Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Daled, Part 2
Introduction
Yesterday Rava stated that although an object was worshiped under duress, it becomes prohibited. Today s section continues to deal with this subject.
אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא תניא דמסייעא לך בימוסיאות של עובדי כוכבים בשעת הגזרה אף על פי שהגזרה בטלה אותן בימוסיאות לא בטלו
אמר להו אי משום הא לא תסייען אימר ישראל מומר הוה ופלח לה ברצון
רב אשי אמר לא תימא אימר אלא ודאי ישראל מומר הוה ופלח לה ברצון
The rabbis said to Rava: There is a tannaitic teaching which supports your view: Idolatrous pedestals [set up] during a time of religious persecution, even though the persecution is over, the pedestals are not annulled.
He said to them: If it is on account of that teaching, it does not support us, for we can say that perhaps there was an Israelite apostate who worshipped at it voluntarily!
R. Ashi said: Do not say perhaps. Rather there certainly was an Israelite, an apostate, who worshipped voluntarily.
The rabbis, probably students of Rava, try to find a tannaitic teaching that supports Rava s view. The pedestals here were worshipped at the time of persecution. This means that they were worshipped under duress. Nevertheless, they are prohibited.
Rava deflects the support (he s so modest). While most people probably worshipped the idols under duress, it is possible that someone worshipped them willingly. Therefore the baraita is not proof that worship under duress will prohibit an idol.
R. Ashi goes a step further and says that we can be certain that a Jew willingly worshipped the idol.
חזקיה אמר כגון שניסך לעבודת כוכבים יין על קרניה
Hizkiyah said: For instance, he poured wine to an idol on the horns of [his neighbor’s animal].
Yesterday we saw two baraitot that contradicted each other. According to one baraita, if one worships another person s animal, the animal is not prohibited. The other baraita hinted that an item worshipped under duress is prohibited.
Hizkiyah solves the contradiction in a different way. The baraita that prohibited the animal referred to a case where the animal was not worshipped but rather the idol was placed on it. Such an act renders the animal prohibited although just bowing down to it does not.
מתקיף לה רב אדא בר אהבה האי נעבד הוא האי בימוס בעלמא הוא ושרייה
אלא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה כגון שניסך לה יין בין קרניה דעבד בה מעשה וכי הא דאתא עולא אמר רבי יוחנן אף על פי שאמרו המשתחוה לבהמת חבירו לא אסרה עשה בה מעשה אסרה
R. Ada b. Ahava objected: Is that a case of [an animal] which was worshipped? It is merely a pedestal and is permitted!
Rather R. Ada b. Ahava said: For instance where he poured wine between the horns of [his neighbor’s animal] in which case he performed on it an act [of worship].
And this accords with what Ulla reported in the name of R. Yohanan when he came [from Eretz Yisrael]: Although they said that he who worships his neighbor’s animal does not render it prohibited, if he performed on it an act [of idolatrous worship] he does render it prohibited.
R. Ada b. Ahava offers another solution to the contradiction. Although in general if one simply worships another person s property, the property remains permitted, if he actually does something physical, the animal (or other object) can become prohibited.
אמר להו רב נחמן פוקו ואמרו ליה לעולא כבר תרגמה רב הונא לשמעתיך בבבל דאמר רב הונא היתה בהמת חבירו רבוצה בפני עבודת כוכבים כיון ששחט בה סימן אחד אסרה
R. Nahman said [to the rabbis]: Go, tell Ulla, that R. Huna has already expounded your teaching in Babylonia! For R. Huna said: If the animal of his neighbor was lying in front of an idol, as soon as he cut one of its neck-veins he has rendered it prohibited.
R. Nahman believes that R. Huna has already essentially said that while one cannot cause another person s property to become prohibited, if he performed an idolatrous act on it, something physical, it is prohibited. The situation he describes is one where an animal is lying down before an idol. If the idolater slaughters the animal for the idol, he has rendered it prohibited.
מנא לן דאסרה אילימא מכהנים ודלמא שאני כהנים דבני דעה נינהו
How do we know that he has rendered it prohibited? If I say from the priests, it is different with priests because they are rational beings.
The Talmud asks for Scriptural support for R. Huna s ruling. If we say that the precedent are priests who are forced to worship idolatry. Such priests may not return to serve in the Temple. The problem is that priests had a choice they could have chosen martyrdom. But the animal had no choice.
ואלא מאבני מזבח ודלמא כדר"פ
But if [I answer that it may be derived] from the altar-stones, perhaps it is as R. Papa explained!
The second possible answer is the altar-stones. When the Greeks defiled the Temple, these stones became prohibited, even though they did not choose to be worshipped. The problem is that R. Papa already pointed out that the Greeks took technical ownership over the stones and therefore they were prohibited. This is not the case of someone prohibiting something that does not belong to them.
ואלא מכלים דכתיב (דברי הימים ב כט, יט) ואת כל הכלים אשר הזניח המלך אחז במלכותו במעלו הכנו והקדשנו ואמר מר הכנו שגנזנום והקדשנו שהקדשנו אחרים תחתיהן והא אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו אלא כיון דעבד בהו מעשה איתסרו להו הכא נמי כיון שעשה בה מעשה אסרה
Rather [must it be derived] from the Tempe vessels; for it is written, Moreover all the vessels, which King Ahaz in his reign did cast away when he trespassed, we have prepared and sanctified (II Chronicles 29:19) and a Master stated: We have prepared means that we have stored them away, and sanctified means that we have substituted others for them.
But one cannot render prohibited what is not his property!
Since, however, an act [of idolatrous worship] was performed on them, they became prohibited.
So too here [with the animal] since he performed an act [of idolatrous worship] on it, he has rendered it prohibited.
The final answer is that R. Huna s rule is derived from the Temple vessels defiled by King Ahaz. How could Ahaz have rendered them prohibited? After all, they are not his and there is a principle that a person cannot render prohibited another person s property.
The answer is that since he actually performed an act with these vessels, they became prohibited. So too with the animal slaughtered for idolatry. Since he performed an act with it, it becomes prohibited.