Talmud for Avodah Zarah 2:1

אֵין מַעֲמִידִין בְּהֵמָה בְּפֻנְדְּקָאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָרְבִיעָה. וְלֹא תִתְיַחֵד אִשָּׁה עִמָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת. וְלֹא יִתְיַחֵד אָדָם עִמָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל שְׁפִיכַת דָּמִים. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְיַלֵּד אֶת הַנָּכְרִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּיַלֶּדֶת בֵּן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲבָל נָכְרִית מְיַלֶּדֶת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תָנִיק בְּנָהּ שֶׁל נָכְרִית, אֲבָל נָכְרִית מְנִיקָה בְנָהּ שֶׁל יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ:

A beast may not be stood at the inns of idolators, [where wayfarers lodge], for idolators are suspect of sodomy. [This is even forbidden with female (beasts) vis-à-vis females. For idolators are familiar with their friends' wives, and sometimes, not finding them, might use the beast.] And a woman may not be alone with them, for they are suspect of illicit relations. [Even a type of yichud ("being alone") which is permitted with a Jew (as with a Jewess and a Jew, when his wife is with him) is forbidden for a Jewess and an idolator; for his wife does not "guard" him.] And a man may not be alone with them, for they are suspect of killing. A Jewess may not deliver a gentile, for she thereby delivers a son for idolatry. [But for a fee it is permitted, so as not to generate hatred.] But a gentile may deliver a Jewess [when other Jews are standing over her, but not when they are alone; for they are suspect of blood-spilling (i.e., she might kill the child)]. A Jewess may not nurse the child of a gentile; but a gentile may nurse the child of a Jew in her (the Jew's) home.

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers¹⁴Based on the preceding text, one has to read “does not infer” since in the explanation attributed to R. Joḥanan, burning of the Cow is not mentioned. (In the Babli 2a, an argument close to that of Bar Qappara here is attributed to R. Joḥanan, but this should be irrelevant for the study of the Yerushalmi.) from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow¹⁵The separation of the priest who will burn the Cow is purely rabbinical; Tosephta Parah 3:1., one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer¹⁶Here one has to read: “who infers.” it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling¹⁷Since it is to be presumed that the Cohen selected to burn the Cow was pure, water with ashes from prior Cows will make him impure (Sifry Num. 129). But this impurity is minor, it can be removed by immersion in a miqweh and the following sundown. It is obvious that no sprinkling can be done on the day of the burning.
In fact, a Pharisee Cohen burning the Cow is made impure and has to cleanse himself in a miqweh on the day of the ceremony because of a quarrel with Sadducees, Mishnah Parah 3:7.?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow¹⁸Everybody agrees that the rules for the Cohen burning the Cow are purely rabbinical, not accepted by Sadducees, and bar Qappara’s mention of the burning of the Cow is a far-fetched simile, not an authoritative interpretation of the verse..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter Next Verse