Parallel
יומא 42
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
That of the heifer had the weight of ten zuz, that of the he-goat-to-be-sent-away had the weight of two sela's, and that of the leper weighed one shekel. R. Johanan said: About the [strap used in connection with] the heifer R. Simeon b. Halafta and the Sages are disputing, one saying it weighed ten shekels, the other it weighed but one shekel. As a mnemotechnic [sign use]: ‘Whether one gives much, or one gives little’. — R. Jeremiah of Difti said to Rabina: They are not disputing in regard to [the strap of] the heifer, but in regard [to that of] the he-goat-to-be-sent-away; and on the day [of their dispute] died Rabia b. Kisi, and as a sign to remember this coincidence they uttered: [The death of the righteous], Rabia b. Kisi, obtains atonement, even as the he-goat-to-be-sent-away. — R. Isaac said: I heard of two slaughterings, one of the [red] heifer, the other of his bullock, one being permissible to a lay Israelite, the other being invalidated if performed by a lay Israelite, and I do not know which is which. It is reported: Concerning the slaughtering of the heifer and of his bullock [there is a dispute between] Rab and Samuel, one holding the heifer to be invalidated [if killed by a lay Israelite], but that his bullock [so slaughtered] is fit, while the other holds that his bullock is invalidated [if a commoner killed], but [so killed] the heifer is fit. It may be ascertained that it is Rab who holds that [the slaughtering of] the heifer [by a lay Israelite] renders it invalid. For R. Zei'ra said: The slaughtering of the heifer by a lay Israelite is invalid and Rab said thereupon: ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’ we learned in connection therewith. — But as for Rab, wherefore the difference between [the law] in the case of the heifer, because ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’ is written in connection therewith, when also in connection with ‘his’ bullock ‘Aaron’ and ‘Statute’ is written? The slaughtering is not [regarded as a Temple] service. Then this ought to apply to the heifer as well? — It is different with the heifer, because it is [in the category of] offerings for Temple repair. — So much the more then! -R.Shisha son of R. Idi said: It is the same as with the [inspection of] appearances of leprosy, which is not a service, yet requires a priest's service. Now according to Samuel, who holds the killing of ‘his’ bullock by a lay Israelite is invalid, wherefore the difference [in law] in the case of ‘his’ bullock, in connection with which ‘Aaron and ‘Statute’ are written, when also in connection with the heifer ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’ are written? — It is different there, because it is written: And he shall slay it before him, which means that a lay Israelite may slaughter and Eleazar should watch it. And [how does] Rab [explain this]? — [It means] he must not divert his attention from it. Whence does Samuel know that he must not divert his attention from it? — He infers that from And the heifer shall be burnt in his sight. And [why the repetition according to] Rab? — One refers to the slaughtering, the other to the burning; and it was necessary to mention both. For if the Divine Law had written it concerning the slaughtering [alone, I would have said]: There [attention is necessary] because it is the beginning of the service, but with the burning [one could] say: ‘No [attention is necessary]’ therefore it was necessary [for the Divine Law] to mention [it also touching burning]. And if the Divine Law had written it [only] touching the burning, one would have said [attention is necessary there], because just now the heifer is being made ready, but [during] slaughtering no [attention is necessary]. Therefore it was necessary [for the Divine Law] to mention [that too]. — What does this exclude? Is it to say to exclude the gathering of its ashes and the drawing of the water for the putting in of the ashes?
—
Surely Scripture says: [And it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel] for a water of sprinkling? — Rather it excludes the casting in of cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet, because they are not part of the heifer itself. It was reported: If the heifer was slaughtered by a lay Israelite, R. Ammi said it is valid. R. Isaac, the Smith, said it was invalid. ‘Ulla said it is valid, whilst some there are who say [that he said] it was invalid. R. Joshua b. Abba raised an objection in support of Rab: I know only that the sprinkling of its water is not valid if performed by a woman, as [when done] by a man; and that it is valid only [if done] by day. Whence do I know that the slaughtering of the heifer, the reception of its blood, the sprinkling of its blood, the burning of the heifer, and the casting into the burning heifer of cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet [may not be done by night]? To teach us that Scripture said: [This is the statute of] the law. I might have assumed that this should include also the gathering of its ashes and the drawing of the water for the putting-in of the ashes, to teach us that Scripture said: ‘This’. — What causes you to include those, and to exclude these? — Since Scripture both extends and limits, say, we shall infer everything from the [regulations touching] the sprinkling of its water: Just as the sprinkling of its water is not proper if done by a woman, as it is [if performed] by a man, and not valid except if done by day, thus include also the slaughtering of the heifer, the reception of its blood, the sprinkling of its blood, the burning of the heifer, and the casting into the burning heifer of cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet. Since these [functions] may not be performed by a woman, so may they be performed only by day; but I exclude the gathering of its ashes and the drawing of the water for the putting-in of its ashes, which, since they may be performed by either man or woman, hence may also be performed by night. But how is this a refutation? Will you say that because [the slaughtering is stated to be] invalid [if performed] by a woman, it must be invalid, also, if performed by a lay Israelite, there would be as counterproof the sprinkling of its waters, which, whilst invalid [if performed] by a woman, yet may be done by a lay Israelite! Said Abaye: This is the refutation: Why is the woman excluded [from the slaughtering], because [Scripture said]: ‘Eleazar’, [implying] but not a woman; that [must be applied to] the lay Israelite also, for [the analogue inference]: ‘Eleazar’ [the priest], [implies] but not a lay Israelite. ‘Ulla said: In that whole section [of the red heifer] there are [texts] implying an exception from a preceding implication, and [texts] independent [of preceding or following] implications: And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest [implies] only this one to Eleazar, but not [the heifers] in later generations to Eleazar; some say: In later generations [you shall give it] to the high priest, others: In later generations to a common priest. It is quite right according to him who holds that in later generations [the heifer is to be handed over] to a common priest, but whence does he infer who holds that in later generations [it is to be given] to the high priest? — He infers it from [the identical word] ‘Statute’, ‘Statute’, used [also] in connection with the Day of Atonement. And he shall bring it forth [implies] that he must not bring forth another one with her, as we have learnt: If the heifer refused to go forth, one may not send a black one with her, lest people say: They slaughtered a black [heifer], nor may another red heifer be brought forth with her, lest people say: They slaughtered two. — R. Jose said: This comes not under this title, but because it is written: [And he shall bring it forth]; ‘it’, [implies] by itself. And the [anonymous] first Tanna [surely wrote] ‘it’. — Who is this first Tanna? It is R. Simeon who ‘interprets the reason of biblical law’. What is the difference between them? — There is a difference
—