Avodah Zarah 52a — the Talmud in English

Therefore,

apply it to vessels, and the Torah commands to destroy the vessels; and concerning those vessels Rabbi Yishmael expounded that they are not prohibited until “where the nations served there.”

, and the Torah commands that the utensils be destroyed; and concerning those utensils Rabbi Yishmael expounded that they do not become prohibited until “the nations worshiped there.”

We learned further in the beraita:

From here they said: an object of idolatry belonging to a gentile—

is prohibited only until it is worshipped, whereas one belonging to a Jew

is prohibited

immediately.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But did we not establish it as referring to “vessels”? Rabbi Yishmael expounded that “places” are vessels that were used for the needs of idolatry, and not the idols themselves?

After all, Rabbi Yishmael expounded that “places” refers to utensils that were used for idolatrous purposes, and not to the idols themselves?

And the Gemara answers:

The verse says: “You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations served there, whose land you are inheriting, and their gods,”

and we expound:

it compares—the Torah compares

: The Torah compares

their gods

mentioned later in the verse—

to the vessels

mentioned at the beginning of the verse [“places”]].

This teaches you:

just as vessels

are not prohibited

until they are used in worship—

so too their gods [which are not the mountains themselves, but idols made by human hands]

which are not the mountains themselves, but idols made by human beings

also

are not prohibited

until they are used in worship.

And the Gemara discusses:

And Rabbi Akiva, who does not compare vessels to their gods, and maintains that their gods became prohibited immediately when they made them, whereas vessels did not become prohibited immediately—what will he answer regarding the comparison expounded by Rabbi Yishmael, since the Torah compared them?

utensils with their gods, and maintains that their gods become prohibited as soon as they make them, whereas utensils do not become prohibited immediately—what will he answer concerning the juxtaposition expounded by Rabbi Yishmael? After all, the Torah compared them to one another.

And the Gemara answers:

He can say to you, Rabbi Akiva: the Torah says

: The Torah states, “

“et” their gods—

ir gods”—

it interrupted the matter. The word “et” comes to interrupt between the vessels and the idols, and to teach you that they should not be compared as Rabbi Yishmael compared them .

, meaning that the word “the” creates a break between the utensils and the idols, teaching that they should not be compared as Rabbi Yishmael compared them .

And the Gemara discusses:

And

according to

Rabbi Yishmael, we find, we learn from this verse that

—we learn from this verse that

an object of idolatry

belonging to a gentile is not prohibited until it is worshipped—

whereas an object of idolatry

belonging to a Jew, which is prohibited immediately—

from where does he derive it,

from where does he know it?

And the Gemara answers: it is not learned from an exposition of the verses, but rather

it is logical:

from what we find

that a gentile’s [idol remains unprohibited] until it is worshipped—

it is logical

that

belonging to

a Jew is prohibited immediately .

And the Gemara raises an objection: from where is it possible to say so?

Say—

it is possible to say

that

belonging to

a Jew is not prohibited at all

for benefit ?

And the Gemara is astonished: how is it possible to say so, that it should not be prohibited for benefit?

Now,

if even

burial is required—the Torah obligates one to bury it, as will be explained later—

—the Torah requires that it be hidden away, as will be explained later—

is it not prohibited? Is it possible that it should not be prohibited for benefit?! And the Gemara raises an objection: what made it logical to him that if the idol of a gentile is prohibited until it is worshipped, the idol of a Jew is prohibited immediately?

? Would it not certainly be prohibited for benefit?! And the Gemara raises a further difficulty: What is the basis for the assumption that if one belonging to a gentile is prohibited only once it is worshiped, one belonging to a Jew is prohibited immediately?

And say—

it is possible to say that the one belonging to a Jew has the law

like

that

belonging to a gentile ?

And the Gemara answers:

The verse says [Deuteronomy 19]: “And your sin that you made, the calf,”

Deuteronomy 9

]: “And your sin that you committed, the calf,”

and we expound “that you made”—to teach you:

from the time of its making, it stands in a state of sin; it is in a state of sin, that is, it is prohibited.

—it is already in a state of sin, meaning that it is prohibited.

And the Gemara raises an objection: from where is it possible to expound that it is prohibited for benefit—

and say

it is possible to say:

these words

refer only

to placing the man in a state of sin—that the Jew who made it committed an act of “sin,” but nevertheless—

—the Jew who makes it has committed an act of “sin,” but nevertheless,

it is not prohibited: the object of idolatry itself is still not prohibited for benefit until it is worshipped. And from this verse it has not been proven that it is prohibited for benefit from the time of its making. And the Gemara answers: indeed, it is not learned from this verse, but rather,

: the object of idolatry itself is still not prohibited for benefit until it is worshiped. And this verse does not prove that it is prohibited for benefit from the time it is made. And the Gemara answers: Indeed, this is not learned from that verse; rather,

the verse says [Deuteronomy 27]:

Deuteronomy 27

“Cursed is the man who makes a graven image or a molten image,”

and we expound “who makes it” to teach us:

from the time of its making, he stands under a curse; he violated the covenant that Israel made with the Holy One, blessed be He, and his punishment is explicitly stated: “Cursed is the man.”

—he violated the covenant that Israel made with the Holy One, blessed be He, and his punishment is explicitly stated: “Cursed is the man.”

And the Gemara raises an objection: there is still no proof from this verse that it is prohibited for benefit, because

say—

it is possible to say:

these words

refer only

to placing the man—that the Jew who makes a graven image or a molten image will be

—the Jew who makes a graven or molten image will be

“under a curse,” but nevertheless—

, but nevertheless,

it is not prohibited: the image itself is still not prohibited for benefit until it is worshipped?

—the image itself is still not prohibited for benefit until it is worshiped?

And we conclude:

“The abomination of the Lord” is written in this verse, and it comes to teach us that it is an abomination and is prohibited for benefit.

in this verse, and this teaches that it is an abomination and is prohibited for benefit.

After Rabbi Yishmael proved from this verse that the idolatry of a Jew is prohibited immediately, we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that it is not prohibited immediately, but only until it is worshipped, what will he answer regarding this exposition?

, who maintains that it is not prohibited immediately, but only once it is worshiped—what will he answer concerning this exposition?

And the Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva maintains that the Torah does not mean that the image is now an abomination from the time of its making; rather, now the one who makes it is “cursed,” because he made

a thing that brings

him

to abomination, that he will worship it.

—that he will worship it.

And according to Rabbi Akiva, there is no proof from this verse that the idolatry of a Jew is prohibited for benefit from the time of its making.

We learned in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva says: the reverse is the case: the idolatry of a gentile is prohibited immediately, and that of a Jew only until it is worshipped.

And the Gemara discusses:

And Rabbi Akiva, [as for] the idolatry of a gentile, which is prohibited immediately

from the time of its making—

from where does he derive it,

from where does he know it?

Ulla said: the verse says [Deuteronomy 7], concerning the idols of the nations:

Deuteronomy 7, concerning the idols of the nations

“The graven images of their gods you shall burn in fire,”

and we expound:

once he has fashioned it,

and made its form in it,

it becomes a god, even before they worship it. Therefore it is prohibited for benefit.

, even before it is worshiped. Therefore it is prohibited for benefit.

And the Gemara discusses:

And the other one, what will Rabbi Yishmael answer regarding this exposition?

—what will Rabbi Yishmael answer concerning this exposition?

That verse

is needed by him

to be expounded

for

another exposition,

as

in

that Rav Yosef taught—

For Rav Yosef taught: from where

do we learn

the

this halakha:

a gentile who disqualifies his god, who can nullify it, and when he nullifies it, it is nullified?

—meaning that he can nullify it, and when he nullifies it, it is nullified?

As it is stated: “The graven images of their gods you shall burn in fire,”

and we expound “graven images” from the language of “disqualified,” that is, nullification.

And the Gemara discusses:

And the other one, from where does Rabbi Akiva know that a gentile nullifies his god, since according to him the verse “the graven images of their gods” is expounded for another exposition?

—from where does Rabbi Akiva know that a gentile can nullify his god, since in his view “the graven images of their gods” is needed for another exposition?

He derives it—Rabbi Akiva learns it

—Rabbi Akiva learns it—

from

the exposition

that

was expounded by

Shmuel—

For Shmuel juxtaposed

the contradiction between the verses:

it is written: “The graven images of their gods you shall burn in fire,

“you shall not covet the silver and gold that is on them,”

you shall not covet silver and gold upon them,”

and

later

it is written:

:

“and you shall take for yourself”—how so? If it is forbidden to covet it, why should he take it for himself ?

? If it is forbidden to covet it, why should one take it for himself ?

Therefore we expound:

if he disqualified it

the gentile

from

making it

a god—regarding this the Torah commands:

—the Torah commands concerning it:

“you shall not covet”!

And if

he disqualified it from

being

a god, that is, he made it refuse—regarding this the Torah permits:

, meaning that he rendered it refuse, the Torah permits:

“and you shall take for yourself,” since he nullified it.

since he has nullified it.

And from this exposition of Shmuel, Rabbi Akiva learns that a gentile nullifies idols, and not from the expression “graven images,” which is expounded to mean that the gentile “disqualifies,” that is, nullifies. And “graven images” is also expounded as “he fashioned it as a god,” that is, he made its form; and regarding this the Torah said that it is already his god and is prohibited for benefit.

And the Gemara discusses:

And

according to

Rabbi Akiva—

we find,

we have found an exposition that

the idolatry of a gentile

is

prohibited immediately—

the idolatry

of a Jew,

which is not prohibited

until it is worshipped—

from where [does he derive it],

from where does he know it?

Rav Yehuda said: the verse says [Deuteronomy 27]: “Cursed is the man who makes a graven image or a molten image,

Deuteronomy 27

and places it in secret,”

and we expound:

until he does to it things that are in secret, that is, until he worships it, for he does so in secret, fearing that it may become known to the court and they will stone him.

Until he performs acts for it in secret

And the Gemara discusses:

And the other one, what will Rav Yishmael answer regarding this exposition, whose meaning is that it is not prohibited immediately, but only until he worships it?

And the other one

The verse

is needed by him

to be expounded for another exposition,

as

in

that

was expounded by

Rabbi Yitzhak—

For Rabbi Yitzhak said: from where

do we learn

the

this halakha:

the idolatry of a Jew requires burial, when it is whole, one buries it in the ground —

—when it is intact, it must be hidden in the ground —

as it is stated:

:

“and places it in secret,”

and we expound: “and they shall place it in secret.”

And the Gemara discusses:

And the other one, Rabbi Akiva, who expounds from this verse “until he does to it things that are in secret”—from where does he derive the halakha that it requires burial?

—Rabbi Akiva, who derives from this verse “until he performs acts for it in secret,” from where does he learn the law that it requires concealment?

Rabbi Akiva

derives it from

the exposition

that

was expounded by

Rav Hisda said in the name of Rav—

For Rav Hisda said in the name of Rav: from where

do we learn

the

this halakha:

that the idolatry of a Jew requires burial?

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 16]:

Deuteronomy 16

“You shall not plant for yourself an asherah, any tree, beside the altar of the Lord your God,”

and ostensibly this is difficult: what connection does an asherah have with the altar, since the prohibition of planting an asherah applies everywhere? Rather, it comes to teach us: to compare an asherah to an altar—

just as an altar requires burial,

since it is prohibited for benefit —

so too

an asherah

and other idolatry

requires burial.

And the Gemara discusses:

And the other one, Rabbi Yishmael, who expounds that idolatry requires burial from what is written, “and places it in secret”—for what exposition did the Torah compare an asherah to an altar?

—Rabbi Yishmael, who derives that an object of idolatry requires concealment from the verse “and places it in secret”—for what exposition did the Torah compare an asherah to an altar?

That comparison

is needed by him

to be expounded

for

another exposition,

as

in

the exposition of

expounded [

Resh Lakish [with the addition of Rav Ashi]—

]—

For Resh Lakish said: anyone who appoints

in Israel

an unfit judge—

it is as though he planted an asherah in Israel!

As it is stated there:

there:

“Judges and officers you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates,”

and adjacent to it

it is stated:

“You shall not plant for yourself an asherah, any tree,” and “tree” hints at a person, as it is stated: “For man is a tree of the field,” and the reference is to a student who is unfit.

and “tree” alludes to a person, as it is stated: “For man is a tree of the field”; the reference is to an unfit Torah scholar.

And regarding this exposition

Rav Ashi said: and in a place

where there are

Torah scholars who are suitable, then one who appoints an unfit judge—

who are fit, if one appoints an unfit judge,

it is as though he planted him

as an asherah

beside the altar

of the Lord—

As it is stated:

“You shall not plant for yourself an asherah,” which hints at an unfit judge—

beside the altar,

which hints at Torah scholars .

We have learned that Rabbi Yishmael expounds the words of the verse in which “places” is stated as referring to vessels that the gentiles used for idolatry, and maintains that accessories of idolatry are not prohibited until they are used; and Rabbi Akiva too does not disagree with him regarding accessories, but only regarding the idolatry itself.

The Gemara discusses the law of accessories.

Rav Hamnuna asked: [if] he welded a vessel,

a vessel that broke, and he struck it with a hammer [an ironworking implement] until it became straight and returned to the form of a vessel, and he did so for the purpose that the vessel serve

for idolatry—

what is [the law],

is the vessel prohibited for benefit?

The Gemara understood that the question concerns a vessel that they prepared for use in idolatry, but they have not yet used it for idolatry, and the question is whether it becomes prohibited through the welding alone. Therefore we raise an objection:

The idolatry of whom, that is, this vessel concerning which the question was asked—to whom does it belong?

—that is, the utensil about which Rav Hamnuna raised his dilemma: to whom does it belong?

If you say:

:

the idolatry of a

gentile,

the vessel belongs to a gentile—

this is difficult: what is the question?

For

both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva,

they disagreed only regarding the idolatry itself, whereas this vessel is not an idol,

but is an accessory of idolatry, and

both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva

accessories of idolatry are not prohibited

merely through their making

until they are used.

So what is the question?

Rather,

Rav Hamnuna’s question is regarding accessories of

the idolatry

of

a Jew—

According to whom

is Rav Hamnuna uncertain?

If you say:

:

according to Rabbi Akiva,

who maintains that the idolatry of a Jew is not prohibited until it is worshipped—

this is difficult: what is the question?

Now,

if even

it itself,

the idolatry itself [the idol],

is not prohibited

it is not prohibited

until it is worshipped—

is there a question regarding its accessories?! Is it conceivable to be uncertain about the accessories, how could it occur to us that the accessories, which are secondary, would be more severe than the essence of the prohibition itself?!

Is there really a doubt concerning the implements? How could one entertain the possibility that the implements, which are secondary, should be more stringent than the primary prohibition itself?!

Rather,

the question is

according to Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the idolatry of a Jew is

that an object of idolatry belonging to a Jew is

prohibited immediately.

And now Rav Hamnuna is uncertain:

what

is the law of the accessories—and the sides of the uncertainty are: whether

the accessories

of a Jew

from the accessories

of gentiles

we derive [their law]—

just as there,

just as the accessories of gentiles are not prohibited until

they are used, so too here

they are not prohibited

until they are used,

and although the idolatry itself is prohibited immediately, nevertheless its accessories are less severe than it.

Or perhaps

it is possible to say:

he derives from it

that the accessories are learned from it, and their law is the same as that of the idolatry itself—

just as it

just as it is

forbidden immediately, so too its accessories are forbidden immediately.

And this is Rav Hamnuna’s question.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If this is the question,

why specifically did he raise the question

what is the reason that Rav Hamnuna was uncertain about

a “welded” vessel—

after all,

he should have raised the question concerning “making”

a vessel from the outset, in order to use it for idolatry—

he could have been uncertain with the same question and the same sides of the uncertainty also concerning a vessel that he “made”?

And the Gemara explains: Rather,

Rav Hamnuna raised the question on account of “old impurity,”

his uncertainty concerned another law, namely, the law of “old impurity.”

And this is what it means: It has already been explained that a vessel that was used for idolatry contracts impurity by rabbinic enactment, in addition to its prohibition of benefit.

And we learned concerning the law of the impurity of vessels:

a. Vessels that became impure require immersion, and their purification is at sunset, that is, after the day of their immersion has passed [and some require the sprinkling of the ashes of the cow on the third day and on the seventh day from their becoming impure].

b. A vessel that became impure and broke—by Torah law its impurity departs, since it is no longer a vessel.

c. The Sages decreed that a vessel that became impure, broke, and was then repaired returns to its “old impurity.” That is, it is still impure until they purify it by immersion, with all the laws of immersion and purification: each vessel according to its vessel and its purification, and each impurity according to its impurity and its law, even though by Torah law its impurity had departed.

And the reason is because of the “appearance to the eye” of unlearned people who see that they did not immerse it and did not purify it, and use it on the day of its immersion, before sunset—and they will say: Immersion on the day of its immersion is sufficient for a vessel. And they will not know that it broke and was then repaired.

Rav Hamnuna’s question concerns a vessel that was used for idolatry, became impure with the impurity of “idolatry,” broke, and was welded for the sake of idolatry [and it is thereby explained why he was not uncertain concerning a vessel that was “made”—]: Did they decree the law of “old impurity” upon this impurity?

And the Gemara will explain the sides of the uncertainty.

For we learned

we learned a Mishna in tractate Kelim:

Metal vessels—

their flat vessels and their receptacles

whether they are vessels with a “receptacle,” and even if they do not have a receptacle, they are

impure,

that is, they are susceptible to impurity. [Unlike wooden vessels, whose flat vessels are not susceptible to impurity].

If they broke

the vessels—

they became pure

their impurity departed from them, even though they had already become impure.

If he again made them into vessels—

they return [

the Bach’s version:

they returned]

to the old impurity

with which they had become impure.

And

And now,

this is what he raised as the question

this is Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty:

When the impurity returns

when the impurity returns, do we say:

these words

this decree that the Sages decreed, this matter applies

to Torah impurity,

when the vessel became impure with Torah impurity.

But,

a vessel that was used for idolatry, whose impurity is

rabbinic impurity—

they did not

the Sages decree concerning it that it return to its old impurity; and since its impurity departed, the vessel is pure—

or perhaps

it is possible to say:

it makes no difference

the Sages did not distinguish between Torah impurity and rabbinic impurity, and in every case its old impurity returns, and the vessel is impure with the impurity of idolatry?

And this is Rav Hamnuna’s question.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If so, why was he uncertain specifically concerning the impurity of idolatry—

he should have raised the question

he should have been uncertain concerning

other impurities

whose impurity is

rabbinic,

for example, vessels that became impure through liquid and the like.

And we conclude: Indeed, his uncertainty also concerned other rabbinic impurities—

And

one within the other

one within the other, that is, one question within another question,

he raised as a question.

And it is this: The first question is:

impurity

that is only

rabbinic—

does it return

did the Sages decree that its old impurity return, just as they decreed concerning Torah impurity,

or—

it does not return

the Sages did not decree concerning a vessel that became impure with an impurity that is only rabbinic that the impurity return.

And the second question is:

if you wish to say

if we establish from a Mishna or a beraita that other rabbinic impurity

does not return—

there still remains room for uncertainty:

the impurity of idolatry

does it return?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

because of the stringency of idolatry

since it is a severe prohibition,

did the Sages make it like Torah impurity

did the Sages give it the stringency of Torah impurity, so that just as Torah impurity returns, so too the severe impurity of idolatry—

or not

they imposed a stringency, and its impurity has the same law as other rabbinic impurities, and it does not return.

The matter stands unresolved

the question was not resolved.

The Gemara brings another question concerning the impurity of idolatry.

Rabbi Yohanan asked Rabbi Yannai: The food-offerings of idolatry

foods that they offered before it and that became forbidden in benefit and became impure—

what is their law?—

what is its law?—

does nullification benefit them

will nullification benefit them when the gentile nullifies them, in order

to purify them from impurity, or not

will nullification benefit them.

And the sides of the uncertainty will be explained below, and it will likewise be explained why he was uncertain specifically concerning food and specifically concerning an offering.

And the Gemara discusses: He should have raised the question concerning vessels

Rabbi Yohanan could have raised that question concerning vessels that were used for idolatry , and the gentile nullified them: Does their impurity depart from them just as their prohibition of benefit departs?

And the Gemara answers:

Vessels—

he did not raise the question

because the law was clear to him.

Since they have purification in a ritual bath,

that is, just as vessels that became impure with other impurities are purified by immersion in a ritual bath, so too these vessels, the accessories of idolatry, when their prohibition of benefit is nullified through a gentile’s nullification—

the impurity

that is in them

is likewise nullified,

and their nullification is their purification. When their prohibition departs from them, certainly their impurity departs from them as well—

When he raised the question

what Rabbi Yohanan was in fact uncertain about—

it was concerning food,

which has no purification at all, and food that became impure with other impurities has no purification in a ritual bath, and there is no way whatsoever to remove its impurity from it—

Therefore he was uncertain, saying that likewise the impurity of idolatry would not depart from them. [And the sides of the uncertainty will be explained below].

And the Gemara discusses:

Why was he uncertain concerning food in the form of an offering of idolatry—

he should have raised the question

he could have raised that question concerning

the idolatry

itself

for example, if the gentile bowed to the food and accepted it as a deity; and the uncertainty is whether their impurity departs from them through their nullification, since they have no purification?