Question: The Gemara later (47b) says that if someone's wall was shared with that of gentiles (who worshipped the wall itself as an idol), and it then fell down, he is not allowed to build it. The Gemara asks, doesn't this (the fact that he must move four cubits back) mean he is creating more space for idolatry? What kind of question is this? We say here that one is allowed to cause benefit for idolatry!

Answer#1: It is possible to answer that in that case there is a lot of benefit provided, and it appears as if he is giving a space for people to perform idolatry.

Answer#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that certainly providing benefit is forbidden, besides for this case. This is because there is denigration to idolatry while he is benefiting. He is specifically paying the tax to show that he does not think the idol is significant enough to make him put on the crown (that the idolaters were putting on to honor their idol).

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Baruch discusses the fair that the priests take taxes from the sales immediately. If the taxes are for a building of idolatry, and the idolater explicitly says, "Take this item for this amount (of money), plus a coin for the building fund for an idol," it is prohibited to buy there, as giving benefit to idolatry is prohibited, as per the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Even if he did not say it is for the building fund of idolatry, but rather after telling him the price he said, "And another coin," it appears that it is prohibited. He merely did not say, "for the building fund of idolatry" because he is talking to a Jew.

Opinion #1 (cont.): In any event, it is clear that if it were not for the building fund, he would have included this coin in the original price. It therefore is clear that this coin is going straight from the pocket of a Jew into a building fund for idolatry.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Moshe mi'Kutzi writes in his Sefer that if the idolater says that he wants a certain amount and another coin it is possible that it is permitted, as perhaps he intends to give this to poor idolaters.

Explanation: Rashi explains that he will put the crown on his head, and end up enjoying the smell.

Implied Question: Even though he is also not paying the tax, and he is having benefit in that fashion, that is not really called benefiting. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because he is merely not paying his own money.

Observation: The Gemara implies that these monies are only forbidden as a fine, just like the fruit and other things. However, they are not forbidden because there is a suspicion that they are monies of idolatry.

Question: This is difficult. Later (33a), regarding a Jew who goes to an idolatrous fair, the implication is that the money that he has is not forbidden because of a fine that he did business, but rather because we say that he must have sold an idol! This is the question of Rabeinu Elchanan.

Answer: The Ri answers that the Gemara there means that one cannot deal with this Jew on the way back from the fair because of a suspicion that he has monies of idolatry. Being that he went to this fair, he certainly has monies of idolatry. If he was selling shirts, he would have sold them in the Jewish community!

Answer (cont.): However, here the case is merely where the person happens to be at the fair (he did not travel to go there). The fine that he is given is because he has done business with them on their holiday. Therefore, his money should only be forbidden to himself, as he sinned. Even Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that doing business is forbidden, will agree that one can do business with such a person. We do not suspect that he will do business with the money he received, as they did not give such a big fine.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that uprooting the sinews and making the animal a Treifah is forbidden (therefore the Gemara is instructing how this should be done).

Question: This does not seem accurate (that the Gemara is referring to this), as I explained earlier (11a, DH "Ikur") regarding uprooting the sinews of the horses of kings.

Explanation #2: Rather, the Gemara means that it is enough to do this, and it is possible that one can later have benefit from this animal (after it has had its sinews uprooted). Even though money, fruit, and the like is forbidden from benefit, it is possible that the fine of uprooting its sinews was enough regarding animals.

Explanation: This means that his intent is to return to Eretz Yisrael.

Explanation (cont.): If it is not his intent to return to Eretz Yisrael, the Gemara says in Kesuvos (11a, regarding a person who asked if he should go to Chutz la'Aretz to do Chalitzah to his sister-in-law), "This person's (i.e. your) brother married an idolater (i.e. Jewish woman who lives in Chutz la'Aretz), and he died. Baruch Hash-m Who killed him! And he (i.e. you) wants to go down after his brother?!"

Opinion #1: This is specifically regarding these important Mitzvos like learning Torah, as learning Torah is great because it brings one to follow the Mitzvos properly. Additionally, regarding marriage the Pasuk says, "It (the world) was not created to be empty (but rather to be populated He created it)." However, this leniency does not apply to other Mitzvos. This is also implied by the Gemara in Megilah (27a).

Opinion #2: However, in the Sheiltos of Rav Achai it is explained that this applies to these lenient Mitzvos, and certainly other significant Mitzvos.

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks that according to the opinion in Shabbos (128b) that paining animals is a Torah prohibition, what proof is there from the Pasuk in Yehoshua? Perhaps that was different, as it was stated by Hash-m? However, in this case of a Rabbinic fine, perhaps the Rabbanan do not have the ability to uproot a Torah law?

Answer: It is possible to answer that certainly they have the ability to uproot a Torah law where there is some reason to do so, as is apparent from the Gemara in Yevamos (89b) regarding allowing a woman to remarry based on the testimony of one witness. [See Tosfos in Bava Metzia 32b, DH ""mi'Divrei" and Tosfos earlier 11a, "Okrin."]

Explanation: The reason is in order that the animal should not come to be misused (as it cannot be brought be brought as a Korban when there is no Beis Hamikdash).

Observation: This is the reason why we do not do Ma'aser Beheimah today, as the Gemara says in Bechoros (53a)

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks a question from the Gemara in Shabbos (54b) that states that Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah would take twelve thousand calves for Ma'aser Beheimah from his flock every year.

Question (cont.): Rebbi Eliezer only become a Bar Mitzvah after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. This is apparent because he was eighteen when he became the Nasi in place of Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel was Nasi for at least two years before Rebbi Eliezer, as the Gemara in Berachos (27b) says, "The year before on Rosh Hashanah, Rabban Gamliel pained Rebbi Yehoshua."

Question (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai was the Nasi before Rabban Gamliel, and his Nesius lasted until after the destruction. This is as the Mishnah states in Rosh Hashanah (29b) that when the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai instituted etc. If so, Rebbi Eliezer could not have possibly been Bar Mitzvah until after the destruction.

Answer #1: One must say that Rebbi Eliezer had a caretaker that would take Ma'aser for him (before the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed).

Answer #2: Alternatively, they did not nullify Ma'aser Beheimah until many years after the destruction. [See Tosfos in Shabbos 54b, DH "Haveh."]

Explanation: Rashi explains that general Charamim go to Hekdesh.

Proof: He indeed is right. According to the opinion that general Charamim go to the Kohanim, there is no reason to suspect that anything will happen to it, as it can be given to the Kohanim immediately. This is as Ula states in Erchin (29a) that if I was there, I would give the entire estate (which someone had pledged as a Cheirem) to the Kohanim.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Erchin (29a) says that a person declared his estate to be Cheirem. He went before Rav Yehudah, who told him to take four Zuz and throw it in the river, and this will permit your estate. This implies that it can be fixed easily!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the case there is different, as that is dealing with land that is always extant, and there is no way to use it up. If the Rabbanan would not make a way to fix the situation, it will forever cause people to misuse Hekdesh. It is possible that this solution is even valid for movable objects that are dedicated together with land. [See Tosfos in Yoma (66a, DH "Peiros"), Tosfos in Erchin (29a, DH "Shekol"), and Tosfos in Bechoros (53a, DH v'Ain").]

Explanation: This means that he should put them in a place where it will not easily come to be misused. It should rot there.

Explanation: This is because he is throwing them in as they are. Being that they are not rubbed out, he needs to throw them in the Dead Sea. Similarly, throwing them into other rivers requires that they first be rubbed out. This is as is apparent in Pesachim (28a, DH "Avodas Kochavim"), and like the incident I quoted regarding Rav Yehudah (13a, DH "v'Im Hikdish"). Even though the Gemara did not mention that they must be rubbed out first, it is clear that this is required.

Implied Question: One should not ask why we do not require that a Bechor today should be locked behind a door in order that it should not be misused, until it receives a blemish. (Why is this different than the case of our Gemara where we mandate that this should be done?)

Answer #1: We require this here because it is a fine, due to his having been Makdish for no reason (as opposed to a Bechor which is born with its holiness).

Answer #2: Additionally, if it receives a blemish in our case, it is only permitted through being redeemed. A Bechor, which is holy from birth and not due to his being Makdish, should not warrant such a fine. Rather, he should wait until it receives a blemish, and eat it without it being redeemed.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that he can give it a blemish before it is born, causing it to not have the holiness of a Bechor, and enabling him to give it to a Kohen. This would prevent any possible misuse. (Why don't we say that he should be fine for not doing so?)

Answer: This is not a reason to give him a fine, and to make him lock it behind a door. [After all, it is normal that his animal should give birth, and he did not cause the holiness. He merely did not prevent it.]

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if one would not want to slaughter it because he would be liable for slaughtering a Korban outside the Beis Hamikdash, this is not the case with regular Hekdesh (that is not dedicated to be a Korban). This is as the Beraisa states in Yoma (63b), "I hear etc." This implies that the case here is regarding Kodshim of regular Hekdesh (as opposed to an animal dedicated to be a Korban).

Question #1: This is difficult. If so, when Rava answers that this appears like someone who is putting a blemish in regular Hekdesh, why is this considered putting in a blemish? When the Pasuk says, "All blemishes should not be in it" (Vayikra 22:21), it is specifically referring to Kodshim brought as a Korban!

Question #2: Additionally, being that he concludes that this is regarding when the Beis Hamikdash is extant and the animal can be brought as a Korban, it would seem that it is referring to an animal dedicated to be a Korban!

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore says that our Gemara is referring to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Nowadays, one is not liable for slaughtering Korbanos outside of the Beis Hamikdash, being that the animal is not fit to be brought to the opening of the Ohel Moed.

Explanation #3: It is also possible to explain that the Gemara is indeed referring to regular Hekdesh. Rava is coming to explain the reason behind Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and why there is a decree that one cannot make a blemish in regular Hekdesh due to the prohibition against making a blemish in Korbanos.

Explanation #3 (cont.): We similarly find in Chulin (135a) that there is a decree that one should not use the shearings of an animal or work an animal that is regular Hekdesh, due to the prohibition against doing so with an animal that is dedicated to be a Korban.

Implied Question: When the Gemara asks, "And let us slaughter it," it is asking regarding regular Hekdesh. The Gemara indeed could have answered that this is a decree due to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which is forbidden due to the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Beis Hamikdash. (Why, then, didn't it give this answer?)

Answer: Rather, it gave a good answer anyway.

Explanation: The reason for this is because he makes him partially Jewish, as he is now obligated in all of the Mitzvos that women are obligated in. This is derived in the Gemara in Gitin (41b) through the Gezeirah Shaveh of "Lah-Lah" from a (Pasuk discussing a) woman.

Explanation: This refers to shepherds who shepherd their own animals. If they are merely shepherding the animals of others they are not included in this law, as a person does not sin if he receives no benefit, as stated in Bava Metzia (5b) regarding a certain shepherd.

Explanation: The other opinion (Rabin) who holds that one can buy a slave because he makes him into a partial Jew holds that the reason of lessening the possessions of idolaters does not apply, as on the contrary, the slave lessens the possessions of Jews as he eats from their food.

Question: Bread of Nochrim is forbidden! (How did he buy bread from a Nochri?)

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that where there is no Jewish baker it is permitted to eat Nochri bread, as stated later (35b).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible he bought it for his Nochri slave or for his animal.

Opinion: The Yerushalmi states that he bought this because it was a staple of life, implying he bought it for himself. The Yerushalmi states (the Tana who bought shoes asked), "And you never bought a loaf from Nochrim in your life?! He (the Tana who questioned his purchase of shoes) answered, this is because it is a staple of life."

Question: Isn't bread something that does not last? We said earlier (6b) that one cannot buy something that does not last from idolaters (during their holiday season)!

Answer: Bread is an important thing, and people jump to buy it. It is therefore considered like something that lasts (that may be bought).