Yoma 85

Chapter 85

א דאפיק חמור בהדה
1 if one should bring forth an ass with her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna that would be permitted, because the presence of the ass could not mislead people into the assumption that it was he who is sacrificed; according to Rabbi, it would be forbidden, for 'it' excludes permission for any other animal to be brought forth together with her.');"><sup>1</sup></span> And he shall slay it [implies] that one must not slaughter any other [heifer] with it. Before him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna that would be permitted, because the presence of the ass could not mislead people into the assumption that it was he who is sacrificed; according to Rabbi, it would be forbidden, for 'it' excludes permission for any other animal to be brought forth together with her.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב (במדבר יט, ג) ושחט אותה שלא ישחוט אחרת עמה לפניו לרב שלא יסיח דעתו ממנה לשמואל שיהא זר שוחט ואלעזר רואה
2 [implies] according to Rab that he must not divert his attention from her; according to Samuel, that a lay Israelite may slaughter, and Eleazar look on.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 42a.');"><sup>2</sup></span> And Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4.');"><sup>3</sup></span> [is written] according to Samuel in order to refer it [the rite] back to Eleazar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'he shall slay' refers, according to Samuel, to the lay Israelite, it was necessary to emphasize that the sprinkling had to be done by 'Eleazar', otherwise it might have been assured that it could be performed by the lay Israelite who did the slaughtering.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג ולקח אלעזר הכהן מדמה באצבעו לשמואל לאהדוריה לאלעזר לרב הוי מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות דאפילו כהן הדיוט
3 according to Rab:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who refers 'he shall slay' to the priest, the repetition of 'Eleazar' here is apparently superfluous.');"><sup>5</sup></span> this is a limitation following a limitation and a double limitation serves to widen the scope, viz. , that even a common priest may do it. And the priest shall take cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The repetition indicating that no limitation is intended, but only exemplification.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד (במדבר יט, ו) ולקח הכהן עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת לשמואל דאפי' בכהן הדיוט לרב אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דלאו גופה דפרה נינהו לא ליבעי כהן קא משמע לן
4 [is written] according to Samuel, that even a common priest [may take and cast it] according to Rab:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who permits a common priest to receive the blood, this passage being independent of the preceding implication.');"><sup>7</sup></span> it is necessary [to mention it], for you might have thought and said: Since these things do not belong to the heifer itself, they do not require any priest's service, therefore Scripture informs us [that they do]. Then the priest shall wash his clothes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 7.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה (במדבר יט, ז) וכבס בגדיו הכהן בכיהונו וטמא הכהן עד הערב כהן בכיהונו לדורות
5 [implies] in his priestly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was superfluous to state 'the priest' again, since we are dealing but with him, the implication therefore is that he must do it in his priestly garments.');"><sup>9</sup></span> garments. And the priest shall be unclean until the even,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 7.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו הניחא למאן דאמר לדורות בכהן הדיוט שפיר אלא למאן דאמר לדורות בכהן גדול השתא כהן גדול בעינן בכיהונו מיבעיא אין מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא
6 [implies] that he shall be in his priestly garments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When performing the red heifer ritual.');"><sup>10</sup></span> even in future generations. That will be quite right according to him who holds that [the heifer ceremony] will in future generations be performed by a common priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not draw an analogy from the identical words 'statute', occurring both in connection with the Day of Atonement and with the heifer; hence it is necessary to state that in the future, nonetheless, he must then wear his official garb.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז (במדבר יט, ט) ואסף איש טהור את אפר הפרה והניח איש להכשיר את הזר טהור להכשיר את האשה והניח מי שיש בו דעת להניח יצאו חרש שוטה וקטן שאין בהן דעת להניח
7 but according to him who holds that in future generations [the heifer ceremony will be performed by] the high priest, now, since a high priest is required, is it necessary to state that he must be in his priestly garments? - Yes, Scripture does [occasionally] take the trouble to mention things which might have been inferred a minori. And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and lay them up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 9.');"><sup>12</sup></span> - 'a man,' [is written] to declare fit a lay Israelite;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For gathering up the ashes.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח תנן התם הכל כשרין לקדש חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן ר' יהודה מכשיר בקטן ופוסל באשה ובאנדרוגינוס
8 'that is clean' - to declare fit a woman; and 'lay them up' [implies] one who has understanding how to lay them up, that excludes one deaf and dumb, an idiot, and a minor, who have not the understanding of how to lay them up. We learned elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Parah V, 4.');"><sup>14</sup></span> All are fit to prepare [the waters of lustration]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to put water over the ashes.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ט מאי טעמא דרבנן דכתיב (במדבר יט, יז) ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת הנך דפסלי לך באסיפה פסלי לך בקידוש והנך דאכשרי לך באסיפה אכשרי לך בקידוש
9 with the exception of the deaf and dumb, the idiot, and the minor. R'Judah declares fit a minor and disqualifies a woman and an hermaphrodite. What is the reason for the Rabbis' view? - Because it is written: And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin [and put upon them running water in a vessel],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 17.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
י ורבי יהודה אם כן לימא קרא ולקח מאי ולקחו דאפי' קטן דפסלי לך התם הכא כשר
10 i.e., they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'They' referring to such as were declared fit for the immediately preceding rite of gathering the ashes mentioned in verse 9.');"><sup>17</sup></span> whom I declared unto thee unfit for the gathering [of the ashes] I also declared unto thee unfit for the preparation [of the waters of lustration], but they whom I declared fit to thee for the gathering, I have also declared unto thee fit for the preparation. And [what does] R'Judah [say]? - If that were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'they' refers to such as are mentioned in verse 9.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יא אשה מנא ליה ונתן ולא ונתנה ורבנן אי כתב רחמנא ולקח ונתן ה"א עד דשקיל חד ויהיב חד כתב רחמנא ולקחו
11 Scripture should have said: 'He shall take [we-lakah ]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as in verse 9 the singular is used.');"><sup>19</sup></span> what is the meaning of they shall take'? To intimate that even a minor whom I declared unto thee unfit there, is fit to act here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor is not permitted to gather the ashes, but he may put the water in the ashes.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יב ואי כתב רחמנא ולקחו ונתנו הוה אמינא עד דשקלי תרי ויהבי תרי כתב רחמנא ולקחו ונתן דאפילו שקלי תרי ויהיב חד
12 - Whence does he know that a woman is unfit? - Because Scripture says: ['he shall put'] i.e., he, but not she, shall put. - And the Rabbis? - If the Divine Law had written 'He shall take','he shall put', one might have assumed the same man must both give and put, therefore Scripture wrote 'and they shall take'. And if the Divine Law had stated 'they shall take' and [also] 'they shall put', one might have assumed that there must be two to take and put, therefore Scripture wrote: 'they shall take' and 'he shall put', to indicate that even if [it is right] two take [the ashes] and one puts [the running water in a vessel].
יג ולקח אזוב וטבל במים איש טהור לרבנן איש ולא אשה טהור להכשיר את הקטן ולר' יהודה איש ולא קטן טהור להכשיר את האשה
13 - And a clean man shall take hyssop, and cup it in the water [and sprinkle],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 18.');"><sup>21</sup></span> according to the Rabbis:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that the mixing of the ashes and water may be done only by such as are fit to gather the ashes, thus excluding a minor.');"><sup>22</sup></span> 'A man' [implies] but not a woman; 'clean' is [written] to declare fit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had the same regulation implied in verse 9 applied also to sprinkling, the phrase 'a clean man' would have been superfluous here.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יד מיתיבי הכל כשרין להזות חוץ מטומטום ואנדרוגינוס ואשה וקטן (שיש) בו דעת אשה מסייעתו ומזה
14 even a minor; according to R'Judah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who disqualifies a woman and declares fit a minor for the mixing of the ashes with the water.');"><sup>24</sup></span> 'a man' [implies] but not a minor; 'clean' to declare fit a woman. An objection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Parah XII, 10.');"><sup>25</sup></span> was raised: 'All are qualified to sprinkle except one whose sex is unknown, an hermaphrodite and a woman; but a child that is without<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Corrected according to the MISHNAH: The Talmud here reads: a child that has understanding.');"><sup>26</sup></span> understanding, a woman may aid in sprinkling'
Previous ChapterNext Chapter