AVODAH ZARAH 48 - Dedicated by Harav Gedaliah Weinberger shlit'a in memory of his father, Reb Chaim Tzvi ben Reb Shlomo Weinberger, whose Yahrzeit is 18 Adar. Reb Chaim Tzvi, a Holocaust survivor who raised his family in a new country, bequeathed his children a steadfast commitment to Torah and its study.



תוספות ד"ה גדעו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give two other answers to the Gemara's question.)

תימה הא דלא משני גדעו ופסלו אע"פ שלא השתחוה השתחוה אע"פ שלא גדעו כדמשני לעיל (דף מז:) גבי בית


Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Gemara answer that the Mishnah means that if one pruned and trimmed the tree (in order to worship its growths, see Tosfos earlier 47b, DH "Gido") it is forbidden even though he did not bow down to it, and if he bowed down to it is forbidden even if he did not prune it or trim it, similar to the answer said earlier (47b) regarding a house?

ואין לפרש משום דשמואל לית ליה הך שנוייא משום דקא פליג עליה דרב ואמר דבית הוי כמחובר ולעיל נמי ליכא למימר לשמואל בנה אע"פ שלא השתחוה כו'


Implied Question: One should not explain that the Gemara did not answer this because Shmuel does not agree it is correct, being that he argues on Rav and says that a house is considered attached to the ground. This would mean that Shmuel could not say this answer regarding a house that if one built it, even though he did not bow down to it, it is forbidden.

דבפרק נגמר הדין (סנהדרין דף מז:) מסיק לשמואל הכא במאי עסקינן בקבר בנין וחשיב ליה תלוש והתם מדמי קבר לעבודת כוכבים


Answer: The Gemara in Sanhedrin (47b) concludes that according to Shmuel the case of a grave which became forbidden from benefit is a grave that was in a building, as it is considered unattached to the ground. The Gemara there compares benefit from graves to benefit from idols. (This shows that Shmuel agrees with Rav that a building is considered unattached to the ground regarding these laws.)

וי"ל היינו טעמא דלא משני ליה הכי דלעיל דודאי יש חילוק בין אילן לבית דאילן שהוא מושרש בקרקע בטלה תפיסתו כדפרישית לעיל הלכך גידוע ופיסול בלא השתחואה ודאי לא היה מועיל כלום אפילו למ"ד עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים אסורה מיד היינו בדבר תלוש דכתיב פסילי אלהיהם כיון שפסלו נעשה לו אלוה אבל זה שהוא מחובר ואין דעתו שיהיה עבודת כוכבים רק מה שיחליף אין לאסרו בלא השתחואה


Answer: The reason that the Gemara did not give the answer given earlier is because there is clearly a big difference between a tree and a house. A tree that is rooted in the ground is not considered to have grown with the involvement of a person, as explained earlier. Therefore, when a person prunes and trims it without bowing down to it, it should not cause it to be forbidden even according to the opinion that the idol of a Nochri becomes forbidden immediately. This is because this law only applies to an unattached idol, as the Pasuk says, "The statues of their gods." The Pasuk teaches us that once he made it, it is made into a god. However, it is understandable that something that is connected to the ground, and he only intends for its growths to be a god, is not forbidden until one bows down to it.

והכי נמי מצינו דחשבינן ליה לתלוש גבי הא דאמר (חולין דף טז.) בשביל שיודח הכותל הרי זה בכי יותן


Proof: We also find in Chulin (16a) that we consider a wall unattached to the ground. The Gemara there says that if one wants water to wash the wall, it is water which is included in "Ki Yutan" (i.e. it causes produce it comes in contact with to be able to become impure).

ואילן דבר הנשרש בקרקע חשבינן למחובר דאי לא תימא הכי לא מצינו שום זרע בלא הכשר


Proof (cont.): A tree is something that is rooted in the ground, and therefore is considered attached to the ground. If not, we would not find a seed that is unable to accept impurity (as everyone wants it to rain on their crops, causing the crops to be able to become impure if they are considered unattached to the ground).

ונראה דלא דמי דהתם הפירות מיהא תלושין ואע"ג דהכותל מחובר מתכשרי אבל פירות שבאילן הכל מחובר וקל להבין


Question: It appears that they are not similar. In the case in Chulin (ibid.), the fruit are still unattached. Even though the wall is attached, the fruit can be able to become impure through this water. However, fruit on a tree is considered attached. This is a clear difference that is easy to understand.

והא דלא משני ליה גדעו ופסלו איצטריכא ליה כדמשני במסקנא דשינויא דחיקא הוא וניחא ליה לאוקמי מתניתין כרבנן ושמואל כר' יוסי בר יהודה


Implied Question: The Gemara does not answer that the case of pruning and trimming is required, as we say later in the conclusion of the Gemara, is because it is a difficult answer. It is therefore better to say that the Mishnah is according to the Rabbanan, and that Shmuel is according to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.




תוספות ד"ה לא ישב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why one can sit in the shade of the Heichal, but not in the shade of an Asheirah tree.)

ולא דמי לצלו של היכל (פסחים דף כו.)


Implied Question: This is incomparable to the shade of the Heichal (which the Gemara in Pesachim 26a says one is permitted to sit in). (Why is it different?)

דהתם היכל לתוכו עשוי אבל אשרה עשויה לצל


Answer #1: The Heichal is made for what is inside of it (and therefore the shade is not forbidden from benefit). However, the Asheirah tree is made to give shade.

א"נ חומרא דעבודת כוכבים שאני


Answer #2: Alternatively, we are more strict concerning idolatry than we are regarding the Heichal.



תוספות ד"ה אי דאיכא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that "another way" means a shorter path.)

פי' קצר כזה דאי בעינן למימר אפי' ארוך יותר אם כן אין לדבר סוף


Explanation: This means a shorter path. If the Gemara means even a longer path, there is no end to the longer paths that one can take.



תוספות ד"ה ורבנן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Rabbanan permit vegetables grown under an Asheirah in the winter, but not in the summer.)

פי' רבינו שמואל ומ"מ אסרי רבנן ירקות בימות החמה


Implied Question: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that the Rabbanan still forbid planting vegetables under an Asheirah tree in the summer. (Why do they forbid this if they hold "Zeh v'Zeh Gorem Mutar?")

דלא דמי דהכא עם זבל נבייה המהנה לגדל ולהחליף זבל הקרקע נמי שהוא של היתר מהני לגדל ולהחליף


Answer: The cases (vegetables in the summer versus the winter) are incomparable. In the winter, the leaves that fall down and benefit the growth of the vegetables are doing so together with the fertilizer of the ground that is permitted. (This is why the winter vegetables are permitted.)

אבל לגורם דצל חיישינן שכולו אסור שאותה הנאה שהצל עושה להגין מן החמה אין הקרקע עושה וליכא נמי צל אחר דהיתר גורם עמו להגין מן החמה נמצאת כל הנאת הצל לאיסור


Answer (cont.): However, (in the summer) we suspect that the shade is completely forbidden, as the benefit that the shade is giving to protect from the sun is not being done by the ground. There is no other shade that is permitted which is helping the plant to be protected from the sun. This means that the entire amount of benefit of shade is from a prohibited source.

ודמי שפיר לפרה שנתפטמה בכרשיני היתר ושל עבודת כוכבים ביחד ששניהם הועילו לפטם הפרה ונקרא זה וזה גורם


Answer (cont.): It (growing in the winter) is similar to a cow that was fattened with animal feed that is permitted and animal feed of idols (i.e. forbidden) at the same time, as both help to fatten the cow. This is a case of "Zeh v'Zeh Gorem."



תוספות ד"ה התם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and Rashi argue regarding the explanation of the answer, "there it is going to be lost.")

פי' בקונטרס דלאבדה מתכוין וכבר בטלה והוי כעבודת כוכבים שנשתברה מאליה


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he intends to destroy it, and it is already nullified. It is like an idol that broke by itself.

וקשה בה טובא דלמ"ד (לעיל מא:) עבודת כוכבים שנשתברה מאליה אסורה תקשי ואפילו למאן דשרי נמי הא אין מבטל ישראל עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים


Question #1: This is very difficult. According to the opinion (41b) that an idol that breaks by itself is still forbidden from benefit, this is difficult. Even the opinion that understands it is permitted still holds that a Jew cannot nullify the idol of a Nochri. (Accordingly, it should not be considered like it is nullified.)

ועוד דבשל ישראל נמי איירי ר' יוסי מדמייתי ראיה (לעיל דף מד.) מעגל וממפלצת שהיא של ישראל ועבודת כוכבים של ישראל אינה בטלה עולמית


Question #2: Additionally, Rebbi Yosi is discussing the idol of a Jew as well, as he brings a proof (44a) from the Golden Calf and the Mifletzes, both which belonged to Jews. The idol of a Jew is never nullified!

לכן נראה לפרש דקאזיל לאיבוד דלא שכיח שיבא לזיבול בזריי' לרוח שאין נופל כ"כ ביחד ומ"מ אפילו לכי האי גוונא חיישי רבנן


Explanation #2: It therefore appears that the Gemara means when it says that it is going to be lost that it is uncommon that when this is scattered in the wind that it will end up fertilizing the ground. This is because when something is scattered into the wind, large quantities of it do not fall together in the same place. Even so, the Rabbanan still suspect that this will happen and rule it is forbidden.



תוספות ד"ה נוטעין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yosi's law.)

וקמ"ל דלא גזרינן יחור אטו אגוז דבייחור לא שייך ביה ערלה


Explanation: The novelty of this opinion is that we do not decree that a branch should be forbidden to plant due to the fact that a nut is forbidden to plant, as Orlah simply does not apply to a branch.



תוספות ד"ה ואין נוטעין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the argument is in a b'Dieved case.)

צ"ל דבאיסור נטיעת אגוז לכתחלה נמי לא פליגי רבנן דאי פליגי ושרו אם כן לדידהו אמאי ערלה בשריפה ינטעו אותם ויהיה היוצא מהם זה וזה גורם


Observation: It must be that the Rabbanan agree that it is prohibited to plant a nut Lehatchilah. If they would argue and say it is permitted Lechatchilah, according to them, why is Orlah burned? It should merely be planted, and the fruit that comes out of the new tree will be permitted due to Zeh vZeh Gorem being permitted.

ודוחק לומר דאיירי התם באין ראוין ליטע


Observation (cont.): It is difficult to say that the case there is when they cannot be planted.

אלא ודאי בדיעבד פליגי ובא ר' יוסי לאשמעינן שאם נטעוהו אף בדיעבד כל הגדל ממנו אסור וכדמפרש טעמא מפני שהוא פרי דמשמע שבא להשמיענו היכא דנטע אגוז של ערלה דאפילו דיעבד אסורים הפירות


Observation (cont.): Rather, it is clear that the argument is whether or not the nut is permitted b'Dieved. Rebbi Yosi teaches that even if it was already planted, everything that grows from it is forbidden. He explains that it is forbidden because it is considered fruit of Orlah. This implies that he is coming to teach that if someone planted a nut of Orlah, the fruit is even forbidden b'Dieved.

והא דנקט אין נוטעין


Implied Question: Rebbi Yosi uses the term, "One should not plant." (This implies he is discussing a case of Lechatchilah, whether or not one should plant, not the law regarding the fruits if they were already planted, where it is possible he would rule leniently!)

איידי דתני רישא נוטעין תנא סיפא אין נוטעין


Answer: Being that the beginning of the Beraisa says "One can plant" the second part of the Beraisa also says, "One cannot plant." (The Beraisa prefers using similar terminology over making Rebbi Yosi's position clearer, which it could have done by saying Rebbi Yosi forbids the fruits of such a tree, not just the planting.)