Bemidbar 6:24-26– Birkat Cohanim: Three or six blessings on your head

במדבר 6:24-26: יברכך ה' וישמרך. יאר ה' פניו אליך ויחנך. ישא ה' פניו אליך וישם לך שלום.

Bemidbar 6:24-26 record the birkat cohanim, the priestly blessings. These blessings are pronounced every day in the land of Israel, and on the festivals in the Diaspora. What is the meaning of these blessings?

The priestly blessings consist of three verses, and each verse has two parts or two blessings. It would seem logical that the two parts/ blessings in each verse are related to each other. Also, the number of words in each verse increase from three words, 6:24, to five words, 6:25, and then to seven words, 6:26, which suggests that the blessings build upon each other. To understand how the two parts/ blessings in each verse connect to each other and how the blessings in the verses expand on the previous blessing, we need to understand the blessings.

N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 65-73) explains that the blessing in the beginning of the first verse, 6:24, refers to material blessings, and the blessing in the end of the verse, shamor, is either that G-d should ensure that the material goods are not stolen (Rashi on 6:24) or that the material goods do not make a person arrogant (Netziv on 6:24).

The Bekhor Shor writes that there are many possible blessings that can be the reference to the blessing in the beginning of 6:24, such as having children, good health and long life, and the blessing of shamor in the end of 6:24 is that G-d should protect bad things from occurring to the person. These bad things would remove the blessings from the beginning of the verse, and sometimes it is worse to have been blessed and lose the blessings, then never to have been blessed in the first place. These ideas follow the understanding that the word shamor means to protect, as maybe occurs in Bereshit 41:35 and Shemot 22:6,9.

Yet, as we discuss on Devarim 4:6, “The definition of the word shamor in Moshe’s speeches in the book of Devarim - To remember,” the real meaning of the word shamor in the Torah is to remember. Thus, the end of 6:24 means that the priest is blessing the people that G-d should remember the blessings in the beginning of the verse that the blessings should endure.

The blessings given to the patriarchs in the book of Bereshit support the idea that 6:24 refers to physical blessings. The first word in 6:24 invokes the word berakhah. This word figures prominently by G-d’s blessings to Avraham and Yitzhak, Bereshit 12:2, 22:17, 24:35 and 26:3, and these were physical blessings of wealth, land, children and to have a good reputation. The last word in 6:24 shamor also appears by the blessings to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav, Bereshit 28:15. In this case, the blessing to Yaakov was that G-d would remember him, namely protect him, in his journeys.

The first part of the second verse, 6:25, is that G-d will “light up His face towards you.” This phrase is difficult to understand. The Sifrei (41) quote five explanations for this phrase. One (and five) is that G-d will answer your prayers (or give you without you even asking), and this is Ibn Ezra’s (on 6:25) explanation of the verse. A second explanation in the Sifrei is that G-d will make you likeable that people will treat you nicely, which is based on the blessing in the end of the verse. The third and fourth explanations in the Sifrei is that G-d will grant you wisdom either in general or specifically to understand the Torah. Rashi (on 6:25) suggests a sixth explanation that the phrase means that G-d will show you a smiling face. What can this mean? This is a literal interpretation of the beginning of 6:25, but does G-d have a face? Can a person see G-d’s face?

The second part of the second verse, 6:25, is that G-d should grant you grace. What does this mean? Does it mean that the priest is blessing the person that G-d should give him/ her friends?

The first part of the third verse, 6:26, is that “G-d should lift up His face towards you.” Rashi (on 6:26) writes that this phrase means that G-d will suppress His anger to you. With this approach, the third blessing is a worse blessing than the second blessing, but as mentioned above, the blessings seem to increase. Alter (2004, p. 714) writes that both the first phrase of the second blessing and the first phrase of the third blessing are that G-d should show favor or affection to the person. What is this favor? The physical blessing of 6:24? Why would the priest repeat the blessing of 6:24? Why are the blessings of the first part of 6:25 and 6:26 so similar?

The second part of the third verse is that G-d should grant the person peace. Is this the same idea as the end of the first verse that G-d should remember or protect the person? How does this blessing of peace relate to the beginning of the third verse that “G-d should lift up His face towards you?”

To understand the second and third verses of the priestly blessings it is necessary to understand the term G-d’s face which appears in the beginning of both 6:25 and 6:26. During the conversation between G-d and Moshe after the people sinned by the golden calf, Moshe asked to see G-d’s glory, Shemot 33:18. Shemot 33:20 records that G-d responded that Moshe could not see His face. This response shows that G-d’s face is the glory of G-d.

Accordingly, the blessing in the first part of the second verse, 6:25, is that the priest is blessing the people that G-d’s glory should project light towards the people. This light is the fire that is within the glory of G-d, see Shemot 24:17.  The blessing in the second half of 6:25 is that G-d should grant the people grace. This grace is crucial if the person is to see the glory of G-d since seeing the light from the glory of G-d could be a positive or negative experience. It was positive after the Decalogue in Shemot 24:17, but in Bemidbar 14:10, the light from the glory of G-d was quite ominous. Thus, the blessing in the second half of 6:25 is that G-d should grant the person grace in order that seeing the light of G-d’s glory, the blessing in the first part of 6:25, would be a positive experience. Note that the blessing in 6:25 is not that the person will see the glory of G-d, which cannot occur, Shemot 33:20, but that the person should see the light that emanates from the glory of G-d.

The first part of the third verse, 6:26, records that “G-d would lift up His face towards the people.” This phrase again refers to G-d’s glory that it would be lifted up towards the people. This is different than the second blessing where a person would see the light of G-d’s glory from a distance, while here the blessing is for a person to be relatively close to G-d’s glory. This is what Moshe asked for when he asked to see G-d’s glory in his conversation with G-d after the sin of the golden calf, Shemot 33:18. Moshe has previously seen G-d’s glory (Shemot 16:10), but he wanted to get closer to G-d’s glory, see our discussion on Shemot 33:18-34:7, “As close as it gets.” The blessing in the second half of 6:26, the blessing of peace, is crucial for the fulfillment of the blessing in the first part of the verse. Even if a person has G-d’s grace, as Moshe did, Shemot 33:17, still Moshe needed special protection to be able to get close to G-d’s glory, Shemot 33:22. Thus, the blessing of peace in the end of 6:26 is that G-d should protect the person if the person is blessed to get close to G-d’s glory, the first part of 6:26.

After speaking on this topic in my synagogue, my son Dror pointed out that with this approach, in each verse, the blessing in the second half of the verse it to ensure that the blessing of the first part of the verse ensues.

We see that the blessings in the three verses are in ascending order just like the number of words in each blessing. The blessing in the first verse, 6:24, is that the person should receive material blessings, the blessing in the second verse, 6:25, is that the person should see the glory of G-d, an unbelievable religious experience, and the blessing in the third verse, 6:26, is that person should be able to get close to the glory of G-d, which is the closest any person can come to G-d and is even more unbelievable than seeing the glory of G-d from a distance. This last blessing marks the highest level a human being can achieve, which. as far is known, was only attained by Moshe.

Bibliography

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bemidbar 6:11 - The nazir: In the danger zone

Bemidbar 6:11 records that after a nazir accidently came into contact with a dead body, then he/she has to bring an olah and a hatta`t and these sacrifices are le-khapper for the nazir who sinned al ha-nefesh (nafesh). This verse raises at least two questions. 

One, what was the nazir's sin? The nazir is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body, but 6:9 records that the case is where the nazir accidently came into contact with the dead body, as the dead person died suddenly. Two, what does the phrase al ha-nefesh in 6:11 mean?

Rashi (on 6:11) first quotes that the nazir's sin was that he/ she was not careful about not coming into contact with a dead body. With this approach, the phrase al ha-nefesh refers to the dead person that the nazir sinned due to the dead person. However, 6:9 states that the person died suddenly. How can the nazir be considered a sinner when he/ she accidentally came in contact with the dead body? Is the nazir supposed to live secluded with no human contact to protect him or herself from not coming into contact with a dead body?

