Pharaoh the Crocodile

In the Haftara for Va`eira (in Yechezkel 28:3), we see Pharaoh addressed as the great Tanim:

“Speak, and say: Thus saith the Lord GOD: behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh King of Egypt, the great Tanim that lieth in the midst of his rivers, that hath said: My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.”

As for the definition of this Tanim, Shadal has an interesting suggestion. He writes (page 29-30 in the PDF):

“Behold I am against thee, Pharaoh King of Egypt: It is known that Pharaoh is not the name of a specific king, but rather it is a generic term for all the kings of Egypt. And the basic import of this word in the Egyptian language is Sun, and afterwards it was borrowed to mean king. And it appears that this name was also borrowed in the Egyptian language to mean the great Tanim which lies in the midst of the rivers of Egypt -- this is the crocodile -- for Par’un (or Par’oh) by the Arabs means crocodile as well. And according to this, the prophet [Yechezkel] compared Pharaoh -- that is to say, the king of Egypt, who was contemporary to him -- to this crocodile, for both of them were called Pharaoh.

And to know the true name of the king of Egypt of whom Yechezkel spoke, one needs to recall the words of Yirmeyahu who said (Sefer Yirmeyahu 44:30):

ל  כֹּה אָמַר ה, הִנְנִי נֹתֵן אֶת-פַּרְעֹה חָפְרַע מֶלֶךְ-מִצְרַיִם בְּיַד אֹיְבָיו, וּבְיַד, מְבַקְשֵׁי נַפְשׁוֹ:  כַּאֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי אֶת-צִדְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה, בְּיַד נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל אֹיְבוֹ--וּמְבַקֵּשׁ נַפְשׁוֹ.  {ס}

30 thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will give Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of them that seek his life; as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, his enemy, and that sought his life.' {S}

from which we may deduce that Pharaoh who ruled in Egypt in the days of Tzidkeyahu and in the days of Nevuchadnetzar was Chafra’. And know that in truth, this king was known to the ancients, who wrote the annals of Egypt, by the name of Ουαφρης or Apries, and he was a king in the days of Nevuchadnetzar according to their calculations.

‘that lies in the midst of his rivers’ - the Tanim, or crocodile, is an animal which dwells on the land and in water.”

End quote of Shadal.

To bolster this connection between Pharaoh and the crocodile, I would point to Sobek, the crocodile god. Every Pharaoh was the living incarnation of Horus, the falcon-headed god, but eventually (as per Wikipedia), Sobek and Horus were fused:

In this period, Sobek also underwent an important change: he was often fused with the falcon-headed god of divine kingship, Horus. This brought Sobek even closer with the kings of Egypt, thereby giving him a place of greater prominence in the Egyptian pantheon.

And in an ancient Egyptian spell, Pharoah is praised as the living incarnation of Sobek, the crocodile god. Thus:

He is first known from several different Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom, particularly from spell PT 317.[3] The spell, which praises the pharaoh as living incarnation of the crocodile god, reads:

"Unis is Sobek, green of plumage, with alert face and raised fore, the splashing one who came from the thigh and tail of the great goddess in the sunlight ... Unis has appeared as Sobek, Neith's son. Unis will eat with his mouth, Unis will urinate and Unis will copulate with his penis. Unis is lord of semen, who takes women from their husbands to the place Unis likes according to his heart's fancy."[4]

If so, Yechezkel referring to Pharaoh as a great crocodile makes sense.

Another interesting tie-in. According to Rabbenu Bachyah, the צפרדע is the crocodile.

Shadal: What, or who, is הוּא חַיֶּיךָ וְאֹרֶךְ יָמֶיךָ?

Shadal’s last comment at the end of parashat Nitzavim reads as follows:

To explain, the trup in the last pasuk of the parasha reads:

לְאַֽהֲבָה֙ אֶת־יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ לִשְׁמֹ֥עַ בְּקֹל֖וֹ וּלְדָבְקָה־ב֑וֹ כִּ֣י ה֤וּא חַיֶּ֨יךָ֙ וְאֹ֣רֶךְ יָמֶ֔יךָ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת עַל־הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֩ נִשְׁבַּ֨ע יְהוָ֧ה לַֽאֲבֹתֶ֛יךָ לְאַבְרָהָ֛ם לְיִצְחָ֥ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹ֖ב לָתֵ֥ת לָהֶֽם׃

And this means that the etnachta is on וּלְדָבְקָה־ב֑וֹ. The etnachta provides a logical pause in the middle of the pasuk. Meanwhile, Shadal would place the etnachta on the word יָמֶ֔יךָ, and redraw all the trup to fit.

