Yoma 84

Chapter 84

א (במדבר יט, ט) למשמרת למי נדה כתיב אלא למעוטי השלכת עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת דלאו גופה דפרה נינהו

1 Surely Scripture says: [And it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel] for a water of sprinkling?1 - Rather it excludes the casting in of cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet, because they are not part of the heifer itself.

ב איתמר שחיטת פרה בזר ר' אמי אמר כשרה ור' יצחק נפחא אמר פסולה עולא אמר כשרה ואמרי לה פסולה

2 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.'

ג מתיב ר' יהושע בר אבא לסיועיה לרב אין לי אלא הזאת מימיה שאין כשרין באשה כבאיש ואין כשרין אלא ביום

3 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.2

ד מניין לרבות שחיטתה וקבלת דמה והזאת דמה ושריפתה והשלכת עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת ת"ל תורה יכול שאני מרבה אף אסיפת אפרה ומילוי מים וקידוש ת"ל זאת

4 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]?3 To teach us that Scripture said: [This is the statute of] the law.4

ה ומה ראית לרבות את אלו ולהוציא את אלו אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט אמרת הרי אנו למדין כולן מהזאת מימיה מה הזאת מימיה אינן כשרין באשה כבאיש ואין כשרין אלא ביום אף אני אביא שחיטתה וקבלת דמה והזאת דמה ושריפתה והשלכת עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת

5 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'.5 - 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Samuel, 42a, who holds that a lay Israelite may slaughter the heifer, for since the objection was raised in support of Rab, it must needs be an attack on Samuel's view.');">6

ו הואיל ואין כשרין באשה כבאיש אין כשרין אלא ביום ומוציא אני אסיפת אפרה ומילוי מים וקידוש הואיל וכשרין באשה כבאיש כשרין נמי ביום ובלילה

6 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.

ז והאי מאי תיובתא אילימא מדפסולין באשה פסולין נמי בזר הזאת מימיה תוכיח שפסולין באשה וכשרין בזר

7 But how is this a refutation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Samuel, 42a, who holds that a lay Israelite may slaughter the heifer, for since the objection was raised in support of Rab, it must needs be an attack on Samuel's view.');">6 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,7

ח אמר אביי היינו תיובתיה אשה מאי טעמא אלעזר ולא אשה זר נמי אלעזר ולא זר

8 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 la Israelite.' Ulla said: In that whole section [of the red heifer] there are [texts] implying an exception from a precedi implication, and [texts] independent [of preceding or following] implications: And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest8

ט אמר עולא כל הפרשה כולה משמע מוציא מיד משמע ומשמע ממילא

9 [implies] only this one to Eleazar, but not [the heifers] in later generations to Eleazar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eleazar at that time was deputy high priest, and that heifer, by express statement of Scripture, was entrusted to him. In future, however, it would be given either to the high priest, or to a common priest (R. Hananel) .');">9 some say: In later generations [you shall give it] to the high priest, others: In later generations to a common priest.

י (במדבר יט, ג) ונתתם אותה אל אלעזר הכהן אותה לאלעזר ולא לדורות לאלעזר איכא דאמרי לדורות בכהן גדול ואיכא דאמרי לדורות בכהן הדיוט

10 It is quite right according to him who holds that in later generations [the heifer is to be handed over] to a common priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, since Scripture did not expressly state that it be handed over to the high priest, or his deputy, but merely by implication, the assumption seems justified that any priest could officiate at the ceremony.');">10 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]11

יא בשלמא למ"ד לדורות בכהן הדיוט שפיר אלא למאן דאמר לדורות בכהן גדול מנא ליה גמר חוקה חוקה מיום הכפורים

11 in connection with the Day of Atonement.12 And he shall bring it forth13

יב והוציא אותה שלא יוציא אחרת עמה כדתנן לא היתה פרה רוצה לצאת אין מוציאין עמה שחורה שלא יאמרו שחורה שחטו ואין מוציאין עמה אדומה שלא יאמרו שתים שחטו ר' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא משום שנאמר (במדבר יט, ג) אותה לבדה

12 [implies] that he must not bring forth another one with her, as we have learnt:14 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.

יג ות"ק הא כתיב אותה מאן ת"ק ר"ש היא דדריש טעמיה דקרא מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו

13 - R'Jose said: This comes not under this title,15 but because it is written: [And he shall16 bring it forth]; 'it', [implies] by itself. And the [anonymous] first Tanna [surely wrote] 'it'.17 - Who is this first Tanna? It is R'Simeon who 'interprets18 the reason of biblical law'. What is the difference between them? - There is a difference

Previous Chapter Next Chapter