Avodah Zarah 52b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

the substance of the idolatry — [

another version:

also ]

he did not raise the question;

Rabbi Yohanan did not have a doubt, for its law was clear to him!

since its prohibition is nullified

when the gentile nullifies it —

the impurity

in them

is also nullified, since the principal basis of their impurity is their prohibition of benefit —

When he raises the question,

what Rabbi Yohanan had a doubt about —

consecrated offerings to idolatry consisting of food.

What

is their law—have they become pure from their impurity through the gentile’s nullification? And the sides of the doubt are:

Since its prohibition is not nullified,

even when a gentile nullifies them,

as

it is

that

stated

Rav Giddel

in the preceding sugya, that there is no nullification for an offering to idolatry, just as there is no nullification for the prohibition of benefit from a corpse—there is therefore reason to say that

the impurity is also not nullified, and since they are food, which has no purification in a ritual bath, their purification does not easily depart from them —

and since these are food items that cannot be purified in a ritual bath, their impurity does not readily depart from them.

Or perhaps,

it is possible to say:

a prohibition

of benefit that is

by Torah law —

is not nullified,

but

impurity

that is

by rabbinic law —

is nullified, and departs from them through the gentile’s nullification.

and departs from them through the gentile's renunciation.

Teyku,

the question remains unresolved.

The Gemara brings another question concerning the law of vessels.

We learned a beraita at the end of tractate Menahot [109b]: At the time of the death of Shimon the Righteous, who was the High Priest at the beginning of the Second Temple, he said, “Honyo, my son, shall serve in my place.” His brother Shimi became jealous of him, although he was two and a half years older than he, and did to him what he did, until Honyo fled to the city of Alexandria in Egypt, built an altar there, and offered burnt offerings there.

And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah disagreed there. Rabbi Meir holds that he built the altar for the sake of idolatry, while Rabbi Judah holds that he built it for the sake of Heaven.

Now, according to Rabbi Judah, although it was not idolatry, he transgressed the prohibition against offering on private altars.

Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi: The vessels with which they served in the house of Honyo —

what

is the law—are they permitted

to be used in the Temple?

And the Gemara explains: According to Rabbi Meir, who holds that it was a house of idolatry, it is obvious that its vessels are forbidden for the Most High, for use in the Temple, since they are forbidden even to an ordinary person, by the law of accessories of idolatry. As we learned above [51b] in the beraita in the words of Rabbi Ishmael. And if they belong to a Jew, they cannot be nullified.

And

what

is he asking about? According to whom—

Rabbi Judah—

who said: The house of Honyo is not a house of idolatry —

As we learned,

we learned an anonymous Mishna according to Rabbi Judah:

Priests who served in the house of Honyo —

shall not serve in the

Temple

that is in Jerusalem, because of the penalty that the Sages imposed upon them, since they served there.

And the Mishna continues:

And the Mishna continues:

It is not necessary to say

that priests who served

for something else,

for idolatry, are disqualified from serving in the Temple. And it is learned from what is written in the Book of Ezekiel [44]: “Because they served them before their idols, and became a stumbling block of iniquity to the house of Israel; therefore I lifted My hand against them—the utterance of the Lord God—and they shall bear their iniquity. They shall not approach Me to serve as priests to Me.”

It follows that our Mishna holds that the house of Honyo is not idolatry, since it concludes: “It is not necessary to say, for something else.”

Now, the priests who served in the house of Honyo are forbidden. However, Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul has a doubt concerning the vessels. The reason for the doubt is that there is an argument for distinguishing between priests and vessels —

And one can say:

Priests

specifically —

the Rabbis imposed a penalty upon them,

they indeed imposed a penalty upon them,

because they are people of understanding,

and they knew that it was forbidden to offer on private altars, but nevertheless served in the house of Honyo; therefore they imposed a penalty upon them —

But vessels,

with regard to which it is not applicable to say so —

they did not

impose a penalty, and it is permitted to use them in the Temple —

Or perhaps,

it is possible to say:

there is no difference —

there is no distinction between priests and vessels, and just as they forbade the priests, so they forbade the vessels.

He said to him,

Rabbi to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul:

They are forbidden. And we had a scriptural proof,

we had a proof from Scripture,

but we forgot it,

and forgot it, as will be explained.

He refuted him,

Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul replied to Rabbi’s ruling that they are forbidden, from an explicit verse —

It is written in the Book of Chronicles [II, 29]: In the first year of King Hezekiah’s reign, in the first month, he opened the doors of the Temple, after it had been neglected in the days of Ahaz his father, who did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and had closed the doors of the Sanctuary and extinguished the lamps; and in his days they did not offer sacrifices.

And King Hezekiah chose priests for himself, and they purified the House of the Lord, and removed from there all the impurity. And when they finished purifying the House, it is stated there: “They came ... to King Hezekiah, and said: We have purified the entire House of the Lord ... and

all the vessels that King Ahaz had rejected during his reign in his treachery —

we have prepared [

we have prepared them ]

and consecrated [

and consecrated them ], and behold, they are before the altar of the Lord.”

