Leviticus 6:16-17 has a curious turn to the style of writing so far in this chapter.
It says some people will eat the leftover.
The leftover is unbaked, and they eat it in a holy place.
They eat the leftover in a specially named place which is a holy place.
Further, the food must not be baked with leaven.
It is this arrangement because of God’s provision for them as offering, done by fire.
The food is most holy.
Looking at the text, it seems the sequence of points could be improved. Another thing is that it seems to have not gained focus on anything particular: it’s not clear whether the focus is on things “holy”, the people (Aaron and his sons), the holy place, or the way the food is not baked with leaven.
A lot of details seems to have been left out – to go from leftover of the offerings, to baking it as cakes without use of leaven. Do the leftover food lend themselves to be baked, whether with or without leaven?
Purely speculating, without referring to original text nor the language and culture it was written in, it is possible that the original author had intended that the focus should be minimum on whom the focus should be on, i.e. Aaron and his sons.
It starts with Aaron and his sons, but the rest of the two verses don’t refer to them directly again, these verses then focus on the food, its preparation and the venue in which to eat it.
The matter of “without leaven” is not explained, nor did the author take the occasion to remind the readers of the significance of the food being without leaven.
The context of the tent of meeting is not explained; there seems to be a double emphasis of eating in the “holy place”, and eating in the “tent of meeting”.
The contrast of this section of text, to those before, is probably much sharper when said, heard and read in the days of Leviticus.
While people’s offerings were left with the priest at the altar, their sins forgiven, and then they departed the altar, in contrast, with Aaron and his sons (the priests), they would not leave the tent. Or as a matter of principle, until their duties are done, would they have opportunity to leave the tent (or remain there to eat).
Perhaps this instruction was going to throw open a lot of questions (e.g. would they eat other food?)
Going back to the central observation that it appears the focus is on Aaron and his sons, but the author did not want to put too much spotlight on them. Certainly, Leviticus is about sacrifical formula as ways of worship. The rather disorderliness of the two verses might convey something else.
It is curious that upon reading the verses so many times, only now that this characteristic surfaces. The most probable lesson of application from this observation is that the spotlight is not on us when we worship, and lead others in worship. The focus is on God.
