## Avodah Zarah Daf 46b

###### Avodah Zarah 46b:1
[Avodah Zarah 46b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:1)

יֵשׁ נֶעֱבָד בִּמְחוּבָּר אֵצֶל גָּבוֹהַּ, אוֹ אֵין נֶעֱבָד בִּמְחוּבָּר אֵצֶל גָּבוֹהַּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dilemma: An animal that was worshipped is rendered unfit to be sacrificed as an offering in the Temple. The Gemara previously established a principle that objects attached to the ground are not rendered forbidden by idol worship. The question here is this: **With regard to** an item that is **attached** to the ground and that **was worshipped, is it** rendered unfit **for** the **Most High,** i.e., for the Temple, just like an animal? **Or** is the *halakha* that **with regard to** an item that is **attached** to the ground and that **was worshipped, it is not** rendered unfit **for** the **Most High,** just as it is not forbidden with regard to an individual’s deriving benefit from it?


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:2
[Avodah Zarah 46b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:2)

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר יֵשׁ נֶעֱבָד בִּמְחוּבָּר אֵצֶל גָּבוֹהַּ, מַכְשִׁירֵי קׇרְבָּן כְּקׇרְבָּן דָּמוּ אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, **if you say** that **with regard to** an item that is **attached** to the ground and that **was worshipped, it is** rendered unfit **for** the **Most High,** are the items that merely **facilitate** the sacrifice of **an offering,** such as the altar, viewed the same way **as an offering** itself, **or not?** Perhaps the principle that items worshipped in idolatrous practice are disqualified for use in the Temple applies only to offerings, and not to the items used to facilitate the bringing of offerings.


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:3
[Avodah Zarah 46b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:3)

אָמַר רָבָא, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אֶתְנַן שֶׁמּוּתָּר בְּתָלוּשׁ לְהֶדְיוֹט, אָסוּר בִּמְחוּבָּר לְגָבוֹהַּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תָבִיא אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב״, לָא שְׁנָא תָּלוּשׁ וְלָא שְׁנָא בִּמְחוּבָּר, נֶעֱבָד שֶׁאָסוּר בְּתָלוּשׁ לְהֶדְיוֹט — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאָסוּר בִּמְחוּבָּר לְגָבוֹהַּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** The dilemma can be resolved with **an *a fortiori*** inference. The Torah prohibits the sacrifice of an animal as an offering or a donation to the Temple if it was given in payment to a prostitute or exchanged in the sale of a dog. **And if** it is so that concerning deriving benefit from an item that served as **payment** to a prostitute, **which is permitted to an ordinary** person even **in** a case where the item is **detached** from the ground, nevertheless, such an item is **forbidden** to use **for** the **Most High** even **in** a case where it is **attached** to the ground, **as it is written: “You shall not bring the payment to a prostitute or the price of a dog** into the House of the Lord your God for any vow” (Deuteronomy 23:19), where there **is no difference whether** the payment is **unattached** to the ground **and** there **is no difference whether it is attached;** concerning an object **worshipped** in idolatrous practice, **which** is rendered **forbidden in** a case where it is **detached** even **for** the use of **an ordinary** person, **is it not logical that** it should be **prohibited** to use it **for** the **Most High** even **in** the case of an object **attached** to the ground?


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:4
[Avodah Zarah 46b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: אוֹ חִילּוּף, וּמָה נֶעֱבָד שֶׁאָסוּר בְּתָלוּשׁ אֵצֶל הֶדְיוֹט — מוּתָּר בִּמְחוּבָּר לְגָבוֹהַּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים״ וְלֹא הֶהָרִים אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, לָא שְׁנָא לְהֶדְיוֹט וְלָא שְׁנָא לְגָבוֹהַּ; אֶתְנַן שֶׁמּוּתָּר בְּתָלוּשׁ לְהֶדְיוֹט — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמּוּתָּר בִּמְחוּבָּר לְגָבוֹהַּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Or** one can **reverse** the claim. **And if** an object that **was worshipped, which is forbidden in** a case where it is **detached** from the ground even **for** the use of **an ordinary** person, is yet **permitted** for use even **for** the **Most High in** a case where it is **attached** to the ground, **as it is stated** that the mitzva is to destroy: **“Their gods, upon the** high **mountains”** (Deuteronomy 12:2), **but not the mountains** themselves that are **their gods,** and therefore with regard to such items, there **is no difference** between use **for an ordinary** person **and for** the **Most High;** concerning **payment** to a prostitute, **which is permitted** for use **for an ordinary** person **in** the case of **a detached** item, **is it not logical that** it should be **permitted** to use **for** the **Most High in** a case where the payment is an item **attached** to the ground?


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:5
[Avodah Zarah 46b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:5)

וְאִי מִשּׁוּם ״בֵּית ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״בֵּית ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — פְּרָט לְפָרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה לַבַּיִת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרִיקּוּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, continues: **And if** one would say that it should still be prohibited to use it in the Temple **due to** that which the verse states: “You shall not bring the payment to a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into **the House of the Lord your God,”** which indicates a blanket prohibition, this verse is already **necessary to** teach another *halakha*, namely, **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The phrase “into **the House of the Lord your God” excludes** its use as a red **heifer, which is not brought to the Temple,** rather it is sacrificed outside the city on the Mount of Olives; this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say:** It is stated **to include the** prohibition against hanging in the Temple **beaten plates** of gold that were used in the payment of a prostitute. Even though they are not used in the Temple service, it is prohibited to hang them up.


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:6
[Avodah Zarah 46b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא קָאָמֵינָא לְחוּמְרָא, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לְקוּלָּא — קוּלָּא וְחוּמְרָא לְחוּמְרָא פָּרְכִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: **I am stating** an *a fortiori* inference that leads **to a stringency, and you are stating** an opposite *a fortiori* inference that leads **to a leniency.** And the principle is that whenever there is the option to employ an *a fortiori* inference that leads to **a leniency or** one that leads to **a stringency, we infer the stringency.**


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:7
[Avodah Zarah 46b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא קוּלָּא וְחוּמְרָא, לְקוּלָּא לָא פָּרְכִינַן? וְהָא הַזָּאָה דְּפֶסַח, דִּפְלִיגִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר לְחוּמְרָא וְקָא מְחַיֵּיב לֵיהּ לְגַבְרָא, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְקוּלָּא וּפָטַר, וְקָא פָרֵיךְ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְקוּלָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Rava: And is** it so that **anywhere that there is** an option to employ an *a fortiori* inference to infer **a leniency or a stringency, we do not infer the leniency? But isn’t there** the case of **sprinkling** the purifying water of a red heifer upon one who has contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse, in order to thereby obligate him in the sacrificing and eating **of** the **Paschal offering? As Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree** with regard to whether it is permitted to do this on Shabbat, each of them employing an *a fortiori* inference to support his opinion. **As Rabbi Eliezer holds** that **a stringency** should be inferred **and he** thereby **deems the man obligated** to purify himself and bring a Paschal offering, even if he can purify himself only on Shabbat, **and Rabbi Akiva** infers **a leniency and exempts** him from the obligation to bring the offering. **And** clearly, contrary to Rava’s claim, **Rabbi Akiva infers a leniency.**


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:8
[Avodah Zarah 46b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:8)

דִּתְנַן, הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אוֹ חִילּוּף, וּמָה הַזָּאָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה [אֶת] הַשַּׁבָּת, שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as we learned** in a mishna (see *Pesaḥim* 65b) that Rabbi Eliezer reasoned: If slaughter, which is generally prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law, is permitted for the sake of sacrificing the Paschal offering, all the more so is it not clear that sprinkling the purifying water of a red heifer, which is prohibited on Shabbat merely due to a rabbinic decree, should override Shabbat? **Rabbi Akiva replied: Or** one can **reverse** the claim. **And if sprinkling** the purifying water on Shabbat, **which is** prohibited merely **due to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat,** then with regard to **slaughter, which is** prohibited **by Torah law, all the more so** is it **not** clear that it should not override Shabbat? Contrary to Rava’s claim, Rabbi Akiva clearly infers a leniency instead of the stringency inferred by Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:9
[Avodah Zarah 46b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:9)

הָתָם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר גַּמְרֵיהּ, וְאִיַּיקַּר לֵיהּ תַּלְמוּדָא, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְאַדְכּוֹרֵיהּ. וְהַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, אַל תַּכְפִּירֵנִי בִּשְׁעַת הַדִּין, כָּךְ מְקוּבָּל אֲנִי מִמְּךָ — הַזָּאָה שְׁבוּת, וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** Rabbi Akiva does not employ a real *a fortiori* inference. **Rabbi Eliezer** himself **taught him** this *halakha*, which he knew as a tradition, **but he had forgotten his** own **learning and Rabbi Akiva came to remind him** of it by drawing an *a fortiori* inference that would cause Rabbi Eliezer to remember that which he himself had taught. The Gemara offers a support for this interpretation from the continuation of that discussion, which is recorded in a *baraita*: **And this is** what Rabbi Akiva **said to him: My teacher, do not deny my** contention **at the time of judgement,** i.e., during deliberation of this matter, as **this** is the tradition **I received from you: Sprinkling is** prohibited by **rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat.**


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:10
[Avodah Zarah 46b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:10)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְקָמַת חִטִּים, מַהוּ לִמְנָחוֹת? יֵשׁ שִׁינּוּי בְּנֶעֱבָד, אוֹ אֵין שִׁינּוּי בְּנֶעֱבָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** In the case of **one who bows to a stalk of wheat, what is** the *halakha* with regard to using it **for meal-offerings?** Does the wheat lose its forbidden status after it is ground into flour, or not? **Does a change in** the form of **a worshipped** object revoke its forbidden status, **or does a change in** the form of **a worshipped** object **not** revoke its forbidden status?


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:11
[Avodah Zarah 46b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:11)

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: תָּא שְׁמַע, כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ — וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִים, וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: Come** and **hear** a resolution from that which is taught in a mishna (*Temura* 30b): The principle is that concerning **all** items **that are forbidden with regard to** sacrificing them the **altar, their offspring,** i.e., whatever products are derived from them, **are permitted. And it is taught with regard to** this mishna: **Rabbi Eliezer deems** the offspring **forbidden.**


###### Avodah Zarah 46b:12
[Avodah Zarah 46b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/46b:12)

וְלָאו אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁנִּרְבְּעוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף עִיבְּרוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But wasn’t it stated with regard to** this dispute that **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says:** The **dispute** is with regard to a case **where** it became prohibited to use the animals as offerings because a person **engaged in bestiality** with them **and later they became pregnant.**