Avodah Zarah 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

And here

in our Mishna,

they disagree

about a tree that was planted

and was ultimately worshipped

by the gentile:

they disagree. -

The first tanna holds: A tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped -

is permitted,

because from his statement it can be understood that only mountains, hills, and similar things—objects in which human intervention played no part whatsoever—are included. This tree too was worshipped at a time when human intervention played no part in it, and the Torah excluded it by stating: “under every leafy tree” -

and we derive: but not the leafy tree itself.

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds: A tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped is forbidden.

And the Gemara asks:

From where,

is it inferred from the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that he forbids a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped?

From

what

is taught at the end,

as the Mishna continues with the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

Why is an ashera forbidden?

Because human intervention played a part in it.

And anything in which human intervention played a part -

is forbidden.

And the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in which he repeats and says: “

And anything in which human intervention played a part” -

what does it come to include?

What does it come to add? He has already fully explained the difference between mountains and hills and an ashera. -

Is it not

that

it comes to include

and forbid

a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped?

The Gemara now cites the statement of another tanna, Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda, who holds like Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda also holds: A tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped -

is forbidden.

As it was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda says: Since it is stated

“Their gods upon the mountains,”

and we derive:

but not the mountains as their gods; “their gods upon the hills,” but not the hills as their gods -

would

I understand

that one should derive from

“under every leafy tree,” their gods, but not the leafy tree itself as their gods,

and that the ashera would therefore be permitted for benefit?!

The verse therefore states

“And their asherot you shall burn with fire,”

indicating that it is forbidden for benefit.

This indicates that he holds that a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped is forbidden. For if he held that it was permitted, he could have derived—as the first tanna actually derives according to Rav Sheshet—“but not the leafy tree itself as their gods,” and the verse would thereby come to permit a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped.

If so, he should have stated as follows: Since it is stated, “under every leafy tree,” and we derive, “but not the leafy tree itself as their gods,” I would understand that all asherot are permitted. The verse therefore states, “And their asherot you shall burn with fire.” Since he did not say this, the Gemara inferred that he holds that a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped is forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

But

if so, why did the Torah write

“under every leafy tree” -

why do I need it?

The prohibition of an ashera is, after all, derived from what is stated: “And their asherot you shall burn with fire.”

And we answer: That verse

itself

is expounded

for

a derivation

like

the derivation

of

Rabbi Akiva

in our Mishna;

in our Mishna:

it comes for that purpose.

The verse comes—

For Rabbi Akiva said: I shall understand and reason before you: Wherever you find a high mountain, an elevated hill, and a leafy tree -

know that there is idol worship there,

and the Torah marks the places where they should search for idol worship in order to eradicate it.

And the Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis,

the Sages who expound the verse “under every leafy tree” as permitting a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped -

this

verse,

“And their asherot you shall burn with fire”—what do they do with it?

That is, which ashera did the Torah forbid and command to burn with fire?

They need it

to prohibit

a tree that was planted

with the seed

initially for that purpose,

for the purpose of becoming an ashera.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda -

also needs it

for the derivation of the verse “And their asherot you shall burn with fire”

for this purpose,

to derive from it the prohibition of a tree that was planted initially for the purpose of becoming an ashera. This is difficult: From where does he derive that a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped is also forbidden?

And we answer:

It is so as well: From the verse “And their asherot you shall burn with fire,” he indeed derives the prohibition of a tree that was planted initially for that purpose.

from the verse “and their Asherot you shall burn in fire” he indeed derives that a tree that he planted initially for that purpose is forbidden;

But

if so,

a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped -

from where does he derive it,

from where does he derive that it is forbidden? -

He derives it

from another verse, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 7]:

“And their asherot you shall cut down,”

and he expounds as follows:

What is the tree whose cutting down

means cutting off what was added to what had been planted,

while its principal remains permitted,

since one cuts it down but leaves its root in the ground, and it remains permitted for benefit?

You must say:

It is

a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped.

And we raise an objection: Although this derivation is valid, Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda did not state this verse.

But

the verse

“And their asherot you shall burn with fire” is what the Gemara cites for his derivation

and brought in order to expound his statement.

And we answer:

“If it had not been stated,” he said -

That is,

if it had not been stated

“And their asherot you shall burn with fire”

to derive from it the prohibition of a tree that was planted initially for the purpose of becoming an ashera,

I would say

that the verse

“And their asherot you shall cut down”

comes to derive the prohibition of

a tree that was planted initially for that purpose,

because it is certainly more logical that it should be forbidden than a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped -

and if so, a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped would indeed not be forbidden.

But now that it is written

“And their asherot you shall burn with fire,”

and it has already been expounded as prohibiting a tree that was planted initially for that purpose -

it is left over

the superfluous verse

“And their asherot you shall cut down”

to expound it as referring

to a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped.

This is the meaning of his saying, “as it is stated: ‘And their asherot you shall burn with fire’”: Since this verse serves as an “introduction” to his exposition of the second verse, “And their asherot you shall cut down.”

And the Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis,

who hold that only a tree planted initially for that purpose is forbidden, as derived from the verse “And their asherot you shall burn with fire” -

this

verse,

“And their asherot you shall cut down” -

what do they do with it,

for what halakha did the Torah write it, given that a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped does not require cutting down and is entirely permitted?

This verse is needed; it is expounded

for

a derivation

like

the derivation

of

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi -

as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The cutting down of idol worship

is performed first, upon their entry into Eretz Yisrael, and it

takes precedence over the conquest of Eretz Yisrael.

The conquest of Eretz Yisrael takes precedence over the eradication of idol worship,

and uprooting it from its root is performed only after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael.

Therefore, the Torah wrote “And their asherot you shall cut down,” to teach you that the cutting down precedes the fulfillment of the mitzva of burning.

As Rav Yosef taught:

The Torah states [Deuteronomy 12]:

“And you shall smash their altars,”

but it does not say that they should be burned; this comes to teach us: Smash

and leave them!

It further states:

“And you shall break their pillars” -

smash

and leave them!

And we wonder:

“And leave them”—does this enter your mind?

Does the Torah intend to say that one should leave them?! After all,

they require burning

to eradicate them completely from the world, so that people will not come to encounter them and violate the prohibition against benefiting from them. Moreover, the Torah itself writes [Deuteronomy 7]: “You shall burn their graven images with fire.”

And we answer:

Rav Huna said:

This derivation comes to teach us: [The reading of the Bach is

“leave”]]

the burning until after you have performed the smashing,

and pursue!

Destroy the gentiles who dwell in the land,

and afterward -

burn!

burn!

And the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda,

who expounds the verse “And their asherot you shall cut down” as referring to a tree that was planted and was ultimately worshipped -

this rationale,

that is, this instruction of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that cutting down precedes the conquest of Eretz Yisrael,

from where does he derive it,

from where does he expound it?

[It cannot be said that he derives it from the exposition of Rav Yosef, since Rav Yosef’s exposition itself relies on the exposition of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Only after we derive that it is not necessary to uproot the ashera until after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael does Rav Yosef derive that the same applies to altars and pillars. -

For in the case of an ashera, where the Torah states two forms of nullification—one, complete nullification, uprooting it from its root, and the other, cutting down its growth—it is appropriate to derive that there is one mitzva to be performed before the conquest of the land and another mitzva to be performed after the conquest of the land. -

But with regard to altars and pillars, only smashing and breaking are stated concerning them [whereas with regard to the other graven images it is stated, “You shall burn their graven images with fire”], and two forms of nullification are not stated concerning them. It can properly be said that the Torah did not command their complete eradication, and that it suffices to smash and break them. -

It is only after we find in the case of an ashera that one part is performed before the conquest and the final eradication after the conquest that it is logical to say that the same applies to altars and pillars.]

And we answer:

He derives it

from

what

the Torah states [Deuteronomy 12]:

“You shall utterly destroy,”

and we derive:

“Destroy” -

and afterward you shall destroy. Here there are two destructions, teaching us that one is before the conquest and the other after it.

And the Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis,

what will they expound from this verse, “You shall utterly destroy”?

And we answer:

This

verse

is needed

to teach us

that the

one who uproots idol worship must search out its root

and uproot it from its root; that is, destroy it through successive acts of destruction.

And the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda,

from where does he derive the halakha that one must

search out its root -

from where?

After all, he expounds the verse “You shall utterly destroy” as referring to destruction before the conquest and destruction afterward.

And we answer:

He derives it

from another verse, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 12]:

“And you shall destroy their name from that place,”

which comes to teach us to destroy it thoroughly, until its name is no longer remembered.

And the Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis, what exposition will they derive from this verse?

And we answer:

That

verse,

“And you shall destroy their name,” comes to teach us that one must

give it

a derogatory name -

as

it was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: From where

do we learn

this

halakha: The

one who uproots idol worship must search out its root -

the verse states: “And you shall destroy their name.”

the

following law:

one who uproots idolatry must pursue it to the root—

the verse states: “And you shall destroy their name.”