Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) on the occasion of the 45th yahrzeit of her beloved father, David Aschheim. “He left us too early. But he left a lasting love of Israel, Jewish values and family.”
Avodah Zarah 54
08.11.2025 | י״ז באב תשפ״ה
Share this shiur:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
Avodah Zarah 54
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי קְרָא ״בְּשׂוּמוֹ כׇּל אַבְנֵי מִזְבֵּחַ כְּאַבְנֵי גִר מְנֻפָּצוֹת לֹא יָקֻמוּ אֲשֵׁרִים וְחַמָּנִים״? אִי אִיכָּא ״כְּאַבְנֵי גִיר מְנוּפָּצוֹת״ — לֹא יְקוּמוּן אֲשֵׁרִים וְחַמָּנִים, אִי לָאו — יָקוּמוּ.
Ḥizkiyya said: What is the verse from which this halakha is derived? It is derived from the verse: “By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be expiated…when he makes all the stones of the altar as limestones [ke’avnei gir] that are beaten into pieces, so that the asherim and the sun images shall rise no more” (Isaiah 27:9). This indicates that if the description “as limestones that are beaten into pieces” is fulfilled, then the statement “The asherim and the sun images shall rise no more” also applies, and their status is revoked. If it is not fulfilled, then they shall rise, meaning that their status is not revoked.
תָּנָא: נֶעֱבָד שֶׁלּוֹ אָסוּר, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ מוּתָּר. וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵיזֶהוּ נֶעֱבָד? כֹּל שֶׁעוֹבְדִים אוֹתוֹ בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג וּבֵין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס וּבֵין בְּרָצוֹן. הַאי אוֹנֶס הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו כְּגוֹן דְּאָנַס בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ?
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an item, e.g., an animal, that was worshipped by a certain person, if it is his item it is prohibited, but if it is another’s, it is permitted. The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: What is considered an animal that was worshipped and is disqualified from being sacrificed in the Temple? It is any animal that is worshipped, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly. What are the circumstances of this case of an animal worshipped under duress? Isn’t it referring to a case where one forcibly took another’s animal and bowed to it, indicating that one who worships the animal of another renders it forbidden?
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לָא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ דִּידֵיהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אוֹנֶס רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב ״וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר״!
Rami bar Ḥama says: No, the baraita is referring to a case where gentiles coerced someone and he bowed to his own animal. Rabbi Zeira objects to this: The Merciful One exempts a victim of circumstances beyond his control from punishment, as it is written with regard to a betrothed young woman who is raped: “But to the maiden you shall do nothing, the maiden has no sin worthy of death, for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, so is this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26).
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלָל ״לֹא תָעׇבְדֵם״, וּכְשֶׁפָּרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״וָחַי בָּהֶם״ וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם — יָצָא אוֹנֶס.
Rather, Rava says: All cases of idol worship were included in the prohibition: “You shall not bow down to them, nor shall you serve them” (Exodus 20:5), including the case of worship under duress. When the verse specified to you: “You shall keep My statutes…which a man shall do and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), and not that he should die by them, the verse excluded the case of duress. One would conclude from the verse that one who acts under duress is not considered an idol worshipper, and he is not required to sacrifice his life to refrain from worshipping idols.
וַהֲדַר כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי״, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּאוֹנֶס. הָא כֵּיצַד? הָא בְּצִנְעָא, וְהָא בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא.
The Merciful One then wrote: “And you shall not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:32), indicating that the prohibition against idol worship applies even in a case of duress, as this constitutes a desecration of God’s name. How can these texts be reconciled? This verse is referring to worshipping under duress in private, and that verse is referring to worshipping under duress in public. In private one is not required to sacrifice his life in order to refrain from idol worship. In public one is required to sacrifice his life rather than engage in idol worship. Therefore, if one engaged in idol worship in public, even under duress, the object of idol worship is forbidden.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיְּיעָא לָךְ, בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׁמָד בָּטֵל, אוֹתָן בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ.
The Rabbis said to Rava: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion. It is taught in a baraita: The following halakha applies with regard to platforms of gentiles that were used for idol worship in a time of religious persecution, when gentiles decreed that Jews must engage in idol worship. During a time of religious persecution, one is required to sacrifice his life rather than transgress the prohibition against engaging in idolatrous worship even in private. Therefore, even though the religious persecution was canceled, the status of those platforms is not revoked and they remain forbidden, despite the fact that the idol worship was performed under duress.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא לָא תְּסַיְּיעַן, אֵימַר יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד הֲוָה וּפְלַח לַהּ בְּרָצוֹן. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לָא תֵּימָא ״אֵימַר״, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד הֲוָה וּפְלַח לַהּ בְּרָצוֹן.
Rava said to the Rabbis: If one wishes to support my opinion due to that baraita, you cannot support my opinion, as one can say that perhaps there was an apostate Jew there and he worshipped the idol willingly, and therefore the platforms are forbidden. Rav Ashi says: Do not say that one can say it is a possibility; rather, it is certain that there was an apostate Jew there and he worshipped it willingly.
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּיסֵּךְ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה יַיִן עַל קַרְנֶיהָ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הַאי נֶעֱבָד הוּא? הַאי בִּימוֹס בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ!
Ḥizkiyya says: The contradiction between the baraitot with regard to an animal that was worshipped can be reconciled differently. The baraita that indicates that one who worships the animal of another renders it forbidden is referring to a case where in idolatrous worship one poured a libation of wine on the horns of an animal belonging to another. Since a sacrificial rite was performed upon the animal itself, it is forbidden. Rav Adda bar Ahava objects to this: Is this a case of an animal that was worshipped? This animal is a mere platform, i.e., it serves merely as an altar, and it is permitted.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּיסֵּךְ לָהּ יַיִן בֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ, דַּעֲבַד בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכִי הָא דַּאֲתָא עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבֶהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא אָסְרָה, עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה — אֲסָרָהּ.
Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava says: That baraita is referring to a case where he poured a libation of wine in worship of the animal between its horns. In this case one renders another’s animal forbidden, as he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal itself. And this is similar to that which Ulla stated, as Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael and said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the Sages said that one who bows to the animal of another person does not render it prohibited, if he performed a sacrificial rite upon it he rendered it prohibited.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: פּוּקוּ וֶאֱמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא, כְּבָר תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב הוּנָא לִשְׁמַעְתָּיךְ בְּבָבֶל, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָיְתָה בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ רְבוּצָה בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד — אֲסָרָהּ.
Rav Naḥman said to the Rabbis: Go out and say to Ulla: This is not a novel concept, as Rav Huna already interpreted the halakha that you stated in Babylonia. This is as Rav Huna says: In a case where the animal of another person was lying down before an object of idol worship, once one cut one of the organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet [siman], he rendered it prohibited, as he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal.
מְנָא לַן דַּאֲסָרָהּ? אִילֵּימָא מִכֹּהֲנִים, וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי כֹּהֲנִים דִּבְנֵי דֵעָה נִינְהוּ!
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he rendered it prohibited? If we say that it is derived from the halakha that priests who engaged in idol worship are disqualified from serving in the Temple, even if they did so under duress, perhaps the case of priests is different, as they possess awareness and are responsible for their actions.
וְאֶלָּא מֵאַבְנֵי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְדִלְמָא כִּדְרַב פָּפָּא?
But rather, perhaps it is derived from the stones of the altar that were rendered forbidden by the Greeks, even though the stones were not theirs. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But perhaps the reason the stones of the altar were prohibited is different, as explained by the statement of Rav Pappa (52b), that when the Greeks entered the Temple it was defiled and became theirs. One therefore cannot derive from that case that one can render the property of another person forbidden.
וְאֶלָּא מִכֵּלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת כׇּל הַכֵּלִים אֲשֶׁר הִזְנִיחַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אָחָז בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ בְּמַעֲלוֹ הֵכַנּוּ וְהִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״הֵכַנּוּ״ — שֶׁגְּנַזְנוּם, ״וְהִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״ — שֶׁהִקְדַּשְׁנוּ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן, וְהָא אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ!
But rather, it is derived from the case of vessels of the Temple that Ahaz used for idol worship, as it is written: “And all the vessels, which King Ahaz in his reign did cast away when he acted treacherously, we have prepared and sanctified, and behold, they are before the altar of the Lord” (II Chronicles 29:19). And the Master said: “We have prepared” means that we interred them; “and sanctified” means that we sanctified other vessels in their stead, as the original vessels were prohibited. But how could Ahaz render the vessels of the Temple forbidden, as a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his?
אֶלָּא, כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַד בְּהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה, אִיתְּסַרוּ לְהוּ; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה — אֲסָרָהּ.
Rather, since Ahaz performed a sacrificial rite upon them in idolatrous worship, the vessels were prohibited. Here too, when one performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal of another person by slaughtering it in idolatrous worship, he rendered it prohibited.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְקַרְקַע עוֹלָם לֹא אֲסָרָהּ, חָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת — אֲסָרָהּ. כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים לֹא אֲסָרָן, עֲשָׂאָן חֲלִיפִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אֲסָרָן.
§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the Sages said that one who bows to the ground does not render it prohibited, if one dug pits, ditches, and caves in it, he rendered it prohibited. When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the Sages said that one who bows to animals does not render them prohibited, if one rendered them an item of exchange for an object of idol worship, exchanging the animal for an object of idol worship, he rendered them prohibited.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: פְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבָּנַן, חַד אָמַר: חֲלִיפִין אֲסוּרִין, חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין מוּתָּרִין, וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין נָמֵי אֲסוּרִין.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the halakha concerning an item exchanged for an object of idol worship. One says that the item of the exchange is prohibited, but if one then acquired another item in exchange for the item of that exchange, the exchange of the exchange is permitted. And one says that even the exchange of the exchange is also prohibited.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין אֲסוּרִין? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ״, כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מְהַיֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ. וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ — הוּא וְלֹא חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the one who says that the exchange of the exchange is prohibited? The verse states: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, that you should become accursed like it; you shall utterly detest it…for it is accursed” (Deuteronomy 7:26). Not only do you become accursed, but anything that you cause to become yours from the exchange of an object of idol worship is accursed like it, i.e., is forbidden like the object of idol worship itself. And as for the other tanna, from where does he derive that the exchange of the exchange is permitted? The verse states: “For it is accursed.” Infer from this that “it,” the object of idol worship, is forbidden, but not the exchange of the exchange.
וְאִידַּךְ, הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי עׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, שֶׁאִם מְכָרָן וְקִידֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן — מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.
The Gemara asks: And as for the other tanna, how does he interpret the term “it”? The Gemara answers: He requires that term to exclude an item acquired in exchange for orla or for diverse kinds of crops that grew in a vineyard. The verse indicates that if one sold orla or diverse kinds that grew in a vineyard and betrothed a woman with the money from the sale, she is betrothed.
וְאִידַּךְ, עׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לָא צְרִיכִי מִיעוּטָא, דְּהָוְיָא לְהוּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּשְׁבִיעִית שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara asks: And from where does the other tanna derive this halakha? He holds that orla and diverse kinds that grew in a vineyard do not require an exclusion. This is because idol worship and the Sabbatical Year are two verses that come as one, i.e., both teach the same principle, that an item acquired in exchange for a forbidden item is forbidden, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common halakha to other cases.
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, שְׁבִיעִית — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יוֹבֵל הִיא קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם״, מָה קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו וְאָסוּר, אַף שְׁבִיעִית תּוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ וַאֲסוּרָה.
The Gemara explains: The source of this halakha with regard to idol worship is that ruling which we said earlier. With regard to the Sabbatical Year, the source is as it is written: “For it is a Jubilee Year; it shall be sacred for you” (Leviticus 25:12). The verse juxtaposes the Jubilee Year, the produce of which has the same status as produce of the Sabbatical Year, and sacred items. Infer from this that just as when one buys consecrated property it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and the money is prohibited, so too, the produce of the Sabbatical Year transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and the money is prohibited.
אִי מָה קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו וְיוֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין, אַף שְׁבִיעִית תּוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ וְיוֹצְאָה לְחוּלִּין! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּהְיֶה״, בַּהֲוָיָיתָהּ תְּהֵא.
The Gemara asks: If so, one could say that just as consecrated property transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and is transferred to non-sacred status, so too, the produce of the Sabbatical Year transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and is transferred to non-sacred status. Therefore, the verse states: “It shall be sacred for you,” indicating that the produce shall always be as it is, and it is not desacralized.
הָא כֵּיצַד? לָקַח בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית בָּשָׂר — אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מִתְבַּעֲרִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, לָקַח בַּבָּשָׂר דָּגִים — יָצָא בָּשָׂר נִכְנְסוּ דָּגִים, בַּדָּגִים יַיִן — יָצְאוּ דָּגִים נִכְנַס יַיִן, בַּיַּיִן שֶׁמֶן — יָצָא יַיִן וְנִכְנַס שֶׁמֶן, הָא כֵּיצַד? אַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִתְפָּס בִּשְׁבִיעִית, וּפְרִי עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר.
The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with produce of the Sabbatical Year, both these and those, i.e., the meat and the produce, are eradicated in the Sabbatical Year. The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect with regard to the meat as well. It is treated like the produce, and it must be disposed of when the obligation to eradicate the produce of the Sabbatical Year goes into effect. If he then purchases fish with this meat, the meat loses its consecrated status, and the fish assume the consecrated state. If he then purchases wine with these fish, the fish lose their consecrated status and the wine assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases oil with the wine, the wine loses its consecrated status and the oil assumes the consecrated state. How so? The final item purchased has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year transferred to it, and the Sabbatical-Year produce itself remains forbidden.
וְאִידַּךְ, קָסָבַר: שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד מְלַמְּדִין, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״הוּא״ לְמַעוֹטִינְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And as for the other tanna, who maintains that the term “it” excludes an item exchanged for orla or for diverse kinds that grew in a vineyard, how does he respond to this? The Gemara answers: He holds that two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same principle, teach their common halakha to other cases, and one could have derived the prohibition from the cases of idol worship and the Sabbatical Year. Therefore, the term “it” was necessary in order to exclude from the prohibition an item exchanged for orla or for diverse kinds that grew in a vineyard.
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת הַזְּקֵנִים בְּרוֹמִי: אִם אֵין רְצוֹנוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, לָמָה אֵינוֹ מְבַטְּלָהּ? אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: אִילּוּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין צוֹרֶךְ לָעוֹלָם בּוֹ הָיוּ עוֹבְדִין — הָיָה מְבַטְּלוֹ, הֲרֵי הֵן עוֹבְדִין לַחַמָּה וְלַלְּבָנָה וְלַכּוֹכָבִים וְלַמַּזָּלוֹת, יְאַבֵּד עוֹלָמוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַשּׁוֹטִים?!
MISHNA: The gentiles asked the Jewish Sages who were in Rome: If it is not God’s will that people should engage in idol worship, why does He not eliminate it? The Sages said to them: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the constellations. Should He destroy His world because of the fools?
אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: אִם כֵּן, יְאַבֵּד דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין צוֹרֶךְ לָעוֹלָם בּוֹ, וְיַנִּיחַ דָּבָר שֶׁצּוֹרֶךְ הָעוֹלָם בּוֹ! אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: אַף אָנוּ מַחֲזִיקִין יְדֵי עוֹבְדֵיהֶן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ, שֶׁאוֹמְרִים: תֵּדְעוּ שֶׁהֵן אֱלוֹהוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן לֹא בָּטְלוּ.
The gentiles said to the Sages: If so, let Him destroy those objects of idol worship for which the world has no need and leave those objects for which the world has a need. The Sages said to them: If that were to happen, we would thereby be supporting the worshippers of those objects for which the world has need, as they would say: You should know that these are truly gods, as they were not eliminated from the world, whereas the others were eliminated.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁאֲלוּ פִלוֹסוֹפִין אֶת הַזְּקֵנִים בְּרוֹמִי: אִם אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֵין רְצוֹנוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ מְבַטְּלָהּ? אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: אִילּוּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין הָעוֹלָם צוֹרֶךְ לוֹ הָיוּ עוֹבְדִין, הֲרֵי הוּא מְבַטְּלָהּ. הֲרֵי הֵן עוֹבְדִין לַחַמָּה וְלַלְּבָנָה וְלַכּוֹכָבִים וְלַמַּזָּלוֹת, יְאַבֵּד עוֹלָם מִפְּנֵי הַשּׁוֹטִים? אֶלָּא עוֹלָם כְּמִנְהָגוֹ נוֹהֵג, וְשׁוֹטִים שֶׁקִּלְקְלוּ עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: Certain philosophers [filosofin] asked the Jewish Sages who were in Rome: If it is not your God’s will that people should engage in idol worship, for what reason does He not eliminate it? The Sages said to them: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the constellations. Should He destroy the world because of the fools? Rather, the world follows its course, and the fools who sinned will be held to judgment in the future for their transgressions.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: הֲרֵי שֶׁגָּזַל סְאָה שֶׁל חִטִּים [וְהָלַךְ] וּזְרָעָהּ בַּקַּרְקַע — דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא תִּצְמַח, אֶלָּא עוֹלָם כְּמִנְהָגוֹ נוֹהֵג וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְשׁוֹטִים שֶׁקִּלְקְלוּ עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין.
The baraita presents another matter that illustrates the same concept: Consider the case of one who stole a se’a of wheat and went and planted it in the ground. By right it should not grow. But the world goes along and follows its course and the fools who sinned will be held to judgment in the future for their transgressions.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ — דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְעַבֵּר, אֶלָּא עוֹלָם כְּמִנְהָגוֹ נוֹהֵג וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְשׁוֹטִים שֶׁקִּלְקְלוּ עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין.
The baraita presents another matter that illustrates the same concept: Consider the case of one who engaged in intercourse with the wife of another. By right she should not become pregnant. But the world goes along and follows its course and the fools who sinned will be held to judgment in the future for their transgressions.
וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: לֹא דַּיָּין לָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין סֶלַע שֶׁלִּי פּוּמְבֵּי, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּטְרִיחִין אוֹתִי וּמַחְתִּימִין אוֹתִי בְּעַל כׇּרְחִי.
The Gemara comments: And this is as Reish Lakish says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Is it not enough for the wicked that they treat My die for a sela coin as if it were ownerless [pumbi], using it without My permission and against My will, as they impregnate women adulterously? But moreover, they also trouble Me and cause Me to sign the result of their actions against My will, as I form the fetus and give it life, even when its creation is the result of prohibited sexual intercourse.
שָׁאַל פִלוֹסֹפוּס אֶחָד אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: כָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַתְכֶם ״כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵשׁ אֹכְלָה הוּא אֵל קַנָּא״, מִפְּנֵי מָה מִתְקַנֵּא בְּעוֹבְדֶיהָ וְאֵין מִתְקַנֵּא בָּהּ?
A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah with regard to the prohibition against idol worship: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24). For what reason is He jealous and does He exact vengeance from the idol’s worshippers, but He is not jealous of the idol itself and does not destroy it?
אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן אֶחָד, וְאוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן הָיָה מְגַדֵּל לוֹ אֶת הַכֶּלֶב וְהֶעֱלָה לוֹ שֵׁם עַל שֵׁם אָבִיו, וּכְשֶׁהוּא נִשְׁבָּע אוֹמֵר: ״בְּחַיֵּי כֶּלֶב אַבָּא״, כְּשֶׁשָּׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ, עַל מִי הוּא כּוֹעֵס, עַל הַבֵּן הוּא כּוֹעֵס אוֹ עַל הַכֶּלֶב הוּא כּוֹעֵס? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: עַל הַבֵּן הוּא כּוֹעֵס.
Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood who had one son, and that son was raising a dog. And the son gave the dog a name, naming him after his father. When the son would take an oath, he would say: I swear by the life of the dog, my father. When the king heard about this, with whom was the king angry? Is he angry with the son or is he angry with the dog? You must say that he is angry with the son. So too, God is angry with the worshippers who attribute divinity to objects of idol worship and not with the objects of idol worship themselves.
אָמַר לוֹ: כֶּלֶב אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ? וַהֲלֹא יֵשׁ בָּהּ מַמָּשׁ! אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה רָאִיתָ? אָמַר לוֹ: פַּעַם אַחַת נָפְלָה דְּלֵיקָה בְּעִירֵנוּ, וְנִשְׂרְפָה כׇּל הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ, וְאוֹתוֹ בֵּית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא נִשְׂרַף!
The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: Do you call the idol a dog? But the idol truly exists, i.e., has power. Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: And what did you see that caused you to believe that the idols have power? The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: A fire once broke out in our city, and the entire city was burned down, but that temple of idol worship was not burned down.
אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁסָּרְחָה עָלָיו מְדִינָה, כְּשֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִלְחָמָה, עִם הַחַיִּים הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹ עִם הַמֵּתִים הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: עִם הַחַיִּים הוּא עוֹשֶׂה.
Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood whose province sinned against him. When he wages war, does he wage war against the living or does he wage war against the dead? You must say that he wages war against the living. God punishes the living worshippers and not the idol, which is not alive.
אָמַר לוֹ: כֶּלֶב אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ, מֵת אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ, אִם כֵּן יְאַבְּדֶנָּה מִן הָעוֹלָם! אָמַר לוֹ: אִילּוּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין הָעוֹלָם צָרִיךְ לוֹ הָיוּ עוֹבְדִין, הֲרֵי הוּא מְבַטְּלָהּ, הֲרֵי הֵן עוֹבְדִין לַחַמָּה וְלַלְּבָנָה, לַכּוֹכָבִים וְלַמַּזָּלוֹת, לָאֲפִיקִים וְלַגֵּאָיוֹת, יְאַבֵּד עוֹלָמוֹ מִפְּנֵי שׁוֹטִים? וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר:
The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: You call the idol a dog; you call the idol dead. If it is so, let God remove it from the world. Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon, the stars and the constellations, and the streams and the valleys. Should He destroy His world because of fools? And so the verse states:
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Avodah Zarah 54
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי קְרָא ״בְּשׂוּמוֹ כׇּל אַבְנֵי מִזְבֵּחַ כְּאַבְנֵי גִר מְנֻפָּצוֹת לֹא יָקֻמוּ אֲשֵׁרִים וְחַמָּנִים״? אִי אִיכָּא ״כְּאַבְנֵי גִיר מְנוּפָּצוֹת״ — לֹא יְקוּמוּן אֲשֵׁרִים וְחַמָּנִים, אִי לָאו — יָקוּמוּ.
Ḥizkiyya said: What is the verse from which this halakha is derived? It is derived from the verse: “By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be expiated…when he makes all the stones of the altar as limestones [ke’avnei gir] that are beaten into pieces, so that the asherim and the sun images shall rise no more” (Isaiah 27:9). This indicates that if the description “as limestones that are beaten into pieces” is fulfilled, then the statement “The asherim and the sun images shall rise no more” also applies, and their status is revoked. If it is not fulfilled, then they shall rise, meaning that their status is not revoked.
תָּנָא: נֶעֱבָד שֶׁלּוֹ אָסוּר, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ מוּתָּר. וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵיזֶהוּ נֶעֱבָד? כֹּל שֶׁעוֹבְדִים אוֹתוֹ בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג וּבֵין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס וּבֵין בְּרָצוֹן. הַאי אוֹנֶס הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו כְּגוֹן דְּאָנַס בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ?
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an item, e.g., an animal, that was worshipped by a certain person, if it is his item it is prohibited, but if it is another’s, it is permitted. The Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: What is considered an animal that was worshipped and is disqualified from being sacrificed in the Temple? It is any animal that is worshipped, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly. What are the circumstances of this case of an animal worshipped under duress? Isn’t it referring to a case where one forcibly took another’s animal and bowed to it, indicating that one who worships the animal of another renders it forbidden?
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לָא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ דִּידֵיהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אוֹנֶס רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב ״וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר״!
Rami bar Ḥama says: No, the baraita is referring to a case where gentiles coerced someone and he bowed to his own animal. Rabbi Zeira objects to this: The Merciful One exempts a victim of circumstances beyond his control from punishment, as it is written with regard to a betrothed young woman who is raped: “But to the maiden you shall do nothing, the maiden has no sin worthy of death, for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, so is this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26).
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלָל ״לֹא תָעׇבְדֵם״, וּכְשֶׁפָּרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״וָחַי בָּהֶם״ וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם — יָצָא אוֹנֶס.
Rather, Rava says: All cases of idol worship were included in the prohibition: “You shall not bow down to them, nor shall you serve them” (Exodus 20:5), including the case of worship under duress. When the verse specified to you: “You shall keep My statutes…which a man shall do and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), and not that he should die by them, the verse excluded the case of duress. One would conclude from the verse that one who acts under duress is not considered an idol worshipper, and he is not required to sacrifice his life to refrain from worshipping idols.
וַהֲדַר כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי״, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּאוֹנֶס. הָא כֵּיצַד? הָא בְּצִנְעָא, וְהָא בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא.
The Merciful One then wrote: “And you shall not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:32), indicating that the prohibition against idol worship applies even in a case of duress, as this constitutes a desecration of God’s name. How can these texts be reconciled? This verse is referring to worshipping under duress in private, and that verse is referring to worshipping under duress in public. In private one is not required to sacrifice his life in order to refrain from idol worship. In public one is required to sacrifice his life rather than engage in idol worship. Therefore, if one engaged in idol worship in public, even under duress, the object of idol worship is forbidden.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיְּיעָא לָךְ, בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׁמָד בָּטֵל, אוֹתָן בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ.
The Rabbis said to Rava: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion. It is taught in a baraita: The following halakha applies with regard to platforms of gentiles that were used for idol worship in a time of religious persecution, when gentiles decreed that Jews must engage in idol worship. During a time of religious persecution, one is required to sacrifice his life rather than transgress the prohibition against engaging in idolatrous worship even in private. Therefore, even though the religious persecution was canceled, the status of those platforms is not revoked and they remain forbidden, despite the fact that the idol worship was performed under duress.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא לָא תְּסַיְּיעַן, אֵימַר יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד הֲוָה וּפְלַח לַהּ בְּרָצוֹן. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לָא תֵּימָא ״אֵימַר״, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד הֲוָה וּפְלַח לַהּ בְּרָצוֹן.
Rava said to the Rabbis: If one wishes to support my opinion due to that baraita, you cannot support my opinion, as one can say that perhaps there was an apostate Jew there and he worshipped the idol willingly, and therefore the platforms are forbidden. Rav Ashi says: Do not say that one can say it is a possibility; rather, it is certain that there was an apostate Jew there and he worshipped it willingly.
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּיסֵּךְ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה יַיִן עַל קַרְנֶיהָ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הַאי נֶעֱבָד הוּא? הַאי בִּימוֹס בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ!
Ḥizkiyya says: The contradiction between the baraitot with regard to an animal that was worshipped can be reconciled differently. The baraita that indicates that one who worships the animal of another renders it forbidden is referring to a case where in idolatrous worship one poured a libation of wine on the horns of an animal belonging to another. Since a sacrificial rite was performed upon the animal itself, it is forbidden. Rav Adda bar Ahava objects to this: Is this a case of an animal that was worshipped? This animal is a mere platform, i.e., it serves merely as an altar, and it is permitted.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּיסֵּךְ לָהּ יַיִן בֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ, דַּעֲבַד בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכִי הָא דַּאֲתָא עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבֶהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא אָסְרָה, עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה — אֲסָרָהּ.
Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava says: That baraita is referring to a case where he poured a libation of wine in worship of the animal between its horns. In this case one renders another’s animal forbidden, as he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal itself. And this is similar to that which Ulla stated, as Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael and said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the Sages said that one who bows to the animal of another person does not render it prohibited, if he performed a sacrificial rite upon it he rendered it prohibited.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: פּוּקוּ וֶאֱמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא, כְּבָר תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב הוּנָא לִשְׁמַעְתָּיךְ בְּבָבֶל, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָיְתָה בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ רְבוּצָה בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ סִימָן אֶחָד — אֲסָרָהּ.
Rav Naḥman said to the Rabbis: Go out and say to Ulla: This is not a novel concept, as Rav Huna already interpreted the halakha that you stated in Babylonia. This is as Rav Huna says: In a case where the animal of another person was lying down before an object of idol worship, once one cut one of the organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet [siman], he rendered it prohibited, as he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal.
מְנָא לַן דַּאֲסָרָהּ? אִילֵּימָא מִכֹּהֲנִים, וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי כֹּהֲנִים דִּבְנֵי דֵעָה נִינְהוּ!
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he rendered it prohibited? If we say that it is derived from the halakha that priests who engaged in idol worship are disqualified from serving in the Temple, even if they did so under duress, perhaps the case of priests is different, as they possess awareness and are responsible for their actions.
וְאֶלָּא מֵאַבְנֵי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְדִלְמָא כִּדְרַב פָּפָּא?
But rather, perhaps it is derived from the stones of the altar that were rendered forbidden by the Greeks, even though the stones were not theirs. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But perhaps the reason the stones of the altar were prohibited is different, as explained by the statement of Rav Pappa (52b), that when the Greeks entered the Temple it was defiled and became theirs. One therefore cannot derive from that case that one can render the property of another person forbidden.
וְאֶלָּא מִכֵּלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת כׇּל הַכֵּלִים אֲשֶׁר הִזְנִיחַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אָחָז בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ בְּמַעֲלוֹ הֵכַנּוּ וְהִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״הֵכַנּוּ״ — שֶׁגְּנַזְנוּם, ״וְהִקְדָּשְׁנוּ״ — שֶׁהִקְדַּשְׁנוּ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן, וְהָא אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ!
But rather, it is derived from the case of vessels of the Temple that Ahaz used for idol worship, as it is written: “And all the vessels, which King Ahaz in his reign did cast away when he acted treacherously, we have prepared and sanctified, and behold, they are before the altar of the Lord” (II Chronicles 29:19). And the Master said: “We have prepared” means that we interred them; “and sanctified” means that we sanctified other vessels in their stead, as the original vessels were prohibited. But how could Ahaz render the vessels of the Temple forbidden, as a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his?
אֶלָּא, כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַד בְּהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה, אִיתְּסַרוּ לְהוּ; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה — אֲסָרָהּ.
Rather, since Ahaz performed a sacrificial rite upon them in idolatrous worship, the vessels were prohibited. Here too, when one performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal of another person by slaughtering it in idolatrous worship, he rendered it prohibited.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְקַרְקַע עוֹלָם לֹא אֲסָרָהּ, חָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת — אֲסָרָהּ. כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים לֹא אֲסָרָן, עֲשָׂאָן חֲלִיפִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אֲסָרָן.
§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the Sages said that one who bows to the ground does not render it prohibited, if one dug pits, ditches, and caves in it, he rendered it prohibited. When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the Sages said that one who bows to animals does not render them prohibited, if one rendered them an item of exchange for an object of idol worship, exchanging the animal for an object of idol worship, he rendered them prohibited.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: פְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבָּנַן, חַד אָמַר: חֲלִיפִין אֲסוּרִין, חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין מוּתָּרִין, וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין נָמֵי אֲסוּרִין.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the halakha concerning an item exchanged for an object of idol worship. One says that the item of the exchange is prohibited, but if one then acquired another item in exchange for the item of that exchange, the exchange of the exchange is permitted. And one says that even the exchange of the exchange is also prohibited.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין אֲסוּרִין? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ״, כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מְהַיֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ. וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ — הוּא וְלֹא חֲלִיפֵי חֲלִיפִין.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the one who says that the exchange of the exchange is prohibited? The verse states: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, that you should become accursed like it; you shall utterly detest it…for it is accursed” (Deuteronomy 7:26). Not only do you become accursed, but anything that you cause to become yours from the exchange of an object of idol worship is accursed like it, i.e., is forbidden like the object of idol worship itself. And as for the other tanna, from where does he derive that the exchange of the exchange is permitted? The verse states: “For it is accursed.” Infer from this that “it,” the object of idol worship, is forbidden, but not the exchange of the exchange.
וְאִידַּךְ, הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי עׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, שֶׁאִם מְכָרָן וְקִידֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן — מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.
The Gemara asks: And as for the other tanna, how does he interpret the term “it”? The Gemara answers: He requires that term to exclude an item acquired in exchange for orla or for diverse kinds of crops that grew in a vineyard. The verse indicates that if one sold orla or diverse kinds that grew in a vineyard and betrothed a woman with the money from the sale, she is betrothed.
וְאִידַּךְ, עׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לָא צְרִיכִי מִיעוּטָא, דְּהָוְיָא לְהוּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּשְׁבִיעִית שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara asks: And from where does the other tanna derive this halakha? He holds that orla and diverse kinds that grew in a vineyard do not require an exclusion. This is because idol worship and the Sabbatical Year are two verses that come as one, i.e., both teach the same principle, that an item acquired in exchange for a forbidden item is forbidden, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common halakha to other cases.
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, שְׁבִיעִית — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יוֹבֵל הִיא קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם״, מָה קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו וְאָסוּר, אַף שְׁבִיעִית תּוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ וַאֲסוּרָה.
The Gemara explains: The source of this halakha with regard to idol worship is that ruling which we said earlier. With regard to the Sabbatical Year, the source is as it is written: “For it is a Jubilee Year; it shall be sacred for you” (Leviticus 25:12). The verse juxtaposes the Jubilee Year, the produce of which has the same status as produce of the Sabbatical Year, and sacred items. Infer from this that just as when one buys consecrated property it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and the money is prohibited, so too, the produce of the Sabbatical Year transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and the money is prohibited.
אִי מָה קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו וְיוֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין, אַף שְׁבִיעִית תּוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ וְיוֹצְאָה לְחוּלִּין! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּהְיֶה״, בַּהֲוָיָיתָהּ תְּהֵא.
The Gemara asks: If so, one could say that just as consecrated property transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and is transferred to non-sacred status, so too, the produce of the Sabbatical Year transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and is transferred to non-sacred status. Therefore, the verse states: “It shall be sacred for you,” indicating that the produce shall always be as it is, and it is not desacralized.
הָא כֵּיצַד? לָקַח בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית בָּשָׂר — אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מִתְבַּעֲרִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, לָקַח בַּבָּשָׂר דָּגִים — יָצָא בָּשָׂר נִכְנְסוּ דָּגִים, בַּדָּגִים יַיִן — יָצְאוּ דָּגִים נִכְנַס יַיִן, בַּיַּיִן שֶׁמֶן — יָצָא יַיִן וְנִכְנַס שֶׁמֶן, הָא כֵּיצַד? אַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִתְפָּס בִּשְׁבִיעִית, וּפְרִי עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר.
The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with produce of the Sabbatical Year, both these and those, i.e., the meat and the produce, are eradicated in the Sabbatical Year. The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect with regard to the meat as well. It is treated like the produce, and it must be disposed of when the obligation to eradicate the produce of the Sabbatical Year goes into effect. If he then purchases fish with this meat, the meat loses its consecrated status, and the fish assume the consecrated state. If he then purchases wine with these fish, the fish lose their consecrated status and the wine assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases oil with the wine, the wine loses its consecrated status and the oil assumes the consecrated state. How so? The final item purchased has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year transferred to it, and the Sabbatical-Year produce itself remains forbidden.
וְאִידַּךְ, קָסָבַר: שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד מְלַמְּדִין, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״הוּא״ לְמַעוֹטִינְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And as for the other tanna, who maintains that the term “it” excludes an item exchanged for orla or for diverse kinds that grew in a vineyard, how does he respond to this? The Gemara answers: He holds that two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same principle, teach their common halakha to other cases, and one could have derived the prohibition from the cases of idol worship and the Sabbatical Year. Therefore, the term “it” was necessary in order to exclude from the prohibition an item exchanged for orla or for diverse kinds that grew in a vineyard.
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת הַזְּקֵנִים בְּרוֹמִי: אִם אֵין רְצוֹנוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, לָמָה אֵינוֹ מְבַטְּלָהּ? אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: אִילּוּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין צוֹרֶךְ לָעוֹלָם בּוֹ הָיוּ עוֹבְדִין — הָיָה מְבַטְּלוֹ, הֲרֵי הֵן עוֹבְדִין לַחַמָּה וְלַלְּבָנָה וְלַכּוֹכָבִים וְלַמַּזָּלוֹת, יְאַבֵּד עוֹלָמוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַשּׁוֹטִים?!
MISHNA: The gentiles asked the Jewish Sages who were in Rome: If it is not God’s will that people should engage in idol worship, why does He not eliminate it? The Sages said to them: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the constellations. Should He destroy His world because of the fools?
אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: אִם כֵּן, יְאַבֵּד דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין צוֹרֶךְ לָעוֹלָם בּוֹ, וְיַנִּיחַ דָּבָר שֶׁצּוֹרֶךְ הָעוֹלָם בּוֹ! אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: אַף אָנוּ מַחֲזִיקִין יְדֵי עוֹבְדֵיהֶן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ, שֶׁאוֹמְרִים: תֵּדְעוּ שֶׁהֵן אֱלוֹהוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן לֹא בָּטְלוּ.
The gentiles said to the Sages: If so, let Him destroy those objects of idol worship for which the world has no need and leave those objects for which the world has a need. The Sages said to them: If that were to happen, we would thereby be supporting the worshippers of those objects for which the world has need, as they would say: You should know that these are truly gods, as they were not eliminated from the world, whereas the others were eliminated.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁאֲלוּ פִלוֹסוֹפִין אֶת הַזְּקֵנִים בְּרוֹמִי: אִם אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֵין רְצוֹנוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ מְבַטְּלָהּ? אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: אִילּוּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין הָעוֹלָם צוֹרֶךְ לוֹ הָיוּ עוֹבְדִין, הֲרֵי הוּא מְבַטְּלָהּ. הֲרֵי הֵן עוֹבְדִין לַחַמָּה וְלַלְּבָנָה וְלַכּוֹכָבִים וְלַמַּזָּלוֹת, יְאַבֵּד עוֹלָם מִפְּנֵי הַשּׁוֹטִים? אֶלָּא עוֹלָם כְּמִנְהָגוֹ נוֹהֵג, וְשׁוֹטִים שֶׁקִּלְקְלוּ עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: Certain philosophers [filosofin] asked the Jewish Sages who were in Rome: If it is not your God’s will that people should engage in idol worship, for what reason does He not eliminate it? The Sages said to them: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the constellations. Should He destroy the world because of the fools? Rather, the world follows its course, and the fools who sinned will be held to judgment in the future for their transgressions.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: הֲרֵי שֶׁגָּזַל סְאָה שֶׁל חִטִּים [וְהָלַךְ] וּזְרָעָהּ בַּקַּרְקַע — דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא תִּצְמַח, אֶלָּא עוֹלָם כְּמִנְהָגוֹ נוֹהֵג וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְשׁוֹטִים שֶׁקִּלְקְלוּ עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין.
