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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 4, 2018 | 讬状讝 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 48

Different aspects of the forbidden nature of the聽asheira聽tree are discussed.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 讗砖专讜转 讛谉 讗讬诇谉 砖谞讟注讜 诪转讞诇讛 诇砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 诇砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讞诇讬祝 谞讜讟诇 诪讛 砖讛讞诇讬祝 讛注诪讬讚 转讞转讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜谞讟诇讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讜转专转

MISHNA: There are three types of trees that were used as part of idolatrous rites [ashera]: A tree that one initially planted for the sake of idol worship is forbidden, and one may not derive benefit from any part of the tree. If one lopped off part of the trunk of a tree or trimmed its branches for the sake of idol worship, i.e., to worship that which would regrow there, and the tree鈥檚 trunk or limbs regrew, one removes that which has regrown and burn it. The remainder of the tree is then permitted. If one erected an object of idol worship beneath a tree and subsequently removed it, it is permitted to derive benefit from the tree.

讙诪壮 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one lopped off or trimmed a tree鈥檚 branches for the sake of idol worship and it regrew, the tree is permitted upon the removal of the new growth. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: And this is the halakha only when one sank the shoot of a vine into the ground or grafted onto the trunk of the tree itself.

讜讛讗谞谉 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 转谞谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn that if he lopped off part of the trunk or trimmed the tree鈥檚 branches, the growth is forbidden? In order to render a tree forbidden, according to the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai, the act dedicated to idol worship must be sinking or grafting, which are tantamount to replanting the entire tree. The mishna indicates that even cutting off part of a tree renders the new growth forbidden.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇注谞讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 讗讬转诪专 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 讻讬 谞讟诇 诪讛 砖讛讞诇讬祝 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 讻讗讬诇谉 砖谞讟注讜 诪转讞诇讛 讚诪讬 讜诇讬转住专 讻讜诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Rather, when the statement of the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai was stated, it was stated with regard to the revocation of the idolatrous status. What they meant to say was that even if one sank the shoot of a vine into the ground or grafted onto the tree itself, effecting a more significant change, nevertheless, when one removes that which has regrown, the tree is permitted. As, lest you say that since one sank the shoot of a vine into the ground or grafted onto the tree itself, it is similar to a tree that one initially planted for idol worship and the entire tree should be forbidden, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai counter this and teach us that even in this case the tree is permitted when that which has regrown is removed.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪砖转讞讜讛 诇讗讬诇谉 转讜住驻转讬讛 讗住讜专讛 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讞诇讬祝 谞讜讟诇 诪讛 砖讛讞诇讬祝 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 诇讗

Shmuel says: In the case of one who bows to a tree, its additional subsequent growth is forbidden. Rabbi Elazar raises an objection from the mishna: If one lopped or trimmed the tree for the sake of idol worship and the tree鈥檚 trunk or limbs regrew, one removes that which has regrown and burn it. This indicates that if one lopped or trimmed it the additional growth is forbidden, but if one did not lop or trim it, even if one bowed to the tree, the growth is not forbidden.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬诇谉 砖谞讟注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讘讚讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara answers that Shmuel could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that a tree that was planted and only subsequently worshipped is permitted, as it was not initially planted for idol worship. And Shmuel says his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, who says that a tree that one planted and subsequently worshipped is forbidden. Accordingly, bowing to a tree renders its subsequent growth forbidden.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讘转讜住驻转 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇诪讗 转讜住驻转 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讜讘注讬拽专讜 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Ashi objects to this answer: From where is it derived that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to additional growth? Perhaps all agree that additional growth after the tree was worshipped is forbidden, and they disagree only with regard to its trunk.

讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 注讬拽专讜 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖专讬讛诐 转砖专驻讜谉 讘讗砖 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 砖专讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖讬专讛诐 转讙讚注讜谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讬诇谉 砖讙讬讚讜注讜 讗住讜专 讜注讬拽专讜 砖专讬 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬诇谉 砖谞讟注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讘讚讜

The Gemara explains what the nature of this dispute would be: As Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda maintains that its trunk is also forbidden, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their asherim with fire鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:3). Burning with fire destroys the whole tree, which indicates that the entire tree is forbidden, including its trunk. And the Rabbis maintain that the trunk of the tree is permitted, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their asherim, and burn their graven images with fire鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:5). Which is the tree whose hewn part is forbidden, but its trunk is permitted? You must say it is a tree that one planted and subsequently worshipped.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪转专爪讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘谞谉 诇讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘谞谉

And if you would say that we did not explain their opinions in this manner previously (45b), as the source given there for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is the same verse given here as the source for the opinion of the Rabbis, simply reverse the explanation given there to match the one given here. The verse cited there as the source for the opinion of the Rabbis, namely, 鈥渁nd burn their asherim with fire,鈥 should instead be considered the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, who deems even the trunk of a subsequently worshipped tree forbidden. And the verse cited there as the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, namely, 鈥渁nd hew down their asherim,鈥 should instead be considered the source for the opinion of the Rabbis that only subsequent growth is forbidden.

讗诐 讻谉 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讘诇讗 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 谞诪讬 转讜住驻转 讗住讜专讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

The Gemara rejects Rav Ashi鈥檚 suggestion: It cannot be that all agree that additional growth is forbidden when a tree is planted and subsequently worshipped, because if so, who teaches the mishna that says that the tree is forbidden when one lopped it or trimmed it? It is neither the Rabbis nor Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. If one were to say that the Rabbis teach it, this cannot be, as they maintain that even in a case where one did not lop it or trim it, but simply bowed to it, the additional growth is forbidden. If one were to say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda teaches the mishna, this cannot be, as he maintains that even the trunk of the tree is forbidden after it has been worshipped, and not just the subsequent growth.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诇讗 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 讗住讜专 讘住转诪讗 讗讘诇 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 讙诇讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讘转讜住驻转 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds, defending Rav Ashi鈥檚 suggestion: If you wish, say that the Rabbis teach the mishna, and if you wish, say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda teaches it. The Gemara explains each possibility: If you wish, say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda teaches it, as when Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says that even in a case where one did not lop it or trim it, the trunk of the tree is nevertheless forbidden, it is only in a case where one worshipped the tree without specification, i.e., not to any specific part of the tree. But if one lopped it or trimmed it for the sake of idol worship, he has revealed his intention, namely, that he believes that the additional growth is suitable for his idol worship, but that the trunk of the tree is not suitable for his idol worship. Therefore, in such a case only the additional growth is forbidden.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 谞诪讬 诇讬转住专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains the other possibility. If you wish, say that the Rabbis teach it. Although they maintain that even without lopping or trimming the tree the additional growth is forbidden if it is worshipped, nevertheless it was necessary for the mishna to mention the case where one lopped it or trimmed it specifically. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that since one performed an action on the tree itself, the trunk of the tree should also be forbidden. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that only the additional growth is forbidden and not the trunk.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬讝讜 讗砖专讛 讻诇 砖讬砖 转讞转讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘爪讬讚谉 讘讗讬诇谉 砖讛讬讜 注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜诪爪讗讜 转讞转讬讜 讙诇 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讚拽讜 讗转 讛讙诇 讛讝讛 讜讘讚拽讜讛讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讜 爪讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇爪讜专讛 讛谉 注讜讘讚讬谉 谞转讬专 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉

MISHNA: Which tree is deemed forbidden as an ashera? Any tree that has an object of idol worship beneath it. Rabbi Shimon says: Any tree that people worship. And there was an incident in Tzaidan involving a tree that people would worship, and Jews found beneath it a heap of stones. Rabbi Shimon said to them: Examine this heap of stones. And they examined it and found in it an idolatrous image. Rabbi Shimon said to them: Since it is the image that they worship, we can permit use of the tree to those who wish to derive benefit from it.

讙诪壮 讗讬讝讛讜 讗砖专讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 砖诇砖 讗砖专讜转 转谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖转讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讜讗讞转 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讗砖专讛 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讬砖 转讞转讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖注讜讘讚讬诐 讗讜转讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: Which tree is an ashera? The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the previous mishna that there are three types of ashera trees? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: Of the three trees mentioned in the previous mishna, there are two where the trees themselves are worshipped, and everyone agrees that they are forbidden. And there is one that is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. Which is the ashera with regard to which Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree? It is any tree that has an object of idol worship beneath it, as Rabbi Shimon says that any tree that people worship is forbidden, but that a tree under which an idol was placed is not forbidden.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讗砖专讛 住转诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讻讜诪专讬诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讟讜注诪讬谉 诪驻讬专讜转讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 转诪专讬 诇讘讬 谞爪专驻讬 讗住讜专 讚专诪讬 讘讬 砖讬讻专讗 讜砖转讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara presents a question: Which tree is assumed to be an ashera, even without specific knowledge that it was worshipped? Rav says: Any tree that gentile priests sit beneath and do not taste of its fruits, as they apparently consider the fruits consecrated to the idol. And Shmuel says: Even if they so much as say: These dates are for the house of Natzrefei, a house of idol worship, the tree is forbidden. This is because the idol worshippers would throw the dates into beer and drink it on their festival day. Ameimar says: The elders of Pumbedita said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬砖讘 讘爪讬诇讛 讜讗诐 讬砖讘 讟讛讜专 讜诇讗 讬注讘讜专 转讞转讬讛 讜讗诐 注讘专 讟诪讗 讛讬转讛 讙讜讝诇转 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讘专 转讞转讬讛 讟讛讜专

MISHNA: With regard to an ashera, one may not sit in its shade, but if one sat in its shade he remains ritually pure. And one may not pass beneath it, and if one passed beneath it he is ritually impure. If the tree was robbing the public, i.e., if its branches extended over public property, and one passed beneath it, he remains pure.

讙诪壮 诇讗 讬砖讘 讘爪讬诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇爪诇 爪讬诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not sit in its shade. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? He is directly benefiting from an object of idol worship. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is necessary only with regard to the shade of its shade. The shade that extends as far as the height of the tree is considered its shade. The less significant shade, that which extends further that the tree鈥檚 height, is referred to as the shade of its shade. The mishna is teaching that even this secondary shade is forbidden.

诪讻诇诇 讚讘爪诇 拽讜诪转讛 讗诐 讬砖讘 讟诪讗 诇讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇爪诇 拽讜诪转讛 谞诪讬 讗诐 讬砖讘 讟讛讜专 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇爪诇 爪讬诇讛 诇讗 讬砖讘

The Gemara comments: By inference, with regard to the shade of its height, its primary shade, if one sat there he is impure. The Gemara rejects this inference: No, this inference is not correct, as even with regard to the shade of its height, if one sat there he remains pure. And this is what the mishna is teaching us: That even with regard to the shade of its shade, one may not sit in it.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讬砖讘 讟讛讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇爪诇 拽讜诪转讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇爪诇 爪讬诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讬砖讘 诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇爪诇 拽讜诪转讛 讗诐 讬砖讘 讟讛讜专

There are those who teach this discussion with regard to the latter clause of that part of the mishna, which states: But if one sat in its shade he remains ritually pure. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Why should he be rendered impure? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is necessary only with regard to the direct shade of its height. Even in this case, he remains pure. The Gemara comments: By inference, with regard to the shade of its shade, one may even sit there ab initio. The Gemara answers: No, this inference is not correct. Rather, this is what the mishna is teaching us: That even with regard to the shade of its height, if one sat there he remains pure.

讜诇讗 讬注讘讜专 转讞转讬讛 讜讗诐 注讘专 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讬讻讗 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And one may not pass beneath an ashera, and if one passed beneath it he is ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Because it is impossible that there is no remnant of an idolatrous offering underneath the tree.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪诪讚讜 诇讘注诇 驻注讜专 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 诪转 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讗祝 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering transmits impurity in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof? It is derived from that which is stated: 鈥淎nd they joined themselves unto Ba鈥檃l-Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead鈥 (Psalms 106:28). It is derived from here that just as a corpse transmits impurity in a tent, so too, an idolatrous offering transmits impurity in a tent.

讛讬转讛 讙讜讝诇转 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讘专 转讞转讬讛 讟讛讜专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讘专 讗讜 注讜讘专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 注讜讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诐 注讘专

搂 The mishna teaches: If the tree was robbing the public and one passed beneath it he remains pure. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does the mishna mean that if one passed under the tree he remains pure, but that it is prohibited to pass beneath it ab initio? Or does the mishna mean that one may pass beneath it ab initio? Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar says in the name of 岣zkiyya: One may pass ab initio. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The mishna means that if one passed he remains pure, but it is prohibited to pass ab initio.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗

The Gemara explains: And they do not disagree. This opinion, that one may not pass beneath an ashera, is referring to a case where there is another way to get to his destination. That opinion, that it is permitted to pass beneath it ab initio, is referring to a case where there is no other way.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇砖诪注讬讛 讻讬 诪讟讬转 诇讛转诐 讗专讛讬讟谞讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗专讛讬讟谞讬 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讜讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 讗专讛讬讟谞讬 诪讬 砖专讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet, who was blind, was being guided by his attendant toward his city, and there was an ashera shadowing the path. Rav Sheshet said to his attendant: When you arrive at the ashera, have me run past it quickly. The Gemara asks: What were the circumstances? If there was no other way to get to his destination, why did Rav Sheshet request: Have me run past it? In such circumstances, it is permitted to walk normally underneath an ashera. And if there was another way to get to his destination, when Rav Sheshet said: Have me run past it, was it then permitted for him to do so? He still passed under the ashera.

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: Actually, it was a case where there was no other way to get to his destination. And although it was permitted for Rav Sheshet to walk normally underneath the ashera, Rav Sheshet wanted to run past it because an important person is different. An important person should try to pass under the ashera as quickly as possible, lest others misunderstand the circumstances and learn from him that it is permitted for one to walk underneath an ashera even when there is another way for him to reach his destination.

诪转谞讬壮 讝讜专注讬谉 转讞转讬讛 讬专拽讜转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讬谉 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 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 砖讛谞讘讬讛 谞讜砖专转 注诇讬讛谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讛谉 诇讝讘诇

MISHNA: One may plant vegetables underneath an ashera during the rainy season, as the vegetables do not benefit from its shade; on the contrary, the tree鈥檚 foliage prevents the vegetables from being properly irrigated by the rain. But one may not plant vegetables under an ashera during the summer, as the shade benefits them. And lettuce may not be planted there at all, neither in the summer nor in the rainy season, because shade is always beneficial to lettuce. Rabbi Yosei says: One may not plant vegetables under an ashera even during the rainy season, because the tree鈥檚 foliage [shehaneviyya] falls upon them and serves as fertilizer for them.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专

GEMARA: The mishna records a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis with regard to planting underneath an ashera in the rainy season when vegetables are fertilized by the tree鈥檚 forbidden fallen foliage. As the plant is also fertilized by the permitted nutrients of the ground, the plant鈥檚 growth is caused by both prohibited and permitted sources. Therefore, the Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yosei holds that when both this and that cause it, i.e., when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is forbidden, and he therefore holds that it is prohibited to plant underneath an ashera in the rainy season; and the Rabbis say that when both this and that cause a result, the result is permitted?

讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞谉 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 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 诪谉 讛讞专诐

Didn鈥檛 we hear that they stated the opposite rulings? As we learned in a mishna (43b): 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).

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis in that mishna and the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna here is difficult, and the contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yosei in that mishna and the statement of Rabbi Yosei here is difficult.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诇讗讬讘讜讚 诪转讬专 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗讝讬诇 诇讗讬讘讜讚 讗住讜专

The Gemara explains: Granted, the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and the other statement of Rabbi Yosei is not difficult. It may be resolved as follows: There, in the earlier mishna, since the ground-up idol is dispersed and is going to be completely lost, Rabbi Yosei permits deriving benefit from the fertilizer. By contrast, in the mishna here, where the fallen leaves are not going to be lost so quickly, as they fall together on top of the vegetables and provide direct benefit as fertilizer, deriving benefit from them is prohibited.

讗诇讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讗讬驻讜讱

But the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is difficult. Therefore, the Gemara concludes: Reverse the attribution of the statements, so that the mishna teaches that it is the Rabbis who deem it prohibited to plant under an ashera in the rainy season, while Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讚砖谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讛 砖诪砖讘讬讞 讘注讜专 驻讜讙诐 讘讘砖专

And if you wish, say instead: Do not reverse the statements. The contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yosei can be resolved as we answered before. The contradiction between the statements of the Rabbis can be resolved in accordance with that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says about an animal offering that became disqualified for sacrifice. The halakha is that this animal is sold and the proceeds are dedicated to the Temple treasury. One may not skin the hide of the animal whole even though this would make the hide more valuable than if it were cut up into pieces. Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, explains that this is because the value that is enhanced with regard to the hide is offset by the damage caused to the flesh. The process of skinning the hide devalues the animal鈥檚 flesh; therefore, there is no overall monetary gain for the Temple treasury.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讛 砖诪砖讘讬讞 讘谞讘讬讛 驻讜讙诐 讘爪诇

Here too, the value that is enhanced with regard to the planted vegetables by the foliage of the tree is offset by the damage caused by its shade. Therefore, since there is no overall benefit gained from the ashera, the Rabbis deem it permitted to plant underneath it in the winter.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟注讬谉 讬讞讜专 砖诇 注专诇讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讜讟注讬谉 讗讙讜讝 砖诇 注专诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗诐 谞讟注 讜讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that when both this and that cause it, i.e., when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is forbidden? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Orla 1:9) that Rabbi Yosei says: One may plant the branch of an orla tree, i.e., a tree during the first three years after its planting, despite the prohibition against eating or deriving benefit from its fruit; but one may not plant an orla nut, because it is a fruit. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Rabbi Yosei concedes that if one planted an orla nut, or sank the shoot of an orla tree into the ground, or grafted an orla tree, deriving benefit from that which grows as a result is permitted. This is apparently because the growth is caused by both a forbidden cause, the orla nut, and a permitted cause, the ground鈥檚 nutrients.

讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara adds: And that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei concedes

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 48

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖 讗砖专讜转 讛谉 讗讬诇谉 砖谞讟注讜 诪转讞诇讛 诇砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 诇砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讞诇讬祝 谞讜讟诇 诪讛 砖讛讞诇讬祝 讛注诪讬讚 转讞转讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜谞讟诇讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讜转专转

MISHNA: There are three types of trees that were used as part of idolatrous rites [ashera]: A tree that one initially planted for the sake of idol worship is forbidden, and one may not derive benefit from any part of the tree. If one lopped off part of the trunk of a tree or trimmed its branches for the sake of idol worship, i.e., to worship that which would regrow there, and the tree鈥檚 trunk or limbs regrew, one removes that which has regrown and burn it. The remainder of the tree is then permitted. If one erected an object of idol worship beneath a tree and subsequently removed it, it is permitted to derive benefit from the tree.

讙诪壮 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one lopped off or trimmed a tree鈥檚 branches for the sake of idol worship and it regrew, the tree is permitted upon the removal of the new growth. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: And this is the halakha only when one sank the shoot of a vine into the ground or grafted onto the trunk of the tree itself.

讜讛讗谞谉 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 转谞谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn that if he lopped off part of the trunk or trimmed the tree鈥檚 branches, the growth is forbidden? In order to render a tree forbidden, according to the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai, the act dedicated to idol worship must be sinking or grafting, which are tantamount to replanting the entire tree. The mishna indicates that even cutting off part of a tree renders the new growth forbidden.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇注谞讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 讗讬转诪专 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 讻讬 谞讟诇 诪讛 砖讛讞诇讬祝 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 讻讗讬诇谉 砖谞讟注讜 诪转讞诇讛 讚诪讬 讜诇讬转住专 讻讜诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Rather, when the statement of the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai was stated, it was stated with regard to the revocation of the idolatrous status. What they meant to say was that even if one sank the shoot of a vine into the ground or grafted onto the tree itself, effecting a more significant change, nevertheless, when one removes that which has regrown, the tree is permitted. As, lest you say that since one sank the shoot of a vine into the ground or grafted onto the tree itself, it is similar to a tree that one initially planted for idol worship and the entire tree should be forbidden, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai counter this and teach us that even in this case the tree is permitted when that which has regrown is removed.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪砖转讞讜讛 诇讗讬诇谉 转讜住驻转讬讛 讗住讜专讛 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讞诇讬祝 谞讜讟诇 诪讛 砖讛讞诇讬祝 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讗 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 诇讗

Shmuel says: In the case of one who bows to a tree, its additional subsequent growth is forbidden. Rabbi Elazar raises an objection from the mishna: If one lopped or trimmed the tree for the sake of idol worship and the tree鈥檚 trunk or limbs regrew, one removes that which has regrown and burn it. This indicates that if one lopped or trimmed it the additional growth is forbidden, but if one did not lop or trim it, even if one bowed to the tree, the growth is not forbidden.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬诇谉 砖谞讟注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讘讚讜 讗住讜专

The Gemara answers that Shmuel could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that a tree that was planted and only subsequently worshipped is permitted, as it was not initially planted for idol worship. And Shmuel says his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, who says that a tree that one planted and subsequently worshipped is forbidden. Accordingly, bowing to a tree renders its subsequent growth forbidden.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讘转讜住驻转 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇诪讗 转讜住驻转 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讜讘注讬拽专讜 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Ashi objects to this answer: From where is it derived that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to additional growth? Perhaps all agree that additional growth after the tree was worshipped is forbidden, and they disagree only with regard to its trunk.

讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 注讬拽专讜 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖专讬讛诐 转砖专驻讜谉 讘讗砖 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 砖专讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖讬专讛诐 转讙讚注讜谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讬诇谉 砖讙讬讚讜注讜 讗住讜专 讜注讬拽专讜 砖专讬 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬诇谉 砖谞讟注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讘讚讜

The Gemara explains what the nature of this dispute would be: As Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda maintains that its trunk is also forbidden, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their asherim with fire鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:3). Burning with fire destroys the whole tree, which indicates that the entire tree is forbidden, including its trunk. And the Rabbis maintain that the trunk of the tree is permitted, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their asherim, and burn their graven images with fire鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:5). Which is the tree whose hewn part is forbidden, but its trunk is permitted? You must say it is a tree that one planted and subsequently worshipped.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪转专爪讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘谞谉 诇讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘谞谉

And if you would say that we did not explain their opinions in this manner previously (45b), as the source given there for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is the same verse given here as the source for the opinion of the Rabbis, simply reverse the explanation given there to match the one given here. The verse cited there as the source for the opinion of the Rabbis, namely, 鈥渁nd burn their asherim with fire,鈥 should instead be considered the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, who deems even the trunk of a subsequently worshipped tree forbidden. And the verse cited there as the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, namely, 鈥渁nd hew down their asherim,鈥 should instead be considered the source for the opinion of the Rabbis that only subsequent growth is forbidden.

讗诐 讻谉 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讘诇讗 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 谞诪讬 转讜住驻转 讗住讜专讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

The Gemara rejects Rav Ashi鈥檚 suggestion: It cannot be that all agree that additional growth is forbidden when a tree is planted and subsequently worshipped, because if so, who teaches the mishna that says that the tree is forbidden when one lopped it or trimmed it? It is neither the Rabbis nor Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. If one were to say that the Rabbis teach it, this cannot be, as they maintain that even in a case where one did not lop it or trim it, but simply bowed to it, the additional growth is forbidden. If one were to say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda teaches the mishna, this cannot be, as he maintains that even the trunk of the tree is forbidden after it has been worshipped, and not just the subsequent growth.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诇讗 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 讗住讜专 讘住转诪讗 讗讘诇 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 讙诇讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讘转讜住驻转 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds, defending Rav Ashi鈥檚 suggestion: If you wish, say that the Rabbis teach the mishna, and if you wish, say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda teaches it. The Gemara explains each possibility: If you wish, say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda teaches it, as when Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says that even in a case where one did not lop it or trim it, the trunk of the tree is nevertheless forbidden, it is only in a case where one worshipped the tree without specification, i.e., not to any specific part of the tree. But if one lopped it or trimmed it for the sake of idol worship, he has revealed his intention, namely, that he believes that the additional growth is suitable for his idol worship, but that the trunk of the tree is not suitable for his idol worship. Therefore, in such a case only the additional growth is forbidden.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讙讬讚注讜 讜驻讬住诇讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 注讬拽专 讗讬诇谉 谞诪讬 诇讬转住专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains the other possibility. If you wish, say that the Rabbis teach it. Although they maintain that even without lopping or trimming the tree the additional growth is forbidden if it is worshipped, nevertheless it was necessary for the mishna to mention the case where one lopped it or trimmed it specifically. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that since one performed an action on the tree itself, the trunk of the tree should also be forbidden. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that only the additional growth is forbidden and not the trunk.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬讝讜 讗砖专讛 讻诇 砖讬砖 转讞转讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘爪讬讚谉 讘讗讬诇谉 砖讛讬讜 注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜诪爪讗讜 转讞转讬讜 讙诇 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讚拽讜 讗转 讛讙诇 讛讝讛 讜讘讚拽讜讛讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讜 爪讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇爪讜专讛 讛谉 注讜讘讚讬谉 谞转讬专 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉

MISHNA: Which tree is deemed forbidden as an ashera? Any tree that has an object of idol worship beneath it. Rabbi Shimon says: Any tree that people worship. And there was an incident in Tzaidan involving a tree that people would worship, and Jews found beneath it a heap of stones. Rabbi Shimon said to them: Examine this heap of stones. And they examined it and found in it an idolatrous image. Rabbi Shimon said to them: Since it is the image that they worship, we can permit use of the tree to those who wish to derive benefit from it.

讙诪壮 讗讬讝讛讜 讗砖专讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 砖诇砖 讗砖专讜转 转谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖转讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讜讗讞转 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讗砖专讛 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讬砖 转讞转讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖注讜讘讚讬诐 讗讜转讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: Which tree is an ashera? The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the previous mishna that there are three types of ashera trees? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: Of the three trees mentioned in the previous mishna, there are two where the trees themselves are worshipped, and everyone agrees that they are forbidden. And there is one that is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. Which is the ashera with regard to which Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree? It is any tree that has an object of idol worship beneath it, as Rabbi Shimon says that any tree that people worship is forbidden, but that a tree under which an idol was placed is not forbidden.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讗砖专讛 住转诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讻讜诪专讬诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讟讜注诪讬谉 诪驻讬专讜转讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 转诪专讬 诇讘讬 谞爪专驻讬 讗住讜专 讚专诪讬 讘讬 砖讬讻专讗 讜砖转讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara presents a question: Which tree is assumed to be an ashera, even without specific knowledge that it was worshipped? Rav says: Any tree that gentile priests sit beneath and do not taste of its fruits, as they apparently consider the fruits consecrated to the idol. And Shmuel says: Even if they so much as say: These dates are for the house of Natzrefei, a house of idol worship, the tree is forbidden. This is because the idol worshippers would throw the dates into beer and drink it on their festival day. Ameimar says: The elders of Pumbedita said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬砖讘 讘爪讬诇讛 讜讗诐 讬砖讘 讟讛讜专 讜诇讗 讬注讘讜专 转讞转讬讛 讜讗诐 注讘专 讟诪讗 讛讬转讛 讙讜讝诇转 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讘专 转讞转讬讛 讟讛讜专

MISHNA: With regard to an ashera, one may not sit in its shade, but if one sat in its shade he remains ritually pure. And one may not pass beneath it, and if one passed beneath it he is ritually impure. If the tree was robbing the public, i.e., if its branches extended over public property, and one passed beneath it, he remains pure.

