Talmud su Deuteronomio 21:3

What is the reason of the rabbis? As it is written⁶⁶Deut. 21:3.: “It shall be the town close to the slain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? As it is written⁶⁷Deut. 21:2. The Babli, Bekhorot16b, which never quotes the Sages, disagrees, and holds that for R. Eliezer it is possible to determine lengths with the utmost precision because if it were possible to measure only with limited precision, the two towns together could bring one calf and stipulate that it should count for that town which really is closest if unlimited precision were possible.: “They shall measure to the towns which surround the slain.”

MISHNAH: When the Elders of Jerusalem had completed their work⁸³To determine which town is responsible for bringing the calf. and left, the Elders of that town bring “a cattle calf, one which never had been used for work, which never had drawn under a yoke.⁸⁴Deut. 21:3.” Bodily defects do not disqualify it. One brings it down to an etan valley; the meaning of etan is “hard”⁸⁵Not ploughable.. Even if it is not hard it is qualified. One breaks its neck with a stiletto from behind. Its place is forbidden to be used for sowing or agricultural works; it may be used to card flax or to hew stones.

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.