Avodah Zarah 049

7:
We have seen that the stones mentioned in our mishnah are to be understood as large stones which form a pedestal next to the herm. Rabbi Yishma'el holds that three stones next to a herm are forbidden while two stones are not. Presumably, his thinking is that two stones are not likely to give access to the herm and therefor they just happen to be there and are not connected with the herm. The rest of the sages say that one must determine whether the stones – any number of them – belong to the herm by judging proximity.

8:
In the Gemara the sages understand our mishnah quite differently. This is probably because the Babylonian sages were not at all familiar with the institution of the herm. They understand the stones mentioned in our mishnah to be fragments that have fallen from the idol. In which case, we must ask why stone fragments that have fallen from a statue of Mercury (as they understand it) should be forbidden at all. The Gemara [AZ 49b] explains:

9:
Of course, this line of reasoning makes it very difficult to understand the opinion of Rabbi Yishma'el. If he too holds that the non-Jews hold even fragments of their idols to be sacred he should prohibit any number of stones; and if he does not think that the non-Jews hold fragments of idols to be sacred why does he prohibit any stones at all? Rather lamely, the Gemara resolves the problem thus:

10:
So it seems that the Babylonian sages were of the opinion that a "Mercury" was some kind of dolmen, a heap of stones. If some of the stones became detached from the heap they were prohibited but if they were just ordinary stones which happened to be next to the dolmen they were permitted.

Mike Nichols has a general question about the material that we have been studying of late:

In many of the things we study I can see how this impacts Judaism today or has relevance for us today. In this situation of deriving benefit from something that was used for idol worship, can you think of a modern day situation where this is relevant? What should I apply from this teaching in my daily life?

I respond:

I am not sure that these rules and regulations have the same meaning for us as they did for the sages of the Mishnah. In their day and age idolatry was something that they had to live with, something that was visible before their eyes in every public and private place. So it was necessary to frame ways of behaviour through which the Jew could demonstrate the fact that he did not accord these statues and icons any sanctity at all. In the world in which most of us live today the situation is different. Even so, there are many strict opinions which would teach that a Jew should not find pleasure (aesthetic pleasure) from works of art that have a religious connotation for the non-Jews who created them.

Perhaps there are participants who can offer examples that answer to Mike's query from their own experience. Perhaps also it is not out of place to suggest that not all learning must have a practical application.

Nehama Barbiru returns us to the issue of the Asherah. She writes:

To the best of my understanding this kind of worship was very widespread ("under every leafy tree"). If the non-Jews were aware of the laws which we ate studying they would have had a very simple way to make life miserable for Jews. Every tree is an Asherah and from here the road is short to short supply of wood for fuel and construction. Does any sage relate to cancelling the status of an Asherah in the case of trees where a Jew does not know whether they were Asherot in bygone times or in religious use for a short time? It could be that a certain tree served as an Asherah for a short while yet no non-Jew ever cancelled its sacred status. Is the sacred status of an Asherah cancelled as we have laws of limitation and obsolescence?

I respond:

Only if it is definitely known that a tree is or was an Asherah is it prohibited. We may also assume that if a tree once was an Asherah but no one worships at it any more that it has indeed lost its status as an Asherah because of obsolescence.