Avodah Zarah 23b (כג:) — the Talmud in English

Rather

only

in the case of a red heifer

whose

blood is precious. And for that reason, we are not concerned that the gentile might mate with it and cause a loss.

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

the Sages concede to Rabbi Eliezer, and they too maintain that one must be concerned about mating.

However, this explanation is not possible. For:

But what of the statement that was taught

the beraita that we learned above:

One may purchase an animal from them for an offering—

whose view

was this statement following?

According to this explanation, that even the Rabbis concede that with regard to other offerings one must be concerned about mating, this beraita is

not

in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Eliezer, nor with that of the Rabbis!

And furthermore, it was taught

explicitly:

What did his colleagues object to him,

what did his colleagues reply

to Rabbi Eliezer

in response to his statement that it is prohibited to purchase 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 minister to you;

they shall ascend

upon

the altar of My favor.” From this verse it is demonstrated that even animals purchased from gentiles are fit for an offering.

Thus, we find that the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer maintain that all offerings may be purchased from gentiles, and that there is no concern about mating.

This resolves the contradiction cited above between our Mishna, which prohibits leaving an animal in a gentile inn because of concern that it might be mated, and the beraita, which permits taking an animal from gentiles for an offering without concern that it might be mated.

Our Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who is concerned about mating, whereas the beraita follows the view of the Sages, who are not concerned about mating. Therefore, they maintain that one may purchase an animal from a gentile for an offering.

Until this point, the Gemara has discussed whether one must be concerned that the animal was mated by the gentile. The Gemara now discusses the fundamental reason that an offering is disqualified when the animal has been mated.

Until this point they disagree

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree

except

only

with regard to the concern. That is: When we do not know whether the gentile mated with the animal or not, is there reason to be concerned that he may have mated with it, or is there no reason for concern? Rabbi Eliezer is concerned, whereas the Sages are not concerned about this.

But where

we know that

he certainly mated with it,

the gentile, -

it is disqualified!

The Gemara proves from this:

Conclude from this that the red heifer

although it is not made into an offering brought upon the altar, but is used only for its ashes, which are needed by those who are impure, nevertheless—

is consecrated for the altar.

And consequently it is disqualified through mating, like any animal designated to be an offering.

The reason is

that if

this heifer has only the status of

consecrated property for Temple maintenance,

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

is it disqualified?

Does the act of

mating

disqualify the red heifer? But mating disqualifies only offerings.

It is thus proven that the red heifer possesses the sanctity of an offering!

The Gemara rejects this proof: Indeed, the laws governing this heifer are those of property designated for Temple maintenance. However, with regard to the factors that disqualify it,

the heifer

the red heifer is different,

as “a sin offering” [

Numbers 19:9]

the Merciful One called it!

And the Torah thereby included this heifer among those things disqualified by factors that disqualify an offering—for it was called a sin offering, the same designation as the offering!

However, this is difficult:

But if that is so,

if the heifer is disqualified by factors that disqualify offerings,

let it be disqualified

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

by

means of

“an abnormal birth” [

that is, the fetus emerged through the animal’s flank, by means of an incision or the like], since an offering born by an abnormal birth is disqualified?!

The Gemara discusses this:

And if you would say that this too is so,

and indeed a red heifer born by an abnormal birth is disqualified, this cannot be so!

For:

Why, then, was it taught

in a beraita —

If one consecrated

a red heifer

born by an abnormal birth, it is disqualified. And Rabbi Shimon

deems it fit.

And it is apparent from this that not everyone maintains that the status of a red heifer is identical to that of other offerings.

And if you would say

that even if we say that the statement of

Rabbi Shimon

that a heifer born by an abnormal birth is fit is

in accordance with his own opinion,

in accordance with his reasoning,

as

Rabbi Shimon says [with regard to a woman who gave birth to a fetus by an abnormal birth—Rabbi Shimon maintains that]:

An abnormal birth is a fully-fledged offspring

a superior offspring

it

is, like all offspring,

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

And Rabbi Shimon does not distinguish between an offering and a red heifer; rather, he maintains that even an offering is fit when born by an abnormal birth. The status of a red heifer is identical to that of an offering. -

This cannot be so!

And

behold,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Shimon conceded with regard to

offerings,

consecrated animals,

that

an offspring born by an abnormal birth—

is not consecrated!

If so, Rabbi Shimon maintains that although an animal born by an abnormal birth is disqualified as consecrated property, it is fit as a red heifer!

It is apparent that the status of a red heifer differs from that of an offering. The question therefore returns: Why is a red heifer born by an abnormal birth fit, whereas a heifer that was mated is disqualified? What is the distinction between these two disqualifications?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the reason that mating disqualifies a heifer is not that the heifer is called “a sin offering.” Certainly, the heifer is not included among property consecrated for the altar, but rather among property consecrated for Temple maintenance. Nevertheless, mating disqualifies it:

Rather,

the reason that mating disqualifies it is because

the

heifer

the red heifer is different,

since a blemish disqualifies it

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

and likewise

a matter of sexual transgression

[that is, mating],

and

so too

idolatry

[if it was worshipped],

also disqualify it

the red heifer, since corruption is juxtaposed with a blemish!

What is the source of this juxtaposition?

As it is written

with regard to offerings [Leviticus 22:25,

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

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

The beraita explains:

A matter of sexual transgression

is called corruption 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

is also called corruption,

as it is written [

Deuteronomy 4:16],

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

We therefore learn that idolatry and a matter of sexual transgression are called corruption, and corruption is juxtaposed with a blemish.

And

if so,

the heifer, too,

is likewise disqualified through mating. For

since a blemish disqualifies it—

a matter of sexual transgression and idolatry disqualify it.

The statement of Sheila, which explains Rabbi Eliezer’s view that one may not purchase an animal from gentiles for a red heifer, was cited above.

The Gemara discusses Sheila’s statement:

The matter 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 it is expounded as follows:

The Children of Israel shall take,

meaning that they shall take this heifer only from the Children of Israel,

and

not from

the idolaters shall they take.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But if that is so,

if, because it is stated “Speak to the Children of Israel, and they shall take for you,” one expounds that they take only from the Children of Israel and not from gentiles, this contradicts the following statement of the Gemara:

It is stated [Exodus 25:2,

“Speak to the Children of Israel, and they shall take an offering for Me,”]]

and ostensibly

so too here,

the same principle should apply here,

that

only

the Children of Israel shall take, and the idolaters shall not take.

And they should not take any of the materials for the Tabernacle from idolaters at all.

And if you would say

that

so too,

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

But Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They asked Rabbi Eliezer, “To what extent

must a person take care and exert himself in fulfilling 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 the gentile.