Rashi also quotes a second approach from R. Eliezer Hakappar (Talmud, Ta'anit 11a) who argued that the phrase al ha-nefesh, refers to the nazir and not to the dead body, and the nazir's sin was becoming a nazir since he/ she was then denying him/ herself the enjoyment of wine. This approach is also difficult. If it was a sin not to drink wine, then the Torah could have made the laws of nazir to only involve two items, not to cut one's hair and not to become tamei. Also, the context of 6:11 is referring to the dead body and not to the prohibition of wine which is mentioned in 6:3,4. Furthermore, if it is really a sin to abstain from wine, then the Torah should have stated this idea in reference to all people. (My inclination is that R. Eliezer Hakappar's explanation is because he was bothered by the contradiction between the laws of nazir for whom part of becoming kadosh requires one not to drink wine, and our practice of using wine to me-kadesh Shabbat, festivals and people.)

It must be that the sin in 6:11 refers to the nazir coming into contact with the dead body since that is the context of the verse, but what can be the sin if it was a complete accident? The answer is from the similar word nafshotam in reference to the 250 people who joined with Korah to rebel against Moshe and Aharon, 17:3. What is the connection between these two cases? A possible answer is that in both cases, the nazir and the 250 people, wanted to serve G-d more. The phrase al ha-nefesh by the nazir would then signify this desire of the soul (person) to serve G-d more. Yet, still what was the nazir's sin by the unexpected death?

The answer is that while coming into contact with the dead body was an accident the person did not have to declare himself a nazir. If a regular person comes into contact with a dead body, then there is no prohibition and no sin. The sin of coming into contact with a dead body by the nazir is because the person made himself into a nazir and that was a voluntarily act. Thus, the sin was al ha-nefesh, due to the soul's desire to serve G-d more. A person can choose to become a nazir, which is not a sin, but then the person is responsible for anything that happens even if it is not his/her fault. The person by making him or herself a nazir is putting him/ herself in the "danger zone."

This explanation of 6:11 relates to the larger question of should everybody become a nazir? Or, to phrase the question differently, is becoming a nazir a desirable act? The answer to this question has been debated through the years.

As mentioned above, R. Eliezer Hakappar viewed being a nazir negatively but a second opinion in the Talmud (Ta'anit 11a), R. Eleazar argues that being a nazir is a positive act. This argument continued in the Middle Ages. Rambam (Laws of Opinions 3:1) argues that one should not be ascetic based on the view of R. Eliezer Hakappar. However, Ramban (on 6:14) views the nazir positively. As N. Leibowitz (1980, p. 56) points out, according to the Rambam it is sin to become a nazir while according to the Ramban it is a sin to stop being a nazir.

This argument between the Rambam and the Ramban relates to the different approaches to G-d, whether through mysticism or rationalism. The mystic approach, the Ramban, would be that one can get closer to G-d by subjective experience and thus the more experiences or here more restrictions, the more religious one is. The rational approach, the Rambam, would be that one can only get closer to G-d by following the laws that were commanded, and thus one would not add on what was not required.

N. Leibowitz claims that the positive approach to the nazir follows the simple sense of the text since Bemidbar 6:8 states that the nazir is kadosh. She seems to follow the idea that the word kadosh means holy or exalted, but the word kadosh just means separated, as the nazir has partially separated him/ herself from the world by not being able to become tamei, by not drinking wine, and by not cutting his/ her hair. According to our explanation of 6:11 this separation is not necessarily good since the nazir is more prone to sinning, even for events that are not his/her fault, like accidently coming into contact with a dead body. The end of 6:11 records that after bringing the olah and hatta`t sacrifices, the nazir is kadosh again, but this is not indicative of his/ her desire to be close to G-d, but that since he/ she failed the first time, then he/ she has to separate him/ herself again.

Why are the laws of nazir optional? According to the positive approach these laws should be obligatory. According to the negative approach, why are people given the chance to increase their chance of sinning?

The answer according to the positive approach is that while a being a nazir is a good thing, it would be too difficult to require all people to follow these extra prohibitions, and it can increase the sins of people. However, according to the negative approach, why can one become a nazir?

Rambam (Moreh, 3:48, 1963, pp. 599,600) writes “the reason for nazaritism is to bring about abstinence from drinking wine, which has caused the ruin of the ancients and the moderns…All of the high esteem for the nazir is because he abstains from drink.” The idea would seem to be that while being a nazir is not praiseworthy still it is better to be a nazir than a drunk. Thus, the Rambam, in the end of the Laws of Nazir, 10:14, writes that if one becomes a nazir for bad reasons then being a nazir is bad, but if one does it for sincere religious reasons, then it is a positive action. (See statement by Shimon ha-Tzaddik quoted in Nazir 4b, and Rama quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1982, p. 58.) Yet, according to this reasoning, the law of the nazir should only have involved an abstenence from wine.

A different answer is that the ability of a person to become a nazir is an opportunity for a person, usually the mystically inclined person, who feels a need to do more than required, the chance to do more. This feeling is very common in the religious persona. Thus, within the framework of the Torah, there is the opportunity to do more than one is commanded if one feels so compelled. If this outlet was not allowed, then possibly the person would end up creating new laws, which is prohibited, Devarim 4:2 and 13:1. Thus, while the nazir put him or herself in the "danger zone," the alternative is that the nazir would actually begin to worship G-d in an inappropriate manner, which would be a worse outcome. Yet, according to the adherents of the negative approach, it would have been better if the person never had any feeling to do more than required since according to this approach one should worship G-d as commanded by G-d without "extras."

My understanding of the nazir would be an intermediate position between the positive and negative approaches, as becoming a nazir would not be a sin, and can be viewed positively if a person truly feels this need to worship G-d more than what he/ she is commanded. However, since 6:11 refers to the nazir as having sinned even by an accident, the nazir would not be considered as being more exalted or praiseworthy than a person who did not become a nazir. Furthermore, since becoming a nazir makes a person more exposed to sinning, even unintentionally, it can be a mistake to become a nazir, and then if a person does not have the need to do more than what is commanded, a person should not become a nazir.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bemidbar 5:24-28 – Powerful water by the sotah process

Bemidbar 5:24 records that the woman who is suspected of marital infidelity, sotah, drinks water that is mixed with dirt and ink(?). The priest then takes the minhah sacrifices, waves it (?), and places a handful of the grains from the minhah sacrifice on the altar to be burnt, 5:25,26. The end of 5:26 and the beginning of 5:27 then repeat that the woman drinks this concoction of water. 

The Mishnah (Sotah 3:2) quotes an argument as to when the woman drinks, before or after the offering of the sacrifice, but both opinions agree that she only drinks once. Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1984, see also Milgrom, 1990, p. 351) agrees as she argues that the apparent repetition is a literary technique of repetitive resumption. Nevertheless, my understanding is that the woman drank the water twice (5:24 and 5:26) or even three times if the beginning of 5:27 is not referring to the same drinking as in the end of 5:26.

This effect of the woman drinking the water was quite powerful since the water could either cause marks on the woman, 5:21, which would indicate her guilt, or increase her fertility, 5:27,28.  This effect of the water is clearly miraculous, and hence the sotah ordeal is unique in that it relies on miracles to be effective.  It is true that a miracle is needed to find the woman guilty, but still why in this case does G-d provide a miracle as part of the judicial process?

The Talmud (Baba Metsia 59b) records the argument between R. Eliezer ben Hyracanus and R. Yehoshua ben Hananiah concerning the oven of Akhnai, where R. Eliezer invoked numerous miracles to prove his point, but R. Yehoshua rejected them since he argued that miracles cannot determine the law. The case of the sotah seems to support R. Eliezer, but I believe that R. Yehoshua's opinion has become the accepted opinion (excluding Kabbalists?). Furthermore, even if R. Eliezer is correct, is G-d is promising to provide this miracle for all time?

If the reason for the sotah ordeal is to reduce the incidents of adultery, then it could be that G-d provides a miracle because G-d is just providing "facts" and not determining the law, and in this case, these facts are needed since on many occasions a human legal system cannot determine if the woman committed adultery. Yet, by murder, there are also many times that we cannot find the murderer, and G-d does not provide a miracle to find the guilty person. For instance, a suspected murderer could also be forced to drink the water to determine his or her guilt.

One might argue that adultery is a "worse" sin than murder since it is also a sin against G-d (see Bereshit 20:6) and not just against man, and hence G-d intervenes to stop the sin. Yet there are other sins against G-d such as idolatry where we do not have an ordeal that depends on a miracle to determine the guilt of a person. It is true that by the sin of the golden calf there was a similar ordeal as the people had to drink the water with the ashes of the golden calf, but that was a onetime event (see our discussion on Shemot 32:20-28, "Spiked water"). However, one could argue that adultery is worse than other sins since the children of adulterous unions are mamzerim, and they suffer due to the sins of their parents.

Emanuel Rackman (1988) argues that there is a view in Chazal that believed that the sotah ordeal was a “sophisticated psychological test” designed to extract a confession or if the woman did not confess to demonstrate her innocence, which would either create domestic harmony and/ or stop the jealous husband from killing or striking his wife. It is clear that Chazal viewed this ordeal from a psychological perspective, as the Mishnah (Sotah 1:4, see also Rambam, Moreh, 3:49) quotes that several attempts were to be made to have the woman confess and stop the process. However, Rackman goes further than this viewpoint to claim that the water never had any effect, as the whole process was a "bluff" to get the woman to confess or to convince the husband that his wife was innocent. With this idea, G-d does not intervene at all in the sotah procedure.

One of Rackman's arguments is that the oath seems to be irrelevant since the ordeal could go on even without the oath, and hence the oath is just there for the psychological element. Yet, while it is true that the oath adds a psychological element that does not mean that the ceremony is a "bluff." Also, while Chazal stress the idea of getting the woman to admit, this possibility is never mentioned in the Torah. Furthermore, one can understand the oath as being a type of information and the woman's amen to be showing her consent/ and or understanding. (I thank my daughter Talia for the last point.)

Another proof for Rackman's argument, which he does not mention, is that the Mishnah (Sotah 9:9, see also Tosefta Sotah 14:2) records that the sotah ordeal was stopped since there were too many adulterers. This is difficult. Why should Chazal annul a law from the Torah? Furthermore, if there was a period of many people committing adultery, then this should have been all the more reason to have the ordeal to stop people from committing adultery.

The standard explanation of the Mishnah (see Talmud Sotah 47b) is that since the husbands were also guilty of adultery, then the waters would not check the women. (The Ramban, on Bemidbar 5:20, offers a slightly different idea, that the people would not appreciate the miracle.) 

I cannot believe that there were no husbands who were faithful and then the waters would have worked. Rackman's explanation accords better with the Mishnah. If there were many people committing adultery, and the test was done many times, then people would realize that it was a bluff since nothing happened to the women according to Rackman.

Rackman's idea is very interesting, but I find it hard to accept that G-d was intentionally fooling everybody, by saying that He would do a miracle, but that G-d had no intention of doing the miracle. The Torah records that the bitter waters would punish the woman if she was guilty, but this is a false statement according to Rackman.

I think the Ramban's (on Bemidbar 5:20) argument that G-d would only do this miracle when the people were worthy of the miracle is correct. Thus, when the law was first given (in the beginning of the people's second year in the desert?), G-d was willing to do this miracle on a regular basis for the people. This would be to limit the incidents of adultery with the subsequent mamzerim and to protect a wife from a jealous husband. However, once the people were no longer worthy of this miracle, then G-d would stop performing this miracle.

When were the people no longer worthy of this miracle of the waters of the sotah? Was it sometime in the distant future when there were many adulators in the population as the Ramban maintains? My guess is that when the people sinned by refusing to go into the land of Israel after the spies came back with their report, then they were no longer worthy of the miracle. The people were all supposed to die, 14:12, and while G-d agreed that the people could live, there is no reason to believe that G-d would continue to do extra miracles for them. This sin by the spies occurred a short time after the law of sotah was promulgated. Thus, when the sotah law was instituted G-d was willing to intervene with regular miracles by the sotah process, like by other miracles in the desert (the mahn), but this intervention ended after a short period of time. The sotah ordeal continued, but only as argued by Rackman, as either a threat to have the woman confess or to calm the husband. However, once there were too many adulterers, then even on the psychological level, the process was ineffective and was ended. Chazal could stop this law since really G-d had already stopped it after the sin by the spies, and hence they were only annulling a "rabbinic law."

Bibliography:

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, 1984, The strange case of the suspected sotah (Numbers V 11-31)” Vetus Testamentum, 34:1, pp.11-26.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Rackman, Emanuel, 1988, The Case of the Sotah in Jewish Law: Ordeal or Psychodrama, National Jewish Law Review, Vol. 3, pp. 49-64.

Shemot 40:1-33 (Pekudei) - The anointing of the mishkan, the ohel moed and the priests

Shemot 40:1-15 records G-d’s instructions to Moshe for setting up the mishkan, and Shemot 40:16-33 records that Moshe set up the mishkan. One curiosity of 40:16-33 is that the verses only partially record Moshe’s fulfillment of G-d’s instructions from 40:1-15.

40:2 records that Moshe was to construct the mishkan, and 40:17-19 record the fulfillment of 40:2 that Moshe put up the boards for the walls and the coverings for the ceiling. 40:3 then records that Moshe was to put the aron and the parokhet (the screen to the room with the aron) in the mishkan, and 40:20,21 record that Moshe fulfilled this instruction from G-d. 40:4 records that Moshe was to put the table and the menorah into the mishkan, and 40:22-25 records that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. 40:5 records that Moshe was then to put the incense altar into the mishkan and put up the screen separating the mishkan proper from the courtyard. 40:26-28 records that Moshe fulfilled this command. 40:6 records that Moshe was then to put up the outer altar outside the mishkan proper and 40:29 records that Moshe fulfilled this command. 40:7 records that Moshe was to place the laver between the outer altar and the mishkan proper and fill the laver with water. 40:30-32 record that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. 40:8 records that Moshe was to put up the walls around the courtyard, and 40:33 records that Moshe fulfilled this instruction. 40:9 then records that Moshe was to anoint the mishkan with oil. By now, following the pattern of 40:1-8 and 40:17-33, we would expect that 40:34 would record that Moshe fulfilled this instruction to anoint the mishkan to maintain the order of the chapter. However, there is no mention of Moshe anointing the mishkan. Instead, 40:34 records that the cloud of G-d and the glory of G-d filled the mishkan.

What happened to the anointing of the mishkan? The section 40:17-33 followed an exact pattern that Moshe followed G-d’s instructions from the beginning of chapter 40. Yet, 40:9 records that Moshe was instructed to anoint the mishkan, and here the pattern breaks down since there is no mention of Moshe anointing the mishkan in chapter 40. We know that Moshe must have fulfilled this action since 40:16 records that Moshe did everything that he was instructed by G-d. When did Moshe anoint the mishkan? Three are two possibilities. Vayikra 8:10 and Bemidbar 7:1 both record that Moshe anointed the mishkan. We will review both possibilities, starting with Vayikra 8:10.

Vayikra 8 records the initiation of the priests, and as part of that process, Vayikra 8:10 records that Moshe anointed the mishkan. However, this anointing cannot be the fulfillment of G-d’s instruction in Shemot 40:9 since the order of events in Vayikra 8 do not correspond with the order of Shemot 40. Vayikra 8:7-9 records that Moshe dressed Aharon in the special clothing of the High Priest before he anointed the mishkan while Shemot 40:9 records that the mishkan was to be anointed before Moshe dressed Aharon, Shemot 40:13. As we noticed above, Moshe when fulfilling G-d’s instruction of Shemot 40 followed them exactly in the order that they were commanded.

