Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת עבודה זרה, דף נ׳, עמוד א׳, but we will start eight lines from the bottom of דף נ׳, עמוד ב׳. The גמרא says, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, רב יהודה said in the name of רב, עבודת כוכבים שעובדים אותה במקל, an עבודה זרה which is worshipped by tapping before it with a stick, שבר מקל בפניה חייב. If the person broke a stick in front of it as a form of worship, he is חייב. This is considered that he worshipped the עבודה זרה. זרק מקל בפניה פטור. If he just threw a stick in front of it, he is פטור. And רש״י explains that the גמרא says in פרק ד׳ מיתות in סנהדרין דף ס׳, עמוד ב׳, that any עבודה that is done in the בית המקדש, if you do it to an עבודה זרה, whether this is the normal form of the worship of that עבודה זרה, or it is not, you are חייב. Because the פסוק says, זובח לאלהים יחרם, that if you שחט a קרבן, you bring an offering to an עבודה זרה, you get killed. That means that if you do the same that you would have you were supposed to be doing in the בית המקדש, if you do that to the עבודה זרה, you are חייב. That makes no difference whether this is the form of worship or not. But if you worship it in any other way, not one of the ways that they used to do the עבודה in the בית המקדש, it wasn't כעין פנים, then it depends. If it's דרכה בכך, חייב. If this is the normal way this עבודה זרה is worshipped, then you are חייב, even if it's not one of the עבודות of the בית המקדש. Because we learn out from the פסוק, איכה יעבדו הגוים האלה וגו׳, that if it is the דרך of worship to that עבודה זרה, you are חייב. If it is not the normal דרך of worship for that עבודה זרה, then you are פטור. Now with this introduction, we can understand the פשט in this גמרא. If this עבודה זרה that we are talking about here, there would be no form of worship with a stick, then you would be פטור under all circumstances, even if you broke the stick the stick in front of it. Because since a stick is not a form of עבודת פנים, this is not one of the עבודות that they used to do in the בית המקדש, and if it wasn't a דרך of worship to this עבודה זרה, then you would be פטור. On the other hand, if the דרך to worship this עבודה זרה would be with throwing a stick to it, then the דין could not be that if you throw the stick to it, you are פטור. Because as we said before, if this is the דרך of worship, you are חייב no matter what it is. So if the דרך would be to worship it with throwing a stick, then you would be חייב by throwing a stick too. And since the דין here is that if you throw the stick, you are פטור, obviously, we're talking here that the דרך was not throwing a stick. So

one thing we know for sure, the דרך of worship for this עבודה זרה must have been with a stick, because if it wouldn't be with a stick, then even if you break the stick, you would be פטור, and since he says that if you break the stick in front of it, you are חייב, obviously, this is the דרך. On the other hand, to say that the דרך was by throwing a stick, couldn't be either, because then you would be חייב for throwing also. To say that the דרך was by breaking a stick, then it couldn't be either, because then the גמרא wouldn't have to tell us that you are חייב if you break the stick, it's obvious. If the דרך is that you break a stick in front of it, then certainly if you broke the stick, you worshipped it in the normal way of worship. So obviously, this is a case where the דרך was not by breaking a stick. So what is the case here? The case here is that the דרך was through tapping a stick. So the עבודה זרה was worshipped through a stick. And that's why he says, if you broke the stick in front of it, you are חייב. If you just threw this stick in front of it, you are פטור. And the reason for that is because since the עבודה, the דרך of worship was through a stick, so if you broke a stick in front of it, it is similar to שחיטה, just like when you שחט a בהמה, so you break its neck, so here too, you broke the stick, you did an עבודה which is similar to the עבודה of שחיטה a בהמה in the בית המקדש. So you have a combination of both. First of all, the a דרך was through a stick, and what you did was, you broke the stick, so it's similar to שחיטה of a בהמה, and therefore you are חייב. But if you just threw the stick, you are פטור, since the דרך of worshipping it was through tapping a stick, what you did was, you threw the stick. So you didn't do it in the normal דרך. So by the breaking, even though it's not the normal דרך, but since you, after all, did it like שחיטה, so you are חייב. But when you threw the stick, since this is not the normal דרך, and what you did to the stick was not not like you used to do in the בית המקדש, so therefore you are פטור. But the גמרא says אמר ליה אביי לרבא, אביי said to רבא, מאי שנא שובר? What is the difference by breaking that you say you are חייב? Because דהוה ליה כעין זביחה, because it's similar to the שחיטה of a בהמה in the בית המקדש, זרק נמי הוה ליה כעין זריקה. If he threw the stick, he should also be חייב, because this is similar to the sprinkling of the blood in the בית המקדש. When they used to שחט the בהמה, the next step was that they had to sprinkle the blood on the מזבח. And that is also called זריקת הדם, the throwing of the blood. So when he threw the stick to the עבודה זרה, he should also be חייב, because after all, the דרך of worship to that עבודה זרה was through a stick, and what he did with the stick was he threw it similar to the עבודה in the בית המקדש of throwing of the blood, so he should be חייב for throwing a stick also. אמר ליה, so he said to him, בעינן זריקה משתברת וליכא.

We need a זריקה, a throwing that breaks, and that we don't have. When you sprinkle the blood, which means when you throw liquids, then it breaks up into little drops, while if you throw a solid object, it doesn't break up. And therefore, the throwing of the stick to the עבודה זרה is not similar to the throwing of the blood to the מזבח, because there it breaks up into little drops, and throwing of the stick does not break up. And therefore, you are פטור, because it is not similar to the עבודה that was done in the בית המקדש. Then the גמרא says, איתיביה, I will ask you a question. We learned in a ברייתא, צפף לו צואה, if he offered to the idol the waste that's discharged from the body, או שנסך לפניה עביט של מי רגלים, or if he poured out before it a vessel of urine, חייב, he is חייב. If he did this as a form of worship, he is חייב for worshiping עבודה זרה. And as רש״י explains, this is even if this was not the normal דרך of worshiping this עבודה זרה. And the גמרא explains, בשלמא עביט של מי רגלים, מילא, the case where he poured out a vessel of urine in front of the עבודה זרה, we understand why he is חייב, איכא זריקה משתברת, because this is similar to the זריקה, the pouring of the blood in the בית המקדש, because this is liquid, and the blood was liquid. So just like the pouring of the blood was a זריקה המשתברת, a pouring that breaks up, it breaks up into little drops, so when he poured in front of the עבודה זרה the עביט של מי רגלים, the same thing happened. So therefore, he is חייב, because this is similar to the way it was done in the בית המקדש. אלא צואה, מאי זריקה משתברת איכא? But if he poured in front of it a vessel of צואה, of the waste, which is a solid object, so this is not similar to זריקה המשתברת, this is not similar to the זריקה of the blood, which breaks up, the זריקה of liquid. So how come he is חייב? So this is a קשיא on רבא, because רבא said before that if you throw a stick in front of an עבודה זרה, you are פטור, and the reason is because this is not similar to the זריקה of the blood, because it is a solid object. So here too by the צואה, it's a solid object, and nevertheless, we said it's חייב. And the גמרא answers, בצואה לחה, we're talking about moist צואה. So this does break up, so this is similar to the זריקה of the דם in the בית המקדש, and therefore, you are חייב for it. But there's a point we must mention here, that when we said that if you poured the vessel of מי רגלים in front of it or if you offered to it the כלי with the צואה, you are חייב, and we said before that רש״י says that this is even if this was not the custom of service, we must add, as תוספות says, that we must say that the custom was something like it. Because if there was no custom at all concerning צואה or מי רגלים, then you would be פטור. Because as we said before, when you throw the stick, you are פטור, but if you break the stick, you are חייב. The reason you are חייב for breaking the stick is because it's similar to שחיטה of a קרבן, but nevertheless, this is only if the custom of worship to that עבודה זרה was concerning a stick. If there would be no custom concerning a stick, so then even breaking the stick would be פטור, because after all, there was no עבודה in the בית המקדש of breaking the stick, and you are only חייב if you do one of the עבודות of the בית המקדש, or if you do what was the custom of this עבודה זרה. And since there was no custom concerning breaking a stick, and this is also not one of the עבודות in the בית המקדש, you would be פטור. The only reason you're חייב is because since the custom was concerning tapping with a stick, so therefore, even though you didn't tap the stick, but you did something with the stick, and that something was similar to שחיטה, that's why you are חייב. So here too, if there would be nothing, no דרך of צואה or מי רגלים to this עבודה זרה at all, so even if we would say it's similar to זריקה, you'd still be פטור. So therefore, we must say that the דרך was with צואה and מי רגלים. So when רש״י says that you are חייב even though this was not the דרך, it means the דרך wasn't actually to pour the מי רגלים in front of it or offer the צואה to it, there was something similar to it. And therefore, since it is similar to the זריקה of the בית המקדש and the דרך was to do some kind of עבודה with צואה and מי רגלים, that's why you are חייב. Then the גמרא continues, לימא כתנאי. Can we say that this דין of רב is really depended in a מחלוקת of תנאים? Because we

