Yoma 5b — the Talmud in English

And if so,

it is understandable

that it is indispensable, with regard to

every ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page-column location")

matter that is written in this matter,

in the command concerning the seven days of the inauguration.

But what

is not written in this matter,

such as placing the Urim ve-Tummim into the choshen, which is not mentioned in this section, but rather in the section of Tzav, in which it is stated how the actions of the days of the inauguration were performed—

from where do we know

that these too are indispensable? For there it was not said “thus,” from which to derive indispensability.

And the Gemara brings three answers:

1.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

In the command, in the section of Tetzaveh, it is written: “And bring Aaron and his sons near to the ‘entrance’ of the Tent of Meeting,” and it is likewise said there: “And Aaron and his sons shall eat, etc., at the ‘entrance’ of the Tent of Meeting.”

And also in the performance, in the section of Tzav, “And assemble the entire assembly at the ‘entrance’ of the Tent of Meeting,” and likewise, “Cook the flesh at the ‘entrance’ of the Tent of Meeting.”

And

he derives

by a gezera shava

“entrance”

of the performance from

“entrance”

of the command, that everything written in the performance too is indispensable.

2.

Rav Mesharsheya said:

In the section of Tzav itself, one can derive that it is indispensable, for what is written there,

“And you shall safeguard the charge of the Lord”,

and the expression is an expression of safeguarding—

indispensability.

3.

Rav Ashi

also

said:

There is no need for a gezera shava, for in the section of the performance itself it is said,

“For thus I was commanded,”

whose meaning is: everything is for

“indispensability.”

The Sages taught:

In the section of Shemini concerning the inauguration, after Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, died, it is stated three times in the verse that Moses commanded Aaron and his sons concerning eating the sacred offerings.

a. “And you shall eat it [the meal-offering of the eighth day of the inauguration] in a holy place

for thus I was commanded.”

b. “You shall surely eat it [the sin-offering of the first of Nisan] in holiness,

as I commanded.”

c. “The thigh of the gift-offering and the breast of the elevation-offering [of the communal peace-offerings of the eighth day of the inauguration]

as the Lord commanded.”

And the Gemara explains why in these three matters the matter of a command appears, which does not appear in the other mitzvot.

Aaron and his sons were onenim on that day over Nadav and Avihu, who had been burned on that day, and an onen is forbidden to eat sacred offerings. Here there was a temporary ruling that they should eat it while in mourning, as it is said: “Take the meal-offering and eat it unleavened beside the altar,” even though you are onenim. And Moses likewise said to them concerning the breast and thigh of the communal peace-offerings that they should eat them even while in mourning.

However, Moses erred in the matter, and thought that all the offerings that were brought on that day had the same law. And when he subsequently saw that they had not eaten the sin-offering goat of the first of the month, but had burned it, he became angry with them. Aaron answered him that this temporary ruling had been stated only with regard to the sacred offerings of that time, that is, the offerings brought only on that day, whose obligation does not apply for later generations: namely, the peace-offering of the nazirite, Aaron’s sin-offering goat of the eighth day of the inauguration, and the goat of Naḥshon, which was among the offerings of the princes for the dedication of the altar, as well as the meal-offering of the eighth day and the meal-offering of Naḥshon. But with regard to sacred offerings of later generations, namely, the goat of the first of the month, permission to eat it while in mourning was not stated.

And now we explain the three verses in which the expression of command is stated.

a. It is said concerning the meal-offering: “And you shall eat it in a holy place

for thus I was commanded,”

that even

while in mourning they shall eat it!

And for the purpose of the permission of the temporary ruling, an expression of command was stated, indicating a special command.

b. “You shall surely eat it [the sin-offering of the first of the month] in holiness,” for you were to eat it even while in mourning,

“as I commanded”

you in the temporary ruling concerning the meal-offering—

at the time of the act,

when he found that they had not eaten the sin-offering goat of the first of the month,

he said to them

so.

c. And after Aaron had established the truth for him, that with regard to sacred offerings of later generations this ruling had not been stated, Moses said to them that the breast and thigh are eaten even while in mourning,

“as the Lord commanded,”

and not on my own authority [the Malbim],

[Melekhet Bilshagah]

I say,

so that you should not think that I erred, as with the goat of the first of the month.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:

Trousers,

which the priests must wear together with all the priestly garments,

are not written in the section

of the inauguration.

