Explanation: The Gemara does not specifically mean a Jewish smith, as even if the Jew is not a smith, regarding this law all Jews are considered by Nochrim like smiths.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara asks a question from a Beraisa regarding a person who buys bits of metal etc. If when the person is not a smith it is forbidden, what is the Gemara's question? Perhaps this Beraisa is referring to someone who is not a smith! Rather, being that the Gemara had to mention a Nochri smith, it also categorized the Jew as a smith.

Explanation #1: This means that even regarding a Jewish smith there is an argument.

Text #1: The Rivan has the text that this ends in Teiku. He then has the text that a question was asked from Rebbi's statement against the opinion that there is an argument only regarding a Nochri smith. This indicates that the argument indeed applies to a Jewish smith.

Text #1 (cont.): However, one cannot say that this is coming to answer the question whether or not there is an argument regarding a Nochri smith, and that it proves that they argue regarding both a Jewish and Nochri smith, as is implied by the explanation of Rashi.

Text #1 (cont.): If this would be the case, when the Gemara answers that this is not necessarily the implication of Rebbi's statement and that they therefore could argue solely about a Nochri smith, we should ask this as a question on the opinion that they only argue about a Jewish smith. The Gemara should ask that this is understandable according to the opinion that their argument is regarding a Nochri smith, but how can we understand this according to the opinion that this is only regarding a Jewish smith?

Text #1 (cont.): One cannot say that we should answer that he means that his words are more reasonable regarding selling it to be destroyed, and their words are more reasonable when he sells it in order that it should be worshipped. This is because the Gemara should have answered this in the first place if it held it was correct.

Text #1 (cont.): Additionally, this is not like other places throughout the Gemara (where Tanaim say "an opinion is more reasonable" as in these places they do not discount their own opinions), such in Bava Basra (79a) regarding Hekdesh and in Chulin (12a) regarding the garbage in the marketplace.

Text #2: However, it is possible to answer that the text is indeed like that found in the Sefarim and in the explanation of Rashi.

Text #2 (cont.): The Gemara is trying to answer the question (whether the second opinion understands the argument is by both a Jewish and non-Jewish smith, or it is only regarding a Jewish smith, but everyone agrees that it is not nullified if sold to a Nochri smith). The Gemara quotes Rebbi's statement implying that the argument is regarding a Jewish smith as well as a Nochri smith. This teaches us that they argue regarding both smiths.

Text #2 (cont.): This is a question according to the opinion that the argument is specifically regarding a Nochri smith, as the Beraisa does not work out well in its simple explanation. The Gemara pushes this aside by saying that even according to the opinion that they only argue regarding a Nochri smith, one can explain the Beraisa in this fashion.

Text #2 (cont.): However, the simple explanation is not pushed aside. According to the opinion that they argue regarding a Jewish smith, it seems that he means that they even argue regarding a Jewish smith (based on the text of the Rashash in Tosfos that takes out the word "v'Ha").

Opinion: It seems to me that this is the main opinion. Certainly, the simple explanation is not pushed aside. According to the Rivan's text, one can also ask why it says Teiku, as it is impossible to explain the Beraisa according to the opinion that they only argue regarding a Jewish smith.

Implied Question: It is not difficult that the Gemara says Teiku and then answers the question. (It seems strange that the Gemara would say Teiku and then proceed to give an answer.)

Answer: We indeed find this in the Gemara in Bava Basra (68a) regarding the question about something that originally caused something else not to taste good, and later it changes to a good taste (and something that originally tasted good when added and then causes it to taste bad). The Gemara first says Teiku, and then answers the question.

Implied Question: The Beraisa says that the idol is never nullified. (How can this be if it is the idol of a Nochri, which can be nullified by another Nochri?)

Answer: The Beraisa uses this term to teach a sidepoint, that we hold like Rav Yehudah's statement that being that the Nochri served it because of the Jew, it has the law of an idol of a Jew that is never nullified. If it would be the idol of a Nochri, it could be nullified. It is certainly true that if a Nochri left an idol somewhere, even if he had intent to return and did not nullify it, it could be nullified by another Nochri (which was the reasoning behind the question above).

Explanation: Rashi's explanation that this is like the battle of Yehoshua where the Nochrim wanted to come back was only said by Rashi in order to explain the terminology that "it is like the battle of Yehoshua."

Explanation (cont.): The important factor is not that they wanted to return and therefore it is not nullified, but rather that they served because Jews wanted them to, as is the conclusion of the Gemara. Rather, it is similar to the Nochrim in the time of Yehoshua in that these people were going to return to their idolatry just as the Emorites intended to return.

Explanation (cont.): This is indeed why the Gemara asks that there is no reason to state this is like the battle of Yehoshua, being that the reasoning regarding the battle of Yehoshua has nothing to do with them wanting to come back, but rather because they served based on the intent of Jews (who served the Golden Calf, as explained by the Gemara). The Gemara concludes like Rav Yehudah's statement, and when it says it is never nullified, it is certainly referring to his (Rav Yehudah's) case, as I have explained earlier.

Observation: This indicates that the Gemara holds like Rebbi.

Proof #1: According to the Rabbanan, even if he would have sold the idol it is not indicative of nullification.

Proof #2: Additionally, the fact that the Beraisa states that the reason is because they are going to come back indicates that it holds like Rebbi. According to the Rabbanan, even if they are not going to come back it not better than selling it (which is not considered nullification according to the Rabbanan).

Opinion: It is apparent from here that when Rebbi earlier stated that if he gave his idol as collateral it is nullified, this is only if it remained by the Jew for a long time. If it did not, Rebbi agrees that it is not nullified, being that it is his intention to get it back.

Explanation: This means that the Nochri bowed down to the very brick that the Jew had set up. However, if the Nochri came and set up a different brick (belonging to the Jew) and bowed down to it, the first brick is not forbidden, as perhaps the Jew did not want any other brick to be an idol aside from the one that he set up for this purpose. This is unlike the explanation of Rabeinu Shmuel (who holds that all of the Jew's designated bricks are now forbidden).

Explanation: The priests who made these into idols only did so for the purpose of the kings. When they see the kings did not care enough to worship them, they also nullify them.