Avodah Zarah 82

They are only fragments! Shmuel explained that [the prohibition only applies when the hand and foot] are standing on their base.

It has been stated: An idol that broke on it own: R. Yohanan said that [its fragments] are prohibited, but R. Shimon b. Lakish said that they are permitted.

R. Yohanan said that they are prohibited because [the idolater] did not annul the idol. R. Shimon b. Lakish said that they are permitted because [the owner] can be assumed to have annulled [the idol], saying, “It could not save itself, so how can it save me!”

R. Yohanan raised a difficulty against R. Shimon b. Lakish: “And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut off . . . Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread” etc. (I Samuel 5:4).

He replied to him: From there you bring proof? In that passage [we learn] that they abandoned Dagon and worshipped the threshold, saying, the divinity left Dagon and went and settled itself upon the threshold.

[R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty against him: “if one finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted,” implying that fragments of idols are prohibited!

[Resh Lakish replied:] Do not say that fragments of idols are prohibited, but rather say that the images themselves [when whole] are forbidden, and the anonymous statement in the Mishnah is the view of R. Meir.

Now as to R. Yohanan, from the view of R. Meir we can infer the opinion of the Rabbis: Did not R. Meir say that images are prohibited but the fragments of images are permitted? Thus to the Rabbis, while an idol itself is prohibited, its fragments should be permitted.

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.

And a doubt does not set aside a certainty? Behold it has been taught: If a haver died and left a store-room full of produce even if they were only picked that day, they are presumed to have been properly tithed.

Now here it is certain [that the produce was once] untithed and there is a doubt whether he had tithed them or not; yet the doubt does set aside the certainty!

[No] there it is a case of certainty and certainty, for he certainly tithed the produce, according to the teaching of R. Hanina of Hoza, for R. Hanina of Hoza said: It is presumed that a haver does not allow anything to pass out of his control unless it had been properly treated.

Or if you wish I can say that it is a case of doubt and doubt,

as he might have acted according to [the advice of] R. Oshaia who said: A man may act cunningly with his produce and store it together with the chaff, so that his cattle may eat of it and it be exempt from the tithe.

And a doubt cannot set aside a certainty? Behold it has been taught: R. Judah said: It once happened that a female slave