Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Vav, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today s section contains another question from Rami b. Hama concerning the use in the Temple service of something that had been worshipped as an idol. Like yesterday s section, one can get the sense that these questions are highly theoretical. They take halakhic categories from other fields of halakhah (yesterday the issue was the difference between an object attached and detached from the ground) and see if and how they re applicable to the laws of idolatry.

בעי רמי בר חמא המשתחוה לקמת חטים מהו למנחות יש שינוי בנעבד או אין שינוי בנעבד

 

Rami b. Hama asked: What if one had worshipped a stalk of wheat [in a field]; may it be subsequently used for a minhah offering? Is there a rule of change when it comes to something worshipped or is there not?

 

When it comes to certain laws, if an object has been modified in some ways, it loses its original status. For instance, if a thief steals a piece of wood and then modifies it into something else, he need not return the wood. He must only return the value of the wood. The question here is whether when he harvests the grain and eventually grinds it into flour it loses its status as a worshipped thing.

 

אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן ת"ש כל האסורין לגבי מזבח ולדותיהן מותרים ותני עלה רבי אליעזר אוסר

 

Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman said: Come and hear: Any [animal] prohibited from being offered upon the altar, its young is permissible; and on this it was taught that R. Eliezer forbids.

 

Mar Zutra tries to derive the answer from a mishnah which refers to animals that cannot be offered on the altar since they engaged in bestiality.

The flour is, in a sense, the offspring of the wheat. Thus if R. Eliezer and the sages argue whether the offspring of an animal prohibited to be offered on the altar can be offered, so too would they argue about whether the flour can be used for a minhah.

 

ולאו אתמר עלה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מחלוקת כשנרבעו ולבסוף עיברו אבל עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו ד"ה אסורין וה"נ כעיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דמי

 

But was it not stated on this source: R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu: The dispute is when the animal had been subject to bestiality and had then conceived, but when they had conceived and then been subject to bestiality, all agree that [the young] are forbidden [as offerings]? Similarly here [with the standing-grain] it is analogous to the circumstance where the animals conceived and had then been subject to bestiality.

 

The problem with Mar Zutra is that he assumes that the dispute occurs when the animal first became pregnant and then was subject to bestiality. But R. Nahman says there is no dispute in this case, for in this case the offspring was conceived when the animal was already prohibited. So too in the case of the standing-grain it was prohibited before the flour was born. Thus all should agree that it is prohibited for use on the altar.

 

איכא דאמרי מחלוקת כשנרבעו ולבסוף עיברו אבל עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו ד"ה אסור והני נמי כי עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דמי

הכי השתא התם מעיקרא בהמה והשתא בהמה דשא הוא דאחיזא באנפה הכא מעיקרא חיטי והשתא קמחא

 

There are those who say: The dispute is when the animals had been subject to bestiality and then conceived, but when they had conceived and then been subject to bestiality, all agree that [the young] are forbidden [as offerings]. Similarly here [with the standing-grain] it is analogous to the circumstance where the animals conceived and had then been subject to bestiality.

But is the analogy correct? In that case it was originally an animal and now it is an animal, only the door had been closed in its face; but in the other instance it was originally wheat and now it is flour!

 

In this version, Mar Zutra cites R. Nahman s statement to prove that all tannaim agree that the flour is prohibited because it is like a case where the animal was first pregnant and then subject to bestiality.

However, in this version, the Talmud rejects the analogy. Flour is not to be compared to animal offspring. A fetus is an animal it is just locked up inside its mother. Birth does not really transform it. In contrast, flour is different from its wheat mother and therefore, all tannaim would agree that it can be used on the altar.