Shabbat 83B

כרעו הן טהורין. כמאן אזלא הא דתניא כל הטמאות המסיטות טהורות, חוץ מהיסטו של זב שלא מצינו לו חבר בכל התורה כולה ⁠— לימא דלא כרבי עקיבא, דאי כרבי עקיבא ⁠— איכא נמי עבודה זרה! אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא, תנא זב וכל דדמי ליה.

Even an inanimate object can move a source of impurity in that way. And if the food and drink tipped the scales, they remain ritually pure. The Talmud asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which was taught in a baraita: All impure items that move other objects remain pure, meaning that an object does not become impure if moved by a source of impurity, except for movement by a zav, which has no counterpart in the whole Torah in its entirety? Let us say that this is not in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, there is also the case of idolatry. In his opinion, idolatry also transmits impurity to an object by moving it. The Talmud answers: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, teach: Zav and everything similar to it. According to R' Akiva, just as a menstruating woman falls into that category, so too does an idol.

בעי רב חמא בר גוריא: עבודה זרה ישנה לאברים, או אינה לאברים? היכא דהדיוט יכול להחזירה ⁠— לא תיבעי לך, דכמאן דמחברא דמי. כי תיבעי לך היכא דאין הדיוט יכול להחזירה, מאי? כיון דאין הדיוט יכול להחזירה ⁠— כמאן דמתברא דמי, או דילמא הא לא מחסרה. ואיכא דבעי לה להך גיסא: היכא דאין הדיוט יכול להחזירה ⁠— לא תיבעי לך, דכמאן דמתברא דמי, כי תבעי לך היכא דהדיוט יכול להחזירה, מאי? כיון דהדיוט יכול להחזירה ⁠— כמאן דמחברא דמי, או דילמא השתא מיהת הא משלפא ושדיא, תיקו.

The dilemma that was cited incidental to an earlier discussion is examined here in depth. Rav Ḥama bar Guria raised a dilemma: Does idolatry have the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs or does it not have the capacity to transmit impurity through limbs? The Talmud narrows the parameters of the dilemma. In a situation where a common unskilled person can restore it to its original form, do not raise the dilemma, as in that case it is certainly considered to be attached and is not considered broken. The case where you could raise the dilemma is where a common unskilled person cannot restore it to its original form. What is the ruling in that case? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that since a common unskilled person cannot restore it, it is considered broken? Or perhaps we say that it is not lacking anything? Idolatry can only be nullified by breaking it in a case where, as a result, it is incomplete. And some raise this dilemma in another direction based on a different assumption: In a situation where a common unskilled person cannot restore it to its original form, do not raise the dilemma, as in that case it is certainly considered to be broken. When you could raise the dilemma is in a situation where a common unskilled person can restore it to its original form. What is the ruling in that case? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that since a common unskilled person can restore it, it is considered attached? Or perhaps we say that at present, it is in pieces and permitted? No resolution was found for either version of this dilemma. Therefore, let it stand unresolved.