Avodah Zarah 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

But according to the one who says

Jethro was after

the giving of the Torah,

and by then the animals of the Gentiles had already been prohibited,

what can be said?

How did they accept the offering from him?

It necessarily follows from this that animals are taken from Gentiles, contrary to the words of Rabbi Eliezer?!

The Gemara answers:

Rather, Jethro

bought it from a Jew

He purchased his animal from a Jew and brought that animal as an offering. Indeed, animals are not brought from Gentiles.

The Gemara brings proof from other sources that animals are brought from Gentiles:

Ta shma:

It is stated [I Samuel 15:15]:

“Saul said: They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared

the best of the sheep and cattle

(the rams and lambs and all the sheep), in order to slaughter them as offerings to the Lord your God.”

This implies that offerings may be brought from the animals of the Amalekites.

The Gemara rejects this proof by examining the wording of the verse. It states in this verse: “the best of the sheep and cattle.”

What is meant by “the best”?

It does not mean that they used the finest animals themselves, but

the value of the best

animals: They sold the finest animals, and with the proceeds they purchased animals for an offering.

And

if so,

what is different

What is distinctive about

the best

animals, such that specifically they were sold for the money needed for the offerings? —

So that

in order

a sale would be made for them

. Customers would rush to buy these animals, since they were the finest. In this way there would be money with which to purchase animals for an offering from a Jew.

And the Gemara brings another proof:

Ta shma:

It is stated [I Samuel 24:22]

it is stated [II Samuel 24:22]:

“Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer up whatever is good in his eyes; see, there are cattle for the burnt offering, and the threshing boards and the cattle yokes for wood.”

Araunah was a Jebusite prince, and he was a Gentile. David took from him the needs of the altar and the offerings. This proves that animals are taken from a Gentile for an offering.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Naḥman said: Araunah

was a resident alien

.

He had accepted upon himself the seven mitzvot of the descendants of Noah, including the prohibition against mating animals! The Gemara discusses this: It is stated in the verse cited above: “See, there are cattle for the burnt offering and the threshing boards.”

What is

what is meant by

the threshing boards?

Ulla said: A board of a turbil!

The Gemara discusses this:

What is

what is meant by

a board of a turbil?

It answers:

Eiza

a large board [made for threshing],

dekuraksa

whose underside is filled with dense, deep notches,

dedayeshan —

on this board the animals walk, and the notches penetrate the threshing floor, causing the grain to be threshed.

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse?

What is the source that this is indeed the meaning of “the threshing boards”?

The answer: It is stated [Isaiah 41:15]:

“Behold, I have made you a sharp new threshing board with double-edged blades; you shall thresh mountains and crush them, and you shall make hills like chaff.”

“A sharp threshing board” means one filled with notches, that is, grooves. These notches are the “blades,” and they are made to thresh mountains.

Meytivi,

it is stated [I Samuel 6:14]:

“And they offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord.”

These cows were sent by the Philistines when they returned the Ark of the Lord. When the cows and the cart carrying the Ark arrived at the house of Beth-shemesh, the people of Beth-shemesh offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord.

This is difficult: How could they offer as a burnt offering animals that had come from the Philistines?

The Gemara answers:

It was an extraordinary ruling!

Ordinarily, animals from Gentiles are not offered. However, a miracle was performed with these cows, and therefore they offered them.

The Gemara proves that this was indeed an extraordinary ruling:

This is also logical,

this is indeed logical.

For if you do not say this

if you do not say that this was an extraordinary ruling, but rather that this is the law in every case, is there

a female burnt offering?

After all, a burnt offering comes only from a male, whereas here they offered cows?!

The Gemara rejects this:

And what difficulty

is this?

Perhaps

the bama on which they offered these burnt offerings permitted even a female burnt offering, because

it was a private bama

[not a communal bama, and it was permitted to offer offerings upon it during the period when the bama was permitted—that is, when there was no Temple, or when the Ark of the Lord was not located in the Tent of Meeting].

And on a private bama, even a female burnt offering could be offered!

And

the view

of Rav Adda bar Ahava. For Rav Adda bar Ahava said: From where do we know that a

offering

burnt offering

of the

female sex is valid on a private bama—

as it is stated [I Samuel 7:9]

(I Samuel 7:9):

“Samuel took a nursing lamb and offered it as a burnt offering.”

A nursing lamb is a ewe that is nursing her young and producing milk, and therefore it is female!

This proves that on a private bama, a female burnt offering may be offered.

