Avodah Zarah 42b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection: But there is the beraita that was brought above, and it teaches in it that if a gentile trimmed an idol of wood for its sake, it is forbidden and its trimmings are permitted—

And

why are its trimmings permitted?

Is this not its trimmings, while the principal of the idolatry remains

and remains in its prohibition,

and

nevertheless

it teaches: “for its sake”—

it is forbidden and its trimmings are permitted.

But the principal of the idolatry remains?

And we answer:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said

the law is different with refuse that falls,

because idolatry is not nullified by way of its growth

That is to say: An asherah ordinarily sheds its leaves throughout the entire year and grows others, and there is no nullification in this falling, since the principal of the idolatry remains, and its manner is this falling.

Unlike a wooden idol that is not intended to have wood scraped from it, and when the gentile does this, his intention is to throw it away and nullify it, even with regard to the principal of the idol.

Resh Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan.

Now Resh Lakish brings a Mishna in tractate Meila to prove that idolatry that broke by itself is permitted.

The Mishna was taught concerning the laws of misappropriation, and distinguishes between it and the prohibition of deriving benefit from the wood of an asherah. And so we learned:

A nest

of a bird

that

nested

at the top of a tree—

one may not derive benefit

from it

and one does not commit misappropriation,

if one derived benefit, one did not commit misappropriation by Torah law and is not liable for a misappropriation offering, as will be explained; nevertheless, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it by rabbinic law.

But a nest found

at the top of an asherah—

he shall knock it down

and cast it from the tree

with a reed,

with a stick, and he may use the thin wood for his needs, for burning and the like; that is to say: the wood of the nest is permitted for benefit. But he may not climb the tree to take the chicks, because by doing so he derives benefit from the tree, which serves him as a ladder, and an asherah is forbidden for benefit.

And Resh Lakish, who brings this Mishna,

it entered his mind

to interpret it

as when

the bird

broke from it

from the branches of this asherah

wood

thin

and nested with them

and made a nest from them.

And

now there is proof, from what

it teaches: “he shall knock it down with a reed”

and use them, that idolatry that broke by itself is nullified and permitted for benefit. [And by knocking them down he did not lift them and did not acquire them.] This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan: why were these woods of an asherah permitted for benefit?

And we answer: It is not speaking of a nest made from the wood of this tree, but

what are we dealing with here

what does the Mishna speak of?

As when it brought wood from elsewhere,

the bird brought wood from other trees, which are not asherah wood,

and nested with them.

And there is no difficulty from this Mishna against Rabbi Yohanan.

And the Gemara continues: This interpretation is not forced, but

one can also infer it

it is possible to infer this from the Mishna,

for it teaches concerning consecrated property: “one may not derive benefit and one does not commit misappropriation”—

if you say, granted

if you interpret it as we interpreted it,

that it brought wood from elsewhere,

that the wood is not from the tree itself—

this is what it teaches

therefore we learned

concerning consecrated property: “one may not derive benefit and one does not commit misappropriation.” “One may not derive benefit”

it is forbidden to derive benefit

because of

a decree

of the Sages,

who were concerned lest, if they permit him to derive benefit from the wood of the nest, he come to permit himself to derive benefit even from the wood of the tree itself ,

“and one does not commit misappropriation” by Torah law, for they are not sacred

since they are not sacred, because the wood was brought from other trees.

But, if you say

if you say, as the questioner wanted to say,

that it broke wood from it

from the consecrated tree itself

and nested with them,

it is difficult:

why does one not commit misappropriation?

Why is there no liability for misappropriation by Torah law?

They are sacred

after all, the wood is sacred with the sanctity of the Temple repairs! Rather, it is proven that it is speaking of a case in which it brought wood from branches of other trees.

And now the difficulty turns against the questioner: If it entered his mind to interpret the Mishna as referring to a nest made from the wood of the tree itself, why does one not commit misappropriation?

And he answers:

Is it necessarily so

is there proof here?!

The truth is that it is speaking of a nest made from the wood of the consecrated tree, and the reason that one does not commit misappropriation is:

here

here it is speaking of a nest made

from growths

of wood

that come afterward,

which grew after the tree was consecrated, and in this

we are dealing—

And

therefore one does not commit misappropriation by Torah law, because the tan­nah of the Mishna

holds: “There is no misappropriation by Torah law

with growths,”

with additions that were added and grew after he consecrated it.

And therefore the questioner reasoned and proved: Just as with regard to consecrated property it is speaking of the wood of the tree itself, so too with regard to an asherah. And why is it permitted to derive benefit from them? It must be because its law is like that of “idolatry that broke by itself,” which is permitted according to the questioner.

And now the Gemara brings another rejection of the proof that Resh Lakish brought from that Mishna.

And Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan,

indeed, the wood of the nest was brought from the asherah tree itself, and it is indeed forbidden for benefit, since idolatry that broke by itself is forbidden—

What does “he shall knock it down” mean

if it is forbidden to derive benefit from the wood, for what purpose does he knock down the nest?—

He shall knock it down in order

to take the

chicks.

And the novelty in the Mishna is that they permitted him to take the chicks with a stick, and were not concerned lest he climb the tree and use the asherah tree as a ladder.

And according to this interpretation, the first clause of the Mishna, concerning a tree of consecrated property, indeed speaks of one coming to derive benefit from the wood of the nest, and the reason that he does not commit misappropriation by Torah law is that there is no misappropriation with growths.

And the principal novelty in the first clause, concerning consecrated property, is that the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from the wood of the nest lest he derive benefit from the tree itself, whereas in the latter clause, concerning the wood of an asherah, there is an actual Torah prohibition, because asherah wood is forbidden even when it consists of growths that come afterward .

And we conclude:

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Tahlifa: I shall explain it to you

I shall explain the Mishna to you according to Rabbi Yohanan—

When

he comes to take the

chicks—

in both cases

whether concerning consecrated property or concerning an asherah

they are permitted,

because they do not belong to the tree and were not forbidden along with it, even by rabbinic law.

When

he comes to take the

eggs—

in both cases,

whether concerning consecrated property or concerning an asherah,

they are forbidden,

because the Sages decreed concerning them: Since they need to lean upon the tree, they are like the tree itself .

Rav Ashi said: And chicks

that are small

that require their mother’s training

and lean upon the tree—

like

the

eggs they are considered

their law is like the law of eggs, and the Sages decreed concerning them, just as the tree is forbidden.

Mishna:

The Mishna adds to explain forms of idols that one who finds them must eradicate, and they are forbidden for benefit.

One who finds vessels, and upon them the form of

a constellation of

the sun, the form of

a constellation of

the moon, the form of a dragon

in the likeness of a snake—

shall take them to the Dead Sea,

and there they are completely lost from the world. But other idols are permitted. These are the words of the Sages.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The forms

that are

upon

vessels

of honor—

are forbidden, while the forms

that are

upon disgraceful vessels—

are permitted, and it will be explained in the Gemara.

as will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks: Is it so that

to say,

our Mishna comes to say

that these

forms specifically—the sun, moon, and dragon—

are the ones they worship, the gentiles worship them, whereas

that gentiles worship them, whereas

other things, other forms,

of forms,

they do not, the gentiles do not worship them—

worship—

And we can juxtapose it, there is a beraita that contradicts this, as we learned in the Tosefta to tractate Hullin [chapter 2]:

as there is a beraita that contradicts this, as we learned in the Tosefta to tractate Chullin [chapter 2]:

One who slaughters

animals

for the sake of seas, for the sake of the minister appointed over the seas, and likewise

for the sake of the official appointed over the seas, and likewise

for the sake of rivers, for the sake of the desert, for the sake of the sun, for the sake of the moon, for the sake of the stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael, the great minister,

the greatest of all creatures, or

for the sake of a small worm,

a small worm, the smallest of all creatures—

these

animals are considered

“sacrifices of the dead,”

and they are forbidden for benefit, according to the law of an offering to idolatry, which is forbidden for benefit like a corpse.

It follows that the gentiles’ practice is to worship all kinds of forms. This is difficult, then: Even if one finds forms such as rivers, the desert, and the like, why are they not forbidden for benefit, and why did the Mishna list only the sun, moon, and dragon?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Indeed,

to worship

to worship

everything they find,

whatever happens to present itself to them,

they worship,

they worship, and they are not limited to particular forms. Therefore the Sages did not forbid one who finds other forms, for if so there would be no end to the matter, and you would have nothing permitted. But

they carve and worship,

to carve and worship only

these three

these three forms

that are important,

which have importance in the eyes of the gentiles;

they carve them,

they depict them

and worship them,

and worship them, whereas

other things, other forms, if they depict them—

of forms, if they depict them—

they make them merely for decoration,

they do so for the decoration of the vessels, and it is not their practice to do so for the sake of idols.

Therefore the Mishna forbade only these three forms.

Rav Sheshet would collect difficult teachings of Mishnayot and teach them,

Rav Sheshet would collect difficult and challenging Mishnayot and beraitot in order to reconcile and answer them, and he would teach them in the beit-midrash, so that the students would pay attention to their study and try to answer them. And so Rav Sheshet taught a beraita:

All the constellations are permitted—

except for the constellation of the sun and moon.

And all the faces are permitted—

except for the face of a human being.

And all the forms are permitted—

except for the form of a dragon.

And Rav Sheshet analyzes what the beraita means by “permitted”: Does the permission concern deriving benefit for one who finds them, for these are certainly idols, as we learned in our Mishna and in the preceding Mishnayot?

Or does it mean that it is permitted to make them and draw them? That is to say, the Sages expounded from what is stated [Exodus 20], “You shall not make with Me gods of silver and gods of gold,” that it is forbidden for an Israelite to “make” certain forms, even for decoration, and even though they are not for the purpose of idolatry. This is one of the prohibitions enumerated among the prohibitions of the Torah. The reason for the prohibition is so that those who err should not be misled by them and imagine that they are for idolatry. And since there are forms that are permitted and forms that are forbidden, as will be explained in our discussion, it is possible that this is the intention of the beraita.

The master said: “All the constellations are permitted, except for the constellation of the sun and moon.”

And Rav Sheshet analyzes:

Here,

in this beraita,

with what are we dealing,

what law does it concern?

If you say,

if you say

with one who makes,

and it comes to teach us that it is permitted to make forms of all the constellations, and that it is forbidden to make only the form of the sun and moon, this is difficult:

If it is with one who makes—

are all the constellations permitted,

is it permitted to make them?!

But

it is

written,

the Torah has written

“You shall not make with Me,”

and we expound: “With Me”—

you shall not make in the likeness of My ministers who minister before Me on high,

who stand with Me, so to speak, in the heavens, and these are all the constellations. If so, how did the beraita permit making all the constellations?

Rather, it is obvious

that the beraita speaks

of one who finds.

And it comes to permit for benefit a vessel that was found with the form of all the constellations upon it, because it is not the practice of gentiles to depict them in order to worship them,

and

just

as we learned: “One who finds vessels, and upon them the form of the sun, the form of the moon, the form of the dragon”—

shall take them to the Dead Sea.

And now this is difficult:

If

the beraita speaks

of one who finds, let us say the middle clause,

how shall we interpret the middle law of the beraita, where it says:

“All the faces are permitted, except for the face of a human being”?

And it is difficult:

If

it is speaking

of one who finds—

is the face of a human being forbidden?

Is a vessel with a human face upon it forbidden for benefit?!

But

it is

taught: “One who finds vessels, and upon them the form of the sun, the form of the moon, the form of the dragon”—

shall take them to the Dead Sea,

and they are forbidden for benefit.

And we must infer that only

the form of a dragon—

not,

indeed is forbidden for benefit, but

the face of a human being, not,

is not forbidden for benefit; so how did the beraita forbid the face of a human being for benefit?

Rather, it is obvious

that the beraita speaks

of one who makes,

and its intention is to permit an Israelite to draw the faces of animals and beasts [each form separately, except for the forms of an ox, lion, eagle, and human being together, because these four forms are the likeness of the ministers above], and to forbid drawing the face of a human being,

and

just

as

Rav expounded

Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

in the discussion below, that it is forbidden to draw the face of a human being.

And the meaning of the beraita is already difficult: How can it be that the first clause speaks of “one who finds,” while the middle clause speaks of “one who makes”? And the Gemara continues to raise another difficulty:

If

the beraita, in its middle clause, speaks

of one who makes—

let us say the latter clause,

how shall we interpret the third law of the beraita, where it says:

“All the forms are permitted”—

“except for the form of a dragon.”

And

it is difficult:

If

it is speaking

of one who makes—

is the form of a dragon forbidden,

is it forbidden to draw the form of a dragon?!

But

it

is written

for behold, the Torah wrote

“You shall not make with Me gods of silver and gods of gold”

, and we expound later in the sugya that it is forbidden to depict the form of the heavenly attendants.