יומא 5 — Soncino English Talmud

¹R. Joseph says the putting of the hands [upon the head of the sacrifice] is the difference. According to the one who holds that the omission of any detail renders the ceremony invalid, [failure] to lay the hand upon the head of the sacrifice would render the ceremony invalid. According to him who holds that only the omission of what is indispensable in the future renders the ceremony invalid, [omission of] the putting of the hand on the animal's head did not render the ceremony invalid. Whence do we know that in the future [the omission of] the putting of the hands [on the animal's head] is not indispensable?- For it has been taught: And he shall lay his hand . . . and it shall be accepted for him [to make atonement for him]. Does the laying on of the hand make atonement for one? Does not atonement come through the blood, as it is said: For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life! Why, then, is it written: ‘And he shall lay his hand on . . . and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him’? To say that if he performed the laying on of the hands as an unimportant part of the commandment, Scripture would account it to him as if he had not obtained proper atonement. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The waving is the difference. According to him who holds whatever detail is prescribed for the ceremony is indispensable, the waving is indispensable; according to him who holds that only what is indispensable for all the future is indispensable now, the waving is not indispensable. Whence do we know that for all time to come the waving is not indispensable? — For we have been taught: To be waved, to make atonement for him. Does the waving make atonement? Is it not the blood which makes atonement, as it is written, ‘For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life’? Then why does Scripture say, ‘To be waved, to make atonement for him’? To say that if he treats the waving as an unimportant part of the ceremony, Scripture accounts it to him as if he had not obtained proper atonement. R. Papa said: The separation for seven days is the [practical] difference between the two opinions. According to the opinion that whatsoever is prescribed for the ceremony is indispensable, the separation, too,is indispensable; according to him who holds that only what is indispensable for all time to come is indispensable now, the separation is not indispensable. Whence do we know that the separation is not indispensable for all time to come? Because the Mishnah reads, [another priest] IS MADE READY FOR HIM, instead of is ‘separated for him’. Rabina said: The difference lies in the increase [in the number of garments] and of the anointments necessary during the seven days. According to the opinion that whatever is prescribed in connection therewith is indispensable, the increase [in the number of garments] and anointments during the seven days, too, is indispensable. According to him who holds that only what is indispensable for all time to come, is indispensable now, these things too are not indispensable. Whence do we know that they are not indispensable for all time to come? — For it was taught: And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to be priest in his father's stead, shall make the atonement. What does the passage come to teach? From the text: Seven days shall the son that is priest in his stead put them on [etc.], I would know that a priest who had put on the required larger number of garments and who had been anointed on each of the seven days was permitted to [‘minister in the holy place’] at the Consecration. Whence would I know that if he had put on the larger number of garments for but one day, and had been anointed on each of the seven days; or, if he had been anointed but one day, but has put on the larger number of garments for seven days, [he would also be permitted]? To convey that teaching, Scripture says, ‘Who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated’, that means anointed and consecrated in whatever way. We have now found evidence that the larger number of garments is necessary in the first instance for the seven days. Whence do we know that anointment on each of the seven days is in the first instance required? You may infer that either from the fact that a special statement of the Torah was necessary to exclude it; or, if you wish, from the scriptural text itself, And the holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them, and to be consecrated in them. In this passage the anointing and the donning of the larger number of garments are put on the same level. Hence, just as the donning of the larger number of garments is required for the seven days, so is the anointing obligatory for the seven days. What is the reason of the man who holds that the forms prescribed for the ceremonies are indispensable?- R. Isaac b. Bisna said: Scripture reads And kaka [thus] shalt thou do to Aaron and his sons, — ‘thus means indispensableness. You may be right with regard to any^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:Lev. I, 4; VIII, 18.
^ᵇnote:Lev. I, 4.
^ᶜnote:Lev. XVII, 11.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘a remnant’.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘as it did not atone for him and it did’. Technically the ceremony had achieved its purpose, because essentially it is the blood which makes atonement, but since laying the hands on the animal's head is part of the ceremony (although not essential to it) and he has been negligent about it, he has obtained atonement for himself, but has not attained re-atonement with his creator, whose command he has treated slightingly.
^ᶠnote:Of part of the sacrifice, Lev. VIII, 27.
^ᵍnote:Men. 93b.
^ʰnote:Lev. XIV, 21.
^ⁱnote:If the separation of the priest were an indispensable part of the ceremony, the proposed substitute for the high priest would have to be separated too, so that in case of any mishap to the high priest he would enter upon the service properly prepared by separation. Since the Mishnah reads ‘prepared’ only, the separation obviously is not deemed indispensable.
^ʲnote:The eight garments of the high priest as against the four of the ordinary priest.
^ᵏnote:Every one of the seven days the head and the eye-lids of the high priest were anointed with oil.
^ˡnote:Lev. XVI, 32.
^ᵐnote:Obviously the service was to be performed by the high priest, why then this apparently superfluous passage?
^ⁿnote:Ex. XXIX, 30.
^ᵒnote:Of his consecration as high priest, v. infra.
^ᵖnote:That is on the Day of Atonement.
^ᵠnote:As long as he has been consecrated, even if some detail of the ceremony has been omitted.
^ʳnote:Ex. XXIX, 29.
^ˢnote:The emphatic expression ‘thus’ intimates the indispensableness of the prescribed forms, ‘thus’ and ‘not otherwise’.

