Avodah Zarah 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

As

as it is written [

Numbers 21]:

“And our soul is disgusted

with this contemptible bread,”

and we interpret “contemptible” as an expression of “light, light,” meaning that it was absorbed into all their limbs, and they did not need to trouble themselves to walk a distance of three parasangs outside the camp in order to relieve themselves. This was a great benefit for them, yet Moses said to them: How can you complain and grumble about this?! This is ingratitude! You are

the children of ingrates,

the descendants of Adam, who denied the good done to him by the Holy One, blessed be He. He gave him the woman for his benefit and assistance, whereas Adam denied the good,

as it is written [

Genesis 3]: Adam said to the Holy One, blessed be He: “

The woman whom You gave to be with me—

she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

He should have said, “The woman gave me.” And we derive from his saying, “whom You gave to be with me,” that Adam attributed his failure to the gift of the Holy One, blessed be He.

The beraita continues and says:

Even Moses our Teacher,

did not take notice of this matter,

and he did not hint to Israel

these words of rebuke,

but

only

after forty years

that they had spent in the wilderness—

As it is stated [

Deuteronomy 29]: Moses our Teacher said to Israel:

“And I led you forty years in the wilderness.”

Thus, this passage was stated at the end of forty years.

And it is written,

that he said to them then:

“And the Lord has not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, until this day.”

Only today do you have a heart to know what the Holy One, blessed be He, asks of you. And Moses then said to them: Why did you not say, “You give it”!?

That is, only on this day did Moses remember to tell them that this involved the trait of “ingratitude.”

Rabba [

Rava]

said:

One can conclude from here that even Moses our Teacher did not understand this until forty years had passed, because

a person cannot stand upon the mind of his teacher

—a person cannot fully comprehend the mind of his teacher, to understand the ultimate depth of his thought and wisdom—

until

forty

years

have passed. Only after forty years of remaining with and serving his teacher can he descend to the depths of and understand his teacher’s ultimate intent.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of

the opinion of

Rabbi Bana’a: What

is the meaning of that

which is written [

Isaiah 32]:

“Fortunate are you who sow beside all waters, who send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey”?—

The plain meaning of the verse is: At the time of the redemption, you will sow in every place, even where there is no water, and you will send your animals there to graze, without concern that they will cause damage, because of the abundance of produce.

Fortunate are Israel! When they engage in Torah and acts of kindness—

their evil inclination

is

delivered into their hands, and they are not delivered into the hands of their evil inclination!

This is because of

what is stated

at the beginning of the verse:

“Fortunate are you who sow beside all waters,” and there is

no meaning of

“sowing” other than charity,

whose giving brings forth acts of kindness.

As it is stated [

Hosea 10]:

“Sow for yourselves charity, and reap according to kindness.” And there is

no meaning of

“waters”

other than Torah, as it is stated [

Isaiah 55]:

“Ho, everyone who thirsts, go to the waters.”

And the verse continues,

“who send forth the feet”—

these two matters, Torah and acts of kindness, send away and cast out the evil inclination, which is called “a traveler” [II Samuel 12], that is, the feet of the traveler.

And the verse continues and says,

“of the ox and the donkey,”

which are words of Torah—

As we learned,

the tanna of the school of Elijah said: A person should always make himself like an ox for the yoke and like a donkey for the burden,

to bear and endure the yoke of Torah and acts of kindness. That is, he accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Before the festivals of idolaters, it is prohibited to engage in business with them for three days, etc.”

It follows that three days before his festival, a gentile purchases an animal for the needs of his festival.

And we raise an objection:

Do we require all this time?

Is it necessary to prohibit this many days before his festival? Does a gentile really purchase an animal three days before his festival?

But we learned

in tractate Hullin [83a], concerning the concern that “it and its offspring” might be slaughtered on the same day, that a person purchases an animal for the festival only one day before the festival; therefore, only then is there concern that a person may slaughter it and its offspring on the same day. “

“It and its offspring” is a prohibition commanded by the Torah against slaughtering the mother and its offspring on the same day.

The prohibition against slaughtering applies specifically when it is known that one is the mother and the other is its offspring, for example, when the offspring follows after her. But if this is not known, one does not suspect every animal, wondering whether its mother or offspring was slaughtered today.

But there are particular times of year when people increase the slaughter of animals, and then there is greater reason for concern. This is what we learned:

At four periods

of the year,

one who sells an animal to another must inform him, “I sold its mother for slaughter,”

or

“I sold its daughter for slaughter,”

because at these times everyone who purchases an animal slaughters it that day. Therefore, he informs him, so that he will not violate the prohibition of “it and its offspring” if he indeed slaughters the second one that day.

And these are they:

The eve of the last Festival day of Sukkot,

the festival of

the eve of the first Festival day of Pesaḥ, and the eve of Shavuot

the Festival of Weeks,

and the eve of Rosh HaShana. And according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, also the eve of Yom Kippur,

but only

in the Galilee,

where they were accustomed to rejoice more.

On all these days, many animals are purchased and slaughtered for eating.

Thus, people purchase and prepare for the festival only one day in advance. If he sold it one day earlier, they did not require him to inform the purchaser; all the more so, they do not purchase three days in advance. And we answer: There, with regard to the festivals of Israel, when they purchase animals

for

the purpose of

eating—

it suffices

to

prepare

in one day

—in a single day it is sufficient to prepare the needs of the meal—

whereas

here,

with regard to the festival of the gentiles,

when

they purchase

for

the purpose of

sacrifice

for idolatry—

it is required

that the gentile search for an animal to purchase

for three days,

for three days.

And we raise an objection:

But

is

for sacrifice—

it sufficient

for

three days?!

But it was taught in a beraita: One begins studying the laws of Pesaḥ thirty days before Pesaḥ. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two weeks

three days?!

Thus, preparing the needs of the Paschal offering takes more than three days!

And we answer: We, we Israelites, who need to prepare Paschal offerings and are forbidden to bring one with a “blemish,”

because blemishes that invalidate it are common,

and animals with defects are found,

and even

a minor blemish, such as a blemish found

in the membranes of the eye,

also renders the animal unfit for sacrifice. Therefore,

it is required

to toil and search extensively, until

thirty days

—thirty days—

but

they,

the gentiles, whose festival offerings do not require animals free of blemishes, but

they have only the requirement of a missing limb,

according to their laws an offering is disqualified only if an entire limb is missing. Therefore,

three days suffice,

three days of searching are enough for them, since it is not particularly difficult to find an animal that is not missing a limb.

The Gemara now discusses and proves what they said: that the descendants of Noah are forbidden to bring an offering that is “missing a limb.” As Rabbi Elazar said: From where

according to their laws, an offering is invalid only when an entire limb is missing. Therefore,

three days are sufficient

for their search, because it is not very difficult to find an animal that is not missing a limb.

do we learn

that an animal missing a limb is prohibited to the descendants of Noah, to offer it to God? As it is written [ Genesis 6]: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah: “And of every living thing, of all flesh, two of every kind you shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you”— And we interpret: “Of every living thing”—the Torah said:

Bring an animal whose principal limbs are alive and intact.

For Noah was destined to bring offerings from the animals that he had brought into the ark, as it is stated [there, 8], after he left the ark: “And he took of every pure animal…and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.”

to offer it to God?

As it is written [in Genesis 6], when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah:

Genesis 6]: the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah:

“And of every living thing, of all flesh, two of each shall you bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you.”

And we interpret the words “of every living thing” as follows: The Torah said:

Bring an animal whose principal limbs are alive and intact.

And we raise the difficulty: How can this be derived from this verse? After all,

this “ of every living thing,” is needed for another teaching, to exclude a tereifa, which is not permitted! The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Noah not to bring into the ark animals that were tereifa, such as one whose membrane of the brain had been perforated [though it is not thereby considered blemished]. And we answer: The prohibition against bringing a tereifa animal was derived from another exposition, from what is stated there, “to keep seed alive,” is derived—it is learned from this phrase. That is, he was to bring animals from which offspring would be born, whereas a tereifa cannot give birth. And we raise the difficulty: That works —this interpretation is consistent— with the opinion of the one who says that a tereifa cannot give birth,

this verse,

“of every living thing,”

not need to be used

for another teaching,

to exclude a tereifa, which is not permitted

—that is, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Noah not to bring into the ark animals that were tereifa, such as one whose brain membrane had been punctured [and which is not considered an animal with a blemish in this respect].

and it is possible to exclude it through “to keep seed alive”—

“To keep seed alive,”

is derived

—that is, he was to bring animals from which offspring would be born, whereas a tereifa cannot give birth.

And we ask:

That works

—this teaching is understandable—

according

to the opinion of

the one who says that a tereifa cannot give birth,

and therefore it can be excluded through the words “to keep seed alive.”