all their accessories, and everything that is made for their purposes - Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) states that the mitzvah is to destroy "every entity which is worshiped and their temples," from which one might conclude that the destruction of the accessories of idol worship is a Rabbinic injunction. Avodat HaMelech, however, cites Avodah Zarah 51b, which also derives the injunction to destroy the accessories of idol worship from a Biblical proof-text. all their accessories, and everything that is made for their purposes, as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall surely destroy all the places [where the gentiles... served their gods]"3Note the Bnei Binyamin, which states that when fulfilling this commandment, we should recite a blessing: "Blessed... who commanded us to eradicate idol worship from our land." Other commentaries explain that reciting a blessing is inappropriate, based on the principle (Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 18) that a blessing is not recited for a mitzvah that comes to correct a sin. The Bnei Binyamin, however, maintains that this principle does not apply here, since the transgression was committed by gentiles. and, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:5]: "Rather, what you should do to them is tear down their altars."
In4Kinat Eliyahu questions the purpose of the second proof-text. Eretz Yisrael, the mitzvah requires us to hunt after idol worship until it is eradicated from our entire land.5Kinat Eliyahu explains that this obligation has its source in the uniqueness of Eretz Yisrael. Because it is God's holy land, we must rid it of idol worship. In contrast, In the diaspora, however,6The obligation to destroy false deities is of a different nature. we are not required to hunt after it.7Since these lands are not holy, we are not obligated to eradicate idol worship from them. Rather, whenever we conquer a place, we must destroy all the false deities contained within.8because a false deity may not exist under a Jew's authority.
In his notes on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:20), the Vilna Gaon explains that the Rambam's statements appear to mean that whenever the Jews conquer a land, they are obligated to destroy all false deities and their places of worship. These statements may, however, also be interpreted as meaning that whenever an individual finds or takes possession of a false deity, it must be destroyed.
[The source for this distinction is Deuteronomy 12:3, which] states: "And you shall destroy their name from this place,"9i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The opening verse of the Biblical passage cited states: "These are the statutes... you must heed... in the land that God... is giving you." [implying that] you are obligated to hunt false deities in Eretz Yisrael, but you are not obligated to do so in the diaspora.10The Bnei Binyamin writes that even according to the opinions which permit gentiles to believe in Christianity, Jews are obligated to destroy their objects of worship and churches. This raises a question regarding the churches that exist in Eretz Yisrael today. Should their existence be tolerated, or are we, as a people and as individuals, obligated to destroy them?
[The fact that the Rambam associates the prohibition against benefitting from objects offered to idols with a Biblical proof-text appears to indicate that he considers this prohibition as having its roots in the Torah itself. Note Tosafot, Bava Kama 72a which states that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.] and anything made for them, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:26]: "Do not bring an abomination to your3Note the Pri Chadash,who questions whether a person who brings a false deity home without benefiting from it also receives lashes. home."
Anyone who derives benefit4Yad HaMelech contrasts the prohibition against benefiting from false gods with other Torah prohibitions where benefit is forbidden: e.g., non-kosher species of animals. In the latter case, though all types of benefit are forbidden, the Torah requires that punishment be administered only for eating the forbidden substances, and not for deriving other types of benefit (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:16), while with regard to false deities, punishment is administered for deriving any type of benefit.
The source for this difference is that the Torah uses the expression "Do not eat" or the like when forbidding the other prohibitions. Accordingly, punishment is administered only for eating. In contrast, the verses prohibiting false deities are more inclusive in nature. from any of the above receives two measures of lashes: one because of the prohibition, "Do not bring an abomination...,"5Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 25) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 429) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. and one because of the prohibition, "Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand."6As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, the latter prohibition primarily concerns the property of a condemned city (עיר הנדחת). Nevertheless, since false deities are also described as "condemned," benefiting from them is also included in the scope of the above prohibition (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 194).
Though the Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot) disputes the Rambam's decision, support for the Rambam's opinion can be found in several Talmudic sources - e.g., Avodah Zarah 34b, 51b.
The prohibition stated in this halachah and the positive commandment mentioned in the previous one serve as the foundation for all the laws discussed in this and the following chapter.
Authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, however, read אסורה כולה - i.e., "in its entirety" modifies "forbidden." According to this version, the explanation is straightforward, when an animal is sacrificed to a false deity the prohibition includes - even its excrement, its bones, its horns, its hooves, and its hide.3i.e., the prohibition involves not only the animal's meat, but even these less important elements of its being. It is forbidden to benefit from it at all.
To cite an example, the hide of an animal which is marked by a sign that indicates that it was offered as a sacrifice to false deities4e.g., it has a round hole - if the hole is oblong, there is no prohibition (Avodah Zarah 2:3). - e.g., it has a round hole in the place of the heart through which the heart is extracted,5They would slit open the animal's hide and kill it by cutting out the heart (Keter HaMelech) which was a common practice [of idolaters]6when offering sacrifices (Avodah Zarah, ibid.): - It is forbidden to benefit from all of these hides and others of the like.7because we assume that the animal was used as a sacrifice to idols and is therefore forbidden.
[In contrast,] it is not forbidden to benefit from a Jew's [idol] until he worships it, as [implied by Deuteronomy 27:15]: "[Cursed is the person who makes an idol...] and places it in a hidden place"5When does the curse fall? Not when the idol is made, but when it is placed in a hidden place. - i.e., it is not forbidden until he does private acts6i.e., worship - for it is unlikely that a Jew would worship a false deity openly. - i.e., worship - on its behalf.7on its behalf.
The accessories of idol worship, whether belonging to a Jew or to a gentile, are not forbidden until they were actually used for the purpose of idol worship.8Avodah Zarah 51b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 12:2, which states "You shall surely destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their gods." The gentiles' places of worship and the other accessories to idol worship are not forbidden until the false deities are "served."
[What is the rationale for the latter decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the hammer-stroke which completes it - See Shabbat 73a, 75b and commentaries regarding the final hammer-stroke which completes a project.
[What is the rationale for the latter decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the hammer-stroke which completes it is not worth a penny.3Avodah Zarah 19b explains that this law is dependent on the following principle of business law: Every moment an artisan works on a project is considered as a separate entity. When he finishes the project, it is considered as if the entire sum of money - with the exception of the value of the final hammer-stroke - is owed him from beforehand. Since benefit from the idol is not forbidden until it is completed, the money which is owed him previously is permitted.
[The following rules apply when] a person buys scrap metal from a gentile4There is an apparent contradiction between the laws which follow and Halachah 7, which states that idols found in a scrap metal heap are permitted. Two possible resolutions are offered:a) According to the version (see our commentary on that halachah) which reads "statues" and not "statues of idols," there is no contradiction.b) The prohibitions mentioned in this halachah were instituted because of the appearance that might be created if the Jew were to keep the idols he purchased. Accordingly, stricter laws were instituted. and finds idols within it:5Once the Jew becomes the full legal owner of the idols, he is obligated to destroy them, and cannot nullify the transaction and return them. The question in the following instances is whether the transaction has been completed or not. If he has already paid the money, but has not taken possession6We have taken some liberty in translating the word, ומשך. Literally, it means "and drew it after him." Performing this activity, however, is one of the means of formalizing a business transaction (see Hilchot Mechirah 3:1) and, therefore, the word was translated as above. of it, he should return it to the gentile.7Though paying money represents the finalization of a transaction (kinyan) between a Jew and gentile (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14), the transaction was made in error, as explained below. Since, in transactions carried out between two Jews, the transaction would not be completed until the recipient takes possession of the article, a Jew can return the idols to the gentile in this instance. The same [rules] apply if he took possession of it, but did not pay the money. Though taking possession represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a gentile,8See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, ibid. the transaction was made in error.9Since, in transactions carried out between two gentiles, the transaction would not be completed until the money was paid, it can be nullified in this instance. If he paid the money and took possession [of the scrap],10even though the transaction was carried out in error, since it appears to have been completed, it is forbidden to benefit from the idols because of the impression it may create. Therefore, they must be destroyed (Avodah Zarah 53a, 71b). (See also Siftei Cohen 1464.)
Our commentary follows the interpretation of Rav Kapach. It must be noted that many of the classic commentaries on the Mishneh Torah have questioned why the Rambam mentions the concept of a transaction made in error only in the case when the Jew took possession and did not pay, but not when he paid and did not take possession. They have offered several possible resolutions, including a sweeping statement by Avodat HaMelech that our Sages nullified the effectiveness of monetary payment as an effective means of finalizing the transfer of property (kinyan), not only with regard to transactions between two Jews (see Hilchot Mechirah 3:1,4-5), but also with regard to transactions between a Jew and a gentile.
(Interestingly, though the Rambam's phraseology has raised such problems, it is quoted verbatim by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 146:3.)
When stating that a forbidden object must be destroyed, our Sages frequently used the expression: he must take [the idols] to the Dead Sea.11Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 43b, explain that one need not literally take the idols to the Dead Sea. By using that term, our Sages implied a place where the idols will never benefit man. Similarly, the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that the Dead Sea is mentioned because it is a desolate area, not frequented by ships. If an article is cast into that sea, we can assume that it will not be recovered.12Tosafot also relates that, in practice, one need not take the idols to the Dead Sea. All that is necessary is to destroy the article in a manner in which neither it, nor its ashes or dust, will benefit man. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 6.13[It must be noted that though the Rambam occasionally uses the term 18חלמהáםי to refer to the Mediterranean Sea (see the conclusion to his Commentary to the Mishnah), in this context, it is clear that his intent is the Dead Sea.]
Similarly, when a gentile and a convert [divide] the estate of their father14a gentile - The problem in this instance is that it is forbidden to exchange an idol for other property. Hence, before taking possession of the inheritance, - a gentile - the convert may tell the gentile, "Take the idols and I will take the money," "Take the forbidden wine and I will take the produce."15In which case, the idols have never come into the convert's possession and, hence, he is not considered to have benefited from their exchange. Once [idols] come into the possession of the convert, however,16they are considered to be idols belonging to a Jew, and
they are forbidden - and must be destroyed.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (D'mai 6:10), the Rambam writes that were a similar situation - an inheritance containing property from which one heir would be allowed to benefit from and one would be forbidden - to occur among Jews, the leniencies mentioned above would not be permitted.
The difference between the two cases is that when a Jew inherits property from his father, the transfer of ownership is immediate, and from the moment of his father's death, the forbidden property belongs to the heir, who must take responsibility for it. In contrast, a convert's inheritance of his gentile father's estate is a Rabbinic decree, instituted in consideration of the convert. According to the Torah, once he converts, he has no connection to his natural parents. The Sages extended the leniency they granted in allowing him to acquire the inheritance to include the right to barter these forbidden articles before they actually become his property. (See also Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 146:5. they are forbidden.
What is implied?5The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 141:4) explains that the statements that follow (which are based on Avodah Zarah 41a) reflect the socio-cultural environment in which the Rambam lived. The criteria he mentions are thus not hard and fast rules, and will vary if different conditions prevail in other societies.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid., based on Avodah Zarah 40-41), the Rambam explains that although Rabbi Meir maintained that all gentile images were forbidden because they would be used for different pagan rites, the Sages disagreed and laid down the following general rules. It is forbidden to benefit from any images found in villages, for6Simple villagers are not expected to have artistic tastes. Therefore, one may assume that they were made for the sake of idol worship.7Even if we have no proof to that effect, we follow the general rule that it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely suspected of being worshiped as an idol. When images are found8even when the circumstances mentioned in the following halachah do not apply in a city,9Since the inhabitants of a metropolis are expected to be cultured and sophisticated, the images found there are not necessarily idols. Hence, they are forbidden only when they are found at the entrance to the city10a position which implies their authority over the entire city. and hold a staff, bird, globe, sword, crown, or ring in their hands.11All of these are also symbols of authority or sovereignty. Otherwise, we may assume12The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:1, which frequently quotes the Rambam verbatim, changes the phraseology used in this clause from "we may assume" to "surely." The Siftei Cohen (141:1) explains that this change clarifies that even though it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely suspected to have been worshiped as an idol (see Halachah 10), our assumption that they were made for aesthetic purposes,13is so strong that this is not considered as a case of doubt and benefit from them is permitted.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:2 does not mention "idols," but "statues." which are found discarded in the marketplace or in a scrap metal heap are permitted.2Avodah Zarah 41a-b explains this law as follows. The Mishnah uses the expression "statues" - i.e., a statue which we do not know that it has been worshiped. Shmuel, one of the Talmudic sages, adds, however, that the leniency also applies to idols which we know were worshiped.
His decision is based on the principle (Chapter 8, Halachah 8) that if the gentiles who worship an idol no longer consider it a god, the prohibition against benefiting from it is nullified. In this instance, the fact that these statues were found discarded is the clearest proof that their worshipers forsook them.
Afterwards, the Talmud quotes a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, concerning idols which are broken accidentally. In the context of the explanation of that difference of opinion, the Talmud mentions the explanation of the Mishnah in question by Rabbi Yochanan (whom the halachah follows, see Chapter 8, Halachah 11). He explains that the pieces of the statues (not idols) are permitted because we are not sure that they were ever worshiped. Even if they have been worshiped, it is possible that they were nullified.
Thus, according to the Talmud, the interpretation of these laws is as follows: If one finds an idol that was obviously purposefully broken (Shmuel's law), it is permitted to benefit from it. If, however, the idol was not destroyed with an obvious destructive intent, it is forbidden to benefit from it, as Rabbi Yochanan states. Needless to say, this applies to pieces of statues.3The fact that they were broken would appear to indicate that their worshipers nullified them.
In contrast, should one find a hand, a foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs - The phrase, "from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs," is a printer's addition, which runs contrary to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, ibid. This phrase implies that this clause refers to a limb broken from an idol. The authoritative manuscripts state "should one find a hand... which is the form of a deity."
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that this clause (found both in the mishnah and in this halachah) does not refer to a limb that is broken from an idol, but rather to an instance where the limb itself is worshiped. The Rambam explains that since the previous clause states that broken limbs of statues are permitted, this clause must be speaking about a different concept.
In contrast, should one find a hand, a foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial signs, it is forbidden to benefit from it.4Though the fact that it was abandoned in a scrap heap could be considered as an indication that it was nullified, Since one knows that this limb is one of the images that is worshiped,5i.e., the prohibition against its use is firmly established, the prohibition against [benefiting from it] remains until one knows6i.e., it is established with equal certainty that the gentiles who worshiped it, nullified it.7at which point its use is no longer prohibited, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
This does not mean a sphere which represents the sun, or a hemisphere which represents the moon, but rather the images which the astrologers [i.e., those following Greek mythology] attribute to the stars... - e.g., Saturn is represented as a dark old man of venerable age, Venus is represented as a beautiful maiden adorned with gold, and the sun is represented as a king with a diadem sitting in a chariot.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) quotes this explanation as halachah. or a d'rakon2In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam describes this image as a fishlike man with fins and many scales, probably referring to the Greek god Neptune. Rashi, Avodah Zarah 42b, and others interpret the form as that of an animal similar to a serpent. Perhaps this term is the source for the word "dragon." upon them:3The question is whether these forms should be considered to be representations of deities (and hence, forbidden). If they are golden or silver objects, or silk garments,4i.e., objects of great value. or if these forms were engraved on a nose-ring or finger-ring,5Rings, in addition to their value, also are a symbol of subservience: a slave wears his master's ring. they are forbidden.6The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) mentions that even valuable objects are permitted if one is certain that they have never been used as articles of worship. If these forms are found on other articles, they are permitted,7The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid.) states the general rule: "If these articles are found on objects of value, they are forbidden. If they are found on articles of little worth, they are permitted." The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) mentions pots or kettles as examples of objects of little worth. since we may assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes.8The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:3) states that if we are certain that these images were made for the purposes of worship, the article is forbidden even if it is of little value. TheShulchan Aruch (ibid.) quotes this principle.
The Ramah states that since paganism is not common at present, we assume that these forms were made for artistic purposes. Hence, it is not forbidden to benefit from an article even if it contains pagan images. One may not, however, keep such an article in one's possession. He adds that even at present, certain individuals are stringent with themselves and do not benefit from an article containing the three forms mentioned above. Similarly, we may assume that any other form which is found on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes.9Avodah Zarah 42b asks rhetorically: "Are these the only forms that are worshiped?" and explains that it is possible that the other forms would also be worshiped, but they are generally not made for that purpose. In contrast, the three forms mentioned above are generally made for the purpose of worship. Therefore, [the articles] are permitted.
Because of the serious nature of the prohibition against idol worship, these principles do not apply and anything connected with it is forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture the forbidden substances make up. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 5:8.)
What is implied? If an idol becomes mixed together with statues made for aesthetic purposes3which are permitted - even if the proportion is merely one in several thousand4the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea - i.e., it is forbidden to benefit from them and they must be destroyed. - the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea. Similarly, if a goblet [used for] idol worship5i.e., an accessory of idol worship becomes mixed together with many other6identical goblets,7Needless to say, if one can distinguish between the forbidden goblet and the permitted ones, there is no reason to forbid the use of the permitted ones. or a piece of meat [coming from a sacrifice to a false deity] becomes mixed with other meat,8See the following halachah. the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea.9TheLechem Mishneh (noting the Rambam's statements, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29) questions why in this instance, the Rambam does not suggest that the entire mixture be sold to a gentile, and then, the value of the forbidden article destroyed. This question is discussed by many commentaries; their consensus is that, although such a provision is made regarding closed barrels of yayin nesech, it applies in that specific case alone, but not with regard to other instances. Similarly, if a hide with a hole through which the heart was removed10i.e., a round hole, as mentioned in Halachah 3. This was one of the common practices of idol worship. becomes mixed with other hides, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture.11and it must be destroyed.
[When] a person - i.e., a Jew. Different laws apply regarding a gentile. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:7, 144:1.)
[When] a person transgresses and sells a false deity, one of its accessories, or an object that was offered to it,12The sale is forbidden, because it is forbidden to derive any benefit from a false deity. This prohibition is unique; whenever one sells other forbidden substances (with the exception of the fruits of the seventh year), the fact that their sale was forbidden does not affect the status of the money received for them. In contrast, when selling anything forbidden because of idol worship it is forbidden to benefit from the money received,13Rather, the money must be destroyed, like the idols themselves. If the proceeds from the sale or exchange of an idol are used to acquire another object, that object is also forbidden. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1. and that prohibition [remains if these funds become mixed with others], regardless of the proportion [of the mixture] they make up.14i.e., the same severe restrictions that would apply to an idol itself, apply to the money received from its sale.
This principle is derived as follows: [Deuteronomy 7:26] states:15"Do not bring an abomination (an idol) into your house... "Lest you become condemned like it." [From this16The Hebrew word והיה
we - Avodah Zarah 54b
infer] that anything that comes - into your possession
from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or from [anything] offered to it - See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:5-7, which elaborates on this concept with regard to the laws pertaining to yayin nesech.
is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is. - Note the commentary of Mishneh LaMelech, which questions whether the same ruling would be rendered if the purchaser did not know that the article which he acquired is connected with a false deity. Mishneh LaMelech maintains that the transaction is nullified, and the money the seller receives must be returned to the purchaser. we infer,] that anything that comes from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or from [anything] offered to it is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is.
