The Gemara in Yoma 64a states that Rava said that the Pasuk of "Korban la'Shem"(cited above in 63b as teaching that Mechusar Zman is invalid as Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) is necessary for a case where the mother of the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach was slaughtered on Yom Kipur for the needs of a dangerously ill patient and therefore the child cannot be pushed off the rock on Yom Kipur because this would mean that both mother and child were slaughtered on the same day.

RABBI AKIVA EIGER (64a) asks why could the Gemara not say that there is a simpler case of "Oso ve'Es Beno" where both the mother and son are the two goats for Yom Kipur. Your question was that it would seem from the word "Se'ir" that both goats are required to be males.

I could answer this question on the basis of Tosfos in Kidushin 2b DH LITNI that "all of the Torah is stated in the masculine". This can be explained as meaning that even though a word is written in the Torah in the masculine, it can nevertheless refer either to masculine or feminine (see also Tosfos Yevamos 72b DH VE'NOSAN).Therefore even though the Torah says "Se'ir" and "Se'irim" nevertheless this does not mean that they must both be male.

However there is a similar but stronger question that can be asked here. How can R. Akiva Eiger say that one of the 2 Se'irim is the mother - the MISHNAH in TEMURAH 14a states that public Korbanos can only be brought from males, and the 2 Se'irim are public Korbanos since the Torah states (Vayikra 16:5), "And from the congregation of the children of Yisra'el one must take 2 goats" from which we learn that they must be bought from public funds?

One might attempt to answer (you hinted along these lines) that when R.Akiva Eiger writes that the 2 goats are "mother and child" he does not mean this literally but rather he means "father and son". However this is problematic, as you pointed out, because only Chananya (see CHULIN 79a) maintains that there is a prhibition against slaughtering the father and child on the same day whilst Chachamim there maintain that the prohibition is only if the mother was slaughtered. Therefore R. Akiva Eiger's suggestion would not be such a simple "Ukimta" because it would only go according to a minority opinion (see ROSH CHULIN 5:2 that some Rishonim do not reckon with Chananya's opinion at all according to the Halachah).

Therefore I do not have an answer to this question on R. Akiva Eiger and it requires further research.

KOL TUV

D. Bloom

Gemara Yoma 64a states that Rava said that the possuk of "Korbon La-shem"(cited above 63b as teaching that Mechusar Zman is invalid as Seir Ha-Mishtaleach) is necessary for a case where the mother of the Seir Ha-Mishtaleach was slaughtered on Yom Kippur for the needs of a dangerously ill patient and therefore the child cannot be pushed off the rock on Y.K. because this would mean that both mother and child were slaughtered on the same day.

RABBI AKIVA EIGER(64a) asks why could the Gemara not say that there is a simpler case of "Oso Ve-es Bno" where both the mother and son are the two goats for Y.K. Your question was that it would seem from the word "Seir" that both goats are required to be males.

I could answer this question on the basis of Tosfos Kidushin 2b DH LITNI that "all of the Torah is stated in the masculine". This can be explained as meaning that even though a word is written in the Torah in the masculine, it can nevertheless refer either to masculine or feminine(see also Tosfos Yevamos 72b DH VE-NOSSON).Therefore even though the Torah says "Seir" and "Seirim" nevertheless this does not mean that they must both be male.

However there is a similar but stronger question that can be asked here. How can R.Akiva Eiger say that one of the 2 Seirim is the mother- MISHNAH TEMURAH 14a states that public Korbonos can only be brought from males, and the 2 Seirim are public Korbonos since the Torah states (Vayikra 16:5) "And from the congregation of the children of Yisroel one must take 2 goats" from which we learn that they must be bought from public funds?

One might attempt to answer (you hinted along these lines) that when R.A.E. writes that the 2 goats are "mother and child" he does not mean this literally but rather he means "father and son". However this is problematic, as you pointed out, because only Chananya(see CHULIN 79a) maintains that there is a prhibition against slaughtering the father and child on the same day whilst Chachomim there maintain that the prohibition is only if the mother was slaughtered. Therefore R.A.E.'s suggestion would not be such a simple "Ukimta" because it would only go according to a minority opinion( see ROSH CHULIN 5:2 that some Rishonim do not reckon with Chananya's opinion at all according to the Halacha)

Therefore I do not have an answer to this question on R.A.E. and it requires further research.

KOL TUV

D. Bloom

Follow-up reply:

I have to retract my first answer and try a better one as follows.

In fact R. Akiva Eiger is indeed suggesting that the Gemara should say that the Beraisa (63b) which requires a verse to teach that one cannot be Makdish the two "Se'irim" if they are "Mechusar Zman", goes according to Chananya (CHULIN 78b) who maintains that "Oso ve'Es Bno" applies also with the father and child.

(We still must make a slight correction in the words of R. Akiva Eiger and instead of reading "mother and son" it should read "father and son" because otherwise we will have the problem that public Korbonos must always be male.)

It is not difficult that the Gemara should suggest that the Beraisa follows Chananya, even though it is highly questionable whether the Halachah actually follows Chananya, because we saw that the Gemara (63b) attempted to say that this Beraisa follows Chanan Ha'Mitzri or Rabbi Shimon, even though the Halachah does not follow these Tana'im.

When R. Akiva Eiger asks that the Gemara should make a simpler "Okimta" that the 2 Se'irim are father and son he does not mean that this is simpler because the Halachah follows this opinion but rather it is simpler because one does not have to create an unlikely scenario with a dangerously ill patient for whom it so happened that the mother of one of the two Se'irim was slaughtered on Yom Kipur. Instead, one can choose a more standard case where one knows before Yom Kipur that the 2 Se'irim chosen were father and son. Even though it is not le'Chatchila to choose 2 Se'irim which are not identical it is nevertheless perfectly Kosher even if they are not identical.

(What I wrote last time that "All of the Torah is written in the masculine" is evidently not applicable here because RASHI TEMURAH 14a DH KORBANOS writes that Chata'os must be male because the word "Se'ir" is always used in connection with them. It seems that since the Torah sometimes uses the word "Se'irah" - female goat, see Vayikra 4:28 - this means that the word "Se'ir" means specifically a male, so your Diyuk from the fact that the Torah calls the 2 goats of Yom Kipur "Se'ir", is correct.)

KOL TUV

D. Bloom

Thank you very much indeed for referring me to DAF AL HA'DAF 64a in name of TESHUVOS OR HA'ME'IR #57 by R. Meir Shapiro zt'l, the founder of Dafyomi, who cites the same question as R. Akiva Eiger. However it is not mentioned at all there that R. Akiva Eiger asked this question but rather it is attributed to SHE'ERIS NOSSAN. Or ha'Me'ir gives an interesting answer based on TOSFOS ERCHIN 18b DH SHENASO and on RAMBAM MA'ASEH HA'KORBANOS 1:14 that "Se'ir" refers to the second year of the goat's life. It transpires that if the 2 Se'irim were father and son, they could not be of the correct age.

However, our main concern was to understand R. Akiva Eiger's question rather than to give an answer. Daf Al ha'Daf's second explanation - that we do not wish to have the Beraisa going according to Chananya, who the Halachah does not follow - is, I think, refuted by my second answer to you (I hope you have received this already) that in fact the Gemara set up (63b) the Beraisa like Chanan ha'Mitzri and R. Shimon even though the Halachah does not follow these opinions, so the Gemara could have also suggested that the Beraisa follows Chananya.

I did not yet find R. Akiva Eiger on Chulin that you cited, but the ammendment you made, based on the printing error for the abbreviation "O,V,B", sounds plausible.

KOL TUV

D. Bloom