## Avodah Zarah Daf 23a

###### Avodah Zarah 23a:1
[Avodah Zarah 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:1)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא לְכַתְּחִלָּה, הָא דִּיעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna, which rules that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, and the *baraita*, which permits an animal purchased from gentiles to be sacrificed as an offering. **Ravina said** that it **is not difficult; this** mishna issues its ruling with regard to the *halakha **ab initio*****,** while **that** *baraita* is referring to the *halakha* **after the fact.**


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:2
[Avodah Zarah 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:2)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה בֵּין לְדִיעֲבַד? דִּתְנַן: לֹא תִּתְיַיחֵד אִשָּׁה עִמָּהֶם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּחְבְּשָׁה בִּידֵי גּוֹיִם, עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן — מוּתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ, עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת — אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do you say that** there is **a difference** in this case **between *ab initio* and after the fact? As we learned** in the mishna: **A woman may not seclude herself with them because they are suspected of** engaging in **forbidden sexual intercourse. And** one can **raise a contradiction** from another mishna (*Ketubot* 26b): With regard to **a woman who was imprisoned by gentiles,** if she was imprisoned **due to monetary matters she is permitted to her husband** even if he is a priest, as there is no concern that she was raped. If she was imprisoned **due to a capital** offense **she is forbidden to her husband** if he is a priest, as the captors would not restrain themselves from raping her. The first clause of the mishna in *Ketubot* rules that a woman who was imprisoned in seclusion with gentiles is not assumed to have engaged in intercourse with them. This apparently contradicts the statement of the mishna here, which rules that a woman may not seclude herself with gentiles.


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:3
[Avodah Zarah 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:3)

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, שָׁאנֵי לַן בֵּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְדִיעֲבַד? מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: אֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דְּמִתְיָירֵא מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד מָמוֹנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** here that there is **a difference for us between *ab initio*,** as in the mishna here, **and after the fact,** as in the mishna in *Ketubot*? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **From where** can this be proven? **Perhaps I** could **actually say to you:** Generally, **even after the fact,** one **may not** assume that a woman who was secluded with a gentile did not engage in intercourse with him, **and here,** in the mishna in *Ketubot*, **this is the reason** that she is permitted to her husband even after having been imprisoned: **Since** her husband might not agree to pay if his wife was raped, the gentile **is fearful** of raping her **due to the** potential **loss of his money.**


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:4
[Avodah Zarah 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:4)

תֵּדַע, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ, וְתוּ לָא מִידִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Know** that this is the explanation, **as the latter clause** of that mishna **teaches:** If she was imprisoned **due to a capital** offense **she is forbidden to her husband.** Clearly, the difference is that in this case there is no incentive for the gentiles to leave her unharmed. The Gemara concludes: **And nothing more** needs discussion, as this is certainly the correct interpretation of that mishna.


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:5
[Avodah Zarah 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:5)

רַבִּי פְּדָת אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא רַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן גַּבֵּי פָּרַת חַטָּאת: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ נִקַּחַת מִן הַגּוֹיִם, וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: חָיְישִׁינַן לִרְבִיעָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִרְבִיעָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Pedat said:** The contradiction between the mishna, which rules that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, and the *baraita*, which permits an animal purchased from gentiles to be sacrificed as an offering, is **not difficult; this** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** while **that** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis. As we learned** in a mishna (*Para* 2:1) **with regard to the** red **heifer of purification: Rabbi Eliezer says** that **it may not be purchased from gentiles, and the Rabbis permit** it to be purchased from gentiles. Rabbi Pedat explains: **What, is it not** correct to say that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to this** issue, **that Rabbi Eliezer holds** that **we are concerned that** a person might have engaged in **bestiality** with the animal, **and the Rabbis hold** that **we are not concerned that** a person engaged in **bestiality** with the animal?


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:6
[Avodah Zarah 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:6)

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִרְבִיעָה, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הִנִּיחַ (עֲלֵיהֶן) [עָלֶיהָ] עוּדָּה שֶׁל שַׂקִּין — פְּסָלָהּ, וּבְעֶגְלָה — עַד שֶׁתִּמְשׁוֹךְ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **From where** do you know that this is the case? **Perhaps everyone** agrees that **we are not concerned that** a person might have engaged in **bestiality** with the animal, **and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer:** He holds **in accordance with** a statement **that Rabbi Yehuda** says that **Rav says. As Rabbi Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** If **one placed a bundle of sacks upon** a red heifer, **he has rendered it unfit** for purification, as a red heifer is fit only if it has not borne any burden, in accordance with the verse: “Upon which never came a yoke” (Numbers 19:2); **and in** the case of the **heifer** whose neck is broken, it is not rendered unfit **until you pull** a load **with it,** as the verse states: “And which has not drawn in the yoke” (Deuteronomy 21:3).


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:7
[Avodah Zarah 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:7)

מָר סָבַר חָיְישִׁינַן, וּמַר סָבַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, מִשּׁוּם נִיחָא פּוּרְתָּא לָא מַפְסֵיד טוּבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: One **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds:** A red heifer purchased from a gentile cannot be used for purification because **we are concerned** that it might have been used for labor, **and** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds: We are not concerned** that the gentile used it for labor. Accordingly, the disagreement in that mishna does not relate to a concern with regard to bestiality. The Gemara responds: **No;** it cannot **enter your mind** that Rabbi Eliezer prohibits purchasing a red heifer from a gentile due to the concern that he might have placed sacks upon it, as **due to** the **slight convenience** of placing a bundle of sacks upon the heifer, the gentile will **not forfeit** the potential to earn **a great deal** of money which he can obtain by selling the heifer.


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:8
[Avodah Zarah 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:8)

הָכִי נָמֵי לֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם הֲנָאָה פּוּרְתָּא לָא מַפְסֵיד טוּבָא! הָתָם, יִצְרוֹ תּוֹקְפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **So too, let us say: Due to** the **slight pleasure** of engaging in bestiality with an animal, a gentile **will not forfeit a great deal** of money which he can otherwise obtain by selling the heifer. The Gemara responds: **There,** with regard to bestiality, **his inclination overcomes him,** and he is apt to engage in bestiality with the heifer despite the fact that he knows it is to his disadvantage to do so.


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:9
[Avodah Zarah 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:9)

וְדִלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִרְבִיעָה, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, כִּדְתָנֵי שֵׁילָא, דְּתָנֵי שֵׁילָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ״ — בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יִקְחוּ, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם יִקְחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And perhaps everyone** agrees that **we are not concerned that** a person might have engaged in **bestiality** with the animal, **and here, this is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, in accordance with that** which **Sheila taught, as Sheila taught** in a *baraita*: **What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer?** The verse states: **“Speak unto the children of Israel that they take to you** a red heifer” (Numbers 19:2). This teaches that **the children of Israel take** the red heifer, **but gentiles do not take** the red heifer.


###### Avodah Zarah 23a:10
[Avodah Zarah 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/23a:10)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל בְּכׇל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְתָנֵי שֵׁילָא, בִּשְׁלָמָא פָּרָה — כְּתִיב בָּהּ ״קִיחָה״, אֶלָּא כּוּלְּהוּ קׇרְבָּנוֹת — קִיחָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ? וְדִלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It should **not enter your mind** to say so, **as the latter clause** of that same *baraita* **teaches: And similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would disqualify** an animal purchased from a gentile **in** the case of **all offerings.** The Gemara elaborates: **And if** it should **enter your mind** that Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is **in accordance with that** which **Sheila taught, granted, in** the case of the red **heifer** a term of **taking is written, but** is a term of **taking written with regard to all** other **offerings?** Since a term of taking does not appear in the context of other offerings, this cannot be Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning. The Gemara suggests: **And perhaps the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer**