Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 62

62b

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the two Se'irim must be equal in appearance, height, and value, and they must be purchased at one time ("Lekichas k'Achas"). The Gemara says that these requirements are learned from the repetition of the word "*Shnei* Se'irim" ("*two* goats") three times in Parshas Acharei Mos, teaching that the two Se'irim are to be comparable in three ways.

However, there are *four* Halachos being taught in the Mishnah, but only three sources in the verses! From where do we learn the fourth Halachah, that the two Se'irim must be purchased at one time?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS YESHANIM and RABEINU ELYAKIM have a different Girsa in the Gemara. According to their Girsa, we learn from one "Shnei" both the requirement that the two Se'irim must be equal in appearance and that they must be equal in height. They must look the same, and being the same height is part of looking the same (the Mishnah nevertheless had to express that they must be the same height so that we not mistakenly think that one can be a miniature clone of the other). That leaves two instances of the word "Shnei" -- one to teach that they must be equal in value, and the second to teach that they must be purchased at one time. (The first verse teaches a Halachah regarding their physical appearance, the second verse teaches a Halachah regarding their value, and the third teaches a Halachah regarding when they are bought.)

(b) The TOSFOS YESHANIM suggests further that perhaps the Halachah of "Lekichasan k'Achas" is not learned from the word "Shnei" alone, but from the fact that it says "Shnei" next to the work "Yikach" ("buy"). From that proximity we learn that they must be purchased at one time.

QUESTION: The Gemara records a series of Derashos regarding different types of Korbanos which are brought in pairs, in which the word "Shnei" teaches that the two animals must be identical. While this Derashah works for the two Se'irim of Yom Kipur, the two lambs of a Metzora, and the two birds of a Metzora, the Gemara says that it is not possible to learn that the words "Shenayim la'Yom" teach that the Kisvei Temidin, the two lambs brought each day for the morning Tamid and the afternoon Tamid, must also be identical. RASHI explains that they cannot possibly be required to be the same, because we never find any such requirement mentioned in a Mishnah. Because of this, the Gemara concludes that the words "Shenayim l'Yom" are used for a different Derashah.

What does Rashi mean by saying that if no Mishnah mentions the requirement, there must be no such requirement? The Gemara goes on to say that the two animals brought as the Musaf on Shabbos must be identical, even though there is no Mishnah that mentions that requirement! Why, then, is it possible to say that the Musafin must be similar, but not the Temidin? (TOSFOS)

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Musafin) answers that in Maseches Tamid, there are Mishnayos that list the entire order of the Tamid service. If there existed such a Halachah that the two Temidin must resemble each other, then the Mishnah would have had to mention it. The service of the Musaf offerings, though, are not detailed at length in the Mishnayos anywhere, so it is not expected that the Mishnah mention the requirement for the animals to look similar.

(b) The MALBIM (beginning of Parshas Acharei Mos) explains that since there are already many Beraisos which teach that the word "Shnei" in a verse means that the two objects must be similar to each other, it is not necessary for a Mishnah to mention that requirement specifically with regard to the Musafin. It is already an accepted rule that "Shnei" means that they must be equal.

Regarding the Temidin, though, the verse does not use the word "Shnei" but rather it says "Shenayim." The word "Shenayim" is the *independent* form of the number two, in contrast to the word "Shnei" which is the conjunctive form. The independent word "Shenayim" does not necessarily denote that the objects being discussed must be similar. That is why the Gemara says that if there would have been such a requirement, then it should have been mentioned in a Mishnah (or Beraisa or Midrash) that even the word "Shenayim" is meant to compare the objects being discussed to each other.