Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Heh, Part 2

 

Introduction

It seems that in the mishnah, the first opinion and R. Yose Hagalili issue the exact same ruling and just use different midrashim to prove it. The Talmud we learn today assumes that there must be a difference between them and tries to locate that difference.

 

גמ׳ ורבי יוסי הגלילי היינו תנא קמא!

אמר רמי בר חמא אמר ריש לקיש צפוי הר כהר איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר צפוי הר אינו כהר ומיתסר ור’ יוסי הגלילי סבר צפוי הר הרי הוא כהר

 

GEMARA. R. Yose Hagalili holds the same opinion as the first opinion [in the Mishnah]!

Rami b. Hama said in the name of R. Shimon b. Lakish: The dispute between them is whether the covering on a mountain is identical with the mountain. The first opinion holds that the covering on a mountain is not identical with the mountain and is prohibited, whereas R. Yose Hagalili holds that the covering on a mountain is identical with the mountain [and is permitted].

 

According to Rami b. Hama, the dispute is over whether some kind of coating or covering placed on a mountain is prohibited. The first opinion says that the coating is not like the mountain and therefore is prohibited if people worship it. R. Yose Hagalili holds that it is part of the mountain and therefore is permitted.

 

רב ששת אמר דכולי עלמא צפוי הר אינו כהר והכא באילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו קמיפלגי ת"ק סבר אילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו מותר ורבי יוסי הגלילי סבר אילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו אסור

 

R. Sheshet said: All agree that the covering on a mountain is not identical with the mountain, and here they argue with regard to a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped. The first opinion holds that a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped is permitted, whereas R. Yose Hagalili holds that such a tree is prohibited.

 

R. Sheshet posits a different dispute. The dispute is over whether a tree that was first planted and then worshipped becomes prohibited or whether it is considered part of the mountain, and therefore cannot become prohibited. According to the first opinion, such a tree is permitted because it is part of the mountain, whereas R. Yose Hagalili holds that it is prohibited.

 

ממאי מדקתני סיפא מפני מה אשירה אסורה מפני שיש בה תפיסת ידי אדם וכל שיש בו תפיסת ידי אדם אסור וכל שיש בו תפיסת אדם לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי אילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו

 

From where [do I know that this is R. Yose Hagalili s opinion]? From the end of the Mishnah: And why is an asherah prohibited? Because there was manual labor connected with it, and whatever has manual labor connected with it is prohibited. And what does the phrase, whatever has manual labor connected with it, come to include? It surely includes the case of a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped.

 

The Talmud asks how we know that R. Yose Hagalili holds that a tree that was planted and then worshipped is prohibited. The Talmud says we learn this from the next clause of the mishnah, where R. Yose states that an asherah is prohibited because it was fashioned by human beings, it was not just created by nature. The repetition in the mishnah comes to include a tree which was planted and then worshipped, as opposed to a tree that was always meant to be an asherah such a tree is more obviously prohibited.