Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Het, Part 2
Introduction
Today s sugya discusses a case where a person bowed down to a tree. You might remember the discussion we had a couple of dapim ago about the difference between a tree planted for idolatry and a tree planted for regular purposes that was then worshipped. That discussion will return.
אמר שמואל המשתחוה לאילן תוספתיה אסורה
Shmuel said: If a person bowed down to a tree, the branches which subsequently grow are prohibited.
According to Shmuel, if a person bowed down to a tree, the additional growth becomes prohibited.
מתיב רבי אלעזר גידעו ופיסלו לעבודת כוכבים והחליף נוטל מה שהחליף גידעו ופיסלו אין לא גידעו ופיסלו לא
R. Elazar raised a difficulty against him: If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted afresh, he removes the new growth. If he chopped and trimmed it the new growth is [prohibited] otherwise it is not!
R. Elazar raises a difficulty on Shmuel. Simply bowing down to the tree is not enough to make it prohibited. He must actually modify it.
אמר לך שמואל הא מני רבנן היא ושמואל דאמר כרבי יוסי בר יהודה דאמר אילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו אסור
Samuel could reply to you: Whose teaching is this [in the mishnah]? It is the Rabbis, whereas Shmuel agrees with that of R. Yose b. Judah who said: If a tree was planted and subsequently worshipped it is prohibited.
Shmuel could reply that the mishnah agrees with the rabbis who said that if a tree was planted and only then worshipped, it is not prohibited. But he agrees with R. Yose b. Judah who says that the tree is prohibited.
מתקיף לה רב אשי ממאי דרבי יוסי בר יהודה ורבנן בתוספת פליגי דלמא תוספת לדברי הכל אסור ובעיקרו פליגי דרבי יוסי בר יהודה סבר עיקרו נמי אסור דכתיב (דברים יב, ג) ואשריהם תשרפון באש ורבנן סברי עיקר אילן שרי דכתיב (דברים ז, ה) ואשירהם תגדעון איזהו אילן שגידועו אסור ועיקרו שרי הוי אומר אילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו
R. Ashi attacked this explanation: How do we know that R. Yose b. Judah and the Rabbis differ on the question of the new growth? Perhaps they all agree that it is prohibited, and they disagree about the trunk itself! For R. Yose b. Judah holds that the trunk [of a tree which has been worshipped] is likewise prohibited since it is stated, And burn their asherim with fire, (Deuteronomy 12:3) and the rabbis hold that the trunk of the tree is permitted since it is stated, And hew down their asherim (Deuteronomy 7:5): Which tree has its hewn part prohibited while the trunk is permitted? I would answer you that is a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped!
R. Ashi attacks Shmuel s resolution. He holds that all tannaim, both the sages and R. Yose b. Judah, hold that the additional growth is prohibited. The disagreement is only over whether the part that grew before it was worshipped is also prohibited. So why then say that Shmuel agrees only with R. Yose b. Judah?
The essence of this section is really a discussion of the dispute between R. Yose b. Judah and the sages. Do the sages hold that even the new growth is prohibited (like Shmuel implies)? Does R. Yose b. Judah hold that the whole tree is prohibited?
וכי תימא הא דלא מתרצינן הכי איפוך רבנן לדרבי יוסי בר יהודה ודרבי יוסי בר יהודה לרבנן
And if you should say: But we have not explained [the verses] in this way above! [I could reply:] Reverse the rabbis with R. Yose b. R. Judah and R. Yose b. Judah with the rabbis.
Above (on 45b) the verses used for each rabbi were opposite. To resolve this minor difficulty, the Talmud suggests simply reversing the verses here too.
We are now still left with R. Ashi s difficulty.
אם כן גידעו ופיסלו מאן קתני לה לא רבנן ולא רבי יוסי בר יהודה אי רבנן בלא גידעו ופיסלו נמי תוספת אסורה אי רבי יוסי בר יהודה עיקר אילן נמי אסור
[This is impossible] because if that were so, who taught the passage in the Mishnah: if he chopped and trimmed ? It cannot be either the Rabbis or R. Yose b. Judah; because according to the rabbis, even if he did not chop and trim the tree, the new growth would still be prohibited, and according to R. Yose b. Judah even the trunk of the tree is prohibited!
R. Ashi s interpretation implies that all tannaim agree with Shmuel that the additional growth is prohibited. The problem is that this does not seem match the mishnah which says that if he chopped and trimmed the tree the additional growth is prohibited. This does not match the rabbis, because (according to R. Ashi) the rabbis hold that the additional growth is prohibited even if he did not chop or trim the tree. And it does not match R. Yose b. Judah because he would hold that if he chopped or trimmed the tree the whole tree is prohibited.
אי בעית אימא רבנן ואי בעית אימא רבי יוסי בר יהודה
אי בעית אימא רבי יוסי בר יהודה כי קאמר רבי יוסי בר יהודה בלא גידעו ופיסלו עיקר אילן אסור בסתמא אבל גידעו ופיסלו גלי אדעתיה דבתוספת ניחא ליה בעיקר אילן לא ניחא ליה
[No] If you wish I can say that [the Mishnah agrees] with the rabbis and if you wish I can say it agrees with R. Yose b. Judah.
I can say that it agrees with R. Yose b. Judah, for when he said that the trunk is prohibited when the tree has not been chopped or trimmed that was in a general case, but if he chopped and trimmed it then he revealed that his intention was to worship the new growth and not the trunk.
The Talmud now makes both parties agree with the mishnah. R. Yose b. Judah could say that in general when one worships a tree already planted the whole tree is prohibited. But if he cut down some part of the tree for idolatrous reasons, then he is in essence saying that he only wants the new growth to be worshipped. Therefore, like the mishnah, the trunk is permitted but the additional growth is prohibited.
איבעית אימא רבנן גידעו ופיסלו איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא כיון דעבד ליה מעשה בגופיה עיקר אילן נמי ליתסר קמשמע לן:
I can also say that it agrees with the rabbis, and it needed to mention that he chopped or trimmed it lest I would have thought that since he did something to the body of the tree even the trunk is prohibited, therefore it comes to teach us that it is not.
The rabbis could also agree with the mishnah. To recall, they would hold that by just bowing down to the tree the new growth would be prohibited. So why then does it need to state that it is prohibited if he chopped or trimmed it? To teach you that even though he actually did something to the tree itself, the trunk remains permitted. Only the additional part is prohibited.
This concludes this section of the sugya. R. Ashi has been resolved and Shmuel s original statement is not dependent on the dispute between R. Yose b. Judah and the rabbis.