(Continuation of Mishnah): The Kohanim say "atone for Your nation Yisrael..." They need not say "the blood will atone for them." That is the Torah's promise that this ritual will atone for them.

(Gemara) Question: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that a Mum disqualifies a calf (for beheading)!

Old age does not disqualify a Parah Adumah (red heifer), but a Mum disqualifies it. A calf is disqualified at the age of two or three, all the more some a Mum should disqualify it!

Answer: Regarding the Parah, it says "there is not a blemish in it." This teaches that a Mum disqualifies it, but not Eglah Arufah.

Question: If we expound this way, we should learn that work done with a Parah Adumah does not disqualify it (other than bearing a yoke, which is explicit in the Torah)!

It says "work was not done with it (Eglah Arufah)." We should say that work disqualifies a calf, but not a Parah!

However, Rav Yehudah taught that if one placed a bundle of sacks on a Parah Adumah, it is disqualified. A calf is not disqualified until it carries them!

Answer: A Gezeirah Shavah "yoke-yoke" from Eglah Arufah teaches that work disqualifies also a Parah.

Question: If so, the Gezeirah Shavah should teach that a Mum disqualifies a calf, just like it disqualifies a Parah!

Answer: Regarding the Parah Adumah, it says "there is no Mum in it." This teaches that a Mum disqualifies a red heifer, but not an Eglah Arufah.

Question: Regarding Eglah Arufah it says "work was not done with it." We should say that work disqualifies an Eglah Arufah, but not a Parah!

Answer: No. This teaches that work disqualifies a calf, but not Korbanos.

One might have thought to learn a Kal va'Chomer from Eglah Arufah. A Mum does not disqualify a calf, but work does. A Mum disqualifies Korbanos, all the more so work disqualifies them!

Objection: This Kal va'Chomer is invalid!

Eglah Arufah has a stringency. Age disqualifies it. We cannot learn to Korbanos!

Answer: Some Korbanos are disqualified by age. For these, one might have thought to learn a Kal va'Chomer. We need the verse to teach that work does not disqualify them.

Question: A different verse teaches that work does not disqualify Korbanos!

"(An animal that is) blind... or has ringworm, you will not offer these to Hash-m", but you may offer Korbanos that worked!

Answer: If only one verse taught that work does not disqualify them, we would have thought that it refers to permitted work, but forbidden work disqualifies them. The second verse teaches that even forbidden work does not disqualify them.

Question: There is already another verse permitting Korbanos that worked!

"From a Nochri you may not offer (an animal with any of the above blemishes)", but you may offer Korbanos that worked!

Answer: We need a third verse. One might have thought that the other verses discuss work done before the animal became a Korban, but work done after it became a Korban disqualifies it. The third verse teaches that this is not so.

(Rav Yehudah): If one placed a bundle of sacks on a Parah, it is disqualified. A calf is not disqualified until it carries them.

Question (Beraisa): The Torah explicitly says that a yoke disqualifies a Parah. We learn other work from a Kal va'Chomer:

A Mum does not disqualify a calf, but work does. A Mum disqualifies a Parah, all the more so work disqualifies it!

If you prefer, a Gezeirah Shavah "yoke-yoke" teaches that just like work disqualifies a calf, it also disqualifies a red heifer.

Question: Why does the Tana need to say that a Gezeirah Shavah can teach the law? He learns a Kal va'Chomer!

Answer #1: One can challenge the Kal va'Chomer. Age disqualifies a calf, but not a Parah, so we cannot learn from a calf.

Answer #2: We can disprove the Kal va'Chomer from the law of Korbanos. Mumim disqualify Korbanos, but work does not!

Therefore, the Tana says that the law can be learned from a Gezeirah Shavah.

Summation of question: Since we learn from a calf, how can we be more stringent than about a calf? Work disqualifies a calf only if the calf moved the load, but it disqualifies a Parah even without moving!

Answer: Tana'im argue about whether we learn from Eglah Arufah that work disqualifies a Parah, or from Parshas Parah Adumah itself. Rav Yehudah holds like the following Tana, who learns from Parah itself, therefore, work disqualifies a Parah without moving.

(Beraisa) Question: The Torah says that a yoke disqualifies a Parah. What is the source that other work disqualifies it?

Answer: We learn from "that did not come upon it a yoke" - in any case. (Rashi - since it does not say 'that a yoke did not come upon it', rather, "'yoke" is at the end, this shows that even without a yoke it is disqualified.)

Question: If so, why did the Torah specify a yoke?

Answer: A yoke disqualifies it whether or not the owner intended for it to work (plow) with it (or just happened to rest the yoke on it). Other work disqualifies only if he intended for it to work.

Suggestion: We should say that "that did not come upon it" is a Klal (general term), "a yoke" is a Prat (specific term), and we expound a Klal u'Frat to include only the Prat, i.e. a yoke!

Rejection: "That" is a Ribuy (inclusion, so we include other work).

A Beraisa teaches similarly about a calf.

(Beraisa) Question: The Torah says that a yoke disqualifies an Eglah Arufah. What is the source that other work disqualifies it?

Answer: We learn from "that work was not done with it."

Question: If so, why did the Torah specify a yoke?

Answer: A yoke disqualifies it whether or not the owner intended to work with it. Other work disqualifies only with intent for work.

Suggestion: We should say that "that work was not done with it" is a Klal, "a yoke" is a Prat, and a Klal u'Frat includes only the Prat, a yoke!

Rejection: "That" is a Ribuy (inclusion).

(R. Avahu): R. Yochanan disqualifies a calf that carried a load for a distance the size of a yoke.

Question: Does he mean the length of a yoke, or the width?

Answer (R. Yakov): He means the width of a yoke, which is one Tefach.

Question: Why didn't he just say 'one Tefach?

Answer: He wanted to teach (by the way) that the width of a yoke is one Tefach.

Question: Why is that important to know?

Answer: For commerce (if one sells a yoke, it must be this wide).

Question (R. Yochanan ben Sha'ul): Why did the Torah say to behead a calf in a Nachal Eisan (Rashi - a rocky valley; Rambam - by a raging river)?

Answer (R. Yochanan ben Sha'ul): Something (a calf) that did not yield fruit should be beheaded in a place that does not yield fruits, to atone for (the murder of) the victim, who was prevented from bearing fruits.

Question: To which fruits does he refer?

Suggestion: He refers to children.

Rejection: If so, we should not bring a calf if the victim was too old to have children, or sterile!

Answer: Rather, he refers to Mitzvos.

(Mishnah): They descend to a Nachal Eisan. "Eisan" is understood simply, i.e. Kasheh (Rashi - hard; Rambam - mighty).

(Beraisa) Question: What is the source that Eisan means hard?

Answer: "Eisan is your sitting, and you put your nest in a rock." It also says "listen, mountains, the quarrel of Hash-m, and the Eisanim, the foundations of the land";

Others say, "Eisan" means old - "an Eisan nation, a nation that always was."

(Mishnah): They behead it with a chopping knife from the back.

We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Arifah (beheading)-Arifah" from a bird offered for a Chatas, whose neck is pinched from the Oref (back).

(Mishnah): One may not seed or work the land where Arifah was done.

(Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "That is not worked or seeded" teaches that Arifah is done in a place that was not worked or seeded;

(R. Yonasan): The verse forbids working or seeding the land after Arifah was done there.

(Rava): All agree that the verse forbids the future. It says "and it will not be seeded"! (We learn seeding and working from each other.)

They argue about whether or not it also forbids the past.

R. Yoshiyah holds that since it does not say (similarly) 'it will not be worked', rather, "Asher Lo Ye'aved", i.e. the past.

R. Yonasan holds that since it does not say "that it was not worked", it means the future.

R. Yoshiyah holds that "that" (does not connote a command. Surely, it) denotes the past!

R. Yonasan expounds "that" to include (other work, like we shall see shortly).

(Mishnah): It is permitted to comb flax and quarry rocks.

(Beraisa) Question: It says "that will not be worked or seeded." What is the source to forbid other uses of the land?

Answer: It says "that it will not be worked" - in any way.

Question: If so, why does it say "it will not be seeded"?

Answer: This teaches that it is forbidden only to work the land, e.g. seeding; but combing flax or quarrying rocks is permitted.

Suggestion: We should say that "that will not be worked" is a Klal, "and will not be seeded" is a Prat, and from a Klal u'Frat we learn only the Prat (seeding)!

Rejection: "That" is a Ribuy (this shows that we do not learn like suggested).

(Mishnah): The elders of the city wash their hands...

(Beraisa) Question: "All the elders of the city close to the corpse will wash their hands on the beheaded calf in the valley" - why must it say "beheaded"?

Answer: This teaches that they wash in the place it was beheaded.

Question: "They say 'our hands did not spill this blood, and our eyes did not see.'" Would we have thought that Beis Din are murderers?!

Answer: Rather, it means, it is not the case that he came to us and we sent him away without food, and left him without an escort.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): We force people to escort, since the reward for it is immeasurable - "the guards saw a man leave the city... they said, show us the entrance and we will do Chesed with you... He showed them the entrance."

Question: What Chesed did they do with him?

Answer: They killed the entire city, but spared him and his family.

"The man went to the land of Chitim and built a city; he called it Luz, it is still called Luz today."

(Beraisa): This is the Luz in which Techeiles is dyed; Sancheriv and Nevuchadnetzar were unable to disturb it. Even the angel of death may not enter!

When old people want to die, they leave the city and die.

The man that showed them the entrance did not speak nor walk to escort them, still he merited to save himself and his descendants for eternity. All the more so, one who walks to escort people merits this!

Question: How did he show them the entrance?

Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): He contorted his mouth.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): He pointed with his finger.

Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): Because this Kena'ani pointed with his finger, he merited to save himself and his descendants for eternity.

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One who walks on the way without an escort should learn Torah - "it is an escort of grace for your head."

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Pharaoh escorted Avraham four steps when Avraham left Mitzrayim. His reward for this was the right to enslave Avraham's descendants for 400 years.

(Rav Yehudah): One who escorts a guest four Amos in the city ensures that the guest will not be harmed;

Ravina escorted Rava bar Yitzchak four Amos. On his way, Rava bar Yitzchak encountered (what normally would cause) damage, and was saved from it.

(Beraisa): A Rebbi escorts his Talmid to the outermost houses of the city. One escorts his colleague to the limit one may go to on Shabbos (2000 Amos outside the city). There is not limit to how far a Talmid escorts his Rebbi.

Question: How far does he escort his Rebbi?

Answer (Rav Sheshes): He escorts one Parsah (four Mil. A Mil is about a kilometer.)

For one's primary Rebbi, one escorts him three Parsa'os.

Rav Kahana escorted Rav Simi bar Ashi from Fum Nahara until Bei Tzinisi of Bavel.

Question (R. Yosi bar Chanina): "In a land where Adam (a man) did not pass, and a man did not sit" - if no man passed, surely no man sat!

Answer: Rather, this teaches that a land is inhabited only if Adam (ha'Rishon) decreed so.

Rav Mordechai escorted Rav Ashi from Hegronya until Bei Kipi.

(R. Yochanan): Anyone who does not escort or is not escorted, it is as if he murders.

Had the people of Yericho escorted Elisha, he would not have incited bears to attack the children.

"(Elisha) headed towards Beis Kel. Ne'arim (youths), Ketanim (minors) left the city and derided "go, bald one, for you have ruined our income (by curing the water)."

Question: Why does it say "Ne'arim Ketanim"?

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): They were Menu'arim (emptied) from Mitzvos, and Ketanim (small) in faith (in Hash-m to provide their needs).

Answer #2 (Beraisa): They were youths, but debased themselves like minors.

Question (Rav Yosef): Perhaps "Ne'arim" refers to their hometown (like we find elsewhere)!

Question: "They captured from Yisrael a Na'arah, a minor" - a Na'arah is not a minor!

Answer (R. Pedas): She was a minor from Ne'uran.

Answer: Here, we know that they were from Yericho.

Question: "(Elisha) saw them and cursed them with Hash-m's name." What does this mean? (Maharsha - why did he curse them? This is forbidden! Chazon Ish - one may curse one who transgresses b'Meizid (they disgraced a Navi.). This is proper, lest people not respect Torah.)

Answer #1 (Rav): He literally saw them (and the curse came by itself);

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Wherever Chachamim put their eyes, death or poverty resulted.

Answer #2 (Shmuel): He saw that all of them were conceived on Yom Kipur.

Answer #3 (R. Yitzchak Nafcha): He saw that they grew ponytails like the pagans.

Answer #4 (R. Yochanan): He saw that they did not have any trace of a Mitzvah.

Question: Perhaps one of their descendants would perform Mitzvos!

Answer (R. Elazar): He saw (prophetically) that they and their seed, for all generations, would not have Mitzvos.