In what way did they prepare them, and how did they consecrate them?

Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul explained:

Is it not

the meaning:

“we have prepared” —

that we immersed them,

we immersed them from the impurity of idolatry;

“and consecrated” —

that we consecrated them,

that we again anointed them with the anointing oil [new vessels require anointing with the anointing oil].

Now, these vessels certainly were not forbidden with the prohibition of idolatry. For if so, no immersion and no consecration would help them, as stated above, for if they are forbidden even to an ordinary person— all the more so they are forbidden to an ordinary person.

And why, indeed, were they not forbidden?

Because these vessels, even if they were used in the days of Ahaz for idolatry, in his treachery in which he treacherously acted against it—

are not forbidden, since they belong to the domain of the consecrated property, and a person cannot render forbidden something that is not his. And by Torah law they are not forbidden for benefit even to an ordinary person.

Rather, it would have been appropriate not to use them for consecrated property because of the penalty of the Sages. Nevertheless, the Sages did not impose a penalty, and they used them [according to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul], since they are not people of understanding —

And from here one can prove concerning the vessels of the house of Honyo that they too, since they are not forbidden by Torah law [for the house of Honyo is not idolatry], were not penalized by the Sages, since they are not people of understanding.

And this is difficult for Rabbi’s statement that they are forbidden.

When Rabbi heard this verse, he remembered that it was the verse from which he had expounded that they were forbidden, and

he said to him,

to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul: “

Blessed are you to Heaven, for you have returned my lost object” —

for we expounded it:

“we have prepared” —

that we concealed them,

those vessels;

“and consecrated” —

that we consecrated

vessels

in their place. That is, the Sages of that generation indeed forbade them and concealed them, and brought other vessels in their place.

And the Gemara discusses: Is it possible to say that

let us say the following Mishna

supports

him,

Rabbi?

The Mishna in tractate Middot details all the chambers that were in the Temple courtyard in the Second Temple. In one of the chambers—the Chamber of the Hearth—there were small chambers at its four corners, and there we learned what they were used for:

the northeastern one—

in it the Hasmoneans concealed the stones of the altar that the Greeks had defiled —

And

what is the meaning of “that they defiled”?

Rav Sheshet said: That they defiled

them and offered upon it

for idolatry.

And although they were not thereby forbidden to an ordinary person, for the reason stated above—that a person cannot render forbidden something that is not his—the Sages of the Hasmonean house nevertheless decreed concerning them that they should not be used for the Most High, despite the fact that the stones are not people of understanding.

And this Mishna supports Rabbi’s words, for he says that the stones of the house of Honyo are forbidden by rabbinic law, despite the fact that they are not people of understanding.

And we reject this: There is no proof from there, for those stones were forbidden by Torah law even to an ordinary person! And why?

Rav Pappa said: There they found a verse

they found a verse

and expounded it

to forbid the altar —

As it is written,

in the Book of Ezekiel [20], in his prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “And I shall turn My face away from them, and they shall profane My hidden place [the place where I had been hidden among them—Rashi],

and violators shall enter it and profane it.”

And we expound “they profaned it” in the sense of ordinary, non-sacred property: When the gentiles entered the Sanctuary, its vessels emerged—including the altar—into ordinary property. Consequently, they became ownerless, and the gentiles acquired them, and they belonged to them; and when they used them for idolatry, they became forbidden.

And why did they conceal them?

The Hasmonean Sages said:

the Sages of the Hasmonean house:

What shall we do

now?

Shall we break them,

break them through a gentile in order to nullify them? We would then have no possibility of using them for the altar of the Lord, because

“whole stones” —

the Merciful One said [

Deuteronomy 27 ], that the stones of the altar must be whole, without breaking and without even the slightest flaw —

And if we break them, and afterward saw them

shall we saw them—

shall we even out their flaws with an iron tool? It is forbidden to do so, because

“you shall not wield iron over them,” the Merciful One said

[there].

And since they were unfit for the altar, they concealed them.

And the Gemara asks:

And why

did they conceal them?

Let us break them

through gentiles, in order to nullify them,

and let them take them for themselves,

and then they could take them for themselves for ordinary use, as stated: they were ownerless and ordinary property, according to the exposition of the verse, “and violators entered it and profaned it.”

And the Gemara brings proof that from this verse we expound that they were profaned and became ordinary property, and are permitted for ordinary use:

Did Rav Oshaya not say: The Sages of the generation after the destruction of the Second Temple sought to conceal all the silver and gold in the world, because of the doubt lest they be the silver and gold of Jerusalem, which the Romans had plundered from them when they conquered the city and the courtyards, and they are consecrated and forbidden for benefit —

And we were discussing it,

and before the Gemara finished Rav Oshaya’s statement, we wondered: Is it possible that

Jerusalem was the majority of the world?!

Did all the silver and gold in the world come from Jerusalem?!

Rather, Abaye said:

these are Rav Oshaya’s words:

They sought to conceal Hadrianic-Trajanic dinars,

coins upon which the figures of Hadrian and Trajan, the Roman kings, were engraved, and likewise coins

that had been worn smooth,

that had been worn away because of their age, and their image was no longer recognizable on them,

because of the coinage of Jerusalem,

for these coins had been used in Jerusalem during the days of the Temple, and most of those in Jerusalem were consecrated property, while most of those in the world were from Jerusalem, and it was forbidden to use them for benefit —

And Rav Oshaya continues:

Until they found for it [

for them ]

a verse from the Torah that it is permitted [

that they are permitted ] —

as it is stated:

“and violators shall enter it and profane it” — and we expound: Once they breached it, they became ordinary property, and their sanctity, the sanctity of Temple maintenance, departed from them.

It is evident from Rav Oshaya’s words that from this verse we expound permission for ordinary use, and it is difficult: Why did they conceal the stones of the altar?

And the Gemara answers:

And the Gemara answers:

There,

with regard to these coins,

they did not use them for the Most High; therefore they permitted them for ordinary use, but

therefore they permitted them for ordinary use. But

here,

with regard to the stones of the altar,

since they had been used for the Most High,

from time immemorial until the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, therefore

it is not proper conduct—

it is not the way of the world—

to use them for ordinary persons,

that ordinary people should use them.

And therefore they concealed them, and did not take them for ordinary use.

Mishna:

The Mishna explains the matter of nullifying idolatry.

Nullification of idolatry is when the gentile performs an act indicating that he has ceased to worship it, and no longer treats it with the practice of accepting it as a deity.

And in the preceding sugya [52a], the Gemara expounded the law of nullification from expositions of the verses.

An idolater,

a gentile,

nullifies his idolatry and that of his fellow,

the gentile—whether he worships that same idol or whether he worships another idol.

But a Jew cannot nullify the idolatry of a gentile,

since the exposition from which the law of nullification is learned was stated only with regard to gentiles. And all the more so, one Jew cannot nullify the idolatry of another Jew, because the idolatry of a Jew can never be nullified, and requires eradication, as explained above [there].

A gentile

who nullifies idolatry —

nullifies its accessories.

That is, through this, its accessories are nullified automatically, because they are dragged along after the idolatry. But if he only

nullified

its accessories —

only

the accessories are permitted, while it

itself is

forbidden.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: A gentile can nullify his idolatry and that of his fellow.

And it follows that only the idolatry of his fellow gentile can the gentile nullify, but the idolatry of an Israelite he cannot nullify.

This wording of the Mishna is the corrected wording that Rabbi corrected in his old age, and the earlier wording was: “his own and that of an Israelite,” as will be explained.

And the Gemara relates:

he taught him—

Rabbi taught

to

his son,

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi

[alternative version:

his son

]:

A gentile can nullify his idolatry and that of his fellow.

He said to him

Rabbi Shimon:

Rabbi!

Behold,

you taught us in your youth: A gentile can nullify his idolatry and that of an Israelite!

And now you teach that he cannot nullify that of an Israelite.

And before the Gemara clarifies why Rabbi retracted, it wonders:

Of an Israelite?!

Did Rabbi teach in his youth that a gentile can nullify the idolatry of an Israelite?

Who can nullify it?!

Does it have any nullification at all?

But “and there in secret” is written

[Deuteronomy 27], and we derived from this verse that it has no permission whatsoever; rather, it requires concealment and eradication!

Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles, said: It was necessary

for the Mishna to inform us only when he has

a

gentile

partnership

in the idolatry of an Israelite.

And in his youth Rabbi held that the gentile could nullify it since he was a partner in it, but in his old age he retracted.

And the Gemara discusses:

What did he hold in his youth,

what was Rabbi’s view in his youth that he could nullify it,

and what did he hold in his old age?

In his youth he held: an Israelite

who is a partner with a gentile in idolatry

worships with the intention of the gentile,

worships it with the intention of his gentile partner. And therefore,

since the gentile nullifies that which is his own,

his portion, therefore

that of the Israelite too he nullifies,

the portion of the Israelite is also nullified, for he worshipped it with the intention of the gentile.

But in his old age

he retracted and

held: an Israelite worships with the intention of his own,

worships it with his own intention; therefore

because

when

a gentile nullifies,

only the portion

of his own,

he can nullify only his own portion, but the portion

of the Israelite is not nullified.

And therefore, in his old age, Rabbi changed the wording of the Mishna.

There are

sages

who teach it

the words of Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles,

on the final clause

of our Mishna, in which we learned:

An Israelite cannot nullify the idolatry of a gentile.

And we ask about it:

Obvious?!

Would it have entered one’s mind that an Israelite could nullify it?! After all, the entire law of nullification was stated only with regard to gentiles?!