Consecration Ceremony – Command and Implementation/2

Consecration Ceremony – Command and Implementation

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

The differences between the accounts of the command regarding the Days of Consecration and its implementation have been understood in varying way.  R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that, despite the differences in the description, in practice, the ceremony was performed as mandated. Most of the discrepancies are not fundamental and stem from technicalities related to the individual context of each unit, or differing modes of expression used when conveying a command rather than depicting an event.

In contrast, R"N Helfgot, drawing off the Sifra and Targum, suggests that the discrepancies reflect a change in the implementation of the ceremony in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.  Due to the sin, the nature of the ceremony changed from one in which inauguration of the sacrificial service was primary into one in which attaining atonement took precedence.  Finally, Ramban combines these approaches, suggesting that the initial seven day ceremony did not change, but that an eighth day was introduced only in the aftermath of the sin.

Fulfilled as Commanded

Despite the differences between the two chapters, the ceremony was fulfilled precisely as mandated. All discrepancies between the accounts stem only from technical issues, such as the differing context of each unit or natural differences in formulation when conveying a command as opposed to describing an event.

Sources:MalbimVayikra 8:2Vayikra 8:10Vayikra 8:30Vayikra 8:35About R. Meir Leibush Weiser,¹ R. D"Z Hoffmann²

Context – The commands regarding the Days of Consecration in Parashat Tetzaveh follow the directives regarding the priestly garments, while the description of the fulfillment in Vayikra 8 follows the laws of sacrifices. See bullets below how this might impact what is included or omitted from each account.

Order of objects brought – It is possible that in Sefer Shemot the objects are listed in order of importance, and not how they were practically meant to be brought.  Since the sacrifices are the key component in the inauguration of the Mishkan, they are mentioned first.³ In Vayikra, in contrast, the order is practical; the objects are  listed according to the order in which they were to be used during the ceremony.⁴  Since the clothing and anointing of Aharon precede the offering of sacrifices, the priests, clothing, and oil are mentioned first.⁵

Aharon and sons – Aharon and his sons are grouped together more often in the command than in the description of the fulfillment, only for the sake of brevity, not because the rites relating to them were supposed to be combined.⁶

Urim and Tumim – RambanVayikra 8:7-11About R. Moshe b. Nachman explains that the command in Shemot 29 omits mention of the Urim and Tumim since they have just been discussed in the previous chapter when describing the priestly garments.  Since the Urim and Tumim are not an independent article of clothing, but are rather placed in the Choshen,⁷ mention of the Choshen alone sufficed to convey that both were to be placed on Aharon.⁸  In Vayikra, where the surrounding chapters had made no mention of priestly garments, there is need for more elaboration.⁹

Presence of the congregation – As the laws of Shemot 29 are directed only at Moshe and the priests, it is not particularly surprising that there is no mention there of assembling the nation to witness the ceremony.

Anointing of Mishkan – Since Parashat Tetzaveh as a whole revolves around only the priests and their clothing, rather than the vessels of the Tabernacle, only the anointing of Aharon (and not the Mishkan as a whole)¹⁰ is highlighted in Shemot 29. The command to anoint the Tabernacle and its vessels comes instead in Shemot 40, in the fitting context of the erecting of the Mishkan.¹¹ In practice, though, the two anointings took place together.

Order of the clothing and anointing – RambanVayikra 8:7-11About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that though Shemot 40 mentions clothing Aharon only after anointing the Mishkan, Moshe did the opposite when fulfilling the command, since logic mandated that Aharon be ready to serve (and, thus, fully garbed in his priestly vestments) when anointed.¹² Shemot 40 reversed the order only to be concise, as this allowed it to group Aharon and sons together, rather than discussing the clothing and anointing of each independently.¹³

Sprinkling of oil on the altar ("וַיַּז מִמֶּנּוּ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים") – This is not mentioned explicitly in either Shemot 29 or 40,¹⁴ but RambanVayikra 8:7-11About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that Moshe learned it from the directive, "וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהָיָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֹדֶשׁ קׇדָשִׁים" (Shemot 40:10).  If the altar was meant to be of holier status that other vessels, then it presumably needed more sprinkling than them.  Moreover, since the people whose job it was to offer sacrifices were sprinkled with oil, it made sense that the vessel on which the sacrifices were offered receive the same treatment.

