MISHNA: With regard to the halakha in the case of the gentiles who worship the mountains and the hills, the mountains and hills are permitted, but what is upon them is forbidden. It is not prohibited to derive benefit from the mountains and hills themselves, and they can be used for planting, harvesting, and the like. But if gentiles coated them with gold or silver, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the coating, as it is stated: “The graven images of their gods shall you burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it for yourself, lest you be snared by it; for it is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 7:25).

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says with regard to the verse: “You shall destroy all the places where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2): The mitzva to destroy objects of idol worship applies to “their gods, upon the high mountains,” but not to the mountains themselves that are their gods. Similarly it applies to “their gods…upon the hills,” but not to the hills themselves that are their gods.

The mishna asks: And for what reason, then, is an ashera forbidden? Doesn’t the verse also state: “And under every leafy tree,” which indicates that the mitzva to destroy objects of idol worship does not apply to the trees themselves? The mishna answers: It is because it is the product of human involvement and did not grow by itself, and the halakha is that anything that is the product of human involvement is forbidden.

Rabbi Akiva says: I will explain and decide the matter before you. The verse does not indicate limitations to the halakhic definition of idols; rather, it is simply giving indicators of prevalent idolatrous practice: Everywhere that you find a high mountain, or an elevated hill, or a leafy tree, know that there is idol worship there.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn’t the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili the same as that of the first tanna? Both of them indicate that what is on the mountain is forbidden, while the mountain itself is permitted. Rami bar Ḥama says that Reish Lakish says: The difference between them is the issue of whether the status of the coating of a mountain is like the status of the mountain itself. The first tanna holds that the status of the coating of a mountain is not like the mountain itself, and is therefore forbidden, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the status of the coating of a mountain is like the mountain itself.

Rejecting this explanation, Rav Sheshet says: Everyone agrees that the status of the coating of a mountain is not like the mountain itself and is forbidden.