Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Gimmel, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s section discusses the dispute over whether selling or using an idol as a pledge is considered annulling it.

 

מכרה או משכנה רבי אומר ביטל וכו’:

זעירי א"ר יוחנן ור’ ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב ח"א מחלוקת בצורף עובד כוכבים אבל בצורף ישראל דברי הכל ביטל וחד אמר בצורף ישראל מחלוקת

 

If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it etc.

Zei’ri in the name of R. Yohanan and R. Yirmiyah b. Abba in the name of Rav: One said that the difference is over a case where it was sold to an idolatrous smelter, but if it was [sold to] an Israelite smelter all agree that he annulled it.

The other said that the difference is over an Israelite smelter.

 

The amoraim discuss a case where the idol was sold to a smelter. According to one opinion, the tannaim disagree if it was sold to an idolatrous smelter. One tanna hold that since the smelter is idolatrous, he might use the metal to make another idol. But if he sold it to an Israelite, the Israelite will surely melt it down for another purpose, and thus this is annulment. While the other tanna holds that even selling it to an idolater is considered annulment.

The other amora thinks that the tannaim disagree when sold to an Israelite smelter.

 

איבעיא להו בצורף ישראל מחלוקת אבל צורף עובד כוכבים דברי הכל לא ביטל או דלמא בין בזה ובין בזה מחלוקת

ת"ש דא"ר נראין דבריי כשמכרה לחבלה ודברי חביריי שמכרה לעובדה

מאי לחבלה ומאי לעובדה אילימא לחבלה לחבלה ממש לעובדה לעובדה ממש מ"ט דמ"ד ביטל ומ"ט דמ"ד לא ביטל אלא לאו לחבלה למי שעתיד לחבלה ומנו צורף ישראל לעובדה למי שעתיד לעובדה ומנו צורף עובד כוכבים וש"מ בין בזה ובין בזה מחלוקת

 

The question was asked: Is the dispute over an Israelite smelter but with an idolatrous smelter all agree that he has not annulled it, or perhaps in either case there is a dispute?

Come and hear: For Rabbi said: My view seems correct when he sold it to be destroyed, and my colleagues view seems correct when he sold it to be worshipped.

What does it mean to be destroyed and what does it mean to be worshipped ? If I say that to be destroyed means literally or worshipped literally, what is the reason for the one who says that he had annulled it and what is the reason for the one who says that he had not annulled it?

Rather, to be destroyed must mean [that he sold it] to someone who would destroy it, and who is he? An Israelite smelter. And to be worshipped means [that he sold it] to someone who would worship it, and who is he? An idolatrous smelter. And are we not to conclude that in either case there is a difference of opinion?

 

Above we said that according to one amora, the tannaim disagree over a case where the idol was sold to an Israelite smelter. The question is whether according to this amoraic opinion the tannaim also disagree over a case where it was sold to an idolatrous smelter. Or do they agree that when he sells it to an idolatrous smelter, it is not annulled.

To answer this, the Talmud looks at a baraita. In this baraita Rabbi says that his opinion is correct if the idolater sells it to one who plans on destroying the idol, but that the sages opinion is correct when he sells it to one who will worship it, which here is interpreted to be an idolatrous smelter. Rabbi s words imply that there is a dispute in both cases. In other words, although Rabbi says that his colleagues opinion seems correct, he still disagrees.

 

לא ה"ק א"ר נראין דבריי לחביריי כשמכרה לחבלה ומנו צורף ישראל שאף חביריי לא נחלקו עלי אלא כשמכרה לעובדה אבל לחבלה מודו לי

 

No; this is the meaning: Rabbi said: My view is acceptable to my colleagues when he sold it to be destroyed, i.e., to an Israelite smelter, because even my colleagues do not differ from me except in the case where he sold it to be worshipped, but when it is sold to be destroyed they agree with me [that it had been annulled].

 

We now reinterpret the baraita. Rabbi does not say that his colleagues simply agree with him about a case where it was sold to be destroyed. They never differed in the first place. The only disagreement is whether it is annulled when it was sold to another idolater.

 

מיתיבי הלוקח גרוטאות מן העובדי כוכבים ומצא בהן עבודת כוכבים אם עד שלא נתן מעות משך יחזיר אם משנתן מעות משך יוליך לים המלח

אי אמרת בשלמא בצורף ישראל מחלוקת הא מני רבנן היא אלא אי אמרת בצורף עובד כוכבים מחלוקת אבל בצורף ישראל דברי הכל ביטל הא מני

 

They raised an objection: If one brought scrap metal from an idolater and found an idol amongst it, if he drew it [into his possession] before giving the coins he can return the idol; but if he drew it [into his possession] after giving the coins he must throw it into the Dead Sea.

Its makes sense if you say that they argue about selling it to an Israelite smelter; whose teaching is this? It is the Rabbis .

But if you say that they argue over selling it to a non-Jewish smelter and all agree that [if he sells it to] an Israelite smelter he has annulled it, then whose teaching is this?

 

The baraita discusses a Jew who buys scrap metal from a non-Jew and finds an idol in there. This is a case of selling the idol to be destroyed. The baraita itself says that if he only took it into his possession, he can return the idol and simply not pay for it. But if he also paid for it, he cannot get his money back.

But this baraita makes sense only if the sages in the mishanh also disagree when he sold it to a Jew to be destroyed. This baraita would follow the opinion of the rabbis. But if all agree that when he sold it to a Jew it was annulled, then why shouldn t the Jew just keep it under all circumstances?

 

שאני התם דאדעתא דגרוטאות זבין אדעתא דעבודת כוכבים לא זבין

 

This case is different because his intention was to sell scrap metal and not an idol.

 

If he sold the metal thinking that it was scrap metal, then he has not annulled it. He did not even know he was selling an idol, so how could he have annulled it. The rabbis and Rabbi Judah Hanasi disagree only in a case where he knew he was selling an idol to a Jewish smelter who would certainly destroy it.