Avodah Zarah 50b — the Talmud in English

An Israelite who brought stones from Markulis and paved roads and public highways with them —

are forbidden.

And there is neither a craftsman nor the son of a craftsman,

and no sage nor the son of a sage,

who can explain it

who can resolve this beraita.

For the stones are an offering to idolatry, and they cannot be annulled; so how are they permitted through the gentile’s annulment?

Rav Sheshet said: I

I

am not a craftsman

I am not a sage,

nor am I the son of a craftsman

nor the son of a sage,

and I shall explain it

and resolve it!

What difficulty did he have with it

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

of Rav Giddel

who said in the name of Rav that there is no annulment for an offering to idolatry! And what is difficult? We have already resolved it:

We require something resembling the face, and there is none

and these stones were not forbidden as an offering, because they do not resemble the face; rather, they are forbidden as idolatry itself, and therefore they have annulment.

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

Agricultural work on the soil and trees is forbidden during the Sabbatical year. Some of it is forbidden by Torah law: sowing and pruning [cutting thin, dry branches from grapevines in order to cause the moist branches to grow, which is similar to sowing], and harvesting and grape-picking. The other forms of labor are forbidden only by rabbinic law.

Regarding the forms of labor forbidden by rabbinic law, the Sages distinguished between forms of labor whose purpose is “to maintain the tree,” that is, to preserve the trees so that they do not deteriorate from their present state; these forms of labor are permitted; and forms of labor that are “to improve the tree,” to enhance and strengthen the tree, which are forbidden.

The laws of working the soil and trees during the intermediate days of the festival, their prohibitions and permissions, are very similar to the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year.

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

happened to come

to our place

to our place,

and he came and brought a beraita in his hand

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

They remove worms

they remove a worm that is in the trees,

and they apply dung

when there is a wound in a tree and some of its bark has fallen off, they apply dung there so that the tree will not die —

during the Sabbatical year.

But they do not remove worms or apply dung during the festival

during the intermediate days of the festival.

In both

during the Sabbatical year and during the festival —

they do not prune

they do not cut the branches so that they will produce many branches around the place of pruning.

And one applies oil to a

tree

that has been pruned

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

both during the festival and during the Sabbatical year.

And

this beraita

has neither a craftsman nor the son of a craftsman

there is neither a sage nor the son of a sage

who can explain it

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

Ravina said: I

I

am not a craftsman

I am not a sage,

nor am I the son of a craftsman

and I am not the son of a sage,

yet I shall explain it

and resolve it!

Ravina attempts all the possibilities by which one might raise a difficulty against the beraita, but finds no basis for a difficulty.

And so Ravina said:

What difficulty did he have

What did Rabbah bar Yirmeya find difficult?

If you say

if you say:

It is the festival in relation to the Sabbatical year that he found difficult

the reason for the difference between the intermediate days of the festival and the Sabbatical year was difficult for him:

What is different

how is it different

about the Sabbatical year, that it is permitted

that they permitted removing worms and applying dung to the trees,

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

and how is the festival different, that they forbade it?

And Ravina answers this difficulty: What is difficult?

Are they comparable

are the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year and the prohibitions of the festival completely comparable?

The Sabbatical year —

the Merciful One forbade labor,

whereas

trouble —

is permitted

the Torah permitted it, and therefore the Sages permitted these forms of labor: removing worms and applying dung, which are not in the category of labor, since they are done “to maintain the tree”; and although they involve great trouble, nevertheless the Sages did not forbid activities that involve only trouble —

whereas

the festival —

even

forms of labor that should be forbidden merely on account of

trouble

alone,

are also forbidden.

Thus there is no difficulty from the distinction that the beraita made between the Sabbatical year and the festival.

And

Ravina continues:

Rather

if it is said that

it is the application of dung in relation to pruning that he found difficult,

Rabbah bar Yirmeya found difficult the difference between applying dung and pruning, and his difficulty is:

What is different

how is it different

about applying dung, which is permitted

which they permitted even during the Sabbatical year,

and what is different

and how is it different

about pruning, which is forbidden

during the Sabbatical year? And Ravina answers this difficulty: What is difficult?

Are they comparable

are these comparable?

Applying dung

its purpose is

to maintain 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 forbidden.

Rather

if he found it difficult,

it is the application of dung in relation to application of dung that he found difficult

a contradiction between this beraita and the Mishna that we learned concerning the law of applying dung —

for it teaches

that we learned in this beraita:

They remove worms and apply dung during the Sabbatical year —

and we raise a contradiction

we learned a Mishna in tractate Sheviit:

They apply dung to saplings

trees that they planted recently,

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

and these are types of labor for strengthening the tree so that it will not die

and they water them until the New Year

of the eve of the Sabbatical year. [The rest of the work on trees is forbidden by rabbinic law thirty days before the Sabbatical year, and these activities, whose purpose is that the trees should not die, were permitted by the Sages even during those thirty days].

And let us infer:

Until the New Year —

yes,

indeed it is permitted to apply dung, whereas

during the Sabbatical year —

no.

And it is forbidden to apply dung.

And this is the contradiction that Rabbah bar Yirmeya found difficult.

And Ravina answers this difficulty:

And

what contradiction is there?

Perhaps

it is possible to resolve it

a

s

d

istinguished

Rav Ukva bar Hama

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

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

there are two types of hoeing,

one

the first is done

to improve the tree —

and it is forbidden, and one

and the second is done

to seal cracks

when the roots of the tree are exposed, he covers them with earth,

and

this hoeing

is permitted

because it is done to maintain the tree, so that it will not deteriorate and die —

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

likewise

it is possible to say:

There are two types of applications of dung

there are two types of applying dung,

one

the first is done

to maintain the trees, and

that one

is permitted

the beraita permitted it,

and one,

and the second is done

to improve the trees, and it is forbidden

and the Mishna forbade that application during the Sabbatical year itself.

And what is difficult for Rabbah bar Yirmeya?

But rather

what did he find difficult?

It is application of oil in relation to application of oil that he found difficult,

a contradiction between the beraita, which permitted applying oil to trees, and the Mishna, which forbade it —

for it teaches

that we learned in this beraita:

One applies 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 a Mishna in tractate Sheviit:

One applies oil to figs

figs, which are figs that have begun to form but have not ripened — one applies oil to them so that they will become fatty,

and one punctures them and fattens them

with oil; this activity is permitted

until the New Year

of the eve of the Sabbatical year.

And let us infer:

Until the New Year —

yes,

indeed it is permitted to apply oil to them, whereas

during the Sabbatical year —

no,

and it is forbidden to apply oil.

And it is difficult, for the beraita permits it even during the Sabbatical year itself?

And Ravina answers: What contradiction is there?

Are they comparable?

Here

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

to maintain the tree

so that it will not die,

and

therefore

it is permitted

the beraita permitted it; whereas there, what the Mishna forbade is

fattening the fruit

to make the fruits fatty and enhance them —

and it is forbidden.

And there is no contradiction here.

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

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

[Rabbah]

bar Yirmeya —

the application of oil during the festival

which the beraita permitted,

the application of dung

concerning the application of dung

during the festival is what he found difficult

he found difficult —

Now,

after all,

this is maintaining and that is maintaining,

just as applying oil is permitted because it is done to preserve the tree so that it will not die, so applying dung is done for the purpose of preserving the tree and not to enhance it; and the proof is that they permitted applying dung during the Sabbatical year, and it is clear that they permitted it only because it is to maintain the tree —

What is different about this, that it is permitted

why did they permit applying oil,

and what is different about that, that it is forbidden

and why did they forbid applying dung?

And we conclude:

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

because the beraita is difficult from within itself.

The Gemara returns to explain the laws of idolatry.

The conclusion of the Gemara in tractate Sanhedrin, and this is also the ruling of the halakha, is:

a. Anyone who worships idolatry in the manner in which the gentiles worship it is liable for it. Even if the manner of worship of that idolatry was unusual, such as one who throws a stone at Markulis, he is liable, because that is its manner of worship. Likewise, if its manner of worship was through a disgraceful act, such as one who exposes himself before Peor, he is liable to stoning, since this is its manner of worship. This prohibition is learned from what is stated [Deuteronomy 12], “How did these nations worship.”

b. But if he worshiped idolatry not in its manner of worship, such as one who exposes himself before Markulis, or one who throws a stone at Peor — he is not liable to death.

c. When do these words apply? To other forms of worship that the gentiles practiced. But the special forms of worship that were performed for the God of blessing inside the Temple — namely, bowing, slaughtering, burning incense, libating, and throwing — one is liable for performing them to idolatry even when that idolatry is not customarily worshiped in that manner.

