Clarification: The Gemara initially thinks that the question is from where we know that it is necessary to designate a Korban to bring to Gavohah (Hash-m) before actually offering it ...

Clarification: But it concludes that what it means to ask is from where we know that it is forbidden to offer an animal that has been designated for Avodah Zarah.

Question: Since the Gemara has already learnt it from various other Pesukim, the Gemara ought to have stated that 'This Tana learns it from here'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'they must perform with it some act for the sake of idolatry - either to pull a wagon or some other forbidden act; otherwise it is not Asur.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is only Asur until they perform with it some act on behalf of the priests, but once it does, it is no longer forbidden ...

Reason: Because then, they no longer offer it. So I heard ...

Conclusion: And this explanation is the correct one ...

Proof: Since the Tana says 'Only until they work with it ... ', whereas according to the first explanation, he should rather have said 'Muktzah is not Asur until they work with it'.

Proof (cont.): I did not hear the first explanation (from my Rebbes) - the above is the wording of Rashi.

Clarification: Basah became a Talmid-Chacham from Eretz Yisrael and from Bavel, and the merit of Eretz Yisrael did not help him.

Question: Why would we have thought that it is forbidden to a Hedyot, seeing as, were it not for the above-mentioned Pesukim, it would not even be forbidden to Gavohah - so why should it be forbidden to a Hedyot?

Answer: The Ri says that once we learn from a Pasuk that it is Asur to Gavohah, we will also learn from it that it is forbidden to a Hedyot.

Question: In that case, how can the Gemara answer 'If you would have thought that they are Asur to a Hedyot, why do we need a Pasuk to preclude them from Gavohah?' - since they are only Asur to a Hedyot due the Pesukim by Gavohah?

Answer: What the Gemara means is - If you would have thought that we learn the Isur by Hedyot from the Pasuk from which we learn the Isur of Gavohah, then why write the Isur by Korbanos? ...

Answer (cont.): Why not rather write it by Hedyot, and we will automatically know that it is Asur for Gavohah ...

Source: From "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" - 'min ha'Mutar le'Yisrael'.

Clarification: This means that, really we learn from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" that it is forbidden to Gavoha; nevertheless, we need a Pasuk to preclude a T'reifah - where one was Makdish it and then it became a T'reifah.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains 'Why do we need two Pesukim for 'Muktzah and Ne'evad? - seeing as if one was Makdish the animal and was then Makdish it or worshipped it, it does not become Asur, since it does not belong to him, and "One cannot render Asur something that is not his" (Until here are the words of Rashi).

Refutation: This is not correct however, because in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah 41a), with regard to (prohibiting) a Rove'a and Nirva', the Gemara requires two Pesukim, one for an animal that is Kodshim, the other, for one that is Chulin ...

The case: And we find this by Kodshim Kalim, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

Authentic Explanation: Even if it would be possible to apply the same thing to Muktzah and Ne'evad, there would e no problem - since when all's said and done, from the Pasuk "min ha'Bakar" 'to preclude 'Ne'evad' we would only preclude the one case where it was worshipped and he was then Makdish it ...

Authentic Explanation (cont.): And if one would think that it is also Asur to a Hedyot, it ought to write it by Hedyot, and it would automatically be forbidden by Gavohah from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" under the same circumstances ...

Precedent: In the same way as we find regarding T'reifah - that from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" we learn the Isur by Gavohah where it became T'reifah and one was then Makdish it to Gavohah.

Authentic Explanation (concl.): We therefore conclude that, since it writes it in the Parshah of Korbanos, it must be permitted to a Hedyot.

Conclusion: In Perek Yotzei Dofen (Ibid, 41a) the Gemara requires another Pasuk for Ne'evad la'Gavohah itself, to where one was Makdish it and then worshipped it - that if one brought it on the Mizbe'ach, one myust take it down again.

Implication: Here it implies that there we cannot find a case of Esnan where he has relations with her and then gives it to her, unless it is already standing in her Chatzer, in which case the Chatzer will acquire it on her behalf during the Bi'ah ...

