Question: Our Gemara implies that it is more understandable to permit wheat that was made into flour than a newborn animal (born from an animal that was worshipped while pregnant with this baby animal).

Question (cont.): However, in Bava Kama (66a, see Tosfos there DH "Heim") the Gemara implies that the opposite is correct. This is apparent from Beis Shamai's derivation that "also" (regarding Esnan Zonah) includes changes that were done (which are forbidden just as an Esnan Zonah is forbidden as a Korban), yet the Gemara there permits the offspring of animals.

Answers: Regarding Esnan, Beis Shamai's reasoning is because he did not want the extra weight of the fetus when he gave the animal as payment, and therefore did not designate the fetus as an Esnan. However, regarding idolatry he does want the extra volume.

Answer (cont.): Rav indeed says in Temurah (30b, see Tosfos there DH "d'Neicha") that the offspring of an animal set aside for idolatry or worshipped for idolatry is forbidden, as one wants the extra weight of the fetus while worshipping.

Implied Question: Reish Lakish could have asked his question regarding a tree that grew by itself, according to all opinions. Alternatively, he could have asked his question in a case where it was planted as a seed, according to what we have explained (see 45b, DH "v'Hacha"). (Why didn't he ask the question according to all opinions if he could have done so?)

Answer #1: Rather, he preferred to ask his question according to the Rabbanan.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he wanted to ask the question regarding common trees.

Answer #3: Alternatively, it is possible to still ask this question about a tree that was planted and then worshipped according to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah regarding the part of the tree that was extant before it was worshipped (whether or not it is forbidden). This is as the Gemara states earlier, "What is something whose fruit are forbidden although it itself is permitted? This is a tree which was planted and then worshipped."

Implied Question: Reish Lakish holds like Rava in Sukah (31b) that a person should not take a Lulav of idolatry to fulfill the Mitzvah of Arba Minim, but if he does he has fulfilled his obligation. (Doesn't he say in our Gemara that this is disgusting, and therefore cannot be used for a Mitzvah?)

Answer: The case in Sukah is before anyone nullified the Lulav. B'Dieved one fulfills his Mitzvah even in such a case, as Mitzvos were not given for one's benefit. (Accordingly, even though it is forbidden from benefit, this is not deemed a usage of benefit.) However, our Gemara is referring to a case where someone (i.e. a Nochri) nullified the Lulav. Our Gemara's question is whether or not this means that one can use such a Lulav Lechatchilah.

Explanation: This is as the Gemara states in Sukah (33a) regarding a Hadas whose top is cut off and a fruitlike growth comes out from this cut on Erev Yom Tov, that it is valid. If this growth only comes out on Yom Tov, the Gemara there asks whether or not the Hadas is valid. The Gemara attempts to answer, as it does here, from the Mishnah regarding the wind causing the blood to be covered etc. The Gemara concludes in Teiku.

Question: This is difficult. One should derive that the Mitzvah is not pushed off from the Gemara in Sukah there (32b) that says that if the berries were more than the leaves, it is invalid, and one cannot lessen the amount of berries on Yom Tov (in order to make it valid). If he does, it is valid.

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Sukah there (33b) says that this is even if the berries turned black on Erev Yom Tov (if the berries were green, they are considered a regular part of the Hadas and do not make it invalid, even if there are more of them than leaves). This is a case of pushing aside the validity from before Yom Tov, similar to the case of our Gemara, and similar to the case where a. fruitlike growth covered the cut off top on Yom Tov. Even so, if he lessened the berries on Yom Tov the Hadas is valid, showing that we do not say that when it is pushed aside from being valid that it can no longer be valid.

Answer: One is not in control of whether or not a fruitlike growth will grow on the Hadas, similar to the fact that he is not in control of whether or not a Nochri will nullify an Asheirah. However, there cases are not similar to lessening the berries of a Hadas, which is in one's control (and therefore the Mitzvah is not pushed aside just because there are more berries on the Hadas).

Explanation: The Gemara is saying that it is the question of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish because it is regarding a Mitzvah, just as Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish's question was regarding a Mitzvah. However, it is also included in Rami bar Chama's question, as it changes through being woven.

