Study Avodah Zarah folio 47A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אבל עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו — דברי הכל אסורין, והכא נמי כעיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דמי.
But if they became pregnant and later a person engaged in bestiality with them, all agree that the offspring are forbidden because the offspring were involved in the act of bestiality, albeit in their fetal state. And here too, the case of the wheat is similar to the case where they became pregnant and later a person engaged in bestiality with them, because the flour was also worshipped, albeit in the form of a stalk of wheat.
איכא דאמרי: מחלוקת כשנרבעו ולבסוף עיברו, אבל עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו — דברי הכל אסור, והני נמי כי עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דמי.
There are those who say that Mar Zutra himself quoted Rav Naḥman’s statement: The dispute is with regard to a case where it became prohibited to use the animals as offerings because a person engaged in bestiality with them and later they became pregnant. But if they became pregnant and later a person engaged in bestiality with them, all agree that the offspring are forbidden. And these stalks of wheat, as well, are similar to the case where they became pregnant and later a person engaged in bestiality with them.
הכי השתא? התם, מעיקרא בהמה והשתא בהמה, דשא הוא דאחידא באנפה. הכא, מעיקרא חיטי והשתא קמחא.
The Talmud asks: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of offspring that it is prohibited to bring as an offering, it was initially an animal, in its fetal state, and now it is still an animal. A fetus is treated as a full-fledged animal, and the opening of the womb is compared to a closed door that holds it in its place. Here, in the case of the flour, it was initially wheat and now it is flour; it is in a totally new form. Therefore, no proof can be derived from the Mishnah.