Horayot 3 – Only Jews in Israel Count for Majority

The previous rule that one is not liable if he followed the erroneous decision of the court is the minority opinion; the prevailing opinion is that one IS liable in such case. However, if the majority of Jews acted on a court's error – who ruled, for example, that a certain action is not idol worship when in reality it is – then each individual is not liable, and instead the court brings the sacrifice for the mistake they had made. The majority in this case is determined only among the Jews living in Israel.

What if the court mistakenly ruled that a certain prohibited fat (destined for the Altar) is permitted, and then a minority of Israel acted upon that, then the court retracted their mistake, and afterwards again mistakenly ruled that this fat was allowed, and now a different minority acted upon it – do they combine into a majority? This and other similar inquiries remain unresolved.

Ignacy Aleksander Gierymski - Feast of Trumpets (Slichot)

Horayot 2 – Court Makes a Mistake

If the court ruled to transgress one of the commandments written in the Torah - for example, they decided that a certain type of blood is allowed to be eaten, and an individual did it, relying on their words – he is free from liability. Whether he ate the blood together with them at a meal, or after observing them, or even if they just ruled it permitted, but did not do it themselves, since he relied on their words, it is not his fault.

However, if he was one of the Sages of the court, or even one of the students who was worthy to be on the court, and he knew that they erred, but he nevertheless followed their ruling, he is liable to bring a sin offering. If he knew that they erred, then why did he do it? Because he mistakenly thought that the mitzvah to follow the words of the Sages applies even in this case.

Art: Thomas Satterwhite Noble - The Price of Blood

Avodah Zarah 76 – Purifying a Knife

To purify a non-kosher knife, one wipes it, and it is clean. Rav Ukva bar Chama explained this to mean that he sticks the knife into the ground ten times. In addition, the ground has to be hard and not ploughed, and the knife – smooth, without dents. This only suffices to purify the knife to be used with cold foods.

Mar Yehudah and Bati bar Tuvi were sitting at a meal with the Persian king Shapoor. They brought an etrog to the king. The king sliced a piece and ate it. Then he sliced a piece and handed it to Bati. Then he stood up and stuck the knife into the ground ten times, cut a piece, and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati took offence and said, “And this person (meaning himself), is he not a Jew?” The king answered, “I know about Mar Yehudah that he is observant, but I don't know this about you.”

In another version the king said, “Remember what you did last night?” It was a custom to send the guest a woman, and Mar Yehudah did not accept his gift, but Bati did. In truth, Bati was a half-slave, and he was allowed to have relations with that woman who was non-Jewish, but the king did not know that.

End of Mesechet Avodah Zarah

Art: Kamal-Al-Molk - Persian Musicians

Avodah Zarah 75 – Purifying Winepress and Vessels

A stone winepress was usually covered with hot pitch, but to counteract the effect of fumes, wine was added to the pitch. Therefore, an idol worshipper's winepress could not be used by a Jew, but first had to be “dried.” Drying meant purifying it with water and ashes. If the winepress was made of wood, which required more pitch, then Rabbi Yehudah the Prince still says that all that is necessary is that it be “dried,” but the Sages require removing the pitch. If it was made of earthenware, then even if he removed the pitch, it is still prohibited, because earthenware walls absorb more wine.

If one buys food utensils from idol worshippers, then the utensils that are used only with cold food require only an immersion in the mikveh. Those that are used with hot liquids are purified in hot water. Those that are used with fire without liquid are purged in a flame. The spit and grill are purged in a flame.

Art: Felix Edouard Vallotto - Still Life with Large Earthenware Jug

Avodah Zarah 74 – Dry Mixtures

The laws of dry mixtures are different from those of liquids. When prohibited substances are mixed with permitted ones of the same kind, for example, prohibited grapes with permitted ones, the prohibited substance becomes nullified in a simple majority, one part in two. When it is mixed with permitted substances of a different kind, for example, grapes and olives, it is nullified in the ratio of one-to-sixty.

Following is a list of exceptions to the above rule: a sealed barrel of libation wine mixed even with a thousand barrels of kosher wine, an idol, an ox condemned to be stoned, red heifer, birds offered by a person cured from tzaraat, hair of a nazir, firstborn male donkey, a piece of meat cooked with milk, Yom Kippur goat sent to Azazel, and unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard. All these, mixed with any amount of similar items, make the whole group prohibited.

Art: Albrecht Durer - Self-Portrait at 26

Avodah Zarah 73 - Lenient Opinions About Wine

Libation wine is prohibited for benefit. Some say that the same prohibition applies to today's regular wines, but others maintain that nowadays, since idolatrous libations have fallen into disuse, the ordinary wine of non-Jews is prohibited only for drinking but not for benefit.

A minute quantity of libation wine mixed with kosher wine makes the mixture forbidden for benefit. Again, some say that today this stringency does not apply, and kosher wine is permitted unless the new wine imparts its own flavor to the mixture.

Rabbi Yochanan said that if one pours libation wine, even all day, from a small pitcher into a cistern of kosher wine, each successive drop of libation wine is nullified, and the wine in the cistern is permitted. Not only that, but each nullified drop is now viewed as kosher wine and it turn nullifies subsequent drops of libation wine.

Earlier we learned that any amount of prohibited substance, mixed with its own kind, for example, wine into wine, prohibits the kosher substance. Some say, however, that this stringent rule is true only for libation wine, but for all other substances it is nullified if it is less than one-sixtieth.

Art: Edouard Manet - Boy with a Pitcher 1862

Avodah Zarah 72 - Pouring the Wine

If a Jew took a funnel and measured wine into an idol worshipper's flask, and then took the funnel and measured wine into a Jew's flask, then the rule is as follows: if at the bottom of the funnel there is a small wine retainer, that is, if the bottom of the funnel has a protruding lip which retains a drop of the wine poured through in its previous use, then the wine that was poured through the funnel in the Jew's flask is prohibited.

Those who consider a stream connecting two vessels as an actual connection, transmitting the prohibition, explain that the bottom of the idolater's flask contained minute amounts of libation wine. Through the stream connection, the wine in the funnel also become prohibited, and through it – the next wine that was poured. Those who say that the stream is not a significant connection, explain that the funnel was touching the wine on the bottom.

If an idolater pours wine from a bottle into a cup, the wine in the cup is prohibited, but the wine remaining in the bottle is permitted.

Art: Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida - Elderly Castellano Pouring Wine

Avodah Zarah 71 – Soldiers in the City

If a troop of soldiers entered a city and came into a Jews house, then the status of the wine is determined as follows: if this occurred during peacetime, then any open barrels found there are prohibited, while sealed ones are permitted. The opened barrels are prohibited because of their possible contact with the marauding soldiers. The sealed barrels, though, are permitted, because the soldiers, being afraid of no one, would not bother resealing the barrels they had broken into. If this occurred during wartime, then both open and sealed barrels are permitted, because the soldiers do not have time to make libations to idols.

Jewish workers, whom their idolatrous employer wants to pay with libation wine, can tell him, “Give us money instead.” However, once the wine entered their possession, they are forbidden to derive benefit from it.

If a Jew sells his wine to an idol worshipper, then if he set the price before the idol worshipper measured the wine, its purchase money is permitted; but if the idol worshipper measured before setting the price, the wine has become libation wine, and its purchase money is prohibited for benefit.

Art: Willem Cornelisz. Duyster - Soldiers beside a Fireplace

Avodah Zarah 70 – Alibi for Entering a Wine Cellar

If an idolatrous harlot is having a meal with Jews, Jewish wine at the table is permitted, because they are interested in her, but not in making a libation of wine. On the other hand, if a Jewish harlot is having a meal with idol worshippers, her wine is prohibited, because she will not protest if they pour her wine as libation.

If an idolater is found standing among the barrels of Jewish wine, then Rava's rule applies: if the idolater has a way to evade a charge of burglary – the wine is forbidden, and if not, the wine is permitted. If an idolater has an alibi to explain why he was found there, he will have the desire and the presence of mind to make a libation. Even if the alibi is not perfect, as long as it saves him from being prosecuted for burglary – this is enough, and he will be willing to take the risk that someone may discover him while touching the wine. Without an alibi, he will be too nervous to make a libation, and we presume that he entered for a different purpose. The Talmud gives twelve cases explaining this rule.

Art: Gabriel Metsu - Portrait of the Artist with His Wife Isabella de Wolff in a Tavern

Avodah Zarah 69 – The Saga of Mouse Continued

Assuming that the flavor that a mouse gives to beer is beneficial, what is the law if it falls into vinegar? There was such a case in Rav Kahana's household, and he prohibited it. Do we see from here that the mouse indeed gives a beneficial flavor, and that's why he prohibited it? – No, but in that case small pieces of the mouse remained in vinegar, and since one gets lashes for eating a smaller piece of a mouse than other non-kosher foods, he prohibited it for this reason.

If an idol worshipper was helping a Jew to transport jugs of wine and the Jew had to leave for some time, then the status of the wine depends on what did the Jew say. If he traveled up to a mile but did not inform the idol worshipper, then the wine is permitted. If, however, he told that he would be going far enough for the idol worshipper to bore a hole, patch it with clay, and for clay to have dried up, the wine is forbidden. Similar guidelines apply to an idol worshipper left on a boat, in a store, or at the table. Note that the final law does not agree with this level of suspicion.

Art: Frederick Childe Hassam - Carriage on Rue Bonaparte

Avodah Zarah 68 – Mouse That Fell Into Beer

There was a case when a mouse fell into beer. It stayed there soaking for more than 24 hours, and was therefore considered as if cooked, imparting flavor to the beer. Rav ruled it forbidden.

The student related this to Rav Sheshet and told him that Rav must consider forbidden flavor that ruins the taste as forbidden. “Nor necessarily,” - told them Rav Sheshet. In general, Rav may consider such food permitted. Only here, since people are generally disgusted by mice, the Torah, by prohibiting mice, told us to avoid even its flavor. The students told him that they don't see this logic in such cases as semen, and furthermore, Rav Shimi said that in some places they go on the tables of kings.

Therefore, Rava concluded that when a forbidden flavor ruins the taste, the dish remains kosher. Here, however, he was not sure why Rav prohibited the beer. It could be that Rav held that bad flavor made it non-kosher, and then the law would not agree with Rav. It could also be that Rav considered the flavor of mouse improving the beer, and in this case the law about prohibited flavor would agree with him.

Art: Willem Van Aelst - Still-Life with Mouse and Candle

Avodah Zarah 67 – Forbidden Flavor that Ruins the Dish

Whenever a forbidden substance gets mixed into a kosher dish and it improves the taste of the dish, the result is prohibited; however, when it has an adverse effect on the permitted food, the dish is permitted. The forbidden substance should not be found in large quantities, so that by eating his meal within a short time (about 2-3 minutes), one does not ingest more than an olive volume of the forbidden food. Also, if the prohibited food, when added to a cold dish, improves it, and adds the bad taste only after cooking, the permit does not apply.

A forbidden food that is absorbed into the walls of a cooking utensil becomes slightly rancid after a day. Since it adds bad flavor to anything cooked in this utensil, it follows that kosher food cooked in it does not become prohibited – this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir, however, says that even when the forbidden flavor is detrimental, it still prohibits the dish.

Art: Cornelis Jacobsz Delff - Still Life with Kitchen Utensils

Avodah Zarah 66 – What Makes a Mixture Prohibited

If fermented libation wine is mixed with grapes, all agree that since their tastes are distinct, the libation wine makes the grapes forbidden only if one can feel its taste.

If new wine - grape juice within the first thirty days – is mixed with grapes, Abaye says that any amount of wine makes it forbidden, because they have the same taste, and when two foods have the same taste, any amount of forbidden substance makes the mixture forbidden. Rava, however, says that we consider the names, and grapes and wine have different names. Therefore, we consider the two foods different in nature, and if there are 60 times less wine than grapes, the mixture is permitted.

Conversely, if wine vinegar and beer vinegar become mixed, Abaye says that we follow the taste, and since the two tastes are different, the forbidden one is nullified if there is 60 times more of permitted one. Rava still considers the name, and since both are called vinegar, any amount of forbidden vinegar makes the mixture forbidden.

Art: Edward Ladell - A Still Life of Black Grapes, a Peach, a Plum, Hazelnuts, a Metal Casket and a Wine Glass on a Carved Wooden Ledge

Avodah Zarah 65 – When Libation Wine Spills

If libation wine fell onto grapes, one can rinse them off with water, and they are permissible; however, if the grapes were cracked, they are forbidden – because the wine which falls on the grapes will seep through the cracks into the grapes themselves, and cannot be removed by rinsing.

If the wine falls onto figs or dates and there is enough of it to impart flavor, they are forbidden. In this case, the two substances have different tastes, and one can empirically ascertain whether the forbidden flavor is present. When the two substances taste the same, the permissible ratio is 1/60.

It once happened to Boethus ben Zunan that he brought dried figs onto a ship. A barrel of libation wine spilled onto them, and he asked the Sages, and they permitted the dried figs. That story does not contradict the rule above, because it is different in this: even though the taste of wine was detectable in the dried figs, it did not improve the taste but rather made it worse, and prohibited flavor that is to the detriment of the taste does not forbid the food.

Art: Luis Egidio Menendez or Melendez - Still Life With Figs 1746

Avodah Zarah 64 – Can One be Paid to Destroy Libation Wine?

They asked a question, “If an idol worshipper hires a Jewish worker to break barrels filled with libation wine, what is the law regarding his wage?” Do we say that since the worker temporarily desires the continued existence of the wine – so that he can be paid for destroying it - his wage is prohibited for benefit? Or perhaps, any action to destroy futility (idolatry) is permissible, and certainly the wage is permissible?

Said Rav Nachman, “Let him break the barrels and may a blessing come upon him!”

Can we support Rav Nachman from the ruling about mixed seeds: one is not allowed to weed the forbidden seed mixture, because he helps it grow. Rabbi Akiba makes one liable even for passively keeping the mixture. However, one is a allowed to accept a contract to uproot them. Now, this is parallel to the wine case, since for a time the worker wants the seeds to exist - until he uproots them - and it is allowed! This indeed supports Rav Nachman.

Art: Giovanni Fattori - The red barrels

Avodah Zarah 63 – Learning Shemittah Laws from Harlot's Payment

The prohibition of libation wine is extended to payments received for working with it. In a related incident, the members of the household of Rabbi Yannai borrowed shemittah produce from the poor and repaid them with ordinary produce in the eighth year. They did this to benefit the poor, for it allowed the poor to trade their soon-to-be-unusable shemittah produce and receive usable eighth-year produce in return - since the original produce was no longer extant when the loan was repaid. Thus, unlike the wine case, the connection between produce and payment was broken.

They asked Rabbi Yochanan is this was done correctly, and he proved that it was, from the laws of a harlot's payment. The rule is that if one gave the harlot an animal in payment and afterward cohabited with her, or if he cohabited with her, and afterward gave her an animal in payment, her payment is permitted, and she can bring it on the Altar. Why? Because at the time she acquires the animal, the cohabitation is no longer extant – and the case of shemittah produce is the same.

Art: Camille Pissarro - Peasant Woman with a Goat

Avodah Zarah 62 – Loophole for Working with Libation Wine

If an idol worshipper hires a Jewish worker to do work for him in handling libation wine, either to pour it into barrels or to transport the barrels, the worker’s wage is prohibited for benefit. However, if he hired the worker to do other work for him, then even if he said to him, “Transport this barrel of libation wine from one place to another,” the worker’s wage is permitted.

If an idol worshipper hires a Jew’s donkey to transport libation wine on it, the rental fee is prohibited for benefit. However, if he hired the donkey to ride on, then even if the idol worshipper later placed his flask of wine on it, the fee is permitted.

Both laws are a stringency that the Sages enacted against continued existence of idol worship.

Art: Edward Robert Smythe - Donkeys in a Glade

Avodah Zarah 61 – Contract to Make Kosher Wine

Consider the following: a Jew contracts with an idolater to press the idolater's grapes into kosher wine and sell it to Jews, with the understanding that he would pay the idolater for his grapes only after selling the wine. Until then, he stores it in the idolater’s premises. To make sure that the idolater does not make a libation of this wine, the Jew stores it in a storage room open into the public domain, so that anyone inside can be observed. This helps if the town is inhabited by both Jews and idolaters, and a Jew is likely to look inside at any time. Otherwise, the Jew must appoint a guardian. The guardian does not need to be there at all time, but can go out and come in intermittently.

Furthermore, the idolater must write a receipt stating, “I have received money from you as a payment for the produce,” so that the wine is in full control of the Jew and he can remove it any time that he wants. The obligation is thus converted to a regular loan, and there is no lien on the wine. With this, the wine is permitted.

Art: Gustav Vermehren - Farmhouse Interior with an Open Door

Avodah Zarah 60 – Idolater Who Fell Into Wine

If an idolater was found standing beside a Jew's wine cistern, then he may have touched the wine. On the other hand, he knows that by touching the wine he will ruin it for the Jew and may have to pay. Therefore, normally it can be assumed that he did not touch the wine, out of fear of being discovered. However, if he has a loan for that wine against the Jew, he can always justify his touching it, and in that case the wine is prohibited for benefit, because of this possibility.

