Yoma 42a — the Talmud in English

The tongue

of a cow

was

of a weight of ten

zuz, since it required weight.

And

the tongue

of the goat that was sent away

was

of a weight of two sela,

because it had to be divided into two [half of it they tied to a rock, and half of it they tied between its horns].

And

the tongue

of a leper

was

of a weight of a shekel

only, because it required neither weight nor division.

Rabbi Yohanan said: They disagree about it:

Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta and the Rabbis

disagreed about it

concerning the weight of the tongue of the

cow:

One

of them

said: Of a weight of ten

as Rabbi Yonatan said above.

And one

of them

said: Of a weight of a shekel.

And your mnemonic:

so that you should not err in the matter, and so that you should not say that one of the tannaim said that the weight of the tongue of the cow was two sela, they gave a mnemonic for the matter from the Mishna in tractate Menahot [110a]:

“The one who increases and the one who diminishes

provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven”.

Through this mnemonic you will remember that one of the tannaim gave for the red cow’s tongue a measure greater than the other measures, while the other tanna gave a measure smaller than all the measures. But the intermediate measure of two sela was not mentioned here.

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to Ravina:

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and the Sages

did not disagree concerning the cow

they disagreed,

rather they disagreed concerning the goat that was sent away.

And on that day,

on the day on which they disagreed,

Ravya bar Kisi died,

a sage named Ravya bar Kisi passed away.

And they made a mnemonic from it,

they made the death of Ravya bar Kisi a mnemonic for knowing concerning what they disagreed, and this is what they said:

Ravya bar Kisi,

who was righteous,

atones

through his death

like the goat that was sent away

for the deaths of the righteous atone.

And from here there is a mnemonic to remember that they disagreed concerning the matter of the goat that was sent away, which contains atonement, just as there was atonement on that day through the death of Ravya bar Kisi.

And since the Gemara brought above the statement of Rabbi Yitzhak concerning two tongues, it brings a similar statement of Rabbi Yitzhak concerning other matters:

Rabbi Yitzhak said:

Concerning

two slaughterings I heard

that there is a distinction between them:

One

is the slaughtering

of the cow

red.

And one

is the slaughtering

of his bull

of the High Priest on Yom Kippur.

And the distinction between them is:

one

of them

is valid

its slaughtering

by a non-priest. And one

of them

is invalid by a non-priest.

And I do not know which of them—

I do not know which of them is valid by a non-priest and which is invalid.

It was stated:

a disagreement of amoraim was stated concerning this:

The slaughtering of the cow

red

and

the slaughtering of

his bull

of the High Priest

by a non-priest—

they disagreed about the matter,

Rav and Shmuel:

disagreed about this:

One said:

The slaughtering of the

cow

red

is invalid

by a non-priest. But the slaughtering of

his bull

of the High Priest

is valid

by a non-priest.

And one said:

The slaughtering of

his bull

is invalid by a non-priest, whereas the slaughtering of

the cow is valid

by a non-priest.

And it was not stated in the beit-midrash except that Rav and Shmuel disagreed about the matter. But it was not clarified which view was stated by Rav and which by Shmuel.

And we say:

It can be determined,

prove

that it was Rav who said

that the slaughtering of the

cow

by a non-priest is

invalid, and not Shmuel.

and not Shmuel.

For Rabbi Zeira said: The slaughtering of a cow by a non-priest is invalid.

And Rav said concerning it

a source for Rabbi Zeira’s statement, that the slaughtering of the cow by a non-priest is invalid:

Since concerning the red cow,

“Elazar” and “a statute” are both stated concerning it

in the Torah.

As it is stated [Numbers 19:3]: “And you shall give it to Elazar the priest, and he shall slaughter it before him,” and at the beginning of the passage it is stated: “This is the statute of the Torah.”

And everywhere that “a statute” is stated in the Torah, it indicates specifically that the order must not be changed, and if one changed it, it is invalid.

And we learn from here that Rav holds that the slaughtering of the cow is invalid by a non-priest. And from this we know that Rav is the one who said above that the slaughtering of the cow by a non-priest is invalid and the slaughtering of his bull by a non-priest is valid. Whereas Shmuel said the opposite.

And we raise an objection to Rav’s statement:

And

according to

Rav, what is different about the cow,

how does the red cow differ from the bull of the High Priest, so that it is invalid by a non-priest? This is because

it is written

concerning it

“Elazar” and “a statute”

as above!

If so, in the passage concerning

his bull

of the High Priest,

is it not written

concerning it

“Aaron” and “a statute”

Leviticus 16:11–34 ! And why did Rav say that the slaughtering of his bull by a non-priest is valid!?

And we answer: Although “a statute” was stated in the order of the Yom Kippur services, nevertheless

slaughtering—

is not a “service”!

Slaughtering is not called a “service,” and when the Torah said “a statute,” it referred only to the “services” mentioned in the passage; therefore the slaughtering of his bull by a non-priest is valid.

And we raise an objection to the answer:

If so,

if “a statute” stated in the passage refers only to services—

the cow too,

concerning which “a statute” is stated, we should say that “a statute” refers only to a “service,” and slaughtering is not a service!

And why did Rav say that the slaughtering of a non-priest in the case of the cow is invalid because “a statute” is stated concerning it!?

And we answer:

The cow is different,

the red cow differs from the bull of the High Priest, since

it is consecrated for the repair of the Temple.

It does not possess the sanctity of the altar like offerings, for all its procedures were performed on the Mount of Olives and not in the Temple [and it possesses only monetary sanctity, like “the repair of the Temple”], and therefore there is no distinction between the slaughtering of the cow and its other procedures, since none of them falls within the category of “the service of offerings.”

Therefore, there is no distinction between slaughtering the cow and performing its other rites, since none of them is included in the category of “the rites of offerings.”

And necessarily, “a statute” stated concerning the red cow was stated concerning all its procedures.

And we challenge this:

And is this not a kal va-chomer,

is this not a kal va-chomer?!

If you say that the slaughtering of his bull, which possesses bodily sanctity like an offering, does not have “a statute” stated concerning it and is valid by a non-priest, how can it be that the slaughtering of the cow, which is not consecrated with bodily sanctity, has “a statute” stated concerning it and is invalid by a non-priest!?

He said

he answered,

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi: It is as is the case with the appearances of afflictions.

Just as we find concerning the appearances of afflictions

that they are not a service,

for this is not a service of offerings at all,

and

even so

they require priesthood,

for they must be performed specifically by a priest. So too, in this similar case, the slaughtering of the red cow, which is not a service, must be performed specifically by a priest. And if it was slaughtered by a non-priest, it is invalid. Thus far, the Gemara has explained Rav’s view, who said that the slaughtering of a non-priest in the case of the cow is invalid, while in the case of his bull it is valid.

And now the Gemara explains the reason for Shmuel’s statement, who said that the slaughtering of a non-priest in the case of the cow is valid, while in the case of his bull it is invalid:

And we consider the matter:

And according to Shmuel, who said

that the slaughtering of

his bull

by a non-priest is

invalid—

what is different,

how does the slaughtering of

his bull,

which is invalid by a non-priest, differ from the slaughtering of the red cow?

Necessarily, it is because

it is written

in the passage concerning the slaughtering of his bull

“Aaron” and “a statute.”

And therefore Aaron’s service is indispensable in the slaughtering of his bull.

If so,

the cow too,

after all, also concerning the red cow

is it not written “Elazar” and “a statute”!

And why did Shmuel say that the slaughtering of the cow by a non-priest is valid?

And we answer:

There it is different,

the law of slaughtering in the case of the red cow is different, for it is valid by a non-priest, because

it is written

concerning the slaughtering of the red cow: “And you shall give it to Elazar ...

and he shall slaughter it before him.”

And from the word “before him” we learn

that a non-priest shall slaughter

before Elazar,

and Elazar shall watch.

And now this is difficult for Rav, who learned from this verse, in which “Elazar” is stated, that the slaughtering of the cow by a non-priest is invalid. For “before him” is stated in the verse, and it implies that a non-priest slaughtered it and not Elazar!

And we explain Rav’s view:

And Rav

holds that Elazar himself slaughtered the cow.

And why was “before him” stated? To teach us

that he must not divert his attention from it.

And we challenge Shmuel:

And Shmuel—

from where does he derive that he must not divert his attention from it!?

And we answer:

He derives it,

Shmuel learned this law

from

the verse [Numbers 19:5]:

“And he shall burn the cow

before his eyes.”

From here, that his eyes must always be upon it at the time of the burning.

And from here there is a difficulty for Rav, who explains that the verse “And he shall slaughter it before him” teaches that he must not divert his attention from it. But this is difficult: after all, from the verse “And he shall burn the cow before his eyes” we learned this law!

And we explain Rav’s view:

And Rav

held that the two verses came to teach us that he must not divert his attention from the cow.

One,

one verse, “And he shall slaughter it before him,” speaks

of slaughtering.

And one,

the second verse, “And he shall burn the cow before his eyes,” speaks

of burning.

To teach us that both during slaughtering and during burning he must not divert his attention from the procedure of the cow.

And it is necessary.

The verse must inform us of this law both concerning slaughtering and concerning burning, for one cannot be learned from the other:

Because

if the Merciful One had written,

if the verse had taught us this law

concerning slaughtering

alone, I would say that this law was stated specifically concerning slaughtering,

because it is the beginning of the procedure,

for slaughtering is the first procedure performed with the cow. Therefore slaughtering is important, and the verse was stringent concerning it, requiring that he not divert his attention from it.

But concerning burning—

I might say, no,

the verse was not stringent concerning it, requiring that he not divert his attention from it.

Therefore

it is necessary,

the verse had to teach us that also during burning he must not divert his attention.

And if the Merciful One had written,

if the verse had taught us this law

concerning burning

alone, I would say that this law was stated specifically concerning burning,

because it is only then that it becomes fit.

For now, during the burning, the fitness of the cow is completed, since all the procedures are performed for the purpose of making the ashes with which the impure person is purified. Therefore burning is important, and the verse was stringent concerning it, requiring that he not divert his attention from it.

But, as for slaughter, I would say: no

the Scripture was stringent concerning it, so that he must not divert his attention from it.

Therefore

it is necessary,

the Scripture had to teach us that even during slaughter he must not divert his attention.

And we deliberated about it: Since we have explained that Rav holds that two verses were stated to teach that diversion of attention invalidates [the service] of the red heifer, one concerning slaughter and the other concerning burning

what does it exclude!?

Which services did the Scripture exclude, such that they are not invalidated by diversion of attention?

If you say,

if it is said that the verses concerning slaughter and burning came

to exclude

the other services performed with the red heifer, such as

gathering its ashes,

and filling water from the spring into a vessel

for consecration,

for the purpose of putting the water in the vessel into the ashes of the red heifer—for in these services diversion of attention does not invalidate— one cannot say so.