Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Zayin, Part 6
מתני׳ שלש אבנים הן אבן שחצבה מתחלה לבימוס הרי זו אסורה סיידה וכיידה לשם עבודת כוכבים נוטל מה שסייד וכייד ומותרת העמיד עליה עבודת כוכבים וסילקה הרי זו מותרת:
There are three kinds of [idolatrous] stones:
A stone which a man hewed originally to serve as a pedestal [for an idol] behold this is prohibited.
If one plastered and tiled [a stone] for idolatry, one may remove the plaster and tile, and it is then permitted.
If he set an idol upon it and took it off, behold [the stone] is permitted.
גמ׳ א"ר אמי והוא שסייד וכייד בגופה של אבן
GEMARA. R. Ami said: [It is only prohibited] if he plastered or tiled in the stone itself.
R. Ami refers to the second clause in the mishnah. For it to become prohibited he must plaster or cement inside the stone itself, not merely on its outside. It seems that what he is trying to say is that for something to be considered an idol, it must be an idol on the inside. Almost the same way we treat human beings our identity is formed more by our inside, than by our external features.
והא דומיא דבית תנן ובית לאו בגופיה הוא ומיתסר
בית נמי איכא ביני אורבי
מי לא עסקינן דשייע והדר שייעיה
But it was taught as analogous to a house; and in the case of a house [the plastering] was not inserted into the material and yet it is prohibited!
Also with the house there is [plastering] in between the bricks.
[Since, however, the Mishnah does not mention this,] may we not be dealing with a case where he plastered [a house not for idolatry] and then plastered it again [for idolatry]?
The Talmud raises a difficulty on R. Ami. In the mishnah, stones seem to be analogous with the house. Since when it comes to the house, the plastering was on the outside and yet it was prohibited, so too when it comes to the stones. Even though the plastering is on the outside, the stones should be prohibited.
The solution is that when it comes to the house, there is plastering on the inside too, between the bricks.
The problem with this solution is that the Mishnah might be dealing with a case where the house was first plastered to be a regular house, and then was again plastered for it to be an idolatrous shrine. Such a house would be prohibited even though the plastering was on the outside.
אלא כי אתמר דרבי אמי לענין ביטול אתמר ואע"ג דסייד וכייד בגופה של אבן כי נטל מה שחידש שפיר דמי דמהו דתימא כיון שסייד וכייד בגופה של אבן כאבן שחצבה מתחלה לעבודת כוכבים דמיא ותיתסר כולה קמ"ל:
Rather R. Ami was referring to annulment, and although he plastered and tiled in the stone itself, if he removes the renovation, it is all right. For what might you have said? Since he plastered and tiled in the material of the stone, it is analogous to a stone which had been originally hewn for idolatry and the whole of it is prohibited. Therefore he teaches us [that it is not so].
R. Ami was not referring to the forming of the stone but to its annulment. What he said was that even if the person had put the plaster or tile in the stone, if he removes it the stone goes back to being permitted (it is annulled). We might have thought that since the plaster was in the stone, it was like making the stone for idolatrous purposes, so R. Ami teaches us that it is not.