Avodah Zarah

[R. Johanan] quoted against [R. Simeon b. Lakish]: IF ONE FOUND THE FIGURE OF A HAND OR THE FIGURE OF A FOOT, BEHOLD IT IS PROHIBITED BECAUSE SUCH AN OBJECT IS WORSHIPPED. Why [should they not be permitted]? They are only fragments!  But surely Samuel explained that [the prohibition only applies when the hand and foot] are set upon their base. [R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but an Israelite cannot annul the idol of an idolater.  Why [should not an Israelite be able to annul it]? Let it be considered the same as an idol which was broken of its own accord! — Abaye said: [The Mishnah refers to a case] where he only defaced the idol.  And supposing he only defaced it, what of it? Behold we have learnt: If he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, it is annulled!  — This rule only applies when an idolater defaced it in this manner, but if an Israelite did so it is not annulled.  Raba, however, said: In reality when an Israelite only defaces it, it is also annulled; but it was feared that he might lift it up  and then annul it. In that event it would be an idol in the possession of an Israelite, and an idol which is in the possession of an Israelite can never be annulled. [R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: If an idolater brought stones from [the statue of] Mercurius and used them for paving roads or theatres, they are permitted [to be walked on by an Israelite]; but if an Israelite brought stones from [the statue of] Mercurius and used them for paving roads or theatres, they are prohibited.  But why [are they not permitted]? Let them be considered the same as an idol which was broken of its own accord! — This case has also to be explained according to the exposition of Raba. [R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: If an idolater chipped off an idol to make use of the pieces, it and the pieces are permitted, and if he did so to embellish it, it is prohibited but its pieces are permitted; but if an Israelite chipped off an idol, whether to make use of the pieces or for its embellishment, it and the pieces are prohibited.  Now why [are they not allowed]? Let them be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord! — This case has also to be explained according to the exposition of Raba. [R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: R. Jose says: He may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him: Even so it may then become manure, and it is stated, And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thine hand.  Now why [is it not permitted]? Let it be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord! — This case has also to be explained according to the exposition of Raba. [R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon:] R. Jose b. Jasian says: If he found the figure of a dragon with its head cut off, should there be a doubt whether an idolater or an Israelite had mutilated it, it is permitted; but if it is certain that an Israelite had mutilated it, it is prohibited. But why? Let it be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord! — This case has also to be explained according to the exposition of Raba. [R. Johanan further] quoted against [R. Simeon]: R. Jose says: Nor may vegetables [be planted beneath an Asherah] in winter because the foliage falls upon them.  But why? Let it be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord! — It is different in this case because the basic part of the idol remains.