Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Bet, Part 4
Introduction
In today s section, our sugya changes tack. Instead of R. Yohanan raising a difficulty on Resh Lakish, Resh Lakish raises one back (way to go Resh Lakish!). He uses a baraita to prove that pieces of an idol that broke on their own are permitted.
איתיביה ר’ שמעון בן לקיש לר’ יוחנן קן שבראש האילן של הקדש לא נהנין ולא מועלין
בראשה של אשרה יתיז בקנה
קס"ד כגון ששברה ממנו עצים וקינתה בהן וקתני יתיז בקנה
R. Shimon b. Lakish raised a difficulty against R. Yohanan: A bird’s nest on the top of a tree which had been dedicated to the Temple, one may not make use of it, but if one does make use of it, it does not count as trespass.
[If the nest was made] on top of an Asherah, he may knock it off with a stick!
Now you should assume here that the bird broke twigs from the Asherah and built a nest of them; and yet it is taught: He knocks it off with a stick!
The question in this baraita seems to be whether one may use the bird s nest to make a fire (I know, not a nice thing to do, but people needed firewood back then). If the tree has been dedicated to the Temple, then we could assume that the branches may have been dedicated. One should not therefore use them. But if one does, this does not count as trespass, illegal use of Temple property because we cannot be sure that the nest came from that tree.
But if the tree was an idol, then one can use the nest. This proves that pieces broken from an idol are permitted and refutes R. Yohanan.
הב"ע כגון דאייתי עצים מעלמא וקינתה בהן
דיקא נמי דקתני גבי הקדש לא נהנין ולא מועלין
אי אמרת בשלמא דאייתי עצים מעלמא היינו דקתני גבי הקדש לא נהנין ולא מועלין לא נהנין מדרבנן ולא מועלין מדאורייתא דהא לא קדישי
אלא אי אמרת ששברה עצים ממנו וקינתה בהן אמאי לא מועלין הא קדישי
We are dealing here with a case where [the bird] brought twigs from other trees and built a nest of them.
This conclusion is proved to be correct by the fact that when it came to a tree dedicated to the Temple it is stated: One may not make use of it, but if one does make use of it, it does not count as trespass.
It makes sense if you say that [the bird] brought twigs from other places, for that is why it teaches with regard to a dedicated tree: One may not make use of it, but if one does make use of it, it does not count as trespass. One may not make use of it according to rabbinical law, but if one does make use of it, it does not count as trespass, according to the law of the Torah because [the twigs] were not dedicated.
But if you say that [the bird] broke twigs from that tree [which had been dedicated] and built a nest with them, why has he not trespassed since they were dedicated to the Temple!
R. Yohanan says that the baraita refers to a bird that is assumed to have brought the twigs for the nest from another tree, not the tree in which the nest was found. This helps explain the whole baraita better. If the tree has been dedicated to the Temple, then he should not use the nest lest the twigs might have come from the tree. But it does not count as trespass because the twigs did not certainly come from that tree. But if the twigs did certainly come from that tree, then using them should certainly count as trespass.
מידי איריא הכא בגידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן עסקינן וקא סבר אין מעילה בגידולין
Does this prove anything? Here we are dealing with a case where [the bird used twigs] which grew after [the tree had been dedicated to the Templ], and he holds that there is no trespass [if use was made of] the after-growth!
The Talmud rejects the proof that R. Yohanan brought that the twigs must have come from another tree. One could say that the twigs came from the same tree that was dedicated but that the branches grew after the tree had been dedicated. This baraita might hold that while one should not use such twigs, if one does this does not constitute trespass. But if the twigs come from that same tree, then they would also come from the asherah tree and this would prove that an idol that broke on its own accord may be used. In the case of the asherah tree, it would not matter when they grew. They should always be prohibited.
ורבי אבהו א"ר יוחנן מאי יתיז יתיז באפרוחין
But R. Abahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: What does it mean he knocks off ? He knocks [the nest down] to get the young birds.
R. Abahu explains the baraita in an entirely different way so that it is not a difficulty on R. Yohanan. When the baraita says, [If the nest was made] on top of an Asherah, he may knock it off with a stick it does not mean that he may use the sticks. He may not. He is knocking the next off only to get the birds, not the sticks.
א"ל רבי יעקב לרבי ירמיה בר תחליפא אסברה לך באפרוחין כאן וכאן מותרין בביצים כאן וכאן אסורין אמר רב אשי ואפרוחין שצריכין לאמן כביצים דמו:
R. Ya akov said to R. Yirmiyah b. Tahlifa: I will explain this to you: As for young birds, they may be used in any event; as for eggs they are prohibited in any event.
R. Ashi said: Young birds which need the care of their mother are considered to be like eggs [and are not permitted].
These amoraim now explain when one may or may not make use of the birds or eggs found in a dedicated tree or an asherah tree. If the birds can fly, then they do not need the tree, and therefore, they may be used. But eggs and young birds need the tree and therefore are prohibited.
Note that this concludes our long sugya about idols that broke on their own. There is no resolution to the sugya. No one wins the argument. The halakhah ends up following R. Yohanan, but not because he wins. The halakhah follows him because according to a rule imposed on the Talmud that the halakhah basically always follows R. Yohanan when he argues with Resh Lakish except for six cases. This is not one of the six.