Avodah Zarah 5b — the Talmud in English

As

as it is written

Numbers 21]:

“And our soul became short ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page-location")

because of the vile bread,”

and we expound “vile” 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. And this was a great benefit for them, yet Moses said to them: How are you complaining and grumbling about this?! Is this not ingratitude! And you are

sons of ingrates,

the sons of the first man, who showed ingratitude for the goodness of the Holy One, blessed be He. For He gave him the woman for his benefit and assistance, whereas the man showed ingratitude for the goodness,

as it is written

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

The woman whom You gave with me—

she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”

And he should have said, “The woman gave me.” And we expound from his saying, “whom You gave with me,” that the first man attributed his failing to the gift of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And the beraita continues and says:

Even Moses our teacher

did not remember to pay attention to this matter,

and he did not hint it to Israel

with these words of admonition,

but

only

after forty years

that they had been in the wilderness—

As it is stated

Deuteronomy 29]: Moses our teacher said to Israel,

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

Thus this passage was said at the end of forty years.

And it is written,

that he said to them then,

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

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

”?

Rabbah said

Rava:

We learn from this

that it can be heard from here that even Moses our teacher did not remember until forty years had passed, because

a person does not stand upon the mind of his teacher

a person does not arrive at his teacher’s understanding, to comprehend the end of his thought and wisdom—

until

forty years

have passed.

Only after forty years of sitting before and serving his teacher can he descend into and understand the end of his teacher’s thought.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of

in the name of

Rabbi Bana’ah: What is

the explanation of this

as it is written

Isaiah 32]:

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

The plain meaning of the verse is: At the time of the redemption you will sow in all places, even where there is no water, and you will send your animals there to pasture, without fear 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 inclination!

According to

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,

for its giving causes acts of kindness to grow.

As it is stated

Hosea 10]:

“Sow for yourselves for 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 is thirsty, go to the waters.”

And the verse says further,

“who send forth the foot”—

for these two matters, Torah and acts of kindness, send forth and cast away the evil inclination, which is called “a wayfarer”

2 Samuel 12], meaning the foot of the wayfarer. And the verse continues and says,

“the ox and the donkey,”

which are words of Torah—

As we learned,

the tanna of the academy of Elijah: 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, for three days it is forbidden to engage in business with them, and so on.”

And it follows that three days before his festival the gentile acquires an animal for the needs of his festival.

And we challenge:

Do we require all this?

Is it necessary to prohibit so many days before his festival? Does the gentile really purchase three days before his festival?

But did we not learn

in tractate Ḥullin [83a], concerning the concern over slaughtering “the mother and its offspring” on one day, that a person purchases an animal for the needs of the festival only one day before the festival, and therefore only then is there concern lest a person slaughter the mother and its offspring on one day? “The mother and its offspring” is a prohibition that the Torah commanded: not to slaughter the mother and the daughter on one day. And the fact that it is forbidden to slaughter is specifically when it is known that she is the mother and this is the offspring, such as when the offspring follows after her; but if it is not known, one does not have concern regarding every animal that perhaps its mother or its offspring was slaughtered today.

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 them applies specifically when it is known that one is the mother and the other is its offspring—for example, when the offspring follows after it. But if this is not known, we do not suspect every animal of being one whose mother or offspring was slaughtered that day.

But there are particular times of the year in which the slaughter of animals is increased, and then there is greater concern. This is what we learned:

“On four periods”

times

“of the year, one who sells an animal to his fellow must inform him: ‘I sold its mother to be slaughtered,”

or

“‘I sold its daughter to be slaughtered,’

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

And these are they:

“The eve of the last festival day of the festival

of Sukkot,

the eve of the first festival day of Passover, and the eve of the Assembly

the festival of Weeks,

and the eve of New Year. And according to the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also the eve of the Day of Atonement,

and only

in the Galilee,

where they were accustomed to increase more in rejoicing.”

And on all these days they purchase and slaughter many animals for eating.

Thus they purchase and prepare for the festival only one day beforehand, and if he sold it one day earlier, they did not obligate him to inform the buyer; and all the more so, they do not purchase three days beforehand.

And we answer:

There

with the festivals of Israel, when they purchase the animals

for

the needs of

eating—

it is sufficient

enough

with one day

on one day to prepare the needs of the meal—

whereas

here,

with the festival of the gentiles,

that

they purchase

for

the needs of

offering

for idolatry—

we require

the gentile searches after them in order to purchase them

for three days,

for three days.

And we challenge:

And

is it that

for an offering

it is sufficient

enough

for three days?!

But it was taught: One asks about the laws of Passover thirty days before Passover. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: two weeks

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

Thus the preparation of the needs of the Passover offering is more than three days!

And we answer:

We,

we, the Children of Israel, who must prepare Passover offerings, and it is forbidden for us to bring it with a “blemish,”

because blemishes that invalidate are common,

and animals that are invalid are found,

and even

a small blemish, such as a blemish found

in the “membranes” of the eye

of the animal, also renders the animal invalid for offering; therefore

we require

to toil and search extensively, until

thirty days

thirty days—

but

they,

the gentiles, who for the needs of the offerings of their festivals do not require animals free of blemishes, but

they have only a missing limb,

according to their laws the offering is invalid only if an entire limb is missing; therefore

three days are sufficient,

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

And now the Gemara discusses and proves what they said, that the descendants of Noah are forbidden to bring an offering that is “missing a limb.”

For Rabbi Elazar said: From where

do we learn

that an animal missing a limb is forbidden to the descendants of Noah,

to offer it to Him?

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 each shall you bring into the ark, to keep alive with you.”

And we expound: “Of every living thing”—the Torah said:

Bring an animal whose principal limbs are alive.

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

And we challenge: How is it possible to learn from this verse? After all,

this

“of every living thing,”

is needed

for another teaching,

to exclude a torn animal, which is not to be brought!

For the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Noah not to bring into the ark animals that had been torn, such as one whose membrane of the brain had been pierced [and it is not considered blemished by this].

And we answer: What was forbidden for him to bring in, namely torn animals, is derived from another exposition: this matter is learned from what is said there,

“to keep seed alive,”

is derived

it is learned. That is, he was to bring in animals from which offspring would be born, whereas a torn animal does not give birth.

And we challenge:

That works—

this teaching is consistent—

with

the words of

the one who says that a torn animal does not give birth,

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