Avodah Zarah 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

Rabba said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages is

with regard to

images

of villages,

for it is not customary to erect images for ornamentation in villages.

But

with regard to

images

of large cities,

towns,

everyone agrees that they are permitted.

What is the reason?—

They make them for ornamentation,

as is customary in large towns.

The Gemara is astonished:

And

images

of villages—can there be anyone who says

that

they make them for ornamentation,

that they make them for ornamentation and therefore the Sages permit them?! After all, images

of villages are certainly made to worship them!

They are certainly made for idolatry, since villagers do not customarily erect images for ornamentation. And we conclude:

Rather, if it was stated,

if the students indeed transmitted this teaching in Rabba’s name,

this is what was stated: Rabba said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages is

with regard to those of large cities,

and only concerning them did they say that they are made for ornamentation.

But concerning those of villages, everyone

is of the opinion that they

are forbidden,

because the villagers certainly do not make images for ornamentation.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the Sages say: It is forbidden only if it has a staff, a bird, or a sphere in its hand.

The Gemara explains what “symbol” is represented by these objects, which constitute an indication that the images are images of avoda zara.

Staff: For

the idol

rules over the entire world beneath itself [

the Gemara says this in disparaging language; it means that, according to the gentiles, it rules over the world beneath it],

like

a

staff.

That is, the entire world is in its hand, as though it were holding a staff, and it rules over the world, because the staff symbolizes dominion and authority.

Bird: For it grasps the entire world beneath itself, like a bird.

That is, the world is in its hand and under its control, and it also rises above the world like a bird flying and soaring above it.

Sphere: For it grasps the entire world beneath itself, like a sphere.

The round world, like a sphere, is in its hand and under its control.

A tanna

in a beraita

added to them

additional symbols indicating that the images are idols:

a sword, a crown, and a ring.

The Gemara explains:

Sword: Initially,

at first, after the Mishna was taught and before the beraita was taught,

they thought

that this image was not an idol, but

merely a bandit.

But ultimately they thought

that it was an idol, and the sword symbolizes

that it kills the entire world beneath itself.

That is, it kills the entire world.

Crown: Initially they thought it was merely a maker of crowns,

an ordinary craftsman who makes crowns,

but ultimately they thought: Like

a

crown for a king [

an alternative version, in disparaging language:

for a dog].

Ring: Initially they thought: He is merely a courier,

an ordinary messenger who carries the seal of the person who sent him,

but ultimately they thought: He seals the entire world beneath itself for death.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

says: Also, every image that has any object in its hand.

A tanna

taught in a beraita:

Even

if it has

a stone or a splinter

in its hand, because holding an object in one’s hand symbolizes authority and dominion.

Rav Ashi raised a question:

If he

held [

the version of Rabbeinu Hananel:

holds]

excrement in his hand, what is

the ruling? Is it forbidden according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, or not?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Do we say

that it is a symbol that

everyone is degraded before him,

they are lowly in comparison with him,

because

like

excrement

—and it is forbidden?

Or perhaps,

it may symbolize the opposite:

he, however,

is the figure

that is degraded before everyone like excrement.

That is, the person represented by the image was despised, and the statue was made to denigrate him, as he is like excrement in comparison with the entire world. It is therefore not an image of idolatry.

And we conclude:

Teyku.

The question remains unresolved.

Mishna:

One who finds fragments of images, these are permitted,

because even when they were intact, it was uncertain whether the gentiles had worshipped them or had not worshipped them; now that they are broken, even assuming that they had worshipped them, there is an additional uncertainty: perhaps the gentiles nullified them. Therefore, there is a “double uncertainty” as to whether they are forbidden, and anything whose prohibition is subject to a double uncertainty is permitted.

The nullification of an idol" takes place when a gentile "nullifies" his idol by breaking or damaging it; this is the practice of gentiles when they become angry with their gods. Once the gentile has nullified it, its prohibition against deriving benefit from it is annulled."]]

If one finds the form of a hand or the form of a foot, these are forbidden, because objects like them

a hand or foot alone

are worshipped,

the gentiles worship them.

Gemara:

Shmuel said:

It is unnecessary to say that the Mishna speaks specifically of ordinary images, regarding which we did not see that they were worshipped, and that the reason for the permission is the uncertainty whether they were worshipped,

rather,

even if one finds fragments of an idol

that we know are fragments of idols, and we saw that the gentiles worshipped them when they were intact, they are also permitted. For gentiles guard their idols carefully until the day comes when they become angry with them; then they break them and cast them away. Therefore, if a person finds these fragments, it is not reasonable to assume that they were lost and broke on their own; it is more reasonable that they were deliberately broken and nullified.

And we object:

And

this—

we learned

in our Mishna,

“fragments of images.”

This implies that specifically fragments of images, whose worship is unknown, are permitted, but not actual idols!

And we answer:

The same law applies: even fragments of idols

are permitted, as Shmuel stated.

And the reason it teaches “fragments of images”

is not that specifically images are permitted, but

because he wanted to teach in the latter clause,

since the tanna wished to teach in the latter clause:

If one finds the form of a hand or the form of a foot—

these are forbidden, because objects like them are worshipped.

Therefore, he taught “images,” to teach you that the form of a hand and the form of a foot are forbidden even when they are parts of images.

And if the Mishna had stated at the outset, “fragments of idolatry,” we would have inferred that only in the case of actual idols is there a distinction between ordinary fragments, which are permitted, and the form of a hand or foot, which is prohibited; but in the case of statues, the form of a hand or foot would be permitted. This is not correct, however, because these forms are significant, and there is concern that they were worshipped [as the Gemara will explain below, a separate base is made for them]; therefore, they are prohibited even when they are fragments of statues.

And the Gemara infers from the words of the Mishna a difficulty against Shmuel:

We learned: If one finds the form of a hand or the form of a foot, these are prohibited, because something like it

among them

is worshipped.