Yoma 5a

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: סְמִיכָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַכָּתוּב בָּהֶן מְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן — סְמִיכָה מְעַכְּבָא, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מְעַכֵּב לְדוֹרוֹת אֵין מְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן — סְמִיכָה לָא מְעַכְּבָא.

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.

וּלְדוֹרוֹת מְנָא לַן דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְסָמַךְ״ ״וְנִרְצָה״. וְכִי סְמִיכָה מְכַפֶּרֶת? וַהֲלֹא אֵין כַּפָּרָה אֶלָּא בְּדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר״!

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: “And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone on his behalf” (Leviticus 1:4). Does the placing of hands atone for one’s sins? Isn’t atonement accomplished only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11)?

וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְסָמַךְ״ ״וְנִרְצָה״? שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לִסְמִיכָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה — מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּפֵּר, וְכִפֵּר!

And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted”? 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 Yoḥanan, failure to lay hands on the offering invalidates the offerings brought during the inauguration.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: תְּנוּפָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַכָּתוּב בָּהֶן מְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן — מְעַכְּבָא. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מְעַכֵּב לְדוֹרוֹת אֵין מְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן — לָא מְעַכְּבָא.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The issue of waving the offering is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina. 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.

וּלְדוֹרוֹת מְנָא לַן דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִתְנוּפָה לְכַפֵּר״. וְכִי תְּנוּפָה מְכַפֶּרֶת? וַהֲלֹא אֵין כַּפָּרָה אֶלָּא בְּדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר״! וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִתְנוּפָה לְכַפֵּר״? שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לִתְנוּפָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה — מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּפֵּר, וְכִפֵּר.

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: “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt-offering to be waved to make atonement for him” (Leviticus 14:21). Does waving the offering atone for one’s sins? Isn’t atonement accomplished only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (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.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: פְּרִישַׁת שִׁבְעָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַכָּתוּב בָּהֶן מְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן — מְעַכְּבָא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב לְדוֹרוֹת אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן — לָא מְעַכְּבָא.

Rav Pappa said: The issue of sequestering the priest for seven days is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina. 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.

וּלְדוֹרוֹת מְנָא לַן דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא? מִדְּקָא תָנֵי ״מַתְקִינִין״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״מַפְרִישִׁין״.

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.

רָבִינָא אָמַר: רִיבּוּי שִׁבְעָה וּמְשִׁיחָה שִׁבְעָה, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַכָּתוּב בָּהֶן מְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן — מְעַכְּבָא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מְעַכֵּב לְדוֹרוֹת אֵין מְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן — לָא מְעַכְּבָא.

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 Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina. 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.

וּלְדוֹרוֹת מְנָא לַן דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֵּר הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִמְשַׁח אוֹתוֹ וַאֲשֶׁר יְמַלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לְכַהֵן תַּחַת אָבִיו״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

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: “And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father’s stead shall make the atonement” (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.

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נִתְרַבָּה שִׁבְעָה וְנִמְשַׁח שִׁבְעָה. נִתְרַבָּה שִׁבְעָה וְנִמְשַׁח יוֹם אֶחָד, נִתְרַבָּה יוֹם אֶחָד וְנִמְשַׁח שִׁבְעָה מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יִמְשַׁח אוֹתוֹ וַאֲשֶׁר יְמַלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

Since it is stated: “Seven days shall the son that is priest in his stead don them” (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: “Who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated”; in any case he is appointed High Priest, even if either anointment or donning the garments did not continue for seven days.

אַשְׁכְּחַן רִיבּוּי שִׁבְעָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה, מְשִׁיחָה שִׁבְעָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה מְנָא לַן?

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?

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטַהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבִגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר לְאַהֲרֹן יִהְיוּ לְבָנָיו אַחֲרָיו לְמׇשְׁחָה בָהֶם וּלְמַלֵּא בָם אֶת יָדָם״, אִיתַּקַּשׁ מְשִׁיחָה לְרִיבּוּי: מָה רִיבּוּי שִׁבְעָה, אַף מְשִׁיחָה שִׁבְעָה.

If you wish, say: It is derived from the fact that the verse: “And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father’s stead shall make the atonement,” 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: “And the sacred garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them and to be consecrated in them” (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 .

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַכָּתוּב בָּהֶן מְעַכֵּב? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו כָּכָה״. ״כָּכָה״ עִיכּוּבָא הוּא. תִּינַח כֹּל

§ After ascertaining the halakhic distinctions between the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Yitzḥak bar Bisna said that the verse states: “And so shall you do to Aaron and to his sons according to all that I have commanded you, seven days shall you consecrate them” (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