Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 16, 2021 | 讚壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Yoma 5

The shiurim this week are dedicated by the Balkany Family for refuah shleima of Noach Avraham ben Batya Shana. And by Yonatan Hober for a refuah shleima and a successful operation for Bosmat bat Yardena.

What are the differences between the approaches of Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chanina regarding whether or not all the details of the days of the inauguration were essential or only those that were essential on an ongoing basis, after the first days of inauguration? The four differences would be regarding smicha, tenufa, separation seven days before of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, and his having to wear the clothes and be anointed for seven days before starting to work as the Kohen Gadol. The gemara explains for each how we know they are not essential on an ongoing basis? The one who holds everything done at the inauguration was essential, from where is that derived? How did Moshe dress Aharon and his sons? There is a contradiction in the verses and the gemara brings two different approaches to understanding how it was done.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 住诪讬讻讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 住诪讬讻讛 诪注讻讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 住诪讬讻讛 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Rav Yosef said: The practical difference between them relates to the question of placing hands on the head of an animal brought as an offering. According to the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard, including details that do not invalidate offerings throughout the generations, invalidates the inauguration, failure to perform the placing of hands on the head of the animal also invalidates the inauguration. According to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration, failure to perform the placing of hands on the head of the animal does not invalidate the inauguration.


讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 讜讻讬 住诪讬讻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专


And with regard to the halakhot of offerings that apply throughout the generations the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that failure to place hands on the head of the animal does not invalidate the offering? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone on his behalf鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). Does the placing of hands atone for one鈥檚 sins? Isn鈥檛 atonement accomplished only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life鈥 (Leviticus 17:11)?


讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻驻专 讜讻驻专


And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: 鈥淎nd he shall place鈥nd it shall be accepted鈥? It teaches that if one deemed the ritual of placing hands to be a peripheral aspect of the mitzva and consequently failed to perform it, the verse ascribes to him status as though he did not achieve optimal atonement; and nevertheless, the offering atones for his sins. Apparently, failure to lay hands on the head of the offering does not invalidate the offering throughout the generations, as atonement can be achieved without it. Nevertheless, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, failure to lay hands on the offering invalidates the offerings brought during the inauguration.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 转谞讜驻讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘讗 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The issue of waving the offering is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina. According to the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration, failure to wave the offering also invalidates the inauguration. And according to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration, failure to wave the offering does not invalidate the inauguration.


讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇转谞讜驻讛 诇讻驻专 讜讻讬 转谞讜驻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇转谞讜驻讛 诇讻驻专 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇转谞讜驻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻驻专 讜讻驻专


And with regard to the halakhot of offerings throughout the generations, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that failure to wave the offering does not invalidate the offering? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita that the verse says: 鈥淗e shall take one male lamb as a guilt-offering to be waved to make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). Does waving the offering atone for one鈥檚 sins? Isn鈥檛 atonement accomplished only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life鈥 (Leviticus 17:11)? And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: To be waved to make atonement? It teaches that if one deemed the ritual of waving to be a peripheral aspect of the mitzva and therefore failed to perform it, the verse ascribes to him status as though he did not achieve optimal atonement; and nevertheless, the offering atones for his sins on his behalf.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Rav Pappa said: The issue of sequestering the priest for seven days is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina. According to the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration, failure to sequester the priest for seven days also invalidates the inauguration. And according to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration, failure to sequester the priest for seven days does not invalidate the inauguration.


讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 诪讚拽讗 转谞讬 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉


And with regard to the halakhot of offerings throughout the generations, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that failure to sequester the priest for seven days does not invalidate the offering? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the fact that it is taught in the mishna: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and it is not taught: The Sages remove the designated priest from his house, despite the possibility that ultimately he might replace the High Priest and perform the Yom Kippur service. Apparently, sequestering is not essential.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬讘讜讬 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讬讞讛 砖讘注讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Ravina said: The issue of the priest performing the service with the multiple garments of the High Priest for seven days and serving with anointment for seven days is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina. According to the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration, failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days also invalidates the inauguration. And according to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration, failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days does not invalidate the inauguration.


讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 讛讻讛谉 讗砖专 讬诪砖讞 讗讜转讜 讜讗砖专 讬诪诇讗 讗转 讬讚讜 诇讻讛谉 转讞转 讗讘讬讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专


And with regard to the halakhot of offerings throughout the generations, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days does not invalidate the offering? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: For what purpose does the verse state: 鈥淎nd the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father鈥檚 stead shall make the atonement鈥 (Leviticus 16:32)? If it comes to teach that all service must be performed by the High Priest, it is already written with regard to the Yom Kippur service that it must be performed by Aaron, the High Priest.


诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诇讘砖诐 讛讻讛谉 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞转专讘讛 砖讘注讛 讜谞诪砖讞 砖讘注讛 谞转专讘讛 砖讘注讛 讜谞诪砖讞 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞转专讘讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜谞诪砖讞 砖讘注讛 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬诪砖讞 讗讜转讜 讜讗砖专 讬诪诇讗 讗转 讬讚讜 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Since it is stated: 鈥淪even days shall the son that is priest in his stead don them鈥 (Exodus 29:30), I derive only that one who donned the multiple garments of the High Priest for seven days and was anointed seven days assumes the position of High Priest and may perform the service on Yom Kippur. However, with regard to whether one who donned the multiple garments for seven days and was anointed for one day, or one who donned the multiple garments for one day and was anointed for seven days is thereby inaugurated as High Priest, from where are those cases derived? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲ho shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated鈥; in any case he is appointed High Priest, even if either anointment or donning the garments did not continue for seven days.


讗砖讻讞谉 专讬讘讜讬 砖讘注讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪砖讬讞讛 砖讘注讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪谞讗 诇谉


The Gemara asks: We found a source for the fact that when the High Priest is appointed, there is a requirement of donning multiple garments for seven days ab initio; however, from where do we derive the requirement of anointment for seven days ab initio? According to Ravina, there is a requirement to anoint the priest on each of the seven days ab initio, even though failure to do so does not invalidate the offering throughout the generations. From where is that requirement derived?


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘讙讚讬 讛拽讚砖 讗砖专 诇讗讛专谉 讬讛讬讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讗讞专讬讜 诇诪砖讞讛 讘讛诐 讜诇诪诇讗 讘诐 讗转 讬讚诐 讗讬转拽砖 诪砖讬讞讛 诇专讬讘讜讬 诪讛 专讬讘讜讬 砖讘注讛 讗祝 诪砖讬讞讛 砖讘注讛


If you wish, say: It is derived from the fact that the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father鈥檚 stead shall make the atonement,鈥 is necessary to exclude requirements derived from other sources, i.e., that both donning multiple garments and anointment must be for seven days. Apparently, anointment for seven days is required ab initio. And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd the sacred garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them and to be consecrated in them鈥 (Exodus 29:29). Anointment is juxtaposed in this verse to donning multiple garments: Just as donning multiple garments is required for seven days ab initio, so too, anointment is required for seven days ab initio.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注砖讬转 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 讻讻讛 讻讻讛 注讬讻讜讘讗 讛讜讗 转讬谞讞 讻诇


搂 After ascertaining the halakhic distinctions between the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina with regard to the inauguration, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the rationales for those opinions. What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd so shall you do to Aaron and to his sons according to all that I have commanded you, seven days shall you consecrate them鈥 (Exodus 29:35). The term: So, teaches that failure to perform the ritual precisely in this manner invalidates the inauguration. The Gemara asks: That works out well as a source that all


诪讬诇转讗 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讗讬 注谞讬谞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讗讬 注谞讬谞讗 诪谞讗 诇谉


matters that are written in the context of this topic of inauguration in the book of Exodus invalidate the inauguration. However, with regard to matters that are not written in that context, but are written in the portion of the inauguration in Leviticus, from where do we derive that they invalidate the inauguration?


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讬诇讬祝 驻转讞 驻转讞 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转 讛壮 注讻讜讘讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 注讻讜讘讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: One derives a verbal analogy between the word opening that appears in the two portions of the inauguration. It is written in the command concerning the inauguration: 鈥淭he opening of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Exodus 29:32), and in its fulfillment it is written: 鈥淭he opening of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 8:31). Failure to perform the matters written in both portions invalidates the inauguration.
Rav Mesharshiyya said: The verbal analogy is unnecessary, as the conclusion can be derived directly from the verse written with regard to the implementation of the inauguration: 鈥淎nd keep the charge of the Lord, that you not die, for so I am commanded鈥 (Leviticus 8:35). The emphasis on this being the charge of the Lord comes to teach that failure to perform all the details mentioned in the implementation of the command invalidates the inauguration.
Rav Ashi says: The phrase: For so I am commanded, is the source from which it is derived that all the details written in both portions invalidate the inauguration.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬讗讻诇讜讛 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讘砖注转 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讜诇讗 诪讗诇讬 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专


Apropos that phrase, the Gemara cites a related halakhic midrash. The Sages taught: In the context of the implementation of the inauguration, three variations of the phrase appear: 鈥淔or so I am commanded鈥 (Leviticus 8:35); 鈥渁s I commanded鈥 (Leviticus 10:18); and 鈥渁s God has commanded鈥 (Leviticus 10:15). What does this repetition teach? From the phrase: 鈥淔or so I am commanded,鈥 it is derived that even in a state of acute mourning, on the first day after the death of a relative, one must eat the offering. God stated the verse: 鈥淎s I commanded,鈥 at the time of the incident just after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, when Aaron and his sons were in a state of acute mourning. And when Moses states: 鈥淎s God commanded,鈥 he is saying: The command is from God and it is not from my own initiative that I am saying it.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讻谞住讬诐 讗讬谉 讻转讜讘讬谉 讘驻专砖讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讝讛 讛讚讘专 讗砖专 转注砖讛 诇讛诐 诇拽讚砖 讗转诐 诇讻讛谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讛诪讻谞住讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛


Apropos the matters mentioned that are not explicit in the portion, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: Trousers are one of the priestly vestments worn during the inauguration, but they are not written in the Torah portion. When the verse says: 鈥淎nd this is the matter that you shall do for them to sanctify them for My service鈥 (Exodus 29:1), the superfluous word: And, which appears at the beginning of the verse, comes to add to that which was written previously and to include trousers and the tenth of an ephah offered by a priest on the day that he begins his service.


讘砖诇诪讗 诪讻谞住讬诐 讻转讬讘讬 讘注谞讬谞讗 讚讘讙讚讬诐 讗诇讗 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗转讬讗 讝讛 讝讛 诪讜讝讛 拽专讘谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛


The Gemara asks: Granted, trousers can be derived, as the verse is written in the context of the matter of priestly garments detailed adjacent to the portion of the inauguration. However, with regard to the tenth of an ephah, from where do we derive that there is an obligation to offer it during the inauguration? The Gemara answers: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word this that appears in one verse and the word this that appears in another. It is written: 鈥淭his is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord in the day when he is anointed, a tenth of an ephah鈥 (Leviticus 6:13). And in the verse cited above in the context of the inauguration it says: 鈥淎nd this is the matter that you shall do for them,鈥 which teaches that there is an obligation to offer a tenth of an ephah during the inauguration.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗祝 诪拽专讗 驻专砖讛 诪注讻讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 讗诇 讛注讚讛 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬讘讜专 诪注讻讘


Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: From where is it derived that even failure to read the Torah portion of the inauguration invalidates the inauguration? The verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses said to the assembly: This is the matter [davar] that God has commanded to be done鈥 (Leviticus 8:5), teaching that even failure to perform the recitation [dibbur] of the Torah portion to the people invalidates the inauguration.


讻讬爪讚 讛诇讘讬砖谉 讻讬爪讚 讛诇讘讬砖谉 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 讻讬爪讚 诪诇讘讬砖谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讜讗 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讜讗 谞诪讬 诇讻砖讬讘讜讗讜 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜诪砖讛 注诪讛诐


搂 Apropos the inauguration of the priests, the Gemara asks: How, i.e., in what order, did Moses dress Aaron and his sons in the priestly vestments? The Gemara wonders: In what order did he dress them? That is an irrelevant question, as what was, was. The order in which Moses dressed the priests has no practical ramifications. Rather, the question must be: How will Moses dress the priests in the future, following the resurrection of the dead, when the Temple service will be restored? The Gemara rejects this question as well: In the future, too, when Aaron and his sons will come and Moses will be with them, he will know the proper sequence, and there is no point to raising the question.


