Shemot 28:30 (also Vayikra 8:8) – The priestly clothing: The urim and tummim

שמות כח:ל - ונתת אל חושן המשפט את האורים ואת התמים והיו על לב אהרן בבאו לפני ה' ונשא אהרן את משפט בני ישראל על לבו לפני ה' תמיד.

Shemot 28:30 records that the urim and tummim were to be placed al (to? on? in?) the hoshen (a priestly garment that Aharon was to wear on his chest) on his lev (not his heart), and the Aharon was to carry the judgment of the people on his lev. The urim and tummim are mysterious since it is unclear what they were and what was their purpose. Are they clothing? 

Many claim, based on Bemidbar 27:21, that the urim and tummim were to enable the high priest to ask G-d questions, and then there are various suggestions as to how this was to be done. Rashi (on 28:30) explains that the urim and tummim was a parchment with G-d's name which was inserted into a pouch of the hoshen, and this would cause the stones on the hoshen to light up to answer the questions. Luzzatto (on Vayikra 8:8) suggests that the urim and tummim were twenty-two letters, and the high priest would pull out the letters to answer the question. Modern scholars (see for example Sarna, 1991, on 28:30 and maybe Ibn Ezra, long comments on 28:6) believe that the urim and tummim were two items which functioned as lots to answer yes and no questions. Benno Jacob (1992, p. 920) suggests that the urim and tummim were some text (24:7?) that accompanied the luchot, and they gave a sign to Aharon when it was time for the people to march in the desert. All of these suggestions are based on the idea that the urim and tummim were placed or put into the hoshen.

If the urim and tummim were something written, then I would think it was the priestly blessing that the high priest would have carried parchment that consisted of these verses. Note, silver amulets were found from the 7th century BCE which consisted of the priestly blessings (see Barkay 2009), but in one of the amulets, the beginning of the second blessings, yaer Hashem panav eilecha, and the end of the third blessings, ve-yasem lecha shalom, were combined. Maybe this combined blessing was the urim and tummim, as the blessing of yaer would correspond to the urim and the blessing of shalom would correspond to the tummim.

Nonetheless, this idea that urim and tummim were parchment or stones is problematic since it is never recorded in the Torah that a person constructed or made the urim and tummim. Chapter 39 records how the people made all the items of the priests’ clothing, but nothing is mentioned of the people making the urim and tummim. The Ramban (on 28:30) writes that this absence of someone making the urim and tummim shows that Moshe wrote the urim and tummim and according to one version of the Ramban, that G-d wrote the urim and tummim. Both of these suggestions are difficult since if Moshe wrote the urim and tummim then the Torah should have recorded this action. Also, if G-d wrote the urim and tummim, then this also could have been recorded and it would counter the whole idea that the people constructed the mishkan/ ohel moed and made all the clothing of the priests.

Apparently due to the absence of the Torah describing the making of the urim and tummim, Chacham (1991, pp. 202,203) suggests that the urim and tummim were the twelve stones that were on the hoshen. He then explains that 28:30 (and Vayikra 8:8) can be understood to mean that the stones were to be fixed into the hoshen.

I would expand Chacham’s idea and suggest that the urim and tummim were the two sets of stones on the high priests, the stones on his shoulders on the efod (another item wore on the chest with straps over the shoulders) and on the hoshen.  The beginning of 28:30 and Vayikra 8:8 then mean that the hoshen was to be secured or tightly connected to both sets of stones by securing the connection between the hoshen and the efod.  The Torah records with great detail how these two items of clothing were to be connected, 28:13,14; 22-28. 28:30 is then a concluding sentence to both sets of stones, which form the urim and tummim. In Vayikra 8:8, the urim and tummim are the last items recorded by Moshe dressing Aharon in reference to the clothing relating to the body (not the clothing relating to Aharon's head) since Moshe’s last action was to tighten the cords connecting the hoshen to the efod, which then connected the two set of stones, the urim and tummim.

This idea might also explain the terms urim and tummim. The term urim probably refers to light, which would be the reflection of light from the stones. The term tummim might refer to completeness, as both sets of stones signify the twelve tribes of the people. Both sets of stones have both ideas, and the plural of each term, urim and tummim, could then signify the double reflection and the double completeness.

This idea does not explain the purpose of the urim and tummim. I doubt that urim and tummim were to ask questions of G-d, and the reference to the urim in Bemidbar 27:21 was that they were used once by the division of the land. 

One interesting possibility is the Seforno’s (on 28:30, also Tzror haMor, quoted by Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, footnote 90 on 28:30) suggestion that the urim and tummim would help or remind the high priest to pray for the people in order that G-d would judge them favorably. 

A different possibility is that in our discussion on 28:6-29, “Stones of remembering,” we suggested that each set of stones was to cause either the high priest or the people to remember, and then this could have been the purpose of the urim and tummim, the two sets of stones.  

