And the priests recite - as was written earlier, "The priests, sons of Levi, shall come forward" [Deuteronomy 21:5], and it did not specify for what purpose they were to approach.

They did not have to recite: “And the blood shall be forgiven for them” - that is to say, "and shall be forgiven for them" which is written in the verse is not in reference to [the phrase] "and they shall make this declaration" [Deuteronomy 21:7]; that is, [not to say] that this too is included in the declaration. Rather, this is a separate matter, wherein the Divine Spirit announced to Israel by way of Moses our Teacher that if they do as such, then "the blood shall be forgiven for them."

Gemara. Heifer - which is within its [first] year, and if the year has past, it is disqualified, because everywhere in the Torah where it says "heifer" without further qualification, it must be [no more than] one year old. This is derived from "a calf and a lamb, yearlings" [Leviticus 9:3].

Red heifer - it has no set age.

A blemish disqualifies it - as is written regarding the red heifer, "in which there is no defect" [Numbers 19:2].

Wherein [bah] - [this word indicates] a restriction.

However, if that is so - that anywhere the word "bah" appears is a restriction, and therefore we cannot derive anything from such a case by means of an a fortiori argument.

Other labor should not disqualify - the [red] heifer, since only "yoke" is written regarding it. Rather, we learn it by way on an a fortiori inference from the heifer [whose neck is broken], where it is written "which has never been worked" [Deuteronomy 21:3], which implies any sort of work. If [the term] "bah" serves as a restriction, we would not be able to infer [using an a fortiori argument] from [the heifer whose neck is broken].

Why, then, does Rav Yehuda say: If he placed - an uda of sacks upon the [red] heifer -- that is, a bundle of sacks -- it is disqualified, even though that is not a yoke. Moreover, it disqualifies by merely placing it, as is written about the work of the yoke mentioned regarding the [red] heifer, "on which no [yoke] has been laid" [Numbers 19:2] -- the mere laying [disqualifies], even if it has not pulled it.

And as for the heifer, until it pulls - until it carries the load a bit, as is written regarding the heifer [whose neck is broken], "which has never pulled." [Deuteronomy 21:3]. Later, [the gemara] will ask, since no other labors are written about regarding the [red] heifer, and we derive them from the heifer [whose neck is broken], why should burdens which are not literally yokes disqualify with mere laying? [Sotah 46] Nevertheless, we learn from here that we can derive [disqualification by way of] the other labors using an a fortiori inference from the [red] heifer to the heifer [whose neck is broken], even though "bah", a term of restriction, is written there.

The [red] heifer is different as we learn “yoke” "yoke” - and since the verbal analogy is available, it is as if [the law that any labor is disqualifying] was written regarding [the red heifer] itself. The restriction of "bah" [that some law be unique to the heifer whose neck is broken] was expounded for a different purpose, as indicated below.

The heifer [whose neck is broken] should also be derived from the “yoke” “yoke” [verbal analogy] with the red heifer - [as far as] a blemish [being disqualifying].

To exclude sacred offerings which are not disqualified by labor - [i.e., not disqualified] from being brought as offerings. But the [red] heifer is not excluded, since [the law that it is indeed disqualified by labor] comes from a verbal analogy.

Is that to say that there are none that are disqualified by years? - Aren't there the Passover offering and the sin offering, by which is written "within their first year"? When is "bah" needed to exclude something from being disqualified by labor? It is for [these cases], for if they were not excluded [with "bah"], it would have been derived [that labor does disqualify them] using an a fortiori inference from the heifer [whose neck is broken].

Prohibited labor - for example, on Shabbat or with "diverse kinds" -- [that is,] with an ox and donkey.

Prohibited labor is also derived from this verse - since two verses discuss [reasons for disqualification of sacrifices], it must be that one of them is [coming to teach that] prohibited labor [does not disqualify].

Yoke - this baraita was taught regarding the [red] heifer.

Other types of labor disqualify it - for it is written "which has never been worked." [Deuteronomy 21:3].

And if it is your wish to say - and if you can refute this a fortiori argument, go and learn it by way of a verbal analogy [instead]: "It is stated here, “yoke”," etc.

It is stated here, etc. - and this word "yoke" [regarding the heifer whose neck is broken] is superfluous, since ["yoke"] is included in the category of all labors.

What [is the meaning of]: If it is your wish to say? - how could you have refuted [the a fortiori inference] so that the Tanna would depart from his course and derive it by way of verbal analogy.

And from the place that you came - this is not the teaching of the Tanna [i.e., this is no longer a quote from the baraita]; rather the Gemara proceeds to elaborate on the question that is being raised against Rav Yehudah, who had said earlier [Sotah 46a:11] that other types of loads disqualify the [red] heifer by mere placement. Since other types of loads are not [explicitly] written by the [red] heifer, and [must be] derived from the heifer [whose neck is broken] by way of verbal analogy -- you could have also derived from the place whence you came that just as a heifer [whose neck is broken is not qualified] until it pulls [the load], so too the [red] heifer [is not disqualified] by other types of loads until it pulls, since [its law] is derived from the heifer [whose neck is broken].