Avodah Zarah 23b — the Talmud in English

Rather

only

in the red heifer

red

whose blood is dear.

And for this reason, we do not fear that the gentile will have intercourse with it and render it unfit.

But, with regard to the other offerings, they conceded to him

the Sages conceded to Rabbi Eliezer, and they too hold that one must fear bestiality.

However, this explanation is not possible. For—

Rather, what of that which was taught

the beraita that we learned above:

“One may purchase an animal from them for an offering”—

whose view

is it stated according to whose view was it said?

For according to this explanation, that even the Sages concede that with regard to the other offerings one must fear bestiality, this beraita is

not

according to the view of

Rabbi Eliezer, nor according to the Sages!

And furthermore, it was taught

we learned

explicitly: “What did his colleagues object to him,”

what did his colleagues reply

to Rabbi Eliezer

to his words, whereby he prohibited purchasing an animal for an offering from gentiles?

They replied to him as follows: It is stated [Isaiah 60:7,

“All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you,

the rams of Nebaioth shall serve you;

they shall ascend

upon

the favor of My altar.”

And it is proven from this verse that even animals purchased from gentiles are fit for an offering.

And we have here that the Sages who dispute Rabbi Eliezer hold that even all offerings may be purchased from gentiles, and we do not fear bestiality.

And by this the contradiction above is resolved, between our Mishna, which prohibits placing an animal in the inn of gentiles because of the fear of bestiality, and the beraita, which permits taking an animal from gentiles for the purpose of an offering, without fearing bestiality.

For our Mishna is according to the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who fears bestiality, whereas the beraita is according to the view of the Sages, who do not fear bestiality. And therefore they hold that one may take an animal from a gentile for an offering.

Thus far the Gemara discussed the question of whether one must fear that the animal may have been subjected to bestiality by the gentile. Now the Gemara discusses the fundamental issue of the disqualification of an offering from an animal that was subjected to bestiality.

Thus far they did not dispute

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages did not dispute

except

only

with regard to the concern.

Whether, when we do not know whether the gentile had intercourse with it or not, one must fear that he had intercourse with it, or whether one need not fear this. Rabbi Eliezer fears it, whereas the Sages do not fear it.

But, where

we know that with

certainty he had intercourse

the gentile—

he disqualified it!

And the Gemara proves from this:

Infer from this that the red heifer

although it is not made into an offering for the altar, but its ashes are merely used for the needs of those who are impure, nevertheless—

is of the sanctity of the altar.

And consequently it is disqualified by bestiality, in accordance with the law of every animal designated for an offering.

Because

if

this heifer has only the law of

the sanctity of the Temple repair,

since it is not brought upon the altar but is slaughtered on the Mount of Olives—

is it disqualified?

Does the act of

bestiality

disqualify the red heifer, when bestiality disqualifies only offerings?

And it is proven that the red heifer has the sanctity of the altar, like an offering!

The Gemara rejects this proof: Indeed, the laws of this heifer are like the laws of the Temple repair. However, with regard to the things that disqualify it,

the heifer is different,

the red heifer is different,

for “a sin-offering” [

Numbers 19:9]

the Merciful One called it!

And the Torah extended the law of this heifer, so that it is disqualified even by things that disqualify an offering [for it was called a sin-offering, the same name as the offering]!

However, this is difficult:

But from now,

if the heifer is disqualified by things that disqualify offerings,

let it be disqualified

even if the heifer was not born in the ordinary manner from the womb of the animal, but was born

by

a manner of

“one born by caesarean section” [

that is, the fetus emerged through the side of the animal, by means of an incision or the like], since an offering born by caesarean section is disqualified?!

The Gemara discusses this:

And if you would say, so too,

and indeed a red heifer born by caesarean section is disqualified, this cannot be so!

For:

why, then, was it taught

we learned in a beraita —

if one consecrated

a red heifer

born by caesarean section, it is disqualified. And Rabbi Shimon—

declares it fit.

And it is apparent from this that not everyone holds that the law of the red heifer is equal to that of the other offerings.

And if you would say

and even if we say that the words of

Rabbi Shimon

that a heifer’s offspring born by caesarean section is fit are

according to his own reasoning,

according to his method,

as he said

Rabbi Shimon [with regard to a woman who gave birth to an offspring by caesarean section, Rabbi Shimon holds that]:

“one born by caesarean section is a fully valid offspring,”

an excellent offspring

it

is, like all offspring,

And we learn from this that Rabbi Shimon’s view is that anyone born by caesarean section is a complete offspring, even with regard to an offering.

And Rabbi Shimon does not distinguish between an offering and the heifer; rather, he holds that even an offering is fit when born by caesarean section. And the law of the heifer is equal to that of an offering. —

This cannot be so!

For

behold,

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Shimon conceded with regard to

offerings,

sacred offerings,

that

an offspring born by caesarean section—

is not sacred!

And if so, Rabbi Shimon’s view is that although one born by caesarean section is disqualified with regard to sacred offerings, with regard to the heifer it is fit!

And it is apparent that the law of the heifer differs from the law of an offering. And the question returns: Why is a red heifer born by caesarean section fit, whereas a heifer subjected to bestiality is disqualified, and what is the distinction between these two disqualifications?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the reason for the disqualification of bestiality in the heifer is not because “a sin-offering” was stated with regard to the heifer. And certainly the heifer is not included among offerings of the altar, but rather among the offerings of the “Temple repair.” Nevertheless, bestiality disqualifies it:

Rather,

the reason for the disqualification of bestiality is because

the heifer

is different,

the red heifer,

since a blemish disqualifies it

the red heifer [as it is stated: Numbers 19:2, “which has no blemish”],

likewise,

a matter of sexual transgression

[that is, bestiality],

and

likewise

idolatry

[if it was worshipped],

also disqualify it

the red heifer, because destruction was juxtaposed to a blemish [what destruction is will be explained below]!

From where is this juxtaposition?

As it is written

with regard to offerings [Leviticus 22:25]:

“For their destruction is in them; there is a blemish in them.”

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Wherever “destruction” is stated, it refers only to a matter of sexual transgression and idolatry.

And the beraita explains:

A matter of sexual transgression

is called destruction because

it is written

with regard to the generation of the Flood [Genesis 6:12]:

“For all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth”

And idolatry,

it too is called destruction.

As it is written [

Deuteronomy 4:16]:

“Lest you corrupt yourselves and make for yourselves a graven image.”

And we have found that idolatry and a matter of sexual transgression are called destruction, and destruction was juxtaposed to a blemish.

And

if so,

this heifer, too,

is also disqualified by bestiality. For

since a blemish disqualifies it—

a matter of sexual transgression and the worship of stars disqualify it.

The words of Sheila were brought above, explaining the words of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that one may not purchase an animal from gentiles for a red heifer.

The Gemara discusses Sheila’s words:

The substance itself: Sheila taught: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that one may not purchase a gentile’s animal for a red heifer?

As it is written [

Numbers 19:2]:

“Speak to the children of Israel, and they shall take.”

And they expound as follows:

The children of Israel shall take,

that is, they shall take this heifer only from the children of Israel,

and they shall not

and not from

the worshippers of stars shall they take.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But from now,

if, because it is stated, “Speak to the children of Israel, and they shall take for you,” we expound that they take only from the children of Israel and not from gentiles, this may be challenged from the following statement of the Gemara:

It is stated [Exodus 25:2]:

“Speak to the children of Israel, and they shall take for Me a contribution,”

and seemingly

so too,

here as well the same thing is stated,

that

only

the children of Israel shall take, and the worshippers of stars shall not take.

And they shall not take any of the materials of the Tabernacle from worshippers of stars.

And if you would say

and if you say that

so too,

indeed one may not purchase gold and precious stones for the work of the Tabernacle from gentiles, this is difficult:

But Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They asked Rabbi Eliezer, “To what extent

must a person be careful and exert himself in the mitzva of

honoring father and mother?”

He said to them,

Rabbi Eliezer said,

“Go out and see what one gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and his name was Dama ben Netina,”

the name of that gentile.