Avodah Zarah 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

A Jew who brought stones from a Markulis and paved roads and thoroughfares with them –

are forbidden.

There is neither a plasterer nor the son of a plasterer,

and no sage nor the son of a sage,

who can resolve it

who can resolve this beraita.

For the stones are an idolatrous offering, and such an offering cannot be nullified; so how can they become permitted through the gentile’s nullification?

Rav Sheshet said: I

I

am not a plasterer

I am not a sage,

nor am I the son of a plasterer

nor am I the son of a sage,

but I shall resolve it

and resolve it!

What was his difficulty

What did Rabba bar Yirmeya find difficult? He found difficult the statement

of Rav Giddel

who said in the name of Rav that an idolatrous offering cannot be nullified. But what is the difficulty? We have already resolved it:

It must resemble the face, and it does not

These stones were not prohibited as an idolatrous offering, because they do not resemble the face; rather, they are prohibited as idolatry itself, and therefore they can be nullified.

The Gemara cites another beraita about which they said, “There is neither a plasterer nor the son of a plasterer who can resolve it.” It was taught concerning the laws of the Sabbatical year and the intermediate days of a festival.

Working the soil and trees is prohibited during the Sabbatical year. Some of these activities are prohibited by Torah law: sowing and pruning [cutting thin, dry shoots from grapevines in order to cause the moist branches to grow; this is akin to sowing], and harvesting and picking grapes. The other forms of labor are prohibited only by rabbinic decree.

Among the activities prohibited by rabbinic decree, the Sages distinguished between activities whose purpose is “to sustain the tree,” meaning to preserve the trees in their existing state so that they do not deteriorate; these activities are permitted, and activities whose purpose is “to improve the tree,” to enhance and strengthen it; these are prohibited.

The laws governing work on the soil and trees during the intermediate days of a festival, including what is prohibited and what is permitted, are very similar to the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year.

Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabba bar Yirmeya happened to come

happened to come

to our place

to our place,

and he came and brought a beraita with him

and brought a beraita with him, and so we learned:

One may remove worms

one may remove worms found in trees,

and one may apply manure

when a tree is wounded and some of its bark has fallen away, one applies manure there so that the tree will not die –

during the Sabbatical year.

But one may not remove worms or apply manure during the festival

during the intermediate days of a festival.

In both cases

during the Sabbatical year and during the festival –

one may not prune

one may not cut the branches so that many branches will grow around the place of pruning.

And one may apply oil to a

tree

that has been pruned

that was pruned before the festival or before the Sabbatical year, and one applies oil so that the tree will not die. This application of oil is permitted

both during the festival and during the Sabbatical year.

And

this beraita

has neither a plasterer nor the son of a plasterer

there is neither a sage nor the son of a sage

who can resolve it

who can resolve it. And it is difficult, as will be explained.

Ravina said: I

I

am not a plasterer

I am not a sage,

nor am I the son of a plasterer

and I am not the son of a sage,

but I shall resolve it

and resolve it!

Ravina examines every possible way in which to challenge the beraita, but finds no basis for a difficulty.

And this is what Ravina said:

What was his difficulty

What did Rabba bar Yirmeya find difficult?

If you say

if you say:

It was the distinction between the festival and the Sabbatical year that he found difficult

he found the reason for the difference between the intermediate days of a festival and the Sabbatical year difficult:

What is different

in what way is it different

about the Sabbatical year, that it is permitted

that they permitted removing worms and applying manure to trees,

and what is different about the festival, that it is prohibited

and what is different about the festival, that they prohibited it?

Ravina responds to this difficulty: What is the difficulty?

Are they comparable

Are the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year entirely comparable to those of the festival?

The Sabbatical year –

the Merciful One prohibited labor

whereas

exertion –

is permitted

The Torah permitted it, and therefore the Sages permitted these activities: removing worms and applying manure, which are not considered labor, since they are done “to sustain the tree.” Although they involve considerable exertion, nevertheless the Sages did not prohibit activities that involve only exertion –

whereas

during a festival –

even

activities that should be prohibited solely on account of

exertion

alone

are also prohibited.

Thus, there is no difficulty in the beraita’s distinction between the Sabbatical year and the festival.

And

Ravina continues:

Rather

if we say that

it was the distinction between applying manure and pruning that he found difficult

Rabba bar Yirmeya found the difference between applying manure and pruning difficult, and his question was:

What is different

in what way is it different

about applying manure, that it is permitted

that they permitted it even during the Sabbatical year,

and what is different

and what is different

about pruning, that it is prohibited

during the Sabbatical year? Ravina responds to this difficulty: What is the difficulty?

Are they comparable

Are these activities comparable?

Applying manure

its purpose is

to sustain the tree, and it is permitted

and it is permitted, whereas

pruning

its purpose is

to improve the tree

to strengthen and enhance it,

and it is prohibited.

Rather

if this was difficult for him,

it was the contradiction between two statements concerning applying manure that he found difficult

a contradiction between this beraita and the Mishna that we learned concerning applying manure –

As it is taught

as we learned in this beraita:

One may remove worms and apply manure during the Sabbatical year –

And we raise a contradiction

we learned in tractate Shevi'it:

One may apply manure to saplings

trees that were recently planted,

and wrap them, and cut off their tops, and make shelters for them

and these are various activities for strengthening the tree so that it will not die

and water them until Rosh Hashanah

of the eve of the Sabbatical year. [The other work on trees is prohibited by rabbinic decree thirty days before the Sabbatical year, but the Sages permitted these activities, whose purpose is to prevent the trees from dying, even during those thirty days.]

Let us infer:

Until Rosh Hashanah –

yes,

indeed, it is permitted to apply manure, whereas

during the Sabbatical year –

no.

It is prohibited to apply manure.

This is the contradiction that Rabba bar Yirmeya found difficult.

Ravina responds to this difficulty:

And

what is the contradiction?

Perhaps

it is possible to resolve it

as

the distinction

that

Rav Ukva bar Hama

made concerning the prohibition of hoeing during the Sabbatical year, which is digging beneath olive trees –

with regard to the prohibition against hoeing during the Sabbatical year, which is digging beneath olive trees -

as Rav Ukva bar Hama said: There are two types of hoeing

there are two types of hoeing,

one

one of them is performed

to improve the tree –

and it is prohibited, and one

and the other is performed

to close cracks

If the roots of the tree have become exposed, one covers them with earth,

and

this hoeing

is permitted

because it is performed to sustain the tree, so that it will not deteriorate and die –

And just as we distinguished between two types of hoeing, so

too

it is possible to say:

There are two types of applications of manure

there are two types of applying manure,

one

one of them is performed

to sustain the trees, and

that one

is permitted

the beraita permitted it,

and one,

and the other is performed

to improve the trees, and it is prohibited

and that application of manure the Mishna prohibited during the Sabbatical year itself.

So what was difficult for Rabba bar Yirmeya?

Rather

what was difficult for him?

It was the contradiction between two statements concerning applying oil that he found difficult

a contradiction between the beraita, which permitted applying oil to trees, and the Mishna, which prohibited it –

As it is taught

as we learned in this beraita:

One may apply oil to a pruned tree both during the festival and during the Sabbatical year.

And we raise a contradiction

and we learned a contradiction to this in the Mishna in tractate Shevi'it:

One may apply oil to unripe figs

figs that have formed but have not ripened; one applies oil to them so that they will become fatty,

and one pierces them and fills them with oil

this activity is permitted

until Rosh Hashanah

of the eve of the Sabbatical year.

Let us infer:

Until Rosh Hashanah –

yes,

indeed, it is permitted to apply oil to them, whereas

during the Sabbatical year –

no,

it is prohibited to apply oil.

This is difficult, for the beraita permits it even during the Sabbatical year itself.

Ravina responds: What is the contradiction?

Are they comparable?

Here

what the beraita permitted one to oil was the trees themselves, and its purpose is

to sustain the tree

so that it will not die,

and

therefore

it is permitted

the beraita permitted it. Whereas there, what the Mishna prohibited is

fattening the fruit

to make the fruit plump and improve it –

and it is prohibited.

There is therefore no contradiction.

This is the conclusion of Ravina’s explanation, that he found no difficulty in this beraita.

Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: [

Rabba ]

bar Yirmeya –

the application of oil during the festival

which the beraita permitted,

about the application of manure

concerning the application of manure

during the festival he found difficult

that is what he found difficult –

Granted,

indeed,

this one is for sustaining and that one is for sustaining,

Just as applying oil is permitted because it is done to preserve the tree so that it will not die, so too applying manure is done to preserve the tree and not to improve it. The proof is that applying manure is permitted during the Sabbatical year, and it is clear that it was permitted solely because it is for sustaining the tree –

what is different about this one, that it is permitted

why did they permit applying oil,

and what is different about that one, that it is prohibited

and why did they prohibit applying manure?

And we conclude:

This is what he said to him: “There is neither a plasterer nor the son of a plasterer who can resolve it”

because the beraita is internally difficult.

The Gemara returns to explain the laws of idolatry.