The baraita presents another matter that illustrates the same concept: Consider the case of one who stole a se’a of wheat and went and planted it in the ground. By right it should not grow. But the world goes along and follows its course and the fools who sinned will be held to judgment in the future for their transgressions.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ — דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְעַבֵּר, אֶלָּא עוֹלָם כְּמִנְהָגוֹ נוֹהֵג וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְשׁוֹטִים שֶׁקִּלְקְלוּ עֲתִידִין לִיתֵּן אֶת הַדִּין.
The baraita presents another matter that illustrates the same concept: Consider the case of one who engaged in intercourse with the wife of another. By right she should not become pregnant. But the world goes along and follows its course and the fools who sinned will be held to judgment in the future for their transgressions.
וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: לֹא דַּיָּין לָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין סֶלַע שֶׁלִּי פּוּמְבֵּי, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּטְרִיחִין אוֹתִי וּמַחְתִּימִין אוֹתִי בְּעַל כׇּרְחִי.
The Gemara comments: And this is as Reish Lakish says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Is it not enough for the wicked that they treat My die for a sela coin as if it were ownerless [pumbi], using it without My permission and against My will, as they impregnate women adulterously? But moreover, they also trouble Me and cause Me to sign the result of their actions against My will, as I form the fetus and give it life, even when its creation is the result of prohibited sexual intercourse.
שָׁאַל פִלוֹסֹפוּס אֶחָד אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: כָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַתְכֶם ״כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵשׁ אֹכְלָה הוּא אֵל קַנָּא״, מִפְּנֵי מָה מִתְקַנֵּא בְּעוֹבְדֶיהָ וְאֵין מִתְקַנֵּא בָּהּ?
A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah with regard to the prohibition against idol worship: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24). For what reason is He jealous and does He exact vengeance from the idol’s worshippers, but He is not jealous of the idol itself and does not destroy it?
אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן אֶחָד, וְאוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן הָיָה מְגַדֵּל לוֹ אֶת הַכֶּלֶב וְהֶעֱלָה לוֹ שֵׁם עַל שֵׁם אָבִיו, וּכְשֶׁהוּא נִשְׁבָּע אוֹמֵר: ״בְּחַיֵּי כֶּלֶב אַבָּא״, כְּשֶׁשָּׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ, עַל מִי הוּא כּוֹעֵס, עַל הַבֵּן הוּא כּוֹעֵס אוֹ עַל הַכֶּלֶב הוּא כּוֹעֵס? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: עַל הַבֵּן הוּא כּוֹעֵס.
Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood who had one son, and that son was raising a dog. And the son gave the dog a name, naming him after his father. When the son would take an oath, he would say: I swear by the life of the dog, my father. When the king heard about this, with whom was the king angry? Is he angry with the son or is he angry with the dog? You must say that he is angry with the son. So too, God is angry with the worshippers who attribute divinity to objects of idol worship and not with the objects of idol worship themselves.
אָמַר לוֹ: כֶּלֶב אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ? וַהֲלֹא יֵשׁ בָּהּ מַמָּשׁ! אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה רָאִיתָ? אָמַר לוֹ: פַּעַם אַחַת נָפְלָה דְּלֵיקָה בְּעִירֵנוּ, וְנִשְׂרְפָה כׇּל הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ, וְאוֹתוֹ בֵּית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא נִשְׂרַף!
The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: Do you call the idol a dog? But the idol truly exists, i.e., has power. Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: And what did you see that caused you to believe that the idols have power? The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: A fire once broke out in our city, and the entire city was burned down, but that temple of idol worship was not burned down.
אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁסָּרְחָה עָלָיו מְדִינָה, כְּשֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִלְחָמָה, עִם הַחַיִּים הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹ עִם הַמֵּתִים הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: עִם הַחַיִּים הוּא עוֹשֶׂה.
Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood whose province sinned against him. When he wages war, does he wage war against the living or does he wage war against the dead? You must say that he wages war against the living. God punishes the living worshippers and not the idol, which is not alive.
אָמַר לוֹ: כֶּלֶב אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ, מֵת אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ, אִם כֵּן יְאַבְּדֶנָּה מִן הָעוֹלָם! אָמַר לוֹ: אִילּוּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין הָעוֹלָם צָרִיךְ לוֹ הָיוּ עוֹבְדִין, הֲרֵי הוּא מְבַטְּלָהּ, הֲרֵי הֵן עוֹבְדִין לַחַמָּה וְלַלְּבָנָה, לַכּוֹכָבִים וְלַמַּזָּלוֹת, לָאֲפִיקִים וְלַגֵּאָיוֹת, יְאַבֵּד עוֹלָמוֹ מִפְּנֵי שׁוֹטִים? וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר:
The philosopher said to Rabban Gamliel: You call the idol a dog; you call the idol dead. If it is so, let God remove it from the world. Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon, the stars and the constellations, and the streams and the valleys. Should He destroy His world because of fools? And so the verse states:
Follow
