Avodah Zarah 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

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

will be explained below—

in all these cases

it is not nullified

the version of the Bach:

forever

because these actions do not constitute nullification.

The Gemara explains why the beraita had 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 had taught only the case of taking a loan against it,

we would have said:

f

or the very reason

that he did not sell it,

because he did not sell it in order to pay his debts, demonstrates that he has not despaired of it; therefore,

he did not nullify it—

but if a landslide fell upon it, f

or the very reason

that he does not clear it away,

he does not remove it,

one might say

that it would have occurred to one to say:

he did nullify it,

abandoning it and thereby nullifying it.

It is necessary

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

And if it had taught only the case of a landslide falling upon it,

we would have said that this is why he did not nullify it,

because he reasoned

the gentile:

“It is lying there,

it is lying within the landslide;

whenever I need it,

whenever I will need it,

I will take it

and retrieve it”—

but if bandits stole it,

it would have occurred to one to say:

f

or the very reason

that he does not search for it,

he does not seek it out—

he did nullify it—

it is necessary

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

And if it had taught only the case where bandits stole it,

we would have said that this is why it is not nullified,

because he reasoned

the gentile:

“If a gentile takes it,

if a gentile like himself stole it—

he will worship it

and serve it;

if a Jew takes it,

if he takes it—

since

because

its monetary value is high,

he will not melt it down and ruin it; rather,

he will sell it

and sell it

to a gentile, and

the gentile who purchases it

will worship it.

Therefore, it is not nullified—

but if its owners abandoned it and went overseas,

it would have occurred to one to say:

f

or the very reason

that they did not take it with them,

that they did not take it along—

they nullified it—

it is necessary

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

We learned in a beraita: “Its owners abandoned it and went overseas,”

“if they are destined to return, as in the war of Joshua”—

“it is not nullified.”

These statements 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 will learn in the following Mishna]—

but why did the beraita cite 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 so?

That is,

did the Amorites return in the war of Joshua

afterward?

The Gemara answers:

This is what it is saying

the beraita said as follows:

“If they are destined to return”—

“then it is like the war of Joshua, and it can never be nullified.”

That is: Just as the Torah prohibited all the idols that were in the Land of Israel at the time of the conquest of the Land, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 13]: “So that nothing of the banned property shall cling to your hand,” so too the idols abandoned by gentiles who are destined to return are prohibited.

Why, indeed, were those idols that existed at the time of the conquest of the Land prohibited?

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

A

nd nevertheless,

why do I need it [

it ]

for the tanna of the beraita

to link it

to connect its law

with the war of Joshua?

He should have simply taught: “It is not nullified.” Why did he cite the war of Joshua as a sign and comparison for the very law he wished to teach us—that if he has not despaired of it, it is not nullified?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, there is no connection; rather,

“it teaches us something incidentally.”

Since, in the course of teaching that it is not nullified, he wished to teach us an additional law that we derive from the war of Joshua, he mentioned the war of Joshua.

With these words, the tanna of the beraita comes to support the ruling of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav.

As

just as

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: “If a Jew set up a brick

in order

to bow to it,”

but did not bow to it,

and a gentile came and bowed to it

to the brick—

he prohibited it.

The novel point is that although the brick did not yet become prohibited through the Jew’s setting it upright until he worshipped it [according to Rabbi Akiva above, 52b], and the gentile cannot prohibit it because it does not belong to him, nevertheless he prohibited it. The reason will be explained below.

Before the Gemara explains the reason for the prohibition, it clarifies:

From where do we know

how do we know

that he prohibited it

the gentile through his bowing, seeing that it does not belong to him, and a person cannot prohibit an object that does not belong to him?

Rabbi Elazar said:

This matter is learned

from the beginning of

the entry of the Israelites 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,

the Land of Israel and whatever is attached to it

was an inheritance for them

for the Israelites

from their forefathers,

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

A

nd how could the Amorites prohibit the trees by worshipping them, seeing that

a person cannot prohibit an object that does not belong to him?

And if

you say: Indeed, the asherot that came into existence after the land was given to Abraham were not prohibited; rather, the Torah prohibited all the asherot

because of

the uncertainty that perhaps these are

those that existed originally,

those that were worshipped before the land was given to Abraham—

mere nullification would suffice for them,

for those asherot that were worshipped before the land was given were idolatry belonging to gentiles, concerning which the halakha was stated above [43a] that one may compel the gentile to nullify it against his will. Why, then, did the Torah require that they be burned and cut down, when the gentiles could be compelled to nullify them?

Rather, f

rom the time

that they worshipped

the Israelites worshipped

the calf,

the golden calf in the wilderness—

they made known their attitude

they revealed their attitude

that they were amenable

that they were comfortable

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 ] of the Israelites—and these asherot were idolatry belonging to Jews, which can never be nullified.

The same is true here,

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

If a Jew set up a brick

to bow to it,

he reveals his attitude

he reveals his attitude

that he is amenable to idolatry, and

afterward

when a gentile comes,

when the gentile comes

and worships it

and serves it—

he acts as the Jew’s agent,

he worships it as the Jew’s agent and renders it prohibited.

And this is the “sign” cited by the tanna—“as in the war of Joshua”—since from that war we learn the law of revealing that one is amenable to it.

And the Gemara objects: Perhaps

it is possible to say that only

with regard to the calf they were amenable

to having it as a deity, whereas

with regard to other things,

other objects of gentile worship, such as an asherah—

they were not

amenable to them, and did not wish to worship them. Why, then, were the asherot prohibited?

The Gemara answers:

The verse says,

the Torah states in the account of the calf [Exodus 32] that the Israelites said:

“These are your gods

Israel!” It did not say, “This is your god, Israel.”

This teaches that they desired

they yearned

many deities,

including asherot.

The Gemara objects:

Perhaps

it is possible to say: Indeed,

all

those asherot

that were together with the calf,

that existed at that time—

were prohibited,

they were prohibited because the gentiles worshipped them as agents of the Israelites; but those asherot that were worshipped

from then onward,

after the Israelites repented—

should be permitted,

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

The Gemara answers:

Who can prove it?

Who will prove to us, and who knows which of them existed when the calf was made and which of them were worshipped afterward?

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

Mishna:

Idolatry that its worshippers abandoned,

with no intention of returning—

if they abandoned it

in a time of peace, it is permitted,

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

But if they abandoned it when they left

in a time of war, it is prohibited,

because since they left in a state of confusion, abandoning it does not indicate despair.

The platforms of kings,

hewn stones prepared along the road on which the king passes, and when he passes, idols are placed upon the platforms and the king bows to them,

these are permitted, because they set it up

the platform stone only

when the kings pass.

Therefore, although the platforms are accessories of idolatry, they are nevertheless 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 worshippers abandoned in a time of peace is permitted; in a time of war, it is prohibited.

The Gemara explains that what the Mishna said—that it is prohibited in a time of war—applies specifically when they have no possibility of returning. But when they do have the possibility of returning and 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 their king, and which they built for idolatry,

is like idolatry that its worshippers abandoned in a time of peace, and it is permitted

for benefit.

For although when the Merciful One dispersed them,

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

it is comparable to a time of war,

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

if they wished to return,

if they wished to return to it,

they would have returned,

they could have returned.

And since they did not return,

since they did not return but abandoned it—

they nullified it.

We learned in our Mishna:

The platforms of kings: These are permitted, because they set them up when the kings pass.

The Gemara asks:

Is it because they set them up when the kings pass—

that they are permitted?!

What difference does that make? They are accessories of idolatry for the moment in question!

The Gemara answers:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: This is what it is saying,

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;

the kings do not care to honor them. Therefore, they are not considered accessories of idolatry.”

The Gemara discusses a platform that has been damaged. Some hold that it is prohibited even though it has been damaged, because it is still fit for placing idolatry upon it. Others hold that it is permitted, because if it is damaged, they replace it with another.

The Gemara relates:

When

when

Ulla

arrived [he had been among the students of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish in the Land of Israel and came to Babylonia], he

sat

and sat

on a damaged platform,

on a platform that served idolatry and had been damaged.

Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: “But Rav and Shmuel [

Rav Yehuda’s teachers in Babylonia ]

both say

both of them:

A damaged platform is prohibited

to derive benefit from it.”

And even according to the one who says that

the gentiles

do not worship fragments,

and they are permitted,

that applies

these words apply to

idolatry

itself, whose fragments are permitted, because

it is a disgrace to it,

it is degrading for them

to worship

and serve

fragments. But this,

this platform, which is merely a seat for idolatry,

does not matter to it

the gentile, and even if it is damaged, he places his idol upon it. This poses a difficulty from the words of Rav and Shmuel for Ulla, who sat on a damaged platform.

He said to him,

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

who would give us

who would grant us

the dust

from the dust of their graves

so that we could fill our eyes with it

and fill our eyes with it! Rather, I did this in accordance with the ruling of my teachers, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish.

Here is Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, who both say: “A damaged platform is permitted.”

And even according to the one who says

that the gentiles do

worship fragments, that applies

these words apply to fragments of

idolatry, for since it had been worshipped,

when it was whole he worshipped it and it was his deity,

it is a disgrace to it,

it is degrading in his eyes

to nullify it,

and therefore he does not nullify it.

But these,

these platforms,

they remove this one,

they take out the damaged platform and throw it away,

and bring another platform,

another one,

and bring another one.

It was taught

we learned a beraita

in accordance with his view,

in accordance with the words

of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish:

As it was taught:

A damaged platform is permitted.

An altar

upon which a sacrifice is offered to idolatry

that has been damaged—

is prohibited until most of it is demolished,

and then it is permitted.

The Gemara asks:

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

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

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A platform—

one stone. An altar—

many stones.

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.