עַד כָּאן הוּא מְדַבֵּר בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת,

The verse states: “Any man…that slaughters an ox…outside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus:17:3–4). Until this point, the verse is speaking about sacrificial animals that one consecrated during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing offerings on private altars was in effect, after the Tabernacle was erected, and then he also sacrificed them during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars was in effect.

שֶׁהֲרֵי עוֹנְשָׁן אָמוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ״ וגו׳. עוֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ״;

This is apparent as the punishment for sacrificing them is stated in this verse, as it is stated: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord, before the Tabernacle of the Lord…that man shall be cut off from among his people” (Leviticus:17:4). We have heard from that verse the punishment, but with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing on a private altar, from where is it derived? The verse states: “Take heed to yourself lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13).

וְכִדְרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָּא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָּא: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִשָּׁמֵר״ וּ״פֶּן״ וְ״אַל״ – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה;

The Gemara comments: And this is in accordance with the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated: “Beware,” “lest,” or “do not,” this is nothing other than a prohibition.

מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ הוּא מְדַבֵּר בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת,

The baraita continues: From that point onward, the verse is speaking about sacrificial animals that one consecrated during a period when there was permission to sacrifice offerings on private altars, before the Tabernacle was erected, and then one sacrificed them outside the Tabernacle during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars was in effect.

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹבְחִים״ – שֶׁהִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר, ״עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הַזּוֹבֵחַ בְּבָמָה בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הוּא זוֹבֵחַ עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה;

This is apparent, as it is stated: “In order that the children of Israel shall bring their sacrifices, which they slaughter upon the open field, that they shall bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:5). The phrase: “Their sacrifices, which they slaughter,” is interpreted as referring to offerings that I have previously permitted you to slaughter on private altars. This verse teaches that those offerings may now be sacrificed only inside the Tabernacle. The phrase “upon the open field” teaches that in the case of anyone who slaughters an offering on a private altar during a period when the prohibition of sacrificing on private altars is in effect, even if he sacrifices the offering to God, the verse ascribes him blame as if he is slaughtering it upon the open field in idolatrous worship.

״וֶהֱבִיאֻם לַה׳״ – זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וּמִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם״;

The verse continues: “That they shall bring them to the Lord.” This is a positive mitzva to sacrifice even offerings that were consecrated before the Tabernacle was erected in the wilderness. And from where is it derived that there is a prohibition against sacrificing them outside the Tabernacle? The verse states: “And they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se’irim after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7).

יָכוֹל יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה זֹּאת לָהֶם״, זֹאת לָהֶם – וְלֹא אַחֶרֶת לָהֶם!

One might have thought that sacrificing these offerings outside the Tabernacle would be punishable by karet , as this is the halakha with regard to offerings consecrated after the Tabernacle was consecrated. Therefore, the verse states: “This shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7). One can infer from this verse that this, the punishment for transgressing a positive mitzva and a prohibition, applies to them, but no other punishment applies to them. In any event, the baraita interprets the verse: “And they shall not slaughter their offerings anymore to the se’irim ,” as prohibiting sacrificing to God on private altars, not as Rabbi Elazar interpreted it, as prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.

אֲמַר רָבָא, קְרֵי בֵּיהּ: ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ״, וּקְרֵי בֵּיהּ: ״וְלֹא עוֹד״.

Rava said: One may derive both halakhot from the verse, as the term “And they shall not” can be interpreted as referring to two distinct prohibitions. Read into the verse: “And they shall not slaughter,” which is interpreted as prohibiting offerings to God on private altars. And also read into the verse: “And they shall not slaughter… anymore to the se’irim ,” which is interpreted as prohibiting the worship of an idol in an atypical manner.

מתני׳ מָצָא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ מָעוֹת, כְּסוּת אוֹ כֵּלִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין; פַּרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים, וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים, וְיֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אָסוּר.

If one found money, a garment, or vessels at the head of Mercury, these are permitted. If one found vine branches laden with clusters of grapes, or wreaths made of stalks, or containers of wine, oil, or flour, or any other item the likes of which is sacrificed on the altar there, it is prohibited.

גמ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַתִּרְאוּ אֶת שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם וְאֵת גִּלֻּלֵיהֶם עֵץ וָאֶבֶן כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב אֲשֶׁר עִמָּהֶם״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם״, הָא כֵּיצַד?

The mishna teaches that money, clothing, or vessels found at the head of the idol are not forbidden. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: One verse states: “And you have seen their detestable things and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which are with them” (Deuteronomy 29:16). And one verse states: “You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourself” (Deuteronomy 7:25). How can these texts be reconciled? The second verse mentions the prohibition of only silver and gold, whereas the first verse also mentions wood and stone.

עִמָּהֶם דּוּמְיָא דַּעֲלֵיהֶם, מָה עֲלֵיהֶם – דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר, אַף עִמָּהֶם – דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר.

The Gemara answers: This teaches that the prohibition with regard to those items that are “with them,” i.e., those found next to the idols, is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are “on them.” Just as with regard to those items that are on the idols, a decorative item, e.g., gold or silver, is prohibited, but that which is not a decorative item is permitted, so too, with regard to those items that are with the idols, a decorative item is prohibited, and that which is not a decorative item is permitted.

וְאֵימָא: עֲלֵיהֶם דּוּמְיָא דְּעִמָּהֶם, מָה עִמָּהֶם – כָּל מַה שֶּׁעִמָּהֶם, אַף עֲלֵיהֶם – כָּל שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶם! אִם כֵּן, לֹא יֹאמַר ״עֲלֵיהֶם״.

The Gemara challenges: But one could say to the contrary, that the prohibition with regard to those items that are “on them” is similar to the prohibition with regard to those items that are “with them.” Just as with regard to those items that are with the idols, everything that is found with them is included in the prohibition, as the verse mentions wood and stone, which are not decorative items, so too, with regard to those items that are on the idols, everything that is on them is forbidden. The Gemara explains: If so, the verse should not state the prohibition with regard to items that are on the idols, as it may be inferred a fortiori from the prohibition with regard to items that are found next to them.

מָעוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּכִיס קָשׁוּר וְתָלוּי לוֹ בְּצַוָּארוֹ.

The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that money that is found at the head of the idol is permitted. This is difficult, as money is a decorative item. The school of Rabbi Yannai say: The ruling of the mishna is not stated with regard to a case where coins were placed on the idol in order to adorn it. Rather, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the money is inside a purse that is tied onto the idol and suspended from its neck for safekeeping, or left there as payment for the priests.

כְּסוּת דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בִּכְסוּת מְקוּפֶּלֶת וּמוּנַּחַת לוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. כְּלִי דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי הוּא! אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: דִּסְחִיפָא לֵיהּ מַשְׁכִּילְתָא אַרֵישֵׁיהּ.

The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that a garment found at the head of the idol is permitted. This is difficult, as a garment is a decorative item. The school of Rabbi Yannai say: The ruling of the mishna is not stated with regard to a garment that was placed on the idol in order to adorn it. Rather, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a garment that is folded and placed upon the head of the idol. The Gemara challenges: The mishna teaches that vessels found at the head of the idol are permitted. This is difficult, as a vessel is a decorative item. Rav Pappa said: The mishna is referring to where a pot [ mashkilta ] is placed upside down upon the head of the idol, in which case it does not serve as decoration.

אָמַר רַב אַסִי בַּר חִיָּיא: כָּל שֶׁהוּא לִפְנִים מִן הַקִּלְקָלִין – אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם וּמֶלַח אָסוּר, חוּץ לַקִּלְקָלִין – דָּבָר שֶׁל נוֹי אָסוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל נוֹי מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, נָקְטִינַן: אֵין קִלְקָלִין לֹא לִפְעוֹר וְלֹא לְמַרְקוּלִיס.

Rav Asi bar Ḥiyya says: Any item that is found within the inner partitions [ hakilkalin ] that surround the idol, even water or salt, is prohibited, as it is assumed to be an offering brought in idolatrous worship. With regard to items that are found outside the partitions, a decorative item is prohibited, but that which is not a decorative object is permitted. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: We have a tradition that the halakha with regard to the partitions applies neither to Peor nor to Mercury.

לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא דַּאֲפִילּוּ פְּנִים כְּחוּץ דָּמֵי וְשָׁרֵי; הָשְׁתָּא פַּעוּרֵי מְפָעֲרִין קַמֵּיהּ, מַיִם וּמֶלַח לָא מַקְרְבִין לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ חוּץ כְּבִפְנִים דָּמֵי וְאָסוּר.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? If we say that this means that with regard to Peor and Mercury even items that are found inside the partitions are treated like those that are found outside the partitions and they are permitted, this is difficult. Now, Peor is worshipped by defecating before it. Even excrement is offered to Peor. Is it possible that its worshippers do not sacrifice water and salt to it? Although water and salt are not generally offered to an idol, in the case of Peor they certainly can be. Rather, Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina means that with regard to Peor and Mercury even items that are found outside the partitions are treated like those that are found inside the partitions, and they are prohibited even if they are not decorative items.

מתני׳ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ גִּינָּה אוֹ מֶרְחָץ – נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה, וְאֵין נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בְּטוֹבָה; הָיָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים – נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בֵּין בְּטוֹבָה וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נָכְרִי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – אֵין אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד.

In the case of an object of idol worship that had a garden or a bathhouse, one may derive benefit from them when it is not to the advantage of the idol worship, i.e., when he does not pay for his use, but one may not derive benefit from them when it is to their advantage, i.e., if one is required to pay for his use. If the garden or bathhouse belonged jointly to the place of idol worship and to others, one may derive benefit from them, both when it is to their advantage and when it is not to their advantage. A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is actually worshipped.

גמ׳ אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: בְּטוֹבָה – בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין, שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה – שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין, לְאַפּוּקֵי טוֹבַת עוֹבְדֶיהָ דְּשָׁרֵי.

Abaye says: The case where use of the garden or bathhouse is to the financial advantage of the idol worship is referring to a case where it is to the financial advantage of the priests [ komarin ], who receive payment for the use of the garden or bathhouse. The case where it is not to their financial advantage is referring to a case where it is not to the financial advantage of the priests. This is to the exclusion of a situation where using the facility is only to the financial advantage of the idol’s worshippers, in which case one is permitted to derive benefit from them.

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לָהּ אַסֵּיפָא: הָיָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים – נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בְּטוֹבָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה; אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: בְּטוֹבָה – בְּטוֹבַת אֲחֵרִים, שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבָה – שֶׁלֹּא בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין.

The Gemara comments: There are those who teach Abaye’s statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: If the garden or bathhouse belonged to the place of idol worship and to others, one may derive benefit from them both when it is to their advantage and when it is not to their advantage. Abaye says: The term: When it is to their advantage, is referring to a case where it is to the financial advantage of the other owners, while the term: When it is not to their advantage, is referring to a case where it is not to the financial advantage of the priests. But if the use of the place is to the financial advantage of the priests, one may not derive benefit from the place.

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא – כָּל שֶׁכֵּן אַרֵישָׁא, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא, אֲבָל אַסֵּיפָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אֲחֵרִים בַּהֲדָהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין נַמִי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

The Gemara notes: According to the one who teaches Abaye’s statement with regard to the case presented in the latter clause of the mishna, where the garden or bathhouse is only partially owned by the place of idol worship, all the more so does this statement apply to the case presented in the first clause of the mishna, where the garden or bathhouse is owned exclusively by the place of idol worship. But according to the one who teaches Abaye’s statement with regard to the case presented in the first clause, Abaye’s statement applies only to that case. But with regard to the case presented in the latter clause, since there are others who own the place together with the place of idol worship, even if the use of the garden or bathhouse is to the financial advantage of the priests it is permitted.

״עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נָכְרִי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד״. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא: ״אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כָּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם״ – בְּכֵלִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר;

§ The mishna teaches: A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita : “You shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship.

יָכוֹל עֲשָׂאוּם וְלֹא גְּמָרוּם, גְּמָרוּם וְלֹא הֱבִיאוּם, הֱבִיאוּם וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן, יָכוֹל יְהוּ אֲסוּרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם״ – שֶׁאֵין אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבְדוּ; מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נָכְרִי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

One might have thought that the vessels are prohibited even if the gentiles fashioned them but did not complete them, completed them but did not bring them to the idol, or brought them to the idol but did not use them for idolatrous worship. Might one have thought that in these cases the vessels are prohibited? The verse states: “Where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2). This indicates that the vessels are not prohibited until they are used for worship. It is from here that the Sages stated: A gentile’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נָכְרִי אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – עַד שֶׁתֵּיעָבֵד.

Rabbi Akiva says: The matters are reversed. A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped. The mishna is therefore in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

אָמַר מָר: בְּכֵלִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. הָא ״מְקוֹמוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִמְקוֹמוֹת, דְּלָא מִיתַּסְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים״ – וְלֹא הֶהָרִים אֱלֹהֵיהֶם,

The Master said above: The verse is speaking of vessels that were used by the gentiles for idol worship. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written “You shall destroy all the places” (Deuteronomy 12:2), indicating that the verse is not referring to vessels? The Gemara answers: If the halakha stated in this verse is not applicable for the matter of places that were worshipped, it must apply to another matter. The verse cannot apply to the places themselves, as they are not rendered prohibited, as it is written: “You shall destroy… their gods, upon the high mountains” (Deuteronomy 12:2), indicating that one is not required to destroy the mountains that are themselves their gods. Something that is attached to the ground is not rendered forbidden, and therefore even if idol worshippers worshipped the mountain itself it does not need to be destroyed.