Traité Avodah Zarah

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, and Rav Kahana teaches that it was eight hundred thousand dinars’ profit. But the keys to the chest holding the jewels were placed under his father’s head, and he would not disturb him. It is evident from this story that the stones of the ephod may be purchased from gentiles. If so, Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning cannot be based on Numbers 19:2, as an identical phrase appears in Exodus 25:2, and yet contributions to the Tabernacle may be accepted from gentiles.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers that the phrase “onyx stones” (Exodus 25:7) concluded discussion of that matter. In other words, almost all the items listed in Exodus, chapter 25, for the contributions to the Tabernacle, are joined by the conjunction “and.” Before the verse mentions the stones for the ephod, it states “onyx stones,” without the conjunction “and.” This omission serves to disconnect these stones from the earlier phrase: “That they take” (Exodus 25:2), which means that the disqualification of items purchased from gentiles for use in the Temple derived from this phrase does not apply to the items listed after that point, including the stones of the ephod. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it subsequently written: “And stones to be set,” by which the verse goes back and combines the list, so that the earlier verse applies once more? Accordingly, it should be prohibited to purchase any of the items listed in the verse from gentiles.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara adds: And furthermore, the latter clause teaches: In a subsequent year, a red heifer was born in Dama’s herd and the Sages of Israel approached him, seeking to purchase the heifer. Dama said to them: I know concerning you that if I were to ask from you all the money in the world, you would give it to me. Now I am requesting from you only that amount of money which I lost by refraining from waking my father. This latter clause explicitly states that the Sages intended to purchase a red heifer from a gentile, which contradicts the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: There, it was through the agency of Jewish merchants that they purchased the heifer. In other words, Jewish merchants purchased the heifer from Dama ben Netina, after which the Sages acquired the animal from the merchants to be used as a red heifer of purification. In this manner, the animal was purchased for the purpose of an offering from Jews.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : According to Sheila, Rabbi Eliezer’s reason for not allowing a red heifer to be purchased from gentiles is based on a derivation from a verse rather than a concern that a person may have engaged in bestiality with it. The Gemara therefore asks: And is Rabbi Eliezer not concerned about the possibility that a person has engaged in bestiality with the animal?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara elaborates: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis who hold that the heifer may be purchased from a gentile said to Rabbi Eliezer: There was an incident in which Jews purchased the red heifer from a gentile, and Dama was his name. And some say Remetz was his name. In response to this claim, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Can one bring a proof from there? Certainly not, as Jews were safeguarding it from the time that it was born, to ensure that a person did not engage in bestiality with it. Contrary to the opinion of Sheila, it is evident from here that Rabbi Eliezer was concerned about this possibility. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer has two requirements: The purchase of the red heifer must be from a Jew, and he is also concerned about the possibility that a person had engaged in bestiality with the animal.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Eliezer’s statement. The Master said: Jews were safeguarding the red heifer purchased from Dama ben Netina from the time that it was born. The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps gentiles engaged in bestiality with the mother while she was pregnant, as Rava says: The offspring of an animal that gored and killed a Jew is forbidden as an offering, as it is considered as if she and her offspring together gored. And similarly, the offspring of an animal that was the object of bestiality is forbidden because it is considered as if a person engaged in bestiality with both her and her offspring. The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Eliezer meant that Jews were safeguarding it from the time that it was conceived.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps they engaged in bestiality with the mother from the outset, i.e., before conception, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 30b): With regard to all animals that are disqualified for the altar, such as one that was the object of bestiality, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted; and it is taught with regard to this case that Rabbi Eliezer prohibits their offspring from being sacrificed on the altar. If this is the case, Rabbi Eliezer should agree that there is a concern that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the heifer’s mother at some point before its birth.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer applies only when a person engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were consecrated and then they conceived, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that in that case the offspring are disqualified from being sacrificed as offerings; but if someone engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were non-sacred, everyone agrees that the offspring are permitted. Accordingly, it needs to be ascertained only that no one engaged in bestiality with the mother after she was consecrated.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : But according to the opinion of Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana, who says that Rav Naḥman says: The dispute applies only when a person engaged in bestiality with the animals when they were non-sacred, but if someone engaged in bestiality with them when they were consecrated, everyone agrees that the offspring are forbidden, what is there to say? According to this opinion, Rabbi Eliezer should be concerned that a person might have engaged in bestiality with the animal prior to conception.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: Say that Jews were safeguarding it as well, i.e., the mother of the red heifer, from the time that it was conceived. The Gemara challenges: And let us be concerned that perhaps someone engaged in bestiality with the mother of the heifer’s mother. The Gemara responds: We are not concerned to such an extent.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara discusses the revised version of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement. The Master said above: Jews were safeguarding the red heifer from the time that it was conceived. The Gemara asks: From where do we know that the mother would give birth to a red heifer, which would warrant safeguarding her? Rav Kahana says: They would pass a red cup before her while the male mounts her, an act that would cause the offspring to be red.