Avodah Zarah 49b — the Talmud in English

The Mishna continues with the law of the prohibition of deriving benefit from the wood of an asherah.

Mishna:

If one took from it

from the asherah

wood—

the wood

is forbidden in deriving benefit.

If he stoked with them

with asherah wood

the oven—

if

the oven was

new—

it must be broken,

because the oven was made and strengthened through wood of prohibition, and the force of this stoking assists in all the stoking from then onward.

And if

the oven was

old,

and had already been strengthened, and now he stokes it for baking—

it must be cooled,

and he may not bake with this stoking, so that he should not derive benefit from the prohibition.

If he baked in it

in the oven—

the bread

the bread

is forbidden in deriving benefit.

In a new oven that was strengthened through prohibition, even though he cooled it and stoked it with permitted wood, which causes the baking of the bread, nevertheless the forbidden oven also caused it. And likewise in an old oven, although the permitted oven causes the baking, nevertheless forbidden wood also causes it.

And our Mishna holds: “This and this cause—it is forbidden.”

If it became mixed

the bread

with other [loaves]—

all of them are forbidden in deriving benefit.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

They are forbidden until

he takes the benefit

the value of the forbidden wood

to the Salt Sea,

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

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Eliezer: There is no remedy through taking [the money] to the Salt Sea, because

there is no redemption for idolatry,

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

And likewise, if

he took from it

from the asherah a piece of wood, and made it

a shuttle

for weaving a garment—the

shuttle

the shuttle

is forbidden in deriving benefit.

If he wove with it

with the shuttle

the garment—

the garment

is forbidden

in deriving benefit.

If the garment became mixed

the garment

with others, and the others

became mixed

with others—

all of them are forbidden in deriving benefit.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He takes the benefit to the Salt Sea.

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

Gemara:

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

And the Gemara explains:

And it is necessary

to inform us [the law] both with regard to bread and with regard to a shuttle—

For if it had informed us of the first [case]

if it had informed us of the first law, concerning bread, it would have been possible to say:

In this

in this law specifically he said

Rabbi Eliezer

that it may be redeemed and its benefit taken to the Salt Sea, because the substance of the prohibition is not discernible in the bread,

because at the time when the bread is completed

when the baking of the bread is completed,

the prohibition is burned,

the forbidden wood has already been burned—

But a shuttle, where the prohibition is present before it

where the prohibition is visibly present—

say,

it is possible to say that Rabbi Eliezer

agrees with the Rabbis

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

And the Mishna comes to inform us that this is not so; rather, even with regard to a shuttle he disputes the Sages and permits [it] after he takes the benefit to the Salt Sea.

And

on the other hand,

if it had informed us

if it had informed us of

a shuttle,

it would have been possible to say:

In this the Rabbis say

the Sages forbid only a shuttle, since it is visibly present—

but bread,

since at the time 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 Salt Sea—

Therefore

it is necessary

for the Mishna to inform us that they also dispute with regard to bread, and hold that there is no redemption for idolatry.

Rav Hiyya, son of Rabbah bar Nahmani, said that Rav Hisda said that Zeiri said: The halakha is like

the words of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who permits [it] through taking the benefit to the Salt Sea.

There are those who say

there is one who transmitted this report in a different formulation:

Rav Hisda said: Abba bar Rav Hisda said to me: Thus said Zeiri: The halakha is like

the words of

Rabbi Eliezer.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: They taught

that the halakha is like the words of Rabbi Eliezer

only with regard to bread,

since the prohibition is not discernible in the bread itself,

but a barrel,

of yayin nesekh forbidden in deriving benefit, that became mixed with other barrels of permitted wine—

no,

all of them are not permitted through taking the benefit to the Salt Sea, since the prohibition is visibly present.

Therefore, since with regard to every barrel there is a doubt, perhaps it is the barrel of yayin nesekh, and since it is not nullified—it is forbidden to sell it, and to give from them to his gentile workers to drink, and other forms of benefit; but it is permitted to sell all the barrels together to a gentile, excluding the value of the idolatry among them. For example: if one barrel became mixed with ninety-nine barrels, and now they are one hundred barrels, he sells them for the value of ninety-nine, and it is found that he did not derive benefit from yayin nesekh.

And Rav Hisda said: Even a barrel

that became mixed—

is permitted

through taking the benefit to the Salt Sea, and then all the barrels are permitted in deriving benefit, and it is permitted to sell even each barrel separately, or to derive benefit from the wine itself, for example, to give it to his gentile workers to drink, and the like, other forms of benefit.

Concerning this matter the Gemara relates an incident:

A certain man

a certain man

whose barrel of yayin nesekh became mixed with his wine,

among his barrels.

He came before

and came before

Rav Hisda

to ask what their law was.

He said

Rav Hisda said to him:

Take four zuz,

take money corresponding to the value of the forbidden 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 each and every barrel, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits [it] through taking the benefit to the Salt Sea.

Mishna:

The Mishna explains the laws of nullification of the asherah, when the gentile comes to nullify it.

How does he nullify it?

If

he trimmed

he took dry twigs from it to use them,

and pruned,

or if he took moist branches from it, or if

he took from it

wood to make it

a staff or a rod, even

if he took only

a leaf—

it is thereby nullified.

When are these words said? If the gentile took them for his own needs, to use them; but if he trimmed and pruned for the needs of the asherah, to make it grow and beautify it, it is not nullified through this.

And likewise, if

he planed

he smoothed it, if

for its needs,

to beautify it—

it is forbidden,

but if

not for its needs,

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

permitted.

Gemara:

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

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

What shall become of those shavings?

They disputed it

they disputed this halakha,

Rav Huna and Hiyya bar Rav.

One

one of them

said: The shavings

are

forbidden.

And one

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.

For it was taught: A gentile

a gentile

who planed an idolatrous image,

an idol image, if

for his own needs

of the gentile—

it and its shavings are permitted.

And if

for its needs—

it is forbidden and its shavings are permitted.

And a Jew who planed an idolatrous image, whether for its needs or for his own needs—

it and its shavings are forbidden,

because a Jew does not nullify idolatry.

It was stated: An idolatrous image

of wood

that broke [ [A0219]]the version of the Bach:

the version of the Bach:

on its own ]—

Rav said: He must nullify each and every splinter,

because each and every splinter becomes idolatry in its own right; therefore, it is not enough for him to nullify one of them, but he must nullify all of them.

And Shmuel said: Idolatry is not nullified except by way of its growth.

As will be explained.

The Gemara understood Shmuel’s words to mean that it is not nullified unless it is in its complete form. Therefore we raise the objection:

On the contrary! By way of its growth,

when it is complete,

can it be nullified?!

After all, the entire meaning of nullification is to impair it from its completeness?! And the Gemara explains: This is not Shmuel’s intention,

rather, this is what he is saying: Idolatry needs to be nullified only by way of its growth

and when it is complete; but when it breaks on its own, it is nullified by itself, without the gentile impairing it. For 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 in what Rav and Shmuel disagree.

Let us say,

shall we say:

They disagree concerning this

they disagree over this reasoning:

One

Rav

holds:

the gentiles

worship broken pieces,

therefore one must nullify each and every broken piece;

and

if

the other

Shmuel

holds: They do not worship broken pieces,

therefore it is nullified by itself from the moment it breaks?

And we conclude:

No!

This is not the reasoning of their dispute, rather,

everyone

Rav and Shmuel both hold:

They worship broken pieces

that broke on their own.

And

in what do they disagree?

Here,

where Rav said “each and every splinter,” it is speaking

of fragments of fragments,

where all the fragments broke into fragments, and concerning them

they disagree—

One

Rav

holds: Even though they broke into

fragments of fragments—

they are forbidden.

they are forbidden.

And the other

Shmuel

holds: Once they broke into

fragments of

fragments of fragments—

they are permitted,

and they are not similar to the fragments themselves, which are forbidden.

The Gemara brings another way of explaining their dispute.

And if you wish, say

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

everyone

Rav and Shmuel hold:

the gentiles do not

the gentiles

worship

it when it has broken

into fragments of fragments.

And here

and here it is speaking

of idolatry

that was

made of jointed sections,

thin pieces like fragments of fragments, and it fell and came apart into its joints.

And

it is speaking

of

a situation in which

an ordinary person can reassemble it,

and it does not require the work of a craftsman, and concerning this

they disagree:

One

Rav

holds: Since an ordinary person can reassemble it—

it is not nullified,

and one must nullify each and every joint.

And the other

Shmuel

holds: Idolatry is not nullified

that is to say, it does not require nullification

except

if it broke

by way of its growth,

when it exists,

that is, its ordinary manner,

and its manner is so, such as the leaf-shedding matter that falls from trees, even though it falls leaf after leaf and they are fragments of fragments, or the leaf itself breaks into fragments of fragments.

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

this,

idolatry,

is not its growth,

it is not its manner to fall and come apart,

and

therefore

it does not need to be nullified,

and it is nullified by itself.

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

The first part of this chapter is a continuation of the previous chapter concerning the laws of idolatry, its offerings, its ornaments, and its accessories.

The first Mishna deals with the idol Markulis .

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

The first three stones are the body of Markulis, and they are forbidden for benefit like all idolatry until the gentile nullifies it. And even if the stones become separated from one another, they are not thereby nullified, according to the law of an idolatry that was broken, since it is the manner of these stones to be separate, for they are not joined.

The other stones that were added to them have a double status: on the one hand, each and every stone is an offering to the first three stones. And on the other hand, they join together to become an idolatry. Thus, at first they are an offering of idolatry, and in the end they become idolatry itself. Their law, if they became forbidden on account of being an offering, will be explained in the Gemara.

Our Mishna deals with stones found beside Markulis, and there is a doubt which are the stones that fell and became separated from the heap of stones of Markulis, which are forbidden for benefit, and which are stones that are not from this heap and are permitted for benefit. But it is clear that every three stones in the form of Markulis, one upon two, are forbidden, for this is the essence of Markulis and its beginning.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones beside one another,

and they are found

beside Markulis,

a large heap of stones, which they had already worshipped and upon which they had thrown many stones,

are forbidden. And

if they are

two, they are permitted.

The reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

And the Sages say:

The stones

that appear with it,

so that it appears that they fell from Markulis,

are forbidden,

even if they are two.

But those that do not appear

with it, since they are distant from it, are

permitted,

even if they are three.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the reason of the Sages and of Rabbi Yishmael, and in what they disagree.

Granted,

the reason of the Rabbis is understood,

for 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 with it, for it may be said

that one may say

it fell from it,

that they fell from it,

are forbidden.

But those

that do not appear 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 the idol-worshipping gentiles

worship broken pieces,

it is difficult: If so, these stones that became separated from the heap have already become idolatry themselves, and by becoming separated from the heap they were not nullified, because the idol-worshipping gentiles continue to worship them; and if so,

even if one found

them,

two,

two stones,

they should also be forbidden!

they too should be forbidden!

If

he holds:

They do not worship broken pieces,

then the two stones became separated from the heap and were nullified; and if so, it is difficult:

even if he found them

when they were

three,

three,

also not

should they be forbidden!

The Gemara explains:

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: When it is known

that it is known

that they fell

these stones

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

to a case in which they do not worship broken pieces, with regard to

an idolatry whose manner this is not,

whose manner is not to become separated, and 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,

they are initially in the category of “broken,” for each is a stone by itself and they are not joined,

this is its manner,

for this is their manner: to fall from it, since they are not joined; therefore this falling does not constitute nullification of the idolatry. Consequently, there is no doubt here whether they worship it or not, and if it is certainly known that they fell from it, they are certainly forbidden, because they are parts of idolatry.

When they disagree,

in what the Sages and Rabbi Yishmael in fact disagree—

in an unspecified case,

when it is not known whether they fell from it.