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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 8, 2018 | 讻状讙 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 24

A number of questions are raised against Shila’s interpretation of Rabbi eliezer that one can’t purchase a red heifer from non-Jews because the verse implies that (vayikchu). The famous story about Dama ben Netina, a non-Jew who is used as the example for respecting one’s parents to show how far one must go to fulfill this mitzva, is brought to question Shila and also to question the explanation that Eliezer forbade it because one needs to be concerned for bestiality. Either way, one can’t purchase from non-Jews so how did the rabbis want to purchase it from Dama?聽 Further questions are asked on Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion regarding the prohibition to purchase animals for sacrifices from non-Jews.

讘砖砖讬诐 专讘讜讗 砖讻专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讘砖诪讜谞讬诐 专讘讜讗 讜讛讬讜 诪驻转讞讜转 诪讜谞讞讜转 转讞转 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 爪注专讜

for six hundred thousand gold dinars鈥 profit, and Rav Kahana teaches that it was eight hundred thousand dinars鈥 profit. But the keys to the chest holding the jewels were placed under his father鈥檚 head, and he would not disturb him. It is evident from this story that the stones of the ephod may be purchased from gentiles. If so, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reasoning cannot be based on Numbers 19:2, as an identical phrase appears in Exodus 25:2, and yet contributions to the Tabernacle may be accepted from gentiles.

讗讘谞讬 砖讛诐 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜讛讗 讜讗讘谞讬 诪诇讜讗讬诐 讻转讬讘 讚讛讚专 注专讘讬讛

The Gemara answers that the phrase 鈥渙nyx stones鈥 (Exodus 25:7) concluded discussion of that matter. In other words, almost all the items listed in Exodus, chapter 25, for the contributions to the Tabernacle, are joined by the conjunction 鈥渁nd.鈥 Before the verse mentions the stones for the ephod, it states 鈥渙nyx stones,鈥 without the conjunction 鈥渁nd.鈥 This omission serves to disconnect these stones from the earlier phrase: 鈥淭hat they take鈥 (Exodus 25:2), which means that the disqualification of items purchased from gentiles for use in the Temple derived from this phrase does not apply to the items listed after that point, including the stones of the ephod. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it subsequently written: 鈥淎nd stones to be set,鈥 by which the verse goes back and combines the list, so that the earlier verse applies once more? Accordingly, it should be prohibited to purchase any of the items listed in the verse from gentiles.

讜注讜讚 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转 谞讜诇讚讛 诇讜 驻专讛 讗讚讜诪讛 讘注讚专讜 谞讻谞住讜 讞讻诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗爪诇讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 讘讻诐 砖讗诐 讗谞讬 诪讘拽砖 诪讻诐 讻诇 诪诪讜谉 砖讘注讜诇诐 讗转诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讬 注讻砖讬讜 讗讬谞讬 诪讘拽砖 诪讻诐 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 诪诪讜谉 砖讛驻住讚转讬 讘砖讘讬诇 讗讘讗

The Gemara adds: And furthermore, the latter clause teaches: In a subsequent year, a red heifer was born in Dama鈥檚 herd and the Sages of Israel approached him, seeking to purchase the heifer. Dama said to them: I know concerning you that if I were to ask from you all the money in the world, you would give it to me. Now I am requesting from you only that amount of money which I lost by refraining from waking my father. This latter clause explicitly states that the Sages intended to purchase a red heifer from a gentile, which contradicts the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer.

讛转诐 注诇 讬讚讬 转讙专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讝讘讜谉

The Gemara answers: There, it was through the agency of Jewish merchants that they purchased the heifer. In other words, Jewish merchants purchased the heifer from Dama ben Netina, after which the Sages acquired the animal from the merchants to be used as a red heifer of purification. In this manner, the animal was purchased for the purpose of an offering from Jews.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇专讘讬注讛

According to Sheila, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reason for not allowing a red heifer to be purchased from gentiles is based on a derivation from a verse rather than a concern that a person may have engaged in bestiality with it. The Gemara therefore asks: And is Rabbi Eliezer not concerned about the possibility that a person has engaged in bestiality with the animal?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪注砖讛 讜诇拽讞讜讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讚诪讗 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专诪抓 砖诪讜 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 转专转讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讬讞讛 讜讞讬讬砖 谞诪讬 诇专讘讬注讛

The Gemara elaborates: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis who hold that the heifer may be purchased from a gentile said to Rabbi Eliezer: There was an incident in which Jews purchased the red heifer from a gentile, and Dama was his name. And some say Remetz was his name. In response to this claim, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Can one bring a proof from there? Certainly not, as Jews were safeguarding it from the time that it was born, to ensure that a person did not engage in bestiality with it. Contrary to the opinion of Sheila, it is evident from here that Rabbi Eliezer was concerned about this possibility. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer has two requirements: The purchase of the red heifer must be from a Jew, and he is also concerned about the possibility that a person had engaged in bestiality with the animal.

讗诪专 诪专 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 专讘注讬 诇讗诪讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注讘专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讜诇讚 讛谞讜讙讞转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞讙讞讜 讜讜诇讚 讛谞专讘注转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞专讘注讜 讗讬诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜爪专讛

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement. The Master said: Jews were safeguarding the red heifer purchased from Dama ben Netina from the time that it was born. The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps gentiles engaged in bestiality with the mother while she was pregnant, as Rava says: The offspring of an animal that gored and killed a Jew is forbidden as an offering, as it is considered as if she and her offspring together gored. And similarly, the offspring of an animal that was the object of bestiality is forbidden because it is considered as if a person engaged in bestiality with both her and her offspring. The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Eliezer meant that Jews were safeguarding it from the time that it was conceived.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 专讘注讜讛 诇讗诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专

The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps they engaged in bestiality with the mother from the outset, i.e., before conception, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 30b): With regard to all animals that are disqualified for the altar, such as one that was the object of bestiality, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted; and it is taught with regard to this case that Rabbi Eliezer prohibits their offspring from being sacrificed on the altar. If this is the case, Rabbi Eliezer should agree that there is a concern that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the heifer鈥檚 mother at some point before its birth.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗讘诇 讻砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer applies only when a person engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were consecrated and then they conceived, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that in that case the offspring are disqualified from being sacrificed as offerings; but if someone engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were non-sacred, everyone agrees that the offspring are permitted. Accordingly, it needs to be ascertained only that no one engaged in bestiality with the mother after she was consecrated.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讻砖讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

But according to the opinion of Rav Huna bar 岣nnana, who says that Rav Na岣an says: The dispute applies only when a person engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were non-sacred, but if someone engaged in bestiality with them when they were consecrated, everyone agrees that the offspring are forbidden, what is there to say? According to this opinion, Rabbi Eliezer should be concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal prior to conception.

讗讬诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗诪讗 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜爪专讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 专讘注讜讛 诇讗诪讗 讚讗诪讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: Say that Jews were safeguarding it as well, i.e., the mother of the red heifer, from the time that it was conceived. The Gemara challenges: And let us be concerned that perhaps someone engaged in bestiality with the mother of the heifer鈥檚 mother. The Gemara responds: We are not concerned to such an extent.

讗诪专 诪专 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜爪专讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻讜住 讗讚讜诐 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 讘砖注讛 砖注讜诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讻专

The Gemara discusses the revised version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement. The Master said above: Jews were safeguarding the red heifer from the time that it was conceived. The Gemara asks: From where do we know that the mother would give birth to a red heifer, which would warrant safeguarding her? Rav Kahana says: They would pass a red cup before her while the male mounts her, an act that would cause the offspring to be red.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖转讬 砖注专讜转 驻讜住诇讜转 讘讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘诪讜讞讝拽转

The Gemara asks: If that is so, and the birth of a red heifer can be induced in such a simple manner, why is its price so expensive? The Gemara answers: Since two hairs of a different color render the red heifer unfit, this method is unreliable. The Gemara asks another question: And what is different about these cows? Why did the Jews resort to purchasing the red heifer from a gentile when they could have induced its conception themselves? Rav Kahana said: Dama ben Netina owned a herd of cattle that were known to beget red heifers, and therefore they preferred to employ the aforementioned method with one of his cows.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗拽诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 驻转讞 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 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

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were sitting on Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣鈥檚 porch. One of them began and said that the baraita teaches: And, similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify all offerings purchased from gentiles, due to the concern that a person had engaged in bestiality with the animals.

驻转讞 讗讬讚讱 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 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 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讜诇诐 讙专讬诐 讙专讜专讬诐 讛诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

The other one of them began and said: What did Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 colleagues respond to him? They quoted the 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). This verse clearly indicates that offerings will be accepted from gentiles. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: In the future all gentiles will be calculating converts, i.e., those who converted for personal gain, and as converts, they will not be suspected of engaging in bestiality.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讻讬 讗讝 讗讛驻讱 讗诇 注诪讬诐 砖驻讛 讘专讜专讛 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讚讜专 讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇注讘讚讜 砖讻诐 讗讞讚 讻转讬讘

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived that they will convert? The verse states: 鈥淔or then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent鈥 (Zephaniah 3:9). This verse indicates that all nations will worship God. Abaye said to him: But perhaps it is only from idol worship that they will withdraw, while they will still engage in forbidden sexual relations, including bestiality? Rav Yosef said to him: That cannot be, as it is written at the conclusion of the verse: 鈥淭o serve Him with one consent,鈥 which indicates that the gentiles will accept all of God鈥檚 mitzvot.

专讘 驻驻讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 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 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 讜诪讗讬 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 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讜诇诐 讙专讬诐 讙专讜专讬诐 讛诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

The Gemara comments: Rav Pappa teaches that discussion in this manner, but Rav Zevid teaches it in this manner: Both Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: And similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify all offerings taken from gentiles. And both said: What did Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 colleagues respond to him? They quoted the 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 Rabbi Eliezer said to them: All gentiles will be calculating converts in the future.

讜诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讻讬 讗讝 讗讛驻讱 讗诇 注诪讬诐 砖驻讛 讘专讜专讛 诇拽专讗 讻诇诐 讘砖诐 讛壮 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讚诇诪讗 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讘讚讜 砖讻诐 讗讞讚 讻转讬讘

Rabbi Eliezer continues: And what is the verse from which it is derived that they will convert? It is from the verse: 鈥淔or then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.鈥 Rav Yosef objects to this proof: But perhaps it is only from idol worship that they will withdraw? Abaye said to him: That cannot be, as it is written: 鈥淭o serve Him with one consent.鈥

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 讙诐 讗转讛 转转谉 讘讬讚谞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 讜注诇转 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 砖讗谞讬

搂 The Gemara cites a series of verses which present difficulties with regard to the claim that animals purchased from gentiles may not be used as offerings. The Gemara raises an objection from the following verse: 鈥淎nd Moses said: You must also give into our hand offerings and burnt-offerings that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God鈥 (Exodus 10:25). Moses demanded that Pharaoh provide the Jews with offerings, despite the fact that he was a gentile. The Gemara explains: The halakha prior to the giving of the Torah was different, as at that time it was acceptable to use animals taken from gentiles as offerings.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬拽讞 讬转专讜 讞转谉 诪砖讛 注诇讛 讜讝讘讞讬诐 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讬转专讜 谞诪讬 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讛讜讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬转专讜 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专

The Gemara raises another objection: Come and hear a proof from the verse: 鈥淎nd Yitro, Moses鈥 father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and offerings for God鈥 (Exodus 18:12). Yitro was not a Jew, and yet he brought offerings for God. The Gemara answers: The incident with Yitro was also prior to the giving of the Torah. The Gemara observes: Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that the incident with Yitro was prior to the giving of the Torah. But according to the one who says that

讬转专讜 诇讗讞专 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讛讜讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讬转专讜 诪讬砖专讗诇 讝讘谉

the incident involving Yitro was after the giving of the Torah, what is there to say? How could they accept offerings from him? Rather, it must be that Yitro purchased the animals from a Jew.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讗诪专 砖讗讜诇 诪注诪诇拽讬 讛讘讬讗讜诐 讗砖专 讞诪诇 讛注诐 注诇 诪讬讟讘 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讘拽专 (讛诪砖谞讬诐 讜讛讻专讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇 讛爪讗谉) 诇诪注谉 讝讘讞 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪讗讬 诪讬讟讘 讚诪讬 诪讬讟讘

The Gemara further states: Come and hear another objection from a verse: 鈥淎nd Saul said: They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the flock and of the herd, to sacrifice unto the Lord your God鈥 (I聽Samuel 15:15). The verse states explicitly that the Israelites intended to sacrifice animals previously owned by gentiles. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淭he best鈥? This is referring to the monetary value of the best livestock. The intention was not to sacrifice the animals themselves, but to sell them and use the proceeds of the sale to purchase other animals to sacrifice as offerings.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬讟讘 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬拽驻抓 注诇讬讛谉 讝讘讬谞讗

The Gemara inquires: And what is different about the best animals? If the animals were sold for their value, why sell those animals in particular, rather than several inferior-quality animals? The Gemara explains that they did so in order that buyers would jump at the opportunity to buy superior-quality livestock. In other words, it is easier to sell one superior-quality animal than several inferior-quality ones.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讗诪专 讗专讜谞讛 讗诇 讚讜讚 讬拽讞 讜讬注诇 讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 (讗转) 讛讟讜讘 讘注讬谞讜 (讜讗转) [专讗讛] 讛讘拽专 诇注诇讛 讜讛诪专讙讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讛讘拽专 诇注爪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗专讜谞讛 讙专 转讜砖讘 讛讬讛

Come and hear another objection from a verse: 鈥淎nd Araunah said unto David: Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good unto him; behold the cattle for the burnt-offering, and the threshing instruments [morigim] and the accoutrements of the cattle for the wood鈥 (II聽Samuel 24:22). Apparently, David was willing to accept oxen as offerings from a gentile. Rav Na岣an says: Araunah was a gentile who resided in Eretz Yisrael and observed the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav]. The seven Noahide mitzvot include the prohibition against engaging in bestiality, and therefore Araunah was not suspected of this practice.

诪讗讬 诪讜专讙讬诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讟讛 砖诇 讟讜专讘讬诇 诪讗讬 诪讟讛 砖诇 讟讜专讘讬诇 注讬讝讗 讚拽讜专拽住讗 讚讚讬讬砖谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讛谞讛 砖诪转讬讱 诇诪讜专讙 讞专讜抓 讞讚砖 讘注诇 驻讬驻讬讜转 转讚讜砖 讛专讬诐 讜转讚拽 讜讙讘注讜转 讻诪抓 转砖讬诐

Tangentially, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term morigim,鈥 mentioned in this verse? Ulla said: It is a turbil bed. The Gemara asks: What is a turbil bed? It is a serrated board [kurkesa] used for threshing. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? It is derived from the verse: 鈥淏ehold, I have made you a new threshing board [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shall make the hills as chaff鈥 (Isaiah 41:15).

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讗转 讛驻专讜转 讛注诇讜 注诇讛 诇讛壮 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. After the Philistines returned the Ark of the Covenant to the Israelites upon a cart drawn by cattle, the verse states: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed the cattle as a burnt-offering unto the Lord鈥 (I聽Samuel 6:14). Evidently, the Jews did not hesitate to sacrifice the Philistines鈥 animals. The Gemara explains: There, it was a provisional edict issued in extraordinary circumstances, and their actions are not representative of the general halakha.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 注讜诇讛 谞拽讘讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara adds: This also stands to reason, as, if you do not say so, one can raise a further difficulty with this episode: Is there a female burnt-offering? Only males may be sacrificed as burnt-offerings. Since the Jews sacrificed the cows as burnt-offerings, it is clear that they were acting unconventionally due to extenuating circumstances.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讜讻讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪谞讬谉 诇注讜诇讛 谞拽讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讻砖专讛 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讞 砖诪讜讗诇 讟诇讛 讞诇讘 讗讞讚 讜讬注诇讛讜 注讜诇讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: And what is the difficulty? In other words, the additional problem with the incident, that the animals were female, which is cited as proof that there were extenuating circumstances, is not in fact difficult at all. The Gemara elaborates: Perhaps the cows were offered upon a private altar, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: From where is it derived that a female burnt-offering is fit to be sacrificed upon a private altar? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd Samuel took a milking lamb, and sacrificed it [vaya鈥檃lehu] for a burnt-offering unto the Lord鈥 (I聽Samuel 7:9). The phrase 鈥渕ilking lamb鈥 indicates that it was a female, and yet Samuel sacrificed it upon a private altar.

讜讬注诇讛讜 讝讻专 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注诇讛 讻转讬讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the word vaya鈥檃lehu is masculine, which means that the lamb was a male. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Although the word is read in the masculine, it is written in the feminine form, vaya鈥檃lah, which teaches that even a female lamb may be sacrificed on a private altar.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讙讘讜诇 讬砖 诇讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 谞注拽专转 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讗讬谞讛 谞注拽专转

搂 After concluding its discussion of the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites another resolution of the contradiction between the mishna and the baraita. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a clear demarcation in the case of an animal with whom a man engaged in bestiality. If she is less than three years old, she becomes barren as a result of penetration, but if she is already three years old, she does not become barren. Although gentiles are generally suspected of engaging in bestiality, the baraita rules that an animal that is less than three years old may be used as an offering because a gentile will refrain from engaging in bestiality with an animal that may become barren as a result of his actions.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 砖谞讬 诇讛讜 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转 讛驻专讜转 讛注诇讜 注诇讛 诇讛壮 讘驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐

They raised all of those refutations from the aforementioned verses which indicate that animals purchased from gentiles may be brought as offerings, and he answered them by claiming that the animals being offered were less than three years old. The Gemara reexamines one of the objections. Come and hear, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed the cattle as a burnt-offering unto the Lord鈥 (I聽Samuel 6:14). Rabbi Yo岣nan explained that although in that incident the cattle had been owned by Philistines, they were less than three years old, and it was therefore presumed that the Philistines had not engaged in bestiality with them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讛诐 讻诇讜 讘讘讬转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara cites a refutation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 answer: Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Natan, objects to this: If so, then this is also true with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd they took two nursing cows and tied them to the cart and shut up their calves at home鈥 (I聽Samuel 6:10). According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the verse is necessarily referring to cows that are less than three years old.

讜驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讬 拽讗 讬诇讚讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 驻专讛 讜讞诪讜专 诪讘转 砖诇砖 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

And can a cow that is less than three years old give birth? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a cow or a donkey purchased from a gentile when they were less than three years old, the first of their offspring born after the purchase is certainly reserved for the priest, who is entitled to the firstborn of a cow or donkey owned by a Jew. From this point forward, i.e., if they were older than three years at the time of the sale, it is uncertain whether or not the offspring is the firstborn. This indicates that an animal does not bear offspring within the first three years of its life. Since the cows in the verse had already given birth, they could not have been less than three years old, as Rabbi Yo岣nan claimed. The Gemara concludes: Rather, it is clear as we initially answered, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 suggestion is rejected, and the actions in that verse were due to a provisional edict.

讜讬砖专谞讛 讛驻专讜转 讘讚专讱 注诇 讚专讱 讘讬转 砖诪砖 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 讜讬砖专谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 讜专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖专讜 驻谞讬讛诐 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜谉 讜讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛

搂 The Gemara further analyzes the episode involving the cows sent by the Philistines. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the cattle took the straight [vayyisharna] way, on the way to Beit Shemesh; they went along the highway, lowing as they went鈥 (I聽Samuel 6:12). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word vayyisharna? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: It means that they recited a song [shira]. And Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says: It means that they straightened [yishru] their faces so that they were opposite the Ark and recited a song.

讜诪讗讬 砖讬专讛 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讝 讬砖讬专 诪砖讛 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讜讗诪专转诐 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讛壮 拽专讗讜 讘砖诪讜 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: And what song did they recite? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: They recited the song that follows the verse: 鈥淭hen sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord鈥 (Exodus 15:1). And Rabbi Yo岣nan himself says that it was: 鈥淎nd on that day shall you say: Give thanks unto the Lord, proclaim His name, declare His doings among the peoples, make mention that His name is exalted鈥 (Isaiah 12:4).

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讝诪讜专讗 讬转诪讗 诪讝诪讜专 砖讬专讜 诇讛壮 砖讬专 讞讚砖 讻讬 谞驻诇讗讜转 注砖讛 讛讜砖讬注讛 诇讜 讬诪讬谞讜 讜讝专讜注 拽讚砖讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讛壮 诪诇讱 讬专讙讝讜 注诪讬诐

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that it was an orphaned psalm, i.e., a psalm whose author and the event to which it makes reference are not specified. The psalm begins with: 鈥淎 Psalm. O sing unto the Lord a new song, for He has done marvelous things; His right hand, and His holy arm, have wrought salvation for Him鈥 (Psalms 98:1). Rabbi Elazar says that it was the psalm beginning with: 鈥淭he Lord reigns; let the peoples tremble鈥 (Psalms 99:1).

专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 讛壮 诪诇讱 讙讗讜转 诇讘砖 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 专讜谞讬 专讜谞讬 讛砖讬讟讛 讛转谞讜驻驻讬 讘专讜讘 讛讚专讱 讛诪讞讜砖拽转 讘专讬拽诪讬 讝讛讘 讛诪讛讜诇诇讛 讘讚讘讬专 讗专诪讜谉 讜诪驻讜讗专讛 讘注讚讬 注讚讬讬诐

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that it was the Psalm beginning: 鈥淭he Lord reigns; He is clothed in majesty鈥 (Psalms 93:1). Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 says: They did not recite a verse found in the Bible, but rather, the following song: Sing, sing, acacia; ascend in all your glory; overlaid with golden embroidery, exalted by the book [devir] of the palace, and magnificent with jewels. The song alludes to the Ark of the Covenant, which was made of acacia wood and covered with gold. The expression: Book of the palace, is a reference to the Torah scroll that was placed in the Ark.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讛讗 讜讬讛讬 讘谞住注 讛讗专谉 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 拽讜诪讛 讛壮 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 专讜谞讬 专讜谞讬 讛砖讬讟讛 讜讻讜壮

Rav Ashi teaches this statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k in relation to this verse: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when the Ark set forward, that Moses said: Rise up, O Lord, and let Your enemies be scattered鈥 (Numbers 10:35). The Gemara asks: What did the Jewish people recite at this juncture? Rabbi Yitz岣k says that they recited: Sing, sing, acacia, ascend in all your glory; overlaid with golden embroidery, exalted by the book of the palace, and magnificent with jewels.

讗诪专 专讘 讻诪讗谉 拽专讜 驻专住讗讬 诇住驻专讗 讚讘讬专 诪讛讻讗 讜砖诐 讚讘讬专 诇驻谞讬诐 拽专讬转 住驻专

搂 Apropos the mention of the term devir, the Gemara discusses its etymology. Rav said: On what basis do the Persians call a book [sifra] by the term devir? They derive it from here: 鈥淣ow the name of Debir [devir] beforehand was Kiriath Sefer鈥 (Judges 1:11). Since the name devir was changed to Kiriath Sefer, the Persians referred to a sifra, i.e., a book, as devir.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 拽专讜 驻专住讗讬 诇谞讬讚讛 讚砖转谞讗 诪讛讻讗 讻讬 讚专讱 谞砖讬诐 诇讬

The Gemara examines the etymology of another term coined by the Persians. Rav Ashi said: On what basis do the Persians call a menstruating woman by the term dashtana? It is from here, a verse in which Rachel claims to be a menstruating woman: 鈥淔or the manner of women is upon me [derekh nashim li]鈥 (Genesis 31:35). The word dashtana is a shortened form of the phrase derekh nashim.

  • 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 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 24

讘砖砖讬诐 专讘讜讗 砖讻专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讘砖诪讜谞讬诐 专讘讜讗 讜讛讬讜 诪驻转讞讜转 诪讜谞讞讜转 转讞转 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 爪注专讜

for six hundred thousand gold dinars鈥 profit, and Rav Kahana teaches that it was eight hundred thousand dinars鈥 profit. But the keys to the chest holding the jewels were placed under his father鈥檚 head, and he would not disturb him. It is evident from this story that the stones of the ephod may be purchased from gentiles. If so, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reasoning cannot be based on Numbers 19:2, as an identical phrase appears in Exodus 25:2, and yet contributions to the Tabernacle may be accepted from gentiles.

讗讘谞讬 砖讛诐 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讜讛讗 讜讗讘谞讬 诪诇讜讗讬诐 讻转讬讘 讚讛讚专 注专讘讬讛

The Gemara answers that the phrase 鈥渙nyx stones鈥 (Exodus 25:7) concluded discussion of that matter. In other words, almost all the items listed in Exodus, chapter 25, for the contributions to the Tabernacle, are joined by the conjunction 鈥渁nd.鈥 Before the verse mentions the stones for the ephod, it states 鈥渙nyx stones,鈥 without the conjunction 鈥渁nd.鈥 This omission serves to disconnect these stones from the earlier phrase: 鈥淭hat they take鈥 (Exodus 25:2), which means that the disqualification of items purchased from gentiles for use in the Temple derived from this phrase does not apply to the items listed after that point, including the stones of the ephod. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it subsequently written: 鈥淎nd stones to be set,鈥 by which the verse goes back and combines the list, so that the earlier verse applies once more? Accordingly, it should be prohibited to purchase any of the items listed in the verse from gentiles.

讜注讜讚 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转 谞讜诇讚讛 诇讜 驻专讛 讗讚讜诪讛 讘注讚专讜 谞讻谞住讜 讞讻诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗爪诇讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 讘讻诐 砖讗诐 讗谞讬 诪讘拽砖 诪讻诐 讻诇 诪诪讜谉 砖讘注讜诇诐 讗转诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讬 注讻砖讬讜 讗讬谞讬 诪讘拽砖 诪讻诐 讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 诪诪讜谉 砖讛驻住讚转讬 讘砖讘讬诇 讗讘讗

The Gemara adds: And furthermore, the latter clause teaches: In a subsequent year, a red heifer was born in Dama鈥檚 herd and the Sages of Israel approached him, seeking to purchase the heifer. Dama said to them: I know concerning you that if I were to ask from you all the money in the world, you would give it to me. Now I am requesting from you only that amount of money which I lost by refraining from waking my father. This latter clause explicitly states that the Sages intended to purchase a red heifer from a gentile, which contradicts the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer.

讛转诐 注诇 讬讚讬 转讙专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讝讘讜谉

The Gemara answers: There, it was through the agency of Jewish merchants that they purchased the heifer. In other words, Jewish merchants purchased the heifer from Dama ben Netina, after which the Sages acquired the animal from the merchants to be used as a red heifer of purification. In this manner, the animal was purchased for the purpose of an offering from Jews.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇专讘讬注讛

According to Sheila, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reason for not allowing a red heifer to be purchased from gentiles is based on a derivation from a verse rather than a concern that a person may have engaged in bestiality with it. The Gemara therefore asks: And is Rabbi Eliezer not concerned about the possibility that a person has engaged in bestiality with the animal?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪注砖讛 讜诇拽讞讜讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讚诪讗 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专诪抓 砖诪讜 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 转专转讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讬讞讛 讜讞讬讬砖 谞诪讬 诇专讘讬注讛

The Gemara elaborates: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis who hold that the heifer may be purchased from a gentile said to Rabbi Eliezer: There was an incident in which Jews purchased the red heifer from a gentile, and Dama was his name. And some say Remetz was his name. In response to this claim, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Can one bring a proof from there? Certainly not, as Jews were safeguarding it from the time that it was born, to ensure that a person did not engage in bestiality with it. Contrary to the opinion of Sheila, it is evident from here that Rabbi Eliezer was concerned about this possibility. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer has two requirements: The purchase of the red heifer must be from a Jew, and he is also concerned about the possibility that a person had engaged in bestiality with the animal.

讗诪专 诪专 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 专讘注讬 诇讗诪讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注讘专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讜诇讚 讛谞讜讙讞转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞讙讞讜 讜讜诇讚 讛谞专讘注转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞专讘注讜 讗讬诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜爪专讛

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement. The Master said: Jews were safeguarding the red heifer purchased from Dama ben Netina from the time that it was born. The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps gentiles engaged in bestiality with the mother while she was pregnant, as Rava says: The offspring of an animal that gored and killed a Jew is forbidden as an offering, as it is considered as if she and her offspring together gored. And similarly, the offspring of an animal that was the object of bestiality is forbidden because it is considered as if a person engaged in bestiality with both her and her offspring. The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Eliezer meant that Jews were safeguarding it from the time that it was conceived.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 专讘注讜讛 诇讗诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专

The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps they engaged in bestiality with the mother from the outset, i.e., before conception, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 30b): With regard to all animals that are disqualified for the altar, such as one that was the object of bestiality, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted; and it is taught with regard to this case that Rabbi Eliezer prohibits their offspring from being sacrificed on the altar. If this is the case, Rabbi Eliezer should agree that there is a concern that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the heifer鈥檚 mother at some point before its birth.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗讘诇 讻砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer applies only when a person engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were consecrated and then they conceived, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that in that case the offspring are disqualified from being sacrificed as offerings; but if someone engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were non-sacred, everyone agrees that the offspring are permitted. Accordingly, it needs to be ascertained only that no one engaged in bestiality with the mother after she was consecrated.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讻砖讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

But according to the opinion of Rav Huna bar 岣nnana, who says that Rav Na岣an says: The dispute applies only when a person engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were non-sacred, but if someone engaged in bestiality with them when they were consecrated, everyone agrees that the offspring are forbidden, what is there to say? According to this opinion, Rabbi Eliezer should be concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal prior to conception.

