Avodah Zarah 54b — the Talmud in English

And

we conclude:

rather,

let it be learned

from the vessels

of the Temple that King Ahaz had neglected, having 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 priests said to Hezekiah:

[II Chronicles 29], that the priests said to Hezekiah:

“And

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

“we have prepared and sanctified”; and the Master said,

there we expound: what they said to him, “

we have prepared,”

means

we stored them away, and what they said, “

and what they said,

and we sanctified,”

means

that we sanctified others in their place.

For Hezekiah and the sages of the generation decreed a prohibition upon them forever, even for an ordinary person; therefore they stored them away and did not redeem them to become non-sacred —

And ostensibly this is difficult:

but a person cannot prohibit something that is not his,

and were those vessels not the property of those priests who used them for idolatry? Why were they prohibited?

Rather,

it is proven:

since he performed an act with them —

they became prohibited to them,

and therefore Hezekiah and the sages of his generation prohibited them.

Here too,

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

since he performed an act with it —

he prohibited it.

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

When Rav Dimi came,

when he arrived from the Land of Israel,

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”],

above, 45a: “Their gods are upon the mountains, but the mountains are not their gods,”

one who bows to natural ground,

for the sake of idolatry,

does not prohibit it,

since it is attached, it is not prohibited —

This means specifically when he did not perform an act; but if he

dug in it

in the ground

pits, ditches, and caves —

he prohibits it,

even for an ordinary person.

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

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came,

when he arrived from the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

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

this means specifically one who bows; but if he

made them an exchange for idolatry,

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

he prohibits them.

And as will be explained.

So said Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Yohanan. But

when Ravin came,

when he arrived from the Land of Israel,

he said: They disagreed about it,

they disagreed concerning this halakha,

Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.

One,

one of them,

said: An exchange is prohibited,

whereas

an exchange of an exchange,

for example, they exchanged the idolatry for produce, and they exchanged the produce for an animal,

is permitted,

the animal is permitted.

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

until 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 prohibited?

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

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

“And you shall become herem like it” —

everything that you make come from it is like it.

Therefore an exchange of an exchange is also included in “everything that you make come from it,” and they are prohibited.

And the Gemara explains:

And the other,

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

The verse says,

the Torah said in that same verse, “for it is herem”;

“it,”

and we expound:

it

is herem —

but not an exchange of an exchange.

And the Gemara explains:

And the other,

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

That is needed for him,

he needed to derive another exposition from it, namely: “it”—idolatry takes hold of its monetary value, meaning that its exchange is prohibited—

to exclude orlah and the mixed species of the vineyard,

which do not take hold of their monetary value, for if he had orlah, the mixed species of the vineyard, and other things prohibited for benefit, and he sold them, their monetary value is permitted by Torah law. However, by rabbinic law it is prohibited to benefit from their money. And although the Sages prohibited benefiting from their money, the Mishna in tractate Kiddushin [56b] says

that if he sold them,

orlah and the mixed species of the vineyard,

and betrothed

the woman

with their monetary value,

then she is

betrothed.

And the novelty is that although, for the one who betroths, it is not called “his money,” since the money is prohibited for benefit, nevertheless she is betrothed.

And the reason is that although, for the one who betroths, it is not called “his money,” nevertheless the woman who is being betrothed received “benefit” from him, since the money is not prohibited to her, and she is permitted to benefit from it.

And we raise an objection: And the other, what will the second tan[n]ay, who excludes an exchange of an exchange from the verse “for it is herem,” answer, since we need the verse to exclude orlah and the mixed species of the vineyard? And we answer:

Orlah and the mixed species of the vineyard do not need an exclusion,

to exclude them —

For why would it enter one’s mind to prohibit their exchanges? After all, the exchanges are not things prohibited for benefit.

Rather, since the Torah prohibited an exchange of idolatry, we would have learned from it regarding other things prohibited for benefit that their exchanges are prohibited [and therefore the verse was needed to exclude them] —

To this one can answer: You cannot learn the prohibition of an exchange from idolatry, because

idolatry and the Sabbatical year are,

which also takes hold of its monetary value [as will be explained],

two verses that come together,

which come to teach one matter —

And

we hold:

Any two verses that come together —

do not teach,

we do not learn another halakha from them, for if it were possible to learn from one of them, why did the Torah write the second? Rather, it follows that we do not learn from either of them.

And we explain:

Idolatry

that takes hold of its monetary value —

this is what we said.

It is the law stated, which is learned from what the Torah said: “And you shall become herem like it.”

Whereas

the Sabbatical year,

takes hold of its monetary value

as it is written [Leviticus 25] in the section of the Jubilee [the laws of the Jubilee are like the laws of the Sabbatical year with regard to all the laws of the resting of the land and the abandonment of its produce]:

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

and we expound: The Torah compares the Jubilee to “holy property” consecrated for the Temple repair fund, to teach us:

Just as holy property takes hold of its monetary value,

for if he redeemed the holy property with money, the money becomes invested with the sanctity of the Temple repair fund, as it is stated [Leviticus 27], “And he shall redeem it according to your valuation,”

and it is prohibited

to benefit from the money,

so too the Sabbatical year [and the Jubilee]

takes hold of its monetary value, and is prohibited

from benefit like the produce of the Sabbatical year itself.

If

we compare the Sabbatical year to holy property, I might say:

Just as holy property takes hold of its monetary value, and

the thing that was sanctified and redeemed

goes out to non-sacred status,

so too we would say

the Sabbatical year takes hold of its monetary value and

the produce itself

goes out to non-sacred status?

The Torah says “It shall be holy for you,” and we expound:

“It shall be” —

it shall remain in its state,

the produce itself of the Sabbatical year remains in its state and in its sanctity, and does not go out to non-sacred status.

How so?

How are the two verses to be fulfilled?

If

he took meat with Sabbatical-year produce, both this and that,

the meat and the produce,

must be removed during the Sabbatical year [removal means removing them by eating them before the time arrives when that species of produce has disappeared, so that even an animal will not find it in the field. For example, if the time for removing this produce arrived in the month of Sivan of the seventh year, he must finish eating the produce and the meat that he took with Sabbatical-year produce by the month of Sivan].

If

he took with meat —

fish, the meat goes out,

from the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, and

the fish enters in its place. For the sanctity of the Sabbatical year does not take hold so strongly.

If he took

with fish —

wine, the fish goes out

and

wine enters.

If he took

with wine —

oil, the wine goes out and oil enters —

How

are the two verses fulfilled? What is stated, “holy,” from which we expound that the Sabbatical year takes hold of its monetary value, is fulfilled through

the last one being invested with

the sanctity of

the Sabbatical year, and the fruit itself

of the Sabbatical year

is prohibited, and what is stated, “it shall be,” and we expound, “it shall remain in its state,” is fulfilled.

The exposition “it shall remain in its state” applies only to the fruit of the Sabbatical year, and not to its exchanges; they go out of their sanctity when they are exchanged for others.

How

are the two verses fulfilled? The statement “holy,” from which we expound that the Sabbatical Year takes hold of its money, is fulfilled by the fact that

We have found, then, that the Sabbatical year takes hold of its monetary value —

And since idolatry and the Sabbatical year are two verses that come together and do not teach ,

therefore the exclusion “it” is not needed to exclude orlah, the mixed species of the vineyard, and other things prohibited for benefit.

And the other, the second tan[n]ay, holds: Two verses that come together — teach, and indeed we would learn from idolatry and the Sabbatical year that just as they take hold of their monetary value, so too orlah and the mixed species of the vineyard take hold of their monetary value — 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 become invested with their prohibition of benefit. Mishna: After the Mishna explained the laws of idolatry and its annulment, [from the following Mishna until the end of the tractate, the Mishna discusses the laws of libation wine and the ordinary wine of gentiles], the Mishna brings a debate between the sages of Israel and the sages of the gentiles concerning idolatry. Philosophers asked the elders, the sages of Israel, in the city of Rome: If it is not the will

remains prohibited,

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

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

We have therefore learned that the Sabbatical Year takes hold of its money —

And since idolatry and the Sabbatical Year are two verses that come as one and do not teach , no exclusion is needed through the word “it” to exclude orlah, the produce of a vineyard planted with diverse species, and other items prohibited for benefit.

of the Holy One, blessed is He,

that there be idolatry —

why does He not annul it

and destroy it?

and indeed we would derive from idolatry and the Sabbatical Year that just as they take hold of their money, so too orlah and the produce of a vineyard planted with diverse species take hold of their money —

And “it” was necessary

and the exposition “it” was necessary

to exclude them,

to teach us that their money does not become prohibited for benefit.

They said to them,

the sages of Israel:

If they worshipped 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. Would He

destroy His world because of fools?!

They said to them,

the philosophers to the elders:

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

They said to them,

the elders: If the Holy One, blessed is He, did so, and it would appear that the sun and the moon are not annulled, whereas other things are annulled by themselves,

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

the worshippers of the sun and the moon, because they would say, “You will know that they are gods — for they have not been annulled!” Gemara: The Gemara brings 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 worshipped something that the world did not need, He would indeed abolish it —

They said to them,

the philosophers said to the elders:

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

They said to them,

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 moon, because they would say:

“You should know that they are gods,

for they have not disappeared!”

Gemara:

The Gemara cites a

beraita: The philosophers asked

the gentile sages

the elders,

the Jewish sages,

in Rome: If your God does not desire idolatry,

why does He not abolish it?

They said to them,

the Jewish sages said:

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

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

And is it that

the world should perish because of fools?!

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

and worshipped them—

are destined to give an accounting!

Another matter: behold,

one who

stole a se'a of wheat

and went

and sowed it in the ground—

it is right that it should not sprout!

But does it not sprout?!

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

are destined to give an accounting!

Another matter: behold,

one who

had intercourse with his fellow’s wife—

it is right that she should not become pregnant!

Rather, the world follows its customary course and continues on, and the fools who corrupted it are destined to give an accounting!

And this is

And this is

as

Resh Lakish said

The Holy One, blessed be He, said:

And is it that

it is not enough—

it is enough for them—

for the wicked that they make my sela public,

This is a parable: the die in which coins are stamped with the form of the king—one who uses it without permission and makes it ownerless for anyone who wishes to stamp with it thereby treats the king with contempt. So, one who has intercourse with a forbidden woman uses the image of the form of His likeness, for the Holy One, blessed be He, created the human being in His likeness and in His image. And it is not enough for the wicked that they make the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, ownerless—

but they trouble Me

as it were,

and make Me stamp,

that I create the fetus

against My will,

and they cause it to be born.

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

And concerning the worship of the stars, the Gemara brings another debate.

A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah [Deuteronomy 4], “Take heed for yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of Hashem your God, which He made with you, and make for yourselves a graven image, the likeness of anything that Hashem your God commanded you.

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

For Hashem your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.”

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

And the gentile asked:

Why is He jealous of those who worship it, and is He not jealous of it,

of the worship of the stars itself, to take revenge upon it?

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

I shall tell you a parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a king of flesh and blood who had one son, and that son raised the dog for him and gave it a name after his father’s name,

the king; he calls the dog by his father’s name

! And

so

when he swears,—

he says, “By the life of Father Dog”!

When

the king

heard

that his son was treating his honor with such contempt—

at whom is he angry?

Is it

at the son that he is angry, or at the dog that he is angry?

You must say: He is angry at the son!

And the parallel is: the Holy One, blessed be He, takes revenge upon those who worship the worship of the stars, who call the idols by the name of the blessed God and swear by His name, but He does not take revenge upon the idols themselves.

He said to him,

the philosopher to Rabban Gamliel:

You call it a dog?! But surely there is substance in it!

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

What have you seen

in it, to think that there is substance in it?

He said to him,

the philosopher:

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

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

I shall tell you a parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a king of flesh and blood against whom

a province rebelled

when he makes war

to take his revenge—is it

with the living that he makes war, or with the dead that he makes war?! You must say: With the living he makes war!

And the parallel is: the Holy One, blessed be He, takes revenge upon the people of the city who worship idols and upon their property, and the fire consumes it, but He does not take revenge upon the idols themselves, for they are dead; they neither see nor hear, and they have neither speech nor 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—

Behold, they worship the sun, the moon, the stars, the constellations, the watercourses

the channels from which water emerges

and the valleys.

And is it that

the world should perish because of fools?!