Avodah Zarah 24a — the Talmud in English

And this was the incident:

Once they sought

to purchase

stones from him

for the ephod ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

for six hundred thousand

dinars

as payment.

Rav Kahana taught

a 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

were placed beneath his father’s head.

And his father was sleeping,

and Dama did not distress him

He did not awaken him from his sleep, even though as a result of this he lost all the great sum of money that they wished to give him for the stone!

And from this incident we see that they purchase precious stones for the Tabernacle from gentiles, even though it is stated, “Speak to the Children of Israel, and let them take for Me a donation”?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed, at the beginning of the passage it is stated, “And let them take for Me a donation.” And from this we learn that the items of the Tabernacle are purchased only from Israelites.

However,

the shoham stones,

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

the matter was interrupted . That is, here the commandment prohibiting taking items from gentiles was interrupted. And the items of the Tabernacle stated from here onward are not included in the law of “and they shall take for you,” that they are purchased only from Israelites; rather, it is permitted to purchase them even from gentiles.

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,

for behold,

“and stones of settings” [“and stones,” with a conjunctive vav]

[the word “and stones,” with a connecting vav]

is written

after “shoham stones,”

for it returned and joined them,

so the verse again joined the shoham stones with the first items that are prohibited to take from gentiles. And it is proven that even shoham stones are taken only from Israelites?!

And furthermore,

it is difficult, for

it teaches in the latter part

at the end of the beraita,

in another year

there was born to him

to Dama son of Natinah

a red heifer in his herd,

The Sages of Israel entered to him

in order to purchase it,

he said to them,

Dama son of Natinah:

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 only for that money

that you wished to give me for the stone, and

that I lost

it

for my father’s sake.

For I did not wish to awaken him. And it is proven that Rabbi Eliezer himself holds that they purchase a red heifer from gentiles, and not in accordance with Shila’s statement, that Rabbi Eliezer expounds the verse “and let them take for Me” to prohibit purchasing a red heifer from gentiles.

And the Gemara answers:

There,

the heifer purchased from Dama,

they purchased through Israelite intermediaries.

It was purchased by Jewish merchants who bought it from Dama, whereas the public purchased it from those Israelites.

And if so, Shila’s words are resolved. Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer expounds the verse “and they shall take for you,” whose meaning is that they purchase only from Israelites, and they do not purchase a heifer from gentiles.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Shila’s words:

And is it so that

the reason of

Rabbi Eliezer

that they do not purchase a heifer from gentiles is because it is written, “and they shall take for you”?

Does Rabbi Eliezer

not fear bestiality,

that he does not fear lest the heifer had been used for intercourse, and because of this it is prohibited to purchase it from gentiles?

But it is proven that Rabbi Eliezer does fear bestiality—from this:

And it was taught in a beraita, they said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi Eliezer: It once happened that they purchased it

the red heifer

from the idolater

and Dama was his name. And some say

there are those who say

Ramtz was his name.

And it is proven that they purchase a heifer from gentiles, and not as you say, Rabbi Eliezer, that a heifer is not purchased from gentiles!

Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Is that a proof?

For

Israelites guarded it,

that same heifer, so that they would not use it for intercourse,

from the time it was born!

And it is proven that the reason Rabbi Eliezer prohibits purchasing an animal from gentiles is the concern of bestiality. Therefore, when they guard it, there is no concern and it is possible to purchase it.

And it follows from this that it is not in accordance with Shila’s words. Rabbi Eliezer does not prohibit the purchase itself from gentiles, but because of the concern of bestiality!

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Eliezer has two

two reasons

for this,

for this prohibition of taking an animal from gentiles:

A.

Taking,

because it is stated, “Speak to the Children of Israel, and they shall take for you a red heifer,” and Rabbi Eliezer expounds that a red heifer is taken only from an Israelite.

B.

And he also fears

Rabbi Eliezer fears

bestiality!

And for this reason he holds that the animal must be guarded from the time it is born.

And the Gemara discusses this.

The Master said: Israelites guarded it from the time it was born.

And

it is difficult:

Let us be concerned

let us fear

lest

perhaps

they used the mother for intercourse

they used this heifer’s mother for intercourse

when she was pregnant,

at the time when she was pregnant,

And from where is it established that this is a deficiency?

For Rava said: The offspring of one that gored

a cow that gored an Israelite and killed him

is prohibited,

the offspring is prohibited for a sacrifice!

Because

it and its offspring—

the two of them together—

gored.

Therefore, this offspring too has the status of one that gored, and is disqualified.

And likewise,

the offspring of one used for intercourse is prohibited.

Because

it and its offspring were used for intercourse!

If so, let us also be concerned here that its mother was used for intercourse?

The Gemara answers:

Say: Israelites guarded it

the red heifer

from the time it was formed

in its mother’s womb. And if so, its mother too was not used for intercourse.

And the Gemara discusses:

And let us be concerned lest

we fear perhaps

they used the mother for intercourse

of this heifer

at the outset,

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

And Rabbi Eliezer’s position is explained in this Mishna:

As we learned: All those disqualified with regard to the altar,

such as through intercourse or because they were used for idolatry—

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

they taught concerning that Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer prohibits!

And if so, this heifer too, although they guarded it from the time it was formed, should be prohibited, lest its mother was prohibited even before it was formed.

And the Gemara discusses:

That works,

this question is not difficult

for the

view

of Rava.

Since

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman,

the

dispute

between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages is only

when they were used for intercourse

the mothers

when they were

already

consecrated.

Only then does Rabbi Eliezer prohibit the offspring.

But

if the mothers were used for intercourse

when they were non-sacred

and had not yet been consecrated—

according to everyone, they are permitted.

But for the

view of

Rav Huna bar Hinena in the name of Rav Naḥman,

who hold that the

dispute

between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages applies even if

when they were used for intercourse while non-sacred,

and even then Rabbi Eliezer prohibits the offspring.

But when they are consecrated—

according to everyone they are prohibited,

what is there to say?

What benefit is there in guarding the offspring from the time of its formation? It is possible that its mother was used for intercourse [while she was non-sacred], and it is prohibited?

The Gemara establishes it:

Say,

let it be said that

Israelites guarded it

the mother

from the time it was formed.

And consequently, there is no concern that its mother was used for intercourse either.

And the Gemara objects:

And let us be concerned lest

we fear perhaps

they used the mother of the mother for intercourse,

the mother of the mother, for this is disgraceful even for her daughter?

The Gemara answers:

All this

all of this—

we do not fear!

The Master said

in the Gemara’s answer above:

Israelites guarded it

the heifer

from the time it was formed

in its mother’s womb.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where do we know,

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

Rav Kahana said: A red cup

they would

pass before it

before the mother

when a male mounted it,

and she was likely to become pregnant from him. And through passing the cup, the offspring too became red.

And the Gemara asks:

If so,

if the offspring becomes red through passing a cup,

why is its price

of the heifer

so high,

for it can easily be made into a red heifer?

The Gemara answers:

Since

if there are found on the heifer

two hairs

that are black or white, these two hairs

disqualify it

from being a red heifer. And for this reason its price is high, since a heifer such as this, which does not have even two hairs, is very rare!

And the Gemara discusses:

And what is different about theirs,

why did they pass a red cup before the animal of Dama son of Natinah, who was a gentile, and for this reason they had to guard it all the time, and did they not pass this cup before an Israelite’s animal?

Rav Kahana said—

It was one with an established presumption.

It means that in Dama son of Natinah’s possession there was a family of cows presumed to give birth to a red heifer through the passing of a cup.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa sat

sitting

at the entrance

at the entryway, in the house

of Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa.

One of them opened

one of them

and said: And likewise Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify

animals purchased from gentiles, for all sacrifices. For Rabbi Eliezer was concerned lest the animals had been used for intercourse.

The other of the two began from among them

the second of the two

and said: What did they object to him

what did they answer him

his colleagues

his colleagues

to Rabbi Eliezer

against his words?

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

“All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you, etc.”]]This emerges from Isaiah’s prophecy: In the future, they will take animals from the gentiles for sacrifice, and this is difficult for Rabbi Eliezer’s view

?

Rabbi Eliezer said to them:

This is not a proof. Since

all of them,

all the gentiles

are dragged-along converts

they will come and drag themselves into conversion

in the future.

Even though they will not accept them. And consequently, their animals will not be animals of gentiles!

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse

from where do you learn that this will indeed be so

?

As it is stated: “For then I shall turn to the peoples a clear language

to call all in the name of Hashem”!

Abaye said to him:

From this verse you learn that they return from idolatry and call in the name of Hashem.

But perhaps

it is possible that only

from idolatry do they return from it

[they return from it], but from acts of forbidden sexual relations they will not return from them. And again there is concern lest their animals have been used for bestiality. And how will they accept them for sacrifice?

Rav Yosef said to him: “To serve Him shoulder to shoulder” is written.

[There]. And it is implied that there is no difference among all those who serve Hashem; rather, Israel and the nations will all serve Him shoulder to shoulder, and they will be equal in the fulfillment of all the mitzvot. And consequently, they will separate themselves from forbidden sexual relations.

Rav Pappa taught it this way.

This incident, which we related as follows—that one said this and the other answered him thus—Rav Pappa would teach in this manner.

And

if

Rav Zevid taught it this way

he taught this incident as follows:

And both of them said,

both Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥ said

and so Rabbi Eliezer would invalidate [an animal] for all the sacrifices.

And both of them

both Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥ

said: And what did they object to him

what did they answer him

his colleagues

to Rabbi Eliezer? -

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

And concerning this

Rabbi Eliezer said, answering: All of them are dragged-along converts in the future.

And what is its verse

what is the source that this will indeed be so

? -

As it is stated: “For then I shall turn to the peoples a clear language, to call all in the name of Hashem.”

Rav Yosef challenged this: But perhaps

perhaps only

from idolatry do they return from it

they return from it. But from acts of forbidden sexual relations they will not return from them

Abaye said to him:

It is stated there

“To serve Him shoulder to shoulder” is written.

And it is implied that there is no distinction or difference among those who serve Hashem. And the gentiles will serve Him like Israel in all His mitzvot, and they will separate themselves from transgressions. The Gemara objects to Rabbi Eliezer’s words, that animals are not brought for sacrifice from gentiles: Rav Pappa taught it this way.

It was objected:

It is stated [Exodus 10:25

“And Moses said: You too shall place in our hands sacrifices and burnt offerings.”]]These words were said by Moses to Pharaoh. And it is proven that animals are taken for sacrifice from gentiles!

The Gemara rejects this:

Before the giving of the Torah—

it is different,

since the matter had not yet been prohibited.

And the Gemara brings proof that sacrifices are brought from gentiles:

Come and hear: [Exodus 18:12]

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

And it is proven that a sacrifice was brought from Jethro, who was a gentile.

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

This proves that an offering was brought from Jethro, who was a gentile.

The Gemara rejects this:

Jethro too

he too

was before the giving of the Torah.

Consequently, there is no proof from this that a sacrifice is brought from an animal belonging to a gentile.

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

And now the Gemara discusses:

This works out according to the one who says

who holds that the coming of

Jethro was before the giving of the Torah,

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