Avodah Zarah

R. Nahman reported that Rabbah b. Abbuha said in the name of Rab: If an idol is worshipped [by rapping before it] with a stick and [an Israelite] broke a stick in its presence, he is liable and [the stick] is prohibited.  If he threw a stick in front of it, he is liable but [the stick] is not prohibited.  Raba asked R. Nahman: Why the distinction — if he broke the stick it is regarded as an act of slaughter; if he threw the stick, it should likewise be regarded as an act of sprinkling! — He replied to him: We require a sprinkling which is broken up and that we have not here. [Raba retorted:] According to this reasoning, whereby should the stones [which are thrown before] a shrine of Mercurius be forbidden?  — He answered him: I, too, had that difficulty and I put the question to Rabbah b. Abbuha who put it to Hiyya b. Rab and he put it to Rab who said to him: [The stone] becomes, as it were, an enlargement of the idol.  This reply is satisfactory for him who maintains that the idol of an idolater is prohibited forthwith;  but according to him who maintains that [the idol is not prohibited] until it has been worshipped [the stones] should be permitted since it has not been worshipped!  — [R. Nahman] answered [Raba]: Each stone becomes an idolatrous object in itself and also an offering to the one next to it.  [Raba asked]: If this is so, the last stone at least should be permitted!  — [R. Nahman retorted]: If you know [which is the last stone], go and remove it!  R. Ashi said: Each stone becomes an offering in itself and an offering to the one next to it. We learn: If he found on top [of a Mercurius] a garment or coins or utensils, behold these are permitted; but [if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of corn, [gifts of] wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, it is prohibited.  This is all right with [gifts of] wine, oil and fine flour, since they have a resemblance to what is within the Temple and also to the sprinkling which is broken up; but grape-clusters and wreaths of corn have no resemblance to what is within the Temple and to sprinkling which is broken up!  — Raba said in the name of 'Ulla: [The prohibition applies when,] e.g., the man cut them at the outset for an idolatrous purpose. R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan: Whence is it that he who sacrifices a blemished animal to an idol is free of liability? — As it is stated, He that sacrificeth onto any god, save unto the Lord alone, shall be utterly destroyed.  — the Torah only prohibits what resembles that which is within the Temple. Raba objected: What [sort of blemish has R. Abbahu in mind]? Shall I say it is a cataract in the eye?  Since, however, such an animal was qualified to be offered by the sons of Noah  to God upon their altars, how much more so to an idol! Rather [must he be thinking of a blemish like] being defective in a limb, and it is in accord with R. Eleazar who said: Whence is it that an animal defective in a limb is prohibited [as an offering] to the sons of Noah? As it is stated, And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort  — the Torah declares, Bring an animal which has all its limbs living.  But the phrase of every living thing is required to indicate the exclusion of an animal which is trefa!  — This is derived from the phrase to keep them alive with thee.  This reply is satisfactory for him who maintains that an animal which is trefa cannot bring forth young; but for him who maintains that it can, what is there to say? — Scripture states with thee, i.e., animals like yourself.  Perhaps, however, Noah was himself unsound of limb! It is written concerning him that he was perfect.  Perhaps that means perfect in his ways! It is written concerning him that he was righteous!  Perhaps the meaning is 'perfect' in his ways and 'righteous' in his actions! — It is impossible to say that Noah himself was unsound of limb, for if it entered your mind that he was, then the All-merciful said to him, Animals like yourself [which are defective] take [into the Ark] and exclude those which are unblemished! Since, now, [the thought that the animals were not defective] is derived from 'with thee', what is the purpose of 'to keep them alive'? — If [the Torah had only written] 'with thee,' I might have imagined that the reason was merely to provide him with company and [the animals could include] the old and even the castrated; therefore we are informed 'to keep them alive.' R. Eleazar said: Whence is it that if one slaughters an animal to Mercurius he is liable?  As it is stated, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs.  Since this text cannot apply to the subject [of worshipping idols] in their regular way — for it is written, How do these nations serve their gods!  — apply it to the subject [of worshipping idols] in a way which is not regular to them. But is [the verse and they shall no more sacrifice etc.] to be used for this purpose? Surely it is required in accordance with the following teaching: