Answer #2 (to Contradiction 3:d, 22b - Ravina): We are concerned for bestiality l'Chatchilah (therefore, we do not leave animals with Nochrim), but not b'Di'eved (therefore, we may buy Korbanos from them).

Question: What is the source that we distinguish between l'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved?

Answer (Mishnah): A woman may not be secluded with Nochrim, for they are suspected of illicit relations;

Contradiction (Mishnah): If a woman was taken captive by Nochrim, if this was due to money owed to her captor, she is permitted to her husband. If she was sentenced to die, she is forbidden to her husband.

Resolution (Ravina): L'Chatchilah she may not be secluded with Nochrim, but b'Di'eved we are not concerned.

Rejection: Perhaps (normally) we are concerned even b'Di'eved;

Here is different, for her captor fears that if he has relations with her, her husband will not pay her debt to redeem her.

Support (Seifa): If she was sentenced to die, she is forbidden to her husband (because her captors have nothing to lose).

Answer #3 (R. Pedas): Our Mishnah is R. Eliezer. The Beraisa that permits buying Korbanos from Nochrim is Chachamim.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): We may not buy a cow (to use for the red heifer) from Nochrim. (The red heifer is not really a Korban, but many of its laws are like those of Korbanos);

Chachamim permit.

R. Eliezer forbids because we are concerned lest the Nochri had relations with it. Chachamim are not concerned for this.

Objection #1: Perhaps neither is concerned for this. Rather, R. Eliezer forbids due to Rav Yehudah's law.

(Rav Yehudah): Even if one left a bundle of sacks on a red heifer (this is considered work), it is disqualified;

A calf is disqualified from being an Eglah Arufah (to atone when a murdered corpse is found) only if it pulled (a yoke or burden).

R. Eliezer is concerned lest the heifer was used for work. Chachamim are not concerned for this.

Rejection (of Objection #1): No one would be concerned. The Nochri expects to receive a fortune for the cow, so he will not risk this for a minor convenience (resting his sack on it)!

Objection #2: Likewise, no one would be concerned lest the Nochri will risk losing a fortune by having relations with it!

Rejection: R. Eliezer is concerned, for his evil inclination (for bestiality) tempts him greatly!

Objection #3: Perhaps no one is concerned for bestiality. Shila explained why R. Eliezer forbids;

(Shila): R. Eliezer expounds "... Bnei Yisrael v'Yikchu Elecha" - Bnei Yisrael must provide it (we read it 'Yakichu').

Rejection: This cannot be his reason!

(End of the above Mishnah): Similarly, R. Eliezer forbids buying all Korbanos from Nochrim.

The above verse applies only to the red heifer!

Objection #4: Perhaps Chachamim permit only the red heifer, for the Nochri hopes to get much money for it, but they agree that we may not buy Korbanos from Nochrim!

Rejection #1: If so, the following Beraisa is not like Chachamim or R. Eliezer!

(Beraisa): We may buy Korbanos from Nochrim.

Rejection #2: From Chachamim's response we see that they argue about Korbanos!

(Beraisa): Chachamim challenged R. Eliezer from "Kol Tzon Kedar (of Yishmael)... Al Ratzon Mizbechi."

(Conclusion: All questions against R. Pedas were answered.)

Inference: Chachamim and R. Eliezer argue only about whether we are concerned lest perhaps he had relations with it. If we know that he did, all agree that it is disqualified;

We conclude that the red heifer has the law of Kodshei Mizbe'ach (Kodshim brought on the Altar);

If it were only like Kodshim of Bedek ha'Bayis, bestiality would not disqualify it!

Rejection #1: In most respects, it is like Kodshim of Bedek ha'Bayis. Bestiality disqualifies it because the Torah calls it 'Chatas.'

Objection: If so, a Yotzei Dofen (it was born through Caesarian section) should be disqualified (according to everyone! Rashi - even though it is like Bedek ha'Bayis, it is called 'Chatas'; Tosfos - whether bestiality disqualifies for it is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, or because it is called 'Chatas'.)

Suggestion: Perhaps it is!

Rejection (Beraisa): A Yotzei Dofen is invalid for the red heifer;

R. Shimon says, it is valid.

Suggestion: R. Shimon allows it because he holds that a Yotzei Dofen has the same law like one born normally. (R. Shimon says that the Tum'ah of a woman who gave birth is the same whether it was a normal birth or a Yotzei Dofen.)

Rejection: R. Yochanan taught that R. Shimon admits that a Yotzei Dofen is invalid for a Korban.

Version #1 - Rashi - Retraction: Indeed, Chachamim say that it is Kodshei Mizbe'ach;

R. Shimon says that it is Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis. Bestiality and idolatry (designation for idolatry or being worshipped) disqualify it, just like a blemish disqualifies it.

Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer: Bestiality (or being designated for idolatry or worshipped) disqualifies it, just like a blemish disqualifies it (but not because it is Kodshei Mizbe'ach or because it is called 'Chatas'). (End of Version #2)

"Ki Mashchasam Bahem Mum Bam";

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): 'Mashchasam' always refers to sexual immorality and idolatry.

Sexual immorality - "Hishchis Kol Basar Es Darko";

Idolatry - "Pen Tashchisun va'Asisem Lachem Pesel."

This red heifer too is disqualified by bestiality and idolatry, just like a blemish disqualifies it.

(Shila - Beraisa): R. Eliezer expounds "... Bnei Yisrael v'Yikchu Elecha" - Bnei Yisrael must provide it.

Question: If so, we should say that only Bnei Yisrael can provide needs of the Mikdash - "Bnei Yisrael v'Yikchu Li Terumah"!

Suggestion: Perhaps this is true!

Rejection (Rav Yehudah): R. Eliezer taught that one must honor his parents as much as Dama ben Nesinah (who was a Nochri);

Once Chachamim needed a stone for (Tosfos - the Choshen, which is attached to) the Efod. They were willing to pay 600,000 Dinars above its value.

(Rav Kahane): It was 800,000 Dinars above its value.

Dama had the stone, but it was locked in a chest. The key was under the pillow on which his father was sleeping. Dama did not wake his father, and he lost the deal.