Yoma 43a (מג.) — the Talmud in English

There is a difference between them:

the difference between them is in the case

where he brings out a donkey with it,

that he brought out a donkey together with the red heifer.

According to Rabbi, who does not expound the reason for a verse, it is prohibited to do so, as the Torah said: “it” — alone. And there is no distinction between a donkey and a heifer.

But according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the reason for the verse that says “it” — alone — is so that people should not say that they slaughtered a black heifer or that they slaughtered two heifers, this concern applies when he brings out another heifer with it. But if he brings out a donkey with it, there is no concern that those who see it will say that they slaughtered a donkey.

c. Ulla continues to expound the verses concerning the order of the Yom Kippur service: “

And he shall slaughter it before him.”

And the Sages expounded:

“And he shall slaughter it”,

specifically it. From here:

that he shall not slaughter

another heifer

with it.

“Before him” —

A

ccording to the opinion of

Rav,

who disqualifies slaughter performed by a non-kohein, they expounded: From here,

that he must not divert his attention from it.

A

c

cording to the opinion of

Shmuel,

who deems slaughter performed by a non-kohein valid, they expounded: From here,

that a non-kohein may slaughter and Elazar watches.

d.

“And Elazar the kohein shall take some of its blood with his finger

and sprinkle it toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times from its blood.” And this verse is speaking of receiving the blood and sprinkling it.

Why was Elazar mentioned in this verse?

According to Shmuel,

who holds that the slaughter of the heifer mentioned in the preceding verse is valid when performed by a non-kohein, the Torah wrote “Elazar” here in order

to restore it to Elazar,

to return the receiving of the blood and its sprinkling to Elazar, teaching that these services are invalid when performed by a non-kohein. Whereas

according to Rav,

who holds that the slaughter of the heifer mentioned in the preceding verse is invalid when performed by a non-kohein, there is no need to say “Elazar” here. For even if it had said, “And he shall take some of its blood with his finger” [without “Elazar”], it would have been self-evident that the verse was speaking of Elazar, who was mentioned in the preceding verse.

And consequently,

there are two exclusions following one another —

the verse excluded twice the possibility that anyone other than Elazar is valid, and taught that specifically Elazar is valid.

And

the Sages stated a general principle:

“An exclusion following another exclusion

comes

only to include.”

And from the fact that “Elazar” is mentioned twice, they include

even an ordinary kohein:

he is valid for receiving the blood and sprinkling it, and it is not necessary that specifically Elazar receive the blood and sprinkle it.

e. The continuation of the passage explains that after receiving the heifer’s blood and sprinkling it, he would burn the heifer. And it says in verse 6:

“And the kohein shall take cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson thread

and cast them into the burning of the heifer.” Why was “the kohein” mentioned in this verse?”

According to Shmuel,

who holds that the services mentioned in the preceding verse [from receiving the blood onward] were performed specifically by Elazar, “the kohein” is stated here to teach you regarding this service

that it was performed even by an ordinary kohein

and not specifically by Elazar.

This is an instance of “one implication excludes another implication.” This service [casting in the cedar wood and the like] differs from the services preceding it. For according to Shmuel, the receiving of the blood and its sprinkling [and the burning of the heifer] were performed specifically by Elazar, whereas casting in the cedar wood is valid when performed by an ordinary kohein.

But

according to Rav,

who holds that the services mentioned in the preceding verses are also valid when performed by an ordinary kohein, “the kohein” mentioned here is in the category of “an implication that follows automatically.” For even if the Torah had not specified that the kohein cast in the cedar wood, we would have understood this on our own, because the preceding verses speak of an ordinary kohein.

This presents a difficulty according to Rav: Why, then, was “the kohein” mentioned in this verse? And we explain:

According to Rav,

it was necessary.

The verse had to say “the kohein,” because if “the kohein” had not been stated,

it might enter your mind

that one could say:

Since they are not part of the body of the heifer —

since the cedar wood, the crimson thread, and the hyssop are not the body of the heifer itself — therefore

a kohein is not required;

we would not require a kohein to cast them in.

It teaches us

that the verse informs us that a kohein is required to cast them in.

f. The continuation of the passage says in verse 7:

“And the kohein shall wash his garments.”

“The kohein” mentioned in this verse is in the category of “an implication that follows automatically,” since the preceding verse mentioned the kohein. And even if the kohein had not been mentioned here, it would have been understood automatically that the verse was speaking of the kohein mentioned above.

If so, why was “the kohein” mentioned in this verse?

From here they expounded:

“The kohein” —

in his priestly garments.

Since “the kohein” is written adjacent to “his garments” [“And the kohein shall wash his garments”], they expounded that his garments must be priestly garments [as though the verse had said: “And he shall wash his garments that are his priestly garments”]. g. And it says later in verse 7:

“And the kohein shall be impure until evening.”

And “the kohein” mentioned here too is in the category of “an implication that follows automatically,” since the preceding verse speaks of the kohein.

If so, why was “the kohein” mentioned in this verse?

From here they expounded: The verse comes to teach that the law of

“a kohein in his priestly garments”,

that he must wear priestly garments, applies also

for all generations [

and not only to the first red heifer that they prepared in the wilderness].

And we challenge this:

That works —

this exposition [that “a kohein in his priestly garments” applies for all generations]

according to the one who says

that the red heifer

for all generations is performed by an ordinary kohein.

According to his view,

it is well

understood that if “the kohein” had not been stated a second time, I could have said that priestly garments are not required for the red heifer in future generations.

But according to the one who says

that the red heifer

for all generations

is performed

by the High Priest,

even if “the kohein” had not been stated a second time, it would be self-evident that priestly garments are required, by means of a kal va-chomer:

Now,

now that we have learned that

a High Priest is required,

that the services of the heifer are stringent, being performed specifically by a High Priest,

if so —

is it necessary to say that he must be in his priestly garments?!

Is it necessary to state that the services of the heifer require priestly garments?!

And we answer:

No.

Indeed, the verse comes to teach that priestly garments apply also for all generations. For although this matter can be derived by means of a kal va-chomer, nevertheless,

a matter that can be derived by means of a kal va-chomer —

a matter that can be learned through a kal va-chomer —

the verse takes the trouble to write explicitly —

the verse takes the trouble to state it explicitly.

h. The continuation of the passage says in verse 9:

“And a pure man shall gather the ashes

outside the camp in a pure place.””

The verse says

“man”

[and it does not say “kohein”] —

to validate a non-kohein

to gather the ashes of the heifer.

This verse is an instance of “one implication excludes another implication,” for had it said, “And he shall gather the ashes of the heifer” [without saying “man”], I would have said that the verse was speaking of the kohein mentioned in the preceding verses. Therefore it says “man,” to include a non-kohein [and to exclude the implication of the preceding verses].

And the verse says

“pure.”

This word is superfluous, since the red heifer is also called a “sin-offering,” and it is understood that all its procedures must be performed in purity, just as a sin-offering is performed in purity.

Rather, the verse comes

to validate a woman.

And the verse says

“and he shall place

outside the camp,” teaching that only

one who has the understanding to place it

is valid.

This excludes a deaf-mute, an intellectually disabled person, and a minor, who do not have the understanding to place it,

as they are disqualified.

i. And the continuation of the passage says in verse 17: “

And they shall take for the impure person [for the purpose of purifying the impure person] from the dust of the burning of the sin-offering [the red heifer], and he shall place living water upon it in a vessel.” That is, they mix the ashes of the burning of the heifer with spring water. This action is called “sanctification” [the sanctification of the water and making it “water of purification”].

And in order to expound this verse, Ulla cited a Mishna:

We learned there —

we learned there [in tractate Parah 5:4]:

Everyone is valid to sanctify

the water [by placing it upon the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering in the vessel],

except for a deaf-mute, an intellectually disabled person, and a minor.

This is the opinion of the Sages.

Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor valid, and disqualifies a woman and an androgynos.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason of the Sages?

What is the reason of the Sages, who disqualify a minor and validate a woman? And we explain:

As it is written: “And they shall take for the impure person from the dust of the burning of the sin-offering

and he shall place living water upon it.” Since the Torah says only “and they shall take” [without specifying who takes], it follows automatically that the verse is speaking of the people mentioned in the preceding service, namely, the gathering of the ashes.

Therefore,

those whom you disqualified for yourself in the gathering,

the deaf-mute, the intellectually disabled person, and the minor, whom I disqualified for you in the gathering of the ashes,

I disqualify for you —

I disqualify them for you also

for the sanctification.

And those whom you validated for yourself in the gathering —

a woman and an androgynos whom I validated for you in the gathering of the ashes,

I validate for you for the sanctification —

I validate them for you also for the sanctification.

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that a woman and an androgynos are disqualified and that a minor is valid, what is his reason? For “and they shall take,” stated with regard to the sanctification, refers to the people mentioned above [with regard to gathering the ashes], as the Sages maintain!

Rabbi Yehuda would answer the Sages:

If so,

if your words are indeed correct, that “and they shall take” refers to the people mentioned above,

let the verse say

the verse should say

“and he shall take”

in the singular, just as the verse above, concerning the gathering of the ashes, uses the singular!

What is the meaning of “and they shall take”?

Why is “and they shall take” stated in the plural? Rather, necessarily, the intention of the verse is to add another person who is valid here [even though above, with regard to gathering the ashes, he is disqualified]. And to tell you:

even a minor, whom I disqualified for you there,

whom I disqualified for you with regard to gathering the ashes, nevertheless

here,

here with regard to the sanctification — he is

valid.

And

from where does he derive a woman,

from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive that she is disqualified?

It is stated: “And he shall place living water upon it.” And Rabbi Yehuda expounded:

“And he shall place”

and not

“and she shall place.”

Thus far, the Gemara has explained Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

The matter now presents a difficulty concerning the Sages: What will they answer Rabbi Yehuda’s argument? Why did the verse change and write “and they shall take” in the plural?

And we explain:

And the Sages

will answer their argument: Indeed, “and they shall take” refers to the people who are valid for gathering the ashes, mentioned above. And the verse changed and said “and they shall take” in the plural because if the Merciful One had written

“and he shall take, and he shall place”

[the verse]

in the singular,

I would have thought

that the service of sanctification is valid only

until one takes and one places —

until the person who took the ashes himself places the water upon the ashes. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “and they shall take”

in the plural, to teach us that even if two people took it, it is valid.

And if the Merciful One had written “and they shall take and they shall place”

[both in the plural],

I would have thought

that the service of the heifer is valid only

until two take and two place —

until two people take the ashes and they themselves place them in the water.

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote

[in the verse]

“and they shall take”

in the plural, and

“and he shall place”

in the singular, to teach you:

even if two take and one places —

even if two people took the ashes and one person placed the water, it is valid.

Until this point, Ulla expounded the verse stated concerning the sanctification of the water.

And after the sanctification, the passage explained the procedure for applying these waters to those who are impure:

“And a pure man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water

and sprinkle it upon the tent.”

And Ulla explains who is the “pure man” mentioned here.

For the Rabbis,

who maintain that the sanctification was performed by the same people mentioned with regard to the gathering of the ashes, it follows that the “pure man” mentioned here with regard to the sprinkling is superfluous. For the sanctification [that precedes the sprinkling] was also performed by a “pure man” [the one mentioned with regard to the gathering of the ashes], and even had “pure man” not been explicitly mentioned here with regard to the sprinkling, this would have been self-evident.

If so, it is necessarily the case that the intent of the verse is not: “man”—to qualify a non-kohen, and “pure”—to qualify a woman, as we explained with regard to the gathering of the ashes and the sanctification. For that would have been self-evident, and the verse would not have needed to state it explicitly.

Rather, it is necessarily the case that the “pure man” mentioned with regard to the sprinkling is expounded by means of the principle of “an implication that excludes another implication.” [

That is, the “pure man” mentioned with regard to the sprinkling is not the same “pure man” mentioned with regard to the gathering and the sanctification.]

Therefore, the Rabbis expounded with regard to the sprinkling:

“Man,” and not a woman.

“Pure,”

to qualify a minor [

in contrast to the gathering and the sanctification, for which a woman is qualified, whereas a minor is disqualified].

But

if it were

according to Rabbi Judah,

who maintains that a woman is disqualified for the sanctification and a minor is qualified, it is necessarily the case that the “pure man” mentioned with regard to the sprinkling cannot be interpreted according to the view of the Sages [“man,” and not a woman; “pure,” to qualify a minor], by the principle of “an implication that follows automatically.”

For if so, it would not have been necessary to state “pure man” here, as this would have been self-evident.

Rather, Rabbi Judah expounds:

“Man”—

and not a minor. “Pure”—

to qualify a woman. [

in contrast to the sanctification, for which a woman is disqualified and a minor is qualified, according to Rabbi Judah].

Meitivi—

a contradiction to what we explained, that Rabbi Judah maintains that a woman is qualified for the sprinkling, whereas a minor is disqualified: We learned in tractate Parah [12:10]:

All are qualified to sprinkle

the waters of the para aduma,

except for a tumtum and an androgynos

and a woman,

who are disqualified.

And a minor who has discernment—

a woman assists him, and he sprinkles!

It is permitted for a woman to assist him with the sprinkling.