²form prescribed in this context . Whence do we know that forms not prescribed here in this context are also indispensable? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We infer that from [the fact that in both contexts the same word] petah [is used]. R. Mesharsheya said: And keep the charge of the Lord indicates the indispensableness [of the prescribed forms]. R. Ashi said: For so am I commanded indicates indispensableness. Our Rabbis taught: For so am I commanded, As I commanded, As the Lord commanded. [Of these passages], ‘For so am I commanded’ that they eat it whilst in mourning; ‘As I commanded’ [this] he said to them at the time of the occurrence; ‘As the Lord commanded’, and not on my own authority. R. Jose b. Hanina said: Breeches are not mentioned in the section. But when it says, And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister, it includes the breeches and the tenth part of an ephah. It may rightly be said that breeches are included in the general term ‘garments’, but whence do we know about the tenth of an ephah? — [This we know] by inferring [the meaning of the word] zeh [used here] from zeh [in the verse], Zeh [this] is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they shall offer unto the Lord . . . the tenth part of an ephah. R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Whence do we know that also the reading of the portion was indispensable? To teach us that it is said, This is the dabar [thing] which the Lord has commanded to be done, i.e., the speaking thereof is indispensable. — In what order did he put the garments on them? — What is past, is past! Rather, [the question is] in what order will he put the garments on them in the future? — In the future, too, when Aaron and his sons will come, Moses will come with them. But [the question is] how did he put the clothes on them [if we are] to understand the scriptural account? -The sons of R. Hiyya and R. Johanan held different opinions about it. One said: Aaron was first clothed and afterwards his sons; whilst the other said: Aaron and his sons were clothed simultaneously. Said Abaye: With regard to the tunic and the mitre none disputes the fact that Aaron came first and his sons afterwards, for both in the [text containing] the command and [the account of the] actual performance Aaron is mentioned first. What they are disputing is [the order of] the girdle. He who says Aaron [came first] and then his sons [is of this opinion] because it is written, And he girded him with the girdle, and only after this is it written, And he girded them with a girdle, whereas he who holds that the girding took place without any interruption, [is of this opinion] because It is written, And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons. According to the opinion that Aaron and his sons were girded at the same time, does not Scripture first say, ‘And he girded him with a girdle’ and then only later is it written, ‘And he girded them with a girdle’? —^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵗnote:In Ex. XXIX, 5, there are Instructions relative to the Consecration, such as putting on Aaron the tunic, the robe of the ephod and the ephod, the breastplate, the mitre on his head, the holy crown on the mitre. These are not mentioned in the ceremony described in Lev. VIII.
^ᵘnote:Ex. XXIX, 4 and Lev. VIII, 33.
^ᵛnote:Lev. VIII, 35.
^ʷnote:Ibid. VIII, 35.
^ˣnote:Zeb. 101b.
^ʸnote:Lev. X, 13.
^ᶻnote:Ibid.X, 18.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. X, 15
^ᵃᵇnote:Lev. X, 13: Take the meal-offering and eat it, this command contradicts Deut. XXVI, 14, I have not eaten thereof in my mourning. The answer is, ‘So am I commanded’, i.e., a special decision from God.
^ᵃᶜnote:The death of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. X, 2.
^ᵃᵈnote:When he found that the goat of the sin-offering had been burnt, he said to them, You should have eaten it ‘as I commanded you’ in regard to the meal-offering.
^ᵃᵉnote:Chapters VIII and IX of Lev. which deal with the Consecration.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ex. XXIX, 1.
^ᵃᵍnote:Which the priests are obliged to offer up on the day of their Consecration. V. Men. 51b.
^ᵃʰnote:Ex. XXIX, 5: And thou shalt take the garments and put upon Aaron.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ex. XXIX, 1.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. VI, 13. The inference from similarity of expression is never used ‘for the purpose of deducing a new law from Scripture, but merely as an attempt to find a scriptural support for an opinion expressed by one of the authorities in the Mishnah’. Mielziner, Intro. 148.
^ᵃᵏnote:The section on the Consecration. It was to be read as part of the ceremony.
^ᵃˡnote:Lev. VIII, 5’ Dabar may mean both ‘word’ and ‘thing’. No further reference to the ceremony being necessary, the suggestion is made that dabar, the word, the reading of the word is commanded. Support may be found in the fact that the preceding verse speaks of The congregation assembled at the door of the tent of meeting, such ‘assembly’ for the purpose of hearing scriptural reading being expressly enjoined in Deut. XXXI, 28 and esp. at the Sukkoth festival in the year of release.
^ᵃᵐnote:The word, i.e., the section read.
^ᵃⁿnote:There is no relevance in archaeological research.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e.,in the Messianic future.
^ᵃᵖnote:There is no need for speculation. Moses will be in charge and he knows the law.
^ᵃᵠnote:There are apparent contradictions between the command as given in Ex. XXIX and the account of the ceremony in Lev. VIII respectively. In Ex. XXIX, 9: And thou shalt gird them with a girdle, Aaron and his sons intimates that this girding of father and sons took place in close succession to one another. I.e., he girded Aaron only after he had first clothed the sons with the other garments apart from the girdle, so that the girding of Aaron and his sons were, so to speak, at the same time (v. infra); whereas in Lev. VIII, 7: And girded him with the girdle and clothed him with the robe . . . and placed the breastplate upon him and set the mitre upon his head to be followed by ibid. v. 13: And Moses brought Aaron's sons and clothed them with tunics and girded them with girdles shows the girding of Aaron took place before the clothing of the sons had even begun.
^ᵃʳnote:[Moses clothed Aaron with the tunic and the mitre before he began to clothe the sons with these garments. These would also include the breeches, as these were always to come first, v. infra 23b.]
^ᵃˢnote:Whether Aaron was girded before or after the sons were clothed with the tunic and mitre.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lev. VIII, 7.
^ᵃᵘnote:Ibid. 13. I.e., after having first clothed them with the other garments.
^ᵃᵛnote:Ex. XXIX, 9.
^ᵃʷnote:Cf. n. 4.