Inside out or outside in

This piece attempts to resolve an apparent contradiction in Rashi's Torah commentary by showing how one of the passages was mistakenly grafted onto a similarly themed yet fundamentally different and authentic statement of Rashi's

Devarim 10:1-5

(א) בָּעֵת הַהִוא אָמַר י"י אֵלַי פְּסׇל לְךָ שְׁנֵי לוּחֹת אֲבָנִים כָּרִאשֹׁנִים וַעֲלֵה אֵלַי הָהָרָה וְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ. (ב) וְאֶכְתֹּב עַל הַלֻּחֹת אֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ עַל הַלֻּחֹת הָרִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ וְשַׂמְתָּם בָּאָרוֹן. (ג) וָאַעַשׂ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וָאֶפְסֹל שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים כָּרִאשֹׁנִים וָאַעַל הָהָרָה וּשְׁנֵי הַלֻּחֹת בְּיָדִי. (ד) וַיִּכְתֹּב עַל הַלֻּחֹת כַּמִּכְתָּב הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י אֲלֵיכֶם בָּהָר מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ בְּיוֹם הַקָּהָל וַיִּתְּנֵם י"י אֵלָי. (ה) וָאֵפֶן וָאֵרֵד מִן הָהָר וָאָשִׂם אֶת הַלֻּחֹת בָּאָרוֹן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי וַיִּהְיוּ שָׁם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוַּנִי י"י.

Rashi comments (to pasuk aleph) on the above mentioned verses

ואמר אלי פסל לך, ואחר כך: ועשית ארון, ואני עשיתי ארון תחילה, שכשאבא והלוחות בידי היכן אתנם.

It is drawn from the midrash tanchuma

This transpired prior to the commandment and subsequent construction of the mishkan vkeilim. (According to Rashi, Ramban holds the command came earlier)

Over there as well the keilim were mentioned first in the command with Betzalel nevertheless building the mishkan first.

However, over there Rashi (Shemos 38:22) seems to record Moshes surprised reaction to betzalels innovation with the famous "Were you perhaps in the shadow of the Alrighty (שמא בצל א-ל היית וידעת)?!" (from the bavli berachos 55a) agreeing that he did indeed hear it from the Almighty in the order that betzalel constructed them (and for some reason changed it around when telling him), with the bavli ostensibly of the opinion that otherwise betzalel wouldn't have switched the order around based solely on his personal reasoning, whereas from his comment here in eikev it seems that Rashi is ok with the luchos' creation being spoken of first by HaShem with Moshe reversing them constructing the aron first so as to have somewhere to place the luchos, seemingly contradicting himself in terms of midrashim cited. (I'm not quite sure how the bavli would deal with the pesukim in Devarim)

To restate the issue simply: if Rashi is ok with Moshe/Betzalel deviating from the divinely imparted ordering, based on storage concerns, as seen in his comments to eikev, then he should treat similarly by the mishkan vkeilim; otoh, if Rashi considers the divinely imparted ordering inviolate, as is ostensibly seen in pekudei with his inclusion of the bavli, then he should be consistent in devarim and explain accordingly (all this obviously precluding some lomdishe chiluk between aron/luchos and mishkan vkeilim).

However, upon looking into this, it is not at all conclusive that Rashi actually quotes the gemara in berachos, there are many authoritative manuscripts (eg http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_11566) that only possess Rashi's opening, not continuing on with the passage from the bavli. 

It is actually drawn from the yerushalmi (peah 1:1), which although potentially implying the bavli's contention, in reality does not go as far in its assertions. "All" the yerushalmi contains is a deduction that the Torah talks highly of Betzalel in the sense of intuiting stuff that Moshe hadnt yet told him but not necessarily implying that which is reported in the bavli viz having betzalel catching moshe in inaccurately relaying info communicated to him by God.

Presumably, an unwitting scribe/copyist appended the bavli's statement to the yerushalmi's, thinking that it shed light on it, and so they remained, fused together. 

(See Parshablog for additional manuscript evidence supporting the absence of the bavli from Rashi)

The kicker is that the statement quoted by Rashi in eikev—which takes the Torah at its word with regard to the ordering of the divine instruction, nevertheless allowing for its reversal owing to practically—is from the midrash tanchuma (I'm assuming that it is either authored by R Tanchuma himself or at the very least endorsed by him), and the author of the anonymous statement in Rashi's commentary to pekudei, drawn from the yerushalmi, is R Tanchuma himself! (in Rav Chuna's name, his Rebbe, see Jewish Encyclopedia), strongly indicating that the peshat in the yerushalmi is not in consonance with the bavli's atextual assertions, as R Tanchuma himself is on record disagreeing with them. 

They are only similar insofar as highlighting betzalels prescience is concerned, but not as it relates to the issue of taking the divine command's ordering literally or not, as they definitely argue about that. 

If one reads the pesukim literally, a la the midrash tanchuma, not adopting the bavlis narrative (which has a high level of difficulty—see meforshim loc cit), there is another solution as to why what goes inside (keilim and luchos) is mentioned first in the command to make them, with what goes outside (mishkan and aron) being built first, to wit, what goes inside is more important and elevated, with what goes outside secondary to it to provide for shelter and privacy, it therefore makes good sense to speak of what goes inside first, as it is the crux of it all, without which thered be no need for the housing, whereas when it comes to actually making them, it is sensible to construct the housing first, so as to enable for immediate shelter as soon as that which goes inside is completed.