Rather,

when it says

at the beginning of the section,

“And this is the matter that you shall do for them, to sanctify them to serve as priests,”

and we expound from the word “this” that the vav in it is a vav that adds—

to include the trousers.

And

likewise, as will be explained below, to include

the tenth of an ephah,

which is the ḥavitin meal-offering that the priests offer on the day of their initiation into the service, and which the High Priest offers every day.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, the trousers

can be expounded from the vav of “this,” because the vav adds to the first matter, and since the trousers

are written

above in the adjacent section, which deals

with the matter of

the making of the

garments,

we properly infer that during the inauguration too they wore trousers.

But the tenth of an ephah,

which was not stated in this section at all, and was stated only for later generations in the section of Tzav, that every priest should bring on the day of his initiation into the service a ḥavitin meal-offering—

from where do we know

that during the days of the inauguration as well, when Aaron and his sons had not yet served, nevertheless they were required to bring this meal-offering?

And we answer:

It comes

by a gezera shava,

“this”—

“this,”

from

that section in which it was stated for later generations:

“This is the offering of Aaron and his sons that they shall offer to the Lord

on the day He anoints him,

a tenth of an ephah.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai:

And

from where

do we learn

that even

what Moses was commanded concerning

the recitation of this section

to the community [for it is said in the section, “Take Aaron and the entire assembly and assemble them at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”], this too

is indispensable,

and is not merely a mitzva?

The verse teaches

in the continuation of the section: “And the assembly was assembled at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

and Moses said to the people, ‘This is the matter that the Lord commanded,’”—

even speech

[the recitation of the section, which is also included in “this matter”]

is indispensable.

It is written in the section of the inauguration that Moses dressed Aaron and his sons in the garments during those seven days.

And we raise an objection:

How did he dress them?

In what order did he dress them?

And we wonder: Why do we need to ask

how he dressed them,

when

what was, was!

And we explain:

Rather,

there is a practical consequence in the matter, to know

how he will dress them in the future.

And we wonder further:

Even in the future

there is no practical consequence for us, for we will know this matter

when Aaron and his sons come, and

even

Moses

will come

with them,

and will clarify the matter.

And we explain:

Rather,

we must ask:

How did he dress them,

in order

to understand the verses

of the section of the inauguration, which according to their plain meaning appear contradictory.

For in the section of Tetzaveh it is said, “And you shall gird them with a belt, Aaron and his sons,” implying that he dressed all of them at one time [and below we explain it as meaning that he did not interrupt with another garment in the meantime], whereas in the section of Tzav a separate girding is stated for each one, implying that he did not dress his sons until he had finished dressing Aaron.

And we say:

The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree:

One says

that he first dressed

Aaron

in all his garments,

and afterward

he dressed

his sons.

And one says

that he dressed

Aaron and his sons

all

at one time.

Abaye said:

They did not disagree concerning the order of wearing all the garments.

With regard to

wearing the

tunic and

the

turban—

everyone agrees that

the wearing by

Aaron

preceded: he dressed Aaron in the trousers, the tunic, and the turban, apart from the belt.

And

only

afterward

did he dress his sons in these garments.

For

is it not so that

between

the section of Tetzaveh, in which there is the

command,

of the section of the inauguration,

and between

the section of Tzav, in which there is the

performance

of the inauguration—in both of them the order of dressing is explicitly that

Aaron precedes,

for all the garments except the belt are specified with regard to Aaron, and afterward it is written that his sons were dressed.

They disagree with regard to

the girding of the

belt.

The one who says

that he girded the belt as well for

Aaron

alone,

and afterward

began to dress

his sons

in all their garments, says so because

in

the section of Tzav

it is written, “And he girded him with the belt,”

and

after he completed dressing him,

it is then written: “And he girded them with a belt.”

And the one who says

that the girding of the belt for

Aaron and his sons

was

at one time,

because

in

the section of Tetzaveh

it is written, “And you shall gird them

with the belt, Aaron and his sons,” and it implies that it was for all of them at one time.

And we challenge this:

But according to the one who says: Aaron and his sons at one time—

is it not written

in the performance,

“And he girded him with the belt,” and afterward it is written, “And he girded them with a belt”?

It follows that the girdings were separate.