Talking Talmud

An introduction to Seder Kodashim... with its focus on Temple ritual and the distance of those practices from how we practice Judaism today (and, for that matter, from how the sages did too). Including overviews for the kinds of korbanot (sacrifies), where they're offered, and the wide range of occasions when sacrifices are made. Also, a new mishnah! Namely, how korbanot can be offered not for the reason they were being brought - and they are still "kosher," fit as offerings, but with some exceptions. Plus, a comparison to bills of divorce written "in the name of" the woman being divorced. Where Rava raises a theory, a contradiction, and a resolution.

Where not attributing a sage's opinions to him by name is a punishment - specifically, here, in the case of Rabbi Meir, in follow-up to the previous daf's story of a kind of mutiny. Also, a debate over which kind of scholar is preferable - one who is incisive and sharply analytic or one who knows large swathes of information? Plus, the honor that Rav Yosef and Rabbah showed to each other. Also, another round of the sages, next generation - the honor given to Abaye for teaching material that none refuted.

Still and again, new mishnayot! 1 - An order of hierarchy when one has limited resources, where sometimes the man takes precedence and sometimes the woman does. Including a much too close for comfort recognition of this need, potentially, in the case of captives. Likewise, a man chooses to save himself, his teacher, his father - to save them in that order, though his mother would take precedence over all -- again, a bit disturbing, but in terms of irreplaceablity, perhaps reasonable. Plus, more stages, given various statuses. Also, there are 10 things that are harmful to one learning Torah, some of whcih sound distracting or destructive under other circumstances as well. Also, when the nasi (or king), the av beit din, or a Torah scholar enters the study hall, directives to the students when to stand and when it mattered less. Which leads to drama about who is worthy of being stood up for, especially when not everyone has the same degree of Torah scholarship as everyone else. Note the rudeness and kindness for Rabbi Shimon about Tractate Uktzin.

On the anointing of kings... and the anointed kohen - how was the anointing done? A crown and a letter X (in Greek, however). Also, good omens, including when/where to schedule the coronation of a king - in this case, specifically, King Solomon. Including discussion of the idea of using omens to begin with - is this akin to the prohibited divination or simply symbolic wishes or prayers? Plus, the special foods that are symbolic for the new year - eaten on Rosh Hashanah. Also, more on the way the anointed kohen would function, and then including the kohen anointed in battle (not to be confused with the regular kohen gadol in the Beit HaMikdash in peacetime). Plus, another 2 new mishnayot! On how the kohen offers the karbanot when he's in mourning, without eating from them, and followed by the common practice taking precedence -- where both the halakhic principle and the example of it are included in the mishnah.

The sages derive halakhah from a brief phrase in a verse from Leviticus - on an "am ha-aretz," a commoner, or more specifically from a halakhic sense, a person who is not careful regarding certain aspects of Jewish law - and when he would bring a sin-offering to atone. This status excludes a "meshumad," an apostate, who can't atone with a sin-offering for a general intent to act against Torah. Though even the apostate can be selective in when he wants to observe Torah and when he is intent on breaking the given halakhah - for example, one who is willing to eat forbidden fat, but not willing to eat blood. Plus, an apostate vs. a heretic, where the first follows his desire, while the second is antagonistic to Torah. Also, a new mishnah! More on the anointed kohen - namely, one who was made kohen gadol with the anointing oil, and not what happened later, in the Second Temple period, where the kohen gadol was inaugurated by wearing the 8 garments of the kohen gadol, as there was no anointing oil then. Note the differences (or lack thereof) between the kohanim in the different eras. Plus, the anointing of a king, and the anointing in the future...

Chapter 3 - with a new mishnah! (on the bottom of the previous daf) - the anointed kohen who sins unwittingly because of his own erroneous ruling, and then he leaves that standing of anointed kohen before he has brought his atonement offering -- that is, he steps down because of some blemish unrelated to the erroneous ruling... What animal does he bring if he is no longer the anointed kohen? (In fact, there's no change at this time). Note the attention to the structure of the mishnah. And another new mishnah! On the order of stature of the anointed kohen or the king and a sin and sin-offering (is the sin before they achieve the status, for example?). Also, a shift to focus on the king (nasi) and his offering. Plus, a story of Rabban Gamliel traveling with Rabbi Yehoshua, who had brought flour, and using the stars for navigation. Also, a discussion of "asher" and "ashrei," which have dramatically different meanings. With more in the moral/ethical plane - focusing on the intent of the person who sins, but might have intended to fulfill a mitzvah (to wit, see the story of Lot and his daughters).

More on Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's opinion and the king's exemptions from having to bring atonement offerings. Note the privilege and, alternatively, the limitations of having wealth, as a king must. Also, a new mishnah! When various people violate mitzvot unwittingly that would get a "karet" sentence if done with intent, then they each bring specific animals as offerings. And here too, an unusual opinion, this time, Rabbi Shimon.

More on the anointed kohen, in comparison with the court - specifically, the bringing of a sin-offering for a violation that would receive "karet" if done intentionally and entails a sin-offering when done unwittingly. Plus, the significance of these details being biblical in origin, and therefore prompt a hunt for the source text, as compared to a halakhic dispute. Also, a new mishnah: When the court would not be required to bring the offering. Note that the "aseh" and "lo ta'aseh" come together - which likely would have benefited from more specific articulation in the episode. The cases of ritual impurity or contamination in the Temple come front and center - and are contrasted with the same kind of erroneous judgement having a different outcome with regard to the offering if it were about a menstruant woman, as compared to the consecretated foods in the Temple. Thus, limitations on the requirement to bring an offering in the event of an erroneous ruling. Also, another new mishnah! With additional limitations, specifically on the kinds of cases for which the court might have issued an erroneous ruling and then not necessarily been obligated to bring an offering in atonement. For example: false testimony. Plus, what is the liability of a king in these kinds of capacities? (Hint: It's a machloket)

A new chapter! With several mishnayot. 1 - (from the previous daf) - If/when the anointed kohen who makes an erroneous ruling, which he then does unwittingly - he needs to bring a sin-offering in atonement. He is considered akin to the court, as it were, with regard to himself, as the court is, with regard to the public. Note the kohen's authority to determine halakhah as well. 2 - On the court's involvement (or lack thereof) in the kohen's offering, in that they really can't provide the means for his atonement. 3 - If the erroneous ruling pertains to idolatry - with a parallel to a ruling to uproat an area of the Torah - and the contingincy of being unaware of the matter altogether.

When people returned to the land of Israel from Babylonia after that exile, they brought an offering on behalf of the people from the era of Tzedkiyahu. But all of that generation and long died! Normally, a designated sin-offering that isn't offered before the person offering it dies is left alone to get a blemish. But for a public offering, that doesn't work. But an inference can be made from the he-goat of Rosh Chodesh, in terms of it being a communal offering. But maybe the cases aren't comparable, say, if nobody died before the offering was made? Maybe eglah arufah is a good comparison? Some of the returning members of the community were actually still alive at this time - survivors from the time of the First Temple, which was certainly a sad time for them, but they were able to offer the sin-offering. Were they the minority or the majority? Also, the case where one of the public dies - when all the people must bring the offering. Now what? And so a search for parallet categories begins.

A new mishnah! (beginning on 4b) - Who actually brings the offering to atone for the erroneous ruling? What about when the sin is per tribe? Or if the majority of people in less than a majority of tribes?

An indictment of the Sadducees in the context of a court that issues an erroneous ruling that agrees with their understanding of the Torah. With a further investigation into what it would mean to make this kind of "uprooting halakhah" kind of error - how did that come about? And - two new mishnayot: 1 - Ways in which the erroneous judgement came to be issued when it so clearly should not have been. Plus, capital punishment. 2 - What if everyone sins because of the erroneous judgement? That's when the sacrifice or offering becomes essential, for each person.

Given that if the majority of Jewish people sin in following an erroneous ruling and they need to bring an offering to atone - who counts as that majority? It excludes the Jews who live in the Diaspora - with a source for that in the book of Kings. Also, how does this kind of majority obviate the views of the minority? And - a new mishnah! When the court issues an erroneous ruling and they realized they were in error and they correct themselves, but there are those who follow the initial ruling - do those people need to bring an offering or not? It will depend on their circumstances and whether they were in the position to hear about the revision to the ruling. Plus, what if the court wants to cancel an entire section of the Torah's law from practice?

A new tractate! On rulings that the court issues in error, and people then follow those ruling - are they held accountable, and if so, how? Sources are in Leviticus and Numbers. Plus, Eduyot and Avot. Also, a new mishnah: A decision to violate a mitzvah is in error - who would bring an offering to atone? Also, the communal offering for when the court explicitly allows something that is not permitted. Spotlighting Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma.

A question from a mishnah in Zevachim that contradicts the text here - because of the purging, preparation of the vessels here. Specifically on how that which is absorbed is either permitted or forbidden - and whether that makes a difference. But are the sacrificial meat and the non-Jew's utensils really comparable? Also, a story to close the tractate - that highlights the discussions from the tractate - including non-Jewish practice, including the relationship and dynamic between Jew and non-Jew. Plus, the need for taking care with Halakhah - and making sure that you represent yourself well.

How do we purify different kinds of vessels or utensils? Boiling water should do the trick. Or maybe "olive water." Plus time - whatever that may mean, given the vague term of "season." A minimum of half the day and half the night - that is, 12 hours, out of 24. Also, one who buys utensils from non-Jews who made them... prepare them for use after the handling by the non-Jews via immersing in a mikveh... or in boiling water...or....heating it to white-hot.... or polishing. The precursor to today's "toveling." Plus, when to use which method, or more than one.

Several mishnayot: 1 - A long list of those items that are prohibited and in a mixture, prohibit the entire mixture in any amount. 2 - Libation wine that falls into a cistern prohibits the entire mixture, though it could be sold to an idolater, as long as the libation wine itself is not compensated. 3 - If a stone wine press is covered with pitch, by a non-Jew, and then covered in wine - that is usable. But if it were made of wood - that might be usable (with cleaning), or the alternate view - peel off the pitch altogether. If earthenware, there's no usability. Also, the Gemara delves into how to purify a wine press.

Siyum tomorrow, Sunday! Mixtures of something permitted with libation wine - is prohibited, no matter how little libation wine is added. But water with wine or wine with water - the question is whether it gives flavor to the mixture as a whole, and also depending on "like" and libation wine or tevel. With all kinds of permutations of mixtures with prohibited things. Also, Rav and Shmuel agree, disagreeing with R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish, who agree.

Terms used in negotiating a sale or a price - and how 4 people must be in agreement for a price to apply (though the customary appraisal is by 3 people) - among other cases. Also, a new mishnah! Using a funnel for wine and discovering a drop left over - it makes the whole thing prohibited, in case it was libation wine. With ramifications, of course. Plus, the Gemara on this mishnah addresses how this liquids can mix - and when they are considered blended halakhically, or moistening a solid, and when not.

2 new mishnayot! (first, on the bottom of the previous daf) - when a military group enters a city in a time of peace, then when the soldiers leave, open barrels of wine are forbidden, but sealed ones are permitted. In a time of war, even the open ones are permitted, taking it as a given that during war, the soldiers would not have time to pour libations. This is a puzzle, because did they really not have time? A parallel discussion in Ketubot establishes that an army does "have time" to pursue women - in their lust. (the second mishnah) - a craftsman who is paid in wine that was used for libation -- he can ask for the actual money instead. Also, the order of operations in a Jewish merchant selling wine to an idolater - where the non-Jew must pay before handling the wine, or it's tantamount to the Jew selling libation wine. Plus, how do kinyanim - formal acts of acquisition - work for non-Jews?

If a Jew leaves wine with a non-Jew, unsupervised, can (or when can) the Jew drink that wine? The 12 case-stories on this daf address this question, several of which are discussed here. Also, when an army came to Nehardea and opened barrels of wine - is that wine permitted for the Jews to use? A comparable question arose in the land of Israel, but it's also qualitatively different, when the army is primarily Jewish. Plus, the case of a Jewish woman who gives the key to her wine shop to a non-Jewish woman, as an indicator of trust between them.

As long as a Jew supervises an idolater's presence with wine, there's no concern about the wine - even the supervisor's presence is intermittent. Plus, other cases where supervision makes a difference - unless that intermittent checking leaves enough time for the idolater to take the opportunity to handle the wine in a way that would prohibit it. With the notable issue becoming how long the idolater thinks he has before the supervisor returns. Also, how long IS that amount of time anyway? It depends on the material of the wine stopper -- and perhaps the ability to discern the unstoppering of the wine, even from below. Plus, a comment on the talmudic terms for a non-Jew, idolater, pagan, and so on, and the Jewish censorship of these texts.

More on the dispute about whether a mixture in which the forbidden component adds flavor that is detrimental - whether the mixture is permitted or prohibited? The search is on for a tannaitic source. Also, the case of a mouse who falls into a barrel of beer - is this a case of adding a detrimental flavor? There seems to be new factor in the mix, namely, that of it being repellent to people -- a matter that is disgusting.

On the principle of a forbidden item convey taste, and with it "forbiddenness," as manifest in hot split beans and vinegar vs. cold split beans and vinegar. Also, on adding a flavor that is to the detriment of the food - and whether that is then prohibited is a machloket. Plus, the biblical source, going back to Midian. Plus, the time-frame for food to go bad... or for a change in taste to automatically be enhanced.

Old (fermented) wine that was used for a libation that spills onto grapes will be prohibited or not, depending on it affecting the taste of the grapes. New wine, however, is the subject of dispute - are they only forbidden if the new wine affected their flavor, or any amount would be an issue (it's a machloket between Abaye and Rava, on taste vs. name). Also, the smell of the wine helps evaluate how good it is - via the "bat tiha" - a hole in the wine cask, and the tester would smell the wine at that point (via a tube, etc.). Cumin becomes a parallel example for smell and food, but then it stops short of being a real parallel, because of all the differences between cumin and wine.

Two stories about wine and categories of people: 1. A Jew sent to a non-Jew, on his festival, because he wasn't an idolater. But someone who hasn't converted might still be problematic. 2. Entering a bathhouse with a good number of prostitutes - with the fear of the monarchy or not? How to judge someone, and what if he's not who you think he is? Also, a new mishnah: wine that was used for a libation and skilled on grapes - when can you wash them off? Depending on the taste they give off - or not. Plus, a story to counter the apparent principle of the mishnah - leading into a general rule for application elsewhere. Plus, the Gemara re-writes the mishnah to correct it.

A question is presented before a group of the sages: What is the law regarding the money from a sale of an object of idolatry in the hands of a non-Jew? Similarly, what if a Jew is a creditor for a non-Jew who then sells an object of idolatry and has the funds to pay the Jew back...? The same group receives other questions as well: What about a ger toshav - can he nullify idols? What about when two non-Jews don't share the same idolatrous worship? Would nullifying the worship of the other be effective? Plus, does the Gemara consider all non-Jews, such as a ger toshav, to be idolaters?

A beraita about a man who was with a prostitute - can the money he didn't pay her with be used for purchase for the altar? What monies can be swapped for which? Plus, sacrifices. Also, whether it was permitted to borrow produce from the poor before the shemitah year, and paid them back after the shemitah year. Plus, how a Jewish employer might gift or sponsor his employees leisure purchases.

Chapter 5! And a new mishnah: A non-Jew who hires a Jewish worker raises question as to whether that Jew can accept his wages -- depending on the terms of the entire capacity of the job. For example, when there are mitigating factors to reduce the stringencies towards the idolatry. Also, the prohibitions that are rabbinic in nature - are often reduced, or certainly debated. Also, disposing of the problematic items - in such a way that they cannot be unearthed or reused. Plus, a cemetery that was used for those killed in capital punishment -- what else that might be buried there should be burned.... Plus, the economic question of Jews dealing with non-Jews, given stringencies.

When wine is in an idolater's domain, in a home that opens to the public domain, when is that wine permitted? And if it's in a Jew's domain? But what if the city were entirely idolaters? Also, if a Jew lives in a house in a courtyard owned by a non-Jew, then is that in considered usable or not? Plus, the story of the house of the vizier, and the concerns of sharecroppers how may or may not be messing with the Jews' wine. But if they're messing with the wine, they're unlikely to have the presence of mind to offer libations in the mix of everything else.

An idolater who crushes grapes via a press, but it's still potentially libation. But that's indirect.... and indeed, the wine is prohibited, but there's more room to maneuver than initially believed... Others are more comfortable for one to sell the wine - since it's not prohibited for benefit. Plus, the case of a non-Jew standing next to a vat of wine. And what happens if he indeed falls in?

Rabbi Hiya bar Aba was in a place called Gavla - which place that is specifically is unclear, though suggestions are made - where he saw Jewish young women who were impregnated by men who were in the process of converting to Judaism. Also re their wine. Likewise, he saw Jews eating from bishul akum. He said nothing, but consulted with Rabbi Yochanan later, and he said that the babies must be proclaimed mamzerim, the wine - yein nesach, and so on. Because this population was just not that knowledgeable. Also, how does someone whose wine has become prohibited via a non-Jew's libation, how can that Jew recoup the loss? Isn't that wine prohibited from benefit? That turns out to be a matter of dispute.

An incident took place in Mehoza - a non-Jew asked a Jew if he has wine to sell. After he is told no, he shoves his hand into a barrel of wine and mixes it and asks: Isn't this wine? -- what now is the status of that wine? Note the shofar-blowing to announce the issuance of a "p'sak din" - halakhic decision. To what extent has libation been involved in this kind of case? Moreover, note the different practices and the different levels of knowledge in various places - from Mehoza and Nehardea, and more. (All the cases brought in an attempt to refute Rava) Also, some of the sages were drinking wine, and the invite someone who later was determined to be a non-Jew. Other beverages, including beer, would have a different concerns (or none, as the case may be). If one sees wine, why would they suggest it was beer (maybe it's at night?). Also, note the difference between bishul akum, for example, and the issues here, which are from the Torah, and more concerned about idolatry than fraternizing.

Several stories - indicating that the concern about libation wine was real for them. For example, a person's lulav touching his wine. Or the extreme case of an infant touching the wine (as an example of intent not being the more key element here in declaring wine for libations. Plus, conversions with circumcision and dunking in a mikveh. Plus, the impurity factor, given that status. Note the stringency here, especially given the biblical prohibition. Also, a greater concern that converts who have completed the process are still subject to their original beliefs... or a year or so. Plus, concerns about taint of partial converts with regard to the wine.

First, why "libation wine" is a topic that draws so much attention. Wine cannot become "libation" wine until it goes into the cistern - is it fully processed then? That is a matter of dispute. Also, a 6-year-old child who was an outstanding scholar of this very tractate - Avodah Zarah. He was able to field serious questions about Jews and non-Jews working together to tread on grapes to make wine. Plus, long-term deliberations over concerns about wine, without real worrying about keeping people waiting for an answer...

Agrippas, the Roman general, asked Rabban Gamliel (paraphrase): Your God is a jealous God, but people are only jealous of those who are in real competition, so how can He be jealous of idols, which are fundamentally nothing? Plus, an example of a man who takes a second wife, and when that will make the first wife feel bad (in analogy to God vs. idolatry). Also, a challenge from people who are seemingly healed by idols. Plus, the perfect timing of suffering that can then confuse bystanders. Also, a focus on wine-making and taking the juice out of the grape - when does it become wine? (for halakhic concerns). Plus, draining the grapes and the implications as compared to juice flowing easily.

R. Dimi came from the land of Israel to Babylonia and taught how the land itself isn't rendered prohibited by virtue of people bowing down, but working/digging, etc. just might. The same for other items too. What about exchanging one thing for the thing that was worshipped? Still a problem, but the exchange of an exchange is a machloket. NOTE: A switch to discussion of libations and Aggadah in the mishnah (unusual, as we know). Does God really mind idolatry? He allows it, after all.... Also, a discussion between the philosophers in Rome (literally) and the sages on how God does not interfere in the running of the world, according to its natural order. But that means people do things against God's will and thrive nonetheless! (To wit, Rome).

Several mishnayot - beginning with nullifying an idol (on the bottom of the previous daf). Note that a non-Jew nullifies the idol, not a Jew, and only a non-Jew who owns at least part of the idol. Acting in excruciatingly, disrespectful ways before the idol will not nullify it. Also, the idols that were in the land when Joshua conquered it, and the tolerance for idolatrous practice that they Jews were willing to entertain during the sin of the Golden Calf. Also, an object of idolatry that was set aside during a time when the non-Jews would have had ample time to go get the master. (as compared to a peace time, when there's no way to know why the idol was shunted aside).

A dispute on the prohibition of the idol when it's owned by a Jew vs. owned by non-Jew (Rabbi Akiva vs. Rabbi Yishmael). Also, vessels that were used in the "Temple of Onias" -- "chonyo," outside of the Temple, once it had been built. [Note: Historically, the specific temple of Onias was a center of worship for Egyptian Judaism.] Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi forgot (!) the verse from which the external worship was prohibited -- and then he was reminded of it by Rabbi Yosi bar Shaul. Also, the specifics of the Temple - as presented in the tractate Middot - were key in terms of assessing what could and could not be used in the Temple - once they were used unlawfully, even unto the Temple's altar itself (in the time of the Hasmoneans). It was a problem of the stones not being smooth, and so they were hid - but why hide? Why not repurpose them? Plus, the gold of Jerusalem and the coins that were permitted for use.

An idolatry that is served by using a stick, or breaking the stick, in front of an idol, the stick is then prohibited from use. If the stick were thrown, the (Jewish) person is still liable for idolatry, but the stick would not be prohibited for use. The issue may well be whether the practice itself were in use in the service in the Temple, and then recast for idolatry. Which raises a question about the rocks that were thrown in service of Mercury. Also, 2 mishnayot! On the worship on "bamot," altars that were outside of the Mishkan/Tabernacle, which were not always permitted in the time of the Mishkan and prohibited once the Temple was established. Plus, foodstuffs that were prohibited by virtue of idolatrous practices - even, under some circumstances, water and salt. Also, more on the specific idolatrous practices, for example, of Mercury, Pe'or, etc. Also, are there circumstances where that which was given to idolatry could be used? Plus, concerns of payment to pagan priests.

More on the Mercury idol - including stones that were removed from the idol, and were then prohibited. Plus, other idolatries -- more than one that compares the practices of idolatry with the dead, where benefit is prohibited. But stones weren't the Jewish approach in worship, so perhaps it shouldn't be a problem of benefit. Plus, a beraita that was too difficult to unpack -- with the claim that they needed a carpenter, the son of a carpenter to resolve it. Also, another beraita that needed unpacking (about removing worms from a tree, or putting manure on certain places on the given tree. Certain questions and contradictions were not addressed satisfactorily for the sages. [NOTE: Unbeknownst to us, Yardaena's sound cut out - as you may detect easily...though she sounded loud and clear during recording]

Rabbi Yosi vs. the Rabbis - on a field that was fertilized by the manure of idolatry, or the like, and how that field can be planted, and what terms are required for that to happen. Plus, the potential ramifications of their same logic on leavened dough. When the problematic item that is prohibited from benefit, can it be redeemed for money, and then destroy those coins in the Dead Sea? The rabbis say that there's no financial redemption for idolatry. Also, several new mishnayot: One who takes wood from an asherah tree cannot get benefit from that wood, so what happens if that wood were used to heat a new oven? Or an old oven? Or bread? Or a garment that was woven with idolatrous items? What about revoking the idolatrous status? As long as thee non-Jew is clear that he's not treating the tree as an object of worship, then he is not. Plus, the Roman god of Mercury and the stone-throwing idolatrous worship thereof.

A daf of 4 mishnayot! (1) 3 different kinds of trees and how they might have been used for idolatrous purposes, and whether they are permitted afterwards. (2) What is an "asherah"? Different views. (3) On using the shade from the idolatrous tree. (4) Planting vegetables under the asherah tree - in the winter or summer, when is it permitted or prohibited?

Resh Lakish poses a question: What happens to a lulav - a palm branch - from a tree that has been worshipped? That is, in the event that it was planted to begin with in the name of idolatry. Does the use for a mitzvah make it more likely to be permitted? More likely to be forbidden? What about for regular use? Rav Dimi has a different understanding by which to answer Resh Lakish -- consider a tree that was planted for idolatry, and then that status was revoked. Now what, when it comes to mitzvot? Rav Pappa says there's no revocation (in other examples) when it comes to mitzvot. Also, new mishnayot! If one's home abuts the home of an idolater - divide the wall according to thickness. Note - the privacy of the bathroom. Plus, stones that were used to support idols vs. stones that had a covering that was connected to idolatry, and you removed any connection to idolatry....

More on the hills and mountains and rocks - where they are being worshipped by a non-Jew, that is, the boulders that separate from a rocky mountain. Is that boulder like the mountain which isn't prohibited from benefit, or is it like the object of idolatrous worship? Usually, human engagement is necessary to make the object of idolatry prohibited. With a comparison to an animal -- including one that is blemished, as a parallel to the boulder. Also, the factor of being attached the ground - to what extent does that establish the worshipped object as something problematic or not?

A new mishnah! Things in the natural world that were worshipped - and whether that worship made them prohibited for benefit. For the most part, the hills and so on are permitted - the worship doesn't change them, but the obligation to destroy the idolatry itself kicks in. Adornment in the name of idolatry would be different - and prohibited. Also, a redundancy in the Torah: a prohibition against trees that are forbidden because they have been worshipped - and then another verse prohibited "each leafy tree," which appears to be redundant. So Rabbi Akiva provides an explanation that presents a need for both verses. Plus, the question of intent - is the tree planted in the name of idolatry, in which case, it needs to be destroyed, or, alternatively, is the tree already there and then someone decides to worship it?

2 new mishnayot! First, an alternative to taking a graven image to the Dead Sea - grind it off (but then the leavings become fertilizer, which would be getting benefit from it). With a parallel to improper use of that which had been consecrated, including that which emptied into the Kidron Valley (a story of King Asa), where fertilizer was less in use... Also, the story of Rabban Gamliel and the rebuke that comes his way for being in the bathhouse of Aphrodite (he has several defenses).

What is the figure of a dragon that is prohibited? One descriptor is scales between the joints, and that is determined to be the halakhah. Also, the story how Rabbi Elazar ben HaKappar found a ring on the road with the depiction of a dragon and he insisted that an adult non-Jew nullify the idolatrous status of it -- with 3 laws being learned from his behavior. Plus, the fact that the change of status of any item when it is saved from wild animals or a destructive river, or so on -- so why did he need a non-Jew to change the status, when that ring was just found on the road? It depends on the despair of the original owner, but that assumes that the finder is Jewish and not going to sell it. Also, the prohibition against depicting the celestial bodies - but Rabban Gamliel had images of the moon to help assess witnesses who come to testify about the new moon - but how could he have those images?! What about a menorah? There are concerns about replication. Likewise, the faces that are part of God's heavenly throne - how could those images be replicated? The Gemara distinguishes between worshipping (obviously prohibited) vs. depicting, which seems to have been done, and therefore flies in the face of the prohibition.

More on finding shards, and the problematic nature of tangible hands, feet, etc., when found. But why are those tangible imagery forbidden? The idol has been destroyed! Also, the possibility of revoking the idolatrous status, and rendering it permitted for use altogether - how actively, physically must that be done? Or does it have happen on its own, without your intervention? Also, a new mishnah! Certain figures that are considered idolatrous and need to be fully "erased" - at the Dead Sea: sun, moon, stars, dragons. But are those the only possible things that were worshipped? Plus, the issues in depicting people's faces.

A Jew cannot benefit from an object that's been used for idolatry, of course, but that extends to images too. Though the majority view maintains that images are not a problem. Also, broken shards may well be permitted - for use, benefit, and so on. But what if they were the object of idol worship? And what if the shards have the image of a hand or a foot or attached to a pedestal on which the idol stood?

A new mishnah! (from the previous daf) Permitted foods, for a change, including milk that was milked by a non-Jew, who was watched by a Jew, and certain fishes, and more. Plus, a deep dive into fish and roe (fish eggs), vs. other seafood, which birth their young (and are not kosher). But some non-kosher fish also lay eggs. Also, the need for experts who were able to determine whether a given fish and its roe were kosher or not. Plus, a story about Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, his stomach ache, and its cure in non-Jewishly-made 70-year-old non-Jewish apple wine.