Explanation: This is as if to say that they said to him to investigate and check that there is no grain. This is a common translation of the word Sar, as in "Sar" - "investigating" a knife in Chulin (18a) and "Sayir" - "investigating" his properties in Chulin (105a).

Explanation: The Rashbam explains that this is even if a Tana will be found who argues, the law follows Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. (The Maharam explains that the Rashbam noted the fact that Rebbi Chama said the law follows Rebbi Shimon, even though we do not know of an argument in this matter. The Rashbam therefore notes that this indicates that even if someone will find a dissenting opinion, the law still follows Rebbi Shimon. The Mitzpeh Eisan goes further, and says that it must be that Rebbi Chama had a tradition that a certain Tana argued, though he did not know who it was, and therefore said that the law follows Rebbi Shimon and not that Tana.)

Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Gemara note that this also teaches that a Jew cannot nullify the idol of a Nochri?

Question (cont.): If this is because it is stated clearly in a Mishnah later (52b), the law that a Nochri can nullify is also stated in a Mishnah (ibid.)!

Answer: It is possible to answer that being that it is so obvious, the Gemara does not have to mention this lesson.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara asks later regarding the Mishnah (52b, regarding the law that a Jew cannot nullify a Nochri's idol) that this is obvious. The Gemara therefore states that the case of the Mishnah must be where a Nochri and Jew jointly own an idol. Even so, this is only a novel teaching due to the implication that a Jew cannot nullify, but a Nochri can nullify their idol, even though the Jew is a partner in the idol. The novel reasoning behind this teaching is that the Jew only bows down to the idol due to the Nochri. Therefore when the Nochri nullifies it, he no longer believes in it either. (The Maharsha notes that this was Tosfos' text of that Gemara, but it is not the text nor the reasoning of our Gemara.)

Answer (cont): However, another Jew who is not a partner in this idol can obviously not nullify it. Accordingly, it is obvious in our case where there was no partnership (that another Jew could not nullify the idol). (The Avodah Berurah attempts to answer the seeming contradiction inherent in the beginning and end of this statement.)

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara ask its question on our Mishnah which said that if a person finds a statue of a hand or foot, it is forbidden. Doesn't the Mishnah says that if someone saves etc.?

Answer: We can answer that our Mishnah is referring to finding a statue in a place where people do not usually travel (and therefore the Mishnah in Bava Metzia would not apply). However, in the incident involving Rebbi Elazar, the Gemara states that he was traveling on the road.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (53a) states that if he sold it or used it as collateral for a Jewish smith it is permitted, being that he nullified it. It is clear that the Gemara means that this is even if the Jew is not a smith, being that the Gemara asks a question on this from a person who buys broken silver pieces from a Nochri. However, the Gemara there does not discuss our Gemara's logic that since it is valuable, he thinks that the Jew will sell it to a Nochri (and it therefore should be prohibited). (Why not?)

Answer: Our Gemara is different, as there are two doubts making this forbidden. Perhaps a Nochri will find it and serve it, and even if a Jew fnds it, perhaps he will sell it (to a Nochri who will worship it) being that it is expensive. However, there (53a) there is only one doubt as the case is where it is in the Jew's hands. Therefore, we presume the Jew will nullify it.

Explanation: The Ulam was totally open to the eastern side.

Proof: We also say this in Bava Basra (25b) that the world is compared to an Achsadrah (which is compared to an Ulam), and the northern wind is not surrounded with a wall. (Tosfos is comparing the fact that an Ulam and Achsadrah are open on one side.)

Observation: It still is called the opening of the Ulam in many places in the Gemara, just as the opening of the Mishkan was totally open on the eastern side and it is called an opening by the Pasuk.

Question: This is difficult. Being that the face of a person alone is forbidden, why is there a need to forbid the images of those who serve Hash-m in Heaven?

Answer: There is certainly not any type of angel, neither a Malach, Saraf, Ofan, or Kruv who actually looks like a person.

Answer (cont.): This can also be understood from the Gemara in Chagigah (15a) which says that angels do not have a neck.

Question: Being that the face of a person alone is forbidden, why is there a need to forbid the images of the four faces (that are found on the Merkavah) together? This should be forbidden because of (one of these faces which is) the face of man!

Answer #1: This is in order to make one liable even if he found an image of a person's face, and combined it with the three other faces.

Answer #2: Alternatively, this is in order to make such a person transgress two negative prohibitions.

Observation: The Gemara does not say that this indicates that the teaching of "Lo Sasoon Iti" is according to everyone. Even according to Rava, who says that the Mishnah earlier refers to someone who finds an idol, we will not deduce that the making of a statue of a person is permitted, as it is certainly forbidden.

Observation (cont.): This is also implied later when the Gemara says that a ring whose signature is indented cannot be used to sign. This apparently is referring to a (signature which is represented by the) face of a person. They did not used to sign with images of stars and constellations. The law indeed is that it is forbidden to sign with the (indented) image of a face of a person, and it is forbidden to make a statue of a person.

Observation (cont.): However, those images that are colored on sheets with various colors or through weaving are permitted, being that they do not have an entire face, but rather they only have half of a face.

Opinion: The Ri states that all of Abaye's answer are true.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that when Abaye gives every answer, he does not say "Ela" - "Rather" Abaye says etc. (a key word indicating retraction of a previous answer). This indicates that he never retracted any of these answers.

Explanation: Rather, he originally derived from the Pasuk to forbid those who serve in this world, such as the Heichal and Ulam etc. He then derived that this includes those who serve in Heaven on high, such as Serafim and Ofanim. He also included those who serve in the lower spheres of Heaven, namely the sun, moon, stars, and constellations that are permanent in the second Heaven.

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asked that the Gemara implies that Rabban Gamliel commanded to a Nochri to make these images. Isn't it forbidden to tell a Nochri to transgress a commandment for us, even if does not involve the Melachos of Shabbos? This is as we state in Bava Metzia (90a), that there is a prohibition against telling a Nochri to muzzle the mouth of my cow and thresh with it.

Answer: It is different (i.e. permitted) if the purpose of the request is in order to fulfill a Mitzvah.

Opinion #1: Some wanted to be stringent that one should not ask a Nochri to sign with his signature ring that has an image of a person when he borrows money. They hold this is only permitted if the Nochri brings it on his own. Similarly, they say that one should not wear belts that have an image of a person protruding from the belt.

Opinion #2: However, there is room to be lenient (only regarding the belts, see Avodah Berurah) based on the Bahag who says that Rav Yehudah's statement is regarding the image of a Darkon. This is because there is more suspicion regarding the image of a Darkon than other images, as indicated by the Mishnah which says that if someone finds vessels that have the image of a Darkon on them...he should throw them in the Dead Sea. We only suspect an Andreti as an idol because it is a statue of an entire person.

Explanation: The Gemara means that even so, Shmuel warned him not to maintain it unless he would "blind its eye" (i.e. break part of it), so that people should not suspect that he made it himself and thereby transgressed the prohibition against making this image.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that Rav Yehudah was different as the image of his signature was raised. Therefore, the suspicion was not that he made it, but rather that he served idols.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that the image of the moon did not protrude, and therefore Rabban Gamliel was allowed to make it?

Answer: The Ri, Rabeinu Tam, and the Riva say that with a sun, moon, and constellations there is no difference between whether the image is protruding or set. This is because they appear to us in the sky as being set in the sky (and not protruding). The only time this difference is valid is regarding faces and similar things.

Text: Rabeinu Chananel has the text, "coins" (instead of "Mitpachos") as Sadinin and Mitpachos are the same thing. Therefore, we see that coins that have an image of idols are permitted.

Observation: In Pesachim (28a), the Gemara quotes this Mishnah in regards to Chametz. The Mishnah says that he should scatter it to the wind or put it in the ocean. The Gemara asks regarding both of these solutions, does this mean he must grind it up first, or does he merely throw it in the ocean as is?

Observation (cont.): Rabah says that Chametz, which can be thrown into other oceans, requires crumbling up before throwing it into the ocean. Avodah Zarah which is thrown into the Dead Sea does not require grinding. This means that regarding Chametz we never find that one must throw it into the Dead Sea. However, regarding idolatry we do find in many places that one must throw the benefit into the Dead Sea. Accordingly, we can assume that when our Gemara says "to the ocean" regarding idolatry, it means to the Dead Sea.

Observation (cont.): Rav Yosef (in Pesachim ibid.) says that the opposite is true. Chametz, which becomes disgusting when thrown in the water, does not have to be broken up. Idolatry, which does not become disgusting when thrown in the water, does need to be ground up. It seems that Rav Yosef requires grinding up idolatry even when throwing it in the Dead Sea, as he is addressing Rabah whom we just said is discussing the Dead Sea.

Question: This makes the Rabbanan's opinion difficult to understand according to Rav Yosef. How will they say one should destroy idols? According to Rabah this is understandable, as they will grind it up and put it into other oceans, as they could also put it straight into the Dead Sea. However, according to Rav Yosef, what should they do? The Rabbanan understand that grinding it up into other oceans does not help, as the Rabbanan in our Gemara (44a) required the reason that Moshe wanted to check them like a Sotah. Otherwise, he would not have ground it and thrown it in the water, as they hold this is an invalid method of disposal, as we will explain there. If so, what should people do if they want to dispose of idols? Do they have to keep making trips to the Dead Sea?!

Answer: One should grind it up and scatter it in a place which does not grow anything.

Opinion: The Rashbam explains that they hold that when there are two causes for a result, one forbidden and one permitted, the result is deemed to be forbidden. Rebbi Yosi does not worry about this question, as he understands that the result in such a case is considered permitted.

Opinion (cont.): Even so, it is forbidden to fertilize a field Lechatchilah with fertilizer of idols, being that he has intent to benefit from it.

Implied Question: One cannot ask a question from the Rabbanan on the Rabbanan. The question would be that here they suspect the idol will be fertilizer, and yet regarding Chametz in Pesachim (28a) they say that one can scatter it to the wind. (Why isn't this a contradiction?)

Answer #1: One can differentiate that regarding Chametz the Pasuk states, it should not be eaten. This indicates that it is only forbidden to benefit from it in a clearly beneficial manner. However, regarding idolatry the Pasuk states, "Nothing should stick to your hand from what is forbidden," indicating that one cannot have benefit from it at all.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Rabbanan there are actually of the same opinion as Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah.

Opinion #1: The Rashbam explains that the question is from the Pasuk, "And I ground it up until it was fine" as anything ground is apparently supposed to be scattered to the wind.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Rashi also explains, "And the sins that you did etc. is actually a question from the Pasuk, "And I ground it up etc." However, from the Pasuk, "And I burned etc." there is no question, being that as long as he did not grind it up it is stuck together and does not become fertilizer. This implies that Rebbi Yosi is saying to the Rabbanan that Moshe ground it in order to scatter it in the wind.

Question #1: This is difficult to the Ri. Did Rebbi Yosi mistakenly think Moshe Rabeinu did not throw the pieces in the water?! This same Pasuk stating, "And I ground it up" continues, "And I threw its ground up pieces into the stream that came down the mountain!"

Question #2: Additionally, what was their answer that Moshe only intended on checking them like a Sotah? Based on their reasoning, that checking would be irrelevant to our discussion. Rather, the important aspect (that the Rabbanan should have mentioned in their answer) is that the Pasuk says, "And he scattered it on the face of the water." Rebbi Yosi's question was that being that it needs to be ground up, it must be that it will be scattered in the wind!

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that Rebbi Yosi is relying on the second part of the Pasuk which is, "And I threw its pieces into the stream." This implies that he did not throw it into the ocean, but rather into a river. Throwing into a river is like throwing into the wind, as rivers often spit out their dirt and mud onto the riverbanks, and it eventually turns into fertilizer. Even so, Moshe Rabeinu did not worry about this.

Opinion #2 (cont.): The Rabbanan answered him that the Pasuk says, "And he spread and made them drink." This means that he intended to have them drink like a Sotah. He therefore made them drink the ground up gold, using up all of the gold. However, grinding does not help for throwing it into other oceans.