Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Vav, Part 2
Introduction
Today s sugya begins a long discussion concerning boulders that are separated from a mountain which had been worshipped. While we know that while attached to the mountain such boulders are not prohibited, the issue is whether they become prohibited if they become detached from the mountain.
The way I see it, the rabbis interest in this issue is not a result of some realistic issue. It is probably not the case that boulders were actually worshipped. Rather the Talmud is asking, in its talmudic manner, what makes something susceptible to becoming prohibited. Does it have to have been changed from its natural form, and if so, how much?
איתמר אבני הר שנדלדלו: בני רבי חייא ורבי יוחנן חד אמר אסורות וחד אמר מותרות
מ"ט דמ"ד מותרות כהר מה הר שאין בו תפיסת ידי אדם ומותר אף הני שאין בהן תפיסת ידי אדם ומותרין
It has been stated: If boulders become detached from a mountain: the sons of R. Hiyya and R. Yohanan [disagree]; one says that they are prohibited and the other that they are permitted.
What is the reason for the one who says they are permitted?
[The boulders are] like the mountain; just as the mountain is something on which no manual labor had been performed and is permitted, so these are things on which no manual labor had been performed and they are permitted.
Later the Talmud will try to figure out which party holds which opinion. The first project is to figure out the reasoning for each side.
The opinion that permits compares the boulders to the mountain. Neither is something that a human has produced through his own labor. Therefore, just as the mountain is permitted, so too are the boulders that become detached from it. For something to be an idol, a person has to have made it, or at least shaped it. [We might note that the same is true for impurity. Raw material is not susceptible to impurity. There is some but not total overlap between the rules governing idolatry and those governing impurity].
מה להר שכן מחובר בהמה תוכיח
[But it may be argued] that the mountain is attached to the ground!
The case of an animal will prove [the contrary].
The problem with comparing it to the mountain is that the mountain is attached to the ground, whereas boulders are not.
Therefore, they Talmud tries another comparison. Let s compare it with an animal. If an idolater worships an animal, the animal is not prohibited. So too the boulder should not be prohibited.
מה לבהמה שכן בעלת חיים הר יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאין בהן תפיסת ידי אדם ומותר אף כל שאין בהן תפיסת ידי אדם ומותר
[Here again it may be argued] that an animal [is only permitted] because it is alive!
The case of a mountain proves [the contrary].
Therefore the logic returns, this one is not like this one, nor is it like this cone; their commonality is that they are not the products of manual labor and they are permitted. Consequently anything that is not the product of manual labor is permitted.
Neither a mountain nor an animal are the products of human labor, and both are permitted if worshipped. So too anything that is not the product of human labor is permitted. Even boulders attached from mountains.
מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא נשתנו מברייתן
[But it may be argued that] the point common to them both is that they have not changed from their natural form!
The problem is that both the mountain and the animal are in their natural form, and the boulder is not. So we cannot learn about boulders from the joined precedent of the mountain and the animal.
אלא אתיא מבהמה בעלת מום ומהר ואי נמי מבהמה תמה ומאילן יבש
Rather, [the boulder is permitted by] an analogy between an animal which has become blemished and a mountain; or [it may be drawn] also between an unblemished animal and a dried up tree.
The Talmud now tweaks the analogy. Instead of comparing simply with a mountain and an animal, we can make the comparison with a blemished animal or a dried up tree. Neither are considered to be in their original state and yet both remain permitted even if worshipped. So too the boulder, even though it has been changed by being detached from the mountain, it still remains permitted.
ומאן דאסר להכי כתיב שקץ תשקצנו ותעב תתעבנו דאע"ג דאתיא מדינא להיתרא לא תתיא
As for him who prohibits [the boulders], it is because it is written, You shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it although it is possible to reason to the conclusion that they are permitted, do not make that analogy.
The Talmud now returns to the one who prohibits the boulders. He seems to read this out of the double command in the verse. As if it says detest it once it has been separated from its natural source.