Yoma 5 a, b

The High Priest must undertake a number of rituals before Yom Kippur, our Day of Atonement.  The past dapim of Yoma have examined a number of these rituals, including the sequestering of the High Priest and the replacement of his wife in case his first wife dies and he is in need of another wife to pray for on Yom Kippur.  

Amud (a) encourages us to wonder about the power of a number of these rituals.  If the rituals are neglected, will the final atonement be valid?  And if some rituals are neglected but others are observed, is that enough to permit the atonement?

Keeping in mind the seriousness with which our Jewish ancestors understood these rituals, such questions are fascinating.  Why would a High Priest ever perform fewer than all of the required rituals?  Why would it be necessary to ask such a question - unless the rabbis understood that there was not a direct, causal relationship between the actions of the people and the will of G-d?

The rituals in question include sequestering the High Priest for at least seven days, waving the offering, sprinkling the blood of the offering, anointing the High Priest daily with oil while sequestered, and clothing the priest in multiple layers, each layer being removed between day eight and day one.  If the High priest is anointed on only one day but wears the clothing for all eight days, for example, will the atonement be permitted?

Amud (b) asks about the two sets of Torah passages that describe the inauguration of the High Priest, one from Exodus and the other from Leviticus.  The passages from Exodus validate the rabbis' concerns about endangering  the inauguration; what about the passages from Leviticus?  Instead of quoting simple proof texts, the rabbis admit that Leviticus poses a challenge.  They find justifications for some of the rituals surrounding the High Priest at Yom Kippur, but these are often less obvious, clear connections.  For example, the rabbis translate the word 'dibbur' as 'recreation' from: "... and this is the matter (dibbur) that G-d has commanded to be done," (Leviticus 8:5).  In this way they can prove that the ritual of reciting the Torah portion of the inauguration is required of the High Priest.  If the Torah portion is not recited, the atonement is not valid.

Our daf ends with another example.  Moses is said to have dressed Aaron and his sons, the priests, in their layers of clothing for the inauguration.  But in what order?  Was Aaron dressed first, was each priest dressed consecutively, or were all dressed simultaneously?  In Leviticus there are two sentences closely placed that suggest there may have been one belt or many belts as part of the priestly garb.  Rabbis can argue in either way, therefore, as the Torah provides more than one suggestion itself.

As a short note, we are told that Moses dressed Aaron in the past; however, he was also said to be dressing Aaron in the future - in the World-to-Come.  Narratives in the Talmud offer us the dislocation of time, just as the Torah is said to offer stories that might be out of chronological order.  These opportunities to see the past as if it were the future allow us to insert ourselves and our fantasies into the text.  We are allowed to imagine that we are reading into the future, a future that might involve our own participation.