תלמוד על עבודה זרה 5:1

MISHNAH: If Gentiles worship mountains and hills; these are permitted¹²⁵For agricultural use; the ground and what grows on it is not forbidden as long as it is connected to the ground. but what is on them is forbidden, as it is said¹²⁶Deut. 7:25. If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted., do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, their gods [are] on the mountains¹²⁷Deut. 12:2., the mountains are not their gods. Their gods [are] on the hills, the hills are not their gods. Then why is an Ashera¹²⁸A holy tree (Mishnah 11), which is connected to the ground and by the argument of Note 125 should be permitted as building material or fire wood. forbidden? Because it was held by human hand¹²⁹It was planted., and anything held by human hand is forbidden.
Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you. Any place where you find a high mountain, or an elevated hill, or a sprightly tree, know that there is idolatry¹⁶²Deut. 12:2 reads: You shall certainly destroy all the places where the peoples from whom you will inherit worshipped their gods, on high mountains, and hills, and under each sprightly tree. This explains clearly that not the place is forbidden but the idol and its temple to be found there..

¹³⁷This paragraph is from Kilaim 7:4, Notes 46–48 (כ). An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and]¹³⁸Added from both parallel texts. The reference is to Mishnaiot Kilaim 7:4,5. If a person grows vegetables or grain in his vineyard, everything becomes forbidden for usufruct. But if he causes such a growth on another person’s land, R. Meïr holds that the crop is forbidden and the owner of the land has to sue the culprit for damages; R. Yose and R. Simeon hold on the authority of R. Aqiba that “nobody can sanctify anything which is not his.” In our case, anybody who worships an animal or an object which is his, made it forbidden for usufruct for himself and everybody else. But if the object was not his property, for R. Yose and R. Simeon it cannot become forbidden for anybody. Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose¹³⁹The fifth-generation Amora. in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living¹⁴⁰Any living animal which is worshipped is an animal and not an idol and cannot be forbidden. while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not)¹⁴¹This word is not in the parallel text; the context and the following paragraph make it clear that it is a scribal error. become forbidden for Heaven¹⁴²The comparison with Kilaim is misleading. The relevant Mishnah is Temurah 6:1 where it is stated that an animal used for idolatry (or bestiality) is unfit as sacrifice, irrespective of ownership. For sacrifices there is no dispute between R. Meïr and R. Yose. Babli Temurah28a..

HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was found standing,” etc. Rab Sheshet in the name of Rav: Only if he has a lien on this particular cistern¹⁶⁸The Mishnah could be read as applying to a loan secured by all wine in the possession of the debtor. It is now asserted that in the opinion of Rav (in the Babli, 60b, of Samuel) only the holder of a lien on the particular cistern will consider the wine his property and therefore touch it without hesitation whereas a lender on a future harvest will only visit wine press and threshing floor to ascertain that the harvest is sufficient to secure his claim but he will not touch the produce or the wine since it is not his. In the Babli, this is the only opinion declared consistent with the following Mishnaiot; the discussion in the Yerushalmi shows that the opposing opinion is considered equally valid.. But if he has no lien on this particular cistern, it is the way of creditors to stand near wine presses and threshing floors. They wanted to say, he who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms¹⁶⁹The definition of “next to” is “within reach of his hands without moving his body.” This is the definition accepted for the distance in which a person not following the rules of impurity makes vessels and food impure by his presence (Mishnah Ṭahorot7:3)., but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, even outside his outstretched arms¹⁷⁰Since he is more restrictive than the first opinion, one may assume that he is more restrictive in this matter also.. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet¹⁷¹Halakhah 5:6 (45a l. 1)., just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be so: He who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, only outside his outstretched arms¹⁷²The definition of “next to” is independent of the circle of persons to which it is applied. In all circumstances, “next to” means what can be reached without moving one’s body..