We continue with the third chapter, mishnah 2, which follows directly from the previous mishnah. In the previous mishnah we learned that one who finds a statue, a figurine or the like, and has no way of knowing whether or not it was worshipped as an idol, and there is also no clear sign attesting to it - according to certain rules the object is forbidden to derive benefit from out of doubt, since perhaps it really was an idol and was worshipped, and we simply do not know.
The novelty of our mishnah concerns a case in which what was found is not a complete statue but a fragment of one: those very same items about which the previous mishnah said that they are forbidden to derive benefit from out of doubt, if a broken piece of them is found - that piece is permitted to derive benefit from.
The reason for the leniency - a double doubt:
The basis of the leniency is a sfek sfeika, a double doubt made up of two separate uncertainties:
The first doubt: It is entirely unknown whether the object was worshipped as an idol, or was made by a gentile specifically for the purpose of idolatry. Even where we said that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, that was only on account of doubt.
The second doubt: Statues do not break on their own. Once a broken piece of a statue is found, we may assume that the owners are the ones who broke it. And the breaking of a statue by its owner removes its sanctity from it - it dethrones it from its place in the awareness of its worshippers. Since that is so, its status as an idol has lapsed, and it is no longer forbidden to derive benefit from it.
It emerges that in the case before us two doubts combine: first, perhaps it was never dedicated to idolatry at all; and second, even if it was dedicated, perhaps it was broken by its owners and thereby left its dedicated status and was nullified. For this reason the fragment is permitted to derive benefit from.
A statue that was certainly worshipped and was found broken:
From here it emerges clearly that if it is known with certainty that the statue was worshipped as an idol, and it is forbidden as a certainty, and it is now found broken - even though there is room to suspect that the owners are the ones who broke it, there is only a single doubt here. And since there are not two doubts here but only one, it remains forbidden to derive benefit from out of doubt.
A complete statue of a limb of the body:
After all this the mishnah adds: one who finds a complete statue of one of the limbs of the body, such as a hand or a foot or any other part, and it is not a fragment that broke off from a larger statue but a complete statue of a limb. Since it is not broken, it is not the sort of thing that would serve merely as decoration - people do not generally set up the figure of a hand or a foot to adorn their courtyards. Therefore we must assume that this object served in some way for idolatry, and so a complete statue of a hand or a foot and the like is forbidden to derive benefit from. And here too the prohibition is on account of doubt: we do not know with certainty that it was worshipped, only that we must assume so, and because of that doubt it is forbidden.
In summary: In this mishnah we learned that a fragment of a statue, which in the previous mishnah was already forbidden out of doubt, is permitted to derive benefit from by force of a double doubt - perhaps it was never worshipped at all, and even if it was worshipped, perhaps its owners broke it and nullified it. But a statue that was certainly worshipped and was found broken, where there is only a single doubt, remains forbidden; and likewise a complete statue of a limb of the body, which is not the sort of thing used for decoration, is forbidden to derive benefit from out of doubt.