Avodah Zarah 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the maidservant

of a certain assailant

an Israeli violent man and a convert

in

a place called

Rimmon, who

miscarried and

cast

the

miscarried fetus into a pit, and a kohen came,

a sage and halakhic decisor,

and peered into it

the pit,

to determine whether it was male or female

in order to establish how many days of impurity and purity she had to observe [for a maidservant also observes days of impurity and purity], but he did not see the fetus. Apparently, this kohen had become part of the tent over the corpse , and did not take precautions against his becoming impure

and the incident was brought before the Sages, and they declared him pure

from the impurity of becoming part of the tent over a corpse

because a weasel and a marten are commonly found there

and they had dragged it to a place where it could not impart impurity through a tent. -

And

from now

in this case

in this incident

it is certain that she cast a fetus

into the pit, but

it is uncertain

whether the weasel

dragged it or did not drag it -

And

there comes

the

uncertainty and removes the certainty

, and therefore the Sages declared him pure.

Thus, uncertainty removes a matter from the status of certainty, which is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan?

And we answer:

Do not say

do not say:

“She certainly cast a ‘fetus’”

into the pit,

but rather say

say:

“She cast ‘something resembling a fetus’ into the pit”

like a shapir, which is a sac found in the womb filled with fluid, in which a fetus has not yet formed, and which does not impart impurity. -

And there is uncertainty as to whether there is any impurity in the pit at all, and then the uncertainty as to whether the weasel dragged it removes it from a status of uncertainty. There is no proof from here that uncertainty removes a matter from the status of “certainty.”

And we challenge this: How can it be explained in this way

“to determine whether it was male or female” -

it is taught

we learned this, and with a shapir filled with fluid there is no distinction between a male and a female?

And we answer: The kohen came to examine all these possibilities, and

this is what he is saying

this is what Rabbi Yehuda intended: The kohen peered

to determine whether she had miscarried fluid

in which case she need not observe any days for it at all, neither days of impurity nor days of purity,

or whether she had cast a fetus

in which case she must observe days of impurity and purity,

and

he further examined

whether, if you should say that she had cast a fetus,

he would then determine

whether it was male or female.

And here there is uncertainty removing a matter from uncertainty.

Alternatively, if you wish, say

that even if she certainly cast a fetus, the Sages declared him pure,

since a weasel and a marten are commonly found there, they certainly dragged it,

as they are presumed to do so.

And certainty comes and removes a matter from certainty.

Rabbi Yohanan continues to prove his position that an idol that broke on its own remains prohibited.

He challenged him

from what we learned:

One who finds a hand-shaped image

or

a foot-shaped image -

these are prohibited, because an object similar to them is worshipped -

And this is difficult:

Why

are they prohibited

they are fragments,

for they have been broken? It is demonstrated that fragments are significant and that gentiles worship them.

And we answer:

Shmuel interpreted it

explained it

Shmuel

as referring

to

a hand-shaped image or a foot-shaped image that

stand on their bases. Since these images are significant and are themselves idols, they were set upon their bases. No proof can be brought from here regarding fragments of idols

.

He challenged him

Rabbi Yohanan challenged Reish Lakish from what we learned in the next chapter:

A gentile can nullify an idol

his image

of his own and

also

that of his fellow

, even though it is not his idol. And we learned there: How does he nullify it? He cuts off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger.

But

if

an Israelite cannot nullify the idol of a gentile

a gentile.

And we challenge this from the latter clause:

Why,

why is it not nullified, even though it was not the gentile who broke it but the Israelite who broke it?

Let it be

its status

like an idol that broke on its own,

based on the reasoning of Reish Lakish: If it cannot save itself from an Israelite, it certainly cannot save others. This is difficult for Reish Lakish: Why is it not nullified simply by virtue of being broken?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

According to Reish Lakish, indeed, if an Israelite broke it, it would be nullified and permitted. The Mishna is speaking of a case where the Israelite did not break it, but rather

flattened it,

pressed it with a hammer until its form was ruined, without removing any part of it; therefore, this is not a broken idol.

And

we challenge this:

Once he flattened it, what has happened?

Why is it not nullified? Is flattening not one of the methods of nullifying idols?

And we learned,

we learned there in the Mishna:

If he flattened it,

the gentile,

even though he did not remove any part of it -

he has nullified it.

The challenge therefore returns: It is now flattened and damaged, and just as when an Israelite broke it, according to Abaye, it is nullified, why should it not be nullified when an Israelite flattened it? And we answer: Indeed, there is a distinction between breaking it and flattening it. When an Israelite breaks it, it is nullified; but with regard to flattening it,

this applies

the statement that it is nullified

when a gentile flattened it

, thereby demonstrating that he is angry with it and disgraces it. The act of flattening itself nullifies it [in conjunction with the fact that it has been damaged; other acts of disgrace and anger are not considered nullification, as explained there

. But

when

an Israelite flattened it, it is not nullified,

and the gentile says: The idol does not object to being flattened.

But if the Israelite broke it “literally,” it is nullified on its own, according to Abaye and according to Reish Lakish, based on the aforementioned reasoning: The gentile says, “If it could not save itself from an Israelite, it cannot save others.”

And Rava said: Actually,

the truth is that

when an Israelite flattened it, it too is nullified.

That is, there is no distinction between breaking and flattening, and the Israelite’s act of flattening, like breaking it, is a complete nullification.

Rather,

if so, why is it not nullified according to Reish Lakish? Ultimately, it is broken, and the gentile despairs of it?

The reason is that the Sages prohibited it in every case in which an Israelite nullified it, because of

a decree lest

previously he

lift it

from ownerless property, and by lifting it he acquires it, so that it belongs to him,

and then nullifies it -

And it becomes an idol in the possession of an Israelite -

And any idol

that comes

into the possession of an Israelite

and is his property -

can never be nullified

and requires eradication, as we learned in the next chapter.

He challenged him

Rabbi Yohanan challenged Reish Lakish: We learned a beraita:

A gentile who brought stones from the

idol called

Markulis,

which is a heap of stones, and anyone who worships it throws a stone at it,

and

the gentile

covered roads and thoroughfares

with them,

roads and city streets

[the version of the Rashash:

and intercity roads,

which are roads from one city to another] -

they are permitted

the stones are permitted for benefit, because the gentile nullified them by dismantling the heap.

But

if

an Israelite brought stones from Markulis and covered roads and thoroughfares with them -

they are prohibited

for benefit.

And this is difficult:

Why

are they prohibited?

Let them be like an idol that broke on its own,

for ultimately the heap has been dismantled, as stated above

are they forbidden?

,

and this is difficult for Reish Lakish?

And we answer:

Here too, it is

as

Rava

said: There is a decree lest the Israelite lift the entire heap before dismantling it, in which case his nullification would not be effective, because it would be an idol in the possession of an Israelite.

He challenged him

Rabbi Yohanan challenged Reish Lakish from what we learned in a beraita:

A gentile who shaved an idol,

scraping off pieces from a wooden idol, if he did so

for his own needs

in order to use the shavings as fuel, then

it

the idol

and its shavings are permitted,

because through the act of shaving he nullified it. But if he did so

for its needs,

to beautify it, then

it is prohibited,

because he did not nullify it,

but its shavings are permitted,

because he discards them and does not worship them.

But

if

an Israelite shaved an idol

belonging to a gentile,

whether for his own needs or for its needs -

it and its shavings are prohibited.

And this is difficult:

Why

are they prohibited when an Israelite shaved it for his own needs?

Let it be like an idol that broke on its own.

Granted, if he shaved it for its needs, it is prohibited, because even if a gentile had shaved it, it would remain prohibited. But if an Israelite shaved it for his own needs, it should be nullified?

And we answer:

Here too, it is

as

Rava

said:

There is a decree lest he lift it before nullifying it, thereby acquire it; and nullification is not effective for an idol belonging to an Israelite.

A decree lest he lift it before annulling it, and acquire it, and annulment does not help for it, since there is no annulment for an idolatrous object belonging to an Israelite.

He challenged him

Rabbi Yohanan challenged Reish Lakish from what we learned: An Israelite who finds a metal idol—what should he do with it in order to eradicate it from the world, so that an Israelite will not benefit from it?

Rabbi Yose says: He should grind it

into pieces

and scatter

its fragments

to the wind

or

throw it into the sea.

The Sages said to him,

to Rabbi Yose: This is not a proper way to eradicate it, because

even it

the fragments

becomes fertilizer

to fertilize the soil when scattered to the wind, and the Israelite will thereby benefit from them when his field is improved,

as it is written

[Deuteronomy 13]: “

Nothing from the banned property shall cling to your hand,”

rather, he should take it to the Dead Sea or other similar places where it will be completely destroyed.

And this is difficult:

Why

are the fragments prohibited for benefit?

Let them be like an idol that broke on its own?

And we answer:

Here too, it is

as

Rava

said

,

that it is prohibited solely because of a decree lest he lift it and afterward nullify it.

He challenged him

Rabbi Yohanan challenged Reish Lakish: We learned a beraita:

Rabbi Yose ben Yasyan says: If he found

the Israelite

the image of a dragon

[like a snake], which is one of the forms that gentiles worship, and

its head was cut off -

it is uncertain

to him whether

a gentile cut it off

and nullified it, or

an Israelite cut it off

and it is prohibited;

it is permitted

to benefit from the image, on the basis of a compound uncertainty: perhaps it was never worshipped, and even if it was worshipped, perhaps the gentile nullified it.

But if it is

certain

that

the Israelite cut it off -

it is prohibited.

And this is difficult:

Why

is it prohibited?

Let it be like an idol that broke on its own,

for it is now broken?

And we answer:

Here too, it is

as

Rava

said,

that

there is concern lest he lift it and afterward nullify it.

He challenged him

Rabbi Yohanan challenged Reish Lakish: A tree of an Ashera—one may not sow vegetables beneath it during the summer, because one benefits from the shade of the tree, and an Ashera is prohibited for benefit. But one may sow vegetables beneath it during the rainy season, since during the rainy season the shade harms the vegetables, and he does not benefit from the Ashera; these are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Yose says: Even not

may one sow beneath it

vegetables during the rainy season, because the fallen leaves

the leaves that fall from it during the rainy season

fall upon them

and the owner of the vegetables benefits from them as fertilizer for the soil.

And this is difficult:

Why,

for the leaves fall from the tree on their own because of the wind -

let them be like an idol that broke on its own

and be nullified and permitted for benefit according to Reish Lakish—and why is it prohibited to benefit from the fallen leaves? [

This challenge cannot be answered with the aforementioned answer, “as Rava said,” because it was not an Israelite who nullified them; rather, they fell from the tree on their own.]

And we answer:

There it is different

there, in the case of the Ashera, its law is different, since

the principal of the idol

the Ashera

remains extant

, and therefore even the leaves that fall from it are prohibited [as will be explained].