Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף כ״ד, but we will start ten lines from the bottom of דף כ״ג עמוד ב׳. And the גמרא starts, גופא, here we're going to discuss the גוף of the דין that we mentioned before. We mentioned before that תנא שילא, שילא learned, מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר, what is the reason of רבי אליעזר? Before we learned that רבי אליעזר says that you are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים. And we mentioned that שילא gave the reason for רבי אליעזר. כתיב, because the פסוק says concerning פרה אדומה, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו, speak to the בני ישראל and let them take the פרה אדומה. So he says we learn out from here, בני ישראל יקחו ואין עובדי כוכבים יקחו, that the יידן should take and not the גוים should take. And as רש״י explained before that we read it instead of ויקחו but יקיחו, which means to buy, that means that you should only buy it from יידן and not buy it from גוים. And that is the reason he says you are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים. Not like we said before, that the reason is because we are afraid maybe the גוי did an immoral act with it. But he says the reason is because the פסוק actually tells us that we are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים. But the גמרא asks, אלא מעתה if so, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה, when the פסוק says, speak to the בני ישראל and let them take for me תרומה, the donation. And this was when השם said to משה to speak to the יידן that they should all give donations to build the משכן, the gold and the silver and the copper, etc. So since the תורה says here דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה, so it would come out הכא נמי you'll also tell me that בני ישראל יקחו ואין עובדי כוכבים יקחו, that only the יידן are able to take and not the גוים, which means that anything that you would use for the משכן, for the בית המקדש, you wouldn't be able to take it from גוים, it would have to come from יידן, because the דרשה of בני ישראל. If we דארשן that פסוק that way by the פרה אדומה, obviously we should דארשן the same way in this פסוק. So you shouldn't be able to take anything that came from a גוי to use as part of the building of the בית המקדש or the משכן. וכי תימא, and if you will say הכא נמי that is true, והא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, didn't רב יהודה say in the name of שמואל that שאלו את רבי אליעזר, they asked רבי אליעזר, and it's the same רבי אליעזר that said the דין that you are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים, and which שילא said that the reason is because of the דרשה of the פסוק. The same רבי אליעזר was asked: עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם, how far does the מצוה of honoring your father and mother go? אמר להם, so he said to them: צאו וראו, go out and see מה עשה עובד כוכבים אחד, what one גוי did לאביו to his father באשקלון in אשקלון, ודמא בן נתינה שמו, his name was דמא בן נתינה. And

what happened? פעם אחת בקשו ממנו אבנים לאפוד, once they asked from him to sell them stones for the אפוד, בששים ריבוא שכר, and he would have made profit 600,000 דינרים. רב כהנא מתני בשמונים ריבוא, רב כהנא learned that it wasn't 600,000 דינרים, but 800,000 דינרים that he would have made profit. והיו מפתחות מונחות תחת מראשותיו של אביו, and the keys were laying under the pillow, the head of his father and he was sleeping, ולא ציערו, and he didn't want to be מצער him, he didn't want to wake him up. So he was ready to lose 600,000 דינרים or 800,000 דינרים, but he wouldn't wake up his father. So we see how far כיבוד אב goes. But in the meantime we see that the חכמים were ready to buy stones for the אפוד from the גוי. Now if you're going to say that you are not allowed to take anything from a גוי for the building of the משכן or the בית המקדש, how were they allowed to take the stones for the אפוד from the גוי? אלא מאי, you are allowed to take stones for the אפוד from the גוי. אי the פסוק says דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו, that proves that we don't דארשן it that way. Now if we

don't דארשן it that way here, why should we דארשן that way in the פסוק concerning פרה אדומה? And the גמרא answers: אבני שוהם הפסיק הענין. That when it comes to אבני שוהם, when the תורה mentions the different things you have to bring, and it says you also have to bring אבני שוהם, and the אבני שוהם they were the ones that were used for the אפוד, there the תורה does not say ואבני שוהם with a ו, and the אבני שוהם, which would mean that this comes in continuation to what it started saying דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו, but the תורה says it without a ו, so הפסיק הענין, so that stops it. So when it starts off the פרשה with the words דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו does not apply to אבני שוהם. And therefore, the other things you are not allowed to take from a גוי, but the אבני שוהם which were used for the אפוד, you are allowed to take from a גוי because on that, the words דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו don't apply. But the גמרא asks, והא ואבני מלואים כתיב דהדר ערביה, but afterwards it says ואבני מלואים with a ו, so that mixes it back up. That later the ו that it says, that shows that it does go in connection to what it said before דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו. So even though in the beginning of the words אבני שהם it doesn't say a ו, but since afterwards, in the next word, where it says ואבני מלואים, that does say a ו, that mixes it back, and that makes again that the words in the beginning of the פרשה, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו, apply also to the אבני שהם. וממילא, this פסוק should also apply to the אבני שהם, and there should be an איסור in taking אבני שהם for the אפוד from a גוי. And nevertheless, we see that he did want to take the אבני שהם for the אפוד from the גוי. Obviously we don't דרשן the פסוק, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו, in such a way. ועוד, another ראיה, תנא ספיה, and that

same ברייתא says in the סיפא, לשנה אחרת, next year, נולדה לו פרה אדומה בעדרו, so a פרה אדומה was born in the herd of this גוי. נכנסו חכמי ישראל אצלו, the חכמים from the יידן came to him. אמר להם, he said to them, יודע אני בכם, I know in you, שאם אני מבקש מכם כל ממון שבעולם, if I would ask you for all the money in the world, אתם נותנים לי, you will give it to me. Because a פרה אדומה is very scarce, and whatever money he would ask for the פרה אדומה, they would give it to him. אך עכשיו איני מבקש מכם, but really, now I'm not going to ask from you, אלא אותו ממון שהפסדתי, only the amount of money that I lost בשביל אבא, because of my father that I didn't want to wake him up. So all I will take from you is, or, according to one opinion, six hundred thousand דינרים, or eight hundred thousand דינרים. But here we see that even a פרה אדומה they were able to buy from a גוי. So how can we say that there is a דרש that teaches us that דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו, that only a ייד is allowed to give a פרה אדומה, but you're not allowed to take a פרה אדומה from a גוי, when here we see that even the פרה אדומה, it took from the גוי? And the גמרא answers, התם there, ע״י תגרי ישראל הוה, they bought it through agent יידן. That the פרה אדומה was bought by a ייד privately, and then the חכמים bought it from that ייד, and that's allowed. And the same could apply also to the אבני שהם, to the אפוד, that they bought it through agent יידן, that they didn't buy it directly from the גוי, but it was bought from a ייד, and that ייד had bought it from the גוי. Concerning the קשיא that the גמרא asked, that how can you say that since it says אבני שהם without a ו, so it's מפסיק and it doesn't come in connection to the beginning of the פרשה. So on that the גמרא asks, but since afterwards it says ואבני מלואים with a ו, so that mixes it back again. So because of that ו later, that makes that everything else before that also comes in continuation to the beginning of the פרשה. So תוספות asks what kind of קשיא is that? Since by אבני שהם it doesn't say a ו, so it's מפסיק. Now, because later on other words have a ו, that means that it mixes it back, and even the אבני שהם also has a connection to the beginning? Is it that once the תורה is מפסיק, it could never write a ו again? Because if it will ever write a ו in a next word, it will always mean that it makes it back. What is the connection? Since by אבני שהם there is no ו, it's מפסיק. Now later the ו of ואבני מלואים comes in connection to the אבני שהם, but it doesn't mean that everything else comes in connection to the beginning of the פרשה. And then תוספות asks another קשיא from the גמרא in שבועות, and therefore תוספות learns that the story here with דמא בן נתינה was not concerning the אבני שהם that are for the אפוד, but they were for the אבני חושן. The stones that belong in the חושן, which are the אבני מלואים. And even though the לשון in the גמרא is that they wanted from him the אבן אבנים לאפוד, it doesn't really mean, תוספות says, the אבנים to the אפוד, but they meant to the חושן, and since the חושן is connected to the אפוד, they call it also אפוד. And so is it משמע in ירושלמי also. When the ירושלמי brings this story, it says that they were looking for which stone, for ישפה. And ישפה is a stone not in the אפוד, but a stone in the חושן. So when the גמרא לכתחילה answered that it says אבני שהם, the גמרא felt that since it says אבני שהם without a ו, so then from then on, it has no connection to the beginning of the פרשה. The פסוק says אבני שהם ואבני מלואים, and according to this פשט, we're not talking about the אבני שהם, we are talking about the אבני מלואים, because the אבני שהם were for the אפוד, but we're talking about stones for the חושן, which are the אבני מלואים. So the גמרא says that since it says אבני שהם and then ואבני מלואים, so as soon as it says אבני שהם without a ו, then there is a הפסק. So from then on, it has no connection to the beginning of the פרשה. So the אבני מלואים also have no connection to the beginning of the פרשה, because that comes after the words אבני שהם. So the words דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו of the beginning of the פרשה do not apply to the אבני מלואים either. And that's why they were allowed to buy the אבנים for the חושן from the גוי. But the גמרא asks, then it says ואבני מלואים, so the ו of ואבני מלואים tells us that it does go to the beginning of the פרשה. It doesn't mean that since it says a ו by אבני מלואים, so the אבני שהם also go back to the beginning of the פרשה. But it does mean that the אבני מלואים themselves go back to the beginning of the פרשה. And that's what the גמרא asks. Since it says a ו here, so ממילא, the אבני מלואים which were for the חושן, and those are the ones we are talking about, they do go בהמשך to the beginning, so the פסוק דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו does apply to Then, therefore, if we דרשן the פסוק that way, you shouldn't be able to buy the אבנים for the חושן from a גוי. So how were they able to buy this אבנים from דמא בן נתינה? Then the גמרא goes back and asks: ורבי אליעזר לא חייש לרביעה? Is it true that רבי אליעזר is not חייש, doesn't suspect that the גוי will do an immoral act with the בהמה? Because שילא explains the reason why רבי אליעזר holds that you are not allowed to buy the פרה אדומה from the גוי is because of the פסוק דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו, but not because he suspects that the גוי would have done an immoral act to the פרה אדומה. Is that true? והתניא, didn't we learn a ברייתא: אמרו לו לרבי אליעזר, they said to רבי אליעזר, that how can you say that you are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from a גוי? מעשה ולקחוה מן עובדי כוכבים, there was a story that they did buy it from a גוי, ודמא שמו, and דמא was his name, and this is the story we mentioned before. ואמרי לה, some say, רמז שמו, his name was רמז. אמר להם רבי אליעזר, so רבי אליעזר answered them, משם ראיה? What kind of proof do you have from there? ישראל היו משמרין אותה משעה שנולדה, יידן watched it from the moment it was born, so no immoral act could have been done to it. So we see clearly that what is the problem according to רבי אליעזר? That we're afraid an immoral act was done to it, and that's why he answers that they guarded it from the moment that it was born. But if he doesn't care about it, in other words he doesn't suspect an immoral act was done to it, so what kind of answer does he give, that they watched it from the moment it was born? Who cares, this is not the problem! The problem is not that something was done to it, there's another problem. So obviously this is the problem, the problem is that an immoral act was done to it. And the גמרא says: ורבי אליעזר תרתי אית ליה, that רבי אליעזר holds of both things.

There are two reasons he has in mind why he says you are not allowed to buy a פרה אדומה from a גוי. אית ליה קיחה, he holds from the reason because the פסוק says ויקחו, וחייש נמי לרביעה, he also suspects that they would have done an immoral act to the בהמה. ובאמת the גמרא could have asked the קשיא much better, that how can שילא say that רבי אליעזר is not afraid that an immoral act was done to it, when the ברייתא finishes off as the גמרא had brought earlier, that רבי אליעזר doesn't only פוסל it by a פרה אדומה, but he said it's פסול by all קרבנות. But if the reason would only be because of the פסוק ויקחו, why should all קרבנות be פסול? Obviously it is because he suspects an immoral act was done to it! So that is a קשיא on שילא! So the גמרא didn't really have to ask the קשיא from this that he answered concerning the מעשה of דמא, the גמרא could have asked the קשיא from the ברייתא. But תוספות says the גמרא wanted to ask a קשיא from here because the קשיא is from the same story that we brought before. And you don't have to come onto the ברייתא to ask the קשיא, with this story itself we're just talking about, here itself we see that רבי אליעזר is חייש for an immoral act, והראיה, the answer he gave was that there they guarded it. And that's why the גמרא asks the קשיא from here and not the קשיא from the ברייתא. And someone will ask, but now that the גמרא says that רבי אליעזר is חייש for both, so what did he answer, that the reason they were allowed to buy it by that גוי was because they watched it from the moment it was born? That only answers one of the two! That only answers why there is no reason to suspect that an immoral act was done, but לכאורה, how were they able to buy it for the other reason, when the פסוק says ויקחו? That is already answered in the גמרא before, because the גמרא before said that it was bought through agents יידן, and that's why that was allowed. The only thing that remained is that he should suspect maybe an immoral act was done to it, and that's what רבי אליעזר said, that we don't, we're not afraid of that because it was guarded from the moment it was born. Then the גמרא continues: אמר מר, we have said before, ישראל היו משמרין אותה משעה שנולדה, יידן were guarding it from the moment it was born. But ונחזי, so let us be afraid, דילמא רבע לאימא כשהיא מעוברת, lest we be afraid maybe they did an immoral act to the mother of the פרה אדומה while the mother was pregnant with the פרה אדומה. And the דין is that if the immoral act was done to the mother while it was pregnant, then the child is also פסול. דאמר רבא, because רבא said, ולד המנגחת אסורה, a child of an animal that gored is also forbidden, because we say היא וולדה נגחו, that she and her child gored. The דין is that if a בהמה gores and kills a person, that בהמה is אסור בהנאה, you have to kill that בהמה. If there were witnesses, then the בהמה is killed. If there are no witnesses, but the owner of the בהמה admits himself that his בהמה gored, then the בהמה is not killed, but nevertheless it is אסור to be used as a קרבן, because the פסוק concerning קרבנות says that you should bring a קרבן ומן הצאן, and from the צאן. So the word מן הצאן itself comes to exclude מוקצה, that if it was set aside for עבודה זרה, then you cannot use it as a קרבן. The extra ו, ומן הצאן, comes to teach us as if it was a נוגח, a בהמה that gored, it's also פסול for a קרבן. So רבא says that not only the בהמה itself is אסור, but if it gored while it was pregnant, so then the calf that's inside is also אסור. Why? Because היא וולדה נגחו. Because since the בהמה had the calf inside her stomach, so when she gored, the calf also participated in the goring, so she's also אסור. And the same ולד הנרבעת אסורה, a child of a בהמה that an immoral act was done to it, so is also אסור, because היא ועוברה נרבעו, because she and the child who had an immoral act. Since the child was inside the stomach when the immoral act was done to it, and since the child is part of the mother, so the immoral act was done with the child also. So therefore, what good does it do that the Jews watched the פרה אדומה from the moment it was born that nothing was done to it, but maybe while the mother was pregnant with it, an immoral act was done with the mother and that itself would make the פרה אדומה פסול? But the גמרא says אלא we have to say, what did he mean? ישראל היו משמרין אותה משעה שנוצרה, that Jews were watching it from the moment it was created, not from the moment it was born. From the moment of conception, that's when they started watching the mother. And after it was born, they watched it. In other words, they made sure that from the moment the פרה אדומה was in the mother's stomach, from when it started, from then on no immoral act was done to it. But then the

גמרא asks: וניחוש דילמא רבעוה לאימה מעיקרא, let's be afraid, maybe an immoral act was done to the mother before the mother became pregnant with the פרה אדומה. And according to one opinion, this would also make the פרה אדומה אסור. דתנן, because we learn in a משנה: כל הפסולין לגבי מזבח, any בהמה which is פסול for the מזבח cannot be used as a קרבן, ולדותיהן מותרין, the children are מותר. דתניא עלה, and on that we learn in a ברייתא: רבי אליעזר אוסר, רבי אליעזר says it is אסור. There is a מחלוקת here between רבי אליעזר and the חכמים. And the גמרא explains the question. הניחא לרבא, it would be okay according to רבא. דאמר רבא אמר רב נחמן, רבא said in the name of רב נחמן: מחלוקת כשנרבעו כשהן מוקדשין. That this מחלוקת between רבי אליעזר and the חכמים is if the immoral act was done when it was already dedicated for a קרבן. Because what we're talking here about those animals which are פסול to be a קרבן, one of them is נרבע, if an immoral act was done to it, so he says that when is the מחלוקת? If the immoral act was done to it after already it was הקדש, it was already dedicated to be a קרבן. So then, רבי אליעזר says that it's אסור, that the child is אסור. The חכמים hold that the child is still מותר, but רבי אליעזר holds that the child is אסור. אבל כשהן חולין, but if it was done to it when it was still חולין, דברי הכל מותרין, everyone agrees that it's מותר. So according to this opinion we have no קשיא, because there's nothing to be afraid of that maybe they did an immoral act with the mother of the פרה אדומה before, because then it wouldn't make it פסול. אלא לרב הונא בר חיננא אמר רב נחמן, but according to רב הונא בר חיננא in the name of רב נחמן, that he says that מחלוקת כשנרבעו כשהן חולין. When is the מחלוקת? If the immoral act was done when it's חולין. So then רבי אליעזר holds it's still אסור, and the חכמים hold it's מותר because it was done when it was still חולין before it was dedicated as a קרבן. אבל כשהן מוקדשין, but if the immoral act was done to it when it was already הקדש, דברי הכל אסורין, everyone holds that it's אסור, that the ולדות are אסור, מאי איכא למימר, what can we say according to this opinion? Because according to this opinion רבי אליעזר holds that even if the immoral act was done before it became הקדש, nevertheless it is אסור and its children are אסור. So in the case of the פרה אדומה, what do we gain that they watched the פרה אדומה from when it was born, and not only from when it was born, but from when it was conceived, but maybe an immoral act was done to the mother of the פרה אדומה before that? And according to רבי אליעזר, this would make it פסול, too. Therefore the גמרא says: אלא, we have to say: ישראל היו משמרין אותה לאימה משעה שנוצרה, that Jews guarded the mother of the פרה אדומה from the moment it was created. But then the גמרא asks: וניחוש, let us be afraid, דילמא רבעוה לאימה דאימה, maybe they did an immoral act with the mother of the mother, and that would make the mother פסול, and in

turn would make the פרה אדומה פסול. And the גמרא says: כולי האי לא חיישינן, so much we're not afraid. We don't go that far back. תוספות asks: when the גמרא says let's be afraid maybe they did an immoral act with the mother, why only for an immoral act? The גמרא could ask another קשיא. The דין by a פרה אדומה is that it's not allowed to carry any load. Maybe while it was pregnant with the פרה אדומה the mother carried a load, and since the פרה אדומה is part of the mother, so the פרה אדומה also carried a load, and therefore it should make the פרה אדומה אסור? And תוספות answers that the דין is not so. If the mother carried a load, it does not make the פרה אדומה אסור, because if the דין would be so, we would never find a כשרה פרה אדומה. Because if a זכר goes on the mother, it's also considered a load. And therefore we're never sure that the mother didn't have a זכר on her when she was pregnant with the פרה אדומה, so it would never be כשר. So that's the proof that if the mother had a load on it, it doesn't make the פרה אדומה פסול. Considering what the גמרא said here that the opinion of the חכמים is that all those that are פסול למזבח, the ולדות, their children are כשר, but רבי אליעזר אלעזר says that they're פסול, so it would seem from the גמרא that he means that all the פסולים למזבח, their children are פסול. And תוספות says that it is לאו דוקא all, because there is a case where everyone agrees that the child is כשר. And this is the case of אתנן. If a בהמה was given in exchange for a זונה, for זנות, you cannot bring that בהמה as a קרבן. And nevertheless, the גמרא says in בבא קמא that בית שמאי and בית הלל, they all agree that the ולד is מותר. And it would not make sense to say that רבי אלעזר argues on בית שמאי and בית הלל, so we must say that רבי אלעזר would also admit that a ולד of אתנן is מותר. So when it says here that he holds that they're all אסור, it doesn't really mean all, it means most of them, but there are exceptions. Continuing, the

גמרא says that the יידן watched the mother of the פרה אדומה from the moment it was born, so תוספות asks, why only watch the mother? Why not watch the father? Because now we're going according to רבי אלעזר. Now we know רבי אלעזר holds זה וזה גורם אסור, that if something is made, and the cause of this thing that is made partially is from something which is אסור and partially from something which is מותר, and it's called זה וזה גורם, there's a גורם of היתר and a גורם of איסור, so רבי אלעזר holds it is still אסור, even though part of the גורם is a היתר. So here, too, if the father of the פרה אדומה was פסול for a קרבן, so it would come out that the פרה אדומה that's born, part of its גורם is a פסול, so you should have to guard the father to make sure the father isn't פסול either. And תוספות answers that the פסול of the father doesn't matter, because the whole reason for the איסור is because ביזוי מילתא, it's a בזיון, an embarrassment, to use this as a פרה אדומה. So that is only if the embarrassment is ניכר, it's visible. But the פסול of the father is not visible, and therefore that wouldn't make it פסול, and therefore you don't have to guard the father. Then the גמרא continues, אמר מר, which we said before, ישראל היו משמרין אותה משעה שנוצרה, that the יידן guarded it from the moment that it was created. The question is, מנא ידעינן? How did they know? How did they know that the child that's already in the mother's stomach is going to be a red cow, that they should want to guard it to make sure that it should be כשר for a פרה אדומה?

אמר רב כהנא, so רב כהנא said, כוס אדום מעבירין לפניה בשעה שעולה עליה זכר, that there is a way to make sure that a child should be a red cow. If you take a red cup, and you pass it by this mother while she is mating with a זכר, then you know that the child will be a פרה אדומה. And that's what they did, and from then on, they watched the mother to make sure that the child should stay כשר. But the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, אמאי דמיה יקרין? Why is it so expensive? If there's an easy way to have a פרה אדומה, why is it so expensive? And the גמרא answers, הואיל ושתי שערות פוסלות בה, because two hairs make it פסול. It has to be completely red. If it has two hairs which are white or black, then it is פסול. So even though this is an easy way to have the בהמה give birth to a red cow, but that the cow should be כשר for a פרה אדומה, that is seldom, because even if it's red, but to be completely red without even two hairs not red, that is seldom, and therefore it's very expensive. But then the גמרא asks, ומאי שנא אינהו? Why is it different theirs? If there's an easy way to have a red cow, why did they have to do it to the גוים? Why did they have to go, for instance, דמא בן נתינה and do it there? Obviously they did it there, because how else would they know over there to guard it? So obviously they did it there. So why do it there by the גוים? Why don't you do it to the יידן? Why don't they do it by a יידישע cow to pass through the red cup, and then they will have a פרה אדומה? אמר רב כהנא, so רב כהנא said, במורכבת, that when does this help? Only in a cow which is מורכבת. There are certain cows, certain families of cows, that if you do this to them, they will have a פרה אדומה, but not to every cow, and therefore you can't do it just to a cow of a ייד. It had to be done to the cow of דמא בן נתינה, because he had a cow from that family, and that's where they did it, and they knew there is going to be born a red cow, and they guarded it from that moment on. Then the גמרא continues, יתיב רב אמי ורבי יצחק נפחא אקילעא דרבי יצחק נפחא, that אמי and רבי יצחק נפחא were sitting by the tent of רבי יצחק נפחא.

פתח חד מינייהו ואמר, so one of them started and said, וכן היה רבי אלעזר פוסל בכל הקרבנות כולן, that just like רבי אלעזר says that it's פסול to buy a פרה אדומה from גוים, he says the same applies to all קרבנות also. פתח אידך מינייהו ואמר, so the other one opened up and said, מה ישיבו לו חביריו לרבי אלעזר? What did the friends of רבי אלעזר say to him when he said this? They asked him a קשיא. The פסוק says, כל צאן קדר יקבצו לך, that all the cattle from קדר will gather to you, and this will be brought as a קרבן, and קדר were גוים, so we see from there that you could take animals from גוים for a קרבן. אמר להם רבי אלעזר, so רבי אלעזר said to them, כולם גרים גרורים הם לעתיד לבוא, that this פסוק refers to לעתיד לבוא. When משיח will come, then all the גוים will be self-made גרים. Now if they will be גרים, that means that they will not do any עבירות, so they will not do any immoral acts, and therefore then you will be able to buy קרבנות from the גוים. אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said, מאי קרא? What is the פסוק, which פסוק shows that when משיח will come, all the גוים will become גרים? For it says: כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה, cuz then I will change for the nations a clear tongue, and it continues there that they will all call in the name of השם. So we see that then all the גוים will become גרים. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him: ודילמא מעבודת כוכבים הוא דהדרי בהו, maybe only from עבודה זרה they will return, they will go away, but not from anything else, because the פסוק just said: לעבדו שכם אחד לקרוא בשם השם, that they will all make one shoulder to call in the name of השם. That means that they will call in the name of השם and not עבודה זרה. So all we see from there that they will go away from עבודה זרה, but it doesn't prove that they will go away from other עבירות. So maybe they will still continue to do immoral acts. Now, if so, how will you be able to buy the קרבנות from the גוים even then? אמר ליה רב יוסף, so רב יוסף said to him: לעבדו שכם אחד כתיב, doesn't the פסוק say they will make all one shoulder, it means that they will be all one, and if they'll all be one, that means that they will do all the מצות. So therefore they will not do any immoral acts, and therefore then you'll be able to buy קרבנות from the גוים. רב פפא מתני הכי, רב פפא learned it this way. רב פפא told the story the way we just learned it. But רב זביד מתני הכי, רב זביד learned the same story, but a little bit different. Not that one of the two people who were sitting there said that רבי אליעזר also פוסל the כל הקרבנות, and the other one answered him that the חבירים of רבי אליעזר asked him the קשיא from צאן קדר, and רב יוסף brought the ראיה for a פסוק to רבי אליעזר's answer from the פסוק: כי אז אהפוך אל עמים, and אביי asked him: Maybe it was only from עבודה זרה that they will go away? And he answered him back the פסוק says: לעבדו שכם אחד, but he learned it a different, a little bit different, that תרווייהו אמרו, both of them together said, וכן היה רבי אליעזר פוסל בכל הקרבנות, that רבי אליעזר פוסל also the all קרבנות to buy from גוים. ותרווייהו אמרו, and they both said, ומאי השיבו לו חביריו לרבי אליעזר, that what was the question that his חבירים asked him? They asked him from the פסוק: כל צאן קדר יקבצו לך וגו'. ואמר רבי אליעזר, and they both quoted that רבי אליעזר had answered: כולם גרים גרורים הן לעתיד לבא, that they are all גרים לעתיד לבא, therefore they will not do any immoral acts, and that's why you'll be able to buy it from them. And ומאי קרא, what is the פסוק that proves it? So it's not like we said before that רב יוסף brought this פסוק, but they themselves quoted the פסוק, where it says: כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא כולם בשם השם. מתקיף לה רב יוסף, and on that רב יוסף asked, not like we said before אביי asked this question, but according to the way that רב זביד learned, it was רב יוסף who asked the question: ודילמא מעבודת כוכבים הוא דהדרי בהו, maybe they'll only go away from עבודה זרה, but they will still do immoral acts? אמר ליה אביי, and אביי was the one that answered him: לעבדו שכם אחד כתיב, as it says, לעבדו שכם אחד, which means that they will all be one, that they will do all the מצות, that means that they will not do any immoral acts. And the גמרא continues: מיתיבי, I

will ask you a קשיא. How can you say that you're not allowed to take קרבנות from גוים? The פסוק says: ויאמר משה, משה said to פרעה before they left מצרים, גם אתה תתן בידינו זבחים ועולות, that you also will give in our hands קרבנות. So we see that they were allowed to take the animals from פרעה and use them as קרבנות. And the גמרא answers: קודם מתן תורה שאני, before מתן תורה, before the תורה was given, it's different. תא שמע, the גמרא says, come and hear, I'll ask you another question. It says: ויקח יתרו חותן משה, that יתרו, the father-in-law of משה, took עולות וזבחים לאלקים, an עולה and קרבנות for השם, and יתרו was not part of the Jews, so we see that you could bring קרבנות from the גוים! The גמרא answers: יתרו נמי קודם מתן תורה הוה, יתרו was also before מתן תורה, and before מתן תורה the דין was different, then you were allowed to take קרבנות from others. And then the גמרא asks: הניחא, this is only good למאן דאמר, according to the one that holds that יתרו קודם מתן תורה הוה, that יתרו came before מתן תורה. Because in the גמרא there is a מחלוקת between the children of רבי חייא and רבי יהושע בן לוי whether יתרו came before מתן תורה, or יתרו came after מתן תורה. In other words, the פרשה where it speaks about יתרו coming to משה, whether he came before מתן תורה or after מתן תורה. So if you go according to the מאן דאמר he came before מתן תורה, and that's when he brought the קרבנות, so so according to the מאן דאמר that יתרו came before מתן תורה, and that's when he brought the קרבנות, so it's understood, because before מתן תורה there was another דין. אלא למאן דאמר, but according to the opinion that יתרו לאחר מתן תורה הוה, that יתרו came after מתן תורה, מאי איכא למימר, what could you answer then? Because after מתן תורה the דין is as it is now, and if the דין is now that you're not allowed to take קרבנות from גוים, how was יתרו able to bring קרבנות? אלא, therefore must say, יתרו מישראל זבן, יתרו bought it from יידן. And the גמרא says: תא שמע, come here, I'll ask you another קשיא. It says: ויאמר שאול, שאול said: מעמלקי הביאום, I brought it from עמלק. This is when שמואל told שאול to fight with עמלק, and he told him to kill every person from עמלק, and to kill all the animals that belonged to עמלק. Then when שמואל came back, he saw that he let the animals live. So שמואל asked שאול, where are these animals from? So he said, I brought them from an עמלקי, אשר חמל העם על מיטב הצאן והבקר, and the nation had pity on the good cattle and the good בקר. Why do they have pity? Why do they want it? למען זבוח לה' אלקיך, in order to have what to bring as קרבנות to השם. So we see here that you are allowed to bring קרבנות that were taken from גוים. And the גמרא answers, מאי מיטב, what did he mean? מיטב הצאן, דמי מיטב, the money for the מיטב. Not that they would bring the animals themselves for קרבנות, but they would sell the animals and the money would be used to buy קרבנות. ומה ישנא מיטב, so if so, why did it say מיטב? So what difference does it make whether the animals were fat and good animals or not, if they're not going to be used anyway as קרבנות? And since he says they were מיטב הצאן, good צאן, that were used for קרבנות, obviously he meant that the צאן הטוב will be used for קרבנות. The גמרא says no, that's not what it means, דהיכא דליקפצו עליהם זביני, in order that they have a lot of customers. That's why he said they're such good צאן that we won't have problems getting customers to buy them, so we will get a lot of money without any problems and we will be able to bring a lot of קרבנות. Then the גמרא continues, תא שמע, come, I'll ask you a question, the פסוק that says, ויאמר ארונה, ארונה said אל דוד, to דוד, יקח, let him take, ויעל אדוני המלך, and let my master the king bring up הטוב בעיניו, what is good in his eyes, ראה הבקר לעולה, look, there is בקר, it can be brought for עולה, והמוריגים וכלי הבקר לעצים, and there are מוריגים and vessels for the בקר that can be used for the עצים. So we see there that he was going to take קרבנות from ארונה, and ארונה was a גוי.

אמר רב נחמן, רב נחמן said, ארונה גר תושב היה, ארונה was a גר תושב. A גר תושב is a גוי who doesn't become a complete גר, that he becomes a ייד and is obligated to keep all 613 מצות. It is a גוי who accepts upon himself to keep the seven מצות בני נח. And that is called a גר תושב. Now, one of the מצות of בני נח is not to do גילוי עריות, not to do an immoral act. So therefore, since ארונה was a גר תושב, so for sure ארונה would have not done an immoral act, and therefore from ארונה you are allowed to take בהמות for a קרבן. In the meantime, since the גמרא quoted that פסוק already, the גמרא asks, מאי מוריגים? What is מוריגים? אמרו ליה, they said to him, מיטה של טורבל, a מיטה of טורבל. The גמרא asks, מאי מיטה של טורבל? What is מיטה of טורבל? And the גמרא answers, עיזא דקורקסא דדיישן. That means, as רש״י explains, it's a big board, a thick board that's very wide, and in the middle there are a lot of חריצים, a lot of בקיעות, a lot of scrapes in the width and it's very deep, right next to each other, and with that you thresh the crop, the תבואה, because you have the בהמות go over it, so then the indentations go into the דייש, into the תבואה, and that's how you thresh the תבואה, and that's what it's for, and that's what he said to him, that he has מוריגים וכלי הבקר לעצים. אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said, מאי קרא? What is the פסוק, which פסוק proves that מוריגים means that piece of wood that we just mentioned before? He says there's a פסוק in ישעיה, and this is קפיטל מ״א פסוק ט״ו. It says, הנה שמתיך למורג חרוץ חדש, I made you like a מורג חרוץ, a new one, בעל פיפיות, which has the sharp edges, and with that תדוש הרים ותדק, you'll be able to thresh mountains and grind them, וגבעות כמוץ תשים, and valleys you will make like straw. So here we see that he uses the לשון מורג, and he says what would you do with it? תדוש הרים, you will thresh הרים. So we see that this is a כלי that is used for threshing. Then the גמרא continues, מיתיבי, I will ask you a קשיא. It

says, ואת הפרות העלו עולה לה', that the cows they brought up as a קרבן עולה to השם. And this refers to the cows that brought the ארון, when the ארון was in the house of אנשי בית שמש, and they put the ארון into a wagon, and they had the cows pull the wagon, and they brought it from the ארץ פלשתים to the יידן. So it says that the פרות that came with it, they brought it as a קרבן to השם. And this came from גוים. So here we see that you are allowed to take בהמות from גוים to use as a קרבן. And the גמרא answers, הוראת שעה היתה, that was an exceptional thing that was only for that time, as a special דין just for then. הכא נמי מסתברא, it also is a סברא to say that it was a special דין then, דאי לא תימא הכי, because if you're not going to say so, if you're not going to say it was a special דין, עולה נקבה מי איכא? Is there such a thing as a קרבן עולה which is a נקבה, female? Because here they were פרות, they were females, and it says they brought them as קרבן עולה, and we don't find an עולה should be a נקבה. So that proves that then there was a special דין, it was an הוראת שעה. But then the גמרא says, ומאי קושיא? What kind of קשיא is it? What kind of ראיה do you have it was an הוראת שעה? From the fact that they brought נקבות for an עולה? דילמא בבמת יחיד, maybe in a במת יחיד you're allowed, because the דין of the מזבח at that time was a דין of a במת יחיד. Like this we have a דין of a משכן or a בית המקדש, then we have a דין of a במה. A במה is when a person individually makes his own מזבח and brings קרבנות on it. So after the בית המקדש was built, then there is no more such thing as a במה. But before the בית המקדש was built, there was a דין of a במה. And there were two kinds of במה, there was a במת רבים and a במת יחיד. Now the מזבח that was then in נוב, after שילה was destroyed, and the מזבח was in נוב, it had a דין of a במת יחיד. And maybe that is the reason they were allowed to bring נקבות as an עולה, because it was a במת יחיד. וכדרב אדא בר אהבה, it goes according to רב אדא בר אהבה, דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה, because רב אדא בר אהבה said, מנין לעולה נקבה שכשרה בבמת יחיד, how do we know that an עולה which is a female is כשר in a במת יחיד, in an individual במה, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ויקח שמואל טלה חלב אחד, that שמואל took one sheep that was still nursing, ויעלהו עולה, and he brought it as an עולה, and that was a נקבה. So we see there that because it was a במת יחיד, he's allowed to bring a נקבה as an עולה. But the גמרא asks, why should you say it was a נקבה? ויעלהו, זכר משמע. When it says they brought him as a קרבן עולה, since it says him, obviously it was a זכר. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said, ויעלה כתיב. It says ויעלה, we read it ויעלהו, but the written is ויעלה. It says ו-י-ע-ל-ה, which normally means ויעלה, he brought her up. It is read ויעלהו, but then it would have to say a ו. So even though we read it ויעלהו, but since it's written ויעלה, that proves that it was a נקבה. And there we see that a נקבה could be brought as an עולה on a במת יחיד, and maybe this is the reason why those cows that came from בית שמש were brought as קרבנות עולה even though they were נקבות, because it was a במת יחיד, but it's no ראיה that it was because it was an הוראת שעה. Now the גמרא goes back to the ברייתא that we learned before, that you're allowed to buy בהמות from גוים and use them as a קרבן. And the reason we gave before was because we assume that the גוי did not do an immoral act with the בהמה, since the בהמה is his, and by doing an immoral act to the בהמה it'll cause the בהמה to become an עקרה, to become barren, and therefore he would not want to waste, spoil his בהמה, therefore we assume he didn't do it. And therefore you're allowed to buy an animal by a גוי and use it for a קרבן. But רב יוחנן, אמר רב יוחנן says, גבול יש לו, there is a limit to this: פחות מבת ג' שנים נקרת. If the immoral immoral act was done to the בהמה before it was three years old, then the בהמה would become an עקרה, and therefore we assume he didn't do it. But בת ג' שנים, when it's three years old or up, אינה נקרת, the בהמה would not become an עקרה, and therefore he would do the immoral act. And therefore this דין where it

says that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי and use it as a קרבן because we don't suspect he did it, that is only if the בהמה is under three years old. But if the בהמה is three years and older, you are not allowed to buy from the גוי, because we do suspect he did it. But the גמרא says, אותיביה כל הני תיובתא, so they asked on רב יוחנן all these קושיות, all the places where it seems to be saying that you are allowed to buy בהמות from גוים and use them as קרבנות, שניה להו, and he answered them, פחות מבת ג' שנים, all these cases were speaking when the בהמה was under three years old. Then the גמרא asks, תא שמע, they ask a קושיא, ואת הפרות העלו עולה לה', it says that the פרות, the cows that brought the ארון they used as an עולה to ה', so here we see that you are allowed to use a בהמה from a גוי as a קרבן. And he answered, בפחות מבת שלש שנים, that they were younger than three years old. מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן, so רב הונא בריה דרב נתן asked a קושיא, אי הכי, if so, it says in the פסוק there, ואת בניהם כלו בבית, that their children they locked up in the house. It says when the people took the two פרות and they wanted to connect them to the wagon and bring with them the ארון to the יידן, so it says that ואת בניהם כלו בבית, that their children they locked up in the house. Now if it's פחות מבת ג' שנים, if the פרות were under three years old, מי קא ילדה? Could they give birth? Here it says that they had children already, but if they were under three years old there, could they have children? והתנן, didn't we learn a משנה, a דין, and this משנה refers to a דין of בכור. The דין is that when a פרה gives birth to a child, if it's the firstborn, then that is a בכור and it must be given away to the כהן. And also firstborn donkeys you have to exchange for a שה and give it to the כהן. Now if you buy a cow or a donkey from a גוי and you don't know whether it gave birth to a child before yet or not, in other words if it's going to give birth to a child now you don't know if this will be a בכור or not, the דין is like this: עד ג', by three years old, in other words up to three, ודאי לכהן. Then the first child that is born, if you bought the mother before it was three years old, then that surely goes to the כהן, because we know for sure that it didn't give birth before. So therefore, the child that is born now is definitely the firstborn, and it goes to the כהן. מכאן ואילך, afterwards, if you bought it when it was three years old already, then it is a ספק. We don't know, maybe it gave birth already before, maybe it didn't. So therefore, the one that's born into the רשות of the איד is a ספק whether it belongs to the כהן or not. And

therefore the דין would be as follows: since it's a ספק בכור, and a בכור, the דין is it's given to the כהן and he brings it as a קרבן, so it's קדשים, and since it's a ספק בכור, so we can't do anything with it. We can't bring it as a קרבן because maybe it's not a בכור. We can't do anything else with it because maybe it is קדשים, maybe it is a בכור. So therefore you have to wait. When it gets a מום, the דין is by a בכור when a בכור gets a מום, it is not קדשים anymore, it becomes חולין. So in this case, when it gets a מום, it becomes חולין, and you don't even have to give it to the כהן, because when it gets a מום, it is not קדשים, but it still belongs to the כהן if it would be a ודאי בכור. But then also, it wouldn't be any קרבן, but it would be ממון of the כהן. Now in this case, since we are not sure that this was a בכור, so it's a ספק whether this ממון belongs to the כהן or not, and the דין is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, that when there's a ספק whether money belongs to a person or not, so the one that has it, he keeps it, and the other one who is trying to take it out of him, he has to prove that it is his if he wants to get it. And in this case too, if the כהן will want to take it, he would have to prove that this was a בכור, and since we don't have any proof, so it stays in the hands of the ישראל, and since it has a מום already, he's allowed to eat it. And

concerning the חמור, in the case where it is a ספק like over here, so what he would have to do is take a טלה, a sheep, and exchange it for the חמור. And then the חמור already becomes מותר בהנאה, because before you exchange the בכור of the חמור, it is אסור בהנאה, until you exchange it with a טלה. So in this case, he would exchange it with a טלה. Now normally, this שה would have to be given to the כהן. But this שה has no קדושה in it. It is only ממון כהן, it belongs to the כהן. Now in this case, when he exchanged it for the שה, since it is a ספק whether it is a בכור or not, so this money is a ספק whether it belongs to the כהן or not. And since המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, he wouldn't have to give this שה to the כהן. But in the meantime, we see in this משנה that if it's under three, then we know for sure the child that's born afterwards is a בכור because we know for sure till three years old it can't give birth. So the קשיא is, how can we say that the פשט in the פסוק there, that they brought the פרות as a קרבן, is speaking in a case where they were under three, when it says that they had children, and under three they can't have children? אלא therefore, מחוורתא כדשנינן מעיקרא. Therefore, the better תירוץ is as we said before, that the reason they were able to bring them as קרבנות is because it was an הוראת שעה. And תוספות explains that רבי יוחנן, when he gave this limit, the difference between under three and three, he was interested in answering the סתירה between the משנה and the ברייתא. In the משנה, it says that you are not allowed to put an animal amongst גוים because we're afraid he will do the immoral act. In the ברייתא, it says that you are allowed to buy a בהמה from a גוי to use it as a קרבן and we don't suspect he did an immoral act. So רבי יוחנן's תירוץ is that there is a difference. In the משנה where it says you're not allowed, that is the case where it is before it is three years old. So then by doing this רביעה, it'll spoil it. But in the case where it says you are allowed to buy for קרבנות, that is if it's after three years old. And this only goes, תוספות says, according to the רבנן. Because according to רבי אלעזר, he definitely doesn't make a difference between before three or after three, because by the פרה אדומה, he suspects maybe an immoral act was done to it, and a פרה אדומה has to be two years old. And also it says that רבי אלעזר says that all קרבנות are פסול. Now if it says all קרבנות, it's משמע all קרבנות, even if the קרבנות are a year old. So obviously according to רבי אלעזר we suspect that he did an immoral act even if it's under three. So when רבי יוחנן said that under three we don't suspect, that is only according to the רבנן. And then תוספות asks, according to רבי יוחנן, how can we buy a בהמה for a קרבן from גוים if it is under three? Let's be afraid maybe he did this עבירה with the mother when she was מעוברת, pregnant with a child. And as we said before, that if the immoral act was done with the mother while she was pregnant, then the child is also אסור. So even if you're going to buy a child which is under three, so you know for sure that with this one he didn't do the immoral act, but maybe he did it with the mother? And תוספות answers that רבי יוחנן holds in פרק החולץ in יבמות that עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא, that a child is not considered part of the mother. It is not one with the mother. And therefore according to him, this whole דין would not apply. This whole דין that if you do an immoral act with the mother while she's pregnant, the child is also אסור, because the immoral act was done with the child also, according to רבי יוחנן it wouldn't apply, because he holds the child is not one with the mother. And the last thing that the גמרא says, that before three years old, the פרה or the חמור cannot give birth, So תוספות asks a קושיא: don't we see constantly that a cow that is two years old could also give birth? How could the גמרא say here under three it can't give birth? So תוספות says that nowadays, times changed, the nature changed from the way it used to be in the earlier generations, like it

Concerning the story the גמרא told with דמא בן נתינה, that the חכמים wanted to buy stones for the אפוד from him, so תוספות says is משמע that this was in the second בית המקדש, because it says there that the next year there was a פרה אדומה born in his herd, and they wanted to buy the פרה אדומה. Now we know that in the time of the בית ראשון, they didn't make any פרה אדומה, because the פרה אדומה that משה רבינו made lasted all through the first בית המקדש till עזרא, who made the second בית המקדש, he made the second פרה אדומה. Now, since we must say that this story took place in the second בית המקדש, and here it says that they looked for a stone for the אפוד, so obviously they had the אפוד in the second בית המקדש. Now if they had the אפוד, they also had the שמיר, because it's משמע in גיטין that in order to have the אפוד you must have the שמיר. A שמיר was a kind of worm that with that, they used to cut the stone. So here it comes out that they had the שמיר in the second בית המקדש. But the גמרא says in סוטה, משמתו נביאים הראשונים, when the first נביאים died, בטלו אורים ותומים, there was no more אורים ותומים. And then it says, משחרב בית המקדש, when the בית המקדש was destroyed, בטל השמיר, the שמיר was בטל. And it's משמע that this refers to the חורבן of the first בית המקדש, because right after that it mentions about the פולמוס of אספסיאנוס of טיטוס, and that was before the חורבן of the second בית המקדש. So it comes out that by the חורבן of the first בית המקדש, the שמיר was בטל, so they didn't have a שמיר in the second בית המקדש. And in our גמרא, where it seems that they had the אפוד in the second בית המקדש, and in order to have the אפוד you must have the שמיר, is משמע that they did have the שמיר in the second בית המקדש. So תוספות says that when it says there that משחרב בית המקדש בטל השמיר, it does not mean בית המקדש ראשון, but it means that the second בית המקדש was destroyed, that's when the שמיר was בטל. Because if it would mean that the first בית המקדש was destroyed, so then why does it say that when the first נביאים died, the אורים ותומים was בטל? Then it says when the בית המקדש was destroyed, the שמיר was בטל. Why doesn't it go together? It should have said, משחרב בית המקדש בטל אורים ותומים והשמיר. Because the אורים ותומים were בטל by the חורבן of the first בית המקדש. Because we know that in the second בית המקדש there were five things missing, and one of them was the אורים ותומים. So it should have said together, when the בית המקדש was destroyed, בטל the אורים ותומים and the שמיר. And therefore, since it puts it into two categories, therefore we must say that when it says משחרב בית המקדש בטל השמיר, it means the בית שני. But in the first בית המקדש, תוספות says, they did have the שמיר. But then

תוספות asks a קושיא: now that we're saying that they did have the שמיר in the second בית המקדש, so how come later in the גמרא, in פרק רבי ישמעאל, concerning where it says אבני מזבח ששקצום מלכי יון, that there were the stones of the מזבח that the kings of יון desecrated, the גמרא asks there, what should we do? Should we break it? The תורה says אבנים שלמות אמר רחמנא, it has to be complete stone. Should we cut it, meaning with a metal? And the reason we would cut it is so there should be no פגימה. But you can't do that either because it says לא תניף עליהם ברזל, you should pick up not pick up metal to it. But לכאורה תוספות asks, what is the קושיא? Let's do it through the שמיר, so it is not metal, and it also will not be broken, and through the שמיר it'll be good, now that we're saying that they did have the שמיר in the second בית המקדש! And תוספות answers that if they would do it through the שמיר, it wouldn't be smooth. Because with the שמיר, it would just crack open. So it wasn't done through metal, but still it wouldn't be smooth. And you have to make it smooth so it shouldn't have any פגימה, that you would go by with a nail, it wouldn't get stuck, and with the שמיר this wouldn't happen. That's why they couldn't do it with the שמיר.

Concerning what the גמרא said later on, that we have a מחלוקת when יתרו came, whether יתרו came before מתן תורה or יתרו came after מתן תורה. So תוספות asks a קושיא according to the opinion that יתרו came after מתן תורה, and it says in חומש that צפורה, the wife of משה, came along with יתרו. So according to this opinion it'll come out that צפורה did not come to משה till after מתן תורה. So לכאורה this is a קושיא, and the גמרא says in יבמות that ג' דברים עשה משה מדעתו והסכים הקדוש ברוך הוא על ידו. There were three things that משה did on his own, but השם agreed that he did it right, and one of the things was פירש מן האשה, that he stayed away from his wife. And לכאורה what's the פשט פירש מן האשה? She wasn't there! This happened by מתן תורה, when השם said to him that he did it right. Now since צפורה wasn't there according to this opinion, so his wife wasn't there to stay away from her, so what's the פשט he did at that time one of the three things that was good, that he stayed away from his wife when his wife wasn't there? So תוספות says what it means is that השם agreed to what he decided to stay away from his wife. It doesn't mean he actually did it, she wasn't there, but he had made up his mind that when she will come he will stay away from her, and that's what השם was מסכים, that that was a good idea. But then תוספות asks, according to the מאן דאמר that says that he came before מתן תורה, So it's not understood, משה רבינו told יתרו when he asked him, what are you doing sitting there all day? So he said, והודעתי את חוקי אלוקים ואת תורותיו, that I'm teaching the people, I'm notifying them the חוקים of השם and His תורות. Now, if he came before מתן תורה and this whole story took place before מתן תורה, so then there was no חוקים and no תורות yet, so what's the פשט that משה told him I am teaching them the חוקים and the תורה? Another קשיא תוספות asks: רש״י in פרשת יתרו says that משה had no time to judge the אידן till after the day after יום כיפור. Now, if he came before מתן תורה, this must have taken place much earlier. Therefore תוספות says that this whole first פרשה of יתרו was said before מתן תורה. That is the beginning when it says וישמע יתרו and he came to the מדבר, all that was done before מתן תורה. But when it says later on in the פרשה concerning יתרו that יתרו saw משה sitting and judging the אידן and he said to him you'll get tired and you should appoint שרי אלפים, שרי מאות, etc., that part was definitely said after מתן תורה. איי, the question is, how come the תורה puts it in such an order? Because we look in the חומש, it says first וישמע יתרו that יתרו came to משה, and then it says that יתרו saw משה judging the אידן and he told him don't do it, etc., then the תורה starts off with all the things that happened by מתן תורה. Now, if we learn that the first פרשה is before מתן תורה, so we would assume that the second part of יתרו, which tells us about the story that יתרו spoke to משה, so you should appoint the people, etc., is also before מתן תורה, because the פרשה of מתן תורה is in that פרשה after that story. But תוספות says no, that באמת the first part of יתרו is before מתן תורה, the second part when יתרו spoke to משה and he said to him what are you doing and משה said I am judging the אידן and teaching them the תורה, this was done after מתן תורה. איי, why didn't the תורה first write the story of מתן תורה and then tell us the story what יתרו said to משה so it'll fit to the order of events, that first the תורה was given then this happened? But תוספות says because already the תורה tells us how יתרו came to the מדבר, so the תורה tells us already all the things that happened to יתרו till he went back. But really that happened later. And then תוספות says, אפילו if we're going to go according to the מאן דאמר that יתרו came after מתן תורה, it's still not understood, why was that פרשה written here? If he came after מתן תורה, why is the whole story of יתרו written in the תורה before the story of מתן תורה? So you must say because before that the תורה tells us about עמלק, that עמלק was the first one to make trouble to the אידן, so right after that the תורה says that יתרו was the first one to do good to the אידן, that he gave them a very good advice and he helped them out.

Concerning the story the גמרא tells of דמא בן נתינה that first they wanted to buy the stones for the אפוד, and because of כיבוד אב he didn't give it to them. And next year when there was a פרה אדומה born to him, they wanted to buy it from him, and he said all I want even though I know that you are going to give me all the money in the world, but I'm only asking for the money that I lost last year. So the מהרש״א explains, what was the reason that next year a פרה אדומה was born to him? Because we know אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מקפח שכר כל בריה בעולם הזה, that the אייבערשטער does not hold back the reward for any creature in this world. So by a איד, for by a איד it says concerning כיבוד אב ואם: למען יאריכון ימיך ולמען ייטב לך, and we דרשן למען יאריכון ימיך means in this world, that part of the reward will be in this world, ולמען ייטב לך and it'll be good to you in the world to come, so there the reward comes a little bit in this world for כיבוד אב and a lot in the world to come. But concerning a גוי, a גוי doesn't have this מצוה as the פסוק says it, so by a גוי the אייבערשטער would give his full reward in this world so he shouldn't have anything in the world to come. Now, this גוי here was from the חסידי אומות העולם and he knew this, and he did not want to accept the full reward for his מצוה of כיבוד אב in this world. And that's what he said: the next year when the פרה אדומה was born to him and they came to buy it, so he said to them, I know I could ask you for all the money in the world, and if he would have asked for that he would have gotten it, so that would mean that he got the full reward for his מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם in this world, and he didn't want that. That's why he said, all I want is the money I lost last year. But that is not the full reward because I could have gotten more, so he would only be taking part of the reward, but the reward for the מצוה itself, that would remain even for him in עולם הבא. And באמת this fits to what the רמב״ם says that חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא, that the righteous of amongst the גוים also have a חלק לעולם הבא. So he wanted to have his חלק לעולם הבא, that's why he didn't want to take all the money that he could have gotten for that, because then he would have gotten the full reward for the כיבוד אב, but he only took a little bit and the rest he left for עולם הבא.