Avodah Zarah

There are still others who apply [the statement of R. Hillel] to this teaching: R. Simeon b. Menasya says: An idol belonging to an Israelite can never be annulled. What means 'never'? — R. Hillel the son of R. Wallas said: No, it was necessary [to have the word 'never'] for the circumstance where a heathen has part-ownership.  He thereby informs us that the Israelite worships the idol on his own account. MISHNAH. HOW DOES HE ANNUL IT? IF HE CUT OFF THE TIP OF ITS EAR, THE TIP OF ITS NOSE, OR THE TIP OF ITS FINGER; OR IF HE DEFACED IT,  ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO REDUCTION IN THE MASS OF THE MATERIAL,  HE HAS ANNULLED IT. IF HE SPAT BEFORE IT, URINATED BEFORE IT, DRAGGED IT [IN THE DUST] OR HURLED EXCREMENT AT IT, BEHOLD IT IS NOT ANNULLED. IF HE SOLD OR GAVE IT AS A PLEDGE, RABBI SAYS THAT HE HAS ANNULLED IT, BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE HAS NOT ANNULLED IT. GEMARA. Since there was no reduction in the mass of the material, how could it be annulled?  — R. Zera said: Because he defaced its appearence. IF HE SPAT BEFORE IT, URINATED BEFORE IT. Whence is this? — Hezekiah said: Because Scripture stated, And it shall come to pass that, when they shall be angry, they shall fret themselves and curse their king and their god and turn their faces upward,  and it continues, And they shall look unto the earth, and behold, distress and darkness etc.  Thus, although [the heathen] curse his king and his god and turn upward [to the true God], he still looks unto the earth. IF HE SOLD OR GAVE IT AS A PLEDGE, RABBI SAYS THAT HE HAS ANNULLED IT etc. Zei'ri in the name of R. Johanan and R. Jeremiah b. Abba in the name of Rab [are at variance].  One said that the difference is over a heathen smelter,  but if it was [sold to] an Israelite smelter all agree that he annulled it.  The other said that the difference is over an Israelite smelter.  The question was asked: Is the difference over an Israelite smelter but with a heathen smelter all agree that he has not annulled it, or perhaps in either case there is the difference?  — Come and hear: For Rabbi said: My view  is the more probable when he sold it to be broken up,  and my colleagues' view is the more probable when he sold it to be worshipped.  What means 'to be broken up' and 'to be worshipped'? Am I to say that these terms are to be understood in their literal sense? [If that were so,] what is the reason of him who says that he had annulled it,  and the reason of him who says that he had not annulled it?  Must not, then, 'to be broken up' mean [that he sold it] to someone who would break it up, viz., an Israelite smelter,  and 'to be worshipped' means [that he sold it] to someone who would worship it, viz., a heathen smelter;  and are we not to conclude that in either case there is a difference of opinion?  — No; this is the meaning — Rabbi said: My view is acceptable to my colleagues when he sold it to be broken up, i.e., to an Israelite smelter, because even my colleagues do not differ from me except in the case where he sold it to be worshipped, but when it is sold to be broken up they agree with me [that it had been annulled]. Against the above the following is quoted: If one brought scrap metal from a heathen and found an idol amongst it, should he have drawn it [into his possession] before paying over the purchase price he can return the idol;  but should he have drawn it [into his possession] after paying over the purchase money, he casts it into the Salt Sea.  This is quite right if you say that the above difference is over an Israelite smelter; then whose is this teaching? It is the Rabbis'.  But if you say that the difference is over a heathen smelter and all agree that with an Israelite smelter he has annulled it, whose is this teaching?  — It is otherwise in the present illustration because his intention was to sell scrap metal and not an idol. Our Rabbis taught: If [a heathen] borrowed money on an idol, or ruins fell upon it,  or robbers stole it,  or the owners left it behind and journeyed to a distant land,