Avodah Zarah 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

And he said to them, "

and your sin"!

Exact page location")

that you committed—I took the calf, burned it in fire, ground it thoroughly until it was fine as dust, and cast its dust into the stream that descends from the mountain."

Now, even after the Golden Calf was burned, it still remained a single mass. And although it would not thereby become fertilizer, nevertheless it was not completely destroyed; therefore, he had to grind it thoroughly—

And Rabbi Yosei derives a proof from this that Moses our teacher ground it in order to scatter it to the wind, and was not concerned that it might become fertilizer.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yosei:

Is that a proof? Does it not say

Exodus 32, in the account of the Calf: "

And he scattered it upon the surface of the water and made the Children of Israel drink it"?

Therefore, he was not concerned that it might become fertilizer.

And if you say: Why did he not cast it into the water whole, and why did he need to grind it? The answer is:

He intended only

to make the Children of Israel drink it—not those who had actually worshipped the Calf, for the Levites killed them with the sword, but those who embraced and kissed it and rejoiced in their hearts. And the water had its effect

to test them like women suspected of adultery

with unusual deaths and severe illnesses.

This is the reason that he ground it and mixed it with the water.

The beraita cites another proof brought by Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Yosei said to the Sages:

to the Sages:

But is it not already stated

in II Chronicles 15, concerning King Asa, who made a covenant with the people of Judah to seek the Lord, where it says: "

And also Maacah, the mother of Asa the king, he removed from being queen

(that is, from being queen)

who had made a monstrous image for the Asherah; and Asa cut down her monstrous image, crushed it, and burned it in the Kidron Valley."

This shows that he was not concerned that people might use the image as fertilizer, even though it was crushed and burned.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yosei:

Is that a proof? The Kidron Valley does not grow plants!

Before the Gemara continues to cite the rest of the beraita—

we raise an objection:

Is that so?

Does the Kidron Valley not grow plants?!

But

did

we not learn

a Mishna in tractate Yoma:

Both these and those

the remnants of the blood of the inner sin-offerings and the remnants of the blood of the outer sin-offerings, which are poured upon the base of the altar, with the blood exiting through openings in the altar's base onto the floor,

merge into the channel

a channel for the outflow of blood that was in the Temple courtyard,

and

from there

they flow into the Kidron Valley, and are sold to gardeners as fertilizer

for their gardens,

and one commits misuse of consecrated property through them

that is, it is forbidden to benefit from this blood without purchasing it from the treasurer.

This shows that the Kidron Valley does grow plants?

And we answer:

It contains different areas

within the Kidron Valley—

there is an area that grows plants and an area that does not grow plants.

The blood flowed into the Kidron Valley at the place that grows plants, whereas Asa cast the monstrous image into the place that does not grow plants.

The Gemara asks:

What is the meaning

of

“her monstrous image”?

Rav Yehuda said:

It is a composite word—

for it was an extraordinary object of mockery

an extraordinary mockery—

And what was that mockery?

As

the teaching

Rav Yosef taught: She made something resembling a male organ for it

for this idol,

and she would engage in intercourse with it every day.

The Gemara cites the continuation of the beraita.

Rabbi Yosei said to them

to the Sages:

But is it not already stated [

II Kings 18, concerning King Hezekiah, who did what was proper in the eyes of the Lord: “He removed the high places, smashed the pillars, and cut down the Asherah,”

and he crushed the copper serpent that Moses had made

for until those days the Children of Israel would burn incense to it."

This shows that he crushed it, and it consequently scattered in the wind; he did not cast it into the Dead Sea.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yosei:

Is that a proof?

Although the Children of Israel burned incense to it, it did not become forbidden to derive benefit from it. Why?

For it says [

Numbers 21]: "

And the Lord said to Moses: Make for yourself a fiery serpent

and place it upon a banner... And Moses made a copper serpent and placed it upon the banner.” And we infer from the fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not say to him, “Make a serpent,” but rather, “Make

for yourself,”

that the Holy One, Blessed be He, commanded that the serpent be

from your own

from Moses' copper—

and

since "

a person cannot render forbidden an object that is not his,"

the Children of Israel could not designate it as an idol, since it did not belong to them. Thus it did not become forbidden to derive benefit from, even though they burned incense to it—

And there

with regard to the copper serpent—

in truth

the fact is that

even

even

crushing was not necessary

Hezekiah did not need to crush it, since it had not become forbidden to derive benefit from—

Rather,

why did he crush it?

Once he saw

Hezekiah saw

that Israel was going astray after it

attributing supernatural powers to it—

he arose and crushed it

to publicize the matter and free the people from their error, for they had worshipped idols in the days of his father Ahaz.

This is the reason that he crushed it; no proof can be brought from there that crushing an idol alone is sufficient.

Rabbi Yosei said to them

to the Sages:

But is it not already stated [

II Samuel 5, concerning David's victory over the Philistines, who fled: "

And they abandoned their idols there

(a derogatory designation for idols)

and David and his men carried them away."

Rabbi Yosei understood this to mean that they scattered them to the wind—

And what indicates

what

“and David carried them away” is an expression of scattering?

Its meaning is scattering to the wind.

And we explain:

As

s

Rav Yosef translates

who explains

Rav Yosef the verse [

Isaiah 41]: "

You shall scatter them, and the wind shall carry them away—

And we translate: “You shall scatter them

you shall scatter them

and the wind shall carry them away

it shall carry them away—

Thus, David scattered them and did not carry them to the Dead Sea.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yosei:

Is that a proof?

For it says [

I Chronicles 14, where that same war against the Philistines is described in another version: “And they abandoned their gods there, and David said,

‘Let them be burned in fire.’”

And the Sages expound the variations between the verses: it does not mean that he first burned them and then carried them away, that is, scattered them to the wind—

And

from where do they derive this?

From

the fact

that

not

are written

both of them in a single verse: "

and he burned them and carried them away—

Conclude from this

that this is the meaning of the verses: initially he “said” that they should be burned, but they did not burn them; therefore,

he actually carried them away

he took them with him and benefited from them. [The Gemara will explain why he commanded that they be burned, why they did not burn them, and how he was permitted to take them with him and benefit from them.]

The Gemara asks:

In any event

although the Sages did not interpret “and he carried them away” as meaning that he scattered them to the wind,

the verses contradict one another

the verses conflict: one verse says that David commanded that they be burned, implying that they were forbidden to derive benefit from, while the other says that he carried them with him?

And we answer:

As

s

Rabbi

expounded

Rav Huna—

for Rav Huna raised a contradiction

between the verses:

It is written, “And David said: Let them be burned in fire,” and it is written, “and he carried them away”?

And he answers:

It is not difficult. Here

the verse that says that David commanded that they be burned was

before Ittai the Gittite came

a Philistine and one of David's friends. David had no one who could nullify them, and therefore he commanded that they be burned.

Here

the verse that says that David took them with him was

after Ittai the Gittite came

and nullified them, in accordance with the law governing the nullification of an idol by a gentile. Therefore, David took them with him.

Therefore, the Sages maintain that David did not scatter them to the wind. They do not interpret “and he carried them away” as an expression of scattering, but according to its plain meaning: he took them with him.

The Gemara cites Rav Naḥman's exposition that Ittai the Gittite nullified the idols on behalf of King David.

As it is written [

II Samuel 12, concerning David's war against Rabbah of the Ammonites and its capture:

And he took the crown of their king from upon his head; its weight was a talent of gold, with a precious stone, and it was placed upon David's head."

And “their king” does not mean their actual king; rather, it means “Milcom,” which was the name of the idol of the Ammonites, as it is called in the Book of Kings [I 11]—

And it is

difficult:

How was it permitted

Was it permitted to derive benefit from an idol?

They are objects forbidden for benefit

for idolatry is forbidden for benefit?

Rav Naḥman said: Ittai the Gittite came and nullified it.

The Gemara expounds the matter of the crown that David placed upon his head.

It is written: "

its weight was a talent of gold"—

how could he place it

How could he carry it on his head, when its weight was a talent, which is sixty maneh, and it was exceedingly heavy?

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

David did not actually place it upon his head; rather, it was

fit to rest upon David's head

as it had been made to fit the dimensions of his head and suited it, as will be explained.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It contained a magnet ["

magnet"]

It was in it; it carried it

It carried the crown above David's head, making it appear as though it were resting on his head.

Rav Elazar said:

The verse does not mean that it weighed a talent of gold; rather,

it contained a precious stone—

whose value was a talent of gold

and “its weight” means its value.

The Gemara continues to expound the matter of this crown.

King David, peace be upon him, said [Psalms 119]: "

This came to me because I guarded Your commandments."

What is he saying:

What is the “this” that he received as a reward for guarding the commandments of the Lord?

And we explain:

This is what he is saying

David said:

As a reward for guarding Your commandments—

this

the crown

served as testimony for me

that I was fit for kingship.

And we explain:

What was its testimony?

What did it testify?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: He would place it

in the groove in his head

in the place of the tefillin—

and it fit him

it sat properly on his head and matched its dimensions. That is, although the crown was perfectly round, while the head at the place of the tefillin is not round, nevertheless it sat upon his head—through a great miracle—as though it had been made to fit its dimensions. In other words, by virtue of guarding the commandments of the Lord, Heaven demonstrated that he was indeed fit for kingship.

We ask: How could he place the crown in the place of the tefillin—

but one must place there

for one must place there

the tefillin?

And we answer:

Rav Shmuel bar bar Yitzḥak said: There is room on the head to place two

boxes of

tefillin.

From one matter to another, the Gemara

cites

another exposition concerning the crown of the House of David.

It is stated concerning King Joash son of Ahaziah, who was hidden in the Temple when Athaliah, his paternal grandmother, killed all the royal offspring: when he reached his seventh year, Jehoiada the priest brought him out of hiding, made him king over Judah, and led a revolt against Athaliah, who had reigned for six years.

And it is stated there, when he first appeared before the Levites and the heads of the ancestral houses: "

And they brought out the king's son, placed the crown and the testimony upon him

and they set him upon the pillar designated for the king, clapped their hands, and proclaimed before him, “Long live the king!”

According to its plain meaning, “the testimony” is the king's Torah scroll.

And we expound:

“The crown”—this is the crown

the crown of David—

“The testimony”—

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

This crown

is testimony for the House of David: whoever is fit for kingship—

the crown

fits him, while whoever is not fit for kingship—

the crown does not

the crown

fit him.

The crown fit Joash, and this was testimony that he was fit for kingship.

Concerning this matter, we expound another teaching.

At the beginning of the Book of Kings [I 1], when King David was old, it says: "

And Adonijah

[David's son]

son of Haggith, exalted himself—

saying: ‘I shall reign.’"

And we expound:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: “he exalted himself” [

the reading of the Bach

“he sought”]

to fit it

he wanted the crown to fit his head—

but it did not fit him

it did not match the dimensions of his head, since it was round, because he was not fit or worthy to reign.

The Gemara cites another exposition concerning Adonijah.

It is further stated there, at the time of his attempt to become king: "

And he prepared for himself chariots and horsemen, and fifty men who ran before him."

The Gemara asks:

What was remarkable about it

What greatness was there in fifty men?

A tanna taught

:

All of them

were

without spleens

their spleens had been removed by means of a drug, since the spleen weighs one down and prevents one from running,

and the soles of their feet had been hollowed out—

they had

the flesh of their soles removed down to the bones, so that they could run over thorns and briers without feeling them.