Avodah Zarah 41

אמר רבה מחלוקת בשל כפרים אבל בשל כרכים דברי הכל מותרין מאי טעמא לנוי עבדי להו

Rabba says: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to statues that are erected in villages. But with regard to those that are erected in cities, all agree that they are permitted, i.e., that it is permitted to derive benefit from them. What is the reason? It is because they were fashioned for ornamental purposes and not for worship.

ודכפרים מי איכא למאן דאמר לנוי קעבדי להו דכפרים ודאי למיפלחינהו עבדי להו

The Gemara asks: But with regard to those erected in villages, is there anyone who says that they are fashioned for ornamental purposes? Those in villages were certainly fashioned for idol worship. How, then, can the Rabbis maintain that such statues are permitted?

אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רבה מחלוקת בשל כרכים אבל בשל כפרים דברי הכל אסורים

The Gemara answers: Rather, if such a distinction was stated, this is what was stated: Rabba says that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to statues that are erected in cities, where they may have been fashioned simply for ornamental purposes. But with regard to those erected in villages, all agree that they are used for idol worship and are therefore forbidden.

וחכמים אומרים אינן אסורין וכו׳ מקל שרודה את עצמו תחת כל העולם כולו כמקל צפור שתופש את עצמו תחת כל העולם כולו כצפור כדור שתופש את עצמו תחת כל העולם כולו ככדור

§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The only statues that are forbidden are: Any statue that has in its hand a staff, or a bird, or an orb, as these are indications that this statue is designated for idolatry. The Gemara explains that each of these items symbolizes the statue’s supposed divinity, indicating its dominion over the world: A staff symbolizes dominion as the idol rules itself under the entire world, i.e., it rules the entire world, like one rules over an animal with a staff. A bird symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a bird in his hand. An orb symbolizes dominion as the idol grasps itself under the entire world, i.e., it grasps the entire world, as one grasps a ball in his hand.

תנא הוסיפו עליהן סייף עטרה וטבעת

The Sages taught in the Tosefta (6:1) that they added the following to the list of items that, when added to a statue, indicate that it is worshipped as an idol: A sword in its hand, a crown on its head, and a ring on its finger.

סייף מעיקרא סבור לסטים בעלמא ולבסוף סבור שהורג את עצמו תחת כל העולם כולו

The Gemara explains why these items were initially believed to be insignificant and were later understood as symbolizing idol worship. With regard to a statue holding a sword, the Sages initially thought that this merely indicates that it is a statue of a bandit. But in the end they reasoned that it symbolizes the notion that the idol has the power to kill itself under the whole world, i.e., to kill the entire world.

עטרה מעיקרא סבור גדיל כלילי בעלמא ולבסוף סבור כעטרה למלך טבעת מעיקרא סבור אישתיימא בעלמא ולבסוף סבור שחותם את עצמו תחת כל העולם כולו למיתה

With regard to a crown, the Sages initially thought that it is merely a woven wreath. But in the end they reasoned that it is like the crown of a king. With regard to a ring, the Sages initially thought that this merely symbolizes the bearer of a signet ring [ishtayema]. But in the end they reasoned that it is symbolic of the idol’s supposed ability to seal its fate under the whole world, i.e., to seal the fate of the entire world, for death.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל כו׳ תנא אפילו צרור אפילו קיסם

§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is prohibited to derive benefit even from any statue that has any item whatsoever in its hand. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to derive benefit from a statue even if it is merely holding a stone, or even a twig.

בעי רב אשי תפש בידו צואה מהו מי אמרינן כולי עלמא זילו באפיה כי צואה או דילמא הוא מיהו דזיל באפי כולי עלמא כצואה תיקו

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the idol is grasping excrement in its hand, what is the halakha? Is this meant to honor the statue, indicating that it is an object of idol worship? Do we say that the statue is forbidden, as this indicates that the entire world is inferior to it like excrement, or perhaps does this indicate that the idol itself is inferior to the entire world like excrement? The Gemara concludes: The question shall stand unresolved.

מתני׳ המוצא שברי צלמים הרי אלו מותרין מצא תבנית יד או תבנית רגל הרי אלו אסורין מפני שכיוצא בהן נעבד

MISHNA: In the case of one who finds unidentifiable fragments of statues, these are permitted, i.e., one may derive benefit from them. If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, as objects similar to those are worshipped.

גמ׳ אמר שמואל אפילו שברי עבודה זרה והאנן תנן שברי צלמים

GEMARA: Shmuel says: It is permitted to derive benefit even from fragments of objects that have been seen used in idol worship. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that fragments of nondescript statues are permitted? This indicates that it is prohibited to derive benefit from fragments of idols that were known to be worshipped.

הוא הדין דאפילו שברי עבודה זרה והא דקתני שברי צלמים משום דקבעי למיתנא סיפא מצא תבנית יד תבנית רגל הרי אלו אסורין מפני שכיוצא בהן נעבד

The Gemara answers: The mishna means that fragments of statues are permitted, and the same is true even of fragments of objects of idol worship. And that which is taught in the mishna: Fragments of statues, is not meant to exclude fragments of idols. Rather, this expression is used because the mishna sought to teach in the last clause: If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, even if they are not known to be objects of idol worship, as objects similar to those are worshipped. If the first clause in the mishna had referred to fragments of idols, it would have been inferred that the latter clause was referring specifically to the figure of a hand or foot that was known to have been worshipped, and that otherwise such figures would not be forbidden.

תנן מצא תבנית יד תבנית רגל הרי אלו אסורין מפני שכיוצא בו נעבד אמאי

We learned in the mishna: If one found an object in the figure of a hand or in the figure of a foot, these are forbidden, as objects similar to those are worshipped. The Gemara asks: Why?

והא שברים נינהו תרגמה שמואל בעומדין על בסיסן

But aren’t they fragments of idols, which are permitted according to Shmuel? The Gemara answers that Shmuel interpreted the mishna as follows: It is referring to a case where these objects that are in the figure of a hand or a foot are standing on their pedestals, which shows that they were designed this way initially and are not merely fragments.

אתמר עבודה זרה שנשתברה מאיליה רבי יוחנן אמר אסורה רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר מותרת

§ It was stated: With regard to objects of idol worship that broke by themselves, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted.

רבי יוחנן אמר אסורה דהא לא בטלה רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר מותרת מסתמא בטולי מבטיל לה מימר אמר איהי נפשה לא אצלה לההוא גברא מצלה ליה

The Gemara explains the sides of the dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is prohibited, as its owner did not revoke its status as an object of idol worship. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that it is permitted, as the owner presumably revoked its status as an object of idol worship, having said to himself: If the idol could not save even itself from harm, can it save that man, i.e., myself?

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לרבי שמעון בן לקיש וראש דגון ושתי כפות ידיו כרתות וגו׳ וכתיב על כן לא ידרכו כהני דגון וגו׳

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from the passage in the book of Samuel recounting the downfall of the Philistine god Dagon: “And when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon was fallen on his face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut off upon the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him” (I Samuel 5:4). And from the next verse it seems that Dagon’s worshippers accorded it honor despite its destruction, as it is written: “Therefore, the priests of Dagon, and anyone who comes into Dagon’s house, do not tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod until this day” (I Samuel 5:5). Evidently, when an idol breaks, its worshippers do not stop worshipping it.

אמר לו משם ראיה התם שמניחין את הדגון ועובדין את המפתן דאמרי הכי שבקיה איסריה לדגון ואתא איתיב ליה על המפתן

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: Is there proof from there? There, the reason people did not tread on the threshold of Dagon is that they had abandoned their worship of the Dagon and would instead worship the threshold upon which Dagon was found, as they stated this reasoning: The spirit of Dagon has left the Dagon idol and instead it came and rested upon the threshold.

איתיביה המוצא שברי צלמים הרי אלו מותרין הא שברי עבודה זרה אסורין

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised another objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from the mishna: In the case of one who finds fragments of statues, these are permitted. This indicates that fragments of known objects of idol worship are forbidden.

לא תימא שברי עבודה זרה אסורין אלא אימא הא צלמים עצמן אסורין וסתמא כרבי מאיר

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish replied: Do not say that the indication is that fragments of objects of idol worship are forbidden; rather say that the indication is that full statues themselves are forbidden, and the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who, in the previous mishna, prohibits any statue as it is possible that it is worshipped annually.

ורבי יוחנן מדרבי מאיר נשמע להו לרבנן לאו אמר רבי מאיר צלמים אסורין שברי צלמים מותרין לרבנן עבודה זרה נמי היא אסורה ושבריה מותרין

The Gemara asks: But how does Rabbi Yoḥanan refute the following logic: From the opinion of Rabbi Meir one can learn a detail with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis. Doesn’t Rabbi Meir say that statues are forbidden, while fragments of statues are permitted? From this, one can derive that this is true according to the Rabbis as well with regard to objects of idol worship: The object itself is forbidden, but its fragments are permitted.

הכי השתא התם אימר עבדום אימר לא עבדום ואם תמצי לומר עבדום אימר בטלום עבודה זרה ודאי עבדוה מי יימר דבטלה הוי ספק וודאי ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי

The Gemara rejects this comparison: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of statues, the fragments are permitted because there is room to say that people worshipped them, and there is also room to say that people did not worship them; and even if you say that people worshipped them, there is room to say that their owners subsequently revoked them. This is not comparable to an object of idol worship, which people certainly worshipped, and who is to say that its owner certainly revoked it? It is a conflict between an uncertainty as to whether or not it was revoked, and a certainty that it was worshipped, and the principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי והתניא חבר שמת והניח מגורה מלאה פירות אפילו הן בני יומן הרי הן בחזקת מתוקנין

The Gemara asks: And does an uncertainty not override a certainty? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of a ḥaver who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even if the produce was there only that day, it has the presumptive status of produce that was ritually prepared, i.e., properly tithed. This is due to the presumption that the ḥaver tithed the produce himself or instructed others to do so.

והא הכא דודאי טבילי ספק עשרינהו ספק לא עשרינהו וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי

The Gemara infers: And here, in this case, the produce was certainly untithed at the outset, and there is uncertainty whether the ḥaver tithed it, and there is uncertainty whether he did not tithe it, and despite this conflict, the uncertainty whether it was tithed comes and overrides the certainty that it was untithed produce.

התם ודאי וודאי הוא דודאי עשרינהו כדרבי חנינא חוזאה דאמר רבי חנינא חוזאה חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא דבר שאינו מתוקן מתחת ידו

The Gemara rejects this claim: There, in that case, conflict is between certainty and certainty, as the ḥaver certainly tithed the produce. This presumption is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥoza’a; as Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥoza’a says: There is a presumption with regard to a ḥaver that he does not release an item from his possession that is not ritually prepared.

ואי בעית אימא מעיקרא לא טבילי ספק וספק הוא

And if you wish, say instead that perhaps the produce did not initially have the status of untithed produce, and therefore the conflict is between uncertainty and uncertainty.

אפשר דעבד כדרבי אושעיא דאמר מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר

This is because it is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe the produce, as the ḥaver may have acted in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Oshaya, who says that a person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and bring it into his courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from tithes. Although the obligation to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one’s animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. In light of this halakha it is possible that the produce in the storehouse of the ḥaver never needed to be tithed. Consequently, this case is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not he tithed it.

ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי והתניא אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בשפחתו

The Gemara raises another objection: And is it so that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the maidservant