Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Gimmel, Part 4
Introduction
Yesterday we learned that if the owners fled and had the intention of returning as was the case in Joshua s conquest of the land, then the idol is not annulled.
אם עתידין לחזור כמלחמת יהושע אינה בטילה
מידי מלחמת יהושע מיהדר הדור?
ה"ק אם עתידין לחזור הרי הוא כמלחמת יהושע ואין לה בטילה
If with the intention of returning [to claim the idol] as happened during the war waged by Joshua, it is not annulled!
But in the instance of the war waged by Joshua did they return?
This is what it means: If [the owners] have the intention of returning, it is analogous to the war waged by Joshua and there can be no annulment.
The problem is that the Canaanites whom Joshua dispossessed did not return. The Talmud explains that the baraita means that they had the intent to return. The fact that they did not return is not relevant, only their intent is. We should note that this comparison is probably made so that the rabbis can understand why the Jews had to destroy these idols. After all, if they were abandoned, then they were annulled. The answer is that the Canaanites planned on returning.
ולמה לי למיתלייה במלחמת יהושע מלתא אגב אורחא קמ"ל כי הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ישראל שזקף לבינה להשתחות לה ובא עובד כוכבים והשתחוה לה אסרה
Why did he compare it to the war waged by Joshua?
He teaches something on the side, like that which R. Judah said in the name of Rav: If an Israelite set up a brick to worship [but did not do so] and an idolater came and worshipped it, it is prohibited.
The baraita above could have just said that if the idolaters intend to return, it is prohibited. Why mention the war waged by Joshua? The Talmud will now say that the baraita does so in order to teach something else. The issue is a case where an Israelite set up something to be worshipped, but an idolater worshipped it. Although generally a person cannot make something prohibited when it is not his, in this case he does. We will now see that this is derived from the conquest of the land. The baraita teaches us that the laws of idolatry can be learned from what occurred during this period.
מנלן דאסרה א"ר אלעזר כתחילה של א"י דאמר רחמנא (דברים יב, ג) ואשריהם תשרפון באש מכדי ירושה היא להם מאבותיהם ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו ואי משום הנך דמעיקרא בביטולא בעלמא סגי להו אלא מדפלחו ישראל לעגל גלו אדעתייהו דניחא להו בעבודת כוכבים וכי אתו עובדי כוכבים שליחותא דידהו עבדי ה"נ ישראל שזקף לבינה גליא דעתיה דניחא ליה בעבודת כוכבים וכי אתא עובד כוכבים ופלח לה שליחותא דידיה קעביד
How do we know it is prohibited? R. Elazar said: It is the same as happened at the beginning of the settlement of the land of Israel; for the Torah said, And burn their asherim with fire (Deuteronomy 12:3). But since it was an inheritance to [the Israelites] from their ancestors and a man cannot make prohibited what does not belong to him! And [it is assumed that the reason that asherim have to be burned] is on account of those [asherim] which existed there originally, then just an annulment would have sufficed! Rather, since the Israelites worshipped the Golden Calf, they revealed their intentions for idolatry, so that when the idolaters came [and worshipped asherim] they acted according to [the Israelites ] desire. Similarly when an Israelite set up a brick, he revealed his intention for idolatry; therefore when an idolater came and worshipped it he acted according to [the Israelite’s] desire.
The Talmud makes a fascinating analogy. The Torah says that when the Israelites conquer the land, they must burn the asherim trees. But why should the fact that the idolaters worshipped these these trees make them prohibited? These trees belong to Israel because God promised the land to Israel, and if so, how could the idolaters have made them prohibited. And if we were to say that the verse refers to trees planted before God s promise, then the Israelites would not have to destroy the trees annulment would have been sufficient (an idol worshipped by a Jew must be destroyed, but one worshipped by a non-Jew may be annulled). The answer is that when the Israelites worshipped the Golden Calf they revealed their idolatrous proclivities. Therefore, when idolaters worshipped these trees, they were only fulfilling the Israelites will and this gives them the ability to make something that does not belong to them prohibited. The same is true with the brick. Since the Jew set it up to be worshipped, he reveals that he has idolatrous proclivities and the non-Jew can prohibit it by worshipping it.
ודלמא בעגל הוא דניחא להו במידי אחרינא לא אמר קרא (שמות לב, ד) אלה אלהיך ישראל מלמד שאיוו לאלוהות הרבה
But perhaps [the Israelites] wanted to worship the Golden Calf but nothing else!
No; the verse states, These are your gods, O Israel, (Exodus 32:4) which proves that they lusted for many gods.
The Talmud points out that just because Israelites worshipped the Golden Calf it does not prove that they also wanted their trees to be worshipped as asherim.
The answer is that we know from their words these are your gods that the Israelites were willing to accept many gods, including the trees.
אימא כל דבהדי עגל ניתסרו מכאן ואילך נישתרי מאן מוכח:
But say that all [the asherim] which existed at the same time as the Golden Calf are prohibited, but those planted subsequently are permitted!
Who is able to distinguish between them?
After the Golden Calf, Israel repented. Therefore, any asherim created after this point should not be prohibited. They belong to the Israelites because God gave Israel the land, and Israel no longer wants them worshipped.
The problem is that there would be no way of knowing which asherim were worshipped only after the incident of the Golden Calf and which were worshipped before. Therefore they all must be burned.