Talmud sur Parah 2:9

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah⁵Unfortunately G is very lacunary here; therefore its readings are not given after the Hebrew text. The Halakhah starts: “R. Ze‘urah, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. ..… R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, explain it …” There is no reason to mention the sixth generation R. Abba III and the fifth generation R. Jonah who later disagrees with the statement if already it was attributed to the second generation R. Yose ben Ḥanina.: explain it⁶The Mishnah which forbids to put up unsupervised animals in the stable of a Gentile hostelry makes travel outside Jewish settlements practically impossible. An attribution to R. Eliezer removes the first part of the Mishnah from practice. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.⁷Mishnah Parah2:1. This refers to the Red Cow (Num. 19) whose ashes are needed to cleanse people from the impurity of the dead. The Cow is not a Temple sacrifice; how far the restrictions imposed on sacrificial animals and the officiating priests apply to the Cow and its officiants are old matters of dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees (Mishnah Parah3:3,7) and among the rabbis themselves. One of the biblical requirements is that the Red Cow never carried a yoke (Num. 19:2). In Mishnah Parah2:1, a first statement of R. Eliezer validates a pregnant Red Cow for the ceremonies; the reason is explained in Mishnah 4 by his student’s R. Illai’s son R. Jehudah, that a bull mounting the Cow on his own cannot be considered making her carrying anything; only copulation by human intervention makes the ox the equivalent of a yoke. The majority rejects the ruling; it considers the Cow and its fetus as two separate beings but v. 19:3 requires the Cow alone to be taken. These restrictions do not apply to ordinary sacrifices. R. Eliezer then forbids buying a Red Cow from Gentiles since a sodomized animal is unfit for the altar; the Sages disagree since without reason one does not suspect that such a thing happened; this would make the Mishnah here unreasonable. (The last generation R. Yose bar Abun even introduces buying a Red Cow from a Gentile into a story about R. Eliezer; Peah1:1 Notes 99 ff., Qiddušin1:7 Notes 607 ff.) Babli 23a.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone⁸One may not leave the animal alone with a Gentile. Chapter 1:6, Note 165. There the first tradent is R. Jonah himself.. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion⁹It is not said what everybody’s opinion is; the corresponding passage in G is in the name of “the rabbis of Caesarea, Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav” but then is missing the conclusion. One has to assume that it was “if he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion the animal remains permitted.”. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following¹⁰Mishnah Ketubot2:9. If she is jailed because of money matters one must assume that she was not raped; if she was condemned to death one must assume that she was raped or consented to sex with her jailers. If a woman can be alone in the custody of Gentiles without being raped, may the same not be assumed of female animals?: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it¹¹The argument appears to be cogent.? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.¹²In the Mishnah, not only do the rabbis permit to buy a Red Cow from a Gentile owner, they also allow to buy sacrificial animals from him. The question arises whether R. Eliezer will agree with this or not. The assumption here is that R. Eliezer will agree that sacrifices can be bought from Gentiles but not the Red Cow, whose ceremonies in pharisaic theory were made with many non-scriptural restrictions because of an important difference with Sadducees in matters of ritual purity (Mishnah Parah3:7,8).” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you¹³Is.60:7. The verse ends: they will be brought on My altar for pleasure. This gives divine sanction for using animals raised by Gentiles for the altar. Since the verse speaks of sacrifices, not of the Red C ow, R. Eliezer must hold that sacrificial animals cannot be bought from Gentiles. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 24a., this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past¹⁴The preceding argument does not prove anything in practice since in the next paragraph it will be shown that in messianic times the Gentiles will accept the Torah. Their animals may well be acceptable then but not now.? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist¹⁵This is the same argument as before.?

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated¹⁸Mishnah Parah 2:3. The text in parentheses was added by the corrector from the Mishnah.: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified. [But if he tied it with the bridle, made it a shoe lest it slip, put his toga on it because of flies, it is qualified. This is the principle: Anything for its needs, it is qualified. For any other need, it is disqualified.]” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abun said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14^th which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching⁵⁹This is the conclusion of a lengthy story in Pesaḥim, where it is mentioned that the Elders of Bathyra, at that time the heads of the Synhedrion, did not know how to proceed if the 14^th of Nisan was a Sabbath and that they were not convinced by any logical arguments presented by Hillel until he affirmed that what he said conformed to the teachings of their predecessors in the Synhedrion.. There, we have stated⁶⁰Mishnah Parah 2:3.: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified.⁶¹“It” is the Red Cow which never had borne a yoke (Num. 19:2.) The Mishnah continues with examples of loads which do not qualify and ends with the statement: “Anything done for its needs leaves it qualified; for extraneous purposes disqualifies.”” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it⁶²The Red Cow. it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work⁶³From the moment that an animal is dedicated as sacrifice any use of it other than sacrificing is forbidden.. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abbin said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14^th which falls on the Sabbath⁶⁴This is difficult to verify. In the current computed calendar (whose algorithm has a built-in bias against placing the New Year’s Day on a Tuesday which puts the Feast of Unleavened Bread on a Sunday and the 14^th of Nisan on a Sabbath) there are intervals of 20 years possible between two such occurrences. If the Mishnaic calendar was implemented as presented in the Babli (Arakhin 8b–10a) then R. Abbin’s statement seems justified, if no precautions were taken to avoid the Day of Atonement falling on Friday or Sunday; cf. the Appendix of the author’s Seder Olam (Northvale 1998). If R. Abbin quoted here is R. Abun as stated in Pesaḥim he would be a contemporary of R. Yose, who published the algorithm for the current calendar; then his assertion has to be questioned. (It is not certain that the calendar rules described by Abraham ben Ḥiyya, the source of the currently used algorithm, are totally identical with those promulgated by R. Yose.)! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel⁶⁵Who following his performance in this case rose to be the head of the Synhedrion..

⁴³⁷In this paragraph one gives example of technical terms used in Mishnaiot which are essentially the same. The list is made to explain the term זֵיתֵי קֻלוּסְקָא הַמְגוּלְגָּלִין which however is somewhat different in combining two expressions which are translations of one another (Note 405). Coverings are the same as protuberances⁴³⁸In Mishnah Ahilut 8:2 it is explained that סְכָכוֹת refers to trees giving shade and פְּרָעוֹת to bushes growing out of a stone wall. Both transmit “tent” impurity.. Veiled is the same as hulled⁴³⁹Mishnah Šabbat 6:6: On a Sabbath, a Jewish woman in Arabia may walk in the public domain veiled and in Persia hulled.. Roofs are the same as covers⁴⁴⁰Mishnah Kelim 8:9. An oven (furnus) may become impure if according to R. Jehudah it has a roof (στέγη), according to Rabban Gamliel if it has a platform (שְׂפָיוֹת).. Cups are the same as grooves⁴⁴¹Mishnah Parah 2:5: Two black hairs growing in the same groove disqualify a red cow; R. Jehudah says in the same cup.. A place under cups is a place for putting down pieces⁴⁴²Mishnah Kelim 22:1: A table or tripod (portable pieces of furniture which may become impure if whole) which were damaged but were covered with a marble top (which cannot become impure) still may become impure if the cover excludes a place for putting there cups (majority opinion) or pieces (R. Jehudah).. Κυλιστόι olives are rolled olives,⁴⁰⁵It seems that the correct reading is that of the Arukh: זיתי קלוסטא המגולגלים and the expression is a double Greek-Hebrew, the olives are “rolled” (or “apt to be rolled”) Greek κυλιστός and Hebrew “rolled”. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešonenu 37 (1973) pp. 23–25..