## Yoma Daf 5a

###### Yoma 5a:1
[Yoma 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:1)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:2
[Yoma 5a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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)?


###### Yoma 5a:3
[Yoma 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:4
[Yoma 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:5
[Yoma 5a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:6
[Yoma 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:7
[Yoma 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:8
[Yoma 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:9
[Yoma 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:10
[Yoma 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 5a:11
[Yoma 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:11)

אַשְׁכְּחַן רִיבּוּי שִׁבְעָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה, מְשִׁיחָה שִׁבְעָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Yoma 5a:12
[Yoma 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:12)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Yoma 5a:13
[Yoma 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/5a:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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**