1)

(a)Rebbi Akiva counters Rebbi Yishmael's proof forbidding Nochri Avodah-Zarahs immediately - by rejecting Rebbi Yishmael's Hekesh ("Asher atem Yorshim Osam es Eloheihem", comparing the Nochri gods to the vessels with which they are worshipped), because, he says, the word "es" interrupts between 'the vessels' and 'the gods'.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael initially learns that the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael is ...

1. ... forbidden the moment it is made - by insinuation, from the fact that that of a Nochri is forbidden only after it has been worshipped.

2. ... not subject to Bitul - from the fact that it requires 'Genizah' (hiding away), as we will learn later).

(c)Rebbi Yishmael ultimately learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Eikev "ve'es Chataschem asher Asisem es ha'Egel" that - a Yisrael transgresses the moment he makes the image.

2. ... in Ki Savo "Arur ha'Ish asher Ya'aseh Pesel u'Maseichah" that - he is also cursed from that moment on, and .

3. ... from "To'avas Hash-m" (Ibid.) that - it is forbidden, too from then on.

(d)Rebbi Akiva interprets "To'avas Hash-m" - to mean that he is only Chayav for making an image that leads to abomination, but not that it is forbidden immediately.

2)

(a)Ula (explaining Rebbi Akiva) learns from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "Pesilei Eloheihem Tisr'fun ba'Eish" that - as soon as the Nochri carves out an idol, it becomes forbidden.

(b)The Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef (conforming to Rebbi Yishmael's interpretation) explains this Pasuk to mean that - a Nochri is able to nullify his god (from the Lashon of 'Pesoles' [meaning 'waste']), which is his source permitting a Nochri to disqualify an image.

(c)Rebbi Akiva learns this from the apparent discrepancy between the two phrases (following "Pesilei Eloheihem Tisrefun ba'Eish") "Lo Sachmod Kesef ve'Zahav aleihem" and "Ve'lakachta lach" (like Shmuel explained) - that

1. ... "Lo Sachmod Kesef ve'Zahav aleihem" - refers to 'Pislo le'Elo'ah' (if he carved it as a god).

2. ... "Ve'lakachta lach" - refers to 'Pislo me'Elo'ah' (if he disqualified it from being a god [his source permitting a Nochri to disqualify an image]).

(d)Rav Yehudah explains that Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk in Ki Savo "ve'Sam ba'Saser" that - the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael only becomes forbidden after the Yisrael has worshipped it.

3)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael explains "ve'Sam ba'Saser" like Rebbi Yitzchak, who learns from there that - the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael requires Genizah (burial).

(b)Rebbi Akiva learns this from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Sita l'cha Asheirah Kol Eitz Eitzel Mizbach Hash-m ... " like Rav Chisda Amar Rav - who learns a Hekesh between an Asheirah and the stones of the Mizbe'ach.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael explains this Pasuk like Resh Lakish, who learns from the juxtaposition of "Lo Sita l'cha Asheirah Kol Eitz" next to "Shoftim ve'Shotrim Titen l'cha" that - whoever appoints a judge who is unworthy, it is as if he planted an Asheirah in Yisrael.

(d)And what's more, Rav Ashi adds, based on the next words ("Eitzel Mizbach Hash-m ... ") - if he does so in a place where there are Talmidei-Chachamim, it is as if he has planted it beside the Mizbe'ach.

4)

(a)Rav Hamnuna asks what the Din will be in a case where someone is 'Risach K'li (hammers a dented vessel straight) for Avodas-Kochavim'.

(b)He cannot be referring to an Avodas-Kochavim belonging to ...

1. ... a Nochri, even according to Rebbi Yishmael - because both Tana'im agree that Meshamshei Avodas-Kochavim do not become forbidden until they have been worshipped, and not as soon as they are made.

2. ... a Yisrael, according to Rebbi Akiva - because, in his opinion, the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael only becomes forbidden after it has been worshipped.

(c)Consequently, he must be referring to the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael, according to Rebbi Yishmael (who holds that it becomes forbidden as soon as it is made).

(d)One side of the She'eilah is whether we learn Meshamshin (of a Yisrael) from Meshamshin (of a Nochri), which are Asur only after they have been worshipped; the other, that - we learn (Meshamshin of) a Yisrael from (the Avodah-Zarah of) a Yisrael, which is Asur immediately.

5)

(a)We establish the She'eilah in connection with the return of an old Tum'ah - because if Rav Hamnuna had meant to ask about whether the vessel is forbidden or permitted - he should have presented the case of where one made the vessel from scratch (and not the case of 'Risach').

(b)The Mishnah in Keilim rules that - Tamei metal vessels (irrespective of whether they are flat or whether they are receptacles) which break and are repaired (which became Tahor when they broke) - automatically regain their Tum'ah (mi'de'Rabbanan) when they are repaired.

(c)And we think that the Tum'ah of Avodah-Zarah might be different than other Tum'os - because it is only mi'de'Rabbanan (and it is possible that Chazal only decreed 'Tumah Yeshanah' by Tum'ah d'Oraysa.

(d)In fact, Rav Hamnuna presents his She'eilah in two parts (of which our Mishnah cites the second). First of all, he asks, what will be the Din by other Tum'os de'Rabbanan. And even if we hold there that the Rabbanan did not decree, perhaps, due to the Chumra of Avodah-Zarah, by Tum'as Avodah-Zarah, they did.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Yanai - whether, if a Nochri is Mevateil Tikroves Akum of food, it becomes Tahor.

(b)He not ask the same She'eilah with regard to ...

1. ... vessels - because (unlike food) they possess the leniency of Taharah in a Mikvah (in which case, he took for granted that Bitul will indeed be effective by them, too.

2. ... an Avodas-Kochavim (itself) of food - because since Bitul applies to the Isur, he took for granted that it is effective as regards Tum'ah as well.

(c)The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether since on the one hand, the Isur of Tikroves Avodas-Akum is not Bateil (like Rav Gidal taught earlier), the Tum'ah is not Bateil either, or whether, on the other, the Tum'ah, which, unlike the Isur, is only mi'de'Rabbanan, the Chachamim instituted Bitul.

(d)The outcome of both the She'eilah of Rav Hamnuna and that of Rebbi Yochanan is - 'Teiku'.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul asked Rebbi whether vessels that were used in the service of Beis Chonyo were subsequently permitted to be used in the Beis-Hamikdash or not. Chonyo was - the son of Shimon ha'Tzadik, who fled to Egypt because his brother took over the Kehunah Gedolah (in Yerushalim) after his father's death. He built a Mizbe'ach there and sacrificed on it.

(b)It does not follow at all that vessels of Meshamshei Avodah-Zarah might be permitted for the Avodas Beis-Hamikdash - because we are speaking according to those who hold that Beis Chonyo was built in the name of Hash-m (and not as an Avodah-Zarah).

(c)The basis of this She'eilah is the Din regarding the Kohanim themselves who served in Beis Chonyo - whom the Mishnah in Menachos disqualifies from serving in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(d)The She'eilah is - whether the Chachamim extended their decree to the vessels that they used, seeing as (unlike the Kohanim) they do not possess intelligence (and are not therefore subject to fines).

8)

(a)Rebbi replied 'Asur' - adding that he had been aware of a Pasuk from which he derived this ruling, but that it had slipped his mind.

(b)When Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul quoted the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "Kol ha'Keilim asher Hizni'ach Hamelech Achaz ... Heichanu ve'Hikdashnu", Rebbi declared that - Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul deserved to be blessed for reminding him of the Pasuk which served as his source.

(c)According to Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul, "Heichanu" refers to Toveling the vessels, and "ve'Hikdashnu", to sanctifying them afresh.

(d)Rebbi however, interpreted the Pasuk to mean that - they buried the stones and sanctified new ones to replace them.

9)

(a)We try to support Rebbi from a Mishnah in Keilim. The Tana says there that of the four rooms that were situated on the four corners of the Azarah - the south-eastern room contained the stones of the Mizbe'ach, which the Greeks had 'defiled' and the Chashmona'im had hidden there.

(b)According to Rav Sheishes - the Greeks had defiled them by using them for idolatrous practices.

(c)Nevertheless, in that case and in that of Beis Chonyo, respectively, the items concerned were not Asur d'Oraysa - because one cannot render somebody else's things forbidden' (as we learned earlier); whereas in the case of Beis Chonyo, it was - because Beis Chonyo was not an Avodah-Zarah (as we explained earlier).

(d)And the proof from there for Rebbi is - from the fact that they decreed the stones Asur on account of Avodah-Zarah, even though they do not possess intelligence.

(e)Rav Papa refutes the proof for Rebbi from there, on the basis of the Pasuk "u'Va'u bah Paritzim ve'Chileluhah", which indicates that - when the enemy entered the Heichal, the vessels lost their Kedushah. Consequently, when the Greeks subsequently used the stones for Avodah-Zarah, they acquired them from Hefker, in which case they subsequently became Asur mi'd'Oraysa (whereas the stones of Beis Chonyo were only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, as we explained).

10)

(a)The Chashmona'im did not call a Nochri to ...

1. ... break the stones, in which case, they would have been permitted to re-use them - because only 'complete' stones are eligible for the Mizbe'ach, and these stones were all broken.

2. ... then saw them to straighten the crooked edges - because it is forbidden to use metal implements to cut stones of the Mizbe'ach (which must therefore be naturally whole).

(b)Neither did they get a Nochri to break the stones, and allow anyone to take them home and use them - because once they had been used for Hash-m, it would have been disrespectful to take them home for one's personal use.

(c)The previous Kashya is based on a similar ruling of Rav Oshaya, who said that they wanted to hide all the silver and golden coins in the world because of those of Yerushalayim - by which he meant that after the Churban, for fear that any coins in the world may have been Hekdesh or Ma'aser-Sheini money from Yerushalayim, the Chachamim forbade all silver and gold coins.

(d)The problem with Rav Oshaya's statement is that - the coins of Yerushalayim do not comprise the majority of coins in the world (so why should we go after the minority?)

11)

(a)Abaye therefore amends it to 'Dinra Hadri'ana, Turi'ana Shifa', by which he means that - they wanted to forbid all old worn out coins of the era of the Emperors Hadrian and Turi'anus, most of which were minted in Yerushalayim (see Tosfos DH 'Dinrei Hadri'ana').

(b)The Chachamim changed their mind and permitted the coins however - on account of the Pasuk "u'Va'u bah Poritzim ... " (as we explained above) and those coins, as opposed to stones of the Mizbe'ach, had not been used in the Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... a Nochri - may nullify his friend's Avodah-Zarah.

2. ... a Yisrael - may not nullify the Avodah-Zarah of a Nochri ...

(b)... and how much more so of a Yisrael - since the Torah writes "ve'Sam ba'Seiser" (from which we learned earlier that the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael requires Genizah).

(c)A Nochri who nullifies an Avodah-Zarah - does not need to nullify its accessories independently ...

(d)... though if he nullified the accessories, he would still need to nullify the Avodah-Zarah itself.

13)

(a)Rebbi (as the compiler of the Mishnah) holds - that a Nochri cannot nullify the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael.

(b)Rebbi Hillel b'rei de'Rebbi Vallas explains that when Rebbi, in his younger years, taught his son Rebbi Shimon, that he can - he was referring specifically to an Avodah-Zarah that was shared by a Yisrael and a Nochri.

(c)Rebbi thought ...

1. ... in his younger years that - a Yisrael only worships the idol as per the intentions of the Nochri (therefore the Nochri's Bitul, even of the half belonging to the Yisrael, takes effect).

2. ... later, when he learned our Mishnah that - the Yisrael worships the Avodah-Zarah in his own right (irrespective of the Nochri's intentions).

14)

(a)Others cite Rebbi Hillel b'rei de'Rebbi Vallas' statement in connection with the Seifa 'Yisrael Eino Mevatel Avodas-Kochavim shel Oved-Kochavim', and the Tana is coming to teach us that - even though the Yisrael cannot nullify the Nochri's share in the Avodah-Zarah, the Nochri himself can.

(b)As a third alternative, Rebbi Hillel b'rei de'Rebbi Vallas refers to Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya, who says in a Beraisa 'Avodas-Kochavim shel Yisrael Ein hah Beteilah Olamis', which Rebbi Hillel interprets to mean - even if the Nochri has a share in it ...

(c)... and the Beraisa is coming to teach us that - even if the Nochri nullifies his own half, the half of the Yisrael is not Bateil.