Avodah Zarah 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

The Mishna continues discussing the prohibition against deriving benefit from the wood of an asheira.

Mishna:

If one took from it

from the asheira

wood—

the wood

is forbidden for benefit.

If he used it to heat

with asheira wood

the oven—

if

the oven was

new—

it must be demolished,

because the oven was made and strengthened with wood of a prohibited substance, and the force of this heating contributes to all subsequent heating.

And if

the oven was

old,

having already been strengthened, and he now heats it for baking—

it must be cooled, and he may not bake with this heating, so that he will not derive benefit from the prohibited substance.

If he baked in it,

in the oven—

the bread

is

forbidden for benefit.

In the case of a new oven that was strengthened with a prohibited substance, even though he cooled it and heated it with permitted wood, which is what caused the bread to be baked, nevertheless the prohibited oven also contributed to its baking. And likewise, in the case of an old oven, although the permitted oven causes the baking, nevertheless the prohibited wood also contributes to it.

Our Mishna maintains: “When both this and that cause the result, it is forbidden.”

If it became mixed

the bread

with other loaves—

all of them are forbidden for benefit.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

They are forbidden until he

takes the benefit

the monetary value of the prohibited wood

to the Dead Sea,

and burns it there; the bread is then permitted for benefit.

The Sages said to him,

the Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer: There is no dispensation through taking it to the Dead Sea, because

there is no redemption for idolatry,

and redemption does not remove its prohibition against deriving benefit from it.

And likewise, if

he took from it,

from the asheira, wood and made it into

a shuttle

for weaving cloth—

the shuttle

is

forbidden for benefit.

If he wove with it,

with the shuttle

the cloth—

the cloth

is forbidden

for benefit.

If it became mixed

the cloth

with others, and the others

became mixed

with others—

all of them are forbidden for benefit.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall take the benefit to the Dead Sea.

They said to him: There is no redemption for idolatry.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages concerning bread and a shuttle. Apparently, why did the Mishna need to repeat itself?

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

to teach us the law both with regard to bread and with regard to a shuttle—

For had it taught us the first case

had it taught us only the first law, concerning bread, one might have said:

In this case he said—

he said this specifically in this law—

Rabbi Eliezer,

permitting its redemption and the taking of its benefit to the Dead Sea, because the prohibited substance is not discernible in the bread,

because at the time that the bread is completed

when the baking of the bread is completed,

the prohibition has been burned,

as the prohibited wood has already been burned—

But in the case of a shuttle, where the prohibited substance is present as such,

where the prohibited substance remains visibly present—

say

it is possible to say that Rabbi Eliezer

agrees with the Sages

and forbids it even if he takes the benefit to the Dead Sea—

The Mishna therefore comes to teach us that this is not so; rather, even concerning a shuttle he disagrees with the Sages and permits it after taking the benefit to the Dead Sea.

And

on the other hand,

had it taught us

had it taught us

a shuttle,

one might have said:

In this case the Sages said—

the Sages forbid only a shuttle, since the prohibited substance remains visibly present—

but bread,

where, when its baking was completed, the prohibition had already been burned,

say

it is possible to say that the Sages

agree with Rabbi Eliezer

and permit it through taking the benefit to the Dead Sea—

Therefore,

it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach us that they also disagree concerning bread and maintain that there is no redemption for idolatry.

Rav Hiyya, son of Rabba bar Naḥmani, said that Rav Ḥisda said that Zeiri said: The halakha is in accordance with the

words of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who permits it through taking the benefit to the Dead Sea.

There are those who say

that this tradition was transmitted in another formulation:

Rav Ḥisda said: Abba bar Rav Ḥisda said to me: Zeiri said as follows: The halakha is in accordance with the

words of

Rabbi Eliezer.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: They taught

that the halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer

only with regard to bread,

since the prohibition is not discernible in the bread itself,

but in the case of a barrel,

of wine libated to idolatry, which is forbidden for benefit, that became mixed with other barrels of permitted wine—

no,

all of them are not permitted through taking the benefit to the Dead Sea, since the prohibited substance remains visibly present.

Therefore, since each barrel is subject to the uncertainty that it might be the barrel of wine libated to idolatry, and since it is not nullified —it is forbidden to sell them, or to give their contents to gentile laborers to drink, or to derive any other benefit from them. However, it is permitted to sell all the barrels together to a gentile, excluding the value of the idolatry within them. For example, if one barrel became mixed with ninety-nine barrels and there are now one hundred barrels, he may sell them for the value of ninety-nine, so that he has not derived benefit from the wine libated to idolatry.

