Implied Question: This (the Seder Yakov explains Tosfos understands this is referring to vessels that serve an idol that is attached to the ground) is incomparable to sacrifices to a mountain that we said earlier (45a, DH "Eloheihem") are permitted. (Why not?)

Answer: The Gemara there is different, as the Pasuk states "And they ate sacrifices of the dead" (Tehilim 106:28). This is the source that sacrifices to idols are prohibited. The Pasuk is referring to Pe'or which is not attached to the ground and is forbidden, which is why its sacrifices are also forbidden.

Answer (cont.): However, regarding idols that are attached to the ground we do not find a prohibition against their sacrifices. We only find this regarding vessels, as we conclude in our Gemara.

Implied Question: This is the source, despite the fact that they are words of Kabalah (laws derived from Nevi'im or Kesuvim are called Divrei Kabalah, and cannot have the status of a Torah law). (If so, how can we say this law is a Torah law?)

Answer: Before David (the author of Tehilim), there was still an oral tradition that this was the law (according to the Torah). David "leaned" this Torah law on his Pasuk (in Tehilim).

Explanation: This was only necessary to show why Rebbi Akiva does not agree with Rebbi Yishmael's derivation. Rebbi Akiva's reason for his law is from the Pasuk, "The idols of their gods etc."

Explanation: Just as a Kli Shares must be put in Genizah, so too an Asheirah must be Nignaz, meaning that it must be burned without having any benefit from it, like the Golden Calf that was ground up and scattered.

Implied Question: However, from the Golden Calf itself one cannot bring a proof whether the law is like Rebbi Yosi or the Rabbanan (in the Mishnah on 43b). (Why not?)

Answer: According to Rebbi Yosi, it is possible that Moshe only ground up the Golden Calf in order to preserve the honor of Bnei Yisrael, as this Golden Calf caused them tremendous stumbling and embarrassment (and its preservation would only further these difficulties). According to the Rabbanan, he ground it up in order check them like a Sotah.

Explanation: This is referring to vessels that became impure due to contact with liquids, as Rashi explains, and vessels that the source for their impurity is in a Torah law.

Explanation (cont.): Regarding glassware, the Mishnah states in Keilim (2:1) and is quoted in Shabbos (16a) as stating that glassware does not go back to its old status of impurity. This is because the source of them being impure, even when made impure by a Sheretz and dead person from their backs (see Rashash that this is not specific, as they became impure in many ways), is only Rabbinic in nature.

Explanation #1: The reason why the Gemara earlier (52a) did not say this regarding vessels is because it was discussing vessels offered as sacrifices to idols, which are never nullified.

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi earlier, who said these vessels were referring to vessels used to serve idols (which would be able to be nullified).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that these vessels are not forbidden according to Torah law as they are Hekdesh, and a person cannot forbid something that is not his. They should therefore be permitted to be used by a regular person. (Why, then, should they be forbidden to be used for Hash-m?)

Answer: They still made a fine that they should be unable to be used for Hash-m.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (54b) quotes this Pasuk for Ula's law that once one of the Simanim of the animal is cut for idolatry, it is forbidden. The Gemara understands that it is even for a regular person, as is apparent from the Gemara in Chulin (40a). (This implies it is even a prohibition against benefit for a regular person, not just a prohibition against being used for Hash-m.)

Answer: In our Gemara, we are discussing a small action that does not change the vessel. This is why it is only forbidden for usage for Hash-m. Being that this is the case, it is understandable that if someone would do a significant action it would even be forbidden for a regular person.

Explanation: This is referring to the coins that were made out of silver and gold.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that these images were made due to the kings of Rome whose names were Adrianus and Turianus. "Sheifa" means that the coins were worn, and the image on the coin was not recognizable because it was so old (and worn).

Question: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this. The Gemara in Bava Kama (97b) asks, What is a coin of Yerushalayim? David and Shlomo were on one side of the coin, and the holy city of Yerushalayim was on the other side.

Opinion #1: The Aruch gives the same explanation as Rashi.

Answer: It appears to me that an answer for Rabeinu Tam's question is that when Adrianus and Turianus ruled over Bnei Yisrael, they declared the original coins unfit, and they minted their names on them (to make them valid). After the destruction, many wanted to put these coins in Genizah.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam understands that Hadraina means a circle, similar to its meaning in Chulin (113a) in the words "Hadura d'Kanta" - "entrails" (that are round). Turaina means it is big as a large rock, as the Gemara says (in Bava Kama 97b) that if someone lends his friend a coin and now that coin is worth more, should he now return the same coin if it is now as big as a large rock?!

Opinion #2 (cont.): Sheifa means that it is worn out, and the letters are no longer apparent. The names of David and Shlomo were written on the coins, not their images. This is as stated earlier (43a) that the image of a person is forbidden. Being that it was worn away, it was no longer recognizable. [Study Tosfos in Bechoros 50a, DH "Dinra."] (According to Rabeinu Tam, the Gemara is referring to one type of coin which was a large round old coin that was originally minted with the signatures of David and Shlomo on one side, and a picture of Yerushalayim on the other.)