This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf please click here.
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Avodah Zarah 52
תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְכֵלִים, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיָּד.
Since the verse does not apply to places that were themselves worshipped, apply it to the matter of vessels that were used for idol 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 forbidden immediately.
וְהָא בְּכֵלִים אוֹקֵימְנָא לַהּ! אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״, מַקִּישׁ אֱלֹהֵיהֶם לְכֵלִים, מָה כֵּלִים עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ, אַף אֱלֹהֵיהֶם נָמֵי עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּלָא מַקֵּישׁ, אָמַר לָךְ: ״אֶת״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
The Gemara questions how the halakha with regard to an object of idol worship is derived from this verse. But didn’t we interpret this verse as being stated with regard to vessels used in idolatrous worship, and not to an object of idol worship? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “You shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse juxtaposes “their gods” to “the places,” i.e., the vessels used to serve them. Just as the vessels are not forbidden until they are used for worship, so too their gods, the idols, are also not forbidden until they are worshipped. And Rabbi Akiva, who does not consider the terms juxtaposed, he could say to you that the word “et,” written in the verse before the term “their gods,” separates the matter of their gods from the matter of the vessels.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אַשְׁכְּחַן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי דְּאֵין אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל דַּאֲסוּרָה מִיָּד מְנָא לֵיהּ? סְבָרָא הוּא, מִדְּנׇכְרִי עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד. אֵימָא: דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּלָל וּכְלָל לָא! הַשְׁתָּא גְּנִיזָה בָּעֲיָא, אִיתְּסוֹרֵי לָא מִיתַּסְרָא?
The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped. From where does he derive that a Jew’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning. From the fact that a gentile’s idol is not forbidden until it is worshipped, it stands to reason that a Jew’s idol is prohibited immediately. The Gemara asks: Why not say that a Jew’s idol is not forbidden at all? The Gemara answers: Now, the status of a Jew’s idol cannot be revoked and the idol requires interment. Is it possible that it does not become prohibited?
וְאֵימָא כִּדְנׇכְרִי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶת חַטַּאתְכֶם אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת הָעֵגֶל״, מִשְּׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה קָם לֵיהּ בְּחֵטְא.
The Gemara challenges: But one could say that a Jew’s idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped, just as a gentile’s idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped. The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And I took your sin, the calf that you had made, and I burned it with fire” (Deuteronomy 9:21), which indicates that from the time of its making its worshippers were liable for the sin.
אֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמֵיקַם גַּבְרָא בְּחֵטְא, אִיתְּסוֹרֵי לָא מִיתַּסְרָא! אָמַר קְרָא: ״אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה״, מִשְּׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה קָם לֵיהּ בְּאָרוּר.
The Gemara asks: Why not say that this matter applies only with regard to rendering the man who made the idol liable for the sin, but the object of idol worship does not become prohibited until it is worshipped? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “Cursed be the man who shall make a graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), which indicates that from the time of its making the person who made the idol is liable to be cursed.
אֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמֵיקַם גַּבְרָא בְּ״אָרוּר״, אִיתְּסוֹרֵי לָא מִיתַּסְרָא! ״תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara asks: Why not say that this matter applies only with regard to rendering the man who made the idol liable to be cursed, but the object of idol worship does not become prohibited until it is worshipped? The Gemara answers: It is written: “An abomination to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 27:15). This indicates that the idol itself is an abomination and is therefore prohibited from the time that it is made.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דָּבָר הַמֵּבִיא לִידֵי תּוֹעֵבָה.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, who does not maintain that a Jew’s idol is forbidden from the time that it is made, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva explains that the term “an abomination” means an object that leads to abomination but itself is not considered an abomination before it is worshipped.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי דַּאֲסוּרָה מִיָּד מְנָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״פְּסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ״, מִשֶּׁפִּסְּלוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה אֱלוֹהַּ.
The Gemara explains the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive that a gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? Ulla said: The verse states: “The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take it for yourself, lest you be snared thereby, for it is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 7:25). The term “graven images” indicates that from the time that the gentile engraves and carves the stone into an idol it becomes a god and is forbidden.
וְאִידַּךְ, הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: מִנַּיִן לְגוֹי שֶׁפּוֹסֵל אֱלוֹהוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פְּסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Rav Yosef teaches in a baraita, as Rav Yosef teaches: From where is it derived that a gentile may revoke [sheposel] the status of an object as his god? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “The graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire” (Deuteronomy 7:25).
וְאִידַּךְ, נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דִּשְׁמוּאֵל רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״לֹא תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם״, וּכְתִיב ״וְלָקַחְתָּ לָךְ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? פִּסְּלוֹ לֶאֱלוֹהַּ — ״לֹא תַחְמֹד״, פְּסָלוֹ מֵאֱלוֹהַּ — ״וְלָקַחְתָּ לָךְ״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva derives it from the interpretation of Shmuel, as Shmuel raises a contradiction: It is written: “The graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them” (Deuteronomy 7:25), and in the continuation of the verse it is written: “And take it for yourself,” indicating that one is permitted to take the silver and gold. How can these texts be reconciled? If the gentile engraved and carved the stone as a god, it is immediately rendered forbidden and the prohibition “you shall not covet” applies. If the gentile revoked [pesalo] the idol’s status as a god, the continuation of the verse: “And take it for yourself,” applies.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אַשְׁכְּחַן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי דַּאֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר״, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה לָהּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר.
The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. From where do we derive that a Jew’s object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped? Rav Yehuda said that the verse states: “Cursed be the man who shall make a graven or molten image…and shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15). This indicates that the idol is not rendered forbidden until the idolater performs in service of the idol those matters, i.e., rites, that are performed in a hidden place.
וְאִידַּךְ? הַהוּא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטְּעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Rabbi Yitzḥak says, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that a Jew’s object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), which Rabbi Yitzḥak interprets as requiring one to inter the idol in a hidden place.
וְאִידַּךְ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטְּעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה כָּל עֵץ אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח״, מָה מִזְבֵּחַ טָעוּן גְּנִיזָה, אַף אֲשֵׁרָה טְעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva derives it from that which Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says, as Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that a Jew’s object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:21). The verse juxtaposes an ashera, a tree used as part of idolatrous rites, to the altar. This indicates that just as the altar requires interment, so too an ashera requires interment.
וְאִידַּךְ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל הַמַּעֲמִיד דַּיָּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן — כְּאִילּוּ נוֹטֵעַ אֲשֵׁרָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים תִּתֶּן לְךָ בְּכׇל שְׁעָרֶיךָ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״לֹא תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה כָּל עֵץ״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Reish Lakish says, as Reish Lakish says: Anyone who appoints over the community a judge who is unfit for the position, due to his lack of knowledge or wickedness, is considered as though he plants an ashera among the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Judges and officers you shall make for yourself in all of your gates” (Deuteronomy 16:18), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “You shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:21).
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּבִמְקוֹם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, כְּאִילּוּ נְטָעוֹ אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח״.
Rav Ashi says: And if one appoints an unsuitable individual as a judge in a place where there are Torah scholars, it is as though he planted an ashera next to the altar, as it is stated: “Beside the altar of the Lord your God.”
בָּעֵי רַב הַמְנוּנָא: רִיתֵּךְ כְּלִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, מַהוּ? עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּנׇכְרִי, בֵּין לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וּבֵין לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵן, וּמְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵין אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ! אֶלָּא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
§ Rav Hamnuna raises a dilemma: If one welded [ritekh] a broken vessel for idol worship, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: With regard to whose idol worship does Rav Hamnuna raise the dilemma? If we say that Rav Hamnuna is referring to a gentile’s idol worship, that is difficult, as both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva vessels used in idolatrous worship are considered accessories of idol worship, and accessories of idol worship are not prohibited until they are used for worship. Rather, Rav Hamnuna is referring to a Jews’ idol worship.
אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַשְׁתָּא הִיא גּוּפַהּ לָא מִיתַּסְרָא עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ מִיבַּעְיָא? וְאֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: ״אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד״.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Hamnuna raise the dilemma? If we say that he raises the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, this is difficult. Now that the idol itself is not prohibited until it is worshipped, is it necessary to state that its accessories are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship? Rather, perhaps Rav Hamnuna raises the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that a Jew’s idol is prohibited immediately.
מַאי מְשַׁמְּשִׁין? מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין גָּמְרִינַן, מָה הָתָם עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ, אַף הָכָא עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא מִינַּהּ גָּמַר, מָה הִיא אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, אַף מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ אֲסוּרִין מִיָּד?
The Gemara suggests an explanation of the dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a Jew’s accessories of idol worship? Do we learn the halakha with regard to a Jew’s accessories from the halakha with regard to a gentile’s accessories? Just as there, in the case of a gentile’s accessories of idol worship, they are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship, so too here, in the case of a Jew’s accessories of idol worship, they are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship. Or perhaps the halakha is learned from the halakha with regard to a Jew’s object of idol worship itself. Just as the idol itself is prohibited immediately, so too its accessories are prohibited immediately.
מַאי אִירְיָא דְּקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ רִיתֵּךְ כְּלִי? תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ עָשָׂה!
The Gemara rejects this explanation: If that is the explanation of Rav Hamnuna’s dilemma, why does he specifically raise the dilemma with regard to one who welded a broken vessel? Let him raise the dilemma with regard to one who fashioned a vessel for idolatrous worship.
רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן וּמְקַבְּלֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ טָהֵרוּ, חָזַר וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים — יַחְזְרוּ לְטוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה.
The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna is referring to a vessel that was used for idol worship before it broke, and he is raising the dilemma with regard to the matter of previous ritual impurity. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 11:1): With regard to metal vessels, both their flat vessels, which have no repositories, and their receptacles, vessels that have repositories, are all impure if they came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity. If they broke, they thereby became purified. But if one remade the broken vessels into new vessels, they reassume their previous impurity.
וְהָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כִּי הָדְרָא טוּמְאָה — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל טוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.
And this is the dilemma that Rav Hamnuna is raising: When the mishna teaches that a vessel that is remade reassumes its impurity, does this matter apply only to impurity by Torah law, but in the case of impurity by rabbinic law, such as the impurity of an object of idol worship, it does not apply? Or perhaps there is no difference between impurity by Torah law and impurity by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: If that is the explanation of Rav Hamnuna’s dilemma, why does he specifically discuss a vessel used for idol worship? Let him raise the dilemma with regard to any other type of impurity by rabbinic law.
חֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, טוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן מִי הָדְרָא אוֹ לָא הָדְרָא? וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר לָא הָדְרָא, טוּמְאָה דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִי שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן כְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna is raising two dilemmas, one of which stems from the other. Is impurity by rabbinic law reassumed, or is it not reassumed? And if you say that it is not reassumed, what is the halakha with regard to the impurity of an object of idol worship? Did the Sages render its status like that of impurity by Torah law, due to the stringency of idol worship, or not? The Gemara concludes: The dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי יַנַּאי: תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל אוֹכָלִים, מַהוּ? מִי מַהֲנֵיא לְהוּ בִּיטּוּל לְטַהוֹרִינְהוּ מִטּוּמְאָה, אוֹ לָא?
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma to Rabbi Yannai: With regard to an offering consisting of food brought in idolatrous worship, what is the halakha? Is the revocation of their status as an object of idol worship by a gentile effective to purify them from the ritual impurity of an offering brought in idolatrous worship or is it not effective?
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ כֵּלִים! כֵּלִים לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לְהוּ טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה — טוּמְאָה נָמֵי בָּטְלָה; כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — אֳוכָלִין.
The Gemara suggests: And let him raise the dilemma with regard to whether revocation of vessels’ status purifies vessels used in idol worship from their impurity. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoḥanan does not raise the dilemma with regard to vessels, since they have the ability to attain purity by being immersed in a ritual bath, and therefore their impurity can certainly also be nullified. When he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to food, which cannot be purified in a ritual bath.
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה גּוּפַהּ! עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה גּוּפַהּ לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ,
The Gemara suggests: Let him raise the dilemma with regard to whether revoking its status purifies the object of idol worship itself in a case where it consists of food. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan does not raise the dilemma with regard to the object of idol worship itself,
כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסּוּרַהּ בָּטֵיל, טוּמְאָה נָמֵי בָּטְלָה. כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ תִּקְרוֹבֶת לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל אוֹכְלִין, מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסּוּרֵיהּ לָא בָּטֵיל, כִּדְרַב גִּידֵּל, טוּמְאָה נָמֵי לָא בָּטְלָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא אִיסּוּר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא בָּטֵיל, טוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן בָּטֵיל? תֵּיקוּ.
as, since its prohibition is nullified, its impurity is also nullified. When he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to an offering consisting of food brought in idolatrous worship. What is the halakha? Does one say that since its prohibition is not nullified, in accordance with the statement of Rav Giddel, who teaches that the prohibition that takes effect with regard to offerings brought in idolatrous worship is never nullified, therefore the impurity is also not nullified? Or perhaps only their prohibition, which is by Torah law, is not nullified, but their impurity, which is by rabbinic law, is nullified. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל מֵרַבִּי: כֵּלִים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ?
§ Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to vessels that were used in the temple of Onias, what is the halakha with regard to using them in the Temple?
וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּית חוֹנְיוֹ לָאו בֵּית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ לֹא יְשַׁמְּשׁוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְדָבָר אַחֵר.
And he raised this dilemma according to the opinion of the one who says that the temple of Onias was not a temple of idol worship. As we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 109a): Priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple that is in Jerusalem, and needless to say, those priests who served in a temple of something else, i.e., idol worship, may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem. This distinction indicates that the temple of Onias was not a temple of idol worship. It was used for the service of God, but it violated the prohibition against sacrificing offerings outside of the Temple in Jerusalem.
כֹּהֲנִים הוּא דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְנֵי דֵעָה נִינְהוּ, אֲבָל כֵּלִים — לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
The Gemara explains the dilemma: Does one say that it is only the priests that the Sages penalized by preventing them from serving in the Temple, as they possess awareness and are responsible for their actions, but they did not institute a similar decree with regard to vessels, as they are inanimate? Or perhaps there is no difference, and the decree also applies to the vessels.
אָמַר לוֹ: אֲסוּרִים הֵן, וּמִקְרָא הָיָה בְּיָדֵינוּ וּשְׁכַחְנוּהוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul: The vessels that were used in the temple of Onias are prohibited, and we possessed knowledge of a verse from which this halakha was derived, but we forgot which verse it is.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״כׇּל הַכֵּלִים אֲשֶׁר הִזְנִיחַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אָחָז בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ בְּמַעֲלוֹ הֵכַנּוּ וְהִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״, מַאי לָאו ״הֵכַנּוּ״ — דְּאַטְבֵּלִינַּנְהוּ, ״הִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״ — דְּאַקְדֵּישִׁנַּנְהוּ?
Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul raised an objection to this ruling from a verse referring to vessels of the Temple that Ahaz had used for idol worship: “All the vessels, which King Ahaz in his reign did cast away when he acted treacherously, we have prepared and sanctified, and, behold, they are before the altar of the Lord” (II Chronicles 29:19). What, is it not the case that the term “we have prepared” means that we immersed them in a ritual bath, and the term “sanctified” means that we sanctified them to be used again in the Temple? This would indicate that the vessels may be used in the Temple even though they were used in idolatrous worship.
אָמַר לוֹ: בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה לַשָּׁמַיִם שֶׁהֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵדָתִי. ״הֵכַנּוּ״ — שֶׁגְּנַזְנוּם, וְ״הִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״ — שֶׁהִקְדַּשְׁנוּ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul: Blessed are you to Heaven, as you have returned my lost verse to me. That verse is the forgotten source of the halakha that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated, and it should be interpreted as follows: “We have prepared” means that we interred them; “and sanctified” means that we sanctified other vessels in their stead, as the vessels used by Ahaz were forbidden, and the same applies to the vessels from the temple of Onias.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית — בָּהּ גָּנְזוּ בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי אֶת אַבְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁשִּׁקְּצוּ אַנְשֵׁי יָוָן, וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: שֶׁשִּׁקְּצוּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion (Middot 1:6): The northeast chamber of the Chamber of the Hearth was the chamber in which the Hasmoneans sequestered the altar stones that the people of Greece desecrated. And Rav Sheshet says: This means that they desecrated the stones by using them for idol worship. This indicates that Temple vessels that were used in idolatrous worship can no longer be used and must be sequestered.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָתָם קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וּדְרַשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבָאוּ בָהּ פָּרִיצִים וְחִלְּלוּהָ״.
Rav Pappa said: That case of the altar’s stones is different, because there a Sage found a verse and interpreted it homiletically, as it is written: “And they shall profane My secret place, and robbers shall enter into it and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22). The verse indicates that when the gentiles entered the Temple and desecrated it, the altar was desacralized and acquired non-sacred status. Consequently, when the stones were subsequently used for idolatrous worship they were rendered forbidden even for non-sacred use.
אָמְרִי: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נִיתְבְּרִינְהוּ? ״אֲבָנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! נְנַסְּרִינְהוּ? ״לֹא תָנִיף עֲלֵיהֶם בַּרְזֶל״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא.
The Gemara explains why the altar’s stones were sequestered: The Hasmoneans said: What should we do to revoke the stone’s forbidden status? Shall we break them? That is not possible, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones” (Deuteronomy 27:6). Shall we saw them without breaking them? That is also not a viable option, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall lift up no iron tool upon them” (Deuteronomy 27:5). There was therefore no alternative to sequestering the stones.
וְאַמַּאי? לִיתְבְּרִינְהוּ וְלִישְׁקְלִינְהוּ לְנַפְשַׁיְיהוּ! מִי לָא אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: ״בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְנוֹז כׇּל כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מִשּׁוּם כַּסְפָּא וְדַהֲבָא שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם״, וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם הָוְיָא רוּבָּא דְּעָלְמָא?
The Gemara asks: But why did the Hasmoneans have no alternative? Let them break the stones and take them for themselves. Didn’t Rav Oshaya say: The Sages wished to sequester all of the silver and gold in the world because of the silver and gold of Jerusalem, most of which was consecrated to the Temple treasury and became mixed with other silver and gold. And we discussed it and asked: Is Jerusalem the majority of the world that all of the silver and gold of the world should be forbidden as perhaps it came from Jerusalem?
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְנוֹז דִּינָרָא הַדְרְיָיאנָא טוּרְיָינָא שִׁיפָא, מִפְּנֵי טִבְעָהּ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, עַד שֶׁמָּצְאוּ לָהּ מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר, ״וּבָאוּ בָהּ פָּרִיצִים וְחִלְּלוּהָ״!
Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all of the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as it was known that these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury’s gold and silver. They did not permit the use of these coins until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22).
הָתָם, לָא אִשְׁתַּמַּשׁוּ בְּהוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ; הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּהוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ — לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּהוּ הֶדְיוֹטָא.
The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable. There, the coins of Jerusalem had not been used in service of the Most High; they were only consecrated. Here, since the stones of the altar had been used in service of the Most High, it is not proper conduct for an ordinary person to make use of them, and therefore the Hasmoneans sequestered the stones.
מַתְנִי׳ נׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי. הַמְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — מְבַטֵּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ, בִּיטֵּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ — מְשַׁמְּשִׁין מוּתָּרִין, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה.
MISHNA: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the idol of another gentile, but a Jew cannot revoke the status of the object of idol worship of a gentile. One who revokes the status of an object of idol worship thereby revokes the status of its accessories. But if he revokes the status of its accessories, its accessories alone are rendered permitted, but the object of idol worship itself remains prohibited.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי: נׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, שָׁנִיתָ לָנוּ בְּיַלְדוּתֶךָ נׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מִי קָא מְבַטְּלָהּ? וְהָא ״וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולֶס: לֹא נִצְרְכָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת.
GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the following version of the mishna: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the idol of another gentile. Rabbi Shimon said to him: My teacher, in your youth, i.e., when you were younger, you taught us a different version of the mishna: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the object of idol worship of a Jew. The Gemara asks: Can the status of a Jew’s idol be revoked? But isn’t it written: “And shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), from which the Sages derived that a Jew’s idol requires interment? Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, said: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and therefore it is possible to say that its status can be revoked.
בְּיַלְדוּתוֹ מַאי קָסָבַר, וּבְזִקְנוּתוֹ מַאי קָסָבַר? בְּיַלְדוּתוֹ סָבַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנׇכְרִי פָּלַח, כֵּיוָן דְּנׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי מְבַטְּלָהּ. וּבְזִקְנוּתוֹ סָבַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ פָּלַח, כִּי מְבַטֵּל נׇכְרִי דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לָא בָּטֵיל.
The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold in his youth, and what did he hold in his old age? The Gemara answers: In his youth he held that the Jew worships the idol based on the intention of the gentile. Once the gentile revokes the status of his share in the idol, the status of the share of the Jew is also revoked. But in his old age Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held that the Jew worships the idol based on his own intentions. Therefore, when the gentile revokes the status of the object of idol worship, he revokes the status of only his own share, but the status of the share of the Jew is not revoked.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי. פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ
There are those who teach Rabbi Hillel’s statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: A Jew cannot revoke the status of the object of idol worship of a gentile. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Said Rabbi Hillel, son
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Avodah Zarah 52: “Onias Worship”: Not Idolatry, But Not Acceptable Either
08.09.2025 | ט״ו באב תשפ״ה
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
Avodah Zarah 52
תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְכֵלִים, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיָּד.
