Yoma 2b — the Talmud in English

And we object: Perhaps the derivation is by a gzera shava of the days of the inauguration to Yom Kippur alone.

And say: “He commanded”

of the days of the inauguration teaches by a gzera shava to

“He commanded” of Yom Kippur,

that the kohen gadol must separate, but we have no derivation concerning separation for the red heifer.

For it is written

concerning the Yom Kippur service of Aaron the kohen [Leviticus 16:34]:

“And he did according to what the Lord commanded Moses!?”

And we answer:

We derive

by a gzera shava

“He commanded”

of the red heifer,

which

was said

before the performance

of the heifer,

from “He commanded”

of the days of the inauguration,

which

was said

before

the

performance

of the days of the inauguration.

But we do not derive “He commanded”

of Yom Kippur,

which

was said

after the performance

of Aaron the kohen,

from “He commanded,” which

was said

before the performance

in the days of the inauguration.

And we object:

And say

that we derive by a gzera shava

“He commanded” of the communal offerings

of which it is written [Leviticus 7:38]:

For it is written

concerning them [Leviticus 7:38]:

“On the day He commanded the Children of Israel.”

And we would learn that every kohen must separate for seven days before his service with communal offerings!?

And we answer:

We derive “He commanded” from “He commanded,”

but we do not derive “He commanded him” from “He commanded.”

And we object:

And what difference does it make

if the wording in the two verses is not precisely identical, for is it not sufficient that the matter of the words be the same?

For

behold

hold,

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael:

It is stated concerning the afflictions of houses [Leviticus 14:39]:

“And the kohen shall return.”

And this is said concerning a house that was quarantined because of an affliction for seven days: if the kohen saw that the affliction had spread, its law is that he removes the stone in which there is the affliction, removes the plaster around it, and again plasters the wall of the house anew.

And afterward it is stated:

“And the kohen shall come.”

And this is said concerning a house in which the affliction had not spread at the end of the first week, but which was quarantined for a second week; then, even if the affliction did not spread at the end of the second week but remained as it was, its stones are removed and it is plastered.

And we learn by a gzera shava “And the kohen shall return,” which was said at the end of the first week concerning a house in which the affliction had spread, that the stones are also to be removed in this house, in which the affliction had not spread after two weeks, concerning which it says “And the kohen shall come.”

For

this is “returning,”

this is “coming.”

That is, the similarity of the subject matter between the two verses is sufficient for us to derive a gzera shava from it.

And if so, we should also have a derivation by a gzera shava of “He commanded—he commanded him.”

And we answer:

These words

that one may expound a gzera shava even through similarity of subject matter apply

where there is no

other gzera shava

that resembles it

in the same wording.

But where there is

a gzera shava

that resembles it

in the same wording—

from

the gzera shava

that resembles it

in the precise wording

we derive,

and not from the gzera shava based only on similarity of subject matter.

And now the Gemara explains what Rabbi Yohanan said:

“To atone”—

these are the acts of Yom Kippur.

And we inquire about it:

And say

that the intention of the verse is

the atonement that

was said concerning

offerings,

and that the kohen who serves with these offerings must separate for seven days?

And we answer:

What?

Would we

know which kohen happens to be assigned

to fall to his lot to serve with these offerings,

that it would be fitting for him

that we obligate him

to separate

beforehand?

They say: Why,

why

not

can he be separated?

Behold, this is possible if

we require separation for the entire paternal-house division,

so that from among all of them each one has his fixed day, and each of the kohanim will separate one week before his day of service!?

And we answer:

We derive

Yom Kippur, which is

a matter whose time is fixed, from

the days of the inauguration, which are also

“a matter whose time is fixed” [

for they occurred once at a fixed time].

To exclude offerings, for they are present every day,

and therefore they are not learned from “to atone,” which is stated concerning the days of the inauguration.

And further we inquire about it:

And say

that the offerings of

the Festivals, which are a matter whose time is fixed, should be included in “to atone,” and the kohanim would require separation for seven days before the Festival!?

And we answer:

And we answer:

We derive

Yom Kippur, which is

a matter that is observed

only

once a year,

from the days of the inauguration, which are

“a matter that is observed

only

once a year.”

That is, they occurred only once.

To exclude the Festivals—

for they are not once a year,

but rather three times a year.

And we object:

And say

that

one Festival

among the three Festivals, which is once a year, should be learned from the days of the inauguration; the kohanim would have to separate for a week before it!?

And if you would say

to answer:

because

we do not know which of them

you have to say that one of the Festivals should be preferred:

Either

or

the Festival of Matzot—

since Scripture mentioned it first

in the sections of the Festivals;

or

or

the Festival of Sukkot—

since its mitzvot are more numerous [

sukkah, lulav, willow, and the water libation]

Rather

this is how one must answer:

We derive the separation

of the kohen gadol, which is

seven

days,

for one day [

Yom Kippur]—

from the separation of seven

days of the inauguration

for one day [

the eighth day of the inauguration].

But we do not derive the separation of seven

days

for seven

days of the Festival—

from the separation of seven

days of the inauguration

for one day [

the eighth day of the inauguration].

And we object:

And say

the day

the eighth,

the day of assembly—

for is it not separation for one day!?

And we answer:

We derive

Yom Kippur, which is

a matter before which there is no sanctity,

from the inauguration, which is

a matter before which there is no sanctity.

But we do not derive

the eighth day of assembly, which is

a matter before which there is sanctity

of the Festival

before it,

from the inauguration, which is

a matter before which there is no sanctity.

And we object:

A

is it

not a kal va-chomer!

Now, a matter before which there is no sanctity—

requires separation.

A matter before which there is sanctity—

all the more so

that separation is required before it!?

Rav Mesharshiya said: No,

it is not possible to expound it by a kal va-chomer, for we have a scriptural decree:

“As he did on the day

this

the Lord commanded to do, to atone for you,”

it is written.

Scripture required separation only for a day that is

like this,

analogous to it, and not for a day whose sanctity is more stringent than it, but which is not analogous to it.

Rav Ashi said:

This is how one must answer why we do not learn concerning the eighth day of assembly that separation is required before it:

Is there such a thing

as this,

that the principal Festival

of the seven days of the Festival of Sukkot

does not require separation

before them, whereas the eighth day of assembly, which is

secondary to it,

like the eighth day of the Festival of Sukkot,

requires separation!?

And even according to the one who says, “The eighth

day of assembly

is a Festival in its own right,”

and is not secondary to the Festival of Sukkot, one should still not learn that separation is required before it, since it is not called a Festival in its own right in every respect.