and prepared a great feast for them. He danced [with joy] before them and exclaimed 'Blessed be He who made choice of Abraham's seed and imparted to them of His wisdom, and wherever they go they become princes to their masters!' Then he liberated them, and they went home in peace.

The relevant portion of this tale is that the captive Jews reasoned that ahead of them on the road was one Jew and one gentile, 'because a heathen obeys the call of Nature in the roadway, whilst a Jew turns aside'. If so, for Avraham and his servants, the explanation of turning aside works. Meanwhile, from Bilaam and his servants, the explanation of turning aside does not work.

This is a rather neat resolution. I suspect that, besides a bekius in Shas, the connection was aided by the proximity of Sanhedrin 104b, with this tale, to Sanhedrin 105a, which discusses midrashim about Bilaam, in reference to the events of parashat Balak.

Still, I don't think that this resolution is correct. Here are a few objections:

_____

1) Avraham went with Eliezer and Yishmael, and Bilaam went with two servants. The ones who would distance themselves in this scenario would be Eliezer, Yishmael and [not] the two servants. If so, the contrast is not between Avraham and Bilaam, but of their attendants. Still, this particular objection can be readily dismissed. Eliezer (as an eved kenaani) and Yishmael (as son of Avraham) would be expected to conduct themselves appropriately, distancing themselves when relieving themselves.

2) More to the point, when these Rashis speak of derech eretz for an adam chashuv, the idea is that this is conduct with dignity. Both Avraham and Bilaam momentarily abandoned that dignity, Avraham for zerizut for the mitzvah and Bilaam for hatred (see the Rashis in proximity). Yet here, in taking two attendants, they are conducting themselves with dignity.

When the gemara in Sanhedrin speaks, in the tale, of the difference between Jews and heathens, in that Jews will turn aside while the heathens will defecate in the middle of the road, the point of distinction is that the Jews are conducting themselves with dignity. Bilaam, conducting himself as an adam chashuv, would not defecate in the middle of the road. What of the attendants? Do you really think it dignified for Bilaam to be attended upon by a servant while the servant defecates next to him on the road?

3) The wording of Rashi (drawn from Midrash Tanchuma) is מכאן לאדם חשוב היוצא לדרך יוליך עמו שני אנשים לשמשו וחוזרים ומשמשים זה את זה. That is, we, who are Jewish people, are supposed to derive a lesson of proper conduct for a Jewish adam chashuv from this. Would the midrash really, then, substitute a weaker reason (of them attending one another) which only is relevant to non-Jews?

____

Some commentators note this discrepancy in Rashi and attempt to harmonize. For instance, see Siftei Chachamim on the Rashi in Balak, where the "attending on one another" is that one does the attending that the other would do, when one of them excuses himself to use the bathroom.

Etz Yosef on the Midrash Tanchuma in Balak says likewise. This is a plausible harmonization, though one needs to force it into the words a bit. The simpler meaning is that the attendants attend one another. The man is so chashuv that even his attendants have attendants!

I would rather not focus (for now at least) on the meaning of these two statements. Maybe one should harmonize, and Tanchuma means the same as what Rashi said in Vayera, and maybe one should not harmonize.

However, I would guess that the reason for the difference in Rashi stems from a difference in wording from Rashi's sources. That is, Rashi does not typically make things up, based on sevara, but rather channels midrashim. We saw Rashi's sources cited above. Let us repeat them. In Vayera:

And Abraham arose early in the morning, and he saddled his donkey, and he took his two young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for a burnt offering, and he arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

ג. וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּחֲבשׁ אֶת חֲמֹרוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וַיְבַקַּע עֲצֵי עֹלָה וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים:

his two young men: Ishmael and Eliezer, for a person of esteem is not permitted to go out on the road without two men, so that if one must ease himself and move to a distance, the second one will remain with him. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 31; Gen. Rabbah ad loc., Tan. Balak 8]

את שני נעריו: ישמעאל ואליעזר, שאין אדם חשוב רשאי לצאת לדרך בלא שני אנשים, שאם יצטרך האחד לנקביו ויתרחק יהיה השני עמו:

I've looked at Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, perek 31, and saw no reference to adam chashuv. I think they are simply sourcing the identification of these two young men as Yishmael and Eliezer. This identification indeed appears in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer. See line 23-24:

Bereishit Rabba 55:7 has this source for Rashi:

ויקח את שני נעריו אתו. 
אמר רבי אבהו:שני בני אדם נהגו בדרך ארץ: אברהם ושאול. 
אברהם, שנאמר: ויקח את שני נעריו. 
שאול, (ש"א כ"ח) וילך הוא ושני אנשים עמו. 

"And he took his two young men with him. Rabbi Abahu said: two people conducted themselves with derech eretz, namely Avraham and Shaul. Avraham, as it is said 'And he took his two young men with him'. Shaul, (I Shmuel 28) 'And he went, and two men with him'."

Note that Rabbi Abahu here does not reckon Bilaam as one who conducted himself with derech eretz. Bilaam is not on the radar.

Neither of these two sources speak specifically about the reason for two attendants. Perhaps Rashi supplemented this himself. Perhaps he looked to the distance, and was indeed interpreting Tanchuma on Balak. I still would not leap to say that he drew this from Balak. Perhaps there is still some other midrashic source which states this explicitly.

The pasuk and Rashi in Balak were:

God's wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of the Lord stationed himself on the road to thwart him, and he was riding on his she-donkey, and his two servants were with him.

כב. וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא וַיִּתְיַצֵּב מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְשָׂטָן לוֹ וְהוּא רֹכֵב עַל אֲתֹנוֹ וּשְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו עִמּוֹ:

and his two servants were with him: From here we learn that a distinguished person who embarks on a journey should take two people with him to attend him, and then they can attend each other [so that when one is occupied, the other takes his place]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:13]

ושני נעריו עמו: מכאן לאדם חשוב היוצא לדרך יוליך עמו שני אנשים לשמשו וחוזרים ומשמשים זה את זה:

We can safely ignore Bamidbar Rabba, which is likely post-Rashi and does not serve as Rashi's source (and which says the same as Tanchuma anyway). Rashi got this from Tanchuma Balak, which states:

ושני נעריו עמו זה דרך ארץ, אדם חשוב היוצא לדרך, צריך שנים לשמשו, וחוזרין ומשמשין זה לזה. 

Note that Tanchuma on parashat Vayera takes no note of Avraham taking along two attendants.

The picture I am trying to draw here is of two midrashim which operate in parallel, which do not know of each other. Rabbi Abahu in Bereishit Rabba only knows of Avraham and Shaul and does not know of Bilaam. Midrash Tanchuma only knows of Bilaam and does not know of Bilaam. If so, the reasoning within these two midrashic traditions also do not need to match. (To return to the topic of whether one should harmonize, this might help strip our impetus to harmonize the Rashis.)

And don't complain to Rashi about discrepancies. Rashi in Balak did not say the explanation of an attendant distancing himself to defecate because he was citing Midrash Tanchuma verbatim. He would not have changed the midrash without cause. Perhaps one could complain to Rashi about his explanation in Vayera, but then, we don't necessarily have Rashi's source.

Why does Rashi bother defining ויגר?

Parashat Balak begins (pesukim and Rashi):

Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.		ב. וַיַּרְא בָּלָק בֶּן צִפּוֹר אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאֱמֹרִי:
Balak… saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites: He said, “These two kings whom we relied on could not resist them; we certainly cannot.” Consequently, “Moab became terrified.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 2, Num. Rabbah 20:2]		וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי: אמר אלו שני מלכים שהיינו בטוחים עליהם לא עמדו בפניהם, אנו על אחת כמה וכמה. לפיכך ויגר מואב:
3. Moab became terrified of the people, for they were numerous, and Moab became disgusted because of the children of Israel.		ג. וַיָּגָר מוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי הָעָם מְאֹד כִּי רַב הוּא וַיָּקָץ מוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
[Moab] became terrified: [Heb. וַיָּגָר is] a term denoting dread, as in,“Fear (גּוּרוּ) for yourselves” (Job 19:29). - [Machbereth Menachem p. 59, third def.]		ויגר: לשון מורא, כמו (איוב יט, כט) גורו לכם

The following analysis, from R' Ovadia miBartenura, is reprinted in the sefer Prachei Rashi:

That is, he starts with a slightly different citation of Rashi, which stuffs together the first Rashi (אמר אלו שני מלכים) with the beginning of the second (לשון מורא). R' Ovadia miBartenura writes:

"It is difficult, that which Rashi needs to explain from what Balak was afraid, for the pasuk explains the basis for his fear! It is further difficult why he needs to explain that ויגר is a language of fear, for this is obvious! 

And there is to say, and resolve these matters, in the following manner: Since the pasuk did not say 'And Balak the king of Moav saw", we derive that Balak was not primary in this matter. And further, since it is written after that 'And Moav feared", and it is not written 'And Balak feared', the seeing was ascribed to Balak and the fear to Moav.  

Therefore it seems appropriate to explain that Balak himself did not take the choice in this matter, but rather Moav; they were the ones who employed the stratagems. But the seeing was ascribed to Balak to tell you that even Balak ben Tzipor, who was a mighty warrior known for his might, as is written (in Shofetim 11) "are you really better than Balak ben Tzipor?", even he directed his heart to see all that Israel had done to the Emorites, but he did not fear as Moav feared, for he was not yet king over them, as Rashi explains soon (pasuk 4, d"h בעת ההוא). And since Moav saw that even Balak saw and put in his heart to contemplate the matter, they were quite scared and frightened. And this is what Rashi explains, 'therefore, ויגר מואב." That is to say, because of the seeing of Balak, they were afraid. 

