Avodah Zarah 42b (מב:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection: But what of the beraita cited above, which teaches that if a gentile smoothed an idolatrous wooden object for its sake, the object is forbidden but its shavings are permitted—

and

why are its shavings permitted?

This applies to its shavings, while the main body of the idolatrous object remains

and retains its prohibition;

and

nevertheless,

it teaches: “for its sake”—

the object is forbidden but its shavings are permitted.

But the main body of the idolatrous object remains!

And we answer:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

The law concerning foliage that falls

, because an idolatrous object is not nullified through its natural growth.

That is, it is the normal practice of an Ashera throughout the year to shed its leaves and grow others, and this shedding does not constitute nullification, since the main body of the idolatrous object remains and this shedding is its normal manner.

In contrast, a wooden idol is not intended to have wood scraped from it; when the gentile does so, he intends to discard and nullify the wood, including the main part of the idol.

Resh Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan.

Resh Lakish now cites a Mishna in tractate Me'ila to prove that an idolatrous object that broke on its own is permitted.

The Mishna was taught with regard to the laws of Me'ila, and distinguishes this case from the prohibition against deriving benefit from the wood of an Ashera. 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 there is no Me'ila,

meaning that if one derived benefit from it, he has not committed Me'ila by Torah law and is not liable to bring a Me'ila offering, as will be explained; nevertheless, it is rabbinically forbidden to derive benefit from it.

But a nest found

at the top of an Ashera—

he may knock it down

and cast it from the tree

with a reed,

a stick, and use the thin pieces of wood for his needs, for burning and the like; that is, the wood of the nest may be used for benefit. But he may not climb the tree to take the chicks, since by doing so he derives benefit from the tree, which serves him as a ladder, and an Ashera is forbidden for benefit.

And Resh Lakish, who cites this Mishna,

had assumed

that it should be interpreted

as referring to a case where

the bird

broke off from it

from the branches of this Ashera

pieces of wood

thin ones,

and nested with them,

making a nest from them.

And

he now seeks to prove, from the fact that

it teaches: “He may knock it down with a reed,”

and use them, that an idolatrous object that broke on its own is nullified and may be used for benefit. [By knocking them down he did not lift them or acquire them.] This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan: How were these pieces of Ashera wood permitted for benefit?

And we answer: It is not referring to a nest made from the wood of this tree. Rather,

what are we dealing with here—

what does the Mishna discuss?

A case where it brought wood from elsewhere,

where the bird brought wood from other trees, which was not Ashera wood,

and nested with it.

Thus, no difficulty can be raised from this Mishna against Rabbi Yohanan.

And the Gemara continues: This interpretation is not forced; rather,

it can also be inferred

that this is indeed the meaning of the Mishna,

as it teaches with regard to consecrated property: “One may not derive benefit, and there is no Me'ila.”

Granted, if you say

that it should be interpreted as we explained,

that it brought wood from elsewhere,

so that the wood was not from the tree itself—

this is why it teaches

therefore we learned

with regard to consecrated property: “One may not derive benefit, and there is no Me'ila. One may not derive benefit”

means that it is forbidden to derive benefit

by

a

rabbinic decree,

as the Sages were concerned that if one were permitted to benefit from the wood of the nest, he might come to permit himself to benefit even from the wood of the tree itself ;

“and there is no Me'ila by Torah law, since it is not sacred,”

since it is not sacred, as the wood was brought from other trees.

But if you say

that the case is as the questioner wished to explain,

that it broke off pieces of wood from it,

from the consecrated tree itself,

and nested with them,

there is a difficulty:

Why is there no Me'ila?

Why is there no liability for Me'ila by Torah law?

They are sacred!

The wood is sacred with the sanctity of the Temple upkeep! Rather, it is proved that the case concerns wood brought from the branches of other trees.

The question now turns against the questioner: If he assumed that the Mishna referred to a nest made from the wood of the tree itself, why is there no Me'ila?

And he answers:

Is that necessarily so?

Is there proof here?!

In truth, the case concerns a nest made from the wood of the consecrated tree, and the reason there is no Me'ila is that

here

the case is one in which the nest was made

from growths

of wood

that came afterward,

which grew after the tree had been consecrated, and

this is the case—

and

therefore there is no Me'ila by Torah law, because the tanna of the Mishna

held: “There is no Me'ila by Torah law

with regard to growths,”

meaning additions that appeared and grew after the object was consecrated.

The questioner therefore reasoned and proved: Just as with regard to consecrated property the case concerns wood from the tree itself, so too with regard to an Ashera. Why, then, is it permitted to benefit from it? It must be because its law is that of an idolatrous object that broke on its own, which, according to the questioner, is permitted.

The Gemara now offers 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 came from the Ashera tree itself, and it is indeed forbidden for benefit, since an idolatrous object that broke on its own remains forbidden—

What does “he may knock it down” mean?

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

He knocks it down with

the purpose of taking the

chicks.

The novelty of the Mishna is that he is permitted to take the chicks with a stick, and we are not concerned that he might climb the tree and use the Ashera wood as a ladder.

According to this interpretation, the first clause of the Mishna, concerning a consecrated tree, indeed refers to someone seeking benefit from the wood of the nest; and the reason that he does not commit Me'ila by Torah law is that there is no Me'ila with regard to growths.

The essential novelty of the first clause, concerning consecrated property, is that the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from the wood of the nest lest one benefit from the tree itself. But in the latter clause, concerning Ashera wood, there is an actual Torah prohibition, since Ashera wood is forbidden even when it consists of growths that came afterward .

And we conclude:

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: “I shall explain it to you”

the Mishna according to Rabbi Yohanan—

When he comes

to take the

chicks—

in both cases,

whether in the case of consecrated property or in the case of an Ashera, they are

permitted,

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

When he comes

to take the

eggs—

in both cases,

whether in the case of consecrated property or in the case of an Ashera, they are

forbidden,

because the Sages issued a decree concerning them: Since one must lean on the tree to take them, they are treated like the tree itself .

Rav Ashi said: And chicks

that are small,

which need to be trained

by their mothers and lean on the tree—

are like

eggs in status;

their law is like that of eggs, and the Sages issued a decree concerning them, just as the tree is forbidden.

Mishna:

The Mishna adds an explanation of forms of idols that one who finds them must destroy, and which are forbidden for benefit.

One who finds utensils, and upon them a form of the

zodiacal sign

of the sun, a form of the

zodiacal sign

of the moon, or a form of a dragon

resembling a snake—

he must take them to the Dead Sea,

where they are completely lost from the world. Other figures, however, are permitted. These are the words of the Sages.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The forms

that are

upon

utensils

of honor—

are forbidden, while the forms

that are

upon disgraceful utensils—

are permitted,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks: Is that to say,

that is what it means

that our Mishna comes to teach

that these

forms specifically—the sun, moon, and dragon—

are the ones that they worship,

that gentiles worship them, whereas

other kinds

of forms,

they do not

worship—

But we raise a contradiction,

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 the seas,

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 stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael, the great minister,

the greatest of all creatures, or

for the sake of a small worm,

the smallest creature of all—

these

animals are considered

“sacrifices of the dead,”

and they are forbidden for benefit, like an offering to an idolatrous cult, which is forbidden for benefit like a corpse.

This demonstrates that gentiles are accustomed to worship all kinds of forms. If so, it is difficult: Even if one finds forms of rivers, the desert, and the like, why are they not forbidden for benefit? Why did the Mishna list only the sun, moon, and dragon?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Indeed,

they worship

whatever they worship

that they happen to find,

whatever happens to be available to them,

they worship,

and they are not limited to particular forms. Therefore the Sages did not prohibit one who finds other forms, since if they had done so, there would be no end to the matter and nothing would remain permitted. But

they both form and worship

only

these three

three forms

that are significant;

since they are considered important in the eyes of the gentiles,

they depict them

and make representations of them

and worship them. But

they do so, whereas

other kinds

of forms, if they depict them—

they make them merely for decoration,

for decorating utensils, and it is not their practice to make them for the sake of idols.

Therefore the Mishna prohibited only these three forms.

Rav Sheshet would collect difficult teachings from Mishnayot and beraitot and recite them,

meaning that Rav Sheshet would gather difficult Mishnayot and beraitot in order to reconcile and resolve them, and would teach them in the beit-midrash so that the students would pay attention to their study and attempt to resolve them. And this is how Rav Sheshet taught a beraita:

All zodiacal forms are permitted—

except for the form of the sun and the moon.

And all faces are permitted—

except for a human face.

And all forms are permitted—

except for the form of a dragon.

Rav Sheshet considers the meaning of the beraita’s permission. Does it mean that they are permitted for benefit by one who finds them, since it is certain that these are idols, as we learned in our Mishna and in the preceding Mishnayot?

Or does it mean that it is permitted to make and depict them? That is, the Sages derived from the verse [Exodus 20]: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver or gods of gold,” that it is forbidden for a Jew to “make” certain forms, even for decoration and even when they are not intended for idolatry. This is one of the negative commandments of the Torah. The reason for the prohibition is that those who err might be misled by them and think that they are intended for idolatry. Since some forms are permitted and others forbidden, as will be explained in our discussion, this might indeed be the meaning of the beraita.

The Master said: “All zodiacal forms are permitted, except for the form of the sun and the moon.”

Rav Sheshet considers:

Here,

in this beraita,

what are we dealing with,

what law does it address?

If you say

that

it concerns making them,

and it comes to teach that it is permitted to make forms of all the zodiacal signs, while it is forbidden to make only forms of the sun and moon, this is difficult:

If it concerns making them—

are all the zodiacal signs permitted?

Is it permitted to make them?!

But

is it not

written

in the Torah:

“You shall not make with Me,”

and we interpret “with Me”

as: “You shall not make forms resembling My servants who serve before Me on high,”

those who stand beside Me, so to speak, in the heavens, and these are all the zodiacal signs. If so, how could the beraita permit making all the zodiacal signs?

Rather, it is obvious

that the beraita is speaking

of one who finds them.

It comes to permit deriving benefit from a utensil that was found with a form of any zodiacal sign upon it, since gentiles do not generally depict them in order to worship them,

and

so

we learned: “One who finds utensils with a form of the sun, a form of the moon, or a form of a dragon upon them”—

he must take them to the Dead Sea.

This is now difficult:

If

the beraita is speaking

of one who finds them, let us examine the middle clause,

how should we interpret the middle ruling of the beraita, where it says:

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

And this is difficult:

If

the case is

one who finds them—

is a human face forbidden?

Is a utensil bearing a human face forbidden for benefit?!

But

is it not

taught: “One who finds utensils with a form of the sun, a form of the moon, or a form of a dragon upon them”—

he must take them to the Dead Sea,

and they are forbidden for benefit.

And we must infer that only

the form of a dragon—

is not permitted,

indeed, is forbidden for benefit, whereas

a human face is not

forbidden for benefit. How, then, did the beraita prohibit a human face for benefit?

Rather, it is obvious

that the beraita is speaking

of one who makes them,

and its intention is to permit a Jew to depict the faces of animals and beasts [each form individually, except for the forms of an ox, lion, eagle, and human being together, since these four forms resemble the heavenly servants] but to prohibit depicting a human face,

and

so

that

Rav

Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

derived in the discussion below that it is forbidden to depict a human face.

The meaning of the beraita remains difficult: How can its first clause concern one who finds them, while its middle clause concerns one who makes them? The Gemara continues to raise another difficulty:

If

the middle clause of the beraita is speaking

of one who makes them—

let us examine the final clause,

how should we interpret the third ruling in the beraita, which says:

“All forms are permitted”—

except for the form of a dragon”?

And

there is a difficulty:

If

the case is

one who makes them—

is the form of a dragon forbidden?

Is it forbidden to depict the form of a dragon?!

But

it is

written

for the Torah wrote

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

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