Avodah Zarah 54b (נד:) — the Talmud in English

And

we conclude:

Rather,

let it be learned

from the vessels

of the Temple that King Ahaz abandoned when he closed the doors of the Sanctuary, and when his son Hezekiah became king, he purified the Sanctuary [as explained above there],

as it is written

[II Chronicles 29] that the kohanim said to Hezekiah:

“And

all the vessels that King Ahaz abandoned during his reign, in his treachery”—

“we have prepared and sanctified them,” and the Master said:

there we expound: What they said to him, “

We have prepared,”

means

that we stored them away; and what they said, “

and what they said,

and we have sanctified,”

means

that we sanctified other vessels in their place.

For Hezekiah and the Sages of his generation decreed that they were forbidden forever, even to a non-priest; therefore, they stored them away rather than redeeming them for non-sacred use—

This is apparently difficult:

But a person cannot render something that does not belong to him forbidden,

and surely the vessels did not belong to those kohanim who used them for idolatry; why, then, did they become forbidden?

Rather,

it is proven that

once he performed an act with them—

they became forbidden to them;

therefore, Hezekiah and the Sages of his generation prohibited them.

Here too,

in the case of another person’s animal that was crouching before an idol, and he slaughtered one of its signs,

once he performed an act with it—

he rendered it forbidden.

The Gemara cites another statement in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, similar to the preceding statement.

When Rav Dimi arrived,

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Although they said:

[above 40a, “Their gods are upon the mountains, but the mountains are not their gods,”]

one who bows to natural ground

for the purpose of idolatry,

does not render it forbidden,

since it is attached to the ground, it does not become forbidden—

This applies specifically when he performed no act; but if he

dug

in the ground

pits, ditches, and caves—

he rendered it forbidden,

even to a non-priest.

The Gemara cites a third statement in the name of Rabbi Yohanan concerning a similar matter.

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda arrived,

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Although they said: One who bows to living creatures does not render them forbidden,

this applies specifically when he bows to them; but if he

made them an exchange for idolatry—

he possessed an idol and exchanged it for an animal, meaning that he gave it to a gentile and the gentile gave him an animal in exchange—

he renders them forbidden.

And this will be explained.

This is what Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan. But

when Ravin arrived,

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said: They disagree about it,

they disagreed concerning this halakha,

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and the Sages.

One

of them

said: An exchange is forbidden,

but

an exchange of an exchange,

such as when one exchanged the idol for produce, and then exchanged the produce for an animal, is

permitted;

the animal is permitted.

And one said: Even an exchange of an exchange is also forbidden,

to the end of the entire world.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason,

what is the reason

of the one who says that an exchange of an exchange is forbidden?

The verse states

[Deuteronomy 7]: “You shall burn their graven images of their gods with fire … for it is an abomination of the Lord your God. And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, lest you become accursed like it; you shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is accursed.” And we expound:

“And you shall become accursed like it”—

anything that you derive from it is like it.

Therefore, an exchange of an exchange is also included in “anything that you derive from it,” and is forbidden.

And the Gemara explains:

And the other one,

what will the one who holds that an exchange of an exchange is permitted reply?

The verse states,

the Torah says in that same verse, “For it is accursed;”

“it,”

and we expound:

“It”

is accursed—

but not an exchange of an exchange.

And the Gemara explains:

And the other one,

according to the one who holds that an exchange of an exchange is forbidden, for what exposition did the Torah write “it”?

That phrase is needed by him

for another exposition, namely: “It”—idolatry causes its monetary value to assume its status, meaning that its exchange is forbidden—

to exclude orla and the produce of a mixed vineyard,

which do not cause their monetary value to assume their status. If one possessed orla, the produce of a mixed vineyard, or other items forbidden for benefit, and sold them, their monetary value is permitted by Torah law. Nevertheless, by rabbinic decree it is forbidden to benefit from their money. Although the Sages prohibited benefiting from their money, the Mishna in tractate Kiddushin [56b] says

that if he sold them,

orla or the produce of a mixed vineyard,

and betrothed

a woman

with their value,

she is

betrothed.

The novel point is that although, from the perspective of the man who betrothed her, it is not called “his money,” since the money is forbidden for benefit, she is nevertheless betrothed.

The reason is that although, from the perspective of the man who betrothed her, it is not called “his money,” nevertheless the woman who is being betrothed received “benefit” from him, since the money is not forbidden to her, and she is permitted to benefit from it.

And we raise an objection:

And the other one,

what will the second tanna, who excludes an exchange of an exchange from the verse “for it is accursed,” reply, given that the verse is needed to exclude orla and the produce of a mixed vineyard?

And we answer:

Orla and the produce of a mixed vineyard do not require an exclusion,

to exclude them—

For why would it have occurred to us to prohibit their exchanges? Exchanges are not themselves items forbidden for benefit.

Rather, since the Torah prohibited an exchange of idolatry, we would have derived from it that, with regard to other items forbidden for benefit, their exchanges are also forbidden [and therefore a verse was needed to exclude them]—

To this one can reply: You cannot derive the prohibition of exchanges from idolatry, because

idolatry and the Sabbatical Year

also cause their monetary value to assume their status [as will be explained];

they are two verses that come as one,

coming to teach one matter—

And

we hold:

Any two verses that come as one—

do not teach,

meaning that one may not derive another halakha from them. For if one could derive the matter from one of them, why did the Torah write the second? Rather, it follows that nothing may be derived from either of them.

And we explain:

Idolatry

causes its monetary value to assume its status—

that is the law we stated.

It is the stated law derived from what the Torah says, “And you shall become accursed like it.”

Whereas

the Sabbatical Year

causes its monetary value to assume its status,

as it is written

[Leviticus 25] in the passage concerning the Jubilee year [the laws of the Jubilee are like those of the Sabbatical Year with regard to all the laws of the land’s rest and the relinquishing of its produce]:

“For it is a Jubilee; it shall be holy for you,”

and we expound: The Torah compares the Jubilee to “that which is holy,” which was consecrated for Temple maintenance, to teach us:

Just as that which is holy causes its monetary value to assume its status,

for if one redeemed consecrated property with money, the money assumes the sanctity of Temple maintenance, as it is stated [Leviticus 27], “And he shall redeem it according to your valuation,”

and it is forbidden

to benefit from the money,

so too the Sabbatical Year

[and the Jubilee]

causes its monetary value to assume its status, and is forbidden

for benefit like the produce of the Sabbatical Year itself.

If

we compare the Sabbatical Year to that which is holy, I might say:

Just as that which is holy causes its monetary value to assume its status, and

the object that was consecrated and redeemed

becomes non-sacred,

so too we should say:

the Sabbatical Year also causes its monetary value to assume its status, and

the produce itself

becomes non-sacred?

The verse therefore states: “It shall be holy for you,”

and we expound:

“It shall be”—

it shall remain as it is.

The produce of the Sabbatical Year itself remains in its original state and sanctity and does not become non-sacred.

How so?

How are the two verses to be reconciled?

If

one purchased meat with Sabbatical-Year produce, both this and that—

the meat and the produce—

must be removed during the Sabbatical Year

[Biur means removing them by eating them before the time arrives when that species of produce has disappeared, so that even an animal would no longer find it in the field. For example, if the time for removing this produce arrived in Sivan of the seventh year, one must finish eating the produce, and the meat acquired with Sabbatical-Year produce, by Sivan].

If

one purchased fish with meat—

the meat leaves

the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and

the fish enters in its place, because the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is not transferred with equal force.

in its place, because the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not transfer in this manner to all successive exchanges.

If one purchased

wine with fish—

the fish leaves

and

the wine enters.

If one purchased

oil with wine—

the wine leaves and the oil enters—

How

are the two verses fulfilled? The statement “holy,” from which we expound that the Sabbatical Year causes its monetary value to assume its status, is fulfilled through

the last item acquired, the last item to assume

the sanctity of the

Sabbatical Year, while the produce itself

of the Sabbatical Year

is forbidden,

and the statement “it shall be,” which we expound, “It shall remain as it is,” is fulfilled.

The exposition “It shall remain as it is” applies only to the produce of the Sabbatical Year, and not to its exchanges; the latter leave their sanctity when they are exchanged for other items.

We have thus learned that the Sabbatical Year causes its monetary value to assume its status—

And since idolatry and the Sabbatical Year are two verses that come as one and do not teach, the exclusion “it” is not needed to exclude orla, the produce of a mixed vineyard, and other items forbidden for benefit.

And the other one,

the second tanna,

holds: Two verses that come as one—

do teach,

and indeed we would derive from idolatry and the Sabbatical Year that just as they cause their monetary value to assume their status, so too orla and the produce of a mixed vineyard cause their monetary value to assume their status—

And “it” is needed

and the exposition “it” is needed

to exclude them,

to exclude them and teach us that their monetary value does not assume the status of their prohibition for benefit.

Mishna:

After the Mishna explained the laws of idolatry and its nullification [from the following Mishna until the end of the tractate, the Mishna discusses the laws of wine libation and the ordinary wine of gentiles], the Mishna presents a debate between the Sages of Israel and the Sages of the gentiles concerning idolatry.

Philosophers asked

the

the elders,

the Sages of Israel,

in

the city of

Rome: If it is not His will

of the Holy One, blessed be He,

that there be idolatry—

why does He not abolish it

and destroy it?

They said to them,

the Sages of Israel:

If they were worshipping something that the world did not need, He would abolish it.

But

they worship the sun, the moon, the stars, and the constellations,

which the world needs. Should He

destroy His world because of fools?!

The philosophers said to them,

to the elders:

If so, let Him destroy that which the world does not need, and leave that which the world needs?

The elders said to them: If the Holy One, blessed be He, were to do so, and it appeared that the sun and the moon could not be abolished, while all other things were abolished on their own,

the elders said: If the Holy One, blessed be He, did so, and it would appear that the sun and moon do not disappear while all the other things disappear on their own,

we too would strengthen the hands of the worshippers of these,

the worshippers of the sun and the moon, because they would say:

“You see that they are deities—

for they have not been abolished!”

Gemara:

The Gemara cites a beraita that expands upon the answer given by the Sages of Israel.

The Sages taught: Philosophers asked

the Sages of the gentiles

the elders,

the Sages of Israel,

in Rome: If your God does not desire idolatry—

why does He not abolish it?

They said to them,

the Sages of Israel:

If they were worshipping something that the world does not need, He would indeed abolish it—

They worship the sun, the moon, the stars, and the constellations.

And

will the world be destroyed because of fools?!

Rather, the world follows its customary course, and the fools who corrupted it,

and worshipped them—

will ultimately be held accountable!

Alternatively: They are,

those

who stole a measure of wheat

and went

and sowed it in the ground—

it is only right that it should not grow!

Yet does it not grow?!

Rather, the world follows its customary course and continues on, and the fools who corrupted it—

will ultimately be held accountable!

Alternatively: They are,

those

who had relations with another man’s wife—

it is only right that she should not become pregnant!

Rather, the world follows its customary course and continues on, and the fools who corrupted it will ultimately be held accountable!

And this is

what

as

Reish Lakish said

The Holy One, blessed be He, said:

And

is it not enough

for

the wicked that they make My seal public property,

a parable: There is a die with which coins bearing the king’s likeness are minted. One who uses it without permission and makes it available to anyone who wishes to stamp with it thereby demeans the king. So too, one who has relations with a forbidden woman uses the image of the form of His likeness, for the Almighty created the human being in His image and likeness. And it is not enough for the wicked that they make the Almighty’s seal public property—

but they also trouble Me

as it were,

and compel Me to stamp it,

as I create the fetus

against My will,

and they bring it into the world.

Because the world follows its customary course and continues on, and it is a decree issued from before Me!

And concerning idolatry, the Gemara brings another debate.

A philosopher once asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah

(Deuteronomy 4): “Take heed for yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God that He made with you, and make for yourselves a graven image, the likeness of anything that the Lord your God commanded you.”

“For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.”

The meaning of “a jealous God” is that He is jealous concerning those who worship it.

And the gentile asked:

Why is He jealous concerning those who worship it, but is not jealous concerning it,

the idolatry itself, to take revenge against it?

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

I will give you a parable: To what is this comparable? To a mortal king who had one son, and that son raised a dog for him, and gave it a name after his father

the king, calling the dog by his father’s name

! And

so

when he swore, he

would say, “By the life of Father’s dog!”

When

the

king heard

that his son was showing such contempt for his honor,

at whom would he be angry?

Would he be

angry with the son, or would he be angry with the dog?

It follows that he would be angry with the son!

The analogy is that the Almighty takes revenge against those who worship idolatry, who call idols by the name of the exalted God and swear by His name, but He does not take revenge against the idols themselves.

He said to him,

the philosopher to Rabban Gamliel:

You call it a dog?! But it has substance!

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

What have you seen

in it, that you think it has substance?

He said to him,

the philosopher:

Once a fire broke out in our city, and the entire city was burned, but that house of idolatry was not burned!

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

I will give you a parable: To what is this comparable? To a mortal king against whom

a province had rebelled

When he wages war

to take revenge for his grievance, does he wage war

against the living, or does he wage war against the dead?! It follows that he wages war against the living!

The analogy is that the Almighty takes revenge against the inhabitants of the city who worship idols and against their property, and the fire consumes it; He does not take revenge against the idols themselves, which are dead: they neither see nor hear, and have no speech or understanding!

He said to him,

the philosopher:

You call it a dog! You call it dead! If so, let Him destroy it from the world!

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

If they worshipped something that the world did not need—

He would indeed abolish it—

They worship the sun, the moon, the stars, the constellations, the streams

watercourses

and the valleys.

And

will the world be destroyed because of fools?!