Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Daled, Part 2
Introduction
The Talmud continues the dialogue between R. Yose and the sages over whether one can grind up an idol as a means to destroy it.
אמר להן רבי יוסי והלא כבר נאמר (מלכים ב יח, ד) וכתת נחש נחשת אשר עשה משה
אמרו לו משם ראיה הרי הוא אומר (במדבר כא, ח) ויאמר ה’ אל משה עשה לך שרף לך משלך ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו והתם בדין הוא דכתותי לא הוה צריך אלא כיון דחזא דקא טעו ישראל בתריה עמד וכיתתו
R. Yose said to [the rabbis]: But has it not been stated, He crushed into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made (II Kings 18:4).
They replied to him: From there you bring proof? Behold it states, And the Lord said unto Moses, Make lekha [for you] a fiery serpent (Numbers 21:8), lekha means from what belongs to you, and a man cannot render prohibited what is not his property!
In that case [of the bronze serpent] there was really no necessity for it to have been broken in pieces, but when [Hezekiah] saw that the Israelites were erring after it, he arose and destroyed it.
R. Yose tries to bring proof from Hezekiah, who, seeing that Israel is worshipping the serpent that Moses made in Numbers to cure the people of Israel, crushes it. This is proof that crushing is a valid form of annulment.
The rabbis answer that the serpent belonged to Moses. The fact that the Israelites worshipped it does not turn it into an idol, because a person cannot cause something that belongs to another person to become prohibited. If I worship your cow, it does not make your cow prohibited. So why then did Hezekiah destroy the bronze serpent? Because he saw that Israelites were worshipping it. In other words, although the bronze serpent was not prohibited, he still did not want the Jews to worship it.
אמר להם והלא כבר נאמר (שמואל ב ה, כא) ויעזבו שם את עצביהם וישאם דוד ואנשיו
ומאי משמע דהאי וישאם דוד לישנא דזרויי הוא כדמתרגם רב יוסף (ישעיהו מא, טז) תזרם ורוח תשאם ומתרגמינן תזרינון ורוח תטלטלינון
אמרו לו משם ראיה הרי הוא אומר וישרפו באש ומדלא כתיב וישרפם וישאם ש"מ וישאם ממש
[R. Yose] said to [the rabbis]: But has it not been stated, And they left their images there, and David and his men took them away (vayisa em) (II Samuel 5:21). And how do we know that the meaning of And David took them away is scattering ? It is the language of scattering as R. Joseph translated, You shall winnow them and the wind shall carry them off (tisaem) (Isaiah 41:16) and we translate it, You shall winnow them and a wind will disperse them ! They replied to him: From there you bring proof? Behold it states, And they were burned with fire (I Chronicles 14:12) and since it is not written, and he burned them and took them away, learn from this that he really took them away.
R. Yose cites another proof from an incident in II Samuel where David finds some idols of the Philistines. The literal translation is that he took them away but R. Yose interprets this verb in light of the same verb in Isaiah to mean that he crushed them and spread their remains to the wind.
The rabbis reject this based on the parallel version in I Chronicles. There David burns the idols. Obviously since it does not say that he burned them and then scattered them, it must mean that the word vayasi em does not mean scatter.
מכל מקום קשו קראי אהדדי כדרב הונא דרב הונא רמי כתיב (דברי הימים א יד, יב) ויאמר דוד וישרפו באש וכתיב וישאם לא קשיא כאן קודם שבא איתי הגיתי כאן לאחר שבא איתי הגיתי
In any case, the two verses are contradictory!
It is as R. Huna pointed out; for R. Huna contrasted two verses: It is written, And David gave an order and they were burned with fire (I Chronicles 14:12), and it is written, He took them away (II Samuel 5:21). There is no contradiction; the first passage refers to before Ittai the Gittite came, the latter to after Ittai the Gittite came.
The verse from Chronicles has David burning the idols, whereas in Samuel he takes them away. So which is it? The answer is that the verse from Chronicles refers to a period before Ittai the Gittite joined David s court. Ittai was a gentile and therefore he could annul idols. Before he came they would have had to burn the idols, because Jews cannot annul idols belonging to non-Jews. But after he came, they were able to just carry the idols away because Ittai would annul them.
דכתיב (שמואל ב יב, ל) ויקח את עטרת מלכם מעל ראשו ומשקלה ככר זהב
ומי שרי איסורי הנאה נינהו אמר רב נחמן איתי הגיתי בא וביטלה
As it is written, And he took the crown of their king from off his head, and its weight was a talent of gold (II Samuel 12:30).
But was that permissible? Is it not forbidden to derive benefit from it?
R. Nahman explained: Ittai the Gittite came and annulled it.
The coming of Ittai also helps explain how David could take the crown off the king of Rabbah and have it placed on his head Ittai annulled its idolatrous aspects first.
משקלה ככר זהב היכי מצי מנח לה
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ראויה לנוח על ראש דוד
רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר אבן שואבת היתה בה דהות דרא לה
רבי אלעזר אמר אבן יקרה היתה בה ששוה ככר זהב:
If the weight [of the crown] was a talent of gold, how could [David] have put it on?
Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: It was fit to rest upon David’s head.
R. Yose son of R. Hanina said: There was a lodestone in it which raised it up.
R. Elazar said: [The meaning is] that there was a precious stone in it worth a talent of gold.
A talent of gold is extremely heavy, too heavy for a crown that could be worn.
The amoraim here explain how to read the verse such that David would not be putting a too heavy crown on his head.
Interestingly, I listened to an interview with Queen Elizabeth this year and she did say that the crown is extremely heavy and not easy to wear. Especially, I suppose, for a 92 year old woman.