(Mishnah): One may not stand an animal at the inn of idolaters, as they are suspected of bestiality.

A woman should not be secluded with them, because they are suspected of illicit relations.

A man should not be secluded with them, because they are suspected of murder.

A Jewish woman should not act as a midwife for a female idolater, but a female idolater may act as a midwife for a Jewish woman.

A Jewish woman should not act as a wet nurse for the baby of a female idolater, but a female idolater may act as a wet nurse for a Jewish woman, in the mother's home.

(Gemara) - (R. Zeirah/ R. Abahu citing R. Yosi bei R. Chaninah/ R. Ba/ R. Yona): (The ruling of the Mishnah that one may not stand an animal at the inn of idolaters, as they are suspected of bestiality) follows the view of R. Eliezer, who said that one may not purchase the Red Heifer from idolater, because they may have invalidated it from service through bestiality.

Question (R. Yonah): Why not say that the Mishnah is according to all opinions, as R. Elazar said in the name of Rav that even according to those who are accustomed to sell small animals (as we are not concerned about bestiality), it is nevertheless prohibited to allow an idolater to be secluded with them. (See above daf 15-1 (i) for the explanation.)...?

Answer: In fact, the Mishnah even follows the Chachamim, who agree that ideally, it is prohibited to allow an idolater, but if it was already done, Chazal do not assume that the idolater committed bestiality so the animal may be used as a sacrifice.

Support (R. Yirmiyah): (The Mishnah is Kesuvos teaches that) if a woman was taken captive by idolaters because they were owed money by her husband, they are not suspected of having relations with her. How does that fit with our Mishnah that does not allow a person stand his animal at the inn of idolaters? Rather, ideally we must try to avoid it but if it already happened (that she was captured), she is permitted to her husband.

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): That case is different as the idolater is afraid that if he will approach her to violate her, she will scream out. But what if she is mute? She will motion.

Question: If the answer of the difference between ideally and already done (above (i)) has been rejected, who does the Mishnah follow?

Answer: It can follow R. Eliezer (as above (f)) who said that one may not purchase the Red Heifer from idolaters, because they may have invalidated it from service through bestiality.

They wanted to suggest that R. Eliezer and Rabbanan both agree that one may buy an animal from idolaters for other sacrifices, but they disagree about the Red Heifer, as R. Eliezer rules that one must be stringent there not to buy it from idolaters.

Rejection: From this that the Rabbanan challenged R. Eliezer from the pasuk (Yeshayah 60:7), "All the sheep of Kedar shall be gathered to you" (meaning that in the future all of the sacrifices of the nations will be accepted - this shows that R. Eliezer does not allow a person to buy an animal from idolaters even to use for other sacrifices).

Question (R. Hoshiyah): (Concerning this rejection made by the Rabbanan against R. Eliezer from the pasuk) can we ask against the Halacha now using this pasuk that discusses the future?! (As the Gemara will explain.)

Question (R. Avin): Can we ask using a pasuk that refers to a time when there will be no evil inclination against a time when there is an evil inclination (that can cause an idolater to stumble in bestiality)?!

Question (Rav Hoshiyah): How do I know that the pasuk could fit into all opinions, even R. Eliezer?

It is like the statement of Rav Huna in the name of Rav - (Zecharia 11:12), "And they weighed out my charge: thirty pieces of silver" - this corresponds with the 30 mitzvos that the descendants of Noach (meaning, the gentiles) will accept upon themselves in the future.

(Rabbanan): This corresponds with the 30 righteous people that always exist in the world, as Rav Nachman said in the name of R. Mana - the world cannot exist without 30 righteous people like Avraham Avinu.

What is the source? (Bereishis 18:18), "And Avraham [Hayo Yiheyeh] will become (a great and powerful nation)" -the word 'Yiheyeh' has a Gematria (numerical value) of 30.

Sometimes most of them are in Bavel and some are in Eretz Yisrael; sometimes most of them are in Eretz Yisrael and some are in Bavel. It is a good sign for the world when most are in Eretz Yisrael.

(R. Chiya bar Lulaini citing R. Hoshiyah): In the future, the descendants of Noach will accept all of the Mitzvos upon themselves.

What is the source? (Tzefania 3:9), "For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of Hash-m, to worship Him of one accord" - which is understood to refer to all of the Mitzvos.

But ultimately, they will change their minds when they see the rebellion of Gog and Magog against Hash-m and Moshiach.

What is the source? (Tehillim 2:3), "Let us snap their bands and throw off their cords from us" - these refer to the Mitzvos of Tefilin and Tzitzis.

R. Yitzchak and R. Ami were sitting and wondering about this opinion of R. Eliezer (above 22-1, that one may not buy animals to be used as sacrifices from idolaters, because they may have invalidated it from service through bestiality) - but the pasuk states (Divrei HaYamim 2:15:11), "and they sacrificed to Hash-m on that day from the spoils" (that had come from the Kushim)?

It was not known if it was the students who answered it, or if it was R. Ami....

The spoils that they used were not the same spoils about which there was a concern that the idolaters had invalidated the animals; they were different spoils about which there was no concern.

Question: The pasuk states (Shmuel 1:6:15), "And the men of Bet Shemesh brought Olah offerings and sacrificed Zevachim to Hash-m". According to R. Eliezer, how could they sacrifice the cows that were given to them by the Philistines?

Rebuttal: Can we learn from the fact that they sacrificed them in front of the lords of the Philistines? That was a one -time permission given; since the miracle there happened through the cows, they wanted to publicize this.

Proof: Didn't R. Abahu say in the name of R. Yosi bar Chaninah that they even sacrificed female cows as Olah offerings, which is never usually done.

Question: But the pasuk states (Shmuel 1:15:15), "And Shaul said, 'I have brought them from the Amalekite (because the people took pity on the best of the sheep and cattle, in order to sacrifice to Hash-m...)'" (This is also a question against R. Eliezer as the people were intending to sacrifice animals that they took as spoils from the Amalekites!)

Answer: We cannot learn from Shaul, as Reish Lakish said that King Shaul was like the branch of a sycamore tree, which is weak and does not produce fruit when planted.

Question: But the pasuk states (Shmuel 2:24:24), "So David bought the threshing floor...". David then offered sacrifices seemingly from the cattle that he bought from Aravnah, who was a gentile...?

Answer: He bought the cattle but he did not sacrifice it; rather, he used his own money for that.

Question: But the previous pasuk states (Shmuel 1:24:23), "Aravnah said to the king, "May Hash-m your God accept you" (assumed to mean sacrifices)?

Answer: Accept your prayer.

Question: But the pasuk states (Vayikra 22:25), "And from the hand of a gentile you shall not offer up as food for your God any of these (blemished animals)" - implying that it is permitted to accept animals from gentiles to use for sacrifices, as long as the animal is not blemished; so how can R. Eliezer explain this pasuk?

Answer: The pasuk means that it is permitted to accept from them the money of a blemished animal and use it to buy an animal for sacrifice.