עבודה זרה דף כג

רבינא אמר: לא קשיא — הא לכתחלה, הא דיעבד.

§ 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.

ומנא תימרא דשאני בין לכתחלה בין לדיעבד? דתנן: לא תתייחד אשה עמהם, מפני שחשודין על העריות. ורמינהו: האשה שנחבשה בידי גוים, על ידי ממון — מותרת לבעלה,

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.

על ידי נפשות — אסורה לבעלה!

אלא לאו שמע מינה, שאני לן בין לכתחלה לדיעבד? ממאי? דלמא לעולם אימא לך: אפילו דיעבד נמי לא, והכא היינו טעמא, דמתיירא משום הפסד ממונו.

The Gemara continues: Rather, isn’t 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.

תדע, דקתני סיפא: על ידי נפשות אסורה לבעלה, ותו לא מידי.

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.

רבי פדת אמר: לא קשיא — הא רבי אליעזר, הא רבנן. דתנן גבי פרת חטאת: רבי אליעזר אומר: אינה נקחת מן הגוים, וחכמים מתירין. מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי,

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?

דרבי אליעזר סבר: חיישינן לרביעה, ורבנן סברי: לא חיישינן לרביעה?

ממאי? דלמא דכולי עלמא לא חיישינן לרביעה, והכא היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר — כדרב יהודה אמר רב, דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב:

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: “Upon which never came a yoke” (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: “And which has not drawn in the yoke” (Deuteronomy 21:3).

הניח (עליהן) [עליה] עודה של שקין — פסלה, ובעגלה — עד שתמשוך בה.

מר סבר חיישינן, ומר סבר לא חיישינן! לא סלקא דעתך, משום ניחא פורתא לא מפסיד טובא.

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.

הכי נמי לימא: משום הנאה פורתא לא מפסיד טובא! התם, יצרו תוקפו.

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.

ודלמא דכולי עלמא לא חיישינן לרביעה, והכא היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר, כדתני שילא, דתני שילא: מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר? ״דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך״ —

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: “Speak unto the children of Israel that they take to you a red heifer” (Numbers 19:2). This teaches that the children of Israel take the red heifer, but gentiles do not take the red heifer.

בני ישראל יקחו, ואין הגוים יקחו.

לא סלקא דעתך, דקתני סיפא: וכן היה רבי אליעזר פוסל בכל הקרבנות כולן. ואי סלקא דעתך כדתני שילא, בשלמא פרה — כתיב בה ״קיחה״,

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’s 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’s reasoning. The Gemara suggests: And perhaps the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer

אלא כולהו קרבנות — קיחה כתיב בהו? ודלמא עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר.

אלא בפרה, דדמיה יקרין, אבל בשאר קרבנות מודו ליה!

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.

ואלא הא דתניא: לוקחין מהן בהמה לקרבן, מני? לא רבי אליעזר ולא רבנן!

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.

ועוד, תניא בהדיא: מאי אותיבו ליה חברוהי לרבי אליעזר? ״כל צאן קדר יקבצו לך... יעלו לרצון על מזבחי״.

And furthermore, it is explicitly taught in a baraita: What did Rabbi Eliezer’s 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: “All 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” (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’s 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.

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בחששא, אבל היכא דודאי רבעה — פסלה; שמע מינה דפרה קדשי מזבח היא, דאי קדשי בדק הבית — מי מיפסלא בה רביעה?!

§ 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.

שאני פרה, דחטאת קרייה רחמנא.

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.

אלא מעתה, תיפסל ביוצא דופן! וכי תימא הכי נמי, אלמה תניא: הקדישה ביוצא דופן — פסולה, ורבי שמעון מכשיר?

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?

וכי תימא, רבי שמעון לטעמיה, דאמר: יוצא דופן ולד מעליא הוא, והאמר רבי יוחנן: מודה היה רבי שמעון לענין קדשים שאינו קדוש!

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’t Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אלא שאני פרה, הואיל ומום פוסל בה — דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה נמי פוסל בה, דכתיב: ״כי משחתם בהם מום בם״, ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל:

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: “Neither 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” (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.

כל מקום שנאמר השחתה — אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה.

דבר ערוה, דכתיב: ״כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ״, ועבודה זרה, דכתיב: ״פן תשחתון ועשיתם לכם פסל״; והא פרה נמי, הואיל ומום פוסל בה,

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: “And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12). And corruption also is a reference to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image” (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.

דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה פסלי בה.

גופא, תני שילא: מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר? דכתיב: ״דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו״, בני ישראל יקחו, ואין הגוים יקחו. אלא מעתה: ״דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה״,

§ Earlier, Sheila provided a rationale for Rabbi Eliezer’s 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: “Speak unto the children of Israel that they take to you a red heifer” (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: “Speak unto the children of Israel, that they take for Me an offering” (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.

הכי נמי דבני ישראל יקחו, ואין הגוים יקחו?

וכי תימא: הכי נמי, והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: שאלו את רבי אליעזר: עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם? אמר להם: צאו וראו מה עשה גוי אחד לאביו באשקלון,

And if you would say that indeed, that is so, this cannot be correct. But doesn’t 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’s 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

ודמא בן נתינה שמו. פעם אחת בקשו ממנו אבנים לאפוד