Avodah Zarah 54a — the Talmud in English

Hezekiah said: What is the verse?,

From where is it derived that an altar consists of many stones, and that its nullification is by demolishing most of it?

The prophet Isaiah said [27]: “Therefore, by this shall the iniquity of Jacob be atoned for...

when he makes all the stones of the altar

[made for the service of idolatry]

like shattered limestone; the asherim and sun-images shall not arise

[so that they may not erect asherot and sun-idols for themselves].”

And we derive:

If there are [stones] like shattered limestone,

if indeed they shatter them like limestone,

the asherim and sun-images shall not arise,

they will not offer upon it.

But if not

they shatter them—

they shall arise.

And it is thereby proven that the altar is built of many stones, and its nullification is by shattering them.

We learned above [in the chapter “All the Images”] that anything which people worship and bow down to, such as an animal, or flour and wine, is forbidden to bring as an offering to the Lord. And even if the gentile nullified this object from being idolatry, whereby the object became permitted for ordinary use, nevertheless it continues to be forbidden to the Most High. And likewise we learned above: since a person cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him, therefore one who bows down to his fellow’s animal does not prohibit it from benefit under the law of “worshiped.”

And now the Gemara brings a beraita in which we learned that the object was not prohibited even to the Most High.

It was taught: [an animal] that was worshiped,

if it is

his, it is

forbidden

to the Most High.

And

if it is

his fellow’s, it is permitted,

because a person cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him.

And he raises a contradiction

to this from another beraita.

For it was taught:

What is a worshiped [animal]?—

Anything that people worship, whether inadvertently or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly,

and it is forbidden to bring it as an offering.

And one must examine:

This “under duress”

stated in the beraita—

what are the circumstances?

How was the worship performed under duress?

Is it not

that it was in a case

such as one who forced his fellow’s animal down and bowed to it?!

And it follows that this beraita holds that with regard to the laws applying to the Most High, even an object worshiped by one who worshiped something that was not his becomes prohibited?

And we answer:

Rami bar Hama said: No!

This is not the interpretation of the beraita. Rather, the meaning of the “duress” stated in the beraita is

for example, gentiles forced him, and

he, the Israelite,

bowed to his own animal,

his own, and only then is the animal prohibited.

The novelty of the beraita is that although he was under duress in his worship [as will be explained], nevertheless the animal is prohibited under the law of “worshiped.” This is on condition that the animal belongs to him; but he cannot prohibit his fellow’s animal, even when he bows to it willingly.

Rabbi Zeira challenged this:

How can the beraita be established as referring to one who was “under duress” to worship the animal? After all,

“duress,”

[one under duress]

the Merciful One exempted him!

The Torah exempted him from every death penalty and every punishment, since he did not transgress the prohibition willingly and knowingly,

as it is written

[Deuteronomy 22], in the passage concerning the betrothed maiden who was violated:

“But to the maiden you shall do nothing,

there is no sin of death upon the maiden. For just as a man rises against his fellow and murders him, so is this matter.”

And from this that the Torah exempted her from punishment, Rabbi Zeira holds that the Torah thereby revealed that every act performed under duress is considered as though it had not been performed. Therefore, one who bows to an animal under duress is considered as though he had not worshiped idolatry at all, and consequently the animal is not prohibited and the laws of “worshiped” do not apply to it.

And we answer: Since there are circumstances in which he is obligated to surrender his life in order not to worship idolatry, as will be explained, and since he did not surrender his life for this, although he will not be punished—and without any doubt he is exempt—nevertheless, since he did not surrender his life as he was commanded, he is therefore in the category of “one who worships idolatry,” and by his bowing he prohibited the animal.

Rather, Rava said: All,

both one who worships under duress and one who worships willingly,

were included

in what the Torah prohibited:

“You shall not worship them.”

For all the commandments of the Torah concerning idolatry were stated in an unspecified manner, and the Torah did not distinguish in them between one who worships willingly and one who is in a situation in which they force him to worship, and if he does not do so, they will kill him.

But when the verse specified for you

[Leviticus 18]: “You shall observe My statutes and My laws, which a person shall perform

and live by them,”

and we derive that observance of the commandments of the Torah is intended so that one should live by them

and not die by them—

duress is excluded

from the obligation to observe the commandments, so that he should not “die by them”; and if so, seemingly he may worship idolatry under duress in order not to be killed.

But

on the other hand,

the Merciful One again wrote

[there, 22]:

“And you shall not profane My holy Name,

but I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel,” the verse teaches

that even under duress

he is not permitted to transgress in a matter that involves the profanation of the Name of the Lord, such as worshiping idolatry.

How is this [resolved]?

How shall we reconcile the contradiction between the two verses, one of which says that he is not obligated to surrender his life, and the other of which says that he is obligated to surrender his life?—

This

verse from which we derive that he is not obligated speaks of a transgression performed

in private,

for there is no profanation of the Name of the Lord in this.

And this,

the verse that says he is obligated, speaks of a transgression performed

in public,

in the presence of ten Israelites. If he does so, even if he is under duress, he profanes the Name of the Lord [and therefore it says there, “but I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel”].

In any event, although he is obligated to surrender himself in public rather than worship, if he nevertheless worshiped, he bears no punishment at all; and concerning this case the beraita said that the animal becomes prohibited, because since he worshiped it, the animal has the designation “worshiped,” and on account of this it is forbidden to the Most High.

The Rabbis said to Rava: It was taught,

we learned a beraita

that supports you,

supporting your statement that the designation “worshiped” applies to such worship, although he was under duress.

