Yoma 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

And if so,

it is understandable

that it is indispensable in

every

matter that is written in this context,

in the command concerning the seven days of the inauguration.

But

that which is not written in this context,

such as placing the Urim and Tummim in the hoshen, which is not mentioned in this passage, but only in Parashat Tzav, where the procedures of the days of the inauguration are described—

from where do we derive

that these too are indispensable? After all, there it does not say “so,” from which indispensability could be derived.

The Gemara brings three answers:

a.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

In the passage of the command, in Parashat Tetzaveh, it is written: “And you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” and it is likewise stated there: “And Aaron and his sons shall eat ... at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

And also in the passage describing the performance, in Parashat Tzav, it mentions: “And assemble the entire congregation at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” and likewise: “Cook the meat at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

And

he derives

by means of a gzera shava

“entrance”

of the performance from

“entrance”

of the command, teaching that everything written in the passage describing the performance is likewise indispensable.

b.

Rav Mesharsheya said:

There is itself a basis in Parashat Tzav for deriving that it is indispensable, for it is written there:

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

and the expression “safeguard”

indicates indispensability.

c.

Rav Ashi

too

said:

There is no need for a gzera shava, for in the passage describing the performance itself it is stated:

“For so have I been commanded”,

the meaning of which is: Everything is

indispensable.

The Sages taught:

In Parashat Shemini concerning the inauguration, after Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, died, the verse states three times that Moses commanded Aaron and his sons to eat the sacred offerings.

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

for so have I been commanded.”

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

as I have commanded.”

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

as the Lord commanded.”

The Gemara explains why the matter of a command appears in these three contexts, but does not appear with regard to the other mitzvot.

Aaron and his sons were onenim that day over Nadav and Avihu, who had been burned that same day, and an onen is prohibited from eating sacred offerings. Here, however, there was a temporary directive that they should eat while in mourning, as it is stated: “Take the meal-offering and eat it unleavened beside the altar”—even though you are onenim. Moses likewise told them to eat the breast and thigh of the communal peace-offerings even while in mourning.

However, Moses erred in this matter, thinking that the status of all the offerings brought that day was the same. When he subsequently saw that they had not eaten the goat of the sin-offering of the New Moon, but had burned it, he became angry with them. Aaron replied that this temporary directive had been stated only with regard to offerings consecrated for that occasion, meaning offerings brought only that day, whose obligation does not apply for later generations: namely, the nazirite’s peace-offerings, Aaron’s sin-offering of the eighth day of the inauguration, and the goat of Nahshon, which was one of the offerings of the tribal leaders for the dedication of the altar, as well as the meal-offering of the eighth day and Nahshon’s meal-offering. But offerings consecrated for later generations, namely, the goat of the New Moon, were not granted permission to be eaten while in mourning.

The Gemara now explains the three verses in which the expression of a command is stated.

a. With regard to the meal-offering it is stated: “And you shall eat it in a holy place,

for so have I been commanded,”

meaning that

they should eat it even while in mourning!

The expression of a command was used in order to convey the permission granted by the temporary directive, indicating a special command.

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

“as I have commanded”

you by the temporary directive concerning the meal-offering—

at the time of the act,

when he discovered that they had not eaten the goat of the sin-offering of the New Moon,

he said to them

so.

c. After Aaron had established the truth for him—that this directive did not apply to offerings consecrated for later generations—Moses said to him that the breast and thigh were to be eaten even while in mourning,

“as the Lord commanded,”

and not on my own authority [

Malbim]

do I say this,

so that you should not think that I had erred as I did concerning the goat of the New Moon.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:

The trousers,

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

are not written in the passage

concerning the inauguration.

Rather,

when it says

at the beginning of the passage,

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

we expound the word “this,” whose vav is a vav that adds to the preceding matter—

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 Temple service, and which the High Priest offers every day.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, the trousers

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

are written

above, in the adjacent passage dealing

with the matter of

the making of the

garments,

it is properly inferred that the trousers were also worn during the inauguration.

But the tenth of an ephah,

which is not mentioned at all in this passage, and is mentioned only for later generations, in Parashat Tzav, where it is stated that every priest must bring a ḥavitin meal-offering on the day of his initiation into the Temple service—

from where do we derive

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

And we answer:

It is derived

by means of a gzera shava,

“this”—

“this,”

from

the passage in which it is stated for later generations:

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

on the day that he is anointed,

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 reading of this passage

to the congregation [as it is stated in the passage: “Take Aaron and his sons and assemble the congregation at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”] is also

indispensable,

and is not merely a mitzva?

The verse states

later in the passage: “And the congregation assembled at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

and Moses said to the people: This is the matter that the Lord has commanded”—

even speech [

the reading of the passage, which is also included in “this is the matter”]

is indispensable.

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

How did he dress them?

In what order did he dress them?

And we wonder: Why should we ask

how he dressed them?

After all,

what happened has happened!

And we explain:

Rather,

there is a practical consequence to the matter, in order to know

how to dress them in the future.

We further wonder:

Even in the future

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

when Aaron and his sons come, and

even

Moses

will come

with them,

and clarify the matter.

And we explain:

Rather,

we must be asking

how he dressed them,

in order

to understand the verses

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

For in Parashat Tetzaveh it is stated: “And you shall gird them with a sash, Aaron and his sons,” implying that he dressed them all at once [and below we explain that he did not interrupt with another garment in the meantime]. Yet in Parashat 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 said

that he dressed

Aaron

in all his garments first,

and afterward

he dressed

his sons.

And one said

that he dressed

Aaron and his sons

all

at once.

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 of

Aaron’s

garments came first: he dressed Aaron in the trousers, the tunic, and the turban, apart from the sash.

And

only

afterward

did he dress his sons in these garments.

For

after all,

between

Parashat Tetzaveh, in which the

command

concerning the inauguration is stated,

and between

Parashat Tzav, in which the

performance

of the inauguration is stated, in both passages the order of dressing

Aaron comes first,

for all the garments except the sash are specified with regard to Aaron, and afterward the dressing of his sons is written.

They disagree with regard to

girding the

sash.

The one who says

that he girded

Aaron

alone with the sash,

and afterward

began to dress

his sons

in all their garments, says so because

in

Parashat Tzav

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

and

after he completed dressing him,

it is then written: “And he girded them with the sash.”

And the one who says

that the girding with the sash of

Aaron and his sons

was

at once,

says so because

in

Parashat Tetzaveh

it is written: “And you shall gird them

with the sash, Aaron and his sons,” implying that it was done for all of them at once.

And we challenge this:

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

does it not say

in the passage describing the performance:

“And he girded him with the sash,” and then it says, “And he girded them with the sash”?

This indicates that the girdings were separate.