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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Avodah Zarah 46

AVODAH ZARAH 46 (26 Nisan) - has been dedicated by Mr. Avi Berger in memory of his mother, Leah bas Michel Mordechai, in honor of her Yahrzeit.



(a) A Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa before Rav Sheishes that precludes mountains that Nochrim worshipped from the Isur of Avodah-Zarah - though the Nochrim who worshipped it are Chayav.

(b) If it was seeds or vegetables growing on the mountain that they worshipped however - the Tana rules that they are Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c) Rav Sheishes established the Beraisa like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - because according to the Rabbanan, he would be Patur in the latter case, too.

(d) He knew that the Beraisa is not talking in a case when the seeds were planted initially as an Asheirah - because the Tana compares the case of seeds to that of Har, of which one cannot say that.

(a) B'nei Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Yochanan argue - whether if a Nochri prostrates himself before stones from a mountain that came loose, they become Asur be'Hana'ah or not.

(b) The one who permits them learns it from the mountain itself - since they, like it, were not formed by man.

(c) We nevertheless query this comparison - on the grounds that the stones, unlike the mountain, are detached.

(d) And we answer 'Beheimah Tochi'ach', and we know that a worshipped animal is Mutar be'Hana'ah - since the Torah forbids it to be brought as a Korban (and if it was Asur be'Hana'ah, we would already know this from ''mi'Mashkeh Yisrael'', 'min ha'Mutar le'Yisrael').

(a) To the query 'Mah li'Beheimah she'Kein Ba'alas Chayim, we answer - 'Har Yochi'ach' ...

(b) ... and we learn from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' (of Har and Beheimah) - that whatever is not formed by man is not subject to an Isur Hana'ah when it is worshipped.

(c) We ask on this 'Tzad ha'Shaveh however - in that the mountain and animal remain unchanged from their original form, whereas the stones have been changed.

(d) We finally learn the Din of loose stones from one of two combinations, either from a blemished animal and a regular mountain - or from a regular animal and a withered tree.

(a) The previous D'rashah goes according to the Rabbanan. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (who considers even a tree that was planted for personal use 'T'fisas Yad Adam') will learn the Heter of stones that came loose from - a tree that grew by itself.

(b) The source of the one who forbids the stones (in spite of the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh') is - the Pasuk in Re'ei "Shaketz Teshaktzenu ve'Sa'ev Tesa'avenu", indicating that one must forbid even something that ought to be permitted.

(c) Chizkiyah asked whether a propped-up egg would become Asur if a Nochri prostrated himself before it. Assuming that the Nochri did go ahead and worship the stones, the basis of Chizkiyah's She'eilah is - whether propping-up an egg is considered 'T'fisas Yedei Adam' or not. Had he not worshipped it however, the egg would be permitted.

(d) We try to prove from here that it is the B'nei Rebbi Chiya who permit the stones (and Rebbi Yochanan who therefore forbids them) - because Chizkiyah was one of the sons of Rebbi Chiya (the other son was Yehudah).

(a) We refute this proof however, by suggesting that B'nei Rebbi Chiya really forbid stones that have been worshipped, and that Chizkiyah is speaking in a case when a Yisrael propped-up the egg, but did not then worship it. Before finally establishing the case however, we have a problem, based on another Machlokes regarding when the Avodas-Kochavim of a Yisrael becomes forbidden; immediately according to one opinion, or only after it is worshipped, according to another.

(b) The problem with our current suggestion is - that 'Mah Nafshach', according to the first opinion, the egg becomes forbidden immediately, whereas according to the second opinion, it is permitted (since he did not worship it). Either way, the She'eilah is redundant.

(a) We finally establish Chizkiyah's case, according to the opinion that requires an Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael to be worshipped. And what happened there was - that a Nochri then came and prostrated himself before the egg.

(b) And the She'eilah is based on a similar ruling of Rav Yehudah, who forbids a brick that a Nochri worshipped under the same circumstances. The egg might be different - because a propped-up egg does not stand tall like a brick, giving rise to the She'eilah that perhaps propping it up is not considered an act in this regard.

(c) We do not apply the principle 'Ein Adam Oser Davar she'Eino she'Lo' - because by propping-up the brick in front of the Nochri, the Yisrael indicated his wish for the brick to be worshipped (which is no worse than giving his consent).

(d) The outcome of Chizkiyah's She'eilah is 'Teiku'.




(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether the stones hewn from a mountain that was worshipped are forbidden to be used to build the Mizbe'ach. The precedent we have where something is permitted to a Hedyot, but forbidden to the Mizbe'ach is - animals that have been worshipped.

(b) Even assuming that, on principle, we would indeed compare Mechubar to animals, the stones might be eligible for the construction of the Mizbe'ach - because the Mizbe'ach constitutes a lesser Kedushah than the actual Korbanos that are brought on it.

(c) Rava resolves this She'eilah with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Esnan Zonah - which is forbidden to be used for Hashem, even though it is permitted to a Hedyot, even if it is Mechubar.

(d) We know that Esnan Zonah is forbidden to be used for Hashem even if it is Mechubar - because the Torah writes "Lo Savi Esnan Zonah (implying both Talush and Mechubar) ... Beis Hashem" (implying even to be used to construct a building for Hashem).

(a) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua Darshens the Pasuk "Eloheihem al he'Harim" 've'Lo he'Harim Eloheihem' - even to use Mechubar for Hashem.

(b) He then Darshens - that if a worshipped article, which is forbidden to a Hedyot by Talush, is permitted for Hashem by Mechubar, Esnan, which is permitted to a Hedyot by Talush, should certainly be permitted for Hashem by Mechubar.

(c) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's source for permitting a worshipped Mechubar article for Hashem is - the fact that "Eloheihem al he'Harim" is written S'tam, so that, if there is no reason to Darshen otherwise, it implies a total Heter.

(d) If, as Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua maintains, Mechubar is permitted by Esnan Zonah, he will have a problem with the Pasuk "Beis Hashem" - which implies that an Esnan of a house (see Tosfos DH 've'I Mishum') is forbidden for Hashem.

(a) He resolves the problem with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer specifically Darshens "Beis Hashem" to preclude a Parah Adumah from the prohibition of Esnan. He infers this from "Beis Hashem" - because, although the Parah Adumah was Hekdesh, it did not enter the Beis Hamikdash, but was Shechted on the Har ha'Zeisim.

(b) The Chachamim there include Riku'in in the Isur, based on the same words. 'Riku'in' means - plates (of gold) that are beaten flat and used to overlay the walls of the Heichal.

(c) Rava replied to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - that when one can Darshen either le'Chumra or le'Kula, there is a principle to Darshen 'le'Chumra'.

(a) In the Mishnah in Pesachim, Rebbi Eliezer ruled le'Chumra, obligating a Tamei Meis on his seventh day to be sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah (even if Erev Pesach falls on Shabbos), in order to be able to eat the Korban Pesach that night - on the basis of a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the Shechitah, which is a Melachah, yet it overrides Shabbos, how much more so 'Haza'ah' which is only an Isur de'Rabbanan.

(b) When Rebbi Akiva retorted 'O Chiluf', he meant - that perhaps we will say the opposite, that if Haza'ah does not override Shabbos, how much more so Shechitah.

(c) Rav Papa asks on Rava from Rebbi Akiva - who will clearly Darshen a 'Kal va'Chomer' le'Kula, even when it is possible to Darshen it le'Chumra.

(d) We answer that Rebbi Eliezer forgot what he taught Rebbi Akiva, by which we mean - that Rebbi Akiva did not really Darshen a 'Kal va'Chomer' at all. He was merely trying to remind Rebbi Eliezer of what he himself had taught him (that Haza'ah does not override Shabbos [period]), using the 'Kal va'Chomer from Shechitah as an excuse.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer did not take the hint however, and cited the Pasuk in Bo "be'Mo'ado" to prove that one may Shecht the Korban Pesach on Shabbos. Rebbi Akiva still insisted that, even then, Haza'ah remains forbidden - since unlike Shechitah, it does not have a fixed time (the source for the Heter of Shechitah even on Shabbos).

(b) When Rebbi Eliezer became angry with him - Rebbi Akiva finally reminded him of what he himself had taught him.

(c) He declined to say that immediately - in order not to embarrass his Rebbe (hoping that he would recall it himself).

(a) Rami bar Chama asked whether standing wheat that was worshipped is eligible to make flour for the Menachos. He clearly holds - 'Yesh Ne'evad bi'Mechubar'.

(b) Standing wheat might nevertheless be eligible for Menachos - because it has been changed from its original format.

(c) We reject the text 'ha'Mishtachaveh le'Chitin, Kimchan Mahu li'Menachos' - because since the detached wheat became Asur, it remains Asur, and there are no grounds for doubt.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa permits babies of animals that are not eligible to be brought as Korbanos - such as Muktzah and Ne'evad.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer however -forbids them.

(c) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman attempts to resolve the current She'eilah from there - since there too, the babies changed from fetuses to animals (and the same would apply if the pregnant animal was one that was worshipped), rendering our She'eilah of wheat that is changed, synonymous with the Machlokes Tana'im there.

(a) We refute Mar Zuta's interpretation however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah (or Rava Amar Rav Nachman) who established the Beraisa by animals that became pregnant after being raped. In a case where they were already pregnant at the time that they were raped - the babies will certainly be Asur, since they too, were raped.

(b) Bearing in mind that the baby is formed after the rape, the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan - is whether 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem (the mother which is Asur and the father, which is Mutar) Mutar' (the Tana Kama) or Asur' (Rebbi Eliezer).

(c) In the second Lashon, it is Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman himself who concludes 've'Itmar Alah, Amar Rav Nachman ... ', and he connects the She'eilah of the standing wheat with the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer - by comparing the standing wheat (which is synonymous with the flour) to Ibru ve'li'be'Sof Nirve'u', which is Asur even according to the Tana Kama.

(d) We repudiate the proof however, on the grounds - that whereas flour made from standing wheat has changed its format, the babies of forbidden animals are not really different than the fetus which produced them. The only difference between them is the body of the mother that prevented them from emerging earlier.

Next daf


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