Commentary for Avodah Zarah 108:19

The final answer is that R. Huna’s rule is derived from the Temple vessels defiled by King Ahaz. How could Ahaz have rendered them prohibited? After all, they are not his and there is a principle that a person cannot render prohibited another person’s property.
The answer is that since he actually performed an act with these vessels, they became prohibited. So too with the animal slaughtered for idolatry. Since he performed an act with it, it becomes prohibited.

Simply bowing down to the ground does not make the ground prohibited. But if one digs into it to create objects of use for idolatrous purposes, these features do become prohibited. As we learned above, “doing something” to the object is different from simply worshipping it.

Worshipping an animal does not make it prohibited, but using the animal to purchase an idol or to sell an idol does.

All rabbis agree that if one exchanges an idol for an animal, the animal is prohibited. The dispute is over animals exchanged for those animals. According to one opinion the prohibition continues. As we learn from the verse, anything that is derived from idolatry is accursed. The other opinion emphasizes that only “it,” the original animal is prohibited. The animal exchanged for the prohibited animal does not become prohibited.

The one that holds that animals used in exchange for animals used to acquire an idol are prohibited uses the word “it” (“it” is prohibited and not things exchanged for it) to exclude orlah (fruit during its first three years of growth) and mixed seeds planted in a vineyard. One may not derive benefit from either of these. But if one sells them (this is prohibited) and then uses the money to betroth a woman, the woman is betrothed. This proves that this money has value to its owner.

The author of the other opinion now has to explain why he does not also use the word “it” to teach that only in cases of idolatry does the second exchanged object become prohibited but not in orlah and mixed seeds in a vineyard. The answer is that idolatry and Sabbatical year produce are two special cases, and only in them does the second exchanged object become prohibited. Whenever we have two verses that teach the same rule about two different cases, we don’t apply that rule elsewhere. The idea is that if the Torah wanted the rule to apply across the board it would have taught it once. By teaching it twice, the implication is that the rule applies there and nowhere else. Therefore, even without the word “it” we know that this rule does not apply to orlah and mixed seeds.

One may not sell Sabbatical year produce. If one does, the money used to buy it now has the same restrictions that applied to the produce itself. This is the same as with idolatry—if one sells an idol and buys an animal, and then exchanges that animal for another animal, the last animal is also prohibited.

When one redeems a holy object, for instance something dedicated to the Temple, the money becomes holy but the object redeemed is desacralized. This is not true for Sabbatical year produce. The Sabbatical year produce remains holy even after it is sold. In essence it cannot be redeemed.

This baraita explains how exchanges with Sabbatical year produce work. The produce always remains holy as does the last item that was exchanged.
Sabbatical year produce must be removed from the home when it ceases to grow in the field. This rule will also apply to whatever is exchanged for the produce.

The other opinion uses the word “it” to exclude orlah and mixed seeds because he holds that even if there are “two texts that come as one” additional halakhot could be derived. Therefore, we might have learned that orlah and mixed seeds do make any item exchanged for them prohibited. Therefore the word “it” in the phrase, “that you should become accursed like it” is necessary to exclude them.

In the fascinating discussion in this mishnah some pagans in Rome pose a serious theological problem to Jewish sages: if God is all-powerful why doesn’t he destroy any of his competitors. The basic answer given is that God doesn’t destroy things which are necessary for the existence of the world. If He were to destroy the sun, moon and stars our universe would not be able to function. The pagans then ask why God doesn’t destroy the things that are worshipped and that are not necessary, such as idols. The answer is that if he were to do so, this would seemingly demonstrate the power of those things that were not destroyed. By doing so God would actually increase the number of idolaters in the world.
An interesting question with regards to this mishnah is whom are these idolaters supposed to be representing? Are these Greek philosophers? According to the Rambam (Maimonides) Greek philosophy does not believe in the influence that inanimate objects such as stars and planets can have on human lives. The Rambam, who was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, and in his book “The Guide of the Perplexed” applied philosophical principles to Torah, claims that these pagan beliefs are believed by the masses, but not by “true philosophers” who understood the unity of God. He even claims that there are Jewish sages who believe that the stars and planets hold such a power over our lives, but that it is nevertheless forbidden by the Torah to worship them. In this commentary the Rambam explains the astrological roots of idolatry.

This is essentially the same material found in the mishnah. The only difference is that at the end, it adds that in the future idolaters will be called into account, meaning they will be punished for their deeds.

Stolen wheat grows—this is the way of the world.

Adulterers conceive—fact of life.

Human beings are occasionally considered “coins” stamped by God—for like a coin stamped with the face of the king, so too human beings were created in the likeness of God. But we put God’s coin to wicked use by committing adultery and then we force God to sign on the results when the offspring also bears God’s likeness.

The philosopher asks Rabban Gamaliel why God’s wrath is against idolaters and not against the idols. Rabban Gamaliel responds with another parable.

The philosopher tries to prove that there is some power in the idol, and as proof he cites a case where his city burned down but the idolatrous shrine survived. Rabban Gamaliel again answers with a parable.

This is essentially the same as the mishnah.

The midrash here reads the verse in almost the opposite way as the simple reading. According to the “peshat” God is promising to destroy the world due to its sins. But according to the midrash, the sentence is rhetorical—God clearly is not going to destroy the world. The world is full of idolaters who worship nature and yet nature continues, as do the idolaters. So according to the midrash, God is saying that the world should not be destroyed just because of the fools (idolaters).