Avodah Zarah 52

תנהו ענין לכלים מכאן אמרו עבודה זרה של נכרי אינה אסורה אלא עד שתעבד ושל ישראל מיד

Since the verse does not apply to places that were themselves worshipped, apply it to the matter of vessels that were used for idol worship. It is from here that the Sages stated: A gentile’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is forbidden immediately.

והא בכלים אוקימנא לה אמר קרא אשר אתם ירשים אתם את אלהיהם מקיש אלהיהם לכלים מה כלים עד שיעבדו אף אלהיהם נמי עד שיעבדו ורבי עקיבא דלא מקיש אמר לך את הפסיק הענין

The Gemara questions how the halakha with regard to an object of idol worship is derived from this verse. But didn’t we interpret this verse as being stated with regard to vessels used in idolatrous worship, and not to an object of idol worship? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “You shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse juxtaposes “their gods” to “the places,” i.e., the vessels used to serve them. Just as the vessels are not forbidden until they are used for worship, so too their gods, the idols, are also not forbidden until they are worshipped. And Rabbi Akiva, who does not consider the terms juxtaposed, he could say to you that the word “et,” written in the verse before the term “their gods,” separates the matter of their gods from the matter of the vessels.

ורבי ישמעאל אשכחן עבודה זרה של נכרי דאין אסורה עד שתעבד דישראל דאסורה מיד מנא ליה סברא הוא מדנכרי עד שתעבד דישראל אסורה מיד אימא דישראל כלל וכלל לא השתא גניזה בעיא איתסורי לא מיתסרא

The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is worshipped. From where does he derive that a Jew’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning. From the fact that a gentile’s idol is not forbidden until it is worshipped, it stands to reason that a Jew’s idol is prohibited immediately. The Gemara asks: Why not say that a Jew’s idol is not forbidden at all? The Gemara answers: Now, the status of a Jew’s idol cannot be revoked and the idol requires interment. Is it possible that it does not become prohibited?

ואימא כדנכרי אמר קרא ואת חטאתכם אשר עשיתם את העגל משעת עשייה קם ליה בחטא

The Gemara challenges: But one could say that a Jew’s idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped, just as a gentile’s idol is forbidden only once it is worshipped. The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And I took your sin, the calf that you had made, and I burned it with fire” (Deuteronomy 9:21), which indicates that from the time of its making its worshippers were liable for the sin.

אימא הני מילי למיקם גברא בחטא איתסורי לא מיתסרא אמר קרא ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה משעת עשייה קם ליה בארור

The Gemara asks: Why not say that this matter applies only with regard to rendering the man who made the idol liable for the sin, but the object of idol worship does not become prohibited until it is worshipped? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “Cursed be the man who shall make a graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), which indicates that from the time of its making the person who made the idol is liable to be cursed.

אימא הני מילי למיקם גברא בארור איתסורי לא מיתסרא תועבת ה׳ כתיב

The Gemara asks: Why not say that this matter applies only with regard to rendering the man who made the idol liable to be cursed, but the object of idol worship does not become prohibited until it is worshipped? The Gemara answers: It is written: “An abomination to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 27:15). This indicates that the idol itself is an abomination and is therefore prohibited from the time that it is made.

ורבי עקיבא דבר המביא לידי תועבה

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, who does not maintain that a Jew’s idol is forbidden from the time that it is made, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva explains that the term “an abomination” means an object that leads to abomination but itself is not considered an abomination before it is worshipped.

ורבי עקיבא עבודה זרה של נכרי דאסורה מיד מנא ליה אמר עולא אמר קרא פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש משפסלו נעשה אלוה

The Gemara explains the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive that a gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately? Ulla said: The verse states: “The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take it for yourself, lest you be snared thereby, for it is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 7:25). The term “graven images” indicates that from the time that the gentile engraves and carves the stone into an idol it becomes a god and is forbidden.

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתני רב יוסף דתני רב יוסף מנין לגוי שפוסל אלוהו שנאמר פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Rav Yosef teaches in a baraita, as Rav Yosef teaches: From where is it derived that a gentile may revoke [sheposel] the status of an object as his god? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “The graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire” (Deuteronomy 7:25).

ואידך נפקא ליה מדשמואל דשמואל רמי כתיב לא תחמד כסף וזהב עליהם וכתיב ולקחת לך הא כיצד פסלו לאלוה לא תחמד פסלו מאלוה ולקחת לך

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva derives it from the interpretation of Shmuel, as Shmuel raises a contradiction: It is written: “The graven images of [pesilei] their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them” (Deuteronomy 7:25), and in the continuation of the verse it is written: “And take it for yourself,” indicating that one is permitted to take the silver and gold. How can these texts be reconciled? If the gentile engraved and carved the stone as a god, it is immediately rendered forbidden and the prohibition “you shall not covet” applies. If the gentile revoked [pesalo] the idol’s status as a god, the continuation of the verse: “And take it for yourself,” applies.

ורבי עקיבא אשכחן עבודה זרה של נכרי דאסורה מיד דישראל עד שתעבד מנלן אמר רב יהודה אמר קרא ושם בסתר עד שיעשה לה דברים שבסתר

The Gemara asks: And as for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, we found a source for the halakha that a gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately. From where do we derive that a Jew’s object of idol worship is not forbidden until it is worshipped? Rav Yehuda said that the verse states: “Cursed be the man who shall make a graven or molten image…and shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15). This indicates that the idol is not rendered forbidden until the idolater performs in service of the idol those matters, i.e., rites, that are performed in a hidden place.

ואידך ההוא מיבעיא ליה לכדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק מנין לעבודה זרה של ישראל שטעונה גניזה שנאמר ושם בסתר

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Rabbi Yitzḥak says, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that a Jew’s object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), which Rabbi Yitzḥak interprets as requiring one to inter the idol in a hidden place.

ואידך נפקא ליה מדרב חסדא אמר רב דאמר רב חסדא אמר רב מנין לעבודה זרה של ישראל שטעונה גניזה שנאמר לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ אצל מזבח מה מזבח טעון גניזה אף אשרה טעונה גניזה

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva derives it from that which Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says, as Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that a Jew’s object of idol worship requires interment? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:21). The verse juxtaposes an ashera, a tree used as part of idolatrous rites, to the altar. This indicates that just as the altar requires interment, so too an ashera requires interment.

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש כל המעמיד דיין שאינו הגון כאילו נוטע אשרה בישראל שנאמר שפטים ושטרים תתן לך בכל שעריך וסמיך ליה לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse for that which Reish Lakish says, as Reish Lakish says: Anyone who appoints over the community a judge who is unfit for the position, due to his lack of knowledge or wickedness, is considered as though he plants an ashera among the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Judges and officers you shall make for yourself in all of your gates” (Deuteronomy 16:18), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “You shall not plant for yourself an ashera of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 16:21).

אמר רב אשי ובמקום תלמידי חכמים כאילו נטעו אצל מזבח שנאמר אצל מזבח

Rav Ashi says: And if one appoints an unsuitable individual as a judge in a place where there are Torah scholars, it is as though he planted an ashera next to the altar, as it is stated: “Beside the altar of the Lord your God.”

בעי רב המנונא ריתך כלי לעבודה זרה מהו עבודה זרה דמאן אילימא עבודה זרה דנכרי בין לרבי ישמעאל ובין לרבי עקיבא משמשי עבודה זרה הן ומשמשי עבודה זרה אין אסורין עד שיעבדו אלא עבודה זרה דישראל

§ Rav Hamnuna raises a dilemma: If one welded [ritekh] a broken vessel for idol worship, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: With regard to whose idol worship does Rav Hamnuna raise the dilemma? If we say that Rav Hamnuna is referring to a gentile’s idol worship, that is difficult, as both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva vessels used in idolatrous worship are considered accessories of idol worship, and accessories of idol worship are not prohibited until they are used for worship. Rather, Rav Hamnuna is referring to a Jews’ idol worship.

אליבא דמאן אילימא אליבא דרבי עקיבא השתא היא גופה לא מיתסרא עד שתעבד משמשיה מיבעיא ואלא אליבא דרבי ישמעאל דאמר אסורה מיד

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Hamnuna raise the dilemma? If we say that he raises the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, this is difficult. Now that the idol itself is not prohibited until it is worshipped, is it necessary to state that its accessories are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship? Rather, perhaps Rav Hamnuna raises the dilemma in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that a Jew’s idol is prohibited immediately.

מאי משמשין ממשמשין גמרינן מה התם עד שיעבדו אף הכא עד שיעבדו או דלמא מינה גמר מה היא אסורה מיד אף משמשיה אסורין מיד

The Gemara suggest an explanation of the dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a Jew’s accessories of idol worship? Do we learn the halakha with regard to a Jew’s accessories from the halakha with regard to a gentile’s accessories? Just as there, in the case of a gentile’s accessories of idol worship, they are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship, so too here, in the case of a Jew’s accessories of idol worship, they are not forbidden until they are used for idol worship. Or perhaps the halakha is learned from the halakha with regard to a Jew’s object of idol worship itself. Just as the idol itself is prohibited immediately, so too its accessories are prohibited immediately.

מאי איריא דקא מיבעיא ליה ריתך כלי תיבעי ליה עשה

The Gemara rejects this explanation: If that is the explanation of Rav Hamnuna’s dilemma, why does he specifically raise the dilemma with regard to one who welded a broken vessel? Let him raise the dilemma with regard to one who fashioned a vessel for idolatrous worship.

רב המנונא משום טומאה ישנה קמיבעיא ליה דתנן כלי מתכות פשוטיהן ומקבליהן טמאין נשתברו טהרו חזר ועשאן כלים יחזרו לטומאה ישנה

The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna is referring to a vessel that was used for idol worship before it broke, and he is raising the dilemma with regard to the matter of previous ritual impurity. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 11:1): With regard to metal vessels, both their flat vessels, which have no repositories, and their receptacles, vessels that have repositories, are all impure if they came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity. If they broke, they thereby became purified. But if one remade the broken vessels into new vessels, they reassume their previous impurity.

והכי קמיבעיא ליה כי הדרא טומאה הני מילי לטומאה דאורייתא אבל טומאה דרבנן לא או דלמא לא שנא ותיבעי ליה שאר טומאות דרבנן

And this is the dilemma that Rav Hamnuna is raising: When the mishna teaches that a vessel that is remade reassumes its impurity, does this matter apply only to impurity by Torah law, but in the case of impurity by rabbinic law, such as the impurity of an object of idol worship, it does not apply? Or perhaps there is no difference between impurity by Torah law and impurity by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: If that is the explanation of Rav Hamnuna’s dilemma, why does he specifically discuss a vessel used for idol worship? Let him raise the dilemma with regard to any other type of impurity by rabbinic law.

חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה טומאה דרבנן מי הדרא או לא הדרא ואם תימצי לומר לא הדרא טומאה דעבודה זרה משום חומרא דעבודה זרה מי שויוה רבנן כטומאה דאורייתא או לא תיקו

The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna is raising two dilemmas, one of which stems from the other. Is impurity by rabbinic law reassumed, or is it not reassumed? And if you say that it is not reassumed, what is the halakha with regard to the impurity of an object of idol worship? Did the Sages render its status like that of impurity by Torah law, due to the stringency of idol worship, or not? The Gemara concludes: The dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

בעי מיניה רבי יוחנן מרבי ינאי תקרובת עבודה זרה של אוכלים מהו מי מהניא להו ביטול לטהרינהו מטומאה או לא

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma to Rabbi Yannai: With regard to an offering consisting of food brought in idolatrous worship, what is the halakha? Is the revocation of their status as an object of idol worship by a gentile effective to purify them from the ritual impurity of an offering brought in idolatrous worship or is it not effective?

ותיבעי ליה כלים כלים לא קמיבעיא ליה כיון דאית להו טהרה במקוה טומאה נמי בטלה כי קמיבעיא ליה אוכלין

The Gemara suggests: And let him raise the dilemma with regard to whether revocation of vessels’ status purifies vessels used in idol worship from their impurity. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoḥanan does not raise the dilemma with regard to vessels, since they have the ability to attain purity by being immersed in a ritual bath, and therefore their impurity can certainly also be nullified. When he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to food, which cannot be purified in a ritual bath.

ותיבעי ליה עבודה זרה גופה עבודה זרה גופה לא מיבעיא ליה

The Gemara suggests: Let him raise the dilemma with regard to whether revoking its status purifies the object of idol worship itself in a case where it consists of food. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan does not raise the dilemma with regard to the object of idol worship itself,

כיון דאיסורה בטיל טומאה נמי בטלה כי קא מיבעיא ליה תקרובת לעבודה זרה של אוכלין מאי כיון דאיסוריה לא בטיל כדרב גידל טומאה נמי לא בטלה או דלמא איסור דאורייתא לא בטיל טומאה דרבנן בטיל תיקו

as, since its prohibition is nullified, its impurity is also nullified. When he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to an offering consisting of food brought in idolatrous worship. What is the halakha? Does one say that since its prohibition is not nullified, in accordance with the statement of Rav Giddel, who teaches that the prohibition that takes effect with regard to offerings brought in idolatrous worship is never nullified, therefore the impurity is also not nullified? Or perhaps only their prohibition, which is by Torah law, is not nullified, but their impurity, which is by rabbinic law, is nullified. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעא מיניה רבי יוסי בן שאול מרבי כלים ששימשו בהן בבית חוניו מהו שישתמשו בהן בבית המקדש

§ Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to vessels that were used in the temple of Onias, what is the halakha with regard to using them in the Temple?

וקא מיבעיא ליה אליבא דמאן דאמר בית חוניו לאו בית עבודה זרה היא דתנן כהנים ששימשו בבית חוניו לא ישמשו במקדש שבירושלים ואינו צריך לומר לדבר אחר

And he raised this dilemma according to the opinion of the one who says that the temple of Onias was not a temple of idol worship. As we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 109a): Priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple that is in Jerusalem, and needless to say, those priests who served in a temple of something else, i.e., idol worship, may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem. This distinction indicates that the temple of Onias was not a temple of idol worship. It was used for the service of God, but it violated the prohibition against sacrificing offerings outside of the Temple in Jerusalem.

כהנים הוא דקנסינהו רבנן משום דבני דעה נינהו אבל כלים לא או דלמא לא שנא

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Does one say that it is only the priests that the Sages penalized by preventing them from serving in the Temple, as they possess awareness and are responsible for their actions, but they did not institute a similar decree with regard to vessels, as they are inanimate? Or perhaps there is no difference, and the decree also applies to the vessels.

אמר לו אסורים הן ומקרא היה בידינו ושכחנוהו

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul: The vessels that were used in the temple of Onias are prohibited, and we possessed knowledge of a verse from which this halakha was derived, but we forgot which verse it is.

איתיביה כל הכלים אשר הזניח המלך אחז במלכותו במעלו הכנו והקדשנו מאי לאו הכנו דאטבלינהו הקדשנו דאקדישננהו

Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul raised an objection to this ruling from a verse referring to vessels of the Temple that Ahaz had used for idol worship: “All the vessels, which King Ahaz in his reign did cast away when he acted treacherously, we have prepared and sanctified, and, behold, they are before the altar of the Lord” (II Chronicles 29:19). What, is it not the case that the term “we have prepared” means that we immersed them in a ritual bath, and the term “sanctified” means that we sanctified them to be used again in the Temple? This would indicate that the vessels may be used in the Temple even though they were used in idolatrous worship.

אמר לו ברוך אתה לשמים שהחזרת לי אבדתי הכנו שגנזנום והקדשנו שהקדשנו אחרים תחתיהם

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul: Blessed are you to Heaven, as you have returned my lost verse to me. That verse is the forgotten source of the halakha that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated, and it should be interpreted as follows: “We have prepared” means that we interred them; “and sanctified” means that we sanctified other vessels in their stead, as the vessels used by Ahaz were forbidden, and the same applies to the vessels from the temple of Onias.

לימא מסייע ליה מזרחית צפונית בה גנזו בית חשמונאי את אבני המזבח ששקצו אנשי יון ואמר רב ששת ששקצו לעבודה זרה

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion (Middot 1:6): The northeast chamber of the Chamber of the Hearth was the chamber in which the Hasmoneans sequestered the altar stones that the people of Greece desecrated. And Rav Sheshet says: This means that they desecrated the stones by using them for idol worship. This indicates that Temple vessels that were used in idolatrous worship can no longer be used and must be sequestered.

אמר רב פפא התם קרא אשכח ודרש דכתיב ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה

Rav Pappa said: That case of the altar’s stones is different, because there a Sage found a verse and interpreted it homiletically, as it is written: “And they shall profane My secret place, and robbers shall enter into it and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22). The verse indicates that when the gentiles entered the Temple and desecrated it, the altar was desacralized and acquired non-sacred status. Consequently, when the stones were subsequently used for idolatrous worship they were rendered forbidden even for non-sacred use.

אמרי היכי נעביד ניתברינהו אבנים שלמות אמר רחמנא ננסרינהו לא תניף עליהם ברזל אמר רחמנא

The Gemara explains why the altar’s stones were sequestered: The Hasmoneans said: What should we do to revoke the stone’s forbidden status? Shall we break them? That is not possible, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones” (Deuteronomy 27:6). Shall we saw them without breaking them? That is also not a viable option, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “You shall lift up no iron tool upon them” (Deuteronomy 27:5). There was therefore no alternative to sequestering the stones.

ואמאי ליתברינהו ולישקלינהו לנפשייהו מי לא אמר רב אושעיא בקשו לגנוז כל כסף וזהב שבעולם משום כספא ודהבא של ירושלים והוינן בה ירושלים הויא רובא דעלמא

The Gemara asks: But why did the Hasmoneans have no alternative? Let them break the stones and take them for themselves. Didn’t Rav Oshaya say: The Sages wished to sequester all of the silver and gold in the world because of the silver and gold of Jerusalem, most of which was consecrated to the Temple treasury and became mixed with other silver and gold. And we discussed it and asked: Is Jerusalem the majority of the world that all of the silver and gold of the world should be forbidden as perhaps it came from Jerusalem?

אלא אמר אביי בקשו לגנוז דינרא הדרייאנא טוריינא שיפא מפני טבעה של ירושלים עד שמצאו לה מקרא מן התורה שהוא מותר ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה

Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all of the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as it was known that these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury’s gold and silver. They did not permit the use of these coins until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22).

התם לא אשתמשו בהו לגבוה הכא כיון דאשתמש בהו לגבוה לאו אורח ארעא לאשתמושי בהו הדיוטא

The Gemara answers: The two cases are not comparable. There, the coins of Jerusalem had not been used in service of the Most High; they were only consecrated. Here, since the stones of the altar had been used in service of the Most High, it is not proper conduct for an ordinary person to make use of them, and therefore the Hasmoneans sequestered the stones.

מתני׳ נכרי מבטל עבודה זרה שלו ושל חבירו וישראל אין מבטל עבודה זרה של נכרי המבטל עבודה זרה מבטל משמשיה ביטל משמשיה משמשין מותרין והיא אסורה

MISHNA: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the idol of another gentile, but a Jew cannot revoke the status of the object of idol worship of a gentile. One who revokes the status of an object of idol worship thereby revokes the status of its accessories. But if he revokes the status of its accessories, its accessories alone are rendered permitted, but the object of idol worship itself remains prohibited.

גמ׳ מתני ליה רבי לרבי שמעון ברבי נכרי מבטל עבודה זרה שלו ושל חבירו אמר לו רבי שנית לנו בילדותך נכרי מבטל עבודה זרה שלו ושל ישראל דישראל מי קא מבטלה והא ושם בסתר כתיב אמר רבי הילל בריה דרבי וולס לא נצרכה שיש לו בה שותפות

GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the following version of the mishna: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the idol of another gentile. Rabbi Shimon said to him: My teacher, in your youth, i.e., when you were younger, you taught us a different version of the mishna: A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the object of idol worship of a Jew. The Gemara asks: Can the status of a Jew’s idol be revoked? But isn’t it written: “And shall set it up in a hidden place” (Deuteronomy 27:15), from which the Sages derived that a Jew’s idol requires interment? Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, said: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and therefore it is possible to say that its status can be revoked.

בילדותו מאי קסבר ובזקנותו מאי קסבר בילדותו סבר ישראל אדעתא דנכרי פלח כיון דנכרי מבטל דנפשיה דישראל נמי מבטלה ובזקנותו סבר ישראל אדעתא דנפשיה פלח כי מבטל נכרי דנפשיה דישראל לא בטיל

The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold in his youth, and what did he hold in his old age? The Gemara answers: In his youth he held that the Jew worships the idol based on the intention of the gentile. Once the gentile revokes the status of his share in the idol, the status of the share of the Jew is also revoked. But in his old age Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held that the Jew worships the idol based on his own intentions. Therefore, when the gentile revokes the status of the object of idol worship, he revokes the status of only his own share, but the status of the share of the Jew is not revoked.

איכא דמתני לה אסיפא ישראל אינו מבטל עבודה זרה של נכרי פשיטא אמר רבי הילל בריה

There are those who teach Rabbi Hillel’s statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: A Jew cannot revoke the status of the object of idol worship of a gentile. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Said Rabbi Hillel, son