Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Tet, Part 5
Introduction
Today s section discusses why the mishnah needed to provided two examples of things made by using the wood of the asherah tree bread made in an oven heated by the wood of an asherah tree and weaving shuttle made from wood from such a tree. What would we not have known if the mishnah had provided only one example.
גמ׳ וצריכא דאי אשמעינן קמייתא בהא קאמר ר’ אליעזר משום דבעידנא דקא גמרה פת קלי לה איסורא אבל כרכור דאיתיה לאיסורא בעיניה אימא מודי לרבנן
GEMARA. It was necessary [to mention both cases]; because if he had informed us of only the first [we might have thought] that R. Eliezer spoke of this case only because at the time when the loaf is finished [baking] the prohibited material had been burned; but in the case of the shuttle, since the prohibited objected remains, I might have said that he agrees with the rabbis.
If the only case in the mishnah was that of the baking bread with the asherah wood, I might have thought that in that case R. Eliezer was lenient because by the time the loaf was cooked the wood had been burned in the oven. Since the prohibited substance is destroyed, there is room to be lenient and he can destroy the amount of value equivalent to that loaf and the other loaves are permitted. But with the shuttle that was taken from the tree, when the clothes are done the shuttle remains. So we might have thought that in that case he agrees with the rabbis, there is nothing that can be done besides destroy all of the clothes (a large loss). Therefore, the mishnah had to teach us the case of the clothing.
ואי אשמעינן כרכור בהא קאמרי רבנן אבל פת אימא מודו ליה לר"א צריכא
If he had only informed us of the case of the shuttle, [we might have thought] that the rabbis spoke of this case only, but in the case of a loaf I might have said that they agree with R. Eliezer, that the equivalent of the value of the forbidden loaf or garment can be destroyed. [Therefore both are] necessary.
This is simply the opposite of above. If the mishnah had included only the second case, I might have thought that the rabbis were strict with regard to the shuttle because it is not destroyed when making the clothes. But they would be more lenient in the case of bread. Therefore, both are necessary.
א"ר חייא בריה דרבה בר נחמני אמר רב חסדא אמר זעירי הלכה כר"א
איכא דאמרי אמר רב חסדא אמר לי אבא בר רב חסדא הכי אמר זעירי הלכה כר"א
R. Hiyya, son of Rabbah b. Nahmani, said in the name of R. Hisda: Ze’iri said that the halackah follows R. Eliezer.
There are those who say that R. Hisda said: Abba son of R. Hisda informed me that Ze’iri said: The halakhah follows R. Eliezer.
One is allowed to destroy the equivalent value of the bread or clothes rather than destroy all of the bread or clothes.
אמר רב אדא בר אהבה לא שנו אלא פת אבל חבית לא ורב חסדא אמר אפילו חבית מותרת
R. Adda b. Ahavah said: This was taught only with regard to the loaf, but with regard to a jug [of wine] it was not [taught].
But R. Hisda said: Even a cask of wine is permitted.
According to R. Adda b. Ahavah if casks of wine that are forbidden (libated wine, yayin nesekh) are mixed up with permitted casks of wine, they must all be destroyed. One cannot bring a value equivalent to the one forbidden cask to the Dead Sea. This is because the wine itself is a prohibited substance whereas the loaf is not a prohibited substance. It was made with a prohibited substance.
R. Hisda says that the same law holds true for both.
ההוא גברא דאיתערב ליה חביתא דיין נסך בחמריה
אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא אמר שקול ארבע זוזי ושדי בנהרא ונשתרי לך:
There was a man for whom a cask of libated wine got mixed up with his own wine.
He came before R. Hisda who told him, Take four zuz and throw them into the river and the wine will then be permitted to you [to dispose of].
A case such as this actually happened and R. Hisda instructed the person to throw away the value of the libated wine. He then could use all of the wine.