Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 7, 2018 | 讻状讘 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 23

Study Guide Avoda Zara 23

Three different explanations are brought to explain the contradiction between our mishna and the braita聽regarding whether or not non-Jews are suspect that they will engage in bestiality with animals. In this context a debate is brought聽with聽regard to the red heifer and the gemara delves into the red heifer – is it treated like a sacrifice for certain issues or not.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚

搂 The Gemara cites another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna, which rules that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, and the baraita, which permits an animal purchased from gentiles to be sacrificed as an offering. Ravina said that it is not difficult; this mishna issues its ruling with regard to the halakha ab initio, while that baraita is referring to the halakha after the fact.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 诇讚讬注讘讚 讚转谞谉 诇讗 转转讬讬讞讚 讗砖讛 注诪讛诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讛注专讬讜转 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讞讘砖讛 讘讬讚讬 讙讜讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that there is a difference in this case between ab initio and after the fact? As we learned in the mishna: A woman may not seclude herself with them because they are suspected of engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse. And one can raise a contradiction from another mishna (Ketubot 26b): With regard to a woman who was imprisoned by gentiles, if she was imprisoned due to monetary matters she is permitted to her husband even if he is a priest, as there is no concern that she was raped. If she was imprisoned due to a capital offense she is forbidden to her husband if he is a priest, as the captors would not restrain themselves from raping her. The first clause of the mishna in Ketubot rules that a woman who was imprisoned in seclusion with gentiles is not assumed to have engaged in intercourse with them. This apparently contradicts the statement of the mishna here, which rules that a woman may not seclude herself with gentiles.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讗谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讚讬注讘讚 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪转讬讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谞讜

The Gemara continues: Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from here that there is a difference for us between ab initio, as in the mishna here, and after the fact, as in the mishna in Ketubot? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: From where can this be proven? Perhaps I could actually say to you: Generally, even after the fact, one may not assume that a woman who was secluded with a gentile did not engage in intercourse with him, and here, in the mishna in Ketubot, this is the reason that she is permitted to her husband even after having been imprisoned: Since her husband might not agree to pay if his wife was raped, the gentile is fearful of raping her due to the potential loss of his money.

转讚注 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注诇 讬讚讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讜转讜 诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara adds: Know that this is the explanation, as the latter clause of that mishna teaches: If she was imprisoned due to a capital offense she is forbidden to her husband. Clearly, the difference is that in this case there is no incentive for the gentiles to leave her unharmed. The Gemara concludes: And nothing more needs discussion, as this is certainly the correct interpretation of that mishna.

专讘讬 驻讚转 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讙讘讬 驻专转 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 谞拽讞转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专讘讬注讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专讘讬注讛

Rabbi Pedat said: The contradiction between the mishna, which rules that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, and the baraita, which permits an animal purchased from gentiles to be sacrificed as an offering, is not difficult; this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Para 2:1) with regard to the red heifer of purification: Rabbi Eliezer says that it may not be purchased from gentiles, and the Rabbis permit it to be purchased from gentiles. Rabbi Pedat explains: What, is it not correct to say that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this issue, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that we are concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal, and the Rabbis hold that we are not concerned that a person engaged in bestiality with the animal?

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专讘讬注讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛谞讬讞 注诇讬讛谉 注讜讚讛 砖诇 砖拽讬谉 驻住诇讛 讜讘注讙诇讛 注讚 砖转诪砖讜讱 讘讛

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: From where do you know that this is the case? Perhaps everyone agrees that we are not concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal, and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer: He holds in accordance with a statement that Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says: If one placed a bundle of sacks upon a red heifer, he has rendered it unfit for purification, as a red heifer is fit only if it has not borne any burden, in accordance with the verse: 鈥淯pon which never came a yoke鈥 (Numbers 19:2); and in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken, it is not rendered unfit until you pull a load with it, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd which has not drawn in the yoke鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3).

诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讜诐 谞讬讞讗 驻讜专转讗 诇讗 诪驻住讬讚 讟讜讘讗

The Gemara elaborates: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: A red heifer purchased from a gentile cannot be used for purification because we are concerned that it might have been used for labor, and one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: We are not concerned that the gentile used it for labor. Accordingly, the disagreement in that mishna does not relate to a concern with regard to bestiality. The Gemara responds: No; it cannot enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer prohibits purchasing a red heifer from a gentile due to the concern that he might have placed sacks upon it, as due to the slight convenience of placing a bundle of sacks upon the heifer, the gentile will not forfeit the potential to earn a great deal of money which he can obtain by selling the heifer.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讛谞讗讛 驻讜专转讗 诇讗 诪驻住讬讚 讟讜讘讗 讛转诐 讬爪专讜 转讜拽驻讜

The Gemara counters: So too, let us say: Due to the slight pleasure of engaging in bestiality with an animal, a gentile will not forfeit a great deal of money which he can otherwise obtain by selling the heifer. The Gemara responds: There, with regard to bestiality, his inclination overcomes him, and he is apt to engage in bestiality with the heifer despite the fact that he knows it is to his disadvantage to do so.

讜讚诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专讘讬注讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讚转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 讚转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬拽讞讜 讗诇讬讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬拽讞讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬拽讞讜

The Gemara suggests: And perhaps everyone agrees that we are not concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal, and here, this is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, in accordance with that which Sheila taught, as Sheila taught in a baraita: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? The verse states: 鈥淪peak unto the children of Israel that they take to you a red heifer鈥 (Numbers 19:2). This teaches that the children of Israel take the red heifer, but gentiles do not take the red heifer.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讘讻诇 讛拽专讘谞讜转 讻讜诇谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 讘砖诇诪讗 驻专讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛 拽讬讞讛 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛讜 拽专讘谞讜转 拽讬讞讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say so, as the latter clause of that same baraita teaches: And similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify an animal purchased from a gentile in the case of all offerings. The Gemara elaborates: And if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reason is in accordance with that which Sheila taught, granted, in the case of the red heifer a term of taking is written, but is a term of taking written with regard to all other offerings? Since a term of taking does not appear in the context of other offerings, this cannot be Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reasoning. The Gemara suggests: And perhaps the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer

讗诇讗 讘驻专讛 讚讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛

only with regard to the red heifer, as its price is exorbitant, and the Rabbis maintain that the gentile would not risk forfeiting the profit for a temporary benefit. But with regard to the rest of the offerings, which are not exceptionally valuable, they concede to Rabbi Eliezer that animals purchased from gentiles may not be used for these offerings.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讛诪讛 诇拽专讘谉 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara rejects this possibility: But what about that which is taught in the Tosefta, cited earlier: One may purchase an animal from gentiles for use as an offering; in accordance with whose opinion was this taught? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer nor that of the Rabbis.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讜转讬讘讜 诇讬讛 讞讘专讜讛讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇 爪讗谉 拽讚专 讬拽讘爪讜 诇讱 讬注诇讜 诇专爪讜谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞讬

And furthermore, it is explicitly taught in a baraita: What did Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 colleagues respond to him with regard to his ruling that an animal purchased from gentiles may not be used as an offering? They quoted a verse: 鈥淎ll flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto you, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto you; they shall come up with acceptance upon My altar鈥 (Isaiah 60:7). Since the Rabbis learn from this verse that animals intended for use in all types of offerings may be purchased from gentiles, there is no reason to assume that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer. Consequently, Rabbi Pedat鈥檚 opinion that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, remains uncontroverted.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讞砖砖讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 专讘注讛 驻住诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚驻专讛 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讬 诪讬驻住诇讗 讘讛 专讘讬注讛

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of the red heifer. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a case where there is merely a concern that a person engaged in bestiality with the animal. But in a situation where the gentile certainly engaged in bestiality with it, all agree that he has disqualified it as an offering. The Gemara comments: Learn from it that the red heifer is classified as consecrated for the altar, as if it were classified as consecrated for Temple maintenance, does the fact that a person engaged in bestiality with it serve to disqualify it? Items consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, which are not sacrificed upon the altar, are not rendered unfit by this act.

砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚讞讟讗转 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Although it is classified as consecrated for Temple maintenance, the purification offering of the red heifer is different, as the Merciful One labels it with the term for a sin-offering. Accordingly, the red heifer is subject to the same halakhot as a sin-offering, which means it is disqualified if it is the object of bestiality.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转讬驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara counters: If that is so, then the red heifer should be disqualified if it was born by caesarean section, as this is the halakha concerning all other sin-offerings. The Gemara adds: And if you would say that indeed, that is so, then why is it taught in a baraita: If one consecrated a red heifer despite the fact that it was born by caesarean section, it is disqualified for use as a red heifer, and Rabbi Shimon deems the heifer fit for use in purification. If, as indicated by the verse, the halakhot of a sin-offering apply to the red heifer, how can Rabbi Shimon deem this animal fit?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖

The Gemara adds: And if you would say that Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says (see Nidda 40a): A baby born by caesarean section is considered a full-fledged offspring and is no different from a baby born in a regular manner, that is difficult: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that Rabbi Shimon would concede with regard to sacrificial animals that an animal born by caesarian section is not consecrated? If so, even Rabbi Shimon should agree that the heifer is disqualified.

讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇 讘讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪砖讞转诐 讘讛诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖讞转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara explains: Rather, the red heifer is different: Since a blemish disqualifies it, a matter of licentiousness and a matter of idol worship also disqualify it, as it is written: 鈥淣either from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them鈥 (Leviticus 22:25). This verse indicates that corruption is considered a blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption is stated, it is a reference to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship.

讚讘专 注专讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛砖讞讬转 讻诇 讘砖专 讗转 讚专讻讜 注诇 讛讗专抓 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻谉 转砖讞转讜谉 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讻诐 驻住诇 讜讛讗 驻专讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻住诇讬 讘讛

The Gemara supports this claim: Corruption is a reference to a matter of licentiousness, as it is written with regard to the generation of the flood: 鈥淎nd God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth鈥 (Genesis 6:12). And corruption also is a reference to idol worship, as it is written: 鈥淟est you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:16). And consequently, with regard to the red heifer also, since a blemish disqualifies it, a matter of licentiousness and idol worship likewise disqualify it.

讙讜驻讗 转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬拽讞讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬拽讞讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬拽讞讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬拽讞讜 诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬拽讞讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬拽讞讜

搂 Earlier, Sheila provided a rationale for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling that a red heifer may not be purchased from gentiles. The Gemara examines the matter itself. Sheila teaches in a baraita: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? It is as it is written: 鈥淪peak unto the children of Israel that they take to you a red heifer鈥 (Numbers 19:2). This indicates that the children of Israel take the red heifer, but gentiles do not take the red heifer. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then when the verse states with regard to the donations for the Tabernacle: 鈥淪peak unto the children of Israel, that they take for Me an offering鈥 (Exodus 25:2), so too one can claim that only the children of Israel take an offering for God, but gentiles do not take an offering, and that no items for the Temple service may be purchased from gentiles.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讚 讛讬讻谉 讻讬讘讜讚 讗讘 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 诪讛 注砖讛 讙讜讬 讗讞讚 诇讗讘讬讜 讘讗砖拽诇讜谉 讜讚诪讗 讘谉 谞转讬谞讛 砖诪讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘拽砖讜 诪诪谞讜 讗讘谞讬诐 诇讗驻讜讚

