Consecration Ceremony – Command and Implementation/2

Consecration Ceremony – Command and Implementation

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Different Narrative Goals

The differences between the chapters relate to the differing narrative goals and context of each unit. It is natural that a command might be formulated differently than its fulfillment.

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.

Order of objects brought – It is possible that in Sefer Shemot the objects are listed in order of importance.  Since the sacrifices are the key component in the inauguration of the Mishkan, they are mentioned first.¹ 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.²  Since the clothing and anointing of Aharon precede the offering of sacrifices, the priests, clothing and oil are mentioned first.³

Aharon and sons

Urim and Tumim – Ramban 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 rather something which is placed in the Choshen,⁴ mention of the Choshen alone sufficed.⁵  In Vayikra, where the surrounding chapters had made no mention of priestly garments, there was need for elaboration.⁶ 

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.

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 is no place for them during the actual ceremony, which focused only on what was taking place at the moment.

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) 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 the Mishkan.⁷ In practice, though, the two anointings took place together.

Order of the Anointing – Ramban 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. Shemot 40 only reversed the order for brevity, as this allowed it to group Aharon and sons together, rather than discussing the clothing and anointing of each independently.⁸

Sprinkling of oil on the altar – This is not mentioned  explicitly in either Shemot 29 or 40,⁹ but Ramban 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 – Though, in the command, this is mentioned only before the burning of the Miluim, the phrase there "וקדש הוא ובגדיו ובניו ובגדי בניו אתו"  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 is mentioned earlier 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.¹⁰  B. Kehat further sggests that the juxtaposition highlights the idea that the priestly sanctification stems form the fact that the blood sprinkled upon them was from a sacrifice on the altar, for they are being consecrated for such sacrificial service.

פַּר הַחַטָּאת

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.¹¹

Change of Plan

The differences between the command and its implementation stem from an intervening event, the Sin of the Golden Calf, which caused a change of 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.

Chronology – This position assumes a straightforward chronology of the events of Sefer Shemot, and that the initial commands regarding the building of the Tabernacle preceded the Sin of the Golden Calf, while the directives of Shemot 40 and the fulfillment of the command in Vayikra 8 followed it.

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 so the priests are mentioned first.

Aharon and sons – Throughout the commands, Aharon and his sons tend to be grouped together.  In the execution, 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 higher 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. Beforehand, this was inconsequential.

Urim veTumim – Shemot 28 states that when wearing the Urim VeTumim, "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.  Alternatively, it is meant as a constant reminder to him of the judgement pending for one's sins.

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 without breaking the fow of the narrative.

פַּר הַחַטָּאת – 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,¹² but to actually atone for the sin of the Calf.¹³

"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תְּכַפֵּר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" vs. "לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם" – In Shemot 29, there is am emphasis on bringing the "פַר חַטָּאת" for seven days so that it will atone for the altar. The purpose of the ceremony is portrayed as mainly a consecration and purifying of the altar. 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 altar¹⁴ but independently need atonement, Hashem emophasizes how they need to be present at the Tent of Meeting throughout the seven day period.¹⁵

The eighth day – Ramban 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.¹⁶ 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.
• 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.¹⁷

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.¹⁸

Were Aharon's sons anointed? Neither Shemot 29 nor Vayikra 8 mention the anointing Aharon's sons, only of sprinkling them with the blood from the altar mixed with the oil. Shemot 40, though, does include them among the objects anointed, leading to debate regarding either they were in fact anointed or not.

Sprinkling of blood and oil – In Shemot 29 this sprinkling is

Laws for future generations

¹ 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, the various sacrifices.

² See Malbim similarly, ""

³ 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.]

⁴ See Urim VeTumim for different opinions regarding the nature of the Urim and Tumim.

⁵ With the background from chapter 28, it was obvious that it included the Urim and Tumim.

⁶ 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.

⁷ B. Kehat 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 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 of these aspects their anointing is mentioned in each chapter.  When the actual ceremony took place, the two aspects are combined in one process.

⁸ Since the sons were only sprinkled with the oil later in the ceremony they were clothed after the anointing of the Mishkan. If Shemot 40 wanted to speak about father and son together, it had to decide whether to mention the clothing before the anointing of the Mishkan (as was true for Aharon) or only after (as was true for the sons).  It is not clear why it chose the latter.

⁹ See RashiVayikra 8:11About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki who states, "לא ידעתי היכן נצטוה בהזאות הללו".

¹⁰ Since Shemot 29 tangentially mentions several  laws related to future generations right after discussion of the Miluim's sacrificial process, it already detracts the reader from the consecration process.

¹¹ 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.

¹² In Shemot 29, it is first in verse 14 that the reader even knows that the cow is meant to be a Chattat offering.  After detailing its sacrificial procedure, the verse declares, "חַטָּאת הוּא".

¹³ See Malbim.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ It is also possible that this is a corrective for the nation not having waited for Moshe to come down the mountain and prematurely assuming he died, prompting the making of the Calf. The priests, thus, are commanded to wait at the Tent of the Meeting, day and night.

¹⁶ 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.

¹⁷ 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]

¹⁸ The order of the anointment in the Shemot 40 nonetheless does not match that in Vayikra 8.