And Rav Ḥisda said: Even a barrel

that became mixed—

is permitted

through taking the benefit to the Dead Sea, after which all the barrels are permitted for benefit, and it is even permitted to sell each barrel separately or to derive benefit from the wine itself, such as giving it to gentile laborers to drink, or deriving other similar benefit.

Concerning this matter, the Gemara relates an incident:

A certain man

a particular individual

whose barrel of wine libated to idolatry became mixed with his wine,

among his barrels.

He came before

and came before

Rav Ḥisda

to ask what their status was.

He said

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

Take four zuz,

take money equal to the value of the prohibited barrel,

and throw it into the river,

and throw it into the river

, and it will be permitted for you,

and we will permit you to derive benefit from every barrel, in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who permits it through taking the benefit to the Dead Sea.

Mishna:

The Mishna explains the laws governing the nullification of an asheira when a gentile comes to nullify it.

How does he nullify it?

If

he pruned

he took dry twigs from it for use,

or stripped off a branch,

or if he took moist branches from it, or if

he took from it

wood to make it into

a staff or a rod, even

if he took only a

leaf—

it is thereby nullified.

When does this apply? If the gentile took them for his own needs, in order to use them. But if he pruned or stripped branches for the sake of the asheira, to cause it to grow and beautify it, it is not nullified through this.

And likewise, if

he shaved

he planed it, if

for its sake,

to beautify it—

it is forbidden;

but if

not for its sake,

but for the gentile’s own needs , it is nullified and

permitted.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If he shaved it for its sake, it is not nullified.

The Gemara discusses the status of the shavings, which are sawdust: Are they permitted, even though the wood itself is not nullified?

What shall be done with those shavings?

They disagree about it

they dispute this halakha,

Rav Huna and Hiyya bar Rav.

One

of them

said:

The shavings

are forbidden.

And one

of them

said: They are permitted.

It was taught

we learned a beraita

in accordance with the

words of

the one who says: They are permitted.

As it was taught: A gentile

a gentile

who shaved an idol,

a carved idol, if

for his own needs

of the gentile—

both it and its shavings are permitted.

And if

for its sake—

it is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted.

And if a Jew shaved an idol, whether for its sake or for his own needs—

both it and its shavings are forbidden,

because a Jew cannot nullify idolatry.

It was stated: An idol

of wood

that broke [

the version of the Bach:

by itself]—

Rav said: He must nullify each and every splinter,

because each and every splinter becomes idolatry in its own right. Therefore, it is insufficient to nullify one of them; rather, he must nullify all of them.

And Shmuel said: Idolatry is nullified only in the manner of its growth.

As will be explained.

The Gemara understood Shmuel’s statement to mean that it is nullified only when it remains intact. Therefore, it challenges this:

On the contrary! In the manner of its growth,

when it is intact,

can it be nullified?!

Does not the entire meaning of nullification consist of blemishing it and removing it from its complete state? The Gemara explains: This is not Shmuel’s intent,

rather, this is what he is saying: Idolatry requires nullification only in the manner of its growth,

when it is intact. But when it broke by itself, it is nullified on its own, without the gentile blemishing it, because the gentile says: If it does not have the power to save itself, it does not have the power to save its worshippers.

The Gemara explains the point of disagreement between Rav and Shmuel.

Shall we say

that this is what is meant:

They disagree about this

and dispute this reasoning:

One

Rav

holds:

The gentiles

worship broken pieces,

and therefore each broken piece must be nullified;

and

if

the other

Shmuel

holds: They do not worship broken pieces,

and therefore it is nullified on its own as soon as it breaks?

And we conclude:

No!

This is not the basis of their disagreement; rather,

everyone,

Rav and Shmuel alike,

holds that they worship broken pieces

that broke by themselves.

And

what is their disagreement?

Here,

where Rav said “each and every splinter,” the case is

of fragments of fragments,

where all the fragments broke into smaller fragments, and concerning them

they disagree—

One

Rav

holds:

Even though they broke into

fragments of fragments—

they are forbidden.

And the other

Shmuel

holds:

Once they broke into

fragments of fragments—

they are permitted,

and they are unlike the fragments themselves, which are forbidden .

The Gemara presents another way of explaining their disagreement.

And if you wish, say

and if you wish, say [Rashi’s version]:

Everyone,

Rav and Shmuel, holds:

the gentiles do not

worship it when it breaks

into

fragments

of fragments.

And here,

the case is

of an idol

that was

made of joints,

thin parts resembling fragments of fragments, and it fell and came apart at its joints.

And

the case is

of

a situation in which

an ordinary person can reassemble it,

without requiring the work of an expert craftsman, and in this

they disagree:

One

Rav

holds: Since an ordinary person can reassemble it—

it is not nullified,

and each joint must be nullified.

And the other

Shmuel

holds: Idolatry is not nullified—

meaning, it does not require nullification—

unless

it breaks

in the manner of its growth,

when it is intact,

that is, its customary manner,

and its usual way of doing so, such as the fallen matter shed from trees: even though it falls one leaf at a time and consists of fragments of fragments, or the leaf itself breaks into fragments of fragments.

And even though it broke into fragments of fragments, nevertheless, since this is its customary manner throughout the year, it must therefore be nullified. But

this,

the idol

is not its manner of growth,

as it is not its way to fall and come apart,

and

therefore

it does not require nullification,

and it is nullified on its own.

We shall return to you, chapter “All the Images.”

The first part of this chapter continues the previous chapter’s discussion of the laws of idolatry, its offerings, adornments, and accessories.

The first Mishna discusses the idol Markulis .

The nations of the world, who worship idolatry, also worshipped the idol Markulis, by placing one stone here, one stone there, and a third stone upon them. Anyone who passed by would throw additional stones upon them, thereby worshipping it and adding to it.

The first three stones constitute Markulis itself, and are forbidden to benefit from, like all idolatry, until the gentile nullifies it. Even if the stones separate from one another, they are not thereby nullified, in accordance with the law of idolatry that has been broken, since it is the usual manner of these stones to be separate, as they are not joined together.

The other stones added to them have a dual status: On the one hand, each stone is an offering to the first three stones. On the other hand, they combine to become an idolatry. Thus, at first they are offerings of idolatry, and ultimately they become idolatry itself. Their law if they are forbidden as offerings will be explained in the Gemara.

Our Mishna discusses stones found beside Markulis, where it is uncertain which stones fell and separated from the heap of Markulis stones and are therefore forbidden to benefit from, and which stones are not from this heap and are permitted to benefit from. But it is clear that any three stones arranged in the form of Markulis, one atop two, are forbidden, since this is the essence and beginning of Markulis.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones next to one another,

and they are found

beside Markulis,

a large heap of stones that has already been worshipped and upon which many stones have been thrown,

are forbidden. And

if they are

two, they are permitted.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And the Sages say:

The stones

that appear to be associated with it,

where it appears that they fell from Markulis,

are forbidden

even if they are two.

But those that do not appear

to be associated with it, since they are distant from it,

are permitted,

even if they are three.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the reasoning of the Sages and of Rabbi Yishmael, and the matter over which they disagree.

Granted,

the reasoning of the Sages is understood:

They hold

that the gentiles

worship broken pieces,

and all the stones thrown upon Markulis, when they fall, are broken pieces of idolatry. Therefore, those stones that

appear to be associated with it, for one may say

that

one fell from it,

that they fell from it,

are forbidden.

But those

that do not appear to be associated with it,

which are not from it but are ordinary roadside stones,

are permitted.

But Rabbi Yishmael—

what does he hold?

If

he holds that idolaters

worship broken pieces,

this is difficult: These stones that separated from the heap have already themselves become idolatry, and by separating from the heap they were not nullified, because the idolaters continue to worship them. If so,

even

if one finds

two,

two stones,

they should also be forbidden,

they too should be forbidden!

If

he holds:

They do not worship broken pieces,

the two stones separated from the heap and were nullified; if so, the difficulty is that

even

if one found them as

three,

three,

they too should not

be forbidden!

The Gemara explains:

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yohanan said: When it is known

that it is known

that

these stones

fell from it, everyone agrees that they are forbidden.

And even according to the one who says that they do not

the gentiles

worship broken pieces,

nevertheless they are forbidden, because

that applies

when they do not worship broken pieces to

an idolatry whose usual manner is not this,

whose normal manner is not to break apart; therefore they worship it only when it is whole, and not its broken pieces.

But here,

with the stones of Markulis,

which from the outset are broken apart,

since from the beginning they are in the category of “broken pieces,” as each is a separate stone and they are not joined together,

this is its usual manner.

It is their usual manner to fall from it, since they are not joined together, and therefore this falling does not constitute nullification of the idolatry. Accordingly, there is no question here whether they worship it or not: If it is definitely known that they fell from it, they are certainly forbidden, since they are parts of the idolatry.

They disagree

about the case in which the Sages and Rabbi Yishmael actually disagree:

when it is unspecified

and it is not known whether they fell from it.