Question: This is difficult. The Beraisa states in Menachos (28a) that Chatzotzros came from a solid piece of silver. If one made it out of other types of metal it is invalid, and it is certainly invalid if it is made out of a horn!

Question (cont.): The Mishnah in Kinim (3:6) is understandable, as it says that when an animal dies, seven parts of it are made into musical instruments. It has two horns that are made into two Chatzotzros etc. (Doesn't this contradict the Beraisa in Menachos?)

Question (cont.): It is possible to answer that this Mishnah in Kinim (ibid.) refers to the Shofar used on Rosh Hashanah, as stated in Shabbos (36a) that Chatzotzros are a Shofar. However, in our Gemara we are discussing the items used for the service of the Korbanos in the Beis Hamikdash, as the Pasuk states, "And you will blow with Chatzotzros on your Olos."

Answer #1: The Gemara in Menachos (ibid.) is referring to Chatzotzros that the Kohanim blow, while our Gemara is referring to Chatzotzros of Levi'im that sing while a Korban is brought. There were many musical instruments there, such as different types of harps and cymbals.

Proof: This is clearly true, as the Gemara later says that the main singing of the Levi'im is with one's mouth, and the lack of musical instruments does not make the singing invalid. How can this be? Doesn't the Pasuk say, "And you should blow with Chatzotzros?" It must be that this is referring, as I have explained, to the blowing done by the Kohanim.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Yehudah explains that the Gemara in Menachos (ibid.) only refers to the Chatzotzros of Moshe.

Proof: A proof to this is that in the Tosefta we find that they would blow with golden Chatzotzros in their hands. [See Tosfos in Zevachim 68a, DH "k'she'Hu."]

Explanation: This means that the water does not go out of their fields. If it would, the Mishnah in Bava Kama (81a) says that a stream that goes out originally can be benefited from by the people of the city. This would make them waters of the public, which would not be forbidden.

Implied Question: This is even according to the opinion (41b) that one does not serve broken pieces of an idol. (Why, then, are the stones etc. from this considered to be impure?)

Answer #1: The case is where the idol was owned by a Jew, or it was owned by a Nochri but a Jew bowed down to it.

Answer #2: The Yerushalmi says that the case is where a person bowed down to every single stone. This is also the explanation of Rashi.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it started off being built for idolatry, and they used to worship the house itself. Similarly, when the Gemara later discusses a stone that was originally carved to be a foundation for an idol, it is referring to a foundation that is also worshipped just like the idol is worshipped.

Explanation #1 (cont.): This is indeed the correct explanation. One certainly must say that the house and stone were made to worship. If they were merely made to serve an idol, we say earlier (19b) that things made to serve an idol are only forbidden when they are worshipped.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Gemara says regarding a house that the case is where he built it, even though he did not bow down to it. Similarly, the case of the rock is where he carved it to be a foundation, even though he did not yet serve it. If he did, why would he have to have carved it originally for this purpose?

Explanation #1 (cont.): Regarding Tefilin, the Gemara in Berachos (23b) states that if he wrapped Tefilin with this cloth and did not yet set it aside to be permanently used for Tefilin, it is permitted. Similarly, this should not require being carved if he originally served it. (The obvious question on Tosfos is that his proof from Berachos actual seems to contradict what he is saying, that this stone should certainly be forbidden if it was worshipped. The Maharam Shik explains Tosfos means to say that while this case in Berachos is permitted, if he both set it aside to house his Tefilin and wrapped his Tefilin with it, no other action is required to give it holiness. So too, once the person did an action, it would be obvious it would be an idol. The person does not even have to do an action to make it forbidden, as apparent from Tefilin!)

Observation: However, from Rashi's words the implication is that the house and stone are made as a place to put an idol. The house and stone are only worshipped because people are worshipping the idol.

Question: This is somewhat difficult. While the Gemara later discusses an Asheirah tree, one cannot say that the Gemara means that an Asheirah tree was planted in order to put an idol there, and that the tree was only worshipped because there was an idol there.

