1)

(a)Ravina deals with the orignal discrepancy between our Mishnah ('Ein Ma'amidin Beheimah ... ') and the Beraisa ('Lokchin meihen Beheimah ... ') differently. He simply - confines the prohibition in our Mishnah to Lechatchilah, but permits the animal Bedi'eved'.

(b)And he tries to learn this from another discrepancy between our Mishnah ('Lo Sisyached Ishah Imahen ... ') and a Mishnah in Kesuvos - which permits a woman who was taken captive as a security against money that her husband owed the captive, to her husband

(c)Ravina tries to prove from there - that by animals too, we will permit them Bedi'eved.

2)

(a)We refute his proof however, by confining the Heter Bedi'eved to the case of a captive who is being held ransom for a debt - where the captor is afraid that if he rapes his debtor's wife, he won't get his money back (and not because every Bedieved is permitted).

(b)And we substantiate this from the Seifa of the Mishnah there - 'al-Yedei Nefashos, Asurah le'Ba'alah' (from which we see that, if not for the fear of losing his money, the prohibition would apply even Bedi'eved).

(c)In fact, the wife of a Yisrael who is raped is not forbidden to her husband - and the Mishnah in Kesuvos is speaking when she gave herself willingly to her captors (though had she been the wife of a Kohen, she would have been forbidden even if she did not).

(d)The final word on the matter is that - Ravina's distinction between Lechatchilah and Bedi'eved in the case of the animal is not acceptable.

3)

(a)Rebbi P'das resolves the initial discrepancy by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Parah, who forbids purchasing a cow from a Nochri for use as a Parah Adumah, and the Beraisa like the Chachamim - who permit it.

(b)According to Rebbi P'das - Rebbi Eliezer suspects the owner of having raped his cow, whereas the Chachamim do not.

4)

(a)We try to refute this explanation by citing Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who rules that placing a batch of empty sacks (Udah shel Sakin) on the back of ...

1. ... a Parah Adumah - is forbidden.

2. ... an Eglah Arufah - is permitted, as long as the animal does not actually pull it.

(b)Udah shel Sakin might also mean - a wooden spindle used for spinning sacks.

(c)And we suggest that Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim argue over whether the seller may have perhaps placed something on the cow's back. But as far as raping the animal is concerned, even Rebbi Eliezer will agree that - we do not suspect the animal's owner of having done that.

(d)We reject this suggestion however - because, in view of the sale value of the animal, it makes more sense to suspect him of giving vent to his lust (in spite of the loss [see Tosfos DH 'Hasam') than to suspect him of placing something on the animal's back, which would hardly be worth his while, bearing in mind the loss that this would cause.

5)

(a)We again suggest that even Rebbi Eliezer would not suspect the owner of raping his animal under such circumstances, and his reason is that cited by Shiloh in a Beraisa - who learns from the Pasuk "Daber el B'nei Yisrael Veyikchu eilecha Parah Adumah ... "- that the Parah Adumah can only be provided by a Yisrael, and not by a Nochri.

(b)We refute the proof from there however, from the Seifa of the Mishnah in Parah 've'Chein Hayah Rebbi Eliezer Posel Kol ha'Korbanos' - which would then make no sense, seeing as there is no word there (like "Veyikchu" by Parah Adumah) to disqualify an animal donated by a Nochri.

6)

(a)Reverting to Rebbi P'das' original explanation, we posit that perhaps the Chachamim only argue with Rebbi Eliezer regarding a Parah Adumah - which they say, he would not rape, due to the great loss involved, but agree with him with regard to other Korbanos - where the loss is relatively small.

(b)We refute this suggestion however, on the basis of a Beraisa where the Chachamim counter Rebbi Eliezer from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Kol Tzon Keidar Yikavtzu Lach ... " - with reference to the B'nei Yishmael.

(c)All those sheep will be brought as Korbanos, as the Pasuk continues "Ya'alu le'Ratzon al Mizbechi" - a clear proof that the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Eliezer regarding other Korbanos, too.

(d)The second proof that the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Eliezer regarding other Korbanos too is the Beraisa that we cited earlier 'Lokchin meihen Beheimah le'Korban' - which would have no author if the Chachamim agreed with Rebbi Eliezer with regard to other Korbanos.

7)

(a)We try to extrapolate from the above Machlokes that the Parah Adumah must be Kodshei Mizbe'ach - because an animal of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis that is raped does not become Pasul.

(b)The difference between whether a Parah Adumah is considered Kodshei Mizbe'ach or Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is - that a. the former cannot be redeemed without a blemish and b. it can be redeemed without being stood and assessed, whereas the latter can be redeemed without a blemish, and when it is, it needs to be stood and assessed.

(c)We initially reject this proof - by establishing the Parah Adumah as Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and attributing the P'sul of being raped to the fact that the Torah calls it a 'Chatas'.

(d)In that case we ask, a Yotzei Dofen - a cesarean-born cow, ought also to be disqualified.

8)

(a)The Rabbanan do indeed disqualify a Yotzei Dofen from becoming a Parah Adumah - and our Kashya is based on Rebbi Shimon, who validates it.

(b)We refute the suggestion that Rebbi Shimon simply follows his own opinion that a Yotzei Dofen is considered a regular baby, by citing Rebbi Yochanan, according to whom, Rebbi Shimon considers a Yotzei Dofen ...

1. ... irregular (and therefore Pasul) - regarding bringing it on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... a regular baby - regarding the Dinim that pertain to Tum'as Leidah.

9)

(a)So to accommodate Rebbi Shimon, we conclude that, even if a Parah Adumah is considered Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, a raped cow is Pasul, based on the Pasuk in Emor "ki Mashchasam bahem Mum bam", which teaches us that - wherever a blemish disqualifies, Ervah and Avodah-Zarah disqualify too.

(b)And we know that a blemish disqualifies a Parah Adamah - because the Torah explicitly writes "asher Ein bo Mum".

(c)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in No'ach "ki Hishchis Kol Basar es Darko al ha'Aretz" that - "Hashchasah" incorporates Ervah (based on the Pesukim at the end of Bereishis indicating that the principle sin of that generation was adultery).

2. ... in Va'eschanan "Pen Tashchisun Va'asisem lachem Pesel" that - it also incorporates Avodah-Zarah.

10)

(a)On the previous Amud, we cited Shiloh's Beraisa, which, to explain Rebbi Eliezer, disqualifies a Nochri from providing a Parah Adumah from the Pasuk "Veyikchu eilecha Parah Adumah". The problem this creates with the Pasuk "Daber el B'nei Yisrael Veyikchu Li Terumah" is that - by the same token, a Nochri should not be eligible to donate gold or precious stones that are needed for the Meleches ha'Mishkan either.

(b)To substantiate the Kashya we cite Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel quoting Rebbi Eliezer who tells the story of the Nochri who meticulously honored his father, from which we will prove that - a Nochri is eligible to donate gold or precious stones that are needed for the Meleches ha'Mishkan.