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. וְאֵימָא, ״צִוָּה״ [״צִוָּה״] דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַשׂ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה״? דָּנִין ״צִוָּה״ דְּלִפְנֵי עֲשִׂיָּה מִ״צִּוָּה״ דְּלִפְנֵי עֲשִׂיָּה, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״צִוָּה״ דִּלְאַחַר עֲשִׂיָּה מִ״צִּוָּה״ דְּלִפְנֵי עֲשִׂיָּה.
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]. וְאֵימָא ״צִוָּה״ דְּקׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּיוֹם צַוֹּתוֹ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״? דָּנִין ״צִוָּה״ מִ״צִּוָּה״ וְאֵין דָּנִין ״צַוֹּתוֹ״ מִ״צִּוָּה״.
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. וּמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? וְהָתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״, זוֹ הִיא ״שִׁיבָה״, זוֹ הִיא ״בִּיאָה״!
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. הָנֵי מִילֵּי, הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ — מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.
§ 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. ״לְכַפֵּר״ אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְאֵימָא כַּפָּרָה דְּקׇרְבָּנוֹת!

Koren Talmud Bavli (Steinsaltz Center)

The Koren Talmud Bavli is a groundbreaking edition of the Talmud that fuses the innovative design of Koren Publishers Jerusalem with the incomparable scholarship of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

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. מִי יָדְעִינַן הֵי כֹּהֵן מִתְרְמֵי, דְּבָעֵי לֵיהּ פְּרִישָׁה? אָמְרִי, אַלְּמָה לָא?! נִיבְעֵי לֵיהּ פְּרִישָׁה לְכוּלֵּיהּ מִשְׁמֶרֶת בֵּית אָב! דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן מִדָּבָר שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי קׇרְבָּנוֹת, דְּכׇל יוֹמָא אִיתַנְהוּ.
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. וְאֵימָא רְגָלִים! דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁנּוֹהֵג פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה מִדָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה, לְאַפּוֹקֵי רְגָלִים, דְּלָאו פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה נִינְהוּ.
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. וְאֵימָא רֶגֶל אֶחָד! וְכִי תֵּימָא: לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ, אִי חַג הַמַּצּוֹת, הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה, אִי חַג הַסּוּכּוֹת, הוֹאִיל וּמְרוּבָּה מִצְוָתוֹ!
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. אֶלָּא: דָּנִין פְּרִישַׁת שִׁבְעָה לְיוֹם אֶחָד, מִפְּרִישַׁת שִׁבְעָה לְיוֹם אֶחָד. וְאֵין דָּנִין פְּרִישַׁת שִׁבְעָה לְשִׁבְעָה, מִפְּרִישַׁת שִׁבְעָה לְיוֹם אֶחָד.
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. וְאֵימָא שְׁמִינִי, דִּפְרִישַׁת שִׁבְעָה לְיוֹם אֶחָד הוּא! דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁה לְפָנָיו מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁה לְפָנָיו, וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְדוּשָּׁה לְפָנָיו מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁה לְפָנָיו.
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. וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? הַשְׁתָּא דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁה לְפָנָיו בָּעֵי פְּרִישָׁה, דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְדוּשָּׁה לְפָנָיו — לָא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן! אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: לָא, ״הַזֶּה״ כְּתִיב: כָּזֶה.
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 רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּעִיקַּר רֶגֶל לָא בָּעֵי פְּרִישָׁה, טָפֵל דִּידֵיהּ בָּעֵי פְּרִישָׁה? וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שְׁמִינִי רֶגֶל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן