Daf TB Avodah zarah 42 continues from the previous daf the debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning objects of idol worship that broke on its own. To appreciate the intricacies of this debate we have to know some basic information. Any pagan whether he is the owner or not have the idol may desanctify the avodah zarah. A Jew can never desanctify the avodah zarah. When the pagan destroys the avodah zarah, this is a sure sign that he has sanctified it. But what happens if the avodah zarah breaks on its own? For example, an earthquake happens and the avodah zarah is destroyed by it.
“It was
stated: With regard to objects of idol worship that broke by themselves,
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi
Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted. The Gemara explains the
sides of the dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is prohibited, as
its owner did not revoke its status as an object of idol worship. Rabbi
Shimon ben Lakish says that it is permitted, as the owner presumably
revoked its status as an object of idol worship, having said to
himself: If the idol could not save even itself from harm, can
it save that man, i.e., myself?” (daf
TB Avodah zarah 41b, Sefaria.org translation)
Today’s daf challenges both positions and each
time the challenge is refuted. I’ll share one example from each side.
“Rabbi
Yoḥanan raised another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish
from a baraita: In the case of a gentile who brought stones from
stone heaps that were used in the worship of the deity Mercury [HaMarkulis],
and who then paved roads and built theaters [vetarteiot]
with them, it is permitted to derive benefit from them, as the
gentile revoked their idolatrous status. But in the case of a Jew who
brought stones that were used in the worship of Mercury and who then
paved roads and built theaters with them, it is prohibited
to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: According to Reish Lakish, why
does a stone such as this retain its idolatrous status? Let it be
treated like an object of idol worship that broke on its own,
which Reish Lakish deems permitted. The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi
Yoḥanan’s question may be answered in accordance with the opinion of
Rava that the Sages issued a decree that an object of idol worship retains
its idolatrous status when a Jew attempts to revoke it, lest the Jew lift and
acquire the idol (by the very act of lifting the Jew acquires the object-gg),
which would make it impossible to subsequently revoke its status.” (Sefaria.org
translation) Reish Lakish’s position represents the law according to the Torah;
however, the rabbis enacted a decree forbidding these types of shards.
“Rabbi
Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan
from a mishna (Me’ila 13b): With regard to a bird’s nest at the top
of a tree that belongs to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit
from it ab initio, but if one derived benefit from it, he is not
liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple. With regard to
a nest that is at the top of a tree used as part of idolatrous rites [ashera],
although one may not climb the tree, as that would be benefiting from an object
of idol worship, he may knock the nest off with a pole and
benefit from it by using it for firewood and the like…
“Another
explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is
presented. Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What does
it mean that one may knock off the nest? It means that one may knock
off the chicks; but one may not derive benefit from the nest itself.
“Rabbi
Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain the mishna to
you: With regard to the chicks, which can fly away and are not
confined to the tree, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a
tree consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol
worship, deriving benefit from them is permitted. But with regard to
the eggs, both here and there, i.e., both in the case of a tree
consecrated to the Temple treasury and in the case of a tree used for idol
worship, deriving benefit from them is prohibited, as they are not seen
as independent of the tree. Rav Ashi added to this and said: And
chicks that still need their mother to survive are considered
like eggs; deriving benefit from them is prohibited.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The Gemara
itself never comes to a definitive conclusion which Sage halakha follows. It is
decided case by case.
No comments:
Post a Comment