In a damp place. טחב refers to any place that cools or dampens [a person]. The explanation of the verses is as follows. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe” [and then repeat, “Adonoy spoke to Moshe.”] It should merely have written, “After the death [of two sons of Aharon] ... Adonoy spoke to Moshe, Speak to your brother Aharon...” Alternatively, it should have written, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe after the death [of two sons of Aharon]... Speak to [your brother] Aharon... Why does it write [“And Adonoy spoke to Moshe,” and then repeat], “Adonoy spoke to Moshe.” Regarding this Rashi explains: “Why does the verse say [this]...” He then cites the parable of Rabbi Elazar in order to say that the verse is like this parable... And thus, “This [second speaking to him clearly] urged him on more than the first one.” The verse, too, means the same when it is written, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe” [and repeats it]. [The first time the verse says “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe], means [that He instructed] Moshe to only tell Aharon not to come into the Holy that is inside of the curtain and not to mention [that he can incur] death similar to the death of his sons. Afterwards, the verse writes “After the death ... Adonoy said to Moshe...” meaning that the Holy One spoke again to Moshe to tell Aharon something else — he should warn him a second time to not come into the Holy, and [this time] also mention the death [of his sons] as it is written, “After the death of two sons of Aharon ... Adonoy spoke to Moshe, Speak to your brother Aharon ... so that he not die.” I.e., if you do not come into the Holy you will not die as your sons died, but if you come into the Holy as your sons did, you too will die like them. Re’m’s text of Rashi is different, see there. Aharon’s sons did not die for entering the Holy of Holies, the place where Aharon was forbidden to enter at all times. If so, what proof does the death of his sons serve to support this warning? The verse means as follows: Aharon should not enter [the Holy of Holies] at all times in order not to die as his sons died when they entered a place forbidden to them. Similarly, he should not enter a place that is forbidden to him. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

For if he enters, he dies. Rashi needs to say this. Because according to his explanation that the verses are a parable of two doctors, and that the second doctor gave a greater warning — so that you do not die in the way so and so died, you might ask that the verse only writes “that he not die,” and does not write that if he comes in he will die. Instead [it writes] that if he does not come in he will not die, which implies, the way his sons did not come in and did not die. Rashi answers that the words “that he not die” also hint that if he comes in he will die, because from the negative you infer the positive.

For I constantly appear. According to this explanation, כי is a reason for the above, the cause why the person who comes into the Holy dies. Thus the word כי here means “because,” like every כי in Scripture. And בענן means an actual cloud. Rashi explains further “For I constantly appear,” because the word אראה is [usually] in the future tense. Therefore Rashi explains אראה [here] as meaning “I appear” which is a present participle, since Hashem’s appearing in the future would not cause someone to die.

Except with the cloud of incense [on Yom Kippur]. According to the explanation of our Rabbis [the Midrash], it seems that כי here means “except,” i.e., he shall not come to the Holy except with the cloud of incense on Yom Kippur, and [the verse calls it a cloud] because the smoke of the incense is like a cloud. This differs from the previous explanation where Rashi said it meant “a pillar of cloud,” i.e., that the Divine Presence rests inside. Rashi does not mean that he comes in from outside with the cloud of incense, as this is the opinion of the Sadducees. He is only excluding his earlier interpretation where he said it was the cloud where the Divine Presence resides. Regarding Rashi saying “on Yom Kippur,” Rashi himself soon explains that the whole section is talking about Yom Kippur.

