Aligned sentence by sentence
[]
Mishnah [1]
▶Sources · 1
MT Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 8:1–5 systematizes the nullification (bittul) doctrine the Commentary develops here. The Commentary's key philosophical contribution — that only an idolater can nullify an idol because worship confers a kind of ontological status on the object that only the original worshipper can revoke — surfaces as a formal rule in MT 8:9: a Jew cannot nullify an idol, only an idolater can. The Commentary preserves the reasoning; the MT records only the conclusion.
, .
Rabbi Ishmael holds that even if the three stones are separated from one another by more than four cubits, they remain forbidden — because, he argues, a small *Markolis* may be constructed beside a large *Markolis*.
. .
Similarly, even if there are only two or three stones visible alongside it, they are forbidden. The law follows the Sages.
[]
Mishnah [2]
, .
His ruling that they are permitted applies only on the condition that they are found upon the idol in a manner that indicates contempt.
, , .
Coins must be in a purse hanging from the neck of the idol; garments must be folded garments placed upon its head; and vessels must be containers inverted over its head with its head inserted into the hollow of the bowl.
[]
Mishnah [3]
, .
His phrase *"whether willingly or unwillingly"* means: even if the nullification (*bittul*) was done as a favor to the idol's priests — that is, even then it is valid nullification.
[]
Mishnah [4]
▶Sources · 1
The case of the idol that was sold, leased, or pledged as collateral by its idolater-owner is codified in MT Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 8:9–10. The Commentary explains that sale and pledge demonstrate the idolater's contempt for his idol and therefore constitute retroactive nullification; the MT retains this ruling and adds the principle that any act demonstrating contempt (bizzayon) effectuates nullification. MT 8:11 further extends the rule to an idolater who asked a Jew to take his idol as a pledge — not in the Commentary.
, .
Regarding the idol of an idolater, God said: *"you shall burn their carved images with fire"* (Deut 7:25) — from the moment he carves it, it becomes a god to him.
, , .
But regarding the idol of an Israelite, He said: *"and placed it in a hidden place"* (Deut 27:15) — it does not acquire that status until he has performed acts appropriate to hidden worship, such as offering incense before it or prostrating himself before it and the like, as is explained in tractate Sanhedrin.
[]
Mishnah [5]
▶Sources · 1
The Commentary's discussion of specific acts that effectuate bittul — defacing, selling to a Jew, giving as a pledge — is codified in MT 8:9–12. An interesting development: the Commentary treats the question whether defacement alone is sufficient; the MT in 8:12 adds a new criterion not clearly in the mishnah or the Commentary — that the idolater must have voluntarily caused the defacement, not had it imposed by force. This is a Maimonidean addition to the halakhah.
, , , .
*Ḥasaw* means that he filed it down — and the Sages say: *"by filing its face."* The meaning is that if he filed down its face until he removed its facial features, then it is nullified.
. , . .
But if he filed down some other part of its body without removing anything from it [i.e., its distinguishing form], it is not nullified. The dispute between Rabbi [Judah the Prince] and the Sages concerns only the case where he sold it to a non-Jew; but if he sold it to a Jewish goldsmith, all agree it is nullified. The law follows the Sages.
[]
Mishnah [6]
, , . , , .
A *bimos* is a large stone that rulers set up for offerings to be brought upon it — it is a kind of altar. When a ruler comes to power he erects a *bimos* for himself; when that ruler is deposed or dies and another succeeds him, the new ruler abandons the first *bimos* and makes a second one for himself, whereupon benefit from the first is permitted.
, , .
This is the meaning of the Mishnah's phrase *"because they are set up when kings pass by"* — that is, the very proliferation of these stones is due to the fact that whenever a ruler is deposed, that *bimos* is nullified and a new one is made for his successor, so all the earlier ones become permitted.
[]
Mishnah [7]
, . , , .
Among the matters you ought to know: the truly accomplished philosophers do not believe in talismans (*ṭilismāt*) at all; on the contrary, they laugh at them and at those who suppose them to have real effect. I mention it only because I know that the vast majority of people — indeed virtually all of them — are profoundly deceived by these things and by many other things in the same category, supposing them to be genuine truths when they are not.
, .
Even the best and most distinguished members of our own religious community suppose them to be genuine truths, imagining only that the Torah forbade them purely on religious grounds — not realizing that they are in fact empty falsehoods, which the Torah prohibited just as it prohibited lying.
, . .
These things have acquired wide renown among the nations; and their origin lies with the Sabians, the peoples from whom our father Abraham separated himself and whose corrupt views he opposed by virtue of the wisdom God had planted in his heart. The Sabians used to venerate the stars and attribute to them effects that belong to them not at all.
. , , .
They were the ones who devised the doctrines of astrology and magic, incantations, the conjuring of spiritual powers, the addressing of stars and jinn, divination, augury, and the various forms of soothsaying. They would inquire of the dead — and much more of this sort, all of which the true Torah pursued with its sword and cut off entirely. They are the very root and branch of idolatry.
, , , .
For the first falsehood is astrology, whose premises are demonstrably refuted by natural science. The first of these false premises is their claim that such-and-such a star is maleficent (*naḥīs*) and such-and-such a star is beneficent (*saʿīd*), and that such-and-such a region of the celestial sphere harmonizes with one planet and conflicts with another — even though the entire sphere is a single, homogeneous body with no internal difference or composite structure whatsoever.
.
These two premises are the pillars of astrology, and once their falsity is demonstrated — as indeed it has been — all its particular claims collapse entirely.
, , , .
Upon this first falsehood a second was then constructed: talismans. They said: when such-and-such a beneficent planet is in such-and-such a position favorable to it, fashion a figure of such-and-such a description to draw through it such-and-such a benefit; and when such-and-such a maleficent planet is in such-and-such a position adverse to it, fashion a figure of such-and-such a description to ward off through it such-and-such a harm. This domain expanded in proportion to the proliferation of astrological doctrines and the particular effects attributed to the planets.
, .
Upon this second falsehood a third was then constructed: idolatry. They said: this figure, fashioned under such-and-such an ascendant and in such-and-such a configuration — if one burns such-and-such incense before it, invokes it with such-and-such words, prostrates before it, and performs such-and-such acts, then it will cut off the harm of such-and-such a planet and draw the benefit of such-and-such another.
, , .
All these things were done in the interest of political power. In ages past, cities were organized around them; the masses were deceived by them and told that the welfare of your lands and your affairs depends on these figures, and that you must gather at their temples and venerate those sages who know their secrets.
, , , , .
And so the monarch was taken in and believed it to be a true matter; and they would say: this is the utterance of such-and-such a star, this is the utterance of such-and-such a constellation — whereupon it was venerated and followed and believed in just as we believe in the prophets, peace be upon them, for their perfection and excellence. Do you not see how Scripture calls them *"the prophets of the Baal"* and *"the prophets of the Asherah"*? (1 Kgs 18:19)
, , .
Then, after all that, feeble-minded people came along, found those books and those sayings, supposed them to be true and to contain something beneficial, and did not realize they were fabrications that had been deployed at a given historical moment for a particular political purpose. God said of idols: *"Do not fear them, for they cannot do harm — neither is it in them to do good"* (Jer 10:5).
, . , , .
And the Sages made clear that whatever anyone supposes these talismans to accomplish comes about only by chance, and is then attributed to them — and this is a sound philosophical observation. Likewise, I find that the Sages drew attention to the fact that astrological predictions operate as omens and portents — not as causes, as the astrologers suppose. They said: *"You shall not practice divination"* — for instance, "these diviners who divine by weasels, by birds, and by stars" — and this is the philosophers' own understanding of the matter.
. , , , .
None of what the Sabians invented has any place whatever in Greek philosophy, not little nor much. I have gone on at some length here as well, but it is in a place where the elaboration is beneficial and serves the proper formation of belief — for the obsession of people with astrology and talismans is no small matter, and many have wholly departed from the Torah on account of it because of their belief in its validity.
[]
Mishnah [8]
▶Sources · 1
The case of libation vessels and incense vessels — whether they are forbidden for benefit along with the idol — appears in MT Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 8:6. The Commentary rules that these vessels acquire the idol's forbidden status only if they were designated for idolatrous use; the MT codifies this as a general principle (MT 8:4) before applying it to specific vessel types. An important variant: the Commentary permits benefit from leftover incense if it was never actually burned before idols; MT 8:6 is silent on this question.
. , , .
If the drainage channel of the winepress is blocked so that nothing flows from it — the grapes merely pressing together — then, according to the earlier ruling (*mishnah rishonah*), it does not become libation wine (*yayin nesekh*). And the *tapuaḥ* — the term for the heap of grapes that swells up in the center of the press — even if the idolater touched it with his hand as described, it does not render the wine forbidden. But if the grapes are being pressed and the juice is flowing down into the pit where the grape-liquid collects, then all of it becomes *yayin nesekh* — including even what is still in the press itself.
, , .
The Mishnah's phrase here *"and the rest is permitted"* reflects the earlier ruling (*mishnah rishonah*) that permitted the idolater to press; and this is not the accepted law.
[]
Mishnah [9]
, , , , .
*"They may tread [grapes] with the idolater in the press, but they may not harvest with him"* — this is the earlier ruling (*mishnah rishonah*). The reason the earlier authority forbade harvesting together with him is that our foundational principle is: one who harvests [grapes] for the press has rendered them susceptible [to impurity] (*hukšar*); so when the idolater touches them, he renders them impure — meaning that the one who harvested alongside him has thereby assisted in their defilement by cutting the grapes with him.
. , , .
The entire structure of the Mishnah is built on the foundational principle that it is forbidden to cause impurity to *ḥullin* in the Land of Israel, which we have noted on several occasions. The earlier authority permitted treading together because the cause of impurity has already passed: the grapes became impure through the idolater's contact when they were still in a susceptible state (*mūkšar*), as we established — and for that same reason, wine does not become *yayin nesekh* until it flows down into the cistern (*bor*).
, , , .
All of this, however, is the superseded view. The settled law is: it is permitted to cause impurity to *ḥullin* in the Land of Israel; and wine, from the moment it begins to flow, becomes *yayin nesekh*. Therefore one may harvest with him but may not tread with him.
, .
Know also that it is altogether impermissible for a Jew at the outset (*le-khatḥilah*) to employ an idolater in any capacity with the pressed juice — even merely to carry grapes to the press for him, let alone anything beyond that. The Talmud makes this clear: *"go away, go away, they say to the nazirite — go around, do not come near the vineyard"* (BT Shab. 13a).
, , . , .
As for an Israelite who works [in the press] in a state of impurity: he commits a transgression, because he defiles what contains God's dues — namely the *terumot* and *ma'asrot*; likewise, dough in a state of impurity defiles the *terumah*. And it is one of our principles that one may not strengthen the hands of those who transgress. Once the grapes have been pressed and the dough has been kneaded, the transgression is complete — and therefore one may thereafter work alongside him in transportation.
[]
Mishnah [10]
, , . .
*"He has a loan upon it"* — meaning upon that wine, not upon the person; for if the loan were merely against the person [with no lien on the wine], the wine would not become *yayin nesekh*. The reason is that when he holds a debt secured against that wine, he regards it as his own property and may well extend his hand to open it and see what condition his property is in.
, , . . .
Regarding the phrase *"fell into the cistern and came up"*: if it came up dead, it is permitted. But if it came up alive, it is forbidden for any benefit (*asur be-hana'ah*) — because the idolater was swimming in it to save himself, and it thereby becomes as if it had come from the hands of idolaters. Rabbi Shimon permits it for drinking. The law does not follow Rabbi Shimon.
[]
Mishnah [11]
, , , .
*"He purifies the wine of an idolater"* means that a Jew takes charge of it from the outset so that it remains in a pure state, and then leaves it in the possession of the wine's owner. For this reason, the house must open onto a public thoroughfare and Jews must be present in the town — so that the idolater fears that a Jew may enter the house without being seen and will then tell the wine's owner that the wine has become forbidden.
. . .
But if the Jew left it in the charge of another idolater, it is permitted — because that second idolater would not encroach upon property in which he has no share, even if the entire town were idolaters. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagreed with this and said: all idolater property is considered one domain, and even if left in the charge of another it is forbidden. The law follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.
.
Know also that if the key and seal are in the hand of a Jew, it is permitted according to all opinions, even though the wine is in idolater territory.
[]
Mishnah [12]
, .
Even when the key and seal are in a Jew's hand — if the Jew's ownership (*milkah*) of the wine is not yet complete, the Sages forbade it, because the idolater may handle it and turn it into *yayin nesekh*.