Yoma 5bיומא ה׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
5bה׳ ב

מילתא דכתיבא בהאי ענינא מילתא דלא כתיבא בהאי ענינא מנא לן

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?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק יליף פתח פתח רב משרשיא אמר (ויקרא ח, לה) ושמרתם את משמרת ה' עכובא רב אשי אמר (ויקרא ח, לה) כי כן צויתי עכובא

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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: “The opening of the Tent of Meeting” (Exodus 29:32), and in its fulfillment it is written: “The opening of the Tent of Meeting” (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: “And keep the charge of the Lord, that you not die, for so I am commanded” (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.

ת"ר כי כן צויתי (ויקרא י, יח) כאשר צויתי (ויקרא י, טו) כאשר צוה ה' כי כן צויתי באנינות יאכלוה כאשר צויתי בשעת מעשה אמר להם כאשר צוה ה' ולא מאלי אני אומר

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: “For so I am commanded” (Leviticus 8:35); “as I commanded” (Leviticus 10:18); and “as God has commanded” (Leviticus 10:15). What does this repetition teach? From the phrase: “For so I am commanded,” 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: “As I commanded,” 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: “As God commanded,” he is saying: The command is from God and it is not from my own initiative that I am saying it.

א"ר יוסי בר חנינא מכנסים אין כתובין בפרשה כשהוא אומר (שמות כט, א) וזה הדבר אשר תעשה להם לקדש אותם לכהן להביא המכנסים ועשירית האיפה

Apropos the matters mentioned that are not explicit in the portion, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina 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: “And this is the matter that you shall do for them to sanctify them for My service” (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.

בשלמא מכנסים כתיבי בענינא דבגדים אלא עשירית האיפה מנא לן אתיא זה זה (ויקרא ו, יג) מוזה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה' עשירית האיפה

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: “This 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” (Leviticus 6:13). And in the verse cited above in the context of the inauguration it says: “And this is the matter that you shall do for them,” which teaches that there is an obligation to offer a tenth of an ephah during the inauguration.

א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחאי מניין שאף מקרא פרשה מעכב ת"ל (ויקרא ח, ה) ויאמר משה אל העדה זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' אפילו דיבור מעכב

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where is it derived that even failure to read the Torah portion of the inauguration invalidates the inauguration? The verse states: “And Moses said to the assembly: This is the matter [davar] that God has commanded to be done” (Leviticus 8:5), teaching that even failure to perform the recitation [dibbur] of the Torah portion to the people invalidates the inauguration.

כיצד הלבישן כיצד הלבישן מאי דהוה הוה אלא כיצד מלבישן לעתיד לבוא לעתיד לבוא נמי לכשיבואו אהרן ובניו ומשה עמהם

§ 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.

אלא כיצד הלבישן למיסבר קראי פליגי בה בני ר' חייא ורבי יוחנן חד אמר אהרן ואח"כ בניו וחד אמר אהרן ובניו בבת אחת

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 Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אמר אביי בכתונת ומצנפת כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאהרן ואח"כ בניו דבין בצוואה ובין בעשיה אהרן קדים כי פליגי באבנט מאן דאמר אהרן ואחר כך בניו דכתיב (ויקרא ח, ז) ויחגור אותו באבנט והדר כתיב ויחגור אותם אבנט ומאן דאמר אהרן ובניו בבת אחת דכתיב (שמות כט, ט) וחגרת אותם ולמאן דאמר אהרן ובניו בבת אחת הכתיב ויחגור אותו באבנט והדר כתיב ויחגור אותם אבנט

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: “And he girded him with the belt” (Leviticus 8:7), and then it is written: “And he girded them with belts” (Leviticus 8:13). Moses first dressed Aaron in all of the garments, including the belt, and then Moses dressed Aaron’s sons. And the one who said: Moses dressed Aaron and his sons, simultaneously derives it from that which is subsequently written: “And gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons” (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’t 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?