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?ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