Avodah Zarah 41a — the Talmud in English

Rabba said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages is

concerning

images

of villages,

where it is not their practice to erect images for adornment in villages.

But

concerning

images

of large towns

large cities,

everyone agrees that they are permitted.

What is the reason? —

They make them for adornment,

they make them for adornment, as is the practice of large cities.

And the Gemara wonders:

And

images

of villages—can there be one who says

that they make them

for adornment,

that they make them for adornment, and therefore the Sages permit?! But images

of villages—they certainly make them in order to worship them!

They are certainly made for idolatry, for the inhabitants of villages do not customarily erect images for adornment. And we conclude:

Rather, if it was stated,

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

this is how it was stated: Rabba said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages is

concerning those of large towns,

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

But concerning those of villages, everyone

is

forbidden,

because the inhabitants of villages certainly do not make images for the sake of adornment.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the Sages say: It is not forbidden except one who has a staff, or a bird, or a sphere in his hand.

The Gemara explains what the “symbol” is in these objects, which constitute a sign that they are images of avodah zarah.

A staff: For

the idol

rules itself beneath the whole world [

the Gemara says this in disparagement, and the intention is according to the gentiles’ view, that it rules the world beneath it],

like

it

a staff.

That is, the whole world is in its hand, as it holds a staff, and it rules the world, because the staff symbolizes ruling and dominion.

A bird: For it grasps itself beneath the whole world, like a bird.

That is, the world is in its hand and under its control; and likewise it raises itself above the world, like a bird flying and gliding above the world.

A sphere: For it grasps itself beneath the whole world, like a sphere.

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

A tanna

in a beraita:

They added to them

further symbols for images that are idols:

a sword, a crown, and a ring.

And the Gemara explains:

A sword: At first,

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

they thought

that this image was not an idol, but

merely a bandit.

And ultimately they thought

that it was an idol, and the sword comes to symbolize

that it kills itself beneath the whole world.

That is, that it kills the whole world.

A crown: At first they thought it was merely a crown-maker’s plait,

an ordinary craftsman who braids crowns,

but ultimately they thought: like

it

a crown for a king [

another version, in disparaging language:

for a dog].

A ring: At first they thought: merely a signet-bearer,

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

but ultimately they thought: that he seals himself beneath the whole world for death.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

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

A tanna

we learned in a beraita:

Even

if it has

a stone or a splinter

in its hand, because holding an object in the hand symbolizes rule and authority.

Rav Ashi raised a problem:

If

it held [

the version of Rabbeinu Hananel:

holds]

excrement in its hand, what is the law?

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

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say

that it is a symbol that

everyone is degraded before it,

they are lowly in comparison with it,

like

like

excrement,

and it is forbidden?

Or perhaps,

it may have come to symbolize the opposite:

it, in any event,

the figure represented by the image is the one

who is degraded before everyone like excrement.

That is, the figure from which they made the image was despised, and they made the statue in order to denigrate it, that it is like excrement in comparison with the whole world. And it is not an image of idolatry.

And we conclude:

Teyku.

The question is not resolved.

Mishna:

One who finds fragments of images—these are permitted,

because even when they were whole, there was a “doubt” whether the gentiles worshipped them or did not worship them; and now, when they are broken, even if you should say that they worshipped them, there is an additional “doubt,” lest the gentiles nullified them. Therefore they are in a state of “doubtful doubt” as to whether they are forbidden, and anything whose prohibition is a doubtful doubt is permitted.

The “nullification” of avodah zarah is carried out when the gentile “nullifies” his idol by breaking it or damaging it; this is the practice of gentiles when they become angry at their gods. Once the gentile has nullified it, its prohibition for benefit is removed.

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

a hand or foot alone

is worshipped,

the gentiles worship them.

Gemara:

Shmuel said:

It is unnecessary to say that the Mishna speaks specifically of ordinary images, concerning which we have not seen that they worshipped them, and that the reason for the permission is because of the “doubt” lest they did not worship them;

rather

even if one finds fragments of idolatry

which we know are fragments of idols, and we saw that the gentiles worshipped them when they were whole, they are also permitted, because the gentiles guard their idols carefully until the day comes when they become angry with them; then they break them and throw them away. Therefore, if a person finds these fragments, it is not likely that they were lost and broken by themselves; rather, it is more likely that they were intentionally broken and nullified.

And we ask:

And

this

we learned,

for we learned in our Mishna:

Fragments of “images.”

And it implies that specifically images, concerning which it is not known that they were worshipped, are permitted, but not actual idols!

And we answer:

The same law applies: even fragments of idolatry

are permitted, as Shmuel says.

And the fact that it teaches “fragments of images”

is not because only 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 an object like them is 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 images.

.If the Mishna had said at the outset, “fragments of idolatry,” we would have inferred precisely to say that only with actual idols is there a distinction between ordinary fragments, which are permitted, and a hand-shaped or foot-shaped image, which is forbidden; but with images, a hand-shaped or foot-shaped image is permitted. And this is not correct, because these forms are important, and we are concerned for them [as will be explained in the Gemara below, that they make a base of their own]; therefore they are forbidden even when they are fragments of images.

And the Gemara infers from the words of the Mishna to raise an objection against Shmuel:

We learned: If one found a hand-shaped image, a foot-shaped image, these are forbidden, because something like

them

was worshipped.