讗诇讗 讻讬爪讚 讛诇讘讬砖谉 诇诪讬住讘专 拽专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讘讘转 讗讞转


Rather, the question is: How did Moses dress them? The Gemara seeks to explain the verses on this topic, as they appear somewhat contradictory. The Gemara responds: The sons of Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree with regard to this matter. One said: Moses dressed Aaron first and afterward Moses dressed his sons; and one said: Moses dressed Aaron and his sons simultaneously, i.e., consecutively from one to the next, without interruption, to avoid changing the order prescribed in the verses.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讻转讜谞转 讜诪爪谞驻转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讚讘讬谉 讘爪讜讜讗讛 讜讘讬谉 讘注砖讬讛 讗讛专谉 拽讚讬诐 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗讘谞讟 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转讜 讘讗讘谞讟 讜讛讚专 讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转诐 讗讘谞讟 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讞讙专转 讗讜转诐 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转讜 讘讗讘谞讟 讜讛讚专 讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转诐 讗讘谞讟


Abaye said: With regard to the tunic and mitre everyone agrees that Moses dressed Aaron and afterward his sons, as both in the portion of the command concerning the inauguration and in the portion of the implementation, mention of Aaron precedes mention of his sons. When they disagree, it is with regard to the belt. The Gemara elaborates. The one who said: Moses dressed Aaron and afterward his sons derives it from that which is written: 鈥淎nd he girded him with the belt鈥 (Leviticus 8:7), and then it is written: 鈥淎nd he girded them with belts鈥 (Leviticus 8:13). Moses first dressed Aaron in all of the garments, including the belt, and then Moses dressed Aaron鈥檚 sons. And the one who said: Moses dressed Aaron and his sons, simultaneously derives it from that which is subsequently written: 鈥淎nd gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons鈥 (Exodus 29:9), indicating that Moses girded them all with belts simultaneously. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says: Moses dressed Aaron and his sons simultaneously, isn鈥檛 it written: He girded him with the belt, and then it is written: He girded them with belts, clearly indicating that he dressed Aaron and then his sons?

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

alon shvut women

Yoma 85

Teacher: Tamara Spitz    
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 2-9 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Masechet Yoma describes the events leading up to Yom Kippur and the events of Yom Kippur itself, the holiest day...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 5: When It Comes to the Yom Kippur Avodah, Details Really Matter

R. Yochanan vs. R. Akiva, on what elements of the inauguration of the Mishkan were essential,and whether any of those...
introduction to yoma by gitta

Introduction to Yoma聽– The Main Structure

Masechet Yoma (literally, 鈥淭he Day鈥) deals with聽 Yom Kippur (YK).聽聽 Structure of the masechet:聽 The masechet is arranged in chronological聽...

Yoma 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 5

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 住诪讬讻讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 住诪讬讻讛 诪注讻讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 住诪讬讻讛 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Rav Yosef said: The practical difference between them relates to the question of placing hands on the head of an animal brought as an offering. According to the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard, including details that do not invalidate offerings throughout the generations, invalidates the inauguration, failure to perform the placing of hands on the head of the animal also invalidates the inauguration. According to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration, failure to perform the placing of hands on the head of the animal does not invalidate the inauguration.


讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 讜讻讬 住诪讬讻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专


And with regard to the halakhot of offerings that apply throughout the generations the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that failure to place hands on the head of the animal does not invalidate the offering? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone on his behalf鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). Does the placing of hands atone for one鈥檚 sins? Isn鈥檛 atonement accomplished only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life鈥 (Leviticus 17:11)?


讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻驻专 讜讻驻专


And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: 鈥淎nd he shall place鈥nd it shall be accepted鈥? It teaches that if one deemed the ritual of placing hands to be a peripheral aspect of the mitzva and consequently failed to perform it, the verse ascribes to him status as though he did not achieve optimal atonement; and nevertheless, the offering atones for his sins. Apparently, failure to lay hands on the head of the offering does not invalidate the offering throughout the generations, as atonement can be achieved without it. Nevertheless, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, failure to lay hands on the offering invalidates the offerings brought during the inauguration.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 转谞讜驻讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘讗 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The issue of waving the offering is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina. According to the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration, failure to wave the offering also invalidates the inauguration. And according to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration, failure to wave the offering does not invalidate the inauguration.


讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇转谞讜驻讛 诇讻驻专 讜讻讬 转谞讜驻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇转谞讜驻讛 诇讻驻专 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇转谞讜驻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻驻专 讜讻驻专


And with regard to the halakhot of offerings throughout the generations, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that failure to wave the offering does not invalidate the offering? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita that the verse says: 鈥淗e shall take one male lamb as a guilt-offering to be waved to make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). Does waving the offering atone for one鈥檚 sins? Isn鈥檛 atonement accomplished only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life鈥 (Leviticus 17:11)? And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: To be waved to make atonement? It teaches that if one deemed the ritual of waving to be a peripheral aspect of the mitzva and therefore failed to perform it, the verse ascribes to him status as though he did not achieve optimal atonement; and nevertheless, the offering atones for his sins on his behalf.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Rav Pappa said: The issue of sequestering the priest for seven days is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina. According to the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration, failure to sequester the priest for seven days also invalidates the inauguration. And according to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration, failure to sequester the priest for seven days does not invalidate the inauguration.


讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 诪讚拽讗 转谞讬 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉


And with regard to the halakhot of offerings throughout the generations, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that failure to sequester the priest for seven days does not invalidate the offering? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the fact that it is taught in the mishna: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and it is not taught: The Sages remove the designated priest from his house, despite the possibility that ultimately he might replace the High Priest and perform the Yom Kippur service. Apparently, sequestering is not essential.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬讘讜讬 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讬讞讛 砖讘注讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Ravina said: The issue of the priest performing the service with the multiple garments of the High Priest for seven days and serving with anointment for seven days is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina. According to the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration, failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days also invalidates the inauguration. And according to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration, failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days does not invalidate the inauguration.


讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 讛讻讛谉 讗砖专 讬诪砖讞 讗讜转讜 讜讗砖专 讬诪诇讗 讗转 讬讚讜 诇讻讛谉 转讞转 讗讘讬讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专


And with regard to the halakhot of offerings throughout the generations, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days does not invalidate the offering? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: For what purpose does the verse state: 鈥淎nd the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father鈥檚 stead shall make the atonement鈥 (Leviticus 16:32)? If it comes to teach that all service must be performed by the High Priest, it is already written with regard to the Yom Kippur service that it must be performed by Aaron, the High Priest.


诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诇讘砖诐 讛讻讛谉 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞转专讘讛 砖讘注讛 讜谞诪砖讞 砖讘注讛 谞转专讘讛 砖讘注讛 讜谞诪砖讞 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞转专讘讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜谞诪砖讞 砖讘注讛 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬诪砖讞 讗讜转讜 讜讗砖专 讬诪诇讗 讗转 讬讚讜 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Since it is stated: 鈥淪even days shall the son that is priest in his stead don them鈥 (Exodus 29:30), I derive only that one who donned the multiple garments of the High Priest for seven days and was anointed seven days assumes the position of High Priest and may perform the service on Yom Kippur. However, with regard to whether one who donned the multiple garments for seven days and was anointed for one day, or one who donned the multiple garments for one day and was anointed for seven days is thereby inaugurated as High Priest, from where are those cases derived? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲ho shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated鈥; in any case he is appointed High Priest, even if either anointment or donning the garments did not continue for seven days.


讗砖讻讞谉 专讬讘讜讬 砖讘注讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪砖讬讞讛 砖讘注讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪谞讗 诇谉


The Gemara asks: We found a source for the fact that when the High Priest is appointed, there is a requirement of donning multiple garments for seven days ab initio; however, from where do we derive the requirement of anointment for seven days ab initio? According to Ravina, there is a requirement to anoint the priest on each of the seven days ab initio, even though failure to do so does not invalidate the offering throughout the generations. From where is that requirement derived?


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘讙讚讬 讛拽讚砖 讗砖专 诇讗讛专谉 讬讛讬讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讗讞专讬讜 诇诪砖讞讛 讘讛诐 讜诇诪诇讗 讘诐 讗转 讬讚诐 讗讬转拽砖 诪砖讬讞讛 诇专讬讘讜讬 诪讛 专讬讘讜讬 砖讘注讛 讗祝 诪砖讬讞讛 砖讘注讛


If you wish, say: It is derived from the fact that the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father鈥檚 stead shall make the atonement,鈥 is necessary to exclude requirements derived from other sources, i.e., that both donning multiple garments and anointment must be for seven days. Apparently, anointment for seven days is required ab initio. And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd the sacred garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them and to be consecrated in them鈥 (Exodus 29:29). Anointment is juxtaposed in this verse to donning multiple garments: Just as donning multiple garments is required for seven days ab initio, so too, anointment is required for seven days ab initio.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注砖讬转 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 讻讻讛 讻讻讛 注讬讻讜讘讗 讛讜讗 转讬谞讞 讻诇


搂 After ascertaining the halakhic distinctions between the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina with regard to the inauguration, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the rationales for those opinions. What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd so shall you do to Aaron and to his sons according to all that I have commanded you, seven days shall you consecrate them鈥 (Exodus 29:35). The term: So, teaches that failure to perform the ritual precisely in this manner invalidates the inauguration. The Gemara asks: That works out well as a source that all


诪讬诇转讗 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讗讬 注谞讬谞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讗讬 注谞讬谞讗 诪谞讗 诇谉


matters that are written in the context of this topic of inauguration in the book of Exodus invalidate the inauguration. However, with regard to matters that are not written in that context, but are written in the portion of the inauguration in Leviticus, from where do we derive that they invalidate the inauguration?


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讬诇讬祝 驻转讞 驻转讞 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讗诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转 讛壮 注讻讜讘讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 注讻讜讘讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: One derives a verbal analogy between the word opening that appears in the two portions of the inauguration. It is written in the command concerning the inauguration: 鈥淭he opening of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Exodus 29:32), and in its fulfillment it is written: 鈥淭he opening of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 8:31). Failure to perform the matters written in both portions invalidates the inauguration.
Rav Mesharshiyya said: The verbal analogy is unnecessary, as the conclusion can be derived directly from the verse written with regard to the implementation of the inauguration: 鈥淎nd keep the charge of the Lord, that you not die, for so I am commanded鈥 (Leviticus 8:35). The emphasis on this being the charge of the Lord comes to teach that failure to perform all the details mentioned in the implementation of the command invalidates the inauguration.
Rav Ashi says: The phrase: For so I am commanded, is the source from which it is derived that all the details written in both portions invalidate the inauguration.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讻讬 讻谉 爪讜讬转讬 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬讗讻诇讜讛 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讬 讘砖注转 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讜诇讗 诪讗诇讬 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专


Apropos that phrase, the Gemara cites a related halakhic midrash. The Sages taught: In the context of the implementation of the inauguration, three variations of the phrase appear: 鈥淔or so I am commanded鈥 (Leviticus 8:35); 鈥渁s I commanded鈥 (Leviticus 10:18); and 鈥渁s God has commanded鈥 (Leviticus 10:15). What does this repetition teach? From the phrase: 鈥淔or so I am commanded,鈥 it is derived that even in a state of acute mourning, on the first day after the death of a relative, one must eat the offering. God stated the verse: 鈥淎s I commanded,鈥 at the time of the incident just after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, when Aaron and his sons were in a state of acute mourning. And when Moses states: 鈥淎s God commanded,鈥 he is saying: The command is from God and it is not from my own initiative that I am saying it.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讻谞住讬诐 讗讬谉 讻转讜讘讬谉 讘驻专砖讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讝讛 讛讚讘专 讗砖专 转注砖讛 诇讛诐 诇拽讚砖 讗转诐 诇讻讛谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讛诪讻谞住讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛


Apropos the matters mentioned that are not explicit in the portion, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: Trousers are one of the priestly vestments worn during the inauguration, but they are not written in the Torah portion. When the verse says: 鈥淎nd this is the matter that you shall do for them to sanctify them for My service鈥 (Exodus 29:1), the superfluous word: And, which appears at the beginning of the verse, comes to add to that which was written previously and to include trousers and the tenth of an ephah offered by a priest on the day that he begins his service.


讘砖诇诪讗 诪讻谞住讬诐 讻转讬讘讬 讘注谞讬谞讗 讚讘讙讚讬诐 讗诇讗 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗转讬讗 讝讛 讝讛 诪讜讝讛 拽专讘谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛


The Gemara asks: Granted, trousers can be derived, as the verse is written in the context of the matter of priestly garments detailed adjacent to the portion of the inauguration. However, with regard to the tenth of an ephah, from where do we derive that there is an obligation to offer it during the inauguration? The Gemara answers: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word this that appears in one verse and the word this that appears in another. It is written: 鈥淭his is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord in the day when he is anointed, a tenth of an ephah鈥 (Leviticus 6:13). And in the verse cited above in the context of the inauguration it says: 鈥淎nd this is the matter that you shall do for them,鈥 which teaches that there is an obligation to offer a tenth of an ephah during the inauguration.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗祝 诪拽专讗 驻专砖讛 诪注讻讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 讗诇 讛注讚讛 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬讘讜专 诪注讻讘


Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: From where is it derived that even failure to read the Torah portion of the inauguration invalidates the inauguration? The verse states: 鈥淎nd Moses said to the assembly: This is the matter [davar] that God has commanded to be done鈥 (Leviticus 8:5), teaching that even failure to perform the recitation [dibbur] of the Torah portion to the people invalidates the inauguration.


讻讬爪讚 讛诇讘讬砖谉 讻讬爪讚 讛诇讘讬砖谉 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 讻讬爪讚 诪诇讘讬砖谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讜讗 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讜讗 谞诪讬 诇讻砖讬讘讜讗讜 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜诪砖讛 注诪讛诐


搂 Apropos the inauguration of the priests, the Gemara asks: How, i.e., in what order, did Moses dress Aaron and his sons in the priestly vestments? The Gemara wonders: In what order did he dress them? That is an irrelevant question, as what was, was. The order in which Moses dressed the priests has no practical ramifications. Rather, the question must be: How will Moses dress the priests in the future, following the resurrection of the dead, when the Temple service will be restored? The Gemara rejects this question as well: In the future, too, when Aaron and his sons will come and Moses will be with them, he will know the proper sequence, and there is no point to raising the question.


讗诇讗 讻讬爪讚 讛诇讘讬砖谉 诇诪讬住讘专 拽专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讘讘转 讗讞转


Rather, the question is: How did Moses dress them? The Gemara seeks to explain the verses on this topic, as they appear somewhat contradictory. The Gemara responds: The sons of Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree with regard to this matter. One said: Moses dressed Aaron first and afterward Moses dressed his sons; and one said: Moses dressed Aaron and his sons simultaneously, i.e., consecutively from one to the next, without interruption, to avoid changing the order prescribed in the verses.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讻转讜谞转 讜诪爪谞驻转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讚讘讬谉 讘爪讜讜讗讛 讜讘讬谉 讘注砖讬讛 讗讛专谉 拽讚讬诐 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗讘谞讟 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘谞讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转讜 讘讗讘谞讟 讜讛讚专 讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转诐 讗讘谞讟 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讞讙专转 讗讜转诐 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转讜 讘讗讘谞讟 讜讛讚专 讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讙讜专 讗讜转诐 讗讘谞讟


Abaye said: With regard to the tunic and mitre everyone agrees that Moses dressed Aaron and afterward his sons, as both in the portion of the command concerning the inauguration and in the portion of the implementation, mention of Aaron precedes mention of his sons. When they disagree, it is with regard to the belt. The Gemara elaborates. The one who said: Moses dressed Aaron and afterward his sons derives it from that which is written: 鈥淎nd he girded him with the belt鈥 (Leviticus 8:7), and then it is written: 鈥淎nd he girded them with belts鈥 (Leviticus 8:13). Moses first dressed Aaron in all of the garments, including the belt, and then Moses dressed Aaron鈥檚 sons. And the one who said: Moses dressed Aaron and his sons, simultaneously derives it from that which is subsequently written: 鈥淎nd gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons鈥 (Exodus 29:9), indicating that Moses girded them all with belts simultaneously. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says: Moses dressed Aaron and his sons simultaneously, isn鈥檛 it written: He girded him with the belt, and then it is written: He girded them with belts, clearly indicating that he dressed Aaron and then his sons?

Scroll To Top