Avodah Zarah

Rabina said:  There is really no contradiction; the one teaching [prohibits it] in the first instance; the other [permits it] after it happened.  And whence do we know that a difference is to be made in a case between the first instance and where it had happened? — From the following: We have learnt: A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF LEWDNESS; now this seems to be contradicted by the following: A woman who had been imprisoned by heathens in connection with money matters, is permissible to her husband,  but if on a capital charge, she is forbidden to her husband.  Does this not go to prove that we make a difference in a case between the first instance and where it had happened?  — Not at all! It may indeed be that the prohibition applies even after it happened, but here the reason is that the heathen will be afraid to forfeit his money! You can indeed prove it by what is stated in the second clause: 'If on a capital charge, she is forbidden to her husband.' So there is no more [to be said about this]. R. Pedath said: There is no contradiction;  the one is [according to] R. Eliezer, the other is [according to] the Rabbis. For we have learnt in connection with the Red Heifer:  R. Eliezer says: It must not be bought of a heathen, but the Sages permit it.  Is not [the point] on which they differ this: that R. Eliezer holds that we suspect immoral practice whilst the Rabbis hold that we do not suspect immoral practice?  — Whence [do you know this]? It may well be said that all agree that immoral practice is not to be suspected, the reason for R. Eliezer's opinion being this: he holds the view presented by Rab Judah in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: [In the case of the Red Heifer]  even if a bundle of sacks has been laid on her she becomes ritually unfit, but in the case of the calf,  only if she had been made to draw a burden. [It may thus be that] one master  is of the opinion that we should suspect,  and the other that we should not suspect it! — Do not let this enter your mind; for the sake of a small benefit one would not risk a big loss.  Let us then say likewise that for the sake of a little enjoyment  one would not risk so big a loss! — In that instance his passion impels him. But [still] it may be that all agree that immoral practice is not to be suspected, but that the reason for R. Eliezer's ruling is the one given in the teaching of Shila? For Shila learned: 'What is the reason for R. Eliezer's ruling? [It is the scriptural words:] Speak unto the Children of Israel that they bring unto thee,  [which imply that] Israelites shall bring, but it should not be brought by heathens'!  — Do not let this enter your mind; for it is stated in the second clause: 'R. Eliezer applied this disqualification to all other kinds of sacrifices.' Now were you to adduce the reason as taught by Shila, it would hold good in the case of the [red] heifer, in connection with which Scripture mentions 'bringing', but does Scripture ever mention 'bringing' in connection with other sacrifices? But [still] might we not say, then, that the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer