Yoma 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

And

as the verse says [Numbers 10:1]:

“Make for yourself

two silver trumpets,” which means: Make them for yourself

from your own

property; Moses our teacher was to make them from his own money.

According to the one who says this, it is properly derived specifically that the separation on Yom Kippur is modeled on the days of the inauguration, because only in these two cases are the sacrifices taken from the private property of the priests.

But according to the one who says

that even the bull and the ram during the days of the inauguration were

from communal property—

what can be said?

According to him, the separation before Rosh HaShana should be derived from the days of the inauguration, since in both cases the sacrifices come from communal property, rather than deriving the separation before Yom Kippur, when the priest brings the bull and the ram from his private property!?

As it was taught:

Everywhere that the Torah says:

“Take for yourself”—

it means

from your own property.

And

likewise,

“Make for yourself”—

it means

from your own property.

But everywhere that it says

“and they shall take for you”—

it means

from communal property, the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: Whether “take for yourself” or “and they shall take for you”—

it means from communal property.

And what is the meaning of

the phrase in the context of the preparation of the incense, where the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses

“Take for yourself

spices,” which implies that it should come from your own property?

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses,

as it were if this were possible,

[as though this were possible],

I want the incense to come from your own property

rather than from theirs,

more than from theirs.

Abba Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One verse says [Deuteronomy 10:1]

[Deuteronomy 10:1]

“And you shall make for yourself a wooden Ark,”

which implies that you should make it from your own property.

And

if

another verse says [Exodus 25:10]

[Exodus 25:10]

“And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood,”

which implies that it should come from communal property,

how is this to be understood!?

Here—

when Israel perform the will of the Omnipresent,

the making is attributed to the community.

Here—

when they do not perform the will of the Omnipresent after the sin of the Golden Calf, the making is attributed to Moses.

[after the sin of the Golden Calf], and the making of the Ark is attributed to Moses.

It is apparent from this beraita that according to Rabbi Yoshiya, even where the verse says “take for yourself,” its meaning is that it comes from the community. And according to him, there is a difficulty: Why should the separation before Rosh HaShana not be derived from the separation during the days of the inauguration? After all, in both cases the sacrifices come from the community, whereas on Yom Kippur the priest’s sacrifices are his own property?

The Gemara answers:

The dispute does not extend

to all the tannaim in the beraita

except with regard to ordinary instances of “taking,” and

with

ordinary instances of “making.”

The Gemara explains:

Ordinary instances of “taking”—

such as the one stated [Exodus 30:34]:

“Take for yourself spices.”

Ordinary instances of “making”—

such as [Numbers 10:2]

“Make for yourself two silver trumpets.”

But these cases—

the taking of the sacrifices of the inauguration and the taking of the sacrifices of Yom Kippur—are not cases in which the Torah merely wrote “take for yourself.”

Rather,

the verse is explicitly interpreting

the meaning of “take for yourself” in these cases as follows:

from your own property

specifically

it

is to come, and not from communal property.

It follows that according to everyone, the sacrifices of the inauguration and those of Yom Kippur are alike: Only these sacrifices come from the priests’ money, and not other sacrifices. Thus the Gemara’s difficulty—why the separation before Rosh HaShana should not be derived—is resolved.

The Gemara explains where the Torah revealed that the sacrifices of the inauguration and of Yom Kippur come from the priest’s property:

With regard to the inauguration: Since

it is

written [Leviticus 9:3]

[Leviticus 9:3]

“And to the Children of Israel you shall speak, saying: Take a male goat for a sin-offering,”

and the verse did not say, “Take for yourselves.”

If so, in the preceding verse, in the command to Aaron, where the verse says:

“And he said

to Aaron:

Take for yourself a calf, the son of cattle, for a sin-offering,”

why do I need

the additional word “for yourself”?

Conclude from this

that the verse comes to explain that

“take for yourself”

said with regard to Aaron

means that it is from your own property,

and not from communal property.

With regard to Yom Kippur:

Since

it is

written [Leviticus 16:3]

[Leviticus 16:3]

“With this shall Aaron enter the Sanctuary: with a bull, the son of cattle, for a sin-offering.”

And afterward the verse says:

“And from the assembly of the Children of Israel he shall take two he-goats for a sin-offering.”

It is therefore clear that the sin-offering of the High Priest is a bull, whereas the sin-offering of the community is the two goats. If so, when the verse says regarding Aaron’s sin-offering bull

“And he shall offer his sin-offering bull,”

why do I need

it to specify and say “which is his”? It is obvious that this bull is his sacrifice, and not the sacrifice of the community!?

Rather, from here

conclude

that

this “which”

is

his—

it is from his own property.

Rav Ashi said

another answer as to why the separation before Rosh HaShana and before Shavuot cannot be derived:

We derive the bull for a sin-offering and the ram for a burnt-offering

of Yom Kippur

from the bull for a sin-offering and the ram for a burnt-offering

of the inauguration.

To exclude

Rosh HaShana and Shavuot,

as both of them—

both the bull and the ram—

are burnt-offerings.

Ravina said

another answer:

We derive the service

of Yom Kippur, which is performed only

by the High Priest, from the service

of the eighth day of the inauguration, which was performed only

by the High Priest.

To exclude all the difficulties—

all the other festivals concerning which we asked why there should not be separation, since

they are not services performed by the High Priest

specifically;

they are

services that may be performed by an ordinary priest.

Some say

that

Ravina said as follows:

We derive “the first service” from “the first service” as the Gemara will explain,

[as the Gemara will explain],

to exclude these—

for they are not the first service.

The Gemara examines this:

What is meant by “first”?

If you say “first”—

by the High Priest,

that is, Yom Kippur is derived from the days of the inauguration because on both occasions the “first”—the first service—was assigned to the High Priest. For on the first Yom Kippur, the service involving communal sacrifices was assigned for the first time specifically to the High Priest; and likewise, on the eighth day of the inauguration, the service in the Temple was assigned for the first time specifically to the High Priest.

This explanation

is

the explanation that Ravina gave according to the

first version. What innovation is there in the report introduced by “some say”?

so what did the “some say” add here?

Rather,

the derivation is from

“the first service in a particular place,”

for on the first Yom Kippur the High Priest entered the innermost area for the first time,

from “the first service in a particular place,”

for on the eighth day of the inauguration Aaron approached the service on the outer altar for the first time.

When

he came,

Rav Dimi

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

said:

Regarding the verse “to perform atonement,” from which it was learned that there is an instance of separation elsewhere:

Rabbi Yohanan taught

that it refers to

one

separation.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught

that it refers to

two

separations.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

Rabbi Yohanan taught one: “To perform

the

atonement”—

this refers to the service of Yom Kippur.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two: “To perform—

this refers to the service of the red heifer.

“The atonement”—

this refers to the service of Yom Kippur.

And the Gemara asks: Is it so that

Rabbi Yohanan taught

only

one

separation, separation before Yom Kippur, and does not also expound from here the separation of the priest who burns the ashes of the red heifer!?

But we learned in the Mishna: Seven days before Yom Kippur

the High Priest is separated.

And

we also learned in tractate Parah:

Seven days before the burning of the red heifer

the priest who burns it is separated!? And we answer: The fact that we learned that there is separation for the priest who burns the red heifer

is merely an enhancement,

which the Sages instituted; it is not from the Torah.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning our explanation, according to Rabbi Yohanan, that the separation of the priest who burns the red heifer is merely an enhancement:

But Rabbi Minyomi bar Ḥilkiya said in the name of Rabbi Maḥasya bar Idi,

who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

“As He did on this day, the Lord commanded to perform

the

atonement for you.”

“To perform

the

atonement”—

this refers to the service of the red heifer.

“The atonement”—

this refers to the service of Yom Kippur!

The Gemara answers:

That statement—

was that of his teacher,

for he said this teaching in the name of his master. But Rabbi Yohanan himself holds that it is merely an enhancement.

The proof that he said this in the name of his master is as follows:

For when

he came,

Ravin

from the Land of Israel,

said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan,

who had said

in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:

“To perform”—

this refers to the service of the red heifer.

“The atonement”—

this refers to the service of Yom Kippur.

And

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: From where do you derive it

—the separation of the High Priest before Yom Kippur—

from the inauguration.

If so, just as with the inauguration—

everything written concerning it is indispensable to it as will be explained below,

[as will be explained later],

so too here,

with regard to the separation before Yom Kippur, let us say:

Everything written concerning it is indispensable to it.

And if you would say that this is indeed so,

but we learned: “And they establish another priest for him,” and it does not teach, “They separate”

another priest.

If separation is indispensable, then the other priest must also be separated. Otherwise, he could not take the place of the High Priest who became disqualified.

And if you would say: What does “they establish another priest for him” mean

—another priest—

they separate

him,

then

let it teach

in our Mishna

either both expressions—

both with regard to the High Priest and with regard to his replacement—

“they establish,”

or both expressions, “they separate,”

and why does the tanna use “they separate” with regard to the High Priest and “they establish” with regard to the other priest?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish:

Rather, Master,

from where do you derive it

—the requirement of separation?

He said,

Reish Lakish:

From

the separation of Moses at

Sinai,

before he entered the camp of the Divine Presence at the summit of Mount Sinai.

As it is written [Exodus 24:16]:

[Exodus 24:16]:

“And the glory of the Lord rested upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered him

[Moses]

for six days.

And He called to Moses on the seventh day.”

Since

it is

written, “And He called to Moses on the seventh day,”

and if so,

what

was the purpose of Moses’ being covered by the cloud for

“six days”?

Rather,

this is a “foundational teaching”:

here the Torah taught a general principle:

Anyone who enters the camp of the Divine Presence

requires separation for six

days before entering it.

And entry into the innermost area on Yom Kippur likewise requires separation beforehand.

And we challenge this:

But we

learned the separation of

seven

days

in the Mishna

in our Mishna, and not six!?

And we answer:

The Mishna

is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira!

!