Ramban (on Vayikra 8:10) explains that in Shemot 40, the Torah wanted to record together all the actions with regard to Aharon and his sons, and hence the instructions to dress Aharon in his priestly clothing were recorded after the instruction to anoint the mishkan. He is insinuating that the instructions in Shemot 40 are not to be understood as indicating a specific order. Yet, this is contradicted by the correspondence noted above that Moshe followed the instructions of Shemot 40 in their exact order.

Or Hachayyim (on Vayikra 8:10) argues that in Vayikra 8, Moshe was following the order of 8:2, which records the instructions to “take Aharon, his sons, their clothing and the oil.” Since the oil was mentioned last, Or Hachayyim suggests that Moshe learned that first he was to dress Aharon and then to anoint the mishkan. Yet, still this dressing of Aharon before the anointing of the mishkan contradicts the order of Shemot 40. Or Hachayyim answers that the order of Shemot 40 only meant to anoint the mishkan before anointing Aharon, but he claims, following the Ramban, that the instructions to dress Aharon in Shemot 40 were recorded after the instructions to anoint the mishkan in order to combine the dressing of Aharon with his anointing. Yet, again this contradicts the order of Shemot 40. Also, if in Vayikra 8 the Torah could record the dressing of Aharon separate from the anointing, then Shemot 40 could also have done so. Or Hachayyim seems correct that in Vayikra 8, Moshe was following the order of Vayikra 8:2, but this means that the anointing recorded in Vayikra 8 was not the anointing that was instructed in Shemot 40. Accordingly, since Vayikra 8:10 cannot be the fulfillment of the instructions of Shemot 40:9, it must be that the instructions were fulfilled in Bemidbar 7:1.

Bemidbar 7:1 records that, “On the day when Moshe finished setting up the mishkan, he anointed it and sanctified it, and all of its vessels, and the altar and all of its vessels he also anointed and sanctified.” Not only must this be the fulfillment of the instructions of Shemot 40:9 since Vayikra 8:10 was ruled out as discussed above, but also the words “on the day when Moshe finished the mishkan” refer to the events of Shemot 40. Bemidbar 7:1 is a continuation of Shemot 40:33. Yet, there remain several problems.

One, Shemot 40:11 records that Moshe was to anoint the laver and its basin, but this anointing is not mentioned in Bemidbar 7. This might tempt one to argue that Vayikra 8:11 is the fulfillment of Shemot 40:11. Yet, not only would this contradict the order of Shemot 40 as discussed above, but also one could not wash from the laver until it was anointed and Vayikra 8:6 records that Aharon washed before the anointing of Vayikra 8:11. Thus the laver had to be anointed before the events of Vayikra 8, and it is most likely that the anointing of the laver occurred after the anointing recorded in Bemidbar 7:1 but was not recorded in the Torah. My guess is that it was not specified in Bemidbar 7:1 since the main focus of the chapter is on the sacrifices of the tribal leaders, which were not directly related to the anointing of the laver. (In fact, the laver was omitted on another occasion as Shemot 38:30,31 records the items of the mishkan that were from bronze, and the laver was not mentioned, see N. Leibowitz, 1976a, pp. 689-695.)

A second problem with the idea that Bemidbar 7:1 is the continuation of Shemot 40:33, is how does the anointing in Bemidbar 7:1 relate to the anointing recorded in Vayikra 8? The most popular opinion of the commentators (see Rashi on Vayikra 9:1 and Bemidbar 7:1) is that Vayikra 8, the initiation of the priests, occurred a week before the events of Shemot 40. According to this approach, Vayikra 8 records a completely separate process of anointing from the anointing of Shemot 40 and Bemidbar 7:1. Yet, as Shemot 40:2 records the completion of the mishkan, how could the priests have been initiated before there was a mishkan? The standard answer (Bemidbar Rabbah 12:15) is that during the seven days of the initiation of the priests Moshe put the mishkan up and took it down daily (even twice or three times a day), and then Shemot 40 refers to the period when Moshe constructed the mishkan without it having to be dismantled immediately afterwards. Yet, why would Moshe do this since this was an enormous amount of work? Furthermore, from Vayikra 8:33-36 it seems that the mishkan existed continuously during the seven-day initiation process of the priests. Ramban (on Shemot 40:2) attempts to answer these questions, but as maintained by Rabbi Akiva and Ibn Ezra (see long comments on Shemot 40:2), it cannot be that Vayikra 8 occurred before Shemot 40.

We now have a problem. Bemidbar 7:10 records that on the day of the anointing of the mishkan, the chiefs of the tribes brought their sacrifices for the mishkan and this went on for 12 days. Yet, if Bemidbar 7:1 is a continuation of Shemot 40, and if the initiation of the priests as recorded in Vayikra 8 was after Shemot 40, then how does the initiation of the priests relate to the sacrifices brought by the tribal leaders?

There are three possible ways to mesh the chronology of the initiation of the priests with the sacrifices of the tribal leaders. One possibility is that they both started on the day when Moshe finished putting up the mishkan, the first day of Nisan. This seems unlikely since not only would it have been a very, very busy day (see Abravanel on Bemidbar 7) but also why would Moshe have anointed the mishkan twice on one day? Furthermore, the seven-day initiation rite of the priests and the events of the eighth day (Vayikra 9) would then have been contemporaneous with the 12 days when the tribal leaders were bringing their sacrifices, and this seems difficult.

A second possibility is R. Akiva and Ibn Ezra's (long comments on 40:2) approach, that the priests were initiated after the mishkan was anointed and then after this initiation process, the tribal leaders brought their sacrifices. With this idea, the priests began their initiation rite on the first day of Nisan, and the tribal leaders began to bring their sacrifices on the eighth day of Nisan. This also seems unlikely since Bemidbar 7:10 records that the tribal leaders brought their sacrifices immediately after Moshe anointed the mishkan. Also, again there would be the problem that Moshe would have anointed the mishkan twice on the same day. (Ibn Ezra understands Bemidbar 7:1 as referring to the anointing of Vayikra 8:10 and not recording a new anointing, but again this is problematic since Vayikra 8 does not follow the order of Shemot 40.)

We are left with the possibility that the initiation process of the priests happened after the tribal leaders brought their gifts. According to this possibility, on the 1st day of 1st month (Nisan) of the 2nd year in the desert, the mishkan was completed, Shemot 40:17. On that day, Moshe anointed the mishkan as recorded in Bemidbar 7:1, and the tribal leaders began to bring their sacrifices. Their sacrifices continued until the 12th day of the month.  At that point the priests could have started their initiation process, but as the 14th of the month was the day the korban pesach (Bemidbar 9:3) was offered presumably the initiation process would have been afterwards. (Note that according to this chronology, the korban pesach in the desert was brought without the help of the priests, as was true for the korban pesach in Egypt.) 

Ibn Ezra (on Shemot 40:2) argues that the Jewish people did not celebrate the holiday of Matzot in the desert, which means the priests could have started their initiation process on the 15th of the month. If Ibn Ezra is incorrect then the holiday of Matzot ended on the 21st of the month, and then the initiation process would have started on the 22nd of the month. In either case, the initiation of the priests would have ended before the 2nd month, which is when Moshe was commanded to count the people, Bemidbar 1:1,2.

This chronology means that the mishkan would have existed for a short time when there were no priests. This anomaly explains why the mishkan had to be anointed twice. Once, in Bemidbar 7:1, it was anointed for the regular population on the first day of Nisan, and then Vayikra 8:10 records that it was anointed a second time for the priests on either the 15th or the 22nd of Nisan.

In addition, because it was the priestly clothing that made Aharon a priest, he was dressed before the anointing recorded in Vayikra 8:10, which was for his family. This dressing and anointing of the priests during their initiation process in Vayikra 8 was the fulfillment of the instructions of Shemot 40:12-15, but this occurred after the events recorded in Bemidbar 7:1 which records the fulfillment of Shemot 40:9,10.