QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chanina argue concerning which parts of
the Avodah of the Milu'im were Me'akev. Rebbi Yochanan (according to the
Gemara's conclusion on 4b) maintains that all of the parts that are written
in the Torah in the Parshah of Milu'im were Me'akev, while Rebbi Chanina
holds that only the parts which are Me'akev for all future Avodos ("Me'akev
l'Doros") in the Beis ha'Mikdash were Me'akev for the Milu'im. The Gemara
asks what is the practical difference between these two opinion, and several
Amora'im suggest several parts of the Avodah which are not Me'akev l'Doros,
but which were written in the Parshah of Milu'im and thus might be Me'akev
the Milu'im, depending on the two opinions.. The TOSFOS YESHANIM points out
that all of the differences are true and that the Amora'im are not arguing
with each other.
The GEVURAS ARI asks that the Gemara should have mentioned another part of
the Avodah which is not Me'akev l'Doros, but which is written in the Parshah
of Milu'im. He asks as follows.
The Gemara says that the source for the opinion that all parts of the Avodah
written in the Parshah of Milu'im are Me'akev is the verse, "You shall do
unto Aharon and his sons *as such* (Kachah)," and learns that "Kachah" means
that all of the parts of the Avodah are Me'akev. The Gemara asks that this
verse teaches that everything written in the Parshah of Milu'im (Parshas
Tetzaveh) is Me'akev, but how do we know that parts of the Avodah of the
Milu'im that were *not* written in the Parshah are also Me'akev? The Gemara
answers by citing several verses that teach that any part of the Milu'im,
even those that were not written in the Parshah of Milu'im, are Me'akev.
RASHI explains that when the Gemara asks about the parts of the Milu'im that
are not written in Tetzaveh, it is referring to placing the Urim v'Tumin
into the Choshen. There is no command about the Urim v'Tumim in Parshas
Tetzaveh, but in Parshas Tzav it says that they placed the Urim v'Tumin into
the Choshen. This part of the Milu'im is also Me'akev as the Gemara teaches.
The Gevuras Ari asks that when the Gemara was looking for parts of the
Avodah which are not Me'akev l'Doros but which are Me'akev for the Milu'im,
why did it not bring this as an example -- placing the Urim v'Tumin into the
Choshen? The Urim v'Tumim is not Me'akev l'Doros, for we see that there was
no Urim v'Tumim during the second Beis ha'Mikdash (21b).
ANSWERS:
(a) The GEVURAS ARI explains that perhaps the Urim v'Tumim *is* Me'akev
l'Doros, as Tosfos says (21b) -- that without the Urim v'Tumim, the Kohen
Gadol is considered "Mechusar Begadim," lacking in the garments which he is
required to wear. The reason why the Avodah was able to be done in the
second Beis ha'Mikdash is because there *was* the Urim v'Tumim. When the
Gemara says that there was no Urim v'Tumim, it means that they did not ask
questions of the Urim v'Tumim. This is also the opinion of the RAMBAM
(Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 4:1), and not like the RA'AVAD who says that it
was not there at all during the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
However, this answer is problematic. If the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev l'Doros
(because without it the Kohen is Mechusar Begadim), then of course it is
also Me'akev for the Milu'im! The Gemara was only looking for parts of the
Avodah which are *not* Me'akev l'Doros and which were done in the Milu'im,
when it sought a source that the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev! In defense of the
Gevuras Ari, it may be suggested that the Gemara, when it discusses whether
the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev, is no longer discussing the specific laws of
the Milu'im. Rather, the Gemara has changed subjects and is now trying to
prove that the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev because it is considered a Beged, and
without it the Kohen is Mechusar Begadim. (M. Kornfeld)
(b) Perhaps the Amora'im did not mention the Urim v'Tumim as a difference
because it is obvious that the two opinions will argue about that. Since the
Amora'im here (5b) cite additional verses to prove that the Urim v'Tumim is
Me'akev for the Milu'im according to the opinion that everything is Me'akev
the Milu'im, it is obvious that the Urim v'Tumim is an example of something
about which the two opinions will argue. The practical differences
(mentioned on 5a) between the two opinions are in *addition* to the Urim
v'Tumim.
(c) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH in the name of RABEINU TAM explains the Gemara here
differently than Rashi. When the Gemara asks how we know that parts of the
Avodah which are not written in Parshas Tetzaveh are nevertheless Me'akev
for the Milu'im, it is not referring to the Urim v'Tumim. Rather, it is
referring to Perishas Shivah, which is not written together with the other
directives for the Milu'im in Parshas Tetzaveh, but is written in Parshas
Tzav (Vayikra 8:33). If so, that *is* one of the things mentioned as a
difference between the two opinions (as stated by Rav Papa on 5a)! As far as
placing the Urim v'Tumim in the Choshen, the Gemara will hold that it is not
Me'akev even according to the opinion that *everything* in Parshas Milu'im
is Me'akev, because we find no specific commandment to place the Urim
v'Tumim in the Choshen specifically for the Milu'im.