For it was taught:

The bimusiyot of the gentiles

[upon which they permanently place idols, and not specifically when the king passes by, and they are forbidden because they are accessories of idolatry]

at the time of the decree,

the decree of persecution that the gentiles issued against Israel to worship idolatry,

although the decree was annulled, those bimusiyot were not annulled,

and they remained forbidden for benefit.

The time of the decree is a time of persecution, whose law is like that of public worship, and at that time they are obligated to surrender their lives. And it is proven from the beraita, in accordance with Rava’s view, that the bimusiyot remain forbidden even though the idols were worshiped under duress.

He said to them

Rava said to the Rabbis:

If [you seek proof] from this,

if [you seek proof] from this beraita—

it does not support you,

do not bring me support from it, for there is no proof from it, since it is possible that the bimusiyot are forbidden for the following reason:

Say

that we are concerned that among all the Jews upon whom the decree was imposed

there was an Israelite apostate

[another version:

apostate]

who was

among them,

and

he indeed

worshiped it,

worshiped it

willingly.

And on his account those bimusiyot were prohibited.

Rav Ashi said: Do not say,

you need not say:

“Say”,

that this is merely a concern, that perhaps there was an apostate among them;

rather, “certainly there was an Israelite apostate”

among them,

and he worshiped it willingly.

For when he sees that Israel’s power has failed and that they are in abasement and low spirits, his heart inclines toward idolatry.

Up to this point, the Gemara interpreted the beraita according to Rami bar Hama’s explanation, that it concerns one who was under duress, being forced to bow to his own animal.

Now the Gemara brings another answer: the beraita indeed speaks of one whom the gentiles did not force, but who forced down his fellow’s animal; nevertheless, it is not a contradiction to the other beraita, in which we learned that a person cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him. For when does the rule that a person cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him apply? When he merely bows to it and performs no act upon the body of his fellow’s animal. But if he performs an act upon his fellow’s animal, he prohibits it although it does not belong to him; and it is in such a case that the beraita said: “whether under duress.”

Hezekiah said: For example, when he poured wine for idolatry upon

[the version of the Bach:

between]

its horns.

And we object:

Rav Adda bar Ahava challenged this:

Although it is true that a person prohibits something that does not belong to him through an act, nevertheless Hezekiah’s answer is not satisfactory. For is

this a worshiped [animal]?!

Does one who pours wine for idolatry between the animal’s horns, while the animal itself is not idolatry, thereby make the animal “worshiped”?! Surely the animal was not worshiped! And

this,

this case—

is merely a platform, and it is permitted

[the version of the Bach:

that they made it]

the animal serves as a “platform” for idolatry, and living creatures are not prohibited as “accessories of idolatry” .

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

Indeed, the case is one in which he worshiped the animal itself,

for example, when he poured wine between its horns,

and made it into idolatry; and since

he performed an act upon it,

it became prohibited, although it belongs to his fellow.

And it is in this manner that the second beraita prohibited it. But when he performs no act upon it, such as when he bows to it or performs another worship that is not upon its body, it is not prohibited, because it does not belong to him.

The Gemara now proceeds to explain what it said: a person prohibits something that does not belong to him through an act.

And is this

like the statement

that Ulla came

and said when he arrived from the Land of Israel:

He said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Although they said

the Sages:

One who bows to his fellow’s animal does not prohibit it,

nevertheless, if he

performs an act upon it—

he prohibits it.

Rav Naḥman said to them

to his colleagues:

Go out

and go

and tell Ulla: Rav Huna has already explained your teaching,

here

in Babylonia.

For Rav Huna said: If his fellow’s animal was lying

by itself

before idolatry, once

he slaughtered one sign in it,

the windpipe or the gullet, for idolatry—

he prohibited it,

although it does not belong to him.

And we explain:

From where do we know

how do we know

that he prohibited it

through performing an act?

If you say

that we learn

from

the fact that the

priests

were prohibited, when the kings of Israel forced them to become priests for idolatry, and they thereby became prohibited, as the prophet Ezekiel said [44]: “And they shall not approach Me to serve as priests to Me,” since they performed an act, although the priests are not called “belonging to” the kings —

And we challenge: what is the proof,

and perhaps,

it is possible to say:

the priests are different,

therefore they were prohibited because

they are people of understanding,

and it was incumbent upon them to surrender their lives and not worship idolatry, and therefore the Sages imposed a penalty upon them. And from where is it possible to learn from this a prohibition even for an animal that was worshipped by one who was not its owner?

Rather, if you wish to learn that it was prohibited through an act,

from

the stones of the altar,

which do not possess understanding, and the kings of the Hasmonean dynasty concealed them, because the kings of Greece had made them abominable for idolatry, as we learned above [52b]; although the kings of Greece could not prohibit them, because they did not belong to them, nevertheless, since an act had been done with them, the Sages of that generation prohibited them and concealed them.

And we challenge: what is the proof?

And perhaps as

said

Rav Pappa [there]: They found a verse; they found proof from the written text, as it is said [Ezekiel 7]: “And violent men shall enter it and profane it.” Since violent men entered and defiled the Sanctuary, they brought its vessels out into unconsecrated use, and the gentiles acquired them because they had become ownerless, and they are not “a thing that is not his”?

there: They found a verse, that is, they found proof from the verse that states (Ezekiel 7): “And marauders shall enter it and profane it.” Since marauders entered the Sanctuary and defiled it, they rendered all its vessels non-sacred, and the gentiles acquired them because they had become ownerless; thus they were no longer “an object that does not belong to him.”