תוספות ד"ה נחל קדרון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not metal pieces cause things to grow.)

משמע אבל בשאר מקומות שחיקת כלי מתכות מגדל צמחים


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

וקשה דבפרק כסוי הדם (חולין דף פח: ושם ד"ה שחיקת) קאמר אין מכסין בשחיקת כלי מתכות לפי שאינו מגדל צמחים


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).

וי"ל דלחודיה ודאי אינו מצמיח אבל כשהוא מזבל בקרקע המגדל צמחים הוא גורם ומסייע להצמיח


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.

אי נמי כשנשרף כמו עגל מגדל צמחים והתם איירי בלא שריפה


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.)



תוספות ד"ה מקומות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos mentions another possible answer to the Gemara's question.)

היה יכול לתרץ שהגננים היו ממקום אחר


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



תוספות ד"ה מפליא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes an argument regarding the definition of the word "Mafli.")

פ"ה ליצנות מופלא


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

ובב"ר סוף פרשת תולדות יצחק מה את מפליא בי כלומר למה אתה מלעיג עלי וכן פי' בערוך (ערך פלא)


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.



תוספות ד"ה והלא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara and the Rabbanan's question on Rebbi Yosi.)

ומסתמא לא השליכו לים המלח דכיון שבא לספר המעשה אם השליכו לים היה לו לומר כמו שמפרש והולך ביעור הנחל קדרון


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).

ואע"ג שאינו מפרש זורה לרוח זה א"צ כי אחר שהיה נשחק ממילא היה נזרק


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).

וא"ת לרבנן בסמוך דמייתי מוישרפו באש מאי קושיא היא לרבי יוסי כיון שלא הזכיר להשליכו לים


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!

וי"ל דהתם לא בא לספר במעשה ביעור עבודת כוכבים אלא בא לומר שעזבו עצביהם


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.)



תוספות ד"ה כאן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that there is a difference between a metal and wood idol.)

תימה למה לא לקח עובד כוכבים לבטל בע"כ כרבי אלעזר הקפר


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)?

ועוד לאביי דמשני לעיל כשפחתה אבל בשבורה אפילו ישראל מבטל עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים למה לא שברוה


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?

וי"ל דיש חילוק בין עבודת כוכבים של עץ לשל מתכת וכן יש תירוצים בירושלמי כאן בשל עץ כאן בשל מתכת


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.



תוספות ד"ה אבן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the magnet was in the throne, not in the crown.)

וכשהיה יושב על כסא מלכותו מניחה ואבן שואבת שקועה למעלה ולא היתה האבן שואבת חקוקה בנזר


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.



תוספות ד"ה שהיה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the miracle of the crown.)

פירוש וזה נס גדול ששם אין הראש עגול והיא היתה עגולה ממש ואף על פי כן היתה מכוונתו ומיושבת בראשו


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.




תוספות ד"ה תנא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains two different versions of this Beraisa.)

פי' רשב"ם כשיצא א"ל לפי שאין משיבין במרחץ לא הייתי יכול להשיבך עד עכשיו שיצאתי ובהכי ניחא דלא תקשי מתני'


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).

וי"ס דגרסי בברייתא וכשיצא א"ל אין משיבין וכו' משמע דכשיצא לא השיבו אלא אין משיבין


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).

וקשה להר"ר אלחנן דבמתני' קתני וכשיצא השיבו


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.)

ואור"י דג' בתים יש במרחץ כמו שמפרש בפ"ק דשבת (דף י.) פנימי אין שם שאילת שלום אמצעי יש בו שאילת שלום ואין שם דברי תורה חיצון מותר אף בד"ת


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.

והוא שאלו בבית הפנימי ושם לא השיבו כלום וכשיצא מבית הפנימי לאמצעי השיבו אין משיבין במרחץ ומשום דרכי שלום השיבו כך מפני איבת אותו הגמון דהוי כמו שאילת שלום וכשיצא לבית החיצון השיבו תשובות ממשנתנו שאף דברי תורה מותרים שם


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.)



תוספות ד"ה תשובה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations of the word Genuvah.)

פ"ה דחהו בקש


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

מיהו אין לפרש כן לדברי אביי ולרבה בר עולא שאומרים שאפילו לא היה כדברי ר"ג לא היה אסור


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.)

לכן נראה לפרש גנובה כלומר עלובה ומכוסה ממנו ותגנוב את לבבי מתרגמינן וכסיאת מיני (בראשית לא)


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."



תוספות ד"ה והאמר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that it is unclear what topic Rava originally addressed when he made this statement.)

לכאורה משמע דרבא אמר למילתיה בדוכתא אחריתי ולא נתפרש היכא


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



תוספות ד"ה נהנין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the definition of "b'Tovah" and how it affects dealing with items connected to idolatry.)

פירש רש"י כאן שאין להחזיק טובה לכומרים בכך בטובה שצריך להחזיק טובה


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.

אבל לקמן פרק רבי ישמעאל (דף נא:) פ"ה בטובה בשכר וכן פר"ח


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.

ולא נהירא לר"ת דלשון בטובה לא משמע הכי ואדרבה בשכר ושלא בשכר מיבעי ליה


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!"

ועוד דאי בשכר אסור ומטעם שמרויח לעבודת כוכבים תקשי מהכא למ"ד לעיל בפ"ק (דף יג.) מהנה מותר


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!)

ועוד דאמרינן לקמן פרק רבי ישמעאל (דף נא:) דאיכא לאחרים חלק בהדה אפילו בטובת הכומרים שריא ואי מיירי בשכר כי איכא לאחרים חלק בהדה נמי מאי הוי הא מרויח לעבודת כוכבים


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!

לכן נראה לר"ת כמו שפי' רש"י כאן


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

ועוד נראה לר"ת דמה שאנו אופין עתה בתנור של כומרים וטוחנין בריחים של מים שלהם ודאי ליכא למיחש דלא מיבעיא בשכר דשרי דאין אנו מחזיקין להם טובה אלא אפילו שלא בשכר נמי מותר כיון שאין התנור והריחים בבית העבודת כוכבים עצמו כמו הכא מרחץ של אפרודיטי


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.

ולא דמי ליריד של עובדי כוכבים דאסרנא לעיל פ"ק (דף יג.) אליבא דרבי יוחנן דאמר נהנה אסור מהנה לא כ"ש


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?)

דהתם עושין מן המכס צרכי עבודת כוכבים אבל הכא אין עושין אלא הנאת הכומרים


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).

והכי נמי אמרינן בסוף סורר ומורה (סנהדרין דף עד:) אנן קאווקי ואמונקי היכי יהבינן אלא הנאת עצמן שאני


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.)

וגרס לקמן פרק רבי ישמעאל בירושלמי חלילין של עבודת כוכבים אסור לספוד בהן ואם היו מעלין שכר למדינה אע"ג שהן עושין לצורך עבודת כוכבים מותר לספוד בהן חנויות של עבודת כוכבים אסור לשכור מהם ואם היו מעלין שכר למדינה אע"ג שהן לצורך עבודת כוכבים מותר גנאין של עבודת כוכבים אסור ליתן להם אם היו מעלין שכר למדינה אע"ג שהיא לצורך עבודת כוכבים מותר


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.



תוספות ד"ה וכי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos the question and answer of our Gemara.)

וקשה דהא לקמן (דף נא:) אמרינן דנוי ותכשיטי עבודת כוכבים אסורין


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

ועוד כי משני נוי מיהא איכא פירש רש"י ואם היה רחיצה נוי לעבודת כוכבים אע"ג דלא מיתסר מרחץ בהנאה מיהא אסור לנו ליפותה


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.

ואינו נראה לר"י שהרי לא היה מקשה אותו הגמון אלא מפני שהיה נהנה מן העבודת כוכבים אפילו אינו נוי


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.

אלא הכי פריך כי נמי עשאו לנוי ונתנו לעבודת כוכבים מאי הוי והתנן וכו' דודאי נוי ותכשיט לעבודת כוכבים לא הוי האי מרחץ ליאסר כדין נוי עבודת כוכבים ותכשיטיה אלא כדין בית הוא


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).

ומסיק נהי דאיתסורי לא מיתסר המרחץ מן התורה דהוי כאומר בית זה לעבודת כוכבים מכל מקום מדרבנן מיהא יש לו לאסור ליהנות משום איסור נוי ולכך אם היה מרחץ נעשה לשם אפרודיטי לא היה ר"ג נהנה ממנה


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.