Relationship Between Vayikra 1-5 and 6-7/2

Relationship Between Vayikra 1-5 and 6-7

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Complement Vayikra 1-5

The laws of Vayikra 6-7 complement those in Vayikra 1-5.  This position divides regarding the unique focus of each unit that differentiates it from the other:

Different Audiences

While Parashat Vayikra focuses on the nation's role in the sacrificial process, Vayikra 6-7 focuses on the priest and his responsibilities.

Sources:RambanVayikra 6:2Vayikra 6:18Vayikra 7:38About R. Moshe b. Nachman,  AbarbanelVayikra 6 IntroductionVayikra 6:13Vayikra 7:22About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalVayikra 6:2About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. S.R. HirschVayikra 6:1About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch

Target of the command – This position is based on the differing opening commands of each unit.  The laws of Vayikra 1-5 open with the command "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" and are directed at the lay Israelite.¹ In contrast, the laws of Vayikra 6-7 are prefaced by the statement, "צַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו", targeting the priest.

Order of the sacrifices – The sacrifices in Parashat Vayikra are listed according to the reason which leads one to bring them, moving from voluntary offerings (Olah, Minchah and Shelamim) to obligatory sacrifices brought as atonement for sin (Chatat and Asham).² This is what is of foremost importance to the lay Israelite. Those in Parashat Tzav, in contrast, are listed according to their level of sanctity, an issue most relevant to the priests.  As such, they open with קדשי קדשים (Olah, Minchah, Chatat and Asham) and move to קדשים קלים (Shelamim).³

Object to be sacrificed – As Vayikra 1-5 focuses on the person bringing of the sacrifice, it is logical that only these verses distinguish between the different animals which can be brought for each sacrifice and the various types of meal offerings.⁴

Reasons for bringing the offerings – Only in Parashat Vayikra do the verses explain the sins and circumstances which mandate bringing a Chatat or Asham, as this is only relevant to the person bringing the offering..

Sacrificial procedure – According to this position's understanding that Vayikra 1-5 focuses on the lay Israelite, it is surprising that most of the sacrificial procedures are mentioned specifically there rather than in Parshat Tzav which addresses the priests.  These sources could answer that the procedure is actually crucial for the layman, who should really be the one performing the entire rite; the priest simply acts as his representative, performing it in his stead. [The first two stages of the process, laying of hands and slaughter,⁵ are even actively done by the individual bringing the offering.]  Once the procedure was mentioned in Parashat Vayikra, it was not necessary to mention it again in Parashat Tzav.  This explanation, however fails to address why the Asham is only mentioned in Vayikra 6 and why the Minchah's procedure is mentioned twice.

Terumat haDeshen – As the process of removing the ashes of the daily Olah offering has nothing to do with the lay Israelite's bringing of the sacrifice, but only the preist's cleaning of the altar afterwards, it is not mentioned in Vayikra 1-5.

Allocation of sacrifices – Parashat Tzav, rather than Parashat Vayikra, speaks about the allocation of the sacrifices since, with the exception of the Olah (where this is not mentioned regardless) and the Shelamim, these are divided between the priest and altar, and as such relates to the priest rather than layman. It is still somewhat difficult why the discussion regarding the allocation of the Shelamim, which is very relevant to the lay Israelite, is not included in Parashat Vayikra.

Sacrifices mentioned only in Parashat Tzav

• מנחת כהן משיח – As this sacrifice is only brought by a priest, it is omitted from the discussion in Parashat Vayikra and mentioned only in Parashat Tzav.
• קרבן תודה – It is not clear why this subcategory of Shelamim, which can also be brought by an Israelite,  is singled out in Tzav. 

