Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Gimmel, Part 1

 

Introduction

The mishnah that we learned last week referred to utensils which had on them the image of the dragon. Today s sugya begins by explaining what the image of the dragon is.

 

תנו רבנן איזהו צורת דרקון פירש רשב"א כל שיש לו ציצין בין פרקיו

מחוי רבי אסי בין פרקי צואר

אמר ר’ חמא ברבי חנינא הלכה כר"ש בן אלעזר

 

Our rabbis taught: Which is the figure of a dragon [that is prohibited]?

R. Shimon b. Elazar said: One that has joints between his neck.

R. Assi motioned to the joints between the joints of the neck.

R. Hama son of Hanina said: The halakhah is in accord with the view of R. Shimon b. Eleazar.

 

For the image of the dragon to be prohibited, it must have joints between its neck.

 

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי פעם אחת הייתי מהלך אחר ר’ אלעזר הקפר בריבי בדרך ומצא שם טבעת ועליה צורת דרקון

ומצא עובד כוכבים קטן ולא אמר לו כלום

מצא עובד כוכבים גדול ואמר לו בטלה ולא בטלה סטרו ובטלה

 

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: I was once walking after R. Elazar Hakkappar Berebbi along the road, and he found a ring and on it was the figure of a dragon.

He found a non-Jewish child but he said nothing to him. Then there passed by an adult non-Jew and [R. Elazar] said to him, Annul it, but he refused to do so; and he struck him until he annulled it.

 

Great story!

 

ש"מ תלת

ש"מ עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל חבירו

וש"מ יודע בטיב של עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה מבטל ושאינו יודע בטיב עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה אינו מבטל

וש"מ עובד כוכבים מבטל בעל כרחו

 

Learn three lessons from this:

Learn from this that an idolater can annul an idolatrous object which belongs to him or to a fellow non-Jew;

Learn from this, that if [the idolater] understands the nature of the idolatrous object and its accessories he can annul it, but if he does not know the nature of the idolatrous object and its accessories he cannot annul it;

and third, one may force an idolater to annul the object.

 

From this story, three significant halakhic lessons can be learned.

 

מגדף בה רבי חנינא ולית ליה לרבי אלעזר הקפר בריבי הא דתנן המציל מן הארי ומן הדוב ומן הנמר ומן הגייס ומן הנהר ומזוטו של ים ומשלוליתו של נהר והמוצא בסרטיא ופלטיא גדולה ובכל מקום שהרבים מצוין שם הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין מהן

 

R. Hanina ridiculed this ruling: Does not R. Elazar Hakkappar Berebbi agree with the following teaching: If a person rescued something from a lion, bear, leopard, or from a robber, a river, or from what the tide throws up, or the overflow of a river; or if a person finds something in a public thoroughfare or in a place where many people congregate, behold the object belongs to him because the owner despairs of recovering it!

 

R. Hanina quotes a baraita from Bava Metzia. According to this baraita, when people lose something in a place from which they assume that the object will not be recoverable, they despair of recovering it. The object then may be kept by the finder. R. Hanina posits that just as the person who lost the object assumes he will not recover it, he also annuls it as being an idol. So why then does R. Elazar demand that some random idolater annul it?

 

אמר אביי נהי דמינה מייאש מאיסורא מי מייאש מימר אמר אי עובד כוכבים משכח לה מפלח פלח לה אי ישראל משכח לה איידי דדמיה יקרין מזבין לה לעובד כוכבים ופלח לה:

 

Abaye said: Let it be that [the owner] despaired of recovering it, but did he despair of its prohibited nature? He would have said [to himself]: If an idolater finds it he will worship it, if an Israelite finds it, since it is a valuable object, he will sell it to an idolater who will worship it.

 

Abaye says that while the owner despairs of recovering it, he is not really annulling it. He assumes that no matter who finds his idolatrous object, it will again be worshipped. Therefore, R. Elazar made sure that he found an idolater who would annul it.