יומא 62:2 — Soncino English Talmud

Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take. . . two he-goats, now the minimum of he-goats is two; why then is ‘two’ mentioned? To indicate that the two be alike. Whence do we know that even if the two are not alike they are valid? Therefore the text reads: ‘He-goat’, ‘he-goat’, 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. Whence do we derive this indispensability? — You might have thought that we say: ‘Two’ is written three times. 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. It has been similarly taught in connection with the lambs of the leper: And he shall take two lambs. Now the minimum of lambs is two, then why does the text say: ‘Two’? To indicate that the two be alike. Whence do we know that even if the two be not alike, they are valid? Therefore the text reads: ‘Lamb’, ‘lamb’, which is inclusive [widens the scope]. 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]. 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. It was similarly taught in connection with the [birds of] the leper: Birds; now the minimum of birds is two. Why then is ‘two’ mentioned? To indicate that the two be alike. Whence do we know that even if they be not alike, they are valid? Therefore the text reads: ‘Birds’, ‘birds’, 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. 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. If so, in the case of the daily burnt-offerings let us make a similar deduction: ‘Lambs’, ‘lambs’, since the minimum of lambs is two, why does the text read: ‘Two’? To indicate that they shall be alike. And whence do we know that even if they are not alike they are valid? Therefore the text reads: ‘Lamb’, ‘lamb’, which is inclusive. But as far as proper performance of the precept is concerned is it indeed required [that the lambs shall be alike]? — Here we need it for what has been taught: Two for the day i.e., against the day. You say: Against the day, but perhaps it really means, the daily duty? When it says: The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even, 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, whereas that of the even was slain on the north-eastern corner on the second ring. But the additional sacrifices of the Sabbath certainly must be alike. 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, then he is guilty in respect of the one cast ‘for the Lord’, but free in respect of the one cast ‘for Azazel’. If before he has cast the lots, he is guilty in respect of both of them. But what [sacrifice] are they fit for? — Said R. Hisda: Since [each] is fit to be offered up as the he-goat [the rites of which are] performed without. 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-goat [of which rites are performed] without, for the reason that it still lacks the other ministrations of the Day? — R. Hisda holds: One may not call the absence of any functions due on the same day a lack of time. 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, 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, i.e., at the time when it is open, but not when it is closed’;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:Lev. XVI, 5.
^ᵇnote:Ibid. 9, 10.
^ᶜnote:Lev. XVI, 5, 7, 8 and thus indicates indispensability.
^ᵈnote:Ibid. XIV, 10.
^ᵉnote:Ibid. 12, 13.
^ᶠnote:Ibid. 2. ‘Shall be’ implies precise instructions from which there may be no deviation.
^ᵍnote:I.e., to the other regulations relating to the purification of the leper.
^ʰnote:Lev. XIV, 4.
^ⁱnote:Ibid. 5, 6.
^ʲnote:Num, XXVIII, 3.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. 4.
^ˡnote: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.
^ᵐnote:This, however, is nowhere stated.
^ⁿnote: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.).
^ᵒnote: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.
^ᵖnote:[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.]
^ᵠnote:On the score of Lev. XVI, 3ff:
^ʳnote:The he-goat destined for Azazel would in any case be killed outside the Sanctuary hence nothing illegitimate took place, no change of place.
^ˢnote:That he should be liable for slaughtering them outside the Temple court.
^ᵗnote: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).
^ᵘnote: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.
^ᵛnote: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].
^ʷnote:In the offering itself, rendering it unfit for Temple use.
^ˣnote:Lev. III, 2.