Ohel Moed vs. Har Sinai – Ramban⁶ attempts to explain the apparent contradiction by suggesting that really the two phrases refer to the same place, the Tabernacle.⁷  When the verses speaks of Mt. Sinai, it means in front of the mountain,⁸ where the Ohel Moed was stationed.⁹

The Miluim – The inclusion of the special consecration offering (Miliuim) in the summary sentences of Vayikra 7 is difficult for this position, as there is no mention of the Miluim in either Parashat Vayikra or Parashat Tzav. This position might suggest, as does HaKetav VeHaKaballah, that it refers not to the sacrifice mentioned in Shemot 29, but to the Thanksgiving Offering. He assumes that any sacrifice which is accompanied by bread might be referred to as a Miluim.¹⁰

Different Stages

The directives of the two units speak of two different stages in the sacrificial service. Vayikra 1-5 focus on the bringing and preparation of the sacrifice, while the laws of Chapters 6-7 focus on the aftermath, the apportioning and consumption of the sacrifices between Hashem, priest and lay Israelite.

Sources:perhaps Akeidat YitzchakVayikra Peirush 6About R. Yitzchak Arama,¹¹ HaKetav VeHaKabbalahVayikra 6:2Vayikra 7:37About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, ¹²

Target of the command – The laws of Vayikra 1-5 are directed at lay Israelites ("דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל") who bring the sacrifices, while the commands of Vayikra 6-7 are aimed at the priests ("צַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו") who apportion them,¹³ in accord with the focus of each unit.

Order of the sacrifices – The sacrifices in Parashat Vayikra are listed according to the level of obligation mandating their offering, while those of Parashat Tzav are ordered according to whom each is apportioned. Again, this is in line with the theme of each unit.

• Thus, Vayikra 1-5 moves from voluntary offerings (Olah, Minchah and Shelamim) to obligatory sacrifices brought as atonement for sin (Chatat and Asham).
• In contrast, in Parashat Tzav the Olah is listed first as it is offered totally to Hashem.¹⁴  The Minchah and Chatat follow as there are examples of each which are for God exclusively¹⁵ and others that are shared also by the priest.¹⁶ The Asham, which is always divided between Hashem and the priest, comes next, and the unit closes with the Shelamim which is shared also by the lay Israelite.¹⁷

Reasons for bringing the offerings and object to be sacrificed – Since Vayikra 1-5 focuses on the bringing of the sacrifice, as expected, it is this unit which details both the circumstances which mandate bringing the offering and the various animals which can be brought..

Prohibition of fat and blood – It is logical that the prohibition against eating fat and blood are elaborated upon in Parashat Tzav specifically, since this is basically the flip-side of the sacrifice's consumption.  The verse share not only who eats what, but also warns against what one may not eat.

Sacrificial procedure – On the whole, Vayikra 1-5 details the sacrificial procedure for each offering, while Vayikra 6-7 does not. This is logical if we assume that Vayikra 6-7 revolves mainly around the allocating of the portions and not the dynamics of the offering itself. This position, though, must explain the few exceptions to the rule: the Minchah whose procedure is mentioned in both units, the Asham, whose protocol is mentioned only in Vayikra 6-7:

• The Minchah – As the Minchah is a meal offering which does not require slaughter, sprinkling of blood, or the like, its preparation is basically equivalent to its allotment between the altar and the priest, and so it is mentioned in both units.¹⁸  This explains why the parts of the procedure which are related to the offering's preparation rather than its allocation, such as the placing of oil and frankincense on the offering, are omitted in Parashat Tzav. 
• The Asham – It is not clear, according to this position, why the Asham's sacrificial procedure is mentioned in Vayikra 6 and not in Vayikra 5, where expected.
• Details – several other small details are mentioned in both units, such as the fact and placement of the slaughter of the Chatat.  This though might be mentioned just to introduce the fact that it is specifically the priest who does the work who receives a portion of the sacrifice.

Sacrifices mentioned only in Parashat Tzav – Both the Minchah of the Kohen Mashiach and the Thanksgiving Offering, a type of Shelamim, are mentioned only in Parashat Tzav.  This position would explain that since each of these has certain laws regarding the allocation of the sacrifice that distinguish it from other offerings in its category,¹⁹ they needed to be mentioned individually as a contrast to the other similar offerings.²⁰  They are omitted from Parashat Vayikra because this distinction is irrelevant there, as the unit does not focus on the apportioning of the sacrifice.²¹ 

Terumat HaDeshen – As the process of removing the ashes of the daily Olah is related to the second stage of the sacrificial service, after the sacrifice has already been offered and burnt, its logical place is in Parashat Tzav..  Moreover, as the ashes highlight how the entire offering had been given to Hashem,²² it is appropriate to the discussion regarding the allocation of offerings highlighted in Parashat Tzav.

Interim Summary – Vayikra 7:8-10 – These summary verse speaks solely about the portions which are allocated tot he priest and not about any other aspect of the sacrificial service, highlighting how this is the main theme of this unit.

Omission of allocation of the Olah – If Vayikra 6-7 speaks of the allocation of the various sacrifices, one would have expected that it explicitly state by the Olah that it is given totally to Hashem.

Guiding word – "זֹאת תּוֹרַת" – This phrase repeats throughout the unit of Vayikra 6-7,²³ yet never appears in Vayikra 1-5.  As the phase is often understood to mean "procedure",²⁴ this is somewhat surprising considering that it is specifically in Parashat Vayikra that most of the sacrificial procedures are enumerated. However, translated literally, the words "זֹאת תּוֹרַת" simply mean "this is the teaching" or "laws of..." and, as such, in context, might refer to the laws of allocating each sacrifice.²⁵

Ohel Moed vs. Har Sinai

The conclusion: "זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה... וְלַמִּלּוּאִים" – HaKetav VeHaKaballah suggests that the mention of the Miluim in the concluding verses of chpater 7 refers not to the sacrifice mentioned in Shemot 29, but to the Thanksgiving Offering. He assumes that any sacrifice which is accompanied by bread might be referred to as a Miluim.

Biblical Parallels

Supplement Shemot 29

The laws of Vayikra 6-7 supplement the laws regarding the Days of Consecration in Shemot 29, adding laws specific to the priest which were relevant not only for this ceremony but for future generations as well. The laws of Vayikra 1-5 are detached from the ceremony and focus instead on laws governing the individual's bringing of sacrifices throughout the generations

Sources:R. D"Z Hoffmann

Distinct sets of laws – According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, Shemot 29 and Vayikra 6-7 together form one set of laws, aimed at the priests ("צַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו"), which were all commanded on Mount Sinai. Vayikra 1-5, in contrast, form a distinct set of laws aimed at the lay Israelite ("דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל") which were commanded in the Ohel Moed.²⁶ While the laws of Shemot 29 are specific to the Days of the Consecration, the laws in both Vayikra 1-5 and 6-7 are relevant for all future generations.

Ohel Moed vs. Har Sinai – R. Hoffmann's theory relies on this distinction in location.  He assumes that the summary statement at the end of Vayikra 7 closes only the second unit²⁷ and as such does not contradict Vayikra 1:2, but rather teaches that the two units were mandated at different places and times. Vayikra 6-7 were given on Mt. Sinai,  before, and not together with, the laws of Vayikra 1-5.²⁸  As such, they serve to supplement not these chapters but rather Shemot 29 which was similarly relayed on the mountain. Vayikra 1-5, in contrast, was only commanded after the Tabernacle was built and the people could begin to offer sacrifices.

Why is Vayikra 6-7 separated from Shemot 29? This position must explain why Vayikra 6-7 is separated from Shemot 29, if the laws were given together.  R.  Hoffmann answers that Shemot 29  only includes those laws which were needed for the Days of Consecration themselves, while Vayikra 6-7 adds those laws which are relevant for all time.²⁹  As such, they are placed in Vayikra together with the other laws which are relevant to all generations.

Why doesn't Vayikra 6-7 precede Vayikra 1-5? According to this approach one would have expected the laws of Parashat Vayikra to follow those in Parashat Tzav, as per the order in which they were commanded. However, it is possible that once Vayikra 6-7 was detached from Shemot 29, when writing the Torah for future generations, it made more sense to begin with laws aimed at the nation's bringing of sacrifices and only afterwards to include the laws aimed at the priests and their portions.³⁰

Connections between Shemot 29 and Vayikra 6-7 – There are several points in the concluding sentences to Vayikra 6-7 which highlight the unit's connection to Shemot 29 specifically:

• "זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה... וְלַמִּלּוּאִים" – R. Hoffmann suggests that the inclusion of the Miluim in the closing verses of Vayikra 6-7³¹ proves that the verses form a conclusion not just to these chapters but also to Shemot 29 which discusses the Miluim in detail.³² As such, all three chapters form one unit and were commanded together.
• "זֹאת מִשְׁחַת אַהֲרֹן וּמִשְׁחַת בָּנָיו... בְּיוֹם מׇשְׁחוֹ" – This summary verse, too, connects Chapters 6-7 to the events of the Days of Consecration mandated in Shemot 29.

Sacrifices mentioned only in Parashat Tzav – Both the Minchah of the anointed Priest and the Thanksgiving offering are mentioned only in Parashat Tzav because they are are related to the Miluim ceremony:

• מנחת כהן משיח – This Minchah is clearly connected to the days of Consecration, when Aharon was anointed, explaining its location in Vayikra 6 rather than Vayikra 2.  One might question, however, why the offering is not mentioned in Shemot 29. According to R. Hoffmann, since the sacrifice is relevant not only to Aharon, but to his descendants as well,³³ it is mentioned only in Vayikra 6 together with the other laws relevant for all generations.³⁴
• קרבן תודה– The discussion of the קרבן תודהs focuses on the loaves of bread brought.  As such, it, too, might be mentioned in Vayikra 6 specifically since they are very similar to the loaves of bread which accompanied the Miluim offering.³⁵  [Alternatively, their mention is related to this chapter's specific emphasis on the portions allocated to the priests, discussed below.

Constant Fire – Vayikra 6 speaks of the constant fire which was to burn on the altar. This, too, connects the chapter to Shemot 29consecration eremony which discusses the קרבן תמיד at length,³⁶ It was this offering and continuous fire which both invited Hashem's presence to descend and symbolized how it continuously dwells in the Mishkan.³⁷

Sacrificial procedure – The sacrificial procedures are laid out twice, once in the context of the lay Israelite (Vayikra 1-5) and once in relation to the priests (Shemot 29 and Vayikra 6-7). This approach must explain why in each set of chapters, the procedures for some of the offerings are omitted:

• Vayikra 6-7 – Vayikra 6-7 omits the procedures for most of the sacrifices not because they are mentioned in 1-5 (which was only given later) but because they were relayed already in Shemot 29.³⁸  The Minchah and Asham are exceptional because they were not offered during the Consecration ceremony.³⁹ As such, their procedures are not discussed in Shemot 29, but are instead relayed in Vayikra 6,⁴⁰ together with the other laws aimed at the priests which were relevant for all generations.⁴¹ It is only between the two sets of chapters, then, that the priests gets a complete list of procedures.
• Vayikra 1-5 – Though the laws of Vayikra 1-5 are given after the laws of Shemot 29 and Parashat Tzav, they also mention the protocol for each sacrifice, since here these laws are aimed at the lay Israelite rather than the priest. Since only in these chapters is there a distinction between the types of animals that might be brought for each sacrifice,⁴² it was necessary to distinguish between the various processes for each. It is possible that the protocol regarding the Asham is omitted⁴³ because it might be considered a sub-type of Chatat,⁴⁴ whose sacrificial process was already discussed.⁴⁵ 

Apportioning of the sacrifices – According to R. Hoffmann, the laws regarding the apportioning of the Chatat and Shelamim are repeated and emphasized in Vayikra 6-7 because these sacrifices' allocation was not identical during the Day of Consecration and thereafter.⁴⁶ As such, further clarification was needed.

• חטאת – During the days of Consecration, the meat and skin of the Chatat offering were burnt outside the camp.  Vayikra 6 comes to teach that normally, in contrast, the priest is to eat of this meat.⁴⁷
• קרבן שלמים – During the Miluim ceremony the ram's right thigh was offered to Hashem together with the fat, and the breast was given to Moshe (who was the acting priest).  Normally, though, both this thigh and breast are given to the priest, as emphasized in Vayikra 7.⁴⁸
• לחמי תודה – During the Miluim ceremony, some of the accompanying loaves of bread were sacrificed on the altar. As such, Vayikra 7 emphasizes that the loaves that accompany Thanksgiving Offerings, in contrast, were eaten by the priest and not sacrificed.⁴⁹

"וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֹתָהּ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֵדְמָה אֶל מְקוֹם הַדָּשֶׁן" – R. Hoffman points to this verse as proof that the laws of Vayikra 1-5 were given after those of Vayikra 6-7 and are aware of them. The verse assumes knowledge of the place where the ashes of the Olah were brought, even though this is mentioned nowhere in this unit and only in Parashat Tzav.⁵⁰

"כׇּל חֵלֶב וְכׇל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" – R. Hoffmann similarly points to the fact that Vayikra 3:17 mentions the prohibition to eat blood and fat only in passing, as proof that it is relying on the more elaborate set of laws in Vayikra 7:22-27.⁵¹ If so, this is further evidence that the laws of Vayikra 6-7 were given first.

Verse which assmue knowledge of Vayikra 1-5 – There are several verses in Vayikra 6-7 which are difficult for this position as they appear to assume knowledge of Parashat Vayikra, suggesting that they are aware o f the verses and were commanded only after them:

• " בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּשָּׁחֵט הָעֹלָה תִּשָּׁחֵט הַחַטָּאת" – This verse,⁵² at first glance, is somewhat difficult for this position as Shemot 29 does not delineate the place of the slaughter.  As such, the verse seems to be relying on information gleaned from Vayikra 1-5.  R. Hoffmann responds that Shemot 29:43's statement: "עֹלַת תָּמִיד לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" suggests that the location was relayed orally and known to the priests.⁵³
• List of Menachot in Vayikra 7:9-10–  This list of the various individual Menachot  also appears to assume knowledge of Vayikra 2 as these Menachot are not mentioned anywhere in Shemot 29. R. Hoffmann posits that it is possible that these categories of Menachot were well known from ancient times.

In both cases, one could alternatively suggest that once the laws were written for future generations and placed after Vayikra 1-5, the Torah is assuming that the reader is familiar with these points.  This, though, highlightsa  difficulty with R. Hoffmann's approach as a whole.  For once the chapters were placed after Vayikra 1-5, even if certain facts were only commanded later, they can be incorporated or alluded to since the reader is familiar with Parashat Vayikra.  How, then, is one to know which parts of Vayikra 6-7 constitute what what was originally commanded on Mt. Sinai and what was changed when it was written for future generations?

¹ As such, too, the phrases "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי" and "אָדָם כִּי" repeat numerous times (see Vayikra 1:2, 2:1, 4:2, and 5:1) in the unit.

² This subdivision also explains why there is a new heading in Chapter 4:1 (וַיְדַבֵּר י״י אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.); it serves to divide the obligatory offerings from the voluntary ones. The two sections are further distinguished by different guiding words. Throughout the first section the various offerings are repeatedly described as "אִשֵּׁי י״י" or "אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַי״י", while in the second section, we are repeatedly told: "וְכִפֶּר עֲלֵהֶם הַכֹּהֵן... וְנִסְלַח לוֹ".

³ Here, too, the subunits are separated from one another, with Vayikra 7:8-10 containing several summary verses, closing the unit of קדשי קדשים.

⁴ Vayikra 7:9-10 does mention the various types of Menachot, but only as part of a summary statement.  It does not, though, delve individually into the laws of each.

⁵ Even though this was practically done by the priest, slaughter by a non-priest is Kosher and in the verses, the subject of the command to slaughter is always the Israelite, not the priest.  [See, for example, Vayikra 1:5, 1:11, 3:2, 3:8, 3:13, 4:24, and 4:29.]

⁶ This is one of three explanations that he brings.  He also notes Chzal's understanding that the verse only mentions Mt. Sinai to teach that all the laws were originally taught to Moshe on the mountain and then repeated again in the Tabernacle.

