Avodah Zarah, Daf Kaf Gimmel, Part 2
Introduction
R. Pedat here offers another resolution to the contradiction between the source that forbids women from being alone with non-Jews and the baraita that allowed Jews to buy animals from them and use them for sacrifice.
רבי פדת אמר לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר הא רבנן דתנן גבי פרת חטאת ר’ אליעזר אומר אינה נקחת מן העובדי כוכבים וחכמים מתירין מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דר"א סבר חיישינן לרביעה ורבנן סברי לא חיישינן לרביעה
R. Pedat said: There is no contradiction; the one is [according to] R. Eliezer, the other is [according to] the rabbis. For we have learned in connection with the red heifer: R. Eliezer says: It must not be bought from a non-Jew, but the sages permit it. Do they not disagree over this: R. Eliezer holds that we are concerned about bestiality while the rabbis hold that we are not concerned about bestiality?
R. Pedat solves the contradiction by attributing the sources to different tannaim. R. Eliezer holds that we are concerned about bestiality and therefore one cannot buy a red heifer from a non-Jew. He would also hold that an animal should not be left alone with them. The other sages are not concerned about bestiality.
ממאי דלמא דכ"ע לא חיישינן לרביעה והכא היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב הניח עליהן עודה של שקין פסלה ובעגלה עד שתמשוך בה מר סבר חיישינן ומר סבר לא חיישינן
From where [do you we know this]? Perhaps all agree that we are not concerned about bestiality, and here the reason for R. Eliezer’s opinion is like that which was said by Rav Judah in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: [In the case of the red heifer] even if a bundle of sacks was laid on her she is disqualified, but in the case of the calf, only if she had been made to draw a burden. [
It may thus be that] one master is of the opinion that we should be concerned, and the other that we should not be concerned!
The Talmud points out that the issue in that mishnah may not be the concerning for bestiality. It could be a concern lest the non-Jew had used the red heifer for work, for even the smallest load placed on the red heifer disqualifies her from being used in the purificatory ritual.
The calf referred to here is the calf used in the ceremony of breaking the neck and pouring the blood into the river to expiate for an unknown murder (Deuteronomy 21).
לא ס"ד משום ניחא פורתא לא מפסיד טובא
Do not let this enter your mind; for the sake of a small comfort one would not risk a big loss.
The Talmud rejects this proposal the non-Jew who has a red heifer would know that he could sell it to the Jews for a huge amount. He would not risk this amount for the sake of carrying on it a small load.
ה"נ לימא משום הנאה פורתא לא מפסיד טובא התם יצרו תוקפו
Let us then say likewise that for the sake of a little enjoyment one would not risk so big a loss! In that instance his inclination impels him.
But the same could be said about bestiality. The non-Jew would know that if he has sex with the animal (and gets caught) he could not sell it to the Jew. Therefore, he would not risk the financial loss.
The answer is that while he knows this, his inclination could overcome him and he would engage in sex with the animal. Therefore, R. Eliezer is concerned about bestiality.