פירוש על עבודה זרה 95:19

In the second clause, the mishnah says that if chopped and trimmed a tree for the sake of idolatry, the new growth is permitted. The House of R. Yannai says that this is only when he in essence started a new tree by either bending a shoot into the ground or grafting a new branch onto the tree.

In the second clause, the mishnah says that if chopped and trimmed a tree for the sake of idolatry, the new growth is permitted. The House of R. Yannai says that this is only when he in essence started a new tree by either bending a shoot into the ground or grafting a new branch onto the tree.

The mishnah itself seems to imply that simply chopping or trimming is enough. In other words, just a negative act is enough to render the tree forbidden. He does not need to also do the positive act of starting a new tree.

The Talmud again shifts the reference point of the interpretation of the mishnah (the same thing happened at the end of last week’s daf). The House of R. Yannai made their statement with regard to annulment. If the tree was planted not for the sake of idolatry and then someone bent a vine into the ground or grafted on to it for the sake of idolatry, both ways of starting new trees, all he has to do to annul the idolatrous nature is remove the new growth. We might have thought that the entire tree is considered to have been planted for the sake of idolatry. The House of R. Yannai says it is not.

According to Shmuel, if a person bowed down to a tree, the additional growth becomes prohibited.

R. Elazar raises a difficulty on Shmuel. Simply bowing down to the tree is not enough to make it prohibited. He must actually modify it.

Shmuel could reply that the mishnah agrees with the rabbis who said that if a tree was planted and only then worshipped, it is not prohibited. But he agrees with R. Yose b. Judah who says that the tree is prohibited.

R. Ashi attacks Shmuel’s resolution. He holds that all tannaim, both the sages and R. Yose b. Judah, hold that the additional growth is prohibited. The disagreement is only over whether the part that grew before it was worshipped is also prohibited. So why then say that Shmuel agrees only with R. Yose b. Judah?
The essence of this section is really a discussion of the dispute between R. Yose b. Judah and the sages. Do the sages hold that even the new growth is prohibited (like Shmuel impl ies)?Does R. Yose b. Judah hold that the whole tree is prohibited?

Above (on 45b) the verses used for each rabbi were opposite. To resolve this minor difficulty, the Talmud suggests simply reversing the verses here too. We are now still left with R. Ashi’s difficulty.

R. Ashi’s interpretation implies that all tannaim agree with Shmuel that the additional growth is prohibited. The problem is that this does not seem match the mishnah which says that if he chopped and trimmed the tree the additional growth is prohibited. This does not match the rabbis, because (according to R. Ashi) the rabbis hold that the additional growth is prohibited even if he did not chop or trim the tree. And it does not match R. Yose b. Judah because hewould hold that if he chopped or trimmed the tree the whole tree is prohibited.

The Talmud now makes both parties agree with the mishnah. R. Yose b. Judah could say that in general when one worships a tree already planted the whole tree is prohibited. But if he cut down some part of the tree for idolatrous reasons, then he is in essence saying that he only wants the new growth to be worshipped. Therefore, like the mishnah, the trunk is permitted but the additional growth is prohibited.

The rabbis could also agree with the mishnah. To recall, they would hold that by just bowing down to the tree the new growth would be prohibited. So why then does it need to state that it is prohibited if he chopped or trimmed it? To teach you that even though he actually did something to the tree itself, the trunk remains permitted. Only the additional part is prohibited.
This concludes this section of the sugya. R. Ashi has been resolved and Shmuel’s original statement is not dependent on the dispute between R. Yose b. Judah and the rabbis.

This section teaches the definition of the asherah, the idolatrous tree mentioned on several occasions in the Torah. According to the first opinion in the mishnah an asherah has idols underneath it, but it itself is not worshipped. According to Rabbi Shimon the tree itself is an idolatrous object. The mishnah now tells a story that happened in Sidon, where there was a suspicion that idolaters were worshipping a certain tree. Underneath the tree was a heap of stones. Rabbi Shimon instructed the other rabbis to examine the heap of stones and when they did they found an image. From here Rabbi Shimon concluded that the tree itself was not worshipped, but rather the image underneath the tree. Therefore the tree was permitted for Jews to use.

Today’s mishnah seems to imply that there is only one type of Asherah. But the previous mishnah said that there are three types. So the Talmud now reinterprets this mishnah so that it supplements the previous one. There are two types of trees where the tree itself has been worshiped and all agree that the tree is prohibited. The disagreement is over a case where there is an idol underneath the tree. The rabbis say that this too is an asherah and it is prohibited.

How can one know if a tree is an Asherah? If we see someone bowing down to a tree, then there is no problem, we know its prohibited. But that is usually not the case. Rav says that if we see idolatrous priests sitting under a tree and not eating its fruits we can assume that they worship the tree. Otherwise they would eat the fruit. Shmuel says that even if they are going to use the dates to make beer, if they say that the dates are for the “House of Nitzrafei,” the tree is prohibited. This seems to have been some place of idolatry. The word is probably Persian. It appears in one other place in the Talmud (Shabbat 116a, where we learn that neither Rav nor Shmuel would go there. The halakhah in this case follows Shmuel. Even if the priests use the dates, the tree is considered to be idolatrous.