learned in a ברייתא: שחט לה חגב, if he slaughtered a locust to the עבודה זרה, רבי יהודה מחייב. רבי יהודה says that you're חייב וחכמים פוטרין. חכמים say he is פטור. And as רש''י explains, this ברייתא is talking about a case where this was not the דרך. Not only if it was the דרך to שחט to it a חגב, because if the דרך was that this was the way you worship it, everyone would agree that you are חייב. The case was that even if this is not the דרך, still רבי יהודה says you are חייב and the חכמים say you are פטור. And here, too, we must say that when we say it's not the דרך, it doesn't mean it's not the דרך at all. Because if it's not the דרך, even if we're going to say it's similar to שחיטה of the בית המקדש, but nevertheless, in the בית המקדש, they wouldn't שחט a חגב. They only שחט animals. So, when we say here that this was not the דרך, it means that this was not actually the דרך. But the way of worship to this עבודה זרה was something concerning, similar to this. And therefore, if he שחט a חגב, רבי יהודה says you're חייב and the חכמים say you're פטור. מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי. Don't you think that this is the מחלוקת? דמר סבר, that one holds, which means רבי יהודה holds, אמרינן כעין זביחה, that we say that as long as it was similar to the שחיטה of the בית המקדש, you are חייב. Now, the truth is, in the בית המקדש, they didn't שחט חגבים. They didn't שחט locusts. But since it's similar to שחיטה of a חגב, and as we said before, the דרך was to do something with a חגב, that's why you are חייב. Just like רב says that when you break the stick in front of the עבודה זרה, since this is similar to the שחיטה, you are חייב. Since the דרך was something concerning a stick, and he did with the stick similar to the שחיטה that they used to do in the בית המקדש, you are חייב. The same thing here, also, that if you take the חגב and you שחט it, it is similar to the שחיטה of a בהמה in the בית המקדש, and therefore you are חייב. ומר סבר, but the other one holds, which means the רבנן, they would hold that לא אמרינן כעין זביחה. They say this is not enough. It's not enough if you do it just similar to the שחיטה of the בית המקדש. אלא כעין פנים. They

say it has to be ממש כעין פנים, as it was in the בית המקדש, which means if he would שחט a בהמה to the עבודה זרה, he would be חייב. But if he שחט a חגב, even though it's כעין the שחיטה, but since it is done with a חגב, not with a בהמה, so you are פטור. So, it comes out that this דין of רב is really depended on this מחלוקת. That רבי יהודה holds like רב, that's why רבי יהודה says that if you שחט the חגב, you are חייב. But the חכמים don't hold like רב, and they say that שחיטה of the חגב is not enough to make him חייב. It has to be ממש כעין פנים. The גמרא says, לא, no, דכולי עלמא לא אמרינן כעין זביחה אלא כעין פנים. באמת, we could say that both of them don't hold like רב. רבי יהודה doesn't hold like רב either. They both hold that כעין זביחה, if it's just similar to the שחיטה of the בית המקדש, it's not enough. You must have כעין פנים, that you have to do it as it was done in the בית המקדש. That's the only way you're חייב, כעין פנים בעינן. אי, the question is: How could רבי יהודה say that you are חייב for שחיטה of a חגב? שאני חגב. A חגב, a locust, is different, הואיל וצוארו דומה לצוואר בהמה. The neck of a חגב is similar to the neck of a בהמה. So ממילא, this is considered כעין פנים. It's not only כעין זביחה, similar to the שחיטה, which means it's like breaking a stick, which is similar to the שחיטה. This is much closer to it because the way you שחט a חגב is actually the same way you שחט a בהמה. And therefore, רבי יהודה says you are חייב. But if it wouldn't be a חגב, if it would be, let's say, concerning a stick, maybe everyone holds that you are פטור. In other words, רב doesn't have any support in this ברייתא to his דין. And from this answer in the גמרא, we also see, as תוספות says, that we must say that this ברייתא is talking about a kind of עבודה זרה that they used to worship it through a חגב, some other way, but through a חגב. Because if we were talking in a case where you don't worship it with a חגב at all, so then it's not understood what the גמרא means that the reason you are חייב for שחיטה of a חגב, according to רבי יהודה, is because its neck is similar to the neck of a בהמה. But is that a good enough reason to say you're חייב? If we hold that you must have כעין פנים, כעין זביחה is not enough, it must be ממש like the פנים, so because its neck is like the neck of a בהמה, it's enough to consider it כעין פנים and you should be חייב? Later on in the גמרא, we see even more. The גמרא says if you שחט a בהמה to עבודה זרה, but if it's a בעל מום, it's with a blemish, you are not חייב because it's not similar to the way they used to do it in the בית המקדש. Because in the בית המקדש, you had to שחט only if it was a תמימה or תמים, if it was complete, but not with a blemish. So therefore, if you שחט to the עבודה זרה, you are also פטור. Now, if you are פטור when you שחט a בהמה, but because it's not a 100% like it was in the בית המקדש because it's a בעל מום, you are פטור, so certainly if you שחט a חגב, even though the neck is like a בהמה, you certainly should be פטור. So how could the גמרא say here that because of that, you are חייב according to רבי יהודה? So therefore we must say that here we're talking in a case where the דרך of worship to this עבודה זרה was through a חגב. The only problem is because it wasn't ממש done through שחיטה. So here we say, since its neck is similar to the neck of a בהמה, so this is very close, and the דרך of a חגב was there, so therefore we say you are חייב, חייב. Even though you need כעין פנים not כעין זביחה, which means just the fact that you שחט in the same way is not enough, you must have ממש like פנים, but since the neck is like the neck of a בהמה, it's considered כעין פנים, and after all, the דרך was to worship it through a חגב, that's why you are חייב. And תוספות says this answers another קשיא also. Because לכאורה one can ask a question, why did the גמרא say that both of them, רבי יהודה and the חכמים hold not like רב? Why couldn't the גמרא answer differently? That באמת, both of them hold like רב. That's what, if it's כעין זביחה, it's enough. And both of them would agree that in the case where the דרך to worship the עבודה זרה was with a stick, if you break a stick, you are חייב like רב said. And the reason there's a מחלוקת concerning if you שחט a חגב, that is talking in a case where there was no דרך to worship it with a חגב. And that's where we have the מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the חכמים, that רבי יהודה holds that nevertheless, you are חייב, and the חכמים hold, since there is no דרך to worship it with a חגב, that's why you are פטור. So לכאורה if the גמרא would have answered it this way, then they both would hold like רב. And that's what we usually try to do. When we try to answer, we don't try to show how רב or any other אמורא does not fit to the משנה, we try to show how it does fit to a משנה or to the ברייתא. But the reason the גמרא doesn't say this is very simple, because according to this, it would come out that רבי יהודה holds that you are חייב, even though there was no דרך to worship it with a חגב, and that can't be. Because even רב when he says that you are חייב by breaking the stick, it's only because the דרך was to worship it with the tapping of the stick, but if that wouldn't be the דרך, even רב would hold that you are פטור by, even by breaking the stick. So therefore רבי יהודה also couldn't say that you are חייב when you שחט the חגב, if there was no דרך of worshipping it with the חגב at all. So therefore the גמרא couldn't answer it that way, the only way the גמרא could answer, that they both don't hold like רב, but the חכמים hold you are פטור for this reason, because he doesn't hold, they don't hold like רב, the reason רבי יהודה holds you are חייב, is because after all the דרך was to worship it with the חגב, and the שחיטה of the חגב is similar to the שחיטה of the בהמה because the neck of the חגב is like the neck of the בהמה, therefore רבי יהודה holds that you are חייב. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב, רב נחמן said in the name of רבה בר אבוה in the name of רב, עבודת כוכבים שעובדים אותה במקל, on עבודה זרה that you worship it with a stick, שבר מקל בפניה חייב, if you broke a stick in front of it, you are חייב. And

not only that, ונעשית תקרובת, the stick becomes אסור. Why does it become אסור? Whether the דרך was to worship it with a stick, with breaking a stick or not, even if the דרך was not to worship it by breaking the stick, if you broke the stick in front of it, the stick becomes אסור. Why? As we said before, because this is כעין זביחה, since breaking the stick is similar to the שחיטה of a בהמה, so this is considered a קרבן to the עבודה זרה, and therefore this becomes, the stick becomes אסור בהנאה, like any קרבן to עבודה זרה. If זרק מקל בפניה, if you just threw a stick in front of it, חייב, you are חייב, ואינה נעשית תקרובת, the stick doesn't become אסור. And when we say you are חייב for throwing the stick, obviously this is only in the case where the דרך to worship it was through throwing a stick, because as we said before, if the דרך was not to throw the stick, so then throwing is not similar to any עבודה of the בית המקדש, you wouldn't be חייב. So when it says you are חייב for throwing the stick, it's the case where this was the דרך of worshipping it, by throwing the stick. And nevertheless the stick doesn't become אסור, because this cannot be considered תקרובת עבודה זרה, this cannot be considered a קרבן to עבודה זרה, because it has to be similar to an עבודה that was done in the בית המקדש in order to be considered a קרבן. So חייב, you are חייב because you worshipped עבודה זרה, but the stick does not become תקרובת עבודה זרה, unless it was done in the same way it was done in the בית המקדש. And since in the בית המקדש we had no זריקה of a solid object as we said before, so therefore the stick does not become אסור. אמר ליה רבא לרב

נחמן, רבא said to רב נחמן, מאי שנא שבר דהוה ליה כעין זביחה, why is it different, that if you broke the stick you said the stick becomes אסור because it's similar to the שחיטה of a בהמה, זרק נמי הוה ליה כעין זריקה, if you threw the stick it's also similar to an עבודה in the בית המקדש, similar to the throwing of the blood? the sprinkling of the blood. אמר ליה, so he said to him, בעינן זריקה משתברת, like we need in order to be similar to the זריקה of the blood, it has to be a throwing that breaks up, which means like the blood which is liquid, when you throw it, it breaks up into drops. So that you have to have in order to be considered תקרובת, a קרבן, an offering of עבודה זרה, and that we don't have here. Since it's a stick, it's a solid object, it's not similar to the זריקה of the blood, as we said before. But then he said to him, אלא מעתה, if so, אבני בית מרקוליס במאי מיתסרו, the stones that are thrown to the מרקוליס, how are they אסור? Since it is not similar to the זריקה of the בית המקדש, because it is a solid object, it's a stone, so it shouldn't be אסור at all. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אף לדידי קשיא לי, I also had this קושיא, ושאילתיה לרבה בר אבוה, and I asked it to רבה בר אבוה, ורבה בר אבוה לחייא בר רב, and רבה בר אבוה asked it to חייא, the son of רב, וחייא בר רב לרב, and חייא בר רב asked this question of רב, ואמר ליה, he said to him, נעשית becomes כמגדיל עבודת כוכבים, as if you grow, you make the עבודה זרה bigger, which means that when you throw the stones to the מרקוליס, so then the stones themselves become part of the מרקוליס. So the איסור of these stones is not because of a קרבן of עבודה זרה, their איסור is because of עבודה זרה itself. Because the custom used to be that when you throw a stone to the מרקוליס, that stone is added to the עבודה זרה. It's not like by other קרבנות to עבודה זרה, that עבודה זרה is whatever it is, and when you offer a קרבן to it, it is an offering to the עבודה זרה, but it doesn't become the עבודה זרה itself. But by the stones of the מרקוליס, every stone that is thrown became עבודה זרה itself. So as far as a קרבן to עבודה זרה, you cannot make it אסור, because it's solid, but as part of the עבודה זרה itself, it does become אסור. But then the גמרא says, הניחא, this is good למאן דאמר עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים אסורה מיד, according to the opinion, as the גמרא will say later on, that holds that an עבודה זרה of a גוי, as soon as you make it, it becomes אסור בהנאה, as עבודה זרה, it's understood. When you throw the rock to the מרקוליס, by throwing it, it becomes part of the עבודה זרה. So even though that additional stone that was just thrown that became עבודה זרה was not worshipped yet, because it just became עבודה זרה now, nevertheless it's אסור בהנאה right away, according to the opinion that a גוי who makes an עבודה זרה, as soon as he makes it, even before it's worshipped, it is אסור. אלא למאן דאמר עד שתיעבד, but according to the opinion that holds that an עבודה זרה of a גוי doesn't become אסור בהנאה until it is worshipped, תישתרי, let the stone of the מרקוליס be מותר, דהא לא פלחה, because he didn't worship it yet. You throw the stone, the גוי throws the stone, that stone becomes עבודה זרה, so at that point it's not אסור yet, according to the opinion that an עבודה זרה of a גוי doesn't become אסור even when it's made as an עבודה זרה, until it is worshipped. אמר ליה, so he said to him, כל אחת ואחת נעשית עבודת כוכבים ותקרובת לחברתה. Each stone that's thrown becomes an עבודה זרה, and it also becomes a קרבן to the other one, which means that the first stone that is thrown becomes an עבודה זרה. Now when you throw a second stone on top of the first stone, so now the first stone is not only an עבודה זרה, but the first stone is also worshipped because they threw another stone. So after they throw the second stone, that is like a קרבן to the first stone, so the first stone is already worshipped, and that's why the first stone is אסור. Now when you throw a third stone to the second, so now the second one becomes אסור, because when they threw the second stone, it became עבודה זרה, when they threw the third one, this was the form, the way they worshipped the second. They worshipped the whole thing, including the second, and that's how it goes on. Every stone that you throw makes the stone that was thrown before it אסור. אי הכי, the גמרא says, if so, בתרייתא תישתרי, so the last one should be מותר, because the last one when it's thrown becomes עבודה זרה, but since it's the last, there was nothing done to worship it, so it shouldn't be אסור. אמר ליה, so he said to him,

אי ידעת לה, if you know which one it is, זיל שקול, go take it. In other words, we don't know which stone is the last and which not, and therefore you can't use any of the stones. רב אשי אמר, and רב אשי says, כל אחת ואחת נעשית תקרובת לעצמה ותקרובת לחברתה, that each stone that is thrown becomes a קרבן to itself and a קרבן to the next one, which means that when you throw the stone, it becomes עבודה זרה, and at the same time it also is a form of a worshipping to the עבודה זרה, a form of a קרבן. So it's a קרבן to itself, and that's why even the last one is also אסור, because the last one that's thrown becomes עבודה זרה, and at the same time is its own קרבן, which means it is worshipped already, and that's why it's אסור. And also it becomes a קרבן to the one before it. And because of that, the stones of the מרקוליס are אסור, because they weren't only made into a מרקוליס, into עבודה זרה, but they were also worshipped each time that stone is thrown, and therefore it is what is the reason it is אסור? It is אסור as עבודה זרה itself, but it is not אסור as תקרובת עבודה זרה. As we said before, in order to be אסור as a קרבן to עבודה זרה, it has to be כעין פנים. And since throwing a rock which is a solid object is not similar to the זריקה of the דם, so therefore it is not אסור as far as a תקרובת עבודה זרה, only as עבודה זרה itself. And

there is a difference whether it is אסור because of עבודה זרה itself or because of a קרבן. Because עבודה זרה itself could become בטל. If a גוי is מבטל it, it's בטל. But a קרבן to עבודה זרה, as we learn out from the פסוק it's similar to זבחי מתים, it's similar to a dead body, and just like a dead body could never become טהור, so too a קרבן of עבודה זרה never has ביטול. So therefore, if you throw a stone to מרקוליס, it's אסור as עבודה זרה, because it is not אסור as a תקרובת עבודה זרה, and therefore it could become בטל. Then the גמרא says I will ask you a קשיא. תנן, we learned in the next משנה, which is right here on this דף on עמוד ב׳: מצא בראשו כסות ומעות, if you find on the head of this עבודה זרה מרקוליס, you find garments or money, או כלים or vessels, הרי אלו מותרין, it's מותר since they are not things to beautify the עבודה זרה, they are not considered part of the עבודה זרה and it is מותר, as the גמרא will explain later on. But if you find פרכילי ענבים, grape clusters, ועטרות של שבלים or crowns of corn, ויינות or wine, ושמנים or oil, וסלתות or flour, וכל דבר שכיוצא בו קרב לגבי מזבח or anything else that similar things are brought as offerings on the מזבח, אסור, it is forbidden. So the גמרא says, בשלמא יינות, שמנים, וסלתות, מילא when we say if you find wine or oil or flour, it is אסור because איכא כעין פנים ואיכא כעין זריקה משתברת, because you have both. First of all, it's כעין פנים, the offering that was brought of wine, oil, or flour is similar to the offering that were brought in the בית המקדש, because in the בית המקדש by the קרבנות you used to bring flour and oil and wine. ואיכא כעין זריקה משתברת, and also the way it was brought as a קרבן to the עבודה זרה is similar to the זריקה of the בית המקדש, because these are not solid things and therefore when it was thrown to the עבודה זרה, it also breaks up into drops, so it is similar to the way it was done in the בית המקדש. אלא פרכילי ענבים, but the clusters of grapes, ועטרות של שבלים or the crowns of the wheat, of the corn, לא כעין פנים איכא ולא כעין זריקה משתברת איכא, you don't have, you're not כעין פנים. In the בית המקדש you didn't have any קרבנות made of these things, and also the way it was thrown, it wasn't thrown the same way in the בית המקדש, because the זריקה of the דם in the בית המקדש breaks up into drops and this doesn't. So how come the משנה says that these are אסור? אמר רבא אמר עולא, רבא said in the name of עולא, כגון שבצרן מתחלה לכך, that the only reason it is אסור and the only time it is אסור is if he cut them לכתחלה for the purpose of the עבודה זרה. So then when he cut it, that was similar to שחיטה. This is the same as if you would break a stick in front of the עבודה זרה, we said before you are חייב, because this is similar to שחיטה. The same thing, when you cut the clusters of grapes or the עטרות של שבלים off for the sake of worshipping עבודה זרה, it is similar to שחיטה and that's why you are חייב, because it is כעין of the בית המקדש.

אמר רב אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן, רב אבהו said in the name of רבי יוחנן, מניין לזובח בהמה בעלת מום לעבודת כוכבים שהוא פטור, how do we know that if a person שחט's a בהמה with a blemish to the עבודת כוכבים that he is פטור? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, זובח לאלהים יחרם בלתי לה' לבדו, that if you שחט a קרבן to other gods, you should get killed, except to השם Himself. So we see here the תורה compares the קרבן to other gods to the קרבן that we bring to השם. Therefore we say, לא אסרה תורה, the תורה did not forbid, אלא כעין פנים, just like it was done inside the בית המקדש. That just like in the בית המקדש a קרבן was only if it was not a בעל מום, so too to עבודה זרה you're only חייב if it's not a בעל מום. הוי בה רבא, רבא thought into this: במאי? What kind of מום are we talking about? אילימא בדוקין שבעין, if we're talking about a מום that there was a cataract on the eye of the animal, and that's where we say that you are פטור if you שחט this קרבן to the עבודה זרה, it couldn't be, because השתא לבני נח חזיא לגבוה בבמה דידהו, לעבודת כוכבים מיבעיא? That מה דא, that a גוי, if he wants to שחט an animal like this to השם as a real קרבן in his במה, in his private מזבח, so it is allowed, he's allowed to שחט a קרבן which has a blemish, a דוקין שבעין, so certainly if he שחט it to the עבודה זרה, you should be חייב. And רש״י says when it says here בני נח, doesn't only mean גוים, but בני נח includes the יידן before מתן תורה, they were also called בני נח. So they were allowed to bring on a במה, on a private מזבח, because there was a דין of במה before the בית המקדש was built, so you're allowed to bring on the private מזבח before מתן תורה even if it had a מום. So before מתן תורה they were allowed to bring on the מזבח, on the במה, a קרבן, a בהמה, even if it had this מום. מום of דוקין שבעין. So how can you say that if you שחט this to עבודה זרה you are פטור? אלא, therefore you must say, מחוסר אבר. What kind of מום is he talking about? If it's missing a limb. וכדרבי אלעזר, like רבי אלעזר said, דאמר רבי אלעזר, because רבי אלעזר said, מניין, how do we know למחוסר אבר שהוא אסור לבני נח, that how do we know that if a קרבן has a limb missing, even a גוי is not allowed to bring this as a קרבן to השם, שנאמר, because the פסוק says by נח, when השם told him he should take into the תיבה the different animals, it says, מכל החי מכל בשר שנים מכל, that from all living ones, from all flesh, you should bring two from all. אמרה תורה, so the תורה says, הבא בהמה שחיין ראשי אברים שלה. Since the פסוק says מכל החי מכל בשר, that means that you should bring the בהמות that all tips of its limbs are alive. That's טייטש מכל החי. And therefore from here we know it has to have all the limbs, and if it doesn't have all the limbs it's פסול. Because at that time the reason השם told him to bring in these בהמות, these animals, was because he wanted them to use them as a קרבן after the מבול. And he said that they have to have all their limbs complete, so from here we know that even a גוי, a בן נח, to bring a קרבן to השם if it's missing an אבר is אסור. And that's why if you שחט that same בהמה missing an אבר to עבודה זרה, you are פטור. But then the גמרא says, האי מכל החי מבעי ליה למיעוטי טריפה. How can you say we learn this דין out, that if it's missing an אבר you can't use it as a קרבן from the פסוק מכל החי, when this פסוק is used for something else, to exclude טריפה? טריפה means if it has a certain sickness, that such an animal he shouldn't bring in, such an animal cannot be brought as a קרבן either. So he says, מלהחיות זרע נפקא. That דין that טריפה cannot be used, we learn out from the פסוק where it says by נח, להחיות זרע. And he told him, "Bring these animals in in order to make seed live," which means in order to multiply them later. And a טריפה cannot give birth to a child. And therefore, since the פסוק says להחיות זרע, so we know that you can't use טריפה. ממילא, we have the פסוק מכל החי extra to teach us that it has to have all the limbs. But the גמרא says, הא ניחא, this is only good למאן דאמר טריפה אינה יולדת, according to the opinion that holds that a טריפה, if it has the sicknesses which makes it into a טריפה, cannot give birth, so we understand that from the word להחיות זרע we know that you couldn't bring a טריפה. ממילא, the פסוק מכל החי is extra. אלא למאן דאמר טריפה יולדת, but according to the opinion that holds that טריפה could give birth, מאי איכא למימר? What can we say? So from the פסוק להחיות זרע we do not know to exclude טריפה, because טריפה could also bring זרע into the world. So we know it only from the פסוק מכל החי. Now, since we know it from the פסוק מכל החי, the פסוק מכל החי is not extra to teach us that מחוסר אבר is פסול. The גמרא answers, אמר קרא, the פסוק says, אתך, you should bring it with you, which means אתך בדומין לך, you should bring with you ones that are similar to you. So from there we know that טריפה couldn't be brought, because just like נח wasn't a טריפה and השם says you should bring into the תיבה animals which are like you, so we know that he shouldn't have brought in טריפות. ממילא, we don't need the פסוק מכל החי for that, so that פסוק is used to teach us מחוסר אבר is פסול. But the גמרא says, how do we know that we can learn this out from the פסוק אתך בדומין לך? ודילמא

נח גופיה טריפה הוה? Maybe נח he himself was a טריפה? And when the תורה says, "Bring in those that are similar to you," he was able to bring in טריפות. So that's why we have to have the פסוק מכל החי to teach us that טריפה shouldn't be brought in. And if we do that, then the מכל החי is not extra to teach us that מחוסר אבר is no good. But the גמרא says, no, you couldn't say נח was a טריפה, because תמים כתיב ביה. The תורה says that he was complete. So the גמרא says, ודילמא תמים בדרכיו? Maybe what it means complete, complete in his ways? But the גמרא says, for that we don't need, because צדיק כתיב ביה. It says he was righteous, he was a צדיק. So then that he was a good person we know from the word צדיק, so the word תמים means he was complete in his physical body. But the גמרא says, no, ודילמא תמים בדרכיו וצדיק במעשיו? Maybe תמים means he was complete in his ways and he was righteous in his actions? So ממילא, the word תמים doesn't teach us that he was not a טריפה. So ממילא, we cannot learn out from the word אתך that he shouldn't bring in טריפות, so we must use the פסוק מכל החי to exclude טריפות. Now, if we use that to exclude טריפות, we don't have a פסוק to exclude מחוסר אבר! So the גמרא says, לא מצית אמרת דנח גופיה טריפה הוה. You cannot say that נח was a טריפה, דאי סלקא דעתך נח טריפה הוה, if you're going to think that נח was a טריפה, so then אמר ליה רחמנא, did השם tell him, כוותך עייל, the ones that are like you take in, שלימים לא תעייל? The ones that are complete you shouldn't take in? The תורה said, השם says to him that you should take into the תיבה אתך, with you, and we said אתך means בדומין לך, that are similar to you. Now, if נח was a טריפה, it seems as if השם is saying to him, you should take into the תיבה those that are like you, only טריפות, and complete ones he shouldn't take in? So therefore we must say, and when he said אתך, with you, similar to you, it means just the opposite, that just like you are not a טריפה, the animals that you take in also shouldn't be טריפה. Now since we know that he shouldn't take in טריפה from the פסוק אתך, so then the פסוק כל החי is extra, so we learn out from the פסוק כל החי that it has to have all the אברים, it shouldn't be missing a limb, because the word חי also comes from the meaning of healthy, that all the אברים should be healthy. And then the גמרא asks, השתא דנפקא ליה מאתך, that we learn out from אתך that טריפה wasn't allowed in, לחיות זרע למה לי? So why does the פסוק say לחיות זרע? Before, we said that the פסוק לחיות זרע comes to teach us to exclude טריפה, because טריפה cannot give birth according to that opinion, so לחיות זרע means that you should not take in טריפה. But now that we know that he shouldn't take in טריפה from אתך, so then why does the פסוק have to say לחיות זרע? The גמרא answers, אי מאתך, if we would only have the פסוק אתך, והוה אמינא I would say לצוותא בעלמא, and what he said means take in with you that you should have some companionship, but I don't care whether they could give birth or not, and therefore I would think אפילו זקן ואפילו סריס, even if it's an old animal or a castrated animal, you still could take him in. קא משמע לן לחיות זרע, therefore the פסוק says לחיות זרע, that the purpose of taking him in was to make seed alive, to continue the species. And from there we know that he had to take in only young ones and those that could give birth. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבי אלעזר, רבי אלעזר says, מניין לשוחט בהמה למרקוליס שהוא חייב? How do we know that if you שחט a בהמה to מרקוליס you are חייב? Because the way they used to worship the מרקוליס, as we know, as we learned before, by throwing rocks at it, but not through שחטing a בהמה. But how do we know that if you שחט a בהמה to מרקוליס you are חייב? And this fits to what we said before, that if you do to an עבודה זרה one of the עבודות that were done in the בית המקדש, you are חייב even if this is not the דרך. And this is really the question of the גמרא: how do we know that if you שחט a בהמה, which is one of the things they used to do in the בית המקדש, and if you שחט a בהמה to the מרקוליס you are חייב? שנאמר, so the answer is because the פסוק says, ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיכם לשעירים, that they should not שחט their קרבנות anymore to the שדים. Now, אם אינו ענין לכדרכו, we don't need this פסוק to teach us that you're not allowed to worship an עבודה זרה in the normal way they used to worship it, because that is extra, דכתיב, the פסוק already says, איכה יעבדו הגוים האלה את אלהיהם, that how do these גוים worship their gods? So from there we know that you are not allowed to worship the other gods in the way the custom was to worship them. So since we have that פסוק already, so we can't say that the פסוק ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיכם לשעירים comes to teach us the same דין. So if we don't need it for that, תניהו ענין לשלא כדרכו, so we use the פסוק to teach us that even if you're going to worship it not in the normal דרך, you are חייב as long as you do one of the עבודות of the בית המקדש. And this is a כלל we have in the גמרא constantly, that when we have a פסוק that we cannot say comes to tell us as it seems to be, because that דין we know already from another פסוק or for some other reason, so we have the כלל אם אינו ענין, שניהו ענין, that if we can't use it for what it seems to be saying, we use it for something else. And that's what we do here also. If we can't say that the פסוק comes to teach us that you shouldn't worship it the normal way it's worshiped, so we say probably it comes to teach that you shouldn't worship it even if it's not כדרכו. So from here we know that if you שחט a בהמה to מרקוליס you are חייב. And then the גמרא asks, והא להא הוא דאתי, how can you say this פסוק comes to teach us this דין? האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא, that we need for something else, for something that we learned in the ברייתא. Because we learned in the ברייתא concerning the פסוקים in פרשת אחרי מות in קפיטל י"ז. So there we

have the פרשה of שחוטי חוץ, the פרשה that speaks about bringing קרבנות outside of the בית המקדש. So there we have many פסוקים starting from פסוק א', it goes on till פסוק ז' where it says ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיכם לשעירים, the פסוק we are talking about here. So the ברייתא says, עד כאן, up to this פסוק, ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיכם לשעירים, הוא מדבר, the פרשה there is speaking about קדשים שהקדישן בשעת איסור הבמות והקריבן בשעת איסור הבמות, that קרבנות that a person was מקדיש, the person dedicated them for קרבנות at a time when you were not allowed to be מקריב on a במה, and he was actually מקריב them at a time when you're not allowed to be מקריב on a במה. Because there were times before the משכן was built that every person was able to be מקריב his own קרבן on his own private במה. Then when the משכן was built, that was forbidden. The פסוק here when it says that you're not allowed to bring your קרבן on your own private מזבח, on your own private במה, so the ברייתא says that in פסוקים till פסוק ז' where it says ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיכם לשעירים is speaking in a case where a person was מקדיש the קרבן already after the time when it was forbidden to be מקריב on a במה, and he was מקריב it actually at the time when it was forbidden to be מקריב on a במה. How do we know that the פרשה is speaking about that? שהרי עונשן אמר, because the תורה there says the punishment, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו וגומר. And this is פסוק ד' there, which says that if you took a בהמה and you did not bring it to the door of the אהל מועד, of the מזבח to be מקריב as a קרבן. So the פסוק continues, ונכרת האיש ההוא מקרב עמו, this person gets כרת. So there we're talking about a time when a person was מקדיש a קרבן after he was not allowed to be מקריב a במה, and he was מקריב it after the time that you were not allowed to be מקריב a במה, and he was מקריב it on a במה outside of the מזבח of the משכן, he is חייב כרת for that. And the ברייתא, by the way, continues,

עונש שמענו, from here we see the punishment for this, אזהרה מנין? Where do we have a warning? Because the כלל is that the תורה never punishes unless it first has a warning. We don't find in the תורה that the תורה should say, "If you do so and so, you will be punished this and this way." First the תורה has to say, "Don't do it." And then the תורה will tell you the punishment. Now, here the תורה doesn't say, "Don't do it." The תורה just says, "If you do it, you will be punished, you will get כרת." Where Now there must be a warning someplace. So the ברייתא says, תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says, and there's a פסוק in פרשת ראה, קאפיטל י״ב פסוק י״ג, that says, פן תעלה עולותיך. The פסוק says there, השמר לך, you should be careful, פן תעלה עולותיך, you might bring up your עולות, your קרבנות, בכל מקום אשר תראה, any place that you like. So the פסוק says, "Don't do it! כי אם במקום אשר יבחר ה׳, only in the place ה׳ chooses, that you should bring." So the תורה says here, פן תעלה עולותיך, it uses the expression "פן," you might bring up your קרבנות not in the בית המקדש, וכדרב אבין אמר רבי אילא, and this is according to רב אבין, who said in the name of רבי אילא, דאמר רב אבין אמר רבי אילא, וכדרב אבין said in the name of רבי אילא, כל מקום שנאמר השמר או פן ואל, wherever the תורה uses the expression השמר, or the expression פן, or the expression אל, אינו אלא בלא תעשה, so it is only a לא תעשה, it is a negative commandment. So here the תורה says, פן תעלה עולותיך, so it uses a לשון פן, so this is a לא תעשה. So here we find the warning for not bringing a קרבן on a במה when you are forbidden to bring it. And the פסוק in פרשה אחרי מות, קאפיטל י״ז, there it's speaking about the punishment. So this is only up to the פסוק ולא יזבחו עוד, it's speaking in a case where you dedicated the קרבן when it was already forbidden to be מקריב a במה, and you actually brought it when it was forbidden to be מקריב on a במה.

מכאן ואילך, from this פסוק ולא יזבחו עוד and on, מדבר, the פסוק is speaking, בקדשים שהקדישם בשעת היתר הבמות והקריבם בשעת איסור הבמות, talking about such קרבנות that you were מקדיש, you dedicated it at a time when you were still allowed to be מקריב on a במה, but you were מקריב it at a time when you're not allowed to be מקריב on the במה. When you made the בהמה into a קרבן, it was still a time when the במה was permitted. For instance, if you were מקדיש the קרבן before they put up the משכן, then you were still allowed to bring a קרבן on a במה. And then by the time you wanted to bring the קרבן, the משכן was up already, so now you can't bring. So we might think, since you were מקדיש it when במות were permitted, so even though now the במות are not permitted, maybe you still are allowed to bring on a במה because when you were מקדיש it, במות were permitted? So we learn out from this פסוק that you're not allowed to do it, because now that the במה is forbidden, you can't bring on a במה. How do we know that the פסוק is speaking in such a case? שנאמר, because the פסוק there says, and this goes back to פסוק ה׳, למען אשר יביאו בני ישראל את זבחיהם אשר הם זובחים, that in order that the יידן should bring the קרבנות that they are שחטing, they should bring it, it says there, על פני השדה והביאם לה׳ אל פתח אהל מועד אל הכהן. So here the פסוק says, למען אשר יביאו בני ישראל את זבחיהם אשר הם זובחים, is משמע that we're talking about קרבנות that were already ready as a קרבן. That means שהתרתי לך כבר, those בהמות that I was I allowed you before, which means that they were a קרבן from before, זבחיהם אשר הם זובחים, the קרבנות that were a קרבן before, which means that when you made into a קרבן, you were allowed to. And nevertheless the פסוק says, על פני השדה, this is on the field, מלמד, it teaches us, שכל הזובח בבמה בשעת איסור הבמות, that anybody who שחטs a קרבן on the במה, brings a קרבן on the במה at a time when the במות are forbidden, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הוא זובח על פני השדה, the תורה considers it as if he's bringing it in the field, which means as if he brings it to עבודה זרה. So the תורה is telling us that even though this was already a קרבן from before the איסור of במות, nevertheless, any time you שחט on a במה a קרבן at a time when במות are forbidden, even if when you dedicated it as a קרבן, it was at a time when במות were permitted, it is still as if you שחט it to עבודה זרה, it is אסור. And the

פסוק there says, והביאם לה׳, you should bring it to ה׳, זו מצות עשה, that's the positive מצוה that a קרבן like that must be brought to ה׳, must be brought in the בית המקדש, on the מזבח, and cannot be brought on the במה. ומצות לא תעשה מנין? How do we know that if you שחט that קרבן on a במה you also have a לא תעשה, a negative מצוה? תלמוד לומר, this is where the next פסוק comes in, ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם, that they should not שחט their קרבנות, it says לשעירים, to the שדים. So the תורה is telling us here that they should not שחט their קרבנות outside of the בית המקדש or the משכן on a במה, because that is as if they would שחט this to עבודה זרה. But here the תורה uses a לשון of ולא יזבחו, a לא תעשה, from here we know that it's a לא תעשה also, which means that if you were מקדיש the קרבן בשעת היתר במות, and you were מקריב it בשעת איסור במות, you have an עשה and a לא תעשה. But then the ברייתא continues, יכול I would think יהא עונש כרת, you get כרת for this also, just like we said before, that if you were מקדיש it after the איסור במות and you were מקריב it after the איסור במות, you get כרת, so I would think maybe if you were מקדיש it before the איסור במות, but you were מקריב it after the איסור במות, which is also prohibited, so we might think you get כרת for that too? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says in this פסוק, ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים, which we said before is speaking in a case where you were מקדיש it בשעת היתר במות, and you מקריב it בשעת איסור במות, so the פסוק there at the end says, חוקת עולם תהיה זאת להם לדורותם, that this should be to them a חוקה, a law forever. And the פסוק uses the לשון זאת להם, so we דרשן זאת להם ולא אחרת להם. This is to them, which means for this you have what we said before: you have an עשה and you have a לא תעשה, but you do not get כרת for this. But after all this discussion, we see from the ברייתא that we use the פסוק ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם to teach us a דין that if you were מקדיש the בהמה בשעת היתר במות, at the time the במות were permitted, and you מקריב it בשעת איסור במות, you're not allowed to do this. So how can the גמרא say before that we learn out from the פסוק ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים to teach us that if you שחט the בהמה to מרקוליס, you are חייב, when we just said now that we use this פסוק to teach us this other דין?

אמר רבא, so רבא answered, קרי ביה ולא יזבחו, קרי ביה ולא עוד. You learn here two לימודים: the פסוק says ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם, they should not שחט also, more, their קרבנות לשעירים. Now this word עוד is extra, so we דרשן two דרשות: we דרשן ולא יזבחו, they shouldn't שחט, and we also דרשן ולא עוד, so it's as if the פסוק is telling us the same thing twice. So we have two לימודים we could learn out here. So one לימוד we learn out concerning if you were מקדיש the בהמה בשעת היתר במות and מקריב בשעת איסור במות, that that is forbidden, and also we learn out from here that if you are שוחט a בהמה to מרקוליס, you are חייב. Then we will continue with the משנה: מצא בראשו מעות, כסות, או כלים, this is the משנה that the גמרא brought before, that if you find on the head of the מרקוליס money or garments or vessels, הרי אלו מותרים, they are allowed. But if you find פרכילי ענבים, clusters of grapes, ועטרות של שבולים, or the crowns of the שבולים of the corn, the wheat, ויינות, or wine, ושמנים, or oil, וסלתות, or flour, וכל דבר שכיוצא בו קרב על גבי המזבח, or anything else that similar to it you would bring on a מזבח to השם, אסור, these things are אסור. And the

גמרא asks, מנא הני מילי? How do we know this דין of the משנה? אמר רבי חייא בר יוסף אמר רבי אושעיא, so רבי חייא בר יוסף said in the name of רבי אושעיא, כתוב אחד אומר, there is one פסוק that says, ותראו את שקוציהם ואת גלוליהם עץ ואבן כסף וזהב אשר עמהם. השם is speaking to the יידן, giving them מוסר, and He is saying that you will see their disgusting things and their idols, and the wood, the stone, the silver, and the gold that was with them. So from this פסוק we see that they used to be מקריב wood and stone and silver and gold to the עבודה זרה, and the פסוק calls it שקוצים. This is part of the disgusting thing. It is משמע that whatever they are מקריב to עבודה זרה becomes אסור. Even if they are מקריב to the עבודה זרה wood or stone, it still is אסור. But כתוב אחד אומר, but another פסוק says, לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם, you should not desire the silver and the gold on them. And here the פסוק does not mention wood or stone. It's משמע that if they would be מקריב wood or stone to the עבודה זרה, it wouldn't become אסור. Only if they are מקריב silver and gold, which is something that makes them nice, a decoration to the עבודה זרה, that becomes a קרבן of עבודה זרה and is אסור. But if they are מקריב stone and wood, it doesn't become אסור. So what's the contradiction? הא כיצד? How is it? Does wood and stone become אסור as a קרבן or not? And the answer of the גמרא is, עמהם דומיא דעליהם. In the first פסוק it says the לשון עמהם, the second פסוק, where it doesn't mention עץ ואבן, it says the לשון עליהם. So we say we have to compare the פסוק where it says עמהם to the פסוק where it says עליהם. מה עליהם, just like in the פסוק where it says the לשון עליהם, it mentions only silver and gold, that means that דבר של נוי אסור, anything which is of beauty to decorate it, it is forbidden, שאינו של נוי, but if it's not to make it nice, מותר, it is מותר, אף עמהם, also in the other פסוק where it does mention עץ ואבן, and there it says the לשון עמהם, we also say the same rule: דבר של נוי אסור, anything which is to make it nice is אסור, ושאינו של נוי, מותר, but if it's not to make it nice, it's מותר. In other words, עץ ואבן is only אסור if it makes it nice. Just like silver and gold makes it nice, that's a kind of decoration, so the reason the תורה in one פסוק does not mention עץ ואבן, just כסף וזהב, and the other פסוק does mention, is to teach us this דין. that עץ ואבן is only אסור if it's similar to כסף וזהב. Just like כסף וזהב, silver and gold, is always for beauty, and that's אסור, so too anything else, even if it's not silver and gold, if it's for beauty, it's אסור. So we know that when the פסוק says עץ ואבן in the other פסוק, it is only אסור if it's for beauty. And that's the reason for the משנה, that if you find on top of the עבודה זרה money, or garments, or כלים, it's מותר, because this is not for beauty. The גמרא will explain later why these things are not considered for beauty, but if you find other things which are considered for beauty, that is אסור. And we know it from the contradiction of these two פסוקים. But then the גמרא asks: what makes us דרשן the way we just did, that we compare the פסוק of עמהם, where it mentions עץ ואבן, to the פסוק of עליהם, ואימא let's say just the opposite: עליהם דומיא דעמהם. Let's compare the פסוק where it says עליהם, where it just mentions כסף וזהב, to the פסוק where it says עמהם, where it mentions עץ ואבן also. And let's say: מה עמהם כל שעמהם, just like the פסוק עמהם means anything, because it mentions עץ ואבן, which means anything that's with it is אסור, אף עליהם כל מה שעליהם, so too, when the פסוק speaks about what's on them, also includes everything, that even though it mentions just כסף וזהב, it means anything else, because we compare it to the פסוק where it mentions עץ ואבן. But the גמרא answers, אם כן, if that would be true, לא יאמר עליהם, let it not say עליהם at all. The whole פסוק, לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם, is extra, because we would say that if anything that's with it, not ממש on it, just with it, is אסור, certainly if it's on it, it's definitely אסור. Now, if we say that if it's with it, it doesn't have to be silver and gold, even if it's stone or wood, it's אסור, if it's on it, it's definitely אסור. And since we do have a פסוק where it says לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם, obviously, the תורה must come to teach us something. What does it teach us? It teaches to compare the two the other direction, and say that just like by עליהם the פסוק mentions just כסף וזהב because that is a דבר של נוי, so anything else which is a דבר של נוי is אסור, but if it's not a דבר של נוי, it is not אסור. And רש״י has another פשט, that why the פסוק עליהם would be extra, because we would learn it out from the extra word אשר. Since the פסוק, ותראו שקוציהם ואת גלוליהם עץ ואבן כסף וזהב אשר עמהם, it says אשר, that's an extra word, so we wouldn't need the פסוק עליהם. So obviously it comes to teach us that we should compare the פסוק of עמהם to the פסוק of עליהם. But then the

גמרא asks: מעות דבר של נוי הוא? If so, and it depends on whether it's to beautify it or not, isn't money to beautify? Isn't money a decoration? How come it says in the משנה if you find money, it is מותר? אמרי דבי רבי ינאי, so they said in the ישיבה of רבי ינאי, that the case is בכיס קשור, it's in a tied wallet, ותלוי לו בצוארו, and it's hanging on its neck. When is it to beautify it? If it hangs in a kind of decoration, but if it's just hanging in a wallet, on the contrary, it's to degrade the עבודה זרה, it's like showing the עבודה זרה is working, and that's why it's not an ענין של נוי. Then the גמרא asks: כסות דבר של נוי הוא? A garment is also something of beauty! How come it says in the משנה it's מותר? אמרי דבי רבי ינאי, so they answered in the ישיבה of רבי ינאי, בכסות מקופלת, it's talking about a folded-up garment, ומונחת לו על ראשו, and it's laying on its head. It's not dressed in the garment, that would beautify it. It's folded, laying on its head, that's not a form of decoration, that's just the opposite, and therefore this is מותר. Then the גמרא says: כלים דבר של נוי הוא? The משנה also mentions you find כלים on עבודה זרה, it is מותר, and we just said why, because it's not an object of beautifying it, but isn't a כלי to beautify it? אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, דאכפי ליה משכילתא ארישא, that the case is where the כלי is bent over laying on its head. For instance, if you have a cup, so if the cup is on its head like a hat, that makes עבודה זרה look nice. But if it's laying lengthwise, then it's just like as if the עבודה זרה is carrying something on its head, that's not to beautify it, and therefore this is מותר. Then the

גמרא says: אמר רב אסי בר חייא, רב אסי בר חייא says, כל שהוא לפנים מן הקלקלים אפילו מים ומלח אסור. Anything that's laying in front of the עבודה זרה, and it's in front of the veil of the עבודה זרה, it is אסור. חוץ לקלקלים, if it's outside of the veil, דבר של נוי אסור, if it's something that beautifies it, it is אסור, שאינו של נוי, if it's not to beautify it, מותר, it's מותר. Which means, he's trying to say that this דין that we said here, that there's a difference between something that beautifies it or not, is only if it doesn't have a דין of a קרבן to עבודה זרה. If it is אסור because we learned it out from the פסוק, ותראו שקוציהם ואת גלוליהם and אשר עמהם, or the פסוק לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם, so there we make a difference whether it is for beauty or not. But if it is part of a קרבן, then it is אסור no matter what, and that's what he's saying here. The קרבנות used to be brought to the עבודה זרה in front of the veil, so therefore if you see an object in front of the veil of the עבודה זרה, you know it's a קרבן, and therefore if it would be, for instance, water or salt, it would be forbidden as a קרבן to עבודה זרה, because it's כעין פנים, it's an object that is used as a קרבן in the בית המקדש, So therefore, if you use it for a קרבן to the עבודה זרה, it is אסור, even though it doesn't beautify the עבודה זרה, because since it's in front of the veil, you know that this is a קרבן. But if it's outside of the veil, then you know that it's not a קרבן, because the קרבנות were brought inside the veil. So then it is only as an attachment to the עבודה זרה, so here it depends: if it's for the beauty of the עבודה זרה, so we learn out from the פסוק, כסף וזהב אשר עמהם, so this אסור because of that. But if it's not for beauty, so then it is not אסור. Even if it's כעין פנים, even if it's water and salt, which is like a קרבן that they used to bring in the בית המקדש, but since it's outside of the of the veil, we know for sure it's not a קרבן. And to be אסור as part of the עבודה זרה from this פסוק אשר עמהם, it also is not אסור because it's not for beauty. And that's what he's saying, that if it's within the veil, אפילו מים ומלח is אסור. If it's outside of the veil, it depends: דבר של נוי is אסור, שאינו של נוי is מותר. אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא, רבי יוסי בר חנינא said, נקטינן, we have an accepted rule, אין כרכלין, there is no דין, no special difference concerning this veil, לא לפעור ולא למרקוליס, not by the עבודה זרה of פעור, and not by the עבודה זרה of מרקוליס. This דין that we said, that it depends whether it's inside the veil or outside of the veil, does not apply, not to the עבודה זרה of פעור, and not to the עבודה זרה of מרקוליס. And the גמרא says, למאי? Concerning which דין? אילימא, if you're going to tell me what he means is, דאפילו פנים כחוץ דמי, that concerning פעור and מרקוליס, even if it's done inside the veil has the same דין like outside of the veil, ושרי, it's מותר, which means Which means, that if you would find inside the veil things which are not for beauty, it would be מותר, just like by all other עבודה זרות. If you find outside the veil something which is not לנוי, it is מותר. So by פעור and מרקוליס, even if you find it inside the veil, it also would be מותר. If you're going to say that, the פשט couldn't be, because according to this, the פשט would be, what you would be saying is, that they also inside the veil are careful like outside of the veil. Because the idea of the veil was for modesty of the עבודה זרה, for צניעות of the עבודה זרה, and their קרבנות they only would bring inside the veil, but outside the veil they wouldn't do it. So if we would say that concerning פעור and מרקוליס inside has a דין like

outside, which means that by פעור and מרקוליס they were so careful, the צניעות was so strong, that even inside the veil they would only put things which are nice, but things which are not nice, they would not put anywhere. How can we say that? השתא פעור מחרבן קמיה, now if they relieve themselves in front of the פעור, מים ומלח לא מיקרב ליה? They would not be מקריב water and salt? If they were so not צניעותדיק concerning פעור, that they would relieve themselves in front of the פעור, so how can we say that they were so צניעותדיק concerning the פעור that they wouldn't even be מקריב מים ומלח inside the veil? אלא, therefore we must say, what did he mean that there is no דין of a veil by פעור and מרקוליס? Just the opposite: דאפילו חוץ כפנים דמי, ואסור, that even the outside of the veil has the same דין like the inside and it's אסור. Which means if you find water and salt outside of the veil, it is the same דין as if you would find it inside. Since they were not careful with צניעות, so this whole idea of the veil making the difference that inside they were מקריב מים ומלח and outside not because outside was not nice, doesn't apply to פעור and מרקוליס. And therefore by פעור and מרקוליס, even if you find מים ומלח outside of the veil, it is still אסור as if you would find it inside the veil.