Avodah Zarah 53b — the Talmud in English

If they are destined to return, as in the war of Joshua

it will be explained below -

in all these cases

it is not nullified

the version of the Bach:

forever

because in these actions there is no act of nullification.

The Gemara explains why the beraita needed to state all these examples: to teach us that if he did not actually sell it, it is not nullified.

And it is necessary

to inform us:

if it taught only: he pledged against it

we would say:

from

the fact

that he did not sell it

that he did not sell it to pay his debts, he thereby shows that he does not despair of it; therefore

he did not nullify it -

But if a collapse fell upon it, from

the fact

that he does not clear it away

he does not remove it,

say

it might enter one’s mind to say:

he certainly nullified it

and abandons it and nullifies it -

it is necessary

for the beraita to inform us that this is not so, and it is not nullified.

And if it taught only: a collapse fell upon it,

we would say that it is therefore not nullified,

because he thought

the gentile:

here it is lying

it is lying within the collapse,

whenever I want it

whenever I need it,

I will take it

I will take it -

But robbers stole it,

it might enter one’s mind to say:

from

the fact

that he does not search after it

that he does not look for it -

he certainly nullified it -

it is necessary

for the beraita to inform us that this is not so, and it is not nullified.

And if it taught only: robbers stole it,

we would say that it is therefore not nullified,

because he thought

the gentile:

if a gentile takes it

if a gentile like him stole it -

he will worship it

he will worship it;

if an Israelite takes it

takes it,

since

because

its value is high

he will not melt it and ruin it, but

he will sell it

he will sell it

to a gentile, and

the gentile who purchases it

will worship it, and therefore it is not nullified -

Therefore, it is not nullified—

But if its owners left it and went to an overseas country,

it might enter one’s mind to say:

from

the fact

that they did not take it with them

that they did not take it with them -

they certainly nullified it -

it is necessary

for the beraita to inform us that it is not nullified.

We learned in the beraita: its owners left it and went to an overseas country

if they are destined to return, as in the war of Joshua -

it is not nullified.

These words are difficult. Indeed, the beraita said that if they are destined to return, it is not nullified, and if they are not destined to return, it is nullified [as we learned in the following Mishna] -

But why did the beraita bring the war of Joshua as an example of “destined to return”? On the contrary! When Joshua conquered the Amorites, they did not return to the Land of Israel.

The Gemara asks:

is it something

that

the war of Joshua—the Amorites returned

did the Amorites return?

The Gemara answers:

this is what it says

this is what the beraita said:

if they are destined to return -

it is like the war of Joshua, and it has no nullification,

that is: just as the Torah prohibited all the idols that were in the Land of Israel in the days of the conquest of the land, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 13], “And nothing of the doomed thing shall cleave to your hand,” so too the idols that gentiles left and are destined to return are prohibited.

And why indeed were those idols that existed at the time of the conquest of the land prohibited?

Because the Amorites thought that they would still return to the Land of Israel, and when they departed they did not nullify them willingly.

The Gemara raises an objection:

and

nevertheless,

why do I need it

it

for the tanna of the beraita

to hang it

to connect its law

with the war of Joshua,

he should have stated: it is not nullified. Why did he give the war of Joshua as a sign and comparison for the very law that he came to teach us, that if he does not despair of it, it is not nullified?

The Gemara answers: indeed, there is no connection, rather

he teaches us a matter incidentally,

through the course of what he needed to teach us—that it is not nullified—he came to teach us another law that we learn from the war of Joshua; therefore he mentioned the war of Joshua.

With these words the tanna of the beraita came to support the law of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav.

Like this

as

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: an Israelite set up a brick

in order

to bow to it,

but he did not bow,

and a gentile came and bowed to it

to the brick -

he prohibited it.

And the novelty is this: although the brick had not yet become prohibited through the setting up by the Israelite until he worshiped it [according to Rabbi Akiva above, 52b], and the gentile cannot prohibit it, since it is not his—nevertheless, he prohibited it. And the reason will be explained below.

And before the Gemara explains the reason for the prohibition, we clarify:

From where do we know

from where do we know

that he prohibited it

that the gentile prohibited it by his bowing, for it is not his, and a person cannot prohibit something that is not his?

Rabbi Elazar said:

this matter is learned

from the beginning of

the entry of the Children of Israel into the

Land of Israel. For the Merciful One said [Deuteronomy 12]:

“And their sacred trees

of the Amorites

you shall burn with fire.”

And the Torah prohibited even the trees attached to the ground.

Now,

for the Land of Israel and what is attached to it

is an inheritance for them

for the Children of Israel

from their fathers,

for this is the land given to Abraham our father, as it is stated [Genesis 13], “For to you I shall give it” -

and

how could the Amorites prohibit the trees by worshiping them, for

a person cannot prohibit something that is not his?

And if

you will say: indeed, the asherot after the land was given to Abraham were not prohibited, but the Torah prohibited all the asherot

because

of uncertainty, lest these be

those that were from the outset

those that were worshiped before the land was given to Abraham?

Simple nullification is sufficient for them,

those asherot that were worshiped before the land was given are idolatry belonging to gentiles, concerning which the law was stated [43a] that one may compel the gentile to nullify it against his will. Why, then, did the Torah require burning and cutting them down? For it is possible to compel the gentiles to nullify them.

Rather, from

the time

that they worshiped

worshiped

the calf by Israel

the golden calf in the wilderness -

they revealed their disposition

they revealed their disposition

that it was pleasing to them

that it was pleasing to them

with idolatry, and

therefore:

when the gentiles came

when the Amorites came and planted asherot -

they acted as their agents

they performed their worship as agents [with the consent of] the Children of Israel - and these asherot are idolatry belonging to Israelites, which have no nullification.

So too here,

and from here Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav learned:

an Israelite set up a brick

to bow to it,

he revealed his disposition

he reveals his disposition

that idolatry is pleasing to him, and

afterward

when a gentile came

when the gentile came

and worshiped it

and worshiped it -

he acts as his agent

he worships it as the Israelite’s agent, and prohibits it.

And this is the “sign” that the tanna stated, “as in the war of Joshua,” since from this war we learn the law of “revealing one’s disposition that it is pleasing to him.”

And the Gemara objects: perhaps

it is possible to say that only

with the calf it was pleasing

to them to have it as a deity, whereas

with another matter,

with other things among the abominations of the gentiles, such as an asherah -

not

was it pleasing to them, and it was not their desire to worship them. Why, then, were the asherot prohibited?

The Gemara answers:

the verse says

it is stated in the Torah, in the passage of the calf [Exodus 32], that the Children of Israel said:

“These are your gods

Israel!” And it did not say, “This is your god, Israel”;

this teaches that they desired

they desired

many deities,

including the asherot.

The Gemara objects:

say

it is possible to say: indeed,

all

those asherot

that were together with the calf

that existed at that time -

were prohibited

were prohibited, because the gentiles worshiped them as agents of Israel; but those asherot that were worshiped

from then onward,

after the Children of Israel repented -

should be permitted,

for the Amorites did not worship those as agents of Israel?

The Gemara answers:

who can prove it?

Who will prove it to us, and who knows which of them existed at the time of the making of the calf, and which of them were worshiped afterward?

Therefore all of them were prohibited, and the Torah commanded that they be burned and cut down.

Mishna:

Idolatry that its worshipers left,

and they do not intend to return -

If they left it

in a time of peace, it is permitted,

for since they left willingly and did not take it with them, it is evident that they despaired of it and nullified it.

And if they left it when they departed

in a time of war, it is prohibited,

for since they departed in a state of confusion, there is no despair in its abandonment.

The platforms of kings,

hewn stones prepared along the road through which the king passes, and when he passes, they place idols upon the platforms and the king bows to them,

these are permitted, because they set it up

the platform stone, only

at the time when the kings pass.

Therefore, although the platforms are accessories of idolatry, nevertheless they are permitted, since they are not prepared as a seat for idolatry at all times, but only for the time when the kings pass.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: idolatry that its worshipers left in a time of peace is permitted; in a time of war, it is prohibited.

And the Gemara explains that what was stated in the Mishna, that in a time of war it is prohibited, applies specifically when they have no possibility of returning; but when they have the possibility of returning, and they do not return, it is nullified.

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said in the name of Rav: the House of Nimrod

the tower that the generation of the dispersion built in the days of Nimrod, who was king over them, and they built this tower for idolatry,

is like idolatry that its worshipers left in a time of peace, and it is permitted

for benefit. For

although when the Merciful One scattered them,

when the Holy One, blessed be He, scattered them,

it resembles a time of war,

for they were scattered in a state of confusion, against their will, nevertheless,

if they wanted to return,

if they wanted to return to it,

they returned

they could return.

And since they did not return,

since they did not return, but merely abandoned it -

they certainly nullified it.

We learned in our Mishna: the platforms of kings, these are permitted, because they set it up at the time when the kings pass.

The Gemara asks:

and is it because they set it up when the kings pass -

permitted?!

What difference does this make? After all, they are accessories of idolatry for the moment?!

The Gemara answers:

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: this is what it says,

this is what the tanna said in the Mishna:

because they set them up when the kings pass, and

sometimes the

kings leave

abandon

this

road and go by another road,

and the kings do not take care to honor them; therefore they are not considered accessories of idolatry.

The Gemara discusses a platform that was damaged. Some hold that it is prohibited even though it was damaged, because it is still fit for placing idolatry upon it. And some hold that it is permitted, because if it is damaged, they replace it with another. The Gemara relates:

when

when

Ulla

who was among the students of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish in the Land of Israel, and came to Babylonia

arrived -

he sat

he sat

on a damaged platform,

on a platform that served idolatry and had been damaged.

Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: but Rav and Shmuel

the teachers of Rav Yehuda in Babylonia

who both say

both of them:

a platform that was damaged is prohibited

to benefit from it.

And even according to the one who says: no,

the gentiles

worship broken pieces,

and they are permitted,

these words

these matters apply to

idolatry

itself, whose broken pieces are permitted, because

the matter is degrading to it,

it is a degrading matter for them

to worship

to worship

the broken pieces. But this,

this platform, which is only a seat for idolatry,

does not matter to him

to the gentile, and even if it is damaged, he places his idol upon it. And the words of Rav and Shmuel are difficult for Ulla, who sat on a damaged platform.

He said to him

Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: I am not, Heaven forbid, disparaging the honor of your teachers, Rav and Shmuel! Rather, on the contrary,

who will grant us

who will grant us

from the dust

from the dust of their graves

and we will fill our eyes

and fill our eyes! Rather, I did this according to the instruction of my teachers, Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish.

Here are Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, who both say: a platform that was damaged is permitted.

And even according to the one who says

that the gentiles do

worship broken pieces, these words

these matters apply to broken pieces of

idolatry, for since it was worshiped,

for when it was whole he worshiped it and it was his deity,

the matter is degrading to it,

it is a degradation in his eyes

to nullify it,

and therefore he does not nullify it.

But these,

the platforms,

they take this one,

they remove the damaged platform and throw it away,

and bring another platform,

another,

and bring another one.

It was taught

we learned a beraita

in accordance with it

in accordance with the words

of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish:

For it was taught:

a platform that was damaged is permitted.

An altar

upon which they offer an animal sacrifice to idolatry,

that was damaged -

is prohibited until the majority of it is demolished,

and then it is permitted.

The Gemara discusses:

what are the circumstances of a platform? What are the circumstances of an altar?

How shall we know how to distinguish between a platform and an altar?

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: a platform -

one stone. An altar -

many stones. If one stone is found to be damaged, it is permitted. But if there are many stones, they are prohibited until the majority of them is demolished.

If a single stone is found to be damaged, it is permitted. But if there are many stones, they are prohibited until most of them have been demolished.