Also, following the idea that the word lev in the Torah means mind or brain, 28:30 can be understood to mean that Aharon should have in mind the urim and tummim, the two sets of stones which were connected to the hoshen, when he went before G-d and that he should have in mind the judgement (or the means to judge) of the people before G-d all the time.

Bibliography:

Barkay, Gabriel, 2009, The riches of Ketef Hinnom, Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 200, pp. 23-35.

Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

Sarna, Nahum, (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Vayikra 3:16,17; 7:23-25 – The shelamim sacrifice: Fats, smoke and fire

Vayikra 3:17 records that in all places and in all times it is prohibited for a person to eat the helev, fat, of an animal and the blood of the animal. 7:23-25 repeats the prohibition of eating fat and adds more details regarding the prohibition: 7:23 explain that the prohibition is limited to three types of animals, ox (cows), sheep and goats, 7:24 explains that a person can use the fat of a nevelah and a trefah and 7:25 explains that the punishment for transgressing the law is karet. What is the definition of fat? Why is eating fat forbidden?

The Rambam (Laws of Forbidden foods, 7:5, see also Levine, 1989, p. 16) defines the forbidden fat as the fat on the inner organs that relate to the digestive track. This definition is from the context of verse 3:17 within the laws of the shelamim sacrifice, 3:1-16. Within the discussion of the shelamim sacrifice, 3:3,4,9,10,14,15, record that the fat of the kidneys, intestines, liver, stomach(?), from cows, sheep or goats which are offered as shelamim sacrifices is to be burnt on the altar. Thus, as the prohibition of eating fat is recorded at the end of the laws of the shelamim sacrifices, it is reasonable that the prohibition of fat is referring to the fat mentioned by the laws of sacrifices. This connection is strengthened since 7:23-25 explains that the prohibition of eating fat is only by animals that can be offered as a sacrifice, and this implies that the definition of the fat that is prohibited is related to the fat by the sacrifices.

Why is eating fat of cows, sheep and goats prohibited? The Rambam (Moreh 3:48, Maimonides, 1963, p. 598) explains that the prohibition is for health reasons that "the fat of the intestines makes us full, spoils the digestion and produces cold and thick blood." Ignoring the factual question of whether fat is medically bad, it is unlikely that this was the reason for the prohibition. From 7:25, we learn that a person can eat fat from animals that are not able to be sacrificed. Why would the Torah only forbid a person from eating unhealthy fat from some types of animals and not others?

Hoffmann (1953, p. 123, on 3:17, see also Alter, 2004, p. 555) notes that the prohibition of fat has to be related to the sacrifices, and he explains that the prohibition is because what is offered as a sacrifice cannot be eaten as a fear of G-d. Levine (1989, p. 45) varies this slightly. He explains that the prohibition of fat is a gezirah, "a fence around the law. Once the fat of sacrificial animals was forbidden, the fat of all pure animals was forbidden as well, whether or not the animals in question were actually sacrificed." Yet, by the olah sacrifice, the entire animal is sacrificed, and still the meat of animals is permitted to be eaten? Even in reference to the shelamim sacrifice, the kidneys, which are offered on the altar, 3:4,10,15, can be eaten by non-sacrificial meat. Why was there no gezirah by the kidneys? Why was the fat of animals that are sacrificed so important that even the fat by animals that are potential sacrifices but are not brought as sacrifices also forbidden to be eaten?

My guess is that the fat is the crucial part of the shelamim sacrifice, and other sacrifices, while the meat in the sacrifices is incidental. Thus, the shelamim sacrifice was essentially an offering of the fat of the animal as almost no meat except the kidneys was offered on the altar. (Maybe the kidneys were offered due to the difficulty and/ or time needed to remove the fat from them.)

The fat is the crucial part since this is what makes the sacrifice into a smoke (3:5,11,16 and 7:31) and/ or a "fire offering," 3:3,5,9,11,14,16. 6:5 refers to putting wood on the fire but this was just to keep the fire going or to start it, as during the day it was the fat that the was principle combustible item in the sacrifices. The smoke from the fat recalls the image of the cloud of G-d (Shemot 13:21,22) and fire from the fat is the imagery of glory of G-d (Shemot 24:17). Thus, 3:16 records that all the fat is to G-d since the fat is what generated these symbols of G-d. Maybe the imagery was for a person to realize that the sacrifice he/ she was offering was to G-d and not to some demons.

Once fat had this important role by the sacrifices to create an image of the cloud/ fire of G-d, then the Torah instituted a gezirah (“fence”) with regard to the animals that potentially could be brought as sacrifices but were not offered as sacrifices that it was forbidden to eat the fat of these animals. This gezirah was limited in several ways. One, the fat from an animal that could not be brought as a sacrifice since the animal had become a nevelah or a trefah could be used though not eaten, 7:24, and two, the fat of an animal that could not be offered as a sacrifice was permitted to be eaten, i.e. no double gezirah. Finally, even though the oil by the minhah sacrifices (2:1,4-7,15, and Bemidbar 5:15) probably had a similar role in creating smoke and fire by the minhah sacrifice, no gezirah was instituted on all oils, possibly since oil was not intrinsic to the minhah sacrifice unlike the fat which was intrinsic to the animal being sacrificed.

Bibliography:

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

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Maimonides, Moses, 1963, The Guide to the Perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim), translated by Shlomo Pines, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vayikra 7:9,10 (Tsav) – The korban minhah and the priests: Rewards and responsibility

Vayikra 7:9 records that by a baked minhah sacrifice, the priest who offered the sacrifice received the part of the sacrifice that is not placed on the altar. 7:10 then records that if the minhah was of flour and/ or oil (not baked), then the all of the priests received the part of the sacrifice that was not placed on the altar. Why does this distinction with regard to the priests exist by the two types of minhah sacrifices?

Rashi (on 7:9) quotes from the Sifra that there is no distinction between the different types of minhah sacrifices with regard to the priests, see also Mishnah Menachot 6:1. Instead, the two verses are informing us that all the priests of the family who worked that day in the mishkan/ Bet ha-Mikdash received the remains of all of the minhah sacrifices.

Rambam (Laws of performing sacrifices, 10:14,15, see also Hirsch and Or Hachayyim) notes that the law is as stated by Rashi, but questions why the Torah appears to make a difference between the minhah sacrifices that were baked and those that were just flour. He answers that since the portions of the flour minhah sacrifice that is distributed amongst the priests could be so small that they could not bake it, one might have thought that the priests would institute a system where some priests shared some of the minhah sacrifices and other priests shared other minhah sacrifices. Thus, 7:10 records that the flour minhah sacrifices are shared by all the priests to ensure that each minhah sacrifice is shared amongst all of the priests. This is a very interesting Rambam since we see that the Rambam was concerned about the difference between the simple reading of the Torah and the halakhah, but I am not sure how his rationale explains why 7:9 records that the baked minhah sacrifices go to the priest who offered the sacrifice.

Ramban (on 7:9) first writes that a reason for distinguishing between the two types of minhah sacrifices is that the baked minhah sacrifices involved more work for the officiating priest, and hence the officiating priest received all of the sacrifice as a reward for his work. However, afterwards, he notes that Chazal explained that all the minhah sacrifices go to the family that is officiating that day, and he accepted this ruling since it leads to peace amongst the priests.

The Ramban’s suggestion that the difference between the two types of minhah sacrifices was due to the work involved has been much criticized. Hoffmann (p.172) rejects this possibility since he says there is no even hint in the Torah that the priest was responsible for baking the minhah sacrifice. Chaval (1993, footnote mipnei on 7:9) quotes from the Malbim that a non-priest can bake the sacrifice and that 2:3 and 6:9 state that the minhah sacrifice goes to all of the priests, so how could it be that that only the officiating priest received the sacrifice? Chavel notes that the Panim Yafot suggested that maybe the Ramban meant that the officiating priest was to get the sacrifice since it was difficult (since it was hot?) to separate the baked minhah sacrifice when putting some of the sacrifice on the altar. However, Chaval rejects this suggestion. He writes that there were two priests, one who did the separating and one who put some of the sacrifice on the altar. I do not understand Chavel’s comment since from the Torah it seems that both jobs of separating the sacrifice and placing it on the altar were performed by one priest, but I thought maybe there is a different way to understand the distinction between the two types of minhah sacrifices.

The simple reading of the Torah is that there is a distinction between what the priests receives by the two types of minhah sacrifices. My guess is that the difference is due to the greater responsibility that is required of the priest who offers a baked minhah sacrifice. 2:11,12 records that hametz cannot be offered on the altar, and this was a real danger by the baked minhah sacrifice since it could easily have become hametz. While the priest may not have baked the minhah sacrifice, ultimately he was responsible for placing it on the altar. Thus, either as a reward for this responsibility or to make the priest more aware of this responsibility he was given the entire baked minhah sacrifice. However, this danger was not a problem by the flour minhah sacrifice, and hence the remains of the sacrifice were distributed to all the priests.

This idea might explain similar laws with regard to the officiating priest by the other sacrifices. 7:7 records that the officiating priest received the hatta’t and asham, and again it might be to ensure or reward the priest that the sacrifice was performed correctly. 7:8 records that the officiating priest received the skin of the olah sacrifice. Maybe this was to ensure that the sacrifice was done correctly and more specifically that the skin was not placed on the altar. Finally, the priest who sprinkled the blood on the altar by the todah sacrifice received a portion of the bread from the sacrifice, 7:14, as again it could be that this gift was because he was responsible to ensure that the hametz bread (7:13) that accompanied the sacrifice did not go on the altar. If this approach is correct, then it is the shelamim sacrifice that is the exception (that all the priests shared the priests portion of the shalamim sacrifice) since this was a special gift to the priests, 7:34, Shemot 29:28.

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.