Its [בזאת] gematria is 410. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse say “with this”? You cannot say that it refers to the sacrifices mentioned afterwards because if so it should have said “With these Aharon shall come” in the plural form, since there were two sacrifices. Also, זאת is a feminine expression and the sacrifices mentioned afterwards are male [animals]. If so, the verse should not have said “with this” at all, but merely said, “For in a cloud I shall appear on the Ark-cover, and with a young bullock, for a sin-offering Aharon shall come...” Therefore, it must be hinting at the number of years that the First Temple stood. You might ask: Were there only kohanim gadolim in the First Temple? Were there not kohanim gadolim in the Second Temple as well? The answer is as follows: The gematria of בזאת tells you how many years there would be kohanim like Aharon [i.e., kohanim gadolim] who were anointed with the anointing oil. After the First Temple, however, they no longer anointed them with anointing oil like Aharon, because at the end of the First Temple era the anointing oil was hidden away from the time of [King] Yoshia onwards, as Rashi explains later. Gur Aryeh asks: How do we know that one is warned against entering the Holy in the Second Temple? Perhaps this law only applies to the first Temple that stood this number of years? The Toras Kohanim answers as follows: “Why does v. 3 say ’into the Holy’? Did it not already say in v. 2 ’That he not come at all times into the Holy that is inside of the curtain.’ Why does it say ’into the Holy’ a second time? Because the verse said ’into the Holy that is inside of the curtain before the Ark-cover that is on the Ark.’ You might think that this only applies to a Holy [sanctuary] that has an ark. From where do we know that we make a Holy [sanctuary] without an ark the same as a Holy [sanctuary] that has an ark? Because the verse says ’into the Holy’ again.” You might ask: If so, why does the verse write בזאת to hint [at the years of the First Temple] if this prohibition applies in the Second Temple as well? Perhaps this teaches that if one enters the place of the Holy of Holies after its destruction one is not liable. Thus the verse refers to the First Temple as “into the Holy” to hint that one is liable because of its holiness, and therefore [entering] the Second Temple that is also holy [also] makes one liable. [But after its destruction one is not liable.]

But [only] on Yom Kippur. Even though Rashi already explained earlier regarding “for in a cloud I shall appear,” that this was on Yom Kippur, [Rashi repeats this] so that you should not say that only when there is only a cloud [of incense] may one may come in only on Yom Kippur. But if one brings a young bullock, for a sin-offering and a ram, for a burnt-offering one can come in even during other days of the year. Therefore Rashi explains here, “And this too, not at every time.”

He does not perform the Service within etc. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah already mentioned wearing these garments in parshas Ve’ata Tetzaveh? Therefore, he explains, “[This] tells us...”

But with four [garments] like an ordinary kohein.. Here too, it seems that he is answering the question: Why does it specifically write the garments of a regular kohein?

That it should come from the Temple treasury. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse write, “He shall don a sanctified...,” which implies that they are holy even before he wears them? What holiness can they have before he wears them? You cannot answer that he wore these garments on the previous Yom Kippur and this is speaking of a second Yom Kippur, because immediately after wearing them they need to be hidden away and the kohein gadol never serves in them again as it is written (verse 23) “and place them there.” Therefore Rashi explains: “That it should come from the Temple treasury,” meaning he should buy them with money of the Temple treasury. Since we find that he buys the bull with his own [money], you might have thought that the garments too should be from his own [money]. Therefore the verse informs us [that this is not so]. The reason the bull comes from his own [money] is since it comes for [his personal] atonement as it says (verse 6), “And atone on his own behalf and on behalf of his household.” On the other hand, he prayed in the garments on behalf of all Israel. I found this.

He shall place [on his head]. According to this, the ב' of ובמצנפת is superfluous, similar to the ב of ברוחו שמים שפרה, “His wind calmed the heavens” (Iyov 26:13), which is also superfluous. It is as if the verse said ומצנפת בד יצנוף. The בי"ת should be understood as a substitute for עם (with), as if it said, “With a linen turban he should wind around his head.” In the Targum too, ומצנפתא is without a ב. The Targum has to say this [translating יצנוף as “to put”] because the expression of צניפה does not exist in Aramaic. But in Scripture where we do find words like צנוף [and] יצנוף [which mean to surround], the ב has the meaning of עם (with) as in the phrase ובאבנט בד יחגור, “He shall gird himself with a linen sash.” Here too it means, “He shall surround his head with a (linen) turban.” Rashi cites the Targum to inform us that the expression צניפה refers to the head [only] and not to somewhere else. And incidental to this he explains that that יחית means “to place.”

He would change. The following is the order of the Services on Yom Kippur: First, he immersed and donned the golden garments for the daily morning sacrifice which is a Service outside. Afterwards he removed the golden garments and immersed, and donned the white garments to perform the Services of the bull and the goat and the incense of the hand shovel inside. Then he removed the white garments and immersed, and donned the golden garments to perform the Services of his ram and the ram of the people and some of the additional sacrifices outside. Afterwards he removed the golden garments and immersed, and donned the white garments and entered inside to remove the spoon and the hand shovel. Afterwards he removed the white garments, immersed, and donned the golden garments to perform the Services outside, to sacrifice the remaining additional sacrifices and the daily sacrifice of the evening and the [daily evening] incense. Analyze this and you will find it so. As Rashi explains later on v.24, “He shall wash his flesh in water,” this (v. 4) indicates that he has to immerse before donning the white garments, and later (in v. 24) too it is written that he had to immerse before donning the golden garments. Therefore, we say that he must immerse whenever he changes from the golden garments to white garments or from the white garments to the golden garments. Rashi also explains that he requires two sanctifications, because verses 23 and 24 write “he shall wash” between “and remove” and “and don.” [“Aharon will then come into the Tent of Meeting and remove the linen garments that he wore.... He shall wash his flesh in water in a sacred place and don his garments.”] This is to apply washing to both the removing [his garments] and the donning [his garments], and if it is not to teach immersion which we have already learnt [from other sources], we use it to teach sanctification.

And not from public [funds]. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “which is his,” if no other bull is mentioned in this parsha except that of Aharon as it is written, “With this Aharon shall come... with a young bullock?” [He answers]: This indicates that he must bring the sacrifices from his [property]. In addition, since it is written above, “He shall take, from the congregation of Israel two he-goats etc.,” it indicates that the sacrifices written above he brought for himself [i.e., with his own funds].

He confesses over it. [Rashi says this] since it is impossible to say that this means actual atonement, as there is no atonement until after throwing of the blood as it is written below (verse18), “[He shall go out to the altar that is before Adonoy] and atone on it. He shall take some of the bullock’s blood [and some of the he-goat’s blood] and put it atop the corners of the altar, [all around].” But [here] this animal is still alive because afterwards (verse 11) it is written “And he shall slaughter his sin-offeringbullock.” Therefore, we learn from לכפר עליו, that it means “to achieve atonement with it” (verse 10), and [just as the atonement there is through confession, here too] it means through confession. I found this.

One to his right and one to his left. [Rashi adds this comment] because it is written, “Aharon shall put lots on the two he-goats,” indicating that he places lots on both of them with one act of placement, and this is impossible unless one is in the right hand and one in the left hand.

A high cliff. Azazel connotes both [strength and power] as it is a compound word עזז אל (strength, power), and אל connotes power as in the verse (Yechezkel 17:23), “And he took away the powerful (אילי) of the land.” Rashi explains further: How do we know it was a mountain? Because it says “A land cut off (גזירה),” and גזירה connotes “cut off.” [This indicates a mountain] because if one cuts a trench in the earth, a mountain automatically results, since for someone standing in the trench it is the same as standing in the valley of a mountain.

“A sin-offering.” I.e., “And do (offer) it as a sin-offering” means “he calls it a name... ‘a sin offering.’” You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it means that he sacrifices it for the sake of a sin-offering, as is indeed the law of a sin-offering? The answer is: Later in the parsha (verse 15) it is written, “He shall slaughter the he-goat sin-offering,” which implies that he had not yet sacrificed it.

Why does the verse say [this]? Explanation: because it [already] said יעמד, “it shall stand,” and “standing” implies that it is alive. If so, why does the verse say “alive?”

That he shall confess over it. But not atonement of blood, because this goat was not sacrificed and its blood is not received [in a vessel], as it is sent to Azazel. In addition, this cannot be [referring to the] blood atonement [of his bullock], because his bullock was not yet slaughtered.

And his brother kohanim. You might ask: Why does Aharon not atone for his brother kohanim with the first confession that he confesses on his behalf and on behalf of his household? The answer is: Because it is written, התקוששו וקשו (Tzephanya 2:1). [Although this actually means, “Gather yourselves together, gather yourselves], Reish Lakish said, [read the word התקוששו as התקושטו and say,] קשוט לעצמך ואח"כ קשוט אחרים, “Ornament yourself before ornamenting others.” Therefore, Aharon first confesses only on his behalf and on behalf of his household, and afterwards, during the second confession, he confesses also on behalf of his brothers. And the word “his household” [in this verse] also refers to his brothers as it says, “House of Aharon...” Gur Aryeh asks: Why does Aharon have to atone for himself twice? He answers: [to atone] for a sin that occurred between the first confession and the second confession, as Chazal say, it would be fitting for Israel to offer their sacrifices every hour, except that Scripture had mercy on them. Therefore, here where he anyhow has to confess for his brothers the kohanim, he again confesses his own sins. Also, because the bullock belongs only to him, it is not fitting that he confess over it only on behalf of the [other] kohanim, but rather they are subsidiary to Aharon as [belonging to] “the house of Aharon.” Therefore, in the second confession he once again confesses, “I and my household, the kohanim,” who are subsidiary to Aharon.

Impurity to the Temple. With this, he also wants to prove that when it is written “and on behalf of his household,” it refers to his brothers the kohanim. Because its whole atonement is only for impurity to the Temple and its holy things, therefore all the kohanim need atonement for this.

The outer [one]. Because it is written “From atop the altar, which is before Adonoy,” and Rashi explains, “From the side [of the altar that is] before the entrance [to the Sanctuary], and that is before Adonoy.” Perforce, this must be the outer altar, because if it is the inner altar, how can it say “before Adonoy,” which implies the side [of the altar] that is before Hashem? The entire inner altar is before Hashem! Rather, it is the outer altar, whose western side is opposite the eastern side of the Temple, where the Temple entrance is located, and which is called before [Hashem].

Which is within [the incense-pan]. [Rashi says this] to preclude explaining that there was another fire “before Adonoy” onto which he put the incense. Therefore he explains that he places the incense “’on the fire’ which is within the incense-pan.” “Before Adonoy” means [that he put the incense on the fire] inside [the Holy of Holies] and not outside like the opinion of the Sadducees.

If he did not do it properly. I.e., he did not put in all its ingredients according to their weight. Even if he did not do like the Sadducees, but placed the incense on the fire within the incense-pan after entering, even so, if he omitted some of its ingredients, either the ingredients themselves or [part of] their weight, he is liable for death. Rashi writes, “If he did not do it properly...,” since it is obvious that from the negative, one can infer the positive.

One. Rashi does not mean that word “he shall sprinkle” implies once, because “he shall sprinkle” does not indicate once or more. Rather, he means that “he shall sprinkle with his finger” implies one sprinkling because of a gezeirah shavah. It says [that] “blood” [is sprinkled] below [=downwards] by the he-goat (verse 15) and it says [that] “blood” [is sprinkled] below [=downwards] by the bullock [in our verse]. Just as [the sprinklings] below by the bullock are seven, so too [the sprinklings below] by the he-goat are seven. And just as [the sprinklings] above [=upwards] by the he-goat are once as it is written, “He shall sprinkle it,” and Chazalexpound “it” as exclusionary, he should sprinkle it once and no more, so we learn that the blood of the he-goat [sprinkled] above [=upwards] on the Ark-cover is only once, so too the sprinkling of the bullock above is [only] once, because “blood, blood” is a gezeirah shavah. Re’m

The goat atones. I.e., just as the bullock atones for impurity of the Temple and its holy things for the kohanim as Rashi just explained above, similarly the he-goat of the public atones for the impurity of the Temple. Rashi is [actually] saying [the reverse]: You might ask: Why does the verse write “that belongs to the people” since there is no he-goat sin-offering that does not belong to the people? This comes to teach you, what does the bullock atone for on behalf of the kohanim? That same thing which the he-goat of the people atones for. The he-goat of the people certainly atones for the impurity of the Temple as it is written regarding it, “He will atone for the Sanctuary, from the impurities of Bnei Yisroel,” so the bullock of the kohanimatones for the impurity of the Temple. [See Re’m]

One above and seven below. Explanation: Rashi needs to explain this so that we do not learn the first instance of “blood” [in verse 14] from the last instance [of “blood” in verse 14] and the last instance [of “blood” in verse 15] from the first instance [of “blood” in verse 15], and say that the above [sprinkling] and below [sprinkling] of both the bullock and the he-goat] should be the same, or one [sprinkling above and below for the he-goat] or seven [sprinklings above and below for the bullock]. We would learn each case from itself. Therefore “just as he did with the bullock’s blood” tells us that we compare the he-goat to the bullock in all its actions, [and both of their numbers of sprinklings are equal]. [See Re’m verse 14]

In [a state of] impurity. Explanation: For being in impurity and inadvertently entering the Sanctuary or [eating] its sanctified items. However, [the verse is] not [speaking about] the impurity of idolatry or promiscuity or murder which are also called impurity. This is because it is written, “He will atone for the Sanctuary.” This indicates that it is speaking about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sanctified things. See the Gemara, first chapter of Shavuos (7b), where this is explained well.

[Which] was not known to them afterwards. Because if it was known afterwards, why does the verse command to bring a he-goat? Above in parshas Vayikra (4:13,14) it is written, “If the entire congregation of Yisroel erred ... [when] they realize the sin which they committed, the community shall bring a young bullock as a sin-offering...” Thus here we must say that it was completely inadvertent [and they did not realize even afterwards]. Therefore they bring a he-goat and not a bullock. This sacrifice is brought to suspend and to shield [in the meantime] from punishment, until the person realizes [that he sinned] and is then obligated to bring a sliding-scale sacrifice described in parshas Vayikra.

And a transgression is unintentional. And so it says (above 4:2), “If a person unwittingly transgresses (תחטא).” “ומפשעיהם, are rebellious sins,” i.e., deliberate sins, as it says, (Melachim II 3:7), “The king of Moav rebelled (פשע) against me.” Here too, the case is that afterwards they do not know that they sinned.

Even intentionally entering in [a state of] impurity. You might ask: If intentional sin requires atonement, how much more so do intentional sins [require atonement]. The answer is: You may have thought that the severe intentional sin is severe that it is never atoned. Therefore it says “and from their rebellious sins.” You might ask: Once the verse has to mention intentional sin, it should not mention unintentional sin. The answer is: You might have thought that [only] an intentional sin which is severe requires atonement, but an unintentional sin which is not severe does not require atonement.

Just as he sprinkled. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Seven below and one above is not written in the he-goat itself but is derived from the bullock, and regarding sacrifices we do not derive a derivation from a derivation. The Gemara in chapter Hotzi’u Lo asked this question and answered that this is not a derivation from a derivation because “above” and “below” are written both for the bullock and for the he-goat, except that the number [one above and seven below] is not written explicitly [for both] and we derive the number from their comparison to each other; this is not called a derivation from a derivation but only a revelation of how many sprinklings must be made [see Re’m]. Nachalas Yaakov explains [why Rashi stresses “just as he sprinkled of the two of them. This is] so that you should not explain that “he shall do likewise” teaches that he has to sacrifice another bullock and he-goat; therefore, Rashi tells us that they are the same two mentioned above.

And why does Scripture state: “And he shall go out”? Rashi means: before this Aharon was [already] at [i.e. outside] the curtain where he made the sprinklings. But then it is written “and he shall go out” which implies that [only now] does he go outside of the curtain? Rashi explains that regarding this too, it is appropriate to say “he shall go out,” because he was at the curtain which is further inside than the altar. Therefore, when he returns to the altar it is appropriate to say “he shall go out.” When Rashi explains that he “begins with the northeastern corner,” he means as follows: When he wanted to sprinkle he would turn his face towards the altar and his right hand would be towards the north. He [then] walked along the north side of the altar because, as they say, all turnings that you make should only be to the right. Therefore when he returned [to the exit, going] outwards [without sprinkling on the northwestern corner of the altar because the verse says “he shall go out”], he went along the [altar’s] north side until he reached the front of the altar that faces east. From there he immediately began [sprinkling] on the northeastern corner because one may not pass over mitzvos.

