Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Gimmel, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today s section discusses a baraita which lists scenarios where the idolater is not considered to have annulled the idol.

 

תנו רבנן לוה עליה או שנפלה עליה מפולת או שגנבוה ליסטין או שהניחוה הבעלים והלכו למדינת הים אם עתידין לחזור כמלחמת יהושע אינה בטילה

 

Our Rabbis taught: If he borrowed money against an idol, or an avalanche fell on it, or robbers stole it, or the owners left it behind and journeyed to a distant land, if with the intention of returning [to claim it] as happened during the war waged by Joshua, it is not annulled.

 

In all of these scenarios, the owner hopes to recover his idol and therefore has not annulled it in his heart.

According to the rabbis, when the Canaanites fled when Joshua was conquering the land they intended to return. Therefore, they were not really abandoning their idols.

 

וצריכא דאי תנא לוה עליה מדלא זבנה לא בטלה אבל נפלה עליה מפולת מדלא קא מפני לה אימא בטולי בטלה צריכא

 

It was necessary [to cite all these circumstances]. For if it had taught only the case where he borrowed money against it, from the fact that he had not sold it [it follows that] he had not annulled it; but if an avalanche fell on it, since he did not clear it away, I might say that he had annulled it! Therefore it was necessary.

 

The Talmud now explains why we needed all four of these cases.

Clearly he is not annulling the idol by using it as collateral. This is not like selling the idol where he will not receive it in return. But if an avalanche fell on it, we might have thought that since he did not clear the rocks away, he has annulled it. Therefore, the baraita needs to teach that he has not.

 

ואי תנא נפלה עליה מפולת משום דסבר הא מנחת כל אימת דבעינא לה שקילנא לה אבל גנבוה לסטים מדלא קא מהדר אבתרה בטולי בטלה צריכא

 

If it had taught the case where an avalanche fell on it, because he reasoned that [the idol] is lying there and whenever I want it I can take it [he did not annul it]; but in the case where robbers stole it, from the fact that he does not go searching for it [it might be assumed] that he had annulled it! Therefore it was necessary.

 

We might have thought that when it came to the avalanche he did not annul it because he knows where it is. All he has to do is clear the rocks and get it. But when it comes to the robbers, he does not know where it is, so we might have thought that in this case he did annul it.

 

ואי תנא גנבוה לסטין משום דסבר אי עובד כוכבים שקיל לה מפלח פלח לה אי ישראל שקלה איידי דדמיה יקרין מזבין לה לעובד כוכבים ופלח לה אבל הניחוה הבעלים והלכו למדינת הים מדלא שקלו בהדייהו בטולי בטלוה צריכא

 

If it had taught the case where robbers stole it, because he thought that if an idolater took it he would worship it and if an Israelite took it, since it is of value, he would sell it to an idolater who would worship it [therefore it is not annulled]; but in the case where the owners left it behind and journeyed to a distant land, since they did not take it with them [it might be assumed] that they had annulled it! Therefore it was necessary.

 

Finally, when the idol is stolen he might still assume that whoever stole it would either worship it, or sell it to someone who would. Therefore he did not annul it. But if he abandoned it, we might have thought that he annulled it.

Therefore we need all of these cases to learn that in none of them do we consider him to have annulled the idol.