Opinion #1: Rashi explains, as found in the explanation of others, as follows. They are permitted means that the hills themselves are permitted for planting and for the mining of rock from them. This is because something connected does not become forbidden, as Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili derived from the Pasuk, "Eloheihem Al ha'Harim" that the mountains are not considered gods (to become forbidden).

Opinion #1 (cont.): What is on the mountains, for example if they were coated with silver or gold, is prohibited. This is as the Pasuk says, "You should not covet silver and gold etc."

Opinion #1 (cont.): This is despite the fact that this silver or gold is not considered an idol and is not forbidden. Even so, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that what is not attached to the ground should be forbidden as if it was a regular unattached idol. This is as the Pasuk says, "You should not want the silver and gold that is on them," implying that any silver and gold that is on anything that is worshipped (even attached idols) is forbidden.

Proof: We need to explain that this is not called an idol, as the Gemara says in Chulin (40a) that one case is where he slaughters to serve the mountain, and one case is where he slaughters to the angel in charge of the mountain. This is because the sacrifice of one who slaughters to a mountain is not called a sacrifice of idolatry.

Implied Question: The Beraisa states later that those who serve them are liable to receive death by beheading. (Why should this be if they are not deemed idols?)

Answer: The reason for this is that although they are not considered idols, regarding the prohibition this is still called idol worship, and they intend to serve idols. This is similar to something that is attached (that it is not forbidden from benefit, but still has the law of idolatry). [In Temurah (28b), the Gemara explains the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod" as referring to animals, which have a similar law to things that are attached to the ground (that they themselves are not considered forbidden, but people who worship them are still considered as worshipping idols). This is the text of the Bach (note 5) in Tosfos.]

Question: Rabeinu Tam asked on this explanation that being that this is not called idolatry and their sacrifice is permitted, why should those who worship be beheaded? This is not considered serving other gods!

Opinion #2: It therefore appears to Rabeinu Tam that certainly this is called idolatry and the sacrifices to it are forbidden. This is why those who worship it are beheaded. The teaching "v'Lo ha'Harim Eloheihem" is referring to the Pasuk "You should surely destroy them." In other words, there is no obligation to uproot these mountains.

Opinion #2 (cont.): When we say in Chulin (40b) that if he slaughters for the mountain this is not called "a sacrifice to the dead (i.e. idols," and is therefore not forbidden, it is referring to someone who slaughtered far away from the mountain, as he does not intend to slaughter in the name of an idol.

Opinion #2 (cont.): I found a similar explanation in the other explanations that quote Rashi. They say, "What is on the mountains, such as a coating of gold and silver, is forbidden. This is as the Pasuk says, "You should not want silver and gold that is on them, and you will take it for yourself."

Opinion #2 (cont.): Even though they do not become forbidden, this is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that the mountains and plains which are the land of the world should not be able to be forbidden by anyone. However, they are idols, and part of them is not attached to the ground it is like anything that is unattached from any regular idol.

Proof: You should know that these are considered idols, as the Beraisa states later that those who worship them are beheaded. If they were not called idols, why would those who worship them be beheaded? In Temurah (28b), the Gemara explains the Pasuk of "Lo Sachmod" as referring to animals, which have a similar law to things that are attached to the ground (that they themselves are not considered forbidden, but people who worship them are still considered as worshipping idols).

Question #1: According to this, the Ri has difficulty with the Gemara later (46b). The Gemara says that Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said to Rava that perhaps the opposite is true (and an Esnan Zonah, payment for a prostitute, that is attached to the ground is permitted). If something unattached that was worshipped is forbidden to a regular person, but if it would be attached it would be permitted to be used even for Hash-m as the Pasuk states "Eloheihem Al ha'Harim - v'Lo ha'Harim Eloheihem," certainly we should say that an Esnan (which is permitted when unattached to a regular person) is permitted (even for Hash-m) if it is attached to the ground.

Question #1 (cont.): If you will say that an attached idol is indeed called an idol, how can it be permitted for use for Hash-m just because it is not prohibited to a regular person? Animals are not forbidden to a regular person, and even so they are forbidden for use for Hash-m!

Question #2: There is also a difficulty with Rabeinu Tam's explanation that a sacrifice to a mountain is not called "a sacrifice to the dead" being that he sacrifices at a distance from the mountain. Even if he was at somewhat of a distance from the mountain, what is the difference? He explicitly states that he is slaughtering to serve the mountain! If so, he is intending to serve idolatry!

Opinion #1: It therefore appears to the Ri that the first explanation of Rashi is correct. This is certainly not considered idolatry, as is implied in Chulin (40a), and items sacrificed to this are permitted.

Implied Question: This is unlike Pe'or, regarding which the Pasuk says, "They ate from the sacrifices of the dead." (Why is this not considered permitted?)

Answer: This (Pe'or) is not attached to the ground.

Observation: It is therefore also understandable that the Gemara later (46b) says that this is permitted for use for Hash-m, being that it is not considered idolatry at all. It is as if it was not even worshipped.

Observation: The Gemara here implies that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili was older than Rebbi Akiva. In Gitin (83a) as well, Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili is mentioned before Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah and Rebbi Akiva (indicating he was older than them).

Question: This is difficult. We say in Zevachim (57a) regarding Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva that there was a student there who came before the Chachamim, and his name was Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili. (This indicates he was younger than Rebbi Akiva.) We also say in Eiruvin (53a) that Beruryah, the wife of Rebbi Meir, had a conversation with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili and called him "Galili fool." Rebbi Meir was one of the later students of Rebbi Akiva (another indication he was younger than Rebbi Akiva).

Answer: It appears that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili was a Talmid Chaver (half student half colleague) of Rebbi Akiva, and was younger than him.

Implied Question: Although Rebbi Yosi is mentioned before Rebbi Akiva in Gitin (83a), this is not difficult. (Why not?)

Answer: In the Hagadah of Pesach Rebbi Akiva is mentioned before his Rebbi, who was Rebbi Tarfon, as implied in Kesvuos (84b). [Study Tosfos in Kesuvos (105a DH "d'Chashiv") as well as Tosfos in Sotah (4a DH "Ben Azai").]

Observation: The Yerushalmi asks from the Beis Hamikdash (how it could have been built on a tall mountain), and concludes that it was built there based on the words of a prophet (Shmuel, see Zevachim 54b).

Question: Why is the coating of a mountain forbidden while a sacrifice to it is permitted, as I explained earlier (that this is permitted)?

Answer: The case here is where there is a coating that is worshipped on the mountain. This is why the Tanna Kamma says it is prohibited. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili understands that things attached to the ground have the same law as the mountain itself, and are therefore permitted.

Question: Why does the Tanna Kamma quote the Pasuk of Lo Sachmod in order to forbid a coating? The Pasuk is only referring to beautifications of (real) idols!

Answer #1: The Tanna Kamma is quoting this Pasuk to show that just as beautification of idolatry is forbidden because it is unattached, even though it has a lenient side that it (the beautification) itself is not worshipped, so too the coating of a mountain that is worshipped should be forbidden, even though it has a lenient side that the mountain is worshipped while attached to the ground.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible that the Pasuk (of Lo Sachmod) is quoted as an Asmachta (not an actual derivation).

Question: How can it be that the coating of a mountain is forbidden and a sacrifice to it is permitted, if regarding an animal the law is the exact opposite?

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Temurah (28b) says that Rav Chinina asked a question. The reason that the coating of an animal is included (i.e. is prohibited for benefit, see below) is from the Pasuk, "From the cattle." This indicates that while the worshipped animal is excluded from being brought as a Korban (but a private person may benefit from it), any coating on it is prohibited. Rav Chinina asks that this implies that if the Torah would not have indicated that the coating is prohibited, it would even be permitted to be used for Hash-m. However, doesn't the Pasuk say, "And you will destroy?"

Question (cont.): The fact that Rav Chinina's question is only regarding the use for Hash-m implies that it is permitted for a person to use this coating. However, if someone sacrifices to an animal the sacrifice is permitted, as implied in Chulin (40a)!

Answer #1: The Ri says that the coating discussed in Temurah is a coating that was not worshipped and only made for beauty.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one can say that the case in Temurah is according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili who permits the coating of a mountain used for idolatry, even if it is worshipped.

Opinion: The Ri understands that according to Rami bar Chama, all of the Tanaim of the Mishnah hold that a tree that was planted and eventually worshipped is forbidden.

Opinion (cont.): Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds this way, as is evident from the Gemara later (45b). The Tanna Kamma is even more stringent, and forbids even the coating of the mountain. According to Rebbi Akiva, as well, this is forbidden. If he would permit it, how would he understand that the Pasuk, "Eitz Ra'anan" is a mere sign? We should say that it is coming to teach that a tree cannot be a god, such as in a case of a tree that was planted and then worshipped! Rather, it must be that Rebbi Akiva also holds this is forbidden.

Question: Don't we say throughout the Talmud that the second Tanna mentioned always adds something (that is forbidden)?

Answer: Our Mishnah is different, as the Pasuk of Lo Sachmod quoted by the Tanna Kamma implies clearly that the coating of a mountain should be prohibited.

Opinion #1: Rashi's understanding throughout the Gemara is that planting and then worshipping is where a seed was planted. However, if a tree was planted into the ground, everyone holds it is forbidden. The argument here is regarding planting a seed.

Opinion #1 (cont.): The Tanna Kamma holds that being that a seed was planted without intent of it being an Asheirah tree, this is not called that a person "had a handle" on creating the idol (i.e. making the Asheirah into an idol, as it only became an Asheirah tree long after a person planted a seed). Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili argues that even if a person plants a seed it is forbidden, and it is unlike a mountain where a person never had any involvement in making the mountain. However, here a person was involved in the planting.

Question #1: There are many answers (i.e. questions) to this opinion. When the Gemara says later according to the Rabbanan that the Pasuk, "And their Asheiros you should burn in fire" is required for a tree that was planted for this purpose. Why don't they say that this is required to teach that if a tree was planted (as opposed to a seed) it is forbidden?

Question #2: There is an additional difficulty, as the Gemara later (46a) quotes a Tosefta regarding Nochrim who worship seeds and vegetables (that they become forbidden from benefit and those who worship them are killed) that this is according to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah. The Gemara there asks, why don't we say that the case is regarding a tree that was originally planted for this purpose, and that it is even according to the Rabbanan? According to Rashi, why doesn't the Gemara suggest that the case of the Tosefta is where he planted a tree (i.e. full grown vegetable bush) and that it is according to everyone? (The Gemara's actual question is also according to everyone, as the Rabbanan means even the Rabbanan. See Avodah Berurah for an explanation of this question of Tosfos.)

Question #3: There is an additional question. Rav later says in our chapter that if someone bows down to a house, he forbids it from benefit. This teaches that even if something was originally unattached to the ground, and it then became attached to the ground, it is forbidden.

Question #3 (cont.): Why did Rav give an example of a house? He could have given an example of a tree, as well, that would be forbidden for this reason just like a house. For example, he could have said that if a person planted a tree, it would be a case where the tree was originally detached, and it was then connected to the ground. If he would say his law regarding a tree, we would know that certainly a house is forbidden!

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that everyone agrees that if a seed was planted in the ground, it is permitted when it is later worshipped, as people had no involvement in its development. The argument is regarding a tree that was planted (and later worshipped). According to the Rabbanan it does not become forbidden being that people are not considered involved in it, and being that it was not planted to be an idol. When it takes root, it is considered to nullify the involvement of the person who planted it.

Opinion #2 (cont.): It is now understandable why Rav later said that if someone bows down to a house he has made it forbidden. If this would have been a tree this would not make it forbidden, being that it has now taken root in the ground and is considered completely part of the ground.

Question: How could Rebbi Akiva have said that the Pasuk is just a sign? Why don't we derive the Pasuk of "Kol Eitz Ra'anan - v'Lo Eitz Ra'anan Eloheihem" as teaching that a tree that was planted as a seed is permitted according to everyone?

Question (cont.): Alternatively, even according to Rashi everyone will agree that if a tree grew without human involvement it would be permitted according to everyone (even though it was later worshipped), as Rashi himself explained later (46a, DH "u'mei'Ilan Yavesh") regarding the Tzad ha'Shaveh.

Answer: These cases do not require Pesukim to tell us that they are permitted, as they are no different than mountains, being that people were never involved in their growth.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Pasuk says Giva'os and we do not say that they are learned from mountains. (Why does the Pasuk bother saying Giva'os if it does not teach us things that are obvious?)

Answer: This is not difficult, as the Pasuk normally says, "Harim" and "Giva'os" together (i.e. Yeshaya 54:10, 55:12).

Question: This is difficult. What is Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili saying in our Mishnah regarding why an Asheirah is forbidden? He implies that by law we should permit an Asheirah. How can this be? According to him we say later that two Pesukim forbid Asheirah trees, even if they were planted before being worshipped!

Answer: It is possible to answer that Rebbi Yosi's question regarding why an Asheirah is forbidden is not because it should be permitted. Rather, he means to ask why an Asheirah is forbidden while mountains and plains are not.

Answer (cont.): If there would not be a reason behind the fact that an Asheirah is forbidden, I would think that the Pasuk is teaching that trees are forbidden as well as mountains and plains. I would think that we should not make the derivation of "v'Lo ha'Harim Eloheihem."

Explanation: He does not derive Rav Yosef's derivation, as he relies on the Pesukim regarding chopping and burning. If he would derive this from the Pasuk regarding breaking the stone altars, I would think that one should just leave the stones there as the Pasuk indicates one should leave the pieces there, being that it does not say that one has to burn it after breaking it.

Explanation (cont.): However, being that regarding an Asheirah we see that there are two burnings mentioned, we say that breaking the altars is before the area is captured. After the area is captured, they must be burned. This is the explanation of Rashi.