Although the idol was destroyed, the prohibition that applied to it applies to its ashes as well. (For this reason, our Sages suggested taking idols to the Dead Sea. Since this is a desolate area, there is little likelihood that anyone will ever benefit from the idols.)
Temurah 34a notes that this prohibition differentiates substances associated with idols from other forbidden substances that must be burned. A coal taken from4a fire which is lit as an act of service to an idol5is considered to be an accessory of the idol. is forbidden; a flame [from an idol] is permitted,6to be used - e.g., to light another flame for it is not an entity with substance.7i.e., there is no entity to which the prohibition can be attached. Although as a safeguard, the Rabbis forbade the use of certain flames, they did not pass such a decree against flames from idol worship. In general, Jews were repelled by any association with idol worship. Hence, the Rabbis did not feel that it was necessary to institute a prohibition (Beitzah 39a).
When there is a doubt whether an object is connected to idol worship or not, it is forbidden.8When there is a doubt regarding whether a substance is prohibited or not, we follow the principle that מדאורייתא (according to Torah law), it is permitted. מדרבנן (according to Rabbinic decree), it is forbidden. If, however, that doubt is questionable,9The Hebrew, ספק ספיקא, implies that there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply, as illustrated by the examples mentioned in the latter clauses of the halachah.
The prohibition against benefiting from an object whose prohibited status is in question is only Rabbinic in nature. Whenever there is a doubt regarding whether a Rabbinic prohibition applies or not, a lenient approach is permitted (ספק דרבנן לקולא). it is permitted.10For the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to institute a decree in such an instance.
What is implied? Should a goblet used for idol worship11i.e., an accessory of idol worship, which is forbidden, as mentioned in the previous halachah. fall into a storage room of12identical goblets, they are all forbidden, because a false deity and all its accessories are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion [of a mixture they make up].13Since there is a doubt whether each of the goblets is the forbidden one or not, none of them may be used. If one of the cups from this mixture falls together with two14This translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah, which reads כוסות שנים. The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1406) suggests (and indeed, many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah support this contention) that the text read כוסות שניים, which would be rendered as "other cups." This version is closer to the text of Zevachim 74a, the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law. other cups,15Here, there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply. Perhaps the cup one chooses from the new mixture did not come from the original mixture. Even if it did come from the original mixture, perhaps it is not the cup that was used for idol worship. the the [entire second mixture] is permitted.16The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries question the Rambam's decision, noting that the text of Zevachim, ibid., appears to indicate that it is necessary for there to be three mixtures. Indeed, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:10, when discussing the prohibitions of a דבר חשוב (a forbidden substance whose importance prevents it from ever being nullified in a mixture), the Rambam himself appears to follow this view, stating:
If one pomegranate from a mixture [containing a forbidden pomegranate] falls together with two other pomegranates... and from these three, one pomegranate falls together with other pomegranates, the latter [mixture] is permitted.
Indeed, on the basis of the statements in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) deviates from the Rambam's opinion and requires three mixtures.
This approach, however, is not followed by all commentaries. Rashi and Tosafot (Zevachim, ibid.) explain that even with regard to a דבר חשוב, only two mixtures are necessary. These views are quoted as halachah by the Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen in their glosses on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 110:8).
Among the suggestions made by the commentaries to resolve the difference between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot are the following:a) Most people are careful regarding the prohibition against benefiting from any object connected with idol worship. Therefore, there is no need to reinforce the prohibition. In contrast, the prohibition against benefiting from a דבר חשוב is far less known. Hence, the Rabbis added severe safeguards to make sure that it be observed (Kessef Mishneh).b) Here, the Rambam is speaking about a prohibition against benefiting from a forbidden object (איסור הנאה). In contrast, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot is concerned with partaking of forbidden foods, where the prohibition is more severe (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 110:52).
Even the authorities who permit the second mixture to be used do not allow a single individual to partake of the entire mixture at one time. In such an instance, there would be only a single doubt whether he used the forbidden object or not.
The Rabbis (Zevachim, 74b) mentioned another example of a mixture which is permitted because of circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply:
Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and - they would thus all be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if
then two of them fall - accidentally. If one intentionally throws one into the sea, the leniency does not apply (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 110:7).
into the Mediterranean Sea - and are thus lost. If two merely become separated from the group, the others remain prohibited (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). (Note the Kessef Mishneh's comments that here, the Dead Sea is intended.)
it is permissible to use all of them. - i.e., all the rings that remain. The prohibition does not continue to apply, because
We presume that the [forbidden] ring was among the two - The Kessef Mishneh notes that when stating a similar law in Hilchot Terumah 15:2, the Rambam required only a single barrel of wine to be lost. The difference between these two laws can be resolved by taking into account the nature of the prohibited substances: Rings are small, and the loss of a single ring does not make a substantial difference to the entire group. In contrast, barrels of wine are large, and the loss of even one will attract attention.
[which fell]. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) limits this leniency, stating that it is forbidden to use a single ring alone, nor may one person benefit from the entire group of rings at once.
The Rabbis (Zevachim, ibid.) mentioned a third example of a mixture which is permitted because of circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to apply:
Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed together with a hundred others and - they would thus be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if
then [the group] becomes divided, forty - i.e., the minority
being separated in one group, and sixty - i.e., the majority
in another, and then the entire [group of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of them - the second mixture.
We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. - There is a doubt whether the forbidden ring was among the forty. Even if it had been included within that forty, perhaps the ring one chooses from the second mixture is not the forbidden one.
In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) does not accept the Rambam's view, and forbids the second mixture. Even according to the Rambam, it is not permissible to eat the entire second mixture at one time, for then there would be only a single doubt.
If the - entire
[group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden. - Should, however, only a portion of the sixty fall into another mixture, the Rambam (but not the Shulchan Aruch) would permit their use. In such an instance, their status would parallel that of the second mixture of goblets mentioned above.
Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and then two of them fall into the Mediterranean Sea, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume that the [forbidden] ring was among the two [which fell].
Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed together with a hundred others and then [the group] becomes divided, forty being separated in one group and sixty in another, and then the entire [group of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. If the [group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden.
If a person has another route, it is forbidden4because one will be deriving benefit from a false deity or its accessories.
It is, however, permissible to sit under the shade of its branches and its leaves. - This decision has been questioned by other authorities, who wonder why the Rambam distinguished between the tree's trunk and branches. On the surface, the same prohibition should apply to both of them.
The Rambam's decision is based on his interpretation of Avodah Zarah 48b, which is derived from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:8). The Talmud explains that even though the shade of an asherah is forbidden, צל הצל, literally, "the shade of its shade," is permitted. The Jerusalem Talmud interprets 18לצ לצה as shade produced by the parts of the tree which would not touch the trunk if they fell.
[Rashi offers a different interpretation of Avodah Zarah, ibid. His view is accepted by most commentaries. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 142:9) does not differentiate between the shade produced by the trunk and that of its leaves.
If a person has another route - to reach his desired destination, which is no longer than the one which passes under the asherah. If the alternate route is longer, the person is not required to deviate from the path leading under the asherah (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). for him to pass under it.5This prohibition appears to have been instituted lest one benefit from the tree's shade. Note, however, the Ramah's statements (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.), which permit one to pass under the asherah's shade, though not under the tree itself. According to his opinion, the prohibition stems from the impurity of idol worship. If he has no other route, he may pass under it, provided he runs.6Avodah Zarah (ibid.) relates that Rav Sheshet would run when he passed under an asherah. This Talmudic passage mentions the requirement to run only with regard to a person of distinction. Nevertheless, since there is no great difficulty in running for this short distance, the Rambam imposes this stringency on all people (Kessef Mishneh).
The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Me'ilah 3:9, suggests a different interpretation. There, the Rambam specifically writes that when taking the nest - as stated in the final clause of this halachah - it permissible to climb up the tree in the normal manner. Therefore, it appears that one should knock down the chicks to see if they are capable of flying on their own or not. This explanation also clarifies why the Rambam does not mention in this halachah the need to knock down the chicks. By stating that only those which do not need their mother are permitted, he implies that one must determine whether or not the chicks need their mother (Rav Kapach). In contrast, the chicks and eggs which need their mother are forbidden for the asherah is considered as if it is a base for them.2Avodah Zarah 42b explains that this is a Rabbinic decree imposed lest the people desire to benefit from the asherah itself. Since these chicks and eggs require the asherah, they are prohibited as the asherah is. The nest itself3[even though it is] in the top of the tree - is permitted, - and the wood from which it is composed may be used for other purposes - [even though it is] in the top of the tree - is permitted, for the birds bring the wood for it from other places.4Were the wood, however, to come from the asherah itself, it would be forbidden even though it had been separated from it already, as is obvious from Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
The Ra'avad states that one must explicitly know that the birds built their nest from other wood. Avodat HaMelech explains that the Rambam does not require such knowledge, because of the following Talmud principle: When there is a question whether a substance came from the most probable source (רוב) or the closest source (קרוב), we presume it came from the most probable source.
[Curiously, when mentioning these laws in the Shulchan Aruch (142:4), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, substituting forbidden wood for orlah, without distinguishing between the different prohibitions. Accordingly the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Turei Zahav 145:5, Siftei Cohen 145:10) object to his decision.] Afterwards, he should3remove the forbidden wood and kindle it with other, permitted, wood and then bake within.4In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), the Rambam explains that the above decision applies whether the oven is new or old.
The Mishnah states that if such wood is used in a new oven, the oven may never be used again. In Talmudic times, the ovens were made of clay and the clay would not harden sufficiently until the oven was kindled once. Thus, since kindling the oven for the first time prepared it to be used on all subsequent occasions, some Rabbis forbade its use when this first kindling was made with a forbidden substance. This opinion is, nevertheless, not accepted as halachah. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, ibid. (See the explanation of זה וזה גורם in the following halachah.)
Furthermore, this prohibition is extended beyond the oven:
Should he bake bread in [an oven heated in this manner] without cooling it,5even if, afterwards, he added permitted wood he is forbidden to benefit from the bread.6because the beneficial effect of the forbidden wood preceded the influence of the permitted wood. If [such a loaf] became mixed together with others,7the entire mixture is forbidden. He can, however, cause that prohibition to be lifted if he carries out the following instructions.
[This mixture of bread can be differentiated from the mixtures mentioned in Halachah 10. Those mixtures involved objects which were themselves used as accessories for idol worship, while here the loaf itself was never used for such purposes. Hence, the severe laws mentioned there do not apply in this instance.] he must bring the value of that loaf8even if it is more valuable than the wood (Siftei Cohen 142:9). to the Dead Sea9or destroy it in another way (see the notes on Halachah 5) so that he will never benefit from it.10The Siftei Cohen 142:8 states that the Rambam's [and, thus, the Shulchan Aruch's (Yoreh De'ah 142:3)] phraseology implies that it is not sufficient to destroy the value of the wood (regardless of whether the forbidden loaf becomes mixed with others or not). He does, however, suggest selling the loaf to a gentile (less the value of the forbidden wood) in a manner in which one could be sure that it would not be resold to a Jew. The other loaves, however, are permitted.11even to be eaten. In other similar situations, one is permitted to benefit from a forbidden mixture (e.g., sell it to a gentile), but partaking of it oneself is prohibited. (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29.) Here, one is allowed to partake of the bread itself (Siftei Cohen 142:10).
It is permissible5לכתחילה (a priori) to plant vegetables under [an asherah] - whether in the summer6when they need the shade - and thus, one will receive direct benefit from the asherah - when they need the shade - or in the winter.7when the influence of the asherah is less felt. [This leniency is granted] because the vegetables' growth is produced by two factors: the shade of the asherah, which is forbidden, and the earth, which is permitted.8We follow a principle that is employed in many other areas of Torah law: Whenever an effect is produced by the combination of a forbidden factor and a permitted factor, it is permitted.9In such instances, the leniency is generally granted only בדיעבד (after the fact). In this situation, however, the leniency is granted a priori, because the person does not receive any benefit when he sows the field and, afterwards, the benefit comes in and of itself (Rabbenu Nissim). Therefore, if a field was fertilized with fertilizer [that was forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, one may sow it.10because the crop growth also depends on the earth, which is not forbidden. At the outset, however, it is forbidden to use such fertilizer (Siftei Cohen 142:11). Similarly, [the meat of] a cow that was fed with beans11The Hebrew term כרשינים refers to "vetch," a species of bean commonly used for animal fodder. [that were forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, may be eaten.12because its growth was also influenced by the permitted food it ate. If, however, it was raised solely on forbidden food, different rules apply (Turei Zahav 142:17).
[Significantly, in Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 3:9, the Rambam feels it necessary to give a different reason why a cow that was given such a diet might be used as a sacrifice. The Sages, however, always ruled more stringently with regard to sacrifices than with regard to food consumed by private individuals.] The same principle applies in other similar situations.
Once they are brought as offerings, [their status changes] and they remain forbidden - as stated in Halachah 2
Once they are brought as offerings, [their status changes] and they remain forbidden forever,2Avodat HaMelech interprets this as a reference to Chapter 8, Halachah 9, where the Rambam states that the prohibition against using an offering brought to an idol can never be nullified. Although the prohibition against using an idol itself can be nullified, more stringent rules apply with regard to an offering. even if they were later removed [from the temple].3The change in their location does not effect a change in status.
Torah law - not merely Rabbinic decree
Torah law forbids benefiting from anything that is found in a temple of a false deity, even water or salt.4See the following halachah. (Also note Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 139:3.) If a person eats even the slightest amount from such substances, he is [punished by] lashing.5Note Halachah 2, where the Rambam states that a person who benefits from offerings brought to a false deity receives a double measure of lashes. Apparently, the Rambam is not explicit here because he is relying on this previous statement.
What is implied? If one finds a purse hanging around its neck, folded garments placed on its head, or a utensil overturned on its head, they are permitted, because [they were placed] in a derisive manner.4The position of the article indicates that it was not placed there with the intent of adorning the idol. On the contrary, placing these articles on an idol in such a fashion reflects one's contempt for it. Therefore, there is no reason for the article to be forbidden. The same applies to other similar situations. [In contrast,] if one finds an object of a type which is used as an offering for the [Temple] altar5This includes the animals used as sacrifices, wine, flour, or oil. Avodah Zarah 51b notes that this prohibition includes even water, which is used for the water libation on Sukkot, and salt, which is added to all the sacrifices offered on the altar. on the head [of an idol], it is forbidden.6The fact that these articles are used as offerings in the Temple leads to the conclusion that they were presented to the idol for a similar purpose.
When does the above - distinction between a deferential and a derisive position
When does the above apply? When one finds such articles outside its7the idol's [usual] place of worship. When, however, one finds such articles within the [idol's place of worship],8The fact that the article was brought into the idol's temple indicates that it was used in its service. Accordingly, regardless of whether it was placed in a derisive manner or in a deferential manner, or whether it is of the type of objects used as sacrifices for the [Temple] altar, any article found within [such a structure]9even if it is not placed upon the idol itself - even water or salt10The Rambam's mention of these articles is somewhat problematic. Since they were offered on the Temple altar, as explained above, they are forbidden even if they are not found within the temple of an idol. The commentaries explain that since these articles are of little consequence and are not generally themselves brought as offerings to an idol, we would not think that they were forbidden. Therefore, it is necessary to mention them explicitly. - becomes forbidden.11Note Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ot 6:7, where the Rambam states that the forbidden nature of foods offered to idols can never be negated. When, however, utensils are offered, the prohibition against using them can be negated, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or and Marculis. - See the description of the service of these deities in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.
[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or and Marculis. It is forbidden to benefit from anything that is found together with them, whether [it is found] in their [temple] or outside of it.12Since these deities are served in a derisive manner, no distinction is made between the manner in which articles placed upon them are found. Even when an article is found in a derisive position, it is forbidden. Similarly, with regard to the stones [found near a symbol of] Marculis: If a stone appears to be together with it,13Since a shrine to this deity consists of stones piled on each other, we assume that any stone found in proximity to it was once part of such a pile. Hence, it is forbidden to benefit from it.14Rashi, Avodah Zarah 50a states that all stones within a cubit of the deity are forbidden. Stones which are further removed are permitted. Tosafot maintains that any stones found within a radius of four cubits are forbidden.
[Thus, the Rambam's interpretation differs from that of Rashi, who, in his commentary on Avodah Zarah 51b, understands טובה as referring to monetary payment.] [in return].2Our translation follows the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah. The manuscript versions read: "provided one does not offer benefit to its priests." This version is supported by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:3). If the benefit is offered to the idol's worshipers and not to its priests, one may make use of the bathhouse or garden even if it is necessary to pay a fee (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 143:3). [If] one must offer appreciation, it is forbidden.3The Kessef Mishneh explains that this prohibition was instituted lest a person develop close feelings towards the priests who serve a false deity.
[If the garden or bathhouse] is mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from it - and one is not considered to have benefited from a false deity,since the bathhouse or garden is not itself a shrine
[If the garden or bathhouse] is mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from it even if one provides its priests with appreciation.4The commentaries explain that since the prohibition is Rabbinic in nature (because it is appreciation and not a fee which is being offered), if the appreciation is not being given solely to the priests, the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to impose a prohibition. One may not, however, pay a fee.5because doing so provides direct benefit to the false deity.
This prohibition caused severe problems in Europe, where frequently many of the community services necessary for everyday life - e.g., flour mills, ovens, and the like - were owned by the Catholic Church. The rabbinic authorities of these areas interpreted these laws more leniently, offering different explanations of how one could benefit from church-owned property. (See Ramah and the Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) All authorities, however, agree that if a fee must be paid to the false deity itself and not to its attendants, no benefit is permitted.
Rabban Gamliel was bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of beauty) in Akko, and Praclus ben Paluslus asked him: "Why are you bathing in Aphrodite's bathhouse? Does your Torah not command: 'Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand'?He responded: "One does not reply in a bathhouse." After he had departed, he told him, "I did not come into her territory, she came into mine. One does not say, 'This bathhouse is becoming to Aphrodite.' One says, 'Aphrodite is becoming to the bathhouse.' Furthermore, no matter how much money you were offered, you would not enter your idol's temple naked... and urinate before it." (The mishnah continues, mentioning the interpretation of Deuteronomy 12:2 quoted by the Rambam.)
[Significantly, Rashi (Avodah Zarah 44b) interprets the mishnah differently from the Rambam. They explain that rather than the idol being located within the bathhouse, the bathhouse was located within premises belonging to the idol.] because it is placed there for aesthetic purposes and not to be served.2This is the Rambam's interpretation of Rabban Gamliel's first point. He did not enter a place where the statue was served (Aphrodite's territory). Rather, he entered a bathhouse (his territory) where a statue had been placed as an adornment.
[The Rambam's interpretation is also found in the Tosafot Rid and the Eshkol. Rashi and others interpret Rabban Gamliel's statements differently.] [This leniency can be inferred from the use by Deuteronomy 12:2 of the term:] "their gods"3when describing the commandment to nullify idol worship - i.e., the prohibition applies when they4the gentiles treat them5their statues as gods, and not when they humiliate them, such as in an instance where [the idol] stands over the sewage pipe and they urinate before it.6Avodah Zarah 44b clarifies that the performance of a humiliating act before an idol does not necessarily nullify its forbidden character. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 10.) Nevertheless, since an idol placed in a bathhouse is constantly subjected to deprecating situations, we can assume that the gentiles do not regard it as a god.
Should [the idol's] worship involve such activities,7As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, there are some idols which are worshiped in a deprecatory manner - e.g., Pe'or, whose worshipers would defecate before it. it is forbidden to enter [the bathhouse].8As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 5, even when a person performs these activities with the intent of humiliating the idol, since this is its mode of worship, he is considered to have inadvertently violated the commandment against idol worship, and is obligated to bring a sin offering for atonement.
Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat - i.e., cut large pieces of meat into smaller ones
Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat with [such a knife], because one is enhancing its value.6making it fit to be sold or cooked. The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 142:6) relates that if one cut pieces of meat with such a knife, even the Rambam would not forbid use of the meat entirely. It would be necessary, however, to destroy an amount of meat equivalent to the value of the knife. Should one cut with a destructive intent, causing a loss,7e.g., cut pieces which are of a size fit for cooking into smaller ones, which would be less attractive. See Chulin 8b. the meat is permitted.8because no benefit was derived from an accessory of an idol. On the contrary, a loss was caused.
הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ז
א) מצות עשה היא לאבד עבודה זרה, ומשמשיה וכל הנעשה בשבילה, שנאמר "אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות" (דברים יב,ב), ונאמר "כי אם כה תעשו להם, מזבחותיהם תיתוצו" (דברים ז,ה).
ב) ובארץ ישראל, מצוה לרדוף אחריה, עד שנאבד אותה מכל ארצנו; אבל בחוצה לארץ, אין אנו מצווין לרדוף אחריה, אלא כל מקום שנכבוש אותו, נאבד כל עבודה זרה שבו, שנאמר "ואיבדתם את שמם, מן המקום ההוא" (דברים יב,ג): בארץ ישראל אתה מצווה לרדוף אחריהן, ואי אתה מצווה לרדוף אחריהן בחוצה לארץ.
ג) [ב] עבודה זרה עצמה, ומשמשיה ותקרובת שלה וכל הנעשה בשבילה, אסור בהנאה, שנאמר "ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך" (דברים ז,כו). וכל הנהנה באחד מכל אלו, לוקה שתיים, אחת משום "ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך", ואחת משום "ולא ידבק בידך מאומה, מן החרם" (דברים יג,יח).
ד) [ג] בהמה שהקריבוה לעבודה זרה, כולה אסורה; אפילו פרשה ועצמותיה וקרניה וטלפיה ועורה, הכול אסור בהנאה. לפיכך אם היה בעור סימן שייוודע בו שזה העור תקרובת עבודה זרה הוא, כגון שהיו עושין שקורעין קרע עגול כנגד הלב ומוציאין הלב, הרי כל אותן העורות שהן כך, אסורין בהנאה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
ה) [ד] מה בין עבודה זרה של גוי לעבודה זרה של ישראל -- עבודה זרה של גוי, אסורה בהנאה מיד, שנאמר "פסילי אלוהיהם, תשרפון באש" (דברים ז,כה), משפסלו נעשה לו אלוה; ושל ישראל, אינה אסורה בהנאה עד שתיעבד, שנאמר "ושם בסתר" (דברים כז,טו), עד שיעשה לה דברים שבסתר שהן עבודתה. ומשמשי עבודה זרה, בין של גוי בין של ישראל, אינן אסורין, עד שישתמשו בהן לעבודה זרה.
ו) [ה] העושה עבודה זרה לאחרים -- אף על פי שהוא לוקה, שכרו מותר; ואפילו עשאה לגוי, שהיא אסורה מיד: מפני שאינה נאסרת עד שתיגמר, ומכוש אחרון שגומרה אין בו שווה פרוטה.
ז) הלוקח גרוטאות מן הגויים, ומצא בהן עבודה זרה -- אם נתן מעות ולא משך, יחזירם לגוי; וכן אם משך ולא נתן מעות, אף על פי שהמשיכה בגוי קונה, כמקח טעות הוא; משך ונתן מעות, יוליכם לים המלח. וכן גוי וגר שירשו את אביהן גוי, יכול הגר לומר לגוי טול אתה עבודה זרה ואני מעות, טול אתה יין נסך ואני פירות; ואם משבאו לרשות הגר, אסור.
ח) [ו] צורות שעשו אותן גויים לנואי, מותרין בהנאה; וצורות שעושין אותן לעבודה זרה, אסורין. כיצד, כל הצורות הנמצאות בכפרים -- אסורים בהנאה, מפני שחזקתן שהן עשויין לעבודה זרה. והנמצאות במדינה -- אם היו עומדין על פתח המדינה והיה ביד הצורה צורת מקל או ציפור או כדור או סיף או עטרה וטבעת, חזקתו שהוא לעבודה זרה, ואסור בהנאה; ואם לאו, הרי זה בחזקת לנואי, ומותר.
ט) [ז] צלמים הנמצאים מושלכים בשווקים או בתוך הגרוטאות, הרי אלו מותרין; ואין צריך לומר, שברי צלמים. אבל המוצא יד עבודה זרה או רגלה או אבר מאבריה מושלך, הרי זה אסור בהנאה -- הואיל וידע בוודאי שזה האבר מן הצורה הנעבדת, הרי היא באיסורה, עד שייוודע לו, שביטלוה הגויים.
י) [ח] המוצא כלים ועליהן צורת חמה ולבנה ודרקון, אם היו כלי כסף וזהב או בגדי שני, או שהיו חקוקים על הנזמים ועל הטבעות -- הרי אלו אסורין; ועל שאר הכלים -- מותרין, מפני שחזקתן לנואי. וכן שאר הצורות הנמצאות על כל הכלים, חזקתן לנואי ומותרין.
יא) [ט] עבודה זרה, ומשמשיה, וכל התקרובת שלה -- אוסרים בכל שהן. כיצד, עבודה זרה שנתערבה בצורות של נואי, אפילו אחת בכמה אלפים, יוליך הכול לים המלח; וכן אם נתערב כוס של עבודה זרה בכמה כוסות, או חתיכה מן הבשר שנכנס לביתה בכמה חתיכות, יוליך הכול לים המלח; וכן עור ליבוב שנתערב בכמה עורות, הכול אסור בהנאה.
יב) עבר ומכר עבודה זרה, או אחד ממשמשיה, או תקרובת שלה -- הרי הדמים אסורין בהנאה; ואוסרין בכל שהן כעבודה זרה, שנאמר "והיית חרם כמוהו" (דברים ז,כו): כל שאתה מביא מעבודה זרה, ומכל משמשיה ותקרובתה -- הרי הוא כמוה.
יג) [י] עבודה זרה או אשרה שנשרפה, אפרה אסור בהנאה; וגחלת של עבודה זרה, אסורה. והשלהבת מותרת, מפני שאין בה ממש.
יד) ספק עבודה זרה, אסור; ספק ספקה, מותר. כיצד, כוס של עבודה זרה שנפל באוצר מלא כוסות, כולן אסורים, מפני שעבודה זרה וכל משמשיה אוסרין בכל שהן; פירש כוס אחד מן התערובת ונפל לכוסות שניים, הרי אלו מותרין.
טו) טבעת של עבודה זרה שנתערבה במאה טבעות, ונפלו שתיים מהן לים הגדול, הותרו הכול, שאני אומר אותה הטבעת הייתה בכלל השתיים שנפלו. נתערבה במאה ונתחלקו, ארבעים למקום אחד ושישים למקום, ונפלו הארבעים כולן לטבעות אחרות -- כולן מותרות, שאני אומר אותה הטבעת האסורה ברוב היא; נפלו השישים לטבעות אחרות, כולן אסורות.
טז) [יא] האשרה, בין שהייתה נעבדת, בין שהייתה עבודה זרה מונחת תחתיה -- אסור לישב בצל קומתה; ומותר לישב בצל השריגים והעלים שלה. ואם יש לו דרך אחרת, אסור לו לעבור תחתיה; ואם אין שם דרך אחרת, עובר תחתיה כשהוא רץ.
יז) [יב] אפרוחים שקיננו בה ואינן צריכין לאימן, מותרין; והביצים והאפרוחים שצריכין לאימן, אסורין, שהרי האשרה כמו בסיס להן. והקן עצמו שבראשה, מותר, מפני שהעוף מביא עציו ממקום אחר.
יח) [יג] נטל ממנה עצים, אסורים בהנאה. הסיק בהן את התנור -- יוצן, ואחר כך יסיק בעצים של היתר ויאפה בו. אפה בו את הפת, ולא ציננו -- הפת אסורה בהנאה. נתערבה באחרות -- יוליך דמי אותה הפת לים המלח, כדי שלא ייהנה בה; ושאר הכיכרות מותרות.
יט) [יד] נטל ממנה כדכד וארג בו את הבגד, אסור בהנאה; נתערב בבגדים אחרים, יוליך דמי אותו הבגד לים המלח, ושאר הבגדים מותרין.
כ) ומותר ליטע תחתיה ירקות, בין בימות החמה שהן צריכין לצל, בין בימות הגשמים -- מפני שצל האשרה שהוא אסור עם הקרקע שאינה נאסרת, גורמין לירקות אלו לצמוח: וכל שדבר אסור ודבר מותר גורמין לו, הרי זה מותר בכל מקום.
כא) לפיכך שדה שזיבלה בזבל עבודה זרה, מותר לזרוע אותה; ופרה שפיטמה בכרשיני עבודה זרה, תיאכל; וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
כב) [טו] בשר או יין או פירות שהכינום להקריבם לעבודה זרה, לא נאסרו בהנאה, אף על פי שהכניסו אותן לבית עבודה זרה, עד שיקריבום לפניה; הקריבום לפני עבודה זרה, נעשו תקרובת, ואף על פי שחזרו והוציאום, הרי אלו אסורין לעולם. וכל הנמצא בבית עבודה זרה, אפילו מים ומלח, אסור בהנאה מן התורה; והאוכל ממנו כל שהוא, לוקה.
כג) [טז] המוצא כסות וכלים ומעות בראש עבודה זרה -- אם מצאן דרך ביזיון, הרי אלו מותרין; ואם מצאן דרך כבוד, הרי אלו אסורין. כיצד, מצא כיס מעות תלוי בצווארה, כסות מקופלת ומונחת על ראשה, כלי כפוי על ראשה -- הרי זה מותר, מפני שהוא דרך ביזיון; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. מצא בראשה דבר שכיוצא בו קרב לגבי המזבח, הרי זה אסור.
כד) במה דברים אמורים, בזמן שמצאן חוץ למקום עבודתו; אבל אם מצאם לפנים, בין דרך כבוד בין דרך ביזיון, בין דבר הראוי למזבח בין דבר שאינו ראוי למזבח -- כל הנמצא בפנים, אסור, אפילו מים ומלח. ופעור ומרקוליס, כל הנמצא עימהן בין בפנים בין בחוץ -- אסור בהנאה. וכן אבני מרקוליס -- כל אבן הנראית שהיא עימו, אסורה בהנאה.
כה) [יז] עבודה זרה שהיה לה מרחץ או גינה -- נהנין בהם שלא בטובה, ואין נהנין בהם בטובה. היה לה ולאחרים, נהנין בהן, אפילו בטובת כומרין, ובלבד שלא ייתן שכר.
כו) [יח] מרחץ שיש בה עבודה זרה, מותר לרחוץ בה, מפני שהיא נעשת שם לנואי, ולא לעבודה: שנאמר "אלוהיהם" (דברים ז,כה; דברים יב,ג) -- בזמן שנוהגין בה מנהג אלוהות, ולא בזמן שמבזין אותן, כגון זו שהיא עומדת על הביב, והכול משתינין בפניה. ואם הייתה דרך עבודתה בכך, אסור ליכנס בו.
כז) [יט] סכין של עבודה זרה ששחט בה -- הרי זה מותר, מפני שהוא מקלקל; ואם הייתה בהמה מסוכנת -- הרי זו אסורה, מפני שהוא מתקן והרי זה התיקון מהנאת משמשי עבודה זרה. וכן אסור לחתוך בה בשר, מפני שהוא מתקן; ואם חתך דרך הפסד והשחתה, מותר.