Sotah 46a — the Talmud in English

And the priests say, “Atone for Your people Israel, whom You redeemed, O Lord, and do not give innocent blood within Your people Israel,”

and at the conclusion of this verse it says, “And the blood shall be atoned for them,” and the Mishna explains that

they were not

the priests

required to say

also the words

“And the blood shall be atoned for them,” rather

the meaning of the verse is that

the Divine Spirit authorizes them

for the people of Israel through Moses our master for all generations:

Whenever you do this, the blood is atoned for them.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection: Why did we learn that “a blemish does not disqualify it,”

when a blemish should disqualify the heifer by a kal va-chomer: Just as a red heifer

red

whose years do not disqualify it

for one may make it at any age, nevertheless

a blemish disqualifies it,

and let us derive from it with regard to

a heifer whose years disqualify it

for an ordinary “heifer” is one year old, and if its first year has passed it is disqualified for the breaking of its neck—and

is it not logical that a blemish should disqualify it?

And we answer:

There it is different

with regard to the red heifer,

for the verse says, “which has no blemish,”

and we expound only

“in it”

with regard to the red heifer:

a blemish disqualifies it, but a blemish does not disqualify the heifer.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

since one does not derive by a kal va-chomer where “in it” is written, then even with regard to the red heifer

other forms of labor should not disqualify it.

For it is not stated explicitly in the Torah that labor disqualifies it except for a yoke, whereas we derive other forms of labor by a kal va-chomer from the heifer whose neck is broken, concerning which it is stated, “And they shall take a heifer of cattle upon which no labor has been performed,” which implies any labor whatsoever. And if, with regard to the heifer, where a blemish does not disqualify it, labor disqualifies it, all the more so with regard to the red heifer, where even a blemish disqualifies it, any labor should disqualify it.

But if there is a rule that from a mitzva concerning which “in it” is stated one does not derive anything for another mitzva, then there is no source for disqualifying a red heifer through any labor performed with it, and the following difficulty arises:

Why, then, did Rav Yehuda say in the name of Rav: If one placed upon it

upon the red heifer

while it still had

a bundle

of sacks, it is disqualified,

even though this is not a yoke,

whereas

if

with regard to the heifer

it is not disqualified for the breaking of its neck

until it pulls,

and moves the load placed upon it, as it is stated with regard to it, “which did not pull with a yoke,” implying that a red heifer is disqualified by every type of labor. Necessarily, then, we derive from the heifer even though “in it” is written concerning it. [The reason why a red heifer does not need to pull in order to become disqualified will be explained below.]

And we answer:

A red heifer is different,

for it is not excluded by what is written “in it” with regard to the heifer, since we do not derive from the heifer by a kal va-chomer, but

we derive

by a gezera shava,

“yoke, yoke,” from the heifer,

and since we derive by a gezera shava, the law is considered as though it were written in the body of the passage concerning the red heifer, while the exclusion written “in it” with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken is expounded below for another exposition.

And we raise an objection: If so, let us derive the disqualification of

a heifer

that has a blemish, from that same gezera shava of

“yoke, yoke,” from the red heifer.

And we answer that it is impossible to derive from the red heifer, for

the Merciful One excluded

and wrote with regard to the red heifer

“in it,”

so that we should not derive from it.

And we express astonishment: If so, what have you gained by deriving through a gezera shava from the heifer that a red heifer is disqualified by every labor, when

“in it” is also written with regard to the heifer?

And how can we derive from it with regard to the red heifer? And we answer:

That “in it” written with regard to the heifer

that is written concerning the heifer

is needed

for another exposition, namely

to exclude consecrated animals, with regard to which labor does not disqualify them,

and which remain fit for sacrifice. Since one thing is excluded by “in it,” it is possible to derive a gezera shava for the red heifer from the heifer, and “in it” does not exclude the red heifer.

And we explain why it is necessary to exclude that labor does not disqualify consecrated animals. For why would we disqualify the animal from sacrifice, when it was written only to take for a sacrifice an animal upon which no labor had been performed? Rather,

it might enter your mind to say that all consecrated animals should be brought

all consecrated animals by a

kal va-chomer from the heifer: Just as a heifer, where a blemish does not disqualify it,

nevertheless

labor disqualifies it, and

let us derive from it with regard to all

consecrated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them,

and

is it not logical that labor should disqualify them?

Therefore it is necessary to write “in it” with regard to the heifer, teaching that only with regard to it does labor disqualify.

And we raise an objection:

there is room to refute

the kal va-chomer from the heifer to consecrated animals, for

what is there concerning the heifer

that makes it more stringent in an additional respect than consecrated animals?

Its years disqualify it,

and therefore labor also disqualifies it; it is impossible to derive a kal va-chomer to consecrated animals, which are more lenient than it in that years do not disqualify them. And we reject this refutation:

Do consecrated animals, then, not include any with regard to which years disqualify them?

After all, the Paschal offering and the sin offering are fit only when one year old; therefore it can be said:

When the verse was necessary

to write “in it” in order to exclude

those consecrated animals with regard to which years disqualify them.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

consecrated animals with regard to which labor does not disqualify them are derived from here

from the exclusion “in it” with regard to the heifer

does it emerge?

But is it not that

it emerges from there,

for it is written:

“Blind, or broken, or

cut, or a wart, or scurvy, or ringworm—you shall not bring these to the Lord,”

and we expound:

“These” you may not sacrifice, but you may sacrifice consecrated animals upon which labor was performed,

and why do I need to exclude them from “in it,” which is written with regard to the heifer?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

for if only “you shall not bring these to the Lord” had been written, and we had expounded it to validate consecrated animals upon which labor was performed,

it might enter your mind to say: This applies

in that they are fit for sacrifice only

where permitted labor was performed with them, but

if one performed with them

forbidden labor

such as plowing with them on Shabbat, or driving them as mixed species of an ox and a donkey,

say that they should be forbidden

and disqualified for sacrifice. Therefore

it is necessary

for “in it,” written with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, to exclude disqualification through labor and validate it with regard to consecrated animals.

And we raise an objection:

But

consecrated animals with which forbidden labor was performed

also emerge from here,

for it is written:

“And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not bring the bread of your God from any of these,”

and we expound:

“These” you may not sacrifice, but you may sacrifice consecrated animals upon which labor was performed.

Since there are two exclusions concerning consecrated animals upon which labor was performed, let us assign the second exclusion to forbidden labor, which likewise does not disqualify them; why, then, do we need an exclusion from the heifer?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

for two exclusions are necessary with regard to consecrated animals upon which permitted labor was performed. For if there were only one exclusion,

it might enter your mind to say: This applies

in that labor does not disqualify them only

where one performed with them while they were unconsecrated, but

if

one performed with them while they were consecrated, say that they should be forbidden

and disqualified for sacrifice. Therefore

an additional exclusion is necessary

from “any of these,” and their disqualification through forbidden labor has still not been excluded; therefore it is necessary to exclude it through “in it” with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken.

With regard to the matter itself, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: If one placed upon it

upon the red heifer

while it still had a bundle of sacks, it is disqualified; but with regard to the heifer

it is not disqualified

until it pulls.

We raise an objection:

With regard to a red heifer it is written, “upon which there did not come”

a yoke; I know

that it disqualifies

only a yoke. From where

that other forms of labor disqualify?

You say by a kal va-chomer: Just as a heifer

that even

though a blemish does not disqualify it,

nevertheless

other forms of labor disqualify it,

and let us derive from it by a kal va-chomer with regard to

a red heifer, where a blemish disqualifies it,

and

is it not logical that other forms of labor

also should be

disqualifying it? And if you wish to say

some reason why we should not derive this kal va-chomer, as follows, there is still a source for disqualifying it through every form of labor by a gezera shava:

It is stated here

with regard to the red heifer

“yoke,” and it is stated there

with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken

“yoke”;

and with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken it is superfluous, since it is disqualified by every form of labor, and therefore it is available to teach us:

Just as there, other forms of labor disqualify it,

as it is stated, “upon which no labor was performed,” implying any labor whatsoever,

so here, other forms of labor disqualify it.

And we explain:

What is the meaning of “if you wish to say”?

Its meaning is:

Should you say that there is room to refute

the kal va-chomer from the heifer, where a blemish does not disqualify it, for one can say:

What is there concerning the heifer

that it has a stringent aspect over the red heifer?

Its years disqualify it,

and therefore only it is disqualified by every labor, but not the red heifer.

Alternatively,

one can say that

consecrated animals prove it, for a blemish disqualifies them, and

nevertheless

labor does not disqualify them.