讗讬诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗诪讗 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜爪专讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 专讘注讜讛 诇讗诪讗 讚讗诪讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: Say that Jews were safeguarding it as well, i.e., the mother of the red heifer, from the time that it was conceived. The Gemara challenges: And let us be concerned that perhaps someone engaged in bestiality with the mother of the heifer鈥檚 mother. The Gemara responds: We are not concerned to such an extent.

讗诪专 诪专 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讜 诪砖诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讜爪专讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻讜住 讗讚讜诐 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 讘砖注讛 砖注讜诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讻专

The Gemara discusses the revised version of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement. The Master said above: Jews were safeguarding the red heifer from the time that it was conceived. The Gemara asks: From where do we know that the mother would give birth to a red heifer, which would warrant safeguarding her? Rav Kahana says: They would pass a red cup before her while the male mounts her, an act that would cause the offspring to be red.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖转讬 砖注专讜转 驻讜住诇讜转 讘讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘诪讜讞讝拽转

The Gemara asks: If that is so, and the birth of a red heifer can be induced in such a simple manner, why is its price so expensive? The Gemara answers: Since two hairs of a different color render the red heifer unfit, this method is unreliable. The Gemara asks another question: And what is different about these cows? Why did the Jews resort to purchasing the red heifer from a gentile when they could have induced its conception themselves? Rav Kahana said: Dama ben Netina owned a herd of cattle that were known to beget red heifers, and therefore they preferred to employ the aforementioned method with one of his cows.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗拽诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 驻转讞 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 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

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were sitting on Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣鈥檚 porch. One of them began and said that the baraita teaches: And, similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify all offerings purchased from gentiles, due to the concern that a person had engaged in bestiality with the animals.

驻转讞 讗讬讚讱 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 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 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讜诇诐 讙专讬诐 讙专讜专讬诐 讛诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

The other one of them began and said: What did Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 colleagues respond to him? They quoted the 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). This verse clearly indicates that offerings will be accepted from gentiles. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: In the future all gentiles will be calculating converts, i.e., those who converted for personal gain, and as converts, they will not be suspected of engaging in bestiality.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讻讬 讗讝 讗讛驻讱 讗诇 注诪讬诐 砖驻讛 讘专讜专讛 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讚讜专 讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇注讘讚讜 砖讻诐 讗讞讚 讻转讬讘

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived that they will convert? The verse states: 鈥淔or then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent鈥 (Zephaniah 3:9). This verse indicates that all nations will worship God. Abaye said to him: But perhaps it is only from idol worship that they will withdraw, while they will still engage in forbidden sexual relations, including bestiality? Rav Yosef said to him: That cannot be, as it is written at the conclusion of the verse: 鈥淭o serve Him with one consent,鈥 which indicates that the gentiles will accept all of God鈥檚 mitzvot.

专讘 驻驻讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 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 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 讜诪讗讬 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 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讜诇诐 讙专讬诐 讙专讜专讬诐 讛诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

The Gemara comments: Rav Pappa teaches that discussion in this manner, but Rav Zevid teaches it in this manner: Both Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: And similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify all offerings taken from gentiles. And both said: What did Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 colleagues respond to him? They quoted the 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 Rabbi Eliezer said to them: All gentiles will be calculating converts in the future.

讜诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讻讬 讗讝 讗讛驻讱 讗诇 注诪讬诐 砖驻讛 讘专讜专讛 诇拽专讗 讻诇诐 讘砖诐 讛壮 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讚诇诪讗 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讘讚讜 砖讻诐 讗讞讚 讻转讬讘

Rabbi Eliezer continues: And what is the verse from which it is derived that they will convert? It is from the verse: 鈥淔or then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.鈥 Rav Yosef objects to this proof: But perhaps it is only from idol worship that they will withdraw? Abaye said to him: That cannot be, as it is written: 鈥淭o serve Him with one consent.鈥

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 讙诐 讗转讛 转转谉 讘讬讚谞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 讜注诇转 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 砖讗谞讬

搂 The Gemara cites a series of verses which present difficulties with regard to the claim that animals purchased from gentiles may not be used as offerings. The Gemara raises an objection from the following verse: 鈥淎nd Moses said: You must also give into our hand offerings and burnt-offerings that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God鈥 (Exodus 10:25). Moses demanded that Pharaoh provide the Jews with offerings, despite the fact that he was a gentile. The Gemara explains: The halakha prior to the giving of the Torah was different, as at that time it was acceptable to use animals taken from gentiles as offerings.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬拽讞 讬转专讜 讞转谉 诪砖讛 注诇讛 讜讝讘讞讬诐 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讬转专讜 谞诪讬 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讛讜讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬转专讜 拽讜讚诐 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专

The Gemara raises another objection: Come and hear a proof from the verse: 鈥淎nd Yitro, Moses鈥 father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and offerings for God鈥 (Exodus 18:12). Yitro was not a Jew, and yet he brought offerings for God. The Gemara answers: The incident with Yitro was also prior to the giving of the Torah. The Gemara observes: Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that the incident with Yitro was prior to the giving of the Torah. But according to the one who says that

讬转专讜 诇讗讞专 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讛讜讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讬转专讜 诪讬砖专讗诇 讝讘谉

the incident involving Yitro was after the giving of the Torah, what is there to say? How could they accept offerings from him? Rather, it must be that Yitro purchased the animals from a Jew.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讗诪专 砖讗讜诇 诪注诪诇拽讬 讛讘讬讗讜诐 讗砖专 讞诪诇 讛注诐 注诇 诪讬讟讘 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讘拽专 (讛诪砖谞讬诐 讜讛讻专讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇 讛爪讗谉) 诇诪注谉 讝讘讞 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪讗讬 诪讬讟讘 讚诪讬 诪讬讟讘

The Gemara further states: Come and hear another objection from a verse: 鈥淎nd Saul said: They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the flock and of the herd, to sacrifice unto the Lord your God鈥 (I聽Samuel 15:15). The verse states explicitly that the Israelites intended to sacrifice animals previously owned by gentiles. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淭he best鈥? This is referring to the monetary value of the best livestock. The intention was not to sacrifice the animals themselves, but to sell them and use the proceeds of the sale to purchase other animals to sacrifice as offerings.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬讟讘 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬拽驻抓 注诇讬讛谉 讝讘讬谞讗

The Gemara inquires: And what is different about the best animals? If the animals were sold for their value, why sell those animals in particular, rather than several inferior-quality animals? The Gemara explains that they did so in order that buyers would jump at the opportunity to buy superior-quality livestock. In other words, it is easier to sell one superior-quality animal than several inferior-quality ones.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讬讗诪专 讗专讜谞讛 讗诇 讚讜讚 讬拽讞 讜讬注诇 讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 (讗转) 讛讟讜讘 讘注讬谞讜 (讜讗转) [专讗讛] 讛讘拽专 诇注诇讛 讜讛诪专讙讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讛讘拽专 诇注爪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗专讜谞讛 讙专 转讜砖讘 讛讬讛

Come and hear another objection from a verse: 鈥淎nd Araunah said unto David: Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good unto him; behold the cattle for the burnt-offering, and the threshing instruments [morigim] and the accoutrements of the cattle for the wood鈥 (II聽Samuel 24:22). Apparently, David was willing to accept oxen as offerings from a gentile. Rav Na岣an says: Araunah was a gentile who resided in Eretz Yisrael and observed the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav]. The seven Noahide mitzvot include the prohibition against engaging in bestiality, and therefore Araunah was not suspected of this practice.

诪讗讬 诪讜专讙讬诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讟讛 砖诇 讟讜专讘讬诇 诪讗讬 诪讟讛 砖诇 讟讜专讘讬诇 注讬讝讗 讚拽讜专拽住讗 讚讚讬讬砖谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讛谞讛 砖诪转讬讱 诇诪讜专讙 讞专讜抓 讞讚砖 讘注诇 驻讬驻讬讜转 转讚讜砖 讛专讬诐 讜转讚拽 讜讙讘注讜转 讻诪抓 转砖讬诐

Tangentially, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term morigim,鈥 mentioned in this verse? Ulla said: It is a turbil bed. The Gemara asks: What is a turbil bed? It is a serrated board [kurkesa] used for threshing. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? It is derived from the verse: 鈥淏ehold, I have made you a new threshing board [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shall make the hills as chaff鈥 (Isaiah 41:15).

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讗转 讛驻专讜转 讛注诇讜 注诇讛 诇讛壮 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. After the Philistines returned the Ark of the Covenant to the Israelites upon a cart drawn by cattle, the verse states: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed the cattle as a burnt-offering unto the Lord鈥 (I聽Samuel 6:14). Evidently, the Jews did not hesitate to sacrifice the Philistines鈥 animals. The Gemara explains: There, it was a provisional edict issued in extraordinary circumstances, and their actions are not representative of the general halakha.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 注讜诇讛 谞拽讘讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara adds: This also stands to reason, as, if you do not say so, one can raise a further difficulty with this episode: Is there a female burnt-offering? Only males may be sacrificed as burnt-offerings. Since the Jews sacrificed the cows as burnt-offerings, it is clear that they were acting unconventionally due to extenuating circumstances.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讜讻讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪谞讬谉 诇注讜诇讛 谞拽讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讻砖专讛 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讞 砖诪讜讗诇 讟诇讛 讞诇讘 讗讞讚 讜讬注诇讛讜 注讜诇讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: And what is the difficulty? In other words, the additional problem with the incident, that the animals were female, which is cited as proof that there were extenuating circumstances, is not in fact difficult at all. The Gemara elaborates: Perhaps the cows were offered upon a private altar, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: From where is it derived that a female burnt-offering is fit to be sacrificed upon a private altar? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd Samuel took a milking lamb, and sacrificed it [vaya鈥檃lehu] for a burnt-offering unto the Lord鈥 (I聽Samuel 7:9). The phrase 鈥渕ilking lamb鈥 indicates that it was a female, and yet Samuel sacrificed it upon a private altar.

讜讬注诇讛讜 讝讻专 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注诇讛 讻转讬讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the word vaya鈥檃lehu is masculine, which means that the lamb was a male. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Although the word is read in the masculine, it is written in the feminine form, vaya鈥檃lah, which teaches that even a female lamb may be sacrificed on a private altar.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讙讘讜诇 讬砖 诇讛 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 谞注拽专转 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讗讬谞讛 谞注拽专转

搂 After concluding its discussion of the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites another resolution of the contradiction between the mishna and the baraita. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a clear demarcation in the case of an animal with whom a man engaged in bestiality. If she is less than three years old, she becomes barren as a result of penetration, but if she is already three years old, she does not become barren. Although gentiles are generally suspected of engaging in bestiality, the baraita rules that an animal that is less than three years old may be used as an offering because a gentile will refrain from engaging in bestiality with an animal that may become barren as a result of his actions.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 砖谞讬 诇讛讜 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转 讛驻专讜转 讛注诇讜 注诇讛 诇讛壮 讘驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐

They raised all of those refutations from the aforementioned verses which indicate that animals purchased from gentiles may be brought as offerings, and he answered them by claiming that the animals being offered were less than three years old. The Gemara reexamines one of the objections. Come and hear, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed the cattle as a burnt-offering unto the Lord鈥 (I聽Samuel 6:14). Rabbi Yo岣nan explained that although in that incident the cattle had been owned by Philistines, they were less than three years old, and it was therefore presumed that the Philistines had not engaged in bestiality with them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讛诐 讻诇讜 讘讘讬转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara cites a refutation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 answer: Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Natan, objects to this: If so, then this is also true with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd they took two nursing cows and tied them to the cart and shut up their calves at home鈥 (I聽Samuel 6:10). According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the verse is necessarily referring to cows that are less than three years old.

讜驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讬 拽讗 讬诇讚讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 驻专讛 讜讞诪讜专 诪讘转 砖诇砖 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

And can a cow that is less than three years old give birth? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a cow or a donkey purchased from a gentile when they were less than three years old, the first of their offspring born after the purchase is certainly reserved for the priest, who is entitled to the firstborn of a cow or donkey owned by a Jew. From this point forward, i.e., if they were older than three years at the time of the sale, it is uncertain whether or not the offspring is the firstborn. This indicates that an animal does not bear offspring within the first three years of its life. Since the cows in the verse had already given birth, they could not have been less than three years old, as Rabbi Yo岣nan claimed. The Gemara concludes: Rather, it is clear as we initially answered, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 suggestion is rejected, and the actions in that verse were due to a provisional edict.

讜讬砖专谞讛 讛驻专讜转 讘讚专讱 注诇 讚专讱 讘讬转 砖诪砖 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 讜讬砖专谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 讜专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖专讜 驻谞讬讛诐 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜谉 讜讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛

搂 The Gemara further analyzes the episode involving the cows sent by the Philistines. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the cattle took the straight [vayyisharna] way, on the way to Beit Shemesh; they went along the highway, lowing as they went鈥 (I聽Samuel 6:12). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word vayyisharna? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: It means that they recited a song [shira]. And Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says: It means that they straightened [yishru] their faces so that they were opposite the Ark and recited a song.

讜诪讗讬 砖讬专讛 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讝 讬砖讬专 诪砖讛 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讜讗诪专转诐 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讛壮 拽专讗讜 讘砖诪讜 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: And what song did they recite? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: They recited the song that follows the verse: 鈥淭hen sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord鈥 (Exodus 15:1). And Rabbi Yo岣nan himself says that it was: 鈥淎nd on that day shall you say: Give thanks unto the Lord, proclaim His name, declare His doings among the peoples, make mention that His name is exalted鈥 (Isaiah 12:4).

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讝诪讜专讗 讬转诪讗 诪讝诪讜专 砖讬专讜 诇讛壮 砖讬专 讞讚砖 讻讬 谞驻诇讗讜转 注砖讛 讛讜砖讬注讛 诇讜 讬诪讬谞讜 讜讝专讜注 拽讚砖讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讛壮 诪诇讱 讬专讙讝讜 注诪讬诐

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that it was an orphaned psalm, i.e., a psalm whose author and the event to which it makes reference are not specified. The psalm begins with: 鈥淎 Psalm. O sing unto the Lord a new song, for He has done marvelous things; His right hand, and His holy arm, have wrought salvation for Him鈥 (Psalms 98:1). Rabbi Elazar says that it was the psalm beginning with: 鈥淭he Lord reigns; let the peoples tremble鈥 (Psalms 99:1).

专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 讛壮 诪诇讱 讙讗讜转 诇讘砖 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 专讜谞讬 专讜谞讬 讛砖讬讟讛 讛转谞讜驻驻讬 讘专讜讘 讛讚专讱 讛诪讞讜砖拽转 讘专讬拽诪讬 讝讛讘 讛诪讛讜诇诇讛 讘讚讘讬专 讗专诪讜谉 讜诪驻讜讗专讛 讘注讚讬 注讚讬讬诐

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that it was the Psalm beginning: 鈥淭he Lord reigns; He is clothed in majesty鈥 (Psalms 93:1). Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 says: They did not recite a verse found in the Bible, but rather, the following song: Sing, sing, acacia; ascend in all your glory; overlaid with golden embroidery, exalted by the book [devir] of the palace, and magnificent with jewels. The song alludes to the Ark of the Covenant, which was made of acacia wood and covered with gold. The expression: Book of the palace, is a reference to the Torah scroll that was placed in the Ark.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讛讗 讜讬讛讬 讘谞住注 讛讗专谉 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 拽讜诪讛 讛壮 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 专讜谞讬 专讜谞讬 讛砖讬讟讛 讜讻讜壮

Rav Ashi teaches this statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k in relation to this verse: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when the Ark set forward, that Moses said: Rise up, O Lord, and let Your enemies be scattered鈥 (Numbers 10:35). The Gemara asks: What did the Jewish people recite at this juncture? Rabbi Yitz岣k says that they recited: Sing, sing, acacia, ascend in all your glory; overlaid with golden embroidery, exalted by the book of the palace, and magnificent with jewels.

讗诪专 专讘 讻诪讗谉 拽专讜 驻专住讗讬 诇住驻专讗 讚讘讬专 诪讛讻讗 讜砖诐 讚讘讬专 诇驻谞讬诐 拽专讬转 住驻专

搂 Apropos the mention of the term devir, the Gemara discusses its etymology. Rav said: On what basis do the Persians call a book [sifra] by the term devir? They derive it from here: 鈥淣ow the name of Debir [devir] beforehand was Kiriath Sefer鈥 (Judges 1:11). Since the name devir was changed to Kiriath Sefer, the Persians referred to a sifra, i.e., a book, as devir.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 拽专讜 驻专住讗讬 诇谞讬讚讛 讚砖转谞讗 诪讛讻讗 讻讬 讚专讱 谞砖讬诐 诇讬

The Gemara examines the etymology of another term coined by the Persians. Rav Ashi said: On what basis do the Persians call a menstruating woman by the term dashtana? It is from here, a verse in which Rachel claims to be a menstruating woman: 鈥淔or the manner of women is upon me [derekh nashim li]鈥 (Genesis 31:35). The word dashtana is a shortened form of the phrase derekh nashim.

Scroll To Top