QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chanina disagree about which parts of the Avodah of the Milu'im were Me'akev (that is, without them, the Milu'im service would have been invalid). Rebbi Yochanan (according to the Gemara's conclusion on 4b) maintains that all of the parts of the Avodah that are written in the Torah in the Parshah of Milu'im (in Parshas Tetzaveh) were Me'akev. Rebbi Chanina maintains that only the parts that are Me'akev in the Beis ha'Mikdash for all future Avodos ("Me'akev l'Doros") were Me'akev the Milu'im. The Gemara asks what the practical difference is between the two opinions. Several Amora'im suggest various parts of the Avodah which are not Me'akev l'Doros but which are written in the Parshah of Milu'im and thus might have been Me'akev the Milu'im, depending on the two opinions. The TOSFOS YESHANIM points out that all of the differences are correct 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. The Gemara says that the source for Rebbi Yochanan's opinion that all parts of the Avodah that are written in the Parshah of Milu'im were Me'akev is the verse, "You shall do unto Aharon and his sons as such (Kachah)" (Shemos 29:35). The Gemara says that "Kachah" means that all of the parts of the Avodah were Me'akev. The Gemara asks that while this verse teaches that everything written in the Parshah of Milu'im was Me'akev, what is the source that parts of the Avodah of the Milu'im that are not written in the Parshah were also Me'akev? The Gemara answers by citing several verses that teach that any part of the Milu'im, even those that are not written in the Parshah of Milu'im, were Me'akev.

RASHI explains that when the Gemara asks about the parts of the Milu'im that are not written in the Parshah, it refers to the act of placing the Urim v'Tumim into the Choshen. There is no command about the Urim v'Tumim in Parshas Tetzaveh, but in Parshas Tzav the Torah says that they placed the Urim v'Tumim into the Choshen. This part of the Milu'im was also Me'akev, as the Gemara teaches.

The Gevuras Ari asks that when the Gemara looks for parts of the Avodah which are not Me'akev l'Doros but which were Me'akev the Milu'im, why does it not mention the act of placing the Urim v'Tumim into the Choshen? The Urim v'Tumim is not Me'akev l'Doros (as there was no Urim v'Tumim in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash (21b)), but it was Me'akev in the Avodah of the Milu'im.

(a) The GEVURAS ARI explains that perhaps the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev l'Doros. TOSFOS (21b) says that without the Urim v'Tumim, the Kohen Gadol is considered "Mechusar Begadim," he lacks the garments which he is required to wear. The reason why the Kohen Gadol was permitted to perform the Avodah in the second Beis ha'Mikdash was because he wore the Urim v'Tumim. When the Gemara says that there was no Urim v'Tumim during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, it means that they did not seek divine guidance through the Urim v'Tumim. This is also the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 4:1), in contrast to the view of the RA'AVAD who says that the Urim v'Tumim was not present at all during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.

This answer is problematic. If the Urim v'Tumim indeed is Me'akev l'Doros (because the Kohen is Mechusar Begadim without it), then obviously it was also Me'akev the Milu'im. The Gemara discusses only whether there are parts of the Avodah which are not Me'akev l'Doros which were done in the Milu'im. However, the parts of the Avodah which are Me'akev l'Doros certainly are Me'akev the Milu'im! Why, then, does the Gemara need a verse to prove that the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev the Milu'im? Perhaps the Gevuras Ari understands 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 attempting to prove that the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev l'Doros. It is Me'akev because it is considered a garment ("Beged"), and without it the Kohen is Mechusar Begadim. (M. Kornfeld)

(b) Perhaps the Amora'im do not mention the Urim v'Tumim as a difference between the two opinions because it is obvious that the two opinions argue about it. Since the Amora'im here (5b) cite additional verses to prove that the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev the Milu'im according to the opinion that everything mentioned in the Parshah is Me'akev, it is obvious that the two opinions argue about the Urim v'Tumim. 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 from Rashi. When the Gemara asks for the source that parts of the Avodah which are not written in Parshas Tetzaveh nevertheless are Me'akev the Milu'im, it does not refer to the Urim v'Tumim. Rather, it refers to the requirement of Perishah, separating for seven days, which is not written with the other directives for the Milu'im in Parshas Tetzaveh, but is written in Parshas Tzav (Vayikra 8:33). That part of the Avodah is mentioned as one of the differences between the two opinions (as stated by Rav Papa on 5a). Accordingly, perhaps the Gemara maintains that the placing of the Urim v'Tumim in the Choshen is not Me'akev even according to the opinion that everything in the Parshah of Milu'im is Me'akev, because there is no specific commandment to place the Urim v'Tumim in the Choshen for the Milu'im.