Explanation: Rashi explains that one is liable even if this idol is not normally served in this fashion.

Explanation (cont.): One must say that the idol was sometimes served in this fashion. This is evident from the fact that Rabbi Yehudah does not say one is liable if he breaks a stick before an idol, even though it is similar to slaughtering, unless this idol is sometimes served in this fashion.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, the case of a grasshopper must be where they normally serve the idol with a grasshopper in a different way aside from slaughtering. If they do not normally serve it with a grasshopper, how can it be compared to the case of Rav Yehudah when the Gemara asks that this is an argument among Tannaim?

Explanation (cont.): Additionally, the Gemara answers that everyone holds we do not say that it must be like slaughtering, but rather like the service done in the Beis Hamikdash. One is liable because its neck is like that of an animal.

Explanation (cont.): If the idol never has this kind of service, and we want to say one is liable because he is offering like one offers in the Beis Hamikdash akin to someone who slaughters an animal for an idol which one is liable for no matter what idol he serves in this fashion because it is like the service of the Beis Hamikdash as Rashi explained earlier, does the fact that the neck of a grasshopper resembles that of an animal make it more similar to the service of the Beis Hamikdash than slaughtering an animal with a blemish to an idol from which one is exempt (from the death penalty)?

Explanation (cont.): Rather, it must be discussing an idol that is sometimes served with a grasshopper. It is therefore more similar to a normal way to serve than slaughtering animal that has a blemish to an idol which is not normally served with an animal at all.

Observation: Accordingly, it is understandable why the Gemara does not say that everyone holds that serving an idol must be like slaughtering like Rav, and that one is liable for breaking a stick if the idol is served with a stick. When they argue here regarding a grasshopper, they argue in a case where it is not normal to serve this idol with a grasshopper. This is because the fact that its neck is like an animal does not make it better than an animal with a blemish, as I have explained.

Observation: I explained this, and the entire discussion regarding this topic in the Gemara, in the first chapter (6a).

Explanation #1: This means that even if it is not normally served with water and salt, it is prohibited. If it was normally served with these items, even if it was in a vessel of excrement it would be prohibited.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The reason for this law is that inside the wall where the idol is located, they offer anything to it, even something which is not beautiful. The reason for this prohibition is because we suspect these things were offered.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Outside of the wall, only something that is beautiful is forbidden due to its being offered to the idol. If it is not beautiful, it is permitted, as only something beautiful is offered in this location

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi's explanation that outside of the walls there is nothing that is offered. Something that is beautiful is only forbidden because of the Pasuk, "You should not want the silver and gold (that is on them)."

Question: If so, why do we say regarding Pe'or that what is outside is forbidden just like what is inside? Being that that there are no sacrifices brought outside the walls (according to Rashi) and salt and water is not for beautification, why should it be forbidden? (See Avodah Berurah who answers that Rashi was not talking about Pe'or, where everything was done in a denigrating fashion.)