Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Vav, Part 3
Introduction
Yesterday we learned that there is a dispute whether boulders that have become separate from a mountain are prohibited when worshipped. Today the Talmud tries to determine who holds what opinion. To do so they compare it to a situation where someone erected an egg in order to worship it.
תסתיים דבני ר’ חייא דשרו דבעי חזקיה זקף ביצה להשתחוות לה מהו? קא סלקא דעתך להשתחוות לה והשתחוה לה וקא מיבעיא ליה האי זקיפתה אי הוי מעשה אי לא הוי מעשה אבל לא זקף לא מיתסרא ש"מ בני ר’ חייא דשרו
It can be proven that it was the sons of R. Hiyya who permit their use; because Hizkiyah asked: What is the rule if one set up an egg to worship it? You should [currently] understand that he had the intention of worshipping it and did worship it; and the point of [Hizkiyah’s] question is whether the setting up of the egg is to be considered an action or not.
But if he had not set it up, it is not prohibited.
Conclude from that that it was the sons of R. Hiyya who permitted [the use of the boulders]!
Hizkiyah is one of R. Hiyya s sons. He asks a question concerning a person who set up an egg to worship it. The question is whether the setting up of the egg in an upright position is an integral part of his action in order for it to be prohibited. At first we think it is and that for a natural object like an egg to become prohibited it must first have had some manual labor performed with it. Hizkiyah s question was whether setting up the egg counts as manual labor. Clearly if he had not erected it, it would not be prohibited.
By implication, Hizkiyah would say that boulders that became separate on their own from the mountain are permitted because no manual labor has been performed.
לא לעולם אימא לך בני רבי חייא דאסרי דהשתחוה לה אע"ג דלא זקפה אסורה והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שזקף ביצה להשתחוות לה ולא השתחוה לה
No; I can always say that it was the sons of R. Hiyya who prohibited their use, and that if the man worshipped [the egg], even though he had not set it up, it would be prohibited. And what are we dealing with here [in Hizkiyah s question]? With a case where he set up an egg to worship but did not worship it.
The Talmud changes the assumption as to what Hizkiyah was asking. Hizkiyah would hold that if the person worshipped the egg it is forbidden even if he did not perform any labor with it. The circumstance was one in which he did not worship the egg. The question is whether the very act of setting it up makes it prohibited.
ולמאן אי למאן דאמר עבודת כוכבים של ישראל אסורה מיד אסורה אי למאן דאמר עד שתיעבד הא לא פלחה
Now according to whom [is this question asked]? If according to him who says that the idolatrous object of an Israelite is prohibited immediately, then it is prohibited; if according to him who says [that such an object is not prohibited] until it has been actually worshipped, behold the man has not worshipped it!
There is a dispute over whether an idol made by an Israelite becomes prohibited immediately or only after it has been worshipped. But for either party, Hizkiyah s question should be obvious. If it becomes prohibited immediately, then setting it up should make it prohibited. If it does not become prohibited until it is worshipped then there is no question that the egg is permitted. So, Hizkiyah, what are you asking about?
לא צריכא כגון שזקף ביצה להשתחוות לה ולא השתחוה לה ובא עובד כוכבים והשתחוה לה כי הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ישראל שזקף לבינה להשתחוות לה ובא עובד כוכבים והשתחוה לה אסורה וקא מיבעיא ליה לבינה הוא דמינכרא זקיפתה אבל ביצה לא או דלמא לא שנא תיקו:
No; it is necessary [to ask the question in the following case]: If he set up an egg to worship but did not do so, and an idolater came and worshipped it: and [his question was whether] this is like that which R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: If an Israelite set up a brick to worship [but did not do so] and an idolater came and worshipped it, it is prohibited. And [Hizkiyah] asked the question: A brick [is prohibited] because its erection is noticeable, but an egg s is not; or perhaps there is no difference? The question remains unanswered.
The case that Hizkiyah asked is similar to the case of the brick that was discussed by R. Judah. A Jew set up a brick to worship it but a non-Jew worshipped it. This is sufficient for it to be prohibited. Even though the non-Jew does not own the brick, since the Jew set it up to be worshipped, the non-Jew s worship of it causes it to be considered an idol. This is certainly true of a brick which is noticeable when set-up. The Jew demonstratively showed that he wanted the brick to be worshipped. But when it comes to the egg, setting it up is not so noticeable, so maybe it does not become prohibited when the non-Jew worships it.
Hizkiyah s question is not answered.
For the record, I thought about changing this translation, but decided not to.