The Gemara asks: Surely from the wording

“and he offered it”—

it indicates a male, since

it is not written vaya'aleh, “and he offered it” in the feminine, but vaya'alehu, “and he offered him,” in the masculine?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Vaya'aleh is written,

and it is female!

Consequently, no proof can be brought from here that offering the Philistines’ cows was an extraordinary ruling, since offering a female burnt offering is part of the laws of a private bama.

Above [22b], we raised the contradiction between our Mishna, which prohibits placing animals in the inns of idolaters because they are suspected of mating animals, and the statement of the beraita permitting one to take an animal from Gentiles for an offering, without concern that it may have been used for mating.

The Gemara brings an answer to this difficulty:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Not all animals are the same with regard to being rendered unfit through mating; rather,

there is a limit

[a distinction]

to it

for an animal, as follows.

An animal

less than three years old—

is rendered unfit

through mating with a person. Therefore, its owner takes pity on it and does not mate with it. Consequently, it is permitted to take for an offering only an animal less than three years old,

whereas

an animal three years old or older—

is not rendered unfit.

Therefore, one is not concerned about mating with it.

The Gemara’s difficulty is thus resolved: The permission to take an animal from Gentiles for an offering applies only to an animal less than three years old. But an animal more than three years old is prohibited, since there is indeed concern that it was used for mating.

He challenged him,

they raised against this

all these refutations

all the difficulties from the verses cited above in the Gemara, which imply that it is permitted to take an animal from Gentiles. The difficulty now is: What will Rabbi Yoḥanan answer concerning them, since according to his words the animals of Gentiles were not permitted?

He answered them,

Rabbi Yoḥanan answered them: In all these cases, the animals were

less than three years old.

Ritva asked: Although in the cases mentioned in the verses there is no concern about mating, should there not nevertheless be concern that the animals had been set aside for idolatrous use or worshipped? [The statement of the Gemara above, 22b—“If he had set it aside and worshipped it, he would not have sold it”—does not apply here, since in these cases the animals did not come to the Jew through a sale. Rather, there were special reasons for bringing the animals to the Jews.] Ritva answered: There is concern about an animal set aside for idolatrous use or worshipped only in a place where this practice is especially common. In general, there is no such concern, since it is not the practice of most people.

Ta shma: “And they offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord.”

The ages of these cows are not known, and it is possible that they were mature?

The Gemara answers: Even in the case of these cows, they were

less than three years old!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, raised an objection to this:

If so,

that is

after all, concerning those very cows it is stated later in the same verse:

“And their young they confined in the house,”

they left the young of those cows confined in the house.

And

if an animal

less than three years old, can it give birth

does it give birth ? The Gemara brings proof that indeed a cow less than three years old does not give birth:

The Gemara brings proof that a cow less than three years old does not give birth:

But we learned

we learned the following A Jew who purchased

a cow or donkey

from a Gentile, and the cow gave birth. There is now uncertainty whether this birth was its first, in which case the firstborn belongs to a koэн, or whether the cow had already given birth. This offspring is not a firstborn.

The law is as follows: If the offspring was born

from

a cow that was

three years old

and no older, it is

certainly

a firstborn, since it is impossible for it to give birth before the age of three, and the offspring belongs

to a koэн.

However, if the birth occurred

from that point onward,

when the animal was more than three years old, it is a

doubtful case.

Since it is possible that it had already given birth in the Gentile’s house, this offspring is not a firstborn.

This is difficult: It cannot be established that the cows sent by the Philistines were less than three years old, since they had already given birth. The difficulty therefore remains concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words: How could they offer these cows as burnt offerings, when they were more than three years old?!

The Gemara answers:

Rather, it is clear

the clear and evident answer that can be given to this difficulty

as we explained initially.

As we explained above: this was a temporary ruling.

And in fact, animals are never offered from gentiles when the animal is older than three years.

The Gemara continues discussing the cows that the Philistines sent to carry the Ark and return it to Israel.

It is stated [I Samuel 6:12]:

“And the cows went straight along the road, on the road to Beth-shemesh,” and so on.

The Gemara asks:

What

is the meaning of

“and they went straight”?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: They said

the cows

a song!

And the cows sang this song to the Lord because He had greatly exalted Himself by stretching out His hand against the Philistines and against their god Dagon.

And Rav Zutra bar Tuvya said in the name of Rav: The cows straightened their faces toward the Ark—

and they said a song.

