וְהָא שִׁיפּוּיִין, דְּעִיקַּר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קַיֶּימֶת, וְקָתָנֵי: לְצָרְכָּהּ – הִיא אֲסוּרָה וְשִׁיפּוּיֶיהָ מוּתָּרִין!

The Gemara asks: But consider the case of shavings, where the main object of idol worship still exists, and nevertheless it is taught in the baraita cited earlier that if a gentile shaved an idol down for its own sake, the idol is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. Here too, in the case of the fallen leaves of a tree that is worshipped as an idol, it should be permitted to derive benefit from them.

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּטֵלָה דֶּרֶךְ גְּדִילָתָהּ.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: The reason the leaves are not permitted is because the status of an object of idol worship cannot be revoked by its natural manner of growth. Since the falling of leaves is a natural phenomenon, their detachment from the tree does effect a revocation of their status as objects of idol worship.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קֵן שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ הָאִילָן שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין, בְּרֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה – יַתִּיז בְּקָנֶה;

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna ( Me’ila 13b): With regard to a bird’s nest at the top of a tree that belongs to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit from it ab initio , but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple. With regard to a nest that is at the top of a tree used as part of idolatrous rites [ ashera ], although one may not climb the tree, as that would be benefiting from an object of idol worship, he may knock the nest off with a pole and benefit from it by using it for firewood and the like.

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁבְרָה מִמֶּנּוּ עֵצִים וְקִינְּתָה בָּהֶן, וְקָתָנֵי: יַתִּיז בְּקָנֶה!

In analyzing this baraita , it enters your mind that this is referring to a case where the bird broke off branches from the worshipped tree and built a nest with them. And yet, the baraita teaches that one may knock the nest off with a pole and it is then permitted to benefit from it. Apparently, the forbidden branches used in the construction of the nest lost their idolatrous status without human involvement, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that an idol that breaks loses its status.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּאַיְיתֵי עֵצִים מֵעָלְמָא וְקִינְּתָה בָּהֶן.

The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a case where the bird brought branches from elsewhere and built a nest with them on top of the worshipped tree. The branches were never part of an object of idol worship.

דַּיְקָא נַמִי, דְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ: לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין; אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאַיְיתֵי עֵצִים מֵעָלְמָא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ: לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין – לֹא נֶהֱנִין מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין מִדְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, דְּהָא לָא קַדִּישִׁי;

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise if read with this understanding, as it teaches with regard to a nest in a consecrated tree: One may not derive benefit from it ab initio , but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. Granted, if you say that the bird brought branches from elsewhere, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches with regard to a nest in a consecrated tree, namely, that one may not derive benefit from it, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. According to this understanding of the mishna, one may not derive benefit from the nest by rabbinic law, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misusing consecrated property by Torah law, as the branches are not consecrated, but were brought from elsewhere.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ שֶׁשָּׁבְרָה עֵצִים מִמֶּנּוּ וְקִינְּתָה בָּהֶן, אַמַּאי לֹא מוֹעֲלִין? הָא קַדִּישִׁי!

But if you say that the bird broke off branches from the tree itself and built a nest with them, why is it taught that one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property? Aren’t the branches consecrated? Evidently, the mishna is referring to a nest that was built with branches from other trees, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s understanding that an object of idol worship that broke on its own is still forbidden.

מִידֵי אִירְיָא? הָכָא בְּגִידּוּלִין הַבָּאִין לְאַחַר מִכָּאן עָסְקִינַן, וְקָא סָבַר: אֵין מְעִילָה בְּגִידּוּלִין.

The Gemara responds to this proof for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s understanding of the mishna: Does this argument prove anything? The mishna can still be interpreted as referring to a case where the branches for the nest came from the tree itself, and here we are dealing with a case of growths that came afterward, i.e., branches that grew after the tree was consecrated, and the tanna of the mishna holds that there is no prohibition against the misuse of consecrated property with regard to such growths.

וְרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי יַתִּיז? יַתִּיז בְּאֶפְרוֹחִין.

Another explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is presented. Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What does it mean that one may knock off the nest? It means that one may knock off the chicks; but one may not derive benefit from the nest itself.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרָהּ לָךְ: בְּאֶפְרוֹחִין – כָּאן וְכָאן מוּתָּרִין, בְּבֵיצִים – כָּאן וְכָאן אֲסוּרִין. אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: וְאֶפְרוֹחִין שֶׁצְּרִיכִין לְאִמָּן כְּבֵיצִים דָּמוּ.

Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain the mishna to you: With regard to the chicks, which can fly away and are not confined to the tree, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol worship, deriving benefit from them is permitted. But with regard to the eggs, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol worship, deriving benefit from them is prohibited, as they are not seen as independent of the tree. Rav Ashi added to this and said: And chicks that still need their mother to survive are considered like eggs; deriving benefit from them is prohibited.

מתני׳ הַמּוֹצֵא כֵּלִים וַעֲלֵיהֶם צוּרַת חַמָּה, צוּרַת לְבָנָה, צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן – יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח; רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁעַל הַמְכוּבָּדִין – אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁעַל הַמְבוּזִּין – מוּתָּרִין.

In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea and not derive any benefit from them, as they are assumed to be objects of idol worship. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Those figures that are upon respectable vessels are forbidden. Those that are upon disgraceful vessels are permitted.

גמ׳ לְמֵימְרָא, דִּלְהָנֵי הוּא דְּפָלְחִי לְהוּ, לְמִידֵי אַחֲרִינָא לָא? וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשׁוּם יַמִּים, לְשׁוּם נְהָרוֹת, לְשׁוּם מִדְבָּר, לְשׁוּם חַמָּה, לְשׁוּם לְבָנָה, לְשׁוּם כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת, לְשׁוּם מִיכָאֵל שַׂר הַגָּדוֹל, לְשׁוּם שִׁילְשׁוּל קָטָן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים!

The Gemara asks with regard to the specific figures listed in the mishna: Is this to say that people worship only these figures, but not any other item? And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this list and that which is taught in another mishna ( Ḥullin 39b): With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of, i.e., to worship, seas, for the sake of rivers, for the sake of the wilderness, for the sake of the sun, for the sake of the moon, for the sake of the stars and constellations, for the sake of Michael the great ministering angel, or even for the sake of a small worm, in all of these cases, the animal is forbidden, as these animals have the status of offerings to the dead, i.e., idols.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: מִיפְלַח – לְכָל דְּמַשְׁכְּחִי פָּלְחִי; מֵיצַר וּמְפַלְחִי, הָנֵי תְּלָתָא דַּחֲשִׁיבִי – צָיְירִי לְהוּ וּפָלְחִי לְהוּ, לְמִידֵי אַחֲרִינָא – לְנוֹי בְּעָלְמָא עָבְדִי לְהוּ.

Abaye said in response to the contradiction: With regard to worship, people might worship any item that they find. With regard to fashioning figures and then worshipping them, only with regard to these three items listed in the mishna, which are important, do people fashion figures of them and worship them. With regard to figures of any other entity, people make them merely for ornamental purposes.

מַנְקֵיט רַב שֵׁשֶׁת חוּמְרֵי מַתְנִיָּיתָא וְתָנֵי: כָּל הַמַּזָּלוֹת מוּתָּרִין – חוּץ מִמַּזַּל חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה, וְכָל הַפַּרְצוּפִין מוּתָּרִין – חוּץ מִפַּרְצוּף אָדָם, וְכָל הַצּוּרוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת – חוּץ מִצּוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן.

Rav Sheshet would consolidate the principles of the baraitot pertaining to this matter and teach: Figures of all constellations are permitted, except for the following celestial objects: The sun and the moon. And figures of all faces are permitted, except for the human face. And all figures of other items are permitted except for the figure of a dragon.

אָמַר מָר: כָּל הַמַּזָּלוֹת מוּתָּרִין חוּץ מִמַּזַּל חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּעוֹשֶׂה; אִי בְּעוֹשֶׂה, כָּל הַמַּזָּלוֹת מִי שָׁרֵי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי״, לֹא תַּעֲשׂוּן כִּדְמוּת שַׁמָּשַׁי הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְפָנַי בַּמָּרוֹם!

The Master said: Figures of all constellations are permitted, except for the following celestial objects: The sun and the moon. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with here? If we say that the reference is to one who forms these figures, i.e., if Rav Sheshet is discussing the issue of which figures it is permitted to form, is forming figures of all the other constellations permitted? But isn’t it written: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold, you shall not make for you” (Exodus 20:20)? This verse is interpreted to mean: You shall not make figures of My attendants who serve before Me on high, i.e., those celestial bodies, including the constellations, that were created to serve God.

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּמוֹצֵא, וּכְדִתְנַן: הַמּוֹצֵא כֵּלִים וַעֲלֵיהֶם צוּרַת חַמָּה, צוּרַת לְבָנָה, צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן – יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח.

Rather, it is obvious that this halakha is referring to a case where one finds vessels with these figures on them, and this is as we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. This indicates that it is permitted to derive benefit from any other vessels that were found and that had figures on them.

אִי בְּמוֹצֵא, אֵימָא מְצִיעָתָא: כָּל הַפַּרְצוּפוֹת מוּתָּרִין חוּץ מִפַּרְצוּף אָדָם; אִי בְּמוֹצֵא, פַּרְצוּף אָדָם מִי אָסוּר? וְהָתְנַן: הַמּוֹצֵא כֵּלִים וַעֲלֵיהֶם צוּרַת חַמָּה, צוּרַת לְבָנָה, צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן – יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח; צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן אִין, פַּרְצוּף אָדָם לָא!

The Gemara asks: If it is a case where one finds vessels with these figures on them, say the middle clause of Rav Sheshet’s statement: Figures of all faces are permitted, except for the human face. Now, if it is a case where one finds vessels with figures on them, is a vessel with the figure of the human face forbidden? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea? This indicates that a vessel with the figure of a dragon is forbidden, but a vessel with the figure of a human face is not.

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּעוֹשֶׂה, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ;

Rather, the Gemara concludes, it is obvious that the statement that the figure of a human face is forbidden is referring to a case where one forms a figure, and this is prohibited, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who states (43b) that the interpretation of the verse: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold, you shall not make for you” (Exodus 20:20), is: Do not make of Me, i.e., do not form the figure of a person, who was created in the image of God.

אִי בְּעוֹשֶׂה, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כָּל הַצּוּרוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת חוּץ מִצּוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן; וְאִי בְּעוֹשֶׂה, צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן מִי אֲסִיר? וְהָכְתִיב: ״לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף וֵאלֹהֵי זָהָב״,

The Gemara asks: If it is referring to a case where one forms a figure, say the last clause of Rav Sheshet’s statement: All figures are permitted except for the figure of a dragon. And if it is referring to a case where one forms a figure, is forming the figure of a dragon prohibited? But isn’t it written: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold”?