Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Bet, Part 1

 

Introduction

This week s daf continues with the dispute between Resh Lakish and R. Yohanan over fragments of idols that broke on their own.

 

איתיביה עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל חברו וישראל אינו מבטל עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים

אמאי תיהוי כעבודת כוכבים שנשתברה מאליה?

 

[R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty against [Resh Lakish]: An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but an Israelite cannot annul the idol of an idolater.

But why not? Let it be considered the same as an idol which was broken of its own accord!

 

According to the mishnah, an Israelite cannot annul an idol belonging to an idolater. But why should these fragments not be permitted if he breaks them? Why not consider this to be like an idol that broke on its own? This proves, to R. Yohanan, that an idol that broke on its own is not permitted.

 

אמר אביי שפחסה

וכי פחסה מאי הוי והא תנן פחסה אע"פ שלא חסרה בטלה

הני מילי דפחסה עובד כוכבים אבל פחסה ישראל לא בטלה

 

Abaye said: [The Mishnah refers to a case] where he only defaced the idol.

But if he only defaced it, so what? Have we not taught: If he defaced it, although he did not cause it to be missing anything, it is still annulled!

This rule only applies when an idolater defaced it in this manner, but if an Israelite did so it is not annulled.

 

Abaye tries to resolve the difficulty by saying that the Israelite only defaced the idol, he did not actually smash it.

The problem with his resolution is that there is a mishnah that says that defacing an idol is sufficient to annul it.

The Talmud answers that if an idolater defaces it, it is annulled. But if an Israelite defaces it, it is not annulled. However, if an Israelite smashes the idol, then it is annulled, just as it would be if it broke on its own.

 

ורבא אמר לעולם כי פחסה ישראל נמי בטלה אלא גזרה דלמא מגבה לה והדר מבטיל לה והוי עבודת כוכבים ביד ישראל וכל עבודת כוכבים ביד ישראל אינה בטלה לעולם

 

Rava said: In reality when an Israelite only defaces it, it is also annulled;

But they prohibited this lest he lift it up and then annul it. In that event it would be an idol in the possession of an Israelite, and an idol which is in the possession of an Israelite can never be annulled.

 

According to Rava, theoretically an Israelite can annul the idol by defacing it. However, the rabbis did not allow this lest when he picks the idol up, it comes into his possession. An idol owned by a Jew can never be annulled.

Rava is really only arguing with Abaye. As far as our larger argument goes, both Abaye and Rava agree that if a Jew were to smash the idol of a non-Jew, it would be annulled. So too, according to Resh Lakish, if the idol broke on its own.

 

איתיביה עכו"ם שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וטרטיאות מותרות וישראל שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וטרטיאות אסורות

אמאי תיהוי כעבודת כוכבים שנשתברה מאליה

הכא נמי כדרבא

 

[R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty again [Resh Lakish]: If an idolater brought stones from [the statue of] Mercury and used them for paving roads or theatres, they are permitted [to be walked on by an Israelite]; but if an Israelite brought stones from [the statue of] Mercury and used them for paving roads or theatres, they are prohibited.

But why [are they not permitted]? Let them be considered the same as an idol which was broken of its own accord!

This case has also to be explained according to the explanation of Rava.

 

Again, we read a baraita which says that even if an Israelite breaks up a statue of Mercury (which was originally composed of stones) and uses it to pave a road, the stones and everything they were used to build is prohibited. This is a difficulty against Resh Lakish.

The Talmud resolves this by again citing Rava s statement. In principle these stones were annulled because the idol was broken. However, we don t allow people to use them lest the Jew come to own the idol, in which case it can t be annulled. But if an idol broke on its own, it is annulled.