(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Avodah Zarah, 44


OPINIONS: The Mishnah (43b) quotes the opinion of Rebbi Yosi who says that when one destroys an idol, he should grind it up and throw the pieces into the wind or the ocean. The Tana Kama argues that grinding does not suffice, since the pieces will become fertilizer and help the ground become more fertile, causing Jews to benefit from the Avodah Zarah.

The Gemara describes a number of incidents in which people did not merely grind up an Avodah Zarah, but they first burned it. Indeed, we find that the verses which command us to destroy Avodah Zarah specifically mention burning, such as the verse, "And their idols you shall burn in fire (Devarim 7:5), and "[You shall] burn their Asherim with fire" (Devarim 12:3)."

Is it necessary to destroy an idol through burning, or is burning merely the recommended manner but is not obligatory?

(a) TOSFOS in Chulin (88b, DH Sechikas) cites an opinion that maintains that burning is mandatory. The Gemara there seems to assume that things cannot grow in ground pieces of a metal vessel. Tosfos there questions this from the opinion of the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, who says that these pieces will cause things to grow (our Mishnah is also referring to idols made of metal). Tosfos answers that the Mishnah here in Avodah Zarah says only that such pieces can help things grow, but not that things can grow in metal.

However, Tosfos quotes RABEINU TAM who answers that only through the process of burning do metal shards become enabled to grow things. He explains that this is the issue in Avodah Zarah, *as all Avodah Zarah is at first burned* when it is destroyed, just like the Egel ha'Zahav, the Golden Calf.

The SEDER YAKOV points out that the logic behind such an approach is that even though the fire does not necessarily totally demolish an Avodah Zarah made out of metal, it still can melt it and change it. It follows that we may assume that Rabeinu Tam understands that there are two Halachos. First, the fire must be large enough to cause damage to the Avodah Zarah. Second, it is possible that even Rabeinu Tam will agree that if an Avodah Zarah is made out of stone which will not be affected at all by fire, then there is no requirement to put it in fire.

(b) The RASHBA here argues with Rabeinu Tam, since idols made out of metal cannot be destroyed through fire. He explains that the only time that the Torah requires that an Avodah Zarah be burned is when it is made out of wood. This explains the verse that commands us to burn the Asheirah *tree*. The Rashba explains that the verse that says that idols must be burned (Devarim 7:4) is also referring only to idols made of wood. (It is important to note, however, that the Rashba in Chulin cites Rabeinu Tam's opinion without arguing.)

(c) The RAMBAM in SEFER HA'MITZVOS (Mitzvah 185) explains that the Mitzvah is to "destroy Avodah Zarah... in any manner of destruction: breaking, burning, destroying, and cutting down every type of Avodah Zarah with the best and quickest manner of destruction. The intent is not to leave any trace of them."

The Rambam clearly does not require that the specific means of burning be used. According to the Rambam, the primary goal is to get rid of the Avodah Zarah in the most effective manner.

The difference between the approach of the Rambam and that of Rabeinu Tam seems to be in a case in which a wooden Avodah Zarah was found and there is no fire immediately available with which to burn it. According to the Rambam, it would appear that the Avodah Zarah should be destroyed by the quickest manner possible, while according to Rabeinu Tam and the Rashba one should wait to destroy it with fire. (Y. Montrose)


QUESTION: The Mishnah relates that Raban Gamliel was bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite and was discussing with Perokelus (a Nochri) how Raban Gamliel was permitted to wash in a bathhouse of Avodah Zarah.

However, there seems to be another important Halachic issue that is not addressed in this incident. The Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (ch. 29) states that one should not bathe in the company of Nochrim. How, then, could Raban Gamliel bathe with Nochrim, even if the bathhouse was not one of Avodah Zarah?


(a) The MORDECHAI (#839) deals with this question. He explains that if the Jew enters the bathing area first, and the Nochri enters only afterwards, then the Jew is permitted to stay. He also says that if the Jew distances himself four Amos from the Nochri, then it is also permitted to bathe there.

The DARCHEI MOSHE (YD 153:1) comments that we are not stringent to conduct ourselves in accordance with the Mordechai nowadays. He suggests that the reason for this is perhaps that in their days, they bathed without wearing any pants, as mentioned by the AGUDAH in Pesachim (#50). The Rema codifies this as the Halachah and states that one is not allowed to bathe without clothing with Nochrim, unless he is the first in the bath (as stated by the Mordechai).

(b) The BACH (YD ibid.) argues with the conclusion of the Rema. First, he says that he does not understand where the Rema derives this Halachic difference between wearing pants and not wearing pants. Second, why should four Amos, or arriving first, make a difference if there is a problem of bathing together unclothed?

The Bach explains that the reason of the Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer is because of purity. He quotes the Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer at length, who states that the reason Avraham Avinu circumcised his servants was due to the fact that he did not want them to be like ritually impure Nochrim. He did this because touching a Nochri "is like touching a dead person," and washing with them "is like washing with a leper." This clearly shows that the reason behind this prohibition is to keep from becoming ritually impure. Even though we are all ritually impure today (since we are all Tamei with Tum'as Mes), this prohibition still applies, since the Chachamim prohibited it and never repealed the prohibition (see Insights to 36a). However, the reason why it is permitted when the Jew distances himself four Amos from the Nochri is because one is not considered as washing in the same area as the Nochri, and thus will not become Tamei from him, when one is beyond four Amos away from the Nochri. The Bach dismisses the Rema's difference between wearing pants or not wearing pants as irrelevant.

The SHACH primarily agrees with the arguments of the Bach. His disagreement with the Bach rests in whether or not this Halachah still applies nowadays. The Shach cites a different statement of the Mordechai in which he quotes the RASH BAR BARUCH who says that one is allowed to wash in a bathhouse with Nochri bath-attendants. This implies that there is no prohibition against bathing with Nochrim today. He explains that when the Mordechai says that one should not bathe with Nochrim, he is merely telling us appropriate behavior, but not a prohibition. The Shach therefore rules that it is permitted under all conditions to bathe with Nochrim.

The TAZ agrees with the position of Shach, yet mentions a qualification in accordance with the Rema. He explains that one is not allowed to bathe in a place where the Nochrim are not wearing clothes, as this can cause one to have evil thoughts and lead to promiscuity (see Pesachim 51a). (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,