Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, someone who Shechts a locust to an Avodah-Zarah (even one that is not nomally worshipped in that way [see Tosfos DH 'Chayav']), is Chayav. According to the Chachamim - he is Patur.

(b) Initially, we explain - that Rebbi Yehudah holds the S'vara of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (who does not require 'Ke'ein P'nim'), whereas the Chachamim do not.

(c) What leads us to believe that Rebbi Yehudah concurs with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's ruling in the case of someone who breaks a stick in front of an Avodah-Zarah ... is - the fact that he presents the case of a locust, and not of a duck or a chicken, which require Shechitah.

(d) We reject this suggestion however, inasmuch as even Rebbi Yehudah might well require 'ke'Ein P'nim' (in which case even he will exempt a case of someone who breaks a stick). Nevertheless, he holds Chayav in the case of a locust (despite the fact that locusts are not subject to Shechitah) - because it does at least, have a neck, which renders the Shechitah sufficiently similar to that in the Beis-Hamikdash, to be Chayav.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar ... Rav concurs with the ruling of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav with regard to breaking a stick. He concludes however, that one is also Chayav for throwing it. He rules differently than Rav Yehudah in this point (not because he disagrees with him, but) - because he is speaking in a case when that is the way in which the Avodah-Zarah is worshipped.

(b) He also adds - that in the first case, the stick becomes Asur, whereas in the second case, it does not.

(c) Seeing as it is similar to Zerikah, Rava asked Rav Nachman, why if he throws the stick, it does not become Asur, to which Rav Nachman replied - that this is because it does not break into particles, like the Zerikas Dam in the Beis-Hamikdash (as we already explained in a slightly different context).

(a) In that case, Rava asked Rav Nachman further - on what grounds do the stones of Beis Markulis (which do not break into particles either) become Asur?

(b) Rav Nachman himself had the same problem, which he put to Rabah bar Avuhah, who in turn, asked Rebbi Chiya bar Rav, who asked his father, who replied - that each stone becomes part of a tower of Avodas-Kochavim (in which capacity it is Asur be'Hana'ah).

(c) When Rava queried this ...

1. ... from the Tana who holds that the Avodah-Zarah of a Nochri does not become Asur be'Hana'ah until it has been worshipped (which the stone that one throws at Markulis does not seem to have been) - Rav Nachman replied that besides becoming an Avodah-Zarah in its own right, each stone becomes a Tikroves for the ones that preceded it (so that each stone subsequently becomes worshipped when the next stone is thrown at it).
2. ... from the last stone, which has certainly not yet been worshipped - he replied that if Rava would point out the last stone, he would gladly permit it.

(d) Rav Ashi goes one step further. According to him - each stone because a Tikroves to itself as well as to the ones before it (in which case, even the last stone will be Asur, too).

(e) We do not say the same S'vara regarding the stick that one threw in front of the Avodah-Zarah - because a stick is not generally worshipped (like the stones of Markulis are).

(a) The next Mishnah will teach us - that if one finds on the head of an Avodah-Zarah ...

1. ... garments, money or vessels - they are permitted.
2. ... bunches of grapes, garlands of wheat, or wine, oil or flour - they are forbidden.

(b) The problem with bunches of grapes, garlands of wheat is - that they are neither 'ke'Ein P'nim' nor 'Zerikah ha'Mishtaberes' (so why are they Asur?)

(c) Rava Amar Ula solves the problem by establishing the case - when they were initially picked for that purpose (in which case they became Avodah-Zarah the moment they were picked.

(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yochoram, Bilti la'Hashem Levado" - that if someone Shechts a blemished animal to Avodah-Zarah, he is Patur (seeing as it would be Pasul if he did it for Hashem).

(b) Rava proves that Rebbi Yochanan cannot be speaking about a cataract on the eye (or some similar external blemish) - because such a blemish is even permitted Lechatchilah on an animal that a Nochri brings to Hashem.

(c) So we establish it based on Rebbi Elazar, who learns from the Pasuk "u'mi'Kol ha'Chai mi'Kol Basar, Shenayim mi'Kol" - that an animal that is missing a limb is Pasul (even as regards B'nei No'ach) (bearing in mind that No'ach was told to seven of each kind of Kasher animal only in order to bring Korbanos from he extra ones).

(d) And we learn from the Pasuk "Le'chayos Zera" - to preclude a T'reifah from being brought as a Korban.

(a) We learn from the word "Itach" - that just as No'ach was not a T'reifah, neither were the animals that he took with him in the Teivah (and that a T'reifah is therefore not eligible for a Korban).

(b) Even though T'reifah animals were precluded from entering No'ach's Teivah from "Le'chayos Zera", we nevertheless need the Pasuk "Itach" to preclude them - according to those who hold that a 'T'reifah can survive a year (in which case we cannot preclude it from "Le'chayos Zera).

(c) We learn from the word ...

1. ... "Tamim" - that No'ach was perfect in his ways (in Midos).
2. ... "Tzadik" - that he was perfect in deed too.

(a) We know that No'ach himself was not a T'reifah - because otherwise, what is the point of writing ''Itach"?

(b) Even though we preclude T'reifah animals from "Itach", we still need "Le'chayos Zera" - to preclude also animals that are too old to have children and Serisim (sterile animals) that cannot have children.

(c) We would otherwise have thought - that Hashem only precluded T'reifos, because of the likelihood that they would die during the year, but accepted animals that would survive the year, even if they could not have children.

8)

(a) Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yizbechu Od es Zivcheihem la'Se'irim" - that someone who Shechts to Markulis (which is not normally worshipped in that way) is Chayav.

(b) This Pasuk is not needed to teach us the prohibition of Shechting for an Avodah-Zarah that is worshipped in this way - because we already know that from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Eichah Ya'avdu ha'Goyim ha'Eileh es Eloheihem ... ".

(a) The Pesukim prior to the one under discussion are referring to the Isur of Shechutei Chutz ("ve'el Pesach Lo Hevi'o ... " [Shechting and sacrificing animals outside the Azarah at a time when Bamos are forbidden]), whose punishment is - Kareis (as the Pasuk continues "Ve'nichresah").

(b) The Pasuk "Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha be'Chol Makom ... " - is the Azharah (since "Hishamer" and "Pen", as well as "Al" all denote 'Lo Sa'aseh', as Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila taught us).

(c) And we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lema'an Asher Yavi'u B'nei Yisrael es Zivcheihem Asher Heim Zovchim al-P'nei ha'Sadeh ... Ve'hevi'um la'Hashem" - that if someone took an animal that was designated at the time when Bamos were permitted, and Shechted (or sacrificed) it after they became forbidden, he has transgresses an Asei, and from ...
2. ... "ve'Lo Yizbechu Od es Zivcheihem" - that he has transgressed a La'av, too.
3. ... "Chukas Olam le'Doroseichem" - that Kareis is confined to the original case (where one Shechts or sacrifices an animal that is designated as a Korban at the time when Bamos are forbidden), but not to the latter case.

(d) Despite the fact that we need the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yizbechu Od es Zivcheihem" for the current D'rashah, Rebbi Elazar uses it to obligate someone who Shechts an animal to Markulis, Rava explains - because he learns an additional D'rashah from the word "Od" (as if the Torah had written "ve'Lo Yizbechu es Zivcheihem" and "ve'Lo Od es Zivcheihem").

(a) We already discussed our Mishnah ('Matza be'Rosho Ma'os ... ') on the pervious Amud. The Tana concludes that anything that one finds on the head of the Avodah-Zarah that is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach - is Asur.

(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Oshaya learns 'Imahem Dumya de'Aleihem' ...

1. ... meaning - that whatever is in the vicinity of the Avodah-Zarah is compared to what is on them. The Torah forbids ...
2. ... "wood and stone, silver and gold that is with them", but just "silver and gold that is on them".

(c) What Rebbi Oshaya now means is - that what is in front of the Avodah-Zarah (in the first Pasuk [i.e. even the wood and the stone) is only forbidden if it is ornamental like what is on them (the silver and the gold) in the second).

(d) He did not Darshen the other way round 'Aleihem Dumya de'Imahem' (to forbid even silver and gold that are not ornamental) - because if what is in front of the Avodah-Zarah is totally forbidden, how much more so what is on them (in which case the whole phrase [of "Lo Sachmod ... "Aleihem"] would be superfluous). Alternatively, we would know it from the word "*Asher* Imahem, which is superfluous").

(e) The Tana categorizes as non-ornamental ...

1. ... money, explains de'Bei Rebbi Yanai - because he is speaking about money in a closed purse.
2. ... clothes, he explains - because he is speaking about clothes that are lying folded on the Avodah-Zarah's head.
3. ... a vessel, explains Rav Papa - because the Tana is speaking about a turned-over dish (for washing clothes) placed on its head.

(a) Rav Asi bar Chiya qualifies the above D'rashah of 'Imahem Dumya de'Aleihem', by confining 'Imahem' to what is found outside the Kilkelin (the partition in front of the idol) - because whatever is found within the curtain, is sacrificial, rather than ornamental (and sacrifices do not need to be beautiful).

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina adds that Pe'or and Markulis are not subject to the distinction of Kilkelin. He cannot mean that even within the curtain enjoys the same leniency as what is without - because one can hardly expect any standard of beauty from an Avodah-Zarah in front of which one defecates (Ba'al Pe'or) or at which one throws stones (Markulis).

(c) What he obviously means is - that even what one finds outside the curtain does not need to be ornamental to be forbidden.

(a) Our Mishnah permits an Avodas-Kochavim in front of which there is a garden or a bathhouse ...

1. ... that belongs to the Avodah-Zarah exclusively - provided one does not pay rent.
2. ... that belongs to others as well - even if he does pay rent (this distinction will be explained shortly).

(b) The Tana forbids the Avodah-Zarah of a Nochri the moment it is made, but the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael - only after it has been worshipped.

(a) Abaye explains 'Nehenin Meihen she'Lo be'Tovah ve'Ein Nehenin Meihen be'Tovah' (in our Mishnah, regarding a garden belonging to an Avodah-Zarah) both with reference to the priests ...

(b) ... to preclude paying rent to the idol's adherents, which is permitted.

(c) Others learn Abaye's statement on the Seifa 'Hayah she'Lah ve'Shel Acheirim', in which case ...

1. ... 'Nehenin Meihen be'Tovah' - refers to its adherents, and ...
2. ... 've'she'Lo be'Tovah' - to the priests.

(d) The first Lashon disagrees with the second - inasmuch as, when the garden or the bathhouse is shared property, it permits even paying rent to the priests.

(a) The author of our Mishnah which forbids the Avodah-Zarah of a Nochri the moment it is made, is Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yishmael there learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Abeid Te'abdun es Kol ha'Makomos" - that vessels that were used to worship idols are Asur be'Hana'ah.
2. ... "Asher Avdu Sham ha'Goyim" - that they are not forbidden until they are actually used for that purpose.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael therefore concludes - that the Avodah-Zarah of a Nochri is only forbidden once it has actually been worshipped.

(c) And he goes on to forbid the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael immediately. Rebbi Akiva say - the opposite, that the Avodah-Zarah of a Nochri is forbidden immediately, whereas that of a Yisrael is only forbidden after it has been worshipped.

(a) Seeing as Rebbi Yishmael's source is the Pasuk in Re'ei, "Abeid Te'abdun es Kol *ha'Mekonos*", we ask - how can he learn from there the Din of *vessels* with which they served Avodah-Zarah?

(b) We learn from the Pasuk there "Eloheihem al he'Harim" - that the actual location where Avodah-Zarah was worshipped is forbidden. Consequently, the Pasuk "Abeid Te'abdun es Kol ha'Mekomos" is superfluous, which explains why Rebbi Yishmael uses it ('Im Eino Inyan') to learn the Din of Keilim.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael then concludes 'mi'Ka'an Amru, Avodas Kochavim shel Oveid-Kochavim Asurah Miyad'. The problem with that is - that here again, the source Pasuk is talking about vessels, and Rebbi Yishmael concludes with the Din of Avodah-Zarah?

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "Asher Atem Yorshim Osam es Eloheihem" - that the Nochrim's gods are compared to the vessels with which they are worshipped, thereby justifying Rebbi Yishmael's conclusion.