Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Zayin, Part 5
Introduction
Today s section opens with another new mishnah.
מתני׳ שלשה בתים הן בית שבנאו מתחלה לעבודת כוכבים הרי זה אסור סיידו וכיידו לעבודת כוכבים וחידש נוטל מה שחידש הכניס לתוכה עבודת כוכבים והוציאה הרי זה מותר:
There are three types of shrines:
A shrine originally built for idolatrous worship, behold this is prohibited.
If one plastered and tiled [an ordinary house] for idolatry and renovated it, one may remove the renovations [and it becomes permitted].
If he had only brought an idol into it and taken it out again, [the house] is permitted.
If the shrine was created from the beginning to be idolatrous, it is totally prohibited from Jewish usage. If the building originally existed for other, non-idolatrous, purposes, and then was somehow modified to be idolatrous, the Jew needs to remove the renovations before it is permitted to use the building. In other words, the earlier structure is permitted and only the new parts that were created for idolatry are forbidden. If the idol was only brought into the house, the house is not actually idolatrous. The idol may be taken out and the house is permitted.
גמ׳ אמר רב המשתחוה לבית אסרו אלמא קסבר תלוש ולבסוף חברו כתלוש דמי
GEMARA. Rav said: If one worshipped a house, he has rendered it prohibited.
Thus he holds that an object which is not attached to the ground and subsequently becomes attached is like a detached object.
The Talmud analyzes the underpinnings of Rav s statement that if a person worships a house, he turns it into an idol that is now prohibited to Jews. A house consists of pieces that were once detached from the ground and now are attached. Things attached to the ground cannot become prohibited if they are worshipped. So it seems like Rav says although the house is currently attached, since its parts were once attached, it is still prohibited.
והאנן בנאו תנן
בנאו אע"פ שלא השתחוה לו השתחוה אע"פ שלא בנאו
But the Mishnah deals with a shrine built [originally for idolatry]!
[The prohibition applies to a shrine] built [originally for idolatry] although nobody has yet worshipped in it, and to one in which somebody worshipped although he had not built it.
The problem the Talmud has is that the Mishnah says that if he built the house for idolatry it is prohibited. By implication, if he built it and then worshipped it, it is not prohibited. In such a case, since it is already attached to the ground, it does not become prohibited.
The resolution is that the house becomes prohibited whether he built it for idolatry and then worshipped it or if he worshipped it but did not build it for idolatry. In either case, the house becomes prohibited.
א"ה הני שלשה ארבעה הוו
כיון דלענין ביטול בנה והשתחוה חד קא חשיב ליה:
If so, instead of three [types in the Mishnah] there should be four!
Since with regard to annulment, building [the shrine] and worshipping it are considered one, it lists them together.
To Rav there really should be four clauses in the mishnah: one where he built the house for idolatry, and another where he built it for other purposes and only later worshipped it. So why are there only three?
The answer is that when it comes to annulling the house as an idol, it does not matter whether it was built for idolatry or only worshipped after it was already built, the tanna of the Mishnah included both categories in one clause.