## Yoma Daf 62b

###### Yoma 62b:1
[Yoma 62b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יִקַּח שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי עִזִּים״, מִיעוּט ״שְׂעִירֵי״ — שְׁנַיִם. מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁנֵי״? שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִים. מִנַּיִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין כְּשֵׁירִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שָׂעִיר״ ״שָׂעִיר״ — רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught:** It states: **“He shall take two goats”** (Leviticus 16:5). The **minimum** number indicated by a plural term, as the word **goats** is here, is **two.** If so, **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: Two?** It teaches **that the two should be identical.** And **from where** do we derive that **even if the two** goats **are not identical** they are nevertheless **valid? The verses state** and repeat the word **goat, goat** (Leviticus 16:9–10) **to amplify** and indicate that the goats are valid even if they are not identical.


###### Yoma 62b:2
[Yoma 62b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:2)

טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא, הָא לָא רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא פְּסוּלִין, עִיכּוּבָא מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **The reason** is specifically **because the Merciful One** in the Torah **amplified** and thereby indicated that the goats are valid even if they are not identical. **Doesn’t this** indicate that if **the Merciful One did not amplify, I would have said** the goats are **disqualified? From where do we** derive that the goats are **prevented** from being sacrificed if they are not identical? The principle with regard to sacrificial offerings is that if the Torah indicates a requirement only once, it is a mitzva *ab initio*, and if the Torah repeats the requirement, it is considered indispensable in order for the offering to be valid.


###### Yoma 62b:3
[Yoma 62b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:3)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, ״שְׁנֵי״ ״שְׁנֵי״ ״שְׁנֵי״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It could **enter your mind to say** that since the word **two, two, two, is written** three times in the relevant passage, the repetition indicates that the goats are disqualified if they are not identical. Therefore, the Torah had to indicate that the goats are valid even if they are not identical.


###### Yoma 62b:4
[Yoma 62b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:4)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״שָׂעִיר״ ״שָׂעִיר״, ״שְׁנֵי״ ״שְׁנֵי״ ״שְׁנֵי״, לְמָה לִי? חַד לְמַרְאֶה, וְחַד לְקוֹמָה, וְחַד לְדָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And now that the Merciful One has amplified** by repeating the word **goat, goat, why do I** need the threefold repetition of **two, two, two?** The Gemara answers that it teaches how the mitzva should be performed *ab initio*: **One** of the terms indicates that the goats should be identical **in appearance, one** indicates they should be identical **in height, and one** indicates they should be identical **in monetary value.**


###### Yoma 62b:5
[Yoma 62b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:5)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי גַּבֵּי כִּבְשֵׂי מְצוֹרָע: ״יִקַּח שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים״, מִיעוּט ״כְּבָשִׂים״ שְׁנַיִם, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁנֵי״? שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין כְּשֵׁירִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ — רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments that **this was also taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to** the **lambs** brought by a **leper,** based upon the verse: **“He shall take two lambs”** (Leviticus 14:10). The **minimum** number of **lambs,** which is a plural term, is **two.** If so, **what** is the meaning when **the verse states “two”?** It teaches **that the two should be identical.** And **from where** do we derive **that even if the two** lambs **are not identical** they are nevertheless **valid? The verses state: Lamb, lamb,** repetitively, **to amplify** and indicate that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical.


###### Yoma 62b:6
[Yoma 62b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:6)

טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא, הָא לָא רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא פְּסוּלִין, עִיכּוּבָא מְנָא לַן? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, ״תִּהְיֶה״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **The reason** is specifically **because the Merciful One** in the Torah **amplified** and thereby indicated that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical. **Doesn’t this** indicate that if **the Merciful One did not amplify, I would have said** the lambs are **disqualified? From where do we** derive that the lambs are **prevented** from being sacrificed if they are not identical? The Gemara answers: It could **enter your mind to say** that since **it is written:** “This **shall be** the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), the verse indicates that every detail stated in this context is indispensable. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to indicate that the lambs are valid even if they are not identical.


###### Yoma 62b:7
[Yoma 62b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:7)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ — ״תִּהְיֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לִשְׁאָר הֲוָיָתוֹ שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And now that the Merciful One has amplified** by repeating the word **lamb, lamb, why do I** need the phrase “this **shall be”?** The Gemara answers: This phrase applies **to the rest of the** *halakhot* that **are** included in the atonement ritual **of the leper,** which are indispensable.


###### Yoma 62b:8
[Yoma 62b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:8)

(וּתְנַן) נָמֵי גַּבֵּי מְצוֹרָע כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: ״צִפֳּרִים״ — מִיעוּט צִפֳּרִים (שְׁנַיִם), מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁתֵּי״ — שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן שָׁווֹת. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁווֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״צִפּוֹר״ ״צִפּוֹר״ — רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And we also learned similarly with regard to** the birds used for the purification of **a leper.** The verse states that the priest should take “two **birds”** (Leviticus 14:4), and the **minimum** number indicated by the plural term **birds** is **two. What** is the meaning when **the verse states: Two?** It indicates **that the two** birds **should be identical. And from where** do we derive **that even if they are not identical** they are **valid? The verses state: Bird, bird** (Leviticus 14:5–6), repetitively, to **amplify.**


###### Yoma 62b:9
[Yoma 62b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:9)

טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא, הָא לָא רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא — פְּסוּלוֹת, עִכּוּבָא מְנָא לַן? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, ״תִּהְיֶה״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **The reason** is specifically **because the Merciful One** in the Torah **amplified** and thereby indicated that the birds are valid even if they are not identical. **Doesn’t this** indicate that if **the Merciful One did not amplify,** I would have said the birds are **disqualified? From where do we** derive that the birds are **prevented** from being used if they are not identical? The Gemara answers: It could **enter your mind to say** that since **it is written:** “This **shall be** the law of the leper,” the verse indicates that every detail stated in this context is indispensable. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to indicate that the birds are valid even if they are not identical.


###### Yoma 62b:10
[Yoma 62b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:10)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״צִפּוֹר״, ״תִּהְיֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לִשְׁאָר הֲוָיָתוֹ שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And now that the Merciful One has amplified** by repeating the word **bird, why do I** need the phrase “this **shall be”?** The Gemara answers: This phrase applies **to the rest of the** *halakhot* that **are** included in the atonement ritual **of the leper,** which are indispensable.


###### Yoma 62b:11
[Yoma 62b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:11)

אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי תְמִידִין נָמֵי, נֵימָא: ״כְּבָשִׂים״ — מִיעוּט כְּבָשִׂים שְׁנַיִם, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁנַיִם״ — שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין כְּשֵׁירִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ — רִיבָּה. וּלְמִצְוָה הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **If so,** this line of reasoning should be applied to the **daily offerings as well. Let us say** that when the verse states: “Two **lambs** of the first year, day by day, continually” (Exodus 29:38), the **minimum** number indicated by the word **lambs is two. What** is the meaning when **the verse states “two”?** It indicates **that the two** lambs **should be identical. And from where** do we derive **that even if the two are not identical they are valid? The verse states** the word **lamb, lamb** (Exodus 29:39), repetitively, to **amplify.** Let us learn from here that in order **to** fulfill **the mitzva** in the preferred manner, **we also require** that the two lambs used for the daily offering be identical.


###### Yoma 62b:12
[Yoma 62b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:12)

הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״שְׁנַיִם לַיּוֹם״, כְּנֶגֶד הַיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **That** verse **is needed for that which was taught** in a *baraita*: **“Two** lambs of the first year, **day by day”** (Exodus 29:38), indicates that the lambs must be slaughtered **opposite the** location of the sun at that time of **day.**


###### Yoma 62b:13
[Yoma 62b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:13)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כְּנֶגֶד הַיּוֹם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹבַת הַיּוֹם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״, הֲרֵי חוֹבַת הַיּוֹם אָמוּר, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״שְׁנַיִם לַיּוֹם״ — כְּנֶגֶד הַיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Do **you say** it means **opposite the** location of the sun at that time of **day, or** does it **only** mean to say that two lambs must be sacrificed for the **obligation of** each **day?** The Gemara answers: **When it states: “One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer in the afternoon”** (Numbers 28:4), **the obligation of** each **day is stated** explicitly. **And how do I uphold** the verse: **“Two** lambs of the first year, **day by day”?** It teaches that the lambs must be slaughtered **opposite the** location of the sun at that time of **day.**


###### Yoma 62b:14
[Yoma 62b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:14)

כֵּיצַד? תָּמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר הָיָה נִשְׁחָט עַל קֶרֶן צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית, עַל טַבַּעַת שְׁנִיָּה. וְשֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם הָיָה נִשְׁחָט עַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, עַל טַבַּעַת שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How** is this done in actuality? The **daily offering of** the **morning was slaughtered** in the Temple courtyard **opposite** the **northwest corner** of the altar, **on** the **second ring,** across from the sun, which rises in the east. **And** the daily offering **of** the **afternoon was slaughtered opposite** the **northeast corner** of the altar, **on** the **second ring,** across the sun, which is located in the west in the afternoon.


###### Yoma 62b:15
[Yoma 62b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:15)

מוּסָפִין שֶׁל שַׁבָּת, וַדַּאי צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: When the Torah states: “Two lambs” (Numbers 28:9) with regard to the **additional offerings** brought on **Shabbat,** the word two, which is unnecessary, **certainly** indicates **that the two should be identical** *ab initio*.


###### Yoma 62b:16
[Yoma 62b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּחוּץ, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגְרִיל עֲלֵיהֶן — חַיָּיב עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם. מִשֶּׁהִגְרִיל עֲלֵיהֶן — חַיָּיב עַל שֶׁל שֵׁם, וּפָטוּר עַל שֶׁל עֲזָאזֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** If the High Priest **slaughtered the two Yom Kippur goats outside** the Temple courtyard **when he had not yet drawn lots** to determine which of **them** is to be sacrificed to God and which is to be sent to Azazel, **he is liable** to receive the punishment of *karet* **for both of them,** as they are both fit for use as an offering. If he slaughtered them **after he drew lots** for **them, he is liable** for slaughtering the goat designated **for God,** which is a sacrificial offering, **and he is exempt for** slaughtering the goat designated **for Azazel,** as it is not a sacrificial offering.


###### Yoma 62b:17
[Yoma 62b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:17)

עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגְרִיל עֲלֵיהֶם חַיָּיב עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם. לְמַאי חֲזוּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְשָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the meaning of this *baraita*. With regard to the statement that if he slaughtered the goats **when he had not yet drawn lots, he is liable for both of them,** the Gemara asks: **For what are they fit?** Before the lots are drawn, neither goat is fit for use as an offering. The Gemara answers that **Rav Ḥisda said:** He is liable **since they are fit** to be used **as the goat** whose sacrificial rites are **performed outside.** These two goats are fit for use as the additional offerings of Yom Kippur, whose sacrificial rites are performed outside of the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the goats have the status of sacrificial offerings.


###### Yoma 62b:18
[Yoma 62b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:18)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא לְשָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים דְּלָא, דִּמְחוּסָּר הַגְרָלָה? לְשָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי, דִּמְחַסְּרִי עֲבוֹדַת הַיּוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about **the goat** whose sacrificial rites are **performed inside** the Sanctuary, i.e., the goat selected to be sacrificed as a sin-offering, for which the goats are **not** valid because **they lack the lottery? They are also unfit** to be used **as the goat** whose rites are **performed outside** the Sanctuary, **as they lack the service of the day.** The entire Yom Kippur service must be performed in the proper sequence, and several steps have to be executed before the additional offerings are sacrificed, including the sprinkling of the bull’s and goat’s blood, and the burning of the handful of incense. Since the additional offerings cannot yet be sacrificed, the goats cannot be considered fit for these offerings, and one should not be liable to receive *karet* for slaughtering the goats outside the Temple courtyard.


###### Yoma 62b:19
[Yoma 62b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:19)

קָסָבַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין מְחוּסַּר זְמַן לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Ḥisda holds** that an offering is **not** considered to be **lacking time** if it is to be brought on **that day.** An offering is considered lacking time, and therefore unfit, if it is supposed to be brought on a different day. However, if it is the proper day but the right moment has not yet arrived, the offering is considered valid. On the other hand, before the High Priest draws lots to determine which of the goats will be sacrificed to God and which sent to Azazel, even though it is the proper day, the goats are not yet considered valid offerings because there is a necessary action that the High Priest must take with regard to the goat itself before it can be brought as an offering.


###### Yoma 62b:20
[Yoma 62b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/62b:20)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא מְחוּסָּר הַגְרָלָה כִּמְחוּסָּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּפְתְּחוּ דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכָל פְּסוּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא פָּתוּחַ, וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא נָעוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Now that Rav Ḥisda said** that although the drawing of lots is external to the animals themselves, an animal **lacking the lottery is comparable to** an animal **lacking an action** and is not yet considered a valid offering, a statement can be made with regard to **that which Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: Peace-offerings that one slaughtered** in the Temple **before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified,** as **it is stated** with regard to peace-offerings: **“And he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting”** (Leviticus 3:2), which teaches that it must be slaughtered **when** the entrance **is open** and serves as an actual entrance, **but not when it is locked.** As long as the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple the doors to the Sanctuary, remain closed, one may not sacrifice the peace-offerings, and if they are sacrificed, they are disqualified.