Some of the bullock’s blood. You cannot say that this refers to confession because it is already written above (verse 17), “He shall atone on his behalf,” which refers to confession, which is atonement of words, as explained above (Rashi verse 6). If so, his atonement [here] is that “he shall take some of the bullock’s blood...” It is as if Rashi said, “’And atone on it.’ What is his atonement? ’And he shall take some of the bullock’s blood.’”

Mixed together. Because it is written at the end of parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 30:10), “Aharon shall make atonement on its horn-like elevations once each year.” This implies that he only placed [blood] on the horns of the inner altar once each year. If so, if they were not mixed together and he put on each one by itself, the blood of the bullock and then the blood of the he-goat, the blood would be placed on the horns of the inner altar twice every year? Thus we must say that he put them on with one act. How? They are two bloods, the blood of the bullock and the blood of the he-goat? Therefore [we must say] they were mixed together.

He sprinkles seven sprinklings on its top. Because it is written “on it,” implying that he placed [the blood] on its roof.

From what has passed. Explanation: “And purify it” from the impurity that has passed, “and sanctify it,” to be careful from making it impure in the future.

Who is prepared. The Toras Kohanim says: עתי, that he should be prepared. Radak’s explanation for the root עת, says that he is called עתי because he was accustomed in going there many times (עתים).

This is not the [proper] place. [I.e., verse 23 and 24 are written in the wrong order. The kohein gadol first burns his ram and the people’s ram as burnt-offerings (verse 24); afterwards he goes into the Sanctuary to remove the spoon and incense-pan (verse 23)]. In masechesYoma 32a [the Gemara asks]: Why does he interrupt, [by burning the rams before removing the spoon and incense-pan]? Said Rav Chisda, we have a tradition that he immerse five times and makes ten sanctifications on that day. [He makes one immersion and two sanctifications every time he changes into the white or the golden garments]. But if the verses are in order we would only find three [immersions]. Rashi explains: “You would only find three immersions, one [when he dons golden garments] for the morning perpetual offering, and one between it and the whole service of the day including taking out the spoon and incense-pan (verse 23) [when he dons white garments], and one between the taking out of the spoon and incensepan, and his ram and the ram of the people (verse 24), and with them the additional sacrifices and the perpetual-offering of the afternoon [when he dons golden garments]. Therefore, his ram and the ram of the people have to interrupt between the service of the day and the taking out of the spoon and incense-pan [in order to require an extra immersion]. And the taking out of the spoon and incense-pan interrupts between his ram and the ram of the people, and [the additional sacrifices] and the perpetual-offering of the afternoon [in order to require yet another immersion]. Thus we [now] have five immersions [prior to donning garments]. The morning daily sacrifice in the golden garments, the service of the day in the white garments, his ram and the people’s ram on the outside altar in the golden garments, taking out the spoon and incense-pan in the white garments, and the additional sacrifices and the perpetual-offering in the golden garments.” Between each donning [of garments] he needs to immerse; therefore there are five immersions. And every immersion requires sanctification before it and after it as I explained above, so that there are ten sanctifications.

Hidden away. Explanation: So that a kohein gadol should not use them even for the next Yom Kippur, and so that a regular kohein should not use them all the days of the year. You cannot say that he should place them in the place he removed them [from himself] and not take them outside, because nowhere does it say “before Hashem,” to which “place them there” would be referring to [and saying that they must not be removed from “before Hashem”]. Therefore, “[This] teaches...”

And here we have learned. Explanation: [To know] the reason we need them both (see Yuma 32b). (Gur Aryeh) The Gemara there asks as follows. The verse should not write that he requires immersion when changing from the white to the golden garments because this can be derived by a kal vachomer. If [changing] from the white garments to the golden garments, whose sanctity is less severe as he does enter the Holy of Holies with them, requires immersion, so then certainly that [changing] from the golden garments to the white garments whose sanctity is more severe requires immersion? The Gemara answers that the golden garments [have a superiority in that] their atonement is greater the entire year. But the white garments whose atonement is not great [the entire year], I would say [one does] not [require immersion]. Therefore both [verses] are needed.

In the roof of the Parva House. Rashi on the Gemara explains, “A Persian magician built it and his name was Parva.” See the Aruch, in the entry for parva.

