Avodah Zarah

A tanna recited as follows in the presence of R. Shesheth: If idolaters worship mountains and hills, these latter are permissible but the worshippers [should be destroyed] with the sword; [if they worshipped] plants and herbage, these latter are prohibited but the worshippers [should be destroyed] with the sword. [R. Shesheth] said to him: Who tells you that? It must be R. Jose son of R. Judah who declared: A tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped is prohibited. But let [R. Shesheth] apply [the statement reported by the tanna] to a tree which had been planted for idolatry at the outset and [make it agree with the view of] the Rabbis! — This cannot enter your mind, because it states the analogy of a mountain: as with a mountain it was not planted for idolatry at the outset, so with this also it was not planted for idolatry at the outset. It has been stated: If boulders become detached from a mountain, the sons of R. Hiyya and R. Johanan [take different views];  one says that they are prohibited and the other that they are permitted. What is the reason of him who says they are permitted? — [The boulders are] like the mountain; and as the mountain is something with which no manual labour has been connected and is permitted, so these likewise have had no manual labour connected with them and are permitted. [But it may be argued] that a mountain is immovable!  — The case of an animal will prove [the contrary].  [Here again it may be argued] that an animal [is only permitted] because it is an animate being! — The case of a mountain proves [the contrary].  Therefore the conclusion returns,  because the two examples  are dissimilar; but the point common to them both is that with neither has there been any manual labour and each is permitted. Consequently everything is permitted with which there has been no manual labour. [But it may be argued that] the point common to them both is that they have not changed from their natural form!  — [Well then, derive that a boulder is permitted by] an analogy drawn between an animal which has become blemished and a mountain;  or [it may be drawn] also between an unblemished animal and a withered tree.  As for him who prohibits [the boulders], it is because Scripture declares, Thou shalt utterly detest it, and that, shalt utterly abhor it — although it is possible to reason to the conclusion that they are permitted, yet do not draw that conclusion. It can be proved that it is the sons of R. Hiyya  who permit their use; because Hezekiah asked: How is it if a man set up an egg to worship it? This question must be understood in the sense that the man had the intention of worshipping it and did worship it; and the point of [Hezekiah's] query is whether the setting up of the egg is to be considered an action  or not. Consequently [his opinion must be that] if the man had not set it up, it is not prohibited [to be used].  Conclude, therefore, that it was the sons of R. Hiyya who permitted [the use of the boulders]! — No; I can always maintain that it was the sons of R. Hiyya who prohibited their use, because if the man worshipped [the egg], even though he had not set it up,  it would be prohibited [according to their view]; and the circumstance with which we are dealing here is where he set up an egg to worship but did not worship it. Now according to whom [is the question of its permissibility to be decided]? If according to him who says that the idolatrous object of an Israelite is prohibited forthwith, then it is prohibited;  if according to him who says [that such an object is not prohibited] until it has been actually worshipped, behold the man has not worshipped it!  — No;  but it is necessary [to suppose the following case]: If he, e.g., set up an egg to worship but did not do so, and an idolater came and worshipped it [is it permitted] regard being had to what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel:  If an Israelite set up a brick to worship [but did not do so] and an idolater came and worshipped it, it is prohibited. And [Hezekiah] asked thus the question: [Does he specify] a brick because its erection is conspicuous, but the law is otherwise with an egg;  or perhaps there is no difference? — The question remains unanswered. Rami b. Hama asked: If a man worshipped a mountain, may its stones be used to build an altar [to God]?