MISHNAH: All statues are prohibited [Prohibited for usufruct. For R. Meïr there are no statues made for artistic value alone.] because they are worshipped once a year, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, prohibited are only those in whose hand is a rod [A symbol of command.] , or a bird [A symbol of having access everywhere.] , or a globe [A symbol of ruling the earth.] . Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any in whose hand is anything.
HALAKHAH: “All statues are prohibited,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because they are worshipped in the great fortification of Rome twice in a Sabbatical period [This is given as R, Meïr’s reason.] . Then at a place where they are worshipped they should be forbidden, at a place where they are not worshipped they should be permitted. Rebbi Yose said, since they became forbidden at one place, their kind becomes forbidden anywhere [Babli 40b (following R. Meïr).] .
Where do we hold [Where is the disagreement between R. Meïr and the rabbis?] ? If it is certain that they are of kings [Since Augustus introduced the worship of the Emperor in the provinces, any statue of an Emperor is an idol.] , according to everybody they are forbidden. If it is certain that they are of rulers [The statue of a procurator is not an idol.] , according to everybody they are permitted. But where we hold is if it is indeterminate. Rebbi Meïr says, indeterminate they are of kings but the rabbis say, indeterminate they are of rulers.
Ashian the woodworker in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: why are pictures forbidden [Flat pictures of pagan deities or pagan subjects, since the Second Commandment forbids only three-dimensional forms. Greek εἰκόνιον, “portrait”.] ? Because one burns incense before them at the time they are hung. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may look at them when they are taken down. What is the reason? You may look when the evildoers are being destroyed [Ps. 34:37.] . One may not look at inscriptions under figures or under pictures on the Sabbath [Babli Šabbat 149a. Since the inscription explains what the picture is all about, reading it is for non-religious information which is forbidden on the Sabbath.] . Not only this, but even on a weekday one does not look at pictures. What is the reason? Do not turn to idols [Lev. 19:4.] , do not turn to worship them; Rebbi Jehudah says, do not turn actually to see them.
When Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai expired, the pictures were covered by bast mats [The entire paragraph in Eccl. rabba 9(9); cf. also Babli Moˋed qatan 25b. They covered all icons along the route of the funeral procession by mats. (In the Babli, the icons turned into mats.)] . Just as he did not see them during his lifetime, so he should not see them in his death. But do they know anything [Babli Berakhot 18a.] ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the only difference between us and the just is speech [Midrash Ps. 30(3) [ed. Buber Note 6]; Pesiqta rabbati 2 (ed. Friedmann Note 17), 12 (Note 4). The name tradition changes from source to source.] . Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the dead person hears his eulogy as in a dream. Rebbi Ashian said, the dead person hears his eulogy [קִילוּס “praise” is derived from Greek καλῶς! “beautiful, excellent”. For the use as “eulogy” compare καλολογέω, same as ἐυλογέω (E. G.).] as in a dream. Why was he called “Naḥum the most holy man”? because he never in his life looked at the form on a coin [Sanhedrin 10:6 Note 335, Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a.] . Why was he called “our holy teacher”? Because he never looked at his circumcision [Sanhedrin 10:6 Note 335, Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a.] .
[Most of these remarks about wonders which happened at the death of holy men are alluded to in the Babli, Moˋed qaṭan 25b.] When Rebbi Aḥa expired, a star was seen at high noon. When Rebbi Ḥanan expired, the statues were bent. When Rebbi Joḥanan expired, the pictures were bent. They said, there was no picture beauty like his [R. Joḥanan’s beauty is extolled in the Babli, Bava meṣiˋa 84a.] . When Rebbi Ḥanina from Hauran expired, Lake Tiberias was split. They said, when he was going to intercalate [Calendar intercalations, the proclamations of an additional month in the year, were done at the hot springs of Gadara, near the South-East comer of the Lake or Genezareth.] , the lake was split before him. When Rav Hoshaia expired, the shame [Usually קָלוֹן “shame” means a brothel (cf. Horaiot 3:7 Note 259), possibly government run. It is possible that here one should read קוֹלוּמן columna “a pillar” (commentary Gilyon Efraim.)] of Tiberias fell down. When Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv expired, 70 thresholds of Galilean houses were uprooted. They said, these were kept in place by his merit.
[This story appears also in Peah 1:1 (Note 139) and twice in Gen. rabba. The different Yerushalmi versions are compared in Appendix 2 of M. Sokoloff, The Geniza Fragments of Bereshit Rabba, Jerusalem 1982. (Babli Ketubot 17a.)] When Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac expired, the cedars of the Land of Israel were uprooted. They said that he was taking branches and danced while singing [Arabic قلس “to dance while singing”. This קלס is not the verb קלס derived from Greek καλός “beautiful”.] before brides. The rabbis were complaining about him. Rebbi Zeˋira said to them, let him alone, the old man does not [J. N. Epstein deletes this word since in the parallels R. Zeˋira appears in a positive light.] know what he is doing. When he expired, fire came from Heaven and separated between his bier and the public; there were three hours of thunder and lightning in the world. They showed [Read חיוי instead of חייא.] what this branch did for the old man. There came a disembodied voice and said, woe that Samuel bar Rav Isaac, the doer of good deeds, has expired.
When Rebbi Yasa bar Ḥalfuta expired, the water pipes drew blood in Laodicea [In the Babli, R. Yose (ben Ḥalafta, the Tanna) at Sepphoris.] . They said, because he devoted his life to circumcisions.
When Rebbi Abbahu expired, the pillars of Caesarea were crying. The Samaritans said, they only are making a joyful noise [Since R. Abbahu was the driving force behind the permanent separation of Jews and Samaritans (Halakhah 5:3, Babli Hulin 6a.)] . The Jews told them, do the outsiders know what sound the insiders make? When Rebbi Abbahu expired, they had thirteen rivers of balsamum flowing before him. He asked them [The angels. The next paragraph implies that he saw his reward before his death, and explains the euphemism “expired” (really “slept”) for “died”. Gen. rabba63(3). A similar story is in the Babli, Taˋanit 25a, referring to R. Eleazar.] , for whom are these? They told him, they are yours. He said to them, all of this is for Abbahu, and I said. in vain I labored [Is. 49:4. Gen. rabba 63(3).] , etc.
[Gen. rabba 63(3), an enlarged version.] The Holy One, praise to Him, shows to the just their rewards in this world; their soul is satisfied and they go to sleep. [A parable] of a king who gave a dinner and pictured all kinds of dishes on a chart. When the guests entered they saw it, they were satiated and went to sleep.
[Gen. rabba 63(4), 92(2), Ex. rabba 22(3), Midrash Psalms 5(11).] Zavdai ben Levai, and Rebbi Yose bar Petrus, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said three verses when they expired. One of them said, for this every pious one should pray to You [Ps. 32:6.] etc. And one said, all who rely on You will enjoy [Ps. 5:12.] etc. And one said, how great is Your bounty which You did hide for those who fear You [Ps. 31:20.] etc.
[This paragraph is from Horaiot 3:7, Soṭah 9:17, 9:13–14 (Notes 212–218), Tosephta Soṭah 13:3–4; parallels in the Babli Berakhot57a, Soṭah 48b, Sanhedrin 11a.] Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Elders assembled in the upper story of House Gadya at Jericho when there came a disembodied voice and told them, there are two among you worthy of the Holy Spirit and one of them is Hillel the Elder. They looked at Samuel Minor. Then the Elders assembled in the upper story at Jabneh when there came a disembodied voice and told them, there are two among you worthy of the Holy Spirit and one of them is Samuel Minor. They looked at Eliezer ben Hyrcanos. They were happy that their opinion coincided with that of the Holy Spirit.
One of the Patriarch’s court expired. The burial cave received him but people’s lives were endangered [Probably the cave was unsafe.] . Rebbi Yose [This name probably should read “Yasa” as in the following, since R. Yose was R. Zeˋira’s student’s student.] came and held a funeral oration, “happy the man who leaves the world in peace.” When Rebbi Yasa died, the sacred fountain [The usual interpretation as Latin castellum (New Greek καστέλλιον), expression used by Vitruvius for the water container on top of a water tower, fits Tosephta Miqwaot 4:6 but not this passage. Fortification in the Yerushalmi always appears as castra. -orum, and has nothing to do with pagan worship. The word here seems to be κασταλία “a sacred fountain”. Compare Latin castalius, “holy” (E. G.).] of Tiberias fell down and those of the Patriarch’s court were happy [That something happened to the preacher who found fault with the court because something happened at one of its funerals.] . Rebbi Zeˋira told them, it is not comparable. There people were in danger, here nobody was in danger. There no pagan worship was uprooted, here pagan worship was uprooted.
[Soṭah 9:17 (ס) Notes 283–284. The first paragraph is slightly reformulated, the second more radically except for the last sentence. Probably one should read bar Pazi instead of Rebbi Pazi. According toHoraiot 3:7 (Note 329) the family bar Pazi already was related to the Patriarchate but had no learned members.] Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, he said, clear the house because of impurity and prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the king of Judah. When his student Rebbi Eliezer died, he said, clear the house because of impurity and prepare a chair for Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. But some say, what his teacher saw, he saw.
Some of the family of the Patriarch proposed a marriage connection to one of the house of Rebbi Pazi but he did not accept; he said that they should not be embarrassed by him. When he died he said, clear the house because of impurity and prepare a chair for Josaphat, the king of Judah. They said, the one who ran after honor should come for him who fled before honor.
“But the Sages say, prohibited are only those in whose hand is a rod, or a bird, or a globe.” A rod by which he rules the world [Babli 41a. The other two attributes are interpreted differently; the Yerushalmi interpretation also is in Num. rabba 13(13).] . A bird, my hand reaches to the riches of people as to a bird’s nest [Is. 10:14.] . A globe, for the world is globe-shaped.
[Num. rabba 13(13).] Rebbi Jonah said, when Alexander the Macedonian wanted to ascend he rose, and rose, and rose, until he saw the world as a globe and the ocean like a bowl. Therefore one represents him with a globe in his hand. Should one not represent him with a bowl in his hand? He does not rule over the Sea. But the Holy One, praise to Him, rules over Sea and dry land, He rescues on the Sea and on land.
[A slightly different version of this paragraph is in Berakhot 9:1 (Notes 56–58).] Rebbi Zeˋira the son of Rebbi Abbahu preached before Rebbi Eleazar. Happy is he whom the God of Jacob helps [Ps. 146:5–6.] . What is written after this? The Maker of Heaven and Earth. What has one to do with the other? But a king of flesh and blood needs a protector [Latin patronus “protector, defender”.] ; in one district [Greek ἐπαρχία.] he is not a ruler, maybe in another one? If you say a universal ruler [Greek κοσμοκράτωρ, the Roman Emperor. A king in the Roman principate was a local ruler subject to orders from Rome.] rules over dry land, does he [rule] over the Sea? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this; He rules over the Sea, He rules over dry land. Not only this, but if a sword is at a person’s neck the Holy One, praise to Him, saves him. That is what Moses said, He saved me from Pharao’ s sword [Ex. 18:4.] . It is written only sword [Since it does not say “from Pharao” but “from Pharao’s sword” Moses was condemned to death but escaped miraculously (Berakhot 9:1 Notes 42–47, Deut. rabba 2(20), Midrash Cant. 7(5), Midrash Ps. 4[3].)] . Even if a sword is at his neck the Holy One, praise to Him, saves him from it.
“They added to this the sword, the crown, and the ring. [Tosephta 5:1, Babli 41 a.] ” The sword with which he kills, the crown with which he crowns himself, the ring with which he seals.
It is forbidden to seal with a seal on which there is an idol. Rebbi Jehudah says, if its seal was recessed it is forbidden to seal with it, if it protrudes it is permitted to seal with it [Babli 43b. A figure prohibited by the Second Commandment is a three-dimensional plastic image. A ring with a concave picture will result in a protruding seal which therefore is forbidden (but as the Babli points out, one is permitted to wear such a ring.) A ring with a protruding picture results in a recessed seal which is permitted (but one may not possess such a ring.)] . Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says, in my father’s family they were sealing with faces [Greek πρόσωπον, τό “face”.] . Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, all kinds of faces were in Jerusalem except human ones [In the Babli (42b): All faces are permitted except human ones. Tosephta 5:2.] .
“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any in whose hand is anything.” But only matters of honor [Babli 43b.] . A basket, laced shoes, and rags are matters of dishonor. Papyrus and reed pen [Greek καλαμάριον, τό.] are matters of honor. The pen-case [In the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss.: “of idols”. While idols are and remain biblically forbidden for all usufruct, a pagan (not a Jew) who damages or breaks an idol thereby removes the character of instrument of worship. If one finds shards of vessels decorated with pagan symbols then either (1) it simply is a decorated vessel never intended for pagan worship, or (2) even if it was an object of worship there is a likelihood that a pagan broke and discarded it. As a general principle such a case (called “the doubt of a doubt”) in which the object may be permitted in each of the cases clears the objected from any biblical prohibition.] is problematic.
MISHNAH: If one finds shards of vessels [In the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss.: “of idols”. While idols are and remain biblically forbidden for all usufruct, a pagan (not a Jew) who damages or breaks an idol thereby removes the character of instrument of worship. If one finds shards of vessels decorated with pagan symbols then either (1) it simply is a decorated vessel never intended for pagan worship, or (2) even if it was an object of worship there is a likelihood that a pagan broke and discarded it. As a general principle such a case (called “the doubt of a doubt”) in which the object may be permitted in each of the cases clears the objected from any biblical prohibition.] they are permitted. If one finds the figure of a hand or of a foot these are forbidden because similar ones are worshipped [In this case, possibility (1) is very remote; there is only one doubt which is not enough to remove the biblical prohibition.] .
HALAKHAH: “If one finds shards of vessels,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because most of them come from three-legged tables [Greek δέλφιξ, -ικος, a (Delphian) tripod or small three-legged table. In this case the possibility of case (2) is remote.] . Then also figures of a hand or figures of a foot? There is a difference since similar ones are worshipped.
[Here starts a Geniza text (G), one leaf also edited by J. N. Epstein (Chapter 2, Note 361). The parallel in the Babli is Sanhedrin 63b.] It is written [2K. 17:30.] : The people from Babylon made Sukkot Benot, the chicken and its young, and the people of Kuta made the Nergal, the foot of Jacob and the foot of Joseph [Some of the regions mentioned here and most of the deities are unidentified in cuneiform sources but Nergal is well identified as the god of the Underworld. Since the word does not correspond to any Semitic root, Nun is considered a prefix leaving a root רגל “foot” which in turn is taken of the source of גלל “because of” in analogy to עקב “heel, in consequence of”.] , I divined that the Eternal blessed me for your sake [Ge n. 30:12.] ; the Eternal blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake [Ge n. 39:5.] .The people of Ḥamma made the Ashima, a sheep, as you say, the Cohen shall atone for him by the asham ram [Le v. 19:22. G quotes 5:16 instead. In both cases there is acoustic similarity between asham and ashima.] . The Awim made the Nibḥan [Both sources and the Babli read נבחן “the barker” against the MT נִבְחָז which together with תרתק are read as Elamite by modem interpreters.] , a dog, and the Tartaq, a donkey. And the Sepharwites burned their sons in fire [to Adrammelekh and Annamelekh the gods of Sepharwaim] [Parentheses added from G; while the interpretations clearly refer to the deities mentioned in the addition, in talmudic style the explicit quote is not strictly necessary.] , peacock [Greek ταώς, ὁ. In Latin, taos, -i, m., is “a precious multi-colored stone”.] and pheasant [Latin phasianus, also phasiana, -ae, f. (Edict. Diocl.). According to myth, it is metamorphosed Itis, a son of Tereus. He was killed by his mother and served to his father, then changed into a pheasant.] .
An idol which was broken [In the Babli, 41b, “if it broke spontaneously.” This is the reading of the correction in G over the line. Therefore one has to assume that the reading in the text simply means that a piece is before us and we do not know how it was broken. The argument in the text shows that the idol was a decoration of a vessel, not a statue.] , Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is permitted [Babli 41b.] . Where do we hold? If in the future he would return it to its vessel, everybody agrees it is forbidden. If in the future he will not return it to its vessel, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we hold if it is not indicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not indicated is as if he would return it to its vessel; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not indicated is as if he would not return it to its vessel. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot [All parts of the vessel are still available, so it can be glued back together.] it is if he would return it to its vessel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi [Joḥanan] [From G, missing in L.] : Is it not written, therefore the priests of Dagon and all visitors to Dagon’s temple will not step on Dagon’s threshold [1S. 5:5. Since it does not mention Dagon’s hands and head, it proves that once a statue is broken it is not worshipped any longer by pagans. In the Babli the same verse serves to buttress R. Joḥanan’s position against R. Simeon ben Laqish.] ? He told him, this teaches that they honored the threshold more than Dagon. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the peoples of the world made one threshold; Israel made many thresholds; what is the reason? I shall visit on [any] [Added from G (and the verse in MT); needed for the point of the sermon.] who skips over the threshold [on that day] [Zeph. 1:9.] .
If somebody finds an idol, Rav said, he breaks it limb by limb and it becomes insignificant, but Samuel said, it never can become insignificant [Rav holds that an idol broken into little pieces cannot be reconstituted. Therefore it is no longer an idol and the shards may be used. Samuel holds that an idol which falls into the hands of a Jew is ḥerem and forbidden for any use under any circumstance (Deut. 13:18). For him the only way an idol or its parts can become useable for a Jew is that a Gentile (a pagan) breaks it. The Babli (49b) explains Samuel’s position away.] .
Rebbi Abin in the name of (Rebbi Simeon) [Samuel] [Reading of L in (parentheses), of G in [brackets].] : This means [This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, about hands and feet. If these are complete, not broken off from a base, the Mishnah applies; these are complete objects of worship. But if they are broken off a basis they are shards. Babli 41a/b.] if they are without base. But if they have a base, I am saying they come from shards.
MISHNAH: If somebody finds vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon [According to Maimonides, not circles representing sun and moon but their astrological representation.] , the form of a dragon [Greek δράκων, -οντος, ὁ, also “dragon-shaped jewellery”.] , he should bring them to the Dead Sea [Made from precious metals. All others fall under the category of “contemptible”.] . Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, on honored ones [Deut. 13:18.] it is forbidden, on contemptible ones permitted. Rebbi Yose said, he grinds them and disperses them into the wind or throws them into the Sea. They told him, but then it becomes fertilizer and it was said, nothing of the ban should cling to your hand [While they are divinities, they are not actively worshipped.] .
HALAKHAH: “If somebody finds vessels,” etc. They stated only “vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon,” therefore not any of the other planets [While they are divinities, they are not actively worshipped.] . They only stated “dragon”, therefore not any snakes. What is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. It was stated thus [Tosephta 5:2.] : “Rebbi Simeon ben (Azzai) [Eleazar] [The reading of Tosephta, G, and the Leiden ms. before correction is “Eleazar”. In addition, while ben Azzai’s name was Simeon, he was not ordained and never is called “rabbi”. The correction is a corruption.] says, what is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. “If it [The neck on the snake-shaped vessel.] is smooth it is permitted. If one finds a dragon in the form of a something crawling [The word may mean either snake, or worm, or even a small rodent.] it is forbidden. Something crawling and on it a dragon, he takes the crawling thing and throws away the dragon.
Samuel said, a cup which serves as base for a dragon is forbidden, a dragon which serves as base for a cup is permitted [In the first case it may be an object of worship, in the second the dragon is a decoration.] . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Fragments of a dragon are permitted. If it was a whole dragon and broke, it is forbidden [Since a forbidden idol can become permitted only if a Gentile, not a Jew, breaks it (Note 76).] .But did the fragments not come from a whole one? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav: So it is: If one saw them bowing down before a whole dragon and then it was broken, it is forbidden [Then there is an indication that the idol broke by accident, not by intention, and the shards remain forbidden.] .
Where do we hold? If it is certain that they are worshipped, even the contemptible ones are forbidden. If it is certain that they are not worshipped, even the honored ones are permitted. But we must deal with the indeterminate case. Rebbi Crispus said, those cups [In G: “garment”. The following sentences show that the text of L is correct even though Gen.r. 81(3) quotes R. Joḥanan to the effect that garments may be forbidden as pagan (based on Gen. 35:2).] belong to the contemptible category, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba had a pitcher [A Syriac word as identified in Sokoloff’s Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.] and the (worth) [fortune] [The reading of G, τύχη “fortune, destiny” is preferable over the reading of L, τιμή “worth, value”.] of Rome [The vocalization is from G referring to Romae.] was pictured on it. He came to ask Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, since water swims on top of it, it is a contemptible one. A drinking cup [Greek κῶθων, “Laconian drinking vessel used by soldiers; drinking bout; religious banquet”.] is contemptible since one immerses it in water. In the days of Rebbi Joḥanan they started painting on walls [Since the paintings are flat, they are not prohibited by the Second Commandment.] and he did not protest against it. [In the days of Rebbi Abun they started depicting by mosaics and he did not protest against it. [Text of G, missing in L. As J. N. Epstein notes, any synagogue mosaic floor which shows figures (as opposed to text) must be dated after R. Abun’s time (about the year 300).] ]
[Babli 43b/44a, Tosephta 3:19. The speaker is R. Yose the Tanna who objects to the statement that the idol has to be dumped into the Dead Sea; he brings examples of disposition of pagan idols in other ways.] Rebbi Yose objected to the rabbis, is it not written: your sin which you had made, the calf [Deut. 9:21.] ? They told him, this teaches that he intended to examine them in the way one examines deviant wives: he strewed it on the surface of the water [Ex. 32:20. As usual, the argument is from the part of the verse which is not quoted, viz., he let the Children of Israel drink. The deviant wife has to drink water mixed with dust from the floor of the Sanctaury, Num. 5:11–31.] .He said to them, is it not written, and also Maacah, king Asa’s mother, he removed from power [1K. 15:13.] ? They told him, is there proof from there? Asa cut down [Since Asa burned his mother’s Ashera, there is no doubt that burning a wooden statue is as good as bringing it to the Dead Sea.] etc. He told them, he beat the bronze serpent to pieces [2K. 18:4.] . Was this an object of worship? Did not Moses make it? This teaches that Israel was erring after it until Hezekias came and removed it [Here ends the Genizah fragment G edited by Epstein; on the next line starts one (ג) edited by Ginzberg (pp. 278–279) of which, however, not very much is legible.] .
One verse says, they abandoned their idols; David and his men carried them away [2S. 5:21. The verse implies that the idols were a valuable part of the booty. According to the Mishnah the idols should have been brought to the Dead Sea, not to Hebron.] . But another verse says, David gave orders and they were burned in the.fire [1Chr. 14:12, another report about the same event.] . Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta [This is the reading of ג, which agrees with the name of the Tanna in other sources.] and the rabbis. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥalafta says, what was of metal, David and his men carried them away. And what was of wood, David gave orders and they were burned in the fire. But the rabbis say, what Itai from Gat [They assume that he was a Gentile and therefore able to break the idols to remove the prohibition and turn them into valuable metal scrap. Babli 44a] annulled, David and his men carried them away. And what he did not annul, David gave orders and they were burned in fire. How does Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta confirm David and his men carried them away? They took them by their rims [To grind them down as R. Yose prescribes in the Mishnah.] .
MISHNAH: Proclos ben Ploslos [In the Babli פלוספוס which can be read פִלוֹסֳפוֹס “philosopher”; in the Venice edition of Alfasi פלופלוס, but in most sources, including Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah Commentary the name is written as in the Yerushalmi Mishnah.] asked Rabban Gamliel in Acco when he was taking a bath in the Bath of Aphrodite [According to Maimonides there is no problem since Aphrodite is the symbol of the planet Venus, which was exempted from the general prohibition of pagan symbols in Halakhah 3 Note 83.] . He said to him, it is written in your Torah, nothing banned should stick to your hand [Deut. 13:18.] : why are you bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite? He said to him, one does not answer in the bath [One may not discuss religious subjects while naked. Cf. Berakhot 2:3 Notes 116–119.] . When he left he told him, I did not come into her domain, she came into my domain. One does not say, the bath was built as adornment for Aphrodite but one says, Aphrodite was made as adornment of the bath. Another explanation. If one gave you lots of money, would you enter your temple naked, after an emission, or urinating before it? But this one stands over the sewer and everybody is urinating in its presence. It only says their gods [Deut. 12:30; the verse which is the basis of Mishnah 6.] ; what is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as a divinity is not forbidden.
HALAKHAH: “Proclos ben Ploslos asked,” etc. Where do we hold? If he asked him about practice in the bath he should have answered; if he did not ask him about practice in the bath he should not have answered [Since the instruction that one does not answer in the bath, i. e., in the room where people are naked, is a religious instruction forbidden at that place.] . [The main source for the following is Šabbat 3:3 (6a l.51, ש), Babli Šabbat 40b.] As Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. As when Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to bathe with Rebbi Meïr, he asked him, may one rinse? He told him, it is forbidden [As explained in Šabbat, they went to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath. It is forbidden to take a hot bath in water which was heated, but not in water which is naturally hot. But then one has to be careful not to rinse oneself outside the water flowing from the source since water spilled on the earth outside would fill in depressions in the ground, which is prohibited work.] . May one dry himself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden [Similarly, one may not use a bath towel on the Sabbath since squeezing out water from a towel (or a sponge) is forbidden work.] . But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say “Amen” at a dirty place? He told him, it is forbidden, and it is forbidden that I told you that it is forbidden [Since he was asked at a place with a bad smell. He disagrees with R. Jacob bar Idi.] . It was found stated, one asks [In Šabbat: “One does not ask.” This supports Rav and seems to be the original version. Unfortunately, ג is damaged at this passage.] about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, he asked him about practice in the bath but it is not done [In ג:“is not polite”.] to answer in the bath. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he asked him about practice in the bath but the steam in the bath is bad for the teeth. The colleagues, Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name if Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He answered him in an evasive answer [Babli 44b.] , for he could have replied about Baal Peˋor whose worship only consists in exposure and defecation [Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:12.] . What about it [What would be the correct answer?] ? What is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as divinity is not forbidden.
MISHNAH: If Gentiles worship mountains and hills; these are permitted [For agricultural use; the ground and what grows on it is not forbidden as long as it is connected to the ground.] but what is on them is forbidden, as it is said [Deut. 7:25. If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted.] , do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, their gods [are] on the mountains [Deut. 12:2.] , the mountains are not their gods. Their gods [are] on the hills, the hills are not their gods. Then why is an Ashera [A holy tree (Mishnah 11), which is connected to the ground and by the argument of Note 125 should be permitted as building material or fire wood.] forbidden? Because it was held by human hand [It was planted.] , and anything held by human hand is forbidden. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you. Any place where you find a high mountain, or an elevated hill, or a sprightly tree, know that there is idolatry [Deut. 12:2 reads: You shall certainly destroy all the places where the peoples from whom you will inherit worshipped their gods, on high mountains, and hills, and under each sprightly tree. This explains clearly that not the place is forbidden but the idol and its temple to be found there.] .
HALAKHAH: “If Gentiles worship mountains,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: One verse says [Deut. 7:25. If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted.] , do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. And one verse says [Deut. 29:16.] , silver and gold which is with them. If on them why with them, and if with them why on them? Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them [Since the mountains themselves cannot become forbidden, only adornments made explicitly for pagan worship can be forbidden. Therefore also of the contents of a dwelling only idolatrous objects can be forbidden for all usufruct. Babli 51b.] , also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them.
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Anything which one introduced inside the lattice work [The inner part of a temple, cf. Chapter 2:3, Note 219.] he made forbidden; e. g., money pouches. Rebbi Yasa said, we had a note that (return) [this] [The text of L (in parentheses) is clearly a scribal error; one has to follow the text of ג [in brackets].] of Rebbi Hoshaia disagreed with Rebbi Yannai, but it is not so; it supports it. Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them; this excludes money pouches [This seemingly contradicts R. Yannai’s statement.] . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even water and salt. Salt to rub and water to rinse [To polish the statues.] . And this is “even”? But e. g., water and salt [It is obvious that in general Gentiles’ water and salt are permitted. They become forbidden only by being introduced into the inner temple for idolatrous purposes. So also a Gentile’s wallet and his money are permitted. Only by being introduced into the inner temple the money becomes forbidden. The statement of R. Yannai is a necessary complement to that of R. Hoshaia and vice-versa. Babli 51b.] .
[This paragraph is from Kilaim 7:4, Notes 46–48 (כ).] An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and] [Added from both parallel texts. The reference is to Mishnaiot Kilaim 7:4,5. If a person grows vegetables or grain in his vineyard, everything becomes forbidden for usufruct. But if he causes such a growth on another person’s land, R. Meïr holds that the crop is forbidden and the owner of the land has to sue the culprit for damages; R. Yose and R. Simeon hold on the authority of R. Aqiba that “nobody can sanctify anything which is not his.” In our case, anybody who worships an animal or an object which is his, made it forbidden for usufruct for himself and everybody else. But if the object was not his property, for R. Yose and R. Simeon it cannot become forbidden for anybody.] Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose [The fifth-generation Amora.] in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living [Any living animal which is worshipped is an animal and not an idol and cannot be forbidden.] while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not) [This word is not in the parallel text; the context and the following paragraph make it clear that it is a scribal error.] become forbidden for Heaven [The comparison with Kilaim is misleading. The relevant Mishnah is Temurah 6:1 where it is stated that an animal used for idolatry (or bestiality) is unfit as sacrifice, irrespective of ownership. For sacrifices there is no dispute between R. Meïr and R. Yose. Babli Temurah28a.] .
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even his fine flour becomes forbidden and another person’s is permitted [While it is clear from our Mishnah that if anybody worships wild standing grain it will not be forbidden since it is connected to the ground (but if it was sown for idolatrous purposes then it is an Ashera.) It now is stated that cut and milled produce will only be forbidden if used illegitimately by its owner, not by any third person.] . Is this following him who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden; did he say [While this word is not in ג, it is better to retain it.] that they do not disagree about something which is not alive and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya comes to tell you that the baraita refers to living things? If they disagree about something which is not alive; therefore a living thing is forbidden [If R. Abun bar Ḥiyya disagrees with R. Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila. He should have mentioned an animal, not fine flour. For if R. Meïr and R. Yose disagree about plants then one must assume that R. Yose agrees with R. Meïr about animals.] . Then something which is not alive should be forbidden a fortiori [Since animals have a privileged status; R. Yose cannot agree with R. Meïr about their status.] . This is that you should not say as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven [R. Abun bar Ḥiyya disagrees with R. Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila in a matter of principle; he holds that worshipping something which is the private property of a third person without knowledge or acquiescence of that third person has no influence on the status of the property whether for profane or sacral purposes. Here ends the Genizah text.]
If somebody worshipped an egg [Babli 46a. The egg is a symbol of resurrection; cf. J. J. Bachofen, Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der Alten, Gesammelte Werke Bd. 4, Basel 1954.] Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden [For Ḥizqiah the egg is considered under the rules of animals; for R. Joḥanan only the chick would qualify, not the egg.] . Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed [These are egg shaped. While they are products of nature, they are no longer connected to the ground.] . Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny [Is.57:6.] . The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden [Is.57:6.] ; [The remainder of the paragraph has no connection with the topic of the Halakhah and the preceding text; it also appears in Berakhot9:3 Notes 170–174, Taˋaniot 1:3 (64b 1.30); its source seems to be Gen. rabba 13(19) on Gen. 2:6. The different name traditions are noted in the Notes to Berakhot.] as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments [Prohibited for usufruct. For R. Meïr there are no statues made for artistic value alone.] [Greek πρόσωπον, τό “face”.] . It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.
[These two paragraphs are also in ‘Orlah 1:8, Notes 200–208, ע.The scribe of L wrote only the first and last few words and then: “one continues in Avodah zarah Chapter 3, Halakhah 6, ‘if Gentiles worship’, to the end.” The text was then added by the first corrector in a somewhat shoddy way, from a source different from the text here. The full text is in the Rome Zeraˋim ms.] An egg of pagan worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Cahana and Ḥizqiah disagree. Cahana said, it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. There is a difficulty in the opinion of Ḥizqiah: how is it possible for an egg of pagan worship to become a chick? Where do we hold? If somebody squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden [For Ḥizqiah the egg is considered under the rules of animals; for R. Joḥanan only the chick would qualify, not the egg.] ; because he brought it inside the grating it should be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used to tow [This is the text here. In ‘Orlah: “he fenced in”, confirmed by the Rome text. This text can be understood since it mentions the walnut which was planted at the beginning of the first paragraph, not the second as in the text here. If a walnut tree was planted to close an opening in the lattice work, this certainly makes it forbidden as an Ashera. It is hard to see how to tow anything using an egg; the difference between the two texts is that between גרר and גרר. Neither of the two expressions makes much sense if applied to an egg.] the idol.
If an ‘orlah walnut was planted [The walnut was forbidden for all usufruct; the status of the tree is in doubt.] or an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick [It is property of the Temple and cannot be used without redemption. This case is not in dispute.] . Rebbi Yasa said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted [Everybody agrees that the new tree is not ‘orlah. According to Cahana the original prohibition has not disappeared, according to R. Joḥanan the situation is parallel to that of heave grain (restricted as food to pure Cohanim) which was used as seed grain; the crop needs only token redemption (Mishnah Terumot 9:4).] . Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, did not Rebbi [Joḥanan] [From the text in ‘Orlah, missing here.] say it is permitted, does he not redeem it as from the time it is sown [This refers to the walnut. If the tree may be used, it never was ‘orlah; the redemption is symbolic and can be effected by a token payment.] ? There came Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now [It needs redemption for its full value; in the case of the ‘orlah tree the redemption money has to be destroyed.] ; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.
“Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you,” etc. We have stated אוֹבִין. Some are stating אוֹבִיל. He who says אוֹבִין “we understand.” But he who says אוֹבִיל “we bring. [The hapax אוֹבִין is derived from the root בין “to understand”, אוֹבִיל is from the root יבל “to transport”. Both verbs are used in hifˋil.] ”
Rebbi Borqai stated before Rebbi Mana: This teaches that the Canaanites did not leave any mountain or hill where they did not worship. But do we not understand to say, anything alive, while not forbidden for a private person, is forbidden for Heaven [If it was worshipped as pagan deity, Note 142.] ? How could the Temple have been built [While a mountaintop is perfectly good for agricultural use, it should be forbidden as a place for the Temple. Therefore the place could not have been selected by humans. It is not a mountain top.] ? By the order of a prophet; David went up following the word of Gad which he had said by the Hand of the Eternal [1Chr. 21:19, slightly misquoted.] .
MISHNAH: If one’s house was connected [His house and the pagan temple share a wall.] to a house of pagan worship and collapsed, it is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He restricts himself to his property [In the Babli: 4 cubits. His wall should be separated from the temple by 4 cubits. The text of Maimonides is that of the Yerushalmi.] and builds. If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half [He may take half of the building material of the common wall for his own use; the remainder is forbidden for all usufruct for any Jew.] Its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal [As described in Lev. 11: 29–38, it makes impure by touch. This applies also to the stones which remain his property.] , as it is said [Deut. 7:26. In Lev. 11:40–41, all crawling things which are forbidden as food are called abomination, including those which make impure by touch.] , you shall treat it as an abomination. Rebbi Aqiba says like a menstruating woman as it is said [Is. 30:22. In Lev. 12:2 menstruation is called “the separation of her feeling miserable”.] , you shall throw it away like feeling miserable; you will call it excrement. Since the menstruating makes impure by load [In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol.] , also idolatry makes impure by load.
HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. [This Halakhah also is Halakhah 9:1 in Šabbat(ש). Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b.] There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations [Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature.] . About vermin, do not eat any abomination [Deut. 14: 2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.] . About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house [Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry.] . But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load [In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol.] , also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone [Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 174) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b.] , does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina [In, Šabbat: Rav Jehudah. On one hand, the tradent in Šabbat is mentioned as R. Zeriqan, the Yerushalmi form, not the Babli form Zeriqa as here; but this is to be explained by the babylonized spelling of the text of the present Tractate. On the other hand, the tradent in the Babli (Šabbat 82b) is R. Eleazar, a known student of R. Ḥanina.] , but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion [Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin.] , so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity [Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs.] does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead [Ps. 106:28.] . As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity [Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs.] so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in [This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip.] , could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house [A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similiar, not exactly identical.] . Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body [Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8.] , so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina [In Šabbat: Ḥanania. The latter attribution is correct since he must have been a contemporary of R. Mana (II).] said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent [Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.] . For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it [The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common to impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.] . This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size [This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64).] , as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun [In ש: R. Ḥuna.] said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god [Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus.] .
What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? You should treat it as an abomination [Deut. 7:26.] , like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? You should detest it, like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rebbi Aqiba’s reason, you should treat it as abomination? Treat it as excrement, make it vile [ש has an addition: How does R. Aqiba interpret the rabbi’s reason, you should detest it? Detest it, make it vile. Babli 46a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim 20 (p. 332 ed. Horovitz-Rabin).] . What means “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: you shall call it excrement. What is called God’s [In ש: King’s face.] . Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup is called Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune is called the Place of Undress [All these places and most of their idolatrous meanings are unknown. A similar list is as Tannaitic text in the Babli 46a, Tosephta 6:4] . Rebbi Tanḥuma (asked) [in the name of] [The reading of Avodah zarah is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets].] Rebbi Huna: It is written [Jos. 7:2.] , The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel. Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen [It seems that the translator of the LXX read the verse in the way of the Talmud and eliminated the mention of Bet-Awen, “the House of Iniquity”, as a gloss, as accepted by the moderns. (However, E. Täubler in a marginal Note to his copy of M. Noth’s Das Buch Josua, Tübingen 1938, identifies Bet-Awen as the old name of “The Ai (ruin)”; cf. Arabic اون “calm, tranquillity”.)] . It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since the flow of urine is called ‘amida [This piece is truncated here but it is in bad shape both here and in Šabbat (and Yalqut Jos. ad 7:2). It is intelligible in Gen. rabba 39(24), on Gen. 12:8, the first mention of The Ai in the Bible, following the interpretation of J. Levy: ויעתק משם ההרה מקדם לבית אל. לשעבר היתה נקראת בית אל ועכשיו היא נקראת בית און. א״ר אלעזר לא זכתה להקראת בית העמל הרי היא הקראת בית העמד. תמן קריין לפועלא טבא עמילה ולהרהון של מימי רגלים עמידה. He transferred from there to the mountain, East of Bethel. In the past it was called Bethel but now it is called Bet Awen. Rebbi Eleazar said, it did not merit to be called the House of Work but it is called the House of Baptism. There, they are calling a good worker عَمِل but the chamber pot ἀμίδα.] . How (do the rabbis) [does Rebbi Aqiba] [The reading of Avodah zarah is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets].] interpret you shall call it excrement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Josef: from (where) [here] [The reading of Avodah zarah is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets].] that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body.
[At some places, this paragraph has been shortened from the text in Šabbat to the extent as to become unintelligible without recourse to that text.] There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals [The first opinion is the teaching of R. Aqiba in the Mishnah, the second is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Šabbat 83a.] . The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances [The full text of Is. 30:22 (quoted in Šabbat) which is the base of R. Aqiba’s argument reads: You will defile the cover of your silver statues and the clothing of your golden casts; you shall throw it away like feeling miserable, you shall call it excrement. Therefore the reference of “feeling miserable” which is the description of a female period refers to appurtenances only. The second version of the position of R. Aqiba seems untenable.] ? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod [The formulation in Šabbat is better: R. Jacob said (as an alternative explanation) that the statue and its ornamental vest were two separate objects of worship. Either explanation is possible.] . Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal. [Since this sentence in the Mishnah precedes the statement of R. Aqiba, it is implied that R. Aqiba disagrees and imposes the impurity of niddah also on the stones which form the shell of the house of worship but are not the object of worship.] ” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden [A comparison with the text in Šabbat shows that the sentence has to be split in two. First it is stated that the house will be strictly impure if it was worshipped. Then a question is missing, quoting the following Mishnah 9: Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated? On this Rav says that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a.] . Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden [In Šabbat one reads: “R. Zeˋura, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan, if one dedicates his house one commits larceny with it.” The reading here is confirmed by Halakhah 9. One compares the rules concerning a pagan temple with those of a house dedicated to the Temple (Lev. 27:14–15). Improper use of dedicated things is larceny which must be expiated by a sacrifice and payment of a fine, (Lev. 5:14–16). Just as real estate cannot become forbidden by idolatry, larceny by improper use of dedicated objects does not apply to real estate. If a house is considered real estate, it cannot become forbidden by worship, and its improper use while in the possession of the Temple cannot trigger a fine for larceny. If it is not considered real estate since the building materials were movables before being used, it can become forbidden and improper use can trigger the fine.] ? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh. [Mishnah Parah 5:7. The ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify a person from the impurity of the dead, must be strewn on “flowing water in a vessel” (Num. 19:17). A vessel is movable; therefore a trough hewn into the rock is not a vessel. The water flowing from the source into the trough becomes standing water. Therefore it may be used neither (1) to fill a vessel for the ashes, nor (2) to put some ashes in the water, “to sanctify it”, nor (3) to sprinkle the water on impure persons to purify them. In addition, a corpse in a “tent” makes everything in the tent impure including the contents of vessels whose cover is not tightly fastened (Num. 19:15). Since the trough is no vessel, if it is under one roof with a corpse it only needs to be covered but the cover does not have to be fastened. A miqweh (ritual bath) has to contain 40 seah of water. It becomes invalid if 3 log (⅛ seah) of water from a vessel is poured into it. If the trough is not a vessel, its water cannot invalidate the miqweh. On the other hand, if the trough was a vessel before it was fastened in the rock, it can be used for the ashes of the red cow, and its water will disqualify the miqweh. Since a house was not a vessel before being connected to the ground, it should be considered real estate and not be subject to prohibition because of worship.] ” Because he excavated it and after that combined it [A vessel which is permanently fixed to the ground remains a vessel and can become forbidden.] . Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it [A piece of loose rock which was cemented to the ground and then a trough was hewn from it does not become a vessel. Then why should a house become forbidden by being worshipped since it becomes a house only after being connected to the ground?] ? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them [It is true that a finished house not built as a temple cannot become forbidden. But if the finished stones for a stone building were worshipped before being cemented in the house they already are forbidden and do not become permitted by use as building blocks.] . Does this [. The Mishnah which subjects the building material of the collapsed wall to the rules of idolatry. Babli Meˋilah 20a.] not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody [The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.] . Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them [Then each individual stone remains forbidden; there is no contradiction to Mishnah 10.] . Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody [The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.] . Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it [This refers to a holy tree which is worshipped as Ashera (Mishnah 11) but where no idol is found buried under it. Then as connected to the ground it should not be part of the real estate and not be forbidden. It becomes permanently forbidden only if it was planted as a holy shoot.] .
Levi said, one who worships a house makes it forbidden [A comparison with the text in Šabbat shows that the sentence has to be split in two. First it is stated that the house will be strictly impure if it was worshipped. Then a question is missing, quoting the following Mishnah 9: Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated? On this Rav says that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a.] , a cave he does not make forbidden [Even if the cave was excavated for purposes of idol worship it does not lose its character as real estate.] . What is between a house and a cave? Rebbi Ḥanina hen Rebbi Hillel said, a house was separated at some time; a cave never was separated.
[This paragraph is not in Šabbat.] Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah [To explain how the house of a Jew and a pagan place of worship may share a wall.] about a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father. Why does he not explain it when idol worship came and built next to him? It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted [If the Jew’s house was there before the pagan, it is not touched by temporary use of the adjacent house as place of pagan worship. But if the Jew builds in disregard of the injunction of the Mishnah to construct a separate wall inside his real estate he is fined.] . But for a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father, it is forbidden. It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted. But if he came and built next to idol worship the entire house is for idol worship [If the Jew’s house was there before the pagan, it is not touched by temporary use of the adjacent house as place of pagan worship. But if the Jew builds in disregard of the injunction of the Mishnah to construct a separate wall inside his real estate he is fined.] . Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half. [The Mishnah might be referring to a house built after the pagan place already existed, not a proselyte brother to a pagan.] ”
MISHNAH: There are three houses. A house which one built originally for idolatry is forbidden. If he whitewashed it or ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he introduced there an idol and removed it, it is permitted.
HALAKHAH: “There are three houses,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, the Mishnah treats their entry into the Land [Deut. 7:5 is an unconditional commandment to destroy all pagan altars and Temples in existence at the time of the conquest. This agrees with the statement that the house in the first case is absolutely and irrevocably forbidden, since in all other cases a partial destruction of the house will remove the prohibition.] . The opinion of Rav, who said that one who worships a house makes it forbidden, is the reason that he explains it by their entry into the Land [Since he considers a house as a kind of movable (Note 209), his problem is that the first rule of the Mishnah should apply not only to a house built as a pagan temple but also to one which was worshipped. But the effect of worship can be undone (Halakhot 14–16); only the commandment Deut. 7:5 is absolute.] . Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that if somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it, could he not have explained it by somebody who was worshipping the house [Since a house is real estate, it cannot become forbidden by simply being worshipped. But if a Jew built it for purposes of idolatry, it becomes forbidden by an act of idolatry (Mishnah 4:4). Therefore the first case of the Mishnah could also be referred to a case possible today. One does not expect a rule in the Mishnah which became obsolete some 1500 years before its formulation. The answer to be given is the same as in the case of Rav.] ? {The effect of] one who worships a house can be voided. At their entry into the Land it could not be voided [Since he considers a house as a kind of movable (Note 209), his problem is that the first rule of the Mishnah should apply not only to a house built as a pagan temple but also to one which was worshipped. But the effect of worship can be undone (Halakhot 14–16); only the commandment Deut. 7:5 is absolute.] . What could he do [To desecrate the house and therefore nullify its pagan status.] ? He removes its clapboards and it is permitted.
Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he brought an idol into it [This now refers to the second case, a house renovated for the purpose of idolatry. As property of the Jew it becomes forbidden only by an act of pagan worship, not by intention (Mishnah 4:4).] . In the opinion of Rebbi [Eleazar] [Missing in the text; added from Halakhah 10 as required by the context.] there are two houses. But have we not stated three? Here temporarily, there permanently [Since the presence of an idol is required in both cases 2 and 3, what is the difference? In case 3 the idol is temporarily in the house; one removes it and the house is permitted. In case 2 the intention is a permanent installation of the idol; therefore not only the idol but all installation has to be removed. Also for R. Eleazar there are three distinct cases.] .
MISHNAH: There are three kinds of stone. If he quarried them from the start as pedestal [Greek βωμός. The expression is used exclusively for pedestals of idols (including statues of emperors). From the comparison with the next Mishnaiot one must assume that a pedestal in itself was an object of veneration.] it is forbidden. If he whitewashed it and ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he put an idol on it and removed it, it is permitted.
HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of stones,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: This [The first part of the Mishnah is not only about stones quarried but about everything intentionally manufactured as an idol. Therefore if a metal statue was cast, the process of casting makes it forbidden even before it is polished and worshipped.] implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This implies that if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden [A cup is an implement of worship; it is not an object of worship. The statement of R. Eleazar is stronger than that of Rav. The Babli disagrees, 52a.] .
Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it [This refers to the second case in the Mishnah, where a stone quarried indifferently is adorned to become an altar.] . The opinions of Rav [It seems that one has to read: R. Eleazar.] seem inconsistent. There he says, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so [Why for a cup it is immediately forbidden but for a decorated stone only by actually being used in idolatry?] ? Explain it following what has been stated [Mishnah 4:4. It is presumed that only a Gentile would make something from the start for idolatry; the most a Jew would do is to adorn an object.] : “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden, but a Jew’s when it was worshipped.” There is disagreement about an idol, maybe also for its appurtenances [In Halakhah 4:4 there is an opinion to the reverse: the idol of a Gentile becomes forbidden only by being worshipped, the Jew’s idol immediately upon acquisition or manufacture.] ? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement also about appurtenances [Even though Mishnah 4:4 and the corresponding baraita are formulated for idols, they are valid for all implements of idolatry. The Babli disagrees, 52a.] .
[This is completely parallel to the corresponding paragraph in Halakhah 9.] Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two stones. But have we not stated “there are three stones”? Here temporarily, there permanently.
MISHNAH: There are three kinds of Ashera [A holy tree (Mishnah 11), which is connected to the ground and by the argument of Note 125 should be permitted as building material or fire wood.] . A tree which originally was planted for idolatry is forbidden. If he cut and shaped [While the tree is still standing on the ground. A cut tree is not an Ashera.] it for idolatry and it grows new shoots, one removes what grew newly. If he puts an idol under it [Under a tree not previously grown idolatry.] , when he makes it invalid it becomes permitted.
HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of Ashera,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he engraved engravings in it it cannot become invalidated. This is necessary: even if he removed the engravings [Even though in the second case Mishnah it is sufficient to remove everything grown after the tree was shaped for idolatry, if an engraving was made it is irrevocable even if it was obliterated.] . It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry [If the grafted tree would have been used as Asherah. Babli 48a.] . Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar [The following argument shows that one has to read: R. Simeon ben Laqish.] : Only if he put an idol under it. The opinions of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seem inconsistent. There Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if he engraved engravings on it it cannot become invalidated; and we interpreted this to mean, even if he removed the engravings. And here [In the second case of the Mishnah he not only rules restrictively that an engraving is irrevocable but also leniently that shaping a tree as Asherah makes it forbidden only if an idol is placed under the tree.] he says so? It is more severe with engravings.
[Dittography induced by the repetitious quote of the statements of R. Simeon ben Laqish.] It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it.
[This is completely parallel to the corresponding paragraph in Halakhah 9.] [Babli 48a.] Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two Asherot. But have we not stated “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Here temporarily, there permanently.
MISHNAH: What is an Ashera [Where one has no information to place it in one of the categories of Mishnah 11. Babli 48a.] ? Any under which is an idol. Rebbi Simeon says, any which is worshipped. It happened in Sidon that they were worshipping one and there was a mound under it. Rebbi Joshua [This is a copyist’s error as shown in the Halakhah. One has to read with all other Mishnah source: R. Simeon.] said to them, investigate the mound! They investigated it and found a figure in it. He told them, since they worship the figure we may permit the tree to them [The rules of Mishnaiot 13–16 do not apply to this tree.]
HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case [Where one has no information to place it in one of the categories of Mishnah 11. Babli 48a.] . Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense [Since in the interpretation of the Halakhah, R. Simeon should have forbidden both tree and idol. But there is nothing to wonder at since R. Simeon insists that practice follow the majority rule against his own opinion, Seviˋit 9:1, Notes 35–36.] !
MISHNAH: One should not sit in its shadow [It was noted earlier that idols impart “tent” impurity (Note 184). Therefore if one sits under the crown of an Ashera he is impure by the impurity of the dead. But if he sits in its shadow but not under its crown, he illegally profits from idolatry but is not impure. If he passes under an Ashera he becomes impure like anybody passing under a tent above a corpse. But walking through the shadow of an Ashera outside its crown is not considered profiting from idolatry.] but if one sat he is pure. One should not pass under it and if one passed under it he is impure. If it robbed the public [It is clear from the earlier sources (Note 184) and the following Halakhah that the tent impurity generated by an idol is purely rabbinic. If the crown of the Ashera extended over a public road, the customary impurity of idols never was intended to deprive Jews from using public roads.] and one passed under it, he is pure. One may sow vegetables under it in the rainy season but not in summer [In winter, the shade given by the tree inhibits the growth of the vegetables; the tree is a detriment, not a positive influence. But in summer the shade is necessary; it clearly is usufruct.] , but lettuce neither in summer nor in the rainy season. Rebbi Yose says not even vegetables in the rainy season since falling leaves drop down on it and become fertilizer.
