✦ ❖ ✦

DAAT · LEVEL 1 — INTRODUCTION

Siman קמ״ו — Which idol can be nullified and which cannot

The act, the hand, and the moment when it is too late

יורה דעה · סימן קמ״ו

איזו עבודת כוכבים יש לה ביטול ואיזו אין לה ביטול

🌱 Introductory level · מתחילים

✦ ❖ ✦

A first approach to Siman 146: the 15 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. The previous siman asked what remains permitted although it was worshipped. This one asks the question that follows: can a forbidden idol become permitted again? It can — through ביטול, nullification. But nullification is neither a vow nor a regret: it is an act, performed by a particular hand, at a particular moment. The whole siman traces those three lines — who may nullify, by what act, and until when.

Subject: The nullification of an idol — ביטול, זכיית ישראל, גרוטאות, ירושת הגר, שפאים, אמירה בעלמא, צורף ישראל, מפולת, שעת מלחמה, שברים, מזבח ובימוס, משמשים, ביעור, שם גנאי
Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קמ״ו

Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה
DAAT · daattorah.com

📑 Plan of study

1. The text of the Mehaber: the 15 seifim, with the glosses of the Rama

2. Context: the sugyot of Avodah Zarah — the mishnah of ביטול, the acts, the sale, the abandonment

3. Key concepts: ביטול, פיסול אלוה, זכייה, מקח טעות, שפאים, של פרקים, בימוס, ביעור

4. Summary tables: what nullifies and what does not, and who is capable of nullifying

5. The Taz and the Shach: eight key entries

6. The glosses of the Rama (הגה): five interventions, and the Pitchei Teshuvah

7. Modern practical cases: the flea market, the mutilated statue, the sold building, the pendant, destruction

8. Synthesis and comprehension questions

1. The text of the Mehaber — the 15 seifim

Siman 146 arrives in its logical place. Siman 139 stated that a non-Jew’s idol is forbidden from the moment it is made, a Jew’s only once it is worshipped; simanim 141 to 145 stated what that prohibition reaches — the figures, the accessories, the offerings, the price — and what it does not reach. What remained was the question of the exit: how does a forbidden object stop being forbidden?

The answer is one word, ביטול, and the siman examines it from three angles that follow one another almost without a seam. Who may nullify: seifim 1, 2, 4 and 5. By what act: seifim 6 to 10. What becomes of the object when nullification did not happen, or covered only a part of it: seifim 11 to 13. And the last two seifim leave nullification for its opposite — the duty to destroy.

Seif 1 — Who can nullify, and who never can

איזו עבודת כוכבים יש לה ביטול ואיזו אין לה ביטול. ובו ט״ו סעיפים: אלילים של עובד כוכבים שביטלה עובד כוכבים מותרת אבל ישראל אינו יכול לבטל אלילים של עובד כוכבים וכל שכן של ישראל שאין לה ביטול עולמית ואפילו אם יש לעובד כוכבים שותפות בה עמו אין ביטול העובד כוכבים מועיל לחלק הישראל:

Title of the siman: which idolatry has nullification and which has not; and it contains fifteen seifim.

Idols belonging to a non-Jew, which a non-Jew has nullified, are permitted; but a Jew cannot nullify a non-Jew’s idols — and all the more so his own, which never have nullification. And even if a non-Jew holds a share in it with him, the non-Jew’s nullification does not avail for the Jew’s share.

Three parties, three rules. A non-Jew nullifies; a Jew never does, neither another’s idol nor his own; and partnership does not split in half — the Jew’s share stays forbidden forever. The Talmud gives the reason: the Jew “worships with his own intent” — his worship does not ride on his partner’s, so the partner’s nullification cannot carry it away.

Seif 2 — What has passed into Jewish hands: the idol, and its accessories

אפילו אלילים של עובד כוכבים משבאה ליד ישראל וזכה בה שוב אין לה ביטול והני מילי אלילים עצמם אבל משמשי אלילים ונויה אם באו ליד ישראל ואח״כ ביטלה עובד כוכבים מותרים:

Even a non-Jew’s idols, once they have come into a Jew’s hand and he has acquired them, no longer have nullification.

And this applies to the idols themselves; but the accessories of the idol and its ornaments, if they came into a Jew’s hand and afterwards a non-Jew nullified them — they are permitted.

A rabbinic prohibition — and that explains its limit. By Torah law a non-Jew’s idol keeps its owner’s status wherever it goes, and he may nullify it. The Sages nevertheless shut that door once a Jew has acquired it, lest it be confused with a Jew’s own idol, which never can be nullified. Because the reason is a decree, its reach is measured: it covers only the idol itself, not its accessories or ornaments. Two conditions therefore appear in the seif — came into his hand and acquired it — and the Taz shows that they are not a redundancy.

Seif 3 — Scrap metal bought from a non-Jew: money, pulling, and the two together

הלוקח גרוטאות (פי׳ שברי כלי מתכות) מן העובד כוכבים ומצא בהם אלילים אם נתן מעות ולא משך יחזירם לעובד כוכבים וכן אם משך ולא נתן מעות אף על פי שמשיכה בעובד כוכבים קונה כמקח טעות הוא נתן מעות ומשך יוליכם לים המלח:

One who buys scrap metal (explanation: fragments of metal vessels) from a non-Jew and finds idols among it:

if he gave the money but did not pull the goods toward him, he returns them to the non-Jew. Likewise if he pulled without paying — although pulling effects acquisition with a non-Jew, here it is a mistaken sale.

Did he both pay and pull: he takes them to the Dead Sea.

Why three cases and not two? In all three the sale is mistaken: neither party meant to buy or sell an idol. So acquisition is not what decides — what onlookers see is. Money alone, or pulling alone: everyone knows nothing was acquired, and returning the goods does not look like selling an idol. Money and pulling: taking his money back would look like selling an idol, so he does not return them — he destroys them. That is exactly what the Shach says at ס״ק ב and ס״ק ד, and the Taz at ס״ק ד makes it the key to the whole seif.

Seif 4 — The convert and his non-Jewish brother: dividing the inheritance

גר ועובד כוכבים שירשו את אביהם עובד כוכבים יכול הגר לומר לעובד כוכבים טול אתה אלילים ואני מעות אבל משבאת האלילים לרשות הגר אסור:

A convert and a non-Jew who have inherited from their non-Jewish father: the convert may say to the non-Jew, “you take the idols and I the money.” But once the idols have entered the convert’s domain, it is forbidden.

This division ought to be forbidden: by leaving the idols to his brother the convert “wants them to endure” until he receives his share. The Talmud answers that a convert’s inheritance is only rabbinic, and the Sages were lenient with him lest he return to his former corruption. The Shach immediately draws the limit: this leniency was said for a convert and for no one else — not for an apostate’s son, and not for a business partner.

Seif 5 — Who is capable of nullifying: knowledge, duress, minority, belief

עובד כוכבים מבטל אלילים אע״פ שאינה שלו ואפילו אינו עובד לאותם אלילים ואפי׳ בעל כרחו ובלבד שידע בטיב אלילים אבל קטן שאינו יודע בטיב אלילים וכן שוטה וכן מי שאינו עובד אלילים כגון גר תושב אינם יכולים לבטלה. (ישמעאלים שאינן עובדי עבודת כוכבים אינם יכולים לבטל) (בית יוסף בשם הרמב״ם פ״ח):

A non-Jew nullifies an idol even if it is not his, even if he does not worship those particular idols, and even under compulsion — provided he knows the nature of idols. But a minor who does not know their nature, likewise an imbecile, likewise one who does not worship idols — such as a ger toshav — cannot nullify it.

Gloss of the Rama: (Ishmaelites, who are not idol-worshippers, cannot nullify) (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rambam, chapter 8).

The power to nullify rests on belief, not on ownership. That is why it works on someone else’s idol, and even under a Jew’s compulsion: an idolater who damages his god thereby shows that he no longer holds it to be a god, and that is enough. Conversely one who never believed — an undiscerning minor, an imbecile, a ger toshav — has nothing to withdraw, and his act says nothing. The Rama’s gloss closes the list with the practically decisive case: a Muslim, a monotheist, cannot nullify an idol.

Seif 6 — How one nullifies: the ashera, the chip, and for whose sake it was taken

כיצד מבטלה נטל מהאשרה מקל או אפי׳ עלה אחד לצרכו נתבטלה ובין האשרה עצמה ובין השפאים שנטל ממנה מותרים ואם נטל השפאים לצרכה דהיינו ליפותה לא נתבטלה והיא אסורה והשפאים מותרים:

How does one nullify it? He took from the ashera a stick, or even a single leaf, for his own use — it is nullified, and both the ashera itself and the chips he took from it are permitted. And if he took the chips for the tree’s sake — that is, to beautify it — it is not nullified and remains forbidden; and the chips are permitted.

Everything depends on the intent of the act, not its size. A single leaf taken for oneself nullifies the whole tree; a pruning done for the tree does not, however thorough. Yet in both cases the chips are permitted — the Shach gives Rashi’s reason: they are thrown away, not worshipped. This is the first appearance in the siman of the principle that runs through to seif 8: what counts is the meaning the act gives to the object.

Seif 7 — Acts that nullify, and acts that merely degrade

אלילים של עובד כוכבים שקטע ראש אזנה או ראש חוטמה או ראש אצבעה או שמיעכה בפניה אע״פ שלא חסרה בטלה מיעכה שלא בפניה ולא חסרה או רקק בפניה השתין בפניה או גררה או זרק בה את הצואה לא בטלה: הגה וי״א דאפילו בטלה באמירה בעלמא הוי ביטול אבל אם בטלה מכח אונס אינה מבוטלת עד שיעשה מעשה בגופה כמו שנתבאר (מרדכי ר״פ כל הצלמים בשם ראבי״ה):

An idol of a non-Jew whose ear-tip, nose-tip or finger-tip he cut off, or which he crushed on its face — even without diminishing it — is nullified. Did he crush it elsewhere than on its face without diminishing it, or spit before it, urinate before it, drag it, or throw excrement at it — it is not nullified.

Gloss of the Rama: and some say that even if he nullified it by mere speech it is a nullification; but if he nullified it under duress it is not nullified until he performs an act upon its body, as has been explained (Mordechai, beginning of chapter Kol HaTzelamim, in the name of the Raavyah).

Degrading is not renouncing. Spitting, urinating, dragging, defiling — all speak contempt, yet nothing is nullified. The Talmud supplies the verse: a man curses his god when hungry, then “looks to the earth” and returns to it. Passing contempt says nothing about belief. But mutilating the statue, even at the tip of an ear, or crushing it on its face, lays a hand on the very figure that was worshipped: the act is irreversible, and it counts as renunciation.

Seif 8 — Sale and pledge: the Jewish goldsmith

מכרה או משכנה אפילו לצורף ישראל לא בטלה ויש מתירין בצורף ישראל: הגה ומשמשי עבודת כוכבים אם משכנו או מכרו הוי ביטול (וכן משמע בטור סימן קל״ט וכ״כ הב״י):

He sold it or pledged it — even to a Jewish goldsmith — it is not nullified. And some permit with a Jewish goldsmith.

Gloss of the Rama: and the accessories of idolatry, if he pledged or sold them, that is a nullification (and so it appears from the Tur at siman 139, and so wrote the Beit Yosef).

The most disputed seif of the siman. The mishnah sets Rebbi, who holds that a sale nullifies, against the Sages, who hold that it does not; and the Talmud leaves open whether their dispute concerns a non-Jewish goldsmith or a Jewish one — who will melt the statue down. The Tur rules strictly: even with a Jewish goldsmith, no nullification. The Rambam rules the opposite. The Mehaber brings both, and the rest of the debate — about the pledge, and about what counts as a pledge — occupies the Beit Yosef, the Taz at ס״ק ח, the Shach at ס״ק י and the Ba’er Hetev at ס״ק י״א.

Seif 9 — The collapse and the theft: abandoning is not nullifying

נפלה עליה מפולת ולא פינוה גנבוה לסטים ולא תבעוה אינה בטלה:

A collapse fell upon it and they did not clear it away; bandits stole it and they did not demand it back — it is not nullified.

Inaction is not a decision. The Talmud builds these cases as a ladder — the loan on pledge, the collapse, the theft, the departure — and shows for each why one might have thought it a nullification, and why it is not. Not clearing the rubble may only mean “it is lying there, I shall take it when I want it”; not pursuing thieves may only mean knowing that someone else will worship it. An act is required, or at least an abandonment whose meaning admits no doubt — which is exactly what seif 10 goes looking for.

Seif 10 — Worshippers who leave: peace, war, and the possibility of return

הניחוה עובדיה והלכו להם בשעת שלום מותרת בשעת מלחמה אסורה והוא שאינם יכולים לחזור לה אבל אם היו יכולים לחזור לה ולא חזרו מותרת:

Its worshippers left it and went away: in peacetime it is permitted, in wartime it is forbidden. And that is when they cannot return to it; but if they were able to return to it and did not return, it is permitted.

War says nothing about belief — unless the peace that follows says it. A fugitive leaves everything behind; his abandonment does not prove renunciation, so the idol stays forbidden. But if circumstances later allowed a return and he did not come back for it, the silence speaks: he truly left it. The Talmud illustrates this with the “house of Nimrod” — scattered by Heaven, they could have returned, they did not, and therefore they nullified it.

Seif 11 — Broken on its own, and the jointed idol

אלילים של עובד כוכבים שנשברה מאליה שבריה אסורים בהנאה עד שיבטלוה לפיכך המוצא שברי אלילים הרי אלו אסורים בהנאה שמא לא ביטלה העובד כוכבים ואם היתה של פרקים והדיוט יכול להחזירה צריך לבטל כל פרק ופרק מפרקיה ואם אינו יכול להחזיר כיון שבטל אבר אחד ממנה בטלו כל השברים:

A non-Jew’s idol that broke of itself — its fragments are forbidden in benefit until it is nullified. Therefore one who finds fragments of idols, they are forbidden in benefit: perhaps the non-Jew did not nullify it.

And if it was made of joined parts and a layman can reassemble it, each of its parts must be nullified; and if he cannot reassemble it, once he has nullified one limb of it, all the fragments are nullified.

Breaking is not nullifying. Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disputed this, and the halakhah follows Rabbi Yohanan: a fallen statue was nullified by nobody, since nullification depends on the owner’s will. Hence two rules for the fragments. If the figure was a single body, nullifying one limb avails for all. If it was jointed — and an ordinary layman can put it back together — each piece is still an idol in its own right, and each requires its own nullification.

Seif 12 — The altar and the bimos: one stone, or many

מזבח של אלילים שנפגם עדיין הוא אסור עד שינתץ רובו על ידי עובד כוכבים ובימוס שנפגם מותר איזהו בימוס ואיזו מזבח בימוס אבן אחד מזבח אבנים הרבה:

An altar of idolatry that has been damaged is still forbidden, until most of it is demolished by a non-Jew. And a bimos that has been damaged is permitted.

What is a bimos and what is an altar? A bimos: a single stone. An altar: many stones.

The difference is not of substance but of replaceability. A bimos is one stone: chip it and it is discarded and another is brought — the Talmud says so explicitly. An altar is a construction: a breach does not make its builders give up, and it stays forbidden until most of it is torn down. The Shach at ס״ק י״ב adds the qualification that returns this seif to the siman’s axis: “by a non-Jew,” failing which we are back in seif 11, an idol broken of itself.

Seif 13 — The idol carries its accessories; the accessories do not carry the idol

המבטל אלילים נתבטלו משמשיה (אפי׳ הם כבר ביד ישראל נתבטלו עם ע״א שביד העובד כוכבים) (מרדכי פרק ר״י וכן כ׳ הר״ן בשם הראב״ד) ביטל משמשיה לא נתבטלה היא:

One who nullifies an idol, its accessories are nullified — gloss of the Rama: (even if they are already in a Jew’s hand, they are nullified together with the idol that is in the non-Jew’s hand) (Mordechai, chapter Rabbi Yishmael, and so wrote the Ran in the name of the Raavad); did he nullify its accessories, it itself is not nullified.

The direction of dependence is readable in the word “accessory.” The vessels are forbidden only because they serve the idol: once it is nullified they have nothing left to serve. The converse is false — one may give up the instruments of worship without giving up the god. The Rama’s gloss goes further, and it is the exact counterpart of seif 2: there, accessories that had passed into Jewish hands could still be nullified separately; here they are nullified automatically along with the idol that stayed with the non-Jew.

Seif 14 — The mitzvah of destruction, and its two methods

מצוה על כל המוצא אלילים שיבערנה ויאבדנה וכיצד מבערה שוחק וזורה לרוח או מטיל לים (וה״ה במשמשיה וכל הנעשה בשבילה שנאמר אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות) (בית יוסף בשם הרמב״ם):

It is a mitzvah, for whoever finds an idol, to destroy it and make it perish. And how does he destroy it? He grinds it and scatters it to the wind, or casts it into the sea

Gloss of the Rama: (and the same applies to its accessories and to all that was made for it, as it is said “abed te’abdun et kol hamekomot”) (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rambam).

Two methods, and an unstated condition. Grinding and scattering to the wind, or casting into the sea: both already appear in the mishnah and in the Rambam. But the Shach at ס״ק י״ג spells out what “the sea” means, and it changes the practice — the Dead Sea receives the object as it is, since no ships pass there and nobody will fish it out; other waters require grinding first. The Taz at ס״ק י״א reads the same way in the Beit Yosef’s name; the Bach, cited by the Shach, requires grinding everywhere.

Seif 15 — To root out, and to name with contempt

צריך לשרש אחר האלילי׳ ולכנות לה שם גנאי:

One must root out the idol, and give it a name of contempt.

Two obligations in five words, and both drawn from the same verse: וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא. Rabbi Eliezer reads in it that one must pursue the idol to its root; Rabbi Akiva, that one must rename it with contempt. And it is precisely that “from that place” which drives the Acharonim’s discussion at the foot of the page: the Shach limits the obligation to the Land of Israel, the Taz suspects a copyist’s error, and the Nekudot HaKesef answer the Taz.

2. Context — the sugyot of Avodah Zarah

The siman is built on three mishnayot in tractate Avodah Zarah, drawn from two different chapters, plus several beraitot. The first mishnah states who nullifies:

« נׇכְרִי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נׇכְרִי » (עבודה זרה נ״ב ע״ב)

The non-Jew’s power to disqualify his god is read from a verse, which the Talmud reports in the name of Rav Yosef:

« מִנַּיִן לְגוֹי שֶׁפּוֹסֵל אֱלוֹהוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פְּסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ » (עבודה זרה נ״ב ע״א)

As for the Jewish partner, the Talmud relates that Rebbi himself changed his mind, and it is his mature view that yields seif 1:

« וּבְזִקְנוּתוֹ סָבַר: יִשְׂרָאֵל אַדַּעְתָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ פָּלַח, כִּי מְבַטֵּל נׇכְרִי דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לָא בָּטֵיל » (עבודה זרה נ״ב ע״ב)

The second mishnah states by what act, and seif 7 copies it almost word for word:

« כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ? קָטַע רֹאשׁ אׇזְנָהּ, רֹאשׁ חוֹטְמָהּ, רֹאשׁ אֶצְבָּעָהּ, פְּחָסָהּ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חִיסְּרָהּ — בִּיטְּלָהּ » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״א)

Why do spitting and urinating not count? Hizkiyah supplies the verse — a man reviles his god in distress and then turns back to it:

« אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה כִי יִרְעַב וְהִתְקַצַּף וְקִלֵּל בְּמַלְכּוֹ וּבֵאלֹהָיו וּפָנָה לְמַעְלָה » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״א)

The continuation of the mishnah is the source of seif 8, with its unresolved dispute:

« חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּצוֹרֵף גּוֹי, אֲבָל בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּיטֵּל, וְחַד אָמַר: בְּצוֹרֵף יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְלוֹקֶת » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״א)

The scrap metal of seif 3 appears on the same page, as an objection to that dispute:

« הַלּוֹקֵחַ גְּרוּטָאוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם וּמָצָא בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יַחֲזִיר, אִם מִשֶּׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יוֹלִיךְ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״א)

and the Talmud deflects it by saying the buyer never meant to acquire an idol:

« שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דִּגְרוּטָאוֹת זַבֵּין, אַדַּעְתָּא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָא זַבֵּין » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״א)

Seifim 9 and 10 come from a beraita that lines up four abandonments:

« לָוָה עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלֶיהָ מַפּוֹלֶת, אוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוּהָ לִיסְטִין, אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ הַבְּעָלִים וְהָלְכוּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״א)

and from a third mishnah, which is seif 10:

« עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ עוֹבְדֶיהָ — בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם מוּתֶּרֶת, בִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה אֲסוּרָה » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״ב)

which Rav applies to the “house of Nimrod” — and from there comes the end of seif 10, about those who could have returned:

« אִי (בָּעֲיָא) [בְּעוֹ] לְמִיהְדָּר הֲדוּר, מִדְּלָא הֲדוּר בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלֻהָ » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״ב)

Seif 12 is a beraita on the same page:

« בִּימוֹס שֶׁנִּפְגַּם — מוּתָּר, מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם — אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתֵץ רוּבּוֹ » (עבודה זרה נ״ג ע״ב)

Seif 6 does not come from this chapter but from the chapter of the ashera, where the mishnah describes the nullification of a tree:

« כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ? קִירְסֵם וְזֵירֵד, נָטַל מִמֶּנָּה מַקֵּל אוֹ שַׁרְבִיט, אֲפִילּוּ עָלֶה — הֲרֵי זֹה בְּטֵלָה » (עבודה זרה מ״ט ע״ב)

and where a beraita gives the status of the chips, which seif 6 adopts:

« גּוֹי שֶׁשִּׁיפָּה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְצׇרְכּוֹ — הִיא וּשְׁפָאֶיהָ מוּתָּרִין, לְצׇרְכָּהּ — הִיא אֲסוּרָה וּשְׁפָאֶיהָ מוּתָּרִין » (עבודה זרה מ״ט ע״ב)

Seif 11 is made of two passages. First the dispute about an idol that broke of itself, where the halakhah follows Rabbi Yohanan:

« עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲסוּרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מוּתֶּרֶת » (עבודה זרה מ״א ע״ב)

then the distinction of the jointed idol, which the chapter of the ashera draws from another dispute:

« וְהָכָא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל חֻלְיוֹת, וּבְהֶדְיוֹט שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַחְזִירָהּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי » (עבודה זרה מ״ט ע״ב)

Seif 4 comes from a page much further on, where it is asked how a convert may leave the idols to his brother:

« שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשַּׁת הַגֵּר, דְּאַקִּילוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ » (עבודה זרה ס״ד ע״א)

The last two seifim, finally, come from a single verse expounded twice. Rabbi Eliezer finds in it the duty to root out:

« מִנַּיִן לְעוֹקֵר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְשָׁרֵשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם » (עבודה זרה מ״ה ע״ב)

and Rabbi Akiva, the duty to rename it with contempt:

« אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא״? לְכַנּוֹת לָהּ שֵׁם » (עבודה זרה מ״ו ע״א)

The Rambam gathered all of this in chapters 7 and 8 of the laws of idolatry, and the Mehaber follows him closely — the scrap metal and the convert’s inheritance are a single halakhah for him:

« הַלּוֹקֵחַ גְּרוּטָאוֹת מִן הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וּמָצָא בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. אִם נָתַן מָעוֹת וְלֹא מָשַׁךְ יַחֲזִירֵם לָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ז׳ הלכה ה׳)

and the rule of seif 1 opens his halakhah 9:

« עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים בָּהּ שֻׁתָּפוּת אֵין בִּטּוּלוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ח׳ הלכה ט׳)

3. The key concepts

Eight notions are enough to read the siman. The first four decide whether nullification is possible; the other four, what it carries with it.

What makes nullification possible

ביטול — nullification. It is not a purification of the object: it is the withdrawal, by the one who believed in it, of the divine status he had conferred. Everything else follows. The power belongs to the believer, not to the owner — seif 5 says so explicitly. It is exercised by an act, not by a feeling — seif 7. And it can no longer be exercised once the object has become, in law, a Jew’s idol — seifim 1 and 2.

פיסול אלוה — disqualifying one’s god. The verse says “the statues of their gods you shall burn with fire”; the Talmud reads in it that a non-Jew disqualifies his god, and the Taz opens his commentary with that reading. This is the scriptural basis of nullification, and it also explains why a Jew is incapable of it: the Torah grants him no such power, since a Jew’s idol is forbidden from the moment of worship and forever.

זכייה — acquisition by the Jew. This is the bolt of seif 2. As long as the object is with the non-Jew everything remains open; once the Jew has acquired it, the door closes. The Taz, at ס״ק ג, shows that the Mehaber writes two phrases where one would have sufficed — “came into a Jew’s hand” and “he acquired it” — and infers that the decree applies only to the two together. The Bach, cited by the Shach at ס״ק א, holds the opposite.

מקח טעות — the mistaken sale. The key to seif 3: one who buys scrap is not buying an idol, and the sale is void as to it. What then distinguishes the three cases is no longer the law of sales but appearance — what an onlooker would think on seeing the buyer take his money back.

What nullification carries, and what it leaves

שפאים — the chips. The splinters detached from a worshipped tree. Seif 6 declares them permitted in both cases — whether the pruning nullified the tree or not — and the Shach gives Rashi’s reason: they are thrown away, not worshipped. It is the model case of a fragment with a rule of its own.

של פרקים — the jointed idol. A figure whose limbs come apart and which a layman can reassemble. Each piece then counts as a whole idol, and each must be nullified. If reassembly requires a craftsman, the figure has value only as a whole, and a single nullification suffices for all the fragments.

בימוס and מזבח. The first is a single stone used as a pedestal; the second, an altar of many stones. The difference in law flows from that: a chipped stone is replaced, a breached altar is repaired. Seif 12 draws two opposite rules from it.

ביעור — destruction. The obverse of nullification. Nullification permits, destruction annihilates; and seif 14 recalls that it is a positive commandment upon whoever finds the object. Two methods: grind and scatter to the wind, or cast into the sea — and the Shach specifies which of the two dispenses with grinding.

4. Summary tables

Table A — what nullifies, and what does not

The act or event	Nullifies?	Why	Seif
Cutting off the tip of the ear, nose or finger	Yes	Irreversible damage to the worshipped figure	ז
Crushing the face — even taking nothing away	Yes	The face is what was worshipped	ז
Crushing elsewhere, taking nothing away	No	Neither damage nor renunciation	ז
Spitting, urinating, dragging, defiling	No	Passing contempt; he will return to it	ז
Simply saying it (per the Rama’s ויש אומרים)	Yes	A believer’s word amounts to renunciation	ז
Saying it under duress	No	An act upon the body itself is then required	ז
Taking a leaf from the ashera for oneself	Yes	He uses it, so he no longer believes in it	ו
Pruning the ashera to beautify it	No	That is care, not renunciation	ו
Selling or pledging — Jewish goldsmith	Two views	The Tur forbids, the Rambam permits; the Mehaber brings both	ח
Selling or pledging the accessories	Yes	Rama’s gloss, from the Tur at siman 139	ח
Uncleared landslide, unclaimed theft	No	Inaction proves nothing	ט
Departure in peacetime	Yes	They abandoned it freely	י
Flight in wartime	No	Forced abandonment — unless they could return and did not	י
Breaking of itself	No	Nobody decided anything	יא
Damaged altar	No	Until most of it is demolished, by a non-Jew	יב
Damaged bimos	Yes	A chipped stone is simply replaced	יב

Table B — who may nullify, and when

Who	May he nullify?	Qualification	Seif
An idolatrous non-Jew, the owner	Yes	The base case	א
An idolatrous non-Jew, not the owner	Yes	Even another’s idol; even under compulsion	ה
A non-Jew who does not worship this idol	Yes	It is enough that he knows the nature of idols	ה
An undiscerning minor, an imbecile	No	He does not know the nature of idols	ה
A ger toshav, an Ishmaelite	No	They do not worship idols — Rama’s gloss	ה
A Jew	No	Neither his own nor a non-Jew’s	א
A non-Jew partnered with a Jew	His share only	The Jew’s share stays forbidden forever	א
A non-Jew, after the Jew acquired the idol	No	Rabbinic decree — the bolt of seif 2	ב
A non-Jew, after the Jew acquired the accessories	Yes	The decree targets only the idol itself	ב

The two tables answer the siman’s two questions, and they must be held together: a nullifying act performed by an incapable hand is worth nothing, and the most qualified hand nullifies nothing without an act. That is also why seifim 9 and 10 stand where they do — they speak of neither an act nor a hand, but of a silence, and ask whether that silence says anything.

5. The Taz and the Shach — eight key entries

Taz ס״ק א — where the power to nullify comes from

The Taz opens the siman with the verse on which everything rests:

« דילפינן לה מדכתיב פסילי אלהיהם שעובד כוכבים פוסל אלוה שלו » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק א)

It is therefore not a power of purification but a power of disqualification: whoever made the object a god may withdraw that title from it. A Jew never made it one — so he has nothing to withdraw.

Taz ס״ק ב — why the non-Jewish partner nullifies only his share

The Taz explains the last clause of seif 1:

« הטעם דאמרינן ישראל אדעתיה דנפשיה פלח ולא אדעת עובד כוכבים ע״כ כי מבטל העובד כוכבים אין מבטל אלא חלקו » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ב)

This is the Talmud’s conclusion about Rebbi’s change of mind: the Jew’s worship is his own and not an appendix to his partner’s. The Jew’s share is therefore a Jew’s idol in full — and nothing nullifies it.

Taz ס״ק ג — why the Mehaber writes two phrases instead of one

The Taz notes that seif 2 rests on a decree alone, and infers its reach:

« ונ״ל דכיון שאין הטעם אלא משום גזירה לא גזרו אלא אם באה לידו אחר הזכייה דוקא » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ג)

Hence his reading of the text itself — the doublet is deliberate:

« וזהו שכתבו הטור והש״ע כפול לשון משבאה ליד ישראל וזכה בה משמע אבל זכייה לחוד לא » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ג)

Buying from a distance and paying therefore does not shut the door: the object must have come into hand.

Shach ס״ק א — the Bach against the Taz, and the accessories

The Shach reports the opposite view, that of the Bach, which requires no acquisition at all:

« והב״ח כתב דאפילו לא זכה בה כגון שמצאה לפני יאוש או גזלה אע״ג דמדינא עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים היא ויש לה ביטול מ״מ מדרבנן אין לה ביטול גזרה משום אליל של ישראל עצמו » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק א)

And the Bach carries the same stringency as far as the accessories, which seif 2 had permitted:

« ובהכי אמרינן דמשמשי עבודת כוכבים שבאו ליד ישראל וביטלם עובד כוכבים מותרין אבל זכה בהם הישראל אפילו משמשים אין להם ביטול » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק א)

The Ba’er Hetev, at ס״ק ב and ס״ק ג, sets the two views side by side without deciding.

Shach ס״ק ד — why he does not return the scrap

The Shach broadens the third case of seif 3 and gives its reason:

« וה״ה משך ברישא ואחר כך נתן מעות וטעמא דהשתא׳ כיון שנקנו לו אע״ג דהוי כמקח טעות מ״מ כשיחזור ויקח המעות מחזי כזבין אליל הלכך יוליכם לים המלח » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ד)

It is therefore not the order of the acts that counts but their combination — and how it would look from outside.

Shach ס״ק ה — the limits of the leniency granted to the convert

The Shach gives the reason for seif 4, then at once limits it:

« לפי שירושת הגר מדרבנן וחכמים הקילו בגר שלא יחזור לקלקולו ש״ס » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ה)

and he excludes two neighbouring figures one might have thought covered:

« ולפ״ז דוקא גר אבל מי שהמיר אביו ובנו עמו ומת אביו אינו יכול לומר לאחיו המומר טול אתה אלילים כו׳ וכן מי שנשתתף עם עובד כוכבים בסחורה ובאתה אלילים לידו אינו יכול לומר טול אתה אלילים כו » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ה)

Shach ס״ק ז and ס״ק ח — the chips, and nullification by speech

Why are the chips permitted even when the tree stays forbidden? The Shach answers with Rashi:

« משום דמיזרק זריק להו ולא פלח להו. רש״י » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ז)

On the Rama’s gloss to seif 7 the Beit Yosef objected: if a voluntary sale does not nullify, how could mere speech? The Taz cites the objection and the Darkhei Moshe’s answer:

« כתב ב״י על זה ותמיהני מדין מכרה או משכנה בסמוך דמשמע אפילו מכרה ברצונו לא בטלה וכתב ד״מ שאני התם דלא ידעינן בודאי שבטלה » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ז)

The Shach gives his own answer, that of the Bach — in a sale it was the money that forced his hand — and then specifies what “mere speech” means here:

« ול״ד למכרה או משכנה דבסמוך דהתם זוזי אנסוהו ב״ח ופסק כן » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ח)

and he explains that the speech must express an actual renunciation, not a vague intention:

« ר״ל דהכא מיירי שאומר שרוצה לבטל לקטוע אזנה או חוטמה וכה״ג אבל התם אינו מבטלו וגם סובר שהקונה לא יבטל ודלא כב״י » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ח)

Shach ס״ק י and Taz ס״ק ח — the pledge, and what a real pledge is

This is the central debate of the siman. The Shach first notes that the Mehaber’s stringency is obvious outside the case of a Jewish goldsmith:

« וכ״ש לצורף עובד כוכבים או לישראל אחר שאינו צורף דבהנך לכ״ע לא בטלה » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ט)

He then sets out the Beit Yosef’s view against the Ran: even a pledge with a forfeiture clause does not count as a sale:

« ובב״י כתב דאפילו משכנה והרהינה אצלו שא״ל אם לא הבאתי לך המעות מכאן עד יום פלוני תהא שלך והגיע הזמן ולא פדאה לא בטלה לכ״ע ודלא כהר״ן שכתב דהרהינה הוי כמכירה עכ״ל » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק י)

The Taz is astonished at the Beit Yosef, and decides for the Ran:

« אלא ודאי דברי הר״ן עיקר דבמשכון דמתני׳ דהיינו הרהינו מודים חכמים לרבי דבטל » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ח)

and he faults the Mehaber for not saying which kind of pledge he meant:

« ודבר זה היה לו להרב לכתוב כאן בשלחן ערוך ולבאר באיזה משכון מתירין דהיינו בהרהינו ולא פדאו בזמנו » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ח)

The Ba’er Hetev, at ס״ק י״א, sums up the two camps — the Bach with the Beit Yosef, the Taz with the Ran:

« כתב הב״ח דזה לא קאי רק אמכרה אבל במשכנה אין שום היתר אפי׳ בצורף ישראל והט״ז כ׳ דאפי׳ במשכנו יש היתר כגון שהרהינו אצלו והגיע הזמן ולא פדאו דאז הוי כמכירה » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק י״א)

Shach ס״ק י״ג and ס״ק י״ד — the Dead Sea, and the Land of Israel

Seif 14 says “or cast it into the sea.” The Shach specifies which sea:

« בלא שחיקה אבל לשאר נהרות בעי שחיקה ב״י וד״מ ושאר אחרונים וכן הוא לקמן סימן רצ״ד סעיף ו׳ והב״ח כתב דאף לים המלח בעי שחיקה » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק י״ג)

On the last seif the Shach is brief, and limits the obligation to the Land of Israel:

« דוקא בא״י. מ״ו ופרישה » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק י״ד)

The Taz rejects that reading and posits a copyist’s error — the limitation, he says, belongs to “root out,” not to “rename”:

« כתוב בפריש׳ בשם רש״ל פי׳ דוקא בא״י והוא תימה ונראה דט״ס הוא כאן ושייך על הרישא דצריך לשרש אחריה דזו דוקא בא״י שצריך להיות מנוקה ומטוהרת » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק י״ב)

The Nekudot HaKesef — the Shach answering the Taz — reject the hypothesis of an error and restore the reading from the verse itself:

« ול״נ דאין כאן ט״ס אלא כיון דבש״ס פ׳ כל הצלמים קאמר דהא דצריך לשרש אחריה נפקא לן מואבדתם את שמם מן המקום ההוא וכן הא דצריך לכנות לה שם גנאי יליף נמי מהאי קרא אם כן משמע דוקא במקו׳ ההוא הוא דאיכא מצוה אבל בחו״ל לא » (נקודות הכסף יו״ד קמ״ו)

6. The glosses of the Rama (הגה), and the Pitchei Teshuvah

The Rama intervenes five times in this siman, each time to add a case the Mehaber had not named.

First gloss, at seif 5 — the case that matters most in practice, since there are hardly any idolaters left of whom to ask a nullification:

« ישמעאלים שאינן עובדי עבודת כוכבים אינם יכולים לבטל » (רמ״א יו״ד קמ״ו:ה)

The Shach refers here to siman 124, where the status of Ishmaelites is established.

Second gloss, at seif 7 — nullification by speech, and its exception:

« וי״א דאפילו בטלה באמירה בעלמא הוי ביטול אבל אם בטלה מכח אונס אינה מבוטלת עד שיעשה מעשה בגופה כמו שנתבאר » (רמ״א יו״ד קמ״ו:ז)

The Taz and the Shach discuss this gloss at length: see the previous section.

Third gloss, at seif 8 — the accessories, which do not carry the idol’s stringency:

« ומשמשי עבודת כוכבים אם משכנו או מכרו הוי ביטול » (רמ״א יו״ד קמ״ו:ח)

The Rama derives this from the Tur at siman 139 — accessories are forbidden only by their service, and a sale ends it.

Fourth gloss, at seif 13 — the extension of nullification down the chain:

« אפי׳ הם כבר ביד ישראל נתבטלו עם ע״א שביד העובד כוכבים » (רמ״א יו״ד קמ״ו:י״ג)

This is the counterpart of seif 2: what the Jew already holds is carried along by the nullification of the idol left with the non-Jew.

Fifth gloss, at seif 14 — the mitzvah of destruction covers what surrounds it too:

« וה״ה במשמשיה וכל הנעשה בשבילה שנאמר אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות » (רמ״א יו״ד קמ״ו:י״ד)

The verse is the very one from which the Talmud derives the duty to root out.

The Pitchei Teshuvah — three entries

The Pitchei Teshuvah writes only three notes on this siman. The first is the most interesting: it reads the word “Jew” in seif 1 as including an apostate.

On “but a Jew,” at seif 1:

« עי׳ בתפארת למשה שכתב דר״ל אפילו ישראל מומר דאי לא פלח אפילו גר תושב וישמעאלים אין מבטלים ע״ש » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק א)

The Tiferet LeMoshe therefore reads: even an apostate Jew, who does worship, cannot nullify — for if worship alone were the criterion, a ger toshav and an Ishmaelite could all the more easily qualify by changing belief. The criterion is birth, not practice.

On “even to a Jewish goldsmith,” at seif 8, he copies the Shach and adds two responsa references:

« וכ״ש לצורף עובד כובים או לישראל שאינו צורף דבהנך לכ״ע לא בטלה. ש״ך ועיין בתשובת פרי תבואה סימן נ״א ונ״ב » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ב)

The responsa of the Peri Tevu’ah, simanim 51 and 52, deal with cases of selling objects of worship.

On the Rama’s gloss at seif 8, he refers to the Ba’er Hetev and the Taz:

« עבה״ט ס״ק י״א בשם ט״ז ועי׳ בתשובת פרי תבואה ס״ס נ״א » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קמ״ו ס״ק ג)

He thereby points the reader to the discussion of the pledge — the very one in which the Taz opposes the Beit Yosef.

7. Modern practical cases

Case 1 — The flea market and the mixed lot

One buys a lot — old crockery, metals, bric-à-brac — and finds a cult statuette in it. Seif 3 was written for this, and three questions of fact come before anything else: was money paid? were the goods taken away? both? If only one of the two, the lot is returned to the seller — and the Shach at ס״ק ב explains that appearance is not a concern, since everyone knows no sale took effect. If both, it is no longer returned: the object is destroyed. The difference lies not in ownership — the sale is mistaken in all three cases — but in what a bystander would see.