Avodah Zarah 53
Share this shiur:
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 sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Avodah Zarah 53
דְּרַבִּי וָולֶס: לֹא נִצְרְכָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטֵּל דְּנׇכְרִי, אֲבָל נׇכְרִי דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ מְבַטֵּל.
of Rabbi Volas: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and it teaches us that it is only a Jew who cannot revoke the status of a gentile’s object of idol worship. But a gentile can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַבָּרַיְיתָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין לָהּ בְּטִילָה עוֹלָמִית. מַאי ״עוֹלָמִית״? אָמַר רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולֶס: לֹא נִצְרְכָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְגוֹי בָּהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ פָּלַח.
There are those who teach Rabbi Hillel’s statement with regard to a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: The status of a Jew’s object of idol worship can never be revoked. What is the reason for the additional emphasis of the term never? Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, says: The emphasis is necessary only for a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and it teaches us that the Jew worships the idol based on his own intentions, and therefore although the gentile revokes the status of his share, the Jew’s share remains forbidden.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ? קָטַע רֹאשׁ אׇזְנָהּ, רֹאשׁ חוֹטְמָהּ, רֹאשׁ אֶצְבָּעָהּ, פְּחָסָהּ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חִיסְּרָהּ — בִּיטְּלָהּ; רָק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ, גֵּרְרָהּ, זָרַק בָּהּ אֶת הַצּוֹאָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה; מְכָרָהּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָהּ — רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בִּיטֵּל, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא בִּיטֵּל.
MISHNA: How does a gentile revoke the status of an object of idol worship? If he cut off the tip of its ear, or the tip of its nose, or its fingertip; or if he crushed it, even though he did not remove any part of it, in all these cases he thereby revoked its status as an object of idol worship. If he spat before the idol, urinated before it, dragged it on the ground, or threw excrement at it, the status of this idol is not revoked, as this is only a temporary display of scorn, and afterward the gentile might continue to worship the idol. If the gentile sold it or mortgaged it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He thereby revoked its status. And the Rabbis say that he did not revoke its status.
גְּמָ׳ כִּי לֹא חִיסְּרָהּ, בְּמַאי בִּיטְּלָהּ? אָמַר רַב זֵירָא: שֶׁפְּחָסָהּ בְּפָנֶיהָ.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the gentile crushed the idol without removing any part of it, the status of the idol is revoked. The Gemara asks: In a case where he did not remove any part of it, by what action did he revoke its status? Rav Zeira says: The mishna is referring to a case where he crushed its face with a hammer, destroying its form, even though none of its stone was removed.
רָקַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, וְהִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי?
§ The mishna teaches: If he spat before the idol or urinated before it, the status of this idol is not revoked, as this is only a temporary display of scorn. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה כִי יִרְעַב וְהִתְקַצַּף וְקִלֵּל בְּמַלְכּוֹ וּבֵאלֹהָיו וּפָנָה לְמַעְלָה״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְאֶל אֶרֶץ יַבִּיט וְהִנֵּה צָרָה וַחֲשֵׁכָה וְגוֹ׳״, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּקִלֵּל מַלְכּוֹ וֵאלֹהָיו וּפָנָה לְמַעְלָה, אֶל אֶרֶץ יַבִּיט.
Ḥizkiyya says: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And it shall come to pass that, when he shall be hungry, he shall fret, and curse his king and his god, and turn his face upward” (Isaiah 8:21). And it is written after this verse: “And he shall look to the earth, and behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness” (Isaiah 8:22). This indicates that even though he cursed his king and his idolatrous god, and he turned his face upward to God, nevertheless, he subsequently looks to the earth and beholds distress and darkness, since he returns to his idol worship.
מְכָרָהּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָהּ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בִּיטֵּל וְכוּ׳. זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב, חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּצוֹרֵף גּוֹי, אֲבָל בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּיטֵּל, וְחַד אָמַר: בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְלוֹקֶת.
§ The mishna teaches: If the gentile sold it or mortgaged it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He thereby revoked its status. And the Rabbis say that he did not revoke its status. The Gemara cites a dispute between that which Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and that which Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says. One says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis applies only when the gentile sold his idol to a gentile smith. But when he sold it to a Jewish smith everyone agrees that by selling the idol the gentile revoked its status, as he knows that the Jewish smith will certainly melt it down. And one says: The dispute applies to the case where he sold the idol to a Jewish smith.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל צוֹרֵף גּוֹי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא בִּיטֵּל, אוֹ דִלְמָא בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בָּזֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the second opinion, does the dispute apply only to the case where he sold the idol to a Jewish smith; but if he sold it to a gentile smith everyone agrees that he did not revoke its status by selling it? Or perhaps both in this case and in that case there is a dispute.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דְּבָרַיי כְּשֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְחַבְּלָהּ, וְדִבְרֵי חֲבֵירַיי שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְעוֹבְדָהּ.
The Gemara replies: Come and hear a baraita, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My statement that by selling the idol the gentile revokes its status appears correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of destruction, and the statement of my colleagues that its status is not revoked appears correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of worship.
מַאי ״לְחַבְּלָהּ״ וּמַאי ״לְעוֹבְדָהּ״? אִילֵּימָא לְחַבְּלָהּ — לְחַבְּלָהּ מַמָּשׁ, לְעוֹבְדָהּ — לְעוֹבְדָהּ מַמָּשׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּיטֵּל, וּמַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא בִּיטֵּל?
The Gemara explains the baraita: What is the meaning of selling the idol for destruction, and what is the meaning of selling it for worship? If we say that selling it for destruction means literally that he knew that it was being bought for the purpose of destruction, and that selling it for worship means literally that it was bought for the purpose of worship, this is difficult. What is the reasoning of the one who says that the gentile revoked the idol’s status even though he knew that the buyer intended to worship it, and what is the reasoning of the one who says that he did not revoke its status even though he knew that the buyer intended to destroy it?
אֶלָּא לָאו לְחַבְּלָהּ — לְמִי שֶׁעָתִיד לְחַבְּלָהּ, וּמַנּוּ? צוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל. לְעוֹבְדָהּ — לְמִי שֶׁעָתִיד לְעוֹבְדָהּ, וּמַנּוּ? צוֹרֵף גּוֹי. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בָּזֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת.
Rather, is it not referring to a case where the buyer’s intentions were not known with certainty? And accordingly, selling the idol for destruction means selling it to one who will presumably destroy it in the future. And who is that buyer? This is referring to a Jewish smith. Similarly, selling the idol for worship means selling it to one who will presumably worship it in the future. And who is that buyer? This is referring to a gentile smith. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states that his opinion appears correct in the case of a Jewish smith and the opinion of his colleagues appears correct in the case of a gentile smith, one may conclude from the baraita that there is a dispute both in this case and in that case.
לָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דְּבָרַיי לַחֲבֵירַיי כְּשֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְחַבְּלָהּ. וּמַנּוּ? צוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁאַף חֲבֵירַיי לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עָלַי אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְעוֹבְדָהּ, אֲבָל לְחַבְּלָהּ — מוֹדוּ לִי.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is what the baraita is saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My statement that the idol’s status is revoked appears to my colleagues correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of destruction. And who is it who buys the idol with the intent of destroying it? This is referring to a Jewish smith. This is because even my colleagues disagreed with me only in a case where he sold it for the purpose of worship; but when he sold it to a Jewish smith for the purpose of destruction, they concede to my opinion.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גְּרוּטָאוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם וּמָצָא בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יַחֲזִיר, אִם מִשֶּׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יוֹלִיךְ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to one who buys broken vessels made from gold or silver from the gentiles and finds among them an object of idol worship, if he pulled the object of idol worship, thereby performing an act of acquisition, before he gave the money to the gentile, he may return the object of idol worship to the gentile. But if he pulled it after he gave the money to the gentile he may not return it. Since the idol’s status was not revoked, he must take it and cast it into the Dead Sea.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְלוֹקֶת, הָא מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּצוֹרֵף גּוֹי מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּיטֵּל, הָא מַנִּי?
The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, if you say that in the case of a gentile who sells an object of idol worship to a Jewish smith there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, the baraita is not difficult. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that when a gentile sells an idol to a Jewish smith he does not thereby revoke its status. But if you say that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis applies only when the idol is sold to a gentile smith, but in the case of a Jewish smith everyone agrees that the gentile revoked the idol’s status, then in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דִּגְרוּטָאוֹת זַבֵּין, אַדַּעְתָּא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָא זַבֵּין.
The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the gentile sold the metal with the understanding that he was selling broken vessels, and he did not sell the metal with the understanding that he was selling an object of idol worship. He therefore had no intention of revoking its status.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לָוָה עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלֶיהָ מַפּוֹלֶת, אוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוּהָ לִיסְטִין, אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ הַבְּעָלִים וְהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם,
§ The Sages taught: If a gentile borrowed money against an object of idol worship, using it as collateral, or with regard to another case where a rockslide fell on it, or a case where robbers stole it, or a case where the owners abandoned it and went overseas, the following halakha applies:
אִם עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר כְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה.
In any of these cases, if the owners will return in the future, as was the case in the war of Joshua when he conquered Eretz Yisrael, then the status of the object of idol worship is not revoked.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא לָוָה עָלֶיהָ — מִדְּלָא זַבְּנַהּ, לָא בַּטְּלַהּ; אֲבָל נָפְלָה עָלֶיהָ מַפּוֹלֶת — מִדְּלָא קָא מְפַנֵּי לַהּ, אֵימָא בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלַהּ, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state all of these cases. As, had the baraita taught only the case where the gentile borrowed money against the object of idol worship, one would say that in that case the gentile did not revoke its status, as he did not sell it, and he did not indicate that he intended to relinquish it. But in the case where a rockslide fell on it, since he did not clear the rocks, say that he revoked the status of the object of idol worship. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.
וְאִי תְּנָא נָפְלָה עָלֶיהָ מַפּוֹלֶת, מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר: הָא מַנְּחָה, כֹּל אֵימַת דְּבָעֵינָא לַהּ שָׁקֵילְנָא לַהּ, אֲבָל גְּנָבוּהָ לִסְטִים, מִדְּלָא קָא מַהְדַּר אַבָּתְרַהּ — בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלַהּ, צְרִיכָא.
And had the baraita taught only the case where a rockslide fell on the idol, one would say that in that case its status is not revoked because the owner thinks to himself: The idol lies under the rocks safely; whenever I want it, I shall take it, and he feels no need to clear the rockslide immediately. But in the case where robbers stole it, since he is not searching after it, this indicates that he revoked its status. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.
וְאִי תְּנָא גְּנָבוּהָ לִסְטִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר: אִי גּוֹי שָׁקֵיל לַהּ — מִפְלָח פָּלַח לַהּ, אִי יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁקְלָה — אַיְּידֵי דְּדָמֶיהָ יְקָרִין מְזַבֵּין לַהּ לְגוֹי וּפָלַח לַהּ, אֲבָל הִנִּיחוּהָ הַבְּעָלִים וְהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, מִדְּלָא שָׁקְלוּ בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ — בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלוּהָ, צְרִיכָא.
And had the baraita taught only the case where robbers stole the idol, one would say that in that case its status is not revoked because the owner thinks to himself: If a gentile took it, he will worship it. If a Jew took it, since it is of great monetary value, he will sell it to a gentile and the buyer will worship it. There is therefore no indication that the gentile intends to revoke its status. But in the case where the owners abandoned the idol and went overseas, since they did not take it with them, this indicates that they revoked its status. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.
אִם עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר כְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה. מִידֵּי מִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִיהְדָּר הֲדוּר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְאֵין לָהּ בְּטִילָה.
The baraita states: If the owners will return in the future, as was the case in the war of Joshua when he conquered Eretz Yisrael, then the status of the object of idol worship is not revoked. The Gemara asks: Is it so, that after the war of Joshua the gentiles returned home? They were defeated and killed and did not return home. The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita is saying: If the owners will return in the future, the idol has the same status as did the idols of the gentiles killed in the war of Joshua, who intended to return and did not revoke the status of their idols, and therefore its status is not revoked.
וּלְמָה לִי לְמִיתְלְיַיהּ בְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? מִלְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵאּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁזָּקַף לְבֵינָה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לָהּ, וּבָא גּוֹי וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ — אֲסָרָהּ.
The Gemara asks: And why should I associate this halakha with the war of Joshua? The Gemara answers: It teaches us a matter in passing, that the halakhot of idol worship may be derived from the war of Joshua, as may be illustrated by that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of a Jew who set a brick upright in order to bow to it but did not actually bow to it, and a gentile then came and bowed to it, the gentile rendered it prohibited even though it was not his brick.
מְנָלַן דַּאֲסָרָהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כַּתְּחִילָּה שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ״, מִכְּדֵי יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא לָהֶם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיהֶם, וְאֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ!
The Gemara explains: From where do we derive that he rendered it prohibited? Rabbi Elazar says: This halakha is like the halakha that applied at the outset of the Jewish people’s conquest of Eretz Yisrael, when the Torah commanded them to destroy any trees that were used as part of idolatrous rites [asherim], as the Merciful One states: “And you shall break down their altars…and you shall burn their asherim with fire” (Deuteronomy 12:3). Now, Eretz Yisrael is the inheritance of the Jewish people from their ancestors, and a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his. If so, how could the gentiles render the trees forbidden, as the land was not theirs?
וְאִי מִשּׁוּם הָנָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, בְּבִיטּוּלָא בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי לְהוּ!
If the trees were forbidden because some of them might have been those trees that were worshipped initially, before God gave the land to Abraham, it would not have been necessary to destroy them. Rather, the Jews could have forced the gentiles to revoke their status, and since the asherim were objects of gentiles’ idol worship, a mere revocation would be sufficient to render them permitted.
אֶלָּא, מִדִּפְלַחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעֵגֶל, גַּלּוֹ אַדַּעְתַּיְיהוּ דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכִי אֲתוֹ גּוֹיִם, שְׁלִיחוּתָא דִּידְהוּ עָבְדִי. הָכִי נָמֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁזָּקַף לְבֵינָה, גַּלִּיא דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכִי אֲתָא גּוֹי וּפְלַח לַהּ, שְׁלִיחוּתָא דִּידֵיהּ קָעָבֵיד.
Rather, since the Jewish people worshipped the Golden Calf, they revealed their intentions and indicated that they were amenable to idol worship. And when the gentiles came and engaged in idol worship, they were, in effect, carrying out their agency on behalf of the Jewish people. The asherim were therefore considered objects of Jews’ idol worship, whose status cannot be revoked. So too, in the case of a Jew who set a brick upright in order to bow to it, he thereby revealed his intentions and indicated that he is amenable to idol worship. And when a gentile came and worshipped it, he was carrying out the agency on behalf of the Jew.
וְדִלְמָא בְּעֵגֶל הוּא דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ, בְּמִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִיוּוּ לֶאֱלוֹהוֹת הַרְבֵּה.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps it is only with regard to the Golden Calf that the Jewish people were amenable to worshipping it, but not with regard to any other type of idol worship. The Gemara counters: The verse states with regard to the Golden Calf: “And they said: These are your gods, O Israel” (Exodus 32:4), in the plural. This teaches that they desired many gods, and they did not desire to worship only the Golden Calf.
אֵימָא: כֹּל דְּבַהֲדֵי עֵגֶל נִיתַּסְרוּ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ נִישְׁתְּרֵי? מַאן מוֹכַח?
The Gemara suggests: Say that whatever asherim were worshipped by the gentiles simultaneously with the Jewish people’s worship of the Golden Calf should be prohibited, because at that time they acted as agents of the Jewish people. But any ashera that was worshipped from that point forward, after the Jewish people repented and no longer engaged in idol worship, should be permitted. The Gemara answers: Who can prove when each ashera was worshipped? Since it is impossible to determine which asherim were worshipped at the time of the Golden Calf, they are all forbidden.
מַתְנִי׳ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ עוֹבְדֶיהָ — בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם מוּתֶּרֶת, בִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה אֲסוּרָה. בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת שֶׁל מְלָכִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים עוֹבְרִים.
MISHNA: With regard to an object of idol worship that was abandoned by its worshippers, if it was abandoned in peacetime, it is permitted, as it was evidently abandoned by choice and this constitutes an implicit revocation of its status as an object of idol worship. If it was abandoned in wartime, it is prohibited, as it was not abandoned by choice. With regard to the stone platforms of kings upon which idols are placed in honor of the kings, these are permitted, due to the fact that the idol is placed on these platforms only at the time that the kings pass by.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: בֵּית נִמְרוֹד הֲרֵי הִיא כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ עוֹבְדֶיהָ בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם, וּמוּתָּר. אַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי בַּדְּרִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה דָּמֵי, אִי (בָּעֲיָא) [בְּעוֹ] לְמִיהְדָּר הֲדוּר, מִדְּלָא הֲדוּר בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלֻהָ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: The temple of Nimrod, i.e., the remnants of the tower of Babel (see Genesis 11:1–9), is considered a place of idol worship whose worshippers abandoned it in peacetime, and it is therefore permitted. This is despite the fact that when the Merciful One scattered the builders of the tower, the situation resembled wartime, as they were compelled to leave. Nevertheless, if they had desired to return, they could have returned. Since they did not return, they evidently chose to abandon the place of idol worship and thereby revoked its status.
בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת שֶׁל מְלָכִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרוֹת. וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים עוֹבְרִין מוּתָּרִין?
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the stone platforms of kings, these are permitted, due to the fact that the idol is placed on these platforms only at the time that the kings pass by. The Gemara asks: But should the platforms be permitted because idols are placed on them at the time that the kings pass by?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים עוֹבְרִין, וּמְלָכִים מַנִּיחִין דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ וְהוֹלְכִין בְּדֶרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is what the mishna is saying: The platforms are permitted because the idol is placed on them at the time that the kings pass by, and sometimes the kings abandon this path where the platform has been placed and choose to walk on a different path. Since the kings do not impart any importance to the platforms, they are not considered accessories of idol worship.
כִּי אֲתָא עוּלָּא, יָתֵיב אַבִּימְסָא פְּגִימָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְעוּלָּא: וְהָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּימוֹס שֶׁנִּפְגַּם אָסוּר! וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין עוֹבְדִים לִשְׁבָרִים — הָנֵי מִילֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּזִילָא בֵּיהּ מִלְּתָא לְמִפְלַח לִשְׁבָרִים, אֲבָל הַאי לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ!
§ When Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he sat on a damaged platform of idol worship. Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: But don’t Rav and Shmuel both say: A platform that was damaged remains prohibited? And even according to the one who says that idol worshippers do not worship fragments of idols, that statement applies only to an object of idol worship, as it is a degrading matter to a person to worship fragments. But in this case, with regard to the platform, it does not matter to him if it is damaged, as it is still fit for use.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן יָהֵיב לַן מֵעַפְרָא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וּמָלִינַן עַיְינִין? הָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּימוֹס שֶׁנִּפְגַּם — מוּתָּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עוֹבְדִין לִשְׁבָרִים, הָנֵי מִילֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּכֵיוָן דְּפַלְחַהּ — זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא לְבַטּוֹלַהּ, אֲבָל הָנֵי שָׁקְלִי לְהַאי וּמַיְיתוּ בִּימוֹס אַחֲרִינָא.
Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Who shall give us of the dust of the graves covering Rav and Shmuel? We would fill our eyes with that dust, as they were great and holy men. Nevertheless, with regard to the halakha in this case, don’t Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: A platform that was damaged is permitted? And even according to the one who says that idol worshippers worship fragments of idols, that statement applies only to an object of idol worship, due to the fact that since he already worshipped it, it is a degrading matter to him to revoke its status. But in the case of these platforms, idol worshippers take this platform and throw it away and bring another platform that is not defective to replace it.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בִּימוֹס שֶׁנִּפְגַּם — מוּתָּר, מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם — אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתֵץ רוּבּוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בִּימוֹס, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִזְבֵּחַ? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּימוֹס — אֶבֶן אַחַת, מִזְבֵּחַ — אֲבָנִים הַרְבֵּה.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish: A platform that was damaged is permitted. Conversely, an altar of idol worship that was damaged remains prohibited until most of it is destroyed. What is considered a platform, and what is considered an altar? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A platform consists of one stone; an altar consists of many stones.
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 53: When an Object of Idolatry Can Be Used After All
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.
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Bronx, United States
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!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Avodah Zarah 53
דְּרַבִּי וָולֶס: לֹא נִצְרְכָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטֵּל דְּנׇכְרִי, אֲבָל נׇכְרִי דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ מְבַטֵּל.
of Rabbi Volas: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and it teaches us that it is only a Jew who cannot revoke the status of a gentile’s object of idol worship. But a gentile can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַבָּרַיְיתָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין לָהּ בְּטִילָה עוֹלָמִית. מַאי ״עוֹלָמִית״? אָמַר רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולֶס: לֹא נִצְרְכָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְגוֹי בָּהּ שׁוּתָּפוּת, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ פָּלַח.
There are those who teach Rabbi Hillel’s statement with regard to a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: The status of a Jew’s object of idol worship can never be revoked. What is the reason for the additional emphasis of the term never? Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, says: The emphasis is necessary only for a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and it teaches us that the Jew worships the idol based on his own intentions, and therefore although the gentile revokes the status of his share, the Jew’s share remains forbidden.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ? קָטַע רֹאשׁ אׇזְנָהּ, רֹאשׁ חוֹטְמָהּ, רֹאשׁ אֶצְבָּעָהּ, פְּחָסָהּ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חִיסְּרָהּ — בִּיטְּלָהּ; רָק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ, גֵּרְרָהּ, זָרַק בָּהּ אֶת הַצּוֹאָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה; מְכָרָהּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָהּ — רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בִּיטֵּל, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא בִּיטֵּל.
MISHNA: How does a gentile revoke the status of an object of idol worship? If he cut off the tip of its ear, or the tip of its nose, or its fingertip; or if he crushed it, even though he did not remove any part of it, in all these cases he thereby revoked its status as an object of idol worship. If he spat before the idol, urinated before it, dragged it on the ground, or threw excrement at it, the status of this idol is not revoked, as this is only a temporary display of scorn, and afterward the gentile might continue to worship the idol. If the gentile sold it or mortgaged it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He thereby revoked its status. And the Rabbis say that he did not revoke its status.
גְּמָ׳ כִּי לֹא חִיסְּרָהּ, בְּמַאי בִּיטְּלָהּ? אָמַר רַב זֵירָא: שֶׁפְּחָסָהּ בְּפָנֶיהָ.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the gentile crushed the idol without removing any part of it, the status of the idol is revoked. The Gemara asks: In a case where he did not remove any part of it, by what action did he revoke its status? Rav Zeira says: The mishna is referring to a case where he crushed its face with a hammer, destroying its form, even though none of its stone was removed.
רָקַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, וְהִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי?
§ The mishna teaches: If he spat before the idol or urinated before it, the status of this idol is not revoked, as this is only a temporary display of scorn. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה כִי יִרְעַב וְהִתְקַצַּף וְקִלֵּל בְּמַלְכּוֹ וּבֵאלֹהָיו וּפָנָה לְמַעְלָה״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְאֶל אֶרֶץ יַבִּיט וְהִנֵּה צָרָה וַחֲשֵׁכָה וְגוֹ׳״, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּקִלֵּל מַלְכּוֹ וֵאלֹהָיו וּפָנָה לְמַעְלָה, אֶל אֶרֶץ יַבִּיט.
Ḥizkiyya says: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And it shall come to pass that, when he shall be hungry, he shall fret, and curse his king and his god, and turn his face upward” (Isaiah 8:21). And it is written after this verse: “And he shall look to the earth, and behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness” (Isaiah 8:22). This indicates that even though he cursed his king and his idolatrous god, and he turned his face upward to God, nevertheless, he subsequently looks to the earth and beholds distress and darkness, since he returns to his idol worship.
מְכָרָהּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָהּ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בִּיטֵּל וְכוּ׳. זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב, חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּצוֹרֵף גּוֹי, אֲבָל בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּיטֵּל, וְחַד אָמַר: בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְלוֹקֶת.
§ The mishna teaches: If the gentile sold it or mortgaged it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He thereby revoked its status. And the Rabbis say that he did not revoke its status. The Gemara cites a dispute between that which Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and that which Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says. One says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis applies only when the gentile sold his idol to a gentile smith. But when he sold it to a Jewish smith everyone agrees that by selling the idol the gentile revoked its status, as he knows that the Jewish smith will certainly melt it down. And one says: The dispute applies to the case where he sold the idol to a Jewish smith.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל צוֹרֵף גּוֹי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא בִּיטֵּל, אוֹ דִלְמָא בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בָּזֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the second opinion, does the dispute apply only to the case where he sold the idol to a Jewish smith; but if he sold it to a gentile smith everyone agrees that he did not revoke its status by selling it? Or perhaps both in this case and in that case there is a dispute.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דְּבָרַיי כְּשֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְחַבְּלָהּ, וְדִבְרֵי חֲבֵירַיי שֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְעוֹבְדָהּ.
The Gemara replies: Come and hear a baraita, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My statement that by selling the idol the gentile revokes its status appears correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of destruction, and the statement of my colleagues that its status is not revoked appears correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of worship.
מַאי ״לְחַבְּלָהּ״ וּמַאי ״לְעוֹבְדָהּ״? אִילֵּימָא לְחַבְּלָהּ — לְחַבְּלָהּ מַמָּשׁ, לְעוֹבְדָהּ — לְעוֹבְדָהּ מַמָּשׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּיטֵּל, וּמַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא בִּיטֵּל?
The Gemara explains the baraita: What is the meaning of selling the idol for destruction, and what is the meaning of selling it for worship? If we say that selling it for destruction means literally that he knew that it was being bought for the purpose of destruction, and that selling it for worship means literally that it was bought for the purpose of worship, this is difficult. What is the reasoning of the one who says that the gentile revoked the idol’s status even though he knew that the buyer intended to worship it, and what is the reasoning of the one who says that he did not revoke its status even though he knew that the buyer intended to destroy it?
אֶלָּא לָאו לְחַבְּלָהּ — לְמִי שֶׁעָתִיד לְחַבְּלָהּ, וּמַנּוּ? צוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל. לְעוֹבְדָהּ — לְמִי שֶׁעָתִיד לְעוֹבְדָהּ, וּמַנּוּ? צוֹרֵף גּוֹי. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בָּזֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת.
Rather, is it not referring to a case where the buyer’s intentions were not known with certainty? And accordingly, selling the idol for destruction means selling it to one who will presumably destroy it in the future. And who is that buyer? This is referring to a Jewish smith. Similarly, selling the idol for worship means selling it to one who will presumably worship it in the future. And who is that buyer? This is referring to a gentile smith. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states that his opinion appears correct in the case of a Jewish smith and the opinion of his colleagues appears correct in the case of a gentile smith, one may conclude from the baraita that there is a dispute both in this case and in that case.
לָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דְּבָרַיי לַחֲבֵירַיי כְּשֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְחַבְּלָהּ. וּמַנּוּ? צוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁאַף חֲבֵירַיי לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עָלַי אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמְּכָרָהּ לְעוֹבְדָהּ, אֲבָל לְחַבְּלָהּ — מוֹדוּ לִי.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is what the baraita is saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My statement that the idol’s status is revoked appears to my colleagues correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of destruction. And who is it who buys the idol with the intent of destroying it? This is referring to a Jewish smith. This is because even my colleagues disagreed with me only in a case where he sold it for the purpose of worship; but when he sold it to a Jewish smith for the purpose of destruction, they concede to my opinion.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גְּרוּטָאוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם וּמָצָא בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יַחֲזִיר, אִם מִשֶּׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יוֹלִיךְ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to one who buys broken vessels made from gold or silver from the gentiles and finds among them an object of idol worship, if he pulled the object of idol worship, thereby performing an act of acquisition, before he gave the money to the gentile, he may return the object of idol worship to the gentile. But if he pulled it after he gave the money to the gentile he may not return it. Since the idol’s status was not revoked, he must take it and cast it into the Dead Sea.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְלוֹקֶת, הָא מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּצוֹרֵף גּוֹי מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּיטֵּל, הָא מַנִּי?
The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, if you say that in the case of a gentile who sells an object of idol worship to a Jewish smith there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, the baraita is not difficult. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that when a gentile sells an idol to a Jewish smith he does not thereby revoke its status. But if you say that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis applies only when the idol is sold to a gentile smith, but in the case of a Jewish smith everyone agrees that the gentile revoked the idol’s status, then in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דִּגְרוּטָאוֹת זַבֵּין, אַדַּעְתָּא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָא זַבֵּין.
The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the gentile sold the metal with the understanding that he was selling broken vessels, and he did not sell the metal with the understanding that he was selling an object of idol worship. He therefore had no intention of revoking its status.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לָוָה עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלֶיהָ מַפּוֹלֶת, אוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוּהָ לִיסְטִין, אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ הַבְּעָלִים וְהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם,
§ The Sages taught: If a gentile borrowed money against an object of idol worship, using it as collateral, or with regard to another case where a rockslide fell on it, or a case where robbers stole it, or a case where the owners abandoned it and went overseas, the following halakha applies:
אִם עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר כְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה.
In any of these cases, if the owners will return in the future, as was the case in the war of Joshua when he conquered Eretz Yisrael, then the status of the object of idol worship is not revoked.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא לָוָה עָלֶיהָ — מִדְּלָא זַבְּנַהּ, לָא בַּטְּלַהּ; אֲבָל נָפְלָה עָלֶיהָ מַפּוֹלֶת — מִדְּלָא קָא מְפַנֵּי לַהּ, אֵימָא בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלַהּ, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state all of these cases. As, had the baraita taught only the case where the gentile borrowed money against the object of idol worship, one would say that in that case the gentile did not revoke its status, as he did not sell it, and he did not indicate that he intended to relinquish it. But in the case where a rockslide fell on it, since he did not clear the rocks, say that he revoked the status of the object of idol worship. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.
וְאִי תְּנָא נָפְלָה עָלֶיהָ מַפּוֹלֶת, מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר: הָא מַנְּחָה, כֹּל אֵימַת דְּבָעֵינָא לַהּ שָׁקֵילְנָא לַהּ, אֲבָל גְּנָבוּהָ לִסְטִים, מִדְּלָא קָא מַהְדַּר אַבָּתְרַהּ — בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלַהּ, צְרִיכָא.
And had the baraita taught only the case where a rockslide fell on the idol, one would say that in that case its status is not revoked because the owner thinks to himself: The idol lies under the rocks safely; whenever I want it, I shall take it, and he feels no need to clear the rockslide immediately. But in the case where robbers stole it, since he is not searching after it, this indicates that he revoked its status. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.
וְאִי תְּנָא גְּנָבוּהָ לִסְטִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר: אִי גּוֹי שָׁקֵיל לַהּ — מִפְלָח פָּלַח לַהּ, אִי יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁקְלָה — אַיְּידֵי דְּדָמֶיהָ יְקָרִין מְזַבֵּין לַהּ לְגוֹי וּפָלַח לַהּ, אֲבָל הִנִּיחוּהָ הַבְּעָלִים וְהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, מִדְּלָא שָׁקְלוּ בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ — בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלוּהָ, צְרִיכָא.
And had the baraita taught only the case where robbers stole the idol, one would say that in that case its status is not revoked because the owner thinks to himself: If a gentile took it, he will worship it. If a Jew took it, since it is of great monetary value, he will sell it to a gentile and the buyer will worship it. There is therefore no indication that the gentile intends to revoke its status. But in the case where the owners abandoned the idol and went overseas, since they did not take it with them, this indicates that they revoked its status. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.
אִם עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר כְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה. מִידֵּי מִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִיהְדָּר הֲדוּר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְאֵין לָהּ בְּטִילָה.
The baraita states: If the owners will return in the future, as was the case in the war of Joshua when he conquered Eretz Yisrael, then the status of the object of idol worship is not revoked. The Gemara asks: Is it so, that after the war of Joshua the gentiles returned home? They were defeated and killed and did not return home. The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita is saying: If the owners will return in the future, the idol has the same status as did the idols of the gentiles killed in the war of Joshua, who intended to return and did not revoke the status of their idols, and therefore its status is not revoked.
וּלְמָה לִי לְמִיתְלְיַיהּ בְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? מִלְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵאּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁזָּקַף לְבֵינָה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לָהּ, וּבָא גּוֹי וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ — אֲסָרָהּ.
The Gemara asks: And why should I associate this halakha with the war of Joshua? The Gemara answers: It teaches us a matter in passing, that the halakhot of idol worship may be derived from the war of Joshua, as may be illustrated by that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of a Jew who set a brick upright in order to bow to it but did not actually bow to it, and a gentile then came and bowed to it, the gentile rendered it prohibited even though it was not his brick.
מְנָלַן דַּאֲסָרָהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כַּתְּחִילָּה שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ״, מִכְּדֵי יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא לָהֶם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיהֶם, וְאֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ!
The Gemara explains: From where do we derive that he rendered it prohibited? Rabbi Elazar says: This halakha is like the halakha that applied at the outset of the Jewish people’s conquest of Eretz Yisrael, when the Torah commanded them to destroy any trees that were used as part of idolatrous rites [asherim], as the Merciful One states: “And you shall break down their altars…and you shall burn their asherim with fire” (Deuteronomy 12:3). Now, Eretz Yisrael is the inheritance of the Jewish people from their ancestors, and a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his. If so, how could the gentiles render the trees forbidden, as the land was not theirs?
וְאִי מִשּׁוּם הָנָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, בְּבִיטּוּלָא בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי לְהוּ!
If the trees were forbidden because some of them might have been those trees that were worshipped initially, before God gave the land to Abraham, it would not have been necessary to destroy them. Rather, the Jews could have forced the gentiles to revoke their status, and since the asherim were objects of gentiles’ idol worship, a mere revocation would be sufficient to render them permitted.
אֶלָּא, מִדִּפְלַחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעֵגֶל, גַּלּוֹ אַדַּעְתַּיְיהוּ דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכִי אֲתוֹ גּוֹיִם, שְׁלִיחוּתָא דִּידְהוּ עָבְדִי. הָכִי נָמֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁזָּקַף לְבֵינָה, גַּלִּיא דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכִי אֲתָא גּוֹי וּפְלַח לַהּ, שְׁלִיחוּתָא דִּידֵיהּ קָעָבֵיד.
Rather, since the Jewish people worshipped the Golden Calf, they revealed their intentions and indicated that they were amenable to idol worship. And when the gentiles came and engaged in idol worship, they were, in effect, carrying out their agency on behalf of the Jewish people. The asherim were therefore considered objects of Jews’ idol worship, whose status cannot be revoked. So too, in the case of a Jew who set a brick upright in order to bow to it, he thereby revealed his intentions and indicated that he is amenable to idol worship. And when a gentile came and worshipped it, he was carrying out the agency on behalf of the Jew.
וְדִלְמָא בְּעֵגֶל הוּא דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ, בְּמִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִיוּוּ לֶאֱלוֹהוֹת הַרְבֵּה.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps it is only with regard to the Golden Calf that the Jewish people were amenable to worshipping it, but not with regard to any other type of idol worship. The Gemara counters: The verse states with regard to the Golden Calf: “And they said: These are your gods, O Israel” (Exodus 32:4), in the plural. This teaches that they desired many gods, and they did not desire to worship only the Golden Calf.
אֵימָא: כֹּל דְּבַהֲדֵי עֵגֶל נִיתַּסְרוּ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ נִישְׁתְּרֵי? מַאן מוֹכַח?
The Gemara suggests: Say that whatever asherim were worshipped by the gentiles simultaneously with the Jewish people’s worship of the Golden Calf should be prohibited, because at that time they acted as agents of the Jewish people. But any ashera that was worshipped from that point forward, after the Jewish people repented and no longer engaged in idol worship, should be permitted. The Gemara answers: Who can prove when each ashera was worshipped? Since it is impossible to determine which asherim were worshipped at the time of the Golden Calf, they are all forbidden.
מַתְנִי׳ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ עוֹבְדֶיהָ — בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם מוּתֶּרֶת, בִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה אֲסוּרָה. בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת שֶׁל מְלָכִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים עוֹבְרִים.
MISHNA: With regard to an object of idol worship that was abandoned by its worshippers, if it was abandoned in peacetime, it is permitted, as it was evidently abandoned by choice and this constitutes an implicit revocation of its status as an object of idol worship. If it was abandoned in wartime, it is prohibited, as it was not abandoned by choice. With regard to the stone platforms of kings upon which idols are placed in honor of the kings, these are permitted, due to the fact that the idol is placed on these platforms only at the time that the kings pass by.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: בֵּית נִמְרוֹד הֲרֵי הִיא כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ עוֹבְדֶיהָ בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם, וּמוּתָּר. אַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי בַּדְּרִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה דָּמֵי, אִי (בָּעֲיָא) [בְּעוֹ] לְמִיהְדָּר הֲדוּר, מִדְּלָא הֲדוּר בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלֻהָ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: The temple of Nimrod, i.e., the remnants of the tower of Babel (see Genesis 11:1–9), is considered a place of idol worship whose worshippers abandoned it in peacetime, and it is therefore permitted. This is despite the fact that when the Merciful One scattered the builders of the tower, the situation resembled wartime, as they were compelled to leave. Nevertheless, if they had desired to return, they could have returned. Since they did not return, they evidently chose to abandon the place of idol worship and thereby revoked its status.
בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת שֶׁל מְלָכִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרוֹת. וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים עוֹבְרִין מוּתָּרִין?
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the stone platforms of kings, these are permitted, due to the fact that the idol is placed on these platforms only at the time that the kings pass by. The Gemara asks: But should the platforms be permitted because idols are placed on them at the time that the kings pass by?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים עוֹבְרִין, וּמְלָכִים מַנִּיחִין דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ וְהוֹלְכִין בְּדֶרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is what the mishna is saying: The platforms are permitted because the idol is placed on them at the time that the kings pass by, and sometimes the kings abandon this path where the platform has been placed and choose to walk on a different path. Since the kings do not impart any importance to the platforms, they are not considered accessories of idol worship.
כִּי אֲתָא עוּלָּא, יָתֵיב אַבִּימְסָא פְּגִימָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְעוּלָּא: וְהָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּימוֹס שֶׁנִּפְגַּם אָסוּר! וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין עוֹבְדִים לִשְׁבָרִים — הָנֵי מִילֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּזִילָא בֵּיהּ מִלְּתָא לְמִפְלַח לִשְׁבָרִים, אֲבָל הַאי לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ!
§ When Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he sat on a damaged platform of idol worship. Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: But don’t Rav and Shmuel both say: A platform that was damaged remains prohibited? And even according to the one who says that idol worshippers do not worship fragments of idols, that statement applies only to an object of idol worship, as it is a degrading matter to a person to worship fragments. But in this case, with regard to the platform, it does not matter to him if it is damaged, as it is still fit for use.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן יָהֵיב לַן מֵעַפְרָא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וּמָלִינַן עַיְינִין? הָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּימוֹס שֶׁנִּפְגַּם — מוּתָּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עוֹבְדִין לִשְׁבָרִים, הָנֵי מִילֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּכֵיוָן דְּפַלְחַהּ — זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא לְבַטּוֹלַהּ, אֲבָל הָנֵי שָׁקְלִי לְהַאי וּמַיְיתוּ בִּימוֹס אַחֲרִינָא.
Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Who shall give us of the dust of the graves covering Rav and Shmuel? We would fill our eyes with that dust, as they were great and holy men. Nevertheless, with regard to the halakha in this case, don’t Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: A platform that was damaged is permitted? And even according to the one who says that idol worshippers worship fragments of idols, that statement applies only to an object of idol worship, due to the fact that since he already worshipped it, it is a degrading matter to him to revoke its status. But in the case of these platforms, idol worshippers take this platform and throw it away and bring another platform that is not defective to replace it.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בִּימוֹס שֶׁנִּפְגַּם — מוּתָּר, מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם — אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתֵץ רוּבּוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בִּימוֹס, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִזְבֵּחַ? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּימוֹס — אֶבֶן אַחַת, מִזְבֵּחַ — אֲבָנִים הַרְבֵּה.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish: A platform that was damaged is permitted. Conversely, an altar of idol worship that was damaged remains prohibited until most of it is destroyed. What is considered a platform, and what is considered an altar? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A platform consists of one stone; an altar consists of many stones.
