Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת עבודה זרה דף כ"ג. We will start right from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא here goes back to the contradiction that the גמרא asked originally between the משנה and the ברייתא. In our משנה it says that you are not allowed to put a בהמה in an inn of the גוים, because חשודין על הרביעה. We suspect that they will do an immoral act with that בהמה. Then the גמרא said, but we find a ברייתא where it says that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן. And we know the דין is that you are not allowed to use a קרבן that an immoral act was done with it. That is the איסור of רובע or נרבע. So if it says in our משנה that we suspect the גוי would do an immoral act with the בהמה, so then why are you allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי? Why don't we suspect that the גוי did an immoral act with that בהמה? And the גמרא gave an answer before, and now the גמרא goes back to that question and gives another answer. רבינא

אמר, רבינא says, לא קשיא, there is no קושיא, there is no contradiction between the משנה and the ברייתא, because הא לכתחילה, הא בדיעבד. One is talking about לכתחילה, and the other one is talking about בדיעבד if it was done. Our משנה where it says that you should not put your בהמה in the inn of the גוים is לכתחילה, because we suspect they might do it. But when the other ברייתא says that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן, that is after it was already by the גוי. So בדיעבד, we don't assume that he did the immoral act, and that's why you are allowed to buy the בהמה from the גוי for the קרבן. The גמרא says, ומנא תימרא, how do I say, how do I know this, דשאני that there is a difference בין לכתחילה בין בדיעבד, between לכתחילה and בדיעבד? דתנן, because we learn in our משנה, לא תתייחד אשה עמהן, a woman shouldn't be alone with them, with גוים, מפני שחשודין על העריות, because we suspect that they might do an immoral act. So we see from the משנה that we always suspect that if a woman is alone with גוים, that they did the immoral act with the woman. ורמינהו, I'll ask you a קושיא.

We learn in a different place, האשה שנחבשה בידי עובדי כוכבים, a woman that was captured in the hands of גוים, so if על ידי ממון, if she was captured for monetary reasons, which means that her husband owed money to the גוי, and that's why the גוים captured the woman, so then מותרת לבעלה, when she comes home, she's allowed to her husband. But if על ידי נפשות, if the reason she was captured was because they wanted to kill her, אסורה לבעלה, she is forbidden to her husband. Because the דין is that a married woman who has relations with another man, she is forbidden to her husband. So here it says that if she was captured because of monetary things, then she is still allowed to go back to her husband. In other words, we don't suspect that the גוי did an immoral act with her. Only על ידי נפשות, that's when she's אסורה to her husband. Now the question is, since in our משנה it says that a woman should never be alone with a גוי, because we always suspect that the גוי might do an immoral act with a woman, and nevertheless, over there we see that if she was captured because of monetary things, she is allowed to her husband, because we assume that the גוי did not do the immoral act with her. But the question is, in our משנה it says that the גוי is always suspected of doing an immoral act. אלא לאו, therefore we must say, שמע מינה, does this prove, שאני לן, there is a difference בין לכתחילה לבדיעבד, between לכתחילה and בדיעבד. And that is the reason why in our משנה it says a woman should not be alone with גוים, because לכתחילה, we suspect they might do it. But בדיעבד, if she was captured and she was there, then we don't say that probably it happened and she should become forbidden to her husband, but we say that probably it wasn't done, and therefore she is מותרת to her husband. So the same סברא as we say here, that there's a difference between לכתחילה and בדיעבד, the same applies to the בהמה also. At לכתחילה, you should not leave the בהמה amongst the גוים, because they are suspected of doing an immoral act. But בדיעבד, when the בהמה was there, now you question whether you are allowed to buy the בהמה to use it as a קרבן, so here we say probably the immoral act was not done, and you are allowed to buy the בהמה for a קרבן. But then the

גמרא asks, ודילמא maybe לעולם אימא לך, באמת I'll tell you, אפילו בדיעבד נמי לא, that באמת, even בדיעבד, you're also not allowed. Ah, you proved me from this משנה that you are allowed, because we see there that if she was captured על ידי ממון, she's allowed to go back to her husband, and we don't suspect that he did an immoral act with her. But you could say, והכא היינו טעמא, here is the reason why if she was captured על ידי ממון she's still allowed to go back to her husband, דמירתתי, the גוי has מורא, he's afraid, משום הפסד ממוניה he will lose his money. He's afraid if he will do an immoral act with her, then her husband will not pay him the money he owes him. So that is the reason why he probably would not have done the immoral act. So באמת, if not for that, even if it is בדיעבד, still we suspect that he did the immoral act. But here there is a specific reason why we assume that he did not do it. So there is no ראיה from here that there is a difference between לכתחילה and בדיעבד. תדע, the גמרא says, I will prove to you that here the reason why we assume that he did not do the immoral act is not because it is בדיעבד, but because there is a special case here that he is afraid to do it because he will lose his money. דקתני סיפא, because in the same place it says in the second half, על ידי נפשות אסורה לבעלה, that if she was captured because of נפשות, she is forbidden to her husband. Now what is the difference between the first one and the second one? If we say that בדיעבד we always assume that he did not do the immoral act, so why is it that if she was captured על ידי נפשות, then she is אסור to her husband? Therefore we must say that באמת, even בדיעבד, we also suspect that he did the immoral act. The reason why if it was על ידי ממון, so then she is מותרת לבעלה, because there is a specific reason that he would be afraid to do it because he doesn't want to lose his money. So we have no ראיה from here that there is a difference between לכתחילה and בדיעבד. ושלו מינה, there's nothing more to talk about this, this is no ראיה at all, because definitely the reason here why she's מותרת לבעלה is because it was על ידי ממון. Now,

concerning this דין itself, where it says that a woman who was captured by גוים, if it was because of money, then she is מותר to her husband, if it was because of נפשות, she is אסור to her husband, רש״י brings two פשטים about what kind of woman we're talking about, whether we are talking about an אשת ישראל also, or only by אשת כהן, whether we're only talking concerning a wife of a כהן or also a wife of a ישראל. Because the דין is that when we said before that a married woman who has relations with another man becomes אסור to her husband, there is a difference between whether she is a wife of a כהן or a wife of a ישראל. If she is a wife of a ישראל, then the דין is that only if she did it willingly, ברצון, that's when she becomes אסור to her husband. But if it was done באונס, by force, then she is still מותר to her husband. While concerning a כהן, if it was done by force, also then she becomes אסור to her husband. And not only is she אסור to her husband, the כהן, but also she is אסור to any other כהן, because as soon as someone had relations with her while she was married, she becomes a זונה. A זונה does not only mean if she does it willingly. In this ענין, a זונה means that a woman who had relations with anybody that was forbidden. And therefore, this woman, that it was done by אונס, by force, nevertheless, she had relations with a man in a form that was אסור. And therefore, she becomes a זונה, and she is forbidden to stay married with her husband, the כהן, and she also later on cannot get married to any כהן, even if she would not be a גרושה, even let's say her husband the כהן would die and now she is an אלמנה, and normally an אלמנה is מותר to a כהן, what, but she would remain אסור for this reason. Now, בפשטות we must say that here we are talking about a wife of a כהן, because when it says that if she was captured על ידי נפשות, she becomes אסור to her husband because we're afraid that the גוי had relations with her, obviously we must be talking by a wife of a כהן. Because if we would be talking by a wife of a ישראל, then why should she be אסור to her husband even if the גוי did have relations with her? But still, it was באונס, and if it was done באונס, she is מותר to go back to her husband. Therefore, we must say that we're talking here by an אשת כהן. And that's why, if it was על ידי נפשות, when we suspect that he did have relations with her, she becomes אסור to her husband. But רש״י says that there's another פשט also, that we could say באמת we are also talking by אשת ישראל, that she's a wife of a ישראל. And the reason why if she was captured על ידי נפשות, she's אסור to her husband, because we suspect that maybe not only was it done באונס, maybe it was also done ברצון. Maybe she agreed to what he wanted her to do. And the סברא would be that since she was captured על ידי נפשות, her life was in danger, so therefore it is very possible that she agreed to do the act that he wanted her to do because she wanted to save her life. And therefore, we say that maybe it was done ברצון, and she is אסורה לבעלה even if her husband is a ישראל. And רש״י adds that this פשט is the main פשט because it is it is מוכח from the גמרא in כתובות that we're talking also by אשת ישראל.

תוספות asks a קשיא on רש״י: if we're going to say that we're talking by אשת ישראל, then how does the גמרא try to prove from here that there's a difference between לכתחילה and בדיעבד? That since we see that if she was captured על ידי ממון she is מותר to her husband, is that a ראיה that בדיעבד we do not suspect that he did the immoral act with her? But לכאורה, what's the ראיה? If we're talking about אשת ישראל ישראל, so maybe באמת he did do the immoral act, and the reason she is מותרת לבעלה because we assume it was done באונס? That it was done by force. To say that we should suspect that she agreed to it and it was done ברצון, willingly, that is very far-fetched. Since she was not captured על ידי נפשות, so her life wasn't in danger, why should we suspect that she agreed to it? So פשוט is we have to say that באמת the גוי maybe did do an act with her, but nevertheless, definitely it was not ברצון. It was done באונס. So then what kind of ראיה do we have that בדיעבד we assume that he didn't do that? The גמרא is trying to use this as a ראיה לגבי the answer that we gave before concerning the משנה and the ברייתא, that the reason you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי and don't suspect that he did an immoral act was because it's בדיעבד. In other words, we're trying to prove that בדיעבד we assume the act at all wasn't done, and we tried to prove it from here, but from here it's no ראיה whatsoever. Because could be the act was done, and the reason she's מותרת לבעלה is because it was done באונס, that's what we assume. So there is no ראיה from here whatsoever that בדיעבד we assume that he didn't do that. Therefore, תוספות says that we must say טאקע that we're talking here by אשת כהן, and אשת כהן is אסור even באונס. So why is the דין that if she was captured על ידי ממון, then she is מותרת לבעלה? Obviously, we say that he definitely did not do the act. And that's the גמרא's ראיה, that בדיעבד we assume that the גוי did not do the immoral act. And תוספות even adds that that's how it's משמע in כתובות, because there the גמרא brings in connection to this that there was a מעשה with this woman that she was captured and she was given to גוים in אשקלון, and the people from her family were מרחק her, pushed her away. Now the question is, if we are talking by אשת ישראל, so why did the family have to push her away? נניח we would say that we assume that she did an immoral act ברצון, willingly, and that's why she's אסורה to her husband. But still, it's only to her husband that she's אסורה. Why should the family push her away? Therefore, we must say that she was a wife of a כהן, and the reason the family pushed her away, because she was now forbidden to any כהן, to all כהנים. Another ראיה תוספות says that from this משנה itself we could see that we're talking by אשת כהן, because here it says that if she was captured על ידי ממון, she is מותרת to her husband, and comes out that the whole reason why she is מותרת is because since it was because of ממון, the גוי is afraid to do anything because he doesn't want to lose her money. It's משמע from this משנה itself, that if it wouldn't be because of the ממון, in other words, if it wouldn't be this special reason that the גוי is afraid to lose his money, then she would be אסורה. The question is, why should she be אסורה? There is no reason to suspect that she did it ברצון, because as long as it was not על ידי נפשות, as long as her life wasn't in danger, then there is no reason to say that she agreed to it. So therefore, even if it wouldn't be because of money, but as long as it's not על ידי נפשות, so there is no reason to suspect she did it ברצון. So why should the דין be that she should be אסורה לבעלה? And from the משנה definitely seems that the whole reason she is מותרת is because we have a positive סברא that he did not do the immoral act because he was afraid to lose his money. But let's say he wouldn't have been afraid to lose his money because there was no money involved, but there was also no danger to her life, where there is no reason to say she did it ברצון, she would be אסורה, it comes out from the משנה. Now the question is, why should she be אסורה? If we don't have a reason to assume she did it ברצון, so it was definitely done באונס if it was done, she still should be מותרת to her husband. Therefore, we must say we're talking by אשת כהן, and therefore, as long as we don't have a reason to say that he's afraid to do it, so then she is אסורה לבעלה, because even though she did not do it ברצון, but since he had no reason to be afraid, so we assume he did the act, טאקע באונס, but an אשת כהן is אסור even if it was done באונס. And according to that, the question that comes up is, it said in the משנה here, that if she was captured על ידי ממון, she is מותרת to her husband.

Why does the משנה say she is מותרת to her husband? The משנה should have said even a bigger חידוש, that not only is she מותרת to her husband, she's also מותרת לכהונה! Because we assume that there was no immoral act at all done in the case of על ידי ממון, because he is afraid to lose his money. So therefore, not only is she מותרת to her husband, but she doesn't become אסורה to a כהן at all, because we assume there was no immoral act that's done at all. So why did the משנה mention מותרת לבעלה? Why didn't it say מותרת לכהונה? And תוספות answers that the reason is because of the סיפא. In the סיפא, where it says על ידי נפשות אסורה לבעלה, and there there is a reason why it says אסורה לבעלה, even though we're talking by אשת כהן, so it should have said אסורה לכהונה, but there there is a reason why it says אסורה לבעלה. That's a bigger חידוש, to tell us that even if it wouldn't have been a כהן, even if it would have been a ישראל, she also would be אסורה to her husband. Because in the case where it's על ידי נפשות, her life is in danger, we're afraid that because of the danger she agreed to the act. So since we're afraid maybe it's done ברצון, she would be אסורה even to her husband, the ישראל. So therefore in the סיפא, it stresses בפירוש אסורה לבעלה to teach us that under all circumstances, even if she would have been a wife of a ישראל, she also would be אסורה to her husband. So since in the סיפא it says אסורה לבעלה, so in the רישא where it could have said מותרת לכהונה, it also says מותרת לבעלה. And then תוספות asks: How could לכתחילה רבינא think that this would be a ראיה to prove that there's a difference between לכתחילה and בדיעבד from the fact that it says in this משנה that if it was על ידי ממון she's מותרת לבעלה? Didn't he understand himself לכתחילה that here the reason is because of הפסד ממון, that he is afraid to lose money? It says בפירוש that if it's because of money, then she is מותרת, so obviously it is because he is afraid to lose his money, but not because it's בדיעבד, as the גמרא said it! But what was the הוה אמינא of רבינא? תוספות answers that רבינא thought that since she was captured by גוים, which means she is in their hand, so then טאקע to say that she agreed to the act we don't assume, but at least we could be afraid maybe it was done באונס, because after all she was in his hand as a captive. איי he might lose his money, but רבינא thought that maybe we don't say this סברא. Maybe we don't say that he is afraid of losing the money in a case where she is ממש in his hand. And nevertheless, the דין is that she's מותרת, but he said probably the reason is because it's בדיעבד. And the גמרא answers it's not so, we don't accept this סברא. The reason why over there it's מותר is because he is afraid of the הפסד ממון, but just to say that because it's בדיעבד it should be מותר, we have no ראיה from there. And the גמרא finished to talk concerning the תירץ of רבינא that the ראיה he wanted to bring is no ראיה, דשדיוה לא מידי, and nothing more. Now it

seems from the words דשדיוה לא מידי that means that for sure the reason over there is why על ידי ממון she's מותרת לבעלה is because he is afraid to lose his money, but not because there is a difference between לכתחילה and בדיעבד. In other words, even בדיעבד it is אסור, and there it's מותר because there's a positive reason why we assume that he did not do the immoral act. But תוספות asks a קשיא: If so, if the מסקנא of the גמרא is that even בדיעבד, if a woman had יחוד with a גוי, we suspect that there was an immoral act done, so then no Jewish woman who is married to a כהן could ever stay married to her husband, because it's impossible for a woman she shouldn't have sometimes יחוד with a גוי through her lifetime. And since as soon as they had יחוד, even בדיעבד we assume that there was an immoral act done, and even if we'll say it's באונס, but an אשת כהן is אסורה even באונס, so no Jewish woman could remain married to a כהן. And תוספות answers that this is not what the גמרא meant with the words דשדיוה לא מידי. The גמרא meant that from here is no ראיה. רבינא wanted to bring a ראיה from this משנה that בדיעבד we don't suspect, so from here is no ראיה. Here the reason could be because he's afraid of the money, but not that he says that בעצם the words of רבינא are not true, which means that we assume that even בדיעבד it's אסור. What he meant to say: רבינא wanted to prove it from here, from here is no proof, but it's not a ראיה against רבינא. So therefore the פשט of רבינא remains that לכתחילה you're טאקע not allowed, but בדיעבד we don't suspect that an immoral act was done. That's one תירץ תוספות gives. Another תירץ that תוספות gives that there is a difference between יחוד מועט, a short while of יחוד, or the case of נכבשה that the משנה is talking about. In the case of נכבשה, when she was captured by the גוים, so she is in their hand, and this is similar to the case of a בהמה that is in the hands of the גוים, that they're able to do the immoral act, so there we say that probably he did do it, even בדיעבד we assume so, and the only reason we say he didn't was because he's afraid of הפסד ממון. But in the case where she is not captured by the גוי, she just is ביחוד for a short while with the גוי, there we don't suspect that an immoral act was done because she could scream if she wants and people will help her. So therefore the גוי is definitely afraid to do it, and you can't make her אסורה to her husband because of that small amount of יחוד. And תוספות even brings that in ירושלמי it says that there is no

comparison between a woman and a בהמה, because a woman is able to scream, and even if she can't talk, she's able to motion, she's able to do things to stop the גוי from doing the immoral act, while a בהמה can't. So we see clearly in ירושלמי that we do accept this סברא. And therefore, in a case where there was נכבשה, there we do suspect he did it, unless there was a reason why he didn't, because he's afraid of הפסד ממון. But in other cases, סתם by the case of יחוד, we don't suspect בדיעבד that he did the immoral act. Then the גמרא continues, רב דימי אמר: רב דימי, he answered the סתירה between the משנה and the ברייתא in a different way: לא קשיא, there is no קשיא, הא רבי אלעזר, הא רבנן, that there's a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and the רבנן in this עצם דין whether we suspect that a גוי did an immoral act with a בהמה, and that's how we'll answer the סתירה. The משנה where it says that you should not put a בהמה amongst the גוים because we do suspect he will do an immoral act, that goes according to this opinion that holds that we do suspect of it. The ברייתא, where it says that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן, and we don't suspect he did the immoral act, that goes according to the other opinion that holds that we do not suspect. And where do we find that this is a מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the רבנן? דתנן, because we learn in the משנה in פרה, פרת חטאת, we learn concerning the פרה אדומה. This is the דין of taking the red cow that you would burn it together with other things that the תורה says, and with the ashes you would mix it with water, and it would be sprinkled on people who became טמאי מת. So, רבי אליעזר אומר, רבי אליעזר says, אין ניקחת מן העובדי כוכבים, you're not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים. וחכמים מתירין, and the חכמים allow it. מאי לאו, don't you think בהא קמיפלגי, that the מחלוקת is based on this, דרבי אליעזר סבר, רבי אליעזר holds, חיישינן לרביעה, that we do suspect maybe the גוי did an immoral act with this פרה אדומה, and therefore he says you're not allowed to buy the פרה אדומה from the גוים? ורבנן סברי, the רבנן hold, לא חיישינן לרביעה, we are not afraid, we don't suspect that he did this immoral act, that's why they hold you are allowed to buy. Now, if this is the

reason of their מחלוקת, so we see that there's a clear מחלוקת between תנאים whether we suspect רביעה or not. So this is how we could answer the contradiction between the משנה and the ברייתא. But then the גמרא says, ממאי, how do you know that this is the reason for their מחלוקת? דילמא, maybe דכולי עלמא, everyone holds, they both hold לא חיישינן לרביעה, that we do not suspect that he did the immoral act. The question then would be, why does רבי אליעזר hold that you are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים? והכא היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר, this would be the reason of רבי אליעזר, כדירב יהודה אמר רב, like רבי יהודה said in the name of רב. דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב, רבי יהודה said in the name of רב, הניח עליה עיבא דשקים, if he just put on it a pile of empty sacks, פסלה, he made it פסול already. ובעגלה, in the case of עגלה ערופה, עד שתמשוך בה, until he pulls it. The דין is that you're not allowed to have any yoke go on top of the פרה אדומה, as the פסוק says, אשר לא עלה עליה עול, which means that no yoke went on top of it. So when you get a פרה אדומה, you have to be sure that no yoke was on top of it. But here the תורה uses the לשון לא עלה עליה, it didn't go up on it. That means that even if it didn't work with it, if it just went on top, it was just put on top, that itself is enough to make it פסול. And therefore the דין is that if he put a load on top of it, even if it was the easy load, like a load of empty sacks, or the woods that you make sacks with, as רש״י says in the second פשט, but even if it's a small load, it makes it פסול. By the case of עגלה ערופה, the דין is different. עגלה ערופה is a calf that has to be brought to a certain place in the time when you find a dead body and you don't know who killed the person. So then you have to measure to the closest city, and the חכמים, the זקנים from that city have to go out and they have to bring a calf, and they have to chop off the head of the calf and do certain things and say certain things, etc. Now concerning the עגלה ערופה, it also says the לשון אשר לא משכה בעול, that you have to get a calf that never pulled a yoke. But there the תורה does not say that a yoke didn't go on top, it says it didn't pull a yoke. So therefore the דין there is that when would a load make it פסול? Only if it pulled when the load was on it. And that's what he says here, that in the case of פרה, even if you just put a pack of sacks on it, it also is already פסול. בעגלה, עד שתמשוך בה, in the case of עגלה ערופה, it's only פסול till it pulls it. So we see clearly that by just putting a small load on top of the פרה אדומה, it makes פסול. So maybe this is the reason for the מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the חכמים. מר סבר חיישינן, רבי אליעזר who holds that you are not allowed to buy from גוים the פרה אדומה because he suspects maybe the גוי put a load on top of this פרה אדומה. ומר סבר, and the other one holds, the חכמים hold, לא חיישינן, we are not afraid of that, and therefore they hold you are allowed to buy. So how do we know that the מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the חכמים is whether we suspect if the גוי did an immoral act or not? Maybe the מחלוקת is whether we suspect that he put a load on it or not? And the

גמרא says, לא סלקא דעתך, that is not a סברא, we don't think of that. Why? משום ניחא פורתא לא מפסיד טובא, because of a small gain he will not have a big loss. A פרה אדומה is very expensive, and the גוי knows that if he will put a load on the פרה אדומה it'll be פסול and they won't buy it anymore. So the גוי would not risk losing the great value of the פרה אדומה because of the small gain he will have of that פרה carrying that small load. So therefore, no one would suspect that the גוי did it. So in that case, what is the מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the רבנן? What would be the סברא רבי אליעזר holds that you are not allowed to buy it? Obviously it must be because he suspects maybe there was רביעה, and the חכמים don't suspect. But the גמרא says, הכא נמי, here too, concerning the case of רביעה, that he did the immoral act with the בהמה, לימא, let us say משום הנאה פורתא לא מפסיד טובא, that because of this small pleasure he will not have a big loss? Why don't we apply the same סברא to the suspicion that he did the immoral act? Why would we say it, because he won't lose the value of the פרה אדומה because of the small pleasure that he will have by doing the immoral act. But the גמרא says it's not the same, because התם in the case of the immoral act יצרו תוקפו, his יצר הרע pushes him, so therefore, even though he will have a big loss, but at the moment his יצר הרע pushes him, and therefore he can't overcome it and he might do the immoral act. While in the case of the gain he will have by just putting a small load on it, there there is no strong יצר הרע, and therefore there for sure he wouldn't do it. But then the גמרא asks ודילמא maybe דכולי עלמא לא חיישינן לרביעה, maybe באמת again both of them agree that we do not suspect that he would have done an immoral act with the פרה אדומה. והכא היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר, and this would be the reason for רבי אליעזר who holds that you are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים, כדתני שילא, like שילא learned. דתני שילא learned מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר, he said what is the reason for רבי אליעזר who holds that you are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים, he says because the פסוק concerning פרה אדומה says דבר אל בני ישראל, השם said to משה, speak to the בני ישראל, to the יידן, ויקחו אליך, and they should take to you, and the פסוק continues, a פרה אדומה. But the פסוק says ויקחו, they should take. Now we could learn the word ויקחו should mean not that they should take, but ויקחו could also mean they should buy. Because if you learn instead of ויקחו, but ויקיחו, that means it should be taken, that means that they should buy. And what the פסוק is saying is בני ישראל יקחו ואין עובדי כוכבים יקחו, that only from יידן you could do it and not from גוים. Since we learned the word ויקחו means to buy, so the פסוק is saying that you should buy it from יידן and don't buy it from גוים. So really it has nothing to do because we suspect that something was done to it, it is because the פסוק says you should not buy the פרה אדומה from גוים. So maybe this is the reason. So again we have no proof that the מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the חכמים is whether we suspect that a גוי did the immoral act or not. But the גמרא says לא סלקא דעתך, we don't have such a הוה אמינא, we don't assume that this is the מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and the חכמים, דקתני סיפא because it says in the סיפא, וכן היה רבי אליעזר פוסל בכל הקרבנות כולן, that רבי אליעזר also פוסל'd all the קרבנות, that not only did he say that you cannot buy פרה אדומה from גוים, but he says you cannot buy any קרבן from גוים. Now אי סלקא דעתך, if you're going to think כדתני שילא, like שילא said that the reason is because the פסוק says בני ישראל ויקחו, בשלמא פרה, so by the פרה אדומה we understand, כתיב בה קיחה, there it says the word קיחה, it says ויקחו, and it says בני ישראל ויקחו, so it is אסור to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים, אלא כולי קרבנות, but by all other קרבנות, קיחה כתיב בהו, does the תורה say the word קיחה? And since it doesn't, there should be no reason it should be אסור if the whole איסור is because of this פסוק. And since he does say that this איסור applies to all קרבנות, obviously there must be another איסור. So what is the other איסור? The other איסור must be because he suspects that the גוי would have done an immoral act with it. Now the חכמים who say you are allowed to buy it from גוים, obviously they hold that we don't suspect that an immoral act was done to it. So they are the ones that said that ברייתא that we learned earlier where it says that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן because the רבנן hold that we don't suspect that anything was done with it. But then the גמרא asks that even though we just found a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and the חכמים, and we see definitely that רבי אלעזר does suspect that an immoral act was done, and from that we wanted to prove that the רבנן who argue hold that we don't suspect an immoral act is done, what's the ראיה? ודילמא maybe עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אלעזר, that only when do the רבנן argue against רבי אלעזר, אלא בפרה, only concerning a פרה אדומה דדמיה יקרין, because it's very expensive, אבל בשאר קרבנות, but by other קרבנות, מודו ליה, maybe they agree. In other words, from the fact that רבנן say that by a פרה אדומה you are allowed to buy it from a גוי, and we don't suspect the גוי did an immoral act, is no ראיה that בכלל we don't suspect a גוי would do an immoral act. By a פרה אדומה, when the גוי knows that by doing this immoral act he will lose the פרה, they won't buy it anymore, so he'll have a big loss, so even though there is a יצר הרע, but still he will overcome his יצר הרע. רבי אליעזר holds that he will not overcome his יצר הרע, that's why רבי אליעזר says you cannot buy it from him because we do suspect he would do the immoral act, but the רבנן hold that he would overcome his יצר הרע because of the value of the פרה. But the רבנן hold he would overcome his יצר הרע because of the value of the פרה אדומה. But by other קרבנות where there is no big loss in money, maybe the רבנן also admit that we do suspect it is immoral act, so again we have no ראיה that there is an opinion that holds that we don't suspect that a גוי would do an immoral act, because the ראיה was from this רבנן, but here we're saying maybe the רבנן only say it concerning a פרה אדומה. And the גמרא answers you can't say that, אלא הא דתניא if this would be true, so what we learn in the ברייתא לוקחין מהן בהמה לקרבן, that you are allowed to buy a בהמה to for a קרבן from the גוים, מאן, who does it go like? לא רבי אליעזר ולא רבנן. It doesn't fit, not according to רבי אליעזר, not according to the רבנן. רבי אליעזר definitely says that you are not allowed to buy בהמות from גוים for a קרבן. And if we're going to say that the רבנן also hold like that, it's only by פרה אדומה that they argue, then who is the one that says the ברייתא that you are allowed to buy a בהמה for a קרבן? So obviously we must say that the רבנן hold that בכלל we don't suspect a גוי of doing an immoral act, and that's why you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן. ועוד another ראיה, דקתני בהדיא, we learned בפירוש in a ברייתא, מאי השיבוהו חביריו לרבי אליעזר, what did רבי אליעזר's friends tell him when they argued against him and they said that you are allowed to buy from a גוי? They said the פסוק says כל צאן קדר יקבצו לך, that all the cattle from קדר will gather to you, יעלו לרצון על מזבחי, they will go up for acceptance on my מזבח. So they wanted to show him that since you're allowed to buy the צאן from קדר, because קדר is ישמעאל, they're גוים, and it says that it will go לרצון על מזבחי, so we see that you are allowed to buy קרבנות from גוים. And this is the פסוק that they used to disprove רבי אליעזר. So we

see that the חכמים also argued concerning all other קרבנות, because the ראיה they brought was not from פרה אדומה, was from other קרבנות. So from here we see that the רבנן hold that בכלל, even concerning other קרבנות, we don't suspect that a גוי would do an immoral act. And this is a מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the רבנן. So this would be the תירץ, that there is no contradiction between the משנה and the ברייתא, because the משנה where it says that we do suspect goes according to רבי אליעזר, and the ברייתא where it says that we don't suspect goes according to the רבנן. Now the גמרא continues and says, this is a separate thing, this is not a קושיא on what we learned before, but since we already brought the מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the רבנן concerning פרה אדומה, the גמרא discusses it already. The גמרא says, עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בחששא. The whole מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the רבנן is only whether we suspect that the גוי did the immoral act or not. אבל היכא דודאי רבע, but in a case where he definitely did the immoral act, פסלה, he definitely, it made it פסול according to both. The only reason that the רבנן say that you are allowed to buy it from a גוי, because we assume he didn't do it. But had we known that he did it, then even the רבנן would admit that you are not allowed to buy it from a גוי, because the fact that he did the immoral act made it פסול for פרה אדומה. שמע מינה, does that prove דפרה קדשי מזבח היא, that a

פרה אדומה is קדשי מזבח? Because there are two types of קדשים. There is what we call קדשי מזבח, that is, if it's an animal that is brought on the מזבח as a קרבן, and that is קדושת הגוף, the animal itself has a קדושה. And then we have קדשי בדק הבית. These are objects that belong to the בדק הבית, they belong to the fund that was used for the upkeep of the בית המקדש. So anything that was donated to the בדק הבית became קדשים, became הקדש, but it wasn't קדושת הגוף, that the object itself became holy, but it was only קדושת דמים, the value was holy. And the בדק הבית would sell this object and the money would be used for the upkeep of the בית המקדש. Now there are different דינים concerning קדשי מזבח and concerning קדשי בדק הבית. For instance, a בהמה which is קדשי מזבח cannot be redeemed and the בהמה should become חולין unless the בהמה gets a מום, gets a blemish, then the דין is you redeem it and the money is used to buy a new קרבן and this בהמה becomes חולין. But קדשי בדק הבית, you don't have to wait for anything to happen to it. If it's a בהמה that's קדשי בדק הבית, all you would do is redeem it and the money becomes בדק הבית and the בהמה is חולין without a מום. Or other דינים, for instance, תמורה and הערכה, etc. The גמרא says here, since the דין is that if an immoral act was done with a פרה אדומה it is פסול, that proves that a פרה אדומה has a דין of קדשי מזבח, even though the פרה אדומה was not a קרבן on the מזבח, but nevertheless it has the same דין as קדשי מזבח. דאי קדשי בדק הבית, because if you're going to say it only has a דין of קדשי בדק הבית, מי נפסלה ברביעה? Would רביעה, the immoral act, make it פסול? By קדשי בדק הבית, if you donate a בהמה, for instance, to בדק הבית, it is not פסול even if it had רביעה. Just like you could donate any object to בדק הבית, you could donate clothes to בדק הבית, you could even donate a בהמה that an immoral act was done with it, and it's not פסול for קדושת בדק הבית. And since here we say that a פרה אדומה that an immoral act was done with it is פסול, obviously it has a דין of קדושת מזבח. But the גמרא says, שאני פרה, פרה could be different, דחטאת קרייה רחמנא, that באמת it doesn't have a דין of קדושת המזבח. And the reason that רביעה makes it פסול is because the תורה refers to it as חטאת, because the פסוק says חטאת היא. So therefore, all the things that make a חטאת, a קרבן, פסול also would make the פרה אדומה פסול. But it doesn't mean that בכלל the פרה אדומה has a דין of קדשי מזבח, and therefore concerning other דינים, like whether you could redeem it or not, or concerning העמדה והערכה, it does not have a דין of קדשי מזבח, but it has a דין of קדושת דמים, of קדשי בדק הבית. But the גמרא says, אלא מעתה, if so, if you're going to tell me that because the תורה called the פרה אדומה with the name חטאת, anything that makes a קרבן פסול would make the פרה אדומה also פסול, תפסול ביוצא דופן.

Let a פרה אדומה be פסול if it was a יוצא דופן. A יוצא דופן means if the פרה was born through a cesarean, it wasn't born naturally. And the דין is by קרבנות that if it was not born naturally, it is אסור to be brought as a קרבן, because we learn out from the פסוק where it says, שור או כשב או עז כי יולד, that an ox, or a sheep, or a goat, when it'll be born, so from the word כי יולד, we learn out that it has to be born naturally, not if it was taken out through a cesarean. So, just like a קרבן is פסול if it was a יוצא דופן, so then a פרה אדומה should also be פסול if it was a יוצא דופן, if we say that all the פסולים of a קרבן apply to a פרה אדומה because the תורה called it חטאת. וכי תימא, you will say הכי נמי, maybe so, maybe it is so, maybe a יוצא דופן is פסול by a פרה אדומה also. אלמה תניא, why did we learn, הקדישה ביוצא דופן פסולה, that if you were מקדיש a פרה אדומה which was a יוצא דופן, it is פסול. אבל רב שמעון מכשיר. רב שמעון says it's כשר. Now

according to רב שמעון, why should it be כשר? If we say that a פרה אדומה has the דין that anything that's פסול by a קרבן is פסול by a פרה אדומה also, so why should רב שמעון say that a יוצא דופן, which is פסול by a קרבן, should be כשר by a פרה אדומה? וכי תימא, you might say, רב שמעון לטעמיה, that רב שמעון goes according to his own reasoning, דאמר that he holds, יוצא דופן כולד מעליא הוא, that a יוצא דופן has a דין like a regular child, and רב שמעון says it in מסכת נידה concerning the דין of טומאה. The דין is that when a woman gives birth to a child, she becomes טמאה. Whether she sees דם or not, she becomes טמאה just because she is a יולדת, she gave birth to a child. The דין is that if it's a boy, she is טמאה for seven days. If it's a girl, she is טמאה for 14 days. And then after that, for a certain amount of days, she is טהורה whether she sees blood or not. After a boy, after the seven days, she is טהורה for 33 days, that during those 33 days, even if she sees דם she is טהורה. By a girl, after the 14 days of טומאה, and she goes to the מקוה, so then for the next 66 days she is טהורה, even if she sees דם. Now, there is an opinion that says that if the child was born through a יוצא דופן, through a cesarean, so then all these דינים that apply to a יולדת would not apply. There is no days of טומאה and there is no days of טהרה, plus that a woman who gives birth has to bring a קרבן later on, in the case of a יוצא דופן, she wouldn't have to bring a קרבן. All these דינים will not apply. But רב שמעון says that even if it was born through a יוצא דופן, through a cesarean, it is considered a

regular child, and all the דינים that apply to a regular יולדת will apply here too. So maybe this is the reason why רב שמעון holds that a פרה אדומה is כשר if it's a יוצא דופן, because he holds like his own opinion that a יוצא דופן is not different than a regular child. But that is not true, because אמר רב יוחנן, didn't רב יוחנן say מודה היה רב שמעון לענין קדשים שאינו קדוש? רב שמעון is מודה concerning קדשים, concerning other קרבנות, that a יוצא דופן is not קדוש, is not a קרבן, it is פסול. But only by פרה אדומה he holds that a יוצא דופן is כשר. Now the question is, why should a פרה אדומה be different than regular קרבנות, since we said that when the תורה calls פרה אדומה חטאת, it means to tell us that all the דינים of a חטאת, of a קרבן, apply to פרה אדומה? So why should the דין be that a פרה אדומה, a יוצא דופן should be כשר? אלא, so therefore the גמרא changes its mind, that באמת פרה אדומה is קדושת בדק הבית, not קדושת מזבח. And the question we asked before, if it is not קדושת מזבח, then why the immoral act should make it פסול? And we answered, because the תורה considered it like a חטאת, and anything that makes a קרבן פסול would make this פסול also. So the גמרא says this is not so. שאני פרה, פרה is different, באמת it is קדושת בדק הבית. The reason why the immoral act would make it פסול: הואיל ומום פוסל בה, דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה נמי פוסל בה. Since a מום, a blemish, would make it פסול, and that is because the פסוק says בפירוש, אשר אין בו מום, that it shouldn't have a blemish, so since a blemish makes it פסול, so a דבר ערוה, which means the immoral act, and also if it was used for עבודה זרה, would also make it פסול. דכתיב, because the פסוק says, כי משחתם בהם מום בם, which means that the corruption was in them and there is a blemish in them. So we see the תורה compares a blemish to corruption, to השחתה. Now

what does השחתה mean? תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, they learned in the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל ישמעאל כל מקום שנאמר השחתה, wherever the תורה uses the term השחתה, corruption, אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה, it means ערוה, immorality, and עבודה זרה. How do we know? דבר ערוה, how do we know it means immorality? דכתיב, because the פסוק says, כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ. Concerning the דור of the מבול, it says that every person corrupted its way on this earth, and there it means that they corrupted their way in immorality. And עבודה זרה, how do we know that corruption means עבודה זרה? דכתיב, because the פסוק says, פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל. You might be corrupt, and you make yourself an image, an עבודה זרה. And since the פסוק compares מושחתם with מום, So, therefore, wherever a מום makes פסול, also עבודה זרה and דבר ערוה, which is השחתה, also makes פסול. And therefore, by the case of פרה אדומה, since a מום makes it פסול, therefore a דבר ערוה will also make it פסול. And that is the reason why an immoral act would make it פסול. But not because a פרה אדומה has a דין of קדשי מזבח, but פרה אדומה really has a דין of קדשי בדק הבית. תוספות asks a קושיא. What kind of ראיה did לכתחילה the גמרא bring from the fact that an immoral act makes a פרה אדומה פסול is a ראיה that it's קדשי מזבח? What's the ראיה? Maybe really it's not קדשי מזבח. And the reason that makes it פסול is because it's an עול. Because in order for that act to be done, something had to go on top of the פרה. And by a פרה אדומה, there is a דין that if there's any yoke on it or any load on it, it makes it פסול. And that is the reason why it's פסול. But תוספות says, it couldn't be. Because if a person would do the immoral act, he would be standing and he wouldn't be laying on it, and therefore, there is no load on it. And second of all, since the ברייתא says that רבי אלעזר also made it פסול by all קרבנות. Now, if this reason would be because it is like a yoke, it is like a load, that פסול doesn't apply to other קרבנות. So, what's the connection between פרה אדומה and other קרבנות? So, obviously, it is not because it is a yoke. It is because of the immoral act itself. So, from there the גמרא wanted to prove that פרה אדומה is קדשי מזבח. Concerning the קושיא the

גמרא asks that, אלא מעתה תפסל ביוצא דופן, that if so, let the פרה אדומה be פסול ביוצא דופן. לכאורה, what is the גמרא's קושיא, אלא מעתה? But the גמרא is משמע that the גמרא is saying that now that you told me what you told me, now I have a קושיא: Why is the דין that a פרה אדומה is כשרה by יוצא דופן, it should be פסולה? What was the thing that the גמרא had just said? That a פרה אדומה the תורה called it חטאת, and therefore anything that is פסול by חטאת, by a קרבן, it is פסול by פרה אדומה. And in connection to that, the גמרא asks, "If so, that the תורה called the פרה אדומה חטאת, and therefore, anything that is פסול by a חטאת is פסול by פרה אדומה, why is a יוצא דופן not פסול by חטאת?" But לכאורה, if not for the גמרא's answer that the תורה called the פרה אדומה חטאת, the קושיא would be a קושיא anyway, and maybe even a stronger קושיא. Because before this answer, what did we think? That a פרה אדומה is real קדשי מזבח. Now, if a פרה אדומה is really קדשי מזבח like any other קרבן, certainly a יוצא דופן should be פסול. Why did the גמרא say that now that you told me that באמת a פרה אדומה is קדשי בדק הבית, the only reason that it's פסול with the immoral act is because the תורה called it חטאת. So, if so, why is a יוצא דופן not פסול? לכאורה, if not for that תירוץ, the קושיא would be even stronger. That if it is קדשי מזבח, then certainly anything which makes פסול a regular קרבן should make פסול a פרה אדומה also. So, certainly a יוצא דופן should be פסול. So, the קושיא should have been stronger even then. So, why does the גמרא start off the קושיא with the words אלא מעתה, "If so, now that you told me that the תורה called it חטאת, now I have a קושיא why יוצא דופן is not פסול by פרה אדומה? Why is it connected to what the גמרא said before? And תוספות explains it as follows. The whole קושיא from the גמרא is only from the opinion of רבי שמעון. The חכמים hold that a יוצא דופן is פסול by פרה אדומה. רבי שמעון is the one that holds that it's כשר. And the גמרא's קושיא is from the opinion of רבי שמעון. That how could רבי שמעון hold that a יוצא דופן is כשר by a פרה אדומה when since the תורה called it חטאת, so anything that's פסול by a חטאת should be פסול by פרה אדומה? So, therefore, a יוצא דופן should also be פסול. So, תוספות says the פשט is as follows. If we would have learned that the reason it is פסול with רביעה, with the immoral act, is because it's קדשי מזבח, then I would be able to say that the מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and the חכמים is that רבי שמעון holds it's not קדשי מזבח, it's קדשי בדק הבית. And therefore, רבי שמעון holds it's not פסול by יוצא דופן. And we would have assumed that רבי שמעון would also hold that the immoral act will also not make it פסול. Then there is no קושיא on רבי שמעון. Because the whole ראיה we have that it's קדשי מזבח and therefore, we would assume that a יוצא דופן would be פסול, is from the fact that the immoral act makes it פסול. Now maybe רבי שמעון holds that the immoral act also doesn't make it פסול. Maybe רבי שמעון holds that it is קדשי בדק הבית and nothing makes it פסול. Not the immoral act and not the יוצא דופן, so there would be no קושיא. But now that you said that באמת it is קדושת בדק הבית, everyone holds that. The reason the immoral act makes it פסול is because the תורה called it חטאת. Now, if so, a יוצא דופן should also be פסול. And on that, we assume that ר' שמעון would not argue. Since this דין that חטאת קריה רחמנא is taken from the פסוק, so there is no reason to say that ר' שמעון doesn't דרש'ן the פסוק that way. So בפשטות he also holds that חטאת קריה רחמנא. Now, if so, חטאת קריה רחמנא, for sure the immoral act makes it פסול. And the גמרא's קשיא is if the immoral act makes it פסול, then why should not יוצא דופן also be פסול? And then the גמרא's answer is, אלא שאני פרה, הואיל ומום פוסל בה, so דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה פוסל בה. What will be the תירוץ? The תירוץ is the גמרא טאקע changed its mind that באמת we don't accept this סברא of חטאת קריה רחמנא. And באמת the פרה אדומה is קדושת בדק הבית according to ר' שמעון. And the reason why the immoral act makes it פסול is because a מום makes it פסול. But concerning יוצא דופן, since לפועל it is קדושת בדק הבית, there is no reason for a יוצא דופן to make it פסול. Now why do the רבנן hold that it is פסול by יוצא דופן? Because the רבנן טאקע hold that it is קדושת מזבח. So when the גמרא remains at the end that it is קדושת בדק הבית, and the reason that the immoral act makes it פסול is because a מום makes it פסול, that is only according to ר' שמעון, because according to ר' שמעון you must say it is קדושת בדק הבית, because otherwise if it would be קדושת מזבח, there is no reason why it shouldn't be פסול יוצא דופן. So according to ר' שמעון we say it is קדושת בדק הבית, and the only reason the immoral act makes it פסול is because a מום makes it פסול, and the יוצא דופן is טאקע not פסול. But the רבנן will hold that it is קדושת מזבח, and therefore the immoral act makes it פסול because it is a regular קרבן, and because of that too, a יוצא דופן is also פסול. Now

תוספות asks a קשיא, that we see in different places in the גמרא that it is משמע that פרה is קדושת בדק הבית. Now according to the way we said now in the תירוץ of the גמרא, this would be a מחלוקת between ר' שמעון and the חכמים. It's only according to ר' שמעון that we say that the פרה אדומה is קדושת בדק הבית, but according to the רבנן who say that a יוצא דופן is פסול, it's because they hold it's קדושת מזבח. And it is not a סברא to say that all these גמרא's that תוספות brings where it says that פרה אדומה is קדושת בדק הבית would only go according to ר' שמעון and not according to the רבנן. Another קשיא תוספות asks, that in the first פרק of חולין it says clearly that טרפה makes פסול a פרה אדומה, and the reason the גמרא gives because חטאת קריה רחמנא, the תורה called it a חטאת. So how can we say that the גמרא had חרטה in here and the גמרא at the מסקנא does not accept this סברא of חטאת קריה רחמנא? Therefore תוספות learns the פשט in the גמרא different: that when the גמרא asked, אלא מעתה תיפסול ביוצא דופן, that if so, let a יוצא דופן be פסול by a פרה אדומה, this wasn't a קשיא on what we said before, that חטאת קריה רחמנא. But this is a general קשיא on the fact that we said before that according to both, if you did an immoral act with a בהמה, it is פסול for פרה אדומה. On that itself, the גמרא asked. And for that itself there could be two reasons: it could be whether it is because קדושת מזבח or because חטאת קריה רחמנא. First we said it was because of קדושת מזבח, then we answered it is not because of that, but it is because חטאת קריה רחמנא. So now the גמרא asks אלא מעתה, if so, not if so that you said חטאת קריה רחמנא and not קדושת מזבח, if so that the fact is that the immoral act makes it פסול, and we don't care whether it is because it is קדושת מזבח or it is because of חטאת קריה רחמנא, whatever it is, the גמרא's קשיא is, let it be פסול ביוצא דופן. So how come ר' שמעון holds that it is כשר יוצא דופן? איי, maybe ר' שמעון argues on what we said before that רביעה makes it פסול? Who do we see says that the immoral act makes it פסול? ר' אלעזר and the רבנן. So maybe ר' שמעון holds that the immoral act does not make it פסול? In other words, he doesn't hold it's קדושת מזבח and he also doesn't hold of חטאת קריה רחמנא, and therefore he holds that יוצא דופן is כשר? But it is not a סברא that ר' שמעון should argue against his own רבי'ס, ר' אלעזר and the רבנן, and say that רביעה should be כשר. And therefore the גמרא's קשיא is, we must say therefore that even ר' שמעון also holds that the immoral act makes it פסול, whether it is because it is קדושת מזבח, or it is because חטאת קריה רחמנא, but according to both reasons, יוצא דופן should be פסול. And that's the גמרא's קשיא. And later on when the גמרא says, שאני פרה הואיל ומום פוסל בה דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה פוסל בה, the גמרא doesn't say אלא as we have in our גירסא, which would mean the גמרא had חרטה, because whenever there's a לשון in the גמרא אלא, it means the גמרא changed its mind from before. We טאקע not גורס אלא. The גמרא remains as it was before, that the פרה אדומה is קדושת בדק הבית, and the reason why the immoral act makes it פסול, there there is a מחלוקת between ר' שמעון and the רבנן. ר' שמעון will say the reason that the immoral act makes it פסול is because הואיל ומום פוסל בה, באמת he doesn't accept the סברא of חטאת קריה רחמנא. And the reason he also holds that the immoral act makes it פסול is because since a מום makes it פסול, so immoral act makes it פסול. But that is only according to רבי שמעון, and therefore רבי שמעון holds that a יוצא דופן is not פסול. Since it's not קדושת מזבח, and since the only reason an immoral act makes it פסול is because the מום, but it has nothing to do with a יוצא דופן, therefore יוצא דופן is כשר. But the רבנן, they will hold that the reason why the immoral act makes it פסול is because חטאת קריה רחמנא. And it's טאקע בדק הבית, but they remain with the סברא חטאת קריה רחמנא. Now, if it's חטאת קריה רחמנא, so then anything that makes a regular חטאת, a קרבן פסול, should make the פרה אדומה פסול. And that is why an immoral act makes it פסול, and according to that, a יוצא דופן should also be פסול, and that's why the רבנן hold that a יוצא דופן is פסול. So now it comes out that whether it's רבי שמעון or the רבנן, they both hold that a פרה אדומה is קדושת בדק הבית. And that is why in all the places in ש״ס that תוספות brought before where we see that פרה אדומה is בדק הבית, it doesn't only go according to רבי שמעון, it goes even according to the רבנן also.

Concerning what we learned in the beginning of the דף that רבינא answered the סתירה between the משנה and the ברייתא, that the משנה where it says you're not allowed to put the בהמות amongst the גוים is לכתחילה only. But where it says that you are allowed to buy the בהמות from the גוים for a קרבן is בדיעבד. Now תוספות asks a קשיא, now according to this it comes out that רבינא doesn't accept the תירוץ the גמרא gave earlier, cause earlier in the גמרא the תירוץ was that there's a difference between the גוי's own בהמה or the בהמה that's not his. In our משנה where we're talking about a בהמה that's ours, not the גוי's, there we're afraid the גוי will do an immoral act with it. But when you buy a בהמה from a גוי, since it belongs to the גוי, so in that case the גוי will not do the immoral act because he will spoil his בהמה by doing it, so he will not do it. תוספות asks, now if רבינא does not accept that תירוץ, then how will רבינא answer the other contradiction that the גמרא asked in the earlier גמרא, in the first פרק? The גמרא there asked a contradiction between our משנה here and the משנה there. There it says that מקום שנהגו למכור, in a place where the custom was that you were able to sell בהמה דקה to גוים, you're allowed to sell. In a place where the custom was not to sell, you are not allowed to sell. So we see from there that it's only dependent on a מנהג, but there is no איסור. In other words, מצד הדין you're allowed to sell it to a גוי and we are not afraid the גוי will do an immoral act with it. And in our משנה here it says that we are not allowed to leave the בהמה in the inns of the גוים because we are afraid he'll do an immoral act. And that contradiction was answered through the תירוץ that in the case of that משנה over there where you are selling it to the גוי, so the גוי will own it, we are not afraid he'll do an immoral act because it's his. In our משנה here where it's our בהמה, we are afraid. So in order to answer that contradiction, we must come on to the difference between his own בהמה and not his own בהמה. Now רבינא here who doesn't accept that difference, how will he answer that contradiction? And the same קשיא according to רב פדת. רב פדת later on in the גמרא gave a different תירוץ, that this is רבי אלעזר and this is רבנן. So obviously he also doesn't accept the earlier תירוץ. Now how will they answer the contradiction between those two משניות? We cannot say, תוספות says, that they will accept the other תירוץ that the גמרא gave over there, the תירוץ of רב, that even our משנה where it says אין מעמידין, that you're not allowed to put the בהמה amongst גוים, is also dependent on a מנהג. It only speaks in a place where the מנהג was not to sell, because that תירוץ is not a good תירוץ, because רב himself had חרטה from that תירוץ, and and as תוספות in the earlier דף explained what forced רב to have חרטה from that תירוץ. Now, if that cannot be the תירוץ, the only תירוץ that is left is that there is a difference between his בהמה and not his בהמה. Now, if רבינא and רב פדת don't hold of that תירוץ, how will they answer that contradiction? תוספות answers that באמת also רבינא and רב פדת accept that תירוץ that there's a difference between his own בהמה and not, that a גוי will not do the immoral act with his own בהמה. And therefore if you sell the גוי a בהמה, there is no איסור really in selling him the בהמה because since it'll be his, he will not do the immoral act. And even in the place where the מנהג was not to sell, it wasn't a real איסור, it was only a מנהג as we said before. But still, when it comes to a קרבן we cannot give that תירוץ, because by a קרבן we still should have been מחמיר. In other words, we cannot say that the reason you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי for a קרבן is because it is the גוי's בהמה and we are so sure that he didn't do the immoral act because he wouldn't do it with his own, that is not enough concerning the דין of קרבן, because by a קרבן we should have been מחמיר and make it אסור even in a place where the custom was that you do sell it to a גוי because we assume that he will not do the immoral act because it's his בהמה, we shouldn't rely on that reason because a קרבן is much more חמור. And therefore רבינא and רב פדת say that we can't give this reason concerning the דין of a קרבן. Therefore concerning the דין of a קרבן they found a different reason, that there's a difference between לכתחילה and בדיעבד, or the way רב פדת answers, that it's a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and the חכמים. But based on this,

תוספות asks another קשיא. The גמרא here later on says that we are not afraid that the גוי would put a load on the פרה אדומה because he will not lose the value of the פרה אדומה because of the little gain. And then the גמרא asks, so if so, why are we afraid that he would do the immoral act? This will also make him lose the פרה אדומה which is a lot of money. And the גמרא answers that there there is a יצר הרע and he won't be able to overcome his יצר הרע. Now, if רב פדת accepts such a סברא, that because of his יצר הרע he will do the עבירה even though he will lose a lot of money, so how does this fit with the כלל what we said before, that if it's his own בהמה he won't do it because it's going to spoil his בהמה? How much loss will there be there already? A small amount of loss. Now, if concerning a פרה אדומה, which is a big loss, nevertheless we say his יצר הרע is so strong that he won't be able to overcome it, so certainly the small amount of loss that he's going to have by doing it to his בהמה, certainly he won't be able to overcome his יצר הרע. So if רב פדת accepts this סברא that he won't be able to overcome his יצר הרע even if there's a loss of money, how can רב פדת accept this סברא that on his own בהמה he won't do the עבירה because of the loss? But his יצר הרע will be stronger! And תוספות said before that we must say that רבינא and רב פדת also accept this difference between his own בהמה and other בהמה, because if he wouldn't accept this difference, then why should the דין be that there is no איסור in selling a בהמה to a גוי? And we said before the reason is because if you're going to sell it to him, it'll be his, so he won't do the עבירה. But now we're saying that רב פדת says that the יצר הרע is so strong that even if there's a loss of money, he still will do the immoral act! תוספות answer that by פרה אדומה, since people definitely want to buy it, it's a very important thing, so the גוי thinks, they'll buy it no matter what, I'll try to hide it, and they

won't know. And therefore, over there his יצר הרע will make him do the עבירה. But in a case where he knows for sure that if he's going to do it there will definitely be a loss, even if it's a small loss, he will be able to overcome his יצר הרע, and he won't do the immoral act.