The conclusion of the Gemara in tractate Sanhedrin, and the ruling that was established as halakha, is as follows:

a. Anyone who worships idolatry in the manner in which the gentiles worship it is liable. Even if the manner of worship for that idolatry is unusual—for example, one who throws a stone at Markulis—he is liable, because that is its manner of worship. Similarly, if its manner of worship is degrading, such as one who exposes himself before Pe'or, he is liable to stoning, since that is its manner of worship. This prohibition is derived from the verse [Deuteronomy 12]: “How do these nations worship their gods?”

b. But if one worships idolatry not in its manner of worship—for example, one who exposes himself before Markulis, or one who throws a stone at Pe'or—he is not liable to death.

c. When do these words apply? With regard to other forms of worship in which the gentiles customarily engage. But for the distinctive forms of worship that were performed for God in the Sanctuary of the Temple—namely, bowing, slaughtering, burning incense, libation, and the sprinkling of blood—one is liable for performing them to idolatry even when that idolatry is not customarily worshipped in that manner.

Therefore, one who bows to Pe'or, or slaughters an offering to it, or burns incense to it, or sprinkles blood before it, is liable to death, even though the gentiles do not worship it in this way.

This prohibition is derived from the verse [Exodus 22]: “One who slaughters an offering to the gods [idols] shall be put to death; only to the Lord alone.” That is, the act of slaughtering has been wholly “reserved” for God alone, and no other may share it with Him. Although the verse says “one who slaughters,” the Sages expounded that included in slaughtering are all the distinctive forms of worship of God.

This prohibition is called in the language of the Sages “the forms of worship performed in the Sanctuary.”

Our sugya explains further details of these principles. In addition to the liability to death for these forms of worship, the Gemara later also discusses the laws governing the prohibition of deriving benefit from these forms of worship, whether performed in the customary manner or not in the customary manner, and when the prohibition of deriving benefit applies to the object worshipped—as an idolatrous offering.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: In the case of an idolatry that

the gentiles

worship with a stick,

for example, they rattle a stick before it, if the Jew

broke a stick before it –

he is liable

to death.

And if he

threw a stick before it –

he is exempt

from death.

Explanation: They worship this idolatry with a stick, by rattling it before the idol. Therefore, if a Jew rattles a stick before it, he is liable to death. There is no novelty in this ruling, as it is analogous to one who exposes himself before Pe'or.

Conversely, if this idolatry is not worshipped with a stick at all, and one worships it with a stick, he is exempt. Whether he rattles it, throws it, or breaks it, he is exempt in every case. There is likewise no novelty in this ruling, as it is analogous to one who exposes himself before Markulis.

However, since this idol is worshipped with a stick, at least by rattling it before the idol, the Gemara comes to teach two novel laws: a. If one breaks a stick before it, he is liable. The liability is on account of slaughtering, because breaking a stick somewhat resembles slaughtering: just as slaughtering breaks the animal’s neck, so too breaking the stick. The novelty is that although the idol is not worshipped by breaking a stick, he is nevertheless liable,

since this idolatry is worshipped with a stick; consequently, he performed an act resembling slaughtering with an object customarily used in its worship. [

To explain further: Breaking a stick is not slaughtering, and its resemblance to slaughtering is very remote. Therefore, if this idolatry were not at all worshipped through the use of a stick, we would not make him liable on account of slaughtering. This is not analogous to one who slaughters an animal for Markulis, for the slaughtering of an animal is the distinctive form of slaughtering reserved for God, and is prohibited when performed for any idol. But breaking a stick is not an act of slaughtering; rather, because this idolatry is worshipped with a stick, he is liable even for breaking it, which somewhat resembles slaughtering.]

b. If one throws a stick before it, he is exempt. And this will be explained.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Abaye said to Rava: What is different

in what way is

“broke”

the stick before it, for which he is liable, because

it is comparable to slaughtering,

whereas if he throws a stick before it, he is exempt? After all,

throwing too –

is comparable to sprinkling

the blood of sacrifices, which is one of the forms of worship performed in the Sanctuary and is distinctive to the worship of God. The Gemara answers:

He said to him

Rava said to Abaye:

I require

in order to make him liable on account of sprinkling, that he throw

a “dispersive sprinkling,”

similar to the sprinkling of sacrificial blood, which is not a connected stream but a “dispersive” sprinkling, with the blood falling in separate drops.

In other words, the act of throwing a stick has no essential resemblance in its actual “act” to the act of sprinkling sacrificial blood. Therefore, he is exempt, because he did not worship it through a “form of worship performed in the Sanctuary,” nor did he worship it in its customary manner, since its customary manner is only through rattling the stick. But breaking it resembles the act of slaughtering; therefore, he is liable.

The Gemara discusses the novelty that Rava explained in the statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav: “I require a dispersive sprinkling.”

He raised an objection to him

Abaye cited a beraita to him stating that every act that somewhat resembles a “form of worship performed in the Sanctuary” entails liability to death, even when it is performed in an exceedingly degrading manner.

As it was taught:

If one fed it

he fed the idolatry

feces, or poured before it a chamber pot

an earthenware vessel

of urine,

he is liable

even for an idolatry that is not customarily worshipped in this manner, since this resembles throwing, for which one is liable when performed for every idolatry.