AVODAH ZARAH 47 (16 Adar) - Dedicated by Mr. Avraham Yitzchak Berger of Jerusalem/Lakewood, in memory of his father, Reb Pinchas ben Reb Avraham Yitzchak, on the day of his Yahrzeit.

1)

THE TUMAH OF AN IDOL AND ITS SERVICE ITEMS (Yerushalmi Halachah 6 Daf 22a)

אית מתניתא אמרה עבודה זרה כנדה ומשמשיה כנדה ואית מתניתא אמרה ע"ז כנדה ומשמשיה כשרץ

(a)

There is a Beraisa that teaches that according to R. Akiva, both an idol itself and its service items cause impurity like a Nidah (even just by carrying them). Another Beraisa teaches that according to R. Akiva, only an idol itself causes impurity like a Nidah, but its service items cause impurity only like a Sheretz (only by actually touching them).

מאן דמר ע"ז כנדה ומשמשיה כנדה ניחא ומאן דמר ע"ז כנדה ומשמשיה כשרץ כל עצמו אינו קרוי נדה אלא במשמשיה

(b)

Question: The first opinion is fine (as the pasuk can teach about both the idol and its service items), but according to the second opinion, surely the pasuk that was used to compare idolatry to the tumah of a nidah (above, see daf 46-2, Yishayah 30:22, "Go out, say to it") was actually referring to the service items rather than the idol itself?

תיפתר בחקוקין על גופה

(c)

Answer: The service items here are actually referring to things attached to the idol, such as a vest or a coating.

(דאמר) רבי יעקב דכפר חנן [אמר] תיפתר במשתחוה לאפוד עצמו כעניין שאמר ויעש גדעון אפוד.

(d)

Answer #2 (R. Yaakov of Kfar Chanan): When he bowed down to the vest itself, as it states (Shoftim 8:27), "And Gidon made a vest (and all of Yisrael strayed after it)".

מתניתין כמאן דאמר ע"ז כנידה ומשמשיה כנידה ותנינן אבניו ועציו ועפרו מטמאין כשרץ

(e)

Question: The Mishnah follows the view that an idol and it service items are like a Nidah, as the Mishnah teaches - its stones, its wood and its earth cause impurity like a Nidah? (This is a question against the opinion that said that R. Akiva reasons that service items of idols are only Tamei like a Sheretz.)

תיפתר במשתחוה לבית עצמו דאמר ר' בא רב הונא בשם רב המשתחוה לבית אסרו.

(f)

Answer: That Mishnah is referring to when he actually bowed down to the house itself (so the materials are part of the idol itself and are Tamei like a Nidah), as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that if one bowed down to a house, it is prohibited.

ר' זעירא רבי אבהו בשם ר' יוחנן המקדיש את הבית אין מועלין בו

(g)

(R. Zeira/ R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): If one consecrated a house (to the Temple), if he transgressed and benefitted from it, there is no requirement for a Meilah offering (because it is attached to the ground).

(ומאן דאמר אין מועלין בו) הוויי בה רבנן פליגי מאן דאמר אסרו מועלין בו מאן דאמר אין מועלין בו לא[ אסרו

(h)

The Rabbis explained that Rav and R. Yochanan disagreed - according to Rav who said that if one bowed down to a house, it becomes prohibited (because a detached item that was attached to the ground is still considered detached and can become prohibited); this will also apply to one who consecrated a house, that it is considered to be detached and one who benefitted would be liable to bring a Meilah offering. But according to R. Yochanan who said that there is no Meilah offering required (because it is attached to the ground), this will also apply to one who bowed down to a house, and the house does not become prohibited.

[והא תנינן ג' בתים הן

(i)

Question against R. Yochanan: But the Mishnah teaches that there are three cases of houses and a house that was originally built for idolatry is prohibited? (This shows that if it was detached and then it was attached, it is considered to be detached!)

תיפתר שהשתחוה לבית ואח"כ בנאו]

(j)

Answer: There, he bowed down to stones that were later built into a house.

התיב רבי חגיי קומי רבי יוסי והא מתניתא פליגא על רב השוקת שבסלע אין ממלאין בה ואין מקדשין בה ואין מזין ממנה ואינה צריכה צמיד פתיל ואינה פוסלת את המקוה היתה כלי וחובר בסיד וכו' ע"ד פוסל את המקוה מפני שחקקה ואח"כ חיברה הא אם חיברה ואחר כך חקקה (מה את עבד לה)[לא]

(k)

Question (R. Chagai to R. Yosi against Rav): From a Mishnah (in Maseches Parah) - If there is a receptacle cut out of a stone, if water flowed from the spring into that receptacle, one may not use it to collect the Red Heifer waters, (as they must be put into a vessel, not into one made in the ground); nor mix the ashes in it, nor sprinkle from it, nor would it need a tight fitting lid to protect it from the tumah of a corpse in a room, nor would water from it that flowed into a Mikveh invalidate the Mikveh. However, if it the stone was first made into a vessel and then later he attached it to the ground...(then all of these laws are reversed). We can deduce therefore, that if he attached the stone to the ground and then cut out from it a receptacle, since it was not a vessel before it was attached, it should be considered attached and not treated like a vessel.

[וההן בית כמי שחיברו ואחר כך חקקו מה עבד לה רב]

1.

Conclusion of question: Here also, even though the stones of the house had been detached, since he intends to worship only the whole house, which it is only titled when it is attached to the ground, why isn't it called worshipping that which is attached, which cannot become prohibited? How can Rav answer this? (Note: In the coming entries there are many changes in the text, based on the parallel sugya in Yerushalmi Shabbos Chapter 9.)

פתר לה (כר' יוחנן) סיתותן של אבנים היא גמר מלאכתן.

(l)

Answer: In that case of the stone, since its cutting took place when it was attached and it was completed there (it is considered as something attached to the ground; here, the shaping of the stones for constructing the house is considered their completion, which was done before they were attached).

[ו]לית הדא פליגא על רבי (שמעון בן לקיש)[יוחנן דר' יוחנן] (ד)אמר עבודה זרה שנשברה (מותרת)[אסורה] (וכן)[לא כן] סברנן מימר אם (בעתיד)[בשאינו עתיד] להחזירן לכליין דברי הכל (אסור)[מותר

(m)

Question: The Mishnah said that its wood, stones and dirt are Tamei. R. Yochanan said earlier that a broken idol is still prohibited and Reish Lakish said that a broken idol is permitted, but both agreed that if the idol will not be rebuilt, it is permitted. Here, it certainly will not be rebuilt, but it is still prohibited! This is question against both of them...?

והא תנינן שלש אבנים הן]

1.

Question #2: The Mishnah below (Halachah 7) teaches that if he stood an idol on a platform and then removed it, the platform is permitted, since he will not be returning the idol to it. This is another question against R. Yochanan who said that a broken idol is still prohibited...?

תיפתר (למשתחוה)[שנשתחוה] לכל אבן ואבן ואח"כ בניין.

(n)

Answer: The case is when he first bowed down to each stone and later built it (so each stone is viewed like a separate idol).

[ואפילו על ר' שמעון בן לקיש] לית הדא פליגא (על רבי יוחנן דרבי יוחנן)[דר' שמעון בן לקיש] אמר ע"ז שנש[ת]ברה (אסורה)[מותרת] (ו)[לא] כן סברנן מימר אם (בשאינו)[ב]עתיד להחזירן לכליין דברי הכל (מותר)[אסור ואמר ר' יודן אבוי דר' מתנייה אם היו מונחין במקומן לא כמי שהוא עתיד להחזירן לכליין הן ואלו במקומן הן

(o)

Answer #2 (for question against Reish Lakish): R. Yudan, the father of R. Matanyah, said that if the stones remained in their place, it is as if he is planning on rebuilding them, so they remain prohibited.

2)

BOWING TO A HOUSE AND A TREE (Yerushalmi Halachah 6 Daf 22b)

ר' בא בשם רב המשתחוה לבית אסרו לאילן לא אסרו

(a)

R. Ba said in the name of Rav (above 1(f)) that if one bowed down to a house it is prohibited; if one bowed to a tree it is not prohibited.

והתנינן שלש אשרות הן

(b)

Question: The Mishnah about the three Asheiras (below 48-1 Halacha 9, taught that if a tree was originally planted for idolatry, it is prohibited. It is assumed there that it is prohibited even if he did not actually bow down to it. If so, this shows that even for a tree, if it was detached and later attached, it is still considered detached...?

תיפתר במשתחוה לזמורה [דף כג עמוד א] ואח"כ נטעה.

(c)

Answer: There, he bowed down to a branch and later planted it.

לוי אמר משתחוה לבית אסרו למערה לא אסרה

(d)

(Levi): If one bowed down to a house it is prohibited; but to a cave, it is permitted.

מה בין בית למערה

(e)

Question: What is the difference?

א"ר חנינה בי ר' הלל בית היה לו שעת תלישה מערה לא היתה לה שעת תלישה.

(f)

Answer (R. Chaninah bei R. Hillel): The house used to be detached; the cave did not.

רבי יוחנן פתר מתניתא בגר ונכרי שירשו את אביהן נכרי.

(g)

(The Mishnah (daf 46-2(b)) taught that if a person shared a wall with an idolatrous temple, if it fell, it is judged as half and half.) R. Yochanan explained that a convert and an idolater inherited the estate of their father, and the convert took the house without idols and the idolater took the house with idols.

ולמה לא פתר לה בשבאת ע"ז ונסמכה לו

(h)

Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan explain simply that the Jew had a house that he built next to a temple, thereby sharing its wall...?

תני בית (ע"ז) ונסמכה לו [ע"ז] ואח"כ הלכה לה מותר אבל גר ונכרי שירשו את אביהן נכרי אסורה

(i)

Answer: A Baraisa teaches that if a person built a house and a temple was then built, sharing one of its walls with the house, and the wall fell down, the wall is permitted. Therefore, R. Yochanan had to explain that a convert and an idolater inherited their father; therefore, when the wall falls down, it is prohibited, because the idolatrous temple came first.

תני בית (ע"ז) ונסמכה לו [ע"ז] ואחר כך הלכה לה מותר אבל אם בא הוא ונסמך לעבודה זרה כל הבית לשם עבודה זרה.

(j)

Baraisa: If a Jew owned a house and idolaters built a temple next to it and then later removed the idol, if the wall then falls down, it is permitted. But if a Jew built his house next to a temple, if the wall falls down, it is prohibited (and is tamei).

אמר רבי יוסי מתניתא אמרה כן היה שלו ושל עבודה זרה ידון מחצה למחצה:

(k)

(R. Yosi): This is supported by our Mishnah (daf 46-2(b)), when it said that if the wall belonged to him and to the idolatrous temple, it is judged as half and half. (But if the Jew built his house next to the temple, since the temple came first, the wall is prohibited.)

3)

HOUSES OF IDOLATRY (Yerushalmi Halachah 7 Daf 23a)

משנה שלשה בתים הן בית שבנאו מתחילה לע"ז הרי זה אסור

(a)

(Mishnah): There are three cases of houses - a house originally built for idolatry is prohibited.

סיידו וכיירו לשם עבודה זרה וחידש נוטל מה שחידש הכניס לתוכו ע"ז והוציאה הרי זה מותר:

(b)

If he plastered and decorated it for idolatry and renovated it, he can remove it all (and it is permitted). If he put an idol inside it and then removed it, it is permitted.

גמרא רב ורבי יוחנן תרויהון אמרין בהכנסתן לארץ היא מתניתא.

(c)

(Gemara): Both Rav and R. Yochanan said that when the Mishnah taught (that a house originally built for idolatry is prohibited, even if had not yet been used), it is referring to when Bnei Yisrael entered the Land (and they were commanded to destroy all idolatry there).

על דעתיה דרב דאמר המשתחוה לבית אסרו בגין כן הוא פתר לה בכניסתן לארץ על דעתיה דרבי יוחנן דו אמר המקדיש את הבית אין מועלין בו

(d)

According to Rav who said that one who bows down to a house prohibits it (as a detached item that was attached is still considered detached), that is why he said that it refers to entering the Land. According to R. Yochanan who said that if one consecrated a house, if he transgressed and benefitted from it, there is no requirement for a Meilah offering (because a detached item that was attached is considered attached), why must the Mishnah be referring to entering the Land?

ויפתרינה במשתחוה לבית

(e)

Suggestion: It was when he bowed down (to stones and they were then built into) a house (where even if he did not build the house for idolatry it is prohibited).

המשתחוה לבית יש לו ביטול הכנסן לארץ אין לו ביטול

(f)

Rebuttal: Since the Mishnah did not mention annulling, it was understood to be referring to entering the Land, when annulling did not work. (But if an idolater bowed down to a house and then built it for idolatry, annulling does work.)

כיצד הוא עושה מפרק את פצימיו והוא מותר

(g)

What can he now do to permit it? Disassemble the door frame.

רבי אילא בשם ר' לעזר והוא שהכניס לתוכו ע"ז

(h)

(R. Ila citing R. Elazar): He did not build the house as an idol; rather, he built it as a shrine to house an idol and he actually brought it in.

על דעתיה דרבי לעזר שני בתים הן והתנינן שלשה בתים

(i)

Question: According to R. Elazar, there are only two different cases of houses, but according to the Mishnah, there is a third case?

כאן לשעה וכאן לשהות.

(j)

Answer: There are, in fact, three different cases - 1) If he just happened to bring an idol into a house, once the idol is removed, the house is permitted. 2) If he plastered the house for the service of the idol, he must remove the plaster and the house is permitted. 3) But if he built the house to service an idol, it will only become permitted when he disassembles the door frame.

4)

STONES USED FOR IDOLATRY (Yerushalmi Halachah 8 Daf 23b)

משנה שלשה אבנים הן אבן שחצבה מתחילה לבימוס הרי זו אסורה

(a)

(Mishnah): There are three cases of stones - if a stone was cut originally (to be used) as a platform (for an idol), it is prohibited.

סייד וכיירה לשם ע"ז וחידש נוטל מה שחידש

(b)

If he painted it and decorated it for idolatry, he may remove that which he added and it is permitted.

העמיד עליה ע"ז וסילקה הרי זו מותרת:

(c)

If he set up an idol on it and then later removed it, it is permitted.

גמרא רבי בא בשם רב מזו (המיותכים)[המתיך כוס] לע"ז נאס' מיד

(d)

(Gemara) (R. Ba citing Rav): From this (that if a stone was cut originally as a platform, it is prohibited, even before an idol was set up there), (we learn that) if one made a cup for the use of an idol, it is immediately prohibited.

רבי ירמיה בשם רבי לעזר מזו המתיך כוס לע"ז נאסר מיד

(e)

(R. Yirmiyah citing R. Elazar): From this we learn that one who made a cup for idolatry, it is prohibited immediately.

[דף כד עמוד א] רבי הילא בשם רבי לעזר והוא שהעמיד עליה ע"ז.

(f)

(R. Hila citing R. Elazar): The stone is only prohibited when an idol was actually set up there.

מחלפה שיטתיה (דרב) [דר' לעזר] תמן הוא אמר מזו המתיך כוס לע"ז נאסר מיד והכא הוא אמר הכין

(g)

Question: Those two statements in the name of R. Elazar seem to be contradictory - R. Yirmiyah quoted him as saying that items that serve idols are prohibited immediately; but R. Hila quoted him as saying that they are only prohibited when they are actually used...? (Note: The text here is changed according to the Meshech Chochmah in Chidushei Rabbeinu Meir Simcha page 165)

פתר לה כהדין תנייא דתנינן תמן ע"ז של נכרי אסורה מיד ושל ישראל משתעבד.

(h)

Answer: It depends on the following disagreement in a Baraisa - (R. Akiva says -) Idols of an idolater are prohibited (as soon as they are built). Idols of a Jew are only prohibited after they are actually worshipped. (R. Yishmael says the exact opposite. With this we can explain that R. Yirmiyah follows R. Yishmael and R. Hila follows R. Akiva.)

כלום פליגין לה בע"ז דילמא במשמשיו.

(i)

Rebuttal: Just because they disagree about idols, it does not mean that they also disagree about service items!

רבי שמעון בשם רבי לעזר אף במשמשי ע"ז במחלוקת

(j)

Reinstatement (R. Shimon citing R. Elazar): They also disagree about service items.

רבי הילא בשם רבי לעזר והוא שהעמיד עליה ע"ז.

(k)

It was taught above that R. Hila cited R. Elazar, saying that the stone is only prohibited when an idol was actually set up there...

על דעתיה דרבי לעזר שני אבנים והא תנינן שלש אבנים הן

1.

Question: According to R. Elazar, why does the Mishnah teach that there are three cases of stones when there are really only two (as case two and three are the same according to R. Hila)?

כאן לשעה כאן לשהות:

2.

Answer: In the third case, he puts the idol on the platform temporarily, so after it is removed, the platform becomes permitted; the first case is discussing when he put it there for an extended period of time.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF