Talmud for Numbers 19:2

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow¹¹The priest in charge of burning the Red Cow to produce the ashes which cleanse from the impurity of the dead also had to be separated for seven days (Mishnah Parah 3:1).. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there¹²Num. 19:2., this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement¹⁰The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true.. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also¹³The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement detailed in Lev. 16 refer exclusively to actions by the High Priest. Babli 3b. is atonement through the High Priest.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “One which never had been used for work,” a general statement, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail⁹⁵The fifth hermeneutical rule. Since the detail is logically contained in the general, its mention serves as definition for the general statement. The same objection is noted in the Babli, 46a; the short answer given in the Babli is intelligible only in the light of the Yerushalmi.. He said to him, if it were written “which never had worked, which never had drawn,” you would be justified; but it is written “one which never had been used for work.” This does not describe general and detail, but the additional reference to “yoke” for an equal cut⁹⁶The second hermeneutical rule used in an extended sense, not only that a word has identical meaning in all its occurrences in the Pentateuch but also that all rules connected with it are identical in the two cases being compared. This extended rule requires that the word be free, i. e., not needed to derive other rules. It is difficult to construct the word “yoke” as free in the case of the red cow.. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf He treated all work as a yoke⁹⁷The gezerah šawah invoked by R. Ze‘ira strictly follows the interpretation of (the later) R. Yose. The interpretation of R. Jonah therefore is rejected implicitly., so for the “yoke” said for the cow⁹⁸The red cow whose ashes are used for purification from the impurity of the dead, Num. 19. Verse 19:2 states that the cow (1) must be unblemished and (2) cannot have borne a yoke. Condition (1) is not mentioned for the calf and is explicitly excluded by the Mishnah. (2) implies that the cow is disabled even if no work was ever done or intended. In rabbinic interpretation, the cow had “borne a yoke” if she was mounted by a male. we have to treat all work as a yoke⁹⁹Work is not mentioned in Num. 19:2; its prohibition is inferred from the case of the calf.. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf work disables whether intentional or unintentional¹⁰⁰Following R. Yose, the yoke disables irrespective of intention (with some qualifications). Since R. Yose extends the rules of the yoke to all work, he will do the same for the red cow., so for the “yoke” said for the cow work disables whether intentional or unintentional. Since relative to “yoke” said for the cow, the yoke disables¹⁰¹For the cow, Num. 19:2 makes it clear that even if a yoke accidentally fell on the cow, it disables permanently., also for the “yoke” said for the calf the yoke disables. Then since for the “yoke” said for the cow blemishes disable, so also for the “yoke” said for the calf blemishes disable¹⁰²This would contradict the Mishnah.? The verse¹⁰³Num. 19:2. says, “where this one has no blemish.” Blemishes disable the cow, blemishes do not disable the calf¹⁰⁴The same argument Babli 46a, in an expanded version Sifry Num. 123.. Then it also says¹⁰⁵Deut. 21:3. “one which never had been used for work,” for this one work disables, does for the cow work not disable? Can you say there, “where this one has no blemish,” this one is disabled by blemishes, sacrifices are not disabled by blemishes?¹⁰⁶This is blatantly false, Lev. 22:17–25. Therefore, the only case which the emphatic this one excludes is that of the calf. In Sifry Num. 123, it is concluded that the cow must be unblemished but not the Cohen who burns it in a ceremony outside the sanctuary.