HAD TWO BLACK OR WHITE HAIRS GROWING WITHIN ONEFOLLICLE,
IT IS INVALID. R. JUDAH SAID, ‘WITHIN
IF THEY GREWWITHIN TWO FOLLICLES THAT WERE ADJACENT TO
ONE ANOTHER, IT IS INVALID.R. AKIBA RULED: EVEN IF THERE WERE FOUR OR EVEN FIVE BUT THEY WEREDISPERSED, THEY MAY BE PLUCKED OUT.
R. ELIEZER RULED: EVEN AS MANY ASFIFTY.
R. JOSHUA B. BATHYRA RULED: EVEN IF IT HAD BUT ONE ON ITS HEAD ANDONE ON ITS TAIL, IT IS INVALID. IF IT HAD TWO HAIRS
WITH THEIR ROOTS BLACKAND THEIR TIPS RED OR WITH THEIR ROOTS RED AND THEIR TIPS BLACK, ALL ISDETERMINED BY WHAT IS VISIBLE;
SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES RULED: BY THEROOT.
A phrase whereby the red cow is designated.
Provided the covering was done without the owner's knowledge.
Though the carrying of any other burden renders it invalid. The embryo being regarded as a part of the mother's bodydoes not come under the category of ‘burden’.
The red cow.
Since they may have subjected it to improper use.
For reasons cf. Bert., L.and Elijah Wilna.
Cf. Lev. XXIII, 10ff.
Cf. Ibid. XXIII, 17.
And the red cow is then valid.
Though they are not red.
Where no other is available (Elijah Wilna).
As is the case with other sacrifices, v. lbid. XXII, 22.
By means of the caesarean cut.
As a red cow, as it is invalid for any other sacrifice.
Deut. XXIII. 19’ emphasis on ‘house’.
The red cow.
‘The house of the Lord’.
Aliter: Hung . . . tail and crossed.
Placing it on its back.
In accordance with Num. XIX, 2, and upon which never came yoke.
Though it was for its own sake also.
Because the latter is supposed to be with the approval of the owner.
‘Guma’ (v. next note but one).
‘Even’, in cur. edd. is to be deleted (Bert.).
‘Follicle’, kos in this context having the same meaning as ‘guma’ (follicle) used by the first Tanna (cf. prev. n. butone). The difference between R. Judah and the first Tanna lies only in the Hebrew and Aramaic terms they respectivelyuse.