Avodah Zarah 053

5:
We now come to the second clause of our mishnah which teaches that an idol-worshipper can cancel the sanctity of his own idol. That is to say that he can determine that this image no longer has any religious significance for him. In the next mishnah we shall learn of actions that such a person might take that will nullify the image as an idol. Of course, the religious significance of an idol for an idol worshipper is of no consequence to a Jew: the reason why this clause is included in our mishnah is that it serves to indicate that if an idol has been relegated to a non-religious status by its non-Jewish owner a Jew can now derive benefit from it.

6:
The text of our mishnah reads that a non-Jew can cancel the religious status of his own idol and also that of another non-Jew. However, there is another reading of this clause that has reached us which reads:

In other words, according to this version of the mishnah, if a Jew has created an idol a non-Jew can relegate it to a non-religious status (and then other Jews can benefit from it).

7:
The Gemara [AZ 52b] is perplexed how it can be possible that two differing versions of the same mishnah can have been preserved. Apparently, we have here a rare example of an instance where Rabbi, the compiler of the Mishnah, held one version to be correct earlier in his life, but later he selected another version for inclusion in his Mishnah. In the Gemara we read:

The Gemara does not record Rabbi's response, but obviously it is his later opinion that should prevail. One sage, however, claims that there could be a situation in which Rabbi's earlier view should prevail:

8:
Obviously, a Jew cannot cancel the religious significance of an idol which belongs to a non-Jew since it is only the religious significance of the figure in the mind of the non-Jew which makes it an idol.

9:
The last clause of our mishnah is simple: if an idol ceases to be an idol for any reason all its appurtenances now become permitted to a Jew. The appurtenances might be the wine cups, the dishes, the thuribles – anything that was once used in the service of this idol.

You may recall that in my initial response to Mike Nichols' query concerning the significance of our present study for the modern Jew I wrote [AZ 049]:

Even so, there are many strict opinions which would teach that a Jew should not find pleasure (aesthetic pleasure) from works of art that have a religious connotation for the non-Jews who created them.

Judith May:

That would leave out most of the history of art, and much of classical music! In my experience, there is a difference between a religious response to a work of art, and an aesthetic response to the same work. One may respond to the aesthetics of a work without sharing any of the religious assumptions of its maker (or its original audience).

I respond:

Personally, I am in complete agreement with Judith. You will note that I wrote that "there are many strict opinions…" I think that Judith's distinction between a religious experience and an aesthetic one is most apposite. One can appreciate a work of art without approving any religious significance that it may or may not have had for the original artist. In many cases works of art which have a religious significance were the work of artists who were not themselves religious. Of course, it is very problematic to give examples from earlier times because we do not know for certain what the true religious beliefs (or unbeliefs) of Michaelangelo Buonarotti or Leonardo da Vinci were. So I will give but one example from modern times. One of the most significant musical compositions of the 20th century was the "War Requiem" of Benjamin Britten (1913-1976). This work, which invariably has an enormous impact on the audience, contains the text of the "Missa pro Defunctis" [Mass for the Dead] of the Roman Catholic Church (interspersed with poems by Wilfred Owen). Britten himself was not religious in any sense: religion meant nothing for him. (His biography recalls that on one occasion only he took communion "in order to please a friend".) Yet, his "War Requiem" is one of the most impressive "religious" works of the 20th century.