And Rashi needed to explain ויגר as a language of fear because I could have explained it as a language of gathering, such as אוגר בקיץ, and like לא תגורו מפני איש, which they darshen as don't enter in your words, and I would have explained that Balak commanded to gather in Moav and to enter them into the fortified cities because of fear of Israel. 

Therefore he explained ויגר as a language of fear, because it is not possible to explain it as gathering, because the word מאד (the adverb 'greatly'), which follows it, does not apply to it: וַיָּגָר מוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי הָעָם מְאֹד. Meanwhile, as a language of fear, the word מאד can apply, that is to say, they feared greatly."

End quote.

This is an interesting and creative explanation, but I believe that it reads way too much into Rashi. If Rashi meant something so elaborate and non-obvious, I would have expected him to say more.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I can venture a guess or two, based on Rashi's sources. Like a true golem, I will consider the ויגר as fear first.

That pasuk and Rashi again:

Moab became terrified of the people, for they were numerous, and Moab became disgusted because of the children of Israel.		ג. וַיָּגָר מוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי הָעָם מְאֹד כִּי רַב הוּא וַיָּקָץ מוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
[Moab] became terrified: [Heb. וַיָּגָר is] a term denoting dread, as in,“Fear (גּוּרוּ) for yourselves” (Job 19:29). - [Machbereth Menachem p. 59, third def.]		ויגר: לשון מורא, כמו (איוב יט, כט) גורו לכם

So Rashi is citing Menachem ben Saruk. That might be reason enough for this comment, since Rashi often cited Machberet Menachem, and this is citation / channeling of sources rather than necessarily being entirely bothered by something such that Rashi is prompted to comment. We have access to Machberet Menachem, here. The entry starts on page 58 and continues on to page 59, for the root גר, and he gives 11 different definitions of the root. And the third definition reads:

The fourth definition is asifa, gathering, just as Bartenura mentioned. There are other definitions, such as dwelling. Or this one also might be plausible, given the context of Moav: וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֵלַי 'אֶל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה.

I would guess that because this is a relatively uncommon word, and because there are 11 possible definitions, and because it is the subject of an entry in Menachem ben Saruk's dictionary, Rashi believed that it was appropriate to clarify, and to offer another example, taking from the first words of the dictionary entry. This doesn't mean (contra Bartenura) that Rashi really considered alternatives, such as 'gathering', remotely plausible, if not for the adverb מאד.

Another reason Rashi perhaps saw fit to define ויגר is that the midrash Tanchuma (one of Rashi's primary sources) actually interprets this in several different ways, the last of which is indeed fear. Thus (siman 2):

ויגר מואב 

מהו ויגר? 
כשהיו ישראל נראין לעמונים, נראים עטופים לשלום. 
וכשנראים למואבים, נראים מזויינים למלחמה, שכך כתיב: וקרבת מול בני עמון, אל תצורם (דב' ב יט). 
כתיב: למלחמה, שכך כתיב: וקרבת מול בני עמון, אל תצורם (דב' ב יט) 
כתיב: כל מין צרה אל תצר להם. 

ואל תתגר בם (שם) כל מין גירוי. 
ולמואבים אמר: אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה (שם שם ט). 
מלחמה אין אתה עושה, ומה שאתה יכול לחטוף מן החוץ, חטוף. 
ולפיכך נראים מזויינים, והם נאגרין לעריהם, שאין ויגר אלא לשון אסיפה, שנאמר: אוגר בקיץ בן משכיל (משלי י ה).

While referencing וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה, in the end the midrash interprets this as gathering. Despite the word מאד.

And next, meaning to dwell in non-permanent fashion:

דבר אחר: 
ויגר לשון גר, שהיו רואין לעצמן כגרים בעולם. 
ואמרו: ירדו למצרים לגור והאחזו אותה, והיו משכירין להם בתים, שנאמר: ושאלה אשה משכנתה ומגרת ביתה(שמות ג כב). 

And finally, fear:

דבר אחר: 
ויגרלשון יראה, שהיו מתיראין, שראו כל הארץ ביד ישראל, שבא סיחון ונטל ארץ מואב, שנאמר: והוא נלחם במלך מואב הראשון וגו' ( במ' כא כו). 
ועוג נטל את כל ארץ בני עמון, שנאמר: כי רק עוג מלך הבשן נשאר מיתר הרפאים וגו' (דבר' ג יא). 
באו ישראל נטלוה משניהם, גזל שאין בו עולה. 
והיו אלו רואים את ארצם ביד ישראל, והיו אומרים: לא אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, כי לא אתן לך מארצו ירושה (שם ב ט), והרי ארצנו לפניהם, לכך היו מתיראין. 

If so, Rashi is selecting from amongst the various midrashic interpretations and choosing the one which is peshat.

Turning now to what Balak saw, I don't think that we can sustain R' Ovadia miBartenura's assertion that Balak didn't fear but merely contemplated. After all, Rashi is channeling Tanchuma (and all these also appear in Bemidbar Rabba):

משל למה הדבר דומה? 
למלך שהושיב שומרים לשמרו מן הגייס, והוא בטוח עליהם שהיו גיבורים. עבר הגייס והרגם, והיה מרתת על עצמו. 
ואף כך בלק ראה מה נעשה בסיחון ובעוג שהיה מעלה להם שכר לשמרו והיה מתיירא מעצמו. ועוד שראה נסים שעשה להם הקדוש ברוך הוא בנחלי ארנון. 

The midrash explicitly says that Balak was afraid, והיה מתיירא מעצמו. It is true that both Rashi and midrash Tanchuma mention that Balak was appointed after the killing of Sichon:

at that time: He was not entitled to the monarchy. He was one of the Midianite nobles [according to some: of the nobles of Sihon (Josh. 13:21)], and when Sihon died, they appointed him over them on a temporary basis. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:4]

בעת ההוא: לא היה ראוי למלכות. מנסיכי מדין היה, וכיון שמת סיחון מנוהו עליהם לצורך שעה:

However, he could still be afraid, given his new role as king. And see the previous perek, Bemidbar 21, where the Israelites attack and kill Og after attacking and killing Sichon.

Furthermore, while it might be obvious what Balak was afraid of from the very words of the pasuk, אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאֱמֹרִי, once we realize that Rashi is channeling his sources and selecting what to say, we know that Rashi actually did have a choice and has made a selection here.

Namely, Balak could either have been afraid because of the death of Sichon and Og -- which is personal, and also accords with the simple peshat of the pasuk. Or, he could have been afraid because of the miracles at Nachal Arnon. To cite that Midrash Tanchuma again, which is Rashi's source:

ואף כך בלק ראה מה נעשה בסיחון ובעוג שהיה מעלה להם שכר לשמרו והיה מתיירא מעצמו. ועוד שראה נסים שעשה להם הקדוש ברוך הוא בנחלי ארנון.

The Midrash points to the deaths of Sichon and Og as well as  the miracles at Nachlei Arnon.

And those miracles, while not explicit in the Biblical text, were in fact brought into scope by Rashi on the previous perek:

Concerning this it is told in the account of the Wars of the Lord, "What He gave at the [Sea of] Reeds and the streams of Arnon.		יד. עַל כֵּן יֵאָמַר בְּסֵפֶר מִלְחֲמֹת יְהֹוָה אֶת וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה וְאֶת הַנְּחָלִים אַרְנוֹן:
Concerning this it is told: Concerning this encampment, and the miracles that happened there, “it is told in the account of the wars of the Lord”: when they relate the miracles that happened to our forefathers, they will relate: “What He gave….”		על כן: על חניה זו ונסים שנעשו בה יאמר בספר מלחמות ה', כשמספרים נסים שנעשו לאבותינו יספרו את והב וגו':
What He gave: Heb. אֶת וָהֵב, like אֶת יָהֵב [which is the Aramaic root meaning to give]. Just as from [the root] יעד we say ועד so from יהב ‘to give’ [we get] והב, and the “vav” is [part of] the root. That is to say, what He gave (יהב) them and wrought many miracles at the Red Sea. — [Onkelos]		את והב: כמו את יהב, כמו שיאמר מן יעד ועד, כן יאמר מן יהב והב. והוי"ו יסוד הוא, כלומר את אשר יהב להם הרבה נסים בים סוף:
and the streams of Arnon: Just as we recount the miracles of the Red Sea, so should we recount the miracles that happened at the streams of Arnon, for here too, many great miracles were performed. What were those miracles?…- [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]		ואת הנחלים ארנון: כשם שמספרים בנסי ים סוף, כך יש לספר בנסי נחלי ארנון, שאף כאן נעשו נסים גדולים. ומה הם הנסים:
15. And the spilling of the streams that turned to settle at Ar and leaned toward the border of Moab.		טו. וְאֶשֶׁד הַנְּחָלִים אֲשֶׁר נָטָה לְשֶׁבֶת עָר וְנִשְׁעַן לִגְבוּל מוֹאָב:
The spilling of the streams: The Aramaic translation of שֶׁפֶךְ,“spilling,” is אֶשֶׁד -the spilling of the streams, for [there] the blood of the Amorites who were hidden there was spilled. The mountains were high and the gorge deep and narrow, and the mountains were so close to each other, that a man standing on the mountain on one side [of the gorge] could speak to his fellow standing on the mountain on the other side. A road passed along [the floor of] the gorge. The Amorites said, “When the Israelites enter the land by passing through the gorge, we will come out of the caves in the mountains above them and kill them with arrows and stones shot from catapults.” There were clefts in the rock on the Moabite side [of the canyon], and directly opposite those clefts, on the mountain on the Amorite side, there were protrusions, [appearing] like horns and breasts. When the Israelites prepared to pass through, the mountain of the Land of Israel trembled, like a maidservant going out to greet her mistress, and moved toward the mountain of Moab. Then those breastlike protrusions entered the clefts, killing them [the Amorites]. This is the meaning of, “that turned to settle at Ar.” The mountain swung from its place and moved toward the side of the Moabite border, and attached itself to it. Thus, “[it] leaned on the border of Moab.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 20, Num. Rabbah 19:25]		ואשד הנחלים: תרגום של שפך אשד. שפך הנחלים שנשפך שם דם אמוריים שהיו נחבאים שם, לפי שהיו ההרים גבוהים והנחל עמוק וקצר וההרים סמוכים זה לזה, אדם עומד על ההר מזה ומדבר עם חבירו בהר מזה, והדרך עובר תוך הנחל. אמרו אמוריים כשיכנסו ישראל לתוך הנחל לעבור, נצא מן המערות בהרים שלמעלה מהם ונהרגם בחצים ואבני בליסטראות. והיו אותן הנקעים בהר של צד מואב ובהר של צד אמוריים היו כנגד אותן נקעים כמין קרנות ושדים בולטין לחוץ, כיון שבאו ישראל לעבור נזעדזע ההר של ארץ ישראל, כשפחה היוצאת להקביל פני גבירתה, ונתקרב לצד הר של מואב ונכנסו אותן השדים לתוך אותן נקעים והרגום. וזהו אשר נטה לשבת ער, שההר נטה ממקומו ונתקרב לצד גבול מואב ונדבק בו, וזהו ונשען לגבול מואב:

I'll just add that it is plausible that Rashi's, and the midrash's, explanation regarding Sichon and Og is not peshat, but is rather derash. That is, Emori could either mean the Emorite people or specific Emorite persons. La-Emori might mean to Sichon or to Og, rather than the Emorite people. Sichon and Og as protectors and warriors, rather than Sichon and Og and stand-ins for the battle with these Emorite people. And this midrashic explanation is non-obvious.

Finally, there is the juxtaposition Rashi makes of לפיכך ויגר מואב. I think that Rashi is grappling with an irregularity of change in topic, that first Balak sees and then Moav fears (much like R' Ovadia miBartenura mentioned). But Rashi isn't making any nuanced diyuk of it, based on Balak not being called a melech. Rather, there is a shift, in that we know that Balak saw, but we don't see Balak's reaction. Meanwhile, Moav's reaction in the next pasuk might be read as a self-contained item -- they feared because of how numerous the Israelites were. That is what was bothering Rashi. Rashi chooses to merge the two in meaning, that the fear was first set into motion by the acknowledgement and contemplation by the Moabites and by the Moabite leadership of the deaths of Sichon and Og, such that they had reason to fear. So pasuk 2 leads naturally towards the reaction in pasuk 3.

Why allude to the Churban specifically in Pekudei?

Parashat Pekudei begins (Shemot 38:21):

These are the numbers of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of the Testimony, which were counted at Moses' command; [this was] the work of the Levites under the direction of Ithamar, the son of Aaron the Kohen.

כא. אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר פֻּקַּד עַל פִּי משֶׁה עֲבֹדַת הַלְוִיִּם בְּיַד אִיתָמָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן:

and Rashi (1040-1105) comments:

the Mishkan, the Mishkan: Heb. הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִשְׁכַּן [The word מִשְׁכָּן is written] twice. This alludes to the Temple, which was taken as security (מַשְׁכּוֹן) by the two destructions, for Israel’s iniquities [The Temples were taken as a collateral for Israel’s sins. When Israel fully repents, the Third Temple will be built]. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 2, Exod. Rabbah 51:3]

המשכן משכן: שני פעמים, רמז למקדש שנתמשכן בשני חורבנין על עונותיהן של ישראל:

The Midrash Tanchuma in question:

ולמה משכן משכן שני פעמים? 
אמר רבי שמואל: 
שבית המקדש עתיד להתמשכן שני פעמים: 
חרבן ראשון,
וחרבן שני.

Maharal

ולפיכך אמר, משכן שני פעמים. 

The Maharal of Prague (1520-1609), in his supercommentary of Rashi, Gur Aryeh, questions why, of all places, this midrash should be positioned here. Is there something unique to the count in parashat Pekudei that should prompt the Torah to repeat the word Mishkan, in order to allude to the two destructions?

He writes as follows:

"And if you ask what relevance there is in writing this here, and why did it not write this in any parsha which preceded it. Yet this matter is wondrous in wisdom, and this is known from that which the tablets were shattered, because they were given with pomp, such that the evil eye ruled over them (Tanchuma Ki Tisa, 31). And because here is written אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן, that the Mishkan was enumerated here, and because of this the evil eye ruled over it, for anything counted, the evil eye rules over it (Rashi above 30:12 [J: at the start of Ki Tisa, regarding taking a census of Israel]). And since there was a count to each item in the Mishkan, the evil eye ruled over it. And so too the Bet Hamikdash, every item in the Mikdash had a count, as is written explicitly [J: first Bet Hamikdash in I Melachim 6-7, second in Ezra 8], and anyplace there is a count the evil eye rules over it."

This is an interesting idea, tying the midrash to the פקד of counting. Yet for some reason I don't find it persuasive. A concept like ayin hara being sholet and thus causing the destructions is something I would like to be more explicit in the midrash. And there is only two destructions mentioned, of the two Temples, not of the Mishkan, so the connection to the Mishkan being enumerated is somewhat more tenuous.

I also find the question interesting. (1) Why would the Torah introduce this textual irregularity here, or all places. (2) Why does the midrash introduce this idea specifically here?

I don't share the same assumptions as the Maharal when it comes to analyzing midrash, and so I would say that the textual irregularity of הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִשְׁכַּן is driven by some peshat concern, or is some natural human way of writing these particular grammatical constructions. And that once this irregularity was present, the midrashic author took advantage of it to introduce the idea.

However, I do think that there is something unique to Pekudei that is prompting this idea. That is,  הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִשְׁכַּן could have appeared anywhere. And the idea is, for the benefit of Klal Yisrael, the Mikdash serves as a mashkon, collateral. And it gets destroyed rather than Israel being destroyed. This seems like the lesser of two evils, in the grand scheme of things.

But I believe the drasha is also only the first three words of the parasha: אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן

The word פקד means many things. Visit, count, remember.

And it also has a negative, destructive sense, as in (to select a random example) Hoshea 9:7:

ז  בָּאוּ יְמֵי הַפְּקֻדָּה, בָּאוּ יְמֵי הַשִּׁלֻּם--יֵדְעוּ, יִשְׂרָאֵל; אֱוִיל הַנָּבִיא, מְשֻׁגָּע אִישׁ הָרוּחַ--עַל רֹב עֲו‍ֹנְךָ, וְרַבָּה מַשְׂטֵמָה.

7 The days of visitation are come, the days of recompense are come, Israel shall know it. The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad! For the multitude of thine iniquity, the enmity is great.

A day of visitation is a day of destruction. And so this functions as the prime for the midrash, setting the tone for this particular interpretation and revocalization of mishkan.

Why does Rashi change Midrash Tanchuma?

A great post on DovBear, asking why Rashi changes the kiyor midrash.

That is, the pasuk and Rashi read like this (Shemot 38:8):

And he made the washstand of copper and its base of copper from the mirrors of the women who had set up the legions, who congregated at the entrance of the tent of meeting.		ח. וַיַּעַשׂ אֵת הַכִּיּוֹר נְחשֶׁת וְאֵת כַּנּוֹ נְחשֶׁת בְּמַרְאֹת הַצֹּבְאֹת אֲשֶׁר צָבְאוּ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
from the mirrors of the women who had set up the legions: Heb. בְּמַרְאֹתהַצֹבְאֹת Israelite women owned mirrors, which they would look into when they adorned themselves. Even these [mirrors] they did not hold back from bringing as a contribution toward the Mishkan, but Moses rejected them because they were made for temptation [i.e., to inspire lustful thoughts]. The Holy One, blessed is He, said to him, “Accept [them], for these are more precious to Me than anything because through them the women set up many legions [i.e., through the children they gave birth to] in Egypt.” When their husbands were weary from back-breaking labor, they [the women] would go and bring them food and drink and give them to eat. Then they [the women] would take the mirrors and each one would see herself with her husband in the mirror, and she would seduce him with words, saying, “I am more beautiful than you.” And in this way they aroused their husbands desire and would copulate with them, conceiving and giving birth there, as it is said: “Under the apple tree I aroused you” (Song 8:5). This is [the meaning of] what is בְּמַרְאֹתהַצֹבְאֹת [lit., the mirrors of those who set up legions]. From these [the mirrors], the washstand was made, because its purpose was to make peace between a man and his wife. [How so?] By giving a drink from the water that was in it [the washstand] to [a woman] whose husband had warned her [not to stay in private with a certain man] and she secluded herself [with him anyway. The water would test her and either destroy her or prove her innocence. See Num. 5:11-31]. You should know that they were actually mirrors, because it is said: “The copper of the waving was seventy talents… From that he made…” (Exod. 38:29, 30), but the washstand and its base were not mentioned there [among the things produced from the seventy talents. Thus,] you have learned that the copper of the washstand was not of the copper of the waving. So did Rabbi Tanchuma expound [on the matter] (Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 9; Num. Rabbah 9:14). And so did Onkelos render: בְּמֶחְזְיַתנְשַׁיָא [“the mirrors of the women”], which is the Aramaic translation of מַרְאוֹת, mirrors in French. So we find in Isaiah (3:23) וְהַגִּלְיֹנִים (sic), which we render: וּמַחְזְיָתָא, and the mirrors.		במראת הצובאת: בנות ישראל היו בידן מראות, שרואות בהן כשהן מתקשטות, ואף אותן לא עכבו מלהביא לנדבת המשכן, והיה מואס משה בהן, מפני שעשויים ליצר הרע, אמר לו הקב"ה קבל, כי אלו חביבין עלי מן הכל, שעל ידיהם העמידו הנשים צבאות רבות במצרים. כשהיו בעליהם יגעים בעבודת פרך, היו הולכות ומוליכות להם מאכל ומשתה ומאכילות אותם ונוטלות המראות, וכל אחת רואה עצמה עם בעלה במראה ומשדלתו בדברים, לומר אני נאה ממך, ומתוך כך מביאות לבעליהן לידי תאוה ונזקקות להם, ומתעברות ויולדות שם, שנאמר (שיר השירים ח ה) תחת התפוח עוררתיך, וזהו שנאמר במראות הצובאות. ונעשה הכיור מהם, שהוא לשום שלום בין איש לאשתו, להשקות ממים שבתוכו את שקנא לה בעלה ונסתרה, ותדע לך, שהן מראות ממש, שהרי נאמר (שמות לח כט ל), ונחשת התנופה שבעים ככר וגו', ויעש בה וגו', וכיור וכנו לא הוזכרו שם, למדת שלא היה נחשת של כיור מנחשת התנופה, כך דורש רבי תנחומא, וכן תרגם אונקלוס במחזית נשיא, והוא תרגום של מראות מירידויר"ש בלעז [מראות]. וכן מצינו בישעיה (ישעיה ג כג) והגליונים, מתרגמינן ומחזיתא:
who congregated: to bring their donation.		אשר צבאו: להביא נדבתן:

while the Midrash Tanchuma (Pekudei 9) reads like this:

אמרו הנשים: מה יש לנו ליתן בנדבת המשכן? 
עמדו והביאו את המראות והלכו להן אצל משה. 
כשראה משה אותן המראות, זעף בהן. אמר להם לישראל: טולו מקלות ושברו שוקיהן של אלו. 

המראות למה הן צריכין? 
אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה: משה, על אלו אתה מבזה?! 
המראות האלו הן העמידו כל הצבאות הללו במצרים. טול מהן ועשה מהן כיור נחשת וכנו לכהנים, שממנו יהיו מתקדשין הכהנים, שנאמר: ויעש את הכיור נחשת ואת כנו נחשת במראות הצובאות אשר צבאו (שמ' לח ח), באותן המראות שהעמידו את כל הצבאות האלה. לפיכך כתיב: ונחשת התנופה שבעים ככר, נחשת הכלות. 
אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: בעולם הזה נתנדבתם למשכן, שהוא מתכפר עליכם. 
ולעתיד לבא אני מכפר עליכם ואוהב אתכם נדבה, שנאמר: ארפא משובתם אוהבם נדבה (הושע יד ה). 
אמרו: אין לנו לא משכן לא מקדש, תהא לפניך תפלת פינו נדבת המשכן. 
אמר דוד: נדבות פי רצה נא ה' (תהלים קיט קח): 

Read carefully and see if you can spot the differences. DovBear spotted 3.

1. Tanchuma has Moshe say: break their legs, while Rashi omits
2. Rashi has Hashem say this is the best gift, while Tanchuma omits
3. Tanchuma has the kiyor for the purpose of sanctifying the kohanim, while Rashi has the kiyor for testing the Sotah.

Yet, Rashi credits Rabbi Tanchuma for this, saying כך דורש רבי תנחומא!

The way to resolve this is to look to the work Mekorei Rashi, from R' Yehuda Leib Krinsky (1840 - after 1915). Here is a picture of him:

He traces the sources (mekorei) of Rashi, and he is the first to turn to for questions like this.

He also credits Tanchuma 9, but in a slightly different manner:

Tanchuma ALEPH is different than our regular Tanchuma. It is the earliest Tanchuma, out of Tanchuma A, B, and C. Read up on it on Wikipedia:

Tanḥuma A is the collection published by S. Buber (Wilna, 1885), who gathered the material from several manuscripts. This collection, consisting of homilies on and aggadic interpretations of the weekly sections of the Pentateuch, is the oldest of the three, and Buber claimed that it was perhaps the oldest compilation of its kind arranged as a running commentary on the Pentateuch. It is even older than Bereshit Rabbah, which quotes several of its decisions. Buber postulated that this midrash (Tanḥuma) was edited in the 5th century, before the completion of the Babylonian Talmud, to which work it nowhere refers. Buber cites a passage in the Babylonian Talmud that seems to indicate that the redactor of that work had referred to the Midrash Tanḥuma. Other scholars disagree, however, and do not see the Buber recension of Tanchuma as being older than the other versions. Townsend cites a section from Buber's recension which appears to be a quote from Rav Sherira's Sheiltot (8th century). (ed. Townsend, Midrash Tanchuma, xii)

And this version, based on an Oxford manuscript, accords quite often with what Rashi says. Thus:

Tanhuma is one of the jewels of midrash literature. As one of the Yelammedenu midrashim, it is less diffuse than Genesis Rabbah, and its units are shorter than those of the Pesikta. It thus strikes a balance between the jumble of the one and the long sermons of the other. Just over a century ago, Solomon Buber published a new version of the Tanhuma based on an Oxford manuscript which is substantially different from the more common printed versions. It is this version or one very close to it which Rashi had before him and whose interpretations be often commends and recommends. Despite its importance and appeal, no version of Midrash Tanhuma has ever been translated into English. This volume is the first in a series which will bring the riches of the Buber edition to the English reader.

