Avodah Zarah 53a — the Talmud in English

And concerning this the Gemara brings:

Rabbi Hillel, son of ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Rabbi Vulas: It was necessary

for our Mishna to teach us that an Israelite cannot annul the idolatry of a gentile,

but

that the Mishna is dealing with a case in which

he has

the Israelite

a share in it,

in the idolatry,

a partnership with a gentile. And also in this there is no novelty that the Israelite cannot annul the gentile’s share, for he cannot even annul his own share. Rather, the wording of the Mishna comes to be precise and to say that only the Israelite cannot annul, but the gentile can annul his share,

with a gentile. And even in this there is no novelty in the fact that the Jew cannot revoke the gentile’s share, since he cannot even revoke his own share. Rather, the wording of the Mishna comes to imply that only the Jew cannot revoke the gentile’s share, but the gentile can revoke his own share,

and it teaches us this:

only

the Israelite is the one who does not annul

the share

of the gentile. But the gentile

his own share,

of himself

his own

does annul.

And the novelty is that it should not be said: Since he cannot annul the share of the Israelite who is his partner in the idolatry, he cannot annul even his own share.

There are those

who

teach it

that Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Vulas’s statement was said

concerning a beraita,

concerning a beraita in which we learned:

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: An Israelite’s idolatry has no annulment ever.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What

is the meaning of

“ever”?

Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Vulas said: It was necessary

to teach us that it has no annulment,

but

in a case

where the gentile has a share in it

in the Israelite’s idolatry

as a partnership,

and the gentile annulled his share, and it is indeed annulled, but the Israelite’s share is not annulled.

And it teaches us that the Israelite worships according to his own mind,

he worships with his own intention, and not according to the gentile’s intention.

Practical halakha: There is no difference among the three formulations of Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Vulas, and the gentile cannot annul the Israelite’s share, but only his own.

Mishna:

How does a gentile annul an idol?

The tip of its ear

or

the tip of its nose

or

the tip of its finger.

And likewise, if

he flattened it,

he struck it with a hammer until its form was crushed,

even though he did not diminish it, he has annulled it.

But if

he spat

spit

in its face,

or

urinated in its face,

or

dragged it,

dragged it and cast it into mud, or

threw excrement at it—

it is not annulled,

since these acts do not constitute annulment, but only an expression of temporary anger, and when he changes his mind, he will worship it.

He sold it

the gentile, or

pawned it

for his debt—

Rabbi says: He annulled it; and the Sages say: He did not annul it,

and it will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: If he flattened it, even though he did not diminish it, he annulled it.

And the Gemara discusses it:

When he did not diminish it,

and it is whole—

through what did he annul it?

Rabbi Zeira said:

For example,

he flattened it in its face

and damaged its form.

We learned in our Mishna:

He spat in its face and urinated in its face,

he dragged it, he threw excrement at it—it is not annulled.

And the Gemara discusses it:

From where are these words?

From where do we know that he returns and worships it after disgracing it, and therefore it is not annulled?

Hezekiah said: For the verse says [Isaiah 8], “And he will pass through it, crushed and hungry [a difficult event came upon him and he suffered hunger because his bread was diminished—Metzudat David]”;

and it shall be, when he is hungry and enraged—

and he curses his king and his god [he curses his idol and disgraces it]

he curses and disgraces his idol,

and turns upward [his heart turns toward Heaven].”

his heart turns toward Heaven.”

And it is written afterward,

and it is written in the following verse:

“And he will look toward the earth, and behold distress and darkness, gloom, anguish, and thick darkness.”

It is explained

that even though he cursed his king and his god and turned upward,—

when he calms down from his anger, then

he will look toward the earth,

he reconciles himself with it and returns to worship it.

We learned in our Mishna:

He sold it or pawned it—

Rabbi says: He annulled it; and the Sages say: He did not annul it.

The Mishna did not state to whom its gentile owner sold it, whether to a smith [ordinary purchasers of metals are smiths ] a gentile or an Israelite. The Gemara discusses this.

In the case of a gentile smith, the inclination is to say that the sale is not an act of annulment, because the gentile who sells it thinks that the gentile purchaser will worship it and will not break it or forge it.

Conversely, when he sells it to an Israelite smith, there is reason to say that the sale is an act of annulment, because the gentile knows that the Israelite will melt it and forge it, and will not worship it.

And although there is reason to say so, it is not an absolute principle, and there is no necessity to say so; it is possible that even if he sold it to a gentile, he annulled it. Likewise, it is possible that even if he sold it to an Israelite, he did not annul it. As will be explained in the Gemara.

Zeiri said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, and Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said in the name of Rav

disagreed concerning the explanation of our Mishna.

One

of the two

said: The dispute

between Rabbi and the Sages is

in the case of a gentile smith—

but in the case of an Israelite smith—

everyone agrees: He annulled it.

And one

of the two

said: In the case of an Israelite smith there is a dispute,

as will be explained.

They raised a dilemma before them:

What is the view of this second amora? Does he mean:

in the case of an Israelite smith

there is

the dispute—Rabbi says he annulled it and the Sages say he did not annul it—

but in the case of a gentile smith—

everyone agrees: He did not annul it—

or perhaps

he means:

both in this case

in the case of a gentile smith

and in this case

in the case of an Israelite smith—

there is a dispute.

And the practical difference is: what does Rabbi hold concerning one who sold it to a gentile smith—does he hold that he did not annul it or that he annulled it?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear

from Rabbi’s statement in a beraita.

For

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi said: My words appear

to be well-founded,

my words,

my position,

when he sold it for destruction [as will be explained],

as will be explained,

and the words of my colleagues,

the Sages who disagree with me—[appear]

when he sold it to be worshipped.

Before we conclude the resolution, we clarify:

What

is the meaning of

“for destruction,” and what

is the meaning of

“to be worshipped”?

If you say

that it means:

“for destruction”—

literally for destruction,

that he sold it on condition that he destroy it,

and “

to be worshipped”—

literally to be worshipped,

that he sold it on condition that he worship it—

what is the reason of the one who says

Rabbi, who says:

He annulled it,

for he explicitly stipulated with him that he would worship it [and even if in the end he did not worship it, in any event] the seller did not annul it from being idolatry—

and

this too is difficult: concerning “for destruction,”

what is the reason of the one who says

the Sages, who say:

He did not annul it,

for the seller certainly annulled it, knowing [or thinking] that the purchaser would destroy it?

Rather,

does

not

mean

“for destruction”—

for one who is destined to destroy it, and who is that?

And who is he?

An Israelite smith,

and nevertheless the Sages hold: He did not annul it, because the seller says in his heart: Since its value is great, the Israelite smith will not forge it; he will sell it to another gentile, and that gentile will worship it. And Rabbi disagrees and holds that the gentile knows that the Israelite will forge it with the skill of smiths.

And the meaning of

“to be worshipped” is

for one who is destined to worship it, and who is that?

And who is he?

A gentile smith,

therefore the Sages hold: He did not annul it, while Rabbi disagrees and holds: He annulled it.

Now, the wording of Rabbi’s statement, “My words appear,” means: Indeed, we also disagree concerning this law when he sells it to an Israelite, but my words are more reasonable. And likewise, what he said, “and the words of my colleagues,” means: We also disagreed when he sold it to a gentile, and concerning this law the words of my colleagues, the Sages, are more reasonable—

and infer from this: both in this case

when he sold it to an Israelite smith

and in this case

to a gentile smith—

there is a dispute.

The dilemma is resolved.

And now there is a difficulty against the first amora, who said that in the case of an Israelite smith everyone agrees that he annulled it, whereas from the beraita it appears that they also disagreed in the case of an Israelite smith.

And we reject this:

No,

this is not the meaning of the beraita, but

this is what it says:

this is the matter:

Rabbi said: My words appear to my colleagues

and they too did not disagree with me

when he sold it for destruction, and who is that?

And who is he?

An Israelite smith—

for even my colleagues did not disagree with me

to say that it is not annulled—

but when he sold it to be worshipped,

to a gentile,

but

when he sold it

for destruction, they agree with me.

And now we explain “My words appear”: at the outset, that is, they never disagreed with me. And not as the questioner explained “My words appear”: after our dispute, my words are more reasonable.

And Rabbi’s words come to clarify “in what” they disagreed, and not as the questioner thought, that Rabbi meant to say: whose words are more reasonable?

And the wording in the beraita is precise in this way: for in the first clause it says “and they appear,” while in the latter clause it says “and the words of my colleagues,” and it does not say “and they appear.” This indicates that in the first clause he says, “My words appear to my colleagues,” meaning that they never disagreed with him, while in the latter clause, “and the words of my colleagues,” means: In what did we indeed disagree? In the case of selling it to be worshipped.

In summary: there are two opinions.

The first amora holds: The dispute is in the case of a gentile smith, whereas in the case of an Israelite smith everyone agrees that he annulled it.

The second amora holds: There is a dispute both in this case and in that case.

He raised an objection

The Gemara brings a beraita to challenge the first amora, who holds that when an Israelite purchases it everyone agrees that he annulled it. And so we learned:

An Israelite

who purchases scrap metal

pieces of silver

from gentiles and finds idolatry among them

an idol—

If, before he gave

the Israelite

money

to the gentile seller,

he pulled

it [he performed the acquisition act of “pulling,” which is an act of acquisition even between an Israelite and a gentile]—

he shall return

it to the seller, and if he wishes, the gentile will annul it, and the Israelite will then return and take it from him through a new act of acquisition.

And the fact that the Israelite “pulled” it from him constitutes an acquisition made in error, and the acquisition is void, since he did not know that there was idolatry among them. Therefore it does not have the status of an Israelite’s idolatry, which cannot be annulled.

But

if after he gave [after he gave

money

he pulled it—

he shall take

the benefit, meaning the value of the idolatry,

to the Salt Sea,

and the money is forbidden for benefit. He cannot return it to the gentile and then return and take the sale money from him.

And although the pulling was an “acquisition made in error,” nevertheless, since he had already paid for it and now returns it and takes his money, it appears as though he is selling it to the gentile.

And apparently, this gentile who sold his scrap metal to the Israelite knew that there was idolatry there, and did not annul it before the sale—

It follows that this beraita holds that when he sells it to an Israelite, it is not annulled.

Granted, if you say: In the case of an Israelite smith there is a dispute,

and the Sages hold that it is not annulled—

this

beraita,

whose teaching is it?

Whose Mishna is it?

It is that of the Sages—

But if you say: In the case of a gentile smith there is a dispute, but in the case of an Israelite smith everyone agrees that he annulled it, this is difficult: this

beraita,

who taught it?

Who taught it? After all, the Sages, like Rabbi, hold that it is annulled—

And why should he take the benefit to the Salt Sea [and for what purpose should he return it if he had not given money]?

And the Gemara answers:

It is different

the case

there, for with the intention of scrap metal

he purchased

the gentile sold it together with scrap metal, thinking that it was scrap metal;

with the intention of an idol he did not purchase it

he did not know that there was idolatry there, and therefore he did not annul it.

But when he sells idolatry alone to an Israelite smith, the first amora holds that everyone agrees that he willingly annuls it.

We learned in our Mishna that Rabbi holds that if the gentile sold the idolatry either to an Israelite or to a gentile [or, according to the Sages—according to the first amora—if he sold it to an Israelite], it is annulled.

The following beraita comes to teach us that this law applies specifically when he sold it, but when he did not actually sell it, it is not annulled.

The Sages taught: He borrowed

the gentile

against it,

meaning, he pawned it with the intention of repaying his loan and taking it from the lender ,

or a collapse fell upon it

and he does not take care to clear it away,

or bandits stole it

and he does not seek it out,

, or the owners abandoned it and went away to an overseas country

to a distant land—