Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Tet, Part 6
Introduction
Today s sugya opens with a mishnah about annulling an asherah tree.
מתני׳ כיצד מבטלה קירסם וזירד נטל ממנה מקל או שרביט אפי’ עלה ה"ז בטלה שיפה לצרכה אסורה שלא לצרכה מותרת:
How does one annul [an asherah]?
If [a pagan] pruned or trimmed it, removing from it a stick or twig or even a leaf, behold it is annulled.
If he smoothed it out for its own sake, it is prohibited;
but if not for its own sake, it is permitted.
As we will learn in the next chapter, a pagan can annul his idol by stopping to treat it as such. If he does so, what was formerly an idol reverts to being a normal object and a Jew may use it. This mishnah teaches that removing a piece of an asherah tree is a sign that it is no longer being worshipped. Evidently the asherah was not used by the pagan for anything but idol worship. If the pagan does make even the most minimal use of the tree, such as using its leaf, it loses its status as an asherah. The only exception to this case is if he removes something from the tree for its own sake. In other words, if he smoothed the tree to make it look better, it is still an asherah and it is still forbidden. If he did so in order to get a branch, he has annulled its status as an asherah and it is permitted.
גמ׳ אותן שפאין מה תהא עליהן?
פליגי בה רב הונא (ור’ חייא) בר רב חד אמר אסורין וחד אמר מותרין
תניא כמ"ד מותרין דתניא עובד כוכבים ששיפה עבודת כוכבים לצרכו היא ושפאיה מותרין לצרכה היא אסורה ושפאיה מותרין וישראל ששיפה עבודת כוכבים בין לצרכה בין לצרכו היא ושפאיה אסורין
GEMARA. The pieces which were smoothed off what is their status? R. Huna and Hiyya b. Rav differ in opinion. One said that they are prohibited, the other that they are permitted.
It was taught in agreement with the one who said that they are permitted, for it has been taught: If an idolater smoothed off an idol for his own sake, the tree and the pieces are permitted, and if he did so for the tree s sake, it is prohibited but its pieces are permitted; but if an Israelite smoothed off an idol, whether for his sake or for the sake of the tree it and the pieces are prohibited.
The mishnah taught that if he smoothed off pieces from the tree because he wanted the pieces (for his own sake) then the tree is permitted, but if for the tree s sake, the tree remains prohibited. But what about the pieces? Are they permitted since they are no longer part of the tree?
While amoraim dispute the issue, the baraita says that if an idolater smoothed off the pieces, they are permitted in either case. If the Jew smooths off the tree, the pieces remain prohibited because a Jew cannot annul the idol worship of a non-Jew.
איתמר עבודת כוכבים שנשתברה רב אמר צריך לבטל כל קיסם וקיסם ושמואל אמר עבודת כוכבים אינה בטלה אלא דרך גדילתה אדרבה דרך גדילתה מי מבטלא אלא ה"ק אין עבודת כוכבים צריכה לבטל אלא דרך גדילתה
It has been stated: If an idol was broken of its own accord: Rav said: It is necessary to annul every little pieces; but Shmuel said: An idol is only annulled when it is in its natural form.
On the contrary, does one annul it when it is in its natural form!
Rather this is what he means to say: An idol need not be annulled except when it is in its natural form.
Rav and Shmuel now begin a debate over annulling pieces that have become broken off of idols. According to Rav, the pieces that have become broken off must be annulled. According to the revised version of Shmuel, only when the idol is in its natural form, must it be annulled. When pieces break off people will not assume that they retain their sanctity.
לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ס עובדין לשברין ומ"ס אין עובדין לשברין
לא דכ"ע עובדין לשברין והכא בשברי שברים קמיפלגי מ"ס שברי שברים אסורין ומ"ס שברי שברים מותרין
Shall we say that they differ on this point: One holds that [idolaters] worship fragments [of idols] and the other holds that they do not worship fragments?
No, they all agree that idolaters worship fragments; and here they differ with respect to the fragments of the fragments. One holds that the fragments of the fragments are prohibited and the other holds that they are permitted.
The Talmud tries to connect this dispute with the broader dispute over whether idolaters worship fragments of idols Rav would hold that they do, and Shmuel would say that they do not.
The Talmud then rejects this understanding. All hold that idolaters worship fragments. But these pieces are fragments of fragments. Over this there is a dispute.
ואיבע"א דכ"ע שברי שברים מותרין והכא בעבודת כוכבי’ של חליות ובהדיוט שיכול להחזירה קמיפלגי מ"ס כיון דהדיוט יכול להחזירה לא בטלה ומ"ס אין עבודת כוכבים בטלה אלא דרך גדילתה דהיינו אורחיה הא לאו גדילתה היא ואין צריכה לבטל:
Or if you wish, I can say that they all agree that the fragments of the fragments are permitted, and here they differ with respect to an idol which is formed in sections and with regard to an ordinary man who is able to restore it.
One holds that since an ordinary man is able to restore it, it is not annulled; while the other holds that an idol need only be annulled when it is in its natural form, that is, the form it normally assumes. So in this instance it is not in its natural form, and there is no need to annul it.
According to this understanding of the dispute, Rav and Shmuel generally agree that fragments of fragments are permitted. But this is a case of an idol which was made of pieces and broke apart on its own. Rav holds that since an ordinary man, a non-craftsman, can put it back together, the pieces retain their sanctity and must be annulled. But Shmuel says that the idol need only be annulled when it is its natural form. Since this idol has already been broken, it need not be annulled.