Commentary for Kiddushin 74:6
ואידך משום דהוה מלך וביכורים שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין
And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna: why does he insist on both?');"><sup>7</sup></span> - Because [the appointment of a] king and [the offering of] first-fruits are two verses with the same teaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fuller definition is also stated with respect to first-fruits, ibid, XXVI, 1: And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The other baraita holds that the appointment of a king is not a paradigm because there is another verse that also uses both verbs—Deuteronomy 26:1 about first fruits. Since there are two verses that use these verbs, it is a case of “two verses that come as one” and in any such case they do not serve as paradigms for other cases.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy