Thank you so much for all of you help. I am a bit lost in the shakla v'tarya, but hope at least the questions make sense.
Thank you!
The gemara asks about the status of keilim used in the service of Beis Chonyo, limiting the question to whether a 'knas' is applied to keilim (in addition to the knas imposed on Chonyo's kohanim) according to the opinion that Beis Chonyo is not avodah zara, and perhaps was lmited issur Bamah.
Proposed Proof #1: From pesukim by Achaz, which DID involve avodah zarah (which may have other stringencies associated, even by a d'rabonon?), i.e. how Chizkiya haMelech addressed keilim that Achaz had used for avoda zara. (Note, however, that even in that case, the keilim themselves were not actual tashmishei a"z because ein odom oser davar she'eino she'lo). - The pesukim are not muchrach because they can be read one of 2 ways.
Proposed proof #2: We see that the Chashmonaim hid the stones of the mizbeach that were used in avodah zarah by the greeks, so the keilim could not be used - . This proof is rejected as well because the gemara establishes that the scenario was one of issur d'oraissa (mizbeach became chulin and actual greek property once they invaded, based on a pasuk) rather than a knas d'rabonon as we are trying to prove.
The gemara continues to discuss why the Chashmonaim had to hid the stones and could not figure out a way to use the stones anyway ultimately distinguishing between coins of hekdesh that became permitted when the Greeks invaded and the mizbeach that was actually used in service.
Some other Questions:
1) Beis Chonyo concerned a knas applicable to kohanim and the question is whether there is also a knas for the keilim which did not have autonomy to participate. This particular does not translate cleanly to either achaz who purposefully engaged in avodah zara and certainly not to the Greeks.
2) Proof 1: the keilim themselves were never used in service because ein odom oser davar she'eino shelo. Contrast, the keilim used in Beis Chonyo which were not hekdesh.
3) In proof 2: While mizbeach does not have a din of mechubar l'karka because it was built from stones handled by people, would this make it the same as keilim used in service on a bama outside the beis hamikdash?
Thank you!
Michael Jacob Rubin
Brooklyn, New York
It would appear from the Gemara that the analogy between Kelim used in Chonyo's service and those used by Achaz is only with regard to the fact that a person cannot prohibit what does not belong to him, and, despite this, Achaz's Kelim were prohibited. The Gemara does not refer to the difference in the use of the Kelim by Achaz and the Greeks as that does not impact the issue of prohibiting other people's property, and therefore the proofs (that the Rabanan can make a Kenas despite the Torah's permission) are valid.
The Kelim in Achaz's case were resanctified and immersed despite their previous status. Beis Chonyo is deemed a Bamah (even though it is not idolatry) and, therefore, the Kelim should also have a similar status -- i.e., permitted by the Torah but possibly subject to a Kenas d'Rabanan.
All of the Mefarshim in Divrei ha'Yamim say that the Kelim were in fact used for idolatry. (See Radak and Metzudos to Divrei ha'Yamim II 29.)
Yoel Domb