0

Bava Metzia 93a reads: "One who safeguards the red heifer renders his garments impure ... Rabba bar Ulla said: This is a decree, lest he move a limb of the heifer."

But... how does it deter him from moving a limb of the heifer? If the rule was that his clothes would be rendered impure if he touched the heifer, that would be a deterrent. But if they're defiled either way, just as a consequence of him turning up for work, what's the reasoning here?

2

It’s not to deter him from moving a limb. If he moves a limb, he is impure mideoraita.

We worry that perhaps the guard inadvertently moved a limb, rendering himself impure. Due to this worry, the sages decreed impurity on all guards of the parah adumah, whether or not they believe they have moved a limb.

| improve this answer | |
  • Is he impure mideoraita if he moves a limb other than during the course of preparing the animal for slaughter? I'm not so sure. – Zarka Oct 5 at 15:26
  • Rabbi Martin S Cohen zeramim.org/past-issues/volume-ii-issue-3-spring-2018-5778/… interpreted it as being "to discourage the guard from touching the beast at all, lest he inadvertently induce some blemish in it and thus render it unacceptable for use". – Zarka Oct 5 at 15:26
  • @zarka Rashi says it’s talking about guarding the animal after slaughter until it’s burnt – Joel K Oct 5 at 15:39
  • @zarka See Rambam Hilchot Parah Adumah 5:1-2. Anyone who deals with the parah adumah from slaughter until it is burnt becomes impure – Joel K Oct 5 at 16:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .