Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Avodah Zarah 51
חַיָּיב, בִּשְׁלָמָא עָבִיט שֶׁל מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם — אִיכָּא זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת, אֶלָּא צוֹאָה, מַאי זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת אִיכָּא? בְּצוֹאָה לַחָה.
is liable, even though these substances are repugnant, and even when this is not the typical manner of worshipping that idol. Granted, when one pours a chamber pot of urine before the idol, there is an act of throwing that scatters the offering. But in the case of excrement, what act of throwing that scatters the offering is there? The Gemara answers: This is stated with regard to moist excrement, which breaks apart when thrown.
לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: שָׁחַט לָהּ חָגָב — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִים.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that one’s liability for breaking a stick as a form of idol worship is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im: If one slaughtered a locust for an idol, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from punishment.
מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: אָמְרִינַן כְּעֵין זְבִיחָה, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן כְּעֵין זְבִיחָה, אֶלָּא כְּעֵין פְּנִים?
What, is it not about this issue that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that we say that one is liable even in the case of a rite that merely resembles slaughtering an animal, e.g., slaughtering a locust or breaking a stick. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not say that it is sufficient for the rite to merely resemble slaughtering an animal. Rather, the rite must be like the type of slaughtering performed inside the Temple. One is therefore not liable for slaughtering a locust, since locusts are not slaughtered in the Temple.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא אָמְרִינַן כְּעֵין זְבִיחָה, אֶלָּא כְּעֵין פְּנִים בָּעֵינַן, וְשָׁאנֵי חָגָב הוֹאִיל וְצַוָּארוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone holds that we do not say that one is liable even for a rite that merely resembles slaughtering an animal. Rather, we require the rite to be like the type of slaughtering performed inside the Temple. And the case of a locust is different, since its neck is similar to the neck of an animal. Rabbi Yehuda therefore considers slaughtering a locust similar to the type of slaughter performed in the Temple.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁעוֹבְדִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַקֵּל, שָׁבַר מַקֵּל בְּפָנֶיהָ — חַיָּיב וְנֶאֱסֶרֶת, זָרַק מַקֵּל לְפָנֶיהָ — חַיָּיב וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In the case of an object of idol worship that is worshipped by means of a stick, if one broke a stick before it, he is liable and the stick is rendered prohibited. If he threw a stick before it, he is liable, as its typical manner of worship involves a stick, but the stick is not rendered prohibited.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מַאי שְׁנָא שָׁבַר דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ כְּעֵין זְבִיחָה, זָרַק נָמֵי הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כְּעֵין זְרִיקָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בָּעֵינַן זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת, וְלֵיכָּא.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is different about the case where one broke a stick? In this case the stick is rendered forbidden as it is similar to slaughtering an offering, which is a rite performed in the Temple; so too, in the case where one threw a stick, it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: In order for a sacrificial rite to be similar to the sprinkling of blood, we require a form of throwing that scatters the offering, and that is not the case here.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אַבְנֵי בֵּית מַרְקוּלִיס בַּמֶּה יֵאָסְרוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, וּשְׁאֵלְתֵּיהּ לְרַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, וְרַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב, וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב לְרַב, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: נַעֲשָׂה כִּמְגַדֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
Rava asked Rav Naḥman: If that is so, by what means are the stones of a place of worship dedicated to Mercury rendered prohibited, as they do not break apart when they are thrown? Rav Naḥman said to Rava: This question was difficult for me as well, and I asked Rabba bar Avuh about it, and Rabba bar Avuh asked Ḥiyya bar Rav, and Ḥiyya bar Rav asked Rav. And Rav said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: This action is comparable to the act of enlarging the object of idol worship. The stones are not rendered prohibited as an offering brought in idol worship; rather, they are considered part of the pile dedicated to Mercury itself.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל גּוֹי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, תִּישְׁתְּרֵי, דְּהָא לָא פַּלְחַהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת נַעֲשֵׂית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְתִקְרוֹבֶת לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: This works out well according to the one who says that the object of idol worship of a gentile is prohibited immediately. But according to the one who says it is not forbidden until it is worshipped, let it be permitted, as he did not worship it, since he sacrificed no offering to it. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Each and every one of the stones becomes part of the object of idol worship and is also considered an offering to the other stone that preceded it.
אִי הָכִי, בָּתְרָיְיתָא מִיהָא תִּשְׁתְּרֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי יָדְעַתְּ לַהּ, זִיל שִׁקְלַהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת נַעֲשֵׂית תִּקְרוֹבֶת לְעַצְמָהּ וְתִקְרוֹבֶת לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.
Rava replied: If so, at least the last stone should be permitted, as nothing has yet been sacrificed to it. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: If you know which one it is, you may go and take it, as it is indeed permitted. Rav Ashi says: Even the last stone is forbidden, as each and every one of the stones becomes an offering to itself and also an offering to the other stone that preceded it.
תְּנַן: מָצָא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ כְּסוּת וּמָעוֹת אוֹ כֵלִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין, פַּרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים וְיֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ — אָסוּר.
We learned in a mishna (51b): If one found a garment, money, or vessels at the head of Mercury, they are permitted, as they are not an offering but were left there for some other reason. If one found vine branches [parkilei] laden with clusters of grapes, or wreaths made of stalks, or containers of wine, oil, or flour, or any other item the like of which is sacrificed on the altar there, that item is prohibited.
בִּשְׁלָמָא יֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת — אִיכָּא כְּעֵין פְּנִים, וְאִיכָּא כְּעֵין זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת, אֶלָּא פַּרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים — לָא כְּעֵין פְּנִים אִיכָּא, וְלָא כְּעֵין זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת אִיכָּא!
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to wine, oil, or flour, there is a sacrificial rite comparable to those rites performed inside the Temple, and there is a rite that is similar to the sprinkling of blood that scatters the offering. But in the case of vine branches laden with clusters of grapes, and wreaths made of stalks, there is neither a sacrificial rite comparable to those rites performed inside the Temple, as these items are not sacrificed on the altar in the Temple, nor is there a rite that is similar to the sprinkling of blood on the altar that scatters the offering.
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר עוּלָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁבְּצָרָן מִתְּחִלָּה לְכָךְ.
Rava said that Ulla said: The mishna is referring to a case where he initially picked the grapes for that purpose, in order to sacrifice them in idolatrous worship. The act of picking the fruit is comparable to slaughtering an animal, and it renders them forbidden.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לַזּוֹבֵחַ בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יׇחֳרָם בִּלְתִּי לַה׳ לְבַדּוֹ״, לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּעֵין פְּנִים.
§ Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived concerning one who slaughters a blemished animal in idolatrous worship that he is exempt? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “He that sacrifices to the gods, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:19). The verse contrasts sacrificing an offering to the Lord with sacrificing an offering to other gods, indicating that the Torah prohibits only sacrificial rites that are comparable to those rites performed inside the Temple, and blemished animals are disqualified from being sacrificed in the Temple.
הָוֵי בֵּהּ רָבָא, בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן — הַשְׁתָּא לִבְנֵי נֹחַ חַזְיָא לְגָבוֹהַּ בְּבָמָה דִּידְהוּ, לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִיבַּעְיָא?
Rava discussed this matter: With regard to what type of blemish does this apply? If we say that it applies in the case of a blemish on the cornea of the eye, that is difficult: Now that such an offering is fit for descendants of Noah to offer to the Most High on their personal altar, is it necessary to state that it is considered an offering with regard to the prohibition of idol worship?
אֶלָּא בִּמְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר, וְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לִמְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִכׇּל הָחַי מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל״, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הָבֵא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין שֶׁלָּהּ.
Rather, the halakha that one who slaughters a blemished animal in idolatrous worship is exempt is stated with regard to an animal that is lacking a limb, and it is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived that with regard to an animal that is lacking a limb, it is prohibited for descendants of Noah to sacrifice it? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort you shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you” (Genesis 6:19). The Torah stated: “Of every living thing,” indicating that Noah should bring into the ark an animal whose extremities are living, as some of the animals would subsequently be used as offerings.
הַאי ״וּמִכׇּל הַחַי״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי טְרֵיפָה! מִ״לְּהַחֲיוֹת זֶרַע״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that phrase: “And of every living thing,” required to exclude an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is disqualified as an offering? The Gemara answers: The disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the verse: “Of the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:3), as a tereifa cannot procreate.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: טְרֵיפָה יוֹלֶדֶת, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot bear offspring. But according to the one who says that a tereifa can bear offspring, what can be said? According to this opinion, a tereifa cannot be excluded by the phrase “to keep seed alive,” as it can procreate.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִתָּךְ״, ״אִתָּךְ״ — בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ. וְדִלְמָא נֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה! ״תָּמִים״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The verse states: “You shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you” (Genesis 6:19). The term “with you” indicates that the verse is referring to animals that are similar to you, excluding a tereifa. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa. In that case, one cannot exclude a tereifa from the comparison of animals to Noah. The Gemara explains: It is written about Noah that he was “a man righteous and without blemish” (Genesis 6:9), indicating that he was physically whole.
דִּלְמָא ״תָּמִים״ בִּדְרָכָיו! ״צַדִּיק״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: Perhaps the term “without blemish” is referring to his conduct, and not to his physical attributes. The Gemara explains: The term “righteous” is written about him, indicating that his conduct was faultless, and therefore the term “without blemish” is necessarily referring to his physical completeness.
דִּלְמָא ״תָּמִים״ בִּדְרָכָיו, וְ״צַדִּיק״ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו! לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּנֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ נֹחַ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא: דִּכְוָותָךְ עַיֵּיל, שַׁלְמִין לָא תְּעַיֵּיל?
The Gemara challenges: Perhaps the term “without blemish” is referring to his conduct, and the term “righteous” is referring to his good deeds. The Gemara explains: You cannot say that Noah himself was a tereifa, as, if it enters your mind to say that Noah was a tereifa, you must say that the Merciful One said to Noah: Bring into the ark animals that are similar to you, i.e., tereifot, but do not bring whole, unblemished animals, and this is clearly not reasonable.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּנָפְקָא מֵ״אִתָּךְ״, ״לְהַחֲיוֹת זֶרַע״ לְמָה לִי? אִי מֵ״אִתָּךְ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְצַוְותָּא בְּעָלְמָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ זָקֵן וַאֲפִילּוּ סָרִיס, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״לְהַחֲיוֹת זֶרַע״.
The Gemara asks: Now that the disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the term “with you,” why do I need the phrase “to keep seed alive”? The Gemara answers: If one excluded a tereifa only from the term “with you,” I would say that Noah brought the animals into the ark merely for the purpose of companionship, and therefore even an aged animal who could not bear offspring and even one who was castrated could be brought into the ark. The phrase “to keep seed alive” therefore teaches us that only animals that could reproduce were brought into the ark.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה לְמַרְקוּלִיס שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם לַשְּׂעִירִם״, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִכְדַרְכָּהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.
§ Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived concerning one who slaughters an animal as an offering to Mercury that he is liable even though it is not typically worshipped in this manner? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se’irim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7). If this verse is not needed for the matter of prohibiting the worship of an idol in its typical manner, it must apply to another matter. The verse cannot be referring to idols that are typically worshipped by slaughtering offerings, as this prohibition is written in the verse: “And lest you inquire after their gods, saying: How do these nations serve their gods? Even so will I do likewise” (Deuteronomy 12:30). One must therefore apply the verse to the matter of prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.
וְהָא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא:
The Gemara asks: But with regard to this verse, does it come to teach this prohibition? This verse is required for that which is taught in a baraita, with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing offerings outside the Tabernacle:
עַד כָּאן הוּא מְדַבֵּר בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת,
The verse states: “Any man…that slaughters an ox…outside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus:17:3–4). Until this point, the verse is speaking about sacrificial animals that one consecrated during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing offerings on private altars was in effect, after the Tabernacle was erected, and then he also sacrificed them during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars was in effect.
שֶׁהֲרֵי עוֹנְשָׁן אָמוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. עוֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ״.
This is apparent as the punishment for sacrificing them is stated in this verse, as it is stated: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord, before the Tabernacle of the Lord…that man shall be cut off from among his people” (Leviticus:17:4). We have heard from that verse the punishment, but with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing on a private altar, from where is it derived? The verse states: “Take heed to yourself lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13).
וְכִדְרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ וּ״פֶן״ וְ״אַל״ — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara comments: And this is in accordance with the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated: “Beware,” “lest,” or “do not,” this is nothing other than a prohibition.
מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ הוּא מְדַבֵּר בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת.
The baraita continues: From that point onward, the verse is speaking about sacrificial animals that one consecrated during a period when there was permission to sacrifice offerings on private altars, before the Tabernacle was erected, and then one sacrificed them outside the Tabernacle during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars was in effect.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹבְחִים״, שֶׁהִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר, ״עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל הַזּוֹבֵחַ בְּבָמָה בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הוּא זוֹבֵחַ עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה.
This is apparent, as it is stated: “In order that the children of Israel shall bring their sacrifices, which they slaughter upon the open field, that they shall bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:5). The phrase: “Their sacrifices, which they slaughter,” is interpreted as referring to offerings that I have previously permitted you to slaughter on private altars. This verse teaches that those offerings may now be sacrificed only inside the Tabernacle. The phrase “upon the open field” teaches that in the case of anyone who slaughters an offering on a private altar during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars is in effect, even if he sacrifices the offering to God, the verse ascribes him blame as if he is slaughtering it upon the open field in idolatrous worship.
״וֶהֱבִיאָם לַה׳״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וּמִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם״.
The verse continues: “That they shall bring them to the Lord.” This is a positive mitzva to sacrifice even offerings that were consecrated before the Tabernacle was erected in the wilderness. And from where is it derived that there is a prohibition against sacrificing them outside the Tabernacle? The verse states: “And they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se’irim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7).
יָכוֹל יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה זֹּאת לָהֶם״, זֹאת לָהֶם, וְלֹא אַחֶרֶת לָהֶם.
One might have thought that sacrificing these offerings outside the Tabernacle would be punishable by karet, as this is the halakha with regard to offerings consecrated after the Tabernacle was consecrated. Therefore, the verse states: “This shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7). One can infer from this verse that this, the punishment for transgressing a positive mitzva and a prohibition, applies to them, but no other punishment applies to them. In any event, the baraita interprets the verse: “And they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se’irim,” as prohibiting sacrificing to God on private altars, not as Rabbi Elazar interpreted it, as prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.
אָמַר רָבָא: קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ״, וּקְרִי בֵּיהּ ״וְלֹא עוֹד״.
Rava said: One may derive both halakhot from the verse, as the term “And they shall not” can be interpreted as referring to two distinct prohibitions. Read into the verse: “And they shall not slaughter,” which is interpreted as prohibiting offerings to God on private altars. And also read into the verse: “And they shall not slaughter…anymore to the se’irim,” which is interpreted as prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.
מַתְנִי׳ מָצָא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ מָעוֹת, כְּסוּת אוֹ כֵלִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין. פַּרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים, וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים, וְיֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ — אָסוּר.
MISHNA: If one found money, a garment, or vessels at the head of Mercury, these are permitted. If one found vine branches laden with clusters of grapes, or wreaths made of stalks, or containers of wine, oil, or flour, or any other item the likes of which is sacrificed on the altar there, it is prohibited.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״וַתִּרְאוּ אֶת שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם וְאֵת גִּלֻּלֵיהֶם עֵץ וָאֶבֶן כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב אֲשֶׁר עִמָּהֶם״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם״, הָא כֵּיצַד?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that money, clothing, or vessels found at the head of the idol are not forbidden. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: One verse states: “And you have seen their detestable things and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which are with them” (Deuteronomy 29:16). And one verse states: “You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourself” (Deuteronomy 7:25). How can these texts be reconciled? The second verse mentions the prohibition of only silver and gold, whereas the first verse also mentions wood and stone.
״עִמָּהֶם״ דֻּומְיָא דַּ״עֲלֵיהֶם״, מָה ״עֲלֵיהֶם״ — דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר, אַף ״עִמָּהֶם״ — דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר.
The Gemara answers: This teaches that the prohibition with regard to those items that are “with them,” i.e., those found next to the idols, is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are “on them.” Just as with regard to those items that are on the idols, a decorative item, e.g., gold or silver, is prohibited, but that which is not a decorative item is permitted, so too, with regard to those items that are with the idols, a decorative item is prohibited, and that which is not a decorative item is permitted.
וְאֵימָא: ״עֲלֵיהֶם״ דּוּמְיָא דְּ״עִמָּהֶם״, מָה ״עִמָּהֶם״ — כׇּל מַה שֶּׁעִמָּהֶם, אַף ״עֲלֵיהֶם״ — כֹּל שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶם! אִם כֵּן, לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״עֲלֵיהֶם״.
The Gemara challenges: But one could say to the contrary, that the prohibition with regard to those items that are “on them” is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are “with them.” Just as with regard to those items that are with the idols, everything that is found with them is included in the prohibition, as the verse mentions wood and stone, which are not decorative items, so too, with regard to those items that are on the idols, everything that is on them is forbidden. The Gemara explains: If so, the verse should not state the prohibition with regard to items that are on the idols, as it may be inferred a fortiori from the prohibition with regard to items that are found next to them.
מָעוֹת, דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בַּכִּיס קָשׁוּר וְתָלוּי לוֹ בְּצַוָּארוֹ.
The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that money that is found at the head of the idol is permitted. This is difficult, as money is a decorative item. The school of Rabbi Yannai say: The ruling of the mishna is not stated with regard to a case where coins were placed on the idol in order to adorn it. Rather, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the money is inside a purse that is tied onto the idol and suspended from its neck for safekeeping, or left there as payment for the priests.
כְּסוּת, דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בִּכְסוּת מְקוּפֶּלֶת וּמוּנַּחַת לוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. כְּלִי, דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּסְחִיפָא לֵיהּ מַשְׁכִּילְתָּא אַרֵישֵׁיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that a garment found at the head of the idol is permitted. This is difficult, as a garment is a decorative item. The school of Rabbi Yannai say: The ruling of the mishna is not stated with regard to a garment that was placed on the idol in order to adorn it. Rather, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a garment that is folded and placed upon the head of the idol. The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that vessels found at the head of the idol are permitted. This is difficult, as a vessel is a decorative item. Rav Pappa said: The mishna is referring to where a pot [mashkilta] is placed upside down upon the head of the idol, in which case it does not serve as decoration.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי בַּר חִיָּיא: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא לִפְנִים מִן הַקִּלְקְלִין, אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח אָסוּר. חוּץ לְקִלְקְלִין — דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: נָקְטִינַן, אֵין קִלְקְלִין לֹא לִפְעוֹר וְלֹא לְמַרְקוּלִיס.
Rav Asi bar Ḥiyya says: Any item that is found within the inner partitions [hakilkalin] that surround the idol, even water or salt, is prohibited, as it is assumed to be an offering brought in idolatrous worship. With regard to items that are found outside the partitions, a decorative item is prohibited, but that which is not a decorative object is permitted. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: We have a tradition that the halakha with regard to the partitions applies neither to Peor nor to Mercury.
לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא דַּאֲפִילּוּ פְּנִים כְּחוּץ דָּמֵי וְשָׁרֵי — הַשְׁתָּא פַּעוֹרֵי מְפַעֲרִין קַמֵּיהּ, מַיִם וּמֶלַח לָא מַקְרְבִין לֵיהּ?! אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ חוּץ כְּבִפְנִים דָּמֵי וְאָסוּר.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? If we say that this means that with regard to Peor and Mercury even items that are found inside the partitions are treated like those that are found outside the partitions and they are permitted, this is difficult. Now, Peor is worshipped by defecating before it. Even excrement is offered to Peor. Is it possible that its worshippers do not sacrifice water and salt to it? Although water and salt are not generally offered to an idol, in the case of Peor they certainly can be. Rather, Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina means that with regard to Peor and Mercury even items that are found outside the partitions are treated like those that are found inside the partitions, and they are prohibited even if they are not decorative items.
מַתְנִי׳ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ גִּינָּה אוֹ מֶרְחָץ — נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה, וְאֵין נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בְּטוֹבָה. הָיָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים — נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בֵּין בְּטוֹבָה וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי — אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵין אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד.
MISHNA: In the case of an object of idol worship that had a garden or a bathhouse, one may derive benefit from them when it is not to the advantage of the idol worship, i.e., when he does not pay for his use, but one may not derive benefit from them when it is to their advantage, i.e., if one is required to pay for his use. If the garden or bathhouse belonged jointly to the place of idol worship and to others, one may derive benefit from them, both when it is to their advantage and when it is not to their advantage. A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is actually worshipped.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּטוֹבָה — בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה — שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין, לְאַפּוֹקֵי טוֹבַת עוֹבְדֶיהָ דִּשְׁרֵי.
GEMARA: Abaye says: The case where use of the garden or bathhouse is to the financial advantage of the idol worship is referring to a case where it is to the financial advantage of the priests [komarin], who receive payment for the use of the garden or bathhouse. The case where it is not to their financial advantage is referring to a case where it is not to the financial advantage of the priests. This is to the exclusion of a situation where using the facility is only to the financial advantage of the idol’s worshippers, in which case one is permitted to derive benefit from them.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא — הָיָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בְּטוֹבָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּטוֹבָה — בְּטוֹבַת אֲחֵרִים, שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה — שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין.
The Gemara comments: There are those who teach Abaye’s statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: If the garden or bathhouse belonged to the place of idol worship and to others, one may derive benefit from them both when it is to their advantage and when it is not to their advantage. Abaye says: The term: When it is to their advantage, is referring to a case where it is to the financial advantage of the other owners, while the term: When it is not to their advantage, is referring to a case where it is not to the financial advantage of the priests. But if the use of the place is to the financial advantage of the priests, one may not derive benefit from the place.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַרֵישָׁא, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא — אֲבָל אַסֵּיפָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אֲחֵרִים בַּהֲדַהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין נָמֵי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
The Gemara notes: According to the one who teaches Abaye’s statement with regard to the case presented in the latter clause of the mishna, where the garden or bathhouse is only partially owned by the place of idol worship, all the more so does this statement apply to the case presented in the first clause of the mishna, where the garden or bathhouse is owned exclusively by the place of idol worship. But according to the one who teaches Abaye’s statement with regard to the case presented in the first clause, Abaye’s statement applies only to that case. But with regard to the case presented in the latter clause, since there are others who own the place together with the place of idol worship, even if the use of the garden or bathhouse is to the financial advantage of the priests it is permitted.
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כׇּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם״, בְּכֵלִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
§ The mishna teaches: A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: “You shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship.
יָכוֹל עֲשָׂאוּם וְלֹא גְּמָרוּם, גְּמָרוּם וְלֹא הֱבִיאוּם, הֱבִיאוּם וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן, יָכוֹל יְהוּ אֲסוּרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם״, שֶׁאֵין אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבְדוּ; מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
One might have thought that the vessels are prohibited even if the gentiles fashioned them but did not complete them, completed them but did not bring them to the idol, or brought them to the idol but did not use them for idolatrous worship. Might one have thought that in these cases the vessels are prohibited? The verse states: “Where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2). This indicates that the vessels are not prohibited until they are used for worship. It is from here that the Sages stated: A gentile’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד.
Rabbi Akiva says: The matters are reversed. A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped. The mishna is therefore in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר מָר: בְּכֵלִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. הָא ״מְקוֹמוֹת״ כְּתִיב, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִמְקוֹמוֹת דְּלָא מִיתַּסְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים״, וְלֹא הֶהָרִים אֱלֹהֵיהֶם,
The Master said above: The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written “You shall destroy all the places” (Deuteronomy 12:2), indicating that the verse is not referring to vessels? The Gemara answers: If the halakha stated in this verse is not applicable for the matter of places that were worshipped, it must apply to another matter. The verse cannot apply to the places themselves, as they are not rendered prohibited, as it is written: “You shall destroy…their gods, upon the high mountains” (Deuteronomy 12:2), indicating that one is not required to destroy the mountains that are themselves their gods. Something that is attached to the ground is not rendered forbidden, and therefore even if idol worshippers worshipped the mountain itself it does not need to be destroyed.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Avodah Zarah 51
חַיָּיב, בִּשְׁלָמָא עָבִיט שֶׁל מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם — אִיכָּא זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת, אֶלָּא צוֹאָה, מַאי זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת אִיכָּא? בְּצוֹאָה לַחָה.
is liable, even though these substances are repugnant, and even when this is not the typical manner of worshipping that idol. Granted, when one pours a chamber pot of urine before the idol, there is an act of throwing that scatters the offering. But in the case of excrement, what act of throwing that scatters the offering is there? The Gemara answers: This is stated with regard to moist excrement, which breaks apart when thrown.
לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: שָׁחַט לָהּ חָגָב — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִים.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that one’s liability for breaking a stick as a form of idol worship is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im: If one slaughtered a locust for an idol, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from punishment.
מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: אָמְרִינַן כְּעֵין זְבִיחָה, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן כְּעֵין זְבִיחָה, אֶלָּא כְּעֵין פְּנִים?
What, is it not about this issue that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that we say that one is liable even in the case of a rite that merely resembles slaughtering an animal, e.g., slaughtering a locust or breaking a stick. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not say that it is sufficient for the rite to merely resemble slaughtering an animal. Rather, the rite must be like the type of slaughtering performed inside the Temple. One is therefore not liable for slaughtering a locust, since locusts are not slaughtered in the Temple.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא אָמְרִינַן כְּעֵין זְבִיחָה, אֶלָּא כְּעֵין פְּנִים בָּעֵינַן, וְשָׁאנֵי חָגָב הוֹאִיל וְצַוָּארוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone holds that we do not say that one is liable even for a rite that merely resembles slaughtering an animal. Rather, we require the rite to be like the type of slaughtering performed inside the Temple. And the case of a locust is different, since its neck is similar to the neck of an animal. Rabbi Yehuda therefore considers slaughtering a locust similar to the type of slaughter performed in the Temple.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁעוֹבְדִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַקֵּל, שָׁבַר מַקֵּל בְּפָנֶיהָ — חַיָּיב וְנֶאֱסֶרֶת, זָרַק מַקֵּל לְפָנֶיהָ — חַיָּיב וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In the case of an object of idol worship that is worshipped by means of a stick, if one broke a stick before it, he is liable and the stick is rendered prohibited. If he threw a stick before it, he is liable, as its typical manner of worship involves a stick, but the stick is not rendered prohibited.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מַאי שְׁנָא שָׁבַר דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ כְּעֵין זְבִיחָה, זָרַק נָמֵי הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כְּעֵין זְרִיקָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בָּעֵינַן זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת, וְלֵיכָּא.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is different about the case where one broke a stick? In this case the stick is rendered forbidden as it is similar to slaughtering an offering, which is a rite performed in the Temple; so too, in the case where one threw a stick, it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: In order for a sacrificial rite to be similar to the sprinkling of blood, we require a form of throwing that scatters the offering, and that is not the case here.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אַבְנֵי בֵּית מַרְקוּלִיס בַּמֶּה יֵאָסְרוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, וּשְׁאֵלְתֵּיהּ לְרַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, וְרַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב, וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב לְרַב, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: נַעֲשָׂה כִּמְגַדֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
Rava asked Rav Naḥman: If that is so, by what means are the stones of a place of worship dedicated to Mercury rendered prohibited, as they do not break apart when they are thrown? Rav Naḥman said to Rava: This question was difficult for me as well, and I asked Rabba bar Avuh about it, and Rabba bar Avuh asked Ḥiyya bar Rav, and Ḥiyya bar Rav asked Rav. And Rav said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: This action is comparable to the act of enlarging the object of idol worship. The stones are not rendered prohibited as an offering brought in idol worship; rather, they are considered part of the pile dedicated to Mercury itself.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל גּוֹי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, תִּישְׁתְּרֵי, דְּהָא לָא פַּלְחַהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת נַעֲשֵׂית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְתִקְרוֹבֶת לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: This works out well according to the one who says that the object of idol worship of a gentile is prohibited immediately. But according to the one who says it is not forbidden until it is worshipped, let it be permitted, as he did not worship it, since he sacrificed no offering to it. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Each and every one of the stones becomes part of the object of idol worship and is also considered an offering to the other stone that preceded it.
אִי הָכִי, בָּתְרָיְיתָא מִיהָא תִּשְׁתְּרֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי יָדְעַתְּ לַהּ, זִיל שִׁקְלַהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת נַעֲשֵׂית תִּקְרוֹבֶת לְעַצְמָהּ וְתִקְרוֹבֶת לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.
Rava replied: If so, at least the last stone should be permitted, as nothing has yet been sacrificed to it. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: If you know which one it is, you may go and take it, as it is indeed permitted. Rav Ashi says: Even the last stone is forbidden, as each and every one of the stones becomes an offering to itself and also an offering to the other stone that preceded it.
תְּנַן: מָצָא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ כְּסוּת וּמָעוֹת אוֹ כֵלִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין, פַּרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים וְיֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ — אָסוּר.
We learned in a mishna (51b): If one found a garment, money, or vessels at the head of Mercury, they are permitted, as they are not an offering but were left there for some other reason. If one found vine branches [parkilei] laden with clusters of grapes, or wreaths made of stalks, or containers of wine, oil, or flour, or any other item the like of which is sacrificed on the altar there, that item is prohibited.
בִּשְׁלָמָא יֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת — אִיכָּא כְּעֵין פְּנִים, וְאִיכָּא כְּעֵין זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת, אֶלָּא פַּרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים — לָא כְּעֵין פְּנִים אִיכָּא, וְלָא כְּעֵין זְרִיקָה מִשְׁתַּבֶּרֶת אִיכָּא!
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to wine, oil, or flour, there is a sacrificial rite comparable to those rites performed inside the Temple, and there is a rite that is similar to the sprinkling of blood that scatters the offering. But in the case of vine branches laden with clusters of grapes, and wreaths made of stalks, there is neither a sacrificial rite comparable to those rites performed inside the Temple, as these items are not sacrificed on the altar in the Temple, nor is there a rite that is similar to the sprinkling of blood on the altar that scatters the offering.
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר עוּלָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁבְּצָרָן מִתְּחִלָּה לְכָךְ.
Rava said that Ulla said: The mishna is referring to a case where he initially picked the grapes for that purpose, in order to sacrifice them in idolatrous worship. The act of picking the fruit is comparable to slaughtering an animal, and it renders them forbidden.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לַזּוֹבֵחַ בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יׇחֳרָם בִּלְתִּי לַה׳ לְבַדּוֹ״, לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּעֵין פְּנִים.
§ Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived concerning one who slaughters a blemished animal in idolatrous worship that he is exempt? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “He that sacrifices to the gods, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:19). The verse contrasts sacrificing an offering to the Lord with sacrificing an offering to other gods, indicating that the Torah prohibits only sacrificial rites that are comparable to those rites performed inside the Temple, and blemished animals are disqualified from being sacrificed in the Temple.
הָוֵי בֵּהּ רָבָא, בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן — הַשְׁתָּא לִבְנֵי נֹחַ חַזְיָא לְגָבוֹהַּ בְּבָמָה דִּידְהוּ, לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִיבַּעְיָא?
Rava discussed this matter: With regard to what type of blemish does this apply? If we say that it applies in the case of a blemish on the cornea of the eye, that is difficult: Now that such an offering is fit for descendants of Noah to offer to the Most High on their personal altar, is it necessary to state that it is considered an offering with regard to the prohibition of idol worship?
אֶלָּא בִּמְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר, וְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לִמְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִכׇּל הָחַי מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל״, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הָבֵא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין שֶׁלָּהּ.
Rather, the halakha that one who slaughters a blemished animal in idolatrous worship is exempt is stated with regard to an animal that is lacking a limb, and it is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived that with regard to an animal that is lacking a limb, it is prohibited for descendants of Noah to sacrifice it? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort you shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you” (Genesis 6:19). The Torah stated: “Of every living thing,” indicating that Noah should bring into the ark an animal whose extremities are living, as some of the animals would subsequently be used as offerings.
הַאי ״וּמִכׇּל הַחַי״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי טְרֵיפָה! מִ״לְּהַחֲיוֹת זֶרַע״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that phrase: “And of every living thing,” required to exclude an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is disqualified as an offering? The Gemara answers: The disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the verse: “Of the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:3), as a tereifa cannot procreate.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: טְרֵיפָה יוֹלֶדֶת, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot bear offspring. But according to the one who says that a tereifa can bear offspring, what can be said? According to this opinion, a tereifa cannot be excluded by the phrase “to keep seed alive,” as it can procreate.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִתָּךְ״, ״אִתָּךְ״ — בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ. וְדִלְמָא נֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה! ״תָּמִים״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The verse states: “You shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you” (Genesis 6:19). The term “with you” indicates that the verse is referring to animals that are similar to you, excluding a tereifa. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa. In that case, one cannot exclude a tereifa from the comparison of animals to Noah. The Gemara explains: It is written about Noah that he was “a man righteous and without blemish” (Genesis 6:9), indicating that he was physically whole.
דִּלְמָא ״תָּמִים״ בִּדְרָכָיו! ״צַדִּיק״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: Perhaps the term “without blemish” is referring to his conduct, and not to his physical attributes. The Gemara explains: The term “righteous” is written about him, indicating that his conduct was faultless, and therefore the term “without blemish” is necessarily referring to his physical completeness.
דִּלְמָא ״תָּמִים״ בִּדְרָכָיו, וְ״צַדִּיק״ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו! לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּנֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ נֹחַ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא: דִּכְוָותָךְ עַיֵּיל, שַׁלְמִין לָא תְּעַיֵּיל?
The Gemara challenges: Perhaps the term “without blemish” is referring to his conduct, and the term “righteous” is referring to his good deeds. The Gemara explains: You cannot say that Noah himself was a tereifa, as, if it enters your mind to say that Noah was a tereifa, you must say that the Merciful One said to Noah: Bring into the ark animals that are similar to you, i.e., tereifot, but do not bring whole, unblemished animals, and this is clearly not reasonable.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּנָפְקָא מֵ״אִתָּךְ״, ״לְהַחֲיוֹת זֶרַע״ לְמָה לִי? אִי מֵ״אִתָּךְ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְצַוְותָּא בְּעָלְמָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ זָקֵן וַאֲפִילּוּ סָרִיס, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״לְהַחֲיוֹת זֶרַע״.
The Gemara asks: Now that the disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the term “with you,” why do I need the phrase “to keep seed alive”? The Gemara answers: If one excluded a tereifa only from the term “with you,” I would say that Noah brought the animals into the ark merely for the purpose of companionship, and therefore even an aged animal who could not bear offspring and even one who was castrated could be brought into the ark. The phrase “to keep seed alive” therefore teaches us that only animals that could reproduce were brought into the ark.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה לְמַרְקוּלִיס שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם לַשְּׂעִירִם״, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִכְדַרְכָּהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.
§ Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived concerning one who slaughters an animal as an offering to Mercury that he is liable even though it is not typically worshipped in this manner? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se’irim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7). If this verse is not needed for the matter of prohibiting the worship of an idol in its typical manner, it must apply to another matter. The verse cannot be referring to idols that are typically worshipped by slaughtering offerings, as this prohibition is written in the verse: “And lest you inquire after their gods, saying: How do these nations serve their gods? Even so will I do likewise” (Deuteronomy 12:30). One must therefore apply the verse to the matter of prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.
וְהָא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא:
The Gemara asks: But with regard to this verse, does it come to teach this prohibition? This verse is required for that which is taught in a baraita, with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing offerings outside the Tabernacle:
עַד כָּאן הוּא מְדַבֵּר בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת,
The verse states: “Any man…that slaughters an ox…outside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus:17:3–4). Until this point, the verse is speaking about sacrificial animals that one consecrated during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing offerings on private altars was in effect, after the Tabernacle was erected, and then he also sacrificed them during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars was in effect.
שֶׁהֲרֵי עוֹנְשָׁן אָמוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. עוֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ״.
This is apparent as the punishment for sacrificing them is stated in this verse, as it is stated: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord, before the Tabernacle of the Lord…that man shall be cut off from among his people” (Leviticus:17:4). We have heard from that verse the punishment, but with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing on a private altar, from where is it derived? The verse states: “Take heed to yourself lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13).
וְכִדְרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ וּ״פֶן״ וְ״אַל״ — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara comments: And this is in accordance with the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated: “Beware,” “lest,” or “do not,” this is nothing other than a prohibition.
מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ הוּא מְדַבֵּר בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת, וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת.
The baraita continues: From that point onward, the verse is speaking about sacrificial animals that one consecrated during a period when there was permission to sacrifice offerings on private altars, before the Tabernacle was erected, and then one sacrificed them outside the Tabernacle during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars was in effect.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹבְחִים״, שֶׁהִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר, ״עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל הַזּוֹבֵחַ בְּבָמָה בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הוּא זוֹבֵחַ עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה.
This is apparent, as it is stated: “In order that the children of Israel shall bring their sacrifices, which they slaughter upon the open field, that they shall bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:5). The phrase: “Their sacrifices, which they slaughter,” is interpreted as referring to offerings that I have previously permitted you to slaughter on private altars. This verse teaches that those offerings may now be sacrificed only inside the Tabernacle. The phrase “upon the open field” teaches that in the case of anyone who slaughters an offering on a private altar during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars is in effect, even if he sacrifices the offering to God, the verse ascribes him blame as if he is slaughtering it upon the open field in idolatrous worship.
״וֶהֱבִיאָם לַה׳״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וּמִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם״.
The verse continues: “That they shall bring them to the Lord.” This is a positive mitzva to sacrifice even offerings that were consecrated before the Tabernacle was erected in the wilderness. And from where is it derived that there is a prohibition against sacrificing them outside the Tabernacle? The verse states: “And they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se’irim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7).
יָכוֹל יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה זֹּאת לָהֶם״, זֹאת לָהֶם, וְלֹא אַחֶרֶת לָהֶם.
One might have thought that sacrificing these offerings outside the Tabernacle would be punishable by karet, as this is the halakha with regard to offerings consecrated after the Tabernacle was consecrated. Therefore, the verse states: “This shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7). One can infer from this verse that this, the punishment for transgressing a positive mitzva and a prohibition, applies to them, but no other punishment applies to them. In any event, the baraita interprets the verse: “And they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se’irim,” as prohibiting sacrificing to God on private altars, not as Rabbi Elazar interpreted it, as prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.
אָמַר רָבָא: קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ״, וּקְרִי בֵּיהּ ״וְלֹא עוֹד״.
Rava said: One may derive both halakhot from the verse, as the term “And they shall not” can be interpreted as referring to two distinct prohibitions. Read into the verse: “And they shall not slaughter,” which is interpreted as prohibiting offerings to God on private altars. And also read into the verse: “And they shall not slaughter…anymore to the se’irim,” which is interpreted as prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.
מַתְנִי׳ מָצָא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ מָעוֹת, כְּסוּת אוֹ כֵלִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין. פַּרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים, וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים, וְיֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ — אָסוּר.
MISHNA: If one found money, a garment, or vessels at the head of Mercury, these are permitted. If one found vine branches laden with clusters of grapes, or wreaths made of stalks, or containers of wine, oil, or flour, or any other item the likes of which is sacrificed on the altar there, it is prohibited.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״וַתִּרְאוּ אֶת שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם וְאֵת גִּלֻּלֵיהֶם עֵץ וָאֶבֶן כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב אֲשֶׁר עִמָּהֶם״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם״, הָא כֵּיצַד?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that money, clothing, or vessels found at the head of the idol are not forbidden. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: One verse states: “And you have seen their detestable things and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which are with them” (Deuteronomy 29:16). And one verse states: “You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourself” (Deuteronomy 7:25). How can these texts be reconciled? The second verse mentions the prohibition of only silver and gold, whereas the first verse also mentions wood and stone.
״עִמָּהֶם״ דֻּומְיָא דַּ״עֲלֵיהֶם״, מָה ״עֲלֵיהֶם״ — דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר, אַף ״עִמָּהֶם״ — דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר.
The Gemara answers: This teaches that the prohibition with regard to those items that are “with them,” i.e., those found next to the idols, is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are “on them.” Just as with regard to those items that are on the idols, a decorative item, e.g., gold or silver, is prohibited, but that which is not a decorative item is permitted, so too, with regard to those items that are with the idols, a decorative item is prohibited, and that which is not a decorative item is permitted.
וְאֵימָא: ״עֲלֵיהֶם״ דּוּמְיָא דְּ״עִמָּהֶם״, מָה ״עִמָּהֶם״ — כׇּל מַה שֶּׁעִמָּהֶם, אַף ״עֲלֵיהֶם״ — כֹּל שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶם! אִם כֵּן, לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״עֲלֵיהֶם״.
The Gemara challenges: But one could say to the contrary, that the prohibition with regard to those items that are “on them” is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are “with them.” Just as with regard to those items that are with the idols, everything that is found with them is included in the prohibition, as the verse mentions wood and stone, which are not decorative items, so too, with regard to those items that are on the idols, everything that is on them is forbidden. The Gemara explains: If so, the verse should not state the prohibition with regard to items that are on the idols, as it may be inferred a fortiori from the prohibition with regard to items that are found next to them.
מָעוֹת, דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בַּכִּיס קָשׁוּר וְתָלוּי לוֹ בְּצַוָּארוֹ.
The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that money that is found at the head of the idol is permitted. This is difficult, as money is a decorative item. The school of Rabbi Yannai say: The ruling of the mishna is not stated with regard to a case where coins were placed on the idol in order to adorn it. Rather, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the money is inside a purse that is tied onto the idol and suspended from its neck for safekeeping, or left there as payment for the priests.
כְּסוּת, דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בִּכְסוּת מְקוּפֶּלֶת וּמוּנַּחַת לוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. כְּלִי, דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּסְחִיפָא לֵיהּ מַשְׁכִּילְתָּא אַרֵישֵׁיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that a garment found at the head of the idol is permitted. This is difficult, as a garment is a decorative item. The school of Rabbi Yannai say: The ruling of the mishna is not stated with regard to a garment that was placed on the idol in order to adorn it. Rather, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a garment that is folded and placed upon the head of the idol. The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that vessels found at the head of the idol are permitted. This is difficult, as a vessel is a decorative item. Rav Pappa said: The mishna is referring to where a pot [mashkilta] is placed upside down upon the head of the idol, in which case it does not serve as decoration.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי בַּר חִיָּיא: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא לִפְנִים מִן הַקִּלְקְלִין, אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח אָסוּר. חוּץ לְקִלְקְלִין — דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: נָקְטִינַן, אֵין קִלְקְלִין לֹא לִפְעוֹר וְלֹא לְמַרְקוּלִיס.
Rav Asi bar Ḥiyya says: Any item that is found within the inner partitions [hakilkalin] that surround the idol, even water or salt, is prohibited, as it is assumed to be an offering brought in idolatrous worship. With regard to items that are found outside the partitions, a decorative item is prohibited, but that which is not a decorative object is permitted. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: We have a tradition that the halakha with regard to the partitions applies neither to Peor nor to Mercury.
לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא דַּאֲפִילּוּ פְּנִים כְּחוּץ דָּמֵי וְשָׁרֵי — הַשְׁתָּא פַּעוֹרֵי מְפַעֲרִין קַמֵּיהּ, מַיִם וּמֶלַח לָא מַקְרְבִין לֵיהּ?! אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ חוּץ כְּבִפְנִים דָּמֵי וְאָסוּר.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? If we say that this means that with regard to Peor and Mercury even items that are found inside the partitions are treated like those that are found outside the partitions and they are permitted, this is difficult. Now, Peor is worshipped by defecating before it. Even excrement is offered to Peor. Is it possible that its worshippers do not sacrifice water and salt to it? Although water and salt are not generally offered to an idol, in the case of Peor they certainly can be. Rather, Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina means that with regard to Peor and Mercury even items that are found outside the partitions are treated like those that are found inside the partitions, and they are prohibited even if they are not decorative items.
מַתְנִי׳ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ גִּינָּה אוֹ מֶרְחָץ — נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה, וְאֵין נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בְּטוֹבָה. הָיָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים — נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בֵּין בְּטוֹבָה וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי — אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵין אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד.
MISHNA: In the case of an object of idol worship that had a garden or a bathhouse, one may derive benefit from them when it is not to the advantage of the idol worship, i.e., when he does not pay for his use, but one may not derive benefit from them when it is to their advantage, i.e., if one is required to pay for his use. If the garden or bathhouse belonged jointly to the place of idol worship and to others, one may derive benefit from them, both when it is to their advantage and when it is not to their advantage. A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is actually worshipped.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּטוֹבָה — בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה — שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין, לְאַפּוֹקֵי טוֹבַת עוֹבְדֶיהָ דִּשְׁרֵי.
GEMARA: Abaye says: The case where use of the garden or bathhouse is to the financial advantage of the idol worship is referring to a case where it is to the financial advantage of the priests [komarin], who receive payment for the use of the garden or bathhouse. The case where it is not to their financial advantage is referring to a case where it is not to the financial advantage of the priests. This is to the exclusion of a situation where using the facility is only to the financial advantage of the idol’s worshippers, in which case one is permitted to derive benefit from them.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא — הָיָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בְּטוֹבָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּטוֹבָה — בְּטוֹבַת אֲחֵרִים, שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה — שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין.
The Gemara comments: There are those who teach Abaye’s statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: If the garden or bathhouse belonged to the place of idol worship and to others, one may derive benefit from them both when it is to their advantage and when it is not to their advantage. Abaye says: The term: When it is to their advantage, is referring to a case where it is to the financial advantage of the other owners, while the term: When it is not to their advantage, is referring to a case where it is not to the financial advantage of the priests. But if the use of the place is to the financial advantage of the priests, one may not derive benefit from the place.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַרֵישָׁא, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא — אֲבָל אַסֵּיפָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אֲחֵרִים בַּהֲדַהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין נָמֵי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
The Gemara notes: According to the one who teaches Abaye’s statement with regard to the case presented in the latter clause of the mishna, where the garden or bathhouse is only partially owned by the place of idol worship, all the more so does this statement apply to the case presented in the first clause of the mishna, where the garden or bathhouse is owned exclusively by the place of idol worship. But according to the one who teaches Abaye’s statement with regard to the case presented in the first clause, Abaye’s statement applies only to that case. But with regard to the case presented in the latter clause, since there are others who own the place together with the place of idol worship, even if the use of the garden or bathhouse is to the financial advantage of the priests it is permitted.
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כׇּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם״, בְּכֵלִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
§ The mishna teaches: A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: “You shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship.
יָכוֹל עֲשָׂאוּם וְלֹא גְּמָרוּם, גְּמָרוּם וְלֹא הֱבִיאוּם, הֱבִיאוּם וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן, יָכוֹל יְהוּ אֲסוּרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם״, שֶׁאֵין אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבְדוּ; מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
One might have thought that the vessels are prohibited even if the gentiles fashioned them but did not complete them, completed them but did not bring them to the idol, or brought them to the idol but did not use them for idolatrous worship. Might one have thought that in these cases the vessels are prohibited? The verse states: “Where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2). This indicates that the vessels are not prohibited until they are used for worship. It is from here that the Sages stated: A gentile’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד.
Rabbi Akiva says: The matters are reversed. A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped. The mishna is therefore in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר מָר: בְּכֵלִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. הָא ״מְקוֹמוֹת״ כְּתִיב, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִמְקוֹמוֹת דְּלָא מִיתַּסְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים״, וְלֹא הֶהָרִים אֱלֹהֵיהֶם,
The Master said above: The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written “You shall destroy all the places” (Deuteronomy 12:2), indicating that the verse is not referring to vessels? The Gemara answers: If the halakha stated in this verse is not applicable for the matter of places that were worshipped, it must apply to another matter. The verse cannot apply to the places themselves, as they are not rendered prohibited, as it is written: “You shall destroy…their gods, upon the high mountains” (Deuteronomy 12:2), indicating that one is not required to destroy the mountains that are themselves their gods. Something that is attached to the ground is not rendered forbidden, and therefore even if idol worshippers worshipped the mountain itself it does not need to be destroyed.
