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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 7, 2018 | 讻壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 51

If an idol is worshipped with a stick, what acts that one would do with the stick would be considered worship? What would make that stick be considered a “tikrovet” – an offering? If one sacrifices to an idol when the typical method of worship is not sacrifice, is it forbidden? Items that are found next to the idol or on the idol, how does one determine if they are forbidden to derive benefit from them?


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

讞讬讬讘 讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讗诇讗 爪讜讗讛 诪讗讬 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讗讬讻讗 讘爪讜讗讛 诇讞讛

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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 砖讞讟 诇讛 讞讙讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that one鈥檚 liability for breaking a stick as a form of idol worship is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: If one slaughtered a locust for an idol, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from punishment.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讞讙讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讜爪讜讗专讜 讚讜诪讛 诇爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诪拽诇 砖讘专 诪拽诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讜谞讗住专转 讝专拽 诪拽诇 诇驻谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗住专转

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讝专拽 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讻注讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讜诇讬讻讗

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讘诪讛 讬讗住专讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜砖讗诇转讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞注砖讛 讻诪讙讚诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an said to Rava: This question was difficult for me as well, and I asked Rabba bar Avuh about it, and Rabba bar Avuh asked 岣yya bar Rav, and 岣yya bar Rav asked Rav. And Rav said to 岣yya 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖转注讘讚 转讬砖转专讬 讚讛讗 诇讗 驻诇讞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 谞注砖讬转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜转拽专讜讘转 诇讞讘专转讛

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 诪讬讛讗 转砖转专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬讚注转 诇讛 讝讬诇 砖拽诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 谞注砖讬转 转拽专讜讘转 诇注爪诪讛 讜转拽专讜讘转 诇讞讘专转讛

Rava replied: If so, at least the last stone should be permitted, as nothing has yet been sacrificed to it. Rav Na岣an 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.

转谞谉 诪爪讗 讘专讗砖讜 讻住讜转 讜诪注讜转 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘诇讬诐 讜讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗住讜专

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讗讬讻讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讻注讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讗诇讗 驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘诇讬诐 诇讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讜诇讗 讻注讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讗讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讘爪专谉 诪转讞诇讛 诇讻讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讝讜讘讞 讘讛诪讛 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讝讘讞 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讬讞专诐 讘诇转讬 诇讛壮 诇讘讚讜 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐

Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗e that sacrifices to the gods, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed鈥 (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.

讛讜讬 讘讛 专讘讗 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讛砖转讗 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讞讝讬讗 诇讙讘讜讛 讘讘诪讛 讚讬讚讛讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讗诇讗 讘诪讞讜住专 讗讘专 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讞讜住专 讗讘专 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讻诇 讛讞讬 诪讻诇 讘砖专 砖谞讬诐 诪讻诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛讘讗 讘讛诪讛 砖讞讬讬谉 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬谉 砖诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort you shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you鈥 (Genesis 6:19). The Torah stated: 鈥淥f every living thing,鈥 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.

讛讗讬 讜诪讻诇 讛讞讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟专讬驻讛 诪诇讛讞讬讜转 讝专注 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that phrase: 鈥淎nd of every living thing,鈥 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: 鈥淥f the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth鈥 (Genesis 7:3), as a tereifa cannot procreate.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专讬驻讛 讬讜诇讚转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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 鈥渢o keep seed alive,鈥 as it can procreate.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讗转讱 讗转讱 讘讚讜诪讬谉 诇讱 讜讚诇诪讗 谞讞 讙讜驻讬讛 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 转诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you鈥 (Genesis 6:19). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 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 鈥渁 man righteous and without blemish鈥 (Genesis 6:9), indicating that he was physically whole.

讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诐 讘讚专讻讬讜 爪讚讬拽 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

The Gemara challenges: Perhaps the term 鈥渨ithout blemish鈥 is referring to his conduct, and not to his physical attributes. The Gemara explains: The term 鈥渞ighteous鈥 is written about him, indicating that his conduct was faultless, and therefore the term 鈥渨ithout blemish鈥 is necessarily referring to his physical completeness.

讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诐 讘讚专讻讬讜 讜爪讚讬拽 讘诪注砖讬讜 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚谞讞 讙讜驻讬讛 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 谞讞 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讚讻讜讜转讱 注讬讬诇 砖诇诪讬谉 诇讗 转注讬讬诇

The Gemara challenges: Perhaps the term 鈥渨ithout blemish鈥 is referring to his conduct, and the term 鈥渞ighteous鈥 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.

讛砖转讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诪讗转讱 诇讛讞讬讜转 讝专注 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诪讗转讱 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇爪讜讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讝拽谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住专讬住 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讛讞讬讜转 讝专注

The Gemara asks: Now that the disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the term 鈥渨ith you,鈥 why do I need the phrase 鈥渢o keep seed alive鈥? The Gemara answers: If one excluded a tereifa only from the term 鈥渨ith you,鈥 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 鈥渢o keep seed alive鈥 therefore teaches us that only animals that could reproduce were brought into the ark.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛 诇诪专拽讜诇讬住 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讝讘讞讜 注讜讚 讗转 讝讘讞讬讛诐 诇砖注讬专诐 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讻讚专讻讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬讻讛 讬注讘讚讜 讛讙讜讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讗转 讗诇讛讬讛诐 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

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: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se鈥檌rim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd lest you inquire after their gods, saying: How do these nations serve their gods? Even so will I do likewise鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:30). One must therefore apply the verse to the matter of prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.

讜讛讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗

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:

注讚 讻讗谉 讛讜讗 诪讚讘专 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转

The verse states: 鈥淎ny man鈥hat slaughters an ox鈥utside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus:17:3鈥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.

砖讛专讬 注讜谞砖谉 讗诪讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讜讙讜壮 注讜谞砖 砖诪注谞讜 讗讝讛专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻谉 转注诇讛 注诇转讬讱

This is apparent as the punishment for sacrificing them is stated in this verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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鈥hat man shall be cut off from among his people鈥 (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: 鈥淭ake heed to yourself lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:13).

讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖诪专 讜驻谉 讜讗诇 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara comments: And this is in accordance with the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: Wherever it is stated: 鈥淏eware,鈥 鈥渓est,鈥 or 鈥渄o not,鈥 this is nothing other than a prohibition.

诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讛讜讗 诪讚讘专 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讛讬转专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转

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.

砖谞讗诪专 诇诪注谉 讗砖专 讬讘讬讗讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讝讘讞讬讛诐 讗砖专 讛诐 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛转专转讬 诇讱 讻讘专 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讛讝讜讘讞 讘讘诪讛 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讝讜讘讞 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛

This is apparent, as it is stated: 鈥淚n 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鈥 (Leviticus 17:5). The phrase: 鈥淭heir sacrifices, which they slaughter,鈥 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 鈥渦pon the open field鈥 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.

讜讛讘讬讗诐 诇讛壮 讝讜 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讜诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讝讘讞讜 注讜讚 讗转 讝讘讞讬讛诐

The verse continues: 鈥淭hat they shall bring them to the Lord.鈥 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: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se鈥檌rim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations鈥 (Leviticus 17:7).

讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞拽转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 讝讗转 诇讛诐 讝讗转 诇讛诐 讜诇讗 讗讞专转 诇讛诐

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: 鈥淭his shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se鈥檌rim,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讝讘讞讜 讜拽专讬 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚

Rava said: One may derive both halakhot from the verse, as the term 鈥淎nd they shall not鈥 can be interpreted as referring to two distinct prohibitions. Read into the verse: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter,鈥 which is interpreted as prohibiting offerings to God on private altars. And also read into the verse: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter鈥anymore to the se鈥檌rim,鈥 which is interpreted as prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讘专讗砖讜 诪注讜转 讻住讜转 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘诇讬诐 讜讬讬谞讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 拽专讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗住讜专

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜转专讗讜 讗转 砖拽讜爪讬讛诐 讜讗转 讙诇诇讬讛诐 注抓 讜讗讘谉 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 讗砖专 注诪讛诐 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转讞诪讚 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 注诇讬讛诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

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 岣yya bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: One verse states: 鈥淎nd you have seen their detestable things and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which are with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 29:16). And one verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourself鈥 (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.

注诪讛诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诇讬讛诐 诪讛 注诇讬讛诐 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讗住讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讜讬 诪讜转专 讗祝 注诪讛诐 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讗住讜专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讜讬 诪讜转专

The Gemara answers: This teaches that the prohibition with regard to those items that are 鈥渨ith them,鈥 i.e., those found next to the idols, is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are 鈥渙n them.鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 注诇讬讛诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诪讛诐 诪讛 注诪讛诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖注诪讛诐 讗祝 注诇讬讛诐 讻诇 砖注诇讬讛诐 讗诐 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 注诇讬讛诐

The Gemara challenges: But one could say to the contrary, that the prohibition with regard to those items that are 鈥渙n them鈥 is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are 鈥渨ith them.鈥 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.

诪注讜转 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘讻讬住 拽砖讜专 讜转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘爪讜讗专讜

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.

讻住讜转 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘讻住讜转 诪拽讜驻诇转 讜诪讜谞讞转 诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讻诇讬 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚住讞讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讻讬诇转讗 讗专讬砖讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇拽诇讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讗住讜专 讞讜抓 诇拽诇拽诇讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讗住讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讜讬 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬谉 拽诇拽诇讬谉 诇讗 诇驻注讜专 讜诇讗 诇诪专拽讜诇讬住

Rav Asi bar 岣yya 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 岣nina says: We have a tradition that the halakha with regard to the partitions applies neither to Peor nor to Mercury.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 驻谞讬诐 讻讞讜抓 讚诪讬 讜砖专讬 讛砖转讗 驻注讜专讬 诪驻注专讬谉 拽诪讬讛 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 诇讗 诪拽专讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜抓 讻讘驻谞讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讗住讜专

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 岣nina 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.

诪转谞讬壮 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛讬讛 诇讛 讙讬谞讛 讗讜 诪专讞抓 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讟讜讘讛 讛讬讛 砖诇讛 讜砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讬谉 讘讟讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖转讬注讘讚

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鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose, but a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is actually worshipped.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讟讜讘讛 讘讟讜讘转 讻讜诪专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘转 讻讜诪专讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讟讜讘转 注讜讘讚讬讛 讚砖专讬

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鈥檚 worshippers, in which case one is permitted to derive benefit from them.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讛讬讛 砖诇讛 讜砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讟讜讘讛 讜砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讟讜讘讛 讘讟讜讘转 讗讞专讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘转 讻讜诪专讬谉

The Gemara comments: There are those who teach Abaye鈥檚 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.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗住讬驻讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗专讬砖讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 讗讘诇 讗住讬驻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬诐 讘讛讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜讘转 讻讜诪专讬谉 谞诪讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: According to the one who teaches Abaye鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement with regard to the case presented in the first clause, Abaye鈥檚 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.

注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讚 转讗讘讚讜谉 讗转 讻诇 讛诪拽诪讜转 讗砖专 注讘讚讜 砖诐 讛讙讜讬诐 讘讻诇讬诐 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

搂 The mishna teaches: A gentile鈥檚 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: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship.

讬讻讜诇 注砖讗讜诐 讜诇讗 讙诪专讜诐 讙诪专讜诐 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜诐 讛讘讬讗讜诐 讜诇讗 谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讗住讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 注讘讚讜 砖诐 讛讙讜讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讗讬谞讛 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖转讬注讘讚 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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: 鈥淲here the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods鈥 (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鈥檚 object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped, but a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖转讬注讘讚

Rabbi Akiva says: The matters are reversed. A gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, but a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped. The mishna is therefore in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讻诇讬诐 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讗 诪拽讜诪讜转 讻转讬讘 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪讜转 讚诇讗 诪讬转住专讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讛讬讛诐 注诇 讛讛专讬诐 讜诇讗 讛讛专讬诐 讗诇讛讬讛诐

The Master said above: The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written 鈥淵ou shall destroy all the places鈥 (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: 鈥淵ou shall destroy鈥their gods, upon the high mountains鈥 (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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 51

讞讬讬讘 讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讗诇讗 爪讜讗讛 诪讗讬 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讗讬讻讗 讘爪讜讗讛 诇讞讛

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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 砖讞讟 诇讛 讞讙讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that one鈥檚 liability for breaking a stick as a form of idol worship is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: If one slaughtered a locust for an idol, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from punishment.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讞讙讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讜爪讜讗专讜 讚讜诪讛 诇爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诪拽诇 砖讘专 诪拽诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讜谞讗住专转 讝专拽 诪拽诇 诇驻谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗住专转

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讝专拽 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讻注讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讜诇讬讻讗

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讘诪讛 讬讗住专讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜砖讗诇转讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞注砖讛 讻诪讙讚诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an said to Rava: This question was difficult for me as well, and I asked Rabba bar Avuh about it, and Rabba bar Avuh asked 岣yya bar Rav, and 岣yya bar Rav asked Rav. And Rav said to 岣yya 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖转注讘讚 转讬砖转专讬 讚讛讗 诇讗 驻诇讞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 谞注砖讬转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜转拽专讜讘转 诇讞讘专转讛

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 诪讬讛讗 转砖转专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬讚注转 诇讛 讝讬诇 砖拽诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 谞注砖讬转 转拽专讜讘转 诇注爪诪讛 讜转拽专讜讘转 诇讞讘专转讛

Rava replied: If so, at least the last stone should be permitted, as nothing has yet been sacrificed to it. Rav Na岣an 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.

转谞谉 诪爪讗 讘专讗砖讜 讻住讜转 讜诪注讜转 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘诇讬诐 讜讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗住讜专

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讗讬讻讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讻注讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讗诇讗 驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘诇讬诐 诇讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讜诇讗 讻注讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讗讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讘爪专谉 诪转讞诇讛 诇讻讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇讝讜讘讞 讘讛诪讛 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讝讘讞 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讬讞专诐 讘诇转讬 诇讛壮 诇讘讚讜 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐

Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗e that sacrifices to the gods, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed鈥 (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.

讛讜讬 讘讛 专讘讗 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讛砖转讗 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讞讝讬讗 诇讙讘讜讛 讘讘诪讛 讚讬讚讛讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讗诇讗 讘诪讞讜住专 讗讘专 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讞讜住专 讗讘专 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讻诇 讛讞讬 诪讻诇 讘砖专 砖谞讬诐 诪讻诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛讘讗 讘讛诪讛 砖讞讬讬谉 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬谉 砖诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort you shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you鈥 (Genesis 6:19). The Torah stated: 鈥淥f every living thing,鈥 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.

讛讗讬 讜诪讻诇 讛讞讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讟专讬驻讛 诪诇讛讞讬讜转 讝专注 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that phrase: 鈥淎nd of every living thing,鈥 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: 鈥淥f the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth鈥 (Genesis 7:3), as a tereifa cannot procreate.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专讬驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专讬驻讛 讬讜诇讚转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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 鈥渢o keep seed alive,鈥 as it can procreate.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讗转讱 讗转讱 讘讚讜诪讬谉 诇讱 讜讚诇诪讗 谞讞 讙讜驻讬讛 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 转诪讬诐 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you鈥 (Genesis 6:19). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 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 鈥渁 man righteous and without blemish鈥 (Genesis 6:9), indicating that he was physically whole.

讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诐 讘讚专讻讬讜 爪讚讬拽 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

The Gemara challenges: Perhaps the term 鈥渨ithout blemish鈥 is referring to his conduct, and not to his physical attributes. The Gemara explains: The term 鈥渞ighteous鈥 is written about him, indicating that his conduct was faultless, and therefore the term 鈥渨ithout blemish鈥 is necessarily referring to his physical completeness.

讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诐 讘讚专讻讬讜 讜爪讚讬拽 讘诪注砖讬讜 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚谞讞 讙讜驻讬讛 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 谞讞 讟专讬驻讛 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讚讻讜讜转讱 注讬讬诇 砖诇诪讬谉 诇讗 转注讬讬诇

The Gemara challenges: Perhaps the term 鈥渨ithout blemish鈥 is referring to his conduct, and the term 鈥渞ighteous鈥 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.

讛砖转讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诪讗转讱 诇讛讞讬讜转 讝专注 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诪讗转讱 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇爪讜讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讝拽谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住专讬住 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讛讞讬讜转 讝专注

The Gemara asks: Now that the disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the term 鈥渨ith you,鈥 why do I need the phrase 鈥渢o keep seed alive鈥? The Gemara answers: If one excluded a tereifa only from the term 鈥渨ith you,鈥 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 鈥渢o keep seed alive鈥 therefore teaches us that only animals that could reproduce were brought into the ark.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛 诇诪专拽讜诇讬住 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讝讘讞讜 注讜讚 讗转 讝讘讞讬讛诐 诇砖注讬专诐 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讻讚专讻讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬讻讛 讬注讘讚讜 讛讙讜讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讗转 讗诇讛讬讛诐 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛

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: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se鈥檌rim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd lest you inquire after their gods, saying: How do these nations serve their gods? Even so will I do likewise鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:30). One must therefore apply the verse to the matter of prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.

讜讛讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗

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:

注讚 讻讗谉 讛讜讗 诪讚讘专 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转

The verse states: 鈥淎ny man鈥hat slaughters an ox鈥utside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus:17:3鈥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.

砖讛专讬 注讜谞砖谉 讗诪讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讜讙讜壮 注讜谞砖 砖诪注谞讜 讗讝讛专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻谉 转注诇讛 注诇转讬讱

This is apparent as the punishment for sacrificing them is stated in this verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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鈥hat man shall be cut off from among his people鈥 (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: 鈥淭ake heed to yourself lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:13).

讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖诪专 讜驻谉 讜讗诇 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛

The Gemara comments: And this is in accordance with the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: Wherever it is stated: 鈥淏eware,鈥 鈥渓est,鈥 or 鈥渄o not,鈥 this is nothing other than a prohibition.

诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讛讜讗 诪讚讘专 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘砖注转 讛讬转专 讛讘诪讜转 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转

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.

砖谞讗诪专 诇诪注谉 讗砖专 讬讘讬讗讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讝讘讞讬讛诐 讗砖专 讛诐 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛转专转讬 诇讱 讻讘专 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讛讝讜讘讞 讘讘诪讛 讘砖注转 讗讬住讜专 讛讘诪讜转 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讝讜讘讞 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛

This is apparent, as it is stated: 鈥淚n 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鈥 (Leviticus 17:5). The phrase: 鈥淭heir sacrifices, which they slaughter,鈥 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 鈥渦pon the open field鈥 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.

讜讛讘讬讗诐 诇讛壮 讝讜 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讜诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讝讘讞讜 注讜讚 讗转 讝讘讞讬讛诐

The verse continues: 鈥淭hat they shall bring them to the Lord.鈥 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: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se鈥檌rim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations鈥 (Leviticus 17:7).

讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞拽转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 讝讗转 诇讛诐 讝讗转 诇讛诐 讜诇讗 讗讞专转 诇讛诐

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: 鈥淭his shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se鈥檌rim,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讝讘讞讜 讜拽专讬 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚

Rava said: One may derive both halakhot from the verse, as the term 鈥淎nd they shall not鈥 can be interpreted as referring to two distinct prohibitions. Read into the verse: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter,鈥 which is interpreted as prohibiting offerings to God on private altars. And also read into the verse: 鈥淎nd they shall not slaughter鈥anymore to the se鈥檌rim,鈥 which is interpreted as prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讘专讗砖讜 诪注讜转 讻住讜转 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘诇讬诐 讜讬讬谞讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 拽专讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗住讜专

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜转专讗讜 讗转 砖拽讜爪讬讛诐 讜讗转 讙诇诇讬讛诐 注抓 讜讗讘谉 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 讗砖专 注诪讛诐 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转讞诪讚 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 注诇讬讛诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

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 岣yya bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: One verse states: 鈥淎nd you have seen their detestable things and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which are with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 29:16). And one verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourself鈥 (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.

注诪讛诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诇讬讛诐 诪讛 注诇讬讛诐 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讗住讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讜讬 诪讜转专 讗祝 注诪讛诐 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讗住讜专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讜讬 诪讜转专

The Gemara answers: This teaches that the prohibition with regard to those items that are 鈥渨ith them,鈥 i.e., those found next to the idols, is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are 鈥渙n them.鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 注诇讬讛诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诪讛诐 诪讛 注诪讛诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖注诪讛诐 讗祝 注诇讬讛诐 讻诇 砖注诇讬讛诐 讗诐 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 注诇讬讛诐

The Gemara challenges: But one could say to the contrary, that the prohibition with regard to those items that are 鈥渙n them鈥 is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are 鈥渨ith them.鈥 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.

诪注讜转 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘讻讬住 拽砖讜专 讜转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘爪讜讗专讜

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.

讻住讜转 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘讻住讜转 诪拽讜驻诇转 讜诪讜谞讞转 诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讻诇讬 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚住讞讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讻讬诇转讗 讗专讬砖讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇拽诇讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讗住讜专 讞讜抓 诇拽诇拽诇讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇 谞讜讬 讗住讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 谞讜讬 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬谉 拽诇拽诇讬谉 诇讗 诇驻注讜专 讜诇讗 诇诪专拽讜诇讬住

Rav Asi bar 岣yya 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 岣nina says: We have a tradition that the halakha with regard to the partitions applies neither to Peor nor to Mercury.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 驻谞讬诐 讻讞讜抓 讚诪讬 讜砖专讬 讛砖转讗 驻注讜专讬 诪驻注专讬谉 拽诪讬讛 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 诇讗 诪拽专讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜抓 讻讘驻谞讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讗住讜专

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 岣nina 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.

诪转谞讬壮 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛讬讛 诇讛 讙讬谞讛 讗讜 诪专讞抓 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讟讜讘讛 讛讬讛 砖诇讛 讜砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讬谉 讘讟讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖转讬注讘讚

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鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose, but a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is actually worshipped.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讟讜讘讛 讘讟讜讘转 讻讜诪专讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘转 讻讜诪专讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讟讜讘转 注讜讘讚讬讛 讚砖专讬

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鈥檚 worshippers, in which case one is permitted to derive benefit from them.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讛讬讛 砖诇讛 讜砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讟讜讘讛 讜砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讟讜讘讛 讘讟讜讘转 讗讞专讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘讛 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘转 讻讜诪专讬谉

The Gemara comments: There are those who teach Abaye鈥檚 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.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗住讬驻讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗专讬砖讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 讗讘诇 讗住讬驻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬诐 讘讛讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜讘转 讻讜诪专讬谉 谞诪讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: According to the one who teaches Abaye鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement with regard to the case presented in the first clause, Abaye鈥檚 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.

注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讚 转讗讘讚讜谉 讗转 讻诇 讛诪拽诪讜转 讗砖专 注讘讚讜 砖诐 讛讙讜讬诐 讘讻诇讬诐 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

搂 The mishna teaches: A gentile鈥檚 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: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship.

讬讻讜诇 注砖讗讜诐 讜诇讗 讙诪专讜诐 讙诪专讜诐 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜诐 讛讘讬讗讜诐 讜诇讗 谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讗住讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 注讘讚讜 砖诐 讛讙讜讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讗讬谞讛 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖转讬注讘讚 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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: 鈥淲here the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods鈥 (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鈥檚 object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped, but a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖转讬注讘讚

Rabbi Akiva says: The matters are reversed. A gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, but a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped. The mishna is therefore in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讻诇讬诐 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讗 诪拽讜诪讜转 讻转讬讘 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪讜转 讚诇讗 诪讬转住专讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讛讬讛诐 注诇 讛讛专讬诐 讜诇讗 讛讛专讬诐 讗诇讛讬讛诐

The Master said above: The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written 鈥淵ou shall destroy all the places鈥 (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: 鈥淵ou shall destroy鈥their gods, upon the high mountains鈥 (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.

Scroll To Top