Yoma 43a — the Talmud in English

There is a difference between them:

the difference between them is in the case

that he brought 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 of the verse, it is forbidden to do so, for the Torah said: “it” — by itself. And there is no distinction between a donkey and the heifer.

But according to Rabbi Shimon, the reason for the verse that says “it” — by itself, is so that they would not say: they slaughtered a black one, or they slaughtered two; all this applies when he brought out another heifer with it. But if he brought out a donkey with it, there is no concern that those who see it will say that they slaughtered a donkey.

c. And Ulla continues to expound the verse in 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

Rav,

who disqualifies slaughter by a non-kohen, they expounded: from here

that he shall not divert his attention from it.

A

nd

according to

Shmuel,

who validates slaughter by a non-kohen, they expounded: from here

that a non-kohen shall slaughter and Elazar shall watch.

d.

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

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

Why was Elazar mentioned in this verse?

For Shmuel,

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

to return it to Elazar.

To return the receiving of the blood and its sprinkling to Elazar, to say that these services are disqualified when performed by a non-kohen. Whereas

for Rav,

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

And consequently,

it is a limitation after a limitation —

the verse limited twice, saying that specifically Elazar is valid, and not another.

And

the Sages stated a general principle:

“A limitation after a limitation

comes

only to include.”

And from the fact that “Elazar” was stated twice, they include

even an ordinary kohen

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

e. In the continuation of the passage it is explained that after receiving the blood of the heifer and sprinkling it, he would burn the heifer. And it is stated in verse 6:

“And the kohen shall take cedar wood and hyssop and crimson wool

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

For Shmuel,

who holds that the services mentioned in the verse above [from the receiving of the blood onward] were performed specifically by Elazar, “the kohen” was stated here, to teach you concerning this service

that it was performed even by an ordinary kohen

.

And this is “an implication that removes from an implication.” For this service [casting the cedar wood and the like] is different 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 the casting of the cedar wood is valid when performed by an ordinary kohen.

Whereas

for Rav,

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

And now it is difficult according to Rav: why was “the kohen” mentioned in this verse? And we explain: [

For Rav],

it was necessary

that the verse say “the kohen,” because had “the kohen” not been stated,

it might enter your mind to say,

you might have thought to say,

since they are not the body of the heifer —

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

a kohen is not required,

we would not require a kohen for casting them.

It teaches us

that the verse informs us that a kohen is required for casting them.

f. And in the continuation of the passage it is stated in verse 7:

“And the kohen shall wash his garments.”

“The kohen” mentioned in this verse is in the category of “an implication by itself,” for the preceding verse mentioned the kohen. And even if the kohen had not been mentioned here, it would have been understood by itself that the verse speaks of the kohen mentioned above.

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

From here they expounded:

“The kohen

in his priestly garments.”

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

“And the kohen shall be impure until evening.”

And “the kohen” mentioned here is also in the category of “an implication by itself,” for the preceding verse speaks of a kohen.

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

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

“a kohen in his priestly garments,”

that priestly garments are required, applies also

for all generations [

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

And we raise an objection:

That works

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

according to the one who says

that a red heifer

for all generations is performed by an ordinary kohen.

According to his words, it is

well

understood that had “the kohen” not been stated a second time, I could have said that for all generations priestly garments are not required.

But according to the one who says

that a red heifer

for all generations

is performed

by the High Priest,

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

Now,

now that we have learned that

we require a High Priest,

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

if so —

is it necessary to say, “in his priestly garments”!?

Is it necessary to say 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 learned by a kal va-chomer, nevertheless,

a matter that comes by a kal va-chomer —

a matter that can be learned by a kal va-chomer,

the verse takes the trouble and writes it —

the verse takes the trouble to write it explicitly.

h. In the continuation of the passage it is stated in verse 9:

“And a pure man shall gather the ashes of the heifer and place them

outside the camp in a pure place.”

It is stated in the verse

“man” [

and it does not say “kohen”] —

to validate the non-kohen

to gather the ashes of the heifer.

And this verse is in the category of “an implication that removes from an implication,” for had it said, “And he shall gather the ashes of the heifer” [and had it not said “man”], I would have said that the verse speaks of the kohen mentioned in the preceding verses. Therefore it says “man,” to include the non-kohen. [And to remove from the implication of the preceding verses.]

And it is stated in the verse

“pure.”

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

Rather, the verse comes

to validate the woman.

And it is stated in the verse

“and place

outside the camp,” to teach that only

one who has the understanding to place

is valid.

Excluded are a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who do not have the understanding to place,

for they are disqualified.

i. And in the continuation of the passage it is stated in verse 17: “And they shall take for the impure person [for the purification of the impure person] of the dust of the burning of the sin-offering [the red heifer], and he shall put living water upon it into a vessel.” That is, they mix the ashes of the burning of the heifer with spring water. And this act is called “sanctification” [the sanctification of the water and making it into “water of purification”].

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 brought 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 that are in a vessel].

Except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor.

This is the view of the Sages.

Rabbi Judah validates a minor, and disqualifies a woman and an androgynos.

And we inquire about 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:

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

and he shall put living water upon it.” Since the Torah said only “and they shall take” [and did not specify who the takers are], it is implied by itself that the verse speaks of the people mentioned in the preceding service, which is the gathering of the ashes.

Therefore,

those whom I disqualified for you in gathering,

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

I disqualified for you —

I disqualified them for you also

for sanctification.

And those whom I validated for you in gathering —

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

I validated for you for sanctification —

I validated them for you also for sanctification.

And Rabbi Judah,

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,” which is stated concerning sanctification, refers to the people mentioned above [with regard to the gathering of the ashes], according to the view of the Sages!

Rabbi Judah will answer the Sages:

If so,

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

let the verse say

let the verse say

“and he shall take”

in the singular, just as it says above, concerning the gathering of the ashes, in the singular!

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

Why was “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 the gathering of the ashes, he is disqualified]. And to tell you:

even a minor, whom I disqualified for you there,

whom I disqualified for you concerning the gathering of the ashes, nevertheless

here,

here, concerning sanctification, he is

valid.

And

from where does he derive a woman,

from where does Rabbi Judah derive that she is disqualified?

For it is stated: “And he shall put living water upon it.” And Rabbi Judah expounded:

“And he shall put”

and not

“and she shall put.”

Up to here, the Gemara explained the view of Rabbi Judah.

And now it is difficult concerning the Sages: what will they answer Rabbi Judah’s claim? Why did the verse change and write “and they shall take” in the plural?

And we explain:

And the Sages

will answer their own words: 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 [

the verse]

“and he shall take, and he shall put”

in the singular,

I would have thought

that the service of sanctification is valid only

until one takes and one puts.

Until the same person who took the ashes himself puts the water upon the ashes. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “and they shall take”

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

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

both in the plural],

I would have thought

that the service of the heifer is valid only

until two take and two put —

until two people take the ashes and they themselves put them into the water.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote [

in the verse]

“and they shall take”

in the plural,

“and he shall put”

in the singular. To teach you:

even if two take and one puts —

even if two took the ashes and one put in the water, it is valid.

Thus far Ulla expounded the verse that is stated concerning the sanctification of the water.

10. And afterward, in the passage, the order of this matter was explained: who may use the water of the cow upon the impure:

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

and sprinkle upon the tent.”

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

According to the Rabbis, who hold that the sanctification was performed by those same people who were mentioned in 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” [who was mentioned concerning 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.

And if so, necessarily, the intent of the verse is not: “man”—to qualify a non-koen, and “pure”—to qualify a woman, as we explained concerning the gathering of the ashes and the sanctification. For this would have been self-evident, and the verse would not have needed to write this explicitly.

Rather, necessarily, the “pure man” mentioned with regard to the sprinkling is expounded by way of “one implication excludes another implication.”

That is, the “pure man” mentioned with regard to the sprinkling is not the “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, in which a woman is valid and a minor is disqualified].

And

if it is according to

Rabbi Judah, who holds that a woman is disqualified for the sanctification and a minor is valid, necessarily “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 way of “an implication that follows automatically.”

For if so, it would not have been necessary to say “pure man” here, and 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 valid—according to Rabbi Judah.]

Meitivi:

a contradiction to what we explained, that Rabbi Judah holds that a woman is valid for the sprinkling and a minor is disqualified: we learned in Tractate Parah [12:10]:

Everyone is valid to sprinkle

the water of the cow,

except for a tumtum and an androgynos

and a woman,

who are disqualified.

the water of the red heifer,

And a minor who has understanding—

a woman assists him, and he sprinkles!

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

And a minor who has understanding—

a woman assists him, and he sprinkles!

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