Introduction to Question: In that case, there is a Kashya on the Sugya in 'Merubeh' (Bava Kama, Daf 70b), concerning 'the Torah forbade Esnan, even if one has relations with one's mother' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): On which the Gemara states that, even though if he were to claim it in Beis-Din, they would state 'Go and give it to her' - seeing as he is Chayav Misah, nevertheless in the event that he gives it to her, it is an Esnan ...

Question: But since there is no case of Esnan unless it is standing in her Chatzer, how is it possible to say 'Go and give it to her', seeing as she already has it?

Answer #1 The Ri therefore explains that since, if he would be Muchzak in the Esnan, we would not tell him to go and give it to her, even though she now acquires it via her Chatzer, we would not call it an Esnan, were it not on account of the reason the Gemara gives there - namely, 'Since he gives it to her in order to fulfill his moral obligation, it is an Esnan'.

Refutation: Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai however, considers that answer superfluous - since the reason the Gemara here establishes it where it is standing in her Chatzer, is because it is seeking to find a case where he has relations with her before giving it to her ...

Answer #2: But where he is Makneh to her with a Kinyan Sudar and states 'When you will have relations with me, you will acquire this lamb', wherever it is, she acquires it.

Conclusion: And with this explanation, the Gemara in Merubeh (Ibid.) fits nicely, when it says that 'If she calls him to Beis-Din, we do not order him to go and give it to her'.

Question: If so, how will we explain the decree of the Beis-Din of the Chashmona'im, that 'Whoever has relations with a Nochris is guilty of 'Nashgaz' (Nidah, Shifchah, Goyah, Zonah), when it says here that a Nochris is a Zonah d'Oraysa?

Answer: Rava concurs with the opinion that holds 'Nashga' (Nidah, Shifchah, Goyah, Ishus), but that he receives Malkos d'Oraysa because of Zonah.

Question: How will Abaye, who says that a Kohen who has relations with a Nochris does not receive Maloks because of Zonah, explain the Mishnah in Perek ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos, Daf 59b & 61b) - 'Ein Zonah Ela Giyores ve'she'Niv'alah Be'ilas Z'nus', from which we see that a Nochris is a Zonah?

Answer: When she has converted, she is definitely a Zonah, but not as long as she is a Nochris.

Explanation #1: The Gemara thinks that 'Achas Zonah Yisre'elis' means that a woman who had relations with one of the Chayvei K'risos, and was therefore already a Zonah, is now subject to Esnan even she is subsequently hire out to a man who is permitted to her ...

Explanation #2: Alternatively a Zonah who was Hefker is subject ah"to Esnan - which is like Rava, and a Kashya on Abaye, who learns from "To'evah" "To'evah" that Esnan only applies to Arayos on whom Kidushin does not take effect?

Text of Sugya: And the Gemara answers that the Tana is indeed speaking about Arayos on whom Kidushin does not take effect; which it queries from the Seifa - 'Such as an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol ... ', on which Kidushin is effective', and it answers by establishing the Seifa like Rebbi Elazar, who says that 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah As'ah Zonah' ...

Clarification: And according to him, Esnan is applicable to all Be'ilos that are performed not on one's wife - whereas the Rabbanan will hold that it is confined to a Bi'ah on which Kidushin does not take effect.

Question: One needs to examine however, from where Abaye takes it that Rebbi Elazar does not learn "To'evah" "To'evah" - which teaches us that Esnan only applies to a Bi'ah on which Kidushin does not take effect - like the Rabbanan?

Answer: Since Rebbi Elazar maintains that every Bi'ah makes her a Zonah,from which we see that he is more Machmir on a Zonah than all the other Tana'im, so too, is he more Machmir than them regarding Esnan - and Esnan applies to any Bi'ah, even to a Panuy with a Penuyah.

Text of Sugya: The Gemara then asks 'If it goes like Rebbi Elazar, then why mention an Almanah, why not a Penuyah?' And it answers 'We would otherwise have thought since it is a Binyan Av, it ought not to be Asur' ...

Refuted Explanation: Which Rashi explains to mean - that since we learn from a Binyan Av that the Isuris confined to a Panuy and a Penuyah, but to an Almanah, who is already forbidden to a Kohen Gadol beforehand, it will not be an Esnan (Until here are the words of Rashi).

Refutation: But this is difficult to understand. (continued on Daf 30a).