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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 26, 2018 | 讬状讗 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 42

Rabbi Yochanan continues to bring several sources that seem to contradict Reish Lakish’s claim that broken pieces from an idol are permissible. Reish聽Lakish then brings one source to contradict Rabbi Yochanan. All the sources are resolved. The mishna discusses one who finds images with engravings of certain images. Depending on what the image is will affect whether or not one can benefit from the item – can one assume it was/was not used for idol worship? Rav Sheshet brings a braita聽related to the topic of the mishna and聽the gemara tries to figure out if the 3 cases discussed in his braita聽are referring to one who fashions the image or one who finds the image?


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

砖诇 诪爪讬拽 讗讞讚 讘专讬诪讜谉 砖讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜讘讗 讻讛谉 讜讛爪讬抓 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讟讬讛专讜讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讜诇讚讛 讜讘专讚诇住 诪爪讜讬谉 砖诐

of one violent person [metzik] in the city of Rimon, who cast a non-viable newborn into a pit, and a priest came and looked into the pit to ascertain whether the baby was male or whether it was female, as the length of time of a woman鈥檚 ritual impurity after childbirth, even if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, depends on whether the child was male or female (see Leviticus, chapter 12). And the incident came before the Sages to rule whether or not the priest had contracted ritual impurity while standing over the corpse, and they deemed him ritually pure. The basis for this ruling was due to the fact that as martens and polecats [bardelas] are common there, it is likely that the body was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 住驻拽 讙专专讜讛讜 住驻拽 诇讗 讙专专讜讛讜 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara concludes its objection: And here, in this case, where it is certain that the woman cast the non-viable newborn into the pit, and it is uncertain whether an animal dragged it away and it is uncertain whether no animal dragged it away, the Sages nevertheless ruled that an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讟讬诇讛 讻诪讬谉 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专

The Gemara rejects this interpretation of the baraita: Do not say that the woman certainly cast a non-viable newborn into a pit; rather, say that she cast an object similar to a non-viable newborn into a pit. Perhaps it was not the body of an infant; it might have merely been congealed blood, which does not impart impurity. Therefore, it is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty; it is unclear whether the item that was cast into the pit could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if it could have, it might have already been dragged away.

讜讛讗 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讜讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita: To ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female, indicating that the only uncertainty was with regard to its sex, as it was certainly a non-viable newborn?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讚注 讗诐 专讜讞 讛驻讬诇讛 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛讟讬诇讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 谞驻诇 讛讟讬诇讛 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛

The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: The priest attempted to examine two aspects of the miscarried entity. He sought to ascertain whether the woman miscarried, bearing an amorphous mass, or whether she cast a non-viable newborn into the pit; and if you say that she cast a non-viable newborn, he sought to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讞讜诇讚讛 讜讘专讚诇住 诪爪讜讬谉 砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讙专专讜讛讜

And if you wish, say that there is a different answer: This case is not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather it is a conflict between certainty and certainty. Since martens and polecats are common there, they certainly dragged the body away. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 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 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 砖讘专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute with regard to an idol that broke. Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from 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. Rabbi Yo岣nan asks: Why are they forbidden? Aren鈥檛 they fragments, which according to Reish Lakish should be permitted?

讛讗 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讘住讬住谉

The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Shmuel interpret the mishna as referring to a case where these objects are standing on their pedestals, which shows that they were designed this way initially?

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙讜讬 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讞讘专讜 讜讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (52b): A gentile can revoke the idolatrous status of his own object of idol worship or that of another gentile, but a Jew cannot revoke the status of a gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship. Rabbi Yo岣nan asks: Why can鈥檛 a Jew revoke the status of a gentile鈥檚 idol according to Reish Lakish? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own, which Reish Lakish deems permitted.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖驻讞住讛 讜讻讬 驻讞住讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 驻讞住讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讞住专讛 讘讟诇讛

Abaye said: That mishna is referring to a case where the Jew bent the idol out of shape without actually breaking it. The Gemara asks: And if he merely bent the idol out of shape, what of it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (53a) that if one bent an idol, changing its shape, even if he did not remove any part of it, he thereby revoked its status as an object of idol worship?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚驻讞住讛 讙讜讬 讗讘诇 驻讞住讛 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讘讟诇讛

The Gemara answers: This statement applies only in a case where a gentile bent the idol, changing its shape; but in a case where a Jew bent it, changing its shape, its status as an object of idol worship is not revoked.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讬 驻讞住讛 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讙讝专讛 讚诇诪讗 诪讙讘讛 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讛 讜讛讜讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讛 讘讟诇讛 诇注讜诇诐

And Rava said a different answer: Actually, the basic halakha is that in a case where a Jew bent it, changing its shape, its status as an object of idol worship is also revoked. But the Sages issued a decree that such an idol retains its idolatrous status, lest a Jew first lift it up and then attempt to revoke its status. In this case the idol鈥檚 status is not revoked, as when a Jew lifts an idol he acquires it, and it becomes an object of idol worship in a Jew鈥檚 possession, and any object of idol worship in a Jew鈥檚 possession can never have its idolatrous status revoked. Therefore, only when an idol breaks on its own does Reish Lakish maintain that its status is revoked.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 讜讞讬驻讛 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜讟专讟讬讗讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 讜讞讬驻讛 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜讟专讟讬讗讜转 讗住讜专讜转 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a gentile who brought stones from stone heaps that were used in the worship of the deity Mercury [HaMarkulis], and who then paved roads and built theaters [vetarteiot] with them, it is permitted to derive benefit from them, as the gentile revoked their idolatrous status. But in the case of a Jew who brought stones that were used in the worship of Mercury and who then paved roads and built theaters with them, it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why does a stone such as this retain its idolatrous status? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own, which Reish Lakish deems permitted.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the Sages issued a decree that an object of idol worship retains its idolatrous status when a Jew attempts to revoke it, lest the Jew lift and acquire the idol, which would make it impossible to subsequently revoke its status.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙讜讬 砖砖讬驻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇爪专讻讜 讛讬讗 讜砖讬驻讜讬讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉 诇爪专讻讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜砖讬驻讜讬讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖砖讬驻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬谉 诇爪专讻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪专讻讛 讛讬讗 讜砖讬驻讜讬讬讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a gentile who shaved down an object of idol worship for his own sake, as he needed the shavings, the idol itself and its shavings are then permitted. If he did it for the sake of the idol, to improve its appearance, the idol is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. But in the case of a Jew who shaved down an object of idol worship, whether he did it for his own sake or for the sake of the idol, the idol itself and its shavings are forbidden. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, in a case where a Jew shaved the idol for his own sake, why are the shavings forbidden? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the Sages issued a decree that an object of idol worship retains its idolatrous status when a Jew attempts to cause it to be revoked.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讜 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗祝 讛讬讗 谞注砖讛 讝讘诇 讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 诪谉 讛讞专诐 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (43a): Rabbi Yosei says: When one encounters an idol, he should grind the idol and throw the dust to the wind or cast it into the sea. The Rabbis said to him: What is the good of that? That also gives a Jew benefit from the idol, as it becomes fertilizer for his crops, and deriving any kind of benefit is prohibited, as it is written: 鈥淎nd nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:18). Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why is this prohibited? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava cited above, that the Sages issued a decree with regard to this matter.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬住讬讗谉 讗讜诪专 诪爪讗 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讜专讗砖讜 讞转讜讱 住驻拽 讙讜讬 讞转讻讜 住驻拽 讬砖专讗诇 讞转讻讜 诪讜转专 讜讚讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 讞转讻讜 讗住讜专 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Yasian says: If one found an object in the figure of a dragon [derakon] with its head severed, but it is uncertain whether a gentile severed it and it is uncertain whether a Jew severed it, the object is permitted. But if it is certain that a Jew severed it, it is forbidden. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why is it forbidden? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the Sages issued a decree with regard to this matter.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 讬专拽讜转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谞讘讬讬讛 谞讜砖专转 注诇讬讛谉 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that one may not even plant vegetables in the rainy season under a tree worshipped as an idol, as foliage may fall on them, serving as fertilizer. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why should a leaf from such a tree retain its idolatrous status? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚注讬拽专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讬讬诪转

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as the main object of idol worship, the tree, still exists fully intact.

讜讛讗 砖讬驻讜讬讬谉 讚注讬拽专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讬讬诪转 讜拽转谞讬 诇爪专讻讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜砖讬驻讜讬讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But consider the case of shavings, where the main object of idol worship still exists, and nevertheless it is taught in the baraita cited earlier that if a gentile shaved an idol down for its own sake, the idol is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. Here too, in the case of the fallen leaves of a tree that is worshipped as an idol, it should be permitted to derive benefit from them.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讟诇讛 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: The reason the leaves are not permitted is because the status of an object of idol worship cannot be revoked by its natural manner of growth. Since the falling of leaves is a natural phenomenon, their detachment from the tree does not effect a revocation of their status as objects of idol worship.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽谉 砖讘专讗砖 讛讗讬诇谉 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讛 砖诇 讗砖专讛 讬转讬讝 讘拽谞讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 13b): With regard to a bird鈥檚 nest at the top of a tree that belongs to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple. With regard to a nest that is at the top of a tree used as part of idolatrous rites [ashera], although one may not climb the tree, as that would be benefiting from an object of idol worship, he may knock the nest off with a pole and benefit from it by using it for firewood and the like.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讘专讛 诪诪谞讜 注爪讬诐 讜拽讬谞转讛 讘讛谉 讜拽转谞讬 讬转讬讝 讘拽谞讛

In analyzing this baraita, it enters your mind that this is referring to a case where the bird broke off branches from the worshipped tree and built a nest with them. And yet, the baraita teaches that one may knock the nest off with a pole and it is then permitted to benefit from it. Apparently, the forbidden branches used in the construction of the nest lost their idolatrous status without human involvement, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that an idol that breaks loses its status.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 注爪讬诐 诪注诇诪讗 讜拽讬谞转讛 讘讛谉

The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a case where the bird brought branches from elsewhere and built a nest with them on top of the worshipped tree. The branches were never part of an object of idol worship.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讙讘讬 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 注爪讬诐 诪注诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讙讘讬 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 拽讚讬砖讬

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise if read with this understanding, as it teaches with regard to a nest in a consecrated tree: One may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. Granted, if you say that the bird brought branches from elsewhere, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches with regard to a nest in a consecrated tree, namely, that one may not derive benefit from it, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. According to this understanding of the mishna, one may not derive benefit from the nest by rabbinic law, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misusing consecrated property by Torah law, as the branches are not consecrated, but were brought from elsewhere.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 砖砖讘专讛 注爪讬诐 诪诪谞讜 讜拽讬谞转讛 讘讛谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讛讗 拽讚讬砖讬

But if you say that the bird broke off branches from the tree itself and built a nest with them, why is it taught that one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property? Aren鈥檛 the branches consecrated? Evidently, the mishna is referring to a nest that was built with branches from other trees, in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 understanding that an object of idol worship that broke on its own is still forbidden.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬谉

The Gemara responds to this proof for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 understanding of the mishna: Does this argument prove anything? The mishna can still be interpreted as referring to a case where the branches for the nest came from the tree itself, and here we are dealing with a case of growths that came afterward, i.e., branches that grew after the tree was consecrated, and the tanna of the mishna holds that there is no prohibition against the misuse of consecrated property with regard to such growths.

讜专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讬转讬讝 讬转讬讝 讘讗驻专讜讞讬谉

Another explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan is presented. Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What does it mean that one may knock off the nest? It means that one may knock off the chicks; but one may not derive benefit from the nest itself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讱 讘讗驻专讜讞讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗驻专讜讞讬谉 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讗诪谉 讻讘讬爪讬诐 讚诪讜

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Ta岣ifa: I will explain the mishna to you: With regard to the chicks, which can fly away and are not confined to the tree, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol worship, deriving benefit from them is permitted. But with regard to the eggs, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol worship, deriving benefit from them is prohibited, as they are not seen as independent of the tree. Rav Ashi added to this and said: And chicks that still need their mother to survive are considered like eggs; deriving benefit from them is prohibited.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讗 讻诇讬诐 讜注诇讬讛诐 爪讜专转 讞诪讛 爪讜专转 诇讘谞讛 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖注诇 讛诪讻讜讘讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 砖注诇 讛诪讘讜讝讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉

MISHNA: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea and not derive any benefit from them, as they are assumed to be objects of idol worship. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Those figures that are upon respectable vessels are forbidden. Those that are upon disgraceful vessels are permitted.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诇讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讞讬 诇讛讜 诇诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖讜诐 讬诪讬诐 诇砖讜诐 谞讛专讜转 诇砖讜诐 诪讚讘专 诇砖讜诐 讞诪讛 诇砖讜诐 诇讘谞讛 诇砖讜诐 讻讜讻讘讬诐 讜诪讝诇讜转 诇砖讜诐 诪讬讻讗诇 砖专 讛讙讚讜诇 诇砖讜诐 砖讬诇砖讜诇 拽讟谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the specific figures listed in the mishna: Is this to say that people worship only these figures, but not any other item? And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this list and that which is taught in another mishna (岣llin 39b): With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of, i.e., to worship, seas, for the sake of rivers, for the sake of the wilderness, for the sake of the sun, for the sake of the moon, for the sake of the stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael the great ministering angel, or even for the sake of a small worm, in all of these cases, the animal is forbidden, as these animals have the status of offerings to the dead, i.e., idols.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬驻诇讞 诇讻诇 讚诪砖讻讞讬 驻诇讞讬 诪讬爪专 讜诪驻诇讞讬 讛谞讬 转诇转讗 讚讞砖讬讘讬 爪讬讬专讬 诇讛讜 讜驻诇讞讬 诇讛讜 诇诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇谞讜讬 讘注诇诪讗 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜

Abaye said in response to the contradiction: With regard to worship, people might worship any item that they find. With regard to fashioning figures and then worshipping them, only with regard to these three items listed in the mishna, which are important, do people fashion figures of them and worship them. With regard to figures of any other entity, people make them merely for ornamental purposes.

诪谞拽讬讟 专讘 砖砖转 讞讜诪专讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗 讜转谞讬 讻诇 讛诪讝诇讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪诪讝诇 讞诪讛 讜诇讘谞讛 讜讻诇 讛驻专爪讜驻讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪驻专爪讜祝 讗讚诐 讜讻诇 讛爪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讞讜抓 诪爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉

Rav Sheshet would consolidate the principles of the baraitot pertaining to this matter and teach: Figures of all constellations are permitted, except for the following celestial objects: The sun and the moon. And figures of all faces are permitted, except for the human face. And all figures of other items are permitted except for the figure of a dragon.

讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讛诪讝诇讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪诪讝诇 讞诪讛 讜诇讘谞讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注讜砖讛 讗讬 讘注讜砖讛 讻诇 讛诪讝诇讜转 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讗转讬 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讻讚诪讜转 砖诪砖讬 讛诪砖诪砖讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘诪专讜诐

The Master said: Figures of all constellations are permitted, except for the following celestial objects: The sun and the moon. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with here? If we say that the reference is to one who forms these figures, i.e., if Rav Sheshet is discussing the issue of which figures it is permitted to form, is forming figures of all the other constellations permitted? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold, you shall not make for you鈥 (Exodus 20:20)? This verse is interpreted to mean: You shall not make figures of My attendants who serve before Me on high, i.e., those celestial bodies, including the constellations, that were created to serve God.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讜爪讗 讜讻讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 讻诇讬诐 讜注诇讬讛诐 爪讜专转 讞诪讛 爪讜专转 诇讘谞讛 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞

Rather, it is obvious that this halakha is referring to a case where one finds vessels with these figures on them, and this is as we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. This indicates that it is permitted to derive benefit from any other vessels that were found and that had figures on them.

讗讬 讘诪讜爪讗 讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讻诇 讛驻专爪讜驻讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪驻专爪讜祝 讗讚诐 讗讬 讘诪讜爪讗 驻专爪讜祝 讗讚诐 诪讬 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 讻诇讬诐 讜注诇讬讛诐 爪讜专转 讞诪讛 爪讜专转 诇讘谞讛 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讗讬谉 驻专爪讜祝 讗讚诐 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where one finds vessels with these figures on them, say the middle clause of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 statement: Figures of all faces are permitted, except for the human face. Now, if it is a case where one finds vessels with figures on them, is a vessel with the figure of the human face forbidden? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea? This indicates that a vessel with the figure of a dragon is forbidden, but a vessel with the figure of a human face is not.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘注讜砖讛 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注

Rather, the Gemara concludes, it is obvious that the statement that the figure of a human face is forbidden is referring to a case where one forms a figure, and this is prohibited, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who states (43b) that the interpretation of the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold, you shall not make for you鈥 (Exodus 20:20), is: Do not make of Me, i.e., do not form the figure of a person, who was created in the image of God.

讗讬 讘注讜砖讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻诇 讛爪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讞讜抓 诪爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讜讗讬 讘注讜砖讛 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 诪讬 讗住讬专 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讗转讬 讗诇讛讬 讻住祝 讜讗诇讛讬 讝讛讘

The Gemara asks: If it is referring to a case where one forms a figure, say the last clause of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 statement: All figures are permitted except for the figure of a dragon. And if it is referring to a case where one forms a figure, is forming the figure of a dragon prohibited? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold鈥?

  • 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 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 42

砖诇 诪爪讬拽 讗讞讚 讘专讬诪讜谉 砖讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜讘讗 讻讛谉 讜讛爪讬抓 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讟讬讛专讜讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讜诇讚讛 讜讘专讚诇住 诪爪讜讬谉 砖诐

of one violent person [metzik] in the city of Rimon, who cast a non-viable newborn into a pit, and a priest came and looked into the pit to ascertain whether the baby was male or whether it was female, as the length of time of a woman鈥檚 ritual impurity after childbirth, even if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, depends on whether the child was male or female (see Leviticus, chapter 12). And the incident came before the Sages to rule whether or not the priest had contracted ritual impurity while standing over the corpse, and they deemed him ritually pure. The basis for this ruling was due to the fact that as martens and polecats [bardelas] are common there, it is likely that the body was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 住驻拽 讙专专讜讛讜 住驻拽 诇讗 讙专专讜讛讜 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara concludes its objection: And here, in this case, where it is certain that the woman cast the non-viable newborn into the pit, and it is uncertain whether an animal dragged it away and it is uncertain whether no animal dragged it away, the Sages nevertheless ruled that an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讟讬诇讛 讻诪讬谉 谞驻诇 诇讘讜专

The Gemara rejects this interpretation of the baraita: Do not say that the woman certainly cast a non-viable newborn into a pit; rather, say that she cast an object similar to a non-viable newborn into a pit. Perhaps it was not the body of an infant; it might have merely been congealed blood, which does not impart impurity. Therefore, it is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty; it is unclear whether the item that was cast into the pit could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if it could have, it might have already been dragged away.

讜讛讗 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讜讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita: To ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female, indicating that the only uncertainty was with regard to its sex, as it was certainly a non-viable newborn?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讚注 讗诐 专讜讞 讛驻讬诇讛 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛讟讬诇讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 谞驻诇 讛讟讬诇讛 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛

The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: The priest attempted to examine two aspects of the miscarried entity. He sought to ascertain whether the woman miscarried, bearing an amorphous mass, or whether she cast a non-viable newborn into the pit; and if you say that she cast a non-viable newborn, he sought to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讞讜诇讚讛 讜讘专讚诇住 诪爪讜讬谉 砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讙专专讜讛讜

And if you wish, say that there is a different answer: This case is not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather it is a conflict between certainty and certainty. Since martens and polecats are common there, they certainly dragged the body away. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 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 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 砖讘专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute with regard to an idol that broke. Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from 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. Rabbi Yo岣nan asks: Why are they forbidden? Aren鈥檛 they fragments, which according to Reish Lakish should be permitted?

讛讗 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讘住讬住谉

The Gemara answers: Didn鈥檛 Shmuel interpret the mishna as referring to a case where these objects are standing on their pedestals, which shows that they were designed this way initially?

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙讜讬 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讞讘专讜 讜讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (52b): A gentile can revoke the idolatrous status of his own object of idol worship or that of another gentile, but a Jew cannot revoke the status of a gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship. Rabbi Yo岣nan asks: Why can鈥檛 a Jew revoke the status of a gentile鈥檚 idol according to Reish Lakish? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own, which Reish Lakish deems permitted.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖驻讞住讛 讜讻讬 驻讞住讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 驻讞住讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讞住专讛 讘讟诇讛

Abaye said: That mishna is referring to a case where the Jew bent the idol out of shape without actually breaking it. The Gemara asks: And if he merely bent the idol out of shape, what of it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (53a) that if one bent an idol, changing its shape, even if he did not remove any part of it, he thereby revoked its status as an object of idol worship?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚驻讞住讛 讙讜讬 讗讘诇 驻讞住讛 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讘讟诇讛

The Gemara answers: This statement applies only in a case where a gentile bent the idol, changing its shape; but in a case where a Jew bent it, changing its shape, its status as an object of idol worship is not revoked.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讬 驻讞住讛 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讙讝专讛 讚诇诪讗 诪讙讘讛 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讛 讜讛讜讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讛 讘讟诇讛 诇注讜诇诐

And Rava said a different answer: Actually, the basic halakha is that in a case where a Jew bent it, changing its shape, its status as an object of idol worship is also revoked. But the Sages issued a decree that such an idol retains its idolatrous status, lest a Jew first lift it up and then attempt to revoke its status. In this case the idol鈥檚 status is not revoked, as when a Jew lifts an idol he acquires it, and it becomes an object of idol worship in a Jew鈥檚 possession, and any object of idol worship in a Jew鈥檚 possession can never have its idolatrous status revoked. Therefore, only when an idol breaks on its own does Reish Lakish maintain that its status is revoked.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 讜讞讬驻讛 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜讟专讟讬讗讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 讜讞讬驻讛 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜讟专讟讬讗讜转 讗住讜专讜转 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a gentile who brought stones from stone heaps that were used in the worship of the deity Mercury [HaMarkulis], and who then paved roads and built theaters [vetarteiot] with them, it is permitted to derive benefit from them, as the gentile revoked their idolatrous status. But in the case of a Jew who brought stones that were used in the worship of Mercury and who then paved roads and built theaters with them, it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why does a stone such as this retain its idolatrous status? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own, which Reish Lakish deems permitted.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the Sages issued a decree that an object of idol worship retains its idolatrous status when a Jew attempts to revoke it, lest the Jew lift and acquire the idol, which would make it impossible to subsequently revoke its status.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讙讜讬 砖砖讬驻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇爪专讻讜 讛讬讗 讜砖讬驻讜讬讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉 诇爪专讻讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜砖讬驻讜讬讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖砖讬驻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬谉 诇爪专讻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪专讻讛 讛讬讗 讜砖讬驻讜讬讬讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a gentile who shaved down an object of idol worship for his own sake, as he needed the shavings, the idol itself and its shavings are then permitted. If he did it for the sake of the idol, to improve its appearance, the idol is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. But in the case of a Jew who shaved down an object of idol worship, whether he did it for his own sake or for the sake of the idol, the idol itself and its shavings are forbidden. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, in a case where a Jew shaved the idol for his own sake, why are the shavings forbidden? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the Sages issued a decree that an object of idol worship retains its idolatrous status when a Jew attempts to cause it to be revoked.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讜 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗祝 讛讬讗 谞注砖讛 讝讘诇 讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 诪谉 讛讞专诐 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (43a): Rabbi Yosei says: When one encounters an idol, he should grind the idol and throw the dust to the wind or cast it into the sea. The Rabbis said to him: What is the good of that? That also gives a Jew benefit from the idol, as it becomes fertilizer for his crops, and deriving any kind of benefit is prohibited, as it is written: 鈥淎nd nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:18). Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why is this prohibited? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava cited above, that the Sages issued a decree with regard to this matter.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬住讬讗谉 讗讜诪专 诪爪讗 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讜专讗砖讜 讞转讜讱 住驻拽 讙讜讬 讞转讻讜 住驻拽 讬砖专讗诇 讞转讻讜 诪讜转专 讜讚讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 讞转讻讜 讗住讜专 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Yasian says: If one found an object in the figure of a dragon [derakon] with its head severed, but it is uncertain whether a gentile severed it and it is uncertain whether a Jew severed it, the object is permitted. But if it is certain that a Jew severed it, it is forbidden. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why is it forbidden? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the Sages issued a decree with regard to this matter.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 讬专拽讜转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谞讘讬讬讛 谞讜砖专转 注诇讬讛谉 讗诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 诪讗诇讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that one may not even plant vegetables in the rainy season under a tree worshipped as an idol, as foliage may fall on them, serving as fertilizer. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why should a leaf from such a tree retain its idolatrous status? Let it be treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚注讬拽专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讬讬诪转

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as the main object of idol worship, the tree, still exists fully intact.

讜讛讗 砖讬驻讜讬讬谉 讚注讬拽专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讬讬诪转 讜拽转谞讬 诇爪专讻讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜砖讬驻讜讬讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But consider the case of shavings, where the main object of idol worship still exists, and nevertheless it is taught in the baraita cited earlier that if a gentile shaved an idol down for its own sake, the idol is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. Here too, in the case of the fallen leaves of a tree that is worshipped as an idol, it should be permitted to derive benefit from them.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讟诇讛 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: The reason the leaves are not permitted is because the status of an object of idol worship cannot be revoked by its natural manner of growth. Since the falling of leaves is a natural phenomenon, their detachment from the tree does not effect a revocation of their status as objects of idol worship.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽谉 砖讘专讗砖 讛讗讬诇谉 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讛 砖诇 讗砖专讛 讬转讬讝 讘拽谞讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 13b): With regard to a bird鈥檚 nest at the top of a tree that belongs to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple. With regard to a nest that is at the top of a tree used as part of idolatrous rites [ashera], although one may not climb the tree, as that would be benefiting from an object of idol worship, he may knock the nest off with a pole and benefit from it by using it for firewood and the like.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讘专讛 诪诪谞讜 注爪讬诐 讜拽讬谞转讛 讘讛谉 讜拽转谞讬 讬转讬讝 讘拽谞讛

In analyzing this baraita, it enters your mind that this is referring to a case where the bird broke off branches from the worshipped tree and built a nest with them. And yet, the baraita teaches that one may knock the nest off with a pole and it is then permitted to benefit from it. Apparently, the forbidden branches used in the construction of the nest lost their idolatrous status without human involvement, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that an idol that breaks loses its status.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 注爪讬诐 诪注诇诪讗 讜拽讬谞转讛 讘讛谉

The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a case where the bird brought branches from elsewhere and built a nest with them on top of the worshipped tree. The branches were never part of an object of idol worship.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讙讘讬 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 注爪讬诐 诪注诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讙讘讬 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 拽讚讬砖讬

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise if read with this understanding, as it teaches with regard to a nest in a consecrated tree: One may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. Granted, if you say that the bird brought branches from elsewhere, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches with regard to a nest in a consecrated tree, namely, that one may not derive benefit from it, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. According to this understanding of the mishna, one may not derive benefit from the nest by rabbinic law, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misusing consecrated property by Torah law, as the branches are not consecrated, but were brought from elsewhere.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 砖砖讘专讛 注爪讬诐 诪诪谞讜 讜拽讬谞转讛 讘讛谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讛讗 拽讚讬砖讬

But if you say that the bird broke off branches from the tree itself and built a nest with them, why is it taught that one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property? Aren鈥檛 the branches consecrated? Evidently, the mishna is referring to a nest that was built with branches from other trees, in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 understanding that an object of idol worship that broke on its own is still forbidden.

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬谉

The Gemara responds to this proof for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 understanding of the mishna: Does this argument prove anything? The mishna can still be interpreted as referring to a case where the branches for the nest came from the tree itself, and here we are dealing with a case of growths that came afterward, i.e., branches that grew after the tree was consecrated, and the tanna of the mishna holds that there is no prohibition against the misuse of consecrated property with regard to such growths.

讜专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讬转讬讝 讬转讬讝 讘讗驻专讜讞讬谉

Another explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan is presented. Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What does it mean that one may knock off the nest? It means that one may knock off the chicks; but one may not derive benefit from the nest itself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讱 讘讗驻专讜讞讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗驻专讜讞讬谉 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讗诪谉 讻讘讬爪讬诐 讚诪讜

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Ta岣ifa: I will explain the mishna to you: With regard to the chicks, which can fly away and are not confined to the tree, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol worship, deriving benefit from them is permitted. But with regard to the eggs, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol worship, deriving benefit from them is prohibited, as they are not seen as independent of the tree. Rav Ashi added to this and said: And chicks that still need their mother to survive are considered like eggs; deriving benefit from them is prohibited.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讗 讻诇讬诐 讜注诇讬讛诐 爪讜专转 讞诪讛 爪讜专转 诇讘谞讛 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖注诇 讛诪讻讜讘讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 砖注诇 讛诪讘讜讝讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉

MISHNA: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea and not derive any benefit from them, as they are assumed to be objects of idol worship. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Those figures that are upon respectable vessels are forbidden. Those that are upon disgraceful vessels are permitted.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诇讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讞讬 诇讛讜 诇诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖讜诐 讬诪讬诐 诇砖讜诐 谞讛专讜转 诇砖讜诐 诪讚讘专 诇砖讜诐 讞诪讛 诇砖讜诐 诇讘谞讛 诇砖讜诐 讻讜讻讘讬诐 讜诪讝诇讜转 诇砖讜诐 诪讬讻讗诇 砖专 讛讙讚讜诇 诇砖讜诐 砖讬诇砖讜诇 拽讟谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the specific figures listed in the mishna: Is this to say that people worship only these figures, but not any other item? And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this list and that which is taught in another mishna (岣llin 39b): With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of, i.e., to worship, seas, for the sake of rivers, for the sake of the wilderness, for the sake of the sun, for the sake of the moon, for the sake of the stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael the great ministering angel, or even for the sake of a small worm, in all of these cases, the animal is forbidden, as these animals have the status of offerings to the dead, i.e., idols.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬驻诇讞 诇讻诇 讚诪砖讻讞讬 驻诇讞讬 诪讬爪专 讜诪驻诇讞讬 讛谞讬 转诇转讗 讚讞砖讬讘讬 爪讬讬专讬 诇讛讜 讜驻诇讞讬 诇讛讜 诇诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇谞讜讬 讘注诇诪讗 注讘讚讬 诇讛讜

Abaye said in response to the contradiction: With regard to worship, people might worship any item that they find. With regard to fashioning figures and then worshipping them, only with regard to these three items listed in the mishna, which are important, do people fashion figures of them and worship them. With regard to figures of any other entity, people make them merely for ornamental purposes.

诪谞拽讬讟 专讘 砖砖转 讞讜诪专讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗 讜转谞讬 讻诇 讛诪讝诇讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪诪讝诇 讞诪讛 讜诇讘谞讛 讜讻诇 讛驻专爪讜驻讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪驻专爪讜祝 讗讚诐 讜讻诇 讛爪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讞讜抓 诪爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉

Rav Sheshet would consolidate the principles of the baraitot pertaining to this matter and teach: Figures of all constellations are permitted, except for the following celestial objects: The sun and the moon. And figures of all faces are permitted, except for the human face. And all figures of other items are permitted except for the figure of a dragon.

讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讛诪讝诇讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪诪讝诇 讞诪讛 讜诇讘谞讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注讜砖讛 讗讬 讘注讜砖讛 讻诇 讛诪讝诇讜转 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讗转讬 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讻讚诪讜转 砖诪砖讬 讛诪砖诪砖讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘诪专讜诐

The Master said: Figures of all constellations are permitted, except for the following celestial objects: The sun and the moon. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with here? If we say that the reference is to one who forms these figures, i.e., if Rav Sheshet is discussing the issue of which figures it is permitted to form, is forming figures of all the other constellations permitted? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold, you shall not make for you鈥 (Exodus 20:20)? This verse is interpreted to mean: You shall not make figures of My attendants who serve before Me on high, i.e., those celestial bodies, including the constellations, that were created to serve God.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讜爪讗 讜讻讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 讻诇讬诐 讜注诇讬讛诐 爪讜专转 讞诪讛 爪讜专转 诇讘谞讛 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞

Rather, it is obvious that this halakha is referring to a case where one finds vessels with these figures on them, and this is as we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. This indicates that it is permitted to derive benefit from any other vessels that were found and that had figures on them.

讗讬 讘诪讜爪讗 讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讻诇 讛驻专爪讜驻讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪驻专爪讜祝 讗讚诐 讗讬 讘诪讜爪讗 驻专爪讜祝 讗讚诐 诪讬 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 讻诇讬诐 讜注诇讬讛诐 爪讜专转 讞诪讛 爪讜专转 诇讘谞讛 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讗讬谉 驻专爪讜祝 讗讚诐 诇讗

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where one finds vessels with these figures on them, say the middle clause of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 statement: Figures of all faces are permitted, except for the human face. Now, if it is a case where one finds vessels with figures on them, is a vessel with the figure of the human face forbidden? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea? This indicates that a vessel with the figure of a dragon is forbidden, but a vessel with the figure of a human face is not.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘注讜砖讛 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注

Rather, the Gemara concludes, it is obvious that the statement that the figure of a human face is forbidden is referring to a case where one forms a figure, and this is prohibited, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who states (43b) that the interpretation of the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold, you shall not make for you鈥 (Exodus 20:20), is: Do not make of Me, i.e., do not form the figure of a person, who was created in the image of God.

讗讬 讘注讜砖讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻诇 讛爪讜专讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讞讜抓 诪爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 讜讗讬 讘注讜砖讛 爪讜专转 讚专拽讜谉 诪讬 讗住讬专 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讗转讬 讗诇讛讬 讻住祝 讜讗诇讛讬 讝讛讘

The Gemara asks: If it is referring to a case where one forms a figure, say the last clause of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 statement: All figures are permitted except for the figure of a dragon. And if it is referring to a case where one forms a figure, is forming the figure of a dragon prohibited? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold鈥?

Scroll To Top