Yerushalmi Sotah 9:5 ירושלמי סוטה ט׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: When the Elders of Jerusalem had completed their work⁸³To determine which town is responsible for bringing the calf. and left, the Elders of that town bring “a cattle calf, one which never had been used for work, which never had drawn under a yoke.⁸⁴Deut. 21:3.” Bodily defects do not disqualify it. One brings it down to an etan valley; the meaning of etan is “hard”⁸⁵Not ploughable.. Even if it is not hard it is qualified. One breaks its neck with a stiletto from behind. Its place is forbidden to be used for sowing or agricultural works; it may be used to card flax or to hew stones.

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.

How far would it have to draw⁹²To become disqualified.? Rebbi said, its⁹³The yoke’s width. In the Babli, 46a, this is defined as one handbreadth (4 thumbbreadths). Rebbi’s opinion is quoted as R. Joḥanan’s in the Babli. width. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, three finger breadths. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai said, the entire length of the yoke in its width⁹⁴The length of the yoke is measured by the breadth of the animal. This opinion is mentioned as a possibility in the Babli only to be immediately dismissed..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “One which never had been used for work,” a general statement, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail⁹⁵The fifth hermeneutical rule. Since the detail is logically contained in the general, its mention serves as definition for the general statement. The same objection is noted in the Babli, 46a; the short answer given in the Babli is intelligible only in the light of the Yerushalmi.. He said to him, if it were written “which never had worked, which never had drawn,” you would be justified; but it is written “one which never had been used for work.” This does not describe general and detail, but the additional reference to “yoke” for an equal cut⁹⁶The second hermeneutical rule used in an extended sense, not only that a word has identical meaning in all its occurrences in the Pentateuch but also that all rules connected with it are identical in the two cases being compared. This extended rule requires that the word be free, i. e., not needed to derive other rules. It is difficult to construct the word “yoke” as free in the case of the red cow.. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf He treated all work as a yoke⁹⁷The gezerah šawah invoked by R. Ze‘ira strictly follows the interpretation of (the later) R. Yose. The interpretation of R. Jonah therefore is rejected implicitly., so for the “yoke” said for the cow⁹⁸The red cow whose ashes are used for purification from the impurity of the dead, Num. 19. Verse 19:2 states that the cow (1) must be unblemished and (2) cannot have borne a yoke. Condition (1) is not mentioned for the calf and is explicitly excluded by the Mishnah. (2) implies that the cow is disabled even if no work was ever done or intended. In rabbinic interpretation, the cow had “borne a yoke” if she was mounted by a male. we have to treat all work as a yoke⁹⁹Work is not mentioned in Num. 19:2; its prohibition is inferred from the case of the calf.. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf work disables whether intentional or unintentional¹⁰⁰Following R. Yose, the yoke disables irrespective of intention (with some qualifications). Since R. Yose extends the rules of the yoke to all work, he will do the same for the red cow., so for the “yoke” said for the cow work disables whether intentional or unintentional. Since relative to “yoke” said for the cow, the yoke disables¹⁰¹For the cow, Num. 19:2 makes it clear that even if a yoke accidentally fell on the cow, it disables permanently., also for the “yoke” said for the calf the yoke disables. Then since for the “yoke” said for the cow blemishes disable, so also for the “yoke” said for the calf blemishes disable¹⁰²This would contradict the Mishnah.? The verse¹⁰³Num. 19:2. says, “where this one has no blemish.” Blemishes disable the cow, blemishes do not disable the calf¹⁰⁴The same argument Babli 46a, in an expanded version Sifry Num. 123.. Then it also says¹⁰⁵Deut. 21:3. “one which never had been used for work,” for this one work disables, does for the cow work not disable? Can you say there, “where this one has no blemish,” this one is disabled by blemishes, sacrifices are not disabled by blemishes?¹⁰⁶This is blatantly false, Lev. 22:17–25. Therefore, the only case which the emphatic this one excludes is that of the calf. In Sifry Num. 123, it is concluded that the cow must be unblemished but not the Cohen who burns it in a ceremony outside the sanctuary.

Would missing limbs disable it? That would not be even like sacrifices of the descendants of Noah¹⁰⁸All of mankind, who have to follow the “natural law” given to Noah. It is accepted both in the Yerushalmi (also Pesaḥim 9:4 36d line 71, Megillah1:13 72b line 39) and in the Babli (Avodah zarah 5b, 51a, Zebaḥim 116a, Temurah 7a) that a Gentile’s sacrifice on his own altar is accepted by Heaven if only the animal is of the pure kinds and not missing anything observable from the outside. Only in the Temple are Gentile sacrifices subject to the rules of Lev. 21:21–25. The same verse is quoted in the Babli as in the Yerushalmi.! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar explained to the colleagues: “From all living, from all flesh¹⁰⁹Gen. 6:19. The interpretation of the verse is: From all living creatures, each one with his entire flesh, i. e., a whole body.,” that they should be complete in their limbs? There, some were for the altar¹¹⁰Since Noaḥ used some of the animals for elevation sacrifices (Gen. 8:20) it is inferred that all pure animals entering his ark were acceptable sacrifices., but here¹¹¹The calf is buried at the place it is killed., the altar has no part. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices¹¹²Deut. 21:8; the purpoise of the entire ceremony is to purge the Land from the guilt of innocent blood. The goal of purgation is spelled out for all purification and reparation offerings in Lev. 4 ff., it is as if some of it were for the altar. Does ṭerefa¹¹³Here, the word is used in its original meaning (Ex. 22:30) “Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat,” meaning that a carcass torn by a predator is forbidden as food. From this root, the technical term ṭerefa means that any life-threatening injury forbids the afflicted animal as food. There is no difference whether the injury is caused by outside action or sickness. For example, tuberculous lesions of the lung are a main source of ṭerefa. Obviously there are two kinds of ṭerefa: those that can be observed by outward inspection and those which can only be noted when the animal is cut up after slaughter. Since all animals offered on the altar (except birds) must be offered in pieces, it is clear that all kinds of ṭerefa are forbidden for the altar. But in the case of the calf, only what is verifiable on the living animal is intended. The position of the Babli, Ḥulin 11a, is that most animals do not have life-threatening internal injuries and, therefore, one may assume that a healthy-looking calf is healthy. (The list of what is considered life-threatening is in Mishnah Ḥulin 3:1,3). disable it? Since you say, it is as if some of it were for the altar, in that it should be clear to you that ṭerefa disables it. If its foot was undeveloped, as a donkey’s foot¹¹⁴The calf does not have split hooves., how do you treat that? If you treat it as if missing a limb, can it be enabled¹¹⁵It would seem natural to emend the text by switching the places of “enabled” and “disabled” and consider the text as declarative sentences. That is what all commentators and editors do but it is unacceptable since even the Genizah ms., which derives from an archetype different from the Leiden and Rome mss., does have “enabled” and “disabled” in the positions indicated. It seems necessary to treat the sentences as rhetorical questions.? If you treat it as a bodily defect, can it be disabled¹¹⁶Since it was slated in the Mishnah that bodily defects do not disable.? Does its blood prepare¹¹⁷If some of the killed calf’s blood comes in touch with fresh food, does it make that food susceptible to ritual impurity. For preparation for impurity, cf. Demay 2, Note 141, Terumot 1, Note 9, Mishnah Makhširin 6:4.? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated that its blood is impure¹¹⁸Since any impure fluid is impure at least in the first degree, it transmits its impurity and, therefore, does prepare for impurity., its blood prepares.

An old man asked the rabbis of Caesarea: Does the breaking of its neck clear its ṭerefa from its impurity¹²⁰In all cases of ritual slaughter except for the calf, cutting the throat שחיטה is required. The same is prescribed for profane slaughter of animals intended as food (Deut. 12:21). Any animal which is killed in any other way becomes a carcass whose impurity is original and severe (Lev. 11:39-40). The question arises naturally whether the carcass of the calf is severely impure, not having been slaughtered in the required form, or maybe is pure since its neck was broken by divine decree.? They said to him, is that not a Mishnah: “He who cuts the throat and it turns out to be ṭerefa.¹²¹Mishnah Ḥulin 6:2. This refers to the obligation to cover a wild animal’s blood with earth if it was slaughtered for food (Lev. 17:13). R. Meïr holds that the intent is all that counts, even if it should turn out in the end that the animal could not be used as food. The argument here is that the animal was slaughtered in the way prescribed and the fact that it is forbidden for consumption (or for any use) should be irrelevant.” He said to them, but I asked about breaking the neck and you answer me cutting the throat! They said to him, but did not Rebbi Yannai say¹²²This is quoted in full in Halakhah 6. The statement refers to Lev. 22:28: “Cattle or sheep, you should not cut their and their calves throats on the same day”. There is one opinion which holds that guilt is incurred only if both animals are validly slaughtered as food on the name day. It is generally acknowledged in both Talmudim that R. Meïr considers even ineffective cutting the throat as falling under all rules of “cutting the throat.” In Halakhah 6, the reading of the mss. is אפילו עריפה חייב “even for breaking its neck he is guilty.” It seems that this should be the reading here also, but unfortunately the Genizah fragment is illegible at this spot. Since the reading as written is not impossible, it is better not to disturb the text., the words of Rebbi Meïr, even if it was ṭerefa he is guilty? He said to them, you answer me from that of Rebbi Yannai¹²³In Halakhah 6, R. Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with R. Yannai. Therefore, there is no proof along these lines.
The Babli, Zebaḥim 70b, argues that the dead calf must be pure since “purification is written there as for sacrifices” (Note 110).?

“The meaning of etan is “hard”, “Hard is your seat, make your nest in the rock¹²⁵Num. 24:21. The same quote in the Babli. 46a/b..” “Even if it is not hard it is qualified.” Similarly, if there is no brook? Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “they shall bring down, and they shall bring down,” even if there is no brook¹²⁶Deut. 21:4. While the vaw starting the sentence is quite necessary as vaw consecutive, R. Simeon wants to construe it as unnecessary addition which enlarges the domain in which the calf could have its neck broken. There are no parallels to this opinion.. But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so⁵⁴The statement is not from a recognized baraita collection, nor does it contain a name of a tradent which would vouchsafe the text for the 100 years between R. Simeon and R. Joḥanan.. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

Does he break its neck until he has cut two blood arteries¹²⁷The carotid arteries leading to the brain and the windpipe which must be cut in ritual slaughter. or most of them? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Any place the bottom of the neck is acceptable for slaughtering, the back of the neck is acceptable for breaking¹²⁸This breaking, מְלִיקָה, is done by the finger nail on the neck of a pidgeon used as a purification offering. Since it says “he may not separate (the head from the body)” (Lev. 5:8), it is clear that the Cohen has to cut the arteries and the windpipe. In the absence of an indication to the contrary, this requirement may be transferred to the breaking of the calf’s neck.; here he would say the same.

There¹²⁹Mishnah Makkot 3:9. A person who is both a Cohen and a Nazir ploughing in a graveyard in which both vines and grain grow, on a holiday of a Sabbatical year, with an ox and a donkey together which both were dedicated to the Temple., we have stated: “One might plough one furrow and infringe thereby on eight prohibitions.” Rebbi Hoshaia asked: Could one not state “one who ploughs the place where the calf’s neck was broken,” for a total of nine¹³⁰The same questions in the Babli, Makkot 22a. The obvious answer is that this could not be a graveyard in which both vines and grain grow.? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it by the past¹³¹Since verse 21:4 says of the hard valley: “which would not be worked on and would not be sown”. The imperfect may be interpreted as a past.. He said to them, since it was for the past, so certainly for the future¹³²The primary meaning of the imperfect is as a future..

The place where it¹³²The primary meaning of the imperfect is as a future. falls down and its surroundings are forbidden. How much are its surroundings? Four cubits¹³³Where the calf falls down. The hapax גיסה in the opinion of S. Lieberman may be Syriac. In the two Tosephta mss. (9:1) the readings are גיתה, גיזתה.. Rebbi says, I am saying that its surroundings are fifty cubits¹³⁴In the Tosephta: 40 cubits. Since no reason is given for that number and it does not appear in other agricultural contexts, the reading of the Yerushalmi is preferable. The Genizah ms. is not available at this point. The notion that a strip 4 cubits wide is attached to a given domain appears in several contexts, agricultural (as boundary strip betwen fields) and not agricultural (as private domain on the Sabbath, as reserved domain in front of a house in a multi-family courtyard).. Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “which would not be worked on,” a general statement. “And would not be sown,” a detail. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail⁹⁵The fifth hermeneutical rule. Since the detail is logically contained in the general, its mention serves as definition for the general statement. The same objection is noted in the Babli, 46a; the short answer given in the Babli is intelligible only in the light of the Yerushalmi.. He said to him, if it were written “which would not be worked on, which would not be sown,” you would be justified; but it is written “which would not be worked on.” This does not describe general statement and detail, but an additional reference¹³⁶That “work” means agricultural use, but that industrial use of the place is permitted..