Daf Ditty Eruvin 78: Ashera Tree

Red-ink drawing, Pithos A, Kuntillet ‘Arjud.

Meshel Et al, Kuntillet ‘Arjud Fig.

And also, Ma'akha his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because
she had made a monstrous image for an Ashera; and Asa destroyed (va-yikhrot)
her image and burnt it in the Kidron Valley.

I Kings 15:12

1
2
Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rabba:

If one designated a tree as a ladder, what is the halakha? Given that it is prohibited to climb a
tree on Shabbat, if a tree stands next to a wall and it is easy to climb, is it considered with regard
to the halakhot of Shabbat as an opening in the wall that can serve as a passageway between the
two courtyards?

3
Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains
that a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv teḥumin] placed in a tree is valid; and let the dilemma
be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree.

4
The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the previously stated opinion of
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only stated there that with regard to anything that is prohibited on
Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages did not prohibit it during twilight.

Therefore, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, it is permitted to use an eiruv that was deposited in
a tree, as the use of a tree is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree. However, this applies only
in that case, as the eiruv takes effect during the twilight period.

Since there is doubt with regard to whether that period is considered day or night, the decree is not
in force, and the eiruv is therefore valid. However, in this case, where the opening must be valid
for the entire day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not rule that the decree does not apply. Since it
is prohibited by rabbinic decree to climb a tree on Shabbat, a tree cannot be considered a valid
passageway.

Or perhaps it may be argued that even though according to the opinion of the Rabbis it is
prohibited to use a grave to acquire an eiruv, here they would agree that the asheira is an opening,
but a lion crouches upon it, and this does not nullify its status as an opening.

- lit. and it is a lion that is crouched upon it. That is, the prohibition of climbing a tree on Shabbos
does not cause us to cease viewing the tree as a doorway; rather, although the two courtyards are
connected we cannot access the doorway between them on Shabbos.

Me’iri

It was clear to those asking the question that a lion actually crouching in an entrance would not
nullify its status as an entrance. Therefore, the question here is whether the prohibition involved
in climbing a tree affects its status as a passageway, or whether this is considered an external
factor, similar to a lion crouching at an entrance. According to Rabba, the prohibition to use a
tree on Shabbat is an external factor, as the tree itself is not prohibited, and the prohibition to use

5
it can be viewed as secondary. However, the prohibition to derive benefit from an asheira affects
the status of the tree itself to the extent that it is considered as though the tree were not there at
all. Rav Ĥisda maintains that since the prohibition with regard to an asheira does not belong to
the category of Shabbat laws, it does not affect the tree’s status as an opening with regard to
Shabbat. By contrast, a Shabbat prohibition does nullify a tree’s status as an entrance, at least for
the day of Shabbat itself.

Rabba said to him: A tree is permitted for use as a ladder, but an asheira is prohibited. Rav
Ḥisda strongly objects to this: On the contrary, a tree, with regard to which a Shabbat
prohibition causes it to be prohibited, should be prohibited, so that it will not be said that a
Shabbat prohibition has been disregarded in a case involving the halakhot of Shabbat.

The assumption is that this tree is no longer growing, but has fully dried out or has been uprooted
from its place. Otherwise, two questions are relevant here, since it is both an asheira and a tree
that may not be climbed on Shabbat.

6
- It's okay in a regular tree, which can be used during the week, but not in an ‫ אשרה‬,which is
always ‫אסור‬.

And the converse is also true: An asheira, with regard to which something else, a halakha
unrelated to the halakhot of Shabbat, causes it to be prohibited, should not be prohibited. Rather,
it should be considered an opening with regard to Shabbat.

‫ כל שאיסור שבת גרם לו אסור‬hold ‫ ר' יוחנן‬and 2- ‫ר' אלעזר‬- The tree which cannot be climbed because of
‫ שבת הלכות‬is no good, but the ‫ אשרה‬which cannot be used for a non-Shabbos related reason, is
good.

7
Indeed, it was also stated: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi
Elazar said, and some say that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anything with
regard to which a prohibition of Shabbat causes it to be prohibited is prohibited; and
conversely, anything with regard to which something else causes it to be prohibited is permitted.

However, in contrast to Rav Yosef, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught as follows: These questions
are indeed dependent on the known disputes.

Whether a tree serving as a ladder constitutes a valid opening is the subject of a dispute between
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits it and the Rabbis prohibit
it.

The debate with regard to whether or not an asheira is considered an opening is the subject of a
dispute between Rabbi Yehuda, who permits using items from which it is prohibited to derive
benefit for the sake of an eiruv, and the Rabbis, who prohibit making an eiruv with such items.

8
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that the tree ladder would depend on the ‫ מחלוקת‬about keeping an
‫ עירוב‬in a tree, and the ‫אשרה‬ladder would depend on the ‫ מחלוקת‬about keeping an ‫ עירוב‬on a grave.

Trees: Idolatry vs Shabbat Prohibition

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

He asked him whether a tree reduces a wall’s height, and explained his question was both
according to Rebbe and the Sages, who dispute about acquiring an eiruv techumim in a tree, which
is prohibited to use on Shabbos.

Even Rebbe, who says one can acquire it, may only say so since the Rabbinic prohibition on using
a tree doesn’t apply during twilight, when the eiruv is acquired. However, he may say that it doesn’t
reduce the wall height, as the tree may not be used once twilight is over.

Alternatively, even the Sages, who say one cannot acquire it, may say that here the tree is
considered an entrance through the wall, albeit one which one is prevented from using due to the
Rabbinic prohibition on its use.

Furthermore, even if a tree reduces the height, does an asheirah tree reduce it? This question is
according to Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages, who dispute whether one can acquire an eiruv
techumim in a cemetery, from which one may not benefit.

Even Rabbi Yehudah, who says that one can acquire it, may only say it in the case of techum,
where one only needs the spot for the moment of acquisition, but here one needs the asheirah tree
for the duration of Shabbos.

Alternatively, even the Sages, who say one may not acquire it, may say that in this case the tree
serves as an entrance, albeit one which he may not use.

Rabbah answered that a tree does reduce the height, but not an asheirah tree. Rav Chisda challenges
this ruling, as a tree shouldn’t reduce the height, as the prohibition on using it is a Shabbos one,
but an asheirah may reduce the height, as its prohibition is unrelated to Shabbos.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak taught that the case of a tree depends on the dispute of Rebbe and the
Sages, while the case of asheirah depends on the dispute of Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Eiruvin_78-1.pdf

9
RAMBAM Hil Eruvin 3:8

[If] there was a tree on the side of the wall and one made it into a ladder for the wall, they may
[also] make one eruv, if they wanted — for it is [only] a rabbinic Shabbat decree that causes one
not to climb the tree. [But] if they made a tree-god (asherah) into a ladder for the wall, they may
not make one eruv because it is forbidden by the Torah to climb upon it — as it is surely forbidden
to benefit [from it].

Orach Chayim 272:15

R. Yosef expresses uncertainty about a ladder made from asheirah wood that is placed next to a
wall that separates two chatzeiros2. Since it is prohibited to climb the ladder being that it is
prohibited for benefit, it is not considered an opening or perhaps it is considered an opening that
2
Daf Digest

10
has a lion sitting in front of it that prevents him from climbing the ladder but its status as an
entrance to the second chatzer remains in force. The Gemara’s conclusion is that as long as it is
not a Shabbos prohibition that prevents one from climbing the ladder, it retains its status as an
entrance.

Teshuvas Avnei Nezer used this principle to

address the question of a city that has gates, but the government does not allow the gates to be
closed. Does such a city have the status of a city that has gates that close and could be considered
a private domain or not?

Avnei Nezer maintained that it retains its status as gates that are fit to close. He suggested many
arguments to support his position. One argument is that since it is possible to secure permission to
close the gates for a short period of time, it may still be considered a gate that is fit to close since
any time could be that moment where permission is granted.

Another reason is that if the government decided that they needed to close the gates, they are
certainly authorized to do so and halachically there is no requirement that the gates should be
capable of being closed specifically by Jews.

The last argument he presents is that R’ Yosef recognizes that if there is an entrance guarded by a
lion it is still considered to be an entrance.

Similarly, the gate is capable of being closed at any time. What practically gets in the way of doing
so is the fact that the government does not permit.

This is considered similar to the lion that prevents people from using an entrance and as such it
does not lose its status as a gate that is capable of being closed.

RAMBAM Sefer Mitzvot: Negative Commandments

11
 ,‫ ֵאֶצל‬:‫ֵﬠץ‬-‫ ָכּל‬,‫ ֲאֵשָׁרה‬j‫ִתַטּע ְל‬-‫ כא ל ֹא‬21 Thou shalt not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree
.}‫ָלּ‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר ַתֲּﬠֶשׂה‬--j‫ֶהי‬y‫ִמְזַבּח ְיהָוה ֱא‬ beside the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make
thee.

Deut 16:21

"Do not plant for yourself an Asherah of any tree near the altar of the L-rd thy G-d"

The "Asherah" is a tree that is planted near the house of idol- worship in order to make the area
more beautiful.

We are forbidden to plant trees near the altar of the Temple - the Beit HaMikdash.

The Torah wants our service of HaShem to be holy and special.

It should, in no way, resemble any form of idol-worship.

Because of this, there were no trees planted on the Temple site.

As with the "Matzevah" (Negative Mitzvah 11) and the "kneeling stone" (Negative Mitzvah 12),
so, too, the "Asherah" is not to be used, even if our intention is for the service of HaShem.

These are not allowed because they are connected with idol worship.

Ramban writes:

"You shall not plant you an Ashera" – Any tree planted near the doors of a house of worship
is called an Ashera… Scripture warns that one must not plant a tree next to the altar of
God for ornamental purposes, thinking that it is a show of respect and glory to the altar of
God. It is forbidden because it is the practice of heathens to plant trees at the doors of their

12
 houses of worship. As it is stated: "And throw down the altar of Ba'al… and cut down the
Ashera that is by it" (Shoftim 6:25).

According to the Ramban, an Ashera is an ornamental ritual object that designates the place as a
ritual site. It is forbidden because it was the practice of heathens to plant trees at the doors of their
houses of worship.

Avodah Zara 48b

MISHNA: There are three types of trees that were used as part of idolatrous rites [ashera]: A
tree that one initially planted for the sake of idol worship is forbidden, and one may not derive
benefit from any part of the tree. If one lopped off part of the trunk of a tree or trimmed its
branches for the sake of idol worship, i.e., to worship that which would regrow there, and the
tree’s trunk or limbs regrew, one removes that which has regrown and burn it. The remainder
of the tree is then permitted. If one erected an object of idol worship beneath a tree and
subsequently removed it, it is permitted to derive benefit from the tree.

There are three kinds of Ashera: A tree which was originally planted for idolatry – this is
prohibited. If he lopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and it sprouted afresh, he
removes the new growth. If he only set [an idol] under it and took it away, the tree is
permitted.

What is an Ashera? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. R. Shimon says: Any
[tree] which is worshipped. It happened at Tzidon that there was a tree which was
worshipped and they found a heap of stones beneath it. R. Shimon said to them: Examine
this heap. They examined it and discovered an image in it. He said to them: Since it is the
image that they worship, we permit the tree for you. (Avoda Zara 3:8)

The first two laws in the mishna are accepted by all; the third is subject to dispute. R. Shimon
maintains that only a tree that was itself worshipped is forbidden as an Ashera. If the Ashera itself
was not worshipped, but rather people worship some idolatrous object under it, it is not forbidden.
It is clear that according to all opinions, a tree that was planted for the sake of idolatry is prohibited.

13
Thus, according to the mishna, there are several kinds of forbidden Asherim:

1) A tree that was planted from the outset for the sake of idolatry. Practically speaking, the
tree is similar to a house that was built for the sake of idolatry or a stone that was quarried
for the sake of idolatry. Since an idol was formed, it is immediately forbidden even if it
was never actually worshipped. From a halakhic perspective, the novelty here is that even
though the tree is connected to the ground, and in general something that is connected to
the ground cannot become forbidden since it was in the person's hand when it was planted,
it is treated with respect to the prohibition of idolatry as disconnected from the ground and
therefore forbidden.

2) An idolater who trims and prunes a tree for the sake of idol worship, so that people will
worship the new shoots that will grow from it.

3) If one sets up an idol under a tree, designating that the tree should be used exclusively for
this purpose, deriving benefit from the tree is forbidden, as it is something that is used in
the service of an idol. If he did not designate the tree for this purpose, deriving benefit
from the tree is permitted. If an idol was set up permanently under a tree, the tree is
forbidden by Torah law – according to the Sages, if it was planted from the outset for that
purpose, and according to R. Yose ben R. Yehuda, even if it was not initially planted for
that purpose. R. Shimon maintains that if the tree itself is not worshipped, but rather an
idol is worshipped under the tree, the tree is permitted. If the tree itself is worshipped, it
is included in the prohibition of an Ashera, but if the tree merely serves an idol, it is not
forbidden.

Rav Yitzchak Levy writes:3

The Context of the Command

Three commands connected to the altar are mentioned in the book of Devarim

You shall not plant you an Ashera of any tree near the altar of the Lord your God, which
you shall make you. Neither shall you set you up any pillar, which the Lord your God
hates. You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God any bullock or sheep in which there is
a blemish or anything evil, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Deut 16:21-17:1

3
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lecture-183-you-shall-not-plant-you-ashera-any-tree-near-altar-lord-your-god-which-you-shall-
make

14
The Seforno (ad loc.) relates to the common denominator between these three laws:

"You shall not plant you an Asheraof any tree."

Three similar laws are brought involving things that are fitting according to the senses,
but despised because of their spiritual blemish.

The first is the Ashera, which is an adornment for palaces, but nevertheless is despised for
the Holy, since it is an instrument for idol worship. In similar fashion, we must give
preference to spiritual justice over the perfection of the judge's body, which is tangible and
corporeal.

The second is the pillar (v. 22). Even though it found favor prior to the giving of the Torah,
as it says, "And twelve pillars" (Shemot 24:4) - and this is because the idea was that it is
as if the person bringing the sacrifice was standing continually before the Holy, in the
sense of, "I have set the Lord always before me" (Tehillim 16:8) - they fell from this level
because of the golden calf, as it says, "For I will not go up in the midst of
you" (Shemot 33:3). The same happens with an elder whose youth was not becoming, as
he had a bad reputation when he was younger, when you find an elder whose youth was
becoming.

Third, it brings the matter of a blemish (17:1) that is despised. Even though the animal is
becoming to the senses, and fattened, and worth a thousand zuz, but nevertheless it is
disqualified for the Holy because of a blemish that does not reduce its value. The same is
true of an elder with a despicable character trait, when you find one who is more perfect
than him in his traits, even though he is not as wealthy or handsome as him.

According to the Seforno, there is an essential connection between these three laws – they
emphasize the relationship between something's superficial attractiveness and beauty and its
spiritually flawed essence.

What is Included in the Prohibition?

The Netziv (ad loc.) notes that the verse contains two separate prohibitions:

1) The prohibition of planting an Ashera anywhere.

2) The prohibition of planting a tree next to the altar.

This view follows from what is stated in the Sifre:

"You shall not plant an Asherato you of any tree" – this teaches that one who plants an
Ashera transgresses a negative prohibition. From where do we know that one who

15
 plants a tree on the Temple Mount transgresses a negative prohibition? The verse
states: "Of any tree near the altar of the Lord your God." R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says: From
where do we know that one may not build a portico in the Temple courtyard? The verse
states: "Of any tree near the altar of the Lord your God."

