Avodah Zarah 24b — the Talmud in English

But according to the one who says ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

that Jethro came after

the giving of the Torah,

and after gentile animals had already been prohibited,

what can be said?

How did they accept the sacrifice from him?

It must therefore be proven from this that animals were indeed taken from gentiles, contrary to the statement 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 a sacrifice. Indeed, animals are not brought from gentiles.

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

Come and hear a proof:

it is stated (I Samuel 15:15):

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

the best of the sheep and cattle

(the young sheep and oxen, and all the sheep) in order to sacrifice to the Lord your God.”

This indicates that sacrifices may be brought from animals belonging to the Amalekites.

The Gemara rejects this proof by carefully examining the wording of the verse. The verse says: “the best of the sheep and cattle.”

What does “the best” mean?

It does not mean that they used the best animals themselves. Rather, it means

the value of the best animals

—they sold the best animals, and with the proceeds they bought animals for sacrifices.

And

if so,

what is different about

the

best

animals, that they specifically sold those animals in order to obtain the money for the sacrifices? —

So that

in order

a sale would leap upon them

.

That is, so that customers would rush to buy these animals because they were the best. In this way, there would be money with which to buy animals for sacrifices from Jews.

The Gemara brings another proof:

Come and hear a proof:

it is stated [II Samuel 24:22]:

“Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer whatever is good in his eyes. See, the cattle for the burnt-offering, and the threshing boards and the implements of the cattle for wood.”

Araunah was a Jebusite leader, and he was a gentile. David took from him the requirements for the altar and the sacrifices. This proves that animals may be taken from a gentile for a sacrifice.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Naḥman said: Araunah

was a resident convert

.

He had accepted upon himself the seven Noahide mitzvot, and the prohibition against mating animals was included among them! The Gemara discusses this: The verse cited above says, “See, the cattle for the burnt-offering and the threshing boards.”

What

does

“threshing boards” mean?

Ulla said: A board belonging to a threshing sledge!

The Gemara discusses this:

What

does

“a board belonging to a threshing sledge” mean?

It answers:

Ezah

—a large board [used for threshing],

dekureksa

whose underside is filled with closely spaced, deep indentations,

of threshing—the animals walk over this board, and the indentations cut into the grain on the threshing floor, causing the grain to be threshed.

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

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

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

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

“A threshing board with sharp edges” means one filled with indentations—that is, grooves. These indentations are the sharp edges, and they are made for threshing mountains.

They raise an objection from a source:

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 reached Beth-shemesh, the people of Beth-shemesh offered the cows as a burnt-offering to the Lord.

The difficulty is: How could they offer as a burnt-offering animals that had come from the Philistines?

The Gemara answers:

It was a temporary divine instruction!

In general, animals from gentiles are not sacrificed. However, a miracle occurred through these cows, and therefore they sacrificed them.

The Gemara proves that this was indeed a temporary divine instruction:

This is also logically compelling,

as is indeed reasonable.

For if you do not say this,

if you do not say that this was a temporary divine instruction, but rather that this is always the law, then

is there such a thing as a female burnt-offering?

After all, a burnt-offering is brought only from a male, whereas here they sacrificed cows?!

The Gemara rejects this:

But what difficulty is this?

What is the basis for the question?

Perhaps

the altar platform on which they offered these burnt-offerings permitted even a female burnt-offering to be sacrificed, because

it was a private altar

—that is, it was not a public altar, and sacrifices could be offered upon it during the period when private altars were permitted. This means a time when there was no Temple, or when the Ark of the Lord was not in the Tent of Meeting.

And on a private altar, even a female burnt-offering may be offered!

And this accords

with the view

of Rav Adda bar Ahava, who said: From where do we know that a

sacrifice of a

burnt-offering

of the

female sex is valid on a private altar—

as it is stated

(I Samuel 7:9):

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

A nursing lamb is a ewe that nurses its offspring and produces milk, and therefore it is female!

This proves that a female burnt-offering may be offered on a private altar.

The Gemara asks: But the wording

“and he offered it”

indicates a male, since

the verse does not say vaya’aleh, “and he offered,” but vaya’alehu, “and he offered it,” in the masculine form?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “And he offered” is written,

and it was female!

It follows that this passage cannot prove that offering the Philistines’ cows was a temporary divine instruction, since offering a female burnt-offering is one of the laws governing a private altar.

Earlier [22b], we raised a contradiction between our Mishna, which prohibits leaving animals in the inns of idolaters because they are suspected of mating with the animals, and the statement of the beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, which permits taking an animal from gentiles for a sacrifice without concern that it was used for mating.

