Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Aleph, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s sugya discusses the issue of offering sacrifices with blemishes.

 

א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן מנין לזובח בהמה בעלת מום לעבודת כוכבים שהוא פטור שנאמר (שמות כב, יט) זובח לאלהים יחרם בלתי לה’ לבדו לא אסרה תורה אלא כעין פנים

 

R. Abahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: How do we know that one who sacrifices a blemished animal to an idol is exempt? As it is stated, He that sacrifices to any god, save unto the Lord alone, shall be utterly destroyed (Exodus 22:19). The Torah prohibits only acts like those done within the Temple.

 

Inside the Temple one cannot sacrifice a blemished animal. Therefore, if one sacrifices a blemished animal to an idol, he is exempt. As we have seen earlier, for an act to be considered truly idolatrous, it must be similar to acts of worship performed in the Temple.

 

הוי בה רבא במאי אילימא בדוקין שבעין השתא לבני נח חזיא לגבוה בבמה דידהו לעבודת כוכבים מיבעיא אלא במחוסר אבר וכדרבי אלעזר דאמר ר’ אלעזר מנין למחוסר אבר שהוא אסור לבני נח שנאמר (בראשית ו, יט) ומכל החי מכל בשר שנים מכל אמרה תורה הבא בהמה שחיין ראשי אברין שלה

 

Rava questioned: What [sort of blemish]? If I say that it is on the cornea of the eye, since such an animal is fit to be offered by the sons of Noah to God upon their altars, is it even necessary to state that it is fit for an idol!

Rather he must be referring to an animal missing a limb, and it is in accord with R. Elazar, for R. Elazar said: How do I know that an animal missing a limb is prohibited [as an offering] to the sons of Noah? As it is stated, And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every kind (Genesis 6:19) of every living thing the Torah stated, Bring an animal all of whose limbs are living.

 

Rava determined that the defect of which R. Abahu was speaking was a missing limb. This is because he compares the prohibition of sacrificing for idolatry with the rules governing sacrifices for the sons of Noah. The sons of Noah is a term used to refer to non-Jews who observe (at least) seven main laws, one of which is the prohibition of idolatry. The rules of sacrifice governing them are not as strict as those for Jews, and they may sacrifice animals with blemishes in their eyes. But they may not sacrifice those with missing limbs. Therefore, for the person worshiping an idol to be exempt, the blemish must be of the more serious kind, it must be missing a limb.

 

האי ומכל החי מיבעי ליה למעוטי טריפה (בראשית ז, ג) מלהחיות זרע נפקא

 

But the phrase of every living thing is needed to exclude an animal which is trefa!

This is derived from the phrase to keep seed alive (Genesis 7:3).

 

R. Elazar used the phrase of every living thing to derive the law that a Noahide cannot sacrifice an animal missing a limb. We know that Noah sacrificed animals when he left the ark. Therefore we can assume that God told him to bring on the ark animals that could be sacrificed. But elsewhere those same words are used to exclude a trefa, a term used to refer to animal that has a wound that will cause it die in a defined period of time.

The Talmud then resolves the difficulty by saying that the exclusion of a trefa from being permitted for sacrifice comes from the words to keep seed alive. The animals that Noah brought on the ark had to be able to procreate, and the assumption here is that trefot cannot procreate.

 

הניחא למ"ד טריפה אינה יולדת אלא למ"ד טריפה יולדת מאי איכא למימר

אמר קרא אתך אתך בדומין לך

 

This makes sense to the one who holds that an animal which is trefa cannot bear offspring; but for the one that holds that a trefa can bear offspring, what is there to say?

The verse states with you animals like yourself.

 

Some rabbis hold that a trefa can bear offspring, and thus could not be excluded by the words to keep seed alive. So then we would need the verse from every living thing to exclude a trefa from being eligible for sacrifice, and we would not have a verse for excluding animals missing a limb.

The Talmud now suggests that the source for the exclusion of trefot is the words with you the animal must be like Noah, who we suppose for now was whole and not a trefa.

 

ודלמא נח גופיה טריפה הוה? תמים כתיב ביה

דלמא תמים בדרכיו? צדיק כתיב ביה

דלמא תמים בדרכיו וצדיק במעשיו?

לא מצית אמרת דנח גופיה טריפה הוה דאי ס"ד נח טריפה הוה א"ל רחמנא דכוותך עייל שלמין לא תעייל

 

Perhaps Noah was himself a trefa!

It is written concerning him that he was without blemish.

Perhaps that means without blemish in his ways.!

It is written concerning him that he was righteous.

Perhaps it means that he was without blemish in his ways and righteous in his actions.

You cannot possibly say that Noah himself was a trefa, for should you think that he was, would God have said to him, [Animals] like yourself [which are defective] take [into the Ark] but do not take those which are unblemished!

 

So how do we know that Noah himself was not a trefa. At first the Talmud argues that we can learn that he was whole from one of the adjectives used to describe him, without blemish or righteous. The problem is that those adjectives may refer to his character qualities and not his bodily ones.

The Talmud resolves the difficulty by noting that if we assume that the phrase with you means animals like you it makes no sense for God to tell Noah to take only blemished animals onto the ark. Thus the phrase like you must mean that Noah was physically unblemished. We now have a source to exclude trefot, and the words of every living thing can be used to exclude animals missing a limb.

 

השתא דנפקא מאתך להחיות זרע למה לי

אי מאתך ה"א לצוותא בעלמא ואפי’ זקן ואפי’ סריס קמ"ל להחיות זרע:

 

Now that the words with you exclude [the trefa] why do I need the phrase to keep seed alive ? If [the Torah had only written] with you I might have said that the reason [he brought the animals on the ark] was merely for companionship and he could bring even an old or castrated animal; therefore it states, to keep seed alive.

 

The word with you excludes the trefa. So then why does the Torah also have to use the phrase, to keep seed alive. This teaches that the animals must be able to procreate. They cannot be so old that they can no longer procreate nor can they be castrated. The purpose of bringing them on the ark was not so that they could keep Noah company (a cute thought, to be sure). The purpose was clearly for them to repopulate the world after the flood. Thus while the word does not mean that Noah could not bring a trefa, but it does mean that the animals he brought on board had to be fertile.