Commentary for Avodah Zarah 82:9
הכי השתא התם אימר עבדום אימר לא עבדום ואת"ל עבדום אימר בטלום עבודת כוכבים ודאי עבדוה מי יימר דבטלה הוי ספק וודאי ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי
But is the analogy correct? There [in the case of images] they were perhaps worshipped or perhaps not; and even if you assume that they had been worshipped, perhaps they had been annulled. But in the case of an idol, it has certainly been worshipped; and who can say whether it has been annulled? Consequently there is a doubt and a certainty, and a doubt cannot set aside a certainty.
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
R. Yohanan says that the analogy is not correct. Images may not have been worshipped, and when they broke, they may have been annulled. Thus there are two doubts and in cases of a double doubt, we can rule leniently. But in the case of a broken piece of an idol, it may not have been annulled. There is only one doubt, and one doubt is not sufficient to remove from the certainty that the idol was worshipped.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy