Yoma 62b (סב:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The two goats of Yom Kippur: It is a mitzva that both of them be alike in appearance, height, price, and in their purchase together.”

The Gemara now cites a beraita that explains the source of the words of the Mishna:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 16:5] concerning the Yom Kippur service: “And from the assembly of the Children of Israel

he shall take two he-goats

for a sin-offering.”

Even if it had stated only, “He shall take he-goats,” I would know that there are two, since

the minimum implied by “he-goats”

is

two [

because the minimum of a plural is at least two].

If so,

what is the purpose

of the superfluous word

“two”?

From here the Sages expounded:

That both of them must be alike.

And

from where

that

even though both are not alike, they are valid

after the fact?

The verse states, “goat —

goat”,

twice in the passage concerning the goats of Yom Kippur: once concerning the goat for the Lord, and once concerning the goat sent away. And thereby

the Torah included

that even if one differs from the other, they are valid after the fact.

And we infer from the words of the beraita:

The reason is that the Torah included it,

the reason that two goats that are not alike are valid after the fact is only because the verse took the trouble to include this through “goat” and “goat.”

And it follows:

Had the Torah not included it,

if the verse had not included that they are valid after the fact,

I would have said [

I would have said that they are

unfit.

But this is difficult:

That it is indispensable —

from where do we know this!?

How could we have thought that they are unfit? There is a general principle concerning all consecrated offerings that only matters repeated twice by the verse are indispensable when lacking.

Where did the verse repeat twice that the two goats must be alike?

And we answer:

It might have entered your mind to say

that the verse did in fact repeat it in order to make it indispensable, since

“two

goats,”

“two

goats,”

“two

goats”

is written three times in the passage concerning the sin-offering goats [

all three are superfluous, since the minimum of a plural is two, teaching that both must be alike].

From here one might have learned that the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. Therefore, had the verse not included “goat” and “goat,” teaching that even when the two are not alike they are valid, I would have said that they are indeed unfit.

We object:

But now that the Torah included,

and now that the verse included through the words

“goat” and “goat,”

teaching that even when the two goats are not alike they are valid, it is difficult:

-

Why do I need them?

For what purpose was the word “two” repeated three times?

And we answer:

One is for appearance,

teaching that both must be alike in color.

And one is for height,

teaching that they must be alike in height.

And one is for price,

teaching that both must be purchased for the same price.

It was taught likewise,

we learned similarly in another beraita,

with regard to the lambs of a leper.

It is stated concerning the leper [Leviticus 14:10]: “And on the eighth day

he shall take two male lambs.”

And even if it had stated only, “He shall take lambs,” I would know that they are two, since

the minimum of “lambs” is two.

If so,

what is the verse teaching

[For what purpose is it stated]

by saying “two”?

From here the Sages derived

that the two must be identical.

And from where is it derived that even if the two are not identical,

they are

valid

after the fact?

The verse teaches

[This is why it is stated]

“lamb” and “lamb”

—the word “lamb” is stated twice in the passage concerning the lambs of the leper, and its second occurrence is superfluous.

The Torah included

that even if one differs from the other, they are valid after the fact.

And we infer from the words of the beraita:

The reason is that the Merciful One included them in the Torah,

the reason we validate after the fact two lambs that are not identical is solely that the verse took the trouble to include them [by stating “lamb” and “lamb”].

And it follows:

Had the Merciful One not included them,

if the verse had not included the fact that they are valid after the fact,

I would have thought

that they are

invalid

even after the fact.

This is difficult:

That it is disqualifying—

from where do we derive this!?

Why would we think that they are invalid? There is a general rule concerning sacred offerings: only matters that the verse repeats twice are indispensable. And where did the verse repeat that the two lambs must be identical?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to say

that all the laws stated concerning the leper are indispensable after the fact, because

“it is written: ‘shall be.’”

At the beginning of the passage concerning the leper it is stated: “This shall be the law of the leper.” This implies that everything stated in the passage concerning the leper must remain in its prescribed form [as it is stated, without any alteration]; therefore, if one altered it, it is invalid.

Therefore, the verse had to include that even if the two lambs are not identical, they are valid after the fact.

And we challenge this:

But now that the Merciful One included it,

now that the verse included, through the words

“lamb” and “lamb,”

that even if the two lambs are not identical they are valid after the fact, it is difficult:

“Shall be”—

why do I need it

[For what purpose is the word “shall be” stated]?

And we answer:

For the rest of the prescribed form of the leper,

with regard to the other matters involved in the leper’s purification, to teach that if one altered their prescribed form, it is invalid.

And it was likewise taught

in another beraita

with regard to

the birds of the

leper, in a similar manner

[in the same way]:

It is stated concerning the leper [Leviticus 14:4]: “And the priest shall command, and he shall take for the one being purified two living pure birds.”

And we learned in a beraita: Had it stated

“birds”

[and not “two birds”], I would know that

the minimum of “birds”

is

two.

If so,

what is the verse teaching

[For what purpose is it stated]

by saying “two”?

It teaches you

that the two must be identical.

And from where is it derived

that even if they are not identical

they are

valid

after the fact?

The verse teaches,

this is why it is stated

“bird” and “bird”

[the word “bird” is stated twice in the Torah, and its second occurrence is superfluous]—

the Torah included

that even if they are not identical, they are valid after the fact.

And we infer from the words of the beraita:

The reason is that the Merciful One included them in the Torah,

the reason that birds that are not identical are valid is solely that the verse took the trouble to include them [by stating “bird” and “bird”].

And it follows:

Had

the verse

not included them

[if the verse had not included them],

I would have thought

that they are

invalid

even after the fact.

This is difficult:

That it is disqualifying—

from where do we derive this,

why would we think that they are invalid after the fact? There is a general rule concerning sacred offerings that only if the verse repeats a matter twice is it indispensable. And where did the verse repeat that the two birds must be identical?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to say

that all the laws stated concerning the leper are indispensable after the fact, because

“‘shall be’ is written,”

at the beginning of the passage concerning the leper it is stated: “This shall be the law of the leper,” implying that everything stated in the passage concerning the leper must remain in its prescribed form [as it is stated, without any alteration]; and if one altered it, it is invalid.

Therefore, the verse had to include that even if the two birds are not identical, they are valid after the fact.

And we challenge this:

But now that the Merciful One included it,

now that the verse included, through the words

“bird”

“bird,” that even if the two birds are not identical they are valid after the fact, it is difficult:

“Shall be”—

why do I need it

[For what purpose is the word “shall be” stated]?

And we answer:

For the rest of the prescribed form of the leper,

with regard to the other matters involved in the leper’s purification, to teach that if one altered their prescribed form, it is invalid.

In summary: We have found three instances in which two offerings must be identical:

a. The two goats of Yom Kippur.

b. The two lambs of the leper.

c. The two birds of the leper.

And in all three instances, the Sages derived this from the word “two” [or “two” in the feminine or masculine form].

And we challenge this:

If so,

if this is so [that we derive from the word “two” that the two must be identical],

with regard to the daily offerings—

let us say likewise

[let it be stated] as follows:

It is stated concerning them: “Lambs in their first year, two each day as a regular offering” [Exodus 29:38].

Had it stated

“lambs,”

I would know that

the minimum of “lambs” is two.

If so,

what is the verse teaching

[For what purpose is it stated]

by saying “two”?

It teaches you

that the two must be identical.

And from where is it derived that even if the two are not identical

nevertheless they are

valid?

The verse teaches

[This is why it is stated]

“lamb” and “lamb”

[the word “lamb” is stated twice concerning the regular offering, and its second occurrence is superfluous]—

the Torah included

that even if they are not identical, they are valid.

And

we learn from here that although two daily-offering lambs that are not identical are valid after the fact, nevertheless

as a mitzva—

is it indeed required,

as an initial preference, to bring two identical lambs!

And why did we not state this law anywhere with regard to the daily offerings? This implies that the two lambs of the daily offering need not be identical!?

And we answer:

That

“two” stated concerning the daily offering is not superfluous, but rather

is needed for that which was taught

in the following beraita:

For this is what we learned in a beraita: It is stated concerning the daily offering [Numbers 28:3]

“two each day.”

And the Sages derived that the meaning of the verse’s words “each day” is

“opposite the day,”

opposite the sun: the daily offering may not be slaughtered in a place where there is shade.

From where

do you say

that the intent of the verse is

“opposite the day”?

Or,

perhaps

it does not

intend

rather

that there should be “two each day”—for

the obligation of the day!?

And to teach you that two are required every day!

When

the verse

says

[in the following verse]:

“You shall offer one lamb in the morning, and the second lamb you shall offer in the evening”—

the obligation of the day has been stated!

From this I understand that the two lambs are brought every day.

And

from now,

what do I establish

[For what purpose is it stated]

“two each day”?

The verse must necessarily mean

“opposite the day”!

And the beraita continues and says:

How

is the slaughter performed opposite the day?

That is: In which place in the Temple courtyard was the daily offering slaughtered?

The slaughter of an olah and of other most sacred offerings was performed north of the altar, because it is stated [Leviticus 1:11]: “And he shall slaughter it on the northern side of the altar, before the Lord.”

There were twenty-four rings on the northern side of the altar [corresponding to the twenty-four priestly watches]. The animal’s neck was placed into them at the time of slaughter.

The morning daily offering was slaughtered at the northwestern corner

opposite the northwestern corner of the altar [where the rings were located], because in the morning the sun rises in the east at the edge of the heavens, while the courtyard walls were high. The shadow therefore fell a considerable distance toward the eastern wall. Accordingly, they moved the daily offering as far west as possible, so that its slaughter would be opposite the daylight.

That is, they slaughtered the daily offering opposite the “northern corner,” because its slaughtering place was in the north, where the rings were located. “Western”—so that there would be no shadow over the place of slaughter.

They did not slaughter at the ring nearest the altar, but rather

on

the

ring

the

second

from it, which was farther toward the north. The face of the slaughterer and the animal’s neck were angled toward the northeast, from which direction the sun comes in the morning, so that the slaughter would be opposite the day [opposite the sun].

[And why did they slaughter the animal at the second ring? Some say that it was so that the first ring could assist the slaughterer in holding the animal’s legs, so that it would not turn over.]

And

the

afternoon daily offering was slaughtered at the northeastern corner,

because in the afternoon the sun shines from the west. To prevent the shadows of the walls from falling over the place of slaughter, they moved the daily offering as far east as possible.

They did not slaughter at the ring nearest the altar, but rather

on

the

ring

the

second.

The face of the slaughterer and the animal’s neck were angled toward the southwest, since the sun’s light in the evening comes from there.

In summary: The Gemara’s conclusion is that “two each day,” stated concerning the daily offering, teaches that the daily offering was slaughtered opposite the day. One may not derive from it that the two lambs must be identical.

And the Gemara adds:

The additional offerings of Shabbat,

concerning which it is stated, “And on the day of Shabbat, two lambs” [Numbers 28:9],

certainly require that the two

[the two lambs]

be identical. [Had it stated only “lambs,” I would know that the minimum of “lambs” is two. Why, then, was “two” stated? To teach you that the two must be identical.]

[For had it stated “lambs,” I would know that the minimum number indicated by “lambs” is two. Why, then, does it state “two”? To teach you that the two must be alike.]

The sugya before us discusses one who slaughters the two goats of Yom Kippur outside the Temple courtyard:

One who slaughters a sacrifice outside the Temple courtyard intentionally is liable for karet.

As it is stated [Leviticus 16:3]: “Any man of the House of Israel who slaughters an ox, sheep, or goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting—the man shall be cut off from among his people.” And the same law applies to one who offers a sacrifice outside the camp [there, verses 9–10].

