Commentary for Avodah Zarah 45:10
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 ודלמא עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר
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? But perhaps the rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy