Commentaire sur Avoda Zara 3:12

כל הצלמים אסורים – for deriving benefit.

Introduction According to Deuteronomy 7:25-26 it is forbidden for a Jew to derive any benefit from idolatrous images. Our mishnah defines which images made by non-Jews are idolatrous and therefore forbidden and which are made merely as adornments, and are therefore permitted.

שהם נעבדים פעם אחת בשנה – when the sun is at the same height that the image is made for even though that there are many that are not other than for beauty and are not worshipped, Rabbi Meir, according to his reasoning, is suspect of the minority.

All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: [an image] is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any [image] which has anything in its hand [is prohibited]. The Rabbis in this mishnah dispute which images (sculptures) that are made by non-Jews are prohibited, because they may be used for idolatrous purposes. According to Rabbi Meir, all images are prohibited for at least some of them are worshipped once a year. Even though most of the images may have only been made as decorations, and not truly as idols, since there are some that are indeed idols, all are forbidden. Furthermore, even though an idol seems to be made only as a decoration, since it may be worshipped once a year, it is forbidden. The Sages dispute with Rabbi Meir. They hold that only the images that have in their hands a staff, bird or orb are forbidden. An image that holds one of these items, which probably was a symbol of power, was certainly made for idolatry. However, although some other images may have been made for idolatrous purposes, we are not sure if they were. Therefore we are not strict with regards to them, and they are permitted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel basically agrees with the Sages that an image about which there is a doubt if it is idolatrous, is permitted. However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel adds that any image that has something in its hand is idolatrous, and is therefore forbidden.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the nature of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages? In other words what is the concept or concepts underlying their dispute?

כל שיש בידו וכו' – since these are definitely worshipped, and because of their importance, they considered these objects that are in their hands. And in a Baraitha (Talmud Avodah Zarah 41a), they added a sword, a crown and a ring and the Halakha is according to the Sages. But their prohibition is not other than when they stand at the entrance to the state and in the villages where it was not their practice to make images for beauty, everyone states that it is prohibited, and even if there was nothing in his hand to serve it with, they worship it.

הרי אלו מותרין – for had they been whole, there is a doubt whether they would have worshipped them or not worshipped them. And even if one is able to say that hey worshipped them lest they become nullified, and therefore, broke them, for this is a double doubt and for a leniency.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the permissibility of broken pieces of potentially idolatrous images.

שכיוצא בהם נעבד – the form of a hand alone they would make ab initio and they worship it.

One who finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted. If one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped. One who finds a fragment of an image may make use of that fragment. The mishnah teaches that we may assume that the non-Jew intentionally broke the idol and thereby annulled it from its idolatrous use. However, if one finds an entire hand of an image or a foot, it is prohibited, since there are non-Jews who use these parts in and of themselves as idols. The Talmud explains that these are only prohibited if they are found attached to a base, which means that they are not truly broken pieces.

צורת חמה צורת לבנה – Rambam/Maimonides, of blessed memory, explained, that you should not find it would and he would say, “this is the sun,” or in the form of a round bow, and he would say, “this is the moon,” but rather that he should find a representation that they would relate these astrological specula to the sun or the moon, like they said, that the representation of the sun is like a wreathed king sitting on a wagon, and similarly all this that are like this.

Introduction This mishnah discusses what one must do with things that he found that are likely to have been used as idols.

צורת דרקון – the representation of a snake which has something glistening and scales like the scales of a fish, and they say that it is the representation of the hills of the moon, and it was worshipped in those days, and even according to the Rabbis who stated above (i.e., Mishnah 1), that all of the rest of the images are permissible, they would agree that these are forbidden for it is their custom to worship them.

If one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he casts them into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if [one of these figures] is upon precious utensils they are prohibited, but if upon common utensils they are permitted. If one finds a utensil that has on it a picture of the sun, moon or a dragon he must destroy it, since it was certainly used for idolatrous purposes. According to the first section of the mishnah, the best way to totally destroy an idol is to throw it into the Dead Sea. In such a way there is no chance that he, or any other Jew, will ever derive any benefit from it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that not all utensils that have pictures of the sun, moon or dragon are forbidden. Only precious utensils with such pictures on them are forbidden, for they were certainly worshipped. Cheap utensils were, in all likelihood, not worshipped, and are therefore permitted, even though they have on them pictures of the sun, moon or dragon.

שעל המכובדים – nice utensils that their use is for adornment and honor, such as chains, nose-rings and rings and similar kinds of things.

Rabbi Yose says: he may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him, even so it may then become manure, as it says, “let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)”. Rabbi Yose adds to the opinion in section one which stated that the idols must be thrown into the Dead Sea. He holds that it is even sufficient to grind them up and then throw the dust to the wind. The other Sages respond to him that this is not sufficient. By grinding up the idol, someone might use it as fertilizer. This method of destruction would not, therefore, prevent other Jews from violating the strict prohibition of deriving benefit from idols. The Sages bring a verse from Deuteronomy to prove that it is forbidden to derive even the smallest benefit from idolatrous objects.

מבוזים – boilers and kettles and those things that warm up warm things, and other similar things. And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

וזורה לרוח – so that an Israelite will not benefit from it.

אף הוא – if he cast it to the wind also now there would be benefit to an Israelite from it, for it would become manure.

אפרודטי – a representation of the planet Venus. This is what Maimonides/Rambam, of blessed memory, explained.

Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite.
He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?”
He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.”
When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’
Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.
This mishnah contains a famous story of a discussion between Proclos, a Greek philosopher and Rabban Gamaliel, the Jewish patriarch.
In order to understand this mishnah we must remember that Roman and Greek society would have been full of statues. Indeed, anywhere a Jew turned his head, he probably saw a statue, often a statue of a god or goddess. If the Jews were to adopt an overly strict attitude towards these statues, and consider them idols, Jews would effectively be prohibited from taking part in most of Greco-Roman society, including such communal institutions such as the bathhouse, roads, bridges and marketplaces. In this mishnah Rabban Gamaliel shows a remarkable degree of flexibility and accommodation to this situation.
The story begins with Proklos, the son of Plosphos (this may be the word for philosopher) pointing out that the Torah forbids Rabban Gamaliel’s being in Aphrodite’s bathhouse. Rabban Gamaliel responds that it is not appropriate to respond in the bathhouse.
When they leave the bathhouse Rabban Gamaliel answers Proklos’s question. The bathhouse was not made for Aphrodite. Rather it was made for the public use and Aphrodite was merely placed there as adornment. As such, Rabban Gamaliel’s presence in the bathhouse is not a form of worship to Aphrodite, as it would be in her temple. Furthermore, people do not say that the bathhouse was made to adorn Aphrodite. Rather she is ancillary to the bathhouse and it is the central structure.
Rabban Gamaliel further points out that if this sculpture of Aphrodite were truly considered to be a goddess, people would not walk naked in front of her, or have seminal emissions or urinate. Such actions are signs of disrespect, which would not be appropriate in front of a goddess. When the Torah states that a Jew is commanded to destroy idols, the intent is to destroy idols that are treated as gods, and not those that are treated with disrespect.

אין משיבין – words of Torah in the bathhouse, for a person stands naked there.

היא באתה בגבולי – for the bathhouse preceded her, and the bathhouse was made for everyone who comes to bathe/wash. And there is another response that we don’t say: “Let us make a bathhouse of adornment for Aphrodite,” for a bathhouse is not a thing of adornment, but rather, “let us make Aphrodite an adornment for the bathhouse,” for Aphrodite uses the bathhouse, and it is secondary and she is essential.

ביב – a ditch made in the ground to remove waste-water that is poured into the public domain.

הן מותרין – the mountains themselves are permissible for sewing [seed] and to hew stones from them that are attached and are not forbidden.

Introduction This mishnah discusses hills, mountains and trees which were used in idolatrous worship. The question is asked, are these to be forbidden as were other material items used in idol worship.

ומפני מה אשרה אסורה – meaning to say just as we expound (Deuteronomy 12:2): “[You must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshipped] their gods, whether on lofty mountains [and on hills or under any luxuriant tree],” and not ‘on their lofty mountains, their gods’, so also “under any luxuriant tree” (ibid.,) their gods, and not ‘the luxuriant trees of their gods.’ And why did the Torah prohibit this? As it is written (Deuteronomy 7:5): “cut down their sacred posts.”

If idolaters worship mountains and hills these are permitted; but what is upon them is prohibited, as it is says, “you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take them” (Deut. 7:25). Although an idolater may worship a hill or mountain, that mountain is not prohibited to subsequent Jewish use as is a statue worshipped by a non-Jew. Any thing that is either ground or attached to the ground is not considered an idolatrous “object” that would be forbidden to Jews. However, that which is upon these “worshipped” mountains and hills is forbidden. This principle is learned from Deut. 7:25 which uses the word “that is on them”. Although according to the simple sense of the verse, this refers to the gold and silver that are on idols, the midrash in our mishnah understands this to be referring to the idolatrous objects that are on a mountain or hill. They are forbidden but the land itself is not.

מפני שיש בה תפיסת ידי אדם – that a person planted it and Rabbi Yosi holds that a tree that a person planted and at the end worshipped is forbidden. But the First Tanna/teacher [of our Mishnah] holds that since at the beginning when it was planted, he did not intend to worship it, the worship that he performs after it is attached does not prohibit it for it is like someone who worships a mountain. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [it says] “their gods on the mountains” (Deut. 12:, not their mountains which are their gods; “their gods on the hills” (ibid.), not their hills which are their gods. Rabbi Yose Hagalili offers an alternative midrash to the one in the previous section. This verse instructs the Israelites to destroy all of the sites where the other nations worship. It says that these sites are on the mountains and hills. From here Rabbi Yose concludes that that which is on the mountains and hills is forbidden, but not the land itself.

אני אובין – I will explain.

And why is an asherah prohibited? Because there was manual labour connected with it, and whatever has manual labour connected with it is prohibited. So far we have learned in the previous two sections that in general land and anything attached to land is not treated as an idolatrous object. The mishnah raises a glaring exception to this rule, the asherah, a tree which was worshipped, which according to Deut. 7:5 and 12:3, must be cut down and burned. The answer is that any natural object that was planted by a human being and was gardened by a person is, if worshipped, to be treated as an idol.

ואדון לפניך – after we do not have to expound on the limitation from “or under any luxuriant tree,” one can say that it was not said other than to provide for them signs, a place where it is customary for Emorites to worship idolatry in order that Israel can search them out and destroy them. But the limitation of mountains and hills however, we eliminate from its implication for God did not command us to destroy the mountains, but [God] did command us to destroy luxuriant trees, as it states (Deuteronomy 12:3): “put their sacred posts to the fire.”

Rabbi Akiba said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there. Deut. 12:2 instructs Israelites to destroy all the idolatrous sites, “whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree.” Rabbi Akiva seems to be answering the question, why does the Torah mention the mountains, hills and tree. It would have been sufficient to merely state that all idolatrous sites must be destroyed and we would know that this includes those found on mountains, hills and under luxuriant trees. Rabbi Akiva answers that the verse was giving a hint to the Jews where they could find idolatry.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the reasoning behind the answer given in section three that any tree that was planted by man is forbidden if used as an idol?

סמוך לע"ז – that one of his walls is a house for idolatry and the hose itself is worshipped.

Introduction Mishnah six deals with two subjects: 1) a person who lives adjacent to an idolatrous shrine; 2) the ritual impurity of idolatrous objects.

אסור לבנותו – for he is building a house for idolatry.

If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own ground and build there. If one shared a wall with an idolatrous shrine, meaning his house was next to this shrine, he need not tear down his house and move somewhere else. Since he lived there before the shrine was built he does not need to move. However, if the house should fall down he may not rebuild the wall that will be shared with the shrine. What he may do is withdraw four cubits and build his own wall, one which will not be shared with the shrine.

כונס לתוך קרקע שלו ד' אמות – and he does not leave it empty as it is found benefitting idolatry as it extends its boundary, but he fills the place with thorns and makes there a toilet for young children.

[If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine, it is judged as being half and half. The wall that is shared by the Jewish homeowner and the idolatrous shrine is considered to be jointly owned. The half that is next to the shrine is forbidden for Jews to use and the half that is next to the Jewish house is permitted.

היה שלו ושל ע"ז – for the place of the beams of the walls, half of it is his.

Its stones, timber and rubbish defile like a creeping thing, as it says, “you shall utterly detest it” (Deut. 7:26). ] Rabbi Akiba says: [it defiles] like a menstruous woman, as it says, “[and you will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols]. You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. Out, you will call to them” (Isaiah 30:22), just as a menstruous woman impurifies [an object] by carrying it, so also an idolatrous object defiles by its being carried. According to Deut. 7:26 a Jew must abhor idolatrous objects. The word for “abhor” is “sheketz”, which is the same word used for an impure creeping thing in Leviticus 11:31. From here the mishnah learns that just as creeping things transmit impurity, so too do idolatrous objects. The type of impurity that a creeping thing imparts is contact impurity. It does not impart impurity to one who carries it (without touching it). Contact impurity is a lesser type of impurity than carrying impurity. Rabbi Akiva learns the impurity of idolatrous objects from Isaiah 30:22, which explicitly compares idolatrous objects to menstruating women, both being impure and imparting impurity to others. A menstruating woman imparts impurity both through contact and through carrying. So too, according to Rabbi Akiva, do idolatrous objects. In other words Rabbi Akiva holds that the impurity of idolatrous objects is more serious than that of the creeping thing.

נדון מחצה על מחצה – that portion of idolatry does not count in the bringing it inside [within his own property] four cubits but his part counts, for if its beams are two cubits, he counts one cubit of his own and brings it [an additional] three cubits within his own.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the problem with living next to an idolatrous shrine?
• Why doesn’t the opinion in the first part of the last section learn about the impurity of idolatrous objects from the verse in Isaiah, which seemingly explicitly compares idolatrous objects to a menstruating woman?

אבניו עציו ועפריו – of that wall

מטמאין כשרץ – which defiles like an unclean reptile, and even the section of the Israelite since there is no choice.

כשרץ – that ritually defiles through contact because the defilement of idolatry is Rabbinic, they were lenient concerning it, and it does not defile like a lentil like an unclean reptile, but rather in an olive’s bulk like [contact] with the dead.

רבי עקיבא אומר כנדה – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva even with idolatry itself, and all the more so, with those who use it.

שלשה בתים הם – regarding the matter of abrogation of idolatry.

There are three types of shrines: A shrine originally built for idolatrous worship behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [an ordinary house] for idolatry and renovated it, one may remove the renovations. If he had only brought an idol into it and taken it out again, [the house] is permitted.
There are three kinds of [idolatrous] stones: A stone which a man hewed originally to serve as a pedestal [for an idol] behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [a stone] for idolatry, one may remove the plaster and tile, and it is then permitted. If he set an idol upon it and took it off, behold [the stone] is permitted.
There are three kinds of asherah: a tree which has originally been planted for idolatry behold this is prohibited. If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted afresh, he removes the new growth. If he only set [an idol] under it and took it away, behold the tree is permitted.
What is an asherah? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. Rabbi Shimon says: any [tree] which is worshipped. It happened at Sidon that there was a tree which was worshipped and they found a heap of stones beneath it. Rabbi Shimon said to them, “examine this heap.” They examined it and discovered an image in it. He said to them, “since it is the image that they worship, we permit the tree for you.”
This mishnah discusses houses, stones and tree which were used in idolatrous ways and divides each of them into three different types.
Sections 1-3: All three of these sections teach the same rule with regards to three different potentially idolatrous items: shrines, stones and trees. If any of these was created from the beginning to be idolatrous, it is totally prohibited from Jewish usage. If one of these things originally existed not for idolatrous purposes, and then was somehow modified to be idolatrous, the Jew needs to remove the renovations before it is permitted to use the object. In other words, the basic object is permitted and only the new parts that were created for idolatry are forbidden. If one of these objects was not changed at all, but had idols put inside it (house) or on top of it (stone) or underneath it (the tree), all that needs to be done is for the idol to be removed and the object is permitted to the Jew. In this case the object itself was never truly idolatrous, but rather it was used to facilitate idol worship. Therefore this is an easy situation to rectify and make the object permissible to Jews.
Section four: This section teaches the definition of the asherah, the idolatrous tree mentioned on several occasions in the Torah. According to the first opinion in the mishnah an asherah has idols underneath it, but it itself is not worshipped. According to Rabbi Shimon the tree itself is an idolatrous object. The mishnah now tells a story that happened in Sidon, where there was a suspicion that idolaters were worshipping a certain tree. Underneath the tree was a heap of stones. Rabbi Shimon instructed the other rabbis to examine the heap of stones and when they did they found an image. From here Rabbi Shimon concluded that the tree itself was not worshipped, but rather the image underneath the tree. Therefore the tree was permitted for Jews to use.
Questions For Further Thought:
 Does section three match Rabbi Shimon’s opinion?
 What is the relationship of the story at the end of the mishnah to Rabbi Shimon’s statement that precedes it?

בית – the beginning of its building is for idolatry. This is prohibited.

סיידו וכיירו לעבודה זרה – that it was built ab initio as a human dwelling. And plastered it – who whiten it with plaster and cementing/putting tiles, engraving and doing embroidery.

וחידש – or renewed.

נוטל מה שחידש – and all the rest of the house is permitted.

הכניס לתוכו ע"ז – by the hour, and he did not designate it for the usage of idolatry.

שלש אבנים הם – for the matter of abrogation.

אבן שחצבה מתחלה – from the mountain.

לבימוס – to place idolatry upon it.

סיידה וכיירה – and it was hewn and standing.

נוטל – an Israelite,

מה שחידש – what was new, the adornment and the stone are permitted.

העמיד עליה ע"ז – by the hour, and he did not designate the stone for a pedestal [for an idol].

וסילקה – this is permitted, and does not need abrogation.

גדעו – for the purposes of idolatry to worship the growths that took place upon it from now.

נוטל מה שהחליף – the branches that grew in place of those that he lopped off and he burned them according to the law of Asherah/tree devoted to idolatry, the remainder is permitted.

איזו היא אשרה – In the Gemara (Tractate Avodah Zarah 48a) it explains that the three Asherot that are taught in the Mishnah are referred to above and this is what is taught: There are three Asherot – two of them are held by everyone and on one there is the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. And what is the Asherah that Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis? All [trees] that have under them idolatry, for the Rabbis call them a tree devoted for idolatry and prohibits them all the while that there is idolatry underneath it, and Rabbi Shimon states that it is not Asherah but rather everyone worships it, but all [trees] which have underneath them idolatry, this is not an Asherah. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

לא ישב בצלה – this shade is not under the bough of the Asherah tree as stated, for one is not able to teach further, and if he sat, he is ritually pure, for that which is taught at the final section, that if passed [underneath it], he is ritually impure. But rather from the tree and further, for when the sun is in the east or in the west, there is a long shade for all things.

Introduction This mishnah talks about using the space underneath the asherah tree. The question asked is: is using this space considered deriving benefit from idolatry and therefore forbidden? Furthermore the mishnah discusses the purity of one who passes underneath the asherah tree.

לא יעבור תחתיו – underneath the bough from the tree, for the tree forms a cover/tent [of Levitical uncleanness arising from being under the same shelter with it] and if he passed [underneath it], he is ritually impure.

One may not sit in its shadow, but if he sat he is pure. Nor may he pass beneath it, and if he passed he is impure. One is not allowed to sit in the shade of an asherah, for by doing so he would be benefiting from an idolatrous object. However, sitting in its shade alone will not cause him to be made impure, because he did not actually sit underneath the tree. He is not allowed to pass under the asherah, and if he does he is impure. According to the Talmud this is because we assume that underneath the asherah tree is an idolatrous offering, which causes Jews to become impure. When the branches of the tree form a tent over the person and the idolatrous offering the impurity of the idolatrous offering is transferred to the person (this is called tent impurity).

היתה גוזלת את הרבים – that its bough inclines to the public domain.

If it encroaches upon the public road and he passed beneath he is pure. If the asherah was leaning over onto the public road and a person passed underneath it, he is not impure. The impurity of the asherah is only rabbinically ordained, and in this case the Rabbis did not decree that one who walks underneath the asherah is made impure. The reason for this is that the Rabbis declared idolatrous objects to be transmitters of impurity in order to keep people away from them. Since this person who was walking on the public could not have avoided the tree, he is not impure.

טהור – it is Rabbinical defilement and where it “steals”/encroaches upon the public [domain], the Rabbis did not make a decree.

They may sow vegetables beneath it in winter but not in summer, and lettuce neither in summer nor winter. Rabbi Jose says: even vegetables [may not be planted] in winter because the foliage falls upon them and becomes manure for them. In the winter one is allowed to sow plants underneath the asherah tree, since the shade provided by the tree will not benefit the plants. In this case he is not benefiting from an idolatrous object. However, he may not plant lettuce underneath the asherah, even in the winter, since shade is always beneficial to lettuce. Rabbi Yose states that even vegetables may not be planted in winter, since the falling leaves will act as manure for the vegetables and therefore the planter would be benefiting from an idolatrous object. In other words, although he will not benefit from the shade since he will benefit in other ways, it is forbidden.

ירקות בימות הגשמים – for the tree is difficult for them as it prevents the sun from coming out.

אבל לא בימות החמה – for the shade is pleasant for them.

והחזרין – lettuce and in Arabic, “hassa.”

לא בימות החמה [ולא בימות הגשמים] – for the shade is always pleasant for them.

והנמייה –leaves that fall from the tree in the rainy season and in the Gemara (Talmud Avodah Zarah 49a), raises the objection to that which we learn according to Rabbi Yosi who states that the combined causes is permitted (who is discussing the subject of planting vegetables in the winter, according to the Mishnah). Earlier in our chapter (see Tractate Avodah Zarah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3), regarding crumbling them [the idolatrous figures] and casting them into the wind (see also Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1 for the use of the same phrase regarding the destruction of leavened products) and even though they are made into manure, for where the permission and the prohibition of both of them cause them to bring the matter, such as the case as the land of permission, and the manure of idolatry which is prohibited, cause the growing of vegetables, Rabbi Yosi holds that it is permitted. And where he prohibited vegetables, here it is because the foliage falls upon them, and Rabbi Yosi responds here to the words of the Rabbis stating that according to them when they state that the combined causes are prohibited, they should have prohibited the vegetables because of the foliage that falls upon them and it is for them like manure. But the Rabbis hold that this is different here, for the tree of idolatry does not affect the vegetables at all, for as the foliage is beneficial to them, the shade is harmful for them. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi, that the product of combined sources is permissible.

נטל הימנה – from the Asherah.

Introduction Mishnah nine discusses the prohibition from deriving benefit from the wood of an asherah tree.

חדש יותץ – for the first making of the flame when they kindle the oven glazes it and strengthens it and it is improved through prohibited forms of benefit, but our Mishnah comes according to the one states that combined causes are prohibited, and this is not the Halakha. Therefore, whether it is new or old, it must be cooled down.

If one took pieces of wood from it [the asherah tree], they are forbidden to be used. If he heated an oven with them if it was new it must be broken to pieces; if it was old, it must be allowed to cool. It is forbidden to use pieces of wood that come from an asherah tree. This mishnah teaches that the forbidden status of the tree remains in the pieces of the tree that are separated from it. If one used this wood to heat a new oven, the oven must be destroyed. Since the first heating of an oven helps shape and finish the oven, the oven itself was built through the aid of an idolatrous object, and it itself is therefore forbidden. However, if the oven was old, one merely needs to let the oven cool before using it again. In such a case the heat produced by the burning of the asherah wood is forbidden but not the oven itself.

הפת אסורה – in the Gemara it states (Tractate Avodah Zarah 49b) that a torch is opposite him, for all the while that the bread is baking, he would kindle the torch at the mouth of the oven and bake it, for he would benefit from the prohibition a the time when the prohibition is clearly visible and there is and there is improvement to the wood with the bread.

If he baked bread [in an oven heated with wood from an asherah], it is forbidden to be used, and if [the loaf] became mixed with other loaves, they are all prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol. If he baked bread in an oven heated by the wood from an asherah, the bread is forbidden. Furthermore, if that loaf should be mixed in with other loaves, they are all forbidden, since each one may be the loaf which was made in the oven heated by the asherah wood. We should note that in some other cases mixtures of prohibited and permissible goods can be fixed. For instance if one pound of terumah flour should be mixed in with 100 pounds of terumah flour, one may take out one pound of terumah and give it to the kohen, even though that one pound is not the same pound that fell in. Through this process the remainder becomes permitted to anyone to eat. Our mishnah is especially stringent with idolatrous items. Rabbi Eliezer does make an attempt to remedy the situation without causing the loss of the bread. If he baked a loaf using asherah wood to heat his oven, he may throw the value of the wood into the Dead Sea, thereby nullifying any benefit he received from that wood. Afterwards the loaf may be eaten by a Jew. The Sages disagree. According to their opinion there is no way to redeem something that was made by using an idolatrous item.

יוליך הנאה לים המלח – the cost of the loaf that was combined.

If one took [a piece of wood] from it [to use as] a shuttle, it is forbidden to be used. If he wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to be used. If [the became mixed with others, and these with others, they are all forbidden to be used. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol. This section teaches the same thing that was learned in the previous section, only it uses a different example. Here the wood was used to make a shuttle, a piece of wood used on a loom to weave cloth. Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages have the same dispute on this section of the mishnah as they did in the previous one.

כרכור – there is for weavers a piece of wood made in the form of a needle of sack-makers and they pass it over the warp/longitudinal direction when it is stretched before them in the weaving. And our Mishnah teaches us the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis in these two things, for had it taught only the first one, I might state that in this [only], Rabbi Eliezer stated it because at the time when the bread is completed, the prohibition is disregarded, but a whorl [of a spindle] which has a prohibition of its own, I would state that he agrees with the Rabbis. But had he only stated the other one, it would have been this one alone that the Rabbis stated, but in the first, I would say that they agree with Rabbi Eliezer. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer, even with a jug of wine known or suspected to have been manipulated by an idolater, that became combined with jugs of permitted wine – they bring the costs of that jug to the Dead Sea and the remainder are permitted to derive benefit from it.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why might the mishnah have taught both sections two and three even though they both teach the same principles?

כיצד מבטלה – an idolater for a tree used for idolatrous purposes.

How does one annul [an asherah]? If [a pagan] pruned or trimmed it, removing from it a stick or twig or even a leaf, behold it is annulled.
If he smoothed it out for its own sake, it is prohibited; but if not for its own sake, it is permitted.
Our mishnah asks how does one annul an asherah in order to make it permitted for Jews to use.
As we will learn in the next chapter of mishnah, a pagan can “annul” his idol by stopping to treat it as such. If he does so, what was formerly an idol reverts to being a normal object and a Jew may use it. Our mishnah teaches that removing a piece of an asherah tree is a sign that it is no longer being worshipped. Evidently the asherah was not used by the pagan for anything but idol worship. If the pagan does make even the most minimal use of the tree, such as using its leaf, it loses its status as an asherah. The only exception to this case is if he removes something from the tree for its own sake. In other words, if he smoothed the tree to make it look better, it is still an asherah and it is still forbidden. If he did so in order to get a branch, he has annulled its status as an asherah and it is permitted.

קרסם – dry chips that are on the tree, he took for his needs to burn.

ורד – cut moist branches tht are on it.

שפאה – it is the Aramaic translation of (Deuteronomy 9:21): “I broke it to bits and ground it thoroughly,” and you crushed it well.

לצורכה – in order to beautify it, and not to disannul idolatry but rather to worship idolatry as an adult and with knowledge for he knew the nature of idolatry and those who use it, and even if he disannulled it against his will, it is annulled.