and similarly, when the Torah states: Make you, it means from your own property. However, according to the one who said that when the Torah states both phrases it means from communal property, what is there to say to distinguish between Yom Kippur and the other days?

As it was taught in a baraita that when the Torah states: Take you, it means from your own property, and when it states: Make you, it means from your own property; however, when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says that both when the Torah states: Take you, and when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: Take you, which seems to mean from your own property? It should be understood, as it were, that God said to Moses: I desire that it come from your property more than I desire it from theirs. Therefore, the taking was attributed to Moses even though it was actually from community property.

Abba Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one verse says: ''And make you an ark of wood'' (Deuteronomy 10:1), indicating that it should be from your own property; and one verse says on the same subject: ''And they shall make an ark of acacia wood'' (Exodus 25:10), meaning from the Jewish people. How can this contradiction be resolved? Here, the verse is referring to a time when the Jewish people perform the will of God and they are credited with building the Ark of the Covenant. There, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not perform the will of God, and construction of the Ark is attributed to Moses alone. According to that opinion, there is no difference between the offerings of Yom Kippur and other offerings.

The Gemara rejects this: They disagree only with regard to instances of taking in general and instances of making in general: Instances of taking in general are as in the verse: ''Take you spices'' (Exodus 30:34); and instances of making in general are as in the verse: ''Make you two silver trumpets'' (Numbers 10:2). However, in these cases of inauguration and of Yom Kippur the verses explicitly teach that the offerings must be from your own property. With regard to the inauguration, now, since it is written: ''And to the children of Israel you will speak, saying: Take a goat kid for a sin-offering and an unblemished year-old calf and lamb for burnt-offerings'' (Leviticus 9:3), with regard to the verse: ''And he said to Aaron: Take you a young calf for a sin-offering'' (Leviticus 9:2), why do I need this clear difference between the formulation of the command to the Jewish people and the formulation of the command to Aaron? Learn from it that in this context the phrase: Take you, means from your own property.

And with regard to Yom Kippur, now, since it is written: ''With this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering'' (Leviticus 16:3), with regard to the verse: ''And from the congregation of the children of Israel he will take two goat kids for a sin-offering and one ram for a burnt-offering and Aaron will offer his young bull as a sin-offering'' (Leviticus 16:5–6), why do I need the emphasis that the goats come from the property of the children of Israel? Learn from it that this term: His, written with regard to the calf, means it is from his own property.

Rav Ashi stated another reason that distinguishes Yom Kippur from Rosh HaShana and Shavuot. One derives the bull for a sin-offering and ram for a burnt-offering written with regard to Yom Kippur from the bull for a sin-offering and ram for a burnt-offering written with regard to the inauguration, to the exclusion of Rosh HaShana and Shavuot, on which both of them, the bull and the ram, are burnt-offerings.

Ravina stated another distinction: One derives a matter that is restricted to the service performed by the High Priest, Yom Kippur, from a matter that is restricted to the service performed by the High Priest, the inauguration, which was performed by Aaron, to the exclusion of all the difficulties raised from the beginning of the discussion, as on the other potential days raised, they are not restricted to service performed by the High Priest; rather, the service on those days may be performed by any priest.

And some say that Ravina said: One derives a matter that is an initial service from an initial service, to the exclusion of all these that are not initial services. That statement of Ravina is unclear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of initial service? If we say that initial service means one performed by the High Priest; that is identical to the first version of Ravina’s statement. Rather, it may be understood as follows: One derives the initial service performed in the place, the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, from the initial service performed in the place, the Tabernacle, on the eighth day of the inauguration. Therefore, it is the service of Yom Kippur alone that is derived from the inauguration.

§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: Rabbi Yoḥanan taught one case derived from the inauguration, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two. The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yoḥanan taught one: To do, to make atonement; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur that require sequestering beforehand, like the inauguration. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to atone, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. Both require sequestering.

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan teach only one case derived from the inauguration, i.e., Yom Kippur? Didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur, and in another mishna: Seven days prior to the burning of the heifer, the Sages would remove the priest from his home? Apparently, there are two cases in which the priest is sequestered. The Gemara answers: With regard to sequestering the priest prior to the burning of the heifer, the Sages merely established a higher standard. They issued a decree to underscore the sanctity of the ritual after they permitted its performance by a priest who immersed that day. There is no Torah source for the sequestering of the priest in that case.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Minyomi bar Ḥilkiya say that Rabbi Maḥseya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: ''As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you'' (Leviticus 8:34), from which it is derived: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to make atonement, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur? Apparently, even Rabbi Yoḥanan taught two cases derived from inauguration. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: That is the opinion of his teacher; however, he himself disagrees. As when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to atone, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. That which Rabbi Manyumei cited in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan was the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yishmael.

§ With regard to the sequestering of the priest, Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where did you derive this principle of sequestering? You derived it from the inauguration. If so, just as with regard to the inauguration, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates it, so too here, with regard to Yom Kippur, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the Yom Kippur service. All the halakhot of sequestering must be precisely observed.

And if you say: Indeed, that is so; didn’t we learn in the mishna: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and it is not taught with regard to the designated priest: Seven days before Yom Kippur they remove him from his house, although ultimately he may perform the Yom Kippur service. Apparently, failure to sequester the priest does not invalidate the service. And if you say in response: What is the meaning of: They would designate? It means: They would remove; that is implausible. Were that so, let the mishna teach either with regard to both this High Priest and that designated replacement: They would designate; or with regard to both this High Priest and that designated replacement: They would remove.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Rather, from where do you, Master, derive the halakha of sequestering before Yom Kippur? Reish Lakish said to him: I derive it from Sinai, as it is written: ''And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai and the cloud covered him [vaykhasehu] six days, and He called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud'' (Exodus 24:16). The masculine suffix hu in vaykhasehu can be interpreted either as him, referring to Moses, or as it, referring to the mountain. Now, since it states: ''And He called to Moses on the seventh day,'' what is derived from the previous explicit mention of six days? These six days are mentioned as a paradigm, from which a general principle is derived that anyone who enters the camp of the Divine Presence, the site of the revelation at Mount Sinai, or the place where the Divine Presence rests, the Holy of Holies, requires prior sequestering for six days of sanctification.

The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it seven, not six, days of sequestering that we learned in the mishna? Reish Lakish answered: The mishna that requires sequestering for seven days is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who is concerned