Yoma 124

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר (ויקרא טז, ה) יקח שני שעירי עזים מיעוט שעירי שנים מה תלמוד לומר שני שיהיו שניהן שוים מניין אע"פ שאין שניהן שוין כשירין תלמוד לומר שעיר שעיר ריבה

Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take. two he-goats,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 5.');">¹</span>

טעמא דרבי רחמנא הא לא רבי רחמנא הוה אמינא פסולין עיכובא מנא לן

now the minimum of he-goats is two; why then is 'two' mentioned? To indicate that the two be alike.

סלקא דעתך אמינא שני שני שני כתיב

Whence do we know that even if the two are not alike they are valid? Therefore the text reads: 'He-goat', 'he-goat',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9, 10.');">²</span>

והשתא דרבי רחמנא שעיר שעיר שני שני שני למה לי חד למראה וחד לקומה וחד לדמים

which is inclusive [widens the scope]. Now the reason, then, is only that the Divine Law expressly includes it, but had the Divine Law not done so, one would have assumed that they are invalid.

תניא נמי הכי גבי כבשי מצורע (ויקרא יד, י) יקח שני כבשים מיעוט כבשים שנים מה תלמוד לומר שני שיהיו שניהן שוין ומנין שאף על פי שאין שניהן שוין כשירין תלמוד לומר כבש כבש ריבה

Whence do we derive this indispensability? - You might have thought that we say: 'Two' is written three times.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 5, 7, 8 and thus indicates indispensability.');">³</span> But now that the Divine Law has twice written 'he-goat' what is the purpose of 'two' written three times? - One applies to appearance, the other to size, the third to value.

טעמא דרבי רחמנא הא לא רבי רחמנא הוה אמינא פסולין עיכובא מנא לן סלקא דעתך אמינא תהיה כתיב

It has been similarly taught in connection with the lambs of the leper: And he shall take two lambs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 10.');">⁴</span> Now the minimum of lambs is two, then why does the text say: 'Two'?

והשתא דרבי רחמנא כבש כבש תהיה למה לי לשאר הויתו של מצורע

To indicate that the two be alike. Whence do we know that even if the two be not alike, they are valid?

(ותנן) נמי גבי מצורע כי האי גוונא (ויקרא יד, ד) צפרים מיעוט צפרים (שנים) מה תלמוד לומר שתי שיהיו שתיהן שוות ומנין שאע"פ שאינן שוות כשרות תלמוד לומר צפור צפור ריבה

Therefore the text reads: 'Lamb', 'lamb',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 12, 13.');">⁵</span> which is inclusive [widens the scope].

טעמא דרבי רחמנא הא לא רבי רחמנא פסולות עכובא מנא לן סלקא דעתך אמינא תהיה כתיב

Now the reason is only that the Divine Law expressly includes it, but had the Divine Law not done so, one would have assumed that they are invalid, whence do we assume this indispensability? - You might have thought we say: It is written: [This] shall be [the law].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 2. 'Shall be' implies precise instructions from which there may be no deviation.');">⁶</span> But now that the Divine Law has said: 'Lamb', 'lamb', what purpose serves 'shall be'? - That refers to the rest of the status of the leper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the other regulations relating to the purification of the leper.');">⁷</span>

והשתא דרבי רחמנא צפור תהיה למה לי לשאר הויתו של מצורע

It was similarly taught in connection with the [birds of] the leper: Birds;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 4.');">⁸</span> now the minimum of birds is two.

אי הכי גבי תמידין נמי נימא (שמות כט, לח) כבשים מיעוט כבשים שנים מה תלמוד לומר (במדבר כח, ג) שנים שיהיו שניהן שוין ומנין שאע"פ שאין שניהן שוין כשירין תלמוד לומר כבש כבש ריבה ולמצוה הכי נמי דבעינן

Why then is 'two' mentioned? To indicate that the two be alike.

ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (במדבר כח, ג) שנים ליום כנגד היום

Whence do we know that even if they be not alike, they are valid? Therefore the text reads: 'Birds', 'birds',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 5, 6.');">⁹</span>

אתה אומר כנגד היום או אינו אלא חובת היום כשהוא אומר את הכבש אחד תעשה בבקר ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערבים הרי חובת היום אמור ומה אני מקיים שנים ליום כנגד היום

which is inclusive. Now the reason then is that the Divine Law expressly includes it, but had the Divine Law not included it, one would have assumed that they are invalid.

כיצד תמיד של שחר היה נשחט על קרן צפונית מערבית על טבעת שניה ושל בין הערבים היה נשחט על קרן מזרחית צפונית על טבעת שניה

Whence do we derive this indispensability? - You might have thought that we say that it is written 'shall be'. But now that the Divine Law through 'birds', ['birds'] includes it, what purpose serves 'shall be'? - Because of the rest of the status of the leper.

מוספין של שבת ודאי צריכין שיהיו שניהן שוין

If so, in the case of the daily burnt-offerings let us make a similar deduction: 'Lambs', 'lambs',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num, XXVIII, 3.');">¹⁰</span> since the minimum of lambs is two, why does the text read: 'Two'?

תנו רבנן שני שעירי יום הכיפורים ששחטן בחוץ עד שלא הגריל עליהן חייב על שניהם משהגריל עליהן חייב על של שם ופטור על של עזאזל

To indicate that they shall be alike. And whence do we know that even if they are not alike they are valid?

עד שלא הגריל עליהם חייב על שניהם למאי חזו אמר רב חסדא הואיל וראוי לשעיר הנעשה בחוץ

Therefore the text reads: 'Lamb', 'lamb',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4.');">¹¹</span> which is inclusive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is inclusive, i.e., as long as it is a lamb, even if not exactly like the other, it is included in the terms of the commandment.');">¹²</span>

ומאי שנא לשעיר הנעשה בפנים דלא דמחוסר הגרלה לשעיר הנעשה בחוץ נמי לא חזי דמחסרי עבודת היום

But as far as proper performance of the precept is concerned is it indeed required<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This, however, is nowhere stated.');">¹³</span> [that the lambs shall be alike]? - Here we need it for what has been taught: Two for the day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num, XXVIII, 3.');">¹⁰</span>

קסבר רב חסדא אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום

i.e., against the day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the morning sacrifice is to be offered up against (opposite) the sun-rise, viz., on the western side of the altar, and the evening sacrifice on the opposite, namely, the eastern side (R. Han.) .');">¹⁴</span> You say: Against the day, but perhaps it really means, the daily duty?

אמר רבינא השתא דאמר רב חסדא מחוסר הגרלה כמחוסר מעשה דמי הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שלמים ששחטן קודם שנפתחו דלתות ההיכל פסולין שנאמר (ויקרא ג, ב) ושחטו פתח אהל מועד בזמן שהוא פתוח ולא בזמן שהוא נעול

When it says: The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4.');">¹¹</span> behold the daily duty is already stated, hence how do I apply the words: 'Two for the day'? I. e. , against the day. How is that? The continual morning offering was being slain on the north-western corner, on the second ring,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the north of the altar were rings, twenty four, six rows of four each, at which they slaughtered the animal offerings. (V. Mid. III, 5.) . On these rings the animals were securely tied before slaying. When the morning sacrifice was slain on the western side the light of the sun poured freely in, just as in the eve, when the sacrifice was slain on the eastern side, the rays of the sinking sun were unimpeded. Always in the direction opposite to the light of the day. Tosaf. suggests that the second ring rather than the first was used to prevent the animal from polluting the altar with excrements.');">¹⁵</span> whereas that of the even was slain on the north-eastern corner on the second ring.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the north of the altar were rings, twenty four, six rows of four each, at which they slaughtered the animal offerings. (V. Mid. III, 5.) . On these rings the animals were securely tied before slaying. When the morning sacrifice was slain on the western side the light of the sun poured freely in, just as in the eve, when the sacrifice was slain on the eastern side, the rays of the sinking sun were unimpeded. Always in the direction opposite to the light of the day. Tosaf. suggests that the second ring rather than the first was used to prevent the animal from polluting the altar with excrements.');">¹⁵</span> But the additional sacrifices of the Sabbath certainly must be alike.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since in connection with this only 'two lambs' is stated (V. Num. XXVIII, 9) but not the inclusive 'one lamb'. V, Rashi and R. Han.]');">¹⁶</span> Our Rabbis taught: If he [the high priest] slew two he-goats of the Day of Atonement outside [the Temple court] before the lots were cast, then he is guilty in respect of both; if, however, after the lot was cast, the is guilty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the score of Lev. XVI, 3ff:');">¹⁷</span> in respect of the one cast 'for the Lord', but free in respect of the one cast 'for Azazel'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The he-goat destined for Azazel would in any case be killed outside the Sanctuary hence nothing illegitimate took place, no change of place.');">¹⁸</span> If before he has cast the lots, he is guilty in respect of both of them. But what [sacrifice] are they fit for?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he should be liable for slaughtering them outside the Temple court.');">¹⁹</span> - Said R'Hisda: Since [each] is fit to be offered up as the he-goat [the rites of which are] performed without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,in the Sanctuary proper, without the Holy of Holies. The additional sacrifice for the Day of Atonement, a he-goat, is offered up, its blood sprinkled without (Num. XXIX, 11) .');">²⁰</span> But why is it impossible to offer it up as the he-goat [of which rites are] performed within [the Holy of Holies]? presumably because it still lacks the casting of the lot? But then it ought to be unfit to be used as the he-goa [of which rites are performed] without, for the reason that it still lacks the other ministrations of the Day?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' i.e., the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock and he-goat and the taking and offering of the handfuls of incense, all of which must take place before the additional sacrifice is offered up.');">²¹</span> - R'Hisda holds: One may not call the absence of any functions due on the same day a lack of time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The absence of the ministrations of the day mentioned in n. 3 does not affect the validity of the he-goat offered as an additional offering, as these do not constitute a defect in the he-goat itself, but are absent because the time for them had not yet arrived. Whatsoever is bound to come within the day, may not be considered wanting on that day. [This distinguishes it from the casting of lots, the absence of which constitutes a lack in the very he-goat which consequently renders it unfit for use within].');">²²</span> Said Rabina: Now that R'Hisda said that the absence of the casting of the lot has the same significance as the absence of a [direct] action,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the offering itself, rendering it unfit for Temple use.');">²³</span> then in view of what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: 'Peace-offerings which have been slain before the doors of the Temple have been opened are invalid, as it is said: And he shall slay it at the gate of the tent of meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 2.');">²⁴</span> i.e., at the time when it is open, but not when i is closed';