Since the verse does not apply to places that were themselves worshipped, apply it to the matter of vessels that were used for idol 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 forbidden immediately.
וְהָא בְּכֵלִים אוֹקֵימְנָא לַהּ! אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״, מַקִּישׁ אֱלֹהֵיהֶם לְכֵלִים, מָה כֵּלִים עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ, אַף אֱלֹהֵיהֶם נָמֵי עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּלָא מַקֵּישׁ, אָמַר לָךְ: ״אֶת״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
The Gemara questions how the halakha with regard to an object of idol worship is derived from this verse. But didn’t we interpret this verse as being stated with regard to vessels used in idolatrous worship, and not to an object of idol worship? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “You shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse juxtaposes “their gods” to “the places,” i.e., the vessels used to serve them. Just as the vessels are not forbidden until they are used for worship, so too their gods, the idols, are also not forbidden until they are worshipped. And Rabbi Akiva, who does not consider the terms juxtaposed, he could say to you that the word “et,” written in the verse before the term “their gods,” separates the matter of their gods from the matter of the vessels.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אַשְׁכְּחַן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי דְּאֵין אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל דַּאֲסוּרָה מִיָּד מְנָא לֵיהּ? סְבָרָא הוּא, מִדְּנׇכְרִי עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד. אֵימָא: דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּלָל וּכְלָל לָא! הַשְׁתָּא גְּנִיזָה בָּעֲיָא, אִיתְּסוֹרֵי לָא מִיתַּסְרָא?
The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped. From where does he derive that a Jew’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning. From the fact that a gentile’s idol is not forbidden until it is worshipped, it stands to reason that a Jew’s idol is prohibited immediately. The Gemara asks: Why not say that a Jew’s idol is not forbidden at all? The Gemara answers: Now, the status of a Jew’s idol cannot be revoked and the idol requires interment. Is it possible that it does not become prohibited?
וְאֵימָא כִּדְנׇכְרִי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶת חַטַּאתְכֶם אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת הָעֵגֶל״, מִשְּׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה קָם לֵיהּ בְּחֵטְא.
The Gemara challenges: But one could say that a Jew’s idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped, just as a gentile’s idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped. The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And I took your sin, the calf that you had made, and I burned it with fire” (Deuteronomy 9:21), which indicates that from the time of its making its worshippers were liable for the sin.
אֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמֵיקַם גַּבְרָא בְּחֵטְא, אִיתְּסוֹרֵי לָא מִיתַּסְרָא! אָמַר קְרָא: ״אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה״, מִשְּׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה קָם לֵיהּ בְּאָרוּר.
The Gemara asks: Why not say that this matter applies only with regard to rendering the man who made the idol liable for the sin, but the object of idol worship does not become prohibited until it is worshipped? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “Cursed be the man who shall make a graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), which indicates that from the time of its making the person who made the idol is liable to be cursed.
אֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמֵיקַם גַּבְרָא בְּ״אָרוּר״, אִיתְּסוֹרֵי לָא מִיתַּסְרָא! ״תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara asks: Why not say that this matter applies only with regard to rendering the man who made the idol liable to be cursed, but the object of idol worship does not become prohibited until it is worshipped? The Gemara answers: It is written: “An abomination to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 27:15). This indicates that the idol itself is an abomination and is therefore prohibited from the time that it is made.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דָּבָר הַמֵּבִיא לִידֵי תּוֹעֵבָה.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, who does not maintain that a Jew’s idol is forbidden from the time that it is made, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva explains that the term “an abomination” means an object that leads to abomination but itself is not considered an abomination before it is worshipped.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי דַּאֲסוּרָה מִיָּד מְנָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״פְּסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ״, מִשֶּׁפִּסְּלוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה אֱלוֹהַּ.
The Gemara explains the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive that a gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? Ulla said: The verse states: “The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take it for yourself, lest you be snared thereby, for it is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 7:25). The term “graven images” indicates that from the time that the gentile engraves and carves the stone into an idol it becomes a god and is forbidden.
וְאִידַּךְ, הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: מִנַּיִן לְגוֹי שֶׁפּוֹסֵל אֱלוֹהוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פְּסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Rav Yosef teaches in a baraita, as Rav Yosef teaches: From where is it derived that a gentile may revoke [sheposel] the status of an object as his god? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “The graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire” (Deuteronomy 7:25).
וְאִידַּךְ, נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דִּשְׁמוּאֵל רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״לֹא תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם״, וּכְתִיב ״וְלָקַחְתָּ לָךְ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? פִּסְּלוֹ לֶאֱלוֹהַּ — ״לֹא תַחְמֹד״, פְּסָלוֹ מֵאֱלוֹהַּ — ״וְלָקַחְתָּ לָךְ״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva derives it from the interpretation of Shmuel, as Shmuel raises a contradiction: It is written: “The graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them” (Deuteronomy 7:25), and in the continuation of the verse it is written: “And take it for yourself,” indicating that one is permitted to take the silver and gold. How can these texts be reconciled? If the gentile engraved and carved the stone as a god, it is immediately rendered forbidden and the prohibition “you shall not covet” applies. If the gentile revoked [pesalo] the idol’s status as a god, the continuation of the verse: “And take it for yourself,” applies.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אַשְׁכְּחַן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי דַּאֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר״, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה לָהּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר.
The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. From where do we derive that a Jew’s object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped? Rav Yehuda said that the verse states: “Cursed be the man who shall make a graven or molten image…and shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15). This indicates that the idol is not rendered forbidden until the idolater performs in service of the idol those matters, i.e., rites, that are performed in a hidden place.
וְאִידַּךְ? הַהוּא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטְּעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Rabbi Yitzḥak says, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that a Jew’s object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), which Rabbi Yitzḥak interprets as requiring one to inter the idol in a hidden place.
וְאִידַּךְ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטְּעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה כָּל עֵץ אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח״, מָה מִזְבֵּחַ טָעוּן גְּנִיזָה, אַף אֲשֵׁרָה טְעוּנָה גְּנִיזָה.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva derives it from that which Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says, as Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that a Jew’s object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:21). The verse juxtaposes an ashera, a tree used as part of idolatrous rites, to the altar. This indicates that just as the altar requires interment, so too an ashera requires interment.
וְאִידַּךְ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל הַמַּעֲמִיד דַּיָּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן — כְּאִילּוּ נוֹטֵעַ אֲשֵׁרָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים תִּתֶּן לְךָ בְּכׇל שְׁעָרֶיךָ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״לֹא תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה כָּל עֵץ״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Reish Lakish says, as Reish Lakish says: Anyone who appoints over the community a judge who is unfit for the position, due to his lack of knowledge or wickedness, is considered as though he plants an ashera among the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Judges and officers you shall make for yourself in all of your gates” (Deuteronomy 16:18), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “You shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:21).
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּבִמְקוֹם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, כְּאִילּוּ נְטָעוֹ אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח״.
Rav Ashi says: And if one appoints an unsuitable individual as a judge in a place where there are Torah scholars, it is as though he planted an ashera next to the altar, as it is stated: “Beside the altar of the Lord your God.”
בָּעֵי רַב הַמְנוּנָא: רִיתֵּךְ כְּלִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, מַהוּ? עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּנׇכְרִי, בֵּין לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וּבֵין לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵן, וּמְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵין אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ! אֶלָּא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
§ Rav Hamnuna raises a dilemma: If one welded [ritekh] a broken vessel for idol worship, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: With regard to whose idol worship does Rav Hamnuna raise the dilemma? If we say that Rav Hamnuna is referring to a gentile’s idol worship, that is difficult, as both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva vessels used in idolatrous worship are considered accessories of idol worship, and accessories of idol worship are not prohibited until they are used for worship. Rather, Rav Hamnuna is referring to a Jews’ idol worship.
אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַשְׁתָּא הִיא גּוּפַהּ לָא מִיתַּסְרָא עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד, מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ מִיבַּעְיָא? וְאֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: ״אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד״.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Hamnuna raise the dilemma? If we say that he raises the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, this is difficult. Now that the idol itself is not prohibited until it is worshipped, is it necessary to state that its accessories are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship? Rather, perhaps Rav Hamnuna raises the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that a Jew’s idol is prohibited immediately.
מַאי מְשַׁמְּשִׁין? מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין גָּמְרִינַן, מָה הָתָם עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ, אַף הָכָא עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא מִינַּהּ גָּמַר, מָה הִיא אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, אַף מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ אֲסוּרִין מִיָּד?
The Gemara suggests an explanation of the dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a Jew’s accessories of idol worship? Do we learn the halakha with regard to a Jew’s accessories from the halakha with regard to a gentile’s accessories? Just as there, in the case of a gentile’s accessories of idol worship, they are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship, so too here, in the case of a Jew’s accessories of idol worship, they are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship. Or perhaps the halakha is learned from the halakha with regard to a Jew’s object of idol worship itself. Just as the idol itself is prohibited immediately, so too its accessories are prohibited immediately.
מַאי אִירְיָא דְּקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ רִיתֵּךְ כְּלִי? תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ עָשָׂה!
The Gemara rejects this explanation: If that is the explanation of Rav Hamnuna’s dilemma, why does he specifically raise the dilemma with regard to one who welded a broken vessel? Let him raise the dilemma with regard to one who fashioned a vessel for idolatrous worship.
רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן וּמְקַבְּלֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ טָהֵרוּ, חָזַר וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים — יַחְזְרוּ לְטוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה.
The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna is referring to a vessel that was used for idol worship before it broke, and he is raising the dilemma with regard to the matter of previous ritual impurity. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 11:1): With regard to metal vessels, both their flat vessels, which have no repositories, and their receptacles, vessels that have repositories, are all impure if they came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity. If they broke, they thereby became purified. But if one remade the broken vessels into new vessels, they reassume their previous impurity.
וְהָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כִּי הָדְרָא טוּמְאָה — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל טוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.
And this is the dilemma that Rav Hamnuna is raising: When the mishna teaches that a vessel that is remade reassumes its impurity, does this matter apply only to impurity by Torah law, but in the case of impurity by rabbinic law, such as the impurity of an object of idol worship, it does not apply? Or perhaps there is no difference between impurity by Torah law and impurity by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: If that is the explanation of Rav Hamnuna’s dilemma, why does he specifically discuss a vessel used for idol worship? Let him raise the dilemma with regard to any other type of impurity by rabbinic law.
חֲדָא מִגּוֹ חֲדָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, טוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן מִי הָדְרָא אוֹ לָא הָדְרָא? וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר לָא הָדְרָא, טוּמְאָה דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִי שַׁוְּיוּהָ רַבָּנַן כְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna is raising two dilemmas, one of which stems from the other. Is impurity by rabbinic law reassumed, or is it not reassumed? And if you say that it is not reassumed, what is the halakha with regard to the impurity of an object of idol worship? Did the Sages render its status like that of impurity by Torah law, due to the stringency of idol worship, or not? The Gemara concludes: The dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי יַנַּאי: תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל אוֹכָלִים, מַהוּ? מִי מַהֲנֵיא לְהוּ בִּיטּוּל לְטַהוֹרִינְהוּ מִטּוּמְאָה, אוֹ לָא?
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma to Rabbi Yannai: With regard to an offering consisting of food brought in idolatrous worship, what is the halakha? Is the revocation of their status as an object of idol worship by a gentile effective to purify them from the ritual impurity of an offering brought in idolatrous worship or is it not effective?
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ כֵּלִים! כֵּלִים לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לְהוּ טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה — טוּמְאָה נָמֵי בָּטְלָה; כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — אֳוכָלִין.
The Gemara suggests: And let him raise the dilemma with regard to whether revocation of vessels’ status purifies vessels used in idol worship from their impurity. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoḥanan does not raise the dilemma with regard to vessels, since they have the ability to attain purity by being immersed in a ritual bath, and therefore their impurity can certainly also be nullified. When he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to food, which cannot be purified in a ritual bath.
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה גּוּפַהּ! עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה גּוּפַהּ לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ,
The Gemara suggests: Let him raise the dilemma with regard to whether revoking its status purifies the object of idol worship itself in a case where it consists of food. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan does not raise the dilemma with regard to the object of idol worship itself,
כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסּוּרַהּ בָּטֵיל, טוּמְאָה נָמֵי בָּטְלָה. כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ תִּקְרוֹבֶת לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל אוֹכְלִין, מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסּוּרֵיהּ לָא בָּטֵיל, כִּדְרַב גִּידֵּל, טוּמְאָה נָמֵי לָא בָּטְלָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא אִיסּוּר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא בָּטֵיל, טוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן בָּטֵיל? תֵּיקוּ.
as, since its prohibition is nullified, its impurity is also nullified. When he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to an offering consisting of food brought in idolatrous worship. What is the halakha? Does one say that since its prohibition is not nullified, in accordance with the statement of Rav Giddel, who teaches that the prohibition that takes effect with regard to offerings brought in idolatrous worship is never nullified, therefore the impurity is also not nullified? Or perhaps only their prohibition, which is by Torah law, is not nullified, but their impurity, which is by rabbinic law, is nullified. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל מֵרַבִּי: כֵּלִים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ?
§ Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to vessels that were used in the temple of Onias, what is the halakha with regard to using them in the Temple?
וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּית חוֹנְיוֹ לָאו בֵּית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ לֹא יְשַׁמְּשׁוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְדָבָר אַחֵר.
And he raised this dilemma according to the opinion of the one who says that the temple of Onias was not a temple of idol worship. As we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 109a): Priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple that is in Jerusalem, and needless to say, those priests who served in a temple of something else, i.e., idol worship, may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem. This distinction indicates that the temple of Onias was not a temple of idol worship. It was used for the service of God, but it violated the prohibition against sacrificing offerings outside of the Temple in Jerusalem.
כֹּהֲנִים הוּא דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְנֵי דֵעָה נִינְהוּ, אֲבָל כֵּלִים — לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
The Gemara explains the dilemma: Does one say that it is only the priests that the Sages penalized by preventing them from serving in the Temple, as they possess awareness and are responsible for their actions, but they did not institute a similar decree with regard to vessels, as they are inanimate? Or perhaps there is no difference, and the decree also applies to the vessels.
אָמַר לוֹ: אֲסוּרִים הֵן, וּמִקְרָא הָיָה בְּיָדֵינוּ וּשְׁכַחְנוּהוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul: The vessels that were used in the temple of Onias are prohibited, and we possessed knowledge of a verse from which this halakha was derived, but we forgot which verse it is.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״כׇּל הַכֵּלִים אֲשֶׁר הִזְנִיחַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אָחָז בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ בְּמַעֲלוֹ הֵכַנּוּ וְהִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״, מַאי לָאו ״הֵכַנּוּ״ — דְּאַטְבֵּלִינַּנְהוּ, ״הִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״ — דְּאַקְדֵּישִׁנַּנְהוּ?
Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul raised an objection to this ruling from a verse referring to vessels of the Temple that Ahaz had used for idol worship: “All the vessels, which King Ahaz in his reign did cast away when he acted treacherously, we have prepared and sanctified, and, behold, they are before the altar of the Lord” (II Chronicles 29:19). What, is it not the case that the term “we have prepared” means that we immersed them in a ritual bath, and the term “sanctified” means that we sanctified them to be used again in the Temple? This would indicate that the vessels may be used in the Temple even though they were used in idolatrous worship.
אָמַר לוֹ: בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה לַשָּׁמַיִם שֶׁהֶחְזַרְתָּ לִי אֲבֵדָתִי. ״הֵכַנּוּ״ — שֶׁגְּנַזְנוּם, וְ״הִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״ — שֶׁהִקְדַּשְׁנוּ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul: Blessed are you to Heaven, as you have returned my lost verse to me. That verse is the forgotten source of the halakha that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated, and it should be interpreted as follows: “We have prepared” means that we interred them; “and sanctified” means that we sanctified other vessels in their stead, as the vessels used by Ahaz were forbidden, and the same applies to the vessels from the temple of Onias.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית — בָּהּ גָּנְזוּ בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי אֶת אַבְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁשִּׁקְּצוּ אַנְשֵׁי יָוָן, וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: שֶׁשִּׁקְּצוּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion (Middot 1:6): The northeast chamber of the Chamber of the Hearth was the chamber in which the Hasmoneans sequestered the altar stones that the people of Greece desecrated. And Rav Sheshet says: This means that they desecrated the stones by using them for idol worship. This indicates that Temple vessels that were used in idolatrous worship can no longer be used and must be sequestered.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָתָם קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וּדְרַשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבָאוּ בָהּ פָּרִיצִים וְחִלְּלוּהָ״.
Rav Pappa said: That case of the altar’s stones is different, because there a Sage found a verse and interpreted it homiletically, as it is written: “And they shall profane My secret place, and robbers shall enter into it and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22). The verse indicates that when the gentiles entered the Temple and desecrated it, the altar was desacralized and acquired non-sacred status. Consequently, when the stones were subsequently used for idolatrous worship they were rendered forbidden even for non-sacred use.
אָמְרִי: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נִיתְבְּרִינְהוּ? ״אֲבָנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! נְנַסְּרִינְהוּ? ״לֹא תָנִיף עֲלֵיהֶם בַּרְזֶל״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא.
The Gemara explains why the altar’s stones were sequestered: The Hasmoneans said: What should we do to revoke the stone’s forbidden status? Shall we break them? That is not possible, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones” (Deuteronomy 27:6). Shall we saw them without breaking them? That is also not a viable option, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall lift up no iron tool upon them” (Deuteronomy 27:5). There was therefore no alternative to sequestering the stones.
וְאַמַּאי? לִיתְבְּרִינְהוּ וְלִישְׁקְלִינְהוּ לְנַפְשַׁיְיהוּ! מִי לָא אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: ״בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְנוֹז כׇּל כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מִשּׁוּם כַּסְפָּא וְדַהֲבָא שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם״, וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם הָוְיָא רוּבָּא דְּעָלְמָא?
The Gemara asks: But why did the Hasmoneans have no alternative? Let them break the stones and take them for themselves. Didn’t Rav Oshaya say: The Sages wished to sequester all of the silver and gold in the world because of the silver and gold of Jerusalem, most of which was consecrated to the Temple treasury and became mixed with other silver and gold. And we discussed it and asked: Is Jerusalem the majority of the world that all of the silver and gold of the world should be forbidden as perhaps it came from Jerusalem?
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְנוֹז דִּינָרָא הַדְרְיָיאנָא טוּרְיָינָא שִׁיפָא, מִפְּנֵי טִבְעָהּ שֶׁל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, עַד שֶׁמָּצְאוּ לָהּ מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר, ״וּבָאוּ בָהּ פָּרִיצִים וְחִלְּלוּהָ״!
Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all of the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as it was known that these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury’s gold and silver. They did not permit the use of these coins until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22).
הָתָם, לָא אִשְׁתַּמַּשׁוּ בְּהוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ; הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּהוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ — לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּהוּ הֶדְיוֹטָא.
The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable. There, the coins of Jerusalem had not been used in service of the Most High; they were only consecrated. Here, since the stones of the altar had been used in service of the Most High, it is not proper conduct for an ordinary person to make use of them, and therefore the Hasmoneans sequestered the stones.
מַתְנִי׳ נׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי. הַמְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — מְבַטֵּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ, בִּיטֵּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ — מְשַׁמְּשִׁין מוּתָּרִין, וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה.
MISHNA: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the idol of another gentile, but a Jew cannot revoke the status of the object of idol worship of a gentile. One who revokes the status of an object of idol worship thereby revokes the status of its accessories. But if he revokes the status of its accessories, its accessories alone are rendered permitted, but the object of idol worship itself remains prohibited.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי: נׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, שָׁנִיתָ לָנוּ בְּיַלְדוּתֶךָ נׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מִי קָא מְבַטְּלָהּ? וְהָא ״וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולֶס: לֹא נִצְרְכָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת.
GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the following version of the mishna: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the idol of another gentile. Rabbi Shimon said to him: My teacher, in your youth, i.e., when you were younger, you taught us a different version of the mishna: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the object of idol worship of a Jew. The Gemara asks: Can the status of a Jew’s idol be revoked? But isn’t it written: “And shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), from which the Sages derived that a Jew’s idol requires interment? Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, said: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and therefore it is possible to say that its status can be revoked.
בְּיַלְדוּתוֹ מַאי קָסָבַר, וּבְזִקְנוּתוֹ מַאי קָסָבַר? בְּיַלְדוּתוֹ סָבַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנׇכְרִי פָּלַח, כֵּיוָן דְּנׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי מְבַטְּלָהּ. וּבְזִקְנוּתוֹ סָבַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ פָּלַח, כִּי מְבַטֵּל נׇכְרִי דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לָא בָּטֵיל.
The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold in his youth, and what did he hold in his old age? The Gemara answers: In his youth he held that the Jew worships the idol based on the intention of the gentile. Once the gentile revokes the status of his share in the idol, the status of the share of the Jew is also revoked. But in his old age Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held that the Jew worships the idol based on his own intentions. Therefore, when the gentile revokes the status of the object of idol worship, he revokes the status of only his own share, but the status of the share of the Jew is not revoked.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי. פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ
There are those who teach Rabbi Hillel’s statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: A Jew cannot revoke the status of the object of idol worship of a gentile. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Said Rabbi Hillel, son
Follow
