Observation: This indicates that in other places grinding metal vessels would make things grow.

Questions: This is difficult, as in Chulin (88b) the Gemara says that we do not cover blood with ground up pieces of metal vessels because they do not help things grow (and one must use something that makes things grow for Kiduy ha'Dam).

Answer #1: By itself, it certainly does not make something grow. However, when he fertilizes in land that makes things grow, it helps and assists things to grow.

Answer #2: Alternatively, when something is burned like the Golden Calf was, it does make things grow. The Gemara in Chulin was referring to ground up metal that was not burned. (The Tosfos Ha'Rosh indicates that this is all one answer.)

Observation: The Gemara could also have answered that the gardens that were being fertilized were not located by Nachal Kidron.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this was tremendous scoffing (with Mafli meaning tremendous).

Explanation #2: The Bereishis Rabah at the end of Toldos says that just as you were "Mafli in me," meaning that this was a complaint why he was mocking him (with Mafli meaning mocking). This is also the explanation of the Aruch.

Explanation: Presumably Chizkiyah did not throw the ground up pieces into the Dead Sea. Being that Rebbi Yosi is discussing what happened, if Chizkiyah had thrown it into the Dead Sea he should have stated this, just as he explains that the Mifletzes made by Ma'achah was destroyed in Nachal Kidron (this is the text of the Rashash and Be'airos ha'Mayim in Tosfos).

Explanation (cont.): Even though Rebbi Yosi did not explicitly state that the ashes (of the Mifletzes) were thrown to the wind, he did not have to do so, as after it was ground up it was obviously thrown (into the wind).

Question: According to the Rabbanan later who quote the Pasuk, "And they burned in fire" as a question on Rebbi Yosi (as the Pasuk should have said they burned it and scattered it into the wind), how is this a question on the position of Rebbi Yosi? It is more of a question on the Rabbanan, as the Pasuk never mentions throwing it into the sea!

Answer: The Pasuk there is clearly not coming to discuss getting rid of idolatry (according to the Rabbanan), but rather is saying that they left their idols. (However, Rebbi Yosi who says that "va'Yisa'em" refers to scattering into the wind seemingly understands that this is talking about getting rid of idols, and therefore the Pasuk should have also mentioned that it was burned.)

Question #1: This is difficult. Why didn't he take a Nochri and force him to nullify the idol, as did Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar (43a)?

Question #2: Additionally, according to Abaye who answered earlier that the case is where the idol was lessened, but if it would have been broken even a Jew can nullify the idol of a Nochri, why didn't he just break it?

Answer: There is a difference between an idol of wood (where breaking helps) and one of metal (where it can be fixed more easily, see Yefei Einayim). There similarly is an answer in the Yerushalmi that in one case it was wood, and in one it was metal.

Explanation: When he sat on his throne he would place the crown on his head, and the magnet would be inset on the top of the throne (pulling it slightly upwards), not in the crown.

Explanation: This means that this was a great miracle, as the head is not round in this area, while the crown was literally round. Even so, it would adjust itself and settle on his head.

Opinion #1: The Rashbam explains that when he went out he said to him that because one cannot answer in the bathhouse I could not answer you until now, as I have now left the bathhouse. This makes the Mishnah understandable, and guards it from being questioned (see below).

Opinion #2: Some Sefarim have the text in the Beraisa, "And" when he went out he said to him, "One cannot answer etc." (This is as opposed to the Rashbam's text, "When he went out.") This implies that when he went out he merely told him that one does not answer (not the rest of the answer).

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan has difficulty with this, as our Mishnah says, "And when he went out he answered him etc." (This implies he gave the full answer after he went out. The Maharsha explains that the Rashbam's explanation has the Beraisa agreeing with the Mishnah. However, if the Beraisa says "And when he went out he told him" it implies that he did not tell him anything until he went out, and that he only told him that one does not answer in the bathhouse, unlike the Mishnah that says he told him much more than this.)

Answer: The Ri says that there are three houses in the bathhouse, as is stated in Shabbos (10a). The inner house does not allow one to say Shalom (i.e. greetings using an implied name of Hash-m) to another Jew. In the middle one can say Shalom, but cannot say words of Torah. In the outer room, one may even say words of Torah.

Answer (cont.): Proklus asked Rabban Gamliel this question in the inner area of the bathhouse. Rabban Gamliel did not answer him at all. When he left the inner room for the middle room, Rabban Gamliel answered Proklus that one cannot reply in the bathhouse. He said this to ensure peaceful relations, in order that Proklus should not be filled with hatred against him. This leniency is akin to the leniency of saying Shalom (so the person will not hate him). When he left to the outer area of the bathhouse he answered the Nochri with answers from our Mishnah, as even words of Torah are permitted there. (This answers Rabeinu Elchanan's objection, as he indeed only said, "One does not answer etc." in the middle bathhouse. Only later, when he got to the outer bathhouse, did he give a full answer.)

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that he pushed him aside with straw (i.e. not the real answer).

Question: However, one cannot give this explanation according to Abaye and Rabah bar Ula who say that even if Rabban Gamliel would be wrong, it would not be forbidden. (In other words, if it was permitted anyway, he was not pushing him aside with straw, as he in fact did not have to push him aside at all because it was permitted.)

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that the word Genuvah here means alone and covered, as in the Pasuk, "You have stolen my heart" which the Targum translates to mean, "And you have covered my eyes."

Explanation: The Gemara sounds as if Rava said his statement regarding a different topic, although it is not clear where this was.

Opinion #1: Rashi here explains that when the Mishnah says "Shelo b'Tovah," it means that one can benefit from the holdings of a temple if he does not need to be grateful to them for allowing him usage of their holdings. When the Mishnah says, "b'Tovah" it means that he cannot benefit if he has to be grateful to them.

Opinion #2: However, later (51b) Rashi explains that "b'Tovah" means that he must pay them for the usage. This is also the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel.

Question #1: This second explanation does not seem correct to Rabeinu Tam, as the term "b'Tovah" does not imply money. If this is what the Mishnah meant, it should have said, "for pay" and "not for pay!"

Question #2: Additionally, if this is forbidden for pay because one is giving money to idolatry, one should ask a question from this Mishnah on the opinion quoted earlier (13a) that it is permitted to benefit an idol. (Yet the Gemara there did not ask this question!)

Question #3: Additionally, we say later (51b) that if others also have a portion in the holdings being benefited from, it is permitted. If the problem is paying money, why does it help that others own a portion? The holdings of the temple are still benefiting!

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam therefore understands that Rashi's explanation in our Gemara is the correct explanation.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam also understands that the fact that we presently bake in ovens belonging to priests and use their water mill to grind flour is not a problem. It is certainly permitted to pay them for this service, as we are not grateful to them (rather it is a transaction). Even if one does not pay them it is also permitted, being that the oven and mill is not in the temple itself, as was the case in our Gemara regarding the bathhouse of Aphrodite.

Implied Question: This is unlike a fair of idolatry which is forbidden according to Rebbi Yochanan (13a) who says that if it is forbidden to benefit from idolatry, it is certainly forbidden to give benefit to idolatry. (What is the difference between the two?)

Answer: In the Gemara there (13a), the tax collected is used to buy items needed for the service of the idol. In our Gemara, the benefit is only for the priests (not the idol).

Proof #1: The Gemara indeed says in Sanhedrin (74b), "How can we give them coals for their idolatry? It must be that they take their coals for their own pleasure (not for service of idolatry)." (This proof is somewhat difficult, as the Gemara there is discussing a case where one is forced to do so, not opting to do so. See Avodah Berurah for answers.)

Proof #2: The Yerushalmi later (in Avodah Zarah) has a text that one cannot use flutes of idolatry for a eulogy. However, if the money is given to the people of the country, even though they use the money to buy things for idolatry, it is permitted to eulogize with them. It is forbidden to rent stores from the holdings of idolatry. If the money is paid to the people of the country, even though they use the money to buy things for idolatry, it is permitted. One cannot give money to the caretakers of idolatry. If they give the money to the people, even though the people use the money to buy things for idolatry, it is permitted.

Question #1: This is difficult. Later (51b), the Gemara says that the decorations and jewelry of idolatry is forbidden! (Why is this permitted?)

Question #2: Additionally, when the Gemara answers that it is still a decoration, Rashi explains that if it was a bathhouse that was beautification for idolatry, even though the bathhouse would not be forbidden from benefit, it would still be forbidden to beautify it.

Question (cont.): The Ri does not agree with this, as the officer only asked his question because Rabban Gamliel was benefiting from idolatry, even though it was not for beautification.

Explanation: Rather, the Gemara's question is as follows. Even if it would be made for beautification and then given to idolatry, why should this make a difference? Doesn't the Mishnah say etc. (that if someone dedicates a house for idolatry it does not take effect)? The bathhouse is certainly not a beautification or jewelry of idolatry to be forbidden like the laws of beautification of idolatry and its jewelry. Rather, it is like a house of idolatry (whose dedication is meaningless).

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara concludes that even though the bathhouse is not forbidden according to Torah law, as it is like someone who says that this house is dedicated to idolatry (which does not take effect), it is still forbidden according to Rabbinic law to have benefit from it because it beautifies idolatry. Therefore, if the bathhouse was made for Aphrodite, Rabban Gamliel would not have benefited from it.