Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Aleph, Part 5
Introduction
In today s section, R. Yohanan, who holds that pieces of idols that broke on their own are prohibited, raises difficulties on Resh Lakish, who holds that they are permitted.
איתיביה ר’ יוחנן לרשב"ל (שמואל א ה, ד) וראש דגון ושתי כפות ידיו כרותות וגו’ וכתיב (שמואל א ה, ה) על כן לא ידרכו כהני דגון וגו’
אמר לו משם ראיה התם שמניחין את הדגון ועובדין את המפתן דאמרי הכי שבקיה איסריה לדגון ואתא איתיב ליה על המפתן
R. Yohanan raised a difficulty against R. Shimon b. Lakish: And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut off . . . Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon’s house, tread etc. (I Samuel 5:4).
He replied to him: From there you bring proof? In that passage [we learn] that they abandoned Dagon and worshipped the threshold, saying, the divinity left Dagon and went and settled itself upon the threshold.
In I Samuel 5, after the Philistines seize the ark and leave it overnight in their Temple, God takes vengeance on the Dagon idol, and knocks it over, breaking its head and hands. But the priests still refuse to enter into Dagon s house. This proves to R. Yohanan that they still accord power to the broken pieces of the Dagon idol.
But Resh Lakish responds that the priests do not enter the sanctuary not because of the broken pieces of idol, but because they believe that the divinity of the idol has gone into the threshold itself. The broken pieces of idols are not divine in the idolater s eyes. But the spirit of the idol has moved elsewhere.
איתיביה המוצא שברי צלמים הרי אלו מותרין הא שברי עבודת כוכבים אסורין
לא תימא שברי עבודת כוכבים אסורין אלא אימא הא צלמים עצמן אסורין וסתמא כר’ מאיר
[R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty against him: if one finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted, implying that fragments of idols are prohibited!
[Resh Lakish replied:] Do not say that fragments of idols are prohibited, but rather say that the images themselves [when whole] are forbidden, and the anonymous statement in the Mishnah is the view of R. Meir.
The mishnah allowed Jews to use fragments of images. From here, R. Yohanan deduced that fragments of idols are prohibited.
But Resh Lakish would say that you could read the mishnah in another way. Fragments of images are prohibited. But whole images are prohibited, in accordance with R. Meir of the first mishnah of the chapter. Thus the mishnah would not imply that fragments of idols are prohibited.
ורבי יוחנן מדר"מ נשמע להו לרבנן לאו אמר ר’ מאיר צלמים אסורין שברי צלמים מותרין לרבנן עבודת כוכבים נמי היא אסורה ושבריה מותרין
Now as to R. Yohanan, from the view of R. Meir we can infer the opinion of the Rabbis: Did not R. Meir say that images are prohibited but the fragments of images are permitted? Thus to the Rabbis, while an idol itself is prohibited, its fragments should be permitted.
This section is a difficulty on R. Yohanan. R. Meir holds that images are prohibited, but fragments therefrom are permitted. If we apply the same logic to the opinion of the rabbis we would have to say that idols are prohibited, but fragments therefrom are permitted.
הכי השתא התם אימר עבדום אימר לא עבדום ואת"ל עבדום אימר בטלום עבודת כוכבים ודאי עבדוה מי יימר דבטלה הוי ספק וודאי ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי
But is the analogy correct? There [in the case of images] they were perhaps worshipped or perhaps not; and even if you assume that they had been worshipped, perhaps they had been annulled. But in the case of an idol, it has certainly been worshipped; and who can say whether it has been annulled? Consequently there is a doubt and a certainty, and a doubt cannot set aside a certainty.
R. Yohanan says that the analogy is not correct. Images may not have been worshipped, and when they broke, they may have been annulled. Thus there are two doubts and in cases of a double doubt, we can rule leniently. But in the case of a broken piece of an idol, it may not have been annulled. There is only one doubt, and one doubt is not sufficient to remove from the certainty that the idol was worshipped.