Avodah Zarah

R. Jose b. Saul asked Rabbi: May utensils which were used in the Temple of Onias  be used in the Sanctuary? This question follows on the view of him who said that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine; for we have learnt: Priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Sanctuary which is in Jerusalem, and it is unnecessary to state that [priests who served] an idol  [are disqualified].  Were the priests penalised by the Rabbis because they were rational beings but [they did not penalise] the utensils, or perhaps there is no difference [and the utensils are also disqualified]? — [Rabbi] replied to him: They are prohibited and I had a Scriptural text [upon which to support this decision] but I have forgotten it. [R. Jose b. Saul] quoted against him: Moreover all the vessels, which king Ahaz in his reign did cast away when he trespassed, have we prepared and sanctified  — does not 'have we prepared' mean that we immersed them [in a ritual bath to purify them], and 'sanctified' that we have made them holy again!  He said to him: May the blessing of Heaven be upon you for having restored my loss to me!  'Have we prepared' means we have stored them away, and sanctified that we have substituted others for them. Is this to say that [Rabbi] has support [from this Mishnah]: In the north-east  the Hasmoneans stored away the altar-stones which the Greeks had made abominable;  and R. Shesheth remarked thereon: They had made them abominable through idolatry?  — R. Papa said: There [in the case of the Hasmoneans] they found a verse and expounded it [to support their action], for it is written, And robbers shall enter into it and protect it.  [When the Hasmoneans recaptured the Temple] they said, How shall we act? If we have them broken,  the All-merciful declared that they were to be whole stones;  if we saw them,  the All-merciful declared, Thou shalt lift up no iron tool upon them!  But why did they not have them broken  and take them for their own private use? Has not R. Oshaia said: [The Rabbis] wished to store away all the silver and gold in the world on account of the silver and gold [plundered from the Sanctuary] of Jerusalem!  And to this it was objected: Is Jerusalem the greater part of the world!  But, said Abaye: What the Rabbis aimed at doing was to store away every Hadrianic and Trajanic denarius  which had become worn by use  because it was coined from [metal captured from] Jerusalem;  until they discovered a verse of the Torah according to which it was permitted. viz., And robbers shall enter into it and profane it! — There [in the case of the coins] they had not been used in the Divine Service;  but here [in the case of the altar-stones], since they had been used in the Divine Service it would not be respectful to put them to a secular use. MISHNAH. AN IDOLATER CAN ANNUL AN IDOL BELONGING TO HIMSELF OR TO ANOTHER IDOLATER, BUT AN ISRAELITE CANNOT ANNUL THE IDOL OF AN IDOLATER. HE WHO ANNULS AN IDOL ANNULS ITS APPURTENANCES. IF HE ONLY ANNULLED THE APPURTENANCES THESE ARE PERMITTED BUT THE IDOL IS PROHIBITED. GEMARA. Rabbi taught his son R. Simeon: AN IDOLATER CAN ANNUL AN IDOL BELONGING TO HIMSELF OR TO ANOTHER [HEATHEN]. The latter said to him, 'My Master, in your youth you taught us that an idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to an Israelite!' But can the idol of an Israelite be annulled; for behold it is written. And setteth it up in secret!  R. Hillel the son of R. Wallas said: No, [Rabbi's teaching] is necessary for the circumstance where there was joint-ownership of the idol [by an Israelite and a heathen]. On this point what view did Rabbi hold in his youth and what view in his old age? — In his youth he held that the Israelite worshipped the idol on account of the heathen, so that when the latter annulled it for himself he annulled it also for the Israelite. In his old age, however, he held that the Israelite worshipped it on his own account, so that when the heathen annulled it he did so for himself but not for the Israelite. There are some who apply [the statement of R. Hillel] to the next clause in our Mishnah: AN ISRAELITE CANNOT ANNUL THE IDOL OF AN IDOLATER. This is obvious! — R. Hillel the son of