Commentaire sur Parah 2:10

רבי אליעזר אומר פרה מעוברת כשרה – Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis of here established according to the approach of Rabbi Yehuda who mentions further on in our chapter (Mishnah 4) that if a bull brought it up upon the cow, it is not invalid unless it went up with the knowledge of the owner of the heifer, but they dispute here regarding a pregnant cow that a male went up on her on his own without the knowledge of the owners, for Rabbi Eliezer who declares it fit holds that fetus is the thigh/haunch of its mother and it is like the body of he cow, but the Rabbis who invalidate I hold that the fetus is not the thigh/haunch of it smother and it is disqualified from the heat of work, that she carries the fetus. And the Halakha is that is invalid from the time when a male came up upon her, even without the knowledge of the owners, and even if she is not pregnant, and not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a [red] cow for the hatat that is pregnant is valid, But the sages say: it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that a pregnant red cow is still valid for the red cow ritual (the hatat is the sin offering, which is how the rabbis refer to the red cow). In mishnah four of this chapter we shall see a dispute as to whether a cow that has mated with a bull is valid. In contrast, the sages say that a pregnant cow is akin to two cows, which means it is not valid for the red cow hatat.

אינה נלקחת מן הנכרים – who are suspected the copulation (i.e., carnal connection with beasts/buggery (see Tractate Avodah Zarah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1), for lest it was copulated at their hands.

Rabbi Eliezer says: it may not be bought from non-Jews, But the sages say: it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer says that a cow bought from non-Jews cannot be used lest they used it for work, which would render it invalid. The other sages say that unless we know that it has been used for work, it is valid.

וחכמים מכשירין – [to purchase a red heifer from non-Jews] because the cow was made barren/impotent when it copulated with it, for the heathen has compassion on his cattle that it should not become barren/impotent.

And not only this, but all sacrifices of the congregation or the individual may be brought from the land of Israel and from outside the land, from new produce and from the old; Except the omer and the two loaves, which may be brought only from new produce and from within the land. This expands the sages' view found in section two. All sacrifices, both public and private may be brought from animals raised outside the land of Israel, even if they are bought from non-Jews. The remainder of this mishnah is brought here from Menahot 8:1. My commentary here is the same as there. All menahot (grain offerings) can come from grain grown either in or outside the land of Israel. They can also come from new produce or aged produce. There are two exceptions: the omer barley offering brought on the second day of Pesah and the two loaves brought on Shavuot. With regard to the omer it is stated in Leviticus 23:10, “When you come into the land…you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest.” With regard to the two loaves it states there in verses 16-17, “And you shall offer a new minhah to the Lord, from your dwelling places you shall bring it.” Both of these verses teach that the omer and the two loaves must come from the new harvest and from grain grown in the land of Israel.

ולא זו בלבד – not only regarding the Red Heifer that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disputed, but regarding all of the community sacrifices and those of an individual, Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [them] if they were purchased from the heathens, for he is concerned for copulation/carnal connection with beasts, but the Sages declare them fit. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

באין מארץ ומחוצה לארץ – (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 8, Mishnah 1) – all of the sacrifices come whether from the Land [of Israel] or from outside the Land [of Israel], whether from the new [grain] or whether form the old [grain – i.e., from before Passover].

חוץ מן העומר ושתי הלחם - as Scripture states (Leviticus 23:10): [Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:] When you enter the land [that I am giving to you] and you reap its harvest, you shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest [to the priest],” and with the two bread loaves, it is written (Leviticus 23:17): “You shall bring from your settlements two loaves of bead as an elevation offering.” They do not come other from that which is new (and grown in the Land of Israel), as it is written (Leviticus 23:16): “an offering of new grain to the LORD.”

יגוד (chop off) – he should cut off/sever. Like (Daniel 4:11): “hew down the tree”/גודו אילנא.

Introduction This mishnah deals with various bodily issues that could potentially disqualify the red cow.

והננסת (dwarf) – the smallest, for that is a blemish in a human but is not a blemish in an animal.

If the horns or the hoofs of the [red] cow are black they are chopped off. The red cow must have only red hairs. If it has black hairs, they cannot be removed to make it valid. However, if it has black non-hair parts, parts that can be removed without killing or maiming the animal, they may be removed. These include the horns and hoofs.

יבלת (wart on the skin – VAVROAH in the foreign language.

The eye ball, the teeth and the tongue cause do not invalidate the [red] cow. Some parts need not even be removed if they are black. These include the eye ball, the teeth and the tongue. Removing these "live" parts of the cow would severely damage the cow and therefore this is not done.

ור' יהודה פוסל – and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

One that is dwarf-like is valid. In Bekhorot 7:6 we learned that dwarf-like animals are not disqualified from sacrifices. Here we learn that this includes the red hatat cow.

If there was on it an extra digit and it was cut off: Rabbi Judah says that it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever, if removed, no red hair grows in its place is it invalid. Bekhorot 7:6 teaches that if a priest had an extra finger and he cut it off, he can't serve on the altar. Rabbi Judah applies this to the red hatat cow as well. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon says that the cow is invalid only if no red hair grows in its place. If red hair takes its place, it is valid.

יוצא דופן (Caesarian section) – like the rest of Holy Things. As it is written (Leviticus 22:27): “[When an ox or a sheep or a goat] is born,” excluding that by Caesarean section. But even though a heifer/cow is not the Holy Things of the altar but rather the Holy Things of offerings for Temple repair, nevertheless, an animal born by caesarean section is invalid, for the All-Merciful called it a sin-offering.

Introduction Most of today's mishnah deals with Numbers 19:2 which states, "Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid."

ר' אליעזר מכשיר – especially the fee for a whore and the fee for a dog. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

One that is born from the side, the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid, as it says, "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God," (Deuteronomy 23:19) and this was not brought into the house. Deuteronomy 23:19 forbids one from bringing as a sacrifice an animal that was used to pay a harlot or an animal that was sold to buy a dog. The first opinion in the mishnah states that if a red cow was used for either of these purposes, it too is invalid as a hatat cow. However, Rabbi Eliezer says that the verse only prohibits actually sacrifices to be brought from such animals. The red cow is not brought into the Temple and thus if used for either of these purposes, it is valid. In addition, there is a debate concerning a red cow that is born through a caesarean section literally in Hebrew one that is born from the side of its mother. In Bekhorot 7:7 we learned that an animal born through caesarean section cannot be sacrificed. Here we learn that it can also not be used as a red cow hatat, according to the sages. Again, Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid.

כל המומין הפוסלים במוקדשים – In [Tractate] Bekhorot in the [sixth] chapter, “On account of these blemishes”/על אלה מומין (Mishnayot 1-12), the blemishes that invalidate the Holy Things are explained.

All blemishes that cause consecrated animals to be invalid cause also the [red] cow to be invalid. The Torah explicitly states that the red cow must have no blemish. The list of what constitutes a blemish can be found in Bekhorot chapter 6.

פוסלים כפרה – as it is written (Numbers 19:2): “in which there is no defect”/"אשר אין-בה מום".

If one had ridden on it, leaned on it, hung on its tail, crossed a river by its help, doubled up its leading rope, or put one's cloak on it, it is invalid. These are all considered making use of the animal and therefore disqualify it from being used as a red cow. "Doubled up its leading rope" seems to mean that one doubled up the rope and laid it on the cow as a place to put it. This too is considered making use of the animal.

עבר בה את הנהר אחז בזנבה – assisted/accompanied it when he crossed the river.

But if one had only tied it up by its leading rope or made for it a sandal to prevent it from slipping or spread one's cloak on it because of flies, it is valid. In contrast, in these cases the person doesn't make use of the animal, rather does something for the animal's sake. These do not fall under the category of "on which no yoke has been laid" and therefore the animal is still valid.

קיפל עליה בת המוסרה (if he threw the reins over her back) – the rope that he ties her with they doubled and placed them on her body (i.e., back).

This is the general rule: wherever anything is done for its own sake, it remains valid; but if for the sake of another, it becomes invalid. This is the general rule that summarizes the distinction drawn between the cases in section three and those in section four.

מתן טליתו עליה פסולה – it states in [the portion of the] of the [Red] Heifer (Numbers 19:2): “and on which no yoke has been laid”/אשר לא-עלה עליה על", and it states regarding the heifer whose neck is broken (Deuteronomy 21:3): “a heifer which has never been worked, which has never pulled in a yoke”/"עגלת בקר אשר לא-עבד בה אשר לא-משכה בעל". Just as the yoke that is stated with the heifer (in Deuteronomy 21:3 and following) it did all of the rest of invalid work while yoked, even the yoke that is mentioned with the [Red] Heifer, it is the rest of the invalid work while yoked.

בשביל שלא תחליק – so that her feet should not slip and she would fall.

לצורך אחר פסולה – and even for his needs and for her needs it is invalid.

עלה עליה זכר פסולה – even though it is not what it prefers, because its costs are expensive and [the owner) loses a lot, and regarding the work it is not what he prefers it does not invalidate it, as it written regarding the heifer whose neck is broken (Deuteronomy 21;3); “a heifer which has never been worked, it is written as עבד – but it is read as עובד. Just as עבד is preferable to him, even עובד is preferable to him, and we derive the sin-offering of the heifer from it. Nevertheless, since that with the rest of the cows it was preferable to him (i.e., the owner), we consider that regarding the sin-offering of the heifer is also preferable to him (i.e., the owner). And further, if you came to validate it, if so, it is also preferable to him (i.e., the owner), and because of this it is invalidated.

Introduction Today's mishnah teaches that if something rests upon the red cow it only disqualifies it from use as a hatat if it is done according to the owners wishes.

העלהו פסולה – Not exactly “brought it up” [upon the cow], but rather, if it went up upon her (i.e. the cow) with the knowledge of the owners, even if it went up on its own, it is invalid. But if it went up [on the cow] without the knowledge of the owners, it is fit/appropriate. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If a bird rested on it, it remains valid. A bird sitting on the red cow does not disqualify it from use as a hatat. This does not count as the bird having performed work for it was not something that the owners wanted to happen.

If a male beast mounted it, it becomes invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if the male was made to mount, it becomes invalid; but if it did so of itself, it remains valid. According to the first opinion, if a male animal mounts the red cow to mate with it the red cow has been invalidated because this is something that the owners would want to happen. And although they would not want it to happen to that particular cow, for this would invalidate it for use as a red cow hatat (worth lots of cash), since they would want it to happen to their other cows, this counts as something that was done with the consent of the owners. Rabbi Judah distinguishes between a case where the owners caused the male to mount the red cow and cases where the bull mounted on its own. For this act to be considered something done according to the owners' wishes, they must take an active part in the act. If they do not, then we cannot consider it an act that disqualifies the red cow.

היו בה שתי שערות שחורות פסולה – as it is written (Numbers 19:2): “[This is the ritual that the LORD has commanded: Instruct the Israelite people to bring you] a red cow,” if there are blemish, it is already stated [in that Biblical verse]: “in which thee is no defect,” but rather that it will be pure in its redness.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with how many non-red hairs, and the placement of such hairs, will disqualify a red cow from being used as a hatat.

רבי יהודה אומר בתוך כוס אחד – we have this reading. But we don’t have the reading: "ואפילו"/and even, and in place that the first Tanna would teach "גומא"/follicle, Rabbi Yehuda would teach a "כוס" /follicle (i.e., cavity). [The words]"גומא" and "כוס" are one [and the same], and it is obligatory for a person to state them in the language of his Rabbi/teacher (see Tractate Eduyot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3 for an enunciation of this rule), that the Rabbi/teacher of Rabbi Yehuda would call a "גומא" a "כוס" , this is proven in the Tosefta (see Tractate Parah, Chapter 2, Halakha 7).

If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosot that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid. According to the first opinion, if two black or white hairs grow within one follicle they disqualify the cow from use as a hatat. Rabbi Judah says "within one kos." According to Albeck, kos is another word for follicle, in which case, Rabbi Judah does not disagree with the first opinion, he just uses different language (the word used for follicle was "guma.") In addition, Rabbi Judah says that if two white or black hairs grow in two adjacent follicles (kosot) and the hairs are directed to one another, then they disqualify the cow.

מוכיחות – corresponding and adjacent, this one (i.e., hair follicle) on the side of that one (i.e., hair follicle).

Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty. Rabbi Akiva is more lenient. As long as the hairs are not adjacent, they don't disqualify the cow. However, he must remove the white or black hairs before the cow can be used. Rabbi Eliezer has a similar opinion, except it is not clear if he requires the hairs to be removed. If he does require removal, then he has virtually the same opinion as Rabbi Akiva, he just words it slightly differently.

ר' אליעזר אומר אפילו חמשים – meaning to say, even more and they are scattered, one should uproot them (and the heifer would be fit/appropriate). But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.

Rabbi Joshua ben Batera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid. Rabbi Joshua ben Batera rules strictly even two white or black hairs on opposite sides of the body will disqualify the cow.

אחר הנראה – that is after the heads of the hairs.

If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: by the root. According to Rabbi Meir, we judge the color according to the tip the more visible part. But the sages say we judge by the root if the roots are white or black, the cow is not considered red. [This sort of reminds me of someone who has colored their hair and has let it grow out a bit.]

אחר העיקר – but if their roots grow red and their heads grow black, and there are in the roots that grows red in order that it can be removed with scissors , he should cut their heads that grow black and it is fit/appropriate/kosher. But if there aren’t in the root that grows red a measurement that they would be able to be removed with scissors, it is invalid even according to the words of the Sages. For the measurement of two hairs that is stated in every place, is in order that they could be removed with scissors. And this is the Halakha.