## Sotah Daf 46a

###### Sotah 46a:1
[Sotah 46a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:1)

וְהַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמְרִים: ״כַּפֵּר לְעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר פָּדִיתָ ה׳ וְאַל תִּתֵּן דָּם נָקִי בְּקֶרֶב עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל״. לֹא הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לוֹמַר ״וְנִכַּפֵּר לָהֶם הַדָּם״, אֶלָּא רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מְבַשַּׂרְתָּן: אֵימָתַי שֶׁתַּעֲשׂוּ כָּכָה — הַדָּם מִתְכַּפֵּר לָהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the priests recite: “Forgive, Lord, Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of Your people Israel”** (Deuteronomy 21:8). **They did not have to recite** the conclusion of the verse: **“And the blood shall be forgiven for them,”** as this is not part of the priests’ statement, **but** rather **the Divine Spirit informs them: When you shall do so, the blood is forgiven for you.**


###### Sotah 46a:2
[Sotah 46a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** וִיהֵא מוּם פּוֹסֵל בְּעֶגְלָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה פָּרָה שֶׁאֵין הַשָּׁנִים פּוֹסְלוֹת בָּהּ, מוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ, עֶגְלָה שֶׁשָּׁנִים פּוֹסְלוֹת בָּהּ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא מוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר אֵין בָּהּ מוּם״ — בָּהּ מוּם פּוֹסֵל, וְאֵין מוּם פּוֹסֵל בְּעֶגְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the mishna’s statement that the heifer is not disqualified by a blemish, the Gemara suggests: **And a blemish should disqualify in** the case of the **heifer, by** means of **an *a fortiori*** inference: **And if** in the case of the red heifer, **which is not disqualified** by **years,** as it may be of any age, and yet **a blemish disqualifies it,** then **a heifer** for this ritual, **which is disqualified by years,** as it is valid only until two years of age, **is it not logical that a blemish should disqualify it?** The Gemara answers: It **is different there,** in the case of the red heifer, **as the verse states: “Wherein [*bah*] has no blemish”** (Numbers 19:2). This serves as an exclusion and teaches that it is only **with regard to it [*bah*]** that **a blemish is disqualifying, but a blemish is not disqualifying with regard to** the **heifer** of the ritual of the breaking of the neck.


###### Sotah 46a:3
[Sotah 46a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:3)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה לֹא יְהוּ שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However, if that is so,** if the word “*bah*” precludes a derivation by an *a fortiori* inference, then any **other labor** performed with the red heifer, apart from pulling a yoke, **should not disqualify it.** While the verse disqualifies a red heifer only if it pulled a yoke, as it states: “And upon which never came a yoke” (Numbers 19:2), a similar *a fortiori* inference could be learned from the heifer whose neck is to be broken to disqualify a red heifer that has performed any labor. However, since the verse states with regard to the heifer whose neck is to be broken: “That has not been worked with [*bah*]” (Deuteronomy 21:3), this indicates that labor is disqualifying only for “*bah*,” a heifer whose neck is to be broken, but not for a red heifer.


###### Sotah 46a:4
[Sotah 46a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:4)

אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הִנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ עוּדָּה שֶׁל שַׂקִּין — פְּסוּלָה, וּבְעֶגְלָה עַד שֶׁתִּמְשׁוֹךְ! שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּיָלְפִינַן ״עֹל״ ״עֹל״ מֵעֶגְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Why,** then, does **Rav Yehuda say** that **Rav says:** If **he placed a bundle [*uda*] of sacks on** a red heifer**,**the heifer is immediately **disqualified** from being used as the red heifer; **and** as **for the heifer** whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified by such labor **until it pulls** and moves the burden, as the verse states: “That has not pulled a yoke” (Deuteronomy 21:3). Why does bearing the weight of the bundle disqualify the red heifer? The Gemara explains: The *halakha* with regard to the red **heifer is different, as we learn** by a verbal analogy between the word **“yoke”** used with regard to the red heifer and the word **“yoke”** used with regard **to** the **heifer** whose neck is broken that any labor disqualifies the former.


###### Sotah 46a:5
[Sotah 46a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:5)

עֶגְלָה נָמֵי תֵּיתֵי ״עֹל״ ״עֹל״ מִפָּרָה! הָא מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״בָּהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: If there is a verbal analogy between the red heifer and the heifer that will have its neck broken, then the *halakha* that a blemish should disqualify the heifer whose neck is broken **should also be derived** from the usage of **“yoke”** with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken and **from** the usage of **“yoke”** with regard **to** the red **heifer.** The Gemara answers: **The Merciful One has excluded** this possibility by placing in the verse the word **“*bah*,”** which indicates that disqualification due to blemish applies only to the red heifer and not to the heifer whose neck is broken.


###### Sotah 46a:6
[Sotah 46a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:6)

בְּעֶגְלָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב ״בָּהּ״! הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי קֳדָשִׁים, דְּלָא פָּסְלָה בְּהוּ עֲבוֹדָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא לֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעֶגְלָה: וּמָה עֶגְלָה שֶׁאֵין מוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ — עֲבוֹדָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ, קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁמּוּם פּוֹסֵל(ת) בָּהֶן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁעֲבוֹדָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters this claim: **In** the verse concerning **a heifer** whose neck is broken, the Torah **also writes “*bah*”;** it should be the case that forms of labor other than pulling a yoke are disqualifying only with regard to it and not with regard to the red heifer. The Gemara answers: **That** word “*bah*” **is required by** Rav Yehuda in order **to exclude sacred** offerings, i.e., **which are not disqualified by labor,** and one may bring an animal that has been used for labor as an offering. **It might enter your mind to say** that this **should be derived by an *a fortiori*** inference **from a heifer** whose neck is broken, as follows: **And if** with regard to **a heifer** whose neck is broken, **which is not disqualified by a blemish, labor** nevertheless **disqualifies it,** then with regard to **sacred** offerings, **which are disqualified by a blemish, is it not right that labor should disqualify them?** In order to counter this argument, the word “*bah*” teaches us that a sacred offering is not disqualified by labor.


###### Sotah 46a:7
[Sotah 46a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:7)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְעֶגְלָה שֶׁכֵּן שָׁנִים פּוֹסְלוֹת בָּהּ! אַטּוּ קֳדָשִׁים מִי לֵיכָּא דְּפָסְלִי בְּהוּ שָׁנִים? כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְהָנָךְ קֳדָשִׁים דְּפָסְלִי בְּהוּ שָׁנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this suggested *a fortiori* inference, the Gemara observes that **it can be refuted** in the following manner: **What** about the fact that **a heifer** whose neck is broken **is disqualified by years,** as once it reaches two years of age it is no longer classified as a heifer? As it is clear that the heifer whose neck is to be broken carries some restrictions that do not apply to sacred offerings, perhaps being disqualified by labor is another such restriction. The Gemara refutes this argument: **Is that to say that there are no sacred** offerings **that are disqualified by years?** There are several offerings that may be brought only in their first or second year, and **where the verse is necessary** to teach that sacred offerings are not disqualified by labor, it is with regard to **those sacred** offerings **that are disqualified by years.**


###### Sotah 46a:8
[Sotah 46a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:8)

וְקָדָשִׁים דְּלָא פָּסְלָה בְּהוּ עֲבוֹדָה מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא: ״עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר אוֹ חָרוּץ אוֹ יַבֶּלֶת אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֵלֶּה לַה׳״, אֵלֶּה אִי אַתָּה מַקְרִיב, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַקְרִיב קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָה! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּעָבַד בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדַת הֶיתֵּר, אֲבָל עֲבוֹדַת אִיסּוּר אֵימָא לִיתַּסְרוּ, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But is** the *halakha* **that sacred** offerings **are not disqualified by labor derived from this** verse? **It is derived from elsewhere.** The verse states with regard to sacred offerings: **“Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wart, or scabbed, or scurvy, you shall not offer these to the Lord”** (Leviticus 22:22). This verse serves to create an exclusion, teaching that it is **these** that **you may not sacrifice, but you may sacrifice sacred** animals **that have been used for labor.** The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** to state the *halakha* twice. **It might enter your mind to say** that **this** *halakha*, that one may sacrifice animals that have been used for labor, **applies only** in a case where **they were used for permitted labor, but** if they were used for **prohibited labor,** e.g., on Shabbat, you might **say that it is prohibited** to bring **them** as offerings. In order to refute this argument, it is **necessary** to state the *halakha* again.


###### Sotah 46a:9
[Sotah 46a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:9)

וְהָא נָמֵי מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא — ״וּמִיַּד בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֶת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכׇּל אֵלֶּה״, אֵלֶּה אִי אַתָּה מַקְרִיב, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַקְרִיב קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses another question: **But this** *halakha* that prohibited labor does not disqualify offerings **is also derived from here,** a verse with regard to the sacrifice of blemished animals: **“And from the hand of a stranger you shall not offer the bread of your God from any of these, because…**there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25). This verse emphasizes that it is only **“these,”** i.e., blemished animals, that **you may not sacrifice, but you may sacrifice sacred** animals **that have been used for labor.** Since this verse is discussing the possibility of accepting offerings from a gentile, who presumably also performed prohibited labor with the animal, this demonstrates that prohibited labor does not disqualify animals from being sacrificed as offerings.


###### Sotah 46a:10
[Sotah 46a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:10)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּעָבַד בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן חוּלִּין, אֲבָל עָבַד בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן קֳדָשִׁים — אֵימָא לִיתַּסְרוּ, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** to teach this *halakha* a third time. **It might enter your mind to say: This** *halakha*, that labor does not disqualify offerings, **applies** only where **one performed labor with them when they were non-sacred** and afterward dedicated them as offerings, **but** if **one performed labor with them when they were** already **sacred** animals, you might **say that it is prohibited** to bring **them** as offerings. In order to refute this argument, it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* in three separate places.


###### Sotah 46a:11
[Sotah 46a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:11)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הִנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ עוּדָּה שֶׁל שַׂקִּין פְּסוּלָה, וּבְעֶגְלָה עַד שֶׁתִּמְשׁוֹךְ. מֵיתִיבִי: ״עֹל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹל, שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֶגְלָה שֶׁאֵין מוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ, שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת בָּהּ, פָּרָה שֶׁמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁשְּׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת פּוֹסְלִין בָּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss **the** matter **itself: Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** If **one placed a bundle of sacks on** a red heifer, **it is disqualified. And** as **for a heifer** whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified **until it pulls** a burden. The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: It states with regard to the red heifer: “That upon which never came **a yoke”** (Numbers 19:2). **I have** derived **only a yoke; from where** do I derive that other types of labor also disqualify the animal? **You** can **say** the following ***a fortiori*** inference: **And if** with regard to **a heifer** whose neck is broken, **which is not disqualified by a blemish, other** types of **labor disqualify it,** then with regard to a red **heifer, which is disqualified by a blemish, is it not right that other** types of **labor should disqualify it?**


###### Sotah 46a:12
[Sotah 46a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:12)

וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עֹל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עֹל״. מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת בָּהּ — אַף כָּאן שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is your wish to say** that this *a fortiori* inference is unsound, you can learn this *halakha* by a verbal analogy: **It is stated here,** with regard to the red heifer, **“yoke”** (Numbers 19:2), **and it is stated there,** with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, **“yoke”** (Deuteronomy 21:3). **Just as there, other** types of **labor disqualify it, so too here,** in the case of the red heifer, **other** types of **labor disqualify** it.


###### Sotah 46a:13
[Sotah 46a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:13)

מַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְעֶגְלָה שֶׁכֵּן שָׁנִים פּוֹסְלוֹת בָּהּ. אִי נָמֵי: קֳדָשִׁים יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן, וְאֵין עֲבוֹדָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: **If it is your wish to say?** What potential problem with the *a fortiori* inference necessitates the verbal analogy? The Gemara explains: **And perhaps you would say** that the *a fortiori* inference **can be refuted** in the following manner: **What** is unique **about a heifer** whose neck is broken is **that it is disqualified by years,** which is not the case for a red heifer. **Alternatively,** one could suggest that **sacred** offerings **will prove** that this inference should not be made, **as a blemish is disqualifying with regard to them, but labor is not disqualifying with regard to them.**


###### Sotah 46a:14
[Sotah 46a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:14)

נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עֹל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עֹל״, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת — אַף כָּאן שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת. וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָה: מָה לְהַלָּן עַד שֶׁתִּמְשׁוֹךְ, אַף כָּאן עַד שֶׁתִּמְשׁוֹךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As the *a fortiori* inference can be refuted in either of these ways, there is a need for the verbal analogy: **It is stated here “yoke,” and it is stated there “yoke.” Just as there,** in the case of **a heifer** whose neck is broken, **other** types of **labor** disqualify it, **so too, other** types of **labor** disqualify a red heifer. The Gemara raises an objection to this verbal analogy: **And from the place that you came** you can offer an alternative exposition: **Just as below,** in the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified by carrying a burden **until it pulls** the yoke, **so too here,** a red heifer should not be disqualified **until it pulls** the yoke, contrary to the statement of Rav.


###### Sotah 46a:15
[Sotah 46a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:15)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּאִיכָּא דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵעֶגְלָה, אִיכָּא דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִגּוּפַהּ דְּפָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers the objection to the statement of Rav from the *baraita*: It **is** a dispute among ***tanna’im*, as there are those who cite** the source of **this** *halakha*, that labor disqualifies a red heifer, by verbal analogy **from a heifer** whose neck is broken, and therefore the red heifer is disqualified only if it pulls the burden. **There are** also **those who cite** the source of **this** *halakha* **from** a red **heifer itself,** and consequently they disqualify the red heifer even if it did not pull the yoke.


###### Sotah 46a:16
[Sotah 46a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:16)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״עֹל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹל. שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֹל״ — עוֹל פּוֹסֵל בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה, שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵין פּוֹסְלוֹת אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a red heifer: From the term **“yoke” I have** derived **only** that **a yoke** disqualifies a red heifer; **from where** do I derive the **other** types of **labor? The verse states: “That upon which never came a yoke”** (Numbers 19:2). The verse could be read with a pause after the word “came,” which would teach that it is disqualified **in any case,** no matter what labor was performed with it. **If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states “yoke,”** if all forms of labor disqualify it? It teaches us that **a yoke** placed on the animal **disqualifies** it **whether** the yoke was on the animal **at the time of** performing **labor** or **whether** it was on the animal **not at the time of** performing **labor,** i.e., it was merely placed on the animal. However, **other** types of **labor** actions **disqualify** animals **only at the time of** actually performing **labor.** Rav ruled in accordance with this opinion.


###### Sotah 46a:17
[Sotah 46a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:17)

וְאֵימָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָלָה עָלֶיהָ״ — כָּלַל, ״עֹל״ — פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁבַּפְּרָט: עוֹל אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא! ״אֲשֶׁר״ — רִבּוּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **And** perhaps one can **say** a different exposition of the verse: **“That upon which never came”** is **a generalization** that disqualifies the animal after any type of labor, while **“yoke”** is **a detail.** There is **a generalization and a detail,** and the principle of halakhic exposition in that case is that **there is nothing in the generalization other** than **what is in the detail.** Therefore, with regard to **a yoke, yes,** it will disqualify an animal from being used as a red heifer; but with regard to **anything else, no,** it will not disqualify the animal. The Gemara answers: **“That** upon which never came” **is an amplification,** and the addition of this term results in this verse not belonging to the category of generalizations and details.


###### Sotah 46a:18
[Sotah 46a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:18)

וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי עֶגְלָה כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: ״עֹל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹל. שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עֻבַּד בָּהּ״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֹל״ — עוֹל פּוֹסֵל בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה, שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵין פּוֹסְלוֹת אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And a case like this is also taught in** a *baraita* **with regard to a heifer** whose neck is broken: From the word **“yoke” I have** derived **only** that **a yoke** disqualifies; **from where** do I derive the **other** types of **labor? The** same **verse states: “That has not been worked with”** (Deuteronomy 21:3), to teach that it is disqualified **in any case,** no matter what labor was performed with it. **If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states “yoke”?** It serves to teach us that **a yoke** placed on the animal **disqualifies** it **whether** the yoke was on the animal **at the time of** performing **labor or whether** it was on the animal **not at the time of performing labor,** i.e., it was merely placed on the animal, whereas **other** types of **labor** actions **disqualify** animals **only at the time of** actually performing **labor.**


###### Sotah 46a:19
[Sotah 46a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:19)

וְאֵימָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עֻבַּד בָּהּ״ — כָּלַל, ״עֹל״ — פָּרַט. כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁבַּפְּרָט: עוֹל — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא! ״אֲשֶׁר״ — רִבּוּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **And** perhaps one can **say** a different exposition of the verse: **“That has not been worked with”** is **a generalization** that disqualifies the animal after any type of labor, while **“yoke”** is **a detail.** There is **a generalization and a detail,** and the principle of halakhic exposition in that case is that **there is nothing in the generalization other** than **what is in the detail,** which means: With regard to **a yoke, yes,** it will disqualify an animal, but with regard to **anything else, no,** it will not disqualify it. The Gemara answers: The phrase **“that** has not been worked with” **is an amplification,** and the addition of this term results in this verse not belonging to the category of generalizations and details.


###### Sotah 46a:20
[Sotah 46a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, בְּעַי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְשִׁיכַת עוֹל בְּכַמָּה? אָמַר לִי: כִּמְלֹא עוֹל. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְאׇרְכּוֹ אוֹ לְרׇחְבּוֹ? אֲמַר לְהוּ הַהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְשִׁיכַת עוֹל לְרׇחְבּוֹ טֶפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu said: I asked of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** This **pulling of a yoke** that disqualifies a heifer whose neck is broken, **with how much,** i.e., how far, must the animal pull the yoke for it to be disqualified? **He said to me: Like** the measure of the size of **a full yoke. A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Does this mean according **to its length or** according **to its width? One of the Sages, and Rabbi Ya’akov was his name, said to them: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself: The pulling of a yoke is** according **to its width,** which is **a handbreadth.**


###### Sotah 46a:21
[Sotah 46a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:21)

וְלֵימָא טֶפַח? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן שִׁיעוּרָא דְּעוֹל — טֶפַח הָוֵי. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ — לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **And** since he stated a fixed measurement, **let him** merely **state: A handbreadth.** Why was it necessary to add that this is the width of a yoke? The Gemara answers: **This teaches us** that **the measure** of **a yoke** along its width **is a handbreadth. What difference is there** in knowing this fact? This teaches that **in** the case of **commercial transactions,** a buyer may retract his purchase if the yoke he was given is less than a handbreadth wide.


###### Sotah 46a:22
[Sotah 46a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:22)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל, מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הָבֵיא עֶגְלָה בְּנַחַל? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יָבֹא דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה פֵּירוֹת, וְיֵעָרֵף בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת, וִיכַפֵּר עַל מִי שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחוּ[הוּ] לַעֲשׂוֹת פֵּירוֹת. מַאי פֵּירוֹת? אִילֵימָא פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה — אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה אַזָּקֵן וְאַסָּרִיס הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא עָרְפִינַן?! אֶלָּא מִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Shaul says: For what** reason **did the Torah say** to **bring a heifer** whose neck is broken **to a stream? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let something that did not produce fruit,** i.e., a heifer that has not given birth, **come and** have its neck **be broken at** a stream that flows forcefully, which is **a place that does not produce fruit, and atone for** the murder of **one who was not given an opportunity to produce fruit.** The Gemara asks: **What** is this **fruit** that he was not given an opportunity to produce? **If we say** it refers to **being fruitful and multiplying,** i.e., that the killer prevented him from having more children, **but if that is so,** in the case **of an elderly person or a eunuch, so too** will you say **that we do not break** the heifer’s neck because they could not have had any more children even had they lived? **Rather,** the fruit are **mitzvot,** as the killer deprived the victim of the opportunity to perform additional mitzvot.


###### Sotah 46a:23
[Sotah 46a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sotah/r/46a:23)

וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתָהּ אֶל נַחַל אֵיתָן. ״אֵיתָן״ כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, קָשֶׁה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לְאֵיתָן שֶׁהוּא קָשֶׁה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught: **And they bring it down to a stream** that is ***eitan*. *Eitan*** in this context means **as** the word generally **indicates,** forceful. **The Sages taught: From where** is it derived **that *eitan* is forceful?** It is **as** it **is stated:**