1) A similar question to yours is asked by Tosfos (Sukah 2b, DH Ad), who cites a number of places in Shas where the phrase, "40 or 50," or "2 or 3," etc., is used. At the end of this Tosfos an asterisk refers us to six more places in Shas where Tosfos addresses this question. In addition, concerning the question from Sukah 35b, see the Kesef Mishneh, Hilchos Lulav 8:7 (DH Altah), who writes, "I always had the question, both on the Gemara and on the Poskim -- that if a Chazazis invalidates an Esrog when it appears in two places, then why is it necessary to say that it invalidates an Esrog when it appears in 3 places?" The Kesef Mishnah concludes, "I have found no author who discusses this matter."

2) However, see the Mishneh l'Melech on the Kesef Mishneh there, who writes at length on this subject and cites many places where phrases like "4 or 5" are used in the Gemara.

3) Among the many explanations that are given to explain this use of numbers in the Gemara, some of them may be employed to explain the Talmud Yerushalmi Pesachim on the last Mishnah in the seventh chapter, which you cite. I am also going to make one or two suggestions on this topic.

4) First, let us turn to the Gemara in Shabbos 127a, cited by the aforementioned Tosfos (Sukah 2b). The Mishnah in Shabbos (126b) states that one is permitted "to clear away 4 or 5 boxes" of straw or produce on Shabbos in order to make room for guests, and this is not considered as over-exertion on Shabbos. The Gemara asks that since one is permitted to clear away 5 boxes, why is it necessary for the Mishnah to teach that one may move 4 boxes? The Gemara cites Shmuel who answers that the Mishnah states "4 or 5" because this is the way people speak. Rashi (127a) writes that it is a normal way of speaking to mention the lower number first, even though it is already included in the mention of the higher number.

5) This applies to the Yerushalmi Pesachim as follows. The Yerushalmi states, shortly before the part you cited, that if only one person removed the k'Zayis from the Chaburah, he is Chayav, because other people are not expected to form a Chaburah with this individual, and thus the k'Zayis is considered to have left the Chaburah. However, if two people took out a k'Zayis, they are exempt, because two people can sometimes be considered a Chaburah, and thus it follows that the k'Zayis is still inside a Chaburah. If the Gemara would have told us only that if three people took out the k'Zayis that they are exempt, we would have thought that this is because they are three people, and three people are significant enough to be able to "drag along" other people with them. One might have thought that two people, in contrast, will not attract other people to leave and to join them. This is why the Yerushalmi states that if two people leave the Chaburah it is not considered as though the k'Zayis has left the Chaburah. The Yerushalmi then says that if three people left, they are not Chayav. This is along the lines of "Zu v'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu" -- if, when two leave, they are still considered a Chaburah, then certainly if three leave they certainly are considered a Chaburah.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Now, here is an answer to your question on Sukah 35b, which as we saw is also asked by the Kesef Mishneh.

1) This answer is given by the Taz on Orach Chaim 648:14. He compares this to the Gemara Makos 5b which explains the verse (Dvarim 17:6) "According to the testimony of 2 witnesses or 3 witnesses shall the convicted criminal be put to death". The Gemara asks "If the testimony is acceptable through 2 witnesses, why did the Torah specify also 3?". The Gemara answers that the Torah here is comparing 2 witnesses to 3 witnesses. One of the ways that 2 witnesses are compared to 3 is that in the same way that if one of the 2 is found to be a thief this renders also the testimony of the other witnesses unacceptable, so too even if only one of the 3 is found to be a thief it also renders the other 2 witnesses as unaccepatable.

2) The Taz explains that in a similar way that 2 witnesses are compared to 3 witnesses, so too are 2 chazaziyot on an etrog compared to 3 chazaziyot on an etrog. The way this works is that 2 chazaziyot are only pasul if they are as distant from each other as one would expect 3 chazaziyot to be distant from each other. If, however, there is only a hairsbreadth of normal etrog color separating the 2 chazaziyot, the etrog is kasher. The 2 chazaziyot only make the etrog pasul, if there is enough space between them for a third chazazit to fit in. This is comparable to the 2 witnesses who must be similar to the 3. So too the 2 chazaziyot only make the etrog if they are similar to 3, i.e there is enough space between them so that 3 could fit in.

3) The Mishneh Berurah, in Biur Halachah 648:9 DH b'Shnaim, writes that the reasoning of the Taz - that the etrog is not defined as spotted if there is only a hairsbreadth between the 2 chazaziyot - is Halchically correct. So we see that there is a practical Halacha that emerges from the fact that the Gemara Sukah 35b mentioned both 2 and 3.

4) However the aforementioned Biur Halachah cites other Poskim who answer the Kesef Mishneh's question with the Gemara Shabbos 127a that I cited in my first answer; that it is a normal way of speaking, to say "2 or 3". According to this we have further support for the way we answered your question on Talmud Yerushalmi Pesachim; that it is a normal way of speaking, to mention "2 or 3 people".

B'Hatzlacha Rabah

Dovid Bloom

1) Here is an answer to your question on Sukah 35b, which, as we saw, is also asked by the Kesef Mishneh.

a. This answer is given by the Taz (Orach Chaim 648:14). He compares this to the Gemara in Makos (5b) which explains the verse (Devarim 17:6), "According to the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the convicted criminal be put to death." The Gemara asks, "If the testimony of two witnesses is acceptable, then why does the Torah specify also three?" The Gemara answers that the Torah here is comparing two witnesses to three witnesses; one of the ways in which two witnesses are compared to three is that in the same way that if one of the two is found to be a thief, the testimony of the other witnesses is renered unacceptable, so, too, even if only one of the three is found to be a thief, the testimony of the other two is rendered unacceptable.

b. The Taz explains that in a similar way that two witnesses are compared to three witnesses, so are two Chazaziyos on an Esrog compared to three Chazaziyos on an Esrog. The way this works is that two Chazaziyos invalidate the Esrog only if they are as distant from each other as one would expect three Chazaziyos to be distant from each other. If, however, there is only a hairsbreadth of normal Esrog color separating the two Chazaziyos, the Esrog is valid. The two Chazaziyos only invalidate the Esrog when there is enough space between them for a third Chazazis to fit in. This is comparable to the two witnesses who must be similar to the three; the two Chazaziyos invalidate the Esrog only if they are similar to three, i.e. there is enough space between them so that three could fit in.

c. The Mishnah Berurah (in Bi'ur Halachah 648:9, DH b'Shenayim) writes that the reasoning of the Taz, that the Esrog is not defined as spotted if there is only a hairsbreadth between the two Chazaziyos, is correct l'Halachah. We see that there is a practical Halachah that emerges from the fact that the Gemara in Sukah (35b) mentions both two and three.

d. However, the aforementioned Bi'ur Halachah cites other Poskim who answer the Kesef Mishneh's question with the Gemara in Shabbos (127a) that I cited in my first answer; that it is a normal way of speaking to say "two or three." According to this, we have further support for the way we answered your question on the Yerushalmi Pesachim; that it is a normal way of speaking to mention "two or three people."

2) I saw that Tosfos, only one page away from our page, can provide an answer to your question on the Yerushalmi.

a. According to Tosfos (Pesachim 85a, DH Echad), in general the less obvious case is mentioned first in a list (with two exceptions). Tosfos cites an example of this from the Mishnah in Yevamos (41a) which discusses the law that any woman whose marriage was terminated must wait three months before remarrying so that there should be no doubt about the fatherhood of the child in the event she is pregnant. The Mishnah says that this applies both to "Besulos" ("virgins") and "Be'ulos" ("non-virgins"). The first Din is less obvious, because she could not be pregnant, but still we see that the Mishnah states this first. We learn from here that it is the normal procedure for the less obvious case to be mentioned first (and we do not say that if even a Besulah must wait three months, then it is obvious that a non-Besulah must wait three months and thus it should not be necessary to mention the second case).

b. Tosfos writes that the two exceptions to the above rule are (1) if there exists a dispute concerning the Din, and (2) if the first item in the list is mentioned explicitly in the Torah.

c. According to Tosfos, we now can understand the Talmud Yerushalmi that you cited. We are told that if two people took a k'Zayis of the Korban Pesach out of the Chaburah, they are Patur, because the two people themselves are capable of representing a new Chaburah. Your question was that if two are enough to make a Chaburah, then three are surely enough, so once the Yerushalmi has mentioned two why is it necessary to mention three? The answer is that this is the normal style; the less obvious case is mentioned first (and in our example, the reasons mentioned above in 2a 2b do not apply).

d. I also suggest that there is another example (from another Gemara, and that occurs in many places) for the idea mentioned by Tosfos. This is the rule of "Zu v'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu" (which I mentioned near the end of my first reply) -- "The law applies to this, and it goes without saying that it applies to that."

An example is the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah (32b) which states that if there is no Shofar available unless one fixes it (on Yom Tov) in a way that is prohibited only mid'Rabanan (for example, he uses a scythe, which is an unusual way to repair a Shofar), one may not do so. In addition, if a knife is required in order to make the Shofar usable (which is the normal way of mending the Shofar, and therefore is prohibited mid'Oraisa), this is also forbidden. If it is forbidden to transgress a d'Rabanan to prepare the Shofar, then it should be obvious that it is forbidden to transgress a d'Oraisa. Nevertheless, the Mishnah there mentions both laws because this is the normal style of the Mishnah.

Dovid Bloom

Reb Aryeh, it seems there is quite a big difference between the Yerushalmi 7:13 and Tosefta 9:2, because the Tosefta is not discussing people leaving the Chaburah.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom