MISHNA: If one took wood from an ashera, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. In a case where one kindled a fire in an oven with the wood, if it is a new oven and by kindling the fire he hardened the oven and made it stronger for use in the future, then the oven must be shattered. Since forbidden items were used in the process of forming the oven, one may not derive benefit from the use of the forbidden items. But if it is an old oven it may be cooled; it is prohibited to use the oven only while it is still hot. If one baked bread with wood from the ashera as the fuel, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the bread.

If this bread was intermingled with other bread, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all the bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: One must take the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea. In other words, one is not required to destroy all of the loaves. Instead, one should designate money equal in value to the wood that he used from the ashera, and he should destroy this money to offset the benefit he derived from the forbidden wood. The Rabbis said to him: There is no monetary redemption for objects that are forbidden due to idol worship. Once the bread becomes forbidden, it cannot be redeemed by having the value of the forbidden wood cast into the Dead Sea.

If one took wood from an ashera for use as a weaving shuttle [karkor], it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. If one wove a garment with it, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the garment. If the garment was intermingled with other garments, and those other garments were intermingled with others, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of them. Rabbi Eliezer says: One must take the benefit and cast it into the Dead Sea. The Rabbis said to him: There is no monetary redemption for objects that are forbidden due to idol worship.

GEMARA: The mishna presents two cases where Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree. The Gemara explains: And both are necessary; as if the mishna had taught us only the first case, concerning the forbidden bread, one might have thought that it is only in this case that Rabbi Eliezer says that the bread is permitted after casting the value gained from the forbidden wood into the Dead Sea, because at the time that the bread has finished baking, the forbidden wood has burned up. But in the case of the shuttle, where the original forbidden piece of wood is still extant, perhaps one will say that he concedes to the Rabbis that the forbidden garment may not be redeemed.

And if the mishna had taught us only the case of the shuttle, one might have thought that it is only in this case that the Rabbis say that the forbidden garment may not be redeemed, because the original forbidden piece of wood is still extant. But in the case of the bread, where the forbidden wood was already burned up by the time the bread finished baking, perhaps one will say that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer that the bread may be redeemed. Therefore, both cases are necessary.

Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rabba bar Naḥmani, says that Rav Ḥisda says that Ze’eiri says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. There are those who say there is a different version of this ruling: Rav Ḥisda says: Abba bar Rav Ḥisda said to me that this is what Ze’eiri says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: They taught that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer only in the case of forbidden bread. But with regard to the case of a barrel of wine used for an idolatrous libation, which was intermingled with permitted barrels of wine, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rav Ḥisda says: Even in the case of a barrel of libation wine, the wine in the other barrels is permitted once the value of the forbidden barrel has been cast into the Dead Sea.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man, and it happened that a barrel of wine used for a libation became intermingled with his wine. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask what he should do. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Take four dinars and cast them into the river, and the rest of the wine will be permitted to you.

MISHNA: How does one revoke the idolatrous status of an ashera? If a gentile trimmed dry wood or pruned green wood from the tree for his own benefit, or if he removed from it a stick, or a rod, or even a leaf, he has thereby revoked its idolatrous status, as he has proven that he no longer worships it. If a gentile shaved down the tree for its own sake, to improve its appearance, it remains prohibited to derive benefit from it. If he shaved it down not for its own sake, it is permitted.

GEMARA: With regard to those shavings that were shaved off for the sake of the ashera, what should be done with them? Rav Huna and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav disagree about it; one says the shavings are forbidden and one says they are permitted.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who says that the shavings are permitted, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who shaved down an object of idol worship for his own sake, as he wished to use the shavings, the tree and its shavings are permitted. The idolatrous status has been revoked from both the object and its shavings. If he shaved it for its, i.e., for the idol’s, own sake, it remains forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. And in the case of a Jew who shaved down an object of idol worship, whether for its sake or for his own sake, the object and its shavings remain forbidden, as a Jew cannot revoke an object’s idolatrous status.

It was stated: With regard to an object of idol worship that broke, Rav says: It is necessary to revoke the idolatrous status of each and every sliver. And Shmuel says: An object of idol worship can have its status nullified only if part of it breaks off in the course of its natural manner of growth.

The Gemara inquires about Shmuel’s ruling: On the contrary, can an object possibly have its idolatrous status nullified by breaking in the course of its natural manner of growth? The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Shmuel is saying: If an object of idol worship breaks, its idolatrous status is automatically nullified, as the idol worshipper will see that it broke and will no longer attribute any power to it. It needs to have its idolatrous status actively revoked only in a case where it broke off in the course of its natural manner of growth. For example, if leaves fall from a worshipped tree, the tree and the leaves retain their idolatrous status. In this case, the idol worshipper will not attribute the fallen leaves to a lack of power of the tree.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Shmuel disagree about this: One Sage, Rav, holds that people worship even fragments of idols. Therefore, the fact that an idol broke does not result in the nullification of its idolatrous status. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that people do not worship fragments of idols.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone agrees that people worship fragments of idols. And here, it is with regard to fragments of fragments that they disagree. One Sage, Rav, holds that fragments of fragments are forbidden; and one Sage, Shmuel, holds that fragments of fragments are permitted.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that fragments of fragments are permitted, and here they disagree with regard to objects of idol worship that are composed of segments that come apart and that a layman can reassemble. One Sage, Rav, holds that since a layman can reassemble it, its idolatrous status is not nullified. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that an object of idol worship needs to have its status revoked only when it breaks in the course of its natural manner of growth, as that is its typical manner. This case, where the idol is disassembled, is not related to its natural growth and therefore it requires no further act to revoke its idolatrous status.

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones that are adjacent to each other at the side of Mercury [Markulis] are prohibited, as that idol was worshipped by tossing stones toward it, which then became part of the idol. But if there are only two stones, then they are permitted. And the Rabbis say: Those stones that are adjacent to Mercury and appear to have fallen from it are prohibited. But those stones that are not adjacent to it are permitted.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, one can explain that the Rabbis hold that idol worshippers worship fragments of idols. Therefore, those stones that are adjacent to Mercury, where it can be said that they fell from its pile of stones, are prohibited; as they are considered fragments of an object of idol worship, namely the stone pile. And those that are not adjacent to Mercury are permitted, as they did not fall from it.

But with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, what does he hold? If he holds that idol worshippers worship fragments of idols, even two stones should be prohibited. If he holds that idol worshippers do not worship fragments of idols, even three stones should not be prohibited.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a case where it is known that these stones fell from the pile of stones, everyone agrees that they are prohibited, and this is the halakha even according to the one who says: Idol worshippers do not worship fragments. As that statement applies only to a form of idol worship where that is not the normal manner in which it is worshipped. But here, where the stones thrown onto the pile are broken stones from the outset, this is its normal manner of worship. They disagree only when it is not specifically known where these stones came from.