HALAKHAH: “One should not sit in its shadow,” etc. There [In Babylonia.] they say m the name of Rav Ḥisda: Its shadow is forbidden, its half-shadow is permitted. What is its shadow and what is its half-shadow? There they say, any place where if it would fall down would touch him is its shadow, but any place where if it would fall down would not touch him is its half-shadow [It is clear that at any place not under the tree’s crown there is no question of impurity. The discussion is only about the statement that one should not sit in the Ashera’s shadow. It is now added that in the half-shadow one may sit, i. e., far enough away that if the tree fell down in the direction of the person sitting there the fallen crown would not reach the person. In the Babli, 48b, this is attributed to R. Joḥanan the Galilean.]
Why is its shadow forbidden? Because it is an enjoyment. But a grave is forbidden for usufruct and its shadow is permitted! But the Temple Hall is forbidden for usufruct and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai was sitting and teaching in the shadow of the Temple Hall [Babli Pesaḥim 26a. There it is argued that he could do this only because the Temple was built for its service and the Herodian Hall was 100 cubits high so that its shadow at times extended beyond the Temple Hill; it never was intended that the shadow should prevent people from being there. This disagrees with the statements here.] ! Therefore the reason cannot be that it is forbidden for usufruct. Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there [In Babylonia.] : This implies that this impurity of the dead is not logically consistent [Since as pointed out in the next sentence, a mausoleum whose roof extends over a public road will automatically impart impurity to any Jew walking under it (and force any Cohen to make a detour to avoid passing under that roof) the rules of the Ashera cannot be deduced from the rules of the impurity of the dead. They are customary rules and as such not susceptible to logical analysis.] . For otherwise if a grave were robbing the public and one passed under it one would be pure.
Gamliel the Twin was supporting [In this paragraph, the second person mentioned always is the authority who in walking leans upon one of his students. A comparison with other occurrences shows that מיסתמיך ב means “was supporting” but מיסתמיך על is “leaning on.”] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They came to this statue. He asked him, may we pass in front of it? He said, pass by it and blind its eye [One “blinds the eye” of the idol by passing by it without taking any notice of it and the idol sees that it is not taken seriously.] . Rebbi Isaac bar Mattanah was supporting Rebbi Joḥanan. They came to the statue of the city council [Greek βουλή. In Tiberias this probably was a statue of divus Tiberius.] He asked him, may we pass in front of it? He said, pass by it and blind its eye. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi was supporting Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They came to the statue of Herod [In Moˋed qatan 3:7 the spelling is as here. In Berakhot 2:1 (Note 57) אהדורי, in Šeqalim 2:6 ארורא, in Midrash Shemuel 19[4], ed. Buber Note 17, הרודיס, in Yalqut Šemuel # 124 הרודוס. The last two readings “Herod” seem to be the correct one.] . He told him, Naḥum the most holy man [Sanhedrin 10:6 Note 335, Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a.] passed by it and you do not want to pass by? Pass by it and blind its eye!
Does this [The last sentence of the Mishnah, where R. Yose forbids planting anything. Why should the status of wilted leaves be different from broken pieces? It is not so much the statement of R. Joḥanan but the following statement that anything which cannot be repaired is permitted. Wilted leaves certainly cannot be restored.] not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody [The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.] . Explain it about a Jew’s idol [Which is permanently forbidden.] . Does this not disagree with Rav, since Rav said, for its purpose it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted [In the Babli, 49b, this is a baraita: “A Gentile who worked on an idol with a plane, if it was for his benefit it and its shavings are permitted, for its benefit it is forbidden but the shavings are permitted. A Jew who worked on an idol with a plane, whether it was was for his or its benefit, both it and its shavings are forbidden.” Cf. Mishnah and Halakhah 16.] ? Again explain it about a Jew’s idol. Why does everybody stay away from it [Why does nobody ever take advantage of the permission given in the Mishnah to plant vegetables under an Ashera in the winter?] ? Because its dropping leaves are bad.
MISHNAH: If he took wood from it [From an Ashera tree.] , it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to heat an oven [A portable earthenware cone.] , if it was new it must be destroyed [These ovens were not finished in a kiln, they became hardened by being exposed to the fire kindled in them. Therefore a new oven would be finished by the Ashera wood; it must be destroyed.] , if it was old it must be cooled down. If he used it to bake bread, it is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed with other loaves, all are forbidden for usufruct [Since loaves are sold by the piece, no loaf can be considered insignificant if mixed with others. Even without the special case of loaves of bread, “the ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry” (‘Orlah 3:3, Note 116).] . Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea [Where the coins are corroded and destroyed. Obviously R. Eliezer must mean not only the profit but the entire value of the forbidden loaf.] . They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed.
HALAKHAH: “If he took wood from it,” etc. Rav Ḥasdai said, they are disagreeing in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If to heat, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If to fumigate, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Where do we hold? In the indeterminate case [The Mishnah before R. Ḥasdai was not the text before us. He must have read: “If they (the pieces of wood) were mixed with others, …” Then R. Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about the value created by the wood coming from an Ashera. In this case the argument of Note 271 does not apply. Since idols are destroyed by burning (Note 106) it is obvious that their wood may be burned. If it is used to cook or bake anything, the profit comes only after the wood has been reduced to ashes and is no longer forbidden. But in fumigating the burning itself is the valuable act and is forbidden. R. Eliezer permits to bring the profit to the Dead Sea as long as it is not clear that the action was forbidden. The rabbis forbid everything as long as it is not clear that the action is permitted.] .
MISHNAH: If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle [Reading with the Halakhah (and Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah) כרכד, Greek κερκίς, -ίδος.] , it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed up with others, all are forbidden for usufruct [Same argument as in Note 271.] . Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea [Where the coins are corroded and destroyed. Obviously R. Eliezer must mean not only the profit but the entire value of the forbidden loaf.] . They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed.
HALAKHAH: “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle,” etc. [A somewhat truncated version of a passage in ˋOrlah3:1, Notes 77–81.] Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I found Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa sitting and asked him. “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state [Mishnah 5:13: “If libation wine (forbidden for usufruct by the idolatrous act) fell into a cistern (of wine), all is forbidden for usufruct. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (whom practice follows) says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine in it.” Why could the cloth not be sold except for the value of the one forbidden piece?] , “it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine in it”? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy [In a society where Gentiles actually make libations to their gods it practically is impossible for Jews to buy wine from them. Therefore there is no danger that the forbidden wine would end up in the hands of a Jew. The strict rule of Mishnah 15 is not a consequence of the laws of forbidden usufruct but of the necessity to keep the forbidden items out of the hands of Jews.] from the Gentile; but here people buy cloth from the Gentile.
MISHNAH: How does one make it insignificant? If he pruned dry branches, green branches, took from it a rod, or a twig, even a leaf, it became in significant [Taking anything from a holy tree in a manner which a pagan never would do turns the Ashera into a common tree.] . If he planed it for its benefit it is forbidden, not for its benefit it is permitted [In the Babli, 49b, this is a baraita: “A Gentile who worked on an idol with a plane, if it was for his benefit it and its shavings are permitted, for its benefit it is forbidden but the shavings are permitted. A Jew who worked on an idol with a plane, whether it was was for his or its benefit, both it and its shavings are forbidden.” Cf. Mishnah and Halakhah 16.] .
HALAKHAH: “How does one make it insignificant,” etc Rav said, for his benefit, both it and its shavings are permitted; for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Samuel said, for its benefit both it and its shavings are forbidden, for his benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted [Cf. Note 266. In the Babli, 49b, the opinions given here as those of Rav and Samuel are reported as those of students of Rav.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted.