Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

May 23, 2021 | 讬状讘 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

Yoma 42

This week of learning is sponsored by Robert Cohen in memory of his mother, my grandmother, Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia z”l. This week is also sponsored for a refuah shleima of Pesha Etel bat Sarah.聽

What are the different opinions regarding the size of the red strip of wool needed for different mitzvot in the Torah? Regarding the slaughtering of the bull for Yom Kippur and the red heifer 鈥 one is permitted by a non-Kohen and one is not. There is a debate regarding which is permitted/forbidden? What are the proofs for each opinion? The gemara brings difficulties for each opinion. Ulla states that in the section of the red heifer, there are some laws that are unique to one part of the process and some that are relevant for the whole process. Ulla proceeds to bring drashot for the verses on the subject from Bamidbar 19.

砖诇 驻专讛 诪砖拽诇 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 讜砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 诪砖拽诇 砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜砖诇 诪爪讜专注 诪砖拽诇 砖拽诇


The strip of crimson of the red heifer has the weight of ten zuz; and the strip of the scapegoat has the weight of two sela, which is eight zuz; and the strip of the leper has the weight of a shekel, which is two zuz.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讞诇驻转讗 讜专讘谞谉 讘驻专讛 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖拽诇 注砖专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖拽诇 砖拽诇 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讗讞讚 讛诪专讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诪诪注讬讟


And Rabbi Yo岣nan further said: Rabbi Shimon ben 岣lafta and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the strip of crimson of the red heifer. One said: It has the weight of ten zuz. And one said: It has the weight of one shekel. And your mnemonic for remembering that while both assume that only one of the extreme values was required no one suggests the middle value of two sela is required, is the aphorism from a mishna: God equally values both the one who gives much and the one who gives little as long as his intention is to Heaven.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 讘驻专讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘讬讗 讘专 拽讬住讬 讜讗谞讞讜 讘讛 住讬诪谞讗 专讘讬讗 [讘专] 拽讬住讬 诪讻驻专 讻砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞


Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to Ravina: It is not with regard to the strip of the red heifer that they disagree; rather, it is with regard to the strip of the scapegoat that they disagree. And on that very day that they disputed this issue, Ravya bar Kisi died, and they made a mnemonic out of it, associating the halakha with his name: The death of Ravya bar Kisi atones like the scapegoat, since the death of the righteous person atones for his generation.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖转讬 砖讞讬讟讜转 砖诪注转讬 讗讞转 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 驻专讜 讗讞转 讻砖专讛 讘讝专 讜讗讞转 驻住讜诇讛 讘讝专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜


Rabbi Yitz岣k said: I heard a teaching that there is a distinction between two slaughters: One of the red heifer, and one of the bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur. The slaughter of one of them is valid even if done by a non-priest, and the slaughter of the other one is invalid if done by a non-priest. But I do not know which of them is which.


讗讬转诪专 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讜驻专讜 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 驻专讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻专讜 讻砖专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻专讜 驻住讜诇讛 驻专讛 讻砖专讛


An amoraic dispute was stated: With regard to the slaughter of the red heifer and the bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel: One said: A red heifer slaughtered by a non-priest is invalid, whereas the bull of the High Priest slaughtered by a non-priest is valid. And the other one said: His bull is invalid, but the red heifer is valid.


转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 驻专讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 注诇讛 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛 砖谞讬谞讜 讘讛


The Gemara comments: Conclude that it is Rav who said that if the heifer is slaughtered by a non-priest it is invalid, as Rabbi Zeira said: The slaughter of the heifer by a non-priest is invalid. And Rav said concerning this statement of Rabbi Zeira: This is because we learned in the Torah鈥檚 description of the slaughter of the red heifer both 鈥淓lazar the priest鈥 (Numbers 19:3) and 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Numbers 19:2). Because Elazar is mentioned, it indicates the slaughter should be performed by a priest, and the use of the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 teaches that one may not deviate from any of the details of the service as delineated in the verses; if one does deviate, the service is invalid. Clearly then, Rav held that if the heifer is slaughtered by a non-priest it is invalid.


讜专讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 驻专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛 驻专讜 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗讛专谉 讜讞讜拽讛


The Gemara analyzes Rav鈥檚 opinion: And according to Rav, what is different with regard to the red heifer, that if it is slaughtered by a non-priest it is invalid? As Rav explained, it is different in that, with regard to it, it is written 鈥淓lazar鈥 and 鈥渟tatute.鈥 But with regard to the bull of the High Priest it is also written 鈥淎aron鈥 the High Priest (Leviticus 16:11) and 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Leviticus 16:34). Based on Rav鈥檚 logic, that indicates that the priest is indispensable.


砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 驻专讛 谞诪讬 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗


The Gemara explains: The slaughter of the bull by a non-priest is valid because slaughtering is not classified as a sacrificial service; therefore, it does not have to be done by a priest. The Gemara challenges this answer: If so, by the same logic, the red heifer should also be valid when slaughtered by a non-priest. The Gemara concludes: The logic that slaughtering is not classified as a sacrificial service does not apply in the case of the red heifer because the red heifer is different. It has the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore the principles that apply to other offerings do not necessarily apply to it.


讜诇讗讜 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛


But is it not arguable, by an a fortiori inference, that the slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest is valid? If the slaughter of the bull of the High Priest, which is an actual offering, is valid when performed by a non-priest, then all the more so the slaughter of the red heifer, which is not an offering, should be valid when similarly performed by a non-priest. Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest is invalid. The halakha is just as in the case of appearances of leprosy, which, despite their not being a sacrificial service, still require the priesthood. Only a priest may declare the signs of leprosy to be pure or impure. It is apparent from this case that the logic of the a fortiori inference does not hold.


讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 驻专讜 驻住讜诇讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 驻专讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讛专谉 讜讞讜拽讛 驻专讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讛 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讬讛讗 讝专 砖讜讞讟 讜讗诇注讝专 专讜讗讛


The Gemara analyzes Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: And according to Shmuel, who said that if a non-priest slaughters the bull of the High Priest it is invalid, what is different with regard to his bull that this is the halakha? It is different in that, with regard to it, it is written 鈥淎aron,鈥 indicating that a priest is required, and 鈥渟tatute,鈥 indicating that the requirements of the Yom Kippur service are indispensable. But with regard to the red heifer it is also written: 鈥淓lazar鈥 and 鈥渟tatute鈥 which by the same logic should indicate the need for a priest is indispensable. The Gemara concludes: It is different there as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it before him鈥 (Numbers 19:3), i.e., in front of Elazar, which suggests that it could be that a non-priest slaughters and Elazar watches.


讜专讘 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇注讬谞讬讜


And Rav, who assumes the slaughter is performed by the priest himself, how does he interpret the phrase: 鈥淏efore him鈥? He understands it to mean that he should not divert his attention from the heifer from the moment of slaughtering until the completion of the process. As with other matters of purification, one is required to maintain his attention on the matter; any distraction can invalidate the process. And from where does Shmuel, who already derived something from this verse, derive that he should not divert his attention from it? He derives it from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall burn the heifer in his sight鈥 (Numbers 19:5).


讜专讘 讞讚 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讞讚 讘砖专讬驻讛


And what does Rav learn from this verse? He holds that one verse is needed to teach the requirement to maintain one鈥檚 attention with regard to slaughtering, and one verse is needed to teach the requirement with regard to burning.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪砖讜诐 讚转讞讬诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 砖专讬驻讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖专讬驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚诪转讻砖专讗 驻专讛 讗讘诇 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And it is necessary to have the requirement stated in both cases since, if the Merciful One had written it only with regard to slaughtering, I might have limited the requirement to that case because it is the start of the Temple service; but with regard to burning, I could say that no, there is no requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the requirement also in the case of burning. And if the Merciful One had written the requirement only with regard to burning, I might have limited it to that case, because it is now that the heifer is actually being made ready to be used; but with regard to slaughtering, I could say that no, there is no requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the requirement also in that case.


诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗住讬驻转 讗驻专讛 讜诪讬诇讜讬 诪讬诐 诇拽讬讚讜砖


As the requirement is mentioned with regard to two stages of the rite of the red heifer, this suggests that it does not exist for every stage. Therefore, the Gemara asks: It is written this way in order to exclude what stage? If we say, to exclude from the requirement the stages of gathering its ashes and filling the water for sanctification, i.e., taking the water in order to pour it on the ashes and mix them together,


诇诪砖诪专转 诇诪讬 谞讚讛 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛砖诇讻转 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 讚诇讗讜 讙讜驻讛 讚驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜


this is mistaken because: 鈥淎nd it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of sprinkling鈥 (Numbers 19:9) was written, and the use of the term 鈥渟hall be kept鈥 indicates that one must maintain attention even during these stages. Rather, it is to exclude from the requirement the stage of casting the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the strip of crimson into the fire. The requirement does not apply to this stage, as they do not pertain to the heifer itself.


讗讬转诪专 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻住讜诇讛


An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to the slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest: Rabbi Ami said: It is valid. And Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: It is invalid. Ulla said: It is valid, but some say that he said: It is invalid.


诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 讗讘讗 诇住讬讜注讬讛 诇专讘 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讝讗转 诪讬诪讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讻讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐


Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba raised an objection to the opinion of Shmuel that the slaughter is valid, thereby providing a support for opinion of Rav, who holds that it is invalid: I have a derivation only with regard to the sprinkling of the red heifer鈥檚 waters, that they are not valid if sprinkled by a woman as opposed to when sprinkled by a man, and that the sprinkling is valid only during the day. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the pure one shall sprinkle upon the impure on the third day鈥 (Numbers 19:19). The use of the terms 鈥減ure one,鈥 in the masculine form, and 鈥渄ay,鈥 indicate that the sprinkling is valid only if performed by a man during the day.


诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖讞讬讟转讛 讜拽讘诇转 讚诪讛 讜讛讝讗转 讚诪讛 讜砖专讬驻转讛 讜讛砖诇讻转 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讜专讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讗住讬驻转 讗驻专讛 讜诪讬诇讜讬 诪讬诐 讜拽讬讚讜砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转


From where is it derived to include the following stages among those stages that must be performed by a man during the day in order to be valid: Its slaughter; and the collection of its blood; and the sprinkling of its blood; and its burning; and the casting of the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the strip of crimson into the fire? The verse states: 鈥淟aw鈥 (Numbers 19:2), at the beginning of the section on the red heifer, to indicate that the same rules govern all stages of the rite. As such, I might have thought that I should include even the collection of its ashes, and the filling of waters, and the sanctification. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭his is the statute of the law鈥 (Numbers 19:2). The word this limits the scope of the requirement that the rite must be performed by a man and during the day from applying to these stages.


讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 讗诪专转 讛专讬 讗谞讜 诇诪讚讬谉 讻讜诇谉 诪讛讝讗转 诪讬诪讬讛 诪讛 讛讝讗转 诪讬诪讬讛 讗讬谞谉 讻砖专讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讻讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 讜拽讘诇转 讚诪讛 讜讛讝讗转 讚诪讛 讜砖专讬驻转讛 讜讛砖诇讻转 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转


And if the word 鈥渓aw鈥 serves to include all stages in the halakha and the word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to exclude some stages, what did you see to include these stages and to exclude those? After noting that the verse includes some stages and excludes others, you should say the following logical argument: Indeed, we learn all the stages from the sprinkling of its waters: Just as the sprinkling of its waters is not valid if done by a woman as opposed to when done by a man, and it is valid only during the day, so too I will include in the same requirement its slaughter; and the collection of its blood; and the sprinkling of its blood; and its burning; and the casting of the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the strip of crimson.


讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讻讘讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗住讬驻转 讗驻专讛 讜诪讬诇讜讬 诪讬诐 讜拽讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻砖专讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讻讘讗讬砖 讻砖专讬谉 谞诪讬 讘讬讜诐 讜讘诇讬诇讛


Since these stages are not valid if done by a woman as opposed to when done by a man, as indicated by the verses that state that they are to be done by a serving priest, who by definition is a man, then it is logical to also include these cases in the halakha that they are valid only during the day. And I exclude the collection of its ashes, and the filling of water, and the sanctification, since these stages are valid when done by a woman as they are when done by a man, as the verses never suggest a requirement that they be done by a man. Therefore, it is logical that these stages are valid both during the day and during the night.


讜讛讗讬 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讗砖讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 讘讝专 讛讝讗转 诪讬诪讬讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讜讻砖专讬谉 讘讝专


Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba originally cited the baraita to challenge Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that the slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest is valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the challenge from this baraita? If we say that since that these stages are invalid if done by a woman one should conclude that they are also invalid if done by a non-priest, then let the stage of sprinkling the waters serve as a proof that one should not necessarily connect these two halakhot, because the sprinkling is invalid if done by a woman and yet valid if done by a non-priest. If so, what was the basis for the challenge?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 讗砖讛 讝专 谞诪讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 讝专


Abaye said: This is the challenge: With regard to a woman, what is the reason she may not perform these stages? The verse states 鈥淓lazar,鈥 indicating the requirement for a man and not a woman. The same logic should also apply to a non-priest: The verse states: 鈥淓lazar,鈥 indicating the requirement for a priest and not a non-priest.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 讛驻专砖讛 讻讜诇讛 诪砖诪注 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 诪砖诪注 讜诪砖诪注 诪诪讬诇讗


The Gemara considers other aspects of the rite of the red heifer: Ulla said: Throughout the entire passage of the red heifer, certain conditions apply to some stages of the rite, but not to others. These conditions are derived from the phrasing of the verses. In some stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse preclude the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse describing a previous stage. A verse describing one stage may imply the existence of a certain condition which applies to that stage but a verse describing a subsequent stage indicates that that condition does not apply to the subsequent stage. However, in other stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and continue to apply in subsequent stages, i.e., the verses in subsequent stages do not exclude the application of the condition derived from the verses in a previous stage.


讜谞转转诐 讗讜转讛 讗诇 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 诇讗诇注讝专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟


The Gemara proceeds to demonstrate Ulla鈥檚 claim by expounding the verses throughout the passage of the red heifer: The verse states with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd you shall give it to Elazar the priest and he shall take it out to the outside of the camp, and he shall slaughter it before him鈥 (Numbers 19:3). The word 鈥渋t鈥 implies that only that red heifer, i.e., the first one, was to be given to Elazar, who was the deputy High Priest, to perform its rite, but that the red heifer in future generations does not need to be given to Elazar, i.e., to a priest of similar rank. If so, who does perform the rite of the red heifer? Some say: In future generations, it should be done by the High Priest. And some say: In future generations, it can be done even by a common priest.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讙诪专 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诪讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐


Granted, according to the one who says that in future generations it can be done even by a common priest, it works out well, since there is no indication to the contrary. But according to the one who says that in future generations it should be done by the High Priest, from where does he derive this requirement? He derives the halakha from the service of Yom Kippur through a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Numbers 19:2) written with regard to the red heifer and the word 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Leviticus 16:34) written with regard to the Yom Kippur service: Just as on Yom Kippur the entire service is performed by the High Priest, so too, in future generations the rite of the red heifer must be done entirely by the High Priest.


讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗讜转讛 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讗讞专转 注诪讛 讻讚转谞谉 诇讗 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 专讜爪讛 诇爪讗转 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 注诪讛 砖讞讜专讛 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 砖讞讜专讛 砖讞讟讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 注诪讛 讗讚讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 砖转讬诐 砖讞讟讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜转讛 诇讘讚讛


The Gemara expounds the next phrase in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take it out to the outside of the camp鈥 (Numbers 19:3). The use of the word 鈥渋t鈥 implies that only it should be taken out, but he should not take out another heifer with it. As we learned in a mishna: If the heifer did not want to go out by itself, we do not take out a black cow with it in order to encourage it to leave, so that people will not mistakenly say that they slaughtered the black cow. And we do not take out an additional red heifer with it, so that people will not mistakenly say that they slaughtered two heifers. Slaughtering an additional heifer would invalidate the rite, since performing any additional labor during the rite of the red heifer disqualifies it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This is not for that reason, rather it is due to the fact that it is stated 鈥淚t,鈥 which implies only one heifer may be taken out.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗讜转讛 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诪讬讛 讚拽专讗 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


And even according to the first tanna, is it not written 鈥渋t鈥? Why does he not derive the halakha from the word 鈥渋t鈥? The Gemara explains: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the rationale for the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation. Therefore, he accepts that the halakha is derived from the word 鈥渋t,鈥 but he also provides a rationale for the halakha. If so, what is the practical difference between them? The practical difference between them is in a case


Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 39 -44 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are continuing to learn about the Yom Kippur service in the Temple. The High Priest draws lots...
alon shvut women

Para & Paro

Yoma Daf 42 - Is either the Par of the Kohen Gadol or the Parah Aduma kosher to be shechted...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 42: Elazar Was a Kohen

A dispute between Rav and Shmuel - who are Amoraim! - on whether the slaughter of the Yom Kippur Korban...

Yoma 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 42

砖诇 驻专讛 诪砖拽诇 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 讜砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 诪砖拽诇 砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜砖诇 诪爪讜专注 诪砖拽诇 砖拽诇


The strip of crimson of the red heifer has the weight of ten zuz; and the strip of the scapegoat has the weight of two sela, which is eight zuz; and the strip of the leper has the weight of a shekel, which is two zuz.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讞诇驻转讗 讜专讘谞谉 讘驻专讛 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖拽诇 注砖专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖拽诇 砖拽诇 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讗讞讚 讛诪专讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诪诪注讬讟


And Rabbi Yo岣nan further said: Rabbi Shimon ben 岣lafta and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the strip of crimson of the red heifer. One said: It has the weight of ten zuz. And one said: It has the weight of one shekel. And your mnemonic for remembering that while both assume that only one of the extreme values was required no one suggests the middle value of two sela is required, is the aphorism from a mishna: God equally values both the one who gives much and the one who gives little as long as his intention is to Heaven.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 讘驻专讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘讬讗 讘专 拽讬住讬 讜讗谞讞讜 讘讛 住讬诪谞讗 专讘讬讗 [讘专] 拽讬住讬 诪讻驻专 讻砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞


Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to Ravina: It is not with regard to the strip of the red heifer that they disagree; rather, it is with regard to the strip of the scapegoat that they disagree. And on that very day that they disputed this issue, Ravya bar Kisi died, and they made a mnemonic out of it, associating the halakha with his name: The death of Ravya bar Kisi atones like the scapegoat, since the death of the righteous person atones for his generation.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖转讬 砖讞讬讟讜转 砖诪注转讬 讗讞转 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 驻专讜 讗讞转 讻砖专讛 讘讝专 讜讗讞转 驻住讜诇讛 讘讝专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜


Rabbi Yitz岣k said: I heard a teaching that there is a distinction between two slaughters: One of the red heifer, and one of the bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur. The slaughter of one of them is valid even if done by a non-priest, and the slaughter of the other one is invalid if done by a non-priest. But I do not know which of them is which.


讗讬转诪专 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讜驻专讜 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 驻专讛 驻住讜诇讛 驻专讜 讻砖专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻专讜 驻住讜诇讛 驻专讛 讻砖专讛


An amoraic dispute was stated: With regard to the slaughter of the red heifer and the bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel: One said: A red heifer slaughtered by a non-priest is invalid, whereas the bull of the High Priest slaughtered by a non-priest is valid. And the other one said: His bull is invalid, but the red heifer is valid.


转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 驻专讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 注诇讛 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛 砖谞讬谞讜 讘讛


The Gemara comments: Conclude that it is Rav who said that if the heifer is slaughtered by a non-priest it is invalid, as Rabbi Zeira said: The slaughter of the heifer by a non-priest is invalid. And Rav said concerning this statement of Rabbi Zeira: This is because we learned in the Torah鈥檚 description of the slaughter of the red heifer both 鈥淓lazar the priest鈥 (Numbers 19:3) and 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Numbers 19:2). Because Elazar is mentioned, it indicates the slaughter should be performed by a priest, and the use of the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 teaches that one may not deviate from any of the details of the service as delineated in the verses; if one does deviate, the service is invalid. Clearly then, Rav held that if the heifer is slaughtered by a non-priest it is invalid.


讜专讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 驻专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛 驻专讜 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗讛专谉 讜讞讜拽讛


The Gemara analyzes Rav鈥檚 opinion: And according to Rav, what is different with regard to the red heifer, that if it is slaughtered by a non-priest it is invalid? As Rav explained, it is different in that, with regard to it, it is written 鈥淓lazar鈥 and 鈥渟tatute.鈥 But with regard to the bull of the High Priest it is also written 鈥淎aron鈥 the High Priest (Leviticus 16:11) and 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Leviticus 16:34). Based on Rav鈥檚 logic, that indicates that the priest is indispensable.


砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 驻专讛 谞诪讬 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗


The Gemara explains: The slaughter of the bull by a non-priest is valid because slaughtering is not classified as a sacrificial service; therefore, it does not have to be done by a priest. The Gemara challenges this answer: If so, by the same logic, the red heifer should also be valid when slaughtered by a non-priest. The Gemara concludes: The logic that slaughtering is not classified as a sacrificial service does not apply in the case of the red heifer because the red heifer is different. It has the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, and therefore the principles that apply to other offerings do not necessarily apply to it.


讜诇讗讜 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛


But is it not arguable, by an a fortiori inference, that the slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest is valid? If the slaughter of the bull of the High Priest, which is an actual offering, is valid when performed by a non-priest, then all the more so the slaughter of the red heifer, which is not an offering, should be valid when similarly performed by a non-priest. Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest is invalid. The halakha is just as in the case of appearances of leprosy, which, despite their not being a sacrificial service, still require the priesthood. Only a priest may declare the signs of leprosy to be pure or impure. It is apparent from this case that the logic of the a fortiori inference does not hold.


讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 驻专讜 驻住讜诇讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 驻专讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讛专谉 讜讞讜拽讛 驻专讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讛 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讬讛讗 讝专 砖讜讞讟 讜讗诇注讝专 专讜讗讛


The Gemara analyzes Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: And according to Shmuel, who said that if a non-priest slaughters the bull of the High Priest it is invalid, what is different with regard to his bull that this is the halakha? It is different in that, with regard to it, it is written 鈥淎aron,鈥 indicating that a priest is required, and 鈥渟tatute,鈥 indicating that the requirements of the Yom Kippur service are indispensable. But with regard to the red heifer it is also written: 鈥淓lazar鈥 and 鈥渟tatute鈥 which by the same logic should indicate the need for a priest is indispensable. The Gemara concludes: It is different there as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it before him鈥 (Numbers 19:3), i.e., in front of Elazar, which suggests that it could be that a non-priest slaughters and Elazar watches.


讜专讘 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇注讬谞讬讜


And Rav, who assumes the slaughter is performed by the priest himself, how does he interpret the phrase: 鈥淏efore him鈥? He understands it to mean that he should not divert his attention from the heifer from the moment of slaughtering until the completion of the process. As with other matters of purification, one is required to maintain his attention on the matter; any distraction can invalidate the process. And from where does Shmuel, who already derived something from this verse, derive that he should not divert his attention from it? He derives it from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall burn the heifer in his sight鈥 (Numbers 19:5).


讜专讘 讞讚 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讞讚 讘砖专讬驻讛


And what does Rav learn from this verse? He holds that one verse is needed to teach the requirement to maintain one鈥檚 attention with regard to slaughtering, and one verse is needed to teach the requirement with regard to burning.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪砖讜诐 讚转讞讬诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 砖专讬驻讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘砖专讬驻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚诪转讻砖专讗 驻专讛 讗讘诇 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And it is necessary to have the requirement stated in both cases since, if the Merciful One had written it only with regard to slaughtering, I might have limited the requirement to that case because it is the start of the Temple service; but with regard to burning, I could say that no, there is no requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the requirement also in the case of burning. And if the Merciful One had written the requirement only with regard to burning, I might have limited it to that case, because it is now that the heifer is actually being made ready to be used; but with regard to slaughtering, I could say that no, there is no requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the requirement also in that case.


诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗住讬驻转 讗驻专讛 讜诪讬诇讜讬 诪讬诐 诇拽讬讚讜砖


As the requirement is mentioned with regard to two stages of the rite of the red heifer, this suggests that it does not exist for every stage. Therefore, the Gemara asks: It is written this way in order to exclude what stage? If we say, to exclude from the requirement the stages of gathering its ashes and filling the water for sanctification, i.e., taking the water in order to pour it on the ashes and mix them together,


诇诪砖诪专转 诇诪讬 谞讚讛 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛砖诇讻转 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 讚诇讗讜 讙讜驻讛 讚驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜


this is mistaken because: 鈥淎nd it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of sprinkling鈥 (Numbers 19:9) was written, and the use of the term 鈥渟hall be kept鈥 indicates that one must maintain attention even during these stages. Rather, it is to exclude from the requirement the stage of casting the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the strip of crimson into the fire. The requirement does not apply to this stage, as they do not pertain to the heifer itself.


讗讬转诪专 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 驻住讜诇讛


An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to the slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest: Rabbi Ami said: It is valid. And Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: It is invalid. Ulla said: It is valid, but some say that he said: It is invalid.


诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 讗讘讗 诇住讬讜注讬讛 诇专讘 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讝讗转 诪讬诪讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讻讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐


Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba raised an objection to the opinion of Shmuel that the slaughter is valid, thereby providing a support for opinion of Rav, who holds that it is invalid: I have a derivation only with regard to the sprinkling of the red heifer鈥檚 waters, that they are not valid if sprinkled by a woman as opposed to when sprinkled by a man, and that the sprinkling is valid only during the day. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the pure one shall sprinkle upon the impure on the third day鈥 (Numbers 19:19). The use of the terms 鈥減ure one,鈥 in the masculine form, and 鈥渄ay,鈥 indicate that the sprinkling is valid only if performed by a man during the day.


诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖讞讬讟转讛 讜拽讘诇转 讚诪讛 讜讛讝讗转 讚诪讛 讜砖专讬驻转讛 讜讛砖诇讻转 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讜专讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讗住讬驻转 讗驻专讛 讜诪讬诇讜讬 诪讬诐 讜拽讬讚讜砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转


From where is it derived to include the following stages among those stages that must be performed by a man during the day in order to be valid: Its slaughter; and the collection of its blood; and the sprinkling of its blood; and its burning; and the casting of the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the strip of crimson into the fire? The verse states: 鈥淟aw鈥 (Numbers 19:2), at the beginning of the section on the red heifer, to indicate that the same rules govern all stages of the rite. As such, I might have thought that I should include even the collection of its ashes, and the filling of waters, and the sanctification. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭his is the statute of the law鈥 (Numbers 19:2). The word this limits the scope of the requirement that the rite must be performed by a man and during the day from applying to these stages.


讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 讗诪专转 讛专讬 讗谞讜 诇诪讚讬谉 讻讜诇谉 诪讛讝讗转 诪讬诪讬讛 诪讛 讛讝讗转 诪讬诪讬讛 讗讬谞谉 讻砖专讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讻讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 讜拽讘诇转 讚诪讛 讜讛讝讗转 讚诪讛 讜砖专讬驻转讛 讜讛砖诇讻转 注抓 讗专讝 讜讗讝讜讘 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转


And if the word 鈥渓aw鈥 serves to include all stages in the halakha and the word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to exclude some stages, what did you see to include these stages and to exclude those? After noting that the verse includes some stages and excludes others, you should say the following logical argument: Indeed, we learn all the stages from the sprinkling of its waters: Just as the sprinkling of its waters is not valid if done by a woman as opposed to when done by a man, and it is valid only during the day, so too I will include in the same requirement its slaughter; and the collection of its blood; and the sprinkling of its blood; and its burning; and the casting of the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the strip of crimson.


讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讻讘讗讬砖 讗讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗住讬驻转 讗驻专讛 讜诪讬诇讜讬 诪讬诐 讜拽讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻砖专讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讻讘讗讬砖 讻砖专讬谉 谞诪讬 讘讬讜诐 讜讘诇讬诇讛


Since these stages are not valid if done by a woman as opposed to when done by a man, as indicated by the verses that state that they are to be done by a serving priest, who by definition is a man, then it is logical to also include these cases in the halakha that they are valid only during the day. And I exclude the collection of its ashes, and the filling of water, and the sanctification, since these stages are valid when done by a woman as they are when done by a man, as the verses never suggest a requirement that they be done by a man. Therefore, it is logical that these stages are valid both during the day and during the night.


讜讛讗讬 诪讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讗砖讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 讘讝专 讛讝讗转 诪讬诪讬讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讜讻砖专讬谉 讘讝专


Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba originally cited the baraita to challenge Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that the slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest is valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the challenge from this baraita? If we say that since that these stages are invalid if done by a woman one should conclude that they are also invalid if done by a non-priest, then let the stage of sprinkling the waters serve as a proof that one should not necessarily connect these two halakhot, because the sprinkling is invalid if done by a woman and yet valid if done by a non-priest. If so, what was the basis for the challenge?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 讗砖讛 讝专 谞诪讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 讝专


Abaye said: This is the challenge: With regard to a woman, what is the reason she may not perform these stages? The verse states 鈥淓lazar,鈥 indicating the requirement for a man and not a woman. The same logic should also apply to a non-priest: The verse states: 鈥淓lazar,鈥 indicating the requirement for a priest and not a non-priest.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 讛驻专砖讛 讻讜诇讛 诪砖诪注 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 诪砖诪注 讜诪砖诪注 诪诪讬诇讗


The Gemara considers other aspects of the rite of the red heifer: Ulla said: Throughout the entire passage of the red heifer, certain conditions apply to some stages of the rite, but not to others. These conditions are derived from the phrasing of the verses. In some stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse preclude the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse describing a previous stage. A verse describing one stage may imply the existence of a certain condition which applies to that stage but a verse describing a subsequent stage indicates that that condition does not apply to the subsequent stage. However, in other stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and continue to apply in subsequent stages, i.e., the verses in subsequent stages do not exclude the application of the condition derived from the verses in a previous stage.


讜谞转转诐 讗讜转讛 讗诇 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 诇讗诇注讝专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟


The Gemara proceeds to demonstrate Ulla鈥檚 claim by expounding the verses throughout the passage of the red heifer: The verse states with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd you shall give it to Elazar the priest and he shall take it out to the outside of the camp, and he shall slaughter it before him鈥 (Numbers 19:3). The word 鈥渋t鈥 implies that only that red heifer, i.e., the first one, was to be given to Elazar, who was the deputy High Priest, to perform its rite, but that the red heifer in future generations does not need to be given to Elazar, i.e., to a priest of similar rank. If so, who does perform the rite of the red heifer? Some say: In future generations, it should be done by the High Priest. And some say: In future generations, it can be done even by a common priest.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讙诪专 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诪讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐


Granted, according to the one who says that in future generations it can be done even by a common priest, it works out well, since there is no indication to the contrary. But according to the one who says that in future generations it should be done by the High Priest, from where does he derive this requirement? He derives the halakha from the service of Yom Kippur through a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Numbers 19:2) written with regard to the red heifer and the word 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Leviticus 16:34) written with regard to the Yom Kippur service: Just as on Yom Kippur the entire service is performed by the High Priest, so too, in future generations the rite of the red heifer must be done entirely by the High Priest.


讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗讜转讛 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讗讞专转 注诪讛 讻讚转谞谉 诇讗 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 专讜爪讛 诇爪讗转 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 注诪讛 砖讞讜专讛 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 砖讞讜专讛 砖讞讟讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 注诪讛 讗讚讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 砖转讬诐 砖讞讟讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜转讛 诇讘讚讛


The Gemara expounds the next phrase in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take it out to the outside of the camp鈥 (Numbers 19:3). The use of the word 鈥渋t鈥 implies that only it should be taken out, but he should not take out another heifer with it. As we learned in a mishna: If the heifer did not want to go out by itself, we do not take out a black cow with it in order to encourage it to leave, so that people will not mistakenly say that they slaughtered the black cow. And we do not take out an additional red heifer with it, so that people will not mistakenly say that they slaughtered two heifers. Slaughtering an additional heifer would invalidate the rite, since performing any additional labor during the rite of the red heifer disqualifies it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This is not for that reason, rather it is due to the fact that it is stated 鈥淚t,鈥 which implies only one heifer may be taken out.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗讜转讛 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诪讬讛 讚拽专讗 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜


And even according to the first tanna, is it not written 鈥渋t鈥? Why does he not derive the halakha from the word 鈥渋t鈥? The Gemara explains: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the rationale for the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation. Therefore, he accepts that the halakha is derived from the word 鈥渋t,鈥 but he also provides a rationale for the halakha. If so, what is the practical difference between them? The practical difference between them is in a case


Scroll To Top