Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 18, scan section 44

into two distinct parts. As to R. Ismael, he explains his posi- tion thus : As the idol of a heathen is forbidden only after its being worshipped, it is common sense that that of an Israelite should be forbidden from the very beginning; otherwise what difference would there be between the two? Surely not that the idol of an Israelite be altogether allowed, as it reads [Deut. xxvii. 15] : " Cursed be the man who maketh a carved or molten image," etc. ; hence the curse is imposed upon the making of an idol. Well and good, but this verse does not prove as yet that the use of the idol is forbidden ! It was answered that it is fur- ther expressly stated : "The idol is detestable to the Lord," hence, prohibited. Now, how does R. Aqiba assert his posi- tion? Said Ula, from [ibid. vii. 25J : "The graven images of their gods ye shall burn with fire," etc., which " images " surely means the likeness of the idol as soon as it is graved. As to R. Ismael, he understands this verse in the sense given to it by R. Joseph, who said : Whence do we know that a heathen may profane his idol? From "The images of their gods," etc., no THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. which means that the idol is prohibited so long as the heathen treats it as a god, but becomes allowed as soon as he no longer treats it so, i.e.y breaks up some piece thereof. On the other hand, R. Aqiba proves that the heathen can profane the idol from the same source used by Samuel — viz. [ibid.] : " Thou shalt not covet the silver or gold that is on them," and ends, " Thou shouldst take it unto thyself"; this apparent contradiction he explains thus : Do not covet before the idol is profaned, but after its profanation you may take it. But again, whence does R. Aqiba know that the idol of an Israelite is not prohibited until after worship? Said R. Jehudah, it reads [ibid, xxvii. 15] ; " Cursed be it, and putteth it in a secret place." This phrase, " in secret place," means, pours out before the idol his secret thoughts; hence, R. Aqiba concludes that it is forbidden only after such worship. R. Ismael, on the other hand, explains this phrase in the sense of R. Iz'hak, who says : This phrase teaches us that the idol, of an Israelite must be wholly destroyed and put in a sercet place; while R. Aqiba endeavors to prove this obligation by what R. 'Hisda said in the name of Rabh [Deut. xvi. 21] : " Thou shalt not plant unto thyself a grove, any tree near the altar of thy Lord," signifies that just as an altar that becomes out of use must be removed out of sight by being buried under ground, so also the groves (that are spoken of here in connection with the altar) must be put in secrecy. R. Ismael, however, infers from this verse what is said by Resh Lakish (Sanhedrin, p. 15, par. Resh Lakish, to the end). R. Hamnuna questioned : What is the law concerning a ves- sel that, after a piece had been broken off it, was again made fit for use and then dedicated to idol-worship? Before proceed- ing to answer this question, one must know to whose idol this vessel was devoted ; if to that of a heathen, both R. Ismael and R. Aqiba consider such vessels as serving vessels, which are for- bidden not until after they have actually been used in the wor- ship. Thus, the question must refer to the idol of an Israelite, and, since R. Aqiba, who prohibits the idol of an Israelite only after worship, will doubtless do the same as regards the serving vessel in question, it can be treated only in the light of R. Ismael's opinion, so that it is necessary to know in the first place whether such serving vessels are subject to the same rules as the vessels of a heathen's idol are. If yes, they are forbidden after the use; but if they follow the rules of an Israelite's idol, they are forbidden from the very beginning. But why does TRACT ABUDA ZARA (IDOLATRY). m R. Hamnuna ask concerning a repaired and not a newly-made vessel ? The answer is that his question has, in fact, reference to the problem of old defilement. As the following Mishna (Kelim, xi. i) : "Of metallic vessels the flat and hollowed ones are subject to defilement; if, however, they were defiled and broke they become clean. But if they were again made into vessels, the old defilement returns." Now, R. Hamnuna was in doubt as to whether this Mishna is concerned with biblical defilements only, or also with rabbinical defilements. But if so, why does not R. Hamnuna put his question regarding rabbini- cal defilements in general? His desire was that his question, embrace also the other point — viz : Does a rabbinical defilement return ? And should you decide that it does not, then the question arises: How is the case with idolatry? Shall we assume that, because of the rigorousness of idolatry, a rabbini- cal be equivalent to a biblical or not? This question remains undecided. R. Johanan asked R. Janai : I should like to know whether or no food ofTered to an idol, if profaned, loses thereby its defile- ment (which lay therein by reason of its being of the idol) ? But why does he ask about food and not about vessels ? Because he knew that the remedy for devoted vessels is a legal bath, which abolishes also the defilement. Furthermore, R. Johanan does not ask whether or no an idolized food, if worshipped and then profaned, still defiles; because he knows that a profaned idol is no longer forbidden, hence, its defilement is also abol- ished. But he put up the foregoing question merely because R. Gidel said somewhere above that all objects sacrificed to idols can never be profaned, so he wants to know now whether R. Gidel's theory applies to the prohibition which is biblical, but not to the defilement which is rabbinical, or to both? Also this question remains undecided. R. Jose b. Saul asked Rabbi whether the vessels used (in the temple of Egypt) in the house of Chania, are allowed for use also in the temple of Jerusalem ? This question suggests that R. Jose shared the opinion of those who say : The temple of Egypt was not considered an idol temple. It was, however, taught that the priests who served in the Chania temple are not allowed to serve in that of Jerusalem, the less so are those who served at idol-worships. He thus wanted to know whether the vessels follow the same rules as the priests; or since the priests are endowed with intelligence they were fined. But the vessels ti2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. destitute of intelligence should not be fined, or there is no dif- ference ? Hereupon said Rabbi: Yea; they are prohibited and there is a verse from Scripture to corroborate this, but I forgot it. R. Jose thus objected, it reads [II Chron. xxix. 19] : " All the vessels which King Achez had cast aside . . . have we put in order and sanctified. ' ' Does not ' ' put in order ' ' mean a legal