This is the third part of a four-part series. Part 1 is here, Part 2 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 1.
Baraita - “In heaven” includes the sun, moon, stars, and constellations; “above” includes ministering angels - Exodus 20:4
ושבמדור התחתון מי שרי?
והתניא:
״אשר בשמים״ —
לרבות
חמה ולבנה
כוכבים ומזלות,
״ממעל״ —
לרבות מלאכי השרת
The Talmud asks:
And is it permitted to fashion figures of those bodies that are in the lower heaven?
But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4):
The phrase “that is in heaven”
serves to include
the sun, and the moon,
the stars, and the constellations.
The term “above”
serves to include the ministering angels.
Apparently, it is prohibited to fashion a figure even of the celestial bodies that are in the lower heaven.
The preceding exposition concerns worshipping these beings, not merely depicting them
כי תניא ההיא,
לעובדם.
The Talmud answers: When that baraita is taught,
it is in reference to the prohibition against worshipping them.
There is no prohibition against forming a figure in their likeness.
Baraita - The prohibition of worship extends also to earthly phenomena: seas, rivers, mountains, hills, and even a tiny worm - Exodus 20:4
אי לעובדם,
אפילו שילשול קטן נמי!
The Talmud asks:
If that baraita is referring to the prohibition against worshipping them,
then why does it mention only celestial bodies? It is prohibited to worship even a tiny worm.1
אין הכי נמי,
ומסיפיה דקרא נפקא,
דתניא:
״אשר בארץ״ —
לרבות
ימים ונהרות
הרים וגבעות,
״מתחת״ —
לרבות שילשול קטן.
The Talmud answers:
Yes, it is indeed so;
and this prohibition is derived from the latter clause of that verse,
as it is taught in a baraita:
“That is in the earth”
serves to include
Seas, and rivers,
Mountains, and hills.
The word “beneath”
serves to include a tiny worm.
Baraita - Explicitly prohibits fashioning images of the sun, moon, stars, and constellations as God’s heavenly attendants - Exodus 20:20
ועשייה גרידתא מי שרי?
והתניא:
״לא תעשון אתי״
לא תעשון כדמות שמשי המשמשין לפני במרום,
כגון:
חמה ולבנה,
כוכבים ומזלות.
The Talmud asks: And is the mere fashioning of figures of the celestial bodies permitted?
But isn’t it taught in another baraita that the verse:
“You shall not make with Me gods of silver” (Exodus 20:20),
is interpreted to mean that you shall not make figures of My attendants who serve before Me on high,
for example:
The sun, and the moon,
the stars, and the constellations.
This is proof that it is prohibited to fashion figures of the sun and the moon. Consequently, the solution proposed by Abaye is rejected, leaving the difficulty of Rabban Gamliel’s diagram unresolved.
Rabban Gamliel’s moon diagrams were permissible because others fashioned them for him
שאני רבן גמליאל,
דאחרים עשו לו.
The Talmud proposes an alternative resolution: The case of Rabban Gamliel is different,
as others fashioned those figures for him,
there is no prohibition against having them in one’s possession.
Shmuel to Rav Yehuda - Orders Rav Yehuda to disfigure the human image on his seal
והא רב יהודה,
דאחרים עשו לו,
ואמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה:
שיננא!
סמי עיניה דדין
The Talmud asks:
But there is the case of Rav Yehuda,
where others fashioned for him a seal with a figure of a person on it,
and Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, who was his student:
Sharp-witted one [shinnana]!
blind2 this one’s eyes,
i.e., disfigure it, as it is prohibited even to have a figure of a human being in one’s possession.
Baraita - A ring with a protruding image may not be worn, but may be used as a seal; one with a recessed image may be worn, but may not be used to stamp a protruding image
התם בחותמו בולט,
ומשום חשדא,
דתניא:
טבעת שחותמה בולט —
אסור להניחה,
ומותר לחתום בה.
חותמה שוקע —
מותר להניחה,
ואסור לחתום בה.
The Talmud answers:
There, in the case of Rav Yehuda, his was a protruding seal, i.e., the figure projected from the ring,
and Shmuel prohibited it due to the potential suspicion that he had an object of idol worship in his possession.
As it is taught in a baraita:
In the case of a ring whose seal protrudes3,
it is prohibited to place it on one’s finger due to suspicion of idol worship,
but it is permitted to seal objects with it. In this case, the act of sealing forms a figure that is sunken below the surface of the object upon which the seal was impressed, which is not prohibited.
If its seal is sunken,
it is permitted to place it on one’s finger,
but it is prohibited to seal objects with it, as that forms a protruding figure.
Proof from the fact that Shmuel’s father and Levi would pray in a synagogue in Neharde’a containing a royal statue
ומי חיישינן לחשדא?
והא בי כנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא,
(דאוקמי) [דאוקימו] ביה אנדרטא,
והוו עיילי ביה אבוה דשמואל ולוי ומצלו בגויה,
ולא חיישי לחשדא!
רבים שאני.
The Talmud asks:
And are we concerned about arousing suspicion due to the use of a human figure?
But what about that synagogue that was reestablished4 in Neharde’a,
and they erected a statue5 of the king in it
And nevertheless, Shmuel’s father and Levi would enter and pray in it,
and they were not concerned about arousing suspicion.
The Talmud answers: A public institution is different;
the public is not suspected of having idolatrous intentions. Rather, it is assumed that the statue is there exclusively for ornamental purposes.
Question: Rabban Gamliel is a private individual, so the moon figures should have been prohibited
והא רבן גמליאל דיחיד הוה?
The Talmud asks:
But wasn’t Rabban Gamliel an individual?
According to this reasoning, his figures of the moon should have been forbidden as they would have aroused suspicion.
Answer #1
כיון דנשיא הוא,
שכיחי רבים גביה.
The Talmud answers:
Since he was the Nasi, the head of the Sanhedrin,
members of the public would often be found with him,
and therefore there was no room for suspicion.
Answer #2
ואיבעית אימא:
דפרקים הואי.
And if you wish, say there is an alternative answer, namely,
that these figures were not whole; rather, they were formed from pieces (פרקים) of figures that had to be assembled.
Only complete figures are forbidden.
Answer #3
ואיבעית אימא,
להתלמד שאני,
דתניא:
״לא תלמד לעשות״,
אבל אתה למד
להבין
ולהורות.
And if you wish, say there is yet another answer:
Fashioning figures in order to teach oneself (להתלמד) is different,
as it is taught in a baraita
with regard to the verse: “You shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations” (Deuteronomy 18:9):
But you may learn
in order to understand the matter yourself
and teach (להורות) it to others.
In other words, it is permitted to perform certain acts for the sake of Torah study that would otherwise be prohibited.
Dispute Rav vs. Shmuel - Definitions of “respectable” and “disgraceful”
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר וכו׳.
איזו הן מכובדין,
ואיזו הן מבוזין?
§ The Mishnah (42b) teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Those figures that are upon respectable vessels are forbidden. Those that are upon disgraceful vessels are permitted.
The Talmud asks:
Which vessels are considered respectable
and which are considered disgraceful?
אמר רב:
מכובדין —
למעלה מן המים,
מבוזין —
למטה מן המים.
Rav says:
These terms do not represent different types of vessels, but rather the location of the figure upon the vessel:
A respectable location for an idolatrous figure
is on the side of the vessel above the level of the water or food contents;
a disgraceful location
is below the water level.
ושמואל אמר:
אלו ואלו מבוזין הן,
:אלא אלו הן מכובדין
שעל השירין
ועל הנזמים
ועל הטבעות.
And Shmuel says:
Both these and those locations on eating utensils are disgraceful.
Rather, these are respectable locations:
Upon bracelets,
or upon nose rings,
or upon rings.
Baraita - Respectable images are those on jewelry; degrading ones include those on pots, kettles, water heaters, sheets, and towels
תניא כוותיה דשמואל:
מכובדין —
שעל השירין,
ועל הנזמים,
ועל הטבעות;
מבוזין —
שעל היורות,
ועל הקומקמסין,
ועל מחמי חמים,
ושעל הסדינין,
ועל המטפחות.
The Talmud comments:
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel (Tosefta 5:1):
Respectable locations for idolatrous figures are
upon bracelets (שירין),
or upon nose rings,
or upon rings.
Disgraceful locations are
upon large pots,
or upon small kettles [ha-kumkemasin],
or upon samovars,
or upon sheets,
or upon towels.
Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:3)
Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:3)
R’ Yosei - An idol should be ground up and its dust scattered to the wind or cast into the sea
רבי יוסי אומר:
שוחק
וזורה לרוח,
או מטיל לים.
R’ Yosei says:
When one encounters an idol, he should grind the idol
and scatter6 the dust to the wind
or cast it into the sea.
Rabbis - Object that even scattered idol-dust can become fertilizer, thereby providing forbidden benefit - Deuteronomy 13:18
אמרו לו:
אף הוא נעשה זבל,
שנאמר:
״לא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם״.
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,7
and deriving any kind of benefit is prohibited, as it is stated:
“And nothing of the proscribed items (חרם) shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).8
Talmud
R’ Yosei - biblical prooftext #1: Moses’ destruction of the Golden Calf proves that an idol may be ground to dust and dispersed - Deuteronomy 9:21
תניא,
אמר להם רבי יוסי,
והלא כבר נאמר:
״ואת חטאתכם אשר עשיתם את העגל
לקחתי ואשרף אתו באש
ואכת אתו
טחון היטב
עד אשר דק לעפר
ואשלך את עפרו אל הנחל הירד מן ההר״
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:16): R’ Yosei said to them:
But isn’t it already stated:
“And your sin, the calf that you had made,
I took and burned it with fire,
and beat it in pieces,
grinding it very small,
until it was as fine as dirt;
and I cast its dust into the brook that descended out of the mount” (Deuteronomy 9:21)?9
Rabbis - Reject the Golden Calf proof: Moses mixed its dust into water specifically to test Israel like suspected adulteresses - Exodus 32:20
אמרו לו:
משם ראיה?!
הרי הוא אומר:
״ויזר על פני המים
וישק את בני ישראל״,
לא נתכוין אלא לבודקן כסוטות.
The Rabbis said to him:
You seek to bring proof from there?!
Doesn’t it state in the verse:
“And he took the calf that they had made, and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water,
and made the children of Israel drink of it” (Exodus 32:20)?
Moses ground up the Golden Calf intending only to inspect them like sota women10
R’ Yosei - biblical prooftext #2: Asa’s destruction of Maacah’s idolatrous image at the Kidron provides another precedent for pulverizing an idol - I Kings 15:13
אמר להם רבי יוסי:
והלא כבר נאמר
״וגם את מעכה אמו הסירה מגבירה
אשר עשתה מפלצתה וגו׳
וידק וישרף בנחל קדרון״
R’ Yosei said to them:
But isn’t it already stated concerning Asa:
“And he also removed Maacah his mother from being queen,
because she had made an abominable image [miflatztah] for an ashera;
and Asa cut down her image, and burned it at the Kidron River” (see I Kings 15:13)?
It seems that Asa was unconcerned that the ground-up idol may provide fertilization.
Rabbis - Reject the proof because that part of the Kidron did not support vegetation, so no benefit as fertilizer resulted - I Kings 15:13
אמר לו:
משם ראיה?!
נחל קדרון אינו מגדל צמחין
They said to him:
You seek to bring proof from there?!
The Kidron River does not grow vegetation,
so even if the idol would have fertilized the soil, it would have been of no benefit.
ולא?
והתניא:
אלו ואלו מתערבין באמה,
ויוצאין לנחל קדרון,
ונמכרין לגננין לזבל,
ומועלין בהן
The Talmud asks:
And does the Kidron River not grow vegetation?
But isn’t it taught in a Mishnah (Yoma 58b):
This remainder of blood from the Temple’s external altar and that remainder of blood from the inner altar are mixed in the Temple courtyard drain (אמה) beneath the altar,
and they flow out with the water used to rinse the area, to the Kidron River,
and this water is sold to gardeners (גננין) for use as fertilizer
The Mishnah continues: The gardeners pay for this water and thereby desacralize it, and failure to do so would render them liable for misuse (מועלין) of consecrated property.
This is explicit proof that the Kidron River does in fact yield produce.
Different portions of the Kidron differ: some grow vegetation, and some do not
מקומות מקומות יש בו:
יש מקום
מגדל צמחין,
ויש מקום
שאין מגדל צמחין.
The Talmud answers:
There are different places in the Kidron River area.
There is a place
that grows vegetation,
and there is a place
that does not grow vegetation.
Rav Yehuda - “Miflatztah” in the verse denotes an object that intensifies sexual obscenity - I Kings 15:13
מאי ״מפלצתה״?
אמר רב יהודה:
דהוה מפליא ליצנותא,
The Talmud tangentially inquires about the meaning of a word in the verse quoted above.
What is the meaning of “miflatztah”?
Rav Yehuda says:
It means an object that intensifies [mafli] licentiousness11
Rav Yosef - Maacah’s idol had a phallic form with which she engaged sexually each day
כדתני רב יוסף:
כמין זכרות עשתה לה,
והיתה נבעלת לו בכל יום.
as R’ Yosef teaches:
Maacah fashioned upon the idol the likeness of a male organ12
and she would engage in sexual activity with it daily.
As stated earlier in the sugya, see Part 1, section “Question from another Mishnah (in tractate Ḥullin)“.
סמי - Aramaic verb, related to he noun סומא - “blind [person]”.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “סְמֵי”, section “Pa’el- סַמֵּי”, sense #1:
1) to close the eyes of; to blind.
and elsewhere.
Yerushalmi Berakhot II, 4b עבור קומוי וסַמֵּי עיניה (euphemism for עיניך) pass it (the idol) and blind your eye (ignore it);
Yerushalmi Shekalim 2, 47a top;
Yerushalmi Moed Katan 3, 83c bottom of page ואַסְמֵי (Af.).
Rosh Hashanah 24b:9 סמי עיניה דדין put its eye out (destroy the form of the figure);
and elsewhere.
שף ויתיב.
On this synagogue, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “בית הכנסת שף ויתיב“.
אנדרטא - andrata - from Greek.
זורה - “scatter, disperse”. This verb is used for dispersing small particles, such as dirt or seeds.
זבל.
Compare R’ Yosei’s statement in a Mishnah earlier in the tractate, Avodah Zarah 3:8 = Avodah_Zarah/48b#11:
רבי יוסי אומר:
אף לא ירקות בימות הגשמים,
מפני שהנביה נושרת עליהן
והוה להן לזבל.
R’ Yosei says:
One may not plant vegetables under an ashera even during the winter,
because the tree’s foliage (נביה) falls upon them
and serves as fertilizer for them.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “זֶבֶל”:
(compare Assyrian zabâlu, ‘Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament’ (1883)2, p. 550; compare צָבַר) [heaped up,] especially foliage piled up for forming manure, manure, deposits.
Mishnah Shabbat 4:1 you must not keep dishes warm for the Sabbath בז׳ וכ׳ in foliage … whether dry or moist.
Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:8 (Avodah Zarah 48b:11) והוָֹה להן לז׳ and serves for them as manure.
Mishnah Yoma 5:6 נמכרין … לז׳ is sold to the gardeners for forming manure.
Tosefta Bava Metzia 11:8 זִיבְלוֹ his heaped-up foliage.
Mishnah Bava Metzia 5:7 (Bava Metzia 72b:8) עד שיהיה לו ז׳ באשפתו Manuscript Munich: (ed. אלא א”כ היתה וכ׳) unless he has manure piled up;
and frequently.
Plural: זְבָלִים.
Mishnah Sheviit 3:1 מאימתי מוציאין ז׳ וכ׳ when may deposits of foliage be carried out for piling up in the fields.
Bereishit Rabbah 31:11 לז׳ (Sanhedrin 108b singular) for deposits of excrements etc.
Tosefta Bava Metzia see above שעת הז׳ the season for carrying out foliage;
and frequently.
Compare the citation of this verse in the subsequent Mishnah, in my “Proclus and Rabban Gamliel: A Philosophical Exchange on Idolatry and Civic Spaces Outside of Aphrodite’s Bathhouse (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:4)“, section “Proclus the Philosopher Questions Rabban Gamliel on Bathhouse Dedicated to Aphrodite“, where I summarize:
In this passage from the Mishnah, Proclus, a non-Jewish philosopher, questions Rabban Gamliel (presumably, Gamaliel II) in Akko about why he bathes in a bathhouse dedicated to the Greek goddess Aphrodite (אפרודיטי), despite a biblical verse understood as prohibiting benefit from objects of idol worship (Deuteronomy 13:18).
Steinsaltz explains:
Moses, who ground up the idolatrous Golden Calf and dispersed its powder, was apparently unconcerned with the fact that it may fertilize the soil.
It is worth noting that this biblical proof seems somewhat odd: since the Golden Calf was seemingly made of gold rather than organic material such as wood, it is unclear how its remains could serve as fertilizer.
Steinsaltz explains:
i.e., like a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful. Such a woman is compelled to drink water containing the ground-up ink from a scroll of Torah passages relating to a sota woman, which causes her to die if she was unfaithful, and exonerates her and bestows blessings upon her if she was faithful.
Similarly, Moses ground up the Golden Calf in order to compel the people to drink, to cause the guilty parties to die.
ליצנותא - leitzanuta - literally: “scoffing, jesting, clowning, lack of seriousness“, often used in a sexual context.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “לֵיצָנוּת”:
(the preceding word) scoffing habits, sneering, irony.
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 2:8:11 - קשה היא הל׳ שתחילתה וכ׳ (not הליצניות) scoffing is a serious thing, for its beginning brings suffering, and its end destruction.
Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:3:2 דברי ל׳ frivolous speech, see זִרְזֵיף.
Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:3:2 אם נכנס … דבר של ל׳ when a word of the Law (a religious thought) enters the heart, a word of scoffing is removed etc.
and elsewhere.
And ibid., entry “לֵיצָנוּתָא”:
Aramaic same
Sanhedrin 63b:11 כל ל׳ … בר מל׳ דע”א all sneering is forbidden except the ridiculing of idols (by perverting their names [=dysphemism]).
Avodah Zarah 44a:5 (phonetic etymology of מ̇פ̇ל̇צ̇ת, II Chronicles 15:16) דהוה מ̇פ̇ל̇יא ליצנותא’ for it (the worship of that idol) carried lasciviousness to an extreme.
Pesachim 112b:3, see לֵיצָנָא
On the passage in tractate Megillah, see my “Public Bible Reading, Translation, and Decorum: Regulating Sensitive Scripture in the Synagogue (Mishnah Megillah 4:10; Megillah 25a-b)“, section “Rav Naḥman - General rule: mockery/obscenity is forbidden except mockery of idol worship, which is permitted“, and the sections following that.
זכרות - i.e., a phallic object; compare the modern-day dildo. (Our passage is cited in Wikipedia at the entry at the hyperlink, section “Talmud“.)
On the word זכרות, see my recent note, in “Pt3 Zealotry, Intermarriage, and the Biblical Story of Pinehas and Zimri in Numbers 25 (Sanhedrin 81b-82b)“, on section “R’ Yohanan - Six miracles enabled Pinehas to kill Zimri and Cozbi: Zimri did not withdraw, did not summon aid, the spear struck both at the genitals, they remained on it, an angel raised the lintel, and another angel struck the people“.