MISHNA: With regard to an ashera, one may not sit in its shade, but if one sat in its shade he remains ritually pure. And one may not pass beneath it, and if one passed beneath it he is ritually impure. If the tree was robbing the public, i.e., if its branches extended over public property, and one passed beneath it, he remains pure.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not sit in its shade. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? He is directly benefiting from an object of idol worship. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is necessary only with regard to the shade of its shade. The shade that extends as far as the height of the tree is considered its shade. The less significant shade, that which extends further that the tree’s height, is referred to as the shade of its shade. The mishna is teaching that even this secondary shade is forbidden.

The Gemara comments: By inference, with regard to the shade of its height, its primary shade, if one sat there he is impure. The Gemara rejects this inference: No, this inference is not correct, as even with regard to the shade of its height, if one sat there he remains pure. And this is what the mishna is teaching us: That even with regard to the shade of its shade, one may not sit in it.

There are those who teach this discussion with regard to the latter clause of that part of the mishna, which states: But if one sat in its shade he remains ritually pure. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Why should he be rendered impure? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is necessary only with regard to the direct shade of its height. Even in this case, he remains pure. The Gemara comments: By inference, with regard to the shade of its shade, one may even sit there ab initio. The Gemara answers: No, this inference is not correct. Rather, this is what the mishna is teaching us: That even with regard to the shade of its height, if one sat there he remains pure.

§ The mishna teaches: And one may not pass beneath an ashera, and if one passed beneath it he is ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Because it is impossible that there is no remnant of an idolatrous offering underneath the tree.

The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering transmits impurity in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof? It is derived from that which is stated: “And they joined themselves unto Ba’al-Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). It is derived from here that just as a corpse transmits impurity in a tent, so too, an idolatrous offering transmits impurity in a tent.

§ The mishna teaches: If the tree was robbing the public and one passed beneath it he remains pure. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does the mishna mean that if one passed under the tree he remains pure, but that it is prohibited to pass beneath it ab initio? Or does the mishna mean that one may pass beneath it ab initio? Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar says in the name of Ḥizkiyya: One may pass ab initio. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna means that if one passed he remains pure, but it is prohibited to pass ab initio.

The Gemara explains: And they do not disagree. This opinion, that one may not pass beneath an ashera, is referring to a case where there is another way to get to his destination. That opinion, that it is permitted to pass beneath it ab initio, is referring to a case where there is no other way.

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet, who was blind, was being guided by his attendant toward his city, and there was an ashera shadowing the path. Rav Sheshet said to his attendant: When you arrive at the ashera, have me run past it quickly. The Gemara asks: What were the circumstances? If there was no other way to get to his destination, why did Rav Sheshet request: Have me run past it? In such circumstances, it is permitted to walk normally underneath an ashera. And if there was another way to get to his destination, when Rav Sheshet said: Have me run past it, was it then permitted for him to do so? He still passed under the ashera.

The Gemara answers: Actually, it was a case where there was no other way to get to his destination. And although it was permitted for Rav Sheshet to walk normally underneath the ashera, Rav Sheshet wanted to run past it because an important person is different. An important person should try to pass under the ashera as quickly as possible, lest others misunderstand the circumstances and learn from him that it is permitted for one to walk underneath an ashera even when there is another way for him to reach his destination.

MISHNA: One may plant vegetables underneath an ashera during the rainy season, as the vegetables do not benefit from its shade; on the contrary, the tree’s foliage prevents the vegetables from being properly irrigated by the rain. But one may not plant vegetables under an ashera during the summer, as the shade benefits them. And lettuce may not be planted there at all, neither in the summer nor in the rainy season, because shade is always beneficial to lettuce. Rabbi Yosei says: One may not plant vegetables under an ashera even during the rainy season, because the tree’s foliage [shehaneviyya] falls upon them and serves as fertilizer for them.

GEMARA: The mishna records a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis with regard to planting underneath an ashera in the rainy season when vegetables are fertilized by the tree’s forbidden fallen foliage. As the plant is also fertilized by the permitted nutrients of the ground, the plant’s growth is caused by both prohibited and permitted sources. Therefore, the Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yosei holds that when both this and that cause it, i.e., when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is forbidden, and he therefore holds that it is prohibited to plant underneath an ashera in the rainy season; and the Rabbis say that when both this and that cause a result, the result is permitted?

Didn’t we hear that they stated the opposite rulings? As we learned in a mishna (43b): Rabbi Yosei says: When one encounters an idol, he should grind the idol and throw the dust to the wind or cast it into the sea. The Rabbis said to him: What is the good of that? That also gives a Jew benefit from the idol, as it becomes fertilizer for his crops, and deriving any kind of benefit is prohibited, as it is written: “And nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).

The contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis in that mishna and the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna here is difficult, and the contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yosei in that mishna and the statement of Rabbi Yosei here is difficult.

The Gemara explains: Granted, the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and the other statement of Rabbi Yosei is not difficult. It may be resolved as follows: There, in the earlier mishna, since the ground-up idol is dispersed and is going to be completely lost, Rabbi Yosei permits deriving benefit from the fertilizer. By contrast, in the mishna here, where the fallen leaves are not going to be lost so quickly, as they fall together on top of the vegetables and provide direct benefit as fertilizer, deriving benefit from them is prohibited.

But the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is difficult. Therefore, the Gemara concludes: Reverse the attribution of the statements, so that the mishna teaches that it is the Rabbis who deem it prohibited to plant under an ashera in the rainy season, while Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted.

And if you wish, say instead: Do not reverse the statements. The contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yosei can be resolved as we answered before. The contradiction between the statements of the Rabbis can be resolved in accordance with that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says about an animal offering that became disqualified for sacrifice. The halakha is that this animal is sold and the proceeds are dedicated to the Temple treasury. One may not skin the hide of the animal whole even though this would make the hide more valuable than if it were cut up into pieces. Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, explains that this is because the value that is enhanced with regard to the hide is offset by the damage caused to the flesh. The process of skinning the hide devalues the animal’s flesh; therefore, there is no overall monetary gain for the Temple treasury.

Here too, the value that is enhanced with regard to the planted vegetables by the foliage of the tree is offset by the damage caused by its shade. Therefore, since there is no overall benefit gained from the ashera, the Rabbis deem it permitted to plant underneath it in the winter.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that when both this and that cause it, i.e., when both permitted and forbidden items contribute to a result, the result is forbidden? But isn’t it taught in a mishna (Orla 1:9) that Rabbi Yosei says: One may plant the branch of an orla tree, i.e., a tree during the first three years after its planting, despite the prohibition against eating or deriving benefit from its fruit; but one may not plant an orla nut, because it is a fruit. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Rabbi Yosei concedes that if one planted an orla nut, or sank the shoot of an orla tree into the ground, or grafted an orla tree, deriving benefit from that which grows as a result is permitted. This is apparently because the growth is caused by both a forbidden cause, the orla nut, and a permitted cause, the ground’s nutrients.

The Gemara adds: And that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei concedes