Why do the zekeinim in the mishna answer the question of the Romans with logic and details? The answer has a flaw - they say that hashemWOULD be mevateil any idols that are unnecessary to the world, and then they are challenged as to why hashem HASN'T done just that so they have to back pedal and give a further reason. Why don't they just skip to the ultimate answer which the braisa ends with -- "olam kminhago noheig"? All they end up doing is giving the Romans a sense of superiority in that they found a loophole in the initial positionof the zekeinim. Rabban Gamliel later uses the same response but in his case, clearly the house of idolatry that was not burned was for worship of something necessary so his philosopher-opponent didn't have to push the logic, but the loophole is still there. Why give an argument which is easily refuted (you say hashem would destroy, but he hasn't)?
Dan, Teaneck, NJ
The Maharsha says that there is apparently an argument in the Beraisa about whether "Olam k'Minhago Noheg" is an answer only regarding things that are needed by the world (i.e., the sun and the moon), or whether it is an answer in general. He says that the first explanation of the Beraisa apparently understands that it is only an answer for items necessary to the world, and that Hash-m should have made it that every other idol should be destroyed. This is the simple explanation of the Mishnah, and it is why they needed both arguments, with the first leading to the second question and answer. (The second explanation understands that it answers the question for both necessary and unnecessary items that are worshipped.)
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose