Avodah Zarah 48a (מח.) — the Talmud in English

Following the previous mishnayot, which explain three distinct forms of the law of nullification of idolatry, the Mishna now teaches that with regard to an Ashera as well there are three forms of nullification.

Mishna:

There are three types of Ashera

with regard to the law of nullification:

1.

A tree that was originally planted for the sake of idolatry,

in order to worship the tree itself, even though it has not yet been worshipped—

it

is an Ashera and

is prohibited,

and it has no remedy until the gentile nullifies it. Or, if it belongs to a Jew, until he uproots it from the roots and burns it. This is the Ashera mentioned in the Torah.

2. A tree that had already been planted, and

he cut off its branches

[he severed its branches]

and pruned it

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

for the sake of idolatry,

in order to worship the branches that would grow on it after it was cut and pruned,

and it regenerated,

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

remove what regenerated,

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

3.

He placed idolatry beneath it, and removed it

[he removed the idolatry from there]—

it is permitted.

The Sages hold this way in the following Mishna. Rabbi Shimon, however, disagrees and maintains that a tree is an Ashera only when the tree itself is worshipped.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: If he cut and pruned it for the sake of idolatry, and it regenerated, he removes what regenerated, because it is prohibited for benefit.

The scholars of the house of

the academy of

Rabbi Yannai

said: What the Mishna says, “he cut it,”

means that he had layered it,

that he bent a branch of the tree and buried it in the ground, bringing its tip out of the ground on the other side, so that the branch draws nourishment both from the ground and from the tree. And what the Mishna says, “and pruned it,”

and

this means that he

grafted it,

inserting a yachur [a detached branch from another tree]

into the body of the tree.

As a result, the tree “regenerated,” producing additional growth.

The Gemara initially understood Rabbi Yannai’s statement to mean that the growths are prohibited only if he layered or grafted the tree for the sake of idolatry. But if he did not layer or graft a branch into the body of the tree, but merely cut off dry branches or removed waste from it, such a minor act is insufficient to prohibit the growths. Therefore, the Gemara asks:

But we

learned: “He cut it and pruned it”!

This implies that even if he performed only a minor act and made only a minor change in the tree as a distinguishing sign in order to make it an Ashera, the growths are prohibited!

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the growths are prohibited even through the minor act of cutting and pruning.

Rather, when Rabbi Yannai’s statement was stated,

it was not stated with regard to the manner in which the growths become prohibited, but, on the contrary,

it was stated with regard to nullification,

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 nullify it,

when

he

removes

all

that regenerated,

it is entirely effective;

that is sufficient to nullify it.

He taught us this because

it might have entered your mind

that one might say:

Since he layered and grafted into the body of the tree, it is comparable to a tree that was originally planted

for idolatry,

it is considered so,

and therefore removing the growths alone is insufficient; rather,

the entire tree should be prohibited,

the entire tree should be prohibited according to the law of an Ashera [until a Jew completely burns it if it belongs to a Jew, or until a gentile nullifies it if it belongs to a gentile].

It teaches us

the teaching of the house of Rabbi Yannai: It is sufficient to remove the growths.

The following sugya is one of the sugyot that appear in variant forms throughout the Talmud.

We learned above [2b, 46a] of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages concerning the prohibition of an Ashera. Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda maintains that both a tree planted originally for the sake of an Ashera and a tree planted without that intention and worshipped only afterward are prohibited under the law of an Ashera, since even a tree that was planted and subsequently worshipped contains human involvement in its making, and its status is like that of a detached object. But a tree that grew on its own, which contains no human involvement at all, has the status of an object attached to the ground and is permitted.

The Sages, by contrast, maintain that a tree that was planted and only afterward worshipped has the status of an object attached to the ground and is permitted, because it contains no human involvement for the sake of idolatry.

Even Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda prohibits in a tree that was planted and subsequently worshipped only what was added to it after it was worshipped; the main part of the tree remains permitted for benefit.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda derives his position from two verses. One is the statement of the verse, “And you shall burn their Asherot with fire,” which implies uprooting from the roots; he applies this to a tree that was originally planted for that purpose. The second is the statement of the verse, “And you shall cut down their Asherot,” which implies cutting off the addition; he applies this to a tree in which growths were added after it was worshipped.

The Sages, who permit a tree that was planted and subsequently worshipped, interpret the verse “And you shall cut down their Asherot” homiletically in another manner.

Shmuel said: One who bows to a tree—

its additions are prohibited.

Shmuel stated two things: First, that the addition is prohibited. Second, that the main part of the tree was not prohibited.

Rabbi Elazar raised an objection

to this

from

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

cut and pruned it for the sake of idolatry, and it regenerated, he removes what regenerated.

Rabbi Elazar infers: Specifically,

“he cut it and pruned it”—

yes,

then the growths that developed as a result of the cutting and pruning become prohibited, because the growths are considered like a tree originally planted for the sake of idolatry. But

if he did not cut it and prune it,

so that he did not perform an act that, with regard to the growths, is considered equivalent to planting for the sake of idolatry, but merely performed an act of worship, such as bowing to the tree,

no,

the growths do not become prohibited. This is difficult for Shmuel, because he said that the addition is prohibited even without the tree having been originally planted for the sake of idolatry; it is sufficient that one bowed to the tree.

The Gemara answers:

Shmuel could say to you

that our Mishna does not pose a difficulty for my statement, because

whose opinion is this?

What approach does our Mishna follow? It follows the opinion of

the Sages,

who maintain that a tree planted and only afterward worshipped does not have its addition rendered forbidden. Therefore, the Mishna prohibits only the addition that grew as a result of cutting and trimming, since in that case the addition is considered like a new planting for the sake of idolatry.

But

if

Shmuel,

who maintains that the addition becomes forbidden through bowing alone,

speaks according to

the view of

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda—

who says: A tree that was planted

and only afterward worshipped is forbidden.

The Gemara now cites the statement of Rav Ashi, who presents the sugya in a different form. According to him, Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree in a different manner:

They do not disagree concerning the addition. Rather, according to everyone, a tree that was planted and subsequently worshipped has its addition prohibited; they disagree only concerning the status of the main part of the worshipped tree.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda maintains that even the tree itself becomes prohibited, as it is stated: “And you shall burn their Asherot with fire.” He expounds the word “their Asherot,” in the plural, as indicating that the verse comes to prohibit the entire tree and require its burning—to eradicate all of it together with its roots—both a tree originally planted for that purpose and a tree that was planted and only afterward worshipped. The second verse, “And you shall cut down their Asherot,” is interpreted by him for another exposition, as explained there: that an Ashera must be cut down before the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and so forth.

The Sages do not expound the plural form [and their explanation of why the Torah used this form is that it is a general expression, referring to all the Asherot in your land]. According to them, the Torah’s statement, “And you shall burn their Asherot with fire,” whose meaning is uprooting from the roots, applies to a tree originally planted for that purpose. And the Torah’s statement, “And you shall cut down their Asherot,” whose meaning is cutting off the addition, applies to a tree that was planted and subsequently worshipped; the Torah commanded that its addition be cut down.

According to this approach of Rav Ashi, Shmuel, who prohibits the addition, may hold either like the Sages or like Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda.

Rav Ashi challenges this: From where,

do you know

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

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

Perhaps

it is possible to explain that the growth, the

addition

is prohibited according to everyone,

and even the Sages concede this; and Shmuel’s statement prohibiting the addition applies according to the Sages as well.

And they disagree concerning the principal part.

Their dispute concerns only the principal part of the tree:

for Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda holds that even the principal part is prohibited,

although it was not initially planted for idolatry, because it is written, "

And their Asherot you shall burn in fire,"

in the plural,

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

since it is permitted, as it was not initially planted for the sake of an Ashera; and they expound that which is

written: “And their Asherot you shall cut down,”

as meaning:

Which tree is one whose cutting is prohibited while its principal part

is permitted?

You must say: A tree that was planted and only afterward worshipped.

And if you would say

if you wish to say:

Is this

[the version of the Rashash:

not

how do we reconcile it?

After all, in that sugya we did not reconcile their expositions of the verses in this manner. Rather, there we said that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is the one who expounds the verse, “And their Asherot you shall cut down,” as prohibiting only the addition, whereas the Sages expound this verse as teaching that an Ashera must be cut down before the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and so forth.

What of it ?

Reverse the positions: Attribute the Rabbis’ exposition to Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda’s exposition to the Rabbis!

Let us reverse their expositions and say that the Sages expound the verse “you shall cut down” as referring to a tree that was planted and only afterward worshipped, and the verse “you shall burn” as referring to a tree that was planted initially for idolatry. And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda derives both cases from the plural wording, “And their Asherot you shall burn in fire,” whereas he expounds the verse “you shall cut down” as referring to cutting down an Ashera before the conquest of Eretz Yisrael—

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

The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be said, because

if so,

the Mishna that states:

“He cut it and shaped it

for the sake of idolatry, and then exchanged it, he takes what he exchanged”—from which we inferred that the addition becomes prohibited specifically when he performs an action on the tree itself, whereas if he performs no action on the tree, but merely bows to it, even the principal part of the tree does not become prohibited—

who taught it?

Who formulated it?

It follows that it is

not

in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis, nor

in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda!

For

if

you wish to say that it is in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis,

this is impossible, since the Sages hold that even

without cutting and shaping it as well,

at the very least the

addition is prohibited.

If

you wish to say that it is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda,

this is certainly impossible, since according to him,

even the principal part of the tree is prohibited!

It is understandable if we say that the Sages permit even the principal part of the tree, in which case our Mishna was taught in accordance with their view. But if we say that the Sages prohibit the addition, in accordance with whose opinion was our Mishna taught?

And we conclude: There is no difficulty from the Mishna with Rav Ashi’s approach. Rather,

if you wish, say

that our Mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis; and if you wish, say

in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda

it was taught.

The Gemara explains:

If you wish, say: Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda

As for your difficulty—that he holds that even the principal part of the tree becomes prohibited—this is not difficult, since

when Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda stated

that

without cutting and shaping it, the principal part of the tree is prohibited,

he said this

in an unspecified case,

when the person merely bowed to it.

But

in our Mishna, which deals with one who performed an action on the body of the tree, once he

cut and shaped it,

he revealed his intention;

his actions demonstrate his intent

that

only

the addition is desirable to him;

he wishes to worship only that,

whereas the principal part of the tree is not desirable to him;

he has no desire to worship it. Therefore, the Mishna prohibits only the addition.

If you wish, say: The Rabbis—

As for your difficulty—why did the Mishna need to state that he performed an action on the tree itself? Since the addition becomes prohibited without any action, and even if he merely bowed to it the addition becomes prohibited, one can say that

“he cut and shaped it” was necessary to state,

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

it might have entered your mind

to say that only when he bowed to it does the principal part of the tree not become prohibited, but when he cut and shaped it,

since he performed an action on its body,

having performed an action on the body of the tree, therefore

even the principal part of the tree should become prohibited.

The Mishna therefore teaches us

that nevertheless the principal part does not become prohibited.

In summary, Shmuel’s statement, “One who bows to a tree—the additions to it are prohibited,” according to the discussion in the sugya on page 45, follows the opinion of the Sages and not that of Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda. According to Rav Ashi, however, it follows the opinion of both.

Our Mishna’s statement, “If he cut it and shaped it, the addition is prohibited,” also applies according to Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. The acts of cutting and shaping demonstrate that he does not wish to prohibit the principal part. And according to the Sages as well, although he performed an action on the body of the tree, the principal part does not become prohibited.

Mishna:

Which

is the

Ashera

mentioned 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; this is the opinion of the Sages.

Rabbi Shimon says: Any tree that people worship

is the Ashera mentioned in the Torah. But a tree beneath which they placed idolatry is not an Ashera.

And there was an incident involving

the city of

Sidon, concerning a tree that

the gentiles

worshipped, and beneath it they found a mound

of stones.

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

and found in it an image

of idolatry.

He said to them,

Rabbi Shimon:

Since they worship the image, we permit the tree to you.

Gemara:

The Gemara is puzzled by the Mishna’s statement:

“Which Ashera?!”

But we learned in the previous Mishna that there are three Asherot,

as we already learned there the laws and definitions of an Ashera; why, then, must we return and ask, “Which Ashera?”

Furthermore, three Asherot were taught there, whereas here only one was taught.

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

this is what the tanna meant:

the previous Mishna teaches that there are three Asherot:

Two

of them involve trees that people worship themselves; regarding these there is no dispute, and they are considered Asherot

according to everyone.

And one

the third, concerning which it was stated that idolatry was placed beneath it, is not accepted by everyone; rather, there is a

dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis.

Our Mishna comes to explain this:

Which Ashera is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages?

Any tree beneath which there is

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

The Gemara now explains the identifying signs of an Ashera. That is, in the case of an ordinary tree concerning which it has not been clarified whether or not it is an Ashera, how can we recognize that it is an Ashera?

Which is an unspecified Ashera?—

Rav said: Any

tree

beneath which priests sit, and they do not

taste

of its fruit

is certainly worshipped, and it is the Ashera.

And Shmuel said: Even if

they taste its fruit, but guard it for idolatry,

and

the priests

say: These dates

are suitable

for Bei Natzrefi

[the name of an idolatry],

it is prohibited,

as they put it into beer,

making a beer beverage from these dates,

and drink it

and consume it

on their festival day.

Ameimar said: The elders of Pumbedita told me,

Rav Yehuda and Rav Einai:

The halakha is in accordance with Shmuel.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues its explanation of the law of an Ashera: In addition to the prohibition against deriving benefit from it, which is a prohibition by Torah law, an Ashera also imparts ritual impurity through a tent to one who passes beneath its canopy, just as one who passes beneath a canopy extending over a corpse becomes impure. The Gemara explains that this Mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who expounds: From where do we know that an offering to idolatry imparts impurity through a tent? As it is stated [Psalms 106]: “They joined themselves to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead”—just as a corpse imparts impurity through a tent, so too an offering to idolatry imparts impurity through a tent.

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

It follows that an Ashera involves two matters: the prohibition against deriving benefit from it, and ritual impurity.

The prohibition against deriving benefit means that one may not benefit from the shade of the Ashera, even from shade that extends beyond the area directly beneath its canopy, such as when the sun is in the east or west and the shade extends a considerable distance. The prohibition applies only to “sitting” in its shade, whereas “passing” through its shade is permitted.

By contrast, the impurity transmitted through the tent of an Ashera applies only to one who passes directly beneath its canopy, and not to one who passes beneath shade extending to the side.