Question (cont.): This is because we say in the Gemara that the first part of the Mishnah is according to everyone, although Rebbi Shimon says, "Just because they serve the idol, should we permit the tree?!" He does not say that they serve the tree due to the idol.

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that in all three cases of building, carving, or planting the case is where this is supposed to be the idol itself.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara says the stone was made for a foundation. (This seemingly indicates it was not made to be the idol!)

Answer: Even though a regular foundation is used to serve an idol just as a foundation is used for (idols served by) kings, the word "Bimus" - "foundation" is used here to show that it could not be considered special enough to serve unless it was compared to a Bimus. This is because an idol is always put on a Bimus. (In other words, it was only built to be worshipped if it looked like a Bimus.)

Opinion #1: The Mishnah also could have given a case (instead of this case where one carves out a stone to make a Bimus) where a person straightened up a stone in order to bow down to it, as Rav Yehudah says (46a) regarding a brick.

Opinion #2: It appears to me that the cases are incomparable. Rav Yehudah says that straightening up a brick forbids it when a Nochri subsequently bows down to it. This is because we say that he is doing the service for the Jew, being that the Jew expressed his intent (by straightening it up) that he wants to serve it.

Opinion #2 (cont.): However, our Mishnah says that even carving out the rock causes it to be forbidden, being that it is a significant action. Here, too, the Gemara says that if he builds it without bowing down to it, it is forbidden. similarly, we should say that if he carved it out without bowing down he causes it to be forbidden.

Observation: However, based on what Rashi explains in the Gemara (see explanation below) that our Mishnah is according to the opinion that it is forbidden immediately, it is clearly a bigger novelty to say that if one straightened up the stone without carving it that it is forbidden because of this, as implied earlier. However, the Mishnah stated carving anyway, to match the terminology used regarding building a house and planting a tree (in the surrounding Mishnayos). (The Maharam explains that Tosfos is referring to the possible understanding of the Gemara earlier on 46a that if a person stood up an egg in order to bow down to it, this alone would cause it to be forbidden. If this is true, it is clear that the Mishnah should have stated a case of just straightening something, as this is a bigger novelty than carving. Rather, it decided to match the terminology of the surrounding Mishnayos.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that this means one is pruning the tree in order that he will be able to worship the future growths, but he is not currently making an idol.

Opinion: This is a good explanation, being that if the Nochri would intend to uproot it in order to make it into an idol, the entire tree would be forbidden even though a tree is connected to the ground. This is because he did an action in the body of the tree, similar to earth which he dug out from pits and caves that causes the pits and caves to also be forbidden, being that he did an action to them.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that when he does not nullify the idol, the tree is still not considered to serve the purpose of the idol. This is because the Gemara establishes this Mishnah according to the opinion of the Rabbanan who hold that a tree that was planted and then worshipped is permitted. In our case, presumably he did not plant the tree originally to serve the idol, as the Mishnah did not specify that he planted it for this reason. (If so, why does the Mishnah have to say the tree is now permitted? It was never forbidden!)

Answer: Even so, as long as the idol is not nullified it is forbidden according to Rabbinic law. This is because when there is an idol at the base of the tree, it appears as if it was planted to serve the purpose of the idol.

Observation: The Gemara could have answered that the Gemara says "carved" regarding a Bimus, which is unattached to the ground. (It is clear that if one bowed down to a Bimus he would cause it to become forbidden, even if it had not been carved out of the ground for this purpose! Why not say the same regarding a house?) Accordingly, the Mishnah means carving, and similarly bowing, will make it forbidden. Similarly, Rav means that building, and similarly bowing, will make it forbidden.

Observation: One could ask the same question regarding a Bimus, as bowing down to a Bimus also makes it forbidden (as discussed in the previous Tosfos). However, the Gemara gives one answer (i.e. a different answer) to the question.

Opinion: The Ri says that this does not actually mean that he just takes off what he added to the stone. If this would be correct, even if he did not put plaster on the rock itself he would have to take away what he put on. Rather, Rebbi Ami means that he must remove the rock that is underneath the plaster, from one side to the other side of the rock opposite the plaster.