Avodah Zarah 47b — the Talmud in English

Then the place of the thickness of the wall

is judged as half and half.

That is, if the thickness of the wall was two cubits, one must calculate from them the place of half of its wall, which is one cubit, and he must distance himself another three cubits into his own domain [but he does not count the place of the half-thickness of the wall belonging to idolatry within the four cubits].

3.

Its stones, its wood, and its earth

of the wall

impart impurity

through impurity of contact,

as

the impurity of

a creeping creature,

which imparts impurity through contact but not through carrying—

As it is stated

regarding the impurity of idolatry [Deuteronomy 7]: “

You shall utterly detest it.”

“Detest” is an expression of “creeping creature,” and through this the verse teaches that idolatry imparts impurity through contact, according to the law of the impurity of a creeping creature. These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Akiva

is stringent and

says:

It also imparts impurity to the stones of the house through impurity of carrying,

like a menstruant woman,

who imparts impurity to the one carrying her, even if he does not touch her.

As it is stated

in the words of the prophet Isaiah concerning the idols [Isaiah 30]: “

You shall cast them away [

you shall distance them]

like a menstruant woman [

a menstruant woman].

Go out, say to it.”

The verse compared the impurity of idols to the impurity of a menstruant woman:

Just as a menstruant woman imparts impurity through carrying,

so too idolatry imparts impurity through carrying.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One withdraws four cubits within his own domain.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: How could they require him to withdraw four cubits within his own domain?

But he is providing room for idolatry,

for through this he makes an open and spacious place for idolatry, so that it can use the vacant place for its needs?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Hanina of Sura said:

He can do it in a manner that does not benefit idolatry,

by making it a bathroom,

designating the vacant place for relieving himself.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But he requires privacy;

if he relieves himself there, for reasons of privacy he must also build another parallel wall, close to the wall of the idolatry, whereas our Mishna forbids him to build a wall in the area between himself and the idolatry?

The Gemara answers: He does not need to build another wall for the sake of privacy, because

he makes it a nighttime bathroom,

when no one sees him.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But the Master said,

for we learned in a baraita:

Who is modest?

One who

relieves himself at night

in the place where he relieves himself during the day!

And even though we established,

that there the intention of the baraita is to say

in the manner

in which he relieves himself during the day, he relieves himself at night [that is, the intention of the baraita is not to say that “in the place” where he relieves himself during the day he also relieves himself at night, for at night one need not distance himself outside the settlement of human beings. Rather, the intention of the baraita is to say that in the “manner” in which he relieves himself during the day, so too he relieves himself at night, in the manner of exposing a handbreadth or two handbreadths],

nevertheless,

in any event, even at night

he must practice privacy,

and if he relieves himself close to the house of the idolatry, the gentiles see him, and necessarily he must make a wall adjacent to the house of the idolatry!?

Therefore, the Gemara establishes it in another manner:

He makes it

a bathroom

for children,

who do not require privacy.

Alternatively, he fences it off,

he makes a fence there

with thorn bushes and brambles,

thorns and brambles.

Mishna:

The idolatry of a gentile can be nullified. But the idolatry of a Jew can never be nullified, and it is not nullified even when a gentile nullifies it.

There are three houses,

which differ in their laws regarding the law of nullification of idolatry.

A house that he built at the outset for idolatry —

this

entire house

is forbidden.

If a gentile built it, it is forbidden until the gentile nullifies it from being idolatry, by demolishing part of it. And if a Jew built it, it is never nullified. Rather, he must take its stones, its earth, and its wood to the Salt Sea.

2. But if he did not build it at the outset for the sake of idolatry, but rather the house was initially built for dwelling, and only afterward he designated it for idolatry [but he still did not worship it!], and so that the house would serve the idolatry he

plastered and decorated it [

another version:

decorated it],

plastered it with lime and made drawings in it

for idolatry, and renewed

something in the house for the needs of idolatry—since the house was not entirely built at the outset for idolatry, and they still had not worshipped the house, but had only renewed something in it for idolatry, then even if a Jew comes to nullify it, he does not need to demolish the whole of it and destroy it; rather, it is sufficient that he

remove what he renewed.

And the entire house is permitted, because it was not built for idolatry, and it was not worshipped.

But if it was worshipped, for example, if he bowed down to the house itself, the entire house is forbidden. Nullification helps it only if a gentile worshipped it, by the gentile demolishing part of it. But if Jews worshipped it, it can never be nullified.

3. And if he did not even plaster and decorate it for idolatry, but rather it was a house built for dwelling

and he brought idolatry into it,

temporarily, and did not designate it for the service of idolatry,

and removed it—

this is permitted,

and no repair of any kind is needed for the house.

Gemara:

Rav said: One who bows down to a house—

forbids it

from benefit because of idolatry.

And the Gemara proves from here:

Apparently, he holds—

Rav—that something that was

detached and ultimately attached,

such as a house, whose stones were initially detached and now are attached to the ground,

is considered like something detached,

and therefore it is forbidden even though it is now attached. For if its law were like that of something attached, it would not be forbidden, as we learned above: “Their gods upon the mountains”—but not, “the mountains are their gods.” The verse teaches concerning something attached to the ground that they worshipped: it is not forbidden.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But we,

“A house that he

built

at the outset for the sake of idolatry,”

learned,

and it implies that if the house was already built and standing, and afterward he worshipped it, it is not forbidden even if he bowed down to it, since the house was attached to the ground when they worshipped it—and this is so even though at the outset the stones of the house were detached. And this is difficult for Rav?

