## Avodah Zarah Daf 42a

###### Avodah Zarah 42a:1
[Avodah Zarah 42a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:1)

שֶׁל מֵצִיק אֶחָד בְּרִימּוֹן, שֶׁהֵטִילָה נֵפֶל לְבוֹר, וּבָא כֹּהֵן וְהֵצִיץ לֵידַע אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְטִיהֲרוּהוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחוּלְדָּה וּבַרְדְּלָס מְצוּיִן שָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**of one violent person [*metzik*] in** the city of **Rimon, who cast a non-viable newborn into a pit, and a priest came and looked** into the pit **to ascertain whether** the baby was **male** or **whether** it was **female,** as the length of time of a woman’s ritual impurity after childbirth, even if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, depends on whether the child was male or female (see Leviticus, chapter 12). **And the incident came before the Sages** to rule whether or not the priest had contracted ritual impurity while standing over the corpse, **and they deemed him ritually pure.** The basis for this ruling was **due to** the fact **that** as **martens and polecats [*bardelas*] are common there,** it is likely that the body was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:2
[Avodah Zarah 42a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:2)

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּוַדַּאי הֵטִילָה נֵפֶל, סָפֵק גֵּרְרוּהוּ, סָפֵק לֹא גֵּרְרוּהוּ, וְקָאָתֵי סָפֵק וּמוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its objection: **And here,** in this case, **where** it is **certain** that the woman **cast** the **non-viable newborn** into the pit, and it is **uncertain** whether an animal **dragged it** away and it is **uncertain** whether **no** animal **dragged it** away, the Sages nevertheless ruled that **an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty.**


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:3
[Avodah Zarah 42a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:3)

לָא תֵּימָא הֵטִילָה נֵפֶל לְבוֹר, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הֵטִילָה כְּמִין נֵפֶל לְבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this interpretation of the *baraita*: **Do not say that** the woman certainly **cast a non-viable newborn into a pit; rather, say** that **she cast** an object **similar to a non-viable newborn into a pit.** Perhaps it was not the body of an infant; it might have merely been congealed blood, which does not impart impurity. Therefore, it is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty; it is unclear whether the item that was cast into the pit could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if it could have, it might have already been dragged away.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:4
[Avodah Zarah 42a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:4)

וְהָא ״לֵידַע אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה הוּא״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in the *baraita*: **To ascertain whether** it was **male** or **whether** it was **female,** indicating that the only uncertainty was with regard to its sex, as it was certainly a non-viable newborn?


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:5
[Avodah Zarah 42a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:5)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֵידַע אִם רוּחַ הִפִּילָה, אִם נֵפֶל הֵטִילָה, וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר נֵפֶל הֵטִילָה — לֵידַע אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** The priest attempted to examine two aspects of the miscarried entity. He sought **to ascertain whether** the woman **miscarried,** bearing **an amorphous mass,** or **whether she cast a non-viable newborn** into the pit; **and if you say** that **she cast a non-viable newborn,** he sought **to ascertain whether** it was **male** or **whether** it was **female.**


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:6
[Avodah Zarah 42a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:6)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁחוּלְדָּה וּבַרְדְּלָס מְצוּיִן שָׁם — וַדַּאי גֵּרְרוּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that there is a different answer: This case is not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather it is a conflict between certainty and certainty. **Since martens and polecats are common there, they certainly dragged** the body away. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:7
[Avodah Zarah 42a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: מָצָא תַּבְנִית יָד, תַּבְנִית רֶגֶל — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן נֶעֱבָד. אַמַּאי? הָא שְׁבָרִים נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the dispute with regard to an idol that broke. Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised an objection to** the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna: If one **found** an object in **the figure of a hand** or in **the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, as** objects **similar to those are worshipped.** Rabbi Yoḥanan asks: **Why** are they forbidden? **Aren’t they fragments,** which according to Reish Lakish should be permitted?


