Avodah Zarah 45b — the Talmud in English

And here:

in our Mishna,

with a tree that he planted

not for the sake of an Asherah

and in the end worshipped

by the gentile,

they disagree. —

The first tanna holds: a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped —

is permitted,

for from his words it is heard only [of] mountains and hills and things similar to them, things in which there was no human involvement at all; and among them is this tree, which they worshipped at a time when there was no human involvement in it, and the Torah excluded it by saying, “under every green tree” — \-

and we derive: and not the green tree itself.

And Rabbi Yose the Galilean holds: a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped is forbidden.

And the Gemara asks:

From where,

from where is it heard from the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean that he forbids a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped?

From

what

he teaches at the end,

that the Mishna continues the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean:

Why is an Asherah forbidden?

Because there is human involvement in it.

And everything in which there is human involvement —

is forbidden.

And the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who repeats and says,

“And everything in which there is human involvement” —

what does this come to include,

what does he come to add, for he explained fully the difference between mountains and hills and an Asherah? —

Is it not,

is it not the case that

to include,

he comes to include and forbid

a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped?

And now the Gemara brings the words of another tanna, Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah, who holds like Rabbi Yose the Galilean.

And Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah as well holds: a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped —

is forbidden.

For it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says: Since it is stated

“Their gods upon the mountains,”

and we derive:

and not the mountains their gods; “their gods upon the hills,” and not the hills their gods —

do

I hear

to derive

“under every green tree,” their gods, and not the green tree their gods,

and the Asherah would be permitted for benefit?!

The verse states

“and their Asherot you shall burn in fire,”

for it is forbidden for benefit.

It follows that he holds that a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped is forbidden. For if he held that it is permitted, he could have derived, [as indeed the first tanna derives according to Rav Sheshet], “and not the green tree their gods,” and the verse comes to permit a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped.

And if so, he should have said in this language: Since it is stated, “under every green tree,” and we derive, “and not the green tree their gods” — I would hear that all the Asherot are permitted. The verse states, “and their Asherot you shall burn in fire.” And since he did not say so, the Gemara inferred that he holds that a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped is forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

Rather,

if so, what is the purpose of what the Torah wrote,

“under every green tree” —

why do I need it?

For the prohibition of an Asherah is learned from what is stated, “and their Asherot you shall burn in fire.”

And we answer: that

verse

is expounded

for

an interpretation

like

the interpretation

of

the interpretation of

Rabbi Akiva

in our Mishna;

it has come

the verse has come —

For Rabbi Akiva said: I shall understand and reason before you: Every place where you find a high mountain, a lofty hill, and a green tree —

know that there is idolatry there,

and the Torah marks the places where they should search to find idolatry in order to eradicate it.

And the Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis,

the Sages who derive from the verse “under every green tree” to permit a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped —

this

verse,

“and their Asherot you shall burn in fire”—what do they do with it?

That is, which Asherah did the Torah forbid and command to burn in fire?

They need it

the verse comes to forbid

a tree that he planted

the seed

initially for that purpose,

for the sake of an Asherah.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah —

also needs it

for he too needs to expound the verse “and their Asherot you shall burn in fire”

for this,

to derive from it to forbid a tree that he planted initially for the sake of an Asherah; and it is difficult: from where does he derive from this verse to forbid also a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped?

And we answer:

This too,

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;

rather,

if so,

a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped —

from where does he have 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 derives as follows:

What is the tree whose cutting down

what was added to what they planted

is forbidden, but its principal is permitted,

he does not cut down and leave it in the ground, and it is permitted to benefit from it?

You must say!

This is

a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped.

And we raise an objection: Even though this interpretation is correct, did Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah not state this verse? —

But

the verse

“and their Asherot you shall burn in fire” is what the Talmud brings for it

it brought it in order to expound his interpretation?

And we answer:

“If it had not been stated,” he says —

That is,

if it had not been stated

“and their Asherot you shall burn in fire”

to derive from it the prohibition of a tree that he planted initially for the sake of an Asherah,

I would say

that the verse

“and their Asherot you shall cut down”

comes to derive that it is forbidden

in a tree that he planted initially for that purpose,

because it is certainly more reasonable that it is more forbidden than a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped —

and if so, indeed a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped would not be forbidden—but

now that it is written

“and their Asherot you shall burn in fire,”

and it has already been expounded from it to forbid a tree that he planted initially for that purpose—

it is left over for him

the superfluous verse

“and their Asherot you shall cut down”

to expound it

for a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped .

And this is his intention when he says, as it is stated, “and their Asherot you shall burn in fire”: Since this verse serves him as an “introduction” to his interpretation of the second verse, “and their Asherot you shall cut down.”

And the Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis,

who hold that only a tree that he planted initially for that purpose is forbidden, and this is learned from the verse “and their Asherot you shall burn in fire”—

this

verse,

“and their Asherot you shall cut down” —

what do they do with it,

for which halakha did the Torah write it, since a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped does not require cutting down and the whole of it is permitted?

This verse is needed; it is expounded

for

an interpretation

like

the interpretation

of

the interpretation of

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi —

For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: The cuttings down of idolatry

are done first, upon their entering the Land of Israel, and they

precede the conquest of the Land of Israel.

The conquest of the Land of Israel precedes the eradication of idolatry,

and the uprooting from the root is to be done after the conquest of the Land of Israel.

Therefore the Torah wrote, “and their Asherot you shall cut down,” to teach you that the cutting down is before fulfilling the mitzva of burning.

For Rav Yosef taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 12],

“And you shall demolish their altars,”

and it did not say to burn them; this comes to teach us: demolish

and leave!

And it is further stated,

“And you shall smash their pillars” —

demolish

and leave!

And we wonder:

“And leave”—does it enter your mind?

Did the Torah intend to say that he should leave it?! After all,

burning is required

they need to be completely removed from the world, so that one will not come to encounter them in the prohibition of benefit. Moreover, the Torah itself writes [Deuteronomy 7], “the graven images of their gods you shall burn in fire.”

And we answer:

Rav Huna said: This interpretation comes to teach us: [the reading of the Bach:

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

leave]

the burning after you have carried out the demolition,

and pursue!

Finish off the gentiles who dwell in the land,

and afterward —

burn!

And the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah,

who expounds the verse “and their Asherot you shall cut down” concerning a tree that he planted and in the end worshipped —

this reasoning,

that is, this command of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, that cutting down precedes the conquest of the Land of Israel,

from where does he have it,

from where does he derive it?

[And one cannot say that he derives it from the interpretation of Rav Yosef, for Rav Yosef’s interpretation itself relies upon the interpretation of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. Only after we derive that it is not necessary to uproot the Asherah until after the conquest of the Land of Israel did Rav Yosef derive that the same law applies to altars and pillars. —

For in the case of an Asherah, where the Torah wrote two forms of nullification, one a complete nullification—uprooting from the root—and the other cutting down the growths, it is possible to derive that there is here a mitzva before the conquest of the land and a mitzva after the conquest of the land —

but in the case of altars and pillars, only demolition and smashing were stated concerning them [and concerning the other graven images it is stated, “the graven images of their gods you shall burn in fire”], and two forms of nullification were not stated concerning them—it is properly possible to say that the Torah did not command complete eradication, and it is sufficient if he demolishes and smashes them —

and only after we found concerning an Asherah that one part is done before the conquest and the final eradication is done after the conquest, is it reasonable to say that the same law applies to altars and pillars].

And we answer:

He derives it

this mitzva he derives

from

what the Torah said [Deuteronomy 12],

“You shall utterly destroy,”

and we derive:

destroy —

and afterward you shall destroy; here there are two destructions, and this comes to teach us that one is before the conquest and the second is after it.

And the Gemara asks:

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 for him

it was needed

to

teach us that the

one who uproots idolatry must uproot it from its root,

to uproot it from the root—that is, to destroy it with destruction after destruction.

And the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah,

the halakha that one must

uproot it from its root —

from where does he have it?

After all, he expounds the verse “you shall utterly destroy” for the interpretation of destruction before the conquest and destruction after it.

And we answer:

He derives it

he expounds it

from

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

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

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

And the Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis,

which interpretation will they expound from this verse?

And we answer:

That

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

give it a name

of disgrace —

as

for it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: From where

do we learn

the

following halakha: The

one who uproots idolatry must uproot it from its root —

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