Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 3:5 ירושלמי עבודה זרה ג׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: If Gentiles worship mountains and hills; these are permitted¹²⁵For agricultural use; the ground and what grows on it is not forbidden as long as it is connected to the ground. but what is on them is forbidden, as it is said¹²⁶Deut. 7:25. If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted., do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, their gods [are] on the mountains¹²⁷Deut. 12:2., the mountains are not their gods. Their gods [are] on the hills, the hills are not their gods. Then why is an Ashera¹²⁸A holy tree (Mishnah 11), which is connected to the ground and by the argument of Note 125 should be permitted as building material or fire wood. forbidden? Because it was held by human hand¹²⁹It was planted., and anything held by human hand is forbidden.
Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you. Any place where you find a high mountain, or an elevated hill, or a sprightly tree, know that there is idolatry¹⁶²Deut. 12:2 reads: You shall certainly destroy all the places where the peoples from whom you will inherit worshipped their gods, on high mountains, and hills, and under each sprightly tree. This explains clearly that not the place is forbidden but the idol and its temple to be found there..

HALAKHAH: “If Gentiles worship mountains,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: One verse says¹²⁶Deut. 7:25. If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted., do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. And one verse says¹³⁰Deut. 29:16., silver and gold which is with them. If on them why with them, and if with them why on them? Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them¹³¹Since the mountains themselves cannot become forbidden, only adornments made explicitly for pagan worship can be forbidden. Therefore also of the contents of a dwelling only idolatrous objects can be forbidden for all usufruct. Babli 51b., also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Anything which one introduced inside the lattice work¹³²The inner part of a temple, cf. Chapter 2:3, Note 219. he made forbidden; e. g., money pouches. Rebbi Yasa said, we had a note that (return) [this]¹³³The text of L (in parentheses) is clearly a scribal error; one has to follow the text of ג [in brackets]. of Rebbi Hoshaia disagreed with Rebbi Yannai, but it is not so; it supports it. Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them; this excludes money pouches¹³⁴This seemingly contradicts R. Yannai’s statement.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even water and salt. Salt to rub and water to rinse¹³⁵To polish the statues.. And this is “even”? But e. g., water and salt¹³⁶It is obvious that in general Gentiles’ water and salt are permitted. They become forbidden only by being introduced into the inner temple for idolatrous purposes. So also a Gentile’s wallet and his money are permitted. Only by being introduced into the inner temple the money becomes forbidden. The statement of R. Yannai is a necessary complement to that of R. Hoshaia and vice-versa. Babli 51b..

¹³⁷This paragraph is from Kilaim 7:4, Notes 46–48 (כ). An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and]¹³⁸Added from both parallel texts. The reference is to Mishnaiot Kilaim 7:4,5. If a person grows vegetables or grain in his vineyard, everything becomes forbidden for usufruct. But if he causes such a growth on another person’s land, R. Meïr holds that the crop is forbidden and the owner of the land has to sue the culprit for damages; R. Yose and R. Simeon hold on the authority of R. Aqiba that “nobody can sanctify anything which is not his.” In our case, anybody who worships an animal or an object which is his, made it forbidden for usufruct for himself and everybody else. But if the object was not his property, for R. Yose and R. Simeon it cannot become forbidden for anybody. Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose¹³⁹The fifth-generation Amora. in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living¹⁴⁰Any living animal which is worshipped is an animal and not an idol and cannot be forbidden. while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not)¹⁴¹This word is not in the parallel text; the context and the following paragraph make it clear that it is a scribal error. become forbidden for Heaven¹⁴²The comparison with Kilaim is misleading. The relevant Mishnah is Temurah 6:1 where it is stated that an animal used for idolatry (or bestiality) is unfit as sacrifice, irrespective of ownership. For sacrifices there is no dispute between R. Meïr and R. Yose. Babli Temurah28a..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even his fine flour becomes forbidden and another person’s is permitted¹⁴³While it is clear from our Mishnah that if anybody worships wild standing grain it will not be forbidden since it is connected to the ground (but if it was sown for idolatrous purposes then it is an Ashera.) It now is stated that cut and milled produce will only be forbidden if used illegitimately by its owner, not by any third person.. Is this following him who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden; did he say¹⁴⁴While this word is not in ג, it is better to retain it. that they do not disagree about something which is not alive and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya comes to tell you that the baraita refers to living things? If they disagree about something which is not alive; therefore a living thing is forbidden¹⁴⁵If R. Abun bar Ḥiyya disagrees with R. Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila. He should have mentioned an animal, not fine flour. For if R. Meïr and R. Yose disagree about plants then one must assume that R. Yose agrees with R. Meïr about animals.. Then something which is not alive should be forbidden a fortiori¹⁴⁶Since animals have a privileged status; R. Yose cannot agree with R. Meïr about their status.. This is that you should not say as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven¹⁴⁷R. Abun bar Ḥiyya disagrees with R. Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila in a matter of principle; he holds that worshipping something which is the private property of a third person without knowledge or acquiescence of that third person has no influence on the status of the property whether for profane or sacral purposes. Here ends the Genizah text.

If somebody worshipped an egg¹⁴⁸Babli 46a. The egg is a symbol of resurrection; cf. J. J. Bachofen, Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der Alten, Gesammelte Werke Bd. 4, Basel 1954. Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden¹⁴⁹For Ḥizqiah the egg is considered under the rules of animals; for R. Joḥanan only the chick would qualify, not the egg.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed¹⁵⁰These are egg shaped. While they are products of nature, they are no longer connected to the ground.. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny¹⁵¹Is.57:6.. The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden¹⁵¹Is.57:6.; ¹⁵²The remainder of the paragraph has no connection with the topic of the Halakhah and the preceding text; it also appears in Berakhot9:3 Notes 170–174, Taˋaniot 1:3 (64b 1.30); its source seems to be Gen. rabba 13(19) on Gen. 2:6. The different name traditions are noted in the Notes to Berakhot. as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments¹Prohibited for usufruct. For R. Meïr there are no statues made for artistic value alone.⁵²Greek πρόσωπον, τό “face”.. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness.

¹⁵⁴These two paragraphs are also in ‘Orlah 1:8, Notes 200–208, ע.The scribe of L wrote only the first and last few words and then: “one continues in Avodah zarah Chapter 3, Halakhah 6, ‘if Gentiles worship’, to the end.” The text was then added by the first corrector in a somewhat shoddy way, from a source different from the text here. The full text is in the Rome Zeraˋim ms. An egg of pagan worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Cahana and Ḥizqiah disagree. Cahana said, it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. There is a difficulty in the opinion of Ḥizqiah: how is it possible for an egg of pagan worship to become a chick? Where do we hold? If somebody squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden¹⁴⁹For Ḥizqiah the egg is considered under the rules of animals; for R. Joḥanan only the chick would qualify, not the egg.; because he brought it inside the grating it should be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used to tow¹⁵⁵This is the text here. In ‘Orlah: “he fenced in”, confirmed by the Rome text. This text can be understood since it mentions the walnut which was planted at the beginning of the first paragraph, not the second as in the text here. If a walnut tree was planted to close an opening in the lattice work, this certainly makes it forbidden as an Ashera. It is hard to see how to tow anything using an egg; the difference between the two texts is that between גרר and גרר. Neither of the two expressions makes much sense if applied to an egg. the idol.

If an ‘orlah walnut was planted¹⁵⁶The walnut was forbidden for all usufruct; the status of the tree is in doubt. or an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick¹⁵⁷It is property of the Temple and cannot be used without redemption. This case is not in dispute.. Rebbi Yasa said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted¹⁵⁸Everybody agrees that the new tree is not ‘orlah. According to Cahana the original prohibition has not disappeared, according to R. Joḥanan the situation is parallel to that of heave grain (restricted as food to pure Cohanim) which was used as seed grain; the crop needs only token redemption (Mishnah Terumot 9:4).. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, did not Rebbi [Joḥanan]¹⁵⁹From the text in ‘Orlah, missing here. say it is permitted, does he not redeem it as from the time it is sown¹⁶⁰This refers to the walnut. If the tree may be used, it never was ‘orlah; the redemption is symbolic and can be effected by a token payment.? There came Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now¹⁶¹It needs redemption for its full value; in the case of the ‘orlah tree the redemption money has to be destroyed.; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.

“Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you,” etc. We have stated אוֹבִין. Some are stating אוֹבִיל. He who says אוֹבִין “we understand.” But he who says אוֹבִיל “we bring.¹⁶³The hapax אוֹבִין is derived from the root בין “to understand”, אוֹבִיל is from the root יבל “to transport”. Both verbs are used in hifˋil.”

Rebbi Borqai stated before Rebbi Mana: This teaches that the Canaanites did not leave any mountain or hill where they did not worship. But do we not understand to say, anything alive, while not forbidden for a private person, is forbidden for Heaven¹⁶⁵If it was worshipped as pagan deity, Note 142.? How could the Temple have been built¹⁶⁶While a mountaintop is perfectly good for agricultural use, it should be forbidden as a place for the Temple. Therefore the place could not have been selected by humans. It is not a mountain top.? By the order of a prophet; David went up following the word of Gad which he had said by the Hand of the Eternal¹⁶⁷1Chr. 21:19, slightly misquoted..