Avodah Zarah 48a — the Talmud in English

Following the preceding Mishnayot, which explain three distinct ways concerning the law of invalidating an object of idolatry, the Mishna now comes to explain that with regard to an asherah as well there are three ways of invalidation.

Mishna:

There are three types of asherah

with regard to the law of invalidation:

1.

A tree that was initially planted for the sake of idolatry

to worship it itself, even though it has not yet been worshipped—

this

is an asherah,

forbidden,

and it has no permission until the gentile invalidates it. Or, if it belongs to a Jew, until he uproots it from the root and burns it. And this is the asherah mentioned in the Torah.

2. A tree that had already been planted, and

he cut it down

[he cut off its branches]

and trimmed it

[he removed the waste from them], whether a gentile or a Jew did so,

for the sake of idolatry,

to worship the branches that would grow in it after the cutting and trimming,

and it sprouted anew,

and new branches grew in it in place of the branches he had cut off—when a Jew comes to derive benefit from the tree, he does not need to cut down the entire tree; rather, it is sufficient that he

take what sprouted anew

and burn it, while the main body of the tree is permitted for benefit.

3.

He placed idolatry beneath it, and removed it

removed the idolatry from there—

it is permitted.

So maintain the Sages in the following Mishna. But Rabbi Shimon disputes this and holds that it is an asherah only if they worship the tree itself.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: He cut it down and trimmed it for the sake of idolatry, and it sprouted anew—he takes what sprouted anew, because it is forbidden for benefit.

The scholars of the academy of

the disciples of

Rabbi Yannai: The Mishna’s statement “he cut it down”

means—

and this is when he layered it,

when he bent a branch from the tree and buried it in the ground, and brought its tip out of the ground on the other side, so that in this manner the branch draws nourishment both from the ground and from the tree. And the Mishna’s statement “and trimmed it”

and

this is when he

grafted it,

when he inserted a “shoot” [a branch detached from another tree]

into the body of the tree.

As a result, the tree “sprouted anew,” adding new growths.

The Gemara assumed that Rabbi Yannai’s intention was to say that the growths become forbidden only if he layered or grafted it for the sake of idolatry. But if he did not layer it or graft it into the body of the tree, but merely cut dry branches from it or removed waste from it, such a minor act is not enough to forbid the growths. Therefore the Gemara asks:

But we—

“he cut it down and trimmed it,” we learned!

And it implies that even if he performed a minor act and made a minor change in the tree as a sign, in order to make it an asherah, the growths become forbidden!

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the growths become forbidden even through the minor act of cutting and trimming.

Rather, when Rabbi Yannai’s statement was stated,

it was not stated concerning the manner in which the growths become forbidden, but to the contrary,

it was stated concerning invalidation,

to say

that even though

initially he performed a major act and

layered and grafted into the body of the tree

for the sake of idolatry, nevertheless, when he comes to invalidate it,

when

he

takes

all

that which sprouted anew—

it is entirely effective,

it is sufficient for invalidating it.

And he taught this to us because

one might have thought

that perhaps you would say:

Since he layered and grafted into the body of the tree, it is like a tree that was planted initially

for idolatry;

it is considered so,

and therefore taking only the growths is insufficient, but

the whole of it should become forbidden,

the entire tree should become forbidden according to the law of an asherah [until a Jew completely burns it if it belongs to a Jew, or until a gentile invalidates it if it belongs to a gentile],

it teaches us

the statement of the scholars of Rabbi Yannai: that it is sufficient for him to take the growths.

The following discussion is one of the discussions in the Shas that are exchanged.

Above [2b–46a] we learned of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages concerning the prohibition of an asherah. Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda holds that both a tree planted initially for the sake of an asherah and a tree planted without a specified purpose and afterward worshipped are both forbidden under the law of an asherah, since even in a tree planted and afterward worshipped there is “human involvement,” and its law is like that of something detached. But a tree that grew by itself, in which there is no human involvement at all, has the law of something attached, and is permitted.

But the Sages hold that a tree which he planted and afterward worshipped has the law of something attached, and is permitted, because there is no human involvement in it for the sake of idolatry.

And even Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda forbids in a tree planted and afterward worshipped only that which was added to it after it was worshipped, but the main body of the tree is permitted for benefit.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda derives his position from two verses. One is from the words of Scripture, “and you shall burn their asherot with fire,” whose meaning is uprooting from the root; he applies this to a tree planted initially for this purpose. The second is from the words of Scripture, “and you shall cut down their asherot,” whose meaning is cutting down the addition; he applies this to a tree in which growths were added after it was worshipped.

But the Sages, who permit a tree planted and afterward worshipped, apply the words of Scripture “and you shall cut down their asherot” to another exposition.

Shmuel said: One who bows down to a tree—

its additions are forbidden.

Shmuel said two things: One, that the addition is forbidden. And the second, that its main body was not forbidden.

Rabbi Elazar raises an objection

challenges this

from

what we learned in our Mishna: A tree that had been planted, and

he cut it down and trimmed it for idolatry, and it sprouted anew, he takes what sprouted anew.

Rabbi Elazar infers: Specifically,

“he cut it down and trimmed it”—

yes,

then the growths that sprouted anew because of the cutting and trimming become forbidden, since the growths are considered like a tree planted initially for the sake of idolatry. But

“he did not cut it down and trim it,”

when he did not perform an act which, with regard to the growths, is considered like planting for the sake of idolatry, but merely performed an ordinary act of worship, such as bowing down to the tree,

no,

the growths do not become forbidden. This is difficult for Shmuel, concerning his statement that the addition is forbidden even without its having been planted initially for the sake of idolatry, but it is sufficient that he bowed down to the tree.

The Gemara answers:

Shmuel could say to you:

There is no difficulty for my statement from our Mishna, because

whose view is this?

According to whose method is our Mishna? According to the method of

the Sages,

who hold that a tree planted and afterward worshipped does not have its addition forbidden; therefore the Mishna forbids only the addition that grew because of cutting and trimming, since through this the addition is considered like new planting for the sake of idolatry.

But

if

Shmuel,

who holds that the addition becomes forbidden through mere bowing down,

who says like

the words of

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda—

who says, “a tree that he planted

and afterward worshipped is forbidden.”

The Gemara now brings the words of Rav Ashi, who exchanges the discussion, and according to him Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disputed in a different manner:

They did not dispute concerning the addition. Rather, according to everyone, a tree that was planted and afterward worshipped has its addition forbidden; they disputed only concerning the status of the main body of the worshipped tree.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda holds that even the tree itself becomes forbidden, since it is stated, “and you shall burn their asherot with fire,” and he expounds asherot in the plural, for the verse comes to forbid all of it and require burning, to eradicate all of it together with the root—both a tree planted initially for this purpose and a tree planted and afterward worshipped. But the second verse, “and you shall cut down their asherot,” is expounded by him for another exposition, as explained there: for cutting down an asherah before the conquest of the Land of Israel, and so on.

But the Sages do not expound the “plural expression” [and the reason the Torah wrote it this way is a “general” expression: all the asherot in your land]. According to them, what the Torah said, “and you shall burn their asherot with fire,” whose meaning is uprooting from the root, applies to a tree planted initially for this purpose. And what the Torah said, “and you shall cut down their asherot,” whose meaning is cutting down the addition, applies to a tree planted and afterward worshipped, and the Torah commanded that the addition be cut down.

And according to this approach of Rav Ashi, Shmuel, who forbids the addition, can hold either like the Sages or like Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda.

Rav Ashi challenges it: From where,

do you know

that Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages dispute concerning the addition,

that according to the Sages the addition is permitted and according to Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda it is forbidden, and that Shmuel does not hold like the Sages?

Perhaps,

it is possible to explain that the growth,

the addition—

according to everyone is forbidden,

and even the Sages concede this, and Shmuel’s statement forbidding the addition is also according to the Sages—

and they disagree concerning the main part,

and their disagreement is only concerning the main part of the tree:

for Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that the main part is also forbidden,

even though it was not initially planted for idolatry, because it is written,

“And their sacred trees you shall burn in fire,”

in the plural,

whereas the Rabbis hold that the main part of the tree is permitted,

for it is permitted since it was not initially planted for an asherah, and they expound what

is written, “And their sacred trees you shall cut down,”

to say:

What is the tree whose cutting down is forbidden, while its main part

is permitted?

You must say: a tree that they planted and ultimately worshipped.

And if you would say

if you wish to say:

Is this [

the reading of the Rashash:

not ]

how do we reconcile it?

For there in the discussion we did not reconcile their expositions of the verses in this way; rather, we said there that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is the one who expounds the verse “And their sacred trees you shall cut down” as forbidding only the addition, whereas the Sages expound this verse as teaching that an asherah must be cut down before the conquest of the Land of Israel, and so forth.

What of it?

Reverse the Sages’ exposition for Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda’s exposition for the Sages!

Let us reverse their expositions and say that the Sages expound the wording of the verse “you shall cut down” with regard to a tree that they planted and ultimately worshipped, and the wording of the verse “you shall burn” with regard to a tree that they planted initially. And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda expounds both of them from the fact that the plural wording “And their sacred trees you shall burn in fire” was stated, whereas the wording of the verse “you shall cut down” he expounds as referring to cutting down an asherah before the conquest of the Land of Israel—

And if so, Rav Ashi asks, from where do you know to say that Shmuel does not hold in accordance with the Sages?

And the Gemara rejects this: It cannot be said so, because

if so,

our Mishna, which says

“he cut it down and shaped it”

for the sake of idolatry, and he exchanged it, he takes what he exchanged—and we inferred from it that it is specifically when he performed an act upon the tree itself that the addition becomes forbidden, whereas if he does not perform an act upon the tree, but merely bows to it, even the main part of the tree does not become forbidden—

who taught it?

Who recited it?

For it turns out that it is

not

according to the position of

the Sages, nor

according to the position of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda!

For

if

you wish to say that it is according to the position of

the Sages,

this is impossible, because the Sages hold that even

without his cutting it down and shaping it as well,

at the very least the

addition is forbidden.

If,

you wish to say that it is according to the position of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

it is certainly impossible, because according to him

the main part of the tree is also forbidden!

And it is understandable if we say that the Sages permit even the main part of the tree, for then our Mishna was taught according to their words. But if we say that the Sages forbid the addition, according to whose words was our Mishna taught?

And we conclude: There is no difficulty from the Mishna against this approach of Rav Ashi; rather,

if you wish, say

our Mishna was taught according to the position of

the Sages, and if you wish, say—

according to the position of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

it was taught.

And the Gemara explains:

If you wish, say: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda—

and what you raised, that he holds that even the main part of the tree becomes forbidden, is not difficult, since

when Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda said

that

without his cutting it down and shaping it, the main part of the tree is forbidden,

he said this

as an unspecified rule,

when he merely bowed to it.

But

in our Mishna, which concerns one who performed an act upon the body of the tree, since he

cut it down and shaped it—

he revealed his intention,

his actions demonstrate his desire

that

only

the addition is pleasing to him,

he wishes to worship only it,

whereas the main part of the tree is not pleasing to him;

he does not wish to worship it. Therefore the Mishna forbade only the addition.

If you wish, say: the Sages—

And what you raised, why did the Mishna need to say that he performed an act upon the tree itself, since for the addition to become forbidden no act is necessary, and even if he bowed to it, the addition becomes forbidden, it may be said that

“he cut it down and shaped it” was necessary for him,

the tanna in the Mishna needed to teach us this, and there is a novel point in it, because

it might enter your mind,

it might have occurred to you to say that only if he bowed to it does the main part of the tree not become forbidden; but if he cut it down and shaped it,

since he performed an act upon its body,

since he performed an act upon the body of the tree, therefore

the main part of the tree should also become forbidden,

it teaches us

our Mishna that nevertheless the main part does not become forbidden.

In summary, Shmuel’s statement, “One who bows to a tree: its additions are forbidden,” according to the discussion on page 45 is in accordance with the Sages, and not with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. Whereas according to Rav Ashi’s statement, it is in accordance with both of them.

And our Mishna’s statement, “If he cut it down and shaped it, the addition is forbidden,” is also according to Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. The act of cutting down and shaping demonstrates that he does not wish to forbid the main part. And also according to the Sages, although he performed an act upon the body of the tree, the main part did not become forbidden.

Mishna:

What

is the

“asherah”

spoken of in the Torah?—

Any tree beneath which there is idolatry,

while the tree itself is not worshipped. And all the more so when the tree itself is worshipped; these are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Shimon says: Any tree that they worship,

that is the asherah spoken of in the Torah, but a tree beneath which they placed idolatry is not an asherah.

And it happened in

the city of

Sidon, with a tree that

the gentiles

worshipped, and beneath it they found a heap

of stones.

Rabbi Shimon said to them: Examine this heap! And they examined it—

and found in it an image

of idolatry.

He said to them,

Rabbi Shimon:

Since they worship the image, let us permit the tree for you.

Gemara:

And the Gemara expresses astonishment at what the Mishna says,

“Which asherah?!”

But we learned three asherot,

for we already learned in the preceding Mishna the laws and definitions of an asherah; why do I need to return and ask: which is an asherah?

Moreover, three asherot were taught there, whereas here only one was taught?

And the Gemara explains: Our Mishna is a continuation of that Mishna, and

this is what

the tanna in the preceding Mishna said: There are three asherot:

two

of them, in which they worship the tree itself, are not subject to dispute; they are considered an asherah

according to everyone.

And one,

the third, concerning which it was said, “he placed idolatry beneath it,” is not according to everyone; rather, there is a

dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages.

And concerning this our Mishna comes to explain:

Which is the asherah concerning which Rabbi Shimon and the Sages disagree?

Any tree beneath which there is

idolatry. Rabbi Shimon says: Any tree that they worship.

And now the Gemara explains what the identifying signs of an asherah are. That is: an ordinary tree concerning which it has not been clarified to us whether it is an asherah or not—how can we recognize that it is an asherah?

Which is an unspecified asherah?—

Rav said: Any

tree

beneath which priests sit, and they do not

taste

taste its fruits,

certainly they worship it, and it is the asherah.

And Shmuel said: Even if

they taste its fruits, but they guard them for idolatry,

and

the priests

say: These dates

are suitable

for Bei Nitzrefei [

the name of an idolatry ]

forbidden,

for they put them into beer,

making an intoxicating drink from these dates,

and drink it

and drink it

on their festival day.

Ameimar said: The elders of Pumbedita told me,

Rav Yehuda and Rav Einah:

The halakha is in accordance with Shmuel.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues explaining the law of an asherah: An asherah, besides the prohibition against deriving benefit from it, which is a prohibition from the Torah, also imparts tent impurity to one who passes beneath its canopy, just as one who passes beneath the canopy extending over a corpse becomes impure. And it is explained in the Gemara that this Mishna is according to the position of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who expounds: From where is it derived that the offering of idolatry imparts tent impurity? For it is stated [Psalms 106], “And they joined themselves to Baal Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead”—just as a dead body imparts impurity in a tent, so too the offering of idolatry imparts impurity in a tent.

This impurity is only rabbinic, and the verse from which Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira expounded it is merely an asmachta.

It follows that there are two things with an asherah: the prohibition against deriving benefit and impurity.

The prohibition against deriving benefit means deriving benefit from the shade of the asherah, even from shade distant from beneath the canopy, such as when the sun is in the east or in the west and the shade extends far away. The prohibition applies only to “sitting” in its shade, but “passing” through its shade is permitted.

In contrast, the tent impurity of the asherah applies only to one who passes directly beneath its canopy, and not to one who passes beneath its shade extending to the side.