(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Avodah Zarah 53


(a) We have already discussed our Mishnah earlier.
What does the Tana say about a Nochri ...
  1. ... cutting off the image's head, ear or the tip of its nose or finger?
  2. ... spitting or urinating in front of the image, dragging it around or throwing excrement at it?
(b) Into which of these groups does he insert 'Pachsah' (flattening the image with a hammer, without actually removing any of the substance)?

(c) According to Rebbi, selling the image or giving it as a security against a loan constitutes Bitul.
What do the Chachamim say?

(a) Seeing as the Nochri did not detract from the substance of the idol, why is 'Pachsah' considered Bitul?

(b) What does Chizkiyah learn from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Ve'hayah Ki Yir'av Ve'hiskatzef Ve'kilel be'Malko u'v'Elohav u'Panah Lema'alah ve'el Eretz Yabit, ve'Hineh Tzarah ve'Chasheichah"?

(c) What does "u'Panah Lema'alah" mean?

(a) Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Rav argue over the Machlokes in our Mishnah by a Nochri who sold his god. One of them establishes it by a gentile smith (see Tosfos DH 'Aval').
What would both opinions hold in a case where he sold it to a Yisrael?

(b) What does the other one say?

(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) What She'eilah do we ask on the second opinion?

(b) Rebbi, in a Beraisa commented that his opinion appears correct in a case where the Nochri sold the idol in order to nullify it, and the opinion of the Chachamim, when he sold it in order to worship it.
Why can this not be meant literally?

(c) So we suggest that by 'to nullify it' and 'to worship it', Rebbi meant to a Yisrael and to a Nochri, respectively.
How would this resolve our She'eilah?

(d) How do we refute this proof, based on the Lashon of Rebbi 'Nir'in Devarai ke'she'Machrah le'Chavlah, ve'Divrei Chaverai she'Machrah le'Avdah'?

(e) What ought he to have said for the proof to have been valid?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a case where someone finds an image among broken pieces of silver which he purchased from a Nochri, assuming ...
  1. ... he had not yet paid for them?
  2. ... assuming that he had?
(b) How do we justify the first ruling, seeing as he had already made a Kinyan Meshichah?

(c) Then how will we explain the second ruling?

(d) What do we try and prove from here?

(e) How do we reject this proof? Why would even Rebbi agree that here, the image would not be Bateil?

Answers to questions



(a) What does the Beraisa say about an idol ...
  1. ... against which a Nochri borrowed, one upon which a wall fell or one which was stolen by robbers?
  2. ... whose owner left for overseas, leaving it behind?
(b) Having taught us the Din in the case of where ...
  1. ... the Nochri borrowed against the idol, why does the Tana need to add the case where a wall fell on it?
  2. ... a wall fell on it, why does he need to add the case where it was stolen by robbers?
  3. ... it was stolen by robbers, why did he need to add the case where he went overseas, leaving it behind?
(c) Did the Nochrim who went to fight against Yehoshua, return?

(d) Then what does the Tana mean when he writes 'Im Asidin La'chezor ke'Milchemes Yehoshua Einah Beteilah'? How do we amend the statement?

(a) The Beraisa mentions the battle with Yehoshua, to teach us the Din of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel.
What did Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about a Yisrael who erected a brick, and a Nochri came and prostrated himself before it?

(b) Rebbi Elazar learns this from the Pasuk in Re'ei "va'Ashereihem Tisrefun ba'Eish".
Why might we have thought that the Asheiros of the Cana'anim should be permitted?

(c) Why then, did they not at least force the Cana'anim to be Mevatel their Avodah-Zaros after they entered?

(d) And what do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Eileh Elohecha Yisrael!"?

(e) How about those Avodah-Zaros that the Cana'anin worshipped after Yisrael did Teshuvah? Why were they not permitted?

(a) We learned in the previous Mishnah that an abandoned Avodah-Zarah constitutes Bitul.
What does the Tana of our Mishnah now say, that qualifies this? When does an abandoned image remain Asur?

(b) What are 'Bimisa'os shel Melachim'?

(c) Why does our Mishnah permit them?

(a) What does Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Rav rule with regard to 'Beis Nimrod'? What is 'Beis Nimrod'?

(b) Why does he give it the Din of an Avodah-Zarah that was abandoned in time of peace, in spite of the fact that Hashem scattered them in war (so to speak)?

(c) What problem do we have with the reason that our Mishnah gives to permit 'Bimisi'os shel Melachim'?

(d) How does Rabah bar bar Chanah therefore explain it?

(a) What objection did Rav Yehudah raise when Ula came from Eretz Yisrael and sat on a chipped Bimus? What did Rav and Shmuel say about a chipped Bimus?

(b) What did Ula retort? What did Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish say about it?

(c) Why is a chipped worse than a chipped Avodah-Zarah in this regard?

(d) What did he add to show his respect for Rav and Shmuel?

(a) The Beraisa that we quote in support of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish rules 'Bimus she'Nifgam, Mutar'.
What does it say about a Mizbe'ach she'Nifgam? What sort of Mizbe'ach is the Tana referring to?

(b) How does Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi Amar Rebbi Yochanan distinguish between a Bimus and a Mizbe'ach?

(c) How does Chizkiyah learn the Din of Mizbe'ach she'Nifgam from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "be'Sumo Kol Avnei Mizbe'ach ke'Avnei Gir Menufatzos, Lo Yakumu Asheirim ve'Chamanim"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,