Therefore, one who bows to Peor, or slaughters for it, or burns incense for it, or throws something to it, even though the gentiles do not do so, is liable to death.

This prohibition is learned from what is stated [Exodus 22], “One who slaughters to gods [idols] shall be put to death, except to the Lord alone.” That is, this act of slaughtering was “emptied out” entirely for the God of blessing alone, and no other has a share in it; and although it says “one who slaughters,” the Sages expounded that all the special forms of worship for the God of blessing are included within slaughtering.

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

Our discussion explains additional details of these principles. In addition to the liability to death for these forms of worship, the Gemara later also discusses the laws of the prohibition of benefit from these forms of worship, whether in its manner of worship or not in its manner of worship, and when the prohibition of benefit applies to the object worshiped — by the law of an offering to idolatry.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: An idolatry that

the gentiles

worship with a stick,

for example, they rattle a stick before it; if the Israelite

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 it. Therefore, if an Israelite rattled it before it, he is liable to death. There is no novelty in this law, for it is like one who exposes himself before Peor.

On the other hand, if this idolatry is not worshiped with a stick at all, and he worshiped it with a stick, he is exempt. Whether he rattled it, threw it, or broke it, in every case he is exempt. There is also no novelty in this law, for it is similar to one who exposes himself before Markulis.

But since this idol is worshiped with a stick, at least by rattling it before it, the Gemara comes to teach two novel laws. They are: a. If he broke a stick before it, he is liable. The liability is by the law of slaughtering. Since breaking a stick is somewhat similar to slaughtering, just as slaughtering breaks the animal’s neck, so too does breaking break the stick. The novelty is that although they do not worship it by breaking, nevertheless

he is liable, since they worship this idolatry with a stick; it follows that he performed an act “resembling slaughtering” with something customary for it. [

And in greater explanation: Breaking a stick is not slaughtering, and the resemblance to slaughtering is also very remote. Therefore, if the manner of this idolatry were not at all through the worship of a stick, we would not make him liable by the law of slaughtering, and this is not similar to one who slaughters an animal for Markulis, who is liable for it, because slaughtering an animal is the special slaughtering performed for the God of blessing, which is forbidden for all idols. But breaking a stick is not an act of slaughtering; rather, because the worship of this idolatry is with a stick, — therefore he is liable even for breaking, which is somewhat similar to slaughtering].

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

Abaye said to Rava: What is different

how is it different

“he broke”

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

it is equivalent to an act resembling slaughtering,

whereas if he threw a stick before it, he is exempt, but

throwing also —

is equivalent to an act resembling throwing

the blood of offerings, and this is one of the forms of worship inside that was designated for the worship of the God of blessing? And the Gemara answers:

He said to him

Rava said to Abaye:

We require,

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

a “dispersing” throw,

like the throwing of the blood of offerings, which is not joined together, but “disperses,” as the blood falls divided into drops.

That is, the act of throwing a stick has no resemblance in the essence of the “act” to the act of throwing the blood of offerings; therefore he is exempt, because he did not worship it with a “form of worship inside,” nor with its customary worship, since its custom is only through rattling. But breaking — the act of breaking resembles the act of slaughtering; therefore he is liable.

The Gemara discusses this novel point that Rava explained in the view of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav: “We require a dispersing throw.”

He raised an objection to him

Abaye raised an objection from a beraita that says that every act that is somewhat similar to a “form of worship inside” entails liability to death, even if he performed it in the most disgraceful manner.

For it was taught:

If he fed it

he fed the idolatry

excrement, or if he libated before it a chamber pot

an earthenware vessel

of urine,

Exact location on the page")

he is liable

even for an idolatry whose manner is not this, since this resembles throwing, for which one is liable with regard to all idolatries.