讙诪壮 诇讗 讬砖讘 讘爪讬诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇爪诇 爪讬诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not sit in its shade. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? He is directly benefiting from an object of idol worship. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is necessary only with regard to the shade of its shade. The shade that extends as far as the height of the tree is considered its shade. The less significant shade, that which extends further that the tree鈥檚 height, is referred to as the shade of its shade. The mishna is teaching that even this secondary shade is forbidden.

诪讻诇诇 讚讘爪诇 拽讜诪转讛 讗诐 讬砖讘 讟诪讗 诇讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇爪诇 拽讜诪转讛 谞诪讬 讗诐 讬砖讘 讟讛讜专 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇爪诇 爪讬诇讛 诇讗 讬砖讘

The Gemara comments: By inference, with regard to the shade of its height, its primary shade, if one sat there he is impure. The Gemara rejects this inference: No, this inference is not correct, as even with regard to the shade of its height, if one sat there he remains pure. And this is what the mishna is teaching us: That even with regard to the shade of its shade, one may not sit in it.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讬砖讘 讟讛讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇爪诇 拽讜诪转讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇爪诇 爪讬诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讬砖讘 诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇爪诇 拽讜诪转讛 讗诐 讬砖讘 讟讛讜专

There are those who teach this discussion with regard to the latter clause of that part of the mishna, which states: But if one sat in its shade he remains ritually pure. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Why should he be rendered impure? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is necessary only with regard to the direct shade of its height. Even in this case, he remains pure. The Gemara comments: By inference, with regard to the shade of its shade, one may even sit there ab initio. The Gemara answers: No, this inference is not correct. Rather, this is what the mishna is teaching us: That even with regard to the shade of its height, if one sat there he remains pure.

讜诇讗 讬注讘讜专 转讞转讬讛 讜讗诐 注讘专 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讬讻讗 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And one may not pass beneath an ashera, and if one passed beneath it he is ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Because it is impossible that there is no remnant of an idolatrous offering underneath the tree.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪诪讚讜 诇讘注诇 驻注讜专 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 诪转 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讗祝 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇

The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering transmits impurity in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof? It is derived from that which is stated: 鈥淎nd they joined themselves unto Ba鈥檃l-Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead鈥 (Psalms 106:28). It is derived from here that just as a corpse transmits impurity in a tent, so too, an idolatrous offering transmits impurity in a tent.

讛讬转讛 讙讜讝诇转 讗转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讘专 转讞转讬讛 讟讛讜专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讘专 讗讜 注讜讘专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 注讜讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诐 注讘专

搂 The mishna teaches: If the tree was robbing the public and one passed beneath it he remains pure. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does the mishna mean that if one passed under the tree he remains pure, but that it is prohibited to pass beneath it ab initio? Or does the mishna mean that one may pass beneath it ab initio? Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar says in the name of 岣zkiyya: One may pass ab initio. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The mishna means that if one passed he remains pure, but it is prohibited to pass ab initio.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗

The Gemara explains: And they do not disagree. This opinion, that one may not pass beneath an ashera, is referring to a case where there is another way to get to his destination. That opinion, that it is permitted to pass beneath it ab initio, is referring to a case where there is no other way.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇砖诪注讬讛 讻讬 诪讟讬转 诇讛转诐 讗专讛讬讟谞讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗专讛讬讟谞讬 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讜讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 讗专讛讬讟谞讬 诪讬 砖专讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet, who was blind, was being guided by his attendant toward his city, and there was an ashera shadowing the path. Rav Sheshet said to his attendant: When you arrive at the ashera, have me run past it quickly. The Gemara asks: What were the circumstances? If there was no other way to get to his destination, why did Rav Sheshet request: Have me run past it? In such circumstances, it is permitted to walk normally underneath an ashera. And if there was another way to get to his destination, when Rav Sheshet said: Have me run past it, was it then permitted for him to do so? He still passed under the ashera.

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: Actually, it was a case where there was no other way to get to his destination. And although it was permitted for Rav Sheshet to walk normally underneath the ashera, Rav Sheshet wanted to run past it because an important person is different. An important person should try to pass under the ashera as quickly as possible, lest others misunderstand the circumstances and learn from him that it is permitted for one to walk underneath an ashera even when there is another way for him to reach his destination.

诪转谞讬壮 讝讜专注讬谉 转讞转讬讛 讬专拽讜转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讬谉 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 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 砖讛谞讘讬讛 谞讜砖专转 注诇讬讛谉 讜讛讜讛 诇讛谉 诇讝讘诇

MISHNA: One may plant vegetables underneath an ashera during the rainy season, as the vegetables do not benefit from its shade; on the contrary, the tree鈥檚 foliage prevents the vegetables from being properly irrigated by the rain. But one may not plant vegetables under an ashera during the summer, as the shade benefits them. And lettuce may not be planted there at all, neither in the summer nor in the rainy season, because shade is always beneficial to lettuce. Rabbi Yosei says: One may not plant vegetables under an ashera even during the rainy season, because the tree鈥檚 foliage [shehaneviyya] falls upon them and serves as fertilizer for them.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专

GEMARA: The mishna records a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis with regard to planting underneath an ashera in the rainy season when vegetables are fertilized by the tree鈥檚 forbidden fallen foliage. As the plant is also fertilized by the permitted nutrients of the ground, the plant鈥檚 growth is caused by both prohibited and permitted sources. Therefore, the Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yosei holds that when both this and that cause it, i.e., when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is forbidden, and he therefore holds that it is prohibited to plant underneath an ashera in the rainy season; and the Rabbis say that when both this and that cause a result, the result is permitted?

讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞谉 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 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 诪谉 讛讞专诐

Didn鈥檛 we hear that they stated the opposite rulings? As we learned in a mishna (43b): 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).

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis in that mishna and the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna here is difficult, and the contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yosei in that mishna and the statement of Rabbi Yosei here is difficult.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诇讗讬讘讜讚 诪转讬专 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗讝讬诇 诇讗讬讘讜讚 讗住讜专

The Gemara explains: Granted, the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and the other statement of Rabbi Yosei is not difficult. It may be resolved as follows: There, in the earlier mishna, since the ground-up idol is dispersed and is going to be completely lost, Rabbi Yosei permits deriving benefit from the fertilizer. By contrast, in the mishna here, where the fallen leaves are not going to be lost so quickly, as they fall together on top of the vegetables and provide direct benefit as fertilizer, deriving benefit from them is prohibited.

讗诇讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讗讬驻讜讱

But the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is difficult. Therefore, the Gemara concludes: Reverse the attribution of the statements, so that the mishna teaches that it is the Rabbis who deem it prohibited to plant under an ashera in the rainy season, while Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讚砖谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讛 砖诪砖讘讬讞 讘注讜专 驻讜讙诐 讘讘砖专

And if you wish, say instead: Do not reverse the statements. The contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yosei can be resolved as we answered before. The contradiction between the statements of the Rabbis can be resolved in accordance with that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says about an animal offering that became disqualified for sacrifice. The halakha is that this animal is sold and the proceeds are dedicated to the Temple treasury. One may not skin the hide of the animal whole even though this would make the hide more valuable than if it were cut up into pieces. Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, explains that this is because the value that is enhanced with regard to the hide is offset by the damage caused to the flesh. The process of skinning the hide devalues the animal鈥檚 flesh; therefore, there is no overall monetary gain for the Temple treasury.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讛 砖诪砖讘讬讞 讘谞讘讬讛 驻讜讙诐 讘爪诇

Here too, the value that is enhanced with regard to the planted vegetables by the foliage of the tree is offset by the damage caused by its shade. Therefore, since there is no overall benefit gained from the ashera, the Rabbis deem it permitted to plant underneath it in the winter.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讜讟注讬谉 讬讞讜专 砖诇 注专诇讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讜讟注讬谉 讗讙讜讝 砖诇 注专诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗诐 谞讟注 讜讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that when both this and that cause it, i.e., when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is forbidden? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Orla 1:9) that Rabbi Yosei says: One may plant the branch of an orla tree, i.e., a tree during the first three years after its planting, despite the prohibition against eating or deriving benefit from its fruit; but one may not plant an orla nut, because it is a fruit. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Rabbi Yosei concedes that if one planted an orla nut, or sank the shoot of an orla tree into the ground, or grafted an orla tree, deriving benefit from that which grows as a result is permitted. This is apparently because the growth is caused by both a forbidden cause, the orla nut, and a permitted cause, the ground鈥檚 nutrients.

讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara adds: And that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei concedes

Scroll To Top