## Yoma Daf 42a

###### Yoma 42a:1
[Yoma 42a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:1)

שֶׁל פָּרָה — מִשְׁקַל עֲשָׂרָה זוּז, וְשֶׁל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ — מִשְׁקַל שְׁנֵי סְלָעִים, וְשֶׁל מְצוֹרָע — מִשְׁקַל שֶׁקֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The strip of crimson **of the** red **heifer** has the **weight** of **ten *zuz*; and** the strip **of the scapegoat** has the **weight of two *sela*,** which is eight *zuz*; **and** the strip **of the leper** has the **weight of a shekel,** which is two *zuz*.


###### Yoma 42a:2
[Yoma 42a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא וְרַבָּנַן בְּפָרָה, חַד אָמַר: מִשְׁקַל עֲשָׂרָה, וְחַד אָמַר: מִשְׁקַל שֶׁקֶל. וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״אֶחָד הַמַּרְבֶּה וְאֶחָד הַמַּמְעִיט״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **Rabbi Yoḥanan** further said: **Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta and the Rabbis disagree** with regard to the strip of crimson **of** the red **heifer. One said:** It has the **weight of ten** *zuz*. **And one said:** It has the **weight of one shekel. And your mnemonic** for remembering that while both assume that only one of the extreme values was required no one suggests the middle value of two *sela* is required, is the aphorism from a mishna: God equally values **both the one who gives much and the one who gives little** as long as his intention is to Heaven.


###### Yoma 42a:3
[Yoma 42a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: לָא בְּפָרָה פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ פְּלִיגִי. וְהָהוּא יוֹמָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבְיָא בַּר קִיסִי, וְאַנְּחוּ בַּהּ סִימָנָא: רַבְיָא [בַּר] קִיסִי מְכַפֵּר כְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to Ravina:** It is **not with regard to the** strip of the red **heifer** that **they disagree; rather,** it is **with regard to** the strip of **the scapegoat** that **they disagree. And on that** very **day** that they disputed this issue, **Ravya bar Kisi** died, **and they made a mnemonic out of it,** associating the *halakha* with his name: The death of **Ravya bar Kisi atones like the scapegoat,** since the death of the righteous person atones for his generation.


###### Yoma 42a:4
[Yoma 42a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שְׁתֵּי שְׁחִיטוֹת שָׁמַעְתִּי, אַחַת שֶׁל פָּרָה, וְאַחַת שֶׁל פָּרוֹ. אַחַת כְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָר, וְאַחַת פְּסוּלָה בְּזָר, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yitzḥak said: I heard** a teaching that there is a distinction between **two slaughters: One of the** red **heifer, and one of the bull** of the High Priest on Yom Kippur. The slaughter of **one** of them **is valid** even if done **by a non-priest, and** the slaughter of the other **one is invalid** if done **by a non-priest. But I do not know which of them** is which.


###### Yoma 42a:5
[Yoma 42a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:5)

אִיתְּמַר: שְׁחִיטַת פָּרָה וּפָרוֹ, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר: פָּרָה פְּסוּלָה, פָּרוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְחַד אָמַר: פָּרוֹ פְּסוּלָה, פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
An amoraic dispute **was stated:** With regard to the **slaughter of the** red **heifer and the bull** of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, there is a dispute between **Rav and Shmuel: One said:** A red **heifer** slaughtered by a non-priest **is invalid,** whereas the **bull** of the High Priest slaughtered by a non-priest **is valid. And** the other **one said: His bull is invalid,** but the red **heifer is valid.**


###### Yoma 42a:6
[Yoma 42a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:6)

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַב הוּא דְּאָמַר פָּרָה פְּסוּלָה, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: שְׁחִיטַת פָּרָה בְּזָר פְּסוּלָה, וְאָמַר רַב עֲלַהּ: ״אֶלְעָזָר״ וְ״חוּקָּה״ שָׁנִינוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Conclude** that **it is Rav who said** that if **the heifer** is slaughtered by a non-priest it **is invalid, as Rabbi Zeira said: The slaughter of the heifer by a non-priest is invalid. And Rav said concerning this** statement of Rabbi Zeira: This is because **we learned in** the Torah’s description of the slaughter of the red heifer both **“Elazar** the priest” (Numbers 19:3) and **“statute”** (Numbers 19:2). Because Elazar is mentioned, it indicates the slaughter should be performed by a priest, and the use of the term “statute” teaches that one may not deviate from any of the details of the service as delineated in the verses; if one does deviate, the service is invalid. Clearly then, Rav held that if the heifer is slaughtered by a non-priest it is invalid.


###### Yoma 42a:7
[Yoma 42a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:7)

וְרַב, מַאי שְׁנָא פָּרָה — דִּכְתִיב ״אֶלְעָזָר״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, פָּרוֹ נָמֵי — הָא כְּתִיב ״אַהֲרֹן״ וְ״חוּקָּה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes Rav’s opinion: **And** according to **Rav, what is different** with regard to the red **heifer,** that if it is slaughtered by a non-priest it is invalid? As Rav explained, it is different in **that,** with regard to it, **it is written “Elazar” and “statute.”** But with regard to **the bull** of the High Priest **it is also written “Aaron”** the High Priest (Leviticus 16:11) and **“statute”** (Leviticus 16:34). Based on Rav’s logic, that indicates that the priest is indispensable.


###### Yoma 42a:8
[Yoma 42a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:8)

שְׁחִיטָה לָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא. אִי הָכִי פָּרָה נָמֵי! שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The slaughter of the bull by a non-priest is valid because **slaughtering is not** classified as a sacrificial **service;** therefore, it does not have to be done by a priest. The Gemara challenges this answer: **If so,** by the same logic, the red **heifer** should **also** be valid when slaughtered by a non-priest. The Gemara concludes: The logic that slaughtering is not classified as a sacrificial service does not apply in the case of the red heifer because the red **heifer is different.** It has the sanctity **of** items **consecrated for Temple maintenance,** and therefore the principles that apply to other offerings do not necessarily apply to it.


###### Yoma 42a:9
[Yoma 42a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:9)

וְלָאו כָּל דְּכֵן הוּא? אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּרְאוֹת נְגָעִים, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא וּבָעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **is it not** arguable, by **an *a fortiori* inference,** that the slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest is valid? If the slaughter of the bull of the High Priest, which is an actual offering, is valid when performed by a non-priest, then all the more so the slaughter of the red heifer, which is not an offering, should be valid when similarly performed by a non-priest. **Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said:** The slaughter of the red heifer by a non-priest is invalid. The *halakha* is **just as in** the case of **appearances of leprosy, which,** despite their **not** being a sacrificial **service,** still **require the priesthood.** Only a priest may declare the signs of leprosy to be pure or impure. It is apparent from this case that the logic of the *a fortiori* inference does not hold.


###### Yoma 42a:10
[Yoma 42a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:10)

וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר פָּרוֹ פְּסוּלָה, מַאי שְׁנָא פָּרוֹ — דִּכְתִיב: ״אַהֲרֹן״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, פָּרָה נָמֵי — הָא כְּתִיב: ״אֶלְעָזָר״ וְ״חוּקָּה״? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו״, שֶׁיְּהֵא זָר שׁוֹחֵט וְאֶלְעָזָר רוֹאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes Shmuel’s opinion: **And** according **to Shmuel, who said** that if a non-priest slaughters **the bull** of the High Priest it **is invalid, what is different** with regard to **his bull** that this is the *halakha*? It is different in **that,** with regard to it, **it is written “Aaron,”** indicating that a priest is required, **and “statute,”** indicating that the requirements of the Yom Kippur service are indispensable. But with regard to the red **heifer it is also written: “Elazar” and “statute”** which by the same logic should indicate the need for a priest is indispensable. The Gemara concludes: **It is different there as it is written: “And he shall slaughter it before him”** (Numbers 19:3), i.e., in front of Elazar, which suggests **that it could be** that **a non-priest slaughters and Elazar watches.**


###### Yoma 42a:11
[Yoma 42a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:11)

וְרַב: שֶׁלֹּא יַסִּיחַ דַּעְתּוֹ מִמֶּנָּה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל, שֶׁלֹּא יַסִּיחַ דַּעְתּוֹ מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ: מִ״וְּשָׂרַף אֶת הַפָּרָה לְעֵינָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav,** who assumes the slaughter is performed by the priest himself, how does he interpret the phrase: “Before him”? He understands it to mean **that he should not divert his attention from** the heifer from the moment of slaughtering until the completion of the process. As with other matters of purification, one is required to maintain his attention on the matter; any distraction can invalidate the process. **And from where does Shmuel,** who already derived something from this verse, derive **that he should not divert his attention** from it? **He derives it** from the verse: **“And he shall burn the heifer in his sight”** (Numbers 19:5).


###### Yoma 42a:12
[Yoma 42a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:12)

וְרַב: חַד בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְחַד בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** what does **Rav** learn from this verse? He holds that **one** verse is needed to teach the requirement to maintain one’s attention **with regard to slaughtering, and one** verse is needed to teach the requirement **with regard to burning.**


###### Yoma 42a:13
[Yoma 42a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:13)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה — מִשּׁוּם דִּתְחִילַּת עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, אֲבָל שְׂרֵיפָה — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּשְׂרֵיפָה — מִשּׁוּם דְּהַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּמִתַּכְשְׁרָא פָּרָה, אֲבָל שְׁחִיטָה — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **necessary** to have the requirement stated in both cases **since, if the Merciful One had written it** only **with regard to slaughtering,** I might have limited the requirement to that case **because it is the start of the** Temple **service; but** with regard to **burning, I could say** that **no,** there is no requirement. Therefore, it is **necessary** to teach the requirement also in the case of burning. **And if the Merciful One had written** the requirement only **with regard to burning,** I might have limited it to that case, **because it is now that** the **heifer is** actually **being made ready** to be used; **but** with regard to **slaughtering, I could say** that **no,** there is no requirement. Therefore, it is **necessary** to teach the requirement also in that case.


###### Yoma 42a:14
[Yoma 42a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/42a:14)

לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי אֲסִיפַת אֶפְרָהּ וּמִילּוּי מַיִם לְקִידּוּשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As the requirement is mentioned with regard to two stages of the rite of the red heifer, this suggests that it does not exist for every stage. Therefore, the Gemara asks: It is written this way in order **to exclude what** stage? **If we say, to exclude** from the requirement the stages of **gathering its ashes and filling the water for sanctification,** i.e., taking the water in order to pour it on the ashes and mix them together,