Avodah Zarah 24a (כד.) — the Talmud in English

And this is what happened:

Once, they sought

to purchase

stones

for the ephod

for six hundred thousand

dinars

as payment.

Rav Kahana taught

a different version, that

for eight hundred thousand

was the payment they sought to purchase from him.

And the keys

to the treasury in which the stones

were placed beneath his father’s head.

And his father was sleeping,

and Dama did not disturb him

He did not awaken him from his sleep. Although by doing so he forfeited all the great sum of money that they wished to give him for the stone!

And from this incident we see that precious stones are purchased from gentiles for the needs of the Tabernacle. Yet it is stated, “Speak to the Children of Israel, and let them take for Me an offering”?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed, at the beginning of the passage it says, “Let them take for Me an offering.” From this we learn that the items of the Tabernacle are purchased only from Jews.

However,

the shoham stones,

which are written after “Let them take for Me,” are written without the conjunctive vav. This teaches you that here

the subject breaks off .

That is, here the command prohibiting the taking of items from gentiles ends. The items of the Tabernacle mentioned from this point onward are not included in the law of “Let them take for you,” according to which they are purchased only from Jews; rather, it is permitted to purchase them even from gentiles.

The Gemara asks:

But,

yet

“and stones for setting”

[the word “and,” with a conjunctive vav,

is written

after “shoham stones,”

so it again joins them,

indicating that Scripture again joined the shoham stones with the items mentioned earlier, which are prohibited to take from gentiles. This proves that the shoham stones, too, may be taken only from Jews?!

Furthermore,

it is difficult, for

the latter clause teaches

at the end of the beraita:

The following year

there was born to him

to Dama ben Netina

a red heifer in his herd,

The Sages of Israel entered his home

in order to purchase it,

he said to them,

Dama ben Netina:

I know about you that if I were to ask you for all the money in the world—

for the red heifer—

you would give it to me!

Dama knew the value and importance that this heifer had for Israel.

Now I ask you for nothing but that money

which you wanted to give me for the stone, and

which I forfeited

it

for my father’s sake.

For I did not wish to awaken him. This proves that Rabbi Eliezer himself holds that a red heifer may be purchased from gentiles, contrary to the statement of Shila, who expounds Rabbi Eliezer’s verse “Let them take for Me” as prohibiting the purchase of a red heifer from gentiles.

The Gemara answers:

There

the heifer purchased from Dama

was bought through Jewish intermediaries.

It was purchased by Jewish merchants, who bought it from Dama. The community, in turn, purchased it from those Jews.

If so, Shila’s words are resolved. Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer expounds the verse “Let them take for you” to mean that they purchase only from Jews, and a heifer is not purchased from gentiles.

The Gemara raises an objection to Shila’s statement:

Is it so

that the reason of

Rabbi Eliezer

for not purchasing a heifer from gentiles is because it is written, “Let them take for you”?

Does Rabbi Eliezer

not take into consideration bestiality,

that is, does he not fear that the heifer may have been used for bestiality, and for that reason it is prohibited to purchase it from gentiles?

Yet it is proven that Rabbi Eliezer does take bestiality into consideration, from the following:

The Sages said to him,

the Sages

to Rabbi Eliezer: It once happened that they purchased it

the red heifer

from the gentile

whose name was Dama. And some say

[there are those who say]

his name was Ramtz.

This proves that a heifer may be purchased from gentiles, contrary to your statement, Rabbi Eliezer, that a heifer may not be purchased from non-Jews!

Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Is that proof?

For

Israel had guarded it,

that heifer, so that it would not be used for bestiality,

from the moment it was born!

It is thus proven that the reason Rabbi Eliezer prohibits purchasing an animal from gentiles is the concern of bestiality. Therefore, when it is guarded, there is no concern and it may be purchased.

It follows that this is contrary to Shila’s statement. Rabbi Eliezer does not prohibit the purchase itself from gentiles; rather, he prohibits it because of the concern of bestiality!

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Eliezer has two

two reasons

for this prohibition,

the prohibition against acquiring an animal from gentiles:

A.

Acquisition:

Since it is stated, “Speak to the Children of Israel, and let them take for you a red heifer,” Rabbi Eliezer expounds this to mean that a red heifer may be acquired only from Jews.

B.

And he is concerned

Rabbi Eliezer is concerned

also about bestiality!

For this reason he holds that the animal must be guarded from the moment it is born.

The Gemara discusses this.

The Master said: Israel had guarded it from the moment it was born.

And

it is difficult:

Let us be concerned

let us fear

perhaps

lest

they had used its mother for bestiality

they used the mother of this heifer for bestiality

when she was pregnant,

when she was carrying this fetus,

And from where do we know that this entails a deficiency?

For Rava said: The offspring of a goring animal

a cow that gored a Jew and killed him

is prohibited,

the offspring is prohibited as a sacrifice!

Because

it and its offspring—

both together—

gored.

Therefore, this offspring too has the status of a goring animal and is disqualified.

Likewise,

the offspring of an animal used for bestiality is prohibited.

Because

it and its offspring were used for bestiality!

If so, should we not be concerned here as well that its mother was used for bestiality?

The Gemara answers:

Say instead: Israel had guarded it

the red heifer

from the moment it was formed

in its mother’s womb. If so, its mother too was not used for bestiality.

The Gemara discusses this:

And let us be concerned, perhaps

let us fear lest

they used its mother for bestiality

the mother of this heifer

originally,

before she became pregnant; and according to Rabbi Eliezer, if the mother is prohibited, the offspring too is prohibited.

Rabbi Eliezer’s view is explained in this Mishna:

As we learned: All those disqualified for the altar,

such as through bestiality or through having been used in idolatrous worship—

their offspring are permitted. And it was taught concerning it,

they taught concerning that Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer prohibits them!

If so, this heifer too, although it was guarded from the moment it was formed, should be prohibited, lest its mother had already become prohibited before this heifer was formed.

The Gemara discusses this:

That works

this objection is not difficult

according to

the view of

Rava.

Since

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said:

the

dispute

between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages applies only

when they were used for bestiality

the mothers

when they were

already

consecrated.

Only then does Rabbi Eliezer prohibit the offspring.

But

if the mothers were used for bestiality

when they were unconsecrated

and had not yet been consecrated—

everyone agrees that they are permitted.

But according to

the view of

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana, who said in the name of Rav Naḥman,

who hold that the

dispute

between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages applies even

when they were used for bestiality while unconsecrated,

and even then Rabbi Eliezer prohibits the offspring,

but when they were consecrated—

everyone agrees that they are prohibited,

what can be said?

What benefit is there in guarding the offspring from the moment of its formation? Its mother may have been used for bestiality [while she was unconsecrated], and it is prohibited?

The Gemara resolves this:

Say instead,

that we should say that

Israel had guarded it

the mother

from the moment it was formed.

Consequently, there is no concern that its mother was used for bestiality either.

The Gemara objects:

And let us be concerned, perhaps

let us fear lest

they used the mother of its mother for bestiality

the grandmother of the heifer, for this is disgraceful even for its daughter?

The Gemara answers:

All this

all of this—

we do not take into consideration!

The Master said

in the Gemara’s answer above:

Israel had guarded it

the heifer

from the moment it was formed

in its mother’s womb.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where do we know

that a red heifer would be born from this animal, so that it was necessary to guard it already from that moment?

Rav Kahana said: They would pass a red cup

that is, they

would pass it before her

before the mother

when a male mounted her,

and she was likely to become pregnant by him. By passing the cup before her, the offspring too would become red.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if the offspring becomes red by passing a cup before the mother,

why is its value

that of the heifer

so high,

since it is easy to produce a red heifer?

The Gemara answers:

Since

if

two hairs

black or white are found on the heifer, these two hairs

disqualify it

from being a red heifer. Therefore its value is high, since a heifer without even two such hairs is extremely rare!

The Gemara discusses this:

And what is different about theirs,

why did they pass a red cup before the animal of Dama ben Netina, who was a gentile, and therefore need to guard it continuously, rather than pass this cup before an animal belonging to a Jew?

Rav Kahana said—

It was established.

The case involved Dama ben Netina’s possession of a breed of cows known to give birth to a red heifer when a cup was passed before them.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa sat

they sat

at the entrance

at the entranceway, in the house

of Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa.

One of them began

one of them

and said: Rabbi Eliezer likewise disqualified

animals purchased from gentiles for all the sacrifices. For Rabbi Eliezer was concerned that the animals might have been used for bestiality.

Another of the two began with one of them

the second of the two

and said: What did they challenge him with

what did they answer him

his colleagues

his colleagues

Rabbi Eliezer

in opposition to his statement?

They answered him as follows: It is stated [Isaiah 60:7

“All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you, and so on.”

It emerges from Isaiah’s prophecy that, in the future, animals will be taken from gentiles for sacrifices, which is difficult for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion

Rabbi Eliezer said to them:

This is not a proof, since

all

all the gentiles

will be dragged converts

they will come and, of their own accord, drag themselves into conversion

in the future. Although they will not be accepted. Consequently, their animals will not be the animals of gentiles

!

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse

from which you learn that this will indeed be so

as it is stated [Zephaniah 3:9]:

“For then I will transform the peoples to a pure language

to have them all call upon the name of the Lord

Abaye said to him:

From this verse you learn that they will repent of idolatry and call upon the name of the Lord.

But perhaps

it is possible that only

they will repent of idolatry

[they will repent of it], but they will not repent of sexual transgressions. Once again, there is reason to fear that their animals may have been used for bestiality. How, then, will they accept them as sacrifices

Rav Yosef said to him: “To serve Him with one accord,” it is written.

[There]. This indicates that there is no difference among all those who serve the Lord; rather, Israel and the nations will all serve Him with one accord and will be equal in the observance of all the mitzvot. Consequently, they will abstain from sexual transgressions

Rav Pappa taught it this way.

Rav Pappa taught this incident as follows: One sage said this, and the other responded to him in this manner.

But

if

Rav Zevid taught it this way

he taught this incident as follows:

And both of them said,

both Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said

and this is how Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify animals for all sacrifices.

And both of them

both Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa

said: And what did his colleagues challenge him with

what did they answer him

his colleagues

Rabbi Eliezer? -

“All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you,” and so on.

And concerning this

Rabbi Eliezer said in response: They will all be dragged converts in the future.

And what is the verse

that indicates that this will indeed be so

as it is stated:

“For then I will transform the peoples to a pure language, to have them all call upon the name of the Lord.”

Rav Yosef strongly objected to this: But perhaps

only

they will repent of idolatry

they will repent of it, but they will not repent of sexual transgressions

Abaye said to him:

It is stated there:

“To serve Him with one accord,” it is written.

This indicates that there is no difference among those who serve the Lord. The gentiles will serve Him like Israel, with regard to all His mitzvot, and will abstain from transgressions. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that animals are not brought for sacrifices from gentiles: This is how Rashi explained it. The Maharsha explained: “To serve Him with one accord” means to serve Him with one portion of the Torah. Since the converts will not be accepted in the future, they will not be able to serve Him through all His mitzvot, as Israel does. Rather, they will serve Him through that portion of the Torah which they will be able to observe. The prohibition against bestiality is included in that portion which they will observe, since the descendants of Noah were already commanded concerning it.

It was objected:

It is stated [Exodus 10:25

“And you too shall give into our hands sacrifices and burnt offerings.”

These words were said by Moses to Pharaoh. It is proven that animals are taken from gentiles for sacrifices

The Gemara rejects this

Before the giving of the Torah—

it is different,

since the matter had not yet been prohibited.

The Gemara brings another proof that sacrifices are brought from gentiles

Come and hear:

[Exodus 18:12]

“And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God,”

which proves that a sacrifice was brought from Jethro, who was a gentile.

The Gemara rejects this

Jethro too

he as well

was before the giving of the Torah.

Consequently, no proof can be brought from this that an animal belonging to a gentile may be brought as a sacrifice.

Regarding Jethro, the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagreed in tractate Zevaḥim 116a as to whether Jethro came to Moses before the giving of the Torah or after the giving of the Torah.

The Gemara now discusses

This works well according to the one who says

who maintains that

Jethro’s arrival was before the giving of the Torah,

and consequently there was no impediment to accepting an animal from him for a sacrifice.