Avodah Zarah 51

חייב בשלמא עביט של מימי רגלים איכא זריקה משתברת אלא צואה מאי זריקה משתברת איכא בצואה לחה

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.

לימא כתנאי שחט לה חגב רבי יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרים

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.

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר אמרינן כעין זביחה ומר סבר לא אמרינן כעין זביחה אלא כעין פנים

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.

לא דכולי עלמא לא אמרינן כעין זביחה אלא כעין פנים בעינן ושאני חגב הואיל וצוארו דומה לצואר בהמה

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.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב עבודה זרה שעובדין אותה במקל שבר מקל בפניה חייב ונאסרת זרק מקל לפניה חייב ואינה נאסרת

§ 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.

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן מאי שנא שבר דהויא ליה כעין זביחה זרק נמי הויא ליה כעין זריקה אמר ליה בעינן זריקה משתברת וליכא

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.

אלא מעתה אבני בית מרקוליס במה יאסרו אמר ליה אף לדידי קשיא לי ושאלתיה לרבה בר אבוה ורבה בר אבוה לחייא בר רב וחייא בר רב לרב ואמר ליה נעשה כמגדל עבודה זרה

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.

הניחא למאן דאמר עבודה זרה של גוי אסורה מיד אלא למאן דאמר עד שתעבד תישתרי דהא לא פלחה אמר ליה כל אחת ואחת נעשית עבודה זרה ותקרובת לחברתה

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.

אי הכי בתרייתא מיהא תשתרי אמר ליה אי ידעת לה זיל שקלה רב אשי אמר כל אחת ואחת נעשית תקרובת לעצמה ותקרובת לחברתה

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.

תנן מצא בראשו כסות ומעות או כלים הרי אלו מותרין פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבלים ויינות שמנים וסלתות וכל דבר שכיוצא בו קרב לגבי מזבח אסור

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.

בשלמא יינות שמנים וסלתות איכא כעין פנים ואיכא כעין זריקה משתברת אלא פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבלים לא כעין פנים איכא ולא כעין זריקה משתברת איכא

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.

אמר רבא אמר עולא כגון שבצרן מתחלה לכך

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.

אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן מנין לזובח בהמה בעלת מום לעבודה זרה שהוא פטור שנאמר זבח לאלהים יחרם בלתי לה׳ לבדו לא אסרה תורה אלא כעין פנים

§ 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.

הוי בה רבא במאי אילימא בדוקין שבעין השתא לבני נח חזיא לגבוה בבמה דידהו לעבודה זרה מיבעיא

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?

אלא במחוסר אבר וכדרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר מנין למחוסר אבר שהוא אסור לבני נח שנאמר ומכל החי מכל בשר שנים מכל אמרה תורה הבא בהמה שחיין ראשי אברין שלה

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.

האי ומכל החי מיבעי ליה למעוטי טריפה מלהחיות זרע נפקא

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.

הניחא למאן דאמר טריפה אינה יולדת אלא למאן דאמר טריפה יולדת מאי איכא למימר

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.

אמר קרא אתך אתך בדומין לך ודלמא נח גופיה טריפה הוה תמים כתיב ביה

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.

דלמא תמים בדרכיו צדיק כתיב ביה

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.

דלמא תמים בדרכיו וצדיק במעשיו לא מצית אמרת דנח גופיה טריפה הוה דאי סלקא דעתך נח טריפה הוה אמר ליה רחמנא דכוותך עייל שלמין לא תעייל

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.

השתא דנפקא מאתך להחיות זרע למה לי אי מאתך הוה אמינא לצוותא בעלמא ואפילו זקן ואפילו סריס קא משמע לן להחיות זרע

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.

אמר רבי אלעזר מנין לשוחט בהמה למרקוליס שהוא חייב שנאמר ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירם אם אינו ענין לכדרכה דכתיב איכה יעבדו הגוים האלה את אלהיהם תנהו ענין לשלא כדרכה

§ 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.

והא להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא

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:

עד כאן הוא מדבר בקדשים שהקדישן בשעת איסור הבמות והקריבן בשעת איסור הבמות

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.

שהרי עונשן אמור שנאמר ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו וגו׳ עונש שמענו אזהרה מנין תלמוד לומר פן תעלה עלתיך

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).

וכדרבי אבין אמר רבי אילא דאמר רבי אבין אמר רבי אילא כל מקום שנאמר השמר ופן ואל אינו אלא בלא תעשה

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.

מכאן ואילך הוא מדבר בקדשים שהקדישן בשעת היתר הבמות והקריבן בשעת איסור הבמות

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.

שנאמר למען אשר יביאו בני ישראל את זבחיהם אשר הם זבחים שהתרתי לך כבר על פני השדה מלמד שכל הזובח בבמה בשעת איסור הבמות מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הוא זובח על פני השדה

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.

והביאם לה׳ זו מצות עשה ומצות לא תעשה מנין תלמוד לומר ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם

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).

יכול יהא ענוש כרת תלמוד לומר חקת עולם תהיה זאת להם זאת להם ולא אחרת להם

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.

אמר רבא קרי ביה ולא יזבחו וקרי ביה ולא עוד

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.

מתני׳ מצא בראשו מעות כסות או כלים הרי אלו מותרין פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבלים ויינות ושמנים וסלתות וכל דבר שכיוצא בו קרב על גבי המזבח אסור

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.

גמ׳ מנהני מילי אמר רב חייא בר יוסף אמר רבי אושעיא כתוב אחד אומר ותראו את שקוציהם ואת גלליהם עץ ואבן כסף וזהב אשר עמהם וכתוב אחד אומר לא תחמד כסף וזהב עליהם הא כיצד

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.

עמהם דומיא דעליהם מה עליהם דבר של נוי אסור שאינו של נוי מותר אף עמהם דבר של נוי אסור ושאינו של נוי מותר

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.

ואימא עליהם דומיא דעמהם מה עמהם כל מה שעמהם אף עליהם כל שעליהם אם כן לא יאמר עליהם

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.

מעות דבר של נוי הוא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי בכיס קשור ותלוי לו בצוארו

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.

כסות דבר של נוי הוא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי בכסות מקופלת ומונחת לו על ראשו כלי דבר של נוי הוא אמר רב פפא דסחיפא ליה משכילתא ארישיה

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.

אמר רב אסי בר חייא כל שהוא לפנים מן הקלקלין אפילו מים ומלח אסור חוץ לקלקלין דבר של נוי אסור שאינו של נוי מותר אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא נקטינן אין קלקלין לא לפעור ולא למרקוליס

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.

למאי אילימא דאפילו פנים כחוץ דמי ושרי השתא פעורי מפערין קמיה מים ומלח לא מקרבין ליה אלא אפילו חוץ כבפנים דמי ואסור

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.

מתני׳ עבודה זרה שהיה לה גינה או מרחץ נהנין מהן שלא בטובה ואין נהנין מהן בטובה היה שלה ושל אחרים נהנין מהן בין בטובה ובין שלא בטובה עבודה זרה של נכרי אסורה מיד ושל ישראל אין אסורה עד שתיעבד

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.

גמ׳ אמר אביי בטובה בטובת כומרין שלא בטובה שלא בטובת כומרין לאפוקי טובת עובדיה דשרי

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.

איכא דמתני לה אסיפא היה שלה ושל אחרים נהנין מהן בטובה ושלא בטובה אמר אביי בטובה בטובת אחרים שלא בטובה שלא בטובת כומרין

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.

מאן דמתני אסיפא כל שכן ארישא ומאן דמתני ארישא אבל אסיפא כיון דאיכא אחרים בהדה אפילו בטובת כומרין נמי שפיר דמי

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.

עבודה זרה של נכרי אסורה מיד מתניתין מני רבי עקיבא היא דתניא אבד תאבדון את כל המקמות אשר עבדו שם הגוים בכלים שנשתמשו בהן לעבודה זרה הכתוב מדבר

§ 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.

יכול עשאום ולא גמרום גמרום ולא הביאום הביאום ולא נשתמשו בהן יכול יהו אסורים תלמוד לומר אשר עבדו שם הגוים שאין אסורין עד שיעבדו מכאן אמרו עבודה זרה של נכרי אינה אסורה עד שתיעבד ושל ישראל אסורה מיד דברי רבי ישמעאל

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.

רבי עקיבא אומר חילוף הדברים עבודה זרה של נכרי אסורה מיד ושל ישראל עד שתיעבד

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.

אמר מר בכלים שנשתמשו בהן לעבודה זרה הכתוב מדבר הא מקומות כתיב אם אינו ענין למקומות דלא מיתסרי דכתיב אלהיהם על ההרים ולא ההרים אלהיהם

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.