The Gemara answers: The intention of the Mishna is to introduce and state that if he

built it

for idolatry, it is forbidden immediately,

even though he did not bow down to it!

But if he

bowed down

to it, it is forbidden

even though he did not build it,

in accordance with Rav’s words.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

that a house to which he bowed down is also forbidden, why did the Mishna not teach it? And why did the Mishna say, “

Three

houses are”? For according to this,

four

houses

there would be!

The Gemara answers:

Since we learned it with regard to “nullification”,

for our Mishna deals with the law of nullification, therefore, with regard to the law of nullification, there are only three houses, because the law of

building

a house initially for idolatry

and the law of

the law of

bowing down

to a house that had already been built are counted as the law of

one

house;

he counts it as one,

because their laws are equal with regard to nullification: if it belongs to a gentile, he must nullify it by demolishing part of it, and if it belongs to a Jew, the house can never be nullified.

Mishna:

Our Mishna explains the law of a stone that they set up for idolatry, and worship the stone itself. Its law is like the law of a house.

There are three stones

with regard to the law of nullification of idolatry.

A.

A stone that he hewed at the outset

from the mountain

for a bimos,

to make it a place of seating for idolatry, and they worshipped the stone of the bimos itself as idolatry—

it is forbidden,

even if he has not yet placed the idolatry upon the stone.

And if a gentile hewed it, the gentile must nullify it by diminishing it until it is blemished. And if a Jew hewed it for the purpose of idolatry, it can never be nullified.

B. A stone hewn previously not for the purpose of idolatry, and he

plastered and decorated it for the sake of idolatry,

so that it would be fit to place idolatry upon it and to bow down to the stone, but he still had not worshipped the stone—

the Jew removes

from it

what the gentile plastered and decorated,

and destroys them,

and

the stone itself

is permitted,

because the stone itself is still not idolatry, but only the renewal that he made upon it; therefore, he removes the renewal, and this is sufficient for him.

C. And if he did not even plaster and decorate it, but only

placed idolatry upon it

temporarily, and did not designate the stone for this purpose,

and removed it,

the idolatry from there,

this

stone

is permitted,

and does not require nullification.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: He plastered and decorated it for the sake of idolatry; he removes what he plastered and decorated, and it is permitted.

Rabbi Ami said: And this,

the Mishna speaks when he

plastered and decorated in the body of the stone,

when he carved a design in it with iron. But if he plastered and decorated on its surface—not.

The Gemara understood that Rabbi Ami’s opinion is that if he did not plaster and decorate in the body of the stone, it is not forbidden at all, and is permitted without nullification, like a stone upon which he placed idolatry. Therefore, the Gemara asks how this can be said?

But we learned the Mishna as analogous to a house,

for the Mishna compares the three laws of the stone to the three laws of the house;

and a house is not [plastered] in its body,

for one does not plaster the actual stones of the house,

and

nevertheless

it is forbidden,

and he must remove what he plastered and decorated, and its law is not like that of a house into which he brought idolatry?

The Gemara answers:

A house also

has its plastering and decorating in its body, because

there are spaces between the rows,

there is a groove between one brick and another, and he inserts the lime into it.

And the Gemara wonders: From where do you know that the Mishna is dealing only with a new house that has not yet been plastered, and in which he can insert the lime into its body, between the bricks—

are we not dealing

also with a case

where he had already plastered,

where he had already coated and smoothed the wall of the house not for the sake of idolatry,

and afterward he plastered it,

and afterward he applied lime for the sake of idolatry, not between the bricks?!

The difficulty returns: Just as the lime forbids the house until he peels it off and removes it, even though he did not apply it to the actual body of the house, so too with a stone. Why does Rabbi Ami require that he plaster it in the body of the stone?

And we conclude:

Rather,

indeed, the stone is forbidden even when he did not plaster it in the body of the stone.

And when

the report was transmitted

of Rabbi Ami— \-

it was stated with regard to nullification.

Rabbi Ami’s words were not said with regard to forbidding the stone, but rather, on the contrary, with regard to what we learned in our Mishna, that the nullification of a stone that they plastered for the sake of idolatry is accomplished by “removing what he plastered and decorated”—regarding this Rabbi Ami said:

And even though he plastered and decorated in the body of the stone,

nevertheless,

when he removes,

when he removes

what he renewed, it is properly effective.

This is sufficient for him, because the entire stone does not become forbidden on account of the renewal that he added to it for the sake of idolatry. Therefore, it is sufficient that he remove from it the renewal made in it for idolatry.

And Rabbi Ami came to teach us

lest you say,

perhaps you will say:

Since he plastered and decorated in the body of the stone—

it is comparable to a stone that he hewed at the outset for idolatry,

it is similar,

and the entire thing should be forbidden [

if it belongs to a Jew, and if it belongs to a gentile, it requires diminution], since he performs an act in the body of the stone; therefore

he teaches us

Rabbi Ami that the law is not so, but it is sufficient that he remove what he plastered and decorated.