Yoma 2

שבעת ימים קודם יום הכפורים מפרישין כהן גדול מביתו ללשכת פרהדרין ומתקינין לו כהן אחר תחתיו שמא יארע בו פסול

MISHNA: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur the Sages would remove the High Priest, who performs the entire Yom Kippur service, from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin, a room in the Temple designated specifically for the High Priest during that period. And they would designate another priest in his stead to replace him lest a disqualification due to impurity or another circumstance beyond his control prevent him from entering the Temple on Yom Kippur.

רבי יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו שמא תמות אשתו שנאמר וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ביתו זו אשתו אמרו לו אם כן אין לדבר סוף

Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages would even designate another wife for him lest his wife die, as it is stated in the Torah portion of the Yom Kippur service: “And it will atone for him and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6); the Sages interpreted the term: His house, that is his wife. The priest must be married in order to fulfill this commandment. Due to the concern lest his wife die, another wife was designated to address that possibility. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: If so, that this is a concern, there is no end to the matter, as what if the designated replacement wife dies? This possibility need not be a source of concern.

גמ׳ תנן התם שבעת ימים קודם שריפת הפרה היו מפרישין כהן השורף את הפרה מביתו ללשכה שעל פני הבירה צפונה מזרחה ולשכת בית האבן היתה נקראת ולמה נקרא שמה לשכת בית האבן שכל מעשיה בכלי גללים בכלי אבנים ובכלי אדמה

GEMARA: The halakha of sequestering the High Priest prior to his performance of the Temple service on Yom Kippur is comparable to the sequestering of the priest designated to burn the red heifer. Therefore, the Gemara cites that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Para: Seven days prior to the burning of the red heifer, the Sages would remove the priest who burns the heifer from his house to the chamber that was before the bira at the northeast corner of the courtyard on the Temple Mount. And that chamber was called the Chamber of the Stone House. The Gemara explains: And why was it called the Chamber of the Stone House? It is because all the actions associated with the red heifer were performed in dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which are vessels that cannot become ritually impure.

מאי טעמא כיון דטבול יום כשר בפרה דתנן מטמאין היו הכהן השורף את הפרה ומטבילין אותו להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים במעורבי השמש היתה נעשית

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were so stringent with regard to the purity of the heifer? The Gemara explains: It is since a priest who immersed that day is fit for service and may perform the ritual of the heifer after immersion, even before sunset, as we learned in a mishna: They would intentionally render the priest who burns the heifer ritually impure and immerse him immediately, to remove a misconception from the hearts of the Sadducees by means of a public display of disregard for their ruling. As the Sadducees would say: Only by those for whom the sun set was the heifer ritual performed. The Sadducees believed that it is prohibited for priests who began the purification process with immersion during that day to burn the red heifer until sunset, when the purification process is completed.

תקינו לה רבנן כלי גללים כלי אבנים וכלי אדמה דלא ליקבלו טומאה כי היכי דלא ליזלזלו בה

That mishna continues: Since they would intentionally render the priest who burned the heifer ritually impure, the Sages in turn instituted the stringencies of utilizing dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which do not have the capacity to become ritually impure, lest people come to treat the ritual with contempt and perform it in ritual impurity after seeing that the red heifer ritual was performed by one who immersed that day.

מאי שנא צפונה מזרחה כיון דחטאת היא וחטאת טעונה צפונה וכתיב בה אל נכח פני אהל מועד תקינו לה רבנן לשכה צפונה מזרחה כי היכי דלהוי לה היכירא

Apropos the mishna in tractate Para, the Gemara asks: What is different about the chamber located in the northeast corner of the Temple courtyard that led the Sages to house the priest performing the red heifer ritual specifically in that chamber? The Gemara answers: It is different since it is a sin-offering, as the red heifer is referred to as a sin-offering in the Torah, and the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of a sin-offering must be performed north of the altar; and since it is written with regard to the red heifer: “And sprinkle it before the opening of the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 19:4), and before the Tent of Meeting means on its eastern side. Therefore, the Sages established a chamber in the northeast so that the ritual of the red heifer will have a distinctive indicator; this will cause the administering priest to be vigilant in its performance.

מאי בירה אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מקום היה בהר הבית ובירה שמו וריש לקיש אמר כל המקדש כולו קרוי בירה שנאמר הבירה אשר הכינותי

The Gemara asks with regard to the terminology of the mishna: What is the meaning of the term bira cited there? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There was a place on the Temple Mount and its name is bira, and the Chamber of the Stone House was adjacent to it. And Reish Lakish said: The entire Temple is called bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: “To Solomon my son grant a wholesome heart, to observe your commandments, your admonitions, and your statutes, to fulfill them all, and to build the bira for which I have made provision” (I Chronicles 29:19).

מנא הני מילי אמר רב מניומי בר חלקיה אמר רבי מחסיא בר אידי אמר רבי יוחנן אמר קרא כאשר עשה ביום הזה צוה ה׳ לעשות לכפר עליכם ׳לעשות׳ אלו מעשי פרה ׳לכפר׳ אלו מעשי יום הכפורים

§ With regard to the halakhot of sequestering the High Priest prior to performance of the Yom Kippur service, and of sequestering the priest designated to burn the heifer prior to performance of the red heifer ritual, the Gemara asks: From where in the Torah are these matters derived? Rav Minyomi bar Ḥilkiya said that Rabbi Maḥseya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said they are derived from Aaron and his sons, who remained in the Tabernacle for seven days prior to performing the service in the Tabernacle on the eighth day of their inauguration, as the verse states: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34), meaning that this mitzva of sequestering was not limited to the days prior to the dedication of the Tabernacle; rather, it applies to future generations as well. The verse is interpreted homiletically: “To do”; these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer for which the priest performing the ritual is sequestered seven days in advance; “to make atonement”; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur, before which the High Priest is sequestered seven days.

בשלמא כוליה קרא בפרה לא מתוקם ׳לכפר׳ כתיב ופרה לאו בת כפרה היא אלא אימא כוליה קרא ביום הכפורים כתיב

The Gemara asks: Granted, the entire verse is not established as referring exclusively to the red heifer, as: “To atone,” is written, and the heifer is not capable of facilitating atonement; rather, it facilitates ritual purity. Rather, say that the entire verse is written with regard to Yom Kippur, as the rites performed to achieve atonement on Yom Kippur are similar to those performed during the days of the inauguration. What, then, is the source for sequestering the priest who is to perform the red heifer ritual?

אמרי יליף ׳צוה׳ ׳צוה׳ כתיב הכא צוה ה׳ לעשות וכתיב התם זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר מה להלן פרה אף כאן פרה ומה כאן פרישה אף להלן פרישה

The Sages say in response: Derive it from a verbal analogy between the terms commanded and commanded. It is stated here, with regard to the days of the inauguration: “The Lord commanded to do,” and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer: “This is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded, saying” (Numbers 19:2). Just as the term commanded there refers to the heifer, so too here, the phrase: “The Lord commanded to do” written in the context of the days of the inauguration refers to the heifer. And just as here, with regard to the inauguration, there is the principle of sequestering prior to performing the service, so too there, in the context of the halakhot of the heifer, sequestering is required prior to performance of the mitzva.

ואימא צוה [צוה] דיום הכפורים דכתיב ויעש כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה דנין צוה דלפני עשיה מ׳צוה׳ דלפני עשיה ואין דנין צוה דלאחר עשיה מ׳צוה׳ דלפני עשיה

The Gemara asks: And say that there is indeed a verbal analogy; however, it is not between the red heifer and the inauguration of the priests, but between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded in the context of Yom Kippur, as it is written: “And this will be an everlasting statute for you, to atone for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year; and he did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 16:34). In that case, only the sequestering prior to Yom Kippur can be derived. The Gemara rejects this, as a verbal analogy is derived only between functionally similar phrases. One derives commanded that is stated before performance, as in the portion of the heifer, from commanded that is stated before performance in the portion of the inauguration; and one does not derive commanded that is stated after performance in the portion of Yom Kippur from commanded that is stated before performance.

ואימא צוה דקרבנות דכתיב ביום צותו את בני ישראל דנין צוה מ׳צוה׳ ואין דנין צותו מ׳צוה׳

Again the Gemara asks: And say that there is a verbal analogy between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded with regard to offerings, as it is written: “On the day that He commanded [tzavoto] the children of Israel to sacrifice their offerings” (Leviticus 7:38). The result would be that any priest sacrificing a communal offering would require sequestering for seven days. The Gemara rejects this: One derives the term commanded from the identical term commanded, and one does not derive the term that he commanded [tzavoto] from the term commanded [tziva].

ומאי נפקא מינה והתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל ושב הכהן ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the practical difference between the two terms? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: “And the priest shall return [veshav]” (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: “And the priest shall come [uva]” (Leviticus 14:44)? From that verbal analogy it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days; and this is the same halakha with regard to coming, i.e., it is also after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference in grammatical forms between tziva and tzavoto should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.

הני מילי היכא דליכא דדמי ליה אבל היכא דאיכא דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה ילפינן

The Gemara rejects this argument: This applies only where there are no terms that are identical to it; however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms that are identical to it, rather than from terms that are merely similar.

לכפר אלו מעשה יום הכפורים ואימא כפרה דקרבנות

§ The Gemara analyzes the verbal analogy from which the sequestering of the High Priest is derived. The Gemara states with regard to the phrase “to make atonement,” written in the context of the inauguration: These are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. The Gemara suggests: And say that it refers to the atonement of offerings in general, such that any priest engaged in sacrificing atonement offerings must be sequestered seven days beforehand.

מי ידעינן הי כהן מתרמי דבעי ליה פרישה אמרי אלמה לא ניבעי ליה פרישה לכוליה משמרת בית אב דנין דבר שקבוע לו זמן מדבר שקבוע לו זמן לאפוקי קרבנות דכל יומא איתנהו

The Gemara seeks to reject this suggestion from a practical perspective. Do we know in advance which priest will happen to sacrifice a given offering, and who would consequently require sequestering? The Sages say: Why not? There are certainly ways to do so. Each of the twenty-four priestly watches has set weeks during which it serves in the Temple, and the patrilineal families that constitute that watch have set days during that week on which each serves in the Temple. We could require sequestering for the entire patrilineal family of the priestly watch designated to serve on that day the following week. The Gemara rejects the suggestion that all priests should be sequestered prior to sacrificing an atonement offering. We derive a matter that has a fixed time during the year, Yom Kippur, from a matter that also has a fixed time, the inauguration of the priests for service in the Tabernacle, to the exclusion of offerings that are sacrificed every day.

ואימא רגלים דנין דבר שנוהג פעם אחת בשנה מדבר הנוהג פעם אחת בשנה לאפוקי רגלים דלאו פעם אחת בשנה נינהו

Again the Gemara asks: And say that one derives from the phrase “to make atonement” the principle of sequestering prior to sacrificing atonement offerings on the Festivals, which have fixed times. The Gemara rejects this: We derive a matter that is performed once a year, the service of Yom Kippur, from a matter that is performed once a year, like the inauguration, which was a one-time event, to the exclusion of the service on the Festivals, which is not performed once a year; rather, it is performed three times a year.

ואימא רגל אחד וכי תימא לא ידעינן הי מינייהו אי חג המצות הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב תחלה אי חג הסוכות הואיל ומרובה מצותו

The Gemara asks: And say that the service on one Festival of the three, which is performed once a year, should require sequestering. And if you say: We do not know which of them is the most significant and requires sequestering, since one could suggest that it is Passover, with which the verse opened, as the Torah always lists it first among the Festivals; or one could suggest that it is Sukkot, since its mitzva is to bring numerous offerings, many more than the number brought on the other Festivals.

אלא דנין פרישת שבעה ליום אחד מפרישת שבעה ליום אחד ואין דנין פרישת שבעה לשבעה מפרישת שבעה ליום אחד

Rather, the Gemara rejects this possibility and explains: One derives sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, Yom Kippur, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. And one does not derive sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for seven days, a Festival, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. Therefore, atonement offerings on Festivals are not derived from the inauguration.

ואימא שמיני דפרישת שבעה ליום אחד הוא דנין דבר שאין קדושה לפניו מדבר שאין קדושה לפניו ואין דנין דבר שיש קדושה לפניו מדבר שאין קדושה לפניו

The Gemara asks: And say that the sequestering for seven days is prior to the festival of the Eighth Day of Assembly, as that would also be sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day. The Gemara rejects this: One derives a matter before which there is not sanctity, Yom Kippur, which is preceded by weekdays, from a matter before which there is not sanctity, the day of the inauguration, which was also preceded by weekdays. And we do not derive a matter before which there is sanctity, the Eighth Day of Assembly, which is preceded by the seven days of Sukkot, from a matter before which there is not sanctity.

ולאו קל וחומר הוא השתא דבר שאין קדושה לפניו בעי פרישה דבר שיש קדושה לפניו לא כל שכן אמר רב משרשיא לא הזה כתיב כזה

The Gemara challenges this: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Now, if a matter before which there is not sanctity requires sequestering, due to its sanctity, then with regard to a matter before which there is sanctity, all the more so is it not clear that it should require sequestering? Rav Mesharshiyya said in rejection of this challenge: No, there is no a fortiori inference here, as the verse: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34), is written to emphasize specifically a day like this day; precisely as it was for the inauguration, and not in any other situation.

רב אשי אמר מי איכא מידי דעיקר רגל לא בעי פרישה טפל דידיה בעי פרישה ואפילו למאן דאמר שמיני רגל בפני עצמו הוא הני מילי לענין

Rav Ashi said: There is another reason why it could not be that sequestering is required prior to the Eighth Day of Assembly. Is there any matter where the primary Festival, the first day of Sukkot, does not require sequestering, as was already proven, while that which is secondary to it requires sequestering? Since the Eighth Day of Assembly is an addendum to Sukkot, could its sanctity and stringency be greater than that which is associated with the primary Festival? And even according to the one who said: The Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself and is not part of the festival of Sukkot, that applies only to the matter of