Jerusalem Talmud in English

1MISHNAH: If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship and collapsed, it is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He restricts himself to his property and builds. If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half Its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal. 11: 29–38 , it makes impure by touch. This applies also to the stones which remain his property. , as it is said. 7:26 . In Lev . 11:40–41 , all crawling things which are forbidden as food are called abomination , including those which make impure by touch. , you shall treat it as an abomination . Rebbi Aqiba says like a menstruating woman as it is said. 30:22 . In Lev . 12:2 menstruation is called “the separation of her feeling miserable”. , you shall throw it away like feeling miserable; you will call it excrement . Since the menstruating makes impure by load. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol. , also idolatry makes impure by load.

2HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. ( ש ). Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations . 18:29 . The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature. . About vermin, do not eat any abomination . 14: 2 . The verse refers to all food prohibitions. . About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house . 7:26 . This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry. . But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol. , also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone 69b . , does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rav Jehudah. On one hand, the tradent in Šabbat is mentioned as R. Zeriqan, the Yerushalmi form, not the Babli form Zeriqa as here; but this is to be explained by the babylonized spelling of the text of the present Tractate. On the other hand, the tradent in the Babli ( Šabbat 82b) is R. Eleazar, a known student of R. Ḥanina. , but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity 1:8 . This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead . 106:28 . . As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity 1:8 . This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip. , could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down , tearing down one infers from the leprous house. 14:45 ). Pagan altars must be torn down ( Deut . 12:3 ). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similiar, not exactly identical. . Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body. 14:46 , which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8 . , so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina: Ḥanania. The latter attribution is correct since he must have been a contemporary of R. Mana (II). said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185. . This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size 6:1 Note 64 ). , as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god . 8:33 . Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus. .

3What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? You should treat it as an abomination . 7:26 . , like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? You should detest it , like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rebbi Aqiba’s reason, you should treat it as abomination ? Treat it as excrement, make it vile? Detest it, make it vile. Babli 46a , Mekhilta dR . Ismael Mišpatim 20 (p. 332 ed. Horovitz-Rabin). . What means “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: you shall call it excrement . What is called God’s. Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup is called Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune is called the Place of Undress. Rebbi Tanḥuma (asked) [in the name of] is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets]. Rebbi Huna: It is written. 7:2 . , The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel . Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen, Tübingen 1938, identifies Bet-Awen as the old name of “The Ai (ruin)”; cf. Arabic اون “calm, tranquillity”.) . It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since the flow of urine is called ‘amida (and Yalqut Jos . ad 7:2). It is intelligible in Gen . rabba 39(24), on Gen . 12:8 , the first mention of The Ai in the Bible, following the interpretation of J. Levy: ויעתק משם ההרה מקדם לבית אל. לשעבר היתה נקראת בית אל ועכשיו היא נקראת בית און. א״ר אלעזר לא זכתה להקראת בית העמל הרי היא הקראת בית העמד. תמן קריין לפועלא טבא עמילה ולהרהון של מימי רגלים עמידה. He transferred from there to the mountain, East of Bethel . In the past it was called Bethel but now it is called Bet Awen. Rebbi Eleazar said, it did not merit to be called the House of Work but it is called the House of Baptism. There, they are calling a good worker عَمِل but the chamber pot ἀμίδα. . How (do the rabbis) [does Rebbi Aqiba] is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets]. interpret you shall call it excrement ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Josef: from (where) [here] is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets]. that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body.

4to the extent as to become unintelligible without recourse to that text. There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals 83a. . The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances. 30:22 (quoted in Šabbat ) which is the base of R. Aqiba’s argument reads: You will defile the cover of your silver statues and the clothing of your golden casts; you shall throw it away like feeling miserable , you shall call it excrement . Therefore the reference of “feeling miserable” which is the description of a female period refers to appurtenances only. The second version of the position of R. Aqiba seems untenable. ? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod is better: R. Jacob said (as an alternative explanation) that the statue and its ornamental vest were two separate objects of worship. Either explanation is possible. . Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal. also on the stones which form the shell of the house of worship but are not the object of worship. ” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden shows that the sentence has to be split in two. First it is stated that the house will be strictly impure if it was worshipped. Then a question is missing, quoting the following Mishnah 9: Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated? On this Rav says that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b , Meˋilah 20a . . Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden one reads: “R. Zeˋura, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan, if one dedicates his house one commits larceny with it.” The reading here is confirmed by Halakhah 9. One compares the rules concerning a pagan temple with those of a house dedicated to the Temple ( Lev . 27:14–15 ). Improper use of dedicated things is larceny which must be expiated by a sacrifice and payment of a fine, ( Lev . 5:14–16 ). Just as real estate cannot become forbidden by idolatry, larceny by improper use of dedicated objects does not apply to real estate. If a house is considered real estate, it cannot become forbidden by worship, and its improper use while in the possession of the Temple cannot trigger a fine for larceny. If it is not considered real estate since the building materials were movables before being used, it can become forbidden and improper use can trigger the fine. ? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh . If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh . 5:7 . The ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify a person from the impurity of the dead, must be strewn on “flowing water in a vessel” ( Num . 19:17 ). A vessel is movable; therefore a trough hewn into the rock is not a vessel. The water flowing from the source into the trough becomes standing water. Therefore it may be used neither (1) to fill a vessel for the ashes, nor (2) to put some ashes in the water, “to sanctify it”, nor (3) to sprinkle the water on impure persons to purify them. In addition, a corpse in a “tent” makes everything in the tent impure including the contents of vessels whose cover is not tightly fastened ( Num . 19:15 ). Since the trough is no vessel, if it is under one roof with a corpse it only needs to be covered but the cover does not have to be fastened. A miqweh (ritual bath) has to contain 40 seah of water. It becomes invalid if 3 log (⅛ seah ) of water from a vessel is poured into it. If the trough is not a vessel, its water cannot invalidate the miqweh . On the other hand, if the trough was a vessel before it was fastened in the rock, it can be used for the ashes of the red cow, and its water will disqualify the miqweh . Since a house was not a vessel before being connected to the ground, it should be considered real estate and not be subject to prohibition because of worship. ” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this 20a . not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it (Mishnah 11) but where no idol is found buried under it. Then as connected to the ground it should not be part of the real estate and not be forbidden. It becomes permanently forbidden only if it was planted as a holy shoot. .

5Levi said, one who worships a house makes it forbidden shows that the sentence has to be split in two. First it is stated that the house will be strictly impure if it was worshipped. Then a question is missing, quoting the following Mishnah 9: Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated? On this Rav says that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b , Meˋilah 20a . , a cave he does not make forbidden. What is between a house and a cave? Rebbi Ḥanina hen Rebbi Hillel said, a house was separated at some time; a cave never was separated.

6. Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah about a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father. Why does he not explain it when idol worship came and built next to him? It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted. But for a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father, it is forbidden. It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted. But if he came and built next to idol worship the entire house is for idol worship. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half.”

1MISHNAH: There are three houses. A house which one built originally for idolatry is forbidden. If he whitewashed it or ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he introduced there an idol and removed it, it is permitted.

2HALAKHAH: “There are three houses,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, the Mishnah treats their entry into the Land. 7:5 is an unconditional commandment to destroy all pagan altars and Temples in existence at the time of the conquest. This agrees with the statement that the house in the first case is absolutely and irrevocably forbidden, since in all other cases a partial destruction of the house will remove the prohibition. . The opinion of Rav, who said that one who worships a house makes it forbidden, is the reason that he explains it by their entry into the Land. 7:5 is absolute. . Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that if somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it, could he not have explained it by somebody who was worshipping the house? {The effect of] one who worships a house can be voided. At their entry into the Land it could not be voided. 7:5 is absolute. . What could he do? He removes its clapboards and it is permitted.

3Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he brought an idol into it. In the opinion of Rebbi [Eleazar] there are two houses. But have we not stated three? Here temporarily, there permanently.

1MISHNAH: There are three kinds of stone. If he quarried them from the start as pedestal it is forbidden. If he whitewashed it and ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he put an idol on it and removed it, it is permitted.

2HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of stones,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This implies that if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

3Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There he says, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so? Explain it following what has been stated: “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden, but a Jew’s when it was worshipped.” There is disagreement about an idol, maybe also for its appurtenances? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement also about appurtenances are formulated for idols, they are valid for all implements of idolatry. The Babli disagrees, 52a . .

4Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two stones. But have we not stated “there are three stones”? Here temporarily, there permanently.

1MISHNAH: There are three kinds of Ashera . A tree which originally was planted for idolatry is forbidden. If he cut and shaped. it for idolatry and it grows new shoots, one removes what grew newly. If he puts an idol under it, when he makes it invalid it becomes permitted.

2HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of Ashera ,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he engraved engravings in it it cannot become invalidated. This is necessary: even if he removed the engravings. It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Babli 48a . . Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. The opinions of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seem inconsistent. There Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if he engraved engravings on it it cannot become invalidated; and we interpreted this to mean, even if he removed the engravings. And here makes it forbidden only if an idol is placed under the tree. he says so? It is more severe with engravings.

3It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it.

4Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two Asherot . But have we not stated “there are three kinds of Ashera ”? Here temporarily, there permanently.

1MISHNAH: What is an Ashera ? Any under which is an idol. Rebbi Simeon says, any which is worshipped. It happened in Sidon that they were worshipping one and there was a mound under it. Rebbi Joshua said to them, investigate the mound! They investigated it and found a figure in it. He told them, since they worship the figure we may permit the tree to them

2HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera ? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense 9:1, Notes 35–36. !

1MISHNAH: One should not sit in its shadow he is impure by the impurity of the dead. But if he sits in its shadow but not under its crown, he illegally profits from idolatry but is not impure. If he passes under an Ashera he becomes impure like anybody passing under a tent above a corpse. But walking through the shadow of an Ashera outside its crown is not considered profiting from idolatry. but if one sat he is pure. One should not pass under it and if one passed under it he is impure. If it robbed the public extended over a public road, the customary impurity of idols never was intended to deprive Jews from using public roads. and one passed under it, he is pure. One may sow vegetables under it in the rainy season but not in summer, but lettuce neither in summer nor in the rainy season. Rebbi Yose says not even vegetables in the rainy season since falling leaves drop down on it and become fertilizer.

2HALAKHAH: “One should not sit in its shadow,” etc. There they say m the name of Rav Ḥisda: Its shadow is forbidden, its half-shadow is permitted. What is its shadow and what is its half-shadow? There they say, any place where if it would fall down would touch him is its shadow, but any place where if it would fall down would not touch him is its half-shadow shadow. It is now added that in the half-shadow one may sit, i. e., far enough away that if the tree fell down in the direction of the person sitting there the fallen crown would not reach the person. In the Babli, 48b , this is attributed to R. Joḥanan the Galilean.

3Why is its shadow forbidden? Because it is an enjoyment. But a grave is forbidden for usufruct and its shadow is permitted! But the Temple Hall is forbidden for usufruct and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai was sitting and teaching in the shadow of the Temple Hall 26a . There it is argued that he could do this only because the Temple was built for its service and the Herodian Hall was 100 cubits high so that its shadow at times extended beyond the Temple Hill; it never was intended that the shadow should prevent people from being there. This disagrees with the statements here. ! Therefore the reason cannot be that it is forbidden for usufruct. Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that this impurity of the dead is not logically consistent cannot be deduced from the rules of the impurity of the dead. They are customary rules and as such not susceptible to logical analysis. . For otherwise if a grave were robbing the public and one passed under it one would be pure.

4Gamliel the Twin was supporting Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They came to this statue. He asked him, may we pass in front of it? He said, pass by it and blind its eye. Rebbi Isaac bar Mattanah was supporting Rebbi Joḥanan. They came to the statue of the city council Tiberius. He asked him, may we pass in front of it? He said, pass by it and blind its eye. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi was supporting Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They came to the statue of Herod 3:7 the spelling is as here. In Berakhot 2:1 (Note 57 ) אהדורי, in Šeqalim 2:6 ארורא, in Midrash Shemuel 19[4], ed. Buber Note 17, הרודיס, in Yalqut Šemuel # 124 הרודוס. The last two readings “Herod” seem to be the correct one. . He told him, Naḥum the most holy man 10:6 Note 335 , Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a . passed by it and you do not want to pass by? Pass by it and blind its eye!

5Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it about a Jew’s idol. Does this not disagree with Rav, since Rav said, for its purpose it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted: “A Gentile who worked on an idol with a plane, if it was for his benefit it and its shavings are permitted, for its benefit it is forbidden but the shavings are permitted. A Jew who worked on an idol with a plane, whether it was was for his or its benefit, both it and its shavings are forbidden.” Cf. Mishnah and Halakhah 16. ? Again explain it about a Jew’s idol. Why does everybody stay away from it in the winter? ? Because its dropping leaves are bad.

1MISHNAH: If he took wood from it tree. , it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to heat an oven, if it was new it must be destroyed wood; it must be destroyed. , if it was old it must be cooled down. If he used it to bake bread, it is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed with other loaves, all are forbidden for usufruct 3:3, Note 116). . Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea. They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed.

2HALAKHAH: “If he took wood from it,” etc. Rav Ḥasdai said, they are disagreeing in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If to heat, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If to fumigate, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Where do we hold? In the indeterminate case. In this case the argument of Note 271 does not apply. Since idols are destroyed by burning ( Note 106 ) it is obvious that their wood may be burned. If it is used to cook or bake anything, the profit comes only after the wood has been reduced to ashes and is no longer forbidden. But in fumigating the burning itself is the valuable act and is forbidden. R. Eliezer permits to bring the profit to the Dead Sea as long as it is not clear that the action was forbidden. The rabbis forbid everything as long as it is not clear that the action is permitted. .

1MISHNAH: If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed up with others, all are forbidden for usufruct. Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea. They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed.

2HALAKHAH: “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle,” etc. 3:1, Notes 77–81. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I found Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa sitting and asked him. “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state, “it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine in it”? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy from the Gentile; but here people buy cloth from the Gentile.

1MISHNAH: How does one make it insignificant? If he pruned dry branches, green branches, took from it a rod, or a twig, even a leaf, it became in significant into a common tree. . If he planed it for its benefit it is forbidden, not for its benefit it is permitted: “A Gentile who worked on an idol with a plane, if it was for his benefit it and its shavings are permitted, for its benefit it is forbidden but the shavings are permitted. A Jew who worked on an idol with a plane, whether it was was for his or its benefit, both it and its shavings are forbidden.” Cf. Mishnah and Halakhah 16. .

2HALAKHAH: “How does one make it insignificant,” etc Rav said, for his benefit, both it and its shavings are permitted; for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Samuel said, for its benefit both it and its shavings are forbidden, for his benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted.

1MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael said, three stones next to one another and next to a Mercury5:2 Note 36 , Mishnah 7:12. The stele is a phallic symbol (Herodotus II 54). are forbidden, but two are permitted. But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.

2HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael said,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of a small Mercurius next to a large Mercurius. But the rabbis say, because of the feet of Mercurius. How large are the feet of Mercurius? 50 cubits.

3The practice of Mercurius is the following: Two stones one touching the other and the third on top of them. If one put down the second one and they warned him because of “it and its young”. 22:28 . The text is very elliptic here; it is explained by the following quote from Terumot. A person is starting to build a rudimentary Mercurius. When he had put down the second stone he decided to sacrifice to the yet unfinished idol and he chose for this purpose an animal and its young. As explained in Sanhedrin , a criminal conviction in rabbinic theory is possible only if criminal intent was proven by the testimony of two eye witnesses that the perpetrator had duly been warned of the criminal nature of his intended act. Also, for one act there can be only one punishment. Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple criminal infraction for which no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text. The prescribed punishment for such an act is flogging. , he is whipped. Because of idolatry he is stoned. If he put down the third; there is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. 7:1 Notes 64–66 ; Ketubot 3:1 (27c l.21). For they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young he is flogged, about idolatry he is stoned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he is cautioned about an animal and its young he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he be cautioned about idolatry.

4What is a Mercurius? Any which borders the ocean or roads. The practice of Mercurius is by throwing. What if he bowed down before it? Rebbi Yose said, essentially is is called Mercurius only for bowing down, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it . 26:1 . The connection to be made between משׂכית and מרקוליס is not clear. . I could think that one may not put two stones next to one another and put his box down on them, the verse says to bow down on it , you do not bow down on it but you put your box down on it; you do not bow down on it but you bow down on the stones of the Temple22b ; Sifra Behar Pereq 9(5 ). .

5Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day. However, since the Babli states ( Ta`anit 11b) in the name of Rav’s colleague R. Jeremiah bar Abba that this kind of fast day is not practiced in Babylonia, Rav’s instructions to the family of Rav Aḥa can only refer to the Fast Day, the Day of Atonement, where it is customary to prostrate oneself during the recitation of Rav’s composition Alenu at the mention that “we prostrate ourselves” and during the enactment of the Temple ceremony of the day. Cf. Note 18 . you should not incline normally22b ) one may not put down one’s face to the ground but must bend it sideways. This presumes that the synagogue had a stone floor (as shown by the archeological evidence in Galilee.) There would be no need to turn one’s head on a dirt floor or on carpets. . Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written. 26:1 . The connection to be made between משׂכית and מרקוליס is not clear. , a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it . Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written. 15:32 . A “high place” on the Mount of Olives which however had not to be destroyed since there was neither altar nor stone floor. , it was when David arrived at the mountain top where one bows down before God ? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down 7:3 . . Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel , for eternal is His kindness. . Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day, and the willow of the Seventh Day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting. It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side26:1 . These now are Babylonian instructions for the Palestinian fast days for rain which were not practiced in Babylonia. . The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up 7:10 . , should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community22b in the name of R. Eleazar. .

6“But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.” (What is seen with it, its body, is forbidden; what is not seen with it is permitted.) What is seen with it is its body, what is not seen with it is not its body. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody.

7But Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot it is as if he would return it to its wholeness. And these are at their place.

8Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Sometimes you are saying, broken pieces of idols cannot be nullified. And sometimes you are saying, serving pieces of idols cannot be nullified He who says serving pieces, certainly idols. But he who says idols, therefore not serving pieces. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rav: Mercurius stones which were scattered never can be nullified, because of worship of idols. Rebbi Joḥanan heard it and said, our teacher taught us well, since if one bows down before an idol of (mourners) they never can be nullified.

9How does one nullify it? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, by spit. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: Scattered stones of Mercurius have no nullification? Rebbi Phineas said, here those which where thrown at it; there those which were not thrown at it. As this: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi had a Mercurius on his field. He came to his burgonar πυργός “tower”; cf. Chapter 1, Note 229 . The conjecture of M. Sokoloff, “tenant farmer” based on an interpretation of D. Sperber ( Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature , Jerusalem 1982) of πυργός as “farm house” is not convincing. Also compare Greek πυρκαεύς. “fire-kindler” (E. G.). and told him, since I heard that the magistrate wants to pass by here tomorrow, by your life lift these stones. After he. had lifted them, he wanted to take them away. He told him, they are mine. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba heard this and said, did not the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya state this? But since he had heard it from him, he reinforced and fixed it.

1MISHNAH: If one found on top of it coins, garments, or vessels, they are permitted. Branches of vine, wreaths of ears of grain, wines, oils, and fine flours, and anything similar to what is offered on the altar7:11, Note 239 . is forbidden.

2HALAKHAH: “If one found coins on top of it,” etc. Rebbi Jonathan said, not only wreaths of ears of grain but even wreaths of roses. Rebbi Yose said, not only a Mercurius and on top of it coins but even any pagan place which has no lattice work and he found in it garments or vessels, they are permitted.

1MISHNAH: If an idol had a garden or a bath house, one may benefit from them not with a favor but one may not benefit with a favor. If it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor.

2HALAKHAH: “If an idol had a garden,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A favor to the priests or without a favor to the priests. “It is forbidden to sell fifes of idols, but if one pays the rental fee to the state if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to sell them. It is forbidden to rent a store from a pagan temple, but if one pays rent to the state even if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to rent it. It is forbidden to give to collectors for idol worship. If he pays a fee to the state even though he collects for idol worship it is permitted to give to him.” And the Mishnah said so, “if it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor.”