פירוש על עבודה זרה 90:17

R. Sheshet posits a different dispute. The dispute is over whether a tree that was first planted and then worshipped becomes prohibited or whether it is considered part of the mountain, and therefore cannot become prohibited. According to the first opinion, such a tree is permitted because it is part of the mountain, whereas R. Yose Hagalili holds that it is prohibited.

The Talmud asks how we know that R. Yose Hagalili holds that a tree that was planted and then worshipped is prohibited. The Talmud says we learn this from the next clause of the mishnah, where R. Yose states that an asherah is prohibited because it was fashioned by human beings, it was not just created by nature. The repetition in the mishnah comes to include a tree which was planted and then worshipped, as opposed to a tree that was always meant to be an asherah—such a tree is more obviously prohibited.

In this midrash R. Yose son of R. Yehudah largely reiterates the midrash the Mishnah presented, but adds in that although the verse says “under every green tree” and we might have read this to say, “and the tree cannot be their god,” we do not read the verse this way because the Torah specifically says that their asherah trees must be burned.
The Talmud does not here explain how we know that this tree was first planted and only later worshipped. This will be explained in tomorrow’s section.

The verse “under every green tree” is needed for R. Akiva’s derashah—it tells us where idolatry can be found, but it does not outline the prohibition itself.

The rabbis who disagree with R. Yose son of R. Yehudah hold that if a tree is planted and only then worshipped, it is not prohibited. So they must read it is prohibiting only a tree that was planted for the express purpose of being an idolatrous tree.

R. Yose would also read that verse as prohibiting a tree that was planted for idolatry. So he learns the additional prohibition, that a tree that was first planted and then worshipped is prohibited, from another verse. Note that this means that only the part that grew after it was worshipped is prohibited.

The problem is that earlier R. Yose used the verse “and burn their asherim with fire” and not the verse “and hew down their asherim.” So which verse is his derashah based on?

In essence, R. Yose does need both verses. If the Torah had stated only one, he would have said that it refers to an asherah planted for the sake of idolatry. But now that both verses have been stated, the second verse is left over as a source for the halakhah that even if the tree was not planted for idolatry, if it was subsequently worshipped, it is prohibited.

The rabbis understand that Deuteronomy 7:5 mandates cutting down the idolatrous trees as soon as the Israelites enter the land. They then are supposed to go conquer the land and only afterwards are they mandated to destroy the idols. This is also learned from Deuteronomy 12:3. The verse says to tear down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars. It does not mandate destroying them utterly. But we know that such destruction must be done. The answer is that at first they are torn down. Only later are they to be utterly destroyed.

R. Yose son of R. Yehudah derives this two stage process of destruction from the repetition of the verb “destroy.”

The rabbis used the doubling of the verb as a source for the mandate to destroy every trace of an idol. One must “really destroy it.”

R. Yose son of R. Judah uses the very next verse in Deuteronomy to derive the rule that one must eradicate any trace of the idol.

This baraita explains what the rabbis do with Deuteronomy 12:3. Upon destroying the idol, one must also rename it with some name that both plays on the word and degrades the place of idolatry.
The idea of renaming the place of idolatry with a degrading word seems to me very emblematic of how a quite powerless people (the Jews living during the Roman period) would fantasize carrying out the words of the Torah, which imagine Israelites taking control of their land. Rabbis did not have the power to physically do anything to Roman idols. But maybe they could have slandered them behind their backs.