Avodah Zarah, Daf Kaf Gimmel, Part 3
Introduction
Yesterday R. Pedat suggested that the dispute between R. Eliezer and the sages over whether one can buy a red heifer from a non-Jew was based on a dispute whether we are suspicious that the non-Jew engaged in bestiality with the animal R. Eliezer is and the sages are not. Today s sugya suggests another interpretation of that dispute.
ודלמא דכולי עלמא לא חיישינן לרביעה והכא היינו טעמא דר"א כדתני שילא דתני שילא מ"ט דר’ אליעזר (במדבר יט, ב) "דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך" בני ישראל יקחו ואין העובדי כוכבים יקחו
But [still] it may be that all agree that we are not suspicious about adultery, but here the reason for R. Eliezer’s ruling is as was taught by Shila? For Shila taught: What is the reason for R. Eliezer’s ruling? Speak to the children of Israel, and they shall bring to you (Numbers 19:2), [which implies that] Israelites shall bring, but non-Jews should not bring.
Shila suggests that the reason R. Eliezer does not allow one to purchase a red heifer from a non-Jew is that the verse which begins this chapter starts off with speak to the children of Israel. Thus he is not concerned lest the non-Jew engage in bestiality with the heifer.
לא סלקא דעתך דקתני סיפא וכן היה רבי אליעזר פוסל בכל הקרבנות כולן ואי סלקא דעתך כדתני שילא בשלמא פרה כתיב בה קיחה אלא כולהו קרבנות קיחה כתיב בהו
Do not think this; for it is taught in the second clause: So too R. Eliezer disqualified all other kinds of sacrifices. Now were you to reason as Shila taught, it would make sense in the case of the [red] heifer, for bringing, is written in connection with it, but does Scripture ever mention bringing in connection with other sacrifices?
The Talmud now rejects Shila based on the continuation of the mishnah. R. Eliezer does not allow one to buy any animals for sacrifice from non-Jews. Yet only with regard to the red heifer does the verse state explicitly that only an Israelite must bring it. Therefore, R. Eliezer s reading cannot be based on that midrash. It must be that he is suspicious about bestiality.
ודלמא עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא בפרה דדמיה יקרין אבל בשאר קרבנות מודו ליה
But perhaps the rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer only in the case of the [red] heifer which is very valuable, but in the case of other sacrifices they agree with him?
The Talmud now tries another tack. Maybe the rabbis too are concerned about bestiality. But they assume that a non-Jew will not have sex with the red heifer because that would be a great loss. But when it comes to other sacrifices, maybe they would have sex with the animal. After all, it s not such a big financial loss if the Jew won t buy it.
ואלא הא דתניא לוקחין מהן בהמה לקרבן מני לא ר’ אליעזר ולא רבנן
But then whose opinion would be that which was taught: We may purchase from them cattle for [ordinary] sacrifices? Neither that of R. Eliezer nor that of the rabbis!
The baraita cited here must be the opinion of the rabbis thereby proving that the rabbis hold that we are never suspicious of bestiality.
ועוד תניא בהדיא מאי אותיבו ליה חברוהי לר’ אליעזר (ישעיהו ס, ז) כל צאן קדר יקבצו לך יעלו (לרצון על) מזבחי
Moreover, it is explicitly taught: How did the rabbis refute R. Eliezer, All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together to you . . . they shall come up with acceptance on my altar (Isaiah 60:7).
To refute R. Eliezer the rabbis cite a verse which implies that flocks owned by non-Jews will end up on God s altar. This proves that they hold that we are not suspicious of bestiality.