Yoma 43A

דאפיק חמור בהדה.

where one took out a donkey with it. According to the first tanna, this would be permitted, since there is no concern that people would think that the wrong cow or cows were slaughtered. However, according to R' Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that this rationale is irrelevant, even this case would be excluded by the word “it.”

״ושחט אותה״⁠ — שלא ישחוט אחרת עמה. ״לפניו״, לרב ⁠— שלא יסיח דעתו ממנה, לשמואל ⁠— שיהא זר שוחט ואלעזר רואה.

The Talmud expounds the next phrase in the verse: “And he should slaughter it,” means that “it,” the red heifer, should be slaughtered and that no other should be slaughtered with it. And the next phrase: “Before him”; according to Rav, it means that he should not divert his attention from it. According to Shmuel, it indicates that a non-priest can slaughter it and Elazar the priest observes.

״ולקח אלעזר הכהן מדמה באצבעו״, לשמואל ⁠— לאהדוריה לאלעזר. לרב ⁠— הוי מיעוט אחר מיעוט, ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות, דאפילו כהן הדיוט.

The Talmud proceeds to expound the next verse: “And Elazar the priest should take some of its blood with his finger” (Numbers 19:4). What is indicated by specifying Elazar? According to Shmuel, since the phrase “before him” in the previous verse indicates that Elazar himself did not need to slaughter the red heifer but that rather a non-priest could, it is necessary in this stage to return it to Elazar, to indicate that he must himself take the blood with his finger. According to Rav, this is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, as both verses indicate that the rite may be performed only by a priest. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression comes only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. In this case, it serves to teach that even a common priest may perform the rite.