## Avodah Zarah Daf 41b

###### Avodah Zarah 41b:1
[Avodah Zarah 41b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:1)

וְהָא שְׁבָרִים נִינְהוּ! תַּרְגְּמַהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּעוֹמְדִין עַל בְּסִיסָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But aren’t they fragments** of idols, which are permitted according to Shmuel? The Gemara answers that **Shmuel interpreted** the mishna as follows: It is referring to a case **where** these objects that are in the figure of a hand or a foot **are standing on their pedestals,** which shows that they were designed this way initially and are not merely fragments.


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:2
[Avodah Zarah 41b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:2)

אִתְּמַר: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲסוּרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated:** With regard to objects of **idol worship that broke by themselves, Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** It is **prohibited** to derive benefit from them. **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** It is **permitted.**


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:3
[Avodah Zarah 41b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:3)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲסוּרָה, דְּהָא לָא בָּטְלָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מוּתֶּרֶת, מִסְּתָמָא בַּטּוֹלֵי מְבַטֵּיל לַהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: אִיהִי נַפְשַׁהּ לָא אַצְּלָה, לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא מַצְּלָה לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the sides of the dispute. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that it is **prohibited, as** its owner **did not revoke** its status as an object of idol worship. **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says** that it is **permitted,** as the owner **presumably revoked** its status as an object of idol worship, **having said** to himself: If the idol **could not save** even **itself** from harm, **can it save that man,** i.e., myself?


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:4
[Avodah Zarah 41b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: ״וְרֹאשׁ דָּגוֹן וּשְׁתֵּי כַּפּוֹת יָדָיו כְּרֻתוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יִדְרְכוּ כֹהֲנֵי דָגוֹן וְגוֹ׳״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** from the passage in the book of Samuel recounting the downfall of the Philistine god Dagon: “And when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon was fallen on his face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord; **and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut off** upon the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him” (I Samuel 5:4). **And** from the next verse it seems that Dagon’s worshippers accorded it honor despite its destruction, as **it is written: “Therefore, the priests of Dagon,** and anyone who comes into Dagon’s house, **do not tread** on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod until this day” (I Samuel 5:5). Evidently, when an idol breaks, its worshippers do not stop worshipping it.


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:5
[Avodah Zarah 41b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:5)

אָמַר לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? הָתָם שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין אֶת הַדָּגוֹן, וְעוֹבְדִין אֶת הַמִּפְתָּן, דְּאָמְרִי הָכִי: שַׁבְקֵיהּ אִיסָרֵיהּ לְדָגוֹן, וַאֲתָא אִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ עַל הַמִּפְתָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish **said to him:** Is there **proof from there? There,** the reason people did not tread on the threshold of Dagon is **that they had abandoned** their worship of **the Dagon and** would instead **worship the threshold** upon which Dagon was found, **as they stated this** reasoning: **The spirit of Dagon has left** the Dagon idol **and** instead **it came** and **rested upon the threshold.**


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:6
[Avodah Zarah 41b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַמּוֹצֵא שִׁבְרֵי צְלָמִים — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין. הָא שִׁבְרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אֲסוּרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from the mishna: In the case of **one who finds fragments of statues, these are permitted. This** indicates that **fragments** of known objects **of idol worship are forbidden.**


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:7
[Avodah Zarah 41b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:7)

לָא תֵּימָא שִׁבְרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲסוּרִין, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הָא צְלָמִים עַצְמָן אֲסוּרִין, וּסְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish replied: **Do not say** that the indication is that **fragments of** objects of **idol worship are forbidden; rather say that** the indication is that full **statues themselves are forbidden, and the unattributed** mishna is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who, in the previous mishna, prohibits any statue as it is possible that it is worshipped annually.


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:8
[Avodah Zarah 41b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:8)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מִדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר נִשְׁמַע לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן, לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: צְלָמִים אֲסוּרִין, שִׁבְרֵי צְלָמִים מוּתָּרִין, לְרַבָּנַן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה וּשְׁבָרֶיהָ מוּתָּרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** how does **Rabbi Yoḥanan** refute the following logic: **From** the opinion **of Rabbi Meir** one can **learn** a detail **with regard to** the opinion of **the Rabbis. Doesn’t Rabbi Meir say** that **statues are forbidden,** while **fragments of statues are permitted?** From this, one can derive that this is true **according to the Rabbis as well** with regard to objects of **idol worship:** The object itself **is forbidden, but its fragments are permitted.**


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:9
[Avodah Zarah 41b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:9)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם אֵימַר עֲבָדוּם אֵימַר לֹא עֲבָדוּם, וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עֲבָדוּם — אֵימַר בִּטְּלוּם. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וַדַּאי עֲבָדוּהָ, מִי יֵימַר דְּבַטְּלֻהָ? הָוֵי סָפֵק וּוַדַּאי, וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this comparison: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of statues, the fragments are permitted because there is room to **say** that people **worshipped them,** and there is also room to **say** that people **did not worship them; and** even **if you say** that people **worshipped them,** there is room to **say** that their owners subsequently **revoked them.** This is not comparable to an object of **idol worship,** which people **certainly worshipped,** and **who is to say that** its owner certainly **revoked it? It is** a conflict between **an uncertainty** as to whether or not it was revoked, **and a certainty** that it was worshipped, **and** the principle is that **an uncertainty does not override a certainty.**


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:10
[Avodah Zarah 41b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:10)

וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי? וְהָתַנְיָא: חָבֵר שֶׁמֵּת, וְהִנִּיחַ מְגוּרָה מְלֵאָה פֵּירוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹמָן — הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת מְתוּקָּנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does an uncertainty not override a certainty? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a *ḥaver* who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even** if the produce was there only **that day,** it has the **presumptive status of** produce that was ritually **prepared,** i.e., properly tithed. This is due to the presumption that the *ḥaver* tithed the produce himself or instructed others to do so.


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:11
[Avodah Zarah 41b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:11)

וְהָא הָכָא דְּוַדַּאי טְבִילִי, סָפֵק עַשְּׂרִינְהוּ, סָפֵק לָא עַשְּׂרִינְהוּ, וְקָאָתֵי סָפֵק וּמוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **And here,** in this case, the produce was **certainly untithed** at the outset, and there is **uncertainty** whether the *ḥaver* **tithed it,** and there is **uncertainty** whether **he did not tithe it, and** despite this conflict, **the uncertainty** whether it was tithed **comes and overrides the certainty** that it was untithed produce.


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:12
[Avodah Zarah 41b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:12)

הָתָם וַדַּאי וּוַדַּאי הוּא, דְּוַדַּאי עַשְּׂרִינְהוּ, כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה: חֲזָקָה עַל חָבֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: **There,** in that case, conflict **is** between **certainty and certainty, as** the *ḥaver* **certainly tithed** the produce. This presumption is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥoza’a; as Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥoza’a says:** There is **a presumption with regard to a *ḥaver* that he does not release an item from his possession that is not** ritually **prepared.**


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:13
[Avodah Zarah 41b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:13)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא טְבִילִי, סָפֵק וְסָפֵק הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that perhaps the produce did **not initially** have the status of **untithed** produce, and therefore the conflict **is** between **uncertainty and uncertainty.**


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:14
[Avodah Zarah 41b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:14)

אֶפְשָׁר דַּעֲבַד כִּדְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר: מַעֲרִים אָדָם עַל תְּבוּאָתוֹ וּמַכְנִיסָהּ בַּמּוֹץ שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is because **it is possible that** there was never an obligation to tithe the produce, as the *ḥaver* may have **acted in accordance with** the statement **of Rabbi Oshaya, who says** that **a person can employ artifice** to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing **with his grain, and bring it into** his courtyard **in its chaff so that his animal may eat** from it. **And** this grain **is exempt from tithes.** Although the obligation to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one’s animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. In light of this *halakha* it is possible that the produce in the storehouse of the *ḥaver* never needed to be tithed. Consequently, this case is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not he tithed it.


###### Avodah Zarah 41b:15
[Avodah Zarah 41b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/41b:15)

וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי? וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָתוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection: **And** is it so that **an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda said:** There was **an incident involving the maidservant**