Traité Avodah Zarah

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : of Rabbi Volas: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and it teaches us that it is only a Jew who cannot revoke the status of a gentile’s object of idol worship. But a gentile can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : There are those who teach Rabbi Hillel’s statement with regard to a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: The status of a Jew’s object of idol worship can never be revoked. What is the reason for the additional emphasis of the term never? Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, says: The emphasis is necessary only for a case where the gentile has partnership in the idol, and it teaches us that the Jew worships the idol based on his own intentions, and therefore although the gentile revokes the status of his share, the Jew’s share remains forbidden.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : MISHNA: How does a gentile revoke the status of an object of idol worship? If he cut off the tip of its ear, or the tip of its nose, or its fingertip; or if he crushed it, even though he did not remove any part of it, in all these cases he thereby revoked its status as an object of idol worship. If he spat before the idol, urinated before it, dragged it on the ground, or threw excrement at it, the status of this idol is not revoked, as this is only a temporary display of scorn, and afterward the gentile might continue to worship the idol. If the gentile sold it or mortgaged it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He thereby revoked its status. And the Rabbis say that he did not revoke its status.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the gentile crushed the idol without removing any part of it, the status of the idol is revoked. The Gemara asks: In a case where he did not remove any part of it, by what action did he revoke its status? Rav Zeira says: The mishna is referring to a case where he crushed its face with a hammer, destroying its form, even though none of its stone was removed.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna teaches: If he spat before the idol or urinated before it, the status of this idol is not revoked, as this is only a temporary display of scorn. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Ḥizkiyya says: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And it shall come to pass that, when he shall be hungry, he shall fret, and curse his king and his god, and turn his face upward” (Isaiah 8:21). And it is written after this verse: “And he shall look to the earth, and behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness” (Isaiah 8:22). This indicates that even though he cursed his king and his idolatrous god, and he turned his face upward to God, nevertheless, he subsequently looks to the earth and beholds distress and darkness, since he returns to his idol worship.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna teaches: If the gentile sold it or mortgaged it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He thereby revoked its status. And the Rabbis say that he did not revoke its status. The Gemara cites a dispute between that which Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and that which Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says. One says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis applies only when the gentile sold his idol to a gentile smith. But when he sold it to a Jewish smith everyone agrees that by selling the idol the gentile revoked its status, as he knows that the Jewish smith will certainly melt it down. And one says: The dispute applies to the case where he sold the idol to a Jewish smith.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the second opinion, does the dispute apply only to the case where he sold the idol to a Jewish smith; but if he sold it to a gentile smith everyone agrees that he did not revoke its status by selling it? Or perhaps both in this case and in that case there is a dispute.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara replies: Come and hear a baraita, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My statement that by selling the idol the gentile revokes its status appears correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of destruction, and the statement of my colleagues that its status is not revoked appears correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of worship.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara explains the baraita: What is the meaning of selling the idol for destruction, and what is the meaning of selling it for worship? If we say that selling it for destruction means literally that he knew that it was being bought for the purpose of destruction, and that selling it for worship means literally that it was bought for the purpose of worship, this is difficult. What is the reasoning of the one who says that the gentile revoked the idol’s status even though he knew that the buyer intended to worship it, and what is the reasoning of the one who says that he did not revoke its status even though he knew that the buyer intended to destroy it?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, is it not referring to a case where the buyer’s intentions were not known with certainty? And accordingly, selling the idol for destruction means selling it to one who will presumably destroy it in the future. And who is that buyer? This is referring to a Jewish smith. Similarly, selling the idol for worship means selling it to one who will presumably worship it in the future. And who is that buyer? This is referring to a gentile smith. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states that his opinion appears correct in the case of a Jewish smith and the opinion of his colleagues appears correct in the case of a gentile smith, one may conclude from the baraita that there is a dispute both in this case and in that case.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is what the baraita is saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My statement that the idol’s status is revoked appears to my colleagues correct in a case where he sold it for the purpose of destruction. And who is it who buys the idol with the intent of destroying it? This is referring to a Jewish smith. This is because even my colleagues disagreed with me only in a case where he sold it for the purpose of worship; but when he sold it to a Jewish smith for the purpose of destruction, they concede to my opinion.