Avodah Zarah 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

The prohibition of slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple precincts applies to an offering consecrated to the Lord and sacrificed outside the Tabernacle. One who sacrifices it is liable to karet.

At the beginning of the passage concerning slaughtering outside the Temple precincts, it is stated [verse 3–4]: “Any man of the House of Israel who slaughters

outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice an offering... to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord... that man shall be cut off from among his people.” We learn from here the punishment of karet for slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple precincts.

Afterward [verses 5–7], it is stated: “So that the Children of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, and bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs.”

The beraita addresses the repetition in the verses: The Torah already stated [in verses 3–4] all the laws of slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple precincts; what does the Torah add afterward [in verses 5–7]?

The beraita expounds the passage: Its first part was stated with regard to the period when private altars were prohibited, and its second part with regard to the period when private altars were permitted.

Private altars constructed for sacrificing to the Lord were permitted to the Children of Israel until the establishment of the Tabernacle [and also during its dismantling, under certain conditions]; once the Temple was built, private altars were prohibited forever.

And likewise we learned:

Up to this point

[verses 3–4]

it speaks of sacrificial animals consecrated during the period when private altars were prohibited and sacrificed

outside

during the period when private altars were prohibited, as their punishment is stated

And concerning this, the Torah reveals their punishment—karet, as

it is stated

[there]: “

And they did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting... and that man shall be cut off from among his people.”

Punishment

of karet

we have heard

in this passage; but

from where is the warning

—from where do we know that they were warned against this?

The verse states

[Deuteronomy 12]: “

Take care lest you offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see. Rather, only at the place that the Lord will choose.”

And

this verse is expounded as a warning,

in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Ila

[Ila'a]:

For Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Ila said: Everywhere

in the Torah

that it is stated “

take care,” “lest,” or “do not”—

it is nothing other than

a warning of

“you shall not do.”

Thus we have heard both a punishment and a warning for one who sacrifices outside the Temple precincts sacrificial animals consecrated during the period when private altars were prohibited and sacrifices them during the period when private altars were prohibited.

The beraita continues:

From this point onward,

the verses that follow [verses 5–7],

speak of sacrificial animals consecrated during the period when private altars were permitted and sacrificed during the period when private altars were prohibited.

The verse comes to warn and prohibit sacrificing them outside the Temple precincts, even though their consecration was a consecration for the purpose of sacrificing on a private altar,

as it is stated

[there]: “

So that the Children of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice,”

that is, those sacrifices

that I had already permitted you

—meaning, those that had already been destined to be sacrificed on private altars; they shall bring them to the Tabernacle.

The continuation of the verse is: “

in the open field,”

and we expound it:

It teaches

us

that anyone who sacrifices on a private altar during the period when private altars are prohibited, the verse regards him as though he were sacrificing in the open field

—that is, for the purpose of idol worship!

The continuation of the verse is: “

And bring them to the Lord”—

this is a positive mitzva

to bring them to the Lord in the Tabernacle.

Up to this point, we have heard of a positive mitzva to bring them to the Tabernacle.

And the negative mitzva—

from where

do we know that if he sacrificed them outside the Temple precincts, he transgressed a “you shall not do”?

The verse states

[there]: “

And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices.”

And we expound it: They shall not sacrifice them outside the Temple precincts.

The beraita continues:

Could he be liable to karet

for them, just as one who sacrifices outside the Temple precincts sacrificial animals that he consecrated during the period when private altars were prohibited?

The verse states

[there]: “

This shall be an eternal statute for them.”

And we expound it:

This

transgression of a positive and a negative mitzva they have,

for them

but not another

—namely, the punishment of karet

for them.

Now, Rabbi Elazar faces a difficulty: From where does he derive from this verse the law concerning one who slaughters an animal for Mercury, since we expound this verse with regard to sacrificial animals consecrated during the period when private altars were permitted and sacrificed outside the Temple precincts during the period when private altars were prohibited?

And we conclude:

Rava said:

Both expositions are required, for the Torah could have written, “And they shall not sacrifice their sacrifices”; why does it say “any longer”? And we expound it:

Read it as “

And they shall not sacrifice”

to teach the prohibition of slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple precincts, as explained.

And read it as “

and not any longer”

for Rabbi Elazar’s exposition: One who slaughters an animal for Mercury is liable, even though this is not its customary manner of worship.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues with the laws of Mercury—and the same applies to other idols—and with the prohibition against deriving benefit from what belongs to it. It was already explained in the preceding discussion that an offering to an idol is prohibited if it is similar to the “Temple service,” that is, if an offering like it is sacrificed to God on the altar.

If one found coins, garments, or vessels on its head—

they are permitted

to derive benefit from, because nothing similar to them is sacrificed on the altar. The Gemara will explain why they are not prohibited as “ornaments of an idol.”

But if he found

clusters of grapes, wreaths of grain, wines, oils, fine flour, or anything similar to them that

[resembles them]

is sacrificed on the altar —

it is prohibited.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that if one found coins, garments, or vessels on its head, they are not prohibited from benefit. It follows that if one found gold, silver, or anything that is an “ornament,” intended to beautify the idols, they are prohibited from benefit.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters

derived? From where did we learn that something that is an ornament is prohibited from benefit, whereas something that is not an ornament is not prohibited?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said that Rabbi Oshaya said: One verse

[Deuteronomy 29]

states: “

And you saw their abominations and their detestable idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which are with them”—

This implies two matters: a. The gentiles would offer wood and stone before the idols in addition to silver and gold. b. They are “abominations,” meaning that the Torah prohibits them.

And

if

one verse

[Deuteronomy 7]

states: “

You shall not covet the silver and gold that is upon them,”

and it does not say “wood and stone.”

How is this

possible? The verses contradict one another, for one verse prohibits even wood and stone, while the other verse does not prohibit them.

It must be explained: “

which are with them”—that is, the verse that states “wood and stone, silver and gold, which are with them” is

analogous to “that is upon them,”

that is, similar to the wording of the verse that states “silver and gold that is upon them”

—

And we expound:

Just as “upon them”—

an item that is an ornament is prohibited

—as it explicitly mentions “silver and gold,” which are ornamental items—whereas

an item that is not an ornament

is permitted

—as it does not mention wood and stone—

so too, “with them”—

an item that is an ornament is prohibited, while one that is not an ornament is permitted. The wood and stone mentioned there refer to ornamental wood and stone, and they are indeed prohibited.

[This paragraph corresponds to the exposition above.]

The Gemara challenges this exposition: Why should we expound it this way?

But say

that it is possible to say the opposite: “

‘Upon them’ is analogous to ‘with them’”—

just as “with them”

mentions wood and stone, from which we should expound:

anything that is with them,

even items that are not ornaments, since ordinary wood and stone are not ornaments;

so too, “upon them”—

everything

that is

upon them

—and every item upon the idols should be prohibited?

The Gemara answers:

If so,

if the Torah came to prohibit everything that is upon the idols,

it would not say “upon them”;

the entire verse would be superfluous. For if even what is with them—that is, beside them—is prohibited, and the Torah calls those items “abominations,” all the more so what is actually upon them is prohibited; for what purpose, then, did the Torah write this verse? It follows that the Torah wrote this verse in order to establish an analogy to it and prohibit only an item that is an ornament .

The Gemara is astonished:

Coins?! They are an ornamental item;

why, then, did the Mishna say that they are permitted?

The Gemara answers:

They said in the academy of

Rabbi Yannai:

Coins are indeed an ornamental item, but our Mishna is speaking of a case in which they were found in a manner that is not ornamental, for example:

in a pouch

of coins

tied and hanging from its neck

of the idol .

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Garments?! They are an ornamental item;

why, then, did the Mishna say that they are permitted?

The Gemara answers:

They said in the academy of Rabbi Yannai:

Our Mishna is speaking

of a garment folded and placed upon its head

in a manner that is not ornamental.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

A vessel?! It is an ornamental item;

why, then, did the Mishna say that it is permitted?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: It is a basin placed

[something resembling a tub]

upon its head

inverted over its head, in a manner that is not ornamental.

The idols that existed in their time had partitions spread out before them. The Gemara calls these partitions “kalkelin,” a derogatory term for curtains.

Rav Asi bar Hiyya said: Any

item

that

is found

inside the kalkelin

of any of the idols,

even water and salt

which are not ornamental items,

is prohibited

as an offering to an idol, since it is found directly before it.

And if it is found

outside the kalkelin—

if it is

an ornamental item—

it is prohibited,

as explained: Ornaments of an idol are prohibited.

But if an item is found

that is not an ornament—

it is permitted,

even clusters of grapes and the like, which are “similar to the Temple service,” because an offering to an idol is not placed outside the kalkelin.

Rav Yosei bar Ḥanina said: We have accepted

a tradition from our forefathers:

There is no

law of

kalkelin for Pe’or or for Mercury.

The Gemara discusses this:

For what purpose

—with regard to which halakha—do they have no law of kalkelin?

If you say

that it means:

that even what is inside

the kalkelin

is like what is outside

in the case of other idols,

and

if one found inside it an item that is not an ornament,

it is permitted—

How can this be said?

Now,

if even

they defecate

before it—and this is certainly not an ornamental item—and likewise people throw stones at Mercury,

will water and salt not be brought near it?!

And we conclude:

Rather,

the opposite:

even if they found outside it

an item

outside

that is not an ornament, it is

like what is inside

in the case of other idols,

and it is prohibited and forbidden as an offering to an idol. Since the interruption of the kalkelin, which are made for modesty and honor, is irrelevant to them, because all their worship is conducted by way of degradation.

The entire distinction between outside the kalkelin and inside them applies only to other idols, for which a partition is made for modesty and honor .

Mishna:

Our Mishna comes to explain that there are items belonging to an idol that are nevertheless permitted to derive benefit from.

An idol that had a garden or a bathhouse—

The garden or bathhouse is not itself an idol, nor is it an offering to an idol; therefore, it is not prohibited from benefit.

Rather, they “belong” to it, meaning that they were consecrated

for the needs of the idol. This is not enough to prohibit deriving benefit from them, because there is no consecration to an idol. Therefore— They may derive benefit from them, meaning that it is permitted to derive benefit from them, for example, to take produce from the garden or bathe in the bathhouse— without providing a benefit

provided that they do not pay the priests of the idol—

but one may not derive benefit from them by providing a benefit,

and it is prohibited to give them payment .

If the bathhouse or garden was jointly owned by it and by others, belonging both to the idol and to others— one may derive benefit from them with or without providing a benefit .

The Mishna explains that there is a distinction between an idol belonging to a gentile and one belonging to a Jew.

An idol

belonging to a

gentile

—a gentile— \ - is prohibited immediately, once he makes it and renders it fit for idol worship.

But if it belongs

to a Jew,

who made it for his own purposes in order to sell it to a gentile,

—

it is not prohibited

when he makes it,

until it is worshipped.

The Gemara will explain the reason for the distinction from expositions of the verses.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: An idol that had a garden or bathhouse—one may derive benefit from them without providing a benefit, but one may not derive benefit from it by providing a benefit.

Abaye said: What is prohibited

“by providing a benefit”

means

by providing a benefit to the priests, and what is permitted

“without

providing a benefit”

means

without providing a benefit to the priests.

To exclude

the

benefit of its worshippers,

who are not priests—

it is permitted

to give them some payment for the benefit of using the bathhouse or garden.

There are those who taught it

Abaye’s statement

with regard to the latter clause,

the latter clause of the Mishna:

If it was jointly owned by it and by others—

one may derive benefit from them with or without providing a benefit.

And regarding the latter clause,

Abaye said: What we learned

“with providing a benefit”

means

by providing a benefit to the others,

who are not priests; and what we learned

“without providing a benefit” means

without providing a benefit to the priests.

According to this formulation, it is prohibited to give payment to the priests under any circumstances, even though the garden or bathhouse does not belong exclusively to the priests. Therefore, we clarify:

The one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause—

all the more so with regard to the first clause,

since, when the property belongs exclusively to the priests, it is prohibited to give payment to the priests

[and also not to others who are not the priests ].

But if

the one who teaches it with regard to the first clause

is lenient and maintains:

but with regard to the latter clause—

since there are others together with it,

who benefit from the payment, therefore even by providing a benefit to the priests, it is also acceptable— it is permitted to give payment even to the priests. We learned in our Mishna: An idol belonging to a gentile— is prohibited immediately, whereas one belonging to a Jew is not prohibited until it is worshipped. The Gemara discusses this: Whose opinion is our Mishna? Whose Mishna is it? It is Rabbi Akiva’s,

and not Rabbi Ishmael’s.

As it was taught:

We learned in a beraita: [The beraita first presents the statement of Rabbi Ishmael.] It is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 12]: “

You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations worshipped there.”

And we expound it:

It speaks of vessels that they used

when the gentiles entered the Land of Israel

for idol worship—

the verse speaks.

[The Gemara will explain: The verse says “places”; how can it be expounded as referring to “vessels”?] These vessels are “accessories of an idol.”

One might have thought

that:

They made them

the vessels

but did not complete them, completed them but did not bring them

to the idols,

brought them but did not use them

for the needs of the idols—

one might have thought that they would be prohibited?

The verse states: “

where the nations worshipped there”

to teach you

that they are not prohibited until they are used for worship.

From here the Sages said:

the Sages:

an object of idolatry belonging to a gentile is not forbidden until it has been worshipped [

and the Gemara will explain: We have expounded the words of Scripture as referring to “vessels”—but from where do we know that the idols themselves are likewise not forbidden until they have been worshipped?]

and

an object of idolatry

belonging to a Jew is forbidden immediately.

These are

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: The matters are reversed! An object of idolatry belonging to a gentile is forbidden immediately, whereas one belonging to a Jew is forbidden only once it has been worshipped. [

The Gemara will explain his reasoning.]

Our Mishna was taught in accordance with the view of Rabbi Akiva.

The Gemara explains the beraita.

The Master said

the beraita taught:

The verse is speaking of vessels that were used for idolatry.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But “places” is written,

and how did Rabbi Yishmael expound this as referring to vessels?

The Gemara answers:

If it does not apply to “places,” since

the places

are not forbidden,

they are not forbidden, and the Torah does not command that they be destroyed—

and from where do we know that they are not forbidden?

As it is written

later in the verse, “

their gods upon the mountains,”

and we expound it:

but not the mountains as their gods.