Avodah Zarah 53B

אם עתידין לחזור כמלחמת יהושע ⁠— אינה בטילה.

In any of these cases, if the owners will return in the future, as was the case in the war of Joshua when he conquered Eretz Yisrael, then the status of the object of idol worship is not revoked.

וצריכא, דאי תנא לוה עליה ⁠— מדלא זבנה, לא בטלה; אבל נפלה עליה מפולת ⁠— מדלא קא מפני לה, אימא בטולי בטלה, צריכא.

The Talmud comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state all of these cases. As, had the baraita taught only the case where the non-Jew borrowed money against the object of idol worship, one would say that in that case the non-Jew did not revoke its status, as he did not sell it, and he did not indicate that he intended to relinquish it. But in the case where a rockslide fell on it, since he did not clear the rocks, say that he revoked the status of the object of idol worship. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.

ואי תנא נפלה עליה מפולת, משום דסבר: הא מנחה, כל אימת דבעינא לה שקילנא לה, אבל גנבוה לסטים, מדלא קא מהדר אבתרה ⁠— בטולי בטלה, צריכא.

And had the baraita taught only the case where a rockslide fell on the idol, one would say that in that case its status is not revoked because the owner thinks to himself: The idol lies under the rocks safely; whenever I want it, I should take it, and he feels no need to clear the rockslide immediately. But in the case where robbers stole it, since he is not searching after it, this indicates that he revoked its status. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.

ואי תנא גנבוה לסטין, משום דסבר: אי גוי שקיל לה ⁠— מפלח פלח לה, אי ישראל שקלה ⁠— איידי דדמיה יקרין מזבין לה לגוי ופלח לה, אבל הניחוה הבעלים והלכו למדינת הים, מדלא שקלו בהדייהו ⁠— בטולי בטלוה, צריכא.

And had the baraita taught only the case where robbers stole the idol, one would say that in that case its status is not revoked because the owner thinks to himself: If a non-Jew took it, he will worship it. If a Jew took it, since it is of great monetary value, he will sell it to a non-Jew and the buyer will worship it. There is therefore no indication that the non-Jew intends to revoke its status. But in the case where the owners abandoned the idol and went overseas, since they did not take it with them, this indicates that they revoked its status. It is therefore necessary to teach this case as well.