Avodah Zarah 53: רָקַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, וְהִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Talmudic passage in Avodah Zarah 53b presents a fascinating case study in rabbinic hermeneutics, where the sages invoke the war of Joshua (milḥemet Yehoshua) as a legal paradigm for determining the status of abandoned idolatrous objects. This seemingly straightforward halakhic discussion reveals profound tensions between historical narrative and legal precedent, between memory and law, and between theological meaning and practical jurisprudence.

Avodah Zarah 52: כֵּלִים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Aside from the first and second Temples in Jerusalem, the only other Jewish Temples where sacrifices were brought were built by Jewish priests in Egypt. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi whether the utensils used in Beit Ḥonyo – the Temple of Onias – could be used in the Jewish Temple, as well.

The Gemara in Menaḥot (109b) quotes a baraita that brings two opinions about the Temple of Onias. According to Rabbi Meir, that temple was a place of pagan idol worship; Rabbi Yehuda rules that only Jewish sacrifices to God were brought there. Rashi explains that according to Rabbi Meir’s opinion it is obvious that the utensils used there cannot be used in the Temple in Jerusalem, since they are avoda zara, which is forbidden for ordinary use, and certainly for use in the Temple.

Thus, the question is posed only according to Rabbi Yehuda. Although the priests who performed the sacrificial service in the Temple of Onias were disqualified from serving in the Temple in Jerusalem, perhaps that is only because they should have been aware of their indiscretion and are penalized for it; the utensils, however, have no free will, and therefore may remain permitted.

Avodah Zarah 51: בְּטוֹבָה — בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, if there is a garden or bathhouse attached to the ground of avoda zara, one is permitted to benefit from them she-lo be-tova – if he does not have to pay for that benefit – be-tova, however, that is, if he has to pay for it, then it would be forbidden. In the Gemara, Abaye explains that that be-tova and she-lo be-tova refer to tovat komarim – whether the money will go to pay the idolatrous priests. If the money simply will go to people who are worshippers, then it is of no concern to us.

We continue the exploration of the accouterments of idolatry.

Avodah Zarah 50: דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא תַּבּוֹרֵי מִיתַּבְּרִי

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Following the destruction of the second Temple, the house belonging to King Yannai was abandoned and fell into disrepair. Ultimately, pagans entered the house and placed an idol dedicated to Mercury in it.

Later on, other non-Jews who did not believe in Mercury as a deity removed the stones from the building and used them to pave the paths and streets of the city.

This led to a disagreement among the Sages. Some of them refused to walk on the newly paved streets, lest they benefit from the stones that had been consecrated to the worship of Mercury. Others had no such compunctions and walked on them without concern. Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled: The “son of holy ones” – referring to Rabbi Menaḥem the son of Rabbi Simai – walks on these streets, how can we do otherwise?

We explore the mythic history of Mercury as a pagan deity and the rabbinic skill in negotiating the Torah law vs expedience down to Jung’s archetypal treatment of mercury in the ensouling process.

Avodah Zarah 49: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ גְּדִילָתָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Rabanan and Rebbi Yosi argue in the Mishnah about whether one is permitted to plant vegetables beneath an Asheirah tree in the winter. The Rabanan permit it, because the shade of the Asheirah tree does not benefit the vegetables planted beneath it during the winter. Rebbi Yosi prohibits it, because the foliage of the Asheirah fall on the vegetables, serving as fertilizer and helping them to grow. Since the vegetables grow due to the effects of something permitted (the nutrients in the soil) and the effects of something prohibited (the leaves of the Asheirah tree), it is a situation of "Zeh v'Zeh Gorem." Rebbi Yosi maintains that the Halachah in a case of "Zeh v'Zeh Gorem" is that the object is forbidden. This is the way the Gemara originally understands the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

We explore the tree in ancient traditions and the evolution of the sacred grove.

Avodah Zarah 48: כֹּל שֶׁכּוֹמָרִים יוֹשְׁבִין תַּחְתֶּיהָ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnayot on today’s daf focus on the ashera and attempt to define what such a tree is. According to the Mishna, there are three types of ashera –

A tree planted specifically for avoda zara

A tree that was sculpted or pruned in the name of avoda zara

A tree where an idol was placed underneath it.

In the first case, there is nothing that can be done. Such a tree is an ashera and must be destroyed. In the second case, although the tree that is formed is forbidden, if the tree continues growing, what grows anew is not considered to be avoda zara and is permitted. In the final case, according to the tanna of the Mishna, if the idol was removed, the tree is permitted.

We explore the notion of sacred contamination, how the shade under the tree might be sufficient to convey tumor as well as how COVID epidemic evoked the apocalypse.

Avodah Zarah 47: הוֹאִיל וְלַצּוּרָה הֵן עוֹבְדִין, נַתִּיר לָהֶן אֶת הָאִילָן

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The question is regarding a tree that was planted (for regular purposes) and only later worshipped. The question is not according to Rabbi Yosi bar Yehudah, as he would hold it is certainly forbidden, even to a regular person.

The question is according to the Rabbis. Do we say that this lulav can no longer be used for a mitzvah as it is repulsive for the Highest, for it has been used as an idol, or not? When Rav Dimi came (to Bavel), he said: The question was asked regarding an asheirah tree (which was even forbidden for mundane purposes) that was nullified. Do we say that there is permanent rejection regarding mitzvos aside or not?

We continue our exploration of the Ashera prohibition and derivative laws thereof.

Avodah Zarah 46: אַבְנֵי הַר שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 46

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemara discusses a case of avanim she-nidaldelu – rocks that broke off of the mountain (Rabbeinu Ḥananel suggests that they did not break off entirely but are now only partially connected to the mountain). If someone were to pray to these rocks, would they become forbidden, or will we argue that they still have had no human intervention and as such will remain permitted? The Gemara presents two opinions on this matter – Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons, Ḥizkiyya and Yehuda. According to one of them the fact that there has been no human intervention is most important, and we are not concerned with the fact that the rocks are no longer connected to the mountain, since animals, too, are not connected, yet they cannot become forbidden.

We explore the demythologization of nature in the TORAH and the remythologiation in kabbalah and chassidut.

Avodah Zarah 45: אִילָן שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף עֲבָדוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna teaches that hills that are worshipped do not become forbidden to Jews, although what is on those hills may become forbidden. The passage that is the source for this prohibition appears in Sefer Devarim (7:25) where the Torah forbids the gold and silver that are on them, but the ground itself cannot become forbidden.

One exception mentioned by the Mishna is the Ashera tree, which, although it is part-and-parcel of the land, nevertheless has been fashioned, in a sense, by human activity, since it was planted.

The basic halakhic question involves trees that were planted naturally but later used for idolatrous worship. The Talmud establishes three categories: "There are three laws of Asherot forbidden due to idolatry... If a tree was originally planned to be worshiped, it is forbidden; If one cut it, leaving the stump or the branches in order to worship the new growth, if the new growth is removed, the tree is permitted"

R. Akiva's approach, however, transcends these narrow categories. His insistence that certain geographical configurations inherently signal idolatrous activity suggests a worldview in which natural phenomena participate in cosmic patterns of meaning.

We explore the history of Ashera worship and also what might be called "controlled re-enchantment"—acknowledging symbolic power in creation while maintaining monotheistic boundaries. 

Avodah Zarah 44: תְּשׁוּבָה גְּנוּבָה הֱשִׁיבוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Proclus the son of Plospus met Rabban Gamliel while bathing in the Greek goddess Aphrodite’s bathhouse in Akko and asked him how he could bathe there, given the clear prohibition in the Torah against benefiting from pagan idols. According to the Mishna, he went so far as to quote the passage in Sefer Devarim (13:18) that is the source for the prohibition.

Rabban Gamliel said to him “I cannot respond to you and discuss Torah ideas in the bathhouse.”

Upon exiting, Rabban Gamliel did respond to the question posed by Proclus.

Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of beauty, and she was represented by a beautiful, young female form, which is why statues of her were often used for decoration, rather than as an idol to be worshipped.

We explore The Bathhouse of Aphrodite: as a Case Study in Rabbinic Subterfuge.

Avodah Zarah 43: כְּמִין זַכְרוּת עָשְׂתָה לָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf preserves a fascinating rabbinic debate that illuminates both the enduring significance of Maacah bat Absalom's story and the complex halakhic questions it raises. In this passage, Rabbi Yosei cites the destruction of Maacah's Asherah image as a precedent in a discussion about the disposal of idolatrous objects:

Rabbi Yosei said to them: But isn't it already stated concerning Asa: "And he also removed Maacah his mother from being queen, because she had made an abominable image [miflatztah] for an ashera; and Asa cut down her image, and burned it at the Kidron River" (see I Kings 15:13)?

It seems that Asa was unconcerned that the ground-up idol may provide fertilization. They said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? The Kidron River does not grow vegetation,so even if the idol would have fertilized the soil, it would have been of no benefit.

This rabbinic exchange reveals how later Jewish interpretation grappled with the practical and theological implications of Maacah's idolatry.

Avodah Zarah 42: כׇּל הַפַּרְצוּפוֹת מוּתָּרִין חוּץ מִפַּרְצוּף אָדָם

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Certain images were known to represent idols, and when found on different utensils may indicate that they are used for avoda zara. The Mishna on today’s daf teaches that when someone finds utensils that have on them images of the sun, the moon or a derakon, they must be cast into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel distinguishes between important utensils, which can be assumed to be used for idol worship, and simple utensils – like pots and pans – that are permitted even if they have such images on them.

In his Commentary to the Mishna, the Rambam explains that the references to the sun and the moon do not relate to simple drawings of these heavenly bodies, but rather they refer to a Zodiac wheel like one prepared by astrologers, that gives a form to each of the signs of the Zodiac, with a figure representing the sun in the middle.

Avodah Zarah 41: צְלָמִים אֲסוּרִין, שִׁבְרֵי צְלָמִים מוּתָּרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although we have learned that statues that are worshipped are considered avoda zara and it is forbidden to derive benefit from them, the Mishna on our daf teaches that if, when the statue is found, it is broken into pieces, it is permitted. The exception would be when a full limb remains intact. In a case where the form of a hand or a foot is still whole it will be forbidden, since there are those who worship them as representative of the deity.

In general, the reason that a broken statue can be used is because we are not sure whether the statue had been worshiped as avoda zara, and even if it had been treated as an idol, its present state leads us to believe that it had been destroyed by the non-Jew who had rejected it as a deity.

We continue our exploration of the decrease of pagan worship and the increased use of pagan symbols for esthetic value in late antiquity.

Avodah Zarah 40: לְנוֹי עָבְדִי לְהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The third perek of Massekhet Avoda Zara, Perek Kol ha-Tzelamim, which begins on our daf,deals with the questions that evolve from this reality. What is included in the command to destroy pagan idols? Under what circumstances may idols remain intact?

The first Mishna in the perek teaches that according to Rabbi Meir, all publicly displayed statues are forbidden – i.e. one cannot derive benefit from them – since they are worshipped once a year. The Ḥakhamim rule that this is only the case if the statue grasps in his hand a staff, a bird or an orb. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel extends this to idols that are portrayed with anything in their hands.

We explore the change in attitudes towards statues from Torah to Talmud and what social forces operated to cause these changes.

Avodah Zarah 39: יוֹשֵׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּצַד עֶדְרוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 39

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although the Mishna appears to require that the Jewish person watch the milking process, the Gemara quotes a baraita that permits the milk as long as the Jewish person was in the vicinity, even if he was not watching. The Gemara explains that the very presence of the Jew will frighten the non-Jew and keep him from placing anything non-kosher in the milk. As we have already learned, some contemporary rabbis permit the use of milk that has government inspection guaranteeing the purity of the milk.

We explore how cholov yisroel in the US represented the evolving approach to post war communal minhag standards.

Avodah Zarah 38: הָכָא — לְמַתּוֹקֵי טַעְמָא

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 38

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The Gemara discusses whether fish that was salted by a Nochri is forbidden because of "Bishul Akum." Chizkiyah maintains that it is not forbidden, while Rebbi Yochanan argues that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yochanan apparently maintains that salting the fish is considered like cooking the fish (see Rashi, DH v'Rebbi Yochanan).

We explore condiments and additives in late antiquity.

Avodah Zarah 37: כָּאן בְּחִיבּוּרִין, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 37

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Yosei ben Yo’ezer ish Tzereida was the first head of the pairs of scholars who are mentioned at the beginning of Massekhet Avot, a student of Antigonos ish Sokho. At that time, scholars were not given titles and were simply called by their names. According to the Talmud, Yosei ben Yo’ezer, who was a kohen, lived during the period when the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem was made up of Hellenists. He was put to death by his nephew Alcimus, who was an evil kohen, and died a martyr’s death.

He was known as the ḥasid she-bakehuna – the righteous among the priests – because he was particularly strict about issues of ritual purity. It was he who instituted the Rabbinic ordinance declaring the lands of the Diaspora to be considered ritually defiled. Although he was known for his strict positions in this area of halakha, in other fields he was known to be lenient – so much so that he is sometimes referred to as Yosei sharya – “Yosei the Permissive.”

Avodah Zarah 36: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 36

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (38b), in addition to non-Jewish milk and bread (see the discussion on yesterday’s daf), one of the things that was forbidden by the Sages was oil produced by non-Jews. The Mishna, however, adds that the beit din of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the use of non-Jewish oil.

The Gemara on our daf deals with two issues relating to this law:

Who established the original Rabbinic prohibition?

What gave later Sages the ability to abrogate this ruling?

With regard to the first question, Rav claims that the original prohibition stems from the time of Daniel, for we find in Sefer Daniel (1:8) that he accepted upon himself to refrain from participating in the feasts and parties in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace.

Our daf also explores how the two schools of Hillel and Shammai developed contrasting approaches to what we might term "moral purity" versus "tribal purity"—the former emphasizing ethical transformation and redemptive encounter, the latter prioritizing communal boundaries and protective separation.

Avodah Zarah 35: פַּת לֹא הוּתְּרָה בְּבֵית דִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 35

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although the ruling of the Rambam and the Shulḥan Arukh is that milk is only kosher if a Jew supervises the milking, given that the only concern is that there may be forbidden additives placed in the milk, there are contemporary responsa that permit the use of milk that has reliable government supervision.

The concern with bread is not the ingredients – which must be kosher – but the possibility that joining with non-Jews at meals may lead to intermarriage and assimilation.

The Gemara itself suggests that there may be situations where the bread is commercially baked where no such concern exists. Nevertheless, the simple reading of the Gemara seems to indicate that the Rabbinic injunction against non-Jewish bread that is brought in the Mishna could not be removed.

We explore the inyan of pas akum as well as the prooftext from Daniel 1:8 as to the prohibition of gentile oil, focusing on the dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding whether Daniel or later rabbinic authorities instituted this decree.

Avodah Zarah 34: וּמִיעוּטָא דְּמִיעוּטָא לָא חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי מֵאִיר

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 34

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The reason why cheese from Beis Unayki has been forbidden from benefit (according to Rabbi Meir in our Mishna) is because the majority of calves of that place are slaughtered for the sake of idolatry.

The Gemora asks: Even if it were the minority, it would still be forbidden, since Rabbi Meir always takes the minority into consideration!?

We explore the issue of cheese, kosher cheese and the talmudic interdictions thereof.