Aligned sentence by sentence
[]
Mishnah [1]
▶Sources · 2
The talismanic (ṭilasm) images described here — fashioned at astrologically precise moments to concentrate stellar influence — appear as the organizing example of Sabian practice throughout Guide III:29–37. In the Commentary, Rambam identifies these images halakhically: do they constitute 'idols' that require burial or may they be destroyed? In the Guide, he identifies them historically-philosophically: they are the origin-point of the biblical prohibition of idolatry, crafted by the Sabians who identified the planets as intermediaries between God and humanity. The two texts are complementary apparatus: Commentary identifies the offense, Guide traces its historical root and explains why God prohibited it.
MT Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 3:11 codifies the ruling developed from this mishnah: a figure made in the form of a servant of the sun holding a ball or staff — i.e., exactly the ṭilasm-type image the Commentary discusses — is forbidden for benefit. The MT's laconic formulation preserves the ruling while stripping the Sabian-astral-magic context entirely; that explanatory register belongs to the Guide.
, , .
The practitioners of this art hold that when the sun enters a given degree of the celestial sphere — whichever degree that may be — one should fashion a talisman (*ṭilasm*) for that degree in the form ascribed to it, whereupon the powers belonging to that image and to the actions attributed to it will manifest in the world.
, .
They accordingly perfume that talisman, invoke it, and venerate it whenever the sun re-enters that degree. This is one species among the various species of talismanic practice.
.
In the locale of R. Meir this particular type of talisman was current, and R. Meir was mindful of the minority — that is, he feared that even an image held in a small number of hands might at some point be fashioned for actual worship, once a year, when the sun entered the relevant degree. He therefore ruled that all [human] images are forbidden.
. , .
The Sages, however, are not mindful of the minority; they hold that such an image is ordinarily made for decorative purposes only. Therefore, if the image held in someone's hand bears one of the attributes enumerated by the first Tanna — or the additional items listed in the *Baraita*, namely a sword, a crown, and a ring — we know with certainty that it was made with astronomical observation, fumigation, invocation, and offering, as is well known among those versed in this discipline, provided that these images stand at the entrance to a city.
, , . .
There is no dispute, however, that all images found in villages and rural settlements are forbidden, for in truth they were made there solely for worship: those localities are not places of ornament, so that one could say they were made for decoration, even if the image holds nothing in its hand. The law follows the Sages.
[]
Mishnah [2]
▶Sources · 1
MT 3:10 records the prohibition on possessing images of the sun, moon, and dragon derived from this mishnah. The Commentary explains the Sages' reasoning: these were the most universally worshipped objects in antiquity. The MT simply states the categorical prohibition without retaining this anthropological context, which Rambam developed more fully in his Guide treatment of Sabian star-worship (III:29).
, , , .
"The form of a hand or foot" — this does not mean the hand of a broken idol, for that would fall under the rubric of "fragments of idols." Rather, it means that from the outset, when it was fashioned, it was made as the image of a hand alone, or the image of a foot alone, or the image of any other limb in isolation.
.
From the manner of its crafting one can tell whether it was made from the outset as an independent piece or whether it broke off from a complete figure.
[]
Mishnah [3]
▶Sources · 1
The ruling on accessories of idols (mashmeshot) — items that serve the idol but are not the idol itself — appears in MT Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 7:2–3. The Commentary draws the analogy to ritual furnishings of the Temple to explain why these accessories are prohibited; the MT retains the ruling but drops the Temple-analogy framework. Note that MT 7:6 adds a case not discussed in this mishnah: items attached to the idol at the time of manufacture are forbidden ab initio, not merely after the idol is completed.
, , , , , , .
"The form of the sun and the form of the moon" — this does not mean that one finds a disc and says, "this is the sun," or finds an arc of a disc and says, "this is the moon." Rather, the practitioners of talismanic lore attribute specific bodily forms to the planets, so that they say: the form of Saturn is an aged black man, stooped; the form of Venus is a beautiful young woman adorned with gold jewelry; the form of the sun is a crowned king seated securely in a chariot.
, , , . .
In this fashion they assign many forms to all the constellations of the zodiac and to the planets (*al-darārī*). Among these forms they differ greatly from one another, because these accounts are fabricated, and falsehood in any matter multiplies and expands without bound. When the Mishnah says "the form of the sun and the form of the moon" it means whatever form is attributed to the sun and whatever form is attributed to the moon, on whichever school's account.
, , .
As for the dragon (*ha-dereqon*): its form is that of a figure with wings and many scales along its back between its wings, like the scales of a fish. This figure, too, was venerated by them, for they attributed it to a portion of the celestial sphere.
, , , .
A man who is regarded as an authority in this discipline told me that this figure belongs to the lunar node (*al-jawzahar*) and that it acts in such-and-such a manner at such-and-such a time, producing such-and-such effects. I asked him for the book in which this was written — for I had never come across this figure before — and he claimed that he had received it by chain of tradition from his teacher and from his teacher's teacher, along with everything else he had pointed to.
, , . . .
"Honored vessels" (*keilim mekhubadim*) are ornaments of gold and silver and garments of silk; anything other than these is "contemptible vessels" (*keilim mevuzim*). The law follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And R. Yosi concurs.
[]
Mishnah [4]
, , .
*Afroditē* is the name of the planet Venus, and so the name of Venus is indeed written in the books of talismanic lore as *Afroditē*. There was in this bathhouse a representation of Venus.
, .
As for his saying "one does not answer questions in a bathhouse" — Proklos asked R. Gamliel the question upon leaving the bathhouse, and R. Gamliel apologized for his silence during the earlier question by saying to him: what obliged me not to answer you is that one does not give learned discourse in a bathhouse.
[]
Mishnah [5]
▶Sources · 1
The ruling on an oven built with images that were worshipped is recorded in MT Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 7:7. Rambam rules here that the oven itself becomes forbidden if the images embedded in it were worshipped; the MT codifies this and adds that the oven must be broken and rebuilt. The Commentary's fuller discussion of the majority-minority opinion dispute on this question is compressed into the MT's single ruling without attribution.
. , .
R. Yosi holds that a tree planted [initially] as an ordinary tree (*ilan*) but subsequently worshipped is forbidden, because it has come under human manipulation (*tafusat yad adam*). The Sages, however, say that from the moment it was planted it was not treated as an object of worship; it is therefore like a mountain or a hill, and worship of it thereafter does not render it prohibited.
. .
R. Akiva has taught us a ruling that serves as a basis for investigating sites of idolatry, and no one disputes it. The law does not follow R. Yosi.
[]
Mishnah [6]
, , .
"Even though it encroaches upon his own domain" — nonetheless he may not leave that space to the idol, since that would benefit it; rather, he should fill it with stones or thorns and the like.
, , , , .
Know that the ritual impurity of an idol is Rabbinic in origin (*de-rabbanan*), and for this reason the Sages treated it leniently in every respect. They compared it to the creeping thing (*sheretz*), in that it conveys impurity by contact but not by carrying, as the sheretz does; they compared it to the menstruant (*niddah*), in that it does not impart impurity to limbs — just as a niddah's severed hand or foot does not impart impurity by reason of being niddah; and they compared it to the corpse (*met*), in that it conveys impurity only when there is an olive's bulk (*ke-zayit*) and not less.
.
The law does not follow R. Akiva even with respect to an idol itself, and certainly not with respect to its accessories (*meshamsheha*).
[]
Mishnah [7]
▶Sources · 2
The prohibition on prostrating oneself on a figured stone floor, derived here from Lev. 26:1, is codified in MT Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 6:6. The Commentary explains the underlying prohibition — prostration with outstretched arms and legs was the characteristic posture of Sabian star-worship — and notes the halakhic implication: a plain stone floor (without figures) is permitted in the Temple even though it is forbidden in the provinces. The MT retains the Temple exception but strips the Sabian anthropological explanation.
The prostration prohibition discussed here (Lev. 26:1) appears in Guide III:29 as part of Rambam's Sabian-origin hypothesis for biblical law: the full-body prostration on figured stone was a Sabian star-worship posture, and God prohibited it precisely because of this pagan association. The Commentary identifies the halakhic case; the Guide locates it in the history of idolatry and provides the philosophical rationale for why God singled out this particular posture for prohibition.
, . , . , . , .
*Siud* means whitewashing with lime. *Kiyur* means plastering and painting. His saying "and [that which is] renewed" (*ve-ḥadash*) is to be read as if it said "or that which they renewed" (*o she-ḥiddeshu*). *Ḥalifin* is the name given to branches that have sprouted in place of those that were cut — this is the meaning of "and its new growth" (*ve-ha-ḥalif*).
, , , , , .
His question "which asherah is this?" refers to which asherah it is that the Sages and R. Shimon disagree about, for he has stated that asherot fall into three types: two types are uncontested in their ruling, while the third — one beneath which an idol stands — is the one regarding which the Sages say it is forbidden to derive benefit (*asur be-hana'ah*) for as long as the idol stands beneath it; once the idol is removed from beneath it, the tree becomes permitted, in line with their earlier position that "if he placed an idol beneath it and then nullified it, it is permitted."
. .
R. Shimon says: even if the idol has not been nullified and still stands beneath the tree, since worship is directed at the figure [of the idol] and not at the tree, the tree is permitted. The law does not follow R. Shimon.
[]
Mishnah [8]
, , . , .
"He may not sit in its shade" — this refers to the shade cast by the trunk of the tree. But sitting in the shade of its branches and leaves is permitted. The statement that "if he transgressed and sat, he is impure" means: we hold that under such a tree there must inevitably be offerings of idolatry (*taqrovet avodah zarah*).
, .
This is the position of R. Yehudah ben Beteirah, who says: whence do we learn that offerings of idolatry convey impurity by means of an overhanging roof (*ohel*)? As it is written, "they were joined to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead" (Num 25:5) — just as a corpse conveys impurity by means of an overhanging roof, so too do offerings of idolatry.
, , .
The law does not follow R. Yehudah ben Beteirah, for the idol was compared to a corpse only in that it does not convey impurity with less than an olive's bulk, as we explained; offerings of idolatry convey impurity only by contact and by carrying, as an animal carcass (*nevelah*) does.
, . , .
"It encroaches upon public space" (*gozelet et ha-rabbim*) means that its branches extend over the public thoroughfare. The *khas* — that is, the carob tree (*al-kharūb*) — is harmed by the abundance of rainwater that falls from it, and therefore one may not sow beneath it even in winter, since the tree benefits [from what is sown].
, , , , .
We have already set forth R. Yosi's position in this chapter: he does not reckon the return of idolatry's accessories as manure, for manure alone is not the sole cause of plant growth — growth is caused by manure, soil, water, air, and sun together — and his ruling is that "when both this and that are causative, it is permitted" (*zeh ve-zeh gorem mutar*), meaning that if the causes of a thing's action include some that are forbidden and some that are permitted, the resultant thing is permitted.
, , . .
This is the definitive ruling in all such matters. He introduced this argument here as a counterpoint to the Sages, saying to them: according to your own position, in which you reckon the return of idolatrous articles as manure — then surely one may not [sow] vegetables even in the rainy season. We have established that the law follows R. Yosi, and practice is in accordance with his view.
[]
Mishnah [9]
, , . .
The initial firing heats the oven and burns into it a residue so that even after it cools one can cook in it going forward; it must therefore be demolished (*yutatz*), for even after it has cooled the benefit of that initial heating persists within it. This ruling accords with the position of the one who holds that "when both this and that are causative, it is forbidden."
, .
The definitive ruling, however, between [oven] new and old alike, is that it be left to cool and then re-fired a second time with permitted wood, after which cooking in it is permitted.
, .
R. Eliezer's ruling that "he should take the monetary value of the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea" means: he should take from the price of that loaf of bread — the loaf baked in the forbidden fire that became mixed in with the rest of the bread — an amount equal to the value of that loaf, and throw it into the sea where it can never be retrieved.
, , .
He then discusses their disagreement concerning the bread (*pat*) and the garment (*beged*): regarding the garment, where the warp threads that were woven into it remain as such and are themselves forbidden, R. Eliezer says he should cast the monetary value of the benefit into the Dead Sea; but regarding the bread, where the wood is entirely consumed and only its thermal effect lingers, all the Sages say the entire baked product is forbidden.
, .
The law follows R. Eliezer in all cases — and even a barrel of libation wine (*yayin nesekh*) that became mixed among other barrels: one should cast the monetary value of the benefit into the Dead Sea, and it is then permitted to sell the entire lot and to derive benefit from it.
[]
Mishnah [10]
, . , . , . , , .
*Qirseum* means trimming the extremities; *zirud* means cutting the branches; *shepiya* means scraping it bare. All of this is done by an idolater — for our principle is that an idol can be nullified (*bittul*) only by an idolater who knows the ways of idol worship and its accessories. This is what is meant by the saying: "one who worships it can nullify it; one who does not worship it cannot nullify it."
.
The meaning of my phrase "knows the ways of idol worship" is that the idolater not be a young child or one whose discernment is impaired.