Sifre Devarim, Parashat Shoftim, piska 145 (21)

The Maharal makes a similar comment in his Gur Aryeh commentary (ad loc.):

"You shall not make an Asherato you of any tree."

A warning, etc. As if it were missing a vav, and as if it said: "and any tree near the altar."
In order that you should not mistakenly say that what it means is similar to "You shall not
plant an Asherato you," which means for idol worship, it therefore says, "Any tree near
the altar of the Lord your God," without a vav, as it is not connected to an Ashera, and it
is as if each one were written separately as a prohibition: You shall not plant an Ashera,
you shall not plant any tree, for now they are not the same.

Therefore, Rashi does not explain, "And you shall not plant to you any tree" with a vav, so
that you should not mistakenly say that "any tree" is for idol worship like "you shall not
plant to you an Ashera."

Alternatively, it would have implied that only planting is forbidden, but building is not.
Therefore, it says: "Any tree, etc." That is to say, anything wooden, whether a structure or
a tree, shall not be next to the altar of the Lord your God.

This is more correct, for according to the first explanation, there is a difficulty, for even
were it written, "And any tree near the altar of the Lord your God," we would not have
mistakenly understood that it is for worship, for were it for worship, it should have written,
"Any tree," and not "Ashera." The Rambam explains that that which it says that it is a
warning not to build a structure is merely an asmakhta, for the verse itself comes to teach
about planting, and not building.

16
Susan Ackerman writes:4

Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite
pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess. In mythological texts
from the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 b.c.e.) city-state of Ugarit, she is called “the creatress of
the gods”; her consort at Ugarit, the god El, is called “creator.” El is also referred to as father and

4
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/asherahasherim-bible

17
patriarch at Ugarit, as Asherah, likewise, is called mother. Their children form the pantheon of the
gods, who are said to number seventy; a Hittite myth similarly mentions the seventy-seven and
eighty-eight children of Asherah. On occasion in Ugaritic myth, Asherah performs the maternal
role of wet nurse. Ugaritic and other Canaanite materials further associate Asherah with lions
(indicating power), serpents (representing immortality or healing), and sacred trees (signifying
fertility). Thus Asherah’s children at Ugarit can be called her “pride of lions”; the goddess is called
“lady of the serpent” in second-millennium b.c.e. inscriptions from the Sinai; the late-thirteenth-
century BCE Lachish ewer dedicated to Asherah is decorated with images of sacred trees.

The Canaanite association of Asherah with sacred trees is also found in Israelite tradition. For
example, one of the Canaanite epithets of Asherah, elat, “goddess,” is etymologically identical to
the Hebrew word for the terebinth tree (ela). Another word for “terebinth” (alla) and two words
for “oak” (elon and allon) are also closely related. Gen 2:4b–3:24 may further suggest the
association of Asherah with sacred trees, since the way that Eve, “the mother of all living” (3:20),
is described in the Eden story mimics in certain respects the role of the Canaanite mother goddess
Asherah. If a correspondence holds, then the trees of life and of knowledge in the Eden narrative
may also reflect Asherah imagery.

Most significant, though, in demonstrating Israel’s association of Asherah with sacred trees are
biblical materials that describe the asherah (singular) or asherim (plural), the cult object(s) that
are associated with the goddess Asherah more than thirty times in the Hebrew Bible. These cult
objects are generally described as being in the shape of a pole or stylized tree. Like a pole or tree,
they can be said to be planted, stood up, or erected. Conversely, when destroyed, these cult symbols
can be described as being cut down, hewn down, or uprooted; they can also be said to be burned,
overturned, or broken. Both the Greek and Latin translations of the Bible, moreover, render the
words asherah and asherim as “grove” or “wood.”

According to the biblical record, these sacred poles or stylized trees associated with Asherah were
erected by the Israelites throughout most of their history, especially during the premonarchic
(tribal) period (Judg 6:25–26, 28, 30)) and during the period of the divided monarchy, both in the
northern kingdom of Israel (1Kgs 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kgs 13:6; 17:10, 16; 23:15; and parallel
references in 2 Chronicles) and in Judah, in the south (1 Kgs 14:23, 15:13; 2 Kgs 18:4; 21:3, 7;
23:6, 14; and parallel references in 2 Chronicles). These sacred poles were situated in various
locations. In Judges 6, a sacred pole of Asherah is said to have stood beside the altar of the
Canaanite storm god, Baal. The Bible also connects sacred poles with the “high places” (open-air
cult sites?) and frequently mentions that they stood “on every high hill and under every green tree”
(1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:10; 18:4; 21:3; 23:13–14; 2 Chr 14:3; 17:6; 31:1; 33:3, 19; 34:3; Jer 17:2).
Both of these phrases are stereotypically used by the biblical writers to describe sites of idolatrous

18
worship, implying, as does Judges 6, that the worship of Asherah was an apostate behavior in Israel
and improper for followers of YKVK.

Yet despite these and other references associating Asherah with apostasy (for example, Exod
34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; Judg 3:7; 1 Kgs 18:19), and despite the fact that the Israelites are explicitly
forbidden in Deut 16:21 to erect one of Asherah’s sacred poles beside an altar of YKVK, there are
multiple indications in biblical tradition that many in ancient Israel did regard Asherah’s cult icon
as an appropriate sacred symbol within the religion of YKVK. For example, one of Asherah’s
sacred poles stood next to YKVK’s altar at Bethel, one of the two great cult sites of the northern
kingdom of Israel (2 Kgs 23:15). Another of Asherah’s sacred poles stood in that kingdom’s capital
city, Samaria. The sacred pole of Samaria, moreover, which was erected during the reign of King
Ahab (reigned 873–852 b.c.e.), was allowed to remain standing by the reformer King Jehu (1 Kgs
16:33; 2 Kgs 13:6), even though Jehu was generally at pains to remove all non-Yahwistic cults
and cult imagery from the land. This fact suggests that Jehu perceived the sacred pole as
appropriate in the worship of YKVK.

Archaeological discoveries from the late 1970s and early 1980s have further indicated that, at least
in the opinion of some ancient Israelites, YKVK and Asherah were appropriately worshipped as a
pair. From the site of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, in the eastern Sinai, come three ninth- or eighth-
century b.c.e. inscriptions that mention YKVK and “his Asherah” (meaning YKVK’s companion
[consort?], the goddess Asherah) or “his asherah” (meaning YKVK’s sacred pole that represents
the goddess Asherah and that sits in his temple or beside his altar). An eighth-century b.c.e.
inscription from Khirbet el-Qom, about twenty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem, contains similar
language in 1 Kgs 15:13 and 2 Kgs 18:4, 21:7, and 23:6 (with parallels in 2 Chronicles) indicate
that at least during certain points in the ninth, eighth, and seventh centuries b.c.e., Asherah’s sacred
pole was perceived as an appropriate icon to erect in Jerusalem, even in YKVK’s temple. Also,
vessels in the temple were used to make sacrifices to Asherah (2 Kgs 23:4), and in a compound
within the temple’s walls, women cult functionaries wove garments used to clothe Asherah’s cult
statue (2 Kgs 23:7). Thus it appears that, although generally the biblical writers—especially certain
prophets (Isa 17:8; 27:9; Jer 17:2; Mic 5:14) and the authors responsible for Deuteronomy, Judges,
1 and 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles—regarded Asherah worship as inappropriate, at least some and
possibly many in ancient Israel incorporated the goddess’s cult imagery and ritual into the cult
of YKVK.

Unfortunately, our sources do not provide enough information to identify definitively which
Israelites were particularly attracted to the worship of Asherah or the reasons for this attraction.
One possibility is that in royal circles, especially in the southern capital city of Jerusalem, the cult
of Asherah was particularly attractive to the king’s mother. Not only was the queen mother’s
position in the palace generally paralleled by Asherah’s position as mother goddess in the heavens,

19
but also the queen mother’s status as the wife of the king’s father suggests an affinity to Asherah’s
cult. This is because southern royal ideology typically described the king’s metaphorical father
as YKVK. For those ancient Israelites who saw Asherah as YKVK’s consort, this should suggest
a correspondence between the queen mother, the wife of the king’s biological father on earth, and
Asherah, the wife of YKVK, who was the king’s metaphorical father in the heavens.

Whether women, more generally, were more likely to be devotees of Asherah’s cult is unknown.
There is some biblical evidence that does see women as particularly attracted to goddess cults (for
example, women’s role in the cult of the queen of heaven, according to Jer 7:18 and 44:17–19,
25), and the various female figurines found in domestic contexts at multiple Israelite sites might
also suggest this, assuming, as many scholars do, that women played an especially important role
in family-centered religious activities. Nevertheless, the presence of Asherah’s cult in the
Jerusalem temple and in the cult city of Bethel indicates that worship of the goddess was also
appealing to men, given that it was an all-male clergy that officiated at these (and at every) Israelite
religious site.

The presence of Asherah’s cult in Israel also raises questions about the nature of the monotheistic
confession that is often assumed to be a core principle in Israelite faith. Generally speaking,
biblical scholars assume that full-blown, radical, or philosophical monotheism came to Israel fairly
late in its history, during the time of the exile in the sixth century BCE. Prior to this, we have
abundant evidence that other gods and goddesses were worshipped in Israel in addition to (or
sometimes instead of) YKVK. Yet even in these earlier materials, we sometimes see evidence of
a phenomenon that comes to dominate in the exilic period: the impulse to assimilate the attributes
of the many gods and goddesses of older polytheistic systems to the one god, YKVK. Language
that speaks of God as mother, for example (as in Deut 32:18; Num 11:12–13; Isa 45:9–10, 49:15;
66:13), probably represents the assimilation of Asherah’s maternal characteristics to YKVK.

20
21
Ellen White writes:5

Who is Asherah? Or, perhaps, what is asherah? The Hebrew means “happy” or “upright” and some
suggest “(sacred) place.”

The term appears 40 times in the Hebrew Bible, usually in conjunction with the definite article
“the.” The definite article in Hebrew is similar to English in that personal names do not take an
article. For example, I am Ellen, not the Ellen. Thus, it is clear that when the definite article is
present that it is not a personal name, but this does not eliminate the possibility of it being a
category of being (i.e., a type of goddess). There are only eight cases where the term appears
without an article or a suffix—suffixes in Hebrew can be used to express possession, e.g., “his,”
“their,” etc. Interestingly, the plural of the term, asherim, occurs in both masculine and feminine
forms.

This diversity of grammar leads to the two questions at the beginning of this article: Who is
Asherah? What is asherah? The reference may be to a particular goddess, a class of goddess or a
cult symbol used to represent the goddess. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish what meaning is
intended (cf. Judges 3:7).

This goddess is known from several other Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Sometimes she is known
as “Lady Asherah of the Sea” but could be taken as “She who walks on the sea.” As Athirat, a
cognate name for Asherah, she is mother of 70 children (this relates to the Jewish idea of the 70
guardian angels of the nations). Arguments have been made that Asherah is a figure in Egyptian,
Hittite, Philistine and Arabic texts. Egyptian representations of “Qudshu” (potentially the Egyptian
name for Asherah) show her naked with snakes and flowers, sometimes standing on a lion.
Whether this should be interpreted as Asherah is contested and thus should be viewed with caution.
Another suggestion is Asherah is also the Hittite goddess Asertu, who is married to Elkunirsa, the
storm god (she is often viewed in connection with the regional storm god).

As Athirat in Arabian inscriptions there is a possibility that she is seen as a sun goddess (this is
perhaps a connection in Ugaritic literature as well). In Phoenician, she is the mother goddess,
which is different from Astarte, the fertility goddess; there is some debate regarding a confusion
of the two relating to 1 Kings 18:19. In Akkadian, she might be Asratum, the consort of Amurru
(chief deity of early Babylon). The connection is made because the Akkadian kingship (early 14th
century B.C.E.) takes the title “servant of Asherah.”

The Ugaritic texts provide the most insight into the goddess. Ras Shamra (located on the Syrian
coast) texts, discovered in 1929, portray her as Athirat, the wife of El. Their sexual encounter
produces dusk (Shalim) and dawn (Shahar), among others. Her relationship with Baal is
complicated, and it is suggested that Baal has killed large numbers of her children.3 In these
texts, she intercedes with El to get Baal a palace, after Anat’s (his “sister” and her “daughter”)
request is refused. She supplies a son to reign after Baal descends into the netherworld. The
relationship is further complicated by debates as to whether she is the mother of Baal or his

5
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/asherah-and-the-asherim-goddess-or-cult-symbol/

22
consort or both. The idea of her being a consort comes from later Phoenician sources, where
scholars have associated Asherah with Tinnit. Yet, the connections are tentative, and many
scholars question the association. A hypothesis also suggests that Baal usurped El’s position
and also took his consort, Asherah, which would make the relationship very oedipal.

This inscription found on a pithos at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (similar to an

inscription found at Khirbet el-Qom) refers to “YKVK and his Asherah.”6

Asherah or asherim refer to more than just the person of the deity. These terms are often, especially
in the Biblical texts, used for consecrated poles. These poles represent living trees, with which the
goddess is associated. Some scholars believe that asherim were not poles, but living trees (like the
one depicted on the Tanaach Cult Stand).

The poles were either carved to look like trees or to resemble the goddess (this could also be
reflected in the numerous pillar figurines found throughout Israel). Remains of these poles are
determined by postholes and rotted timber, which resulted in differently hued soil. There is great
debate as to whether the cult symbol lost its ties to Asherah (and became a religious symbol on its
6
This has led some scholars to believe that in popular religion Asherah was understood to be the wife of YKVK, much the same
as she under her cognate Athirat was considered to be the wife of El. Photo: Courtesy Dr. Ze’ev Meshel and Avraham Hai/Tel Aviv
University Institute of Archaeology.

23
own without the worshippers knowing anything about the goddess who originated it) or is seen as
a representation of Asherah herself (similar to the way the cross is a representation of Jesus to
Christians).

The relationship between Asherah and Israel is a complicated one. Does the text refer to the
goddess or her symbol?5 Jeroboam and Rehoboam fostered Asherah worship (1 Kings 14:15, 23).
Worship of Asherah was highly encouraged by Jezebel, with the presence of 400 prophets who
held a place in the court of her husband King Ahab (1 Kings 18:19). Worship of Asherah is given
as a reason for deportation (2 Kings 17:10,16). Attempts to eradicate the worship were made
by Asa, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Gideon (Exodus 34:13-14; Deuteronomy 7:5;
Judges 6:25-30; 1 Kings 15:13/2 Chronicles 15:16; 2 Kings 23:4,7/2 Chronicles 34:3,7; 2 Kings
21:7/2 Chronicles 33:3,19; 2 Chronicles 19:3; 2 Kings 18:4).

However, devotion to the cult symbol remained (Isaiah 27:9; Jeremiah 17:1; Micah 5:14). It is
particularly interesting that objections to Asherah are found mostly in Deuteronomistic literature,
rather than in the prophets. In both cases, the authors are much more concerned about the worship
of Baal rather than Asherah.

More than four decades after its excavation wound down, a small hill in the Sinai Desert continues
to bedevil archaeologists. The extraordinary discoveries made at Kuntillet Ajrud, an otherwise
nondescript slope in the northern Sinai, seem to undermine one of the foundations of Judaism as
we know it.

Kuntillet Ajrud got its name, meaning “the isolated hill of the water sources,” from wells at the
foot of the hill. It is a remote spot in the heart of the desert, far from any town or trade route. But
for a short time around 3,000 years ago, it served as a small way station.

Dozens of drawings and inscriptions, resembling nothing whatever found anywhere else in our
region, survived from that period, which seems to have lasted no longer than two or three decades.

Egypt gained the artifacts with the peace treaty with Israel 25 years ago, but the release of the
report on the excavation six years ago and a book about the site two years ago have kept the
argument over the exceptional findings from the hill in Sinai alive.

24
 Kuntillet Ajrud

The hill lies 50 kilometers south of Kadesh Barnea and 15 kilometers west of the ancient
Darb el-Ghazza route, which led from Gaza to the Read Sea’s Gulf of Eilat.

Its unique qualities were first noticed in 1870 by the British explorer Edward Palmer who
discovered a fragment of a clay jar, a pithos, marked with the Hebrew letter aleph.

25
 Kuntillet Ajrud.

Later, in 1902, a Czech orientalist and explorer, Alois Musil, was attacked by local Bedouins
who claimed that he was defiling a holy site. Exploration would only resume in 1975, by the
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze’ev Meshel, as part of a collaboration between the
university and the Israel Exploration Society.

The excavation showed that Kuntillat Ajrud was what’s called a “single-layer site,” meaning,
it had been occupied for just one period, which the excavators dated to the late ninth century
or early eighth century B.C.E.

Meshel estimated that it had been occupied very briefy, 25 years at most. Structure-wise, the
excavators only found two fairly simple, unimpressive structures. The wonder lay in the
drawings and inscriptions.

26
This apparent lack of concern might be due to a popular connection between YKVK and his
Asherah. Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (on a pithos; see image above) and Khirbet el-Qom
(on walls) contain the phrase “YKVK and his Asherah.”

This has led others to believe it is a reference to the cult symbol. A more obscure opinion claims
it means a cella or chapel; this meaning is found in other Semitic languages, but not Hebrew.
Because of the similarities between El and YKVK, it is understandable that Asherah could have
been linked to YKVK.

This popular connection between YKVK and Asherah, and the eventual purging of Asherah from
the Israelite cult, is likely a reflection of the emergence of monotheism from the Israelites’ previous
polytheistic worldview.7

7
Ellen White, Ph.D. (Hebrew Bible, University of St. Michael’s College), formerly the senior editor at the Biblical Archaeology
Society, has taught at five universities across the U.S. and Canada and spent research leaves in Germany and Romania. She has
also been actively involved in digs at various sites in Israel.

27
 An Egyptian example of the common “trinity” of sacred tree-goddess-serpent
also appearing in the Eden story8

A Mythic View of Sacred Literature

Arthur George writes:9

Hebrew Bible scholars have long recognized that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden
and much other narrative in the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible (called the Pentateuch, or Torah)
had a distinctly anti-Canaanite agenda, and that his anti-Canaanite polemic started in the Eden
story. Focusing on this helps us to decipher the meaning of that story.

This narrative most clearly set out its anti-Canaanite views at the beginning of his version of the
Ten Commandments, in Exodus 34:12-15, where YKVK warns the Hebrews against associating
with the Canaanites, intermarrying with them, and worshipping their deities; YKVK also orders
the Hebrews to tear down Canaanite altars, pillars, and asherahs (wooden poles (stylized trees) in
sanctuaries that were the cult object of their goddess Asherah (in Hebrew pronounced ah-shei-
RAH) and symbolized her). Against this background, the anti-Canaanite polemic in the Eden story
becomes apparent, especially that against the goddess Asherah, who at the time was widely viewed

8
Here Nut as tree goddess nourishes the deceased and the deceased’s ba. The serpent is in its common guardian role, in an erect
posture. From Nils Billing, Nut: The Goddess of Life in Text and Iconography
9
https://mythologymatters.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/YKVKs-divorce-from-the-goddess-asherah-in-the-garden-of-eden/

28
by Israelites as YKVK’s wife or consort. As official Israelite religion trended toward monotheism,
the other local deities had to be eliminated (Asherah in particular), and YKVK appropriated their
powers and functions.

Before the rise of Israel, Asherah was the wife of El, the head god of the Canaanite pantheon.
According to the archeological evidence, the people who became Israelites were mostly native
Canaanites who settled in the hills of what is now the West Bank, while it seems that small but
influential groups also migrated there from the south in the Midian (in and around the Araba
Valley in Sinai). As the Bible itself testifies, that is where YKVK veneration appears to have
originated, and, in a process that in this respect resonates with the Moses story, the migrants
introduced YKVK to the native Canaanites who were becoming Israelites. Over time, El declined
and merged into YKVK. As part of that process, YKVK inherited Asherah from El as his wife.

The Hebrew Bible refers to Asherah directly or indirectly some 40 times, always in negative terms
(so she must have been a challenge). Most references are indirect, to the asherah poles that
symbolized her, but a number of them clearly enough refer directly to the goddess Asherah (e.g.,
Judges 3:7; 1 Kings 15:13; 1 Kings 18:19; 2 Kings 21:7; 2 Kings 23:4-7; 2 Chron. 15:16).
Evidently, she was part of traditional official Israelite religion, for an asherah pole even stood in
front of Solomon’s Temple for most of its existence, as well as in YKVK’s sanctuary in Samaria.
There is also much extra-biblical evidence of Asherah in Israel from the time of the judges right
through monarchical times, including in paintings/drawings, pendants, plaques, pottery, (possibly)
clay “pillar” figurines, cult stands, and in inscriptions. Several inscriptions specifically refer to
“YKVK and his Asherah [or asherah].” 10

The biblical narrator could not accept the presence of this goddess as a deity in Israel, much less
as the wife of YKVK, who they specifically depicted in non-sexual terms. So, they declared war
on her, in part by mentioning her existence sparingly in the Bible, by referring to her and asherahs
negatively when they did mention her, and by waging a polemic against her by allusions that would
have been clear to the Yahwist’s audience. These tactics are apparent in the Eden story, from the
kinds of symbols used and the trajectory of the narrative.

These symbols include the garden sanctuary itself, the sacred trees, the serpent, and Eve, herself a
goddess figure. In ancient Near Eastern myth and iconography, sacred trees, goddesses, and
serpents often form a kind of “trinity,” because they have substantially overlapping and
interchangeable symbolism and are often depicted together. Let’s examine each of these symbols
briefly.

The Garden.

Originally in the ancient Near East, the Goddess was associated with and had jurisdiction over
vegetation and life, which she generated herself. People partook of the first crops (including fruit)
as her bounty – indeed her body and her divinity – and set up her sanctuary with garden of crops
for this purpose. Such a sacred garden sanctuary was “estate” over which she exercised

10
It is not entirely certain whether the goddess herself or the asherah pole symbolizing her is being referenced here, but either
way ultimately the goddess is meant, and she is being linked with YKVK.

29
jurisdiction.11 In the Eden story, YKVK’s both creating the garden (i.e., life) and being in charge
of it can be viewed as part of this process: There the Goddess (here Asherah) was eliminated from
the garden sanctuary and from her functions there.

Sacred trees

These were thought to connect with the divine realms of both the netherworld and the heavens,
and therefore were considered conduits for communicating with and experiencing the divine and
themselves are charged with the divine force (thought of as “serpent power”; see below). In
harmony with the seasons, trees embody the life energy and symbolize the generation, regeneration
and renewal of life. Therefore, they are associated with the source of life, the Earth/Mother
Goddess. Accordingly, sacred trees were venerated in Palestine in sacred sanctuaries known as
“high places,” as means of accessing and experiencing divinity, principally the goddess Asherah.
(Similarly, the divinity of the male deity was accessed through vertical stone pillars, e.g., the one
set up by Jacob at Bethel.)

In the Eden story, the two sacred trees of knowledge of good and evil and of life allude to this
traditional role of sacred trees, but the meaning is turned upside down. In the story, YKVK even
creates the trees. In ordering Adam not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, by
implication YKVK was telling the audience not to venerate sacred trees in the traditional fashion.
And in any event, the theretofore divine knowledge of good and evil that was acquired through
eating the fruit is linked with YKVK, not any goddess. And at the end of the story the tree of life
is clearly designated as YKVK’s, being guarded by his trademark symbols, the paired cherubim.

The Goddess.

As noted by numerous biblical scholars, the Goddess is also seen in the figure of Eve herself, the
last figure in our trinity of tree-serpent-Goddess. In the Eden story she is given the epithet “the
mother of all living,” an epithet like those given to various ancient near Eastern goddesses
including Siduri, Ninti, and Mami in Mesopotamia and Asherah in Syria-Palestine.

Eve’s actual name in Hebrew (ḥawwâ), besides meaning life12. The name of the goddess Tannit
(the Phoenician version of Asherah) means “serpent lady,” and she had the epithet “Lady Ḥawat”
(meaning “Lady of Life”), which is derived from the same Canaanite word as Eve’s
name (ḥawwâ). At the end of the story, Eve is punished by having to give birth in pain, whereas
goddesses in the ancient Near East gave birth painlessly.

Further, in Genesis 4:1, Eve needs YKVK’s help in order to become fertile and conceive, a reversal
of the Goddess’ power and function. (Indeed, Eve is even created from Adam!) Adam’s only fault
was “listening” to Eve in order to attain divine qualities. Here the Yahwist may be alluding to
Goddess veneration, saying not to worship her. This seems to be one reason for the punishment
consisting of woman’s subjugation to man in Genesis 3:16.

11
Examples include Siduri’s vineyard with a sacred tree in the Gilgamesh epic, Inanna’s garden precinct with sacred tree in
Sumer, Calypso’s vineyard sanctuary in Homer’s Odyssey, and Hera’s Garden of the Hesperides. Garden sanctuaries of gods and
kings evolved later, when religion became more patriarchal, sky gods came to dominate, and goddesses were substantially
devalued.
12
for which goddesses were traditionally responsible, is also likely wordplay on an old Canaanite word for serpent (ḥeva)

30
As a result of these events, by the end of the story YKVK is supreme and in control of all divine
powers and functions formerly in the hands of the Goddess, and Canaanite religion in general has
been discredited. YKVK is in charge of the garden (formerly the Goddess’ province), from which
chaos has been removed. Sacred tree veneration has been prohibited and discredited, while YKVK
appropriates and identifies himself with the Tree of Life (see also Hosea 14:8, where YKVK
claims, “I am like an evergreen cypress, from me comes your fruit.”).

The serpent has been vanquished, flattened, and deprived of divine qualities, and thus is not worthy
of veneration, and enmity has been established between snakes and humans. The Goddess has
been discredited, rendered powerless, and is eliminated from the picture and sent into oblivion.
YKVK’s divorce from her has been made final, at least in the author’s mind.

31