If an idolater fell into a wine cistern and ascended from it, or he measured it with the reed, or he flicked a hornet out of it with a reed – all of these cases actually happened, and the Sages allowed the wine to be sold to idolaters. Rabbi Shimon permits this wine even for drinking, because it will not lead to socializing.

If an idolater took a cask and in a fit of anger threw it into a cistern, the wine is permitted even for consumption.

Art: Ferdinand Hodler - The Angry One

Avodah Zarah 59 – Transporting the Grapes

They asked Rav Kahana, may an idol worshipper transport grapes to the winepress?

We have previously learned that the juice of grapes cannot be prohibited until they are crushed in the treading basin and the wine begins to flow there. The intent of the question was only if there was some additional restriction by the Sages regarding this.

Rav Kahana answered that it was indeed prohibited if the carrier also emptied the baskets into the vat, based on the maxim of “Go away! Go away!” we say to a Nazir. In other words, stay far from forbidden items. They asked them, “But we learned that if he did it, the wine is allowed?!” He answered, “I only meant that it should not be done in the first place, but if he did it – the wine is permitted.”

If an idolater purposely touched the wine, with the intent to make it prohibited for the Jew, then, even though ordinarily one cannot sell this wine anymore, it is permitted to accept the money from the person who touched it – because he is not buying the wine but rather compensating for the damage he has caused.

Art: Heinrich Wilhelm Truebner - With wine from Rome

Avodah Zarah 58 – Two Contradictory Rulings about Wine, Both Correct

Rabbi Yochanan ben Arza and Rabbi Yose ben Nehorai were sitting and drinking wine. A waiter, whom they took to be a Jew, came by, and they asked him to pour them a drink. After he poured the wine into theirs cups, it transpired that he was an idol worshipper. One of the Rabbis ruled the wine prohibited even for benefit, while the other one ruled it permitted even for drinking.

Said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, “The one who prohibited did well, and the one who permitted also did well.”

The one who prohibited reasoned as follows: the idolater thought, “Is it conceivable that such distinguished Rabbis such as these would drink beer? - No! It must be wine!” - and having ascertained this, he intended to make a libation for his idol.

The one who permitted reasoned as follows: the idolater thought, “It is conceivable that such distinguished Rabbis would be drinking wine and ask me, an idolater, to pour wine for them? - No! It must be beer!” Since he knew that it was wine, he did not make a libation.

Art: Friedrich Friedlander - The Wine Tasting or A Good Vintage

Avodah Zarah 57 – Postponed Ruling about Wine

There was an incident in Nahardea in which a Jew and an idolater trod together wine belonging to a Jew. The hands of the idolater did not touch the wine, but his feet obviously did, and Shmuel postponed his ruling on the case until three festivals have passed. Why? It was customary for scholars to assemble at the academy on Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot, and Shmuel waited to find a scholar who would know of a ruling that supported the decision he wanted to render. What could his decision have been?

There were three opinions on the matter, as follows: if an idol worshipper inserted his hand or foot to measure the wine, obviously not to make a libation, the majority says that it is prohibited for consumption but can be sold; Rabbi Nathan forbids if for benefit if it was touched by hand, but not by foot; Rabbi Shimon allows it for consumption.

If Shmuel wanted to rule as majority, he did not need any support. He could not rule it forbidden like Rabbi Nathan – because Rabbi Nathan never forbade it when touched by foot. It must therefore be that Shmuel wanted to rule it allowed for consumption like Rabbi Shimon, but needed additional support for this minority opinion.

Art: John Rogers Herbert - "The Wine That Maketh Glad The Heart Of Man" Psalm 104

Avodah Zarah 56 – Earlier and Later Rulings

Sometimes the Sages of the time of the Mishnah (initial rulings issued before the time of the Talmud) changed their opinion, and such is the case here. Later rulings were stricter with the wine and more lenient with ritual purity. Thus, now the grape juice was forbidden immediately once it began to flow freely out of the grapes, but on the other hand one was allowed to harvest grapes together with an idolater, and there was no concern that the grapes would later become impure.

However, this leniency applied only to an idolater, because for him there was no requirement of tithes. A Jew was supposed to keep his grapes pure, since later he had to give a portion to a Kohen. Consequently, one was not allowed to harvest grapes together with a Jew if that Jew was going to make them impure – because one should not help people who transgress.

Art: Edwin Deakin - Grapes

Avodah Zarah 55 – When do Grapes turn into Wine

Wine used in idol worship – wine of libations – is prohibited by the Torah. The Sages have additionally decreed that ordinary wine of idolaters is also forbidden to Jews for all benefit. Furthermore, they decreed that even a Jew's wine becomes prohibited if an idolater touches it.

Grape juice is in the same category as wine. It does not need to ferment in order to attain the “wine” classification, rather, it needs to have been processed to a point where it can be considered a “finished” product.

One may buy the contents of a trodden winepress from an idol worshipper, even though the idol worshipper takes crushed grapes from the juice with his hand an places then on the mound. That is the because the liquid is not considered “prohibited wine” until it descends into the cistern. One may work together with the idolater treading the grapes, and it is not considered deriving benefit from forbidden one. However, because it was not allowed to increase ritual impurity in Israel, one was not allowed to harvest the grapes together with an idolater.

Art: Pierre Auguste Renoir - Grape Harvesters

Avodah Zarah 54 – Why God Did Not Destroy Idols

If idol worshippers abandoned their idol, and it occurred in a time of peace, the idol is permitted, for leaving the idol on their own free will is a sure sign that they nullified it. If, however, they abandoned it in a time of war, it is still prohibited, since they may have left it as a result of confusion.

Philosophers asked the Jewish Sages in Rome, “If God is not favorably disposed toward an idol, why does He not simply get rid of it?” The Sages answers, “If people worshipped something that the world does not need, God would indeed get rid if it. But behold, they worship the sun, the moon, the stars – should God destroy the world because of fools?”

The philosophers then said, “If so, let Him destroy every idolatrous object that is not necessary for the world.” The Sages answered, “Then an argument could be made that we are encouraging the worshippers of the sun, moon, etc., for these worshippers will say that theirs' are the true deities, for they were not destroyed while other forms of idolatry have.”

Art: Winslow Homer - Moonlight

Avodah Zarah 53 – Idol Nullification

A non-Jewish idol worshipper can nullify his own idol and that of his fellow. He needs to be an adult and of sound mind. A Jew cannot nullify the idol of a non-Jewish idol-worshipper. If a Jew comes into actual possession of an idol, it cannot be nullified but has to be hidden. That law is from the Torah, derived from the phrase “And place it in secret.”  However, the Sages have additionally prohibited any idol nullification by a Jew, since he might accidentally pick up it, thus acquiring it, and then his nullification would be invalid.

How does an idol-worshipper nullify an idol? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of finger, or flattened its face – he has nullified it. But if he spit before it, or urinated before it, or dragged it through the mud, or threw excrement at it – the idol is not nullified. If he sold it or gave it as a pledge for a loan, Rabbi Yehudah the Prince says that his nullification is effective, but the Sages say that it is not.

Art: John William Waterhouse - The Household Gods 1880

Avodah Zarah 52 – A Bath with an Idol

If a bath was built for or dedicated to an idol, it does not enhance the beauty of the idol, nor does the idol enhance the bath. Rather, the profits from the bath go to support the priest of the idol. Can one benefit from the bath which is the property of the idol? Since idol cannot own property, the rule is that “there is no consecration of property to an idol,” and the bath is allowed to be used. However, one is not allowed to pay the priest, since his payment goes to their support. Some opine that one is allowed to pay but not to express gratitude to the priests – so that one does not come to be influenced by them.

An idol of a non-Jewish idol worshipper becomes prohibited immediately after he forms it, but that of Jewish idol worshipper – only after it is worshipped. However, Rabbi Ishmael gets an opposite result from the phrase, “You shall destroy the places where the nations worshipped their gods,” - which according to him means that they becomes gods only after being worshipped.

Art: Hubert Robert - Ancient Ruins Used as Public Baths

Avodah Zarah 51 – Accoutrement of an Idol

If an idol is ordinarily worshipped by shaking a rod before it, then if one broke a rod before it, he is liable (to death penalty), but if he threw a stick at it – he is not. Breaking the rod is similar to slaughtering a sacrifice. Even though throwing a stick is similar to another Temple service – throwing of the blood on the Altar – it is not close enough.

If on top of Markulis one found coins, a garment or utensils – they are permitted, as long as they are placed in such as manner that they cannot be considered adornments. Real adornments would be prohibited, unless nullified by an idolater. However, if he found vines bearing clusters of grapes, wreaths of grain, or glass jars with wines, oils and fine flours – or anything the likes of which was brought on the Temple Altar – it is prohibited to use, because they are presumed to be offerings to the idol.

Art: Jacob Fopsen van Es - Grapes with half a walnut

Avodah Zarah 50 – The Worship of Mercury (Hermes)

Markulis was the name given to Mercury, and it meant “the one whose name was changed to scorn.” This deity was depicted by the figure of a man with an upraised arm, and placed at a crossroads to direct travelers. Often, it was symbolized by a heap of stones – minimally, one stone perched on top of two, crudely representing head and two arms. Passing idolaters would worship this idol by tossing stones at the heap. These additional stones were forbidden for benefit, either because they were offerings to the Markulis, or because they were an enlargement of the original Markulis.

What is the law in regard to the stones found in the vicinity of, but unattached to, a Markulis? Rabbi Yishmael says that three stones found one next to another are forbidden - because they represent a miniature Markulis – but two are permitted. The Sages, however, say that the idol worshippers do not make miniature Markulis, rather, those stones that appear to be with it are forbidden, others are permitted.

Art: Richard Tongue - A Rocking Stone on a Coastal Cliff

Avodah Zarah 49 - Mixture of Forbidden and Permitted Causes is Permitted

One should not sit in the shadow of a tree that was worshipped, but if he did sit in the shadow, though not under the tree itself, he is still pure. If he sat directly under branches or foliage - he is ritually impure, because he was under "the same roof" with offerings to an idol.

One may plant vegetables under a worshipped tree in the winter, when shade is harmful to them, but not in the summer. Rabbi Yose forbids it even in winter, because the leaves becomes fertilizer for the vegetables. But the exact opposite should be true! Rabbi Yose considers the combination of two causes - forbidden leaves of the worshipped tree and permitted other fertilizers - permitted! Rabbi Yose is only answering the Sages. According to him it is indeed permitted, but he is saying that the Sages should forbid it! And the Sages? The don't prohibit it because the shade is detrimental anyway.

The branches of the worshipped tree are forbidden for benefit. It he fired a new oven with them, it must be broken. If he baked bread with them, that bread is forbidden. If forbidden bread mixed with other permitted bread, then Rabbi Eliezer says that he may take the monetary value of the benefit to the Dead Sea, and everything becomes permitted.

Art: Camille Pissarro - Old Peasant with Cabbage - c1890

Avodah Zarah 48 – Houses of Idol Worship

If one's house adjoined a building of idol worship and their common wall collapsed, it is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws four steps into his property and builds the wall there, but to prevent the idol from benefit, he uses his area as a toilet or plants it with thorn-bushes.

There are three categories of idolatrous houses. A house that was built for use as an idol is prohibited. If a house was plastered and decorated for idol worship – one removes the additions, and the house is permitted. If an idol was brought into a house and then removed – the house is permitted.

Similar laws apply to stones and trees that were worshipped. However, a tree under which there is an idol is a subject of disagreement between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages. The Sages forbid it, but Rabbi Shimon allows it if the worship can be attributed to the idol underneath. It once happened in Sidon that Rabbi Shimon told to his followers to examine the heap under a worshiped tree. They found an image there, and he permitted the tree.

Art: T. Caffi - The Ruined Temple of Saturn in The Roman Forum

Avodah Zarah 47 – New Items of Worship

If one bows down to standing wheat and then grinds it into flour, can it be used for Temple offerings? Does the change in the worshipped object remove the prohibited status? Can we derive the answer from a well-known law that for all animals that were prohibited to be offered on the Altar, such if they were worshipped or sodomized, their offspring are permitted to be offered? - No, we cannot derive the answer from here, for perhaps this latter law only applies when they were first sodomized, and then became pregnant, so it is not the same situation of change.

If one bows down to a palm tree, can its branches be used for the mitzvah of Lulav on Succot? Is the mitzvah requirement much less stringent than the Temple?

If one bows down to a sheep, can its wool be used for the mitzvah of blue wool in tzitzit?

If one bows down to a spring, can its water be still used for libations on the Alter on Succot? Is he worshipping his own reflection, the water that is now in front of him, or the current itself?

All these questions remain unanswered.

Art: Winslow Homer - Palm Tree, Nassau