עבודה זרה כ״ג

עבודה זרה כ״ג

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא לְכַתְּחִלָּה, הָא דִּיעֲבַד.

§ 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.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה בֵּין לְדִיעֲבַד? דִּתְנַן: לֹא תִּתְיַיחֵד אִשָּׁה עִמָּהֶם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּחְבְּשָׁה בִּידֵי גּוֹיִם, עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן — מוּתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ, עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת — אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ!

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.

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, שָׁאנֵי לַן בֵּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְדִיעֲבַד? מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: אֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דְּמִתְיָירֵא מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד מָמוֹנוֹ.

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.

תֵּדַע, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ, וְתוּ לָא מִידִּי.

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.

רַבִּי פְּדָת אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא רַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן גַּבֵּי פָּרַת חַטָּאת: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ נִקַּחַת מִן הַגּוֹיִם, וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: חָיְישִׁינַן לִרְבִיעָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִרְבִיעָה?

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?

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִרְבִיעָה, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הִנִּיחַ (עֲלֵיהֶן) [עָלֶיהָ] עוּדָּה שֶׁל שַׂקִּין — פְּסָלָהּ, וּבְעֶגְלָה — עַד שֶׁתִּמְשׁוֹךְ בָּהּ.

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).

מָר סָבַר חָיְישִׁינַן, וּמַר סָבַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, מִשּׁוּם נִיחָא פּוּרְתָּא לָא מַפְסֵיד טוּבָא.

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.

הָכִי נָמֵי לֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם הֲנָאָה פּוּרְתָּא לָא מַפְסֵיד טוּבָא! הָתָם, יִצְרוֹ תּוֹקְפוֹ.

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.

וְדִלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִרְבִיעָה, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, כִּדְתָנֵי שֵׁילָא, דְּתָנֵי שֵׁילָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ״ — בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יִקְחוּ, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם יִקְחוּ.

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.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל בְּכׇל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְתָנֵי שֵׁילָא, בִּשְׁלָמָא פָּרָה — כְּתִיב בָּהּ ״קִיחָה״, אֶלָּא כּוּלְּהוּ קׇרְבָּנוֹת — קִיחָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ? וְדִלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

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

אֶלָּא בְּפָרָה, דְּדָמֶיהָ יְקָרִין, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹת מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ!

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.

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בְּהֵמָה לְקׇרְבָּן, מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְלָא רַבָּנַן!

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.

וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: מַאי אוֹתִיבוּ לֵיהּ חַבְרוֹהִי לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? ״כׇּל צֹאן קֵדָר יִקָּבְצוּ לָךְ… יַעֲלוּ לְרָצוֹן עַל מִזְבְּחִי״.

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.

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בַּחֲשָׁשָׁא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּוַדַּאי רַבְעַהּ — פַּסְלַהּ; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּפָרָה קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הִיא, דְּאִי קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — מִי מַיפְסְלָא בַּהּ רְבִיעָה?!

§ 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.

שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּחַטָּאת קַרְיַיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

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.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תִּיפָּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: הִקְדִּישָׁהּ בְּיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן — פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר?

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?

וְכִי תֵּימָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְעִנְיַן קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ!

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.

אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, הוֹאִיל וּמוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ — דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הַשְׁחָתָה — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

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.

דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״, וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּן תַּשְׁחִתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל״; וְהָא פָּרָה נָמֵי, הוֹאִיל וּמוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ, דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פָּסְלִי בַּהּ.

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.

גּוּפָא, תָּנֵי שֵׁילָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? דִּכְתִיב: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ״, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יִקְחוּ, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם יִקְחוּ. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה״, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יִקְחוּ, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם יִקְחוּ?

§ 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.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: עַד הֵיכָן כִּיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם? אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וּרְאוּ מָה עָשָׂה גּוֹי אֶחָד לְאָבִיו בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן, וְדָמָא בֶּן נְתִינָה שְׁמוֹ. פַּעַם אַחַת בִּקְּשׁוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אֲבָנִים לָאֵפוֹד

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