Avodah Zarah 3

כָּל הַצְּלָמִים אֲסוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נֶעֱבָדִין פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה, דִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא כָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ מַקֵּל אוֹ צִפּוֹר אוֹ כַדּוּר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ כָל דָּבָר:

All images (tzelamim) are forbidden [in (derivation of) benefit] because they are worshiped one day a year, [when the sun is at the same height as it was when the image was made. For though there are many images that are made for beauty only and are not worshiped, R. Meir is consistent with his view that minority instances are to be apprehended.] And the sages say: Only those tzelamim holding a rod or a bird or a ball (are forbidden). [For these tzelamim are certainly worshiped, the objects having been placed in their hands because of their distinction. (In the baraitha there are added: sword, crown, and ring.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: All (are forbidden) that are holding any thing. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]

הַמּוֹצֵא שִׁבְרֵי צְלָמִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִים. מָצָא תַבְנִית יָד אוֹ תַבְנִית רֶגֶל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן נֶעֱבָד:

If one finds the fragments of images, they are permitted. [For (even) if they were whole, there is a doubt (safek) as to whether they were or were not worshiped. And even if you say that they were worshiped, perhaps they were annulled, for which reason they were broken — so that they are sfek-sfekah ("a doubt of a doubt"), where the ruling is for leniency.] If one found the form of a hand or the form of a foot, they are forbidden, for their like (if whole) is worshiped. [Ab initio, they make for themselves the form of a hand (or a foot) and worship them.]

הַמּוֹצֵא כֵלִים וַעֲלֵיהֶם צוּרַת חַמָּה, צוּרַת לְבָנָה, צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן, יוֹלִיכֵם לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שֶׁעַל הַמְכֻבָּדִין, אֲסוּרִים. שֶׁעַל הַמְבֻזִּין, מֻתָּרִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ אוֹ מַטִּיל לַיָּם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה זֶבֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג) וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם:

If one finds vessels on which are depicted the form of the sun, the form of the moon [Rambam explains: Not that he finds a circular object and says: This is the sun; or a crescent-shaped object and says: This is the moon, but that he finds a figure that the astrologers see as representing the sun or the moon, viz.: The sun is represented as a crowned king riding on a chariot, and the like.], the form of Dracon, [a serpent, having appendages and scales like those of a fish. (They say that it represents the rays of the moon, which was worshiped in those days.) And even the Rabbis, who say above that all other tzelamim are permitted agree that these are forbidden, being objects of worship.] — they should be thrown into the Dead Sea. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: [Those forms] that are on valued objects, [such as bracelets, nose rings and (finger) rings, and the like] are forbidden, and those on common objects, [such as kettles, boilers, heaters, and the like] are permitted. R. Yossi says: He should take them and throw them to the winds or cast them into the sea [so that no Jew benefit from them] — whereupon they said to him: But that, too, [(grinding them down and throwing them to the wind, is of benefit to the Jews)], converting (the objects) into fertilizer, and it is written (Deuteronomy 13:18): "And let naught of the spoil adhere to your hand!"

שָׁאַל פְּרוֹקְלוֹס בֶּן פִלוֹסְפוֹס אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּעַכּוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה רוֹחֵץ בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל אַפְרוֹדִיטִי, אָמַר לוֹ, כָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַתְכֶם, וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם. מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה רוֹחֵץ בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל אַפְדוֹדִיטִי. אָמַר לוֹ, אֵין מְשִׁיבִין בַּמֶּרְחָץ. וּכְשֶׁיָּצָא אָמַר לוֹ, אֲנִי לֹא בָאתִי בִגְבוּלָהּ, הִיא בָאתָה בִגְבוּלִי, אֵין אוֹמְרִים, נַעֲשֶׂה מֶרְחָץ לְאַפְרוֹדִיטִי נוֹי, אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אַפְרוֹדִיטִי נוֹי לַמֶּרְחָץ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם נוֹתְנִין לְךָ מָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה, אִי אַתָּה נִכְנָס לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלְּךָ עָרוֹם וּבַעַל קֶרִי וּמַשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ, וְזוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת עַל פִּי הַבִּיב וְכָל הָעָם מַשְׁתִּינִין לְפָנֶיהָ. לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. אֶת שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֱלוֹהַּ, אָסוּר. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֱלוֹהַּ, מֻתָּר:

Proclus the son of Plospos asked R. Gamliel in Acco when he bathed in the baths of Aphrodite [(where there was an image of the star Venus; thus, Rambam)]: "It is written in your Torah (Deuteronomy 13:18): 'And let naught of the spoil adhere to your hand.' Why, then, do you bathe in the baths of Aphrodite?" He answered: "One does not answer (questions of Torah) in the bath-house" [(because he stands naked there)]. When he went out, he said to him: "I did not enter her (Aphrodite's) border; she entered my border" [i.e., the bath-house was there before she was, and the bath-house was made for all who came to bathe] and [another answer]: "We do not say: Let us make a bath-house as an ornament for Aphrodite, [a bath-house not being ornamental], but "Let us make an Aphrodite as an ornament for the bath-house," [Aphrodite being secondary to the bath-house]. Another indication (that the Aphrodite was placed there for ornament and not for worship): "Even if they gave you a great deal of money (for doing so), you would not go to your idolatry naked, or having experienced a (seminal) discharge, and (you would not) urinate before it. Yet this (Aphrodite) stands before the (sewage) duct, and all the people urinate before it, (which indicates that the Aphrodite was placed there for ornament and not for worship.) It is written (that you are not to derive benefit from) "their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:2). A Jew may not (derive benefit) from what they perceive as a god; but he may (derive benefit) from what they do not perceive as a god (but as an ornament).

הַגּוֹיִם הָעוֹבְדִים אֶת הֶהָרִים וְאֶת הַגְּבָעוֹת, הֵן מֻתָּרִין וּמַה שֶּׁעֲלֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז) לֹא תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם וְלָקַחְתָּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, (שם יב) אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים, וְלֹא הֶהָרִים אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הַגְּבָעוֹת, וְלֹא הַגְּבָעוֹת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֲשֵׁרָה אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ תְּפִיסַת יָד אָדָם, וְכֹל שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ תְּפִיסַת יְדֵי אָדָם אָסוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲנִי אוֹבִין וְאָדוּן לְפָנֶיךָ. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא הַר גָּבוֹהַּ וְגִבְעָה נִשָּׂאָה וְעֵץ רַעֲנָן, דַּע שֶׁיֶּשׁ שָׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה:

The gentiles who worship the mountains and the hills — they [the mountains themselves] are permitted [for sowing and for hewing stones from them, what is rooted, not being forbidden]; and what is upon them is forbidden. As it is written (Deuteronomy 8:25): "You shall not covet the silver and gold upon them and take it." R. Yossi Haglili says (Ibid. 12:2): "Destroy shall you destroy… their gods upon the mountains"; but the mountains (themselves) are not their gods. "their gods upon the hills"; but the hills (themselves) are not their gods. Why, then, is an asheirah (a tree devoted to idolatry) forbidden? [That is, just as we expound "their gods upon the mountains"; but the mountains themselves are not their gods, we can expound (Ibid.): "their gods are under every leafy tree"; but the leafy tree (itself) is not their god!] Why, then, does the Torah forbid (derivation of benefit from) it, it being written (Ibid. 7:5): "And their asheirah trees shall you cut down"?] Because a man's hands have a "hold" in it. [i.e., because a man's hands planted it, (R. Yossi holding that a tree planted by a man and then worshiped by him is forbidden.) And the first tanna holds that since in the beginning he did not intend to worship it, his subsequent worship of it, since it is attached to the ground, does not forbid it, it being comparable to worshiping a mountain. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.] R. Akiva said: I will explain and analyze for you: Wherever you find a high mountain and a high hill and a leafy tree, know that there is idolatry there. [i.e., since we cannot expound the exclusion clause of "under every leafy tree," we can say that it was stated only to give them signs of where the Emorites were likely to serve idolatry, so that Israel should seek it out and destroy it. And "upon the mountains" and "upon the hills" (Ibid. 12:2) are understood as exclusion clauses, that we are not commanded to destroy the mountains themselves (but what is upon them). But we are commanded to destroy the leafy trees, viz. (Ibid. 3): "And their asheiroth shall you burn in fire."]

מִי שֶׁהָיָה בֵיתוֹ סָמוּךְ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְנָפַל, אָסוּר לִבְנוֹתוֹ. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה, כּוֹנֵס בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וּבוֹנֶה. הָיָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, נִדּוֹן מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה. אֲבָנָיו עֵצָיו וַעֲפָרוֹ, מְטַמְּאִין כַּשֶּׁרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז) שַׁקֵּץ תְּשַׁקְּצֶנּוּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כַּנִּדָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ל) תִּזְרֵם כְּמוֹ דָוָה, צֵא תֹּאמַר לוֹ, מַה נִּדָּה מְטַמְּאָה בְמַשָּׂא, אַף עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְטַמְּאָה בְמַשָּׂא:

If one's house adjoined idolatry [i.e., if one of its walls were (part of) a house of idolatry, and the house itself was worshiped], and it (that wall) fell, it is forbidden to rebuild it, [for he thereby builds a house of idolatry. ] What can he do? He moves (the wall) four cubits [within his property, and he builds. And he does not leave it (the intervening space) empty; for he would thereby be benefitting idolatry (by aggrandizing its space.) But he fills the space with thorns and makes it a lavatory for the young.] If it [the space of the thickness of the wall] were [half] his and [half] idolatry's, it is estimated half and half. [i.e., that space of idolatry does not enter into four cubits (of his property); but only his space does. So that if the space of the wall were two cubits, he counts one cubit of his (of the wall) and moves it three cubits within his property]. The stones, the wood, and the sand of that (common) wall cause tumah as a sheretz (a creeping thing) does, [even the part of the Jew, for there is no distinguishing (between the two parts). It causes tumah by contact (maga) and not by carrying (massa), for the tumah of idolatry, being rabbinically ordained, they (the rabbis) were lenient therein. And it does not cause tumah (by contact) with the size of a lentil, as a sheretz does, but only with the size of an olive, as a dead body does.], it being written (of idolatry) (Deuteronomy 7:26): "Shaketz (like "sheretz") teshaktzenu" — "Despite shall you despise it." R. Akiva says: (It causes tumah) as a niddah does, it being written (Isaiah 30:22): "You will cast them (your idols) away, like a niddah. Begone! will you say to it (idolatry)." Just as a niddah causes tumah by massa, so does idolatry. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Akiva, even with idolatry itself — how much more so, with its appurtenances.]

שְׁלשָׁה בָתִּים הֵן. בַּיִת שֶׁבָּנוּי מִתְּחִלָּה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. סִיְּדוֹ וְכִיְּרוֹ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְחִדֵּשׁ, נוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁחִדֵּשׁ. הִכְנִיס לְתוֹכָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהוֹצִיאָהּ, הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. שָׁלשׁ אֲבָנִים הֵן. אֶבֶן שֶׁחֲצָבָהּ מִתְּחִלָּה לְבִימוֹס, הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. סִיְּדָהּ וְכִיְּרָהּ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְחִדֵּשׁ, נוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁחִדֵּשׁ. הֶעֱמִיד עָלֶיהָ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְסִלְּקָהּ, הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שָׁלשׁ אֲשֵׁרוֹת הֵן. אִילָן שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. גִּדְּעוֹ וּפִסְּלוֹ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהֶחֱלִיף, נוֹטֵל מַה שֶּׁהֶחֱלִיף. הֶעֱמִיד תַּחְתֶּיהָ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּבִטְּלָהּ, הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אֵיזוֹ הִיא אֲשֵׁרָה, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ תַּחְתֶּיהָ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁעוֹבְדִין אוֹתָהּ. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְצַיְדָּן בְּאִילָן שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְדִין אוֹתוֹ, וּמָצְאוּ תַחְתָּיו גָּל. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּדְקוּ אֶת הַגַּל הַזֶּה, וּבְדָקוּהוּ וּמָצְאוּ בוֹ צוּרָה. אָמַר לָהֶן, הוֹאִיל וְלַצּוּרָה הֵן עוֹבְדִין, נַתִּיר לָהֶן אֶת הָאִילָן:

There are three "houses" [in respect to the annulment of idolatry]: a house that was built ab initio for idolatry (even though it were not yet worshiped) is forbidden (in the derivation of benefit); if it were plastered or decorated or renovated for idolatry, he removes what was originated [and the rest of the house is permitted]; if he brought idolatry into it [for the moment, without designating the house for worship,] and he took it out, it is permitted. There are three "stones" [in respect to annulments]: a stone which was hewed ab initio to serve as a pedestal (for idolatry) is forbidden; if he plastered and decorated it for idolatry [ after it was hewed], a Jew may remove what the gentile had added [ and the stone is permitted]; if he had placed idolatry upon it [for the moment, and had not devoted the stone as a pedestal,] it is permitted. There are three asheiroth. A tree that had been planted ab initio for idolatry is forbidden; if he had cut it down and pared it for idolatry [to worship the shoots that it would now generate], and it generated new shoots, he takes what it had generated, [i.e., what grew in place of those he had cut down [and burns them as per the din of asheirah, and what remains is permitted]; if he had placed an idol under it (a tree) and nullified it, it (the tree) is permitted. What is an asheirah" R. Shimon says: Every (tree) which is worshiped. [The Gemara explains that this refers to the "three asheiroth" discussed above, viz. there are three asheiroth; two instances are agreed upon by all, and one is a machloketh (dispute) between R. Shimon and the rabbis. Which is that? Whatever has an idol beneath it, the rabbis calling it an asheirah and forbidding it as long as the idol is beneath it, and R. Shimon saying that an asheirah is only that which is itself worshiped; but whatever has an idol beneath it is not itself an asheirah. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Simon.] It happened in Tzaidan that they found a heap under a tree which (ostensibly) was worshiped. R. Shimon said to them: "Examine this heap." They did so and found an idol in it — whereupon he said to them: "Since it is the idol that they worship, let us permit the tree to them."

לֹא יֵשֵׁב בְּצִלָּהּ. וְאִם יָשַׁב, טָהוֹר. וְלֹא יַעֲבֹר תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם עָבַר, טָמֵא. הָיְתָה גוֹזֶלֶת אֶת הָרַבִּים, וְעָבַר תַּחְתֶּיהָ, טָהוֹר. וְזוֹרְעִין תַּחְתֶּיהָ יְרָקוֹת בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים אֲבָל לֹא בִימוֹת הַחַמָּה. וְהַחֲזָרִין, לֹא בִימוֹת הַחַמָּה וְלֹא בִימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אַף לֹא יְרָקוֹת בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנְּמִיָּה נוֹשֶׁרֶת עֲלֵיהֶן וְהֹוָה לָהֶן לְזָבֶל:

One must not sit in its (an asheirah's) shade; but if he did, he is tahor (clean). [This "shade" does not refer to the boughs of the asheirah. For (if it did) we could not continue "but if he did he is tahor." For we learn further: "and if he did pass under it, he is tamei (unclean). But (the understanding is that) from the tree onwards, when the sun is in the east or in the west, everything casts a long shadow (in which he must not sit.)] And he should not pass under it [under the boughs of the tree. For the tree "tents" over him, and if he passes under it he is tamei.] If it "robbed" the public [i.e., if its boughs extended into the public domain], he is tahor. [For this is rabbinical tumah, and where it robs the public, the rabbis did not decree.] And greens may be sowed beneath it in the rainy season, [when the tree is harmful to them, keeping the sun from them], but not in the sunny season, [when the shade is beneficial to them]. And lettuce, neither in the sunny season nor in the rainy season, [the shade being always beneficial to them.] R. Yossi says: Neither [should] greens [be sowed] in the rainy season; for the leaves fall upon them (the greens) and are fertilizer for them. [The Gemara asks: But do we not infer that R. Yossi holds that if two things (one permitted and the other forbidden) contribute (to the result), it is permitted? (as we see earlier in this chapter, Mishnah 3, in respect to crumbling them and casting them to the wind, even though it becomes fertilizer). So that if the soil, which is permitted, and fertilizer of idolatry, which is forbidden, contribute to the growing of the greens, R. Yossi holds that it (the result) is permitted. How, then, can he forbid the greens here because the leaves fall on them! And the Gemara answers that R. Yossi is addressing himself to the opinion of the Rabbis, viz.: According to you, who hold that (the result of) "this and this contributing" is forbidden, you should have forbidden the greens because the leaves fall on them and become fertilizer for them! And the Rabbis hold this case to be different; for the idolatrous tree does not avail the greens at all. For what it adds to them by way of fertilizer it detracts from them by way of shade! And the halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi and (the result of) "this and this contribute" is permitted.]

נָטַל מִמֶּנָּה עֵצִים, אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה. הִסִּיק בָּהֶן אֶת הַתַּנּוּר, אִם חָדָשׁ, יֻתַּץ. וְאִם יָשָׁן, יֻצַּן. אָפָה בוֹ אֶת הַפַּת, אֲסוּרָה בַהֲנָאָה. נִתְעָרְבָה בַאֲחֵרוֹת, כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרוֹת בַּהֲנָאָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יוֹלִיךְ הֲנָאָה לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין פִּדְיוֹן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. נָטַל הֵימֶנָּה כַרְכֹּר, אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. אָרַג בּוֹ אֶת הַבֶּגֶד, הַבֶּגֶד אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. נִתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים וַאֲחֵרִים בַּאֲחֵרִים, כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יוֹלִיךְ הֲנָאָה לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין פִּדְיוֹן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה:

If he took (pieces of) wood from it, [the asheirah], benefit may not be derived from them. If he fired the oven with them — if it were new, it must be broken; if it were old, it must cool off. [For the first firing of a stove strengthens it, so that (in this instance) it benefits by what is forbidden. This Mishnah is in accordance with the view that (the result of) "this and this contributes" is forbidden. (This is not the halachah.) Therefore, both a new oven and an old oven must cool down, so that the loaf not be baked by this firing — until the oven cools off, so that benefit not be derived from forbidden wood.] If he baked a loaf in it, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. [The Gemara qualifies this, viz.: This is so, only when the torch (of forbidden wood) is opposite him, i.e., that as long as the loaf is baking, it (the torch) burns in the mouth of the oven and bakes it, so that he derives benefit from what is forbidden while it is intact and the benefit of the wood inheres in the loaf.] If it (the asheirah loaf) became intermixed with other loaves, they are all forbidden in (derivation of) benefit. R. Eliezer says: Let him cast its benefits [i.e., the worth of the intermixed loaf] into the Dead Sea — whereupon they said to him: Idolatry cannot be redeemed. If he took from it (the asheirah, a piece of wood to use as) a weaver's shuttle, benefit may not be derived from it. If he weaved a garment with it, benefit may not be derived from it. If it (the garment) became intermixed with others, and the others with others, they are all forbidden in (derivation of) benefit. R. Eliezer says: Let him cast its benefit [i.e., the worth of the intermixed garments] into the Dead Sea — whereupon they said to him: Idolatry cannot be redeemed. [The Mishnah adduces the argument between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis in these two instances (the loaf and the shuttle). For if it adduced just the first, I might think that only in this instance (that of the loaf) did R. Eliezer say (that its benefit may be cast into the Dead Sea, etc.), for at the time that the loaf was finished (baking), its issur (the wood) was burnt; but in the instance of the shuttle, where the issur remains intact, perhaps he would concede to the Rabbis (that it may not be cast into the Dead Sea.) And if it adduced just the second, I might think that only in that instance (that of the shuttle) did the Rabbis say (that it may not be redeemed), but in the instance of the loaf, they would concede to R. Eliezer (that its benefit could be cast into the Dead Sea). Therefore, it is necessary to adduce both instances. And the halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer. And even if a jug of forbidden wine became intermixed with jugs of permitted wine, he may cast its worth into the Dead Sea and benefit may be derived from all of the others.]

כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ. קִרְסֵם, וְזֵרַד, נָטַל מִמֶּנָּה מַקֵּל אוֹ שַׁרְבִיט, אֲפִלּוּ עָלֶה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בְטֵלָה. שְׁפָיָהּ לְצָרְכָּהּ, אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא לְצָרְכָּהּ, מֻתֶּרֶת:

How dos he [a gentile] nullify it [an asheirah]? If he plucks them [twigs of the asheirah, to burn for his purposes] or he cuts off [its wet leaves], or if he takes from it a stick or a staff, or even a leaf, it is nullified. If he files it [shefayah (see Targum [veshafith] on Devarim 9:21) ] — if for its own need [i.e., to beautify it], it is forbidden; if not, it is permitted. [And only an adult gentile, who is knowledgeable in idolatry and its appurtenances can nullify idolatry. And even if he is forced to do so, his nullification stands.]