Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 25, 2018 | 讬壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 41

Study Guide Avoda Zara 41.
Can one derive benefit from statues or are they forbidden as maybe they were worshipped by people? Does it depend on the type of/location/object being held by the statue? What about broken pieces of a statue? Would the same hold for broken pieces of an actual idol?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖诇 讻驻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖诇 讻专讻讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇谞讜讬 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜

Rabba says: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to statues that are erected in villages. But with regard to those that are erected in cities, all agree that they are permitted, i.e., that it is permitted to derive benefit from them. What is the reason? It is because they were fashioned for ornamental purposes and not for worship.

讜讚讻驻专讬诐 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇谞讜讬 拽注讘讚讬 诇讛讜 讚讻驻专讬诐 讜讚讗讬 诇诪讬驻诇讞讬谞讛讜 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: But with regard to those erected in villages, is there anyone who says that they are fashioned for ornamental purposes? Those in villages were certainly fashioned for idol worship. How, then, can the Rabbis maintain that such statues are permitted?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖诇 讻专讻讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖诇 讻驻专讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬诐

The Gemara answers: Rather, if such a distinction was stated, this is what was stated: Rabba says that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to statues that are erected in cities, where they may have been fashioned simply for ornamental purposes. But with regard to those erected in villages, all agree that they are used for idol worship and are therefore forbidden.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诪拽诇 砖专讜讚讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讻诪拽诇 爪驻讜专 砖转讜驻砖 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讻爪驻讜专 讻讚讜专 砖转讜驻砖 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讻讻讚讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The only statues that are forbidden are: Any statue that has in its hand a staff, or a bird, or an orb, as these are indications that this statue is designated for idolatry. The Gemara explains that each of these items symbolizes the statue鈥檚 supposed divinity, indicating its dominion over the world: A staff symbolizes dominion as the idol rules itself under the entire world, i.e., it rules the entire world, like one rules over an animal with a staff. A bird symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a bird in his hand. An orb symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a ball in his hand.

转谞讗 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 住讬讬祝 注讟专讛 讜讟讘注转

The Sages taught in the Tosefta (6:1) that they added the following to the list of items that, when added to a statue, indicate that it is worshipped as an idol: A sword in its hand, a crown on its head, and a ring on its finger.

住讬讬祝 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 诇住讟讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘讜专 砖讛讜专讙 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜

The Gemara explains why these items were initially believed to be insignificant and were later understood as symbolizing idol worship. With regard to a statue holding a sword, the Sages initially thought that this merely indicates that it is a statue of a bandit. But in the end they reasoned that it symbolizes the notion that the idol has the power to kill itself under the whole world, i.e., to kill the entire world.

注讟专讛 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讙讚讬诇 讻诇讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘讜专 讻注讟专讛 诇诪诇讱 讟讘注转 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讗讬砖转讬讬诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘讜专 砖讞讜转诐 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 诇诪讬转讛

With regard to a crown, the Sages initially thought that it is merely a woven wreath. But in the end they reasoned that it is like the crown of a king. With regard to a ring, the Sages initially thought that this merely symbolizes the bearer of a signet ring [ishtayema]. But in the end they reasoned that it is symbolic of the idol鈥檚 supposed ability to seal its fate under the whole world, i.e., to seal the fate of the entire world, for death.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讜壮 转谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 爪专讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讬住诐

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is prohibited to derive benefit even from any statue that has any item whatsoever in its hand. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to derive benefit from a statue even if it is merely holding a stone, or even a twig.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 转驻砖 讘讬讚讜 爪讜讗讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讝讬诇讜 讘讗驻讬讛 讻讬 爪讜讗讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讬讛讜 讚讝讬诇 讘讗驻讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻爪讜讗讛 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the idol is grasping excrement in its hand, what is the halakha? Is this meant to honor the statue, indicating that it is an object of idol worship? Do we say that the statue is forbidden, as this indicates that the entire world is inferior to it like excrement, or perhaps does this indicate that the idol itself is inferior to the entire world like excrement? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讗 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诪爪讗 转讘谞讬转 讬讚 讗讜 转讘谞讬转 专讙诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 谞注讘讚

MISHNA: In the case of one who finds unidentifiable fragments of statues, these are permitted, i.e., one may derive benefit from them. If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, as objects similar to those are worshipped.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐

GEMARA: Shmuel says: It is permitted to derive benefit even from fragments of objects that have been seen used in idol worship. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that fragments of nondescript statues are permitted? This indicates that it is prohibited to derive benefit from fragments of idols that were known to be worshipped.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诪爪讗 转讘谞讬转 讬讚 转讘谞讬转 专讙诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 谞注讘讚

The Gemara answers: The mishna means that fragments of statues are permitted, and the same is true even of fragments of objects of idol worship. And that which is taught in the mishna: Fragments of statues, is not meant to exclude fragments of idols. Rather, this expression is used because the mishna sought to teach in the last clause: If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, even if they are not known to be objects of idol worship, as objects similar to those are worshipped. If the first clause in the mishna had referred to fragments of idols, it would have been inferred that the latter clause was referring specifically to the figure of a hand or foot that was known to have been worshipped, and that otherwise such figures would not be forbidden.

转谞谉 诪爪讗 转讘谞讬转 讬讚 转讘谞讬转 专讙诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 谞注讘讚 讗诪讗讬

We learned in the mishna: If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, as objects similar to those are worshipped. The Gemara asks: Why?

讜讛讗 砖讘专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讘住讬住谉

But aren鈥檛 they fragments of idols, which are permitted according to Shmuel? The Gemara answers that Shmuel interpreted the mishna as follows: It is referring to a case where these objects that are in the figure of a hand or a foot are standing on their pedestals, which shows that they were designed this way initially and are not merely fragments.

讗转诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专转

搂 It was stated: With regard to objects of idol worship that broke by themselves, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专转 诪住转诪讗 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬讛讬 谞驻砖讛 诇讗 讗爪诇讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪爪诇讛 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains the sides of the dispute. Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it is prohibited, as its owner did not revoke its status as an object of idol worship. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that it is permitted, as the owner presumably revoked its status as an object of idol worship, having said to himself: If the idol could not save even itself from harm, can it save that man, i.e., myself?

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜专讗砖 讚讙讜谉 讜砖转讬 讻驻讜转 讬讚讬讜 讻专转讜转 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讚专讻讜 讻讛谞讬 讚讙讜谉 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from the passage in the book of Samuel recounting the downfall of the Philistine god Dagon: 鈥淎nd when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon was fallen on his face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut off upon the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him鈥 (I聽Samuel 5:4). And from the next verse it seems that Dagon鈥檚 worshippers accorded it honor despite its destruction, as it is written: 鈥淭herefore, the priests of Dagon, and anyone who comes into Dagon鈥檚 house, do not tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod until this day鈥 (I聽Samuel 5:5). Evidently, when an idol breaks, its worshippers do not stop worshipping it.

讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讛转诐 砖诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 讛讚讙讜谉 讜注讜讘讚讬谉 讗转 讛诪驻转谉 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 砖讘拽讬讛 讗讬住专讬讛 诇讚讙讜谉 讜讗转讗 讗讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 注诇 讛诪驻转谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: Is there proof from there? There, the reason people did not tread on the threshold of Dagon is that they had abandoned their worship of the Dagon and would instead worship the threshold upon which Dagon was found, as they stated this reasoning: The spirit of Dagon has left the Dagon idol and instead it came and rested upon the threshold.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛诪讜爪讗 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讗 砖讘专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from the mishna: In the case of one who finds fragments of statues, these are permitted. This indicates that fragments of known objects of idol worship are forbidden.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖讘专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 爪诇诪讬诐 注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish replied: Do not say that the indication is that fragments of objects of idol worship are forbidden; rather say that the indication is that full statues themselves are forbidden, and the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who, in the previous mishna, prohibits any statue as it is possible that it is worshipped annually.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞砖诪注 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 爪诇诪讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜砖讘专讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But how does Rabbi Yo岣nan refute the following logic: From the opinion of Rabbi Meir one can learn a detail with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis. Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that statues are forbidden, while fragments of statues are permitted? From this, one can derive that this is true according to the Rabbis as well with regard to objects of idol worship: The object itself is forbidden, but its fragments are permitted.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬诪专 注讘讚讜诐 讗讬诪专 诇讗 注讘讚讜诐 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 注讘讚讜诐 讗讬诪专 讘讟诇讜诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讚讗讬 注讘讚讜讛 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讘讟诇讛 讛讜讬 住驻拽 讜讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara rejects this comparison: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of statues, the fragments are permitted because there is room to say that people worshipped them, and there is also room to say that people did not worship them; and even if you say that people worshipped them, there is room to say that their owners subsequently revoked them. This is not comparable to an object of idol worship, which people certainly worshipped, and who is to say that its owner certainly revoked it? It is a conflict between an uncertainty as to whether or not it was revoked, and a certainty that it was worshipped, and the principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讘专 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 诪讙讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 诪转讜拽谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: And does an uncertainty not override a certainty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of a 岣ver who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even if the produce was there only that day, it has the presumptive status of produce that was ritually prepared, i.e., properly tithed. This is due to the presumption that the 岣ver tithed the produce himself or instructed others to do so.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讟讘讬诇讬 住驻拽 注砖专讬谞讛讜 住驻拽 诇讗 注砖专讬谞讛讜 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara infers: And here, in this case, the produce was certainly untithed at the outset, and there is uncertainty whether the 岣ver tithed it, and there is uncertainty whether he did not tithe it, and despite this conflict, the uncertainty whether it was tithed comes and overrides the certainty that it was untithed produce.

讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讜讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讜讚讗讬 注砖专讬谞讛讜 讻讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讞讝拽讛 注诇 讞讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讜拽谉 诪转讞转 讬讚讜

The Gemara rejects this claim: There, in that case, conflict is between certainty and certainty, as the 岣ver certainly tithed the produce. This presumption is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi 岣nina 岣za鈥檃; as Rabbi 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 says: There is a presumption with regard to a 岣ver that he does not release an item from his possession that is not ritually prepared.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讟讘讬诇讬 住驻拽 讜住驻拽 讛讜讗

And if you wish, say instead that perhaps the produce did not initially have the status of untithed produce, and therefore the conflict is between uncertainty and uncertainty.

讗驻砖专 讚注讘讚 讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪注专讬诐 讗讚诐 注诇 转讘讜讗转讜 讜诪讻谞讬住讛 讘诪讜抓 砖诇讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讘讛诪转讜 讗讜讻诇转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

This is because it is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe the produce, as the 岣ver may have acted in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Oshaya, who says that a person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and bring it into his courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from tithes. Although the obligation to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one鈥檚 animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. In light of this halakha it is possible that the produce in the storehouse of the 岣ver never needed to be tithed. Consequently, this case is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not he tithed it.

讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞转讜

The Gemara raises another objection: And is it so that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the maidservant

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 41

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖诇 讻驻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖诇 讻专讻讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇谞讜讬 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜

Rabba says: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to statues that are erected in villages. But with regard to those that are erected in cities, all agree that they are permitted, i.e., that it is permitted to derive benefit from them. What is the reason? It is because they were fashioned for ornamental purposes and not for worship.

讜讚讻驻专讬诐 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇谞讜讬 拽注讘讚讬 诇讛讜 讚讻驻专讬诐 讜讚讗讬 诇诪讬驻诇讞讬谞讛讜 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: But with regard to those erected in villages, is there anyone who says that they are fashioned for ornamental purposes? Those in villages were certainly fashioned for idol worship. How, then, can the Rabbis maintain that such statues are permitted?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖诇 讻专讻讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖诇 讻驻专讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬诐

The Gemara answers: Rather, if such a distinction was stated, this is what was stated: Rabba says that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to statues that are erected in cities, where they may have been fashioned simply for ornamental purposes. But with regard to those erected in villages, all agree that they are used for idol worship and are therefore forbidden.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诪拽诇 砖专讜讚讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讻诪拽诇 爪驻讜专 砖转讜驻砖 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讻爪驻讜专 讻讚讜专 砖转讜驻砖 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讻讻讚讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The only statues that are forbidden are: Any statue that has in its hand a staff, or a bird, or an orb, as these are indications that this statue is designated for idolatry. The Gemara explains that each of these items symbolizes the statue鈥檚 supposed divinity, indicating its dominion over the world: A staff symbolizes dominion as the idol rules itself under the entire world, i.e., it rules the entire world, like one rules over an animal with a staff. A bird symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a bird in his hand. An orb symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a ball in his hand.

转谞讗 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 住讬讬祝 注讟专讛 讜讟讘注转

The Sages taught in the Tosefta (6:1) that they added the following to the list of items that, when added to a statue, indicate that it is worshipped as an idol: A sword in its hand, a crown on its head, and a ring on its finger.

住讬讬祝 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 诇住讟讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘讜专 砖讛讜专讙 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜

The Gemara explains why these items were initially believed to be insignificant and were later understood as symbolizing idol worship. With regard to a statue holding a sword, the Sages initially thought that this merely indicates that it is a statue of a bandit. But in the end they reasoned that it symbolizes the notion that the idol has the power to kill itself under the whole world, i.e., to kill the entire world.

注讟专讛 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讙讚讬诇 讻诇讬诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘讜专 讻注讟专讛 诇诪诇讱 讟讘注转 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讗讬砖转讬讬诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘讜专 砖讞讜转诐 讗转 注爪诪讜 转讞转 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 诇诪讬转讛

With regard to a crown, the Sages initially thought that it is merely a woven wreath. But in the end they reasoned that it is like the crown of a king. With regard to a ring, the Sages initially thought that this merely symbolizes the bearer of a signet ring [ishtayema]. But in the end they reasoned that it is symbolic of the idol鈥檚 supposed ability to seal its fate under the whole world, i.e., to seal the fate of the entire world, for death.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讜壮 转谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 爪专讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讬住诐

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is prohibited to derive benefit even from any statue that has any item whatsoever in its hand. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to derive benefit from a statue even if it is merely holding a stone, or even a twig.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 转驻砖 讘讬讚讜 爪讜讗讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讝讬诇讜 讘讗驻讬讛 讻讬 爪讜讗讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讬讛讜 讚讝讬诇 讘讗驻讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻爪讜讗讛 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the idol is grasping excrement in its hand, what is the halakha? Is this meant to honor the statue, indicating that it is an object of idol worship? Do we say that the statue is forbidden, as this indicates that the entire world is inferior to it like excrement, or perhaps does this indicate that the idol itself is inferior to the entire world like excrement? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讗 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诪爪讗 转讘谞讬转 讬讚 讗讜 转讘谞讬转 专讙诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 谞注讘讚

MISHNA: In the case of one who finds unidentifiable fragments of statues, these are permitted, i.e., one may derive benefit from them. If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, as objects similar to those are worshipped.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐

GEMARA: Shmuel says: It is permitted to derive benefit even from fragments of objects that have been seen used in idol worship. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that fragments of nondescript statues are permitted? This indicates that it is prohibited to derive benefit from fragments of idols that were known to be worshipped.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诪爪讗 转讘谞讬转 讬讚 转讘谞讬转 专讙诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 谞注讘讚

The Gemara answers: The mishna means that fragments of statues are permitted, and the same is true even of fragments of objects of idol worship. And that which is taught in the mishna: Fragments of statues, is not meant to exclude fragments of idols. Rather, this expression is used because the mishna sought to teach in the last clause: If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, even if they are not known to be objects of idol worship, as objects similar to those are worshipped. If the first clause in the mishna had referred to fragments of idols, it would have been inferred that the latter clause was referring specifically to the figure of a hand or foot that was known to have been worshipped, and that otherwise such figures would not be forbidden.

转谞谉 诪爪讗 转讘谞讬转 讬讚 转讘谞讬转 专讙诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 谞注讘讚 讗诪讗讬

We learned in the mishna: If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, as objects similar to those are worshipped. The Gemara asks: Why?

讜讛讗 砖讘专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讘住讬住谉

But aren鈥檛 they fragments of idols, which are permitted according to Shmuel? The Gemara answers that Shmuel interpreted the mishna as follows: It is referring to a case where these objects that are in the figure of a hand or a foot are standing on their pedestals, which shows that they were designed this way initially and are not merely fragments.

讗转诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专转

搂 It was stated: With regard to objects of idol worship that broke by themselves, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专转 诪住转诪讗 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬讛讬 谞驻砖讛 诇讗 讗爪诇讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪爪诇讛 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains the sides of the dispute. Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it is prohibited, as its owner did not revoke its status as an object of idol worship. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that it is permitted, as the owner presumably revoked its status as an object of idol worship, having said to himself: If the idol could not save even itself from harm, can it save that man, i.e., myself?

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜专讗砖 讚讙讜谉 讜砖转讬 讻驻讜转 讬讚讬讜 讻专转讜转 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讚专讻讜 讻讛谞讬 讚讙讜谉 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from the passage in the book of Samuel recounting the downfall of the Philistine god Dagon: 鈥淎nd when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon was fallen on his face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut off upon the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him鈥 (I聽Samuel 5:4). And from the next verse it seems that Dagon鈥檚 worshippers accorded it honor despite its destruction, as it is written: 鈥淭herefore, the priests of Dagon, and anyone who comes into Dagon鈥檚 house, do not tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod until this day鈥 (I聽Samuel 5:5). Evidently, when an idol breaks, its worshippers do not stop worshipping it.

讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讛转诐 砖诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 讛讚讙讜谉 讜注讜讘讚讬谉 讗转 讛诪驻转谉 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 砖讘拽讬讛 讗讬住专讬讛 诇讚讙讜谉 讜讗转讗 讗讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 注诇 讛诪驻转谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: Is there proof from there? There, the reason people did not tread on the threshold of Dagon is that they had abandoned their worship of the Dagon and would instead worship the threshold upon which Dagon was found, as they stated this reasoning: The spirit of Dagon has left the Dagon idol and instead it came and rested upon the threshold.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛诪讜爪讗 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讗 砖讘专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from the mishna: In the case of one who finds fragments of statues, these are permitted. This indicates that fragments of known objects of idol worship are forbidden.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖讘专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 爪诇诪讬诐 注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish replied: Do not say that the indication is that fragments of objects of idol worship are forbidden; rather say that the indication is that full statues themselves are forbidden, and the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who, in the previous mishna, prohibits any statue as it is possible that it is worshipped annually.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞砖诪注 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 爪诇诪讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讘专讬 爪诇诪讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜砖讘专讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But how does Rabbi Yo岣nan refute the following logic: From the opinion of Rabbi Meir one can learn a detail with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis. Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say that statues are forbidden, while fragments of statues are permitted? From this, one can derive that this is true according to the Rabbis as well with regard to objects of idol worship: The object itself is forbidden, but its fragments are permitted.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬诪专 注讘讚讜诐 讗讬诪专 诇讗 注讘讚讜诐 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 注讘讚讜诐 讗讬诪专 讘讟诇讜诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讚讗讬 注讘讚讜讛 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讘讟诇讛 讛讜讬 住驻拽 讜讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara rejects this comparison: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of statues, the fragments are permitted because there is room to say that people worshipped them, and there is also room to say that people did not worship them; and even if you say that people worshipped them, there is room to say that their owners subsequently revoked them. This is not comparable to an object of idol worship, which people certainly worshipped, and who is to say that its owner certainly revoked it? It is a conflict between an uncertainty as to whether or not it was revoked, and a certainty that it was worshipped, and the principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讘专 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 诪讙讜专讛 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讘谞讬 讬讜诪谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 诪转讜拽谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: And does an uncertainty not override a certainty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of a 岣ver who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even if the produce was there only that day, it has the presumptive status of produce that was ritually prepared, i.e., properly tithed. This is due to the presumption that the 岣ver tithed the produce himself or instructed others to do so.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讟讘讬诇讬 住驻拽 注砖专讬谞讛讜 住驻拽 诇讗 注砖专讬谞讛讜 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara infers: And here, in this case, the produce was certainly untithed at the outset, and there is uncertainty whether the 岣ver tithed it, and there is uncertainty whether he did not tithe it, and despite this conflict, the uncertainty whether it was tithed comes and overrides the certainty that it was untithed produce.

讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讜讜讚讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讜讚讗讬 注砖专讬谞讛讜 讻讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讞讝拽讛 注诇 讞讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讜拽谉 诪转讞转 讬讚讜

The Gemara rejects this claim: There, in that case, conflict is between certainty and certainty, as the 岣ver certainly tithed the produce. This presumption is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi 岣nina 岣za鈥檃; as Rabbi 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 says: There is a presumption with regard to a 岣ver that he does not release an item from his possession that is not ritually prepared.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讟讘讬诇讬 住驻拽 讜住驻拽 讛讜讗

And if you wish, say instead that perhaps the produce did not initially have the status of untithed produce, and therefore the conflict is between uncertainty and uncertainty.

讗驻砖专 讚注讘讚 讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪注专讬诐 讗讚诐 注诇 转讘讜讗转讜 讜诪讻谞讬住讛 讘诪讜抓 砖诇讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讘讛诪转讜 讗讜讻诇转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

This is because it is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe the produce, as the 岣ver may have acted in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Oshaya, who says that a person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and bring it into his courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from tithes. Although the obligation to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one鈥檚 animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. In light of this halakha it is possible that the produce in the storehouse of the 岣ver never needed to be tithed. Consequently, this case is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not he tithed it.

讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞转讜

The Gemara raises another objection: And is it so that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the maidservant

Scroll To Top