There is a Beraisa that teaches that according to R. Akiva, both an idol itself and its service items cause impurity like a Nidah (even just by carrying them). Another Beraisa teaches that according to R. Akiva, only an idol itself causes impurity like a Nidah, but its service items cause impurity only like a Sheretz (only by actually touching them).

Question: The first opinion is fine (as the pasuk can teach about both the idol and its service items), but according to the second opinion, surely the pasuk that was used to compare idolatry to the tumah of a nidah (above, see daf 46-2, Yishayah 30:22, "Go out, say to it") was actually referring to the service items rather than the idol itself?

Answer: The service items here are actually referring to things attached to the idol, such as a vest or a coating.

Answer #2 (R. Yaakov of Kfar Chanan): When he bowed down to the vest itself, as it states (Shoftim 8:27), "And Gidon made a vest (and all of Yisrael strayed after it)".

Question: The Mishnah follows the view that an idol and it service items are like a Nidah, as the Mishnah teaches - its stones, its wood and its earth cause impurity like a Nidah? (This is a question against the opinion that said that R. Akiva reasons that service items of idols are only Tamei like a Sheretz.)

Answer: That Mishnah is referring to when he actually bowed down to the house itself (so the materials are part of the idol itself and are Tamei like a Nidah), as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that if one bowed down to a house, it is prohibited.

(R. Zeira/ R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): If one consecrated a house (to the Temple), if he transgressed and benefitted from it, there is no requirement for a Meilah offering (because it is attached to the ground).

The Rabbis explained that Rav and R. Yochanan disagreed - according to Rav who said that if one bowed down to a house, it becomes prohibited (because a detached item that was attached to the ground is still considered detached and can become prohibited); this will also apply to one who consecrated a house, that it is considered to be detached and one who benefitted would be liable to bring a Meilah offering. But according to R. Yochanan who said that there is no Meilah offering required (because it is attached to the ground), this will also apply to one who bowed down to a house, and the house does not become prohibited.

Question against R. Yochanan: But the Mishnah teaches that there are three cases of houses and a house that was originally built for idolatry is prohibited? (This shows that if it was detached and then it was attached, it is considered to be detached!)

Answer: There, he bowed down to stones that were later built into a house.

Question (R. Chagai to R. Yosi against Rav): From a Mishnah (in Maseches Parah) - If there is a receptacle cut out of a stone, if water flowed from the spring into that receptacle, one may not use it to collect the Red Heifer waters, (as they must be put into a vessel, not into one made in the ground); nor mix the ashes in it, nor sprinkle from it, nor would it need a tight fitting lid to protect it from the tumah of a corpse in a room, nor would water from it that flowed into a Mikveh invalidate the Mikveh. However, if it the stone was first made into a vessel and then later he attached it to the ground...(then all of these laws are reversed). We can deduce therefore, that if he attached the stone to the ground and then cut out from it a receptacle, since it was not a vessel before it was attached, it should be considered attached and not treated like a vessel.

Conclusion of question: Here also, even though the stones of the house had been detached, since he intends to worship only the whole house, which it is only titled when it is attached to the ground, why isn't it called worshipping that which is attached, which cannot become prohibited? How can Rav answer this? (Note: In the coming entries there are many changes in the text, based on the parallel sugya in Yerushalmi Shabbos Chapter 9.)

Answer: In that case of the stone, since its cutting took place when it was attached and it was completed there (it is considered as something attached to the ground; here, the shaping of the stones for constructing the house is considered their completion, which was done before they were attached).

Question: The Mishnah said that its wood, stones and dirt are Tamei. R. Yochanan said earlier that a broken idol is still prohibited and Reish Lakish said that a broken idol is permitted, but both agreed that if the idol will not be rebuilt, it is permitted. Here, it certainly will not be rebuilt, but it is still prohibited! This is question against both of them...?

Question #2: The Mishnah below (Halachah 7) teaches that if he stood an idol on a platform and then removed it, the platform is permitted, since he will not be returning the idol to it. This is another question against R. Yochanan who said that a broken idol is still prohibited...?

Answer: The case is when he first bowed down to each stone and later built it (so each stone is viewed like a separate idol).

Answer #2 (for question against Reish Lakish): R. Yudan, the father of R. Matanyah, said that if the stones remained in their place, it is as if he is planning on rebuilding them, so they remain prohibited.

R. Ba said in the name of Rav (above 1(f)) that if one bowed down to a house it is prohibited; if one bowed to a tree it is not prohibited.

Question: The Mishnah about the three Asheiras (below 48-1 Halacha 9, taught that if a tree was originally planted for idolatry, it is prohibited. It is assumed there that it is prohibited even if he did not actually bow down to it. If so, this shows that even for a tree, if it was detached and later attached, it is still considered detached...?

Answer: There, he bowed down to a branch and later planted it.

(Levi): If one bowed down to a house it is prohibited; but to a cave, it is permitted.

Question: What is the difference?

Answer (R. Chaninah bei R. Hillel): The house used to be detached; the cave did not.

(The Mishnah (daf 46-2(b)) taught that if a person shared a wall with an idolatrous temple, if it fell, it is judged as half and half.) R. Yochanan explained that a convert and an idolater inherited the estate of their father, and the convert took the house without idols and the idolater took the house with idols.

Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan explain simply that the Jew had a house that he built next to a temple, thereby sharing its wall...?

Answer: A Baraisa teaches that if a person built a house and a temple was then built, sharing one of its walls with the house, and the wall fell down, the wall is permitted. Therefore, R. Yochanan had to explain that a convert and an idolater inherited their father; therefore, when the wall falls down, it is prohibited, because the idolatrous temple came first.

Baraisa: If a Jew owned a house and idolaters built a temple next to it and then later removed the idol, if the wall then falls down, it is permitted. But if a Jew built his house next to a temple, if the wall falls down, it is prohibited (and is tamei).

(R. Yosi): This is supported by our Mishnah (daf 46-2(b)), when it said that if the wall belonged to him and to the idolatrous temple, it is judged as half and half. (But if the Jew built his house next to the temple, since the temple came first, the wall is prohibited.)

(Mishnah): There are three cases of houses - a house originally built for idolatry is prohibited.

If he plastered and decorated it for idolatry and renovated it, he can remove it all (and it is permitted). If he put an idol inside it and then removed it, it is permitted.

(Gemara): Both Rav and R. Yochanan said that when the Mishnah taught (that a house originally built for idolatry is prohibited, even if had not yet been used), it is referring to when Bnei Yisrael entered the Land (and they were commanded to destroy all idolatry there).

According to Rav who said that one who bows down to a house prohibits it (as a detached item that was attached is still considered detached), that is why he said that it refers to entering the Land. According to R. Yochanan who said that if one consecrated a house, if he transgressed and benefitted from it, there is no requirement for a Meilah offering (because a detached item that was attached is considered attached), why must the Mishnah be referring to entering the Land?

Suggestion: It was when he bowed down (to stones and they were then built into) a house (where even if he did not build the house for idolatry it is prohibited).

Rebuttal: Since the Mishnah did not mention annulling, it was understood to be referring to entering the Land, when annulling did not work. (But if an idolater bowed down to a house and then built it for idolatry, annulling does work.)

What can he now do to permit it? Disassemble the door frame.

(R. Ila citing R. Elazar): He did not build the house as an idol; rather, he built it as a shrine to house an idol and he actually brought it in.

Question: According to R. Elazar, there are only two different cases of houses, but according to the Mishnah, there is a third case?

Answer: There are, in fact, three different cases - 1) If he just happened to bring an idol into a house, once the idol is removed, the house is permitted. 2) If he plastered the house for the service of the idol, he must remove the plaster and the house is permitted. 3) But if he built the house to service an idol, it will only become permitted when he disassembles the door frame.

(Mishnah): There are three cases of stones - if a stone was cut originally (to be used) as a platform (for an idol), it is prohibited.

If he painted it and decorated it for idolatry, he may remove that which he added and it is permitted.

If he set up an idol on it and then later removed it, it is permitted.

(Gemara) (R. Ba citing Rav): From this (that if a stone was cut originally as a platform, it is prohibited, even before an idol was set up there), (we learn that) if one made a cup for the use of an idol, it is immediately prohibited.

(R. Yirmiyah citing R. Elazar): From this we learn that one who made a cup for idolatry, it is prohibited immediately.

(R. Hila citing R. Elazar): The stone is only prohibited when an idol was actually set up there.

Question: Those two statements in the name of R. Elazar seem to be contradictory - R. Yirmiyah quoted him as saying that items that serve idols are prohibited immediately; but R. Hila quoted him as saying that they are only prohibited when they are actually used...? (Note: The text here is changed according to the Meshech Chochmah in Chidushei Rabbeinu Meir Simcha page 165)

Answer: It depends on the following disagreement in a Baraisa - (R. Akiva says -) Idols of an idolater are prohibited (as soon as they are built). Idols of a Jew are only prohibited after they are actually worshipped. (R. Yishmael says the exact opposite. With this we can explain that R. Yirmiyah follows R. Yishmael and R. Hila follows R. Akiva.)

Rebuttal: Just because they disagree about idols, it does not mean that they also disagree about service items!

Reinstatement (R. Shimon citing R. Elazar): They also disagree about service items.

It was taught above that R. Hila cited R. Elazar, saying that the stone is only prohibited when an idol was actually set up there...

Question: According to R. Elazar, why does the Mishnah teach that there are three cases of stones when there are really only two (as case two and three are the same according to R. Hila)?

Answer: In the third case, he puts the idol on the platform temporarily, so after it is removed, the platform becomes permitted; the first case is discussing when he put it there for an extended period of time.