Alas, I cannot access this. Perhaps it is accessible on Bar Ilan, so that we can compare? If so, someone please post it in the comments.

I would guess that the resolution to many of these contradictions is in this, because (i) the bolded quote above, and because (ii) R' Yehuda Leib Krinsky explicitly pointed us to this version of the Tanchuma.

Preemptive atonement for the golden calf?

In parshat Tetzaveh, Rashi writes that the taking of a young bull was to atone for sin the golden calf.

And this is the thing that you shall do for them to sanctify them to serve Me [as kohanim]: take one young bull and two rams, perfect ones.		א. וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם לְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתָם לְכַהֵן לִי לְקַח פַּר אֶחָד בֶּן בָּקָר וְאֵילִם שְׁנַיִם תְּמִימִם:
take: Heb. לְקַח, like קַח, and these are two roots, one of קִיחָה and one of לְקִיחָה, but they have the same meaning [i.e., take].		לקח: כמו קח, ושתי גזרות הן, אחת של קיחה, ואחת של לקיחה, ולהן פתרון אחד:
one young bull: This was to atone for the incident of the [golden] calf, which was a bull. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 10]		פר אחד: לכפר על מעשה העגל שהוא פר:

For this, he is basing himself on a Midrash Tanchuma, which says the same.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky poses an interesting question, in Taama DeKra.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky

וזה אשר תעשה וגו׳ לקח פר פירש״י לכפר
 על מעשה העגל, וקשה הא עדיין לא עשו את
 העגל, וצ״ל דגלוי לפני המקום שיעשו את העגל
 ולכך הקדים וצום ע״ז, וכיו״ב מצינו דאנו
 אוכלין מצה ע״ש שלא הספיק בצקם להחמיץ
 וקשה הרי עדיין לא יצאו ממצרים כשצום על
 מצה וצ״ל שגלוי וידוע לפניו ולכן צום מיד.

After citing the pasuk and the Rashi, he asks:

"And this is difficult, for they had not yet made the golden calf. And one needs to say that it was revealed before Hashem that they would make the golden calf [in the future] and therefore he preempted and commanded them about this. And similarly we find that we eat matza because "their dough did not have sufficient time to rise", which is difficult for they had not yet left Egypt when He commanded them regarding matza, and one needs to say that it was revealed and known before Him, and therefore he commanded them immediately."

If I may, I would like to present an alternative approach to deal with this difficulty.

The question, that they had not yet sinned with the golden calf yet, when these donations and construction of the Mishkan is happening, is based on simple order of pesukim. And this is the  view endorsed by Ramban.

However, perhaps we should see if Rashi has some strange position in which ain mukdam umeuachar baTorah such that the golden calf came first.

Or even if Rashi doesn't hold this, we should consider Rashi's source, the Midrash Tanchuma. Perhaps Midrash Tanchuma reverses the order and is thus consistent in its approach.

Looking a bit ahead, to the next parasha, Ki Tisa, we find this pasuk and Rashi:

When He had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, stone tablets, written with the finger of God.		יח. וַיִּתֵּן אֶל משֶׁה כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ בְּהַר סִינַי שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת לֻחֹת אֶבֶן כְּתֻבִים בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים:
He gave Moses: In the Torah, chronological order is not adhered to. The episode of the calf took place long before the command of the work of the Mishkan. For on the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were broken, and on Yom Kippur the Holy One, blessed is He, was reconciled to Israel. On the morrow [i.e., on the eleventh of Tishri], they commenced with the donation for the Mishkan, and it [the Mishkan] was erected on the first of Nissan. -[from Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Thissa 31]		ויתן אל משה וגו': אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. מעשה העגל קודם לצווי מלאכת המשכן ימים רבים היה, שהרי בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, וביום הכפורים נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל, ולמחרת התחילו בנדבת המשכן והוקם באחד בניסן:

Thus, both Rashi and the Midrash Tanchuma are consistent, and hold that the chet ha'egel came first, before the construction of the Mishkan.

What about matza? We can certainly answer as Rav' Kanievsky did, that Hashem knew the future and so even commanded this during Pesach Mitzrayim. Alternatively, perhaps something like is described in this essay. We might distinguish between the matza for Pesach Mitzrayim and and Matza for Pesach Doros. And there was a separate reason for the matza during Pesach Mitzrayim, namely that it is lechem oni, poor man's bread, or slave's bread, or something different from the innovation of Egypt, which was bread that rose.