Yoma 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

The tongue

of the cow

was

of a weight of ten

zuz, since it required weight.

And

the tongue

of the scapegoat sent away

was

of a weight of two sela,

because it had to be divided in two [half of it was tied to the rock, and half of it was tied between its horns].

And

the tongue

of a leper

was

of a weight of a shekel

alone, because it required neither weight nor division.

Rabbi Yohanan said: They disagree about it:

Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta and the Rabbis

disagree

about the weight of the tongue of the

cow:

One [

one of them]

said: A weight of ten [

as Rabbi Yonatan said above].

And one [

another of them]

said: A weight of a shekel.

And your mnemonic is,

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

“One who offers much and one who offers little

provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven” .

Through this mnemonic you will remember that one of the tannaim assigned the red cow’s tongue a measure greater than the other measures, while the other tanna assigned it the smallest measure of 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 scapegoat 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 it a mnemonic,

they made the death of Ravya bar Kisi a sign by which to know what they had disagreed about, and they said:

Ravya bar Kisi,

who was righteous,

atones

through his death

like the scapegoat sent away [

for the death of the righteous atones].

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

Since the Gemara earlier cited Rabbi Yitzhak’s statement concerning two tongues, it cites a similar statement of Rabbi Yitzhak concerning other matters:

Rabbi Yitzhak said:

Concerning

two acts of slaughter I have heard

that there is a distinction between them:

One

is the slaughter

of the red cow,

which is red.

And one

is the slaughter

of his bull,

the bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur.

And the distinction between them is:

One

of them

has a valid

slaughter

by a non-priest. And one

of them

is invalid when slaughtered by a non-priest.

And I do not know which of them—

I do not know which one is valid when slaughtered by a non-priest and which one is invalid.

It was stated;

a dispute between amoraim was stated:

The slaughter of the cow

which is red

and

the slaughter of

his bull,

the bull of the High Priest,

by a non-priest—

Rav and Shmuel

disagreed concerning the matter:

disagreed about this:

One said:

The slaughter of the

cow

which is red

is invalid

when performed by a non-priest. But the slaughter of

his bull,

the bull of the High Priest,

is valid

when performed by a non-priest.

And one said:

The slaughter of

his bull

is invalid when performed by a non-priest. But the slaughter of

the cow is valid

when performed by a non-priest.

And it was not stated in the beit-midrash which opinion was stated by which Sage; only that Rav and Shmuel disagreed about the matter. But it was not established 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 slaughter of the

cow

by a non-priest is

invalid,

and not Shmuel.

As Rabbi Zeira said: The slaughter of the cow by a non-priest is invalid.

And Rav said concerning it,

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

Since concerning the red cow

“Elazar” and “statute” are both stated in it

in the Torah.

As it is stated [Numbers 19:3]: “And you shall give it to Elazar the koen, 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 “statute” is stated in the Torah, it indicates specifically that one may not alter that order, and if one altered it, it is invalid.

We learn from here that Rav holds that the slaughter of the cow is invalid when performed by a non-priest. And from this we know that Rav was the one who said above that the slaughter of the cow by a non-priest is invalid, while the slaughter of his bull by a non-priest is valid. Shmuel, however, said the opposite.

And we raise an objection to Rav’s statement:

And

according to

Rav, what is different about the cow,

what distinguishes the red cow from the bull of the High Priest, such that it is invalid when performed by a non-priest? This is because

it is written

concerning it

“Elazar” and “statute” [

as above]!

If so, in the passage concerning

his bull,

the bull of the High Priest,

is it not written

concerning it

“Aaron” and “statute” [

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

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

slaughter—

is not a “service”!

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

And we raise an objection to this answer:

If so,

if the statute stated in the passage refers only to services—

the cow, too,

concerning which “statute” is stated, should be understood as referring only to a “service,” and slaughter is not a service!

Why, then, did Rav say that the slaughter of the cow by a non-priest is invalid because “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 with the sanctity of Temple maintenance.

It does not possess the sanctity of the altar like offerings, since all its procedures are performed on the Mount of Olives and not in the Temple [and it has only monetary sanctity, like the sanctity of bedek ha-bayit, Temple maintenance] ;

therefore, there is no distinction between the slaughter of the cow and its other procedures, since none of them falls within the category of “the service of offerings.”

It necessarily follows that the “statute” stated concerning the red cow was stated with regard to all its procedures.

And we challenge this:

Is this not a kal va-chomer,

is this not a kal va-chomer?!

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

He said,

he answered:

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi: It is analogous to the inspection of lesions.

Just as we find with the inspection of lesions,

which is not a service,

for it is not a service of offerings at all,

and

nevertheless

requires priesthood,

as it must be performed specifically by a koen—so too, in this analogous case, the slaughter of the red cow, although it is not a service, must be performed specifically by a koen. And if it was slaughtered by a non-priest, it is invalid. This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of Rav’s view, who said that the slaughter of the cow by a non-priest is invalid, while the slaughter of his bull is valid.

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

And we consider the matter:

And according to Shmuel, who said

that the slaughter of

his bull

by a non-priest is

invalid—

what is different,

what distinguishes the slaughter of

his bull,

which is invalid when performed by a non-priest, from the slaughter of the red cow?

It must be because

it is written

in the passage concerning the slaughter of his bull

“Aaron” and “statute.”

Therefore, Aaron’s performance is indispensable for the slaughter of his bull.

If so,

the cow, too,

after all, concerning the red cow as well

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

Why, then, did Shmuel say that the slaughter of the cow by a non-priest is valid?

And we answer:

That case is different,

the law of slaughter in the case of the red cow is different, and it is valid when performed by a non-priest, because

it is written

concerning the slaughter 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.

This now presents a difficulty for Rav, who derived from this verse, in which “Elazar” is stated, that the slaughter of the cow by a non-priest is invalid. For the verse says “before him,” implying 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 derives this law

from

the verse [Numbers 19:5]:

“And he shall burn the cow

before his eyes.”

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

This presents 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: We learned this law from the verse “and he shall burn the cow before his eyes”!

And we explain Rav’s view:

And Rav

held that both 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 slaughter.

And one,

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

of burning.

It teaches us that both during slaughter and during burning, he must not divert his attention from the procedure of the cow.

And it is necessary.

The verse had to inform us of this law both with regard to slaughter and with regard to burning, because one cannot derive one from the other:

Because

if the Merciful One had written,

if the verse had taught us this law

with regard to slaughter

alone, I would have said that this law applies specifically to slaughter,

because it is the beginning of the procedure,

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

But burning—

I might say, it does not,

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,

and if the verse had taught us this law

with regard to burning

alone, I would have said that this law applies specifically to burning,

because it is only then that it becomes fit.

For it is at this point, through the burning, that the preparation of the cow is completed, since all the procedures are performed for the purpose of making the ash with which the impure are 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, say no—

the Torah was stringent with regard to it, so that one must not divert his attention from it.

Therefore

it is necessary:

the Torah had to teach us that even with regard to slaughter one must not divert his attention.

And we raised an objection concerning this: 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 with regard to slaughter and the other with regard to burning—

what does this exclude!?

Which rites did the Torah exclude, teaching that they are not invalidated by diversion of attention?

If you say,

if we say that the verses concerning slaughter and burning came

to exclude

the other rites performed with the red heifer, such as

gathering its ashes,

and filling a vessel with water from the spring

for kiddush,

for the purpose of placing the water in the vessel into the ashes of the red heifer—for these rites diversion of attention does not invalidate the service— this cannot be said.