Before us is mishnah 5 in the fourth chapter of tractate Avodah Zarah. In the previous mishnah we learned that a non-Jew who worships idols may nullify his idol, and now the mishnah comes to spell out how that nullification is actually carried out: what the non-Jew must do in order to take the idol out of use and strip it of its sanctity.
"Keitzad mevatel?" - How does one nullify an idol?
The mishnah lists three actions: "Kata rosh oznah, rosh chotmah, rosh etzba'ah" - the non-Jew cuts off part of the idol's ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger. These three are listed in ascending order of novelty:
"Rosh oznah" - the tip of its ear: In the Roman period, when a runaway slave was returned to his master, they would cut off part of his ear in order to mark him as a slave and to show who his owner was. Accordingly, when the idolater cuts off his idol's ear, he demonstrates plainly that he himself is the owner of the idol, and by doing so he nullifies it.
"Rosh chotmah" - the tip of its nose: Cutting off the nose is done in order to disfigure the face, and it is plain and obvious to all that the idol is no longer regarded as an object of worship.
"Rosh etzba'ah" - the tip of its finger: This is a greater novelty, since the tip of the finger is far less prominent. Even so, once the non-Jew has cut a piece off it, he no longer treats it as a deity but relates to it as a mere lifeless statue.
This is the meaning of nullification: stripping the sanctity from the idol until it becomes an ordinary statue. From that moment a Jew is permitted to derive benefit from it - if it is made of silver, he may melt it down and fashion candlesticks from it; and if it is made of wood, he may burn it and make use of the fire. Before the nullification, by contrast, a Jew is obligated to destroy the idol - to melt it down, cast it into the Dead Sea or burn it in fire - but he may not derive any benefit from it, neither from the fire nor from its silver.
"Pechasah af al pi shelo chiserah" - He battered it even though he did not diminish it:
The mishnah continues: if the non-Jew ruined the idol's face and damaged it to the point that it is no longer recognizable as a face, this is a valid nullification - "af al pi shelo chiserah" - even though he removed nothing of the material itself, but merely distorted and disfigured the face. That is enough to nullify the idol and permit a Jew to benefit from it.
And it is specifically the face that must be smashed. If he smashed the hand or the foot, and the damage is not sufficiently noticeable, this is not considered a nullification.
Acts of degradation that do not nullify:
On the other hand, "Rakak befaneha, hishtin befaneha, gerarah, vezarak bah es hatzo'ah - harei zeh eino bitul" - he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it about, or threw excrement at it - this is not a nullification. Even though he spat on it, urinated in front of it, dragged it through the mud as an act of contempt, or threw excrement at it, there is no nullification here. The reason: it is quite possible that the idolater became angry at his idol for some reason, and he is expressing his anger through these degrading acts, while tomorrow he will make his peace with it and go back to praying to it. A temporary, one-time act of degradation does not testify to any removal of sanctity, but only to the bad character of the worshipper.
From here Tosafos explains, even though the mishnah does not say so explicitly, that if the non-Jew designated the idol anew for a degrading use on a permanent basis - making it into a spittoon or a chamber pot - this constitutes permanence, and it would be considered a nullification, and the idol would be permitted to a Jew for benefit.
"Mecharah o mishkenah" - He sold it or pawned it:
The final case in the Mishnah is subject to a dispute: what is the law if the gentile sold his idol or gave it as collateral? Collateral is a pledge or security given when taking a loan, and normally the security returns to its owner once the debt is paid. Here, though, we are dealing with a case that is closer to a sale: the item is handed over to a pawnshop, and after thirty days the borrower forfeits his rights to it. And as we all know, people do lose their items, and that is how the pawnshop makes its living, so the assumption is that in all likelihood he will not be getting the statue back.
"Rebbi omer: bittel" - Rabbi says he has nullified it. The very act of handing over the idol shows that he is finished with it, and therefore it is nullified.
"Vechacham omer: lo bittel" - and a Sage says he has not nullified it. He may well intend to buy it back at a higher price; and beyond that, the Sage holds that the buyer or the pawnbroker will use it as his own idol. Since the buyer may very well worship it, the sale by itself does not constitute nullification.
The Bartenura discusses a case where the idolater sells his statue to a Jew. If it is an ordinary Jew, who might sell it back to a gentile, that is not enough; but if the Jew is a silversmith and the statue is made of silver, so that it is clear and known that the statue is about to be melted down and turned into candlesticks, even the Sages would agree that this is nullification. It is worth noting that the Rishonim disagree about this, and the Shulchan Aruch cites both opinions with the phrase "there are those who say," as to whether selling it to a Jewish silversmith counts as nullification.
In practical halachah:
The commentators disagree as to whether these rules were stated specifically regarding an idolater who is acting under duress. When he acts of his own free will, however, some hold that he does not need any action at all, and verbal nullification suffices: he says, "I am finished with this idol, and from now on it is nullified." According to this view, when no one is forcing him, the statement itself changes the status of the idol and reduces it to the level of a worthless figurine. Others disagree and hold that this is not enough.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the ways a gentile nullifies an idol - cutting off the tip of its ear, its nose or its finger; and flattening its face even without removing any material. We also learned that one time acts of degradation, such as spitting, urinating, dragging and throwing excrement, do not nullify it, since they may be no more than an expression of passing anger, unless he designates the statue for degrading use on a permanent basis. And finally we saw the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages regarding one who sells or pawns his idol, and the words of the Bartenura about a sale to a Jewish silversmith.
In the next Mishnah we will open a broader topic: is an actual act required in order to nullify an idol, or is nullification without any act sufficient?