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:8
[Avodah Zarah 42a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:8)

הָא תַּרְגְּמַהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּעוֹמְדִין עַל בְּסִיסָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Didn’t Shmuel interpret** the mishna as referring to a case **where** these objects **are standing on their pedestals,** which shows that they were designed this way initially?


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:9
[Avodah Zarah 42a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: גּוֹי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל גּוֹי. אַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (52b): **A gentile can revoke** the idolatrous status of **his** own object of **idol worship or that of another** gentile, **but a Jew cannot revoke** the status of **a gentile’s** object of **idol worship.** Rabbi Yoḥanan asks: **Why** can’t a Jew revoke the status of a gentile’s idol according to Reish Lakish? **Let it be** treated **like** an object of **idol worship that broke on its own,** which Reish Lakish deems permitted.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:10
[Avodah Zarah 42a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁפְּחָסָהּ. וְכִי פְּחָסָהּ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא תְּנַן: פְּחָסָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חִסְּרָהּ — בִּטְּלָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** That mishna is referring to a case **where** the Jew **bent** the idol out of shape without actually breaking it. The Gemara asks: **And if he** merely **bent** the idol out of shape, **what of it? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (53a) that if one **bent** an idol, changing its shape, **even if he did not remove** any **part of it,** he thereby **revoked** its status as an object of idol worship?


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:11
[Avodah Zarah 42a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:11)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּפַחֲסַהּ גּוֹי, אֲבָל פַּחֲסַהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא בַּטְּלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This statement** applies only in a case **where a gentile bent** the idol, changing its shape; **but** in a case **where a Jew bent it,** changing its shape, its status as an object of idol worship **is not revoked.**


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:12
[Avodah Zarah 42a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:12)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּי פַחֲסַהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי בַּטְּלַהּ, אֶלָּא גְּזֵרָה דִּלְמָא מַגְבַּהּ לַהּ וַהֲדַר מְבַטֵּיל לַהּ, וְהָוֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכׇל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said** a different answer: **Actually,** the basic *halakha* is that in a case **where a Jew bent it,** changing its shape, its status as an object of idol worship **is also revoked. But** the Sages issued **a decree** that such an idol retains its idolatrous status, **lest** a Jew first **lift it up and then** attempt to **revoke** its status. In this case the idol’s status is not revoked, as when a Jew lifts an idol he acquires it, **and it becomes** an object of **idol worship in a Jew’s possession, and any** object of **idol worship in a Jew’s possession can never** have its idolatrous status **revoked.** Therefore, only when an idol breaks on its own does Reish Lakish maintain that its status is revoked.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:13
[Avodah Zarah 42a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:13)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: גּוֹי שֶׁהֵבִיא אֲבָנִים מִן הַמַּרְקוּלִיס, וְחִיפָּה בָּהֶן דְּרָכִים וּטְרַטְיָאוֹת — מוּתָּרוֹת, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֵבִיא אֲבָנִים מִן הַמַּרְקוּלִיס וְחִיפָּה בָּהֶן דְּרָכִים וּטְרַטְיָאוֹת — אֲסוּרוֹת. אַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** the opinion of Reish Lakish from a *baraita*: In the case of **a gentile who brought stones from** stone heaps that were used in the worship of the deity **Mercury [*HaMarkulis*], and** who then **paved roads and** built **theaters [*vetarteiot*] with them,** it is **permitted** to derive benefit from them, as the gentile revoked their idolatrous status. **But** in the case of **a Jew who brought stones** that were used in the worship of **Mercury and** who then **paved roads and** built **theaters with them,** it is **prohibited** to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: According to Reish Lakish, **why** does a stone such as this retain its idolatrous status? **Let it be** treated **like** an object of **idol worship that broke on its own,** which Reish Lakish deems permitted.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:14
[Avodah Zarah 42a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:14)

הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּדְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here too,** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question may be answered **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava** that the Sages issued a decree that an object of idol worship retains its idolatrous status when a Jew attempts to revoke it, lest the Jew lift and acquire the idol, which would make it impossible to subsequently revoke its status.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:15
[Avodah Zarah 42a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:15)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: גּוֹי שֶׁשִּׁיפָּה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְצׇרְכּוֹ — הִיא וְשִׁיפּוּיֶיהָ מוּתָּרִין, לְצׇרְכָּהּ — הִיא אֲסוּרָה וְשִׁיפּוּיֶיהָ מוּתָּרִין, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשִּׁיפָּה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, בֵּין לְצׇרְכּוֹ בֵּין לְצׇרְכָּהּ — הִיא וְשִׁיפּוּיֶיהָ אֲסוּרִין. אַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** the opinion of Reish Lakish from a *baraita*: In the case of **a gentile who shaved down** an object of **idol worship for his** own **sake,** as he needed the shavings, the idol itself **and its shavings are** then **permitted.** If he did it **for the sake of** the idol, to improve its appearance, the idol **is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. But** in the case of **a Jew who shaved down** an object of **idol worship, whether** he did it **for his** own **sake or for the sake of** the idol, the idol itself **and its shavings are forbidden.** Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: According to Reish Lakish, in a case where a Jew shaved the idol for his own sake, **why** are the shavings forbidden? **Let it be** treated **like** an object of **idol worship that broke on its own.**


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:16
[Avodah Zarah 42a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:16)

הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּדְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here too,** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question may be answered **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava** that the Sages issued a decree that an object of idol worship retains its idolatrous status when a Jew attempts to cause it to be revoked.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:17
[Avodah Zarah 42a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:17)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ אוֹ מֵטִיל לַיָּם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אַף הִיא נַעֲשֵׂית זֶבֶל, וּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם״. אַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (43a): **Rabbi Yosei says:** When one encounters an idol, he should **grind** the idol **and throw** the dust **to the wind or cast** it **into the sea.** The Rabbis **said to him:** What is the good of that? **That also** gives a Jew benefit from the idol, as it **becomes fertilizer** for his crops, **and** deriving any kind of benefit is prohibited, as **it is written:** “And **nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand”** (Deuteronomy 13:18). Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: According to Reish Lakish, **why** is this prohibited? **Let it be** treated **like** an object of **idol worship that broke on its own.**


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:18
[Avodah Zarah 42a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:18)

הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּדְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here too,** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question may be answered **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava** cited above, that the Sages issued a decree with regard to this matter.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:19
[Avodah Zarah 42a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:19)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יָסְיָאן אוֹמֵר: מָצָא צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן וְרֹאשׁוֹ חָתוּךְ, סָפֵק גּוֹי חֲתָכוֹ סָפֵק יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲתָכוֹ — מוּתָּר, וַדַּאי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲתָכוֹ — אָסוּר. אַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** the opinion of Reish Lakish from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei ben Yasian says:** If one **found** an object in **the figure of a dragon [*derakon*] with its head severed,** but it is **uncertain** whether **a gentile severed it** and it is **uncertain** whether **a Jew severed it,** the object is **permitted.** But if it is **certain** that **a Jew severed it,** it is **forbidden.** Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: According to Reish Lakish, **why** is it forbidden? **Let it be** treated **like** an object of **idol worship that broke on its own.**


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:20
[Avodah Zarah 42a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:20)

הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּדְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here too,** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question may be answered **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava** that the Sages issued a decree with regard to this matter.


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:21
[Avodah Zarah 42a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:21)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אַף לֹא יְרָקוֹת בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנְּבִיָּיה נוֹשֶׁרֶת עֲלֵיהֶן. אַמַּאי? תֶּיהְוֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** the opinion of Reish Lakish from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei says** that one may **not even** plant **vegetables in the rainy season** under a tree worshipped as an idol, **as foliage may fall on them,** serving as fertilizer. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: According to Reish Lakish, **why** should a leaf from such a tree retain its idolatrous status? **Let it be** treated **like** an object of **idol worship that broke on its own.**


###### Avodah Zarah 42a:22
[Avodah Zarah 42a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/42a:22)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּעִיקַּר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קַיֶּימֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There it is different, as the main** object of **idol worship,** the tree, still **exists** fully intact.