כג ומורידין אותה אל נחל איתן איתן כמשמעו קשה תנו רבנן מנין לאיתן שהוא קשה שנאמר
23 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does not the first suffice? ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — 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]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which refutes Rab Judah. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — This is a matter disputed by Tannaim. Some of them deduce it from the instance of the heifer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the Tanna of the Baraitha cited. He will accordingly not disqualify the cow until it draws. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> while others deduce it from [the law of the red] cow itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna who follows. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 2. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he put the yoke on the animal to ease the load and not for the purpose of drawing it. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> but the various kinds of work only disqualify during the time of work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, e.g., he put sacks upon it not as a burden, there is no disqualification. Where, however, the sacks were placed as a load there is immediate disqualification, even though the cow did not draw. This is in agreement with Rab Judah. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The general rule must be restricted in application to what is contained in the particular. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 3. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> — 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is one of the principles of hermeneutics according to R. Ishmael. V. B.K., 54a. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> — 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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With a heifer. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> — 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A heifer less than a year old could not bring forth young. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which produces a harvest of merit; and he was prevented by his murder from doing this. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> 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,