Even if you say this, there is still a source to disqualify the red heifer through every form of labor by a gezera shava from the heifer:

“Yoke” is stated here, and “yoke” is stated there; just as there

with regard to the heifer

other forms of labor

disqualify it,

so here, with regard to the

red heifer

other forms of labor

disqualify it.

And here the Gemara concludes its objection to Rav Yehuda, who said that a red heifer is disqualified even when one merely placed sacks upon it and it did not pull them. For we have seen that the entire source for disqualifying a red heifer through every labor is a gezera shava from the heifer whose neck is broken. If so, how can the red heifer be disqualified through a load, whereas the heifer is not disqualified until it pulls? One should argue:

And from the place from which you came,

from there you can derive:

Just as there,

with regard to the heifer it is not disqualified

until it pulls

and moves the load upon it,

so here

the red heifer should not be disqualified

until it pulls.

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim, for there is one who derives it

to disqualify a red heifer through other forms of labor

from the heifer,

and according to their view a red heifer is not disqualified by a load alone until it pulls, and

there is one who derives it from the body of the passage concerning the red heifer, as it was taught:

Regarding what is written about the red heifer,

“yoke”; I know only

that it is disqualified through

a yoke. From where are other forms of labor derived? The verse says, “upon which a yoke did not come,” in any event.

And we expound from the fact that it was not written, “upon which a yoke did not come,” that the intent of the verse is to say, “upon which nothing came.”

And we explain:

If so, what does “yoke” come to teach? A yoke disqualifies both during the time of labor and not during the time of labor,

for example, if one placed it upon it incidentally merely to lighten his load, and not so that it would pull with the yoke, whereas

other forms of labor disqualify only during the time of labor

when one places a load upon it for a purpose; but when one places it incidentally and does not want it to carry the load for his purpose, it does not disqualify it.

And we raise an objection:

But say: “Upon which no yoke came” is a general statement; “yoke” is a specification,

and let us expound:

a generalization and a specification—the generalization contains only what is in the specification.

And we would derive that only

a yoke—yes,

disqualifies, whereas

anything else

other forms of labor

do not

disqualify the red heifer. And we answer:

“Which” is an amplification, and

it includes that other forms of labor also disqualify the red heifer.

And it was likewise taught with regard to the heifer in a similar manner:

for it is written concerning it

“yoke”; I know

that it is disqualified

only

through

a yoke. From where are other forms of labor derived? The verse says, “upon which no labor was performed,”

and it implies labor

in any event. If so, what does it come to teach

for what purpose was it written again, “which did not pull with a”

yoke,

to teach us:

A yoke disqualifies both during the time of labor and not during the time of labor; other forms of labor disqualify only during the time of labor.

And we raise an objection:

But say: “Upon which no labor was performed” is a general statement; “yoke” is a specification; a generalization and a specification contain only what is in the specification, and

we would derive that only

a yoke

disqualifies

but anything else does not.

And we answer:

“Which” is an amplification

to include that other forms of labor also disqualify.

Rabbi Abbahu said: I asked Rabbi Yohanan, the pulling of a yoke

that disqualifies the heifer

by what

measure is it?

He said to me: Like the full measure of a yoke.

They raised a question:

the full measure of the yoke

whether lengthwise or widthwise. One of the Sages, whose name was Rabbi Yaakov, said to them: To me it was explained by Rabbi Yohanan that the pulling of a yoke

its measure is

widthwise

and how much is it?

A handbreadth.

And we raise an objection:

Let him say “a handbreadth”;

why was it necessary to say that it is the measure of a yoke widthwise? And we explain:

This teaches us that the measure of a yoke is a handbreadth. For what

practical difference? For buying and selling,

for if one bought a yoke and it was found that its width was not a handbreadth, he may return it and claim that he was deceived in his purchase.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Shaul said: Why did the Torah say to bring a heifer to a stream? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let something that did not produce fruit

the heifer

have its neck broken in a place that does not produce fruit

which is the stream, whose soil is hard and is not cultivated,

and let it atone for one whom they did not allow to produce fruit

because they killed him. And we raise the question:

What fruit

did they not allow him to produce?

If you say procreation, then from now on

with regard to a slain person who is

old or a eunuch, is it likewise the case that we do not break the heifer’s neck? Rather,

the meaning is that they did not allow him to perform

mitzvot.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they bring it down to a stream that is איתן; eitan means, as its plain meaning indicates, hard.

The Sages taught: From where do we know concerning eitan

that its meaning is

that it is hard?