The Gemara brings an answer to this difficulty:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Not all animals are alike with regard to becoming physically damaged through mating. Rather,

there is a limit

—a distinction

for it

—as follows.

An animal

less than three years old

becomes physically damaged

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

but an animal

three years old or older

does not become physically damaged.

Therefore, the gentile is not concerned about mating with it.

The Gemara’s difficulty is thereby resolved: The permission to take an animal from gentiles for a sacrifice applies only to an animal less than three years old. An animal older than three years is prohibited, since there is indeed concern that it may have been used for mating.

They raised an objection to him:

They challenged this,

all these conclusive refutations

all the objections from the verses brought earlier in the Gemara, which indicate that it is permitted to take an animal from gentiles. Now the difficulty is: What will Rabbi Yoḥanan answer regarding them? According to his statement, animals belonging to gentiles were not generally permitted.

He answered them:

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

less than three years old.

Come and hear a proof: “And they offered the cows as a burnt-offering to the Lord.”

The ages of these cows are not known, and perhaps they were mature?

The Gemara answers: Even with regard to these cows, the verse is referring to cows

less than three years old!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, challenged this:

If so,

this is

the same matter, since concerning those cows it is stated later in the same verse:

“And they shut up their calves at home,”

meaning that they left the calves of those cows confined at home.

And

if an animal

less than three years old, can it give birth?

Does it give birth ?

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

But did we not learn

that the following was taught A Jew who purchased

a cow and a donkey

from a gentile, and the cow gave birth. There is now a doubt whether this was its first birth, in which case the firstborn belongs to a koen, or whether the cow had already given birth. This offspring is not treated as a firstborn.

The law is as follows: If the offspring was born

from

a cow that is

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 the koen.

However, if the birth took place

from that point onward,

when the animal was older than three years, it is

uncertain.

It is possible that the cow had already given birth while in the gentile’s possession, and this offspring is not a firstborn.

If so, there is a difficulty: It is impossible to say that the cows sent by the Philistines were less than three years old, since they had already given birth. This contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: How could they have offered these cows as burnt-offerings if 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

is as we answered initially.

As we explained above, that this was a temporary ruling.

And in all cases, animals are not sacrificed from gentiles when the animal is more than three years old.

The Gemara continues concerning 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 on the way, on the road to Beth-shemesh,” etc.

And the Gemara discusses:

What

is the meaning of

“and they went straight”?

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

the cows

a song!

And this song the cows sang to the Lord, because He is greatly exalted in stretching out His hand against the Philistines and against their god Dagon.

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

and they said a song.

And what

is the

song

that they

said?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir:

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

“Then Moses and the Children of Israel will sing,” etc.,

according to the order of the song.

And Rabbi Yohanan himself

of his own opinion

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 in His Name,

make known among the peoples His deeds,”

etc.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: An orphaned psalm

[an orphaned psalm,

because the name of its author was 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 the arm

of His holiness.”

Rabbi Elazar said:

Their song was: [Psalms 99:1]

“The Lord reigns; peoples tremble

who sits upon the cherubim; the earth quakes.” And their intention was to the Philistines, who trembled over the affliction of the hemorrhoids with which the Lord struck them because they had captured the Ark.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said:

Their song was: [Psalms 93:1]

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

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha said:

Their song was—

“Sing, sing, O acacia

[this is the Ark made of acacia wood],

rise up

[be elevated]

along the great road, girded with embroidered gold

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

praised in the innermost chamber of the palace

[the Torah scroll of Moses was inside the palace. And the Ark does not glory except in what is inside it!]

and glorified with the finest ornaments—

[you have no ornament and adornment greater than this!]”

Rav Ashi taught it

he would recite these words of the song

of Rabbi Yitzhak

Nappaha,

with regard to

this verse:

It is stated: [Numbers 10:35]

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

And one must ask:

What did Israel say

what did they answer after Moses?

Rabbi Yitzhak said: “Sing, sing, O acacia”

etc..

This song was said by the Children of Israel, corresponding to the song of “And it was, when the Ark traveled.”

Rav said: In accordance with whom did the Persians call

What is the source for the Persians calling

the book

a book

devir?

The answer:

From here!

It is stated: [Judges 1:11]

“And the name of Devir formerly was Kiryat-Sefer,”

so the word “devir” comes in place of “sefer.”

Rav Ashi said:

In accordance with whom did the Persians call

What is the source for the fact that the Persians called

a menstruating woman—

dashtana?

The answer:

From here

from this: it is stated—[Genesis 31:35]

“For the way of women is upon me,”

and the word “dashtana” is an acronym for the initial letters of derekh nashim.