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

Overview

Commentators struggle to explain the relationship between the disparate discussions of the sacrifices in Parshiyot Vayikra and Tzav in a manner which can both account for the need for two distinct units and explain the unique aspects of each. The majority of commentators suggest that the two chapters are meant to complement one another and that they are separated only because they have distinct foci. Thus, Ramban asserts that each unit is addressed to a distinct audience.  Parashat Vayikra targets the individual Israelite and his role in the process, while Parashat Tzav addresses the priest and his functions. HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, instead, suggests that each unit discusses a different stage in the sacrificial process. Parashat Vayikra focuses on the opening stages regarding the preparation of the sacrifice, while Parashat Tzav revolves around the final stage, the allocation and consumption of the offering.

In contrast to these earlier exegetes, R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that the unique features and unexpected additions / omissions in Parashat Tzav stem from their connection, not to Parashat Vayikra, but to Shemot 29 and its discussion of the Days of Consecration. He asserts that both Shemot 29 and Parashat Tzav form one cohesive body of sacrificial laws, all addressed to the priests, separated in placement from each other, only because the former was a one time directive and the latter was given for future generations.  Together, though, these stand in contrast to the laws of Parashat Vayikra which were directed at the layperson offering the sacrifice.

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 distinguishes it from the other:

Different Audiences

While Parashat Vayikra emphasizes the nation's role in the sacrificial process, Parashat Tzav 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 Hirsch¹

Target of the command – This position stems from 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.² 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 (Chattat and Asham).³ This difference in the motivation for the sacrifice is the factor which is of foremost importance to the lay Israelite. In Parashat Tzav, in contrast, the sacrifices are listed according to their level of sanctity, their trait which was most relevant to the priests.  As such, they first complete discussion of all higher level קדשי קדשים offerings (Olah, Minchah, Chattat and Asham) before moving to the lesser sanctified קדשים קלים (Shelamim).⁴

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

Reasons for bringing the offerings – Only in Parashat Vayikra do the verses explain the sins and circumstances which mandate bringing a Chattat or Asham, as this is relevant only to the Israelite 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 Parashat Tzav which addresses the priests.  The solution to this may be that the procedure is actually crucial for the layperson who in theory should really be the one performing the entire rite;⁶ the priest simply acts as his representative, performing it in his stead. This explanation, however, fails to address why the Asham is mentioned only in Vayikra 6⁷ 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, and is a technical job relating to the priest alone, it is mentioned in Vayikra 6 and not Vayikra 1.

Allocation of sacrifices – Parashat Tzav, rather than Parashat Vayikra, speaks about the allocation of the sacrifices since, with the exception of the Olah⁸ and the Shelamim, these are divided between the priest and altar, and as such the laws relate to the priest rather than layperson. However, 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 brought only by a priest, it is omitted from the discussion in Parashat Vayikra and mentioned only in Parashat Tzav.⁹
• קרבן תודה – It is not clear why this subcategory of Shelamim, which can also be brought by an Israelite, is singled out in Tzav. 

אהל מועד vs. הר סיני – Ramban¹⁰ attempts to explain the apparent contradiction by suggesting that really the two phrases refer to the same place, the Tabernacle.¹¹  When the verses speaks of Mt. Sinai, it means in front of the mountain,¹² where the Ohel Moed was stationed.¹³

The Milluim – 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 Milluim in either Parashat Vayikra or Parashat Tzav. This position might suggest, as does HaKetav VeHaKabbalahVayikra 6:2Vayikra 7:37About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg,¹⁴ that it refers not to the sacrifice mentioned in Shemot 29, but to the Thanksgiving Offering. He posits that any sacrifice which is accompanied by bread might be referred to as a Milluim.¹⁵

The need for two units – As each unit is being directed at a different audience, it makes sense to separate the laws into two.  There was no reason to tell the nation as a whole the laws specific to the priest (and vice versa).

Different Stages

The directives of the two units speak of two different stages in the sacrificial service. Vayikra 1-5 details the bringing and preparation of the sacrifice, while Vayikra 6-7 turn to the aftermath of this process, the apportioning and consumption of the sacrifices by Hashem, priest, and lay Israelite.

Sources:perhaps Akeidat YitzchakVayikra Peirush 6About R. Yitzchak Arama,¹⁶ HaKetav VeHaKabbalahVayikra 6:2Vayikra 7:37About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg,¹⁷

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,¹⁸ 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 (Chattat and Asham).
• In contrast, in Parashat Tzav the Olah is listed first as it is offered totally to Hashem.¹⁹  The Minchah, Chattat and Asham follow, as they are shared between Hashem and the priest.²⁰ The unit closes with the Shelamim which is shared also by the lay Israelite.²¹

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 section of the offering, 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 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.
• 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, once to highlight the procedure, and once to highlight the allocation.²²  This also 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. 
• Chattat and Shelamim – Several other small details are also mentioned in both units, such as the fact and placement of the slaughter of the Chattat.  It is possible that this is repeated in Vayikra 6 only to introduce who merits to eat of the sacrifice.  Since it is specifically the priest who does the slaughtering who receives a portion of the sacrifice, the unit opens with mention of the slaughter. Similarly, the repeated mention of the burning of the fat of the Shelamim might serve the same purpose, introducing the later command, " הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה".

Sacrifices mentioned only in Parashat Tzav – Both the Minchah of the anointed priest 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,²³ they needed to be mentioned individually as a contrast to the other similar offerings.²⁴  They are omitted from Parashat Vayikra because this distinction is irrelevant there, as the unit does not focus on the apportioning of the sacrifice.

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,²⁵ 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 to the 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.²⁶

Guiding word – "זֹאת תּוֹרַת" – This phrase repeats throughout the unit of Vayikra 6-7,²⁷ yet never appears in Vayikra 1-5.  As the phase is often understood to mean "procedure",²⁸ 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.²⁹

אהל מועד vs. הר סיני – This position might explain, like Ramban above, that the two phrases really refer to the same place, to the Ohel Moed which was set up in front of Mt. Sinai.³⁰

The conclusion: "זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה... וְלַמִּלּוּאִים" – HaKetav VeHaKaballah suggests that the mention of the Milluim in the concluding verses of chapter 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 Milluim.

The need for two units – This position does not adequately explain why the two sets of laws could not have been combined.  Why could Hashem not have relayed the entire sacrificial process, from beginning to end, in one place?  Why separate the laws dealing with the offering's preparation from those discussing its allocation?

Complement to Shemot 29

The laws of Vayikra 6-7 complement 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. In contrast, 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 HoffmannVayikra Introduction, Two GroupsVayikra Introduction, "Two Groups," BVayikra Introduction, "On the Relationship..."About R. David Zvi Hoffmann³¹

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 only later, in the Ohel Moed.³² 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 unit³³ and as such does not contradict Vayikra 1:2, but rather teaches that the two units were mandated at different places and times. The laws of Vayikra 6-7 were given on Mt. Sinai, before, and not together with, the laws of Vayikra 1-5.³⁴  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 commanded only 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 includes only those laws which were needed for the Days of Consecration themselves, while Vayikra 6-7 adds those laws which are relevant for all time.³⁵  As such, the command in Shemot 29 appears in the midst of the directive to build the Mishkan, while the laws of Vayikra 6-7 are placed in Sefer 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.³⁶

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 Milluim in the closing verses of Vayikra 6-7³⁷ proves that the verses form a conclusion not just to these chapters but also to Shemot 29 which discusses the Milluim in detail.³⁸ 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 Milluim 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,³⁹ it is mentioned only in Vayikra 6 together with the other laws relevant for all generations.⁴⁰
• קרבן תודה – The discussion of the קרבן תודה 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 Milluim offering.⁴¹

Constant fire – Vayikra 6 speaks of the constant fire which was to burn on the altar, and alludes to the daily Olah offering, the קרבן תמיד. This, too, connects the chapter to Shemot 29 and the consecration ceremony which discusses the קרבן תמיד at length,⁴² It was this offering and this continuous fire which both invited Hashem's presence to descend and symbolized how it continuously dwells in the Mishkan.⁴³

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 given only later) but because they were relayed already in Shemot 29.⁴⁴  The Minchah and Asham are exceptional because they were not offered during the Consecration ceremony.⁴⁵ As such, their procedures are not discussed in Shemot 29, but are instead relayed in Vayikra 6,⁴⁶ together with the other laws aimed at the priests which were relevant for all generations.⁴⁷
• Vayikra 1-5 – One might question, if the laws of Vayikra 1-5 are given after the laws of Shemot 29 and Parashat Tzav, why need they also mention the protocol for each sacrifice.  R. Hoffmann responds that these laws are aimed at the lay Israelite rather than the priest. Moreover, since only in these chapters is there a distinction between the types of animals that might be brought for each sacrifice,⁴⁸ it was necessary to distinguish between the various processes for each as well. Why, though, is the Asham's procedure omitted?⁴⁹ It is possible that the Asham is considered a sub-type of Chattat,⁵⁰ whose sacrificial process was already discussed in the previous chapter.⁵¹ 

Apportioning of the sacrifices – According to R. Hoffmann, the laws regarding the apportioning of the various sacrifices are mentioned in Parashat Tzav, not in contrast to Vayikra, but because these laws were not identical to those practiced during the Consecration Ceremony, and, as such, needed to be clarified for future generations.⁵²

• חטאת – During the days of Consecration, the meat and skin of the Chattat offering were burnt outside the camp.  Vayikra 6 comes to teach that normally, in contrast, the priest is to eat of this meat.⁵³
• קרבן שלמים – During the Milluim 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 7.⁵⁴
• לחמי תודה – During the Milluim 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, are divided between the priest and the individual bringing the sacrifice (and are not sacrificed on the altar at all).⁵⁵

"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.

"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 7:22-27.⁵⁶ If so, this is further evidence that the laws of Vayikra 6-7 were given first.

Verses which assumes 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 of the verses and were commanded only after them:

• "בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּשָּׁחֵט הָעֹלָה תִּשָּׁחֵט הַחַטָּאת" – This verse,⁵⁷ 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.⁵⁸
• 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, highlights a difficulty with R. Hoffmann's approach as a whole.  For, once the chapters were placed after Vayikra 1-5, any law can be incorporated or alluded to in Parashat Tzav since the reader is familiar with Parashat Vayikra.  How, then, is one to know which parts of Vayikra 6-7 constitute what was originally commanded on Mt. Sinai and what was only incorporated from Parashat Vayikra when it was written for future generations?

The need for two units – R. Hoffmann follows Ramban in assuming that one unit is addressed to the priests and the other to the layperson and that as such, there are two sets of commands.

¹ See also, more recently, R"M Spiegelman "פרשת צו - בין פרשת צו לפרשת ויקרא" who makes this same distinction between the two units, but develops the approach differently than presented here.

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

³ 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".

⁴ Here, too, the sub-units are separated from one another, with Vayikra 7:8-10 containing several summary verses, closing the unit of קדשי קדשים.

⁵ 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.

⁶ The first two stages of the process, laying of hands and slaughter, are even actively done by the individual bringing the offering.  [Even though slaughtering was practically done by the priest, if done by a non-priest, the act is considered kosher. Moreover, 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.]

⁷ J. Milgrom, "The Anchor Bible: Leviticus" (New York, 1991): 409, points to the verse "וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַי"י אַיִל תָּמִים מִן הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ כֶּסֶף שְׁקָלִים בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאָשָׁם" to suggest that originally the person liable for an Asham offering would bring not an animal to the Mikdash, but its worth in shekels. As such, in contrast to the other offerings, the individual's role in the sacrificial procedure of the Asham was non-existent and so the discussion is moved to Tzav which deals with the priestly role.  However, as the verses consistently speak of the ram which must be brought, it would seem that the simple sense of the verses is that an actual animal is brought which is worth "כֶּסֶף שְׁקָלִים".

⁸ By the Olah there is no discussion of the sacrifice's allocation regardless.

⁹ According to Chazal, the verses refer not only to the inaugural offering of the priest but to the daily Minchat Chavitin, which was brought by the High Priest. Regardless, the sacrifice is never brought by a layperson and so would not be mentioned in Parashat Vayikra.

¹⁰ This is one of three explanations that he brings.  He also notes Chazal'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.

¹¹ 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.

¹² Ramban points to Bemidbar 10:33 and Devarim 1:6 which similarly mention the "mountain" but really refer to the area surrounding it.

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ See his position below.

¹⁵ See also RalbagVayikra 7:37About R. Levi b. Gershom similarly.

¹⁶ 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.

¹⁷ See also R"Y Grossman, "שתי רשימות הקורבנות", who also develops this approach.

¹⁸ They are the ones to sprinkle the blood or burn the fat on the altar (giving Hashem His portion), and then take their remaining portions. The one exception relates to the Shelamim 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 (see Vayikra 7:29-34: דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל) and not the priest.

¹⁹ Only the skin is given to the priest.

²⁰ Within this group there is also a progression, as there are exceptional cases in which a Minchah or Chattat is either given to Hashem totally or burnt, and not eaten by the priest at all. Thus, the Minchah of the newly anointed  priest is totally given to Hashem, while the meat of the internal Chattat offerings (such as the Bull of the anointed priest) are burnt outside the camp (see Vayikra 6:23 and RashbamVayikra 6:23About R. Shemuel b. Meir there).  The Asham, in contrast is always shared also by the priest.

²¹ 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.

²² This position might also suggest that since the Minchah of the newly anointed priest 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.

²³ 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.  The verses thus teach how to allocate these loaves as well.

²⁴ See Akeidat YitzchakVayikra Peirush 6About R. Yitzchak Arama.

²⁵ Note the language, "וְהֵרִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ", which highlights that the fire had consumed the offering.

²⁶ As mentioned, the fact is only hinted to.

²⁷ See Vayikra 6:2, 6:7, 6:18, 7:1,7:11,and 7:37.

²⁸ See its usage in Vayikra 12:7, 13:59, 15:32, Bemidbar 5:29 and Bemidbar 6:13.  In each of these cases the verse either introduces or concludes the description of a purification process or other cultic procedure.

²⁹ See ChizkuniVayikra 7:37About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach and Akeidat YitzchakVayikra Peirush 6About R. Yitzchak Arama who appear to understand the phrase in this manner. For example, Akeidat Yitzchak writes, "זאת תורת וחוק הראוי לינתן למקריב העולה".

³⁰ See discussion above for details.

³¹ See also R"E Samet, "התורה לעלה למנחה ולחטאת ולמילואים ולזבח השלמים - מתי נאמרה?"  in עיונים בפרשת השבוע (Jerusalem, 2001):19-40 who discusses and analyzes R. D"Z Hoffmann's approach at length.

³² 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 they can be brought.

³³ This is supported by the fact that its listing of the sacrifices matches the order given in Parashat Tzav.

³⁴ 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, i.e. in the Ohel Moed.  R. Hoffmann explains that the verse means that the laws of the sacrifices which were commanded on the mountain were first practiced after the Tabernacle 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 this latter verse is saying that the portions of the sacrifices discussed in the chapter will be allotted to Aharon only on the day that he was consecrated into priesthood, so the phrase is understood to mean from that day on.]
For an alternative explanation of our phrase, see R"A Shama, "שתי מגמות בחנוכת המשכן והשתקפותן בתורת הקרבנות" Megadim 2 (1986):32-44. He suggests that when the verse states "בְּיוֹם צַוֺּתוֹ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְרִיב אֶת קׇרְבְּנֵיהֶם לַי״י בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי", 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, he suggests that the verse is referring not to the commands given in Vayikra 1-5, but to the first time commands were given regarding the sacrifices which were to be offered in the Wilderness, the commands regarding the Tamid offering discussed at the end of Shemot 29. As such, the entire verse is referring to the commands of Shemot 29.

³⁵ One might question why the daily Olah offering (עולת תמיד), which is for all generations, is mentioned in Shemot 29.  However, considering the fundamental role played by theTamid in inviting Hashem's presence to dwell in the Mishkan, it is logical why it would close the unit on the Tabernacle in Shemot.

³⁶ 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.

³⁷ It is likely listed right before the Shelamim because it is a type of Shelamim, but one with more sanctity.

³⁸ 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.

³⁹ 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.

⁴⁰ 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 .

⁴¹ 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 almost identical, with the important exception of one group being leavened.  In fact, R"E Samet suggests that Milluim offering was meant to act as a Thanskgiving Offering given by the priests for the privilege of serving in the Mikdash.

⁴² 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, rather than communal Olot are discussed).

⁴³ 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.

⁴⁴ 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.

⁴⁵ 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.

⁴⁶ 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.

⁴⁷ See also MalbimVayikra 6:13About R. Meir Leibush Weiser.

⁴⁸ 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.

⁴⁹ R. Hoffmann 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.

⁵⁰ 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.

⁵¹ See Vayikra 5:1-13 which speaks of the קרבן עולה ויורד, a specific type of Chattat 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 Chattat offering, already detailed the protocol for such animals (but not for fowl or grains.)  If the Asham is also considered a Chattat, there would similarly be no need to elaborate regarding its procedure for one could rely on these earlier verses as well.

⁵² In contrast, the laws of the Olah offering, which is always given totally to Hashem just as it had been during the Days of Consecration, is barely mentioned in Vayikra 6.  Only the gathering of its ashes and need for a constant fire on the altar are discussed.

⁵³ The other law which is emphasized in Vayikra 6 is that the Chattat 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 Chattat, he need to know where to eat it.

⁵⁴ This might explain why, after speaking of offering the thigh to Hashem during the Milluim 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

⁵⁵ 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.

⁵⁶ 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 Shelamim offering, when the prohibition applies to all sacrifices. It is possible that since this offering is unique in being shared by priest and layperson alike, and the only parts which go to Hashem are the blood and fat, it was necessary to highlight the prohibition here more than anywhere else.

⁵⁷ See also the similar formulation by the Asham.

⁵⁸ 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.