Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Aleph, Part 4

 

Introduction

The second mishnah of this chapter continues to discuss items found in proximity to the Mercurius idol, and whether or not these items are assumed to have been used in idolatrous worship and therefore prohibited.

 

מתני׳ מצא בראשו מעות כסות או כלים הרי אלו מותרין פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבלים ויינות ושמנים וסלתות וכל דבר שכיוצא בו קרב ע"ג המזבח אסור:

 

If he found on top [of a Mercurius] a coins or a garment or utensils behold these are permitted;

[But if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of grain, [gifts of] wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, such is prohibited.

 

The first mishnah of this chapter taught that one typical way of worshipping the Mercurius idol was to lay stones next to it. In the second mishnah we see ways in which Mercurius was not worshipped. It was not worshipped by having money, clothes or other vessels laid next to it. Since this is not typical Mercurius worship, it is permitted for Jews to use these items.

However, if anything that is normally sacrificed is found next to a Mercurius, these items are forbidden to Jews. Since these items are generally used in idol worship, and evidently also in the worship of Mercurius, they are forbidden if they are found in proximity to the idol.

 

גמ׳ מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר יוסף א"ר אושעיא כתוב אחד אומר (דברים כט, טז) ותראו את שקוציהם ואת גלוליהם עץ ואבן כסף וזהב אשר עמהם וכתוב אחד אומר (דברים ז, כה) לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם הא כיצד עמהם דומיא דעליהם מה עליהם דבר של נוי אסור שאינו של נוי מותר אף עמהם דבר של נוי אסור ושאינו של נוי מותר

 

GEMARA. From where do I know this? R. Hiyya b. Joseph said in the name of R. Oshaia: One verse states, And you have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were with them (Deuteronomy 29:16) and another verse states, You shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them (Deuteronomy 7:25). How can this be so? With them, is similar to on them ; just as the things on them a prohibited when decorative and not prohibited when non-decorative, so to the things among them are prohibited when decorative and not prohibited when non-decorative.

 

R. Oshaia s midrash is based on two verses which seem to contradict each other, for one mentions wood and stone and silver and gold whereas the second one mentions only silver and gold. The answer is that the verse teaches that for the items found with them to be prohibited they must be like the items found on them decorative. Silver and gold are obviously decorative, but for the wood and stone to be prohibited they too must be decorative.

Below the Talmud will ask how this proves the halakhah in the mishnah. After all, the list of items in the first half could also be decorative. It seems to me that R. Oshaia s midrash here originally proved a halakhah that was different from that found in the mishnah.

 

ואימא עליהם דומיא דעמהם מה עמהם כל מה שעמהם אף עליהם כל שעליהם א"כ לא יאמר עליהם

 

But why not say, On them is the same as with them ; just as with them means anything that is with them so too on them means anything that is on them.

In that case the verse would not have needed to state on them.

 

The Talmud asks why we can t run the analogy in the opposite direction. The verse that says with them implies that anything that is with them is prohibited, so too anything that is on them should also be prohibited, even if it is not decorative. In other words, why use the analogy to create a leniency, why not use the opposite analogy to create a stringency?

The answer is that if that was the case, we would not even need the verse on them. We could derive the full halakhah from the other verse. The mere existence of a second verse implies that one must be a limitation on the other.

 

מעות דבר של נוי הוא

אמרי דבי ר’ ינאי בכיס קשור ותלוי לו בצוארו

כסות דבר של נוי הוא

אמרי דבי ר’ ינאי בכסות מקופלת ומונחת לו על ראשו

כלי דבר של נוי הוא

אמר רב פפא דסחיפא ליה משכילתא ארישיה

 

Coins are decorative!

They said in the house of R. Yannai: In a case where they are tied in a bag and hung from the idol.

A garment is decorative!

They said in the house of R. Yannai: In a case where it is folded and placed upon the head of the idol.

A vessel is decorative!

R. Papa said: In a case where a pot is inverted over its head.

 

The problem with R. Oshaia s statement is that it does not really explain the mishnah. The mishnah said that a coin, garment or vessel found near the idol are permitted. But surely these all can be decorative! The Talmud answers that these are permitted if they are not placed in a decorative fashion on or near the idol. But, by implication, if they were placed in a decorative fashion, they would be prohibited.

The need to limit the mishnah shows that R. Oshaia was probably not explaining the mishnah. The mishnah prohibits items that might have been offered to the idol and permits those that are not considered offerings. In contrast, R. Oshaia prohibits decorative items and permits non-decorative ones. It seems that the Talmudic editors used a statement with one concern to explain a statement that had a different concern.

 

אמר רב אסי בר חייא כל שהוא לפנים מן הקלקלין אפי’ מים ומלח אסור חוץ לקלקלין דבר של נוי אסור שאינו של נוי מותר

 

R. Assi b. Hiyya said: Whatever is within the partitions, even water and salt, is prohibited; whatever is outside the partitions what is decorative is prohibited and what is not decorative is permitted.

 

R. Assi b. Hiyya refers to an idol partitioned off. The word for partitions here is probably a play on the Hebrew קלעים which are found in the Temple. To distinguish the holy curtains from the idolatrous partitions, the Talmud uses a different word, one that sounds like קלקל which means spoiled.

 

א"ר יוסי בר חנינא נקטינן אין קלקלין לא לפעור ולא למרקוליס

למאי אילימא דאפי’ פנים כחוץ דמי ושרי השתא פעורי מפערין קמיה מים ומלח לא מקרבין ליה אלא אפי’ חוץ כבפנים דמי ואסור:

 

R. Yose b. Hanina said: We have a tradition that that this rule regarding partitions does not apply to the idol Peor or to a Mercurius.

For what purpose [does he mention this]? If I say that objects which are even within [the partitions] are like those outside and are permitted, since people defecate in front of it would they not also bring water and salt as an offering to it!

Rather it must mean that even what is outside is like what is within the partitions and is prohibited.

 

R. Yose b. Hanina says that the distinction between inside and outside the partition does not apply to the Peor idol or the Mercurius. Both of these idols are, according to the rabbis, worshipped in an unusual way. Peor is worshipped by people defecating on it, and Mercurius by people throwing stones at it.

The Talmud clarifies that what this means is that for these two idols there is no distinction between inside and outside the partitions. If the item is either used in the worship of the idol or is decorative it is always prohibited.