And if witnesses warned him [not to slaughter or offer it outside the courtyard], he is liable to lashes.

One who slaughters or offers consecrated animals outside is liable only for consecrated animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. But for a blemished animal or other animals that are unfit to be offered on the altar, he is exempt. As it is stated [there]: “And he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” From here it follows that there is liability only for a sacrifice that is fit to be brought to the Tent of Meeting.

The Sages taught: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, if one slaughtered them outside:

If he slaughtered them

before casting lots for them—

he is liable for both of them.

But if he slaughtered them

after casting lots for them—

he is liable

only

for the one designated for God,

because it is fit to be offered in the Tent of Meeting,

and he is exempt for the one designated for Azazel,

because it is not fit to be offered inside.

And we raise a difficulty: Why did the beraita say that if he slaughtered them

before casting lots for them, he is liable for both of them?

Yet, before the casting of lots, these two goats—

what are they fit for!?

For which sacrifice can they be offered before the casting of lots? If they are not fit to be offered, one who slaughters them outside is exempt!

Rav Ḥisda said

in answer:

since

each of the goats

is fit

to be offered before the casting of lots

as the goat

for the Yom Kippur additional offering

that is performed outside,

therefore, one who slaughters it outside the courtyard is liable.

It follows from Rav Ḥisda’s words that neither of the two goats is considered fit to be offered as the goat for God that is performed inside, except only after the casting of lots. And only because it can be offered before the casting of lots as the goat of the additional sin-offering that is performed outside is it considered “fit for offering”; therefore, one who slaughters or offers it outside is liable.

We raise a difficulty:

What is the difference

as to why he should not be liable for slaughtering and offering it outside because it is fit to be offered

as the goat performed inside, which is not

considered fit for offering because

it lacks the casting of lots

?

If so,

with regard to the goat performed outside—

it is likewise not fit

for this goat to be offered,

since

as it is still

lacking

all the rites of

the day’s service!

Namely, the placing of the blood of the bull of the sin-offering and of the inner goat, and the taking of the handful of incense and its burning. All of these must be performed before the slaughter of the additional offerings [including the outer goat]!

And if so, why is one who slaughters it outside before the casting of lots liable?

We answer:

Rav Ḥisda holds: There is no

defect in

an animal lacking its time

if it is possible

to

to offer it

on that very day.

That is, an animal that has no deficiency requiring an act to be performed upon its body, but merely lacks the proper time—as here, where the time of the additional offerings has not yet arrived—this is not a deficiency that causes the goat to be considered unfit for offering in the Tent of Meeting [since no act need be performed upon the body of the goat, and it will automatically become fit for offering during that day].

Therefore, before casting lots for them, the two goats are not fit to serve as the inner goat, because they lack the act of casting lots, and this act is a mitzva stated with regard to them.

And although the casting of lots is not performed upon their actual bodies, nevertheless, since the mitzva of casting lots was stated with regard to them, they are considered as though they were unfit to be offered in the Tent of Meeting.

But with regard to the goat of the additional offering performed outside, although all the rites of the day that must be performed before the additional offerings are still lacking, nevertheless, this does not cause the goats to be considered unfit for offering, since they do not lack an act of a mitzva stated with regard to them.

And there is no defect in an animal lacking its time when it can be offered on that very day.

Ravina said: Now [נow]

that is, now

that Rav Ḥisda said

that

one lacking the casting of lots

although the casting of lots is not an act performed upon the bodies of the goats themselves, nevertheless

it is considered like an animal lacking an act,

since the casting of lots was stated with regard to them, it is considered like an act performed upon their bodies,

from here we learn with regard to

that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel

in another matter:

With regard to peace-offerings, if one slaughtered them

in the morning,

before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened, they are invalid.

This is because

it is stated [ויקרא ג]with regard to a peace-offering

:

“And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

The expression “entrance” indicates

when it is open, but not when it is locked.