Babylonian Talmud: Tractate 'Abodah Zarah

Folio 42a

[R. Johanan] quoted against [R. Simeon b. Lakish]: IF ONE FOUND THE FIGURE OF A HAND OR THE FIGURE OF A FOOT, BEHOLD IT IS PROHIBITED BECAUSE SUCH AN OBJECT IS WORSHIPPED. Why [should they not be permitted]? They are only fragments!⁹  But surely Samuel explained that [the prohibition only applies when the hand and foot] are set upon their base.¹⁰

[R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but an Israelite cannot annul the idol of an idolater.¹¹  Why [should not an Israelite be able to annul it]? Let it be considered the same as an idol which was broken of its own accord! — Abaye said: [The Mishnah refers to a case] where he only defaced the idol.¹²  And supposing he only defaced it, what of it? Behold we have learnt: If he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, it is annulled!¹³  — This rule only applies when an idolater defaced it in this manner, but if an Israelite did so it is not annulled.¹⁴  Raba, however, said: In reality when an Israelite only defaces it, it is also annulled; but it was feared that he might lift it up¹⁵  and then annul it. In that event it would be an idol in the possession of an Israelite, and an idol which is in the possession of an Israelite can never be annulled.

[R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: If an idolater brought stones from [the statue of] Mercurius and used them for paving roads or theatres, they are permitted [to be walked on by an Israelite]; but if an Israelite brought stones from [the statue of] Mercurius and used them for paving roads or theatres, they are prohibited.¹⁶  But why [are they not permitted]? Let them be considered the same as an idol which was broken of its own accord! — This case has also to be explained according to the exposition of Raba.¹⁷

[R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: If an idolater chipped off an idol to make use of the pieces, it and the pieces are permitted, and if he did so to embellish it, it is prohibited but its pieces are permitted; but if an Israelite chipped off an idol, whether to make use of the pieces or for its embellishment, it and the pieces are prohibited.¹⁸  Now why [are they not allowed]? Let them be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord! — This case has also to be explained according to the exposition of Raba.

[R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: R. Jose says: He may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him: Even so it may then become manure, and it is stated, And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thine hand.¹⁹  Now why [is it not permitted]? Let it be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord! — This case has also to be explained according to the exposition of Raba.

[R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon:] R. Jose b. Jasian says: If he found the figure of a dragon with its head cut off, should there be a doubt whether an idolater or an Israelite had mutilated it, it is permitted; but if it is certain that an Israelite had mutilated it, it is prohibited. But why? Let it be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord! — This case has also to be explained according to the exposition of Raba.

[R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: R. Jose says: Nor may vegetables [be planted beneath an Asherah] in winter because the foliage falls upon them.²⁰  But why? Let it be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord! — It is different in this case because the basic part of the idol remains.²¹

1. A Biblical town south of Jerusalem.
2. He would be well versed in the laws of defilement.
3. To determine the duration of the woman's impurity, which was twice as long in the case of a female child (Lev. XII, 2 ff.).
4. By bending over the pit, the kohen may have contracted impurity through the presence of the dead body.
5. In pits. The Rabbis presumed that the animals had devoured it or dragged it elsewhere. For that reason they declared the priest to be clean (Tosef. Oh. XVI).
6. A. Judah's statement is amended. There is a doubt whether the embryo was sufficiently developed to cause defilement to the priest.
7. Consequently it must have been sufficiently developed to defile.
8. I.e., an undeveloped embryo; in that event she does not become impure.
9. v. supra. This refutes the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish that idol-fragments are permitted.
10. But ordinary idol-fragments are permitted.
11. V. infra 52b.
12. Knocked it with a hammer out of shape without breaking off any part of the material.
13. V. infra 53a.
14. And it cannot be compared to an idol which fell in pieces of itself, because the effect of the falling produced in the mind of the heathen, viz., it cannot save itself', is more devastating than 'when he knows that a Jew had defaced it. But when a Jew breaks off a piece to annul it, it is considered as if it broke of its own accord and is permitted.
15. In order to deface it; and the act of raising caused it technically to become the property of the Jew.
16. V. infra 50a, b. So the fragments may not be used!
17. viz., the raising of the stones constitutes an act of possession.
18. V. infra 49b.
19. Deut. XIII, 18. The passage is cited from the Mishnah 43b.
20. V. infra 48b.
21. Although the leaves fell, the tree used for idolatrous worship still exists; for that reason the foliage is prohibited as manure.

R. Simeon b. Lakish quoted against R. Johanan: If there be a bird's nest upon the top of a tree which had been dedicated to the Sanctuary, no use may be made of it;²  but if wrongful use of it had been made the law of trespass³  does not apply to it. [If, however, the nest be] on top of an Asherah, he knocks it off with a stick!⁴  Now it is to be assumed [is it not? that the case dealt with here] is, for example, where [the bird] broke twigs from the Asherah and built a nest of them; and yet it is taught: He knocks it off with a stick!⁵  [No:] We are dealing here with the case where, for example, [the bird] brought twigs from all sorts of places⁶  and built a nest of them. This conclusion is proved to be correct from the fact that in connection with [a tree] dedicated to the Sanctuary it is stated: No use may be made of it, but if wrongful use had been made of it the law of 'trespass' does not apply to it. Now this is quite right, if you say that [the bird] brought twigs from all sorts of places, that it is stated in connection with a tree dedicated to the Sanctuary: No use may be made of it, but if wrongful use had been made of it the law of 'trespass' does not apply to it. 'No use may be made of it' according to Rabbinical ruling,⁷  'and no law of "trespass" applies to it' — according to the law of the Torah because [the twigs] were not dedicated to the Sanctuary. But if, on the other hand, you say that [the bird] broke twigs from that tree [which had been dedicated] and built a nest with them, why is there no 'trespass' since they were dedicated to the Sanctuary!

Does this prove anything?⁸  Here we are dealing with the circumstance where [the bird used twigs] which grew after [the tree had been dedicated to the Sanctuary], and he holds that there is no 'trespass' involved [if a wrongful use is made of] the after-growth!⁹  R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan: What means 'he knocks off'? He knocks [the nest down] to get the young birds.¹⁰  R. Jacob said to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: I will make the cited passage clear to you: As for young birds, 'they may be used in any event;¹¹  as for eggs they are prohibited in any event.¹²  R. Ashi said: But young birds which need the care of their mother¹³  are considered to be like eggs [and are not permitted].

MISHNAH. IF ONE FINDS UTENSILS UPON WHICH IS THE FIGURE OF THE SUN OR MOON OR A DRAGON,¹⁴  HE CASTS THEM INTO THE SALT SEA.¹⁵  RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: IF IT IS UPON PRECIOUS UTENSILS THEY ARE PROHIBITED, BUT IF UPON COMMON UTENSILS THEY ARE PERMITTED.

GEMARA. Is this to say that [the heathens] worship these objects and no others? [Against such a conclusion] I cite the following: If one slaughters an animal in the name of seas, rivers, a desert, the sun, moon, stars and planets, Michael the great Prince¹⁶  or a tiny worm, behold these come within the category of 'sacrifices to dead objects'!¹⁷  — Abaye explained: As to worshipping they might worship whatever they take hold of; but in regard to the making of images for worship, they do so only of these three objects [enumerated in the Mishnah] which are specially honoured by them; but as for the other figures, they only make them for ornamental purposes.

R. Shesheth used to collect difficult extra-Mishnaic passages and expound them:¹⁸  [Pictures of] all the planets are permissible except that of the sun and moon; of all faces are permissible except that of a human face; and of all figures are permissible except that of the dragon.

The Master said: '[Pictures of] all the planets are permissible except that of the sun and moon.' With what are we dealing here? Shall I say with the making of them? If it is with the making of them, are any of the planets allowed, seeing that it is written, Ye shall not make with Me¹⁹  — i.e., ye shall not make according to the likeness of My attendants who serve before Me in the heights!²⁰  Obviously, then, it must refer to finding them,²¹  and it is in accord with our Mishnah: IF ONE FINDS UTENSILS UPON WHICH IS THE FIGURE OF THE SUN OR MOON OR A DRAGON, HE CASTS THEM INTO THE SALT SEA. If, then, it refers to finding them, consider the middle clause: 'Of all faces are permissible except that of a human face.' Now if this refers to finding them, is the picture of a human face prohibited? Surely we have learnt: IF ONE FINDS UTENSILS UPON WHICH IS THE FIGURE OF THE SUN OR MOON OR A DRAGON, HE CASTS THEM INTO THE SALT SEA. Which implies that [he does this] to the figure of a dragon but not to the picture of a human face! Obviously, then, it must refer to making them, and it is in accord with the view of R. Huna the son of R. Joshua.²²  If, then, it refers to making them, consider the last clause: 'Of all figures are permissible except that of the dragon.' Now if this refers to making them, is the image of a dragon prohibited seeing it is written, Ye shall not make with Me gods of silver or gods of gold

1. In the course of nature the foliage falls; but to chip a piece off an idol has to be a conscious act on the part of a human being.
2. For secular purposes.
3. V. Lev. V, 15.
4. He is permitted to use the material of the nest as fuel. He may not climb the Asherah to get it, because he would then be making use of an idolatrous object (Me'i, III, 5).
5. And uses it as fuel; which proves that fragments of an idol may be used, as against the view of R. Johanan.
6. But not from an Asherah or dedicated tree, and it is for this reason that its nest may be used as fuel.
7. Which made the law stricter from fear that if the twigs were used the tree itself might be used.
8. Now R. Simeon b. Lakish will demonstrate that no support can be derived from this extract for R. Johanan's view because the analogy is false.
9. Since the tree and not the after-growth was dedicated.
10. It is objected to the foregoing argument that it is based on a misunderstanding of the extract quoted. It has nothing to do with using the nest as fuel; but as against a possible view that since the nest is on a tree which may not be used, the young birds in the nest there are likewise forbidden for fear the tree itself might be used, it is maintained that he may knock the nest from the tree to secure the pigeons.
11. Whether the nest be on a dedicated tree or an Asherah, because the birds can fly away and do not require the tree.
12. Because use is made of the tree as a resting-place for the eggs and there is a likelihood that the man might be making use of the tree.
13. They are unable to fly away and need the security of the nest on the tree.
14. The figure referred to was in the form of a pendant attached to the utensil. The device of a dragon was commonly carried upon the standards of the Roman legions. See the illustration in Seyffert, Dict. of Classical Antiquities. p. 586. [On the worship of the 'Dragon', v. Elmslie, a. I.]
15. I.e., the Dead Sea, It is an expression denoting utter destruction.
16. The Archangel.
17. Cf. Ps. CVI, 28. Hul. 40a.
18. There follows an example of a difficult Baraitha with his exposition.
19. Ex. XX, 23.
20. And all the planets serve God in heaven.
21. If they are found one may use them, except figures of the sun and moon.
22. Who explained Ex. XX, 23, as referring to man as made in the image of God and not His attendants. V. infra 43b.