יומא 2 — parallel

2:1

MISHNAH. SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE DAY OF ATONEMENT THE HIGH PRIEST WAS REMOVED FROM HIS HOUSE TO THE CELL OF THE COUNSELLORS AND ANOTHER PRIEST WAS PREPARED TO TAKE HIS PLACE IN CASE ANYTHING HAPPENED TO HIM [THE HIGH PRIEST] THAT WOULD UNFIT HIM [FOR THE SERVICE]. R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO ANOTHER WIFE WAS PREPARED FOR HIM IN CASE HIS WIFE SHOULD DIE. FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND HE SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIMSELF AND FOR HIS HOUSE. ‘HIS HOUSE THAT MEANS ‘HIS WIFE’. THEY SAID TO HIM: IF SO THERE WOULD BE NO END TO THE MATTER. GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: Seven days before the burning of the [red] heifer the priest who was to burn the heifer was removed from his house to the cell in the north-eastern corner before the Birah. It was called the cell of the stone chamber. And why was it called the cell of the stone chamber? Because all its functions [in connection with the red heifer] had to be performed only in vessels made of either cobble-stones, stone or earthenware. What was the reason [for that restriction]? Since a tebul-yom was permitted to [perform the ceremony of] the heifer, as we have learnt: They [deliberately] rendered the priest ritually impure to remove [a false notion] from the minds of the Sadducees, who used to say: ‘Only by those on whom the sun has set could it be performed’, the Rabbis ordained that only vessels made of cobble-stones, stone, or earthenware which are immune to impurity — should be used in connection with the heifer, lest the ceremony thereof be treated slightly. Why [was the ceremony performed] in the north-eastern corner? — Since the heifer was a sin-offering and a sin-offering had to be sacrificed in the northern corner, whereas, on the other hand, it is written about the heifer, Towards the front of the tent of meeting, the Rabbis ordained [for the heifer] a cell in the northeastern corner, so that [the special importance of this ceremony] be clearly recognized. What is Birah? — Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: There was a place on the Temple mount called Birah. Resh Lakish said: The whole sanctuary is called Birah, as it is written, And to build the Birah for which I have made provision. Whence is it proved that it is necessary to remove the priest [from his house]? — R. Minyumi b. Hilkiah in the name of R. Mahsiah b. Idi, in the name of R. Johanan said: The text reads: As hath been done this day, so the Lord hath commanded to do, to make atonement for you; the work la'asoth [to do] refers to the matter of the [red] heifer, the words lekapper ‘alekem [to make atonement for you] refer to the work of the Day of Atonement. It is obvious that the whole of this text could not be taken as referring to the heifer, because of the words ‘to atone’ and the heifer has nothing to do with atonement. But let us assume that the whole text refers to the Day of Atonement? — They said [in answer to this suggestion]: One may infer from, the fact that the identical expression ziwwah [he commanded] is used. Here it is written: The Lord ziwwah [commanded] to do, and there it is written: This is the statute of the law which the Lord ziwwah [has commanded]: just as in the latter [passage ziwwah] refers to the heifer, so does it in the former refer to the heifer, and just as the removal [of the priest is enjoined] in the one, so must the removal [of the priest apply] to the other.

—

2:2

But perhaps say that [the word] ziwwah [he commanded] has reference to [the word] ziwwah which occurs in connection with the Day of Atonement, since the verse reads, And he did as the Lord ziwwah [commanded] Moses? — One may infer from [the word] ziwwah used before conformity for another case in which ziwwah is used also before conformity, but one may not infer ziwwah is used before conformity for ziwwah used after conformity. Perhaps ziwwah has reference to sacrifices, for it is written, On the day when the Lord zawwotho [commanded] the children of Israel? — One may fitly infer ziwwah from ziwwah, but one may not infer zawwotho from ziwwah. But what does it matter? Did not the school of R. Ishmael teach that [in the verse], The priest shall return or the priest shall come in, ‘returning’ and ‘coming in’ mean one and the same thing? — These words [of the school of R. Ishmael] apply only when there is no identical word, but where such a similar word is used, the inference may be made only on the basis of absolute identity of expression. — [We stated above that the word] ‘lekapper’ [to atone] has reference to the Day of Atonement. May it not refer [also] to the atonement resulting from a sacrifice? — How could we know which priest would happen to perform the sacrifice so that he would have to be removed [from his house]? But why should we not really have to postulate such separation for the whole priestly division? — It is proper to make inference from something for which a definite time is appointed for something which similarly is fixed for a definite time. That excludes any inference [from the consecration of the priest, an annual event] to sacrifices which are offered up every day. Perhaps [the reference is to] the [three] festivals? — One may infer something which takes place but once a year from something else which took place but once a year, but inference for these festivals is excluded since they do not take place but once a year. Perhaps [the reference is] to one festival. And if you would answer [by saying], We would not know to which [it has reference], [it would be] either the festival of Passover, which Scripture always mentions [as the first of the three], or the feast of Sukkoth, because a great number of commandments apply to it! -The point is, however, that you may infer the [law of the priest's] removal [from his house] for seven days before the service which he is to perform on one day from [another case in which the priest is] removed also for seven days for the service of one day; but one may not fitly infer that [a priest must be] removed for seven days for the service of seven days from the fact that a law exists obliging [the priest's] removal for seven days for the service of one day. Yet perhaps [the reference is to] the Eighth Day because there would be a service of only one day? — One may infer [laws concerning] a day which is not immediately preceded by another [festival] sanctity from another day, which similarly is not preceded by other [festival] sanctity, but one may not infer for a day preceded by [festival] Sanctity from a day unpreceded by such. But [even if the inference by analogy be unjustified] is there no legitimate conclusion a minori ad majus, viz., if a day unpreceded by another [festival] sanctity requires [for the officiating priest] a seven day removal [from his family], how much more should a day preceded by another [festival] sanctity require it! — R. Mesharsheya answered: Scripture expressly states this day, that means on a day like this. R. Ashi said: Could there be any festival the major part of which would require no removal [of the priest], while its attachment would require it. And even according to the one who holds that the eighth day is [not a mere attachment to Sukkoth, but] an independent festival day, that applies only to

—