Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today s sugya discusses a type of idol that is worshipped with a stick. The question is what kind of action with this stick is considered worship. This leads to a broader question of when one is liable for worshipping an idol what constitutes worship?

 

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עבודת כוכבים שעובדין אותה במקל שבר מקל בפניה חייב זרק מקל בפניה פטור

א"ל אביי לרבא מאי שנא שבר דהוה ליה כעין זביחה זרק נמי הוה ליה כעין זריקה

אמר ליה בעינא זריקה משתברת וליכא

 

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If an idol is worshipped with a stick and [an Israelite] broke a stick in its presence, he is liable. If he threw a stick in front of it he is exempt.

Abaye said to Rava: Why is it different when he broke the stick? Because it resembles the slaughter [of an animal in the Temple]. Throwing a stick also resembles the rite of sprinkling [the blood in the Temple]!

He replied: We require a sprinkling which is broken up and we do not have that here.

 

Breaking the stick in front of the idol is considered an act of idolatry and thus if an Israelite does so he is liable. But throwing the stick at or in front of the idol is not considered an act of idolatry, and thus one who does so is exempt. But why the difference? After all, both have a certain amount of similarity to an act performed in the Temple. Breaking the stick is like slaughtering an animal, and throwing the stick is like sprinkling the blood.

Rava explains the difference. For an act to be like sprinkling blood it needs to be an act that is broken up into several parts. When one sprinkles blood on the altar, it is done in parts. Since the stick is thrown all at once, one is not liable.

 

איתיביה ספת לה צואה או שנסך לפניה עביט של מימי רגלים חייב

בשלמא עביט של מימי רגלים איכא זריקה משתברת אלא צואה מאי זריקה משתברת איכא בצואה לחה

 

They raised an objection: If he fed an idol excrement or poured out before it a chamber pot of urine, he is liable.

It is clear [why he is liable if he poured out] a chamber pot of urine because it is a kind of sprinkling which is broken up; but where is there a sprinkling which is broken up with excrement?

With moist excrement.

 

Trigger warning this one is a bit gross.

The idol here is worshipped by giving it feces or urine. But when it comes to the feces this seems to be like unbroken sprinkling for which one should not, according to Rava, be liable. Rava resolves the difficulty by saying that it refers to moist excrement, where there is broken up sprinkling. The feces does not all land at the same time.

Don t say I didn t warn you. But aren t you glad you are not part of the group that worships this idol? ☺

 

לימא כתנאי שחט לה חגב ר’ יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרים

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר אמרינן כעין זביחה ומר סבר לא אמרינן כעין זביחה אלא כעין פנים

 

Shall we say [that Rav s statement] is a matter of dispute between Tannaim: If one slaughtered a locust to an idol, R. Judah holds him liable, but the sages say he is exempt ? Is this not what they are arguing about: [R. Judah] holds that we say it needs to be like the act of slaughter, whereas the others hold that we do not say that it needs to be like the act of slaughter but rather that it must resemble the ritual within the Temple?

 

The Talmud now tries to say that tannaim would disagree over the case of breaking a stick in front of an idol. R. Judah holds that for one to be liable for an act of idolatry it needs to be like an act of slaughter. Slaughtering a locust or breaking a stick is like slaughtering an animal and therefore one is liable. But the other rabbis hold that the act must be like an act done inside the Temple. Inside the Temple locusts are not slaughtered nor are sticks broken. Therefore one who does these acts is not liable for idolatry.

 

לא דכ"ע לא אמרינן כעין זביחה אלא כעין פנים בעינן ושאני חגב הואיל וצוארו דומה לצואר בהמה

No, all agree that we do not say that it must be like the act of slaughter rather we require it to resemblance the ritual within the Temple; but it is different with a locust because it has a neck like the neck of an animal.

 

The Talmud rejects the comparison. No tannaim hold that it must be like the act of slaughter, and therefore they all agree with Rav that one is liable for breaking the stick in front of the idol. The argument about slaughtering the locust is whether this is similar enough to slaughtering an animal in the Temple. R. Judah holds that since the locust has a neck it is close enough to an animal that one who worships an idol by slaughtering a locust is liable. The other rabbis disagree.