1)

(a)Rebbi Yossi supports his view (permitting the grinding of images and scattering into the wind) with the Pasuk in Eikev " ... Lakachti va'Esrof oso ba'Eish, va'Ekos oso Tachon Dak le'Afar, va'Ashlich es Afaro el ha'Nachal ... " - which is written in connection with the Chet ha'Eigel.

(b)The Rabbanan counter his proof. According to them - Moshe did this in order to make them drink the water, to test them like Sotos ...

(c)... meaning - to bring on their death if they were guilty, as we learned in Yoma (some died by the sword, some by asphyxiation, and others from Hadrokun (a stomach illness known as dropsy), depending on a Machlokes Rav and Levi there.

2)

(a)King Asa took the the Mifletzes which his mother Ma'achah made for the Asheirah - burned it and scattered its ashes in the valley of Kidron.

(b)Rav Yehudah, supported by a Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef, interprets 'Mifletzes' as - a male organ on which Ma'achah used to give vent to her desires every day.

(c)To counter Rebbi Yossi's proof from here (that it is in order to grind an Avodah-Zarah and scatter its ashes) - the Chachamim explain that Nachal Kidron (where Asa ground the Mifletzes) was a barren spot, and nothing was able to grow there.

3)

(a)We query this however, from the Mishnah in Yoma, which describes how the bood from the Korbanos flowed from the Mizbei'ach via Amah (the stream that ran through the Azarah) to the valley of Kidron, where it was sold to the farmers as manure - a proof that the Valley of Kidron was productive.

(b)We reconcile the Chachamim with that Mishnah by pointing out that some areas in the valley of Kidron were productive and some were not.

(c)Someone who used the aforementioned blood without paying for it was Mo'el mi'de'Rabbanan. It cannot mean that he must bring a Korban Me'ilah, because the blood of Kodshim is not subject to Me'ilah min ha'Torah.

4)

(a)The Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim describes how Chizkiyahu Hamelech eventually ground the copper snake that Moshe made - which he did because people began worshipping it.

(b)Rebbi Yossi tries to prove from there that - grinding an image is sufficient.

(c)The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yossi's proof based on the word "l'cha" (in the Pasuk in Chukas "Va'yomer Hash-m el Moshe, Asei l'cha Saraf ... ") - which indicates that the snake was Moshe's (heirs) personal property, and that others could not therefore render it Asur be'Hana'ah by worshipping it. In that case, strictly speaking, it was not necessary to destroy it in the first place.

(d)Rebbi Yossi brings a further proof from the Pasuk in Shmuel "Va'ya'azvu Sham es Atzabeihem Va'yisa'em David va'Anashav". Based on Rav Yosef's translation of the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tizarem ve'Ru'ach Tisa'em", Rebbi Yossi translates "Va'yisa'em" as - 'and he scattered them to the wind'.

(e)The Rabbanan prefer to translate "Va'yisa'em" as 'and he carried them (with him)' - because the Pasuk does not place "Va'yisa'em" together with "Va'yisrefem", only inserting it later.

5)

(a)Rav Huna explains the fact that, first David and his men burned the images that they found, and then they carried them away with them - by establishing the latter Pasuk after the Nochri Itai ha'Giti came and nullified them.

(b)The connection between the previous episode and the crown of Malkom (the name of the god of Amon [based on the word 'Melech']) that they placed on David Hamelech's head is that - it was Itai ha'Giti who nullified that as well.

(c)The problem the weight of the crown presents is - how David could possibly wear a crown that weighed one golden Kikar (fifteen hundred golden Shekalim).

(d)There are three answers to this question. According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, the Pasuk means that the crown was fit to rest on David's head, but not that he actually wore it. The other opinions learn that he did wear it. According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, David did not even feel the crown's tremendous weight - because it was held in the air just above David's head, by a gigantic magnet that hung from the ceiling.

2. ... Rebbi Elazar, the "Kikar Zahav" mentioned in the Pasuk, refers - (not to the weight of the crown, but) to the value of a precious stone that was set in it.

6)

(a)When David Hamelech writes in Tehilim "Zos Haysah li ki Fikudecha Natzarti", he means that - the testimony proving him worthy of the kingdom was due to his having fulfilled all the Mitzvos.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains he testimony with reference to - the crown with the bar that stretched across it (from ear to ear) in the location of the Tefilin, fitted on his head (because he had a groove going across his head [see also Tosfos DH 'she'Hayah').

(c)Despite the fact that the groove in David's head reached the location of the Tefilin, and that is where he wore the crown, he managed to wear Tefilin, on account of a statement by Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzcha - who says that there is space on the head to wear two pairs of Tefilin (one above the other), and the crown took up the upper half of that space, leaving the lower half of the space for David's Tefilin.

(d)In connection with the coronation of six-year old Yo'ash as King of Yehudah, the Pasuk writes "Va'yitnu alav es ha'Neizer ve'es ha'Eidus". "Neizer" refers to the crown - "ha'Eidus", says Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, to the fact that he too, had the required groove into which the bar of the crown fitted (which in fact, marked all members of Malchus Beis David who were destined to rule).

7)

(a)When Adoniyahu ben Chagis (David's son), attempted to usurp the throne before his father's death, he too, tried on the crown - but it did not fit on his head.

(b)Even though Rav Yehudah said earlier, that David could not actually wear the crown, he nevertheless made this statement in the name of Rav (as well as the previous one with regard to Yo'ash) - because although he did not wear the crown permanently, he (and subsequent kings of Malchus Beis David), did try it on, just to see whether it fitted his head or not.

(c)What was unusual about the fifty men who ran in front of his chariot in his attempt to seize the throne was that - their spleens were removed (enabling them to run for longer periods without tyiring), as were the soles of their feet (enabling them to run over thorns and thistles, without feeling pain).

8)

(a)Our Mishnah relates that when P'ruklus ben P'luspus - a Nochri Miyn, found Rabban Gamliel bathing in a bathhouse that stood in the courtyard of Aphrodite (a Greek goddess) ...

(b)... he asked him how, in view of the Pasuk "Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah mom ha'Cherem", he was permitted to derive benefit from such a place.

(c)Rabban Gamliel immediate reaction to the question was - to point out that it was forbidden to discuss Divrei Torah in a bathhouse.

(d)After leaving the vicinity of the bathhouse, he replied 'Ani Lo Ba'si bi'Gevulah, Hi Ba'ah bi'Gevuli', meaning that - to begin with, the bathhouse had been there first (and that if anything, it was the image that encroached upon the space of the bathhouse, and not vice-versa) ...

(e)... and he added that - in any event, it was not the bathhouse that enhanced the looks of Aphrodite, but vice-versa (so that Aphrodite served the bathhouse, and not the bathhouse, Aphrodite).

9)

(a)Alternatively, Rabban Gamliel told the Miyn, even if a person was offered a fortune of money - he would not stand in front of one's god naked or in a state of Tum'ah, neither would one urinate in its presence, yet here, Aphrodite was placed at the opening of the gutter which led out to the street, precisely at the spot where people stood naked and urinated.

(b)Consequently - he concluded, the bathhouse denigrated Aphrodite, rather than honor her.

10)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan stated that one is permitted to think about Divrei Torah anywhere - other than in a bathhouse or a bathroom.

(b)That being the case - how could Rabban Gamliel tell P'ruklus ... that it was forbidden to reply in a bathhouse?

(c)We cannot answer that Rabban Gamliel spoke in a foreign language, because of a statement by Abaye - that ...

1. ... mundane things may be spoken there even in Lashon ha'Kodesh, whereas ...

2. ... Divrei Torah are forbidden even in a foreign language.

(d)When Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Yossi Amar Rebbi Hoshaya referred to Rabban Gamliel's reply to the Nochri as 'Teshuvah Genuvah', he meant that - it was a Dochek (forced) answer ...

(e)... on which Rebbi Chama commented 'Einah Genuvah!'

11)

(a)On the assumption that Rebbi Oshaya was referring to the fact that urinating in front of one's god denigrates it, was the Dochek - because, as Rava pointed out, why should it be any different than Pe'or, where one is even Chayav Kareis for defecating on it.

(b)Rebbi Chama nevertheless maintained that it was not a Dochek - because Pe'or is different, inasmuch as that is the way it was worshipped, whereas the things mentioned in our Mishnah are not the things that one normally performs in the service of Aphrodite.

(c)According to Abaye, the Dochek was based on the statement stressing that since the bathhouse was there first, it was permitted. Rebbi Oshaya had a problem with this, based on a Mishnah in the next Perek, which permits benefiting from a bathhouse or a garden adjoining an Avodah-Zarah - provided one does not pay the priests for the service (even if the Avodah-Zarah was there first).

(d)It is not forbidden anyway seeing as one derives benefit from Avodah-Zarah - because something does not become forbidden by merely being designated for Avodah-Zarah ('Ein Hekdesh la'Avodas-Kochavim').

12)

(a)In any event, we see that one may bath in the bathhouse even if the Avodah-Zarah preceded the bathhouse (which explains why Rebbi Oshaya referred to Rabban Gamliel (who forbade it) as a Dochek. Rav Chama bar Yosef disagreed however - because the fact that the Nassi Rabban Gamliel was using the bathhouse, was an honor to the priests and was considered as if he had paid them for the service.

(b)Rav Shimi bar Chiya attributes the Dochek to another Mishnah in the next Perek, which rules - that if a Nochri spits at an image, urinates before it, drags it around or throws feces at it, it is not considered Bitul.

(c)The Dochek will then be Rabban Gamliel's statement that - urinating before Aphrodite is denigrating.

(d)Rebbi Chama counters that in spite of the Mishnah later, Raban Gamliel's argument is valid - since here, people were urinating before the image on an ongoing basis, whereas there, it was only the one person who did so, and who immediately asked for forgiveness.

13)

(a)Rabah bar Ula cites Rabban Gamliel's statement that it was the image of Aphrodite that enhanced the looks of the bathhouse, and not vice-versa, as the Dochek, based on a Beraisa, which rules that - if someone designates a house or a cup for Avodah-Zarah - it is not Asur be'Hana'ah ...

(b)... rendering Rabban Gamliel's statement a Dochek - inasmuch as, in that case, even if one would designate a bathhouse as an ornament for Aphrodite, it would not render it forbidden.

(c)And Rav Acha countered Rebbi Oshaya's statement - by explaining that if the bathhouse was considered an ornament, it would be forbidden to enhance the Avodah-Zarah by bathing in it, even though it would not render the bathhouse Asur be'Hana'ah.