Avodah Zarah

R. Simeon b. Lakish quoted against R. Johanan: If there be a bird's nest upon the top of a tree which had been dedicated to the Sanctuary, no use may be made of it;  but if wrongful use of it had been made the law of trespass  does not apply to it. [If, however, the nest be] on top of an Asherah, he knocks it off with a stick!  Now it is to be assumed [is it not? that the case dealt with here] is, for example, where [the bird] broke twigs from the Asherah and built a nest of them; and yet it is taught: He knocks it off with a stick!  [No:] We are dealing here with the case where, for example, [the bird] brought twigs from all sorts of places  and built a nest of them. This conclusion is proved to be correct from the fact that in connection with [a tree] dedicated to the Sanctuary it is stated: No use may be made of it, but if wrongful use had been made of it the law of 'trespass' does not apply to it. Now this is quite right, if you say that [the bird] brought twigs from all sorts of places, that it is stated in connection with a tree dedicated to the Sanctuary: No use may be made of it, but if wrongful use had been made of it the law of 'trespass' does not apply to it. 'No use may be made of it' according to Rabbinical ruling,  'and no law of "trespass" applies to it' — according to the law of the Torah because [the twigs] were not dedicated to the Sanctuary. But if, on the other hand, you say that [the bird] broke twigs from that tree [which had been dedicated] and built a nest with them, why is there no 'trespass' since they were dedicated to the Sanctuary! Does this prove anything?  Here we are dealing with the circumstance where [the bird used twigs] which grew after [the tree had been dedicated to the Sanctuary], and he holds that there is no 'trespass' involved [if a wrongful use is made of] the after-growth!  R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan: What means 'he knocks off'? He knocks [the nest down] to get the young birds.  R. Jacob said to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: I will make the cited passage clear to you: As for young birds, 'they may be used in any event;  as for eggs they are prohibited in any event.  R. Ashi said: But young birds which need the care of their mother  are considered to be like eggs [and are not permitted]. MISHNAH. IF ONE FINDS UTENSILS UPON WHICH IS THE FIGURE OF THE SUN OR MOON OR A DRAGON,  HE CASTS THEM INTO THE SALT SEA.  RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: IF IT IS UPON PRECIOUS UTENSILS THEY ARE PROHIBITED, BUT IF UPON COMMON UTENSILS THEY ARE PERMITTED. GEMARA. Is this to say that [the heathens] worship these objects and no others? [Against such a conclusion] I cite the following: If one slaughters an animal in the name of seas, rivers, a desert, the sun, moon, stars and planets, Michael the great Prince  or a tiny worm, behold these come within the category of 'sacrifices to dead objects'!  — Abaye explained: As to worshipping they might worship whatever they take hold of; but in regard to the making of images for worship, they do so only of these three objects [enumerated in the Mishnah] which are specially honoured by them; but as for the other figures, they only make them for ornamental purposes. R. Shesheth used to collect difficult extra-Mishnaic passages and expound them:  [Pictures of] all the planets are permissible except that of the sun and moon; of all faces are permissible except that of a human face; and of all figures are permissible except that of the dragon. The Master said: '[Pictures of] all the planets are permissible except that of the sun and moon.' With what are we dealing here? Shall I say with the making of them? If it is with the making of them, are any of the planets allowed, seeing that it is written, Ye shall not make with Me  — i.e., ye shall not make according to the likeness of My attendants who serve before Me in the heights!  Obviously, then, it must refer to finding them,  and it is in accord with our Mishnah: IF ONE FINDS UTENSILS UPON WHICH IS THE FIGURE OF THE SUN OR MOON OR A DRAGON, HE CASTS THEM INTO THE SALT SEA. If, then, it refers to finding them, consider the middle clause: 'Of all faces are permissible except that of a human face.' Now if this refers to finding them, is the picture of a human face prohibited? Surely we have learnt: IF ONE FINDS UTENSILS UPON WHICH IS THE FIGURE OF THE SUN OR MOON OR A DRAGON, HE CASTS THEM INTO THE SALT SEA. Which implies that [he does this] to the figure of a dragon but not to the picture of a human face! Obviously, then, it must refer to making them, and it is in accord with the view of R. Huna the son of R. Joshua.  If, then, it refers to making them, consider the last clause: 'Of all figures are permissible except that of the dragon.' Now if this refers to making them, is the image of a dragon prohibited seeing it is written, Ye shall not make with Me gods of silver or gods of gold