Avodah Zarah, Daf Kaf Gimmel, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud now digresses for a bit to discuss why bestiality disqualifies the red heifer (bet you ve been wondering about that for a while now).

 

ע"כ לא פליגי אלא בחששא אבל היכא דודאי רבעה פסלה ש"מ דפרה קדשי מזבח היא דאי קדשי בדק הבית מי מיפסלא בה רביעה

 

The difference of opinion up until here is only in regard to suspicion [of bestiality], but if we know for certain that he had bestiality with it, it is unfit. From here then you can deduce that the [degree of sanctity of the red heifer] is that of sacrifices offer on the altar; for if it had only the sanctity of those [dedicated] to repairs of the temple, even bestiality would not disqualify it.

 

On the previous two pages we learned of a dispute about whether we are suspicious that the non-Jew had sex with the red heifer. But if he certainly did, then the conclusion would be that all agree the red heifer is disqualified from use. This implies that the red heifer has a high level of sanctity, equivalent to animals dedicated so that they may be sacrificed. For had its sanctity been lower, bestiality would not disqualify it. The problem is that we don t generally consider the red heifer to have this degree of sanctity.

 

שאני פרה דחטאת קרייה רחמנא

 

The red heifer may be different for the Torah calls it a sin-offering.

 

The red heifer is not really considered an animal offered on the altar, but bestiality does nevertheless disqualify it because the Torah calls is a sin-offering.

 

אלא מעתה תיפסל ביוצא דופן וכי תימא ה"נ אלמה תניא הקדישה ביוצא דופן פסולה ור"ש מכשיר וכי תימא ר"ש לטעמיה דאמר יוצא דופן ולד מעליא הוא והא"ר יוחנן מודה היה ר"ש לענין קדשים שאינו קדוש

 

If that be so, it should be disqualified if born through caesarean: and were you to say that it is so indeed, why then are we taught: If one dedicates [as a red heifer] born through a caesarean section, it is unfit, but R. Shimon declares it as fit? And were you to say that R. Shimon follows here the opinion he expressed elsewhere that one born of caesarean section is to be regarded as a properly born child, has not R. Yohanan said that R. Shimon agreed, in regard to sacred things, that it is not sacred?

 

If a red heifer is akin to other sacrifices, then one born through a caesarean birth (literally, one who comes out of the wall) should be disqualified. Why then would R. Shimon rule that such a red heifer is valid, despite the fact that in general he holds that sacrifices cannot be from animals born through Caesarean.

 

אלא שאני פרה הואיל ומום פוסל בה דבר ערוה וע"ז נמי פוסל בה דכתיב (ויקרא כב, כה) כי משחתם בהם מום בם ותנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל כל מקום שנא’ השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה וע"ז דבר ערוה דכתיב (בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ וע"ז דכתיב (דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל והא פרה נמי הואיל ומום פוסל בה דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פסלי בה

 

Rather the case of the red heifer is different; since a blemish renders it unfit, bestiality and idolatrous worship also render it unfit; as it is written, [nor shall you accept such [animals] from a foreigner for offering as food for your God], for they are corrupted, they have a defect (Leviticus 22:25) and the School of R. Ishmael taught: Wherever corruption is mentioned it only means fornication and idolatry: fornication, as it is said, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth (Genesis 6:12); and idolatry, or Scripture says, Lest you corrupt and make yourself a graven image (Deuteronomy 4:16), and since a blemish renders the red heifer unfit, bestiality and idolatrous worship also render it unfit.

 

The red heifer is rendered unfit if someone has sex with it not because it is considered to have the holiness of a sacrifice offered on the altar, but because a physical flaw disqualifies it. Through a series of connections drawn from the word corruption, the Talmud derives that just as a flaw disqualifies the red heifer, so too does bestiality.