And if you would say that indeed, that is so, this cannot be correct. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: The Sages asked Rabbi Eliezer: To what extent must one exert himself to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one鈥檚 father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Go and see what a certain gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and his name is Dama ben Netina. Once, the Sages sought to purchase precious stones from him for the ephod of the High Priest

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 23

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚

搂 The Gemara cites another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna, which rules that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, and the baraita, which permits an animal purchased from gentiles to be sacrificed as an offering. Ravina said that it is not difficult; this mishna issues its ruling with regard to the halakha ab initio, while that baraita is referring to the halakha after the fact.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 诇讚讬注讘讚 讚转谞谉 诇讗 转转讬讬讞讚 讗砖讛 注诪讛诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讛注专讬讜转 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讞讘砖讛 讘讬讚讬 讙讜讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that there is a difference in this case between ab initio and after the fact? As we learned in the mishna: A woman may not seclude herself with them because they are suspected of engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse. And one can raise a contradiction from another mishna (Ketubot 26b): With regard to a woman who was imprisoned by gentiles, if she was imprisoned due to monetary matters she is permitted to her husband even if he is a priest, as there is no concern that she was raped. If she was imprisoned due to a capital offense she is forbidden to her husband if he is a priest, as the captors would not restrain themselves from raping her. The first clause of the mishna in Ketubot rules that a woman who was imprisoned in seclusion with gentiles is not assumed to have engaged in intercourse with them. This apparently contradicts the statement of the mishna here, which rules that a woman may not seclude herself with gentiles.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讗谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讚讬注讘讚 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪转讬讬专讗 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谞讜

The Gemara continues: Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from here that there is a difference for us between ab initio, as in the mishna here, and after the fact, as in the mishna in Ketubot? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: From where can this be proven? Perhaps I could actually say to you: Generally, even after the fact, one may not assume that a woman who was secluded with a gentile did not engage in intercourse with him, and here, in the mishna in Ketubot, this is the reason that she is permitted to her husband even after having been imprisoned: Since her husband might not agree to pay if his wife was raped, the gentile is fearful of raping her due to the potential loss of his money.

转讚注 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注诇 讬讚讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛 讜转讜 诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara adds: Know that this is the explanation, as the latter clause of that mishna teaches: If she was imprisoned due to a capital offense she is forbidden to her husband. Clearly, the difference is that in this case there is no incentive for the gentiles to leave her unharmed. The Gemara concludes: And nothing more needs discussion, as this is certainly the correct interpretation of that mishna.

专讘讬 驻讚转 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讙讘讬 驻专转 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 谞拽讞转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专讘讬注讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专讘讬注讛

Rabbi Pedat said: The contradiction between the mishna, which rules that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, and the baraita, which permits an animal purchased from gentiles to be sacrificed as an offering, is not difficult; this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Para 2:1) with regard to the red heifer of purification: Rabbi Eliezer says that it may not be purchased from gentiles, and the Rabbis permit it to be purchased from gentiles. Rabbi Pedat explains: What, is it not correct to say that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this issue, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that we are concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal, and the Rabbis hold that we are not concerned that a person engaged in bestiality with the animal?

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专讘讬注讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛谞讬讞 注诇讬讛谉 注讜讚讛 砖诇 砖拽讬谉 驻住诇讛 讜讘注讙诇讛 注讚 砖转诪砖讜讱 讘讛

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: From where do you know that this is the case? Perhaps everyone agrees that we are not concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal, and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer: He holds in accordance with a statement that Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says: If one placed a bundle of sacks upon a red heifer, he has rendered it unfit for purification, as a red heifer is fit only if it has not borne any burden, in accordance with the verse: 鈥淯pon which never came a yoke鈥 (Numbers 19:2); and in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken, it is not rendered unfit until you pull a load with it, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd which has not drawn in the yoke鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3).

诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讜诐 谞讬讞讗 驻讜专转讗 诇讗 诪驻住讬讚 讟讜讘讗

The Gemara elaborates: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: A red heifer purchased from a gentile cannot be used for purification because we are concerned that it might have been used for labor, and one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: We are not concerned that the gentile used it for labor. Accordingly, the disagreement in that mishna does not relate to a concern with regard to bestiality. The Gemara responds: No; it cannot enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer prohibits purchasing a red heifer from a gentile due to the concern that he might have placed sacks upon it, as due to the slight convenience of placing a bundle of sacks upon the heifer, the gentile will not forfeit the potential to earn a great deal of money which he can obtain by selling the heifer.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讛谞讗讛 驻讜专转讗 诇讗 诪驻住讬讚 讟讜讘讗 讛转诐 讬爪专讜 转讜拽驻讜

The Gemara counters: So too, let us say: Due to the slight pleasure of engaging in bestiality with an animal, a gentile will not forfeit a great deal of money which he can otherwise obtain by selling the heifer. The Gemara responds: There, with regard to bestiality, his inclination overcomes him, and he is apt to engage in bestiality with the heifer despite the fact that he knows it is to his disadvantage to do so.

讜讚诇诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专讘讬注讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讚转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 讚转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬拽讞讜 讗诇讬讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬拽讞讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬拽讞讜

The Gemara suggests: And perhaps everyone agrees that we are not concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal, and here, this is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, in accordance with that which Sheila taught, as Sheila taught in a baraita: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? The verse states: 鈥淪peak unto the children of Israel that they take to you a red heifer鈥 (Numbers 19:2). This teaches that the children of Israel take the red heifer, but gentiles do not take the red heifer.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讘讻诇 讛拽专讘谞讜转 讻讜诇谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 讘砖诇诪讗 驻专讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛 拽讬讞讛 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛讜 拽专讘谞讜转 拽讬讞讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say so, as the latter clause of that same baraita teaches: And similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify an animal purchased from a gentile in the case of all offerings. The Gemara elaborates: And if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reason is in accordance with that which Sheila taught, granted, in the case of the red heifer a term of taking is written, but is a term of taking written with regard to all other offerings? Since a term of taking does not appear in the context of other offerings, this cannot be Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reasoning. The Gemara suggests: And perhaps the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer

讗诇讗 讘驻专讛 讚讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛

only with regard to the red heifer, as its price is exorbitant, and the Rabbis maintain that the gentile would not risk forfeiting the profit for a temporary benefit. But with regard to the rest of the offerings, which are not exceptionally valuable, they concede to Rabbi Eliezer that animals purchased from gentiles may not be used for these offerings.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讛诪讛 诇拽专讘谉 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara rejects this possibility: But what about that which is taught in the Tosefta, cited earlier: One may purchase an animal from gentiles for use as an offering; in accordance with whose opinion was this taught? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer nor that of the Rabbis.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讜转讬讘讜 诇讬讛 讞讘专讜讛讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇 爪讗谉 拽讚专 讬拽讘爪讜 诇讱 讬注诇讜 诇专爪讜谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞讬

And furthermore, it is explicitly taught in a baraita: What did Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 colleagues respond to him with regard to his ruling that an animal purchased from gentiles may not be used as an offering? They quoted a verse: 鈥淎ll flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto you, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto you; they shall come up with acceptance upon My altar鈥 (Isaiah 60:7). Since the Rabbis learn from this verse that animals intended for use in all types of offerings may be purchased from gentiles, there is no reason to assume that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer. Consequently, Rabbi Pedat鈥檚 opinion that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, remains uncontroverted.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讞砖砖讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 专讘注讛 驻住诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚驻专讛 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讬 诪讬驻住诇讗 讘讛 专讘讬注讛

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of the red heifer. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a case where there is merely a concern that a person engaged in bestiality with the animal. But in a situation where the gentile certainly engaged in bestiality with it, all agree that he has disqualified it as an offering. The Gemara comments: Learn from it that the red heifer is classified as consecrated for the altar, as if it were classified as consecrated for Temple maintenance, does the fact that a person engaged in bestiality with it serve to disqualify it? Items consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, which are not sacrificed upon the altar, are not rendered unfit by this act.

砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚讞讟讗转 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Although it is classified as consecrated for Temple maintenance, the purification offering of the red heifer is different, as the Merciful One labels it with the term for a sin-offering. Accordingly, the red heifer is subject to the same halakhot as a sin-offering, which means it is disqualified if it is the object of bestiality.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转讬驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞讬讗 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara counters: If that is so, then the red heifer should be disqualified if it was born by caesarean section, as this is the halakha concerning all other sin-offerings. The Gemara adds: And if you would say that indeed, that is so, then why is it taught in a baraita: If one consecrated a red heifer despite the fact that it was born by caesarean section, it is disqualified for use as a red heifer, and Rabbi Shimon deems the heifer fit for use in purification. If, as indicated by the verse, the halakhot of a sin-offering apply to the red heifer, how can Rabbi Shimon deem this animal fit?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖

The Gemara adds: And if you would say that Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says (see Nidda 40a): A baby born by caesarean section is considered a full-fledged offspring and is no different from a baby born in a regular manner, that is difficult: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that Rabbi Shimon would concede with regard to sacrificial animals that an animal born by caesarian section is not consecrated? If so, even Rabbi Shimon should agree that the heifer is disqualified.

讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇 讘讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪砖讞转诐 讘讛诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖讞转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara explains: Rather, the red heifer is different: Since a blemish disqualifies it, a matter of licentiousness and a matter of idol worship also disqualify it, as it is written: 鈥淣either from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them鈥 (Leviticus 22:25). This verse indicates that corruption is considered a blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption is stated, it is a reference to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship.

讚讘专 注专讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛砖讞讬转 讻诇 讘砖专 讗转 讚专讻讜 注诇 讛讗专抓 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻谉 转砖讞转讜谉 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讻诐 驻住诇 讜讛讗 驻专讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻住诇讬 讘讛

The Gemara supports this claim: Corruption is a reference to a matter of licentiousness, as it is written with regard to the generation of the flood: 鈥淎nd God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth鈥 (Genesis 6:12). And corruption also is a reference to idol worship, as it is written: 鈥淟est you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:16). And consequently, with regard to the red heifer also, since a blemish disqualifies it, a matter of licentiousness and idol worship likewise disqualify it.

讙讜驻讗 转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬拽讞讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬拽讞讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬拽讞讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬拽讞讜 诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬拽讞讜 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬拽讞讜

搂 Earlier, Sheila provided a rationale for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling that a red heifer may not be purchased from gentiles. The Gemara examines the matter itself. Sheila teaches in a baraita: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? It is as it is written: 鈥淪peak unto the children of Israel that they take to you a red heifer鈥 (Numbers 19:2). This indicates that the children of Israel take the red heifer, but gentiles do not take the red heifer. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then when the verse states with regard to the donations for the Tabernacle: 鈥淪peak unto the children of Israel, that they take for Me an offering鈥 (Exodus 25:2), so too one can claim that only the children of Israel take an offering for God, but gentiles do not take an offering, and that no items for the Temple service may be purchased from gentiles.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讚 讛讬讻谉 讻讬讘讜讚 讗讘 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 诪讛 注砖讛 讙讜讬 讗讞讚 诇讗讘讬讜 讘讗砖拽诇讜谉 讜讚诪讗 讘谉 谞转讬谞讛 砖诪讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘拽砖讜 诪诪谞讜 讗讘谞讬诐 诇讗驻讜讚

And if you would say that indeed, that is so, this cannot be correct. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: The Sages asked Rabbi Eliezer: To what extent must one exert himself to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one鈥檚 father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Go and see what a certain gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and his name is Dama ben Netina. Once, the Sages sought to purchase precious stones from him for the ephod of the High Priest

Scroll To Top