The Talmud discusses three types of trees that are subject to the laws of idolatry, differing in how they are nullified. The first case involves a tree initially planted for the purpose of idolatry. Such a tree is forbidden until the idolater himself nullifies it. This is a clear-cut case: if someone plants a tree specifically for idolatry, it remains forbidden.
The second case involves a tree that was not initially planted for idolatry, but was later pruned by an idolater or a Jew with the intention that the new growths would be for idolatry. In this scenario, the tree itself remains permitted, but the new growths that emerge are forbidden. To nullify them, one must cut off these new growths and burn them, similar to the law of an Asherah, which is a tree worshipped as an idol. The main tree remains permitted.
The third case concerns a tree under which an object of idolatry was placed, but the tree itself was not worshipped. If the idolatrous object is removed, the tree immediately becomes permitted. This is because the tree was never the object of worship; it merely served as a temporary location for the idolatrous item.
The Gemara then delves into the second case, where a tree was pruned for idolatry. The Mishnah states that the new growths are forbidden and must be cut and burned, while the tree remains permitted. The Gemara, citing Rabbi Yannai, clarifies that this applies specifically to situations involving grafting or replanting. Grafting involves taking a part of one tree and joining it to another, while replanting (or layering) involves bending a branch into the ground to take root and form a new tree. Rabbi Yannai argues that only when such actions are performed with the intention of creating new growths for idolatry do those growths become forbidden. He initially appears to disagree with the Mishnah, suggesting that mere pruning is insufficient to render the new growths forbidden, implying that a more significant act of "replanting" is required.
However, the Gemara challenges this interpretation, asserting that the Mishnah explicitly refers to simple pruning. It concludes that Rabbi Yannai is not disagreeing with the Mishnah's ruling that pruning for idolatry makes the new growths forbidden. Rather, his novel teaching (Chiddush) concerns the method of nullification. Even in cases of grafting or replanting, where one might think the entire tree should become forbidden due to the more significant act, Rabbi Yannai teaches a leniency: only the new growths need to be cut off. The tree itself, having been initially planted for a permissible purpose, remains permitted. This is a leniency, emphasizing that regardless of how the new growths came about (through pruning, grafting, or replanting), if the original tree was planted permissibly, only the problematic growths need to be removed.
The discussion then shifts to the opinion of Shmuel, who addresses a scenario where a tree was planted permissibly, and subsequently, someone bowed down to it. Shmuel states that from that point forward, any new growths that emerge from the tree become forbidden. He is challenged by Rabbi Elazar, who cites the Mishnah's ruling that new growths become forbidden only when the tree is actively pruned for idolatry, implying that mere bowing is insufficient. Shmuel responds by explaining that the Mishnah follows the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that a tree becomes forbidden only if it was planted initially for idolatry, or if an act akin to replanting (like pruning for idolatry) is performed. According to the Rabbis, bowing to a permissibly planted tree does not render it forbidden. Shmuel, however, aligns with Rabbi Yose, who maintains that even if a tree was not initially planted for idolatry, bowing to it can render it forbidden, or at least its subsequent growths. Therefore, Shmuel's statement that bowing to a tree makes its new growths forbidden is consistent with Rabbi Yose's view.
The Gemara then clarifies the nature of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yose. It suggests that while everyone agrees the tree itself remains permitted if it was not initially planted for idolatry, their disagreement centers on the status of the subsequent growths. Rabbi Yose holds that these growths become forbidden, while the Rabbis maintain they remain permitted. This interpretation allows Shmuel's statement to align with Rabbi Yose's position, as it specifically addresses the status of new growths after bowing.
However, the Gemara raises a further question: who says the dispute is only about the growths, and not the tree itself? Perhaps Rabbi Yose holds that even the entire tree becomes forbidden upon bowing, citing a verse that speaks of burning an Asherah without specifying its origin. The Rabbis, on the other hand, might interpret a different verse to mean that only the problematic parts (growths) need to be cut, implying the main tree remains permitted. The Gemara then suggests "switching" the scriptural proofs, reassigning them to the opposing opinions to better fit the established understanding of their positions. This reinterpretation allows for the possibility that the Rabbis believe the entire tree becomes forbidden if planted for idolatry, while Rabbi Yose believes any tree becomes forbidden upon worship, even if not initially planted for idolatry.
The Gemara then re-evaluates the Mishnah's statement that if one prunes a tree for idolatry, its new growths become forbidden. It questions how this Mishnah can align with either Rabbi Yose or the Rabbis. If it follows Rabbi Yose, why does it only say the growths are forbidden, and not the entire tree? If it follows the Rabbis, why is pruning necessary, when mere bowing (which the Rabbis say does nothing) should be sufficient if the tree was already permissibly planted? The Gemara resolves this by explaining that Rabbi Yose would agree that if one merely prunes a tree for the sake of its new growths, only those growths become forbidden, because the intention was specifically for the new growth, not the entire tree. However, if one bows to the entire tree, then the entire tree becomes forbidden. Alternatively, the Mishnah could align with the Rabbis, offering a novel teaching (Chiddush) that even pruning, which might seem like replanting and thus render the entire tree forbidden, actually only makes the new growths forbidden. This shows that the Mishnah can be understood according to either opinion.
The next Mishnah asks, "What is an Asherah?" This question seems strange given the previous Mishnah's detailed discussion. The Gemara explains that this Mishnah is specifically addressing the third type of Asherah mentioned earlier: a tree under which an object of idolatry is placed. This is the subject of a dispute between the Rabbis and the Beit Shammai. The Rabbis hold that if an idolatrous object is placed under a tree, the tree itself becomes forbidden by association, even if not directly worshipped, because it "serves" the idolatry. Beit Shammai, however, maintains that for a tree to become forbidden, one must actively worship the tree itself. Thus, the Mishnah isolates this specific case to highlight the disagreement.
The Mishnah then discusses how to identify an Asherah. One sign is seeing priests sitting under a tree, protecting its fruit because they are consecrated. Even if they are heard discussing using the dates from the tree to make beer for an idolatrous festival, this is a clear indication that the tree is forbidden. Shmuel adds that even if they merely state their intention to use the dates for beer for their house of idolatry, it is sufficient to render the tree forbidden.
The next Mishnah states that one may not sit in the shade of an Asherah. This refers not only to the direct shade under the tree's canopy but also to the extended, lighter shade cast further away, particularly in the morning or late afternoon. The prohibition is due to benefiting from the idolatry. However, while sitting in the extended shade is forbidden, it does not render one ritually impure. Ritual impurity (Tumah) only applies if one stands directly under the tree's leaves, because it is assumed that sacrifices to the idolatry, which are ritually impure like corpses, are buried beneath the tree. This impurity is a rabbinic decree.
If an Asherah tree extends its branches into a public thoroughfare, people may walk under it without becoming impure. This is because the Sages, in their rabbinic decree of impurity, did not wish to impose a burden on the public. If the impurity were from the Torah, it would apply regardless of location.
The Gemara clarifies the Mishnah's ruling on shade. It explains that the prohibition against sitting in the shade applies even to "light shade" (Tzel Tziloh), not just the dense shade directly under the tree. The Mishnah's statement that "if one sits, he is pure" (Ve'im Yashav Tahor) refers to both thick and light shade, meaning that sitting in any shade, while forbidden, does not cause ritual impurity. The novelty of the Mishnah is in prohibiting even light shade, which one might otherwise consider negligible.
The Gemara then explains why walking under the tree's leaves causes impurity: it is not the tree itself, but the sacrifices offered to the idolatry that are buried beneath it. These sacrifices are considered ritually impure like corpses, and being under the same "tent" (Ohel) as them causes impurity. The Gemara then discusses whether walking under an Asherah that extends into a public domain is permissible from the outset (Lechatchila) or only after the fact (Bedi'avad). Rabbi Yochanan states that it is only permitted after the fact. However, if there is another path of equal length, one should take it. If the other path is longer, then one may use the shorter path under the tree. This is illustrated by the story of Rav Shinshat, who, being blind, instructed his servant to rush him through the public domain under an Asherah, indicating that if there was an equidistant alternative, he should have avoided it entirely, or at least avoided lingering.
The next Mishnah discusses planting under an Asherah. One may plant under an Asherah as long as the planting does not benefit from the tree. For instance, in the rainy season (winter), one may plant vegetables under the tree because they do not need its shade. However, in the summer, planting vegetables is forbidden because they would benefit from the shade. Lettuce, however, is always forbidden to plant under an Asherah, even in winter, because it always benefits from shade. Furthermore, planting any vegetable under an Asherah is forbidden if the leaves falling from the tree fertilize the ground, as this constitutes benefiting from the idolatry.
The Gemara notes a dispute between Rabbi Yose and the Rabbis regarding planting vegetables under an Asherah in winter. The Rabbis permit it, arguing that the shade is not beneficial in winter. Rabbi Yose forbids it, concerned about the fertilizing effect of the falling leaves. This brings up the concept of "Zeh VeZeh Gorem" (this and this cause), which refers to a situation where a forbidden item combined with a permitted item produces a result. One opinion holds that if the forbidden item alone could not produce the result, and it required the combination, then the result is permitted. The other opinion holds that any contribution from the forbidden item makes the result forbidden.
Initially, one might interpret Rabbi Yose's prohibition on planting due to fertilizing leaves as him holding that "Zeh VeZeh Gorem" is forbidden, while the Rabbis' permission implies they hold it is permitted. However, the Gemara points out that in other contexts, Rabbi Yose and the Rabbis hold the opposite positions on "Zeh VeZeh Gorem." For example, regarding a metallic idolatrous object, Rabbi Yose permits grinding it and scattering it in the wind (even though it might fertilize fields), implying "Zeh VeZeh Gorem" is permitted. The Rabbis, however, forbid this, implying "Zeh VeZeh Gorem" is forbidden. This creates a contradiction with our Mishnah.
The Gemara resolves this by distinguishing between cases. Rabbi Yose would argue that when one is actively destroying an idolatrous object, any incidental benefit (like fertilization) is overlooked because the primary intention is to eliminate the idolatry. However, when a tree naturally sheds its leaves, it is not an act of destruction, and the fertilizing effect is a direct benefit from the forbidden tree, thus making it forbidden. Alternatively, the Gemara suggests "switching" the opinions in the previous discussion of "Zeh VeZeh Gorem" to resolve the contradiction. A third answer is offered, using the analogy of a blemished consecrated animal (Korban Ba'al Mum). When such an animal is redeemed, its meat must be eaten in a way that minimizes waste. The Sages instruct a specific method of skinning that preserves more meat, even if it damages the hide. This shows that sometimes a loss in one area (hide value) is accepted to gain in another (meat preservation). Similarly, in our Mishnah, the Rabbis might permit planting under the tree not because "Zeh VeZeh Gorem" is permitted, but because the benefit of the leaves fertilizing the soil is offset by the detriment of the shade to the crops. Thus, there is no net benefit, and planting is permitted.