Дварим 21:3 Связанные отрывки

HALAKHAH: “One which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally⁸⁶The problem discussed in this paragraph is that if no work ever had been done with the calf, it should be obvious that it never was harnessed under a yoke to draw anything. Therefore the mention of the yoke must give harnessing the animal a status different from any other agricultural work. For the Babli, 46a, imposing a yoke disables the calf whether it was used for work or not, while other agricultural work disables only if it was actually used. This avoids the problem discussed here.
The intention here is that of the farmer who has to decide to use his calf for work. The Babli, Pesaḥim 26a/b, gives as example that if the farmer lets the calf accompany its mother while she is threshing and by this helps in threshing, it remains acceptable but if the farmer intends that the calf should suckle and thereby help in threshing, it becomes disqualified.. Rebbi Jonah explains the Mishnah: “One which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally, if it actually had drawn⁸⁷Imposing the yoke does not disqualify the calf, only actually drawing (a cart or a plow) does.. Rebbi Yose explained the Mishnah: Intentionally even if it had not drawn⁸⁸In that case, imposing the yoke on the calf disqualifies it., unintentionally if it actually had drawn. It turns out that Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Yose the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael says, anything which was in a set and left the set to teach leaves its set and stands in its new meaning⁸⁹This is a version of the hermeneutical rules not found in the Babli or the Sifra; cf. Chapter 7, Note 108. Drawing ploughs or carts was part of the set of works for which cattle are used. If drawing is singled out for separate attention, in this opinion the general rules valid for agricultural works, that the animal has to be made to work, indicated by the passive, are no longer valid. The active mode seems to imply that if the calf drew something on its own initiative, it still will be disabled.
This rule is not to be identified with the 12th rule (Sifra Introduction, Babli Temurah 13b, Šebuot 25b): “Anything which was in a set and was taken out to be judged by different rules you cannot restore into the set unless the verse does this explicitly.” Once an animal was dedicated as sacrifice, it is forbidden to exchange it (Lev. 27:10). The same is true for animal tithes (Lev. 27:33), which are sacrifices. The fact that the rules are spelled out again for tithes (whose status of sanctity is automatic) shows that the differences in the rules are intended; one cannot infer from the rules of one for those of the other.. Therefore, he has to spell out “one which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally, if it actually had drawn⁹⁰Since the verse puts the emphasis on drawing, not on carrying the yoke.. Rebbi Yose follows the rabbis, since the rabbis say, anything which was in a set and left the set to teach remains in its set and in its new meaning⁹¹This is close to the formulation of rule 9 (Sifra, Introduction): “Anything which was in a set and left the set to teach did not leave to teach about itself alone but to teach about the entire set.” The new teaching is that active drawing automatically disables even if not desired by the farmer. This implies that drawing is only an example; the same rule will be valid for any agricultural work.. Therefore, he has to spell out: intentionally even if it had not drawn, unintentionally if it actually had drawn.