The Raavad wrote: I am perplexed: If the cows said a song in their own language, who reported this song? And if they opened their mouths and spoke in the Holy Tongue, why do we not consider the opening of the cows’ mouths as we considered the opening of the donkey’s mouth, among the ten things created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight? One may answer that they said it in their own language, and someone there understood the language of the cows, as it says [Sukkah 28a]: “Like Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who knew the conversation of palm trees.” And the Ritva wrote that the cows said the song in the Holy Tongue itself. This is the subject of the dispute in the Gemara: what did the cows say? The reason this is not mentioned together with the other miracles created on the eve of Shabbat is that the mouth of the donkey has already been mentioned in the Torah, and it is the source for all similar occurrences.

And what

is the

song

that they

said?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir:

Their song was as follows: [Exodus 15:1]

“Then Moses and the children of Israel will sing,” and so on,

according to the order of the song.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan himself

on his own initiative

said:

Their song was as follows: It is stated [Isaiah 12:4]:

“And you shall say on that day: Give thanks to the Lord, call upon His Name;

make known His deeds among the nations,”

and so on.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: An orphaned psalm

[an orphaned psalm,

whose author is not mentioned ].

And this was their song—it is stated [Psalms 98:1]:

“A psalm. Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has performed wonders; His right hand and His holy arm

have saved Him.”

So Rashi explained. And Rabbenu Hananel added that this psalm is orphaned because “a psalm for thanksgiving” is not stated in it, nor is “a psalm, a song” stated in it, nor is “a psalm of David” stated in it. Also, it is not known who said it, and it is not known concerning which event it was said. The Maharal wrote [Ḥidushei Aggadot]: According to the one who says “an orphaned psalm,” the meaning is a psalm that is inclusive [that is, one whose author is not mentioned]. Therefore, this psalm applies to the community as a whole, to every miracle that the Holy One, blessed be He, performs, since the psalm encompasses them all. This is appropriate for the cows, because no particular matter is applicable specifically to an animal. Therefore, in this psalm, “Sing to Him a new song, for He has performed wonders” means that one should sing over the miracle performed by the Holy One, blessed be He. Thus it is an orphaned psalm: the name of its author is not mentioned, so that it would not be associated specifically with him, end quote. The Maharsha explained: After Israel fell in battle and the Ark was captured, the Holy One, blessed is He, performed wonders, and His right hand saved Him—to take the Ark from the hands of the Philistines. Through this, the Lord made His salvation known before the eyes of the nations and revealed His righteousness. And this psalm concludes with “Together the mountains shall sing before the Lord, for He has come, etc.”—that is, the Ark of the Lord has come—from the land of the Philistines!

Rabbi Elazar said:

Their song was [Psalms 99:1]:

“The Lord reigns; the nations tremble,

He sits above the cherubim; the earth quakes.” They were referring to the Philistines, who trembled because of the plague of hemorrhoids with which the Lord struck them for having captured the Ark. The Maharal wrote [Ḥidushei Aggadot]: He was striking the nations, and this caused them to return the Ark. Therefore, the song was sung over this. This is what is written here, that they said, “The Lord reigns; the nations tremble.”

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said:

Their song was [Psalms 93:1]:

“The Lord reigns; He has clothed Himself with grandeur.”

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said:

Their song was—

“Sing, sing, acacia tree

[this is the Ark, made of acacia wood],

rise aloft

[lift yourself up]

along the great road, banded with embroidered gold

[for the Ark was overlaid with gold inside and outside],

praised in the inner chamber of the palace

[the Torah scroll of Moses was inside the palace. And the Ark takes pride only in what is inside it!],

and adorned with the finest ornaments—

[there is no ornament or adornment greater than this!]”

Rav Ashi taught it

that he transmitted these words of song

of Rabbi Yitzḥak

Nappaḥa,

with regard to

this verse:

It is stated [Numbers 10:35]:

“And it was, when the Ark traveled, Moses said: Arise, Lord.”

And one must ask:

What did Israel say

in response to Moses?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “Sing, sing, acacia tree”

and so on.

This song was said by the children of Israel in response to the song “And it was, when the Ark traveled.”

Rav said: On what basis did the Persians call

what is the source for the Persians’ calling

the scroll

a book

devir?

The answer is:

From here!

It is stated [Judges 1:11]:

“And the name of Devir formerly was Kiriath-sefer,”

indicating that the word “devir” appears in place of “sefer.”

Rav Ashi said:

On what basis did the Persians call

what is the source for the Persians’ calling

a menstruating woman—

dishtana?

The answer is:

From here,

from this verse: It is stated [Genesis 31:35]:

“For the way of women is upon me,”

and the word “dishtana” is an acronym for derekh nashim.