Study Avodah Zarah folio 42B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: But consider the case of shavings, where the main object of idol worship still exists, and nevertheless it is taught in the baraita cited earlier that if a non-Jew shaved an idol down for its own sake, the idol is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted. Here too, in the case of
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: The reason the leaves are not permitted is because the status of an object of idol worship cannot be revoked by its natural manner of growth. Since the falling of leaves is a natural phenomenon, their detachment from the tree does not effect a revocation of the
R' Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of R' Yoḥanan from a Mishnah (Me’ila 13b): With regard to a bird’s nest at the top of a tree that belongs to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse of p
In analyzing this baraita, it enters your mind that this is referring to a case where the bird broke off branches from the worshipped tree and built a nest with them. And yet, the baraita teaches that one may knock the nest off with a pole and it is then permitted to benefit from it. Apparently, the
The Talmud explains: Here we are dealing with a case where the bird brought branches from elsewhere and built a nest with them on top of the worshipped tree. The branches were never part of an object of idol worship.