Yoma 9

Chapter 9

א אמר רב יוסף סמיכה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן סמיכה מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן סמיכה לא מעכבא
1 R'Joseph says the putting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4; VIII, 18.');"><sup>1</sup></span> of the hands [upon the head of the sacrifice] is the difference. According to the one who holds that the omission of any detail renders the ceremony invalid, [failure] to lay the hand upon the head of the sacrifice would render the ceremony invalid.
ב ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר
2 According to him who holds that only the omission of what is indispensable in the future renders the ceremony invalid, [omission of] the putting of the hand on the animal's head did not render the ceremony invalid. Whence do we know that in the future [the omission of] the putting of the hands [on the animal's head] is not indispensable? - For it has been taught: And he shall lay his hand. and it shall be accepted for him [to make atonement for him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ומה ת"ל וסמך ונרצה שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כפר וכפר
3 Does the laying on of the hand make atonement for one? Does not atonement come through the blood, as it is said: For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 11.');"><sup>3</sup></span> Why, then, is it written: 'And he shall lay hi hand on.
ד רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר תנופה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא ולמ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן לא מעכבא
4 and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him'? To say that if he performed the laying on of the hands as an unimportant part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a remnant'.');"><sup>4</sup></span> of the commandment, Scripture would account it to him as if he had not obtained proper atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as it did not atone for him and it did'. Technically the ceremony had achieved its purpose, because essentially it is the blood which makes atonement, but since laying the hands on the animal's head is part of the ceremony (although not essential to it) and he has been negligent about it, he has obtained atonement for himself, but has not attained re-atonement with his creator, whose command he has treated slightingly.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ה ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא יד, כא) לתנופה לכפר וכי תנופה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר ומה ת"ל לתנופה לכפר שאם עשאה לתנופה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כפר וכפר
5 R'Nahman B'Isaac said: The waving<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of part of the sacrifice, Lev. VIII, 27.');"><sup>6</sup></span> is the difference. According to him who holds whatever detail is prescribed for the ceremony is indispensable, the waving is indispensable; according to him who holds that only what is indispensable for all the future is indispensable now, the waving is not indispensable.
ו רב פפא אמר פרישת שבעה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאינו מעכב לדורות אינו מעכב בהן לא מעכבא
6 Whence do we know that for all time to come the waving is not indispensable? - For we have been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 93b.');"><sup>7</sup></span> To be waved, to make atonement for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 21.');"><sup>8</sup></span> Does the waving make atonement?
ז ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא מדקא תני מתקינין ולא קתני מפרישין
7 Is it not the blood which makes atonement, as it is written, 'For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life'? Then why does Scripture say, 'To be waved, to make atonement for him'? To say that if he treats the waving as an unimportant part of the ceremony, Scripture accounts it to him as if he had not obtained proper atonement.
ח רבינא אמר ריבוי שבעה ומשיחה שבעה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן לא מעכבא
8 R'Papa said: The separation for seven days is the [practical] difference between the two opinions. According to the opinion that whatsoever is prescribed for the ceremony is indispensable, the separation, too,is indispensable; according to him who holds that only what is indispensable for all time to come is indispensable now, the separation is not indispensable. Whence do we know that the separation is not indispensable for all time to come?
ט ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא טז, לב) וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח אותו ואשר ימלא את ידו לכהן תחת אביו מה תלמוד לומר
9 Because the Mishnah reads, [another priest] IS MADE READY FOR HIM, instead of is 'separated for him'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the separation of the priest were an indispensable part of the ceremony, the proposed substitute for the high priest would have to be separated too, so that in case of any mishap to the high priest he would enter upon the service properly prepared by separation. Since the Mishnah reads 'prepared' only, the separation obviously is not deemed indispensable.');"><sup>9</sup></span> Rabina said: The difference lies in the increase [in the number of garments]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eight garments of the high priest as against the four of the ordinary priest.');"><sup>10</sup></span> and of the anointments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Every one of the seven days the head and the eye-lids of the high priest were anointed with oil.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
י לפי שנאמר (שמות כט, ל) שבעת ימים ילבשם הכהן תחתיו מבניו אין לי אלא נתרבה שבעה ונמשח שבעה נתרבה שבעה ונמשח יום אחד נתרבה יום אחד ונמשח שבעה מניין תלמוד לומר אשר ימשח אותו ואשר ימלא את ידו מ"מ
10 necessary during the seven days. According to the opinion that whatever is prescribed in connection therewith is indispensable, the increase [in the number of garments] and anointments during the seven days, too, is indispensable. According to him who holds that only what is indispensable for all time to come, is indispensable now, these things too are not indispensable.
יא אשכחן ריבוי שבעה לכתחלה משיחה שבעה לכתחלה מנא לן
11 Whence do we know that they are not indispensable for all time to come? - For it was taught: And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to be priest in his father's stead, shall make the atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 32.');"><sup>12</sup></span> What does the passage come to teach?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously the service was to be performed by the high priest, why then this apparently superfluous passage?');"><sup>13</sup></span> From the text: Seven days shall the son that is priest in his stead put them on [etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 30.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יב איבעית אימא מדאיצטריך קרא למעוטה ואיבעית אימא דאמר קרא (שמות כט, כט) ובגדי הקדש אשר לאהרן יהיו לבניו אחריו למשחה בהם ולמלא בם את ידם איתקש משיחה לריבוי מה ריבוי שבעה אף משיחה שבעה
12 I would know that a priest who had put on the required larger number of garments and who had been anointed on each of the seven days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his consecration as high priest, v. infra.');"><sup>15</sup></span> was permitted to ['minister in the holy place']<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is on the Day of Atonement.');"><sup>16</sup></span> at the Consecration.
יג מאי טעמא דמ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב אמר רבי יצחק בר ביסנא אמר קרא (שמות כט, לה) ועשית לאהרן ולבניו ככה ככה עיכובא הוא תינח כל
13 Whence would I know that if he had put on the larger number of garments for but one day, and had been anointed on each of the seven days; or, if he had been anointed but one day, but has put on the larger number of garments for seven days, [he would also be permitted]? To convey that teaching, Scripture says, 'Who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated', that means anointed and consecrated in whatever way.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as he has been consecrated, even if some detail of the ceremony has been omitted.');"><sup>17</sup></span> We have now found evidence that the larger number of garments is necessary in the first instance for the seven days. Whence do we know that anointment on each of the seven days is in the first instance required? You may infer that either from the fact that a special statement of the Torah was necessary to exclude it; or, if you wish, from the scriptural text itself, And the holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them, and to be consecrated in them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 29.');"><sup>18</sup></span> In this passage the anointing and the donning of the larger number of garments are put on the same level. Hence, just as the donning of the larger number of garments is required for the seven days, so is the anointing obligatory for the seven days. What is the reason of the man who holds that the forms prescribed for the ceremonies are indispensable? - R'Isaac B'Bisna said: Scripture reads And kaka [thus] shalt thou do to Aaron and his sons, - 'thus means indispensableness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphatic expression 'thus' intimates the indispensableness of the prescribed forms, 'thus' and 'not otherwise'.');"><sup>19</sup></span> You may be right with regard to any
Previous ChapterNext Chapter