Study Meilah folio 14A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Talmud: Connected with the Mishnah’s discussion of idol worship it was stated: In the case of an object of idol worship that broke by itself, R' Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited to derive benefit from it, as the fact that it is broken does not constitute nullification, and Reish Lakish says: It is
The Talmud clarifies their opinions: R' Yoḥanan says it is prohibited, as a non-Jew did not nullify the object of idol worship, and its status is nullified only if a non-Jew broke it with the intention of nullifying it. And Reish Lakish says it is permitted, as it can be presumed that its non-Jew o
Reish Lakish raised an objection to R' Yoḥanan from the Mishnah: With regard to the bird’s nest that is atop the consecrated tree, one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if he derived benefit from it he is not liable for its misuse. In order to acquire a bird’s nest that is atop the tre
Reish Lakish analyzes the second halakha: What, is it not referring to a case where the nest was built from branches that broke off from the worshipped tree itself, and yet the Mishnah teaches: One should dislodge it by striking it with a pole? This indicates that branches that are broken off are p
Reish Lakish rejects this answer: If so, why does the Mishnah teach in the parallel case of a consecrated tree, where presumably the nest was likewise built of branches brought from elsewhere, that one may not derive benefit from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it he is not liable for