Chizkuni: Burning Idols in Fire
In a happy coincidence, I have a dvar Torah that both addresses the sidra of Ekev and the Daf Yomi in Avodah Zarah
In Devarim 7:25:
פְּסִילֵ֥י אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֖ם תִּשְׂרְפ֣וּן בָּאֵ֑שׁ לֹֽא־תַחְמֹד֩ כֶּ֨סֶף וְזָהָ֤ב עֲלֵיהֶם֙ וְלָקַחְתָּ֣ לָ֔ךְ פֶּ֚ן תִּוָּקֵ֣שׁ בּ֔וֹ כִּ֧י תוֹעֲבַ֛ת ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ הֽוּא׃
You shall consign the images of their gods to the fire; you shall not covet the silver and gold on them and keep it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared thereby; for that is abhorrent to your God ה.
See Chizkuni (with Eliyahu Munk’s translation to English)
תשרפון באש שהרי לבטל על ידי כנעני אי אפשר לפי שבשעה שאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל אוו לאלוהות הרבה וכל העבודת כוכבים שהיו בארץ כנען משל ישראל הם שהרי הארץ מוחזקת להם ועבודת כוכבים של ישראל אין לה ביטול עולמית אלא שריפה או שוחק וזורה לרוח.
תשרפון באש, “you are to burn them by fire.” When the Israelites, after seeing the golden calf, addressed it with the words: “these are your deities (pl) Israel!” all types of idolatries were included in that declaration, and there is a rule that the only way an idolatry practiced by a Jew can be nullified is by destroying the idol by burning it. (Compare Talmud tractate Menachot folio 53) The only other way is to reduce it to dust and throw the dust to the winds.
I would make three refinements to this translation.
Also the word eleh / these is plural.
It is actually Avodah Zarah 53, not Menachot 53.
A key point is ownership of the idol via ownership of Israel. He elides this point, and mistranslates ועבודת כוכבים של ישראל as “an idolatry practiced by a Jew” rather than owned by a Jew.
Let us try again:
תִּשְׂרְפ֣וּן בָּאֵ֑שׁ (you shall burn with fire) — for behold, to nullify it via a (gentile) Canaanite is not possible. For, at the time {of the golden calf} that they said “these are your gods Israel” {based on the plural language}, they expressed desire for many gods {including those in the land, and not just the calf itself} and all the idols within the Land of Canaan belonged to the Israelites, for this land was muchzeket {stood ready} for them; and an idol owned by an Israelite has no nullification, ever, but rather, burning, or crushing and scattering to the wind.
The reference is to Avodah Zarah 53b. A long-enough passage is this:
כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁזָּקַף לְבֵינָה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לָהּ, וּבָא גּוֹי וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ — אֲסָרָהּ.
as may be illustrated by that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of a Jew who set a brick upright in order to bow to it but did not actually bow to it, and a gentile then came and bowed to it, the gentile rendered it prohibited even though it was not his brick.
מְנָלַן דַּאֲסָרָהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כַּתְּחִילָּה שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ״, מִכְּדֵי יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא לָהֶם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיהֶם, וְאֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ!
The Gemara explains: From where do we derive that he rendered it prohibited? Rabbi Elazar says: This halakha is like the halakha that applied at the outset of the Jewish people’s conquest of Eretz Yisrael, when the Torah commanded them to destroy any trees that were used as part of idolatrous rites [asherim], as the Merciful One states: “And you shall break down their altars…and you shall burn their asherim with fire” (Deuteronomy 12:3). Now, Eretz Yisrael is the inheritance of the Jewish people from their ancestors, and a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his. If so, how could the gentiles render the trees forbidden, as the land was not theirs?
וְאִי מִשּׁוּם הָנָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, בְּבִיטּוּלָא בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי לְהוּ!
If the trees were forbidden because some of them might have been those trees that were worshipped initially, before God gave the land to Abraham, it would not have been necessary to destroy them. Rather, the Jews could have forced the gentiles to revoke their status, and since the asherim were objects of gentiles’ idol worship, a mere revocation would be sufficient to render them permitted.
אֶלָּא, מִדִּפְלַחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעֵגֶל, גַּלּוֹ אַדַּעְתַּיְיהוּ דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכִי אֲתוֹ גּוֹיִם, שְׁלִיחוּתָא דִּידְהוּ עָבְדִי. הָכִי נָמֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁזָּקַף לְבֵינָה, גַּלִּיא דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכִי אֲתָא גּוֹי וּפְלַח לַהּ, שְׁלִיחוּתָא דִּידֵיהּ קָעָבֵיד.
Rather, since the Jewish people worshipped the Golden Calf, they revealed their intentions and indicated that they were amenable to idol worship. And when the gentiles came and engaged in idol worship, they were, in effect, carrying out their agency on behalf of the Jewish people. The asherim were therefore considered objects of Jews’ idol worship, whose status cannot be revoked. So too, in the case of a Jew who set a brick upright in order to bow to it, he thereby revealed his intentions and indicated that he is amenable to idol worship. And when a gentile came and worshipped it, he was carrying out the agency on behalf of the Jew.
וְדִלְמָא בְּעֵגֶל הוּא דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ, בְּמִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִיוּוּ לֶאֱלוֹהוֹת הַרְבֵּה.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps it is only with regard to the Golden Calf that the Jewish people were amenable to worshipping it, but not with regard to any other type of idol worship. The Gemara counters: The verse states with regard to the Golden Calf: “And they said: These are your gods, O Israel” (Exodus 32:4), in the plural. This teaches that they desired many gods, and they did not desire to worship only the Golden Calf.
Now, to my mind there is a slight difficulty in Chizkuni’s extension here. Namely, he assumes that this gemara extends to the actual idols, that they cannot be nullified. And, maybe, one could make that argument based on the full list of items listed in the pasuk to be burnt. However, a careful read of the gemara, as well as Rashi ad loc. who makes it even more explicit (writing ואשריהם תשרפון - אלמא אילנות נמי אסירי ומכדי הארץ וכל המחובר לה ירושה לישראל היא מאבותיהם), we are specifically discussing asheira trees here. The initial problem was that they belonged to Jews because they were mechubar lakarka, attached to the ground, and the ground was already an inheritance to the Israelite’s ancestors. And the answer was that they expressed desire for more gods than just the golden calf, so the Canaanite’s worship of asheira was effectively agency to worship it. None of this — not the initial problem, and not the resolution — works. After all, most idols are free standing. They are not attached to the ground, so they would not be in a Jew’s position when the Canaanite worshiped it. They would not be rendered forever forbidden.
Further, this idea that the idols in the conquest could not theoretically be nullified contradicts something else in that very gemara, immediately above. Namely, also on Avodah Zarah 53b:
אִם עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר כְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה. מִידֵּי מִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִיהְדָּר הֲדוּר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְאֵין לָהּ בְּטִילָה.
The baraita states: If the owners will return in the future, as was the case in the war of Joshua when he conquered Eretz Yisrael, then the status of the object of idol worship is not revoked. The Gemara asks: Is it so, that after the war of Joshua the gentiles returned home? They were defeated and killed and did not return home. The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita is saying: If the owners will return in the future, the idol has the same status as did the idols of the gentiles killed in the war of Joshua, who intended to return and did not revoke the status of their idols, and therefore its status is not revoked.
Thus, as a practical matter, the Canaanites fled but did not renounce their idols. And they did not have a chance to return home. Therefore, practically, those idols were all forbidden and would have to be destroyed by fire.
However, of course, in an instance where a Canaanite person stuck around, and that Canaanite nullified his idol, the idol would indeed be nullified.
Setting all this aside, and setting any purported version of Chazal’s understanding of the pasuk aside, I think that this is one of a few instances of Biblical gezeira, where something is decreed prohibited in order to prevent another worse thing from occurring. Thus, that pasuk again reads:
פְּסִילֵ֥י אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֖ם תִּשְׂרְפ֣וּן בָּאֵ֑שׁ לֹֽא־תַחְמֹד֩ כֶּ֨סֶף וְזָהָ֤ב עֲלֵיהֶם֙ וְלָקַחְתָּ֣ לָ֔ךְ פֶּ֚ן תִּוָּקֵ֣שׁ בּ֔וֹ כִּ֧י תוֹעֲבַ֛ת ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ הֽוּא׃
You shall consign the images of their gods to the fire; you shall not covet the silver and gold on them and keep it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared thereby; for that is abhorrent to your God ה.
Back then, as opposed to nowadays or even the time of Chazal, there was a true temptation towards idolatry. If the Israelite kept it, there was a real possibility of eventually worshiping it. This even if the Canaanite abandoned it without intending to return, because he did not deem it a deity anymore. Or maybe even if he nullified it by cutting off its finger.
Sure, you could make a claim that it is now kosher, and an Israelite could retain the valuable gold or silver item in his home. But the Israelite could be ensnared by it. Better to make sure it is not available.
In this way, we can imagine that the applied halacha changed to the days of Chazal, when they encountered idols and even forced the gentile to nullify the idolatrous drakon image. Culturally, the Jews of that era all recognized it as silliness, and that ensnarement was not likely. Finding means in which it could be stripped of its prohibited status eliminates tremendous waste. On the other hand, imagine a Jew had actually worshiped it. For that Jew, it certainly can act as a snare. Of course, this does not cover the in-between cases like a gentile’s idol already acquired by a Jew, or a different Jew not allowed to use a Jew’s idol. Still, I see a certain logic here, and a different logic than what applied during the kibush.