Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Vav, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today s sugya (a difficult one) discusses stones that come from a mountain that was worshipped can they be used to build the altar? As a precedent, the amoraim will cite the biblical verse prohibiting the use of the wages of a harlot as funds to buy sacrifices (or other holy use). The question may have a larger implication, one still relevant today. Can funds garnered through illicit means be put to holy use?

 

בעי רמי בר חמא המשתחוה להר אבניו מהו למזבח יש נעבד במחובר אצל גבוה או אין נעבד במחובר אצל גבוה את"ל יש נעבד במחובר אצל גבוה מכשירי קרבן כקרבן דמו או לא

 

Rami b. Hama asked: If a man worshipped a mountain, may its stones be used to build an altar [to God]?

Does the law prohibiting the use in Temple worship of objects which have been worshipped [as idols] apply to things attached to the ground or does it not? And if you decide that this law does apply to things attached to the ground, are objects necessary for the preparation of a sacrifice like the sacrifice or not?

 

Objects that have been worshipped as idols may not be offered on the altar. So there are two parts to the question of whether these rocks can be used to make the altar. 1) Does this rule apply to things attached to the ground, like rocks that are part of a mountain? 2) Does this rule apply to the things needed to offer sacrifices, like the altar, or just to sacrifices themselves?

 

אמר רבא ק"ו ומה אתנן שמותר בתלוש להדיוט אסור במחובר לגבוה דכתיב (דברים כג, יט) לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב לא שנא תלוש ולא שנא במחובר נעבד שאסור בתלוש להדיוט אינו דין שאסור במחובר לגבוה

 

Rava said: It can be answered with a kal vehomer argument: if the hire of a harlot is usable for secular purposes when it is an object detached from the ground, but is prohibited for divine worship when it is attached to the ground, as it is written, You shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog (Deuteronomy 23:19) and it makes no difference whether it is detached from the ground or attached to the ground, a worshipped object, which is prohibited even when it is detached, should it not become prohibited for divine worship when it is attached.

 

Rava answers with a kal vehomer type of argument. The Torah prohibits using the wages of a harlot to offer a sacrifice and it does not matter whether the wages were paid with something attached to the ground or detached. However, the wages of a harlot, if detached from the ground may be used for secular purposes. But an idolatrous object is prohibited even for secular use when it is detached. This makes it more stringent. Therefore, we should also be stringent when it is attached to the ground and not allow it to be used in divine worship. The rocks should be prohibited.

 

א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבא או חילוף ומה נעבד שאסור בתלוש אצל הדיוט מותר במחובר לגבוה שנא’ (דברים יב, ב) אלהיהם על ההרים ולא ההרים אלהיהם לא שנא להדיוט ולא שנא לגבוה אתנן שמותר בתלוש להדיוט אינו דין שמותר במחובר לגבוה

 

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said to Rava: Or perhaps the opposite [may be concluded]: If a worshipped object which may not be used for secular purposes when it is detached but is permitted in divine worship when attached, as it is said, Their gods upon the high mountains, not the mountains which are their gods, and it does not make a difference whether it is for secular use or for the divine worship, how much more must the hire of a harlot which is usable for secular purposes when it is detached be permissible in the divine worship when it is attached!

 

R. Huna son of R. Joshua says that we could turn Rava s argument on its head and use it to permit the wages of a harlot for use in divine worship when they are in the form of something attached to the ground. A worshipped object maybe used in the divine worship if it is attached. Attached objects are not prohibited, neither for secular nor for holy purpose. The wages of a harlot are more lenient for even when detached, they are only prohibited for holy use, not for secular use. Therefore they should also be more lenient and permitted for holy use when attached.

 

ואי משום בית ה’ אלהיך מיבעי ליה לכדתניא בית ה’ אלהיך פרט לפרה שאינה באה לבית דברי ר"א וחכ"א לרבות את הריקועים

 

And if [you would argue that this conclusion is incorrect] because of the words, into the house of the Lord your God, they are required in accordance with this teaching: Into the house of the Lord your God this excludes a [red] heifer which does not enter the Temple, the words of R. Eliezer; but the Sages say: This includes plates of beaten gold.

 

One might have thought that the words into the house of the Lord which follows do not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog imply that under no circumstance should the hire of a harlot be used to buy a sacrifice, even if the wages are attached to the ground. But this reading is wrong because that verse has another use. It does not come to prohibit buying sacrifices with the hire of a harlot when those wages came in the form of attached property. Rather it either exclude the red heifer from the prohibition or includes beaten plates of gold.

So R. Huna is arguing that not only can the stones be used to build the altar, the wages of a harlot could also be used in divine worship, if they are attached to the ground.

The discussion will continue in tomorrow s section.