Sotah

GEMARA. But that a blemish disqualified a heifer may be deduced by a fortiori reasoning from the instance of the [red] cow:  if a blemish disqualifies a cow which is not disqualified on account of age,  how much more must a blemish disqualify a heifer which is disqualified on account of age! — It is different there, because Scripture stated: Wherein is no blemish  — a blemish disqualifies [a red cow] but does not disqualify a heifer. According to this argument,  the other disqualifications on account of work having been done by it should not apply [to the red cow];  why, then, did Rab Judah say in the name of Rab, If a person laid a bundle of sacks upon it,  it is disqualified, but with a heifer [it is not disqualified] until it draws [a load]!  — It is different with a [red] cow, because we derive the meaning of the term 'yoke' [in connection with a red cow] from its occurrence in connection with a heifer.  But let [the deduction that a blemish disqualifies] a heifer be also drawn from the instance of a [red] cow on the basis of a common use of the term 'yoke'! — Behold the All-Merciful has excluded that by using the word 'wherein' [bah]. But with the heifer it is likewise written 'wherewith' [bah]!  — This is required to exclude animals destined as sacrifices which are not disqualified by having been used for work; because it might have occurred to you to say: Let us draw a conclusion by a fortiori reasoning from the heifer: if a heifer which is not disqualified by a blemish is disqualified by having been used for work, how much more must animals destined as sacrifices, which are disqualified by a blemish, be disqualified by having been used for work! It can, however, be objected: This is right for a heifer because it is also disqualified by an age-limit! — Do you mean to say, then, that there are no animals destined as sacrifices which are disqualified by an age-limit? Hence a text is necessary for those offerings which are disqualified by an age-limit.  Is, however, [the regulation that] animals destined as sacrifices are not disqualified by having been used for work derived from here?  Surely it is derived from the following: Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the Lord  — these ye shall not offer, but you may offer animals as sacrifices which have been used for work! — [This verse]  is necessary, because it might have occurred to you to say: This only applies where they have been used for permissible work, but where it was for prohibited work  conclude that they are forbidden [as sacrifices]! So it was necessary [to have this verse from which we infer that the animals may be offered even if they had been used for prohibited work]. But it could likewise have been derived from the following: Neither from the hand of a stranger shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these  — these you shall not offer, but you may offer animals which have been used for work! — [This verse]  is necessary, because it might have occurred to you to say: This only applies when they were worked while they were still not designated as sacrifices, but when they were worked after having been designated as sacrifices conclude that they are forbidden! So it was necessary [to have this verse from which we infer that even then they are acceptable as offerings]. The above text [teaches]: 'Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If a person laid a bundle of sacks upon it, it is disqualified; but with a heifer [it is not disqualified] until it draws [a load]'. It is objected: Yoke  — I have only mention of a yoke; whence is it that there are other [disqualifications on account of] work having been done by it? You may argue by a fortiori reasoning: if a heifer which is not disqualified by a blemish is disqualified by having been used for work, how much more must a [red] cow, which is disqualified by a blemish, be disqualified by having been used for various kinds of work! And if you like you may argue:  It is stated here 'yoke' and there [with the heifer] it is stated 'yoke', as there the various kinds of work disqualify, so here [with the red cow] the various kinds of work disqualify. But why have this alternative argument?  — Because you might reply [as mentioned above], 'It can, however, be objected: This is right for a heifer because it is also disqualified by an age-limit'. Or it might also [be objected] that the case of animals destined as sacrifices proves [the contrary, thus:] a blemish disqualifies them but the fact that they were used for work does not disqualify them. [Therefore the alternative line of reasoning is employed:] It is stated here 'yoke' and there [with the heifer] it is stated 'yoke'; as there the various kinds of work [disqualify], so here [with the red cow] the various kinds of work [disqualify]. Now from the same line of reasoning: You may conclude as there [with the heifer it is not disqualified] until it draws [a load], so here [with the red cow it is not disqualified] until it draws [a load]!  — This is a matter disputed by Tannaim. Some of them deduce it from the instance of the heifer,  while others deduce it from [the law of the red] cow itself.  For it has been taught: 'Yoke' — I have mention only of a yoke; whence is it that various kinds of work [disqualify]? There is a text to state, Upon which never came yoke  i.e., [work] of any sort. If that is so, why is 'yoke' specified? A yoke disqualifies whether during the time of work or not during the time of work,  but the various kinds of work only disqualify during the time of work.  But say that 'upon which never came' is general and 'yoke' is particular, and where there is a case of general and particular, only what is in the particular is in the general  — viz., a yoke only [disqualifies] and nothing else! The phrase 'which' is inclusive [of various kinds of work], and there is a similar teaching in connection with the heifer as follows: Yoke  — I have mention only of a yoke; whence is it that various kinds of work [disqualify]? There is a text to state, 'Which hath not been wrought with' — i.e., [work] of any sort. If that is so, why is 'yoke' specified? A yoke disqualifies whether during the time of work or not during the time of work, but the various kinds of work only disqualify during the time of work. But say that 'which hath not been wrought with' is general and 'yoke' is particular, and where there is a case of general and particular, only what is in the particular is in the general — viz. a yoke [disqualifies] and nothing else!  — The phrase 'which' is inclusive [of various kinds of work]. R. Abbahu said: I asked R. Johanan, To what extent must there be drawing by a yoke [to constitute a disqualification]?  — He replied: The full extent of the yoke. The question was asked: Does this mean its length or breadth? One of the Rabbis, named R. Jacob, answered: The statement of R. Johanan was explained to me as indicating drawing by a yoke to the extent of a handbreadth in its breadth. Then [R. Johanan] should have said: A handbreadth!-He intended to inform us that the minimum of a yoke [in its breadth] is a handbreadth. For what purpose does he deduce this? — For buying and selling. R. Johanan b. Saul said: Why does the Torah mention that he should bring a heifer into a ravine? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let something which did not produce fruit  have its neck broken in a place which is not fertile and atone for one who was not allowed to produce fruit. What [does this last word] 'fruit' mean? If I answer [that it means] offspring, then according to this argument we should not break a heifer's neck if [the man found dead] was old or castrated! Therefore [by 'fruit' must be understood the performance of] commandments. AND BRING IT DOWN TO A RAVINE WHICH IS STONY 'ETHAN' IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN ITS LITERAL SENSE OF 'HARD'. Our Rabbis taught: Whence is it that 'ethan' means 'hard'? As it is said,