Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Heh, Part 4
Introduction
Today s section is a direct continuation of yesterday s sugya.
ורבנן האי ואשריהם תשרפון באש מאי עבדי ליה? מיבעי ליה לאילן שנטעו מתחילה לכך
And the rabbis, what do they do with the verse and burn their asherim with fire ?
It is required to cover the case of a tree which had been planted from the outset for idolatry.
The rabbis who disagree with R. Yose son of R. Yehudah hold that if a tree is planted and only then worshipped, it is not prohibited. So they must read it is prohibiting only a tree that was planted for the express purpose of being an idolatrous tree.
ור’ יוסי בר’ יהודה נמי מיבעי ליה להכי
ה"נ אלא אילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו מנא ליה נפקא ליה (דברים ז, ה) מואשריהם תגדעון איזהו עץ שגידועו אסור ועיקרו מותר הוי אומר אילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו
And does not R. Yose son of R. Yehudah should also require the same text for this rule? Indeed so. So then from where does he derive that a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped [is prohibited]? He derives it from, and hew down their asherim, (Deuteronomy 7:5). Which tree has its later growth prohibited while its root is permitted? Say that it is a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped.
R. Yose would also read that verse as prohibiting a tree that was planted for idolatry. So he learns the additional prohibition, that a tree that was first planted and then worshipped is prohibited, from another verse. Note that this means that only the part that grew after it was worshipped is prohibited.
והא ואשריהם תשרפון באש קא נסיב לה תלמודא
But surely and burn their asherim with fire is the verse used!
The problem is that earlier R. Yose used the verse and burn their asherim with fire and not the verse and hew down their asherim. So which verse is his derashah based on?
אילו לא נאמר קאמר אילו לא נאמר תשרפון באש הייתי אומר אשריהם תגדעון באילן שנטעו מתחילה לכך השתא דכתיב ואשריהם תשרפון באש אייתר ליה ואשריהם תגדעון לאילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו
He employs the argument if it had not been stated: If it had not been stated, and burn their asherim with fire, I would have said that, and hew down their asherim, refers to a tree which had been originally planted for idolatry; now that it is written, and burn their asherim with fire, the phrase, and hew down their asherim, is left over to refer to a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped.
In essence, R. Yose does need both verses. If the Torah had stated only one, he would have said that it refers to an asherah planted for the sake of idolatry. But now that both verses have been stated, the second verse is left over as a source for the halakhah that even if the tree was not planted for idolatry, if it was subsequently worshipped, it is prohibited.