The difference is that, according to the standard reading, the break is like this:

to love the LORD thy God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him ||

for that is thy life, and the length of thy days; that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

And according to Shadal, the break is like this:

to love the LORD thy God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him, for HE [Hashem] is thy life, and the length of thy days ||

that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

The idea is that He is your life, and so you should choose to love Him and cleave to Him, to dwell on the land. And the reason that it says “for He is your life” is that it says “and to cleave to Him”, in the same manner as “and you who cleave to Hashem, all you are living today.”

We need not dwell on the redrawing of the trup. It is regular and mechanical once you move the etnachta over.

Og's Bedstead - Shadal

In parashat Devarim, on the following pasuk [Devarim 3:11], Shadal responds to those who assert that the pasuk is an editorial insertion:

יא  כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים--הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל, הֲלֹה הִוא בְּרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן:  תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אָרְכָּהּ, וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת רָחְבָּהּ--בְּאַמַּת-אִישׁ.

11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל -- "Moshe elaborates a bit in the telling of the greatness of the victory which 
Hashem granted them, for He gave into their hands two mightly kings, Sichon and Og. And all this is to strengthen the nation's heart, so that they would trust in Hashem to give them the land of Canaan. And this is [in line with] what he sums up [in pasuk 21-22] 'so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou goest over. Ye shall not fear them; for the LORD your God, He it is that fighteth for you.'

And with this same intent (to engrave in their hearts the greatness of the salvation which Hashem performed for them) he said earlier [pasuk 4-5] 'there was not a city which we took not from them; threescore cities... All these were fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars...'

And with this same intent he added here that Og was of the Refaim, whose strength and great height was well known in their days, such that they would frighten all who saw them. And he added here as well the matter of his bedstead, which was well-known in their days, and which was kept in Rabbat Benei Amon, for (just as Mendelssohn said) the Amonim kept his bed as a remembrance of their [own] might, when they were victorious over him and took his land. All this was to strengthen the image of the salvation which Hashem granted to Israel.

And there is not here any this which cannot rightly be said that Moshe wrote it. And behold, it is logical that, also in Ashterot, Og had a bedstead of iron, but Moshe did not command to keep it, for it was not his way to place a hand[hold?] within his nation for the kings of the nations, who were idol worshipers, for his Torah still required strengthening, since it was new. However, King David believed that the Torah's roots had already taken root in Israel and required no further strengthening. Therefore, when he took Rabbat Benei Ammon, he did not hold back from taking the crown of their king [מלכם] from upon his head so that it would be upon the head of David [II Shmuel 12:30]. And if the bedstead of Og was still there, it seems to me that he would have undoubtedly brought it to Yerushalayim. And this that this fact isn't mentioned in sefer Shmuel, one can understand that in the span of 400 years, it was already broken and / or lost and was no longer there.

And [so] it is not possible that this pasuk [in Devarim about Og's bedstead] was added in the days of David, as is the position of those who hold themselves clever. And I would ask them: who added it, and from where was it added? Behold, even if you just seek to say that what was added was כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים -- 'For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim', since the remembrance of the Refaim was already forgotten in the days of David, then that Og remained from the remnants of the Refaim was something that was quite old in his [David's] generation, and it is far-fetched that it would arise in someone's mind to add this matter in a sefer, which wouldn't aid or benefit.

Besides this, David and his friends, it would have been better for them to erase these words from sefer Yehoshua [12:4 -- וּגְבוּל, עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, מִיֶּתֶר, הָרְפָאִים and 13:12 -- הוּא נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים] and not to add them in the Torah. For behold, David and his servants smote the children of Rafah [II Shmuel 21:22, I Divrei Hayamim 20:4]. And would it not be for greater honor to David and his servants were it said that they were the ones who slew the remnants of the Refaim. And for what cause would the people of that generation relate to a later generation that only Og remained from the remnants of the Refaim, in such manner that the children of the Rafa could not be from this trunk famed for its might and great height?

Now if it is granted that the words כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים are not added, but were rather written by whoever wrote the sefer, behold I will ask: is it possible that this was the language of the author [with the words above included as those of the initial author but with other words allegedly by an editor missing]?

י  כֹּל עָרֵי הַמִּישֹׁר, וְכָל-הַגִּלְעָד וְכָל-הַבָּשָׁן, עַד-סַלְכָה, וְאֶדְרֶעִי--עָרֵי מַמְלֶכֶת עוֹג, בַּבָּשָׁן.	10 all the cities of the plain, and all Gilead, and all Bashan, unto Salcah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan.--
יא  כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים--הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל, הֲלֹה הִוא בְּרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן:  תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אָרְכָּהּ, וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת רָחְבָּהּ--בְּאַמַּת-אִישׁ.	11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

יב  וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת יָרַשְׁנוּ, בָּעֵת הַהִוא...

12 And this land we took in possession at that time...

Then what connection and what relation is there to the middle pasuk [11] with what precedes and with what follows?"

__________

I have some thoughts on this, but will keep them for (hopefully) a follow-up post.

The trup on מַעֲשֵׂה חָרַשׁ אֶבֶן

Summary: Shadal writes that one would expect it to be different, based on Rashi. One should put חָרַשׁ אֶבֶן together as a single phrase. I am not entirely convinced. Also, an interesting cross-out in Wickes about the trup in the Aleppo Codex on Ezra 7:13.

Post: In parashat Tetzaveh, Shemot 28:11, the pasuk reads:

The first three words of the pasuk could be translated as either

(a) the work of | a gem engraver
(b) an engraver's work | of gems

There is a very slight difference between the two. In the former, charash even is a unit (a craftsman), and maaseh is the work done by that unit. In the latter, maaseh charash is a unit (a craftsman's work), and even modifies that, clarifying upon what substance the maaseh charash was done.

At least, that is my attempt to distinguish between the two. One could perhaps suggest other ways to parse this.

The zarka (snake-like symbol) subdivides a clause ending in segolta (upside-down segol), so the trup would appear to decide in favor of (b).

According to Rashi on the pasuk, because of the patach under the resh, charash is in the construct form and so the meaning is "engraver" of gems.

[Similar to] the work of an engraver of gems, [similar to] the engravings of a seal, you shall engrave the two stones with the names of the sons of Israel; you shall make them enclosed in gold settings.		יאמַעֲשֵׂה חָרַשׁ אֶבֶן פִּתּוּחֵי חֹתָם תְּפַתַּח אֶת שְׁתֵּי הָאֲבָנִים עַל שְׁמֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻסַבֹּת מִשְׁבְּצוֹת זָהָב תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם:
[Similar to] the work of an engraver of gems: Heb. אֶבֶן מַעִשֵׂה חָרַשׁ. The work of a craftsman of precious stones. This [word] חָרַשׁ is connected to the following word. Therefore, it is vowelized with a “pattach” at the end, and likewise, “The carpenter (חָרַשׁ עֵצִים) stretched out a line” (Isa. 44:13). [This is like] חָרָשׁ שֶׁל עֵצִים. Likewise, “The iron smith (חָרַשׁ בַּרְזֶל)” (Isa. 44:12). All these are connected and are [therefore] vowelized with “pattach” s.		מעשה חרש אבן: מעשה אומן של אבנים. חרש זה דבוק הוא לתיבה שלאחריו, ולפיכך הוא נקוד פתח בסופו, וכן (ישעיה מד יג) חרש עצים נטה קו, חרש של עצים. וכן (ישעיה מד יב) חרש ברזל מעצד, כל אלה דבוקים ופתוחים:

IMHO, just asserting that charash is the construct and connected to the following word need not rule out either (a) or (b). It works readily with (a), charash even as a unit. But it could work readily with (b) as well, with the last word of the unit (maaseh charash) needing to be in construct form as the whole unit should be in construct form because of the connection to the following word.

On the other hand, מעשה אומן של אבנים might be taken to imply (a), that is, by explicitly putting in the word shel, Rashi might be saying that uman shel avanim is a unit, and it is the work of such a craftsman. I am not so convinced. I think one can parse מעשה אומן של אבנים as (b) just the same, and the only reason shel is there is to emphasize that the charash is in construct rather than absolute form.

Shadal argues that the trup is fit to be modified, to place the zarka on the first word. Thus:

"Maaseh | charash even. So it would be appropriate for the trup on these words to be. See Rashi."

See this post from 2012, where I also mentioned this pasuk, trup, Rashi and Shadal. The difference is that here I am not so convinced.
______________________________________________________

While checking to see if Wickes had anything on this, I saw the following interesting emendation of Wickes' text (pg 88) in the scan in Google Books:

By "it has been already mentioned", Wickes means footnote 1:

Note that someone has crossed out the sentence "Even Ben Asher's famous Codex at Aleppo is wrong."

I don't think someone crossed this out due to religious fervor, taking offense on behalf of the Aleppo Codex. I would guess that someone believes that this statement is incorrect.

We cannot examine the Aleppo Codex itself to confirm that there is a segolta there rather than an etnachta. Ezra is currently missing from the Aleppo Codex:

The Aleppo Codex, as it reached Israel has 294 parchment pages, written on both sides. Examination revealed that many pages were missing as a result of the damage to the Codex in 1947. Mainly the first part of the manuscript was damaged, the Pentateuch, of which only the last eleven pages remained. Almost all the Five Books of Moses had been lost, except the final chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy, which were preserved. The final pages of the Aleppo Codex are also missing, including part of the Song of Songs, and all of Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. In the rest of the books of the prophets, some pages are missing. In all, the Aleppo Codex originally had 487 pages.

(Wickes' book is copyright 1887.) However, the Leningrad Codex, which should be the same, definitely has a segolta there, and no etnachta is to be seen.

Acharei Mos: Why is the esnachta on לַפָּרֹכֶת?

The placement of the etnachta on the second pasuk in Acharei Mot seems a bit odd:

The etnachta usually marked the logical midpoint of the pasuk, yet this does not seem to be the case here. Namely, the etnachta is at the place of the double-dashes, [--]:

and the LORD said unto Moses: 'Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil [--] before the ark-cover which is upon the ark; that he die not; for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover.

We should expect that it would appear after the word "ark", or after the phrase "that he die not", rather than in the middle of the description of the holy place.

Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, in his sefer haKsav vehaKabbalah, asks this very question:

He writes:

haKsav vehaKabbalah

"within the veil -- the author of the trup connected אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת [namely, the phrase immediately following the etnachta] with the end of the verse, rather than putting the break in the statement via the etnachta upon וְלֹא יָמוּת, for the primary reason that he should not come [there] is because of the revelation of the Divine Presence, and that is upon the ark-cover [kapores] between the cherubs. Therefore he placed the etnacha on the word לַפָּרֹכֶת."

I am not sure who רל"ש is. Anyone know?

Meanwhile, here is how Shadal addresses the issue:

"וְאַל-יָבֹא בְכָל-עֵת אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ -- The trup assigned here is quite strange, for the etnachta should properly be under וְלֹא יָמוּת. [Josh: Here he rewrites the trup as it would be were the etnachta moved over.] And perhaps the position of the author of the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda [in Menachot 27b], that within the veil is a prohibition [punishable by lashes] while before the ark-cover is [punishable] by death:

[Thus:

 רבי יהודה אומר כל היכל כולו ומבית לפרכת בארבעים ואל פני הכפרת במיתה

'Rabbi Yehuda said: the entire heical as well as mibeit laparochet is with forty [lashes], while el penei hakapores is [punished] with death'. 
]

And it is further possible to say that perhaps, in the Second Temple, there was one who said that nowadays, that there is no ark and no ark-cover, it is fitting that it would be permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies. Therefore the Sages saw fit to split the statement in the verse as if it were two statements, namely 

1. "that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil" (even if there is no ark or ark-cover there, it is forbidden to approach there, and still)
2. "before the ark-cover which is upon the ark" (do not come at all times) - "lest you die" -- 

[Thus] during the time that the ark is there, there is death, and at the time the ark is not there, there is not death, but there is still a prohibition [warning]. And the authors of the trup (who were after the closing of the Talmud) appointed the trup based on the reading which was received orally from the Sages of the Second Temple era."

I would note that the Chachamim in the gemara, as per the gemara's parsing, also separate the pasuk in an odd way:
רבנן סברי אל הקודש בלא יבא מבית לפרכת ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות
ור' יהודה סבר אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת בלא יבא ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות

The Malbim has the same idea as Shadal. In his commentary on the Sifra, HaTorah veHamitzvah, he writes the following.

Malbim

"And the position of Rabbi Yehuda that מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת relates to the earlier part [of the verse], and also it is only with a warning [prohibition], and אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת alone falls under 'lest he die'. (And the author of the trup who pointed the etnachta upon the word לַפָּרֹכֶת, it appears that his position was like Rabbi Yehuda."

Meanwhile, William Wickes, in his book on the system of trup, on page 41-42, considers this pasuk to be one instance of many of a trup pattern which occurs during specification:

The red arrow points to where he mentions the specific pasuk:

In a lengthy footnote, #21, he discusses this pasuk and argues with Shadal, Malbim, Geiger and Dillman in attributing the trup to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda in Menachos. While he is not unwilling to say that trup, particularly strange trup, was influenced by Rabbinic interpretation, here he does not think it likely since Rabbi Yehuda is a daas Yachid. On the contrary, he suggests that perhaps Rabbi Yehuda drew on the trup (really caused by reason Wickes gave) in order to support his own unique position.

See also Rashi on Yoma 52b, d"h vayaalu olot kevasim:


If there is a nafka mina in disputes as to the proper trup, and if as Malbim and Shadal say, the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda, and if Rambam paskens like the Chachamim, should we change our trup to match?

Shadal, that rabbits ruminate and hide in rocks

On Vayikra 11:5, regarding the shafan and arneves,

ShaDaL writes:

"The shafan: It is the coniglio, and it dwells in rocks (Tehillim 104:18, M
ishlei 30:27). And so too in Latin, cuniculus, which means shafan, its meaning is as well "burrowing in the dirt". And perhaps also in Hebrew the word shafan comes from צפן, so named because it is hidden (נצפן) and concealed in the cracks of rocks. And know that Scheuzer in his book Physique sacree as well as Valmont de Bomaf in the book Dictionnaire d'Histoire naturelle say that the coniglio is a ruminant.

The arneves: It is the lepre, and it is a ruminant, and so wrote Linnaeus and others. Even though it does not have a doubled stomach like other ruminants."

This is mystifying, at first glance.

1. He says it is the coniglio, which appears to be the contemporary Italian for rabbit.
2. He gives the Latin etymology, which shows it burrows in dirt; this matches the rabbit.
3. Yet he cites pesukim in Mishlei and Tehillim that it hides in rocks, which does not match the rabbit.
4. And he conjectures a Hebrew etymology based on the pesukim, that it is concealed in rocks, which does not match the rabbit.
5. He ends by citing naturalists that the coniglio is a ruminant. These naturalists were speaking of the rabbit.

This is not mystifying at all, of course. Shadal was no zoologist. He relied on books, and scientific experts of his day. The discrepancy between hiding in rocks and burrowing in the dirt was not one that would be obvious to a non-expert. Especially if Shadal was unaware of any other candidate, such as the hyrax, which unlike the rabbit was native to Eretz Yisrael and does hide in rocks, next to the ibexes in Ein Gedi.

This is a good example, I think, of how you cannot simply rely on descriptions of habits given by non-expert rabbinic persons.

We should not take this as evidence that rabbits ruminated in his day, or hid in rocks in his day (and nishtaneh hateva).

One of the two naturalists he mentions, by the way, is Valmont de Bomare. I posted what I think is the relevant quote last year:

On prétend qu`ils ont , ainsi que le lievre, la propriété de ruminer. 

Or, in English:

It is claimed that they [rabbits] have, and the hare, the property ruminating.

See my brief discussion there.

Jean Jacques Scheuchzer

The other author is Jean Jacques Scheuchzer, a Swiss scientist. The work, Physique Sacree, appears to be a running scientific commentary on the Bible (that is, Tanach plus the Christian books). I could not find the volume for Vayikra online, and thus was unable to find the precise quote.

Anyone reading this post is welcome to try to track this down. Maybe I could make this into another post.

Moshe offered the incense? Or did Aharon?

Consider this pasuk and Rashi, towards the end of Pekudei (Shemot 40:27):

He made the incense go up in smoke upon it as the Lord had commanded Moses.		כז. וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה אֶת משֶׁה:
He made the incense go up in smoke upon it: in the morning and in the evening, as it is said: “every morning when he sets the lamps in order [he shall make it go up in smoke]” (Exod. 30:7).		ויקטר עליו אהרון קטרת: שחרית וערבית, כמו שנאמר (שמות ל ז) בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות וגו':

Who is "he"? Read the context. The most straightforward answer would be Moshe, since Moshe was mentioned as the actor in pasuk 17, and was the presumed actor in every pasuk, and every verb, that followed it. It would be very strange to introduce a new actor here. Unless we say that each of these, or even just the וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו, is al yedei shaliach.

Shadal notes something interesting about this Rashi:

כז) ויקטר עליו : ברש"י כתב-יד שבידי: "אהרן שחרית וערבית"; וכן מצא גם הרמב"ן, ואמר "ולא ידעתי אם הוא טעות סופרים (כלומר אין טעות רש"י, כי אמנם אין ספק שהעבודה היתה במשה) וע' ספר הזכרון.
"וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו -- in a manuscript of Rashi I possess: "Aharon morning and evening". And so found the Ramban, and said 'I don't know' if it is a scribal error (that is to say that it not an error on Rashi [the man]'s part, for regardless, there is no doubt that the service was done by Moshe). And see Sefer Hazikaron.

Indeed, there is a curious interrupt between the Hebrew and English in the Judaica Press (at Chabad) translation above. The English does not specify Aharon as the actor, while the Hebrew does. This because they pull the Hebrew and English text of Rashi from two different sources, such that they often don't match up.

I would point out that early texts of Rashi were not written together with the chumash. So even though the next comment of Rashi is on a pasuk a bit later, one can and perhaps should read the two comments together. Rashi's next comment (d"h  וַיַּעַל עָלָיו)  is:

The altar of the burnt offering he placed in front of the entrance of the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting, and he offered up the burnt offering and the meal offering upon it as the Lord had commanded Moses.		כט. וְאֵת מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה שָׂם פֶּתַח מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיַּעַל עָלָיו אֶת הָעֹלָה וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
and he offered up the burnt offering and the meal offering upon it: Even on the eighth day of the investitures-which was the day of the setting up of the Mishkan-Moses officiated and offered up the communal sacrifices, with the exception of those that Aaron was commanded [to offer up] on that day, as it is said: “Approach the altar” (Lev. 9:7).		ויעל עליו וגו': אף ביום השמיני למלואים, שהוא יום הקמת המשכן, שמש משה והקריב קרבנות צבור, חוץ מאותן שנצטוו בו ביום, שנאמר (ויקרא ט ז) קרב אל המזבח וגו':
the burnt offering: The daily burnt offering.		את העלה: עולת התמיד:
and the meal offering: [This refers to] the meal offering of the libations of the daily burnt offering, as it is said: “And one-tenth of fine flour, thoroughly mixed with… oil” (Exod. 29:40).		ואת המנחה: מנחת נסכים של תמיד, כמו שנאמר (שמות כט מ) ועשרן סלת בלול בשמן וגו':

which explicitly notes that Aharon performed certain sacrifices on this day, as well as that Moshe was offering these sacrifices (Mincha and Olah), to the exclusion of (perhaps) the preceding. In light of this, perhaps one can argue that Rashi considered (or the erring scribe considered) that the pasuk in Shemot 30:7, in context, to be a requirement for Aharon to light it even on the eighth day of the miluim.

ה  וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת-הַבַּדִּים, עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים; וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם, זָהָב.	5 And thou shalt make the staves of acacia-wood, and overlay them with gold.
ו  וְנָתַתָּה אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת, אֲשֶׁר עַל-אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת--לִפְנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת, אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָעֵדֻת, אֲשֶׁר אִוָּעֵד לְךָ, שָׁמָּה.	6 And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the ark-cover that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.
ז  וְהִקְטִיר עָלָיו אַהֲרֹן, קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים; בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר, בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת-הַנֵּרֹת--יַקְטִירֶנָּה.	7 And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices; every morning, when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn it.

because the instruction to burn incense was juxtaposed with the instruction to place the constructed altar in a specific place. Or alternatively, because it stated baboker baboker.

However, I think that really Rashi was explaining the details: namely, just where there had been a command to Moshe about this vayakter, to justify the statement כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה אֶת משֶׁה. That is, the commands of what to do appear earlier in this perek, in pasuk 4 and 5. And there in this perek, there is no command about the incense. However, Rashi is explaining that the offering of the incense is associated with the lighting of the lamp. And Moshe had been commanded in pasuk 4 to kindle the lamps.

Let us see if we can locate some manuscripts of Rashi which match what Shadal had:

I have one Ktav Yad of Rashi from Rome, 1490, whi.

Here are some interesting features of this.

1. It interjects אהרן before the word ketores, not after it, as Shadal had it. This "ruins", or rather modifies the quote of the pasuk a bit.
2. It cites two prooftexts, not just Shemot 30:7 for the morning, but Shemot 30:8, for the evening.
3. There is no dibbur hamatchil for the next comment of Rashi. Whereas we should have ויעל עליו וגו from pasuk 29, this does not appear. And so it appears as if this a continuation of his comment on וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו.

I have another Ktav Yad from Munich, 1233, which does not have the interjection of Aharon:

You have to read across the lines. Some interesting things about this one:

1. No interjection of Aharon
2. Cites both pasuk 7 and pasuk 8
3. Entirely skips the first comment by Rashi regarding the miluim. That is, the Rashi on pasuk 27 begins on the top line, ויקטר and ends on the third line, אהרן וגומר. On that third line, I underlined in red the dibbur hamatchil, את העולה. And so this manuscript entirely skips the dibbur hamatchil of וַיַּעַל עָלָיו, together with the assertion that certain acts were performed by Aharon on that eighth day, and instead it skips to the next, innocuous comment.

If this is original, then maybe the interjection of Aharon and the next comment of Rashi go hand in hand.

The last manuscript I have access to is Cod Hebr 3, from I don't know when:

This 

1. does not have the interjection of Aharon, 
2. does cite both pesukim and 8
3. has Rashi's first comment on pasuk 29, though without a dibbur hamatchil.

Here is the Ramban on this:

כז): ויקטר עליו קטורת סמים - משה הקטיר עליו כל שבעת ימי המילואים. ואע"פ שלא אמר בצואה (בפסוק ה): והקטיר עליו קטורת סמים, הבין זה משאר העבודות כלן, שהרי ציוה אותו בכאן (בפסוק ד): שיסדר הלחם ויעלה הנרות. וכן ויעל עליו את העולה ואת המנחה (להלן פסוק כט), משה הוא המעלה, שכן נצטווה (לעיל כט לח): וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח, שיתחיל הוא לעשות כן בעבדו בימי המילואים, כי הצואות כולן שם (מפסוק א ואילך): על עבודת משה. ואמר אחרי כן (בפסוק מב): עולת תמיד לדורותיכם, שיעשו כן הכוהנים לדורות. ולכך אמר בה בסדר פנחס (במדבר כח ו): עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, שהתחיל אותה משה שם:

והנה משה רבנו בכל העבודות הכהן הראשון, ולפיכך הקטיר גם הקטרת. ואולי בכלל ונתת את מזבח הזהב לקטורת (פסוק ה): שתקטירנו עליו מיד. ומה שאמר בצואה (לעיל ל ו ז): ונתת אותו לפני הפרוכת והקטיר עליו אהרן קטורת סמים, להורות על ענינו מיום שהתחיל אהרן בכהונתו ולעולם, שכך אמר (שם ל ח): ובהעלות אהרן את הנרות בין הערבים, ואין הדבר אלא מיום זה ואילך, כי בכאן (בפסוק ד): ציוה למשה בפירוש והעלית את נרותיה. 

ובפירוש רש"י (בפסוק שלפנינו): ראיתי: 

ויקטר עליו אהרן קטורת שחרית וערבית, כמה שנאמר (לעיל ל ז ח): בבקר בבקר בהטיבו את הנרות וגו', ובהעלות אהרן את הנרות בין הערבים וגו'. 

ולא ידעתי אם הוא טעות סופרים:

"He made the incense go up in smoke upon it: Moshe made the incense go up upon it all seven days of the miluim. And although it does not state in the commandment (in pasuk 5)  "and cause incense to go up upon it", understand this from all the other services, for behold He commanded him here (in pasuk 4): that he should arrange the bread and kindle the lamps. And so too in "and he offered the olah and the mincha offering (pasuk 29), it was Moshe who offered it, for so was he commanded (earlier 29:38), "and this is what you shall make upon the altar", that he should start to do so in service before the miluim, for all the commands there (from pasuk 1 and on): are regarding the service of Moshe. And it states after this (in pasuk 42) "a continual olah for your generations", that the kohanim should do this for generations. And therefore it stated regarding it in the sidra of Pinchas (Bemidbar 28:6) "the continual olah which was made on Har Sinai", that Moshe began it there.

And behold, Moshe Rabbenu in all services was the first kohen, and therefore he offered also the incense. And perhaps because of "and you shall place the golden altar for incense (in pasuk 5), the implication was that incense should be offered upon it immediately. And that which it stated in the command (earlier, Shemot 30:6-7) "and you shall place it before the curtain and Aharon shall burn incense upon it, that was to inform regarding the matter that from the day that Aharon began his service as kohen and forever after" [Josh: but not immediately upon placement, as I suggested above regarding Rashi or the errant scribe]. For so it stated (there, 30:8) "and when Aharon kindles the lamps at dusk", and this matter was only from this day and on, for here (in pasuk 4) He commanded Moshe explicitly "and you shall kindle the lamps:

And in the commentary of Rashi (in the pasuk before us) I have seen ... [then Ramban cites the Rashi with the interjected Aharon and both proof texts] ... And I do not know if it is a scribal error.

Now, Shadal also instructed us to look at Sefer HaZikaron, by Rabbi Avraham ben Shlomo Bakrat.

"ויעל עליו וגו': אף ביום השמיני וכו -- since there are several different nuschaot in the commentary of the Rav [Rashi] in these verses, I saw fit to record his language letter for letter.
ויקטר עליו אהרן קטרת סמים: שחרית וערבית, כמו שנ' (שמות ל ז) בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות וגו'. ובהעלות אהרן וגו'. 

ויעל עליו: אף ביום השמיני למלואים, שהוא יום הקמת המשכן, שמש משה וכו' ש 

But the Ramban za'l desired that the one who offered the incense was Moshe, and went on at length in his proofs, and wrote at the end of his words: "In the commentary of Rashi I have seen ויקטר עליו אהרן וכו'ש, and I don't know if it is a scribal error." End quote. 

And since the Rav [Rashi] explained that the one who offered the incense was Ahraon , even though the entire parsha deals with Moshe, 'and he placed; and he took; and he put', he [Rashi] says now regarding ויעל עליו [the next dibbur hamatchil] refers to Moshe himself just like the rest of the parasha, and not to Aharon. And even though from the Scriptures it seems that Moshe served only the seven days of the miluim and no further, for it states (Shemot 29:35):

לה  וְעָשִׂיתָ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, כָּכָה, כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-צִוִּיתִי, אֹתָכָה; שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, תְּמַלֵּא יָדָם.

35 And thus shalt thou do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded thee; seven days shalt thou consecrate them.

, he [Rashi] says, "know ye that even on the seventh day, which is the day of the erection of the Mishkan, Moshe served in the public offerings, which were the olah, the mincha, and the tamid which are mentioned here. 

And if it is a scribal error as the Ramban za"l said, the Rav [Rashi] intended to say: it should not be difficult to you how Moshe offered incense and brought offerings after the seven, for even on the eighth day Moshe served for communal offerings, while Aharon only brought on that day his sin-offering and his burnt-offering, that is to say private offerings."

End quote from Rabbi Avraham ben Shlomo Bakrat.

I'll end by repeating a paragraph I penned above, which is what I feel to be the case. Namely, Aharon should not be interjected there. The purpose of Rashi's comment on vayakter is as follows:

However, I think that really Rashi was explaining the details: namely, just where there had been a command to Moshe about this vayakter, to justify the statement כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה אֶת משֶׁה. That is, the commands of what to do appear earlier in this perek, in pasuk 4 and 5. And there in this perek, there is no command about the incense. However, Rashi is explaining that the offering of the incense is associated with the lighting of the lamp. And Moshe had been commanded in pasuk 4 to kindle the lamps.