Sprinkling of blood and oil on Aharon and children – Though, in the command, this is mentioned before the burning of the Milluim, RambanVayikra 8:30About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that the phrase there "וְקָדַשׁ הוּא וּבְגָדָיו וּבָנָיו וּבִגְדֵי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ" (Shemot 29:21) teaches that this sprinkling was meant to complete the sanctification process, and as such, could occur only at the end of the sacrificial process.  It might be mentioned earlier¹⁵ only to juxtapose it to the blood which was thrown on the altar so as to clarify that the same blood that is thrown is to be mixed with the oil.¹⁶

Sacrificial names (פַּר הַחַטָּאת vs. חַטָּאת הוּא) – Throughout the directives of Shemot 29, none of the sacrifices are referred to by name until their protocol has been described.¹⁷  As this is the first time that the priests have been introduced to sacrificial laws, it is only after hearing about each that they are given a name.  In Vayikra, in contrast, the sacrifices can be called by name upfront since by then the laws of sacrifices have been relayed and the categories were familiar.  [This, however, does not explain why Vayikra appears to emphasize that the cow was a "פר החטאת", repeatedly referring to it as such rather than sometimes calling it simply a "פר".]

Not leaving the Tent of Meeting – This fact is omitted from the discussion in Shemot 29 since the focus there is purely  on the processes related to the sacrificial procedures and consecration.  This directive is secondary as it plays no direct role in the initiation, and is merely a technical directive to ensure that the priests remain pure.¹⁸

The eighth day – According to this approach, the rites performed on the eighth day were not commanded in Shemot 29 since they were to be completed by Aharon, not Moshe.  As the directives of Shemot 29 are aimed at Moshe, they have no place there.

Laws for future generations – The few laws that relate to future generations, and not the Days of Consecration themselves, are included only in the directives of Shemot. Since there was no place for them during the actual ceremony, they are not mentioned in Vayikra 8-9 which focused only on what was taking place at the moment.

Change of Plan

The Sin of the Golden Calf caused a change in plan. The goal of the ceremony was no longer simply to consecrate the Mishkan, the altar and its priests, but also to atone for the Sin and highlight that Aharon was forgiven. This new goal caused several changes in the ceremony.

Sources:perhaps Sifra Vayikra9:2About the Sifra Vayikra¹⁹ and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,²⁰ R"N Helfgot²¹

Chronology – This position assumes that the events of Sefer Shemot are recorded in chronological order.  Thus, the initial commands regarding the building of the Tabernacle (Shemot 25-31) preceded the Sin of the Golden Calf (Shemot 32), while the directives of Shemot 40 and the execution of the command in Vayikra 8 followed the Sin.²²

The eighth day – RambanVayikra 9:3About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that maybe the entire ceremony of the eighth day was not part of the original plan, and was added only to provide atonement for the sin.²³ Several aspects of the day's protocol might support this:

• Both Aharon and the nation are told to bring a calf specifically (as a Chattat and Olah respectively).  Nowhere else is it mandated that a calf be brought as a sacrifice, suggesting that the choice is significant and perhaps related to the sin.
• Ramban further points out that Aharon's two offerings and the nation's Chattat are identical to that which they bring on Yom HaKippurim, a day instituted to re-enact the original atonement achieved for the Sin of the Calf, further suggesting that they are commanded so as to attain atonement.²⁴
• ChizkuniVayikra 8:14Vayikra 8:30Vayikra 9:2-3About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, instead, compares the nation's offerings to those prescribed for inadvertently worshiping idolatry.²⁵

Order of objects brought – In the command, the sacrifices are mentioned first among the objects to be brought, since, at that point, initiating the sacrificial worship through a sampling of offerings and the consecration of the altar and its priests was the main goal of the ceremony.   Afterwards, though, attaining atonement and highlighting Aharon's priestly status became a primary focus of the ceremony and therefore the priests are mentioned first.

Aharon and sons – Throughout the commands, Aharon and his sons are generally grouped together.  In the fulfillment, though, Aharon is differentiated from them.  In the aftermath of the sin, when the people might have questioned Aharon's status, it was important to highlight that not only did he not lose his priestly status, but that his status was even loftier than that of his children.

Presence of the congregation – Since part of the goal of the ceremony became to demonstrate that Aharon was forgiven and still consecrated, it was now necessary that the people witness the ceremony.²⁶ Beforehand, this was inconsequential.

Urim and Tumim – Shemot 28:30 states that when wearing the Urim and Tumim, "Aaron shall bear the judgment of the Children of Israel", suggesting that perhaps it played some sort of role in atonement, bearing the punishment of Israel.  If so, it might be emphasized only in the aftermath of the sin, to show how Aharon was not only forgiven, but that in his role as high priest, he will enable the forgiveness of others.²⁷

Choshen before or after the Efod? In Vayikra 8, the Choshen is mentioned after the Efod only because the text wanted to elaborate about the placement of the Urim and Tumim inside the Choshen without breaking the flow of the narrative.

"פַּר הַחַטָּאת" – R"N Helfgot suggests that it is only in Vayikra 8 that the cow is consistently referred to as "the cow of the sin offering" (פַּר הַחַטָּאת), perhaps because here it is coming not just as an example of a sin offering, but to actually atone for the sin of the Calf.²⁸

A second cow? R"N Helfgot suggests that originally there were supposed to be two distinct Chattat offerings, one to initiate the sacrificial procedure and another to purify the altar. However, once the ceremony was changed to incorporate aspects of atonement throughout, and the Chattat itself was meant to serve an atoning role for Aharon regardless, one cow sufficed to atone both for the Sin of the Calf and the altar

"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תְּכַפֵּר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" vs. "לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם" – R"N Helfgot points out that in Shemot 29, there is an emphasis on bringing the "פַר חַטָּאת" for seven days so that it will atone for the altar. This highlights how, at that point, one of the  main goals of the ceremony was the consecration and purifying of the altar for the sacrificial service. In Vayikra 8, in contrast, there is the added emphasis on "atoning for you".  It is no longer enough to purify the altar, the priests themselves need atonement.

Not leaving the Tent of Meeting – As the priests are no longer just one of a list of items that need to be consecrated together with the altar²⁹ but independently need atonement, Hashem emphasizes how they need to be present at the Tent of Meeting throughout the seven day period.³⁰

Anointing of Mishkan – This approach would likely suggest that the omission of this directive in Shemot 29 is technical in nature. Since the discussions of Parashat Tetzaveh surround the priests and their clothing, rather than the vessels of the Tabernacle as whole, only the anointing of Aharon is highlighted.  The command to anoint the Tabernacle and its vessels comes instead in Shemot 40, in the fitting context of the erecting the Mishkan.³¹

Laws for future generations – This approach would explain like the above position, that there is no place for such directives in the description of the actual ceremony.

Combination

The seven day Consecration Ceremony was implemented as commanded, but the rites of the eighth day were instituted only in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.

Sources:RambanVayikra 8:2Vayikra 8:7-11Vayikra 8:30Vayikra 9:3About R. Moshe b. Nachman

The eighth day – According to this approach, it was only the eighth day's ceremony which was added in the aftermath of  the sin.  Nothing new needed be done to consecrate the Mishkan and inaugurate the sacrificial service, as that was unaffected by the sin. Yet, before Aharon could serve and represent the people, special atonement was necessary for both him and the nation. As above, several aspects of the day's protocol might support this:

• Both Aharon and the nation are told to bring a calf specifically (as a Chattat and Olah respectively). As calves are not brought for any other sacrifice, this suggests that the choice was intentional and the calf was meant to serve as a corrective for the sin.
• Ramban notes that Aharon's two offerings and the nation's Chattat are identical to the sacrifices brought on Yom HaKippurim, a day instituted to re-enact the original atonement achieved for the Sin of the Calf, further suggesting that they are commanded so as to attain atonement. ChizkuniVayikra 8:14Vayikra 8:30Vayikra 9:2-3About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, instead, compares the nation's offerings to those prescribed for inadvertently worshiping idolatry.

Seven day consecration – As discussed above, the discrepancies between Shemot 29 and Vayikra 8 do not imply that this part of the ceremony changed.  They stem only from technical issues such as a desire for brevity, assumptions related to context, or natural differences in formulation when conveying a command rather than describing an event.  For details regarding each individual difference, see the first approach above.

¹ This is how Malbim explains most of the differences.  He, does, though allow for the possibility that according to those who posit that the command was given before the Sin of the Calf, that the role of the Chattat in the ceremony changed, playing a role in actual atonement and not just serving to initiate the general Chattat sacrifical procedures.

² As Ramban combines this approach with the next one, much of the position developed below relies on his commentary.

³ R. Hoffman alternatively explains that since in Sefer Shemot the previous chapters focused on the clothing of the priests, there was no need to open the discussion of the Days of Consecration by mandating their being brought. Instead the verses highlight the new objects that now needed to be prepared, i.e. the various sacrifices.

⁴ See Malbim similarly, "כי שם הקדים התכלית שהיא העולה במחשבה תחילה ופה במעשה קיי"ל דאין מעבירים על המצוות, והכין אהרון ובניו ובגדים ושמן שהם נמשחו ראשונה ואחריו הקרבנות שהי' אחר משיחה".

⁵ One might compare this to the making of the vessels of the Mishkan; the order of the vessels there, too, differs in the command and its fulfillment.  While in the command the objects are listed in accord with their importance (beginning with the Ark and ending with the physical structure of the Tabernacle), in the fulfillment they are listed in the order in which they were crafted, an order based on practical concerns. [The structure is built first since the vessels could not be built until there was a Tabernacle in which to house them.]

⁶ This, though, would not explain why the dressing of Aharon in his belt (אבנט) is mentioned only together with his sons.  Once the rest of the discussion of his clothing was distinguished from that of the sons, it would not have made any difference if the אבנט was discussed there as well.

⁷ See Urim VeTumim for different opinions regarding the nature of the Urim and Tumim.

⁸ With the background from chapter 28, it was obvious that it included the Urim and Tumim.

⁹ This need for elaboration likely also explains why in Vayikra the Choshen is mentioned only after the Efod.  Since the text digresses to mention the placing of the Urim and Tumim inside, it speaks of the Choshen last.

¹⁰ The only vessel which Shemot 29 commands to anoint in the altar (see Shemot 29:36).  This exception is logical as the entire chapter speaks of the sacrificial offerings to be brought during the ceremony.

¹¹ B. Kehat, "ימי המילואים - הציווי וקיומו", Megadim 38 (2003): 17-31, suggests an alternative understanding of the relationship between Shemot 29 and 40. He explains that the Mishkan served two main roles, being a vehicle for sacrificial service, and also a place to house the Divine presence. While Shemot 29 focuses on the initiation of the altar and sacrificial service, Shemot 40 focuses on the initiation of the various vessels and their role in inviting the Divine presence. As such, only Shemot 40 mentions the anointing of the vessels. Since the priests play a role in both the sacrificial service and in inviting the Divine presence, their anointing is mentioned in each chapter.  When the actual ceremony took place, the two aspects are combined in one process.

¹² As he was to be anointed immediately after the Tabernacle (see Shemot 30:30), it would not have made sense to stop the process so that he could get dressed.

¹³ Since the sons were only sprinkled with the oil later in the ceremony they were clothed after the anointing of the Mishkan. However, if Shemot 40 wanted to speak about father and son together, it could have mentioned the clothing of both before the anointing of the Mishkan rather than afterwards; it is not clear why it chooses not to.

¹⁴ See RashiVayikra 8:11About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki who states, "לא ידעתי היכן נצטוה בהזאות הללו".

¹⁵ B. Kehat (cited in the note above) further suggests that since the priests are being consecrated so as to play a role in the sacrificial service, the juxtaposition highlights the idea that the priestly sanctification stems from the fact that the blood sprinkled upon them was from a sacrifice.

¹⁶ Since Shemot 29 tangentially mentions several  laws related to future generations right after discussion of the Milluim's sacrificial process, it already distracts the reader from the consecration process.

¹⁷ See Shemot 29:10,15, and 19 which simply name the animal to be sacrificed, while each of 29:14,18, and 22 which identify the sacrifice.

¹⁸ Abarbanel alternatively suggests that it was also meant to ensure that they carefully studied the sacrificial process so that they would not err in the future with fatal consequences.

¹⁹ The Midrash speaks only about the calf that Aharon must bring as a Chattat on the eighth day of the ceremony, but does not say that there were additional changes in the week-long ceremony beforehand.

²⁰ The Targum alludes to the sin in both Vayikra 8:2 and 9:2, and explicitly states that the a calf was chosen as the Chattat of the 8th day due to the sin.  However, it is not clear if the Targum would suggest that other aspects of the week long ceremony and the eighth day were also introduced in the aftermath of the sin. See also RambanVayikra 8:2Vayikra 8:7-11Vayikra 8:30Vayikra 9:3About R. Moshe b. Nachman below who combines this approach with the one above, suggesting that the seven day ceremony did not change due to the sin, but that the eighth day was introduced to atone for it.

²¹ See N. Helfgot, "Transformation of the Consecration Ceremony", נחלה: Journal for the Study of Bible 1 (1999): 15-22. His article builds off the Midrash, Targum and Ramban who all posit that at least some aspects of the rituals of the eighth day were introduced due to the sin.

²² See Purpose of the Mishkan for differing opinions regarding whether or not the commands regarding building the Tabernacle preceded or followed the sin.

²³ See also Sifra Vayikra9:2About the Sifra Vayikra, Targum Pseudo-JonathanVayikra 8:2Vayikra 9:2About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Ibn EzraVayikra 9:2About R. Avraham ibn Ezra who speak only about the calf serving as atonement for the sin.

²⁴ See also Bavli Yoma 3b which draws a further analogy between the service of Yom HaKippurim and the eighth day of the Consecration Ceremony.  They learn that before the Day of Atonement the high priest must practice all of the rituals of the day for a full week, just as had been done during the Consecration period in preparation for the eighth day.

²⁵ See Bemidbar 15:24, that the nation must bring a goat for a sin offering and a cow as an Olah (here replaced by a calf).  [In Vayikra, though, they must additionally bring a sheep as an Olah, and other animals for a Shelamim]

²⁶ See Ramban.

²⁷ Alternatively, it is meant as a constant reminder to him of the judgement pending for one's sins.

²⁸ See also MalbimVayikra 8:12About R. Meir Leibush Weiser.

²⁹ In other words, initially the priests were viewed like any other vessel that played a role in the cultic service; each needed to be anointed and consecrated, but only as part of the consecration of the altar as a whole. Now the priests required their own atonement, unconnected to the general purification process.

³⁰ R"N Helfgot notes that when writing that this command was implemented as commanded, the chapter veers from its usual formulation of "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י״י אֶת מֹשֶׁה", writing instead: "כִּי כֵן צֻוֵּיתִי". This, perhaps, hints that this element of the ceremony was actually not commanded together with the initial directives in Shemot 29, but only after the sin.

³¹ The order of the anointment in the Shemot 40 nonetheless does not match that in Vayikra 8.