Yoma 62b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The two goats of Yom Kippur: their mitzva is that both of them should be equal in appearance, height, price, and in their purchase at one time.”

The Gemara now brings a beraita explaining the source of the words of the Mishna:

The Sages taught:

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

he shall take two he-goats

for a sin-offering.”

And even if it had said only, “He shall take he-goats,” I would know that they are two, for

the minimum meaning of “he-goats”

is

two [since the minimum of a plural is at least two].

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

If so,

what is the purpose of the word

the superfluous word

“two”?

From here the Sages derived:

That both of them should be equal.

And

from where

do we know that

although both of them are not equal, they are valid

after the fact?

The verse says “goat

—

goat” twice, concerning the goats of Yom Kippur. Once concerning the goat for the Lord and once concerning the sent-away goat. And through this

the verse included

that even if one is different 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,

the reason that two goats which are not equal are valid after the fact is only because the verse took the trouble to include them [“goat,” “goat

”]. And it follows:

Had the Merciful One not included,

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.

And this is difficult:

Indispensability—

from where do we know it!?

How would we have thought that they are unfit? After all, there is a rule concerning all consecrated matters that only matters concerning which the verse repeated itself twice are indispensable when lacking.

And where did the verse repeat twice that the two goats should be equal?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to say,

it might have occurred to you to say that indeed the verse repeated it concerning them to make it indispensable. For

“two”

goats,

“two”

goats,

“two”

goats

is written

three times concerning the sin-offering goats [and all three are superfluous, since the minimum of a plural is two], teaching that both of them must be equal.

And from here there would be room to learn that the verse repeated it concerning them to make it indispensable. Therefore, had the verse not included “goat,” “goat,” that even when both of them are not equal they are valid, I would have said that they are indeed unfit.

And we ask:

And now that the Merciful One included,

and now that the verse included in the words

“goat,” “goat,”

and taught that even when the two goats are not equal they are valid, this is difficult:

“two,” “two,” “two” -

why do I need it?

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

And we answer:

One is for appearance,

that both of them should be equal in color.

And one is for height,

to teach that they should be equal in height.

And one is for price,

to teach that both of them should be purchased for the same price.

It was also taught so,

we learned in another beraita something similar, concerning

the lambs of a leper.

It is stated [Leviticus 15:10] concerning the leper: “And on the eighth day

he shall take two 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.

And if so,

what is the purpose of stating

for what purpose was it stated

“two”?

From here the Sages derived

that both of them must be alike.

And from where

are they

valid

after the fact, even though the two of them are not alike?

The verse states

for this it was stated

“lamb” “lamb”

the word “lamb,” which is superfluous, was stated twice concerning the lambs of the leper.

The verse included

that even if one is different 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 it,

the reason that we validate after the fact two lambs that are not alike is only because the verse took the trouble to include them [“lamb,” “lamb”].

And it implies:

if the Merciful One had not included it,

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

I would have thought

I would have said that they are

invalid

even after the fact.

And this is difficult:

an impediment—

from where do we know it!?

Why would we think that they are invalid? There is a rule concerning sacred things that only matters which the verse repeated twice are matters that impede. And where did the verse repeat that the two lambs must be alike?

And we answer:

it might enter your mind to say,

it might enter your mind to say that all the laws stated concerning the leper impede after the fact, because

“it shall be” is written

at the beginning of the section of the leper it is stated, “This shall be the law of the leper.” And it implies that everything stated in the section of the leper shall be in its stated form [as it is stated, without any change], and therefore if he changed it, it is invalid.

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

And we object:

and now that the Merciful One included it,

and now that the verse included, in the words

“lamb” “lamb”,

that even if the two lambs are not alike, they are valid after the fact, if so this is difficult:

“it shall be”—

why do I need it

for what purpose was the word “shall be” stated?

And we answer:

for the rest of the leper’s being,

concerning the other matters that were involved with the leper, to teach that if he changed their form, it is invalid.

And it was also taught

and it was taught in another beraita

concerning

the birds of the

leper in this same manner

similarly:

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

And we learned in a beraita: If it had stated

“birds”

and not “two birds,” I would know that

the minimum of birds

is

two.

If so,

what is the purpose of stating

for what purpose was it stated

“two”?

To teach you

that both of them must be alike.

And from where

that even though they are not alike

they

are valid

after the fact?

The verse states,

for this it was stated

“bird” “bird”

the word “bird,” which is superfluous, was stated twice in the Torah—

the verse included

that even though they are not alike, they are valid after the fact.

And we infer from the words of the beraita:

the reason is that the Merciful One included it,

the reason that birds that are not alike are valid is only because the verse took the trouble to include them [“bird,” “bird”].

And it implies:

indeed,

if

the Merciful One had not included it

if the verse had not included them,

I would have thought

I would have said that they are

invalid

even after the fact.

And this is difficult:

an impediment—

from where do we know it,

why would we think that they are invalid after the fact? There is a rule concerning sacred things that only when the verse repeated a matter twice does it impede, and where did the verse repeat that the two birds must be alike?

And we answer:

it might enter your mind to say,

it might enter your mind to say that all the laws stated concerning the leper impede after the fact, because

“it shall be” is written,

at the beginning of the section of the leper it is stated, “This ‘shall be’ the law of the leper,” and it implies that everything stated in the section of the leper shall be in its stated form [as it is stated, without any change], and if he changed it, it is invalid.

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

And we object:

and now that the Merciful One included it,

and now that the verse included, in the words

“bird”

“bird,” that even if the two birds are not alike, they are valid after the fact, if so this is difficult:

“it shall be”

—why do I need it

for what purpose was the word “shall be” stated?

And we answer:

for the rest of the leper’s being,

concerning the other matters that were involved with the leper, to teach that if he changed their form, it is invalid.

In summary: We found three places where two equivalent sacrifices must be brought:

A. The two goats of the Day of Atonement.

B. The two lambs of the leper.

C. The two birds of the leper.

And in all three places, the Sages derived this from the word “two” [or “two,” or “two”].

And we object:

if so,

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

the daily offerings—

let us say likewise

let it be said likewise:

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

If it had stated

“lambs”,

I would know that

the minimum of lambs is two.

If so,

what is the purpose of stating

for what purpose was it stated

“two”?

To teach you

that both of them must be alike.

And from where that even though the two of them are not alike

nevertheless they are

valid?

The verse states

for this it was stated

“lamb” “lamb”

the word “lamb,” which is superfluous, was stated twice concerning the regular offering—

the verse included

that even though they are not alike, they are valid.

And

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

as a mitzva—

is it indeed likewise required,

as an initial preference, to bring two lambs that are alike!

And why was this law never taught anywhere concerning the daily offerings? And it implies that it is not necessary that the two lambs of the daily offering be alike!?

And we answer:

that “two” that was stated concerning the regular offering is not superfluous, but

the word “two” stated concerning the daily offering is not unnecessary. Rather,

is needed for that which was taught,

it is needed for the exposition taught in a beraita:

For so we learned in a beraita: It is stated [Numbers 28:3] concerning the regular offering

“two each day.”

And the Sages expounded that the meaning of “each day” is

“opposite the day,”

opposite the sun. He should not slaughter the regular offering in a place where there is shade.

From where

do you say

that the intention 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

there [verse 4]:

“The one lamb you shall make in the morning, and the second lamb you shall make between the evenings”

—the obligation of the day has been stated!

From here I understand that the two lambs come every day.

And

from now on

what do I establish

for what purpose was it stated

“two each day”?

Necessarily, the intention of the verse is to say—

“opposite the day!”

And the beraita continues and says:

How

is the slaughtering that is opposite the day performed?

That is: In which place in the courtyard did they slaughter the regular offering?

The slaughtering of the burnt-offering and of the other most holy sacrifices was performed north of the altar. For it is stated [Leviticus 1:11]: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar, northward, before the Lord.”

And there were twenty-four rings to the north of the altar [corresponding to the twenty-four priestly watches]. Into them they inserted the animal’s neck at the time of slaughtering.

The morning regular offering was slaughtered at the northwestern corner.

Opposite the northwestern corner of the altar [at the place where the rings were], because in the morning the sun rises from the east at the edge of the firmament, and the walls of the courtyard were high. The shadow fell opposite the eastern wall, at a distance. Therefore they moved the regular offering as far as possible toward the west, so that the slaughtering of the regular offering would be opposite the light of day.

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

And he would not slaughter at the ring closest to the altar, but

on

the

ring

the

second

to it, which was drawn toward the north. And the slaughterer’s face and the animal’s neck were diagonally toward the northeast, from where the sun comes in the morning, so that the slaughtering would be opposite the day [opposite the sun].

And for what reason did they slaughter the animal on the second ring? Some say: So that the first ring would assist the slaughterer in holding the animal’s legs with it, so that it would not turn over .

And

the

afternoon regular offering was slaughtered at the northeastern corner,

because in the afternoon the sun shines from the west. And so that the shadow of the walls would not fall upon the place of slaughtering, they moved the regular offering as far as possible toward the east.

And he would not slaughter at the ring closest to the altar, but

on

the

ring

the

second.

And the slaughterer’s face and the animal’s neck were directed diagonally toward the southwest, for the setting of the sun in the evening comes from there.

In summary: The Gemara’s conclusion is that “two each day,” which was stated concerning the regular offering, comes to teach that the slaughtering of the regular offering was opposite the day. We do not learn from there that the two lambs must be alike.

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 must be both of them

the two lambs

alike.

For had it stated “lambs,” I would know that the minimum of lambs is two. And why was “two” stated? To teach you that both of them must be alike.

The sugya before us discusses one who slaughters the two goats of the Day of Atonement outside the courtyard:

One who slaughters an offering outside the courtyard deliberately is liable to karet.

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

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

One who slaughters or offers sacred animals outside is liable only for sacred animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. But for a blemished animal or for other animals that are not fit 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: there is liability only for an offering that is fit to be brought to the Tent of Meeting.

The Sages taught: The two goats of Yom Kippur that he slaughtered outside:

If he slaughtered them

before the lots were cast for them—

he is liable for both of them.

But if he slaughtered them

after the lots were cast for them—

he is liable

only

for the one for the Name,

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

and he is exempt for the one 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 the lots were cast for them, he is liable for both of them?

But these two goats, before the lots were cast—

for what are they fit!?

For which offering could they be offered before the lots were cast? But if they are not fit to be offered, one who slaughters them outside is exempt!

Rav Hisda said

a resolution:

Since

each of the goats

is fit

to be offered before the lots were cast

for the goat

of the sin-offering of the additional offerings of Yom Kippur

that is performed outside,

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

And from Rav Hisda’s words it is to be learned that each of the two goats is not considered fit to be offered as the goat for the Name that is performed inside, except only after the lots are cast. And only because it is possible to offer it before the lots are cast as the goat of the sin-offering of the additional offerings that is performed outside, is it considered “fit for offering”; therefore, one who slaughters it or offers it outside is liable.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is different

Why should he not be liable for slaughtering it and offering it outside because it is fit to offer it

as the goat that is performed inside, which is not

considered fit for offering because

it lacks the casting of lots

?

If so,

for the goat that is performed outside—

it is likewise not fit

this goat for offering,

for

it is still

lacking

all the acts of

the service of the day!

That is, 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. For all these must be performed before the slaughtering of the additional offerings [and among them the outer goat]!

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

And we answer:

Rav Hisda holds: There is no

defect in

one lacking its time

if it is possible

to

offer it

on that same day.

That is, an animal in which there is no deficiency of an act in its body, but in which there is a deficiency of time—for example, here, that the time of the additional offerings has not yet arrived—is not a deficiency that causes the goat to be considered as one that is not fit to be offered in the Tent of Meeting [for there is no need to perform any act upon the body of the goat, and by itself it will become fit for offering during that day].

Therefore, the two goats, before the lots are cast for them, are not fit to be the inner goat, for they lack the act of casting lots, and this act is a mitzva stated concerning them.

And even though the casting of lots is not performed upon their bodies ממש, nevertheless, since the mitzva of casting lots was stated concerning them, they are like those that are not fit to be offered in the Tent of Meeting.

But concerning the goat of the additional offerings that is performed outside, despite the fact that all the acts of the service of the day that must be performed before the additional offerings are still lacking, nevertheless, this does not cause the goats to be considered as ones that are not fit for offering, since they do not lack an act of a mitzva stated concerning them.

And there is no defect in one lacking its time when it is on that same day.

Ravina said: Now

that

Rav Hisda said

that

one lacking the casting of lots

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

is considered like one lacking an act,

for since the casting of lots was stated concerning them, it is like an act upon their bodies,

from here we learn concerning

that which Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel

in another matter:

Peace-offerings that he slaughtered

in the morning,

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

Because

it is stated

[Leviticus 3] concerning the peace-offering:

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

Entrance” means

at a time when it is open, and not at a time when it is locked.