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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 5, 2018 | 讬状讞 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 49

Sponsored in memory of David ben Refael. Study Guide Avoda Zara 49. Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis debate in the mishna whether one needs to be concerned about the benefit gained from leaves falling from an ashera聽tree that will fertilize the crops. This is understood to be part of a broader debate about when something grows/is created from something forbidden and something permitted together, is the item created forbidden or permitted? The problem is that Rabbi Yosi’s opinion,聽as well as the rabbi’s opinion, doesn’t match their聽opinions in other situations regarding this same concept. The gemara聽tries to reconcile these varying sources. One cannot gain benefit from items created using wood from an ashera tree, but if one accidentally made something using this wood, could one redeem the item? How does “cancelling” out idols work? If an item breaks, do the pieces need cancelling also?


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

砖讗诐 谞讟注 讜讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 诪讜转专

that if one planted an orla nut, or sank the shoot of an orla tree into the ground, or grafted an orla tree, that which grows as a result is permitted.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讬谉 砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪讬 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖谞讝讚讘诇讛 讘讝讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 驻专讛 砖谞转驻讟诪讛 讘讻专砖讬谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 转谞讬 讞讚讗 砖讚讛 转讝专注 驻专讛 转砖讞讟 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 砖讚讛 转讘讜专 讜驻专讛 转专讝讛

And if you would say that this is not difficult, as Rabbi Yosei distinguishes between items that are forbidden due to other prohibitions and items that are forbidden due to idol worship, does he indeed distinguish in this manner? But isn鈥檛 it taught that with regard to a field that was fertilized with dung that came from an animal used in idol worship, and similarly, with regard to a cow that was fattened with vetches used in idol worship, there are opposing opinions: It is taught in one baraita that the field may be sown in the normal manner and the cow may be slaughtered and eaten, and it is taught in another baraita that the field should be left fallow, and the cow should be made lean, until the effects of the dung or vetches have passed.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

What, is it not that this baraita that rules leniently is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is permitted, and that baraita that rules stringently is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? If so, it is clear that Rabbi Yosei does not distinguish between other prohibitions and idol worship, as in this case of idol worship he still permits the result of permitted and forbidden causes. The Gemara answers: No, these baraitot do not reflect the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis. Rather, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.

讛讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讚砖讗讜专

The Gemara asks: Which dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is referred to here? If we say that it is the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to leaven, that dispute does not necessarily correspond to the controversy between these two baraitot.

讚转谞谉 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讜诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讜谞爪讟专驻讜 讜讞讬诪爪讜

As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In the case of non-sacred leaven and teruma leaven that fell into a non-sacred batch of dough, and this one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and that one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, there is a dispute as to whether this dough has the status of teruma, and is therefore forbidden to non-priests, or whether it has the status of non-sacred bread.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讘住讜祝 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓

Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element that fell into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is forbidden to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first, or whether the forbidden item fell in last, the dough is not forbidden unless there is enough of the forbidden leaven alone to cause the dough to become leavened.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗住讜专

And Abaye says: Rabbi Eliezer taught that when the permitted leaven fell in last, the mixture is permitted only in a case where one first removed the forbidden leaven, before the permitted leaven fell into the dough and made it rise. But if one did not first remove the forbidden leaven, the dough is forbidden even if the permitted leaven fell in last. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both permitted and forbidden leaven cause dough to become leavened, the dough is forbidden.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讗讬 讙诪讬专 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬 讙诪讬专 讘讛讬转讬专讗 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讬谉 住诇拽讬讛 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 住诇拽讬讛

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: But from where is it apparent that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is in accordance with Abaye鈥檚 explanation? Perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is as he says explicitly: I follow the final element. If the dough鈥檚 leavening is completed by the forbidden item, it is forbidden; and if it is completed by the permitted item, it is permitted. And this is the halakha whether one removed the forbidden item or whether one did not remove the forbidden item. Accordingly, Rabbi Eliezer does not necessarily hold that when both a forbidden and a permitted item contribute to a result, the result is forbidden.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讚注爪讬诐

Rather, the two conflicting baraitot cited with regard to a field fertilized with dung used in idol worship can be attributed in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to wood from an ashera tree.

讚转谞谉 谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 注爪讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛 讛住讬拽 讘讛 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讞讚砖 讬讜转抓 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉 讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛

As we learned in a mishna (49b): If one took wood from an ashera, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. In a case where one kindled a fire in an oven with the wood, if it is a new oven and by kindling the fire he hardened the oven and made it stronger for use in the future, then the oven must be shattered. Since forbidden items were used in the process of forming the oven, one may not derive benefit from the use of the forbidden items. But if it is an old oven it may be cooled; it is prohibited to use the oven only while it is still hot. If one baked bread with wood from the ashera as the fuel, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the bread.

谞转注专讘讛 讘讗讞专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

If this bread was intermingled with other bread, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all the bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: One must take the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea. In other words, one is not required to destroy the bread. Instead, one should designate money equal in value to the wood that he used from the ashera, and he should destroy this money to offset the benefit he derived from the forbidden wood. The Rabbis said to him: There is no monetary redemption for objects that are forbidden due to idol worship. Once the bread becomes forbidden, it cannot be redeemed by having the value of the forbidden wood cast into the Dead Sea. In any event, Rabbi Eliezer apparently holds that the result of both forbidden and permitted causes is forbidden, as the bread was baked with both forbidden fuel, i.e., the wood from the ashera, and the permitted oven.

专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: If the two conflicting baraitot cited with regard to a field fertilized with dung used in idol worship are attributed in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, and if this is referring to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement with regard to bread baked in an oven that was heated with fuel from an ashera, then who are the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, to whom the other baraita is attributed?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚注爪讬诐 讗讞诪讜专讬 诪讞诪专讬

If we say that the reference is to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to bread baked with wood from an ashera, this cannot be, as they are even more stringent than Rabbi Eliezer with regard to this matter. Not only do they deem bread that was baked with both forbidden and permitted fuel to be forbidden, but they require that it be destroyed and not redeemed. In others words, with regard to the status of the bread there is no dispute; all agree that it is forbidden. Therefore, both opinions are in accordance with the baraita that prohibits the result of both forbidden and permitted causes.

讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚砖讗讜专 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪拽讬诇讬 讘砖讗讜专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬 诪拽讬诇讬

If the reference is rather to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to teruma leaven that mixed with non-sacred leaven, as the Rabbis permit the mixture as long as the teruma leaven was not potent enough to cause the dough to rise, the more lenient of the two baraitot cannot be attributed in accordance with this opinion either; as say that you heard that these Rabbis are lenient with regard to the case of leaven; does that mean that they are lenient with regard to cases involving items of idol worship?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

As a result of this question, the Gemara retracts its suggestion that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion in the mishna is based on the opinion that a result caused by both permitted and forbidden items is forbidden. Rather, Rabbi Yosei holds that the result is permitted, as is evident from the case of a ground-up and dispersed object of idol worship and from the case of a planted orla nut. Therefore, the baraitot can actually be attributed as follows: This baraita that permits the use of the field is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that baraita that prohibits its use is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专

And as for the mishna, which seems to indicate that Rabbi Yosei holds that when a result is caused by both permitted and forbidden items it is forbidden, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yosei was not expressing his own opinion. Rather, when he said that one may not plant vegetables under an ashera even during the rainy season, he said so in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that a result caused by both permitted and forbidden items is forbidden. Rabbi Yosei said to them: According to my own opinion, when both this and that cause it, i.e., when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is permitted. It is therefore permitted to plant vegetables under an ashera during all seasons.

诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讗祝 讬专拽讜转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

But according to your opinion, as you say that when both this and that cause a result it is prohibited, as seen from your ruling that it is prohibited to plant under an ashera during the summer because of the positive effect of the ashera tree鈥檚 shade, you should concede to me, in any event, that planting the vegetables even during the rainy season, when there is no shade, is prohibited, because they are fertilized by the fallen foliage.

讜专讘谞谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis reply to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 point? The Gemara answers: They would reply in accordance with the aforementioned statement that Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says (48b), that when a certain activity causes both a benefit and a greater or equal loss, it is not regarded as a benefit. Here, the positive effect on the plant from the tree鈥檚 foliage is offset by the fact that its shade prevents rainwater from reaching the plant. Therefore, since there is no overall benefit gained from the ashera, the Rabbis permit planting underneath it in the winter.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讬谞转讗 讚讗讬讝讚讘诇 讘讝讘诇讗 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讞 专讘 注诪专诐 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara concludes: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The hala-kha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara recounts an incident supporting this ruling: There was a certain garden that was fertilized with dung that came from an animal used in idol worship. Rav Amram sent a query to Rav Yosef, asking what the halakha is in such a case. Rav Yosef said to him that this is what Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; the produce of the garden is therefore permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讟诇 诪诪谞讛 注爪讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 讛住讬拽 讘讛谉 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讗诐 讞讚砖 讬讜转抓 讜讗诐 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉 讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛

MISHNA: If one took wood from an ashera, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. In a case where one kindled a fire in an oven with the wood, if it is a new oven and by kindling the fire he hardened the oven and made it stronger for use in the future, then the oven must be shattered. Since forbidden items were used in the process of forming the oven, one may not derive benefit from the use of the forbidden items. But if it is an old oven it may be cooled; it is prohibited to use the oven only while it is still hot. If one baked bread with wood from the ashera as the fuel, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the bread.

谞转注专讘讛 讘讗讞专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

If this bread was intermingled with other bread, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all the bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: One must take the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea. In other words, one is not required to destroy all of the loaves. Instead, one should designate money equal in value to the wood that he used from the ashera, and he should destroy this money to offset the benefit he derived from the forbidden wood. The Rabbis said to him: There is no monetary redemption for objects that are forbidden due to idol worship. Once the bread becomes forbidden, it cannot be redeemed by having the value of the forbidden wood cast into the Dead Sea.

谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻专讻讜专 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗专讙 讘讜 讗转 讛讘讙讚 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讞专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

If one took wood from an ashera for use as a weaving shuttle [karkor], it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. If one wove a garment with it, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the garment. If the garment was intermingled with other garments, and those other garments were intermingled with others, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of them. Rabbi Eliezer says: One must take the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea. The Rabbis said to him: There is no monetary redemption for objects that are forbidden due to idol worship.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 讙诪专讛 驻转 拽诇讬 诇讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 讻专讻讜专 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇专讘谞谉

GEMARA: The mishna presents two cases where Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree. The Gemara explains: And both are necessary; as if the mishna had taught us only the first case, concerning the forbidden bread, one might have thought that it is only in this case that Rabbi Eliezer says that the bread is permitted after casting the value gained from the forbidden wood into the Dead Sea, because at the time that the bread has finished baking, the forbidden wood has burned up. But in the case of the shuttle, where the original forbidden piece of wood is still extant, perhaps one will say that he concedes to the Rabbis that the forbidden garment may not be redeemed.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻专讻讜专 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 驻转 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us only the case of the shuttle, one might have thought that it is only in this case that the Rabbis say that the forbidden garment may not be redeemed, because the original forbidden piece of wood is still extant. But in the case of the bread, where the forbidden wood was already burned up by the time the bread finished baking, perhaps one will say that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer that the bread may be redeemed. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Rav 岣yya, son of Rabba bar Na岣ani, says that Rav 岣sda says that Ze鈥檈iri says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. There are those who say there is a different version of this ruling: Rav 岣sda says: Abba bar Rav 岣sda said to me that this is what Ze鈥檈iri says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻转 讗讘诇 讞讘讬转 诇讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讘讬转 诪讜转专转

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: They taught that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer only in the case of forbidden bread. But with regard to the case of a barrel of wine used for an idolatrous libation, which was intermingled with permitted barrels of wine, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rav 岣sda says: Even in the case of a barrel of libation wine, the wine in the other barrels is permitted once the value of the forbidden barrel has been cast into the Dead Sea.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬转注专讘 诇讬讛 讞讘讬转讗 讚讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘讞诪专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 砖拽讜诇 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讜砖讚讬 讘谞讛专讗 讜谞砖转专讬 诇讱

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man, and it happened that a barrel of wine used for a libation became intermingled with his wine. He came before Rav 岣sda to ask what he should do. Rav 岣sda said to him: Take four dinars and cast them into the river, and the rest of the wine will be permitted to you.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪讘讟诇讛 拽讬专住诐 讜讝讬专讚 谞讟诇 诪诪谞讛 诪拽诇 讗讜 砖专讘讬讟 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讟诇讛 砖讬驻讛 诇爪专讻讛 讗住讜专讛 砖诇讗 诇爪专讻讛 诪讜转专转

MISHNA: How does one revoke the idolatrous status of an ashera? If a gentile trimmed dry wood or pruned green wood from the tree for his own benefit, or if he removed from it a stick, or a rod, or even a leaf, he has thereby revoked its idolatrous status, as he has proven that he no longer worships it. If a gentile shaved down the tree for its own sake, to improve its appearance, it remains prohibited to derive benefit from it. If he shaved it down not for its own sake, it is permitted.

讙诪壮 讗讜转谉 砖驻讗讬谉 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讞讚 讗诪专 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉

GEMARA: With regard to those shavings that were shaved off for the sake of the ashera, what should be done with them? Rav Huna and Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav disagree about it; one says the shavings are forbidden and one says they are permitted.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 砖砖讬驻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇爪专讻讜 讛讬讗 讜砖驻讗讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉 诇爪专讻讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜砖驻讗讬讛 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 诇爪专讻讛 讘讬谉 诇爪专讻讜 讛讬讗 讜砖驻讗讬讛 讗住讜专讬谉

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who says that the shavings are permitted, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who shaved down an object of idol worship for his own sake, as he wished to use the shavings, the tree and its shavings are permitted. The idolatrous status has been revoked from both the object and its shavings. If he shaved it for its, i.e., for the idol鈥檚, own sake, it remains forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. And in the case of a Jew who shaved down an object of idol worship, whether for its sake or for his own sake, the object and its shavings remain forbidden, as a Jew cannot revoke an object鈥檚 idolatrous status.

讗讬转诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诇讘讟诇 讻诇 拽讬住诐 讜拽讬住诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛

It was stated: With regard to an object of idol worship that broke, Rav says: It is necessary to revoke the idolatrous status of each and every sliver. And Shmuel says: An object of idol worship can have its status nullified only if part of it breaks off in the course of its natural manner of growth.

讗讚专讘讛 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛 诪讬 诪讘讟诇讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讘讟诇 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛

The Gemara inquires about Shmuel鈥檚 ruling: On the contrary, can an object possibly have its idolatrous status nullified by breaking in the course of its natural manner of growth? The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Shmuel is saying: If an object of idol worship breaks, its idolatrous status is automatically nullified, as the idol worshipper will see that it broke and will no longer attribute any power to it. It needs to have its idolatrous status actively revoked only in a case where it broke off in the course of its natural manner of growth. For example, if leaves fall from a worshipped tree, the tree and the leaves retain their idolatrous status. In this case, the idol worshipper will not attribute the fallen leaves to a lack of power of the tree.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Shmuel disagree about this: One Sage, Rav, holds that people worship even fragments of idols. Therefore, the fact that an idol broke does not result in the nullification of its idolatrous status. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that people do not worship fragments of idols.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘砖讘专讬 砖讘专讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讘专讬 砖讘专讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 砖讘专讬 砖讘专讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone agrees that people worship fragments of idols. And here, it is with regard to fragments of fragments that they disagree. One Sage, Rav, holds that fragments of fragments are forbidden; and one Sage, Shmuel, holds that fragments of fragments are permitted.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖讘专讬 砖讘专讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讞诇讬讜转 讜讘讛讚讬讜讟 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讙讚讬诇转讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讘讟诇

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that fragments of fragments are permitted, and here they disagree with regard to objects of idol worship that are composed of segments that come apart and that a layman can reassemble. One Sage, Rav, holds that since a layman can reassemble it, its idolatrous status is not nullified. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that an object of idol worship needs to have its status revoked only when it breaks in the course of its natural manner of growth, as that is its typical manner. This case, where the idol is disassembled, is not related to its natural growth and therefore it requires no further act to revoke its idolatrous status.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛爪诇诪讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗讘谞讬诐 讝讜 讘爪讚 讝讜 讘爪讚 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讗住讜专讜转 讜砖转讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 讗住讜专讜转 讜砖讗讬谉 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 诪讜转专讜转

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones that are adjacent to each other at the side of Mercury [Markulis] are prohibited, as that idol was worshipped by tossing stones toward it, which then became part of the idol. But if there are only two stones, then they are permitted. And the Rabbis say: Those stones that are adjacent to Mercury and appear to have fallen from it are prohibited. But those stones that are not adjacent to it are permitted.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 拽住讘专讬 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬诐 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 谞驻诇 讗住讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 诪讜转专讜转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, one can explain that the Rabbis hold that idol worshippers worship fragments of idols. Therefore, those stones that are adjacent to Mercury, where it can be said that they fell from its pile of stones, are prohibited; as they are considered fragments of an object of idol worship, namely the stone pile. And those that are not adjacent to Mercury are permitted, as they did not fall from it.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转专转讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转住专 讗讬 讗讬谉 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 转诇转 谞诪讬 诇讗

But with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, what does he hold? If he holds that idol worshippers worship fragments of idols, even two stones should be prohibited. If he holds that idol worshippers do not worship fragments of idols, even three stones should not be prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞砖专讜 诪诪谞讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 转讘讜专讬 诪讬转讘专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘住转诪讗

Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a case where it is known that these stones fell from the pile of stones, everyone agrees that they are prohibited, and this is the halakha even according to the one who says: Idol worshippers do not worship fragments. As that statement applies only to a form of idol worship where that is not the normal manner in which it is worshipped. But here, where the stones thrown onto the pile are broken stones from the outset, this is its normal manner of worship. They disagree only when it is not specifically known where these stones came from.

  • 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 Shlemah 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 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 49

砖讗诐 谞讟注 讜讛讘专讬讱 讜讛专讻讬讘 诪讜转专

that if one planted an orla nut, or sank the shoot of an orla tree into the ground, or grafted an orla tree, that which grows as a result is permitted.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讬谉 砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪讬 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖谞讝讚讘诇讛 讘讝讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻谉 驻专讛 砖谞转驻讟诪讛 讘讻专砖讬谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 转谞讬 讞讚讗 砖讚讛 转讝专注 驻专讛 转砖讞讟 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 砖讚讛 转讘讜专 讜驻专讛 转专讝讛

And if you would say that this is not difficult, as Rabbi Yosei distinguishes between items that are forbidden due to other prohibitions and items that are forbidden due to idol worship, does he indeed distinguish in this manner? But isn鈥檛 it taught that with regard to a field that was fertilized with dung that came from an animal used in idol worship, and similarly, with regard to a cow that was fattened with vetches used in idol worship, there are opposing opinions: It is taught in one baraita that the field may be sown in the normal manner and the cow may be slaughtered and eaten, and it is taught in another baraita that the field should be left fallow, and the cow should be made lean, until the effects of the dung or vetches have passed.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

What, is it not that this baraita that rules leniently is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is permitted, and that baraita that rules stringently is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? If so, it is clear that Rabbi Yosei does not distinguish between other prohibitions and idol worship, as in this case of idol worship he still permits the result of permitted and forbidden causes. The Gemara answers: No, these baraitot do not reflect the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis. Rather, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.

讛讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讚砖讗讜专

The Gemara asks: Which dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is referred to here? If we say that it is the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to leaven, that dispute does not necessarily correspond to the controversy between these two baraitot.

讚转谞谉 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讜诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讜谞爪讟专驻讜 讜讞讬诪爪讜

As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In the case of non-sacred leaven and teruma leaven that fell into a non-sacred batch of dough, and this one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and that one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, there is a dispute as to whether this dough has the status of teruma, and is therefore forbidden to non-priests, or whether it has the status of non-sacred bread.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讘住讜祝 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓

Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element that fell into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is forbidden to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first, or whether the forbidden item fell in last, the dough is not forbidden unless there is enough of the forbidden leaven alone to cause the dough to become leavened.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗住讜专

And Abaye says: Rabbi Eliezer taught that when the permitted leaven fell in last, the mixture is permitted only in a case where one first removed the forbidden leaven, before the permitted leaven fell into the dough and made it rise. But if one did not first remove the forbidden leaven, the dough is forbidden even if the permitted leaven fell in last. Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both permitted and forbidden leaven cause dough to become leavened, the dough is forbidden.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讗讬 讙诪讬专 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讬 讙诪讬专 讘讛讬转讬专讗 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讬谉 住诇拽讬讛 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 住诇拽讬讛

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: But from where is it apparent that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is in accordance with Abaye鈥檚 explanation? Perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is as he says explicitly: I follow the final element. If the dough鈥檚 leavening is completed by the forbidden item, it is forbidden; and if it is completed by the permitted item, it is permitted. And this is the halakha whether one removed the forbidden item or whether one did not remove the forbidden item. Accordingly, Rabbi Eliezer does not necessarily hold that when both a forbidden and a permitted item contribute to a result, the result is forbidden.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讚注爪讬诐

Rather, the two conflicting baraitot cited with regard to a field fertilized with dung used in idol worship can be attributed in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis with regard to wood from an ashera tree.

讚转谞谉 谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 注爪讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛 讛住讬拽 讘讛 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讞讚砖 讬讜转抓 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉 讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛

As we learned in a mishna (49b): If one took wood from an ashera, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. In a case where one kindled a fire in an oven with the wood, if it is a new oven and by kindling the fire he hardened the oven and made it stronger for use in the future, then the oven must be shattered. Since forbidden items were used in the process of forming the oven, one may not derive benefit from the use of the forbidden items. But if it is an old oven it may be cooled; it is prohibited to use the oven only while it is still hot. If one baked bread with wood from the ashera as the fuel, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the bread.

谞转注专讘讛 讘讗讞专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

If this bread was intermingled with other bread, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all the bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: One must take the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea. In other words, one is not required to destroy the bread. Instead, one should designate money equal in value to the wood that he used from the ashera, and he should destroy this money to offset the benefit he derived from the forbidden wood. The Rabbis said to him: There is no monetary redemption for objects that are forbidden due to idol worship. Once the bread becomes forbidden, it cannot be redeemed by having the value of the forbidden wood cast into the Dead Sea. In any event, Rabbi Eliezer apparently holds that the result of both forbidden and permitted causes is forbidden, as the bread was baked with both forbidden fuel, i.e., the wood from the ashera, and the permitted oven.

专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: If the two conflicting baraitot cited with regard to a field fertilized with dung used in idol worship are attributed in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, and if this is referring to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement with regard to bread baked in an oven that was heated with fuel from an ashera, then who are the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, to whom the other baraita is attributed?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚注爪讬诐 讗讞诪讜专讬 诪讞诪专讬

If we say that the reference is to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to bread baked with wood from an ashera, this cannot be, as they are even more stringent than Rabbi Eliezer with regard to this matter. Not only do they deem bread that was baked with both forbidden and permitted fuel to be forbidden, but they require that it be destroyed and not redeemed. In others words, with regard to the status of the bread there is no dispute; all agree that it is forbidden. Therefore, both opinions are in accordance with the baraita that prohibits the result of both forbidden and permitted causes.

讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚砖讗讜专 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪拽讬诇讬 讘砖讗讜专 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬 诪拽讬诇讬

If the reference is rather to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to teruma leaven that mixed with non-sacred leaven, as the Rabbis permit the mixture as long as the teruma leaven was not potent enough to cause the dough to rise, the more lenient of the two baraitot cannot be attributed in accordance with this opinion either; as say that you heard that these Rabbis are lenient with regard to the case of leaven; does that mean that they are lenient with regard to cases involving items of idol worship?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

As a result of this question, the Gemara retracts its suggestion that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion in the mishna is based on the opinion that a result caused by both permitted and forbidden items is forbidden. Rather, Rabbi Yosei holds that the result is permitted, as is evident from the case of a ground-up and dispersed object of idol worship and from the case of a planted orla nut. Therefore, the baraitot can actually be attributed as follows: This baraita that permits the use of the field is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that baraita that prohibits its use is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专

And as for the mishna, which seems to indicate that Rabbi Yosei holds that when a result is caused by both permitted and forbidden items it is forbidden, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yosei was not expressing his own opinion. Rather, when he said that one may not plant vegetables under an ashera even during the rainy season, he said so in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that a result caused by both permitted and forbidden items is forbidden. Rabbi Yosei said to them: According to my own opinion, when both this and that cause it, i.e., when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is permitted. It is therefore permitted to plant vegetables under an ashera during all seasons.

诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讗祝 讬专拽讜转 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

But according to your opinion, as you say that when both this and that cause a result it is prohibited, as seen from your ruling that it is prohibited to plant under an ashera during the summer because of the positive effect of the ashera tree鈥檚 shade, you should concede to me, in any event, that planting the vegetables even during the rainy season, when there is no shade, is prohibited, because they are fertilized by the fallen foliage.

讜专讘谞谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis reply to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 point? The Gemara answers: They would reply in accordance with the aforementioned statement that Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says (48b), that when a certain activity causes both a benefit and a greater or equal loss, it is not regarded as a benefit. Here, the positive effect on the plant from the tree鈥檚 foliage is offset by the fact that its shade prevents rainwater from reaching the plant. Therefore, since there is no overall benefit gained from the ashera, the Rabbis permit planting underneath it in the winter.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讬谞转讗 讚讗讬讝讚讘诇 讘讝讘诇讗 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讞 专讘 注诪专诐 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara concludes: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The hala-kha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara recounts an incident supporting this ruling: There was a certain garden that was fertilized with dung that came from an animal used in idol worship. Rav Amram sent a query to Rav Yosef, asking what the halakha is in such a case. Rav Yosef said to him that this is what Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; the produce of the garden is therefore permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讟诇 诪诪谞讛 注爪讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 讛住讬拽 讘讛谉 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讗诐 讞讚砖 讬讜转抓 讜讗诐 讬砖谉 讬讜爪谉 讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛

MISHNA: If one took wood from an ashera, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. In a case where one kindled a fire in an oven with the wood, if it is a new oven and by kindling the fire he hardened the oven and made it stronger for use in the future, then the oven must be shattered. Since forbidden items were used in the process of forming the oven, one may not derive benefit from the use of the forbidden items. But if it is an old oven it may be cooled; it is prohibited to use the oven only while it is still hot. If one baked bread with wood from the ashera as the fuel, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the bread.

谞转注专讘讛 讘讗讞专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

If this bread was intermingled with other bread, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all the bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: One must take the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea. In other words, one is not required to destroy all of the loaves. Instead, one should designate money equal in value to the wood that he used from the ashera, and he should destroy this money to offset the benefit he derived from the forbidden wood. The Rabbis said to him: There is no monetary redemption for objects that are forbidden due to idol worship. Once the bread becomes forbidden, it cannot be redeemed by having the value of the forbidden wood cast into the Dead Sea.

谞讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻专讻讜专 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗专讙 讘讜 讗转 讛讘讙讚 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讞专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诇讬讱 讛谞讗讛 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

If one took wood from an ashera for use as a weaving shuttle [karkor], it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. If one wove a garment with it, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the garment. If the garment was intermingled with other garments, and those other garments were intermingled with others, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of them. Rabbi Eliezer says: One must take the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea. The Rabbis said to him: There is no monetary redemption for objects that are forbidden due to idol worship.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 讙诪专讛 驻转 拽诇讬 诇讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘诇 讻专讻讜专 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇专讘谞谉

GEMARA: The mishna presents two cases where Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree. The Gemara explains: And both are necessary; as if the mishna had taught us only the first case, concerning the forbidden bread, one might have thought that it is only in this case that Rabbi Eliezer says that the bread is permitted after casting the value gained from the forbidden wood into the Dead Sea, because at the time that the bread has finished baking, the forbidden wood has burned up. But in the case of the shuttle, where the original forbidden piece of wood is still extant, perhaps one will say that he concedes to the Rabbis that the forbidden garment may not be redeemed.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻专讻讜专 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 驻转 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us only the case of the shuttle, one might have thought that it is only in this case that the Rabbis say that the forbidden garment may not be redeemed, because the original forbidden piece of wood is still extant. But in the case of the bread, where the forbidden wood was already burned up by the time the bread finished baking, perhaps one will say that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer that the bread may be redeemed. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Rav 岣yya, son of Rabba bar Na岣ani, says that Rav 岣sda says that Ze鈥檈iri says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. There are those who say there is a different version of this ruling: Rav 岣sda says: Abba bar Rav 岣sda said to me that this is what Ze鈥檈iri says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻转 讗讘诇 讞讘讬转 诇讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讘讬转 诪讜转专转

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: They taught that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer only in the case of forbidden bread. But with regard to the case of a barrel of wine used for an idolatrous libation, which was intermingled with permitted barrels of wine, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rav 岣sda says: Even in the case of a barrel of libation wine, the wine in the other barrels is permitted once the value of the forbidden barrel has been cast into the Dead Sea.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬转注专讘 诇讬讛 讞讘讬转讗 讚讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘讞诪专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 砖拽讜诇 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讜砖讚讬 讘谞讛专讗 讜谞砖转专讬 诇讱

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man, and it happened that a barrel of wine used for a libation became intermingled with his wine. He came before Rav 岣sda to ask what he should do. Rav 岣sda said to him: Take four dinars and cast them into the river, and the rest of the wine will be permitted to you.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪讘讟诇讛 拽讬专住诐 讜讝讬专讚 谞讟诇 诪诪谞讛 诪拽诇 讗讜 砖专讘讬讟 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讟诇讛 砖讬驻讛 诇爪专讻讛 讗住讜专讛 砖诇讗 诇爪专讻讛 诪讜转专转

MISHNA: How does one revoke the idolatrous status of an ashera? If a gentile trimmed dry wood or pruned green wood from the tree for his own benefit, or if he removed from it a stick, or a rod, or even a leaf, he has thereby revoked its idolatrous status, as he has proven that he no longer worships it. If a gentile shaved down the tree for its own sake, to improve its appearance, it remains prohibited to derive benefit from it. If he shaved it down not for its own sake, it is permitted.

讙诪壮 讗讜转谉 砖驻讗讬谉 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讞讚 讗诪专 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉

GEMARA: With regard to those shavings that were shaved off for the sake of the ashera, what should be done with them? Rav Huna and Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav disagree about it; one says the shavings are forbidden and one says they are permitted.

转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 砖砖讬驻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇爪专讻讜 讛讬讗 讜砖驻讗讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉 诇爪专讻讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜砖驻讗讬讛 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 诇爪专讻讛 讘讬谉 诇爪专讻讜 讛讬讗 讜砖驻讗讬讛 讗住讜专讬谉

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who says that the shavings are permitted, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who shaved down an object of idol worship for his own sake, as he wished to use the shavings, the tree and its shavings are permitted. The idolatrous status has been revoked from both the object and its shavings. If he shaved it for its, i.e., for the idol鈥檚, own sake, it remains forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. And in the case of a Jew who shaved down an object of idol worship, whether for its sake or for his own sake, the object and its shavings remain forbidden, as a Jew cannot revoke an object鈥檚 idolatrous status.

讗讬转诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞砖转讘专讛 专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诇讘讟诇 讻诇 拽讬住诐 讜拽讬住诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛

It was stated: With regard to an object of idol worship that broke, Rav says: It is necessary to revoke the idolatrous status of each and every sliver. And Shmuel says: An object of idol worship can have its status nullified only if part of it breaks off in the course of its natural manner of growth.

讗讚专讘讛 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛 诪讬 诪讘讟诇讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讘讟诇 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛

The Gemara inquires about Shmuel鈥檚 ruling: On the contrary, can an object possibly have its idolatrous status nullified by breaking in the course of its natural manner of growth? The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Shmuel is saying: If an object of idol worship breaks, its idolatrous status is automatically nullified, as the idol worshipper will see that it broke and will no longer attribute any power to it. It needs to have its idolatrous status actively revoked only in a case where it broke off in the course of its natural manner of growth. For example, if leaves fall from a worshipped tree, the tree and the leaves retain their idolatrous status. In this case, the idol worshipper will not attribute the fallen leaves to a lack of power of the tree.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Shmuel disagree about this: One Sage, Rav, holds that people worship even fragments of idols. Therefore, the fact that an idol broke does not result in the nullification of its idolatrous status. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that people do not worship fragments of idols.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘砖讘专讬 砖讘专讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讘专讬 砖讘专讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 砖讘专讬 砖讘专讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone agrees that people worship fragments of idols. And here, it is with regard to fragments of fragments that they disagree. One Sage, Rav, holds that fragments of fragments are forbidden; and one Sage, Shmuel, holds that fragments of fragments are permitted.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖讘专讬 砖讘专讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讞诇讬讜转 讜讘讛讚讬讜讟 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讬讜讟 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讙讚讬诇转讛 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讙讚讬诇转讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讘讟诇

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that fragments of fragments are permitted, and here they disagree with regard to objects of idol worship that are composed of segments that come apart and that a layman can reassemble. One Sage, Rav, holds that since a layman can reassemble it, its idolatrous status is not nullified. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that an object of idol worship needs to have its status revoked only when it breaks in the course of its natural manner of growth, as that is its typical manner. This case, where the idol is disassembled, is not related to its natural growth and therefore it requires no further act to revoke its idolatrous status.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛爪诇诪讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗讘谞讬诐 讝讜 讘爪讚 讝讜 讘爪讚 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讗住讜专讜转 讜砖转讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 讗住讜专讜转 讜砖讗讬谉 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 诪讜转专讜转

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones that are adjacent to each other at the side of Mercury [Markulis] are prohibited, as that idol was worshipped by tossing stones toward it, which then became part of the idol. But if there are only two stones, then they are permitted. And the Rabbis say: Those stones that are adjacent to Mercury and appear to have fallen from it are prohibited. But those stones that are not adjacent to it are permitted.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 拽住讘专讬 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬诐 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 谞驻诇 讗住讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 诪讜转专讜转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, one can explain that the Rabbis hold that idol worshippers worship fragments of idols. Therefore, those stones that are adjacent to Mercury, where it can be said that they fell from its pile of stones, are prohibited; as they are considered fragments of an object of idol worship, namely the stone pile. And those that are not adjacent to Mercury are permitted, as they did not fall from it.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转专转讬 谞诪讬 诇讬转住专 讗讬 讗讬谉 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 转诇转 谞诪讬 诇讗

But with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, what does he hold? If he holds that idol worshippers worship fragments of idols, even two stones should be prohibited. If he holds that idol worshippers do not worship fragments of idols, even three stones should not be prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞砖专讜 诪诪谞讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜讘讚讬谉 诇砖讘专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 转讘讜专讬 诪讬转讘专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘住转诪讗

Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a case where it is known that these stones fell from the pile of stones, everyone agrees that they are prohibited, and this is the halakha even according to the one who says: Idol worshippers do not worship fragments. As that statement applies only to a form of idol worship where that is not the normal manner in which it is worshipped. But here, where the stones thrown onto the pile are broken stones from the outset, this is its normal manner of worship. They disagree only when it is not specifically known where these stones came from.

Scroll To Top