Study Avodah Zarah folio 51A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is liable, even though these substances are repugnant, and even when this is not the typical manner of worshipping that idol. Granted, when one pours a chamber pot of urine before the idol, there is an act of throwing that scatters the offering. But in the case of excrement, what act of throwing t
The Talmud suggests: Let us say that one’s liability for breaking a stick as a form of idol worship is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im: If one slaughtered a locust for an idol, R' Yehuda deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from punishment.
What, is it not about this issue that they disagree: One Sage, R' Yehuda, holds that we say that one is liable even in the case of a rite that merely resembles slaughtering an animal, e.g., slaughtering a locust or breaking a stick. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not say that it
The Talmud rejects this suggestion: No, everyone holds that we do not say that one is liable even for a rite that merely resembles slaughtering an animal. Rather, we require the rite to be like the type of slaughtering performed inside the Temple. And the case of a locust is different, since its nec
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In the case of an object of idol worship that is worshipped by means of a stick, if one broke a stick before it, he is liable and the stick is rendered prohibited. If he threw a stick before it, he is liable, as its typical manner of wo