Previous daf

1)

(a) Ravina deals with the orignal discrepancy between our Mishnah ('Ein Ma'amidin Beheimah ... ') and the Beraisa ('Lokchin Meihen Beheimah ... ') differently. He simply - confines the prohibition in our Mishnah to Lechatchilah, permitting the animal Bedi'eved'.

(b) And he tries to derive this from another discrepancy between our Mishnah ('Lo Sisyached Ishah Imahen ... ') and a Mishnah in Kesuvos. The Tana there - permits a woman who was taken captive as a security against money that her husband owed the captive, to her husband

(c) Ravina tries to prove from here - that Bedieved, we permit women to return to their husbands, in circumstances which we would not have permitted Lechatchilah.

(a) We repudiate his proof however, by attributing the Heter there to the captor's fear that if he tries anything with his debtor's wife, he won't get his money back (and not because every Bedieved is permitted). We substantiate this from the Seifa of the Mishnah - 'al-Yedei Nefashos, Asurah le'Ba'alah' (from which we see that the women is forbidden Bedi'eved too).

(b) A wife of a Yisrael who is raped is not forbidden to her husband - and the Mishnah in Kesuvos is speaking when she gave herself willingly to her captors (though had she been the wife of a Kohen, she would have been forbidden even if she had been raped).

(c) There is no more to say on the matter - Ravina's distinction between Lechatchilah and Bedi'eved is not acceptable.

(a) Rebbi P'das resolves the initial discrepancy by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer and the Beraisa like the Chachamim. In the Mishnah in Parah, Rebbi Eliezer forbids purchasing from a Nochri a cow for use as a Parah Adumah- the Chachamim permit it.

(b) According to Rebbi P'das - Rebbi Eliezer suspects the owner of having raped his cow, whereas the Chachamim do not.

(a) We try to refute this explanation however, by citing Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who rules that placing a batch of empty sacks on the back of ...

1. ... a Parah Adumah - is forbidden.
2. ... an Eglah Arufah - is permitted, as long as the animal does not actually pull it.

(b) 'Udah shel Sakin' mean also mean - a wooden spindle used in spinning sacks.

(c) And we suggest that Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim argue over whether the seller may have perhaps placed something on the cow's back. But as far as raping the animal is concerned, even Rebbi Eliezer will agree - that we do not suspect the animal's owner of having done that.

(d) We reject this suggestion however - because, in view of the sale value of the animal, it makes more sense to suspect him of giving vent to his lust (in spite of loss [see Tosfos DH 'Hasam') than to suspect him of placing something on the animal's back, which would hardly be worth his while bearing in mind his loss.

(a) We suggest once more that even Rebbi Eliezer would not suspect the owner of raping his animal under such circumstances, and his reason is that cited by Shiloh in a Beraisa - who learns from the Pasuk "Daber el B'nei Yisrael Ve'yikchu Eilecha Parah Adumah ... "- that the Parah Adumah can only be provided by a Yisrael, and not by a Nochri.

(b) We refute Shiloh's Beraisa however, from the Seifa of the Mishnah in Parah 've'Chein Hayah Rebbi Eliezer Posel Kol ha'Korbanos' - which would then make no sense, seeing as there is no word there (like "Ve'yikchu" by Parah Adumah) to disqualify an animal donated by a Nochri.

(a) Reverting to Rebbi P'das' original explanation however, that perhaps the Chachamim only argue with Rebbi Eliezer regarding a Parah Adumah - which they say, he would not rape, due to the great loss involved, but they will agree with him with regard to other Korbanos - where the loss is relatively small.

(b) We refute this suggestion however, on the basis of a Beraisa. The Chachamim there counter Rebbi Eliezer from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Kol Tzon Keidar Yikavtzu Lach ... " - with reference to the B'nei Yishmael.

(c) All those sheep will be brought as Korbanos, as the Pasuk continues "Ya'alu le'Ratzon al Mizbechi" - a clear proof that the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Eliezer regarding other Korbanos, too.

(d) The second proof that the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Eliezer regarding other Korbanos too - is the Beraisa with which we began 'Lokchin Meihen Beheimah le'Korban', which would be authorless, assuming that the Chachamim agreed with Rebbi Eliezer with regard to other Korbanos.

7)

(a) We try to extrapolate from the above Machlokes that the Parah Adumah must be Kodshei Mizbe'ach - because of animal of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis that was raped would not become Pasul.

(b) The difference between whether it is considered Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is - that the former cannot be redeemed without a blemish on the one hand, and do not require to be stood and assessed on the other, whereas the latter, which require to be stood and assessed on the one hand, can be redeemed without a blemish on the other.

(c) We initially reject this proof - by establishing the Parah Adumah as Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and attributing the P'sul of being raped to the fact that the Torah calls it a 'Chatas'.

(d) In that case we ask, a Yotze Dofen - a cesarean-born cow should be Pasul, too.

(a) The Rabbanan do indeed disqualify a Yotze Dofen from becoming a Parah Adumah - and our Kashya is based on Rebbi Shimon, who validates it.

(b) We refute the suggestion that Rebbi Shimon simply follows his own opinion that a Yotze Dofen is considered a regular baby, by citing Rebbi Yochanan, according to whom, Rebbi Shimon considers a Yotze Dofen ...

1. ... irregular (and therefore Pasul) - regarding bringing it on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... a regular baby - regarding the Dinim that pertain to Tum'as Leidah.

(a) So to accommodate Rebi Shimon, we conclude that even if Parah is considered Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, a raped cow would be Pasul, based on the Pasuk "Ki Mashchasam Bahem Mum Bam", which teaches us - that wherever a blemish disqualifies, Ervah and Avodah-Zarah disqualify too.

(b) We know that a blemish disqualifies a Parah Adamah - because the Torah explicitly writes "Asher Ein Bo Mum".

(c) And we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ki Hishchis Kol Basar es Darko al ha'Aretz" - that "Hashchasah" incorporates Ervah (based on the Pasuk at the end of Bereishis indicating that the principle sin of that generation was adultery).
2. ... "Pen Tashchisun Va'asisem Lachem Pesel" - that it also incorporates Avodah-Zarah.

(a) On the previous Amud, we cited Shiloh's Beraisa, which, to explain Rebbi Eliezer, disqualifies a Nochri from providing a Parah Adumah from the Pasuk "Ve'yikchu Eilecha Parah Adumah". The problem this creates with the Pasuk "Daber el B'nei Yisrael Ve'yikchu Li Terumah" is - that by the same token, a Nochri should not be eligible to donate gold or precious stones that are needed for the Meleches ha'Mishkan either.

(b) To substantiate the Kashya we cite Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel quoting Rebbi Eliezer - who refers to the onyx stones for the Eifod which they purchased from a Nochri, as we shall now see.