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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 8, 2018 | 讻状讗 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Avodah Zarah 52

Study Guide Avoda Zara 52. When does an idol become forbidden? From the time it was created or from the time it was worshipped? What about a utensil for idol worship? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree and聽the amoraim聽bring proof texts for each of them. Several questions are asked regarding the impurity that the rabbis instituted for items of idol worship. Can the impurity on a food that was offered up to an idol and then canceled by a non-Jew聽be considered pure or is the law the same as the benefit which is forbidden forever even if the item is cancelled? Can items used in the temple built by Onias (Chonyo) be used in the Beit Hamikdash?


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

转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讻诇讬诐 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 讗诇讗 注讚 砖转注讘讚 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讚

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鈥檚 object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped, but a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is forbidden immediately.

讜讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 讗转诐 讬专砖讬诐 讗转诐 讗转 讗诇讛讬讛诐 诪拽讬砖 讗诇讛讬讛诐 诇讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗祝 讗诇讛讬讛诐 谞诪讬 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 讗转 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara questions how the halakha with regard to an object of idol worship is derived from this verse. But didn鈥檛 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: 鈥淵ou shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse juxtaposes 鈥渢heir gods鈥 to 鈥渢he places,鈥 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,鈥 written in the verse before the term 鈥渢heir gods,鈥 separates the matter of their gods from the matter of the vessels.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗砖讻讞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讚讗讬谉 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖转注讘讚 讚讬砖专讗诇 讚讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 诪讚谞讻专讬 注讚 砖转注讘讚 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讗讬诪讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讻诇诇 讜讻诇诇 诇讗 讛砖转讗 讙谞讬讝讛 讘注讬讗 讗讬转住讜专讬 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗

The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped. From where does he derive that a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning. From the fact that a gentile鈥檚 idol is not forbidden until it is worshipped, it stands to reason that a Jew鈥檚 idol is prohibited immediately. The Gemara asks: Why not say that a Jew鈥檚 idol is not forbidden at all? The Gemara answers: Now, the status of a Jew鈥檚 idol cannot be revoked and the idol requires interment. Is it possible that it does not become prohibited?

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讚谞讻专讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗转 讞讟讗转讻诐 讗砖专 注砖讬转诐 讗转 讛注讙诇 诪砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讞讟讗

The Gemara challenges: But one could say that a Jew鈥檚 idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped, just as a gentile鈥檚 idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd I took your sin, the calf that you had made, and I burned it with fire鈥 (Deuteronomy 9:21), which indicates that from the time of its making its worshippers were liable for the sin.

讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讬拽诐 讙讘专讗 讘讞讟讗 讗讬转住讜专讬 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗专讜专 讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 驻住诇 讜诪住讻讛 诪砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讗专讜专

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: 鈥淐ursed 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:15), which indicates that from the time of its making the person who made the idol is liable to be cursed.

讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讬拽诐 讙讘专讗 讘讗专讜专 讗讬转住讜专讬 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 转讜注讘转 讛壮 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎n abomination to the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:15). This indicates that the idol itself is an abomination and is therefore prohibited from the time that it is made.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘专 讛诪讘讬讗 诇讬讚讬 转讜注讘讛

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, who does not maintain that a Jew鈥檚 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 鈥渁n abomination鈥 means an object that leads to abomination but itself is not considered an abomination before it is worshipped.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讚讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 驻住讬诇讬 讗诇讛讬讛诐 转砖专驻讜谉 讘讗砖 诪砖驻住诇讜 谞注砖讛 讗诇讜讛

The Gemara explains the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive that a gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? Ulla said: The verse states: 鈥淭he 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:25). The term 鈥済raven images鈥 indicates that from the time that the gentile engraves and carves the stone into an idol it becomes a god and is forbidden.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 砖驻讜住诇 讗诇讜讛讜 砖谞讗诪专 驻住讬诇讬 讗诇讛讬讛诐 转砖专驻讜谉 讘讗砖

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: 鈥淭he graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:25).

讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讞诪讚 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 注诇讬讛诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞转 诇讱 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 驻住诇讜 诇讗诇讜讛 诇讗 转讞诪讚 驻住诇讜 诪讗诇讜讛 讜诇拽讞转 诇讱

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: 鈥淭he graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:25), and in the continuation of the verse it is written: 鈥淎nd take it for yourself,鈥 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 鈥測ou shall not covet鈥 applies. If the gentile revoked [pesalo] the idol鈥檚 status as a god, the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎nd take it for yourself,鈥 applies.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖讻讞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讚讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讚讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖转注讘讚 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖诐 讘住转专 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 诇讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘住转专

The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. From where do we derive that a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped? Rav Yehuda said that the verse states: 鈥淐ursed be the man who shall make a graven or molten image鈥and shall set it up in a hidden place鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讟注讜谞讛 讙谞讬讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诐 讘住转专

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 Yitz岣k says, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd shall set it up in a hidden place鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:15), which Rabbi Yitz岣k interprets as requiring one to inter the idol in a hidden place.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讟注讜谞讛 讙谞讬讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讟注 诇讱 讗砖专讛 讻诇 注抓 讗爪诇 诪讝讘讞 诪讛 诪讝讘讞 讟注讜谉 讙谞讬讝讛 讗祝 讗砖专讛 讟注讜谞讛 讙谞讬讝讛

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 岣sda says that Rav says, as Rav 岣sda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 讛诪注诪讬讚 讚讬讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讛讙讜谉 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讜讟注 讗砖专讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 砖驻讟讬诐 讜砖讟专讬诐 转转谉 诇讱 讘讻诇 砖注专讬讱 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讟注 诇讱 讗砖专讛 讻诇 注抓

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: 鈥淛udges and officers you shall make for yourself in all of your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:18), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:21).

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讘诪拽讜诐 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讟注讜 讗爪诇 诪讝讘讞 砖谞讗诪专 讗爪诇 诪讝讘讞

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: 鈥淏eside the altar of the Lord your God.鈥

讘注讬 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 专讬转讱 讻诇讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讛讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚谞讻专讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖诪砖讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛谉 讜诪砖诪砖讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讬砖专讗诇

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鈥檚 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鈥 idol worship.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛砖转讗 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 注讚 砖转注讘讚 诪砖诪砖讬讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讜讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚

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鈥檚 idol is prohibited immediately.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪砖讬谉 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 讛转诐 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗祝 讛讻讗 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讬谞讛 讙诪专 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讗祝 诪砖诪砖讬讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讬讚

The Gemara suggest an explanation of the dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a Jew鈥檚 accessories of idol worship? Do we learn the halakha with regard to a Jew鈥檚 accessories from the halakha with regard to a gentile鈥檚 accessories? Just as there, in the case of a gentile鈥檚 accessories of idol worship, they are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship, so too here, in the case of a Jew鈥檚 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鈥檚 object of idol worship itself. Just as the idol itself is prohibited immediately, so too its accessories are prohibited immediately.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 专讬转讱 讻诇讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注砖讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: If that is the explanation of Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 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.

专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖谞讛 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 驻砖讜讟讬讛谉 讜诪拽讘诇讬讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 谞砖转讘专讜 讟讛专讜 讞讝专 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讬讞讝专讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖谞讛

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.

讜讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讚专讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖讗专 讟讜诪讗讜转 讚专讘谞谉

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鈥檚 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.

讞讚讗 诪讙讜 讞讚讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬 讛讚专讗 讗讜 诇讗 讛讚专讗 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讛讚专讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诪专讗 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讻讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讬讟讜诇 诇讟讛专讬谞讛讜 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讗讜 诇讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻诇讬诐 讻诇讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讛 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara suggests: And let him raise the dilemma with regard to whether revocation of vessels鈥 status purifies vessels used in idol worship from their impurity. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讙讜驻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

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 Yo岣nan does not raise the dilemma with regard to the object of idol worship itself,

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住讜专讛 讘讟讬诇 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 转拽专讜讘转 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住讜专讬讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讻讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬住讜专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 讘讟讬诇 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 诪专讘讬 讻诇讬诐 砖砖讬诪砖讜 讘讛谉 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诪讛讜 砖讬砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 讘讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖

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?

讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗讜 讘讬转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 砖砖讬诪砖讜 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗 讬砖诪砖讜 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专 讗讞专

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 (Mena岣t 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.

讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘谞讬 讚注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讻诇讬诐 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 讗住讜专讬诐 讛谉 讜诪拽专讗 讛讬讛 讘讬讚讬谞讜 讜砖讻讞谞讜讛讜

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讗砖专 讛讝谞讬讞 讛诪诇讱 讗讞讝 讘诪诇讻讜转讜 讘诪注诇讜 讛讻谞讜 讜讛拽讚砖谞讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讻谞讜 讚讗讟讘诇讬谞讛讜 讛拽讚砖谞讜 讚讗拽讚讬砖谞谞讛讜

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: 鈥淎ll 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鈥 (II聽Chronicles 29:19). What, is it not the case that the term 鈥渨e have prepared鈥 means that we immersed them in a ritual bath, and the term 鈥渟anctified鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 诇砖诪讬诐 砖讛讞讝专转 诇讬 讗讘讚转讬 讛讻谞讜 砖讙谞讝谞讜诐 讜讛拽讚砖谞讜 砖讛拽讚砖谞讜 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛诐

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: 鈥淲e have prepared鈥 means that we interred them; 鈥渁nd sanctified鈥 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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 讘讛 讙谞讝讜 讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讗转 讗讘谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞 砖砖拽爪讜 讗谞砖讬 讬讜谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 砖砖拽爪讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛转诐 拽专讗 讗砖讻讞 讜讚专砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗讜 讘讛 驻专讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇诇讜讛

Rav Pappa said: That case of the altar鈥檚 stones is different, because there a Sage found a verse and interpreted it homiletically, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall profane My secret place, and robbers shall enter into it and profane it鈥 (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.

讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 谞讬转讘专讬谞讛讜 讗讘谞讬诐 砖诇诪讜转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 谞谞住专讬谞讛讜 诇讗 转谞讬祝 注诇讬讛诐 讘专讝诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara explains why the altar鈥檚 stones were sequestered: The Hasmoneans said: What should we do to revoke the stone鈥檚 forbidden status? Shall we break them? That is not possible, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones鈥 (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: 鈥淵ou shall lift up no iron tool upon them鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:5). There was therefore no alternative to sequestering the stones.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬转讘专讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 诇谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘拽砖讜 诇讙谞讜讝 讻诇 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 砖讘注讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讻住驻讗 讜讚讛讘讗 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讜讬讗 专讜讘讗 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: But why did the Hasmoneans have no alternative? Let them break the stones and take them for themselves. Didn鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘拽砖讜 诇讙谞讜讝 讚讬谞专讗 讛讚专讬讬讗谞讗 讟讜专讬讬谞讗 砖讬驻讗 诪驻谞讬 讟讘注讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讚 砖诪爪讗讜 诇讛 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讜讘讗讜 讘讛 驻专讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇诇讜讛

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd robbers shall enter into it, and profane it鈥 (Ezekiel 7:22).

讛转诐 诇讗 讗砖转诪砖讜 讘讛讜 诇讙讘讜讛 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖转诪砖 讘讛讜 诇讙讘讜讛 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讛讜 讛讚讬讜讟讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讻专讬 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讛诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讘讟诇 诪砖诪砖讬讛 讘讬讟诇 诪砖诪砖讬讛 诪砖诪砖讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 谞讻专讬 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖谞讬转 诇谞讜 讘讬诇讚讜转讱 谞讻专讬 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 拽讗 诪讘讟诇讛 讜讛讗 讜砖诐 讘住转专 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讬诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 砖讜转驻讜转

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鈥檚 idol be revoked? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd shall set it up in a hidden place鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:15), from which the Sages derived that a Jew鈥檚 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.

讘讬诇讚讜转讜 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讜讘讝拽谞讜转讜 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讘讬诇讚讜转讜 住讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讗讚注转讗 讚谞讻专讬 驻诇讞 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讻专讬 诪讘讟诇 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诪讘讟诇讛 讜讘讝拽谞讜转讜 住讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讗讚注转讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 驻诇讞 讻讬 诪讘讟诇 谞讻专讬 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讬诇诇 讘专讬讛

There are those who teach Rabbi Hillel鈥檚 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鈥檛 that obvious? Said Rabbi Hillel, son

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 52

转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讻诇讬诐 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 讗诇讗 注讚 砖转注讘讚 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讚

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鈥檚 object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped, but a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is forbidden immediately.

讜讛讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 讗转诐 讬专砖讬诐 讗转诐 讗转 讗诇讛讬讛诐 诪拽讬砖 讗诇讛讬讛诐 诇讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗祝 讗诇讛讬讛诐 谞诪讬 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 讗转 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara questions how the halakha with regard to an object of idol worship is derived from this verse. But didn鈥檛 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: 鈥淵ou shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse juxtaposes 鈥渢heir gods鈥 to 鈥渢he places,鈥 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,鈥 written in the verse before the term 鈥渢heir gods,鈥 separates the matter of their gods from the matter of the vessels.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗砖讻讞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讚讗讬谉 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖转注讘讚 讚讬砖专讗诇 讚讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 诪讚谞讻专讬 注讚 砖转注讘讚 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讗讬诪讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讻诇诇 讜讻诇诇 诇讗 讛砖转讗 讙谞讬讝讛 讘注讬讗 讗讬转住讜专讬 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗

The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped. From where does he derive that a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning. From the fact that a gentile鈥檚 idol is not forbidden until it is worshipped, it stands to reason that a Jew鈥檚 idol is prohibited immediately. The Gemara asks: Why not say that a Jew鈥檚 idol is not forbidden at all? The Gemara answers: Now, the status of a Jew鈥檚 idol cannot be revoked and the idol requires interment. Is it possible that it does not become prohibited?

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讚谞讻专讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗转 讞讟讗转讻诐 讗砖专 注砖讬转诐 讗转 讛注讙诇 诪砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讞讟讗

The Gemara challenges: But one could say that a Jew鈥檚 idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped, just as a gentile鈥檚 idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd I took your sin, the calf that you had made, and I burned it with fire鈥 (Deuteronomy 9:21), which indicates that from the time of its making its worshippers were liable for the sin.

讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讬拽诐 讙讘专讗 讘讞讟讗 讗讬转住讜专讬 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗专讜专 讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 驻住诇 讜诪住讻讛 诪砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讗专讜专

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: 鈥淐ursed 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:15), which indicates that from the time of its making the person who made the idol is liable to be cursed.

讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讬拽诐 讙讘专讗 讘讗专讜专 讗讬转住讜专讬 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 转讜注讘转 讛壮 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎n abomination to the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:15). This indicates that the idol itself is an abomination and is therefore prohibited from the time that it is made.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘专 讛诪讘讬讗 诇讬讚讬 转讜注讘讛

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, who does not maintain that a Jew鈥檚 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 鈥渁n abomination鈥 means an object that leads to abomination but itself is not considered an abomination before it is worshipped.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讚讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 驻住讬诇讬 讗诇讛讬讛诐 转砖专驻讜谉 讘讗砖 诪砖驻住诇讜 谞注砖讛 讗诇讜讛

The Gemara explains the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive that a gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? Ulla said: The verse states: 鈥淭he 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:25). The term 鈥済raven images鈥 indicates that from the time that the gentile engraves and carves the stone into an idol it becomes a god and is forbidden.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 砖驻讜住诇 讗诇讜讛讜 砖谞讗诪专 驻住讬诇讬 讗诇讛讬讛诐 转砖专驻讜谉 讘讗砖

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: 鈥淭he graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:25).

讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讞诪讚 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 注诇讬讛诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞转 诇讱 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 驻住诇讜 诇讗诇讜讛 诇讗 转讞诪讚 驻住诇讜 诪讗诇讜讛 讜诇拽讞转 诇讱

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: 鈥淭he graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:25), and in the continuation of the verse it is written: 鈥淎nd take it for yourself,鈥 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 鈥測ou shall not covet鈥 applies. If the gentile revoked [pesalo] the idol鈥檚 status as a god, the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎nd take it for yourself,鈥 applies.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖讻讞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讚讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讚讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖转注讘讚 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖诐 讘住转专 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 诇讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘住转专

The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile鈥檚 object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. From where do we derive that a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped? Rav Yehuda said that the verse states: 鈥淐ursed be the man who shall make a graven or molten image鈥and shall set it up in a hidden place鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讟注讜谞讛 讙谞讬讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诐 讘住转专

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 Yitz岣k says, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd shall set it up in a hidden place鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:15), which Rabbi Yitz岣k interprets as requiring one to inter the idol in a hidden place.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讟注讜谞讛 讙谞讬讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讟注 诇讱 讗砖专讛 讻诇 注抓 讗爪诇 诪讝讘讞 诪讛 诪讝讘讞 讟注讜谉 讙谞讬讝讛 讗祝 讗砖专讛 讟注讜谞讛 讙谞讬讝讛

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 岣sda says that Rav says, as Rav 岣sda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that a Jew鈥檚 object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 讛诪注诪讬讚 讚讬讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讛讙讜谉 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讜讟注 讗砖专讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 砖驻讟讬诐 讜砖讟专讬诐 转转谉 诇讱 讘讻诇 砖注专讬讱 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讟注 诇讱 讗砖专讛 讻诇 注抓

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: 鈥淛udges and officers you shall make for yourself in all of your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:18), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:21).

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讘诪拽讜诐 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讟注讜 讗爪诇 诪讝讘讞 砖谞讗诪专 讗爪诇 诪讝讘讞

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: 鈥淏eside the altar of the Lord your God.鈥

讘注讬 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 专讬转讱 讻诇讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讛讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚谞讻专讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖诪砖讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛谉 讜诪砖诪砖讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讬砖专讗诇

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鈥檚 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鈥 idol worship.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛砖转讗 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 注讚 砖转注讘讚 诪砖诪砖讬讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讜讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚

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鈥檚 idol is prohibited immediately.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪砖讬谉 诪诪砖诪砖讬谉 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 讛转诐 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗祝 讛讻讗 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讬谞讛 讙诪专 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 诪讬讚 讗祝 诪砖诪砖讬讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讬讚

The Gemara suggest an explanation of the dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a Jew鈥檚 accessories of idol worship? Do we learn the halakha with regard to a Jew鈥檚 accessories from the halakha with regard to a gentile鈥檚 accessories? Just as there, in the case of a gentile鈥檚 accessories of idol worship, they are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship, so too here, in the case of a Jew鈥檚 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鈥檚 object of idol worship itself. Just as the idol itself is prohibited immediately, so too its accessories are prohibited immediately.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 专讬转讱 讻诇讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注砖讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: If that is the explanation of Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 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.

专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖谞讛 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 驻砖讜讟讬讛谉 讜诪拽讘诇讬讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 谞砖转讘专讜 讟讛专讜 讞讝专 讜注砖讗谉 讻诇讬诐 讬讞讝专讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖谞讛

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.

讜讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讚专讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖讗专 讟讜诪讗讜转 讚专讘谞谉

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鈥檚 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.

讞讚讗 诪讙讜 讞讚讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬 讛讚专讗 讗讜 诇讗 讛讚专讗 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讛讚专讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诪专讗 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讻讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讬讟讜诇 诇讟讛专讬谞讛讜 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讗讜 诇讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻诇讬诐 讻诇讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讛 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara suggests: And let him raise the dilemma with regard to whether revocation of vessels鈥 status purifies vessels used in idol worship from their impurity. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讙讜驻讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

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 Yo岣nan does not raise the dilemma with regard to the object of idol worship itself,

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住讜专讛 讘讟讬诇 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讘讟诇讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 转拽专讜讘转 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住讜专讬讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讻讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬住讜专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 讘讟讬诇 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 诪专讘讬 讻诇讬诐 砖砖讬诪砖讜 讘讛谉 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诪讛讜 砖讬砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 讘讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖

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?

讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗讜 讘讬转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 砖砖讬诪砖讜 讘讘讬转 讞讜谞讬讜 诇讗 讬砖诪砖讜 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专 讗讞专

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 (Mena岣t 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.

讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘谞讬 讚注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讻诇讬诐 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 讗住讜专讬诐 讛谉 讜诪拽专讗 讛讬讛 讘讬讚讬谞讜 讜砖讻讞谞讜讛讜

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讗砖专 讛讝谞讬讞 讛诪诇讱 讗讞讝 讘诪诇讻讜转讜 讘诪注诇讜 讛讻谞讜 讜讛拽讚砖谞讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讻谞讜 讚讗讟讘诇讬谞讛讜 讛拽讚砖谞讜 讚讗拽讚讬砖谞谞讛讜

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: 鈥淎ll 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鈥 (II聽Chronicles 29:19). What, is it not the case that the term 鈥渨e have prepared鈥 means that we immersed them in a ritual bath, and the term 鈥渟anctified鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 诇砖诪讬诐 砖讛讞讝专转 诇讬 讗讘讚转讬 讛讻谞讜 砖讙谞讝谞讜诐 讜讛拽讚砖谞讜 砖讛拽讚砖谞讜 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛诐

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: 鈥淲e have prepared鈥 means that we interred them; 鈥渁nd sanctified鈥 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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 讘讛 讙谞讝讜 讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讗转 讗讘谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞 砖砖拽爪讜 讗谞砖讬 讬讜谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 砖砖拽爪讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛转诐 拽专讗 讗砖讻讞 讜讚专砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗讜 讘讛 驻专讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇诇讜讛

Rav Pappa said: That case of the altar鈥檚 stones is different, because there a Sage found a verse and interpreted it homiletically, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall profane My secret place, and robbers shall enter into it and profane it鈥 (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.

讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 谞讬转讘专讬谞讛讜 讗讘谞讬诐 砖诇诪讜转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 谞谞住专讬谞讛讜 诇讗 转谞讬祝 注诇讬讛诐 讘专讝诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara explains why the altar鈥檚 stones were sequestered: The Hasmoneans said: What should we do to revoke the stone鈥檚 forbidden status? Shall we break them? That is not possible, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones鈥 (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: 鈥淵ou shall lift up no iron tool upon them鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:5). There was therefore no alternative to sequestering the stones.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬转讘专讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 诇谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘拽砖讜 诇讙谞讜讝 讻诇 讻住祝 讜讝讛讘 砖讘注讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讻住驻讗 讜讚讛讘讗 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讜讬讗 专讜讘讗 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: But why did the Hasmoneans have no alternative? Let them break the stones and take them for themselves. Didn鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘拽砖讜 诇讙谞讜讝 讚讬谞专讗 讛讚专讬讬讗谞讗 讟讜专讬讬谞讗 砖讬驻讗 诪驻谞讬 讟讘注讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注讚 砖诪爪讗讜 诇讛 诪拽专讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讜讘讗讜 讘讛 驻专讬爪讬诐 讜讞诇诇讜讛

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd robbers shall enter into it, and profane it鈥 (Ezekiel 7:22).

讛转诐 诇讗 讗砖转诪砖讜 讘讛讜 诇讙讘讜讛 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖转诪砖 讘讛讜 诇讙讘讜讛 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讛讜 讛讚讬讜讟讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讻专讬 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讛诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讘讟诇 诪砖诪砖讬讛 讘讬讟诇 诪砖诪砖讬讛 诪砖诪砖讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 谞讻专讬 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖谞讬转 诇谞讜 讘讬诇讚讜转讱 谞讻专讬 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇讜 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 拽讗 诪讘讟诇讛 讜讛讗 讜砖诐 讘住转专 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讬诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讛 砖讜转驻讜转

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鈥檚 idol be revoked? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd shall set it up in a hidden place鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:15), from which the Sages derived that a Jew鈥檚 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.

讘讬诇讚讜转讜 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讜讘讝拽谞讜转讜 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讘讬诇讚讜转讜 住讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讗讚注转讗 讚谞讻专讬 驻诇讞 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讻专讬 诪讘讟诇 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诪讘讟诇讛 讜讘讝拽谞讜转讜 住讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讗讚注转讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 驻诇讞 讻讬 诪讘讟诇 谞讻专讬 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讟诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 谞讻专讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讬诇诇 讘专讬讛

There are those who teach Rabbi Hillel鈥檚 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鈥檛 that obvious? Said Rabbi Hillel, son

Scroll To Top