Yoma 5a — the Talmud in English

Rav Yosef said: semikha—

the placing of the hands upon the head of the offering, which was stated in the section of the miluim, is what

there is between them,

between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanina.

According to the one who says: everything that is written concerning them—

concerning the miluim—is not merely for a mitzva, but

is indispensable for them—

the semikha

of the offerings of the miluim

is indispensable.

According to the one who says

that even what is written in the section of the miluim, if it is

a matter that

is like it in the other offerings,

is not indispensable for future generations, it is not indispensable for them—

the semikha

also

is not indispensable.

And we raised it:

a

when

for future generations, from where do we know that

semikha

is not indispensable

in offerings?

And we explain: from

as it was taught:

it was stated in the section of the offerings:

“And he shall place his hand

upon the head of the burnt offering

and it shall be accepted

for him, to atone for him.”

And is it so

that the

semikha

is the

that atones?

But

we knew from another verse that

there is no

the

atonement

dependent except

on

the sprinkling of the

blood, as it is stated: “For the blood, it is by the soul that it atones.”

And

rather,

what does “And he shall place his hand” teach

“and it shall be accepted

for him, to atone”?

To tell you

that if he treated the semikha

as

“the remnants of a mitzva,”

that he did not place his hand because the semikha was not considered in his eyes to be the principal part of the mitzva—

the verse regards him as though he did not atone,

for he did not fulfill the mitzva in the optimal manner.

But nevertheless the offering effects atonement for him,

and it atoned.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: tenufa

that was stated concerning the offerings of the miluim

is what there is between them.

According to the one who says

concerning the miluim

everything that is written concerning them—

is indispensable for them—

even tenufa

is indispensable, and according to the one who says: a matter

that we find

is not indispensable for future generations, is not indispensable for them,

tenufa also

is not indispensable.

And we raised it:

and for future generations, from where do we know

that tenufa

is not indispensable

in a place where it was commanded?

And we explain: from this

as it was taught:

it was stated concerning the offering of the leper: “And he shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering

for tenufa, to atone

for him.”

And is tenufa

the

that atones? But there is no atonement except through the blood, for

it has already

been stated: “For the blood, it is by the soul that it atones”?

And what does “for tenufa

to atone” teach?

To teach you

that if

he did not wave it, because he

treated the

mitzva of

tenufa

which was important in his eyes only as

“the remnants of a mitzva,”—

the verse regards him as though he did not atone.

And

in truth—

he atoned.

Rav Pappa said: the separation for seven

days at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, concerning which Aaron and his sons were commanded during the days of the miluim,

is what there is between them.

According to the one who says: everything that is written concerning them,

in the miluim,

is indispensable for them,

this separation

is indispensable.

But

according to the one who says: a matter

that we find

is not indispensable for future generations, is not indispensable

even

for them,

the separation also

is not indispensable.

And we raised it:

and for future generations,

in a place where there is a law of separation, such as on Yom Kippur,

from where do we know that

in truth it

is not indispensable?

And we answer: this is demonstrated

from

that

which it teaches

in our Mishna:

“And they prepare

another priest in his place.” And even though, if a disqualification should actually occur to the High Priest, this priest would enter to serve in his place on Yom Kippur,

and

nevertheless

it does not teach

that also

“they separate”

that prepared priest during those seven days preceding Yom Kippur.

It follows that after the fact he is fit to perform the service even without having separated him, because separation is not indispensable.

Ravina said:

there are two additional matters concerning which Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanina disagreed:

The augmentation

of Aaron’s garments,

seven

days,

and

likewise

the anointing

during those

seven

days, this is

what there is between them

of Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanina.

The first is Aaron the priest’s appointment as High Priest through the augmentation of garments: he wore four additional garments beyond those of an ordinary priest, which Aaron wore during all seven days of the miluim.

And the second was that he was anointed with the anointing oil for seven days.

And so it is for future generations: when a priest is appointed High Priest, he requires the augmentation of garments and anointing with the anointing oil during those first seven days on which he performs the service.

According to the one who says

that in the miluim

everything that is written concerning them—

is indispensable for them—

Aaron would not have become High Priest without wearing the garments and being anointed with the anointing oil all those seven days, since, because it is written in the section—

it is indispensable.

But

according to the one who says

that every

matter that is not indispensable for future generations is not indispensable

even

for them,

it follows that even if Aaron had not worn his garments and been anointed, except for one day, nevertheless he would have become High Priest—this

is not indispensable.

And we raised it:

and for future generations,

with regard to every priest appointed to be High Priest—

from where do we know that it is not indispensable?

And we explain:

as it was taught,

it was stated in the section of Aharei Mot [Leviticus 16]:

“And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be invested to serve as priest in place of his father shall atone.”

What does it teach?

That is to say, what does this verse come to teach us concerning the laws of augmentation and anointing, through which the High Priest is appointed?

Since it is stated

in the section of Tetzaveh [Exodus 29]:

“For seven days he shall wear them, the priest who serves in his place from among his sons,

who enters the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary”—it follows that he must wear the garments for seven days in order to be appointed High Priest and to be fit to enter the Tent of Meeting on Yom Kippur.

I have only

that he is fit for the service of a High Priest

if

so

he was augmented

with garments

for seven

days.

And

likewise that he

was anointed for seven

days with the anointing oil.

But if he

was augmented for seven and

was

not anointed

with the anointing oil except for one day, or he was not

augmented

except for

one day and

even though he

was anointed for seven—

from where

is it known that he too becomes High Priest and is fit for the service of Yom Kippur?

The verse states: “who shall be anointed and who shall be invested,”

to teach us that even in such a case, in which there was not augmentation for seven and anointing for seven—

nevertheless

he is made fit to be High Priest through augmentation and anointing of one day.

And we challenge: It is implied by the words of the beraita that, in any event, even for future generations, ab initio a High Priest must be anointed for seven days. And from where do we know this? For the verse stated in the section of Aharei Mot, in which both augmentation and anointing were stated, was interpreted as coming to teach us that augmentation and anointing for one day suffice. Whereas in the verse in the section of Tetzaveh we

do not find

anything in it except

augmentation

of garments

for seven

days

ab initio.

And if so,

anointing for seven

for future generations

ab initio—

from where do we know it?

And we answer:

if you wish, say: from

that

for which the verse was needed

in the section of Aharei Mot for anointing for seven days,

to exclude it

as not indispensable, we may learn that nevertheless it is practiced ab initio.

And if you wish, say:

the verse says there, in this matter, in the section of Tetzaveh:

“And the sacred garments that belong to Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to anoint them with them and to invest their hands with them,”

and we expound “to anoint them” from the language of anointing, and

anointing is juxtaposed to augmentation

of garments.

Just as augmentation

of garments

for seven

days is ab initio—

so too anointing

ab initio

for seven!

And now we return to the dispute of Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hanina.

And we explain:

what is the reason of the one who says

that concerning the miluim

everything that is written concerning them—

is indispensable for them?

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Bisna said: The verse says, “And you shall do to Aaron and to his sons in this manner,”

and we expound:

“In this manner”—

it is a matter of indispensability.

And we challenge: But this verse was written in the section of Tetzaveh, in which they were commanded concerning the acts of the miluim.