In common [space]. Re’m. It was in common [space] because every day too it is thus. But regarding the four immersions which are on account of the obligation of the day [i.e., Yom Kippur] it is written “in a holy place.”

In which he performs the Service. Not his [daily] clothes that he wears the rest of the year when not performing the service, which are common clothes, because he sacrifices his ram and the people’s ram in them. Therefore Rashi explains that they are holy clothes, and they are called “his clothes” because he wears them when performs the service the rest of the year.

And one ram, etc. Re’m writes: It is surprising that he needs to explain something as obvious as this... The answer is: “Rashi explained [just before], “’And do (offer) his burnt-offering,’ refers to the ram for the burnt-offering mentioned above.” Thus Rashi is teaching: Just as the burnt offering of Aharon was the ram mentioned above [in verse 3], since Aharon only sacrificed one burnt offering [for himself], so too “and the people’s burnt-offering” means the one mentioned above [in verse 5]. And this is meant to exclude [that the verse here is not referring to] the burnt-offerings written in parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 59:7,8), “On the tenth day of this seventh month... you shall bring a burntoffering [for a pleasing aroma to Adonoy, consisting of] one young bull...” Rashi’s proof for this is that the verse groups them as one and does not write, “He shall go out and do his burnt-offering and atone on his behalf, and do the people’s burntoffering and atone on behalf of the people.” This is to tell you that the burnt-offering of the people too refers to the one mentioned above, like the burnt offering of Aharon, and not the burnt-offerings mentioned in parshas Pinchas.” (Re’m)

The bullock and goat. Because if it was [referring to] the entrails of only the bullock burnt-offering or only the goat, which is the sacrifice of the people, it should have written, “the fat of the sin-offering of the people.” Or, if it was referring only to the bullock of Aharon, it should have written, “the fat of the burnt-offering which is his,” as Scripture writes above (verse 6), “the sin-offering bullock which is his.” Therefore, because it is simply written “the fat of the sin-offering,” it refers to both sin-offerings.

And within. Not like every sin-offering “whose blood is to be brought inside the Tent of Meeting to achieve atonement,” i.e., [it is brought]only into the Sanctuary and not within the Holy of Holies. Here however, it refers to the bullock of Yom Kippur whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary within [the Holy of Holies].

Except [when carried out] by a Kohein Gadol. Explanation: “who himself will be anointed” applies only to a Kohein Gadol because it is written later (21:10), “The kohein who is greatest among his brethren [upon whose head was poured the anointing oil].”

One distinguished only by the greater number of garments from where? You might ask: If so, the verse should not say “who himself will be anointed,” and I would say that if even someone distinguished only by the greater number of garments becomes a Kohein Gadol, how much more so someone anointed with the anointing oil? The answer is: I would then say that even when anointing oil is available one only has to distinguish him by the greater number of garments; so it tells us [that this is not so].

And who will be initiated. Explanation: Wearing of clothes is initiation as it is written in parshas Tetzaveh 28:8, 9), “...And clothe them [with undershirts]. Gird them etc. Thus you shall initiate Aharon and his sons.” And Rashi explains, “’Thus you shall initiate,’ by means of [following] these things [enumerated here].”

He has precedence. [The son must be capable of fulfilling his father’s place] because it is adjacently written, “And who will be initiated,” [lit. “whose hand is filled”], meaning, “He who fills his father’s place will serve in his stead.” Even though Rashi above expounded this for something else, nevertheless, because it is adjacent to “to serve in his father’s stead,” it comes to teach this as well. [see Re’m]

When Yom Kippur arrived. He did not do this immediately after the command, because Aharon’s sons died on the eighth day of the inauguration and the command was probably immediately afterwards so that Aharon should not enter the Sanctuary [Holy of Holies]. But the eighth day of inauguration was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan as Rashi explains at the beginning of parshas Shemini. So how could Aharon do as Hashem commanded, if Hashem had only commanded this in regard to Yom Kippur? Therefore he explains, “When Yom Kippur arrived.”

For his own greatness. I explained this above in parshas Shemini, see there.