⁷ One could have also suggested the opposite, that both phrases refer to Mt. Sinai, and that when Vayikra 1:1 speaks of the Ohel Moed, it is referring to Moshe's personal tent which was set up at the mountain (see Shemot 33:7-11). The advantage of this reading is that it allows one to suggest that all the laws of the sacrifices might have been commanded before the erection of the Tabernacle.  As these laws were to be utilized as soon as the Tabernacle was erected (sacrifices were brought during the dedication itself), it is logical that they were relayed earlier.

⁸ Ramban points to Bemidbar 10:33 and Devarim 1:6 which similarly mention the "mountain" but really refer to the area surrounding it.

⁹ He further suggests that verse 38 mentions "במדבר סיני" rather than "בהר סיני" for this very reason - to teach that the laws were not said on the mountain itself, but in its vicinity in the Wilderness.

¹⁰ See also RalbagVayikra 7:37About R. Levi b. Gershom similarly.

¹¹ Akeidat Yitzchak speaks at length about how Vayikra 6-7 revolves around the allocation of the sacrifices to the priest. However, he does not say explicitly that this is why this unit is separated from Vayikra 1-5.

¹² See also R"Y Grossman, "שתי רשימות הקורבנות".

¹³ They are the ones to sprinkle the blood or burn the fat on the altar and take their remaining portions. The one exception relates to the Shelmim offering, where it is the Israelite himself who allocates a portion to the priest.  As such, this section of laws is addressed once again to him and not the priest. 

¹⁴ Only the skin is given to the priest.

¹⁵ The Minchah of the Kohen Mashiach (Vayikra 6:12-16) and the internal Chataot [see Vayikra 6:23 and RashbamVayikra 6:23About R. Shemuel b. Meir there] are given totally to Hashem.

¹⁶ One might have thought that within the discussion of Menachot and Chataot, the first sacrifices mentioned would have been those which are given to Hashem exclusively, yet the opposite is true.  This is likely because the majority of these sacrifices are partaken of also by the priest, while those which are given totally to Hashem are the exception, not the norm.  It is even possible that they are only mentioned here to serve as a contrast to those sacrifices from which the priest eats.

¹⁷ The Shelamim's unique status as קדשים קלים would explain why there are several concluding verses (Vayikra 7:8-10) which separate it from the previous discussion.  In addition, as it is this only offering of which an Israelite might partake, there are two sections within the larger discussion, each with a new opening, (Vayikra 7:22-27 and 7:28-34) aimed at them specifically, warning that they may nonetheless not eat the portions meant for Hashem or the priest.

¹⁸ This position might also suggest that since the Minchah of the Kohen Mashiach is distinct in being given exclusively to Hashem, it was important to elaborate by the discussion of the regular Menachot so it would be clear that these are divided between the altar and priest. As such, more details than usual are provided regarding the procedure itself, as this clarifies what is given to whom.

¹⁹ As opposed to most Menachot which are divided between the altar and the priest, this Minchah is given totally to Hashem.  The Thanksgiving Offering is unique in that it is accompanied by loaves of bread, unlike other Shelamim offerings.  These loaves are also given to the priest, and thus the offering is discussed here.

²⁰ See Akeidat YitzchakVayikra Peirush 6About R. Yitzchak Arama.

²¹ We would not have expected the sacrifices of the newly anointed priest to be found in Parashat Vayikra regardless, as those chapters revolve around the lay Israelite and his bringing of sacrifices, while this offering is unique to the priest. [According to Chazal, the verses refer not only to the inaugural offering of every priest but to the daily minchat chavitin, which was brought by the High Priest.  Regardless, the sacrifice is never brought by a layman.]

²² Note the language, "וְהֵרִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ", which highlights thatt he fire had consumed the offering.

²³ See Vayikra 6:2, 6:7, 6:18, 7:1,7:11,and 7:37.

²⁴ See its usage in Vayikra 12:7, 13:59, 15:32, Bemidbar 5:29 and Bemidbar 6:13.  In each o fthese cases the verse either introduces or concludes the description of a purification process or other cultic procedure.

²⁵ See ChizkuniVayikra 7:37About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, Akeidat YitzchakVayikra Peirush 6About R. Yitzchak Arama and SefornoVayikra 6Vayikra 7About R. Ovadyah Seforno who appear to understand the phrase in this manner. For example, Akeidat Yitzchak writes, "זאת תורת וחוק הראוי לינתן למקריב העולה".

²⁶ As above, this would account for the different ordering of the various sacrifices, and why it is only in Parashat Vayikra that we are told the reason why various sacrifices are offered and from which animals or grain they can be brought.

²⁷ This is supported by the fact that its listing of the sacrifices matches the order given in Parashat Tzav.

²⁸ The language of "בְּיוֹם צַוֺּתוֹ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְרִיב אֶת קׇרְבְּנֵיהֶם לַי״י בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי" is nonetheless difficult as this appears to refer to a later time period, when the nation itself received the laws of sacrifices in Midbar Sinai, ie. the Ohel Moed.  R. Hoffmann explains that the verse means that the laws of the sacrifices which were commanded on the mountain, were first executed after the Taberncle was built when the nation received their laws. The words "בְּיוֹם צַוֺּתוֹ" should be read as if written "מיוֹם צַוֺּתוֹ" (from the day He commanded...).  This is parallel to the phrase " בְּיוֹם הִקְרִיב אֹתָם לְכַהֵן לַי״י" in verse 35, which is similarly understood to mean "מיוֹם הִקְרִיב אֹתָם".  [It would be difficult to say that the verse is saying that the portions of the sacrifices discussed in the chater will be allotted to Aharon only on the day that he was consecrated into priesthood, so the phrase s understood to mean from that day on.]
For an alternative explanation of our phrase, see R. Shama, "" Megadim 2 (1986): He suggests that when the verse states ""בְּיוֹם צַוֺּתוֹ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְרִיב אֶת קׇרְבְּנֵיהֶם לַי״י בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי"' it is referring not to the discussion in Vayikra 1-5, but to the commands regarding the Tamid offering discussed already at the end of Shemot 29.   This was the first command relayed regarding sacrifices which the nation was to offer in the Wilderness (not as part of the Consecration ceremony). [According to him the words "בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי" do not refer to the location where the command was given, but where the sacrifices were to be offered.] As such, the entire verse is referring to the commands of Shemot 29.

²⁹ One might question why then the daily Olah offering (עולת תמיד), which is for all generations,  is mentioned in Shemot 29.  However, considering the fundamental role played  by the Tamid in inviting Hashem's presence to dwell in the Mishkan, it is logical why it would close the unit on the Mishkan in Shemot.

³⁰ See R"E Samet, who adds that by placing Vayikra 6-7 after Vayikra 1-5, these laws are juxtaposed to Chapter 8 which describes the fulfillment of the commands regarding the Days of Consecration, to which these chapters are so connected.

³¹ It is likely listed right before the Shelamim because it is a type of Shelamim.

³² As this sacrifice is unique to the Days of Consecration and not relevant to future generations, it is not mentioned in the body of Vayikra 6-7 (which deals only with those offerings which were also relevant to all generations), but only in the conclusion.

³³ According to Chazal, who suggest that the verses refer also to the Minchat Chavittin, which was brought daily, it is even more understandable why it is mentioned in Vayikra 6 rather than Shemot 29.

³⁴ The laws of Shemot 29, in contrast, are limited and specific to what was necessary for the days of Consecration.  In addition, the chapter only speaks of the offerings to be brought throughout the week-long ceremony, while this sacrifice was only brought on the first day of the ceremony .

³⁵ Both mention חלות מצות ורקיקי מצות. According to Mishna Menachot 7:2, the לחם מצות of Shemot 29 is equivalent to the "סלת מרבכת" of Vayikra 6 as well, so the selection of loaves was totally identical (with the important exception of one group being leavened).  In fact, R"E Samet suggests that Miluim offering was meant to act as Thanskgiving Offering given by the priests for the privilege of serving in the Mikdash.

³⁶ R. Hoffmann points out that the description of the sacrifices' burning "all night" assumes knowledge that it is referring to the Daily Offering rather than a regular Olah, further proving that Chapter 6 is connected to Shemot 29 (where the Tamid is mentioned) rather than Vayikra 1-5 (where only individual Olot are discussed).

³⁷ As noted above, the Tamid is the only offering relevant for all generations which is also mentioned in Shemot 29, probably for this same reason.

³⁸ See the note below that when the sacrificial procedure of the Days of Consecration differed from that of future generations, the text tries to note this and elaborates.

³⁹ Similarly, Terumat haDeshen (the gathering of the ashes of the Olah offering) which was not mentioned in Shemot 29, as it was not part of the one-time ceremony but rather connected to the daily Olah offering, is only mentioned in Vayikra 6.

⁴⁰ Nonetheless, the verses do not elaborate regarding the various sub-types of Menachot since these are relevant mainly to the person bringing the offering rather than the priest.  As such, they are discussed only in Vayikra 2, which is aimed at the Israelites.

⁴¹ See also Malbim.

⁴² This is logical as it is these chapters which are aimed at the lay Israelite who is actually  bringing of the sacrifice, where it is necessary to differentiate between the animals brought.

⁴³ R. Hoffmann alternatively suggests that since only one type of animal could be brought for the Asham, there was no need to distinguish between different procedures and so the verses omit the discussion entirely, relying instead on what is known from Vayikra 6-7.

⁴⁴ Throughout the discussion of both offerings, the two roots אשם and חטא appear interchangeably, suggesting that the two might be variations of the same category of sacrifice.

⁴⁵ See Vayikra 5:1-13 which speaks of the קרבן עולה ויורד, a specific type of Chatat which could be brought from either an animal, fowl, or grains depending on a person's means.   Though the verses elaborate regarding the sacrificial procedure of the bird and grains, it omits the equivalent discussion by the animal.  Apparently this is because the previous chapter, in the context of the regular Chatat offering, already detailed the protocol for such animals (but not for fowl or grains.)  If the Asham is also considered a  Chatat, there would similarly be no need to elaborate regarding its procedure for one could rely on these earlier verses as well.

⁴⁶ In contrast, the laws of the Olah offering, which is always given totally to Hashem just as it had been during the Days of Cosecration, is barely mentioned in Vayikra 6.  Only the gathering of its ashes and need for a constant fire on the altar are discussed.

⁴⁷ The other law which is emphasized in Vayikra 6 is that the Chatat is considered קדש קדשים, and must be eaten in a holy place.  This law is intrinsically connected to the first.  Now that the priest is allocated a portion of the Chatat, he need to know where to eat it.

⁴⁸ This might explain why, after speaking of offering the thigh to Hashem during the Miluim ceremony, Shemot 29 goes out of its way to explain "כִּי אֵיל מִלֻּאִים הוּא". It is only because this is a consecration offering that it is given to Hashem

⁴⁹ A second distinction between the two which is emphasized in Vayikra 7, is the fact that only לחמי תודה were leavened. This difference likely stems form the first; anything which was to be sacrificed on the altar could not have been leavened.  It is possible that these new laws are the reason why the לחמי תודה are singled out for mention in Parashat Tzav, while they are not mentioned at all in Vayikra 1-5.

⁵⁰ undefined

⁵¹ Since these chapters highlight the allocation of the parts of the sacrifice, they are the natural place to speak of those parts of the animal which are always "Hashem's portion" and therefore prohibited to man.
One might still question why the discussion is found specifically with regards to the Shelmaim offering, when the prohibition applies to all sacrifices. It is possible that since this offering is unique in being shared by priest and layman alike, and the only parts which go to Hashem are the blood and fat, it was necessary to highlight he prohibition here more than anywhere else.

⁵² See also the similar formulation by the Asham.

⁵³ He also notes that the list of the various individual Menachot in 7:9-10 also appear to assume knowledge of Vayikra 2 (as these Menachot are not mentioned anywhere in Shemot 29).  R. Hoffmann posits that it is possible that these categories of Menachot were well known  from ancient times.