Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN DOES IDOLATRY BECOME FORBIDDEN? (Cont.)

(a) Question (Beraisa): ("Abed Te'abedun...") - this refers to vessels used to serve idolatry.

1. The verse says "Es Kol *ha'Mekomos*" (it does not refer to vessels)!

(b) Answer: We do not need it to teach about the places, they do not become forbidden - "Eloheihem *Al* he'Harim (their gods *on* the mountains)", the mountains are not their gods;

1. We use this to teach about vessels; it teaches that idolatry of a Nochri is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad, idolatry of a Yisrael is forbidden immediately.

(c) Question: But we said that the verse teaches about vessels, how do we learn about idolatry itself?
(d) Answer: The verse continues "Asher Atem Yoreshim Osam Es Eloheihem" - this equates their gods to vessels;

1. Just as vessels are not forbidden until they are Ne'evad, also their gods.
2. R. Akiva does not equate them, because "Es" separates the vessels from the gods.

(e) Question: What is R. Yishmael's source that idolatry of a Yisrael is forbidden immediately?
(f) Answer: He deduces - since idolatry of a Nochri is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad, idolatry of a Yisrael is forbidden immediately.
(g) Suggestion: Perhaps idolatry of a Yisrael is never forbidden?
(h) Rejection: We know that it must be buried, surely it is forbidden!
(i) Suggestion: Perhaps it has the same law as idolatry of a Nochri!
(j) Rejection: "V'Es Chataschem Asher Asisem Es ha'Egel" - from the time of Asiyah (making it), there is Chet.
(k) Suggestion: Perhaps the one who made it sinned, but it is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad!
(l) Rejection: "Arur ha'Ish Asher Ya'aseh Fesel u'Masechah" from the time he made it, he is cursed.
(m) Suggestion: Perhaps he is cursed, but it is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad!
(n) Rejection: It says "To'avas Hash-m".

1. R. Akiva explains, it (is not an abomination, it) leads to an abomination.

(o) Question: What is R. Akiva's source that idolatry of a Nochri is forbidden immediately?
(p) Answer (Ula): "Pesilei Eloheihem Tisrefun ba'Esh" - from the time they were Nifsal (carved out), they are (forbidden like) their gods (idols).

1. R. Yishmael uses this to teach Rav Yosef's law.
2. (Rav Yosef): A Nochri can nullify his idolatry - "Pesilei Eloheihem Tisrefun ba'Esh" (their gods that they were *Posel* (nullified)).
3. R. Akiva learns this as Shmuel does.

i. Contradiction (Shmuel): (The end of that verse says) "Lo Sachmod Kesef v'Zahav Aleihem" (you may not take them), and it says "V'Lakachta Lach"!
ii. Resolution: If he Paslo (carved it) to make an Eloha, Tisrefun ba'Esh (it is forbidden); if he was Posel his Eloha, "V'Lakachta Lach".

(q) Question: We explained how R. Akiva learned that idolatry of a Nochri is forbidden immediately;

1. What is his source that idolatry of a Yisrael is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad?

(r) Answer (Rav Yehudah): "V'Sam ba'Saser" - until he does with it things done ba'Seser (in seclusion, i.e. idolatry).

1. R. Yishmael uses this to teach R. Yitzchak's law.
2. (R. Yitzchak): Idolatry of a Yisrael requires Genizah (to be hidden away) - "V'Sam ba'Saser".
3. R. Akiva learns this as Rav Chisda does.

i. (Rav Chisda): Idolatry of a Yisrael requires Genizah - "Lo Sita Lecha Asheirah Kol Etz Etzel Mizbach" - just as the Mizbe'ach requires Genizah, also idolatry of a Yisrael.

4. R. Yishmael expounds that verse as Reish Lakish does.

ii. (Reish Lakish): Appointing an unlearned judge is like planting an Asheirah - it says "Shofetim v'Shoterim Titen Lecha", followed by "Lo Sita Lecha Asheirah Kol Etz".
iii. (Rav Ashi): Appointing an unlearned judge when Chachamim are available is like planting an Asheirah next to the Mizbe'ach - the verse continues " ...Etzel Mizbach Hash-m"

(a) Question (Rav Hamnuna): If one fixed a broken vessel used for idolatry, what is the law?

1. Question: Whose idolatry was it?

i. If it was a Nochri's - all agree that Meshamshim (things used to serve idolatry) of a Nochri are not forbidden until they are used for idolatry!

2. Answer: It was a Yisrael's.
3. Question: According to whom does he ask?

i. If according to R. Akiva - he says that idolatry of a Yisrael is not forbidden until it is Ne'evad, all the more so Meshamshim!

4. Answer: He asks according to R. Yishmael, who says that a Yisrael's idolatry is forbidden immediately.
5. Essence of the question: Do we learn Meshamshim (of a Yisrael) from Meshamshim (of a Nochri), it is permitted until it is used for Avodah;

i. Or, do we learn Meshamshim of a Yisrael from idolatry of a Yisrael, it is forbidden immediately?

6. Question: Why did Rav Hamnuna ask about fixing a vessel, he should have asked about making a vessel!
7. Answer: Rav Hamnuna asked about a vessel that reverts to being Tamei after it is fixed.

i. (Mishnah): A metal vessel receives Tum'ah, whether or not it holds anything;
ii. If it became Tamei, was broken (which is Metaher it) and fixed, it returns to its original Tum'ah (this is a Rabbinic enactment).

(b) Question (Rav Hamnuna): Does it return to its original Tum'ah only regarding Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, but not regarding Tum'ah mid'Rabanan;

1. Or, does this apply even to a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan (such as Meshamshim of idolatry)?
2. Question: Why did he ask about idolatry, and not a different Tum'ah mid'Rabanan?
3. Answer: Even if he would find that other Tum'os mid'Rabanan do not return, he still would not know about idolatry;

i. Perhaps because of the stringency of idolatry, we treat its Tum'ah like mid'Oraisa, and it returns.

(c) This question is not resolved.
(d) Question (R. Yochanan): If food was offered to idolatry, and the idolatry was nullified, does this Metaher the food?

1. Question: Why didn't he ask about vessels (Rashi - Meshamshim; Tosfos - Takroves)?
2. Answer: That was obvious - since they can become Tahor through immersing, they also become Tahor through Bitul.

i. The question is only about food, which cannot become Tahor through immersing.

3. Question: Why didn't he ask about idolatry itself?
4. Answer: That was obvious - since the prohibition (to benefit from it) goes away through Bitul, also the Tum'ah goes away;

i. The question is only about Takroves, its prohibition never goes away, as Rav Gidal taught.

5. Essence of the question: do we say, since the prohibition never goes away, also the Tum'ah never goes away?

i. Or, the prohibition never goes away because it is mid'Oraisa, but the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan, it goes away?

(e) This question is not resolved.

(a) Question (R. Yosi ben Sha'ul): Vessels that were used in Beis Chonyo (a place of worship in Miztrayim, Tana'im argue whether or not it was idolatrous), may they be used in the Mikdash?

1. He asks according to the opinion that Beis Chonyo was not l'Shem idolatry.
2. (Mishnah): Kohanim that served in Beis Chonyo may not serve in the Mikdash, all the more so those who served idolatry.
3. Essence of the question: Perhaps we fine only the Kohanim, because they chose to transgress, but we do not forbid vessels;

i. Or, do we forbid even vessels?

(b) Answer (Rebbi): They are forbidden, but I cannot remember the verse that teaches this!
(c) Question: "Ha'Kelim Asher Hizni'ach Melech Achaz...Hechanu (we immersed them) v'Hikdashnu (we re-anointed them with oil)" (even though they had been used for idolatry)!
(d) Answer (Rebbi): You reminded me of the verse that teaches the law (but you misunderstood it)!

1. "Hechanu" means, we put them in Genizah; "v'Hikdashnu" means, we were Makdish new vessels in place of them.

(e) Support (Mishnah): The Chashmona'im hid the stones of the Mizbe'ach (that the Yevanim had desecrated) under the chamber in the northeast corner of the Mikdash.

1. (Rav Sheshes): They desecrated them by using them for idolatry.

(f) Rejection (Rav Papa): No, a verse teaches that those stones were forbidden even to people (but normally, vessels used for idolatry can later be used in the Mikdash) - "U'Va'u Vah Paritzim v'Chileluha".

1. Genizah was the only solution:

i. The stones could not be broken (to permit them to be used to rebuild the Mizbe'ach) - "Avanim Shelemos" are required!
ii. They could not smooth them out later (with a blade) - "Lo Sanif Aleihem Barzel"!

2. Question: Why couldn't they break them and benefit from them (for Chulin purposes)?

i. (R. Oshaya): Chachamim wanted to forbid all gold and silver in the world on account of the gold and silver from Yerushalayim (most of which was Hekdesh).
ii. Objection: Surely, the majority of gold and silver in the world is not from Yerushalayim!
iii. Correction (Abaye): Rather, they wanted to forbid all coins of Hadri'anus and Torainus (Rashi - Roman emperors who ruled over Yerushalayim; Tosfos - large, round coins) whose forms were blunted (perhaps the coins were from Yerushalayim (Tosfos - from the days of David and Shlomo), most of which are Hekdesh);
iv. They expounded that they are permitted - "V'Chileluha" (they removed the Kedushah from it and made it Chulin).

3. Answer: The coins had not been used to serve Hash-m; the Mizbe'ach had been, therefore it was not fitting for people to benefit from it.

(a) (Mishnah): A Nochri can Mevatel his idolatry or that of another Nochri; a Yisrael cannot Mevatel a Nochri's idolatry.
(b) If one is Mevatel a Nochri's idolatry, the Meshamshim are also Betelim; if one is Mevatel the Meshamshim, they are permitted, the idolatry is forbidden.
(c) Version #1 - (Gemara - Rebbi): A Nochri can Mevatel his idolatry or that of another Nochri.
(d) R. Shimon (his son): In your youth, you taught that a Nochri can Mevatel his idolatry or that of a Yisrael!

1. Question: No one can Mevatel idolatry of a Yisrael - "V'Sam ba'Saser"!
2. Answer (R. Hilel brei d'R. Vilas): The case is, the Nochri is a partner in the idolatry (he can Mevatel the Yisrael's share also).

(e) Question: What was Rebbi's reasoning in his youth, what was his reasoning in his old age?
(f) In his youth, he held that a Yisrael serves the joint idolatry according to the Nochri's will - when the Nochri is Mevatel it, also the Yisrael is Mevatel;

1. In his old age, he held that a Yisrael serves according to his own will, he is not Mevatel when the Nochri is Mevatel.

(g) Version #2 (Mishnah): A Yisrael cannot Mevatel a Nochri's idolatry.
(h) Objection: This is obvious!
(i) Answer (R. Hilel brei d'R. Vilas): The case is, the Yisrael is a partner in the idolatry;

1. (Indeed, it is obvious that the Yisrael cannot Mevatel at all -) the Chidush is the inference, even though the Nochri cannot Mevatel the Yisrael's share, he can Mevatel his own share.