The Eddie B. Sit Edition presents an enlightening audio series of the Talmud Bavli, focusing today on Gemara Avodah Zarah, Daf Chaf-Gimel. We dedicate our study today for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, and may the spirit of the Almighty grant him peace in the Garden of Eden. Additionally, we pray for a complete recovery for Micky ben Jamie, for both spiritual and physical healing, and may his recovery be near at hand, and let us say, Amen.
We commence today’s Daf on Chaf-Bet Amud Bet, beginning from the phrase ibaya lehu, which poses a question raised in the Beit Midrash: Is it permissible to leave a goy alone with ofot, specifically chickens? Yesterday’s Gemara informed us that one should not leave a goy alone with an animal, as they are suspected of engaging in rivia, which is forbidden. Leaving them alone would constitute placing a stumbling block before the blind, as indicated by the verse lifnei iver lo titein michshol. Thus, the Gemara seeks to clarify whether this concern extends to chickens as well.
The Gemara cites an observation from Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, who relayed that he witnessed a goy who took a goose from the market, engaged in rivia, choked it, roasted it, and consumed it. Similarly, Rav Yirmeyah of Midifti recounted seeing an Arab who took a vegetable from the marketplace, made a hole in it for the purpose of rivia, roasted it, and then ate it. This clearly indicates that goyim are also suspected regarding ofot, as the goose is akin to a chicken.
Returning to our previous discussion, we noted that our Mishna explicitly states that goyim are suspected of rivia, hence the prohibition against leaving them alone with animals. However, we encountered a Braita that permits buying an animal from a goy for use as a korban. This raises the question: How can one buy from them if they are suspected of rivia? Rava addressed this yesterday, clarifying that while they are suspected regarding animals that do not belong to them, they are not suspected regarding their own animals, as committing rivia would ruin their own property.
Now, Ravina offers another distinction between the Mishna and the Braita: The prohibition mentioned in the Mishna is lechatchila, while the allowance in the Braita is b'di'avad. In other words, lechatchila, one should not leave a goy alone with an animal due to the concern of rivia. However, b'di'avad, if the animal is already in the goy's possession, there is no concern regarding rivia, and thus it is permissible to purchase the animal. This distinction is significant, as it implies that if a Jew leaves their animal with a goy, the animal is considered kesherah for a korban according to Ravina.
In contrast, Rav Papa holds that the animal would be pasulah, indicating that lechatchila one should not leave an animal with goyim, but b'di'avad, if it has already been with them, it is still permissible for the purpose of purchasing it for a korban.
The Gemara then questions the basis for this distinction, asking where we find such a differentiation between lechatchila and b'di'avad. It cites a Mishnah stating that a woman should not be alone with goyim due to suspicions regarding arayot. However, a contradiction arises from a Mishnah in Masechet Ketubot, which states that a woman captured by goyim for monetary reasons is permissible to her husband upon her return, as we do not suspect that anything inappropriate occurred. Conversely, if she was captured for a capital offense, she is forbidden to her husband due to the suspicion that something may have happened.
This leads us to conclude that the Mishna regarding the woman being alone with a goy pertains to lechatchila, while b'di'avad, if she was in such a situation, we do not suspect that anything occurred. This same distinction should apply to animals: lechatchila, one should not leave an animal with a goy, but if the animal is already in their possession, it is permissible to buy it for a korban.
The Gemara challenges this reasoning, questioning if the concern regarding a goy being suspected of inappropriate behavior with a Jewish woman applies even b'di'avad. Perhaps, even b'di'avad, we should still have concerns. The Gemara explains that the husband’s financial loss serves as a deterrent, as he fears that if he engages with her, he will not be paid what he is owed. Therefore, when it comes to financial matters, we do not suspect the goy of inappropriate behavior.
Subsequently, Rav Padda offers a different perspective, asserting that the Mishna aligns with Rabbi Eliezer, while the Braita aligns with the Rabbanan. The Mishna indicates that goyim are suspected of rivia, while the Braita permits buying animals from them for korbanot. The Gemara then explores whether this distinction holds true, questioning if perhaps both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan do not suspect goyim of rivia at all.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the Mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who is indeed concerned about rivia, while the Braita reflects the opinion of the Rabbanan, who do not share this concern. The Gemara further analyzes the implications of this ruling regarding the parah adumah and the various opinions surrounding its sanctity and the laws of korbanot.