פירוש על עבודה זרה 98:24

It is forbidden to use pieces of wood that come from an asherah tree. This mishnah teaches that the forbidden status of the tree remains in the pieces of the tree that are separated from it.
If one used this wood to heat a new oven, the oven must be destroyed. Since the first heating of an oven helps shape and finish the oven, the oven itself was built through the aid of an idolatrous object, and it itself is therefore forbidden. However, if the oven was old, one merely needs to let the oven cool before using it again. In such a case the heat produced by the burning of the asherah wood is forbidden but not the oven itself.

If he baked bread in an oven heated by the wood from an asherah, the bread is forbidden. Furthermore, if that loaf should be mixed in with other loaves, they are all forbidden, since each one may be the loaf which was made in the oven heated by the asherah wood. We should note that in some other cases mixtures of prohibited and permissible goods can be fixed. For instance if one pound of terumah flour should be mixed in with 100 pounds of terumah flour, one may take out one pound of terumah and give it to the kohen, even though that one pound is not the same pound that fell in. Through this process the remainder becomes permitted to anyone to eat. Our mishnah is especially stringent with idolatrous items.
Rabbi Eliezer does make an attempt to remedy the situation without causing the loss of the bread. If he baked a loaf using asherah wood to heat his oven, he may throw the value of the wood into the Dead Sea, thereby nullifying any benefit he received from that wood. Afterwards the loaf may be eaten by a Jew. The Sages disagree. According to their opinion there is no way to redeem something that was made by using an idolatrous item.

This section teaches the same thing that was learned in the previous section, only it uses a different example. Here the wood was used to make a shuttle, a piece of wood used on a loom to weave cloth. Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages have the same dispute on this section of the mishnah as they did in the previous one.

If the only case in the mishnah was that of the baking bread with the asherah wood, I might have thought that in that case R. Eliezer was lenient because by the time the loaf was cooked the wood had been burned in the oven. Since the prohibited substance is destroyed, there is room to be lenient and he can destroy the amount of value equivalent to that loaf and the other loaves are permitted. But with the shuttle that was taken from the tree, when the clothes are done the shuttle remains. So we might have thought that in that case he agrees with the rabbis, there is nothing that can be done besides destroy all of the clothes (a large loss). Therefore, the mishnah had to teach us the case of the clothing.

This is simply the opposite of above. If the mishnah had included only the second case, I might have thought that the rabbis were strict with regard to the shuttle because it is not destroyed when making the clothes. But they would be more lenient in the case of bread. Therefore, both are necessary.

One is allowed to destroy the equivalent value of the bread or clothes rather than destroy all of the bread or clothes.

According to R. Adda b. Ahavah if casks of wine that are forbidden (libated wine, yayin nesekh) are mixed up with permitted casks of wine, they must all be destroyed. One cannot bring a value equivalent to the one forbidden cask to the Dead Sea. This is because the wine itself is a prohibited substance whereas the loaf is not a prohibited substance. It was made with a prohibited substance.
Hisda says that the same law holds true for both.

A case such as this actually happened and R. Hisda instructed the person to throw away the value of the libated wine. He then could use all of the wine.

As we will learn in the next chapter, a pagan can “annul” his idol by stopping to treat it as such. If he does so, what was formerly an idol reverts to being a normal object and a Jew may use it. This mishnah teaches that removing a piece of an asherah tree is a sign that it is no longer being worshipped. Evidently the asherah was not used by the pagan for anything but idol worship. If the pagan does make even the most minimal use of the tree, such as using its leaf, it loses its status as an asherah. The only exception to this case is if he removes something from the tree for its own sake. In other words, if he smoothed the tree to make it look better, it is still an asherah and it is still forbidden. If he did so in order to get a branch, he has annulled its status as an asherah and it is permitted.

The mishnah taught that if he smoothed off pieces from the tree because he wanted the pieces (for his own sake) then the tree is permitted, but if for the tree’s sake, the tree remains prohibited. But what about the pieces? Are they permitted since they are no longer part of the tree?
While amoraim dispute the issue, the baraita says that if an idolater smoothed off the pieces, they are permitted in either case. If the Jew smooths off the tree, the pieces remain prohibited because a Jew cannot annul the idol worship of a non-Jew.

Rav and Shmuel now begin a debate over annulling pieces that have become broken off of idols. According to Rav, the pieces that have become broken off must be annulled. According to the revised version of Shmuel, only when the idol is in its natural form, must it be annulled. When pieces break off people will not assume that they retain their sanctity.

The Talmud tries to connect this dispute with the broader dispute over whether idolaters worship fragments of idols—Rav would hold that they do, and Shmuel would say that they do not.
The Talmud then rejects this understanding. All hold that idolaters worship fragments. But these pieces are “fragments of fragments.” Over this there is a dispute.

According to Rabbi Ishmael, if three stones were found next to the Mercurius statue, we can assume that they were used in worshipping the statue, and they are therefore prohibited. If there were only two, then we cannot assume that they were placed there for such a purpose and they are permitted.
According to the Sages the issue is not the number of stones but rather their proximity to the statue. Those found next to the idol are prohibited and those found further away are permitted. Even if three are found further away, we can assume that they were not used in worship.

According to the Talmud, the rabbis hold that idolaters worship fragments of idols. So if pieces are found on the ground and they can be seen with the Mercurius idol, then they must come from the idol.

If R. Ishmael also holds that idolaters worship fragments then why are two permitted? And if they don’t worship fragments, then why should three be prohibited? In other words, it’s hard to understand R. Ishmael in light of the issue of whether they worship fragments.

Yitzchak b. Joseph now offers a comprehensive interpretation of the dispute. If we know that these stones fell from the Mercurius idol, then R. Ishmael and the sages agree that they are prohibited. Even the one who holds that idolaters do not worship idols would agree in this case because Mercurius idols are made by a pile of rocks. This is not a “broken piece.” If it’s from the Mercurius, then it is simply part of it.

The dispute can also not be where the stones are close because we would have to assume that they fell from the Mercurius.