Avodah Zarah 93

אבל עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו ד"ה אסורין וה"נ כעיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דמי

but when they had conceived and then been subject to bestiality, all agree that [the young] are forbidden [as offerings]? Similarly here [with the standing-grain] it is analogous to the circumstance where the animals conceived and had then been subject to bestiality.

איכא דאמרי מחלוקת כשנרבעו ולבסוף עיברו אבל עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו ד"ה אסור והני נמי כי עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דמי

There are those who say: The dispute is when the animals had been subject to bestiality and then conceived, but when they had conceived and then been subject to bestiality, all agree that [the young] are forbidden [as offerings]. Similarly here [with the standing-grain] it is analogous to the circumstance where the animals conceived and had then been subject to bestiality.

הכי השתא התם מעיקרא בהמה והשתא בהמה דשא הוא דאחיזא באנפה הכא מעיקרא חיטי והשתא קמחא

But is the analogy correct? In that case it was originally an animal and now it is an animal, only the door had been closed in its face; but in the other instance it was originally wheat and now it is flour!

בעי ר"ל המשתחוה לדקל לולבו מהו למצוה

Shimon b. Lakish asked: If one worshipped a palm-tree, may its lulav be used for the fulfilment of the mitzvah?

באילן שנטעו מתחלה לכך לא תיבעי לך דאפילו להדיוט נמי אסור כי תיבעי לך באילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו

If it was a tree originally planted for idolatry the question does not arise, because it is prohibited even for secular use; but the question does arise with a tree which had been planted and subsequently worshipped.

ואליבא דרבי יוסי בר יהודה לא תיבעי לך דאפי' להדיוט נמי אסור כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן לענין מצוה מאי מי מאיס כלפי גבוה או לא

Now according to the view of R. Yose son of R. Judah, [even then] the question does not arise because it is prohibited by him even for secular use; but the question does arise according to the view of the rabbis. Is [this lulav] revolting for holy use or not.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר באשירה שביטלה קמבעיא ליה יש דחוי אצל מצות או אין דחוי אצל מצות

When R. Dimi came he said: The question was asked in connection with an Asherah which had been annulled. Is there such a concept as “disqualified” with regard to commandments or not?

תפשוט ליה מדתנן כיסהו ונתגלה פטור מלכסות כיסהו הרוח חייב לכסות ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שחזר ונתגלה אבל לא חזר ונתגלה פטור מלכסות

You can solve this problem from what we have learned: If one covered it [blood of a wild animal or bird that had been slaughtered], and it became uncovered, he is exempt from having to cover it again; but if the wind covered it, he is obligated to cover it himself. And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This was taught only when the wind again uncovered it, but if the wind did not again uncover it, he is exempt from having to cover it.

והוינן בה כי חזר ונתגלה מאי הוי הואיל ואידחי אידחי

And we raised the question: If the wind again uncovered it, so what? Since [the blood] has been disqualified from the obligation [of covering], it is disqualified [once for all]!

וא"ר פפא זאת אומרת אין דיחוי אצל מצות

And R. Papa said: This proves that there is no concept of disqualification with regard to commandments.

דרב פפא גופיה איבעיא ליה מפשט פשיטא ליה לרב פפא דאין דיחוי אצל מצות לא שנא לקולא ולא שנא לחומרא

The question was asked in connection with this very statement of R. Papa itself. Is it clear to R. Papa that there is no “disqualification” with regard to commandments either to create a leniency or a stringency;

או דלמא ספוקי מספקא ליה ולחומרא אמרינן לקולא לא אמרינן תיקו

or perhaps he is doubtful and we apply the concept when it leads to a stringency but not to a leniency. The question remains unanswered.

בעי רב פפא המשתחוה לבהמה צמרה מהו לתכלת

Papa asked: What is the rule if one worshipped an animal; may its wool be used for blue thread?

תכלת דמאי אי תכלת לכהנים היינו בעיא דרמי בר חמא ואי תכלת לציצית היינו בעיא דר"ל

Blue thread for what? If it is for the blue material of the priests’ [garments], that is dealt with in the question of Rami b. Hama! If it is for the blue thread of tzitzit, that is dealt with in the question of R. Shimon b. Lakish!

אין ה"נ דלא הוה למיבעי ליה והאי דקא בעי ליה הא משום דאיכא מילי אחרנייתא צמרה מהו לתכלת קרניה מהו לחצוצרות שוקיה מהו לחלילין בני מעיה מהו לפארות

This is indeed so, there was no need [for R. Papa] to ask about this; but the reason why he did ask this question is because there are other similar matters [about which he asked]: May its wool be used for blue thread, its horns for trumpets, the bones of its legs for flutes, its intestines for harp-strings?

אליבא דמ"ד עיקר שירה בכלי לא תיבעי לך דודאי אסיר

According to the one who says that the main aspect of [Temple] music is with the instrument, the question does not arise because using these materials is certainly prohibited;...

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד עיקר שירה בפה בסומי קלא בעלמא הוא ומייתינן או דלמא אפילו הכי אסיר תיקו

but the question does arise according to him who says that the main aspect of [Temple] music is with the mouth. Is, then, the purpose [of the instrument] only to sweeten the sound and we may use these [materials], or perhaps even then it is prohibited? The question remains unanswered.

בעי רבה המשתחוה למעין מימיו מהו לנסכים מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אילימא לבבואה קא סגיד או דלמא למיא קא סגיד ותיבעי ליה ספל להדיוט

Rabbah asked: What is the rule if one worshipped a spring; may its water be used for the drink-offerings? What is he asking? If it is whether the person worshipped his reflection [in the water], or perhaps he worshipped the water itself, then he should have asked about a bowl of water and its use for secular purposes!

לעולם למיא קא סגיד והכי קמבעיא ליה למיא דקמיה קא סגיד וקמאי קמאי אזדו או דלמא לדברונא דמיא קא סגיד

Rather we assume that he worshipped the water; and this is the point of his question: Did he worship the water which was in front of him and that water has flowed away, or perhaps he worshipped the flow of the water?

ומי מיתסרי והא א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק מים של רבים אין נאסרין לא צריכא דקא נבעי מארעא:

But is [water which has been worshipped] prohibited; for has not R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak: Water which belongs to the public is not prohibited [if an individual worshipped it]! No, it was necessary [to ask the question] where it is water which wells up from the earth.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שהיה ביתו סמוך לעבודת כוכבים ונפל אסור לבנותו כיצד יעשה כונס בתוך שלו ארבע אמות ובונה

If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own property and builds there.

שלו ושל עבודת כוכבים

[If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine,