## Avodah Zarah Daf 47a

###### Avodah Zarah 47a:1
[Avodah Zarah 47a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:1)

אֲבָל עִיבְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִרְבְּעוּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֲסוּרִין, וְהָכָא נָמֵי כְּעִיבְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִרְבְּעוּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if **they became pregnant and later** a person **engaged in bestiality** with them, **all agree** that the offspring **are forbidden** because the offspring were involved in the act of bestiality, albeit in their fetal state. **And here too,** the case of the wheat is **similar to** the case where **they became pregnant and later** a person **engaged in bestiality** with them, because the flour was also worshipped, albeit in the form of a stalk of wheat.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:2
[Avodah Zarah 47a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:2)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁנִּרְבְּעוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף עִיבְּרוּ, אֲבָל עִיבְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִרְבְּעוּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהָנֵי נָמֵי כִּי עִיבְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִרְבְּעוּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that Mar Zutra himself quoted Rav Naḥman’s statement: 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. But** if **they became pregnant and later** a person **engaged in bestiality** with them, **all agree** that the offspring **are forbidden. And these** stalks of wheat, **as well,** are **similar to** the case where **they became pregnant and later** a person **engaged in bestiality** with them.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:3
[Avodah Zarah 47a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:3)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם, מֵעִיקָּרָא בְּהֵמָה וְהַשְׁתָּא בְּהֵמָה, דַּשָּׁא הוּא דַּאֲחִידָא בְּאַנְפַּהּ. הָכָא, מֵעִיקָּרָא חִיטֵּי וְהַשְׁתָּא קִמְחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of offspring that it is prohibited to bring as an offering, it was **initially an animal,** in its fetal state, **and now** it is still **an animal.** A fetus is treated as a full-fledged animal, and the opening of the womb is compared to a closed **door that holds** it **in its place. Here,** in the case of the flour, it was **initially wheat and now** it is **flour;** it is in a totally new form. Therefore, no proof can be derived from the mishna.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:4
[Avodah Zarah 47a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:4)

בָּעֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַדֶּקֶל, לוּלָבוֹ מַהוּ לְמִצְוָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Reish Lakish raises a dilemma:** In the case of **one who bows to a palm tree, what is** the *halakha* with regard to **its *lulav*?** Is it permitted to use a *lulav* cut from it **for the mitzva** or not?


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:5
[Avodah Zarah 47a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:5)

בְּאִילָן שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה לְכָךְ לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי אָסוּר. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ בְּאִילָן שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף עֲבָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara narrows down the dilemma: **With regard to a tree that one initially planted for such** an idolatrous purpose, **do not raise the dilemma.** In that case the *halakha* is clear, **as it is prohibited** to use it **even for an ordinary,** non-mitzva, purpose. Rather, **raise the dilemma with regard to a tree that one planted and subsequently worshipped.**


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:6
[Avodah Zarah 47a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:6)

וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי אָסוּר. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, לְעִנְיַן מִצְוָה מַאי? מִי מְאִיס כְּלַפֵּי גָּבוֹהַּ אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And do not raise the dilemma according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda,** who holds **that even for an ordinary** purpose **it is forbidden** (see 45b). Rather, **when should you raise the dilemma?** Raise it **according to** the opinion **of the Rabbis,** who hold that such a tree does not become forbidden: **What** is the *halakha* **with regard to** using a *lulav* from such a worshipped tree for **a mitzva? Is it** nevertheless forbidden because it is considered **repulsive** to use such a *lulav* **for** the **Most High,** i.e., for a mitzva, **or not?**


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:7
[Avodah Zarah 47a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:7)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: בַּאֲשֵׁירָה שֶׁבִּיטְּלָהּ קָמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, יֵשׁ דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת אוֹ אֵין דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he presented a different understanding of Reish Lakish’s dilemma. **He said:** Reish Lakish **raises the dilemma with regard to an *ashera*** whose status as an object of idol worship **was revoked.** His dilemma is as follows: **Is there disqualification with regard to mitzvot or is there no disqualification with regard to mitzvot?** This *lulav* was once unfit for the mitzva, since it was worshipped while attached to the tree. Is it permanently disqualified, i.e., can it never be rendered fit? Or is the *halakha* that there is no permanent disqualification with regard to mitzvot, and consequently when the tree’s status as an object of idol worship was revoked, the *lulav* became fit for the mitzva?


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:8
[Avodah Zarah 47a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:8)

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדִּתְנַן: כִּיסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה — פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת, כִּיסָּהוּ הָרוּחַ — חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה, אֲבָל לֹא חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה — פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Resolve** the dilemma **from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Ḥullin* 37a): With regard to one who slaughtered an undomesticated animal or a bird and is obligated to cover the blood, if **he covered** the blood **and it was** then **uncovered** he is **exempt from** the obligation **to cover** it a second time. But if **the wind** blew dust and **covered** the blood and no person was involved, he is **obligated to cover** it. **And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The mishna **taught** that one is obligated to cover the blood after the wind covered it **only** in a case **where** the blood **was then exposed. But** if **it was not then exposed, he is exempt from** the obligation **to cover** it.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:9
[Avodah Zarah 47a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:9)

וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: כִּי חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה מַאי הָוֵי? הוֹאִיל וְאִידְּחִי אִידְּחִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed** this issue and asked: **When** the blood **was then exposed, what of it?** Why is one obligated to cover it a second time? **Once it was disqualified, it** should remain **disqualified.** When the wind covered the blood, the person was exempted from covering the blood. If so, even if the blood is subsequently uncovered, he should remain exempt. Why, then, is he obligated to cover the blood in that case?


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:10
[Avodah Zarah 47a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:10)

וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: אֵין דִּיחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Pappa says: That is to say** that **there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot.** Once the cause of the exemption from the obligation is removed, one is once again obligated to fulfill the mitzva. If so, Reish Lakish’s dilemma is resolved.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:11
[Avodah Zarah 47a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:11)

דְּרַב פָּפָּא גּוּפֵיהּ אִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, מִפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַב פָּפָּא דְּאֵין דִּיחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת, לָא שְׁנָא לְקוּלָּא וְלָא שְׁנָא לְחוּמְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is with regard to **Rav Pappa’s** resolution **itself** that Reish Lakish **raised the dilemma.** Is it **obvious to Rav Pappa,** based on the discussion with regard to the blood, **that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot;** and there **is no difference** whether that ruling leads **to leniency,** as in the case of the worshipped tree whose status as an object of idol worship was revoked, thereby permitting its *lulav* branch to be used for a mitzva, **and** there **is no difference** whether that ruling leads **to stringency,** as in the case of the blood, where one is obligated to cover it anew?


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:12
[Avodah Zarah 47a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:12)

אוֹ דִלְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וּלְחוּמְרָא אָמְרִינַן, לְקוּלָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps is he uncertain, and** therefore, when that ruling leads **to stringency, we say** that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot, and one must perform the mitzva. But when that ruling leads **to leniency, we do not say** that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. The Gemara concludes: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:13
[Avodah Zarah 47a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:13)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לִבְהֵמָה, צַמְרָהּ מַהוּ לִתְכֵלֶת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa raises a dilemma:** In the case of **one who bows to an animal, what is** the *halakha* with regard to **its wool?** May it be used **for** the **sky-blue wool?**


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:14
[Avodah Zarah 47a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:14)

תְּכֵלֶת דְּמַאי? אִי תְּכֵלֶת לְכֹהֲנִים — הַיְינוּ בַּעְיָא דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, וְאִי תְּכֵלֶת לְצִיצִית — הַיְינוּ בַּעְיָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The **sky-blue wool** in question is **for which** mitzva? **If** it is the **sky-blue wool for** the ritual garments worn by **priests,** then Rav Pappa’s dilemma **is** the same as the **dilemma** raised **by Rami bar Ḥama** earlier (46b) with regard to the use in the Temple of worshipped items that have since changed in form. **And if** the **sky-blue wool** in question is **for** the mitzva of **ritual fringes,** this **is** the same as the **dilemma** raised **by Reish Lakish** with regard to the use of a branch of a worshipped palm tree for performing the mitzva of *lulav*.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:15
[Avodah Zarah 47a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:15)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא הֲוָה לְמִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, וְהַאי דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ הָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא מִילֵּי אַחְרָנְיָיתָא: צַמְרָהּ מַהוּ לִתְכֵלֶת? קַרְנֶיהָ מַהוּ לַחֲצוֹצְרוֹת? שׁוֹקֶיהָ מַהוּ לַחֲלִילִין? בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ מַהוּ לְפֹארוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes, it is indeed so that** Rav Pappa **did not** need **to raise** this **dilemma,** as it was previously addressed. **And** the reason **that he raises this dilemma** is **due to other matters** that he needed to clarify, concerning the use of parts of a worshipped animal in the Levites’ ritual song. With regard to **its wool, what is** the *halakha* concerning using it **for sky-blue wool** used in the performance of a mitzva? With regard to **its horns, what is** the *halakha* concerning their use **for trumpets?** With regard to the bones of **its thighs, what is** the *halakha* concerning their use **for flutes?** With regard to **its innards, what is** the *halakha* concerning their use **for harp strings [*leforot*]?**


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:16
[Avodah Zarah 47a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:16)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בִּכְלִי, לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — דְּוַדַּאי אֲסִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to** the opinion **of the one who says** that the **primary** element of **song** in the Temple is the accompaniment **by** musical **instruments, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certain** that use of a worshipped animal is **prohibited,** because the musical instruments are items used to facilitate an offering.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:17
[Avodah Zarah 47a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:17)

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: עִיקַּר שִׁירָה בַּפֶּה, בַּסּוֹמֵי קָלָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא וּמַיְיתִינַן, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי אֲסִיר? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When should you raise the dilemma?** Raise it **according to** the opinion **of the one who says** that the **primary** element of **song** in the Temple is singing **with the mouth,** and that the musical instruments are used **merely** to **sweeten the sound,** i.e., to accompany and enhance the singing. **And** accordingly, **can one bring** musical instruments made of a worshipped animal’s parts, as they are not an essential element of the Temple service? **Or perhaps** is it **nevertheless forbidden** since it is repulsive to use such instruments in the course of the Temple service? The Gemara concludes: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:18
[Avodah Zarah 47a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:18)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְמַעְיָן, מֵימָיו מַהוּ לִנְסָכִים? מַאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא לְבָבוּאָה קָא סָגֵיד, אוֹ דִלְמָא לְמַיָּא קָא סָגֵיד? וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ סֵפֶל לְהֶדְיוֹט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raises a dilemma:** In the case of **one who bows to a spring** of water, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to using **its water for libations?** The Gemara asks: **What is the dilemma he is raising? If we say** that the dilemma concerns whether **he is bowing to** his own **reflection or perhaps he is bowing to the water,** why then is this a dilemma only with regard to libations in the Temple? **Let him raise the dilemma** with regard to the use of **a pail** of water that a person bowed to, even **for ordinary** purposes.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:19
[Avodah Zarah 47a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:19)

לְעוֹלָם לְמַיָּא קָא סָגֵיד, וְהָכִי קָמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: לְמַיָּא דְּקַמֵּיהּ קָא סָגֵיד, וְקַמָּאֵי קַמָּאֵי אֲזַדוּ, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לְדַבְרוּנָא דְּמַיָּא קָא סָגֵיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it is clear that **he is bowing to the water. And this is the dilemma** Rava **raises: Is he bowing to the water before him, and** therefore it follows that **the first** waters, i.e., those that were present at the time of his bowing, **are gone,** and the water that is currently flowing is permitted, **or perhaps is he bowing to the flow of the water,** which would render it prohibited to use all the water that flows in that spring for libations.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:20
[Avodah Zarah 47a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:20)

וּמִי מִיתַּסְרִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: מַיִם שֶׁל רַבִּים אֵין נֶאֱסָרִין! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָא נָבְעִי מֵאַרְעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is** the water actually **rendered forbidden** by his worship? **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Water that belongs to the public cannot become forbidden?** The Gemara answers: **No,** the dilemma is not with regard to a public spring. Rather, it is **necessary** with regard to a spring **that flows from the ground** in one specific location that is privately owned.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:21
[Avodah Zarah 47a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:21)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁהָיָה בֵּיתוֹ סָמוּךְ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְנָפַל — אָסוּר לִבְנוֹתוֹ. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה? כּוֹנֵס בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וּבוֹנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one whose house was adjacent to** a house of **idol worship and** the dividing wall **fell,** it is **prohibited to rebuild it. What should he do?** He should **withdraw into his own** property **four cubits and build** the wall there.


###### Avodah Zarah 47a:22
[Avodah Zarah 47a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/47a:22)

שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In talmudic times, external walls to homes were often built in two parts, with a functional space between them. If the space between the two parts of the wall **belonged to him and to** the house of **idol worship,**